HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-03-25 - AGENDA REPORTS - TM CUP GOLF COURSE SAND CYN (2)AGENDA REPORT
City Manager
Item to be pre;
Glenn Adamick
PUBLIC HEARING
DATE: March 25, 1996
SUBJECT: A PREZONE, ZONE CHANGE, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, OAK TREE PERMIT, HILLSIDE REVIEW,
AND REVIEW AND CERTIFICATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 411 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
BACKGROUND
On February 20, 1996, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. P96-08, recommending
approval of Master Case 95-049 to the City Council, subject to the modifications and conditions
adopted by the Commission. The Commission also recommended certification of the Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) prepared for the project, including the adoption of a
statement of overriding considerations.
The project includes:
1) Prezone 95-001 to allow for City zoning on the southern 103.4 acres of the site from the
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).
2) Zone Change 95-001 to implement a PD (Planned Development) overlay on the site,
including the allowance for transferring of density or development rights on-site and
designation of the project as an "innovative project" per the Hillside Ordinance.
APPROVED Agenda Item:.
3) Vesting Tentative Tract Map 52004 to subdivide the property into 73 single family
residential lots , six golf course lots, one maintenance yard lot; and one water tank lot.
4) Conditional Use Permit 95-003 and Development Review 95-004 to allow for the
construction and operation of a golf course, clustering of the residential lots and
implementation of the PD zone.
5) Oak Tree Permit 95-009 to allow for the removal of up to 138 scrub oak trees and 130
coast live oak trees (seven of which are heritage size trees)..
6) Hillside Review 95-002 to allow for the development of a hillside property and
development on an identified secondary ridgeline.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission conducted a total of six public hearings on the project. The item was
heard by the Planning Commission on October 3, October 26, and November 21, of 1995 and
January 16, February 6, and February 20, of 1996. A substantial amount of public testimony
was heard on the project at these meetings. This testimony; in addition to Commission
deliberation, resulted in numerous modifications to the project from the original proposal.
Staff and the Planning Commission received over 100 letters regarding the project. This number
excludes letters received on the Draft EIR which are included within the document. Forty five
of these letters, including letters from the Sand Canyon Homeowners Association, the Crystal
Springs Homeowners Association, and the Santa Clarita Chamber of Commerce, cited strong
support for the project. Thirty letters, mostly from residents in Oak Spring Canyon, were in
opposition to the project. The remaining letters offered general comments on the project. All
of the correspondence has been included within the reading file.
The project, as revised, addresses the concerns cited by the Commission related to potential land
use conflicts, circulation, project design, density, oak tree impacts, water usage, groundwater
contamination; equestrian trails, and grading.
Significant benefits of the project 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.
More detailed information related to the project is included in the attached memorandum.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council:
1) Adopt Resolution No. 96-32, approving 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 certifying Environmental Impact Report SC 95041049, including the
adoption of a statement of overriding considerations; and,
2) Introduce Ordinance No. 96-17, approving Zone Change 95-001 and Prezone 95-001,
waive further reading, and pass to a second reading_
ATTACHMENTS
Information Memorandum
Resolution No. 96-32
Ordinance 96-17
Planning Commission Resolution 1`96-08
Planning Commission Minutes
Planning Commission Staff Reports/ November 21, 1995, January 16, 1996, February 20, 1996'
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
REGARDING 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 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 HUNTERS GREEN
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN:
Regarding 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 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 Hunters Green Development Corporation.,
The Assessor's Parcel Nos. 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, 2841-001-017.
The project description includes a Vesting Tentative Tract Map, Zone Change, Conditional
Use Permit, Pre -Zone, Oak Tree Permit, Hillside Review, and a Development Review to
develop a 411 acre site with two 18 hole golf courses, a clubhouse, a lighted driving range,
three parking lots, and 73 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 Planning Commission conducted a total of six public hearings on the project and on
February 20, 1996 made a recommendation to the City Council to approve the project (subject
to conditions), certify the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project, and adopt
a statement of overriding considerations for the project.
The hearing will be held by the City Council in the City Hall Council Chambers, 23920
Valencia Boulevard, 1st Floor, Santa Clarita, the 25th day of March, 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 Boulevard, 3rd Floor, Santa Clarita, California.
If you wish to challenge the action taken on this matter in court, you may be limited to
rasing only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this
notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Clarita at, or prior to the
public hearing.
Dated: February 28, 1996
Donna M. Grindey, CMC
City Clerk
Publish Date: March 3, 1996
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: George Caravalho, City Manager
FROM: Ken Pulskamp, Assistant City Manager
DATE: March 13, 1996
SUBJECT: INFORMATION MEMORANDUM REGARDING MASTER CASE 95-049
BACKGROUND
On March 15, 1995, the applicant submitted Master Case 95-049 to develop a 411 acre site into
two golf courses, a lighted driving range, a clubhouse, maintenance facility, and 83 single family
residential lots.
The project site is comprised of four adjacent properties.. There are existing approved
entitlements on these properties allowing for the creation of 222 single family residential lots.
The northwest corner of the project site (approximately 17 acres), located adjacent to Sand
Canyon Road was approved for the development of 10 single family residential lots (TTM 45418)
in 1990. The western to middle portion of the project site includes 137 acres within the original
Hunters Green development (TTM 47324) approved in 1990. This approval allowed for the
subdividing of the 137 acres into 70 single family residential lots. The northeast portion of the
project site includes 160 acres approved for development of 140 single family lots (TTM 47803)
in 1990. The fourth parcel is the triangular shaped area of approximately 103 acres located in
the southeast portion of the site. This property is an unrecorded portion of the Crystal Springs
development. The conditional use permit approved for the development restricted this property
to two single family residential lots to ensure consistency with the County General Plan and to
resolve issues cited by the Gillibrand Mining Company related to the proximity of residential
units to a mining operation.
On February 20, 1996, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No, P96-08, recommending
approval of Master Case 95-049 to the City Council, subject to the conditions adopted by the
Commission. The Commission also recommended certification of the Final Environmental
Impact Report prepared for the project, including the adoption of a statement of overriding
considerations.
The 73 single family residential lots would be clustered on the project site. A total of 41
residential lots would be located on the 103 acre parcel, which is located in the unincorporated
area of Los Angeles County. This property is zoned A-1-2 and the City is proposing to zone the
property RE (Residential Estate, two acre minimum lot size). The remaining 32 residential lots
would be located on property zoned RVL (Residential Very Low - one acre minimum lot size).
The minimum residential lot size in the project is 14,000 square feet.
Access to the site would be provided from Sand Canyon Road and Live Oak Springs Canyon
Road. The primary project roadway would be located south. of Comet Way, on Sand Canyon
Road. All additional streets in the development are proposed to be private. The Planning
Commission recommended against the approval of gates in the project. The Draft Final
Environmental Impact Report indicates that the proposed project would generate approximately
3,800 vehicle trips per day on Sand Canyon Road.
Development of the site would require approximately 2.2 million cubic yards of grading, balanced
on-site. All slopes are proposed to be contour graded by rounding the tops and toes of slopes.
All graded slopes would be at minimum slope ratio of 2:1. The site does contain a secondary
ridgeline which would be altered by the project.
The project includes the removal of up to 138 scrub oak trees and 130 coast live oak trees (of
which seven are heritage). The site contains a total of 982 oak trees. The applicant is proposing
to transplant 45 of the 130 coast live oak trees proposed for removal. A minimum of 759 oak
trees would be preserved by the project. The applicant is also proposing to plant 1,000 small oak
trees on the site during revegetation. The project includes an aggressive revegetation plan after
project grading. Native plant species would be utilized in the revegetation of the site.
Prior to formally submitting the project, the applicant had between 10-15 formal public meetings
regarding the proposal. These meetings included Sand Canyon Homeowners Association
meetings, Crystal Springs Homeowners Association meetings, and other community meetings.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS
As part of the project review; an environmental assessment was made to evaluate the impacts
of the project. It was determined that the project may have a significant effect upon the
environment; and that a focused environmental impact report be prepared. The document has
completed its public review period and certain sections of the text have been expanded to address
certain comments. Staff has forwarded a copy of the Draft Final EIR to the City Council. The
Draft Final EIR identifies feasible mitigation measures for each of the project impacts with the
exclusion of air quality, biology, aesthetics, and noise during site development. These mitigation
measures have been incorporated into the recommended conditions of approval/mitigation
monitoring and reporting program The Council would have to adopt a statement of overriding
considerations to approve the project.
General Plan/Develovment Code Consistenc
The site is designated RE (Residential Estate - two acre minimum lot size) and RVL (Residential
Very Low - one acre minimum lot size) by the City's General Plan. A total of 41 residential lots
are proposed for the 103 acre property proposed for annexation and limited to two residential
lots by the conditional use permit approved for the Crystal Springs development. The project
site is located in the Sand Canyon Special Standards District. The project complies with the
Special Standards with the exception of the Clustering Section. The Clustering Section of the
Special Standards discourages clustering of residential lots in Sand Canyon except where it is
necessary to preserve and protect environmentally sensitive areas. It also states that where
clustering is approved, the minimum lot size shall not deviate more than 10% from the required
minimum lot size. The applicant is proposing lot sizes as low as 14,000 square feet.
The project includes the establishment of a Planned Development Overlay on the project site.
The Planned Development Overlay, as summarized, was created to: request clustering, facilitate
development of certain areas by permitting greater flexibility and consequently, more creative
and imaginative designs for the development than is generally possible under conventional
zoning regulation; 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 ensure that the project conforms to the approved plans. In summary, 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 upon the flexibility provided in the PD zone, the Planning Commission supported a
minimum lot size of 14,000 square feet, as approximately 300 acres of the site would be devoted
to the golf course and preserved as recreational/open space. Additionally, the Commission found
that the locating of residential lots on the encumbered 103 acre property was appropriate, as the
project reduces density on this 411 acre property from 222 residential lots to 73 residential lots.
Hillsides/Grading
The Draft Final EIR indicates that the Hillside Ordinance allows for development of secondary
ridgelines provided that a hillside review is granted and the project complies with the provisions
of the ordinance. Furthermore, the document points out that though the project would adhere
to many of the standards of the ordinance, several standards and criteria are not met. The Draft
Final EIR identifies that the project grading would represent a significant unavoidable impact
with respect to the Hillside Ordinance,
The Hillside Ordinance does provide that certain uses may be permitted on significant and/or
secondary ridgelines. Such uses could include innovative projects and recreation areas.
Additionally, the "Innovative Applications" section of the Hillside Ordinance would provide the
Commission and Council with the authority to approve a high quality, innovative development
that does not meet all of the precise conditions of the ordinance. The Planning Commission
considered the project to be innovative per the "Innovative Sections" of the Hillside Ordinance.
Oak Trees
The project includes the removal of up to 268 of the 982 oak trees, or 27% of the oak trees
located on-site. Seven of the trees proposed for removal are of heritage size. The applicant is
proposing to transplant 45 of the oak trees slated for removal. A minimum of 759 oak trees
would be preserved by the development, with 82 of these trees being heritage. The project also
includes a revegetation plan, which includes the planting of 1,000 small oaks on the project site.
The Planning Commission supported this number of removals based upon the project's'
preservation of a majority of the oak trees located on the site. A recommended condition of
approval also requires the applicant to work with the City's Oak Tree Consultant prior to project
grading to reduce the number of removals, including heritage removals.
Circulation
The Draft Final EIR indicates that the project would generate approximately 3,800 vehicle trips
per day. The project would not be a large peak hour vehicle trip generator, Trips generated by
the golf courses would be more spread out throughout the day than a typical residential
development. Additionally, a residential development would be primarily outbound in the
morning and inbound in the evening. A majority of the project's vehicle traffic would be inbound
in the morning or outbound in the evening hours, or almost the complete opposite of residential
development, which makes up a substantial majority of the Sand Canyon area.
A benefit of one of the residential projects previously approved for the project site was the
construction, with another off-site developer, of a separate means of access to Soledad Canyon
Road, rather than using Sand Canyon Road. This new access would have been extremely
beneficial, though its construction in conjunction with a development may not be feasible due
to costs associated with the improvement. This separate access is included within the East/West
Corridor Bridge and Thoroughfare District and a portion of the project's Bridge and
Thoroughfare fee could contribute to the construction of the access in the future..
The subject project proposes all access to the site from Sand Canyon Road. The Draft Final EIR
indicates that the project's traffic impact to Sand Canyon Road could be reduced to a less than
significant level with the incorporation of mitigation measures included within the attached
recommended conditions. This mitigation includes a traffic signal at Lost Canyon Road and
Sand Canyon Road, the widening of the Sand Canyon Road Bridge over SR 14 (to be completed
by Caltrans), and the installation of left turn lanes on Sand Canyon Road at the project entrance
and Live Oak Springs Canyon Road. In addition, the Commission recommended that the
applicant be required to widen the Sand Canyon Road Bridge over the Santa Clara River, as part
of the project's Bridge and Thoroughfare contribution, This improvement is expected to cost
approximately 1.2 million dollars..
The Planning Commission is recommending that the project contribute 2.1 million dollars to the
East/West Corridor Bridge and Thoroughfare District. The $2.1 million recommendation is
based upon the number of vehicle trips generated by the project when compared to a residential
development, and the amount of Bridge and Thoroughfare fees anticipated during formulation
of the District for the site., The Commission also recommended that the Council defer the Bridge
and Thoroughfare fees for the residential element of the project until building permit, which
reduces the up -front costs to develop the site. This deferment of fees was offered to the applicant
in an effort to encourage the extension of a water mainline to residents in Oak Spring Canyon
in conjunction with the development of the site.
Gillibrand Mining Issue/Crystal Springs Parcel
A total of 41 residential lots are proposed for the 103 acre property proposed for annexation.
This is a reduction from the originally proposed 51 lots. In approving the Crystal Springs
development, the County required the developer to dedicate the right to restrict the construction
of more than two residences on this parcel. This restriction was placed on the property to ensure
the project's consistency with the County General Plan and to provide a buffer area between
residential units and the mining operation.
The Gillibrand Mining Company has concerns with the locating of any residential development,
in excess of two units, on the 103 acre property. These homes would be near the Oak Spring
Canyon and Rabbit Canyon claim areas. The Draft Final EIR indicates that noise generated
from the mining operation would be in compliance with City noise standards and therefore not
significant to future residents. However, the document indicates that there is a potential for
annoyance to future residents because of this mining operation. In response to this issue, the
Commission required the applicant to redesign the project to eliminate 10 lots south of the future
connection of Live Oak Springs Canyon Road, which were in close proximity to the Rabbit
Canyon claim area. The Commission found that the residential lots located north of this future
connection would be at a sufficient distance to reduce any noise impacts and would be buffered
from the mining operation by the golf course. The rear property line of the residential lots would
be located a minimum of 600' from the eastern property line. Most of the residential lots
proposed in this area would be at least 1,000' from the eastern property line and 2,000' from the
nearest claim area.
Another issue with respect to these proposed lots would be the visual impacts caused by the
continued mining of the Gillibrand property. Mining in the future approved annex area,
approximately 2,000 to 3,000 feet from the project's eastern property line, would be visible to
these future residents, though this impact would be buffered by the immediate view of the golf
course and the distance between the annex area and the homes.
The Commission supported residential density in this area provided that an adequate buffer is
maintained and that the City review and approve disclosure documents supplied to future
homeowners to ensure that the mining operation is fully disclosed to these residents.
Hvdroloev/Water
Section 5.2 of the Draft Final EIR discusses project impacts related to Hydrology, Drainage and
Water. The project includes the dedication of land at no charge (near Sand Canyon Road and
Boulder Creek Road) to accommodate a debris basin and accessory drainage improvements.
Costs associated with the construction of this improvement would be paid for by the County of
Los Angeles and a Hazard Mitigation Grant, This improvement would eliminate existing
flooding problems on Sand Canyon Road from the project site north to the Santa Clara River.
This would be a substantial improvement for the Sand Canyon area. Overall, the Draft Final
EIR finds that no significant drainage impacts are created by the project.
Many residents of Oak Spring Canyon have brought forth an issue regarding the project's
proposed realignment of Oak Spring Canyon Road on the project site. The road is presently
unimproved and crosses several drainage courses. The Draft Final EIR includes mitigation
requiring the improvement of this roadway and perpetual maintenance of the roadway by the
applicant. Improvements would include an improved crossing, road base and asphalt in areas
with a grade greater than 10% Maintenance would include timely repair of the road on the
project site after rains and on-going maintenance as a result of usage of the road by the
residents east of the project site.
Section 5.2 of the Draft Final EIR includes an evaluation of surface and groundwater quality
associated with the change of land use to residential and golf course. The section discusses the
potential use of pesticides and their effect on surface and groundwater quality. The Draft Final
EIR requires the development and implementation of a Best Management Plan and Integrated
Pest Management Plan. The primary purpose of the plans would be the reduction in use of
harmful chemicals on-site, and to reduce the potential off-site movement of sediments, salts,
excessive nutrients and chemicals. The Draft Final EIR also requires the placement of
monitoring wells at two locations on the site. The wells would be sampled for a minimum period
of ten years. This mitigation would also require clean-up of the found contaminant in the
groundwater and extension of water service to residents in Oak Spring Canyon not on public
water.
The project would be obtaining water from the Santa Clarita Water Company. The Santa
Clarita Water Company has reviewed the proposal and is indicating that there is adequate water
supply to service this project and other future development in their service area. A detailed
water availability section is included within the Water Section of the Draft Final EIR. Prior to
the Planning Commission meeting of February 20, 1996, the applicant submitted an offer to the
residents of Oak Spring Canyon to extend public water to the residents in return for complete
support of the project and support of the developer to locate wells on the project site to use local
groundwater. Full support of this offer by the residents was not achieved. The Planning
Commission supported the project based upon the applicant being required to extend water
mainline from the project site to the realigned Oak Spring Canyon Road and west to Comet Way
and east to the Angeles National Forest Boundary. This would include side streets off of Oak
Spring Canyon Road within the extension area. This improvement would be of substantial
benefit to the residents of the area. The Commission also recommended that a condition be
added prohibiting the applicant from locating any water wells on the site.
The applicant would like the ability to return with a revised project and, after the completion
of the necessary documentation, with a request to locate water wells on-site. This would off -set
some of the substantial construction and operation costs of the golf course.'
Other Plannine Commission Modifications
The Planning Commission directed the applicant to redesign the project to address certain issues
identified by residents during the hearings on the project. These modifications are as follows:
1) The maintenance facility has been relocated from a site near the Graceton Drive residential
area to a site in the middle of the golf course near Mountain Course Hole No. 13.
2) The number of residential lots has been reduced from 83 to 73. The redesigned plan
includes the elimination of 10 lots 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 this property line at the hitting
area, and approximately 310 feet from the property line at the northern terminus of the
driving range. Additionally, the driving range has been canted in a northeast direction and
away from existing single family residential homes. The nearest home would be 300 feet
away from the driving range..
4) The larger parking lot (northwest of the clubhouse) has been relocated to set back 250 feet
from the nearest property line.. The original proposal had the parking lot in a location 100
feet from the nearest property line.
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 residential property line. The hole has also been
redesigned and canted 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 between the hole and the residences on
Graceton Drive. An 11 foot tall landscaped berm has been placed adjacent to the western
tee area of the driving range to provide separation between the driving range and nearby
residences.. A 10 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.
7) The revised project includes the extension of water mainline to residents located in Oak
Spring Canyon between Comet Way and the Angeles National Forest Boundary.
8) The revised project included the elimination of street gating.
Recommended Conditions of Approval
Attached are the Planning Commission recommended conditions of approval. The following is
a summary of some of the conditions contained within the document:.
1) Condition No. 10 requires that all mitigation measures are also conditions of approval,
2) Condition Nos. 14 - 18 relate to required traffic improvements.
