Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1996-08-27 - AGENDA REPORTS - REVISED MC 95 049 ZONE CHANGE (2)
City Manager Approval Item to be presented by: Glenn Adamick DATE: August 27, 1996 SUBJECT: REVISED MASTER CASE 95-049 - A PREZONE, ZONE CHANGE, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, OAK TREE PERMIT, HILLSIDE REVIEW, AND REVIEW AND CERTIFICATION OF A REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 401 ACRE SITE WITH TWO 18 HOLE GOLF COURSES, A CLUBHOUSE, LIGHTED DRIVING RANGE, TWO PARKING LOTS, AND 73 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS. THE PROJECT IS LOCATED EAST OF SAND CANYON ROAD, NORTH OF LIVE OAK SPRINGS CANYON ROAD, WEST OF THE ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND SOUTH OF OAK SPRING CANYON ROAD. APPLICANT: HUNTERS GREEN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION DEPARTMENT: Community Development The City Council's last public hearing on the project was on Apri120, 1996, at the project site. Prior to this meeting, the City Council heard the project on March 25, 1996. At this meeting, the Council was given an extensive overview of the project by staff. In addition, the applicant informed the Council that project modifications were forthcoming primarily due to the removal of the 17 acre "Bow" property and its replacement with a nearby seven acre property. Other proposed project changes included the supplemental use of on-site wells to irrigate.the project and the modification of the residential element of the project to address concerns cited by the Gillibrand Mining Company. The proposed modification included the lowering of pad elevations to reduce viewshed impacts to the mining operation. In conjunction with this modification, the applicant increased the number of residential lots on the 103 acre property which generally lowered the square footage of the lots. Other design elements of the project have remained unchanged from the initial proposal. Due to the nature of the potential project modifications, the City Council referred the revised project back to the Planning Commission for their review and recommendation. C nilnue l'o: e b 'gat, A enda lea , PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission conducted two public hearings on the revised project. At both meetings the Commission focused on the proposed project changes, having conducted six public hearings on the initial proposal. At the meeting of July 16, 1996, the Commission directed the applicant to make certain modifications to the revised project. These modifications included prohibiting the use of on-site water wells to irrigate the development and modifying the residential element of the project to reflect the initial Commission -supported design. The Commission, also directed the applicant to adhere to a maximum residential density of 73 lots. The Commission believed that the proposed mitigation measures in the Revised EIR were not adequate to reduce the impacts associated with the supplemental use of on-site water wells to a less than significant level. The Revised Draft EIR provided proposed mitigation that allowed for the supplemental use of groundwater under certain conditions. However, the mitigation also required the applicant to conduct groundwater testing prior to any use of groundwater and that the results of the testing be used to define the amount of groundwater usage. The Commission believed that this groundwater testing should be completed prior to any consideration of a request to locate wells on the project site. The initial Commission -supported project located the smaller lots as low as 14,000 square feet along the golf course. Larger lots, up to three acres in size, were located away from the golf course and would have views of the course. The Commission believed that the distance between the proposed lots and the mining operation would reduce any potential land use conflicts to a less than significant level. The Commission also believed that the initial Commission -supported residential layout, containing more larger lots, would be more compatible and consistent with the Sand Canyon area. The applicant indicated that these modifications would be acceptable and redesigned the project accordingly. The second public hearing on the revised project was conducted on July 30, 1996. The Planning Commission reviewed the modified plan and by a vote of 4-1, recommended approval of the revised project to the City Council subject to the conditions of approval. At this meeting the Commission also recommended that the roads within the development be public streets. This is a change from the Commission's previously recommended conditions of approval. Significant benefits of the revised project have not changed from the previous proposal and include: 1) A substantial waterline extension. 2) Dedication and construction of equestrian trails. 3) Significant circulation improvements to Sand Canyon Road. 4) The preservation of approximately 300 acres of land as recreational/open space. 5) The dedication of land for a debris basin and appurtenant facilities. Attached is a memorandum including the staff analysis and a summary of some of the more discussed recommended conditions of approval. OPTIONS 1) Approve Revised Master Case 95-049, with or without Council directed modifications, directing staff to prepare a resolution and ordinance for Council consideration at the September 10, 1996 Council meeting. 2) Continue the project to the next regular Council meeting to allow for more deliberation and testimony on the revised project. 3) Continue the revised project to a date certain or uncertain, directing the applicant to complete major revisions to the project to address Council issues. 4) Deny Revised Master Case 95-049, directing staff to prepare a resolution of denial for the Council's consideration at subsequent Council meeting. RECOMMENDATION Approve Revised Master Case 95-049, subject to. conditions, directing staff to prepare a resolution and ordinance for approval for the Council's consideration at the September 10, 1996 meeting. The resolution will include language certifying the EIR prepared for the project, including findings for a Statement of Overriding Consideration. ATTACHMENTS Information Memorandum Recommended Conditions of Approval Planning Commission Resolution P96-21 Planning Commission Minutes - July 16 and 30,1996 GAC:GEA:Iep munch\ar95049.ga3 Public Hearing Procedure 1. Mayor opens hearing *States purpose of hearing 2. City Clerk reports on hearing notice 3. Staff report 4. Proponent Argument (30 minutes) 5. Opponent Argument (30 minutes) 6. Five-minute rebuttal (Proponent) •Proponent 7. Mayor closes public testimony 8. Discussion by Council 9. Council decision 10. Mayor announces decision CITY OF SANTA CLARITA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING REVISED MASTER CASE 95-049 (VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 52004, ZONE CHANGE 95-001, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-003, PRE -ZONE 95-001, OAK TREE PERMIT 95-009, HILLSIDE REVIEW 95-004, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 95-004). THE LOCATION IS GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF SAND CANYON ROAD, NORTH OF LIVE OAK SPRINGS CANYON ROAD, AND WEST OF THE ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST BOUNDARY IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA. THE PROJECT PROPONENT IS HUNTER'S GREEN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN: Regarding revised Master Case 95-049 (Vesting Tentative Tract Map 52004, Zone Change 95-001, Conditional Use Permit 95-003,. Pre -Zone 95-001, Oak Tree Permit 95-009, Hillside Review 95-004,- Development Review 95-004). The Assessor's Parcel Numbers are: 2840-017-046, 2840-013-013, 2840-013-014, 2840-013-015, 2840-014-003, 2840-014-004, 2840-014-023, 2840-014-022, 2840-016-021, 2840-016-020, 2841- 001-017. Vesting Tentative Tract Map, Zone Change, Conditional Use Permit, Pre -Zone, Oak Tree Permit, Hillside Review, and a Development Review to develop a 401 acre site with two 18 hole golf courses, a clubhouse, a splash -lighted driving range, three parking lots, and 76 single family residential lots. Total construction grading would be balanced on-site at 2.2 million cubic yards of cut and fill. The oak tree permit would allow for the removal of up to 138 scrub oaks and 130 coast live oaks, including seven heritage oak trees. The revised project includes the withdrawal of a 17 acre portion of the 411 acre site and its replacement with a nearby seven acre property. The Planning Commission conducted two public hearings on the revised project and on July 30, 1996 made a recommendation to approve the project (subject to conditions), certify the revised EIR prepared for the project, and adopt a statement of overriding conditions, to the City Council. The hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita in the City Hall Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Blvd„ lst Floor, Santa Clarita, the 27th day of August, 1996, at or after 6:30 p.m. Proponents, opponents, and any interested persons may appear and be heard on this matter at that time, Further information may be obtained by contacting the City Clerk's office, Santa Clarita City Hall, 23920 Valencia Blvd., 3rd Floor, Santa Clarita. If you wish to challenge this order in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council, at or prior to the public hearing. Dated: July 31, 1996 Publish Date: August 3, 1996 Donna M. Grilndey, CMC City Clerk CITY OF SANTA CLARITA INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Boyer and Members of the City Council FROM: George Caravalho, City Manager DATE: August 27, 1996 SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM REGARDING REVISED MASTER CASE 95-049 REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Staff forwarded copies of the Revised EIR to the Council on August 5, 1996. Areas where revisions to the document have occurred include: Section 3.0 (Project Description); Section 5.2 (Hydrology, Drainage, Water), Section 5.7 (Noise), specifically pages 5.7 - 3 through 6 additional noise testing; and Section 5.8 (Land Use). Most of the environmental issues associated with the project remain unchanged from the initial project. As with the initial project, approval of the revised project would require the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration due to adverse, unavoidable project impacts in air quality, biology, noise (during site grading), and aesthetics. The significant changes to the Hydrology, Drainage and Water Section are related to the once proposed use of on-site wells. The Commission's recommendation includes a prohibition on the use of on-site. wells to irrigate the project. In making this recommendation, the Commission indicated that the City should not consider such a request until groundwater testing is completed. Upon completion of this work, the applicant would be allowed to request an amendment to the approval though this request would be subject to the review and approval of the City. Staff concurs with this recommendation and the applicant has also agreed to accept this recommendation at this time. If the Council were to adopt this on-site well prohibition and approve the project as recommended by the Commission, the only significant change from the initial project would be the removal of the `Bow" property and its replacement with a nearby property, as well as the corresponding change in the location of the primary project entrance. STAFF ANALYSIS Proiect Streets In recommending approval of the revised project, the Commission required that all streets associated with the project be public. The applicant is requesting that the Council designate all of the streets within the development as private streets. This would allow for the placement of two electric gates on the property - one at the beginning of the residential area just to the south of the clubhouse and the other at the project's connection to Live Oak Springs Canyon Road. The applicant is also proposing to provide a gate at the project's primary entry road to control access to the golf course and clubhouse during non-operating hours. The applicant is indicating that the proposed gating of the residential area is in response to a concern raised by the Crystal Springs Homeowners. Association related to the potential for golf course/clubhouse customers to use Live Oak Springs Canyon Road rather than the project's entry road. The Association has indicated this concern at several public meetings on the project. The Sand Canyon Special Standards also allow for gating of residential neighborhoods subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. As with past projects, staff and the Commission's policy has been to disallow the use of gates except in unique circumstances. If it's the Council's wish to allow gating of this project, the project could be made to comply with the standards of the proposed gate ordinance. The applicant is also requesting to gate or control access to the entry road during hours when the golf course and accessory facilities are not in operation. The applicant has indicated that making the entry road public eliminates the ability to limit access, increasing the potential for safety hazards associated with more people in proximity to the game (watching golf course activities from the road, etc.). Additionally, the applicant is indicating that making the entry road a public street would allow use of the road 24 hours a day increasing the potential for illegal trespassing onto the golf course during non-operating hours. The Commission is recommending that the streets be public because of concerns associated with the potential gating of the streets in the future and that project roads may not be properly maintained. City acceptance of the golf course entry road (as designed) as a public street could create a potential City liability, as the entry road would not comply with typical City street standards. The entry road would conform to the requirements of the Sand Canyon Special Standards. However, these standards encourage minimal improvement of roadways and tend to assume that new roadways will be private. The entry road would be paved at a width of 36 feet to accommodate two-way traffic. Any additional widening of this road to meet typical City standards for a rural collector street would require additional grading, additional oak tree removals and a potential redesign of the golf course. Based upon the above issues, staff would recommend. that the entry road be designated as a private street. The streets serving the residential area of the project would be in conformance with typical City standards and could be accepted as public streets. Gillibrand Issues - Transfer of Development Riehts The applicant is continuing to work with the Gillibrand Mining Company to resolve issues related to the locating of more than two residences on the encumbered, 103 acre Crystal Springs property. The property was restricted to two residential units by the County in approving the Crystal Springs Development. This restriction was placed on the property to primarily ensure that an adequate buffer was being provided between residential uses and the mining operation. Noise and visual studies conducted in conjunction with the Hunters Green EIR indicate that a buffer is needed but not to the extent of the County's requirement. The closest residential lot on the revised project would be a minimum of 600 feet from the forest boundary. Most of the proposed lots would be located approximately 800 feet to 1,000 feet from this boundary. The closest active mining area would be located approximately 1,300 feet east of this boundary or about 2,000 feet to the nearest residential lot. The future Oak Spring Annex area would be located approximately 4,000 feet from the nearest residential lot. The applicant is continuing to work on an alternative plan (minor modifications to the residential area) to resolve the visual and noise issues cited by Gillibrand. If both parties reach agreement on an alternative design, staff will discuss the alternative in detail at the August 27, 1996 meeting. In approving residential development on the 103 acre encumbered property, the City Council would be allowing for a transfer of residential development rights from the unencumbered portions of the property (approximately 300 acres) to the 103 acre parcel. The revised project would locate 49 of the 73 residential lots on this parcel. The 300 acres of land which is not restricted is zoned RVL (Residential Very Low) which allows for a maximum density of one dwelling unit per acre. Based upon this and excluding site constraints, the project site could accommodate a maximum density of up to 302 residential lots. The property does have approved entitlements allowing for the development of 216 residential lots. All correspondence received on the project is contained within the Council's reading file. Staff has received approximately 150 letters on the project. This number excludes the comments received on the initial Draft EIR and Revised Draft EIR which are included with the responses in the Response to Comment document. The project has received letters of support from the Sand Canyon Homeowners Association, the Crystal Springs Homeowners Association and the Santa Clarita Valley Chamber of Commerce. Many of the letters in opposition to the project are from residents in the Oak Spring Canyon area. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Attached are the Planning Commission recommended conditions of approval. The following is a summary of some of the more discussed conditions/requirements within the document. 1) Condition No. 10 requires that all measures contained within the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan are also conditions of approval for the project. 2) Condition No. 11 requires trail easements and construction of trails on-site to the satisfaction of the City. 3) Condition Nos. 14 -18 require: the widening of Sand Canyon Road over the Santa Clara River; Caltrans to complete the scheduled widening of Sand Canyon Road over SR 14; installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Lost Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road; and the installation of left turn lanes on Sand Canyon Road at -the project entrance and at Live Oak Springs Canyon Road. All of the above improvements are required to be in place prior to occupancy of the project. 4) Condition No. 20 details the requirements for the realignment and perpetual maintenance of Oak Spring Canyon Road on the project site. 5) Condition No. 81 details the applicant's Bridge and Thoroughfare obligation. 6) Condition No. 84 requires that the applicant complete substantial grading of one of the golf courses prior to recordation of any lot on the 103 acre "Crystal Springs" property. 7) Condition No. 85 allows for splash lighting of the driving range. Splash lighting is lighting placed at grade rather than overhead lights. 8) Condition No. 86 prohibits the selling of golf balls at the driving range after 8:00 p.m. and requires that all activities associated with the driving range cease at 9:00 p.m. 9) Condition No. 87 prohibits gating of project streets. 10) Condition No. 89 requires the installation of groundwater monitoring wells and the regular monitoring of the wells for a minimum period of ten years. 11) Condition No. 90 requires the developer to extend water service to all residents in Oak Spring Canyon if contamination is detected and the golf course is verified as the source. 12) Condition No. 91 requires the preparation of Best and Pest Management Plans. The purpose of both plans is to reduce the use of pesticides and fertilizers in conjunction with the golf course. The plans would be subject to the review and approval of the City. 13) Condition No. 92 requires the preparation of disclosure documents for the residential lots describing in detail the existing and approved mining operations being conducted in the Angeles National Forest. The condition also requires the establishment of a declaration on the recorded title of each residential lot acknowledging the existence of the mining operation and its ability to operate into the future. 14) Condition No. 93 requires the extension of the water mainline, including fire hydrants, from the project site west to Comet Way and east to the Angeles National Forest boundary. Mainline water service would also be extended to all intersecting streets within this area. 15) Condition No. 95 requires that the golf courses be maintained as public courses. 16) Condition No. 96 requires berming of certain elements of the course to eliminate visibility from nearby single family homes. 17) Condition No. 98 allows for the transfer of development rights, specifically residential development rights, from the unencumbered portions of the property (approximately 300 acres) to the restricted 103 acre property. The project would result in a reduction in residential density for the site from a maximum of 302 units (based upon one acre zoning and excluding site constraints) to a total of 73 residential lots. 18) Condition No. 99 grants approval for the removal of up to 138 scrub oak trees and 130 coast live oak trees (including seven heritage trees). The condition requires the applicant to work with the City's Oak Tree Consultant during the grading plan stage to reduce the number of removals, including the heritage size trees. The applicant is proposing to transplant 45 of the 130 coast live oaks slated for removal and plant approximately 1,000 small oak trees on-site. 19) Condition No. 103 prohibits the locating of wells on-site for project irrigation. 20) Condition No. 106 requires the applicant to resolve any verified safety issue that may arise in the future which is associated with the golf course design or operation. The applicant has agreed in writing to this requirement. GEA:lep ,a.d \95049.mam ONDITIONS OF APPROVAL MASTER CASE NO. 95-049 L"Meomful-OKKOW • � _ The approval of this project shall expire if not put into use within two years from the date of conditional approval, unless it is extended in accordance with the terms and provisions of the State of California Subdivision Map Section 66452.6 and the City's Unified Development Code, or unless it is modified and extended by the terms and provisions of an approved development agreement. 2. The applicant may file for an extension of the conditionally approved project prior to the date of expiration. If such an extension is requested, it must be filed no later than 60 days prior to expiration. 3. The applicant shall be responsible for notifying the Department of Community Development, in writing, of any change in ownership, designation of a new engineer, or a change in the status of the developer, within 30 days of said change. 4. Unless otherwise apparent from the context; the term "applicant" shall include the applicant and any other persons, corporation, or other entity making use of this grant. The applicant shall defend (with attorneys at the City's choice), indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Santa Clarita, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or employees to attach, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Project by the City, which action is provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37. In the event the City becomes aware of any such claim, action, or proceeding, the City shall promptly notify the applicant, or if the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. Nothing contained in this Condition prohibits the City from participating in the defense of any claim, action, or proceeding, if both the following occur: 1) The City bears its own attorneys' fees and costs; and 2) the City defends the action in good faith. The applicant shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement unless the settlement is approved by the applicant. 5. Details shown on the Tentative Map are not necessarily approved. Any details which are inconsistent with requirements of ordinances, general conditions of approval, or City policies must be specifically approved. 6. The Applicant is hereby advised that this project is subject to fees at the time of building permit issuance which may include, but not limited to, the following as applicable: 1) Los Angeles County Residential Sewer Connection Fee; 2) Interim School Facilities Financing Fee; 3) Installation or Upgrade of Traffic Signals Fees and/or Road Improvement Fees; and, 4) Planned Local Drainage Facilities Fees. 7. At any point in the development process, a stop -work order shall be considered in effect upon the discovery of any historic artifacts and/or remains, at which time the City shall be notified. 8. In lieu of establishing the final specific locations of structures on each lot at this time, the owner, at the time of issuance of a building permit, agrees to develop the property in conformance with the City Code and other appropriate ordinances such as the Building Code, Plumbing Code, Grading Ordinance, Highway Permit Ordinance, Mechanical Code, Zoning Ordinance, Undergrounding of Utilities Ordinance, Water Ordinance, Oak Tree Ordinance, Sanitary Sewer and Industrial Waste Ordinance, Electrical Code, Department of Oil and Gas, South Coast Quality Air Management District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineering, and Fire Code. Improvements and other requirements may be imposed pursuant to such codes and ordinances. 9. The property shall be developed and maintained in conformance with the approvals granted by the City. Any modifications shall be subject to further review by the City. Modifications, include, but are not limited to, lot consolidations, changes in building locations, and changes in lot configurations. uIN 1 %4%340574, 10. All mitigation measures included in the Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP) and not specifically listed within this document are also conditions of the project. 'moi Nll ' [_ U 11. The applicant shall provide trail easements on the project site to the satisfaction of the City's Parks, Recreation and Community Services Director. All trails shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the Director. Trail development shall, at a minimum, include improvements described in the letter of agreement between the Sand Canyon Trails Committee and the Hunters Green Development Corporation dated February 5, 1996 (Attachment #1). All adopted trail alignments shall be in place prior to recordation and construction of the trails completed prior to occupancy. 12. The applicant shall submit final landscape and irrigation plans for the parking lot areas to the satisfaction of the Parks and Recreation Department. 13. The applicant shall pay park -in -lieu fees (QUIMBY) to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services. 14. In addition to the identified mitigation measures, the applicant shall be required to widen Sand Canyon Road, from Lost Canyon Road to the northerly terminus of the bridge over the Santa Clara River, to a minimum of four travel lanes to the satisfaction of the City's Traffic Engineer. This requirement shall be completed prior to occupancy of the project. Costs associated with this improvement shall be credited towards the applicant's Bridge and Thoroughfare obligation. 15. Caltrans is scheduled to begin widening Sand Canyon Road over SR 14 in 1997. This improvement shall be in place and operational prior to occupancy of the project. 16. The applicant shall install a traffic signal at the intersection of Lost Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road. This action shall be completed prior to occupancy and to the satisfaction of the City's Traffic Engineer. This condition may require road widening. 17. The applicant shall install a left turn lane on Sand Canyon Road at the main site entrance. This action shall be completed prior to occupancy and to the satisfaction of the City's Traffic Engineer. This condition may require road widening. 18. The applicant shall install a left turn lane on Sand Canyon Road at Live Oak Springs Canyon Road. This action shall be completed prior to occupancy and to the satisfaction of the City's Traffic Engineer. This condition may require road widening. 19. The applicant shall dedicate the necessary area, identified on the approved plan, to accommodate a debris basin and appurtenant facilities. This improvement is scheduled to be constructed by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. Costs associated with the construction of this improvement are being paid for by the County of Los Angeles and by a HazardMitigationGrant obtained by the City of Santa Clarita. If the City and County fail to fund this project, the applicant shall be required to pay the project's "fair share" for the improvement. 20. The applicant shall submit road plans for the realignment of Oak Spring Canyon Road on the project site. At a minimum, the road shall be constructed of road base, asphalt on sections of the road at a grade of greater than 10%, and a crossing. These detailed plans shall be made available for review by area residents and shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and the Los Angeles County Fire Department. Prior to approving the plan, the City shall schedule a meeting with local residents to review the plan and describe the improvements to the realigned road. In conjunction with the submittal of road plans, the applicant shall be required to .submit a road maintenance plan. This plan shall include procedures for timely repair of the road following a storm and on-going maintenance of the road by the applicant on the project site. The applicant shall also grant the necessary right-of- way and/or easements to all parties currently using the road to reach their properties. 21. The owner, at the time of issuance of permits or other grants of approval agrees to develop the property in accordance with City codes and other appropriate ordinances such as the Building Code, Plumbing Code, Grading Code, Highway Permit Ordinance, Mechanical Code, Zoning Ordinance, Undergrounding of Utilities Ordinance, Sanitary Sewer and Industrial Waste Ordinance, Electrical Code and Fire Code. 22. The applicant shall file a map which shall be prepared by or under the direction of a licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer. The map shall be processed through the City Engineer prior to being filed with the County Recorder. The applicant shall note all offers of dedication by certificate on the face of the map. 23. The applicant shall label any driveways which extend 150 feet or more onto a lot as "Private Driveway and Fire Lane" on the fmal map to the satisfaction of the city engineer. 24. The applicant shall quitclaim or relocate easements running through proposed structures. 25. If the applicant intends to file multiple final maps, he/she must inform the Advisory 3 Agency at the time the tentative map is filed. The boundaries of the unit final map shall be designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Planning Department. 26. The applicant shall extend lot lines to the center of private, and private and future streets. 27. If the signatures of record title interests appear on the map, the applicant shall submit a preliminary guarantee. If said signatures do not appear on the map, a title report/final guarantee is needed showing all fee owners and interest holders. 28. The applicant's street and grading plans and all construction permitted by such plans shall comply with the requirements of the approved oak tree permit and mitigation monitoring plan. 29. The applicant shall design intersections with a tangent section from "beginning of curb return" (BCR) to BCR. 30. The applicant shall provide at least 40 feet of frontage at the property line and approximately radial lot lines for all lots fronting on cul -de -saes or knuckles. 31. The subdivider is required to install distribution lines and individual service lines for community antenna television service (CATV) for all new development. 32. The applicant shall provide full cul-de-sacs,.with easements, at the terminus of all streets within the subdivision to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 33. The applicant shall provide a minimum lot width of 50 feet. 34. Where applicable, the applicant shall pay fees for signing and striping of streets as determined by the City Traffic Engineer or shall prepare signing and striping plans for all multi -lane highways within or abutting the subdivision to the satisfaction of the Department. 35. All new utilities shall be underground. The applicant shall place above -ground utilities (such as fire hydrants), in such a way as to provide a minimum of four feet clear path of travel along parkways. 36. The applicant shall install mailboxes and posts.per City standards. Secure approval of U.S. Postal Service prior to installation. 37. The applicant shall contact the City Department of Parks and Recreation for street tree location, species, and approved method of installation and irrigation. 38. The applicant shall not grant or record easements within areas proposed to be granted, dedicated, or offered for dedication for public streets or highways, access rights, building restriction rights, or other easements until after the final map is filed with the County Recorder unless such easements are subordinated to the proposed grant or dedication. If easement are granted after the date of tentative approval, a subordination must be executed by the easement holder prior to the filing of the final parcel map.. 39. The applicant shall provide letters of slope easement and drainage acceptance as directed by the City Engineer. 40. The applicant shall obtain approval of the City Engineer and the City Attorney for proposed homeowners association maintenance agreements prior to recordation of the final map. 41. The applicant shall include a disclosure in the CC&R's to comply with the Geologist's recommendations in the Geology Report for restrictions on watering, irrigation, planting and recommend types of plants. 42. The applicant, by agreement with the City Engineer, may guarantee installation of improvements as determined by the City Engineer through faithful performance bonds, letters of credit or any other acceptable means. 43. The applicant shall provide for sight distance along extreme slopes or curves to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer. 44. The applicant shall design a 350 -foot minimum centerline radius on all local streets with a minimum distance of 40 feet between curbs, or to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 45. The applicant shall design the minimum centerline radius on a local street with an intersecting street on the concave side to comply with design speeds per City of Santa Clarita "Requirements for Street Plans" and sight distance per the current AASHTO. 46. The central angles of the right-of-way radius returns shall not differ by more than ten degrees on local streets. 47. The applicant shall design local streets to have minimum centerline curve radii which will provide centerline curves of 100 feet minim uni length. Reversing curves need not exceed a radius of 1,500 feet and any curve need not exceed a radius of 3,000 feet. The length of curve outside of the BCR is used to satisfy the 100 -foot minimum requirement. 48. Compound curves are preferred over broken -back curves. The applicant shall design broken -back curves to be separated by a minimum of 200 feet tangent. 49. The applicant shall provide standard property line return radii of 13 feet at all local street intersections, including intersection of local streets with General Plan Highways, and 27 feet where all General Plan Highways intersect. 50. The applicant shall construct drainage improvements and offer easements needed for street drainage or slopes. 51. The applicant.shall not construct driveways within 25 feet upstream of any catch basins when street grades exceed six percent. 52. The applicant shall construct full -width sidewalk at all walk returns along Sand Canyon Road. 53. The applicant shall remove broken or damaged curb, gutter, sidewalk and pavement on streets within or abutting the subdivision and replace with road improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 54. The applicant shall provide and install street name signs prior to occupancy of buildings. 55. All streets within the project shall be dedicated to the City and maintained as public streets. The applicant shall offer right-of-way: 30 feet from centerline on "B" Street (Live Oak Springs Canyon Road). 29 feet from centerline on "C, D, E, and F" Streets. 56. The applicant shall dedicate the right to restrict vehicular access on Sand Canyon Road. 57. The applicant shall construct inverted shoulder pavement 14 feet (lane width) and four feet (shoulder width) on "G Street." 58. The applicant is granted permission for street grades up to 10% percent on streets as shown on the tentative map. 59. The applicant shall dedicate and construct the following required road improvements: Street R(W Curb & Base & Street Name Width Gutter Paving Trees Sand Canyon Road 104' FT Live Oak Springs Canyon Rd. 64' FT X X C, D, E, and F Streets 58' FT X X 60. All street improvements to be constructed for dedication of any kind (public, or private & future) shall be built to public standards under approved plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer, reviewed by the Building and Engineering Department, and inspected by City staff. "G" Street shall be built to standards in conformance with the Sand Canyon Special Standards District. Plan check and inspection fees will be required for all of the above work. 61. The applicant shall install and dedicate main line sewers and serve each lot/parcel with a separate house lateral or have approved and bonded sewer plans on file with the City Engineer prior to approval of the final map. 62. The applicant shall send a print of the land division map to the County Sanitation District, with the request for annexation. If applicable, such annexation must be assured in writing. 63. The applicant shall pay sewer reimbursement charges as determined. by the City Engineer or the County of Los Angeles before the recording of this map. 64. The applicant shall grant easements to the City, appropriate agency or entity for the purpose of ingress, egress, construction and maintenance of all infrastructure constructed for this land division to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 65. Easements. are tentatively required, subject to review by the City Engineer to determine the final locations and requirements. 66. The applicant shall pay a deposit as required to review documents and plans for final map clearance in accordance with Section 21.36.010(c) of the Subdivision Ordinance. 67. The applicant shall submit a grading plan which must be approved prior to approval of the final map. 68. The applicant grading plan shall be based on a detailed engineering geotechnical report which must be specifically approved by the geologist and/or soils engineer and show all recommendations submitted by them. It must also agree with the tentative map and conditions as approved by the Advisory Agency. 69. The applicant shall eliminate all geologic hazards associated with this proposed development, or delineate a restricted use area approved by the consultant geologist to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and dedicate to the City the right to prohibit the erection of buildings or other structures within the restricted use areas. 70. Specific recommendations will be required from the consultant(s) regarding the suitability for development of all lots/parcels designed essentially as ungraded site lots. The applicant shall file a report with the State Real Estate Commissioner indicating that additional geologic and/or soils engineering studies may be required for ungraded site lots/parcels by the Geology and Soils Section. 71. The applicant shall submit drainage plans and necessary support documents to comply with Engineering requirements. These must be approved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to filing of the map. Portions of the property are subject to sheet overflow and ponding and high velocity scouring action. Portions of the property lying in and adjacent to natural drainage courses are subject to flood hazard because of overflow, inundation, and debris flows. 72. The applicant shall execute and record and covenant an agreement regarding the issuance of building permits in an area subject to flood hazard if applicant is allowed to obtain building permit prior to completion of storm drain construction. 73. The applicant shall comply with requirements for construction of structures within a flood hazard area. No structures are allowed within a floodway and all structures within the flood hazard area must have the finish floor elevated V-0" above the projected surface of the water elevation. 74. The applicant shall record an instrument or indicate by note on the final map that the lot owners in said subdivision shall not interfere with the established drainage of said subdivision. The note shall state that each owner of a lot in said subdivision shall not erect concrete block wall or similar solid constructions except as approved by the City Engineer. 75. The applicant shall provide for the proper distribution of drainage. 76. The applicant shall show and label all natural drainage courses on lots where a note of flood hazard is allowed. 7 77. The applicant shall provide for contributory drainage from adjoining properties and return drainage to its natural conditions or secure off-site drainage acceptance letters from affected property owners. This site is located in Zone "A" per the Federal Flood Insurance Rate Map. Upon construction of the storm drain facilities, applicant shall follow procedures for revising the Flood Insurance Rate Map. 78. The applicant- shall adjust, relocate, and/or eliminate lot lines, lots, streets, easements, grading, geotechnical protective devices, and/or physical. improvements to comply with ordinances, policies, and standards in effect at the date the City determined the application to be complete all to the satisfaction of this Department. 79. The applicant shall acquire permits from the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the State Fish & Game Department prior to issuance of grading permits or the commencement of any work within any natural drainage course. 80. The applicant shall acquire N.P.D.E.S. permits. 81. The applicant shall pay the applicable Bridge and Thoroughfare Benefit District Fee (B&T) for the golf course portions of the project prior to recordation. Bridge and Thoroughfare fees associated with the residential lots shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit for each lot. The deferment of the fee on the residential lots shall be permitted subject to the following requirement. The fee for each lot shall be a minimum of $5,600.00 and shall be adjusted each year, commencing from map recordation and terminating at the obtaining of a building permit, to reflect the annual adjustment in the CPI -U reported each August for the previous twelve month period of August through July 31 reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the Los Angeles-Anahiem-Riverside areas. Payment of the fees at building permit stage shall be included within disclosure documents prepared for each residential lot. Bridge and Thoroughfare fees are used to implement the highway element of the General Plan as a means of mitigating the traffic impact of this project. Factors for development units are as follows: Development Units Factors Current District Rate Single -Family (Per Unit) 1.0 $5,600.00 Commercial (Per Acre) 5.0 $5,600.00 Because the traffic impacts of uses such as golf courses are not specifically discussed in the ordinances related to B&T fees, a reasonable method of calculation must be provided to offset the impacts of this particular development. The City has examined the type of development and the estimated traffic impacts and has determined a B&T fee amount of $2.1 Million. This number closely matches the amount estimated to be generated by these properties in the engineers estimate of the original district and is fair and reasonable. The subdivider may construct off-site improvements of equivalent value in lieu of paying fees established for the District subject to approval of the City Engineer. 82. The project area is subject to an assessment based on the Soledad Canyon Integrated Financing Assessment District No. 92-4. The total fee for the properties involved in this development is $240,000.00. This amount will be credited against the B&T fees to be paid. 83. The applicant shall record golf course/open space easements on all golf course/open space lots, restricting their use to those activities, prior to recordation of the first residential lot. 84. The applicant shall complete substantial grading of one of the golf courses prior to recordation of any residential lot on the 103 acre "Crystal Springs" property. 85. Splash lighting of the driving range shall be permitted. A lighting plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of an electrical permit. All driving range lighting shall be in substantial conformance with the splash lighting standards provided by Southern California Edison and to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. 86. The applicant shall be prohibited from selling golf balls at the driving range after 8:00 p.m. All activities associated with the driving range (use, maintenance, and ball collection) shall cease after the last person is finished hitting balls and no later than 9:00 P.M. 87. Gating of project streets shall be prohibited. 88. The City shall hire an On -Site Environmental Monitor prior to site development. This person shall be an environmental consultant and will be on-site during project development to ensure compliance with the approved Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program. The applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with hiring.and payment of the On -Site Environmental Monitor. 89. The applicant shall install on-site groundwater monitoring wells. One well shall be located near the northwestern property line along Oak Spring Canyon Road. The second well shall be installed along Live Oak Springs Canyon creek near the 6th fairway. The wells shall be sampled on a quarterly basis for a minimum of three years, and then on a semi-annually basis for an additional seven years. At the conclusion of this time period, the applicant/subsequent property owners can file a request with the City to eliminate the monitoring requirement. Elimination of this requirement shall beat the discretion of the City. The results of the samples shall be submitted to the City. The sampling reports will be reviewed by the City with the assistance of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The City will hire a qualified environmental consultant to review this information and ensure compliance with adopted water quality standards. The applicant will be responsible for all costs associated with this monitoring program. These reports shall be also made available to interested members of the public. At a minimum, an initial well sample shall be taken at the completion of site grading, but before the installation of landscape vegetation. 90. If contamination of ground water is detected and the source of the contamination is verified to be the golf course, the applicant and/or subsequent owners of the golf course shall be required to -extend water (via the Santa Clarita Water Company) to each resident of Oak Spring Canyon not connected to the water system. This requirement shall include all infrastructure and connection costs. If extension of the water line is required, it shall be completed within a six month time period. During the construction of the water line, the applicant and/or subsequent owners shall be responsible for shipping potable water to Oak Spring Canyon residents. The applicant shall be required to clean-up contaminated ground water to the satisfaction of the City of Santa Clarita and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Additionally, the applicant shall revise the approved golf course management plans to eliminate the use of the identified pesticide/s and/or fertilizer/s contaminating the groundwater. 91. Prior to operation of the golf course, the applicant shall be required to prepare an Integrated Pest Management Plan and a Best Management Practices Plan. The plans shall be in accordance with the current practices advised by the Statewide Integrated Pest Management Project, University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. The purpose of both plans shall be to reduce the use of harmful chemicals on-site and to reduce the off-site movement of high concentrations of sediment, salts, excessive nutrients, and chemicals. Upon receipt of these plans, the City will forward these documents to a City selected environmental consultant for review and approval. All costs associated with the City review of these documents shall be the responsibility of the applicant. 92. The applicant shall submit disclosure documents prepared for the residential lots to the City of Santa Clarita. This documents shall be subject to the review and approval by the Director of Community Development. The documents shall also include the establishment of a declaration on the recorded title of each residential lot acknowledging the existence of the mining operation and its ability to continue operating into the future. These documents shall include detailed descriptions of the existing and approved future mining operations being conducted in the Angeles National Forest. Language contained within the disclosure documents shall be consistent with the attached document (Attachment 2) and shall indicate that the mining operation has the ability to begin operations at sunrise and terminate operations at sundown, seven days a week. The disclosure documents shall be in conformance with all of the requirements of the State of California Department of Real Estate. 93. The applicant shall be required to extend a water mainline, including fire hydrants, from the center portion of the project site north to the realigned Oak Spring Canyon Road and from this point east to the Angeles National Forest Boundary and west to the intersection of Comet Way and Oak Spring Canyon Road. Water service shall also be provided on all intersecting streets with Oak Spring Canyon Road, between the Angeles National Forest Boundary and Comet Way. This waterline extension and any appurtenant improvements shall be in place prior to occupancy of the golf course and to the satisfaction of the Santa Clarita Water Company and the Director of Community Development. The water line extension shall be of satisfactory size to provide water service to surrounding residents and shall contain adequate pressure to meet Fire Department requirements. 10 94. Prior to recordation of the final map, the applicant shall obtain approval from the Fire Department of a water infrastructure plan for the site that demonstrates all lots will be served with adequately sized water. facilities, including fire hydrants, of sufficient size to accommodate the total domestic and fire flows required for the project. Domestic flow requirements shall be established by the water company and fire flow requirements shall be established by the Fire Department. 95. The golf courses shall be maintained as public courses. 96. Berming shall be implemented as shown on Exhibit 1. The areas to be bermed include: adjacent to the hitting area of the driving range, adjacent to the parking lot, and adjacent to the tee area near the Penrose property line. Mature landscaping, including transplanted oak trees, shall be utilized on these bermed areas. 97. Alcohol sales shall be permitted in conjunction with the operation of the golf course. The maximum occupancy of the clubhouse restaurant/banquet area shall be limited to 250 persons. 98. A transfer of development rights and clustering is permitted to allow for development on the presently encumbered 103 acre "Crystal Springs" property. A minimum residential lot size of 14,000 square feet shall be preserved throughout the project. Additionally, the applicant shall record a deed restriction on the property restricting further subdivision of the created residential lots. Furthermore, a note reflecting this action shall be placed on the final map. 99. The applicant is granted approval to remove up to 138 scrub oak trees and 130 coast live oak trees (seven of which are heritage size). During the grading plan design process, the applicant shall work with the City's Oak Tree Consultant to analyze potential modifications to the plan to reduce oak tree removals, including heritage size trees. Oak trees designated for removal shall be evaluated to determine whether relocation is possible. To the extent possible, trees shall be transplanted in locations which serve to buffer portions of the project (driving range, parking lot, etc.) from adjacent residential uses. A qualified arborist shall be utilized to prepare a transplantation plan, to include detailed specifications for boxing, pruning, pesticide treatment, relocation, transplanting and follow-up maintenance and monitoring. 100. During the grading plan design process, the applicant shall analyze potential direct impacts for each oak tree to determine whether encroachment into the protected zone can be avoided through redesign, construction of retaining walls or other measures. The City's Oak Tree Consultant shall review the final grading plan. 101. Any work conducted within the protected zone of an oak tree shall be performed in the presence of the applicant's oak tree consultant. The applicant shall provide a forty-eight (48) hour notice to the applicant's oak tree consultant and to the Department of Community Development before beginning any oak tree work. 102. The value of each oak tree to be removed or relocated shall be established in accordance with the most current edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal, by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers. The City's Oak Tree Consultant shall review and approve the value of each oak tree. These fees shall be submitted to the 11 City prior to recordation of the map. On-site plantings of oak trees and dedication of open space areas containing oak trees would be credited against the required fees. 103. The locating of wells on-site for project irrigation is prohibited. This prohibition excludes monitoring wells and temporary groundwater pump test wells. 104. After completing groundwater pump tests, the applicant may submit the results to the Community Development Department for review. The City would hire; at the applicant's cost, an independent third party expert (environmental consultant) to review the information and results of the tests. Following this review by the environmental consultant, the applicant would retain the right to file an amendment to Master Case 95-049 to allow for the supplementary use of groundwater for irrigation of the project. This amendment to Master Case 95-049, if filed, would be subject to a public hearing before both the Planning Commission and City Council. The City Council would retain full discretion to either finally approve or deny such an amendment request. If the City does approve an amendment request in the future, the applicant shall be required, at a minimum, to mitigate any area properties impacted by the project's future use of on-site wells. 105. The public address system proposed in conjunction with the project shall be designed and operated in a manner to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. This system shall also be monitored after installation to ensure compliance with the City's Noise Standards. 106. The applicant shall agree in writing to resolve any verified safety issue that may arise in the future which is associated with the golf course design or operation. A plan to resolve any verified safety issue associated with the design or operation of the golf course shall be submitted to the City within 30 days of verification. The City approved plan shall be implemented within 90 days of verification. This condition is in accordance with the applicant's written agreement (Attachment 3). In general, fencing would not be considered an appropriate remedy to a verified safety issue. 107. The applicant shall prepare architectural standards for the residential element of the project. These standards shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development and included within the Covenant, Codes and Restrictions prepared for the development. 108. It is further declared and made a condition of this permit that if any condition hereof is violated, or if any law, statue, ordinance, is violated, the permit shall be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicant has been given written notice to cease such violation and has failed to do so for a period of 30 days. current\mc95M.con 12 ArTCNCKme►r Febniary 5, 1996 City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, Ca 91355 RECEIVED CZ.4IMUNI'y OtVEL0PNENT CITY OF SANTA CLARIYA a..i Re: Hunters Green Proposed Golf Course Development Memo of Understanding Dear Honorable Commissioners: The Sand Canyon Trails Committee and the Hunters Green developers have diligently worked together to agree on the alignment of a dedicated, multi -use recreational trail system related to the proposed golf course development in Sand Canyon. To date, we, the Sand Canyon Trails Committee and the Hunters Green developers, mutually agree to the following points related to the proposed golf course developments. This agreement is a letter of intent and is non-binding. The Sand Canyon Trails Committee, with the following points of understanding, supports and recommends the proposed golf course at Hunters ll[ll[ Green. Tyne of Recreational Trail- • Use: dedicated, multi -use, recreational, non -motorized trail. For recreational use by equestrians, walkers, joggers, bicyclists. • Width: 12 feet -+/- • Grading: not to exceed commonly accepted horse and recreation trail maximum grading requirements, per approved grading plans. • Fence: the trail will be fenced where required for safety and liability; the fencing will be Appropriate for the area • Maintenance: the trail maintenance, including grading, will be the responsibility of the Cityof Santa Clarity TiminS • Barring any unforseem obstacles, trials will be completed prior to the opening of the golf course. Location The responsibility of the golf course developer is to dedicate a trail that begins at the northwest comer of - NO .2. the former Hawthorne property (which will be the realignment of the Oak Springs Canyon Road) running 2860+/. feet in an east -west direction., The trail will then tum south to run to run from the northeast comer of the former Hawthorne property along the eastern boundary line of the development approximately 6400 feet; the intent is to access the national forest at multiple points along this boundary. Dependent upon topography and feasibility, the goal is to continue the trail to Live Oaks Springs Canyon Road along the ridge (along the existing trail), which is the southwest portion of the Hunters Green Property (northeast property of the Griffin developm=L) All of the above points are subject to plan approval and are dependSqtVonc�o omic feasibility. Sincerely, Laura L. Hauser #Hrs n Chairpyrson Sand Canyon Trails Committee a Development Corp. cc: Rick Putnam Laurene Weste AT rAco %4 rn vAjor ZZ Oak Springs Disclosure of Mining Operation (Sample) At the present time, the P. W. Gillibrand Company is involved in the recovery of alluvial sand and gravel and hard rock mining in portions of Oak Springs Canyon and Rabbit Canyon located directly east of the Oak Springs residential lot subdivision. The Company operates in this area under a long term lease with the United. States Federal Government. The lease encompasses an area of several square miles with a remaining term of about fifty years. In the area directly adjoining the golf course project, present operations involve the recovery of sand and gravel from the alluvial wash with the use of blasting and off road construction equipment. Present operations run on weekdays from about 8:30 am to 3:30 p.m. As a result of this activity, the residential area is subject to periodic noise emanating from heavy machinery, back up alarms, and blasting. Readings taken at the property boundary during standard operations indicate decibel levels within acceptable standards; however, there is every likelihood that such noise could prove to be a nuisance to homeowners facing the mining activity. . In the future, the Gillibrand company will be expanding its activities to include hard rock mining on the slope just east of the current operation. As this area is further from the residential area, the noise levels are not expected to worsen; however, as mining will include the slope areas, this operation will visibly scar portions of the hillsides within view of the residential area. The purpose of this notification is to provide the buyer full disclosure of the negative impact imposed by the mining operation on the residential lots being offered for sale. While the information provided is deemed accurate, the developer has no control over adjacent mining and cannot guarantee that existing operations will remain at current levels. The buyer is advised to visit the area during operating hours to personally determine whether noise levels are unacceptable. In addition, diagrams depicting the extent of visual scaring. and other documents regarding future mining operations are available for review at the sales office. 1, , buyer, have received a copy of this disclosure, have personally researched the potential negative impacts the mining operation may have on the residential lots, and acknowledge that I am buying at Oak Springs with full knowledge of those impacts. By: Date: By: Date: �o A-25-1996 3:37PM FROM ROBINSON GOLF DESIGN 714 363 5838 P.1 ROBINSON GOLF DESIGN, INC. July 25, 1996 Mr. Glen Adamick Department of Community Development City of Santa Clarity 23920 Valencia Blvd: Suite 300 Santa Clarita, California 91355 Re. Safety Issues Dear Glen, 30131 Tower CErrrER Da., SrE. 268 LAcuNA Nrcum, CA 92677 TELEPHONE (714) 363-5870 FAx (714) 3635838 ViVi Facsimile (805)259-8125 I am writing for the purpose of addressing the issue of safety on the golf course as was raised by the planning commission on July 16th. As was indicated in that meeting, we are committed to developing Oak Springs in accordance with established safety standards and fully intend to complete the project in a manner that provides adequate set backs between the golf course and . neighboring homes. To the extent a verifiable safety issue should arise in the future relating to the design or operation of the golf course, we shall agree to submit a plan of correction to the City within 30 days of verification. Once the City has approved the plan, it shall be implemented within 90 days. Please give me a call if you need any clarification. Sincerely yours, Theodore G. Robinson Jr. A ++ti -c h m en t *3 Draft City of Santa Clarita Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program State Clearinghouse Project Number 93041049 Prepared For City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, California 91355 July 24, 1996 Prepared By Rincon Consultants, Inc. 790 E. Santa Clara Street Ventura, California 93001 City of Santa Clarita Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program „ i Mingatton ,111,Men ofppproval '44 er EARTKRESOURCES ,, * #,t; PActton Re w cd ' i 4 „Momtormgto; j j S ( a,�i6" ,r ,t _ 1' €tt.{� �,� s� �5 a..,, , . F ,,,,a. ` Montonngz' Frcgitency,3 �ry � „i't a li 1+. , n J tt _ ` Responslbla$' Agencyor�A .� La•� }> y�.lusµ�� +O sli :;,� :c,°.I 14Ut U4,111K, " 't4gyrComphancesdenficatton 3f1 ?r .Imha1= 1. ate. u"i� Comments"M ER -1 & ER -2(a) The latest edition of the Uniform Building a. Plan check to verify a. At final plan a. Once a. BES Code (UBC) pertaining to cut and fill shall be followed. compliance with design check Engineering considerations are to include design of drainage requirements. back slopes, drainage downslope channels, and buttressing unstable slopes. The buttressing is to involve the proper b. Field soil compaction b. During b. As needed b. SG placement of compacted fill material, compacted to the UBC checks to be done and project grading during grading specifications for such an application. submitted to SG and copied to BES. ER -2(b) A proper watering system, such as drip irrigation, a. Final Design Plan check a. At final plan a. Once a. CDD shall be established for site cut slopes to minimize the volume of water during the establishment of the vegetation, b. Field check of installed check b. Completion b. Once b. OEM thus reducing the potential of erosion during this period. system of system ER -3(a) Fill density shall follow UBC. If the fill material Fill density checks in the As needed As needed SG does not meet the strength and compaction requirements, the field. Reports to be submitted during during grading a. material shall be rejected and used elsewhere on the to BES. property, such as in the golf course construction. All construction adverse vegetation shall be removed from the fill prior to b. BES emplacement. ER -3(b) Areas across the cuttfill line shall be well Disclosure statement to At project Prior to CDD documented and disclosed to the purchaser of the lot prospective buyers to be completion issuance of involved. reviewed by CDD. occupancy P cY certificate ER -4 Grading is not to be performed during the rainy period a. Grading plan check to a. At final a. Once BES (October I to April 15) unless the grading plans include verify compliance plans check a. provisions to mitigate erosion, flooding, or the deposition of sediment or debris. Grading performed during the rest of b. Field check to verify b. Prior to b. As needed b. OEM the year should contain a provision for dust suppression. installation of BMPs rainy season during grading ER -5 Landslides and debris flows are to be stabilized or Stabilization or removal to be During grading Daily during SG removed. done under the direction of grading SG. ER -6 Placement of fill material and compaction shall be a Plan check to verify a. At final plan a. Once a. BES done to withstand settling that could occur with seismic compliance with design check Key: CDD- Community Development Denartment nrne n_..:._c-. -___ DPW -Department of Public Works BES - Building and Engineering Services RWQCB- Regional Water Quality Control Board SG - Applicant's Supervising Geologist Page I City of Santa Clarita Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course i� Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program iff `fir`� AIS{ 07-„ '.MrhgaZ. raval�� '} Action ,.,% , Requ¢drMomonntMortltormg �Com h;!i'':1 :..�>',.t P >la� r�requene�'� r ;..trs9 y,Initlal6 spate t 'd shakinges and debris requirements. shall be suring or b. Field check of grading b. During b. Daily b. SG ing an eae.operations. radin-If liquefiable soils are encountered during grading, a. Field observations during a. During a. Daily a. SG then proper re-engineering of the soils shall be performed or grading. Follow-up report as grading, the proposed structures moved to areas away from needed. liquefiable soils.. Areas of properties that have the potential b. Disclosure statement to b. At project b. Prior to b. CDD of liquefaction should be identified, and purchasers of these prospective buyers to be completion issuance of lots should be told of the liquefaction potential. reviewed by CDD. occupancy certifte ER-9 The potential for hydroconsolidation shall be further a. Submittal of detailed a. When report 7\vieedat a. BES examined in the detailed geotechnical report to be prepared Geotechnical Report to BES. is submitted report for the final grading plan. If there is a risk of Follow-up design changes. and at final submittal and hydroconsolidation, the earth materials are to be re- plan check prior to final engineered to reduce this risk, or the proposed structures design plan relocated to an area without the potential of approval hydroconsolidation. Areas of a lot that have the potential of b. Disclosure statement to b. At project b. Prior to b. CDD hydroconsolidation that is not mitigated shall be identified, prospective buyers to be completion issuance of and property purchasers be notified of the risk of reviewed by CDD hydroconsolidation. occupancy certificate HYDROLOGY, DRA INA GE, WATER D-1 A SWMP for site construction shall be developed prior a. Plans to be submitted a. At final a. Once a. BES to the initiation of grading and implemented throughout the prior to final design approval plan check RWQCB construction phase. The SWMP shall include specific BMPs to control the export of material from the site and into b. Field check for b. During b. Weekly b. OEM the local drainages and for any fuel storage or fuel handling implementation of temporary grading prior during rainy that could occur on-site during the construction phase. BMPs during grading. to rainy season season SWMP and final grading plan to include permanent BMPs. c. Field check for c. Prior to c. Once c. OEM installation of permanent issuance of BMPs. golf course occupancy permit Key: CDD- Community Development Department OEM1t-Onsite Environmental Monitor DPW -Department of Public Works RWQCB- Regional Water Quality Control Board BES - Building and Engineering Services SG - Applicant's Supervising Geologist Page 2 City of Santa Clarita Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Key: CDD -Community Development Department DPW -Department of Public Works DES - Building and Engineering Services OEM - Onsite Environmental Monitor RWQCB - Regional Water Quality Control Board SG - Applicant's Supervising Geologist Page 3 M 9� -0 ""�1�1'151AIUVIX`Rv ifed—,TVF�, Requited 4-Mimitoritig'to-i -_-:'Monito`r' ing� 'i:Re�pouiible: omplianceV . e J rifica: 't, Ql RE, K _Nkiiiq'ii K`� L,41 pn, I I "�� " I'. T ;. I e, 1 1 � AnitiaL 'Nite, !� G'� �--W 7 R 1 As shown on the concept grading plans, the maximum slope Final design plans that show At final design Once - prior to BES along the Oak Spring Canyon access road along the north final roadway specifications review final plan site perimeter shall be 10% and also shall be improved with approval decomposed granite. [Not a required mitigation measure] D -5(a) A Best Management Practices Plan and Integrated Submittal and review of At final plan Twice - CDD Pest Management Plan shall be prepared for implementation BMP and IPM plans. The check Review of by the golf course. City will forward the plans to Draft and a qualified consultant for Final Plans review. D -5(b) Construct an oil and grease trap within the catch a. Final design plan to show a. At final a. Once a. CDD basin for the clubhouse parking lot and/or construct a oil and grease traps plan check perimeter infiltration trench. The catch basin shall include a trap that prevents floatables from discharging with the b. Field check of installed b. End of b. Once b. OEM drainage water. The golf course operator shall be traps construction responsible for monitoring and periodically cleaning out the catch basin. D -5(c) A groundwater monitoring well shall be installed a. Installation of monitoring a. At end of a. Once a. CDD near the north property line near the Valley course 3rd tees wells per state and county grading and another well installed along Live Oak Springs Canyon. standards. Creek above the proposed debris basin. The wells must meet the minimum requirements of Bulletin 74-90 (California Well Standards) and the Los Angeles County b. Review of sampling b. During b. Quarterly b. CDD code. The wells shall be sampled on a quarterly basis for a reports. Reports submitted to project for 3 years, minimum of three years, and then semi-annually for at least City will be forwarded to a operation semi- annually RWQCB an additional seven years for a total of 10 years, with the qualified consultant for for next 7 sampling reports sent to the City and the Regional Water review. years Quality Control Board. At the end often years, the data shall be analyzed to determine if there is a need to continue the monitoring. Constituents sampled for will include nitrate, phosphate and any pesticides applied to the golf courses. An initial well sample shall be taken at completion of grading, but before the installation of landscape vegetation. Key: CDD -Community Development Department DPW -Department of Public Works DES - Building and Engineering Services OEM - Onsite Environmental Monitor RWQCB - Regional Water Quality Control Board SG - Applicant's Supervising Geologist Page 3 City of Santa Clarita Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program tis i n A fi t µ Fk " ✓f } t 7 it � i � + ^; i .i #(la . Si ti .`< U r ]hFLhgahon Measure/C,o},ndthonof Approvat.z. Actton Regmred to F 4'Fn/YN +tYY `s ,,fF{4 i"fir;+i'b p U�,i T+�Fk 'F! ''^kk'it:3h�t AYJ,'vti j 'uk t.ii,p A�+3 k yq ,111omtonn Monitoring g_t v..,ys Responsrble 7:Compliance.Yerification,i ++= a<5_ - .. `; I e [ tlmhal� iiDate � u D -7(a) The applicant shat l conduct groundwater pump tests a. Submittal of a design for a. Prior to a. Once M: ."`-.Comments�.v+ CDD that further define the aquifer characteristic in Oak Spring groundwater aquifer testing. installation of a Canyon. Monitoring of the pump tests shall be conducted at any test wells. a second well within the property (to also be used as a long term water quality monitoring well) and at available offsite b. Submittal and review of b. Prior to b. Once b. CDD wells. The test design and report shall be submitted to the aquifer test reports. Reports permitting and City for review by an independent third party expert. No submitted to City will be use of groundwater extraction wells shall be permitted within Oak forwarded to a qualified groundwater Spring Canyon until the applicant has shown to the consultant for review. extraction satisfaction of the City that such extraction would not result in wells in Oak the significant reduction of water supply to offsite users and Spring subject to the review and approval of the City. Canyon. D -7(d) The applicant shall provide backbone infrastructure Submittal of infrastructure At Final Plan Once CDD for a potable water supply from the project site along Oak design plans with Final Plan check Spring Canyon Road from Comet Way to the Angeles design. National Forest boundary. This infrastructure shall consist of a mainline pipe connecting as a loop system to Comet Way and a pressure reducing station at the northern property line. AIR QUALITY AQ -1(a) Water trucks shall be used during construction to Construction monitoring to During Daily OEM keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent verify dust control construction dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this will require twice daily applications (once in late morning and once at end of workday). Increased watering is required whenever wind speed exceeds 15 mph. Grading should be suspended if wind gusts exceed 25 mph. AQ-I(b) Amount of disturbed area should be minimized Construction monitoring to During Daily OEM and onsite vehicle speeds should be reduced to 15 mph or verify dust control construction less. Kev: rnn _ r.,...m...:.., n....,t.......__... _. __-... ...... -._.- ................r..... DPW -Department of Public Works BES - Building and Engineering Services VLM - vnsac Gnvlronmental a40nnor RWQCB - Regional Water Quality Control Board SG - Applicant's Supervising Geologist Page 4 City of Santa Clarita Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program f♦ii",i 1'k' f t ia�i•, i , }`. :" i'Ii fb �,i,,1YY , :;, t :Y? .vY . �rf� trkj 1I '.1 I "�:"�^f .z{t �,;,. ,Mtttgatron 111easurelCondition otApproval ,,{,� Action Required nlomtoringto Momtormgs - S.Responstble, �„ ,N Venficatiou" J _Comphance r M y. Forty f •• G iVA n " �vu, '. k ' :-' t ° 1 J t.t -f�r §i fi [ { �Y fk i r-zd "t. .... Ji^i- , k",t.. ., ttv -'- .l.,i .. rs"r�U'�,ry .. , .,::.i .r S.nR., IRfll .-�.u:f NXi'bJ.il vi t`i^a .,: 1mGa1 €;Date u ._ #a� i = sComments AQ -1(c) If importation, exportation and stockpiling of fill Construction monitoring to During Daily OEM material is involved, soil with 5% or greater silt content that verify dust control construction is stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation. Trucks transporting material shall be tarped. from the point of origin or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard. AQ -1(d) After clearing, grading, earth -moving or a. Construction monitoring a. During a. Daily a. OEM excavation is completed, the disturbed area shall be treated to verify dust control construction by watering, or revegetation, or by spreading soil binders until the area is paved or otherwise developed. Specifically, b. Field check of residential b. At b. Once b. OEM the residential lots shall be revegetated with a non-invasive lots completion of cover until they are sold. grading AQ -3(a) Golf carts for the project site shall be electric only.. Check of golf course prior to Prior to course Once CDD opening of course opening AQ -3(b) The applicant shall comply with the City's Submittal of report indicating At final plan Once CDD Transportation Demand Management ordinance to reduce methods to be employed to check trips and, subsequently, air pollutant emissions. meet City TDM Ordinance AQ -3(c) Incorporate energy-saving design solutions in the Submittal of energy audit of At final Once BES clubhouse to reduce energy consumption by at least 20 clubhouse facilities clubhouse percent below current Federal guidelines as specified in design check Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES B -1(a) The proposed project will be required to comply a. Payment of equivalent a. Prior to a. Once a. CDD with the conditions of the oak tree permit. This shall value fees / accounting for initiation of include the payment of the equivalent value fees for removed trees via updated grading removed and transplanted trees, with onsite plantings of oak tree report. oaks credited against the fee. The biological monitoring plan shall include specific monitoring of onsite oak tree b. Monitoring of oak trees / b. Two years b. Annually at b. Applicant plantings for a period of two years after completion of site submittal of report after project a minimum oak tree development and landscaping. At the end of two years, all construction consultant / oaks shall be checked for health conditions compared to Report to before project implementation and any trees observed to be CDD declining in health shall be monitored for an additional three Key: CDD - Community Development Department DPW -Department of Public Works BES- Building and Engineering Services OEM - Onsite Environmental Monitor RWQCB - Regional Water Quality Control Board SG - Applicant's Supervising Geologist Page 5 City of Santa Clarita Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program t a,. �t a rpt✓ s f ri,I � t(k '. t{�^r "t`tx �? t � , YY t{ti .it r t t i r',.,; {x r q: Y- y� .. n x y ,.- -: r',;;�, Mtttgahon Measure/Condrtron of Approval ,A iit Action Required Momtonng,fo , hlonitonng Responsible Comphance Yenficahon; tt .: r Pa 1rc "r ': .. .F . - t+E FY 1 Po tt Initial` ?1 Dat0 COmmen�9i $9c years. Specific recommendations for preservation of c. Continued monitoring of c. Five years c. Annually at c. Applicant declining oak trees shall also be made. Oak trees that die in trees in declining health / after project a minimum oak tree the natural areas between the fairways shall be, replaced on submittal of report construction consultant / ari equivalent value basis. The dead trees shall be left Report to standing to provide cavity nesting areas for birds and roosts CDD for raptors unless they present a safety hazard or a disease hazard to other oaks. B -1(b) At least 50% in aggregate of the shoreline edge of Field check of final landscape At completion Once OEM the golf course lakes shall be revegetated with native plantings of plantings freshwater marsh elements. B -1(c) Proposed fairway roughs shall be revegetated with a. Review of seed and a. Prior to a. Once a. CDD native perennial bunch grasses at a mix of 2:1 to non-native planting mix prior to landscape species. These roughs shall be maintained as native landscape installation installation perennial grasslands unless after three years of effort, it is ,. b. Submittal of report b. 3 years after b. Annually b. CDD shown that such mvegetation would be unsuccessful. detailing results installation B -1(d) The Integrated Pest Management plan proposed for Submittal and review of IPM At final plan Twice - review CDD the project shall be prepared in accordance with the current plan. Plan would be check of Draft and practices advised by the Statewide Integrated Pest forwarded for review to a Final plans Management Project, University of California, Division of qualified. consultant. Agriculture and Natural Resources. B -1(e) The slope revegetation and fire clearance zone shall Field check of slope During and at Periodically OEM be initially planted only with native species. Limit fire revegetation and fire clearance completion of during hazard fuel modification to hand -thinning of individual zones landscaping thinning shrubs, clearing dead fuel, "multi -cutting," replanting with operations. fire-resistant native shrubs or other methods to attain fire Final check at safety while producing a biologically viable community. completion B -2(a) Seed collection and plant salvaging efforts for the Collection of seed and plants / - Prior to grading Periodic OEM Peirson's morning-glory shall be attempted in chaparral incorporation of material into and during during areas prior to site mass grading. landscaping vegetation landscaping construction B -2(b) The location of Plummer's mariposa -lilies shall be Recovery of bulbs and Prior to Periodic OEM marked during the spring flowering period, with the bulbs incorporation into landscaping construction during dug up in the late fall to winter for transplanting before the vegetation construction heavy winter rains of January through March. Key: CDD - Community Development Department DPW -Department of Public Works BES - Building and Engineering Services OEM - Onsite Environmental Monitor RWQCB - Regional Water Quality Control Board SO - Applicant's Supervising Geologist Page 6 City of Santa Clarita Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Key: CDD - Community Development Department DPW -Department of Public Works BES - Building and Engineering Services OEM - Onsite Environmental Monitor RWQCB - Regional Water Quality Control Board SG - Applicant's Supervising Geologist Page 7 jlldtgahonMeastire/CondrttonofApproval fix ., AcfronRequrred +, o" i 6-rin' t .. . . ...... M" X7X;i', -4 - Date- XIN NINE,.",", 1� I iat C Cont rn ents4' B -3(a) Construction workers shall be notified through Conduct a pre -construction Prior to Once OEM preconstruction meetings that a variety of sensitive wildlife meeting initiation of are present at the site and that they shall not willfully harm grading any species, especially snakes and other reptiles. During the construction meeting, the proper method of moving snakes from construction zones shall be illustrated. D -3(b) Include creation and maintenance of freshwater a. Final landscape plan check a. At final plan a. Once a. CDD marsh habitat along the margins of the golf course lakes to to confirm design check increase the potential for recovery of two -striped garter specifications snake, mountain kingsnake, and western spadeftiot toad li. Field check of installed b. At b. Once b. OEM populations in the project vicinity. landscaping completion of landscaping B -3(c) The existing retention ponds shall be drained prior to a. Clawed frog removal and a. During a- Once when a. OEM construction and filling of the proposed takes. During the capture of sensitive species project ponds are draining, clawed frogs shall be caught with netting or by construction drained other means and killed. At the same time, two -striped garter snakes and any other sensitive species in the ponds shall be b. Maintenance of sensitive During project Periodically b. Applicant captured. The native animals shall be maintained until the animals until reintroduced construction during biological golf course lakes are filled and native vegetation is installed construction consultant along the banks, at which time, the snakes and other sensitive species shall be released into the new habitat. B -3(d) A capture and off-site relocation plan shall be Acquisition of Fish and Game Prior to Once OEM developed for the San Diego homed lizard. Such a plan permits; identification of initiation of would include the scouring of the north portion of the relocation site, plan grading in Oak alluvial fan scrub to capture homed lizards and the implementation Spring Canyon identification of suitable unoccupied habitat to which they could be relocated. B -3(e) Install swallow boxes in the retained natural areas Installing nest boxes after Prior to Once CDD between the fairways. Installation of bat boxes to be located completion of grading issuance of at least 800 feet from residential areas, occupancy permit for golf course Key: CDD - Community Development Department DPW -Department of Public Works BES - Building and Engineering Services OEM - Onsite Environmental Monitor RWQCB - Regional Water Quality Control Board SG - Applicant's Supervising Geologist Page 7 City of Santa Clarita Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Via' _, ' +,!� :, , 'I Mrttgahon Measure/Conduron ofApprovaIs $�+� ,;.sae' TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION , Action Re cored v�f =`4(idMi(Initlal-°DatC, Momtorm to ......, Occur E � Monitoring icEre 9 Dfepnke Y s ri .:Responsrble-- }dAgen yo = Party 'r Com hanceYerrticattoo� h f T-1 The timing of the proposed project shall be conditioned Project occupancy delayed Prior to Once based on the timing of the proposed bridge improvements. until completion of bridge issuance of CDD improvements occupancy T4 A traffic signal as warranted should be installed for the Installation of traffic signal permits Prior to Once Sand Canyon and Lost Canyon Roads intersection by the and development of issuance of SES applicant. A reimbursement mechanism shall be created so reimbursement fund that future additional traffic will pay a fair share portion of the occupancy cost of this traffic signal. permits T-5 A traffic control plan shall be instituted for each spectator Submittal of a traffic control If and As needed BES golf tournament event that shall include at a minimum: plan at least two months prior whenever • the number of traffic to any spectator golf necessary control officers; tournament • the location and time period of control; • contingency plans for emergency vehicles; and • parking restrictions/controls on residential streets. T -9(a) A left tum lane shall be installed at the main site Installation of left tum lane Prior to Once entrance. and striping issuance of BES occupancy T -9(b) A left turn lane shall be striped on Sand Canyon Install left -tum striping on permits Prior to Once Road at the entrance to Live Oak Springs Canyon Road. Sand Canyon Road issuance of BES occupancy permits AESTHETICS AES -1(a) The applicant shall comply with the Hillside Plan Plan check to verify At final plan Once CDD Review/Permit Requirements as established in the Uniform compliance with design check Development Code. Any recommendations forthcoming requirements from the Community Development Director, as provided for BES in Section 17.89.030 of the Code shall be implemented. "- wnuimmty Devciopment Department OEM - Onsite Environmental Monitor DPW -Department of Public Works RWQCB - Regional Water Quality Control Board BES - Building and Engineering Services SG - Applicant's Supervising Geologist Page 8 City of Santa Clarita Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program SM a J1ltdgahon Measure/Condrtton of Approval r Action 12equtred M 'n- , g to Mon6rmg Responsible' k Compliance Verification Occur ' - Frequency 4 't ,Agen or : r ik t `�k `ta `r "r" `t@C''-ary &*7'� '{�'�",.. iG Y r x 6is .`w� .��� `u, r7Pa••J r.5k kt�. tFn �''. „. a -E"t �.c'�3 dna-r-rv.xwtk '%"t.�. =,,s k t �i t 4� �ia +�x4} F,-. u:�le,Ui�kk(g }.t.•I`t li`—s '"Ik I�,..!1 k¢ i.,,,. ilv`tr j'N t �,.3.. }.w,� yt i�Wi li{k �R��r Y '.ea Tnitiatt-.iDatet.u.,..:iCommeritsri,i` AES -1(b) If grading leads to exposure of low cohesion Covering of sandy soils with During Daily OEM sandy soils four feet or greater in height, slopes shall be jute matting or other BMPs construction protected with jute matting and landscaping tothe satisfaction of the City Engineer. AES -1(e) If grading leads to exposure of bedrock or hard- a. Submittal of final At final plan a. Once a. CDD pack soils which resist revegetation, landscaping shall be landscape design plan for check implemented through the excavation of plant holes in a approval BES random pattern with an average of five feet on center. Plantings shall come from the palette included in the City's b. Field check of landscape b. At b. Once b. OEM Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development installation completion of Ordinance or as otherwise approved for the site. landscaping AES -3(a) The maintenance facility shall be sided with a Submittal of architectural At final plan Once CDD material other than metal. Recommended materials for all or treatment for maintenance check part of the facade treatment include (a) wood in a board -and- facility and adjacent batten finish, or (b) stone masonry. The facility's design, landscaping to verify material, and color treatment shall complement the compliance with design clubhouse facility. The structure's rooffine and facades requirements. shall be articulated through the incorporation of gables, eaves, or windows. A landscaping plan for the area surrounding the maintenance facility shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval. It shall incorporate the plant palette used for the remainder of the development, and shall be oriented to provide dense screening from adjacent properties. AES -3(b) The large parking lot should be further reduced Plan check to verify At final plan Once CDD in size, with a greater number of parking spaces provided in compliance with design check the smaller lot. Alternatively, the total number of required requirements parking spaces should be reduced. AES -3(c) Residential development shall adhere to all Final design plan check to At final plan Once CDD applicable standards and guidelines of the Ridgeline verify compliance with check Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance, the design requirements Community Design Element of the General Plan, and the Sand Canyon Special Standards District to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. nry: CDD- Community Deveiopment Department DPW -Department of Public Works BES- Building and Engineering Services OEA1- Onsite Environmental Alonitor RWQCB - Regional Water Quality Control Board SG - Applicant's Supervising Geologist Page 9 City of Santa Clarita Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program o'va U = , Mitlgabon'Measur Condition of 4T" { ,., �� e1 ppr„ 1 ,i Action Re urged nit Monitonngto Mouitormg Itesponsr le- 4ComphaiiceVeritication:k+„r " gni , r a r; 4, h ?i i` n t Occur r' r, f regucnC A gnc ec kyr a.l. re f, j v ` 3i Pa t, k �11� _ Init aV ,Date ! Comments AES -4(2) Except for locations where the internal roadway Final design plan check for At final plan Once CDD . ., intersects with Sand Canyon Road, street lighting shall not be compliance with lighting check permitted. Bridges, signage, and clubhouse entryways may be requirements illuminated with discreet up -lighting. Signage and clubhouse entryways may also use back lighting. AES -4(b) Lighting of driving range shall be prohibited. Final design plan check for At final plan Once CDD (ALTERNATIVE: Lighting of driving range shall be limited compliance with lighting check to splash lightingfrom canted berm areas.) requirements AES -4(c) All lighting of clubhouse and maintenance Check of lighting standards Prior to Once OEM facilities shall be of an accent nature. Any security lighting after installation issuance of shall be screened such that lighting globes are not visible clubhouse from a distance of 20 feet. occupancy permit AES4(d) Parking lot lighting shall be limited to bollards a. Final design plan check a. At final a. Once a. CDD not to exceed four -feet in height. Trees and walkways may for compliance with design plan check be lighted with accent lighting. requirements. b. Check of lighting b. Prior to b. Once b. OEM standards after installation issuance of occupancy permit AES4(e) Parking lot perimeters shall be bermed to a a. Final design plan check a. At final a. Once a. CDD minimum of four feet in height to preclude spillage of for compliance with design plan check vehicle head -lighting off site. No berming is required in the requirements main parking lot for the perimeter adjoining the clubhouse b. Post -grading check of b. Prior to b. Once b. OEM and between the clubhouse and the access road. No berming berm heights parking lot is required for the small parking lot from the clubhouse paving and counterclockwise to the southeast comer. landscaping NOISE N -2(a) No more than two pieces of equipment should Field observations for During grading Daily OEM operate simultaneously within 200 feet of a residence during compliance during grading operations grading operations. N -2(b) Any internal haul roads for transporting fill material Field observations for During grading Daily OEM around the site shall be located a minimum of 500 feet from compliance during grading operations the nearest offsite residence. ___ __...... _....�-.-...., r.a....... ra... DPW -Department of Public Works BES - Building and Engineering Services GEM - Gusuc cnvironmemat monitor RWQCB - Regional Water Quality Control Board SG -Applicant's Supervising Geologist Page 10 City of Santa Clarita Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Though not required mitigation, the applicant shall prepare I Submittal of disclosure Prior to Once CDD -7- disclosure documents for distribution to prospective documents to the City for finalization of residential lot purchasers that identifies the presence of review and approval. Tract Map. mining uses in the Angeles National Forest to the east. Key: CDD -Community Development Department OEM- Onsite Environmental Monitor DPW -Department of Public Works RWQCB - Regional Water Quality Control Board BES- Building and Engineering Services SG • Applicant's Supervising Geologist Page 11 RESOLUTION NO. P96-21 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF OF REVISED MASTER CASE 95.049, PREZONE 95-001, ZONE CHANGE 95.001, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 52004, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95.003, HILLSIDE REVIEW 95-002, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 95-004 AND OAK TREE PERMIT 95.009 AND RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SC 95041049 TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 401 ACRE SITE WITH TWO 18 -HOLE GOLF COURSES, A 26,000 SQUARE FOOT CLUBHOUSE, A LIGHTED DRIVING RANGE, 400 PARKING SPACES, A MAINTENANCE FACILITY AND 73 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED GENERALLY EAST OF SAND CANYON ROAD, NORTH OF LIVE OAK SPRINGS CANYON ROAD, WEST OF THE ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND SOUTH OF OAK SPRING CANYON ROAD THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission does hereby make the following findings of fact: a. An application for Master Case 95-049 was filed by the Hunters Green Development Corporation (the applicant) with the City of Santa Clarita on March 15, 1995. The application proposed: a prezone to allow for City zoning on the southern 103.4 acres of the site from existing Los Angeles County A-1-2 (Light Agriculture - two acre minimum lot size) zoning to City of Santa Clarita RE - PD (Residential -Estate Planned Development) zoning•, a zone change to implement a PD (Planned Development) overlay on the site, including the allowance for a transfer of development rights on-site; a vesting tentative tract map to subdivide the 411 acre site into 83 single family residential lots, six golf course lots, one maintenance yard lot and one water tank lot; a conditional use permit for the construction and operation of a golf course, clustering of the residential lots, and implementation of the PD overlay; an oak tree permit to allow for the removal of up to 138 scrub oak trees and 130 coast live oak trees (including seven heritage size trees); a hillside review to allow for development of a hillside property, development on an identified secondary ridgeline, and designation of the project as an "innovative project" per the Hillside Ordinance; a development agreement; and review and certification of the focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the project. The assessor parcel numbers for the project are 2840-017-046, 2840-013-005, 2840-013-013, 2840-013-014, 2840-013-015, 2840-014-022, 2840-016-021, 2840-016-020, and 2841-001-017. b. The project site is the assemblage of four adjacent parcels. The northwest corner of the project site (approximately 17 acres) adjacent to Sand Canyon Road, has an approval for 10 single family residential lots (TTM 45418). The western to middle part of the project site includes the original Hunters Green Development (TTM 47324) which is approved for 70 single family residential lots. The square shaped, 160 acre parcel located at the northeast portion of the project site has an approval for 140 single family homes (TTM 47803). The fourth parcel is the triangular shaped area of approximately 103 acres located in the southeastern portion of the project site. This parcel is currently outside the City and is an unrecorded parcel of Griffin Homes Tract No. 46364 (a unit of Tract 32571). The 103 acre property was restricted by the County of Los Angeles to two single family residences. C. The General Plan designates the project site as RVL (Residential Very Low) and RE (Residential Estate). d. The project site is located in a hillside terrain with slopes in excess of 10%. The project site is bisected by a north/south trending identified secondary ridgeline. Development of this ridgeline is proposed. e. The City of Santa Clarita prepared an Initial Study for the project on March 28; 1995, which determined that the project may have a significant effect on the environment and that a focused environmental impact report must be prepared. The City later revised the Initial Study on September. 21, 1995, and distributed the revised document with the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). f. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the proposed project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The EIR identifies unavoidable adverse impacts to air quality, biology, aesthetics, and noise during site development. g. The Environmental Impact Report was circulated for review and comment by the affected governmental agencies and all comments received have been considered. The review period was from September 29, 1995 to November 13, 1995. h. During the public hearings conducted on the initial project, the Planning Commission redesigned the plan to include the following: 1) The maintenance facility has been relocated from a site near the Graceton Drive residential area to a site near the Mountain Course's Hole No. 13. 2) The number of residential lots has been reduced from 83 to 73: The applicant has eliminated all of the flag lots and ten lots located south of the future connection of Live Oak Springs Canyon Road. 3) The driving range has been relocated from the property line near the Graceton Drive neighborhood to a location approximately 120 feet from 2 this property line, at the hitting area, and approximately 310 feet from the property line at the northern terminus of the range. Additionally, the driving range has been canted in a northeast direction which is away from existing single family residences. The nearest home would be northwest of the driving range at a distance of approximately 300 feet. 4) The larger parking lot (northwest of the clubhouse) has been set back 250 feet from the nearest property line. The original proposal had this parking lot set back 100 feet from the property line. This action resulted in the relocation of parking spaces from this lot to the southern lot. 5) The tee area for Hole No. 1 on the Mountain Course. has been shifted an additional 50 feet south and away from the nearest property line. The hole has also been redesigned and canted toward the south and away from the residential neighborhood on Graceton Drive. 6) An eight foot tall landscaped berm has been placed directly adjacent to the tee area on Hole No. 1 to provide an additional safety measure and buffer from residences in the Graceton Drive area. An 11 foot tall landscaped berm has been placed adjacent to the western portion of the tee area of the driving range to provide an additional safety measure and buffer from residences located near the western property line. A ten foot tall landscaped berm has been placed adjacent to the northern parking lot to screen the parking lot from residents in the Graceton Drive area. Mature landscaping is proposed in all of these bermed areas. 7) The revised project includes the extension of water mainline, including fire hydrants, north from the interior of the project site to the realigned Oak Spring Canyon Road and west to Comet Way and east to the Angeles National Forest. All intersecting streets within this area shall also be served. I. The project includes an extension of water and sewer service to the project site. Other utilities will also be extended to the site. The P. W. Gillibrand Company conducts mining operations in the Angeles National Forest immediately east of the project site. Mineral extraction conducted in this area includes mining for ilmenite, apatite, zircon, magnetite, and sand and gravel. Sand and gravel excavation is presently occurring in the Oak Spring Canyon area. approximately 1,000 feet from the project boundary. Sand and gravel excavation has occurred in the Rabbit Canyon area, which is as close as 200' from the project boundary. Excavation and open pit mining is scheduled to occur in the Oak Spring Canyon annex area which is over 3,000 feet from the project site. k. During the development and approval of its 1991 General Plan the City did not consider mining and extraction uses as appropriate to the project site when it was designated for development as Residential Estate and Residential Very Low. The City's Land Use Element contains a specific Mineral/Oil Conservation Area overlay designation that is intended to permit the continuation of mineral extraction and oil uses. While the overlay was placed on the sand and gravel deposits in the Santa Clara River north of the site and the existing mining operations to the northeast of the site, the overlay was not designated for this project site. 1. Oak Spring Canyon contains alluvial sand and gravel deposits that have been designated as MRZ-2 (areas where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present or where it is judged that a high likelihood for their presence exists) by the California Division of Mines and Geology. Portions of the project site are within this State designated area. Establishment of this sector in no way infringes on the authority of local government that is charged with the responsibility of making land use decisions. Public Resources Code Section 2763 (a) does require the local jurisdiction to consider the importance of these minerals and cite specific reasons for permitting a proposed land use in these designated areas. In. Goal 6 of the Open Space Element of the General Plan provides several policies related to mineral resource areas. In summary, the plan encourages the use of buffer areas between residential uses and mineral extraction areas. The project proposes to buffer residential uses from the mining operation with portions of the golf course and open space. n. The City's Hillside Ordinance (Section 17.80) of the Unified Development Code identifies significant ridgelines in the City and restricts development on property having average slopes over 10%. Development upon secondary ridgelines is permissible for innovative design applications. The Innovative Applications section of the Ordinance provides for the following: To recognize that decisions may need to be made in individual developments to balance achievement of the City's General Plan goals, and to encourage innovation and creativity for projects of high quality, although they do not meet all of the precise conditions of the ordinance, there are alternative vehicles for permit processing. A Planned Development is one of these vehicles. The ordinance also states that innovative developments may include recreation type projects. o. The purpose of the Planned Development (PD) Overlay zone regulations are intended to accomplish the following: 1) Facilitate development of areas designated on the Zoning Map or proposed for rezoning by permitting greater flexibility and, consequently, more creative and imaginative designs for the development of such areas than generally is possible under conventional zoning regulations. 2) To promote more economical and efficient use of the land while providing a harmonious variety of choices, a higher level of amenities, and preservation of natural and scenic qualities of open space. 3) Ensure that development conforms to plans and exhibits submitted by the applicant for a zone change in instances where such plans and exhibits constitute a critical factor in the decision to rezone. P. The project proposes clustering of the residential lots and the transferring of development rights from unencumbered northern portions of the project site to the encumbered southeast portion of the project site. The General Plan encourages the concepts of clustering and transferring of development rights as follows: 1) Goal 1, Policy 1.3 of the Open Space Element states: Incorporate standards for clustered development to minimize the disruption of natural resources and major physiographic features. 2) Paragraph 7 of page OS - 34 states: Transfer of development rights as a means of preserving significant areas of sensitive flora and fauna. q. The applicant is proposing private streets within the development. r. The City of Santa Clarita Development Review Committee met and supplied the applicant with draft conditions of approval. S. At a minimum, the project would preserve 759 oak trees, of which 82 would be of heritage size. The applicant is also proposing to transplant 45 of the 130 coast live oak trees slated for removal. Finally, the project includes revegetation of the site, including the planting of over 1,000 small oak trees on- site. t. A duly noticed pubic hearing was held by the Planning Commission on October 3, 1995, at 7:00 p.m. at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. At this meeting, the Planning Commission directed staff and the applicant to address certain issues related to the project. These issues includes circulation, easements, water use, oak impacts, land use conflicts, economic viability, potential for groundwater contamination and project grading. At the conclusion of this meeting, the Planning Commission continued the item to October 26, 1995, at the project site. U. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on October 26, 1995, at the project site. At this meeting, the Commission toured the project site and continued the item to the regular Planning Commission meeting of November 21, 1995. V. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on November 21, 1995, at 7:00 p.m. at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. At this meeting, the Commission directed staff to provide additional information related to certain issues cited by the Commission. At the conclusion of this meeting, the Commission continued the item to the regular Planning Commission meeting of December 19, 1995. W. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on December 19, 1995, at 7:00 p.m. at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. Prior to re -opening the hearing, staff recommended that the Commission continue the item to the January 16, 1996, meeting to allow staff more time to address issues brought forth by the Commission. The Commission followed staffs recommendation and continued the item. X. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on January 16, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. At this meeting, the Commission took additional testimony on the project and continued the item to the regular Commission meeting of February 6, 1996, informing the applicant, staff, and the public that the Commission would begin the next meeting on the project where they left off with Commission deliberation and questions. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on February 6, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. At this meeting, the Commission deliberated and asked questions of staff and the applicant. At the conclusion of this hearing, the Commission continued the item to the February 20, 1996, directing the applicant to revise the site plan to reflect all of the modifications to date and directed staff to prepare draft conditions of approval, draft mitigation monitoring and reporting program, and a draft resolution for the Commission's consideration at the February 20, 1996, meeting. Z. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on February 20, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. At this meeting, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution P96-08 recommending approval of Master Case 95-049 to the City Council. The Commission also recommended certification of the EIR prepared for the project, including the adoption of a statement of overriding considerations. aa. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on March 25, 1996, at 6:30 p.m. at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. Prior to this meeting, the applicant informed staff that the owner of a 17 acre property included within the project site had removed the property from the project. At this meeting, the City Council heard testimony on the project and continued the project to a special Council meeting on April 20, 1996, at the project site. bb. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on April 20, 1996, at 9:00 a.m. at 16095-A Live Oak Spring Canyon Road, Santa Clarita. At this meeting, the City Council conducted a site tour of the project and continued the item to a date uncertain to allow the applicant to prepare revised project plans for City review and for staff to update the EIR prepared for the project. CC. A Revised Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the revised project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The revised document has been modified to include: the withdrawal of a 17 -acre portion of the project site and its replacement with a nearby seven acre property; a change in location of the project's primary access; and the proposed use of groundwater to supplement potable water being provided by the Santa Clarita Water Company. Other design elements associated with the revised project have not changed from the initial project. The Revised EIR. also includes additional noise measurements and a separate land use section. Most of the environmental issues associated with the revised project have remained unchanged from the initial project. The Revised EIR identifies unavoidable adverse impacts to air quality, biology, aesthetics, and noise during site development. dd. The.Revised Environmental Impact Report has been circulated for review and comment by the affected governmental agencies and individuals and all comments received have been considered. The review period was from June 25, 1996 to July 24, 1996. ee. At the regular City Council meeting of June 11, 1996, the City Council referred Revised Master Case 95-049 back to the Planning Commission for review of the revised project. ff. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on July 16, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. at- the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. At this meeting, the Commission reviewed the revised project and the Revised EIR. and directed the applicant to make certain modifications to the project. These modifications include the prohibition of the use of water wells on-site to irrigate the project and the redesign of the residential element of the revised project to reflect the initial Commission - supported project. The Commission also directed staff to return with a revised resolution and conditions of approval for the project. gg. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on July 30, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. SECTION 2. Based upon the above findings of fact, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearing held for the project, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission and on its behalf, the Planning Commission further finds as follows: a. At the above referenced hearings the Planning Commission considered staff presentations, staff reports, applicant presentations, and public testimony on the project. The Commission also considered the Draft EIR prepared for the initial project and the Revised EIR prepared for the revised project. b. Development may be allowed on the identified secondary-ridgeline and on slopes in excess of 10% because: 1) The project is considered innovative and of high quality, although it does not meet all of the precise conditions of the Hillside Ordinance. 2) Although the project will be visible, the use or development will not be materially detrimental to the visual character of the neighborhood or community, nor will it endanger public health. 3) The proposed use is proper in relation to adjacent uses, the development of the community and the various goals and policies of the General Plan. 4) The appearance of the use or development will not be different than the appearance of adjoining ridgeline areas so as to cause depreciation of the ridgeline appearance in the vicinity. 5) The establishment of the proposed use or development will not impede the normal and orderly development or improvement of surrounding property, nor encourage inappropriate encroachments to the ridgeline area. 6) It has been demonstrated that the proposed use or development will not violate the visual integrity of the significant ridgeline area. C. The design of the subdivision/project and the type of improvements will not cause serious public health problems, since water, sewage disposal, and fire protection are addressed in the conditions of approval and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The project is required to dedicate sufficient area (approximately six acres) to allow for the construction of a debris basin on the property. This debris basin and appurtenant facilities are of significant benefit to the Sand Canyon area. d. The project complies with the findings, requirements and performance standards of the Planned Development (PD) overlay zone. The project is consistent with the purpose of the PD overlay zone. e. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan. The City's General Plan designation for the site is RE and RUL. The project complies with the City's Unified Development Code and with the intent of the Sand Canyon Special Standards. g. An adequate buffer between the residential lots and mining operation is provided with the revised project. The EIR finds that no significant noise impact would result from the proposed project's location near the mining operation. However, the document states that there is a potential for annoyance to future residents. Based upon this, a condition has been included requiring the City to review and approve disclosure documents provided to these residents. h. Future residents would be buffered from visual impacts created by on-going and future mining activities on the nearby property due to distance between the mining area and the future residences and by the location of portions of the golf course between the two land uses. i. Benefits of the project include: the provision of a recreational facility, the provision of equestrian trails, the improvement of Oak Spring Canyon Road on the property, and the provision of significant circulation and flood protection improvements in conjunction with the project. j. The Revised Environmental Impact Report identifies certain significant environmental effects. The Revised Environmental Impact Report identifies feasible mitigation measures for each of these impacts with the exclusion of air quality, biology, aesthetics and noise during site development. The identified mitigation measures have been incorporated into the conditions of approval. SECTION 3. The City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the environmental information contained in the Draft Final Environmental Impact Report, and determines that it is in.compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Based upon the findings stated, the Planning Commission hereby recommends certification of the Revised Environmental Impact Report for Master Case 95-049. The Planning Commission finds that the unavoidable environmental impacts of the project are acceptable when balanced against the benefits of the project. This determination is made based upon the following factors and public benefits. The factors are as follows: . a. The project provides a significant recreational facility in the Canyon Country area of the City. b. The project includes the dedication of land for the construction of a debris basin and appurtenant facilities. C. The project would preserve approximately 300 acres of land into perpetuity as recreational/open space. d. The annexation of a portion of the site will benefit the City of Santa Clarita by extending local government and control. e. The widening of Sand Canyon Road, over the Santa Clara River, and the installation of a traffic signal at Lost Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road are requirements of the project, and substantial benefits to the Sand Canyon area. f. The project includes the realignment, improvement and maintenance of Oak Spring Canyon Road on the project site. g. The project includes the dedication and construction of multi-purpose trails through the project site. SECTION 4. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: a. A Revised Environmental Impact Report, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan and Statement of Overriding Considerations have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. b. With the inclusion of mitigation measures and conditions of approval the Planning Commission believes that the revised project would not adversely affect the health, peace, comfort or welfare of persons residing in the area; nor be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment or valuation of property in the vicinity of the project site; nor jeopardize, endanger, or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety, or general welfare. A recommended condition of approval prohibits the locating of water wells on-site to irrigate the golf course. Another condition requires the locating of groundwater monitoring wells on the project site. C. The project is compatible with existing development in the area, consistent with the General Plan and Zoning with Council approval of a Planned Development overlay and conditional use permit. d. The applicant has substantiated the findings for an innovative design application for development of a secondary ridgeline and for development on hillsides in excess of 10%. all e. The applicant has substantiated the findings for recommending approval of a prezone, zone change, vesting tentative tract map, oak tree permit, conditional use permit and hillside review to the City Council. £ In compliance with Public Resources Code Section 2763 (a), the Planning Commission has balanced the regional mineral values of the site against the alternative land use, and considered the importance of these minerals to the market region as a whole and finds that the benefits of the project, as set forth in this document, outweigh use of the site for mineral extraction. In addition, the project, as revised, will not threaten the potential to extract minerals in the area, specifically the nearby mining operation. A buffer comprised of portions of the golf course and open space, is provided between the proposed residential uses and the mining operation. SECTION 5. The Planning Commission recommends approval of Revised Master Case 95-049 (Prezone 95-001, Zone Change 95-001, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 52004, Conditional Use Permit 95-003, Hillside Review 95-002, Development Review 95-004, Oak Tree Permit 95-009) , and recommends certification of the Revised EIR (SC 95041049) prepared for the project to the City Council. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 30f4 day of Secretary, Planning Commission 11 vnsley, Chairperson Commission STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) § CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Donna M. Grindey, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 30th day of July, 1996 by the following vote of the Planning Commission: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BRATHWAITE, CHERRINGTON, DOUGHMAN AND MODUGNO NOES: COMMISSIONERS: TOWNSLEY ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE p1ng\res96.21.gea 12 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA.CLARITA Tuesday July 16, 1996 7.00 P.M. ITEM 3 REVISED MASTER CASE NUM CHANGE 95-001, VESTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 95 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT RI The ' staff report was given by Glenn Adamick, A- E correspondence received after the Commission packet was' approved by the Planning Commission in February of 1996. the development of a 401 acre site with 76 single: family re club house, splash lighted driving range and three parkin the environmental issues associated with, -..the protect ha'N initial project. Mr. Adamick stated staffs hope the project revisions rather th discussed. Mr. Adamick turned Consultants, the City's enviro Mr. V (EIR). the W 95.001, ZONE date;, Planner. He reviewed :livered.. The initial project was Phe revised project now includes dentia lots; two golf courses, a lots. Mr Adamick said most of remained unchanged from the eting and any future meetings was to focus on kmany of the issues that have already been over to;r. Duane Vander Pluym from Rincon ltant on'this project. r1' nff changes to the Environmental Impact Report the revisions to the EIR was that the landholdings for A brief slide presentation was p"n by Mr. Adamick. The revised project proposes developmentof the sit: with 76 single family residential lots. The minimum lot size would remain dt`14,000 square feet :The revised project lowers the grade of the residential pads located- in the northeast reSzdential area. It is approximately 20 feet lower than the previous project. The west central area of the project is approximately 60 feet lower. Mr. Adamick sq "the southeast porkion is higher than the previous proposal made in order to make the couxi6ction to Live Oak Springs Canyon Road. Staff has a concern with these lots and is recommending then iie eliminated. said the total project grading would remain unchanged. The applicant is still I rade 2.2 million cubic yards of dirt, balanced on site. Mr. Altmayer addressed the legal issues concerning well water usage. He spoke on the issue of whether the property owner has the right to use well water. Mr. Altmayer said under California law they have certain riparian rights which means they have the same right to use the well water under their property as other property owners in the area, subject to equitable sharing with the other property owners. Mr. Adamick said the City has the ability to restrict the use of groundwater. He said certain thresholds would be established. In a dry year, no water would be allowed to be pulled. Mr. Adamick also addressed the issues of noise testing and water testing. He.,suggested a condition be added that after water testing has been done and the characteristcs'of the basin have been established, if an impact is determined, the applicant tgould be : Lgated to get water to everyone, including laterals, connection costs; etc. Mr. Adamick'said noise testing has been done by staff and the environmental consultant The noise lsvpls: were well below the City's maximum noise standards. Commissioner Brathwaite asked how the rate of raidall is dot erinmed.Mr Adam said it is from the current year. Mr. Adamick also answered questions regarding 4 testing of the well water. and the length of the testing. Commissioner Doughman asked where the moi the anticipated underground water flows. Mr. be the one in Oak Spring Canyon. Commissioi be proper safeguards in place to protect the::xs Commissioner Modugno asked if staff had conve Company. He said it would have made'sense ta: is company and explore the possibility tf transferrin; and then have the water company establish and de Adamick addressed the issue. .He said staffhas not something that could be looked at. The Public Heirxng C.A located and what were .:;important well would 81e sure there would rid contamination. with'the Santa Clarita Water l.me negotiations with the water ter rights to the water company what credit would be given. Mr. approached this issue but it was t,Drive, Suite 268, Laguna Niguel. Mr. Robinson is the Deus on the changes that have been made on the project, change and the oak. tree impact which he said will stay ud one of the negatives was the loss of revenue with the the positives are significant. There is a greater entry x, the drainage solution is much more elegant and there also spode about the modifications in the residential lot configurations. He said ons;cie about through discussions with the Gillibrand Corporation regarding a Mr. Robinson said staff has recommended 73 lots but he is requesting 76. Mrr Mbifisoh spoke next on the water issues. He acknowledged that the well users on Oak Springs Canyon Road are against placing wells on the project site because they feel it would diminish their water supply. Mr. Robinson stated the Santa Clarita Water Company at one point also did not want them to drill, they wanted the applicant to put in the infrastructure and use their water. Mr. Robinson reviewed some of the costs involved with the project. He 2 shared some of the costs associated with water on the project. To establish the backbone system and put in the storage system as proposed by the Santa Clarita Water Company is 2.1 million dollars. The added cost of putting in the backbone. system between Comet Way and the Angeles Crest Forest is about $460,000.00. He said as a result of the increase of the fee structure for Castaic Lake Water Agency, their fees would be over 7 million dollars. For every gallon of water that the applicant generates in and of their own right, they do not have to pay a fee to the Castaic Lake Water Agency. Mr. Robinson said they would develop the Sand Canyon extent they could and they would develop the Oak Springs of equilibrium. R! Chairperson Townsley read the names of individuE they were in favor of the project, but did not wish Those speaking in favor of the project were: Marc Aronson, 26153 Las Lanas Ct., Santa Santa Clarita Chamber of Commerce. He community and improve the perception of Q Dennis Ostrom, 16430 Sultus Street, Santa Cl -t Canyon Homeowners Association. Mariyj&eti the residents' votes have been in favoi of this support the golf course. the greatest to the extent is the president of the ld be beneficial to the the president of the Sand regarding this project and in said they very strongly Connie Worden-Roberts, 27075 Littlefield Drive, Santa Clarita. Ms. Roberts was speaking on behalf of the Valencia Industrial Assaciation..: She stated the project is sensitive to the environmentjnnd adds a recreational e1F;zz�e0for:the City. Bob Ke110,,26166. Ravenhi!L, S9nta Clarita. Mr. Kellar felt the golf course was a great opportunity far the City He said It would give balance to the community and be an economic stimulant. Jennifer IOiiiardo, 1'9970 Av nue of the Oaks, Santa Clarita. Ms. Dinardo was representing the lodging establishrients tnthe valley. She said this project would encourage long term stays at local lodging eatabl"Atnents. Isacksen, 15657;Aronco Drive, Santa Clarita. He felt this project would bring a terrific nt to Canyon Country and he urged the Commission to support the project. Burkhart, X4601 Wayman Street, Santa Clarita. He said this project would add a nn.compvuent to the area and would be an amenity that serves many. other economic ip "ii issues. Mr. Burkhart said the project would attract high-end business. Steve Saylor, 28674 Kathleen Avenue, Santa Clarita. He felt the area could use a golf course and did not think the project would hamper the values of homes in the area. George Pederson, 26090 Belles Drive, Santa Clarita. Mr. Pederson felt this was a good project and that the two golf courses were needed for the community. Howard Tanner, 15880 Falconrim Drive, Santa Clarita. Mr. Tanner felt this project would add to the beauty and prestige of the Sand Canyon area. Those speaking in opposition of the project were: John Newton, 165 High Street, Suite 103, Moorpark, Mr. Newton represents the P. W. Gillibrand Company. He spoke about the visual aspects, -of the resed,project. He said if some berming were done along with proper landscaping,., O%d entire Wk Spring annex would be screened. He spoke about removing and relocating same of homes that cwero, on the Grifl"iii parcel. He said this was anon -buildable area and a xriining buffer zone 1VIr.:Newton.lso mentioned the disclosure element. Philip Drescher, 77 County Square Drive, Suite 2101,V J t46. Mr. Drescher is an attorney representing Mr. Gillibrand and his company. He Slid although the project has been modified, the problems they are concerned with stillremu He`I''said they do not object to the golf course, they object to the design of the project. He also spoke:about the water issue. Timothy Ben Boydston, 19623 Green M issue and the design of the project. His He requested the Commission add a con the driving range would be moved. Lynne Plambeck, P. O. Box SCOPE. Ms. Plambeck req days. She also spoke on th£ Allen Pei impact d not been s 'He spoke on the water for to the driving range. to his parents' property, lambeck was speaking on behalf of the EIR be extended from 30 to 45 r Clarita. He spoke about toxic chemicals and the He felt an adequate study on toxic chemicals had Ian Hill, 28316.0,9 Spnrigs Canya :*R* d, Santa Clarita. He said he is concerned about the water that will be runupof,the project. He felt this was inadequately covered in the EIR Mr. Hillis also concbhWi ahaut high density housing. He felt one-third acre lots were inadequate. Mr. Hill Spoke about equestrian trail safety particularly along the northern boundary of the project17 Dors;Boydston, 27875'Oak Spring Canyon Road, Santa Clarita. Ms. Boydston spoke about O.W.water issue She hoped a study would be done on the hydrology before this project is Eoved She presented the Commission with a petition of people who would like to have x1.t��slon `the response time for the EIR. Ruth Kelley, 27500 Oak Spring Canyon Road., Santa Clarita. She is concerned about what provisions have been made with reference to the flood waters that come past her home during heavy rains. She requested a delay in approving the project until a map showing the drainage has been added to the EIR and studied. Janet Feeder, 27873 Oak Spring Canyon Road, Santa Clarita. She indicated to the Commission the location of a test well on her property. Ms. Feeder is concerned with the diminishing water supply. She invited the Commission to test her well to see the levels of purity and flow. Ms. Feeder said emergency access needs to be addressed. Craig Feeder, 27873 Oak Spring Canyon Road, Santa Clarita. Mr. Feeder made comments regarding the EIR. He felt there were errors regarding the total water supply in, Oak Springs Canyon. He also spoke about the Hillside Ordinance, the P. A. system and trdT"access. Mr. Feeder said until you know what the water laws are, the Commissiou should be cautious in approving anything that has to do with water. David Morris, 26616 Sand Canyon Road, Santa C the water issues and the wells. He stated he is T. J. Glazier, 27522 Oak Spring Canyon Road, Cai Commission with a packet of information he gat] issues. He said water cannot be brought to them requested that Supervisor Mike Antonovich be bro Sol Polen, 28250 Oak Spring Canyon Road, water situation. He said without water, concerns that had to be addressed before.tl Tim Tindell, 28229 Oak Springs he has a problem with it having doing well now and they will go voiced his concern about uestici Richard on the is George Gruber, 2' first moved to the gallons per minute to his resid, f The water"issue is making general the the his Mr. Glazier.,vresdhted the concerned with the water ,reside in the County. He i.their concerns. concerned with the He felt there were Ie is against the. golf course because [e"said the wells in the area are not s wells on the project property. He water. Santa Clarita. Mr. Cunningham spoke Oak Sp p Canyon, Canyon Country. Mr. Gruber stated when he I, his well was 340 feet deep and he was getting approximately 12 day,. he gets one gallon per minute. He has to have water trucked in als. hey will^not have any water if the golf course is allowed to drill. F sent�us, co. minents on the project were: '. 0. Box 800520, Santa Clarita. Ms.. Harris spoke on behalf of the iservancy. She said the conservancy has met with the applicant and nt. They would like the oak tree removal minimized. Mark Hanson, 27944 Graceton Drive, Santa Clarita. He said many issues have been brought up by residents that need to be addressed such as the wells, testing and flood waters. He thought that Los Angeles.County Flood Control should become involved. Linda Harrel, 27512-1/2 Oak Springs Canyon Road, Canyon Country. Ms. Harrel said there are approximately 14 families that live by the National Forest and they are all on wells. She said many of her neighbors have had problems with their wells. She urged the Commission to get the complete facts before any decision is made on the project. Patty Sword, 28304 Oak Spring Canyon Road, Santa Clarita. Ms. Sword stated her concern is water. She would like to have what the Oak Spring Canyon people can expect in writing. She stated that if her family were to hook up to the water trunk line the cost would be approximately $30,000.00 and they cannot afford this. Ted Robinson, the applicant, was given an opportunity to were brought up by the other speakers. He spoke about t.. Agency and the water issues. He said the site will bo to what is there. Mr. Robinson acknowledged there: is' a However, he said many people have a problem with thair the project site.. He said they will try to solve the wateri'1 project. Commissioner Doughman wanted to know how N depleting the water supply for the residents. Mr. to assess the situation and the results of the test City could hire an independent third party,t ram Mr. Adamick said he could get t up with parameters and draft a will be studied, how it would be so the issues that Sic Lake Water letner or noc rney CZnit on of those imp"d' by this if the golf course is tants could be hired ed to the City. The Jiconsultant and try to come what will be studied, how it is impacted. Commissioner Brathwaite asked Rbout Mr. Penrose's. edaim about golf balls on the property. Mr. Robinson said there is..a condition in the initial:approval by the Commission that says if there is a problem, the appllCant is r;quired $. solve it. Chairperson Townsley asked if some sort of tune limit could be placed on. thus condition so if there was a problem, it would be taken care df im,,a timely mftnner. Mr. Robinson said he would be agreeable to this. CommissionerRrathwaite als&ztiq�ur ,d'about the P.A. system. Mr. Robinson said there is a condition in the ex st7 g. approv & hat addressed this problem. Mr. Robinson said the system W. d: be poizsted &way from homes. fssioner Modugno said, he is terribly concerned about the water issues associated with oject, fee structures and the economic viability. He asked Mr. Robinson if any attempt en made to discuss the problem with the Castaic Lake Water Agency, Santa Clarita Company andl.t., residents to see if a long term permanent solution could be reached. binson saidt}ey would be more than willing to do this. Coininissionor+Brathwaite asked what the response was from the water purveyors to this projset Mr. Adamick said Santa Clarita Water Company indicated they would be able to provide water to the project. Chairperson Townsley asked what the cost would be to have the homes in the project area hooked up to Santa Clarita Water Company. Mr. Robinson said the figure would be far less 0 than the Castaic Lake Water Agency figure of $7 million. Commissioner Brathwaite had questions regarding the oak trees on the project. Said questions were answered by.Mr. Robinson. Commissioner Cherrington asked for clarification regarding the oak trees at the entry way of the project. Clarification was given by Mr. Robinson. Commissioner Modugno felt there were a number of aspects which such as. bonds or working more closely with Castaic Lake Water Al Company and some of the residents. He did not see how no issu the July 30, 1996 Commission Meeting. AV - Commissioner Modugno suggested going back to thdoriginal'plan ar, project so there would be no use of groundwater whatsoever,d the test to monitor quality. Mr. Adamick said staff could discuss matters .wit language where drilling would not be prohibited, before approval is given. been explored Clarita Water the only and come up with :s will be required Mr. Robinson wanted to be sure that they woul&ha`: the right ta'do the studies and test drill in order to give the Commission the 'information they, axe.equesting. Chairperson Townsley directed staff to put "the resolufion together and be sure that everything is in writing. Mr. Lambert asked the Comriission if there were'any other issues that staff needed to research. T e Commission r Mated they also heeded more information on how many homes therewould be, the locattan of some of the homes, the additional grading, and the possibility of a sin2koeVolf•eriarse_ Commissioners hen#ngton aril Dougaman commented on the reduction of the size of some of the lots. Gomm. ssioner :Dougbman`'said he liked the size of the lots on the original plan. Mr. AdamiCl'in' (he ate[1 that hp believed the applicant would not mind going back to the old plan on*a `conceptual basis he will be looking for a specific prohibition for gating on the equested an extension of time to respond to the EIR. After a discussion and staff, said request was denied. Commissinaer Modugno made a motion to continue the hearing to July 30, 1996. Said motion was seconded by Commissioner Brathwaite and carried by a vote of 5-0. 7 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Tuesday July 30, 1996 7:00 P.M. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 1 REVISED MASTER CASE NUM CHANGE 95-001, VESTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 95 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT R1 The staff report was given by Glenn A( correspondence -received after the Commission were the water issues, oak trees and the Hill: The Commission last heard this item complete certain modifications to the water wells to irrigate the project. The design of the residential element of_tt project. Mr. Adamick said the apphe The modified plan in( similar to.the initial square feet a to 3 a Mr. Adamicl They includ extension of TREE "Assocdate,.,Planner. He reviewed was distxibWWz<Some of the concerns the,japplicant was directed to rvbition of the use of on-site ted the applicant to modify the initial Commission supported modifications are acceptable. residential lots and the design is very Lot sizes would range from 14,000 that the Commission would be interested in. ent plans, prohibition of on-site wells, and Commissioner Cherringtoa Asked why the City did not want the streets to be public streets. Mr. Adamick said part of tbe'ssue was that in Sand Canyon they have the Sand Canyon Special Standards and those standards allow for streets at a minimum and they don't necessarily have to meet City standards. He said the main project drive would be a street thatioes not meet City standards in that it would not be wide enough to be a public street. CLioaozrin er Chemngton had several other questions regarding various conditions which were aWwered'bv Mr. Adamick. Commissioner Cherrington said there were four conditions that would prevent him from voting for approval of this project. The first was on page 12, Section 2 (i) and it reads "Benefits of the project include the preservation of a minimum of 759 oak trees." He said he found it difficult to consider this a benefit since there would be removal of 130 Coastal Live Oaks, 7 Heritage Oaks, and 138 Scrub Oaks. Mr. Adamick said if the Commission wished, this language could be removed. It was the consensus of the Commission that this language be removed. Page 13, Section 3 (f) dealt with jobs. Commissioner Cherrington felt that most of the jobs would be filled by people who typically could not afford to live in the community and it would not be a benefit.. Mr. Adamick said this could be taken out also. Page 13, Section 4 (b) stated "The revised project will not adversely affect tlie`health, peace, comfort or welfare of persons residing in the area nor be,materiall detrimental to the use, enjoyment or valuation of property in the vicinity of tle proleCommissioner Cherrington said he was not prepared to put his nam6`on a document il'at,,certifies this project will not adversely affect the health, peace, comfort or welfare of.itoxesidents. He felt there was considerable evidence that the danger is onormous "IIe asked 41 Scaul3 be modified to read "probably won't" or "in our best judgmeut will not" or "does not seem to". Mr. Adamick said a sentence could be added stating ,"With -..the imposition of mitigation measures and conditions, it appears that the project will conform;..with the necessary findings for granting a conditional use permit". Page 14, Section 4 (f) the last sentence reads "fix adequate bixffer%:camprised of portions of the golf course and open space is provided betivzeri'the,,proposed residential uses and the mining operations". Commissioner Cherzan'gton said iffils something that is contested and argued very well in Mr. John Newton'sletter to theomivassron. He felt there was not an adequate buffer. Commissioner Cherrm' ' on said' he would prefer to say "a buffer comprised of portions of the golf course...." Mr Adamick said the word adequate could be removed. Chairperson Townsley asked for clarificatian as to whenithe mining operation started in the morning (page 29 - attachment2): Mr.John Newton; a representative for Gillibrand Mining Company, stated the time was approximately 6.,to 6:30 a.m. Chairperson Townsley asked that the sueciiie. times 1b9,11 e . With referen o to page 26, item iO4, chairperson Townsley said she would like to add that if the applicant eoniuS back to use wells, the applicant would. provide full connection to municipal water fortkg,residents that would be affected. Commissioner Doughman asked how would you de' fine;;wluch:residents were affected. He asked what the boundaries would be. Chaiiperson Townsley s.. the way to the Angeles Forest. Commissioner Doughman said lie`could not agree with.this. He said he would have to have limits. mbert said ananalysis could be done to determine where the impacted property were. Conimssioner Doughman.was asked if the words "impacted property" were ould he agr to the added condition. He said yes. Ted'Robanson Jr, spoke briefly on the project. He addressed Commissioner Cherrington's comifid nt regarding.jobs. He said the project will employ approximately 60 people. Half will be maintenance and the other half would be clubhouse personnel. He expects most of the clubhouse.jobs to be local. Those speaking in opposition to the project were: 2 Linda Hanson, 27944 Graceton Drive, Santa Clarita. Ms. Hanson said she is concerned about the quantity and quality of water. She is also concerned about water drainage and roads. George Gruber, 27563 Oak Spring Canyon Road, Canyon Country. He said he would like a list made of the 51 homeowners in the area who are dependent upon wells for their water supply. Allen Penrose, 27920 Graceton Drive, Santa Clarita. He said the i given a good name to the City of Santa Clarita. He mentioned the who are known throughout the country. Mr. Penrose said he. signatures that would support a one golf course scenario', Phil Drescher, 770 Country Square Drive, Ventura. Company. He said he has reviewed the conditions. 11 which pertains to the disclosure statement concerning thought it would be good to add a condition that the de lot a servitude, giving the mining company the right deed restriction recognizing the right of Gillibrand to; presently permitted. Eva Tindell, 28229 Oak Spring Canyon difficulties in having to depend upon a w, up to municipal water was $15,000 to $ area have in the area i with 100 y abput eond tion 74 inimt.bberation. He against each residential h residential lot with a its mining operation as .dell spoke about the quoted to her to hook Cindy Matern, 16108 Comet Way, Santa Clarita. Ms Matern was speaking in favor of the item. She said when she first heardabout this project she was concerned about the increase in traffic flow. She and her huSbQild have tiended many meeting regarding the project and they now support it. Ms Mattern believ &Ihisproj'ect would enhance the area and be an asset to the Community Mr. Robms4ri waa:.given a chanroo, or rebuttal. He addressed the issues brought up by Mr. Gruber and Mr. Drescher record that a letter was received from Richard ner Brathwaite asked for clarification on a comment made by Allen Penrose the loss of lzrses if the project goes through. Mr. Penrose explained to the n that there erre large horse ranches in the area and the golf course will squeeze le out of th'ef area. He said 95% of the trails would be lost. was closed at 7:56 p.m. Connms' Morier Modugno spoke about condition 55 with reference to private streets. He said he was troubled by any privately owned streets within the City because of past problems. He wanted to know why standards could not be waived to allow for public streets. Commissioner Modugno said he would like to see another solution around this. Commissioners Doughman and Brathwaite concurred. Chairperson Townsley asked who the owner of the road would be. Mr. Adamick said the homeowners association would own the road. Mr. Adamick said staff could concentrate on getting road dedication on the residential streets which meet our standards. Commissioner Modugno said he wanted•it on all roads. Mr. Adamick said from an engineering point of view, the golf course roads do not meet the standards. Chairperson Townsley asked Mr. Altmayer if there would be a liability issue if the City accepted a road that was less than the normal City requirements. Mr. Altmayer stated that prior to acceptance, the road would have to be brought up to City standard'.- Mr. Adamick said in the presentation to Council, staff could put in conditions4 roads would be dedicated and the applicant could pursue this at the Couricd meeting Commissioner Cherrington asked if the Commission public streets and then waive the standards the Cit incur any special liability. Mr. Altmayer said he would have to do some understanding that a City road had to meet City responsible for road design and any road design i problem. Mr. Altmayer said the short answer wou liability if the design of the road was such that i Mr. Altmayer also stated that the C standards set forth in Sand Canyon else in Sand Canyon. The Mr. Adamick stated a; and t they be built the a for W,,Cix cn;this matter. It was his lards He. said the City is always is less,thannormal is subject to a yes, the Gly could incur additional rd safety, i<e,>the width of the road. Is to be public based on the no different than any place xplainedovhy the road was developed the way own 611; of the roads within the area and there C,Wthe road for the golf course. He said the apkeep and repair of their roads. Mr. Robinson for their roads and the golf course would be wanted the roads to be public and not private. be added that the roads be dedicated as public streets Is of the Sand Canyon Special Standards District. Commissioner Cherrington said he is troubled by this project. He stated that this project is so important to the community, that the Commission has been asked to ignore many issues anti'ihese issues are of concern to him. He said he had grave reservations about the economic viabthty''of this project. Commissioner Cherrington said this is a public course wbiGh will prgbably be too pricey for most of the public in Santa Clarita. Commissioner Che nr eon'said if this project was approved, the Commission is saying the development rights are being transferred so that 2 million cubic yards of dirt can be moved to create a golf course. He also stated that the visual integrity of the ridgeline was being violated. He said he was troubled by the applicant's approach to the water issues. Commissioner Cherrington said he did want his name on this project, even if he votes for it. He stated he did not think 4 it was a good project and he did not think it was a good land use decision. Commissioner Brathwaite said the Commission operates on the basis of the better welfare of the community and for public good. He said after listening to both sides, he believes the Commission has struck a balance. He felt this project would work. Commissioner Doughman said he thought this project was better than having 200 homes added to the area. He still has some concerns and reservations about water;'quantity and quality. He said that he supports this project. A motion was made by ( approval of Master Case adding the caveats and attached Mitigation Mon Revised EIR, including th of a Ddugnoto adopt liesolution P96-21 recommending to the conditiW�is of approval, to the City Council, liseussed earlier; recommending adoption of the g.Piogram, Arid recommending certification of the tatement t 6verriding considerations. Said motion auWoarried by a vote of 4-1 with Chairperson Linda Townsley, Chairperson Planning Commission 5 i 1 Hunters Green Residential 1 Development and Golf Courg Comments and Responses on the Environmental Impact Report SCH #95041049 V A 7 � r Ro`H�EO IS OECEMBEA`9 TM i City of Santa Clarity . Community Development Department August 20, 1996 Comments and Responses Environmental Impact Report for Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course State Clearinghouse Number 95041049 Applicant: Hunters Green Development Corporation 16095-A Live Oak Springs Canyon Road Santa Clarita, California 91351 Prepared for: City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, California 91355 Contact: Glenn Adamick Telephone: 805/255-4330 Prepared by: Rincon Consultants, Inc. 790 East Santa Clara Street, Suite 103 Ventura, California 93001 1 August 20, 1996 I! I n� This report is printed on recycled paper. Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Comments and Responses COMMENTS AND RESPONSES This report contains all of the written comments received regarding the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) during the 30 day public review period of June 14, 1996, to July 24,1996. This report also contains written comments received after the close of the review period. Each comment received by the City has been included within this report. Responses to all comments have been prepared to address the concerns raised by the commentors and to indicate where and how the EIR addresses environmental issues. Where appropriate, changes that will be made in the Final EIR in response to these comments are indicated in the response. In addition, this report also contains the responses to comments on the initial EIR since several of the comments refer back to those previous comments. These earlier comments are contained as Appendix Gin this report, which is how they will be contained in the Final EIR This document in conjunction with the Revised Draft EIR constitutes the. Hearing Draft Final EIR to be presented to the City Council for certification prior to decisions on the proposed project. The Final EIR will contain the changes to the text of the EIR as recommended by City Council and this document and these responses will be contained as Appendix H of the Final EIR. The specific comments contained within any particular written letter has been numbered if not previously done in order to provide a reference to it in the response. Each letter is presented first, with the responses following. In some letters comments were numbered already, but in order to properly address the issues raised, they have been renumbered. A total of public agencies, organizations, and individuals prepared written comments on the Revised Draft EIR. They are listed below in the following order: state agencies, federal agencies, regional and county agencies, City agencies, and citizens. John Parrish, California Department of Conservation, State Mining and Geology Board Steve Buswell, Caltrans David Leininger, County of Los Angeles Fire Department Marie Pagenkopp, County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County Wendy Phillips, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region Santo Plescia, The Gas Company Patricia Berm Thomas Glazier Mark and Linda Hanson Ruth Kelley Nicholas Lamprakes Gwen Mosshammer John Newton (Land Use Consultant, P.W. Gillibrand Company) Allen Penrose Theodore Robinson, Jr. (Robinson Golf Course Design - Project Designer and part Applicant) Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment (SCOPE) Anita Wimsatt City of Santa Clarita STATE OF CALIFORNIA .THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON Govemor� DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION STATE MINING AND GEOLOGY BOARD 801 K Street, MS 24-05 Sacramento, Califomia 95814-3528 DeWayne Hokndahl. Chairman Jufro Mann. Vice Chairwoman Sands Fi9uers Alvin Franks Bob Grunwald Raymond Krauss Robert Munro Sheila M. Murphy Lee Thibadeau Glenn Adamick, Assistant Planner Community Development Department City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, California 91355 1. Qt7ti July 15, 1996 TELEPHONE: (916) 322-1082 TDD LINE: (916) 324-2555 FACSIMILE: (916) 3240948 Re: Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course Designated Mineral.Lands Dear Mr. Adamick: . We understand that the City of Santa Clarita currently is considering the proposed development project known as the Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course. A portion of this proposed development is within lands classified by the State Geologist as containing important aggregate and other mineral deposits. These lands, also, have been designated by the State Mining and Geology Board (SMGB) as an area of Regional Mineral Significance (Public Resource Code § 3550.9, ref. SMGB letter dated November 13, 1995, and February 2, 1996). The proposed construction of residential sites in this area would impact the future development of aggregate reserves in the adjacent mineral resource areas labeled Sectors B-1 and C-1. These lands, also, have been designated by the SMGB as areas of Regional- Mineral Significance (SMARA Designation Report Number 6, July 1985). As contained in the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (Section 5.1, pages 9, 10, June 13,1996), the author cites the California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 143. released in 1987, as a source for reviewing and calculating the significance of the region's economic mineral resources. We respectfully would like to call to your attention that S6ecial Report 143 (1987) has recently been revised by DMG Open File Report 94-14. Update of Mineral Land Classification of Portland Cement Concrete Aggregate in Ventura, Los Angeles, and Orange Counties, California (Part ll, Los Angeles County, 1994). 7- 3 3 Glenn Adamick, Assistant Planner Hunters Green Development July 15, 1996 Page 2 This more recent report indicates that all remaining aggregate reserves for Los Angeles County are estimated to be depleted by the year 2016 (20 years from now). Portland Cement Concrete Aggregate grade reserves in the San Fernando Valley Production -Consumption Region, which is adjacent to the City of Santa Clarita, are estimated to be depleted in only 7 years. Should unforeseen events occur, such as heavy reconstruction in the wake of a disaster such as the Northridge Earthquake, the demand forconstruction aggregate could change considerably. We believe the findings contained in this latest DMG report more accurately reflect the present condition of mineral reserves in your area, and should be contained in the EIR. In land use.conflicts, between urban development and access to mineral resources, it is important that the significance of the mineral resources be recognized and that their potentialtoss carefully be evaluated. Therefore, we trust that the City will take sensitive account of the importance of the aggregate resource discussed above as it concerns land use proposals that might be incompatible with State, Regional and City interests in utilizing these resources. Thank you for including these comments in your'documents. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact the State Mining and Geology Board at (916) 322-1082. cc: J. W. Newton for P. W. Gillibrand iWA i. D. Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Comments and Responses Commentor: John G. Parrish, Executive Officer California Department of Conservation, State Mining and Geology Board Date: July 15, 1996 Response: 1. No response necessary. 2. Comment noted. Page 5.1-10 of the Final EIR will have the following added after the third paragraph: An updated report (CDMG Open File Report 94-14, 1994) indicated that all remaining aggregate reserves in Los Angeles County are estimated to be depleted by 2016. Portland cement concrete aggregate reserves in the San Fernando Valley Production -Consumption region are forecasted to be depleted within 7 years by this report. This indicates that the adjacent region will demand greater amounts of aggregate from the local combined Saugus -Newhall and Palmdale Production - Consumption region in the near future. Consequently, additional resources may need to be permitted for extraction to meet the needs of the Los Angeles regional market. Page 5.1-10, fourth paragraph will be edited as follows. ..indications of a shortage in supply for the local eduction-consum tp ion region... 3. Comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the EIR and no response is necessary. During the EIR and conditional use permit review process, the City as lead agency will be considering the onsite mineral deposit's importance to the regional market as required by the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA). City of Santa Clarita STATE OF UUFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY PETE VALSOK Gw� DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 7, 120 So. SPRING ST. LOS ANGELES, CA 90012.3606 July 24, 1996 R}rCEI V E© AUG 0 1 19% Cp I OFTSANTA C'O RITA PMENT Mr. Glenn Adamick City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91351 Dear W. Adamick: IGR/CEQA/DEIR/47001/CP Hunter's Green Residential Development & Golf Course Revised DEIR City of Santa Clarita SCH# 95041049 Vic. LA -14-33.42 Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the Hunter's Green Residential Development & Golf Course project referenced above. Based on our review of the information received, we have no comment at this time. We will contact you further should we identify any matter that should be brought to your attention. If you have any questions regarding this response, please call me at (213) 897-4429. Sincerely, STEVE BUSWELL IGR/CEQA Coordinator Office of Transportation Planning Chris Belsky State Clearinghouse Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Comments and Responses Commentor: Steve Buswell, IGR/CEQA Coordinator Caltrans Date: July 24, 1996 Response: 1. No response necessary. 1 City of Santa Clarita P. MICHAEL FREEMAN FIRE CHIEF FORESTER & FIRE WARDEN August 2, 1996 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT 1320 NORTH EASTERN AVENUE LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA 90063-3294 (213).881-2481 R I- 61lG o 51996 COMMUNITY O@Vf LOPM[NT Cry CT :AN T A C, 01TA Mr. Glenn Adamick, Assistant Planner II City of Santa Clarita Department of Community Development 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Dear Mr. Adamick: SUBJECT: HUNTERS GREEN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND GOLF COURSE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR#351/1996) We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report for The Hunters Green Residential and Golf Course Development located at the junction of Sand Canyon and Lost Canyon in the City of Santa Clarita. Our comments in our response dated June 20, 1995 remain unchanged. If you have any additional questions, please contact this office at the phone number shown above. Very truly yours, . DAVID R. LEININGER, ASSISTANT CHIEF, FORESTRY PREVENTION BUREAU,FORESTRY DIVISION �_:FF SERVING THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND THE CITIES OF AGOURA HILLS CALABASAS GLENDORA LAKEWOOD MAYWOOD RANCHO PALOS'VERDES SOUTH EL MOMS ARTESIA CARSON HAWAIIAN GARDENS LA MIRADA NORWALK ROLLING HILLS SOUTH GATE AZUSA CERRITOS HIDDEN HILLS LANCASTER PALMDALE ROLLING HILLS ESTATES TEMPLE CITY BELL. PARK COMMER BELL COMMERCE E HUNTINGTON PARK LA PUENTE PALOS VERDES ESTATES ROSEMEAD WALNUT BELLFLOWER CUDAHY INDUSTRY LAWNDALE PARAMOUNT SAN DIMAS WEST HOLLYWOOD BELL GARDENS DIAMOND BAR IRWINDALE LOMITA PICO RIVERA SANTA CLARITA WESTLAKE VILLAGE BRADBURY DUARTE LA CANADA FUNTRIDGE MALIBU POMONA SIGNAL HILL WHITTIER Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Comments and Responses Commentor: David Leininger, Assistant Chief, Forestry County of Los Angeles Fire Department Date: August 2, 1996 Response: 1. No response necessary. Please see responses to previous comments in Appendix G of this report. I 11 I City of Santa Clarita I I I 11 I I I I w�filw�}F! lfCf�+��iIOM !OLIO WAST! YINIGLYEM COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT' 1955 Workman MITI Road, Whittier, CA.90601-1400 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 4998, Whittier, CA 90607-4998 Telephone: (310) 699.7411, FAX: (310) 695-6139 11 II 1 I 11 OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY CHARLES W. CARRY Chief Engineer and General Manager July 15, 1996 File No: 26-00.04-00 Hunters Greeri Residential Development and Golf Course The County Sanitation Districts of the Los Angeles County (Districts) received a Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for the subject project on June 26, 1996. We offer the following correction to the Draft EIR. • Proposed Infrastructure; page 3-13 states that sewerage service to the new development would be provided by County Sanitation Districts sewer mains in Live Oak Springs Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road. This statement is incorrect in that the forementioned sewers are local sewers and are not maintained by the Sanitation Districts. A more accurate statement would read as i follows: The wastewater flow originating from the proposed project will discharge to local sewer lines for conveyance to the Sanitation Districts' Soledad Canyon Trunk Sewer, Section 5, located in Lost Canyon Road at the Antelope Valley Freeway. This 18 -inch diameter trunk sewer has a peak capacity of 9.1 million gallons per day (mgd) and conveyed a peak flow of 3 mgd when last measured in 1992. The following additional comments should be incorporated into the Proposed Infrastructure Section: • The area in question is outside the jurisdictional boundaries of the Districts and will require .Lannexation into District No. 26 before sewerage service can be provided to the proposed development. For specific information regarding the annexation procedure and fees, please contact Ms. Margarita Cabrera, extension 2708. • The Districts provide wastewater treatment in the Santa Clarita Valley by operating two water 3 reclamation plants (WRPs), the Saugus WRP and the Valencia WRP. These facilities have been interconnected to form a regional treatment system known as the Santa Clarita Valley Joint WE Mr. Glenn Adamick- 6 Associate Planner V i City of Santa Clarita Department of Community DevelopMent 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300• Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Dear Mr. Adamick: 11 II 1 I 11 OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY CHARLES W. CARRY Chief Engineer and General Manager July 15, 1996 File No: 26-00.04-00 Hunters Greeri Residential Development and Golf Course The County Sanitation Districts of the Los Angeles County (Districts) received a Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for the subject project on June 26, 1996. We offer the following correction to the Draft EIR. • Proposed Infrastructure; page 3-13 states that sewerage service to the new development would be provided by County Sanitation Districts sewer mains in Live Oak Springs Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road. This statement is incorrect in that the forementioned sewers are local sewers and are not maintained by the Sanitation Districts. A more accurate statement would read as i follows: The wastewater flow originating from the proposed project will discharge to local sewer lines for conveyance to the Sanitation Districts' Soledad Canyon Trunk Sewer, Section 5, located in Lost Canyon Road at the Antelope Valley Freeway. This 18 -inch diameter trunk sewer has a peak capacity of 9.1 million gallons per day (mgd) and conveyed a peak flow of 3 mgd when last measured in 1992. The following additional comments should be incorporated into the Proposed Infrastructure Section: • The area in question is outside the jurisdictional boundaries of the Districts and will require .Lannexation into District No. 26 before sewerage service can be provided to the proposed development. For specific information regarding the annexation procedure and fees, please contact Ms. Margarita Cabrera, extension 2708. • The Districts provide wastewater treatment in the Santa Clarita Valley by operating two water 3 reclamation plants (WRPs), the Saugus WRP and the Valencia WRP. These facilities have been interconnected to form a regional treatment system known as the Santa Clarita Valley Joint WE Charles W. Carry ' 0,t� ✓. 1 M e_1 Pagenkopp Engineering Technician Planning & Property Management Section MLP:eg I LAWPGAWILISERVVLErrpRSW =REf.LTR Mr. Glenn Adamick 2 July 15, 1996 Sewerage System (SCVJSS). The Saugus WRP has been rated at a capacity of 6.5 mgd and the Valencia WRP has a design capacity of 12.6 mgd. All solids and any wastewater flows which cannot be treated at the Saugus WRP are conveyed to the Valencia WRP for treatment. The SCVJSS has a permitted treatment capacity of 19.1 mgd (12.6 + 6.5) and currently treats an average flow of 15:7 mgd. • The expected average wastewater flow from the project site is 22,360 gallons per day. ' • The Districts are empowered by the California Health and Safety Code to charge a fee for the privilege of connecting (directly or indirectly) to the Districts' Sewerage System or increasing the existing strength and/or quantity of wastewater attributable to a particular parcel or S operation already connected. This connection fee is required to construct an incremental expansion of the Sewerage System to accommodate the proposed project which will mitigate the impact of this project on the present Sewerage System. Payment of a connection fee will be required before a permit to connect to the sewer is issued. • The design capacities of the Districts' wastewater treatment facilities are based on population forecasts adopted in the Southern California Association of Governments' (SCAG) 1994 Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG). The RCPG is part of the 1994 South Coast Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The AQMP and RCPG are jointly prepared by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and SCAG as a requirement of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA). In order to conform with the AQMP, all expansions of Districts' facilities must be (0 sized and service phased in a manner which will be consistent with the Growth Management Element of the RCPG. The Growth Management Element contains a regional growth forecast for the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Berardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial which was prepared by SCAG. Specific policies included in the RCPG which deal with the management of growth will be incorporated into the AQMP strategies to improve air quality in the South Coast Air Basin. The available capacity of the Districts' treatment facilities will, therefore, be limited to levels associated with approved growth identified in the RCPG. As such, this letter �. does not constitute a guarantee of wastewater service, btu is to advise you that the Districts intend to provide this service up to the levels which are legally permitted and to inform you of the currently existing capacity and any proposed expansion of the Districts' facilities. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at (310) 699-7411, extension 2717. Very truly yours, Charles W. Carry ' 0,t� ✓. 1 M e_1 Pagenkopp Engineering Technician Planning & Property Management Section MLP:eg I LAWPGAWILISERVVLErrpRSW =REf.LTR Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Comments and Responses Commentor: Marie Pagenkopp, Engineering Technician, Planning and Property Management County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County tDate: July 15, 1996 IResponse: 1. Comment noted. Paragraph 4 of page 3-13 will be edited as follows in the Final EIR. The clubhouse, maintenance facilities, and all residential lots will discharge to local sewer lines in Live Oak Spriggs CgnyQn Road and Sand Canyon Road. Wastewater from these lines would be conveyed to the County Sanitation Districts Soledad Canyon Trunk Line Sewer. Section 5. located in Lost Canyon Road near the Antelope Valley Freeway. This 18 -inch diameter trunk sewer has a peak capacily of 9.1 million gallons per day(mzd) and conveyed a peak flow of 3 mgd when last measured in 1992. 2. The need for annexation into District No. 26 was noted in Section 1.3 of the Draft EIR. 3. Information noted. The fact that the wastewater treatment facilities have a remaining capacity of 3.4 mgd confirms the findings of the Initial Study that impacts to that system are not potentially significant. 4. Information noted. This amount of wastewater (22,360 gpd) is less than 24,280 gallons per day of sewage estimated for the original proposed project. It represents less than 1.5% of the treatment plant's remaining available capacity. This is not considered a significant amount. 5. It is noted that the project will be required to pay a sewage connection fee. 6. Approval of the proposed project would reduce the number of units that have already been assumed by the 1994 Regional Comprehensive Plan to be located at the site since such plan was based on the past entitlements and the City's General Plan designation for the project site. As such, the proposed project would reduce potential demands on the wastewater treatment facilities as compared to that projected by regional planning efforts. K City of Santa Clarita JUL-24-96-WED 07:33 qM a—wo- CALIFORNIA REGIONAL LOS ANGELES REOION 101 CENTRE PUZA DRIVE MONTEREY PARK. CA 217542156 1213) 266•ISDO FAX: 121312667600 July 23, 1996 Mr. Glenn Adamick Community Development Department City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, California 91351 2132225012 •.•-' P. at .A ,•rye, J Re: Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Hunter's Green Residential Development and Golf Course, Santa Clarita (SCH # 9504149). The California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Los Angeles Region (Regional Board) is charged with protection of water quality of all waterbodies in the Los Angeles and Ventura coastal watersheds. The Regional Board protects water quality by implementing regulations, policies, and programs authorized by the State's Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and by administering certain regulations established by the Federal Clean Water Act. As a responsible agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Regional Board also reviews CEQA documents and comments upon water quality issues. As lead agency, the City of Santa Clarita has prepared a Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Revised DEIR, dated June 13, 1996, for the Hunter's Green Residential Development and Golf Course. The project applicant, Hunters Green Development Corporation, proposes to develop two 18 -hole golf courses, a clubhouse, lighted driving range, and parking lot on a 401 -acre sits along Live Oak Springs Canyon Road. I �J I rl LJ I I I Regional Board staff provided comments on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) in a letter dated May 23, 1995 and on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) in a letter dated November 16, 1995. Regional Board staff also have reviewed the Revised DEIR, dated June 13, 1996, and have the following comments: 1) Beneficial Uses - Regional Board comments on the NOP and DEIR referred to the lack of analysis of impacts to beneficial uses as a result of this project. The current Revised DEIR still does not specifically address these issues. Each of the existing groundwater and surface water beneficial uses' must be addressed, as well as the potential impacts upon them from development of this project. Likewise, an analysis of impacts to natural habitats (aquatic and riparian habitats) that would result from the increased surface runoff, increased urban runoff, proposed changes to drainage patterns, and the flood control measures associated with the proposed development must be documented. Without such analyses, Regional Board staff cannot assess the adequacy of mitigation measures proposed by the applicant. , 2) Groundwater - The Revised DEIR states that the golf course will supplement potable ti I water use with extracted groundwater for irrigation purposes. Several mitigation ' Designated groundwater Beneficial Uses include: municipal end domestic supply, industrial service supply. Industrial process supply, and agricultural supply. Designated surface water Beneficial Uses include: industrial service supply, industrial process supply, agricultural supply. water contact recreation. non -contact recreation, freshwater replenishment warmwster fish habitat and fish spawning habitat 1 JUL-24-96 WED 07;34 AM RWQB C L I 11 I I A J I 2132225012 Mr. Glenn Adamick City of Santa .Clarita Page 2 measures are presented in Table 2.2-1 (Effect D-7), through which the applicant expects to maintain groundwater levels within the natural variation of the hydrologic system. In the event that these mitigation measures are ineffective, the applicant suggests that downstream users could connect to the proposed backbone infrastructure for a potable water supply from the local water purveyor. Use of potable water from the local water purveyor is also suggested as a mitigation measure to possible contamination of groundwater by site use of fertilizers and/or pesticides. To monitor groundwater quality, project proponents plan to install two groundwater monitoring wells and have proposed a monitoring plan. However, it is not clear who will be responsible for. o Maintenance of the proposed potable water supply infrastructure; o Sampling, and eventual abandonment of the proposed monitoring wells; and, o Bearing the increased cost of water supply for local residents who are presently pumping ground water, in the event that local groundwater supplies are overdrafted or degraded by the proposed project. Will the City of Santa Clarita be assuming these responsibilities? Please provide clarification. Also, as per the phone conversation between Wendy Phillips and Glenn Adamick on July 23, 1996, Regional Board staff understand that the City of Santa Clarita does not expect the Regional Board to open a case file for evaluation of 3 monitoring data; rather, the City of Santa Clarita will hire a qualified professional in the field of ground water to design and oversee a monitoring program to assess impacts to the quality of ground water. Regional Board staff would be pleased to provide guidance in this regard. Should you have any questions regarding our comments, please contact Mr. Kirby McClellan at (213) 266-7564 or me at (213) 266-7557. I A�A lezi-,f Wendy Phillips, Chief Planning Unit ' cc: Chris Belsky, Govemor's Office of Planning and Research W.J..Manetta, Jr., Santa Clarita Water Company I 1 I P.02 F Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Comments and Responses Commentor: Wendy Phillips, Chief, Planning Unit California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region Date: July 23, 1996 Response: 1. Potential impacts of the project to beneficial uses of local water supplies would be caused by soil erosion during the construction phase, as discussed in Effect D-1, by changes in water quality, as discussed in Effect D-5, and by extraction of groundwater as discussed in Effect D-7. Section 5.2 clearly discusses the expected effects on both municipal and local water supplies (including local groundwater extracted for agricultural use). Currently, there are no industrial service or industrial process land uses dependent on groundwater within Oak Spring or Live Oak Springs Canyon, nor given the designated land uses, are there likely to be. The adjacent mining operation obtains process water for its operations from its own wells outside of these local basins. Therefore, the project would have no effect on industrial uses of water. Similarly, there is no water contact recreation, non -contact recreation, warmwater fish habitat or fish spawning habitat associated with the project site nor is there any likelihood of such being developed. The possible downstream effects on water supply are described in the EIR and include a potential decrease in groundwater outflow that may be associated with extraction at the site and possible decrease in water quality of groundwater flows. It is noted that the effects associated with the project on any downstream groundwater movement would become negligible once that water reaches the much greater water quantity associated with the Santa Clara River, which is located less than one mile downstream. ' 2. It is noted that the mitigation measures referred to in this comment are those proposed by the EIR and not by the applicant and would be imposed by the City of Santa Clarita as conditions on the , development of this project should it be approved. With regard to maintenance of the potable water supply infrastructure, it would be constructed by the applicant and given to the Santa Clarita Water Company, who would be responsible for the long term maintenance of the lines (see page 3- i 13 of the Draft EIR). The applicant would initially be responsible for sampling of the monitoring wells with the data to be submitted to the City for review and verification, with the owner of the golf course land serving as the successor in rights and responsibilities for such sampling and the eventual abandonment of the well. It is up to the City Council to determine the equitability of the proposed project and the proposed mitigation measures with regard to the cost of water. Since several local residents have indicated that their wells have gone dry in the past, the provision of a plentiful, assured supply of municipal water that could be provided through the proposed infrastructure must be weighed against both higher costs and the potential water quality risks associated with using local groundwater. , 3. Comments noted, no response required. I City of Santa Clarity The Gas Companyv ., 1996 July 1, 1996, Glenn Adamick Assistant Planner In City of Santa Clarita 23820 Valencia Blvd. Suite 300 Santa Clarita, Ca. Dear Mr. Adamick: . �k. I saathem California Gas campany The following is in response to your, 7/1/1996 letter requesting information relative to an «r! r., l f C"'O" Environmental Impact Report on the proposed development of the Hunter Green Development M".1c'n P"" c.a and Golf Course. li�rr :lii! Within the areas of interest and responsibilities of the Southern California Gas Company, we find .taro„•.' P, k• c.