Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1996-04-20 - AGENDAS - ADJOURNED SPECIAL (2)
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING 9:00 a.m. Saturday, April 20, 1996 16095-A Live Oak Springs Canyon Road Santa Clarita, CA 91351 AGENDA CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL 1. MASTER CASE 95-049 TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 411 ACRE PROPERTY WITH TWO 18 :HOLE GOLF COURSES AND 73 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS - The City Council conducted its first public hearing on this project on March 25, 1996. At the March 25th meeting, Council heard testimony on the project and continued the item to this date to conduct a tour of the project. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Tour the project site and continue the public hearing for Master Case 95-049 to a date uncertain. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ADJOURNMENT to Tuesday, April 23, 1996, 6:30 p.m., regular City Council meeting. Cnclagn.adjapr20.96 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Boyer and Members of the City ouncil FROM: George Caravalho, City Manager DATE: April 20, 1996 SUBJECT: SITE TOUR - HUNTERS GREEN GOLF COURSE (MASTER CASE 95-049)/ SUMMARY OF PROJECT ISSUES The project includes the development of an approximately 400 acre site with two 18 hole golf courses, a clubhouse,lighted driving range, parking, 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 in the Sand Canyon area of the City. On February 20, 1996, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. P96-08, recommending approval of Master Case 95-049 to the City Council. 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 City Council conducted its first public hearing on the project on March 25, 1996. Prior to this meeting, one of the properties included within the project site was removed from the project by the property owner. This 17 acre property fronts on Sand Canyon Road, is directly south of Comet Way and was the location of the project's primary access. At the meeting of March 25, 1996, the Council took testimony on the project and continued the item to a special meeting on April 20, 1996, to conduct a tour of the project site. The Council also directed staff to prepare a summary of the key issues associated with the project. At the conclusion of this tour, staff would recommend that the project be continued to a date uncertain. This continuance is necessary to provide sufficient time for the applicant to redesign the project and staff to review the modifications and update the environmental impact report. As of this date, staff has not received a redesigned plan; Therefore, the issues listed below are related to the proposal reviewed by the Planning Commission. 1) Development Code Consistency. Approval of the project as designed necessitates the adoption of a Planned Development (PD) overlay on the project site. This PD overlay would allow for the clustering of the lots, residential lot sizes as low as 14,000 square feet and transferring of development rights on the project site (specifically the transferring of development rights from the unencumbered portions of the project site to the encumbered 103 acre Crystal Springs property). The Commission supported the adoption of the PD zone and design of the project, as it would result in the preservation of 300 acres of the project site as recreation -open space. 2) Hillside Development. The Draft FEIR indicates that though the project would adhere to many of the standards of the Hillside Ordinance, several standards and criteria would not be met. The project includes the altering of an identified secondary ridgeline, specifically in the area of the clubhouse and the surrounding parking lots. The Hillside Ordinance does provide that certain uses may be permitted on identified ridgelines. Such uses could include innovative projects and recreation areas. In recommending approval of the project, the Planning Commission considered the project to be innovative per the "Innovative Section" of the Hillside Ordinance. 3) Oak Trees. The projectincludes the removal of up to 268 (138 scrub oak trees and 130 coast live oak trees) of the 982 oak trees located on-site. Seven of the coast live oak trees proposed for removal are of heritage size. The project also includes the transplanting on-site of 45 coast live oaks slated for removal. The project would preserve 759 oak trees, with 82 of these trees being of heritage size. The project also includes the planting of 1,000 small oak trees on the site. The Planning Commission supported this number of removals based upon the project's preservation of a majority of the oak trees located on-site. 4) Traffic/Circulation. The Draft FEIR indicates that the project would generate approximately 3,800 vehicle trips per day. These trips would enter and exit the site via Sand Canyon Road. The project would not be a large peak hour vehicle trip generator and trips associated with the project would be substantially different from a residential development. Recommended conditions of approval include the requiring of the developer to contribute 2.1 million dollars to the East/West Corridor Bridge and Thoroughfare District, install a traffic signal at Lost Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road, widen the Sand Canyon Road bridge over the Santa Clara River (which would be credited to the project's Bridge and Thoroughfare contribution), and widen the Sand Canyon Road bridge over SR 14 (to be paid for and constructed by Caltrans). 