3) Condition No. 20 details the requirements for the realignment of Oak Spring Canyon Road
on the project site.
4) Condition No. 81 details the applicant's Bridge and Thoroughfare requirement.
5) Condition Nos. 83 - 107 include requirements related to the prohibition of wells on-site, the
recordation of open space easements on the golf course lots, the use of splash lighting on
the driving range, hours of operation for the driving range, the prohibition of street gating,
on-site monitoring wells, disclosure standards, waterline extension, architectural standards,
and the implementation of a landscaped berm on certain portions of the project site.
RARGEA
w�5049".
RESOLUTION NO. 96-32
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA APPROVING MASTER CASE 95-049,
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 CERTIFYING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
SC 95041049 TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 411
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 CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS -
SECTION 1. The City Council 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 CountyA-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
1
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).
An Environmental Impact Report has been 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 has been 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. The project has since been redesigned 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
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 setback
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. A 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 a 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 sewer service to the project site. Other
utilities will also be extended to the site.
j. 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.
Oak Spring Canyon contains alluvial sand and gravel deposits that have been
designated as AM -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.
m. 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. The closest residential property line
would be approximtely 600' from the project's eastern boundary.
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.
In
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. Gates are
proposed at the project entrance at Live Oak Springs Canyon Road and at the
residential entrance near the clubhouse.
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.
Y. 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 notice 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 No. P96-08 recommending approval of Master Case 95-049 to the
City Council subject to certain modifications and the conditions of approval.
The Commission also recommended certification of the Environmental Impact
Report prepared for the project.
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.
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 City Council and on its behalf, the City Council further finds as
follows
a. At the above referenced hearing the City Council considered the Planning
Commission recommendations, the staff presentation, staff report, applicant
presentation, and public testimony on the project, and the Draft FEIR prepared
for the 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 RVL. The project complies with the City's
Unified Development Code with the intent of the Sand Canyon Special
Standards.
f. 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.
g. 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.
h. Benefits of the project include: the provision of a recreational facility, the
preservation of a minimum of 759 oak trees, 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.
i. The Final Environmental Impact Report identifies significant environmental
effects. The Final 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 City Council 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 City Council hereby certifies the Final Environmental Impact
Report prepared for Master Case 95-049. The City Council 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 and public benefits are as follows:
a. The project provides a significant recreational facility in the Canyon Country
area of the City. Dedication and construction of equestrian trails are included
within the project.
b. The project includes the dedication of approximately six acres 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.
The project provides jobs, benefiting the City's existing jobs/housing balance.
SECTION 4. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the City Council hereby
finds as follows:
a. A Draft Final Environmental Impact Report, Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Plan and Statement of Overriding Considerations have been
prepared and circulated in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act.
b. The project, as modified, will 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 since the project conforms to the UDC and is
compatible with surrounding land uses.
C. The project is compatible with existing development in the area, consistent
with the General Plan and Zoning with the approval of aPlanned 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%.
e. The applicant has substantiated the findings for approval of a vesting
tentative tract map, oak tree permit, conditional use permit, development
review and hillside review.
I. In accordance with Public Resources Code Section 2763 (a), the City Council
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 Section 3
of 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.. An adequate buffer
comprised of portions of the golf course and open space, is provided between
the proposed residential uses and the mining operation.
g. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65907 and Code of Civil Procedure
Section 1094.6, any action or proceeding to attach, review, set aside, void or
annul this decision, or concerning any of the proceedings, acts, or
determinations taken, done or made prior to such decision or to determine the
reasonableness, legality, or validity of any condition attached to this decision
shall not be maintained by any person unless the action or proceeding is
commenced within 90 days of the date of this resolution and the City Council
is served within 120 days of the date of this resolution. The City Clerk shall
send a certified copy of this resolution to the applicant, and if any, the
appellant at the address of said person set forth in the record of the
proceedings and such mailing shall constitute the notice required by Civil Code
Procedure 1094.6.
SECTION 5. The City Council hereby approves Master Case 95-049, Vesting
Tentative Tract Map 52004, Conditional Use Permit 95-003, Hillside Review 95-002,
Development Review 95-004, and Oak Tree Permit 95-009) subject to the conditions of
approval, and certifies the FEIR (SC 95041049) prepared for the project, including the
adoption of a statement of overriding considerations.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of
19
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
10
MAYOR
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 City Council of the City of Santa
Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the
day of , 19_ by the following vote of Council:
AYES: COUNCILMEM 3ERS
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
councihres9632.gea
11
CITY CLERK
ORDINANCE NO. 96-17
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA
AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP (PREZONE 95-001 AND ZONE
CHANGE 95-001) FOR THE AREA LOCATED WITHIN AND ADJACENT TO
THE EXISTING CITY LIMITS IN THE SAND CANYON AND OAK SPRING CANYON
AREAS (HUNTERS GREEN PROJECT, MASTER CASE 95.049)
WHEREAS, the Hunters Green Development Corporation (the applicant) has proposed
and initiated prezoning of approximately 103 acres of land currently vacant located adjacent
to and outside the existing City limits, in the Oak: Spring Canyon area prior to annexation
to the City of Santa Clarita (proposed Annexation No. 1995-01) and a zone change to attach
a Planned Development overlay on the remaining 308 acres of the site in both the Oak Spring
Canyon and Sand Canyon areas; and
WHEREAS, such prezoning, as described in the legal description and mapped on
Exhibit A; would become effective upon annexation and designated upon the Zoning Map
incorporated within and made a part of the City's Unified Development Code; and
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita City Council set March 25, 1996, at the hour of
6;30 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita,
California, as the time and place for a public hearing before said City Council, and notice of
said public hearing was given in the manner required by the Santa Clarita Municipal Code;
and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, testimony was received, if any, for, and/or against
the proposed prezone; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, said prezone and zone change was duly heard and
considered.
THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita as
follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby find and determine as follows:
A. The prezone is a change from Los Angeles County A-1-2 (Light Agriculture,
Two Acre Minimum Lot Size) to City of Santa Clarita RE -PD (Residential
Estate -Planned Development) for the purpose of annexation to the City.
B. The zone change is a change from City of Santa Clarita RVL (Residential: Very
Low) to RVL-PD (Residential Very Low -Planned Development).
C. The Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project has been circulated
for review and comment by affected governmental agencies and the public, and
all comments received have been considered.
Ordinance No. 96-17
Page 2
D. Public participation and notification requirements pursuant to Sections 65090
and 65351 of the Government Code of the State of California were duly
followed.
SECTION 2. Based upon the testimony and other evidence, if any, received at the
public hearing, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission and
the City Council and on their behalf, the City Council further finds and determines that the
project is consistent with the General Plan and complies with all other applicable
requirements of State law and local ordinance.
SECTION 3. In acting on the prezoning application, the City Council has considered
certain principles and standards, and finds and determines as follows:
A. That a need for the prezone classification to RE -PD exists within the project
area.
B. That the subject property is a proper location for the RE -PD designation.
C. That public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good planning practice
justify the prezoning designation of RE -PD.
D. That the proposed prezoning designation of RE -PD is consistent with existing
land uses in the area and would not result in a substantive change to the
existing zoning of the subject site.
E. The proposed change is consistent with the objectives of the Unified
Development Code, the General Plan and development policies of the of the
City
F. That the proposed Annexation No. 1995-01 prezoning area consists of 103.4
acres of vacant land located adjacent to and outside of the existing City limits,
in the Oak Springs Canyon area, as identified in the attached exhibit.
SECTION 4. In acting on the zone change application, the City Council has
considered certain principles and standards, and finds and determines as follows:
A. That a need for the zone classification to RVL-PD exists within the project
area.
B. That the subject property is a proper location for the RVL-PD designation.
C. That public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good planning practice
justify the zoning designation of RVL-PD.
D. That the proposed prezoning designation of RE -PD is consistent with existing
land uses in the area and would not result in a substantive change to the
Ordinance No. 96-17
Page 3
existing zoning of the subject site.
E. The proposed change is consistent with the objectives of the Unified
Development Code, the General Plan and development policies of the City.
SECTION 5. The City of Santa Clarita City Council has reviewed and considered the
environmental documentation for the project and has adopted City Council Resolution 96-32
which included Zone Change 95-001 and Prezone 95-001.
SECTION 6. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council does hereby ordain that the
application for a prezone is approved, and that the Official Zoning Map of the City of Santa
Clarita is hereby amended to designate the subject property RE -PD and RVL-PD.
SECTION 7. This ordinance shall become effective at 12:01 a.m. on the thirty-first
day after adoption, or in the case of the prezone, upon the effective date of the annexation
(proposed Annexation No. 1995-01) of the subject property to the City of Santa Clarita,
whichever occurs last.
SECTION 8. The City Clerk shall certify as to the passage of this Ordinance and
cause it to be published in the manner prescribed by law:
Ordinance No. 96-17
Page 4
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 1996,
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
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 above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading
at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of
1995. That thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of
the City Council on the day of 1996, by
the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
City Clerk
comcftrd &17.M
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
MASTER CASE NO. 95-049
1. 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.
uI tner.ly Ville01 a.V61 0 Due woe;__ s
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.
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 and construction of the trails completed prior to recordation.
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 (QUIlVIBY) 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, 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 against 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.
2
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 Hazard Mitigation Grant 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 alot as
"Private Driveway and Fire Lane" on the final 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
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-sacs 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.
4
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 wth 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 minimum 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. The applicant shall offer Private and Future Right -of -Way:
30 feet from centerline on "B" Street.
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
A Street (entrance)
64'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. 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 and 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 1'-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.
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 otaining 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 Iinits 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.
W
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.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
83. The use of on-site water wells is prohibited. All existing wells located on site shall
be capped and abandoned to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This prohibition
excludes the required monitoring wells.
84. The applicant shall record golf corse/open space easements on all golf course/open
space lots, restricting their use to those activities, prior to recordation of the first
residential lot.
85. 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.
86. 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.
87. 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.
88. Gating of project streets shall be prohibited.
89, 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.
90. 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 be at the discretion of the City. The sampling reports will be
reviewed by the City and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. 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.
91. 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.
92. 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.
93. The applicant shall submit disclosure documents for review and approval by the
Director of Community Development. 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). The disclosure
documents shall be in conformance with all of the requirements of the State of
California Department of Real Estate.
94. 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 water line 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.
95. 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.
10
96. The golf courses shall be maintained as public courses.
97. 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.
98. 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.
99. 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.
OAK TREE CONDITIONS
100. 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.
101. 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.
102. 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.
103. 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
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.
104. The public address system proposed in conjunction with the project shall be designed
11
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.
105. The applicant shall agree in writing to resolve any verified safety issues that may
arise in the future which are associated with the golf course design or operation.
106. 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.
107. 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\m66049.mn
12
i
Draft
City of Santa Clarita
Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
State Clearinghouse Project Number 95041049
Prepared For
City of Santa Clarita
Community Development Department
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300
Santa Clarita, California 91355
January 31, 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
:'.' Mltlgetinn MeasnrdCnndition ofApprovsl';
Action Required
Monitoring to
Monitoring
Responsible
Compliance verification
Occur
Frequency
Agency or'
Party
Initial F Date r Comments '
EARTHRESOURCES
ER -1 & ER -2(a) The Uniform Building Code (UBC)
a. Plan check to verify
a. At final plan
a. Once
a. BES
pertaining to cut and fill shall be followed. Engineering
compliance with design
check..
considerations are to include design of drainage back slopes,
requirements.
drainage downslope channels, and buttressing unstable
slopes. The buttressing is to involve the proper placement
b. Field soil compaction
b. During
b. As needed
b. SG
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
check
volume of water during the establishment of the vegetation,
b. Field check of installed
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
a SG
does not meet the strength and compaction requirements, the
field. Reports to be submitted
during
during grading
material shall be rejected and used elsewhere on the
to BES.
construction
property, such as in the golf course construction. All
b. BES
adverse vegetation shall be removed from the fill prior to
emplacement.
ER -3(b) Areas across the cuttftll 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
certificate
ER4 Grading is not to be performed during the rainy period
a. Grading plan check to
a At final
a Once
a. BES
(October 1 to April 15) unless the grading plans include
verify compliance
plans check
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
Ta. Once
a. BES
done to withstand settling that could occur with seismic
compliance with design
check
Key: CDD - Community Development Department
DPW -Department of Public Works
BPS - Building and Engineering. Services
OEM - Onsite Environmental Monitor
RWQCB - Regional Water Quality Control Board
SG - Applicant's Supervising Geologist.
Page I
City of Santa Clarita Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval
Action Required
Monitoring to
Monitoring
Responsible
Compliance verification
Occur
Frequency
Agency or
Party
Initial
Date
Comments '
ground shaking. Landslides, unstable rock slopes and debris
requirements.
Bows shall be stabilized to prevent movement during or
b. Field check of grading
b. During
b. Daily
b. SG
following an earthquake.
operations.
grading
ER -8 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
certificate
ER -9 The potential for hydroconsolidation shall be further
a. Submittal of detailed
a. When report
Twice - at
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. Al 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
occupancy
hydroconsolidation.
certificate
HYDROLOGY, DRAINAGE, 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 expIrt 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
DPW -Department of Public Works
BES - Building and Engineering Services
OEM - Onsite Environmental Monitor
RW QCB - Regional Water Quality Control Board
SG -Applicant's supervising Geologist
Page 2
City of Santa Clarita Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation MessurelConditionofApproval .
Action, Required
Mouitoringto
Monitoring
Responsible
Compliance'Verl tati ro
Occur `'
Frequency
Agency or
Party
Initial
Date
Comments
D-2 Potential purchasers of Lots Nos. 1-8 shall be notified
a. Final design plans to show
a. At final
Once - prior to
a. CDD
of the flood hazard existing along these lots and the current
compliance with floodplain
design review
final plan
BES
status of flood control improvement efforts. Housing sites
management ordinance
approval
shall comply with requirements of the local floodplain
b. Disclosure statement to
b. At final
It. Once
It. CDD
management ordinance. No certificate of occupancy shall
prospective buyers to be
design review
be issued for these residences until adequate mitigation of
reviewed
the flood hazard at the individual sites has been met to the
c. Check of flood hazard
c. Prior to
c. Once
c. CDD
satisfaction of the City Director of Community
mitigation
issuance of
Development and the City Engineer.
certificates of
BES
occupancy for
Lots #1-8.
D-4 As part of the final grading design, the Oak Spring
Final design plans that show
At final design
Once - prior to
BES
Canyon access road along the north site perimeter shall be
final roadway specifications
review
final plan
designed with a maximum slope of 10% and improved with
approval
decomposed granite. Those portions of the road steeper
than 10% shall be paved per Fire Department access
requirements.
i
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
It. 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 maintenance yard and
wells
grading
another well 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
Key: CDD - Community Development Department
DPW -Department of Public Works
BES- Building and Engineering Services
OEM - Onsite Environmental Monitor
RWQCD - 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
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval,_
Action Required _
Monitoring to :
Monitoring
Responsible
Complianee Verification
Occur _.:
Frequency ..
Agency or
Party
Initial .:Date
Comments '
annually for an additional seven years for a total of 10 years,
b. Review of sampling
b. During
b. Quarterly
b. CDD
with the sampling reports sent to the City and the Regional
reports. Reports submitted to
project
for.3 years,
Water Quality Control Board. Constituents sampled for will
City will be forwarded to a
operation
annually for
RWQCB
include nitrate, phosphate and any pesticides applied to the
qualified consultant for
next 7 years
golf courses. An initial well sample shall be taken at
review.
completion of grading, but before the installation of
landscape vegetation.
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 -1(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.
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 main 'n 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
Key: CDD - Community Development Department
DPW Department of Public Works
BES - Building and Engineering Services
OEM - Onsite Environmental Monitor
RW QCB - 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
"., Mitigation MeasurelCondition of Approval
Action Required,:,
Monitoring to
- Monitoring
Responsible
Compliance verification
:Occur.
Frequency
Agency or
Party
Initial
I Date
Comments
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
I 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
114(s) 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
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 shal I be replaced on
submittal of report
construction
consultant /
an 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. s
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
fresbwater 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 revegetation would be unsuccessful.
detailing results
installation
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
SC -Applicant's Supervising Geologist
Page 5
City of Santa Clarita Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
-: Mitigation Measure/Conditlon of Approval
Action Required -:
Monitoring to
- Monitoring
Responsible
Comptianee verification
,Occur
Frequency,
Agencyor
Parry
Initial
Date :
Comments
13-1(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-I(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.
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.
B -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 spadefoot toad
b. 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
j a Clawed frog removal and
a. During
a. Once when
a. OEM
construction and filling of the proposed lakes. 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
Key: CDD- Community Development Department
DPW -Department of Public Works
BES - Building and Engineering Service
OEM - Onsile Environmental Monitor
RWQCR - Regional Water Quality Control Board
SG - Applicant's Supervising Geologist
Page 6
City of Santa Clarita Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Messure/Condition orApproval.
Action Required
Monitoring to
.Monitoring
Responsible
Compliance Verification
Occur
Frequency
Agency or
Party '
(Initial
Date
'.:'Comments
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 horned lizards and the
implementation
Spring Canyon
identification of suitable unoccupied habitat to which they
could be relocated.
13-3(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
TRAFFIC /CIRCULATION
T-1 The timing of the proposed project shall be conditioned
Project occupancy delayed
Prior to
Once
CDD
based on the timing of the proposed bridge improvements.
until completion of bridge
issuance of
improvements
occupancy
permits
T4 A traffic signal as warranted should be installed for the
Installation of traffic signal
Prior to
Once
BES
Sand Canyon and Lost Canyon Roads intersection by the
and development of
issuance of
applicant. A reimbursement mechanism shall be created so
reimbursement fund
occupancy
that future additional traffic will pay a fair share portion of the
permits
cost of this traffic signals
T -S 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
to any spectator golf
necessary
• the number of traffic control officers;
tournament
• the location and time period of control;
• contingency plans for emergency vehicles; and
• parking restrictions/controls on residential streets.
Key: CDD - Community Development Department
DPW -Department of Public Works
BES- Building and Engineering Services
OEM - Onsite Environmental Monitor
RW QCB - 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
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval
Action Required
Monitoring to
,`. Monitoring
Responsible
- Compliance Verification
Occur
.. Frequency
Agency or,
-..Party
..
Initial
Date
Comments
T -9(a) A short left turn lane, about 50 feet long, with a 400
Installation of left tum lane
Prior to
Once.
BES
foot transition shall be installed at the main site entrance.
and striping
issuance of
occupancy
permits
T -9(b) A left tum lane shall be striped on Sand Canyon
lnstall left -tum striping on
Prior to
Once
BES
Road at the entrance to Live Oak Springs Canyon Road.
Sand Canyon Road
issuance of
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
BES
from the Community Development Director, as provided for
in Section 17.89.030 of the Code shall be implemented.
AES -11(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 withjute matting and landscaping to the
h
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
AES-I(c) If grading leads to exposure of bedrock or hard-
a. Submittal of final
Al final plan
a. Once
a. CDD
pack soils which resist revegetation, landscaping shall be
implemented through the excavation of plant holes in a
landscape design plan for
approval
check
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 1111/side Development
installation
completion of
Ordinance or as otherwise approved for the site.
landscaping
AES -3(a) The maintenafice 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
pari 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 rooftine 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
Key; CDD - Community Development Department
DPW -Department of Public Works
BES - Building and Engineering Services
V Gm - crnsue nnvironmenmi Monitor
RWQCB - Regional Water Quality Control Board
SG -Applicant's Supervising Geologist
Page 8
City of Santa Clarita Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval-
Action Required
Monitoring to
Monitoring
Responsible
Comptianciverincatiou
Occur
Frequency .,
Agency or
Petty
Initial
Date
Comments
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 parking facility shall be designed as two lots;
Plan check to verify
At final plan
Once
CDD
one on either side of the clubhouse facility.
compliance with design
check
requirements
AFS -3(c) Residential development proposed within the
Final design plan check to
At final plan
Once
CDD
proposed development shall adhere to all applicable
verify compliance with
check
standards and guidelines of the Ridgeline Preservation and
design requirements
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.