{ the proposed development reasonable and acceptable. ars+_.vir This letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve the subject development, "' but only as an information service. Its intent is to notify you that the proposed project can be served from existing mains in the area This can be done without any major impact on overall system capacity, service to existing customers, or the environment. Average consumption is estimated at 1095 therms per year per single family dwelling unit This estimate is based on past system averages and does not encompass the possible effect of the State's new insulating requirements and consumers' loads vary with types of equipment used. The availability of natural gas service as set forth in this letter is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. -As a public utility, Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California public Utilities Commission. We can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action that effects gas supply or the condition under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with the revised condition. I We have developed several programs which are available, upon request, to provide assistance in selecting the most effective applications of energy conservation techniques for a particular project If you desire further information on any of our energy conservation programs, please call (213) 881-8208. I! I II I I1 Sincerely, Santo Pkscia Planning Aide Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Comments and Responses Commentor: Santo Plescia, Planning Aide The Gas Company Date: July 1, 1996 Response: 1. No response is necessary. City of Santa Clarita 2 2 1995 PATRICIA L. BREM 25847 NORTH MCBEAN PARKWAY #20 VALENCIA, CA 91355 JULY 20, 1996 THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS CITY OF SANTA CLARITA 23920 VALENCIA BLVD., SUITE 300 SANTA CLARITA, CA 9 1 355 DEAR PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: I MOVED TO THE SANTA CLARITA VALLEY OVER. EIGHT (8) YEARS AGO -BECAUSE I FELT THAT THE AREA WOULD MAINTAIN ITS UNIQUENESS. THE AREA SEEMED TO SPEAK OF GOOD ECOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRACTICES: SHOULD THERE BE A CHOICE BETWEEN DEVELOPMENT AND THE ENVIRONMENT, THE ENVIRONMENT WOULD COME FIRST. THIS CHOICE CAN BE SEEN IN THE OAK TREE AND HILLSIDE ORDINANCE. THIS ORDINANCE, AND THE QUALITY OF LIFE WHICH HAS BEEN MAINTAINED IN THE SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, IS. ABOUT TO BE NULLIFIED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE GOLF COURSES IN SAND CANYON. THIS UNIQUELY BEAUTIFUL AREA WILL BE RUINED BY THE REPLACEMENT OF 270 OAK TREES SEVEN OF WHICH ARE OF THE HERITAGE OAK VARIETY, AND BY THE BULLDOZING OF THE HILLSIDES, JUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF A FEW GOLF ENTHUSIASTS AND PROFIT-SEEKING DEVELOPERS. EVERYDAY AS I ENTER THE "5 FREEWAY" I AM SADDENED OVER THE LOSS OF HUNDREDS OF OAK TREES DESTROYED .FOR THE SAKE OF HOUSING AND PROFITS. PLEASE THINK ABOUT SUCH DESTRUCTION WHEN CONSIDERING THE REQUEST FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THESE GOLF COURSES IN SAND CANYON. VERYTRULYYOURS, / � PA ICIA L. BREMG Agenda Item: Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Comments and Responses Commentor: Patricia Berm Date: July 20, 1996 Response: 1. Comments do not pertain to the adequacy of the EIR and no response is necessary. Your comments are included herein to notify decision -makers of your concerns regarding the proposed project. ® City of Santa Clarifa I. Thomas J. Glazier (T.J.) 27522 Oak Springs Cyn. Rd. ' Santa Clarita, CA 91531 (805) 252 - 7818 July 15, 1996 Members of the Planning Commission City of Santa Clarity 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, California 91355 When I first received news of the proposed golf courses I was very enthusiastic. I then started talking to people and reading the information that was provided This research opened my eyes to. the exact extent that this golf course is going to effect. I have appeared in front of the planning commission on several occasions; talking about several topics. These topics include wildlife, the road, water, and pesticides. I have since learned that the developer wants to drill four wells to harvest the water under his property. I have obtained the revised draft of the EIR and read it cover to cover, especially dealing with ' the issue of the wells. The following handout is a collection of the devastating effects that this development will have on my neighbors and I. The following is an accumulation of almost three weeks of research. I have used several sources from educated neighbors to 1 Duaine Vanderplum at Rincon Consultants. Please read this and realize that you have not been given the complete truth by the developers. Do not take this as an attempt to change you mind or persuade you Take the handout as an attempt to further educate you to the "behind -the -scenes" actions and effects that you have been shielded from by the developer and what the residents have been trying to bring to the spotlight of debate. The areas of debate will be the drilling of the wells, Dicamba, and the runoff of the surface water. All of them are significant and unique to the homes that reside within the boundaries of the National Forest I am available to answer any questions that you have and if you doubt the existence of any of the cited material, I urge and beg you to open the revised draft of the EIR and learn for yourself that this is actually happening and is not the figment of my imagination. Thank you. Sincerely, Thomas J. Glazier (T.J.) I I Information ' on the proposed Golf Course and the Impact on the homes in the National Forest ' With the development of any major project there are many significant and countless smaller problems. Some of these problems my be very easy to fix and live with, others will be substantially more difficult and will require a lot more work and money to , correct. These major problems may even call for some sacrifices and a compromise on the part of the developer and the residents to make the best possible project that benefits everybody. This project is no different in that it has its major problems as well. These problems have been brought up numerous times, but the difference in this project is that the developer is not willing to compromise to solve the major problems that still plague , the homeowners in the National Forest. These problems include the drilling of the wells, Dicamba, and the run off of surface water onto the surrounding properties. The fust of these problems will be the drilling of the wells. I was able to determine that there is only one reason why he would want to drill. By drilling those wells, and being 100% dependent upon them, he would escape paying the $7,000,000 hook up fee that the state charges him because of the lack of water in this state. His , argument for allowing him to drill is that it is his land and that he has a right to do with it what he pleases. I agree to the fact that he has that right until he starts affecting the people around him. WiII it affect the people around him? On page 5.2-24 of the Rincon Environmental Impact Report(EIR) it states, ii "Losses due to the underflow alone (without the pumping of the golf course] could ' almost eliminate the total amount of groundwater in storage during extended drought, periods of 2 or more years" This means that if we were to have a drought of two or more years the water supply would be depleted because of the normal flow out of the underground water source. It would be even dramatically faster if he was even 15% dependent on the underground resources as the EIR suggests. We live in a very critical situation in that we could be without water, due to the fault of no one, in a drought of two years. A drought of two years here in Southern California is not all that uncommon. The EIR mitigation measures say that he will be no more than 50% dependent on the wells in a year of 28" of rainwater or more, 15% in a year of 15-28", and absolutely , no pumpage out of the wells in a year of any less rainfall, 15" or less. There have been very few years in which we have received that much rain. In the best case scenario for the developers he is allowed to depend on the wells only 50%. Where is he going to get the ' other 50%? He will get it from the Santa Clarita Water Company and he will still have to pay the $7,000,000 hook up fee. If he is going to have to use the city water anyway and he is placing the residents on the road in such a devastating position, Why does not rely on the city water 100%? Will it hurt the supplies of the Santa Clarita Water Company? According to the EIR on page 5.2-21 it says that the demand of the golf course will be 5.8% of the remaining available supply and that the long term water demand it expected to drop. This section also says that," Based on the Santa Clanta Water Company's supply estimates, adequate water supplies are available to serve the project and no significant impact is anticipated" If he will end up paying the hook up fee, the water is available '- ' from the city, and if the residents are in such peril, without him drilling wells, then why allow him to drill? ' In the case that he is allowed to drill, the 14 or so homes at the end of the road are in a very unique situation. We live in one of the most beautiful places in the country, the National Forest. This means that we are not within the city limits, but within the county limits. In essence this means that the city has no right to require the developer to bring us water because we are outside the jurisdiction of the city, it is a county matter. I have been informed that the county cannot require the developer to bring us water unless we have broken nexus. Nexus is a term that means that it is unlawful to require a company or individual to provide services above and beyond the call of duty without significant reason(s) for doing so. In this case the nexus has been broken by the fact that he will dry up our wells. We only ask that our concerns are meet with out regard for where we live: city or county. The second of these important issues is that of the pesticides. There is one ' pesticide that has caught my attention as being the largest problem out of all the pesticides, Dicamba. Dicamba is known by another name, 2,4-D. This pesticide was mentioned in a letter given to me by Alan Penrose. In this letter it mentions all of the ' possible health hazards involved with this chemical. This letter states the fallowing: ' 2,4-D (2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid)- A herbicide used as the main ingredient in Agent Orange used in Vietnam. California has reported residues turning up in groundwater. Exposure known to cause injury to ' liver, kidney, muscle and nerve tissues. Symptoms include nausea and vomiting, bunting sensations in the chest, bleeding tendency (including 3 menstrual problems). Easily absorbed Human reproductive problems result from exposure. Cancers of the blood, brain, and breast have been developed in animal feeding studies. 1 The EIR demonstrates chart on page 5.2-16 that shows that this very dangerous chemical has the highest leach rating from not one, not two, but three different agencies. This means that the probability of it teaching the groundwater is very high and will affect any wells that are drilled into that water system. A side note is that the underground water in this canyon runs into the Santa Clara river, the area the Santa Clarity Water Company pulls their water out of In theory you can have half the city suffering from the previously described symptoms. I recommend that the developer summit a confirmed list of the pesticides that are going to be used on the golf course to the city and that the city not allow him to use any chemical with a leech taring of higher than moderate. The test wells are good for determining if the groundwater is contaminated, but it does not help residents if they have already been exposed to the chemicals and developed symptoms. I There is one commonly overlooked area of concern. So overlooked that the EIR does not provide any significant information on the topic, surface water runoff. This was brought to my attention by Mrs. Ivan Kelley (Ruth). I looked into it and found that what 'k she said had truth. In the EIR is a topographical map of the area, page 3.0-2.1 have enclosed a copy with special markings on it to give you a better picture of the exact situation. The main area of the Golf course, the residence of Mr. and Mrs. Kelley, and my I I home are marked. They are also marked with the elevations of the three locations. This elevations are derived from reading the map itself. I have earned my life scout and are specially trained to read these maps. I have labeled one of the contour lines it 1 and another #2. Every line on the map shows us a fifty foot change in elevation. The line labeled #2 is labeled as being 1800 & above sea level. Line # 1 is two lines down from the 1800 ft. line therefore it is 1700 ft above sea level. The line 91 runs very close to my home, placing it at about 1700 ft. Mrs. Kelley says that her house is 1650 ft. above sea level. The golf course is marked by the lines as being 1700 ft. above sea level. Therefore the water would run downhill onto her property. This is significant because it will be carrying the pesticides that the developers will be using on the golf course and place their lives in danger as well as the other homes at this end that are at a lower elevation than the golf course. This becomes an even more increasingly more dangerous problem to the residents because we have several fruit trees that use the water directly under the soil. This is the most likely means by which we would be exposed to it, but direct contact is still a very plausible situation. These issues and topics are not the figment of anyone's imagination. They are real problems that concern real people. Even though the city may not have the power to make a final decision they can at least allow us to be heard at the level that concerns us. On other issues they have the power to make a drastic impact on the planning and development of the project We all want the project to go through, but what is the point of a project that is going to hurt our lives rather than improve on them. Thank You. Hunters Green Residential Development y 0 0.5 1•.0 S== USCS Must Caaym Qm&wgle, 7s Mamh wrks.19W Scale in des Project Location NORTH Figure 3.0-2 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR , Comments and Responses Commentor: Thomas J. Glazier , Date: July 15, 1996 Response: 1. Comments do not pertain to the adequacy of the EIR and no response is necessary. Your t comments are included herein to notify decision -makers of your concerns regarding the proposed project. 2. Comments refer to information contained in the EIR text and questions the need for the applicant to drill groundwater wells. No response necessary. ' 3. Comment refers to Table 5.2-1. To clarify this table with respect to this comment, the potential exposure is based on the previous two characteristics of the chemical (GUS Rank and SCS Leach , Rating) and is not three independent assessments. The EIR preparor agrees that if Dicamba is used in sufficient quantities, it is highly likely that it could leach to offsite groundwater wells. It is also noted that Dicamba is a herbicide commonly found in grass care products sold to the general populace for household use. The recommended mitigation measure D -5(a) regarding preparation of a Best Management Practices and Integrated Pest Management Plans would serve to establish the timing, application rates, location of application, and type of chemicals that would be allowed to be used on the golf course. These plans would be subject to review by the City or its designee and, if effectively implemented, would serve to reduce the potential for harmful chemicals to enter , the groundwater or be washed off the site. Please note that the purpose of the groundwater monitoring wells is to detect chemical leaching , problems before they exit the site and potentially contaminate offsite sources. 4. The contour interval on the maps used in the EIR are 40 feet and are not adequate to define the , direction of surface water flow in the manner used by the commentor. The commentor is referred to the larger scale maps available for review at the City Community Development Department , which have 2 -foot contour intervals and a scale of 1"=100', and also to the Hydrology Report prepared by Sikand Engineering for the applicant and incorporated by reference into the EIR. These documents clearly show that the properties in the Angeles National Forest are upstream of the project site. The potential for surface water contamination of pesticides used at the site was discussed in the , EIR and determined to be significant for those residents downstream of the site (to the north) in Live Oak Springs Canyon and Oak Spring Canyon (see Effect D-5, Section 5.2 of the EIR). City of Santa Clarita , Mark and Linda Hanson 27944 Graceton Drive Canyon Country, CA 91351 (805)251-3722 July 13, 1996 Mr. Glenn Adamick City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clartta, CA 91355 (805)255.4330 (805)259-8125 fax RECEIVED 1996 Reference: Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report dated June 13, 1996 Dear Glenn: Thank you for forwarding the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Hunters Green development. The attached documents provide a history of exchange with the Santa Clarita Planning Commission regarding the development in question. I provide this Information to reinforce the issuesthat have been paramount on the minds of the Oak Spring Canyon residents since the Inception of this project. Little progress has been made to remedy the situation or to provide assurance that they will be addressed prior to project approval. The most recent request from the developerto extract water from the local aquifer Is disturbing. The Revised EIR (5.2-21) indicates that the supply and characteristics of the groundwater in the Oak Spring Canyon Is unknown and any extrapolations from knowledge based on adjoining areas 'would be expected to result in substantial errors regarding total water supply'. It is this uncertainty regarding the water supply and the request from the developer to place unprecedented demand on this local supply that must be resolved prior to approval. The developer wishes to reduce or mitigate the water connection fee structure associated with the project. This cost reduction should not become the burden of the local residents in terms of unreliable water. All residents of Oak Spring Canyon vicinity, not just those within the confines of the City of Santa Clarita, are impacted by the water demands of this development Municipal water should be made available and usable to all these residents as a condition of the developers request for local wells. The volumes permitted from these wells should be a function of the available water supply and the natural replenishment cycle. Four major areas of concern are still unresolved and require the attention of the Santa Clarita Planning Commission and the developer. Resolution of these matters are reasonable within the constraints of the proposed project: 0 Water Quantity Described above. This clearly Is the most pervasive Issue facing the residents of Oak Spring Canyon. Agenda Item: 3 7. �I 0 Water Quality Private wells should be Included In the 'test well' population. The risks of pollution to local water supplies are understood and likely overtime. The health and safety impact of such pollution is potentially significant and life threatening. Requiring the developer to Include the Infrastructure to deliver services of the Santa Clarita Water Company to local resident with private wells would mitigate these potential problems. Should the City of Santa Cladta elect to permit this potentially toxic development to proceed without such a solution, then the City is accepting responsibility for the future effects of this decision. The health and safety of the residents cannot be reclaimed, however sufficient funds should be set aside and managed to cover the aggregate cost of providing the 'water infrastructure' and the future legal matters that will arise from such an egregious and predictable situation. 0 Flooding It is imperative that the improved 'ail -weather crossing' (referenced in the Revised EIR, 5.3-13) of Oak Spring Canyon be located, defined and understood prior to project approval. The need for containing the water crossing Oak Spring Canyon and the potential improved crossing is a function of surface water quantity and the pathing of such water. The development will after the course of the water across the proposed site. The characteristics of the water exiting the property, the means of traversing Oak Spring Canyon Road and the impact on downstream properties must be clearly understood. The Revised EIR attempts to assess the 'surface water' characteristics without an understanding of the exit point and the downstream implications. These unknowns should be well defined and the implications assessed prior to project approval. 0 Commercial Aspects Commercial aspects of the site should be located further from the wristing rural residential areas. No substantive project modifications have occurred since this Issue was voiced in November of 1995. Please insure that the each member of the Santa Clartta Planning Commission receives a copy of these materials. I welcome your call to discuss this matter further. Your written response is requested. Sincerely, Mark l-. Ha son �� H F d I J I LJ I I 11 71 I I Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Comments and Responses Commentor: Mark and Linda Hanson Date: July 13, 1996 Response: 1. Comments do not pertain to the adequacy of the EIR and no response is necessary. Your comments are included herein to notify decision -makers of your concerns regarding the proposed project. 2. The City cannot require the use of private wells as part of the testing for water quality or quantity since the applicant or future owner of the proposed development would not have access nor easement rights to such wells. Therefore, water quality sampling would be limited to those wells that are under the control of the landowner for the development or under City or other municipal agency control. In addition, contamination can come from a variety of sources including the proposed golf course. The location of monitoring wells near the downstream property line of the proposed development is the best determinant of whether or not the golf course is creating water quality problems. If water quality problems were to be detected, it may be necessary to have additional monitoring wells constructed to both define the extent of contamination and the probable source of such contamination. 3. As indicated in Section 5.2, implementation of the project would stabilize soils within the site and reduce the channel velocities of flood waters exiting the site. This in itself would reduce damage that might otherwise occur to the relocated access way along the northern property line. The characteristics of the water exiting the project site are generally known based on the hydrology study prepared by Sikand Engineering and referenced in the EIR. This report will be updated as necessary to reflect final plan design and to indicate to the City of Santa Clarita Engineering Division the method by which storm flows will be appropriately controlled prior to discharge to downstream channels. The applicant does not propose to alter the current exit path for flood waters leaving the project site. The type of an improved crossing (concrete ford, culvert, or other system) would be determined by the City's Engineering Department at the time that final design plans for the site are available if the project is approved. 4. Commentor opines that the commercial aspects of the site should be located farther from the existing rural residential areas. Aesthetics and noise issues have been discussed in Sections 5.6 and 5.7, respectively, based on standard criteria for assessing such effects. Alternative designs that would move the commercial aspects of the project are also discussed in Sections 7.2 and 7.6. Your comments are included herein to notify decision -makers of your concerns and preferences for the alternative designs regarding the location of the commercial aspects of the golf course. �r City of Santa C/arita Z 3 fLLL1 5_� j 27500 Oak Spring Canyon Road Canyon Country, Calif. 91351 July 12, 1996 Dear Membe " r anninR Commission I didn't receive the notice about tba your meeting about the golf course proposal until yesterday. I would have preferred for you to have this in time for you to peruse it before you grant an approval, but I find I.am too late. My home is one of those in the National Forest, just east of the golf course. I believe a world championship golf course can be a great addition to this valley. Although I have many concerns, in this letter I will cover only the two areas which most directly concern me. First: Am I correct in interpreting the EIR to say that the drainage.from rains will be handled by grassy swales which cut across the fairways? If so, it is essential that there be TWO of these water passageways in the northeast corner. The water from the canyon behind us has two "blue -line" forks. One passes down the road in front of our house. The other goes through our back pasture. If water from this latter wash is impeded, Hechts' barn will flood, Grubers' corrals will flood, and my home will flood. Please be sure the engineers know what they are doing and provide adequate drainage for both of these waterways. (if I sound skeptical it's because of the inadequacy of the drainage systems for Comet Way and for the Lost Canyon/Sand Canyon intersection.) I would hate to see the golf course go broke because of failure to provide for the rains which will surely come. So I hope someone warns them of the damage heavy rains can cause where these waterways pass through the golf course property. Sometimes rains coming down these two waterways cut gullies you could hide a car in. Second: The proposal to pump water from our limited aquifer will lead to disaster. The staff proposal to limit the pumping to years of good rainfall and the rainy season, at the rate of 15% of the total water used on the golf course is no solution. This 15% is based on ESTIMATES and ASSUMPTIONS. Even with the best will in the world, no one can really know how much water is going -to percolate down, how much is going to stay there all through the dry months when the golf course is not pumping, how much is going to flow off into the Santa Clara River basin. Even if the 15% return by percolation were correct, there is no way we can know if this will actually recharge the water table for our wells. Suppose, after heavy rains the first week of January, the golf course management decides in the third week in January, to pump their 15%. This 36 -hole golf course, even with native non -irrigated vegetation, will take at least a million gallons of water a day. So, when the golf course starts pumping 150,000 gallons every day in January, there is Agenda Item: Ino way the water level won't drop. Maybe they'll continue to Pump 150,000 gallons allspring. Since they didn't pump for several summer.months, they might decide to make up.for it by ' pumping 300,000 gallons every day. There is no way this volume of pumping will not dry up our domestic wells. We have just barely enough water as it is. For 30 years I've 3 used a public laundromat. When we have enough water to garden, instead of raised beds, we use berms and planting basins. We have to schedule our watering --the roses and .lemon tree on Friday, the bushes and vines on Sunday, the fruit trees on Tuesday. It appalls me when I think of a recreational profit- making facility pumping 150,000 gallons of water every day when ' I use much less than that all year long. Several of my neighbors dug.wells which we envied at first. u The water people said these new wells were "pumping 11 gallons l a minute." Wow! It sounded great. But it was another "Estimate/Assumption." You just can't tell about water. Now two of these neighbors have to truck in their water. 1 The developers propose bringing in a water line to the homes in the west side of the golf course --but not to those of us here on the east side. The reason I have heard is that our -road is too eroded. How can that be? We have had a problem -free underground telephone cable for years, which is surely more fragile than water pipes. Nor would there be any -problem getting easements for the pipe to cross our properties if the - roadway cannot be used. 7 We need the water line up here in the National Forest at least as much as the other homes on Oak Spring Canyon Road. The developers plan to leave part of the course in "natural" vegetation which is allowed to die back and grow brown seasonally. Nor do they plan to fence off the access to Rabbit Canyon and Oak -Spring Canyon. The golfers, the spectators, the media personnel will consist largelyof people with no awareness or concern about fires. Given just one careless smoker, the potential for fire is extreme in these dry brush areas with gusty winds. Bringing water in by truck is an arduous process. I hope you and/or the Fire Department will require fire hydrants within 1000 feet of every home on Oak Spring Canyon Road. One final thought: Golf courses use a tremendous amount -.of water. Canyon Country comes close to being a desert. Is it really appropriate to use precious water either from our own aquifer or from northern California for a non-essential use? Why not build a municipal golf course over where the new central park is to be located,' near readily available reclaimed water? Sincerely " ,1 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR , Comments and Responses Commentor: Ruth Kelley ' Date: July 12, 1996 Response: The project drainage plans are still conceptual at this time, but past plans indicate that a primary , drainage is to be provided across the Valley course 8' and 7' fairways from the drainage at the back of the residences. The golf course drainage would receive flows from this channel at the ' eastern property line at a point about 550 feet south of the north property line. Flows from the road are expected to either be directed to the cross -fairway drainage or contained in a swale along the road and emptied into the fairway drainage at a point about 1200 feet from the east property line. ' As indicated on Figure 5.2-1, the flow from this drainage is substantial at 920 cfs for the 100 -year storm event. This is the total amount for all flows exiting from this canyon and it has not been ' differentiated into flow from the wash described in the comment letter or flows carried down Oak Spring Canyon Road. The applicant will need to provide a route through the golf course for all of the flow coming from this canyon since there is no other possible route to the Santa Clara River. If , the project is approved, the owner of the golf course will need to bear the risk of such flows potentially damaging the golf course. ' 2. As noted in the EIR, the 15% is an assumption that will need to be verified through the preparation of a more detailed and specific aquifer study, as required by mitigation measure D -7(a). The use of monitoring wells coupled with measured rainfall data can be used to determine the amount of ' water actually percolating into the aquifer system, the length of time that such water remains in the system, and the amount of outflow to the Santa Clara River. As with any situation, the longer the amount of time spent collecting data, the more accurate the estimates of groundwater supply and flow will be. ' 3. If there are heavy rains in January, the golf course operator would not need to irrigate the golf course, certainly not at a level of 1 million gallons per day, since the soil would already be fairly saturated. Also, only one of the two golf courses (the Valley course) would be permitted to use water extracted from Oak Spring Canyon. Irrigation needs for the golf course will be highest in late spring through late fall, with about 70-80% of the total irrigation demand of 5.4 acre-feet per acre per year occurring during that time period. ' A more definitive groundwater study, as required by Mitigation Measure D -7(a) is necessary to ' determine if the project would result in dewatering of the aquifer. The conclusion of the EIR is that the project could have such a result and the purpose of the limitations recommended in the mitigation measures are to reduce the likelihood of such an event. The information provided , within this comment indicates that there may be less groundwater present in the "Unnamed Canyon" portion of the site (northeast comer) than that estimated based on the limited amount of rCity of Santa Ctarita ' Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Comments and Responses ' data available. More water is expected to be present in the main portion of the project site, in the alluvium of Oak Spring and Rabbit Canyons. The groundwater estimates contained in the EIR (see Appendix F) anticipate that these areas contain more than three times the amount of water available to the commentor based on the given location of residence. ' 4. Comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the EIR and no response is necessary. Several factors determine the yield that a well can produce on a sustained basis, and the total supply available is only one of those factors. Well design plays a significant role in the long term production of water. Clogging by algae or sediment or poorly located screens can all strongly affect the productivity of wells. I5. Mitigation Measure D -7(d) would require that water infrastructure be brought to the edge of the Angeles National Forest. I LJ 6. Comments do not pertain to the adequacy of the EIR. Your comments are included herein to notify decision -makers of your concerns regarding the project and the recommendation of an alternative site for the golf course portion of the proposed project. City of Santa Clarita v::ly 21 , 1990 Nicholas T. Lamorakes 27662 ,askel': Canyon Road, if Saugus, CA 91350 City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Members of the Planning Commission: About the golf course going in Sand Canyon, do you realize that there are thriving horse ranches in this area that speak well for the Santa Clarita Valley. You have well known Arabian, Andulusian and Morgan breeding facilities that are known across the United States. Bi -Bask (Arabian) has produced scores of national champions. The large Andulusian ranch has now reached national attention with the quality and beauty of their horses. The DuPont family has purchased a number of Morgan horses from this area. There are over 14 horse ranches with over 300 horses in this canyon. The total investment in lust the barns stables and eauiament for these 14 ranches is Well over $2 million. The City should be proud of the accomplishments of its residents and should welcome more prestigious people like these to our area. Replacing the equestrian enWicisily nt with a golf course and all its commercial facilitishame to the people that have helped build the name for of Santa Clarita. cer ly Nicholas T. Lamprakes Agenda Item• � I I 11 I Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Comments and Responses Commentor: Nicholas Lamprakes Date: July21, 1996 Response: 1. Comments do not pertain to the adequacy of the EIR. Your comments are included herein to notify decision -makers of your concerns and.opinions regarding the project. City of Santa Clarita July 21, 1996 Mrs. Gwen Mosshammer 28015 N. Sarabande #1312 Canyon Country, CA 91351 The Planning Commission City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita. CA 91355 Dear Planning Commission: The proposed golf courses in Sand Canyon have raised several issues of concern. The expulsion of wildlife and the taking down of hillsides are unfortunate, but the annihilation of 268 oak trees seems quite excessive. These trees could be here for many generations to come if you let them. There should be limits to the dearing of natural beauty. The use of existing ground water will most certainly accelerate the drying up of wells local residents depend on. Also, how will this affect the oak trees when their tap roots can no longer reach the groundwater! Also, the cutting of ridglines and massive earth moving will change the- scenic landform forever. No longer will it be rural with its rolling hills, but replaced with commercial elements and track homes. There has to be a better design or another location for this golf course. Your truly. Agenda Item: l I I 1 1 ' Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Comments and Responses Commentor: Gwen Mosshammer Date: July 21, 1996 Response: 1. Comments do not pertain to the adequacy of the EIR and no response is necessary. Your comments are included herein to notify decision -makers of your concerns regarding the proposed project. It is noted that the greatest danger to the remaining oaks on the golf course will be the ' potential for overwatering during the summer drought season rather than the extraction of groundwater. In addition, the project design proposes to sell the lots for custom homes and ' standardized "tract" homes are not currently proposed. city orsanta clanta i r John W. Newton & Associates, Inc.Na e � , Jn- sofissiona('eonsu&nfs . 165 High St., Suite 103 Post Office Box 471 Moorpark, Colifomia 93021 Telephone (805)378-0073' Fox No. (805) 378-0080 July 22, 1996 , Glen Adamick Assistant Planner ' Community Development Department City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, California 91355 ' Re: Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course[s] Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report ' Dear Glen: Following are P.W. Gillibrand Company comments on the R/DEIR currently, being circulated for public review: 1.4 Project History: The following discussion should be added to thi- section. The 103.4 acre Griffin parcel is restricted from future develop- , ment per CUP 2156, including the forfeiture of development rights to more than two (2) large ranch lots as a condition of Tract No. 32571, County of Los Angeles, wherein Griffin'Homes achieved all of the allowable residential density for the Crystal Springs project in 1984-85 by clustering 134 homes west of a ridgeline separation between the U.S. Forest boundary and existing mining operations, thereby creating the substantial, all-important and effective -to -date buffer zone between urban residential uses and mining , operations; well established, conflicting land uses based upon long standing, sound, professional planning standards. ' The fact that Griffin Homes deliberately failed to record the final phase of Tract 32571 does not, and cannot, defeat the density transfer trade-off authorized by the County of Los Angeles at the time. Full density ' for the project was achieved, and the open space -large -lot buffer parcels were provided for through the entitlement process; to eliminate the justi- fiably anticipated visual -noise -dust -vibration conflicts that are inevitable between remote, heavy industrial type mining operations and sensitive, , expensive residential estate properties. The City of Santa Clarita accepted the application for the -Hunters ' Green project which now proposes fifty three (53)'residential golf course estate homes on the entitlement restricted 103.4 Griffin.parcel. City officials have indicated that they believe annexation of the Griffin parcel from the County of Los Angeles will provide for the application of City , density transfer policies allowing residential development of the buffer parcel, notwithstanding the existing development restriction on the proper. under County regulations. The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) wil REAL ESTATE BROKERAGE MINERAL REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT ' Commerdal • Industrial • Land RESOURCE Engineering • land DKWon • Permits Residential Relocation DEVELOPMENT Planning • Zoning Glen Adamick July 22, 19.96 Page 2 be required to determine the appropriateness of the incorporation of this parcel into the city limits, when, by that very action, the land use entitle- ments affecting the property under Los Angeles County jurisdiction and regulations become violated. This could give rise to affected property owner property rights claims (the open space buffer was created for, and belongs to, the 134 Crystal Springs property owners who have a right to rely upon the full and complete entitlement package which created their individual properties), and to claims from potentially impacted property rights holders adjacent to the proposed project, and could involve multi-level jurisdictional disputes which could take years to resolve. For example, the estimated thirty five ($35M) million dollar investment in the existing, fully -permitted surface mining operations owned by the P.W. Gillibrand Company, partly in reliance upon the effectiveness and dependability of the open space -mining buffer, suggests that this Company will make every effort to protect its interests, and fight to maintain the buffer, which the Company strongly believes has allowed the peaceful coexistence of two potentially conflicting land uses. The City of Santa Clarita, according to published staff reports, has acted on four (4) different -occasions since Los Angeles County's approval of the Crystal Springs project, and since'City incorporation, to uphold -without reservation -the entire entitlement package of conditions (CUP -Tract Map -Oak Tree Permit, etc., etc.) approved under TR32571, Crystal Springs, 1984-85. One of the reported actions may, in fact, have been a withdrawal•by the applicant of .a proposal to develop the restricted buffer parcel in 1991 for 45 homes, identified as the Griffin Springs project, TR49185. The City Planning Commission at the time gave strong indications that it opposed developing the buffer parcel, and intended to recommend that the City remain consistent with its previous actions involving Crystal Springs properties, and the existing Crystal -Springs project conditions of approval imposed previously by the County of Los Angeles. 2.2. Summary of Impacts...: We believe that the following should be re-categorized.as Unavoidable Adverse Impacts -(IIS). Air Quality: Exposure to San Joaquin Valley Fever... On-going mining activities involving grading, blasting and excavation of mineral resources will result in fugitive dust particles in spite of diligent dust control efforts by the mining operator. Weather conditions, primarily prevailing and/or East Wind cohditions, will result in.fugitive dust blowing westerly, over the proposed project site, due to surface disturbances caused by mining activities for 25-30 years in the future. Noise: The applicant has not voluntarily, nor has he been required by the City, to prepare a full Noise Study conducted by professionals in the field, utilizing state of the art acoustical and concussion measuring devices, to accurately determine the effects of - adjacent, contiguous mining operations upon future Glen Adamick July 22, 1996 Page 3 r sensitive residential uses. The effects of heavy mining equipment operating noise, required back-up alarms, rotary drilling, drill and shoot blasting, mineral rocks falling -into haul truck beds - all in 'relation to climatic conditions (air density, prevailing wind, etc.) - over an adequate period of time to draw scientifically established, supportable conclusions, will, we believe, support a finding that noise is -an Unavoidable Adverse Impact upon the future residents proposed to be located on the development - restricted Griffin parcel. A scientific Noise Study is essential. Projections and speculation based upon impromptu hand-held meter readings are totally un acceptable in making such critical 'determinations. Land Use: There are myriad compilations of information identifying the inherent land use conflicts associated with mining versus residential land uses. State law has been establ.ished to -discourage residential develop- ment in the vicinity of existing or proposed mining operations, or along haul routes. State Mining Board regulations require full mitigation of potential impacts caused by encroaching sensitive land uses towards existing or future mining operations. Common sense is the best reliant of all,that residential land uses, where people have the right to quiet enjoyment of -their property, cannot be deliberately located near remote, heavy industrial type surface mining operations. Sound, professional planning practice dicates that land uses of these types are not proposed near to each other. Table 2.2-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts We believe that the ' following changes, comments and suggestions should be incorporated into this table. M ER -10: The available supply of construction aggregate resources ' would be substantially reduced due to the draw -down on these Designated Mineral Resources from other -production - consumption regions (San Gabriel Valley Region of Metropoli Los Angeles, San Fernando Valley Region and Western Ventura[ County Region). Additionally, there is no discussion, other. than a reference in the document, of the importance of the heavy industrial minerals being mined, and the significance their potential loss. The EIR Preparer needs to consult with the California ' Division of Mines and Geology, and in particular, review current documentation of the Classification and Designation of the affected mineral resources (DMG Special Report No. 1 and the Update (DMG Open File Report 94-14) documenting the cumulative shortage of Designated Mineral Resources in the Glen Adamick July 22, 1996 Page 4 to LU -3: Same as N-1. Further, there is no discussion of the importance of minerals development on the National Forest as an important element of the Angeles National Forest Land Management Plan, or the effects of the'potential loss of heavy industrial and special minerals upon the regional, state and national economy. 3.6 Required Discretionary Actions: We take issue with the EIR Preparer's conclusion that the proposed project will not require a Clean Water Act Section 404 Corps of Engineers permit. Current definitions of wetlands and waters of the United States, in essence, anything with a "bed and a bank" are jurisdictional. Development in the Oak Spring Canyon watershed and tributary would require a 404 permit. Perhaps the best and clear indication multi -region area. See conflicting statement on page 5.1- 10, paragraph 3. N -l: The EIR Preparer incorrectly concludes that existing mining operations are concluded adjacent to the east property line of the proposed project. Further, the EIR Preparer references the FEIS prepared.for Claim Groups I, II & III, inland of the Oak Spring, Rabbit Canyon and Oak Spring Annex mining areas — THESE ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PROJECT AREAS. THE FEIS PREPARED FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CLAIM GROUP AREAS IN 1991 IS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS AND PLANS OF OPERATION'IN E%ISTANCE FOR OAK SPRING; RABBIT CANYON AND THE OAK SPRING ANNEX MINING AREAS CONTIGUOUS TO THE HUNTERS GREEN PROJECT — The revised draft EIR contains numerous conflicts due to the.Preparer's failure to clearly distin- guish the 1991 FEIS covering future inland (East) mining operations, and the approved Plans of Operation and EA's covering Oak Spring, Rabbit Canyon and the Oak Spring Annex. And, the suggestion that a disclosure statement mitigates an environmental impact is patently wrong. The Subdivision Map Act and subdivision law require .disclosure of the existence of mining operations in the vicinity of proposed future residences in the Public Report required to be delivered to prospective purchasers of any property in a subdivision containing more than four (4) parcels. The proposed -additional disclosure is redundant in this regard, and will not prevent complaints of the negative effects-. of adjacent mining upon future residents, due to the improper placement of sensitive residential uses where they can be adversely affected — AGAIN,BY ANY STRETCH OF REASON, DISCLOSURES DO NOT MITIGATE, THEY SIMPLY TRY TO ESTABLISH SOME DEFENSE FOR DOING IT WRONG'IN THE FIRST PLACE., LU -2: Same as N -i' to LU -3: Same as N-1. Further, there is no discussion of the importance of minerals development on the National Forest as an important element of the Angeles National Forest Land Management Plan, or the effects of the'potential loss of heavy industrial and special minerals upon the regional, state and national economy. 3.6 Required Discretionary Actions: We take issue with the EIR Preparer's conclusion that the proposed project will not require a Clean Water Act Section 404 Corps of Engineers permit. Current definitions of wetlands and waters of the United States, in essence, anything with a "bed and a bank" are jurisdictional. Development in the Oak Spring Canyon watershed and tributary would require a 404 permit. Perhaps the best and clear indication kv t3 I -t 1S 00 Glen Adamick , July 22, 1996 Page 5 of this is the fact that a'State Department of Fish and Game 1601-1603, Stream - bed Alteration Agreement would be required. , 5.2 Hydrology, Drainage...: It has been verbally suggested that the future detention - retention capability of the completed Oak Spring and Rabbit Canyon "pits" are a significant factor in flood protection for the proposed development downstream. This section of the R/DEIR does not seem to indicate reliance upon retention - detention on U.S. Forest property. Should such reliance be a factor, then it must be kept in mind that the existing mining operations would need to be concluded over the next 20-30 years at the' Oak Spring - Rabbit Canyon sites, and final reclamation of these sites would need to include detention - retention facilities of adequate capacity to ' support any drainage calculations dependent upon such facilities. It does not appear that consideration of the final configuration of drainage facilities on the National Forest, evaluated completion of existing mining activities. For example, if final reclamation provides for the "silti in" of the existing debris basins over time, what effect will this loss of capacity have on future flooding downstream, on the project site? It appears once again, that reference is made only to the 1991 FEIS covering future inlai mining sites, and no real analysis is made of the existing operations, or of the existing documents of approval for these operations. Somehow, someone will need, in effect, to guarantee that the mining operations stay in existence, and conclude as planned; an interesting paradox in Light of the inherent conflicts between mining and residential land uses,.' which could result in premature'cessation of mining operations. 5.6 AESTHETICS: With the exception of Site Photograph "B.", Figure 5.6-3 (view is east, not west), the Revised DEIR is generally_ void of discussion' concerning negative visual impacts of the existing and approved mining operations at the east property line of the project, as such would affect ' future residents. Surface mining activities involve scarring of what some people would envision as pristine open space, natural vegetation on the adjacent Angeles National Forest. Decision -makers must consider the effect' of potential aesthetic impacts to future residents, and require project development mitigation. The project is encroaching upon the mining operations' which legitimately pre-exist. A recent proposed revision to the Site Plan lowers the elevation of the ' fifty three (53) golf estate homes to. be built generally on an interior ridgeline to the west. The effect of this is to provide the means to screen the future resident's view of the Oak Spring and Rabbit Canyon active mining ' activity sites through the use of berms and trees. This, of course, would need to be proposed mitigation to protect -future residents, which it currently is not. Notwithstanding the potential for screening the lower elevation alluvi^l, mining activities from future resident's views, the ability to screen the 0 Spring Annex hardrock mining site from future resident's views is problematic The annex is scheduled to be activated relatively soon, in fiscal year 1996-9 11 Glen Adamick July 22, 1996 Page 6 This approved mining project is located at 2000' elevation just east of the Oak Spring and Rabbit Canyon alluvial mining sites. Due to its higher elevation providing a clear unobstructed view of future residents to the mine, effective screening of the visual scarring of the National Forest hillside may not be possible. Theoretically, from a recent Line of Site analysis provided by the mining operator's engineer, a method of screening involving backyard and streetscape, trees and berms at.the future residences,may provide some protection for future residents who could be disturbed by the visual effects of surface mining at the higher elevations. Again, appropriate mitigation measures to protect future residents from these negative visual impacts must be considered. The Aesthic section of the R/DEIR does not address this issue. ' 5.7.1-b Setting (Noise): The first paragraph is totally incorrect due to inaccurate references and conclusions based upon the 1991 FEIS for the future, inland Claim Groups.I, II & III proposed mining operations. Existing mining operations'are located at the eastern boundary of the proposed Hunters Green project, at the Angeles National Forest property line. The Oak Spring Annex project, an existing, approved Plan of Operations ' and Environmental Assessment, is not an active mining operation at this time. It is authorized to be activated and the Operator will initiate hard rock �1mining at this siteimmediatelyupon sufficient demand for these hard rock, products. Alruvial resources mining is active both in Oak Spring and Rabbit Canyon (The first phase is complete in Rabbit Canyon —.the second phase will be initiated as the Oak Spring second phase concludes, and so on until all permitted reserves are excavated) Operations in Oak Spring, Rabbit Canyon ' and the soon to be initiated Oak Spring Annex will continueforan estimated 20-30 years, based upon demand. ' The "dynamite blast" referenced in paragraph 2 indicating a measurement of 72 dSA is incorrect. •The City staff member holding the noise meter was observed, distracted by the delay in igniting the blast, with the meter cd' location between a large oak tree and the blast — the meter reader was actually walking away from the selected, unobstructed meter monitoring location with the hand held meter pointed north, just west of the tree, when the blast ignited. Reference to this reading is totally and completely irresponsible t and staff was requested not to utilize it. Nothing is going to substitute for a full Noise Study, scientifically conducted and analyzed, as discussed at 2.2. The EIR Preparer is attempting to substitute projections and speculation from random noise readings developed with hand held noise meters. Long term noise readings need to be conducted under a variety of weather conditions, particularly with reference to air density and prevailing — non -prevailing wind conditions. Also, concussion readings from blasting taken at potential homesites needs to be conducted, in a similarly detailed study to fully understand and evaluate the potential effects upon future residents. Finally, and again,.the entire noise section is inadequate, incomplete Lk ■ Glen Adamick , July 22, 1996 Page 7 ' and inaccurate. Reference.s to the 1991 FEIS which studied the future inland -1 mining sites for Claim Groups I, II & III renders the entire noise section unreliable. Conclusions'of significance, impact potential and mitigation measures are based upon future mining.locations that would have little or noe effect upon future residents in Oak Spring Canyon. THE OAK SPRING, RABBIT CANYON AND OAK SPRING ANNEX MINING PROJECTS ARE ADJACENT AND IN CONFLICT WITH THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL ELEMENT OF HUNTERS GREEN. THESE EXISTING, APPROVED ' MINING OPERATIONS NEED TO BE CONSIDERED, NOT THE 1991 FEIS OPERATIONS ENVISIONED FOR CLAIM GROUPS I, II & III WHICH ARE REPEATEDLY (INAPPROPRIATELY) REFERENCED. 5_.8.1 Setting (Land Use): The reference to the 1991 FEIS for Claim Grou pE I, II & III is inappropriate for the analysis of the Hunters Green Project , relationship to existing mining operations in Oak Spring Canyon. 5.8.2-b. LU -3: The reference to the 1991 FEIS for Claim Groups I, II & III is -inappropriate for the analysis of the Hunters Green project relationsh to existing mining operations in Oak Spring Canyon. Thank you for the opportunity to ,l 1,V Until and unless the issues raised in addressed, certification of the FEIR opinion. cc:' Mayor Carl Boyer and City Chairwoman Linda Townsley Phillip W. Gillibrand Philip C. Drescher John Schwarze, LARPD Clara Johnson, USFS Elin Miller, DOC. Stephen Bledsoe, SCRPA comment on the Revised this letter are fully as adequate will not be Sincerely, -F-W. GillibrSa Draft EIR. and completely possible, in our Company John W. Newton Operator's Representative Council and Planning Commission Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Comments and Responses ' Commentor: John W. Newton Land Use Consultant, P.W. Gillibrand Company ' Date: July 22, 1996 Response: 1. Comment and information noted for the decision -makers. If the annexation parcel was to remain ' in the County, the conditions associated with Tract No. 32571 would still apply, unless a new development proposal was brought before the County and the County chose to grant additional development rights, which it may do at any time. Annexation of the parcel to the City would bring ' the jurisdictional authority for such decision-making to the City. As stated in the comment, it is the Local Agency Formation Commission's responsibility to determine the appropriateness of the change in jurisdictional authority. While the development rights of the annexation parcel have been transferred into the Crystal Springs project, this does not prevent the transfer of development rights from other parcels within ' the project site into the annexation parcel if it is brought under City jurisdiction. The same basic process that was used by the County to transfer development rights would be used by the City, with the net total of residential units permitted in the Sand Canyon area being substantially less than would have been without the transfer of development rights. The project site has a current entitlement of 151 single family residential units as indicated in Table 3.4-1 of the EIR and the ' proposed project would reduce this number by almost half to 76 units. With regard to the buffer zone and land use compatibility, please see Section 5.8. In addition, ' please note that Los Angeles County has also approved residential uses that overlook sand and gravel mining operations as evidenced by the Stonecrest tract (Tract 45934) currently developing east of the City of Santa Clarita city limits off of Soledad Canyon Road. Currently occupied ' residences and new `view" homes that are being constructed are less than 1,000 feet from sand and gravel processing plants in the Santa Clara River. Future homes in this tract will also have unobstructed views of the Gillibrand processing facility at a distance of about 4,500 feet and of t Gillibrand sand and gravel operations in the Angeles National Forest at a distance of less than 3,500 feet. The operation of these plants and sand and gravel operations would be expected to ' cause far more noise, dust, and visual conflicts to residential uses than that associated with operations in the Oak Spring Annex or Rabbit Canyon, yet the County determined that there was an adequate buffer of open space (occupied primarily by the Antelope Valley Freeway) between ' the industrial uses and the residential uses in permitting that tract. Speculation regarding potential legal action does not pertain to the adequacy of the EIR and no ' response is necessary. im City Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Comments and Responses 2. Information regarding past City actions is noted for the decision -makers. Based on the descriptions provided in the comment, these proposals involved the addition of entitlements to the annexation parcel which had previously been transferred from that parcel. The proposed project differs from those previous proposals in that it does not seek an additional entitlement, rather it seeks to transfer development rights from other parcels. The end result would be a lower number of total residential units in the project area. 3. The EIR preparor disagrees with the recategorization of exposure to San Joaquin Valley Fever as an unavoidable impact associated with the project. In fact, exposure to this disease is an unavoidable consequence of living in the Southwest regardless of the location of mining operations. Future residents could be exposed to this disease when working in their backyards, and also when Santa Ana conditions suspend fugitive dust from the dried Santa Clara River bottom. 4. A noise study of the existing mining operations was prepared for the EIR by an individual who has more than fifteen years of experience in preparing noise sections for EIRs. The noise study was done using a standard sampling methodology that was appropriate for the activities that were in progress on the day that the study was done. The instrumentation used was a Type II meter that is adequate for the preparation of general noise studies as indicated by ANSI standards. Contrary to the comment, the noise study was done using a tripod and not a hand-held meter and did employ scientific methods of data collection. The noise levels of heavy mining equipment, required back- up alarms, rocks falling into the haul truck bed and other mining activities were all recorded at various locations within the project site. Please see both Section 5.7 and Appendix E of the Revised Draft EIR. Noise calculations prepared for the EIR used standard attenuation factors that are reflective of the average climatic conditions rather than those of a particularly favorable or unfavorable day. Thermal and wind effects are generally negligible for the distances involved during the study.(less than one mile). In addition, the measured noise levels of mining operations were sufficiently low that even on an unfavorable day, the same level of activity would not result in an exceedance of the City's noise criteria for compatible land use at the nearest proposed residence. Rock drilling and blasting operations did not occur during the noise monitoring survey; therefore, the EIR reported data obtained by City staff during a detonation. While the commentor may disagree with the noise level that was recorded, it nonetheless was the noise level at the time of the incident. In addition, as stated in the EIR, detonations are expected to occur only 25-30 times per year or once every two weeks based on the FEIS prepared for the expansion of hard rock mining in the Angeles National Forest (Tetra Tech, Inc., 1991). Blasting operations are impulsive and last a very short period of time and so do not have a substantial effect on average noise exposure indices such as the CNEL, which is the index being used to measure the noise exposure of the site relative to City policies. While such impulsive noise may be a nuisance, its level and duration are insufficient to cause a significant noise impact based on the criteria used. The use of a rock drill for an entire day could cause a substantial effect; depending on the type of drill and material being ® City of Santa Clarita Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Comments and Responses ' drilled. Regulations for construction done on federal projects limit the noise output of rock drills to 80 dBA at 50 feet (Harris, 1979), but noise levels of up to 98 dBA have been recorded. Adding the maximum rock drill noise level to the noise levels produced by typical mining operations would increase the CNEL by about 5 dBA at the nearest residence, but the overall level would still be below the 65 dBA City criteria for compatible land use. ' While the commentor expresses a belief that the project would suffer an unavoidable significant impact due to mining operation noise, such belief is not supported by any submitted information ' and constitutes speculation. 5. The EIR consultant agrees that there are several land use conflicts associated with residential uses ' near industrial uses, as does the City's General Plan. That is why Policies 6.1 and 6.2 of the General Plan require a buffer between such uses. The golf course proposed by the project is such a ' buffer. The adequacy of the golf course as a buffer is determined by whether or not the noise, dust, fumes, and other aspects of the mining operation would cause an undesirable environment at the residential uses based on recognized criteria. Since the detrimental effects of mining diminish with distance, the width of the buffer is the controlling feature. Based on the level of mining operations observed to be occurring in the Angeles National Forest and the location of future permitted mining activity, the EIR concludes that the golf course provides an adequate width to buffer the ' residential uses. The nearest residences would be located over 800 feet from the eastern property line across from the Oak Spring mining area and 700 feet from the eastern property line near the Rabbit Canyon mining area. No mining activity currently occurs near the property lines, though a ' haul road does approach the property boundary. In fact, the Rabbit Canyon area has apparently been inactive for over five years. Current mining operations (excavation and loading) occur in Oak Spring Canyon about 2,300 feet from the nearest proposed residence, while future expansion into ' the Oak Spring Annex area would occur almost 4,000 feet from the nearest residences. More distant hard rock mining is proposed over 1.5 miles from the nearest residence, as discussed in the EIR. As noted in the response to comment l above, residential land uses have been located about ' 1,000 feet from the substantially noisier and dustier processing plants along the Santa Clara River. Based on an analysis of the potential adverse impacts of the mining use on the proposed residences ' and past practice, the golf course would serve as an adequate buffer. It is also noted that the currently entitled development for the 160 acres of the northeast portion of the project site allows the construction of a residence at 150 feet from the east property line adjacent to the Oak Spring ' mining area. . 6. The EIR acknowledges that the project site contains designated regionally significant mineral resources (Section 5. 1, Effect ER -10) and additional information provided by the State Mining and Geology Board (see response to comment 2 of letter from J. Parrish) will be added to the Final EIR text regarding the amount of reserves available. Nonetheless, there is still substantial resources available to be permitted and the amount of material present on the project site is an insignificant amount of such resources, as stated in the EIR text. The importance of heavy mineral resources being mined offsite is not relevant to the discussion of environmental impacts of the proposed ' r City of Santa Clarita Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Comments and Responses project since the project would not remove such resources from production. The commentor does not provide an explanation as to how the project would prevent the mining of materials from locations generally exceeding one mile from the project site and already permitted. 7. Contrary to this comment, the EIR does not assume that mining operations are completed in the areas immediately adjacent to the project site, though this commentor does refer to them as "completed pits" (see comment 12). The noise analysis discusses -the current existing conditions and the fact that operations are not currently located near the eastern property line. The noise analysis was based on the current location of aggregate mining in Oak Spring Canyon and the proposed expansion of mining in the Oak Spring Annex, as is clearly stated in the text on pages 5.7-7 and 5.7-9. The EIR noise study also assumed the reactivation of mining operations in Rabbit Canyon and assessed the potential -effect of such activity (see first paragraph on page 5.7-9). The EIR also disclosed that other operations are planned in the Angeles National Forest at a more distant location and referenced the Final EIS regarding those future operations. The assignment of significance level is based on the greatest impact anticipated, namely that of mining operations in Rabbit Canyon. Since noise levels caused by such activity are not anticipated to exceed the City's criteria for compatible land use, no significant impact is anticipated. See also response to comment 4 above. 8. No mitigation measures are required regarding noise effects and the disclosure statement is not intended to reduce the environmental effects of any impact. The EIR discloses that the City is intending on requiring such a notification to make sure that prospective landowners are aware of ongoing mining activities whether or not such disclosure is already required by other laws. The EIR also notes (page 5.7-10) that complaints could nonetheless occur, but such complaints do not constitute a significant environmental effect. 9. See response to comment 7 above. 10. See response to comment 7 above. Since the project is not located within the jurisdiction of the Angeles National Forest Land Management Plan, it is not a requirement of CEQA to address this plan. The project is in compliance with Angeles National Forest policies regarding a 100 -foot building setback from forest boundaries. With regard to protecting the mineral resources on adjacent lands, the use of the golf course as a buffer to reduce nuisance effects of the adjacent mining operations on the proposed residential area is considered acceptable and in compliance with General Plan policies 6.1 and 6.2 to use open space (in this case the golf course) as a buffer between mineral resource areas and sensitive uses and to maintain such areas. The importance of heavy mineral resources being mined offsite is not relevant to the discussion of environmental impacts of the proposed project since the project would not remove such resources from production. The commentor does not provide an explanation as to how the project would prevent the mining of materials from locations generally exceeding one mile from the project site and already permitted. Fir City of Santa Clarita I I I I I I 0 1 I Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Comments and Responses 11. Comment noted. The Army Corps of Engineers is the ultimate authority on the need for such a permit. If a 404 permit is required by the Corps, then it is the applicant's responsibility to obtain such a permit should the project be approved. Whether or not a permit is required does not alter the finding of significant and unavoidable adverse effects on biological resources. To clarify this issue, the following will be added to end of the second paragraph on page 3-5: "However, the Corps may determine that a 404 permit is required." 12. While the existing pits in Oak Spring and Rabbit Canyons have some potential retention/detention capability, such was not relied on by the preliminary hydrology study prepared by Sikand Engineering nor was it used to assess the potential for flood impacts to the proposed residences. 13. Silting in of the mining pits would not have an effect on the flooding analysis since this analysis was based on the capital storm flows and no retention capacity was assigned to these pits, as discussed in the above response to comment. The final configurations of these pits are not relevant to the discussion of flooding since the worst case (no retention capacity) was assumed in the hydrology study. 14. Comment noted, no response is necessary. 15. The title for Figure 5.6-3.B. will be corrected from "west" to "east" in the Final EIR. The visual effect of the mining operations is an existing character of the landscape and does not create a significant environmental effect of the proposed project. Please note that the recent court decision of Baird vs. County of Contra Costa (1995) indicate that the courts find that the purpose of CEQA is to protect the environment against a project, not to protect proposed projects from existing environmental detriments and therefore the visual effect of the existing mining operation is not germane to this EIR Future homeowners would be well aware of the existence of this visual problem prior to their purchase of proposed homesites, and presumably, the selling price of those homesites would be commensurate with such a view. 16. As stated above, the visual aesthetics for new private residences is not a consideration in the visual impacts of the proposed project. If the applicant chooses to lower some of the pads in an effort to screen those homesites from unattractive. views or to add landscaping elements, such is done to maximize the selling value of such homesites and is not a required mitigation measure. The "protection" of future residents from existing and ongoing visual effects is best left to their own individual discretion. 17. The description of the noise environment was based on direct observations of mining operations at several different times over the course of more' than one year and includes direct noise measurements of current mining actions. During various site visits conducted during the preparation of the initial and revised Draft EIRs, mining activity never occurred adjacent to the east City of Santa Cfarita Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Comments and Responses property line. The only mining -related activity that did take place near the property line was haul and water truck travel along the dirt road and this was measured and discussed in the EIR (see Location #2 results in Section 5.7 and data in Appendix E). The EIS is referenced with regard to those future activities that are covered by it and the existing activities (such as at the processing plant) that it also discusses. To clarify the difference between the Oak Spring Project Area and the Oak Spring Annex, the Final EIR will be revised in the second paragraph of page 5.7-3 to read as follows: "Excavations are now being conducted in the east end of the Oak Spring Project Area at about 1,500 feet from the property line and are to be initiated in the future in the nearby Oak Spring Annex area, over 3,000 feet from the site boundary. Open pit mining is proposed for portions of hillsides located over one mile from the project site (Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Gillibrand Soledad Canyon Mining Operations, September 1991)." The potential resumption of activity in Rabbit Canyon does not alter the fact that it is currently not being actively mined, and that it has not been for over five years. 18. Comment noted. The precise location of the meter reader with respect to the detonation is not expected to have created a substantial difference in the measured sound level. A single large oak tree does not create an effective barrier to the propagation of noise. Since the microphone is unidirectional, the fact that the microphone was pointed to the north is not relevant to the meter reading. Please see also response to comment 4 above. 19. The noise analysis was based on noise measurements conducted at several locations within the project site and on a standard methodology for calculating the potential noise levels of offsite mining equipment. A comparison of the methodology used to calculate noise levels of the mining operations with actual measured levels show that the noise calculations are conservative. Actual noise measurements of mining operations at the eastern property line yielded an Leq of 55 dBA, whereas the predicted noise level at this location was 65 dBA (see Appendix E). The noise readings were not conducted in a random manner; they used a well-established methodology for the collection of data (Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc., 1973) and the measurements were taken at specific locations within the project site that would be exposed to the highest noise levels being produced by the current mining operations. Given the relatively low noise levels measured at the nearest proposed residential location, wind and thermal conditions alone would not change the assessment of significance levels. As noted above, that assessment was based on calculations that yielded hourly noise levels 10 dB greater than actual conditions. Further long term noise readings are unnecessary given the conservative nature of the calculations and would not alter any conclusions of significance level. With regard to detonations, these events last approximately 0.5 seconds and do not occur on a daily or even weekly basis. For a single detonation at the Oak Spring Annex to cause an exceedance of the City's 65 dBA 24-hour CNEL at the nearest residence would require a sound level exceeding rCity of Santa Clarita I I I I I E I I 1 I 1 I 5, LI P H I 1 I I Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Comments and Responses 150 dB at 50 feet from the source, a sound level equivalent to a rocket engine taking off for an observer on the launch pad. This sound level would have required a sound level reading of over 117 dB at the property line rather than in the 70-80 dB range as was recorded by City staff and physical pain would have been felt by any observers within 1600 feet of the detonation. Since neither event occurred, it can be assumed that individual detonations would not cause an exceedance of the City's noise criteria. 20. Opinion noted. See responses to comments above, particularly responses 4, 5, 7, and 19. 21. The Final EIS contains factual information that was repeated and referenced in the EIR. The EIR consultant fails to see why this information is inappropriate since it is acknowledged that the EIS discusses future mining operations planned for in the Angeles National Forest. The EIS also states that the existing mining operations, which included all activity in Oak Spring Canyon and Rabbit Canyon, did not have an effect on property values, particularly those of the nearby residences in the Angeles National Forest north of Oak Spring Canyon. This information has specific relevance to the question of land use compatibility. 22. Opinion noted; no response is necessary. City of Santa Ctarita Jul -24-96 02:51P Continental Lawyers Title 818 304 9ft- p.02 C ;r: 2 1996 CO1*MNTS REGARDING THE REVISED EIR OF THE HUNTERS GREEN ' RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPI= AND GOLF COURSE ' Allen Z. Penrose July 24, 1996 Beneficial effects does not talk about how the equestrian lifestyle will be.impacted by this proposed development. There are over fourteen horse ranches with over 510 million dollars invested to enjoy the equestrian lifestyle.in Oak Springs Canyon. This development will have a significant impact on these equestrian nroper*_ies. The The revised position of the 76 homes will increase the amount of clearflow across oak Snrinaa Canyon Road_ The run-off from the to percolate into the soil. During heavy storms retention and detention basins will fill up with the quantity of water that comes down from the hills, therefore, the new flows will only increase across the main road. The City will be opening the door for liability when the first person gets swept away. The City should be made aware of this potential liability. My'three civil engineers all state chat the clearflow will be increased over Oak Springs Canyon Road. The EIR does*not properly evaluate.the clearflow across Oak Springs Canyon Road. A complete hvdroloav The area of the run-off across Oak Springs Canyon is being Proposed to have an all -wether crowing. The only type of 3 crossing that I have heard discussed is.an •Arizona crossina". This type of a road crossing is to my understanding no longer to code in Los Angeles County. what will be built at this location that will be allowed by the County of Los Angeles? The developer is still not proposing to bring an alternate water 8=pply to th-.neor) ac the end of th a^y_on. You have heard their testimony on how they -are continuina to lose their water suDDly. with the developers using their wells, this will only impact the quantity of water from their .wells. M+ wa Prune needs to be extended L.92 -X29 know that the d v �o�er s use of water well- wo,n't�t_their wel lq Are the residents next to the aat a of the a if c0=2e really lower in_elevation than n iobboring hom s? Why wouldn't toxic chemicals drift to their wells? Are you certain chat the flow 'isn't to the east or that there is an underground pond that these toxic chemicals will settle? Some of their wells are over 500 feet, Can't toxic chemicals tranQ�ort down wells? and aver to these 1 5 Jul -24-96 02:SIP Continental Lawyers Title sla 304 9375 6 Will P.incon to financial liable for any damages caused by lack of water or toxic chemicals entering our groundwater? As pointed out at the Planning Commi?sion meeting on July 16, 1996, the idea of the developers using tnair own walls will only create at environment where if envnn=,g.wp_11 - -s °zoos d'v r•r.:mac person will blame it on thegolf course. How are you going, to be certain that the golf course will not dry up. anyone s well in Oak Springs Canyon? Who will be financially responsible if they do become dry% What will be installed at the end of the proposed streecs cc capture all the coil orea3a and other pollutants before they S� rLach the deterftion and rP*ention baains� We do not want the water to flow off the streets into a detention basin and have these pollutants percolate into our groundwater. The subdrains will be installed prior to grading. Presently, designed our subdrains that will be exiting percolated i� groundwater and toxic chemicals at the southern edge of my property. Please be very specific and state how the percolated water with the toxic chemicals will not enter onto my property. How can vol predict the actual flow of eroundwa[er! How can you guarantee that the two test wells will detect the toxic chemicals in our groundwater before any of our wells .are polluted? Who will be financially liable if anyone comes down with cancer and it is determined that their well is polluted with toxic chemicals from the golf courses? In public testimony on July 16, 1996 you heard long-time residents state that the well quantity and availability is slowly disappearing. How can -you state that based upon your assumptions that the water.quantity impact will be less than significant. My understanding is that as the water table falls there is more Of a chance chat the a ondwarer will become polluted, as the tZ water from the golf course has more potential to reach the .source of our groundwater. In your analysis, the 15% re -charge of our water supply will �3 percolate through the toxic chemicals usedon the golf course. It dDDedbe renlacinn rhe1C we will be lOglny with tainted_ water. Is this real1v a fair exchange? How can you recommend that the golf coursee o ed by t annual tecor s of crroundwa cr usao Shouldn't this be monitor i� meters and by an indPnendent third party, especially considering the significant effects if the guidelines are not followed! 2 I P.03 Jul -24-96 02:51P Continental Lawyers Title 818 304 9375 1S t,(6 Jur groundwater prDblams typically occur in late summer (September). For some reason this year, the residents started to experience problems in July. Based upon public testimony and the tact that tyoical well water problems start in the summer, the requirement of permitting no groundwater in octobar through Dec=tuber unless rainfall greater than 14 inches, should be changed to include July through December. What is meant by the statement "Results of the aquifer tests noted above may be used to modify this mitigation measure"? Does t`Flf: ;urt pertain tJ the unrostrictad u5 when rainfall exceeds 28". Or, does it pertain to all of 0-7(r,) in Table 2.3-1? Doesn't it take a few years to recharge a "depleted aquifer"? ...�-G . . W^ VLau1l Q1p is oa xnae ea 13IDea J n i o967 . The EPA has 3ust started studying the effects of mixing toxic chemicals. They have stated that when you mix toxic chemicals the impact is not just doubled but the potency level can be 160 to 1600 times greater_ Thia significantly impacts golf courses because several toxic chemicals are usedon the golf greens at the same time. You state that as long as the pesticides are approved by the EPA they should be okay to use on the golf course. How does this affect your analysis based upon the latest EPA announcement on mixed toxic chemicals? IHow will the impact of drawing the aroundwarer affect the oak t1 trees with their heavy dependency of drawing water from their tap roots? You state "the higher volume of traffic may expose undetermined areas of safety conflicts along Sand Canyon Road. Consequently, the accident characteristics of the road should be monitored by the City. to identify any possible future problem areas". course? You have a number of streets and driveways that intersect Sand Canyon Road. You have a great number of trees, Posts, telephone poles, mailboxes and a narrow bridge only a couple of, feet .away from this road. At lease a t there are no lights: Hou can you state that the design meed of. Sand Canvon Road is 55 M211considering the above information? (Will the left hand turns be able to handle the banquets, wedding 2t� receptions, etc. How will this type of activity affect opposing traffic. 3 P.o4 I I I I r] I I I I I r I Jul -24-96 02:52P Continental Lawyors Title 818 304 9375 I Disagree with AES -3. Replacing these ridges with a parking lot will be significant. Also, this view is also enjoyed by the rQoidertc of Oak Springs Canyon, who have invested millions in their properties no enjoy their hillsides and theenvironment. It is a.so viewed by the homes north of the 14 freeway. Could ' Zt you ol!•a O till me bow rhi3 can be considered an "innovarive 6r4:eCt" Per the *Hillaidc Ordinance. %"hat is so innpyat:ye abou a icre park o�_lor on a slgnific.�nr ridrleline? I could understand if tha golf .airways where placed solely on these ridg?s. The intend of the Hillside Ordinance is to ?reserve the r'dgea, r. c bu..d park:n3 lots, commercial clustering of homes. The sizes of the proposed residential lots do not adhere to Che "Sand Canyon Special Standards•, which calls for a rural equestrian environment. The visual impact of the clusterinc of =Z these homes will bP obvious and does not adhere to th other. eauestrian residents in the area. On page 5.6-7 you state the clustering of homes are compatible with existing neighborhoods. There is nothing ccmnatible with tbrse homes with the equestrian what kind of linhrira will be tfaea on rhe ree arer of the driving 23 ranee. This 1s not mentioned In the EIR. Its stated Chat berm lighting will be used, but I don't think it can be used on the tee or hitting area. The driving range will produce a "glow, in the Oak Springs canyon area that will alter the night time sky view and is not in compliance with the Rand Canyon—Special Standards r[v Understanding is 2S appears to be higher preclude.spillage of is not level. The b than the hiah ar ele Every ' uaL gyne large parxing lot is not level. It on the south end. A four foot berm will.not vehicle head -lighting off site if this lot KeeP nd 7f\Iirw n behindmyihouse adoes $not address of the fthis ers sfact. lice thAlso, trees doe ball. The anotay 4 P.O5 26 ninat ne 6-1 ar the .1 mining operation. I am times the distancemore of the proposed homes. The homes are now being situated in a bowl, with the ridges -to the west. This nuisance noise will reverberate in that part of the canyon. 2"l What kind of a Public Address system will be used? You still have a discrepancy in the EIR. You state low level parking lights (15 feet or less in height) on page 3-6, that only 4 foot but state height lighting will be used later in the report. Which is correct? KeeP nd 7f\Iirw n behindmyihouse adoes $not address of the fthis ers sfact. lice thAlso, trees doe ball. The anotay 4 P.O5 Jul -24-96 02:52P Continental Lawyers Title 818 304 9375 21 Cto✓ •3olf balls. '1Z13 design is unaafa. The Planning Ccmmis3ion on July lo, 1995 stated that the condition will be stronger to address this issue. JAIaO, it appe4r3 t"at the par 5 along Oak Spr-ngz Car.YCn R Gad will h.? a 3afeCy factor for the resid-nts and the users of the mul�i-see trail. 31 How many of the small 1000 oak trees are expected to survive? MV ung',ar2tardi - y :' ••:za' .•,j eVelUy»C rJ VaL dG::7 _�G blfiid t':? multi -us= rrall as Harr r. nc� w r`a -�as•� You State the y f h � t-rm�rr. nt City of Santa Clarita will be per;orming all tha gracing. 4hlo is responsible? There is proposed a ground booster pump using a gas turbine engine. How much noise will be generated by this engine for the residents on Sand Canyon? what happens if this pump.breaks? How will this affect by alternate water supply? The debris basin will require 10 more oak trees to be removed. ,,, The expansion of Sand Canyon Road will require additional trees to be removed. Altogether, how many trees in total will he removed due to this development? is The information concerning the well depth between 18 and 53 feet on oage 5.2-5 needs to be updated. These records are now 10 years old and this City has significantly grown during that period. Also, weather conditions (droughts, etc.) have probably significantly modified these results. It only takes a few years out here for a well to go dry. A few vPars aao thA sans s information should be included in the REIR. The information on page 5.2-8 concerning the well depths in Oak Springs Lanyon is incorrect. The majority of the wells are ,yb between 100 and 200 feet. Some are around 300 feet, and a couple over 500 feet. About 10 years ago hardly anyone was over 300 feet, but because of the decrease in the water availability the residents have bad to go deeper. On page 5.2-13.you state that in major storms, the lakes and grassy swales would not reduce flow depths and widths. This only �1 supports that the flow across Oak Springs Canyon will only increase as the result of the drainage from the home, streets, parking lot and club house. ++The EIR references the Cape Cod study as a basis of establishing �L Igolf courses do not contaminant groundwater. �e Matigg_I 7" Audubon artinln A�►,.� e._—���__ _ _ 5 P.0 I Jul-24-96 02:52P Continental Lawyers Title 818 304 9375 P.07 1 1 1A ueveloom ellC oI aoIr rntlrQPQ. The New York Audubon Society is owned and operated by various golf course associations. Why do you feel more comforrabie knowing that the N.Y. Audubon Society in involved? Wouldn't it ha mnrc nrnAunr r.. w- - our, croundwatP Farr jka Iop00se to acr aag f et No one understands that number. Based upon your information it appears that it will be about 1 million gallons per day per course. %j Why ql- akesoulThisegolf run-offourse will below fulluofoff water Sed ment.togo Willinto theseheir lakes have cement bottoms? Will they use chlorine? ion bout Valley I thath5 peopleshavead.ied.becauseFofeit inynot Venturaclude Countyhasfaact in result of the 1994 earthquake? 1 '( lHow does valley Fever affect horses or other animals? 6 1 Jul -24-96 02:53P Continental Lawyers Title 818 304 9375 Some ^f+st'c I e3 Ira Ilse n a 't :::i_ -�,�• _ � uS dr+Er i*nro Mea i^7 borhor,d will oro"nr + s�ccLrring: I•-1 �E6 ;i:�w ;�: r±;c d... l {nc ^a --la--Ir a`•�- -,, Z--- the Calculation of vehicular c'iNs are you considering that this is a very compact golf course, a lot smaller than your average 36 hole courses. :- using tie amount of acraage as oppose to the number of holes more appropriate? With the size ^f the tancust=3Cility, a CMP should oe required. The banquet and reStaLrant.zaclevels for a CMP. size :rill ho.3 250 3uescs. A �{ wedding reception of significant, size will exceed the require qj Won't this disrupt traffic jOn page 5.6-8 you state the curvilinear street design serve to minimize grading and simulate the natural contours, etc. There is a significant amount of grading that will occur and the redesign does not follow the current landform S�jOn item 7, page 5.6-8, the grading design will impact the flow -of water over Oak Springs Canyon Road. Also, our, view corridor will be serious disrupted. 13 55-- 5(. s 56 Absolutely disagree with the analysis that the mitigations on page 5.6-27 would make impacts less than significant. Z invite YOU to come out some evening and se or yourself esn{ally cor�siderina the arox�mity of the oa king aeI9nD-QZjnCL homeslot and driving range _ za2111tles? How can you do an adequate noise study notknowingthis? Why are the developers hiding this? 7 P. 08 I I I I I I A I 1 I IJul -24-96 02:53P Continental LawyQrs Title 818 304 9375 I I I Nearly haif of :.ur country#z rivar9, an..! ::acv\.: :ar-a .�.t£1 polluted or threaten^d, and we have serious problems with cur drinking water supplies. Health warning, advisories or bans on eating fish have been issued for more than 4;000 bodies of water in 46 states. Both wildlife and people are affected by toxic , chemicals that contaminate our water. In some areas of he isn• The importance of this issue needs to be more ly discussed in this EIR. Groundwater is an important component of available'wacer resources in the United States, of which half Of the population uses ground water as their primary Isource of drinking water. How can we knowingly pollute an area that the City's public war -,2r (groundwater) comes from? ;.«&4 A -A&M 1-eacure, cnaccned turfgrass, compacted soils, and precipitation or application of irrigation at rates exceeding the rate Of infiltration. This i9 in Cmmnlorm rnntrncr ulnar ,., z :__ 7u6 n on rur rarass $-A lOr crops. Not 158 as stated in your report. Your analysis again is full of assumptions. In college, I remember the rate to be i0-118. , The major variables affecting soil erosion are climate, soil characteristics and behavior, vegetation types and thickness, and steep or sloping topography. Forests that include under3tory bZ) layers of saplings and shrubs and herb layers, will hold soils in Place better than turf grasses due to complex intertwining of deep root systems of various dimensions. Also, turfgrass roots only grow a few inches below the surface. This contradicts that the golf course will assist in erosion. t( Ski couraea bu i 1 r nn .t.� a* over, Shallow sort„ i f ra are 1J\ COnaiC:ered at riaY fnr a.,i�e..�s-..� _ - _ 8 P.09 Jul -24-96 O2:54P Continental Lawyers Title 818 304 9375 14, P.I I I i71e rapc^ 3tat29 that a_mphlb'3'15 brgv1rt1 through cheir '}'''] 3n; , ars 'r�ry v+ii�o-ab Le rn ct�?m1ca1 aOnlic3rjcrjc . The Highrove Lands (oZ below the golf course have witness several frog and salamander kills_ This potential threat to the amphibians in this area needs to be addressed in che.REIR. 63 V( 6s c also statets that duc to Cot:t env:rcilme.^.; sl concern for wet'..srds, wacer, and wildlife protection, it turns out that new golf course develoaments across the U.S. are coming ua against tough environmental scrutiny by the public and government. According to a recent survey by the American Society of Golf Course Architects, 39 out of 40 golf course architect firms report difficulties obtaining aE+rni{ta for Wolf arojects because of environmental concerns of 1 al. state or federal agencies The concerns. stated in order, where wetlands, h litat, nitratea U2=1. This is really important forthe decision and should be part of the REIR. In the book.Golf Course Manxop,pent and Cotlacructi Issues by Roberta M. Tiege, Research Biologist, sl s to know c LMA_&� states that I ++��"., 1. VVll UQliy will remain In ►+e environment. They are designed chletly of synthetic petroleum products. wild egg -or - nut -eating animals with ability to ehew.into a golf bail include coyotes, foxes, squirrels, and skunks. Also, domestic animals like dogs and horses will chew on them. There is also the obvious problem of swallowing the balls.. Many golf balls have a liquid center made of a hiahly toxic chemfcal Ethylene Glycol, which animals seem to like the taste of this substance. This issue is not addressed. Initial site nre aration. with heAw uv iG 3 in of fertilizers into root _Zone mixt uIles profoundly -pre-crow mixing alters the area, this causino an xod[a of wi�dl issue plus what quancities.of fe. The EIR pesticides does and not :address fertilizers will the be used to development the 1969 booklet, seecifieations greens of the golf f tours course. In , Conseructfon, fo a Method of Green fertilizer published by USGA recommends 1680 pounds of organic per acre of putting greens alone. 9 I Jul -24-96 02:54P Continental Lawyers Title 818 304 9375 LJ in the report. they State that "C3reLll selection Of .golf gotlrge ,fires can pr --mpg cerrylin problems toward and with and pots- °l'IPMA1.' b tZ The value ' of Cooperation with local biologists, conservation experts, and IcCal Organizations cannot be understated is eac:i case." This develooment is being opposed by the Sierra Club, National Audubon, SCOPE and local residents because of.environmental concerns. You would.think the developers and the City would understand this and modify the project. The report also states "The dvnamic state of environmental. nublic and reaulatory concerns has 1nCrea ':-dt``• ,a: s'`�y.••7tl for - pe now go I1 -'^Ur3Me9_ I lsana gv:9LiT1Q COn3rrUCtlOn DraCL1C,e3.` In a recent report on mitigating the negative effects of golf course on the aquatic habitat, Klein (1990) identified several problems associated withgolf course construction and maintenance. These factors include: stream channelization; loss of wooded buffer zones on waterways; increasing the temperatures of streams and lakes as a result of shad reduction, reduction of intetflow recharge, release of heated water from shallow ponds; release of toxic substances and oxygen deficient water from ponds; pollution of surface water and groundwater from periodic 10spills,.Of pesticides, fertilizers and fuels; pollution of surface water and groundwater resulting.from nonpoinc movement of Pesticides and fertilizers; and movement of pollutancs.in storm flow from imperious surfaces. It appears Lhar_ this proi►�cL has several of these stated negative effects In the book entitled Golf Course Hanaae_menr and Construction Environmental rustles, it states that "nitrogen levels tend to ' decrease over time and, therefore regular additions.are required to maintain the preestablished nitrogen level. This condition is exacerbated .on coarse, sandy scic which are subject to leaching from rainfall and irrigation.° It also states, that "turfgrass ' also needs potassium in rather large quantities. Potassium deficiency is also exacerbated by conditions favoring losses of nitrogen; such as extensive leaching occurring on sandy. coarse textured so' s." Other essential elements to turfgrass include sulfur, calcium, magnesium and micronutrients. Sulfur deficiency is at about the same frequency as potassium and is observed, again, on Coarse sandy -sol` low in orcanic matter which are Subject to intensive leaching." "Sandiness increase the Dossibonutrient-4aLLq1gn.Cy. There will be a tremendous amount of fertilizers used on this golf course that cannot be.prevent or altered by an Integrated Pest Management Program. The above book also states that high level of fertilizers have to be used where divots dictato the need for rapid growth to enhance turfgrass recovery. High rates of fertilizer is required on small and heavily trafficked tees in many areas. How is this Igoing to be modified so not to affect our groundwater? 10 P.11 Jul -24-96 02:55P Continental Lawyers Title 818 304 9375 M 110 In the H report they state (iyuL Lu ounas„1_9Crpam3, r1V2rS dna lake9. This is intansified where forest is removes: and replaced with turfgrass,...° This definitely fits our scenario. P+F7 g i.� II r .� ..cvvi� aaic.,ulu c�c uilDiay a■ving DO CC1 91Qe8 OL Ln 9tOtV, No where in this document do you talk about the fact that someone has died.from toxic poisoning due.to a golf course, or the number of lawsuits related to toxic poisoning from golf courses or the wave of concern from the general public related to the safety of golf courses, 4wd bow difficmit it is to cat these projecto safety iss,gs. i 1 .1 . 1 1 i 1 I P I I I J PJ I I I I I 1 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Comments and Responses Commentor: Allen Penrose Date: July 24, 1996 Response: 1. Economic and social effects are not a CEQA issue and are not considered effects on the environment (State CEQA Guidelines § 15131); therefore, they are not discussed in the context of an EIR. 2. The revised location of the residential lots will have. little effect on the amount of clearflow . previously assumed to occur as a result of the project: Runoff from impermeable surfaces developed by the project will be directed towards swales and golf course ponds where infiltration can occur. The hydrology analysis (Sikand Engineering, 1995) indicated that flow velocity exiting the site would actually decrease, thereby decreasing current risks of crossing Oak Spring Canyon creek during high flows. Commentor does not offer any data or analysis that disputes the findings of this study. This hydrology study did examine the channeling of all flows; however, it will need to be updated if the project is approved to reflect the final design and to indicate to the City of Santa Clarita Engineering Division the method by which storm flows will be appropriately controlled prior to discharge to downstream channels. 3. The type of an improved crossing (concrete ford, culvert, or other system) would be determined by the City's Engineering Department at the time that final design plans for the site are available if the project is approved. 4. The EIR states that a significant water supply impact on current users of the Oak Spring groundwater aquifer is expected if uncontrolled use of that supply occurs. Mitigation measures are recommended to reduce the potential for this impact to occur. Mitigation Measure D -7(d) would require that water infrastructure be brought to the edge of the Angeles National Forest. 5. Residences east of the golf course are higher in elevation than the nearest portion of the golf course. The commentor is referred to the larger scale maps available for review at the City Community Development Department which have 2 -foot contour intervals and a scale of 1"=100'. Unless there are unusual conditions, groundwater pollutants generally move in the direction of groundwater flow, which is typically assumed to be in the downstream direction as indicated by surface flow. The transport of chemicals to deep wells is dependent on the specific characteristics of the aquifer. Pumping a well creates a cone of depression, with groundwater flowing into that cone from all directions. The size of such cones in the Oak Spring Canyon area is currently unknown since no data is available on which to base a calculation. It is possible for the cones of depression to extend across the property line to the golf course and so could potentially entrain any pollutants that should infiltrate. However, complicating this effect is that in the typical case of a semi -confined aquifer, there are several semi -impermeable layers through which pollutants would rCity of Santa Clarita 1J Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Comments and Responses need to penetrate prior to reaching the aquifer zone that feeds a deep well. If downstream flow is sufficiently quick, the pollutants would never penetrate the semi -impermeable layers to contaminate the lower aquifer layers before they are washed out of the local area. In addition, even , if pollutants do reach the well, they may be in insufficient concentration to cause a health risk effect. Because of the lack of specific information, the EIR assumes that the project would cause a significant effect on water quality. I 6. The landowner is responsible for those actions that are taken that may create an environmental liability. The EIR consultant is not responsible since they have no control over those actions. , 7. Comment noted. The golf course owner, similar to the other landholders in the area, has a legal right to exploit groundwater. Ultimately, if the exercise of such rights results in a substantial adverse change in the water supply, the groundwater basin may be adjudicated by the State Water Resources Control Board, who has the authority to determine how much water may be pumped and by whom. Financial responsibility is likely to fall on all users of the groundwater basin. 8. Several designs of catch basins are available that will serve the purpose of capturing oil, grease, and other materials as they are washed off of streets. A sand filter trap that employs a hood over the lateral exit drain to keep floatables from entering the discharge pipe is probably the best design. Much of the material caught within the sand filter trap naturally biodegrades, though they do require periodic maintenance and cleaning. The actual design to be used at the site is expected to be included in the recommended Best Management Practices Plan if the project is approved. 9. Subdrains are installed during grading, not prior to grading. There is a potential for water containing golf course chemicals to be transported from the site and this forms the basis for the EIR determination that a significant impact on surface and groundwater quality could occur. 10. There are standard methods for determining the direction of flow of groundwater, with the primary indicators being the bedding direction and the direction of surface water flow. There are no guarantees for any actions taken in any setting, there are only reasonable probabilities. Since the two groundwater monitoring wells will be located closer to the source of the pollution, it is reasonable to believe that any pollution could be detected prior to substantial contamination of downstream wells. It is noted that even if chemicals from the golf course are found in downstream wells, it does not follow that a significant effect has occurred. The concentration of such chemicals has to be at a level where there is the potential for a health risk in order for a significant effect to occur. The golf course owner would be financially liable for any environmental liability that may have been caused by the use of chemicals on that property. 11. Commentor has apparently misunderstood the EIR findings; the EIR determined that a significant impact on local groundwater quantity could occur (Effect D-7). Commentor was apparently confused by Effect D-6, which discussed the potable water supply to be provided by the Santa Clarita Water Company. City of Santa Clarita ' Hunters Green Residential. Development and Golf Course EIR Comments and Responses 12. As the water table falls, any contaminants dissolved in the water may become more concentrated and therefore more capable of causing a health risk. However, a lowered water table also increases ' the distance and the time that it takes for a percolating pollutant to reach groundwater. Since most of the chemicals of concern degrade over time, this effect would decrease the amount of potential contamination. In addition, the actual source of the groundwater may differ from that of the upper ' aquifer layers that may become contaminated with golf course chemicals. 13. Whether or not the 15% of recharge flows through and aids in the deep percolation or transport of chemicals is dependent on the irrigation schedule and the timing of application of the chemicals. It is noted that more than the 15% return flows is expected to percolate through the golf course; incident rainfall would also percolate through the golf course. e14. Comment noted. It may be appropriate for the City to provide a condition that requires the installation of meters on the groundwater pumps. 15. Comment noted. It is the understanding of the EIR consultant that the local area did not experience the requisite 14 inches in this past water year that would have then allowed groundwater extraction. As noted in this mitigation measure, the results of aquifer testing may be used to modify this measure, and if appropriate, in the manner suggested. This statement refers to all of the limitations discussed. The time necessary to replenish an aquifer is dependent on the physical characteristics of the aquifer, shallow alluvial aquifers will fill with a single good year of rainfall while deeper aquifers may take several years to reach a higher equilibrium. 16. The potential synergistic effects of mixed chemicals has been known for over twenty years (see E. P. Odum, 1971, Fundamentals of Ecology). The primary problem has been in determining just how to calculate the health implications. For example, it was known in the 1960's that a more potent insecticide could be created by mixing smaller quantities of DDT and malathion then by using larger quantities of either in isolation. Coupled with synergistic effects is the fact that certain chemicals interact against each other, reducing their potency and reducing the potential for health effects. The EPA in the past had been simply adding the health risk effects of various chemicals together since they had yet to determine if the interactions were synergistic or antagonistic. It is anticipated that further regulations will be promulgated under existing EPA authority that would affect the manner in which chemicals may be used at the proposed golf course. This does not ' change the EIR analysis in that a significant water quality impact was assumed to occur under existing regulatory conditions. It does affect the potential type of chemicals used and the manner in which they are to be used and the types of controls to be contained in the recommended ' Integrated Pest Management Plan. 17. The type of oak trees present at the site undergo a summer dormancy period and the withdrawal of water during that time will not affect them. The greatest danger to the remaining oaks on the golf course will be the potential for overwatering during the summer drought season rather than the extraction of groundwater. The oak tree specialist hired by the applicant will be working with the ' ® City of Santa Clarita Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Comments and Responses golf course irrigation design to avoid such effects because of the inherent value of the oak trees to the golf course. 18. As stated in the EIR, these unknown safety conflicts cannot be determined at this time. A review of the Sand Canyon roadway by a traffic engineer indicated that there were no obvious safety conflicts, and, unfortunately, the death of S people over a 10 year period is not an unusually high rate for this type of facility. The recent death of the horse indicates a conflict in uses rather than a particular safety hazard. It is noted that many accidents on lightly used rural roads are created by excessive speed for prevailing conditions. As additional traffic is placed on the road, average speed declines and the number of accidents per vehicle mile traveled also declines. 19. Design speed has nothing to do with accident history. Design speed is the highest rate of safe travel associated with a road based on its physical and engineering characteristics (i.e., slope, vertical and horizontal curve radii, width, roadway surface, etc.). 20. Left hand tum lanes are constructed to provide for safer crossing of roadways and would acceptably handle the type of traffic expected. Left hand tum lanes in themselves do not affect opposing traffic. 21. Comment and opinion noted. Effect AES -2 refers to public vistas not to the private vistas of local residents. Private vistas are not generally protected -- a neighboring residential user can choose to block a view with a large tree or to degrade it with an ugly building as has been done in several locations within Oak Spring Canyon. The view from the freeway is discussed under AES -2 and considered to be a less than significant impact as explained in the EIR text. The loss of the ridgeline is considered significant and unavoidable under Effect AES -1. It is up to the City decision -makers to determine if the golf course design as a whole meets the criteria for innovation. 22. The applicant is requesting a Planned Development overlay to allow for the clustering of homes and these standards would not apply. The proposed residential lots because of their location will generally not be visible to residential uses that are located adjacent to the proposed golf course, nor will they be generally visible to significant public viewing locations. With regard to Oak Spring Canyon, there would be a substantial open space buffer of a golf course between the proposed residential lots and the equestrian lots of Oak Spring Canyon and this is a compatible visual environment. 23. The applicant is proposing pole lighting for the tee area. The EIR recommendation for splash lighting consistent with safety requirements would apply to the tee area also. 24. Comment noted. Such a glow is considered a significant impact under Effect AES -4 in the EIR. 25. The final design of the parking lot will need to meet the requirements of no light spillage if the project is approved. ® City of Santa Clarita P Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Comments and Responses 1 26. There is a difference between the ability to hear the mining operation and whether or not the sound level constitutes an exceedance of noise criteria for compatibility of land uses. While the mining operation was clearly audible during the noise monitoring at the site, the average sound levels were ' lower than that which is typically experienced in residential neighborhoods in the City. Reverberation is associated with hard surfaces that are generally lacking in this canyon. No ' reverberation effects were noted during the noise monitoring. 27. The type and nature of public address system have not been defined for this concept level proposal. The applicant has indicated that it is expected to be low volume and located at the starter's office, over 700 feet from the nearest offsite residence. 28. The low level pole lighting description contained on page 3-6 is what the applicant is requesting; the 4 -foot height bollard lighting is the EIR-recommended mitigation measure. City Council will determine which lighting scheme is used during its decisions on the project. 29. Opinion noted. The fairway outside this applicant's yard was redesigned as shown in this Revised Draft EIR to place the landing zone farther away from the north property line and the berms and plantings proposed for the tee area (see Figure 3.0-5) are an effective means to stop slices. 30.. Comment noted; no response is necessary. 31. The landscaping plan is not yet finalized and the actual number of these nursery oaks to be used is unknown and the number that will survive is consequently unknown. Typical revegetation efforts for natural conditions assume a 33% survival rate for planted trees. ' 32. Under current planning, the developer is providing the trail easement and dedicating it to the public. The developer will provide rough grading where the trail is adjacent to the golf course and a public entity would be responsible for final grading and development and all grading where the trail is not adjacent to the course. 33. Such pumps are generally enclosed in either an underground vault or an above -ground masonry building. Sound levels immediately outside the enclosure of such units are typically in the 50-55 dBA range and are suitable for location in residential neighborhoods. As for any water system, if the ' pump breaks, it will be fixed as soon as possible. Gravity -fed water from the proposed 2.5 million gallons of storage would provide.service during the period necessary to fix the pump. Emergency pumps or back-up units may also. be installed 34. The total of 268 oak trees given in the EIR includes the removal of trees for roadway widening, but excludes those to be removed for the debris basin since the basin is a Flood Control project and not actually part of the proposed project. The applicant is providing the land for this project. 1 r I City of Santa Clarita Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Comments and Responses 35. This information is still relevant since groundwater levels have again risen after the end of the recent drought. The Fall 1994 groundwater contour map showed water levels at 0-50 feet below the ground surface at the Santa Clarita Water Company wells near the mouth of Sand Canyon. The following will be added to the text of the Final EIR at the end of paragraph 3 on page 5.2-6: "The Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (1995) reported groundwater contours in the Fall of 1994 of 1500 to 1550 feet MSL in the Santa Clara River between Sand Canyon and Oak Spring Canyon, which corresponded to depths of 0-50 feet below the ground surface. However, the Santa Clarita Water Company reported that during the recent drought before 1994 that its shallow wells at the mouth of Sand Canyon had gone dry, requiring reliance on its deeper wells and State Water Project water." 36. The EIR consultant received information for 12 wells in the Oak Spring Canyon area which were developed between 1986-1995, of which ten of these wells were drilled to the depth of 280 feet or deeper. Without additional information regarding all of the wells in the Oak Spring Canyon area, it cannot be stated that the majority of wells are more shallow. 37. The logic of the commenter is faulty regarding an assumed increase in flow. During peak storm events, the watershed is assumed to be saturated and virtually all of the incident rainfall will become flow as would be the case for impermeable surfaces. 38. Comment noted. The findings reported in these studies are the reason why the EIR found that a significant potential for contamination could occur. The Cape Cod study is but one of several listed in the Balogh and Walker text that indicated that no pesticide contamination of groundwater was found, while several other studies showed the potential for contamination. The Cape Cod study is important because it shows both sides of the issue: the past use of persistent leachable materials (namely chlordane) can result in long term detrimental water quality impact, while the use of other chemicals without these characteristics may not create a similar problem. Based on this information, the EIR concluded that the project may have a significant impact on water quality if the project uses extensive amount of leachable, persistent chemicals (such as Bensulide, Dicamba, or Ethoprop - see Table 5.2-1). On the other hand, the positive results reported indicate that it is possible for a well- managed course to not create a significant effect; therefore this impact was not considered unavoidable. For these reasons, the EIR recommended that an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Plan be prepared for the project and that monitoring wells be installed to determine the adequacy of the management plan and as an early warning system regarding potential contamination. The recommendations contained in the "Toxic Fairways" report are the type of procedures that would be written into the operational manuals (i.e., the IPM) for the course. For example, the use of Dicamba should probably not be permitted at this site because of its carcinogenic character and its tendency to leach into groundwater. 39. The EIR has not placed any particular weight on the New York Audubon Program other than to note that they can serve as a third party monitoring agency. From the perspective of designing with the rCity of Santa Clarita Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Comments and Responses ' environment in mind, the New York Audubon would also serve as a resource of appropriate techniques that are more conducive to maintenance of environmental values. This does not imply that the project does not create significant impacts, nor that the EIR is "comfortable" with their involvement. The EIR clearly states that anumber of significant impacts are expected to occur as a result of this project, several of which are unmitigable. The EIR and the City are independent groups evaluating the effect of the golf course project. The opinions of advocacy groups are noted for the decision -makers. 40. The conversion between acre-feet to gallons is 325,850 gallons per acre-feet. This converts to about 820,000 gallons per day initially on average for both golf courses, roughs, and revegetated natives. Daily water demand would vary substantially over the year, with summer periods demanding more ' and winter periods substantially less. The use of acre-feet is an acceptable means of envisioning water usage. For example, a typical family of four uses about one acre-foot per year in Southern California. 41. Technologically it is possible to remove chemicals from groundwater. It is unknown why the Santa Clarita Water Company would be doing this. 42. Routing run-off into the course lakes is a means of water conservation as the run-off would be pumped from the lakes and used again. It is unclear why the commentor assumes that the run-off will be full of sediment given that the golf course landscaping will serve to stabilize the ground surface and reduce the amount of suspended sediment, as discussed in the EIR text. The lakes are not proposed to have cement bottoms, nor is the use of chlorine proposed. 43. The deaths of individuals in Ventura County due to valley fever and attributed to dust raised by the 0 1994 Northridge earthquake is not entirely relevant to the proposed project. Santa Clarita was exposed to the same earthquake and the same dust clouds, yet has had no deaths attributed to this phenomena. It may be that the fungus is more virulent or grows better in the soils of Simi Valley as compared to Santa Clarita. In addition, while the project would increase the amount of dust during construction, it would in the long term reduce average dust production from the site by providing a turf covering. The project would not create any substantial increase in the risk of acquiring the disease and may actually decrease that risk over an individual's lifetime. 44. Valley Fever is not listed as a major disease of horses or other animals. It is assumed that the fungus can infect them similar to humans. a 45. Application procedures regarding the use of chemicals will be contained in the IPM for the course that will minimize the potential for drift. In particular, such chemicals would not be permitted to be used unless there are still air conditions. 46. Wildlife require surface water, not groundwater. The provision of open water sources associated with the project would aid wildlife adapted to such and tolerant of golf course type environments. City of Santa Clarita r Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR , Comments and Responses 47. The traffic consultant considered a number of methods for generating vehicular trips associated with the golf course and determined that the method used was the most reasonable. The applicant believes that the number of trips is vastly overstated. Please see comment and response to comment Nos. 1 and 2 of the Robinson letter of November 13, 1995, in Appendix G. 48. Comment noted. Banquet traffic will typically occur outside peak commuter hours, with somewhat r staggered arrival and departure patterns. A CMP is not required for this type of event, which is not a daily occurrence that happens during peak hour travel periods. 49. See response to comment 20 above. r 50. Comment noted. No response is necessary. 51. Comment noted. See the discussion in the EIR text regarding visual effects and response to comment. 21 above. 52. Opinion noted. If the heights, slopes and grades of cuts and fills were to match the existing natural contours, such slopes and grades would be potentially unstable and prone to excessive erosion. 53. Opinion noted. The clustering of homes in Oak Spring Canyon would not be readily apparent to ' distant viewers after completion of landscaping and would not be visible in the Oak Spring Canyon area except for. from the access road running along the north edge of the golf course. 54. Opinion noted for the decision -makers. r 55. The hours of operation for the dining facilities are expected to be similar to those of other golf ' courses, with the facilities available for banquet use in the afternoon and extending to about 11:00 pm.. The noise study can be done on this basis since such facilities do not create high levels of noise and there is a substantial distance and barrier effect between the dining facilities and the nearest offsite residences. 56. Opinion noted. There are numerous examples of both conditions and it is purposeless to provide r such a listing. The finding of compatibility was based on the design of the facilities and standard land use practice. 57. Comments noted. The general environmental issues being raised through.these comments are part of the reasons why the California Environmental Quality Act was implemented. The threat to species as a result of general land development and the pollution created by society is part of the reason for the formation of regulations such as the federal and state Endangered Species Acts. The EIR specifically addresses the threats to such species and the other issues raised in this comment. r City of Santa Clarita . r Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Comments and Responses 58. This statement is true in regards to barren soil conditions and highly traveled surfaces. It is not particularly relevant to the proposed development of amajor land area with a golf course. As stated in the EIR, the project involves a general decrease in the slope aspect of the site and a reduction in the sheetflow velocities of incident rainfall across the site, both of which reduce peak flow volumes of runoff. In addition, for the capital storm event, the project will substantially reduce the amount of material contained in peak flows, which increases their volume. While the amount of clearflows associated with post -project runoff from portions of the site may in some instances be more than a similar clearflow volume under natural conditions, the addition of eroded material to natural flows as prescribed under the capital storm methodology makes existing flows substantially greater for the peak event. 59. Commentor has apparently confused evapotranspiration with return irrigation water. Evapotranspiration was not directly used in the model, but can be inferred to be approximately 95% in dry years to 67% in wet years. Dunne and Leopold, 1978, in Water in Environmental Planning report an average value of about 67% for the conterminous United States and exceeding 90% in parts of Africa. The 15% return water rate was based on a discussion with the applicant regarding expected water usage rates, the appropriate Soil Conservation Service runoff curve number for the site soils, the moderate to moderately rapid permeability rating for onsite soils, generalized rates of infiltration from various texts, and hydrologic studies done in rural and suburban watersheds. As such, it is an educated guess at the actual average infiltration rate that may occur at the project site after completion of the golf course. This is why a range of percolation (0-25%) was given in the EIR (page 5.2-23). 60. The erosion comparison in the EIR is that of the turfgrasses with the existing soil cover of barren areas intermixed with sparse to heavy growths of shrubs and annual grasses and not to that of a dense forest in the eastern United States as is the example supplied by the commentor. 61. The reasons cited in the comment partially form the basis for the finding of significance in the EIR and the requirement for an IPM for the golf course. 62. The project site is relatively lacking in amphibians due to the and nature of the site, and the ponded water present at the site is infested with an exotic frog that is a major nuisance and threat to native wildlife and fish. The impacts to biological resources include the potential effects of pesticide runoff on local wildlife populations. 63. Comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the EIR. The problems associated with permitting a golf course is the applicant's concern and is not an environmental issue. 64. Comment noted; no response is necessary. 65. While animals may have the ability to chew on a golf ball, it does not follow that they will continue to attempt to ingest them after initially discovering what they are. The effect of golf balls on animal City of Santa Clarita Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR ' Comments and Responses populations is far less than that associated with the change in land use from native habitats to , turfgrass and managed landscaping. The number of animals found on golf courses, particularly species such as squirrels, attest to the fact that golf balls are not a serious threat to their populations. The course has been designed to minimize the number of golf balls that may be hit off the course and so would be available for offsite dogs and horses to chew on. As with wild animals, it would be expected that domestic animals would lose interest in the golf balls well before they are ingested, , though there is no accounting for some animals' tastes. 66. The site preparation phase is the reason behind the finding in the EIR of a significant unavoidable and unmitigable impact on biological resources. The project site is at a conceptual phase and the exact amount of preparatory chemicals to be used is unknown. The use of such chemicals would be guided through the Best Management Practices and Integrated Pest Management plans to be developed under the recommended mitigation measures in the EIR. Please note that putting greens are substantially smaller than one acre and the value reported in this comment would yield about 200 ' pounds of organic fertilizer per putting green. 67. Comments do not pertain to the adequacy of the EIR and no response is necessary. The potential negative effects of the listed issues that are pertinent have been discussed in the EIR 68. Comment noted. The amount of fertilizers to be .used in order to maintain the turfgrass is not an ' issue, only the amount that may be transported from the site and this would be addressed in the IPM and the golf course management procedures. There is also a substantial difference in the amount of fertilizers used depending on the management philosophy of the course and the type of vegetation, including type ofturfgrass and rough, installed at the course. A golf course does not have to be an immaculate green monoculture carpet to be a successful and challenging course. Specifically, the need for high rates of fertilizer can be reduced by the provision of developed paths (concrete, asphalt, , or gravel) rather than grass at heavily trafficked locations or by the use of courser and hardier grasses. The governing plans discussed above to be prepared for the golf course will take into account the actual need for chemicals at specific locations and the timing and amounts to be used with the intent to minimize any groundwater contamination. The monitoring wells serve as a means to enforce compliance with conditions and to refine the operation of the IPM and golf course management plans. If contaminants are found in the monitoring wells, the operator will be required to take action to avoid affecting offsite wells or to provide offsite residences with potable water 69. The misuse of pesticides is not limited to golf course operations alone, but occurs regularly at other , commercial, recreational and residential land uses. As previously stated, the potential for environmental impact as a result of such is considered significant by the EIR. Please note that the ' project site lacks forest, hydric soils, rivers and lakes as implied by the quotation. 70. The EIR does not take a position on whether or not the groundwater will be safe. It concludes that , past golf course operations have resulted in groundwater contamination and that this constitutes a significant adverse impact of the project The EIR also concludes that studies at golf courses indicate City of Santa Clarita ' I I Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Comments and Responses that they can be operated in a manner that does not result in groundwater contamination, therefore, the impact on groundwater is considered mitigable. Please note that nitrogen, nitrate, and phosphorus are all natural components of ecosystems and it is the addition of such materials in quantities greater than the absorptive capacity of the local environment that results in problems such as eutrophication (which is also a natural process - accelerated eutrophication is the problem). Acid deposition and partial depletion of stratospheric ozone by nitrous oxides are a result of cumulative, large scale air pollution, particularly that associated with large industrial facilities, coal and oil -fired power plants, and vehicular traffic in large cities and not the result of golf courses. 71. Opinion noted. Comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the EIR. The EIR consultant believes that the EIR is unbiased and does present both sides of the question. In particular, adverse significant and unmitigable impacts were found in the following issue areas: air quality, biology, aesthetics, and noise. Significant impacts were determined for earth resources, hydrology and water (both water supply and water quality), traffic and aesthetics. In regards to toxic poisoning directly related to the normal operation of a golf course, the EIR consultant is unaware of any documented case, but we suspect that the number is much lower than that associated with accidental poisoning associated with the use of household chemicals. As with any human endeavor, there are risks associated with all decisions. In this instance, it is the City Council's responsibility to make the decisions that they feel are most appropriate and serve the needs of society the best. City of Santa Ctarita �T ROBINSON GOLF DESIGN, INC. July 12, 1996 Mr. Glen Adamick Department of Community Development City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Suite 300 Santa Clarita, California 91355 Re: Comments on revised EIR—Oak Springs Golf Club Dear Glen, 1 30131 TowN CENTER DR., STE. 26M LAGUNA NIGUEL, CA 9267 TELErrtoxe (714) 363-5870 FAx (714) 363-583 Via Facsimile ' (105)259-8125 1 �i H4yY: • �. .•i •.T We've had the opportunity to review the revised draft of the environmental impact report dated June 13, 1996 by Rincon Consultants and for the most part, concur with the conclusions and recommendations therein. In one instance, however, relating to the use of riparian water from the Oak Springs Canyon wash, we feel it important to respond to the recommendations provided by the report in an effort to clarify our understanding and objectives. Since the last Planning Commission meeting, we have had the opportunity to research the water issues on the project and have realized a modified approach is necessary to affect an appropriate and economic solution for everyone involved. As I mentioned in a previous letter to you in March, 1996, California law encourages the use of available riparian groundwater for golf course irrigation purposes and discourages the use of domestic potable water when such alternate non -potable sources are available. The reason is simply one of expedience—develop as much of the natural water resources as are available in an effort to minim, the impact on domestic potable supply. The less we use of domestic sources, the more potable water remains available to alternate use. Consistent with the recommendations of the EIR, we are proposing to drill exploratory wells in both the Sand Carryon wash and the Oak Springs wash to determine existing water supply and the flow characteristics of the drainage systems. As the EIR has determined no adverse impact with the use of the Sand Carryon riparian system, testing will determine the quantity of water that might be expected with the full development of this system. To the extent water is found on the Oak Springs wash, the results of testing shall be submitted to an independent third party for the purpose of determining a level of ground water use that would Dot impact other existing users of this system. This level of water use would be considered the base level of water use on the Oak Springs system. i In an effort to meet the water requirements of the project, we are proposing a two tiered 2 approach relating to the use of these two riparian streams. Agenda Item: 1 r L 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 i Mr. Glen Adamick July 12, 1496 Page --2 ' (1) We would develop and use the Sand Canyon water system to its fullest extent and the Oak Springs water system to .the base level determined by testing and analysis. The EIR concludes this usage level will have no significant impact on other users in the area. Although there is no legal basis for the added mitigation requirement of a backbone water system at this level of water use, we will agree to install this system consistent will our previous offer to the residents of Oak Springs. (2) To the extent that water from these two sources is insufficient to meet the ' needs of the project, we shall have the right but not the obligation to increase the use of the Oak Springs riparian system to meet the remaining needs of the project. The backbone system installed previously shall be the primary ' 3 mitigation for the increased use of water from this system. However, to the extent additional pumping adversely impacts other well users in the area,.we shall agree to provide domestic potable water to those users so affected by ' installing lateral connections to the backbone system and paying the appropriate connection fees. This obligation shall extend only to those downstream users determined by the prior drilling study to be reliant upon the same riparian system and who can reasonably demonstrate they have been adversely impacted by our increased usage. From both an economic an ecological standpoint, we should be developing the existing water resources to their fullest extent. We are both legally entitled and encouraged by California State law to do so. Economically, the development of this resource will allow us to manage t l the fee and infrastructure burden to the project, thus protecting its economic viability. ' l Environmentally,'utilizing existing groundwater supplies is the most sensible ecological approach as it minimizes the project's impact on existing domestic potable resources. Those resources remain available to other uses within the City of Santa Clarita and represent the best water management solution for the region over the long run. However, we also recognize and acknowledge the City's concern with the protection of the ' well water supply for other residents in the area. The installation of a backbone system up frontoffers the opportunity for anyone who does not wish to rely on ground water to connect S to a domestic supply at any time. This opportunity is a significant benefit to the residents of this area and comes without impact to current well users. To the extent additional pumping does impact existing well users, our offer to connect those users to the existing backbone system insures a continuing source of potable water to all those affected. In either instance, ' the availability of an assured domestic water system will decrease both fere insurance premiums and the related anxiety level posed by a shortened supply in times of drought. Property values in the area cannot but help but have a positive response as a result. Please give me a call with any need for clarification. Sincerely yours, eodore G. Robinson Jr. Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR , Comments and Responses Commentor: Theodore Robinson, Jr. ' Robinson Golf Design, Inc. (Project Designer) Date: July 12, 1996 , Response: 1. Comments do not pertain to the adequacy of the EIR and no response is necessary. 2. The estimate of groundwater availability in the EIR found that the use of srpolemental water (defined as less than 50% of total applied water) from the Sand Canyon groundwater aquifer would not be expected to cause a significant effect. The use of groundwater as a supplemental source is part of the , project description. This comment implies that the applicant is now seeking to utilize the Sand Canyon aquifer for as much of the irrigation requirements for the Sand Canyon portion of the site as ' the golf course can extract. This exceeds the basis on which the finding of non -significance in the EIR was made and would represent a change in the project description. In fact, the EIR analysis (see Appendix F) indicates that a significant impact to the Sand Canyon aquifer could occur in dry and average rainfall years if the 50% limitation is exceeded. The mitigation measures listed on page 5.2- 25 that set limitations on the extraction of groundwater are to be applied to both the Oak Spring Canyon and Sand Canyon portions of the project and were intended to keep Sand Canyon extractions ' within the limitations of the EIR analysis. If the applicant seeks to extract more water than that indicated under the project description and the proposed mitigation measures, then an aquifer study similar to that recommended for Oak Spring Canyon should be prepared for Sand Canyon so that the , potential environmental impacts of such an increase in usage can be determined. The EIR preparor acknowledges that the applicant has the right to extract groundwater underlying the ' property, the same as others who ah-eady utilize this water supply. In fact, the transferal of an existing, formerly active well in the Sand Canyon portion of the site may provide additional rights in time for the applicant relative to other claimants to the groundwater supply. Nonetheless, the purpose 1 of an EIR is to determine if expanded use of groundwater, such as proposed by the applicant, would cause a significant, adverse environmental change regardless of such rights. Ultimately, if the ' exercise of such rights results in a substantial adverse change in the watersupply, the groundwater basin may be adjudicated by the State Water Resources Control Board, who has the authority to determine how much water may be pumped and by whom. ' The EIR recommended the backbone system as a mitigation measure not only for water supply reasons, but also for water quality reasons. The water quality issue alone is sufficient to provide a ' nexus for the recommended mitigation measure. Please see response to comment 2 above. The level of obligation to be assigned to the proposed project is at the discretion of the City Council in their decisions regarding the suitability of the ® City of Santa Clarita , Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Comments and Responses ' proposed project.and the number and level of mitigation measures to be imposed as conditions on the granting of discretionary permits for the project. ' 4. The use of local groundwater is not necessarily the ecologically most advantageous method of supplying irrigation water to the site. A fair argument could be made that reclaimed water should be used at the site, which would potentially be more ecologically advantageous. 5. Comments do not pertain to the adequacy of the EIR and no response is necessary. City of Santa Clarita I ti SCOPE Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment TO PROMOTE. PROTECT ANO PRESERVE THE ENVIRONMENT. ECOLOGY ANO QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE SANTA CLARITA VALLEY. POST OFFICE BOX 1182, CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91386 21 July 1996 Mr. Glenn Adamick Community Developement Dept. City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Ref: "Hunter's Green" Development Application SCH995041049 Please copy to all Planning Commissioners Desr Mr. Adamick: There are several matters concerning this application which SCOPE feels have not been adequately considered to date: • . The requirement of the project to pay CLWA connection fees, • CEQA related issues of approving a project without an adequate hydrology analysis, • Air Quality, need for over-riding consideration • The condition imposed by the County, prior to Santa Clarita's formation, that the affected site be dedicated to open space and low density uses, • Access adequacy, • Access to trails, • Compatibility with the Sand Canyon Special Standards District, • Consistency with the City General Plan Goals and Policies, Section 7, • The financial credibility of the ipphcation, and • Project phasing. CLWA Connection Fees It is our understanding that any development project application within CLWA boundaries is subject to CLWA connection fees. ' This requirement is imposed regardless of whether a project is served by CLWA wholesale water facilities or local purveyor retail water facilities, so long as the project is within the legal boundaries of the CLWA In this regard, the applicant's modification to obtain site water from on-site sources instead of the local purveyor so as to avoid CLWA connection fees, appears to be an effort in vain Even if the applicant capitalizes a water extraction facility totally independent of other resources, the applicant must still pay CLWA connection fees The fact that the applicant is not prepared to pay these fees reflects a lack of planning and attention to detail; it also indicates that this project may not be economically viable. ' Local AouiferHvdrologv CEQA prohibits approving projects without adequate environmental analysis. The modified application o, proposes to extract local ground water on-site to supply the project, instead of a combined locallimported 7 water resource from the local purveyor (S2nta Clarita Water Company). tThis is a significant change in the proposal. It is a -potentially very significant changed environmental impact, and requires - under CEQA - the preparation and circulation of a Supplemental EIR On this item it would be inappropriate for the Planning Commission to approve the project - even in concept - 'until the Commission can make an affirmative finding that this project will not represent an unmitigated impact on water resource adequacy and water resource quality. It would be especially inappropriate for the Commission to find that the project is approved provided that an adequate hydrologic evaluation is obtained. Doing so would defer an essential finding after the Point of Decision. It would also abdicate the Commissions charge to adopt findings based on evidence in hand, and would put the Commission in the position of relegating the basis of Commission's findings on an outside contractor in an 'after - motion' activity. This is clearly incorrect procedure. A hydrology report on the adequacy of the local resource to support this use must be conducted before any approvals are given. We note that the applicant's modified proposal.(not evaluated in current CEQA documentation),will ' extract ground water from the Sand Canyon tributary of the Santa Clara River basin, whereas the original application obtained water from the main portion of the Santa Clara River aquifer. The recharge and source potential of the Sand Canyon tributary to support the proposed water extraction, (including the effect of such extraction on other private well owners) has not been evaluated in the environmental documentation submitted for this project. This uncertainty and lack of proof is an explicit prohibition 'preventing the Commission from adopting any findings to approve the application regarding these matters. Air Quality, need for over-riding consideration 'The final EIR on this project states that emissions will not be mitigated below the SCAQMD thresholds (p.5.3-1) and that project specific air quality impacts are considered significant and unavoidable (p.5.3- 9). Therefore, according to CEQA, an over-riding consideration for this project will be required Open Space Provisions This project was considered under County jurisdiction, prior to the formation of the City. When the 'County approved the project, as proposed, it included conditions that certain portions of the property shall be dedicated permanently to Open Space. The current application involves a developmental use for property which, under previous County applications, was dedicated for permanent Open Space. SCOPE'S position is that all County -dedicated open spaceareas within City Boundaries reverted to the City upon incorporation. With this understanding, all properties in the affected project which are dedicated to open space use (or low density development use) should be continued at that use unless 1 modified by explicit findings of the City. SCOPE notes that the conversion of dedicated open space to development uses requires, under State Law, certain conditions and findings which have not, to date, 'been considered in the application Pro iect Access County and City standards prohibit establishing more than 75. homes with a single point of access in a Fire Hazard area. The applied project requests homes in excess of that permitted on a single access. The Commission needs to require the project to be scaled back to 75 homes or require a "Master -Planned" alternative access. P Access to Trails 1 Ct I A trail plan should be worked out to ensure access and trails to the National Forest area from Sand Canyon Rd. for all area residents. , Compatibility with Sand Canvon Special Standards District The Sand Canyon Special Standards District imposes additional design and development standards, many ' of which are more restrictive than provided otherwise thoughout the City by the General Plan, the Zoning Code, the Hillside & Ridgeline Preservation Ordinance, the Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance, and JkG others. The project, as currently proposed, appears to violate the provisions of the Sand Canyon , Community Standards District, as it would introduce commercial uses and a housing arrangement oriented to urban standards. A key objective of the Sand Canyon Community Standards District is to maintain and promote a rural ambiance to this area; the proposed project has failed to demonstrate ' compliance to this objective. Consistency with the Citv General Plan goals and Policies Section 7 This project as currently configured is inconsistent with Section 7, Water resources Preservation; policy ' i 1 7.1 and policy 7.8 (copy attached). It is suggested that all parties work with CLWA to bring reclaimed water to this site. ' Financial Viabilitv of the Project The project applicant has been quoted in local newspapers expressing concerns about the cost to comply , with conditions to be imposed on the project; in particular, a $7,000,000 connection fee to the Castaic Lake Water Agency became a key factor which led the applicant to modify the proposal. In addition according to public records, the applicant is in arrears on the property tax levied on this project property. , We also attach a recent Wall St. Journal article noting the low rating of golf course bonds and some problems experienced by municipalities which have issued those bonds. SCOPE has serious concerns that the applicant may fail to fulfill conditions of approval if these , Vv conditions involve significant costs. Shying away from imposed conditions is an ongoing concern for many developments in the Santa Clanta Valley. As an example, the Stevenson Ranch development has not vet provided a permanent fire station for the community, though this has been a required condition. Other promised amenities at the Stevenson Ranch development have never been built. If the applicant lacks the financial resources to construct the project as conditioned, the application ' should be denied The Commission has an obligation to evaluate the financial viability of the project in this regard Should the application be approved, the Commission should require guarantees in the conditions of 1 approval, such as performance bonds, to ensure that the conditions will be faithfully rartied out Project Phasing , We note that much of the controversy over this project deals with the scale of the project, which will construct two eighteen hole golf courses. Golf courses consume a large amount of water, and water availability is an item of controversy for this project Golf courses are also commercial projects, and can jj generate significant traffic volumes. Also, there are questions whether the project will be compatible with surrounding land use. All this suggests that the project should be addressed on a multi -phase basis. Perhaps the only approvals ' which should be considered at this time are for one golf course, not two. Several years after a single course is running, all parties should have better information concerning the impacts of this project on ' { 3 water availability, traffic, and adjacent land use. At this time it may be appropriate to consider approving I the remainder of the project Thank -you for your time and consideration of our concerns. Sincerely, ' 'Michaellotch, President Il II II II II Open Space and Conseivaticn Element `! 6.4 Require that mineral extraction operations provide and fund a plan for , the use of the extraction site once the resource minerals are exhausted. This plan shall include the removal of structures related to mineral extraction, the removal. of any onsite toxic materials, and the restoration of the site to a more natural condition or to a form usable • for urban uses, if the latter is a suitable land use. , Water Resources Preservation ' GOAL 7: To protect the quality and quantity of local water resources, including the natural productivity of all surface and groundwater, and important watershed ' and recharge areas. Policies: 7.1 Protect and preserve the supply and quality of water resources. in cooperation with federal, state, and regional water resource planning programs •and regulations. 7.2 Maintain high water quality standards for all water bodies used for public recreation. 73 Maintain the natural productivity of streams, rivers, and other water bodies by supporting regulatory practices which prevent erosion and minimize pollutant content in surface runoff from major development. 7.4 Prohibit the flow of polluting chemicals or sediments into groundwater ' recharge areas. 7.5 Identify and protect groundwater recharge areas and encourage the ' development of spreading and impoundment areas. 7.6 Require storm control systems, where necessary, to conform with the , natural drainage patterns of the area. 7.7 Utilize floodways for the purpose of recreation, scenic relief, , groundwater recharge, wildlife protection, and other compatible uses. -� 7.8 Protect watersheds that represent significant components of local and , . regional waterways and/or which contribute to the integrity of surrounding associated habitats. 79 Develop local and regional wastewater recycling. City of Santa Clarita OS -31 [l 61251st 1 I ' Onen SDace_axd Conservation Element ' 7.10 Encourage intergovernmental coordination and cooperation among all agencies involved in the management, conservation and utilization of water resources by jointly developing strategies for a secure water ' supply. 7.11 Establish and implement a city-wide water conservation program. - ' 7.12 Encourage the use of native and drought tolerant plant species for revegetation and landscaping. ' 7.13 Protect groundwater quality through -the establishment of a sanitary ' 7 sewer system hook-up program to require the connection of all urban uses/densities. 7.14 Monitor all industries whose operation or refuse • is potentially contaminating to the water supply or whose use of a private well may seriously overdraft the aquifer. 7.15 In conjunction with Sanitation Districts and their Boards of Directors, establish through ordinance, or resolution, policies that equitably ' distribute and regulate the use of reclaimed water. Energy Conservation GOAL 8: To reduce the community's reliance on traditional energy resources through ' the initiation of energy conservation practices and the utilization of available energy technology. Policies: 8.1 Promote the conservation of energy in the planning area. 8.2 Encourage the incorporation of conservation features, such as solar ' panels, in the design of new. development and the installation of conservation devices in existing developments. ' 83 Consider incentives for the installation of energy conservation measures in existing buildings. ' 8.4 Encourage the use of passive design concepts such as the siting of buildings in such a manner as to increase energy efficiency. 1 8.5 Encourage use of solar collectors on public buildings. City of Santa Clarita 8/25/91 OS -31 'e - JOURNAL# WALL h DSTREET rwat :STERN EDITION ruiURSDAY, APRIL 113, 1996 RivEasioe,CALIFORNIA • • • % 5 C E iv ,r S tom •awe muuwu as we year uelwe, adya the RIZheimer fnlernational, Rochester, Wis. It lasIng OOLF BONDS can be a long shot, but a few make It intothe pros. ler York, say's some lofstserthingsice nit mulls In when considering goif-course revenue bonds for an investment.grade rating Include an in' independent market study, local climate and los demographics as well as experience. It helps hl' Io,llave a "manager of golf," as has Aurora, Tie Colo., analyst Jerry Caden says. Still, ire Moon's Out ra es; handful Of the bonds t and they are all Baa- Its lowest Investment*. quality grade. The bonds are supported by greens tees. Municipalities have been drawn to reve. nue bunds to fund golf courses partly to avoid raising property taxes. The move I to probably peaked In the early '90s, but 1 I some of the buyers were more adept as duffers 5 s than as Investors, says Grant's Municipal Bond Observer, New York. II f It says a few of the Issues sold n few years ago are It now showing their divots by missing payments. Part of the problem:toa•rosyProjections. Market studies most Ge taken "with se st of wo a 1. grain oJsall,"saps Mr. Laden, to BRIEFS: Minolta Baking Contrast Meter, a Corp.hand-held device t Ll that measures a food's brightness during �I st Production In ore to rparh a rnclnm,r•s m I Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Comments and Responses ' Commentor: Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment (SCOPE) Michael Kotch, President ' Date: July 21, 1996 ' Response: 1. Comment provides a listing of issues to be discussed in the letter. Please see responses to these ' individual issues below. 2. Comments do not pertain to the adequacy of the EIR. The economic viability of the project is not ' a CEQA issue. 3. The change in the proposed project to use groundwater as a supplemental irrigation supply does not create a requirement for the preparation of a Supplemental EIR since no certified Final EIR was prepared for the project. A supplemental EIR can only be prepared when a Final EIR is available (see State CEQA Guidelines § 15163). The Revised Draft EIR serves the same CEQA purpose as sought by the commentor and is the appropriate document for a revised project description. ' 4. The Planning Commission has the discretionary authority to approve the project regardless of its impacts on water supply or any other issue. CEQA only requires that when projects are approved ' under such circumstances that a findings statement also be made, and in the case of unavoidable impacts, that a statement of overriding considerations be made. The EIR in fact concludes that the Oak Spring Canyon aquifer is inadequate to serve the irrigation needs of the project and that the ' project as currently proposed would have a significant impact on both water quality and the local groundwater supply, necessitating the need for findings statements in any approval process. Mitigation measures have been proposed to limit the extraction of groundwater to a level that does ' not affect current users of this water supply and so findings could be made under Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The additional aquifer analyses to be done as mitigation measures are ' to "fine-tune" the recommended conditions of approval when a final development plan is brought to City Council for approval, if the concept plan is approved. ' S. The Revised Draft EIR does in fact evaluate the extraction of groundwater from the Sand Canyon aquifer. Please see pages 5.2-21 to 5.2-26. and Appendix F. ' 6. Comment repeats conclusion of EIR (see page 2-2). 7. The specific proposed project was never considered by the County and no approvals of this ' development nor dedication of open space were made. The annexation parcel portion of the project site was the subject of a transfer of development rights, as discussed on page 1-4 of the EIR. The approved General Plan for the City (1991) does not designate this land for open space, City of Santa Clarlta 1 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Comments and Responses rather it is designated for residential use. The annexation parcel in fact was not designated as open space under County jurisdiction either, rather it was approved as a residential use with a limit of two units. 8. The project includes two means of access from Sand Canyon Road to the residential area: Live Oak Springs Canyon Road would connect at the southern end of the residential area and the golf course road would connect at the northern end. Please see Figure 3.0-3 and Section 3.7.4 in the Project Description. 9. Comment noted. No response is necessary. The applicant has proposed a conceptual trail system as discussed in Section 3 of the EIR and is still working with local residents, groups, and the City on final details. 10. Opinion noted. The golf course use is permitted within residential land uses. Please see discussion on pages 5.8-3 and 5.8-4 of the Revised Draft EIR and the Initial Study contained in Appendix A with regard to the Sand Canyon Special Standards District. 11.Commentor does not indicate why the project would be considered inconsistent with these two general policies. The mitigation measures recommended for the project are aimed at maintaining water quality in compliance with Policy 7.1 and the project would not change the total water supply, rather it seeks to appropriate water for its use as do all projects. The project site, on an acreage basis, is not a significant watershed component of local and regional waterways. 12. Comments and opinions noted. The economic viability of the project is not a CEQA issue (see State CEQA Guidelines § 15131). Your comments are included herein to notify decision -makers of your concerns with respect to economic issues. 13. The applicant has not proposed a multi -phased project. and so it has not been addressed in this manner by the EIR. Given the substantial grading proposed for the project, which is expected to involve the transfer of material between the two watersheds of the site, and the economic benefits of scale associated with constructing both courses simultaneously, it may not be viable to the applicant to proceed in the suggested manner. Your opinions are included herein for consideration by the decision -makers. City of Santa Clarita J 1 1 1 Juiv 21. ;9.06 !=a W'imsatt 1 1,3007 River Orcie 4-1, Canyon Caurtr;7, Col 9135; 1 Or ut Santa Clanta 23320 l-alencia Blvd.. Suite 3�C 1 Santa Clari'a, Lear Ivembers w the Planning Commission: 1 1 mOved :o Carta Clar.°ta a few vCars ago til get :he congestion, cane and pro_vems ot'the tan F prrardo !alley. 1 enluv the ri Wtr of walking at night atter a hard 1 day of work andjust the overall openness of this area. ! rafflc is a .manor drawback of the "anta Garita T,Ialiey. It seems that :!..' Lity cJ7ltlrluec to grow 'nithout concent w:th the 1 amount of traffic associated 'Kith development. - i ,Low i fear about twu golf eourscs being considered In dee Saris Canyon area. Ines project 1 will cause a lat more traffic in our area 1 can possibly underzrand allowing a single golf Collrse, jcr the CO?7774ri^; L Yrh`r' i It necessarl to allow two. Do we really reed two gotj' coursosin this area? Do we have that many goljers in Santa Clarita that will use these two 1 coif courses or will it draw people from the San Fernando Valley and other outside areas Al how much traps can and Canyon Road handle? 1 Please do not turn this valley into another Sen Fernando Valley that 1 so happily left. Respectively yours, 1 Arita W.'msatt II -� ■ Agenda Item. — 1 1 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Comments and Responses Commentor: Anita Wimsatt Date: July 21, 1996 Response: 1. Traffic effects of the proposed project were addressed in Section 5.5 of the EIR. Otherwise, comments do not pertain to the adequacy of the EIR and no response is necessary. Your comments are included herein to notify decision -makers of your concerns regarding the proposed project. 1 City of Santa Clarita APPENDIX G COMMENTS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS TO THE INITIAL PROJECT EIR Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F - Response to Comments ' RESPONSE TO COMMENTS This appendix contains all of the written comments received regarding the Draft EIR during the 45 day public review period of September 29, 1995 to November 13,1995. The appendix also contains written comments received after the close of the review period and verbal comments received during the public hearings as contained in the minutes of those hearings. Each comment received by the City has been included within this appendix. Responses to all comments are have been prepared to address the concerns raised by the commentors and to indicate where and how the.ElR addresses environmental issues. Where appropriate, changes have been made in the Draft EIR in response to these comments. The specific comments contained within any particular written letter has been numbered if not previously done in order to provide a reference to it in the response. Each letter is presented first, with the responses following. In some instances, comments were numbered already, but in order to properly address the issues raised, they have been renumbered. The minutes of the hearings of October 3 and November 21, 1995 follow the written comments and responses to verbal comments follow each set of minutes. ' A total of 22 public agencies, organizations, and individuals prepared written comments on the Draft EIR. They are listed below in the following order: state agencies, federal agencies, regional and county agencies, City agencies, and citizens. Antero Rivasplata, California State Clearinghouse John Parrish, California Department of Conservation, State Mining and Geology Board Jason Marshall, California Department of Conservation Steve Buswell, Caltrans David Castanon, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Clara Johnson, Angeles National Forest Paul Rippens, County of Los Angeles Fire Department ' Sant Plescia, The Gas Company Jack Petralia, County of Los Angeles Department of Health Services Dainis Kleinbergs, County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County John Schwarze, Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning Wendy Phillips, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region Rabie Rahman, City of Santa Clarita Richard and Corrine Cunningham George Gruber Mark and Linda Hanson Ruth Kelley John Newton (Land Use Consultant, P.W. Gillibrand Company) Dennis Ostrom, Sand Canyon Home Owners Association Lynne Plambeck, Santa Ciarita Organization for Planning the Environment (SCOPE) Allen Penrose Theodore Robinson, Jr. (Robisnson Golf Course Design - Project Designer and part Applicant) City of Santa Clarita F -I STATE GFMIMIUMA PETE WIISOK Om. Governor's Off Ice of Planning and Research la' E C r IV ED - 1400TenthStreet NON 161995 Sacramento, CA 95814 C:p4':.i S.!.1 Nf Nt C'll;f lti .a frANle November 13, 1995 CHRISTINE KUDIJA CITY OF SANTA CLARITA 23920 VALENCIA BLVD. SUTIE 302 SANTA CLARITA, CA 91355 Subject: HUNTER'S GREEN DEVELOPMENT 4 GOLF COURSE SCH 0: 95041049 Dear CHRISTINE KUDIJA: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental document to selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and none of the state agencies have comments. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please call at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. -When contacting the ' Clearinghouse in this matter, please use the eight -digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may respond promptly - Sincerely, ANTERO A. RIVASPLATA Chief,State Clearinghouse 9 Hunters Green Residential Devetopment end Goll Course EIR Appendix F. Response to Comments Commentor: Antero Rivasplata, Chief, State Clearinghouse California Office of Planning and Research Date: November 13, 1995 Response: 1. None necessary. It is noted that certain state agencies did have comments that Were not submitted to the State Clearinghouse and these have been responded to in this appendix. Clry of 5anta Clients F-1 � � � � w�, � e � �■r rim � � � �, r � � �■■ � M M== M� M W STATE OF CALWORNIA. THE RESOURCES AGENCY _ FETE WILSON, Gnr.mn DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION f2 E C E I V E Ci STATE MINING AND GEOLOGY BOARD r/)a NOV 1 6 1995 801 K Street, MS 24-05 Sacramento, California 95814.3528 CO... nr hFr['Op n.W".. Hol .N, ChW..n Sob Gmnw.ld. Vit. CW.." a.M. Rau.,. AIHn Fl.a. R.y.n.Ix,.a.. JJ.H.MMann R.b.a M m. sMII. M. W,h, November 13, 1995 4. Trdbm.w Glenn Adamick, Assistant Planner Community Development Department City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd.. Suite 300 Santa Clarita, California 91355 Re: Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course Designated Mineral Lands Dear Mr. Adamick: TELEPHONE: (916) 322-102 TOO LINE: (8101224-2555 FACSIMILE: (8181 324-0048 We understand that the City of Santa Cleats. currently is Considering the proposed development project known as the Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course. A portion of this proposed development is within lands, classified by die State Geologist in Containing important aggregate and other mineral deposits. These lands, also, have been designated by the State Mining and Geology Board (Board) as an area of Regional Mineral Significance (Public Resource Code 4 3550.9). A map showing the mineral resource zone, labeled Sector A-12, from SAMM Designation Report Number 6 (July 1985), is enclosed for your reference. The proposed construction of residential sites in this area would impact the future development of aggregate deposits in the adjacent mineral resource wren labeled Sectors B-1 L I and C-1. These lands, also, have been designated by the Board as areas of Regional Mineral Significance (SMARA Designation Report Number 4 July 1985). The Classification and Designation process was established to ensure, through appropriate lead agency policies and procedures, that mineral deposits of regional significance are available to the region's local communities for their development and growth when needed. Part of the property slated for the Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf 3 Course covers the area designated n Sector A-12 of the Saugus -Newhall Production. Consumption Region, and is next to and in view of Sectors B-1 and 61. These sectors contain aggregate resources that represent a significant part of the total mineral reserves in this region. With the limited aggregate reserves remaining in the San Fernando Valley and adjacent population growth areas, the reserves in the Saugus -Newhall area represent an Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F - Response to Comments Commentor. John G. Parrish, Executive Officer California Department of Conservation, State Mining and Geology Board Date: November 13, 1995 Response: 1. The specific designation of the aggregate resources within the site as being part of Sector A-12 has been added to the text. 2. Comment expresses an opinion regarding a potential impact on adjacent lands due to the location of the proposed residential development. The residential area would be buffered through distance from the existing mining operations by the proposed golf course and such buffering would reduce potential noise effects ton insignificant level as discussed in Section 5.7 of the EIR. Dust nuisance effects from the mining operation that may effect the residential use are already required to be controlled by the operator by the SCAQMD. The proposed Expansion of mining in the Sectors B -I and C-1 are even more distant from the residential development and in part screened from view by intervening hillsides. Residential use of the land has been planned for in the City of Santa Clarita General Pian (199 1) and such use was deemed to be compatible with out -of City mineral extraction operations. The project is consistent with Genual Plan policies 6.1 and 6.2 to use open space (in this case the golf course) as a buffer between mineral resource areas and sensitive uses and to maintain such areas_ The EIR acknowledges that the project site contains regionally significant mineral resources (Section 5.1, Effect ER -10). However, the project site (a portion of Sector A-12) contains only about 0.4% of the total resources identified in Sector A (CDMG Special Report 143, 1987). The City of Santa Clarita through the development of its General Plan considered the various potential uses of the project site and designated the area for residential development. The City's Land Use Element contains a specific MinerallOil Conservation Area overlay designation that is intended to permit the continuation of mineral extraction and oil field uses while providing for further development of the City. While this overlay was placed on the sand and gravel deposits in the Santa Clara River north of the site and the existing mining operations to the northeast of the site (1993 General Plan Land Use Map), it was not so designated for the project site. In addition, the major portion of the aggregate deposits within the project site is located in the 160 awe northeast parcel, an area that was entitled for development of 140 residential lots in 1990. The proposed project would not alter these substantial existing limitations on the potential use of the site for mineral extraction, and so would not create a new significant impact on regional mineral resource deposits that did not already exist. See also response to comment 2 above regarding the effect on off-site resources. 4. During the EIR and conditional use permit review process, the City as lead agency win be considering the onsite mineral deposit's importance to the regional market as required by the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA). Additional information from CDMG Special City or Santa Clerife Fa Glenn Adamick Hunters Green Development November 13, 1995 Page 2 important future source for the region. In land use conflicts, between urban development and access to mineral resources, it is important that the significance of the mineral resources be recognized and that their potential 1f loss carefully be evaluated. The City of Santa Clarita's responsibility as the permitting agency 1 in this is set out in Article 4, § 2763 of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (copy enclosed). Therefore, we trust that the City will take sensitive account of the importance of the aggregate resource discussed above as; it concerns land use proposals that might be incompatible with State, regional and City interests in utilizing these resources. If you have any questions regarding these comments, pleaser contact the State Mining and Geology Board at (916) 322-1092. G. Parrish, Ph. D. alive Officer cc: f. W. Newton for P. W. Gillibmnd enc: Hunter. Green Residential Development and Gotr Course EIR Appendix F - Response to Comment. Report 143 bas been added to the EIR text so that the City can better evaluate the effect of the project on the supply of mineral resources in the area. In addition, the EIR contains an alternative (Section 7.4 - Mixed Use Alternative) that proposes aggregate mining of the site for the City Council to consider. With regard to Article 4, § 2763 of The SMARA, the City of Santa Clarita as lead agency has not designated the project site as having important minerals to be protected and has acted on the lands in compliance with subdivision (a), of § 2762 during preparation of its General Plan, m discussed in response to comment 3 above. City orsanla Clarks Fa M W M s M M W� M W MM no M� MW MISSIVE! �r.r�nR r-rr EXPLANATION YMr eJFYpl. Gul. Aggregate Resource Sectors seela boundary bo � Pro Ice ndary or N Sauaus-Newhall and Palmdale P -C Regions w "liedb aggregate YBy S E. Joseph, S. S. Ton', ono R W. Goodnwn �o producer"Modified by Linda F. Campton lees PREPARED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE SURFACE MINING , AND RECLAMATION ACT OF 1975, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 2761 r P x:.:ay ri) 6 a4\ ", i{d 1 r % 1 -fi1wl viSt ld �1r:: y r...,;.ta:.r . r. iIt'ki na ,T b� � r4�t. .e I � .s_G, ✓.: hV. R.1� .un ;,-..a ( .. � �.:., .�...�... e....-..... .,� ....ti. <...L a. �,., �,.. .. ..... r.�ol Yr`, STATE OF CALIFORNIA- THE RESOURCES AGENCY _ fFTf YlaSON Oevemer DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION C2 E C E 1 V E Q®r� DNLSIONOPMMESA NOV 161995 DGE01. 0 is OFMmraANocFAtAOr DNnION or On. AND ON DIVISION or veeYCIJt10 CO.,"er:r IWA brr.^.! Snvrl,yne eot K sNet SACRAMENTO, CA 688143828 PAom (91 5-9733 FAX 1818132"948 November 13,199S Mr. Glenn Adimick, Assistant Plenum Community Development Department City of Santa Clarity 23920 Valencia Blvd, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, California 91355 Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course - SCII095041049 Dear Mr. Adamick: The Department of Conservation's (Department) Division of Mines and Geology (Division), under the direction of the State Geologist, is responsible for classifying the State's mineral resource lands,as required by the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) (Public Resources Code Section 2710 at seq.) The Division drafts reports on the classification of mineral resource lands in order to help local governments set informed planning priorities with regard to preserving the State'sneeded mineral resources. The State Mining and Geology Board (Board),. which has responsibility for overseeing the development and conservation of the States mineral resources, utilizes Division reports in designating classified land as areas of statewide or regional importance. This designation establishes a statewide or regional importance for the classified mineral resource deposits. The Department, in Conjunction with the Be" has reviewed the Draft ETR for the Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course. Part of the project site lies within Z an area classified as Mineral Resource Zone 2 (Division Special Report #143 Part 5; 1985), containing existing marketable resource deposits. This deposit has also been designated by the Board as a deposit of regional significance (SMARA Designation Report k6; 1985). Under this designation, a lead agency is required to consider a mineral resource deposit's 3 I importance to the regional market before permitting land use which would threaten the potential to extract those mineral resources, as required by SMARA, Public Resources Code Section 2763(a). Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Court* EIR Appendix F - Response to Comments Commentor: Jason Marshall, Acting Assistant Director Office of Governmental and Environmental Relations, State Department of Conservation Date: November 13, 1995 Response: 1. Continents discuss the mission of the State Division of Mines and Geology.. No response necessary. It is noted that CDMG Special Report 143 was published in 1987, not 1985. The EIR acknowledges that the project site contains regionally significant mineral resources (Section 5. 1. Effect ER -10) and additional information from CDMG Special Report 143 has been added to the EIR text so that the City can better evaluate the effect of the project on the supply of mineral resources in the area. However, the City during the development and approval of its 1991 General Plan did not consider mining and extraction uses as appropriate to the project site when it was designated for development as Residential Estate and Residential Very Low. The City's Land Use Element contains a specific MineraUOil Conservation Area overlay designation that is intended to permit the continuation of mineral extraction and oil field uses while providing for further development of the City. While this overlay was placed on the sand and gravel deposits in the Santa Clara River north of the site and the existing mining operations to the northeast of the site (1993 General Plan Land Use Map), it was not so designated for the project site. In addition, the major portion of the aggregate deposits witldn the project site is located in the 160 acre northeast parcel, an area that was entitled for development of 140 residential lots in 1990. The proposed project would not alter these substantial existing limitations on the potential use of the site for mineral extraction, and so would not create a new significant impact on regional mineral resource deposits that did not already exist. In addition, the project as designed with a golf course overlying the mineral deposits would be more readily converted to aggregate production if there became a critical need for this resource. It is acknowledged that the presence of a developed golf course and residential use would make this a highly unlikely scenario, but no more unlikely than the potential for the site to be used for aggregate production under the existing land use designation and current entitlements. 3. The amount of mineral resources within the project site wasdiscussed in Section 5. 1, Effect ER -10, and determined not to be substantial based on regional supply. It is noted that the aggregate resources at the site represent less than 0.4% of the total identified resources within its sector (Sector A) of the Saugus -Newhall Production -Consumption area. During the EIR and conditional use permit review process, the City as lead agency will be considering the onsite mineral deposit's importance to the regional market as required by SMARA. In addition, the EBL contains an alternative (Section 7.4 -Mixed Use Alternative) that proposes aggregate mining of the site for the City Council to consider. 