5) Potential Land Use Conflicts. A total of 41 residential lots are proposed for the 103 acre Crystal Springs property proposed for annexation. In approving the Crystal Springs development, the County limited this property to two single family residences, clustering a majority of the lots on the west side of the ridge to provide a buffer between the residential lots and the mining operation. Allowing residential density in excess of two lots on this property would require the adoption of a PD zone and approval of a conditional use permit, which would allow for transferring of development rights from other portions of the project site to this area. Existing approvals on the project site would allow for the development of the 400 acre property with 222 single family residential lots. The project proposes 73 single family residential lots. The Draft FEIR prepared for the subject project analyzed the impacts of the noise generated by the existing mining operation on the proposed residential lots. The Draft FEIR indicates that the noise generated from the mining operation would be in compliance with City noise standards and therefore not significant to future residents. Additionally, the Planning Commission recommended that 10 lots south of the Live Oak Springs Road, which were closest to the mining operation, be eliminated. Staff and the Commission believed that this modification would provide a substantial buffer between residential lots and the mining operation. Residents within the Oak Springs Canyon area, specifically along Graceton Drive, have cited concerns with the locating of certain commercially related uses of the project in close proximity to their homes. These uses included the driving range, parking lot, and maintenance facility. These concerns led to several substantial modifications to the project at the Planning Commission level. These modifications included the relocation of the maintenance facility, driving range, and larger parking lot away from the existing residences. Additional modifications included the relocation of the tee area for Hole No. 1 away from the residences and the implementation of a landscape berm between the driving range, parking lot and Hole 1 and the existing residences. 6) Hydrology/Water. Many residents of Oak Spring Canyon have brought forth issues related to site drainage, the extension of mainline water service, and the potential of the project to contaminate local groundwater. The Draft FEIR addresses all of these issues and finds that the project would not have a significant impact in any of these areas. Additionally, the Planning Commission recommended that the applicant be required to extend water mainline and fire hydrants off-site, between Comet Way and the Angeles National Forest. The Commission also recommended that the applicant be prohibited from locating any water wells on-site. The above summarizes some of the key issues associated with the project. Staff will be discussing these as well as other aspects of the development at the site tour. Staff would recommend that public testimony not be taken at this tour, deferring this testimony to later hearings on the project. RECOMMENDATION 1) Tour the project site; and, 2) Continue the public hearing for Master Case 95-049 to a date uncertain. GAC:GEA wu 61%95049f1d.trp From City Hall: East on Valencia Boulevard, continue east on Soledad Canyon Road to Sand Canyon Road. Make a right on Sand Canyon Road and proceed to Live Oak Springs Canyon Road. Make. a left on Live Oak Springs Canyon Road and proceed to 16095 Live Oak Springs Canyon Road. Parking is available along Live Oak Springs Canyon Road adjacent to the property. p1ngmm\agn10-26.1ep vauer RD. O� RR GP P� YON a pN� Oy PACIFIC QLAai M z OPp � O Sp��NEFiN ��4Rl S° / yo V SITE o - j�ee� inq LDcalhon y °9�G��PP. Sao � 'oma N RD. VICINITY MAP NTS Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course Draft Final Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department January 11, 1996 rincon H U I I 0 Draft Final Environmental Impact Report for Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course State Clearinghouse Number 95041049 Applicant: Hunters Green Development Corporation 16095-A Live Oak Springs Canyon Road nn Santa Clarita, California 91351 �i p l_ C 0 0 0 to 0 Prepared for: City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, California 91355 Contacts: Glenn Adamick and Christine Kudija Telephone: 805/255-4330 Prepared by: Rincon Consultants, Inc. 790 East Santa Clara Street, Suite 103 Ventura, California 93001 January 11, 1996 This report is printed on 50% recycled paper with 10% post -consumer content and chlorine, free virgin pulp. L I L) �I L: (1 U Irl �.1 [l Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR [\ Table wfContents 1.0 Introduction LlPunnoy -... l2Scope and Content. ..... .------~,...�-^-.---.-.-.-----_.-._-.^---.-l~l )/ 1.3 Lead, andAgencies ...-_-.-.---___'-----.`-_°__--..,l^2 | l4�n��c� .................................................. '.......................................... ........................... l~3 )� .`4.0 ~ ��Setting�^� 4.1 Regional Setting .............................................................. --...................................................... 4^l 4.2 Project Area Setting --,-_..-`~....,..-.._.,..--'__..-......--..^-..-'4^2 F15.0 Impact Analysis U 5.l8o��R 2.0 Summary 5.3 Air Quality ................ ............................................................ ~~ 2.1 Project Synopsis ............................. .................... `................................................................... I-1 \/ 22 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ...... ....... ............................................................. 2.]Alternatives ..................... ....................... ............... ,.`................... .......................................... ^2 2~18 |� 2.4 Arrusof9ubUc --.--'.-.=-=~_,-.-....-.,..-..'------'~...-2-l9 56 Aesthetics ................................................... .................................................................... | 2.5Issues tohoResolved .................... ............................................................................................. 2^l9 5.7 Noise ................. ................................... --............................... ................................. .......... j.7~l /| 6.OLong Term Effects 6] Growth Inducing Impacts ..................................................... .......................... 3.0 Project Description 3.1 Project Applicant.. .......... .................................................... ................. .................................. `l | 32 Project Synopsis ....................................................................... ................................................. 3~l [1 3.3 Project Location.. .................................... ........................................................... ........................ 3~l 3/4 ,-.........-...^.-`_.~_-.......................................... 3.5 Project Objectives `'.^..'.^.~-,..,.^----__--...-'-_,_^,----~-,,.,.....3~4 �j 3.6 ` ............................................ ....................................... ........... _3~4 3.7 Project Characteristics __.',_--_'_°..'__,.-.-.--^^~_. ................... ........... .3,5 )� .