AES -4(9) 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.
AES4(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 lighting from 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 feat
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
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 9
City of Santa Clarita Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
N -2(a) No more than two pieces ofequipment should I t geld observations tot I vunra
ng g
operate simultaneously within 200 feet of a residence during compliance during grading operations
around the site shall be located a minimum of 500 feet fromI compliance during grading I operations
the nearest offsite residence.
Key: CDD - Community Development Department
DPW -Department or Public Works
BES - Building and Engineering Services
OEM - Onsite Environmental Monitor
RWQCB - Regional Water Quality Control Board
SG - Applicant's Supervising Geologist
Page 10
Occur
Frequency
Agency or
Party
Initial
;Date Comments
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 corner.
landscaping
N -2(a) No more than two pieces ofequipment should I t geld observations tot I vunra
ng g
operate simultaneously within 200 feet of a residence during compliance during grading operations
around the site shall be located a minimum of 500 feet fromI compliance during grading I operations
the nearest offsite residence.
Key: CDD - Community Development Department
DPW -Department or Public Works
BES - Building and Engineering Services
OEM - Onsite Environmental Monitor
RWQCB - Regional Water Quality Control Board
SG - Applicant's Supervising Geologist
Page 10
TiP�c.1�m�PJT i
RECEIVED
FEB b 1996
February 5, 1996 COMMUNIIYOtVEWPMENT
CITY OF SANTA CCAPITA
City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission
23920 Valencia Blvd.
Santa Clarita, Ca 91355 '
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
Green.
• Use: dedicated, multi -use, recreational, non -motorized trail. For recreational use by
equestrians, walkers, joggers, bicyclists.
s 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 City of Santa
Clarita_
TiminE
• Barring any unforseen 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 -
-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 development.)
All of the above points are subject to plan approval and are dependyytI on 44omic feasibility.
Sincerely,)
C ura L. Hauser #HGreen
on
Chairperson
Sand Canyon Trails Committee Development Corp.
cc: Rick Putnam
Lauren Weste
.1-19-1999 1:07AM FROM ROBINSON GOLF DESIGN 714 2aS 2ayb r.2
Avo,4 t4 m rzQ or 2 =
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
11-19-1995 1.0741.1 FROM ROBINSON GOLF DESIGN 714 248 2496 P.3
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.
', , 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:
Planning Commission Minutes 2-20-96
ITEM 3 MASTER CASE NUMBER 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, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT SC 95041049)
Glenn Adamick, Associate Planner, gave the staff report and a summary of correspondence
received on the project that were not included in the Commissioner's packets.
Mr. Adamick stated that the applicant has made a proposal to the residents of Oak Spring
Canyon. This proposal includes the extension of water service to the residents for three
things: 1) Complete support the project, 2) that the applicant have the future ability to locate
wells on the project site; and 3) eliminate any conditioning for the monitoring of off-site
wells.
Mr. Adamick said a representative of the State Mining and Geology Board was present to
answer any questions the Commission might have.
Mr. Adamick said if the Commission recommends approval of the project, additions to the
conditions should be added. These conditions would deal with the public address system and
to add language to condition 87 that indicates that all activities related to the driving range
shall cease at 9 p.m.
A presentation by Mr. John Parrish, executive officer of the State Mining and Geology Board,
was included in the staff report. He stated the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975
empowers the Board to designate specific geographic areas as areas having state wide or
regional economic mineral significance and to set specific goals and policies to protect against
the premature and incompatible development of these designated mineral lands. Mr. Parrish
said the State Mining and Geology Board respectfully requests the Commission thoroughly
review and consider the mineral resource management policies of the County's General Plan
and also in balancing mineral values against alternative land uses and consider the
importance of these minerals to the market region as a whole.
Commissioner Cherrington asked Mr. Parrish if the Board was asking the Commission to
consider reserving the land for future mining operation as opposed to any form of
development, including the current project. Mr. Parrish said that he was there just to
present information to the ,Commission so it could make an informed decision as to the
resources which it controls.
Commissioner Cherrington rephrased his question and asked Mr. Parrish if the Board was
asking the Commission to consider not approving the project in light of future mineral
requirements. Mr. Parrish said no, this decision would totally be the Commissions. They
were just asking the Commission to consider this mineral resource as it effects the economic
mineral region.
Commissioner Brathwaite asked if access would be restricted to the mineral deposits if the
mineral deposits underlie the golf course. Mr. Parrish said the Board has guidelines for
compatible and incompatible land uses. In the past, the Board has considered golf courses
incompatible.
Chairperson Townsley asked how much of the development actually has the mineral overlay.
Mr. Parrish said most of it has the A-12 overlay. Mr. Adamck said it was his understanding
that it covers the Oak Spring Canyon alluvium area.
Chairperson Townsley asked Mr. Parrish what his feelings were if the mineral resources
under the golf course itself were lost. He said this would be a very great loss.
Mr. Parrish stated they have seen cases where homeowners buy a home in a nice area and
find to their surprise that 8 or 10 years down the road there was a quarry that had been
permitted within their viewshed. He said this tends to lead to litigation.
The Public Hearing was opened at 7:50 p.m.
Ted Robinson, 33971 Selva Road, Dana Point. Mr. Robinson is one of the applicants. He had
comments to make regarding the offer to extend water to the residents of Oak Springs
Canyon. The offer was made for the purpose of gaining consensus for the project. He said
they were not successful at reaching this consensus. They have had an opportunity to review
the conditions of approval and they are comfortable with these conditions. Mr. Robinson said
discussion regarding the offer will continue with the residents.
Chairperson Townsley asked Mr. Robinson what was the final offer with the water. Mr.
Robinson said what was offered was a connection to the water from the existing
infrastructure for the golf course in a northerly direction to the edge of the property line to
service the residents in the Angeles Crest Forest. The water line would be extended down
Oak Springs Canyon Road and connect with the loop system at the end of Comet Way.; In
addition they have agreed to take the water up Graceton. The residents would be responsible
for paying for the connection to the existing service and their own water meter. Mr. Robinson
said this offer will remain on the table until they can gain consensus from the residents. Mr.
Robinson said the cost associated with providing the water is almost a half million dollars.
Mr. Adamick said what staff was committed to recommending to the Commission if the water
offer could be worked out was the Bridge and Thoroughfare condition be modified to read that
the residential lots would pay Bridge and Thoroughfare fees at building permit stage. This
is a deferment of the fee which frees up some of the up -front money for the applicant to move
forward with the extension of the water line.
Stan Fargeon, 16095-A Live Oak Springs Canyon Road. Mr. Fargeon is one of the applicants.
He further clarified the location of the proposed water line and what residents would be
involved.
Chairperson Townley asked Mr. Fargeon that if the Commission freed up the B&T fees
would they be willing to have monitoring of some of the wells of residents who were unable
to connect and still have the option that if those wells became contaminated that the
applicants would take water all the way up. Mr. Fargeon said they would have no problem
with this.
Chairperson Townley also asked about language for the disclosure statements. She would
like something added to the effect that when the purchaser reads the disclosure they would
be agreeable to waive all rights to sue Gillibrand for nuisance. Mr. Fargeon said they had
made an offer at the last Commission meeting that Gillibrand could right the disclosure
statement. He said they would not sell a lot unless proper disclosures were made
Mr. Fargeon also discussed the grading and phasing of the golf courses. He said the only
reason the phasing caveat was put in was in the event that financing has to be phased.
Chairperson Townsley asked if there would be architectural guidelines for the homes. Mr.
Fargeon said yes, there would be. They will have CC&R's also.
Commissioner Brathwaite asked about the proposed public address system. Mr. Robinson
said he had no problem with staffs recommendation relating to the P A system.
Mr. Adamick said the applicants would design a system that would not be a nuisance to
adjacent residents and would be in accordance with the noise standards that the City has in
place. In addition, staff would monitor the system. If there were problems, staff could
modify it with the applicants' assistance.
Proponents of the project spoke nest.
Laura Hauser, 15555 Bronco Drive, Canyon Country. Ms. Hauser spoke on behalf of the
Sand Canyon Trails Committee. The mission of the committee is to ensure the design and
development of an integrated multi -use trail system in the Sand Canyon area. Ms. Hauser
said the Committee has worked with the City and the developer to research alignments. Ms..
Hauser said the majority of the trails committee members support the development as it
relates to trails. She said some specific steps need to be taken such as moving beyond a
letter of understanding and intention to a binding agreement. This should include specifics
regarding locations of the trail, timing and use of the trails, and clarification that the
developer would be responsible for grading the initial trail and the City would accept the
dedication of the trail and the City would maintain the trail.
Commissioner Cherrington asked if Ms. Hauser was familiar with condition 11, which he
read. He asked if this was adequate. Ms. Hauser said the trails committee would like this
to be more specific. She felt this could be accomplished by working with the Parks and
Recreation Director and developer.
Chairperson Townsley said she spoke to one of the Parks Commissioners and that person
indicated they were not sure a loop trail is available at this point. Ms. Hauser said the
committee would look at what is available and see what is possible.
Commissioner Brathwaite asked Ms. Hauser if she was aware that the final alignment of the
trail cannot be established until after or during the time of the grading of the property. Ms.
Hauser said they realized this.
Speaking nest were those who opposed the project.
Diane Wilson, 26826 Sand Canyon, Santa Clarita. Ms. Wilson said she is for the loop trail
and would like the southern lots eliminated. Her real concern is the size of the lots. She
feels the lots do not conform to the area.
Craig Feeder, 27873 Oak Spring Canyon, Santa Clarita. Mr. Feeder feels the density of the
homes is too much. He would like to see the number of homes reduced. He would like to see
certain facilities moved so residents will not be impacted.
Barry Herman, 28220 Oak Spring Canyon, Santa Clarita. Mr. Herman said the majority of
the homeowners in Oak Spring Canyon are in favor of the project. They are just concerned
with the environmental impacts in the area. He said the number one issue is water. Mr.
Herman said the City has a responsibility to ensure the health and safety of the residents.
He said water has to be supplied to everyone in an economically feasible way. Other
concerns are for a usable road and aesthetics for the area.
Jane Fleck, 27363 Sand Canyon Road, Santa Clarita. She is concerned about water usage.
She did not want to see any drilling done in the Sand Canyon area. She also has strong
reservations about the density of the lots. Ms. Fleck urged the Commission to make specific
language that there will be equestrian trails that access the forest land.
Phil Drescher, 770 Country Square Drive, Ventura. Mr.. Drescher represents the Gillibrand
Mining Company. Mr. Drescher said strong state policy for the protection of the mineral
resources is being overlooked. He also felt the proposed homes are incompatible with the
existing mining operation. He wanted to know why time was not being spent in redesigning
this project. He felt when people move into the proposed homes, they will cause trouble for
the mining operation in the future.
Chairperson Townsley asked Mr. Drescher if he was aware that staff has offered the
opportunity to write the disclosure agreement. Mr. Drescher said they appreciate this and
would like to participate in this. Mr. Drescher said he did not think an agreement could be
drafted so that the people who move into the residences waive for all time any objections they
have with the mining. He did not think this could be done in a way that was enforceable.
He also said the disclosure would not protect the mining company from the impact of those
people moving in. He said.the way to protect the mining company is to get the homes off the
ridgeline.
Thomas Altmayer, Assistant City Attorney, concurred with Mr. Drescher's assessment. He
thought it would be very problematic. Mr. Altmayer said he saw the disclosure agreement
and it was acceptable.
John Newton, 165 High Street, Suite 103, Moorpark. Mr. Newton represents the P. W.
Gillibrand Company. Mr, Newton summarized a letter he had given to the Commission. He
said he would be happy to answer any questions the Commission might have.
Steve Kroh, 14859 Canna Valley, Santa Clarita. Mr. Kroh wanted to know what the
applicants were going to do about water contamination where he lived. He said the runoff
from Oak Springs Canyon runs into his aquifer. He thought it was dumb that a water
intense project was being put in at the edge of the Mojave Desert.
Allen Penrose, 27920 Graceton Drive, Santa Clarita. He thanked the Planning Commission
and staff for their hard work in moving the fairway behind his property and getting full
assurance from the developer that there will be no golf balls landing on his property. He said
he wanted full assurance in writing that if a subsequent problem does exist, that the fairway
would be modified immediately. Mr. Penrose also commented that the clustering of homes,
the commercial facilities, and the parking lot effected the ridgeline and was in violation of
the City's hillside ordinance,
Henry Schultz, Santa Clarity He is concerned about the water. He said golf courses waste
water. He felt this was not a good use for water resources. He would like to see the golf
course fees at a reasonable amount. He would like to have one golf course, not two.
Rick Atkinson, 15657 Live Oak Springs, Santa Clarita. He read from a letter from the
Crystal Springs Homeowners Association. He is the president of this HOA. He said the
association voted to unanimously to endorse the golf course project with the following
condition: golf course vehicular traffic will not directly access or exit through their
community. Mr. Atkinson also spoke as an individual citizen. He is concerned with water
issues and roads.
Chairperson Townley noted that Mr. Atkinson was making general comments on the project
and he was not speaking in opposition. The speaker slip was out of order.
Richard Cunningham, 15657 Live Oak Springs, Santa Clarita. Mr. Cunningham thanked the
Commission for all the work done in mitigating the project. He was happy that the
applicants made an offer to extend the water line. He said he was worried that the trail
system was not enough.
Timothy Ben Boydston, 19623 Green Mountain Drive, Santa Clarita. Mr. Boydston wanted
to make some general comments. His parents live adjacent to the project. He feels that
people have gotten involved with this project and have come to the meetings to show their
concern. He said many people are opposed to this project for good reasons. Mr. Boydston
voiced his concern regarding the cutting down of oak trees, the ridgelines and water issues.
He advised the City not to do things in a hasty matter and to get things put in writing.
Ian Hill, 28316 Oak Springs Canyon Road, Santa Clarita. Mr. Hill spoke about the offer to
bring in water. He felt all residents of the Oak Springs Canyon area should be covered by
this offer. Mr. Hill said the issue of drilling wells on the project site is new and contradicts
everything said previously by the applicant.
RECESS
Chairperson Townsley called a recess at 8:58 p.m.
RECONVENE
The meeting reconvened at 9:12 p.m.
The next speakers had general comments to make about the project.
John Higby, 27900 Graceton, Santa Clarita. Mr. Higby wanted to acknowledge the generous
offer made by the applicants to provide water to the area. He hoped that a resolution could
be reached.
Ann Irvine, 24849 Alderbrook Drive, Santa Clarita. Ms. Irvine said she was at the meeting
to speak for those who could not speak. She was speaking for the wildlife that will lose their
homes when this project is started. She asked that the entire project not be graded at once.
She said phased grading allows the wildlife to relocate and survive. She wanted to be sure
there would be an escape corridor towards the Angeles forest area. Ms. Irvine also asked
that the grading be done after June 1, so the spring babies would be old enough to escape
Steve Bledsole, representing the Southern California Rock Products Association, South
Pasadena. He spoke about the project and its effect on the mineral reserves. Mr. Bledsole
said there are very little reserves in the area and anything that can be done to protect them,
should be well thought through and utilized if possible.
Doris Boydston, 27875 Oak Spring Canyon Rd., Santa Clarita. Ms. Boydston had a video
showing what happens to their road when there is a substantial amount of rain. She is
concerned with the road situation. She felt it has not been properly addressed. The video
was shown to the Commissioners.
T. J. Glazier, 27522 Oak Spring Canyon Rd., Santa Clarita. Mr. Glazier thanked the
applicants for the water offer but he said there was a few problems with it. He said there
are 15 homes east of the proposed golf course that will not be serviced. He said there is a
risk of.fiie danger. He also mentioned White Water Canyon Road. He said those residents
will also be effected by the runoff from the golf course. He felt everything regarding the
project should be put in writing.
Lynne Plambeck, P. 0. Bog 1182, Canyon Country. Ms. Plambeck was representing SCOPE.
Ms. Plambeck thought the quarterly monitoring of the wells was wonderful. SCOPE opposes
a project that does not conform to the Hillside Ordinance. She also stated they would like
to see the project go around the Heritage Oaks and not remove any of them. She said
everything should be properly bonded and indemnified. Ms. Plambeck said their response
to comments regarding water issues to the EIR are not correct.
Robert G. Leemon, 21231 Simay.Lane, Santa Clarita. Mr.,Leemon said when he fust heard
about this project, it sounded wonderful. He did have concerns regarding the removal of the
Heritage Oaks. He also felt the grading should be done in phases so the wildlife would have
an escape corridor.
Mr. Fargeon was called back to the speaker's podium to address some of the issues brought
up by some of the speakers. He felt that most of the issues discussed were already part of
the conditions and mitigation monitoring program.
Commissioner Brathwaite wanted Mr. Fargeon to address all of the comments that were
made at the meeting.
Mr. Robinson said he had made a list of the questions asked by the public and he would try
to respond to them. With reference to the Gillibrand Mining Company Mr.'Robinson said
they have always tried to be good neighbors and will continue to be good neighbors in the
future. He felt the golf course was the best use for the land and the community is better
served with the use they have proposed
Mr. Robinson said the residents in the National forest area are not downstream from the
project and should not be affected by any runoff from the golf course. He also responded to
issues pertaining to the extension of the water line and issues raised by Mr. Penrose and Mr.
Hill. Mr. Robinson said they are saving over 700 oak trees in addition to planting 1,000
more. He stated that approximately 75 of those are of Heritage size.
Commissioner Brathwaite inquired about the request for controlled grading so the wildlife
would have an escape route and the trail alignment and dedication.
Mr. Robinson said they are committed to the trail system that has been proposed. They have
agreed to grade and construct the system in accordance with the agreement with the Parks
and Recreation Department. He said they have agreed to dedicate the land and grade the
system.
John Danielson, Parks and Recreation, explained that the developer will construct the entire
trail however some options will remain open and be left up to the satisfaction of the Director
of Parks and Recreation. There are dedicated easements for the north and easterly border.
Mr. Robinson said they are concerned about the wildlife too and there are collection programs
placed within the EIR in order to assure removal of the species that would be greatly affected
by the project.
Commissioner Townley asked Mr. Robinson what is between the golf course and Mr.
Penrose's property. Mr. Robinson showed the Commissioners from a map that was up on the
dais. The area between the tees has been mounded. In addition, established landscaping
will be put in creating an additional 20' to 30' buffer.
Commissioner Cherrington said he could not find the condition that referenced the mining
disclosure. Mr. Adamick said it was condition number 94. Commissioner Cherrington also
asked who would be responsible for the widening of portions of Sand Canyon Road and the
bridge. Mr. Adamick said Sand Canyon Road over the Santa Clara River is the applicant's
responsibility. Mr. Adamick answered other questions that Commissioner Cherrington had
regarding certain conditions.
Commissioner Cherrington also questioned the preservation of the flora and fauna and the
clustering of homes. Mr. Adamick said the applicant is preserving more than 700 mature oak
trees on the project site. He said this project also is revegetating certain portions of the site
with vegetation that was there before as well as relocation of certain animals off the site so
they can return to the site at a later date. As far as the clustering, Mr. Adamick felt that the
Commission could find that only a portion of the ridgeline is being topped and a majority of
the ridgeline remains intact.
Commissioner Cherrington asked Mr. Adamick to clarify Section 2, item (g) of the Resolution
with reference to an adequate buffer being provided between the residential lots and the
mining operation. Mr. Adamick said you run into the issue of having a difference of opinion.