4. Commentor expresses an opinion that the project would cause a significant cumulative impact to region -wide mineral resource management. As noted in the response to Comment 2 above, the -� city .1 sante Claris F-3 Mr. Glenn Adamiek November 13, 1995 Page 2 We understand that the Board has submitted comments on this project's significant i cumulative impacts to region -wide mineral resource management. The Department concurs with the Board's comments. if you have any questions, please phone me at (916) 445.8733. Sincerely,_ V" ason ars all Acting Assistant Director Office of Governmental and Environmental Relations cc: J.W.- Newton for P.W. Gillibrarld Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F -Response to Comments proposed project would not alter any existing significant effects that may have been deemed to have occurred when the site was previously permitted for and designated for residential land use. Far Clry of Santa Clanta F-6 ,�i�-F- ✓ 1 b \. )r] JSr� Ety� dl:! �9Nk ..EfiY/ 5-/L:% ft Iris"t Tzk. Fl�)X1` Es `1., va^a ai iwprl 6.eNhw?rk3 'Rt tts vQ d '.. x +[, k� f '5'h 4. ) L .�n «..c.a..rx.renes.....u�...u.wfw-�-.......�.. aw.. .. .e..xu .v...� «.wine.. IDt NOV 15'95 15:33 No.008 P.03 November 15,1995 IGR/CEQA/ X10010/CP Hunters Green Residential Development & Golf Course City of Santa Clarice SCHX 95041049 Vic. LA•14.33,42 Mr. Glenn Adamick City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department 23920 Valencia Boulevard. Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91351 Dear Mr. Adsmick: Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the Humer's Green Residential Development & Golf Course referenced above. Based on our review of the information received, we have no comment at this time. We will contact you further should we identify any matter that should be brought to your attention. You are aware that MTA's Congestion Management Program provides for city traffic mitigation credit and debit reporting. If available, please include in the Environmental Impact Report the cumulative number of Credits approved for the city, and this project's credits/debits. If you have any questions regarding this response, please call me at (213) 897-4429. Sincerely, STEVE BUSWELL IOR/CEOA Coordinator OfT a of Transportation Planning ce: Mark Goss State Clearinghouse HuntersGreen Resldentlal Development and Golf Course EIR en Appdix f • Rarponve to Comments Commentor: Steve Buswell, IGR/CEQA Coordinator Caltrans Date: November 15, 1995 Response: 1. No response necessary. Completion of the traffic mitigation credit and debit report is typically completed by the City in conjunction with their CMP reporting efforts. The bale credits and debits associated with this project will be determined at the time that the final project is approved and its conditions of approval are finalized. city of sent* Curtis F•'1 MWM MIM A M i m MM rt it » til rt M M M mow.+✓ Hent ro anexnoxor: Office of the Chief Regulatory Branch DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY We ANGELES DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS aoo NORTH LOS ANGELES STREET LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA Paola October 17,1995 12 EC EIV ED City of Santa Clarita OCT 18 1995 Community Development Department WMMvear DEV ICPMENT Attn: G. Adamick GlrerSRaAWA 11a 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, California 91355 Dear Mr. Adamick: It has come to our attention that Hunter Green Development Corporation plans to construct a residential development and two golf courses in Oak Springs Creek in the City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California. This activity may require a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit. A Corps of Engineers permit is required for the discharge of dredged or fill material into, including any redeposit of dredged material within, 'waters of the United States and Adjacent wetlands pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972. Examples include, but are not limited to, 1. creating fills for residential or commercial development, placing bank protection, temporary or permanent stockpiling of excavated material, building road crossings, backfilling for utility line crossings and constructing outfall structures, dams, levees, groins, weirs, or other structures; 2. mechanized landclearing, grading which involves filling low areas or land leveling, ditching, channelizing and other excavation activities that would have the effect of destroying or degrading waters of the United States; 3. allowing runoff or overflow from a contained land or water disposal area to reenter a water of the United States; 4. placing pilings when such placement has or would have the effect of a discharge of fill material. Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F-Reaponae to Comments Commentor: David 1. Castanon, Chief, North Coast Section Regulatory Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Date: October 17, 1995 Response: 1. As discussed in Section 5.4, page 5.4-9, of the EIR, no significant wetlands or "waters of the United States" have been determined to be present at the project site, and alteration of the minimal areas that may be so determined would be permitted under a Nationwide Permit. At the time of final design, it is the applicant's responsibility to coordinate an actual determination of the extent of any such wetlands or waters of the United States with the Corps. City of Santa Clarita F•s ..r...,. s..;f�m «... ., aM.».........., ......:...ae ...,.w,,.,,...,«n.::,, ...w.. i yr«. .. . u.,... N...,....,.., ,.,.w r.....:d .,.,., ... > «. ._...».. . _.,. �..... ... ..._ „ ,,.,., ...,.,.._. . , j . '2' Enclosed you will find a permit application form and a pamphlet that describes our regulatory program. If you have any questions, please contact Aaron Allen of my staff at (213)694-0349. Sincerely; David n� ' V Chief, North. Coast Section Regulatory Branch Enclosures i M*M mom M United states Forest Angeles NF 12371 N. Little Tujunga Cyn. Rd, Department of service Tujunga RD San Fernando. CA 91342-6303 Agriculture Reply To: 5400 Land ownership 1950 Environmental Policy Dater December 1, 1995 Mr. Glenn Adamiak ,4-0 Assistant PLanner II City of Santa Clarita Department of Community Development 4t- Santa 23920 Valencia Boulevard. Suite 300 .ti Santa Clarlta, CA 91355 Q�+�, a Dear Mr. Adamick: First, we would like to apologize for sending our ornaments regarding the Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course proposal after the cloning date of November 13, 1995. Due to unrorseen circumstances involving the federal budget and other pressing matters we were unable to meet the November 13, 1995 deadline for comments. We hope you will receive our comments for the draft and IncorporatethemInto the final EIR document. This is a well written and eonelas draft Ell. We do have a few comments and concerns with the content and conclusions presented In the draft. First, there is no discussion of the affect this development proposal will have on the administration and management of the National Forest adjacent to this proposal. With any residential or recreational development adjacent to National Forest land there are accompanying conflicts with established uses. For examples there usually 13 increased Illegal off road vehicle use, enorpachment/trespass by adjacent landowners and increased fire hazards due to the increased amount of Z- people adjacent to the National Forest boundary. Conflicts occur with , Illegal hiking/riding/mountain biking trails being oonstrueted. We appreciate the effort to develop green space in the form of a golf course between the wildland/urban interface. These green spaces serve as buffers to large wildfires coming from the large expanses of chaparral vegetation within the National Forest. Residential development does present Its own unique challenges to wildfire suppression in the urban/wildland interface. 111s are concerned with the proposal to develop that portion or the Hunters 3 Green Project within the area to be annexed to the City of Santa Clarita. We have gone on record numerous times to the County of Los Angeles Planning Commission stating our opposition to residential development Cady lar se tent ant 3wvep P.* ieeaeare Dtn Hunters Green Residential Development and golf Course EIR Appendix F . Response to Comments Commentor: Clara Johnson, District Ranger Angeles National Forest Dale: December 1, 1995 Response: 1. No response necessary. The proposed residential area will be substantially buffered from the National Forest lands by the proposed golf course; which will serve to reduce the casual, uncontrolled access that could occur if the residential units were directly located adjacent to the forest boundaries. The project will also be providing an equestrian trail that would connect into designated National Forest trails; by providing an identified means of access, this would reduce the amount of illegal spurious trail construction and provide a location whereby illegal hiking/riding/biking can be controlled. It is noted that the project site currently serves as an unrestricted means of egress into the National Forest and there was evidence of encroachmentitrespass into the adjacent mining area from the site and of off-road vehicle use extending into the forest from the site. These activities would be curtailed under the proposed project and so would be expected to result in a decrease in land use conflicts. It is agreed that the golf course would serve as a wildfire buffer area because of the presence of turf and irrigation systems. Therefore, fire hazards are expected to decrease as a result of project implementation, not increase. The problems that currently exist with wildfire suppression in the urbart/wildland interface would not be significantly altered by the 83 residential lots proposed for the site, and since the golf course would provide heightened access for vehicles to the Rabbit Canyon area, the project may aid in the control of wildfires in the Sand Canyon Community. 3. Your concerns are noted for the dmision-makers. Land use conflicts are expected to be primarily a result of nuisance noise and dust that may be associated with the ongoing mining operations. As indicated in Section 5.7, noise associated with mining operations would meet City standards and dust within the mining area is controlled by regulations of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Also, the residences would be located sufficiently distant from dust sources such that most of the entrained material would settle out before reaching the residential uses. With regards to visual issues, it is also noted that there are already several residential units in the Oak Spring Canyon area that can readily view the existing and future mining operations. In addition, the majority of new mining resources to be extracted in the adjacent mining operation (10.7 million cubic yards of 12.7 million cubic yards) would be at Claim Groups II and 111, which are over 2.5 miles from the nearest proposed residence and in areas that are not visible from the project site (Tetra Tech, 1991). The future mining operation in Claim Group I is located over 1.5 miles from the nearest proposed residence, and while it would be visible to the proposed project, it is also visible to residences in the existing "Crystal Springs" tract in Sand Canyon and mitigation measures to reduce its visual impacts were delineated in the EIS for the new mining operations (Tetra Tech, 1991). For these reasons, the land use effects of the proposed project on the adjacent mining area are considered less than significant. City of Santa eNdis FA v $ E y •pR O Y N ,'C.n y r � T w L U O w O'A N Z L C 'O N Y rM d y y 4i• N O N d w== y U` � d y c d '3 0 9. G s Y o q9V { R o S o•- v'«`J s._F `udp °o�eEym t+ O d o R'« R N A •z n 7 V y 6 A Y A 6 _W 9 i p,.0 W 4n 'O G J] GT u 0. v CVN 0 m m a O V R tCo S C Y W V C C O O "Ca a� N '•p°. m «N py TRR n'v0-. �`a� O.wVNRm n« if _•dOP..iW 6F m90jud Wm O O Q« a°a m W U w y .Ti '• N ,L+ .E L 'G .R., U G 3 aEa E W o_ W '•� O Y R d 'E A�j W d o 4 = v 9 u u x w « m idV tl d� "' =0`� � N U' pC � C VG ,rn N � � R •O ` Y 4�i � F S O .2 1 P 7•p L af. F •i. y •ta 9 W U O L}• m Y'C N.y y Cm ^1 O 8 F °•-' S $ e e v u W o a 0-. c o n a y `° o v a u .°��w o� T'O u a o� w `` u c o u b Q o •v s= a Y g Ea c E . 9N a•A actio C c'i3 `° m BE c.s U •• m id w E E v i O A O Y R C V. Y t0 ° y Y ••°'i• P •r-• L C eml O •'S o r N lg a y C 6 6 U tCO U C yv 'C C y C 0.E, 3 o w m u ti m c �+ �'" ,°c v b y w emp c d� w u£ •a ' sd. Pn °' 0 5 .oe a m 'u .c•��t atlOEq=c `vma.589an ieo �.s$oa'+3ao aro`-. `o E W OCNgv9Y yC.P.a m,, Y„"dgR YC7OL pR NO Ep L'�_O C9Y r m �° romE ma cGR u°^e>o a.3s yE 3 `69 c=oO ,�c ooc `�RY3 ��cW_•C ...>:m�y2 ay�W �gaAo��N3`o j.mRo v tl o d c U } s V us" c �! J^ m o m a •° 6° E R° t6 50 a 0 a m m R b .o. c ao a p � u9 E u v u e t o a 'm u m°< o .: m p o E �mm•• S'i 't a s val n y � G` •G •'� W� W � ,i.. A O Q a`S C r°n m t' u 'n FU y m� Yr (.n N i C O L h � � E. dvuriO9S�0 Ri�U�oUA mC cc oYc �U va �v E E901 md`.� a o'"m.5oH RT E. o ro `m - c a E� o P bW 6'.-.. � Vi ^' E° T it .U. O R .Y W� Y` L Z •i.. Wi.. W o-' � .°. C J O 9 O O" R r N 0t°G3eq'o'Ey�9dou ?s°cels coOu m'y 2•m oy ac .ve6E m: m•' o'v v .W..6 `w .� m o oi.• v o•� N a m 'q -m 5 E .0 E yr m L. c o CR p o ,o V 3 Od6% 5R0.V.UuV. LF 'L.'c0`0 Lw�ya3 �O3 tFdp«Y.C"R Orl'I Od {E`OLtywo 6N."�pm au .y<a4' iFb'2fwdY`d .3VCuq'N .9� w�0'«`3_0''Ja ^0 qi!s 50.p � 40 30. r3GK0i,EYC0, CaCrp ''�acOi OVm R c a u a g � q Too w.Y+o o w m o oY 4 O Y m O O q H Y{ C •1 } J y tl } M i i y T O Y•p{ 00 Hp 1'.y}qVL m O P OYW 9 rl N M L{ J y y J O Y O B g tl S O 4 q y O m S n ti W O> C q WY ^Ta 6r1 C M M R V O L 4 4 0 m '1 Y L • CO 9 O U L 0 J i. q T q•1 9 q W } C q Y 6 Y�. O q {a' L O m m rtlI W 0 N 4 N R O y 0 } .y '1 } H O p C L P H p •"I { 0 9 O W H C pp G q 6W34L)O q Oe Y qq•'I0 40 qM pH 3[Uq Y41 0 N9 f.Y CY C O m} 6 4 a 0 { •"I L p M W 4 4 4 4 y� L Y q q L{OL >• 0.e p M M C Y g m 9 O m O C g 4 Y q H { J y O 6 3 6 O W 6 O y o Y L C L C M C H O O Y O O O L 9 L g}O y M S O W 4 O Z W V L L A C> a q} 9 tl b tl Y Y{ M L C L O C O y • m By Ym SJ{ gO y 4 4 q.V L 4 O V 3 0 0 M 6 W •'1 W J y g q K 4 M y W �O g 3 M 4 m m T q Y Q C y 9 O O M A O q O W •!C 1 y O M q'1 O G Y 9 O • Y p 4 F O 4 O W O q C q i 0 6 O Y O 4 L Y H O 9 O O• { Y p L O p O M C G i O 9 L•� C b O W O J C C 3} 4 L L •"I g C O y 00 y 0• V C� S W mM •paq O,y p}00 QOM C q9Y>VyJo }9L,C Y•OiyV fiq}JJ OpH Y4 L 9t.OHY iOT 0690.94 tlOMO y pHOy•4HH qqW O {Ly AA6 q0 690 Cmm{Mq VnNVOYgY i{YYb YU {WM0.' T4O{0 HO L}WyHW AO4464JL OV 4HmWLpgpetO%O4O O 4L•rO4•H•CJ>HL•HYtl42o .OLM2}0P 0O 0 tl16O 0 0 g Y0 68LO HL WO 9{V 40 6 Y 4 p C Y Y o C L g •7 q .-I q H C J m { P Y W y C Y{ 4 O 'h b O L 0 O J O H Y••4 L q 0{ •4 0 p opL O Y4J H iJy O{YOp p WZolJ99f 'h •4CW 0 Y m0 L�•qa gHhq O L LC90A Y W{M q0 0L0 b3{ 'nYOHA mLO Yb } y O J% E•4 0 9 Y B q O p,A V L TUV PVW q!•OyL p0.44 Otlq 9M m G64} HMY L4 Owq O} C Y a 4 T1A. . 0 9 0 9 0 4 O O Y Y V 4 J Y 9 C O 9 q C M O y O O W B m O q tl Li�pp C y� M i L YW W L G 4 m.p L H N • M L OC O 0 C OY mY�m q L3 OCSA60 W{mOH Y'g 9q m0 U Hy O L q 9 C Y L O g o q V 4 W q V W W C L L y V m U L O Y J L H 0 O W O A A W } V A a F O C g y O Y q 0{ Y tl O O 3 J O q O•'1 O y L y M 0 O 4 a O m S O 4 O y PaY q y O G O O O O CmF C V C L L yo L S 4 y q U 44 G O 9 > Y 4} J WS p o 4 O' O V Y L O L •4 H 9 Y 4 4 W 0 O.4 V Y H 9 Y tl C O C S tl Jp o M g 9. } Yp F L W O { O .... } ... e HO F W O L Y O O 0 4 W A 0 O L C• 0 O C O L O H { H O V 4 y •1 q •4 9 n q r -I • O C q tl L• 0 4 0 Y Y O ro m q q 9 U 20 JOO 04J5 O.1 LCpg99 44660 4Lg4apL•iq tl0 m3H C Y W L V WO BOC tog YIY O {OMO YO a 0"4 pH Y 09GgH} W O q{4A}{Htl JW9Hp{{O Od"Ir�Y OrIX4 ON9{ W 41YJ nbW O 0 MYG }YOYpy•"Iq pH Cr'10 Y9 Y•H pH TUOYOFVq Yo LH .Y LN LOGS O{ q A q U H O U M 3 V M g 9 H Y x{ 4 S 9 q bC yLO 4W yW .4OO 9W CApYHLnULI9{Y 9qg YV •94 pN WW H0 A p W C YW Mp gI ,3CL090q0 JO Apm pYrlp ynO qp0 4 Yy4 4 F g 4 6 Opa• y sLb Sv. H1.0 { H 4 0 4 M m•�LOL C Yp�J O q E J H Y T q H 0 L 0 q} Mq Y C y } O mo L H Y v m J N N O o V i Y Y Op A° ff rop> YA LYY 'r LL CN WS 9ML S•imW NVOAyHW hCC•W OYWWyOH A {}Y 4 Y C Y H 4C Y. -IG 0.H9YOUWLOngOW W{qY tlt�n OWF f3q O mqe q} Yn O H m b m } y 4 4 m V t y g 0 q p L O O o U H O O m O 3 J V{ C tl} ab •OaY M TO>4 q MCWY OOr"1tlW HCG>}pW44 OH •O •gay OMY•"1 Y W 4Tfi{H>YO YOWtl4O 0SBg04{ OH J'O O,qG Z9W OY T{'O WCYYp0 O• 0. O i q'A L H L W 6 'n H n O L Y yW 'V0n uG0 Na0. %O(Oy Hc • 4m 93 mLm 0 yO YpC YAi q• • ym p9 W0 •4 V H C T W Y H A O •oO9G agmLyO bV9M0{ J{O YOW L A O y 4 A L B 9 0 u •9a W •Ca V •4 m^I' O fi J rl O 4 y G y 9} 9 4 Y C 9 M L H p q 0 4 Y W m m a b H 000 0 u.4d 0 W m{ L m m tl g Y .4 y d •Oa m o b •Ba G o m H ro L• e J U H H p O C 3 i M m b Y b O R m L V }'•� y Un W 4 m L m V m a W p •� p q q V y H H O t H p Y O tl 0 Y 9 N m L m { ?m O> L G W 4 p J C 9 L 4 L iJO9 1F.• oG{y {FOOL0L NA H9p} OV m9 0.. O 9 C yr"1 H y C Y y > G {yO O}pA9C Jmp ai39} 0. FOOtC •'Y 0 1 �� a you must assume their presence as was done with several animals and q disclose the impacts to the public and the O.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The presence of African clawed frogs, considered a nuisance.and exotic pest, will be a serious and continuing problem in the ponds and lakes associated with the golf course. How will this serious pest problem be io managed? What control programs will be implemented? What will prevent these lakes and ponds from becoming a continuing invasion source for a dense population of clawed frogs in the Sent& Clara River? Creating numerous breeding pools for these voracious predators could have serious consequences to any native species left in the Santa Clara. Will additional exotic species, such as 0 m ue ar be introduced Into the fl lakes to control mosquitoes All animate Introduced or maintained In the golf course lakes can be expected to escape into the Santa Clara during a flood event. These potential effects are not dlscueaed. In general, there Is a lack of discussion regarding off-site impacts from 1L the proposed project. Impacts will not atop at the project boundary, yet there is almost no revelation ofeffects expected downstream, or on adjoining Forest Service land. 1] There is only a small mention of dedicating a trail easement on the north and northwest aide of the project boundary. That is the only mention of a trail system or trail connections between the city of Santa Clarita and the National Forest. There needs to be more discussion of recreational trails, access for these trails and management of any trails. In fact there is not much discussion of any recreation potential or loss outside of the proposed recreational development associated with the golf course. Are there opportunities for public recreation outside of a golf course and its facilities?. The trail easement needs to be extended all along the boundary with the National Forest. What are the plana fdr this trail easement? What type of development and use Is anticipated or planned for? You have provision for a 100 foot setback from our boundary line as a buffer. This is very commendable but we suggest a 200 foot setback from the NationalForestboundary as more acceptable for fire suppression. The mitigation for oak trees removed or destroyed in compliance with the city oak tree ordinance we believe is Inadequate and should be amended. A survival rate of 5 years is a minimum to determine whether you are successful in planting or relocating. There are no specifics where the mitigation Is to take place, the suitability of the area where IC' replacement will take place or where the money would be used If replacement value is paid for. Monitoring should be for 5 years at least not the 2 years mentioned In the document. More time is necessary to take into account weather variables. It also seems there should be more design to utilize existing native vegetation in the fairway design and landscaping especially In keeping, more oaks on site. seem to eco tsne Pad smrcYm People riereaaeR+n Hunters Oman Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F. Response to Comments During the dry season, any irrigation waters from the site would not make it to the Santa Clara River as surface flow, and therefore would not affect any instream biota since such waters would likely continue only, if at all, as underflow within the river system. During the wet season, any runoff waters from the site that reach the Santa Clara River would be highly diluted with other urban and natural waters since the project site represents less than 0.5% of the Santa Clara River watershed above Sand Canyon. The project would also decrease the amount of sediment currently generated at the site that potentially affects downstream fish habitat by decreasing the average slope of the land and increasing vegetative cover. The nearest known population of the unarmored three -spine stickleback is located upstream of Lang, which is upstream of the confluence of the Oak Spring Canyon and Sand Canyon tributaries into which the project site drains. The nearest downstream population is some 12 miles west, below McBean Parkway. It is impossible for any water contaminants that may leave the project site to affect the upstream population, and the effect on the distant downstream population would be minuscule since the project site would contribute less than 0.2% of the water to that area. In addition, the 12 miles of river provide a substantial expanse for natural biodegradation and removal of Contaminants before such would reach the unarmored stickleback population. The Santa Clarita Water Company has adequate permits for water withdrawal to serve the proposed project without increasing its allotment. Currently, the Santa Clarita Water Company pumps about 84,000 acre-feet out of its entitlement of 12,000 acre-feet per year. Unrelated to the proposed project, the Santa Clarita Water Company is seeking to increase its entitlement to Santa Clara River water to 15,000 acre-feet per year. While continued pumpage of the alluvial aquifer would result in a decrease in surface water, the return flows associated with imported SWP water use in the City of Santa Clarita as provided by the Santa Clarita Water Company results in an increase in the amount of surface water that otherwise would not have been available. Other threats to the stickleback (water quality, predation by exotic species, genetic changes caused by breeding with other sticklebacks) are more critical to the maintenance of this endangered species than the effect of the proposed water withdrawal. Incorporation of technical material into in EBR and its location at a central repository is recommended and strongly encouraged by CEQA (State CEQA Gutdeltnes § 15006 and § 15150). The location of the City Community Development Department approximately 20 minutes from the commemor's address does not seem to impose a great burden on obtaining the documents for review. As stated in the EBR, only brief field visits by the EIR consultant were conducted to verify the findings of the applicant submitted reports (Hovore, 1995). Discussions with the Frank Hovore indicated that considerable time was spent at the project site by several biologists under his direction. Mr. Hovore has considerable field experience in the area, having served in the past as the Director of the Placenta Canyon State Park Nature Center. - 9. The information requested was contained in the Hovore report which was incorporated into the EBR by reference. Slender -horned spineflower occurs in open, stable -substrate dry washes in Bee Canyon, Snarled Canyon, and Big Nunga wash. The spineflower appears to be confined to less City or Sorb Clmdls F-11 Yufw nV..Mro�� em..[�..t wvi. .. ua. v+nw++l.m � � a-.rvNf .nn r nvn uS evrlw Jn v..w x.nwv.Y ns .NroN.a nvav nv:w+ws.LM R vn�.w.. .nn..n r.n.W / x...S(.ewa.iJ In mitigation measure B -1(b) you call for 50% native vegetation for the �b edge of each lake, why not t00i and create a native riparian system instead of mixture of native and non native species. f7 IIn mitigation measure B-1(0) you call for a mix of native perennials with non natives. Why not go with an all native mix with a more stringent success effort to establish the native grasses with come certainty? This has been done on numeroua road cuts and mine sites within the western United States some without the benefit of irrigation as you propose. The hydrology section needs to be strengthened especially in regards to the effects of this project on the floodway and storm drainage. The )� existing land use plan designates a floodway for the Oak Springs canyon. Previous development proposals have presented a natural managed floodway that includes parkland, trails and Channel stabilization. It is not clear how the storm flow will be handled across the Constructed landscape mentioned in the document. There is a good range of alternatives. As stated above we do not favor any residentialdevelopment in the southeast corner of the project area 19 that is adjacent to the National Forest boundary. Any development project should blend into the landscape and environment and not dominate It if at all possible. - If you have any questions concerning our comments please feel free to contact Steve Bear at (818) 899-1900. 84 4LARAJOHNSON District Ranger cc John W. Newton John W. Newton A Associates Inc. Cwim la am land end aervYm NCO* r� r � r r s■� F"SOpae lr4n Hunters Green Residenttai Development end Goll Course EIR Appendix F - Response to Comments disturbed terrace alluvial deposits where generalized over -bank flooding is infrequent, but where surface runoff may collect and stand for short durations (liovore, 1995). A suite of other species characteristically may occur in association with this small plant, often in areas of fine cryptogamic crusts. Marginal areas of this habitat is limited at the silt to the lower portions of Oak Spring Canyon, with the upper drainage washes being typically relatively welt vegetated, disturbed by trail use where open, and containing rather permeable top soils that do not retain moisture for any extended period. While there is a chance that the slender -horned spineflower could occur in the upper area of Oak Spring Canyon, it is highly unlikely that it would occur in the even mommarginal habitat of that area and not in the lower 160 acre parcel. Therefore, the EIR preparer agreed with the Hovore report that it was unlikely that this species exists at the site and no significant effect is anticipated. This conclusion is different from that reached regarding several of the animals, which have known populations near the site along with suitable habitat present at the site. 10. The African clawed frogs are a serious pest problem that already exists within the Santa Clue River and the proposed project will not alter that condition, As part of project development, the population of clawed frogs onsite will be extirpated, thereby reducing at least one known source of these frogs. As part of the Golf Course Management Plan, actions will be taken to manage the golf course ponds for the benefit of e. variety of native wildlife.' If anew population of clawed frogs becomes established at the site, actions will be taken to reduce their population. However, it may be virtually impossible to eliminate this species from the site since source areas within the offsite residential areas probably exist. Breeding pools already exist within the site, within the Santa Clara River, and in other areas that can provide a continuing invasion source for clawed frogs to the river habitats and the proposed project will not significantly alter this existing condition. 11. Current plans are not to introduce any exotic species into the golf course lakes that could cause significant problems. It is noted that Ganrbwsia sp. and many other exotic fish are already found within the Santa Clara River and the location of such in the golf course ponds would not significantly alter these existing populations. 12. Because of the design of the proposed project and the expected implementation of a native revegetation plan within the golf course, the project is not expected to generate any substantial offsite impacts to biological resources. The project would instead serve to reduce existing human disturbances in offsite areas because of the lack of restricted access through the site. 13. The exact nature and type of trail to be provided by the applicant is still undergoing revisions based on discussions between the applicant, the Sand Canyon Trails Committee, and the City of Santa Clarita. Current plans would indicate an easement within the entire length of the 100 -foot buffer area along the National Forest boundary and an easement along the relocated Oak Spring Canyon Road along the north end of the site. The trails would tie into the proposed Indian Canyon Trail at its terminus at the southeast corner of Section 24. The issue of trail recreational use was not considered significant by the City during the preparation of the Initial Study and is therefore not discussed in depth inlhis focused EBL. To meet the requirements ofthe conditional use permit and City orsanta Crania r = r M M M r r M M M M M 1 Hunters Green Reaideollai Development and Golf Course EIR Appendl. F •Response to Comments the zoning requirements, the applicant will be required to provide equestrian trails to the satisfaction of the City Community Development Director. 14. There appears to be no need for a 200 -foot buffer zone from the forest service for fire suppression purposes. The nearest residential pad is ISO feet from the forest boundary and the proposed golf worse would provide on average a 900 -foot buffer strip of greenscape to prevent forest wildfires from traveling into the Send Canyon community. 15. Comment regarding the adequacy of the City's Oak Tree permit conditions are noted and are contained herein to notify the decision -makers of your concerns. The City has in the past determined that these conditions are adequate to protect the oak tree resources of the City. It should be noted that since the applicant is proposing to landscape the golf course in part with relocated oak trees and new oak trees, it is in the applicant's own self interest to maintain and establish oak trees for a much greater time period than that required by the City. The oak tree relocation and planting effort is being planned by the firm of Lee Newman and Associates, who have had extensive experience in the planting and maintenance of oak trees within a variety of suburban Conditions over the past 15 to 20 years. Because ofthe expense associated with moving a tree and propagating new trees, it is unlikely that they would be purposely located in areas that are not suitable. The draft Native Revegetation and Monitoring Plan submitted by the applicant Contains an extensive listing of the appropriate Conditions and methods for planting and maintaining oak trees and the commemor is referred to that document. The golf worse architect has indicated that especial care was taken in the design of the golfwurse to preserve as many heritage oak trees as possible and to lay out the course in a manner that disturbed such oaks to the least extent possible, while at the same time taking advantage of the enhancement that such trees bring to the golf course. If the project is approved, the City will review the final landscape design plan with respect to the preservation of oak tree resources. 16. Because the golf worse lakes are also pari of the fairway playing area, it would be impractical to use solely native vegetation around their edges and still maintain the playability of the wane and the design elements of water hazards. It should be noted that the primary purpose of the proposed development is to create a desirable golf recreational area. 17. Fairway roughs are a part of the playing area for a golf course and native perennial grasses are not fully conducive to such a use nor do they necessarily provide the visual design element required for the success of the golf course. Where appropriate, it would be desirable for the perennial grasses and other native species to replace exotica. It is noted that revegetation efforts on road cuts and mine sites are not subjected to golf can tragic and hackers. 18. The proposed project would not substantially altar the existing floodway gradients within the site, rather portions of the existing drainages would be stabilized through the establishment of turf grass and other landscaping. As described in the EIR text, this will tend to reduce atom[ water velocities, but will not increase the height of storm waters nor the general flow path. In reviewing the previous tentative tract maps for the project site and further downstream, the EIR preparer did not wr ciyorsanra Wallis F-17 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIA Appendix F - Response to Comment. discover any proposals for a natural Goodway that included trails and parkland. The existing entitlement for the 160 acre property in Oak Spring includes a standard trapezoidal Good channel with a natural bottom and riprapped sides with residential lots adjoining the flood Control channel easement. 19. No response necessary. Your comments regarding the preference for alternatives that do not include residential uses in The proposed annexation area are included herein to notify decision. makers. IF C(y of Santa Clartta F-14 � J [ 1 e S 4. 1Yt FA -ti. .f<r I,S kr '.Fn ',r \ r t t- i 'ij+'J.. �. ix 4.a l.El-. CSI.. rl._It41 xyVY .sb Jg ..�tii'1'z'n>I 4..V s, �'i.?r7nh Si�'si�. el Jsr✓' (i.- lilt oNn .� itfife rlJL �.( J1 �n.1Jei, tP iA^ ...�.nt.l:ir`( n>wwai • � n�5nnwar ..r.n..rrnar,Gsn-axv ax,a v +ancone.✓# �ns,Mna+M.r.xvn-�rMM. nanv+xn..Maxnu.i� v..xµnawvm..wa .nxuni.-, f4 Q& �� II Fue •e`rl ,i�• I;s 4MTVE+ P. MICHAEL FREEMAN FIRE CHIEF FORESTER A FIRE WARDEN November 7, 1995 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT 13M NORM EASTE. AVENUE '01I(213)881-2481 Ms. Kristine Kudija, Assistant Planner 11 City of Santa Clarita Department of Community Development 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Dear Ms. Kudija: ii(»C_!-.,:It, r- 11 N04 1 Z� 1995 SUBJECT: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT — HUNTERS GREEN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND GOLF COURSE, SCH #95041049 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA (EIR #295, 1995) We have no additional comments. RESTRY DIVISI We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Hunters Green Residential and Golf Course Development located at the junction of Sand Canyon and Lost Canyon in the City of Santa Clarita. The statutory responsibilities of the Forestry Division of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department include erosion control, watershed management, rare and endangered species, vegetation, archeological and cultural resources and the County Oak Tree Ordinance. The following subjects have not been fully addressed in the Draft Environmental Impact Report and we request that they be addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Report: SERVING THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND THE CITIES OF AO ou Hs,.4 CLLAWR( OLEROD"A NX(W000 MRYW000 M CRORMO(KRO({ (wTY (L MONT{ /JITE(4 OM[d1 XRWR.a... NINRADR HO K Fo,L HLL( {OVTMOIT( J'!U!R Ce•IWTOC W.. MLLS 4NOMiCfl IµMOIL[ ..HG AS!(TAT(( 11.9( 6LLOWN PARR WMMONi HOHTWDTp1 PAlIR URIIEM{ TALO{VCROIC UT!!(( W3YA4D NYVNT e!LL wMMIflC( IHDUCIRV UWNDM{ MMMdIM (AN dI.Y( M THOUV D envwweR CGL OIMIM( woAHr dY.1OHD 4R IR41NpRL( LOWTA IqD RNCM (RNTA CDMA MT(1LMR Va4Ol CMOWRr WARt( 4CAMAW IWTRIDOC YAUeU IOYOHR IWNG MLL NNRlIY1 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course Elft Appendix F - Response to Comments Commentor: Paul Ripper, Chief, Forestry Division, Prevention Bureau County of Los Angeles Fire Department Date:November 7, 1995 Response: 1. The Oak Tree Report and other information are incorporated by reference into the EIR as allowed under State CEQA Guidelines §15150 and are therefore already a portion of the EIR. The information requested regarding the Oak Tree Ordinance, the Oak Tree Permit program, and Oak Tree Reports are available for review at the City of Santa Clarita. The actual Oak Tree Permit would not be granted until the project is approved, which cannot occur until after the Final EIR is certified; therefore, it is not possible to include the Oak Tree Permit in the Final EIR. A Mitigation Monitoring Plan is being prepared for the project, but this is not a part of the Final OR since the monitoring program is subject to changes that might occur as a result of City Council approval of specific aspects of project final design. While a mitigation monitoring plan is required under CEQA, it is not a required part of an EIR (see State CEQA Guidelines §15120-15132). 2. Archaeological reports were prepared for the various portions of the project site during previous environmental review of prior approved projects. No archaeological artifacts were determined to be at the project site by these reports. The archaeological reports are available for review by qualified individuals at the City of Santa Clarita within the administrative records for TTM 45148, TTM 47324, TTM 47803, and at the County of Los Angeles for Tract 46364. 3. As stated in Section 5.4, the proposed project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact on the biological resources of the project site. Revegetation and current design plans were incorporated by reference and are available for review at the City of Santa Clarita. Further detailed plans would be available at the final design stage of planning if the project is approved, which can occur only after the Final EIR is certified. 4. A Mitigation Monitoring Plan is being prepared for the project, but this is not a part of the Final EIR since the monitoring program is subject to changes that might occur as a remit of City Council approval of specific aspects of project final design. While a mitigation monitoring plan is required under CEQA, it is not a required part of an EIR (see State CEQA Guidelines §15120.15132). 5. The cumulative impacts of the project on biological resources were determined to be significant and unavoidable, as discussed in Section 5.4 of the EIR. 6.. The requirement for landscape design plans to be submitted to the County of Los Angeles Fire Department is noted. This is not part of the environmental review process required under CEQA and is not relevant to the EIR. It is Expected that the applicant will provide such a plan as required under the County Fire Code if the project is approved. city OF Santa Clatlra F-15 ■i ■� �■ � � r � r ar M M M M Ms. Kristine Kudija November 7, 1995 Page 2 ' The City of Santa Clarim's Oak Tree Ordinance, Oak Tree Permit, Oak Tree J Report,Location Map, Re -planting Map and Monitoring Agreement should be in the Final Environmental Impact Report. • An archaeological and historical records check and field survey should be y conducted to determine any significant findings, verification of either the records check or the field survey should be in the Final EIR. ' Revegetation and landscape plans, including details on mitigation Conditions of 3 Approval, are needed to evaluate the impacts to the existing Oona and fauna species. • Upon approval, the agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the y changes to the project which it has adopted or made a Condition of Approval. The mitigation monitoring measures for the project should be fully addressed in the DEIR. S I • Cumulative impacts from the project to the natural environment of the City of Santa Clarita to be addressed. • Recent changes to the County Fire Code requires that landscape design plans be 6 submitted to the County of Los Angeles Fire Department, Brush Clearance Unit. Two fuel modification plans will be required for Fire Department approval during the preliminary plan review. If you have any additional questions, please contact this office at (213) 991-2481. Very truly yours, s PAUL H. ��, CHIEF, FORESTRY DIVISION PREVENTION BUREAU PHRJmb F 31 "!i..tte Lrcr.l; r -Z .i Std il.� i p Yui. -T � ,* �,1 ri lu Ye.• sF° v�',y lL ,� q in t A t i"j �'e,rtj s'.tvf f3 eia sttw! e ekE :.. t 7.vz )�N L �r .l i,�a < n�% ...wr...,.. :..n..,,_...w...e:,.u...,.w..n.r '- ..,...µ.:w..,«;,. ,r....,wvn.a;: w.,. s..,:.....s:... e...Y m •yt' i ¢ x � mfi �ti.s 1� e+ .vx..,.a....,.,,.,..r.._..w..c,..m+..... ' x,.....n ......•:. ...... u.,w.u.ea..,.m., u x..�,..,,:.. s: ' .w,»: ... u.«...,.«'- ..u..m.u... w:.......,......._�-n w ..:.v..;........a The Gas Company- i2 F_ C f; s V E r Tahnlol Services Deaamnwa OCT 241995 Hunters Omen Residential Development and Golf Course EIR aw- Riaw RQiee Appendix F . Response to Comments 4n :'S',':::•ant Gaobcr 20, 1997 Commentor: Santo Plescia, Planning Aide The Gas Company Glenn Adamlak Assistant Planner Date: October 20, 1995 City of Santa Clarity 23820 Valencia Blvd. Suite 300 Response: Santa Charlie. Co. DeazMr. Minnick: s'""'a""'�' project y g gas mains without any major impact 1. Comments indicate that the ro'ec[can be served existing on overall system capacity. No response is necessary. The following Is in response to your, 9127/95 Idler requesting information relative to an gvvc��a Environmental Impact Report on the proposed development of the Hunter Green Development As--rw.pu and Golf Course. Within the arcs of interest and responsibilities of the Southern California Gas Company, we find bmmll Mwr..er A't CA the proposed development reasonable and acceptable. snss.asn This letter is not to be Interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve the subject development, but only as an information service. Its intent is to notify you that the proposed project can be served from existing mains in thearea. This can be dam without any major impact on overall system opacity, service to existing customers, or the ensironmem. Aw:mge consumption is estimated at 1095 Thema per year per single family dwelling unit. This estimate is based on pan system mirages and does not encompass the possible effect of the State's new insulating requirements and consumers' loads vary with types of equipment used. The availability of natural gas service as set forth in this letter is based upon present conditions ofgas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, Smthem California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. We on also be affected by actions of ' federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action that effects gas supply or the condition under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with the revised condition. We have developed several programs which are available, upon request. to provide assistance In relating the most effective appliestions ofenergy conservation techniques for a particular project Hyou desire further Information on my ofour energy conservation pmgrams, phase Call (213) 091-8209. - Sincerely, Santo 11escla Planning Aide City or Senta Clerits F•16 M COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES a DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES PUBLIC HEALTH PROGRAMS AND SERVICES ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ar BUREAU OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 2523 Corporate pt. Rm 1s0, Monterey Park, CA 91754.7631. (2131861.4011 RECEIVED October 25, 1995 NOY 2199S To: Christine Rudija, Assistant Planner LI ON.01'101'41 fm Department of Community Development cnr cr wa-, ^�•vna City of Santa /CCJl��a'�ra � �lte From: Jack Petreliaj�� Director of vlronmental Protection Subject. NOTICE 03 COMPLETION OFA DRAFT RNVIRONN6NTAL IMPACT REPORT - HUNTERS onmi RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND GOLF Contest- am 95- 043049 This is in response to your September 29, 1995 Notice of Completion of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) regarding the Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course, SCH #95041049. This Bureau has reviewed the DEIR and submits the following comments: The project applicant states that the project will be served by an existing public water supply system and public sewers. If there I is a change in either of these conditions, further consultation/approval by this Department may be required. I - Landscape irrigation system plane and specifications must be submitted to this Department's Coes Connection a Nater Pollution 2 Control Program for review and approval. If reclaimed water -, becomes available for the project, its use must conform to guidelines established by the State Department of Health Services and this Department. Groundwater monitoring well (Section 5.2) must meet the minimum requirements of Bulletin 74.90 (California Well Standards) and the Loa Angeles County Code, and the construction of the well must be , 3 performed by a person possessing a C-57 license. A monitoring well construction permit issued by this Department and the.payment of an applicable fee is required. / - All public food facilities (golf course clubhouse) moat be 1 conetructud and operated to meet the requirements of the Y I California Health and Safety Code. Plane and specifications must -,j be submitted, with applicable fee, to this Department'a Plan Check Program for review and approval, and the operator must apply for and be issued a Los Angeles County Public Health License and Permit. License and permit requires the payment of an &must fee. If you have any questions or need additional information, please let me know. Hunters Green Realdentlal Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F -Response to Comments Commentor; Jack Palladia, Director of Environmental Protection County of Los Angeles, Department of Health Services Date: October 25, 1995 Response: 1. No response necessary. Current plans still indicate that the site would be served by public water and sewer systems. 2. Comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the EIR and no response is necessary. 3. The requirement for the groundwater monitoring well to meet the requirements of Bulletin 74.90 has been added to the EIR text. 4. Comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the EIR and no response is necessary. Cityof Santa Ctatlta F•17 �. u v '- i s a Y _.ta r °p sfl f6a Ass Sts ..f: tq. x ^xt xRy°rP.r ax ':r�r W� �.W+tXh_ .n1 � t -Cl. s te�uv Ss Y a:t i4 ysh'Vx L krrt , ,7t } �J: 1A�ti1Nx-a�a..lx V.f r..s:.m SY£L.pfi x1,b 4Nwt yN :i. �(+¢q ✓N'k,?;�=a bty9. ami �5f'c+"�..,...n ., cu....... ..,w. v........ wa,. s........ .,-�iay......v...w...n....n .-•.. v...a.w. a.rn.., ....Lh•n. ,u nu.w ..uww.uirAr,mlr>ww:wxW:s....::W,.n s•.au.-r .•.....Grv>n.i44V.�%..✓a. :F„ MWer+3rwnrSaw.. a»wi.w'iG:ihnlww•+ A,W..sFAH�x .rR,Aw wi.+. COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY 1955 Workmon Mill Rood, Whinier, CA 90601.1400 Moiling Address: P.G. Bos 4998, Whllliee CA 90607.4998 CHARLES W. CARRY Telephone: (510) 699-7411, FAX: (310) 6956139 Chief Engineer end General Mining., October 19,1995 File No: 26.00.00.00 Mr. Glen Adamkk City of Santa Qarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa pante, CA 91355 iiIVED OCT 2 0 1995 c6v Yw„n {e.n..vcn i SURI vol Dear Mr. Adamkk: Hunter's Green Development and GeV Course The County Sanitation Districts received a W Envdroememaf Impact Report for the subject project on October 4,1995. We offer the following comments and corrections regarding sewerage service: 1. The areas N question are outside the jurisdictional boundaries of she Sanitation Districts and will require annexation into District No. 26 before sewerage service can be provided to the proposed developments. For specific information regarding the annexation procedure and fees, please contact Ms. Ruth Chutes at (310) 699-7411, extension 2708. 2. The wastewater Row originating from the proposed project will discharge to a local sewer line, which is not maintained by the Sanitation Districts, for conveyance to the Districts' Soledad Canyon Trunk Sewer Section 5, located In Lost Canyon Road at the Antelope Valley Freeway. This 18 -inch diameter trunk sewer bat a peak opacity of 9.1 million gallons per day (mgd) and conveyed a peak Row of 3.0 mgd when has measured N 1992. Plose note that the "wen In live Oaks Springs Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road discussed In Section 3.7.4 are local seven and are not maintained by the Districts. 3. The County Sanitation Districts providewastewater treatment in the Santa (Merits Valley by operating two water reclamation plants (WRPs), the Saugus WRP and the Valencia WRP. These faculties have been Interconnected to form a regional treatment system known as the Santa Qadts Valley Joint Sewerage System (SCVJSS). The Saugus WRP has been rated at a opacity of 6.5 mgd and the Valencia WRP has a design opacityof 11.0 mgd. Ali solids and any wastewater Rows which cannot be treated at the Saugus WRP are conveyed to the Valencia WRP for treatment The SCVJSS has a permitted treatment opacity of 17.5 mgd (11.0 + 6S) and currently treats an average Have of 15.9 mgd. Expansions of the SCVJSS Is currently underway and has been planned to allow adequate lead time to design and construct the required opacity u Ihewastevater flow materialize. The next expansion of the SCVJSS will come on-line In 1996, increasing the system opacity of 19.1 mgd. 4. A copy of the Districts' average wastewater generation factors is enclosed to allow you to estimate the volume of wastewater the project will generate. G P,ax„e PaeP Hunters Green Resldentiel Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F - Response to Comments Commentor: Dainis Kleinbergs, Planning & Property Management Section County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County Date: October 19,1995 Response: 1. The need for annexation into District No. 26 was noted in Section 1.3 of the Draft EIR.. 2. Information noted. The fact that the trunk sewer is at only 33% of peak capacity confirms the findings of the Initial Study that impacts to that system are not potentially significant. 3. Information noted. The fact that the wastewater treatment facilities have a remaining capacity of 1.6 mgd, with an additional 1.6 mgd to come online in 1996 confirms the findings of the Initial Study that impacts to that system are not potentially significant. 4. Based on the provided factors, the project could generate 24,280 gallons per day of sewage, which represents 1.5% of the treatment plant's remaining available capacity. This is not oonsidereda significant amount. S. It is noted that the project will be required to pay a sewage connection fee. 6. Approval of the proposed project would reduce the number of units that have already been assumed by the 1994 Regional Comprehensive Plan to be located at the site since such plan was based on the past entitlements and the City's General Plan designation for the project site. As such, the proposed project would reduce potential demands on the wastewater treatment facilities as compared to that projected by regional planning efforts. ■r �r rr r� rl r� rt r� ri r rr City ors.nnC0,11. F -IS C1 QOtos Angeles CountyDepartment of Regional Rleon/ngDinrros of P/jmq.. Jrmar E laRl. AICD REr_EIVE0 October 18, 1995 OCT 2 0 1995 MUMUNRv arypAUA'FH rllY W fPX1A Cl AViIA Ms. Christine Kudija Assistant Planner lI City of Santa Clarita Department of Community Development 23920 Valencia Boulevard Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 SUBJECT: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT HUNTERS GREEN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND GOLF COURSE SEPTEMBER 27, 1995 SCH# 95041049 Dear Ms. Kudija: Thank you for providing this department with a copy of the above document for our review. Staff has reviewed the Draft EIR and has the following comments: FAILURE TO DISCLOSE IMPORTANT AND PERTINENT INFORMATION While the Draft EIR is critically deficient in a number of respects, the most salient of these is its failure to adequately disclose the history of the project site with respect to the 103A acre Los Angeles county portion at the southerly end targeted for annexation. This area (identified as the"fourth. parcel" on page 1.3) was a part of Tract 32571 (Lots 44 and 136) which was approved by the Regional Planning Commission on April 4, 1985 (Tract 46364 1 as noted in the Draft EIR is actually a unit of Tran 32571). This area was approved for not more than two dwelling units and was intended to provide a substantial buffer to the Gillebrand mining operations within Forest Service property to the east. This was a requirement not only of the Tentative Tract map but also by virtue of the concurrently approved conditional use permit (CUP 2156) which regulates the property to this day, regardless of the owner's allowing the tentative tract map to expire. A copy of this CUP is attached. Please note that the CUP runs with the land. As such, the project, as designed is in direct violation with the provisions imposed by the Regional Planning Commission. Furthermore, it is very important to disclose that, in the original approval of Tract 32571, the overall subject property of 346 acres was deemed to yield a maximum of 138 dwelling Z units as per the Santa Clarita Areawide General Plan. The number of units approved was 136. As such, the density yield from the 103 acres of this current proposal has in effect, been used and has been clustered on the westerly portion of the project site. 320 West temple Slee! 109 Angeles. CA 90012 213 974 6411 FAX 213 616 0434 Green Resldentlal Development and Golf Course EIR x F •Reaoonse to Comments Commentoe Jahn Schwarze, Administrator, Current Planning Branch Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning Date: October 18, 1995 Response: 1. Discussion regarding the land use of this area and the potential for impact was contained in the Initial Study for the project (EER Appendix A, Issue Number 8) and determined by the City of Santa Clarita to be an insignificant effect; it was therefore not considered in this focused EIR. If the property is annexed, as is the intent of the proposed project, the project would be under the jurisdiction and land use authority of the City of Santa Clarita and not that of the County of Los Angeles. The need for buffering of the adjacent mining areas and the appropriate development potential would be as determined by the General Plan of the City. Residential use of the land has been planned for in the City of Santa Clarita General Plan (1991) and such use was deemed to be compatible with mineral extraction operations. The project is consistent with General Plan policies 6.1 and 6.2 to use open space (in this case the golf course) as a buffer between mineral resource areas and sensitive uses and to maintain such areas. Information regarding the past history of the parcel to be annexed has been taken from Appendix A of the EIR and added to Section 1.4 of the text. As stated in the Initial Study (EIR Appendix A), the proposed project would allow a total of 51 residential lots within the area currently restricted by the County of Los Angeles to 2lots. The additional units added to this area are a density transfer from other portions of the total project site, similar to the density transfer that occurred from the 103 acre parcel to the remainder of Tract 32571, Since this is a density transfer, it does not alter the density yield for the 103 acres that were granted by the County of las Angeles. In fact as currently proposed, the project would reduce the number of currently entitled residential lots in the Send Canyon area by 140 units and is 277 units fewer than the density provided for in the City's General Plan for the entire Hunters Green project site. 3.. This information was researched and included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR 4. Section 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines refers to the contents of the'Final EIR, and not to the contents of the Draft EIIt, It is not unexpected for a Draft EIR to not contain those sections required for a Final EER. Specific public controversy and issues.to be resolved sections have been added to Section 2.0 of the Final EIR. S. The discussion regarding land use is contained in the Initial Study, Appendix A The City of Santa Clarita determined through the Initial Study process that land use issues were not significant given that the proposed project would actually reduce the residential density planned for in the Sand Canyon area and the project site in particular, would meet the City's General Plan Designation and City nrsann Cradle F-19 � d� s_,: is "i'. Mh yMY.J 2v H' -wk h t F_ .t hpv Y R F• 'vk l.r e�l�F-iF"'rJ, "aN��,sa�45 hid :i.b L..�V.�n.., ......r t i.. .. �.. g.,,..0 $t..��...'Yq.. a..n.w.. ,f�...n�a ..... «t....>...�_�-.. 2. 3 IThis information should have been researched and included intheDraft EIR as it Is I pertinent and crucial to any decision on the project. FAILURE TO HIGHLIGHT AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED The Draft EIR lacks this basic requirement of disclosure pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15132. A review of the Notice of Preparation /.( NOP) letters in the document clearly shows that there is controversy in many areas which f I the Draft EIR has failed to summarize. Not only is this a disservice to the public but a serious omission of information to decision -makers. S FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY ADDRESS LAND USE ISSUES In spite of the NOP's stating that EIR issues need not be limited to those initially identified, coupled with the important land use corttments received from the public, no land use section or meaningful discussion has been provided in the Draft EIR. The Oak Springs portion of the project site as well as the areas to the east have been classified as Mineral Resource Zones 2 (MR7-2) by the State Division of Mines and Geology. These represent areas where mineral deposits are present. State law requires that these areas be conserved and protected from incompatible development. The County of Los Angeles, in approving Tentative Tract 32571, gave serious weight to this mandate. The Draft EIR makes scant reference to this issue and concludes that this project will not have a significant effect on mineral resource reserves. This Department cannot agree with that conclusion since the direct and permanent loss of any significant resource area (2.2 million cubic yards of maximum potential yield from this portion of the MRZ, page 5.1.9 of the Draft EIR) could have considerable future countywide implications. More important is to acknowledge that having people move so close to a mining area will undoubtedly create an unfavorable future condition of opposition to mining operators. It is our understanding that there are approved current mining activities in Oak Springs canyon that could conceivably last as much as So years Into the future. NO ANALYSIS OF WATER SUPPLY AND AVAILABILITY The NOP indicated that water availability would be addressed in the Draft EIR yet nothing close to this has been included. This Department believes that a development of this magnitude (including two golf courses) will have an obvious impact on supplies and availability of valuable potable water. Staff recommends that the Santa Clarita Water Company be requested to reassess this matter and that data from the Los Angeles County Development Monitoring System be utilized for information regarding demand. Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix f - Response to Comments Zoning for the area through the issuance of the conditional use permit, and was in compliance with City policies and goals for the area. The EIR acknowledges that the project site contains designated regionally significant mineral resources (Section 5- 1, Effect ER -10) and additional information from CDMG Special Report 143 has been added to the EIR text so that the City can better evaluate the effect of the project on the supply of mineral resources in the area, including the County -wide production of such resources. However, the City during the development and approval of its 1991 General Plan did not consider mining and extraction uses as appropriate for the project site, including the 103 acre annexation parcel, when it was designated for development as Residential Estate and Residential Very Low. The City's Land Use Element contains a specific Mineral/Oil Conservation Area overlay designation that is intended to permit the continuation of mineral extraction and oil field uses while providing for further development of the City. This overlay designation meets the requirements of state regulations regarding the conservation of resources. While this overlay was placed on the sand and gravel deposits in the Santa Clara River north of the site and the existing mining operations to the northeast of the site (1993 General Plan Land Use Map), it was not so designated for the project site. In addition, the major portion of the aggregate deposits within the project site is located in the 160 acre northeast parcel, an area that was entitled for development of 140 residential lots in 1990. The proposed project would not alter these substantial existing limitations on the potential use of the site for mineral extraction, and so would not create a new significant impact on regional ininerai resource deposits that did not already exist. The use of the golf course as a buffer to reduce nuisance effects of the adjacent mining operations on the proposed residential area is considered acceptable and in compliance with General Plan policies 6.1 and 6.2 to use open spa" (in this case the golf course) as a buffer between mineral resource areas and sensitive uses and to maintain such areas. The golf course would provide a greater distance between the extractive mining operations and residential lots than that provided for under the existing entitlement on the 160 acre parcel. It is also noted that there are already several residential units in the Oak Spring Canyon area that can readily view the existing and future mining operations. In addition, the majority of new mining resources to be extracted in the adjacent mining operation (10.7 million cubic yards of 12.7 million cubic yards) would be at Claim Groups 11 and BI, which are over 2.5 miles from the nearest proposed residence and in areas that are not visible from the project site (Tetra Tech, 1991). The future mining operation in Claim Group I is located over 1.5 miles from the nearest proposed residence, and while it would be visible to the proposed project, it is also visible to residences in the existing "Crystal Springs" tract in Sand Canyon and mitigation measures to reduce its visual impacts were delineated in the Tetra Tech (1991) EIS. For these reasons, the land use effects ofthe proposed project on the adjacent mining area are considered less than significant. 6. When the project was initially proposed and at the time of circulation of the NOP, it was thought that the applicant would be using groundwater in part for irrigation of the golf courses. This is why Appendix B contains several references to the possible use of onsite groundwater. At the initiation of the EBR preparation, the applicant indicated that only potable water provided by the Santa Clarita Ir City or sante clans F -2a 3. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 7 I The Draft EIR contained a number of miscollated pages making the review difficult and time consuming. The Draft EIR should have included- a list of Draft EIR recipients in order to ascertain whether the appropriate parties have been included. For example: the Santa Clarita Water Company, the State Division of Mines and Geology, S.C.O.P.E., Santa Clarita Civic Association, etc_ We request that all future EIR's henceforth include this information as is standard practice with this Department. The Draft EIR contains a very poor and non -user friendly copy of the site plan To compound the problem, the Draft EIR in several areas of the text cites lot numbers, q features of the plan, road names, etc. which are impossible to locate on the site plan. We request that all future EIR's include a pocket with a full scale map for ease of review. This too is standard practice with this Department. Access is wholly disregarded. Staff would be interested to know if this project meets Io County Subdivision Code requirements limiting to 75 the number of units on a single means of access in a high fire hazard area. This should be addressed in any Final EIR including any temporary exceedances of this Critical safety consideration either with this project or in combination with other existing or proposed units. CONCLUSION Since this Department and County government, in general,is experiencing serious staffing 11 and budgetary problems, our lime and resources have been severely limited. As a result, our comments are not all-inclusive and may not touch on all potential areas of concern. We request that a full Copy of the Final EIR as well as any approval documents be provided to this Department with responses to the issues raised. Hurlers Green Resldentlai Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F -Response to Comments Water Company would be used to irrigate the golf course, as discussed in the EIR project description. Discussions during the preparation of the EIR with the Santa Clarita Water Company indicated that they "felt they could serve the project within their Master Plan," provided that the applicant construct the backbone delivery system (feeder lines and two reservoirs totaling 2.5 million gallons) as indicated in the proposed project description (pg. 3-10). Further discussion of the water supply issue has been added to the EIR text in Section 5.2. 7. It is unfortunate that the Draft EIR received by the Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning contained mis-collated pages. The Department was the only known commentor that received such a copy and additional copies were available from the City of Santa Clarita if the Department had requested such. 8. A list of recipients of the Draft EIA is not a required part of an EIR under CEQA, and would be misleading in any event since many of the commentors who obtain a copy of the EIR are unknown at the time of publication. 9. The copy of the site plan was the best available provided by the applicant despite several requests for better originals. Larger maps at scales of I"=100' and 1"-200' were incorporated by reference into the EIA and were available for review at the City of Santa Clarita Department of Community Development. The inclusion of large blueline maps within all copies of an EIR tends to be wasteful of paper and not cost-effective since few reviewers actually unfold the maps. t0. The proposed project provides two means of access, not one as indicated by the commentor. One access is via "A" Street at Sand Canyon Road, while the other is at "W Street, which would connect with the future extension of Live Oak Springs Canyon Road.. Access was described on page 3-10 of the Draft EIR Since it is expected that the extension of Lave Oak Springs Canyon Road (Tract No. 46364) would occur prior to the proposed development, no temporary exceedances of the 75 units in a high fire hazard area are anticipated. In addition, it is noted that construction of the golf courses as envisioned by the project would substantially reduce the current level of fire hazard in the area. 11. Comment noted. CEQA does not provide a mechanism whereby Comments may be "reserved" to a future date. City of Sante C14,118 F-21 4. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (213) 974-6461 Monday through Thursday. Our offices are closed on Fridays. Sincerely, DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL PLANNING James E. Hartl, AICP Director of Plan John R. Schwame, A ministrator Current Planning Branch JRS:FM:fm c LAFCO State Division of Mines and Geology Dave Vannatta, Deputy Sth Supervisorial District John Hartman, Section Bead Land Divisions Certified -Receipt Requested April 9, 1985 Engineering Service Corporation 6017 Bristol Parkway Culver City, Calif. 90230 Gentlemen% Lo, Ap ..Uo 11 OEPARTMENTOF REaIONALP"NNINa 32e W W Twnoh EIm1 Les AngiN 61 ilami.9D012 92.No1 Nwmm M.M.tlh - Plsnnlnp Ol.w:le, it RE% OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 63-001 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 2156-(5) TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 32571 (Map date February 12, 1985) To create 136 single family lots within an area designated as Non -urban Hillside Management and Floodplain Management in the Countywide General Plan and Hillside Management, Watershed, N1 and N2 in the Santa Clarita Valley Area Plan, in the Sand Canyon Zoned District. A public hearing on Conditional Use Permit Case No. 2156-(5), Oak Tree Permit No. 83-001, and Tentative Tract Map No. 32571 was held befoi the Regional Planning Commission of Los Angeles County on April 4. 1985. After considering the evidence presented, the Regional Planning Commission in concurrent actions on April 4, 1985 granted the Oak Tree Permit, Conditional Use Permit and conditionally approved the tentative tract map in accordance with the Subdivision Map Actand Title 21 (Zoning Ordinance) and 22 (Subdivision Ordinance) of the Los Angeles County Code. These actions enable the property shown on the attached legal description and the tentative tract map dated February 12, 1985 to be subdivided into 136 lots, subject to the attached conditions. Your attention is called to the following: 1. Condition No. i of the conditional use permit provides that the permit shall not be effective for any purpose until the applicant and the owner of the property involved, or their duly authorized representatives, have filed at the office of the Department of Regional Planning the affidavit stating that they are aware of and accept allthe conditions of the permit. 2. Condition No. 3 of the conditional use permit pointing out limitations of the grant. ■io = r= M== M== M= o M r 3. that dorinn the fifteen -day period following your receipt of this FIHI1IIiG5 FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 240. 2156 (TRACT MAP N0. 32571) lege:.. the Commission's decision regarding the conditional use permit may be appealed to the Board of Supervisors through the lots on a 345.8 office of the Clerk of the Board, Room 3839 Hall of Administration, t Canyon Road �� acre site at the eastern terminus Live Oak Spring 500 asst temple Street, Las Angeles, California 90012. The permit approximately } mile east Of Sand Canyon Road will not become effective until and unless the appeal period hes and Condor Ridge n Zoned app Y passed without the filing of an appeal. in the send Canyon Zoned District. The proposal concentrates development on the relatively flat portions o£ the site. 4. That the decision of the Commission regarding the tentative tract jI11181de Management map shell become final and effective on the date of decision 2, The subject property 16 depicted the in the Rural, Hill - provided no appeal of the action taken hes been filed with the and Flood Plain categories, of the Countywide General Plan end the Rill - Board of Supervisors within ten days following the decision of the side Management, watershedN1, N2 categories of the Santa Clarita Commission through the office of the Clerk of the Board, Room 383, 'alleh 1 munityaPlan�e '!r'hhee proposedes a project exceeds the etlow density Hall of Administration, 500 west Temple Street, Loa Angeles, th California 90012. and 3. The proposed project and the provisions for its design The conditional use permit and Oak Tree. Permit shall be null and void improvement are consistent with the goals and policies of the classifunless it is utilized prior to April 40 1990. Upon written request Ge�taal planandwithliance ththe the zonfo11ow1nBonditlons iccand has in the stating reasons why additional time to commence is needed, the Commission may grant a one-year time extension for the conditional use burden of proof for the Conditional Use Permit .for billsi a manage- permit. anag -permit. Suoh request must be received prior to April 4, 1990. meet areas, in thatt The tentative tract map approval shell expire April 4, 1988. If the s. The proposed project is located end m nity residents. d so as to peadtect subject tract map does not record prior to the expiration date, a request the gefety oS Ourrent and meat°y�p i12a and/or property In writing for an extension of the approval must be received prior to the will not Create slgnif eismic, slope instabilitY, expiration date. due to the presence Of geologic, s If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact the fire, flood, or erosion hazard, Subdivision Section of the Department of Regional Planning at (217) b• The proposed development demonstrates ythat will complement ve 974-6433. demist resultingter andlb visual current end future community community. Very truly .yours, residents. DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL PLANNING O. The prop used project is Compatible with the natural b1ot1C, Norman Murdoch „y PJ,annin9 0� Cultur8l and scenic resources of the arca. //�✓ill not be public health d. The safety, design and/or environmental Considertions. and saSety, Bn re orantration inlet etor units exceeding the number Subaiv is Adm oiv on e. The approval of proposed dwelling permitted by the low density threshold for the propos mitigate GT:RL:MB:jmr went in Non -urban hillsides disbaseign erdon the abilmentto con - problems of Public safety, Enclosures; legal] offidavitl findings and conditons sideration as provided in the General Plan• cc, Board of supervisors S. The proposed project is conveniently served ov neighborhood Zoning Envordemant shopppp0 s and communitywithout facilities, can be provided with essential Subdivision Committee publio services without Smpesing undue Costa on the total Reel Estate Commission- community, and is consistent with the objectives and P FNA of the General Plan. Crocker Bank 4. The property is zoned A-1-1 (light agriculture - 1 etre minimum to else), and therefore requires a CUP to cluster units in this density controlled development. 5. The proposed design project endlor elnvitonme oral Ilona i ostatoione6lfc health end safety, 9 ,,..... z �......�..v.NY • ....n ....ur2,.w.w......... �......�. > .� x. > � Y n a > �, ,..u.>.,..w..�....,..0 r..�...... � ....> w«.+«run , { x ."c.....„ww—+s�,«,i;H Fw ., i�c .,,.>..«,,... »L..... r. � _...at,..... 5 �....� .., F rw � ...w.�,....� vY.c ii .S4• n�fW v.4+a "a• OT” FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2156 Page 2 TRACT MAP No. 32571 6. Through appropriate conditioning the proposed project will be ta Valley Area Plan andamanner compatibly with ad�acenttresid ntial�areas- 7. awned proposed otailing to insurelcompatibility e a with aof r architectural residential development. 8. The proposed grading will be balanced cut and fill with no off-site grading. 9. The applicant proposes to place all utilities underground. 10. The proposed e dwellings will have a variety of front yard setbacks to c 11. The the requiremeentslofethevLospAAngelesCoounty Health Dintained in eppliance artment with upon 12. CoalifolrniaeOak itrees vwill be mitigated ironmental sth 000ughdexisting the condition required by Oak Tree Permit No. 83-001. 13. An Eaveronmental Impact Report ommisfor on pro act W338ag 93 previously approve by the Regional Planning Commission determined that implementation of this proposal will cause no significant adverse effects on the environment which cannot be adequately mitigated through the application of available controls, A review of theproposed land division indicates no anges�of impacts that would warrant further study or changeo BASED ON THE FOREGOING, THE REGIONAL PLANNING CON+ANISSION CONCLUDES: 1. That the proposed use will not be in substantial conflict with the adopted general plan for the ares - 2. That the requested use at the location proposed will not: a. Adversely fors ngdor welfare f snesiding working ithe Surrounding area,, or b. Be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment or valuatione of property of other persons located in the vicinity site, or c. Jeopardize endanger oor general wconstitute a menace to the public heath, safety 3o t ty= proposed site is adequate llandscaapiinndg an pother accommodate s walls, fences, IIZoningr Ordinance, or as is otherwise features prescribed i theZoningsaid required in order to integrate geld use witt the uses in. the surrounding area, and FINDINGS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2156 page 3 TRACT r,AP N0. 32571 4. That the proposed site is adequately Served, a By highways or Streets of sufficient width and improved as -necessary to carry the kind and quantity of traffic such use would generate, and required. b. By other public or private Service facilities as are THE REGIONAL PLANNING CMUSSION APPROVES: Conditions' 1, That, in view of the fie of iacau jest todthe attached Use Permit No. 2156 (5) is RANTED, conditions. M M MM M M M M M MM M O M MM M M M M M M M M M M COfIDTTI0N5 FOR CDi,:.TTIONAL USE .PERMIT N0. 2156 CONDITIONS 1, This permit shall not be effective for any purpose until a duly authorized representative of the owner of the property involved bag filed at the office of said Regional Planning Commission his affidavit stating that he is aware of, and accepts all the conditions of this permit= 2. It is hereby declared to be the intent that if say Provision of this ivoid and the privileges lared granted hereunderbe dshall the 1papse; she]]. 3. iY any further o dditionchereofais violatemade a d, theSon of permita 7ebe suspended mit the applicant haslbeen givenwritteted n notier ceattoo cases such violaovided tion and has failed to do so for a period of thirty (39) days; 4. That all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and of the specific zoning of the subject property must be complied with unless set forth in the permit or shown on the approved plot plan; 5. That tha subject property shall be developed and maintained in i aubatental compliance with the tentative tract map on file marked radcrttbgto A3257711ashhall be deemed to beded or revised tave tract maps revised Exhibit A. for 6. That all development of thesubject property shall conform to the Permit Oaplproved for Tentative Tract No. 32571 and Oak Tree 7. That a maximum of one hundred thirty six (136) residential Mite may be constructed on the property. 8. That all development shall comply with ll aapplicable requirements of the Zoning Ordinance (Ordinance No. 1494) and the Subdivision Ordinance (Ordinance No. 4478). 9. That open space shall comprise not less than 70 percent of the net area. 10. That three eotheaplfaaing Directory Slan ora to recordation otos final 0ayproved by, peserrvvsa%ioonanandtenchancement landscape f any scenic viiews address e 11. of an'to ajnor streambodn or thecappllicantoshalwithin tiff thea Depthe ar mark rtment t of Fidh and Came and ottain an. agreement in eompi the with State Fish and Game Code, Sections 1601-1603. 12. �t any t to the lot tPlines must be to the satisfaction Page 2 CONDITIONS FOR CONDITImul.-USE RES= N0. 2156 CONDITIONS 13. Prior to the issuance of a. building Permit, a site plan shall be aul�itted to and approved by the P1Director indicating that the proposed construction and grsalnB as compatlblewith hin the limits establishedgeoloide gicgeologic and engineerReview Of this sits ing coonstraintss, At"" emphasize The preservation of natural features and the grading amount and technique. 14. Evidence shall be submitted to the Department of Regional Planning showing that the applicant has made arrangements with the serving utilities to install underground all new facilities necessary to furnish u sseerrvice in the development. a will be 15' All 6imi^eted or mitigated and soil to thheasatisfaction of the Counts due to unstable nty Engineer ((Geotllogyy Section) or a restricted use area will be delineated on 16.` That parking on the sub act property ghell be provided at a minimum ratio of tww (2) covers par spaces per residential unit; 17. That no building shall exceed two stories in height; 18. That subject project bedevelopedand maintained in compliance with requirements of the Los Angeles County Health officer includ1A adequate water and private disposal sew a facilities 1n comp lance provided Angeles satisfaction Ordinance csaid Health 22 9 DYficer75B3 -hall be 19, Applicant shall contact the Fire Prevention Bureau of the Loa pngelea County Forester end Fire Warden to determine facilities that may be nsceasary to protect the property from fire hazard. Mater medae, fire hydrants, sad ;ire flow shall. be provided as may be. req uirad. 20. That acceptance of the conditions of this grant be recorded with the County Recorder. 21. That unless this grant is used within five years fromthe dateexpire. of Regional Planning Commission, approval the gran SA one-year time extension may be. requested prior to such ex,iratic ate.) W .,.1.. ... :.:+,......e.. >x ... >.,.,.:::....,. ,. ..,.. ,..c. _..i,....d..w.w..+.a1n... ,: .. ..,",r.. r. ,. ,.. a raw .. .. ... L LOS ANGELES REGION 101 CENTRE PLAZA MIRE MORTER Y PARR. CR 91192161 J213) 1601600 FAR: alrl 20610H November 16, 1995 Mr. Glen Adamick Community Development Department City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suits 300 Santa Clarita, California 91351 Re: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE HUNTER'S GREEN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND GOLF COURSE, VICINITY OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA (SCH #95041049) Dear Mr. Adamick: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the referenced document. This document addresses environmental Impacts from development of 411 acres east of the City of Santa Clarita by the construction of 83 single-family lot pads on 123 acres, two 18 -hole golf courses, a clubhouse, lighted driving range, and a parking lot. We have the following comments to make regarding this project. a) Water Supply and Wastewater Treatment • The only Information on water supply and wastewater treatment appears to be in comment letters contained in Appendix B. It Is not clear from Appendix B how much potable water this project will consume, the source of this potable water, and the rate at which wastewaters will be generated. Please clarity this Information. Also, assuming that the project will rely to a significant extent upon supplies of ground water, please analyze the capacity of underlying aquifers to meet this demand without incurring overdraft or Impacting downgradienl uses. Also, as noted In the letter dated May 18, 1995 from the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, the Saugus Water Reclamation Plant does not have capacity to accept additional waste loads. Nle assume that this project will rely upon the additional capacity being installed at theValenciaWater Reclamation Plant. b) Impacts to Beneficial Uses: While Section 5.2 of the EIR notes the various beneficial uses that have been designated for surface and ground waters, the EIR does not appear to Include an analysis of Impacts that will occur to these beneficial uses. Our letter dated May 23, 1995 (a copy of which is in Appendix B) specifically asked that impacts to designated beneficial uses be addressed. As stated in that letter, analysis of these impacts should Include, among others, Impacts to natural habitats (aquatic and riparian habitats) that would result from the proposed drainage and flood control measures associated with this proposed project. Additionally, please analyze alternatives that will avoid Impacts to instream beneficial uses and riparian habitat. As you're aware, a hydraulic buffer of riparian zones and flood plains may reduce the need for flood control measures that Impact beneficial uses. Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F -Response to Comments Commenlor. Wendy Phillips, Chief, Planning Unit California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region Date: November 16, 1995 Response 1. When the project was initially proposed and at the time of circulation of the NOP, it was thought that the applicant would be using groundwater in part for irrigation of the golf courses. This is why Appendix B contains several references to the possible use of onsite groundwater:. At the initiation of the EIR preparation, the applicant indicated that only potable water provided by the Santa Clarita Water Company would be used to irrigate the golf course, as discussed in the EIR project description. Discussions during the preparation of the EIR with the Santa Clarita Water Company indicated that they "felt they could serve the project within their Master Plan," provided that the applicant Construct the backbone delivery system (feeder lines and two reservoirs totaling 2.5 million gallons) as indicated in the proposed project description (pg, 3.10). The project is estimated to initially require 1114 acre-feet per year of water,. with water use reducing to about 891 acre-feet per ye"once the drought tolerant landscaping is established. This information has been added to the EIR text in Section 5.2. Wastewater generation from the site would be 24,280 gallons per day of sewage, which represents 1.5% of the interconnected treatment plants' remaining available capacity. This is not considered a significant amount. See also comment letter from the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County contained in this appendix. As stated in the Project Description, the golf course is currently proposed to not be using underlying groundwater at the site. Therefore, there would be no possibility of overdraft or negative impacts on downgradient uses. In fact, given the expected percolation of applied irrigation water (generally termed "return water"), the project would increase the amount of local groundwater in the alluvium of Oak Spring and Sand Canyons. The Santa Clarita Water Company, which would provide water to the site, has three wells that are about 0.5 miles apart within the Santa Clara River downstream of the site. The primary wells are only 120 feet deep and obtain water from the subsurface flow of the river (upper alluvial aquifer). The Company also has wells that are 1700 feet deep that penetrate the Saugus Formation aquifer, but they prefer not to use those wells for quality and costs reasons. The Saugus Formation wells are capable ofwithdrawing 6,000 acre-feet per year from a groundwater storage supply estimated at 1.0 million acre-feet. The Company has had its shallow wells at the mouth of Sand Canyon go dry in the past during the recent drought, requiring the use of their deep wells. The estimated safe yield of the Santa Clara River alluvial aquifer is 32,000 acre-feet per year, with the Santa Clarita Water Company currently entitled to 12,000 acre-feet. The Company also has an entitlement to 20,000 acre-feet per year from the State Water Project, which will provide approximately 5001* of all future water supplies. The Company's total available supply is 38,000 acre-feet per year, of which it is currently using 18,000-19,000 ace -feel per year. This information has been added to Section 5.2 of the EBI. My of Santa Cladta F-22 M City of Santa Clarita November 16, 1995 c) Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan fSWPPPI: We are pleased to note the various Best Management Practices that will be Incorporated into a SWPPP (referred to as a -3 I Slorinwaler Management Plan in Section 5.2.2 of the EIR), to be Implemented during construction. We recommend that you also restrict grading to the dry season, and that seeding for native vegetation be completed prior to the rainy season. d) Pesticide and Fertilizer Use: Impacts of eutrophlcation from fertilizers, and toxic effects from both fertilizers and pesticides, on surface and ground waters are potentially very significant. While we are pleased to note mitigation measures that will Incorporated into an Integrated Golf Course Management and Integrated Pest Y Management plans, golf courses may still significantly degrade water quality. We therefore recommend that, In addition to mitigation measures, the developer and homeowners assume responsibility for monitoring the effectiveness of the mitigation measures. Please contact Mr. Kirby McClellan at (213)266.7564 should you have questions. Sincerely, �s WendyPhll aC lef Planning Unit x. Chris Belsky State Clearinghouse Dalnis Kleinbergs, County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County W.J. Marietta, Jr., Santa Clarfta Water Company Hunters Careen Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F • Response to Comments 2. Potential impacts of the project to beneficial uses of local water supplies would be caused primarily by soil erosion during the construction phase, as discussed in Effect D-1, and by changes in water quality, as discussed in Effect D-5. All drainage and flood control measures proposed by the project would occur onsite and such impacts of the project to natural habitats are discussed in Section 5,4 of the EIR.. 3. Restriction of grading to a defined "dry season' is unnecessarily restrictive since such a dry season may incur several weeks of dry periods with only occasional rainfall. If appropriate BMPs are in place during the "wet season," downstream water quality would be minimally affected by runoff from the site. However, the applicant may choose to limit grading to the "dry season" to avoid the more costly BMPs required during the "wet season." Seeding of natives before the "wet season" is already part of the applicant's revegetation plan. 4.. The mitigation measures include a requirement for monitoring of ground water for chemicals used at the site. This will essentially require the applicant to monitor the effectiveness of the Golf Course Management and Integrated Pest Management plans. City ofsanre Clartia F•2l t ,?x h 7�\I� I(S �W1� YAb }. 41' [ rl!`*iLyl- a 1. td �. .�AN b 'Y Pl r+ .H M. t/�4><. Vm..i -``� �J. at L`. l Ji� �+i fi4kP-a.a .Nf `T Y L Le 3'R� 1.<..1 ♦ I i(�YS u. v r✓('ir a n�.Rwn n aw wM+v.nµ+-�+u ,. +..ars , .0 wxn.a 1 . } . e xxt r a, �x x Yr. n a,n N r F?S � h {� N lu , t u .ten .:. a .,�.xwwn .a„ x ,t i. s) <. , 4 x ..4.0 .4 rvSF • An i W HSr6a t A. M.1( A CITY OF SANTA CLARITA INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Glenn Adamick, Assistant Planner 11 FROM: Roble J. Rahmani, Associate Traffic Engineer Fes' DATE: November 14, 1995 SUBJECT: HUNTERS GREEN GOLF COURSE DEVELOPMENT -SIR REVIEW MASTER CASE NO. 95-049 As requested, we have reviewed the traffic portion of the subject Environmental Impact Report (EIR), dated September 27, 1995. The subject EIR was prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. and the traffic and circulation element of the EIR was prepared by Rireley-Horn and Associates, Inc. The EIR indicated that the proposed project consists of 87 residential dwelling units and a 36 -hole golf course located east of Sand Canyon Road north of live Oak Springs Canyon Road. The project will be constructed on 420 acres of undeveloped land which was approved for construction of 223 single-family residential units. The EIR assumes that the project will be constructed by 1996, the selected design year for an analysis purpose. The report forecasts that the proposed project would generate 3,800 vehicle trips per weekday, of which 144 and 202 would occur during a.m. and p.m. peak -hours, respectively. The report indicates that the project should be responsible for mitigation measures as follows: • Consider a traffic signal operation at Lost Canyon and Sand Canyon Road. • The applicant is required to submit traffic control plane for special events, such as tournaments. • Install a two-way left -turn lane on Sand Canyon Road from Comet Way to the project main entrance, including roadway widening. • Install a 50 foot leftturn pocket with 400 feet transition for the southbound traffic on Sand Canyon Road at Live Oak Springs Road. We have the following concerns with the trafBcle rculation element of the EIA and with the Traffic Analysis: 1. The roadway capacity shown on page.5.5-26, in paragraph one, which referred to the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual, Table 7.11 is not correct The level of service for Sand Canyon Road north of Lost Canyon Road was reduced to C from E without conducting adequate analyses. Also, interpretation on the General Plans' level of service criteria, in particular, the roadway characteristics, has no basis. Runlars nrean Residentlsl 0evelopment and Golf Course EIR Ippendla F. Raaponaeto Comments Communion Rabie Rahmate, Associate Traffic Engineer City of Santa Clarita Date: November 14, 1995 Response: L The text has been modified. The Level of Service for two-lane rural roads is largely controlled by the hourly directional traffic volume. In general, Level of Service D capacity for a two-lane roadway would be 8,500 to 13,500 vehicles per day, depending on the terrain, and assuming the peak hour volume is approximately 10% of the ADT (Highway Capacity Manual, Table 8-10). In the case of Sand Canyon Road north of Lost Canyon Road, the morning and evening peak hour volumes are currently 7.8 and 8.6 percent of the daily traffic, respectively, which would translate to a slightly increased daily capacity for Sand Canyon Road, compared to the highway Capacity Manual assumptions. On the other hand, although the roadway has a rural appearance, it serves some uses that are more suburban or urban in nature, and has more driveways and side street interaction than a typical rural two-line road. This would tend to reduce the functional capacity of the road. By application of the City of Santa Clarita General Plan Circulation Element and its theoretical daily capacities, the roadway will exceed its Level of Service "D" capacity when the daily traffic volume exceeds 12,500 vehicles. The project contribution of traffic to future daily tragic, however, is quite low during the peak hours compared to its total daily contribution (3 to 5% of the total daily traffic is added during the morning and evening peak hours, respectively). The addition of project traffic during off-peak hours can be accommodated without adversely impacting the functional operation of the roadway. The project contribution to this roadway segment during the peak hours will be 58 to 122 vehicles in one direction — less than 1% of the total daily projected traffic on the road. The project's contribution of traffic is expected to be spread out throughout the day, which will not create the need for additional travel lanes to accommodate the additional traffic load. If the project is required to contribute to the roadway and/or bridge widening, responsibility should assigned be on a fair - share basis, or on payment of applicable fees. Based on the nature of the project traffic patterns, it is not envisioned that the completion of the bridge widening will need to be a condition of project development. 2. Comment acknowledged. 3. A morning and evening peak hour signal warrant worksheet is provided for the intersection of Lost Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road (Caltrans Peak Hour Volume Warrant - Figure 9-9). The Intersection does not warrant a traffic signal under current conditions. With the addition of already approved project traffic, the morning peak hourjust meets the warrant minimums, and would City ofSenb Clerits F14 Glenn Adamick November 14, 1995 Page 2 The new analysiamay include, consideration for additional lanes (both directions) on Sand Canyon Road just north of Lost Canyon Road, to reduce the significant Impact of this project in the area. 2. Staff concure with the recommendation of requiring the applicant to submit traffic control plans for special events. 3. The signal warrant analysis at Loat Canyon Road and Sand Canyon for the a.m. peak hour was omitted. The school's a.m. peak traffic would coincide with a.m. commuter peak traffic. 4. The design of the left -turn pocket for the southbound direction on Sand Canyon Road at Live Oak Springs Road shall be according to the latest Caltrans Guidelines. This requires longer storage bays than the proposed length of 50 feet. The above staff concerns should be reviewed and addressed In the revised report. Thus, the submitted traffic and circulation element of the EIR is not accepted at this time. RJRAY:lkl n.a.u.�n4 cc: Anthany Nisich, City Engineer Bahman Janke, City Traffic Engineer Hunters Green Resldentlal Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F - Response to Comments continue to meet warrant in the morning peak hour with the addition of project traffic- The traffic from the schools on the west side of Sand Canyon Road causes the intersection to meet the one- hour warrant. The intersection is not projected to meet signal warrant during the evening peak hour, and is not expected to meet warrant during any other hour of the day. Mitigation Measure T- 4 has been modified to indicate that the applicant should install the signal with a reimbursement mechanism developed so that future traffic would pay their fair share costs of the signal. 4. Comment acknowledged. F-23 Hunters Breen Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F -Response to Comment. November 13, 1996 Planning Commission Santa Clarita, California Commentor. Richard and Corrine Cunningham Re: Proposed Hunter Green golf course EIR Date: November l I, 1996 Dear Commissioners, reside at 28082 Oak Springs Canyon, and am directly affected by the Proposed Response: Hunter Green Development. My wife, Corrine and I have two major concerns which we feel have not been addressed to our satisfaction: First, is the threat of reduced supply or 1. The project as proposed would not use any local groundwater, but would instead rely on potable degradation of the underground water supply that our family and most of the local area water supplied by the Santa Clarita Water Company. Because of the percolation of applied depends upon. The second, is Hunter Greeds plan for an illuminated driving range and imported water to the site, the project would actually increase the amount of locally available restaurant in close proximity to our home. The following are some requests which we groundwater. If reclaimed water were to become available, the applicant would consider use of would like to have incorporated into the Environmental Impact Report's recommendations such water supplies. However, if the applicant were to use reclaimed water or seek to use onsite to the Developer, and the reasons which support them: We look forward to your careful wells as a water supply, additional environmental documentation and specific technical studies consideration ofthese earnest matters. would be needed to determine the effect on local wells water quantity and quality. WATER QUALITY AND SUPPLY: We, and most Oak Springs Canyon residents, as well as most of the Santa Clarita The Santa Clarita Water Company has indicated that they "felt they could serve the project within ares depend upon well water. Locally, our wells are minimal producers. The golf Course their Master Plan," provided that the applicant construct the backbone delivery system (feeder lines has stated that they do not intend to use underground water sources, yet they refuse to and two reservoirs totaling 2.5 million gallons) as indicated in the proposed project description (pg. count out the possibility. We understand that, even if Hunter Green waives their right to 3-10). The Company's currently available annual supply is 38,000 acre-feet, with 12,000 acre-feet well water, they can petition the Planning Commission to drill wells later if financial coming from the Santa Clara River upper alluvial aquifer, 6,000 acre-feet from the Saugus hardship demands it. The possibility that water will be scarce and expensive in the not to Formation deep wells, and 20,000 acre-feet from the State Water Project. The water demand of the distant future is a reality for a desert community—the fact of cyclical periods of drought project is estimated to be initially at It 14 acre-feet per year, or about 6% of the remaining available has been proven by the recent episode Southern California is just recovering from. In water supply for the Santa Clarita Water Company. After the drought tolerant vegetation is addition, The greater portion of the million gallons -per -day that Hunter green will be established, water demand for the site is expectedto decrease by 20%. The cumulative effect of the consuming will come from the Santa Clara river aquifer, adjacent to Cor community. golf course on the supply available for the City of Santa Clarita is considered negligible since ample In the short term, the project's extensive grading will affect our subterranean water water for continued development (about 17,000 acre-feet per year) is apparently available to the supply to some degree, and In the long term, Hunter Green's appetite for water will almost Santa Clarita Water Company after the proposed project is accounted for.. This information has certainly insure that we will face a ground -water crisis which will force us to drill deeper, been added to the EBL text. Z- or pay to install and hook up to metropolitan service. Both options are extremely expensive for one family, but consider the total Cost to all residences which would be Since the primary source of water for the Santa Clarita Water Company is Santa Clara River water forced to shoulder this burden in time. underllow, the vast bulk of which comes from upstream sources that the Oak Spring Canyon The use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers is an integral part of golf Course groundwater wells are not tributary to, any increased pumpage at these wells are unlikely to management. We understand that the developer faces tight restrictions in the manner that significantly affect the water supply for Oak Spring Canyon wells. It is noted that wells in this area these chemicals are applied, however, the substances will be in use for the foreseeable have been reported to dry up during drought periods already, a result that is probably caused by the 3 future in sandy, permeable river -bottom soil which is also our aquifer. We dont want to relatively small watershed area that Oak Spring Canyon is tributary to and the shallowness of the live with the possible threat of ground water pollution as a result of an unforeseen error, wells_ or accidental situation. Ground water pollution is tough to catch in an early enough stage in the best scenatio—and difficult, if not impossible to reverse, once discovered. 2. The grading associated with the project would reduce the average slope of the site, thereby THE LONG-TERM WATER SOLUTION: decreasing Ore speed at which storm waters leave the site and increasing the amount of inane We request that the Hunter Green's developer install the basic water lines to Oak residence time available for percolation of water into the underlying aquifer. Since the application Springs residents to insure that the water needs of the golf course will not create severe financial hardship to its neighbors at a later date. In the event that there is a water crisis of water at the project site would result in a certain amount of percolation to the underlying groundwater aquifer and this water is coming from sources other than the underlying aquifer, the related to Hunter Green, there is a great probability that the project will not be solvent net result is that more water would become available to the local groundwater aquifer. enough to fund a large-scale water mitigation plan. Installing a water main along Oak C/lyorsonla Clerlls F -2a I M 5' L Springs Canyon road would be the least expensive option. Residents would be required to pay for actually hooking up to the water main (which would cost far more than installing the main line in total). The reason here is basic insurance that developing Hunter Green's golf courses and housing would never threaten the water lifeline of its adjacent neighbors -- at a time when Installing a basic backup would cost the least for both the developer and Oak Springs residents. Contracting for the main line in conjunction with the Hunter Green project is the most opportune time, and would forestall the inevitable and costly legislation mitigate a water war in the future. THE DRIVING RANGE AND RESTAURANT Zoning approval to develop a restaurant, sports bar and an illuminated driving range in close proximity to a rural, residential neighborhood in an area which was strictly zoned for residential would be difficult, if not totally out of the question. The present location of both the restaurant/clubhouse and driving range is a slap in the face to Grayston and Oak Springs homeowners. Efforts to mask the noise, lights and visual impact of the facilities will destroy the area's commanding view of the local mountains, and impacts upon the quiet, pastoral lifestyle that we believed we were investing in. If our next door neighbor's ear alarm was on all night, one telephone call would stop it. A commercial enterprise cannot be responsible for its customers in the same mamer. Nor can we expect the illuminated driving range to be as benign an entity as the developer has presented it. In reality, driving ranges are the ugliest and least desirable aspects of golf course. In time, after a significant number of balls have been lofted into nearby homes, a fag screen will be erected for "insurance purposes and the safety of adjoining residents.' We don't want an eyesore for a neighbor or would we welcome a nearby source of noise and revelry every evening of the year. We believe the planning commission would agree with us. DEALING WITH THE DEVELOPMENT'S COMMERCIAL ASPECT: In keeping with our area's residential zoning, we ask that the driving range and clubhouse complex be moved to a different location which will not impact existing residents, or eliminated entirely. Mitigating the impacts of these facilities would reduce, not eliminate the imposition of the development. We will have no bargaining power in the future nor could we expect a commercial enterpriseto willingly rebuild, or abandon altogether, a major part of its facility. The Hunter Green developer has not significantly addressed these very substantial complaints to date, and we ask that the Planning Commission direct the developer to redesign the project site plan to mitigate these grievances. Thank you for you consideration in this matter. /(SJ'"�erel Rid ard and Corrine Cunningham 28082, Oak Springs Canyon Canyon Country, California 91351 (805)298-4453 Hunters Green Realdentlal Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F • Response to Comment$ 3. The EIR agrees that the project could result in a significant impact to the water quality of local groundwater resources. The use of chemicals within an area of sandy soils does not necessarily result in local groundwater contamination, as indicated by studies at Cape Cod (reported in Balogh and Walker, 1992). Nonetheless, contamination has been found in other areas and is a potentially significant effect of the project. The monitoring wells proposed as mitigation measures would aid in the early detection of groundwater pollution. 4. Recommendation noted. Your comments and recommendations are included herein to notify decision -makers of your concerns regarding these issues. S. The golf course would be designated and zoned as a Public and Semi -Public use under the City's Unified Development Code. Limited commercial uses which are commonly associated and directly related to the primary use, namely the golf courses, are permitted (Chapter 17.13). Such uses are not necessarily incompatible with residential uses given the large number of residences in southern California that are located adjacent to golf courses, including located next to driving ranges. Commercial uses are generally buffered adjacent to residential uses, and the project applicant is proposing to do so through vegetation and distance. Nonetheless, as stated in Sections 5.6 and 5.7 of the EIR, the pioject would result in the decrease in private vistas currently available and nuisance noise effects. Your opinion regarding the commercial aspects of the golf course are contained herein to notify decision -makers of your concerns. 6. Commentor opines that the commercial aspects of the site should be located further from the existing rural residential areas or eliminated entirely. Aesthetics and noise issues have been discussed in Sections 5.6 and 5.7, respectively, based on standard criteria for assessing such effects. Alternative designs that would move the commercial aspects of the project are also discussed in Sections 7.2 and 7.6. Your comments are included herein to notify decision -makers of your concerns and preferences for the alternative designs regarding the location of the commercial aspects of the golf course. Fir City of Santa Clarrb F -2r jry ''.h 4 �r �.. w1 riKK r r s � h E k4� '+.�' i L w i S A � r 4 a Y y'4 iiii i �-�✓ S, :LjF� f�c'� 'Yl in}" § y.. � ✓.f3.'.P-S .... .w y.a�..{t ! �. Y.......,,�.. +S..M�1 � rd tt ,_�. ,..a ,....wa.. ,..x'c ....,.. ... >.., ..a.-...,.e:-........�. .,..a«...�w..:..,�.... ,..n .,....« w:..t..„. o:...'::.. -.m .�:o..czuo..k.«.....;uw.e ..........:.......,... .-.e... ..-..� r. ...a_ .- n,-w.a .»:: -.... r ....a. RECEIVED November 13,1995 Nov 1 519% City of Santa Clarita CmNOFSAMAIb ION Planning Commission 23920 Valencia Boulevard SUITE /300 Santa Clarita, California 91355 ATTENTION. MR.GLENN ADAMICK- PLANNING COMMISSION Dear Mr. Adamickt REt COMMENTS TO THE E.I.R. In the E.I.R. OAK SPRINGS CANYON ROAD is slated for realignment to the rear of the north eastern property line of the project. This in it's self is not a problem. ( providing the realignment is constructed to city standards i.e.. widtheasphalt.thickness of same and footing in other words acceptable to the city for dedication and subsequent maintenance. In as much as this would now become thepermanentroad for all 15 plus residents east of the development without any other access and the inevitable fact that the golf course 2- will need well water potentially depleting an already diminishing water supply in the area and the potential contamination of this water table by pesticides,herbisddes, fertilizers and such, it would seem fit that the developer provide city water lines to the end of -OAK SPRINGS CANYON 3 ROAD and as far up the front as deemed necessary, by the homeownersi Thus, allowing those homeowners that wish to hook up to city water at their expense. The residents on whose behalf Iextend these recommendations 115 residents east of the terminus of the golf course property), are also joined in the recommendation that the golf course be re—designed in such a fashion that the driving range and commerical areas i.e.. club house and parking lot are not located near residences on Graceton Drive and creating a negative impact to those homeowners property yalues and most importantly to their quality of life,. X S. GRUIVR Oak Spri gs Canyon Road Country, California 91351. c.c. (15) homeowners Hunters Green Residential Development and son Course EIR Appendix F -Response to Comments Commentor: George S. Gruber Date: November 13, 1995 Response: 1. As stated in the EIR this road is not Currently proposed to meet City standards as a public road. A mitigation measure has been included in the EIR (Measure DA) that is intended to insure that this proposed accessway would meet the needs of the properly owners east of the site. 2. Commentor states an opinion that the project would eventually require the use of onsite well water. The project is Currently proposed to use potable water only and reclaimed water if such becomes available. The Santa Clarita Water Company has indicated that it has a sufficient and available supply to meet the water demands of the golf course and that water supply to the site has been planned for. Therefore, there is no indication that the project would ever require the use of local groundwater. This discussion has been added to the EIR text in Section 5.2, Effect D-6 for clarity. If the applicant should choose to exploit well water from the site, additional environmental documentation would become necessary. 3. Commemor provides an opinion that the developer should provide public water lines to the adjacent community. This opinion is forwarded to the City Council for their Consideration. 4. Opinion noted. The inclusion of these comments herein notifies decision -makers of the concerns regarding these issues. Cly or Santa Clarita F-Za o Beg'... a � �n4cEo��E: m N � '.-n • O .V. n y C Y y'g q •i °p^ 9 V '�S• O •O i,' u L� O O V OFF A N � p O •O � rGj �J �� '-y � Y N R �p O '.CJ M1 W O � 1p.• .0 I..O 40 C C V: �4+.. Ly V 1'j 0 cU Y .a .y.� C .a �(A9 N.v umi _T °°c'93oESucus°• e'o U 3 V gg 6 u_•a p u u S .+m, •°-�9'.°1.' O � � EnUE `un ^� =oo�'°Oe v?�Eo�o G O° W V qmq �� -� ; d° m � Y W•Oi m W 64'a r V 'J •'V� V V V �u'J'On6q CCOi�V�4GpC� t�t• m U!^RN C� 3sm„w.nY C.- 3.a�odmE o y m m49• -m pmE _«st �^>E ov •?oW a3Lg "'Vaaemq•°kig V �°'Oe on n�°u .c V_ 3 r ai N e •gym• o o �-0m. E c 3 =� o •e E v o "' 2e o 0 5 ymy •O u x E q pye4 a, �a s .0 w m.� C.2 C O 6 r Y V a m� y avo >Q•_'m-pue e... o -a. at.+nay Y C 'o«mo.bE m arry E c O i` V Y m q 9 C $.Fo va.� 6 CO y E m i y yla N 55°0900 m 3.�w aa•m 'quo •'.GO •O O • E W C O G. N "840 Si F 4 6 V •U W CL°. V ° p ° C fp x VJ 3 V 9 C y'O O •r° 0 W C _A n O 0 .V. 6 E s V F, V` °ui-`fv SEC 'ems 0-ta 'm xm.V � •�Wo .p'm : :er 33� `3` c � Y, v + o m'p; p =�um`�ov ci ie arY v Y° v C �i Eu m o •� vo=� e 3 6e� •• e u N U C 3d9'� c.m a9 a-°E'E •r ° U gg Q V vo 3p'p'ua=3• Eo•S V i r' �..i o,i cd V q V y•E E.. �O a orn m= 3 0 3m E.Y'-.. V'n0 V Y �._ Yam N -a OVA m ,m•c r�q-�V9 c n yw z=E. Ce o m�mUo 3 e_p �-0 .a YE m o .o " or o,n�-L'g Sa�S Sad=u eo o•os g.2 ,Y,mp� Y E 6-0r ti 6 a9i ego C "VJ •6/u O • 6 y a V W j C 6.� `V. r d 0_'2 ° w 3 n C�u a 3 v �°n�ou `o�•a nom n•O• a uTi3 c F. T-. Y 6 �+ V YrY W O p W V y V • .O ; '�_.. i O Y W C 2 p, ° i mrcHi; LLL o voo�s-p u=`°cuaeOi mEso2 Ex Ea O E O x G •G w 4 0 u� p H c -0� Q m O d4 T'� p �d m.''39'". m u iy O V O •iT P° O. UY:ri3uw t� E F3E m•',33 Fc�E�.°.um aE Q�$�E3'35 u u 5 EEa�£ soy.€5 o Beg'... a � �n4cEo��E: m N • O V: <Cn0 p u wo Ec r •t• V_ sa��� avo c Y • vEw 4 O W y yj o0�u41 : w 02= c co a e 'g s 5 EEa�£ soy.€5 2 c � • c u��� _i` L�o^ < £e S ice. •_ � � E w 3 .4• .V•.M w E e =fou E • �gSE<• • S e3 -S Y�ESE - Eby E c _ E e s 00 Y2�}i�t • tpu � � �E�e i r E„ :.Ee SE f 27§ y=CN i DooiHHBE IRS- i a'u`nm-_-- o Beg'... a � �n4cEo��E: m N 1 '.r �./ a e i > w=oe � ♦Ik �F�.gilt )tt•J. ren r'v".31 ♦'"we 5' A i r� * w^»A 4 ., t, . .. r ..,sh.ar vey... I:♦ Mfr w j:..r ♦ � n s2 .�'.. t ♦n e- r ♦ ' `rest 4r++ Y f 't � d rc 4 kfi n -♦ � ! .row I _ `C „N r A;. r. ....c ... ,vv. .n.r.. Wna.m. , m � �� n u, res t v a ......,.rrv.raw rvw.. xur,e • n u r nyu.r r...y. Nr. a �.uvwfaxn+r r. r 'W rM+r r)rur Ar rmn • w ry a Tr . �. .. ...... .. m s e ❑ e.g.b Oak Spring Canyon Watershed Flood wetire traversing the proposed golf course elle Inverse the existing Oak Spring Canyon Road el rout distinct locations and exit The properly at three distinct locations. Oak Spring Canyon Road is 'Wiceeble most days of the year act is reparable with existing farm. equipment deployed by the nsldmis. Alteretloit le these "let Sows to collect of direct the water to speclgc locations an the read will (educe the number of usaeble days and increeu the potential for driver mishap. Should collodion or redirection of flood waters be required les currently proposed) then same Iwo[ of improvement should be mandated to channel the water to the North side of Oak Spring Canyon to efleviale the negative Impact. Culvans of an Artane cresting at Me Northwest Comer of me pro ed sufllC1014 to 90ntaia Ina water would help malptein the road of current Iwelt of som lce. ❑ 5.6.6 S 6.7 Asethetics A Nobe Piecing a commerelel development in ciao@ proxkntly to rural and squestdsn residents is a slgnincent conflict Any commercial aspect of this protect. whether 6 be a clubhouse. driving range, perking lot Ora maintenance had shours be a minimum of 300 yards from the aarest rural property limb. The proximity of Ne commercial elements of this project to the emsting reetdente should exceed the standard for the Industry not challenge the minimums. This pro. ad Is pmpusing that commercial and rural residential be placed in close proxlmhywdthoul concern for the existing fesldents. It appears as though the concern it for the market value or the proposed parCels It Na expense of the existing Santa Clafhe nsl06nls. Trials unacceptable and minimum distances must be established and enforced. I welcome your call to discuss this matter further_ Your winner, response is s0lkeed. Sincerely Mark 4 ms� / aJ EB a❑ad N35NnN ZZtETSZ508 W91 5665/E1/11 M M s s Mr. Glenn Adamick Community Development City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd., Valencia, Ca. 91355 Deer Mr. Adamtck 27500 Oak Spring Canyon Road Canyon Country, Calif. 91351 October 15, 1995 RECEIVED Department OCT 181995 Suite 300 coavmme.vnwuaa Qnrer ABucuanf My neighbor, Craig Feeder, waskind enough to have a copy of the Hunters Green Draft Environmental Impact Report made for those of us who live up here east of the 'proposed development. I went to pass it on to another neighbor and have not done as careful a review as I hope to do in the future. But there is one thing that I feel needs to be corrected right away: Figure 5.2-1 and page 5.2-4 (end other places, too) show only Rabbit Canyon, Oak Spring Canyon and an "unnamed drainage- emptying onto the property. This unnamed wash looks to me like the one that crosses out of the southern/western part of Hecht's property, several hundred feet south of the northeast corner of the proposed development. Whet concern% me is that there is no mention whatsoever of the water which rushee down Oak Spring Canyon Road itself, at the extreme northeasterly corner of the property. I wonder if the engineers were using ttblue, line streams" from the old U. S. Geologic maps. About 30 years ago, the north fork of the blue line stream (shown on those maps as being to the east of our property) was diverted. Instead of joining the south fork and exiting near Hecht's back corner, the water from the north fork rushee down Oak Spring Canyon Road. I have seen boulders as big as a manse head tumbling down past our driveway. Take a look at the damage it has done, the cute through high banks at our place, the flooding at Hecht's and Chin's. One year it cut a gully all the way down the road from near the National Forest corner, across the proposed development's north boundary, down to where it met up with the water coming down from the south fork at the main wash. I don't know the measurements for how much water, or how feet, but that gully was wide enough and deep enough to put a car in. Some provision must be made for that water. Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F . Response to Comments Commentor. Ruth Kelley Date: October 15, 1995 Response: 1. The FEIS for the Gillibrand Soledad Canyon Mining Operations (1991) had named the "unnamed drainage" as Lost Canyon, however, comments to the EIS and verbal comments during preparation of this EIR indicated that the name Lost Canyon may be erroneous. The USGS map for the area does not provide a name for this drainage, hence the nomenclature used in the EIA. As indicated on Figure 5.2.1, the flow from this drainage is substantial at 920 cfs for the 100 -year storm event. This is the total amount for all flows exiting from this canyon and it has not been differentiated into flow from the wash described in the comment letter or flows caffied down Oak Spring Canyon Road. The applicant will need to provide a route through the golf course for all of the flow coming from this canyon since there is no other possible route to the Santa Clara River. If the project is approved, the owner of the golf course will need to bear the risk of such flows potentially damaging the golf course. While current erosional effects east and upstream of the subject property would not be altered by the proposed golf course, the course turf and other landscaping would act to reduce the flow velocity of waters within the course, reducing the erosional power of such flows. Maintenance of Oak Spring Canyon Road as an access route to the properties east of the site has been addressed by mitigation measure D-4. And, by the way, it appears to me that on Gillibrand'e maps, the canyon that those north and south forks drain does have a name --"Lost Canyon" (the canyon, not the road). �� � JF,30 Wry o/Senn Cladn RECESVED John W. Newton & Associates. Inc. NOY 1 4 1995 CN' .1111, J�ra/xssfonafCansvilm+b cuv or SWA tt.n1A 165 High 51., Suite 103 Post Office Box 471 Moorpark California 93021 Telephone (805) 378-0073 Fox No. (805) 378-0090 November 13, 1995 Glenn Adamick Assistant Planner CITY OF SANTA CLARITA 23920 Valencia Givd„ Suite 300 Santa Clarita, California 91355-2196 Re: Notice of Completion Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course SCH a 95041049 Deer Glenn: In order to meet the deadline for comment at the end of the 45 day review period, November 13, 1995, I em providing the following, brief comments: I I Please extend the public review period for the DEIR. 1. I just learned Thursday. November 9, 1995 during a State Mining and Geology Board meeting in Sacramento that neither the Board, 7_ the Department of Conservation, nor the Division of Mines and Geology received the DEIR through the clearing house, for unknown reasons. You will be receiving contact from one or all of these State agencies, requesting additional time to comment. 2. The DEIR did not address my detailed written response to the Notice of Preparation. Merely attaching my May 9, 1995 letter, 3 with exhibits, to the DEIR will not bring the document into e state of adequacy. These issues need to be addressed — Please, re -review our comments on Earth, Noise, Land Use, Natural Resources and Aesthetics and cause the EIP Preparer to address these issues, appropriately. 3. We are just now, tomorrow, going to join you, on site, for the purposes of your video taping and sound monitoring the on-going y surface mining operations. The issues of land use compatibility and "noise, dust, vibration, visual, and aesthetic conflicts" will be more clear following this observation by you and other City staff. The results need to be incorporated into the document, Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F - Response to Comments Commentor: John W.Newton Land Use Consultant, P.W. Gillibrand Company Date: November 13, 1995 Response: 1. Request for extension of public review period noted. The public review period for this EIR extended for a 45 day period, which is the normal period for review for documents submitted to the State Clearinghouse (Stare CEQA Guidelines §15106). Additional time for verbal comment has been provided during the Planning Commission public hearings. 2. Neither of these agencies requested additional time for commenting. See their comments and responses to their comments in this appendix. 3. Comment is not specific regarding what issueswere not addressed and it is the opinion of the EIR preparer that the pertinent issues were addressed. Please see Section 5.1 regarding Earth Resources, specifically Effect ER -10; Section 5.7 regarding Noise, specifically Effect N-1, Appendix A, Issue No. 8 regarding Land Use; and Effect ER -10 regarding conservation of mineral resources. With regard to the visual effect of pit mining, this is an existing impact that the proposed project would not create nor alter. Also the recent court decision of Baird vs. County of Contra Costa (1995) indicate that the courts find that the purpose of CEQA is to protect the environment against a project, not to protect proposed projects from existing environmental detriments and therefore the visual effect of the existing mining operation is not germane to this EIR. Future homeowners would be well aware of the existence of this visual problem prior to their purchase of proposed homesites, and presumably, the selling price of those homesites would be commensurate with such a view. While the commenter may consider all of these issues to be "unmitigable significant impacts," such a finding is not supported by the analyses contained in the EIR. The results of the sound monitoring has been incorporated into the EIR. Despite the commentor's opinion, these results do not alter the conclusions of the Draft EIR and are within the parameters discussed in the EEL Despite the claims of land use incompatibility, the commentor has not presented any evidence that indicates that the project, as buffered by the golf course, would result in a land use incompatibility that would substantially affect the ability to economically extract mineral resources from a claim area consisting of about 13,500 acres, with the major portions of future mining located more than one mile from the site. In fact, the EIS for the expansion of mining operations in this claim area found no land use conflict with the existing residential homes located 1,400 feet from the existing mining operations, and stated that "no effect on property values has been identified from existing mining operations" (pg. 3.113.114), an effect that should have been noticed if there was in fact a significant land use conflict. 5. The EIR acknowledges that the project site contains designated regionally significant mineral resources (Section 5. 1, Effect ER -10) and additional information from CDMG Special Report 143 City orsanrs crews sal REAL ESTATE BROKERAGE MINERAL REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT Commercld a Induildol • two RESOURCE Engineering • Lond DIN9on. Parmx3 Re0dentlal Relocation DEVELOPMENT Planning • Zoning. M � m M M M 1m ! � Glenn Adamick November 13, 1995 Page 2 analyzed and appropriate mitigation measures need to be studied. The results will surely be identification of a number of significant, unmitigatible impacts which will require future findings of overriding consideration, if the project is not redesigned to eliminate housing on the 104 acre parcel contiguous to the surface mining site. 4. The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act 1s not addressed in the DEIR, Tha legal requirement of the City to conduct a study of the economic impacts to the region, and to the state; when considering incompatible land uses in areas "Designated" by the State Mining and Geology Board, to be protected, significant I miners resource deposits; has not been accomplished. 5. The U.S. Forest Service Angeles National Forest Land Management Plan has not been adequately addressed, including the mineral resources element, and the federal policies of protection of important mineral deposits for future generations. 7. The DEIR makes only a feeble attempt at recognizing the existence of P.W. Gillibrand's surface mining operations. The site description and regional setting discussions fail to identify the operation, or the Angeles National Forest boundary contiguous to the project; the existence of numerous Plans of Operation for mining activities; or, the historical sequence of surface mininginvolving lode and placer claims over the last 300 years involving the 13,500 acres contiguous and East of the proposed project. If the project proponent will not redesign to eliminate the housing conflict, and place the housing element elf the project North, onto the Prime West property, or other property previously approved for housing North of the 104 acre parcel; then, we will have no alternative but to oppose Hunters Green. In the meantime, the DEIR needs to be re -worked, in significant detail, in order to comply with CEQA, as a first step to continuing on with the process. This does not have to be exhaustive, of course, but the very basics need to be adequately addressed; and, the legal requ lie menta of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act concerning "Designated" mineral resources must be met, at a minimum. We will continue to assist in this process in any way that we can. cc: Phil Gillibrand Dr. John Parrish - SMGS Frank Meneses - LACRPD Clara Johnson - USFS Sincerely, John W. Newton Land Use Consultant P.W. Gillibrand Company Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F - Response to Comments has been added to the ESR text so that the City can better evaluate the effect of the project on the supply of mineral resources in the area, including the County -wide production of such resources. However, the City during the development and approval of its 1991 General Plan did not consider mining and extraction uses as appropriate for the project site, including the 103 acre annexation parcel, when it was designated for development as Residential Estate and Residential Very Low. The City's Land Use Element contains a specific Mineral/Oil Conservation Area overlay designation that is intended to permit the continuation of mineral extraction and oil field uses while providing for further development of the City. This overlay designation meets the requirements of state regulations regarding the conservation of resources. While this overlay was placed on the sand and gravel deposits in the Santa Clara River north of the site and the existing mining operations to the northeast of the site (1993 General Plan Land Use Map), it was not so designated for the project site. In addition, the major portion ofthe aggregate deposits within the project site is located in the 160 acre northeast parcel, an area that was entitled for development of 140 residential lots in 1990. The proposed project would not alter these substantial existing limitations on the potential use of the site for mineral extraction, and so would not create a new significant impact on regional mineral resource deposits that did not already exist. S. Since the project -is not located within thejurisdiction of the Angeles National Forest Land Management Plan, it is not a requirement of CEQA to address this plan. The project is in compliance with Angeles National Forest policies regarding a 100 -foot building setback from forest boundaries. With regard to protecting the mineral resources on adjacent lands, the use of the golf course as a buffer to reduce nuisance effects of the adjacent mining operations on the proposed residential use is considered acceptable and in compliance with General Plan policies 6.1 and 6.2 to use open space (n this case the golf course) as a buffer between mineral resource areas and sensitive uses and to maintain such areas. The golf course would provide a greater distance between the extractive mining operations and residential lots than that provided for under the existing entitlement on the 160 acre parcel. It is also noted that there are already several residential units in the Oak Spring Carryon area that can readily view the existing and future mining operations. In addition, the majority of new mining resources to be extracted in the adjacent mining operation (10.7 million cubic yards of 12.7 million cubic yards) would be at Claim Groups 11 and Ila, which are over 2.5 miles from the nearest proposed residence and in areas that are not visible from the project site (Teva Tech, 1991). The future mining operation in Claim Group I is located over 1.5 miles from the nearest proposed residence, andwhileit would be visible to the proposed project, it is also visible to residences in the existing "Crystal Springs'tract in Sand Canyon and mitigation measures to reduce its visual impacts were delineated in the EIS for the new mining operations (Petra Tech, 1991). For these reasons, the land use effects of the proposed project on the adjacent mining area are considered less than significant Please see also response to comment 5 above and revisions to the EER text for Effect ER -10. 7. The ERR as required under CEQA is focused on the effect of the project on the existing environment, primarily that environment contained within the site boundaries, rather than on the effects of an adjacent land use on the project. Nonetheless, the EIR addresses the mining operations at numerous areas throughout the text, most specifically under Effect ER -10, hydrologic CiryofSante Vents P•31 -.wM.�Mu.�a + ..+w/J-vam'.w:++ry TUN.'.w �a xnv.sA •. .•u •f t nim. � w w unv..l ntMWanYR erfrur u.� w asu�... .a <.0 .rv(•.- tun �aJ.• ✓acwn¢a •v. ..J.r.�w u...tu naN.+....0 u•s.w .�Jn�. .nw�J.+ w•v. rvn .... Runlers Green R061161,1181 Development and Golf Course Ent ,er'.m la F . Response to comments environment (pg 5.2-4), aesthetic environment (particularly Figure 5.6-3R), Effect N-1, and considers aggregate mining as a land use alternative in Section 7,4. 8. Commentor's opposition to the proposed project is noted for the decision -makers. During the EIR and conditional use permit review process, the City as lead agency will be considering the onsite mineral deposit's importance to the regional market as required by the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA). Additional information from CDMG Special Report 143 has been added to the EIR text so that the City can betterevaluate the effect of the project on the supply of mineral resources in the area. In addition, the EIR contains an alternative (Section 7.4 - Mixed Use Alternative) that proposes aggregate mining of the site for the City Council to consider. With regard to Article 4, §2763 of the SMARA, the City of Santa Clarita as lead agency has not designated the project site as having important minerals to be protected and has acted on the lands in compliance with subdivision (a) of SMARA §2762 during preparation of its General Plan. City orsanra Verna F•77 M Dr. Dennis K. Ostrom, President Sand Canyon Dome Owners Association November 6, 1995 Glenn Adamick, Assistant Planner 11 City of Santa Clarita Department of Community Development 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarks. Calif 91355 Re: EIR Hunter's Green Development and Golf Course Dear Glenn, Following are my comments regarding the golf course EIR. 1. Regarding water quality: The project's use of pesticides cannot be allowed to affect the quality of the nearby residents water which is drawn from the ground using water wells. While the EIR did address the issue, it wasn't specific about what actions the project would take and what concentrations of pesticide originating chemicals in the water would warrant what actions. • The project needs to drill wells on the site, down stream of the majority of the project's water shed, and • test the water as it now is for pesticides and continue doing this well into the life of the project. • Action limits need to be set as to when the golf course will "shut down' the use of pesticides and/or supplement the residents water supply. 2. Regarding the residential lots which are part of the project. • The residential lots sizes shouldn't be any smaller than the current zoning or that which is indicated in the City's master plan, whichever gives the lowest density. The 'a. Sand Canyon Home Owners Association does not want clustering, as such, the pad sizes should be of such a size and proximity that "Estate size' homes can be accommodated. A minimum pad size needs to be specified, i.e. 15000 to 20000 sq. ft. • The mine brings up an interesting issue about its intolerable noise and other aspects of its presence. How does having a home adjacent to this mine compare to having one adjacent to a busy street such as Sand Canyon, or the Freeway or the Railroad tracks or even a school? Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F - Response le Comments Commentor: Dr. Dennis Ostrom, President Sand Canyon Home Owners Association Date: November 6, 1995 Response 1. Since the actual chemicals to be used at the site are unknown at this time, specific action levels cannot be determined yet. For this reason, the EIR requires that specific Golf Course Management and Integrated Pest Management plans be prepared as a condition to approval of the project. These plans would define the chemicals to be used, the criteria establishing when they should be used, the amount that can be used, and the acceptable concentrations of such chemicals in the monitoring wells. The maximum acceptable concentration for any compound should be set at the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) drinking water standard established by the federal EPA, and if such has not been set, then the Reference Dose (RID) obtained from preferably the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database and secondarily from the Health Effects Summary Assessment Tables (BEAST). The mitigation measures recommended in the EIR include the development of monitoring wells -at the downstream end of the two main channels leaving the site. Additional monitoring wells that the applicant should consider are those within the channels at the upstream end as they enter the property, especially for live Oak Springs Canyon, since urban uses upstream of the site could be contributing greater amounts of fertilizers and pesticides than the project would. 2. Comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the EIR. The project as designed with smaller lot sizes is permitable under the Planned Development Permit. Your comments are included herein to notify decision -makers of your concems regarding lot sizes" The noise etfecls of the mine are dependent on the activities that are occurring at the mine and the distance at which the mining equipment operate. As stated in Section 5.7 of the EIR, noise levels for the nearest residence based on the development plan pad locations would be below the City's 65 dBA CNEL criteria. Noise levels along the freeway and the railroad tracks both exceed these criteria. The noise levels experienced at the nearest proposed residence during operations in Rabbit Canyon would be similar to the existing noise levels along Sand Canyon Road within 60 feet of the roadway centerline (see Appendix E for Sand Canyon Road noise calculations). It is noted that mining operations do not occur on a daily basis in Rabbit Canyon (currently there are no mining activities at this location), while noise from transportation sources occurs continually. 4. Project trip generation was greater than that which would typically be assigned to a standard golf course based on the size of the proposed facility and the number of amenities at the site. The applicant has submitted a different trip generation based on assumptions regarding actual use of the property which would result in a substantially lower number of trips associated with the project (see responses to letter by Theodore Robinson contained in this appendix). To the extent that the applicants assumptions are correct, the number of trips would be reduced, but the higher number used in the EIR is more conservative and therefore estimates the maximum potential for impacts. Irr Cay orsam o Gama F39 ii 3 k 51t �'df 1 � Ff Y�d1fF 'I.t'4 , f.� V F 'wy xx x� a f �G�' t s..b. Mww� a'.xLa. u.M{ 1,}.lrv..asac ✓H4n.5. �w � a nwa�mxv�✓Y /..i .xxW.�.ewi w.. wu�r' u .�uLnu�vwmrv..n SKrvv�nAw.u..w�w .4 ..�.r...w. 5 ..�i ka.v .n».;.fw waa .navuv wuww.wtY)w�A.Y..u-w•.�ie �... n.r.n. �. -. rwn+- w. 5� 'x _ . 3. Regarding traffic. There is still concern about traffic in general. We know that the project will generate about the same amount of traffic as the other approved uses for the same property, however, it is apparent that all of this traffic will be using Sand Canyon. Any measure to alleviate this now, or in the future, would be appreciated. Also, residents opposite the entrance are concerned about the way the traffic might affect their properties. Specifically: e Headlights of customers leaving the golf course in the evening. Will their headlights cause a significant distraction and negatively impact those residents quality of life. e Traffic control for traffic entering and leaving the golf course. Will traffic controls impede nearby residents from entering and leaving their property. Those that own the affected homes are having the golf course entrance, actually another road, imposed on them. Whatever can be done to minimize the impacts of the new road, especially the impacts to those closest to the entrance, must be done. Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F -Response to Comments Lights from automobiles leaving the site do have the potential to shine across Sand Canyon Road towards two residences. The amount of disturbance that this would create is dependent on the uses in the front rooms of the houses and the amount of intervening vegetation. Given the topography of this specific location, it is not anticipated that the headlights would "use a significant effect and if such were to occur, it could be easily remedied by the strategic location of shrubs along the eastern property line of these homes. Traffic control will be limited to a stop sign for the westbound exit from "A" Street at the site. No traffic controls would be imposed that would alter the current access for the existing residences. City of Sante Clams, F-35 swim Ow"WIMM M we OW MI SCOPE Santa Clarity Organization for Planning the Environment TO PROMOTE. PROTECT AND PRESERVE THE ENVIRONMENT. ECOLOGY AND QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE SANTA CLARITA VALLEY 11-13-95 Glenn Adamick Community Development City of Santa Clarita POST OFFICE BOX 1182, CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91388 RECF:N'wD NOV 1 4 1995 ...Mimi, ..t /i M: Yl Faxed 11-13-95 c.*n: wn•c;nan• Hard capy to follow via regular mad Re: Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course SCHx 95071049 Dear Mr. Adamick: SCOPE has the following concerns and comments on this project and its EEL. 1. Traits - Access to the National Forest both for hiking and equestrian use most be assured. The US Forest. Service should be notified of this project and their input solicited. 2. Grading - The grading for this project is extensive and wi l reduce the ability to revegetate natural habitat. Grading should be reduced. Grading to secondary ridgelines should not be allowed due to visual impact. 1 Geology should be analyzed to determine whether grading wig hit bedrock and make rntgatation impossible. Grading should not be allowed wan this situation Doctors. Noise studies should be required to analyze the effects of removing ridgelines on noise levels for current residents. Grading of aecondary ridgelines should not be allowed where they act as a buffer for coining activities or freeway noise. 3. Commercial - We do not believe that Commercial is an appropriate mining designation for this rural area and 3 I suggest that those activities such as a bar and driving range not be permitted. If they are permitted they should be moved away from locations close 10 current residents. y 4. Residential - Nim residential development should not be located close to mining activities. S S. Oaks - We request that the City closely examine the plan to find areas where destruction of oak trces, especially heritage oaks can be reduced. 6. Traffic -Any permit for this project should be conditioned on the prerequisite of the widening of the Sand 6 Canyon Bridge, The Bridge most be long enough to not require concrete in the River underneath it. The elimination of the bar and driving range would reduce traffic impacts significantly. 7. Hydrology -Proper capping of the indicated abandoned wells MUST be completed and verified as a i condition to the permitting of this project. Improperly capped wells lead to immediate and severe water quality problems as they would allow a vehicle for transport of pesticides, fertilizers and any other potential Hunters Green Residential Development and Goll Course EiR Appendix F. Response to Comments Commentor: Lynne A. Plambeck, First Vice -President Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment (SCOPE) Dale: November 13, 1995 Response: I. The applicant and the City are continuing to work together on the provision of equestrian trails through the site. If the project is approved, such trails are expected to be fully defined at the time of approval. The US Forest Service has been notified of this project; please see responses to their comments in this appendix. 2. Comment repeats findings of the EBL regarding the extensive grading impacts and recommends reduced grading. Several alternative concepts that may reduce grading are considered in Section 7.0 of the EIR, Bedrock will be reached in any significant hillside grading project and would be within several areas of the proposed golf course. This does not necessarily prevent revegetation, but it does require additional measures (such as providing for a topsoil) to increase the success of revegetation. It is noted that the bedrock is naturally exposed in several areas of the site and is partially vegetated in such areas. See Section 5.7, Effect N-2 of the EBR regarding the noise impacts of grading on current residents. The amount of grading proposed for the secondary ridgelines at the site would not significantly alter the attenuation features of this ridgeline with respect to mining activities or the freeway for offsite residents. 3. The golf course would not be designated nor zoned as commercial, rather it is a Public and Semi - Public use under the City's Unified Development Coda. Limited commercial uses which are commonly associated and directly related to the primary use, namely the golf courses, are permitted (Chapter 17.13). Your opinion regarding the commercial aspects of the golf course are Contained herein to notify decision -makers of your concerns. 4. Opinion noted. No further response is necessary. S. The City's oak tree "pen has reviewed the project and requested specific information regarding the effects on heritage trees. Because of the value of such trees, it is in the applicant's interest to preserve them as much as possible. 6. The widening of the bridge is included in the Bridge and Thoroughfare District that encompasses this ares. Projects approved in this area will contribute on a preestablished basis by paying Bridge and Thoroughfare fees as a Condition of approval. The lounge and driving range uses are typical uses within a golf course development and are already a part of the trip generation estimates. This is why a higher than typical trip generation rate (10 trips per acre as opposed to 4.19) was used in the EIR (seepage 5.5-9). Cityoraanh Claris F.lfi - .er.w.Y.wire"rx.xaw:.Ywzw.:i. ie�afx.arw:(u Y v.�.c..li ¢:!.wa•`S.un...i3.....walLwnn.�.:s...ew.x....x�,-.w:aci•�n..s.a aai.....u......-'an.wpm.v..ue-....w'..v.nn..r.......x..:.n:-.,i n...nt.....-....x�..w.ar ws...� van.:v.vi nr..s.wi+ rnry ..mm urn 4 � a.+ SCOPE14untcrs Green Pg. 2 pollution to the aquifer. The Water Quality Control Board and the water companies should be notified of the existence of these wells. No discussion of potential surface run-off of fertilizers and pesticides into the Santa Clara River from storm events of routine inigation was discussed. This is an EIR deffeiend: Potential for pollution to the River from this source and its effect on the Unatmored Throe Spired Stickleback along with other bion must be discussed. Because of the hydrological connection of the River and the ground water aquifer, surface nun -off of pollutants is also a likely vehicle for ground water pollution. This issue must also be discussed. Any potential for collection of fertilizers and pesticides in settling areas or golf course ponds must be evaluated and eliminated to avoid hann to bit& and animals. $ IStudies are cited show that direct leaching to ground water of pesticides and fertilizers has not occurred on m certain golf courses. The titles and authors of these studies should be named in the EIR so that the documentation can be reviewed. The studies themselves should be included in an appendix and available to the public. This is an EIR deficiency. i IAn Integrated Pest Management System should be developed for the project prior to approval and included along with Best Management Practices as a condition of approval. Monitoring wells as stated in the EIR most be a condition of approval. The monitoring agency authority should also be established and clearly stated in the final conditions of approval. A revocation of the permit should be 10 included in the event of non-compliance or the findings of adverse water quality impacts. Additionally, any lakes, ponds or co0ection basins should be tested for pollutant levels on the same time schedule. Run-off should also be collected and tested for pollutants. tl IA water source other than local well water should be a condition of approval due to the adverse impact on existing well users. There is no examination of the cumulative impacts to water supply in the Santa Clarita Valley of this project. 17 Golf courses are major users of water. An examination of cumulative impacts is required both by CEQA and new state legislation SB 901. This is an EIR deficiency. Thank -you for your time. S, ly//'�,, �(( / e A. Plambeck 1st Vice President Hunters Green Residendlat Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F - Response to Comments 7. Commentor repeats a requirement of the California Division of Mines and Geology regarding the capping of any abandoned wells. Such is a standard condition of all development projects. Surface run-off of any fertilizers and pesticides is to be controlled within the site through the drainage plan and the operation of the Golf Course Management Plan. This plan would include such features as restrictions on fertilizer and pesticide applications within 24 hours of forecasted storms. Computerized irrigation systems to be used at the site are intended to reduce the potential for irrigation tun -off and the drainage system for the golf course is designed so that most of the run- off of the course is directed towards onsite ponds, where any runoff irrigation water can be collected and re -used. Nonetheless, the potential for surface water contaminated with either fertilizer or chemicals was considered a significant impact by the EIR (Section 5.2, Effect D-5). This impact is considered significant primarily for Oak Spring Canyon Creek and Live Oak Springs Canyon Creek because of the more limited amount of diluting water present. During the dry season, any irrigation waters from the site would not make it to the Santa Clara River as surface Row, and therefore would not affect any instream biota since such waters would likely continue only as underrlow within the river system. During the wet season, any runoff waters from the site that reach the Santa Clara River would be highly diluted with other urban and natural waters since the project site represents less than 0.5% of the Santa Clara River watershed above Sand Canyon. S. It is against copyright laws to copy books and include them within an EIR The Balogh and Walker (1992) text is available through the University of California and California State University library systems. 9. The development of an Integrated Pest Management Plan would be made a condition to the development of the project if the project were to be approved.. Such a condition would prevent the operation of the development unless such an approved Plan is on file with the City. 10. Comments noted. Such items are to be included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program to be developed for the project if it is approved. 11. The project as proposed does not include any onsite water production wells and such would not be part of the Conditional Use Pemdt if one were granted for the project. If the applicant seeks to obtain a water production well, such a request will need to undergo a separate environmental documentation process. 12. The Santa Clarita Water Company has indicated that they "felt they could serve the project within their Master Plan," provided that the applicant construct the backbone delivery system (feeder lines and two reservoirs totaling 2.5 million gallons) as indicated in the proposed project description (pg. 3.10). The Company's currently available annual supply is 38,000 acre-feet, with 12,000 acre-feet coming from the Santa Clara River upper alluvial aquifer, 6,000 acre-feet from the Saugus Formation deep wells, and 20,000 acre-feet from the State Water Project. The water demand of the project is estimated to be initially 1114 acre-feet per year, or about 6% of the remaining available Cityof Santa Clarila F-31 M MMI so r Hunter. Green Residentlal Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F • Response to Comments water supply for the Santa Clarita Nater Company. Therefore, the cumulative effect of the golf course on the supply available for the City of Santa Clarks is negligible. Cloy or SantaChvits P -7s Nov -13-95 12:10P Continental Lawyers Title 818 304 9375 P.01 ' November 13, 1995 Mr. Glenn Adamick City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 City of Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Dear Mr. Adamick: I have enclosed my comments to the Environmental Impact Report concerning the proposed golf course in the Sand Canyon area. Total pages forwarded is 17, excluding this cover letter. If you have any questions concerning my comments please give me a call at (818)304-9797, extension 708. Sincerely, Allen E. Penrose I I I I M 1 I I owl a no Nov.13-95 12t10P Cantinantal Lawyers Titla e18 304 9375 P.02 COMMENTS To THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT HUNTERS GREEN RESIDENTIAL. DEYELOPXE T AND GOLF COURSE AIR QUALITY Comment about gaining an immunity to San Joaquin valley Fever 18 incorrect. My father is 72 years old and has lived here almost his whole life. He contacted the fever from the 1994 earthquake. His two neighbors that died from the disease were also long --time residents. Exposure to San dciquin Valley fever is extremely dangerous. EIR down plays its possible effect on local residents. EIR does not disclose that 243 cases of Valley Fever were diagnosed in Ventura county 1n 1994, primarily due to the earthquake. Numerous deaths occurred. Valley fever- in the most difficult disease to diagnose, with many -people not realizing they have It and sometimes not until its too late. As of Seprember 1995, 17 cases have ocdurred this year'in Ventura county, all due to construction related activity (per Ventura County Health Services).' The mitigation measures stated in the EIR were probability established for these 1995 construcLlon project abut yet people still came down with valley fever. The 2.2 million cubic yards to be graded is so close to residents and their animals, that this grading could cause the same results as those infected people in Ventura county. The EIR states that the golf courses will reduce pollution because citizens of Santa Clarita will no longer have to drive to 2. the San Fernando Valley to play golf. The developers have priced the golf courses so high that they are targeting players from other areas that can afford these prices. The EIR needs to be revised. Air quality will be significantly decreased due to the spraying of toxic chemicals on the golf course. This Is the main technique of application. This is not addressed in the EIR. Beside the drifting of the spray into neighborhood properties, which would settle on the property or possible enter household airspace nearby, methyl bromide pesticide to planned to be banned by the Clean Air Act by 2001. 7hi3 toxic chemical is extremely important to golf courses. methyl bromide depletes the earth's ozone layer. Automobile and truck exhaust is extremely unhealthy for horses. The EIR does not address the health effect as a result of vehicle `j exhaust generated by the nearby parking lot next to the Graceton Drive area. This project will generate daily emissions that will exceed the SCAQMD threshold guidelines. We have an severe high level of S. pollution already. The project needs Lo be modified to adhere to those guidelines. The EIR needs to give recommendations on how to achieve this. What. level or grading would result in a pollution level that will meet the SCAQMD air quality requirements? Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F -Response to Comments Commenter. Allen Penrose Date: November 13, 1995 Response: 1. The information regarding the health effects of Valley Fever contained in the EIR was obtained from the California Department of Health Services and the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services and is more accurate than anecdotal information provided by the commenter. As stated in the EIR text, old infections can become reactivated and the illness can be fatal for particularly susceptible individuals. While exposure to Valley Fever can be dangerous, it is also tree that virtually all people who live in the Santa Clarita Valley have been exposed numerous times to this disease during Santa Ana wind conditions. The increase in the number of reported cases in Ventura County after the earthquake has been correlated with increased awareness of the disease by the public, who otherwise would not have sought medical attention for their relatively mild symptoms. After a 1994 high of 244, the number of incidences in Ventura County dropped to 24 in 1995. 2. The EIR does not state that the project would reduce pollution, rather it indicates that to the extent that golfers from the Santa Clarita Valley may reduce their vehicle miles traveled, the amount of projected emissions may be more than actually would occur. As stated in the EIR, the project would have a significant and unmitigable air quality impact. Comment regarding golf course prices is not relevant to the discussion of environmental impacts, nor is it necessarily accurate given that a fee structure for the proposed project has yet to be established. 3. The proper application of pesticides minimizes the amount of drift that occurs and it is in the best interests of the golf course owner to minimize such occurrences, both from a cost of materials standpoint and from a liability standpoint. The use of pesticides at the course would be done by licensed individuals with special training in the handling of such chemicals. Implementation of the Golf Course Management and Integrated Pest Management plans would also reduce the risk of local air pollution due to pesticide drift since these plans would establish specific procedures for the use of pesticides (such as use only when wind speeds ere low enough to prevent drift, only when other means of control have become ineffective, etc.). The air pollution effects of pesticide use are considered less than significant when properly applied. See Section 5.2 regarding the significant effects of pesticides with regard to water quality. Methyl bromide is specified by the VSGA as a fumigant prior to the planting of greens. Therefore, use at the site would be limited to a single application at each green prior to planting. Because of the project's association with the New York Audubon Signature program, it is likely that even this use of methyl bromide will be precluded and will be replaced by sterilization of the planting soil prior to planting. The use of methyl bromide within the State of California was recently been extended through Senate Bill 808, which extended the time limits for submittal of mandatory City or Santa Clarita i 4 xeA w N l �'d L[.w� n-.wwe.�n .n..m xw .nfuvrvnw.a..vbNmm�.n.wq i 2 wan A.e�a"en. A �. wee `i .m..une �k v y .n -.v+.• � bl.. w...G. J.:u rr... w.+ Nov -13-9e 12:10P continental Lawyers Title BIB 304 9376 As a result of the significant quantity of grading near various b residents, grading must (not should) be suspended during wind gusts exceeding 25 mph. EIR anticipates air quality impacts above threshold levels during construction. The project should be modified not to allow this level of impact, especially for those residents near the grading. The EIR report should evaluate the number of expected vehicular trips caused by each aspect. of the project. EIR should provide a listing of the number of cars and trucks associated with the golf g course, the driving range, restaurant, bar, banquet facility and housing development. An evaluation should be made if adherence to emission standards could be met by limiting or modifying the commercial facilities being proposed or the number of homes being built. 1;[ik1^ Agree that the project would cause an adverse increase in ambient noise levels for residences adjacent tothesite. That's why the results of our survey of 25 local golf courses reveals that the minimum distance between the driving range and the nearest residence was 350 yards. Also, a number of courses didn't have driving ranges. some of the driving ranges didn't have lights so - it would not disturb the neighbors. Noise level will have an extreme impact on the residents around Graceton Drive due to the proximity of the driving ranger parking lot, bar and banquet facilities near their homes. The driving range (about only 100 feat away fromone residence) will generate' a consistent level of noise throughout the day and night by the hundreds of people each day driving golf balls. The parking lot Is only about 70 feet away from one residence. Golf courses start as early as 6:00 a.m. Noise this early will be significant. What about all the delivery trucks and trash trucks to supply the !p restaurants, bar, etc. What about auto alarms constantly going off? The cars, delivery trucks, garbage trucks, etc. will generate a persistent level of noise each day and night. Banquet it Ifacility will enable large parties to occur very close to existing residents, which usually has loud music, etc. Will there be a public address system to announce the next group of golfers to tee off? These type of noises will constitute a significant l7• nuisance for the these residents. The noise level created by all the construction equipment will 13 have a significant effect on the horses located in the Graceton area. Horses will manic and flee when scared from noise and movement of construction equipment. Fences will not atop horses P.03 M. I M� i i MW IM M am Honiara Green Residential Development and Golf Courts EIR Appendix F n Response to Comments health effects studies and was signed into law in June 1996. This bill also provides for the automatic termination of the time extension and require the Director of the Department of Food and Agriculture to cancel or suspend registration of methyl bromide if certain conditions relative to the studies are not met. The use of methyl bromide will terminate in 2001 due to federal EFA regulations regarding chemicals that deplete stratospheric ozone. Eased on the EIR consultant's past experience in preparing CALINE4 models for parking lots, the lots and access roadway are sufficiently far from existing residences such that less than significant concentrations of air pollutants would occur offsite. This is particularly true in the case of those residences that are located at elevations lower then the parking lot since exhaust emissions are hot and the pollutants are carried upward into the atmosphere, away front lower lying areas. As an example, analysis of a shopping center parking lot under worst case meteorology in Los Angeles Indicated that carbon monoxide met ambient air quality standards within less than 100 feet of the parking lot. comment repeats findings ofthe EIR regarding the significance of the air quality impacts of the proposed project. As stated in the EIR, there are no effective mitigation measures possible that would reduce project operational emissions below the SCAQMD significance threshold, based on the number of trips anticipated to be generated by the project. Please note that if the applicant's estimate of traffic generation were used (see comment letter by Theodore Robinson in this appendix), the estimate of air emissions would be substantially lower and could fall below the SCAQMD significance thresholds. Reduction in construction emissions is related to the number of equipment in operation at any one time and not simply to the amount of grading to be done. If the amount of grading were reduced in half, construction emissions would still be significant since it is most cost effective to use a certain number of grading equipment for a given construction size. If the construction period was lengthened to about two years and only about four pieces of heavy equipment were in operation at one time, then construction emissions could be less than the daily and quarterly emission thresholds. It is likely that such a construction schedule is not practical from a physical construction viewpoint given the amount of material to be graded. An extension of the schedule would also prolong potential construction noise impacts and increase the chance for water pollution due to sediment erosion from the site during winter storms. 6. The EIR already statesthatgrading"shall be suspended if wind gusts exceed 25 mph." 7. See response to comment 5 above. S. Air pollution calculations for the golf course were based on standard vehicle type distributions provided in the MAAQI program and ere contained in Appendix C. The applicant has prepared a separate trip generation based on the individual components of the project which total less than the trip gencmtion estimate used in the EIR; the commenter is referred to that list (see Theodore Robinson letter contained in this appendix). Appendix C contains vehicle data distributions for heavy duty vehicles and passenger vehicles for the golf course and the residential component. city of sante Clarim M Nov -13-95 12:1OP Continental Lawyovs Tilelo SIB 304 9375 (3 Iin a manic. Serious injuries could result to the horses and/or to the general public. lWhat about the noise levels associated with golf balls landing off the nearby houses and yards, the spraying equipment, the charging of electric golf carts, the mowers and vulgar language that is sometimes used early in the morning. 15' (b AESTHETICS The EIR states "The assessment of aesthetic impacts involves qualitative analysis that Is inherently subjective in nature. Viewers react to veiwsheds and aesthetic conditions differently". Also Stated in the EIR `the proposed project would irreversibly alter the landform profile of the subject site, changing its aesthetic character. Some of the modifications may conflict with the City's Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development ordinance*. From our perspective in Oak Springs Canyon, replacing a Secondary Ridgeline with a parking lot and road will have a significant adverse effect on our area. Cutting a Secondary Ridgeline 70 feet In unacceptable. The modifications will conflict with the City's Ridgeline preservation and Hillside Development ordinance. The Secondary Ridgeline should not be allowed to be modified, especially being replaced with a parking lots The EIR is correct In stating that because of all the slopes exceeding 501 grades, the soften grading areas will not match the un -graded areas. This is especially true right behind my house. Site design and grading will have a significant impact on the residents of Graceton Drive and Oak Springs Canyon. The grading of the Secondary Ridgeline and the proximity of the parking lot and commercial facilities to existing residents will significantly decrease the aesthetics and their respective property values. Viewing the commercial facilities from Graceton Drive is unacceptable. The EIR should provide a schedule showing at least 25 local golf courses and the distance of the parking Iota, driving range and club house to the neighboring homes. The 25 courses should be chosen at random. Not selected by the developers. The selection should be based on the 25 closest golf courses to Sand Canyon, therefore, it would be impartial. Theses facilities are juet too close and do not conform with other golf developments. The Secondary Ridgeline is not only viewed by thousands of people driving on the 14 freeway and Soledad Canyon Road, but by the residents north of the freeway. Residents north of the freeway �7 who do view these ridges and are aware of this project are upset with the proposal and do not want these Secondary Ridgelines removed. It may be the opinion of the people preparing the EIR P. 04 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F -Response to Comments Please see Section 7.0 for a discussion of alternatives that are below the air quality thresholds and also Appendix C for a graphical comparison of the alternatives. While the proposed golf course may create nuisance noise levels, these levels are within the City's standards for residential land use as stated in the EIR. Noise measurements conducted by City staff at a driving range (Knollwood Country Club) indicated that the striking of golf balls was masked by ambient noise levels at a distance of 200 feet. The noise level at about 10 feet from the golfer was approximately 75 dBA when the ball was struck, and using a standard attenuation rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance, this sound level would decrease to 65 dBA within 35 feet and to 55 dBA at 100 feet.. Since the nearest residence to the driving range hitting area is over 300 feet away, noise associated with the driving range would not be significant based on City standards for residential land use. 10. - The service area for deliveries and trash pick-up is located on the south side of the clubhouse and is nearly fully enclosed. Because of the barrier attenuation effect of the enclosure and the clubhouse, very little noise from this source would be audible at off-site locations. Auto alarms going off are an infrequent event and while they aro considered a nuisance, they would not create noise levels that exceed City standards. 11. Banquets do not always have loud music, and frequently have no music at all. The banquet facilities ere located on the southeastern end of the clubhouse and any banquet -related noise would effect the residences proposed for the project and not any off-site residences. In any event, noise levels associated with the banquet facilities are expected to create a less than significant impact since they would not exceed City standards. 12. It is unknown if a public address system will be used for the starter office. Given the location of the starter area on the lower levet of the clubhouse, sound levels from any public address system will be directed eastward across the golf course and not towards any existing residence. 13. Studies done on farm animals in the past Q. Bond, 1970, "Effects of Noise on the Physiology and Behavior of Farm -Raised Animals" in Physiological Effects of Nolse, ed. by B.L. Welch and A.M.S. Welch, pg. 295306) indicate that noise can sometimes have an effect on farm animals, particularly loud sudden noises. K.D. Kryter (1972, "Non -auditory Effects of Environmental Noise,"American Jounial of Public Health 62389-398) noted that sudden, unexpected bursts of impulsive or steady-state noises would lead to startle reactions, but that with continued exposure, the animals will more or less completely adapt. When equipment first starts to operate at the site, the horses can be expected to act startled and be alarmed, similar to their behavior during existing off-road vehicle use ofthe site. As the equipment continues to operate over a period of days, the animals will cabs down. Noise levels at the barns on Graceton will be similar to that associated with farm equipment that is Connolly used in the area and the horses are expected to have a similar reaction. Ciryof Santa CbHb FAA n.. „.. .\..�, wblt ....vm ., .<m. s, v.S.Ki ..w. w...k.o.3..i..eww..w. w.e.d.. r.,......<.a,...wH.,.. ...-....,.,..... r�..m x.»ws ,.....«..w.w...en.. ..o..-,wM., s�... ....<.,....,,.ws.,... .-:::s.,.,,w,. .. .o- s.s ., ....„... ..:.5 Nov -13-95 12zlOP Continental Lawyers Title 818 304 9375 P.05 11 that these modifications will not be significant, but for the residents northof this proposed development, residents of Graceton Drive and Oak Springs Canyon find these ridges to be a very important character of this area. The EIR is incorrect in stating that these viewshedo have little value. Don't forget that these ridges are being replaced with a road, parking lot, commercial facilities and below, a driving range. This combination has a significant impact on the visual aspects of this area. An additional viewshed analysts should be prepared for those residents on Graceton Drive. The majority of the grading will occur to the south of these residents and no viewshed analysis was performed. This doesn't make sense and should be performed. If this is a Secondary Ridgeline, someone 1n the past must have jg thought that it was significant. Why is it that the EIR argues with this opinion. How can they now say that it is not significant, especially when the City decided It was? Plates 5.6-2B.5.6-38 and 5.6-4B are all incorrect. The commercial aspects of the development are all shown too far to the east. -Rte parking lot should be shown almost right behind j9 the Boyston'a house, with the commercial facilities to the southeast. Gives an inaccurate perspective of how close the commercial development is to the existing residences. The mitigation measure to split the parking lot is unacceptable. The commercial facilities Should not be viewed Pram the north, 20 but hidden by the Secondary Ridgellnes or moved to lower ground to the east. visual effects will still be awful. Basic scenario would still be that the Secondary Ridgeline would be replaced by a parking lot. Sand Canyon Special Standards does not allow the clustering of homes. The _layout of homes in 103 acres are actually one ecre 2.j lots, with the other acre as an easement to the golf course. This is a method that is trying to advert the zoning requirements. These lots should be treated as one acre and not allowed as designed. The clustering of homes are proposed on a Secondary Ridgeline. This doesn't fit with the City6s Ridgeline ordinance. Z3 IThe City is developing a policy not to allow the gating of communities. How will this effect the FIR and the development? 2'fIWhat kind of additional signage will occur on Sand Canyon Road, both for traffic and to promote the golf course? Stow w131 this effect the aesthetics of the area? 2S I The aesthetics around my house will be significantly modified. The city Planning Department, prior to construction of my home, S Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F - Response to Comments 14. None of the sounds created by the list given by the commentor are sufficiently loud to cause a significant noise effect. Many of these sounds are also typical of residential neighborhoods. The course has been designed to minimize the possibility of errant golf shots from landing on roofs off- site. 15. Comments repeat statements form the EIR and provide an opinion regarding the significance of visual impacts from the adjacent landowners' perspective. No response is necessary, your comments are included herein to notify decision -makers of your concerns regarding this issue. 16. The survey suggested is beyond the scope of the EIR and would not produce conclusive results since the location and manner in which golf courses are designed varies greatly. For example, Vista Valencia, Knollwood, Woodland Hills, and Calabasas Country Clubs are all privately -owned courses that are surrounded by residences, whereas the municipal courses of Woodley, Balboa, Encino, and De Bell are located in major regional parks and their facilities are relatively distant from the nearest houses. If any trend is apparent, it is that the newer private courses are being developed similar to the project, with residential units closely associated with (lie golf course so that the open vistas afforded by the golf course can be provided as.an aesthetic amenity to those homes. 17. Commentor offers an opinion regarding the concerns of residents north of the Antelope Freeway regarding aesthetics unsupported by the written comments submitted on the adequacy of the Draft EIR (see other letters contained in this appendix). The EIR does not state that the secondary ridgeline has little value, rather it discusses the fact that most of the site that is to be altered is relatively visually isolated. The EIR also discusses that from the single viewing location that has a significant public view as measured by the number of people who are present at this location (the Antelope Valley Freeway), the secondary ridgeline is subordinate visually to the more dramatic backdrop of the higher San Gabriel Mountains. The effect is clearly illustrated in Plates 5.6.4A&B. With respect to Graceton Drive, Plates 5.6-2A&B illustrate the expected effect in this area since the picture was taken about 200 feet west of the Graceton Drive intersection with Oak Spring Canyon Road and the view is across the Graceton Drive properties. It is also noted that the majority of residents along Oak Spring Canyon Road would be unable to view the modifications made to the secondary ridgeline because of intervening ridges. As stated in the EIR, visual aesthetics tend to be subjective and the commentor presents a different subjective opinion regarding the visual impact of the project. These opinions are included herein to notify decision -makers of your concerns. 19. The EIA does not state that the secondary ridgeline is not significant, only that the alterations associated with the proposed golf course would not create a visually significant impact based on the criteria used in assessing the visual effects. The EIA determined that the project would cause a significant and unavoidable aesthetic impact due to its alteration of this secondary ridgeline (see Effect AES -1). City of Sanb Chraa F<i � M MON M 4, OW r W i M Nov -13-95 12:1110 Continantal Lawyars Title 616 304 9375 stated these ridges would never be modified. Therefore, the house was designed and located with the hillside Eeatures in 2S mind. You will note the roof ridgelines to bear a relationship with the hills behind. Also, bay windows were designed and built with the valley in mind. This valley behind the house is proposed to be eliminated with a sharp grade in its place. The driving range with lights is not consistent with the existing 2.6 I community design character of the Sand Canyon area. This facility should not be viewed by the residents of Oak springs Canyon or across the freeway, or people driving on the freeway. 7-1 PUBLIC SAFETY The EIR does not address the effect of toxic chemicals draining through residential properties, for example those residents living below the golf course where toxic chemicals will be transported during rainy periods through their property. A collection basin and purification process must be designed where ever transportation of toxic chemicals could possibly occur. The toxic chemicals could have a harmful affect on people who have vegetable and fruit gardens, where horses are maintained in pastures or where children play. 29 I Where will all the toxic chemicals be stored? How will they be stored to prevent spillage? Golf course has designed a man -.made hazard by having a par -5 ii fairway placed too close to a home. There is an extreme high level of risk associated with such a design. The owner, operator and designer will be held liable for a Injury to person, animal and property. GRADING, F.IR states the residences northwest of the proposed parking lot would be the most disturbed from the construction act ivlty. EIR states that because of the extensive topographic alteration 30 associated with the golf course grading, the use of noise barriers to not expected to be effective. This statement In itself should give anyone the nature of the impact the grading will have on the aesthetics of this area. The noise level from all this grading will be unacceptable. Grading of the site elopes has the potential to create destabilized cut slopes. The 'residual impact- in the EIR states 31 for leas thannsignificant.- cut slopes sIs not acceptable, needs toate this be -will- or come other 100% complete statement. P.06 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F•Response to Comments 19. The plates were developed using a software program that locates structures relative to their two dimensional location on the topographic map provided with the project site plan. Precise ground control was provided by photographing a survey stake of known height at a known location. The simulations are considered to be accurate. 20. Opinion noted; no response necessary. 21. The commentor is in error regarding the Sand Canyon Special Standards District. Residential clustering is discouraged, but it is not prohibited (City of Santa Clarita Development Code §17.16.090.E.2(h)). 22. Commemor agrees with the findings of Effect AES -1 in the EIR; no response is necessary. 23. Whether or not the project residential community is gated has no bearing on the environmental issues discussed in the EIR. The effect of such on the economic viability of the project is not a concern of the EIR. 24. The only additional traffic signage proposed is a stop sign at the westbound exit on "A" Street. A specific sign for the golf course has not been submitted, but a monument style sign is expected to be located at the "A" Street entryway and this sign would need to meet the City's Sign Ordinance and any other special restrictions that may apply. Such signage is not expected to significantly affect visual resources. 25. Comment does not raise an environmental issue regarding the adequacy of the EIR and no response is necessary. Your comments are included herein to notify decision -makers of your concerns regarding this issue. 26. Opinion noted. For the distant viewers across the freeway and for the motorists on the freeways, the proposed mound lighting scheme for the driving iange would be indistinguishable from that which would be associated with residential uses. 27. The EIA specifically addresses the effects on water quality that may be caused by chemical use at the site in Section 5.2, Effect D-5. The drainage system for the golf course is designed so thai most of the run-off of the course is directed towards onsite ponds, where any runoff storm water and irrigation water can be collected and reused. These ponds would also serve to intercept chemicals that may wash off the site 2s. Toxic materials will be stored in the maintenance facility in compliance with the appropriate regulations for such storage. Pesticides will be kept in a locked storage cabinet containing warning signage in compliance with applicable state and local regulations. The maintenance facility will be designed to prevent spills from leaving the enclosed and covered area and the floor will be designed to be impermeable. IF City of Sams Clarita F-11 .,....un .... ......x e..;:.ia,.zaanvs.....,.,.:.,. ..,, _. ...'wr,«... :: .. ....wna..vu....