`4.0 ~ ��Setting�^� 4.1 Regional Setting .............................................................. --...................................................... 4^l 4.2 Project Area Setting --,-_..-`~....,..-.._.,..--'__..-......--..^-..-'4^2 F15.0 Impact Analysis U 5.l8o��R TO Alternatives 7] No Project Alternative ................................................................................................................. 7-1 City of Santa Clarita 5.3 Air Quality ................ ............................................................ ................ ^.................................. 5]~l / ( 5.4 `-..-....-.,-..,-.---`..,....-...--.^-,_------,-..'..~.,-.'5.4^l ijTransportation/Circulation .......................................... ............................................................... 5.5^l 56 Aesthetics ................................................... .................................................................... ........ i6~1 | / � 5.7 Noise ................. ................................... --............................... ................................. .......... j.7~l /| 6.OLong Term Effects 6] Growth Inducing Impacts ..................................................... .......................... -------------- ......... ^6^l TO Alternatives 7] No Project Alternative ................................................................................................................. 7-1 City of Santa Clarita Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf CoumaEIR Table of Contents || 73 Reduced '—..—�,....^,-^—.----_—_---'---.................—.~�7~q � - i 1 L� 7�4 �[b�c�[�c .....---,—^-.'-__.----,°.—~.,..—........_.~--...-7~ll Site Plan -`_—�_—.--'—,.~_..^.---..^.".----...~.._...~~-._.3~7 7.5 Existing General Plan Buildout .................... ........................................ ........................ ... ........ 7-l5 7.6 Course ............................. ' | 77 Environmentally Superior Alternative .......................................................................................... T`2O ^' 8DReferences and Agencies Contacted Figure 5J~l 8.1 References ......................... ......................................................... ...... `--.—.--.�.�8^l 82 Agencies/Individuals Contacted ................................. ................................................................. 8-3 Figure 5.4-1 K�um.--.......~~...~..--,`^—'.----.__—...^..^---._l4^3 List of Figures Figure 3.0-2 Project Location ............................... .................................... ........... ....................... 3-3 Figure 3.0-3 Site Plan -`_—�_—.--'—,.~_..^.---..^.".----...~.._...~~-._.3~7 Figure3.04 'on. Map ................................. ....................... ......... .................... ................ ].11 < / Figure 3.0-5 Golf Course Cross -Section and Water Edge Treatment .................................................. Figure 5J~l lDo-Yeazand Capital Storm Flood Map ....... ............................................. ................. 52'3 � Figure 5.2-2 Post -Project --'St000Flunm —~�5.2^A Figure 5.4-1 K�um.--.......~~...~..--,`^—'.----.__—...^..^---._l4^3 Figure 5.5-1 Regional Road Network ................................ ............ .................................... ............. 5.5-2 Figure I5'2 Existing Daily Traffic Demand .......................... ___ ...................................................... i54 Figure 5.5-3 Existing Traffic Demand _AM Peak '................................................................... ........ 5.5-6 �^ Figure 5.5-4 Existing Traffic Demand ^PM Peak ................... .......................................................... l5~7 Fioo��j`5 � Site Traffic ( / Figure 5.5-6 Daily Site Traffic ............................................... ..................... ............... ............. ...... l5 -l2 i� Figure 5,5-7 Site Traffic Demand °A\KPeak .............................. ...................... .............................. 5.5~l3 ` Fiuoz��J-8�d�7zuj���l�coouo�^p&89cu� " ^^—^^----``—^—''~~—^`^^~~^^--^"^--` ��-l4 }/ / \ Figure 5.5-8 Other Area Projects ................................................................................. ..................... i5^lG Figure l5~l0 Traffic From Other Area Projects ^A88Peak .............................................................. 5.5-l7 Figure i5^l1 Traffic From Other Area Projects ~P&8Peak .................... .......................................... 5.5~lx !/ Figure 5.5-12 Future Traffic Demand Without Site ~AM Peak .................... ................................ ^... i5~2O L/ Figure 5j~13 Future Traffic Demand Without Site ~9&8Peak ......................... --,,........ 5,5-21 Figure l5-l4Future Total Traffic Demand `AMPeak ... ................................................................. ~°....... 5.5~22 Figure 5.5~l5 Future Total Traffic Demand ~pMPeak ............................ .................. ..................... 5�5-23 L/ Figure 5.6~1 Existing Visual Character ........................................... ........ ........................................ 5,6-3 Figure 5.6-2 Existing Visual Character ... ............................................................. ............................. 5.6~4 Figure 5.6-3 Existing Visual Character .................... .......... ............................................................ 5.6-5 Fimzro5.6~4 Profile and View Perspective Index Map .--^.".—.—.............................................. 5.6-11 Figure 5.6-5 Grading ProfileDiagrams: Transects /kand 8.............................................................. 5.6^l2 Figure 5.6-6 Grading 9no6lo Diagrams: Transects Cand D .................... ..................... ................... 5.6~l3 L) Figure 56`7 Elevations of Clubhouse ................................................ ..................... ................ .... ~. 5.6~25 Figure 5.7-1 Noise Levels Associated With Construction Equipment ............................ .................... 5.7^5 ) Figure 7.0-1 Existing Entitlements Alternative ........ ......................... ........................................... .... 7~4 i/ !� Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR IL l Table of Contents City of SantaClarita iii Figure 7.0-4 Mixed Use Development Alternative.... ......................... .................. ...................... ...... 7-12 Figure 7.0-3 Equestrian/Residential/Golf Course Alternative ............................................. _. ........ 