The EIR indicates that putting residential homes in the area would not be a significant
impact to those future property owners. The minining company indicates that in the past,
this has become a problem. What staff says is there is a project that has been redesigned
which is relocating lots 500 to 600 feet away from the property line and 750 feet away from
the nearest mining area. The homes that are near Oak Spring Canyon are almost 2,000 feet
away. Staff felt with this distance, with the revegetation, with the locating of fairways
between the homes and the property line that the potential for nuisance is reduced.
Commissioner Doughman asked if there was a mechanism to tie in the completion of the
trails during the development process, to make sure that it gets done and the City gets what
was promised. Mr. Adamick said yes and a condition could be , added that prior to
recordation, the trail system would be in place.
Commissioner Doughman had concerns regarding drought situations and the golf course.
He asked what's the priority of green golf courses hand residents having drinking water.
Mr. Adamick said the water company has indicated to staff that one of the first things that
is turned off or reduced in a drought is water to recreational uses like the golf course.
Commissioner Modugno had questions regarding the offer to extend water to the residents.
He asked if unanimous consent amongst those impacted had to be given. He was also
concerned with the applicant's request to put wells in on site. Mr. Adamick answered both
of Commissioner Modugno's questions.
Chairperson Townley asked Mr. Altmayer to address the issues in Mr. Drescher's letter. Mr.
Altmayer said the City Attorney's office is comfortable with the decisions made by staff in the
presentation of a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Chairperson Townsley asked what could be done to protect the mining company from
nuisance lawsuits. Mr. Altmayer said the disclosure requirement that is set forth in the
conditions would. substantially protect Gillibrand's rights. He said there is not much more
that the City can do.
Chairperson Townley asked Mr. Robinson if there was a timetable regarding how much time
it would take to rectify a safety issue. Mr. Robinson said they did not think there was much
potential for safety issues on the basis.of the modifications made to the project. If there was
a safety issue, it would be their intent to remedy it as quickly as possible.
Chairperson Townsley stated she did not think there should be any wells on the project site
other than the monitoring wells. She said she did not like the planned development overlay.
She felt it was a way to get around the City's Hillside Ordinance. She also said it broke her
heart that even one Heritage Oak tree had to be taken down.
Commissioner Cherrington stated the project that is before the Commission now is a better
project then what was brought before the Commission initially. The credit for this goes to
the public who brought their issues to the Commission. Commissioner Cherrington was
disappointed that the applicants could not present a single golf course with residential
development. He felt this would have resolved virtually all of the issues.
Commissioner Cherrington also commented on the high fees that will be charged to play on
the golf course. He said he is concerned about the protection of the Gillibrand mining
business. He said he shares the concerns of Chairperson Townsley regarding the ridgelines
and the oak trees.
Commissioner Cherrington said his support for this project would be limited to the following
conditions: that a condition be added that the loudspeaker system be designed to the
satisfaction of the Director; that all activities at the driving range cease at 9 p.m. (which
includes no ball collection); that there be no wells on the project except test wells and that
water be provided to all residents on Oak Spring Canyon. He would also like building
standards, to the satisfaction of the Director, be established before recordation; that the
formalization of the trails agreement be completed prior to recordation and the elimination
of at least four lots, specifically lots 44 to 47.
A discussion was had by the Commissioners regarding the elimination of the lots mentioned
by Commissioner Cherrington.
Commissioner Doughman said he endorsed a majority of what Commissioner Cherrington
suggested. He was not too sure about the proposed lot elimination. He did not see where the
developer should have to provide water to all residents of the canyon. Commissioner
Brathwaite agreed with Commissioner Doughman with reference to the providing of water
to the residents of the canyon.
Mr. Adamick said one solution would be to eliminate lots 44, 45, 46 and 47 and have a lot
43 and 43-A and a lot 48. Commissioner Cherrington said he would accept this.
Mr. Adamick clarified the delaying of the payment of B&T fees. He said language would be
added that B&T fees for the residential lots would be paid at the time of building permits.
A sentence would be added to the disclosure documents indicating this.
Commissioner Brathwaite asked staff to review the changes that were discussed. Mr,
Adamick clarified these points for the Commission. They were; water would be extended to
the eastern property line by the applicant and west to Comet. Way to provide a loop system;
all activities at the driving range will cease at 9 p.m.; the prohibition of wells remain on the
project site; that the loudspeaker system be designed to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director; building standards to the satisfaction of the Director be adopted prior
to recordation and that the trails be adopted and in place prior to recordation; the elimination
of lots; language or a condition that the applicant agrees in writing to resolve any future
safety issues that may occur in a timely manner.
Commissioner Doughman made a motion to approve the project as outlined by Mr. Adamick.
Said motion was seconded by Commissioner Brathwaite and carried by a vote of 5-0.
A discussion was had by the Commissioners and Ken Pulskamp regarding continuing Items
4 and 5 to another date. It was decided to hear the items and not continue them.
Planning Commission Minutes 2-6-96
ITEM 4 MASTER CASE NUMBER 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, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT SC 95041049)
Chairperson Townsley said she and Commissioner Brathwaite took a field trip to the Tustin
Ranch Golf Course. Commissioner Brathwaite gave a report to the other Commissioners and
the public.
Commissioner Brathwaite said Tustin Ranch was a well done golf course. The
Commissioners were there to observe the lighting on the facility and the low -lighting at
night. Commissioner Brathwaite said he and Chairperson Townsley and Glenn Adamick,
Associate Planner, walked the site and looked at the driving range to hear what Effect the
low -lights had and they found that it had good effect. There was a low glow at ground level.
Commissioner Brathwaite said they also listened to see what noise level there would be with
golfers hitting balls at the driving range. He said from time to time they could be heard but
it was what was expected. What made the most noise was a piece of equipment that was
gathering golf balls off the course. Chairperson Townsley also mentioned the noise level was
not disturbing. She wanted to assure the residents that they were very conscious of the noise
and the lighting. She urged residents to observe the golf course themselves so they could see
things first-hand.
Glenn Adamick gave the staff report. He summarized correspondence received after the
Planning Commission packet had gone out. One of the letters was from the Department of
Conservation, State Mining and Geology Board.. Mr. Adamick said two Councilmembers
requested that a representative from the Department of Conservation be allowed to speak at
the neat Commission meeting. A representative will speak at the Commission meeting of
February 20. Mr. Adamick summarized the concerns voiced in the letter from the
department.
Commissioner Modugno asked Mr. Adamick if there was any federal or state statute that
provides for protection of lands that may or may not have mineral reserves. Mr. Adamick
said if the City approves this project, a finding would have to be made that it was taken into
account that portions of the site does have a mineral overlay and has been identified this way
by the state or federal government and that the City felt the benefits of the project
outweighed the loss of those minerals.
Commissioner Brathwaite asked if there were any maps that would show where the deposits
might be on the project. Mr. Adamick said there was a map that might be in the draft final
EIR that would give this information.
Commissioner Brathwaite also had a question about one of the letters that Mr. Adamick had
summarized earlier. , It was a letter from Diane Wilson to the Sand Canyon Trails
Committee. Commissioner Brathwaite asked Mr. Adamick to clarify Ms. Wilson's position
since she is a member of the committee and she has taken a position against the committee's
findings. Mr. Adamick said he understood there were some changes made from the original
January 10 letter which Ms. Wilson signed to the February 5 letter due to grading and
maintenance and that is why Ms. Wilson's position had changed.
Ted Robinson Jr. stepped up to the podium to better answer Commissioner Brathwaite's
question. He said certain members of the committee did not agree with the outcome of a
meeting and that resulted in the receipt of negative letters regarding the trails.
Commissioner Brathwaite asked Rick Putnam if the Diane Wilson letter had substance.
Chairperson Townsley wanted to know if the agreement was non-binding. Mr, Putnam said
the letter was non-binding. It was more of a memo of understanding between the developer
and the trails committee. He said it is the full intent of the trails committee, the developer
and the Department of Parks and Recreation to enforce the elements which are contained in
the letter dated February 5, 1996.
Commissioner Brathwaite asked Mr. Putnam if the interest of the public and the City will
be maintained through the agreement. Mr. Putnam said he was satisfied that the intents
of the agreement will be fully complied with'and to the satisfaction of the trails committee
and the residents of the Sand Canyon area,
Chairperson Townsley explained to the audience that the Commissioners were going to
discuss the project and the Commission would not be taking any public testimony. Whatever
the Commission comes up with this evening, the public would be able to comment on it at the
next Planning Commission meeting when regular public testimony is taken. The only thing
the Commission will be asking of the applicant is to answer questions,
Commissioner Cherrington stated he has received more calls on this project than any project
that has come before the Commission since he has been a member, Commissioner
Cherrington outlined three reasons why the golf course would be a public benefit: 1) it is a
recreational facility for local residents; 2) it is an economic development tool for the
community and 3) it is an environmentally sensitive and aesthetically appealing amenity.
Commissioner Cherrington said that the people he has taken calls from regarding the golf
course understand that the proposal is for a quasi-municipal course that would be available
to residents of the City and remain a public course. Commissioner Cherrington said we know
from the applicant that this is not the case and that it is designed to be a high-end green fee
facility and the right is being requested to convert it into a private facility at the end of ten
years.
Commissioner Cherrington said what the Planning Commission has been asked to do in
return for the public benefit of the golf course is the following: 1) set aside the Hillside
Development and Ridgeline. Preservation Ordinance so the developer can move 2.2 million
cubic yards of earth and lowering some ridges by as much as 60 feet; 2) allow an oak tree
removal permit; 3) ignore the Sand Canyon Special Standards District guidelines; 4) set aside
a Los Angeles County imposed restriction on residential construction limiting development
on the southern portion of the project to two units; 5) ignore general mandates against
clustering, gating of through streets and flag lots; 6) ignore the on again/off again
development agreement; and 7) ignore the intent of the General Plan and the Unified
Development Code with respect to housing density by requiring easements of private property
to the golf course.
Commissioner Cherrington said the project has been promoted as having the support of all
but a handful of local residents who have concerns. In its present configuration, the project
is opposed by neighborhood groups, environmental groups, the U. S. Forest Service and the
Gillibrand Mining operation. He said he has heard of no one opposing the golf course and
homes or two golf courses if the project were designed to meet the land use standards which
members of the Commission, present and former Councilmembers and interested members
of the public worked so hard to implement. He asked why is the. Planning Commission being
stonewalled.
Commissioner Modugno said at the last meeting the Commission was left with a list of
conditions and modifications to the project. He read from page 10 of the staff report which
dealt with the contamination of ground water. Commissioner Modugno would like to see
some level of mitigation guaranteed with the project that will assure those residents that if
their wells are contaminated, those residents will not be faced with the massive expensive
of bringing water to their homes. This could be handled through bonding or the extenditure
of bringing water to the property line. Commissioner Modugno also brought up the issue of
phasing and one golf course instead of two. He was also concerned about homes that would
be built on fill -land. He stated that homes that were built on fill sustained a tremendous
amount of damage in the January 17, 1994 earthquake. Commissioner Modugno also
wanted more discussion on the movement of the 10th hole.. He was satisfied with the trails
at the present time. He also stated that gating should not be permitted and that the courses
should remain public.
Commissioner Doughman said he enjoyed the analysis done by staff and that many points
were brought up. He wanted to go through them one at a time to see where each
Commissioner stands. He considers the most important item was the potential for water well
contamination. He said safeguards are needed.
Chairperson Townsley mentioned that she too had received numerous phone calls regarding
this project. She said some of the people she spoke with were not knowledgeable about the
mining operation nor had any idea that there were any kind of water issues. She said she
was concerned about the Sand Canyon Special Standards and she wanted to make sure they
were followed.. Chairperson Townsley said the number one issue for her was the water
contamination.
Stan Fargeon, one of the applicants, asked if he could respond to some of the statements
made by the Commissioners. Commissioner Cherrington felt it would be appropriate to have
Mr. Fargeon respond.
Mr. Fargeon said there were no longer any golf easements. Rich Henderson confirmed this.
Mr. Henderson said better terminology could be used. Instead of golf course easement the
report should have read open space easement or open space restriction.
Mr. Fargeon spoke about phasing. He said their intent is to build exactly what has been
submitted. He said phasing may be a bank requirement.
Mr. Fargeon also said they have never discussed the privatizing of the golf course. If this
was the understanding of the Commission, it was not his intent to convey this. Mr. Fargeon
introduced Ted Robinson, Jr., one of the applicants, to clarify other items.
Mr. Robinson said they plan to build two public golf courses. He said they have no intention
of privatizing the transactions now or in the future, for as long as they own the project. He
said what he cannot control is what a third party will tell him as to what his abilities are to
build the project, finance it and underwrite it. Mr. Robinson said that at the end of ten years
if they sought to modify the golf course to a private standard, they would have to file a
revision request with the City.
Commissioner Modugno asked what would happen if the 10 year figure was eliminated and
just condition the course to remain as a public course. Mr. Robinson said he did not have a
problem with this.
Mr. Robinson said every flag lot has been eliminated from the project, including Lot 2.
With reference to residents playing the course, Mr. Robinson said there has always been an
intent to provide a local discount policy on the course during the week. The present plans
call for one-third of the tee time at a 20% discount to anyone who carries a local card. He
said with a card, a local resident can play the course, golf cart included, for approximately
$40.00 during the week. Chairperson Townsley asked if there would be a seniors discount.
Mr. Robinson said a specific determination had not been made for seniors, the discount was
for all local residents, regardless of their age.
Mr. Robinson next spoke about the driving range movement. He said it was his
understanding from the last meeting that they were going to place what was essentially the
equivalent of a fairway between the golf course and the neighbors directly to the west. They
studied this and found they could do this. The difficulty with placing it along the eastern
property line is that when it is moved from the centralized area it loses the economic viability
of that asset. Mr, Robinson said the transportation impact was greater with the new
proposal also.
Commissioner Doughman wanted to know how wide a fairway is. Mr. Robinson said in the
landing area it is a minimum of 300 feet. It is 150 feet off either side of centerline.
Commissioner Doughman asked if 300 feet was the distance between the driving range and
the property line to the nearest resident. Mr. Robinson said yes.
Mr. Robinson showed the Commissioners the distances, elevations and changes that had been
made with a map that was up on the dais. Extra berming and mounding has been done.
Mr. Robinson discussed water contamination, The EIR stated that because water is coming
in from the Santa Clarita Water District the project was actually recharging the wells in the
area. They will put in monitoring wells now so they know what the water quality is before
the project starts. The wells would be maintained on a schedule that was put forth to them
by the EIR. If at any point there is contamination, they are committed to bringing water in
to anyone that was impacted by the contamination.
Commissioner Doughman asked where the underground water flow is anticipated and where
would the monitoring wells be located. Mr. Robinson said there were two underground water
flows on the site. He showed the locations on the map on the dais. The first one is at the
junction of Comet Way and Sand Canyon and the other is at the northwest corner of the
Griffin parcel. This is where the monitoring wells will be set up.
Mr. Adamick added that one of the improvements associated with this project is that the
applicants would be required to dedicate land for a retention basin.
Commissioner Brathwaite asked if there was an establishment of a baseline water quality
at the residential sites for the residents in Sand Canyon who are now pumping water. Mr.
Robinson said there was no baseline now. He said the wells would be drilled a year prior to
the actual delivery of the golf course and they will establish the baseline on exactly the water
quality that has been taken from the two points previously mentioned. Commissioner
Brathwaite said he was talking about the homeowners' sites where they have their private
wells. Mr. Robinson said the difficulty in doing this is that they have no ability to control
what happens to pollutants that occur off their site.
Commissioner Doughman thought it was critical to include that selected private wells be
included in the monitoring program. While they may not be monitored each time, they would
be on a rotating basis in the monitoring scheme. Mr. Fargeon said they would not do
anything until they understood what the water quality was in the area to begin with. He
said it is their plan to test as many wells as they can in the area, get the results to a lab and
find out what is there. He said they understand where the liability is.
The next issue brought up by Mr. Robinson was with reference to gating. He said in the
early meetings they had with the Sand Canyon Homeowners Association and the Crystal
Springs Homeowners Association there was a clear message sent to them that the
associations did not want commercial traffic through their neighborhoods. The gates were
a suggestion from the associations. Mr. Robinson said they are only trying to restrict
vehicular access, not pedestrian access.
Mr. Fargeon said he believes they have the consensus of the vast majority of the City who
support this project. He gave a list of those supporters that included the Sand Canyon
Homeowners Association, Crystal Springs Homeowners Association, Sand Canyon Trails
Committee, Senior Citizens Center, Santa Clarita Chamber of Commerce, Valencia Industrial
Center, and the Optimist Club of Santa Clarita.
RECESS
Chairperson Townsley called a recess at 8:40 p.m.
RECONVENE
The meeting reconvened at 8:54 p.m.
Chairperson Townsley asked Mr. Adamick to tell the Commission what the lighting plan
would be for the project. Mr. Adamick said it was his understanding that in the tee area
there would be no overhead lights. The lights would be 5 to 6 feet tall. In the parking lot
area, the lighting would be a maximum height of 4 feet. Splash lighting would be used and
this lighting is actually in the ground.
Ted Robinson, Jr, gave a little more information to the Commissioners on how splash lighting
works.
Commissioner Doughman asked what the hours of operation would be for the lighting. Mr.
Robinson said their proposal is to stop selling balls at 8 p.m. and shut the driving range down
whenever the last person hits. He said in most operations, the lights would be shut off by
9 P.M.
Commissioner Doughman requested the lights be shut off no later than 9 p.m. Mr. Robinson
said they did not have a problem with this.
Commissioner Doughman inquired about the homes towards the gravel pit. Chairperson
Townsley said she thought the Commission would wait on this issue until the presentation
is made by the representative from the Department of Conservation.
Commissioner Brathwaite asked what impact the input from the Department of Conservation
would be on this project. Mr. Adamick said the Mining Board is not for or against projects.
In their presentation they would just be providing information to the Commission on the
availability of the resources and the potential of locating residential lots in that area and the
effects on the existing mining operation. 'Mr. Adamick said Mr. Gillibrand's concern was that
if you put residential homes in the area you may end up fighting a homeowner in court. He
thought that was the Mining Board's concern also. If homes are placed there you may be
impacting the future ability of the mining operation.
Commissioner Doughman stated he wanted more discussion on the requirements for well
water monitoring. He proposed that when the monitoring wells are started, they should be
started as the watering for the first golf course begins in its construction phase. The EIR
said it should be monitored on a quarterly basis for three years after the construction of the
second course. For the neat three to ten years beyond that period the wells would be
monitored semi-annually at the two designated wells. Commissioner Doughman said if it
was found that water was becoming contaminated from the golf course, the golf course would
bring commercial water to those facilities.
Commissioner Modugno said if wells were found to be contaminated, he would like temporary
emergency procedures set up, such as bringing in trucked water, until the wells were clear
of contaminants. This would be the responsibility of the applicant. Commissioner Modugno
also said if it is determined that municipal water must be brought in, a time frame be
established so the work would be done in a timely manner.
Commissioner Modugno said before the neat meeting he would like staff and the applicant
to have the opportunity to provide the Commission with a new design map which
incorporates all the changes and modifications that have been agreed upon or discussed.
Staff is also requested to rework the conditions that were discussed. Commissioner Modugno
said he felt it was the consensus of the Commissioners to not proceed with any gates.
Commissioner Cherrington concurred with Commissioner Modugno. He would like wording
in one of the conditions calling for frill and complete disclosure regarding the mining
operation with regard to the residential tracts. He would also like a map or exhibit which
shows the project as it has evolved through the Commission process.
Mr. Adamick said it was staffs intent to require disclosure documentation if those lots were
approved. Mr. Robinson said he would be willing to have the Gillibrand Company write the
disclosure.