«...,ssw .',:,.......,....a .. :$.:ant ..0 ,...:+.. ..... ..:.w. .> ,. .«'- +.. „... Nov -13-96 12i11P Continental Lawyers Title 818 304 9375 P.07 What effect will the grading behind 27920 Graceton Drive have on 31L the heritage oak trees in the southeast corner of the property? Water sheds will be altered plus the grading will be significantly close to these oaks? 33 You have to live here to really understand the amount of water that flows out of the Oak Springs Canyon area. The developers obvious don't because they first designed the maintenance shed right in the middle of the creek. In the five years I havo lived here, I have seen the water numerous times reach 3 feet deep and 50-60 yards wide flowing over Oak Springs Canyon near Graceton Drive. Absolutely no grading should be allowed during the rainy season. The developers absolutoly dont care about the residents in Oak Springs Canyon and should not be given the ability to grade wben.extensive off-site transport could occur. gY I'ivhere will all the fuel be stored during the construction phase? A aeaaonal spring occurs behind the residences of 27900 and 27920 Graceton Drive. What will happen to these springs with all the 3S grading that will occur. Also, what is to prevent a landslide from destroying my homesite due to the level of grading right- behind ight behind tho home. The volume of water will increase in velocity behind and to the 36 west of my home. The retaining wall was designed for a valley behind the house, not a new ridge. 37 IT'he mining operation manufactures a persistent level of noise, even in the Graceton area. Tice cutting of ridges will destroy a natural buffer of these noises. 31r HYDROLOGY The hydrology report should contain a summary showing all those areas where an increase in volume or velocity of water will occur. EIR only speaks about the storm and peak flown in the oak springs creek area. For example, .what about the homes below the golf course. How will the changers affect these properties? How will Oak Springs Canyon Road west of Graceton Drive and east of Comet Way be affected? Presently, there are retention ponds that capture some of this water. How will all the grading affect the volume and velocity of the water down Oak springs Canyon Road to Comet way? What measures will be made to slow down the velocity? Whe EIR talks about a Cape Cod study which had positive environmental results. The actual report itself notes that it 3T deals with only one set or pesticides in one hydrologic environment and recommends that additional studies of this type be done in different hydrologic settings and Include some 6 ae rs � a a� a�r ss ■a Hunters Green Residential Development and Gott course EIR Appendix F - Response to Comment$ 29. Opinion regarding the golf course design and the liability of the golf course owners is noted. 30. Comment repeats findings of the EIR text; no response is necessary. 31. Comment noted. There are no absolutes possible given the high variability of any environment. Proper engineering of cut -slopes has been shown to reduce the risk of failure to acceptable levels. 32. The oak trees at this location will remain. While the watershed for these oaks will be decreased, the amount of applied water available in the root zone would potentially increase. It is expected that these trees will be carefully maintained as part of the ongoing golf course maintenance. 33. Comment noted. The hydrology analysis prepared for the applicant indicated the extensive amount of flows in the canyon and the possibility for bulk transport of sediment. Best Management Practices are recommended in the EIR to prevent the transportation of sediment from the site as a result of grading. 34. Since the project has not yet been approved, a specific construction plan that would detail the location of fuel storage has not been prepared. 35. Subdrains will be required to be installed within any fill that overcovers a spring. The geologic investigation did not indicate that any adverse slopes existed at the area mentioned in the comment. Grading will be monitored by a qualified registered geologist who will be responsible for detecting if adverse conditions could occur that may affect off-site properties and who would direct the appropriate remedial action. 36. The volume ofwater exiting the site at this location will decrease because of the change in the watershed, as discussed in Section 5.2. Because of the decrease in water volume, the increase in velocity is not expected to cause significant problems. 37. The decrease in the height of the ridges proposed by the project would have a negligible effect on the noise barrier attenuation ability of these ridges. 38. Figure 5.2.2 contains the post -project flow rates for all significant drainages exiting the project site. The proposed project will generally result in a substantial decrease in peak flows that would otherwise be associated with the site, With regard to the existing retention ponds, the topography in this area would be substantially altered and flattened, which will reduce the velocity and volume of flows that leave the site. A portion of this drainage will be routed to a low spot in the worse that will be drained via a twelveAnch diameter pipe; as flows exceed the capacity of the pipe, they will essentially form a retention pond within the low area. 39. The Cape Cod study is but one of several listed in the Balogh and Walker text that indicated that no pesticide contamination of groundwater was found. However, the text also lists several studies that showed the potential for contamination. The Cape Cod study is important because it shows both clryofsants clams FA4 r■r �� r as +■r� o a r +a M Amoft M so M Nov -13-95 12%11P Conttnantal Lawyers Titlo Bin 304 9375 P.09 31 f{O Hunters Green Residential Development and Goll Course EIR Appendix F. Response to Comments nematicides, Iwhichl tend to be more mobile and persistent than sides of the issue: the past use of persistent leachable materials(namely chlordane) can result in other pesticide classes... and tend to be used more in southern long term detrimental water quality impact, while the use of other chemicals without these climates'. Many environmentalists caution against too rosy an characteristics may not create a similar problem. Based on this information, the EIR concluded that interpretation of the Cape Cod findings. Michael Surgan, chief the project may have a significant impact on water quality if the project uses extensive amount of scientist with the Environmental Protection Bureau of the New leachable, persistent chemicals (such as Bensulide,Dicamba, or Ethoprop- see Table 5.2.1). On York Attorney General's Office, finds fault with some of the the other hand, the positive results reported indicate that it is possible for a well-managed course to study's testing methods. The study is actually so open to controversy use it not createasi significant impact was not considered unavoidable. For theseicant effect; therefore this 8 interpretation that both sides of the chemical to support their arguments. Researchers looked for traces of 17 reasons, the EM recommended that an Integrated Pest Management(IPM) Plan be prepared for the commonly used turf chemicals in the groundwater under four project and that monitoring wells be installed to determine the adequacy of the management plan courses. The Golf Course superintendents Assoc. of America and as an early warning system regarding potential contamination. The recommendations contained pointed out that no -current registered- pesticides were detected in the"Toxic Fairways" report are the type of procedures that would be written into the operational in toxicologically significant concentrations; National manuals (i.e.: the IPM) for the course. For example, the use of Dicamba should probably not be Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides points out that the was still contaminated with seven pesticides, and permitted at this site because of its carcinogenic character and its tendency to leach into groundwater that chlordane, a highly persistent pesticide now banned for use groundwater. on golf courses, was found at level more than 200 times greater - than the government'a recommended limits. There is a reason why 40. The misuse of pesticides is not limited to golf course operations alone, but occurs regularly at other' - the Sierra Club is constantly challenging golf courses from being commercial, recreational and residential lend uses. As previously stated, the potential for built (six courses were challenged in 1993 alone). A golf green environmental impact as a result of such is considered significant by the EIR. is nothing but a hazardous waste dump. Toxic chemicals are _ harmful to the environment. An example, Dicamba (2,4-D) is known - to cause birth defectis, other reproduetive problems and nervous 41. The term"effluent" used in this comment typically refers to the outflow from wastewater facilities,-. - system damage. In a recent study at the University of North which would not be a problem at this site given that all facilities would be sewered. The overuse of Carolina in Chapel Hill, children whose yards were treated with nitrate fertilizer can create the types of impacts included in this comment, though coral reef damage peat£cides-including Diazinon, carbaryl and 2,4 -D --ware four in many locales is primarily caused by increased sedimentation due to land use changes and the times as likely to develop muscle and other soft tissue cancers. In 1991, the Now York state Attorney General's office published dumping of wastewater effluents into the ocean. Similarly, Lake Tahoe is turning calor because of Pairways•, a widely -cited study of postieide used on 52 the large number of septic systems that have been developed on private lots on essentially granite Long Island golf courses. This report was concerned about ground bedrock. wastewater flows pass through these systems with little biodegradation of the wastes and water because of the 50,000 pounds of pesticides applied each ultimately all nutrients end up in the lake. Lake Sherwood is also an excellent example of this - - year. They recommended reducing golf course pesticide hazards by problem, and the development of the golf course at its western end was in pan based on a decision limiting or ending the use of known carcinogens, minimizing the by the Ventura County Board of Supervisors to allow development of the private golf course with - use of other pesticides, and fully informing golf course users and the public about pesticide dangers and times of application. surrounding residential homes as a trade-off to the bringing of sewer service by the developer into the area. Golf course superintendents appear to have a higher mortaliy from certain cancers, including lung and brain cancers and non- Hodgkin's lymphoma, according to preliminary results of a study conducted by researchers at the University of Iowa College of Medicine. Mr George prior died in 1982 from toxic poisoning from playing golf. A lawsuit in Los Angeles rstunty occurred when a golfer placed a golf ball In his mouth and subsequently collapsed from toxic poisoning. Jury saw in his favor and won a multi- million lawsuit for non -disclosure of the level of toxic chemicals on the golf course. one case in Riverside where the nitrate levels in the groundwater was so high that it was killing all the young foals. The golf course is located next door. yj lslewortb Country Club near Orlando, Florida dumped nitrate - saturate effluent into adjacent Lake Bessie, turning once -clear water an algae -choked gray. Coral reefs are being destroyed by 42. Comment agrees with the findings of the EIR text that the project has the potential to pollute groundwater resources. No response is necessary.. 43. The development of an IPM is dependent in part on final design details that would not be available until the project is approved and proceeds further with its planning. There is also no purpose in preparing a detailed and precise operating manual for a specific golf course if the basic question of whether or not the golf course is an acceptable land use for the project site has not been decided. It is not necessary for the IPM to be reviewed in the context of an EIR since the City retains ultimate authority over the granting of the conditional use permit. If the IPM does not meet the mitigation measure requirements of reducing the risk of contamination to an acceptable level to the satisfaction of the City, the CLIP will not be granted until the IPM is revised to meet City criteria. It City or Santa Gado FAS ..... +. �....... ......:..... _,.... ... ......,...,. ,,... ...m , .,..,.....�.... ,.. ......, .... ...... ...�.x-.-,xw . ., ..,... ..- �«:a. »,r...w..k..... ...c...,....r...s....«t .... .+ ,,. . MV. 4..s..,.1.:" Nov -13-95 12s12P Continental Lawyers Title 619 304 9375 adjacent golf courses. Lake Tahoe is turning color from adjacent golf courses. California Regional Water Quality Control Board made studies on two local lakes, Lake Sherwood and Westlake. Both lakes were extremely polluted, Lake Sherwood has the 141 highest nutrient status including the highest ammonium concentrations found in any lake. A golf course lays on the west edge of the lake. Westlake is contaminated from run-offs from surrounding natural landscapes and golf courses. Ammonium, nitrate and phosphorus concentrations were detectable. aiz (The use of pesticides and fertilizers will pollute our ground water and drinking water. This will have a significant adverse impact on the residents of Oak Springs Canyon. q3 As a result of the resident's wells being locatednextto the golf course and the City's water supply lees than a mile away, an Integrated Pest Management program should be developed at this time and reviewed by the EIR. The golf course should be restricted to maximum amounts of pesticides, fungicides, herbicides and fertilizers and types stated. The program should be made mandatory. If the people performing the SIR are not qualified, then a local university should perform a study. These developers have built too many golf courses not to know what toxic chemicals they will be using. Human life can`t be risked for this. The developer should at least bring in public water to the residents of Oak Springs Canyon. As stated by Mr. Charrington, the New York Audubon Signature Cooperative Sanctuary Program is full of comments including qq 'may', "could'. -should-, etc. It is a non-binding program that only cost $100 a year. EIR should not put weight on title program. The developer will not give up his rights to the ground water. The wells continue to go dry in this area. 708 of the water used on these golf courses will come from the local ground water as 45' the Santa Clarita Water Company gets 708 of their water from the wells in the Santa Clara River. Therefore, the effects of these golf courses on the level of groundwater in this area should be part of the EIR. P. on `14I The mayor of the City mentioned that reclaimed water will eventually be used. Therefore, the EIR must include reclaimed Fater in its analysis. The proposed lakes to be developed should not be used to y� intercept storm Ilows. The amount of silt, etc. will completely fill up these lakes during heavy rains. 4g (How will erosion, Ilooding or deposition of sediment or debris be eliminated from entering my property, especially around by house?.. Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F - Response to Comments is anticipated that as part of the monitoring program to be adopted if the project is approved that the City would retain specific experts in Integrated Pest Management to review the applicant - submitted IPM. 44. The EIR has not placed any particular weight on the New York. Audubon Program other than to note that they can serve as a third party monitoring agency. From the perspective of designing with the environment in mind, the New York Audubon would also serve as a resource of appropriate techniques that are more Conducive to maintenance of environmental values. 45. The Santa Clarila Water Company, which would provide water to the site, has three wells that are about 0.5 miles apart within the Santa Clara River downstream of the site. The primary wells are only 120 feet deep and obtain water from the subsurface flow of the river (upper alluvial aquifer). Since the primary source of water for the Santa Clarita Water Company is Santa Clara River water underflow, the vast bulk of which comes from upstream sources that the Oak Spring Canyon groundwater wells are not tributary to, any increased pumpage at these wells are unlikely to significantly affect the water supply for Oak Spring Canyon wells. As stated in the comment, wells in the Oak Spring Canyon area have been reported to dry up during drought periods, a result that is probably caused by the relatively small watershed area that Oak Spring Canyon is tributary to and the shallowness of the wells. The Santa Clarila Water Company also has wells that are 1700 feet deep that penetrate the Saugus Formation aquifer, but they prefer not to use those wells for quality and costs reasons. The Saugus Formation wells are capable of withdrawing 6,000 acre-feet per year from a groundwater storage supply estimated at 1.0 million acre-feet. The Company has had its shallow wells at the mouth of Sand Canyon go dry in the past during the recent drought, requiring the use of their deep wells and reliance on State water. The estimated safe yield of the Santa Clara River alluvial aquifer is 32,000 acro -feel per year, with the Santa Clarita Water Company currently entitled to 12,000 acre-feet. The Company also has an entitlement to 20,000 acre-feet per year from the State Water Project, which can provide approximately 50% of all future water supplies. The Company's total available supply is 38,000 acre-feet per year, of which it is currently using 18,000. 19,000 ace -feet per year. This information has been added to Section 5.2 of the EBL. As stated in the Project Description, the golf course is currently proposed to not be using underlying groundwater at the site, Therefore, there would be no possibility of overdraft or negative impacts on downgradient uses. In fact, given the expected percolation of applied irrigation water (generally termed "return water"), the project would increase the amount of local groundwater in the alluvium of Oak Spring and Sand Canyons. 46. Reclaimed water will be considered for use at the site should it btmme available. This would require the construction of a reclaimed water main line from the water treatment facilities several miles downstream the Santa Clare River. Because the project is currently not proposed to use reclaimed water and its availability is somewhat speculative, it is not an issue for consideration in this EIR. If the applicant proposes to use reclaimed water in the future, such use will require its own separate environmental documentation. Cly of Santo center F46 Am qx� so MM = M M m w m Mm �s iM r Nov -13-95 12r13P Continental Lawyers Title BSB 304 9375 41 5o 61 After the golf course Is completed, will the funnelling of the storm water through the golf course effect the quantity or velocity of water flowing from the golf course over Oak Springs Canyon Road, down through the neighborhood and under the railroad trellis? How about during the construction period? EIR talks about how peak levels will decrease 30-501 primarily because of the reduction in debris production? I don't understand this. The proposed parking lot area is to alter the flow from going north along Graceton Drive to the east and down Oak Springs Canyon Creek. water will not percolate into the soil in the commercial areas because of roofs, cement, pavement, streets; etc. Also, when you grade an area, you actually lessen the surface square footage area to enable percolation. These changes should actually increase the flow of water down Oak Springs Canyon Creek at Oak Springs Canyon Road. The groundwater monitoring wells to determine compliance and effectiveness is not acceptable. once the plumb of toxic chemicals is created it is Irreversible. It takes several years for the toxic chemicals to percolate to the ground water, once detected It cannot be reversed, and the wells will be useless. Tits not like you can suddenly say we made a mistake with the use of .toxic chemicals so we should change the formula and now everything will be okay. Once polluted that'a itt what happens if the golf course goes out of business and the toxic choral" 19 subsequently enters the neighboring wells, who brings these residents clean water. REALIGNMENT OF OAR SPRINGS CANYON ROAD SL (Storm water will be funneled over, Oak Springs Canyon Road and could have an erosional effect on the neighbors property to the immediate west. Movement of Oak Springs Canyon will have a significant impact on the ability of the residents in the rear of the canyon to use the 53 road in the stormy season. This will be significant. Extreme levels of water will cut the elevated portions of the road near the drainage area over Oak Springs Canyon Road. 51 The design by:the EIR for the movement of Oak Springs Canyon will absolutely not work. The developers or the Peoplereviewingthe EIR still have no ideahowmuch water and erosion occurs down over Oak Springs Canyon Road. A person during hard rainy periods can not stand up in the middle of the creek area without being .wept away! Decomposed granite would last until the first major storm. Also, what in an acceptable level caused by the project? To whom's acceptable level? Traveling down the road, residents would be faced with mud slides and eroded slopes. Decomposed granite .would not be sufficient. A guarantee of passage and year round maintenance must be agreed upon. P-30 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F • Response to Comments 47. Storm flows will be partially intercepted by the golf course lakes and the commentor does not provide an environmental reason why they should not. The project will serve to stabilize the soils of the project site, thereby decreasing the silt load currently generated at the site. However, capital storms are likely to transport large amounts of sediment from upstream sources and this would be deposited on the golf course and in any lakes within the golf course drainage. This is a golf course maintenance problemandnot a significant environmental effect. 41, The project will be required to use [test Management Practices both during construction and operation of the golf course. Typical methods employed include the use of temporary retention basins, matting, soil stabilizers, and rapid revegetation of disturbed areas. A certain amount of erosion and sediment and debris deposition is likely to continue to occur at this specific residence given that the slope behind the house will remain in its natural condition, though the top of the ridge will be substantially reduced in height. The net result at this residence would be a general decrease in current erosion, flooding, and sedimentation effects on an average basis. 49. During a typical rainfall event, the quantity of water exiting the site would be reduced because the project would provide a greater surface area suitable for percolation than now exists at the site and the turf grass and -other landscaping would slow down the water, providing it additional time to pemolata During the capital event, the quantity of water exiting the site will remain unchanged since the soils are assumed to be fully saturated during this peak event. As stated in the EIR, the HEC -2 hydrologic analysis indicates that the velocity ofpeak flows in Oak Spring Canyon would be substantially decreased. Calculated debris production from the site as it currently exists is based on the steepness of the slopes and assuming a burned watershed denuded of vegetation. Under the proposed project, the average slope would be substantially decreased and the watershed within the site would not be assumed to be burned since the turf grass would be maintained. 50. The addition of impermeable surfaces at the site is more than compensated for by the decrease in slope and provision of a better percolating surface within the golf course turf areas. While the total surface area of a site may be greater before grading, the steep slopes and shallow soils are not as conducive to the infiltration of rainfall as the more shallow slopes and deeper soils of the golf course after development. 51. Groundwater monitoring wells are the standard method for the detection of groundwater contamination. The commentor is in error in slating that plumes are irreversible, hundreds of ongoing remediation projects within the state of California attest to the current technological ability to clean-up far more toxic sites than the project has the potential to create. While remediation is a relatively costly process, it is nonetheless possible. Since remediation is costly and the golf course owner is responsible for such remediation, the prevention of pollution through the appropriate selection of both control methods and types of chemicals used at the site becomes more cost- effective and serves the owner's self interest. In the event of an owner going bankrupt, government funds are available to clean-up toxic sites; these funds are financed through taxes on the manufacturers of toxic chemicals. wr Glyo/Sana CleNfs F47 rji/%3,'I:TIx Y. 1 0 4.%I Z �Y�.t�H fig F "E 4! �IM'2.L Sr VT \r klt4 tf !{I. 111:t,J1./l�iF' Sk'11,f.y{ 1Y4I3p CM1)IkN.NTJI is .it6 t A. F:i �,i%�JN 1L! 1 } N'G. i s f f 4 y vif 'i'.ix= ... f -'.r. Nov -13'-95 12r13P Continental Lawyers Title 818 304 9375 LIGHTS I agree with the EIR about the adjacent residential homes being impacted by lights of the commercial facilities and headlights y -y- associated with various activities at the golf course. EIR does not consider the headlights associated with the restaurant, banquet facility and bar usage at night. Sb IDisagree with the comments that the impact of lights will be less than significant. Present location of the parking lot and commercial facilities will be a nuisance. This is a rural - equestrian area that will be heavily Impacted by such commercial activities near the existing residents. Light and glare fromthegolf course will be significant. The EIR has not considered the lights from the cars and delivery trucks. what type of lighting will be used on the "teeing- area 51 of the driving range. I don't think splash lighting can be used In this area. Now will the golfers be able to see the ball. typically, the lights in the driving range teeing area are significant. S$ IDiscreet up -lighting should be required as part of the commercial development. No other type of lighting should be allowed. What other lighting is proposed? ill How can lighted globes not be visible Irom a distance of 20 feet? Parking lot lighting shall not exceed four -feet in height is Inconsistent with the comments stated later in the EIR about height limits of lighting. Page 3-6 talks about low level pole lighting Class than 15 feet in height). 6(I This is a multi-level parking lot. How can a berm preclude spillage of vehicle head -lighting off site from the upper level? Ci1;I�hitii�l The restaurant will be located near large horse properties that I generate significant levels of flies and bees. This level of ("I insects will have create a significant conflict with the restaurant facility. The golf course will constantly complain about the level of insects caused by these horse properties. Recreational opportunities may be benefited to golfers, but will have a significant impact cn.the equestrian community. Due to G3 the extreme high price of the golf FOGS (up to $75 a round), the general public in the Santa Clarity valley will not be able to afford to play golf at this facility. The equestrian community and those that use Rabbit Canyon Road for hiking access to the 30 P.12 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F -Response to Comments 52. Storm water from Oak Spring Canyon already has an erosion effect on adjacent properties. As discussed in the EIR, the project would reduce the erosional velocities associated with storm flows from Oak Spring Canyon, but would not eliminate them. 53. Maintenance of Oak Spring Canyon Road as an access route to the properties east of the site has been addressed by mitigation measure D-4. 54. The erosional capability of Oak Spring Canyon Creek and the depth of flows exiting the project site were readily apparent to the EIR preparer during field visits at the site because of the numerous rills and depth of those rills. it is presumed that such is also obvious to the golf course designer and the applicant's hydrologist who will be designing the drainage system. As noted in the EIR, the proposed gold course would serve to substantially decrease flow velocities through the project site. This in itself would reduce damage that might otherwise occur to the relocated access way along the northern property line. The possible need for an improved crossing (concrete ford) would be determined by the City's Engineering Department at the time that final design plans for the site are available. 55. The EIR does consider the effect of headlamps, which is why mitigation measure AES -4(c) recommends berms around the parking lot perimeter. 56. Commentor has misquoted the EIR Light and glare from the site is considered a significant impact (Effect AES4) and requires mitigation. With mitigation, this effect can be reduced to a less than significantlevel. 57. See responses to comments 55 and 56 above, The applicant is proposing to only use splash lighting in the driving range and that is what is considered in the EIR. Range users would not be able to follow the flight of their ball, rather they would only be able to see where the ball lands. If standard pole lighting were to be proposed at the site at some future date, this would constitute a new project and require its own environmental documentation. 58. Mitigation measure AES -4(a) has been modified to allow back lighting also for signage and the clubhouse entryway. Other lighting proposed by the applicant included the use of pole lighting in the parking lot. 59. This mitigation measure refers to the actual light bulb surface and not to the light itself 60. Page 3-6 contains a description of what the applicant proposes for the parking lot while mitigation measure AES4(d) would modify that proposal to the four -foot high bollards. -There is no further discussion regarding fighting in the EEL beyond page 5.6.27 except in the discussion of alternatives. 61. The conceptual grading plans for the site do not indicate a tiered concept for the parking lot. If such were proposed, the parking lot would need to provide either dense vegetation or a low wall at the end of each stall to prevent light spillage. Cay of sante Gents Fla 1W I" at M M 41111111111 r � M MR" M M Nov -13-9s, 12sl4P Contirrantal Lawyers Title 818 304 9375 P.12 national forest will be significantly impacted. There should be a requirement that this course remain a public course for 20 63 years. We feel that the course will eventually become private or Immediately sold to private interest. Then no one in Santa Clarlta will benefit. There are no real benefits to the citizens of Santa Clarita the way this course is designed. 6`{ IWe are not aware of a current problem with the stabilization of steep elopes. Where does this -beneficial effect comes from? 6 S IIn 1997 new golf courses have to be built to ADA standards. Does this affect the EIR? BIOLOGY will the golf course revegatation program work? will native plants survive in a changed environment. A study needs to be 66 done to determine if this 1001 achieveable. otherwise, the golf owners will say -we tried out it didn-t work, so we are going to use typical methods.• I know neighbors have tried this in their yards, and the plants all died. The roughs shall be maintained as native perennial grasslands unless after three years of effort, it is shown that such 6l revegetation would be unsuccessful. what effects will this cause if this does happen? why not have a study performed before trying the native perennial bunch grasses to determine if this will work. 6BIIf native grasses do not work, then extensive water use will occur. What increase in the quantity of water will occur if these bunch grasses do not work? The golf course will significantly affect the environment, replacing a desert -dry scenario with a hot-humld. As stated in the EIR, serious losses to the natural -community will be lost. How will this affect the neighboring areas? Also, how will this 6q humid atmosphere affect the neighboring areas? For example, how will mosquito populations be controlled? What effect will all this new water and humidity have on the already fly and bee problem due to the horses? won't this significantly increase the number of these insects? The City has an Oak Tree Preservation ordinance that is intended to protect and preserve oak trees within the city. A total of 230 oak trees will be removed or cut dam, Including 7 heritage oaks. This proposal will have a significant impact on both the amount of oak trees plustheunderlining habitat. The oak tree habitat will be significantly modified. Now will these oak trees and the habitat survive through this modification? - 21 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F. Response to Comments 62. The proposed golf course is considered to be a compatible use with the adjacent equestrian -oriented residential lots, The distance between the nearest conal and the restaurant (more than 700 feet) should be sufficient to minimize the problems that may be caused by flies and bees associated with the horse barns and corrals. Complaints by the golf course would not result in any effect on the adjacent properties unless those properties are out of compliance with zoning or other City ordinances. 63. Comments do not pertain to the adequacy of the EIR and no response is required. It is noted that the price of the fees at this course have yet to be set, and the price quoted is substantially greater (more than 3 times) than that which is typical for courses in the region. The project is proposed to provide trail linkages to the National Forest around the east and north perimeter of the property. 64. The steep slopes at the site are a major contributor to the sediment load in Oak Spring Canyon and other drainages that this commentor previously alluded to (see comments #47, #48, and 454). The project would serve to decrease this current sediment load. 65. The American Disabilities Act is a design requirement for the site and has no bearing on the evaluation of environmental impacts. 66. Revegetation of the habitat types proposed for the project site has been successful in the past at other locations, however, it is not an easy task and requires careful planning and implementation. A 1000% achievable result is unrealistic for virtually all pursuits and would be for the revegetation effort. Sage scrub vegetation efforts often fail because of the use of plants in the wrong micro - habitat, or the use of nursery -grown plants that have become root -bound within the pots. Scrub revegetation is more successful if done from seed in a properly prepared seed bed. If container plants are to be used, they should be contract grown from a native plant nursery with specific experience in native shrub revegetation efforts. 67. The environmental effects on biological resources are significant and unavoidable whether or not a successful perennial grassland is developed within the fairway roughs. It is noted that these roughs will be periodically mowed and are to provide a hitting surface for the golf course, unlike typical restorationfrevegetation efforts for grassland habitats. This is a unique circumstance and the project would provide a test study use (as suggested in the comment) for the implementation of such a revegetation effort at other future and possibly existing golf courses. 68. The water use factors for the native grasses would he the same as for naturalized, drought tolerant grasses that would replace them. 69. while the golf Course would have a micro -climatological effect within the property boundary, it is unlikely to substantially alter the climate of adjacent areas into a "hot -humid" one. Such a large scale change is related to extensive suburban development, such as has occurred in the San Fernando Valley. The number of insects in the area are not now limited by access to water given the multitude of open water resources available to them in horse troughs, ponds, irrigation ran -off city of sent, crania FA9 c"� e)z r?.i-S+. )/f h.< Y✓4 r! v< it t3. td �.` {illi ;x -it troA �.)f dry -:v WsY c�Y,��; N)s ° 1€a a h: a..;.:..c.� .....: i».... ,. �.x. ,..r....': rf ... �.� ... .. ......-n.,w..,.sis".M �' &nf .*. ...o);µ Nov -13-95 I2114P Continental Lawyers Title 816 304 9375 P.33 EIR needs to determine how long it will take the newly planted 10 acorns to turn into substantial oak trees. EIR states that 501 of the edge of each golf course lake shall be revegetatod with native freshwater marsh elements. What is a -11 native `freshwater marsh element-, we live in a dry desert environment? EIR does not address the areas in the rough that are within 300 feet of resident. homes. The local fire code requires that Z vegetation be removed within 300 feet of a neighboring residence. This needs to be addressed in the EIR. The majority of the snakes seen in this area are rattlesnakes. How are the construction workers going to remove these snakes. Where are they going to put them? How is this going to work with smaller reptiles, such as the horned lizard? How are these 73 construction workers even going to see the majority of the wildlife? What percentage of the wildlife is expected to be destroyed? Remember these workers are going to expedite the grading process, will it really be cost effective for them to care for these animals? How will all this grading affect the movement of rattlesnakes in this area? we typically find 5 rattlesnakes on the property each 7Y year. Will the contiguous properties be impacted by the movement of rattlesnakes on to their properties? The clawed frogs are all over the surrounding properties. After 7 S the course Is 'built, what is to prevent these frogs to develop in the new lake habitat? What effect will all the toxic chemicals have on the wildlife on the golf course? will the lakes have chlorine? will the toxic -7b chemicals transported off the property have an effect on the stickle -back fish located in the Santa Clara River? What type of fencing will be installed around the perimeter of the golf courses? How will this fencing allow the movement of 71 wildlife through the golf course? Has the F.IR reviewed the type of fencing planned? Are the developers required to only use this fencing design? The City is proposing a multi -use trail system around the north, south and east perimeter of the golf course. This system will have two parallel fencing systems. Now will this effect the 7$ wildlife corridors. Deer, mountain lion, rabbit, coyote presently use this area for food. Deer appear to be seasonal depending on the bearing of local plants and water availability. These local plants in this area appear not present to the east or south. Coyote feed on the rabbit population In this area. 12 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F - Response to Comments and other sources throughout the area. Therefore, the project would not serve to increase nuisance insect species. Instead, control efforts by the golf course operator may result in a decrease in flying Insects. 70. Comment repeats the findings of the EIR concerning impacts to oak tree resources. Oak trees and habitat have survived in the San Fernando Valley in spite of the lack of plans to suitably manage this resource as are proposed for the project site. A newly planted acorn would require about 5 years until it is more or less a young tree and 30.40 years before an oak attains a significant stature, 71, Native freshwater elements formerly existed in much greater quantity along the Santa Clara River before it was subjected to flood control measures and can still be found at the Placerila Canyon State Park and a limited example can be found along the retention ponds present on the site. Typical plantings may include cattail, rushes, willows, mugwort, and mulefat. 72. Vegetation is currently itoiremoved within 300 feet of residential uses adjacent to The site. Since the golf worse areas will be irrigated, they will meet fire code requirements. 73. The proper method for removing a snake is to pick it up with a snake stick, place it into a cloth bag (a pillowcase works well), and move it to an isolated area, such as the National Forest. Smaller animals would be handled in the same way as snakes. The mitigation measure (B -3(a)) was written with the intent of preventing construction workers from unnecessarily killing wildlife when they encounter it, and not to require that construction workers seek out and remove all wildlife from the site. As stated in the EBR, the majority (estimate of about 900/x) of small wildlife with limited mobility, such as homed lizards, at the project site will be killed during construction. 74. During construction, it can be anticipated that additional rattlesnakes will attempt to move from the site into the adjoining properties. This is not expected to result in a substantial increase in the risk already associated with the presence of rattlesnakes on the adjoining properties. Because of the substantial change in habitat associated with the project, the long term carrying capacity for rattlesnakes in the area will be reduced and The population of rattlesnakes in the area can be expected to decrease. 75. Continuing maintenance actions will be taken by the golf course manager to reduce and eliminate any population of clawed frogs that attempts to become established in the golf course lakes. It is likely that the lakes will need to be stocked with a frog predator, such as bas% to help control the population. 76. Implementation of a well-designed IPM will reduce the potential negative impacts associated with chemical use on the site's resident wildlife populations. Specifically, non -chemical means of control of pest species will be implemented first before chemicals are used. Since the lakes will contain irrigation water derived from potable water which is chlorinated, there will be some chlorine residue withinthelakes. Further addition of chlorine to these lakes is not envisioned. Theprojectwould have no effect on the unroofed threespine stickleback. For further information regarding this City orsanta Claris F-30 M M M ■■ M® M i M M M M fir A M ■t M+ w M Neu -13-95 12r14P Contlnentiel Lawyers Title 518 304 9375 of the 28 sensitive animals known, what percentage of them will not be returning to this developed area. The.future development of the residential and golf course uses may affect sensitive fish and wildlife resources at the site. The habitat value on the site will decline by 578. This is a Bo significant impact that cannot be fully mitigated. The natural vegetation is being replaced by golf grasses, wetlands, parking lots and roads. what percentage of the current natural habitat is being eliminated? The report of Hovore & Associates noted that the removal of about 7811 of the chaparral vegetation on the site would have a significant adverse effect on the Peirson's morning glory and Plummer's mariposa lily. Henrickson'a report says it adverse, $ but not significant. who is really right in this matter? This will have a significant impact in this area, which Is what is Important. Also, the one report by Henrickson dates back to 1975. Things have changed in the Santa Clarice valley in the last 20 years. g i IWhat percentage re-establishment will occur with the seed collection related to the Peirson'a morning-glory and the Plummer'a mariposa -lily? what about the other plant species? Construction of the golf course in theOak Springs Canyon area would remove virtually all habitat for the horned lizard, and these animals do not flee from the construction area and so are likely to be killed during construction. This is considered a 83 locally significant impact. This represents a mass slaughter of all these lizards. Trying to trap these lizards will have little impact on this slaughter. Now many San Diego horned lizards are expected to be captured? What percentage of these reptiles are expected to be destroyed? The project will have a significant impact on the local populations of the two -striped garter snake. Why won't it also have a significant impact on the rosy boas or patch -nosed snake? d Where are they abundant and where is the habitat abundant? 8f This also hat to be a significant impact on the kingsnake. We have aeon them on our property, but I have no idea what subspecies they are. Usually spot one per year near or on the property. I Can't believe that the new course lakes will offer a potential opportunity to expand the breeding and habitat of these animals! 05-1 After all this grading, how long will it take for the garter and kingenake populations to recover to their previous levels? 86INow will small predatory loggerhead ahrike survive in a golf development if they feed on small birds and insects. Native birds and insects will be destroyed with their habitat. 23 P.14 Hunters green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F -Response to Comments species, please see response to comment 66 by the Angeles National Forest contained in this appendix. 77. No specific type of fencing has been proposed for the perimeter of the golf course at this time. It has been indicated that split rail fencing will be used on the north and east sides of the golf course, a design which would readily allow wildlife egress through the site. No requirements have been set for fencing type. 78. Two parallel split rail fences would have the same negligible effect on the movement of wildlife. The loss of food for wildlife as a result of the alterations in habitat created by the project is one of the reasons why the project is considered to have a significant and unavoidable impact to biological resources. 79. it is possible that all 28 sensitive species, if they are currently present at the site, may return to use the proposed site on at least a temporary basis. 80. As stated in the EIR 84% of the site will be graded which will affect that proportion of natural habitats. 81. The EIR consultant contacted both Dr. Henrickson and Frank Hovers during the preparation of the ElRwith regard to the sensitive plants in this area. The EIR consultant decided that Dr. Henricksen's approach was more valid given the extensive amount of habitat available for Peirson's morning-glory in the adjacent National Forest. 82. Since the actual number of these plants is unknown, it is impossible to establish a percentage factor. With regard to rare plants, what is important is the establishment and maintenance of a viable population and not simply the absolute number of plants. The percentage of plants is proportional to habitat acreage loss and retained, which is provided in Table 5.4-2 cribs EIR. 83. Since the actual population level of homed lizards at the site is not known, the number that can be captured and the percentage destroyed is impossible to calculate. It is estimated that a capture program may find 20-50% of the population, with the remainder destroyed. 84. The reasons for the differences in impacts for these species were given in the EIR text on pages 5 -4- 16 -SA -18. .4- 16 -SA -I8.. Opinion regarding the suitability of the lakes to expand population levels is noted. 85. Depending on the suitability of restored habitats, garter snake and kingsnake populations may recover and potentially be larger than current within 2-3 years after completion of the golf course. 86. Small insects and other food sources will still be available to the loggerhead shrike after completion of the golf course. The EIR consultant has seen these small birds at several different golf courses in the region and their existence at these locations despite the fact that IPM plans are not instituted at these courses indicates that they are capable of surviving. The shrike obtains its food from several cl y of Rnte Clarlb F-51 .....;.�.. <,...:t:.. ...a».: w+ ma. + .,;n�,wa:....ux«[.•u. nix nw -.<-� r .u.x1 o- < .. u , � ..-r...: o - Nov -13-95 12:15P Continental Lawyers Title 818 304 9375 Pesticides will also kill the insects. Also, what happens if the .g6 new limited *native vegetation- on the golf course doesn't work. Won't the use of pesticides that's destroying the bat population have the same effect on the shrike. $1 IWon't this development have a local significant impact on the rufous -crowned sparrow? ofIwon't the pesticides that kill the insects be eaten by the western spadefoot toad and the toad subsequently poisoned? t1i what percentage of the golf course will be a riparian habitat. TRA"IC The development will generate 3800 vehicles per day on Sand Canyon Road. This is significant for this narrow winding road, especially in the evening. The residents should be notified of c(D the level of traffic to occur because of this golf development and bring forth their concerns. presently, the residents have no idea that this level of traffic will occur. At the -SCOPE' meeting, this level of traffic was not fully disclosed. The west approach at Sand Canyon and Lost Canyon Roads is already congested immediately before and after the school day. To add 9j 3800 vehicles each day would make matters considerably worse. This is a significant adverse situation. The stop sign at Lost Canyon and Sand Canyon Road has been 41. knocked down about 5-6 times so far this year. This is a dangerous intersection. 'i3 I who will pay for the signal at Lost Canyon that will be required? The £IR does not evaluate the increased risk associated with the sports bar and the servicing of alcohol in a rural community. This bar is proposed to be open into the late evenings. Customers will be drinking then driving on a dark, narrow and winding road through a residential neighborhood (from 'A Street - to Lost Canyon Road). This just doesn't make sense. There is a highly used crosswalk for young students at Lost Canyon Road. Drinking and driving through this crosswalk will create a significant risk. P.15 Hunters Omen Residentlel Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F - Response to Comments sources and not just from insects as bats do, and they have a greater amount of suitable habitat for nesting than bats do. 87. As stated on pg. 5.4-19 of the EIR, the project will have a significant and unavoidable impact on rufous -crowned sparrow populations. 88. The use of pesticides at the site will be limited and intended to resolve specific problem situations. Unlike historical golf course practices, the golf course operator will not be arbitrarily spraying strong chemicals throughout the project site. The provision of habitat and maintenance of that habitat will be key to the development ofspadefoot toad populations al The site, With respect to spadefoot toad populations, the clawed frog is a greater threat than the proposed limited use of pesticides. 89. About 17% of the site would be in riparian type habitats, including alluvial fan sage scrub with and without oak trees and golf course lakes. This information was available by calculation from Table 5.4.2 of the EIR 90. The traffic generation and associated traffic impacts of the project are available to the community through the CEQA EIR public review and final ERC process. 91. The existing congestion caused by school traffic at this intersection has been studied in the EIR Traffic Study. The intersection operates at Level of Service A, except during the morning and the afternoon peak school arrival/departure periods. The project contribution of traffic during these peak periods is not significant, and does not contribute significantly to the side street delay. 92. The comment is referring to the stop sign on the westbound approach of Lost Canyon. This stop sign is located in a painted (un -raised) median area, between two travel lanes, which makes it more susceptible to being hit by vehicles. City records indicate that the stop sign was knocked down 6 times in 1995, but that a recent improvement has reduced this frequency. 93. The analysis indicates that a signal is not warranted at this location under existing conditions, in spite of the delays experienced by vehicles exiting Lost Canyon Road during the peak school periods. A signal is warranted under future traffic conditions, in which case, the proposed project should be required to install the signal with a reimbursement mechanism developed so that future additional traffic would pay their fav share costs of the signal. 94. Enforcement of drinking and driving laws is the responsibility of the local law enforcement agencies. The traffic analysis identifies traffic impacts on system capacity and operations. The intersection of Comet Way and Sand Canyon Road is already dangerous. vehicles speed around the curve to the north of Comet 95. The source of the 4 -second estimate for southbound traffic sight distance is unknown The project's way (just south of the railroad trellis) which allows only contribution of traffic to peak hour conditions on Sand Canyon Road is not projected to QS limited driver reaction time .(this is a blind area where as low significantly increase vehicle delay at area cross streets, or to impact the sight distance at this as four seconds is only allowed for the driver to make a left intersection. turn and reach a speed not to interfere with south -bound City er Seats genre traffic). Added traffic and an additional distraction to the psi 1d Nov -13-96 12-16P Continental lawyers Tdtle 616 304.9375 P.16 south will increase accidents in this area. At night, the curve (is, ( causes the lights to be aimed at the driver exiting Comet Way. This affects the driver's vision and reaction time. What percentage traffic increase will occur between Live oak Springs and Lost Canyon? It appears that the percentage could be 75-1001. .This means almost a doubling of traffic in this area. qb This is a very dangerous area because of the curvesdrainage ditches, railroad trellis, churches, streets and driveways. There is also no streetlights in this area. This area really needs to be examined, especially considering that alcohol will be served in the restaurant and bar. Do additional street lights have to be added on Sand Canyon Road, k.j I from the golf development area to Lost Canyon Road, to make this part of the street safer? This is a dangerous area at night with opposing headlights affecting the on -coming driver. ^A Street" doesn't look safe with the fairways so close. Appears tix the street is to narrow to handle all the delivery trucks for the restaurant and bar. we can't forget that lots of toxic chemicals will be delivered through "A Street". The Intersection at Sand Canyon Road and "A y9 Street- needs to be designed with absolute safety In mind. The banquet facility will be used for.partiea, wedding receptions, etc., mainly on Saturdays and Sundays. Does the expected number of vehicles each day consider the size of these activities and the associated vehicles? Iocal businesses would 100 like to use this facility as a quasi -convention center. Is this considered in the average daily traffic? What about the driving range that Isproposed to be open until 10-00 p.m.? Is this considered in the calculations? The driving range is open past dark to allow the general public to.use this range, not solely for the use of the person playing golf on the course. The banquet facility will create peak levels of traffic on "A Street" onto Sand Canyon Road. This will create significant 101 traffic hazards In this area and also with cars exiting on Comet Way. Also, considering visibility Is extremely poor in this area at night. If banquets end at nighttime, this will be extremely dangerous. Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F - Response to Comments 96. The existing daily traffic on Sand Canyon Road is 6,800 to 9,100 ADT north of the project access. At build -out of the entire project, the proposed development will contribute 3,420 trips on a daily basis to this segment of Sand Canyon, representing a 39 to 50% increase. The traffic study has shown that, with the addition of approved and project traffic, Sand Canyon Road will approach Level of Service "E" volumes. Improvement of this portion ofthe roadway are ultimately planned, and future developments will be required to pay into applicable fee programs; or to pay fair share contributions to these improvements. 97. The applicant will be required to provide a street light at the project's entrance. The City currently has no other plans to add street lighting along Sand Canyon Road and such is prohibited by the Send Canyon Special Standards District §17.16.090.B.2.d. 98. The access road (actually "G" Street) to the project is 28 feet wide, with 4 -foot rolled berms on both sides, as described in Section 3.7.4 of the Elk This exceeds minimum public street width requirements, and is more than adequate to accommodate delivery trucks. There is sufficient distance between the fairways and the road to allow for safe egress. 99. The golf course's need for toxic chemicals, such as pesticides, is expected to be less than that typical of a golf course of its size because of the implementation of the IPM. Hazardous materials will be transported according to applicable regulations and would not be expected to involve an undue risk. Design of the project entrance will comply with all applicable design standards, and will be subject to approval of the City Engineer. 100. The trip generation rate from the ITE Trip Generation Manual is based on the overall golf course acreage, and assumes the likelihood that the development will include facilities such as a driving range, clubhouse, pro shop, restaurant, lounge, and banquet facilities. The trip generation rate used in the EIR was based on an average of the lower rate created by standard municipal and private golf courses that lack amenities and the higher values for traffic volumes associated with large acreage golf courses. This additional trip generation added to the ITE average rate accounts for those facilities within the development that could be considered to be destination uses. Information from the applicant (see Theodore Robinson letter, Comment H2 in this appendix) support the use of lesser trip generation rates. 101. Banquet traffic will typically occur outside peak commuter hours, with somewhat staggered arrival and departure patterns. Intersection lighting will enhance nighttime visibility at the project entrance. No significant safety hazards would be anticipated. Won't large parties using the banquet facility create a significant volume of traffic on the 14 freeway. Wouldn't this 102. The CMP requirement calls for CW evaluation if the project adds 50 peak hour vehicles tea (oL generate more than 50 vehicles per hour at the beginning and end monitored intersection, of 150 peak hour vehicles to a mainline freeway segment The trip of the activities? Won't this require a special CMP traffic generation rates for the project assumed on-site ancillary facilities, such as banquet facilities, and the impact study? peak hour volumes added to the applicable roadway facilities do not meet the minimum threshold l03 IWhy would -Sunday golf traffic be less Chan any other day? criteria. Usually, Sunday is the busiest day. F-13 city of Santa Gads IS Al+l Z Ci..y;a,.h. ' �/%t A. i.^Rn ihF.Y)\ l � ..( {i G i'l. (> h F3Yi1•i:Y iV isms /I IF 1 7'1 .Slf!A Si .1Gv m=( A �Jl 'l.iiYrM {<l lY'rY fi'�[ tl �. NbY e� .1!$ d f?S M i/i. :l YYaY L//f 1.t V n� rv(n�$h 5 / u) `�$�(w .n > � )' - )+ N V 41 >L. 'VY � h V X>X t ?l ...,..:;,wwve...,.e...........:...a.......>.n.««.....,.....,r......,u..,...t..,....a.�w.......c. ....J,.v...«. l m�.. e.s<ia.ww.<ear+....wn..m rv.o..w.....-wan:na .w ....e...t.w.+..w..... w. ../. ...... ..+.w...... .e. .... ..-.-...,....a...,.......,...N.k ...-a.......e w.:v. n . Nov -13-95 12r16P Continental Lawyers Title 9318 304 9375 Development TT34466 was approved a few years ago which required a new freeway off ramp east of Sand Canyon Road, a bridge over the Joi Santa Clara River and a railroad bridge. I don't understand how this development was changed from what was originally approved. Development TT30738 was suppose to use the same roads as TT34466. Who is going to pay for the bridge expansion and the improvements to the freoway ramps? What happens if these improvements aren't /oS made? when will these improvements be made? Should the golf course be allowed to be developed prier to these Improvements? A traffic control plan should be developed and reviewed by the EIR. Sand Canyon Road is too narrow to enable such a golf tournament. Also, where would the remote parking areas be located? This is also an equestrian area, in which, emergency veterinarian services are sometimes required. How will these veterinarians be able to make emergency calls during these Job tournaments? Hay deliveries occur periodically via large truck and trailers from hundreds of miles away.Actual day of deliveries can not always be scheduled. Sometimes delays can occur up to one week, depending on the farmer, warehouse availability, weather, etc. Now will these trucks be able to make these deliveries? THE KINE EIRis absolutely incorrect about the noise levels generated by 101 Icarries themining operation. We sometimes get irritated here on Graceton Drive and we are alot further away. Noise really in this area. The comments about the mining operation are not accurate. The mining operation commences each morning around 6s3o A.M. The equipment can be heard from Graceton Drive, let alone where the proposed lots will be developed. Blasting creates a significant rob amount of noise. Not to .inform buyers of these lots that mining operations occur at 600 in the morning which includes periodic blasting 10 completely inadequate. Who wants to hear this type of noise at GOO In the morning or the blasting. This is a significant situation. Titanium 19 mined In the area east of the proposed development. 101 This Information is not included on page 5.1-9. Titanium Is an extremely Important mineral primarily used in aircraft. P.17 Hunters Green pestilential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F. Response to Comments 103. Trip generation rates published in the ITE Trip Generation Manual suggest that trip generation on weedend days is similar, but slightly less than on weekdays. However, the extra factor added to the ITE Trip Generation rale for weekday traffic contributes to the greater disparity between the weekday and the weekend traffic projections. 104. The approved developments were conditioned to contribute to future roadway and bridge improvements on a fair share basis. The proposed project will also be required to pay into applicable fee programs, and to contribute to applicable improvements on a fair -share basis. The actual fees paid or proportionate amounts required of this project may differ from previously approved projects because of differing levels of traffic and different traffic patterns. 103. Funds for bridge and freeway improvements will come from a variety of sources, including State and City Ponds, Bridge and Thoroughfare fees, fair -share contributions by new development, and others. The improvements to the Sand Canyon interchange are scheduled to begin mid-1996. No firm schedule has been set for the widening of the bridge over the river. The golf wurse contribution to Sand Canyon Road has not been shown to trigger the need for the widening prior to the golf course development. 106. The project will likely be conditioned to provide traffic control plans for any tournament event. Such traffic control plan will require identification of adequate parking facilities, among other things. If adequate parking is notable to be secured for an event, a permit will not be issued. Tournament traffic typically involves staggered arrival and departure pattems. Any congestion on Sand Canyon Road caused by a tournament would be a temporary and infrequent occurrence. Access to the area for emergency veterinarian or any other emergency services and hay deliveries is not expected to be blocked by tournament activity. 107. Individual perceptions ofthe intrusiveness of noise varies greatly, with million of people residing within urban areas that are exposed to far greater noise levels than are present at Graceton Drive who do not share the same level of concern to noise. Noise criteria and standards have been set based on the average community response to increasing levels of noise. Please see the City of Santa Clarks Noise Element (1991) for further discussion of this issue. The EtR analysis is based on these criteria 108. The noise calculations contained in the EIR include a scenario that assumes one nighttime hour of operation, namely the time period from 6:00 ant to 7:00 am. The noise levels do not exceed the City's noise criteria at the nearest residential pad for this scenario. If it is required under California state laws regarding the selling of property that the project applicant inform prospective residential buyers of this situation, then those buyers will be so informed. ALTMMTInS 109. Ilmenite, from which titanium is extracted, is one of the heavy mineral ores mined at the adjacent 0 The developer has stated to the residents of Oak Springs Canyon shine site, in addition to the extraction of other minerals (apatite, zircon, and magnetite) and It (that the alternatives proposed are not realistic and cannot be Oryorsenfa Clare P•54 16 Nov -13-95 12:16P Canttnental Lawyers Title 916 304 9375 P.18 considered. Why were these alternatives stated in the report (to then. Alternatives should be developed that would be acceptable to the developer. An alternative plan should be proposed that incorporates a golf course development, housing, equestrian park and multi -use trail system. The proposal should include a looped trail System around the perimeter of the development in the Oak Springs Canyon area. A trail should connect Sand Canyon Road with the national forest. An equestrian park should be developed on the eastern edge of the project next to the mining operation, this will buffer the noise generated from the mine. The 103 acres that can not be used for housing could support the majority of this park. 17 Hunters Green Residentlat Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F - Response to Comments substantial amounts of sand and gravel aggregate. The discussion in Ellett £R-10 primarily concerned the aggregate resources within the site, since the aggregate is not a good source for the heavy minerals. This is one of the reasons why the mining operation has established permits for the operation of hard rock mines in three claim areas that are much farther from the project boundary than the current operations. 110. Alternatives were developed based on the requirements of CEQA and not on the potential preferences of the applicant. 111. The alternative proposed in this comment appears to be a modification of the alternative discussed in Section 7.6. Impacts of this alternative would be similar to that discussed in Section 7.6. Such an alternative is not expected to be any more acceptable to the applicant than those contained within the ERL ClWarsanre Credo P-53 ss v; FH r. r' rt�C r -°YA>,u 1',. t h fbltj 4 Mfr' h Au -'c L ♦ 4 c?. s r J to,.. r SSI l,: r ,`� YS .n 'r :.ta ......(y.W..uq.::pm x m... .µ.v V •.nrrv.. ..r .n -... � ..wNrl+r.. r.n+«.t+n.v. v.xrt4-nNN�J ..n -✓mY.w.rvN.xnnu..x 1.--.W n� x u A nn� re.f�. �lu.f vnri T? uMK.:1 .. xrx ���. �..u:r� J a..�r.....wh x. .. o.a i �i.. ni i.. i. .e u. ✓..... x`nW^� RGBINSON GOLF DEsiGNr INC. 33971 SELvA Row., Surra 733 DANA POINT, CALIFORNIA 92629 TeLEFH.Ne (71x) 248.2492 FAx (714) 248-2496 Novemberl3,1995 Mr. Glen Adamlck Department of Community Development City of Santa Clarits 23920 Valencia Blvd. Suite 300 Santa Clarks, California 91355 Re: Oak Springs Golf Club, Response ERA Dear Glen, We have had the opportunity to review the draft EIR for Oak Springs and are writing to you as a result of concerns in selected areas of that report Specifically, we would like to respond to some of the conclusions provided in Section 5-5 regarding traffic, Section 7 regarding design alternatives, and a few of the proposed mitigation measures. Traffic Referencing Table 5.5-2, the traffic counts estimated for the project total 3800, 880 relating to 87 residential units and 2920 relating to the golf facility. As to the residential component, we have no issue with the trip count other than to note there are 83 proposed residential dwellings rather than 87. At ten trips per house, the &=two count would be 830. This number would drop further if the number of lots is reduced to mea other requirements. The estimate of ten trips per household appears reasonable and stands up to e practical breakdown—Dad to work and back (2), Mom to school and the grocery store In the morning and back to school In the afternoon (4), the gardener or other service (2), and a UPS delivery truck (2). We would propose that final determination of the traffic impact for the residential component be calculated as ten trips par lot as set forth by the final tract map. On the golf courses, however, were not sure we understand the logic relining the size of the project In acreage to traffic generation. A longer golf course requiring more acreage will ,L actually service fewer rounds because the time accessary to play it Is greater. Also, the number of rounds serviced by various clubs differs substantially depending gpon demand and how the club is operated. Most public golf courses in the area are reporting rounds of 100,000-120,000 per year due to high demand. In contrast, the rounds at Oak Springs will be Hunters Green Resldenllal Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F - Response to Comments Commentor. Theodore Robinson, Jr. Robinson Golf Design, Inc. (Project Designer) Date: November 13, 1995 Response: 1. As noted in the EIR text in the footnote to Table 5.5-2, the number of residential units used in the traffic analysis was based on the initial number of units proposed for the site, which was changed by the applicant during the preparation of the EIR situ the traffic report was completed. Thetrip generation used is based on the ITE manual, which is the best available resource for determining trip generation. 2. Typically, trip generation estimates are based on industry averages, as published in the ITE Trip Generation Manual. The trip generation rate used in the EDL was based on an average of the lower rate created by standard municipal and private golf courses that lack amenities and the higher values for traffic volumes associated with large acreage golf courses. Use of the trip projections provided in this comment would require actual traffic counts at Comparable facilities as back-up documentation to the assumptions made. While the trip generation numbers provided by the applicant seem reasonable, the following questions are raised: What is the basis for assuming a) 450 people (customers) per day for the restaurant; 5 buckets (or customers) per day per driving range station; c) 800 people per week for the banquet facility? What is the mechanism by which the golf course would be limited to 80,000 rounds per course per year? Is this merely an operating policy, or would such a restriction be imposed on all future owners of the course? It would be very difficult and costly for the City to monitor these restrictions, especially if the golf course changes hands several years in the future. Due to the lack of documentation for the use of the trip generation factors used by the applicant, it is more conservative to use the higher trip generation rate based on ITE factors. Your opinions regarding the expected volume of traffic and its effect on the air pollutant emissions calculations are contained herein to notify decision -makers of this difference of opinion. It is also noted that the projections provided do not suggest any revisions to the peak hour traffic projections, upon which the majority of the traffic impact analysis and project mitigation is based. 3. As stated in the text, this alternative assumes a roadway from Sand Canyon Road similar to that proposed by the project, with a potential primary/secondary access route via Oak Spring Canyon Road. It is agreed that developing a primary access route for the golf course through the existing rural residential community would be difficult. However, there are still plans for residential development of the property located north of the site and a new Oak Spring Canyon Road that would connect with Lost Canyon Road Could be provided through this future development. Otherwise, Oak Spring Canyon Road would be relegated to secondary emergency access only. City or Santa Clads F-56 �w r �r r �■U is �r �■is r r r■n rt r r�r r +�■� r r w 2 Mr. Glen Adamick November 13, 1995 Page -2 limited to 80,000 per course per year regardless of demand in order to maintain the quality of the operation. Clearly, traffic generation wilt differ in a result of operational practices. There is also a huge disparity in the size of clubhouse facgittas between various golf projects and their ability to service banquets and other related was. Inmost well known destination type facilities, the size of the clubhouses are usually 30,000 square feet or greater for a single 18 hole facility. Rivera Country club is a good example. In contrast, the Oak Springs clubhouse will total about 14,000 In common area and will service two courses. Although we expect usage to be high, the practical fault of the size constraints that we cannot physically accommodate the usage levels reported by other destination type facilities. The use of data points for single large destination facilities and applying them by a doubling factor Is not going to be accurate unless the actual sizes and capacities of the other facilities no comparable. Nor are estimates made on a par acre basis. As with the residential component, the real test as to the accuracy of these factors Is whether the resulting estimate of 2920 trips per day relates to a practical breakdown of usage. As a comparison, the following breakdown assumes the actual capacity estimates of the facility in determining potential traffic: Golf Rounds Two courses ® 80,000 rounds/course equates to 160,000 rounds/year. At three cars per every four golfers, this usage results in 120,000 round trips or 240,000 trips per year.7bs resulting trips per day equals 658. Restaurant Assuming 450 people pat day, half being gotten and everyone else arriving Individually, the resulting trips per day equals 450. Driving Range Fifty stations at five buckets per station equally 250 golfers Half will wive Independently resulting in low daily trips of 2S0. Banquets Al eight hundred people per week, half being tournament related, four hundred will arriva separately resulting in a weekly trip generation of 800 or 114 per day. Commercial Vehicles Thirty vehicles per day result in a daily trip generation of 60. Employees Including full and pan time help, eighty employees will result in daily trips of 160. Adding the trips for each of the components listed results In an estimate of daily tripe totaling 1692, less that 60% of the estimates forecasted by the EIR. As a result of this differential, we us concerned that the EIR uses estimating factors that set traffic estimates at levels unsubstantiated by the practical operating levels of the facility. The project will be unfairly penalized by applying these counts in determining the actual traffic Impacts to the area. In an Mr. Glen Adamick November 13, 1995 Page -3 effort to reflect a more accurate impact, we feel the EIR needs to adjust its comparative factors 7— and then contrast the resulting estimates to apractical measure of actual usage. Alternatives As possible revisions to the current design concept, the EIR proposes -a west slope residential affernadw under section 7.2 and an equesrriandesldenrial/golfcourse alternative in section 7.6. Both of these alternatives us judged by thew report in feasible In meeting the objectives of the project and superior to the environmental effects of the plan as proposed. We have had the opportunity to review these alternatives from both a planning and economic viewpoint and would like to share the following observations: In section 7.2, the west slope/resWenriat atiernadve places the residential aspects on the western facing slope; and locates the majority of the golf course facility within Oak Springs Canyon. In addition to potential issues raise by the EIR relating to this concept, we do not believe an effective design for the project is possible due to the following reasons: • This alternative assumes the primary access to the golf courses would occur from Oak Springs Canyon Road. As you know, Oak Springs is presently a dirt road which Is not engineered to current standards. In 3 addition, it is private. It is extremely doubtful the fifty-three Individual home owners would ever voluntarily approve such an impact to their rural life style. Even If the City was willing to condemn the rtghtbf--way, seems along two or three miles of winding road through a rural community would significantly degrade the acoromle potential of the project and the rural quality of the surrounding residential area. • Although located further away, the proposed location of the clubhouse would be fully visible and facing the existing residences on Oak Springs Canyon. Noise levels would be greater due to a lack of intervening land y form. • The location of the parking lot would face the fourteen residences in the Angeles Crest Forest at the east property line with a resulting adverse Impact to these residents. • The area designated for golf worse concentrates the courses in the area with the highest habitat value and locates the residential in the area with S the lowest value. Oak tree Impacts would rise with the concentration of playing was in the washes. We also anticipate the Impact to other high value vegetation would Increase, not decrease as the report suggests. • Routing of the golf courses in an economically practical fashion would be Impossible—the holes traversing the secondary ridgetine would have to rise 6 130 feet. Although elevation changes of that magnitude are tut unusual on golf courses, the distance available to accomplish this rise does not allow a u....a 1. 's Im n.awrw.w.w.. w.a u.a.�v •.:+,......a..•a..wd..a i i ......r.. -...o ..�nwn.I.n ✓..e.,.cow.w......r....�nr.:nxl.JuN.nWLrw.. m+.... .aus..4: :.r ¢.w. .. �..a . w•. r..., a .....�e-ea._. �..nr ..., r as :i �.. Mt. Glen Adamick November t3, 1995 Page -4 viable routing of the project without massive grading and impact to the ridgeline. Grading requirements would be higher that the report suggests and predominately located in the areas of greatest visibility. • The feaibility of building almost five miles of roadway and the grading issues relating to the location of that roadway up and down the secondary ridgeline and up and down the land form on the eastern border would pose significant visual and economic constraints to the development of the PMJect. In section 7.6, the equesirlan/realdemiol/goljcourse shemative proposes the of an equestrian center at the southerly end of the golf course, a shifting of the clubhouse At driving range to the south, and a relocation of residential to the western entry along Send Canyon. In addition to Issues raised in the EIR, we do not believe an effective design is possible for the following reasons: • Primary access to the golf courses would be from Live Oak Springs. Essentially, access would occur over an additional two miles (+/-) of sural residential roads, an impact which would degrade both the economic viability of the project and the rural quality of the surrounding residential areas. s The routing issues raised In response to the previous alternative would also apply. In addition, they aro compounded by an inability, to locate two q courses within the proposed envelope. Asjust one ample, the area south of the Penrose residence is not wide enough to accommodate two fairways, thus making a traverse to the western area infectible. (toad crossings would also be required, thus compounding safety issues. to In the process of producing an effective design for a golf nurse, may issues have to be taken Into consideration: natural topography, vislbility of the holes, vegetative constraints, distance between greens and following tees, routing in a loop pattern to manage traffic flow and maximize safety, and;story buffers. The rmon the clubhouse and related facilities have been located In the anter of the land area Is to achieve the beat overall solution given these concerns. As designed: • The mountain course remain on the western side of the property— topography Issues are managed through distancing the traverse to higher ground. Traffte Issues are managed by routing in a double loop system, thus maximizing safety. No roads are crossed at grade.. Safety buffers are met throughout the course. • The valley worse remains ip the lower wash area on the eat side of the property—topography issues are minimized. As on the mountain course, routing has ban accomplished in a double loop system. There are no road crossings and safety buffers are met throughout the course. Hunters Green Residentlal Development and Golf Course EIR Append[ F. Response to Comments 4. While the clubhouse would be more visible to the existing residences, noise levels associated with the parking lot and clubhouse would be less due to the greater distance and the location of the parking lot within a small canyon, thereby creating some noise barrier effects. As stated in the EIR, the perceived land use conflicts associated with the parking lot and clubhouse would be moved from the residences located along the west side of the 160 acre parcel to those located on the east side of this parcel. 5. The EIR agrees with this comment with respect to the construction of two golf courses within Oak Spring Canyon, which would create greater biological impacts (pg. 7-8 of the Draft EIR). However, as the EIR states, if only one golf course were built, a greater net habitat value would be preserved since it would not be necessary to located fairways in the highest value habitat located in the annexation parcel. 6. Comment regarding economic viability and design restrictions of routing the golf course as indicated have been added to the text. While grading requirements for this alternative may be greater than that estimated based on the conceptual design, it would still be less than the current proposed project, which would involve massive grading and impact to the ridgeline. 7. The grading associated with this conceptual design is not greatly more than that proposed for the currently entitled residential estate developments, especially with regard to the provision ore roadway over the secondary ridgeline. It is believed that an economically feasible grading plan could be developed within the constraints of the conceptual alternative. The EIR preparer recognizes that the design aspects of the fairways and road adjacent to the secondary ridgeline would impose difficulties that may negate the value of providing fairways in this area, and that a feasible design may result in simply an access route over the secondary ridgeline with no other development. Such a design would question the need for an accessway over the ridgeline, which would result in a proposal for two different projects, one a residential community on the west slopes with access only via Send Canyon Road, and the other a golf course in Oak Spring Canyon with access via Oak Spring Canyon Road or a new road. S. While Live Oak Springs Canyon Road is considered a "coral residential' road, this is primarily due to the provision of roiled curb and gutters rather than standard rectangular curbs. This roadway has at least a 36 -foot wide pavement on an approximate 60 foot right-of-way through an area that is best described as a mix of rural sold large lot suburban homes. The roadway has the necessary capacity to handle the golf course traffic. The economic viability of the design which requires golf course traffic to go through the project residential area is unknown, but would be expected to reduce the selling price of the project residential lots. 9. This design alternative provides nearly the same acreage for the golf courses as the proposed project, with additional acreage gained by greater grading of the knoll located on the east side of the 160 acre parcel. Therefore, it is believed that two golf courses could fit within the conceptual design envelope. The two fairways that cross the area south of the Penrose residence under the proposed project are approximately 450 feet wide, while that proposed under this design alternative -- _ - - City of Santa Clarice F-57 mom mm m mm m m m ■. m m m m M M M Mr. Glen Adamick November 13, 1995 Page -5 Unfortunately, neither of the proposed altermativea offers an equally effective solution. In addition, both alternatives compound the impact to adjoining road systems and create the (G potential of negatively Impacting intervening residential. As such, we do not believe a quality project can be built as proposed by either Scenario. Even if construction is physically possible, the degradation of quality and increased infrastructural costs would be such that economic considerations would render the project unfeasible. MitlGation Measures We offer the following comments on a few of the proposed mitigation measures in an effort to insure we can meet all of the measures suggested: AQ4c Title 24 requirements are the minimum goal to the design of the f l ( clubhouse and we Intend to do much better that that; however, were not clear what a 20% savings below Title 24 entails. We would suggest this measure be stated as an objective rather than es a requirement. 11.1(b) The revegetation of 50% of each lake may be difficult as edging z I requirements differ with every hole. We would suggest this measure be modified to reflex 50% of the lake edges In aggregate rather than each lake Individually. B-I(c) It is unclear whether native bunch grasses can be found In eller the quantity or quality to make revegetlation possible. It is our objective to plant the roughs using the most naturalized grasses possible while achieving the 13 other goals of the project, namely, drought tolerance and a decent bitting surface during winter dormmcy. The purpose of hiring Dr. Charles Peacock was to assist us In this effort. We would suggest this measure be eliminated or modified to reflect adherence to recommendations made by the BMP and IPM Plans for the project. fY I AFS4(s) We would like to add back lighting in addition to discreet op. lighting for signage and clubhouse entry. AFS4(d) Bollard lighting at four feet may work out just fine, however, higher fixtures of twelve or fourteen feet with shades directing the light down I F might be more effective in preventing lighting spills. We would like the opportunity to consider this alternative if off site lighting comma can be met. AES4(e) The purpose of berming the parking lot is to prevent light from 16 I spilling to the residential area to the north and northwest. As burning The interior areas of the project do not serve any purpose, we request this measure be Modified to require bermingonly In the directions of concem. Hunters Green RwIdeatlal Gevelopmanl and Golf Course EIR AppendIx F - Response to Comments is about 350 feet wide. An additional 50 feet of width could be provided under this design alternative and still maintain the integrity of the secondary ridgeline. A road crossing would be needed for this design, and while not desirable, this is not an infrequent occurrence for golf courses located within residential areas (for example, Knollwood Country Club in the San Fernando Valley has several road crossings). 10. Comments regarding the design solutions provided by the proposed project as opposed to the design alternatives are noted for the decision -makers. 11. A 20% savings would entail the reduction of energy expenditures associated with space heating, lighting, and water heating as compared to a similar sized building and use based on per square -foot consumption factors available from the utilities. Meering this requirement can be readily done through the use of passive solar design, increased insulation, solar water heating, reduced wattage light fixtures, and similar energy conserving techniques. If this measure were stated as an objective, it would no longer be considered an effective mitigation measure. 12. The EIR text has been changed to reflect this comment. 13. A variety of California botanists and native plant nurseries are currently involved in efforts at native grassland restoration and revegetation throughout California and this is steadily increasing the supply of plant material available. A recent meeting of the California Native Grass Association included a panel discussion by seed suppliers that indicated that the amount of native grass seed available has substantially exceeded demand. Past experience by botantists regarding grassland revegetation has indicated that type conversion (such as from chaparral to grassland) has been more successful than the planing of former grassland was because of the general lack of grass seeds in the converted land. Given that the project involves a revegetation/landscaping design rather than a more difficult restoration effort, sufficient plant material would be available to meet the needs of the 75 acres to be revegetated at the site. The EIR preparer notes that due to the need for a hitting surface, such revegetation may not be appropriate for all portions of the rough. If this measure were eliminated or modified, the inclination of the golf course design would be to include more naturalized grasses than natives due to the lower cost and greater experience with the non -natives. This would result in the measure becoming ineffectual. The measure includes an expiration clause that would allow conversion to a greater number of naturalized grasses if the revegetation effort fails. 14. EIR text has been changed to reflect this comment. 15. It is doubtful that a higher light standard would be more effective at reducing light spillage than the low-level, pedestrian oriented lighting that is recommended in the mitigation measure. Lighting requirements are set for the ground level and because of the dispersion of light with distance, it would take a greater amount of wattage in a higher light fixture to meet the same lighting level provided by a lower fixture. Even if higher light standards would meet the concerns of adjacent City of Santa Clante F-58 .......aw:.n.:a. F. .:r.. :. ....�.-.w.. ... ow ...-y...,...«.a> .n _....,�..... ".r.;:.,.w ....v .w sw....bc v.,. .0 ..0 .. .....-.:.r,' .k Mr. Glen Adamick November 13, 1995 Page -6 We appreciate the opportunity to respond to the ETR by Rincon and welcome any questions or comments if a clarification of our response Is desired. Sincerely yours, ✓ Theodore G. Robinson Jr. Hurter, Green Residential Development and Galt Course EIR Appendix F. Response to Comments residences, it would create a greater amount of light on the skyline as viewed from other perspectives and create more nighttime glare than the lighting scheme recommended. 16. Banning of the interior amasdoes serve a purpose in that it reduces the casting of light on reflective surfaces, such as the lake to the south of the parking lot. Also, because of the layout of the parking lot, if the western perimeter is not bermed, then tight from entering automobiles would spill across the golf course towards off-site residences to the north. The only area where burning is not needed in the main parking lot is where the clubhouse would provide a light barrier and to the southeast where the light would illuminate the smaller parking lot. Perimeter berming is also required along the northeast and east sides of the smaller parking lot to prevent the illumination of the golf course which would be observable as glare to distant receptors to the north, city or Santa Clarna F-59 M M r M Planning Commission Hearing of October 3,1995 is;®r oners began discussing Item 3. m or Cherrington said it was his understanding that the reimbursemen/edded p15 year Development Agreement and he did not see thatn said he did not believe he included that in the rathwahq said he did not feet that the although r was mentioned and discusi Cherrington sak the 25 year Roper to build out N entire Vm 'million dollar enenits. with no Pay the entire 17 million. Co )er offered to advance the me would not be reimbursed as al in the recommendation for missioner Modugno said it was his was the fact that the developer h t, the roads would be built as thei for rebrobursafhent. In other words, the developer :r CherAgtoaa said if he was not mistaken, the a conAuction and allow up to 8 million dollars is Aase I development. Ile thought this was tion khat it was not part of it. The logic behind the 'ssion that roads would not come up hairpersoa Townsley asked istant City Attorney, mss Altmayer, iP itwould be ipropriate to approve the ma if indeed something else w voted for. Mr. Altmayer said hat was voted for was to h e staff prepare a resolution fort ommiesion's vote. If there 'e things within To resol on that the Commission does not agree 'th, then the Commission n change those items. rmmissioner Bra waite wanted to make an addition to Item Secti , Item B of the solution. He w led it to include gray water. moti/W.-.1ution de by Commissioner Brathwaite and seconded by Commissioner odugnoto provwith the addition of the expansion of the utilities to include water Sectb. Said motion was carried by &vote of 5-0. s was made by Commissloner Modugra and seconded by Commissioner Item 3 of the Consent Calendar. Said motion was carried by a vote of I PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4 MASTER CASE NO. 92-W2 (PREZONE 92-001, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 51044, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92.001, OAH TREE PERMIT 92-002 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SC 92041041) Glenn Adamick, Assistant Planner II, gave the staff report and a slide presentation. He stated the applicant is proposing to develop a 411 acre site with two eighteen hole golf courses, and accessory structures such as a clubhouse, parking lot and maintenance facility. There would also be 83 single family residential Iota. A draft Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the project and was included in the Commission's packet. The EIR is in the Initial stages of the public review period. The public review period would close on Monday, November 13,1995. Rincon Consultants was hired by the City to prepare the EIR. - Mr. Adamick gave a brief report on the background of the property. Surrounding property of the project is either vacant or single family residential. The project proposes the development of the site with two eighteen hole golf courses, a 26,000 square foot clubhouse; a driving range; parking lot; and maintenance facility. Mr. Adamick said the applicant is proposing to cluster the 83 single family residential lots on approximately 123 acres. A total of 51 of the residential lots would be located on the Crystal Springs property. Approximately 46 of the 83 lots would contain easements to the golf course Mr. Adamick stated the applicant is proposing to use water provided by the Santa Clarita Water Company and is not proposing to seek wells on the project site. Access to the site would be provided from Sand Canyon Road and Live Oak Springs Canyon Road. The primary project roadway would be located approximately 220 feet south of Comet Way. 'A' Street would be constructed as a City street and would extend approximately 600 feet. Residential lots 1 through 5 would take access from We street. Lot 6 would take access from 'A! Street via a private easement. 'A' Street changes to 'G' Street, a private roadway which extends to the clubhouse, the parking lot and to the driving range area. 'G' Street would be available for public access to the clubhouse and parking area. 'G' Street would be 36 feet wide, providing a travel lane in each direction. At the terminus of 'G' Street, the applicant is proposing to 1 construct a gate and a gate is also proposed at the prcjecVs Live Oak Springs Canyon entrance. The remaining streets would provide access to the residential lots 9 through 83. Mr. Adamick said development of the project site would require grading of approximately 2.2 million cubic yards of earth, balanced on-site. All slopes are to be contour graded. There is a secondary ridgeline that would be altered by the development. The applicant Is proposing to remove 130 Coast Live Oak and 138 Oak trees. There is a draft revegetation plan which includes the planting of a substantial amount of oak trees on the site after grading is done. Mr. Adamick stated the applicant has had between 10 to 15 informal public meetings on the project. He has also had several meetings with the Parks and Recreation Commission. Staff and Rincon Associates conducted a seeping meeting prior to the preparation of the focused EIR. Staff is recommending that the Commission receive staff and Rincon's presentation; take public testimony and continue the project to the special Planning Commission meeting on Saturday, October 28, 1995, at 9 a.m. at the project site. Mr. Adamick said if this date is not convenient, another date may be chosen. Mr. Adamick introduced Duane Vander Piuym of Rincon Consultants, who gave a brief introduction of the Draft EIR Mr. Vander Pluym stated at the close of the public review period, (.. LL l".} (3f N:'k Y/rd if 'A I A Y.A d -V. 4 f ny 1 -.1 /% 11 Y. 11:. FJfl / tN. hNV Y (TAF +1 ^4// l (CL kS F1 KY.4 l FMY :lF1 t t FY v LV/M1 e 5 4 _•ji. w v. uN .ar �.0 .n.. x u.w rr .,Hi .. yo-. • r... ..n.•x ♦� �R n.�• ..n.sv+� . .. wa f A•aufi.'..v�+. vi �.+- ',A � ... .utu J. •nn �n. ♦..v..ri.a. w ...�.�.rau l+.. ✓�..nrv.�ry n . .••.con .Y..a.. Y.. w<.v .0 November 13, 1995, Rincon will take all the comment letters and prepare responses to those comments. A final EIR will be prepared for consideration by the Planning Commission and City - Council. He stated he was available to answer any questions the Commission might have. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:34 p.m. The first speaker was Stan Fargeon, 16095-A, Live Oak Springs, Santa Clarita, one of the applicants. Mr. Fargeon gave a brief history of the project site. Mr. Fargeon told the Commission this project is of remarkable quality and environmental sensitivity. He said the development has applied for and is presently working with the New York Audubon Society to receive status as an Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary System. This will make this project the most environmentally sensitive construction development of its type ever undertaken in the entire Southern California region. Mr. Fargeon said he has had more than 15 public meetings to make this project as participatory as possible. He said changes made since the inception of the project show that the developer has listened and reacted to. the concerns of the neighborhood to make it the best project that it could be for all concerned. Mr. Fargeon said they have earned the overwhelming support from such groups as the Sand Canyon Homeowners Association; The Crystal Springs Homeowners Association, The Santa Clarita Parks and Recreation Commission; the Sand Canyon Trails Committee; the Santa Clarita Chamber of Commerce; the Optimist Club and approximately 24,000 avid golfers that live in Santa Clarita. He said the benefits of the project are numerous. Ted Robinson, Jr., 9 Leicester Court, Lagum Niguel. He is one of the applicants in the golf course. He said Robinson golf courses have played host to the PGA; LPGA and the Senior Pro Golf tour, Mr. Robinson said this is the fust transaction in 35 years where they are both designer and owner. He said they are building a public facility and the course is economically viable. Mr. Robinson said the design will be ecologically and environmentally sound. This is a personal philosophy of his father and himself and Mr. Fargeon. He said there is a high degree of naturalized areas on the golf course. They have started a seed collection program and have collected asoma from the property and planted over 1,000 Coastal Live Oaks which are currently in cultivation to be re-established on the site. Ted Robinson, Sr, 116, Dumond Drive, Laguna Reach. Mr. Robinson Is one of the applicants of the golf course. He said this is the first golf course where he is the designer and owner. He said they intend to do the golf course in a very natural way. They are moving dirt but are doing it by contour grading. He said when they ere done, you won't be able to tell that any dirt has been moved. He said areas that are disturbed will be restored to their natural state. He said the project is 36 two distinct types of golf courses. One is a mountain course which will be a little shorter and plays at about 6,550 yards on the west portion of the property. The other course is the valley course which will be to the east in a low lying area that will be pretty flat. Mr. Robinson said they are very excited about this project and if given permission to proceed with this project, they will make it into a showcase. . People in favor of the project spoke first Cary Johnson, President for the Santa Clarity Chamber of Commerce, 23920 Valencia Blvd., Santa Clarita. Mr. Johnson wanted to express the support of the Santa Clarita Chamber of Commerce for this project They support the project for the following reasons: tourism and additional uses such as a conference center. Connie Worden-Roberts, P. O. Box 220233, Santa Clarita: She was representing the Valencia Industrial Association. She felt this was a much desired project and recommended approval. She said this prestigious project with the upscale homes was compatible with the Sand Canyon neighborhood. She also felt it was important that the water was coming from the Santa Clarita Water Company, not ground wells. She also pointed out that any pesticides used on the course will be restricted to a benign product line. Ralph DeMaio, 23131 Magnolia Glen, Santa Clarita. Mr. DeMain has been a resident of Santa Clarita for 11 years. He is a golfer and said the City needs public facilities that are of a high caliber and he feels this project is of high caliber. He felt there would be no environmental impact. He hoped the Commission would give Its approval to this project. Bob Kellar, 26166 Ravenhill, Santa Clarita. He felt the golf course was a guaranteed winner for the City in the form of tax revenue, local businesses and the citizens who would enjoy, the goltcourse. He also felt it was a great opportunity for the eastern part of town. Mr.Kellaralso thought the project would have a positive effect on real estate. Carl Goldman, 15519 Saddleback Drive, Santa Clarita. He thought this project was a win -win- win situation. A win for Santa Clarita, a win for the residents in Sand Canyon and a win for Canyon Country. He did not see how anyone could be upset with this project. He endorses this project Stan Shared, 27586 Pamplico Drive, Santa Clarita He has been a resident for 25 years. He felt this project was a plus for Canyon Country and he also felt it would be beneficial for senior citizens. Renee Dannull, 16668 Live Oak Spring Canyon Road, Santa Clarita. She felt this was an excellent usage of the acreage. She felt by following the guidelines set by the Audubon Society that the project would be sensitive to environmental issues. She said Canyon Country needs this type of high quality facility. Neill Anderson, 15452 Live Oak Springs, Santa Clarita. He thought this project would bring many opportunities to the area. He said this was a better project than having a bunch of homes built in the area. Laura Hauser, 15655 Bronco Drive, Santa Clarita. She thanked staff for all of their hard work that they put into the project. She said she is in favor of the golf course. However, she felt it was imperative that it be planned, implemented and maintained in a way that maintains the rural flavor of the area. She also said the project should be consistent with the special standards for Sand Canyon. Ms. Hauser wanted to ensure that the residents would have access to the trails for horseback riding, bikes, and biking. She is also concerned about traffic and the water tables. M W M M r r M � = M W M M M M M a M W M= W r r Commissioner Brathwaite had a question for Ms. Hauser. Ile asked if she knew where the trails would be for the project and if she knew how the trails would be accessed within the project from those outside the project Ms. Hauser said she was not at the last trails meeting where this issue was discussed. She preferred to have someone else answer the question. Mr. Ian Hill, who attended the meeting came forward and answered that the alignment would be along Oak Springs Canyon Road. He also pointed out the area on a map which was up on the podium. There would be a connection at Bronco Drive and the trails would be multiuse for everything except motorized vehicles. Mr. Fargeon came forward and pointed out to the Commission the trail areas on the map. He also stated there were no final conclusions made at the meeting. Mr. Fargeoa said they will continue to work with the trails committee. Mr. Adamick interjected that this matter could be cleared up at the site visit. He stated this is a working prrject and he could have the applicant prepare an exhibit on what has been agreed upon by the Parks Commission and the trails committee and get this exhibit to the Planning Commission so there would be a better understanding of the location of where these trails will be located in the final plan. Tom Rogers, 15531 Iron Canyon Rd., Santa Clacita. He has lived in Sand Canyon since 197& It was his understanding that when other developments were built, Le. McMillan Ranch, Crystal Springs, etc., there were easements provided for trails. He said those easements have *gone by the way of all flesh' and they can no longer ride their horses there. He said this is the fust project since he has livedin Sand Canyon that has addressed the trails system. He recommends this project. Frank Gibbs, 16072 Comet Way, Santa Clarita. Previous to living In Santa Clarity he lived in the Tustin area, close to the Tasha Ranch Golf Course. He said he can attest to what a positive impact that project had on the area. He felt this project was a good use of the land and would add prestige to the area. RECESS Chairperson Townsley called a recess at 8:30 p.m. RECONVENE The meeting reconvened at 8:42 p.m. The meeting continued with those in opposition to the project. Steve Kroh, 14859 Canna Valley. Santa Clarita. Mr. Kroh stated he worked at golf courses when he was younger and he was concerned about the drainage of pesticides into the Santa Clara Riverbed and into his drinking water. He hoped this issue would be addressed by the Commission as well as the land use. Craig Feeder, 27873 Oak Springs Canyon Road, Santa Clarita. Mr. Feeder felt his quality of life would begreatlyaffected with debris coming from the proposed golf course and also the noise factor. He said he would appreciate it if the driving range and parking lot could be moved to an area where it did not impact him. Russell Myers, 5006 Veraa Avenue, Sherman Oaks. He said he was contemplating moving into the area. He used the equestrian facilities in Sand Canyon. He also stated that he was an architect and one of hie clients would be greatly affected by this project. George Gruber, 27563 Oak Springs Canyon Road, Santa Clarita. He said he would be in favor of the project if it does not go In at the expense of a few residents that would suffer negative consequences from it. T. J. Glazier, 27522 Oak Springs Canyon Road, Santa Clarita. Mr. Glazier represented his family and he wanted to speak about the environmental concerns that he had regarding the property. He is concerned about the environmental impacts. He mentioned the pesticide runoff and the effect it would have on the wildlife. Doris Boylston, 27875 Oak Springs CanyorrRoad, Santa Clarfta. She read a copy of a letter written by her daughter, Janet Feeder, which expressed ber concerns over the proposed driving range. Some of the concerns mentioned in the letter were water drainage, pesticide runoff, commercial use of the land so close to family residents and an emergency access. Gary D. Hamilton, 27855 Send Canyon Rd., Santa Clarita. Mr. Hamilton said Sand Canyon Road is a rural road and he was concerned about the traffic. He said he is against any alterations to the road such as street rights, sidewalks, curbs, and gutters because the Sand Canyon area is a rural area and he feels it should stay that way. Jane Fleck, 27363 Send Canyon Road, Santa Clarita. Ms. Fleck said she is not unilaterally opposed to the project Hermain coacecns were ground water contamination, the number of oak trees that an beingremoved, especially the Heritage Oaks, lack of access to the National Forest and the tarn ingof the prgject It was herunderstanding that the project was being funded with bonds and the City would be underwriting these bonds. Jennifer Caldwell, 27527 Tula Drive, Santa Clarity. Ms. Caldwell uses the trails in the area for hildng and horseback riding. She was concerned about the environment and the fact that there will be a bar in the clubhouse. She said than are schools in the area and she is concerned about golfers drinking and driving. John Newton, 165 High Street, Suite 103, Moorpark He represented the P. W. Gillibrand Compaay, the miner that has the mineral resource development along the east boundary of the proposed project. He said if this project could be redesigned eliminating the conflicts between the proposed golf estate housing and the heavy industrial mining operation, then the opposition to this project could shift. There could be a problem with the mixture otheavy industrial use and housing such as visual impacts, noise, dust, vibration (from blasting and heavy equipment moving) and aesthetics. He said he would be writing comments in response to the EIR. Chairperson Townsley had a question for Mr. Newton. She wanted to know if the mining operation would be in business on the day of the site visit. Mr. Newton said no, because it would be on a Saturday. y -r tvo " F 1`, '...5 -.> leo Sv._; x\ 6i iY. .x tix �- nrtKl f�,tE t�ixi'��Ra t'aze</rt. en.ixy�hCt, 14y >4 'rl -xzt xs 'U•t �Y rG <-e •_. ? > zn- .. r.•. ...;� �•.G..++aw...9•.+.n.n+...wi�iwVu..vrr..+.i-+.ew•a.•u.•� n iA: W x�.••.. W.iN.rbW a+..Fi�4.✓n. .10.r.u,a.we4Rv. X0. .An ..M'.w w•r V v'.xw.wF4 e..p1 Mr Sµdrlw •i � i nvsiar. vnu w.+vnGu ++v .u.uw3+:r....u..+n .+ins • w-+ Ian Hill, 28316 Oak Spring Canyon Road, Santa Clarita. Mr. Bill Is on the Trails Committee and be had three primary concerns. Those were the impact on the rural area, toxic chemicals and trail access. Allen. Penrose, 27920 Graceton Drive, Santa Clarita, !lis home is very close to the 10th fairway, approximately 150 feet from the center of the fairway and 150 yards from the tee. Mr. Penrose said any significant slice would enter his property. He is concerned about errant golf balls coming on to his property. He has 20 windows at the back of his home and a cement tile roof which would break easily if hit by golf balls. He is also concerned about toxic chemicals draining onto his property during the rains. Herald the area is rural and he did not know why there had to be lights on the drivingrange. He wanted the area to remain rural and scenic and he did not want to be disturbed until 30 or 11 p.m. at night The following speakers had general comments to make: Dennis Ostrom, 16434 Sultn Street, Santa Clarita. Mr. Ostrom represented the Sand Canyon Homeowners Association. The association represents approximately 800 home and land owners in the Sand Canyon area. He said all issues will be studied and the association will give the Commission its evaluation of the projeet at a later date. Mark Hanson, 27944 GracetonDrive, Santa Clarita. His home is north of the project. He said he is in favor of the project but he does have some concerns. Those concerns are the impacts on the wells in the area, the quality of the water, flooding and the driving range. He would like to have the driving range relocated. Susan Friedman, 27425 Laurel Glen Circle, Santa Clarita. She does not want the was to be overdeveloped. She is concerned about traffic congestion and the fact that there will be a bar at the clubhouse. Diane Wilson, 26826 Send Canyon Road, Santa Clarita. She is a member of the Trails Committee and uses the trails for walking and horseback riding. She hoped the golf course would address keeping the rural lifestyle of the area. Ann Mills, 21117 Placenta Canyon Road, Santa Clarita. She was concerned about the golf course being bought out and raising green fees. She wanted to know who was actually going to pay for the golfcourse. She did not want any oak trees to be cutdown. Dr. Rosemarie White, 11576 Morrison St., Valley Village. Dr. White is president of the San Fernando Valley Audubon Society.. She stated that the New York Audubon Society is not associated in any way with the National Audubon Society. She respectfully requested that there be changes made. She wanted a statement made by Mr. Adamick earlier to be amended in that the proposed 36 hole golf course is being designed for inclusion in the signature cooperative sanctuary program rua by the New York State Audubon Society which is independent of and has no affiliation with the National Audubon Society. Richard Cunningham, 28082 Oak Spring Canyon, Santa Clarita, lie said he would be visually impacted by the project. He was also concerned about the loss of equestrian use. He thought it was a great opportunity for the Planning Commission and Parks Commission to work with the developer to retain the rural atmosphere. He also wanted to be sure that well water would not be used for the golf course. Linda Lambourne, 16325 Pineview, Santa Clarita. She said multi-purpose maintained trails have to be instituted with this project and irrevocably dedicated. She felt the trails should be linked throughout the project and never eliminated for any reason. Lynne Plambeck, P. O. Box 1182, Santa Clarita. She was speaking as a representative of SCOPE. She said the organization did not have a position on the project at the moment. She expressed some of their concerns such as water, impact on wells, and pesticides that would drain into the Santa Clara River. Ms. Plambeck felt it was important to have dedicated access to the National Forest. She said they would also like to see avoidance of cutting down so many Heritage Oaks. Laurens Waste, 22216 Placerita Canyon Rd., Santa Clarite. She said trails we vital to Sand Canyon's planning. Presently, they do not have one trail that is designed, maintained" usable for the public that is safely put in place and that they can depend on to be there forever. She felt the trails could Provide wildlife corridormpability ifproparly designed. Ms. Weste said she is proud of the effort the developer has made - it has been one of the most cooperative experiences that the Parks Commission has had. Commissioner Brathwaite had a question for Ms. Weste. He asked if she could explain to the Commission where the trails within this project are going to link up to the City-wide projects as they approach and leave this project Me. Waste explained to the Commission that there is no connection going offsite to any parllcular. street. There is a trail system around the golf course. Chairperson Townley asked Mr. Fargeon if he would like to comment on any of the issues brought up during the public participation portion of the hearing. Mr. Fargeon said he would have a response to every Issue raised. Commissioner Brathwaite asked Mr. Fargeon about building site easements into the golf course area. He asked who owned that property. He also wanted to know about where the recycled water would come from and where would the ranoff water from the golf course be picked up. Commissioner Bmthwaite also wanted to know about the possibility of netting on the ridges next to housing, what kind of gates would be put in end the bonds. Mr. Fargeon said there was no bond issue. He clarified the matter for the Commissioners. He wanted to be very clear that there was no pledging of the general fund and no financial risk to the City, and no 'deal" had been made, only some discussion. Commissioner Cherrington expressed his appreciation to the members of the community for Staying 8 hours at the meeting and sharing their hopes and concerns with the Commission regarding this project. He said in looking over the draft EIR, the viewshed analysis of what the Project would look like atter grading was scary. He hoped he would get a better idea of what would be happening when the site visit took place. Commissioner Cherrington said he did not like the lot configuration for lot 2 because it made it look like a flag Iot. He had a question regarding the access to lot 6 and he was concerned with the width of the frontage on lot 7. He M M M M W r was also concerned about easements. Commissioner Cherrington also mentioned he would like to have the City's oak tree consultant advise the Commission on how long it would take the acorns that were planted to become Heritage Oaks. He also wanted to address green fees and he stated he is generally opposed to gating of mads that become thoroughfares. Commissioner Chenington said he did not like the driving range at all. Fie felt much of the community concern could be eliminated if the driving range worm removed from the project. Iie also did not care for the placement of the parking lot Commissioner Cherrington suggested to the other Commissionem that he would like to have the site visit on a weekday rather than a Saturday so the Commission could see the impact of the mining operation. Commissioner Doughman said many of ilia comments had been made by fellow Commissioners. However, he did want to highlight a couple of the one, he was most concerned about..One was the potential for well water to be influenced by pesticides and runoff. Ile was also concerned about the mining to some extent. Commissioner Doughmen also agreed with Commissioner Chenington regarding the site visit. He said he was concerned with the driving range, that it was completely inappropriate and that it should be relocated. He also expressed a concern that this facility would become a private club atter a few years of operation. Commissioner Modugno said many of his comments had beenmade by fellow Commissioners. ..l He did say he wanted Traffic Engineering staffto respond to traffic Issues on Sand Canyon. He also wanted staff to look into the water issues such as drainage, recycled water, and gray water. Commissioner Modugno felt the comments on the mining opamtionwem veryvalid. He felt the project overall would be superb if some shifting around would be done and by addressing the issues that were brought up. Chairperson Townley wanted to see the field trip done on a weekday when the mining operation is operating. She expressed her concem about the sound and the noise. Mr. Adamick said he was sure he had all the comments listed and he said those would be addressed by staff and the applicant. He suggested having the site visit around 1:30 or 2:00 p.m. to give the Commission enough time to see the site. After some discussion it was decided that Thursday, October 26,1995 at 1:30 p.m. would be a good time for the site visit. Commissioner Bmthwaite mquested a copy of the Special Standards for the Sand Canyon area. W. Adamick said copies would be made and given to the Commission. Chairperson Towasley requested a map showing where the various homes were located of the residents who would be greatly affected by the project. Chairperson Townley continued the Public Hearing to October 26, 1995 at 1:30 p.m. for a site visit. W. Adamick said an agenda would be provided to show the starting point of the meeting. 10 ..t u.(ot3 nil-m%..b.u4wn rv..aw»-.w.4rLui�Wirxsn .nw4..Stiv..2.a.1..�.tai. Fi'nr n.arwf.i��Nif4w2,4a.o..:iun..uxwwu.n-.n-.rv..n�[uw.n'+/a.wnW[ay.vws..�.n......w.ww-.nwN.«uva-.aw..n.a.[.w..-....-r..-.�..�wY-sa.��u..-.n�....xwn..n.u�v-..aarxm.anwtrml-...wni�rWwm-. Hunters Orean Rasldentlal Davelepment and Gol} Course EIR Hunters Gmo Reslden11e1 Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F-Responee le Commanb Appendlz F-Respenae to Comments VERBAL COMMENTS Commenter. George Gruber Planning Commission Hearing of October 3, 1995 John Newlon Alien Penrose Commentor. Stan Fargeon, Applicant- Hunters Green Development Company Response: The above individuals spoke generally in opposition to the project and also submitted Ted Robinson, Jr., Golf Applicant Course Ted Robinson, Sr., Golf Course Applicant specific written comments regarding the EIR. The responses to their comments are contained within this appendix along with their letters. Response: Applicants provided a discussion of the merits of the project. No response is necessary. - Commentor: Dennis Ostrom, Sand Canyon Home Owners Association Commentor. Gary Johnson, President Santa Clarita Chamber of Commerce Mark Hanson Richard Cunningham Connie Worden-Roberts, Valencia Industrial Association Ralph DeNno Lynne Plambeck, SCOPE Bob Kellar Response: The above individuals spoke generally with regard to the project and also submitted Carl Goldman rad specific written comments regarding the EIR The responses to their comments are ill Damll Reneea Damm contained within this appendix along with their letters. Neill Anderson Commentor: Susan Friedman Laura Hauser Ann Nils Tom Rogers Linda Lambourne Frank Gibbs Laurene West Response: Above individuals spoke generally in favor of the project. No response is necessary. A Response: The above individuals spoke generally with regard to the project and their concerns question was raised regarding the location of the equestrian trails; it was discussed that nothing had been finalized, but the general areaaccess was indicated and that the trails relative to various issues. Particular concerns were raised regarding the trail system and would be multi-purpose for use by everything except motorized vehicles. maintaining the rural quality of life. Beyond the design concept that -purpose trail will be built generally along theheeast and northern perimeter of the sitea in in Oak Spring Canyon, a specific trail design for the site has not yet been submitted. Since the provision Commentor; Steve Kroh of a trail as required by the Sand Canyon Community Special Standards is proposed by the Craig Feeder project, it is in compliance with this portion of the General Plan and no significant effect Russell Myers (i.e.: non-compliance with an established environmental goal or policy) would occur. T. J. Glover Doris Boydston Commentor. Rosemarie White, San Fernando- Valley Audubon Society Gary D. Hamilton Joe Fleck Jennifer Caldwell Response: The EIR specifically stated on pg. 3-9 that the New York State Audubon Society is independent of the National Audubon Society. Iee Hill Response: The above individuals spoke generally in opposition to the project. Issues of concerns were addressed in the EIR In particular, the issue of pesticides was discussed under Effect D-5. in the EIR. The potential for construction related sedimentation was discussed under Effect D-1 and noise was discussed in Section 5.7. The potential use of alcohol at the golf worse is not an environmental issue to be addressed in the oonteaa of an EIR City or Santa Clarlfs City or Santa Clams FA0 Ffir r = = r = M MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Tuesday November 21, 1995 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarity was called to order by Chairperson Townley at 7:03 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Fust Floor, Senta Clarita, California .. .. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Brathwaits led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. ROLL CALL The secretary called the roll. Those present were Chaitpersoa Townley and Commissioners Brathwaite, Cherrington, Doughman and Modugno. Also present were Ken Pulskamp, Assistant City Manager, Rich Henderson, City Planner•, Thomas Altmayer, Assistant City Attorney; Fred Foliated, Associate Planner, Michael: Rubin; Associate Planner, Glenn Adamick, Assistant Planner D; Kristine Kimbrough, Assistant Planner, II; Steve Stiles, Supervising Subdivision Engineer; John Danielson,.Parks Manager, and Lori Powell, secretary. r CONSENT CALENDAR..:. ITEM 1: APPROVALOF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8, 1995 ITEM 2 'ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. P95.23 DENYING MASTER CASE 95178 -: f•. > hz. A motion was made by CaM..�s°s[oaer Madngno and seconded by Commissioner Brathwaite to approve the Consent Calendar in its entirety. Said motion was carred by a vote of 5-0. CONTINUED REARING' MMS MASTER CASE NUMBER 95-091 (RESOLUTION P9547) Chairperson Towosley recused herself on this item and Commissioner Brathwaite, ns. Vice. Chairperson, continued with the hearing. Kristine Kimbrough, Assistant Planner II, gave the staff report and elide presentation. Me. Kimbrough explained that the grading done in conjunction with the development of the single family residence left very little of the project site usable. As a result of this, the Agenda Item- / applicant is proposing to grade approximately 7,500 cubic yards at the rear of the property to increase the size of the back yard and to reduce the driveway elope. Ms. Kimbrough said staff and the Fire Department haveconcernswith the elope of the driveway because in one area the elope exceeds 20% which presents various safety issues. The applicant is proposing contour grading, 2 to 1 elopes and balancing on site. Ms. Kimbrough said there are two oak trees located at the northwest comer of the site. The grading would result in the encroachment into the protected zone of the trees. The applicant is proposing a five foot retaining wall so that the trees would not have to be removed. Ms. Eimbrough stated that four oak trees would have to be removed to accommodate the grading. She said the monetary value of the trees proposed for removal was approximately $20,000.00. The applicant bas stated that he cannot afford this amount and has inquired about alternate mitigation measures. The City's oak tree consultant has recommended a replacement program of live trees on the applicant's property to mitigate the removals. Vice -Chairperson Brathwaite opened the hearing at 7:10 p.m, for public testimony. The first speaker was the applicant, Charles Johnson, 21520. Cleardele Avenue, Santa Clarity W. Johnson said he and his family bought the home two years ago. He stated that the driveway is very steep and not safe. He will pleat eight, 24.' boxed trees to replace the ones that have to be cut down. : Ec Commissioner Cherrington had a few_: questions for Mr. Johnson which Mr. Johnson answered. Mr. Johnson told Commissioner Charrington than was no usable yard. The grading of the hillside would bring it down tothe patio level and give him approximately 2,000 square feet of wable land inthe back. Donna Carpenter from William, Rose and Associates, 28231 Avenue Crocker, #110, Valencia, spoke next. She is the applicant's engineer for the pmJect She wasat the meeting to answer any questions that the Commissioners might have regarding the project. The hearing was c]osed at 7;15 p.m Commissioner Brathwaite had questions for staff regarding the retaining wall around the trees and also the replacement trim. These questions were answered by Me. Mrabrough. NN1T:',- Commissioner Modugne made , motion to approve Master Cue Number 95091, (Resolution 95.14, Hillside Review.95-003, Oak Tree Permit 95-014). Said motion was seconded by Commissioner Doughmaa and carried by a vote of 4.0, with Chairperson Townsley abstaining. Chairperson Townley returned to the meeting. ITEM : - MASTER CASE NO. 92-012 (PREZONE 92001, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 51044, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-001, OAK TREE PERMIT .92-002 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 92041041) Glenn Adamick, Assistant Planner 11, gave the staff report and a elide presentation. Mr. Adamick reviewed letters that were received by staff, Copies of these items were given to the N Planning Commission and copies were made for the public for their review. Mr. Adamick said the draft EIR has been prepared and was given to the Commission at the October 3, 1995 meeting. The 45 day public review period has ended and the respowes that were received on the draft were forwarded to the environmental consultant, Rincon Consultants. Mr. Adamick said staff hopes to have a final document sometime in December. Mr. Adamick summarized the report. Approximately 308 scree of the site is located in the City and zoned RVL (Residential Very Low). The remaining 103 acres of the site is located in the County of Los Angeles. The applicant is proposing to develop the area with a golf course and 51 residential Iota. H residential development is considered on the parcel, the Commission could find that the project reduces density in that portion of Sand Canyon from 222 lots to 83 lots. - Mr. Adamick said the applicant is proposing to establish easements to the golf course on 42 of the 83 proposed lots. He said staff does not support the use of these easements to meet clustering requirements as the underlying property owners would have no right to the land covered by the eeaements. The smallest proposed lot would be approximately 13,000 square feet and the largest residential lot would be in excess of two acres. Mr. Adamick stated that 29 Iota are less than 20,000 square feet and 28 lots would exceed 40,000 square feet. He said the project Is located within the Sand Canyon Special Standards District and would comply with the standards with the exception of the clustering section.` - Mr. Adamick said the project would generate approximately 3AW vehicle trips per day on Send Canyon and increase daily vehicle trips on Send Canyon north of Lost Canyon from 9,100 to 13,100. With the addition of mitigation measures, staff believes that Send Canyon Road can accommodate the pcojecL. This would include a signal at the comer of Lest Canyon and Send Canyon, the widening of Send Canyon Road over State Route 14 and left tum lanes at the project entrances. - - Mr. Adamick said staff has identified the. widening of Sand Canyon Road Bridge over the Santa Clam River as a potential improvement that would be of great benefit to the Sand Canyon circulation system. Mr. Adamick stated that the draft EIR.includes an evaluation of surface water and ground water quality associated with the use of the aita Be a golfcourse. This includes the potential use of pesticides and their affect on surface and ground water. He said the draft EIR finds that with the addition of mitigation, measures, the project would not have a significant effect upon the environment. - He also stated that two monitoring wells will be placed on the site with the wells being sampled on a quarterly basis for a minimum of three years. Mr. Adamick said the applicant is proposing to we potable water from the Santa Clarity Water Company,to serve the site. Recycling of water is not proposed. Approximately 2.3 million gallons of water would be wed per day. Mr. Adamick addressed the noise issue. He said the draft EIR indicates that even in a worst case scenarios noise generated from the adjacent mining operation would be approximately 57 decibels to the nearest proposed residence. This level would be within the acceptable range for residential land me. The draft EIR indicated that a potential nuisance may be created to future residents located on the southern 103 acre property. 3 A portion of a video taken of the mining operation at the Oak Springs claim area was shown to the Commission and public. Normal operations were conducted during the taping of the video, which included the use of explosives and drilling, Mr. Adamick stated that the Hillside Ordinance does provide that certain was may be permitted on significant ridgelines and such uses could include innovative projects and recreational areae. , Some residents have expressed concern regarding the location of the driving range, parking lot and club house. Gillibrand Mining Company has expressed concerns regarding the location of residential homes within close proximity to the Rabbit Canyon Claim area and Oak Spring Canyon Claim area where thus is active mining operatiow. Mr. Adamick said that staff does share some of the concer s that the residents have with the proximity of the was. Staff has suggested several alternatives to try and resolve the matters. Commissioner Charrington had several questions of staff which were answered by Mr. Adamick. These included questions regarding the growth of the acorns into trees, where Santa Clarita Water Company gets its water, a possible development agreement and netting. Commissioner Bmthwaite had comments regarding the reclaimed water issue. He said he thought that the applicant had stated they would use reclaimed water for the watering and maintenance of -the golf courses. Mr. Adamick saidit was his understanding that the reclaimed water could be a problem with the Audubon signature status program. Mr. -Adamick said the applicant could probably answer the questions raised better than he could. Commissioner Doughman had a question regarding the watering of the golf course and the use of peaticides. He wanted to know how long it would take the ground chemicals to leach down into the ground and rejoin the water memoir. Mr. Adamick said the applicant would be able to answer that question. Commissioner Doughman also had a question regarding the driving range and If staffhad a figure Be to how many errant golf balks would be going into residents' yards. He wanted to know if staff had gotten any data from other golf courses or commercial driving ranges to get statistical data. Mr. Adamick said this had been discussed and it was something that the applicant could do, Commissioner Modugno had a'question regarding the made. Both Mr. Adamick and Mr. Henderson addressed the-inua Mr. Henderson said Traffic staff has looked at road situation.,' Chairperson Townley asked -what the impact would be if there was a delay in the widening of the bridge over the ¢eeway. Mr. Adamick said the widening would have to be in place prior to the golf course operating. Caltrans has informed staff that the funding for this project is them and it is targeted for 1997. Chairperson Townley also asked if Llve Oak Springs Road were relocated, would it be a better access during. storms for the people back in the canyon. Mr. Adamick said it would it it was designed properly. Ted Robinson Jr., 33971 Selva Road, Suite 135, Dana Point, infoimed the Commission that he would be speaking as the applicant, He also introduced Frank Hovere, Dr. Bud Smart and Iter. Charles Peacock who would he available to answer questions that the Commission might have regarding the project. - M M M M Mr. Robinson addressed the issue of economic justification for this type of project. He said an offer hes been made to the City to participate in the project in the form of a public/private joint venture. He said at this time, it was uncertain whether the City would choose to participate or what form that participation would take, The City baa hued an independent company to review the financial viability of the project Mr. Robinson addressed the issue of the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program. He stated that the applicants wished to build this project in the most environmentally sensitive fashion that economics would allow. He gave some information on the New York Audubon Society. He said the New York Audubon Society is the only environmental organization to provide guidance with those wishing to develop golf courses in am ecologically sensitive fashion. Mr. Robinson said the New York Audubon Society was formed in 1880 and one of the principal founders was Teddy Roosevelt. It was founded 60 yam prior to the National Audubon Society. The next speaker was Flak Hovore, 14754 Sundance Place, Santa Clarita Mr. Havore said he was contacted by the Robinson to assist them with the Audubon Sanctuary Program. W. Hovore has worked on several different aspects of this plan to make it work He said they were going to do all that they could for habitat enhancement All vegetation that is used to restore the graded areas will be native to the site and come from the same genetic stock that is out there now. Mr. Hovore also mentioned the loss of oak trees. He said they intend to retain as much of the structure of the oak tree habitat on site m possible. Mr. Hovore stated that they were going to do what they could do within the framework of the Audubon program to not just design a golf course but to also design enhancements. He said all of the water features on the golf course will ban natural areas. He said the designers have committed themselves to a long term: program when it will be monitored and changes will be made as needed. Next was Dr. Bud Smart,, 106 Bruce Dr,Cary, North Carolina. Dr. Smart is the senior environmental scientist with the Audubon Conservation Services, the science and technical arm of the Audubon Society of New York State.. He spoke about the environmental management program being put together for the golf course. Dr. Smart said the final environmental management planwillbe completed as soon as the final drawings are completed Dr. Smut said a basic fertilizer program will be established for the course. He also spoke about thepesticides that will be used Dr. Smart stated the focus of the environmental management plan is on prevention, control and detection. Dr. Charles Peacock 4912 Use Road, Raleigh, North Carolina, was the next speaker. He is the senior agronomic scientist with the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program. He is also a professor at North Carolina State University. He has been involved with turf programs for the last 17 years. Dr. Peacock gave the Commission information regarding the Integrated Pert Management (IPM) program. He said this was not a new program, IPM has been in place for 30 years. Pest management will be the cornerstone of the program for the golf course. A well trained, experienced golf course superintendent will be the person responsible for maintaining the course and monitoring and scouting for peat problems and treating them on a curative rather than a preventative bale. Dr. Smart spoke about detection through an environmental monitoring program, where they willstriveto detect any environmental problems. The program would also evaluate the effectiveness of the management programs. This encompasses the sampling of groundwater, surface water and sediment to determine if say detrimental effects are noted W. Robinson spoke again, He said with regard to energy efficiency, they are working with Southern California Edison in an effort to review all aspects of the operation. They will also be working to conserve water. Mr. Robinson said V reclaimed water wen available they would use it He said there was no reclaimed water source within 8 to 30 miles of the golf cause In the area of waste management they will adopt programs which restrict paper use to biodegradable products. RECESS Chairperson Townley called a recess at 8:50 p.m. RECONVENE .. The meeting reconvened at 9:05 p.m. . Chairperson Townley said that because there were somany speakers for Item 4, Items 5, 6, 7 and 8 would be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting. A motion was made by Commissioner Brathwaita that items 5,:8`7; and 8 be reagendized, due to time constraints, to the nert regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Said motion was seconded by Commissioner Dongtimaa, Before the vote was taken, Commissioner Modugno said there was a letter from the applicant for Item S. withdrawing her request He wanted to know if any action should be taken on this matter. Mr. Pulskamp said it was up to the Commission if they wanted to discuss it Commissioner Braithwaite amended his motion to reagendize items 5,7 and 8 and accept the withdrawal of Item 6. The amended motioa:was seconded by Commissioner Doughman and carred by a vote of Public testimony began at 9i09'p.m.: John Newton,165 Hieb -Street, Suits 103, Moorpark CA 93021. W. Newton represents the P. W. Gillibrand Company., Mr. Newton wanted to clarify that P. W. Gillibrand Company was not a send and gravel mining operator. Its primary purpose is heavy industrial minerals. The company hse been there for over 30 years and has over a 30 million dollar Investment in the operation'' "The company's only opposition to the project is housing being located next to the mining operation. Mr. Newton said a good noise study is needed He said the blasting ranges between 100 and 130 dba's at 1000 feet and 114 dbas at 1400 feet Mr. Newton said as the mining operation rises up to the 2,300 or 2,500 foot elevation level, it would not be able to be visually separated from housing. Chairperson Townsley asked W. Newton to clarify what the mining companya real concern was with regard to the housing. W. Newton said as housing is allowed to locate close to mining operations, complaints will start to be generated The mining company could face potential litigation. It is a problem they wish to avoid. He would like to see the housing moved away from the mining operation. Mr. Newton said the noise from the mining operation cannot be mitigated You cannot muffle the equipment down. kt ��t!eua"f>w J yf1 A: J' x � i m � � ff�f-•if \`�i.ti iy tfv��.{}��<�' S Yf fin•(- it Q^ 61jL ...F a..w..4aa a ........ inevmse n..n.. e.a >.. �naa...e n.a ... �>ww..� h.e.m+.� ...a �...mw.u..wv ..e a.w..rr..._.....w..e..rv<.w....e....>...c.w.a.w�..r....>.. ...r.......w..+ ...»»au.b ..f. ��.x .v. ...a. en ...�.... �... ». w.wn.f Commissioner Brathwaite asked Mr. Newton to clarify where the actual mining was taking place, which Mr. Newton did. Tim Tindall, 28229 Oak Spring Canyon, Santa Clarity He thought the golf course was a great idea at first. He is concerned about wells from the golf course taking water from his well and he is also concerned about the pesticides that will be used. He said there was no guarantee that his water will not be polluted by pesticides from the golf course. George S. Gruber, 27563 Oak Springs Canyon, Santa Clarita. Mr. Gruber is also concerned about the drilling of wells for the golf course and the depletion of water to the residents' wells. He said he would like to see the City require that water be brought to the residents whose wells will be impacted by the golf course. Tim Ben Boydston, 19623 Green Mountain Drive. Santa Clarita He was speaking for himself and on behalf of his father. Mr. Boydaton's father's home is next tothedriving range. He is concerned about his family being hit by golf belle. He said if the Commission approves the golf course, things will come back to hatmt.tho Commission. He said the City should not be involved in a joint venture with the developers He felt it would jeopardize the taxpayers of the Santa Clarita Valley. He felt many issues still needed to be addressed. especially the fact that a driving range is right next to two homey: Allen E. Penrose, 27920 Granton Drive, Santa Clarity Mr. Penrose had his father do a survey with 25 golf courses in the area to find out H these courses all had driving ranges, if there were lights on the driving range and what was the closest home to the tees of the driving rangy Mr. Penrose said that 21 of the 25 courses had driving ranges and out of those 21, only, eight had lights. The cloaeet home to the tees was 350 yards. Mr. Penrose also spoke about the secondary ridgeline that is behind his property. He felt putting a parking lot in its place was unreaeonabla�" - --. Jane Fleck, 27383 Sand Canyon Road., Santa Clarity Me. Fleck said it was clear that many people are concerned about tbnwater issum She wanted to see clearer mitigation efforts in terms of replacing the heritage' oaks. She said she was concerned with the proximity of homes new the mining operation and she felt it would create problems. She also was concerned about the lack of a secondary access into Send Canyon. Mr. Craig Feeder; 27873 Oak Spring Canyon Road, Santa Clarita. He is concerned about dust carried peaticide':iesidue, and traffic at Lost Canyon and Send Canyon. He also expressed a concern that the grading that would take place would change the water Bow.. This could cause slippage end flooding. Jay Hach% 27563 Oak Spring Canyon, Santa Clarity His main concern is the road. He said the developer told Mr. Gruber, who spoke earlier, that the road would be set to City standards. He said now staff is just recommending partial pavement and decomposed granite. He felt with the tremendous amount of water that flows through the canyon, this would not be strong enough to hold up during the flooding. Ian Hill, 28316 Oak Spring Canyon Road, Santa Clarity lir. Hill said he is concerned about water. He said the water supply is very limited and residents would be severely impacted. He suggested bringing in City water before the project is approved. 7 1 2 Pat Saletore, 22610 Lilac Court, Santa Clarity Ms. Saletore was concerned about the oak trees and she wondered if some of the oaks scheduled to be taken out could be saved. She spoke about the importance of the Oak Tree Ordinance. Ms. Saletore pointed out to the applicant thht there are three active recycling businesses in town and that the City's Public Works Department has an active program for recycling. She suggested the applicant contact the Public Works Department to get more information. Lynne Plambeck, P. O. Boz 1187, Santa Clarity Me. Plambeck was speaking on behalf of SCOPE. She said the organization Is retreated with the impact this project is going to have on the Hillside Ordinance. She also wanted the Commission to think bard about the removal of the heritage oaks. Water is also an issue that needs further discussion. She feels this is a wellhead protection issue. Ms. Plambeck-said she is personally concerned about three abandoned wells on the property. H the wells are not properly capped, it is sn immediate transference of fertilizers and pesticides into the ground water. She mentioned there was nothing said about the testing of run-off into pondswhichis a major problem with golf .course,. Diene Wilson, 26826 Send Canyon, Santa Clarita. Me; Wilson spoke about the Special Standards for Send Canyon and the rural and equestrian trail interest. She felt any development should conform to the Special Standards, Jeff Seymour, 233 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 290, Santa Monica. HIS firm represents Morton Forshpan, who is the owner of a 20 awe parcel at ft,t to the project site. Mr. Forshpaa is concerned about his access off the property. Mr. Seymour wanted to mention that they are meeting with the applicant in the near future and hopefully will be able to initiate a dialogue with the hope of working out the issues relating to this Mr. Robinson came back to answer acme of the issues that were brought up. He wanted to reiterate that they are not drilling for water on the site. The water will be serviced by the Santa Clarita Water Company and taken from wells that are downstream of the project. Mr. Robfteon said to his knowledge, in the past 35 years, Ted Robinson, Sr., Lea developed approximately 160 golf courses and only 1 person has been hit by a golf ball. He also addressed the issue of &;if mg range and the oak trees. Mr. Robinson stated this was probably one ofthe safest driving ranges ever designed. He said they plan to relocate and transplant every oak two gmde'B' or better with calipers 10 to 18 inches. The majority of the smaller trees are mostly -scrub oaks. c 'f> Mr. Robinsot said with the n1ocation of the Oak Spring Canyon Road, a vast majority of the road will be out of the flood plain. It will be a better read than what It is now. Dr Smart answered Some of the concerns relating to pesticides. He said all the materials that will. be wedanregistered by the EPA. All standards and regulations will he adhered to., Healsosaid there would be a monitoring program that will test for the presence of pesticides and fertilizers to make sure than are no problems. Mr. Robinson said he would call the City's Department of Public Works regarding the recycling issue. M= M M= M= S M M i == M M= M i M M M M Stan Fargeon, one of the applicants, addressed a question raised by Commissioner Modugno ` and the Shine access. He gave some history on the matter. He said he felt it was an issue that was not their responsibility. Commissioner Cherrington asked if Dr. Smart and Dr. Peacock were consultants with the Audubon Society of New York or consultants for the developer. Dr. Smart Paid they were the technical program group for the Audubon Society of New York State. They are being paid by the developer to work on the project for them. Commissioner Cherrington also wanted to know if the residential development was essential to the financial viability of the project. Mr. Robinaon said it was essential: Commissioner Brathwaite said there was a recommendation that 15 acres of the southern portion of the property adjacent to the mining operation be eliminated He wanted to know how this would affect the project. Mr.,Robinson said this has not been studied. Commissioner Brathwaite brought up the matter of moving the driving range and parking lot. W. Robinson said the driving range Is well beyond existing safety standards. He said although it has not been studied yet, it would be their Intent to take a look at this matter. He said they have also not studied moving the parking lot. He said the area was pretty tight and they do not know if they could meet the.setback requirement, but they would take a look at this. ' .Chairperson Townley had questions regarding the oak trees,. Mr. Fargeon restated what the applicants are planning to do. He said any tree rated 'TI`or better, 24' or less in diameter, will be transplanted. He said that out of 190 trees, 47 would be transplanted. Mr. Adamick said more detailed information will be given to the Commission at the next meeting. Chairperson Townley also asked about the�revegetation and what was going to be done if it was not successful. Mr. Freak Hovers said they would attempt to make the program work to every extent possible.. Mr. Hovore elan said the oaks wen not the only trees that would be transplanted Other trees, each as ash, walnut and holly leaf cherries, would be moved. Commissioner Di ughman said he would like to have mon information regarding the driving range study frons an independent, source, and information on water percolation and monitoring requirements: He also bad it concern with reference to the off-site hydrology. He also wanted more information regarding the noise issue. Commissioner Brathwaite laid he would like to have representatives of Santa Clarita Water Company be invited to the next meeting to answer questions that the Commissioner might have. Commissioner Modugno said he was personally in support of golf courses because it was an. added value to the community. He would like to Pee some visual graphics showing what changes will take place because of the mining operation. He was also concerned about homes being close to the mining operation and the water issues. He also said that the Hillside Ordinance and Oak Tree Ordinance were important to the Commission. Commissioner Modugno wanted to see if there was a better way of moving the driving range around the parcel so that It would not be offensive to some of the residents. He said some shifting needed to be done. Commissioner Doughman said he was in favor of the golf course but at a reasonable price to the community. Commissioner Ch'enington shared the concerns of the community regarding the high green fees, and that the other golf course in the valley will no longer have to be a public course. He encouraged the applicant to look at relocating the driving range and he stated he would not support a lighted driving range. Commissioner Cherrington also said he did not want any flag lots, easements, or gates. He wanted to have information regarding the Development Agreement. Commissioner Brathwaite said he was in favor of this kind of project with the provisions that the negative impact is mitigated to the point of acceptability to the City. Most of his concerns were already raised by the other Commissioner. He did want to stress that the movement of the parking lot and driving range would be beneficial to the local community. Commissioner Cherrington wanted to add that since it looked like there was not a lot of support for the residential construction on the south pert of the project, it might be helpful to give the Commission information on why it would not be s more appropriate tradeoff to have a single tonne with the residential area more at the northern and western side w opposed to two comes. He would like this information at the next meeting. Mr. Ademick asked for clarification on the safety matter of the driving range which was given to him by the Commission. A motion was made by Commissioner Modugno and sewn lei by Commissioner Brathwaite to continue this matter to the Planning Commission meeting of December 19, 1995. Said motion was carried by a vote of DIRECTOR'S REPORT ITEM 9 CITY PLANNER RECRDTnmm Mr. Palekamp Paid the City $ee hired a head hunter to help with the recruitment of a City Planner. A variety of groups will belooking at the candidates. He said there would be several differentp" and that owone of the pauele, he would like to have a couple of the Commissioner participate.,, Dates ban not been selected as yet. Mr. Pub:kamp said he would like to have the Commission appoint two members. Chairperson Townley said the Commission would like to think about this issue and that this would be discussed at a later date::- Mr Pulskamp also" the Commission an update on what took place at the last' City Commissioner Cherrington thanked his fellow Commissioner, for their support with reference to the Santa Clarita Marathon. Commissioner Doughmen complimented Commissioner Charrington for all of bis hard work he did on the marathon. 9 / © 10 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F. Response to Cammenta VERBAL COMMENTS Planning Commission Hearing of November 21, 1995 Item 4 Commentor: Ted Robinson, Jr., speaking as the Applicant Frank Hovore, Consultant to the Applicant Bud Smart, consultant to the Applicant Charles Peacock consultant to the Applicant Response: Applicant provided a discussion of the economicjustification for the project and provided information regarding the New York State Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program. Mr. Hovers discussed the revegetation plan submitted with the golf course design. Drs. Smart and Peacock spoke with regard to the Golf Course Management and Integrated Pest Management plans. No response is necessary. Commenter: John Newton, consultant to the P. W. Gillibrand Company Response: Issues raised are further discussed in the detailed response to this commentor's written letter contained in this appendix. It is noted that measurements of blasting operations conducted by City staff while Mr. Newton was present indicated a peak sound levet of 72 dBA at the sites "stem property line. The distance to the blast site was estimated by City staff at about 1000 feet and the noise level was substantially less than the 100 - 130 dBA claimed by Mr. Newton for that distance in this comment. Commentor: Tim Tindell Response: The project as proposed would not use local groundwater and would likely result in an increase in the amount of local groundwater. See Effect D-6 in Section 5.2 added to the EIR Concerns regarding pollution of groundwater resources were addressed under Effect D-5. Commentor. George Gruber Response: Issues raised are further discussed in the detailed response to this commentor's written letter contained in this appendix.. Commentor: Tim Ben Boydston Response: The applicant indicated during his comments that the Course had been designed to avoid the likelihood of golf balls going off the course. Golfers on the driving range nearest to the proposed residences would be hitting balls towards the northeast rather than to the northwest towards the residences. In addition, the applicant has proposed screening the WN of Senn Clan F62 M Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F - Response to Comments driving range with trees to further reduce the likelihood of golf balls exiting the course. It is noted that if such would happen, it is a liability issue that is an important concern of the golf course operators and so it is in their best interests to do all that is possible to reduce their liability risk. Questions regarding economics are not an issue of concern in an EIR per Slate CEQA Guidelines § 15131 and no response is necessary. Commentor: Alien Penrose Response: Please refer to the detailed responses to this commentor's written letter contained in this appendix. Commentor: Jane Fleck Response: Water issues were discussed and further clarified in the revised EIR in Section 5.2. It may be possible to move some of the heritage oaks proposed for removal, but under the City's Oak Tree Ordinance, such oaks would still be considered destroyed. It is noted that given the steepness of the topography and the location of the larger oaks, it would be virtually impossible to design a golf course at this location without removing several heritage oaks. The project is consistent with General Plan policies 6.1 and 62 to use open space (n this case the golf course) as a buffer between mineral resource areas and sensitive uses and to maintain such areas. The project has two means of access to Send Canyon Road, via "A" Street and via a future extension of Live Oak Springs Canyon Road. Commentor Craig Feeder Response: Proper application of pesticides would not result in airborne pesticide dust. It is noted that golf courses are maintained relatively densely vegetated and moist, which substantially reduces the amount of dust that might otherwise be entrained from the soil during high winds. The potential for grading to cause slippages is considered a significant impact in Section 5.1 of the EBL Flooding issues are discussed in Section 5.2. Commentor: Jay Hecht Response: Fire Department access requirements provide that if the road exceeds a l0%grade, that portion of the road would need to be paved. This paving requirement would not apply to the portion of the road that is currently exposed to the erosional effects of the Oak Spring Canyon drainage. It is noted that the proposed project would serve to stabilize the soils of the boltomlands of Oak Spring Canyon within the site and to reduce the flow velocities of floodwaters through the introduction of maintained landscaping and turf. The need for an improved crossing (concrete ford) would be determined by the City's Engineering Department at the time that final design plans for the site are available. Cly a/Senn Clanb F63 Hunters arson Resldaatlal Development and Golf Course EIR Appandla F • Response io Cemmants Commentor: Ian Hill Response: Water issues were discussed and further clarified in the revised EIR in Section 5.2, Effect D-6. Commentor: Pat Saletore Response: It may be possible to move some of the heritage oaks proposed for removal, but under the City's Oak Tree Ordinance, such oaks would still be considered destroyed. It is noted that given the steepness of the topography and the location of the larger oaks, it would be virtually impossible to design a golf course at this location without removing several heritage oaks. Information regarding recycling program is not pertinent to the issues addressed in the EIR. It is noted that if the project is to be in the New York State Audubon Society Signature Cooperative Sanctuary Program, this program requires that the golf course develop an on-site recycling program, especially for green waste. Commentor. Lynne Plambeek, SCOPE Response: Please refer to the detailed responses to this commentoi s written letter Contained in this appendix. Commentor: Diane Wilson Response: Opinion regarding conformance to the Sand Canyon Community Special Standards is noted. Please see staff report contained within the above minutes regarding project's . compliance. Commentor.. Jeff Seymour Response: Access to other properties is not an environmental issue of concem and no response is necessary. Commentor. Ted Robinson, Jr., speaking as the Applicant Response: Applicant and his consultants responded to several questions raised by the public. No response is necessary. Cityorsant, Clients F-64 0 I r CP Maid J woo .�7_vh, Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf, Course.. Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report I II II Revised Draft Environmental. -Impact Report for Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course State Clearinghouse Number 95041049 Applicant: Hunters Green Development Corporation 16095-A Live Oak Springs Canyon Road Santa Clarita, California 91351 Prepared for: City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, California 91355 Contact: Glenn Adamick Telephone: 805/255-4330 Prepared by: Rincon Consultants, Inc. 790 East Santa Clara Street, Suite 103 Ventura, California 93001 June 13; 1996 This report is printed on 50% recycled paper with 10% post-consumer content and chlorine free virgin pulp. �J Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Table of Contents 1.0, Introduction 1.1 Purpose/Legal Requirements ............................................... ... ......................................................... 1-1 1.2 Scope and Content...........................................................................................................................1-1 1.3 Lead, Responsible, and Trustee Agencies.......................................................................................1-2 1.4 Project History .................................................................................................................................1-3 2.0 Summary 2.1 Project Synopsis...................................................................:...........................................................2-1 2.2 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures...............................................................................2-2 2.3 Alternatives......................................................................................................................................2-20 2.4 Areas of Public Controversy............................................................................................................2-21 2.5 Issues to be Resolved.......................................................................................................................2-21 3.0 Project Description 3.1 Project Applicant.............................................................................................................................3-1 3.2 Project Synopsis...........................................................................:...................................................3-1 3.3 Project Location...............................................................................................................................3-1 3.4 Ownership/Parcelization..................................................................................................................3-4 3.5 Project Objectives............................................................................................................................3-4 3.6 Required Discretionary Actions ......................................................................................................3-4 3.7 Project Characteristics.....................................................................................................................3-5 4.0 Regional Environmental Setting 4.1 Regional Setting...............................................................................................................................4-1 4.2 Project Area Setting.........................................................................................................................4-2 4.3 Cumulative Projects.........................................................................................................................4-3 5.0 Impact Analysis 5.1 Earth Resources...............................................................................................................................5.1-1 5.2 Hydrology, Drainage, Water............................................................................................................5.2-1 5.3 Air Quality.......................................................................................................................................5.3-1 5.4 Biology.............................................................................................................................................5.4-1 5.5 Transportation/Circulation...............................................................................................................5.5-1 5.6 Aesthetics.........................................................................................................................................5.6-1 5.7 Noise................................................................................................................................................5.7-1 5.8 Land Use..........................................................................................................................................5.8-1 6.0 Long Term Effects 6.1 Growth Inducing Impacts................................................................................................................6-1 6.2 Significant Irreversible Effects........................................................................................................6-1 7.0 Alternatives 7.1 No Project Alternative.....................................................................................................................7-1 city or sanra clans Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Table of Contents 7.2 West Slope Residential/Oak Spring Golf Course............................................................................7-6 7.3 Reduced Grading.............................................................................................................................7-9 7.4 Mixed Use Development.................................................................................................................7-11 7.5 Existing General Plan Buildout.......................................................................................................7-15 7.6 Equestrian/Residential/GolfCourse...............................................................................................7-17 7.7 Environmentally Superior Alternative.............................................................................................7-20 8.0 References and Agencies Contacted 8.1 References........................................................................................................................................8-1 8.2 Agencies/Individuals Contacted.............................................................................................:........8-4 8.3 List of Preparers...............................................................................................................................8-4 List of Figures Figure3.0-1 Regional Location Map ....................................... _............................................................ 3-2 Figure3.0-2 Project Location................................................................................................................3-3 Figure3.0-3 Site Plan ............................................................................................................................3-7 Figure 3.0-4 Detailed Site Plan Clubhouse Area...................................................................................3-8 Figure 3.0-5 Mountain Course Tee #1 Detailed Design and Landscaping ...........................................3-9 Figure 3.0-6 Golf Course Cross -Section and Water Edge Treatment...................................................3-12 Figure 5.2-1 100 -Year and Capital Storm Flood Map...........................................................................5.2-3 Figure 5.2-2 Post -Project Capital (50 -Year) Storm Flows....................................................................5.2-12 Figure5.4-1 Vegetation Map.................................................................................................................5.4-3 Figure 5.5-1 Regional Road Network....................................................................................................5.5-2 Figure 5.5-2 Existing Daily Traffic Demand.........................................................................................5.5-4 Figure 5.5-3 Existing Traffic Demand - AM Peak................................................................................5.5-6 Figure 5.5-4 Existing Traffic Demand - PM Peak.................................................................................5.5-7 Figure 5.5-5 Site Traffic Direction of Travel........................................................................................5.5-11 Figure5.5-6 Daily Site Traffic..............................................................................................................5.5-12 Figure 5.5-7 Site Traffic Demand - AM Peak.......................................................................................5.5-13 Figure 5.5-8 Site Traffic Demand - PM Peak........................................................................................5.5-14 Figure 5.5-9 Other Area Projects...........................................................................................................5.5-16 Figure 5.5-10 Traffic From Other Area Projects - AM Peak................................................................5.5-18 Figure 5.5-11 Traffic From Other Area Projects - PM Peak.................................................................5.5-19 Figure 5.5-12 Future Traffic Demand Without Site - AM Peak...........................................................5.5-20 Figure 5.5-13 Future Traffic Demand Without Site - PM Peak............................................................5.5-21 Figure 5.5-14 Future Total Traffic Demand - AM Peak.......................................................................5.5-22 Figure 5.5-15 Future Total Traffic Demand - PM Peak........................................................................5.5-23 Figure 5.6-1 Existing Visual Character.................................................................................................5.6-3 Figure 5.6-2 Existing Visual Character.................................................................................................5.6-4 Figure 5.6-3 Existing Visual Character.................................................................................................5.6-5 Figure 5.6-4 Profile and View Perspective Index Map.........................................................................5.6-11 Figure 5.6-5 Grading Profile Diagrams: Transects A and B................................................................5.6-12 Figure 5.6-6 Grading Profile Diagrams: Transects C and D................................................................5.6-13 Figure 5.6-7 Elevations of Clubhouse...................................................................................................5.6-25 Figure5.7-1 Noise Measurement Locations..........................................................................................5.7-4 City of Santa Clarita ii I I Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Table of Contents Figure 5.7-2 Noise Level Measurements at Project Site.......................................................................5.7-5 Figure 5.7-3 Noise Levels Associated with Construction Equipment...................................................5.7-8 Figure 7.0-1 Existing Entitlements Alternative.....................................................................................7-4 Figure 7.0-2 West Slope Residential/Oak Springs Golf Course Alternative........................................7-7 Figure 7.0-3 Mixed Use Development Alternative...:..........................................................................7-12 Figure 7.0-4 Equestrian/Residential/Golf Course Alternative..............................................................7-18 List of Plates Plate 5.6-1A Existing Viewshed from Live Oak Springs Canyon Road..............................................5.6-16 Plate 5.6-1B Post -Project Viewshed from Live Oak Springs Canyon Road.........................................5.6-17 Plate 5.6-2A Existing Viewshed from Oak Spring Canyon Road curve...............................................5.6-18 Plate 5.6-2B Post -Project Viewshed from Oak Spring Canyon Road curve.........................................5.6-19 Plate 5.6-3A Existing Viewshed from Oak Spring.Canyon Road, corner of property line ..................5.6-20 Plate 5.6-313 Post -Project Viewshed from Oak Spring Canyon Road, comer of property line ............5.6-21 Plate 5.6-4A Existing Viewshed from Soledad Canyon Road..............................................................5.6-22 Plate 5.6-411 Post -Project Viewshed from Soledad Canyon Road........................................................5.6-23 List of Tables Table 2.2-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts .........2-3 Table 3.4-1 Parcel and Ownership Pattern ............................................................................................3-4 Table 5.1-1 Nearby Faults and Associated Seismic Accelerations.......................................................5.1-3 Table 5.2-1 Typically Pesticides Used at Golf Courses........................................................................5.2-16 Table 5.2-2 Project Water Demand.......................................................................................................5.2-21 Table 5.3-1 Ambient Air Quality Data at the Santa Clarita Monitoring Station...................................5.3-3 Table 5.3-2 Grading Emissions During Project Development............................................................5.3-5 Table 5.3-3 Operational Emissions Associated With Proposed Project, lbs/day..................................5.3-8 Table 5.4-1 Sensitive Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring at Project Site......................................5.4-7 Table 5.4-2 Existing and Post -Project Plant Communities...................................................................5.4-10 Table 5.5-1 Existing Study Area Traffic Operation..............................................................................5.5-5 Table 5.5-2 Projected Daily Traffic Demand........................................................................................5.5-9 Table 5.5-3 Projected Peak Hour Traffic Demand................................................................................5.5-9 Table 5.5-4 Trip Generation For Other Area Projects...........................................................................5.5-15 Table 5.5-5 Summary of Future Intersection Operation Without Site Traffic ................. ..................... 5.5-17 Table 5.5-6 Summary of Future Intersection Operation With Site Traffic...........................................5.5-24 Table 5.7-1 Measured Onsite Noise Levels...........................................................................................5.7-6 Table 5.7-2 Calculated CNEL Contours................................................................................................5.7.11 Appendices Appendix A: Initial Study Appendix B: Notice of Preparation and Responses to Notice of Preparation Appendix C: Air Quality Data Appendix D: Habitat Suitability Assessment Appendix E: Noise Calculations City of Santa Clarita iii Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Table of Contents Appendix F: Water Budget Calculations Trak Report bound under separate cover. A iv City of Santa Ctarita I I I 11 1 �J Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 1.0 Introduction 1.0 INTRODUCTION This document is an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that evaluates the revised Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course (Oak Springs Golf Club) and a corporate boundary adjustment proposal that would add 103.4 acres to the City of Santa Clarita, California The annexation would involve rezoning of a portion of the project site from agriculture (A 1-2) under County of Los Angeles land use regulation to residential (Residential Estate - RE) under City of Santa Clarita zoning regulation. The current land use of open space and natural lands would be converted to a developed open space/recreational use (golf courses) and very low density residential. 1.1 PURPOSE/LEGAL REQUIREMENTS In accordance with Section 15121(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines (California Administrative Code, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3), the purpose of an EIR is to serve as an informational document that: will inform public agency decision -makers acrd the public generally of the significant environmental effect of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project... The proposed project requires discretionary approval from the City of Santa Clarita and the Los Angeles County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO); therefore, it is subject to the requirements of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA - Public Resources Code, Section 21000, et. seq_). MIn accordance with the provisions of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Santa Clarita Department of Community Development prepared an Initial Study on the proposed project. The Initial Study, contained in Appendix A, determined that the proposed project could result in significant adverse effects on the environment and, therefore, an EIR is required. This EIR addresses both site-specific and cumulative impacts of the proposed project in accordance with the provisions set forth in the State CEQA Guidelines. The focus of this EIR is to address potentially significant environmental issues identified in the City's Initial Study and to recommend feasible mitigation measures, where possible, that reduce or eliminate significant environmental impacts. 