7-18 ri List of Plates l� Plate 5.6-1A Existing Viewshed from Live Oak Springs Canyon Road .................................. .....::..... 5.6-16 Plate 5.6-1B Post -Project Viewshed from Live Oak Springs Canyon Road.........................................5.6-17 t- Plate 5.6-2A Existing Viewshed from Oak Spring Canyon Road curve ....... .................................. ....5.6-18 Plate 5,6-2B Post -Project Viewshed from Oak Spring Canyon Road curve........................................5.6-19 (3 Plate 5.6-3A Existing Viewshed from Oak Spring Canyon Road, comer of property line....................5.6-20 Plate 5.6-313 Post -Project Viewshed from Oak Spring Canyon Road, comer of property line ..............5.6-21 Plate 5.64A Existing Viewshed from Soledad Canyon Road.............................................................5.6-22 t �1 Plate 5.6413 Post -Project Viewshed from Soledad Canyon Road.......................................................5.6-23 List of Tables j Table 2.2-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts ........... 2-3 Table 3.4-1 Parcel and Ownership Pattern ...... ...................................... ............................................. 3-4 � Table 5.1-1 Nearby Faults and Associated Seismic Accelerations ................................ 5.1-3 J Table 5.2-1 Typicaly Pesticides Used at Golf Courses ........ ...5 2-13 Table 5.2-2 Project Water Demand..............................................:....................................................5.2-18 j Table 5.3-1 Ambient Air Quality Data at the Santa Clarita Monitoring Station . ................................. 5.3-3 Jl J Table 5.3-2 Grading Emissions During Project Development.............................................................5.3-5 Table 5.3-3 Operational Emissions Associated With Proposed Project, lbs/day..................................5.3-8 EllTable ll Occurring.4-1 Sensitive Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring at Project Site...........................5.4-7 Table 5,4-2 Existing and Post -Project Plant Communities ............................................. ....:. - ...5.4-10 tttaaa Table 5.5-1 Existing Study Area Traffic Operation...........................................................................5.5-5 ti Table 5.5-2 Projected Daily Traffic Demand ............. Table 5.5-3 Projected Peak Hour Traffic Demand ..... 5.5-9 5.5-9 Table 5.54 Trip Generation For Other Area Projects ......... ............555 15 Table 5.5-5 Summary of Future Intersection Operation Without Site Traffic 5.5-19 Table 5.5-6 Summary of Future Intersection Operation With Site Traffic 5 5-24 Table 5.7-1 Calculated CNEL Contours ................................................. ................. ,................. ....._... 5.7 8 ZAppendices ! Appendix A: Initial Study i�Appendix B: Notice of Preparation and Responses to Notice of Preparation 1 J Appendix C: Air Quality Data Appendix D: Habitat Suitability Assessment (� Appendix E: Noise Calculations (� Appendix F: Comments and Responses to Comments r� Traffic Report bound under separate cover. City of SantaClarita iii 1J r, Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 1.0 Introduction 1.0 INTRODUCTION This document is an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that evaluates the Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Courses and a corporate boundary adjustment proposal that would add 103.4 acres to the City of Santa Clarita, California. The annexation would involve rezoning of a portion of the project site from agriculture (A-1-2) under County of Los Angeles land use regulation to residential (Residential Estate - 1 RE) under City of Santa Clarita zoning regulation. The current land use of open space and natural lands would be converted to a developed open space/recreational use (golf courses) and very low density residential. 1.1 PURPOSE/LEGAL REQUIREMENTS In accordance with Section 15121 (a) of the State CEQA Guidelines (California Administrative Code, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3), the purpose of an EIR is to serve as an informational document that: ! I wi11 inform public agency decision -makers and the public generally of the significant l environmental effect of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project... The proposed project requires discretionary approval from the City of Santa Clarita and the Los Angeles County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO); therefore, it is subject to the requirements of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA - Public Resources Code, Section 21000, et.. seq.). Cl In accordance with the provisions of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Santa Clarita Department of y Community Development prepared an Initial Study on the proposed project. The Initial Study, contained in Appendix A, determined that the proposed project could result in significant adverse effects on the r r environment and, therefore, an EIR is required. This EIR addresses both site-specific and cumulative impacts of the proposed project in accordance with the provisions set forth in the State CEQA Guidelines. The focus of this EIR is to address potentially significant environmental issues identified in the City's Initial Study and to recommend feasible mitigation measures, where possible, that reduce or eliminate significant environmental impacts. 1.2 SCOPE AND CONTENT (� An Initial Study on the proposed project was prepared in June 1995 (Appendix A). Public comments on the j J project were solicited through a Notice of Preparation (NOP), circulated for review from April 17 to May 23 1995, and a Public Scoping Meeting on July 12 with approximately 35 people in attendance (Appendix B). (� The Initial Study and written NOP responses formed the basis for the technical analysis in this EIR This EIR l l addresses both the project specific and cumulative environmental impacts that can be expected to result from the implementation of the development and annexation and rezoning actions, in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines. The EIR also recommends technically feasible mitigation measures, where necessary, that t J would reduce or eliminated significant environmental effects. The following issues are addressed in this document: City of Santa Clarita 1-1 �1 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 1.0 