Commissioner Modugno said what the Commission wants is something that will limit the
exposure of liability to the City, the developer and the mining operation. Mr. Robinson said
they had no objection to this.
A motion was made by Commissioner Modugno and seconded by Commissioner Doughman
to continue this item to the February 20, 1996 Planning Commission meeting, Said motion
was carried by a vote of 5-0.
Planning Coffmission Minutes 1-16-96
ITEM 3 MASTER CASE NUMBER 95-049 (PREZONE 95-001, ZONE CHANGE
95-001, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 52004, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 95-003, HII.ISIDE REVIEW 95-002, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
95-004, OAK TREE PERMIT 95-009, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT SC 95041049)
Glenn Adamick, Associate Planner, gave the staff report. Mr. Adamick also summarized
correspondence received on the project. There were 26 letters in favor of the project and 4
in opposition. One of the letters was from the Crystal Springs Homeowners Association.
They indicated they are in favor of the project with the condition that access be limited up
Live Oak Spring Canyon via a gate or other mechanism. Mr. Adamick also gave a slide
presentation.
Mr. Adamick said the 45 day public review period has ended and all responses to the various
comments have been included in the Draft Final EIR. Several issues were raised by the
Commission atthe'last meeting on November 21. These issues included the City's potential
participation in the project; the location of the driving range; the parking lot; the viability of
one course versus two courses; the Oak Spring access and bridge; oak tree impacts;
clarification of hydrology and water availability issues and Bridge and Thoroughfare fees.
Mr. Adamick stated the applicant has withdrawn the development agreement request. It
appears that by the withdrawal, the applicant is moving forward with this privately, with no
City involvement.
With reference to the Gillibrand/Crystal Springs parcel, the applicant is proposing to locate
44 residential lots on this parcel. This is a reduction from the 51 lots. The applicant is
proposing four lots south of the future Live Oak Spring connection. Staff is recommending
that no lots be considered below this. Gillibrand has cited a concern with the placement of
any residences. These homes would be located on a property that was restricted by the
County, Mr. Adamick said the Draft EIR. prepared for the project found the noise generated
from the mining operation would be in compliance with the City's noise standards for
residential development. The Draft EIR did indicate a potential for nuisance to future
residents.
Mr. Adamick said another issue would be the visual impacts caused by the continued mining
of the Gillibrand property. He said mining in the future annex area would be highly visible
to future homeowners. However, staff believes that the future homeowners would he
purchasing the parcels primarily for the view of the golf course and not nearby ridgelines.
Staff recommends approval of the lots north of the future connection provided that a
condition is added requiring the City to review and approve disclosure documents supplied
to future homeowners.
Mr. Adamick said the applicant submitted a letter summarizing his concerns regarding the
issue of one golf course instead of two,
Staff is recommending that the project contribute 2.1 million dollars to the Bridge and
Thoroughfare District. The fee is based upon the project generating 3,800 average daily
vehicle trips. Staff is also recommending that the Commission require the applicant to widen
the bridge over the river. Mr. Adamick said the applicant estimates the project would only
generate approximately 2,500 trips.
Oak tree issues were discussed nest. Mr. Adamick said staff and the City's oak tree
consultant will work with the applicant during the grading plan stage to try and reduce the
number of oak tree removals. Mr. Adamick stated the applicant is proposing to transplant
45 of the 130 oak trees slated for removal. Trees not slated for transplanting are either too
large or not healthy enough.
The Commission wanted clarification on downstream drainage impacts caused by the project
in the Oak Spring Canyon area. According to the Draft Final EIR, the project could
potentially increase peak flows but would also reduce the slope of the site thereby decreasing
flow velocities which would allow more time for percolation into the ground.
Mr. Adamick said many residents of the Oak Spring Canyon area have brought forth the
issue regarding the proposed realignment of that road on the northern portion of the site.
The Draft Final EIR includes mitigation requiring the improvement of this roadway and
perpetual maintenance of that roadway by the applicant. Mr. Adamick stated staff is
committed to working with the applicant and residents on providing a substantially
improved, but economically feasible, access on this realignment. Both parties would be
included in the review process.
The Draft Final. EIR requires the development to implement a best management and
integrated pest management plan. The primary purpose of both plans would be to reduce the
use of harmful chemicals on site and to reduce potential offsite movement of concentrations
of sediments, salts, nutrients and chemicals. There will be two monitoring wells on the
property, one located in the westerly area and the other in the Oak Spring area. Monitoring
would occur for a minimum of 10 years. At the end of the 10 year period, the Commission
or Council would have the authority to extend that period.
Mr. Adamick said water for the project would be obtained from the Santa Clarita Water
Company. A representative from the water company was available to answer any questions
the Commissioners might have. The Draft Final EIR estimated that approximately 15% of
the water applied to the golf course would leach into the underlying groundwater. This
would add water to the groundwater in that area. If ground water contamination does occur
and the golf course was responsible, the applicant would be required to extend public water
to residents of Oak Spring Canyon Road_
Mr. Adamick said the Parks and Recreation Department is continuing to work with the
applicant and the Sand Canyon Trails Committee on a final trails network through the
project site. They would like to have the applicant conditioned to dedicate and construct
equestrian trails to the satisfaction of the Parks and Recreation Department and
Commission.
Mr. Adamick stated that the applicant has relocated the driving range. The closest point of
the bitting area has been moved from 50 to 100 feet from the adjacent property line. He said
the closest point of the hitting area would be approximately 300 feet from the nearest
residence. A 10 foot landscape berm separates the fairway from residences. The landing
point of the driving range would be approximately 400 feet from the nearest residential
property line.
Both the Commission and staff had concerns with the lighting of the driving range. Staff
believes that the light from the driving range would be intrusive to surrounding residents.
Staff is recommending against lighting the driving range.
Mr. Adamick said the parking lot configuration has been redesigned, reducing the size of the
northern lot and increasing the size of the southern lot. The parking lot has been shifted
from a minimum distance of 100 feet to 250 feet from the nearest property line. Staff would
prefer 300 feet.
Mr. Adamick reviewed modifications made within the staff report. These modifications were:
a golf course easement be recorded on all golf course lots restricting use to golf course related
activities prior to recordation of any residential lot; require the applicant record the golf
course lots first and the grading of the golf course be substantially completed prior to
recordation of any residential lot; lighting of the driving range be prohibited; the area
between the driving range and adjacent property line shall be landscaped and be maintained
by the applicant; the Commission approve a maximum of 76 residential lots prohibiting flag
lots and eliminating residential developmentsouth of the future connection of Live Oak
Springs Canyon Road; the tee area for the 10th hole between the parking lot and the Penrose
property shall be moved 300 feet west or moved south more adjacent to the parking lot; the
applicant be required to widen Sand Canyon Road over the Santa Clara River to four lanes;
gating of streets be prohibited and that the golf course be maintained as a public course for
a minimum of 10 years. After the 10 year period the applicant may file a revision request
with the City.
Mr. Adamick introduced Dwayne Vanderplym from Rincon Associates, the environmental
consultant who prepared the EIR.
Mr. Vanderplym reviewed some of the comments and concerns mentioned in the Draft Final
ETR.. He stated the Draft EIR. and the Final EIR both find there is a significant impact
associated with the potential for groundwater contamination. He also mentioned there is
potential to substantially reduce such contamination to the extent that the risk for
contamination is considerably lower.
Other issues discussed by Mr. Vanderplym were the noise issue and access road. With
reference to the Sand Canyon/Lost Canyon intersection, Mr. Vanderplym said after this
matter was re -analyzed by the traffic consultant, it was determined that a traffic signal
should be placed there.
Commissioner Doughman'had a question regarding the monitoring wells that are being
proposed. He asked if semi-annual checking of the wells would allow for a quicker catch of
any change in contaminants. Mr. Vanderplym said this was a good suggestion.
W, J. Marietta, representing Santa Clarita Water Company, was at the meeting to answer
questions raised by the Commissioners.
Commissioner Brathwaite said the Commission's concerns regarding the supply of water to
the site and to the surrounding community had been answered by the applicant and staff.
He asked if Mr. Marietta concurred with those proposals.
Mr. Marietta felt there was an adequate supply of water without having any adverse effect
on local well water or other projects. He said he appreciated the monitoring wells staff was
requiring. He stated that if for some reason the local wells around the project were
contaminated or could not be used, they could always supply those areas.
Commissioner Cherrington asked Mr. Manetta what percentage of the water provided by
Santa Clarita Water Company is not provided by their own operations. Mr. Manetta said
they get their water supply from three sources: the Castaic Lake Water Agency, the alluvial
aquifer, and two large wells in the Saugus formation.
Chairperson Townsley asked what it would cost a homeowner to connect to Santa Clarita
Water should the wells be contaminated. Mr. Manetta said it would depend on where the
house was located to the nearest pipeline. He said the numbers could range from $15 to $20
a foot up to $40 a foot.
Stan Fargeon, 16095-A Live Oak Springs, Santa Clarita. Mr. Fargeon is one of the
applicants and he spoke about issues raised at the last Commission meeting. Some of these
issues were the reduction of the proposed lots, the tee boxes on the 10th hole (the Penrose
residence) and the lighting on the driving range.
Mr. Fargeon said the lighting that would be used at the driving range was flash lighting.
There is very little spill above the ground and all the lights are aimed down. He said to limit
the lighting time would impact them economically.
With reference to the reduction of the proposed lots, he said they volunteered a reduction of
seven. He said this is also another economic factor for them.
Mr. Fargeon said they have offered a 10 year minimum public golf course. He felt it was
unfair to limit them since they were privately owned, funded and managed. He said the 10
year offering was fair and reasonable.
Mr. Fargeon spoke neat about the gated streets. He said there was consensus within the
canyon that residents were opposed to traffic going north and south through their community.
Mr. Fargeon stated the main road into the golf course was specifically designed to 36 feet
which means it is under standard in terms of a public roadway. He said they wanted the
road to be used specifically by people who were playing golf.
The next speaker was Ted Robinson, Jr., 33971 Selva Road, #135, Dana Point. Mr. Robinson
is one one of the applicants. He spoke about item 2 of the staff report (page 11) with
reference to grading and recordation. He felt a lender would ask for the project to be phased.
He would like this item modified to state that construction be started on one of the two
courses and they would proceed in faith, to build the courses as approved.
Mr. Robinson also mentioned item 1 of the staff report with reference to the recording of an
easement. He was concerned with the practical aspect in terms of financing.
Commissioner Cherrington asked Mr. Robinson to clarify his statement regarding the
easement and why it constituted a problem. Mr. Robinson said the easements do not
constitute a problem, he was more concerned with the recording of the residential lots.
Ted Robinson, Sr., 116 Dumond Drive, Laguna Beach. Mr. Robinson is one of the applicants
and he addressed the issue of the 10th tee. Mr. Robinson said there are safety standards for
golf courses. What this amounts to is 150 feet from the center line, 200 yards out from the
tee. The first design adhered to this plan. When the safety issue arose, the plan was
modified. The tees have been moved further from the property lines. There is also a series
of berms along the edge of the tees which will be as high as 6 to 7 feet above the tees. Mr.
Robinson said they are reluctant to shorten the course because it would destroy the chances
of having two championship golf courses.
Planning Commission Minutes 11-21-95
ITEM 4 MASTER CASE NUMBER 95-049 (PREZONE 95-001, ZONE CHANGE
95-001, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 52004, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 95-003, HIIJ IDE REVIEW 95-002, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
95-004, OAK TREE PERMIT 95-009, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT SC 95041049
Glenn Adamick, Assistant Planner II, gave the staff report and a slide presentation. Mr.
Adamick reviewed letters that were received by staff. Copies of these items were given to the
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 responses 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 acres 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 lots, If 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 easements. 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 lots 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 3,800 vehicle trips per day on
Sand Canyon and increase daily vehicle trips on Sand Canyon north of Lost Canyon from
9,100 to 13,100. With the addition of mitigation measures, staff believes that Sand Canyon
Road can accommodate the project. This would include a signal at the corner of Lost Canyon
and Sand Canyon, the widening of Sand Canyon Road over State Route 14 and left turn lanes
at the project entrances.
Mr. Adamick said staff has identified the widening of Sand Canyon Road Bridge over the
Santa Clara 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 site as a golf course. This includes the potential
use of pesticides and their effect 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 use potable water from the Santa Clarita
Water Company to serve the site. Recycling of water is not proposed. Approximately 2.3
million gallons of water would be used per day,
Mr. Adamick addressed the noise issue. He said the draft EIR indicates that even in a worst
case scenario, 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 use. The draft EIR indicated that a potential nuisance may be
created to future residents located on the southern 103 acre property.
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 uses may be
permitted on significant ridgelines and such uses could include innovative projects and
recreational areas.
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 there is active mining operations. Mr. Adamick said
that staff does share some of the concerns that the residents have with the proximity of the
uses. Staff has suggested several alternatives to try and resolve the matters.
Commissioner Cherrington 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 Brathwaite 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 said it 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 pesticides. He wanted to know how long it would take the ground chemicals to leach
down into the ground and rejoin the water reservoir. Mr. Adamick said the applicant would
be able to answer that question. Commissioner Doughman also had a question regarding the
driving range and if staff had a figure as to how many errant golf balls 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 roads. Both Mr. Adamick-and Mr.
Henderson addressed the issue. Mr. Henderson said Traffic staff has looked at road
situation.
Chairperson Townsley asked what the impact would be if there was a delay in the widening
of the bridge over the freeway. 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 there and it is targeted for 1997. Chairperson Townsley also asked if Live 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 if it was designed properly.
Ted Robinson Jr., 33971 Selva Road, Suite 135, Dana Point, informed the Commission that
he would be speaking as the applicant. He also introduced Frank Hovore, Dr. Bud Smart and
Dr. Charles Peacock who would be available to answer questions that the Commission might
have regarding the project.
Mr. Robinson addressed the issue of economic justification for this type of project. He said
an offer has 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 has hired 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 an 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 years prior to the National Audubon
Society.
The next speaker was Frank Hovore, 14734 Sundance Place, Santa Clarita. Mr. Hovore said
he was contacted by the Robinsons to assist them with the Audubon Sanctuary Program.
Mr. 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 as 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 have natural areas. He said the designers have
committed themselves to a long term program where 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 plan will be completed as soon as the final drawings are
completed. Dr. Smart said a basic fertilizer program will be established for the course. He
also spoke about the pesticides that will be used. Dr. Smart stated the focus of the
environmental management plan is on prevention, control and detection.
Dr. Charles Peacock, 4912 Liles 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 Pest Management (IPM) program. He said this was not a new program, IPM has
been in place for over 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 pest problems and
treating them on a curative rather than a preventative basis.
Dr. Smart spoke about detection through an environmental monitoring program, where they
will strive to 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 any detrimental effects are noted.
Mr. 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 if reclaimed water were available they
would use it. He said there was no reclaimed water source within 8 to 10 miles of the golf
course. In the area of waste management they will adopt programs which restrict paper use
to biodegradable products.
RECESS
Chairperson Townsley called a recess at 8:50 p.m.
RECONVENE
The meeting reconvened at 9:05 p.m.
Chairperson Townsley said that because there were so many 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 Brathwaite that items 5, 6, 7, and 8 be reagendized,
due to time constraints, to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Said
motion was seconded by Commissioner Doughman.
Before the vote was taken, Commissioner Modugno said there was a letter from the applicant
for Item 6, 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 Brathwaite amended his motion to reagendize items 5, 7 and 8 and accept the
withdrawal of Item 6. The amended motion was seconded by Commissioner Doughman and
carried by a vote of 5-0.
Public testimony began at 9:09 p.m.
John Newton, 165 High Street, Suite 103, Moorpark, CA 93021. Mr. Newton represents the
P. W. Gillibrand Company. Mr. Newton wanted to clarify that P. W. Gillibrand Company
was not a sand and gravel mining operator. Its primary purpose is heavy industrial
minerals. The company has 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 dba's 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 Mr. Newton to clarify what the mining company's real concern
was with regard to the housing. Mr. 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.
Commissioner Brathwaite asked Mr. Newton to clarify where the actual mining was taking
place, which Mr. Newton did.
Tim Tindell, 28229 Oak Spring Canyon, Santa Clarita. 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. Boydston's father's home is next to the driving
range. He is concerned about his family being hit by golf balls. He said if the Commission
approves the golf course, things will come back to haunt the 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 homes.
Allen E. Penrose, 27920 Graceton Drive, Santa Clarita. Mr. Penrose had his father do a
survey with 25 golf courses in the area to find out if 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 range. Mr. Penrose said that 21 of the 25 courses had driving ranges and out of those
21, only eight had lights. The closest 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 unreasonable.
Jane Fleck, 27363 Sand Canyon Road., Santa Clarita. Ms. Fleck said it was clear that many
people are concerned about the water issues. She wanted to see clearer mitigation efforts in
terms of replacing the heritage oaks. She said she was concerned with the proximity of
homes near the mining operation and she felt it would create problems. She also was
concerned about the lack of a secondary access into Sand Canyon.
Mr. Craig Feeder, 27873 Oak Spring Canyon Road, Santa Clarita. He is concerned about
dust carried pesticide residue and traffic at Lost Canyon and Sand Canyon. He also
expressed a concern that the grading that would take place would change the water flow.
This could cause slippage and flooding.
Jay Hecht, 27563 Oak Spring Canyon, Santa Clarita. 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 Clarita. Mr. 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.
Pat Saletore, 22610 Lilac Court, Santa Clarita. 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 that 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. Box 1187, Santa Clarita. Ms. Plambeck was speaking on behalf of
SCOPE. She said the organization is concerned with the impact this project is going to have
on the Hillside Ordinance. She also wanted the Commission to think hard 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. If the wells are not properly capped, it is an immediate
transference of fertilizers and pesticides into the ground water. She mentioned there was
nothing said about the testing of run-off into ponds which is a major problem with golf
courses. `
Diane Wilson, 26826 Sand Canyon, Santa Clarita. Ms. Wilson spoke about the Special
Standards for Sand 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 acre parcel adjacent to the project site. Mr. Forshpan 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 some 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.. Robinson said to his knowledge, in the past 35 years, Ted Robinson, Sr., has developed
approximately 165 golf courses and only 1 person has been hit by a golf ball.
He also addressed the issue of the driving range and the oak trees. Mr. Robinson stated this
was probably one of the safest driving ranges ever designed. He said they plan to relocate
and transplant every oak tree grade "B" or better with calipers 10 to 18 inches. The majority'
of the smaller trees are mostly scrub oaks.
Mr. Robinson said with the relocation of the Oak Spring Canyon Road, a vast majority of the
road will be out of the flood plain. It will be a better road than what it is now.
Dr. Smart answered some of the concerns relating to pesticides. He said all the materials
that will be used are registered by the EPA. All standards and regulations will be adhered
to. He also said there would be a monitoring program that will test for the presence of
pesticides and fertilizers to make sure there are no problems.
Mr. Robinson said he would call the City's Department of Public Works regarding the
recycling issue.
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 said they were the
technical program group for the Audubon Society of New York State. They are being paid
by the developers 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. Robinson 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 matters of moving the driving range and parking
lot. Mr. Robinson said the driving range is well beyond existing safety standards. He said
although it has not been studied yet, it would be their intenttotake 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 Townsley had questions regarding the oak trees. Mr. Fargeon restated what the
applicants are planning to do. He said any tree rated "B" or better, 24" or less in diameter,
will be transplanted. He said that out of 130 trees, 47 would be transplanted. 'Mr. Adamick
said more detailed information will be given to the Commission at the next meeting.
Chairperson Townsley also asked about the revegetation and what was going to be done if
it was not successful. Mr. Frank Hovore said they would attempt to make the program work
to every extent possible. Mr. Hovore also said the oaks were not the only trees that would
be transplanted. Other trees, such as ash, walnut and holly leaf cherries, would be moved.