1.2 SCOPE AND CONTENT An Initial Study on the proposed project was prepared in June 1995 (Appendix A). Public comments on the project were solicited through a Notice of Preparation (NOP), circulated for review from April 17 to May 23 1995, and a Public.Scoping Meeting on July 12 with approximately 35 people in attendance (Appendix B). The Initial Study and written NOP responses formed the basis for the technical analysis in this EIR. This EIR addresses both the project specific and cumulative environmental impacts that can be expected to result from the implementation of the development and annexation and rezoning actions, in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines. The EIR also recommends technically feasible mitigation measures, where necessary, that iCity of Santa Clarita 1-1 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 1.0 Introduction would reduce or eliminated significant environmental effects. The following issues are addressed in this document: • Earth Resources (Geology, Soils, Seismic Hazards, Slope Stability) • Hydrology, Drainage, Water • Air Quality • Biology • Transportation/Circulation • Aesthetics (Lan)rorm Modification, Hillside Development) • Noise • Land Use (added for Revised Draft EIR) A discussion of potential growth -inducing impacts of the project is also provided. The alternatives section of this EIR is prepared in accordance with Section 15126(d) of the Guidelines. This section describes a range of reasonable alternatives that could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the proposed project or are a reasonable use of the land, and are capable of eliminating or reducing some of the significant adverse environmental effects associated with the project. This report is a Revised Draft EIR that is in response to changes in the project created by the withdrawal of one of the four landholdings in the original project and its replacement with anew landholding. The new landholding is slightly smaller and the currently proposed project has fewer residential lots proposed. Since much of the environmental setting and potential impacts are the same for the current project as for the initial project, the Revised EIR only reconsiders those issues where the changes created an important modification of the previous plan. 1.3 LEAD, RESPONSIBLE, AND TRUSTEE AGENCIES Section 16281 of the State CEQA Guidelines defines a "responsible agency' as: "a public agency which proposes to carry out or approve a project, for which a Lead Agency tspreparfrigor has prepared an EIR or Negative Declaration.. For purposes of CEQA, responsible agencies include all public agencies other than the lead agency that have discretionary approval authority over the project. " The City of Santa Clarita is considered the lead agency for the proposed project because it would be responsible for the primary permit approvals that would allow development. Because annexation of the 103.4 acres would require discretionary approval of the proposed boundary adjustment by the Los Angeles County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), LAFCO is a responsible agency. The site is outside the jurisdictional boundaries of the County Sanitation Districts and will require annexation to District No. 26 before sewerage service can be provided to the site; therefore the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County is also a responsible agency. The California Department of Fish and Game is entrusted by the state with responsibility over the natural resources within the state and is a trustee agency under Section 15386 of the State CEQA Guidelines with respect to the plant and animal resources of the site. city or Santa cianta l-2 I I 11 I I J I [1 I Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 1.0 Introduction 1.4 PROJECT HISTORY The Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course project initially consisted of two 18 -hole golf courses and 83 single-family residential lots on a 411 acre site. A Draft EIR was prepared on this project and circulated to local and state agencies and to interested individuals and organizations for review and comment on the contents of the EIR. The EIR was revised in response to written comments received during the public review period (September 29, 1995 to November 13, 1995) and verbal comments during Planning Commission Hearings on the project. A total of six Planning Commission hearings were held on October 3, October 26, and November 21 of 1995, and January 16, February 6, and February 20 of 1996. Subsequent to Planning Commission consideration and approval of a modified project design, the applicant could not reach an agreement with one of the landholders, and that parcel was withdrawn from the project and another parcel was added. This prompted changes in the access road, the alignment of the golf course, and the amount of grading associated with the project. The applicant also changed the number of units and location of residential parcels in the annexation area in response to Planning Commission decisions. These changes prompted the need for a Revised Draft EIR to be produced and another public review period to be opened. The proposed project involves the assemblage of four adjacent areas containing seven separate landholdings to provide sufficient land area for the proposed development. The following provides information on the past history of the subareas. The southwest comer of the project site (6.9 acres) adjacent to Sand Canyon Road has been the subject of various submittals for residential development. This landholding is currently divided into three parcels, two of which are adjacent to Sand Canyon Road and are each about 0.6 acre in size. Two single-family residences were proposed on the two smaller lots, with the larger remaining lot potentially subdivided for two additional units. None of the 90 oak trees identified at this location were to be removed. Grading for the construction of homes in this area would be minimal given the level ground. The western to middle part of the site formerly included 137 acres within the original Hunters Green development, an equestrian -oriented subdivision of residential estates which was approved for 70 single family homes on March 27, 1990 (TTM 47324). This development was prezoned to A-1-1 and A-1-2 and was also annexed into the City in 1990 under Annexation 89-03. The tentative tract map would have required grading of.500,000 cubic yards and the removal of 32 oak trees from a total of 225 within its property boundaries. A 20 acre parcel that would have contained approximately 12 lots along the north property boundary has been removed from the current development along with a 0.6 acre parcel along the south property line that contained a portion of a lot. This land area has been partially replaced by the addition of a 10 acre parcel in the middle of the current proposed development that would contain holes Nos. 2 and 3 of the western golf course. The square-shaped parcel of 160 acres located in the northeast portion of the project site was previously owned by Prime West, Inc., which received an entitlement to 140 single-family homes under the current zoning of A-1-1 (TTM 47803). This property was -annexed into the City in 1990 under Annexation 89 - city or Santa ctanta 1.3 A Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 1.0 Introduction 04. The Annexation Agreement contained several conditions regarding infrastructure improvements ' before any building permits were to be issued, including road paving, an undercrossing of the railroad, and new water system. Development of the site was to include channeling Oak Spring Canyon Creek and grading of approximately 460,000 cubic yards. Of the 205 oak trees with diameters greater than 8 inches, 18 were to be removed along with six dead trees (snags). An additional 28 live oaks and three dead trees with diameters less than 8 inches were to be removed from a total of 42 trees. Total grading for the above three developments would be about 960,000 cubic yards. The fourth parcel is the triangular shaped area of 103.4 acres located in the southeastern portion of the project site. This parcel is currently outside of the City and is an unrecorded part of Griffin Homes Tract No. 46364 (a unit of Tract 32571) in the County of Los Angeles. The map has since expired on this , portion of the project site. Tract 32571 included the clustering of units on the western side of the tract, with the overall lot average meeting General Plan and zoning designations. The two large lots that were in the 103.4 acre area were restricted to one unit each. According to the County of Los Angeles Department of Regional Planning, part of the intent of the clustering of Tract 32571 was to provide a substantial buffer between most of the residences in the tract and the adjacent mining operations in the Angeles National Forest. 1-4 A i I I A A L of Santa Clarita , F 11 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 2.0 Summary 2.0 SUMMARY This section is divided into three components. The first summarizes the characteristics of the proposed project, the second identifies the environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and residual impacts associated with the project and cumulative development, and the third describes the alternatives assessed in the EIR. 2.1 PROJECT SYNOPSIS 2.1.1 Project Applicant Hunters Green Development Corporation 16095A Live Oaks Springs Canyon Road Santa Clarita, CA 91351 2.1.2 Project Description The proposed development includes the construction of two 18 -hole golf courses, clubhouse, lighted driving range, and parking lot on a 401 acre site. The residential portion of the project includes pad grading for 76 single-family residential lots, which would be accessed via private roadways within a gated community. The lots would be sold on an individual basis with residential structures constructed later by the future property owners. Total construction grading is balanced on the site at 2.2 million cubic yards of cut and fill. Access to the site would be provided via Sand Canyon Road and Live Oak Springs Canyon Road. Additional new infrastructure would include two water reservoir (tank) sites to be built for the applicant and given to the Santa Clara Water Company. The 103.4 acre southeast portion of the project site would be annexed into the City. The proposed project requires the approval of Master Case No. 95-049, which includes: • Zone Change 95-001 (PD Zone), • Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM 52004), • Conditional Use Permit (CUP 95-003), • Oak Tree Permit (DTP 95-009), • Hillside Review (95-002), • Development Agreement (DA 95-004), and • Development Review (DR 95-004); along with a • Pre -Zone (PZ 95-001) and Annexation (AN 95-001) for a portion of the project site. The Oak Tree Permit would be for the removal of up to 138 scrub oaks and 130 coast live oaks, including up to seven (7) heritage oaks. cIry 2-1 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 2.0 Summary 2.2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Table 2.2-1 includes a brief description of the environmental issues relative to the proposed project, the identified environmental impacts, proposed mitigation measures, and residual impacts. Impacts are categorized by their level of significance after mitigation. The following briefly categorizes the identified impacts and the categories are also shown in Table 2.2-1 by the appropriate abbreviation following the effect statement. Please note that different effects within any particular issue area can fall within a different impact category. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts (US) are defined as significant, unavoidable adverse impacts which require a statement of overriding considerations to be issued per Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines if the project is approved. Based on the analysis contained herein, the following impacts have been determined to fall within this impact category. I I 1 I I Air Quality. Pollutant emissions during grading and operations I Biology: Substantial decrease in locally and regionally significant sensitive communities and to sensitive wildlife species Aesthetics: Irreversibly alter a City -identified secondary ridgeline Noise: High noise levels during construction grading Significant but Mitigable Impacts (S) are significant adverse impacts that can be feasibly mitigated to less than significant levels and which require findings to be made under Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The following impacts have been determined to be significant but mitigable given the measures identified herein. Earth Resources: Destabilization of slopes and landslides during grading, settlement offill material, strong ground -shaking during seismic events, liquefaction near drainages, and hydroconsolidation of fill Hydrology: Erosion of disturbedsoils during grading, decrease in surface and groundwater quality, and decrease of groundwater available in Oak Spring Canyon for offsite domestic users Traffic: Periodic traffic congestion if spectator golf tournaments are held; signalization warrant at Sand CanyonlLost Canyon intersection, and need for left turn lane on Sand Canyon Road at site entry and Live Oak Springs Canyon Road to reduce potential safetyproblems Aesthetics: Parking lot and maintenance shed are aesthetically inconsistent with existing community design standards and light and glare from golf course Less Than Significant Impacts (NS) are those effects that have been determined to not be significant because they do not exceed the thresholds for such a determination. The following issues have been determined to be less than significant. City of Santa Clarita 2-2 I Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 2.0 Summary rEarth Resources: Ground rupture and decrease in potential to exploit known "significant mineral deposits" located onsite Hydrology: Change in site runoffpatterns, exposure of onsite residences to the 100 year flood rerouting of dirt access road along north property line, and potable water demand of project provided by offsite purveyors Air Quality. Exposure to San Joaquin Palley fever during construction grading Biology: Impacts to sensitive plants and effects on regional wildlife corridors or habitat linkages Traffic: Increased traffic at local intersections, along the freeway and Sand Canyon Road need for signalization at site accesses, safety effects along Sand Canyon Road, turning movement conflict with Live Oak Springs Canyon Road intersection Aesthetics: Change in scenic vistas from public viewing areas, design features ofproposed clubhouse Noise: Noise from adjacent quarry on proposed residences, project trajf c noise, noise created by golf course patrons Land Use: Consistency with adopted City land use policies, compatibility with adjacent Angeles National Forest, and compatibility with offsite mining operations Beneficial Effects are those effects of the project that are considered to be potentially beneficial to the local community. Provision of additional housing and recreational opportunities. Stabilization ofsteep erosional slopes and subsequent decrease in peak storm flows Facilitation of construction of Live Oak Springs Canyon debris basin Table 2.2-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Earth resources concerns geological and seismic hazards to which the new residents and golf course users may be exposed due to development of this project. Geological hazards in the area include liquefaction, landslides, hydroconsolidation, and destabilization of slopes by grading. Seismic hazards include ground shaking, surface rupture, liquefaction, and subsidence. Significant hazards identifiedfortheproposeddevelopment include: cut slopes having the potential offailure, activation of landslides by removing supporting material during orfollowing grading, settlement offill, liquefaction of soils, hydrocompaction ofsoils, and the possibility that insufficiently compacted soils could subside during an earthquake. Engineered mitigation measures are to be used to reduce these hazards to an acceptable level of risk The project would also insignificantly reduce the potential availability of "significant mineral resources "found in Oak Spring Canyon. Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact Effect ER -1 Grading of the site ER -1 The Uniform Building Code (UBC) pertaining Proper engineering of the slopes has the potential to create to cut and fill shall be followed. Engineering cut slopes should mitigate destabilized cut slopes. (S) considerations are to include design of drainage back this effect to less than sig - slopes, drainage downslope channels, and buttressing nificant unstable slopes. The buttressing is to involve the witty 2-3 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 2.0 Summary Table 2.2-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Mitigation. Measures Residual Impact proper placement of compacted fill material, compacted to the UBC specifications for such an application. Effect ER -2 Cutting slopes and ER -2(a) All slopes are to be constructed per the Through the proper design, re -emplacement of fill material requirements of the UBC pertaining to cut slopes. This implementation, and would leave slope faces exposed to engineering is to include terraces with drainage back maintenance of the slopes extensive erosion. This erosion slopes (drainage keys), downspouts, and proper and drainage features and has the potential to destabilize surfacing of the drainage backslopes. Maintenance of the use of BMPs, erosional slopes and impede the proper the drainage keys is to include removal of debris before effects can be reduced to drainage of the area. (S) the beginning of the rainy season and periodic debris less than significant. removal as necessary during the rainy season. ER -2(b) A proper watering system, such as drip irrigation, shall be established for site cut slopes to minimize.the volume of water during the establishment of the vegetation, thus reducing the potential of erosion during this period. Effect ER -3 This project includes ER -3(a) Fill density shall follow UBC. If the fill Through proper design and the extensive use of fill material to material does not meet the strength and compaction implementation, this effect construct the golf course and requirements, the material shall be rejected and used can be reduced to not building pads for residences. The elsewhere on the property, such as in the golf course significant. fill has the potential to settle (or construction. All adverse vegetation shall be removed rebound) under the weight of the from the fill prior to emplacement. Fill lifts and house built upon it, from landscape compaction testing shall be per UBC and signed off by irrigation, from swimming pools the supervising geologist or engineer. constructed, and from seismic shaking. (S) ER -3(b) Areas across the cut/fill line shall be well documented and disclosed to the purchaser of the lot involved. This disclosure will allow subsequent property modification, such as the construction of a swimming pool, to consider the possibility of differential setting of the lot. Effect ER4 Grading will expose ER4 Per City requirements, grading is not to be Proper timing and design barren soils that are unconsolidated performed during the rainy period (October 1 to April of the grading schedule and easily eroded, which can result 15) unless the grading plans include provisions to should mitigate this effect in extensive offsite transport of mitigate erosion, flooding, or the deposition of to not significant. eroded material during storm sediment or debris. Grading performed during the rest events and impact drainage of the year should contain a provision for dust channels with a sediment load. (S) suppression. Effect ER -5 Known landslides ER -5 Landslides and debris flows are to be stabilized Proper stabilization or and debris flows are located near or removed. Final grading plans should show the removal of these features and on residential lots and removal and/or stabilization of the landslide west of would eliminate these movement of these earth masses Lots 53 and 54. Debris flows shall also be removed geologic hazards. IV City of Santa Clarita 24 II Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 2.0 Summary Table 2.2-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact MitigationMeasures Residual Impact could damage structures. (S) where they have the potential to do damage. Stabilization or removal should be performed under the direction of a competent engineer or geologist. Effect ER -6 Strong seismically ER -6 Placement of fill material and compaction shall Through proper design, the induced ground shaking will occur be done to withstand settling that could occur with effects of an earthquake at this site. The ground shaking seismic ground shaking. Landslides, unstable rock can be reduced to an has the potential to cause fill slopes and debris flows shall be stabilized to prevent acceptable level of risk. material to settle, destabilize movement during or following an earthquake. slopes, and cause physical damage to structures, property, utilities, road access, and humans. (S) Effect ER -7 Active and None necessary. However, if during grading faults are At present, ground rupture potentially active faults have been observed that could be active or potentially active, the is considered an insignifi- mapped within the City limits that project design shall be modified to account for the cant impact for this site. have the potential to cause ground possibility of ground rupture. Fault setbacks, per UBC, rupture. (NS) shall be followed. Effect ER -8. Certain portions of ER -8 If liquefiable soils are encountered during With proper design and the site near local drainages have grading, then proper re-engineering of the soils shall be notification, this effect the potential to liquefy during performed or the proposed structures moved to areas would not be considered seismic conditions, which can away from liquefiable soils. Areas of properties that significant. result in damage to overlying have the potential of liquefaction should be identified, structures. (S) and purchasers of these lots should be told of the liquefaction potential. Effect ER -9 Hydro -consolidation ER -9 The potential for hydroconsolidation shall be Through proper design and of soils occurs when groundwater further examined in the detailed geotechnical report to notification, this effect can causes soils to recompact, resulting be prepared for the final grading plan. If there is a risk be reduced to not signifi- in settling of the material. (S) of hydroconsolidation, the earth materials are to be re- cant. engineered to reduce this risk, or the proposed structures relocated to an area without the potential of hydroconsolidation. Areas of a lot that have the potential of hydroconsolidation that is not mitigated shall be identified, and property purchasers be notified of the risk of hydroconsolidation. Effect ER -10 Project would ER -10 None necessary since the available supply of The potential loss of develop an area designated as sand and gravel would not be substantially reduced by aggregate resources "significant mineral deposits" and the proposed project because of the land use prevent the exploitation of this change is considered natural resource for at least the adverse, but not significant. foreseeable future. (NS) 3fYl?Rf3Lt`lfiY;''tiilf,4ti�;3'�iTBR .,. .._r...<, �. • ,., ::.: The eastern portion of the property lies within the floodplain of Oak Spring Creek and one of the prop osedgolf courses would lie within this regulatory, floodway, but none of the residences would be affected. The western slope golf course City of Santa Clarita 2.5 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 2.0 Summary Table 2.2-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts would contain the stream channel for Live Oak Springs Carryon Creek and the shallowflood zone of the creek. Current planning by the LACFCD includes construction of a debris basin along the western property boundaryjust north of the proposed access road,- this basin would decrease existing flooding problems downstream and along Sand Canyon Road and, to the extent that the project aids in the construction of this basin, is a beneficial effect of theproject. Construction of theproposedproject couldresult in excessive erosion and downstream sedimentation during the construction phase: implementation of Best Management Practices as required by the NPDESpermit requiredfor the project would minimize this effect. The site drainage concept appears adequate to handle the expected site runoff, and is not expected to cause any increases in existing downstream flooding. The relocation of the access easement along the north property line in Oak Spring Canyon has been designed to maintain a grade of 8% or less, which meets Fire Department accessibility requirements. The change inland use could result in decreasedsurface water andgroundwater quality, a Best Management Practice Plan and Integrated Pest Management Plan that include specific physical structures and programs to reduce the potential for reductions in water quality shall be required The applicant is proposing to supplement potable water with extracted groundwater for irrigation of the golf course. The use of an extraction well in Oak Spring Canyon could cause a significant decrease in available supply to the downstream domestic wells and also significantly decrease water levels in nearby wells. As mitigation, the applicant shall conduct groundwater pump tests that frvther define the aquifer characteristics andshall limit the amount of water pumped during dry and average rainfall years. The applicant shall also provide backbone infrastructure for a potable water supply from the project site along Oak Spring Canyon Road This would allow downstream domestic well users to tie into the local water purveyor system and reduce the potential for sign(cant effects related both to reduced water supply and possible groundwater contamination. Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact Effect D-1 During construction of D-1 A SWMP for site construction shall be developed No significant water the proposed development, the soil prior to the initiation of grading and implemented quality impacts during surface will be disrupted and throughout the construction phase. The SWMP shall construction are anticipated become subject to erosion, with include specific temporary BMPs to control the export . after implementation of potential offsite sedimentation of of material from the site and into the local drainages. appropriate BMPs. eroded material. (S) BMP methods may include, but would not be limited to, the use of temporary sediment basins, hay bales, sand bagging, and soil stabilizers. Additional BMPs shall be implemented for any fuel storage or fuel handling that could occur on-site during the construction phase. Permanent BMPs may include extensive revegetation and construction of pollutant trapping devices. Effect D-2 Exposure of future No mitigation measures are required regarding the 100- No significant residual residences and property to the 100- year flood zone in Oak Spring Canyon or Live Oak impacts are anticipated year flood. (B) Canyon. regarding the 100 -year flood. The FIRM maps for Oak Spring Canyon should be corrected to indicate the past -project 100 -year floodplain. City of Santa Clarita 2-6 I II Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 2.0 Summary Table 2.2-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Mitigation -Measures Residual Impact Effect D-3 Change in runoff No mitigation is necessary. No significant patterns from the site would alter environmental effects are the potential for on-site and anticipated provided that downstream flooding. (NS) the drainage system is ' adequately designed and constructed. Effect D-4 Rerouting of the No significant impacts are associated with the project The proposed project easement road along the north regarding the maintenance of accessibility along the would not create any property line could alter its dirt road on the north property line. It is expected that significant effects related to accessibility in poor weather. (NS) as part of the final design, the road will be improved the road. To reduce with decomposed granite in keeping with its proposed existing wash-out use as a trail corridor. This would further improve conditions, the road would accessibility along this route. need to be paved or an otherwise all-weather crossing installed where Oak Spring Canyon Creek exits the site. Effect D-5 Decrease in the quality D -5(a) A Best Management Practices Plan and The proposed project of surface water and groundwater Integrated Pest Management Plan shall be prepared for would result in a decrease associated with change in land use implementation by the golf course. The purpose of in the amount of sediment from open space to residential and both plans would be to reduce the use of harmful loading produced by the golf course land use. (S) chemicals onsite, and to reduce the potential offsite site to local drainages. movement of high concentrations of sediment, salts, Effective implementation excessive nutrients, and chemicals. of a Best Management Practices plan during D -5(b) Construct an oil and grease trap within the construction and an catch basin for the clubhouse parking lot and/or Integrated Pest Man - construct a perimeter infiltration trench. The catch agement plan during basin shall include a trap that prevents floatables from operations would reduce discharging with the drainage water. The golf course the potential for water operator shall be responsible for monitoring and quality impacts to a less periodically cleaning out the catch basin. than significant level. The groundwater monitoring D -5(c) A groundwater monitoring well shall be wells would be used to installed near the north property line near the Valley determine compliance and course 3rd tees and another well installed along Live the effectiveness of Oak Springs Canyon Creek above the proposed debris proposed management basin. The wells must meet the minimum requirements activities and to determine of Bulletin 74-90 (California Well Standards) and the if any unexpected water Los Angeles County code. The wells shall be sampled quality effects occur to the on a quarterly basis for a minimum of three years, and local groundwater. then semi-annually for at least an additional seven years for a total of 10 years, with the sampling reports sent to the City and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. At the end of ten years, the data shall City of Santa Clanta 2-7 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 2.0 Summary Table 2.2-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact be analyzed to determine if there is a need to continue the monitoring. Constituents sampled for will include nitrate; phosphate and any pesticides applied to the golf courses. An initial well sample shall be taken at completion of grading, but before the installation of landscape vegetation. Effect D-6 Decrease in the D-6 None necessary. The project is expected to available potable water supply, result in less than significant (NS) impacts on the provision of water supply in the area, provided that groundwater resources are not contaminated by project actions (see Effect D-5 above). Effect D-7 Decrease in supply of D -7(a) Prior to the installation and use of any With implementation of groundwater for local private wells. groundwater from the Oak Spring Canyon basin for the measures D -7(a), (b) and (S) golf course, the applicant shall conduct groundwater (c), groundwater levels are pump tests that further define the aquifer expected to be maintained characteristics. Monitoring of the pump tests shall be within the natural variation conducted at a second well within the property (to also of the system and project be used as a long term water quality monitoring well) impacts would be reduced and at a nearby well offsite, if feasible. The test design to a less than significant and report shall be submitted to the City for review by level. If these measures an independent third parry expert prove to be ineffective, the provision of a backbone D -7(b) Supplementary irrigation use for Oak Spring system as indicated under Canyon shall be defined as not exceeding 50% of the measure D -7(d) would annual water use of the golf course. During years with allow downstream users to rainfall between 15-28 inches, no more than 15% of the connect to an assured water irrigation water demand shall come from groundwater supply and thereby avoid pumpage. The golf course operator shall submit annual any significant records of groundwater pumpage and total irrigation consequences. water use to the City for review to determine compliance with this mitigation measure. D -7(c) -The golf course shall not be permitted to use groundwater for supplementary irrigation in October through December unless rainfall greater than 14 inches occurred in the previous water year (October to September). The use of groundwater for irrigation shall not be allowed in the current water year unless cumulative rainfall exceeds the following limits: January - 5 inches February - 9 inches March - 14 inches City of Santa Ciarita 2-8 II ' Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 20 Summary II II 1! II II li II II li i r Table 2.2-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact MitigationMeasures Residual Impact Unrestricted supplementary use of groundwater may . occur within any water year when rainfall exceeds 28". Results of the aquifer tests noted above may be used to modify this mitigation measure. D -7(d) The applicant shall also provide backbone infrastructure for a potable water supply from the project site along Oak Spring Canyon Road from Comet Way to the Angeles National Forest boundary. This infrastrucpue shall consist of a mainline pipe connecting as a loop system to Comet Way and a pressure reducing station at the northern property line. )}� ,/'J> i•1 £ £3f3 'd '' 6 2 > f f43 •.• S "• u° b 3� The open space and agricultural uses at the project site currently generate minimal amounts of localized dust emissions. Construction of the proposed development would result in significant and unavoidable air pollutant emissions during the construction phase and significant project -related and cumulative air quality impacts during long term operation of the facility. Mitigation measures available during construction would reduce fugitive dust emissions to below threshold levels, but nitrogen oxides emissions are not mitigable to below thresholds. Measures to reduce operational impacts include the use of electric golf carts, compliance with the City's TDM ordinance, and incorporation of energy efficient designs. These measures would not be sufficient to reduce daily emissions below the SC,4QMD threshold guidelines. Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact Effect AQ -1 Construction of the AQ -1(a) Water trucks shall be used during The dust control measures proposed development could result construction to keep all areas of vehicle movement are considered adequate to in exceedance of recommended damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At reduce the cumulative significance thresholds. (US) a minimum, this will require twice daily applications impact of construction dust (once in late morning and once at end of workday). emissions and project Increased watering is required whenever wind speed specific emissions of PM10 exceeds 15 mph. Grading should be suspended if wind are below the threshold gusts exceed 25 mph. level. NO, emissions cannot be effectively AQ -1(b) Amount of disturbed area should be reduced. Because of the minimized and onsite vehicle speeds should be reduced amount of grading to 15 mph or less. necessary to construct the project as proposed, and AQ -1(c) If importation, exportation and stockpiling of the efficiencies associated fill material is involved, soil with 5% or greater silt with using enough content that is stockpiled for more than two days shall equipment to grade.the site be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to in an economical and prevent dust generation. Trucks transporting material effective manner, shall be tarped from the point of origin or shall significant short term air maintain at least two feet of freeboard. quality 'impacts that cannot be reduced below threshold AQ -1(d) After clearing, grading, earth -moving or levels during construction excavation is completed, the disturbed area shall be are anticipated. treated by watering, or revegetation, or by spreading 2-9 city or Santa cianta Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 2.0 Summary Table 2.2-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact soil binders until the area is paved or otherwise developed. Specifically , the residential lou shall be revegetated with a non-invasive cover until they are sold. Effect AQ -2 Dust generated AQ -2 None required other than standard dust control This impact would remain during construction could expose measures during construction grading. less than significant. construction workers and adjacent residences to San Joaquin Valley Fever. (NS) Effect AQ -3 Future mobile and AQ -3(a) Golf carts for the project site shall be electric Emission reductions stationary emissions associated only. associated with these with the proposed residential land measures are expected to use and two golf courses may AQ -3(b) The applicant shall comply with the City's be less than 5% of the result in exceedances of Transportation Demand Management ordinance to project's daily emissions of significance thresholds. (US) reduce trips and, subsequently, air pollutant emissions. CO, ROC and NO,. No other mitigation measures AQ -3(c) Incorporate energy-saving design solutions in available appear sufficient the clubhouse to reduce energy consumption by at least or feasible to further reduce 20 percent below current Federal guidelines as project associated specified in Title 24 of the Code of Federal emissions below the Regulations. thresholds. Natural communities at the project site include chaparral and alluvial fan scrub vegetation, with an overlay of oaks that form pockets ofwoodland in the ruderal portions ofthe Sand Canyon drainage and adjacent to the main flow channels of the Oak Spring Canyon alluvial fan. The project site generally lacks wetland communities except for some retention basins, but the riparian community ofalluvial fan scrub is considered sensitive because ofstate-wide declines in this community type. The proposed project would cause a significant and unavoidable reduction in the local extent of this community. The revegetation and golf course landscaping plan proposed by the applicant would increase the amount of wetland communities within the project site and restore scrub communities on slopes at the edges of the development, but overall net value of onsite habitats would be decreased about 59%. No listed rare, threatened, or endangered plant or animal species are known to occur at the project site, nor are any expected. Two sensitive plant species, Peirson's morning-glory and Plummer's mariposa -lily, are found infrequently onsite;. project impacts to the regional population of these species are not considered significant. A total of28 sensitive animals are known orprobably utilize the habitats available at the site; project development would result in locally significant declines in several of these species' populations. Mitigation measures are recommended forspecies where implementation of the golfcourse revegetation plan can aid in maintaining populations onsite. However, a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact is expected to occur to coast horned lizard and rufous-crownedsparrowpopulations. Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact Effect B -I Project development Beyond substantial reductions in the size of the project, In the long term, the would reduce the amount of plant no mitigation measures are available to effectively implementation of the golf and wildlife habitat available at the reduce the cumulatively significant impact of losses to course revegetation plan site. Substantial decreases in biologically sensitive communities and general habitat and long term maintenance locally and regionally significant that currently exists at the site. The following of the golf course to foster City of Santa Clarita 2-10 ' Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 2.0 Summary Table 2.2-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact biologically sensitive communities measures are, in part, incorporated into the draft some wildlife habitat would also occur. (US) revegetation plan for the site and are recommended for would serve to reduce the inclusion in the conditions of approval for the project if adverse environmental it is approved., effects of project development. In the long B -1(a) The proposed project will be required to term, the implementation comply with the conditions of the oak tree permit. of the golf course This shall include the payment of the equivalent value revegetation plan and long fees for removed and transplanted trees, with onsite term maintenance of the plantings of oaks credited against the fee. The golf course to foster some biological monitoring plan shall include specific wildlife habitat would monitoring of onsite oak tree plantings for a period of serve to reduce the adverse two years after completion of site development and environmental effects of landscaping. At the end of two years, all oaks shall be project development. The checked for health conditions compared to before project would substantially project implementation and any trees observed to be increase the amount of declining in health shall be monitored for an additional wetland -type communities three years. Specific recommendations for on the site, but these gains preservation of declining oak trees shall also be made. are offset by the losses to Oak trees that die in the natural areas between the other communities. fairways shall be replaced on an equivalent value basis. Therefore, this impact The dead trees shall be left standing to provide cavity would remain significant nesting areas for birds and roosts for raptors unless and unmitigable. they present a safety hazard or a disease hazard to other oaks. B -1(b) At least 50% in aggregate of the shoreline edge of the golf course lakes shall be revegetated with native freshwater marsh elements. B -1(c) Proposed fairway roughs shall be revegetated with native perennial bunch grasses at a mix of 2:1 to non-native species. These roughs shall be maintained as native perennial grasslands unless after three years of effort, it is shown that such revegetation would be unsuccessful. B -1(d) The Integrated Pest Management plan proposed for the project shall be prepared in accordance with the current practices advised by the Statewide Integrated Pest Management Project, University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. B -1(e) The slope revegetation and fire clearance zone shall be initially planted only with native species. tarty 2-11 I Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 2.0 Summary I Table 2.2-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact Limit fire hazard fuel modification to hand -thinning of individual shrubs, clearing dead fuel, "multi -cutting," replanting with fire-resistant native shrubs or other methods to attain fire safety while producing a biologically viable community. Effect B-2 Project implementation No mitigation measures are necessary, but the Project development would may reduce the population and following is recommended. reduce the amount of available habitat for sensitive plant habitat available for species. (NS) B -2(a) Seed collection and plant salvaging efforts for Peirson's morning -glary the Peirson's morning-glory shall be attempted in and Plummer's mariposa. chaparral areas prior to site mass grading. The purpose lily. of such collection would be to re-establish the plant within the scrub revegetation zone. B -2(b) The location of Plummer's mariposa -lilies shall be marked during the spring flowering period, with the bulbs dug up in the late fall to winter for transplanting before the heavy winter rains of January through March. The purpose of such collection would be to re-establish the plant within the scrub revegetation zone and the revegetated roughs or possible relocation into the remaining native habitats. Effect B-3 Future development of B -3(a) Construction workers shall be notified through Because 84% of the site the residential and golf course uses preconstruction meetings that a variety of sensitive would be graded and a net may affect sensitive fish and wildlife are present at the site and that they shall not loss of approximately 60% wildlife resources at the site. (US) willfully harm any species, especially snakes and other of available habitat would reptiles. During the construction meeting, the proper occur, the impact to the method of moving snakes from construction zones coast horned lizard and the shall be illustrated. rufous -crowned sparrow cannot be mitigated to less B -3(b) Include creation and maintenance of freshwater than significant levels. marsh habitat along the margins of the golf course lakes to increase the potential for recovery of two - striped garter snake, mountain kingsnake, and western spadefoot toad populations in the project vicinity. B -3(c) The clawed frogs could potentially invade the proposed golf course lakes and decrease potential habitat values. To avoid this, these ponds shall be drained prior to construction and filling of the proposed lakes. During the draining, the frogs shall be caught with netting or by other means and killed. At the same time as the frogs are netted, two -striped garter snakes and any other sensitive species in the ponds shall be captured. The native animals shall be maintained until the golf course lakes are filled and City of Santa Clarita 2-12 II ' Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course E1R Section 2.0 Summary Table 2.2-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact native vegetation is installed along the banks, at which time, the snakes and other sensitive species shall be released into the new habitat. B -3(d) A capture and off-site relocation plan shall be developed for the San Diego homed lizard. Such a plan would include the scouring of the north portion of the alluvial fan scrub to capture horned lizards and the identification of suitable unoccupied habitat to which they could be relocated. B -3(e) Install swallow boxes in the retained natural areas between the fairways as part of the Integrated Pest Management plan for the site. Also consider the installation of bat boxes to be located at least 800 feet from residential areas. Effect 114 Development of the No mitigation measures are required. The revegetation No significant impacts project could cause an indirect and of portions of the site as proposed under the relative to animal cumulative impact to regional fish revegetation plan will serve to preserve the golf course movement are expected to and wildlife resources because of as an area that provides sufficient food, water, and be caused by the proposed the interruption of wildlife cover to allow larger, more mobile animals to move development, and the golf corridors or habitat linkages. (NS) through the site without major restrictions. course revegetation would serve to preserve the options available to large mobile wildlife to move between areas. .�.+ ......... . The proposed development would generate about 3,800 vehicles per day on Sand Canyon Road Traffic impacts of the project were analyzed at sir intersections in the site area and on the Antelope Valley Freeway. With the existing roadway design, an acceptable level of mold operation would occur with full site development at all study locations except the northbound Sand Carryon off -ramp of the Antelope Valley Freeway. A planned Caltrans bridge improvementproject will improve the level of service at this intersection to an acceptable operation Consequently, no roadway improvements are required for the existing road system to adequately serve project -related traffic. It is recommended that a southbound left turn lane be installed on Sand Carryon Road at the main site entrance and at Live Oak Springs Carryon Road to facilitate turning movements and maximize safety. Ifspectator tournament go f events are held at the site, an event speck traffic control plan is required Cumulative and project traffic would combine with existing heavy west approach tic at the Sand Carryon and Lost Carryon Roads intersection to warrant signalization ofthis intersection Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact Effect T-1 Additional traffic T-1 The timing of the proposed project shall be The Sand Canyon Bridge associated with the project and conditioned based on the timing of the proposed bridge and ramp at the Antelope cumulative projects may alter the improvements. This would avoid potentially significant Valley Freeway is projected current level of service at cumulative impacts associated with this facility. to operate at a very poor intersections within the study area. level of service during the (NS) evening peak hour (LOS F) with the existingbridge and City of Santa Clarita 2-13 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 2.0 Summary Table 2.2-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Mitigation.Measures Residual Impact rump configuration. When the bridge and ramp are widened, the intersection operations would be within the minimum acceptable level for freeway ramps. The west approach at Sand Canyon and Lost Canyon Roads intersection would be congested immediately after the end of the school day. Effect T-2 The proposed project None necessary. Operations along the would generate additional traffic Antelope Valley Freeway along the Antelope Valley Freeway. would remain generally at (NS) current levels after project added traffic. Effect T-3 The additional project None necessary. The higher volume of traffic traffic may cause Sand Canyon may expose undetermined Road to exceed its capacity. (NS) areas of safety conflicts along Sand Canyon Road. Consequently, the accident characteristics of the road should be monitored by the City to identify any possible future problem areas. Effect T4 Cumulative and project T4 A traffic signal as warranted should be installed for After installation of the traffic may require signalization at the Sand Canyon and Lost Canyon Roads intersection by signal, traffic on the west the Sand Canyon and Lost Canyon the applicant. A reimbursement mechanism shall be approach would no longer Roads intersection to provide for created so that future additional traffic will pay a fair be congested during the safe turning movements and share portion of the cost of this traffic signal. after-school off-peak adequate levels of service. (S) period. Effect T-5 Traffic associated with T-5 A traffic control plan shall be instituted for each Spectator tournament events special events at the golf course spectator golf tournament event that shall include at a could cause periodic high may create periodic local traffic minimum: congestion on area access congestion. (S) routes. • the number of traffic control officers; • the location and time period of control; • contingency plans for emergency vehicles; and • parking restrictions/controls on residential streets. Traffic control officers can respond to most of the traffic issues associated with a spectator golf tournament of short duration. A second option could utilize a system of trams and remote parking areas to minimize the number of vehicles on Sand Canyon Road. Specific requirements should be established for individual city of Santa cranta 2-14 II Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 2.0 Summary i Table 2.2-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact tournaments and should be matched to the expected conditions that are likely to be caused by the specific tournament. Effect T-6 The project access None necessary. Site access intersections are points may require signalization to expected to operate provide for safe turning movements adequately and adequate levels of service. (NS) Effect T-7 Project traffic added to None necessary. No significant traffic Sand Canyon Road may result in conflicts onSandCanyon additional accidents because of Road are anticipated. limited sight distances and relatively high speeds. (NS) Effect T-8 The new project access None necessary. No significant traffic roadway intersection on Sand conflicts are anticipated. Canyon may create turning movement conflicts with the Live Oak Springs Canyon Road intersection to the south. (NS) Effect T-9 Left turning movements T -9(a) A left tum lane shall be constructed at the main This effect would not be into access routes to the site may site entrance to minimize conflicts with turning traffic. significant after mitigation create traffic congestion and safety recommendations are conflicts due to backing up of T -9(b) A left turn lane shall be striped on Sand implemented. The left tum traffic. (S) Canyon Road at the entrance to Live Oak Springs lane and transition area can Canyon Road to minimize the potential for accidents, be accomplished within the existing and post -project right-of-way improvements for Sand Canyon Road. Aesthetics examines the potential ofthe proposed project to alter the visual environment of the subject site The analysis considers the change in viewsheds available from public areas, such as roadway corridors, and also considers the potential for theproposedproject to contribute to new lighting or glare in the vicinity of the subject site. Finally, the design of the proposed clubhouse is compared to the current urban design character of the area. The substantial amount of grading proposed for the project would result in major changes to the natural topography of hillportions of the property; and this alteration would conflict with Citypolicies for ridgeline preservation and hillside development. This conflict is considered a significant and unavoidable impact of the project as currently designed Potential light and glare impacts have also been identified which can be adequately mitigated with design controls. Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact Effect AES -1 The proposed AES -1(a) The applicant shall comply with the Hillside The Hillside Development project would irreversibly alter the Plan Review/Permit Requirements as established in the Ordinance allows for landform profile of the subject site, Uniform Development Code. Any recommendations development on secondary changing its aesthetic character. forthcoming from the Community Development ridgelines provided that a Some of the modifications may Director, as provided for in Section 17.89.030 of the hillside review is granted conflict with the City's Ridgeline Code shall be implemented. and the prcjea complies WY City of Santa C/arita 2-15 I Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR , Section 2.0 Summary Table 2.2-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Mitigation. Measures Residual Impact Preservation and Hillside AES-I(b) If grading leads to exposure of low with the provisions of the Development Ordinance. (US) cohesion sandy soils four feet or greater in height, ordinance. Though the slopes shall be protected with jute matting and transformation of the landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. topography through grading would adhere to AES -1(c) If grading leads to exposure of bedrock or the many of the City's hard -pack soils which resist revegetation, landscaping guidelines, several shall be implemented through the excavation of plant standards and criteria are holes in a random pattern with an average of five feet not met. This is on center, plantings shall come from the palette particularly true because of included in the City's Ridgeline Preservation and the expanded regulation the Hillside Development Ordinance or as otherwise City has adopted approved for the site. concerning significant ridgelines, and the location of a City -identified Secondary Ridgeline on the subject site. Therefore, the grading plan as proposed would represent a significant unavoidable impact with respect to compliance with the City's ordinance. Effect AES -2 The proposed The proposed project includes a detailed revegetation The proposed project is development has the potential to plan that will result in the re -greening of the subject visually accessible from affect scenic vistas from public property within five years or less. The alteration of the only one sensitive viewing viewing locations within the Santa viewshed is a generalized impact, and is not of itself location corridor: the Clarita planning area. (NS) mitigable. Other measures within this section address stretch of State Route 14 aesthetic impacts that will affect viewsheds. and Soledad Canyon Road. While views from this location will be altered, because of the visual dominance of fore- and background views, the change is not considered significant. Effect AES -3 The proposed AES -3(a) The maintenance facility shall be sided with Residual impacts would be project includes structures and a material other than metal. Recommended materials less than significant. facilities that may be aesthetically for all or part of.the facade treatment include (a) wood inconsistent with the existing in a board -and -batten finish, or (b) stone masonry. The community design character of the facility's design, material, and color treatment shall Sand Canyon area_ (S) complement the clubhouse facility. The structure's roofline and facades shall be articulated through the incorporation of gables, eaves, or windows. A landscaping plan for the area surrounding the maintenance facility shall be submitted to the City of Santa Clarita 2-16 II ' Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 2.0 Summary Table 2.2-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact MitigationMeasures Residual Impact Community Development Department for review and approval. It shall incorporate the plant palette used for the remainder of the development, and shall be oriented to provide dense screening from adjacent properties. AES -3(b) The large parking lot should be further reduced in size, with a greater number of parking spaces provided in the smaller lot. Alternatively, the total number of required parking spaces should be reduced. Either would reduce the scale of the larger parking facility, reduce the level of glare from paving and from vehicles emanating from one location, and provide increased opportunities for visually buffering the facility with landscaping. AES -3(c) Residential development proposed within the proposed development shall adhere to all applicable standards and guidelines of the Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance, the Community Design Element of the General Plan, and the Sand Canyon Special Standards District to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. Effect AES4 Light and glare AES4(a) Except for locations where the internal With the recommended produced from development and roadway intersects with Sand Canyon Road, street measures, impacts should users of the golf course facilities lighting shall not be permitted. Bridges, signage, and be less than significant. would extend the urban lit area of clubhouse entryways may be illuminated with discreet the City of Santa Clarita, alter the up -lighting. Signage and clubhouse entryways may also nighttime sky view, and produce use back lightin& daytime glare from reflective metallic materials and glass AES4(b) Lighting of driving range shall be limited to associated with vehicles. (S) splash lighting from canted berm areas. AES4(c) All lighting of clubhouse and maintenance facilities shall be of an accent nature. Any security lighting shall be screened such that lighting globes are not visible from a distance of 20 feet. AES -4(d) Parking lot lighting shall be limited to bollards not to exceed four -feet in height. Trees and walkways may be lighted with accent lighting. AES -4(e) Parking lot perimeters shall be bermed to a minimum of four feet in height to preclude spillage of vehicle head -lighting off site. No berming is required in the main parking lot for the perimeter adjoining the City of Santa Clarita 2-17 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 2.0 Summary Table 2.2-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact MitigationMeasures Residual Impact clubhouse and between the clubhouse and the access road. No berming is required for the small parking lot from the clubhouse counterclockwise to the southeast comer. Existing noise levels on the western side of the project site are generally low, with infrequent traffic noise from Sand Carryon Road The east side ofthe property is subject to higher noise levels associated with offsite aggregate mining operations, but the current operations are located at least 1,300feetftom the east property line Sound level measurements at the proposed residential lots indicate that the current noise environment is considered to be quiet. In addition, future mining operations over the next ten years are expected to be concentrated at the new claim areas located more than one mile from the east property line. Location ofresidential uses within the site's current noise environment would not conflict with established environmental goals of the City. If mining is resumed in the gravel pits nearest the proposed residences, average daytime noise levels.associated with typical mining activities would approach but not exceed the compatibility level. Continued blasting in the Oak Spring Annex area is also not expected to cause a significant noise effect on the proposed residences because of the infrequency of blasting and the distance from the blast area. Project construction would result in heavy equipment operating for several days near offsite residences and high noise levels would occur at these residences Because of the topographic alterations proposedfor the site, the use oftemporary noise barriers would be ineffective to mitigate this short term increase in noise levels. This is considered a significant and unavoidable impact of project construction. Traffic noise associated with the proposed development would not create noise levels along site access routes that would exceed the City's guidelines for compatibility with residential land uses, nor would the activities ofgotfcoursepatrons create a significant impact. No significant long Win noise impacts are associated with development of the proposed project; however, the project would cause an adverse increase in ambient noise levels for residences adjacent to the site and those located along Sand Canyon Road north of the project entry. Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact Effect N-1 Operations at the N -I No mitigation measures are necessary because the A potential exists for adjacent quarry could cause proposed project would not conflict with adopted annoyance reactions by the unacceptable noise levels for the environmental goals of the City. In addition, the City future residences if active proposed residential land uses and has indicated to the applicant that as a condition of this mining resumes adjacent to conflict with adopted City Noise development the City will require that a disclosure the eastern property line. Element policies. (NS) statement regarding the mining operations be given to This would likely include each prospective homeowner. This will assure that any complaints to the City and future resident is aware of the existing mining the mining operator. operation at the time of purchase. However, based on the significance criteria, no significant noise impact would result from the proposed project's location near the mining operation: Effect N-2 Heavy equipment Temporary, portable noise barriers can be used at times The recommended noise associated with construction to reduce the impact of construction noise, but because measures would reduce the of the proposed project could of the extensive topographic alteration associated with noise impact of the grading affect adjacent residences. (US) the golf course grading, the use of such barriers is not operations at the site. Clarita 2-18 II ' Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 2.0 Summary Table 2.2-1.. Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Mitigation.Measures Residual Impact expected to be effective. The following mitigation Nonetheless, some loud measures are recommended to reduce construction noise that is above City noise. land use compatibility levels is still likely to occur N -2(a) No more than two pieces of equipment should during project construction operate simultaneously within 200 feet of a residence and this effect is during grading operations. considered unavoidable. N -2(b) Any internal haul roads for transporting fill material around the site shall be located a minimum of 500 feet from the nearest offsite residence. Effect N-3 The additional traffic No mitigation measures are required. No significant traffic noise noise associated with the proposed impacts are expected to be project could affect adjacent generated by the project. residential land uses. (NS) Effect N4 Noise associated with No mitigation measures are required. While noise levels would patrons of the golf course could not be great enough to cause nuisance noise effects to cause a significant effect, adjacent residential land uses. (NS) an adverse increase in ambient nuisance noise levels would be associated with the proposed project. The City's General Plan designates the project site far residential estate and residential low land use. The project site residential density considering the site as a whole is less than that which would be allowed under conventional zoning and is less than that currently entitled at the site. The golf course is considered compatible with adjacent land uses and is permitted in all City zones with issuance of a conditional use permit. The residential use is considered compatible with adjacent existing and planned residential development and is consideredsufficiently buffered by the golfcourse from the mining activities offsite in the Angeles National Forest. The project is generally compatible with the City General Plan and policies and no significant land use conflicts are anticipated given the project design. Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impacts Effect LU -1 The proposed land No mitigation measures are required. No significant impacts are use may conflict with adopted City anticipated. land use policies. (NS) Effect LU -2 The proposed project No mitigation measures are required. No significant impacts are may result in increased conflicts anticipated. with administration and management of the adjacent Angeles National Forest. (NS) City of Santa Clarita 2-19 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 2.0 Summary Table 2.2-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact Effect LU -3 The Location of No mitigation measures are required. The City.has No significant impacts are residential uses within the informed the applicant that if the project is approved, anticipated. proposed annexation area may disclosure documents that have been reviewed and create a land use incompatibility approved by the City shall be supplied to future that affects long term mining homeowners to ensure that the mining operation is operation in the Angeles National fully disclosed. Forest. (NS) 2.3 ALTERNATIVES A range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed development project is required to be evaluated within an EIR per the State CEQA Guidelines §I5126(d). The alternatives addressed in this document are those that could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project; with the discussion focusing on the comparative merits of the alternatives relative to environmental effects (without consideration of economic effects) and on alternatives that couldsubstantiallyreduce or eliminate significant adverse impacts. Alternatives addressed in this EIR in Section 7.0 include: No project alternative no development existing entitlements West slope residential/Oak Spring golf course Reduced grading Mixed use development Existing general plan build -out Equestrian/residentiallgolf course The "environmentally superior" alternative is that which would cause the least amount of adverse change in the physical environment, which typically is the "no project" alternative. In this instance, the no development scenario of the "no project" altemative is not likely to continue in the long term because of the existing entitlements granted to the individual parcels that comprise the development site. The existing entitlements would result in less than significant operational air quality impacts and somewhat reduced aesthetic impacts, but would result in greater biological impacts, significant noise impacts, and potentially significant growth -inducing impacts. The reduced grading alternative would be superior to the project by reducing visual impacts, but would retain similar significant and umnitigable air quality and biology impacts. It is judged that of the alternatives examined that can feasibly meet the applicant's objectives while balanced against environmental effects, the west slope residential alternative (one golf course) and the equestrian/residential/golf course alternative would be superior to the project, largely because of a City of Santa Clarita 2-20 I Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 2.0 Summary reduction in biological and aesthetic impacts and a resolution of some neighborhood concerns. Both of these alternatives are essentially revised project design concepts for the site. The economic feasibility of these alternatives is unknown. 2.4 AREAS OF PUBLIC CONTROVERSY The primary issues of public controversy have been the potential effects of the proposed golf course on the water quantity and quality for the downstream residences of Oak Spring Canyon, who are reliant on limited groundwater supplies provided by private wells. Additional public controversy has involved the location of residential uses within Oak Spring Canyon in relationship to the mining activities in the Angeles National Forest, particularly with respect to the location of 53 of the residences in the proposed 103A acre annexation parcel. Other areas of public controversy include the extensive grading of the site, particularly with regards to the grading of the secondary ridgeline within the site, the loss of biological resources, particularly the loss of heritage oak trees, the amount of traffic that may be generated by the project and its effect on traffic conditions along Sand Canyon Road, the potential nuisance effects of the golf course on the existing equestrian rural residential area, the existing high velocity floodflows through the site, and the potential noise and air pollution effects of the project. 2.5 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED The City of Santa Clarita must determine whether or not the proposed planned development with residences oriented to two golf courses is suitable for the project site as compared to the previously approved rural residential tracts. The City Council must determine if the golf course provides adequate buffering for the onsite residences to the mining operation in the Angeles National Forest that is outside the City and if the commercial operations (clubhouse, driving range) of the golf course are adequately distant and buffered from the existing off-site residences. As part of the resolution of this issue, the City needs to determine if alternative designs for the golf course as proposed by the EIR may be more appropriate than the revised project design, or whether or not alternative land uses as discussed in the EIR or may be offered by the public are more suitable for the project site. The City Council also needs to determine if the potential threat of groundwater pollution associated with the golf course is adequately mitigated by the measures contained in the EIR and to be incorporated into specific Golf Course and Integrated Pest Management plans. The adequacy of equestrian trails to be provided within the site as required by the Sand Canyon Community Special Standards, the provision of road access along the north property line, and the development of the golf course on mineral resources in Oak Spring Canyon are also issues to be resolved. In addition, the City needs to consider the effect of the proposed development on the potential future roadway circulation in the area since the project would prevent the development of a north -south parallel route to Sand Canyon Road in this area. If the proposed project is approved, the City Council will need to determine if the mitigation measures contained in the EIR are reasonable or not, and whether or not they or other suggested measures should be imposed as conditions of development within the Conditional Use Permit for the proposed project. 2-21 Santa Cladta �I Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 3.0 Project Description 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 PROJECT APPLICANT Hunters Green Development Corporation ' 16095A Live Oak Springs Canyon Road Santa Clarita, CA -91351 3.2 PROJECT SYNOPSIS The proposed development includes the construction of two 18 -hole golf courses, clubhouse, lighted ' driving range, and parking lot on a acre site. The residential portion of the project includes pad grading for 76 single-family residential lots, which would be accessed via both public and private roadways, the latter within a gated community. The lots would be sold on an individual basis with residential structures constructed later by the future property owners. Total construction grading is balanced on the site at 2.2 million cubic yards of cut and fill. Access to the site would be provided via Sand Canyon Road and Live Oak Springs Canyon Road. Additional new major infrastructure would include two potable water reservoir (tank) sites. Also, the Los Angeles County Flood Control District is proposing to construct a debris basin within the project site on land to be dedicated by the applicant. ' The proposed project requires the approval of Master Case No. 95-049, which includes: ' • Zone Change 95-001 (PD Zone), • Nesting Tentative Tract Map (NTTM52004), • Conditional Use Permit (CUP 95-003), ' Oak Tree Permit (OTP 95-009), • Hillside Review (95-002), ' Development Agreement (DA 95-004), and • Development Review (DR 95-004); along with a • Pre -Zone (PZ 95-001) and Annexation (AN 95-001) for a portion of the project site. ' The Oak Tree Permit would be for the removal of up to 138 scrub oaks and 130 coast live oaks, including up to seven (7) heritage oaks. ' 3.3 PROJECT LOCATION ' The project site is generally located in the eastern portion of the City of Santa Clarita in northern Los Angeles County (Figure 3.0-1). The southeastern portion of the site is located adjacent to the City in unincorporated area. The site lies in an area of low foothills, ridges and bottomlands that form the lower ' northern slope of the San Gabriel Mountains. Locally, the site is east of Sand Canyon Road and north of Live Oak Springs Canyon Road, and adjoins the Angeles National Forest on its eastern boundary (Figure ' City of Santa Clarita 3-1 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Not to scale 14 Regional Location Map i NORTH Figure 3.0-1 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR 0 0.5 1•.0 Source: USGS Mmt Canyon Quadrangle, 7.5 Minute series, 1988 Scale in Miles Project Location T NORTH . Figure 3.0-2 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 3.0 Project Description 3.0-2). Regional access is provided to the site from the Antelope Valley Freeway (State Route 14) at the Soledad Canyon/Sand Canyon Roads interchange, located less than one mile north of the site. The site is divided by a ridgeline that is oriented northwest -southeast through the center of the site. The western side of this ridge drains to Sand Canyon, while the eastern side drains to Oak Spring Canyon. Both areas then drain to the Santa Clara River, located approximately one-half mile to the north of the site. The eastern City limit is contiguous with the eastern project site boundary and divides the Oak Spring Canyon area of the site into a northern portion within the City and a southern area requiring annexation. 3.4' OWNERSHIP/PARCELIZATION The 401 acre site includes seven different properties, all of which are privately owned. One of the properties (APN 2841-001-017) is located outside of City jurisdiction and is the subject of the annexation request (see Figure 3.0-2). Table 3.4-1 provides data regarding the individual properties. Table 3.4-1 Parcel and Ownership Pattern fk A4se5sQlr`PaYvel k t{ < If fr F a ;is?'CiZ'Eii6 '1 %[1'iiIIL :;1�.<7"Xntkil;t[t1CJ3tC3tt 2840-017-046 Hawthorne Savings 160.0 39.9% 140 sfr 2940-014-003;004, 023 David Arthur 6.9 1.7% 3 sfe 2840-013-013, 014, 015 Mary Da as 13.5 3.40/a 3 sfr' 2840-014-022 Clement and Paula Cox 27.0 6.7% 1 sfi 2840-016-021 1 Edith S. Palmer Trust 1 80.0 20.0% 1 sfr 2840-016-020 Arthur and Lorena Gollin Trust 9.9 2.5% 1 sfr 2841-001-017 Griffin Industries 103.4 25.8% 2 sfr Totals 400.7 1 100% 151 sfr Based on number of existing parcels since appmximately 13 lots from former 70 unit Hunters Green subdivision, of which some otthese parcels were part, are no longer within current site boundaries. 3.5 PROJECT OBJECTIVES The applicant's objectives are to develop a gated residential community with a high degree of aesthetic amenities associated with the two 18 -hole golf courses. The golf courses would also serve as a private retail commercial venture by being open to the public for recreational purposes. 3.6 REQUIRED DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS To implement the proposed project, the City must: 1. Prezone and annex the southeastern portion of the site; 2. Process a zone change to implement a Planned Development (PD) overlay on the site; 3. Approve the Tentative Tract Map for the subdivision of the land into 76 single family residential lots, two (2) golf course lots, and two (2) water tank lots; wry or sanra wanra 34 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 3.0 Project Description 4. Approve a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the construction and operation of the golf courses, clustering of the residential lots, and implementation of the PD overlay zone (including the gating of the residential community); 5. Approve an Oak Tree Permit (OTP) for the removal of up to 138 scrub oak trees and 130 coast live oaks (up to seven of which are heritage oaks); and 6. Conduct a Hillside Review to determine if the proposed grading meets the provisions of the Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance guidelines. Additional discretionary actions that are necessary for the project to proceed include approval of the annexation by the Los Angeles County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) and annexation of a portion of the site into the County Sanitation District No. 26. The proposed development must also acquire Streambed Alteration Agreements (Fish and Game Code Sections 1601-1605) with the California Department of Fish and Game for alteration of blueline streams within the project site. The project does not appear to require issuance of a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit by the United States Army Corps of Engineers for any construction within either "wetlands or waters of the United States," since the stream areas to be disturbed do not meet the criteria as "water of the United States" due to the site's isolation from the Santa Clara River by past development activity. 3.7 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS 3.7.1 Proposed Land Uses and Zoning The project site is primarily in a natural state, with past historic uses including various agricultural activities such as dryland and irrigated farming for hay, grazing, and egg -laying operations. The site is designated for Residential Very Low and Residential Estate land uses under the City's Land Use Element. These designations provide for residential land use on minimum lot sizes of 1 and 2 gross acres, respectively (1 and 0.5 dwelling units/acre). The site also lies within the City's Sand Canyon Special Standards District, which is intended to maintain, preserve, and enhance the rural and equestrian character of Sand Canyon. The proposed development would create 76 residential that would he along the slopes of Oak Spring Canyon in the middle to southeasterly portion of the site. Two 18 -hole golf courses are proposed, one extending across the slopes that drain towards Sand Canyon (Mountain Course) and the other within the alluvial floodplain and bottomlands of Oak Spring Canyon (Valley Course). A clubhouse would be located between the two courses, while a driving range would be located on the western side of the 160 acre parcel within Oak Spring Canyon. The maintenance facility for the site would be located adjacent to the access road in the western golf course near holes No. 13 and 14. Figure 3.0-3 illustrates the proposed layout of the residential lots and golf courses configuration. Larger scale drawings and blueline topography maps of the grading plans are herein incorporated by reference and are available for review at the City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department, 23920 Valencia Boulevard. The site is currently zoned as Residential Very Low (1 acre minimum lot size) for those portions within the City, while the southeastern annexation parcel is zoned A-1-2 under the Los Angeles County Zoning uny or Santa cianta 3-5 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 3.0 Project Description Ordinance. The latter is an agricultural zoning that allows one residential unit per two acres (density of 0.5 units per acre). It is noted that this particular parcel is part of a previous subdivision and is restricted to a maximum of 2 units. Current City unified zoning and general plan land use designations of Residential Estates (RE) would be retained for the lots within the annexation parcel, with Residential Very Low (RVL) retained for the'lots within the current City boundaries. However, the applicant is proposing that all of the residential lots be under a PD (Planned Development) overlay (Zone Change 95- 001) to allow for the transferal of density or development rights within the entire project site into the planned residential area. The applicant is also requesting designation of the project as an "innovative project" per the Hillside Ordinance. 3.7.2 Proposed Development The applicant proposes to subdivide the property and construct all roads and other infrastructure and the golf course and associated facilities. A two-story, 26,000 square foot clubhouse would be constructed that includes a pro shop, snack bar, interior parking for 167 golf carts, and locker rooms on the ground floor and a dining and banquet area, kitchen, lounge/bar, and course administrative offices on the upper level. Adjacent to the clubhouse would be two parking lots with low level (15 -feet or less in height) pole lighting. Approximately 330 parking spaces would be provided. A site plan detail of this area is shown on Figure 3.04. Directly north of the larger parking lot and clubhouse would be a night -lighted driving range. The lighting for the driving range would not be pole mounted, instead ground lighting of the drop zone would be provided by lights embedded in low mounds on the range. Driving range users would hit balls from the south end of the range to the north. The driving range has been canted towards the northeast to allow for additional landscaping along the western property line and to reduce the potential for golf balls to land on adjoining properties. Specific detailed golf course and landscaping designs have been prepared by the applicant for the #1 tee area of the western golf course due to the proximity of adjacent offsite rural residential housing (Figure 3.0-5). A mound will be located to the.north side of the three back tees and it will be revegated with dense mature trees and shrubs. The hitting direction will be slightly to the west-southwest. The purpose of the mound and mature landscaping is to capture any mis-hit balls that could otherwise land off the project site. The course maintenance facilities would be located east of the tees for hole 914 on the western course and would include a 1,000 square foot building. This building is anticipated to be constructed of either masonry block or steel siding and would house the golf course machinery, repair shop, and pest control materials. A composting area would also be located at this facility. Construction of all the golf course facilities is anticipated to occur at the same time and would require 6- 12 months to complete. of Santa Clarlta MA _ . t ; of l•,�::%: — � ►�. ,'f 1 ' O e. Lu s i Detailed Site Plan of s � -� X_o Clubhouse Area I� 1 1 it 1' Note! Best available plan supplied by applicant. Scale F=100' • ^�h 7 - �\ Figure 3.0-4 s � \ a 0 :)C�a p� W H � U � J ID/ o Q JI �1? U Q Z a O n w 2 0 0 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 3.0 Project Description Mountain Course Tee #1 Detailed Design and Landscaping M Figure 3.0-5 City of Santa Clarita 3-9 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 3.0 Project Description Graded pads would be constructed for each residential lot, which would then be sold on an individual basis. The applicant has requested permission to adjust lot lines at a later date in compliance with development standards and to allow the combining of lots. The residences would be within a gated community operated through a homeowner's association. The gates would be unmanned. No architectural design standards have been established for the residential community, with each residence expected to be individually designed and constructed over a period of 10 to 15 years. 3.7.3 Landscape Standards The 36 -hole golf course is being designed for inclusion in the Signature Cooperative Sanctuary Program run by the New York State Audubon Society (which is independent of the National Audubon Society). This program provides information and guidance in environmental planning with a stated goal of meeting the New York Audubon's Sustainable Resource Management Principles. A Conservation Guide is prepared for the site that includes tasks necessary to acquire certification in five environmental areas, all of which are required to meet Signature status. The five categories include wildlife conservation, habitat enhancement, waste management, energy efficiency, and water conservation_ Some of the elements and goals of these certification programs are: • requirements for the conservation of wildlife on site through the protection of suitable habitat; • provision of adequate space, food, water, and shelter for wildlife; • specific plans for the protection of migratory bird habitat; • maintaining corridors and greenspace for the free movement of animals, • use of natural and naturalized landscaping materials, • reduction in the use of pesticides through use of integrated pest management programs; • reduction in waste generation; • use of composting ofgreen wastes, • reuse and recycling onsite; • use of energy efficient sources for buildings, on-site transportation, lighting, and heating and cooling; • use of locally available construction materials; and • use of water conserving devices and methods. As part of the proposed project, the applicant has submitted a Native Revegetation and Monitoring Plan that sets objectives for restoring portions of the graded areas and enhancing habitat through the introduction of year-round water in the form of golf course lakes. A copy of the Draft Plan is available for review at the City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department. The concept recommends that the standard golf course fairways, tees, and greens would be surrounded by a rough composed of revegetated native scrub and grassland areas and undisturbed native vegetation. Riparian and wetland habitats would be created along some of the golf course drainages and the water hazards. These wetlands would include islands of natural vegetation within golf course lakes, stands of low herbaceous vegetation (such as cattail, rush, and veronica) around the opposite perimeter of the water hazard from City of Santa Clarita 3-10 I I L 11 I 1 1 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 3.0 Project Description the fairway, and plantings of willow and cottonwood. Figure 3.0-6 provides illustrative cross-sections of these golf course plantings. Oak trees will be preserved throughout the site, with most of those in Oak Spring Canyon left in undisturbed natural vegetation. Coast live oak trees that would be disturbed by grading would be transplanted within the golf course if they are healthy and suitable for transplantation (about 45 are currently so proposed for transplanting). Replacement trees are also currently being grown from acorns collected at the site from healthy trees. Approximately 1000 small oak trees are expected to be added to the site during revegetation. 3.7.4 Proposed Infrastructure Five streets are proposed for the site, which would all be private. The entrance to the golf course would be on Sand Canyon Road via a private drive that traverses the western golf course to the clubhouse parking lots. The golf course drive would terminate at a gate at the west end of the main residential street, which would also serve as an extension of Live Oak Springs Canyon Road from the south. The southeast end of this street would also be gated at Live Oak Springs Canyon Road. Two cul-de-sac streets and a loop street would branch from this main road, each of which would be 34 feet of pavement on 58 -foot right of ways. The main through street would be slightly larger, 36 feet of pavement on a 60 - foot right -of way. While private, these streets are sized to City standards. The golf course drive would be 28 feet of pavement on a 36 -foot right of way and would have shallow gutters but no curbs. Connection of Live Oak Springs Canyon Road to the site is dependent on the extension of this road from its current terminus to a point about 1100 feet further east. This roadway extension is included in the development plans for Tract No. 46364 (Griffin Homes) in Los Angeles County. The applicant is proposing to provide, at a minimum, a dedicated multi -use, recreational, non -motorized trail system along the National Forest boundary. The trail would be open to use by equestrians, walkers, joggers, and bicyclists. It would be generally 12 -feet in width with grading not to exceed the maximum typically associated with horse and recreational trails. A fence will be provided where needed for safety and liability reasons and of a nature to meet those requirements for a particular location. Trail maintenance, including future grading, will be the responsibility of the City of Santa Clarita. A west to east trail would be located along the north property line in Oak Spring Canyon (approximately 2,860 feet in length). This easement would be associated with the realignment of the existing dirt road in this location adjacent and along the ridge that forms the north property boundary. The trail would then tum south for about 6,400 feet along the eastern boundary of the project site. This portion of the trail would access the Angeles National Forest at multiple points along this boundary. Depending upon topography and feasibility, the trail would cross the southern corner of the site and use existing -dirt roads along the ridgeline to access Live Oak Springs Canyon Road near the entrance to the residential portion of the site adjacent to Lot 949. 3.11 city or sans Uanra -,° GOLF COURSE ,, CROSS SECTION Native Chaparral Drought Tolerant 1 Golf Green. 1 Sand Trap with j Cart j Native Chaparral Oaks and Grasses Native Grasses Native Grasses Path T Oaks and Grasses NOT TO SCALE WATER EDGE TREATMENT Drought Tolerant I &Shrubs Island Plantings T Edge Plantings, T &Drought Tolerant Grasses Rushes & Cat Tails Fairway Grasses Figure 3.0-6. NOT TO SCALE Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 3.0 Project Description Potable water service to the site is proposed to be provided by the Santa Clarity Water Company. Service from the Santa Clarita Water Company would be provided from its mainline in Sand Canyon Road. Two water tank sites are to be provided, one on a lot located along the south property he in the middle of the site and the other on a lot located at the most southern part of the site. The tanks would be constructed by the applicant and would contain a total of 2.5 million gallons. Water would be pumped into the tanks from the mainline in Sand Canyon Road via an above ground booster pump using a gas turbine engine. This pump would be housed in a concrete block structure at a location within the western golf course to be determined. The tanks would be in two service zones based on the base elevation of the tank, with the tank in the middle portion of the site providing water for irrigation and fire protection to the western golf course and the higher southern tank serving the residential area, clubhouse, and eastern golf course. The Planning Commission has recommended an additional required condition of approval: the provision of a water mainline extension from the southern water tank to Oak Spring Canyon Road, then west to Comet Way and east to the National Forest boundary. This mainline would allow local offsite residences to tap into Santa Clarita Water Company service instead of continuing to rely on their individual private groundwater wells. A below ground pressure reduction station would be constructed at the site's northern property line to match the pressure zone needs for the offsite area. The applicant currently proposes to use primarily potable water to irrigate the golf courses, but would supplement that water with local groundwater. An existing well in the Sand Canyon area on the westernmost parcel would provide supplemental irrigation water for the western golf course, while a new well in Oak Spring Canyon would provide supplemental water for the eastern golf course. The applicant would also consider the use of reclaimed water if such were to become available; however, this is considered speculative at this time and is not addressed within this EIR. The clubhouse, maintenance facilities, and all residential lots would be provided with sewers that connect with the County Sanitation Districts sewer mains in Live Oak Springs Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road. The drainage concept for the site provides for sheetflow across the golf course areas to the existing primary drainage channels. Separate from the proposed project, but coordinated with it, the Los Angeles County Flood Control District is currently proposing to construct a debris basin on the project site along the western property line and north of the golf course access road. Sheet flow from most of the western golf course would drain into this debris basin. The applicant would dedicate the necessary land area for the basin and its capacity will be approximately 3,000 cubic yards. The proposed debris basin will contain standard components, including a concrete spillway, debris barrier, outlet tower, outlet pipe, 24 -foot wide access road, inlet structure, fencing, and concrete side slopes. A levee system incorporated into the golf course design would direct flows entering the site at Live Oak Springs Canyon Road to the inlet structure. The existing natural water course, a steeply incised gully, will be filled during grading for the golf course and the debris basin. Approximately ten oak trees would be removed by the Flood Control District to implement this project. LCity of Santa Clarita 3-13 I 1 I I 11 I I I I I L I I Hunters Green Residential Developmentand Golf Course EIR Section 3.0 Project Description Flows from this debris basin would be contained in a buried stone drain to be constructed from the basin north to the approximate location of the future private Boulder Creek Road. A new storm drain system will be constructed in Sand Canyon Road by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District that will receive flows from this drain and route them north to eventually empty into the Sand Canyon channel north of Road Runner Road. Other portions of the western golf course would continue to drain by sheetflow northward via unimproved drainages that eventually lead to Sand Canyon and Oak Spring Canyon washes. Flows from the golf course clubhouse and parking lot and the Oak Spring Canyon residential development would be gathered into storm drains via road gutters. These storm drains would discharge onto the eastern golf course located in Oak Spring Canyon. Off-site flows would be directed through the golf course via drainage swales and overland flow, similar to the existing alluvial plain environment. Drainage from the site to the north would be within the natural channels of Oak Spring Canyon. A portion of storm flows is expected to be intercepted by the lakes to be constructed on the golf course. 3.7.5 Construction Grading Development of the proposed project would require the grading of approximately 2.2 million cubic yards of soil. Grading would be balanced at the site, with local cuts providing fill material to minimize the need to haul additional fill material to the site or haul excess material offsite. All slopes are proposed to be contour graded by rounding the top and toes of slopes, with blended transitions into remaining natural slopes. The maximum cut depth proposed is about 120 feet associated with the removal of a knoll at lots #20 and #21, with a maximum fill. of about 48 feet in a small valley at Mountain Course Hole 417. The tallest cut slope (toe to top) would be about 80 feet, while the tallest fill slope would be about 40 feet. A typical mass grading construction spread is composed of two tracked bulldozers, six scrapers, one motor grader, one roller, and one water truck, and is capable of moving about 10,000 cubic yards per day. Based on the assumption that the project would be completed in approximately one year, a single construction spread would be sufficient for site grading. However, the initial rough grading stage may use two spreads to reduce the construction period and reduce the time during which the project would be a dust and noise nuisance to offsite residences. In addition to this heavy equipment, construction grading may include several dump trucks for hauling dirt and front-end loaders for loading the trucks. 3-14 City of Santa Clarita I Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 4.0 Regional Environmental Setting [ 4.0 REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING This section provides a brief description of the environmental setting in the region as well as the immediate project area. 4.1 REGIONAL SETTING The project site is located in the eastern portion of the City of Santa Clarita in northern Los Angeles County. The City of Santa Clarita encompasses over 40 square miles and is located about 35 miles northwest of the City of Los Angeles Civic Center. The City is located at the junction of Interstate 5, a major north -south interstate highway, and State Route 14, a freeway that provides access to desert areas to the east including the cities of Palmdale and Lancaster. 4.1.1 Historical Development The project area is part of the larger Santa Clarita Valley which has a long history dating back to the late 1700s when Gaspar de Portola claimed the area for Spain. Around 1797, the valley became part of the San Fernando Mission and cattle grazing activities began. In 1842, gold was discovered in Placerita Canyon, thus starting the California gold rush. Later in the. 1800's,.oil was discovered in Pico Canyon and oil field development ensued in the region. IIistorically, initial development in the area was fueled by railroad and oil operations. The area has also historically attracted motion picture filming but most recently has developed into a series of residential communities that provide housing to serve the employment base within the greater Los Angeles area. Although the current development character is predominantly single-family residential, there are scattered pockets of industrial, servicelstrip commercial, institutional, and recreational uses in the area. 4.1.2 Physical Setting The Santa Clarita Valley is an irregularly shaped area draining a watershed of approximately 500 square miles. This drainage area is generally defined by and encompasses significant mountain ridges of the San Gabriel, Santa Susana and the Sierra Pelona Mountains, several significant canyons, the Valley Floor and the Santa Clara River bed. The relative relief of the area is dramatic with.elevations ranging from 1,000 feet above sea level along the Santa Clara River near Castaic Junction to approximately 3,200 feet along ridgelines near Pico and Towsley Canyons, in the southwest portions of the City. Elevations in the San Gabriel Mountains range from 4,000-6,000 feet east of the City. 4.1.3 Regional and Local Climate As noted above, the City of Santa Clarita is surrounded by the Santa Susana and San Gabriel mountain ranges on the south, east, and west, and the Sierra Pelona Mountains on the north. Because of these physiographic features and its general proximity to coastal and desert influences, the City of Santa Clarita is in a transitional microclimatic zone that includes two climatic types termed "valley marginal" and "high City of Santa Clarita ` 41 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 4.0 Regional Environmental Setting desert". Located sufficiently far from the coast to escape damp air and fog, summers are generally hot and winters are generally sunny and warm. Overall the area's climate is relatively mild with average daytime temperatures ranging from 89.7 degrees Fahrenheit C F) in the summers to 63.6° Fin the winter. Temperature lows average from 58.9° Fin the summer months to 41.3° F in the winter. Annual precipitation in the valley is about 13 inches, almost all of which occurs between October and early April. Precipitation in neighboring mountain areas is substantially higher, ranging from about 22 to 24 inches per year. Wind patterns are typical of the mountain/valley regime with day time wind flowing up valley and nighttime flow patterns reversing and flowing down valley as the nighttime air cools. Within the area there are two distinct wind patterns for the northern and southern portions of the City. In the Newhall area in the southern portion of the City, predominant.daytime wind flows from the south/southeast from the San Fernando Valley through the Newhall Pass. In the north, near the intersection of I-5 and SR -126, the highest frequency of winds occurs from the west and east. At this location, daytime winds are from the west up the Santa Clara River Valley. 4.2 PROJECT AREA SETTING The proposed project is located in the Sand Canyon area, a subcommunity of Canyon Country. Canyon Country has over 30,000 residents and is the largest community within the City's planning area. Canyon Country, which includes the area along Soledad Canyon Road east of Saugus, is developed with a wide range of housing types including large -lot single-family custom homes, single-family tract homes, multiple -family development and mobile home parks. Commercial and manufacturing activities are concentrated along Soledad Canyon Road and along themorth side of State Route 14 (Antelope Valley Freeway). The Sand Canyon area is located southeast of Canyon Country, and is accessed by Sand Canyon and Placerita Canyon Roads. Freeway access is provided by the Soledad Canyon/Sand Canyon interchange at State Route 14, about one mile north of the project site. The area is comprised of predominantly low density single-family residential and associated equestrian uses. The area is generally rural and is characterized by large stands of oak trees and large single-family homes. Physiographically, the project site is divided by a prominent ridgeline that is oriented northwest -southeast between Sand Canyon and Oak Springs Canyon. The western side of the ridge drains to Sand Canyon, while the eastern side drains to Oak Springs Canyon. Generally the western side of the slopes gradually descend onto the alluvial plain of Sand Canyon, whereas the eastern slopes steeply descend onto the alluvial fan of Oak Springs Canyon. Slope gradients on the site range from level on the bottomlands to very steep (1:1) along the hillsides. Elevations on the site range from about 1350 to 2000 feet above sea level. I I I I I i City of Santa Clarita 4-2 U I I I Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 4.0 Regional Environmental Setting 4.3 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS The State CEQA.Guidelines Section 15130 requires a discussion of cumulative impacts when they are significant. The State CEQA Guidelines indicate that discussion of related or cumulative projects may be drawn from "a list of past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects producing related or cumulative impacts... " The cumulative project list, analyzed herein and described below, is included in this environmental setting because it presents the urban development context under which the proposed project is being considered. The City of Santa Clarita has identified the following list of pending projects for consideration in this EIR: Within Qx of Santa Clarita 1) Tentative Tract No 49334: This project includes 32 single-family residential units proposed on the west side of Sand Canyon Road between Placerita Canyon Road and Live Oak Springs Canyon Road. 2) Tentative Tract No. 34466: This project includes 299 single-family residential units located south of the western terminus of Lost Canyon Road on the west side of Sand Canyon Road. 3) 28368 Sand Canyon Road- In -N -Out Burger: This fast food restaurant has been recently completed east of Sand Canyon Road immediately south of the Antelope Valley Freeway (SR -14). It is now open for business, but it is included here because it was not built at the time of the traffic counts and analysis. Within CounU QfLos Aneeles 4) Tentative Tract No 50173: This project includes 14 single-family residential units proposed westerly of Sand Canyon Road on Sultus Street on the west side of Rolling Hills Avenue. 5) Tentative Tract No. 50446: This project includes 6 single-family residential units located at the intersection of Brooken Avenue and Radclay Street to the west of Sand Canyon Road. 6) Tentative Tract 30738: This residential project would include 45 single-family residences and is located between Tentative Tract No. 34466, described above, and the Angeles National Forest boundary. City of Santa Clarita 4-3 I Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.0 Impact Analysis 1 5.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS The following sections contain a discussion of the possible environmental effects of the proposed project for the specific issue areas that have been identified through the Initial Study process as having the possibility to cause a significant effect. "Significant effect..' is defined by the State CEQA Guidelines § 15382 as "a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic_ significance. An economic or social change by itself shall not be rr considered a significant effect on the environment, but may be considered in determining whether the physical change is significant." The assessment of each issue area begins with an italicized introduction that summarizes the environmental effects considered for that issue area. This is followed by the setting and the impact analysis. Within the impact analysis, the first section identifies the methodologies used. and the "significance thresholds", which are those criteria adopted by the City, other agencies, universally recognized, or developed specifically for this analysis to determine whether potential effects are M significant impacts. Each effect under consideration for an issue area is separately listed in bold text, with the discussion of the effect and its significance following. Each bolded effect listing also contains a parenthetical summary of the significance determination for the environmental effect as follows: ` US Unavoidably Significant: An impact that cannot be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires a Statement of Overriding Considerations to be issued if the project is approved per § 15093 of the State CEOA Guidelines. S Significant: An impact that can be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires findings to be made under §15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines. NS Not Significant: An impact that may be adverse, but does not exceed the threshold levels and does not require mitigation measures. However, mitigation measures that could I firther lessen the environmental effect may be suggested if readily available and easily achievable. B Beneficial: An effect that would reduce existing environmental problems or hazards. Following each environmental effect is a discussion of mitigation measures and the residual effects or level of significance remaining after the implementation of the measures. In those cases where the mitigation measure for an impact could have a significant environmental impact in another issue area, this impact is discussed as a residual effect. City of Santa Clarita 5.0 -1 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.1 Earth Resources 5.1 EARTH This section analyzes geological and seismic hazards to which the new residents and golf course users may be exposed due to development of this project. Geological hazards in the area include liquefaction, landslides, hydroconsolidation, and destabilization ofslopes by grading. Seismic hazards include ground shaking, surface rupture, liquefaction, and subsidence. Significant hazards identified for the proposed development include: cut slopes having the potential of failure, activation of landslide by removing supporting material during or following grading, settlement of fill, liquefaction of soils, I hydrocompaction of soils, and the possibility that insufficiently compacted soils could subside during an earthquake. Engineered mitigation measures are to be used to reduce these hazards to an acceptable level of risk The project would also insignificantly reduce the potential availability of "significant mineral resources "found in Oak Spring Canyon. 5.1.1 Geologic Setting The project property is within the Transverse Range Geomorphic Province of California. This area is characterized by east -west trending mountains and faults. Mountain ranges within this province include the Santa Ynez, Santa Susana, Topatopa, San Gabriel, Sierra Pelona, and San Bernardino Mountains. Sedimentary basins include the Ventura, Soledad, and Ridge Basins, and the San Fernando Valley. Major drainages include the Santa Clara River, Big Tujunga Canyon, San Gabriel River, and Los Angeles River. Mountain ranges in the Transverse Ranges are comprised of rocks that are progressively older from the west to east. East -west trending folds and faults predominate in this area. Mountain ranges are separated by valleys, faults, and downwarps. Mid to late Pleistocene faulting uplifted the area, resulting f in the present-day landforms. Geologic environments represented in the rocks found in the Transverse Ranges include periods of non - marine deposits (Saugus, Mint Canyon, Sespe formations), marine deposits (Pico, Repetto, Monterey, San Fransisquito) volcanics (Conejo Volcanic series),and metamorphic or igneous rocks(Lowe Granodiorite, Pelona Schist, Mendenhall Gneiss). Important faults within this province include the San Andreas, San Gabriel, Red Mountain, Cucamonga, Raymond Hill, San Fernando, and Ventura faults. Many historical earthquakes have been documented along these and other faults. a. Site Geology. The site is on the northern flank of the San Gabriel Mountains. Terrain across the site includes the Oak Springs wash on the northeast to eastern part of the site, and a smaller drainage area towards the northwestern part of the property. Topographic highs are comprised of rocks of the Mint Canyon Formation. Lowlands are covered with Quaternary aged (within the last 2 million years) alluvium. The alluvium is derived as erosional remnants of the surrounding Mint Canyon Formation rCity of Santa Clarit 5.1-1 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.1 Earth Resources and other rocks. Other earth materials mapped onsite by Gorian & Associates (1995) include landslides, debris flows, and non -engineered fill. The Mint Canyon Formation is of Miocene age (Miocene is from 5-22 million years before present). It is a non -marine sedimentary formation comprised of thin to thick bedded, light gray to greenish gray and tan to light brown conglomerate, sandstone, and silty claystone. Some greenish gray to dark olive green bentonitic clay seams were noted by Gorian & Associates (1995). Geologic structure of the Mint Canyon Formation at the site included beds dipping towards the west, southwest, and northwest at an angle of 15° to 50°. A broad southwesterly plunging anticline -syncline is inferred to cross the central and southeastern portions of the property (Gorian & Associates, 1995). Quaternary Alluvium are present in the low-lying areas of the site. The alluvium in the tributary canyons consists of brown to gray silty fine sand and gravel; alluvium in the central area of Oak Spring Canyon consists of interbedded sand, gravel, cobbles, and boulders of granite composition. The alluvium is generally unconsolidated at the surface to moderately consolidated at depth. Landslides and Debris flows were noted by Gorian and Associates (1995) in the northwest and southeast part of the proposed development. One block glide landslide having a depth of six feet, was also noted by Gorian (1995). Von -engineered fill was encountered by Gorian (1995) in the area of fairway #6 of the western golf course. This fill supposedly is an area of backfill of an old meandering drainage channel of Live Oak Springs Canyon Creek. Topsoil mapped by the Soil Survey (Soil Survey Antelope Valley Area, 1970) include the following: Hanford sandy loam, Oak Glen sandy loam, Oak Glen loam, Oak Glen gravely sandy loam, and Saugus loam. Per Gorian and Associates (1995), groundwater was measured onsite at depths of 33 and 35 feet. Per research described in their report, the highest groundwater level within well number 7188A, located at the intersection of Sand Canyon Road and Live Oak Springs Canyon Road (measured November 27, 1978), was at 3.8 feet below ground surface. Depth to groundwater is expected to vary with season. A groundwater geophysical survey was completed by Sub Surface Surveys (1995) for the Oak Spring Canyon portion of the property. They interpret the.survey data as recording groundwater at different levels across the site. Near Oak Spring Creek, water is inferred at about 14 feet below grade. Away from the creek, water is inferred at 80 feet. This location was drilled and water was encountered at 71 feet below grade. b. Seismic Conditions. No active or potentially active faults as identified by the State Geologist (Hart, 1992) are mapped on the subject property. As mapped by Saul (1983), the Pole Canyon fault terminates within the north -central portion of the property. This fault is not mapped as active or ary or zianra 5.1-2 I I I I P I 7 I I ri I I I I Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.1 Earth Resources potentially active. Other small offsets and faults were mapped onsite by Gorian and Associates (1995). They found no direct evidence of Quaternary or Holocene movement along these faults Although no mapped active faults cross the site, the proximity of active faults is such that the area has experienced strong seismically induced ground motion and will probably experience continued strong seismically induced ground motion in the future. Several active or potentially active faults in the vicinity of the project area are listed in Table 5.1-1. The expected peak ground acceleration that these faults may generate at the site are also listed (Gorian & Associates, 1995). Table 5.1-1 Nearby Faults and Associated Seismic Accelerations Fault Approximate distance from site (miles) Estimated Richter Magnitude Maximum Credible Rock Acceleration (g) Repeatable Ground Acceleration (g) San Gabriel 2.5 6.7 0.70 0.35-0.50 San Fernando 7 6.4 0.64 0.30-0.45 Santa Susana 9 6.6 0.34 0.15-025 San Andreas 16 8.1+ 0.38 0.20-0.25 Oak Ridge 18 6.7 021 0.10-0.15 San Cayetano 18 6.7 0.14 0.05-0.10 Newport -Inglewood 25 6.7 0.14 0.05.0.10 Malibu Coast 1 27 1 6.6 1 0.13 1 0.05-0.10 The Northridge earthquake of January 1994 produced strong groundshaking and damage to numerous structures in the City of Santa Clarita. The epicenter of the earthquake was about 13 miles southwest of the project area. As listed in Table 5.1-1, seismically induced ground accelerations of up to 0.5 g (g=gravity, 32 ft/sec/sec) are expected to occur at the subject site. Seismic events also have the potential to cause liquefaction of surface sediments and destabilization of slopes (landslides and debris slides). Liquefaction potential for most of the site is low because of the depth to groundwater. As described in the City of Santa Clarita General Plan (1991), the project site is not within an area subject to liquefaction. Gorian & Associates (1995) studied the area for liquefaction potential and concluded that potions of the southwest comer of the project area may be susceptible to liquefaction. They state that further evaluation of this area is necessary to better understand the liquefaction potential and to develop mitigation measures if necessary. Several small landslides and debris flows are mapped on the property (Gorian & Associates; 1995). No landslides were identifiedon the project area in the City's General Plan (1991). 5.1.2 Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds. The following conditions constitute a geologic hazard that has the potential to significantly impact the site: • onsite active or potentially active faults • locating structures on soils with the potential for liquefaction or hydroconsolidation 5.1-3 c ny I Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.1 Earth Resources • seismic ground shaking that could activate landslides, debris flows, or other large scale mass wasting event • improper fill subject to compaction • improperly engineered cut of fill slopes • undercutting bedrock in a manner that destabilizes the slope • removal of vegetation from areas, resulting in adverse erosion of the area • modifying the site drainage in a manner that causes adverse erosion or flooding of the area Per the City of Santa Clarita General Plan, several city ordinances will apply to the development of this site. Some of these ordinances include: • Grading (17.20) • Removal of Brush and Vegetation (17.25.020) • Storm Drainage Precautions (17.25.030) • Import and Export (17.26) • Excavations and Fills (17.27) • Ridgeline Preservation (17.27.030) • Drainage and Terracing (17.28) • Grading Designation and Location (17.29) • Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance (17.80) b. Project Impacts. Effect ER -1 Grading of site has the potential to create destabilized cut slopes. (S) The project is proposed to involve the development of two golf courses and construction of 76 residential lots. Extensive grading, including cut and fill, will modify the topography of the area. The conceptual grading plans indicate that slopes to be cut would not exceed 2:1 (horizontal: vertical), which is an acceptable angle of repose for these materials. If this slope aspect is exceeded (made steeper), then proper geotechnical considerations are necessary to ensure the stability of the cut face. Special consideration is also necessary for cut slopes that expose adverse bedding of the bedrock. Adverse bedding occurs when the angle of cutting exposes blocks of material that become unsupported and can slide downslope along the bedding plane. Adverse bedding slopes were not identified following a review of the grading maps; however, the maps reviewed may not be the final grading design. Thus, if adverse slopes are encountered during construction, the following mitigation will be necessary. Mitigation Measures. ER -1 The Uniform Building Code (UBC) pertaining to cut and fill shall be followed. Engineering considerations are to include design of drainage back slopes, drainage downslope channels, and buttressing unstable slopes. The buttressing is to involve City of Santa Clarita 5.1-4 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.1 Earth Resources the proper placement of compacted fill material, compacted to the UBC specifications for such an application. Significance After Miti ag tion. Proper engineering of the cut slopes should mitigate this effect to less than significant. iEffect ER -2: Cutting slopes and re -emplacement of fill material would leave slope faces exposed to extensive erosion. This erosion has the potential to destabilize slopes and impede the proper drainage of the area. (S) Slopes stripped of vegetation could be adversely eroded by irrigation watering or periods of rainfall. During the construction period, the onsite slopes would produce debris similar to a "burned and bulked" condition during a capital storm (see Section 5.2), with the onsite debris production being approximately I 128 cubic yards per acre. This sediment would be transported downstream, where it can clog drainage conveyances and create flooding problems. This effect is discussed further in Section 5.2, as is the requirement for Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce the amount of sediment washed off the site. After project completion, the applicant proposes to revegetate the golf course area with fairway grasses and a mix of native plants along cut slopes. If revegetation on the cut slopes is not initiated as soon as the earthwork is complete, excessive erosion may occur. Excessive erosion could also occur if inappropriate irrigation methods are used. Mitigation Measures. ER -2(a) All slopes are to be constructed per the requirements of the UBC pertaining to cut slopes. This engineering is to include terraces with drainage back slopes (drainage keys), downspouts, and proper surfacing of the drainage backslopes. Maintenance of the drainage keys is to include removal of debris before the beginning of the rainy season and periodic debris removal as necessary during the rainy season. ER -2(b) A proper watering system, such as drip irrigation, shall be established for site cut slopes to minimize the volume of water during the establishment of the vegetation, thus reducing the potential of erosion during this period. Significance After Mitigation. Through the proper design, implementation, and maintenance of the slopes and drainage features and the use of BMPs, erosional effects can be reduced to less than significant. ` Effect ER -3 This project includes the extensive use of fill material to construct the golf course and building pads for residences. The fill has the potential to settle (or rebound) under the weight of the house built upon it, from landscape irrigation, from swimming pools constructed, and from seismic shaking. (S) City of Santa Clarita 5.1-5 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.1 Earth Resources Proper segregation of earth materials to be used for fill, and the placement of the fill is a critical issue facing this project. During the grading of the area, the Mint Canyon Formation rock is to be cut in places. This formation contains bentonitic beds, which are a clayey material that expands and is prone to slippage, especially when wet. During grading, large rock and bentonitic material would be generated that would need to be incorporated into the fill areas. Rock and bentonite need either to be removed from the fill or buried to a depth and in a manner that the proper compaction characteristics can be met per the recommendations of the geotechnical engineer. Otherwise, differential settling of the fill either due to the weight of a structure or because of seismic shaking could create unacceptable ground movement, resulting in cracking of the foundation of structures. Building lots that straddle cut and fill lines create the possibility of a building pad lying across the cut/fill lines. Since the fill material may further compact under seismic shaking, while the cut area remains at the cut elevation, the building pad foundation could be vertically offset and significant damage done to any structure lying across the cut/fill line. ER -3(a) Fill density shall follow UBC. If the fill material does not meet the strength and compaction requirements, the material shall be rejected and used elsewhere on the property, such as in the golf course construction. All adverse vegetationshallbe removed from the fill prior to emplacement. Fill lifts and compaction testing shall be per UBC and signed off by the supervising geologist or engineer. ER -3(b) Areas across the cut/fill line shall be well documented and disclosed to the purchaser of the lot involved. This disclosure will allow subsequent property modification, such as the construction of a swimming pool, to consider the possibility of differential setting of the lot. Significance After Mitigation. Through proper design and implementation, this effect can be reduced to not significant. Effect ER4 Grading will expose barren soils that are unconsolidated and easily eroded, which can result in extensive offsite transport of eroded material during storm events and impact drainage channels with a sediment load. (S) Site slopes and bottomlands are currently highly erosive, but removal of vegetation would increase the possible debris generation potential of the area during intense rainfall. Transport of the material offsite during storm events would increase existing problems along Sand Canyon Road (see Section 5.2) and possibly cause some local depositional problems along Oak Spring Canyon. City of Santa Clarita 5.1-6 I Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.1 Earth Resources Mitigation Measures. ER -4 Per City requirements, grading is not to be performed during the rainy period (October 1 to April 15) unless the grading plans include provisions to mitigate erosion, flooding, or the deposition of sediment or debris. Grading performed during the rest of the year shall contain a provision for dust suppression. Significance After Mitigation. Proper timing and design of the grading schedule should mitigate this effect to not significant. Effect ER -5 Known landslides and debris flows are located near and on residential lots and movement of these earth masses could damage structures. (S) Landslides are located on to the west of Lots 53 and 54, and on Lots 36 and 37. Debris flows were noted on Lots 19 and 20, and above Lots 22 and 23. Construction of the extension of Live Oak Springs Canyon Road through the site would remove a portion of the landslide above Lots 53 and 54, destabilizing this structure and potentially creating a safety hazard during grading or damage to structures after completion of site grading. The landslides on Lots 36 and 37 would be fully removed during the course of grading based on the most recent grading plan and should not cause a hazard post - grading. If the debris flows are either undermined during construction or are not stabilized during grading operations, future downhill movement of material could cause structural damage to any buildings or other structures located on those lots. MMitigation Measures. ER -5 Landslides and debris flows are to be stabilized or removed. Final grading plans should'show the removal and/or stabilization of the landslide west of Lots 53 and 54. Debris flows shall also be removed where they have the potential to do damage. Stabilization or removal shall be performed under the direction of a competent engineer or geologist. ! Significance After Mitigation. Proper stabilization or removal of these features would eliminate these geologic hazards. Effect ER -6 Strong seismically induced ground shaking will occur at this site. The ground shaking has the potential to cause fill material to settle, destabilize slopes, and cause physical damage to structures, property, utilities, road access, and humans. (S) The project site is located in an area subject to strong ground shaking during seismic events and building codes adopted by the City have been established to set standards for construction in such an area. Besides the direct physical damage to structures caused by the ground shaking, marginally stable j rCity of Santa Clarita S.t-7 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.1 Earth Resources landslides, slopes, and inadequately compacted fill material could move and cause additional damage. Gas, water, and electrical lines can be ruptured during the ground shaking, or broken during the movement of material activated by the seismic event, which can jeopardize public safety after an earthquake. In general, development of the project site does not create any greater risk than similar developments in the Santa Clarita area, and the location of the proposed uses in this area does not create a significant environmental impact. Nonetheless, project specific construction and design measures are needed to minimize any risks associated with strong ground shaking at the site. Mitigation Measures. ER -6 Placement of fill material and compaction shall be done to withstand settling that could occur with seismic ground shaking. Landslides, unstable rock slopes and debris flows shall be stabilized to prevent movement during or following an earthquake. Significance After Mitigation. Through proper design, the effects of an earthquake can be reduced to an acceptable level of risk. Effect ER -7 The project and surrounding area is seismically active. Active and potentially active faults have been mapped within the City limits that have the potential to cause ground rupture. (NS) No known active or potentially active faults have been mapped on the project site. Although not all faults are known, or identifiable on the ground surface, the potential for ground rupture by faulting on this site appears to be low. Mitigation Measures. None necessary. However, if during grading faults are observed that could be active or potentially active, the project design shall be modified to account for the possibility of ground rupture. Fault setbacks, per UBC, shall be followed. Significance After Mitigation. At present, ground rupture is considered an insignificant impact for this site. Effect ER -8. Certain portions of the site near local drainages have the potential to liquefy during seismic conditions, which can result in damage to overlying structures. (S) Shallow groundwater may exist in the area of Oak Spring creek and the northwestern part of the site along Live Oak Springs Canyon creek. Depending on the soil stratigraphy, depth to groundwater, and seismically induced ground shaking, liquefaction could occur. Liquefaction has the potential to damage or destroy structures built on the liquefiable material because of the loss of support. Areas earmarked City of Santa Clarita 5.1-8 I I I I C I I I I I I I I I Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.1 Earth Resources for structures shall be assessed for the potential of liquefiable sediments. Soil borings and material testing is to be performed for areas having the potential for liquefaction. Mitigation Measures. ER -8 If liquefiable soils are encountered during grading, then proper re-engineering of the soils shall be performed or the proposed structures moved to areas away from liquefiable soils. Areas of properties that have the potential of liquefaction shall be identified, and purchasers of these lots shall be told of the liquefaction potential. Significance After Mitigation. With proper design and notification, this effect would not be considered significant. ' Effect ER -9 Hydroconsolidation of soils occurs when groundwater causes soils to recompact, resulting in settling of the material. (S) Gorian and Associates (1995) stated that some areas of the property have the potential for hydroconsolidation. These areas are located primarily in the bottomlands and possible hydroconsolidation would affect Lot Nos. 46-48, 57-59, 61-63, and 70-71. Differential settling of soils because of hydrocompaction could result in structural damage of residences. Mitigation Measures. ER -9 The potential for hydroconsolidation shall be further examined in the detailed geotechnical report to be prepared for the final grading plan. If there is a risk of ' hydroconsolidation, the earth materials are to be re -engineered to reduce this risk, or the proposed structures relocated to an area without the potential of hydroconsolidation. Areas of a lot that have the potential of hydroconsolidation that is not mitigated shall be identified, and property purchasers be notified of the risk of hydroconsolidation. Significance After Mitigation. Through proper design and notification, this effect can be reduced to less . than significant. Effect ER -10 Project would develop an area designated as "significant mineral deposits" and prevent the exploitation of this natural resource for at least the foreseeable future. (NS) Oak Spring Canyon contains alluvial sand and gravel deposits that have been designated as. MRZ-2 (areas where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present or where it is judged that a high likelihood for their presence exists) by the California Division of Mining and Geology (S.E. Joseph, et al, 1987 CDMG Special Report 143). Within the MRZ-2 area, sectors were developed if City of Santa Clarita 5.1-9 I Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.1 Earth Resources the then current land use was similar to those in areas which had feasible mineral extraction in the past. The classification of lands into sectors was based on economic and social exclusion factors that eliminated those lands that were already developed for residential, commercial, industrial and recreational uses, along with roads, dams, bridges, transmission corridors etc., but this sectorization did not consider planned land use. Establishment of sectors in no way infringes on the authority of local governments that are charged with the responsibility of making land use decisions (CDMG Special Report 143, pg. 45). The Oak Canyon alluvial area (bottomlands) is designed as Sector A-12, while other sectors are designated for most of the land to the east of the site within the Angeles National Forest (Sectors B-1 and C-1), and the Santa Clara River (additional Sector A). The CDMG estimates that , Sector A contains a total of 900 million tons of sand and gravel, Sector B contains 1,600 million tons of sand and gravel, and Sector C contains 6,000 million tons of crushed rock resources. The proposed project site is estimated to contain approximately 1.2 - 2.2 million cubic yards of aggregate resources (2.0 - 3.7 million tons based on .065 tons per cubic foot and 5% wastage; CDMG Special Report 143), or about 0.4% of the total resource amount identified for Sector A. In California, ' reported construction sand and gravel sold or used by producers totaled 112.9 million tons in 1992, 106.2 million tons in 1993, and an estimated 102.5 million tons in 1994 (USDOI, Bureau of Mines, 1994). Statewide, an additional I 1 million tons of aggregate from crushed stone was used in 1993. Assuming that sand and gravel use is roughly proportional to population, Los Angeles County used about 31 million tons in 1993. Therefore the project site would represent only 7-12% of one year's production of sand and gravel in the regional market. On a economic scale of development of 250,000 tons per year, the project site would represent about 0.8% of annual regional production for an approximate ten year period. In comparison, the mining operations east of the project site is planning on extracting about 12.7 million cubic yards (21 million tons) over the next 10 years (Tetra Tech, 1991). The CDMG Special Publication 143 indicated that 510 million tons of aggregate reserves were contained in the combined Saugus -Newhall and Palmdale Production -Consumption areas by the end of 1981. Reserves are those aggregate deposits that are owned and controlled by sand and gravel mining companies for which a valid permit for extraction exists, as compared to the resources described above. Total projected aggregate consumption for the 50 -year period to the year 2032 was 54 million tons for the Saugus -Newhall Production -Consumption area and the amount of reserves is sufficient to provide for the estimated needs of this area by more than sevenfold (CDMG Special Report 143, pg. xiii). However, it was noted that the San Fernando Valley Production -Consumption area was consuming 30% of the production from the Saugus Newhall area, and if high demand from the San Fernando Valley and , the Western Ventura County Production -Consumption areas were to occur, then the reserves could be depleted in 50 years and additional resources would need to be permitted for extraction. Given the amount of reserves and resources still available in the Saugus -Newhall area and the lack of indications of a shortage in supply for the area, the commitment of the land to golf course and residential use is not expected to have a significant impact on the supply of sand and gravel resources. The recycling of aggregate resources from demolition wastes as part of City and County requirements to substantially reduce solid waste generation has also added new resources to the market. In addition, City Santa Clarita of 5.1-]0 I Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.1 Earth Resources since the primary sand and gravel resource area would be occupied by the golf course, the project would not represent an actual irretrievable commitment of this resource since the golf course could be converted to gravel production if there became a critical need for this resource. However, the presence of residential uses adjacent to the golf course would make this scenario highly unlikely. The City during the development and approval of its 1991 General Plan did not consider mining and extraction uses as appropriate to the project site when it was designated for development as Residential Estate and Residential Very Low. The City's Land Use Element contains a specific Mineral/Oil Conservation Area overlay designation that is intended to permit the continuation of mineral extraction and oil field uses while providing for further development of the City. While this overlay was placed on the sand and gravel deposits in the Santa Clara River north of the site and the existing mining operations to the northeast of the site (1993 General Plan Land Use Map), it was not so designated for the project site. In addition, the major portion of the aggregate deposits within the project site is located in the 160 acre northeast parcel, an area -that was entitled for development of 140 residential lots in 1990. The proposed project would not alter these substantial existing limitations on the potential use of the site for mineral extraction, and so would not create a new significant impact on regional mineral resource ' deposits that did not already exist. Mitigation Measures. None necessary since the available supply of sand and gravel would not be Isubstantially reduced by the proposed project. Sienificance After Mitigation. The potential loss of aggregate resources because of project development is considered adverse, but not significant. �II �J I I IJ n 5.1-11 i MrA Clarita I I I I I I I I I I 1 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.2 Hydrology, Drainage, Water 5.2 HYDROLOGY, DRAINAGE, WATER The eastern portion of the property lies within the floodplain of Oak Spring Creek and one of the proposed golf courses would lie within this regulatory, floodway, but none of the residences would be affected. The western slope golfcourse would contain the stream channel for Live Oak Springs Canyon Creek and the shallow flood zone of the creek Current planning by the LACFCD includes construction of a debris basin along the western property boundary just north of the proposed access road; this basin would decrease existing flooding problems downstream and along Sand Canyon Road and, to the extent that the project aids in the construction of this basin, is a beneficial effect of the project. Construction of the proposed project could result in excessive erosion and downstream sedimentation during the construction phase; implementation of Best Management Practices as required by the NPDES permit required for the project would minimize this effect. The site drainage concept appears adequate to handle the expected site runoff, and is not expected to cause any increases in existing downstream flooding. The relocation of the access easement along the north property line in Oak Spring Canyon has been designed to maintain a grade of 8% or less, which meets Fire Department accessibility requirements. The change in land use could result in decreased surface water and groundwater quality; a Best Management Practice Plan and Integrated Pest Management Plan that include specific physical structures and programs to reduce the potential for reductions in water quality shall be required. The applicant is proposing to supplement potable water with extracted groundwater for irrigation of the golf course. The use of an extraction well in Oak Spring Canyon could cause a significant decrease in available supply to the downstream domestic wells and also significantly decrease water levels in nearby wells. As mitigation, the applicant shall conduct groundwater. pump tests thatfurther define the aquifer characteristics and shall limit the amount of water pumped during dry and average rainfall years. The applicant shall also provide backbone infrastructure for a potable water supply from the project site along Oak Spring Canyon Road This would allow downstream domestic well users to tie into the local water purveyor system and reduce the potential for significant effects related both to reduced water supply and possible groundwater contamination. 5.2.1 Setting The project site lies within two different watersheds, Sand Canyon and Oak Spring Canyon, both of which drain into the Santa Clara River less than one mile north of the site. The streams within these canyons, like most in the area, are intermittent with streamflow generally occurring.after winter rains begin and with flow maintained only as long as rains continue sufficiently to sustain flows. With suburban development of portions of the watersheds, some local intermittent flows can develop during the summer in the urbanized channels because of irrigation overflow, but this flow is negligible when compared to winter flows. The natural stream areas are susceptible to major debris flows because of erosion from steep mountain slopes with sparse vegetation. Most of the major flood events in the area are the result of high intensity rains, which can be further aggravated by major fires that denude 5.2-1 c;ny Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.2 Hydrology, Drainage, Water vegetation in the affected watershed. Flood control planning is therefore based on stream flows that are "burned and bulked,". reflective of a burned watershed with high debris flows contained in the normal (clear) water flow. Ninety percent of annual rainfall in the area occurs during November through April as a result of winter storms from the northwest. Infrequent summer thunderstorms and showers from tropical depressions account for the remaining rainfall. Average annual precipitation in the area is about 14 inches, with up to 20 inches falling at the higher elevations to the south of the project area. The amount of rainfall that occurs in any one year can vary greatly, ranging from less than 10 inches to over 40 inches. The 50 -year 24-hour precipitation event for the project site is 7.0 inches, while the 25 -year event is 6.0 inches and the 100 -year event is 8.0 inches (U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Atlas 2, Volume XI). a. Sand Canyon Watershed. The Sand Canyon drainage has been partially controlled by past development and off-site stormwater flows are via drainage swales along roadways and through earthen open channels within urbanized areas. Sand Canyon Creek is partially improved with double wire fence, stream stabilizers along various reaches, and timber and rail wall revetment along its lower reaches. - The Live Oak Springs Canyon drainage, a tributary to Sand Canyon, flows through the western end of the property, through the three off-site lots along Sand Canyon Road, through the northwesterly portion of the site, and then exits the site by passing over the sidewalk and curb at the Comet Way intersection. Flows are conveyed along Sand Canyon Road via asphalt and concrete shallow trapezoidal channels on both sides of Sand Canyon Road for about 700 feet north to near Road Runner Road. The east side flows are directed under Sand Canyon Road towards the west side via two 12 -inch corrugated metal pipes (CMP) at the south driveway of the church and three 18 -inch CMPs at the north church driveway. The combined flows are then routed under Road Runner Road via two large CMPs and into an open dirt channel that then merges with Sand Canyon wash. Annual average stomas result in flooding and debris deposition from Live Oak Springs Canyon Creek onto Sand Canyon Road between Comet Way and Road Runner Road, and frequently north to Lost Canyon Road. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA, 1989) has prepared flood mapping for the 100 - year peak discharge, which has a 1% probability of occurring in any year. Figure 5.2-1 illustrates that the lowland areas of the site along Live Oak Springs Canyon Creek are exposed to shallow flooding at depths from one to three feet (Zone AO), with the 100 -year flood (Zone A) located along the creek. The 50 -year peak storm runoff in Live Oak Springs Canyon Creek entering the site comes from 497 acres per Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) File 38.41, and has a flow rate of 1416 cubic feet per second (cfs) for burned and bulked flows. Burned and bulked flows leaving the site and combined with flows from the Comet Way area are 1680 cfs. The 50 -year peak discharge has a 2% probability of occurring in any one year based on LACFCD calculation methods. The project engineer (Sikand Engineering, May 1995) calculated the 50 -year peak runoff under existing conditions for the western slope of the site (Sand Canyon drainage) using the LACFCD rational method. Flows were calculated for burned conditions and burned and bulked conditions to estimate the debris City of Santa Clarita 5.2-2 11 11 I 11 I 11 I I I I 1 I I Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Road °x711. _. �'�� • � ' - J .�;- - 2 tp, It a Q'u'a f �Ke �` 's`.„ I Rabbit, Canyon .l LACFCD FEMA Floodway Zone A 0 1200 _24.00 fFloodplain Zone AO Scale in Feet Sources: LACFCD Map 382-MLJ per Sikand Engineering, May 1995; FEMA, 1989 cfs = cubic feet per second Base Map: USGS Mint Canyon Quadrangle 100 -Year and Capital Storm T Flood Map NORTH Figure 5.2-1 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.2 Hydrology, Drainage, Water flow potential of the site. These hydrology calculations are herein incorporated by reference per the State CEQA Guidelines; a copy of the calculations and large scale mapping is available for reference at the Community Development Department of the City of Santa Clarita. These calculations were reviewed by the EIR preparer and appear to be reasonable. The hydrology analysis divided the west slope area into several small sub -basins of 3 to 20 acres each. Most of the sub -basins drain into Live Oak Springs Canyon creek, but two larger sub -basins drain to the north. Burned and bulked flows from the individual sub -basins ranged from 6 to 104 cfs, while calculated debris potential ranged from 128 to 3000 cubic yards. Existing calculated flows for the subbasins that do not flow directly into Live Oak Springs Canyon creek are shown in Figure 5.2-1. As previously stated, debris -ladened flows from Live Oak Springs Canyon have created flooding and sedimentation problems along Sand Canyon Road north of the project site. The LACFCD in 1989 recommended the construction of a debris basin adjacent to Sand Canyon Road and north of Boulder Creek Road, which is a small dirt road that provides access to the northernmost of the three developed lots on Sand Canyon adjacent to the project. This debris basin is currently proposed (May 2. 1996) to have a capacity of 3,000 cy and would be located north of the proposed golf course drive. This sizing is based on an estimated debris production of 2,700 cy (Wendy La, LACDPW Design Division, May 2, 1996). Further description of the debris basin is contained in Section 3.7.4. Outlet flows from this debris basin would be contained in a reinforced concrete box (14 feet wide by 7 feet high) buried under Sand Canyon Road. The box would outlet north of Road Runner Road into a short open channel that would merge with Sand Canyon wash. It is also proposed that an upstream lateral of the box culvert consisting of a 48 -inch reinforced concrete pipe storm drain be constructed in Sand Canyon Road from the debris basin to the intersection of Live Oak Springs Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road. Four inlets at this location would divert gutter flows into the storm drain system. This storm drain may be constructed in coordination with the widening of Sand Canyon Road to be done as part of this project if it is approved. b. Oak Spring Canyon Watershed. Oak Spring Canyon has three main tributaries flowing from Angeles National Forest lands upstream of the site. To the south of the project site, Rabbit Canyon drains 960 acres of forest lands onto the site. The main (middle) branch of Oak Spring Canyon drains 1410 acres through the mining pit to the east of the site, and an unnamed drainage north of the middle branch drains 650 acres onto the site at the northeast corner. Peak flow from the capital flood entering the site from Rabbit Canyon is 2290 cfs, with 3490 cfs from the main branch and 920 cfs from the northern drainage (Figure 5.2-1). Debris potential for Oak Spring Canyon was estimated based on Los Angeles County Flood Control debris production curves (based on the 50 -year event) for the Santa Clara River watershed (Tetra Tech, 1991). Based on these curves, Oak Spring Canyon could potentially generate 63,900 cubic yards (cy) of debris upstream of the site, with about 47,250 cy generated in Rabbit Canyon and 34,900 cy from the unnamed drainage. Not all of this material would flow into or through the site, rather this material would be distributed along the creeks depending on the actual flow conditions and physical City of Santa Clarita 5.2-4 I I I a I I I I I I I 11 L1 11 u Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.2 Hydrology, Drainage, Water characteristics of the streams. The average annual sediment rate for all of Oak Spring Canyon including the project site and the upstream tributaries was estimated to be about 10,800 cy. These values are subject to a high degree of variability that is dependent on actual rainfall and watershed conditions, but present a general picture of potential debris flow in normal and wet years. Floodway and floodplain mapping for the 100 -year runoff event have been prepared for the Oak Spring Canyon area by FEMA. Figure 5.2-1 illustrates the current flood mapping for Oak Spring Canyon per LACFCD Map 382 -ML 1 (Sikand Engineering, May 1995). The 100 -year peak discharge estimates used by FEMA in creating floodway maps are clear flows and the 50 -year burned and bulked flows (capital storm) used by LACFCD are approximately the same. The floodway area was apparently developed prior to the mining operations on adjacent lands, which have altered the topography of the area and the probable flow path of storm waters. Low flows from Rabbit Canyon continue to follow approximately the historical flow path due to a small berm at the top of the back of the mining excavation area in Rabbit Canyon. However, high flows would be expected to breach this berm and drop into the mining pit, from whence they would follow the mining road to empty into Oak Spring Canyon. In addition, the Gillibrand mining operations has created a large pit in Oak Spring Canyon just upstream of the site. This pit controls flows from typical storms by storing water and releasing it via an earthen channel when the storage volume exceeds the pit capacity. It is unknown what the capacity of the pit is, but it is estimated at 10 acre-feet. This storage capacity is not significant compared to the flows associated with capital storms and is not considered in the hydrology calculations. During high flows, the combined flood volume from Rabbit Canyon and Oak Spring Canyon would exist the detention basin and flow across the site at a point north of the mapped flow path. Because Oak Spring Canyon is an alluvial plain, it is somewhat misleading to designate a floodway, since during a.storm, the dynamic deposition and erosion of sediment could cause the main flow path to move anywhere within the canyon between the elevated hills. It is noted that there are also some discrepancies between the flood elevations generated by the FEMA floodplain mapping and the mapping using the updated current topography for the site. The updated analysis is considered more accurate. Sikand Engineering (May 1995) conducted a HEC -2 analysis to determine flow depths and velocities within the Oak Spring Canyon area under both current and post -project conditions. Undercurrent conditions, flows on the project site ranged from I to 6 feet deep with velocities between 2 and 9 feet per second. Discharge from the northerly end of the site was 3,850 cfs at a depth of 2.6 feet (cross-section 14). Velocity at this point was calculated at about 8 feet per second, with the flood width somewhat constrained to about 232 feet. Downstream of this point, flood waters are calculated to spread out to 1,400 feet in width with a flow of 4,660 cfs and a slower velocity of about 2 feet per second (cross- section 10). c. Water Quality. The protection of water quality in the onsite drainages is under the jurisdiction of the Regional Water Quality Board. This board establishes requirements prescribing the quality of point sources of discharge and establishes water quality objectives through the Water Quality Control Plan for the local basin. Water quality objectives are established based on the designated 5.2-5 City of Santa Clanta Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.2 Hydrology, Drainage, Water beneficial. uses for a particular surface water or groundwater basin. Beneficial uses designated for the Eastern Subarea of the Upper Santa Clara River Subunit, which includes the project tributaries, include industrial service and process supply, agricultural supply, groundwater recharge, water contact and non - contact recreation, freshwater replenishment, wildlife habitat, warmwater fish habitat, and fish spawning habitat (Regional Water Quality Control Board, 1978). Groundwater within the basin is designated for existing beneficial uses that include municipal and domestic water supply, industrial service and process supply, and agricultural supply. The basin plan contains narrative and specific numerical objectives for a variety of parameters and potential pollutants based on these beneficial uses designations. Water quality sampling of surface water along the Santa Clara River in 1974-1976 indicated that water quality in the project area (at Lang, about two miles upstream of Oak Spring Canyon) was relatively good, and decreased in quality downstream because of urban, agricultural, and wastewater discharges (US Geological Survey, 1978). For example, total nitrate was less than I milligram per liter (mg/1) at Lang, but increased to 4.4 mg/1 at the I-5 freeway. The quality of groundwater is expected to be similar to that of the surface water since most of the groundwater is derived from infiltration of surface water through alluvium. d. Groundwater. Groundwater in the project area is generally limited both in quantity and availability to the alluvial deposits within the Santa Clara River and the lower reaches of tributary streams to the river. Crystalline bedrock is relatively near to the ground surface in the area and groundwater within the shallow alluvial deposits drains towards the Santa Clara River. Groundwater depth within the Santa Clara River is illustrated by a municipal well owned by the Newhall County Water District (No. 7197 G) located in the Santa Clara River about one mile upstream of the confluence with Oak Spring Canyon. The depth to groundwater in this public water supply well vaned between 18 and 53 feet during the 1986 to 1988 periods, for which records are readily available (Tetra Tech, 1991). Sand Canyon Groundwater Basin - The Sand Canyon groundwater basin covers an area of approximately 1260 acres with a watershed of over 6,700 acres. It is considered part of the 418,630 acre Upper Santa Clara River Hydrologic Subunit, in the Eastern Hydrologic Subarea. Sand Canyon and its groundwater basin are defined by the uplifted slopes of Mint Canyon Formation (see Section 5:1 regarding regional geology and formations) that bound this canyon on the east and west. The southern end of the canyon is marked by granitic rocks and the San GabrielFaultzone. The groundwater basin is divisible into several parts: an upper basin generally south of Placenta Canyon Road, the main basin into which Iron Canyon flows, and the Live Oak Springs Canyon basin, which joins the main basin at the western end of the project site. The Sand Canyon groundwater basin is broader where Iron Canyon Creek joins Sand Canyon Creek, measuring about one mile in width, and narrowing just north of the project site to about '''A mile in width. The groundwater basin is expected to be composed of an upper alluvial aquifer that is unconfined and a lower aquifer(s) associated with the underlying Mint Canyon Formation that is semi -confined. The Sand Canyon alluvium at the project site is clayey silty sand to sandy silt composed of interbedded sand, City of Santa Clarita 5.2-6 I I Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.2 Hydrology, Drainage, Water r gravel, and silts (Gorian and Associates, 1995), while the Mint Canyon Formation is the silty claystone, conglomerate, and sandstone formation that forms the ridges of the project site. Clay seams, which are aquitards, are frequent throughout this formation based on the exposed portions of this rock unit, and are expected to create a semi -confined aquifer condition. This formation contains water in the alluvial valley reaches based on boring logs in the Sand Canyon portion of the site (Gorian and Associates, 1 March 1995). Generalized water well data made available by American Water Well, Inc. (see Appendix F) indicated that many of the local wells are located within the main basin area. Wells were drilled to depths of 100 to 400 feet, with most of the wells being 100 to 180 feet in depth. Static groundwater levels recorded in the wells at the time of drilling ranged from 10 feet to 194 feet. Since exact locations of the wells are 1 unknown and the data spans over a decade of varying water conditions, definite statements regarding the groundwater basin characteristics cannot be made. However, the water levels of those locations generally nearer to the creeks are higher than those elsewhere, with water levels near the project site being the highest, on the order of 10-30 feet below ground surface level. The high groundwater in this portion of the basin is probably due to the pinching in of the basin both horizontally and vertically as it drains to the north. Based on the Gorian Associates boring logs, the water level in the Live Oak Springs Canyon portion of the site is generally about 40 feet in depth. The Mint Canyon Formation underlies the site in this location at about 20-25 feet, with significant amounts of groundwater expected in this formation. However, the most productive wells in the area are probably perforated within the upper alluvium. The highest groundwater measured in the area was 3.8 feet below the ground surface at the intersection of Live Oak Springs Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road (well number 7188A) in November 1978. The Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (1995) reported a groundwater contour of 1550 feet MSL, or about 40-50 feet below the ground surface at the project site in Fall 1994. Two abandoned water wells exist within the project site within the Sand Canyon watershed. The wells are located about 400 feet east of Live Oak Springs Canyon Creek, near the fairway for hole No. 16. A water well formerly used for irrigation purposes on the Arthur parcel has been newly refurbished, with a new pump and two new storage tanks of about 2,000 gallons each. This well is 128 feet deep, with the pump set at 90 feet. It was test pumped for a few hours at 32 gpm in March 1996. Static water level in the well in March of 1996 was at 15.5 feet. ` Oak Spring Canyon Groundwater Basin - The Oak Spring Canyon groundwater basin is also part of the Upper Santa River Hydrologic Subunit. It is generally triangular in shape, defined by the ridges of Mint Canyon Formation on the east and west, terminated at its southern apex by granitic rock, and having its base at the Santa Clara River. Using the railroad tracks as the dividing line between the main Santa Clara River basin and this small basin, the basin would cover an area of about 530 acres with a watershed of about 3,650 acres. About 300 acres of the basin are within or upstream of the site. City of Santa Clarita 5.2.7 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.2 Hydrology, Drainage, Water The underlying groundwater basin of Oak Spring Canyon appears to consist of two potential aquifer zones, the upper alluvial materials and the lower Mint Canyon Formation. Below the Mint Canyon Formation, particularly at the southern end of the site, lies crystalline basement rock (granite) that is expressed at the surface just 1400 feet south of the project site. This crystalline basement rock does not contain water, nor does water infiltrate into this rock. The Mint Canyon Formation is expected to overlie the basement rock, with alluvial deposits on top of this bedrock. Based on work done by Subsurface Surveys (1995), these alluvial deposits may be divisible into two or three layers of increasing consolidation. Consistent with the fluvial environment in which the alluvium was deposited, it is only a few feet thick at the contact with the granitic rock, and deepening to the north as the alluvium fills the valley. Boring log and trenching data (Gorian and Associates, 1995) indicate a change from south to north in the surficial deposits from coarse sand and gravel with common pebbles to a silty sand within the project site. Further north of the project site, the basin widens substantially and higher amounts of silt are expected in the top layers. No water wells are known to have been developed on the site within the Oak Spring Canyon area. A number of small domestic wells are located in the rural residential area north and westerly of the project site along Oak Spring Canyon Road, and in the unnamed canyon east of the site. As noted above, the Santa Clarita Water Company operates a municipal water well within the Santa Clara River north and slightly downstream of the confluence with Oak Spring Canyon Creek. _Based on comments received during the scoping meeting for this EIR, the water supply from the local domestic wells is considered to be limited by the residents that depend on them. The generalized well data indicate that the local wells in the Oak Spring Canyon area range in depth from 73 feet to over 700 feet in depth. Most of the wells are fairly deep, from 280 to 500 feet in depth, with static groundwater levels recorded in the wells at the time of drilling ranging from 38 feet to 213 feet. Since exact locations of the wells are unknown and the data spans over a decade of varying water conditions, definite statements regarding the groundwater basin characteristics cannot be made. However, compared to the well tests for the Sand Canyon basin which showed flows of 10-25 gallons per minute (gpm), the wells in the Oak Spring basin were substantially less productive, with most in the 0.5 to 4 gpm range, though two wells did show 20 gpm values. Both of the wells with higher flow rates contained relatively higher static water levels. Within Oak Spring Canyon at the northern end of the site, the groundwater level during April of 1995 appeared to be in the order of 80 feet below the ground level. This was following a good winter rain season with heavy rains and local flooding. At the time of the groundwater investigation by SubSurface Surveys (May 1995), the Rabbit Canyon drainage was still flowing, while the Oak Spring Canyon drainage was captured by the offsite mining pit and was presumably recharging the local groundwater basin. Similarly, static water levels along Whitewater Canyon Road, about 3000 feet downstream of the site, were in the 70 -120 foot range for various years. of Santa Clanta 5.2-8 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.2 Hydrology, Drainage, Water 5.2.2 Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds. Flood hazards were based on a comparison of proposed site uses and their locations relative to available flood hazard mapping. Impacts related to flooding are considered significant if the flooding causes direct or indirect risks to human lives and property. Significant impacts would also occur if the project created alterations within the floodway that would increase flood elevations by more than one foot.. Any change in the I00 -year flood elevation or limits will require the processing of a Letter Of Map Revision (LOMR) with FEMA. The assessment of drainage effects is based on a review of the conceptual drainage plans for the site and hydrology calculations submitted by the applicant. Potential water quality effects are based on typical nutrient and other contaminant loadings associated with the existing and proposed uses. Significant impacts would occur if the project were to result in a change in the water quality of onsite creeks or groundwater that would prevent the achievement of water quality goals or objectives for this drainage. Potential impacts to groundwater supply were based on the development of a water budget for Oak Spring Canyon and Sand Canyon. Site specific data regarding water resources at the site are limited and the water budget was based on the available limited data and general assumptions regarding aquifer characteristics. Significance of impacts was based on whether or not the project could cause a substantial decrease in water supply that otherwise would be available to existing users, or would be likely to substantially reduce nearby well levels. b. Project Impacts. Effect D-1 During construction of the proposed development, the soil surface will be disrupted and become subject to erosion, with potential offsite sedimentation of eroded material. (S) 1 Construction grading is expected to occur primarily during the spring and other periods of low rainfall. Nonetheless, if large amounts of bare soil are exposed during the rainy season or in the event of intense summer thunderstorms, the exposed soils of the site could be entrained and eroded from the site. The eroded soils would be washed into the drainages where they would degrade the water quality of the creek or could cause significant sedimentation adjacent to downstream residences. The amount of material potentially eroded from the construction site is greater than under the existing condition and similar to conditions after a wildfire since the soil would not be protected from the direct rainfall impact. Uncontrolled discharges of sediment are considered a significant impact. C' Mitigation Measures. Regulations under the federal Clean Water Act require that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) storm water permit be obtained for projects that would disturb greater than five acres during construction. Acquisition of such a permit is dependent on the preparation of a Storm Water Management Plan(SWMP) that contains specific actions, termed Best Management 5.2-9 uny or zianra caanra Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.2 Hydrology, Drainage, Water Practices (BMPs), to control the discharge of pollutants, including sediment, into the local surface water drainages. The following mitigation measure addresses this requirement. D-1 . A SWMP for site construction shall be developed prior to the initiation of grading and implemented throughout the construction phase. The SWMP shall include specific temporary BMPs to control the export of material from the site and into the local drainages. BMP methods may include, but would not be limited to, the use of temporary sediment basins, hay bales, sand bagging, and soil stabilizers. Additional BMPs shall be implemented for any fuel storage or fuel handling that could occur on-site during the construction phase. Permanent BMPs may include extensive revegetation and construction of pollutant trapping devices. Significance After Mitigation. No significant water quality impacts during construction are anticipated after implementation of appropriate BMPs. Effect D-2 . Exposure of future residences and property to the 100 -year flood. (B) As part of the revised project, the lots in the western portion of the site that were exposed to flood flows from Live Oak Springs Canyon creek have been removed in order to provide sufficient space for the golf course on the reduced project size. Because of this, the former flood hazard associated with the project in this drainage has been eliminated and no significant effect in this area is expected. The construction of the proposed debris basin and the LACFCD proposed storm drain system would improve existing flooding problems along Sand Canyon Road downstream of the site and since the project may facilitate the construction of this debris basin, this is considered a beneficial effect of the project. The revised project design has also lowered the proposed residential lots in Oak Spring Canyon. A comparison of the 100 -year flood zone of Oak Spring Canyon creek, as defined either by FEMA or the revised floodplain per the HEC -2 calculations, with the site plan indicates that these lots are still sufficiently above the flood elevation. The revised grading in the area as compared to the previously proposed site design is not substantial enough to significantly alter the HEC -2 calculations. These calculations indicate that no increase in the elevation of flood waters would be expected.and the general flow path would not be altered by the golf course given the proposed topography. Therefore, no significant impacts are associated with the proposed project relative to the 100 -year flood hazard in Oak Spring Canyon. Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures are required regarding the 100 -year flood zone in Oak Spring Canyon or Live Oak Canyon. Significance After Mitigation. No significant impacts are anticipated regarding the 100 -year flood and construction of the debris basin is expected to result in a beneficial effect. The FIRM maps for Oak Spring Canyon should be corrected to indicate the post -project 100 -year floodplain. This will require City of Santa Clanta 5.2 -IO I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I J I� I I I I I I tJ 1 I 1 17 L I I E I Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.2 Hydrology, Drainage, Water preparation of a new HEC -2 flow model study based on final grading contours and submittal of revised flood elevations to the Federal Emergency Management Agency for approval. Effect D-3 Change in runoff patterns from the site would alter the potential for on-site and downstream flooding. (NS) The applicant's engineer prepared a hydrology analysis for the originally proposed project that estimated the existing and post -project surface water runoff. The revised grading plans were checked against the initial plans and no substantial difference was noted that would significantly alter the basic conclusions of the hydrology analysis. While onsite drainage features would tend to decrease the time needed to concentrate flows, and so potentially increase peak flows, the project would also reduce the slope of the site and thereby decrease flow velocities, allowing more time for percolation of water into the soil. The revegetation of the site with native plants and golf course landscaping would also serve to stabilize onsite soils, decreasing the debris production potential of the site, which would no longer be subject to a burned and bulked condition. In addition, drainage on the golf course is directed towards the onsite water features, further decreasing the amount of site runoff. Figure 5.2-2 illustrates post -project 50 -year storm flows based on increasing the 25 -year storm intensity for developed areas available from the hydrology report (Sikand Engineering Associates, 1995) to a 50 -year intensity. Overall peak flows would decrease by 30-50% for most of the onsite subbasins, primarily because of the reduction in debris production, and peak flows from the site are not projected to exceed existing burned and bulked flows for the capital event. In particular, no significant increases in peak flows are expected for those subbasins that drain to the north towards the existing rural community in the Oak Springs area. Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is necessary. Significance After Mitigation. No significant environmental effects are anticipated provided that the drainage system is adequately designed and constructed. Effect D-4 Rerouting of the easement road along the north property line could alter its accessibility in poor weather. (NS) An existing local flood hazard is present in Oak Spring Canyon at the project site due to high flows along the dirt access road. Storm flows from Oak Spring Canyon wash across the road where it enters the project site, causing erosional gullies. Also, the road acts as a channel to direct the flows from the unnamed canyon westerly down the road to the main branch of Oak Spring Canyon creek. Stone flows have been reported by the residents of the area as from relatively shallow with low velocities, with the dirt road remaining passable most of the time, to over three feet deep and at least 150 feet wide during storm events. As stated on page 5.2-5, the HEC -2 model estimates a flow depth of 2.6 feet with a velocity of around 8 feet per second in this area for the 50 -year capital storm. It is noted that flow velocities greater than three feet per second when combined with depths greater than three feet are considered hazardous. 5.2-11 City of Santa Ciarita Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR C14 > I f ;S N �-s SL Nt n, f ' \'%" ' .2 k 5 A C" Base Map: USGS Mint Canyon Quadrangle 0 1200 2400 Scale in Feet cfs = cubic feet per second Post Project Capital (50 -Year) r Storm Flows T NORTH Figure 5.2-2 I I I P I 1 I l_1 I I I 1 11 �1 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.2 Hydrology, Drainage, Water The road currently lies in the more level portions of the site and skirts the ridge that forms the northerly property line. The proposed project would reroute this road along the northern property line and up the ridgeline, which would be reduced in height by the golf course grading. The former grading plan indicated that a 50 foot section of the road would have a slope gradient of between 10-20%. Under storm conditions, this steep road segment would be exposed to high velocity sheet flow and erosion, making the road impassable to most vehicles. However, the revised site plan has reduced this grade, with the steepest grade now 8% over a 100 foot section. This grade meets Fire Department access conditions and no significant effect regarding road grades is expected. Grading for the proposed golf coursewoulddirect the main Oak Spring Canyon flows towards shallow swales that cross the fairways, with some of the flow being interrupted by the proposed golf course lakes. The grassy swales and lakes would reduce flow velocities of smaller storms, but would not alter the depth or width of major storm flows. The HEC -2 model run for the post -project scenario for the capital storm indicates that the total discharge in cubic feet per second would remain the same, but that flow depth would slightly decrease to 2.4 feet, and velocity would substantially decrease to 3.5 feet per second. Based on this analysis, the project would have the beneficial effect of reducing flow velocities. Also, water exiting the drainage swales to cross the dirt road and exit the.site would have less erosional force than under existing conditions. Therefore, the accessibility of the dirt road would remain the same or improve as compared to existing conditions. Mitigation Measures. No significant impacts are associated with the project regarding the maintenance of accessibility along the dirt road on the north property line. It is expected that as part of the final design, the road will be improved with decomposed granite in keeping with its proposed use as a trail corridor. This would further improve accessibility along this route. Significance.After Mitigation. The proposed project would not create any significant effects related to the road. To reduce existing wash-out conditions, the road would need to be paved or an otherwise all- weather crossing installed where Oak Spring Canyon Creek exits the site. Effect D-5 Decrease in the quality of surface water and groundwater associated with change in land use from open space to residential and golf course land use. (S) The introduction of suburban uses has the potential to change the quality of surface water that drains from the site and ultimately to groundwater due to the percolation of surface waters. The proposed residential and golf course uses would contribute various pollutants to the surface water, including fertilizer, pesticides, hydrocarbons (oil and grease from roadways), rubber, and organic wastes, but would also cause a reduction in the soil erosion potential of the site and subsequent sediment loading in Live Oak Springs Canyon Creek and Oak Spring Canyon. The alteration of groundwater quality in the Oak Spring Canyon area is a particular concern because of the number of individual domestic wells in this area and the limited water quantity contained in the local alluvial aquifer. 