Introduction l! • .Earth Resources (Geology, Soils, Seismic Hazards, Slope Stability) • Hydrology, Drainage, Water • Air Quality • Biology • Transportation/Ctrculation • Aesthetics (Landform Modification, Hillside Development) • Noise A discussion of potential growth -inducing impacts of the project is also provided. The alternatives section of this EIR is prepared in accordance with Section 15126(d) of the Guidelines. This section describes a range of -' reasonable alternatives that could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the proposed project or are a reasonable use of the land, and are capable of eliminating or reducing some of the significant 1 p g g gnificant adverse environmental effects associated with the project. The Draft EIR was circulated to local and state agencies and to interested individuals and organizations for review and comment on the contents of the EIR. This EIR has been revised in response to written comments received during the public review period (September 29, 1995 to November 13, 1995) and verbal comments during Planning Commission Hearings on the project. Comments and responses to comments are contained in Appendix F of this EIR.. Revisions to the Draft EIR text are marked in this EIR by a vertical line on the outside of the text such as accompanies this paragraph. 1.3 LEAD, RESPONSIBLE, AND TRUSTEE AGENCIES Section 16281 of the State CEQA Guidelines defines a "responsible agency" as: "a public agency which proposes to carry out or approve a project; for which a Lead rj Agency is preparing or has prepared an EIR or Negatiive Declaration.. For purposes of �J CEQA; responsible agencies include all public agencies other than the lead agency that have discretionary approval authority over the project " fj The City of Santa Clarita is considered the lead agency for the proposed project because it would be responsible for the primary permit approvals that would allow development. Because annexation of the 103A acres would require discretionary approval of the proposed boundary adjustment by the Los Angeles County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), LAFCO is a responsible agency. The site is outside the jurisdictional boundaries of the County Sanitation Districts and will require annexation to District No. 26 before sewerage service can be provided to the site; therefore the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County is also a responsible agency. The California Department of Fish and Came is entrusted by the state with responsibility over the natural resources within the state and is a trustee agency under Section 15386 of the State CEQA Guidelines with respect to the plant and animal resources of the site. Fir City of Santa Clarita 1-2 it I U U F �l lj 5 P Q 1.J I Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 1.0 Introduction 1.4 PROJECT HISTORY The proposed project involves the assemblage of four adjacent parcels to provide sufficient land area for the proposed development. The following provides information on the past history of the parcels. The northwest comer of the project site (17.1 acres) adjacent to Sand Canyon Road was approved for development into 10 single family lots with A-1-1 zoning (TTM 45148) in August 1990. Of the 62 oak trees identified at this location, 15 were to be removed, with the developer proposing to relocate 13 of the 15 removed during development. Grading for this development was limited to about 10,000 cubic yards. The western to middle part of the site formerly included 137 acres within the original Hunters Green development, an equestrian -oriented subdivision of residential estates which was approved for 70 single family homes on March 27, 1990 (TTM 47324). This development was prezoned to A-1-1 and A-1-2 and was also annexed into the City in 1990 under Annexation 89-03, The tentative tract map would have required grading of 500,000 cubic yards and the removal of 32 oak trees from a total of 225 within its property boundaries. A 20 acre parcel that would have contained approximately 12 lots along the north property boundary has been removed from the current development along with a 0.6 acre parcel along the south property line that contained a portion of a lot. This land area has been partially replaced by the addition of a 10 acre parcel in the middle of the current proposed development that would contain holes Nos. 11 and 12 of the western golf course. The square-shaped parcel of 160 acres located in the northeast portion of the project site was previously owned by Prime West, Inc., which received an entitlement to 140 single-family homes under the current zoning of A-1-1 (TTM 47803). This property was annexed into the City in 1990 under Annexation 89- 04, The Annexation Agreement contained several conditions regarding infrastructure improvements before any building permits were to be issued, including road paving, an undercrossing of the railroad, and new water system. Development of the site was to include channeling Oak Spring Canyon Creek and grading of approximately 460,000 cubic yards. Of the 205 oak trees with diameters greater than 8 inches, 18 were to be removed along with six dead trees (snags). An additional 28 live oaks and three dead trees with diameters less than 8 inches were to be removed from a total of 42 trees. Total grading for the above three developments would be about 980,000 cubic yards. The fourth parcel is the triangular shaped area of 103.4 acres located in the southeastern portion of the project site. This parcel is currently outside of the City and is an unrecorded part of Griffin Homes Tract No. 46364 (a unit of Tract 32571) in the County of Los Angeles. The map has since expired on this portion of the project site. Tract 32571 included the clustering of units on the western side of the tract, with the overall lot average meeting General Plan and zoning designations. The two large lots that were in the 103,4 acre area were restricted to one unit each. Based on the County of Los Angeles Department of Regional Planning, part of the intent of the clustering of Tract 32571 was to provide a substantial buffer between most of the residences in the tract and the adjacent mining operations in the Angeles National Forest. 