Commissioner Doughman said he would like to have more information regarding the driving
range study from an independent source, and information on water percolation and
monitoring requirements. He also had a concern with reference to the off-site hydrology. He
also wanted more information regarding the noise issue.
Commissioner Brathwaite said he would like to have representatives of Santa Clarita Water
Company be invited to the next meeting to answer questions that the Commissioners 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 see 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 Cherrington 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 Commissioners. 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 part of the project, it might be helpful
to give the Commission information on why it would not be a more appropriate trade-off to
have a single course with the residential area more at the northern and western side as
opposed to two courses. He would like this information at the next meeting.
Mr. Adamick 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 seconded by Commissioner Brathwaite
to continue this matter to the Planning Commission meeting of December 19, 1995. Said
motion was carried by a vote of 5-0.
Planning Commission 10-3-95
ITEM 4 MASTER CASE NUMBER 95-049 (PREZONE 95-001, ZONE CHANGE
95-001, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 52004, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 95-003, HHJSIDE REVIEW 95-002, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
95-004, OAK TREE PERMIT 95-009, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT SC 95041049
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 lots. 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 this 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 construct a gate and a gate is also proposed at the project's 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 scoping 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 Pluym of Rincon Consultants, who gave a brief
introduction of the Draft EER. Mr. Vander Pluym stated at the close of the public review
period, 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, Laguna 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 first 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 acorns 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 Beach. 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 are 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.
Gary Johnson, President for the Santa Clarita 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. DeMaio 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
golf course. He also felt it was a great opportunity for the eastern part of town. Mr. Kellar
also thought the project would have a positive effect on Teal 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 Sierad, 27588 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, 15668 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, 15555 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 hiking. She is also concerned
about traffic and the water tables. ,
Commissioner Brathwaite had a question for Ms. Hauser. He 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
multi -use 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. Fargeon 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 project 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 Clarita. He has lived in Sand Canyon since 1978.
It was his understanding that when other developments were built, i.e. 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 first project since he has lived in Sand Canyon that has addressed the trails system. He
recommends this project.
Frank Gibbs, 16072 Comet Way, Santa Clarita. Previous to living in Santa Clarita he lived
in the Tustin area, close to the Tustin 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 Townley 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 be greatly affected 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 Varna 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 his 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 Boydston, 27875 Oak Springs Canyon Road, Santa Clarita. She read a copy of a letter
written by her daughter, Janet Feeder, which expressed her 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 Sand 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 lights, sidewalks, curbs, and gutters because the Sand
Canyon area is a rural area and he feels it should stay that way.
Jane Fleck, 27363 Sand Canyon Road, Santa Clarita. Ms. Fleck said she is not unilaterally
opposed to the project. Her main concerns were ground water contamination, the number
of oak trees that are being removed, especially the Heritage Oaks, lack of access to the
National Forest and the funding of the project. It was her understanding that the project
was being funded with bonds and the City would be underwriting these bonds.
Jennifer Caldwell, 27527 Tula Drive, Santa Clarita. Ms. Caldwell uses the trails in the area
for hiking and horseback riding. She was concerned about the environment and the fact that
there will be a bar in the clubhouse. She said there 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
Company, 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 of heavy
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.
Ian Hill, 28316 Oak Spring Canyon Road, Santa Clarita. Mr. Hill is on the Trails Committee
and he had three primary concerns. Those were the impact on the rural area, toxic chemicals
and trail access.
Allen Penrose, 27920 Graceton Drive, Santa Clarita. His 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. He said the area is rural and he did
not know why there had to be lights on the driving range. He wanted the area to remain
rural and scenic and he did not want to be disturbed until 10 or 11 p.m. at night.
The following speakers had general comments to make:
Dennis Ostrom, 16434 Sultus 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 project at a later date.
Mark Hanson, 27944 Graceton Drive, 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 area to be
overdeveloped. She is concerned about traffic congestion and the fact that there will be a bar
at the clubhouse.
Diane Wilson, 26826 Sand 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 Placerita 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 golf course. She did not want any oak trees to be cut down.
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 run 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. He 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. Bog 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.
Laurene Weste, 22216 Placenta Canyon Rd., Santa Clarita. She said trails are vital to Sand
Canyon's planning. Presently, they do not have one trail that is designed, maintained or
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 corridor capability if properly 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. Ms. Weste explained to the Commission that there
is no connection going off-site to any particular street. There is a trail system around the golf
course.
Chairperson Townsley 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 runoff water from the golf course be
picked up. Commissioner Brathwaite also wanted to know about the possibility of netting
on the ridges next to housing, what kind of gates would be put in and 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 discussions.
Commissioner Cherrington expressed his appreciation to the members of the community for
staying 3 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 after 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 lot. He had a
question regarding the access to lot 6 and he was concerned with the width of the frontage
on lot 7. He 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 roads that become thoroughfares. Commissioner Cherrington said he
did not like the driving range at all. He felt much of the community concern could be
eliminated if the driving range were removed from the project. He also did not care for the
placement of the parking lot.
Commissioner Cherrington suggested to the other Commissioners 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 his comments had been made by fellow
Commissioners. However, he did want to highlight a couple of the ones he was most
concerned about..One was the potential for well water to be influenced by pesticides and
runoff. He was also concerned about the mining to some extent. Commissioner Doughman
also agreed with Commissioner Cherrington 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 after
a few years of operation.
Commissioner Modugno said many of his comments had been made by fellow Commissioners.
He did say he wanted Traffic Engineering staff to 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 operation were very valid.
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 Townsley wanted to see the field trip done on a weekday when the mining
operation is operating. She expressed her concern 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 Brathwaite requested a copy of the Special Standards for the Sand Canyon
area. Mr. Adamick said copies would be made and given to the Commission.
Chairperson Townley 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. Mr. Adamick said an agenda would be provided to show the starting point of the
meeting.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
STAFF REPORT
MASTER CASE NO. 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
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SC 95041049
DATE: February 20, 1996
TO: =§Sk&oap,
Town�ey and Members g Commission
FROM: j s sunt City Manager
CASE PLANNERS: Glenn Adamic Associate Planner
Fred Follstad, Associate Planner
APPLICANT: Hunters Green Development Corporation
LOCATION: 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
REQUEST: A prezone to allow for City zoning on the southern 103.4 acres of the
site from the 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); and,
A zone change to implement a PD (Planned Development) overlay on
the site, including the allowance for the transferring of development
rights on-site and the designation of the project as an "innovative
projecir per the Hillside Ordinance; and,
A tentative tract map to subdivide the 411 acre site into 76 single
family residential lots, six golf course lots, one maintenance yard lot,
and one water tank lot; and,
A conditional use permit for the construction and operation of a golf
course, clustering of the residential lots, and implementation of the PD
overlay; and,
An oak tree permit to allow for the removal of up to 138 scrub oak
trees and 130 coast live oaks (seven of which are heritage trees); and,
A hillside review to allow for the development of a hillside property
and development on an identified secondary ridgeline; and,
Review and certification of the EIR prepared for this project.
BACKGROUND
The Commission has conducted a total of five hearings on the project, the last hearing being
on February 3, 1996. At the last meeting, the Commission directed the applicant to prepare
a revised site plan reflecting all of the modifications to the plan to date and directed staff to
return with draft conditions and a resolution for the Commission's consideration at the
February 20, 1996 meeting. The Commission also requested to hear from a representative
from the State Mining and Geology Board.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTWITICATION MONITORING P AN
Attached to the draft conditions of approval is the Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program.
The mitigation measures included within this document are also conditions of the project.
The draft resolution recommending approval of the project and certification of the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) contains a statement of overriding considerations due
to unavoidable adverse impacts in air quality, biology, aesthetics and noise.
ANALYSTS
The modified plan mirrors most of staffs suggestions described in the previous staff report.
The applicant is still proposing to locate four homes south of the future connection of Live
Oak Springs, resulting in a maximum of 76 residential lots. Staff recommended that all of
the residential lots south of this connection be eliminated.
Staff has prepared draft conditions of approval for the Commission's review. The following
is a summary of some of the conditions included within the document:
1) Condition no. 10 states that all mitigation measures are also conditions of approval.
2) Condition nos. 14-18 require the widening of the Sand Canyon Road bridge over the
Santa Clara River and SR 14 (to be completed by Caltrans), installation of a traffic
signal at Lost Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road, and the installation of left turn
lanes on Sand Canyon Road at the project entrance and Live Oak Springs Canyon
Road. All of these improvements are conditioned to be completed prior to occupancy.
3) Condition no. 20 is related to the realignment of Oak Spring Canyon Road on the
project site.
4) Condition no. 81 is related to the applicant's Bridge and Thoroughfare obligation.
5) Condition nos. 83-100 include language related to the prohibition of wells on-site, the
recordation of open space easements on the golf course lots, the use of splash lighting
on the driving range, hours of operation for the driving range, the prohibition of
street gating, requirements related to on and off-site monitoring wells, disclosure
requirements, and the implementation of a landscaped berm on certain portions of
the project site.
The applicant, residents of Oak Spring Canyon, and staff are in the process of negotiating
the extension of a water mainline to serve all of the residents of Oak Spring Canyon.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
Adopt Resolution P96-08:
1) Recommending approval of Master Case 95-049, subject to the conditions of
approval, to the City Council; and,
2) Recommending adoption of the attached Mitigation Monitoring Reporting
Program; and,
3) Recommending certification of the Final EER, including the adoption of a
statement of overriding considerations.
pingmm\.r Z49.4,
3
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
STAFF REPORT
MASTER CASE NO. 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
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SC 95041049
DATE: January 16, 1996
TO: on wasley and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: p y Manager
CASE PLANNERS: Glenn A Associate Planner
Fred Folls , Associate Planner
APPLICANT: Hunters Green Development Corporation
LOCATION: 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
REQUEST: A prezone to allow for City zoning on the southern 103.4 acres of the
site &rom the existing Los Angeles County A-1-2 (Light Agriculture - two
acre minimmn lot size) zoning to City of Santa Clarita RE - PD
(Residential Estate - Planned Development); and,
A zone change to implement a PD (Planned Development)`overlay on
the site, including the allowance for the transferring of development
rights on-site and the designation of the project as an "innovative
Project" per the Hillside Ordinance; and,
A 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; and,
A conditional use permit for the construction and operation of a golf
course, clustering of the residential lots, and implementation of the PD
overlay; and,
An oak tree permit to allow for the removal of up to 138 scrub oak trees
and 130 coast live oaks (seven of which are heritage trees); and,
A hillside review to allow for the development of a hillside property and
development on an identified secondary ridgeline; and,
Review and certification of the EIR prepared for this project.
BACKGROUND
The Commission's last hearing on this item was on November 21, 1995. There have been a total
of three public hearings on the project thus far. At the last meeting on November 21, 1995, the
Commission continued the item to the December 19, 1995 meeting. At the request of staff, the
Commission continued the item to the January 16, 1996, meeting to allow staff more time to
address issues brought forth by the Commission. These issues will be discussed within the
Analysis Section of this report.
STATUS - ENMONMFNTAL MIPA .T REPORT
Included within the Commission's packet is the Draft Final Environmental Impact Report
(FEIR) for the project. The Draft FUR includes both the comments on the Draft Environmental
Impact Report (DEIR) and the response to comments. Responses have been forwarded to each
person or agency who commented. Certain sections of the test have been expanded to address
issues brought forth by persons or agencies who commented during the public review period of
the document. The "Water Availability' and 'Mineral Availability' sections have been
expanded. A draft Mitigation Monitoring Plan will be forwarded to the Commission prior to the
next meeting.
The Draft FEIR identifies unavoidable adverse impacts to air quality, biology, aesthetics and
noise during site development. The Commission would have to recommend the adoption of a
statement of overriding considerations to recommend approval of the project
Rincon Consultants will provide the Commission with a brief presentation regarding the
comments received on the DEIR, the responses to these comments and the changes to the DEIR.
ANALYSIS
The proposed Project includes the development of the 411 acre site into two 18 -hole golf courses,
a 26,000 square foot clubhouse, lighted driving range, parking lots, maintenance facility, and
83 single family residential lots. The applicant is proposing a planned development, including
clustering of the residential lots and the transferring of development rights on-site.
Develglimp,rit Agmement
The applicant has withdrawn the development agreement application for the project Staff
initially suggested that the applicant file the development agreement application with the
project to provide a mechanism in which to allow for the City's financial participation with the
project, if the Council so directed. The applicant approached City staff early last year about the
possibility of a joint venture. The Council directed Finance and Parks and Recreation staff to
2
research the feasibility of such a proposal and return at a later date. The Council did not make
a decision on the City's potential participation with the project and probably will not make this
decision unless it is specifically requested by the applicant in the future. This decision would
be made if/after the project is approved. As evidenced by the withdrawal of the development
agreement application, the applicant appears to be proceeding with the project as if the City will
not be a participant.
In an effort to resolve concerns cited by the Planning Commission, staff, and residents of the
Oak Spring Canyon area, the applicant has relocated the driving range. At the Planning
Commission meeting of November 21, 1995, staff made several suggestions to reduce potential
land use conflicts between the proposed golf course and residents of the Graceton Drive/Oak
Spring Canyon Road neighborhood. These suggestions included shitting the driving range east,
and providing a buffer area between the residential properties and the driving range. This
buffer area would be an area equivalent in size to a fairway and would be landscaped to appear
similar to a fairway.
The applicant has relocated the driving range to mirror staffs suggestion. The closest point of
the hitting area has moved from 50' to 100' from the adjacent property line. The closest point
of the hitting area would be located approximately 300' from the nearest residence. The hitting
area would also be located at an elevation approximately 35' higher than the closest home and
would be separated from the fairway area and residences with a landscaped berm. The berm
would be approximately 10' higher than the hitting area The landing point on the driving range
would be located approximately 400' from the nearest residential property line. The outer
portion of the driving range, directly extended from the landing point, would be approximately
300' from the property line, an increase of 150' from the previous proposal. The applicant has
also canted the driving range farther away from the residential property lines.
Staff recently measured noise readings at the driving range at Knollwood golf course. Staff
measured noise at the hitting area, approximately 100' from the hitting area, and approximately
200' from the hitting area These readings were taken at the same grade as the driving range
with no buffer between the hitting area and the area where the readings were taken. At a
distance of 200', noise generated from the driving range was undetectable on the noise meter.
Both the Commission and staff had concerns with the lighting of the driving range. The Sand
Canyon Special Standards provide that lighting in the Canyon be limited and that street lights
be considered only at intersections. Lighting in the canyon is very minimal and staff believes
that lighting of the driving range would be intrusive to surrounding residential uses. Therefore,
staff would recommend that lighting of the driving range be prohibited. This prohibition would
also act to control hours of operation at the driving range, limiting usage of the range to daytime
hours. Staff believes that the above modifications would eliminate any potential safety and\or
nuisance issues with the driving range.
The applicant has redesigned the parking configuration, reducing the size of the northern lot
and increasing ng the size of the southern lot. This redesign would increase the distance from the
1
` residential property line to the parking lot from approximately 100' to 250'. Staff had suggested
that the parking lot be a minimum of 300' from the nearest property line. Stag' would prefer
that the minimum distance be 300', but the applicant has modified the plan in a manner that
mirrors staffs original intent. The plan would include berming around the parking lot,
mounding between the 10th Hole and the property line and the planting of mature landscaping.
These features would adequately buffer or separate the parking lot from the adjacent residential
properties and reduce or eliminate any potential visual and/or noise impacts. The parking lot
would be located approximately 500' from the nearest residence, and would be located at an
elevation of 1730', approximately 45' higher than the nearest residence with landscaped berms
and mature landscaping in between.
Per the Draft FEIR prepared for the project, lighting in the parking lot would be limited to
bolla;da not to exceed four feet in height. This limitation would reduce the impacts related to
parking lot lighting to less than significant.
The tee area for the 10th hole (the hole north and adjacent to the larger parking lot) would be
approximately 350' to 500' from the Penrose residence. The tee area would also be
approximately 60' higher than the elevation of the Penrose residence. Staff has concerns with
the location of the tee area and the potential safety impact to the adjacent residential property
to the north. The applicant is proposing to plant mature trees, including transplanted oak
trees, along this corridor to reduce the potential safety impact. Staff believes that this may not
be sufficient and would recommend that the tee area either be moved approximately 300' to the
west or shifted farther to the south and adjacent to the parking lot. Relocating the tee area 300'
or 100 yards to the west would reduce the hole's yardage from approximately 400 to 300. This
modification would move the tee area to a location more in line with the Penrose residence and
eliminate the potential safety impact due to a golfer slicing the ball. Moving the tee area farther
south and directly adjacent to the parking lot would provide more distance between the Penrose
residence and the tee area. If any modification is considered, the applicant would probably
prefer shifting the tee area south and adjacent to the parking lot rather than west and losing
yards on the 10th hole.
Gillibrand Mining Conmrn / Czv w 4j1lin¢g pgreal
A total of 44 residential lots are now proposed for the 103 acre property proposed for
annexation. This is a reduction from the originally proposed 51 lots. This property is an
unrecorded portion of the Crystal Springs development In approving the Crystal Springs
development, the County required the developer to dedicate the right to restrict the construction
of more than two residences on the parceL This restriction was placed oa the property to ensure
consistency with the density prescribed in the County General Plan and also in an effort to
resolve issues cited by the Gillibrand Mining Company related to the proximity of homes to a
mining operation. Allowing density in excess of the two lots would require the transferring of
development rights from other non -encumbered portions of the property to this area.
Gillibrand Mining has cited a concern with the proposed location of single family homes on the
103 acre `Crystal Springs' property. These homes would be located near the Oak Spring and
Rabbit Canyon claim areas. The Draft FEIR indicates that noise generated from the Gillibrand
Mining operations would be in compliance with City Noise Standards and therefore not
significant to future residents. However, the Draft FEIR indicates that there is a potential for
annoyance to future residents because of the mining operation. Staff concurs with this potential
for annoyance to future residents, specifically in the area south of the future connection of Live
Oak Springs Road. Based upon this, staff would recommend eliminating the 10 lots south of the
connection and designating the area for open space. Staff would not be concerned with the
future subdividing of this property if the mining operation were to cease in the future. The
applicant is requesting that the Commission consider four lots south of this future connection.
Staff believes that the residential lots located north of this future connection would be at a
sufficient distance to reduce any noise impacts and would be buffered from the mining
operations by the golf course. This belief is supported by the Draft FEIR
Another prominent issue with respect to these proposed lots would be the visual impacts caused
by the continued mining of the Gillibrand property. Mining in the future approved annex area,
located to the east of the Oak Spring claim area, would alter views from these proposed
residences. However, staff believes, that the future owners of the single family lots would be
primarily purchasing the properties for the views of the golf course and not nearby ridgelines.
Additionally, staff believes that the mining of this annex area would not just visually affect the
project site but also affect existing residents within Sand Canyon. Staff recommends approval
of the lots north of the future connection provided that a condition is added requiring the City
to review and approve disclosure documents supplied to future homeowners to ensure that
existing and future mining areas are identified and that the mining operation is fully disclosed
to the homeowners.
One Golf Conran vs,_ Two Gulf Cnnrses
The Alternatives Section within the Draft FEIR contains an alternative, identified as the "West
Slope'Residential Alternative'. This alternative would locate the residential lots to the west
slopes of the project site and would locate the golf course or courses within the Oak Spring
Canyon area This alternative discusses the implementation of either one or two golf courses.
If one course is proposed, the alternative removes the 103 acre'Crystal Spring" property.