5.2-13 Gity or Santa warita Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.2 Hydrology, Drainage, Water Stream water chemistry is complex because of the various mixtures of runoff waters from different sources (overland flow, subsurface flow, direct precipitation, and saturated overland flow) that comprise the stream water. At the project site, the vast majority of runoff water is composed of direct precipitation runoff and the stream water quality is related to the wash-out of particulates and gases contained in the atmosphere and the wash off of surface materials entrained in the stream flow. Generally in natural streams, concentrations of dissolved solids (often referred to as salinity) tend to be high at low flows during dry weather when the flow is dominated by groundwater drainage via springs, and low during periods of high flow when solutes are diluted by large volumes of rainfall. Stream chemistry is also affected by the land use pattern upstream of the site. Typically following irrigation, a major portion of the applied water is evaporated, leaving behind formerly dissolved solids. Some of these salts remain in the soil, but others may enter the stream flow through surface water runoff and the contribution of shallow subsurface flows. If these salts are not "flushed out" by sufficient clean flows, excessive salt concentrations can build up that, when dissolved in runoff, can be detrimental to the natural biota of the stream. Other pollutants that can affect surface water include higher than natural concentrations of trace metals, biodegradable wastes (which affect dissolved oxygen levels), excessive major nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus from fertilizers, pesticides, and sediment concentrations. The applicant at this time proposes to use primarily water from the Santa Clarita Water Company for the irrigation of the golf course. Since this is a domestic water supply that is regulated to meet drinking water standards, it would not be expected to contribute any pollutants to either surface water or groundwater. If groundwater is used at the site, the source of this water is runoff from native soils in the Angeles National Forest with a low potential for upstream water quality problems. Irrigation water sources are not expected to exhibit water quality problems, but the addition of fertilizers, pesticides and other chemicals to the golf course has the potential to add these materials to the groundwater. While recent advances in landscape irrigation techniques generally minimize the amount of water that deep percolates, return water losses are nonetheless estimated at 15% of applied water. This percolating water has the potential to carry any leachable materials from the ground surface to the underlying groundwater. Salt build-up in soils is often a potential problem in areas newly proposed for irrigation. A major problem can occur when the water is reused and retreated because salt content tends to accumulate with each cycle. The project will reuse some of the irrigation water as it is captured within the golf course lakes, however, most of the water used on the courses during an irrigation cycle will be from domestic water and should not have an adverse salt concentration. Nonetheless, salts do tend to accumulate within the soil due to ionic attractions between soil particles and the salts. Periodic overwatering is necessary to flush the salts below the root zone. If properly done, any residual effects on downstream receiving surface waters would be less than significant. However, care is necessary to prevent excessive salt export or build-up in the underlying groundwater aquifer that could affect downstream domestic wells. Water quality testing has been done at golf courses in various areas to determine the amount of leaching of pesticides (including herbicides) and fertilizers to the underlying groundwater. In a Cape Cod study Cify of Santa Clarita 5.2-14 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.2 Hydrology, Drainage, Water conducted on 10 golf courses with very porous, sandy soil, it was concluded that none of the then registered pesticides were detected at toxicologically significant levels. In a Florida study, test wells were drilled on two golf courses and water samples tested for 37 different pesticides. None of the chemicals targeted for detection were present in the samples taken from the two golf courses. An Ohio study found that almost all of the pesticide residue remained in the thatch, or where thatch was not present, in the top inch (2.5 centimeters) of soil (Cohen, February 1990). However, significant levels of chlordane that had been applied at this golf course years earlier and are now illegal were found in some samples. These studies indicate that golf course pesticide use does not necessarily result in groundwater contamination, though the potential for contamination does exist depending on the specific chemical and its persistence. All pesticides sold in California must be registered through the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA). The purpose of this mandatory registration process is to determine the safety and health risk effects of pesticides and requires the submittal of chronic health effect toxicological studies, fish and wildlife toxicity studies, residue quantification, and chemical behavior studies in water, soil, food crops, and crop foliage among other evidence. Most pesticides sold in California have undergone a similar registration process through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Registration is supposed to be denied to those chemicals for which data indicates that significant and immitigable hazards would result from their use. The primary method used byy the registration process to reduce the ' hazard of pesticide use is in warning and use information included on the product labels. Any pesticides used at the golf courses would be applied according to label specifications by trained personnel. This would reduce the potential for misuse of pesticides that could lead to contamination problems. A number of State laws have also been enacted to reduce the risk of upset associated with the storage and handling of hazardous materials, including pesticides. Businesses that use and store hazardous ' materials are required to submit Business Plans to local administering agencies. Hazardous materials stored in excess of regulated thresholds must be reported. As part of the Business Plan, emergency response plans and procedures must be developed and training sessions must be provided to employees. Businesses are periodically inspected by local administering agencies (Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, Waste Management Division) to ensure that handling, storage, and waste disposal practices conform with appropriate laws and regulations. As part of the safe handling and storage of chemicals, a specific locale within the maintenance area would be designated for the mixing of pesticides, typically within a bermed area with an impermeable floor covering. This allows any spills to be contained and cleaned up in a small area and reduces the potential for groundwater contamination. Pesticide storage is similarly done in such an area and within safety lockers. Assuming that the proposed project will comply with appropriate safety regulations, the risk of contamination associated with spillage or other activities at the maintenance area would be minimized. The actual degree to which a particular chemical is likely to leach into the groundwater is dependent on ' precipitation and watering patterns at a site, the physical and chemical characteristics of the soil, and the chemical properties of the substance. Table 5.2-1 lists several typical golf course pesticides and their City of Santa Clarita 5.2 -IS Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.2 Hydrology, Drainage, Water corresponding potential exposure to aquatic organisms based on their potential to leach from application sites and be transported within water. Table 5.2-1 Typical Pesticides Used at Golf Courses ItRnic ::,,, Iaeir}?otntta110NO- are,,, 775,751730 aROW e ll.:, Bendiocarb Insecticide Nonleacher Small Low Benefin Herbicide Nonleacher Small Low Bensulide Herbicide Intermediate Medium Moderately High Chlorothalonil Fungicide Nonleacher Small Low Chlorpyrifos Insecticide Nonleacher Small Low Dicamba (2,4-D) Herbicide Leacher Large High Ethoprop Insecticide Intermediate Large High Fenarimol Fungicide Intermediate Large High Glyphosphate Herbicide Nonleacher Extra Small Very Low Iprodione Fungicide Nonleacher Small Low Mancozeb Fungicide Nonleacher Small Low Metalaxyl Fungicide Leacher Large High Oxadizon Herbicide Nonleacher Small Low Propamocarb Fungicide Nonleacher Extra Small Very Low Siduron Herbicide Intermediate Medium Moderately High Triadimefon Fungicide Intermediate Medium Moderately High Trichlorfon Insecticide Leacher Large High Potential exposure refers to the probability that aquatic organisms in surface water would come in contact with a chemical due to its loss in runoff or through leaching. The potential for loss is based on specific chemical characteristics and a relative ranking of pesticides as determined by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) and a Groundwater Ubiquity Score (GUS), an index of leachability that is based on a pesticide's mobility and persistence (see Balogh and Walker, 1992, Chapter 5). The available ranks are very low, low, moderate, moderately high, and high. The actual use of these chemicals or any other particular chemicals at the site and their application rates are unknown since the operating and management plan for the site has not yet been developed. However, an important feature of the proposed golf course is its intended inclusion in the New York State Audubon Signature Cooperative Sanctuary Program, as described in Section 3.7.3. In regards to water quality, the New York Audubon through its program, which includes yearly recertification, would serve as a third party monitoring agency to determine if the golf courses were meeting the goals of the Audubon program, which includes criteria for the reduction of pesticide use and management of portions of the site for wildlife habitat values. The applicant has also prepared a draft Native Revegetation & Monitoring Program (L. Newman Design Group, Inc. and Frank Hovore & Associates, March 1995) that in part includes some Integrated Pest Management goals, policies, and actions to reduce reliance on chemical controls. Effective implementation of these plans and programs would reduce the potential for any off-site water quality problems. Nonetheless, because of the potential for adverse impacts to surface and groundwater quality due to the application of pesticides and fertilizers, this impact is considered significant and requires mitigation. City of Santa Clarita 5.2-16 1 LJ 11 17 LJ I I I I I— I I Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.2 Hydrology, Drainage, Water Mitigation Measures. Several measures can be used to reduce the amount of pollutants contained in surface water runoff from the site, including regular street sweeping, litter and trash control, household hazardous waste "clean-up" days, and education of residents regarding proper disposal of materials. To reduce potential effects on surface water runoff from the golf course, the following is recommended: D -5(a) A Best Management Practices plan and Integrated Pest Management Plan shall be prepared for implementation by the golf course. The purpose of both plans would be to reduce the use of harmful chemicals onsite, and to reduce the potential offsite movement of high concentrations of sediment, salts, excessive nutrients, and chemicals. D -5(b) Construct an oil and grease trap within the catch basin for the clubhouse parking lot and/or construct a perimeter infiltration trench. The catch basin shall include a trap that prevents floatables from discharging with the drainage water. The golf course operator shall be responsible for monitoring and periodically cleaning out the catch basin. ' Best Management Practices involve the proper handling, storage, and disposal of materials to prevent pollutants from entering storm drains and channels. Examples are given below for specific actions: General Construction and Site Supervision I d 11 I • Keep pollutants off exposed surfaces by having trash cans and recycling receptacles around the site. • Cover and maintain dumpsters. Check frequently for leaks. Never clean a dumpster by hosing it down at the site. • Keep materials out of the rain by covering exposed piles of soil or construction materials with plastic sheeting or temporary roofs. • Designate one area for auto parking, vehicle refueling and routine equipment repairs. The designated area should be well away from gutters and storm drains, and in the case of refueling areas, bermed to prevent the escape of spilled materials. • Make sure portable toilets are in good working order. • Use the minimum amount of water necessary for dust control. Do not use excessive amounts that result in water draining from the dust control area. • Revegetate either permanently or temporarily as quickly as possible. • Remove vegetation only when necessary and just prior to earthmoving. Schedule large projects into phases that allow for erosion control of smaller areas rather than having a single, large exposed site. Heavy Equipment and Earth -Moving Activities • Schedule excavation and grading work for dry weather. 5.2-17 city or sans cianta Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.2 Hydrology, Drainage, Water • Never hose down spilled materials or "dirty " pavement or impermeable surfaces where fluids have spilled. Use dry clean-up methods (saw dust, cat litter, rags). • Sweep up dry spilled materials immediately. Do not bury them or try to wash them away. • Clean up spills in dirt areas by digging up and properly disposing of contaminated soils. • Report significant spills to the responsible agencies immediately. • Perform major maintenance, repair jobs, and vehicle equipment washing off site. • Do not use diesel oil to lubricate equipment or parts. • Use drip pans or drop cloths to catch drips and spills of equipment parked overnight and if motor oil, radiator coolant, or other fluids are drained and replaced at the site. Collect all used fluids and store in separate containers for recycling whenever possible and otherwise proper disposal. Roadwork and Paving • Develop and implement erosion and sediment control plans for embankments and drainages. • Recycle used oil, concrete, broken asphalt, etc. • Shovel or vacuum saw cut slurry from the site. • Cover or barricade storm drain openings during saw -cutting. • Cover catch basins and maintenance holes when applying seal coat, slurry seal, etc. • Collect and recycle abrasive gravel or sand. • Dispose of small amounts of dry concrete in the trash. Fresh Concrete and Mortar Application • Secure open bags to keep wind-blown material away from streets, storm drains, rainfall, and runoff. • When cleaning up after driveway or sidewalk construction, wash concrete dust onto dirt areas and not down the street and into storm drains. • Wash out concrete mixers and other equipment only in designated wash-out spots or at the equipment yard, where water flows into containment ponds. Recycle cement wash water by pumping it back into mixers for reuse. • Never dispose of cement washout into driveways, streets, gutters, storm drains, or drainage ditches. • Place erosion controls (berms, hay bales, etc.) down-slope to capture runoff carrying mortar or cement before it reaches the storm drain. • Set up and operate small mixers on tarps or heavy drop cloths. The Integrated Pest Management program should include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following: • Use of biological, physical, and cultural controls rather than chemical controls. • Use of insect -resistant cultivars. City of Santa Clarita 5.2-18 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.2 Hydrology, Drainage, Water • Mechanical weed control to be used wherever and whenever possible as the first choice. • Establishment of thresholds for the use of fertilizers. • Determination of the probable cause of an insect/disease problem and correction as necessary (i.e.: soil nutrient problems, irrigation, water quality, plant type, etc.) prior to chemical use. • Development of thresholds to determine when pesticide use is necessary. Pesticides are to be used only when necessary to cure a problem and in positively identified pre -emergent situations and not as a preventative measure or as a regular, periodic application. • Fumigation activities to be limited to greens only. • Use of chemical forms that are the least toxic to non -target organisms (such as the use of a sodium salt if 2,4-D herbicide is used). • Preferentially, the IPM should not permit the use of 2,4-D at the site and similar toxic chemicals that have a high potential for leaching from the site. • Chemical controls should preferentially begin with the use of dehydrating dusts (silica gels, diatomaceous earth), insecticidal soaps, boric acid powder; horticultural oils, and pyrethrin- based insecticides. • Late evening application of pesticides. D -5(c) A groundwater monitoring well shall be installed near the north property line near the Valley course 3rd teesandanother well installed along Live Oak Springs Canyon Creek above the proposed debris basin. The wells must meet the minimum requirements of Bulletin 74-90 (California Well Standards) and the Los Angeles County code. The wells shall be sampled on a quarterly basis for a minimum of three years, and then semi-annually for at least an additional seven years for a total of 10 years, with the sampling reports sent to the City and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. At the end of ten years, the data shall be analyzed to determine if there is a need to continue the monitoring. Constituents sampled for will include nitrate, phosphate and any pesticides applied to the golf courses. An initial well sample shall be taken at completion of grading, but before the installation of landscape vegetation. Significance After Mitigation. The proposed project would result in a decrease in the amount of sediment loading produced by the site to local drainages. Effective implementation of a Best Management Practices plan during construction and an Integrated Pest Management plan during operations would reduce the potential for water quality impacts to a less than significant level. The groundwater monitoring wells would be used to determine compliance and the effectiveness of proposed management activities and to determine if any unexpected water quality effects occur to the local groundwater. Effect D-6 Decrease in the available potable water supply. (NS) The project is currently proposed to obtain the water supply for the residences and most of the golf course irrigation from the Santa Clarita Water Company. As indicated in Appendix B, the Santa Clarita ulty or santa wants 5.2-19 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.2 Hydrology, Drainage, Water Water Company has indicated that the property is within their existing service area and they have included water service to the site in their overall master planning. Discussions with the Santa Clarita Water Company (B. Marietta, Jr., telephone communications) during the preparation of the. EIR indicated that the Company felt that they could serve the project.within the framework of the existing master plan. If the Santa Clarita Water Company were to supply all of the irrigation water, then the project would not use any local groundwater and would therefore not decrease the limited supply currently available in the Oak Spring Canyon drainage. The Santa Clarita Water Company obtains its water supply from three sources: the alluvial aquifer (underflow) of the Santa Clarita River, the Saugus Formation underlying the alluvial aquifer, and the State Water Project (SWP) from Castaic Lake. The maximum theoretical storage capacity for the Santa Clara River alluvial aquifer is estimated at 240,000 acre-feet and it has been agreed on by the three main local water agencies (Santa Clarita Water Company, Valencia Water Company, and Newhall County Water District) that the alluvial aquifer has a safe yield of about 32,000 acre-feet per year. The Santa Clarita Water Company currently has rights to extract 12,000 acre-feet per year from the alluvial aquifer and is applying for a permit to extract up to 15,000 acre-feet per year. The Company also has an entitlement to 20,000 acre-feet per year from the SWP and has obtained up to 13,000 acre-feet in one year from this source, though the typical average annual use of SWP water is 6,000 - 7,000 acre-feet. The Company has the ability to extract up to 6,000 acre-feet per year from deep wells located in the Saugus Formation, which is estimated to have 1.0 million acre feet in storage. The Santa Clarita Water Company preferentially uses water from the alluvial aquifer first due to the higher costs of SWP water, and from the Saugus Formation only when necessary because of its poorer water quality and higher pumping costs. Currently available water supply for the Santa Clarita Water Company totals 38,000 acre-feet per year, while current use averages about 18,000 -19,000 acre-feet per year. The maximum annual water requirement for the project site is estimated at 5.4 acre-feet per acre of golf course turf and 2.35 acre-feet per unit for the residential lots (Ahmanson Ranch FEIR, November 1992). Initially, the natural revegetation areas in the golf course would require about 2.0 acre feet per acre of supplemental water annually until the native plants are well established, which should occur in 3-5 years. Total initial maximum water demand of the project is 1114 acre-feet per year as shown in Table 5.2-2. This annual water demand is based on maintaining typical turf grasses in optimum conditions when water is readily available (reclaimed water in the case of Ahmanson Ranch), while some drought tolerant landscaping within the course is also used. The proposed project is seeking to maintain many natural features, including oak trees, within the golf course which cannotwithstandexcessive watering during the summer drought period. Therefore, turf and rough grasses are being selected for their ability to withstand summer drought and water need will be based on the actual daily water need of the course vegetation using evapotranspiration data. City of Santa Clarita 5.2-20 J l rj I rl I; Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.2 Hydrology, Drainage, Water Table 5.2-2 Project Water Demand � FA �?[?aierl)amBndRate7ai�r!e- AuivaLT�'aferi►emaad, ; , ,Ji ♦� ; errl'CK;eiCA F L ,.1+41I(1"C f3 i;k<�.., i �; artinitaOR Turf (fairways, greens, tees) 97.7 5.4 528 Roughs and ruderal oaks 80.5 3.5 281 Shrubs/revegetated natives 55.0 2.0 110 Residential area 83 2.35 195 Tota! 1114 The initial demand as calculated above would be about 5.8% of the remaining available supply of the Santa Clarity Water Company. After establishment of the drought tolerant vegetation used for the roughs and the revegetated slopes, long term water demand is expected to drop to 891 acre-feet per year. Based on the Santa Clarita Water Company's supply estimates, adequate water supplies are available to serve the project and no significant impact is anticipated. Given that even with the project the Santa Clarita Water Company would have an additional 17,000 acre-feet of supply available for additional development, the cumulative effect of the water demand is considered less than significant. IMitigation Measures. None necessary. ' Significance After Mitigation. The project is expected to result in less than significant impacts on the provision of potable water supply in the area, provided that groundwater resources are not contaminated by project actions (see discussion in Effect D-5 above). Effect D-7 Decrease in the supply of groundwater for local private wells. (S) ' To assess the potential effect of groundwater pumpage on local domestic users dependent on groundwater supplies, a water budget was developed based on existing data and reasonable assumptions regarding the expected characteristics of the groundwater basins. The data available is limited since most studies have concentrated on the primary municipal water sources associated with the Santa Clara River and its underflow and deep aquifers. It is noted that the characteristics of the local groundwater basin in Oak Spring Canyon is not expected to be similar to the regional information available with regard to the Santa Clara River and its underlying basins due to the relative youth of the alluvial basin sediments, the relatively unconsolidated nature of the sediments, the granitic and steep slope characteristics of the upper watershed, and the steep slope of the canyon. Extrapolation of hydrologic information from the regional sources would be expected to result in substantial errors regarding the total water supply in Oak Spring Canyon. The groundwater budget consisted of an estimate of existing inflow and outflow for the groundwater basin (Appendix F). While the budget is based on an annual average basis, in fact, it may not be able to 1 balance the budget except on the basis of specified assumptions for a specific number of years. Because of the dynamics of the system, the basin may be in a state of excessive outflow for a period of years, City of Santa Clarita 5.2-21 LJ Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR ' Section 5.2 Hydrology, Drainage, Water only to be refilled in a short period of time due to particularly heavy winter rains and rapid percolation ' of influent flows. Inflow to the groundwater system include groundwater inflow from deep percolated water in the upper , watershed of the basins, the contribution of storm runoff to the basin from percolation through stream bottoms, the direct percolation of rainfall falling on the surface of the groundwater basin, and return flows from irrigation and septic systems. Outflows consist of losses from the local basin through groundwater movement downstream into the main Santa Clara River basin, pumpage for use, and transpiration by phreatophytes (water loving riparian plants with root systems in the groundwater table). Evapotranspiration (evaporation from soil and soil surfaces [evaporation] and the movement of water from roots to leaves to the atmosphere [transpiration]) has not been accounted for directly. in this water budget because it is already considered by the limitation on the amounts of expected percolation and infiltration assumed by the budget. Analysis of the Oak Spring Canyon groundwater basin within the project site divided its watershed into ' three portions for study purposes: the unnamed canyon drainage that flows from the northeast onto the project site, the watershed upstream of the 1700 foot MSL elevation, and all of the watershed upstream from the northern extreme of the property (about 1660 feet MSL elevation). This latter area constitutes about 300 surface acres. It is noted that a major portion of the Oak Spring Canyon groundwater basin as previously described is downstream of the site (about 230 acres). This portion of the basin was not ' considered in this impact report since the focus is on the changes associated with the project -related impacts, which would occur within the upstream portion of the basin within the site. Such changes are translated to downstream supply as a result of the water budget. Ancient crystalline basement rock occurs immediately south of the project site and these rocks neither contain nor transmit significant quantities of water. Little water is expected to be able to infiltrate this rock unit to be available for recharge later in the season and any water retention wnthin the shallow soils of this area are expected to be loss through evapotranspiration. Therefore, groundwater inflow from upstream sources was conservatively estimated to come only through the unnamed canyon drainage, whose watershed is partially Mint Canyon Formation. This totaled 32 acre-feet (AF), an annual average that is not subject to much variation because deep percolation occurs over a manner of years to decades , and therefore equalizes the long tern outflow. To calculate inflow to the groundwater basin from runoff, three different rainfall totals were used to ' reflect conditions under dry (8 inches per year or less), average (14 inches per year more or less), and wet (28 inches or more) rainfall conditions. It was assumed that runoff water from Oak Spring and Rabbit Canyons flow onto the site and are available for percolation through the stream banks into the ' groundwater "bowl' formed by the Mint Canyon Formation and the Quaternary alluvium. Based on hydrological studies prepared by W.F. Hardt and Associates (1986; as reported in Tetra Tech, 1991), the annual average runoff volume for Oak Spring Canyon is 470 acre-feet per year (about 11% of annual , rainfall). This factor was used for the average rainfall, with only 5% used for dry years and 33% for wet years. These latter two values were based in part on Soil Conservation Service runoff curve numbers for Ir City of Santa Clarifa ' 5.2-22 I �I I I 11 J I 11 [1 C] u n Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.2 Hydrology, Drainage, Water watershed soils. Runoff contributions to the groundwater basin were estimated to range from 22 to 506 AF per year. Direct percolation of runoff onto the surface acreage of the basin was also calculated. This resulted in inflow values of 18 to 63 AF per year for the 300 acres of the Oak Spring groundwater basin upstream of the edge of the site. Irrigation losses are associated with excessive runoff and percolation of water below the root zone. Runoff water would be captured for the most part in the golf course lakes and reused, but the percolation losses would add water to the underlying alluvium in Oak Spring Canyon and Sand Canyon. Irrigation return water losses are estimated at 15% of applied water; therefore, the project would add water to the underlying alluvial groundwater for all imported water use. Under the water budget assumption of 15% irrigation return water, the proposed project would not result in any net losses to the groundwater basin under any weather conditions provided that its groundwater use did not exceed 15% of its total water demand. The actual "break even" point would have to be determined by physical measurement of deep percolation, which may be between 0-25%. Irrigation return flows are also associated with existing uses in the unnamed canyon, and the use of imported water in the Live Oak Canyon area. To estimate potential outflow, it was necessary to make some assumptions derived from the SubSurface Survey report and other information regarding the characteristics of the underlying aquifers. As with the rainfall amount, a number of alternative assumptions were made to test the effect of a range of values. Appendix F contains information regarding the choices used and the various calculations. The Appendix also outlines the various thicknesses of aquifer used (from 10-75 feet). It should be noted that the values of aquifer thickness used should be considered average values over the entire width and breadth of the basin; in actuality, the basin may be very thick in some locations and very thin in others. Depending on the assumptions used, the alluvial aquifer underlying the project site could contain from 480 to 4500 AF, while the Mint Canyon Formation. aquifer may contain 120-900 AF. Also of particular importance is the location of water within the underlying groundwater aquifers. The upper alluvium is unconfined and is expected to accept water rapidly and to contain substantial quantities of water because of its high specific yield, which is why such aquifers are the most common for water supply systems. However, the calculations indicate that, given the steepness of the Oak Spring Canyon basin, such materials are likely to lose their water content via underflow quite rapidly, to the extent of 31-52% of the basin volume per year. On the other hand, the Mint Canyon Formation will accept water from the upper alluvial materials, but the time period for such infiltration is expected to be on the order of weeks and months, rather than hours and days. The Mint Canyon Formation is water - bearing as indicated by wells in the Live Oak Springs Canyon area and for the deeper wells north of the project site that show groundwater levels at greater than 150 feet below the surface. Its storage capacity is much smaller than that possible with the alluvium, but groundwater drains from it much more slowly, at only about 2-3% of the basin volume per year. 5.2-23 tatty or sang wanta Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.2 Hydrology, Drainage, Water While in some water budgets, the loss of water due to riparian plants can be significant (and such may be anticipated for along the Santa Clara River), the Oak Spring Canyon and Sand Canyon basins lack well- developed riparian corridors and losses due to this source are considered negligible. The following general conclusions can be made regarding the behavior of the Oak Spring groundwater basin based on the water budget. • The basin can potentially store significant quantities of groundwater during wet years, particularly in the upper alluvial layer. Storage would appear to be limited primarily by inflow and percolation rates and not by potential capacity. • The alluvial aquifer is subject to rapid dewatering due to the high gradient of the valley and the high hydraulic conductivity of the sediments. Losses due to underflow alone could almost eliminate the total amount of groundwater in storage during extended drought periods of 2 or more years. • Infiltration of waters from the alluvium to the underlying Mint Canyon Formation is beneficial in slowing down the outflow from the basin. Because of this, this formation may be the most important for long term storage of groundwater, though its capacity is more limited than the alluvial aquifer. • Rainfall in the watershed of this basin is insufficient in dry and average years to fill the basin. As aconsequence, basin water levels are expected to decline significantly during extended droughts. The change in storage calculations contained in Appendix F illustrates this latter point. The calculations indicate that under existing conditions, the alluvial aquifer will tend to lose water during dry and average years, gaining water only during the wet periods. As previously indicated, project impact on the Oak Spring Canyon groundwater basin is largely dependent on the amount of return flows from the irrigation practices that may be expected. If the percentage of groundwater used as compared to imported potable water is less than the percentage of return water, than the project would contribute more water to the basin than it would take (excluding changes in overall percolation rates that may occur due to vegetation changes). Since there are no limits on potential groundwater use and use of such to an extent greater than return water infiltration is possible, the project would have a significant impact on the water supply for other users of Oak Spring Canyon basin groundwater. The effects of groundwater extraction for the Sand Canyon basin are not expected to be significant. The different aquifer characteristics of this basin, particularly gradient, and the existing return of imported irrigation waters within the Live Oak Springs Canyon watershed and other portions of Sand Canyon reduce the potential for impacts associated with this basin. The analysis indicates that there is additional water available in the Sand Canyon basin that could be exploited without affecting other users in this basin. With 50% of the irrigation water derived from pumpage, the water budget indicates that there would still be a positive increase in storage during average rainfall years. An increase in storage during wet years would also occur even with 100% irrigation water pumped from the groundwater. Since an excess supply appears to be generally available in Sand Canyon, the supplemental extractions envisioned would not be expected to cause a significant effect in this basin. City of Santa Cfarita 5.2-24 I 1 11 I I 11 [.1 [J d r, �J 17 u 1 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.2 Hydrology, Drainage, Water Mitigation Measures. The following measures are recommended to reduce potential impacts to groundwater supply in Oak Spring Canyon if the applicant should choose to use that source to supplement potable water use for irrigation. D -7(a) Prior to the installation and use of any groundwater from the Oak Spring Canyon basin for the golf course, the applicant shall conduct groundwater pump tests that further define the aquifer characteristics. Monitoring of the pump tests shall be conducted at a second well within the property (to also be used as a long term water quality monitoring well) and at a nearby well offsite, if feasible. The test design and report shall be submitted to the City for review by an independent third party expert. D -7(b) Supplementary irrigation use for Oak Spring Canyon shall be defined as not exceeding 50% of the annual water use of the golf course. During years with rainfall between 15-28 inches, no more than 15% of the irrigation water demand shall come from groundwater pumpage. The golf course operator shall submit annual records of groundwater pumpage and total irrigation water use to the City for review to determine compliance with this mitigation measure. D -7(c) The golf course shall not be permitted to use groundwater for supplementary irrigation in October through December unless rainfall greater than 14 inches occurred in the previous water year (October to September). The use of groundwater for irrigation shall not be allowed in the current water year unless cumulative rainfall exceeds the following limits: January - 5 inches February - 9 inches March - 14 inches Unrestricted supplementary use of groundwater may occur within any water year when rainfall exceeds 28". Results of the aquifer tests noted above may be used to modify this mitigation measure. D -7(d) The applicant shall also provide backbone infrastructure for a potable water supply from the project site along Oak Spring Canyon Road from Comet Way to the Angeles National Forest boundary. This infrastructure shall consist of a mainline pipe connecting as a loop system to Comet Way and a pressure reducing station at the northern property line. Significance After Mitigation. With implementation of measures D -7(a), (b) and (c), groundwater levels are expected to be maintained within the natural variation of the system and project impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. If these measures prove to be ineffective, the provision of a 5.2-25 clry or Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR 1 Section 5.2 Hydrology, Drainage, Water backbone system as indicated under measure D -7(d) would allow downstream users to connect to an 1 assured water supply and thereby avoid any significant consequences. 5.2-26 1 1 C 1. C I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 Santa Clarita 1 1 I li �I Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.3 Air Quality 5.3 AIR QUALITY The open space and agricultural uses at the project site currently generate minimal amounts of localized dust emissions. Construction of the proposed development would result insignificant and unavoidable air pollutant emissions during the construction phase and significantproject-related and cumulative air quality impacts during long term operation of the facility. Mitigation measures available during construction would reduce fugitive dust emissions to below threshold levels, but nitrogen oxides emissions are not mitigable to below thresholds. Mitigation measures to reduce operational impacts include the use of electric golf carts, compliance with the City's TDM ordinance, and incorporation of energy efficient designs. These measures would not be sufficient to reduce daily emissions below the SCAQMD threshold guidelines. 5.3.1 Setting ' The physical and regulatory air quality setting of the Santa Clarita Valley is described in detail in the City's Air Quality Element (June 1991), which is herein incorporated by reference. The Air Quality ' Element is part of the City's General Plan and is available for review at local libraries and the Santa Clarita City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard. The following is a brief summary of the information in this document and other pertinent materials. I The semi-permanent high pressure system west of the Pacific coast strongly influences California's weather, creating sunny skies throughout the summer, and controlling the pathway and occurrence of low pressure weather systems that bring rainfall to the area during October through April. As a result, the Santa Clarita Valley is generally mild during the winter, with hot, dry summers. Daytime heating of this inland valley creates upslope winds, with this pattern reversing at night and down valley nighttime breezes are prevalent. Because of the surrounding topography and the mountain/valley drainage flow, distinctly different predominant wind patterns occur within the southern and northern portions of the City with the downslope winds converging in the valley bottom. The wind patterns in the valley also reflect the coastal influence, as winds in the northern part of the city are dominated by onshore daytime breezes up the Santa Clara River valley from the Oxnard Plain, with a reversal of this flow to down river during the night. These predominant wind patterns are broken during the winter by winter storms coming from the north and northwest and by episodic Santa Ana winds. Santa Ana winds are strong northerly to northeasterly winds that originate from high pressure areas centered over the desert of the Great Basin. These winds are usually warm, very dry, and often full of dust. They are particularly strong in the mountain passes and at the mouths of canyons. Daytime summer temperatures in the area average about 90°F. Minimum nighttime summer temperatures are typically in the high 50s to low 60s, while the winter high temperature tends to be in the 60s. Minimum winter temperatures are in the 30s and 40s throughout most of the Santa Clarita ' City of Santa Clarita 5.3-1 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.3 Air Quality Valley. Annual average rainfall in the Santa Clarita Valley is about 13 inches, while the surrounding mountains can receive over 22 inches. Two types of temperature inversions (warmer air on top of colder air) are created in the area, subsidence and radiational (surface). The subsidence inversion is a regional effect created by the Pacific high in which air is heated as it is compressed when it flows from the high pressure area to the low pressure areas inland. This type of inversion generally forms at about 1000 to 2000 feet and can occur throughout the year, but is most evident during the summer months. Surface inversions are formed by the more rapid cooling of air near the ground during the night, especially during winter. This type of inversion is typically lower and is generally accompanied by stable air. Both types of inversions limit the dispersal of air pollutants within the regional airshed, with the more stable the air (low wind speeds, uniform temperatures), the lower the amount of pollutant dispersion. The primary air pollutant of concern during the subsidence inversions is ozone, while the greatest pollutant problems during winter inversions are carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides. a. Air Pollution Regulation. The federal and state governments have been empowered by the federal and state Clean Air Acts to regulate the emission of airborne pollutants and have established ambient air quality standards for the protection of public health. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is the federal agency designated to administer air quality regulation, while the Air Resources Board (ARB) is the state equivalent in the California Environmental Protection Agency. Local control in air quality management is provided by the ARB through county -level Air Pollution Control Districts (APCDs). The ARB established the air quality standards and is responsible for control of mobile emission sources, while the local APCDs are responsible for enforcing standards and regulating stationary sources. The ARB has established 14 air basins statewide, with the City of Santa Clarita located in the South Coast Air Basin under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD - a multi -county APCD). Federal and stricter state standards have been established for ozone (03), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulates less than 10 microns in diameter (PMIO), and lead (Pb). California has also set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, visibility reducing particles. Appendix C provides a summary of the state and national ambient air quality standards. This appendix also provides a description of the criteria pollutants and their health effects. b. Current Ambient Air Quality. The local air quality management agency is required to monitor air pollutant levels to assure that the air quality standards are met, and if they aren't, to also develop strategies to meet the standards. Depending on whether or not the standards are met or exceeded, the air basin is classified as being in "attainment" or as "nonattainment " The South Coast Air Basin is in nonattainment for both the federal and state standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen dioxide, and the state standard for PMIO. I 1 1 [_1 1 1 1 City of Santa Clarita , 5.3-2 1 I 1 1 I '� C] Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.3 Air Quality The nearest air monitoring station to the project site is located in the Newhall portion of the city. This station measures ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and PMIo. Table 5.3-1 summarizes the annual air quality data over the past three years for the local airshed. Table 5.3-1. Ambient Air Quality Data at the Santa Clarita Monitoring Station «..... -' XrOTlutaktiIIR Ozone, ppm - Worst Hour 0.22 0.22 026 Number of days of State exceedances (>0.09 ppm) 127 92 118 Number of days of Federal exceedances (>0.12 ppm) 40 22 66 Carbon Monoxide, ppm - Worst 1 Hour/8 Hours .8.0/3.7 8.0/3.9 8.0/3.9 Number of days of State exceedances (>20.0/9.0 ppm) 0/0 0/0 0/0 Number of days of Federal exceedances (>35.0/9.0 ppm) 0/0 0/0 0/0 Nitrogen Dioxide, ppm - Worst Hour 0.11 0.13 0.12 Number of days of State exceedances (>025 ppm) 0 0 0 Particulate Matter <10 microns, gg/m Worst 24 Hours 84 75 66 Number of samples of State exceedances (>50 µg/m3) 8 8 13 Number of samples of Federal exceedances (>150tg/m3) 0 0 0 Annual Geometric Mean (State standard = 30gg/m) 31.0 28.2 31.7 Annual Aritbmetic Mean (Federal standard = 50µg/m3) 35.5 1 32.7 35.8 Source: ARB, 1992 & 1993 Annual Air Quality Data Summaries; SCAQMD, 1994. As illustrated by the above data and following chart, the primary pollutant of concern in the City of Santa Clarita is ozone, though occasional exceedances of the state PMIo standard also occurs. Ozone is a secondary pollutant that is not produced directly by a source, but rather it is formed by a reaction between NOX and reactive organic compounds (ROC) in the presence of sunlight.. Reductions in ozone concentrations are dependent on reducing the amount of these precursors. The major sources of ozone precursor emissions in the South Coast Air Basin are motor vehicles, the petroleum industry, and solvent usage (paint, consumer products, and certain industrial processes). Santa Clarita records some of the highest ozone readings in the South Coast Basin, primarily because of the transport of ozone precursor pollutants from the Los Angeles Basin into the area. 140 120 9 100 so 60 40 z" 20 One -Hour Ozone Standard Exceedances at Santa Clarita Station 1992 1993 5.3-3 1994 135tate ■ National City of Santa y r? a v ' .Y}SpdMe Ni�'.iia 1992 1993 5.3-3 1994 135tate ■ National City of Santa Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.3 Air Quality The South Coast Air Basin is also in nonattainment regarding the state standard for particulate matter (PM10). The major sources for this pollutant are mineral quarries, grading, demolition, agricultural tilling, road dust, and vehicle exhaust. Locally, Santa Ana winds are responsible for entraining dust and occasionally causing elevated PM10 levels. 5.3.2 Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds. The analysis of air quality issues follows the guidance and methodologies recommended in the South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook (November 1993). Pollutant emissions were quantified using stationary source factors from the USEPA AP42 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emissions Factors and the Mobile Assessment for Air Quality Impacts (MAAQI, January 1994) computer program acquired from the SCAQMD. A significant adverse air quality impact may occur when a project individually or cumulatively interferes with progress towards the attainment of the ozone standard by releasing emissions which equal or exceed the established long term quantitative thresholds for pollutants ,or causes an exceedance of a state or federal ambient air quality standard for any criteria pollutant (as determined by modeling). The following significance thresholds have been set by the SCAQMD for project operations within the South Coast Air Basin: • 55 pounds per day of ROC • 55 pounds per day of NOx • 550 pounds per day of CO • 150 pounds per day ofPM10 • 150 pounds per day of SOX Short term construction emission thresholds have been set by the SCAQMD on a quarterly basis as follows: • 2.5 tons of ROC • 2.5 tons ofNOX • 24.75 tons of CO • 6.75 tons ofPM10 • 6.75 tons of SOX In addition to the above thresholds, if construction emissions exceed 75 pounds per day for ROC, or 100 pounds per day for NO,,, or 550 pounds per day for CO, or 150 pounds per day for PM10 or SO,,, the air quality impacts of construction would be considered significant. City of Santa Clarita 5.3-4 I 1 1 F Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.3 Air Quality b. Project Impacts. Effect AQ -1 Construction of the proposed development could result in exceedance of recommended significance thresholds. (US) Construction of the proposed development would initially consist of rough grading of the entire site, construction of the golf course, clubhouse, and appurtenant structures, and construction of infrastructure (roads, utility lines, drainage improvements, etc.). Rough grading is anticipated to be completed within one year, with golf course construction to be completed in 6-9 months with completion in Year 1998. However, the residential units would be sold on a custom lot basis and full buildout of this portion of the site is expected to occur over a 15 year period. Only minimal finish grading is expected to be necessary for the construction of the residences. ' The grading phase of development uses the largest amount of heavy duty construction equipment, which is the primary source of emissions during construction. It is estimated that the rough grading phase would involve the use of a single construction spread utilizing 11 pieces of heavy equipment (see ' Section 3.7.5). Table 5.3-2 summarizes the grading emissions for the grading phase:(see Appendix C for calculations). Table 5.3-2. Grading Emissions During Project Development ' In addition to the emissions associated with the construction equipment, a small amount of emissions is contributed by the construction workers traveling to the site. The contribution of emissions from this source would be negligible, less than one pound of NO. and ROC per day. As illustrated by the above ' table, construction emissions of NO,, are expected to exceed both the daily and quarterly thresholds recommended by the SCAQMD and are considered a significant impact. The project site currently generates some dust during weed control operations in the west lowland areas, but this amount of dust generation is considered negligible. During project grading, the loam soils that underlie the site will be turned over and pushed around, exposing the soil to wind erosion and dust entrainment by onsite operating equipment. The amount of fugitive dust (as compared to the PM1e listed above) generated by construction is expected to be a significant nuisance that will require implementation of standard dust control measures listed below. Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures are required to reduce the cumulative impacts of dust and PMro emissions. 5.3-5 1 Santa Clarita v P1 .,�EIiil;r$3gr3 t1Mr. M. :d, .14�fxlay tt+sfgtr ,€E#stdaY tnslgtr.� thslday;. ;'tnslc�. ,iLstday tn{f9'tr �hsldaY ti!'stgl' On-site heavy equipment 15.1 0.7 206.0 9.4 66.6 3.0 23.8 1.1 21.0 1.0 Suspended dust Totals 15.1 0.7 206.0 9.4 66.6 3.0 23.8 1.1 52.7 2.0 SCAQMD Thresholds 75 2.5 100 2.5 550 24.75 150 6.75 I50 6.75 ' In addition to the emissions associated with the construction equipment, a small amount of emissions is contributed by the construction workers traveling to the site. The contribution of emissions from this source would be negligible, less than one pound of NO. and ROC per day. As illustrated by the above ' table, construction emissions of NO,, are expected to exceed both the daily and quarterly thresholds recommended by the SCAQMD and are considered a significant impact. The project site currently generates some dust during weed control operations in the west lowland areas, but this amount of dust generation is considered negligible. During project grading, the loam soils that underlie the site will be turned over and pushed around, exposing the soil to wind erosion and dust entrainment by onsite operating equipment. The amount of fugitive dust (as compared to the PM1e listed above) generated by construction is expected to be a significant nuisance that will require implementation of standard dust control measures listed below. Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures are required to reduce the cumulative impacts of dust and PMro emissions. 5.3-5 1 Santa Clarita I Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR ' Section 5.3 Air Quality AQ -1(a) Water trucks shall be used during construction to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this will require twice daily applications (once in late morning and once at end of workday). Increased watering is required whenever wind speed exceeds 15 mph. Grading shall be suspended if wind gusts exceed 25 mph. AQ -1(b) Amount of disturbed area shall be minimized and onsite vehicle speeds shall be reduced to 15 mph or less. AQ -1(c) If importation, exportation and stockpiling of fill material is involved, soil with 5% or greater silt content that is stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation. Trucks transporting material shall be tarped from the point of origin or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard. AQ -1(d) After clearing, grading, earth -moving or excavation is completed, the disturbed area shall be treated by watering, or revegetation, or by spreading soil binders until the area is paved orotherwisedeveloped. Specifically , the residential lots shall be revegetated with a non-invasive cover until they are sold. Significance After Mitigation. The dust control measures are considered adequate to reduce the cumulative impact of construction dust emissions and project specific emissions of PMto are below the threshold level. Reduction of NO, emissions is dependent on the retuning of diesel construction equipment and installation of high pressure injectors, but this measure is considered to be difficult to enforce or monitor by the City. The use of alternative fuels could reduce NO, emissions by 29-53% for on-site mobile equipment, but the use of such fuels is typically limited to lower horsepower equipment because the power requirements for grading are most effectively provided by a slow burning fuel such as diesel, and the total emissions reduction would be minimal if equipment suitable for alternative fuel use were used. Because of the amount of grading necessary to construct the project as proposed, and the efficiencies associated with using enough equipment to grade the site in an economical and effective manner, significant short term air quality impacts that cannot be reduced below threshold levels during construction are anticipated. Effect AQ -2 Dust generated during construction could expose construction workers and adjacent residences to San Joaquin Valley Fever. (NS) San Joaquin Valley Fever (Coccidioidomycosis) is a disease caused by a fungus (Coccidioides immitis) that is a common inhabitant of soil in desert and dry grassland areas of the and and semi -and portions of the southwestern United States from Texas west to California. The fungus generally enters the body through the lungs while carried on dust particles or as spores. Nearly everyone living for many years within the endemic range of this disease are exposed to and infected by the fungus. About 60 percent of infected individuals do not develop any symptoms. When symptoms do occur, they are usually mild and City of Santa Clarita 5.3-6 I 1 11 1 n Cl Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.3 Air Quality are often diagnosed as a cold or influenza. However, the disease can be severe and manifested by a wide range of symptoms including fever, chills, and coughs, which occurs in about two of every 1,000 persons infected. Occasionally, symptoms will be severe enough to require hospitalization and can be fatal in particularly susceptible individuals. Immigrants to the area nearly always become infected after a period of time, and are more likely to exhibit symptoms than permanent residents that contracted the infection as children. Once exposed, a person has lifelong immunity, but the earlier infection can be reactivated in persons who are immunosuppressed due to cancer treatment, organ replacement, or illnesses such as AIDS. The incidence of reported cases of valley fever more than doubled in Los Angeles County in 1992, rising to 1.1 cases per 100,000 individuals, compared to an average incidence of 0.4 reported cases per 100,000 individuals the previous nine years (County of Los Angeles, Department of Health Services, 1992). Reported cases remained at this level in 1993 (County of Los Angeles, DHS, 1993), with the largest number of cases in both years occurring in the San Fernando Health District, an area that includes the Antelope, Santa Clarita, and northern San Fernando Valleys. Total number of cases in both years was 95 for all of Los Angeles County. Preliminary data for 1994 indicate a similar, if somewhat lower incidence rate. This is despite the fact that media attention to the Simi Valley "epidemic" following the January 17, 1994 earthquake heightened awareness of both the public and the medical community to the disease. The three year increase in reported cases in Los Angeles County parallels the trend reported for all of southern California and is probably related to recent climatic conditions. Abundant winter rainfall provides for heavier growth of the fungus, while subsequent summer drought conditions allow the spores to become friable and easily dispersed by wind, construction, and other activities. The proposed project would generate dust during the grading operations that could contain the fungus spores and thereby increase the possibility of disease incidence in the adjacent area. However, virtually all long term residents in the area have been previously exposed to the disease over the last few years and are likely to have already acquired immunity. Therefore, the project would not create a significant change in the current exposure of the neighboring community to this endemic disease. Dust control measures required during grading construction (see Effect AQ -1 above) would further reduce the potential spreading of the fungus spores. Once the soil surface is stabilized by the revegetation of the site as a golf course and landscaping, the amount of fungus potentially associated with the site and subject to wind dispersal would be less than that under natural conditions. Mitigation Measures. None required other than standard dust control measures during construction grading. ' Significance After Mitigation. This impact would remain less than significant. Effect AQ -3 Future mobile and stationary emissions associated with the proposed ' residential land use and two golf courses may result in exceedances of significance thresholds. (US) City of Santa 5.3-7 1 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.3 Air Quality Long term emissions associated with the proposed development are primarily the result of the use of motor vehicles. Table 5.3-3 summarizes the mobile emissions associated with the proposed development based on the traffic generation (see Section 5.5). Default assumptions were used in the MAAQI analysis except that the residential fleet mix was adjusted to 0.5% heavy duty truck. In addition, because the project is proposed as a high end residential estate development, it is expected that higher insulation standards and energy efficient appliances would be used in the residences and the reduction in air pollutant emissions associated with these measures is included. Table 5.3-3 Operational Emissions Associated With Proposed Project, lbs/day Residential 224.8 18.0 15.6 NIX 1.1 1.6 Golf Course 577.4 55.7 65.4 4.6 7.7 Total 802.2 73.7 81.0 5.7 9.3 SCAQMD Thresholds 550 55 55 150 150 Note: See Appendix C for calculations. When compared to the SCAQMD thresholds of significance, the residential portion of the project would not exceed the thresholds. However, the golf courses would exceed the thresholds for CO and NO. and the total project would exceed the thresholds for CO, ROC, and NO.. which is considered a significant impact. Mitigation Measures. Because the project would create a significant impact due primarily to increased vehicular traffic associated with project development, mitigation measures would need to focus on reducing the number of trips and vehicle miles traveled. Mitigation measures suggested for residential subdivisions by the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (November 1993) would serve to reduce ROC and NOX emissions by only 0.1-6.0%, which is insufficient to reduce these emissions to less than significant levels. In addition, most of these measures relate to alternative transit modes that would not be expected to be effective in this type of community. To the extent that the golf courses offer a recreational resource closer to the City's population than courses in the San Fernando Valley or elsewhere, the golf courses would reduce vehicle miles traveled by City golfers. However, such reductions would be expected to be offset by the attraction that the golf courses would have to the regional population, who may commute to these courses. Nonetheless, the following measures are recommended to reduce air pollutant emissions. AQ -3(a) Golf carts for the project site shall be electric only. AQ -3(b) The applicant shall comply with the City's Transportation Demand Management ordinance to reduce trips and, subsequently, air pollutant emissions. AQ -3(c) Incorporate energy-saving design solutions in the clubhouse to reduce energy consumption by at least 20 percent below current Federal guidelines as specified in Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations. City of Santa Clarita 5.3-8 I Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.3 Air Quality Significance After Mitigation Emission reductions associated with these measures are expected to be less than 5% of the project's daily emissions of CO, ROC and NO,. No other mitigation measures available appear sufficient or feasible to further reduce project associated emissions to a level below the thresholds. Therefore, project -specific and cumulative air quality impacts are considered significant and ' unavoidable. 1 11 1 1 [l 5.3-9 Clarita I I 1 1 1 1 I Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.4 Biology 5.4 BIOLOGY Natural communities at the project site include chaparral and alluvial fan scrub vegetation, with an overlay of oaks that form pockets of woodland in the ruderal portions of the Sand Canyon drainage and adjacent to the main flow channels of the Oak Spring Canyon alluvial fan. The project site generally lacks wetland communities except for some retention basins, but the riparian community of alluvial fan scrub is considered sensitive because ofstate-wide declines in this community type. The proposed project would cause a significant and unavoidable reduction in the local extent of this community. The revegetation and go f course landscaping plan proposed by the applicant would increase the amount of wetland communities within the project site and restore scrub communities on slopes at the edges of the development, but overall net value of onsite habitats would be decreased about 59116. No listed rare, threatened; or endangered plant or animal species are known to occur at the project site, nor are any expected. Two sensitive plant species, Peirson's morning-glory and Plummer's mariposa - lily, are found infrequently onsite; project impacts to the regional population of these species are not considered significant. A total of 28 sensitive animals are known or probably utilize the habitats available at the site; project development would result in locally significant declines in several of these species' populations. Mitigation measures are recommended for species where implementation of the golf course revegetation plan can aid in maintaining populations onsite: However, a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact is expected to occur to coast horned lizard and rufous -crowned sparrow populations. 5.4.1 Setting A biological assessment of the subject property was prepared by Frank Hovore & Associates (1995) for the project applicant. The northeast 160 acre parcel of the site was also the subject of a biological resources investigation by Independent Environmental Consultants (Henrickson, 1989). A Draft Native Revegetation and Monitoring Plan for the golf course was prepared by L. Newman Design Group, Inc. and Frank Hovore & Associates (March, 1995) for the applicants. These reports are herein incorporated by reference as provided by the State CEQA Guidelines § 15150; the reports may be reviewed at the City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department. The following analysis is based on the findings and information contained in these reports, in addition to brief field visits of the site conducted in June and August by the EIR consultant. The conclusions of this analysis reflect the independent judgment of the EIR preparer. In the following discussion, scientific names have generally been excluded to aid reading of the text by ' the lay person. Common names and the corresponding scientific names for the species found within the site are contained in the appendices of the incorporated biological assessments (Henrickson, 1989; Hovore, 1995). a. Vegetation. Two major natural vegetation communities are present within the project site, chaparral and alluvial scrub (Figure 5.4-1). The chaparral community is a rather diverse mixture of soft- Wr City of Santa Ctarita 5.4-1 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section SA Biology leaved sage scrub and hard -leaved shrubs that extends over the slopes and ridgelines of the site. Typically, it consists of thin, poorly developed post -fire growth of scrub species on the southern exposures, with a denser, more diverse shrub growth on northern exposures and ridge crowns. Community composition corresponds most closely to a mix of Riversidian Sage Scrub and Chamise Chaparral (CDFG Element Codes 32700 and 37200; Holland, 1986) or could possibly be considered Coastal Sage - Chaparral Scrub (Element Code 37G00). Predominant species on the southern exposed slopes are black sage, lord's candle, California buckwheat, California sagebrush, deerweed and chamise. Northern exposed slopes also contain chamise along with hoary -leaved lilac (ceanothus), holly -leaved cherry, wooly blue curls, groundsel; and yerba santa. Where small seeps provide minor amounts of surface soil moisture, giant rye, acourtia, and elderberry form dense patches. The toe of the slopes support stands of holly -leaved cherry, holly -leaved redberry, little -leaf redberry, chaparral honeysuckle, cottonthom, golden yarrow, scarlet bugler, and squawbush. The condition and composition of the plant communities indicate that fires have occurred onsite within the past ten years, and Henrickson (1989) reports that a major fire came through Oak Spring Canyon in November 1987 and that a previous fire appeared to have occurred 2-4 years earlier on the western slopes. Oak Spring Canyon consists of a low, broad, alluvial plain that is braided -with numerous minor flow channels, with a single larger main channel exiting the site in the northwest corner of the 160 acre parcel. The eastern half of the canyon appears to receive high energy flows less frequently than the west side, and so contains a better developed community including a dense mixture of coast live oaks and woody shrubs, while the western side contains relatively younger plants and species more tolerant of flooding conditions. The.shrub coverage within the floodplain can be generally assigned as Riversidean Alluvial: Fan Sage Scrub (Element Code 32720) or possibly Alluvial Fan Chaparral (Element Code 37H00). The site vegetation does not fit the described element codes well because Oak Spring Canyon includes elements that are more commonly found in dry Mojavean ecosystems than the inland Riversidean habitats. As is the case with much of the Santa Clarita area, the project site is part of a transition zone between the coastal and desert ecosystems. An example of this is that the northern portion of the alluvial fan is dominated by an extensive stand of Great Basin sagebrush. The alluvial fan scrub may also be considered Scalebroom Scrub, a recently described and relatively uncommon community that forms on coarse soils that readily dry out, but are subjected infrequently to flood scour that removes most of the larger shrubs. Regardless of community terminology, all alluvial fan scrub habitats are of special concern because the past urbanization of these communities has made them increasingly rare. Species associated with the onsite alluvial fan scrub include toyon, sugarbush, chaparral whitethom, chaparral flowering ash, beavertail cactus, eriastrum, snake broomweed, California camissonia, bush honeysuckle, scarlet bugler, purple penstemon, rabbitbrush, buckwheat, and goldenbush. The upper (southern) portion of the alluvial fan scrub contains numerous oak trees. While in some locations these form dense enough stands to be considered coast live oak woodland, they are considered here as an overlay to the underlying scrub community because of the similarities in understory components and the extensive integrading of the communities within the site. Common associates of the oaks that are not found elsewhere are a perennial heliotrope (Phacelia ramosissima) and the introduced City of Santa Clanta 5.4-2 1 11 1 1 1 1 I LEGEND ® CHAPARRALSHRUB ® ALLUVIAL FAN SAGE SCRUB ALLUVIAL FAN SCRUBIOAKS RUDERAUDISTURBED GRASSLAND l.°�° I EXISTING OAK TREES NOTE: COM1MUNTTYBOUNDAAIESAREAPPROXP,4ATEA-0 DO NOT ATTEMPT TO DETINE ECOTONAL AREAS VEGETATION MAP OAK SPRINGS GOLF COURSE SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT A 52004 woau[.v°xnrnixc uo[m¢u Ima.na • WYOCtR IYr\IMNa(x AVOC4T4 Figure 5.4-1 I ' Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.4 Biology horehound. The oaks are an important botanical component of the site since they provide significant microclimatological differences in average temperature, sunlight, and humidity, while also serving to increase the structural diversity of the site and provide nesting and food for many wildlife species. The oaks are not considered as a woodland community within the Sand Canyon portion of the site because the understory elements have been removed through grazing and annual (or more frequent) plowing of the lowland areas. The invasive, non-native annuals that dominate the ruderal vegetation of these lowlands include various grasses (red brome, soft chess, wild barley, fescue), mustard, tree tobacco, doveweed, wild tarragon, storksbill, telegraph weed, popcorn flower, Russian thistle, and extensive stands of yellow star thistle. The ruderal vegetation in Oak Spring Canyon is not annually plowed, and so contains less thistle and more grasses, along with more flowering annuals. The northwest comer of the site adjacent to Comet Way contains a number of planted ornamental trees and shrubs, including numerous pine and locust trees, Pfitzer juniper, European olive, fairyduster, Arizona cypress, and several agaves. A single, very large big -berry manzanita also stands in a clearing near this corner. I b. Fish and Wildlife Habitats. No natural fish habitat exists within the project site, though the downstream Santa Clara River and some of its tributaries support a variety of native and introduced fishes. The shrub habitats provide cover and food for a variety of small reptiles, birds, and mammals, and species diversity observed at the site was typical for this type of habitat. The largest mammals seen or otherwise noted on the site (via scat, tracks, etc.) were mule deer, coyote, bobcat, gray fox, and raccoon. Long-tailed weasel, ringtail, Audubon cottontail, California ground squirrel, dusky -footed and desert woodrats, along with other small mammals, were either seen or are expected on the site. No evidence of mountain lion or black bear was seen at the site, though the presence of deer onsite indicate that mountain lion maybe in the area. No suitable roosts exist in the project vicinity for bats, but several are expected to forage over the site. The oaks juxtaposed with the open wash vegetation and nearby grasslands provides ideal habitat for several birds of prey (raptors). At least one pair of red-tailed hawks nest on the project site, and red - shouldered hawk, white-tailed kite, Cooper's hawk, great horned owl, barn owl, American kestrel all appear to breed locally if not on the subject site. Golden eagles have been recently reported in the area over Sand Canyon. Loggerhead shrikes are also present at the site and apparently breed in the area. The alluvial fan habitat and the oaks support many smaller birds, with scrub jay, California quail, phainopepla, bushtit, plain titmouse, mockingbird, California and rufous -sided towhees, and acom woodpeckers found commonly. Common migratory species that may breed onsite include orange - crowned and Wilson's warblers, ash -throated flycatcher, western kingbird, western wood peewee, and northern oriole. Brushland species such as wrentit, California thrasher, and wintering sparrows were more abundant in the chaparral habitat. The open hillsides and ruderal areas also contained winter migrants during the Hovore & Associates field survey. Species included lark sparrow, homed lark, fox sparrow, white -crowned sparrow, and golden -crowned sparrow. Western meadowlark was the only bird species found onsite that is limited to the ruderal grassy fields. City of Santa C/arita 5.4-5 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.4 Biology Several reptile species were noted through virtually all habitats, including side -blotched lizard, western fence lizard, and western whiptail. The alluvial fan and oak habitat is expected to provide habitat for alligator lizard, western skink, and possibly silvery legless lizard. Snake abundance and diversity in Oak Spring Canyon area is expected to be relatively high because the area is somewhat isolated from human disturbance and the location adjacent to the populations of the Angeles National Forest. Based on habitat, southern Pacific rattlesnake, western coachwhip, gopher snake, common kingsnake, whipsnake, and rosy boa would be expected at the site. c. Sensitive Biological Resources. A "sensitive biological resource" refers to any rare, threatened or endangered plant or animal species, or those species considered regionally declining by local authorities. Habitats are also considered sensitive if they exhibit a limited distribution, have high wildlife value; contain sensitive species, or are particularly susceptible to disturbance. This section lists az those re or otherwise sensitive species that were found on the site, were targeted during the biological surveys, or that have the potential to occur in the project vicinity. The potential for occurrence of sensitive resources is based on site characteristics and the known regional distribution and habitat affinities of the species. For information regarding the regulatory authority concerning sensitive species, greater detail regarding the habitat requirement and distribution of these species, and authorities cited, please refer to the incorporated biological assessments (Henrickson, 1989; Hovore, 1995). No plant species that is listed under the State or Federal Endangered Species Act has been found within the project site. Peirson's morning-glory (Calystegia peirsonii) is listed as a Special Plant (California Department of Fish and Game, March 1995, Special Plants List) and is a federal candidate category 2 (insufficient biological evidence to support a listing) for listing as threatened. Henrickson (1989) found the plant scattered uncommonly throughout the chaparral habitat and noted that locally the species may be relatively common in the Newhall and Mint Canyon areas. Henrickson noted that large numbers of this plant have been found on adjacent Forest Service lands and attributes part of its presumed rarity on its fire -following nature, inconspicuous foliage, and similarity to the common, weedy bindweed that is found in the same habitat. Plummer's mariposa lily (Calochortus plummerae) was found uncommonly in the scrub habitats on clay soils by Hovore & Associates. This plant is also listed as a Special Plant and a federal candidate species category 2. Its distribution is somewhat limited, but it has been found commonly in the Santa Clarita region (Henrickson, personal communication, 1995). California orcutt grass (Orcuttia californica) is a federal and state endangered species that is associated with vernal pools and was searched for at the site; however, no vernal pools are present in the area and this species is unlikely to be present at the site: An associate of this plant, prostrate navarretia (Navarretia fossalis) similarly does not occur at the site. Slender -homed spineflower (Centrostegia leptoceras) is also a state and federal listed endangered species that is known to occur locally in Soledad Canyon and Big Tujunga Wash. Henrickson did not locate this species within the 160 acre parcel during his survey, which was conducted during the optimal blooming period. His survey is considered definitive for this portion of the site. Portions of the upper Oak Spring Canyon alluvial fan outside of city of Santa caanta 5.4.6 I Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.4 Biology IHenrickson's survey appear to have marginal habitat for this species, but the most appropriate habitat was located in the lower area that was investigated. It is probable that this endangered species does not exist at the project site. The shortjoint form of the common beavertail cactus (Opuntia basilaris) is a federal candidate category 2 for listing. Hovore & Associates examined many of the cacti on the site, but none were of this phenotype. Over 50 species of sensitive animal species with declining populations occur in the project region, as listed in Table I of the Hovore & Associates study. Information about the status and known locations of each of the species considered is contained in the Hovore & Associates study and is not repeated here. Based on the discussion contained in that study and a brief walkover of the site habitats, the list of sensitive vertebrate species of concern known or possibly found at the site have been listed in Table 5.4- 1. State or federally listed species are accorded the highest protection status, however, no state or federally listed rare, threatened, or endangered animals are expected to occur or substantially utilize the habitats available at the site. Many sensitive species that could occur onsite are listed by the federal government as Category 2, a designation that indicates that existing information may wan -ant listing as a threatened or endangered species, but substantial biological information necessary to support such listing is lacking. This status does not afford any protection on these species beyond that contained in Fish and Game codes regulating the take of native species, but rather this list serves to indicate those species which may become listed in the future. California Species of Special Concern are those animals listed by the Department of Fish and Game because of declining population levels or naturally rare levels that may be under population stress; listing under this category is informal and does not provide any additional protection status to the species. The status of each of the species contained in Table 5.4-1 relative to the project site and the effect of the proposed project on the populations of these species are discussed below in the impact section. Wetlands are the primary communities of concern because of substantial state-wide losses, with over 90% of the wetland acreage formerly present in southern California having been eliminated by agriculture and urbanization. Despite having two major drainages through the site, no specific wetland communities are present onsite except for a series of man-made retention basins located along the north property line in the middle of the western slope portion of the site. Three of the four basins still contained standing water when visited in early August 1995. The furthest downstream basin has a concreted overflow sluice and its depth is controlled via an 8 -inch diameter iron pipe. The other basins have earthen embankments placed across the drainage channel. All of the ponds were ringed by mulefat, with a few large willow trees along the edges, and the deepest pond also had cattail and rushes along its banks. The water was filled with various algae and contained the highly invasive African clawed frog (Xenopus laevis). City of Santa Clarita 5.4.7 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.4 Biology Table 5.4-1. Sensitive Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring at Project Site ?hi�;'ydi'J.N �1f isd+ AMEMS .' fl..✓„Y'm < b''�v, i� R :iti,S Lro S vfY `.H) ,:<Ce' Srr^.wY�R 7{,^5A.6.Y>i..? S itiTL," .Y � `Y ... a .. .. r.. ... .. ... ,i":66> Western spadefoot toad Scaphiopus hammondi .. .. ,.: .,.. CSC ... ,... C2 Coast homed lizard Phrynosoma coronatum frontale and P. c. CSC C2 blainvillei Coastal western whiptail Cnemidophorus tigris multiscutatus CSC C2 Silvery legless lizard Aniella pulchra pulchra CSC C2 Rosy boa Lichanura trivirgata CSC C2 Coastal patch -nosed snake Salvadora hexalepis virgultea CSC C2 Two -striped garter snake Thamnophis hammondii CSC C2 San Bernardino ring-necked snake Diadophis punctatus modestus None C2 San Diego mountain kngsnake Lampropeltis zonata pulchm CSC C2 San Bernardino mountain kingsnake Lampropeltis zonata parviruba CSC C2 Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos CSC None Cooper's hawk Accipiter cooped CSC None Northern harrier Circus cyaneus CSC None Sharp -shinned hawk Accipiter striatus CSC None White-tailed kite Elanuscaernleus CSC None Long-eared owl Asio ours CSC None California spotted owl Strix occidentalis occidentalis CSC C2 Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus CSC C2 California homed lark Eremophila alpestris actia CSC C2 (C3c) Bell's sage sparrow Amphispiza bellii bellii CSC C2 Southern CA rufous -crowned sparrow Aimophila rufrceps canescens CSC C2 Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus CSC None California mastiff bat Erunopsperotiscalifornicus CSC C2 Pale big -eared bat Plecotus townsendii pallescens CSC C2 San Diego black -tailed hare Lepus califomicus bennetti CSC C2 San Diego desert woodrat Neotoma lepida intermedia CSC C2 Southern grasshopper mouse Onychomys torridus ramona CSC C2 CSC=Califomia Species of Special Concem; C2=Category 2 Source: Hovore & Associates, 1995; Califomia Depamnent of Fish and Game, August 1994. Most of the deeply cut channels in Oak Spring Canyon do not have extensive vegetation, but where scouring has missed areas, typical species found were mugwort, mulefat, mustard, California everlasting, purple nightshade, and scalebroom. Water depths and flows within the soils appear insufficient to support true.riparian or wetland communities and the density and type of vegetation present does not qualify any of the braided channels as wetlands. On the west side of the property, Live Oak Springs Canyon Creek occupies an incised channel that is about ten feet deep where it enters the property and about four feet deep in the northwest comer. The channel banks generally lack wetland species, with the typical bank vegetation consisting primarily of weedy ruderal species such as yellow star thistle, horehound, jimson weed, curly dock, blessed .thistle, and various grasses. A few scattered mulefat and willow shrubs are located in the northwest corner, but not enough to constitute a wetland community. City of Santa Clarita 5.4-8 I ` Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.4 Biology I I A determination of jurisdiction by the Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act was done by Dames & Moore for the 160 acre parcel in 1990. The findings of this study were that the parcel did not contain the requisite characteristics to be considered under Corps jurisdiction either as wetlands or "waters of the United States" for the following reasons: 1. No obligate or facultative wetlands occur within the parcel and no hydric soils are present, despite the presence of wetland hydrology. This conclusion was based on wetland delineation procedures and evaluation criteria in the 1989 Wetland Delineation Manual. 2. No ordinary high water mark is readily identifiable along the drainages. 3. The integrity of the natural drainage from the parcel to the Santa Clara River has been substantially altered through road construction within the main channel and plowing, grading, and filling by agricultural and residential uses. It is noted that actual determination of jurisdictional authority resides with the Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency. Based on the field study, this 404 determination is expected to pertain to the upper Oak Spring Canyon area also. As discussed above, wetland communities are lacking along the Live Oak Springs Canyon drainage, and though a high water mark could potentially be determined for most of this drainage even though it has been diverted and disturbed by agricultural activities, it does not constitute "waters of the United States" because it is no longer an uninterrupted tributary to the Santa Clara River (see Section 5.2 for description of this drainage channel). In any event, the amount of acreage that would be involved in any filling activity within Live Oak Springs Canyon Creek would be less than one acre and would be permissible under a nationwide permit classification. The California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) lists about 125 plant communities in California as "highest inventory priority," a listing done because the CDFG considers these communities "rare enough to merit inclusion in the inventory." These communities are not formally protected, but do constitute a working list of the comparative rarity of a particular community type. No CNDDB priority habitats listed for this area occur within the project site boundaries, though two listed habitats, Riversidean sage scrub and Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, are approximated in part by some of the vegetation formations at the site. What presently constitutes "Riversidean sage scrub" at the site is actually a successional chamise chaparral that will eventually return to the more normal vegetative component mix of that community over time. The alluvial fan scrub and oak -dominated habitats are sufficiently rich in species diversity and relatively rare in distribution to be considered an important natural community by the CNDDB. 5.4-9 of Santa Clarita Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.4 Biology 5.4.2 Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds. The impact to biological resources were based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, which state that a project would have a significant impact if it: • substantially affects a rare or endangered species of animal or plant or the habitat of the species; • interferes substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species; or • substantially diminishes habitat for fish, wildlife or plants. b. Project Impacts. Effect B-1 Project development would reduce the amount of plant and wildlife habitat available at the site. Substantial decreases in locally and regionally significant biologically sensitive communities would also occur. (US) Project development would involve the grading of 84% of the acreage of the site and the subsequent destruction of most of the overlying vegetation within the graded area. The primary biological resource to be retained in the graded areas are the coast live oak trees, however, of the 982 total oaks (including live and scrub oaks) at the site, 268 (27%) would be removed by the project, of which 130 would be live oaks. At least five oaks, including a heritage oak, are immediately at the pavement edge of Sand Canyon Road north of Live Oak Springs Canyon Road and will need to be removed during road widening. Five non-native elm trees would also be removed from this location, and possibly an additional three oaks within the right-of-way. Subsequent to the landform modification, the applicant would begin to revegetate the site as a golf course. The tee, greens, and fairways would be planted in standard golf course grasses, but it is proposed that a plant mix including the use of native drought - tolerant grasses be used for the roughs edging the fairways, as indicated in the Draft Native Revegetation and Monitoring Plan. This plan also contains mitigation strategies for the protection of oak trees left in place and specifics regarding the correct procedures for transplanting oaks to be moved. Acorns had been collected from the site in the fall months of 1994 and approximately 1000 acorns were planted at a local nursery. These plants would provide the stock for plantings throughout the golf course. The applicant also plans to introduce a permanent open water element to the project site, a resource that is currently generally lacking, though the retention ponds in the north portion of the site do serve as an important water source for local wildlife populations. Cut slopes above the fairways are proposed to be revegetated in part with native shrubs, as are the fill slopes that adjoin the residential lots to the Oak Spring Canyon golf course. Table 5.4-2.and the following figure provide a summary of the existing acreage and the post -project acreage. City of Santa Clarfta 5.4-10 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.4 Biology Table 5.4-2. Existing and Post -Project Plant Communities Post -project the oaks would be incorporated as part of residential and golt course areas, an ecologrcany sunuar habitat to their present condition. NA =Not Applicable 250 200 Ac;ea $ w --r Ps;stProleatWW amtnnrtyabttat :. .Estsitng <.j. ..;. 100 Chaparral 201.5 50.8 48% Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub 54.1 11.8 -78% Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub/Oaks 85.1 41.0 -52% Ruderal Area 34.8 — -100% Ruderal Area with Oaks' 6.0 5.0 -17% Disturbed Grassland 19.0 -- -1000/0 Retention Ponds/Golf Course Lakes 0.5 7.1 +1320% Revegetated Shrubs/Fire Zone — 55.0 NA' Fairways/Tees/Greens — 97.7 NA Revegetated Roughs — 75.5 NA Urban — 57.1 NA Post -project the oaks would be incorporated as part of residential and golt course areas, an ecologrcany sunuar habitat to their present condition. NA =Not Applicable 250 200 I I Habitat Acreage ChapanaU Alluvial Fan Alluvial Fan OakslRuderal Shrub Sage Scrub Swb/Oaks Revegetation ■ Existing O Post -Project Grass Open Water Elements) Source Golf course The proposed vegetation alterations involve not only a change in the acreage of the different plant communities, but also involve a change in the ability of the onsite resources to support wildlife and sensitive plant and animal populations. To assess this change in general habitat suitability, a ranking assessment was performed based on the existing and expected characteristics of current and future 5.4-11 City of Santa Clarita 150 w a 100 50 0 I I Habitat Acreage ChapanaU Alluvial Fan Alluvial Fan OakslRuderal Shrub Sage Scrub Swb/Oaks Revegetation ■ Existing O Post -Project Grass Open Water Elements) Source Golf course The proposed vegetation alterations involve not only a change in the acreage of the different plant communities, but also involve a change in the ability of the onsite resources to support wildlife and sensitive plant and animal populations. To assess this change in general habitat suitability, a ranking assessment was performed based on the existing and expected characteristics of current and future 5.4-11 City of Santa Clarita Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.4 Biology vegetation. This habitat suitability assessment considered general habitat value based on plant diversity, structural diversity, and disturbance (isolation, fragmentation of habitat, and amount of weedy vegetation). It also considered the regional supply of the specific habitat type and the known or probable ability of the habitat to support sensitive species.. Appendix D contains the factors used iri the ranking analysis, the method of summing the various factors, and the generalized suitability of the individual habitats to support native biological resources. The suitability factor was then multiplied by the acreage of the habitat to provide a number that reflects that habitat's contribution to the total value of biological resources within the site. The methodology employed is loosely based on the analytical framework provided by the Habitat Evaluation Procedure used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, except that the rankings are based on the biological judgment of the EIR preparer rather than on field data and individual species habitat models. The following figure summarizes the findings of this analysis. 250 C 200 a �L = 150 O 0 M 4 100 a R y 50 :: Habitat Suitability ChapanaV MuOal Fan MWNal Fan Oak4RWeral Grass Olen Water Totals ShMb Sage Scrub Scrub/Oaks ElemenW Source Rewgetation Goff Course ■Existing El Post -Project The alluvial fan vegetation with the overlying oak woodland has the highest suitability factor of existing onsite resources because of the known presence of sensitive species within this area and the relatively high structural diversity and low level of disturbance. The best example of this community present on the site is that located adjacent to Rabbit Canyon in the southeastern corner of the site. As indicated in the above chart and Table 5.4-2, the proposed project would disturb this highest value per acre area the least, and thereby retain much of its habitat contribution value. The chart also indicates that the chaparral community provides the greatest amount of existing habitat value on the site, primarily due to the substantial amount of acreage on the site (about 50% of the total site acreage). The extensive reduction in the extent of this vegetation type is responsible for the greatest loss of net habitat value. 5.4-12 ,F w, ChapanaV MuOal Fan MWNal Fan Oak4RWeral Grass Olen Water Totals ShMb Sage Scrub Scrub/Oaks ElemenW Source Rewgetation Goff Course ■Existing El Post -Project The alluvial fan vegetation with the overlying oak woodland has the highest suitability factor of existing onsite resources because of the known presence of sensitive species within this area and the relatively high structural diversity and low level of disturbance. The best example of this community present on the site is that located adjacent to Rabbit Canyon in the southeastern corner of the site. As indicated in the above chart and Table 5.4-2, the proposed project would disturb this highest value per acre area the least, and thereby retain much of its habitat contribution value. The chart also indicates that the chaparral community provides the greatest amount of existing habitat value on the site, primarily due to the substantial amount of acreage on the site (about 50% of the total site acreage). The extensive reduction in the extent of this vegetation type is responsible for the greatest loss of net habitat value. 5.4-12 I Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section SA Biology The ruderal area and disturbed grassland are the least valuable existing communities and the golf course fairway and rough vegetation would more than replace the current habitat value of these communities. Note however that this would occur at the expensive of the more valuable chaparral and alluvial fan scrub vegetation. The addition of the golf course lakes would serve to substantially increase the value of this wetland -type community within the site. Nonetheless, overall habitat value at the site would decline 59%. This is considered a significant impact that cannot be fully mitigated. In particular, the loss of the alluvial fan scrub habitat, a sensitive habitat type, cannot be mitigated onsite. It is also noted that the portions of the alluvial fan vegetation that would be left between fairways would eventually change to another vegetation type (probably mixed chaparral and oak woodland) because the stabilization of the soil surface associated with the golf course would reduce the scouring action of storm flows through the site and allow the establishment of different vegetation. The City has an Oak Tree Preservation ordinance (Section 17.17.090 of the Development Code) that is intended to protect and preserve oak trees within the city. The ordinance requires an oak tree permit to be obtained prior to cutting, pruning, removing, relocating, endangering, damaging, or encroaching into the protected zone (5 feet beyond.the dripline) of any oak tree, with specific exemptions for priming of branches less than 6 inches in circumference (about 2 inches in diameter) or trees with a circumference less than 6 inches, emergency conditions, nursery stock and planted trees, and public utility maintenance by the service company. Any removal, pruning, or relocating of oak trees on the property would be done in compliance with the conditions developed for the specific oak tree permit that the applicant is requesting. Certain findings must be made specifically regarding the removal or relocation of Heritage Oaks, of which up to seven maybe so affected by the proposed project. Standard conditions of the oak tree permit require the replacement/relocation of trees either on- or off-site and certification of compliance with the conditions of the permit and the health of all replacement and relocated on-site trees after planting and two years after planting. A fee equivalent to the value of the trees removed from the property or donation of equivalent value boxed trees to the City may be also be made. Equivalent value is determined using the current edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal published by the International Society of Arboriculture. Mitigation Measures. Beyond substantial reductions in the size of the project, no mitigation measures are available to effectively reduce the cumulatively significant impact of losses to biologically sensitive communities and general habitat that currently exists at the site. The following measures are, in part, incorporated into the draft revegetation plan, which will require updating and revisions, for the site and are recommended for inclusion in the conditions of approval for the project if it is approved. B -1(a) The proposed project will be required to comply with the conditions of the oak tree permit. This shall include the payment of the equivalent value fees for removed and transplanted trees, with onsite plantings of oaks credited against the fee. The biological monitoring plan shall include specific monitoring of onsite oak tree plantings for a period of two years after completion of site development and landscaping. At the end of two years, all oaks shall be checked for health conditions compared to before project implementation and any trees observed to be declining in City of Santa Clarita 5.4.13 I Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.4 Biology health shall be monitored for an additional three years. Specific recommendations for preservation of declining oak trees shall also be made. Oak trees that die in the natural areas between the fairways shall be replaced on an equivalent value basis. The dead trees shall be left standing to provide cavity nesting areas for birds and roosts for raptors unless they present a safety hazard or a disease hazard to other oaks. B -1(b) At least 50% in aggregate of the shoreline edge of the golf course lakes shall be revegetated with native freshwater marsh elements. B -1(c) Proposed fairway roughs shall be revegetated with native perennial bunch grasses at a mix of 2:1 to non-native species. These roughs shall be maintained as native perennial grasslands unless after three years of effort, it is shown that such revegetation would be unsuccessful. B-I(d) The Integrated Pest Management plan proposed for the project shall be prepared in accordance with the current practices advised by the Statewide Integrated Pest Management Project, University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. B -1(e) The slope revegetation and fire clearance zone shall be initially planted only with native species. Limit fire hazard fuel modification to hand -thinning of individual shrubs, clearing dead fuel, "multi -cutting," replanting with fire-resistant native shrubs or other methods to attain fire safety while producing a biologically viable community. Significance After Mitigation. In the long term, the implementation of the golf course revegetation plan and long term maintenance of the golf course to foster some wildlife habitat would serve to reduce the adverse environmental effects of project development. As discussed above, the project would substantially increase the amount of wetland -type communities on the site, but these gains are offset by the substantial losses to other communities. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unmitigable. i Effect B-2 Project implementation may reduce the population and available habitat for sensitive plant species. (NS) Peirson's morning-glory and Plummer's mariposa -lily are the only sensitive plants known to be present on the project site. The morning-glory typically occurs in chaparral and scrub habitats in the area after fires and other disturbances. The species has been reported from several sites in the Santa Clarita Valley, with five localities in the Mint Canyon quadrangle area, and over 20 sites overall in northern Los Angeles County. Henrickson (1989) provides a biological opinion that while this plant was originally thought to be rare when first listed because of a notable lack of collections, it is possible that such a lack ■ of records is due to its blooming period during summer when little collecting is done, its inconspicuous rr City of Santa Clarita 5.4-14 J I Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.4 Biology nature of growing in the understory beneath shrubs, and its close resemblance to the common bindweed. Henrickson reports that he has surveyed an extensive stand of this species in the Mint Canyon -Vasquez Canyon area about 4-5 miles north-northwest of the site that contains concentrations of up to 10,000 plants per acre. He also notes that large numbers of this plant exist in the Angeles National Forest lands to the south and east of the site. The proposed project would remove about 75% of the chaparral vegetation on the site, but would revegetate 55 acres of scrub for a net loss of 48% of the available habitat for this plant at the project site. Hovore & Associates noted that this could be considered a locally significant impact, but given the discussion in Henrickson, it is considered an adverse, but less than significant reduction in the available habitat for this plant. The project is not expected to result in an extirpation of the plant at the site, and the ongoing disturbance associated with maintenance in the fire clearance zone which would be revegetated with native scrubs could aid in the long term maintenance of a Peirson's morning-glory population at the site. The Plummer's mariposa -lily is found on clayey soils generally in the scrub communities within the site I and project development would eliminate approximately 70% of existing habitat, with a net loss of 35% of possible habitat. Similar to the morning-glory, Henrickson (1975, personal communication) indicated that this plant is relatively common in the project vicinity. Therefore, the project specific impact to the mariposa -lily is considered to be adverse, but not significant. Cumulative impacts of other developments in the area are also expected to be adverse, but less than significant given the large supply of habitat for this species available in the Angeles National Forest and areas designated for open space. Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures are necessary, however, the following are recommended for consideration by approval authorities. B -2(a) Seed collection and plant salvaging efforts for the Peirson's morning-glory shall be attempted in chaparral areas prior to site mass grading. The purpose of such collection would be to re-establish the plant within the scrub revegetation zone. B -2(a) The location of Plummer's mariposa -lilies shall be marked during the spring flowering period, with the bulbs dug up in the late fall to winter for transplanting before the heavy winter rains of January through March. The purpose of such collection would be to re-establish the plant within the scrub revegetation zone and the revegetated roughs or possible relocation into the remaining native habitats. Significance After Mitigation. Project development would reduce the amount of habitat available for Peirson's morning-glory and Plummer's mariposa -lily. Effect B-3 Future development of the residential and golf course uses may affect sensitive fish and wildlife resources at the site. (US) City of Santa Clarity 5.4.15 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.4 Biology As previously stated, no rare, threatened, or endangered animal species are present on the project site i and project development would not result in any onsite impacts to such species. A total of 27 types of animals that are considered to be sensitive by either the federal or state government because of declining population levels are either known or likely to occur at the site. One amphibian, the .western spadefoot toad could potentially occur on the site, breeding in the retention ponds or in the gravel pit pond located east of the site. Project implementation could possibly result in the local extirpation of the species from the site because of the filling of the existing retention ponds and general grading of the scrub habitats. Nine sensitive reptile species are expected to occur at the site, three of which were observed at the site. The coast horned lizard was identified during the Henrickson survey as being found throughout the alluvial fan scrub dominated by Great Basin sagebrush and adjacent ruderal grasslands in the northern portion of the 160 acre parcel. Identification of the actual subspecies present onsite is difficult because both subspecies have been found in the area, which is within a transition zone for these two subspecies. Based on the general known distribution of the subspecies, onsite animals are likely to be the San Diegoan form (P. c. blainvillei). Construction of the golf course in this area would remove virtually all habitat for this animal, and these animals do not flee from the construction area and so are likely to be killed during construction. This is considered a locally significant impact. The coastal western whiptail was observed in chaparral habitat and could occur throughout the site except in the plowed fields. The whiptails at the site may not be the listed taxon because, as previously discussed, the project site lies within a transition zone between coastal and desert ecosystems and between northern and southern floristic zones. However, for purposes of impact analysis, they are assumed to be the coastal form. Project development would remove most of the habitat for this active predator within the site, but there is extensive habitat for this species on adjacent lands and project I development is not expected to result in a substantial decrease in whiptail populations. Three individuals of the two -striped garter snake were observed swimming in the retention ponds during the August field visit. It is likely that these snakes breed in the immediate vicinity of the ponds and were probably feeding on the invasive exotic African clawed frog, which has a very dense population in these ponds. The two -striped garter snake and San Bernardino ring-necked snake are both generally associated with seasonal and perennial streams with good water quality and seasonal pools. It is possible that both species reside in the upper reaches of the Oak Spring Canyon drainage within the site. The project as proposed would reserve most of that area, but possible individuals further downstream or at the retention ponds would be eliminated by project construction. Because of the limited habitat available for these snakes and their reduced local populations, the project is considered to have a significant impact on local populations. The silvery legless lizard can be expected onsite in the loose soils and thick deposits of leaf litter in the oak woodland areas and in favored locations in the chaparral. It is not as rare as generally believed, but is difficult to locate without specific focused studies. It is capable of surviving in urban habitats as long as loose soil or thick leaf litter is readily available. While project implementation would reduce population levels, this is not expected to have a significant impact on this species. rCity of Santa Cfarita 5.4-16 ' Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR . Section 5A Biology Rosy boas are found on rocky hillsides in sage scrub and chaparral habitats, while the coastal patch - nosed snake occurs in similar but moister habitats and in the oak woodland areas. Project implementation is not expected to cause a significant impact to these two species because of their relative abundance and the abundance of available habitat. It is questionable which of the subspecies of the mountain kingsnake may actually reside in the project site, however, specimens from Sand Canyon and Placerita Canyon most closely resemble the San Diegoan form and it is presumed that this subspecies is likely to occur at the site. Due to the apparent relative rarity of this animal, loss of the chaparral and alluvial fan vegetation may cause a locally significant impact on this animal. All of the birds listed in Table 5.4-1 are California Species of Special Concern and are so listed primarily because their preferred habitats have been fractured and extensively reduced by agricultureand urbanization. The birds of prey (golden eagle, white-tailed kite, northern harrier, sharp -shinned hawk, Cooper's hawk, California spotted owl, and long-eared owl) all have extensive ranges that cover many habitats, and can be expected as rare to common transients at the project site and most of these are not expected to breed at the site. No direct evidence exists for Cooper's hawk nesting at the site, but they could potentially nest in the larger trees in the alluvial fan area. The white-tailed kite has nested in Sand and Placerita Canyons several times in the past two decades and could possibly breed at the site. Long- eared owls prefer to nest in willow forests, which are lacking at the site, but have been known to nest in oak trees and is a breeding bird in Sand and Placerita Canyons. Project development is not expected to cause a significant impact to those raptors that only forage at the site or occur as transient winter visitors, ' but loss of nesting localities for the other species would be considered a locally significant impact. All three locally breeding raptors are somewhat tolerant of development, and are capable of using the golf course habitat and the revegetation areas. The small predatory loggerhead shrike has declined throughout its range, probably due to habitat destruction but also due to declines in its prey base of songbirds and large insects. It probably nests at the site in the taller vegetation of the alluvial fan scrub and chaparral habitats. It is capable of surviving in the habitats established by the golf course development and implementation of the project would not have a significant impact on this species. California horned larks nest on open ground, usually beneath or within clumps of grass or other vegetation, and are often found preferably in ruderal grasslands and disturbed habitats. The listed subspecies was recently downlisted as being too common, and the incremental loss of habitat associated with the project is not expected to cause a substantial decrease in this species population levels. Sage sparrows were not detected by sight or song during any of the field surveys, though small numbers of this bird have been seen in nearby localities in similar chaparral habitat. It is unknown whether or not the listed subspecies is the one present at the site since the desert subspecies is known to occur further to the.east, however, for purposes of this assessment, the listed taxon is presumed to be present. The project would alter most of the available nesting habitat for this animal, but given its known ability to City of Santa Clarita 5.4-17 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.4 Biology nest adjacent to suburban development, the project is not expected to have a significant impact on this animal. Rufous -crowned sparrows are becoming increasingly rare because of the loss of open sage scrub habitats that they nest in. This species is known to breed in chaparral habitats in Placerita and Tick Canyons and the incremental loss of breeding habitat for this project may be cumulatively significant. Three bat species, the pallid bat, California mastiff bat, and the pale big -eared bat, are expected to utilize the project site for foraging. These bats require caves or crevices for roosting and breeding, and their presence at the project site would be limited to foraging.. A primary concern regarding these species is the use of pesticides to control insect populations on the golf course. Insecticides are thought to be a significant factor in the decrease in bat populations throughout California. While alteration of their natural foraging habitat at the site would not be expected to cause a significant decrease in population levels, the long term use of pesticides at the site could pose a cumulative impact to bat populations. The remaining three mammals, San Diego black tailed hare (or jackrabbit), San Diego desert woodrat, and southern grasshopper mouse, potentially occur at the site in the alluvial scrub and chaparral habitats. As is the case with other taxon discussed, the hare and woodrat subspecies listed may not be the ones that are resident at the site. Given the amount of available habitat in adjacent Forest Service lands and elsewhere, development of the project would represent a minor incremental loss of habitat for these animals and is not considered project or cumulatively significant. The southern grasshopper mouse has been recently trapped from chaparral ridgelines about 10 miles from the site, but it has not been found in nearby Bee or Placenta Canyons. It is expected that it could occur throughout the natural habitats present on the site and on adjacent forest lands. Project implementation would remove the majority of available habitat for this animal, but it is relatively widespread and the project is not expected to cause a project -specific or cumulative impact to this animal. Mitigation Measures. Of the 28 listed taxon in Table 5.4-1, project implementation is expected to have a significant impact on five sensitive animals: the western spadefoot toad, coast homed lizard, two -striped garter snake, mountain kingsnake, and rufous -crowned sparrow. It is noted that the presence of clawed frogs limit the usefulness of the existing retention ponds as breeding habitat for other amphibians because of their feeding behavior. In addition, these frogs pose a threat to offsite native species and are currently a significant factor in losses of the endangered stickleback in the Santa Clara River. The golf course lakes offer a potential opportunity to expand the breeding and foraging habitat for the two -striped garter snake, western spadefoot toad, and mountain kingsnake. The following mitigation measures are recommended to reduce project -related impacts to sensitive species. B -3(a) Construction workers shall be notified through preconstruction meetings that a variety of sensitive wildlife are present at the site and that they shall not willfully harm any species, especially snakes and other reptiles. During the construction meeting, the proper method of moving snakes from construction zones shall be illustrated. city of Santa clanta 5.4.18 I 1 J I I 1 I I I I I I I I Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.4 Biology B -3(b) Include creation and maintenance of freshwater marsh habitat along the margins of the golf course lakes to increase the potential for recovery of two -striped garter snake, mountain kingsnake, and western spadefoot toad populations in the project vicinity. B -3(c) The clawed frogs could potentially invade the proposed golf course lakes and decrease potential habitat values. To avoid this, these ponds shall be drained prior to construction and filling of the proposed lakes. During the draining, the frogs shall be caught with netting or by other means and killed. At the same time as the frogs are netted, two -striped garter snakes and any other sensitive species in the ponds shall be captured. The native animals shall be maintained until the golf course lakes are filled and native vegetation is installed along the banks, at which time, the snakes and other sensitive species shall be released into the new habitat. B -3(d) A capture and off-site relocation plan shall be developed for the San Diego horned lizard. Such a plan would include the scouring of the north portion of the alluvial fan scrub to capture homed lizards and the identification of suitable unoccupied habitat to which they could be relocated. B -3(e) Install swallow boxes in the retained natural areas between the fairways as part of the Integrated Pest Management plan for the site. Also consider the installation of bat boxes to be located at least 800 feet from residential areas. Significance After Miti ag tion. Because 84% of the site would be graded and a net loss of approximately 60% of available habitat would occur, the impact to the coast horned lizard and the rufous -crowned sparrow cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels. Effect B-4 Development of the project could cause an indirect and cumulative impact to regional fish and wildlife resources because of the interruption of wildlife corridors or habitat linkages. (NS) Habitat linkages are generally defined as connections between habitat patches that allow for physical and genetic exchange between otherwise isolated animal populations. Such linkages may serve a local purpose, such as between foraging and denning areas, or they may be regional in nature. Some habitat linkages may serve as migration corridors, wherein animals periodically move away from an area and then subsequently return. A group of habitat linkages in an area can form a wildlife corridor network. At this time, it is important to distinguish between a specific migratory corridor and general movement pathways within a habitat linkage. Certain animals follow specific corridors as part of an evolutionary pattern or as seasonal movements and they have little ability to modify their behavior to follow that route given physical changes. Examples of this are certain amphibians that follow specific routes between aestivation sites and breeding pools, steelhead trout and salmon that tend to return to specific nativity streams, and caribou that follow specific trail routes between breeding and wintering grounds. Movement pathways are simply a route that an individual highly mobile animal such as a mountain lion, 5.4-19 city or Santa cianta Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.4 Biolotty coyote, or mule deer may travel between seasonal resource areas. Such pathways typically follow drainage patterns, ridges, and passes, but the individual animal, and the population as a whole, can choose to take a different route between the resources provided that alternatives are available. Habitat linkages are generally areas by which larger, separate areas of similar habitat values are connected physically. The habitats within the link do not necessarily need to be the same as the habitats that are being link, it merely needs to contain sufficient cover and forage to allow temporary inhabitation by ground -dwelling species. Typically habitat linkages are contiguous strips of natural areas, though dense plantings of landscape vegetation can serve for certain urban -tolerant species. Depending on the species intended to utilize a corridor, specific physical resources (such as rock outcroppings, vernal pools, oak trees) need to be located within the habitat link at certain intervals to allow slower -moving species to traverse the link. For highly mobile or aerial species, habitat linkages may be discontinuous patches of suitable resources, spaced sufficiently close to permit travel along a route in a short period of time. When habitat linkages are too small or narrow, they may collapse ecologically due to encroachment or edge effects. An example is a corridor intended for deer movement that is so narrow that adjacent residential lighting is too bright for deer to tolerate crossing open pools of light. For small mammals, such as rodents and reptiles, habitat linkages need to be sufficiently wide to decrease the predatory effects of feral dogs and cats associated with suburban development. In general, the larger a link is, the better it functions for the movement of animals and genetic material between major areas of open space. The proposed project site lies along a drainage through which animals can be expected to traverse to and from the San Gabriel Mountains en route to the Santa Clara River and the Sierra Pelona. Large animal movement within Oak Spring Canyon appears to follow a network of movement pathways, with deer and coyote tracks evident along the braided stream channels. Reticulated networks of small rodent trails are also evident throughout the grasslands, ruderal areas, chaparral, and alluvial scrub. Some significant cross -drainage movement between Oak Spring Canyon and Sand Canyon appears to occur via the low pass at the terminus of Bronco Road and along the ridgeline between the two canyons. However, the western portion of the site is surrounded by existing development, and there appears to be little movement offsite further to the west. The project as proposed would interrupt the smaller trails and pathways along with most of the populations that currently use these pathways. The project would reduce animal movement across the ridgelines from Oak Spring Canyon to Sand Canyon, but this would affect local movement pathways only and nota major migratory route or an important habitat linkage. The golf course as a vegetated area unoccupied by people during the night would continue to serve as a down canyon pathway for larger mobile animals, but would disrupt such movements and genetic flow for smaller animals such as rodents and rabbits. The regional importance of such a disruption is minimized by the presence of large expanses of natural land to the east that provides the same ecological function as the project site. Therefore, the project would not create a significant barrier to the general regional movement of fish and wildlife resources. City of Santa Clara 5.4-20 I Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section SA Biology ' Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures are required. The revegetation of portions of the site as proposed under the revegetation plan will serve to preserve the golf course as an area that provides sufficient food, water, and cover to allow larger, more mobile animals to move through the site without major restrictions. Significance After Mitigation. No significant impacts relative to animal movement are expected to be caused by the proposed development, and the golf course revegetation would serve to preserve the options available to large mobile wildlife to move between areas. it L I 11 1 1 Y I �1 I 5.421 LJ City of Santa Clanta Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.5 Transportation/Circulation 5.5 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION The proposed development would generate about 3,800 vehicles per day on Sand Canyon Road Traffic impacts of the project were analyzed at six intersections in the site area and on the Antelope Valley Freeway. With the existing roadway design, an acceptable level of traffic operation would occur with full site development at all study locations except the northbound Sand Canyon off -ramp of the Antelope Valley Freeway. A planned Caltrans bridge improvement project will improve the level of service at this intersection to an acceptable operation Consequently, no roadway improvements are required for the existing road system to adequately serve project -related &% ffrc. It is recommended that a southbound left turn lane be installed on Sand Canyon Road at the main site entrance and at Live Oak Springs Canyon Road to facilitate turning movements and maximize safety. If spectator tournament golf events are held at the site, an event specific traffic control plan is required Cumulative and project traffic would combine with existing heavy west approach traffic at the Sand Canyon and Lost Canyon Roads intersection to warrant signalization of this intersection. The following discussion is based on the traffic impact study prepared for this EIR by Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. (1995). This study is herein incorporated in its entirety per Statd CEQA Guidelines §15150 and maybe reviewed at the City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department. The currently proposed project has fewer units than that analyzed by this report, but the analysis has not been changed since it represents a conservative estimate of potential traffic impacts. An additional traffic safety study of the new site access point was conducted by Kimley Horn and Associates on May 23, 1996, and is fully incorporated into this EIR section. 5.5.1 Setting The proposed development is located on the east side of Sand Canyon Road and north of Live Oak Springs Canyon Road, about one mile south of the Antelope Valley Freeway (SR -14). The development would access the existing local roadway system through two access points. A public street would be constructed to Sand Canyon Road, about 300 feet north of Live Oak Springs Canyon Road, that would serve as the main access for clubhouse and golf traffic. Live Oak Springs Canyon Road would also connect to both the residential and recreational uses. The proximity of the site to various roads in the study area is illustrated in Figure 5.5-1. The current travel conditions in the site area were identified and the level of traffic congestion was calculated to define baseline conditions for the project traffic impact analysis. City Traffic Engineering staff identified six intersections to be evaluated as part of this study. All of these were on Sand Canyon Road or at ramps to the Antelope Valley Freeway. In addition, the freeway section between Sand Canyon Road and Via Princessa was also investigated. a. Description of Roadways that Serve the Project Area. The following is a description of roadways in the project area that would be affected by project generated traffic. City of Santa Clarita 5.5-1 NOT 1 Figure 5.5-1 REGIONAL ROAD NETWORK and Inc. A 0 0 0 8 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.5 Transportation/Circulation AnteloFe Valley Freeway (SR -14) - The Antelope Valley Freeway extends between I-5 in Los Angeles to north of the Palmdale/Lancaster area, and it is a major travel route between southern and central California. In the vicinity of Sand Canyon Road, the freeway is oriented in an east -west direction, and has four travel lanes in each direction. A modified diamond interchange at Sand Canyon Road serves regional access needs of the area. Adjacent interchanges are located at Soledad Canyon Road (about 2 miles to the east of Sand Canyon Road) and at Via Princessa (about 2.5 miles to the west). The Antelope Valley Freeway carries about 73,000 daily vehicles, east of Sand Canyon Road, and about 81,000 vehicles per day west of the interchange. Soledad Carryon Road - Soledad Canyon Road is a locally significant arterial street that extends from Bouquet Canyon Road to communities east of Santa Clarity In the site vicinity, Soledad Canyon Road is parallel to and just north of the Antelope Valley Freeway; and it provides an alternate travel route to the freeway. In the study area, Soledad Canyon Road has two through lanes in each direction and left tum lanes at major intersections. Traffic volumes on Soledad Canyon Road are about 15,300 daily vehicles east of Sand Canyon Road and about 25,000 daily vehicles west of Sand Canyon Road. Sand Canyon Road - Sand Canyon Road is a local collector street that is gradually being improved to arterial standards to the north of Lost Canyon Road. It is the only current access to the residential developments between the Southern Pacific Railroad and Placenta Canyon Road. Sand Canyon Road is currently a two lane rural road that is generally between 25 and 35 feet wide, with roadside berms and drainage ditches. It extends in a north -south direction between Sierra Highway on the north and Placenta Canyon Road on the south. The existing bridge over the Antelope Valley Freeway is 40 feet wide with one lane in each direction plus a left tum lane for southbound traffic. Current traffic volumes range from about 9,100 daily vehicles near the Antelope Valley Freeway to about 3,100 vehicles per day on the south end of the road. Lost Carryon Road - Lost Canyon Road is a two lane, rural road that intersects Sand Canyon Road just north of the Southern Pacific Railroad. The facility has two travel lanes that are not delineated, and the intersection with Sand Canyon Road is controlled by a two way stop for Lost Canyon Road. This road carries very low volumes of traffic, less than 900 vehicles per day west of and less than 700 vehicles per day east of Sand Canyon Road, from the existing sparse residential development and several schools. Placerita Canyon Road - Placerita Canyon Road is a two lane rural road about 30 to 40 feet wide connecting Sand Canyon Road with the Newhall area. It currently carries slightly over 3,000 vehicles per day near Sand Canyon Road. Linle Tujunga Road - Little Tujunga Road connects Sand Canyon Road with the Los Angeles urban area through Angeles National Forest. It is a winding, mountainous, two lane road that carnes about 600 daily vehicles near Sand Canyon Road. b. Existing Traffic Volumes. As shown in Figure 5.5-2, existing daily traffic volumes on study area surface streets range from a high of about 25,000 daily vehicles on Soledad Canyon Road to less than of Santa Clanta 5.5-3 NOT T Figure 5.5-2 EXISTING DAILY TRAFFIC DEMAND (NOVERMBER 1994) Klmley—Hom and Associates, Inc. I I I I E I n .J M E, I I j I 71 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.5.Transportation/Circulation 1,000 daily vehicles on Lost Canyon Road and Little Tujunga Road The Antelope Valley Freeway carries about 75,000 to 80,000 daily vehicles in the site area. Existing peak hour traffic counts were conducted at five locations in the study area, so that potential site impacts could be fully evaluated. The existing morning peak travel hour generally begins between 7:00 AM and 7:15 AM at all study intersections and the peak PM traffic hour is generally between 4:30 PM and 5:30 PM. The peak hour traffic demand is illustrated in Figure 5.5-3 for the morning peak and in Figure 5.5-4 for the evening peak. c. Existing Level of Service. The existing traffic operation at each study intersection was calculated using standard methodologies for determining Level of Service (LOS). The signalized intersections were analyzed using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology. This technique compares current demand to available approach capacity. The critical or mutually exclusive traffic flows through the intersection are summarized to calculate the operating Level of Service of the intersection. The City of Santa Clarita has defined the maximum desirable congestion level in residential areas as LOS "C" (V/C ratio of 0.80) and at freeway ramps as LOS "D" (V/C ratio of 0.90). The congestion level at unsignalized intersections was calculated using Highway Capacity Manual (1 -ICM) calculation techniques. This procedure calculates a Level of Service from a determination of average vehicle delay through the intersection. The HCM analysis procedure is a standard technique for comparing levels of congestion at stop sign controlled intersections. Table 5.5-1 lists the existing operating characteristics of study area intersections. Table 5.5-1 Existing Study Area Traffic Operation 5.5-5 city of Santa cianta 11�SEfi"XIC1i!1 . .. 1 XIS11G�IiGF14 T�T1 ST1. 5 alrudl¢teraecEivus MN r IGCi L(ltS iGil L#3,4 : > f R i Sand Canyon Rd/Soledad Canyon Rd 0.41 A 0.63 B Sand Canyon Rd/SR-14 NB Ramps 0.38 A 0.93 E Soledad Canyon Rd/SR-14 SB Ramps 0.52 A 0.47 A 1 MX x� ' ; % $.�••.:a: � i Unsignalized�InlecrseeL4n9 't ii :: •.a. � t' <i s:.... ..?.:.:t .: 1Tetay, T QS Delay LAS Sand Canyon Rd/Lost Canyon Rd 1.1 A 0.8 A Sand Canyon Rd/Live Oak Springs Cyn Rd. 0.7 A 0.9 A 5.5-5 city of Santa cianta 751 5a5 I I I I 1 I I I Figure 5.5-3 EXISTING TRAFFIC DEMAND - AM PEAK , )rn and Associates. Inc. ' Figure 5.5-4 EXISTING TRAFFIC DEMAND - PM PEAK Kimle"Hvn cnd Anoc,ates. Inc I ti Q I Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.5 Transportation/Circulation The data in Table 5.5-1 show that all intersections, except the SR -14 northbound off -ramp at Sand Canyon , Road, are operating with little or no traffic congestion. The northbound off -ramp at Sand Canyon Road is currently operating at LOS "E" during the evening peak hour period. LOS "E" is a highly congested level of operation where vehicles must generally wait more than one signal cycle to traverse the intersection. Although traffic demand on all critical approaches to this intersection contribute to the congestion problem in the PM peak, the congestion problem primarily results from an extremely high left tum demand from the ramp to Sand Canyon Road that far exceeds the available capacity of the one approach lane provided for this maneuver. The existing narrow bridge for Sand Canyon Road across the Antelope Valley Freeway allows only one departure lane and prevents improvement at this intersection. I d. Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program (CMP). Los Angeles County has developed a Congestion Management Program (CMP) that establishes procedures and guidelines for the 1 analysis of development impacts on a defined system of critical freeway and arterial roads in the County. The Antelope Valley Freeway (SR -14) is on the CMP system of roads; consequently, potential impacts to the freeway system must be considered. In general, the study area must include: 1. Arterial monitoring locations, including freeway ramps where the proposed project will add , 50 or more vehicle trips during either peak hour, and 2. Mainline freeway monitoring locations where the proposed project will add 150 or more trips in either direction to the mainline volume. The study analysis includes the Sand Canyon Road ramps to the Antelope Valley Freeway, and the City has requested analysis of the mainline section south (west) of Sand Canyon Road. Consequently, the CMP system components that may be impacted by the proposed development have been evaluated herein. The mainline freeway, south of Sand Canyon Road, carries about 81,000 daily vehicles and about 6,800 vehicles during the peak travel hour. The peak direction of travel has about 60 percent of the peak period volume, or 4,050 vehicles per hour. The capacity of the mainline freeway, in each direction, is about 7,200 vehicles per hour. Therefore, the V/C ratio for the freeway south of Sand Canyon Road is 0.56 and the current LOS is "A". 5.5.2 Project Traffic Volumes a. Trip Generation. Standard trip generation factors for golf course and residential uses were determined from the Trip Generation Handbook, 5th Edition by the Institute of. Transportation Engineers (ITE, 1991). Single Family Detached Housing (Land Use 210) and Golf Course (Land Use 43 0) data were used in the analysis. Both weekday and weekend travel data were compared to identify the highest travel hour for the entire project, and the weekday PM peak was found to have the highest site vehicle traffic. These data are shown in Table 5.5-2 and Table 5.5-3. city or santa clanta 5.5-8 F I I u I �1 1 I I I I I I I I Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.5 Transportation/Circulation Table 5.5-2 Projected Daily Traffic Demand X�xtdt7 4 VN :. .� Nlyntet'fng' Eritmfilg� fSrcfesa ' (yittetes a t lvtrdesj 3 (velr J. lveltrles�? . .........(xEltte% Residential 87 du.' 440 440 880 380 380 760 Golf 292 Ac. 1,460 1,460 2,920 1,190 1,190 2,380 Course Total 1,900 1,900 3,800 1,570 1,570 3,140 'Note: The traffic analysis considered impacts associated with 87 units rather than the 77 currently proposed. Therefore, the traffic analysis is conservative and slightly overestimates traffic associated with the project. Table 5.5-3 Projected Peak Hour Traffic Demand Source: Trip Generation, Fifth Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers,199L The standard generation rate for the golf course was modified to account for the size and number of ancillary uses on the site. The data plot for weekday traffic shows that the standard curve (T = [(0.157/x)+ 0.00028]-1 works well for standard municipal or private golf courses of up to 27 holes and about 200 acres (ITE. January 1991, pg. 661). Above that range, the data points show that a higher traffic generation rate often occurs. The subject golf course would have 36 holes on about 292 acres and has a number of amenities, including banquet facilities and dinning room, that would likely cause a greater than normal traffic generation. The standard daily trip generation equation would result in a trip rate of about 4.19 trips per acre. The data points for large acreage golf courses have a wide range for total trip ends. The high . traffic generation courses are assumed to be well established, well known destination golf courses near urban areas with a high level of amenities, while the low generation data would be representative of a municipal course with no amenities. The proposed project is anticipated to become a well established course with considerable amenities, but somewhat remote from the urban center. Therefore, it would have a higher than average trip generation, but not as high as a destination course. A factor of 10 trips per acre per day was selected as the appropriate value for analysis. This rate is the weighted average of three ITE data points for large golf courses. It is about 1.6 times greater than the average trip generation for a golf course and about 50 percent of the peak 5.5-9 City or Santa Clanta Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.5 Transportation/Circulation rate for a destination golf course. In addition, it should be noted that trip generation for the residential component of the analysis has been based on a total of 87 residential units. The total number of residential lots was reduced to 83 during the preparation of the initial environmental analysis and is now at 77 units. Therefore, the trip generation for the residential component of the project is considered conservative. The proposed development is estimated to produce about 3,800 trips on an average weekday and 3,140 trips on an average weekend day. The golf course contributes about 76 percent of the traffic on either study day. About 144 vehicles are generated by the site in the morning peak hour and 202 vehicles are generated in the evening peak hour. The peak hour traffic is comprised of about 55 percent golf course related travel and 45 percent residential traffic: As shown in Table 5.5-3, the two uses tend to produce a balanced traffic flow by producing peak directional flows in opposite directions. The various properties at this site were previously approved for a development level of about 222 single family residential units. As a comparison, a residential development would generate about 2,260 daily vehicle trips during an average weekday, 180 trips during the morning peak, and 220 trips during the evening peak. The residential traffic, however, would be primarily outbound in the morning and inbound in the evening, unlike the golf course traffic which is opposite that orientation. Consequently, because of the peak hour directional traffic orientation, the proposed development would produce about 48 percent less traffic during the morning peak hour and 27 percent less during the evening peak hour than the reconstituted existing entitlements. b. Trip Distribution. Projected site traffic was generally assigned to Sand Canyon Road in proportion to existing traffic and to produce a conservative estimate of impacts to the site area. Consequently, 90 percent of the site traffic was assumed to and from north of the site. About 55 percent of the site traffic was assigned to the Antelope Valley Freeway, and about 30 percent was assigned to Soledad Canyon Road. A similar distribution was assumed for both sitee land uses. The projected site traffic distribution is illustrated in Figure 5.5-5, and the resulting daily traffic demand is shown in Figure 5.5-6. The site has two major access points to the local street system, one on Sand Canyon Road and one on Live Oak Springs Canyon Road. It was assumed that a majority of site traffic (about 80 percent) would use the northern site driveway. This access would serve both residential and recreational land uses. The Live Oak Springs Canyon Road access is expected to accommodate about 20 percent of the site traffic, mostly residential in nature. The resulting morning peak hour site traffic demand is shown in Figure 5.5-7 and the evening peak hour is shown in Figure 5.5-8. 5.5.3 Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures a. Methodology and Impact Thresholds. This traffic impact analysis follows the standard methodology and report format used by the City of Santa Clarita. The analyses are based on discussions with City staff, other traffic studies in the project area, and field studies in the project area. The impact evaluation assesses current travel conditions in the site area, travel conditions with the completion of the project, resulting -traffic: impacts as defined by the City's criteria, and recommended mitigation measures. City of Santa Cfarita 5.5-10 i NOT TI Figure 5.5-5 SITE TRAFFIC DIRECTION OF TRAVEL IKinnley Horn and 55�ociates. Inc I NOT T Figure 5.5-6 DAILY SITE TRAFFIC Kimley Horn and ss❑ociates. Inc. !J T I I I,] I I 11 1 I L I I I I. II ' Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.5 Transportation/Circulation Vehicular traffic from the proposed residential and golf course development was forecasted and allocated to the surrounding street system using standard techniques. The City of Santa Clarita has defined the ' maximum desirable congestion level in residential areas as LOS "C" (V/C ratio of 0.80) and at freeway ramps as LOS 'D" (V/C ratio of 0.90). This impact threshold is used in the following analysis. b. Project Impacts. Traffic impacts on the site area were determined for traffic conditions at full site development, which was assumed in 1996. The total future traffic demand includes three components: 1) the existing traffic flows increased by an annual growth rate (in this case, 2 percent per year) to account for the growth in regional traffic demand, 2) traffic from other known projects in the site area that are likely to be constructed by project completion, and 3) project traffic. This section first discusses the non -project components of the total future traffic demand, and analyses the contribution of each component to the total future level of traffic congestion in the area. As such, it sets the stage for the anticipated baseline condition at project buildout. Aipnroved and Pending Proiects The City of Santa Clarita identified three other projects in the City and three projects in the County within the Sand Canyon area that would contribute traffic demand to the area roadways. These projects are shown in Figure 5.5-9. Projects 1, 3, 4 and 5 take access directly from Sand Canyon Road, and all traffic from these developments were allocated to Sand Canyon Road Project 2 (IT 34466) is proposed to take access from Lost Canyon Road and from Soledad Canyon Road via an existing undercrossing of the Antelope Valley Freeway about one mile west of Sand Canyon Road. Traffic from this development was allocated to the road system based on the ultimate destination. The allocation process generally resulted in 60 percent of the traffic using the Soledad Canyon Road access and 40 percent using Lost Canyon Road. Project 6 (TT 30738) would have multiple access points, but all traffic was allocated to Sand Canyon Road as a conservative measure. The projected trip generation from the three proposed projects is listed in Table 5.5-4. Table 5.5-4 Trip Generation For Other Area Projects b .. FFY £ S E £;� 3"if}wl�L`�<a.:Sra ilr.!M2�k�D ;... N ;...:. Fl.e F^.'1T if3. R15'iPeais Pa�iPeak. iJeveiapraen#, Srr Daily «# Qut Llat ;! .. £ ,.. ;r TT 49334 32 du. 360 10 20 25 15 TT 34466 i 299 d.u. 2,980 60 160 190 110 28368 Sand Canyon 2,900 sq. ft. 1,290 0 0 35 30 TT 50173 14 du. 140 4 7 10 5 TT 50446 6 d.u. 60 1 3 5 2 TT 30738 45 du. 450 10 25 30 18 Total Traffic 1 5,280 85 215 295 180 ICity of Santa Clarity 5.5-15 I Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.5 Transportation/Circulation The In -n -Out Burger (Project 3) has no morning peak hour traffic because it is not open at that time. The regional distribution of traffic from these projects is illustrated in Figure 5.5-10 for the morning peak hour and Figure 5.5-11 for the evening peak hour. The cumulative projects would generate a total of 5,280 daily trips, with 300 trips in the morning peak hour and 475 trips in the evening peak hour. ' Future Total Traf%ic Demand The future traffic demand excluding site traffic is shown in Figure 5.5-12 for the morning peak hour and in Figure 5.5-13 for the evening peak hour. The projected volume includes existing traffic, future traffic growth for one year, and traffic from other area projects. The future total traffic demand including site traffic, is shown in Figures 5.5-14 and 5.5-15 respectively for morning and evening peak hour traffic demand. ' Table 5.5- 5 summarizes the projected intersection operation in the site area for future conditions without site traffic. Most intersections would operate at LOS "A" during both peak hour travel conditions. During the evening peak hour, the operation at Sand Canyon Road/Soledad Canyon Road would operate at LOS "B", and the Antelope Valley Freeway northbound ramps would degrade from E to "F". Table 5.5-5 Summary Of Future Intersection Operation Without Site Traffic City of Santa clarity 5.5-17 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 35 �5 Nh p Figure 5.5-11 0 TRAFFIC FROM OTHER AREA PROJECTS - PM PEAK Kimley—Horn❑an ss❑ocictes, Inc. -7 5,oy 52 X525 Figure 5.5-12 FUTURE TRAFFIC DEMAND WITHOUT SITE - AM PEAK c2m❑ Kimley—Horn and Associates, Inc. Figure 5.5-13 f FUTURE TRAFFIC DEMAND WITHOUT SITE PM PEAK ' Kimley—Hom and Associates, Inc. E3 X798 r' �cca x525 Figure 5.5-14 FUTURE TOTAL TRAFFIC DEMAND - AM PEAK a Kimley—Horn❑an ss❑ociiates. Inc. Figure 5.5-15 FUTURE TOTAL TRAFFIC DEMAND - PM PEAK IKimley Hom and Associates. Inc. n m 0 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.5 Transportation/Circulation Effect T-1 Additional traffic associated with the project and cumulative projects may alter the current level of service at intersections within the study area. (NS) The traffic operation with all projected traffic demand, including site traffic, is shown in Table 5.5-6. All intersections would operate at LOS "A" during the morning peak hour, while four of the six intersections analyzed would also operate at LOS "A" during the evening peak hour. The LOS at the intersection of Soledad Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road would be reduced from "A" to "C" during the evening peak hour, but this is an acceptable level of service and would not cause a significant traffic impact. The Antelope Valley Freeway northbound ramps at Sand Canyon would continue to operate at a very poor level of service (LOS "F") condition with site traffic during the evening peak hour until the bridge improvements are completed. Table 5.5-6 Summary Of Future Intersection Operation With Site Traffic rrr�Oxxsxl4�t rr�C€�NTIaNulx uT ,£ f f $ �O.IQ � % 9 SEgnalizedi inte.Crgl�#tOn: 3 L�� .[4[F i ii41•� J. L�3 : .& 5 Sand Canyon Rd/Soledad Canyon Rd 0.41 A 0.63 A 0.48 A 0.75 C Sand Canyon Rd/SR-14 NB Ramps 038 A 0.93 E 0.47 A 1.08 F Soledad Canyon Rd/SR-14 SB Ramps 0.52 A 0.47 A 0.58 A 0.56 A ;iTnsignatixedIStte ckion Deks3 = iklay>'delay 1 C75 `TS'e)ap ii1S fs;;# . Sand Canyon Rd/Lost Canyon Rd 1.1 A 0.8 A 1.3 A 1.6 A Sand Canyon R&Ust Canyon Rd (off-peak) - - 4.5 A - - 13.0 C , Sand Canyon Rd/Live Oak Springs Cyn Rd 0.7 A 0.9 A 0.8 , A 1.1 A Sand Canyon Rd/Site Access - -- - 0.6 A 1.0 A FUTURE INTERSECTION OPERATION WITH BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS Sand Canyon Road/SR-14 NB Ramps 0.38 1 A 1 0.93 1 E 1 0.34 1 A 0.72 C The intersection of Sand Canyon and Lost Canyon Roads experiences unusually high traffic volumes in the early afternoon when the local schools, Sulfur Springs Elementary and Pinecrest, end the school day. Parents who pick up their children between 3:00 and 3:30 pm cause traffic congestion on the west approach of Lost Canyon Road. This off-peak condition was also analyzed and included in Table 5.5-6. The current travel conditions for the school -related travel is LOS "A", however, the intersection operation would degrade to LOS "C" at the completion of project development. Operations on the west approach only of Lost Canyon Road is currently at LOS "C" with an average of 15 seconds delay, which would degrade with the proposed and cumulative projects to LOS "F" with 60 seconds average delay. While this is an adverse city or sans wanta 5.5-24 [1 ' Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.5 Transportation/Circulation ' change in traffic congestion, it is not considered a significant impact because it would effect only one approach of the intersection, the intersection as a whole would operate at an acceptable LOS of "C", and ' the congestion occurs for only a limited period less than one hour. Mitigation Measures. The current poor level of operation on the northbound Sand Canyon Road off -ramp from the Antelope Valley Freeway will be improved in the near future with a planned construction project. Caltrans plans to widen the existing three lane bridge to an ultimate width that allows seven travel lanes (three through lanes per direction and a left tum lane). The near term lane configuration will include two lanes in each direction and one left tum lane. The improvement project is scheduled to begin in mid 1996. As a part of the bridge widening project, the northbound off -ramp to Sand Canyon will be widened to three approach lanes. The new ramp will be striped for a left turn lane, a left and through lane, and a right tum lane. The improved bridge and ramp are assumed to be in place and operational when the golf course is complete. T-1 The timing of the proposed project shall be conditioned based on the timing of the proposed bridge improvements. This would avoid potentially significant cumulative impacts associated with this facility. Significance After Mitigation. The Sand Canyon Bridge and ramp at the Antelope Valley Freeway is projected to operate at a very poor level of service during the evening peak hour (LOS F) with the existing bridge and ramp configuration. When the bridge and ramp are widened, the operation improves dramatically. The resulting v/c ratio for future conditions is forecasted at 0.72, resulting in a Level of Service "C". This expected level of traffic ramp congestion is well within the minimum acceptable level for freeway ramps as defined by the City of Santa Clarita. The west approach of the Sand Canyon and Lost Canyon Roads intersection would be congested with relatively long delays immediately after the two schools end the school day. However, the intersection as a whole would operate at an acceptable LOS "C". Effect T-2 The proposed project would generate additional traffic along the Antelope Valley Freeway. (NS) The 1993 Los Angeles County CMP requires that potential impacts to the Antelope Valley Freeway must be considered if site mainline traffic volumes exceed 150 vehicles per hour or monitoring location volumes exceed 50 vehicles per hour. Neither of these requirements are met with traffic from the proposed development; consequently, a CMP traffic impact analysis is not required and the site is not expected to contribute a significant amount of traffic to the freeway system. Mitigation Measures. None necessary. Significance After Mitigation. Operations along the Antelope Valley Freeway would remain generally at current levels after project added traffic. City of Santa Clanta 5.5-25 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.5 Transportation/Circulation Effect T-3 The additional project and cumulative traffic may cause Sand Canyon Road to exceed its capacity. (NS) The practical capacity of a two-lane rural road is generally considered to be in the range of 10,000 to 14,000 vehicles per day (Highway Capacity Manual, 1994, Table 7-11). The actual capacity varies depending on the number and spacing of intersections, roadway width, roadway alignment, and traffic distribution characteristics. As traffic demand approaches the theoretical road capacity, access to the street becomes more difficult, vehicular conflicts increase, and traffic delay becomes more frequent. The project traffic demand on Sand Canyon Road north of Lost Canyon Road is expected to increase from an existing 9,100 daily vehicles to about 13,100 daily vehicles after the completion of the proposed project. The major contributor to the growth in traffic along Sand Canyon Road would be the two golf courses, which would add about 2,900 vehicles per day, or about 73% of the total traffic increase. The Circulation Element of the General Plan (City of Santa Clarita, 1991; Table C-1) indicates that for a two-lane undivided street, a projected future daily flow rate of 13,100 vehicles would produce an LOS `B" operating condition on Sand Canyon Road north of Lost Canyon Road. This projected level of congestion is overstated because of the specific physical characteristics of Sand Canyon Road and traffic operational characteristics in the area. The LOS "D" capacity of 12,500 daily vehicles is based on physical characteristics that include frequent driveways, on -street parking, and 12 -foot lane widths, and on operational characteristics that include a high travel volume in one direction and a high proportion of daily travel during the peak travel hours. Sand Canyon Road north of Lost Canyon Road has no driveways, no on -street parking, and wide travel lanes, and it also would have a more uniform flow of traffic throughout the day with future projected traffic. Consequently, the projected traffic volume would produce an LOS "C" traffic operation, which is an acceptable level. Mitigation Measures. None necessary. Significance After Mitigation. The higher volume of traffic may expose undetermined areas of safety conflicts along Sand Canyon Road. Consequently, the accident characteristics of the road should be monitored by the City to identify any possible future problem areas. Effect T4 Cumulative and project traffic may require signalization at the Sand Canyon and Lost Canyon Roads intersection to provide for safe turning movements and adequate levels of service. (S) Although the traffic volume on Sand Canyon Road is projected to increase dramatically, peak hour traffic at Lost Canyon and Sand Canyon Roads intersection would continue to operate at LOS "A", with only a minor delay (1.6 seconds) at the intersection. However as noted above, during a 15 to 30 minute period at the end of the school day, congestion at the intersection would reach LOS "C", with a substantial delay expected on the west approach because of school -related traffic. Future traffic delays of about 60 seconds per vehicle are expected on this approach between about 3:10 to 3:30 pm. City 5.5-26 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.5 TransportatiordCirculation A traffic signal warrant analysis was conducted for future traffic at this intersection to identify the need for a traffic signal and is included in Appendix D-2 of the separate traffic report for the proposed project. The intersection does not warrant a traffic signal under current conditions, but with the addition of already approved project traffic, the morning peak hour just meets the warrant minimums, and would continue to meet wan -ant in the morning peak hour with the addition of project traffic. The traffic from the schools on the west side of Sand Canyon Road causes the intersection to meet the one-hour warrant. The intersection is not projected to meet signal warrant during the evening peak hour. At the end of the school day (3:00 pm to 4:00 pm), the side street traffic would warrant a traffic signal at the intersection per Caltrans traffic signal warrant No. 11. T4 A traffic signal as warranted should be installed for the Sand Canyon and Lost Canyon Roads intersection by the applicant. A reimbursement mechanism shall be created so that future additional. traffic will pay a fair share portion of the cost of this traffic signal. Significance After Mitigation. After installation of the signal, traffic on the west approach would no longer be congested during the after-school off-peak period. Effect T-5 Traffic associated with special events at the golf course may create periodic local traffic congestion. (S) While not part of the applicant's proposal, the golf courses are anticipated to ultimately host tournament golf events on a periodic basis (annually or semi-annually). While private tournaments without spectators would not generate an unusual amount of traffic, a major PGA tournament or other spectator event can attract in excess of 20,000 daily vehicles. This traffic would have a demand and peaking characteristics similar to any sporting event. A major spectator golf tournament of this nature .would require special traffic control on Sand Canyon Road. Mitigation Measures. The City of Santa Clarita will have direct control over conditions and requirements associated with individual spectator tournaments at the proposed golf courses. The City can require a traffic control plan for the event that specifies how the traffic will be controlled. Generally, traffic control officers are used for such events, and they are very effective in minimizing traffic congestion. T-5 A traffic control plan shall be instituted for each spectator golf tournament event that shall include at a minimum: ' • the number of traffic control officers; • the location and time period of control; contingency plans for emergency vehicles; and • parking restrictions/controls on residential streets. r 5.5-27 Santa Clarity Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.5 Transportation/Circulation Traffic control officers can respond to most of the traffic issues associated with a spectator golf tournament of short duration. A second option could utilize a system of trams and remote parking areas to minimize the number of vehicles on Sand Canyon Road. Specific requirements should be established when a request to host such a tournament is received by the City and the requirements should be matched to the expected conditions that are likely to be caused by the specific tournament. Significance After Mitigation. Spectator tournament events could cause periodic high congestion on area access routes. Effect T-6 The project access points may require signalization to provide for safe turning movements and adequate levels of service. (NS) A traffic signal warrants analysis was completed for the two main, unsignalized access points to the site. A Caltrans peak hour volume warrants analysis was used to determine if a traffic signal were needed to control traffic at the main site access to Sand Canyon Road and at the intersection of Sand Canyon Road and Live Oak Springs Canyon Road. The analysis, included in the Traffic Report Appendix, shows that neither intersection warranted a traffic signal at full site development. The Live Oak Springs Canyon Road access carried less than half the traffic required for a traffic signal during either peak hour; and the new site access had less than half the required traffic during the morning peak hour and about 80 percent of required traffic during the evening peak hour. Neither location would need a traffic signal with full site development. Mitigation Measures. None necessary. Significance After Mitigation. Site access intersections are expected to operate adequately. Effect T-7 Project traffic added to Sand Canyon Road may result in additional accidents because of limited sight distances and relatively high speeds. (NS) Sight distance at the project access was evaluated using the Caltrans Highway Design Manual criteria for comer sight distance requirements. The existing speed limit on Sand Canyon Road is 45 mph and the design speed for the road is 50 to 55 mph. Ideal sight distance for this speed would therefore be 550 feet of substantially clear line of sight for the driver exiting the access road and turning left onto Sand Canyon Road. The 550 feet would allow adequate time (about 7.5 seconds) for the driver exiting the project access to make the decision to pull out of the side road, cross the near traffic lane, and accelerate to speed, while the approaching vehicle travels at the assumed design speed of the highway. Sight distance looking north for the exit vehicle (to the right, up Sand Canyon Road) from the stop position at the project access is estimated to exceed 700 feet based on in field measurements. This would provide more than adequate sight distance in this direction. City of Santa Clarita 5.5-28 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.5 TransportationlCirculation Sight distance looking south (to the left for the exiting vehicle) was measured to be over 550 feet. As it currently exists, the required 550 feet of sight distance is achieved by viewing the northbound lanes of Sand Canyon Road between the trunks of several oak and elm trees on the east side of Sand Canyon Road, several of which are immediately adjacent to the existing pavement. These trees will be removed during right-of-way widening associated with the project development, which will allow for a clear line of sight, provided that no imposing structures or landscaping are placed in the line of sight. Monument signs and similar landscaping elements are expected to be placed either behind or below the driver's line of sight at the access road stopline in compliance with' City standards. Mitigation Measures. None necessary. SigWficance After Mitigation. No significant traffic conflicts associated with the sight access on Sand Canyon Road are anticipated. Effect T-8 The new project access roadway intersection on Sand Canyon may create turning movement conflicts with the Live Oak Springs Canyon Road intersection to the south. (NS) The new site access is about 300 feet north of Live Oak Springs Canyon Road, which is relatively close in comparison to existing distances between major access points on Sand Canyon Road Neither the ITE Traffic Engineering Handbook nor the ASSHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Streets and Highways identify criteria for minimum spacing of major access points. Both publications identify important criteria in selecting access location, including adequate driver sight distance (addressed above), lack of visual obstructions, number of vehicles using the access point, alignment, etc. Both the proposed site access and Live Oak Springs Canyon Road have good driver and intersection sight distance, both intersect Sand Canyon at about a right angle, and neither is projected to cant' high volumes of traffic. It is not likely that either intersection would carry sufficient traffic to warrant signalization, and.traffic would generally access each street from the north. No unusual conditions would exist that would indicate that the planned distance between the two streets would be unsafe. Consequently, no modifications to the proposed design are suggested. Mitigation Measures. None necessary. Significance After Mitigation. No significant traffic conflicts are anticipated. Effect T-9 Left turning movements into access routes to the site may create traffic congestion and safety conflicts due to backing up of traffic. (S) The volume of turning traffic at both the main site access to Sand Canyon Road and Live Oak Springs Canyon Road is not large enough to require a separate left tum lane from a traffic capacity standpoint. However, the width of the roadway and prevailing speeds on Sand Canyon Road suggest that a left tum lane may be beneficial for traffic safety. The peak hour through and left turn travel demand, particularly Guy of Santa wanta 5.5-29 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.5 Transportation/Circulation during the PM peak, is sufficient at the main site entrance to cause conflict between southbound. through and southbound left turning traffic. The Live Oak Springs Canyon Road entrance also has considerable left turning vehicles and a left tum lane is recommended to reduce the potential for rear -end accidents. Mitigation Measures. T -9(a) A left turn lane shall be constructed at the main site entrance to minimize conflicts with turning traffic. T -9(b) A left tum lane shall be striped on Sand Canyon Road at the entrance to Live Oak Springs Canyon Road to minimize the potential for accidents. Sienificance After Mitigation. This effect would not be significant after mitigation recommendations are implemented. The left tum lane and any transition areas can be accomplished within the post -project right- of-way improvements for Sand Canyon Road. city of Santa clanta 5.5-30 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.6 Aesthetics 5.6 AESTHETICS This section examines the potential of the proposed project to alter the visual or aesthetic environment of the subject site. The analysis considers the change in viewsheds available from public areas, such as roadway corridors, and also considers the potential for the proposed project to contribute to new lighting or glare in the vicinity of the subject site. Finally, the design of the proposed clubhouse is compared to the current urban design character of the area. The substantial amount of grading proposed for the project would result in major changes to the natural topography of hill portions of the property, and this alteration would conflict with City policies for ridgeline preservation and hillside development. This conflict is considered a significant and unavoidable impact of the project as currently designed. Potential light and glare impacts have also been identified which can be adequately mitigated with design controls. 5.6.1 Setting a. Regulatory Setting. The City of Santa Clarita has adopted a range of policies and ordinances aimed at protecting and enhancing the visual character of the incorporated portion of the Santa Clarita Valley. The City's General Plan includes a Community Design Element, which identifies goals and policies to guide the City's decision -makers in numerous components of community design. Relevant to the proposed project, these include protection of neighborhood identity, natural resource preservation, open space and park design, landscape architecture, and architecture. The Uniform Development Code, in addition to providing the core zoning requirements, contains special sections relevant to design issues. Specifically these include Section 17.16.090, Sand Canyon Special Standards District, and Section 17.80, Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance. The Sand Canyon Special Standards District includes special prescriptions with respect to trails, bridges, street lights and paving, drainage, street trees, gating, clustering, and screening of dumpsters. The Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance includes detailed standards relative to ridgeline preservation, slope gradation, slope landscaping, contour grading, road design, massing, and landforms. The Ridgeline ordinance includes the Ridgeline Preservation Map (1992), which identifies Primary and Secondary ridgelines that the City considers significant in terms of visual quality. The map identifies an east -west trending ridgeline within the subject site as a "Secondary Ridgeline." All of the documents and codes mentioned above are hereby incorporated by reference and available for review by the public at the City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department. b. Visual Character of the Sand Canyon area. The community design character of the Sand Canyon community is rural and equestrian. The neighborhood is characterized by large -lot single family houses shaded under mature native oaks and a variety of landscape specimen trees. Aside from Sand Canyon Road, local streets serve as local means of access. They are generally oriented along drainages, which cut through properties and under roads as they follow vegetated ravines and swales. Sand Canyon Road is oriented north to south and slopes gently upward to the south. Streets have either no curb treatment or rolled curbs. Street lights are few in number, and are located only at intersections. Terrain 1 5.6-1 City of Santa Clarita Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.6 Aesthetics is moderately to steeply sloped, and the community enjoys a secluded ambiance resulting from the enclosing effect of the numerous ridgelines. Elevations within the immediate vicinity range from approximately 1500' at the Santa Clara River to 2300' in the southern reaches of the neighborhood. From higher locations within the community, dramatic views of the San Gabriel Mountains are evident to the south and southeast. The ridgelines within view to the east include 4,635' Mendenhall Peak and 4,878' Magic Mountain. To the south is Bear Divide, which separates the Santa Clarita Valley from the San Fernando Valley. The dense chaparral on these north -facing slopes provides a muted green backdrop to the varied greens of the densely landscaped and wooded neighborhood. No commercial uses are in evidence within the neighborhood, and aside from a few churches and a school, the community is exclusively single-family residential. As throughout Southern California, architectural styles are varied. Nevertheless, there is preponderance of California Ranch Style design, characterized by low -slung single -story profiles, generous exposed eaves treatment, incorporation of used brick or flagstone wainscoting, and the use of board and batten finish treatment. The style, popularized in the late 1940s and 1950s by architect Cliff May, is also characterized by an easy flow between outdoor and indoor spaces, and often incorporates breezeways and sliding glass doors. c. Visual Character and Landform of the Subject Site. Figures 5.6-1 through 5.6-3 present images illustrating the existing visual character of the site. The property straddles a low ridgeline which transects the area from southeast to northwest, creating two separate drainages: Oak Spring Canyon Creek on the northeasterly side, and Live Oak Springs Canyon Creek, a tributary to Sand Canyon, on the westerly side. The west side is generally intermingled with existing low-density residential development. Figure 5.6-1 includes images of the westerly drainage area, including a view of Live Oak SPrings Canyon Road and a northerly view across the property from the southerly property line. This figure also includes an image of the City -identified Secondary Ridgeline. Figure 5.6-2 and 5.6-3 include images of the easterly portion of the property, including images of the chaparral -covered slopes, heritage oaks, the intermittent stream that drains Oak Spring Canyon, and a view across the eastern wash towards the adjacent mining operation_ The visual resource character of the subject site is dominated by the San Gabriel Mountains, whose foothills extend into and across the site. Very little of the property is visible from the immediately surrounding area. This is in part due to the dense landscaping and natural vegetation of the perimeter properties and the lack of open vistas to the property, and in part due to the general lack of viewing corridors. Only Sand Canyon Road carries anything other than local travelers, and the site frontage at Sand Canyon is moderately wooded. On the other hand, the property can be viewed readily from the opposite side of the Santa Clara River, from either the State Route 14 and Soledad Canyon Road corridors. From this vantage point, the property becomes a middle -ground view, with the much taller San Gabriel mountain ridges forming the backdrop. City of Santa Clarita 5.6-2 Hunters Green Resldentlal Development and Golf Course EIR A. View southeasterly along Live Oak Spring Canyon Road. The low density of development, absence ' of street lighting and sidewalks, rolled curbs and wooded landscaping character impart a semi -rural ambiance which defines the Sand Canyon Area. B. View looking northerly towards the western portion of the subject site. A chaparral -covered ridge is part of a city -identified Secondary Ridgeline. Site Photographs. • Figure 5.6-1 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR A. View looking east from southwest comer of the property. The ridgeline in the foreground would be graded for homesites. The background ridgeline is within the Angeles National Forest, and would remain. B. View of low-lying land in the northeast quadrant of the subject site. The foreground tree is an example of a heritage oak. Site Photographs Figure 5.6-2 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR A. View looking south within northeast quadrant of the subject site. The stream flows during winter. Note the Great Basin Sagebrush mixed with oaks and elderberry. The area shown would become part of the golf course. B. View looking west from the interior ridgeline. The mining operation in the middle -ground is within the Angeles National Forest, and would remain. The low-lying alluvial fan scrub with oaks would become fairway areas. Site Photographs Figure 5.6-3 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.6 Aesthetics Much of the aesthetic character of the subject site is tied to its dramatic topography and its vegetation. Elevations vary from over 2,000' in the southeast corner of the property to under 1,600' at the westernmost section. Much of the western and southwestern part of the property is characterized by steep slopes of greater than 50% grade. When looking northerly across the property from close range, ridgelines on the property often silhouette the horizon. When looking south or east across the property, however, the much larger San Gabriel range silhouettes the horizon, and the ridges on the property appear as the lowest of the foothills leading to the Santa Clara River. 5.6.2 Impacts and Mitigation Measures. a. Methodology and Significant Thresholds. The assessment of aesthetic impacts involves qualitative analysis that is inherently subjective in nature. Viewers react to viewsheds and aesthetic conditions differently. This evaluation measures the existing visual resource against the proposed action, analyzing the nature of the anticipated change_ The subject site was observed and photographically documented on several occasions, as was the surrounding area. The City of Santa Clarita General Plan and Uniform Development Code was reviewed for policy instruction relative to visual resources and community design policy. In addition, two models have been used that may assist in conveying physical change that a viewer would experience. The first involves cross-sections of the subject site illustrating the profile of the existing natural grade to that of the proposed grade. The cross-sections illustrate the consequence of the cut and fill activities at four transects, selected for their visual sensitivity or diverse location. The second model is photosimulations of the site from four locations, showing the before and after condition of the visual character. An impact is considered significant if it can be reasonably argued that (a) the change would adversely affect a viewshed from a public viewing area, or (b) an existing identified visual resource is obstructed, (c) a City -identified Primary or Secondary Ridgeline is modified so as to alter its significance, or (d) a new light and glare source or sources are introduced that substantially alter the nighttime lighting character of the area. In this analysis, modifications to the viewshed were considered less than significant if the modification is unnoticeable or visually subordinate to the overall viewshed. A modification that is visually dominant or one that adversely modifies the existing view adversely is considered a significant impact. b. Project Impacts. The proposed project has the potential to alter viewsheds, modify natural landforms, accommodate structural development that would be inconsistent with the existing community character, and introduce new sources of light and glare. The following discussion reviews these conditions and identifies and describes impacts and mitigation measures. Effect AES -1 The proposed project would irreversibly alter the landform profile of the subject site, changing its aesthetic character. Some of the modifications may conflict with the City's Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance. (US) City of Santa Clarita 5.6-6 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.6 Aesthetics ' The proposed project would result in the development of new roadways, two 18 -hole golf courses, a clubhouse, a driving range, 76 single family home sites and access roadways to service these features. Much of the subject site includes steeply sloped foothills that would not readily accommodate such development. Consequently, of the 411 acres at the subject site, 345 would be graded. This represents 84% of the overall site area. A grading plan at 1"=100' is incorporated by reference into this document, and is available at the City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department. In all, a total of up to 2.2 million cubic yards of earth would be moved. The grading is balanced onsite, meaning that no cut material would be exported, and no fill would be imported. The grading would adhere to contouring principles, meaning that tops and toes of slopes would be rounded to replicate a natural profile. The maximum cut depth is proposed to be about 60', with a maximum fill of 30'. The tallest cut slope (toe to top) would be about 100', while the deepest fill would be about 33'. Consistency with Grading Policy in the City of Santa Clarita. The plan was compared to the Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance for conformance. In Subsection 17.80.030, Hillside Plan Review/Permit Requirements, eight objectives are established. The applicable objective statements ' are reviewed below. 1. Natural topographic features and appearances shall be conserved by means of landform ' grading so as to blend any manufactured slopes or required drainage benches into the natural topography. Though massive in scope, the grading plan does incorporate a contouring method which would replicate a natural topographic pattern. However, the current topography is highly precipitous and includes large areas of greater than 50% slope angle. Therefore, the softening of the ridgelines and slope angles would differ from adjacent un -graded areas. 2. Significant, natural, topographic prominent features shall be retained to the maximum extent possible. ' The access roadway would involve substantial alternation of the identified Secondary Ridgeline. This EIR includes alternatives that could conceivably better achieve the objective of retaining this feature. 3. Clustered sites and buildings shall be utilized where such techniques can be demonstrated to substantially reduce grading alterations of the terrain and to contribute to the preservation of trees, other natural vegetation and prominent landmark features and are compatible with ' existing neighborhoods. The proposal meets this objective. While retaining a single-family character, the proposal compresses the lots along the roadways while leaving the bulk of the land area open for fairways, greens, and open space. The result is an achievement of the overall density requirement with the use of smaller lots. 5.6-7 City of Santa Cianta Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.6 Aesthetics 5. Plant materials shall be conserved and introduced so as to protect slopes from slippage and soil erosion and to minimize visual effects of grading and construction on hillside area, including the consideration of the preservation of prominent trees and, to the extent possible, reduce the maintenance cost to public and private owners. The proposal includes a detailed revegetation plan which is described in the Draft Oak Springs Golf Course Native Revegetation & Monitoring Plan (L. Newman Design Group et al, 1995), which has been incoporated by reference into the project description and is available for review at the City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department. This objective is achieved by this revegetation plan. 6. Curvilinear street design and improvements that serve to minimize grading alterations and simulate the natural contours and character of the hillside shall be utilized. The roadway system takes a curvilinear shape, and uses a narrow width profile which would reduce grading needs and allow for greater contouring. The proposed project meets this objective. 7. Grading designs that serve to avoid disruption to adjacent property shall be utilized. The grading plan illustrates that no direct effects from proposed project grading would be incurred by adjacent property owners. Visual effects are discussed below. Drainage effects are discussed in Section 5.2, Hydrology, Drainage, Water. S. Site design and grading that provide the minimum disruption of view corridors and scenic vistas from and around any proposed development shall be utilized Viewshed effects are discussed below. The proposed project would effect middle -ground views from the Antelope Valley Freeway (State Route 14) / Soledad Canyon Road corridor. Section 17.90.040.E.I and 2 of the Ordinance, Development Standards, outline a series of Criteria for innovative applications and Perimeter Protection which allow the Planning Commission to approve encroachment onto significant ridgelines. The relevant criteria are summarized below. 1. a. The proposed use is proper in relation to adjacent uses, the development of the community and the various goals and policies of the General Plan. This land -use based criteria is largely achieved, especially with respect to the west -facing slopes of the subject site. The Sand Canyon drainage area is already characterized by estate and low-density residential development, as is the proposed project. However, the northeast facing slopes of the Oak Spring drainage has a more rural -equestrian character. The proposed project would introduce a more suburban low-density character to this area. In addition, the clubhouse complex would largely be visible from the Oak Spring drainage area, the first semi -commercial and congregate facility which would face the area. City of Santa Clarita 5.6-8 I I I L U Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.6 Aesthetics Lc The appearance of the use or development will not be different than the appearance of adjoining ridgeline areas so as to cause depreciation of ridgeline appearance in the vicinity. As illustrated below in grading profiles and photo -simulation model illustrations, the ridgelines would substantially alter the incline of slopes for the areas graded. They would appear more gentle then unaffected slopes on adjacent lands. Therefore, this criteria would not be met. 1. d The establishment of the proposed use or development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surroundingproperty, nor encourage inappropriate encroachments to the ridgeline area. The proposed project is bordered by lands within the Angeles National Forest to the east, and an approved subdivision to the south. Therefore, it would have little influence on the surrounding development pattern. 2.a The visual impacts of the proposed use of development will be confined to the immediate local neighborhood and proposed new use or development area, and 2.b. The proposed use or development will be shielded from general public view by a perimeter ridgeline or perimeter ridgeline system. Though much of the proposed development would not be visible from the Sand Canyon Road district because of intervening properties, trees, and tertiary ridgelines, the visual impact of the proposed project would be readily visible from areas north and northeasterly of the subject site. In particular, the northeast -facing slopes of the proposed project would be seen from the State Route 14/Soledad Canyon Road corridors The project does not, therefore, meet this criteria. Section 17.80.040.7.1-8, Grading Design, establish standards for grading. The following summarizes compliance of relevant standards. 1. No graded or cut embankment with a slope of greater than [2:1] shall be located adjacent to a publicly maintained right-of-way... The proposed project complies with this standard. 