1-3 ary or sanra utanta ("1 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR L}I Section 2.0 Summary 1J 2.0 SUMMARY (� This section is divided into three components, The first summarizes the characteristics of the proposed project; the second identifies the environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and residual impacts associated with the project and cumulative development, and the third describes the alternatives assessed in the EIR. lJ 2.1 PROJECT SYNOPSIS 2.1.1 Project Applicant J Hunters Green Development Corporation (J 16095A Live Oaks Springs Canyon Road t 2 Santa Clarita, CA 91351 2.1.2 Project Description The proposed development includes the construction of two 18 -hole golf courses, clubhouse, lighted driving range, and parking lot on a 411 acre site.The 123 acre residential portion of the project includes pad grading for 83 single-family residential lots, which would be accessed via both public and private roadways. Private roadways would serve 76 residences within a gated community. The lots would be sold on an individual basis with residential structures constructed later by the future property owners. Total construction grading is balanced on the site at 2.2 million cubic yards of cut and fill. Access to the site would be provided via Sand Canyon Road and Live Oak Springs Canyon Road. Additional new I infrastructure would include two water reservoir (tank) sites to be built for the applicant and given to the Santa Clara Water Company. The 103.4 acre southeast portion of the project site would be annexed into f the City. �! The proposed project requires the approval of Master Case No. 95-049, which includes: l� • Zone Change 95-001 (PD Zone), • Vesting Tentative Tract Map 077M 52004), Q• Conditional Use Permit (CUP 95-003), • Oak Tree Permit (07P 95-009), • Hillside Review (95-002), • Development Agreement (DA 95-004), and • Development Review (DR 95-004); along with a a• Pre -Zone (PZ 95-001) and Annexation (AN 95-001) for a portion of the project site. The Oak Tree Permit would be for the removal of up to 138 scrub oaks and 130 coast live oaks, including up to seven (7) heritage oaks. (, City of Santa Clarita 2-1 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 2.0 Summary 2.2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MPTIGATION MEASURES Table 2.2-1 includes a brief description of the environmental issues relative to the proposed project, the identified environmental impacts, proposed mitigation measures, and residual impacts. Impacts are categorized by their level of significance after mitigation. The following briefly categorizes the identified impacts and the categories are also shown in Table 2.2-1 by the appropriate abbreviation following the effect statement. Please note that different effects within any particular issue area can fall within a different impact category. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts (US) are defined as significant, unavoidable adverse impacts which require a statement of overriding considerations to be issued per Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines if the project is approved. Based on the analysis contained herein, the following impacts have been determined to fall within this impact category. Air Quality: Pollutant emissions during grading and operations Biolog,: Substantial decrease in locally and regionally significant sensitive communities and to sensitive wildlife species Aesthetics: Irreversibly alter a City -identified secondary ridgeline Noise: High noise levels during construction grading Significant but Mitigable Impacts (S) are significant adverse impacts that can be feasibly mitigated to less than significant levels and which require findings to be made under Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The following impacts have been determined to be significant but mitigable given the measures identified herein. Earth Resources: Destabilization of slopes and landslides during grading, settlement of fill material, strong ground -shaking during seismic events, liquefaction near drainages, and hydroconsolidation of fill Hydrology: Erosion of disturbed soils during grading, exposure of residences to I00 -year flood, relocation of dirt road may make it impassible, and decrease in surface and groundwater quality Traffic: Periodic traffic congestion if spectator golf tournaments are held, signalization warrant at Sand CanyonlLost Canyon intersection, and need for left turn lane on Sand Canyon Road at site entry and Live Oak Springs Carryon Road to reduce potential safety problems Aesthetics: Light and glare from golf course Less Than Significant Impacts (NS) are those effects that have been determined to not be significant because they do not exceed the thresholds for such a determination. The following issues have been determined to be less than significant. Earth Resources.: Ground rupture and decrease in potential to exploit known 'significant mineral deposits" located onsite Hydrology: Change in site runoffpatterns and water demand of project City of Santa Clarita 2-2 r� L; r L 1j LJ I� r� 0 0 n {, Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR ll J; Section 2.0 Summary I J Air Quality: Exposure to Sam Joaquin Valley fever during construction grading hydroconsolidation, and destabilization ofslopes by grading. Seismic hazards include ground shaking, surface rupture, Biology: Impacts to sensitive plants and effects on regional wildlife corridors or habitat L during an earthquake. Engineered mitigation measures are to be used to reduce these hazards to an acceptable level of linkages Oak Spring Canyon. Traffic. Increased traffic at local intersections, along the freeway and Scud Canyon Road, Residual Impact Effect ER -1 Grading of the site need for signalization at site accesses, safety effects along Sand Canyon Rare Proper engineering of the slopes has the potential to create conflict with Comet Wary intersection cut slopes should mitigate Aesthetics: Change in scenic vistars from public viewing areas, design features of proposed this effect to less than sig - structures, D Noise. Noise from adjacent quarry on proposed residences project traffic noise, noise created by golf course patrons I Fj P hi Pi lJ D I I 0 0 0 Beneficial Effects are those effects of the project that are considered to be potentially beneficial to the local community. Provision of additional housing and recreational opportunities. Stabilization of steep erosional slopes and subsequent decrease in peak storm flows Table 2.2-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts EAR7IfZFpSfJfIRCS Earth resources concerns geological and seismic hazards to which the new residents and golf course users maybe exposed due to development of this project. Geological hazards in the area include liquefaction, landslides;, hydroconsolidation, and destabilization ofslopes by grading. Seismic hazards include ground shaking, surface rupture, liquefaction, and subsidence. Significant hazards identified for the proposed development include: cut slopes having the potential offailure,. activation of landslides by removing supporting material during or following grading, settlement of fill, liquefaction ofsoils, hydrocompaction of soils, and the possibility that insufficiently compacted soils could subside during an earthquake. Engineered mitigation measures are to be used to reduce these hazards to an acceptable level of risk. The project would also insignificantly reduce the potential availability of "significant mineral resources"found in Oak Spring Canyon. Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact Effect ER -1 Grading of the site ER -1 The Uniform Building Code (UBC) pertaining Proper engineering of the slopes has the potential to create to cut and fill shall be followed. Engineering cut slopes should mitigate destabilized cut slopes. (S) considerations are to include design of drainage back this effect to less than sig - slopes, drainage downslope channels, and buttressing nificant. unstable slopes. The buttressing is to involve the proper placement of compacted fill material, compacted to the UBC specifications for such an application. Effect ER -2 Cutting slopes and ER -2(a) All slopes are to be constructed per the Through the proper design, re -emplacement of fill material requirements of the UBC pertaining to cut slopes. implementation, and would leave slope faces exposed to This engineering is to include terraces with drainage maintenance of the slopes extensive erosion. This erosion back slopes (drainage keys), downspouts, and proper and drainage features and has the potential to destabilize surfacing of the drainage backslo es. Maintenance of the use of BMPs, erosional City of Santa Clarita 2-3 f� Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR_ I_i Section 2.0 Summary L. Table 2.2-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Mitt ation Measures Residual Impact slopes and impede the proper the drainage keys is to include removal of debris effects can be reduced to drainage of the area. (S) before the beginning of the rainy season and periodic less than significant_ debris removal as necessary during the rainy season. ER -2(b) A proper watering system, such as drip irrigation, shall be established for site cut slopes to minimize the volume of water during the establishment of the vegetation, thus reducing the potential of erosion during this period. Effect ER -3 This project includes ER -3(a) Fill density shall follow UBC. If the fill Through proper design and the extensive use of fill material to material does not meet the strength and compaction implementation, this effect construct the golf course and requirements the material shall be rejected and used can be reduced to not building pads for residences., The elsewhere on the property, such as in the golf course significant. fill has the potential to settle (or construction- All adverse vegetation shall be removed rebound) under the weight of the from the fill prior to emplacement. Fill lifts and house built upon it, from compaction testing shall be per UBC and signed off by landscape irrigation, from the supervising geologist or engineer. swimming pools constructed, and from seismic shaking. (S) ER -3(b) Areas across the cut/fill line shall be well documented and disclosed to the purchaser of the lot involved. This disclosure will allow subsequent property modification, such as the construction of a swimming pool, to consider the possibility of differential setting of the lot. Effect ER -4 Grading will expose ER4 Per City requirements, grading is not to be Proper timing and design barren soils that are performed during the rainy period (October l to April of the grading schedule unconsolidated and easily eroded, 15) unless the grading plans include provisions to should mitigate this effect which can result in extensive mitigate erosion, flooding, or the deposition of to not significant. offsite transport of eroded material sediment or debris. Grading performed during the rest during storm events and impact of the year should contain a provision for dust drainage channels with a sediment suppression. load. (S) Effect ER -5 Known landslides ER -5 Landslides and debris flows are to be stabilized Proper stabilization or and debris flows are located near or removed. Stabilization or removal should be removal of these features and on residential lots and performed under the direction of a competent engineer would eliminate these movement of these earth masses or geologist. geologic hazards. could damage structures. (S) Effect ER -6 Strong seismically ER -6 Placement of fill material and compaction shall Through proper design, the induced ground shaking will occur be done to withstand settling that could occur with effects of an earthquake at this site. The ground shaking seismic ground shaking. Landslides, unstable rock can be reduced to an has the potential to cause fill slopes and debris flows shall be stabilized to prevent acceptable level of risk. material to settle, destabilize movement during or following an earthquake. City of Santa Clarita 2-4 ll �_l i i l.J F '_j U I D Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 2.0 Summary li lj [1 I [_.l IJ Fil U n 0 U 0 11 D U Table 2.2-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Miti ation Measures Residual Impact slopes, and cause physical damage to structures, property, utilities, road access, and humans. S Effect ER -7 Active and None necessary. However, if during grading faults are At present, ground rupture potentially active faults have been observed that could be active or potentially active, the is considered an insignifi- mapped within the City limits that project design shall be modified to account for the cant impact for this site. have the potential to cause ground possibility of ground rupture. Fault setbacks, per rupture. (NS) UBC, shall be followed. Effect ER -8. Certain portions of ER -8 If liquefiable soils are encountered during With proper design and the site near local drainages have grading, then proper re-engineering of the soils shall notification, this effect the potential to liquefy