The alternative relocates the clubhouse, parking lot, maintenance facility and driving range to
the northeast portion of the project site. This alternative assumes access from Sand Canyon
Road and Live Oak Springs Canyon Road (near Sand Canyon), with public streets through the
residential area and a private road continuing an to the ciubhousalparking lot area. This access
would be substandard, due to the length of the cul-de-sac, but could be corrected by future
development to the north of the project site. This alternative would result in reduced grading,
reduced traffic and air quality impacts, and may reduce perceived land use conflicts. This
alternative is identified as the environmentally superior alternative (one golf course) within the
Draft FEIR. The Draft FEIR does state that the economic feasibility of this alternative is
unlmown.
The applicant has commented on the alternatives provided in the Draft FEIR, citing concerns
with this alternative. The concerns are related to the potential usage of Oak Springs Canyon
Road to meet access requirements, the increased noise impacts to surrounding property owners
due to the lack of an intervening land form between the residential and golf course uses, the
shifting of the potential land use conflicts to residents east of the project site, increased impacts
to oak trees and the habitat value of the site, and the economic infeasibility of the design due
to increased infrastructure coats and the impossibility of routing the golf course or courses in
an economically practical fashion. In this comment letter the applicant states that many issues
have to be taken into consideration in producing an effective golf course design. These issues
include natural topography, visibility of holes, vegetative constraints, distance between greens
and following tees, routing in a loop pattern, and safety buffers. The applicant continues to
explain that the reason the clubhouse and related facilities are located in the center of the
project is to achieve the best overall solution. The applicant continues to state that topography
issues are resolved, traffic issues are managed with a loop road, safety buffers are maintained;
and the project, unlike the alternative would be economically feasible.
Staff does believe that a one course project could be designed, though this project would most
likely result in a substantial reduction in project acreage. Staff also believes that the 411 acre
project site is large enough to accommodate two courses and a residential element.
Oak Spring Q van Road/ Norland Arcesn
Ia a previous report, staff summarized a benefit of one of the residential projects approved for
the site (TTM 47803) and an adjacent tract to the north which required the developers to
construct a separate means of access to Soledad Canyon Road, rather than using Sand Canyon
Road This access included an under crossing at the railroad and a bridge over the Santa Clara
River. Staff had indicated that this project would likely be the last opportunity to require the
road.
Staff has done additional research and found that the Oak Sphng(Norland Road Bridge over the
Santa Clara River is included within the East(West Corridor Bridge and Thoroughfare District.
Because it is included in the District, the possibility of the road being constructed in the future
would increase. Development on the property north of the subject site (Shine property) would
enhance the construction of this improvement through the construction of a mad from Oak
Spring Canyon Road to a future connection of host Canyon Road. Bridge and Thoroughfare fees
generated by such a project could pay for app mately one-half of the bridge's cost. Bridge and
Thoroughfare Fees required from the subject project would also contribute to the construction
of the Oak Spring Bridge. Staff believes that conditioning the subject project to construct the
Oak Spring Bridge would be unwarranted due to the ability of Sand Canyon Road to
accommodate the project traffic with the addition of mitigation measures. Additionally,
conditioning the project to complete such an improvement would likely make the project
economically infeasible. The Planning Commission and City Council also had the leverage on
the other projects, via the approval of a 12 year development agreement for each of the projects,
to require improvements in excess of the norm or standard for those developments, including
the separate means of access.
The proposed pr*d would not be a large am. and p.m. peak hour vehicle trip generator. Trips
generated by the golf course would-be more spread out throughout the day than a typical
residential development Additionally, a residential project's traffic would be primarily outbound
in the morning and inbound in the evening. A majority of the project's traffic would be inbound
in the morning hours and outbound in the evening hours, or almost the complete opposite of
residential development, which makes up a substantial majority of the Sand Canyon area.
City staff is confident that the project's traffic impact to Sand Canyon Road could be reduced
to a less than significant level with the incorporation of the mitigation measures included in the
Draft FEIR, and by requiring the developer to widen the Sand Canyon Road Bridge over the
Santa Clara River, as part of their Bridge and Thoroughfare contribution. This mitigation and
construction of the bridge over the Santa Clara River would also improve circulation on portions
of Sand Canyon Road. Mitigation identified in the Draft FEIR includes a traffic control signal
at Lost Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road, widening of Sand Canyon Road over SR 14 (to be
completed by Caltrans), and the installation of left turn lanes on Sand Canyon Road at the
project entrance at Live Oak Springs Canyon Road.
Bridgee ani¢ f re Fera
Staff is recommending that the project contribute 2.1 million dollars to the East/West Corridor
Bridge and Thoroughfare District. Staff is also recommending that the Commission require the
developer to widen the Sand Canyon Road Bridge over the Santa Clara River, which is included
within the District. The applicant would be credited for the cost of this improvement, which is
believed to be approximately 1.2 million dollars.
This $2.1 million recommendation is based upon the number of vehicle trips generated by the
project when compared to a residential development. For example, a residential development
consisting of 250 residential units would generate approximately 2,500 vehicle trips, and per the
residential factor, would be required to pay approximately 1.4 million dollars in Bridge and
Thoroughfare Fees. The Draft FEIR indicates that the proposed project would generate
approximately 3,800 vehicle trips or approximately 1.5 times that of a 250 unit residential
project, resulting in the $2.1 million amount. The City Council would make the final
determination on the project's Bridge and Thoroughfare obligation.
The applicant has cited a concern with the number of vehicle trips generated by the project
(3,800) in the Draft FEIE. The applicant's letter is included in the Draft FEIE. Staff does
acknowledge that this number is probably a worst case estimate of the trip generation for the
project: the estimates based an the ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) Manual and not
a similar golf course project The applicant is estimating that the project would actually
generate only 2,522 vehicle trips per day. A majority of this reduced figure is based upon the
actual number of rounds to be played at each course per year. The applicant is indicating that
the golf course management will only allow the playing of 80,000 rounds per year for each
course, totaling 160,000 rounds per year.
Staff has requested additional jnstificat um from the applicant, such as actual traffic counts from
a similar existing project If additional justification is provided, staff would work with the
applicant on determining a fair contribution, though any recommendation from staff to the
Commission or Council on a reduction would likely be minimal
Oak Trmq Tynpgets
The project includes the removal of up to 138 scrub oak trees and 130 coast live oak trees
(of which seven are heritage), or 27% of the oak trees on-site. The site contains a total of 982
oak trees (of which 89 are heritage).'A minimum of 82 heritage trees would be preserved by
the project. The applicant is also requesting approval to encroach within the protected zone or
approval to trim 18 scrub oak trees and 107 coast live oak trees (of which 18 are heritage). The
number of removals would be similar to other approvals granted by the Commission on larger
projects.
Four of the proposed heritage tree removals are due to project grading. Two of the proposed
removals would be due to road construction. The last removal would be due to safety concerns
with the health of the tree. Staff, including the City's Oak Tree Consultant, would work with
the applicant during grading plan review and the grading stage of the project to reduce the
number of heritage oak tree removals. Staff believes that the applicant has designed the project
in such a manner as to miTMTMie oak tree impacts while providing a workable design. Forty-five
of the 130 coast live oak trees slated for removal would be transplanted on-site. The
transplanting program, if successful, would result in a net removal of 86 oak trees. The
remaining trees would not be transplanted due to their size (above 18 inches in diameter) or for
their health (a grade of C or worse).
The project also includes an aggressive revegetation (planting of new oaks) and monitoring
plan.
Hydmlo2v/Water
Section 5.2 of the Draft FEIR discusses project impacts related to Hydrology, Drainage and
Water. The project includes the dedication of land at no charge (near Sand Canyon Road and
Boulder Creek Road) to accommodate a debris basin and accessory drainage improvements.
Water would then be taken from this debris basin to the Santa Clara River via an underground
box. Costs associated with the construction of this improvement would be paid for by the
County of Los Angeles and a Hazard Mitigation Grant. This improvement would eliminate
existing flooding problems on Sand Canyon Road from the project site north to the Santa Clara
River. Completion of this improvement is expected in 1997.
The Commission requested clarification on downstream drainage impacts caused by the project
in the Oak Spring Canyon area According to the Draft FEIR, the project could potentially
increase peak flows, but would also reduce the slope of the site thereby decreasing flow
velocities which would allow more time for percolation of water into the soil. The revegetation
of the site with native plants and golf course landscaping would also stabilize on-site soils, which
would decrease the debris production potential of the site (mud flows, plant materials, etc.).
Additionally, drainage on the golf comae is directed towards the on-site water features, further
decreasing the amount of ranoIE The EIR continues to state that overall peak flows would
decrease by 30 - 50% for most of the mi -site subbesins, primarily because of a reduction in debris
production. The report finds that no significant increases in peak flows are expected for those
subbasins that drain to the north toward the existing rural community in Oak Spring Canyon
and therefore no significant impact is created.
Many residents of the Oak Spring Canyon area have brought forth an issue regarding the
proposed realignment of Oak Spring Canyon Road on the northern portion of the site. The road
is presently unimproved and crosses several drainage courses. The residents have indicated
that the proposed realignment may result in an impassable access during periods of heavy rain.
The Draft FEIR includes mitigation requiring the improvement of this roadway and perpetual
maintenance of the roadway by the applicant if the project is approved. This maintenance
responsibility of the applicant would include timely repair of the road on the project site after
heavy rains and on-going maintenance as a result of usage of the road by the residents east of
the project site. The applicant has not yet prepared detailed road plans showing this
improvement. These plans would typically be submitted after a project is approved. Staff is
committed to working with the applicant and residents on providing a substantially improved,
but economically feasible, access. Staff would involve both parties in the review process after
detailed road plans are submitted.
Section 5.2 of the Draft FE1E includes an evaluation of surface and groundwater quality
associated in the change of land use to residential and golf course. The section discusses the
potential use of pesticides and their effect on surface and groundwater quality. The Draft FEIR
requires the development and implementation of a Best Management Plan and Integrated Pest
Management Plan. Upon receipt of these plans, the City would hire a professional consultant
(at the applicant's cost) to review the adequacy of each plan. The primary purpose of both plans
would be the reduction in use of barmful chemicals on-site, and to reduce the potential off-site
movement of high concentrations of sediments, salts, excessive nutrients, and chemicals.
Additional mitigation would require the placement of monitoring wells at, two locations on the
site. The wells would be sampled on a quarterly basis for three years, and then annually for a
period of seven years. Based upon the soil type of the area and information related to
groundwater replenishment in the area, staff is confident that a potential contamination, if
occurring, would be detected in this 10 -year period. At the conclusion of this 10 -year time period
the applicant could request the elimination of the monitoring requirement. Depending upon the
findings of the monitoring wells, and the availability of public water to nearby residents, the
Commission or Council could approve the elimination of the monitoring requirement. The
mitigation measure would also require the clean-up of the found contaminant in the
groundwater and extension of public water to the residents of Oak Spring Canyon.
The project would be obtaining water from the Santa' Clarita Water Company. The Santa
Clarity Water Company obtains its water supply from three sources: the alluvial aquifer of the
Santa Clara River, the Saugus Formation underlying the alluvial aquifer, and the $tate Water
Project (SWP). Santa Clarita Water Company has indicated that the alluvial aquifer of the
Santa Clara River has a safe yield of approximately 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. 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. The Company also
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 a storage of one million acre-feet. Based upon the above,
Santa Clarita Water Company has a current water supply of 38,000 acre-feet per year. The
Water Compare indicated that they presently only use approximately 18,000 to 19,000 acre-feet
in an average your. The golf course would be initially expected to use approximately 1,100 acre-
feet per year with this being reduced in the long term, after the establishment of vegetation, to
approximately 890 acre-feet per year. Therefore, there is available water supply to service the
golf course and other future developments located within the Santa Clarita Water Company
service area. A representative from Santa Clarita Water Company will be available for
questions at the meeting.
Staff and the applicant have been working with the Santa Clarita Water Company on a
potential extension of a water line from the clubhouse area, north approximately 1,500 linear
feet to the northern property line and closer to the residents in the Oak Spring Canyon area.
0
Costs associated with this extension are estimated at $50,000. The applicant has indicated a
willingness to complete this extension. Typically, a developer would be required to extend
public water to service elements of the project. In this case, the developer would be willing to
provide an additional extension to the northern property line, in close proximity to residents in
the Graceton area and closer to the residents east of the project site. Residents in these areas
would then be responsible for costs associated with the extension of the line to each home. A
majority of the residents in this area have requested that the City require the applicant to
provide water service to their homes in conjunction with project approval. The difficulty in
requiring such an improvement is the lack of nexus or connection between the project's impacts
to water availability and the requiring of such an improvement. The Draft EER estimates that
approximately 15% of the water applied to the golf course would percolate into the underlying
alluvium in Oak Spring and Sand Canyon, thereby increasing the availability of ground water.
In addition, the recommended conditions of approval would prohibit the project applicant from
locating any wells on the project site, thereby eliminating the drawing of local groundwater by
the project. Provided that contamination of the groundwater does not occur, the project would
actually benefit the availability of groundwater to the nearby residents. If contamination of the
groundwater was detected and the golf course was responsible, the applicant would then be
required to extend public water to the residents of Oak Spring Canyon. Regardless, staff will
continue working with the applicant and water company on the feasibility of a more substantial
extension.
Other IgRups
If approval is considered, staff would recommend a condition requiring the developer to record
restrictions over the golf course Iota, limiting them to golf course use, prior to the recordation
of any residential lot. Additionally, staff would recommend a condition requiring recordation
of the golf course lots and commencement of development of the golf course prior to recordation
of the residential lots. Both of these restrictions would be necessary to allow the transferring
of development rights on the property.
The Parks and Recreation Department is continuing to work with the applicant and the Sand
Canyon Trails Committee on a final trails network through the project site. The Department
is recommending that the applicant be required to dedicate and construct equestrian trails to
the satisfaction of the Parks and Recreation Department and Commission. The Planning
Commission has previously reviewed a letter from the Parks and Recreation Commission citing
the positives of the initial trail dedication and the continuing cooperation from the applicant on
finalizing a trail system for the project site.
Responses to each commenting party on the DEIR are included within the Draft FEIR. The
commenting parties include private citizens as well as the government agencies such as the
County. Additional new correspondence has been included, in the Commission's packet. A new
letter from W. John Newton, representing Gillibrand 11Tning Company, has also been included
in the packet. This letter reaffirms the Company's opposition to the placement of residential
lots on the 103 acre Crystal Springs property.
In summary, staff is recommending the following modifications to the project:
IM
1) That a golf course easement be recorded on all golf course lots, restricting their use to
golf course related activities, prior to recordation of any residential lot; and,
2) Require that the applicant record the golf course lots first and that grading of the golf
course be substantially completed prior to recordation of any residential lot; and,
3) Lighting of the driving range shall be prohibited. The area between the driving range
and adjacent property line shall be landscaped to appear similar to a fairway and
maintained in good condition by the applicant; and,
4) Approve a maumum of 76 residential lots, prohibiting flag lots, and eliminating
residential development south of the future connection of Live Oak Springs Canyon
Road; and,
5) The tee area for the 10th Hole (between the parking lot and Penrose property line) shall
be moved 300' west or moved south and more adjacent to the parking lot; and,
6) The applicant shall widen Sand Canyon Road over the Santa Clara River to four lanes.
This improvement would be credited against the applicable Bridge and Thoroughfare
fees; and,
7) The golf course shall be maintained as a public course for a minimum of 10 years. After
this 10 year period, the applicant may file a revision request with the City to convert the
golf course facility to private. Approval of this revision request would be at the
discretion of the City; and,
8) Gating of streets shall be prohibited.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1) Find the project design, with staff recommended modifications, acceptable;
2) Direct staff to prepare final conditions and a resolution recommending certification of
the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and recommending approval of Master
Case 95-049 (as modified) to the City Council for the Commission's consideration at the
February 6, 1996, meeting.
11
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
STAFF REPORT
MASTER CASE NO. 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
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SC 95041049
DATE: November 21, 1995
TO: / (C on wnsley and Memb of the Planning Commission
FROM: `( 1 ant City Manager
CASE PLANNERS: Glenn'Adamick, Assistant Planner H
Fred Follstad, Associate Planner
APPLICANT: Hunters Green Development Corporation
LOCATION: 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
REQUEST: A prezone to allow for City zoning on the southern 103.4 acres of the
site from the 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), and;
A zone change to implement a PD (Planned Development) overlay on
the site, including the allowance for the transferring of development
rights on-site and the designation of the project as an "innovative
project per the Hillside Ordinance, and;
A 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, and;
A conditional use permit for the construction and operation of a golf
course, clustering of the residential lots, and implementation of the PD
overlay, and;
An oak tree permit to allow for the removal of up to 138 scrub oak
trees and 130 coast live oaks (seven of which are heritage trees), and;
A hillside review to allow for the development of a hillside property
1
and development on an identified secondary ridgeline, and;
Review and certification of the EIR prepared for this project.
BACKGROUND
The Commission's last hearing on this item was on October 26, 1995, at the project site. The
first hearing on the project was October 3, 1995. At this meeting, the Commission directed
staff and the applicant to address certain issues related to the proposed project. These
issues are summarized as follows:
1) Golf course easements on 42 of the proposed residential lots; and,
2) Potential use of recycled water, and,
3) Proposed gates; and,
4) Additional information on the Audubon Signature Status requirements; and,
5) Potential use of netting, in conjunction with landscaped berms, on areas of the golf
course adjacent to existing residential; and,
6) Flag lots; and
7) Grading, and
8) Sand Canyon traffic impacts including the possible loss of the Norland Bridge access
(Batta - Shine developments); and,
9) Oak impacts; and,
10) Groundwater contamination; and,
11) Equestrian trails; and,
12) Impacts of the adjacent mining operation; and,
13) Prommity of proposed driving range and parking lot to existing residential properties;
and,
14) Economic viability
Most of these issues will be discussed in the •Analysis Section' of this report. Staff has
requested that the applicant speak to the Audubon and Economic issues.
STATUS - DRAFT F.NVIRONMENTAT, IMPACT REPO
The 45 day public review period of the DEIR (Draft Environmental Impact Report) prepared
for the project ended on November 13, 1995. Response to comments are in the process of
being prepared by the City's environmental consultant. The final EIR should be available
for distribution to the Commission in December. The "Commenting' and "Response to
2
Comment' periods are aaintegral part of the EIR process. The Planning Commission could
not take action on. the project until the responses are prepared and distributed to the
participating agencies and persons and a Final EIR is completed.
The DEM identifies unavoidable adverse impacts to air quality (pg. 5.3-1), biology (pg 5.4-1),
aesthetics (pg. 5.6-1) and noise during site development, (pg. 5.7-1).
ANALYM
The proposed project includes the development of the 411 acre site into two 18-hole golf
courses, a 26,000 square foot clubhouse, lighted driving range, parking lots, maintenance
facility, and 83 single family residential lots. The applicant is proposing a planned
development, including the clustering of the residential lots and the transferring of
development rights onsite. The project includes four flag lots and one lot (lot 6) that would
not have street frontage but would take access from a private ingresslegresa easement.
Generally, the Commission has discouraged the use of flag lots.
General Pl n ev lonment Code Consia encu
The site is designated RE (Residential Estate) and RVL (Residential Very Low) by the City's
General Plan. The City portion of the site (approximately 308 acres) is zoned RVL. The
remaining acreage (approximately 103) is located in the unincorporated area of Los Angeles
County and is zoned A-1-2 (Light Agriculture two acre minimum lot size). The City's
General Plan designation for this property is RE. The RVL zone is intended for large custom
single family homes with a maximum density of one dwelling unit per acre. The RE zone
requires a minimum lot size of two acres.
A total of 51 residential lots are proposed for the 103 acre property proposed for annexation..