2. The overall slope, height or grade of any cut or fill slope shall be developed to appear similar to the existing natural contours in scale with the natural terrain of the subject site. and 4. Where any cut or fill slope exceeds 10 feet in horizontal length, the ... contours of the slope shall... appear similar to the existing natural contours. The proposed project alters the slope profile of the subject site. The precipitous inclines that exist would be softened substantially, and would contrast with un -graded areas. City of Santa Clarita 5.6-9 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.6 Aesthetics 5. Grading shall be balanced on site whenever possible to avoid excessive cut and fill and to avoid import or export. The proposed project complies with this standard. Visual Effects of Grading. The grading plan was analyzed in terms of its effect on landform through the generation of a series of grading profile diagrams. The index map illustrating the location of the profiles is presented in Figure 5.6-4 and the profiles are illustrated in Figures 5.6-5 and 5.6-6. Transects A and E illustrate the before and after profile of the western portion of the property. Transect A extends from Live Oak Springs Canyon Road to the ridge forming the northwest property boundary. Transect B shows a profile from a point along Live Oak Springs Canyon Road to another prominent knoll. Both profiles cut across the proposed road into the development, and cuts across the Secondary Ridge identified in the City's significant ridgeline map. As illustrated in Transect A, this trajectory would generally be cut lower than the natural grade. At one point in the transect 1,240' from Live Oak Springs Canyon Road, the cut would approach 85' in depth. Transect B illustrates a pattern of cut and fill, with cuts predominating. The deepest cut would be 43', while the greatest depth of fill would be approximately 5'. Transect C illustrates a grading profile from a point northwest of the proposed parking lot through the lot, through the clubhouse, and to a location southeast of the proposed clubhouse. It also shows a pattern of cuts and fills, with maximum fills of 30' in depth, and cuts of up to 50'. Please note that the proposed berming to hide tee No. 1 and the parking lot from the residences in the Graceton Road area (see Figure 3.0-5) is not illustrated on this Transect. Transect D illustrates the grading profile of an east -west line in the southerly portion of the subject site. This area would involve less grading than the other locations, and consists primarily of fill for the residential pads and roads. Fill would approach 16' in depth. Though these figures are a graphic representation that do not have a consistent horiontal and vertical scaling or ratio, they illustrate the leveling effect of the proposed grading.. Tall ridges would in some cases be lowered, while deep ravines would be filled. Because the proposed grading would affect one of the City's identified Secondary ridgelines, the impact is considered significant. Mitigation Measures. The City has adopted a comprehensive approach to hillside grading through its Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance. The ordinance and guidelines contain explicit techniques and methods. A review of the concept design indicates that the applicant is generally in compliance with the guidelines. The following measures are considered to augment those already adopted by the City. AES -1(a) The applicant shall comply with the Hillside Plan Review/Permit Requirements as established in the Uniform Development Code. Any recommendations forthcoming from the Community Development Director, as provided for in Section 17:89.030 of the Code shall be implemented. City of Santa Clarita 5.6-10 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR A Photosimulation View Location 0 0.5 1.0 Base Map: USGS Mint Canyon Quadrangle Source: USGS Mint Canyon Quadrangle, 7.5 Minute series, 1988 Scale in Miles Profile and View Perspective T Index Map NORTH Figure 5.64 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR 1700 1680 1660 C O 1640 I W 1620 1600 Transect A - A' 1580 a 1 1�, ;= F i-.:• 1, x - ,-.i 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 Distance Transect B - B' 1720 1700 1680 0 1660 A d M lsao 1620 1600 1580 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 Distance Grading Profile Diagrams Transects A and B —Existing - - - Proposed —Existing Proposed Figure 5.6-5 Transect C - C' 1000 1500 2000 2500 Distance Transect D - D' —Existing ..... • Proposed M 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 ism 2000. Distance Grading Profile Diagrams Transects C and D - Exis ing - Proposed Figure 5.6-6 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.6 Aesthetics AES -1(b) If grading leads to exposure of low cohesion sandy soils four feet or greater in height, slopes shall be protected with jute matting and landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. AES -1(c) If grading leads to exposure of bedrock or hard -pack soils which resist revegetation, landscaping shall be implemented through the excavation of plant holes in a random pattern with an average of five feet on center. Plantings shall come from the palette included in the City's Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance or as otherwise approved for the site. Sinnificance After Miti ag tion. The Hillside Development Standards Ordinance allows for development on secondary ridgelines provided that a hillside review is granted and the project complies with the provisions of the ordinance. Though the transformation of the topography through grading would adhere to the many of the standards in the Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Standards Ordinance, several standards and criteria are not met. This is particularly true because of the expanded regulation the City has adopted concerning significant ridgelines, and the location of a City -identified Secondary Ridgeline on the subject site. Therefore, the grading plan as proposed would represent a significant unavoidable impact with respect to compliance with the City's ordinance. Effect AES -2 The proposed development has the potential to affect scenic vistas from public viewing locations within the Santa Clarita planning area. (NS) Though relatively large in area, the subject site is not readily visible. This is due to its relatively isolated location southeasterly of the Sand Canyon district. The hilly topography and wooded habitat obscure western views of the subject site. Though the main entrance along Sand Canyon Road would be easily viewed from this arterial roadway, the entryway is in fact remote from most of the fairways, home -sites, and clubhouse facilities. In other parts of the west -facing locations, existing low-density residential development obstructs public views into the proposed project site. The east side of the subject site is readily viewed from Oak Springs Canyon Road east of the Graceton neighborhood. However, this road is a very lightly traveled dirt facility which provides access to a limited number of private properties. The most prominent view of this eastern part of the proposed development is gained from State Route 14 and Soledad Canyon Road: These major roadways are identified in the General Plan as gateways into the City of Santa Clarita from the northeast, further augmenting their importance. Plates 5.6-1A and B through 5.6-3A and B illustrate present visual conditions and simulations of the post -project conditions from four locations that are most prominent visually. Please refer to Figure 5.6- 4, the index map, for view perspective locations. Plates 5.6-1A and B illustrate the view from Live Oak Springs Canyon Road. The simulation shows how a minor ridgeline within the site would be lowered as a result of the access road. Plates 5.6-2A and B and 5.6-3A and B illustrate viewsheds gained from two locations along Oak Springs Canyon Road. In particular, these point out the foreground viewshed alteration that would transpire from the implementation of the proposed project. Please note that the City of Santa 5.6-14 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.6 Aesthetics view in Plate 5.6-2B does not illustrate the dense landscaping and mounding proposed as part of the revised project to hide the clubhouse and parking lot from this viewpoint. All three of these locations, though visible from public viewing areas, are not accessed by large numbers of viewers. Therefore, these viewsheds are considered to be of low visual sensitivity. Plates 5.64A and B illustrates the view from Soledad Canyon Road. A similar view is gained from State Route 14, the Antelope Valley Freeway. This viewshed is of high sensitivity for two reasons: first, it is accessed by thousands of viewers daily;. and second, it is along a corridor identified as a gateway to the City. The photo and simulation show how the subject site is a middle -ground view, dominated by the San Gabriel Mountains in the background. Because of the visual dominance of the fore- and background views, the change created by the project is not considered significant. Mitigation Measures. The proposed project includes a detailed revegetation plan that would result in the re -greening of the subject property within five years or less. The alteration of the viewshed is a generalized impact, and is not of itself mitigable. Other measures within this section address aesthetic impacts that would affect viewsheds. Significance After Mitigation. The proposed project is visually accessible from only one sensitive viewing location corridor: the stretch of State Route 14 and Soledad Canyon Road due north of the subject site. Views from this location would be altered, with views of extensive grading and construction work, and views of ongoing residential construction as the project builds out. However, the proposed project would result in alteration of middle -ground views, which are considered the least sensitive of vistas. Site alterations would be overshadowed by the more dominant remaining vistas of the San Gabriel Mountains. Therefore, the impact is considered less -than -significant. Effect AES -3 The proposed project includes structures and facilities that may be aesthetically inconsistent with the existing community design character of the Sand Canyon area. (S) Other than roadway infrastructure and a parking lot, the proposed project currently includes only two structures: the clubhouse facility and a maintenance facility. The 76 residential lots would be developed by future owners, and codes, covenants, and restrictions are not proposed at this time. The proposed clubhouse design is illustrated in Figure 5.6-7. It shows a split-level profile, with strong horizontal lines and well-defined roof -line. The roof is accented with gables and a stone masonry chimney. The same stone masonry is illustrated as a wainscoting material and as retaining wail material for perimeter planter areas. Windows are strongly articulated with horizontally-oriented transoms. The overall design recalls the Prairie Style of Frank Lloyd Wright. The use of stone masonry and hip roof treatment is consistent with the many California Ranch style residences in the Sand Canyon area. The clubhouse as designed would not be in conflict with the design aesthetic of the Sand Canyon area. 17 City of Santa Clarita 5.6-15 Plate 5.6-1A. Existing Viewshed from Live Oak Springs Canyon Road. Plate 5.6-1B Post -project Viewshed from Live Oak Springs Canyon Road. Note: Foreground grassland would contain a slightly mounded golf course fairway (not shown). Trees would remain. ✓ Y ~. +xt M '� 'v � xt 'r` (-%� Y h. �t.- J^'✓� seo� �". �'j P... �"'�YY" , - f g ` 'sr ,. . '4" � VtH d.i +F�� r.'b�'S a M.r . .�. ".W�x✓v tl��.�I\#C MR#F1r t ♦ fii. �� f � $ "A' A •i "� � � k � a IyfP x • ,� ;. N 3 e } xy'J.'��M1 ♦'U� '3�, s` ..i ,rt n ^ A � 1 y � t . - � ^� 3 a a ^s Y www ��.. rs� � -_'as 4,: F '�� d "r,`>E x �` V Ty i • _ y.. .. � � .. S.L+'c ��' < ,' 1 � n " ! S e 5e F �. �✓ YS t,fe?. wMU F'a�,�^+, F t �`�� `�' S. 'Mr1 . ,✓ ..nk R�' � �'�4 y � �b p T Plate 5.6-1B Post -project Viewshed from Live Oak Springs Canyon Road. Note: Foreground grassland would contain a slightly mounded golf course fairway (not shown). Trees would remain. Plate 5.6-2B Post -project Viewshed from Oak Spring Canyon Road curve. Note: Mounding and dense landscaping in front of clubhouse parking lot proposed by revised project not shown. See Figure 3.0-5. s am no �■ r r �■�t �.. t� Plate 5.6-25 Post -project Viewshed from Oak Spring Canyon Road curve. Note: Mounding and dense landscaping in front of clubhouse parking lot proposed by revised project not shown. See Figure 3.0-5. Plate 5.6-3A Existing Viewshed from Oak Spring Canyon Road, corner property line. � ■■�` � � � �! � � � »' Jam' 1r` � � ! Jr �' � r r MM ■t rr t! MIN"M AMM aM momW w it a e Plate 5.6-313 Post -project Viewshed from Oak Sprint; Canyon Road, corner property line. Plate 5.64A Existing Viewshed from Soledad Canyon Road. aP M M Plate 5.6-413 Post -project Viewshed from Soledad Canyon Road. Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.6 Aesthetics The maintenance facility would located along the access road in the western portion of the property. The structure would measure about 1,000 square feet, and would be located at least 600 feet from the nearest residences off of Live Oak Springs Canyon Road. No elevations for the structure are available, but it is expected to be constructed of steel siding or masonry block material. Provided the structure did not exceed 15 feet in height, the visual effect would be minimal. However, the steel siding material could cause glare and may not tie in with the aesthetic character of the golf course. The larger parking lot would measure nearly two acres in size. The large size of the lot and the resulting concentration of vehicles would represent a prominent visual feature of the project when viewed from the SR 14/Soledad Canyon Road viewing corridor. The lot would be sloped southwest to northeast as shown on Figure 3.0-4, creating even greater visibility. The presence of vehicles would represent a potential for daytime glare and nighttime headlamps lighting the top of the ridgeline. No designs are available for the 76 residential properties. There is a potential that the development of residences in styles that strongly contrast could adversely affect the collective aesthetic of the community. Mitigation Measures. AES -3(a) The maintenance facility shall be sided with a material other than metal. Recommended materials for all or part of the facade treatment include (a) wood in a board -and -batten finish, or (b) stone masonry. The facility's design, material, and color treatment shall complement the clubhouse facility. The structure's roofline and facades shall be articulated through the incorporation of gables, eaves, or windows. A landscaping plan for the area surrounding the maintenance facility shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval. It shall incorporate the plant palette used for the remainder of the development, and shall be oriented to provide dense screening from adjacent properties. AES -3(b) The large parking lot should be further reduced in size, with a greater number of parking spares provided in the smaller lot. Alternatively, the total number of required parking spaces should be reduced. Either would reduce the scale of the larger parking facility, reduce the level of glare from paving and from vehicles emanating from one location, and provide increased opportunities for visually buffering the facility with landscaping. AES -3(c) Residential development proposed within the proposed development shall adhere to all applicable standards and guidelines of the Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance, the Community Design Element of the General Plan, and the Sand Canyon Special Standards District to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. rr 5.6-24 City of Santa Ctarita West Elevation North Elevation Elevations of Clubhouse Figure 5.6-7 Source: Robinson Development Services, Inc. Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.6 Aesthetics Sinificance After Mitigation. Impacts would be considered less than significant. Effect AES4 Light and glare produced from development and users of the golf course facilities would extend the urban lit area of the City of Santa Clarita, alter the nighttime sky view, and produce daytime glare from reflective metallic materials and glass associated with vehicles. (S) At present, there is no nighttime lighting of this area. The darkness is consistent with the rural nature of the property, and with its adjacency to the Angeles National Forest. Use of lighting in the driving range, in the parking lot, or as street lights would adversely affect nearby residents and degrade the nighttime view of the Sand Canyon area. Use of overly bright lights or unshielded lights, including security lighting, may result in a significant light impact at night. Adjacent residential uses may be impacted by such lights, or the lights of headlights associated with activity at the golf course. Mitigation Measures. AES4(a) Except for locations where the internal roadway intersects with Sand Canyon Road, street lighting shall not be permitted. Bridges, signage, and clubhouse entryways may be illuminated with discreet up -lighting. Signage and clubhouse entryways may also use back lighting. AES4(b) Lighting of the driving range shall be limited to splash lighting from canted berm areas. AES4(c) All lighting of clubhouse and maintenance facilities shall be of an accent nature. Any security lighting shall be screened such that lighting globes are not visible from a distance of 20 feet. AES4(d) Parking lot lighting shall be limited to bollards not to exceed four feet in height. Trees and walkways may be lighted with accent lighting. AES -4(e) Parking lot perimeters shall be beetled to a minimum of four feet in height to preclude spillage of vehicle head -lighting off site. No bemring is required in the main parking lot for the perimeter adjoining the clubhouse and between the clubhouse and the access road. No berming is required for the small parking lot from the clubhouse counterclockwise to the southeast comer. Significance After Mitigation. With the above measures, impacts would be considered less than significant. 5.6-27 Santa Clarita Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.7 Noise 5.7 NOISE Existing noise levels on the western side of the project site are generally low, with infrequent traffic noise from Sand Canyon Road The east side of the property is subject to higher noise levels associated with offsite aggregate mining operations, but the current operations are located at least 1,300 feet from the east property line. Sound level measurements at the proposed residential lots indicate that the current noise environment is considered to be quiet. In addition, future mining operations over the next ten years are expected to be concentrated at the new claim areas located more than one mile from the east property line. Location of residential uses within the site's current noise environment would not conflict with established environmental goals of the City.. If mining is resumed in the gravel pits nearest the proposed residences, average daytime noise levels associated with typical mining activities would approach, but not exceed the compatibility level. Continued blasting in the Oak Spring Annex area is also not expected to cause a significant noise effect on the proposed residences because of the infrequency of blasting and the distance from the blast area. Project construction would result in heavy equipment operating for several days near offsite residences and high noise levels would occur at these residences. Because of the topographic alterations proposed for the site, the use of temporary noise barriers would be ineffective to mitigate this short term increase in noise levels. This is considered a significant and unavoidable impact ofproject construction. Traffic noise associated with the proposed development would not create noise levels along site access routes that would exceed the City's guidelines for compatibility with residential land uses, nor would the activities of golf course patrons create a significant impact. No significant long term noise impacts are associated with development of the proposed project; however, the project would cause an adverse increase in ambient noise levels for residences adjacent to the site and those located along Sand Canyon Road north of the project entry. 5.7.1 Setting The City of Santa Clarita has adopted a Noise Element for the General Plan (June 26, 1991) that provides basic information regarding the physical characteristics of noise and the existing noise environment in the City. The Noise Element is herein incorporated in its entirety per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15150. The following is a summary of the information contained in the Noise Element and is intended to provide sufficient background to allow consideration of the potential noise impacts of the proposed annexation and future development. Noise level (or volume) is generally measured in decibels (dB) using the A -weighted sound pressure level (dBA). The A -weighting scale is an adjustment to the actual sound power levels to be consistent with that of human hearing response, which is most sensitive to frequencies around 4000 Hertz (about the highest note on a piano) and less sensitive to low frequencies (below 100 Hertz). In addition to the actual instantaneous measurement of sound levels, the duration of sound is important since sounds that occur over a long period of time are more likely to be an annoyance or cause direct physical damage or City of Santa Ctarita 5.7-1 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.7 Noise environmental stress. One of the most frequently used noise metrics that considers duration as well as sound power level is the equivalent noise level (Leq). The Leq is defined as the steady A -weighted level that is equivalent to the same amount of energy as that contained in the actual time -varying levels over a period of time. Typically Leq is summed over a one hour period. The sound pressure level is measured on a logarithmic scale with the 0 dB level based on the lowest detectable sound pressure level that people can perceive (an audible sound that is not zero sound pressure level). Decibels cannot be added arithmetically, but rather are added on a logarithmic basis. A doubling of sound energy is equivalent to an increase of 3 dB. Because of the nature of the human ear, a sound must be about 10 dB to be judged as twice as loud. In general, a 3 dB change in community noise levels is noticeable, while 1-2 dB changes are generally not perceived. The actual time period in which noise occurs is also important since noise that occurs at night tends to be more disturbing than that which occurs during the daytime. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) was adopted by the State of California and many communities as a means to recognize this characteristic. The CNEL is equivalent to the weighted average of the hourly Leqs over.a 24-hour period. The weighting includes an addition of 10 dB to nighttime noise levels and 5 dB to evening noise levels to account for the greater amount of disturbance associated with noise at these time periods. The City of Santa Clarita has adopted several noise policies contained within the City's Noise Element (1991; pg. N-18 to N-20). The policy most applicable to the project site and proposed development requires that new residential development in areas where the ambient noise level is in the 60-65 dBA range should provide mitigation measures to reduce interior noise levels (Policy 3.1). The range stated in the policy is assumed to be based on the CNEL. No specific exterior or interior standards for acceptable noise levels are explicitly set by the Noise Element, but Exhibit N-2 of the Noise Element provides land use compatibility guidelines for residential uses, with levels under 60 dBA CNEL considered normally acceptable, and that up to 70 dBA CNEL is conditionally acceptable (generally requiring some standard noise mitigation). a. Existing Transportation Noise Conditions. Noise levels from vehicular sources in the project vicinity are reflective of the rural environment. The Noise Element provides noise level data only for the Antelope Valley Freeway (State Route 14) and the railroad in this portion of the city, with no noise contours available for Sand Canyon or Live Oak Springs Canyon Roads. Noise contouring for the freeway indicate existing (1990) noise levels of 65 dBA CNEL at about 1,200 feet from the centerline of the road (Noise Element, page N-16), with the 60 dBA CNEL at about 3,800 feet. The nearest portion of the project site is over 4,000 feet from the freeway, and so existing sound levels at the site from this source are within the normally acceptable range for residential use. Additional information regarding the local noise environment related to transportation sources is available from the acoustical analysis prepared for a proposed development located north of the property in Oak Spring Canyon (Davy & Associates, Inc., April 1990, Acoustical Analysis Tentative Tract 34466, Appendix E of the Oak Springs Estates FEIR, November 1990). Measurements at this site indicated City of Santa Clarita 5.7-2 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 53 Noise hourly Leqs in the 46-56 dBA range during the afternoon, and projected CNEL based on these measurements of 48-58 CNEL. This acoustical analysis also estimated the noise impact of the Southern Pacific Transportation Company railroad based on direct measurements of train pass-bys and a railroad noise prediction methodology. The 60 dBA CNEL is reported by this study to be located at 282 feet from the centerline of the track, which is over 2,200 feet from the proposed project site. Therefore, noise from railroad operations are also well within the normally acceptable range for residential use. b. Existing Ambient Noise Levels. The P.W. Gillibrand Company conducts mining operations in the Angeles National Forest immediately east of the project site. Mineral extraction conducted in this area includes mining for ilmenite ( a titanium feedstock), apatite (a phosphate mineral), zircon (industrial sand), magnetite, and miscellaneous aggregate materials including sand and gravel. Mining operations were formerly conducted in the alluvial gravel deposits of Oak Spring Canyon immediately east of the site boundary, and in Rabbit Canyon, the tributary to Oak Spring Canyon immediately southeast of the site. Excavations are now being conducted in the Oak Spring Annex area, over 3,000 feet from the site boundary, and open pit mining is proposed for portions of hillsides located over one mile from the project site (Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Gillibrand Soledad Canyon Mining Operations, September 1991). Processing of the material is conducted at Gillibrand's plant located in Pole. Canyon, about two miles northeast of the project site. Activities at the processing plant are not detectable at the project site per the FEIS (page 3-99), and mining noise audible at the site is limited to infrequent vehicular traffic along dirt roads and the loading operations currently being conducted in the Oak Spring Annex area. Noise measurements of water truck pass-bys and of blasting activity were performed by City of Santa Clarita staff at the eastern property boundary. Typical noise levels from the water truck were 50-60 dBA at the property line near the Oak Spring Canyon mining pit, with the truck on a dirt road about 350 - 400 feet from the measurement site. Noise levels taken where the mining road is adjacent to the property line were 80 dBA, 25-50 feet from the truck. The dynamite blast measured a peak instantaneous noise level of 72 dBA at the property line, over 1000 feet from the blast site. More detailed measurements of onsite noise levels were conducted on May 10, 1996. The purpose of these noise measurements were to document the existing noise levels caused by the sand and gravel excavation and hauling operations on the site and to compare these to typical residential area sound levels. Noise measurements were made at six locations in Oak Spring Canyon during the early morning to early afternoon hours (Figure 5.7-1). Noise measurement Location #1 is just north of the proposed 11th tee, 1,000 feet west of the east property line with a clear line of sight to both the active sand and gravel operations and the Antelope Valley Freeway. Location #2 is on the east property line, adjacent to the sediment detention basin. Location #3 was on a small rise that is at proposed Lot 464, the nearest residential lot to the currently active mining area. Location #4 is just south of #3, within a small alluvial valley at proposed Lot #61. Location #5 is adjacent to an existing offsite residence, while Location #6 is at a relatively elevated site at proposed Lot 452, the residential lot nearest to the east property line (about 700 feet). Table 5.7-1 summarizes the results of the ambient noise level survey, while Figure 5.7-2 graphically illustrates the results. Data sheets for the noise measurements are contained in Appendix E. city or Santa wanta 5.7-3 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR ;a Base Map: USGS Mint Canyon Quadrangle liff It) #5 l� 0 1200 2400 Scale in Feet Noise Measurement Locations al Ica T NORTH Figure 5.7-1 I� Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Location #1 20 Time: 6.55 em is } 161 74 T L.w9.s t2r daA t 10 I � B o sl 4�z 0 LAOI. tl'9A YYi m n L,49S tl Location #5 Time: 11:30 am 30 251 20 V I t15} LagVldM V O 10 0- p Level. dBA Notes: Measurements taken May 10, 1996, Columns include the number of occurences of individual measurements within a two decibel range. Location #2 rem: 7:45em 45 40 m3 .30 Leq 5 2 daA e25 i 015 10 s o ILL qq 1 � e4i n e PLev'q'el. tlHA n e � n I Location 04 rime: 9A5= 35 30 I 25 I I 20 ILep39.5 dBA i5 O 10 5. 01 ori gi r°3 a � n$ n n li$ n - Lwel, dRA 1 Location 95 j Time: 1:15 pm j 18 16 i i I +< T 1z T e 10.1 I1s�40.9 aaA � B1 fit o 41 I i I 2 i 1 0 m p I Level. CM Noise Measurements at 1 Project Site Figure 5.7-2 Location #3 ' MM: 9:1o9:10M 1 zs » zo is i u 10 5� I 0 P q p Level, dBA L,49S tl Location #5 Time: 11:30 am 30 251 20 V I t15} LagVldM V O 10 0- p Level. dBA Notes: Measurements taken May 10, 1996, Columns include the number of occurences of individual measurements within a two decibel range. Location #2 rem: 7:45em 45 40 m3 .30 Leq 5 2 daA e25 i 015 10 s o ILL qq 1 � e4i n e PLev'q'el. tlHA n e � n I Location 04 rime: 9A5= 35 30 I 25 I I 20 ILep39.5 dBA i5 O 10 5. 01 ori gi r°3 a � n$ n n li$ n - Lwel, dRA 1 Location 95 j Time: 1:15 pm j 18 16 i i I +< T 1z T e 10.1 I1s�40.9 aaA � B1 fit o 41 I i I 2 i 1 0 m p I Level. CM Noise Measurements at 1 Project Site Figure 5.7-2 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.7 Noise Table 5.7-1. Measured Onsite Noise Levels icatiou r..:... 7itue,:.. 1 6:55 am Ieq,tTBzk .: ; PnmsrylYtlueourpe; :.:. 49.9 Antelope Valley Freeway, peaks caused by excavation 2 7:45 am 55.2 Mining operations, peaks caused by haul truck pass-bys 3 9:10 am 39.5 Birds, Freeway, mining operation 4 9:45 am 38.8 Freeway, mining operation, three single-engine aircraft 5 11:30 am 45.2 Birds, planes, occasionally hear gravel drop into truck beds 6 1:15 pm 40.8 Mining operation, grading operations to southwest See Appendix E for d=heets. The noise measurements were taken using a Quest 2700 sound level meter that meets ANSI standards as a Type II meter. The measurements used a standard method for determining if the samples taken met the statistical requirements for a normal curve (Bolt Beranek and Newman, 1973). Each measurement period lasts a minimum of 50 samples (at 10 second intervals). Because of the digital display provided by this meter, the instantaneous sound level of each sample to the nearest 0.1 decibel was recorded and used to calculate the Leq contained in Table 5.7-1. The noise levels at those portions of the site proposed for residential use are considered quiet,.with the site's da4me noise levels of around 40 dBA equivalent to those commonly found for quiet urban and suburban nighttime outdoor sound levels (see Exhibit N-1 of the City's Noise Element). The early morning measurement at Location #1 was somewhat suprisingly high, though still in the range of quiet urban daytime outdoor noise levels. Noise levels at this location were primarily caused by the morning commute traffic on the Antelope Valley freeway (about 6,700 feet north), with occasional peak noises caused by the mining operations approximately 2,300 feet to the east. While freeway noise was also a factor in the baseline levels of Location #5, it was not as loud in the late morning as it was in the early morning. The mining operations had the largest effect on sound levels at the property boundary, with measurement location #2 located about 1,300 feet from the active mining operation and 380 feet from the nearest part of the haul road. Mining operations during.the measurement period consisted of one front-end loader, two mining trucks, and a water truck, with the peak noise levels occurring when the mining trucks accelerated and decelerated at the downhill curve of the haul road nearest the site. While occasional loud noises occurred at this location (65-68 dBA), the average noise level was equivalent to that experienced indoors in a large office, or outdoors along a light to moderately traveled residential road. Ambient sound levels at Location #6 were occasionally audibly affected by the current grading operations southwest of the project site. These grading operations were using several pieces of heavy equipment, including two motor graders, a water truck, a bulldozer, and a dozer pulling a sheepsfoot roller. Noise measurements taken on Saddleback Road approximately 600 feet from the grading operation yielded an Leq of about 60 dBA, and instantaneous sound levels within 100 feet of the operations probably were frequently over 80 dBA. 5.7-6 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.7 Noise ' 5.7.2 Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds. Existing and future traffic noise levels were quantified using the California Vehicle Noise Emission Levels (Caltrans, January 1987), standard noise modeling equations, and traffic volumes provided by Kimely-Horn and Associates, Inc., for this EIR ' The effect of stationary noise was estimated based on methodologies contained in the Handbook of Noise Control (C. M. Harris, 1979) and adapted to a spreadsheet program. Appendix E contains the spreadsheet input and output results for the noise calculations. The threshold of significance for noise impacts is based on the City's Noise Element policy previously described above. In addition, an increase in noise levels that exceeds 3 dBA is considered significant since it represents a doubling of noise energy, while exterior noise level changes of 1-2 dBA are not considered significant since they are generally not perceptible to sensitive receptors. ' b. Project Impacts. Effect N-1 Operations at the adjacent quarry could cause unacceptable noise levels for the proposed residential land uses and conflict with adopted City Noise Element policies. (NS) Observations during the site visit indicate that current noise from the Gillibrand operations is generally limited to excavation and loading operations by a single front-end loader in an open pit mine located about 1,300 feet east of the site, along with infrequent haul trucks and water trucks operating along a dirt road located near the east property boundary between Rabbit Canyon and Oak Spring Canyon. The distance from the excavation operations and topographical differences between the site and the excavation operations result in a noticeable decrease in the audibility of the mining operations for receptors located on the project site, such that these operations are either not noticeable or form a part of the background ambient noise. This was confirmed by the noise measurements, which indicate that the general noise environment at the proposed residential portions of the site are quiet. Measured sound levels within the site at proposed residential locations were quieter than those measured at a current residence in Oak Spring Canyon. Figure 5.7-3 illustrates the noise levels associated with construction equipment based on limited data samples (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1971). Based on these noise levels and assuming on a worst case basis that five pieces of equipment could be operating in Oak Spring Canyon during typical working hours, the maximum hourly daytime noise level at the site's eastern property line would be 65.0 dBA, with a 61.0 dBA CNEL based on current mining operations. At the nearest proposed residence, without regard for topographical differences that create an effective noise barrier, the sound level would be 56.6 dBA CNEL These levels are within the acceptable range for compatible land use and the location of residences in this area would not conflict with adopted City noise policies. It should be noted that the noise calculations assumed that the water truck would create a noise level of about 88 dBA at 50 feet (see Appendix E), which is 8 dBA greater than that measured in the field. city or sans Manta 5.7-7 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Noise Level at 50 Feet, dBA 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 I ` Compacters (Rollers) j I i Front Loaders I Backhoes 1 Tractors/Dozers Scrapers/Graders I i I Pavers Trucks Concrete Mixers xi Concrete Pumps j Movable Cranes � f Derrick Cranes Pumps I o I- ._ Generators �I Compressors Pneumatic Wrenches WI I U aQ n..' Jack Hammers and 1 1 d Rock Drills Pile Drivers (Peak) Vibrator I I I I I i o 1 Saws i Note: Based on Limited Available Data Samples Source: USEPA, 1971. Noise From Construction Equipment and Operations. Noise Levels Associated With Construction Equipment Figure 5.7-3 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.7 Noise No equipment was working within Rabbit Canyon during the site visits, and the location of beehives in this area indicate that little activity is expected. Assuming a worst case future operation of three pieces of equipment in this area during normal daytime operations, the CNEL at the nearest proposed residential pad would be 53.7 dBA. This level is well within the acceptable range for compatible land use and. the location of residences in this area would not conflict with adopted City noise policies. However, comments received at the scoping meeting indicated that the mine operates sporadically, and has worked shifts from 6:00 am to 3:00 pm at times, frequently on Saturday and infrequently on Sunday. The hours between 6:00 and 7:00 am are considered nighttime and noise during this period can cause greater disturbance to residential uses. If the time of operations is adjusted to include this period for the assumed three pieces of equipment, the CNEL at the nearest residence would increase to 57.8 dBA. A similar adjustment for the Oak Spring Canyon operations yields a CNEL of 59.1 at the nearest residential pad. These levels are still within the acceptable range for compatible land uses. Nonetheless, equipment operation during the early morning and on Sunday is expected to be considered a nuisance to future residents and may result in noise complaints to the City and the operator. The Gillibrand mining operations occasionally uses blasting during quarry operations and road construction. Blasting is impulsive and generally is less than 1 second in duration, which can cause a "startle" effect depending on the actual sound level. Blasting can be audible out to a distance of 1-2 miles from the blast site, though the "startle" effect would occur within a more limited radius. Based on the FEIS (1991), blasting is expected to occur primarily in the new claim areas during quarry operations and about 25-30 times per year or once every two weeks (Appendix C, page 5-34). Given the distance to the primary blast areas (over 1.5 miles), the barrier effect of local ridgelines between these mine areas and the project site, and the infrequency of blasting operations, this noise source is not expected to create a significant constraint to the proposed residential use of the project site. Blasting will also continuemithin the Oak Spring Annex mining claim area, which is located 3,000 feet from the property line and about 4,000 feet from the nearest residential lots. Based on the City's measurement of the current blasting location, the instantaneous noise level at the nearest proposed residence would be about 66 dBA, or a sound level similar to normal conversational levels. As stated above; because of the infrequency of the blasting and its limited number of occurrences in any one day, this would not exceed City criteria for incompatible noise levels. In addition, the FEIS for the Gillibrand mining operations (Tetra Tech, Inc., 1991) indicates that truck traffic in the Oak Spring Canyon and Rabbit Canyon area will be reduced by 20 truck trips per day from the existing (199 1) volume of 60 trips per day as operations are expanded at the three new claim areas. The new haul roads associated with the claim areas are located 1-2 miles further to the east from the site boundary, thereby reducing noise levels incident in the project area. All of the new claim areas are also more than one mile from the site's eastern property line. The new claim areas are expected to produce sufficient minerals for the Gillibrand operations for the next ten years. Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures are necessary because the proposed project would not conflict with adopted environmental goals of the City. In addition, the City has indicated to the City of Santa Clarita 5.7-9 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.7 Noise applicant that as a condition of this development, the City will require that a disclosure statement regarding the mining operations be given to each prospective homeowner. This will assure that any future resident is aware of the existing mining operations at the time of purchase. Significance After Miti ag tion. A potential exists for annoyance reactions by the future residences if active mining resumes adjacent to the eastern property line. This.would likely include complaints to the City and the mining operator. However, based on the significance criteria, no significant noise impact would result from the proposed project's location near the mining operation. Effect N-2 Heavy equipment noise associated with construction of the proposed project could affect adjacent residential land uses. (US) The nearest sensitive noise receptors to the project site are the three residences located along Sand Canyon Road west of the site, the residences along the south property line on off of Live Oak Springs Canyon Road and Clearlake Drive, and those northwest of the proposed parking lot and clubhouse area. The nearest homes are located approximately 30-50 feet from the property. The grading phase of project construction tends to create the highest construction noise levels because of the operation of heavy equipment. Noise levels associated with heavy equipment typically range between 75 to 95 dBA at 50 feet from the source (EPA, 1971). Noise monitoring of grading operations in the project area indicate that levels over 70 dBA are likely to occur within 150 feet of the grading site. Continuous operation of equipment near the property line during a nine -hour workday can cause noise levels that are substantially above the ambient levels present in the project vicinity. To estimate the peak construction noise impact on the adjacent residences, it was assumed that about four pieces of heavy equipment would be operating in the vicinity of the property line during cut and fill operations. Because the equipment cannot physically operate in the same location at the same time, they were assumed to work within an average distance of 250 feet from the residences. It was also assumed that the dozer equipment would operate six hours out of a nine -hour workday (8 am - 5 pm), and three pieces (scraper, roller, and water truck) would work half-time. Operation of this equipment would result in a daily CNEL of about 70 dBA for the nearest residences, with an hourly Leq of more than 74 dBA. These average sound levels would exceed the City's exterior noise criteria for residential use and would increase daytime noise levels more than 10 dBA over existing conditions. This is considered a significant, though short-term noise impact. It is noted that grading equipment would actually be operating at various locations throughout the site at various times and at various distances from the homes, with intervening topography often substantially reducing noise levels. Nonetheless, construction noise and possible vibration would be highly disturbing when the heavy equipment is operating near the property line. Based on the amount of grading necessary in various locations of the site, the residences on Clearlake Drive and northwest of the proposed parking lot would be the most disturbed. Mitigation Measures. Temporary, portable noise barriers can be used at times to reduce the impact of construction noise, but because of the extensive topographic alteration associated with the golf course wry 5.7-10 I Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.7 Noise ' grading, the use of such barriers is not expected to be effective. The following mitigation measures are recommended to reduce construction. noise. ' N -2(a) No more than two pieces of equipment shall operate simultaneously within 200 feet of a residence during grading operations. ' N -2(b) Any internal haul roads for transporting fill material around the site shall be located a minimum of 500 feet from the nearest offsite residence. Significance After Mitigation. The above measures would reduce the noise impact of the grading ' operations at the site. Nonetheless, some loud noise that is above City land use compatibility levels is still likely to occur during project construction and this effect is considered unavoidable. ' Effect N-3 The additional traffic noise associated with the proposed project could affect adjacent residential land uses. (NS) Table 5.7-2 illustrates the change in noise levels associated with traffic generated by the proposed project and cumulative projects. Project added traffic would increase local traffic noise by 2.0 dBA along Sand Canyon Road north of the project entry, while project traffic plus cumulative traffic would cause a maximum increase of 2.3 dBA. This level of ambient noise increase is perceptible to sensitive receptors, but it would not exceed the criteria for significant impacts of a 3 dBA change. In addition, the changes in the 65 dBA CNEL contour lines would not place any existing residence within this contour based on a review of aerial photography (1"=400') for the project vicinity. Given the accuracy associated with the traffic forecasting and inherent in the noise model calculations, the changes in the contour levels are not considered to be a significant impact. Table 5.7-2 Calculated CNEL Contours' ' See Appendix E for calculations. At nearest existing residences; 120 feet from road centerline for north section and 70 feet from road centerline for south section. City of Santa Clarita 5.7-11 frnmroadivap cent@rltne, feet tEfl (£i E E< Sand Canyon Road north of Live Oak Springs Canyon Road Existing 60.5 28 60 130 280 Existing plus project 62.5 38 82 176 379 Future cumulative 62.8 40 86 184 397 Sand Canyon Road south of Live Oak Springs Canyon Road Existing 62.2 — 46 99 212 Existing plus project 62.6 — 49 105 226 Future cumulative 63.2 53 115 1 247 ' See Appendix E for calculations. At nearest existing residences; 120 feet from road centerline for north section and 70 feet from road centerline for south section. City of Santa Clarita 5.7-11 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course MR Section 5.7 Noise Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures are required. Significance After Mitigation. No significant traffic noise impacts are expected to be generated by the project, but an adverse increase in the ambient noise environment for residences located on Sand Canyon Road north of the project site would occur. Effect N4 Noise associated with patrons of the golf course could cause nuisance noise effects to adjacent residential land uses. (NS) The golf course would introduce a recreational population to an area of rural residential land uses. Golf courses open at dawn and close at dusk, so golfers would be present on the course throughout the daytime hours. The Planning Commission has established an hour -of -operation limit of 9:00 pm on driving range activity. No hours have been set for operations of the clubhouse and its parking lot, but a recommendation for 11:00 pm has been made. Noise associated with the golfers would include voices, car doors and trunks closing in the parking lot, golf cart noise, and the hitting of golf balls. The primary location of such noise would be the parking lot and the driving range. Measurements of sound levels at Knollwood Country Club by City staff indicated that driving range noise was indistinguishable from background noise at about 200 feet, while the sound level of a golfer striking a ball is about 75 feet at 10 feet from the golfer. This sound level at the golfer would produce a sound level of 45.5 dBA at the nearest residence. The sound levels associated with the parking lot, driving range, and golf course would be below an hourly Leq of 60 dBA at the nearest residence and would not cause an exceedance of the City's CNEL noise criteria for compatible land use, including consideration of the evening noise generation at the driving range and parking lot. While these sounds would be less than or equivalent to that produced by neighboring residences and equestrian uses, they would be more consistent throughout the day and into the evening and such sounds may be considered a nuisance by adjacent residential users. Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures are required. Significance After Mitigation. While noise levels would not be great enough to.cause a significant effect, an adverse increase in ambient nuisance noise levels would be associated with the proposed project. (Wiry 5.7-12 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.8 Land Use 5.8 LAND USE The City's General Plan designates the project site for residential estate and residential low land use. The project site residential density considering the site as a whole is less than that which would be allowed under conventional zoning and is less than that currently entitled at the site. The golf course is considered compatible with adjacent land uses and is permitted in all City zones with issuance of a conditional use permit. The residential use is considered compatible with adjacent existing andplanned residential development and is considered sufficiently buffered by the golf course from the mining activities offsite in the Angeles National Forest. The project is generally compatible with the City General Plan and policies and no significant land use conflicts are anticipated given the project design. ' 5.8.1 Setting ' The City of Santa Clarita has adopted a Land Use Element for the General Plan (June 26, 1991) that provides basic information regarding the amount, distribution, and location of commercial, industrial, residential, recreational, and public facilities land uses within the City. The General Plan is herein ' incorporated by reference in its entirety per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15150. It is available for review at the Community Development Department and local libraries within the City. ' The project site is presently vacant and is zoned as Residential Very Low (1 acre minimum lot size) for those portions within the City, while the southeastern annexation parcel is zoned A-1-2 under the Los Angeles County Zoning Ordinance. The latter is an agricultural zoning that allows one residential unit per two acres (density of 0.5 units per acre). This particular parcel is a part of the Crystal Springs development (Los Angeles County Tract 32571), specifically lots 44 and 136, which have not been recorded. The Crystal Springs Tract included clustering of the units, with the overall lot average meeting Los Angeles County General Plan and zoning designations. In approving this tract, the County required the developer to dedicate to the County the right to restrict the construction of more than one residence on each lot, thereby limiting development on the portion of the project site proposed for annexation to two units. As previously discussed in Sections 1.4 and 3.4 of this EIR, the project site contains entitlements for approximately 151 residential lots, with 140 of those lots approved for the 160 acre square parcel that comprises the northeast section of the project site. The project site also lies within the Sand Canyon Special Standards District (City of Santa Clarita Development Code § I7.16.090.B.2(h)). The intent of this district is to maintain, preserve, and enhance the ' rural residential and equestrian character of Sand Canyon. Specific development standards for this district allow the keeping of horses on lots with a minimum of 15,000 square feet, provide for the development of trails, restricts the construction of improved infrastructure (drainages are not to be improved with concrete, street lighting allowed only at intersections, no requirements for street paving, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, etc.), subjects gating of residential areas to approval of a conditional use permit and discourages ' clustering except where necessary to preserve and protect environmentally sensitive areas. 5.8-1 city of Santa clanta Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.8 Land Use Land use adjacent to the project site is generally rural in nature, with the large residential lots of the Crystal Springs Tract to the southwest of the project site tending towards suburban in character. These residences are designated as Residential Very Low (0.5-1.0 du/acre), with developed residential uses to the west of the site in Residential Estate use (0.5 du/acre). Developed lands north of the project site are in Residential Very Low use, with undeveloped lands on the east side of Oak Spring Canyon north of the project site. These lands are designated for Residential Low (1.1-3.3 du/acre) and Residential Estate and are part of an approved development called Oak Springs Estates that appears unlikely to develop. East of the project site is the Angeles National Forest, which is generally in open space, but also contains a rural residential community sometimes referred to as Lost Canyon located northeast of the project site. This residential community is comprised of lots of 2-5 acres and its sole access is via Oak Springs Canyon Road, the dirt road that crosses the northern portion of the property. Within the Angeles National Forest is also the Gillibrand Soledad Canyon Mining Operations, an active mining operation on an overall mining mineral claim area of about 13,500 acres. Existing and permitted future mining is located on only about 300 acres of this claim area leased from the Angeles National Forest (Tetra Tech, Inc., 1991). Two of the claim areas are located immediately adjacent to the project site along the drainages that flow onto the site. The Oak Spring project area and Oak Spring Annex occupy about 110 acres extending about one mile up the Oak Spring Canyon drainage from the project site. This mining area is currently active (see Figure 5.6-3B), with a large pit located adjacent to the project site that serves as a detention basin and current excavation activity about 1300 feet from the property line. A haul road from this excavation site brings mining trucks within about 80 feet of the property line. The other claim area adjacent to the project is the Rabbit Canyon project area, an area of about 35 acres that extends up Rabbit Canyon for about 0.5 mile. This claim area contains a large pit from past mining operations and no mining activity currently occurs within this area. An apiary (bee hives) is currently located on the level bottom of the back end of this pit. 5.8.2 Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds. The significant of impacts on land use is determined by a comparison of the proposed developmental use of the site to the planned uses for a particular area. Significant impacts occur when the proposed project substantially conflicts with City or regional plans or adopted environmental goals. Land use conflicts also occur if the development results in physical changes to the environment that are detrimental to adjoining sensitive land uses, such as residential neighborhoods. b. Project Impacts. Effect LU -1 The proposed land use may conflict with adopted City land use policies. (NS) No change in the existing land use designations for the project site are necessary to accommodate the proposed project, provided that the Planned Development Overlay is used to permit transfer of City of Santa C/arita 5.8-2 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.8 Land Use development rights within the project site. The use of this tool would maintain the consistency of the project with the intent and standards for the Residential Estate and Residential Low designations. The City's Unified Development Code also allows for public or private recreational facilities in any of the City's zones provided that a conditional use permit is approved. Since the conditional use permit can be used to control the potential for adverse land use conflicts between the proposed project and adjacent land uses, the construction and operation of a golf course is considered to be compatible with the adjacent residential uses within the City. The maintenance facilities associated with the golf courses are located within the interior of the Mountain Course, distant from any residential uses. The clubhouse will be located 740 feet from the nearest offsite residence and over 330 feet from the nearest onsite residence, a distance considered an adequate buffer between the commercial aspect of the project and residential uses. The driving range and the Mountain Course tee #1 have been designed with mounds interposed between the hitting area and offsite residences such that accidentally hitting a golf ball off the project site would be very unlikely. Landscape screening proposed on these mounds would also serve to reduce the likelihood of such an occurrence and would reduce any perceived visual effects. It is noted that residences located adjacent to golf courses and the visual open space that they provide generally command a greater market value than a similar residential lot located within a residential community, therefore, the proposed golf courses are considered generally compatible with adjacent residential uses. While the proposed residential lots would be smaller than those in the tracts located to the southwest of the site, these lots will be somewhat isolated from those housing units by an intervening ridge. The custom-built nature of the development would be consistent with the lots developed in the adjacent community and no land use incompatibilities with adjacent residences are anticipated. Residential use of the entire project site has been planned for in the City of Santa Clarita General Plan (199 1) and such use was deemed to be compatible with out -of City mineral extraction operations. The project is consistent with General Plan policies 6.1 and 6.2 to use open space (in this case the golf course) as a buffer between mineral resource areas and sensitive uses and to maintain such areas. The nearest residential lot line is 700 feet from the forest boundary and past mineral extraction areas, with the nearest residential lot line over 2000 feet from the current excavation area in Oak Spring Canyon. Previous approvals for residential units on the project site within Oak Spring Canyon allowed residences within 150 feet of the excavation area. Based on the distances involved and the use of the golf course as a buffer, the offsite mining use is not expected to cause a land use incompatibility with the onsite residences. The proposed project is consistent with the design standards of the Sand Canyon Special Standards District, except with respect to the discouragement of clustering. While the project would cluster the development, such clustering is permitted under the Development Code and has been previously approved in Sand Canyon. The standards state that where clustering is approved, the minimum lot size should not deviate more than 10% from the required minimum lot size. The applicant is proposing lots as small as 14,000 square feet with most lots in the 17,000 square foot range. To resolve this conflict, the applicant has proposed a Planned Development Overlay. This type of overlay is generally created to: 1) permit clustering; 2) facilitate development of certain areas by permitting greater flexibility and, city of Santa wanta 5.8-3 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR , Section 5.8 Land Use consequently, more creative and imaginative designs for the development than is generally possible under conventional zoning regulation; 3) promote more economical and efficient use of the land while providing a harmonious variety of choices, higher level of amenities, and preservation of natural and , scenic areas; and 4) ensure that the project when constructed conforms to the approved plans. The PD overlay would allow the approving authority to modify or delete certain requirements where it can be shown that an alternative achieves a similar purpose. Based on the flexibility allowed under the PD overlay, the approving authority can find that the project does conform with the Sand Canyon Special Standards District given that approximately 300 acres of the site would be preserved as recreational/open space. This amount of open space is much greater than would be available under a conventional development of the project site, such as had been previously approved (see Section 1.4). In addition, the proposed project would result in a lower residential density over the entire project site than that currently ' entitled. Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures are required. , Significance After Mitigation. No significant impacts are anticipated. Effect LU -2 The proposed project may result in increased conflicts with administration and management of the adjacent Angeles National Forest. (NS) Residential and recreational use can create problems with the management of National Forest lands as the residents from such developments may create their own trails using off-road vehicles, increase the risk of wildfire while simultaneously decreasing management options (such as controlled burns), and otherwise use forest lands for purposes other than are contained in the forest plan. The proposed residential area will be substantially buffered from the National Forest lands by the proposed golf course, which will serve to reduce the casual, uncontrolled access that could occur if the residential units were directly located adjacent to the forest boundaries. The project will also be providing an equestrian trail that would connect into designated National Forest trails. By providing an identified means of access, this would reduce the amount of illegal spurious trail construction and provide a location whereby illegal hiking/riding/biking can be controlled. It is noted that the project site currently serves as an unrestricted means of egress into the National Forest and there was evidence of encroachment/trespass into the adjacent mining area from the site and of off-road vehicle use extending into the forest from the site. These activities would be curtailed under the proposed project and so would be expected to result in a decrease inland use conflicts. The golf course would also serve as a wildfire buffer area because of the presence of turf and irrigation systems. Therefore; fire hazards are expected to decrease as a result of project implementation, not increase. The ' problems that currently exist with wildfire suppression in the urban/wildland interface would not be significantly altered by the 76 residential lots proposed for the site, and since the golf course would provide heightened access for emergency vehicles to the Rabbit Canyon area, the project may aid in the , control of wildfires in the Sand Canyon community. City of Santa Clarita 5.84 1.. 1J ' Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.8 Land Use ' Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures are required. Significance After Mitigation. No significant impacts are anticipated. Effect LU -3 The location of residential uses within the proposed annexation area may create a land use incompatibility that affects long term mining operations in the Angeles National Forest. (NS) ' A total of 53 of the 76 lots are proposed to be located within the 104 acre annexation parcel that is located nearest to the Oak Spring and Rabbit Canyon mining areas. In approving the Crystal Springs tract located southwest of the project site, the County restricted this parcel to two residential units. This restriction was placed on the property to ensure consistency with the County's General Plan and to provide a buffer area between residential units and the mining area. However, upon annexation, the site would no longer be within the County's. jurisdiction and, as discussed above, the City's General Plan designates land use of this annexation area as residential estate (0.0-0.5 dulacre). ' It has been suggested that the location of the residential uses within the annexation portion of the project site would create a land use incompatibility that would substantially affect the ability to economically extract mineral resources from the adjacent mining claim area. Potential land use conflicts between the proposed residential uses and the existing mining uses are expected to result primarily from nuisance noise and dust that may be associated with the ongoing mining operations and the visual effect of the mining excavations. As indicated in Section 5.7, noise associated with mining operations would meet City standards and dust within the mining area is controlled by regulations of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Also, the residences. would be located sufficiently distant from dust sources such that most of the entrained material would settle out before reaching the residential uses. With regards to visual issues, it is noted that there are already several residential units in the Oak Spring Canyon area that can readily view the existing and future mining operations. In addition, the majority of new mining resources to be extracted in the adjacent mining operation (10.7 million cubic yards of 12.7 million cubic yards) would be at Claim Groups II and III, which are over 2.5 miles from the nearest proposed residence and in areas that are not visible from the project site (Tetra Tech, 1991). The future mining operation in Claim Group I is located over 1.5 miles from the nearest proposed residence. It would be visible to the proposed project, as well as to residences in the existing "Crystal Springs" tract in Sand Canyon. Mitigation measures to reduce its visual impacts were delineated in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the new mining operations (Tetra Tech, 1991). Continued mining in the Oak Spring Annex area, about 1 mile from the proposed residences, would have the greatest visual effect. In response to the concerns expressed regarding the viewshed from the ' residences, the currently proposed revised site plan includes lowering of the building pad elevations in the 103 acre portion of the site nearest to the mining operations. This would reduce the ability of the residences to see over the trees of the golf course towards the mining operation. The residential lots City of Santa Clarita 5.8-5 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.8 Land Use have also been redesigned so that primary views would be oriented in a northeasterly direction, towards the golf course and the Santa Clara River valley. The EIS for the expansion of mining operations in Claim Groups I, Il, and III also determined that the existing mining operations did not cause a significant land use conflict with the existing residential homes located 1,400 feet from the Oak Spring mining area. This EIS stated that "no effect on property values has been identified from existing mining operations" (pg. 3-113-114), an effect that should have been noticed if there was in fact a significant land use conflict. For these reasons, the land use effects of the proposed project on the adjacent mining area are considered less than significant. Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures are required. The City has informed the applicant that if the project is approved, disclosure documents that have been reviewed and approved by the City shall be supplied to future homeowners to ensure that the mining operation is fully disclosed. Significance After Mitigation. No significant impacts are anticipated. city or sans cfanta 5.8-6 ' Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 6.0 Long Tenn Effects ' 6.0 LONGTERM EFFECTS 6.1 GROWTH INDUCING RVIPACTS The proposed project would involve introduction of recreational and residential uses in an area that is ' generally rural. This increased development activity in Sand Canyon is likely to draw additional attention to this area, but is not expected to induce growth that is not already planned. The site is ' generally self-contained and surrounded by existing or pending rural residential development and the Angeles National Forest. Major infrastructure systems are in place to accommodate the project, and with the exception of two water tanks that are planned to provide fire flow and water pressure, there are ' no major infrastructure extensions required. The City Planning Commission recommended that the original project should provide an extension of water distribution infrastructure to the Oak Spring Canyon Road area as a condition of development and this water main line is considered as part of the project. The additional fire flow capacity and potable water supply associated with this mainline could allow for limited additional infill development on other rural properties in the Oak Spring Canyon Road area. Based on an average household size of 3.14 persons per unit, the proposed project would generate an additional 239 residents in the area. This would generate an incremental need for additional services, governmental, and commercial facilities. This additional demand for services and economic growth is not expected to significantly impact the region and the costs of such will be at least partially offset by the additional tax base. 6.2 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE EFFECTS Alteration of the area to urban (rural residential and recreational) uses, although potentially reversible, will likely result in a long term commitment of the site to such uses. Development of the proposed project will result in substantial landform alteration that will be irreversible. However, given the extent of open space areas committed to the golf course uses, it is possible that these uses could be intensified, perhaps with residential uses, at some future time. The mineral resources identified in Oak Spring Canyon would be generally inaccessible for future extraction, unless such a use becomes desirable and economically preferable to the proposed golf course use because of critical resource limitations. As such, project development would not irreversibly impact this potential resource area, but if development proceeds, it is highly unlikely that the golf course would be converted to mining activity given the long term supply of such resources in other locations. Construction of new buildings and roadways would involve substantial quantities of building materials and energy, some of which are non-renewable. Consumption of such materials and energy are associated with any new development project and these commitments are not unique or unusual to this project or region. Addition of approximately 239 new residents in the area would irreversibly increase City of Santa Clarita 6-1 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR , Section 6.0 Long Term Effects the local demand for finite energy resources, such as petroleum and natural gas. However, increasingly ' efficient building fixtures and automobile engines are expected to partially offset this demand. Additionally the project would require an irreversible commitment of law enforcement, fire protection, . sanitation, water supply, wastewater treatment, and solid waste disposal services. The proposed project would also create demand for school and active recreational facilities, although it would serve to , increase the availability of golf course facilities in the region. Additional residents in the area and associated vehicle trips generated would result in additional air emissions and fiuther degradation of the air resources in the air basin. The degree to which recreational commute distances can be reduced by the ' increased availability of local golf course facilities may tend to offset this potential effect. 1 City of Santa Clarita ' 6-2 I Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 7.0 Alternatives 7.0 ALTERNATIVES ' A range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed development project is required to be evaluated within an EIR per the State CEQA Guidelines § 15126 (d). The alternatives addressed are those that could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project, with the discussion focusing on the comparative ' merits of the alternatives relative to environmental effects (without consideration of economic effects) and on alternatives that could substantially reduce or eliminate significant adverse impacts.- A feasible ' alternative is one that can be "accomplished within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, legal, social, and technological factors" (Public Resources Code § 21061.1 and State CEQA Guidelines §15364). In addition to development altematives; the "No Project" alternative is also specifically required to be discussed. The purpose of this alternative is to discuss what effects may continue to occur given the current uses of the project site. ' 7.1 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 7.1.1 No Development ' This alternative proposes that the site remain in its current undeveloped state for at least the near future. The former agricultural activities that occurred on portions of the property could be resumed, consisting ' of dry farming for hay and limited grazing on the west slope lowlands and grazing within the Oak Spring Canyon area. If economical, chicken farming could be resumed in the area adjacent to Live Oak Springs Canyon Road. Physical actions expected to continue at the site under this alternative would include ' plowing of the west slope lowlands at least once per year for fire control. ' Earth Resources. No land alteration would take place in the near term under this alternative, and no onsite residential population or construction workers would be exposed to potentially unstable slopes or other geological hazards. ydroloa Drainage. Water. No onsite population would be introduced into the area that could be exposed to the existing flood hazards. Current problems with siltation and flooding of Sand Canyon ' Road would continue until such a time that the Los Angeles County Flood Control District designates sufficient funds to construct the proposed debris basin. Given the past history of this debris basin, this may not be accomplished for several more years. No changes would occur to the existing hydrologic environment and there would be no potential for any groundwater contamination from onsite sources during the short term. Existing natural debris flows ' from the project site to offsite areas would continue under intense rainfall conditions. ' If the site were to remain undeveloped for the long term, it is possible that some type of irrigated agriculture would be attempted on the site in order to gain some economic return from the land. Irrigated agriculture would most likely occur on the lowlands in Sand Canyon and on the reasonably ' level portions of Oak Spring Canyon. In this event; irrigation water would be pumped from the local City of Santa Clanta 7-1 i Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 7.0 Alternatives groundwater basins, which may limit the supply available to other users and deplete the local groundwater basin. Agricultural pollutants such as fertilizer and pesticides may percolate into and contaminate the groundwater basin. Air Ouali This alternative does not introduce any new pollutant sources in the short term. BioloQv. Wildlife and plant populations would remain at their existing levels unless some form of dry land or irrigated farming is attempted. Farming in the Sand Canyon area would not be expected to.cause any significant impacts since it would be limited to the ruderal vegetation areas, though several oaks may be removed to facilitate farming. If fanning is attempted in Oak Spring Canyon, it would remove most of the alluvial fan scrub vegetation in the 160 acre parcel, and similar to the project, result in significant and unavoidable impacts to coast hored.lizard populations. The removal of alluvial fan scrub would be a cumulatively significant impact also. The project site would remain subject to wildfire to which the native plant communities are adapted. Transj2ortationlCirculation. This alternative would not generate any substantial traffic on a daily basis. If agricultural production is attempted, there would be some increased trips on a seasonal basis when the crop is planted and harvested, but this would not result in substantial alterations to local roadway and intersection levels of service. Aesthetics. No mass grading or other major landform alterations would occur under this alternative. The site would retain its current natural and rural character, or if farmed, would develop a pastoral character. Noise. No new noise sources would be introduced to the site and the operation of agricultural machinery would be sporadic and create noise levels that are within City criteria for compatible noise levels with adjacent residential uses. Other Issues. This alternative would not pose any substantial changes that may cause significant adverse alterations in the physical environment. The primary adverse effect of this alternative is the continuation of the existing wildfire hazard, which would be substantially reduced by the proposed project because of the change in primary vegetative cover from dry scrubland to irrigated grasses. From a land use perspective, this alternative is unlikely to exist in the long term since most of the project site is located within the City boundaries and is designated for a suburban use rather than as open lands or agricultural acreage. Growth pressure to develop the project site is already present, especially when the current entitlements for the property are considered. 7.1.2 Existing Entitlements As discussed in Sections 1.4 and 3.4 of this EIR, several current entitlements exist for various portions of the property. This "no project" alterative addresses the environmental effects associated with development as currently allowed, without the need for any further discretionary entitlements. A total of City of Santa Ctarita 7-2 ' Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 7.0 Alternatives 158 residential estates units could be constructed within the project site as currently configured, with 140 of these units located on the 160 acres that comprise the northeast comer of the site (Figure 7.0-1). In addition, if the previously approved Hunters Green development were reconstituted, then a total of 222 residential estates units could be built in the general project location. Grading under the current site configuration for this alternative would be approximately 500,000 cubic yards, with the vast majority of ' grading (460,000 cy) occurring within the 160 acre block. This grading would include channeling Oak Spring Canyon creek through this parcel. Grading under the reconstituted development would be approximately 980,000 cubic yards and include extensive grading of the west slope and the 160 acre ' block. The number of oak trees removed or relocated would be about 50 under the first scenario and would be about 80 trees removed and 13 relocated under the second scenario. ' Earth Resources. Substantial grading would occur under this alternative, but most of it would be located within the 160 acre parcel rather than in the less stable west slope area given existing entitlements. If the ' old Hunters Green development is reconstituted, substantial grading would also occur on the west slope and similar adverse effects could happen. However, cut and fill depths would be less than that of the proposed project and subsequent geologic problems would also be less. ' Hvdrolo,= DrainaZe. Water. The flood hazard in Oak Spring Canyon within the site would be reduced through the construction of a flood control channel and this alternative would not expose onsite ' residences in this area to a flood hazard. The Live Oak Springs Canyon drainage is expected to remain in its present condition until LACFCD obtains sufficient funds to construct the debris basin; this would expose several residential pads to an existing shallow flooding zone and current drainage problems along ' Sand Canyon Road would remain. Because this alternative would not extend the Oak Spring Canyon flood control channel downstream, with such construction dependent on other projects, this alternative could result in downstream erosional problems because of the increased velocities that may be expected ' due to the new channel. ' The channel and residential development in Oak Spring Canyon would also be expected to result in a slight decrease in the infiltration of surface water into the underlying alluvial aquifer. This is not expected to cause a significant effect on the supply of groundwater at the site. Actually, because it is presumed that existing entitlements would be served by the Santa Clarita Water Company, the use of imported water on the site could lead to increase percolation of imported water and a subsequent increase in groundwater levels. ' Air Ouali . Air emissions associated with the existing entitlement of 158 units would not cause an exceedance of any of the thresholds for operational emissions (See Appendix C for calculations). ' Similar to the project, construction emissions during the grading phase would be expected to exceed threshold levels; however, such exceedances would occur over a shorter period of time because of the lower amount of grading necessary. The reconstituted tracts alternative would exceed the threshold for ' carbon monoxide emissions during the operational phase by 4%. This significant impact could be reduced by a slight reduction in the number of units developed. 1 City of Santa Ctarita 7-3 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR ;Q Road 0 1200 2400 Flood Control Channel Scale in Feet Base Map: USGS Mint Canyon Quadrangle Existing Entitlements Alternative NORTH Ir Figure 7.0-1 ' Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 7.0 Alternatives iB oioQv. This alternative would result in the removal of about 90% of the vegetation on the 160 acre parcel and virtually all wildlife species, which would be a significant and unavoidable biological impact. ' None of the alluvial fan scrub vegetation present in this area would be retained under this alternative based on the existing tract map. With existing parcels, no significant vegetation would be removed on the west slope, but under the reconstituted tracts, grading would account for approximately 60-70% of ' the chaparral vegetation based on the existing tract maps. This would also result in a significant impact to this biological resource. The vegetation in the southeast parcel would remain mostly undisturbed because only two units could be developed in that area. Because the reconstituted tracts would not contain a revegetation plan and virtually all of the residential estates would contain non-native landscaping, the net habitat value of this alternative would be less than that of the proposed project. ' TraMortationlCirculation. Traffic generation for this alternative would be 1,600 and 2,260 for the existing entitlements and the reconstituted tracts, respectively. While this daily volume is less than that generated by the project, the volumes would be the same to twice as much in the critical peak hour direction compared to the proposed project. Traffic effects would be the same as for the proposed project for the existing entitlements, but would be slightly greater for the reconstituted tracts. However, it is not expected that any intersection would decrease its level of service below D as a result of this alternative. Aesthetics. Landform alteration for the existing entitlement would be limited to the 160 acre parcel. A road and residential units are planned for the secondary ridgeline (see Figure 7.0-1), but the landform alteration of this ridgeline would be less than that under the proposed project. Residential pads would generally be located within the lowlands and along drainage floors, and the higher ridgelines would not 1 be disturbed. The reconstituted Hunters Green development would substantially alter the landfomvs on the west slope of the project site, but overall grading would be about 50% of that proposed by the project. i e. Construction noise levels would cause similar short term impacts as those associated with the proposed project, but because of the lower amount of grading necessary, these temporary impacts would occur over a shorter time frame. Traffic noise generated by the residential estates would not cause an !' exceedance of City criteria along access routes, but would represent a substantial increase in existing noise levels along Oak Spring Canyon Road. The residential estate pads located in the southeast corner of the 160 acre parcel would be located a minimum of 400 feet from the property line and the adjacent ' gravel pit, with a deed restriction extending 210 feet from the comer of the property that disallows any structures in that portion of the lot in order to provide a buffer between the residential lot and the adjacent mining use. However, noise levels from grading activity in the mine pit near the property line could result in sound levels exceeding a CNEL of 65 dBA at the nearest residence, which would be a significant impact. This impact could be reduced by the construction of a sound barrier (concrete block wall) along the property line. ■ Other Issues. This alternative would not require annexation of additional land into the City and would be in compliance with existing zones and land use designations. It would substantially increase the I' City of Santa Ctarita 7.5 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 7.0 Alternatives exposure of residential units to wildfire hazard, with the Oak Spring Canyon development surrounded on three sides by brush. This alternative would require the paving of Oak Spring Canyon Road to the project site, and would extend a paved road and urban infrastructure to the south property line of the 160 acre parcel. Such an extension of infrastructure would be growth inducing and would likely result in a request for subdivision of the 103 acre southeasterly parcel into residential estate units at the current planned land use density. Section 7.5 describes the environmental effects associated with such development. 7.2 WEST SLOPE RESIDENTIAL/OAK SPRING GOLF COURSE This alternative revises the proposed land use plan to place all of the proposed residential uses on the west slopes of the project site within the Sand Canyon area, while only the golf courses would be located within Oak Spring Canyon. Figure 7.0-2 provides a schematic illustration of this alternative development concept. This alterative would essentially provide for development of the existing Hunters Green and Tract No. 45148 entitlements, while changing the Tract 47803 entitlement from residential estate land use to primarily recreational. Under this alternative, both golf courses could be built in Oak Spring Canyon with a few holes winding through the west slope residential area, or only one golf course would be built and the City would not annex the southeasterly 103 acre parcel. In addition, this alternative would relocate the driving range, clubhouse, andmaintenance facilities towards the eastern property line. Access through this site would be provided via a main road.from Sand Canyon that extends east -west through the site. It would cross the secondary ridgeline and then extend eastward across the golf course to the clubhouse. This primary access road would be a public street until it enters the golf course, at which point it would become private. A paved secondary access would be provided in the west comer via Live Oak Canyon Springs Road near Trail Ridge Road. Another primary/secondary access could be provided along the northern property boundary via Oak Spring Canyon Road, which is currently a dirt road. Under this alternative, it is anticipated that either the applicant alone or in conjunction with development that would occur on the parcel to the north of the golf course would pave this road to the intersection with Lost Canyon Road. Golf course users would then access the course from the north via Lost Canyon Road rather than through the west slope residential area. If this were to occur, the residential community could then become gated. Grading under this alternative would be approximately 470,000 to 490,000 cubic yards on the west slope of the property, with an additional 300,000 to 350,000 cubic yards for the fust golf course located primarily in the north end of Oak Spring Canyon and about 400,000 to 450,000 cubic yards more for the second course. About 80-110 coast live oak trees would be removed under this alternative, with about 40 of these coming from the west slope area and the remainder from Oak Spring Canyon. Earth Resources. This alternative would involve a lower amount of grading than the proposed project, but would still substantially alter the existing landform. Residential units would be exposed to geologic hazards within a slightly more unstable area,, but as is illustrated by the residential development south of City of Santa Clarita 7-6 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR V • VA 0 Road EM Residential Area 0 1200 2400MWMMMMWM� ZZ Golf Course Scale in Feet Base Map: USGS Mint Canyon Quadrangle West Slope Residential/ Oak Springs T Golf Course Alternative NORTH r Figure 7.0-2 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 7.0 Alternatives the project site, onsite geologic hazards can be adequately mitigated through standard grading requirements. HvdroloU, Drainage, Water. This alternative would have similar effects as the proposed project. Residential uses along the Live Oak Springs Canyon creek would be exposed to an existing shallow flood zone. A debris basin would be constructed that would reduce the existing hazards on Sand Canyon Road and to those residential uses located downstream of the debris basin. AirQua . This alternative would have similar air quality impacts as the proposed project if both golf courses are constructed. However, if only one golf course were developed, fewer trips would be associated with that use at the site and emissions for all air pollutants would drop below the SCAQMD threshold levels for the operational phase. Construction phase air quality impacts would be similar as the proposed project and would also be significant for this alternative. BioloQv. This alternative would have similar impacts as the proposed project since a -similar land area would undergo construction. However, under this alternative there would be reduced grading on the slopes of the City -designated secondary ridgeline, preserving slightly more chaparral vegetation. If only one golf course were built, this alternative would retain a greater net habitat value than the proposed project. But construction of a second golf course under this alternative would require the location of more golf holes in the southeast annexation parcel, which would disturb a greater amount of the highest value per acre habitat at the project site. With two golf courses, this alternative would have slightly greater impacts on biological resources, which would be significant and unavoidable. Transportation/Circulation. The single golf course alternative would generate fewer trips, but as noted in Section 5.5, the existing road capacity is adequate to meet the demands created by full build -out of the proposed project. An alternative means of access could potentially be developed for the golf course under this alternative via Oak Spring Canyon Road or an extension of a road from the area north of the golf course. Under this scenario, right and left turning movements at the Lost Canyon/Sand Canyon intersection would be associated with the project rather than just through traffic. This unsignalized intersection currently operates at LOS A, and the addition of golf course traffic turning movements would not significantly degrade the intersection level of service. If a road is extended through the parcel to the north, golf course traffic would be expected to have a minimal effect on the new roadway system. Paving of Oak Spring Canyon Road along the current alignment to access the golf course may create a traffic safety hazard because this road currently has a hairpin curve about 800 feet west of the site. The road has both vertical and horizontal curves at this location that limits sight distances and thereby increases the potential for traffic accidents. Because of limited right-of-way availability, this safety issue could not be resolved along this roadway. e the 'cs. The secondary ridgeline would be less disturbed under this alternative, but a road -cut over the ridgetop would still be visible to offsite viewers along Soledad Canyon Road and the SRI freeway. Grading on the west slopes would be reduced and required cut slopes would be slightly lower under this Gty of Santa wanta 7-8 I fi r— L Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 7.0 Alternatives alternative, but there would still be a substantial amount of grading. The relocation of the parking lot and clubhouse to the eastern property line would reduce visual and lighting effects associated with this use for the adjacent landowners in the existing Oak Spring Canyon community. However, the proposed location is also adjacent to rural residential land uses, and though the parking lot would be within a side drainage and somewhat screened from the adjacent parcels, it could still have similar lighting effects as the proposed project location. Noise. Traffic noise generated by this alternative would be the same as the proposed project if primary access is via Sand Canyon Road for the golf course. If an alternative access is developed, project -related traffic noise along Sand Canyon Road would be reduced, while it would be increased along the alternative access route. Given the level of traffic generated by the golf course use, traffic noise would not create a significant noise impact that causes an exceedance of the City's criteria for compatibility with residential land uses. Construction noise under this alternative would remain short term unavoidably significant. Residential uses on the site would be less exposed to noise from the offsite mining operations under this alternative, but as noted in Section 5.7, this is a less than significant impact of the proposed project. Other Issues. This alternative would reduce perceived land use conflicts associated with the current location of the maintenance yard and parking lot for adjacent landowners, but potentially introduce these problems to another set of landowners. If Oak Spring Canyon Road is used as an access route for the golf course, it may be perceived as disruption in the physical characteristics of this rural residential community. From a design perspective that relates to the success of the proposed recreational use, the location of the clubhouse and other facilities on the eastern property line creates a more difficult design for the golf course layout. Standard golf course design is to have the 1 st and 10th holes start at the clubhouse and its facilities, with the 9th and 18th holes ending at the facilities. With the proposed golf course area for this alternative, the holes adjacent to the residential uses would be relatively distant from the clubhouse and its facilities and may not provide for a workable fairway arrangement. It is also noted that this alternative provides a substantially reduced edge between onsite residential uses and the golf course and therefore may not meet the basic objectives of the project applicant to develop a golf course -oriented residential community. This alternative may be considered to be growth inducing to the area east of the clubhouse and north of the Angeles National Forest boundary because the project would extend water, sewer, and utilities to near the eastern property line and also potentially provide better road access. 7.3 REDUCED GRADING eThis alternative proposes the same uses as the proposed project, but would reduce grading by 50% to 1.1 ' million cubic yards and the removal of oak trees by 50% to 65 coast live oaks through the reduction in City of Santa C1ariY 7-9 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 7.0 Alternatives lot sizes and golf course area. To reduce grading, the western golf course would need to become more circuitous around existing ridges, and generally steeper with shorter holes. The residential lots located in the annexation parcel would be relocated from the hillside to the valley floor. The reduction in grading may necessitate the elimination of the driving range in order to provide sufficient area for both golf courses. Earth Resources. As with the proposed project, geologic hazards associated with the site could be mitigated through the use of standard construction measures. Lbdrolggy. Drainage. Water. This alternative would retain steeper slopes than under the proposed project and debris potential would be higher than under the proposed project, but less than existing conditions. Other effects would remain the same as under the proposed project. Air Qua . This alternative would have the same operational air quality impacts as the proposed project. The reduction in grading would not reduce daily construction emissions because the same number and type of equipment would be needed to effectively grade the site; however, the construction period would be less and the net emissions reduced. It is noted that the reductions in net construction emissions is not necessarily pertinent to air quality impacts since these occur within a daily time frame (ie: total emissions on a particular day combined with daily meteorology largely determines whether or not the ambient air quality standards would be exceeded). The reduction in timeframe is important from a dust nuisance perspective for the adjacent residences. BioloQv. It is presumed that a reduced grading alternative would reduce the amount of chaparral vegetation removed from the site, thereby decreasing the impact on the populations of Peirson's morning-glory and the rufous -crowned sparrow. However, this alternative may necessitate additional grading in the lowlands of the southeastern parcel in order to fit both golf courses into the site. This would result in a decrease in the amount of the highest quality per acre habitat. This alternative would also reduce the number of oak trees cut, but the amount of oak woodland retained as undisturbed habitat would be expected to decrease. The net habitat contribution of this alternative and the proposed project would be about the same. TranZortation/Circulation. This alternative would have the same less than significant effects as the proposed project on traffic and circulation. esthetic . Reduced grading would decrease the landform alteration of the secondary ridgeline and possibly preserve this ridge more closely to its present form than the proposed project. The effects of light and glare from the parking lot are assumed to be the same under this alternative, though it is likely that these facilities would need to be relocated into a lowland area in order to meet the reduced grading objectives of this alternative. oise. This alternative would be expected to have the same effects as the proposed project in the long term. Construction noise levels would cause similar short term impacts as those associated with the city or Santa crania 7-10 I Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section. 7.0 Alternatives proposed project, but because of the lower amount of grading necessary, these temporary impacts would occur over a shorter time frame. Other Issues. The specific layout of the golf course has not been determined for this alternative because it is unknown how achievable this alternative is from a golf course design perspective. It is possible that this alternative would result in golf course configurations that are too steep and too circuitous to be playable. 7.4 MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT This alternative would provide for residential development along the west slope of the project site on about 156 acres, while sand and gravel extraction would occur within the Oak Springs Canyon area, similar to the adjacent Gilibrand quarry (Figure 7.0-3). A single golf course of about 100 acres would be designed that would be surrounded or adjoined by 50 single family lots. The land use designation for these homes could be at the currently requested residential estate (RE) and residential very low (RVL) zones if extensive easements for the golf course were provided across the lots (similar to that proposed by the project for lots 16-46). Alternatively, the golf course could be divided into a separate parcel(s), with the residential area designated as residential low (maximum 2.2 units per gross acre, 20,000 square foot minimum net lot area). This latter designation may require a General Plan Amendment. The level of development would still be consistent with the densities found in the Sand Canyon area. Grading for the residential development and golf course under this alternative would be about 500,000 to 520,000 cubic yards. The number of coast live oak trees removed would be approximately 50 for the residential development. Access for the residential portion of this alternative would be provided via Sand Canyon Road and Live Oak Springs Canyon Road from the western portion of the property, with no road grading or extension over the secondary ridgeline that divides Sand Canyon from Oak Spring Canyon. If needed, emergency access could potentially be provided by acquisition of easements either to Clearlake Drive, Pashley Street, or a connecting route to Oak Spring Canyon Road via the drainage between Graceton Drive and Pashley Street. Gravel extraction would occur within the State -identified resource area of alluvial deposits in Oak Spring Canyon and Rabbit Canyon adjacent to the existing excavations. Total sand and gravel resources available are unknown, but are estimated as 1.2 - 2.2 million cubic yards (1.8 - 3.3 million tons), or an approximate 7-13 year supply if excavated at a rate of 250,000 tons per year. Given this limited amount of material, it is not expected that a separate processing facility for the site would be economically feasible, rather the excavated material would be hauled to an off-site location for processing. It is expected -that standard highway trucks with a 16 cubic yard capacity would haul the material rather than larger off-highway trucks such as are used to haul ore on the Gillibrand site. Excavation equipment is estimated to include a wheeled loader, one bulldozer, one roller, one water truck, and three haul trucks. A total of 42 truck trips per day would be needed to haul material to the processing plant, while 34 truck City of Santa Clarita 7-11 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR i� '� )� �7V Road QQ Sand and Gravel Extraction Area 0 1200_ 2400 ® Golf Course Scale in Feet Base Map: USGS Mint Canyon Quadrangle Mixed Use Development Alternative NORTH Figure 7.0-3 I I I I 11 I i I I I r] Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 7.0 Alternatives trips per day would occur to haul processed material to the market. Loading at the processing plant is expected to require a single wheeled loader. Depending on the operator, the haul road for the gravel extraction would either be a connection to the existing haul roads on the adjacent Angeles National Forest land, or a new haul road would be constructed down the main branch of Oak Spring Canyon creek, exiting the creek at Whitewater Canyon Road or at the railroad underpass of the creek and Oak Spring Canyon Road. The haul trucks would continue west on Lost Canyon Road to the freeway and thence to an existing processing facility. The gravel extraction is expected to either directly or indirectly remove 80-90% of the coast live oak trees located within Oak Spring Canyon and Rabbit Canyon. This would total approximately 220 - 250 coast live oaks. The southeastern parcel would not be annexed to the City under this alternative. A General Plan Amendment to Industrial would be required for the 160 acre portion that is within the City to allow the mining use. The Los Angeles County General Plan may also need to be amended to allow mining uses in the agriculturally zoned southeastern parcel. Earth Resources. This alternative would allow exploitation of a known mineral resource. Open pit mining within the canyon bottom would not create any geologic hazards provided that the pit slopes are not overly steepened. Construction of the residential uses on the west slope would involve a lower amount of grading than the proposed project, but would still substantially alter the existing landform. Residential units would be exposed to geologic hazards within a slightly more unstable area, but as is illustrated by the residential development south of the project site, onsite geologic hazards can be adequately mitigated through standard grading requirements. Hydrology. Drainage. Water. Flooding exposure and resolution of existing problems would be the same under this alternative as for the proposed project in the Sand Canyon area. The mining pits could serve to reduce the amount of debris flowing down Oak Spring Canyon during the 50 -year peak discharge; however, as the mining pits would capture the debris, water exiting from the pits would be clear flows that would have an increased potential to cause erosion in downstream areas. This may necessitate some downstream bank protection to decrease flooding problems. The sand and gravel operation would require water primarily for dust control because offsite processing is presumed under this alternative. Water for dust control would require between 2,000 to 20,000 gallons per day (1.6 to 16 acre-feet per year; the average residential use is about 1 acre-foot per year). If this water is obtained from offsite wells, no effect would occur to the local groundwater supply. If this water comes from onsite wells, it would reduce the supply that would otherwise be available for other local well users. 7-13 city of Santa clanta Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 7.0 Alternatives Excavation within the pits would not be expected to be below the groundwater level and contamination of the groundwater from this source would not be expected. Air Ouali This alternative would result in a reduction of the emissions of carbon monoxide and reactive organic compounds as compared to the proposed project, but would substantially increase the amount of sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter emitted. The latter two emissions would substantially exceed SCAQMD thresholds for daily emissions and would cause a significant and unavoidable impact on air quality (see Appendix C for calculations). The use of haul roads along the Oak Spring Canyon drainage would result in substantial dust nuisance impacts for those parcels located along this route. BioloQv. This alternative would result in reduced grading in the Sand Canyon watershed because of the fewer number of homes associated with the project. In addition, grading in the chaparral area would be virtually eliminated and no significant impacts would occur to the Peirson's morning-glory or the rufous -crowned sparrow. In the short term, the alluvial scrub.vegetation in the northern end of Oak Spring Canyon would be preserved until the pits were extended to this area, this would decrease impacts to the coast homed lizard in the short-term, but eventually similar impacts to this species would occur as under the proposed project. Development of the gravel pits would remove all of the alluvial fan scrub vegetation and the majority of the coast live oaks within Oak Spring Canyon (600+ trees). This would result in a significant and unavoidable impact to these biological resources. Impacts to sensitive species would be expected to increase because roost and nesting sites for sensitive raptor species would be removed. The net habitat value of the site under this alternative would be substantially less than that under the proposed project. Trangportatlon/Circulation. The residential uses in the Sand Canyon area would not create a significant amount of traffic that could affect area intersections. The number of truck trips associated with the gravel operation would be minimal (42 trips per day) and would not affect the operational characteristics of any area intersection. Depending on which haul route is used, this alternative may create a potential safety hazard. If the Oak Spring Canyon drainage is used as a haul route, the crossing under the railroad trestle becomes a choke -point with somewhat limited visibility where heavy duty vehicles would enter the narrow road. Given the small number of truck trips associated with the gravel operations (about 5 per daytime hour), this is not expected to be a significant impact. estheti . The secondary ridgeline would be preserved under this alternative and the residential development in Sand Canyon would be similar to adjacent development. The gravel pits would initially be isolated from adjacent residential views until excavation occurs in the northern portion of the canyon. The pits may be considered a significant decrease in aesthetics at this future date. The mining pits would not be readily visible from Soledad Canyon Road or the SR14 freeway. Generally, this alternative would have less of a visual effect on general public viewsheds than the proposed project. City of Santa Clarita 7-14 I i I I I I I i I I J LJ I I Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 7.0 Alternatives i e. Traffic noise associated with the 50 residential units and the haul trucks would be less than the proposed project and would result in similarly less than significant impacts. Mining operations in the southeastern parcel would be sufficiently distant from existing residences that no significant noise impacts would occur. However, if mining occurs in the northern portion of the 160 acre parcel, significant noise impacts would occur to the adjacent residential users. This noise impact could be mitigated by the construction of a 12 -foot high berm on the west and east property lines. Other Issues. As previously stated, this alternative would require a General Plan Amendment in the City to allow for the proposed mining uses in this location. Such a designation may encourage similar industrial uses to be located in the area north of the project site. Given the availability of the rail line in this location, the relatively near freeway access, and the location of other industrial uses to the northeast, the development of an industrial business park in this location may be a reasonable alternative land use configuration. The environmental and planning implications of this concept is beyond the scope of this alternatives analysis. 7.5 EXISTING GENERAL PLAN BUILD -OUT This alternative considers the environmental effects if the project area were developed in accordance with the maximum density allowed under the City of Santa Clarita General Plan. This alternative includes the annexation of the southeasterly parcel as an area conceptualized to become part of the City under the General Plan. The western slope and 160 acre parcel are designated as Residential Very Low (1.0 dwelling unit per acre) and the annexation parcel is designated as Residential Estate (0.5 dwelling unit per acre). Assuming that approximately 12% of the land would be used for infrastructure (roads and drainage channels), General Plan buildout would allow approximately 278 units to be built within the existing City area and an additional 46 units in the annexation area, for a total of 324 residences. Grading under this alternative would be approximately 460,000 cubic yards for the 160 acre parcel, about 700,000 cubic yards along the western slope, and about 200,000 cubic yards in the annexation parcel (assuming that most of the development would occur along the valley floor at this density rather than along the ridgelines). Total grading would approximate 1.4 million cubic yards. Both Oak Spring Canyon and Rabbit Canyon creeks would be channeled within the project site. Because of the higher residential densities, it would be anticipated that a greater number of oaks would be lost, particularly in the southeastern portion of the site. The estimated number of oaks removed under this alternative is 140 scrub oaks and 150 coast live oaks. Earth Resources. This alternative would involve a slightly lower amount of grading than the proposed project, but would still substantially alter the existing landform. Residential units would be exposed to geologic hazards within a slightly more unstable area on the west slope, but as is illustrated by the residential development south of the project site, onsite geologic hazards can be adequately mitigated through standard grading requirements. 7-15 City of Santa Clarita Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 7.0 Alternatives &-drolonv. Drainage. Water. This alternative would require channeling of Oak Spring Canyon creek throughout the development area. This would reduce flooding impacts on the site, but may result in increased erosion potential downstream. Environmental effects in the Live Oak Springs Canyon drainage would be the same asunderthe proposed project. This alternative would reduce the amount of recharge to the underlying groundwater because of the introduction of a greater amount of impermeable surface than under the proposed project, but this is not expected to result in a substantial impact to the groundwater. The residential uses would introduce a potential for contamination of the local groundwater with urban related pollutants (oil and grease, soap, pesticides, fertilizer, etc.) that are washed off in the surface water and then percolate into the groundwater downstream of the site, but this problem could be minimized by the incorporation of sand filters in the drop basins that collect runoff from the streets. This alternative would use imported water and would not cause a water supply problem that could be associated with use of the local groundwater supply. Air Ouali This alternative would result in similar construction grading impacts as the proposed project, and would result in greater carbon monoxide and reactive organic compounds emissions than the project. Similar to the proposed project, these emissions would cause a significant and unmitigable impact. BioloQv. This alternative would be expected to convert about 70-85% of the onsite biological resources into suburban landscaping and residences based on the existing development south of the project site. All of the alluvial fan scrub vegetation and the wildlife associated with this habitat would be removed, with urban tolerant species replacing existing site species in the retained oaks scattered through the suburban landscaping. The amount of chaparral retained within the site is expected to be the same as that under the proposed project and impacts to this particular habitat and associated species would be the same. This alternative would not create any wetland -type habitat or revegetate cut slopes with native species; therefore the net habitat value of this alternative would be substantially less than that under the proposed project. Impacts to sensitive species would be correspondingly greater also. This alternative would have an additional impact on the biological resources of the adjacent Angeles National Forest since there would not be a golf course buffer between the forest lands and feral cats and dogs associated with residential development. Transportation/Circulation. This alternative would have virtually the same average daily trip generation as the proposed project, but would increase the directional peak hour flows by about a factor of three (280% for morning and 320% for evening). Depending on the ultimate road network, this could create a significant impact at the Sand Canyon/Lost Canyon intersection sufficient that traffic light wan -ants would be met at this location. This alternative would also increase the general level of congestion at the Sand Canyon Road/freeway ramps, but as with the proposed project, this existing problem should be resolved by the bridge replacement. City of Santa Clarita 7-16 I Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 7.0 Alternatives I I i CJ I V I I Aesthetics. This alternative would result in a similar level of landform alteration as the reconstituted tracts alternative and slightly less than the proposed project since the additional residential. development permitted would occur primarily in the annexation parcel. The secondary ridgeline would be altered by the siting of a primary residential collector through this area and the construction of homes along the road. Depending on the actual design plans, "skylining" of residences could occur along this secondary ridge. In general, this alternative is deemed to have a similar aesthetic effect as the proposed project. i e. Traffic associated with General Plan buildout would not increase noise levels along access routes to the site above City criteria. Residences located in Oak Spring Canyon would be potentially subjected to substantial noise levels if mining operations are reinstituted in the pits adjacent to the project site. This significant noise impact could be mitigated for the residences located in the canyon bottom through the construction of an approximate 12 foot wall and berm combination along the adjoining property line. Construction of this sound barrier could result in drainage problems as the wall would block flows from Oak Spring Canyon and Rabbit Canyon. This problem would be resolved by construction of reinforced concrete culverts under the berm sufficient to pass the 50 -year peak discharge event. Other Issues. Construction of this alternative may encourage the development of the parcel located to the north of the site as the existing planned residential densities (Oak Springs Estates, Tract No. 34466). Development would also extend infrastructure to the eastern property line, encouraging potential future growth of the canyon area north of the Angeles National Forest, similar to the growth inducing potential of the current entitlements. 7.6 EQUESTRIAN/RESIDENTIAL/GOLF COURSE This project alternative would add an equestrian facility to the southerly end of the golf course, with an equestrian trail located along the eastern and southern boundaries of the site that connects with proposed and existing Angeles National Forest trails. Equestrian -style lots at greater than 1 acre in size would be located south of the parking lot near this facility. The golf course commercial facilities would be relocated to the northem portion of the annexation area. The Oak Spring Canyon area would remain primarily as a golf course, with golf course oriented residential located at the Sand Canyon entrance to the site, along Live Oak Springs Canyon Road, and along the site access road northwest of the clubhouse. While a private access road through the west slope golf course would be provided, similar to the proposed project, the primary access to the clubhouse would be from the extension of Live Oak Springs Canyon Road. The proposed roads south of the clubhouse area to the equestrian facility would be public, whereas the roads north of the clubhouse could be private and gated. Figure 7.04 provides a conceptual illustration of this alternative. Under this alternative, it is proposed that the ridgeline area above about 1800 feet would be minimally graded, only enough to accommodate the access road between the Sand Canyon drainage and the Oak Spring Canyon drainage. Total grading for this alternative is estimated at 1.5 - 2.0 million cubic yards. A similar number of oak trees would be removed under this alternative as for the proposed project. 7-17 City of Santa Clarita Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR rq 4 tea'. . 11 !I 1L .. rl I� J i_• � � 11 Road ® Golf Course Base Map: USGS Mint Canyon Quadrangle Equestrian Trail 0 1200 2400 Scale in Feet Equestrian/Residential/Golf Course Alternative T NORTH Figure 7.0-4 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 7.0 Alternatives Earth Resources. This alternative would have the same effects on earth resources as the proposed project. HvdroloU, Drainage. Water. This alternative would have the same effects on drainage, flooding, and water resources as the proposed project. Air Quality. This alternative would generate approximately the same amount of air pollutants as the proposed project. This alternative would slightly reduce the acreage associated with the golf courseand so the traffic generation and subsequent air pollutant emissions estimates, but would introduce an additional recreational use that would generate traffic and air emissions. Assuming that these two recreational uses would have similar per acre trip generation, the air pollutant emissions would be similar. iB oloQv. This alternative would increase impacts to the alluvial fan scrub vegetation dominated by oaks located in the southern end of the site. The equestrian facility could potentially remove a few acres of this highest valuable habitat and have associated significant adverse impacts. The net habitat value of this alternative is expected to be similar, but somewhat less than the proposed project. Transportation/Circulation. This alternative would generate approximately the same amount of traffic as the proposed project. The equestrian facility would not generate substantial trips during the.typical peak hours, rather it would primarily be a weekend trip generator. Therefore; no significant difference in traffic effects is anticipated for this alternative compared to the proposed project. Aesthetics. This alternative proposes grading alterations to reduce the amount of landform alteration visible along the secondary ridgeline from Soledad Canyon Road and the SR14 freeway. This would reduce the visual effect as compared to the proposed project, but would still substantially alter this landform. The relocation of the clubhouse facilities would reduce any light and glare effects or visual effects relative to the adjacent Oak Spring community. ise. This alternative would have the same noise effects as the proposed project. Other Issues. This alternative would reduce perceived land use conflicts associated with the current location of the maintenance yard and parking lot for adjacent landowners. From a design perspective that relates to the success of the proposed recreational use, the location of the clubhouse and other facilities further to the south creates a more difficult design for the golf course layout. Standard golf course design is to have the 1 st and 10th holes start at the clubhouse and its facilities, with the 9th and 18th holes ending at the facilities. In an attempt to correct for this problem, a snack shack with restroom facilities and other amenities is proposed for the west slope golf course. This would allow the golf course design to have the 9th hole end and the 10th hole start at the snack shack. This alternative introduces an additional land use to the site with an equestrian facility. It is unknown whether or not lots could be sold adjacent to such a facility or if it would be deemed an important city or Santa wanra 7-19 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 7.0 Alternatives amenity that would meet the objectives of the applicant. It would, however, help meet the recreational goals of the City. 7.7 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE The State CEQA Guidelines §15126(d) requires the identification of the "environmentally superior" alternative among those discussed in the document, and if this is the "no project" alternative, than an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives is to be identified. The environmentally superior alternative is that which would cause the least amount of adverse change in the physical environment. This typically is the "no project" alternative, since this alternative generally does not involve any physical changes in the environment unless an ongoing detrimental activity is occurring. In this instance, the no development scenario of the "no project" alternative is not likely to continue in the long term because of the existing entitlements granted to the individual parcels that comprise the development site. The existing entitlements would result in less than significant operational air quality impacts and somewhat reduced aesthetic impacts, but would result in greater biological impacts, significant noise impacts, and potentially significant growth -inducing impacts. Therefore, the "no project" alternative is not judged to be superior to the proposed project. The reduced grading alternative would be superior to the project by reducing visual impacts, but would retain similar significant and unmitigable air quality and biology impacts. It is judged that of the alternatives examined that can feasibly meet the applicant's objectives while balanced against environmental effects, the west slope residential alternative (one golf course) and the equestrian/residential/golf course alternative would be superior to the project, largely because of a reduction in biological and aesthetic impacts and a resolution of some neighborhood concerns. Both of these alternatives are essentially revised project design concepts for the site. The economic feasibility of these alternatives is unknown. 7-20 I 11 Hunters Green Residential. Development and Golf Course EIR Section 8.0 References and Agencies Contacted 8.1 8.0 REFERENCES AND AGENCIES CONTACTED Balogh, James C. and William J. Walker (1992). Golf Course Management & Construction: Environmental Issues. Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc. (1973). Fundamentals and Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise. f Prepared for the Office of Environmental Policy, Federal Highway Administration. PB 222-703. California Department of Transportation (July 1994). 1993 Traffic Volumes on California State Highways. California Department of Transportation [Caltrans] (January 1987). California Vehicle Noise Emission Levels (Final Report). Report No. FHWA/CA/TL-87/03. California Environmental, Inc. (May 1989). Preliminary Environmental Audit SE 1/4 Section 24, T4N, R15W San Bernardino Meridian Vicinity of Oak Spring Canyon Road, Los Angeles County, California California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board [ARB] (1991, 1992, 1993). California Air Quality Data. Annual summaries of air quality data for gaseous and particulate ■ pollutants. Carlson, Kay (April 6, 1994). Oak Tree Report - Northeast Corner of Sand Canyon Road and Live Oak Springs Canyon Road Santa Clarita, California. Prepared for Land Concepts, Inc. City of Santa Clarita (June 1991). City of Santa Clarita General Plan. City of Santa Clarita (November 1992). Unified Development Code. �j Cohen, StuartZ. (February1990). The Cape Cod Study. Reported in Balogh and Walker, 1992. Dames and Moore (January 1990). Determination of 404 Jurisdiction Tentative Tract Map No. 47803 Oak Springs Canyon Los Angeles County, California. Davy & Associates, Inc. (April 1990). Acoustical Analysis Tentative Tract 34466. In Planning and Design Solutions (November 1990), Oak Springs Estates FEIR, Vol. II, Appendix E. Driscoll, F.G. (1986). Groundwater and Wells. 2nd Edition, Johnson Division, St. Paul, Min. City of ; 8-1 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 8.0 References and Agencies Contacted Heter, J. C. (1995). "The Soledad Canyon Ilmenite Mine (P.W. Gillibrand Co.) San Gabriel Mountains, Southern California7in Tabilio, M. and Dupras, D.L., eds. (1995). 29th Forum on the Geology of Industrial Minerals: Proceedings, .California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 110, p. 145-154. Frank Hovore & Associates (1995). Oak Springs Golf Course Tentative Tract 52004 Biological Constraints Assessment. Geo/Systems, Inc. (April 1989). Preliminary Soils and Engineering Geologic Investigation Report for Proposed Tentative Tract No. 45148 Sand Canyon at Comet Way, City of Santa Clarita, California. Gorian and Associates (March 1995). Robinson Golf Design, Inc. Geotechnical Feasibility of Proposed 36 Hole Golf Course and Residential Development Vesting Tentative Track 52004, City of Santa Clarita, California Harris, Cyril M. (1979). Handbook of Noise Control. McGraw-Hill, Inc. Heath, Ralph C. (1987), Basic Ground -Water Hydrology. US Geological Survey Water -Supply Paper 2220. Independent Environmental Consultants (May 1989). Biological Resources of Tentative Tract No. 47830 Oak Springs Canyon Road, Los Angeles County, California. Institute of Transportation Engineers (1991). Trip Generation. Fifth Edition. Institute of Transportation Engineers (1988). Transportation and Land Development. Joseph, S.E., R.V. Miller, S.S. Tan, and R.W. Goodman (1987). Mineral Land Classification of the Greater Los Angeles Area: Classification of Sand and Gravel Resource Areas, Saugus -Newhall Production -Consumption Region and Palmdale Production -Consumption Region. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 143, Part V. Linsley, Ray K., Jr., M.A. Kohler, and J.L.H. Paulhus. (1975) Hydrology for Engineers. L. Newman Design Group, Inc. & Frank Hovore & Associates (March 9, 1995). Draft Oak Springs Golf Course Native Revegetation & Monitoring Plan, Tentative Tract No. 52004, Santa Clarita, California. Prepared for Robinson Golf Design, Inc. Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (1995). Santa Clarita Valley Groundwater Contours for Fall 1994. map. City of Santa Clarita 8-2 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 8.0 References and Agencies Contacted Lohman, S.W. (1979). Ground -Water Hydraulics. US Geological Survey Professional Paper 708. National Research Council (1994). Highway Capacity Manual. Transportation Research Special Report 209. Planning and Design Solutions (November 13, 1990). Final Environmental Impact Report for Oak Springs Estates. SCH# 89060728. Prepared for the City of Santa Clarita. Volumes I and H. Sikand Engineering Associates (May 1995). Hydrology Study for Tract No. 52004. South Coast Air Quality Management District (November 1993). CEQA Air Quality Handbook. South Coast Air Quality Management District (January 1994). Mobile Assessment for Air Quality Impacts, MAAQI Computer Program, Version 1.00. Sub Surface Surveys (May 1995). Groundwater Investigation, Hunters Green. Tetra Tech, Inc. (September 1991). Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Gillibrand Soledad Canyon Mining Operations, Angeles National Forest, California. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Angeles National Forest. Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences (1980). Interim Materials on Highway Capacity. Transportation Circular #212. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (1970). Soil Survey Antelope. Valley Area California. United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines (1994). 1993 Minerals Yearbook. Volume I: Annual Report and Volume R: Area Reports: Domestic 1993-1994. United States Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA] (1985). Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. EPA AP -42. Supplements added from the EPA Bulletin Board System. United States Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA] (December 31, 1971). Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations. PB 206 717. United States Geological Survey (March 1978). Water -Quality Investigation Upper Santa Clara River Basin, California. Water Resources Investigations 77-99 Yates, E.B. and J.H. Wiese (1988). Hydrogeology and Water Resources of the Los Osos Valley Ground - Water Basin San Luis Obispo County, California. US Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations Report 88-4081. City of Santa Clarita 8-3 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 8.0 References and Agencies Contacted 8.2 AGENCIESANDIVIDUALS CONTACTED Glenn Adamick, City of Santa Clarita Department of Community Development Christine Kudija, City of. Santa Clarita Department of Community Development Chris Price, City of Santa Clarita Department of Building and Engineering Services Dr. Gary Crosby, SubSurface Surveys Dr. James Henrickson, California State University, Los Angeles Frank Hovore, Frank Hovore & Associates Dr. Lanny Lund, University of California Riverside Bill Marietta, Jr., Santa Clarita Water Company Doug Farmer, Sikand Engineering Associates Jerry Price, Sikand Engineering Associates 8.3 LIST OF PREPARERS This Environmental Impact Report was prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. under contract to the City of Santa Clarita. Glenn Adamick, Assistant Planner II, was the project coordinator for the City Community Development Department for the Revised EIR, while Christine Kudija, Environmental Coordinator, served in this primary role for the original EIR. Persons involved in data gathering, analysis, project management and quality control include: Rincon Consultants, Inc. Stephen Svete,:AICP, Principal, Project Director (Aesthetics) Duane Vander Pluym, D. Env., Principal, Project Manager (Biology, Hydrology, Air Quality, Noise, Land Use) Michael P. Gialketsis, REA, Principal Walter Hamann, CEG, RG, Principal (Earth Resources) Bill Calabrese, Islay Hill Computer Graphics (Aesthetics) Stephanie Vasconcellos, Associate Geologist Stephen Harrington, Associate Environmental Planner Traci Theis, Associate Environmental Scientist Penfield & Smith Engineers and Surveyors Craig Steward, P.E. (Peer Review Hydrology, original EIR) Wendell Nichols, P.E., CEG (Peer Review Earth Resources, original EIR) Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Kenneth Johnson, RE: (Traffic/Circulation) Serine Ciandella (Final Report - Traffic/Circulation) city of Santa Garita 8-4 I I I I I I I r, I! [_1 I CJ I I I APPENDIX A INITIAL STUDY L1 EARTH Discussion oflmpacts The subject site, consisting of approximately 411 acres, is located generally east of Sand Canyon Road and north of live Oak Springs Canyon Road within the Sand Canyon area of the City. The site is bounded on the north, south, and west by large lot single family residential development and on the east by the Angeles National Forest. The project site is characterized by flood plains, canyons and sloping terrain. The site is presently undeveloped. Part of the submittal package included a preliminary geotechnical report. . GRADING According to the applicant's environmental questionnaire, approximately 240 acres of the site is expected to be graded in conjunction with the development.' The applicant has indicated that grading of 22 million cubic yards of cut and 2.2 million cubic yards of fill is necessary to accommodate the project. The ,,,a„i.,,um depth of cut is 60', with the average depth being 10'. The maximum depth of fill is 45', with the average depth being U. All grading shall conform to the City's I1111side Ordinance. Due to the relatively large scale of the grading activities, additional information in the form of an environmental impact report (EIR) is required. 1 Fm.r cmES The project site includes both elevated hills and ridgelines. The site contains an identified secondary ridgehne, which would be altered by the development. Additional information, in the form of an environmental impact report, is necessary to determine conformance with the City's Hillside Ordinance. SEISMIC The project site is not located within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone established for the San Gabriel Fault. A Fault Investigation and Geological Mapping Studies has not been conducted for the subject property. The potential for impacts described in the above sections necessitate additional information in the form of an environmental impact report (Community Development). 2. AIR Discussion of Impacts The project will have short-term air quality impacts associated with project grading and construction. The use of machinery for grading and construction. will create dust, emissions, and objectionable odors. These impacts will be alleviated, as the applicant is required to adhere to Building and Safety requirements which control the short-term, intermittent impacts related to grading and construction. Long-term impacts would be 4. related to the automobile vehicle trips generated by the golf course, accessory facilities, and the 83 single family residences. Due to the relatively large scale of the project, further information in the form of an environmental impact report is required to assess possible long-term impacts to air quality (Community Development). WATER Discussion. of Impacts Two USGS intermittent "blueline" streams flow through the project site. Portions of one stream, east of the project site, may have been altered and improved by on-going mining activities within the Angeles National Forest. Portions of the project site are located within floodway or floodplain areas. The project will alter the existing absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface runoff- As indicated in Section 1, more than ane -half of the site will be altered by grading activities. The addition of two -18 hole golf courses and accessory structures, required parking spaces, 83 single family residences, and roadways is expected to significantly affect existing drainage patterns, possibly decrease absorption rates, and may affect the water quality of existing wells within the region. Additional information in the form of an ETR is required to assess the potential impacts (Community Development). PLANTLIFE Discussion of Impacts The applicant has submitted detailed biota and oak reports which evaluate project impacts to the site's biotic resources. Both reports provide mitigation to project impacts. The project site contains 982 oak trees, of which 89 are of heritage size, and also contains chaparral, scrub vegetation and grasslands. The project proposes the removal of 138 scrub oak trees and 130 coast live oak trees, including seven heritage oak trees. The prciect is anticipated to signs crtly impact the existing condition of the site. Additional information in the form of an environmental impact report (EIR) is required to assess the potential impacts (Community Development). 5. ANIMAL LIFE Discussion of Impacts The applicant has submitted a detailed biota report which evaluates project impacts to the site's biotic resources. The report also addresses the project's effects on any wildlife movement and endangered species. The project is anticipated to significautly impact the existing condition of the site. Additional information in the form of an environmental impact report is required to assess the potential impacts (Community Development). ' 8. LAND USE Discussion, of Impacts ' The site is presently vacant and is zoned RVL (Residential Very Low), RE (Residential Estate), and A-1.2 (Light Agriculture - two acre minimum lot size). Portions of the property are located within the unincorporated area of Los Angeles County and are proposed to be annexed into the City. The project does propose a total of 83 single family residential Iots. The 83 lots would be clustered on approximately 123 acres, with the remaining acreage being comprised of -the golf course and accessory buildings. Clustering projects have previously been approved in Sand Canyon and are permitted by the City's Unified Development Code. A total of 51 residential lots would be located on property zoned A-1-2 and, located within the unincorporated area of Los Angeles County. This property is a part of the Crystal Springs development (Tract 32571), specifically lots 44 and 136, which have not been recorded. This development included clustering of the units, with the overall lot average meeting General Plan and zoning designations. In approving Tract 32571, the County required the developer to dedicate to the County the right to restrict the construction of more than one residence on each lot. There are existing approved entitlements on Portions of the property which allow for the construction of 222 single family residences, I ' 6. NOISE Discussion of Impacts Future construction of the facility may result in a short-term increase in ambient noise levels, due to the use of heavy equipment during project grading and construction. The applicant would be required to conform to applicable City codes that regulate hours of operation and permitted noise levels during development of the project. The project is expected to incrementally increase existing noise levels due to associated increases in traffic and human activity. The site is located adjacent to an on-going mining operation located in the National Forest. Noise from this existing use may impact residences proposed in conjunction with the project. Additional information in the form of an environmental impact report is required to assess the potential impacts (Community Development). i7. LIGHT AND GLAKE Discussion of Impacts The project will create a new source of light and glare to the immediate area. The Sand Canyon area can be characterized as "rural". The canyon is characterized by large lot single family residential and equestrian uses. Lighting proposed in conjunction with the ' project, specifically the parldng lot and club house area may be more intensive than lighting typically associated.with a standard residential project. Due to this potential impact, additional information in the form of and environmental impact report is required to asses potential impacts (Community Development). ' 8. LAND USE Discussion, of Impacts ' The site is presently vacant and is zoned RVL (Residential Very Low), RE (Residential Estate), and A-1.2 (Light Agriculture - two acre minimum lot size). Portions of the property are located within the unincorporated area of Los Angeles County and are proposed to be annexed into the City. The project does propose a total of 83 single family residential Iots. The 83 lots would be clustered on approximately 123 acres, with the remaining acreage being comprised of -the golf course and accessory buildings. Clustering projects have previously been approved in Sand Canyon and are permitted by the City's Unified Development Code. A total of 51 residential lots would be located on property zoned A-1-2 and, located within the unincorporated area of Los Angeles County. This property is a part of the Crystal Springs development (Tract 32571), specifically lots 44 and 136, which have not been recorded. This development included clustering of the units, with the overall lot average meeting General Plan and zoning designations. In approving Tract 32571, the County required the developer to dedicate to the County the right to restrict the construction of more than one residence on each lot. There are existing approved entitlements on Portions of the property which allow for the construction of 222 single family residences, I which includes the two residences for parcels 44 and 136 of Tract 32571. Developm ent of the project site, including the creation of 51 residential lots on lots 44 and 136, would comply with Zoning and General Plan densities in the area, as this proposal results in the construction of 140 fewer single family lots.. Based upon the density provided in the General Plan the site could accommodate 360 residential units. The applicant is proposing to create easement areas on portions of the single family lots. .As proposed, these easements would be granted to the golf course but would be included in the gross square footage of the lots to meet clustering requirements. The City's Unified Development Code does not provide for the counting of easement areas in the gross area of a lot. Excluding the easement area, several of the proposed lots would include approximately 14,000 square feet of usable land area, or below the required one and two acre minimum lots sizes for the RVL (Residential Very Low) and RE (Residential Estate) zones. The City's General Plan does contain language encouraging the transfer of development rights to preserve significant ridgelines, oak trees and land use buffers. The site could accommodate 83 residential lots provided that the transfer of development rights on-site was permitted. Portions of the project site will remain untouched and preserved by the development in a natural state and the development rights of these areas could be transferred to other areas of the site to allow for higher densities and smaller lots. This transfer of development rights could be implemented by the adoption of a PD (Planned Development) overlay zone. The PD zone in summary is intended to accomplish the following 1) Facilitate development of areas designated on the Zoning Map or proposed for , rezoning by permitting greater flexibility and, consequently, more creative and imaginative designs for the development of such areas than generally is possible under zoning regulations; and, , 2) Promote more economical and efficient use of the land while providing a harmonious variety of choices, a higher level of amenities, and preservation of natural and scenic qualities of open spaces. 3) Ensure that development conforms to. plans and exhibits submitted by the applicant. , In addition to the golf course (36 holes and accessory structures) and single family homes, the applicant is proposing to construct a 26,000 square foot clubhouse. The applicant is proposing to construct a total of 330 parking spaces for the golf course facility. The City's Parking Code requires a minimum of 10 parking spaces per each hole plus additional parking for all other buildings excluding starter offices, comfort stations, and locker shower rooms. The clubhouse would contain a restaurant/banquet facility which would accommodate a maximum of 200 persons. The City's Unified Development Code allows for a public or private recreational facility in any of the City's zones provided that a conditional use permit is approved. The construction and operation of a golf course and 83 single family homes is considered to be compatible with the adjacent residential uses. The applicant is also buffering the proposed residences from the adjacent mining use with the golf course. I 10. Specific noise impacts are discussed in the Noise Section of this report. Hillside Ordinance impacts are discussed Sri the Aesthetic Section of this report. Numerous goals and policies of the General Plan encourage the development of golf courses within the City. With the inclusion of the following. mitigation measures, no significant impact is anticipated (Community Development). Discussion of Mitigation Measures A conditional use permit shall be approved. The condition use permit shall allow for the development of a golf course. A tentative tract map shall be approved allowing for the creation of 83 single family residential lots. The project shall include a total of 400 parking spaces. A PD overlay zone shall be established on the project site. NATURAL RESOURCES Discussion of Impacts Due to the size and type of development, the project will impact water service and may affect water availability. This impact may be significant and additional information in the form of an EIR is required to assess this impact. Development of the project would result in an incremental tal increase in the demand for the remaining natural resources, though this impact is not anticipated to be significant (Community Development). RISK OF UPSET/MAN-MADE HAZARDS Discussion of Impacts The project may result in a limited, short-term exposure to various hazardous and toxic materials during the construction phase, Such impacts are anticipated to be of a limited nature and occurrence, and would cease after project completion. With the application of the following mitigation measures, no significant impact is anticipated (Community Development). Discussion of Mitigation Measures Compliance with all City codes with respect to construction procedures and the use of hazardous materials will be enforced by City Building Inspectors. 11. POPULATION 12. 13. Discussion of Impacts The project proposes 83 residential units and a golf course (36 holes). The City's General Plan indicates that the average household size is 3.1 persons. Based on this estimate, the population proposed for the project would be approximately 270 persons. The project is anticipated to incrementally increase the residential population, though on a cumulative basis this increase is not considered to be significant. No significant impact is anticipated (Community Development). HOUSING Discussion of Impacts The proposal will provide a total of 83 residential units. The addition of 83 units in the City is not considered to be a significant impact. Future development of the golf course would be beneficial to the residents of the City and provide a much needed recreational facility. No significant impact is anticipated (Community Development). TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Discussion of Impacts The project is anticipated to create a significant number of trips on the area cireulatimi system The addition of these trips upon the existing area circulation system is anticipated to have a significant impact Proposed access to the project would be from Sand Canyon Road and Live Oak Springs Canyon Road. Interior roadways would be constructed within the project site. The City's Traffic Engineering Section has indicated that additional information is necessary to assess the potential project impacts, and should be included in an ED3 (Community Development). 14. PUBLIC SERVICES Discussion of Impacts Fire service is provided for by the Ins Angeles County Fire Department, and the nearest station is located approximately one mile from the project site_ The Fire Department will condition the project to comply with all applicable standards. Police service is provided by the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department. The project will increase the demand for fire prevention and sheriff patrol services within an existing service area, though this increase is not considered to be significant. Parks and Recreation impacts are discussed in Section 19 (Recreation). Water service and usage impacts are discussed in Section 9. Additional services are not expected to be significantly impacted. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures into the project no significant impact is anticipated (Community Development). Discussion of Mitigation Measures The applicant shall comply with all applicable regulationsand fees of the affected agencies. 15. ENERGY Discussion of Impacts An incremental increase in the use of energy will occur for purposes characteristic of single family homes and a 86 hole golf course with accessory structures. The proposal would not result in a substantial increase in the use of existing energy resources due to the availability of such resources. No significant impact is anticipated (Community Development). 16. UTII=S Discussion on Impacts Utilities and applicable public facilities are provided for via Sand Canyon Road. These utilities include gas, water, electrical, sewer and telephone. Water impacts are discussed m Section 9. Additional utilities such as gas, electrical and telephone would be extended to the site. The applicant will be required to extend services which are not currently emisting, including the extension of sewer service to the site. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures into the project, no significant impact is anticipated (Community Development)_ Discussion of Mitigation Measure The applicant will be required to connect the project to the necessary systems and utilities to the satisfaction of the City Engineer_ I` 0111kIFAZM, Discussion of Impacts The project may have abort term construction related impacts (dust, noise) on human health. These impacts are not anticipated to be significant as they will be short-term, intermittent and of a localized nature (Community Development). 18. AESTfMTICS Discussion of Impacts The project site contains an identified secondary ridgeline. The applicant is proposing to develop on this ridgeline. Graded slopes are designed at slope ratios of 2.1. Graded areas and slopes may be visible to areas of Sand Canyon. Grading impacts are discussed in detail in Section 1. Additional information related to conformance with the Hillside Ordinance is necessary to assets potential aesthetic impacts. This information should be included within an EIR (Community Development). II I 19. RECREATION , Discussion of Impacts The project does include the provision of a public golf course to service the residents of , Santa Clarita. The project is expected to generate a population of approximately 270 persons, which on a cumulative basis, would have a significant impact -upon the quality and/or quantity of parkland in the City. The project site is presently used by equestrians and pedestrians for hiking and riding activities. Additionally, the site contains several trails that provide access to the Angeles National Forest. The proposed project would result in the removal of many of these informal trails. The City's General Plan contains numerous goals and policies that require the provisions ' of trails on projects in the Sand Canyon area. The City's Unified Development Code contains Special Standards for the Sand Canyon area. These standards include the provision of hiking and riding trails in new developments. The applicant is proposing to establish trails an the project site'and is working with the Parks and Recreation Department and residents of Sand Canyon to designate the number of trails and their exact locations on the site. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, no significant impacts are anticipated (Community Development). Discussion of Mitigation Measures The applicant shall be required to pay park -in lieu (QUMMY) fees. The applicant sbatl provide riding and hiking trails to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks and Recreation. , 20. CULTURAL RESOURCES Discussion of Impacts The site is not known to have any historical, religious, or cultarai significance. A Cultural Resource Survey was prepared for the site. No significant impact is anticipated , with the following mitigation measure (Community Development). Discussion of Mitigation Measure Should archeological remains be found on the site, an archeological "hold" shall be placed on the project until a qualified archeologist has inspected the site and determined that , construction can be resumed. DP.nartment nMsh and Game "Tie Minimus" Finding The project proposes grading of 2.2 million cubic yards of cut and 2.2 million cubic yards of fill, balanced on-site. The project proposes substantial alterations of an identified secondary ridgeline. The City has found that there is evidence before the City that the project may have a potential to adversely affect wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. rl I I I ' C. MANIIATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Section 15065 of the California Environmental Quality Act states, in part, that if any of the following can be answered yes or maybe, the project may have a significant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact Report shall be prepared. YES AMME NO ' 1. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild- life population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important ' examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? I?•l I J [ ] ' 2. Does the project have the potential to achieve short term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while lomg-terms impacts will endure well into the future.) [ ] [ ] lXl ' 3. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) [ J [%I] [ 1 4. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? [ ] lX7 [ ] II D. DE'FAUVAINATION On the basis this Initial Study, it is determined that: of The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. [ ] Although the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in this Initial Study have been added to .the project. A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. [ I The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an LNVIRONM);NTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [XJ II 11 APPENDIX B 1 NOTICE OF PREPARATION, I RESPONSES TO NOTICE OF PREPARATION 11 AND ' SCOPING MEETING MATERIALS AND COMMENTS I II II uj II u! II II II NOTICE OF PREPARATION City of Santa Clalita Department of Community Development• 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita,. CA 91355 (805)255.4330 IIS SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report The City of Santa Clarlta will be the lead agency and will prepare an Environmental Impact Report for the project identified below. We need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental Information which Is germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities In connection with the proposed project. Your agency will need to use the EIR prepared by our agency when considering your permit or other approval for the project. The project description, location, and the probable environmental effects are contained in the attached materials. A copy of the Initial Study i3 attached. Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sem at the earliest possible date, but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. Please send your response to Glenn Adamick, Assistant Planner II at the address shown above. We would appreciate the name of a contact person In your agency. Project Title: Hunter's Green Development and Golf Course Project Applicant: Hunter's Green Development Corporation Date: April 17, 1995 Signature: Title: Assistant Planner 11 Telephone: (805) 255.4330 Reference: California Administrative Code, Title 14, Sections 15082(x), isio3,15375. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION 23920 VALENCIA BOULEVARD SANTA CLARITA, CA 91355 PROJECT SUMMARY: Hunter's Green Development and Golf Course, MC 95-032 (RM 52004, CUP 95.003, OTP 95-009, HR 95-002, DA 95-001, DR 95- 004, PZ 95-001, AN 95-001) Tentative Tract Map, Conditional Use Permit, Oak Tree Permit, Hillside Review, Development Agreement, Development Review, Pre -Zone and an Annexation to allow for the development of a 420 acre property with a 36 hole golf course with accessory facilities and structures, and 87 single family residential lots. Location and Description The project site is located east of Sand Canyon Road and north of Live Oak Springs Canyon Road, within the Sand Canyon area of the City. Surrounding land uses include large lot single family residences to the north, south and west, and the Angeles National Forest to the east There- are existing approved entitlements on portions of the property which allow for the construction of 223 single family residences. Topography ranges from flat terrain to elevated hills and ridgelines. The site contains an identified significant ridgeline per the City's HillsidelRidgeline Map. The project includes the alteration of portions of this ridgeline. A total of 982 oak trees exist on-site. Eighty-nine of these trees are classified as heritage oak trees. The site contains two intermittent "blueline" streams. (See initial study, development plan and attachments for more detailed site information.) Characteristics The project proposes the development of a 420 acre site with a 36 hole golf course, clubhouse, driving range, roadways; parking and 87 single family residential lots. Grading of 2.2 million cubic yards of cut and 2.2 million cubic yards of fill is included within the applicant's proposal. Proposed access to the site would be from Sand Canyon Road and Live Oak Springs Canyon Road. Both public and private streets would service the project: The applicant is proposing to remove 138 scrub oak trees, and 130 coast live oak trees, including seven heritage oak trees. Probable Environmental Issues Based on the Initial Study prepared for this proposal, project development may have a significant impact on the environment (See Environmental. Assessment, Form B). Areas and Issues of potential impact requiring study in the focused environmental impact report (EIR) include, but may not be limited to, the following: 1) Geology, Soils, Landform, Hillside Development, Seismicity, Grading 2) Hydrology, Drainage, Water 3) Air Quality 4) Biology (Flora and Fauna) 3) Transportation/Circulation The focused EIR shall address such topical requirements as the potential short- and long-term effects of the project on the environment, direct and indirect growth -inducing impacts, and cumulative impacts associated with project implementation. Appropriate mitigation -measures and/or project modifications will be discussed and proposed, as applicable, to reduce identified impacts to a level of insignificance. A mitigation monitoring program will also be developed, as required. The applicant has prepared several technical reports .related to the project. Copies of these reports can be obtained at this office. Please review these reports for potential use in the Environmental Impact Report All oak tree information will be provided under separate consultant and will be verified by the City's Oak Tree Consultant. o A: cw Woffildm.gM STATE OF CALIFORNIA -THE RESOURCES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME PETE WILSON.330 ' LONG BEACH,EN SCAAEy08�E 50 (310) 590-5113 REC'rEislep May 5, 1995 14AY 41495 1 Mr. Glenn Adamick Cop"�"'%YME LE )PVENT City of Santa Clarita u;vc;� Department of Community Development 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 ' Santa Clarita, California 91355 Dear Mr. Adamick: ' Notice of Preparation of Draft Environmental Impact Report Hunter's Green Development Golf Course ' SCH #95041049, Los Angeles County The Department of Fish and Game (Department) appreciates this opportunity to comment on the.above-referenced project, ' relative to impacts to biological resources. To enable Department staff to adequately review and comment on the proposed project, we recommend the following information be included in ' the draft Environmental Impact Report. 1• A complete assessment'of flora and fauna within and adjacent to the project area, with particular emphasis Upon identifying endangered, threatened, .and locally unique species and sensitive habitats. a• A thorough assessment of rare plantstural natural and rare communities, following.the Department's May a na 84Guidelines Rare Natural oCommunities (AttachmentR1). Plants and b• A complete assessment of sensitive fish, wildlife, ' reptile, and amphibian species. Seasonal variations in use Of -the project area should also be addressed. Focused species-specific surveys, conducted at the sensitiveapprpriat species e time �em are active orotherwise widentifiable, ' are required. Acceptable species-specific survey procedures should be developed.in consultation with the ' Department and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. C. Rare, threatened, and endangered species to be addressed should include all those which meet the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) definition (see CEQA Guidelines, 915380). d• The Department's California Natural Diversity Data Base in Sacramento should be contacted at -(916) 327-5960 to obtain current information on any previously reported sensitive.species and habitats, including Significant Mr. Glenn Adamick May 5, 1995 Page Two Natural Areas identified under Chapter 12 of the Fish and Game Code. Also, any Significant Ecological Areas (SEAs) or Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs) that have been identified by the County of Los Angeles or any areas that are considered sensitive by the -local jurisdiction that are located in or adjacent to the project area must be addressed. 2. A thorough discussion of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts expected to adversely affect biological resources, with specific measures to offset such impacts. a. CEQA Guidelines, 515125(a), direct that knowledge of the regional setting is critical to an assessment of environmental impacts and that special emphasis should be placed on resources that are rare or unique to the region. b. Project impacts should also be analyzed relative to their effects on off-site habitats and populations. Specifically, this should include nearby public lands, open space, adjacent natural habitats, and riparian ecosystems. Impacts to and maintenance of wildlife corridor/movement areas, including access to undisturbed habitat in adjacent areas, should be fully evaluated and provided. C. A cumulative effects analysis should be developed as described CEQA Guidelines, 515130.. General and specific plans, as well as past, present, and anticipated future projects, should be analyzed relative to their impacts on similar plant communities and wildlife habitats. 3. A range of alternatives should be analyzed to ensure that alternatives to the proposed project are fully considered and evaluated. A.range of alternatives which avoid or otherwise minimize impacts to sensitive biological resources should be included. Specific alternative locations should also be evaluated in areas with lower resource sensitivity where appropriate. a. Mitigation measures for project impacts to sensitive Plants, animals, and habitats should emphasize evaluation and selection of alternatives which avoid or otherwise minimize project impacts. off-site compensation for unavoidable impacts through acquisition and protection of high quality habitat elsewhere should be addressed. ' Mr. Glenn Adamick May 5, 1995 ' Page Three b. The Department considers Rare Natural Communities as threatened habitats having both regional and local significance. Thus, these communities should be fully avoided and otherwise protected from project-related impacts (Attachment 2). ' C. The.Department generally does not support relocation, salvage, and/or transplatationhasuse of ' mitigation for impacts to rare,'threatened, or endangered species. Department studies have shown that these efforts are-experimental in nature and largely unsuccessful. 4. If the project has the potential to adversely affect species ' of plants or animals listed under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), either during construction or over the life of the project, a CESA-Memorandum of Understanding ' (CESA-MOU) must be obtained under 92081 of the Fish and Game anderestore State-listedsthreatenedsoryprotect, enhance endangered species , and their habitats. Early consultation is encouraged, as significant modifications to a project and mitigation y required in.order to obtain a CESA-MOU. a. Biological mitigation proposals should be of sufficient detail and resolution to satisfy the requirements-for a CESA-MOU. ' b. A Department-approved Mitigation Agreement and Mitigation Plan are required for plants listed as rare under the Native Plant Protection Act. ' 5. The Department opposes the elimination of watercourses and/or their channelization or conversion to subsurface ' drains. orperenniwetlands al, mustbe retwatercourses, ainedand Provided twith 1substantial setbacks which preserve the riparian and aquatic habitat values and maintain their value to on-site and off-site wildlife populations. a. The Department has direct authority under Fish and Game ' Code §1600 et. seg, in regard to any proposed activity which'would divert, obstruct, or affect the natural flow or change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, ' stream, or lake. Departmental jurisdiction under 51600 et. seq.-applies to all lands within the 100-year floodplain. Early consultation is recommended, since modification of the proposed project may be required to avoid or reduce impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Mr. Glenn Adamick May 5, 1995 Page Four b. A discussion of potential adverse impacts from any increased runoff, sedimentation, soil erosion, and/or urban pollutants on streams and watercourses on or near the project site, with mitigation measures proposed to alleviate such impacts, must be included. Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment. Questions regarding this letter and further coordination on these issues should be directed to Ms. Chanelle Davis, Wildlife Biologist, at (909) 627-1613. Sincerely, Patricia Wolf Acting Regional Manager Regibn 5 Attachments cc: Ms. Chanelle Davis Department of Fish and Game Chino Hills, California Ms. Mary Meyer Department of Fish and Game Ojai, California U.S. Fish and wildlife Service Carlsbad, California U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles, California U.S. Environmental Protection Agency San Francisco, California State Clearinghouse Sacramento, California 11 11 State of California THE RESOURCES AGENCY Department of Fish and Game May 4, 1984 GUIDELINES FOR ASSESSING THE EFFECTS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS ON RARE AND ENDANGERED PLANTS AND PLANT COMMUNITIES The following recommendations are intended to help those who prepare and review environmental documents determine when a botanical survey is needed, who should be considered qualified to conduct such surveys, how field surveys should be conducted and what information should be contained in the survey report. Botanical surveys that are conducted to determine the environmental effects of a proposed development should be directed to all rare and endangered plants and plant communities. Rare and endangered plants are not necessarily limited to those species which have been "listed" by state and federal agencies but should include any species that, based on all available data, can be shown to be rare and/or endangered under the following definitions. A species, subspecies or variety of plant is "endangered' when the prospects of its survival and reproduction are in immediate jeopardy from one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, over -exploitation, predation, competition or disease. A plant is 'rare' when, although ' not presently threatened with extinction, the species, subspecies or variety is found in such small numbers throughout its range that it may be endangered if its environment worsens. ' Rare plant communities are those communities that are of highly limited distribution. These communities may or may not contain rare or endangered species. The most current version of the California Natural Diversity Data Base's Outline of Terrestrial Communities inCaliforniamay be used as a guide to the names of communities. 2. It is appropriate to conduct a botanical field survey to determine if, or the extent that, rare plants will be affected by a proposed project when: a. Based on an initial biological assessment, it appears that the project may damage potential ' rare plant habitat; b. Rare plants have historically been identified on the project site, but adequate information for ' impact assessment is lacking; or C. No initial biological assessment has been conducted and it is unknown whether or not rare plants or their habitat exist on the site. 3. Botanical consultants should be selected on the basis of possession of the following qualifications (in order of importance):. a. Experience as a botanical field investigator with experience in field sampling design and field methods; 1 b. Taxonomic experience and a knowledge of plant ecology; C. Familiarity with the plants of the area, including rare species; and d. Familiarity with the appropriate state and federal statutes related to rare plants and plant collecting. ' 4. Field surveys should be conducted in a manner that will locate any rare or endangered species that may be present. Specifically, rare or endangered plant surveys should be: a. Conducted at the proper time of year when rare or endangered species are both "evident* ' and identifiable. Field surveys should be scheduled (1) to coincide with known flowering periods, and/or (2) during periods of phenological development that are necessary to identify the plant species of concern. M C. R e. Floristic in nature. 'Predictive surveys' (which predict the occurrence of rare species based on the occurrence of habitat or other physical of for impactures t assessment.ther than Every specual field ies noted should be reserved for ecological studies, in the field should be identified to the extent necessary to determine whether it is rare or endangered. Conducted in a manner that is consistent with conservation ethics. Collections of rare or suspected rare species (voucher specimens) should be made only when such actions would not jeopardize the continued existence of the population and in accordance with applicable state and federal permit regulations. Voucher specimens should be deposited at recognized public herbaria for future reference. Photography should be used to document plant identification and habitat whenever possible, but especially when the population cannot withstand collection of voucher specimens. Conducted using systematic field techniques in all habitats of the site to ensure a reasonably thorough coverage of potential impact areas. Well documented. When a rare or endangered plant (or rare plant community) is located, a sCaliforia. Native houldnbe completed Species nd submitted t tthe Na) Fietequivalent written form ural Diversity Data Basee Reports of botanical field surveys should be included in or with environmental assessments, negative declarations, Em's and EIS's, and should contain the following information: ie a, Project description, including a detailed map of the project location and study area. b. A written description of biological setting referencing the community nomenclature used and a vegetation map. C. Detailed description of survey methodology. d. Dates of field surveys. e. Results of survey (including detailed maps). f. An assessment of potential impacts. g, Discussion of the importance of rare plant populations with consideration of nearby populations and total species distribution. h, Recommended mitigation measures to reduce or avoid impacts. i, List of all species identified. j. Copies of all California Native Species Field Survey Forms or Natural Community Field Survey Forms. k. Name of field investigator(s). I, tacted, herbaria visited, and disposition of voucher References cited, persons con specimens. ATTACHMENT 2 Sensitivity of Top Priority Rare Natural ' Communities in Southern California* Sensitivity rankings are determined by the Department of Fish and Game, 41ifornia Natural Diversity Data Base and based on either number of known occurrences (locations) and/or amount of habitat remaining (acreage). The ree rankings used for these top priority rare natural communities.are as llows: Si.- Less than 6 known locations and/or on less than 2,000 acres of habitat ' remaining S2.- Occurs in 6-20 known locations and/or 2,000-10,000 acres of habitat remaining Occurs in 21-100 known locations and/or 10,000-50,000 acres of habitat ' remaining The number to the right of the decimal point after the ranking refers to the degree of threat posed .to that natural community regardless of the ranking. 0r example: 1 '1 S1.1 = very threatened 52.2 = threatened 53.3 = no current threats known Sensitivity Rankings (February 1992) Community Name Mojave Riparian Forest Sonoran Cottonwood Willow Riparian Mesquite Bosque Elephant Tree Woodland Crucifixion Thorn Woodland Allthorn Woodland Arizonan Woodland Southern California Walnut Forest Mainland Cherry Forest Southern Bishop Pine Forest Torrey Pine Forest Desert Mountain White .Fir Forest Southern Dune Scrub Southern Coastal Bluff Scrub Maritime Succulent Scrub Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Southern Maritime Chaparral Valley Needlegrass Grassland Great Basin Grassland Mojave Desert Grassland Pebble Plains Southern Sedge Bog Cismontane"Alkali Marsh Scrub 1 S1.2 Southern Foredunes Mono Pumice Flat Southern Interior -2- Sensitivity Rankings (Cont.) Commun ty-Name Basalt F1. Vernal Pool iS2.1 Venturan.Coastal Sage Scrub Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Riversidean Upland Coastal Sage Scrub Riversidean Desert Sage Scrub Sagebrush Steppe Desert Sink Scrub Mafic Southern Mixed Chaparrel San Diego Mesa Hardpan Vernal P. San Diego Mesa Claypan Vernal P. Alkali Meadow Southern Coastal Salt Marsh Coastal Brackish Marsh Transmontane Alkali Marsh Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh S. Arroya Willow Riparian Forest Southern Willow Scrub Modoc-G.Bas. Cottonwood Willow Rip. Modoc-Great Basin Riparian Scrub Mojave.Desert Wash Scrub Engelmann Oak Woodland Open Engelmann Oak Woodland Closed Engelmann Oak Woodland. Island oak Woodland California.Walnut Woodland Island Ironwood Forest Island Cherry Forest S. Interior Cypress Forest Bi.gcone Spruce -Canyon Oak Forest S2.2 Active Coastal Dunes Active Desert Dunes Stab. and Part. Stab. Desert Dunes Stab. and Part. Stab. Desert Sandfield Mojave Mixed Steppe Transmontane Freshwater Marsh Coulter Pine Forest S. California Fellfield White Mountains Fellfield S2.3 Bfistlecone Pine Forest Limber Pine Forest • ELEMENT RANKING. ..a...•..•.••.•.•••.•.••.•.•.•.•.••...•.•.••••a.•aa•.•.•..•.••.a..•••••••••••••••••••a•••.••• CLQBAL RANKING Thi plop4rCone 1G•tankf Is a Collection of the eversK carditien of an •tament Woughwt Its global fangs. i►EOtEs LEVEL a -- C1 • Lu than 6 viable fog OR toss than 1000.InSviduals OR Mss than 2000 act*$. O2 • &.20 Eos OR l000-3000 L-4vidbals OR 200o-10.000 attes. C2 a 21.100 101 OR 3000.10,000 Individudl OR 10.O00 -S0,000 acres 6a• Apparently securo. this nn► Is dearly lower thou GS but factors exist to nuts some concern: is. there Is some threat, or somewhat narrow habitat. Cf • ►opul"on demonstrably astute to ineradicable due to ►sins commonly round in the world. SURS►ECIES LEVEL subspecies receive a T+enk attached to the G•ronk., With the oubspec:es. the G•rahk reflects the condition of the entire sexier. whereas the T•rank Corlett$ the global situation of just the fubrerdte. For example: CAoriianrAa robusn ver.Aartwepo. This plant Is ranked G2Tt. The G•rank 167611 to the while Spatial longe of CAoniMtA1 robultS. This T -tank Calors ahly to Ino global condlGan of vat. Aarevep.'o. - STATE RANKING The Stara rant is assigned much the Same way as the global rohk. *atop! stela tanks In California often aloe oentoin a tea number attached to the s -tank. Last then 6 101 OR less than 1000 inclMduah OR loss then 2000 sorts . 911: 91.1 Or very threatened x1.2 • threatened 61.3 •ere current threats known Flo got OR 10004000 individuals OR 2000.10,000 Octel . 92: S2.1 . very tMalanod x2.2 • threatened x3.3 • no current threats known 21.100 too opt 3000.10.000 in6viduale OR 10.000.50,000 ern$ • 93: $3.1 • vorythreatened - 53.2 • threatened 53.3 •ere current &*ate known 94 Apparently secure within Carifpthis: this rank is Clearly fewer than 53 but tactors exist to tags$ some concem: (hare IS soma throat, er somewhat narrow habitat. NO THREAT NUMBER. - SS Demamtnbly setup to ineredkeble M Cel 4rrea. NO THREAT HUMBER. •....i••.••... e••••.•.•.••..•••...•••..••.•..••.••.••.u•..••.••••......... ....•••••••••••.•• Nstal: I. Uncertainty abwt the rank of on element is expressed in Ower syr ials: two major ways: CH AO Sita are Waterkel. the element has not been fly expnasing the rank as a tense of "Was: lee. ran far at feast 20 years but n tebts Mbiet still 92f3 means the rank is something ►otwoen'92 o tfH • M CaFbrr:a alter Bre tisteRcon. stilts Ord f3. OX As sites are satirpstedi Mil Menest N Scent in the weal tf X • As coslorwe sites 9,0 sa irpnedf... of adding a *t• to the rank: vstion• Le, 927 Thos represents men eensinty than _ Olo The element is very roret Ln thre grid; ,but thaT at$ N e t$aenom:o 9253. tiuceean associated with R. NDDS rare cornnnunkies R-5 Feb. IM Page 1 TOP Priorlty Rare Natural.Communttlee •. From Replon Fire Code Number (,.cation' F+w ReaonOs Name 21330 Cis Y Southern Dune Scrub 32300 as Southern Coastal BiuS Scrub 31200 Cis Y MarWrna Succulent Scrub 32400 Gs Y Riversidaan Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub 32720 as Y Southern Maritime Chaparral 37030 as Y Notley Needlegrass Grassland 42110 Des Y Great Basin Grassland 43000 Des Y Mojave DesertGrasstand 43777 47000 Cis Pebble Plains. 51t77 Cis Y SovC+em Sedge Bop $2310 Cis Cismontane Alkali Marsh 52410 Des Mojave Riparian Forest 61700 Des Sonoran Cottonwood Wdbw Ripafan 61810 61620 Des Mesquite Bos Des Y Elepranttne Woodland 75100 Des Y CrudtixionThom Woodland 75200 Des Y Altinom Woodland 75300 Des Y Arizonan Woodland . 75400 as Southern California Walnut Forest 61600 as Y Maintand Cherry Forest 61820 Cis Y Southern Bishop Pins Forest 63122 Cis Torrey Pine Forest 63160 Des Y Desen Maintain Wh to Fe Forest 65330 S 12 Rank: 21230 Cis Sashern Forsdunes 35410 Des Mono Punic Flat Southern Interior Basalt Fl, Vernal Pool 44310 Cis 52.1 Rank I Cis Y V&nturan Coastal Saga Snub 32300 tris Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub 32500 Cis Y Riversidian Upland Coastal Sage Scr. 32710 Cis Y Rivarsidean Desert Sate Scrub 32730 35300 Des Y Sagebnrah Steppe 36120 Des Y DOW Sink Scrub Matic Southern Mixed Chaparral 37122 Cis Cis Y tars Diego Meta hardpan VWW P. 46321 44322 Cs San Diego Meta Caypan Venal P. . 