This property would be zoned RE and the residential lots would have to comprise a total of
102 acres. This property is an unrecorded portion of the Crystal Springs development. In
approving the Crystal Springs development, the County required the developer to dedicate
the right to restrict the construction of more than two residences on the parcel. This
restriction was placed on the property to ensure consistency with the density prescribed is
the County General Plan and also in an effort to resolve issues cited by the Gillibrand Mining
Company related to the proximity of homes to a mining operation. The resulting Crystal
Springs development clustered lots on the western side of the secondary ridgeline and
utilized the 103 acre parcel (east of the ridgeline) as its open space, though two homes could
be constructed an this parcel. Both the City Council and Planning Commission have enforced
these restrictions on previous proposals. If residential development is considered on this
portion of the project site, the Commission could find that the subject project reduces
residential density in this portion of Sand Canyon from 222 lots (existing approvals on all
the area in the project, including the golf course) to 83 lots and would therefore be
consistent with the City's General Pian. Another prominent issue with respect to these lots
is their proximity to an active mining operation. This issue would be primarily associated
with noise, which will be discussed later in this report.
The remaining 32 residential lots are proposed on property zoned RVL and would therefore
have to comprise a total of 32 acres. Based upon this, the total acreage needed or allocated
to residential development would have to be at least 134 acres.
The applicant is proposing to establish easements to the golf course on 42 of the 83
3
residential lots. The easement areas are proposed in an effort to meet minimum gross area
requirements of the RE and RVL zones and to allow for clustering of the residential lots.
The City's Unified Development Code does not allow this type of an easement to be counted
in the lot's gross square footage. These easements and lot lines should be removed since no
rights of use for the underlying lot owners would exist.
Excluding easement areas, the project includes 55 residential lots below 40,000 square feet,
29 of which are less than 20,000 square feet. The smallest proposed residential lot is 13,000
square feet. The largest is well in excess of two acres. Twenty-eight of the residential lots
would exceed 40,000 square feet, which is the minimum net square footage for the RE and
RVL zones. Most of the lots below 20,000 square feet would have large pad areas, either
equivalent to the lot's square footage or slightly less. The usable area of each lot would be
consistent with other usable lot sizes in similar residential developments in the Sand Canyon
area. Based upon clustering standards and excluding the adoption of a PD (Planned
Development) overlay zone on the property, the residential lots would have to have a
minimum of 40,000 square feet in the RVL zone and two gross acres in the RE zone.
The project is also located in the Sand Canyon Special Standards District. The project would
comply with the Special Standards with the exception of the Clustering Section. The
Clustering Section of the Special Standards discourages clustering of residential lots in Sand
Canyon except where it is necessary to preserve and protect environmentally sensitive acres.
It also states that where clustering is approved, the minimum lot size shall not deviate more
than 10% from the required minimum lot size. The Special Standards also require the
submittal of a conditional use permit for the gating of proposed residential projects. A policy
related to the use of gates is presently being formulated by the City Council. In summary,
this policy would include language restricting or limiting the use of gates on roads. Based
upon this, staff would recommend that gates not be permitted.
The applicant is proposing a Planned Development Overlay Zone on the project site. The
Planned Development Overlay, as summarized, was created to: request clustering, facilitate
development of certain areas 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; 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 qualities of open space; and, ensure that the project conforms to
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.
This could include the modifying of minimum lot sizes and the Sand Canyon Special
Standards. To provide 134 acres of residential land and allow for lot sizes below the zoning
requirements, the applicant is proposing to transfer development rights onsite. The
proposed transferring of development rights would include the creation of open space
easements (restricting development) on the ungraded portions of the site, natural areas
outside of the fairways, and trail easements. The combined acreage of these areas, in
addition to the acreage of the residential lots, would be greater than 134 acres and therefore
could satisfy the minimum residential acreage needed to develop 83 homes on the site. The
transferring would also involve the relocatingof residential development rights from the
northern, unencumbered property, to the 103 acre "Crystal Springs" property which the
County conditioned for only two homes. The Commission could find that the project is
consistent with the Unified Development Code with the establishment of a PD overlay.
Hillsid s/Gra ino
Development of the project site would'require grading of approximately 2.2 million cubic
yards of dirt, balanced on site. All of the created slopes would be contour graded by rounding
the tops and toes of slopes. The tallest cut slope would be 100', while the tallest fill slope
would be approximately 30'. All of the graded slopes would be at a minimum slope ratio of
2:1, which would be in conformance with the City's Hillside Ordinance. Approximately 345
acres of the 411 acre project site would be graded. In some cases tall ridges are being
lowered and on-site ravines or canyons are being filled. Sections 5.1 (Earth Resources) and
5.6 (Aesthetics) of the DEIR describe in detail impacts and mitigation, if any, for project
grading and hillside development.
The site contains an east -west trending secondary ridgeline which would be significantly
altered by the project. The DEER indicates that the Hillside Ordinance allows for
development of secondary ridgelines provided that a hillside review is granted and the
project complies with the provisions of the ordinance. Furthermore, the.document points
out that though the project would adhere to many of the standards of the ordinance, several
standards and criteria are not met. Pages 5.6-6 through 5.6-10 of the DEER detail the
project's compliance or non-compliance with the Hillside Ordinance. Finally, the DEER
identifies that project grading would represent a significant unavoidable impact with respect
to the Hillside Ordinance and that the Planning Commission and City Council would have
to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations to approve the project. The DEER also
contains a View Analysis Section (pgs. 5.6-14 through 5.6-25) which illustrates the post -
project conditions from four locations and clearly shows the alterations to the site. The
DEER also indicates that the impact to viewsheds is anticipated to be less than significant
after revegetation of the site. There are existing residents in the Graceton/Oak Spring
Canyon area whose viewshed would be significantly affected by the project, though this
impact would be localized to that area.
All of the lots located on the southerly 103 acre parcel would be graded into the secondary
ridgeline but would be below the tap of the ridgeline and not visible to properties west of the
site. The proposed residential lots in the general vicinity of "D" Street would be located at
or near the top of the secondary ridgeline and could be visible to properties south and west
of the project site. The remaining lots would be located on flatter terrain, away from the
identified ridgeline.
The Hillside Ordinance does provide that certain uses may be permitted on significant
ridgelines. Such uses could include innovative projects and recreation areas. Additionally,
the "Innovative Applications' section of the Hillside Ordinance would- provide the
Commission and Council with the authority to approve a high quality, innovative
development that does not meet all of the precise conditions of the ordinance. Without
substantially redesigning the project (eliminating the residential element or reducing the
number of golf holes), hillside impacts would still remain Overall, staff believes that the
project could be found to be innovative and in conformance with the `Innovative Application"
section of the Hillside Ordinance.
Access to the site would be provided from Sand Canyon Road and Live Oak Springs Canyon
Road. The proposal would generate 3,800 vehicle trips per weekday on Sand Canyon Road.
About 144 vehicle trips would be generated by the project during the morning peak hour and
202 vehicle trips would be generated during the evening peak hour. The project would
increase average daily vehicle trips on Sand Canyon Road, north of Lost Canyon Road, from
an existing 9,100 daily vehicles to 13,100 daily vehicles.
There are a total of 222 residential lots approved for the project site. These residential lots
are comprised of the following projects: TTM 47803 - 140 lots, TPM 45148 - 10, TTM 47324 -
70 lots, and the Crystal Springs property - two lots. As a comparison, a residential
development of this size would generate approximately 2,260 vehicle trips during an average
weekday. About 180 vehicle trips would be generated by this residential development during
the morning peak hour and 220 vehicle trips during the evening peak hour. However, this
comparison also assumes that the residential project would take access from Sand Canyon
Road. Additionally, a residential project's traffic would be primarily outbound in the
morning and inbound in the evening. The proposed project would be almost a complete
opposite of this, generally producing inbound trips in the morning and outbound trips in the
evening. This would be one of the project's benefits when compared to a residential
development.
A benefit of TTM 47803 and an adjacent tract to the north (TTM 34466) was the requiring
of those projects to construct a separate means of access to Soledad Canyon Road, rather
than using Sand Canyon Road. This access included the construction of a new road from the
projects to Soledad Canyon Road, including an undercrossing at the railroad and a bridge
over the Santa Clara River. This new road would have been a significant benefit, though
its construction may not be feasible due to costs associated with the improvement. This
project would likely be the City's final opportunity to require the road.
The Transportation/Circulation Section (Section 5.5 in the DEER) indicates that with the
implementation of certain mitigation measures the proposed project would not create any
significant unavoidable impacts to Sand Canyon Road. These recommended mitigation
measures include the signalization of the Lost Canyon Road/Sand Canyon Road intersection,
the widening of Sand Canyon Road over SR 14 (to be completed by Caltrans in 1997) and the
widening of Sand Canyon Road to accommodate lett-turn lanes at the project entrance and
Sand Canyon Road and at Sand Canyon Road and Live Oak Springs Canyon Road. Staff
believes that with mitigation, Sand Canyon Road could accommodate the proposed project.
Another circulation issue brought forth by residents of the surrounding area is the
realignment of Oak Spring Canyon Road on the northern portion of the project site. Oak
Spring Canyon Road in that area is unimproved and crossea several drainage courses on the
project site. Residents utilizing this access have cited concerns that the realignment of the
road to the projects northern property line will result in an impassable access during periods
of heavy rain. One of the recommended mitigation measures (pg. 5.2-11 of the DEIR)
requires that at a minimum the realigned private road be improved with decomposed granite
and in areas where the grade of the road is steeper than 10% the road be paved. The
applicant has also agreed to maintain this road on the project site.
The applicant has submitted a development agreement in conjunction with the project. Per
City policy, this agreement would be considered after project approval, if granted. This
agreement would include a determination of appropriate Bridge and Thoroughfare fees for
the project. The Bridge and Thoroughfare Districts establish fees for development based.
upon the use. The district lists three specific categories of uses: commercial, industrial, and
residential. In this case, the project could not be classified as strictly residential or
commercial. For example, the project would generate more vehicle trips than a residential
development but far less than a 290 acre commercial development (based upon the golf
course acreage). For comparison purposes, a 222 lot residential development would be
required to contribute approximately 1.1 million dollars to the district. If the proposed
project were classified as residential/commercial development, the project would be required
to contribute approximately 7.6 million dollars. A possible solution to this issue would be
the requiring of the applicant to widen the Sand Canyon Road bridge over the Santa Clara
River. This improvement would be a substantial benefit to the circulation of the Sand
Canyon area. Costs associated with this improvement could be as much as 2.5 million
dollars. Staff will continue to work with the applicant on resolving this issue and
determining a final Bridge and Thoroughfare obligation.
$ydrology/Water
Section 5.2 of the DEIR discusses project impacts related to Hydrology, Drainage, and Water.
The project site lies within two different watersheds, Sand Canyon and Oak Springs Canyon,
both of which drain into the Santa Clara River. The watersheds are separated by the
identified secondary ridgeline on-site.
The Los Angeles County Department of Public Works and the City are presently in the
process of designing the Live Oak Springs Canyon debris basin which would substantially
decrease existing flooding problems along Sand Canyon Road. The debris basin is being
funded by the County and City, the City's portion being paid for by a Hazard Mitigation
Grant. The debris basin would be located on the western portion of the project site, directly
north of proposed lot 6. The applicant is proposing to dedicate this land to the County.
Completion of this improvement is expected in 1997, but the improvement would have to be
in place prior to operation of the golf course.
The residents in the Oak Springs Canyon area have cited concerns related to the project's
effect on existing drainage patterns. The DEIR finds that while.development of the project
could potentially increase peak flows, the project would also reduce the slope of the site and
thereby decrease peak flow velocities, allowing more time for percolation of water into the
soil The revegetation of the site would also serve to stabilize onsite soils, decreasing debris
production potential on-site. Finally, the drainage on the golf course would be directed
towards the onsite water features (ponds) further decreasing the amount of site runoff£ The
DEIR finds that no significant impacts are anticipated with respect to downstream flooding.
Section 5.2, specifically pga. 5.2-15 through 5.2-16, includes an evaluation of surface water
and groundwater quality.associated with the change in land use from open space to
residential and golf course use. This section discusses the potential use of pesticides and
their effect on surface and groundwater quality. The DEIR finds that with the addition of
mitigation measures, including the preparation and implementation of a Best Management
Plan and Integrated Pest Management Plan the project would not have a significant impact.
The purpose of both plans would be the reduction in use of harmful chemicals onsite; and to
reduce the potential offsite movement of high concentrations of sediment, salts, excessive
nutrients and chemicals. Additional recommended mitigation includes the placement of two
monitoring wells on the site, with the wells being sampled on a quarterly basis for a
minimum of three years. The wells would then be monitored annually for a period of seven
more years. If approval is considered, this mitigation measure could be expanded to include
language indicating that if sampling results in the detection of a contaminant, that
revocation of the permit could be considered unless steps are taken to clean up the
groundwater and provide public water service to affected residents who use well water.
The applicant is proposing to use potable water from Santa Clarita Water Company to serve
the project. Recycling of water is not proposed in conjunction with the project. According
to the Santa Carita Water Company, the development would use at a maximum 2.3 million
gallons of water per day. A large lot residential development (approximately 220 units)
would be expected to use at a maximum one million gallons of water per day. These daily
maximums would generally occur during the summertime months.
The DEIR (Section 5.4) states that the project would involve grading of 84% of the site and
the subsequent destruction of most of the overlying vegetation within the area. This
destruction would be offset by the implementation of the revegetation plan, which would
include the utilization of native plant species. Additionally, the project would increase the
amount of wetland type communities on the site. However, the DEIR states that the above
listed benefits would not reduce this impact to a less than significant leveL
The project includes the removal of up to 138 scrub oak trees and 130 coast live oak trees (of
which seven are of heritage size) or 27% of the trees on-site. The site contains a total of 982
oak trees, 89 of which are heritage size. This number of removals would be similar to other
approvals granted by the Commission. For example, the Valley Gateway project was
approved for the removal of 22% of the oak trees on-site, though none of these removals were
heritage size trees.
The project does include an aggressive revegetation plan, which includes mitigation
strategies for the planting and transplanting of oaks onsite. The applicant has collected
approximately 1,000 acorns from the site and planted them at a local nursery. These trees
would be used to revegetate the site if approval is granted. The Planning Commission has
never approved the removal of a heritage oak tree. The Commission did conceptually
approve the removal of a heritage tree on the North Hills project, though this project was
never granted final approval
Overall, staff believes that the substantial planting of oak trees onsite, as well as the
preservation of 714 oak trees (including 82 heritage), will offset the oak tree impacts related
to the number of proposed removals.
The DEIR (pg. 5.4-13) addresses mitigation for the proposed oak tree removals and
subsequent monitoring of the planted trees. This mitigation would include payment of ISA
fees to the City with oak tree plantings being credited against this fee. The monitoring
portion of the mitigation requires the applicant to monitor the onsite oak tree plantings for
up to five years and replace any trees that die on an equivalent basis. If approval of the
project is considered, staff would continue to work with the applicant during the grading
process on reducing the proposed number of removals, most importantly the number of
heritage removals.
PlIM 1
Section 5.7 of the DEER addresses noise impacts, including project generated noise and the
effects of an adjacent mining operation on the residential element of the project.
Pages 5.7-3 through 5.7-6 of the DEIR describe typical noise generated by the Gillibrand
Mining operation. The DEIR indicates that even in a worst case scenario noise generated
U
of the concerns with the residents, with the exception of the clubhouse location. The
clubhouse would be located approximately 800' from the nearest residence and would be
mostly out of view from these homes. ,A potential option to resolve these concerns could
include the moving of the driving range further east and locating a holelfairway or an area
equivalent to a fairway between the driving range and the residential properties. The area
equivalent to a fairway could be designed and landscaped to appear similar to a fairway.
This would most likely require a redesign in the northern portion of the subject site but could
provide an adequate buffer between the driving range and residences. This option may be
more acceptable to the applicant than the alternatives described in the DEIR.
In addition to the above, the DEIR (pg. 5.6-24) identifies a mitigation measure requiring that
the parking facility be designed in two lots to address aesthetic impacts. The applicant has
proposed something similar to this design, though the larger parking lot is proposed to be
located between the residential properties and the clubhouse. A smaller lot would be located
south of the clubhouse. An option to providing further separation between the parking lot
and adjacent residential properties, could be the reduction of 100-150 parking spaces in the
large lot and relocating these spaces to the parking lot located on the south side of the
clubhouse. This modification would result in an increased buffer between the residential
properties and the parking lot. This relocation could result in the removal of at least one
residential lot. The relocation of this portion of the parking lot could also allow for the
moving of "Bole 10" south and away from the adjacent residential property line.
Based upon a final design, the above options could eliminate the need for netting along the
residential property lines.
The DEIR indicates that the noise generated from the Gillibrand Mining operations would
be in compliance with City Noise Standards and therefore not significant. However, the
DEIR indicates that there is a potential for annoyance to future residents because of the
mining operations. Staff believes that this could occur, mostly in the residential area south
of the proposed extension of Live Oak Springs Canyon Road, Future homes located on this
portion of the property could be located as close as 400' to the Rabbit Canyon mining cls
area. A possible option could include the elimination of 10 lots south of this connection,
designating this area for open space or golf course use due to its proximity to the mining
operation.
Proposed residential lots located north of the Live Oak: Springs Canyon Road connection
would be separated from mining activities by portions of the golf course. Future homes in
this area would be located a minimum of 600' from the eastern property line and would be
buffered from the mining activities by the golf course. Approved future' claim areas could
be visible to these homes, though the golf course would provide a buffer between these areas.
Fors an Property
The Forshpan property is a 20 acre property located adjacent to the subject site. This
property is the rectangular piece shown on the site plan, located east of the Tina Bow parcel.
This property was previously included in the Hunter's Green Development but is not
included within the golf course property. The property presently has access from Oak
Springs Canyon Road, via a private easement. This access would not be considered
satisfactory for the purposes of subdividing the land in the future.
The Forshpan property does abut an unimproved section of Boulder Creek Road. This
10
section of the road is located between the present terminus of Boulder Creek Road and the
Forshpan property. The unimproved area of Boulder Creek Road was offered as a " Private
and Future Road' to provide access to three lots located east of the road's present terminus.
These three lots are included within the golf course project. This access was not created to
benefit the Forshpan property but could be utilized for this purpose if the road were built
and eventually accepted by the City. Staff wanted to make the Commission aware of this
issue because it is the City s policy to provide satisfactory access to property if possible. The
present golf course design would not provide for this access. It would instead eliminate a
potential future access to a public street for the 20 -acre property. Providing for this access
would require a substantial redesign of the project.
If the project were approved and this potential access is eliminated, the City would be
effectively limiting the future subdividing of the Forshpan property, unless another
satisfactory access could be obtained. However, the City or applicant are not obligated to
provide this property access. The present access to the property would be sufficient to allow
for the construction of one residence on the 20 acre parcel.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1) Receive public testimony; and,
2) Provide direction to staff and the applicant on an acceptable project design, including
implementation of the possible options to resolve identified issues; and,
3) Continue the project to the December 19, 1995 or the January 2, 1996, meeting
dependent upon the extent of project modifications requested by the Commission.
WnOu�bOM.ZIM .
11
VICINITY MAP
MC# 95- 049
O
: OOu �
A&
N
z
0
CYN.. RD.
�2\
O
Z
'SUBJECT
SITE V
Y D5
�/a2
Y 05
p
/
400.
4
/O
535
5
2
350
4:
// •
390,
.4 `
3
155
3
/Z
I rb O
3
4-
415
4:.
/3
405
14-
5
522
5
/4
' 380 .
4 ..
r.
I$0
3
/5,
200'
..3...
7
.380
.4.
!!o'
460
d.
S
375
A
/7
- 3oo
4
r: 9
490
1..5
/8-
430 .
4- .
our.
3Iro 7
3G
32 0 0
35
our
, 32.G7
3(0
7•orA
&4 G7
71
Jr
r
r
•
r _
f
P
l I
\.fir. ..
- • `
3
• r `