453rD Des Akar Meadow sovewm Coastal San Marsh 52120 Ctrs Cis Coastal Brackish Marsh 52320 Des Tranamonane AW Marsh 52410 r coded as ent ter cis (jor asmontane) or des (tor 6"OM I ' NDDS nr corivnmkiss WS Feb. IM P+Da 2 ' Cods tamper Loaallont Few Pa= Name , 52410 Cs Coasut and Alley Frasheratsr Mash 61320 Cit S. Arroyo Willow Riparian Forsat 63320 Cis Souram Nrlb* Scrub 51610 Des Modoc-G.Bas Cottonwood lM1ritrow ft. 53600 63700 Das Y 1 Modocrarost Basin Riparian Scrub Das Y Mojave Desert Wash Scrub 71160 Cit Y Ern2atmann Oak Woodland 71161 Cis Y Open EnpIrrann Oak Woodland 71162 Cis Y Closed Engelmann Oak Woodland 71190 Cit Y bland Oak Woodland 71210 Cis Catilomis Walnut Woodland 61700 Cis Y krand Ironwood Forest ' 61610 Cis bland Cherry Forst 6323D Cis S. Interior Cypress Forest 64150 Gs Y BigzaNtpruca•Canyon Oak Forst ' 522 Rank: 21100 Cit Y Active Coastal Dunes ' 22100 Des Active Delon Duna 22200 Des Stab. and Part Stab. Desert Dumas 22300 Des Y Sub and Pan. Stab. Desen Sandtield ' 34220 52420 Des Des Y Y Mojave Mixed Steppe Tranamontans Freshwater month 51140 Cit Y Couttar Pine Forst 61130 Cis Y S. California Fenfold '91140 Des Y White Mountains FeRfold 52.3 Rank: ' JISAM Des Bristlecone Pine Forest 65700 Das Y Lirnber Pro Forsct: I1 . II II w 11 II ' e coded as O&wr cis (tor cismontane) W des aor desert) II J STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY PETE WILSON, Gom m DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ' DISTRICT 7, 120 SO. SPRING ST. LOS ANGELES. CA 90012-5606 ' May 19, 1995 RECEIVED IGR/CEQA/NOP . City of Santa:Clarita MAY Z Z 1995 HUNTER'S GREEN DEVELOPMENT COrA,;;N;r. :eve.v»ent AND GOLF COURSE C:rTIf SANTACtARITA Vic. LA -14-33.42 SCH# 95041049 Mr. Glenn Adamick, Assistant Planner II City of Santa Clarita Department of Community Development 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA -91355 Dear Mr. Adamick: Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the above -referenced Hunter's Green Development and Golf.Course. The project proposes the development of a 420 acre site with a 36 hole golf course, clubhouse, driving range, roadways, parking and 87 single family residential lots. Based on the information received,.we have the following comments: To assist us in our efforts to completely evaluate and assess the impacts of this project on the State Transportation System, a Traffic Study should be prepared to analyze the following information: 1. Assumptions used to develop trip generation/distribution including the method and assumptions used to develop the percentages and assignment. 2. ADT, AM and PM peak -hour volumes for both the existing and future (Year 2015) conditions. This should include the Antelope Valley Freeway (SR -14), and affected ramps, streets, crossroads and controlling intersections, as well as an analysis of existing and future conditions on mainline freeway. 3. An analysis of future (Year 2015) condition's which include project traffic and the cumulative traffic generated for all ' approved.developments in the area. 4. Discussion of mitigation measures appropriate to alleviate anticipated traffic impacts. These discussions should include, ' but not be limited to, the following: * financing ' * scheduling considerations * implementation responsibilities * monitoring plan 5. I.C.U. and level of service (LOS) analysis for affected ' freeway ramp intersections -on the State Highway indica- ting existing + project LOS, and existing + project + other ' projects LOS (Existing and Future). I ' Mr. Adamick May 19, 1995 Page Two t 6. Developer's percent share of the cost; as well as a plan of realistic mitigation measures under the control of the developer should be addressed. What this means is that ' any assessment fees for mitigation should be of such proportion as to not only cover local impacts but should be extended to cover mainline freeway deficiencies that occur as a result of the additional traffic generated by the project. Any transportation related mitigation measures or work such as signalization, grading, widening, drainage, or.freeway mainline or ramp improvements etc., which involve State right-of-way will require a Caltrans Encroachment Permit. Any measures that exceeds $300,000.00 in cost will also require a Caltrans Project Study Report.(PSR). ' Any transport of heavy construction equipment which requires the use of oversize transport vehicles on State Freeways/Highways ' will require a Caltrans transportation permit. We recommend that large size trucks that are transporting construction materials or equipment be limited to off-peak commute periods. We look forward to reviewing the DEIR. We expect to receive a copy from the State Clearinghouse. However, to expedite the review process, you may send two copies in advance to the undersigned at the following address. ' Wilford Melton District 7 IGR\CEQA Coordinator ' Office of Advance Planning 4-11G 120 So. Spring Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 ' Thank you for.this opportunity to comment. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please call me at (213) 897- 1338. Sincerely,'" O11 WILFORD MELTON Senior Transportation Planner IGR\CEQA Coordinator Office of Advance Planning cc: Mr. Mark Goss State Clearinghouse 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 nh\4062 -- -- ......'"•n.�e - LA P.EGIal TEL ND• •213-266-760D tt982 PD1 ' STATE OF CA{IiORIJIA—ENV1RpWENTAI CROTECnON AGENCY CALIfORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD LOS ANGELES REGION 101 CO`Mr PLAZA DRNE MO'ff"ET PARR, CA 917547150 . PAY, (210) 1067000 May 23. 1995 ' City of Santa Clarita Dept. of Community Development 1 23920 Valencia Blvd., Ste. 300 Santa Clarita, CA. 91355 Attn: Glern Adamick Subject: NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMF NTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE HUNTER'S GREEN DEVELOPMENT AND GOLF COURSE We have reviewed the subject document regarding the project should address the attached comments. proposed project, and we feel that the In addition, it should be noted that construction of large subdivisions such as the proposed project create significant areas of impervious surfaces. The creation of these impervious surfaces increases the potential for downstream flooding and negative impacts on water quality. amSucl consequences typically result in a call for increased flood control measures by downstream landowners, the provision Of which further hurdenq publir funds and can tarther degrade natural habitats and affect water quality. Therefore, approvals of such Pmjectq need to be conditioned on the provision of structural and/or nonstructural measures necessary. to rcttdn this excess runulTun site. Thank: you for the opportunity to review your document. Ifyou have any qucNavas. please contact Kirby McClellan at (213)266-7655 or myself at (213)266.7549. De*J.Mith.ef Regional Programs Attachments cc: Governor's Office of Planning and Research MfW-34-'95 09:34 ID:C;=CP - Ln RE,IM! TEL W:213-266-7600 *Mn P02 t ' SOIL EROSION CONCERNS: C3'a. Every precaution should be taken to prevent water quality impacts resulting from soil erosion and increased surface runoff, especially during grading and construction activities. ' 009, We encourage the development of a comprehensive Nonpoint Source Management These BM Ns could he.mhmitted as part of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan with appropriate structural and nonstructural Best Management Practices (BMPs). These BMPs could be submitted as pan of a Stornawarer Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the proposed project. 00'c. Based on the information provided, the project site is in an area potentially subject to high erosion and high mud flows resulting in sedimentation problems. Development of the site may result in additional impermeable surfaces, which could intensify storm water runoff and accelerate soil erosion. The project proponents should ' address additional erosion control measures specifically geared to minimize this tendency for high erosion in the project area. f.4d. fn any consm:ction project that tntxls more than five acres, it is nenesaary to file a Notice of Intent to be covered under the State Board's "Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction Activity" (General Permit No. CAS000002). To receive additional information on requirements for sturmw•atcr discharges and NPDES related matters, please contact Mark Pumford at (213)266-7596 at this Regional Board. MY -24-195.139:34 MCRL10CS - U1 REGION TEL 110:213-366-7600 ti9M P03 BEENEFICIAL USE IMPACTS AND WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION: Ya. All watcrbodies in the project site arca (both surface and groundwater) that may be impacted by the proposed activity, should be clearly identified. A detailed site map showing the project location in relation to nearby tvaterbodies should be included. Cd b. Any potential adverse impar. s to the designated henetic:ial uses of these waterbodies should he discussed- Discussion of appropriate mitigation measures, such as Hest Management Practices (BMPs) designed to protect these beneficial uses should be included. Project proponents muss demonstrate compliance with all State and Regional Board water quality ubjwtivcs, beuelIcial uses, and die attti-dcgradatiun policy. This wutpliauce must be demonstrated not otily.fet tie Dual product but also during the construction phase. ETT . For a complete listing of beneficial use designations and their descriptions, please refer to our Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Las Angeles Region. To obtain a copy of the Basin Plan, please call Vilma Correa at (213) 266-7519. 1.1 d. Any till and dredge activity, including bank stabilization, within "the waters of the U. S." requires a Section 404 permit from the U. S. Army Corps of 1-tigineers. Also, when a Section 404 permit is required, project proponents will need to apply for a Sectlun 401 Water Quality Certlffcatlon from this Regional Board. For more infutrttatiun uu requirements for Scctiuu 401 Water Quality Ccrlilicatiun, please contact Lauma Jurkevics at(213)277-7609. ❑ e. Final disposal actions (whether land based or into any watorbody) of dredged and excavated materials has to be described in the study. The receiving land or waterbody must be identified. Prior to inland disposal of nonhazardous excavated soils (other than that returned to the original excavated site), a general Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR) hastn he nhtained from this Regional Hoard. Please contact John Lewis at (213)266-7646 mnY-24-'95 09:35 ID:CF=CE - Ln REG Ial TEL W:213-266-76[0 #96- PO4 I 1J' F, ' NATURAL IIABITAT CONCERNS: MOL Avoidance of wetland and riparian habitats is the preferred alternative to limit impacts to water quality and protection of designated beneficial uses. When bank and/or instream projects are proposed, the hydrology of the area changes and can result in further degradation of regional waters. '3 ' The project study should clearly identify and charactrme the extent of the existing riparian zone or wetlands on site and any loss of riparian or wetland habitat, which ' would result ftvut Lilt proposed activity. E? c. Please address immediate and long-term impacts resulting fivtn the proposed stream modifications on the riparianhvctland vegetation and the hydrology of the waterbudy (ies) Likely to be impacted by the proposed activity. ed. The project should address appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to mitigate ' impacts daring grading and construction activities, including any vegetative restoration work. We strongly encourage planting of native vegetation. ' ❑ e. The proposed project is located in a sensitive ecological area or an area designated as a unique ecological habitat (habitat supporting unique species of plants and animals), Therefore, the pruicct study should discuss in detail. steps taken to avoid or mitigate adverse impacts (such as protection utcasures to safeguard flora and fauna, buffer ' zones, habitat restoration, etc). Plast consult with the Statc Department of Fish and Game before implementing these measures. ❑ f. Prior to any discharge of groundwater to surface waters as a result of any dcwatcring activities that may occur during construction, you will need to contact Josh Workplan at ' (213)266-7615 to obtain a general permit for such discharges. I 1J' F, 2 : 199 LOS ANGELES COUNTY LAFCO LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION THOMAS E JACKSON CHAIRMAN Dear Mr. Adamick: The project to be analyzed by your draft EIR will require an amendment to the City's Sphere of Influence and approval of an annexation to the City. In order for LAFCO to utilize the EIR for our discretionary actions, the document must address the factors listed in Section 56841 of the California Government Code, and the determinations required by Section 56425. Copies of both Sections are attached. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the scope of this document. We look forward to reviewing the draft EIR. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, t . Colange ve 0 500 WEST TEMPLE STREET. ROOM 383, LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90012 (213) 9741448 0 FAX (213) 617-2201 i L HALBERNSON April 20, 1995 YVONNE BRATHWARE BURKE - LARRY CONNELLY . DEANE DANA JAMES DIGIUSEPPE HENRI F. PELLISSIER WILLIAM WENIWORTH Glenn Adamick, Assistant Planner II GARYH. WERNER City of Santa Clarita ALTERNATE MEMBERS Department of Community Development RICHARDALATORRE LARRYJ.CALEMINE 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 KENETH 1. PELL CR SN NACR Z-MADR D Santa Clarita, CA 91355 LYMERIAMOLINA PLA BECK STAFF Hunter's /� Notice RE: Hunter's Green Development of Preparation � RE: JAMESCOLANGELO OFFICER JUNE D. SAVALA ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT Dear Mr. Adamick: The project to be analyzed by your draft EIR will require an amendment to the City's Sphere of Influence and approval of an annexation to the City. In order for LAFCO to utilize the EIR for our discretionary actions, the document must address the factors listed in Section 56841 of the California Government Code, and the determinations required by Section 56425. Copies of both Sections are attached. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the scope of this document. We look forward to reviewing the draft EIR. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, t . Colange ve 0 500 WEST TEMPLE STREET. ROOM 383, LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90012 (213) 9741448 0 FAX (213) 617-2201 i L ' Factors to bo:considered in review of proposal 56841. Factors to be considered in the review of a proposal shall include, but not be limited to, all of the following; (a) Population, population density; land ' area and land use; per capita assessed valuation; topography, natural boundaries, and drainage basins; proximity to other populated areas; the likelihood of significant growth in ' the area, and in adjacent incorporated and unincorporated areas, during the next 10 ' years. (b) Need for orcanized community services; the present cost and adequacy of governmental services and controls in the area;. probable future needs for =hose services and controls; ' probable effect c` the proposed incorporation, formation, annexation, or exclusion and of alternative courses of action on the cost and ' adequacy of services and controls in the area and adjacent area S. "Services," as used in this subdivision, refers to governme-ntal services whether or not the services are services which would be provided by local agencies subject to this division, and includes the public facilities ' necessary to -provide those services. (c) The effect of the proposed action and of ' alternative actions, on adjacent areas, on mutual social and economic interests, and on the local governmental structure of the county. (d) The conform_ty o€'both the proposal and ' its anticipated e=fects with both the adopted commission policies orf providing planned, orderly, efficient patterns of urban ' development, and the policies and priorities set forth in Section 56377.. (e) The effect of the proposal on maintaining the physical and economic integrity of agricultural lands, as defined by Section 56016. (f) The definiteness and certainty of the ' boundaries of the territory, the nonconformance of proposed boundaries with lines of assessment or ownership, the creation ' of islands or corridors of unincorporated territory, and other similar matters affecting the proposed boundaries. ' (g) Consistency with city or county general and specific plans. (h) The sphere of influence of any local agency which may be applicable to the proposal ' being reviewed. (i) The comments_ of any affected local ' agency.' I 1 I 1 A I ' CHAPTER 4. SPHERES OF IHFLMWCE LAFCO required to determine 56425.. (a) In order to carry out its ' and periodically update purposes and responsibilities for planning spheres of influence for and shaping the logical and orderly each local agency and development and coordination of local make written determinations governmental agencies so as to advantageously ' provide forthepresent and future needs of the county and its communities, the commission shall develop and determine the sphere of ' influence of each local governmental agency within the county. in determining the sphere of influence of each local agency, the ' commission shall consider and prepare a written statement of its determinations with respect to each of the following: (1) The present and planned land uses in the , area, including agricultural and open -space lands. (2) The present and probable need for public 1 facilities and services in the area. (3) The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services which the agency provides or is authorized to ' provide. (4) The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the , commission determines that they are relevant to the agency. (b) Upon determination of a sphere of ' influence, the commission shall adopt that sphere, and shall periodically review and update the adopted sphere. (c) The commission may recommend ' governmental reorganizations to particular agencies in the county, using the spheres of influence as the basis for those ' recommendations. Those recommendations shall be made available, upon request, to other agencies or to the public. ' 1 I 1 A I P, MICHAEL FREEMAN FIRE CHIEF FORESTER & FIRE WARDEN June 20, 1995 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT 1 L s 1320 NORTH EASTERN AVENUE 1995 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90063-3294 (213) 881-2481 A Mr. Glenn Adamick, Assistant Planner R City of Santa Clarita Department of Community Development 23920 Valencia Blvd, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT -- (SANTA CLARITA) REVIEW OF THE NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND INITIAL STUDY FOR THE HUNTER'S GREEN DEVELOPMENT AND GOLF COURSE, CUP#95-003, OPT#95-009, TENTATIVE TRACT #52004 (EIIi#253,1995) FIRE PROTECTION AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE AVAILABILITY The subject development will receive fire protection and paramedic service from the County of Los Angeles Fire Department. Fire Station 123, located at 26321 N. Sand Canyon Road, Canyon Country, CA 91351-4020, is the jurisdictional engine company for this property. DISTANCE TIME MILES MINUTES STAFFING Engine 123 3.7 6.3 3 Engine 107 4.9 8.5 3 Engine 307 49 8.5 4 Squad 107 4.9 8.5 2 PROJECT IMPACT ON SERVICES Fire protection serving the area appears to be adequate for the existing development/land use; however, limited tax revenue has created uncertainties as to whether the Fire Department will be able to continue current levels of service. Each additional development creates greater demands on existing resources. Consequently, the impact that this project will have on the adequacy of the Fire Department's level of service remains uncertain. SERVING THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND THE CITIES OF AGOURA HILLS CALABASAS GLENDORA LAKEWOOD MAYWOOD RANCHO PALOS VERDES SOUTH EL MONTE. ARTESIA CARSON HAWAIIAN GARDENS LA MIRADA NORWALK ROLLING HILLS SOUTH GATE AZUSA CERRITOS HIDDEN HILLS LANCASTER PALMDALE ROLLING HILLS ESTATES TEMPLE CITY PARK COMMER HUNTINGTON PARK LA PUENTE PALOS VERDES ESTATES ROSEMEAD WALNUT SELL BELL E COMMERCE INDUSTRY LAWNDALE PARAMOUNT SAN DIMAS WEST HOLLYWOOD BELLFLOWER BELL GARDENS CVOAHY DIAMOND BAR IRWINDALE LOMITA PICO RIVERA SANTA CLARITA WESTLAKEVILLAGE RRADWIRY DUARTE LA CANADA FUNTRIDGE MALIBU POMONA SIGNAL HILL WHITTIER Mr. Glen Adamick, Assistant Planner II June 20, 1995 Page 2 FISCAL IMPACT A development of this nature will place a greater demand on existing fire protection and paramedic resources. SERVICE RESPONSIBILITY The applicant shall participate in an appropriate financing mechanism to provide funds for fire protection facilities which are required by new commercial, industrial or residential development in an amount proportionate to the demand created by this project. The developer shall contact the County of Los Angeles Fire Department at (213) 881-2404 to discuss mitigation arrangements. CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN The development of this project must comply with all applicable code and ordinance requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire flows, and fire hydrants. Fire flows of 1,250 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure for a two- hour duration will be required. Final fire flow will be based on the size of the building, its relationship to other structures and property lines, and the type of construction used. Fire Department requirements for access, fire flow and hydrants are addressed when approval for tentative subdivision maps are considered. FORESTRY DIVISION We have reviewed the Notice of Preparation and Initial Study for the Hunter's Green Development located at the junction of Sand Canyon and Lost Canyon in the City of Santa Clarita. The statutory responsibilities of the Forestry Division of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department include erosion control, watershed management, rare and endangered species, vegetation, archeological and cultural resources and the County Oak Tree Ordinance. Potential impacts in these areas should -be addressed in the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Mr. Glen Adamick, Assistant Planner II June 20, 1995 Page 3 The following subjects should be considered by the Draft Environmental Impact Report: The Oak Tree Permit and Report, Recommended Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures should be included in the Draft Environmental Impact Report. The applicant should incorporate innovative design to reduce or eliminate the impact to the oak resources. A fuel management/modification and fire hazard reduction plan should be developed and implemented prior to construction. Appropriate soil erosion control structures and vegetative cover must be provided to prevent erosion. Plants suited to the climate of the area should be considered including drought tolerant (xeriphytic), species. Landscape design and construction should consider utilizing low -fuel volume and drought tolerant species. Due to the wildland fire hazard surrounding the project we do not recommend using highly flammable and heavy fuel volume Eucalyptus, Pines; Junipers or Cypress plant species, within 100' of any structures. In order to limit the potential threat of wildfire, the use of native/low fuel volume plants should be mandatory in the revegetative plan for this project. The existing vegetation may be utilized to create a fire safe environment. The fuel management plan should consider shrub species such as Sumac, Toyon, Elderberry and Holly Leaf Cherry, as well as tree species such as Oak, Sycamore and California Bay that can be maintained in a fire safe condition, provided they are not overtopping any structure. The proposed project may contain a SEA (Significant Ecological Area). Creative environmental design to protect and preserve this sensitive area is recommended. The flora .and fauna analysis should address any rare, endangered and/or sensitive species that exist on the project site. The preservation, relocation and/or construction impacting any of these species should be fully explained in the EIR. An archaeological and historical records check and field survey should be conducted to determine potential impacts to these resources and to verify your statements in the Initial Study. I I Mr. Glen Adamick, Assistant Planner H June 20, 1995 Page 4 Areas designated as open space shall not be utilized for equipment or vehicle storage, or for access to the area of development. Such areas shall not be used for dumping of fill materials. If you have any additional questions, please contact this office at (213) 881-2481. Very truly yours, /� d 4�� 4" PAUL H. RIPPENS, CHIEF, FORESTRY DIVISION PREVENTION BUREAU PHR:bas I I HARRY W. STONE, Director June 12, 1995 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 900 SOUTH FREMONT AVENUE ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91803.1331 Telephone: (918) 458-5100 Mr. Glenn Adamick Assistant Planner II City. of Santa.Clarita Department of Community Development 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 ,i1;Jiv 1 .k 199 ADDRESS ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO: P.O.BOX 1460 ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91802-1460 IN REPLY PLEASFL REFER TO FILE: -4 Dear Mr. Adamick: RESPONSE TO A NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR HUNTERS GREEN DEVELOPMENT AND GOLF COURSE Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Notice of Preparation for the proposed Hunter's Green.Development and Golf I Course. We have reviewed the Notice of Preparation and offer the following comments: Waste Management 1. The California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991, as amended, requires each jurisdiction to adopt an ordinance by September 1, 1994, requiring each `development project" to provide an adequate storage area for collection and removal of recyclable materials. The Negative Declaration should discuss standards to provide adequate "waste storage areas" for collection/storage of recyclable and green waste materials for this project. 2. Current estimates indicate that a shortfall in permitted daily land disposal capacity in Los Angeles County will occur within the next few years. The proposed development will generate construction and demolition waste and will negatively impact solid waste management facilities in the County. Therefore, the proposed environmental document must identify what measures the project proponent will implement to mitigate the impact. These measures may include, but are.not limited to, implementation of waste reduction, recycling and composting programs, as well as programs to divert the construction waste from the landfills. I I I Mr. Glenn Adamick June 12, 1995 Page 2 3. The environmental document needs to fully asses the impact, if any, on the quality of stormwater as the result of the project. Mitigation measures, if necessary, should be incorporated into the project. The document should reference National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit CA0061654 issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board to the County and local agencies. The document should indicate compliance with all. relevant stormwater quality management programs of the Federal, State, County, and local agencies. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Ms. Amita Garg of (818) 458-6570. Traffic and Lighting We recommend that the State of California Department of Transportation be given the opportunity to review this project for impacts.on roadways under their jurisdiction. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact ' Mr. Myron Tucker of our Traffic Investigations and Studies Section at (818) 458=5909. Transportation Planning We agree with the City of Santa Clarita that the applicant should prepare an Environmental Impact Report. Among the topics we recommend for inclusion in the report is the circulation impact to County highways as delineated on the County Highway Plan. Theproposed project directly impacts Sand Canyon Road. We recommend that the City continue to retain this road -as a major highway. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Ms. Ravi Risam at (818) 45874353. I 1 I Mr. Glenn Adamick June 12, 1995 Page 3 If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mr. Vik Bapna at the previous page address or at (818) 458-4363. Very truly yours, HARRY W. STONE Direct -- of Public Works Ile BRIAN T. SASAKI Assistant Deputy Director Planning Division VB:my 371 Enc. W�SilWRiER [ECIRM�iION SOLID WASTE MANAGEMEN COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS 1955 Workman Mill Rood, Whittier, CA 90601-1400 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 4998, Whittier, CA 90607-4998 Telephone: (310) 699-7411, FAX: (310) 695.6139 Mr. Glen Adamick City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Dear Mr. Adamick: OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY CHARLES W. CARRY Chief Engineer and General Manager May 18, 1995 File No: 26-00.00-00 Hunter's Green Development and Golf Course RECEIVED MAY 2 2 1995 COMMON11 V p9VE !PMEN. CITY OF SANTA CLAR:TA This is in reply to your letter which was received on April 19, 1995. We offer the following comments regarding sewerage service: 1. The area in question is outside the jurisdictional boundaries of the Sanitation Districts and mill require annexation into District No. 26 before sewerage service can be provided to the proposed development. For specific information regarding the annexation procedure and fees, please contact Ms. Alma Horvath at (310) 699-7411, extension 2708. 2. The wastewater flow originating from the proposed project will discharge to a local sewer line, which is not maintained by the Sanitation Districts, for conveyance to the Districts' Soledad Canyon Trunk Sewer, Section 5, located in Lost Canyon Road at the Antelope Valley Freeway. This 18 -inch diameter trunk sewer has a peak capacity of 9.1 million gallons per day (mgd) and conveyed a peak flow of 3.0 mgd when last measured in 1992. 3. The County. Sanitation Districts provide sewage treatment in the Santa Clarita Valley by operating two water reclamation plants (WRPs), the Saugus WRP and the Valencia WRP. These facilities have been interconnected to form a regional treatment system known as the Santa Clarita Valley Joint Sewerage System (SCVJSS). As a result of a recently completed flow equalization project, the Saugus WRP has a rated capacity of 5.6 mgd and currently treats an average flow of 7.1. mgd. All solids, and any wastewater flows which exceed the capacity of the Saugus WRP, are conveyed to the Valencia VW for treatment- The Valencia WRP has a design capacity of 11.0 mgd and currently treats an average flow of 8.4 mgd. The current treatment capacity of the SCVJSS is 16.6 mgd (11.0 + 5.6). All future expansions of the SCVJSS wastewater treatment facilities including sludge processing will be carried out at the Valencia VW site. A 6.0 mgd expansion of the Valencia WRP is in progress and is being constructed in two phases. Phase I is currently on-line and consists of a 3.5 mgd expansion which is expected to meet the demand for wastewater treatment through 1997, as forecasted in the Regional Comprehensive Plan. Phase II will consist of the remaining 2.5 mgd of capacity, which is scheduled to be on-line in 1998, and will be sufficient to meet the demand through 2002. These phased expansions are planned to allow adequate lead time to design and construct the required capacity as the wastewater flow materializes. The SCVJSS will have a total capacity of 19.1 mgd after both phases are completed. I I I I �� F I I I P I �J I 11 k Mr. Glen Adamick 2 May 18, 1995 4. A copy of the Districts' average wastewater generation factors is enclosed to allow you to estimate the volume of wastewater the project will generate. S. The Sanitation Districts are empowered by the California Health and Safety Code to charge a fee for the privilege of connecting (directly or indirectly) to the Sanitation Districts' Sewerage System or increasing the cx=g strength and/or quantity of wastewater attributable to a particular parcel or operation already connected. This connection fee is required to construct an incremental expansion of the Sewerage System to accommodate the proposed project which will mitigate the impact of this project on the present Sewerage System: Payment of a connection fee will be required before a permit to connect to the sewer is issued. 6. The design capacity of the Districts' wastewater treatment facilities are based on population forecasts adopted in the Southern California Association of Governments' (SCAG) 1994 Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP). The RCP is in the process of being adopted as part of the 1994 South Coast Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The AQMP is jointly prepared by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and SCAG as a requirement of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA). In order to conform with the AQMP, all expansions of Districts facilities must be sized and service phased in a manner which will be consistent with the Growth Management element of the 1994 RCP. The Growth Management element contains a regional growth forecast for the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial which was prepared by SCAG. Specific policies included in the RCP which deal with the management of growth will be incorporated into the AQMP strategies to improve air quality in the South Coast Air Basin. The available capacity of the Districts' treatment facilities will, therefore, be limited to levels associated with approved growth identified in the adopted RCP. As such, this letter does not constitute a guarantee of wastewater service, but is to advise you that the Districts intend to provide this service up to the levels which are legally permitted and to inform you of the currently existing capacity and any proposed expansion of Districts facilities. If you have any questions, please contact Sean Christian at (310), 699-7411, extension 2707 or the undersigned at extension 2722 Very truly yours, Charles W. Carry Dainis Kleinbergs Civil Engineer Financial Planning & Property Management Section DK:eg Enclosure IN\ENVASSESENVASSMUNfGREZUR TABLEI LOADINGS FOR EACH CLASS OF LAND USE DESCRIPTION RESIDENTIAL Single Family Home Duplex Triplex Fourplex Condominiums Single Family Home (reduced rate) Five Units or More Mobile Home Parks COMMERCIAL Hotel/Motel/Rooming House Store Supermarket Shopping Center Regional Mall Office Building Professional Building Restaurant Indoor Theatre Car Wash Tunnel - No Recycling Tunnel - Recycling Wand Financial Institution Service Shop Animal Kennels Service Station Auto Sales/Repair Wholesale Outlet Nursery/Greenhouse Manufacturing Dry Manufacturing Lumber Yard Warehousing Open Storage Drive-in Theatre Night Club Bowag/Skating FLOW (Gallons UNIT OF MEASURE Per Da COD (Pounds per Da [_1 I SUSPENDED 260 SOLIDS 0.59 (Pounds 312 Per Da 0.70 Parcel 260 1.22 0.59 Parcel 312 1.46 0.70 Parcel 468 2.19 1.05 Parcel 624 2.92 1.40 Parcel 169 0.79 0.35 Parcel 156 0.73 035 No. of Dwlg. Units 156 0.73 035 No. of Spaces 156 0.73 035 Room 125 0.54 0.28 1000 ft2 100 0.43 0.23 1000 ft2 150 200 1.00 1000 ft2 325 3.00 1.17 1000 ft2 150 2.10 0.77 1000 ft2 200 0.86 0.45 1000 ft2 300 1.29 0.68 1000 ft2 1,000 16.68 5.00 1000 ft2 125 0.54 0.28 1000 ft2 3,700 15.86 8.33 1000 ft2 2,700 11.74 6.16 1000 ft2 700 3.00 1.58 1000 ft2 100 0.43 0.23 1000 ft2 100 0.43 0.23 1000 ft2 100 0.43 0.23 1000 ft2 100 0.43 0.23 1000 ft2 100 0.43. 0.23 1000 ft2 100 0.43 0.23 1000 ft2 25 0.11 0.06 1000 ft2 200 1.86 0.70 1000 ft2 25 0.23 0.09 1000 ft2 25 0.23 0.09. 1000 ft2 25 0.23 0.09 1000 ft2 25 0.23 0.09 1000 ft2 20 0.09 0.05 1000 ft2 350 1.50 0.79 1000 ft2 150 1.76 0.55 I I. AfEWHALL COUNTY ][WATER DISTRICT 23780 North Pine Street P.C. Sax 220970 r., Santa Clarks, California 91322-0970 >� Telephone (905) 259.3610 FAX 1805)259-9673 Acting General Manager JEAN A. DI ANGELOUS Secretary Auditor REBA MITCHELL Office Manager SUZANNE OYS Attomey ROBERT H. DAHL Engineer C FRANKLIN STEINER I! April 20, 1995 City of Santa Clarita . Department of Community Development 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, California 91355 Attention: Glenn Adamick, Assistant Planner II Subject: Notice of Preparation of a DEIR Hunter's Green Development and Golf Course Dear Mr. Adamick: Please be advised that the subject project.lies outside the boundaries of the Newhall County Water District and will have no impact upon our District. Very truly yours, IZ COUNTY WATER DISTRICT A. Di Angelous g General Manager JAD/so Directors ROBERT W. WADE, President DONALD B. HAYES, Vice President EDWIN A. LYNNE A. PLAM PLAMBECIC DAVE RAPOPORT Acting General Manager JEAN A. DI ANGELOUS Secretary Auditor REBA MITCHELL Office Manager SUZANNE OYS Attomey ROBERT H. DAHL Engineer C FRANKLIN STEINER I! April 20, 1995 City of Santa Clarita . Department of Community Development 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, California 91355 Attention: Glenn Adamick, Assistant Planner II Subject: Notice of Preparation of a DEIR Hunter's Green Development and Golf Course Dear Mr. Adamick: Please be advised that the subject project.lies outside the boundaries of the Newhall County Water District and will have no impact upon our District. Very truly yours, IZ COUNTY WATER DISTRICT A. Di Angelous g General Manager JAD/so 14709 Vanowen Street. Room 216 Van Nuys, California 91405 May 12, 1995 City of Santa Clarita Department of Community Development 23920 Valencia Boulevard Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Attention: Glenn Adamick Planning Technician RE: Hunter's Green Development East of Sand Canyon Road and North of Live Oak,Springs Canyon Road_ Gentlemen: I PACIFICFA'BELL A Pacific Telesis Com pany RECEIVE1 MAY 17 1995 COMIAU::ITs C:Tr CF SA?:Tn C[ A+OA This is with reference to a letter dated April 17, 1995, regarding the above -referenced pending project. Pacific Bell has reviewed the map and application and has no objections or recommendations to submit at this time. Thank you for notifying us. If you have any questions, please call this office or the Engineer, Kraig Kelly on (805) 252-0107. Sincerely, 'cei a;�// W. S. Clissold Right of Way Administrator (818) 373-5968 WSC:plc 11 I1 RECEIVED Y 1 :? 1995 MAY SANTA CLARITA WATER COMPANY MA CITY OFUNTA CWITA 22722 WEST SOLEDAD CANYON ROAD • SANTA CLARITA. CALIFORNIA 91350 • 805-259-2737 S(>4 MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 903 • SANTA CLARITA. CALIFORNIA 91380-9003 IMay 16, 1995 City of Santa Clarita Department of Community Development 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Attn: Mr. Glenn Adamick Assistant Planner II Re: Draft EIR - Hunter's Green Development Dear Mr. Adamick: After reviewing the referenced EIR, we propose no significant changes to the statementsmade in the draft report of March 28, 1995. .The property is within our existing service area and we have included water service to.it in our overall master planning. //Very truly /yours, W. J. Manetta, Jr. President WJM/naf John W. Newton & Associates, Inc. Jn- wfessionaf eonsudaats 165 High St., Suite 103 Post Office Box 471 Moorpark, California 93021 May 9, 1995 Glenn Adamick Assistant Planner Department of Community Development CITY OF SANTA CLARITA 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, California 91355 1 RECEIii ED MAY 1 i 1995 COMMUNITY CEVUZ?MENT .� CITY OF SANTA CL.AR:TA Telephone (805) 378-0073 Fax No. (805) 378-0080 Re: NOP, April 17, 1995 Hunters Green Development and Golf Course Dear.Glenn: Thank you for providing us with the NOP. On behalf of Phillip W. Gillibrand, P.W. Gillibrand Company, in specific response to the NOP, please consider our comments and ensure that the following issues are addressed in the DEIR: 1. EARTH Cl. The proposed project would cover, and therefore prohibit future extraction of "Designated" mineral deposits determined by the California State Mining and Geology Board to be of regional and statewide significance, 'important to the regional and state economy, as Chaptered in the California Administrative Code, Title 14, Natural Resources, Section 3550.9, et.seq., effective January 2, 1987. I I 6. NOISE I b. The project will subject future residents'to severe or unacceptable noise levels.from adjacent mining operations on the Angeles National Forest. Noise associated with heavy, off road construction equipment operation, blasting and safety back up alarms, over the next approximate 50 years, will travel unabated, to future residences due to mining elevations exceeding 2000'due East and contiguous to the proposed project boundary. C. The project will subject future residents to potentially severe or unacceptable vibrations from blasting and heavy, off road construction equipment operations, over the next approximate 50 years, from the_adjacent'mining activities referenced above. REAL ESTATE BROKERAGE MINERAL REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT Commercial • Industrial • Land RESOURCE Engineering • Land Division • Permits Residential Relocation DEVELOPMENT Planning • Zoning I Glenn Adamick May 9, 1995 Page 2 8. LAND USE b. On or about April 4, 1985 the Los Angeles Regional Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract Map No. 32571 (redesignated TR -46365 at a later time) limiting future development of a".. portion of the proposed project property to two (2) large open space parcels, lot 44 & lot 136. The total area of these parcels is approximately 103.94 acres, and its unsubdivided legal description is Parcel 7, of Parcel Map No. 12479, as recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder July 3, 1980. This acreage (Parcel 7, PM 12479) is restricted from further subdivision and is regulated by Conditional Use Permit No. 2156, approved as a companion implementing action with TT -32571 in 1985. This action provided for the maximum allowable density to be achieved for TT -32571 by providing clustering of the project West of a ridgeline on the total 345 acre project, thereby buffering the future development from the existing and on-going mining operations referenced above. 136 total units were approved, for phased development, leaving the two (2) oversized parcels (44 & 136) as buffer separation between the project and mining activities. Additionally, the California State Mining and Geology Board "Designated" the proposed project property (Parcel 7, PM -12479) along with all of the Angeles National Forest property ' contiguous to this 103.94 acres, as."MRZ-2" & "MRZ-3" (significant mineral deposits and unevaluated significant mineral deposits). These resources were "Designated" to be of regional significance, as Chaptered in the California Administrative Code, Title 14, Natural Resources, Section 3550.9, et.seq., effective January 2, 1987. All of the above substantiates that a substantial alteration of the planned land use of the area is proposed by the Droiect. C. Same as 8.b, above.. d. Same as B.b. above. 1' 9. NATURAL RESOURCES b. The proposed project would result in substantial depletion of nonrenewable natural resources, which are "Designated" to be of regional and statewide significance, and which are protected from encroachment of incompatible development per Public Resources Code Sections 2763, 2764 & 2790. I Glenn Adamick May 9, 1995 Page 3 18. AESTHETICS b. The proposed project will result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site (existing, approved open pit, heavy industrial mining operation over the next approximate 50 years), open to public view of future residents, creating a future land use conflict with no potential for resolution. Approval of the proposed project would create the inherent conflict between mining and golf course estate residential land uses. I I J We further request that the Initial Study questionaire for Master r Case No. 95=032 be amended, incorporating the above information as unmitigatable impacts, which will result from development of the 103.94 acre property (Parcel 7, PM 12479), as proposed in the Hunter Green Development and Golf Course project. Finally, it is not legally possible to develop the undeveloped portion d of TT -32571 (Parcel -7), in our opinion. In 1990-91 a proposal was made to the City of Santa Clarita to develop Parcel 7, PM 12479 the undeveloped balance of TT-32571/TR-46365). The developer was apparently attempting to circumvent the restrictions placed on the property by the LARPC, by failing to record the final phase of TT-32571/TR-46365 and proposing annexation of this 103.94 acres (lots44& 136) to the City.. The project, Santa Clarita Vesting Tentative Tract No. 49185, "Griffin Springs" was subsequently withdrawn after a hearing before the City Planning Commission where much of this historical information came to light. Attached are copies of a few informational documents presented City staff and the Planning_ Commission in 1991. Hopefully, all of information will help the current project proponents avoid a costly that has no hope of being approved in its present configuration. to this process The bottom line, from Mr. Gillibrand's perspective, is that residential development.on the portion of the proposed project property adjacent to his on-going mining operations on the Angeles National Forest, cannot be allowed to occur. He will, however, keep an open mind to the overall golf course related proposal if a redesign eliminates residential development on Parcel 7. Please feel free to contact Mr Charles Wiseman at 805/526-2195, or tion or to discuss these matters in .Gillibrand or his Operations Manager the undersigned, for further informa- greater detail. I've taken the I. Glenn Adamick May 9, 1995 Page 4 liberty of providing a copy of this material to the Hunters Green Development Corporation and to Robinson Golf Design, Inc., in order to expedite their awareness of Mr. Gillibrand's concerns, and to establish direct contact opportunities. Thank you Glenn. 3iincerely, `- John W. Newton Land Use Consultant Attachments cc: Phil Gillibrand Charles Wiseman Mayor JoAnn Darcy Fred Follstad Stan Fargeon Ted Robinson Jr. `OPv/ VALLEY 1i RD. elk—� RR �OQ� � CANYDµ D D .. PACIFIC m CLARA 9 o 0 RD, so�tN�a� cly SITE . z F , rn y�G��PP 1.A aG OP - RD. VICINITY MAP PARCEL -7, PM -12479 r NTS' LOS.{ANGELES COUNTY John Schwarze I FROM Zoning Administration SF GRIFFIN HOMES T32571, CUP 2156 1 I A � M .ar JoAnne Darcy Sr. Area Field Deputy 805-253-7230 5-20-87 Tract. 32571 (Crystal Springs Ranch) was sold by Crocker Bank to Griffin Homes. Under the terms of�the CUP there was a condition to.restrict development near the hillsides so future residents could not see or -be bothered by the Gillibrand titanium project on the west side of the mountain nearby - Because I understand Griffin Homes changed the plan, I request that .Regional Planning enforce the original prohibition and protect ,hillside encroachment. Please provide me with a status report. Thank you. r ! H = 3 f0 I I. :{:. ... HRYwv.: •t.e:. t ....yfIpJZIp.+.. � [. if N:. C .i<.N.n,tp.ti Y.nn>Jt.4a�: <. ♦ vitC.i•aiSl`:!lniiljlj{jjy :.:RY}).�::•::. .. ..4NG'. ♦. .. y:\T>Ki:'J '.. :'.:h\'\: �i i�:VKu:pIN:(t� U � 1 I II i I� i I I ,t I I I, LOS.{ANGELES COUNTY John Schwarze I FROM Zoning Administration SF GRIFFIN HOMES T32571, CUP 2156 1 I A � M .ar JoAnne Darcy Sr. Area Field Deputy 805-253-7230 5-20-87 Tract. 32571 (Crystal Springs Ranch) was sold by Crocker Bank to Griffin Homes. Under the terms of�the CUP there was a condition to.restrict development near the hillsides so future residents could not see or -be bothered by the Gillibrand titanium project on the west side of the mountain nearby - Because I understand Griffin Homes changed the plan, I request that .Regional Planning enforce the original prohibition and protect ,hillside encroachment. Please provide me with a status report. Thank you. r ! H = 3 f0 I I. :{:. ... HRYwv.: •t.e:. t ....yfIpJZIp.+.. � [. if N:. C .i<.N.n,tp.ti Y.nn>Jt.4a�: <. ♦ vitC.i•aiSl`:!lniiljlj{jjy :.:RY}).�::•::. .. ..4NG'. ♦. .. y:\T>Ki:'J '.. :'.:h\'\: �i i�:VKu:pIN:(t� U i LOS.{ANGELES COUNTY John Schwarze I FROM Zoning Administration SF GRIFFIN HOMES T32571, CUP 2156 1 I A � M .ar JoAnne Darcy Sr. Area Field Deputy 805-253-7230 5-20-87 Tract. 32571 (Crystal Springs Ranch) was sold by Crocker Bank to Griffin Homes. Under the terms of�the CUP there was a condition to.restrict development near the hillsides so future residents could not see or -be bothered by the Gillibrand titanium project on the west side of the mountain nearby - Because I understand Griffin Homes changed the plan, I request that .Regional Planning enforce the original prohibition and protect ,hillside encroachment. Please provide me with a status report. Thank you. r ! H = 3 f0 I I. :{:. ... HRYwv.: •t.e:. t ....yfIpJZIp.+.. � [. if N:. C .i<.N.n,tp.ti Y.nn>Jt.4a�: <. ♦ vitC.i•aiSl`:!lniiljlj{jjy :.:RY}).�::•::. .. ..4NG'. ♦. .. y:\T>Ki:'J '.. :'.:h\'\: �i i�:VKu:pIN:(t� U March '11, 1991 Lynn Harris, Director of Community Development City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard Santa Clarita, CA 91355 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 49185 Lee M,.b. can„y DEPAIITMENT DP no rivet TW;" 86wt We Amt CVBornY 9WIZ' 974-0411 Jwn" E HMA. AICP PWu*V DMeckw rs, Dear It has come to our attention that you are currently processing Tentative Tract No. 49185. In reviewing our records, we have determined that the proposed subdivision is actually a re- subdivision of a portion of Tract No. 32-971.'The-"site in question consists of two oversized lots which were'provided.to help achieve consistency with the maximum allowable General Plan density for that tract. Further, the property in question is regulated by the provisions of Conditional Use Permit No. 2156. The construction of more than two homes on the site would violate the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit. If you have any questions, please let me know. sincerely, DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL PLANNING James E. Hartl, AICP Director of Planning John R. Schwarze, CP Administrator, Current Planning Branch JS:PH: hp John W. Newton & Associates, Inc. Ao`essiomd eonsuAant& AsoduriorLRofessionol Building 165 High St., Suite 204 Post Office Box 471 tvtoorpork.'Colifornio 93021 - May 7, 1987 Mr. Phillip W. Gillibrand P.W. Gi I.1A BRAND CO. 5131 Tapo Canyon Road P.O. Box 3476 Simi Valley, Calitornia 93063 Re: Tract Map 32571, Crystal Springs, Griffin Development Co., Lots 44 and 136 Dear Phil: Telephone (805) 529.3651 In response to your inquiry regarding clarification of the conditions imposed upon the Tentative Tract Map No. 32571 by the Los Angeles Regional Planning Commission, when it was approved .on or about April 4, 1985, these are as follows: CONDITION NO. 13: Required dedication -on the "Final Map" of construction rights to "more than one residential and related accessory building on any one lot..." (Lots 44 and 136). CONDITION NO. 14: Required a note on the "Final Map" that Che project rpaiticularly Lots 44 and, 136..." were located next to "open pit mining operations within the National Forest Boundary..." CONDITION NO. 15: Again. reiterated that in addition to ui ding rights being dedicated to prevent further subdivision or further density beyond what was approved with the Tentative .Map, this Condition cautioned that "If units are filed, each unit must have open space area to individually meet zoning and General Plan density ' requirements, or when taken cumulatively with all previous units recorded, meet zoning and General Plan density requirements"; basically means that the project was allowed to "cluster" west of the ridgeline onto parcels smaller than the one -acre zoning that was .in place, and in exchange created larger parcels (Lots 44 and 136) east of the ridge line larger than its zoning provided for, but necessary to guarantee that the maximum number.of units allowed, overall, would not and could not be exceeded in the future. Tentative Tract Map No. 32571, hn weapproved, accommodated all of the units that were possible given the zoning and REAL ESTATE BROKERAGE MINERAL REAL ESTATE DEVEI.OPMENT ('�.xnmemnl • h-� Wrhl • Wnd RESOURCE Engineering • Lond Division • Permfk sm r n r n r H-1 n ;2126.... .. ---- ---- Mr. Phillip W. Gillibrand May 7, 1987 Page Two land use designations for the property; no further subdivision within the entire TT -32571 boundary is possible. C014DIT1014 NO. 16: This required that the developer ensure that a . uyers in the project area be properly notified of the existence of open pit mining, operations contiguous to the property boundary, by way of the Department of Real Estate public Report. 1 hope this further clarifies and expands upon the language of the approved Mal) conditions. Please feel free to contact me if you need additional information, supporting data, or further claritication of these items. Sinrlerely, John W. Newton JWN:tabs 71 h I 'Cr- t V- - 1�sr 16 1995 Dr. Dennis K. Ostrom, President Sand Canyon Home Owners Association 16430.Sultus Street rCanyon Country, California 91351 May 11, 1995 Glenn Adamick, Assistant Planner II City of Santa Clarita Department of Community Development 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, Calif. 91355 Re: EIR Hunter's Green Development and Golf Course Dear Glenn: On Monday night, May 8, the Sand Canyon Home Owners Association (SCHOA) met to identify possible environmental impacts of the proposed golf course. The "possible environmental impacts" listed below are, for the most part, concerns of individuals and do not represent concerns arrived at by a vote of the majority. The purpose here is to make the City aware of these concerns. After being made aware, we expect that the city planning staff will deal with them in their usual professional manner. Following is a list of the possible environmental impacts; the order of listing is not significant: 1. Traffic - Everybody understands that developed property will generate more traffic than undeveloped property. We also have been told by the developer that the proposed development will generate traffic that, at worst, is not significantly greater on average than the entitlements (approved developments) that already exist on the same property. Would you verify this last point? Given the above, concerns do remain: • Traffic during tournaments - player and spectator traffic could disrupt normal neighborhood environment. • Traffic control - Street lights, curbs, turning lanes etc. take away from the Sand Canyon "flavor" and must be kept to a minimum. • The residents that live near the entrance to the facility are concerned about the I focusing of the traffic near their home. • Parking for the golf course on occasions where parking capacity is inadequate. 2. Lost Canyon Infrastructure - Earlier developments, some of which occupied property that is contained in this development, had made agreements to fund improvements to the Lost Canyon area. Residents in this area are concerned that these improvements will not be funded if the golf course is approved. I 3. Access to National Forest and Horse Trails - Some residents in the area enjoy riding horses. Many currently pass through the subject property to the National Forest. They are concerned that the development will cut off their access to the National.Forest. 4. Security of the site - Residents understand the need for security at the golf course and they want the golf course. to be secure. They are concerned that it may not be done tastefully from all visal angles, but just the customer's angle. 5. Ground Water Pumping - Several residents depend on well water.. There is a concern that the magnitude of the water needed to water the golf course greens and fairways, not to mention the water traps, will lower if not deplete the existing water table. This may impact nearby wells. 6. Water Pressure - The developer mentioned that the Santa Clarita Water Company will be supplying some, if not all, of the water. There is a concern that such a large water use on the existing system will significantly lower the water pressure. 7. Light pollution - The facility will have evening business that requires outdoor lighting, e.g. eating facility, driving range, parking. Adjoining residents and those that have a view of the golf course are concerned that the lighting will detract from their outdoor evening pleasure. 8. Fence along driving range - The facility has a driving range that is located on the property line where there are adjoining residents. These residents understand the need for tall protective fencing next to a driving range. They also feel that such a fence will detract from their usual visual pleasure. 7 �% i Hunters Green Development and Golf Course EIR Scoping Meeting City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department Rincon Consultants, Inc. ' in association with Kimley-Horn and Associates • Penfield & Smith Ir July 12,1995 HUNTERS GREEN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR Scoping Meeting - July 12,1995 - 7:30 PM AGENDA L Welcome/Introduction Christine KuQa, City of Santa Clarita Glen Adamick, City of Santa Clarita Stan Furgeon, Hunter's Green Development Stephen Svete, Rincon Consultants Z Overview of the Project History of the Project Project/Site Description Planning Process Steps 3. Applicant Presentation 4. Description of the EIR Process Scoping Meeting Purpose CEQA Input Process Initial Study Notice of Preparation Draft EIR Comments/Responses to Comments 5. Open Discussion Discussion: Environmental Issues to be Analyzed 6. The Next Steps Schedule Adjournment City of Santa Clarita HUNTERS GREEN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR Scoping Meeting -July 12,1995 - 7:30 PM Comment Sheet We want to {mow your concerns, so we can address them in the E11L.. Name: Affiliation: (readmi, businessperson, community group member) Address: Phone: Please submit to Ms. Christine Kudija or Mr. Glen Adamick City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department 23920 Valencia Boulevard Santa Clarita, California 91355 City of Santa Clarrta HUNTERS GREEN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR Scoping Meeting -July 12,1995 -7:30 PM Issues to be Addressed in the EIR 1. Environmental Issues Earth Resources Hydrology, Water, Drainage Air Quality Biological Resources Transportation/Circulation Aesthetics Noise 2. Alternatives 3. Cumulative Effects 4. Other CEQA Issues City of Santa Clanta M m o m M W W M tit r� .err r m M W I M HUNTERS GREEN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR Scoping Meeting -July 12, 1995 - 7:30 PM EIR Kickoff 0 • ancon. EIR Scoping Meeting EIR Process Flow Chart Preliminary Project Impact Description Analysis Staff Review and Approval 0 • 45 Day public Review Finalize preliminary Finalize Draft EIR Draft EIR Prepare Draft Responses to Comments Develop Mitigation and Alternatives City.Staff Review CityReview Of Response to Comments ® Cork City taff A Public Review orHearing Period Work Period Review view ition CITYOF SANTA CLARITA Hunters Green EIR Project Schedule TASK Jun -95 Jul -95 Aug -95 Sep -95 Oct -95 Nov -95 1. EIR Kickoff Meeting 40 City Review * * * Public Review 2. .Scoping Meeting 3. Prepare EIR Project Description and - - Alternatives Description 4. Preliminary Draft EIR - - - - S. Draft EIR * 6. Public Review/Hearings 7. Response to Comments, Final EIR 8. Mitigation Monitoring Program 0 Public Meetings/Hearings ❑ Draft Product ■ Final Product — Project Activity - - City Review * * * Public Review I I I I I LJ I I I 11 d I I 11 J I HUNTERS GREEN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR Scoping Meeting - July 12,1995 - 7:30 PM Welcome! Please Sign hL.. SiknaturaTHnted Name Address «h zr CJ nrn l n h2.r \ 2 Ssc ora re SPa INGS tAiL/ f c�\1 �y 255? 7_ 75s:9' &kt eff C -1Z . 6 �/- SFS_✓/c'n Sam Clanfa HUNTERS GREEN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR Scoping Meeting -July 12,1995 -7:30 PM SipnatureTKnted Name SPAN QwOR.S\, .AC-G 0- C�4eL- Welcome! Please Sign hL.. Address Liv I a I I I I I LI I I I I I 7 I I 1 City of Santa Clarita 't �1 it 11 �! I II II 11 EI HUNTERS GREEN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT R V E EIR Scoping Meeting -July 12,1995 -7:30 PM JiIII 241995 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT rr, Y OF SANTA CLARITA Comment Sheet We want to know your concerns, so we can address them in the EIR.. Name: ")irihL hlf1 h1 Affiliation: (resident businessperson, community group member) Address:2_ rise Phone. 4bPA ah ov 9�31� G01 -P Cour,�2s ; Clue tsnz, rf) C,7. _ 5 hr! s QA�rnl. `s ° 5 OF�7 gal ns� t V� 4.e �^-� i' 5s L) piu °r� +kz 4 �4�� n a ve5l / . �sa n,57L- L6!�i, 6,r-t1,s 04�d y tee.. lqv�ds is i's f L � C''4!'t na- c°vrrse rke_v //«/1 /&5- , farL�.5104. / GtV2�cS JC( �.e�t It� y 7)q'107111 Y�ucb4S' (V,) . —_Tki_ hale �/� �% ;1;4 s -f:2,,r krlutA- n) 2intL, � b Ig6614ej( OK Please submit to Ms. Christine Kudija or Mr. Glen Adamick City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department 23920 Valencia Boulevard Santa Clarita, California 91355 City of Santa Clarita /&5- , farL�.5104. / GtV2�cS JC( �.e�t It� y 7)q'107111 Y�ucb4S' (V,) . —_Tki_ hale �/� �% ;1;4 s -f:2,,r krlutA- n) 2intL, � b Ig6614ej( OK Please submit to Ms. Christine Kudija or Mr. Glen Adamick City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department 23920 Valencia Boulevard Santa Clarita, California 91355 City of Santa Clarita RECEIVED HUNTERS GREEN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT .itit 2 41995 EIR Scoping Meeting - July 12,1995 - 7:30 PM ENT C^Y ^r SLN'A ;A'rl?A Comment Sheet f We want to know your /concerns, so we can address them in the EHL.. Name: /'ClGAffiliation: rfP zjed (resident, businessperson, community group member) Address: D,00i Ckk �p;ljpePhone. g6,75 - 04C- ix5-3 ! 1ilICE 64P-4 PrzlUfrY�,A!/Li- 96-CU46 GUJ/N/dt�tbl� dXUIU!!(/G 7z14,M,61 T 041VA OF 70L-6pq7z� Cviwm crl U�)!i �5 4, "IX6-�fi � n4 d�li�'I �, P7- a s �v iiv c yy- po U6 y &IVO CY7'Ve4C- YL4S,50 Ow 0'15156°✓ AI'X O aVLg6&U 714A'T- TbE �)evFLOPeIZ PA -3 P10060 "� t4 WOXSr A:V.47S c TjjP 5aF UAACt >✓- q5 (✓AC AA VA -i F�IZOA. HJ k5 6WLW 4006 81755 AS Lu '7� 1"6 7G Um -V6 1 6rr.S A11WW'-s 1'rUi/ g irvr� PI?4 vAUr AM phi 69 7Z 143 FA' AWAV AV J2041, A3 Pv5SaL'i5. IANW�S:S 1 J))Zl(J(/L16 (Z4-kW1&TAN71 AND , 5 i `'Hj� 11n' ftp% lS 70 714E- /10iV 76 014K 0 44 Af6s 04 A)4Y TO 394 5?/.1d2St 466d-� A- PINUM' &IW Qule7rW -9 ..("Ei� 'jk"� Q)✓UJ I AP -,&7/C0 L,I FGi2 M05T - 1AfWC-1+ tlu� Is9pJ?c. f4c-e �S T� IW�IZDh�a2. 'P=O✓ll�.S? aw MUCI- V5y- 7-991 Z -E i USTR/1 AdMp VVl0�Y111'/t 1 /U ldG !� f11Q�LS 7��yT /}G7'l(/t✓(,� V j i�C11t !/XQU/t7l"�JtzuS . T�}(S G, C. WLI L ae�2 f14,S L' JitJ j2?.y WE- RSL NU rn/ 5 c T� i=ce '777.5 P (>l- Til (3 bS LOA -7a - Please submit to Ms. Christine Kudija or Mr. Glen Adamick City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department 23920 Valencia Boulevard Santa Clarita, California 91355 rCity of Santa Clarita TO T�� ei;� 7-a 3c,� wl rte u�G c c_ e.a s� GTr >`7n�krru�1ia2_ . 1 7 SEPI h 7a c<rL Si-IJ671115. obi /4 P=JF,� Gvr�GLs P)24Lt rv�tLs; 1D�iliC�S A-t — 6�ZAQUI p�v�./vr 1-61��,�p 7'y� (�►Up'4`100 �AD PA-sS�UbE, - r�r�. vl j- P�L� rl'T �}-NllrjU �'rYISiU!— S- i �t/�✓rJ Lti ��C2�iv��o Xiy /f�"l%f o�cJlCslft f/t✓!�/�yC.�S- DJ�� lG�vrMl5 IS �sv/NG R i"fJr� 70Jw�j� 024a:- f2 24a:-( P� To. ( ICL IfAY :r2Uc1---jt �iYJY �PLLjS� (� I/J> l ` L1eni yY}y1V)- J.S /,i')p20 V/=jo ? o�7Z1 i1�5 <Sll--�VLD /:O.q-D gW ■ �S C � �7NG�LC� TU}� Min Fdt>y�� THS � J� rU}z� Rsrz, �Cli4Z �� t n�Ttu ti HUNTERS GREEN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ER Scoping Meeting - July 12,199 - 7:30 p.m. Comment Sheet Background: Residents within the Sand Canyon area, including Crystal Springs Ranch and Oak Springs, take great pride in their ranching and equestrian history. We take pride in preserving the rural charm and traditions of our Canyon. A major component of the rural charm in our community is its open space as well as its access and availability of recreational equestrian trails. During the last several years, development has diminished the amount of open space in the Canyon, which has severely restricted recreational activities such as horseback riding, mountain bike riditrg, and hiking. Development in this area has severely restricted recreational activities not only for the residents of Sand Canyon, but also for the residents of the City of Santa Clarita who want to enjoy the Canyon's environmental resources. Problem: What currently serves as equestrian and other recreation in Sand Canyon will be compromised through the development of the Hunters Green proposed golf course if access to trails is limited. The lack of trail access and availability due to development threatens our rural charm, open space, and recreation in our community. This problem begs the question. "how can our environmental recourses be used in a way that not only provides recreation through golf, but can also provide recreation through an integrated equestrian and multipurpose trail system which can benefit the City, the Sand Canyon area residents, and the. golf course developers?" Solution: The environmental resources in Sand Carron should be developed in a way that recreational activities are preserved and available to all Santa Clarita Valley residents. The Hunters Green proposed golf course development should not only provide golfing recreation, but it should also provide access to an equestrian /multipurpose trail system in the Sand Canyon area. Therefore, the City of Santa Clarita should insure that: 1. .any development of the enviromnemal resources in Sand Canyon will preserve its open space, recreation, and rural charm. 2. the Hunters Green EIR will include a study of the impact of the proposed golf course on the existing and planned trail system for Sand Canvon. 3. the Hunters Green Development will be consistent with the City's General Trails Plan_ 4. the Hunters Green Development will provide a northisouth and east/west access to the City's General Trail system. cc: JoAnne Darcy, Mayor Dave Doughman, Parks and Recreation Commission Chairperson U7:4U ' 1*:41 =5 X39 8125 ' August 29,1995 CITY HALL U003 RECEIVE! AUG 3 1 1995 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CRY OF SANTA V,/,XrA uaiuoiaa CITY OF SANTA CLARITA U7:4U ' 1*:41 =5 X39 8125 ' August 29,1995 CITY HALL U003 RECEIVE! AUG 3 1 1995 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CRY OF SANTA V,/,XrA The chemicals and pesticides from both courses will now percolate into our already poor water table and during the rainy season is sure to wash into the Santa Clarita Aqua Fir contaminating some portion of Santa Clarita water source. (RECENT L.A. TIMES ARTICLE SUNDAY AUGUST 6,1995 by KENNETH R_ WEISS) The article was in reference to Lake Sherwood and Westlake which after reading it was quite a definite'eye opener. In short I join OAK SPRINGS .HOME OWNERS concern about the feasibility of this project and urge that the City of Santa Clarita avail themselves of the possible repercusions of permitting this project to become a reality. A.detailed list of suggestions to follow shortly. G�RGE S. -GRUBER 'MR. & MRS GEORGE S. GRUBER 27563 Oak Springs Canyon Road Canyon Country, California 91351 Mr. Glenn Adamick CITY OF SANTA CLARITA SUBJECT! TWIN GOLF COURSES/RESIDENTIAL DEVELOFMFNT OAA SPRINGS CANYON AREA I met you during your recent outing/walk along on August 5, 1995 on Oak Springs Canyon Road. At that time you strongly encouraged our written comments. It appears that the more investigating I do the more negative aspects are uncovered. Initially I thought the golf courses were a positive to -our community. I now voice strong opposition. Having lived in this area for 15 years X have witnessed the water table diminish leaving us with a scarce water supply. If the golf courses further tap into this.source, my property will become virtually worthless. ' Our access and egress merely sufficient at present will be much jeoparidized when the road is relocated with the ups and downs as proposed by the developer. Maintenance with our private tractors will be virtually impossible. The funneling of millions of cubic feet of water accustom to sheet over a large area into a small restricted discharge near Grabeton Drive is sure to washout and create great danger to the residents.. The chemicals and pesticides from both courses will now percolate into our already poor water table and during the rainy season is sure to wash into the Santa Clarita Aqua Fir contaminating some portion of Santa Clarita water source. (RECENT L.A. TIMES ARTICLE SUNDAY AUGUST 6,1995 by KENNETH R_ WEISS) The article was in reference to Lake Sherwood and Westlake which after reading it was quite a definite'eye opener. In short I join OAK SPRINGS .HOME OWNERS concern about the feasibility of this project and urge that the City of Santa Clarita avail themselves of the possible repercusions of permitting this project to become a reality. A.detailed list of suggestions to follow shortly. G�RGE S. -GRUBER 'MR. & MRS GEORGE S. GRUBER 27563 Oak Springs Canyon Road Canyon Country, California 91351 IV;6U515y14My R ECEIVED AUG 8 1995 CSiWAUN `V at n.wI';rN f oiY{v(sw' ( ARITA Dear Mr. Adamick HUb u3'9b 15:45 No.017 P.02 27500 Oak Spring Canyon Road Canyon Country, Calif. 91351 August 6, 1995 As you suggested at the informal meeting yesterday, I am putting in writing my concerns about the proposed golf course in the Oak Spring Canyon area. I think it was clear yesterday that if the property is to be developed at all, which it surely will be sooner or later, a golf course is highly preferable to hundreds of houses. But we residents do have serious concerns. This letter is based on my own thoughts and experiences after living in this canyon for over thirty years. There are four requirements the city should insist on in order to mitigate the negative impact this development will have on the homes already here: A water line brought in from Santa Clarita Water Co. to service all homes in the Oak _Spring Canyon area because: Of possible contamination of our private wells due to the use of strong pesticides on the golf course. Of lowering of our water table if the golf course, in the future, decides to dig wells. Of the increased fire hazard, particularly on the north and east boundaries. Outsiders have no concern about, or even any conception of, the extreme fire hazard in our canyon. (We had friends, college educated, who couldn't understand why I was so upset when they brought their three boys up to our house to set off firecrackers in our dry pasture. And these people lived in Northridge!) Paving of the re -aligned road from Graceton to the northeast corner of the property because: Of the narrowing of the road from the existing wide wash to a typical two lane road. Besides the huge amount of water emptying onto the existing road during heavy rains (from Rabbit Cyn., Oak Spring Cyn., Lost Cyn. and from the east end of Oak Spring Canyon Road, i.e. from four washes>, the water persists for WEEKS. Water from the Rabbit Canyon watershed is the worst, cutting gullies where the elevation drops and turning the sand and gravel into soft mush where it spreads out. Fortunately, because the wash is so wide, we can 11 The mine operates sporadically and not always very close to the golf course property. It is entirely possible that future homeowners could be in for a horrible surprise when they actually start living in their homes next to the mine. Working hours of the mine are 6 a. m. to about 3 p, m. They frequently work six days.a week. After the Northridge quake they worked on Sundays, too. The heavy equipment they use is extremely loud, and I believe Gillibrand has a permit for nearly fifty years. I cannot figure out why the homes were put next to the mine instead of the more commercial and service operations. Thank you for meeting with us, I look forward to seeing the materials Chris said you will make available at Copy -It. which is on Camp Plenty Road (near Don Cuco's Mexican Restaurant) and much handier for Canyon Country people. drive in the firmer areas. But if all the water stays on one narrow dirt road, it will be Impassable. An emergency exit through to Sand Canyon in case of earthquake. fire, or other disaster because: The golf course will shut us off from both Gillibrand'a mining road. and what the kids call "Windy Straits" leading over the hill to Bronco ' Drive. Clearly stated information to be given to all prospective home buyers about the loudness and hours of the mining operation because: The mine operates sporadically and not always very close to the golf course property. It is entirely possible that future homeowners could be in for a horrible surprise when they actually start living in their homes next to the mine. Working hours of the mine are 6 a. m. to about 3 p, m. They frequently work six days.a week. After the Northridge quake they worked on Sundays, too. The heavy equipment they use is extremely loud, and I believe Gillibrand has a permit for nearly fifty years. I cannot figure out why the homes were put next to the mine instead of the more commercial and service operations. Thank you for meeting with us, I look forward to seeing the materials Chris said you will make available at Copy -It. which is on Camp Plenty Road (near Don Cuco's Mexican Restaurant) and much handier for Canyon Country people. August l_, 15.915 " AUC 1 i 1995! C041:A1Ji:.lY . Mr. Glenn Adamick C'Trrr.S,.; : Cc.al.?y7 Assistant Planner City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department 23920 Valencia'Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355-2196 Dear Mr. Adamick: The homeowners of Oak Springs Canyon (OSS), rCaliy appreciate the time Chris and you spent discussing the effects that the proposed golf courses will have on all of us. We felt it was a good meeting because the approximate 30 homeowners who .attended the meeting represented all areas of the canyon and,were able in an open forum voice all of their concerns. Even though most were fairly vocal and sometimes demanding, we represent a highly educated and successful group of homeowners that have good reason to be already upset with the City of Santa Clarita. All we want is to make sure that the City of Santa Clarita supports us with the negative impacts of thio proposed development and all future developments. As you are aware, the homeowners in and around Graceton Drive met in July 1995 with the dlevelopers ,and were all very disappointed with the outcome of the meeting, basically, feeling that all the important issues were basically ignored or not addressed. We are all still in disbelief with the letter Mr. Fargeon sent to you on July 27, 1995. Now that you have listen to the homeowners of OSC you can understand our feelings and level of frustration dealing with Mr. rargeon and gnat value we place on his letter. Overall, the homeowners of OSC are in favor of the proposed development, but only if it done riy'tt, opefully, we Can come to a positive resolution to the following issues that were addressed by everyone on Saturday August 5, 1395 to the City of Santa Clarita. Commercial Development We understand that the developers are placing all the commercial aspects of the development adjacent to the residents of Oak Springs Canyon to achieve top dollar on their residential iota. we, the homeowners of OSC, have invested alot of time and money in our own properties .to achieve the same results. we don't understand how a developer can be so insensitive to this fact, and not isolate the existing homeowners living in an area zoned for residential, from the negative factors of the commercial development. The driving range with the splash lighting, traffic and noise will definitely effect the Boystons and Feeders and will have a negative impact on all of us. The parking lot, restaurant, club .house, etc. right behind my house and the Boystons will impact us and the neighborhood with traffic, noise, car and parking lights, restaurant related noise, and a potential 'iI increase in crime (prr the article I gave you the n_�W wave of rrLLmc grr,lrr nq In nol.* course parl-inq lots) `_T`h 1S oart as you krow really up<;=ts me, in that 3 years ago Mr. Henderson assured me that those ridges behind me would never be altered, because it would effect the drainage through my property. He even showed me how the then proposed projects would not even be visible from Graceton Drive. Based upon my discussion with him, ' I placed the site of my home to the very back of my property. Now after initially investing over $525,000 in buying my property in 1990, and investing over $325,000 in -building my dream home, I'm now faced with this unpleasant situation. Use of Well Water The developers are planning to sink test wells in our area, so that in the future .they can use our aquifer to undoubtedly water their fairways and supply water to their lakes. water is a ma; or problem in our area. A lot of the wells are dry, or do not generate enough water to support the property. As you have noticed, not to marry people have lawns in Oak Springs Canyon, and the situation is getting worse. The draining of the Saugus aquifer by the City of Santa Clarita already is ;-laving a significant impact on us. We cannot take the risk of having our wells run dry. We estimate that over 2 million gallons per day will be needed to water these courses. It must be a condition that no well water from the property can be used now or anytime in the future to support the commercial activities of this development. The residents of Oak Springs Canyon would consider the use of well water .if public water is brought to our homes in the canyon. This would only be fair. Drainage The homeowners of OSC are really concerned with the impact of 2.2 million cubic yards of cutting and 2.2 million cubic yards of filling will have on our drainage system. There is a lot of concern for the channeling of water over Oak Springs Canyon just east of Graceton Drive. Already, this is an extremely hazardous area in the winter time, with water reaching at times to a height of 3 feet with a width of at least 150 feet. Our concerns about run-off also result from the fact that parking lota and structures are proposed in the area that will not allow water to percolate into the soil and the run-off will drain over this section of the road. The total surface area will be significantly reduced due to the leveling of the area, eliminating most slopes, thus alot less surface area to allow water to percolate. Also, ridges with top soil will be cut up to 70 feet that will result in less porous soil available to accept the rainfall, in which, again the. water will flow into this area. It appears the funneling of the water over Oak Springs Canyon Road will have a significant effect on homeowners on the north side of Oak Springs Canyon. I am concerned on the level of impact the grading will have on my property, as the majority of the grading will occur right behind my house. I am in fear that this will affect my heritage oak trees, land stability, the spring that is now detoured by a "City approved" retaining wall 2 around my house and the .^.os... l_it_y t:.at the spring_' �s1'1 JC altered to run directly behind or under my house. The residents between Comet Way anCl Graceton Drive are conccarne•.7 w_, -.'n `:l_ amount of water that will be generated down Oak Springs Cannon, as this route acts as a wash during the rainy season. Also, Mr. Art Gollin is concerned with the ponds on his property, and how currently they have a positive effect on the amount of run-off down Oak Springs Canyon. If they are filled in, it will increase the flow of water down Oak Springs Canyon Road. Also, it will effect the current animal and plant habitat in the area. Toxic Chemicals The maintenance facility placed right next to a .nolTie and neighborhood is very upsetting. The noise in the morning and during the day, the upsetting of the present -aesthetic appeal of the area, and the idea of storing toxic and dangerous chemicals in an area near homes, children, animals and weiis is unacceptable. For the protection of our families and animals, any toxic chemical used for lawn maintenance or any commercial location, should not be used or stored within 300 yards of our existing homes or wells. Aesthetics Mr. Fargeon in our July meeting assured the residents living on Graceton Drive that we would not see the effects of any Commercial development or the traffic above the south ridges of Graceton Drive. After walking the proposed development with you, I feel that Mr. Fargeon is in error. It needs to be a condition of this development that no traffic or commercial development will be noticeable by anyone on Graceton Drive. My understanding that a potential 2,000 cars will be driving in and out of this proposed development each day! Movement of Oak Snrinas Canyon Road There is a major concern with moving this roar: to tho wort, adjacent to the hills. we have no clue on how this road can be designed to not adversely affect the only way out of the canyon. Homeowners are really concerned about the idea of elevating the road near the main wash area and the -possibility of creating a ledge at the wash during heavy rains. Also, the elevated area will require a significant cut in the hillside which could trigger mud slides making the road impassible to emergency vehicles and trucks bringing necessary supplies to an! IS, etc. Ooeratina Hours The homeowners of OSC are concerned with the hours of operation of the commercial facilities. we request that it be a condition that the operations open at dawn and close before 3:00 p.m., as this is a residential neighborhood. Safety Safety is a concern for all of us. Thegolfcourse should be constructed with public safety in mind. We all know that the N developer, owner and o;per- z,;, 'ar_ '_'able fvr all Cumages caused Wall by errant golf balls "per the Street Journal article dated Jul 2', 395 that I sent you) 7have ask -ed Mr. .argeon to consider this in the design of the qolf courses. : also asked ' that Hr. Ted Robinson readdress.the fairway behind my house, and they have both ignored my request. Hy house is not a house you build next to a fairway with over 20 windows facing the proposed "par 5" fairway and a 12x12 sloped cement tile roof. Concern must also be given to all my neighbors that could possibly be imparted or injured. ' Financial Viability Some of the homeowners are concerned with the financial viability of this project and would like to know who will be responsible for its clean-up upon failure. Fertilizers and Pesticides The homeowners of OSC are concerned with the quality of the well water with all the fertilizers and pesticides that will be used. There have been articles published in the "Los -Angeles Times" lately discussing how the golf courses at Lake S.e_,rood and ' Westlake have polluted both bodies of water where fish are no longer aloud to me eaten and people no longer aloud to swim. Also, the ground water is now so polluted in certain areas from the golf fertilizers and pesticides that the wells can no longer be used. We are presently contacting the newspaper to obtain copies of those articles, which we will then forward to you. We recommend that test be performed on an annual basis to check for contamination from fertilizers and pesticides used on the golf courses. ' Valencia.Golf Course Revisited We discussed the fact that we are concerned with the level of the golf fees and how the average person in the Santa Clarita-Valley could not afford to play golf on the new courses. We are really afraid that another Valencia golf course scenario could evolve, a situation where millions of gallons of water are used for the benefit of a few people that don't even live in this area. This ' water could be used for the benefit of the people of Santa Clarita. Endancaered species and Oak Trees We know that there are endangered species in this area, this is a major concern. Also, the removal of over 100.oak-trees is a major concern plus the impact on natural vegetation and wildlife. Grading The significant amount of grading has us concerned with such matters as the affect the dust and dirt will have on us during the construction phase. The concern is for the effects it will have on human and animal health, possibly the introduction of ' "Valley Fever" and other possible damages to humans, but also the affects on the horses and animals in this canyon. Please remember that my father is still battling valley fever and two of his a neighbors died from this a erase trig ,-red bv the Januarf _>'- earthquake. Ecuestrian Trails The development will impact the existing horse trails to the National Forest. Mr. Fargeon has promised a dedicated trail along Oak Springs Canyon and along the National Forest. Mrs. Laura Hauser of Crystal Springs and the Sand Canyon Trails Committee will be addressing this area with Mr. Fargeon. Environmental Impact Report We discussed the need of a "Complete" EIR We are currently petitioning homeowners in our area formally requesting a "Complete" EIR. I feel that I have addressed all the issues and concerns brought up in our meeting.` If there.is an issue that I.missed, please let me know. We look forward meeting with you tb resolve these issues with the developer. sincerely, Allen E. Penrose CC: Laura Hauser Dennis Ostrom Rick Putnam Stan Fargeon George Gruber Jay Heck Mark Hanson Richard Cunningham Alan R. Glasser, Esq. Lynn Plambeck-SCOPE Henry Schultz -Sierra Club rr•7 L. ra 1 1 :519 Pollution Levels Unhealthful at 2 Lakes Near Thousand Oaks E Los Angeles Tinses (c) 1995 Los Angeles •f imes. All rts. reserv. P - O 02375851 08652 Pollution Levels Unhealthful at 2 Lakes Near Thousand Oaks Environment: SwJy says Sherwood and Westlake Lake were 'impaired' by runoff of pesticides, fer dlizer and heavy metals. Los Angeles Times 1L::) - SUNDAY August 6, 1995 By: KENNETH R. WEISS; TIMES STAFF WRITER Edition: Ventura County Edition Section: Metro Page: I Pt. B Word .Count 1,227 TEXT: Although Ventura County's largest lakes are In good shape, a new study shows that two smaller lakes near Thousand Oaks have collected unhealthful levelspf pollutants over the years from surrounding lawns, houses and streets. Largemouth bass caught In. Lake Sherwood for the study. contained more mercury than the Food and Drug Administration allows In fish sold at market. Water samples taken from Lake Sherwood and the nearby Westlake Lake had concentrations of lead and cooper that exceeded state standards for inland waters. And bass pulled from Westlake Lake had elevated levels of selenium, which is toxic to wildlife and humans In anything more than minute doses. The urban lakes study deems the health *of Lake Sherwood and Westlake Lake to be at least "modentehy irap.-?ied" because of fertilizers, chemicals and heavy metals that have drained into them. in sharp contrast, Lake Casitas near Ojai and Lake Piru were among the healthiest of the 23 lakes studied APPENDIX C AIR QUALITY DATA Table 7 State of California Air Resources Board Ambient Air Quality Standards (Feotnotas en rever=e Side) ARBFUIShc:09: iiiril California Standards t National Standards 2 Pollutant concentration 3 O.09 Ppm . Method 4 Uhrav olel Primary 3S 0.12 ppm Seeondary 3.4'6 Same as Method 7 Ethylene Avera in 9 9 Ozone1 Hcur (t80ug/m3) photometry (235tgmx7) Primary Std. Chemiluminescence Carotin a Hour 9.0 ppm (10 m0hn3) -dispersimmom) Nonhar ((10 Non•dispersive Mpnoxtle )Spectroscopy Infrared 1 Hour 20 Pont Spectroscopy (23 mg/m3) (NOIR) Oom�) (NDIR) Annual OM porn Nitrogen Average Gas Phase (100 Og7m3) Same as 025 ppm Dioxice Cheterl Primary Std' Gas Phase 1 Hour nascence Chemduminestence (470 ug/m3) " Annual 60 uglm3 Average MM3 Pam) 24 Hour I 0.04 Pont 365 UgIM3 Sulfur Dioxide f105 uolm3) 1.11" tolel f0.14 MMI 3 Hour - _ I 1300 uym3 Fluorescence Paarosoandine (0.5com1 1 Hour 0.25 pPm (555 ug/m3) . Susoenced Annual Pamc late Geometric 30 ug/m3 , I Matter Mean Size Seieclve Inertial (PM1D) Inlet Hlgn Se^-aradon 24 Hour 50 uglm3 Volume Sampler 150 UWM3 and and Same as Gravimetric Annual Gravimetric Primary Analysis Arithmetic Analysis 50 ugtm3 Standard Mean SO -fates 24 Hour 25 ug/m3 Turblduneric San= Sulfate 30 day 14 ug hn3 Leae Average Atarn'c Atomic Calencar Sameas Ab50rO00R Absorption Quarter i5 UV -3 Primary Std. Hycrogen 1 Hour 0.03 pornSwEide cadmium Hy& - (42 Win3) Oxide STRacan - Vmr Gn:onceI 24 Hour I 0.010 ppm 7ediar Bag (tx:orce.:ene) (2'a ugfm3) Cdlecdon, Gas chrcanat 2tx1r hour In sufficient amc amount to practice an exdnon V.8 Aea-cy �_c ng (10 am to coefficient of 023 D?rkilometer due Fa•::c:es a 6 P.M. PST) panicles when the humidity humidity is )ass easure man 70 rercent. Measurement in accordance with ARB Mernod V. Applicable Oniy in the Lke Tahoe Air Basin Ma^.:xice 8 n°ur Sitcom NDIR - - (7 mgfm3) - 8 hour insufficient amount to poeuce an extinction ( 1C am to coefficient of O.C7 per kilometer due to . Fa•:: es 9 6 pm. PST) panicles wnen me rotative humidity is less - - Aman 70 pe -mem, Measurement in accoreance wnh ARB .Metnoe V. (Feotnotas en rever=e Side) ARBFUIShc:09: iiiril ' NOTES: 1. California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except Lake Tahoe), sulfur ' dioxide (1 -hour and 24-hour), nitrogen dioxide, suspended particulate matter - PM10, and visibility reducing particles, are values that are not to be exceeded. The standards for sulfates, Lake Tahoe carbon monoxide; lead, hydrogen ' sulfide, and vinyl chloride are not to be equaled or exceeded. 2. National standards, other than ozone and those based on annual averages or ' annual arithmetic means, are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations above the standard is equal to or less than one. t3. Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parenthesis are based upon a reference temperature of 250 C ' and a reference pressure of 760 mm of mercury. All measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 250 C and a reference pressure of 760 mm of mercury (1,013.2 millibar); ppm in this table ' refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas. ' 4. Any equivalent procedure which can be shown to the satisfaction of the Air ' Resources Board to give equivalent results at or near the level of the air quality standard may be used. 5. National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health. Each state must attain the primary standards no later than three years after that state's implementation plan is approved by the Environmental Protection Agency. 6. National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant. Each state must attain the secondary standards within a "reasonable time" after the implementation plan is approved by the EPA. 7. Reference method as described by the EPA. An "equivalent method" of measurement may be used but must have a "consistent relationship to the reference method" and must be approved by the EPA. 8. This standard is intended to limit the frequency and severity of visiblity impairment due to regional haze and is equivalent to a 10 -mile nominal visual range when relative humidity is less than 70 percent. 9. This standard is equivalent to a 30 -mile nominal visual range when relative humidity is fess than 70 percent. ARB Fact Sheet 39; (revised 11191) AAA/ RBB/.RD EFFECTS OF CRITERIA POLLUTANTS Ozone (03) Ozone, the major constituent of smog, is created in the atmosphere by the complex photochemical interaction of reactive organic compounds, including hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides. Ozone is a pungent, colorless toxic gas with direct health effects on humans including respiratory and eye irritation and possible changes in lung functions. Groups most sensitive to ozone include children, the elderly, persons with respiratory disorders, and people who exercise strenuously outdoors. Ozone also causes direct damage to vegetation, causes cracking in untreated rubber, and accelerates deterioration of structures. Carbon Monoxide (CO) Carbon monoxide is a colorless and odorless gas that is formed as a by-product of combustion. It's primary source is the automobile and other types of motor vehicles, and congested intersections can become "hot -spots," where significant concentrations of this gas can occur. CO replaces oxygen in the hemoglobin of red blood cells, thereby causing physiological and pathological changes, and in sufficiently high concentrations, death Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Nitrogen dioxide is also a by-product of fuel combustion, with the primary source being motor vehicles and industrial boilers and furnaces. The principal form of nitrogen oxide produced by combustion is nitric oxide (NO), but this reacts rapidly to form NO2, creating a mixture that is typically referred to as NO.. Nitrogen dioxide is an acute irritant, but at typical atmospheric concentrations, it is only potentially irritating. A relationship between NO2 and chronic pulmonary fibrosis may exist, and an increase in bronchitis in young children at concentrations below 0.3 parts per million (ppm) may occur. Nitrogen dioxide absorbs blue light and causes a reddish brown cast to the atmosphere and reduced visibility. It also can contribute to the formation of PMio and acid rain Fine Particulate Matter (PMro) Fine particulate matter includes small suspended solids and droplets under 10 microns in diameter. This material can lodge in the lungs and add to respiratory problems. PM,o is derived from road dust, soot, combustion products, abraded materials from brakes and tires, and the suspension of earth materials during constructionactivities and wind storms. Fine particulate matter can also be formed in the atmosphere from nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide reactions with ammonia. Particulate matter is also a primary factor in reducing visibility. Fine particulate matter poses a serious health threat to all groups, but particularly to the elderly, children, and those with respiratory problems. More than half of the fine particulate matter inhaled into the lungs remains there, which can'cause permanent lung damage. These materials can damage health by interfering with the body's mechanisms for clearing the respiratory tract or by acting as carriers of an absorbed toxic substance. II SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 'HEAVY-DUTY EQUIPMENT EMISSIONS Per Table A9 -8-A, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Nov. 1993 II 11 II II II Equipment Type (G or D Number Usage per day in hours Emissions in pounds per day Carbon Reactive Nitrogen Sulfur Mono)dde Organic Cmpnds Oxides Orides PM10 Fork Lift- 50 Hp D 0 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A 0.0 Fork Lift =175 Hp D 0 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 #WA 0.0 Off -Highway Truck D 0 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 'Tracked Loader D 0 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tracked Tractor D 2 10 7.0 2.4 252 2.8 2.2 Scraper D 6 10 75.0 162 230.4 27.6 24.6 'Wheeled Dozer D 0 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wheeled Loader D 0 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wheeled Tractor D 0 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 'Roller D 1 10 3.0 0.7 8.7. 0.7 0.5 Motor Grader D 1 10 1.5 0.4 7.1 0.9 0.6 Miscellaneous D 1 10 6.8 1.5 17.0 1.4 1.4 ' Total: 93.3 21.1 288.4 33.4 29A Number of days operating/week: 5 Averaged Day ms: 66.6 15.1 206.0 23.8 21.0 operating/quarter. 65 Quarterlytons: 3.0 0.7 9.4 1.1 1.0 'Thresholds (SCAQMD, Nov. 1993) Daily, lbs 550 75 100 150 150 SCAB/Coachella Valley Quarter, tons 24.75 25 2.5 6.75 6.75 1 II 11 II II II Air Pollutant Emissions of Alternatives Existing Entitlements 76% 61% 55% 1% 2% Reconstituted Tracts 104% 84% 76% 2% 3% West Slope Residential (18 holes only) 98% 88% 93% 2% 4% Mixed Use Development 66% 72% 357% 11% 996% General Plan Buildout 152% 122% 110% 3% 4% Emissions, lbs/day Alternative CO ROC NOx sox PM10 Proposed Project 802.2 73.7 81.0 5.7 9.3 Existing Entitlements 416.7 33.4 30.1 1.9 2.9 Reconstituted Tracts 574.6 46.0 41.6 2.6 4.0 West Slope Residential (18 holes only) 540.6 48.5 51.4 3.5 5.8 Mixed Use Development Residential + Small Golf Course 287.7 25.8 27.6 1.9 3.1 Sand & Gravel Operation Vehicle 77.3 13.8 168.9 14.5 16.1 Sand & Gravel Operation Dust 1474.7 Mixed Use Total 365.0 39.6 196.5 16.4 1493.9 General Plan Buildout 838.2 67.1 60.7 3.8 5.9 Significance Thresholds 550 55 55 150 150 Existing Entitlements 76% 61% 55% 1% 2% Reconstituted Tracts 104% 84% 76% 2% 3% West Slope Residential (18 holes only) 98% 88% 93% 2% 4% Mixed Use Development 66% 72% 357% 11% 996% General Plan Buildout 152% 122% 110% 3% 4% 400% 350% 300% O 250% X N LU z x LL 200% O F z w U w 150% a 100% 50% 0% Air Quality Comparison of Alternatives CO ROC NOx Sox POLLUTANTS IProposed Project ]Existing Entitlements ] Reconstituted Tracts ] West Slope Residential (18 holes only) ]Mixed Use Development IGeneral Plan Buildout --------------------PROJECT DESCRIPTION -------------------------- PROJECT NAME AND DESCRIPTION: Hunters Green Residential and Golf Course Development PROJECT STARTING YEAR: 1998 CITY: SAUGUS-BOUQUET CANYON ZIP CODE: COUNTY: LOS ANGELES, AREA NUMBER: AREA2 L.U.,,DESCR. AND SIZE: RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE FAMILY, 83 DWELLING UNIT AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS: 838 (PER DWELLING UNIT-- 10.10) NUMBER OF VEHICLES: 439 TOTAL PROJECT VMT: 6443 miles -----TRIP PURPOSE DATA: Home -Other Home -Shop Home -Work AVERAGE TRIP SPEEDS: 24.6 24.6 24.6 mph AVERAGE TRIP LENGTHS: 6.1 5.3 9.0 miles TRIP PERCENTAGES: 45.9 9.3 44.9 percent VEHICLE MILES TRAVELLED: 2469.8 429.6 3543.8 miles VEHICLE DATA DISTRIBUTIONS: Heavy Duty Vehicles Passenger Vehicles Average Daily Trips 0.5% 4/day 99.5% 873/day Number of Vehicles 0.5% 2 99.5% 436 Vehicle Miles Travelled 0.5% 31 miles 99.5% 6411 miles (TRIP COLD/HOT STARTS: 100% COLD, 0% HOT ELECTRICAL SUPPLIER: SCE CONVERSION FACTOR from PER DWELLING UNIT to MEGAWATT-HR/DAY is 5626.5/365/1000 and to MILLION CU FT/DAY is 6650.0/30/1,000,000 RUN TYPE: Project Specific DATA CASE: Project With Mitigation EMISSIONS (in lbs/day) VEHICLES-- PASS. TRUCK BOTH MITIGATED EFFIC. ------------------ Home -Other Trip Running Emissions-- ------ ------ CO 30.2 0.4 30.6 30.6 0.0% ROC 2.1 0.0 2.1 2.1 0:0% NOx 3.2 0.1 3.3 3.3 0.0% Sox 0.3 0.0 0.3 PM10-Exhaust 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% PM10-Tire.Wear 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0% LEAD 0.000 0.000 0.000 Home -Shop Trip Running Emissions -- CO 5.3 0.1 5.3 5.3 0.0% ROC 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0% NOx 0.5 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.0% Sox 0.1 0.0 0.1 PM10-Exhaust 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% PM10-Tire Wear 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0% LEAD 0.000 0.000 0.000 Home -Work Trip Running Emissions -- CO 43.4 0.5 43.9 43.9 0.0% ROC 3.0 0.1 3.1 3.1 0.0% NOx 4.5 0.2 4.7 4.7 0.0% Sox 0.5 0.0 0.5 PM10-Exhaust 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0% PM10-Tire Wear 0.8 0.0 0.8 0.8 0.0% LEAD 0.000 0.000 0.000 Home -Other Trip Start & Soak Emissions -- CO Cold Start 66.1 0.2 66.3 66.3 0.0% ROC Cold Start 3.6 0.0 3.6 3.6 0.0% NOx Cold Start 2.1 0.0 2.1 2.1 0.08 CO Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 ROC Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 NOx Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 ROC Hot Soak 0.8 0.0 0.8 0.8 0.08 Home -Shop Trip Start & Soak Emissions -- 0.9 CO Cold Start 13.4 0.0 13.4 13.4 0.08 ROC Cold Start 0.7 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.08 NOx Cold Start 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.08 CO Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 ROC Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 NOx Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 ROC Hot Soak 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.08 Home -Work Trip Start & Soak Emissions -- %THRES CO CO Cold Start 64.6 0.2 64.8 64.8 0.08 ROC Cold Start 3.6 0.0 3.6 3.6 0.08 NOx.Cold Start 2.1 0.0 2.1 2.1 0.08 CO Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 ROC Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 NOx Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 ROC Hot Soak 0.8 0.0 0.8 0.8 0.08 Other Evaporative Emissions -- ROC -Diurnal 2.5 0.0 2.5 TOTAL EMISSIONS SUMMARY VEHICULAR-- PASS. TRUCK BOTH MITIGATED EFFIC. CO ------ 223.0 ------ 1.3 ------ 224.3 ------ 224.3 ------ 0.08 ROC 17.7 0.1 17.9 17.9 0.08 NOx 12.9 0.3 13.2 13.2 0.08 Sox 0.8 0.0 0.9 PM10 1.5 0.0 1.5 1.5 -0.08 LEAD 0.000 0.000 0.000 STATIONARY-- ELECT. GAS BOTH MITIGATED EFFIC. CO ------ 0.26 ------ 0.37 ------ 0.62 ------ 0.51 ------ 17.98 ROC 0.01 0.10 0.11 0.09 18.18 NOx 1.47 1.47 2.94 2.42 17.78 Sox 0.15 0.00 0.15 PM10 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.05 15.78 TOTAL-- EMISS. THRES. %THRES MITIGATED %THRES CO ------ 224.9 ------ 550.0 ------ 418 ------ 224.8 ------ 418 ROC 18.0 55.0 338 18.0 338 NOx 16.2 55.0 298 15.6 288 Sox 1.0 150.0 18 PM10 1.6 150.0 18 1.6 18 LEAD 0.000 N/A N/A Mitigation Measures Applied to Stationary Sources Built in enrgy efficient appls Efficiencies Applied: CO 3:0%, ROC 2.5%, NOx 3.0%, PM10 6.5%. Applied to: Electricity. Double glass paned windows Efficiencies Applied: CO 4.5%, ROC 4.5%, NOx 4.01, PM10 2.5%. Applied to: Gas and Electricity. Energy.efficient for A/C Efficiencies Applied: CO 0.0°%, ROC 0.0°%, NOx 0.0%, PM10 0.5%. Applied to: Gas and Electricity. Wall/attic insul beyond Title 24 Efficiencies Applied: CO 13.0'x, ROC 14.0%, NOx 13.0%, PM10 7.5%. Applied to: Gas and Electricity. -------------------PROJECT DESCRIPTION -------------------------- PROJECT NAME AND DESCRIPTION: Hunters.Green Golf Golf Course Development only PROJECT STARTING YEAR:.1998 CITY: SAUGUS-BOUQUET CANYON ZIP CODE: COUNTY: LOS ANGELES AREA NUMBER: AREA2 L.U., DESCR. AND SIZE: NON-RESIDENTIAL, GOLF COURSE, 12720 1000 SQ.FT. AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS: 2921 (PER 1000 SQ.FT.-, 0.23) NUMBER OF VEHICLES: 1462 TOTAL PROJECT VMT: 22322 miles -----TRIP PURPOSE DATA: Work Non -Work AVERAGE TRIP SPEEDS: 24.6 24.6 mph AVERAGE TRIP LENGTHS: 10.2 5.9 miles TRIP PERCENTAGES: 40.0 60.0 percent VEHICLE MILES TRAVELLED: 11912.5 10410.3 miles VEHICLE DATA DISTRIBUTIONS: Heavy Duty Vehicles Passenger Vehicles Average Daily Trips .12.9% 376/day 87.1% 2548/day Number of Vehicles 13.5% 197 86.5% 1264 Vehicle Miles Travelled 12.5% 2790 miles 87.5% 19531 miles TRIP COLD/HOT STARTS: 509c COLD, 50% HOT ELECTRICAL SUPPLIER: SCE CONVERSION FACTOR from PER 1000 SQ.FT. to MEGAWATT-HR/DAY is 0.0/365/1000 and to MILLION CU FT/DAY is 0.0/30/1,000,000 RUN TYPE: Project Specific DATA CASE: Project Without Mitigation EMISSIONS (in lbs/day) VEHICLES-- PASS. TRUCK BOTH MITIGATED EFFIC. Work Trip Running Emissions CO128.2 44.3 172.5 172.5 0.0% ROC 8.9 4.9 13.8 13.8 0.006 NOx 13.4 15.3 28.7 28.7 0.0006 Sox 1.4 1.1 2.4 PM10-Exhaust 0.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 0.00; ' PM10-Tire Wear 2.3 0.6 2.9 2.9 0.0% LEAD 0.000 0.003 0.003 Non -Work Trip Running Emissions -- ' CO 112.0 38.7 150.8 150.8 0.0% ROC 7.8 4.2 12.0 12.0 0.0% ' NOx Sox 11.7 1.2 13.4 0.9 25.1 2.1 25.1 0.0% PM10-Exhaust 0.1 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.0% PM10-Tire Wear 2.0 0.5 2.6 2.6 0.01 ' LEAD 0.000 0.003 0.003 Work Trip Start & Soak Emissions -- CO Cold Start 84.1 6.2 90.4 90.4 0.00S ROC Cold Start 4.6 0.4 5.0 5.0 0.0°s NOx Cold Start 2.7 0.3 3.0 3.0 0.0% CO Hot Start 10.7 0.7 11.4 11.4 0.0% ' ROC Hot Start 1.0 0.1 1.2 1.2 0:0% NOx Hot Start 1.4 0.2 1.6 1.6 0.0% ROC"Hot Soak 2.1 0.2 2.4 2.4 0.0% Non -Work Trip Start & Soak Emissions -- CO Cold Start 126.1 9.3 135.4 135.4 0.00S ROC Cold Start 6.9 0.6 7.6 7.6 0.0% NOx Cold Start 4.0 0.5 4.5 4.5 0.001 CO Hot Start 16.0 1.0 17.0 17.0 0.0% ROC Hot Start 1.5 0.2 1.7 1.7 0.0% NOx Hot Start 2.1 0.2 2.4 2.4 0.0% ROC Hot Soak 3.2 0.4 3.5 3.5 0.006 Other Evaporative Emissions- ROC-Diurnal 7.3 1.2 8.5 TOTAL EMISSIONS SUMMARY VEHICULAR-- PASS. TRUCK BOTH MITIGATED EFFIC. CO ------ 477.1 ------ 100.3 ------ 577.4 ------ 577.4 ------ 0.00-4 ROC 43.4 12.3 55.7 55.7 0.016 NOx 35.4 30.0 65.4 65.4 0.0% Sox 2.6 2.0 4.6 PM10 4.5 3.1 7.7 7.7 0.006 LEAD 0.000 0.006 0.006 STATIONARY-- ELECT. GAS BOTH MITIGATED EFFIC. CO ------ 0.00 ------ 0.00 ------ 0.00 ------ 0.00 ------ 0.0% ROC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% NOx 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 Sox 0.00 0.00 0.00 PM10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% TOTAL-- EMISS. THRES. %THRES MITIGATED %THRES CO ------ 577.4 ------ 550.0 ------ 105% ------------ 577.4 10516 ROC 55.7 55.0 101% 55.7 101% NOx 65..4 55.0 119% 65.4 119% Sox 4.6 150.0 30-. PM10 7.7 150.0 5% 7.7 5% LEAD 0.006 N/A N/A I Vehicle Miles Travelled 0.5% 58 miles 99.5% 11885 miles TRIP COLD/HOT STARTS: 100% COLD, 0% HOT ELECTRICAL SUPPLIER: SCE CONVERSION FACTOR from PER DWELLING•UNIT to MEGAWATT-HR/DAY is 5626.5/365/1000 and to MILLION CU.FT/DAY is 6650.0/30/1,000,000 RUN TYPE: Project Specific DATA CASE: Project Without Mitigation EMISSIONS (in lbs/day) VEHICLES-- PASS. TRUCK BOTH MITIGATED EFFIC. Home -Other Trip ------------------ Running Emissions-- ------ 0.0% --------------------PROJECT DESCRIPTION-------------------------- ' PROJECT NAME AND DESCRIPTION: Existing Entitlement Residential Estate Development Only 56.6 PROJECT STARTING YEAR: 1998 0.0% ROC CITY: SAUGUS-BOUQUET CANYON ZIP CODE: 0.1 COUNTY: LOS ANGELES AREA NUMBER: AREA2 0.0% L.U., DESCR. AND SIZE: RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE FAMILY, 158 DWELLING UNIT 5.9 AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS: 1596 (PER DWELLING UNIT-- 10.10) 6.1 NUMBER OF VEHICLES: 813 TOTAL PROJECT VMT: 11944 miles 0.6 ---TRIP PURPOSE DATA: Home -Other Home -Shop Home -Work 0.0 AVERAGE TRIP SPEEDS: 24.6 24.6 24.6 mph 'AVERAGE TRIP LENGTHS: TRIP PERCENTAGES: 6.1 5.3 9.0 miles 45.9 9.3 44.9 percent 0.1 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELLED: 4575.0 798.4 6570.7 miles 0.0 VEHICLE DATA DISTRIBUTIONS: Heavy Duty Vehicles Passenger Vehicles 0.08 Average Daily Trips 0.5% 8/day 99.5% 1617/day 0.000 Number of Vehicles 0.5% 4 99.5% 808 I Vehicle Miles Travelled 0.5% 58 miles 99.5% 11885 miles TRIP COLD/HOT STARTS: 100% COLD, 0% HOT ELECTRICAL SUPPLIER: SCE CONVERSION FACTOR from PER DWELLING•UNIT to MEGAWATT-HR/DAY is 5626.5/365/1000 and to MILLION CU.FT/DAY is 6650.0/30/1,000,000 RUN TYPE: Project Specific DATA CASE: Project Without Mitigation EMISSIONS (in lbs/day) VEHICLES-- PASS. TRUCK BOTH MITIGATED EFFIC. Home -Other Trip ------------------ Running Emissions-- ------ 0.0% ------ CO 55.9 0.7 56.6 56.6 0.0% ROC 3.9 0.1 4.0 4.0 0.0% NOx 5.9 0.2 6.1 6.1 0.0% Sox 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.1 PM10-Exhaust 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0% PM10-Tire Wear 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.08 LEAD 0.000 0.000 0.000 Home -Other Home-Shop.Trip Running Emissions -- CO Cold CO 9.8 0.1 9.9 9.9 0.08 ROC 0.7 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.0% NOx 1.0 0.0 1.1 1.1 0.0% Sox 0.1 0.0 0.1 PM10-Exhaust 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% PM10-Tire Wear 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0% LEAD 0.000 0.000 0.000 Home -Work Trip Running Emissions -- CO 80.3 1.0 81.2 81.2 0.0% ROC 5.6 0.1 5.7 5.7 0.0% NOx 8.4 0.3 8.7 8.7 0.0% Sox 0.9 0.0 0.9 PM10-Exhaust 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0% PM10-Tire Wear 1.4 • 0.0 1.5 1.5 0.0% LEAD 0.000 0.000 ' 0.000 Home -Other Trip Start & Soak Emissions -- CO Cold Start 122.5 0.3 122.8 122.8 0.0% ROC Cold Start 6.7 0.0 6.7 6.7 0.0% NOx Cold Start 3.9 0.0 3.9 3.9 0.0% CO Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% ROC Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% NOx Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% ROC Hot Soak 1.5 0.0 1.5 1.5 0.0% Home -Shop Trip Start & Soak Emissions -- 0.1 2.8 CO Cold.Start 24.8 0.1 24.9 24.9 0.0% ROC Cold Start 1.4 0.0 1.4 1.4 0.0% NOx Cold Start 0.8 0.0 0.8 0.8 0.0% CO Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% ROC Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% NOx Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% ROC Hot Soak 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0% (Home -work Trip Start & Soak Emissions -- ------ 76% ------ 416.7 CO Cold Start 119.8 33.4 0.3 120.1 120.1 0.0% ROC Cold Start 6.6 0.0 6.6 6.6 0.0% NOx Cold Start 3.8 0.0 3.9 3.9 0.0% CO Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0:0 0.0% ROC Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% NOx Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% ROC Hot Soak 1.5 0.0 1.5 1.5 0.0% Other Evaporative Emissions -- ROC -Diurnal 4.7 0.0 4.7 TOTAL EMISSIONS SUMMARY (VEHICULAR-- PASS. TRUCK BOTH MITIGATED EFFIC. CO ----- 413.1 ------ 2.4 ------ 415.5 ------ 415.5 ------ 0.0% ROC 32.9 0.3 33.1 33.1 0.0% NOx 23.9 0.6 24.5 24.5 0.0% Sox 1.6 0.0 1.6 PM10 2.8 0.1 2.8 2.8 0.0% LEAD 0.000 0.000 0.000 STATIONARY-- ELECT. GAS BOTH MITIGATED EFFIC. CO ------ 0.49 ------ 0.70 ------ 1.19 ------ 1.19 ------ 0.0% ROC 0.02 0.19 0:21 0.21 0.0% NOx 2.80 2.80 5.60 5.60 0.0% Sox 0.29 0.00 0.29 PM10 0.10 0.01 0.10 0.10 0.0% TOTAL-- EMISS. ------ THRES. %THRES MITIGATED %THRES CO 416.7 ------ 550.0 ------ 76% ------ 416.7 ------ 76% ROC 33.4 55.0 61% 33.4 61% NOx 30.1 55.0 55% 30.1 55% Sox 1.9 150.0 1% PM10 2.9 150.0 2% 2.9 2% LEAD 0.000 N/A N/A I LJ J [ _l [J --------------------PROJECT DESCRIPTION ---------------- PROJECT NAME AND DESCRIPTION: Existing Tract Maps Reconstituted Projects PROJECT STARTING YEAR: 1998 CITY: SAUGUS-BOUQUET CANYON ZIP CODE: COUNTY: LOS ANGELES ------ AREA NUMBER: AREA2 L.U., DESCR. AND SIZE: RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE FAMILY, 222 DWELLING UNIT AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS: 2242 (PER DWELLING UNIT-- 10.10) NUMBER OF VEHICLES: 1121 TOTAL PROJECT VMT: 16469 miles ----- TRIP PURPOSE DATA: Home -Other Home -Shop Home -Work AVERAGE TRIP SPEEDS: 24.6 24.6 24.6 mph AVERAGE TRIP LENGTHS: 6.1 5.3 9.0 miles TRIP PERCENTAGES: 45.9 9.3 44.9 percent VEHICLE MILES TRAVELLED: 6308.2 1100.9 9059.9 miles VEHICLE DATA DISTRIBUTIONS: Heavy Duty Vehicles Passenger Vehicles Average Daily Trips 0.58 11/day 99.58 2230/day Number of Vehicles 0.58 5 99.5% 1115 Vehicle.Miles Travelled 0.58 80 miles 99.58 16388 miles TRIP COLD/HOT STARTS: 1008 COLD, 08 HOT ELECTRICAL SUPPLIER: SCE CONVERSION FACTOR from PER DWELLING UNIT to MEGAWATT-ER/DAY is 5626.5/365/1000 and to MILLION CU FT/DAY is 6650.0/30/1,000,000 ' RUN TYPE: Project Specific DATA CASE: Project Without Mitigation EMISSIONS (in lbs/day) VEHICLES-- PASS. TRUCK BOTH MITIGATED EFFIC. ------------------ Home -Other Trip Running Emissions-- Em ------ 112.0 ------ CO 77.1 0.9 78.0 78.0 0.08 ROC 5.4 0.1 5.5 5.5 0.08 NOx 8.1 0.3 8.4 8.4 0.08. Sox 0.8 0.0 0.9 0.1 0.0 PM10-Exhaust 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.08 PM10-Tire Wear 1.4 0.0 1.4 1.4 0.08 LEAD 0.000 0.000 0.000 Home -Other Home -Shop Trip Running Emissions -- Emissions -- CO 13.5 0.2 13.6 13.6 0.08 ROC 0.9 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.08 NOx 1.4 0.1 1.5 1.5 0.08 sox 0.1 0.0 0.1 PM10-Exhaust 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 PM10-Tire Wear 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0% LEAD 0.000 0.000 0.000 Home -Work Trip Running Emissions -- CO 110.7 1.3 112.0 112.0 0.08 ROC 7.7 0.1 7.8 7.8 0.08 NOx 11.6 0.5 12.0 12.0 0.08 Sox 1.2 0.0 1.2 PM10-Exhaust 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.08 PM10-Tire Wear 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.08 LEAD 0.000 0.000 0.000 Home -Other Trip Start & Soak Emissions -- CO Cold Start 168.9 0.4 169.3 169.3 0.08 ROC Cold Start 9.3 0.0 9.3 9.3 0.08 NOx Cold Start 5.4 0.0 5.4 5.4 0.08 CO Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 ROC Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 NOx Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% ROC Hot Soak 2.1 0.0 2.1 2.1 0.08 'Home -Shop Trip Start & Soak Emissions -- GAS BOTH CO Cold Start 34.2 0.1 34.3 34.3 0.08 ROC Cold Start 1.9 0.0 1.9 1.9 0.08 NOx Cold Start 1.1 0.0 1.1 1.1 0.08 CO Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 ROC Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 NOx Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 ROC.Hot Soak 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.08 Home -Work Trip Start & Soak Emissions -- 55.0 768 CO Cold Start 165.2 Sox 0.4 165.6 165.6 0.08 ROC Cold Start 9.1 0.0 9.1 9.1 0.08 NOx Cold Start 5.3 0.0 5.3 5.3 0.08 CO Hot Start- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 ROC Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 NOx Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 ROC Hot Soak 2.1 0.0 2.1 2.1 0.08 Other Evaporative Emissions -- ROC -Diurnal 6.5 0.0 6.5 TOTAL EMISSIONS SUMMARY VEHICULAR-- PASS. TRUCK BOTH MITIGATED EFFIC. CO 569.6 3.3 572.9 572.9 0.08 ROC 45.3 0.4 45.7 45.7 0.08 NOx 32.9 0.9 33.8 33.8 0.08 Sox 2.2 0.1 2.2 PM10 3.8 0.1 3.9 3.9 0.08 LEAD 0.000 0.000 0.000 STATIONARY-- ELECT. GAS BOTH MITIGATED EFFIC. CO ------ 0.68 ------ 0.98 ------ 1.67 ------ 1.67 ------ 0.08 ROC 0.03 0.26 0.30 0.30 0.08 NOx 3.94 3.94 7.87 7.87 0.08 Sox 0.41 0.00 0.41 PM10 0.14 0.01 0.15 0.15 0.08 TOTAL-- EMISS. THRES. %THRES MITIGATED %THRES CO ------ 574.6 ------ 55.0.0 ------ 1048 ------------ 574.6 1048 ROC 46.0 55.0 848 46.0 848 NOx 41.6 55.0 768 41.6 768 Sox 2.6 150.0 28 PM10 4.0 150.0 38 4.0 38 LEAD 0.000 N/A N/A --------------------PROJECT DESCRIPTION -------------------------- PROJECT NAME AND DESCRIPTION: Single Golf Course Northeaset Parcel only, 160 acres PROJECT STARTING :YEAR: 1998 CITY: SAUGUS-BOUQUET CANYON ZIP CODE: COUNTY: LOS ANGELES AREA NUMBER: AREA2 L.U.,.DESCR. AND SIZE: NON-RESIDENTIAL, GOLF COURSE,. 6970 1000 SQ.FT. AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS: 1600 (PER 1000 SQ.FT.-- 0.23) NUMBER OF VEHICLES: 800 TOTAL PROJECT VMT: 12210 miles -----TRIP PURPOSE DATA: Work Non -Work AVERAGE TRIP SPEEDS: 24.6 24.6 mph AVERAGE TRIP LENGTHS: 10.2 5.9 miles TRIP PERCENTAGES: 40.0 60.0 percent VEHICLE MILES TRAVELLED: 6516.2 5694.5 miles VEHICLE DATA DISTRIBUTIONS: Heavy Duty Vehicles Passenger Vehicles Average Daily Trips 12.91 205/day 87.10 1394/day Number of Vehicles 13.5% 108 86.5% 691 Vehicle Miles Travelled 12.51 1526 miles 87.5°1 10683 miles TRIP COLD/HOT STARTS: 501; COLD, 50% HOT ELECTRICAL SUPPLIER: SCE CONVERSION FACTOR from PER 1000 SQ.FT. to MEGAWATT-HR/DAY is 0.0/365/1000 21.2 and.to MILLION CU FT/DAY is 0.0/30/1,000,000 0.01 RUN TYPE: Project Specific DATA CASE: Project Without Mitigation 6.6 6.6 EMISSIONS (in lbs/day) NOx VEHICLES-- -----=----------------------------------- PASS. TRUCK BOTH MITIGATED EFFIC. ------ Work Trip Running ------------ Emissions-- ------ ------ 0.5 CO 70.1 24.2 94.4 94.4 0.01 ROC 4.9 2.7 7.5 7.5 0.0% NOx 7.3 8.4 15.7 15.7 0.01 Sox 0.8 0.6 1.3 LEAD PM10-Exhaust 0.1 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.00- PM10-Tire Wear 1.3 0.3 1.6 1.6 0.06C LEAD 0.000 0.002 0.002 46.0 Non -Work Trip Running Emissions -- CO 61.3 21.2 82.5 82.5 0.01 ROC 4.3 2.3 6.6 6.6 0.01 NOx 6.4 7.3 13.7 13.7 0.01 Sox 0.7 0.5 1.2 PM10-Exhaust 0.1 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.0% PM10-Tire Wear 1.1 0.3 1.4 1.4 0.01 LEAD 0.000 0.002 0.002 Work Trip Start & Soak Emissions -- CO Cold Start 46.0 3.4 49.4 49.4 O.Oo ROC Cold Start 2.5 0.2 2.8 2.8 0.0% NOx Cold Start 1.5 0.2 1.7 1.7 0.01 CO Hot Start 5.8 0.4 6.2 6.2 0.0%; ROC Hot Start 0.6 0.1 0.6 0.6 0.0% NOx Hot Start 0.8 0.1 0.9 0.9 0.0% ROC Hot Soak 1.2 0.1 1.3 1.3 0.0% Non -Work Trip Start & Soak Emissions -- CO Cold Start 69.0 5.1 74.1 74.1 0.001 ROC Cold Start 3.8 0.3 4.1 4.1 0.00- NOx Cold Start 2.2 0.3 2.5 2.5 0.0% CO Hot Start 8.7 0.6 9.3 9.3 0.00-. ROC Hot Start 0.8 0.1 1.0 1.0 0.0% NOx Hot Start 1.2 0.1 1.3 1.3 0.0% ROC Hot Soak 1.7 0.2 1.9 1.9 0.006 Other Evaporative Emissions -- ROC -Diurnal 4.0 0.6 4.6 TOTAL EMISSIONS SUMMARY VEHICULAR-- PASS. TRUCK BOTH MITIGATED EFFIC. CO ------ 261.0 ------ 54.9 ------ 315.8 ------ 315.8 ------ 0.0% ROC 23.8 6.7 30.5 30.5 0.0% NOx 19.4 16.4 35.8 35.8 0.0% Sox 1.4 1.1 2.5 PM10 2.5 1.7 4.2 4.2 0.0% LEAD 0.000 0.003 0.003 STATIONARY-- ELECT. GAS BOTH MITIGATED EFFIC. CO ------ 0.00 ------ 0.00 ------ 0.00 ------ 0.00 ------ 0.006 ROC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% NOx 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% Sox 0.00 0.00 0.00 PM10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% TOTAL-- EMISS. THRES. %THRES MITIGATED %THRES CO ------ 315.8 ------ 550.0 ------ 57% ------------ 315.8 57% ROC 30.5 55.0 550 30.5 55% NOx 35.8 55.0 651 35.8 65% Sox 2.5 150.0 2% PM10 4.2 150.0 30-. 4.2 3% LEAD 0.003 N/A N/A 'r Heavy Duty Vehicles Passenger --------------------PROJECT DESCRIPTION-------------------------- Average Daily Trips 0.58 PROJECT NAME AND DESCRIPTION: Hunters Green Mixed Use Development Alternative 99.58 483/day PROJECT STARTING YEAR: 1998 0.58 1 CITY: SAUGUS-BOUQUET CANYON ZIP CODE: 241 ' COUNTY: LOS ANGELES AREA NUMBER: AREA2 17 miles 99.58 L.U., DESCR. AND SIZE: RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE FAMILY, 50 DWELLING UNIT TRIP COLD/HOT STARTS: 1008 COLD, 08 AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS: 505 (PER DWELLING UNIT-- 10.10) PM10-Tire Wear 0.1 NUMBER OF VEHICLES: 243 TOTAL PROJECT VMT: 3566 miles r --TRIP PURPOSE DATA: Home -Other Home -Shop Home -Work 0.000 AVERAGE TRIP SPEEDS: 24.6 24.6 24.6 mph r AVERAGE TRIP LENGTHS: 6.1 5.3 9.0 TRIP PERCENTAGES: 45.9 9.3 44.9 miles percent VEHICLE MILES TRAVELLED: 1367.1 237.8 1961.6 miles I 11 I VEHICLE DATA DISTRIBUTIONS: Heavy Duty Vehicles Passenger Vehicles Average Daily Trips 0.58 2/day 99.58 483/day Number of Vehicles 0.58 1 99.58 241 Vehicle Miles Travelled 0.58 17 miles 99.58 3548 miles TRIP COLD/HOT STARTS: 1008 COLD, 08 HOT PM10-Tire Wear 0.1 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIER: SCE CONVERSION. FACTOR from PER DWELLING UNIT to MEGAWATT-HR/DAY is 5626.5/365/1000 and to MILLION CU FT/DAY is 6650.0/30/1,000,000 ' RUN TYPE: Project Specific DATA CASE: Project Without Mitigation EMISSIONS (in lbs/day) ' VEHICLES -- 1.2 Home -Other Trip 1.7 CO r ROC 0.0 NOx 0.3 Sox 0.000 PM10-Exhaust ' PM10-Tire Wear Sox LEAD PASS. TRUCK BOTH Running Emissions-- 16.7 0.2 1.2 0.0 1.7 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.000 0.000 ' Home -Shop Trip Running.Emissions-- ROC CO 2.9 0.0 2.5 ROC 0.2 0.0 0.0 NOx 0.3 0.0 PM10-Tire Wear Sox 0.0 0.0 0.000 PM10-Exhaust 0.0 0.0 PM10-Tire Wear 0.1 0.0 LEAD 0.000 0.000 I I I Home -Work Trip Running Emissions -- CO 24.0 0.3 ROC 1.7 0.0 NOx 2.5 0.1 Sox 0.3 0.0 PM10-Exhaust 0.0 0.0 PM10-Tire Wear 0.4 0.0 LEAD 0.000 0.000 Home -Other Trip Start & Soak CO Cold Start 36.6 ROC Cold Start 2.0 16.9 1.2 1.8 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.000 2.9 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.000 24.3 1.7 2.6 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.000 Emissions -- 0.1 36.7 0.0 2.0 16.9 1.2 1.8 0.0 0.3 2.9 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.1 24.3 1.7 2.6 0.0 0.4 36.7 2.0 EFFIC. 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 NOx Cold Start 1.2 0.0 1.2 1.2 0.08 CO Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 ROC Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% NOx Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 ROC Hot Soak 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.08 Home -Shop Trip Start & Soak Emissions -- 0.8 0.8 CO Cold Start 7.4 0.0 7.4 7.4 0.08 ROC Cold Start 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.08 NOx Cold Start 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.08 CO Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 ROC Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 NOx Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 ROC Hot Soak 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.08 Home -Work Trip Start & Soak Emissions -- ------------ 124.5 238 CO- Cold Start 35.8 0.1 35.9 35.9 0.08 ROC Cold Start 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.08 NOx Cold Start 1.1 0.0 1.2 1.2 0.08 CO Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 ROC Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 NOx Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 ROC Hot Soak 0.4 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.08 Other Evaporative Emissions -- ROC -Diurnal 1.4 0.0 1.4 TOTAL EMISSIONS SUMMARY VEHICULAR-- PASS. TRUCK BOTH MITIGATED EFFIC. CO ------ 123.4 ------ 0.7 ------ 124.1 ------ 124.1 ------ 0.08 ROC 9.8 0.1 9.9 9.9 0.08 NOx 7.1 0.2 7.3 7.3 0.08 Sox 0.5 0.0 0.5 PM10 0.8 0.0 0.8 0.8 0.08 LEAD 0.000 0.000 0.000 STATIONARY-- ELECT. GAS BOTH MITIGATED EFFIC. CO ------ 0.15 ------ 0.22 ------ 0.38 ------ 0.38 ------ 0.08 ROC 0.01 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.08 NOx 0.89 0.89 1.77 1.77 0.08 Sox 0.09 0.00 0.09 PM10 0.03 0.00 0.03 0:03 0.08 TOTAL-- EMISS. ------ THRES. %THRES MITIGATED %THRES CO 124.5 ------ 550.0 ------ 238 ------------ 124.5 238 ROC 10.0 55.0 188 10.0 188 NOx 9.1 55.0 178 9.1 178 Sox 0.6 150.0 08 PM10 0.9 150.0 18 0.9 18 LEAD 0.000 N/A N/A --------------------PROJECT DESCRIPTION-------------------------- PROJECT NAME AND DESCRIPTION: Small 18 -hole course West slope only golf course PROJECT STARTING YEAR: 1998 CITY: SAUGUS-BOUQUET CANYON ZIP CODE: COUNTY: LOS ANGELES AREA NUMBER: AREA2 L.U., DESCR. AND SIZE: NON RESIDENTIAL, GOLF COURSE, 4356 1000 SQ.FT. AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS: 828 (PER 1000 SQ.FT.-- 0.19) �L:y1a- �� H.- .:1:.�� 5z 1 NUMBER OF.VEHICLES: PURPOSE DATA: 413 TOTAL PROJECT VMT: Work Non 6311 miles --TRIP AVERAGE TRIP SPEEDS: 24.6 -Work 24.6 +q:t �2 3 mph 1• 'AVERAGE TRIP LENGTHS: TRIP PERCENTAGES: 10.2 40.0 5.9 60.0 miles percent VEHICLE MILES TRAVELLED: 3368.1 2943.4 miles VEHICLE DATA DISTRIBUTIONS: Heavy Duty Vehicles Passenger Vehicles Average Daily Trips 12.90-. 106/day 87.1% 720/day Number of Vehicles 13.5% 55 86.5'% 357 Vehicle Miles Travelled 12.5% 788 miles 87.5% 5522 miles ' TRIP COLD/HOT STARTS: 50% COLD, 5011 HOT ELECTRICAL SUPPLIER: SCE CONVERSION FACTOR from PER 1000 SQ.FT. to MEGAWATT-HR/DAY is 0.0/365/1000 and to MILLION CU FT/DAY is 0.0/30/1,000,000 RUN TYPE: Screening Run DATA CASE: Project Without Mitigation ' EMISSIONS (in lbs/day) ' VEHICLES-- PASS_- TRUCK- BOTH-- MITIGATED EFFIC_ Work Trip Running Emissions-- CO 36.2 12.5 48.8 48.8 0.0% ' ROC 2.5 1.4 3.9 3.9 0.0% NOx 3.8 4.3 8.1 8.1 0.0"% Sox 0.4 0.3 0.7 PM10-Exhaust 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.01 ' PM10-Tire Wear 0.6 0.2 0.8 0.8 0.0% LEAD 0.000 0.001 0.001 ' Non -Work Trip Running Emissions -- CO 31.7 10.9 42.6 42.6 0.0% ROC 2.2 1.2 3.4 3.4 0.0% ' NOx 3.3 3.8 7.1 7.1 0.006 Sox 0.3 0.3 0.6 PM10-Exhaust 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.006 PM10=Tire Wear 0.6 0.2 0.7 0.7 0.09i ' LEAD 0.000 0.001 0.001 Work Trip Start & Soak Emissions -- ' CO Cold Start 23.8 1.8 25.6 25.6 0.0% ROC Cold Start 1.3 0.1 1.4 1.4 0.0% NOx Cold Start 0.8 0.1 0.9 0.9 0.0% CO Hot Start 3.0 0.2 3.2 3.2 0.0% ' ROC Hot Start 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0% NOx Hot Start 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.00; ROC Hot Soak 0.6 0.1 0.7 0.7 0.0% Non -Work Trip Start & Soak Emissions -- CO Cold Start 35.6 2.6 38.3 38.3 0.0% ROC Cold Start 2.0 0.2 2.1 2.1 0.006 NOx Cold Start 1.1 0.1 1.3 1.3 0.01 CO Hot Start 4.5 0.3 4.8 4.8 O.O. ROC Hot Start 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.0%1 NOx Hot Start 0.6 0.1 0.7 0.7 0.001 ROC Hot Soak 0.9 0.1 1.0 1.0 0.0% Other Evaporative Emissions -- ROC -Diurnal 2.1 0.3 2.4 TOTAL EMISSIONS SUMMARY VEHICULAR-- PASS. TRUCK BOTH MITIGATED EFFIC. CO ------ 134.9 ------ 28.4 ------ 163.2 ------ 163.2 ------ 0.0°1 ROC 12.3 3.5 15.8 15.8 0.01 NOx 10.0 8.5 18.5 18.5 O.O. Sox 0.7 0.6 1.3 PM10 1.3 0.9 2.2 2.2 0.001 LEAD 0.000 0.002 0.002 STATIONARY-- ELECT. GAS BOTH MITIGATED EFFIC. CO ------ 0.00 ------ 0.00 ------ 0.00 ------ 0.00 ------ 0.0°1 ROC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00-. NOx 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.006 sox 0.00 0.00 0.00 PM10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0%r TOTAL-- EMISS. THRES. oTHRES MITIGATED tTHRES CO ------ 163.2 ------ 550.0 ------e 301 ------ 163.2 ------ 300 ROC 15.8 55.0 290 15.8 290s. NOx 18.5 .55.0 34006 18.5 341 Sox 1.3 150.0 1°06 PM10 2.2 150.0 11 2.2 to LEAD 0.002 N/A N/A PARTICULATE MATTER EMISSIONS Scenario: Mixed Use Development Aftemative/ Sand and Gravel Dirt Piling Mean wind speed 12 mph Note: Moisture Content Moisture content 2% Dry 2% Amount of dirt 2083333 lbs/day Moist 15% 34 % Time wind speed>12 mph Wet 50% PM10 Emissions 3.6 lbs/day 20.0 lbs/day Haul Road Vehicle Travel Dirt Pushing Silt Content 7.5% Moisture Content 2% Hours Operating 8 PM10 Emissions 61.8 lbs/day Wind Erosion of Storage Piles Silt Content 7.5% Days with >0.01" rain 34 % Time wind speed>12 mph 25% Acreage of piles 2 PM10 Emissions 20.0 lbs/day Haul Road Vehicle Travel Surface Sift Load 8% Mean Vehicle Speed 15 mph Number of Wheels 18 Vehicle Weight 35 tons Days with >0.010 rain 34 Vehicle Miles Traveled 184.8 miles PM10 Emissions 1389.3 lbs/day Methodology Source: SCAQMD.1993. CEQAAir QualityHandbook SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT HEAVY -DUN EQUIPMENT EMISSIONS Per Table A9 -8-A, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Nov. 1993 Project Hunters Green - Mixed Use Alternative, sand and gravel operation Page 1 Total: 55.7 8.5 139.1 Emissions in pounds per day 9.5 Number of days Usage per day Carbon Reactive Nitrogen Sulfur Averaged Daily IM Equipment Type (G or C Number in hours Monoxide Organic Cmpnds Oxides Oxides PM10 0.1 1.4 0.2 0.1 Thresholds (SCAQMD, Nov. 1993) Daily, lbs 550 55 Fork Lift - 50 Hp D 0 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 #NIA 0.0 Fork Lift -175 Hp D 0 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 #NIA 0.0 Off -Highway Truc D 3 8 432 4.6 100.1 10.8 6.2 Tracked Loader D 0 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tracked Tractor D 1 8 2.8 1.0 10.1 1.1 0.9 Scraper D 0 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wheeled Dozer D 0 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wheeled Loader D 1 8 4.6 1.8 15.2 1.5 1.4 Wheeled Tractor D 0 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Roller D 1 8 2.4 0.5 7.0 0.5 0.4 Motor Grader D 0 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Miscellaneous D 1 4 2.7 0.6 6.8 0.6 0.6 Page 1 Total: 55.7 8.5 139.1 14.5 9.5 Number of days operating/week: 5 Averaged Daily IM 39.8 6.1 99.4 10.3 6.8 operating/month: 20.8 Monthly tns: 0.6 0.1 1.4 0.2 0.1 Thresholds (SCAQMD, Nov. 1993) Daily, lbs 550 55 55 150 150 Page 1 FLEET MIX 0.00 EMFAC7F-VEHICLE EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS Project Hunters Green Scenario: Sand & Gravel on -Highway Truck trips Date: 07117/95 Daily 2 -Way Trips: 42 Year. 1998 Average Trip Length: 60 Speed: 35 %Cold Start 50.09/6 TOG -Temperature: 75 %Hot Start: 50.0% CO -Temperature: 50 0.26 NOx-Temperature: 75 0 FLEET MIX 0.00 Proportion Cold Start I Miles Hot Soak 0.00 0100 Total NCat I 0.00 Diesel NCatl Call Diesel %Autos 0.00 1.16 98.58 0.26 0 0 1 0 1% LID Trucks 0.00 0161 99.54 0.30 0 0 0 MDTmcks 0.00 1.04 98.96 0.00 0 0 0 HD Trucks 100.00 Rao 1 40.20 50.001 247 1 1013 1 1260 %Motorcycles 0.00 100.00 1 0.00 0.0(31 01 01 0 wln� tw.0 Hot Start 0.00 0.00 Cold Start 000 0.00 Hot Soak 0.00 0100 Diumal 000 0.00 Resting 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.DO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21.61 29.83 PmICCInM FGnTn q Diesel Auto Run L41 I,V I.] IrLOV 1.83 (Tire Wear) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.D0 TOG r co NOx PM NCat Auto Run 4.80 NGtNxo aun 43.10 HcxaRa am 2.73 NCx wee aun1 0.04 Cat Auto Run 0.21 ce hloRm 2.11 cnrfia Ru, 0.36 ataeo R.n 1 0.01 Diesel Auto Run 0.31 ane aaeRm 1.04 oiw,w r" 1.25 aeras Meamn 0.45 NCat LDT Run 3.17 uc lLm Rln 27,72 n LMR 2.29 Hcat Lor Rin 0.04 Cat LDT Run 0.28 ca Lmaat 2.71 cetor R. 0.51 cx LDTRun 0.01 Diesel LDT Run oH.aahLm sat 1.00 aestl lDTRhn 1.13 zix tm Rin 0.42 NCat MDT Run uta morRw 3576 rcx mor Rin 2.31 H ivurR 0.04 Cat MDT Run catmor Pon 2.51 CamorR 0.92 c iwmrRun 0.01 HDT Run :3.87 HorRun 7.76 Horaat 10.74 HmR. 1.70 Rin 7.55 Run 0.91 Maacyae Rin 0.01 NCat Auto Hot Sart ra M.W 34.28 Hrat weow 4.59 Hatvwmrwe 0.20 Cat Auto Hot Sart 0.48 ci, amsuvif 10.35 ce reawswtl 1.06 woT w 0.20 Diesel Auto Hot Sart 0.18 ola:<tvutow 3.51 of cam Hast 0.09 aaaavaaraew 0.20 NCat LDT Hot Start 9.83 r.or w 21.15 Heat LDrw 5.54 Heat L Tae w 0.20 Cat LDT Hot Start 0.62 Catorwsme 13.06 eYLUTw iswt 1.38 caztorri• 0.2D Diesel LDT Hot Sart 0.31 aewtorw 3.85 a uttwst 0.69 anetorTw 0.20 tJCat MDT Hot Sart 11.89 H morw 28.79 IRcx wsti 5.17 Hat vv 0.20 Cat MDTHot Start 1.09 Cat MDrwsi 11.88 cwm mswi 2.33 c,,t m mn 0.20 Mot Ie Hot Start 345' ma war. 3.92 mamaw.xwst. 0.64 torr waa 0.66 NCat Auto CDId Stag 14.38-Heatoxo cola 123.31 not wecelea 3.76 maerc nn 0.10 Cat Auto Cold Start 3.72 csixm alta 100.80 cie Dale 1.99 Diesm Auto Cold Start 0.58 aaa M. 7.21 aeaetwacaM 0.31 NCat LDT Cold Start 15.10 Lorcae 69.46 rsattorcoast 4.71 Cat LDT Cold Sart 4.25 CatLDTcae$Wtl 128.76 cat Lorea4 2.58 DieseILDTCOWStart 0.96 Daae LDrca4 5.7D awe contras 1.00 NCat MDT Cold Start 13.06 Hcamcrca st 54.88 r uwr taW !14 4.30 UXMDT Sart 5.46 cxmcrcan 151.93 I,cxtmtrrcae 4.29 93t-mycle Cold Start 828 ma.0e cele 107.51 lwcm al 0.61 NCat Auto Hot Soak 6.81 Auto 0.44 Explanation NCat LDT Hot Soak 5.78 Cat LDT Hot Soak 0.47 NCat Vehicles without catalytic convertors r4Cat MDT Hot Soak 5.58 Cat Vehicles with catalytic convertors Cat MDT Hot Soak 0.36 LDT Light duty truck . Motorcycle Hot Soak 0.53 MDT Medium duty truck NCat Auto Diurnal 5.59 HDT Heavy duty truck Cat Auto Diumal 0.64 Run Exhaust emissions (germ, during warmed up operation NCat LDT Diumal 4.74 Hot Start Exhaust emissions (gltnp) following short (a 1 hour) engmeof Cat LDT Diumal 0.69 Cold Start Exhaust emissions (glafp) following long (>4 hours) engin"If TZWt MDT Diumal 4.57 Hot Soak Evaporative emissions (gftp) immediately following engine -of Cat MDT Diumal 0.60 Diumal Evaporative emissions (gf hour) due to daily rise In temperatur Motorcycle Diurnal 0.41 Resting Evaporative emissions(g1hour) due to fuel line or plastic tank War Auto Resting 0.09 Evaporative Evaporative emissions (gfmi) due to fuel system heating durin Cat Auto Resting 0.14 NCar LDT Resting 040 Cat LDT Resting 0.15 NCat MDT Resting 0.39 Cat MDT Restin 0.14 r4(7at Auto Evatporatrve 0.240 Cat Auto Evaporative 0.055 NCat LDT Eva rive 0.211 Cat LDT Eva native 0.050 NCat MDT Eviaporatrvis 0.206 Cat MDT Evaporatrve 0.039 period period ximeation 1 operation PROJECT.DESCRIPTION-------------------------- PROJECT NAME AND DESCRIPTION: Hunters Green General Plan Buildout Alternative PROJECT STARTING YEAR: 1998 CITY: SAUGUS-BOUQUET CANYON ZIP CODE: COUNTY: LOS ANGELES AREA NUMBER: AREA2 L.U., DESCR. AND SIZE: RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE FAMILY, 324 DWELLING UNIT AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS: 3272 (PER DWELLING UNIT-- 10.10) NUMBER OF VEHICLES: 1636 TOTAL PROJECT VMT: 24011 miles -----TRIP PURPOSE DATA: Home -Other Home -Shop Home -Work AVERAGE TRIP SPEEDS: 24.6 24.6 24.6 mph AVERAGE TRIP LENGTHS: 6.1 5.3 9.0 miles TRIP PERCENTAGES: 45.9 9.3 44.9 percent VEHICLE MILES TRAVELLED: 9204.0 1601.0 13206.4 miles VEHICLE DATA ..DISTRIBUTIONS: Heavy Duty Vehicles Passenger Vehicles Average Daily Trips 0:58 16/day 99.5% 3255/day Number of Vehicles 0.5% 8 99.5% 1627 Vehicle Miles Travelled 0.5% 117 miles 99.5% 23893 miles TRIP COLD/HOT STARTS: 100% COLD, 0% HOT ELECTRICAL SUPPLIER: SCE CONVERSION FACTOR from PER DWELLING UNIT to MEGAWATT-HR/DAY is 5626.5/365/1000 and to MILLION CU FT/DAY is 6650.0/30/1,000,000 I L I 1 Lei RUN TYPE: Project Specific DATA CASE: Project Without Mitigation EMISSIONS (in lbs/day) VEHICLES-- PASS. _-EmTRUCK BOTH -- MITIGATED EFFIC_ Home -Other Trip Running issions-- CO 112.7 1.3 114.0 114.0 0.0% ROC 7.8 0.1 8.0 8.0 0.0% NOx 11.8 0.5 12.2 12.2 0.0% Sox 1.2 0.0 1.2 PM10-Exhaust 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0% PM10-Tire Wear 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0% LEAD 0.000 0.000 0.000 Home -Shop Trip Running Emissions-- CO 19.6 0.2 19.8 19.8 0.08 ROC 1.4 0.0 1.4 1.4 0.0% NOx 2.0 0.1 2.1 2.1 0.0% Sox 0.2 0.0 0.2 PM10-Exhaust 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% PM10-Tire Wear 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0% LEAD 0.000 0.000 0.000 Home -Work Trip.Running Emissions -- CO 161.6 1.9 163.6 163.6 0.0% ' ROC 11.2 0.2 11.4 11.4 0..0% NOx 16.9 0.7 17.6 17.6 0.0% Sox 1.7 0.0 1.8 PM10-Exhaust 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.08 PM10-Tire Wear 2.9 0.0 2.9 2.9 0.0% LEAD 0.000 0.000 0.000 Home -Other Trip Start & Soak Emissions -- CO Cold Start 246.4 0.6 247.0 247.0 0.0% ROC Cold Start 13.5 0.0 13.6 13.6 0.0% NOx Cold Start 7.9 0.0 7.9 7.9 0.08 CO Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 ROC Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 NOx Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 ROC Hot Soak 3.1 0.0 3.1 3.1 0.08 Home -Shop -Trip Start & Soak Emissions -- ELECT. GAS CO Cold Start 49.8 0.1 49.9 49.9 0.08 ROC Cold Start 2.7 0.0 2.7 2.7 0.08 NOx Cold Start 1.6 0.0 1.6 1.6 0.08 CO Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 ROC Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 NOx Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 ROC Hot Soak 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.08 Home -work Trip Start & Soak Emissions -- NOx 60.7 CO Cold Start 240.9 0.6 241.5 241.5 0.08 ROC Cold Start 13.2 0.0 13.3 13.3 0.08 NOx Cold Start 7.7 0.0 7.8 7.8 0.08 CO Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 ROC Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 NOx Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 ROC Hot Soak 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.08 Other Evaporative Emissions -- ROC -Diurnal 9.4 0.1 9.5 TOTAL EMISSIONS SUMMARY VEHICULAR-- PASS. TRUCK BOTH MITIGATED EFFIC. CO 830.9 4.9 835.8 835.8 0.08 ROC 66.1 0.6 66.7 66.7 0.08 NOx 48.0 1.3 49.2 49.2 0.08 Sox 3.2 0.1 3.2 PM10 5.5 0.1 5.7 5.7 0.08 LEAD 0.000 0.000 0.000 STATIONARY-- ELECT. GAS BOTH MITIGATED EFFIC. CO ------ 1.00 ------ 1.44 ------ 2.44 ------ 2.44 ------ 0.08 ROC 0.05 0.38 0.43 0.43 0.08 NOx 5.74 5.75 11.49 11.49 0.08 Sox 0.60 0.00 0.60 PM10 0.20 0.01 0.21 0.21 0.08 TOTAL-- EMISS. THRES. %THRES MITIGATED %THRES CO ------ 838.2 ------ 550.0 ------ 1528 ------------ 838.2 1528 ROC 67.1 55.0 1228 67.1 1228 NOx 60.7 55.0 1108 60.7 1108 Sox 3.8 150.0 38 PM10 5.9 150.0 48 5.9 48 LEAD 0.000 N/A N/A I I n i I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I APPENDIX D HABITAT SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT Habitat Suitability Assessment Factor Value Habitat Value [Plant Diversity + Structural Diversity + Disturbanceyl.5 Plant Diversity 1-5 Low 1 Medium 3 High 5 Structural Diversity 1 - 5 Grass 1 Shrub; isolated Trees 3 Grass/shrub/tme 5 Disturbance/isolation 1 - 5 Very disturbed 1 Moderate 3 Undisturbed 5 Regional Supply of Habitat Common Reduced Scarce Sensitive Species Number of Species 0 1 2 3+ Status Sensitive or Rare listed Threatened Endangered Site Presence Possible Probable Known Total Habitat Suitability Factor = Net Habitat Contribution = [No. Present • (Status + Presence)]/2 0 1 1.5 2 1 3 5 1 3 5 (Habitat Value + Supply + Sensitive Species)/25 Acreage of Community. Habitat Suitability Factor Page 1 Habitat Suitability Assessment Project Hunters Green Residential and Golf Course Development- Revised Project Habitat Acreage Plant Diversity Structural Diversity Disturbance Summed Regional Supply Number Status Presence Summed Suitability Factor Habitat Contribution Existing Vegetation -78% -82% 85 59 41 27 -52% -546A 6 2 5 1 Chaparral 201.5 2.5 3 4 6.3 1 2 1 5 6 0.53 107.47 Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub 64.1 3 3 4 6.7 4 2 1 5 6 0.67 36.07 Alluvial Fan Scruh/Oaks 85.1 5 5 4 9.3 4 2 1 3 4 0.69 59.00 Ruderal Area 34.8 1 1 1 2.0 1 0 0 0 0 0.12 4.18 Oaks/Ruderal 6.0 1.5 3 1 3.7 2 1 1 1 1 027 1.60 Disturbed Grassland 19.0 2 1 3 4.0 1 1 1 1 1 0.24 4.56 Retention Ponds 0.5 1 4 4 2 6.7 1 3 1 1 1 5 3 0.51 0.25 401.0 TOTAL.• 213.13 Post -Project Vegetation Chaparral 50.8 2.5 3 3 5.7 1 1.5 1 5 4.5 0.45 22.68 Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub 11.8 3 3 3 6.0 4 2 1 3 4 0.56 6.61 Alluvial Fan ScrubfOaks 41.0 5 5 3 8.7 4 2 1 3 4 0.67 27.33 Revegetated Shrubst Fire Zone 55.0 1.5 3 1 3.7 0 1 1 1 1 0.19 10.27 Retained Oaks in Landscaping 5.0 1 3 1 3.3 1 0 0 0 0 0.17 0.87 FairvvaysrreeslGreens 97.7 1 1 1 2.0 0 0 0 0 0 0.08 7.82 Revegetated Roughs 75.5 1.5 1.5 1 2.7 0 0 0 0 0 0.11 8.05 Golf Course Lakes 7.1 2 4 2 5.3 0 2 5 1 6 0.45 3.22 TOTAL- 86.84 Notes: No habitatvalue given for suburban landscaping. Regional Supply applicable only to nature[ habitats ar incorporated habitat elements. Chaparrail Shrub Revegatatim Alluvial Fan Sage Sou . Alluvial Fan SMVOake Oaks/RWerd Orris Flementsf OoaCnuse Open Wwer Source Totals Fadsting Acreage Contribution Post -Project Acreage Contribution Loss %Acreage %Value 202 107 106 33 48% -69% 54 36 12 7 -78% -82% 85 59 41 27 -52% -546A 6 2 5 1 -17% 46% 54 9 173 16 222% 82°% 1 0 7 3 1320% 1171°/ 401 2131 344 87 -591A Page 2 250 200 150 N d V Q 100 50 0 Habitat Acreage Chaparral/ Alluvial Fan Alluvial Fan Oaks/Ruderal Grass Shrub Sage Scrub Scrub/Oaks Elements/ Revegetation Golf Course ■Existing OPost-Protect Open Water Source SI M MAUM MM M m 10 w M w r s M M Mam Habitat Suitability 250 200 M Chaparral/ Alluvial Fan Alluvial Fan Oaks/Ruderal Grass Open Water Totals Shrub Sage Scrub Scrub/Oaks Elements/ Source Revegetation Golf Course r■ Existing a Post -Project APPENDIX E NOISE CALCULATIONS AMBIENT NOISE SURVEY DATA SHEET Location: it- I - (" Job Number. I:r-(2!,3 Date: la -6 % Cloud Cover. O Begin: :.S'5 u.--.. Wind: mph Finish: 1.61 - Operator. f/p lmommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmOMMMMMMMMME 'I No. of Upper Lower Primary Noise Source: � � �/ (`� �-� _ .^ %o e `, ,� """ } Samples Umfl L70 Uaat �— 50 tst 5th 10111 Distance From Primary Source: too 51h tom nth 150 8th 15th 23rd Secondary Noise Sources: /tt - S,vL, itt t 200 12th 20th 2sm \,, ` ,� FL-,, 250 15th 25th 35th Notes: • IQ Gam' 300 20th 30th 41st MMMNMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMNMMMM.MMMME 350 25th 351h 47th Countfmmtop. Upperand Lower Limits r1R must be wimin three continuous rows. wimmommmmmmmmmmmmmmmMEMMMMMMMMME immmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmEMMMMMMEMME REMEMMMMMMMEMMMMMMMMMEMMMMMMMMME IMEMOMMMMMEMMMMMMMMMMEMMMMMMMMME lmommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmOMMMMMMMMME MwMMMMMMMMwMMMMMMMMMNMMMMMMMMMN EMMMMMMMMNMMMMMMMMMNMMMMMMMMMN NMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMEMMM■MMMMMN MMMNMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMNMMMM.MMMME �����a®®���®(ralm®®m��rll�r71®l�]ld'Irn���■��■�■■� r,1:Y�7MMMMNMMMMMMMMMMMMMMNNENNNwNEMN ■■■.■..■■■■■■■..■..■■.■■.■■■.■ ■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■.■■■.■ ■■■■.■■■■■ Meter Type & Model: Response: 1,iolow ❑ Peak Weighting: 1M A D Octave Filter. (4 NA Rincon Consultants 1U �w�.53' ZZCU Fast ❑ Impulse ❑B Linear ❑ Hz LU Number of Occurrences Results SU T$ Ll 0: Calculated Leq: Lmax: AMBIENT NOISE SURVEY DATA SHEET Location: — Upper Date: r 1 o R 6 Be9 in : 7t), I.- �A ^� Finish: Operator. Primary Noise Source: Distance From Primary Source: Secondary Noise Sources: —3-.6 " t>�- fvticl Notes: -L tt k. ( L ..d— r1 R Job Number. S—I Z-ta % Cloud Cover. 0% Wind: 4_mph No. of Upper lower Samples limft L10 Umi 50 1st Sth 10th 100 5th 10th 77th 150 51h 15th 23rd 200 12th 20th 2sth 250 16th 25th 35th 300 20th 30th 419t 350 25th 35th 47th Counthomfop. Upperandlowerlimits must be wimin three continuous rows. Meter Type & Model: Response: Slow ❑ Peak Weighting: [�j A Ij C Octave Filter. � NA ' Rincon Consultants immmmmmmmm■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■ ■®®■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ �M■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ �MMWM®WmMm0■MmMM■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ mMMMMM MMEMm®®U■®®®MM■■■■■■■■■■ amroom®■®mmmmmm■mm■■mmMMMME MEMM■ ■���■:®mom■m■�®mom®����■■mom■■■■■ ��■■��m�■®■■gym®r�■®®■■m®■■■■■■■■ Meter Type & Model: Response: Slow ❑ Peak 7U L ti fV ❑ Fast ❑ Impulse ID ❑ Linear ❑ Hz zu Number of Occurrences Results tl L10: Calculated Leq:2— G Lmax. l°�rl Weighting: [�j A Ij C Octave Filter. � NA ' Rincon Consultants 7U L ti fV ❑ Fast ❑ Impulse ID ❑ Linear ❑ Hz zu Number of Occurrences Results tl L10: Calculated Leq:2— G Lmax. l°�rl AMBIENT NOISE SURVEY DATA SHEET Location: 3 Job Number. Date: rj to q 6 % Cloud Cover Begin A Finish: Operator. I Wind: Q mph No. of upper Lower Primary Noise Source: 4x2, . a. a . L-- Samples umt LID Limit nimmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm ��� 50 1st Sth 10th Distance From Primary Source: (J�_ 100 stn 10th 17th IT�EE� ■■■.■■■■■■■......MMmmmm■mmmmmm 150 6th 15th 23rd Secondary Noise Sources: EMMMMMMMMM■MMMMMMMMMMWMMMMMMMM 200 12th 20th 29th =��7 MMMMMMMMMM MM■MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMW,. 250 16th 25th 35th Notes: MMMMmL'L1MM!L'I Mmmmmmmmm 300 20th 30th 41st immmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm 350 25th 35th 47th (�.,(.e..,.i�o (l4•L mmmmmm■mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Counttromtop. Upperand LowerUmits [16 must be within three contiguous rows. 10 zu Number of Occurrences Meter Type & Model: ". 2-7 sc Response: [�j Slow ❑ Fast fZk Peak ❑ Impulse Weighting: El A ❑C Octave Filter: [p NA Rincon Consultants ❑B f—j Linear ❑ Hz Results L10: Calculated Leq: Lmax: RU MENEEMENOWNEW■EME■OMMMMMMMMMMMM NEEMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmm MMMMMMMMMM MMM■MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM nimmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm M�__,,7WMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.MMMMMM IT�EE� ■■■.■■■■■■■......MMmmmm■mmmmmm IIiL'dtC4 EMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmo EMMMMMMMMM■MMMMMMMMMMWMMMMMMMM SMMM■..M■ ■■.■■■ ■.■■.■...■■■■■ =��7 MMMMMMMMMM MM■MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMW,. xm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm■■mmmmmmmm EMMf2]®'�7MRillrLlli�i®�'�1M MMMMmL'L1MM!L'I Mmmmmmmmm IMMEmmm Mmmmmmmmmmmm immmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm ommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm me mmmmmm■mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm 10 zu Number of Occurrences Meter Type & Model: ". 2-7 sc Response: [�j Slow ❑ Fast fZk Peak ❑ Impulse Weighting: El A ❑C Octave Filter: [p NA Rincon Consultants ❑B f—j Linear ❑ Hz Results L10: Calculated Leq: Lmax: RU tiI 1 II AMBIENT NOISE SURVEY DATA SHEET Location: g q Date: etc Begin Z' 33 --- Job Number ti-( u o % Cloud Cover. n Wind: — ( mph I zu Number of Occurrences I Meter Type &Model: Q C", "ZZ c -o Response: Slow U Fast ❑ Peak ❑ Impulse Weighting: fa A ❑ B ' ❑ C ❑ Linear Finish: C, %Vj�' Operator. Rincon Consultants Na of Upper Lower Primary Noise Source: 01A- Samples Lima L10 Lima so 1st 5th 10th Distance From Primary Source: too 5th loth 17th 150 ft 15th 23rd Secondary Noise Sources: zoo 12111 20th 2M �- 250 leth 25th 35th Notes: Jho - 3 300 20th 301h 41st iso 2sth 35th 47th Count from top. Upperand Lowertimas HR must be within three contiguous rows. I zu Number of Occurrences I Meter Type &Model: Q C", "ZZ c -o Response: Slow U Fast ❑ Peak ❑ Impulse Weighting: fa A ❑ B ' ❑ C ❑ Linear Octave Filter. ffj NA I� j Rincon Consultants ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ UNNENNEEMMMMMMMMMMMMEMMMMMMMMMM =MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM■MMMMN■ Em mmmm■■■■M■ ■EME■EN■■■ ■■■E■■EM■■ mml, i mas■E■■ME■■■■■■■MMMEMMMMMMMMMM I zu Number of Occurrences I Meter Type &Model: Q C", "ZZ c -o Response: Slow U Fast ❑ Peak ❑ Impulse Hz Results Ll 0: Calculated Leq: 3� Lmax: tlse- Weighting: fa A ❑ B ' ❑ C ❑ Linear Octave Filter. ffj NA I� j Rincon Consultants Hz Results Ll 0: Calculated Leq: 3� Lmax: tlse- I G� AMBIENT NOISE SURVEY DATA SHEET Location: #- Date: S( to, q 6 Begin: L( -a.o C,,, Finish: (( `t4 w Operator. Job Number. 175---t zt0 % Cloud Cover. 0 Wind: r- I mph 10 zu Number of Occurrences Meter Type & Model: CL.� % 27 C -c, Response: Slow Fast IJ Peak ❑ Impulse Weighting: A �J C Octave Filter. (a NA Rincon Consultants ❑B [j Linear ❑ Hz Results c� + S L10: Calculated Leq: Lmax: ou No. of Upper Lower Primary Noise Source: samples Uma L10 uma so 1st 5th in Distance From Primary Source:(( 100 Sm tom nth D L'�) 150 6th 15th 23rd Secondary Noise Sources: 200 12th 20th 2eth / b (✓w-�� II L- 250 +Y-" 16th 25th 35th Notes: u� , M-- — , 300 20th 30th 41st s tr� LZA 350 25th 35th 47th ty+o CounthromtoR Upperend Lowertimks dB must be whhin three contiguous rows. 10 zu Number of Occurrences Meter Type & Model: CL.� % 27 C -c, Response: Slow Fast IJ Peak ❑ Impulse Weighting: A �J C Octave Filter. (a NA Rincon Consultants ❑B [j Linear ❑ Hz Results c� + S L10: Calculated Leq: Lmax: ou '�'7���Lj'�r��ir,tr�i�irlriiilir■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ �����7'��lS��fiff:it�®��i1®fife' %�©��■■■■ 10 zu Number of Occurrences Meter Type & Model: CL.� % 27 C -c, Response: Slow Fast IJ Peak ❑ Impulse Weighting: A �J C Octave Filter. (a NA Rincon Consultants ❑B [j Linear ❑ Hz Results c� + S L10: Calculated Leq: Lmax: ou I AMBIENT NOISE SURVEY DATA SHEET Location: Date: Begin Job Number. q5--f-2-to % Cloud'Cover 6— Wind: - if mph 10 zu Number of Occurrences Meter Type & Model: Gl",J -z--z c Response: Slow Fast ❑ Peak ❑ Impulse Weighting: FS A U B ❑ C CJ Linear Octave Filter. to NA ❑ Hz Rincon Consultants Results d- 3 L10: r{ 3 t Calculated Leq: Lmax: ,tc r3 59 Finish: —r- T�; ?= Operator liQ No. of Upper lower Primary Noise Source: %ti1n-�1�..� r ,� ..�:�,�^-� c.—.h•T--�" Samples Limit LID Limit ' —��—� 50 1st 5th 10th Distance From Primary Source: ■NEEM■■■■■NEEM■■■■■■MEMMMEMEMM too 5th toth 17th Secondary Noise Sources: Dcu� ..i r-sl� .mss. — d , a— 150 200 6th I= 15th 2Dth 23rd 2mh NNEM■■MMMM Notes: 6141,E 4r—j ■■■■MEM■■M MMEEMM■■M■ 250 300 16th 2oth 25th 3oth 35th 41st � EMEMEMMM■■■EMM■■EMMEM■■EEEMMM■ 350 25th 35th 47th Em ■■■NNE■■■M ■■MME■■■■■ MMEMMM■■M■ Countkomtop. Upperand LowerUmits EMM■■N■MMM 11R 4m�'��:r�■■ME■■MEM■■■M■■■■■M■■■MM■■ must be Afta three conti40Ws rows. 10 zu Number of Occurrences Meter Type & Model: Gl",J -z--z c Response: Slow Fast ❑ Peak ❑ Impulse Weighting: FS A U B ❑ C CJ Linear Octave Filter. to NA ❑ Hz Rincon Consultants Results d- 3 L10: r{ 3 t Calculated Leq: Lmax: ,tc r3 59 M ■NEEM■■■■■NEEM■■■■■■MEMMMEMEMM � ■MEEMMM■■■MMM■■■■■■■ ■■ME■■■■■■ Eo EMEMEEM■NEEM■M■MEE■NMM■■■■■■MM NNEM■■MMMM ■■■■MEM■■M MMEEMM■■M■ ■■■■MMM■■■MME■■MMEMM■■MMM■MM■■ � EMEMEMMM■■■EMM■■EMMEM■■EEEMMM■ � ■■■■■■MEMM MM■EMM■MMN NEHMEN■■M■ Em ■■■NNE■■■M ■■MME■■■■■ MMEMMM■■M■ EMM■■N■MMM M■■EMMEEM■ ■EMMMMM■■M 4m�'��:r�■■ME■■MEM■■■M■■■■■M■■■MM■■ ��®�����■■M■e■ME■M■■■■ENE■MM■M■ ®®��� � �®�®■■■MM■MMM■■■E■ME■MMMM � GFI®����®�■®rte■�®®�I■■■■MEMEE■■■M■ ®SEE■■■■MMMMMEMMMEEMMEMMMMMN■■M 10 zu Number of Occurrences Meter Type & Model: Gl",J -z--z c Response: Slow Fast ❑ Peak ❑ Impulse Weighting: FS A U B ❑ C CJ Linear Octave Filter. to NA ❑ Hz Rincon Consultants Results d- 3 L10: r{ 3 t Calculated Leq: Lmax: ,tc r3 59 HEAVY EQUIPMENT NOISE IMPACT ESTIMATION Scenario: Equipment grading witivn site Receptor Locatiom Distance based on nearest residence to substantial grading Ave. Maximum Pump Noise Level SPL @ 60 ft, 0 0.89 250 #N/A Noise Source Range, dBA dBA Number Use Factor Distance, Ft Leq, dBA Backhoe 72-94 85 0 0.89 250 #WA Compactor 72-75 83 0 0.89 250 #N/A Concrete Moser 75$8 85 0 0.89 250 #N/A Concrete Pump 81-83 82 0 0.89 250 #N/A Compressors 75-86 81 0 0.89 250 #N/A Crane(mobile) 76$7 83 0 0.89 250 #WA Derrick Crane 87-89 88 0 0.89 250 #WA D8 Dozer (no muffler or engine ens.) 76-96 90 0 0.89 250 MA DBH Dozer (muffler b partial engine am.) 83 0 0.89 250 #N/A DSK (muffler, engine ane., lubricated tracks) 80 1 0.75 250 65 Electrical Generator 71-82 90 0 0.89 250 #WA Forklift 80 0 0.89 250 #WA Garbage Truck (Compacting) 90 0 0.89 250 #N/A Graver 80-93 85 0 0.89 250 #N/A Hoe Excavator (tracked) 85 0 0.89 250 #WA Jackhammers 81-98 88 0 0.89 250 #WA Loader 72-85 85 0 0.67 250 #WA Off• ligh"Truck 83-95 88 0 0.5 250 #WA Paver 87-89 89 0 0.89 250 #N/A Pick-up truck 79 0 0.89 250 #WA Pick-up (2.5 ton) 79 0 0.89 250 #N/A Pick-up (4w4eel drive) 75 0 0.89 250 #WA Pile Driver (peak) 95-105 101 0 0.89 250 #N/A pneumatic Tools 83-88 86 0 0.89 250 #N/A Pump 69-71 66 0 0.89 250 #N/A Rock Drill 81-98 98 0 0.89 250 #WA Scraper 80-93 88 1 0.5 250 71 SheepsfootRoller 72-75 75 1 0.5 250 58 Shredder 75 0 0.89 250 #N/A On -rood Truck 82 0 0.5 250 #WA Vacuum Truck 76 0 0.89 250 #N/A Van 77 0 0.89 250 #WA Water Truck 88 1 0.5 250 71 Water Wagon 83 0 0.89 250 #NIA TOTAL Leq DURING NORMAL OPERATIONS: 74.6 dBA Daytime Ambient without Equipment Operation: 50.0 dBA Nighttime Ambient without Equipment Operation: 40.0 dBA Daytime Hours Operating: 9 Evening Hours Operating: 0 Nighttime Hours Operating: 0 ESTIMATED Ldn: 70.4 dBA ES77MATED CNEL• 70.4 dBA Distance attenuation assumed at 6 dBA per doubling of distance Note: #N/A = Not Applicable References: EPA (1971), Noise From Construction Equipment and Operations, EPA PB 206 717 Hams, C.M. (1979), Handbook of Noise Control, 2nd. Ed. Equipment Use Source: Assumed Rlncon Consultants Page 1 Page 1 HEAVY EQUIPMENT NOISE IMPACT ESTIMATION Scenario: Ebsting mining operations in Oak Spring Canyon Receptor Location: East property line AVERAGE NOISE NOISE LEVEL MAXIMUM ASSUMED LEVEL RANGE SPL @ 50 FT NUMBER USE DISTANCE Leq NOISE SOURCE (dBA) (dBA) OF UNITS FACTOR (Feet) (dBA) ' aackhoe 72-94 Compactor 85 83 0 0 0.89 0.89 100 500 #N/A #NIA Concrete II&er 75-88 85 0 0.89 500 #N/A Concrete Pump 81.83 82 0 0.89 500 #N/A Compressors 75-86 81 0 0.89 500 #N/A Crane (mobile) 76-87 83 0 0.89 500 #N/A Derrick Crane 87-89 88 0 0.89 500 #N/A D8 Dozer (no muffler or engine enc.) 76-96 08H Dozer (muffler d partial engine enc.) 90 83 1 0 0.56 0.89 1300 500 59 #NIA D8K (muffler, engine enc., lubricated tracks) 80 0 0.89 500 #NIA Electrical Generator 71-82 90 0 0.89 500 #N/A Forkri8 80 0 0.89 500 #N/A Garbage Truck (Compacting) 90 0 0.89 500 #N/A Grader 80.93 85 0 0.89 500 #N/A Hoe Excavator (tracked) 85 0 0.89 500 #N/A Jackhammers 81-98 88 0 0.B9 500 #NIA Loader 72-85 85 1 0.89 1300 56 Off-HighwayTmck 83-95 - 88 2 0.5 1300 60 Paver 87-89 89 0 0.89 500 #N/A Pick-up truck 79 0 0.89 500 #N/A Pick-up (2.5 ton) 79 0 0.89 500 #N/A Pick-up (4 -wheel drive) 75 0 0.89 500 #N/A He Driver (peak) 95-105 101 0 0.89 500 #NIA PneumaticToots 83-88 86 0 0.89 500 #N/A Pump 69-71 66 0 0.89 500 #NIA Rock Drill 81-98 98 0 0.89 500 #NIA Scraper 80-93 88 0 0.89 500 #N/A sheepsroot Roller 72-75 75 0 0.89 500 #N/A Shredder 75 0 0.89 500 #N/A ' Truck Tractor 82 0 0.89 500 #NIA VacuumTruck 76 0 0.89 500 #NIA Van 77 0 0.89 500 #NIA WaterTruck 88 1 0.89 1300 59 Water Wagon 83 0 0.89 500 #NIA TOTAL Leq DURING NORMAL OPERATIONS: 65 dBA ' ASSUMED DAYTIME AMBIENT WITHOUT CONSTRUCTION: 50 dBA ASSUMED NIGHTTIME AMBIENT: 40 dBA NUMBER OF DAYTIME HOURS OPERATING: 9 ' NUMBER OF EVENING HOURS OPERATING: 0 NUMBER OF NIGHTIME HOURS OPERATING: 0 ESTIMATED Ldn: 61 dBA ESTIMAT7=DCNEL: 61 dBA Distance attenuation assumed at: 6 dBA per doubling of distance Note: NA = Not Applicable ' References: EPA (1971), Noise From Construction Equipment and Operations, EPA PB 206 717 Harris, C.M. (1979), Handbook of Noise Control, 2nd. Ed. Rincon Consultants Page 1 HEAVY EQUIPMENT NOISE IMPACT ESTIMATION Scenario: EAsting mining operations in Oak Spring Canyon Receptor Location: Nearest proposed residence Sheepsfoot Roller 72-75 75 AVERAGE 0.89 2300 - #N/A NOISE NOISE LEVEL MAXIMUM 0.89 ASSUMED #N/A LEVEL 82 RANGE SPL @ 50 FT NUMBER USE DISTANCE Leq NOISE SOURCE (dBA) (dBA) OF UNITS FACTOR (Feet) (dBA) eackboe 72-94 85 0 0.89 2300 #WA Compactor 2300 83 0 0.89 2300 #N/A concrete lifter 75-88 85 0 0.89 2300 #N/A Concrete Pump 81-83 82 0 0.89 2300 #N/A Compressors 75-86 81 0 0.89 2300 #NIA Crane (mobile) 76-87 83 0 0.89 2300 #N/A Derrick Crane 87-89 88 0 0.89 2300 #N/A DS Dozer (no muffler or engine enc.) 76-96 90 1 0.56 2300 54 DSK Dozer (muffler 6 partial ergine enc.) 83 0 0.89 2300 #N/A DSK (muffler, engine enc., lubricated tracks) 80 0 0.89 2300 #NIA Electrical Generator 71-82 90 0 0.89 - 2300 #N/A Forklift 80 0 0.89 2300 #NIA Garbage Truck (compacting) 90 0 0.89 2300 #NIA Grader 80-93 85 0 0.89 2300 #N/A Hoe Emavabr (tracked) 85 0 0.89 2300 #N/A Jackhammers 81-98 88 0 0.89 2300 #NIA Loader 72-85 85 1 0.89 2300 51 OR-KighwayTruck 83-95 88 2 0.5 2300 55 Paver, 87-89 89 0 0.89 2300 #N/A Pick-up truck 79 0 0.89 2300 #N/A Pick-up (2s ton) 79 0 0.89 2300 #N/A Pick-up (4 -wheel drive) 75 0 0.89 2300 #N/A PileDriver(peak) 95-105 101 0 0.89 2300 #WA Pneumatic Tools 83-88 86 0 0.89 2300 #NIA Pump 69-71 66 0 0.89 2300 #N/A Rock Drill 81-98 98 0 0.89 2300 #N/A Scraper 80-93 88 0 0.89 2300 #WA Sheepsfoot Roller 72-75 75 0 0.89 2300 - #N/A Shredder 75 0 0.89 2300 #N/A Truck Tractor 82 0 0.89 2300 #N/A Vacuum Truck 76 0 0.89 2300 #N/A Van 77 0 0.89 2300 #WA WaWTruck 88 1 0.89 2300 54 Waterwagon 83 0 0.89 2300 #NIA TOTAL Leq DURING NORMAL OPERATIONS: 59.8 dBA ASSUMED DAYTIME AMBIENT WITHOUT CONSTRUCTION: 50.0 dBA ASSUMED NIGHTTIME AMBIENT. 40.0 dBA NUMBER OF DAYTIME HOURS OPERATING: 9 NUMBER OF EVENING HOURS OPERATING: 0 NUMBER OF NIGHTIME HOURS OPERATING: 0 ESTIMATED Ldn: 56.6 dBA ESTIMATED CNEL: 56.6 dBA Distance attenuation assumed at 6 dBA per doubling of distance Note: NA = Not Applicable References: EPA (1971), Noise From Construction Equipment and Operations, EPA PB 206 717 Harris, C.M. (1979), Handbook of Noise Control, 2nd. Ed. Rincon Consultants Page 1 HEAVY EQUIPMENT NOISE IMPACT ESTIMATION Scenario: Early morning mining operations in Oak Spring Canyon Receptor Location: Nearest proposed residential pad Ave. Maximum Noise Source Noise Level Range, dBA SPL @ 50 fL, dBA Number Use Factor Distance, FL Leq, dBA Backtroe 72-94 85 0 0.69 2300 #WA Compactor Nighttime Hours Operating: 83 0 0.89 2300 #WA Concrete Morar 75.88 85 0 0.89 2300 #N/A Concrete Pump 81-83 82 0 0.89 2300 #NIA Compressors 75-86 81 0 0.89 2300 #WA Crane (mobile) 76$7 83 0 0.89 2300 #N/A Derrick Crane 87-89 88 0 0.89 2300 #NIA D8 Dozer (w muffler or engine enc.) 76-96 90 1 0.56 2300 54 MH Dozer (muffler a partial engine enc.) 83 0 0.89 2300 #NIA DSK (mutger, engine one., lubricated tracks) 80 0 0.89 2300 #NIA ElectdealGenerator 71-82 90 0 0.89 2300 #WA Foddin 80 0 0.89 2300 #NIA Garbage Tnxk(Compacting) 90 0 0.89 2300 #NIA Grader 80-93 85 0 0.89 2300 #WA Hoe Excavator (tracked) 85 0 0.89 2300 #N/A Jackhammers 81-98 88 0 0.89 2300 #N/A Loader 72.85 85 1 0.89 2300 51 Crt-Highway Truck 83-95 88 2 0.5 2300 55 Paver 87-89 89 0 0.89 2300 WA Pick-up truck 79 0 0.89 2300 #WA Pick-up (2.5 ton) 79 0 0.89 2300 #NIA Pick-up (4wheel drive) 75 0 0.89 2300 #NIA PSe diver (peak) 95-105 101 0 0.89 2300 #NIA Pneumatic Tools 83.88 86 0 0.89 2300 #NIA Pump 69-71 66 0 0.89 2300 #WA Rock Drill 81-98 98 0 0.89 2300 MA scraper 80-93 88 0 0.89 2300 #NIA Sheepsloot Roller 72-75 75 0 0.89 2300 #NIA Shredder 75 0 0.89 2300 #NIA On -road Truck 82 0 0.5 2300 #N/A Vacuum Truck 76 0 0.89 2300 #N/A Van 77 0 0.89 2300 #WA watwTruek 88 1 0.89 2300 54 waterwagon 83 0 0.89 2300 #WA TOTAL Leq DURING NORMAL OPERATIONS: 59.8 dBA Daytime Ambient without EquipmentOperatort: 50.0 dBA Nighttime Ambient without Equipment Operation: 40.0 dBA Daytime Hours Operating: 8 Evening Hours Operating: 0 Nighttime Hours Operating: 1 ES77MATED Ldn. 59.1 dBA ESTIMATED CNEL• 59.1 dBA Distance attenuation assumed at 6 dBA per doubling of distance Note: NA = Not Applicable References: EPA (1971), Noise From Construction Equipment and Operations, EPA PB 206 717 Harris, C.M. (1979), Handbook of Noise Control, 2nd. Ed. Equipment Use Source: Assumed Rlncon Consultants Page 1 HEAVY EQUIPMENT NOISE IMPACT ESTIMATION Scenario: Mining operations in Rabbit Canyon Receptor Location: Nearest proposed residence - revised project plan Ave. Maximum TOTAL Leq DURING NORMAL OPERATIONS 57.8 dBA Daytime Ambient without Equipment Operation: Noise Level SPL @ 50 It., Nighttime Ambient without Equipment Operation 25.0 dBA Daytime Hours Operating: Noise Source Range, dBA dBA Number Use Factor Distance, Ft. Leq, dBA Backhoe 72-94 85 0 0.89 2200 #N/A Compactor 83 0 0.89 2200 #N/A Concrete Mixer 75-88 85 0 0.89 2200 #N/A Concrete Pump 81-83 82 0 0.89 2200 #N/A Compressors 75-86 81 0 0.89 2200 #N/A Crane (mobile) 76-87 83 0 0.89 2200 #N/A Derrick Crane 87-89 88 0 0.89 2200 #NIA D8Dozer (no mufgerorengineena) 76-96 90 0 0.89 2200 #NIA D8H Dozer (muffler & partial engine ena) 83 0 0.89 2200 #N/A DSK (muffler. engine ena, lubricated tracks) 80 0 0.89 2200 #NIA Electrical Generator 71-82 90 0 0.89 2200 #N/A Forklift 80 0 0.89 2200 #N/A Garbage Truck (Compacting) 90 0 0.89 2200 #N/A Grader 80-93 85 0 0.89 2200 #N/A Hoe Excavator (tracked) 85 0 0.89 2200 #NIA Jackhammers 81-98 88 0 0.89 2200 #NIA Loader 72-85 85 1 0.89 2200 52 Off -Highway Trude 83-95 88 1 0.5 2200 52 Paver 87-89 89 0 0.89 2200 #NIA Pick-up truck 79 0 0.89 2200 #NIA Pick-up (25 ton) 79 0 0.89 2200 #N/A Pick-up (4 -wheel drive) 75 0 0.89 2200 #N/A Pile Driver (peak) 95-105 101 0 0.89 2200 #N/A Pneumatic Tools 83-88 86 0 0.89 2200 #N/A Pump 69-71 66 0 0.89 2200 #NIA RefrigeratorTrudtidling with refrigerator 67-80 75 0 0.89 2200 #N/A Rock Drill 81-98 98 0 0.89 2200 #NIA Scraper 80-93 88 0 0.89 2200 #NIA Sheepsfoct Roller 72-75 75 0 0.89 2200 #N/A Shredder 75 0 0.89 2200 #N/A On•road Truck 82 0 0.5 2200 #NIA VacuumTruck 76 0 0.89 2200 #N/A Van 77 0 0.89 2200 #NIA Water Truck 88 1 0.89 2200 55 Water wagon 83 0 0.89 2200 #N/A TOTAL Leq DURING NORMAL OPERATIONS 57.8 dBA Daytime Ambient without Equipment Operation: 41.0 dBA Nighttime Ambient without Equipment Operation 25.0 dBA Daytime Hours Operating: 9 Evening Hours Operating: 0 Nighttime Hours Operating: 0 ESTIMATED Ldn: 53.7 dBA ESTIMATED CNEL: 53.7 dBA Distance attenuation assumed at 6 dBA per doubling of distance Note: #N/A = Not Applicable References: EPA (1971), Noise From Construction Equipment and Operations, EPA PB 206 717 Harris, C.M. (1979), Handbook of Noise Control, 2nd. Ed. The PRA Group, Inc. (1994), Community Noise Analysis North Broadway Commercial Center. [Refrigera Equipment Use Source: Assumed Rincon Consultants Page 1 HEAVY EQUIPMENT NOISE IMPACT ESTIMATION ' Scenario: Early morning mining operations in Rabbit Canyon Receptor Location: Nearest proposed residence - revised project plan Rincon Consultants Page 1 Ave. Maximum ' Noise Level SPL @ 50 it., Noise Source Range, dBA dBA Number Use Factor Distance, Ft. Leq, dBA Backhoe 72-94 85 0 0.89 2200 #N/A Compactor 83 0 0.89 2200 #N/A Concrete Mixer 75-88 85 0 0.89 2200 #N/A Concrete Pump 81-83 82 0 0.89 2200 #N/A Compressors 75-86 81 0 0.89 2200 #N/A ' Crane (mobile) 76-87 83 0 0.89 2200 #N/A Derrick Crane 87-89 88 0 0.89 2200 #NIA Da Dozer (no, muffler or engine enc-) 76-96 90 0 0.89 2200 #N/A D8H Dozer (mufiar 8 partial engine emx) 83 0 0.89 2200 #NIA ' D8K (muffler, engine em, lubricated tracks) 80 0 0.89 2200 #N/A Becbiml Generator 71-82 9D 0 0.89 2200 #N/A Forklift 80 0 0.89 2200 #N/A ' Garbage Truck (Compacting) 90 0 0.89 2200 #N/A Grader 80-93 85 0 0.89 2200 #NIA Hoe Excavator (tracked) 85 0 0.89 2200 #N/A Jackhammers 81-98 88 0 0.89 2200 #N/A ' Loader 72-85 85 1 0.89 2200 52 Off -Highway Truck 83-95 88 1 0.5 2200 52 Paver 87.89 89 0 0.89 2200 #NIA Pick-up truck 79 0 0.89 2200 #N/A Pick-up (2.5 ton) 79 0 0.89 2200 #N/A Pick-up (4 -wheel drive) 75 0 0.89 2200 #N/A Pile Driver (peak) 95-105 101 0 0.89 2200 #NIA Pneumatic Tools 83-88 86 0 0.89 2200 #NIA Pump 69.71 66 0 0.89 2200 #NIA Refrigerator Truck, idling with refrigerator 67-80 75 0 0.89 2200 #N/A Rock Drill 81-98 98 0 0.89 2200 #N/A Scraper 80-93 88 0 0.89 2200 #N/A Sheepsfoot Roller 72-75 75 0 0.89 2200 #N/A ' Shredder Onroad Truck 75 82 0 0 0.89 0.5 2200 2200 #NIA #N/A VacuumTruck 76 0 0.89 2200 #NIA Van 77 0 0.89 2200 #NIA Water Truck 88 1 0.89 2200 55 Water wagon 83 0 0.89 2200 #NIA TOTAL Leq DURING NORMAL OPERATIONS 57.8 dBA Daytime Ambient without Equipment Operation: 41.0 dBA Nighttime Ambient without Equipment Operation 25.0 dBA Daytime Hours Operating: 8 ' Evening Hours Operating: 0 Nighttime Hours Operating: 1 ESTIMATED Ldn: 56.6 dBA ESTIMATED CNEL: 56.6 dBA Distance attenuation assumed at 6 dBA per doubling of distance Note: #N/A = Not Applicable References: EPA (1971), Noise From Construction Equipment and Operations, EPA PB 206 717 Harris, C.M. (1979), Handbook of Noise Control, 2nd. Ed. The PRA Group, Inc. (1994), Community Noise Analysis North Broadway Commercial Center. [Refrigera Equipment Use Source: Assumed Rincon Consultants Page 1 ROADWAY TRAFFIC NOISE Project: Hunters Green Development Project No. Date: 25 -Sep -95 Roadway: Sand Canyon Road north of Live Oak SpringsCynRd PROJECT DATA and ASSUMPTIONS Vehicle Noise Emission Levels (CALVENO or FHWA) Distance to Receptor: Site Condition (Hard or Soft): Upgrade longer than 1 mile: Existing Total Traffic Volume (ADT): Ambient Growth Factor: Future Year: Total Project Volume (ADT): Total Cumulative Growth Volume (ADT): Source of Traffic Data: Kimley-Hom Associates Daily Vehicle Mix Exisfing Project CALVENO 120 feet Soft 0% 6,800 vehicles 0.0% 1998 3420 vehicles 810 vehicles Future Automobile 97.5% 96.0% 97.5% Medium Truck 1.8% 2.5% 1.8% Heavy Truck 0.7% 1.5% 0.7% Source: Assumed given land use and road characteristics Percentage of Daily Traffic Existing and Future Day (7 am -7 pm) Evening (7-10 pm) Night (10 pm - 7 am) Automobile 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% Medium Truck 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% Heavy Truck 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% Source: DeraultAssumption Average Speed Existing Day (7 am -7 pm) Evening (7-10 pm) Night (10 pm - 7 am) Automobile 45 45 45 Medium Truck 45 45 45 Heavy Truck 45 45 45 Source: Speed Limit Future Day (7 am -7 pm) Evening (7-10 pm) Night (10 pm - 7 am) Automobile 45 45 45 Medium Truck 45 45 45 Heavy Truck 45 45 45 -Source: Speed Limit Page 1 95-1210 Project Day (7 am -7 pm) Evening (7-10 pm) Night (10 pm - 7 am) Automobile 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% Medium Truck 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% Heavy Truck 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% Source: Assumed Average Speed Existing Day (7 am -7 pm) Evening (7-10 pm) Night (10 pm - 7 am) Automobile 45 45 45 Medium Truck 45 45 45 Heavy Truck 45 45 45 Source: Speed Limit Future Day (7 am -7 pm) Evening (7-10 pm) Night (10 pm - 7 am) Automobile 45 45 45 Medium Truck 45 45 45 Heavy Truck 45 45 45 -Source: Speed Limit Page 1 95-1210 ROADWAY TRAFFIC NOISE Project: Hunters Green Development Project No. 95.1210 Date: 25 -Sep -95 Roadway: Sand Canyon Road north of Lire Oak Springs Cyn Rd Vehicle Noise Emission Levels': CALVENO RESULTS Ldn at Site Distance to dBA Contour Line DAY -NIGHT AVERAGE LEVEL (Ldn) 120 feet from roadway centerline, feet from road centerline 75 70 65 60 55 Existing 60.0 dBA #NIA 26. 56 120 258 Existing + Project 620 dBA #N/A 35 76 163 351 Future with Ambient Growth - 60.0 dBA # WA 26 56 120 258 Future with Ambient Growth and Project 62.0 dBA #NIA 35 76 163 351 Future with Ambient Growth and Cumulative Projects 60.5 dBA #N/A 28 60 129 278 Future with Ambient, Cumulative, and Project Growth 62.3 dBA #NIA 37 79 171 368 Change in Noise Levels Due to Project 2.0 dBA Due to Ambient Growth 0.0 dBA Due to Ambient and Cumulative 0.5 dBA Due to All Future Growth 23 dBA CNEL at Site Distance to dBA Contour Line COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE LEVEL (CNEL) 120 feet from roadway centeriine, feet from road centerline 75 70 65 60 55 Existing 60.5 dBA #NIA 28 60 130 280 Existing + Project 62.5 dBA #NIA 38 82 176 379 Future with Ambient Growth 60.5 dBA #NIA 28 60 130 280 Future with Ambient Growth and Project 62.5 dBA #WA 38 82 176 379 Future with Ambient Growth and Cumulative Projects 61.0 dBA #NIA 30 65 140 301 Future with Ambient Cumulative. and Proiect Growth 62.8 dBA #NIA 40 86 184 397 Change in Noise Levels Due to Project 2.0 dBA Due to Ambient Growth 0.0 dBA Due to Ambient and Cumulative 0.5 dBA Due to All Future Growth 2.3 dBA 'NOTES: Based on 'California Vehicle Noise Emission Levels (Final Report)", January 1987, California Department of Transportation, Report No. FHWA/CA/rL-87/03 #NIA = Not Applicable ' Page Rincon ConsuKants ROADWAY TRAFFIC NOISE Project Hunters Green Development Project No. Date: 25 -Sep -95 Roadway: Sand Canyon Road south of Live Oak Springs Cyn Rd PROJECT DATA and ASSUMPTIONS Vehicle Noise Emission Levels (CALVENO or FHWA) CALVENO Distance to Receptor: 70 feet Site Condition (Hard or Soft): Soft. Upgrade longer than 1 mile: 0% Existing Total Traffic Volume (ADT): 4,500 vehicles Ambient Growth Factor: 0.0% Future Year: 1998 Total Project Volume (ADT): 380 vehicles Total Cumulative Growth Volume (ADT): 720 vehicles Source of Traffic Data: IGmley-Horn Associates Daily Vehicle Mix Existing Project Future Automobile 97.5% 96.0% Medium Truck 1.8% 2.5% Heavy Truck .0.7% 1.5% Source: Assumed given land use and road characteristics Percentage of Daily Traffic Automobile Medium Truck Heavy Truck Automobile Medium Truck Heavy Truck Average Speed Automobile Medium Truck Heavy Truck Automobile Medium Truck Heavy Truck Day (7 am -7 pm) 77.5% 84.8% 86.5% Source: Default Assumption Day (7 am -7 pm) 77.5% 84.8% 86.5% Source: Assumed Day (7 am -7 pm) 45 45 45 Source: Speed Limit Day (7 am -7 pm) 45. 45 45 Source: Speed Limit Existing and Future Evening (7-10 pm) 12.9% 4.9% 2.7% Project Evening (7-10 pm) 12.9% 4.9% 2.7% Existing Evening (7-10 pm) 45 45 45 Future Evening (7-10 pm) 45 •45 45 97.5% 1.8% 0.7% Night (10 pm - 7 am) 9.6% 10.3% 10.8% Night (10 pm - 7 am) 9.6% 10.3% 10.8% Night (10 pm - 7 am) 45 45 45 Night (10 pm - 7 am) 45 45 45 95-1210 Page 1 Rincon Consultants ROADWAY TRAFFIC NOISE ' Project: Hunters Green Development ProjectNo. 95-1210 Date: 25 -Sep -95 Roadway: Sand Canyon Road south of Live Oak Springs Cyn Rd ' CALVENO Vehicle Noise Emission Levels': RESULTS Ldn at Site Distance to dBA Contour Line DAY -NIGHT AVERAGE LEVEL (Ldn) 70 feet from roadway cents ne, feet from road centerline 75 1 70 65 11 60 55 ' Existing 61.7 dBA #N/A #N/A 42 91 196 Existing + Project 62.1 dBA #N/A #N/A 45 97 209 Future with Ambient Growth 61.7 dBA #N/A #WA 42 91 196 Future with Ambient Growth and Project 62.1 dBA #WA #WA 45 97 209 ' Future with Ambient Growth and Cumulative Projects 62.4 dBA #N/A # WA 47 101 217 Future with Ambient, Cumulative, and Project Growth 62.7 dBA #NIA #NIA 49 106 229 Change in Noise Levels Due to Project 0.4 dBA Due to Ambient Growth 0.0 dBA Due to Ambient and Cumulative 0.6 dBA ' Due to All Future Growth 1.0 dBA CNEL at Site Distance to dBA Contour Line COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE LEVEL (CNEL) 70 feet from roadway centedine, feet from road centerline 75 1 70 65 60 55 Existing 62.2 dBA #N/A #WA 46 99 212 Existing + Project .62.6 dBA #WA #N/A 49 105 226 ' Future with Ambient Growth 62.2 dBA #WA #NIA 46 99 212 Future with Ambient Growth and Project 62.6 dBA #N/A #NIA 49 105 226 Future with Ambient Growth and Cumulative Projects 62.9 dBA #NIA #NIA 51 109 234 ■ Future with Ambient Cumulative. and Proiect Growth 63.2 dBA #N/A #NIA 53 115 247 Change in Noise Levels Due to Project 0.4 dBA Due to Ambient Growth 0.0 dBA Due to Ambient and Cumulative 0.6 dBA Due to All Future Growth 1.0 dBA *NOTES: Based on "California Vehicle Noise Emission Levels (Final Report)", January 1987, California Department of Transportation, Report No. FHWA/CAfrL-87/03 #NIA = Not Applicable I' Page 2 Rincon Consultants WATER BUDGET CALCULATIONS I 11 1 11 Well Data Source: Amercian Water Well, Inc SAND CANYON well Tested Static Level During Year, ft Location Depth flow, gpm 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Sand Cyn 374 20 110 Sand Cyn 120 70 Sand Cyn 107 75 Sand Cyn 100 32 Sultus 247 30 Sultus 180 11 60 Tannahill 112 90 Tannahill 107 12 55 Triumph 302 194 Triumph 305 25 40 Triumph 260 70 Brooken 216 90 Brooken 260 70 Diver 400 20 106 Oak Bluff 135 16.3 Oak Bluff 95 10 Sand Cyn 135 64 OAK SPRINGS CYN Well Tested Static Level During Year, ft Location Depth flow, gpm 1986 1987 1988 1989:1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Whitewater 291 8.8 86 Whitewater 430 118 Whitewater 395 0.57 70 Whitewater 504 2.5 157 Oak Springs 73 66 Oak Springs 600 4 165 Oak Springs 730 20 59 Oak Springs 487 2.5 77 Oak Springs 280 1.7 38 Oak Springs 336 213 Oak Springs 325 20 65 Oak Springs 135 64 Oak Spring Canyon Groundwater Basin a GmrMwaf &VJw Es6arate Granitic rock undedies met ofopstnam area ezceptfbrabold 50% of Ummned Canyon (edmemnee called Last Cyn) wateranel TWWm, alnlcat ndhitg permuns b deep basin So provide 91oundweter Mee. E84rnete for Untamed Carryon groundwater inw is 9%M neiMall deep peraWation w 300 aces: 32 Annual average AF Nie:()eesusedeeppwwlaecnaarsowrameaerefyea RisrateubpUbwMand OypwWs: those and to average out IL WmolyConblboeOa to Grauchoa Ival, N-: Drainage Area, Total Ava,WNs Watar from Ran1all. AF DryYear.h Average Year,m. Wel Year. cel. Leration Saes 8 14 28 Wet Year Rabbi Canyon 860 640 1120 2240 Oak Spring Canyon 1410 940 1645 3290 Umamed Carryon 650 433 758 1517 Site 263 175 307 614 Ival, N-: Linty :fe311 1e NaML 1986 in Tern Tao, 199 Indketed 6latonly 10.7%of annul average raedae is rung. This emnally assumes that annual evapolnnspinacn 19 89.3% in mos!oltne watenlvd. Assumed rroloff based In pad on Soil Consenvaeon Service runoff rembar(82) far arta sons. 20% Dry Year Avert @ Year Wet Year Assumerunoff as: Avera Year 5% et 11% 33% Rabbit Canyon 33 32 35 120 739 Oak Spnng Cyn 16 47 365 176 1086 Umufted Canyon Sloe We 2 20 7 e. 4reWent Ravrla8 on Basin rymeotadory Q. Retort Flora (Unnamed Carryononly) Potable lim evestock) Irrigation TbW Return Flow: a TOTALINFLOW Gnondwaterinw fnm pffsae Seepage along weeks 6om nmff RaiNallklddeM on basin Reborn eowa Totals: Demand Realm Flow 15.5 13.5 (Septicsystem) 15.0 23 -15 AF (Reported as a loss b Untamed Canyon IndeMow) Basin above 1700 Sbeemew avaaable for percolation estimated as Basin above noiI,ecge ditiVerty 20% Dry Yaw RabbiCanyon Wet YewYear 6 Avera Year 22 et 501 Site 9 33 203 e. 4reWent Ravrla8 on Basin rymeotadory Q. Retort Flora (Unnamed Carryononly) Potable lim evestock) Irrigation TbW Return Flow: a TOTALINFLOW Gnondwaterinw fnm pffsae Seepage along weeks 6om nmff RaiNallklddeM on basin Reborn eowa Totals: Demand Realm Flow 15.5 13.5 (Septicsystem) 15.0 23 -15 AF (Reported as a loss b Untamed Canyon IndeMow) Basin above 1700 Sbeemew avaaable for percolation estimated as Basin above noiI,ecge ditiVerty 20% Dry Yaw RabbiCanyon Wet YewYear 6 Avera Year 24 Yeaf A eYear 146 Oak Spring Cyn 0 9 32 35 32 217 Unnamed Canyon 16 4 365 16 Is 100 Sloe We 2 20 7 3 41 Rw Conbibudve TGWAF 18 32 22 0 82 0 506 e. 4reWent Ravrla8 on Basin rymeotadory Q. Retort Flora (Unnamed Carryononly) Potable lim evestock) Irrigation TbW Return Flow: a TOTALINFLOW Gnondwaterinw fnm pffsae Seepage along weeks 6om nmff RaiNallklddeM on basin Reborn eowa Totals: Demand Realm Flow 15.5 13.5 (Septicsystem) 15.0 23 -15 AF (Reported as a loss b Untamed Canyon IndeMow) Page 1 Basin above 1700 Untimed Canon Or Basin above noiI,ecge ditiVerty Dry Yaw Aver eYear Wet YewYear Avera Year Wet Year Yeaf A eYear Wel Year 0 0 0 32 32 32 32 32 32 16 59 365 4 Is 100 22 82 We 11 20 40 3 6 11 18 32 63 0 0 0 -15 -15 .15 -15 -15 -15 27 79 405 24 38 126 57 130 585 Page 1 Oak Spring Canyon Groundwater Basin OUTFLOW The following provides a range of estimates of the amount of groundwater in storage based on the limited analysis provided by SubSurface Surveys (May 13, 1995). Nowell data was used by this report. as an unconfined aquifer. Depth of 75 feet based on reported maximum thickness of the water table In sediments by SubSurface Surveys. Depth of40 feet based on appmam average 8aclmess of aqu0er in Nationales indicated by refraction study in SubSudace Surveys reporL Depth of 10 feet based on water table depth of 80 loan and estimated depth to bedrock (Mint Canyon Formation) of about 90 feet. a. Groundwater Outflow hnmBasin Downstream W Lower Basin and the Santo Clem River 0=Ke1 where 0=6aw. K=hydmdc conductivity. Ogrouldwaner gradias,A=nosssectional area of aquifer Location Assumptions Starting Water n Storage, AF Thirhness of Aquider at salt Gradient (i) Aquifer Width. feet SudaneAcreage d Basin Specific Yield of Sedknem Hydraulic Condudhft gallonelday/w4 A End AF in storage after one year (w allow) Outflow, AF: %of Storage Alluvial Aquifer Mint Above 17W MSL 158 Canyon AquBer Above 1700' MSL 1266 Alluvial Aquifer At roan property line Groundwater Mint Canyon Aquifer At north property ane 302 1210 2835 76 302 567 480 2400 4500 120 460 900 10 40 75 10 40 75 10 40 75 10 40 75 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 low 1000 1000 189 189 189 189 189 189 300 300 300 300 300 300 16% 16% 20% 4% 4% 4% 16% 20% 20% 4% 4% 4% 1000 1000 1000 10 10 10 1000 1000 1000 10 10 10 144 676 iwil 74 293 550 301 1654 3100 118 471 883 158 636 1266 2 8 17 179 746 1400 2 9 17 52% 52% 45% 3% 3% 3%1 37% 31% 31% 2% 2% 2% b. Pumpage for Use 158 634 1266 179 Groundwater Imported Water 2 Demand erect Irrigation Demand Return Flows Realm Flows Net Water Loss (Unnamed Canyon only) 5% 22 AF 3 AF 64 AF .45 AF (gain) Potable (ins. 6vesto k) 15.5 10% 45 AF 7 AF 60 AF -22 AF (gain) Inigation 15.0 50% 223 AF 33 AF 33 AF 156 OF IDD% 446 AF 67 AF 0 AF 379 AF Nolo:Unmme4 tempo 4wrwwkMum 4awe sireadymmberMwNf eslmWa. IndWMhereMrefewrim. .6 with 50% irrigation 314 c. Phrearophyfe Tiansp7mtbn 1422 335 836 While this is a possible componem of the groundwater budget Miss riparian vegetation is found along the creeks. 158 165 This factor is considered W be negligible for the existing condition. with 100% irrigation 537 1013 d. TOTAL OUTFLOW 558 1215 1779 Alluvial Aquifer, at 1700 MSL I Alluvial Aquifer at North PO- I Mint Canyon Aquifer Existing 158 634 1266 179 746 1400 2 9 17 with 5% irrigation 114 589 1221 134 702 1355 -42 36 -28 with 10-A inigatian 138 671 1244 156 680 1377 -20 -13 .6 with 50% irrigation 314 790 1422 335 836 15% 158 165 173 with 100% irrigation 537 1013 1645 558 1215 1779 381 388 396 CHANGE IN STORAGE (Inflow -Outflow) Rate of Outflow = . Alluvial Aquifer, at 170th MSL Downstream Outflow (Underfim) - Low ..::- - Medium '. High Alluvial Aquifer at North PIL Downstream Ou81ow (Urkedlow Mint Canyon Aquifer Downstream OuOow, (Underhow) Lav .. Medkn •.: High 0 =.: Low -': Median,: High ..:. Dry Year Existing -131 406 -1239 -122 416 414 54 48 40 with 5%ingation 486 -562 -1194 -134 -702 -1355 99 92 85 with 10% irrigation -109 -584 -1216 -156 480 -1377 77 70 62 with 50% irrigation -287 -763 -1395 .335 -836 -1556 -102 -108 -116 with 100% initiation -510 -986 -1618 558 .1215 -1779 325 .331 339 Average Year Existing -79 -555 -1187 49 -616 -1269 128 121 114 with 5%krigatbn 35 510 -1142 4 .572 —1225 173 166 158 with 10% Irrigation -57 532 -1165 -26 549 -1247 150 144 136 with 50% irrigation -235 -711 -1343 -205 -705 -1426 -26 .35 42 with 1D0% irrigation 458 -934 4566 428 -1085 -1649 .251 -258 -265 Wet Year Existing 247 -229 361 407 -161 514 583 577 569 with 5% irrigation 291 -184 -817 451 -117 -770 628 621 613 with 10% irrigation 269 -207 -639 429 -94 -792 605 599 591 with 50%ingation 9D 385 -1017 251 -250 -970 427 420 413 with 100% irrigation -133 408 -1240 28 429 -1193 204 197 190 Page 2' Sand Canyon Groundwater Basin a GrouMw hfflowESOmale Granitic lock undedies about20%of Wabaam area pwkUarty in kon Carlyonwatensned. Therefore. nDdin9 plates d deep basins n sot area to pro de gvu steridlow. Estimate for Live Oak Springs Canyon groundwataririflow is 9% of rainfall deep pwoolatlon on 187.5 ave Estimate for Sand Calrym groundwater inflow is 9%o rainfall deep permlabon can 4880 sons: Note: SereusedmppwWatianacurrsoveram aerotyeas,kis Mmbodto landdrypedodS Nese tend to average ouL b. RunonCentrWrtion to GroundwaW Tobl Available Water From Rainfall AF Dramage Area, I Dry Ya ,,ln. JAYWRgaVeW.M.1 Wet Year.m. Ld®em saes 6 _ 74 1 26 Live Oak Spnngs 626 417 730 1461 Sand Canyon 6100 4067 7117 _ 74233 Total, AF: -4484 7847 75694 Halt 1986 LTM Tech,1991 Indicated Nat only 10.7% of arcual axmge rainfall is rvmR. This eseemially assumes slat smual evapouans0lntlm is 89.3%n most of tie watershed. Ammed Molt based in part m Sul Conservation Servke nalclf nUMber (82) fcrerea este Dry Year Avera eYear Wet Year m Assue runoff as. 5% 17% 33% Live Dak Springs 21 78 482 Sana Canyon 203 761 4697 TOW AF: 224 "a 5179 Sbeameowaveilable for percolation estimated as 20% Live Oak Spnrgs 416 % Sand Canyon 47 152 939 RuooRCWWMUVon TotKA 45 168 1036 o. lncidenl Raimagou Basin Portionof Basin surface saesYear A Year %Nat Veer Live Oak Springs 167A 71 20 39 Sand Carryon 1070 64 112 225 d. Relum Rows ' Groudwabr Wlow boll offsite Seepage along aeekt hom nwwff Rainfall incident on basin Remm 20 5 Torek.. 11 I1 20 Annual avenge AF 90 Annual average AF Demand RetisnF Potable (mo. kveslock) 207 31 (Septlo system) kligation 200 30 arpated Water Irrigation Wet Year LNe Oak Springs 0 75 Sand Canyon 0 38 TebiRNnm flow: 174 AF 4 e.TOTAL INFLOW 96 41 ' Groudwabr Wlow boll offsite Seepage along aeekt hom nwwff Rainfall incident on basin Remm 20 5 Torek.. 11 I1 20 Annual avenge AF 90 Annual average AF Page 7 Live Oak 5 nn s Sand Campon above site I Sand.• Lwe Oak S nn a D Year Avera eYear Wet Year D Year AverageYear Wet Year Year Avera eVear Wet Year 20 20 20 90 90 90 110 110 110 4 16 96 41 152 939 45 168 1036 11 20 39 64 112 225 75 132 264 75 75 75 99 99 99 174 174 174 110 130 230 293 453 1352 403 583 1563 Page 7 Sand Canyon Groundwater Basin OUTFLOW The following provides a range of estimates of the amount of groundwater in storage. Notes: 16-20% specific yield typical of sand and gravel alluvial squifers; 4% estimated for Mint Canyon Formation as an unconfined aquifer. Depth of 5 fest in alluvium based On minimal amount anticipated; 10 few based on shall. water levels reported any site borings. Depth of 70 feel of alklvial aqu fer based on shallowest wag with lighest static water level. Depth of 40 feet or Mint Cyn aquifer assumed for conpsrleon with Oak Spring Cyn. Depth of 100 feel assumed; 225 fast is average between static water level and bottom of well. a. G=nd"W Co Me, hon Basin Downstream to Lower 9400 and the Santa Clam River O=KiA whue 0=0ow, K=hydraWM=dudivity, f=groundwner gradient Aa oesaeclkxnal area ofaquifer Location: Assumptions Starting Water F Sorage, AF 150 Alluvial Aquifer Live Oak Springs 300 375 2625 MIM Canyon Aquifer Live Oak S n s Alluvial Aquifer Sand Canyon total Imported Water Mint Canyon Aquifer Sand Canyon total 300 750 856 2140 14980 120 480 Thickness of Aquifer at start 5 10 10 70 40 100 5 10 70 10 40 Gradient (i) 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 Aquffer WWlh.feet 600 600 em 600 600 600 Soo 800 Soo 800 800 Surface Acreage of Basin 188 187.5 187.5 187.5 1875 187.5 1070 1070 1070 1070 1070 Specific Yield of Sediment 16% 16% 20% 20% 4% 4% 16% 20% 20% 4% 4% Hydraulic Cmductivity, galbnsidari R 1000 1000 1000 1000 10 10 1000 1000 1000 10 10 End AF in storage after ore yew (W HOW) 96 192 262 1836 295 737 825 2078 14518 120 479 5 13 31 62 432 0 1 Outflow, A42 54 108 113 789 %m Storage 36% 36% 30% 30% 2% 2% 4% 3% 3% 0% 0% b. PumpageW Use CHANGE IN STORAGE (Inflow -Outflow) Rate W Outflow Dry Year Existing with 5% irrigation with 10% irrigation with 50% irrigation with 10D%rMidkm Avenge Year Existing with 5% irrigation with 10% irrigation with 50% irrigation with 100% irrigation Wet Year Existing with 5% irrigation with 10%imption with 50% trrigation with 100% Irrigation Alluvial Aquifer Live Oak Soni qs Groundwater Alluvial Aquifer Sand Carryon total Imported Water Mint Canyon Aquifer Sand Canyon total Demand Project Irrigation Demand Return Flows .Low -�_. Return Flows Net Water Le (Sand Cyn ony) 5% 22 AF 3 AF 2 64 AF 45 AF Patable (Ire. livestock) 207 10% 45 AF 7 AF 4 60 AF -22 AF Irrigation 200 50% 223 AF 33 AF 31 33 AF 166 AF 16 41 100% 446 AF 67 AF 24 0 AF 379 AF e. Phren oploe Transpiration 9 395 364 5 19 18 18 While this is a possible component of the groundwater budget Idee riparian vegetation is found along the creeks. -159 535 -161 This factor is considered to be ne95gble for the existing condition. Ise -184 -160 -160 -161 323 d. TOTALOUMOW 382 -1058 384 392 5 37 407 363 Alluvial Aquifer 384 Mint Canyon Aquifer Alluvial Aquifer 17 Min Canyon Aquder 125 Live Oak Springs 552 Live Oak Springs Sand Cameon total Sand Canyon total Rate of Outflow Mack= r- Madam, - --,H -.Low, Hih k, Lura, --Medium, Eli Low-tMedurr, z. i Existing 54 108 113 789 5 13 31 62 432 407 407 with 5%Irrigation 10 64 68 745 39 31 -14 17 387 362 363 with 10% irrigation 32 86 90 757 -17 -9 8 39 409 385 385 with 50%'vrlgation 210 264 269 945 161 169 187 218 588 563 564 with 100%inifatiort 433 487 492 1168 384 392 410 441 811 786 787 CHANGE IN STORAGE (Inflow -Outflow) Rate W Outflow Dry Year Existing with 5% irrigation with 10% irrigation with 50% irrigation with 10D%rMidkm Avenge Year Existing with 5% irrigation with 10% irrigation with 50% irrigation with 100% irrigation Wet Year Existing with 5% irrigation with 10%imption with 50% trrigation with 100% Irrigation Page 2 Alluvial Aquifer Live Oak Soni qs Mim Canyon Aquifer Live Oak Sprems Alluvial Aquifer Sand Carryon total Mint Canyon Aquifer Sand Canyon total �knvr .a�.•Metlklm ::..,Metlwm -:H' .Low -�_. H ...•.Law M801im .ff Law Medium. . ,. 66 2 3 .679 288 440 373 342 -28 4 < -5 101 46 42 -6335 39 31 417 385 16 41 41 40 78 24 20 -657 17 9 395 364 5 19 18 18 -100 -154 -159 535 -161 -169 217 Ise -184 -160 -160 -161 323 377 382 -1058 384 392 5 37 407 363 383 384 76 22 17 -659 125 117 552 521 151 176 176 175 120 66 62 51S 169 161 597 566 196 221 220 220 98 44 40 -637 147 139 575 544 174 198 198 197 30 -134 .139 315 31 39 396 365 5 20 20 19 303 357 362 -1038 -254 -262 173 142 -228 -203 -203 -204 176 122 118 -559 225 217 1552 1521 1151 1176 1176 1175 221 167 162 .514 270 262 1597 1566 1196 1221 1220 1220 199 144 140 537 247 239 1575 1544 1174 1198 1198 1197 20 34 38 -715 69 61 13W 1365 995 1020 - 1019 1019 -203 .257 -261 -938 -154 462 1173 1142 772 797 796 7% Page 2