during be performed or the proposed structures moved to would not be considered seismic conditions, which can areas away from liquefiable soils. Areas of properties significant. result in damage to overlying that have the potential of liquefaction should be structures. (S) identified, and purchasers of these lots should be told of the liquefaction potential. Effect ER -9 Hydro -consolidation ER -9 The potential for hydroconsolidation shall be Through proper design and of soils occurs when groundwater further examined in the detailed geotechnical report to notification, this effect can causes soils to recompact, be prepared for the final grading plan. If there is a be reduced to not signifi- resulting in settling of the risk of hydroconsolidation, the earth materials are to cant. material. (S) be re -engineered to reduce this risk, or the proposed structures relocated to an area without the potential of hydroconsolidation. Areas of a lot that have the potential of hydroconsolidation that is not mitigated shall be identified, and property purchasers be notified of the risk of hydroconsolidation. Effect ER -10 Project would ER -10 None necessary since the avaliable supply of The potential loss of ag- develop an area designated as sand and gravel would not be substantially reduced by gregrate resources because "significant mineral deposits" and the proposed project. of the land use change is prevent the exploitation of this considered adverse, but not natural resource for at least the significant. foreseeable future. (NS) FAY!)Rt1k.(if,>zI`'ItIi.47tYAC,I: if'9?iiR . The eastern portion of the property lies within the floodplain of Oak Spring Creek and one of the proposed gotfcourses would lie within this regulatoryjloodway, but none ofthe residences would be affected. The western slope golf course and Lots Nos. I & 4 contain the stream channel jar Live Oak Springs Canyon Creek and the golf course and Lots Nos. 1-8 tie within the shallow flooding zone of the creek. Current planning by the LACFCD includes construction of a debris basin along the western property boundary this would decrease existing flooding problems downstream of the debris basin and along Sand Canyon Road. Mitigation is necessary for those residential lots that would continue to be exposed to shallow flooding. Construction of the proposed project could result in excessive erosion and downstream sedimentation during the construction phase: implementation of Best Management Practices as required by the NPDES permit required far the project would minimize this effect. The site drainage concept appears adequate to handle the ,expected site runoff, and is not expected to cause any increases in existing downstream oodin . However, the relocation 2-5 City of Santa Clarity Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 2.0 Summary Table 2.2-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts of the access easement along the north property line in Oak Spring Canyon could create an impassable condition during adverse weather and the road grade shall be reduced or an all-weather surface installed The change inland use could result in decreased surface water and groundwater quality; a Best Management Practice Plan and Integrated Pest Management Plan that include specific physical structures and programs to reduce the potential for reductions in water quality shall be required Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact Effect D-1 During construction of D-1 A SVR -AP for site construction shall be developed prior No significant water the proposed development, the soil to the initiation of grading and implemented throughout the quality impacts surface will be disrupted and construction phase. The SWMP shall include spec during construction become subject to erosion, with temporary BMPs to control the export of material from the are anticipated after potential offsite sedimentation of site and into the local drainages. BMP methods may implementation of eroded material. (S) include, but would not be limited to, the use of temporary appropriate BMPs. sediment basins, hay bales, sand bagging, and soil stabilizers. Additional BMWs shall be implemented for any fuel storage or fuel handling that could occur on-site during the construction phase. Permanent BMPs may include extensive revegetation and construction of pollutant trapping devices. Effect D-2 Exposure of future D-2 Potential purchasers of Lots Nos. 1-8 shall be notified No significant residences and property to the 100- of the flood hazard existing along these lots and the current residual impacts are year flood. (S) status of flood control improvement efforts. Housing sites anticipated regarding shall comply with requirements of the local floodplain the 100 year flood. management ordinance. These requirements include the The FIRM maps for location of building pads above the estimated 100 -year flood Oak Spring Canyon elevation. No certificate of occupancy shall be issued for should be corrected these residences until adequate mitigation of the flood to indicate the post - hazard at the individual sites has been met to the project 100 -year satisfaction of the City Director of Community Development floodplain. and the City Engineer. Effect D-3 Change in runoff D-3 No mitigation is necessary. No significant patterns from the site would alter environmental effects the potential for on-site and are anticipated downstream flooding. (NS) provided that the drainage system is adequately designed and constructed. Effect D4 Rerouting of the D4 As pan of the final grading design, the road shall be The recomended easement road along the north designed with a maximum slope of 10% and improved with measure would property line would expose the decomposed granite. Alternatively, portions of the road eliminate the access road to steep slopes and erosion, steeper than 10% shall be paved per Fire Department access problem caused by making this road impassable in requirements. the project and poor weather. (S) reduce that effect to an acceptable level. r� LJ n lJ l� fn, City of Santa Clarita 2-6 `1 J Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR USection 2.0 Summary U U P U r P U L) I LTJ 0 n I Table 2.2-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Mitt ation Measures Residual Impact To reduce existing wash-out conditions, the road would need an all-weather crossing installed where Oak Canyon exits the site. Effect D-5 Decrease in the quality D -5(a) A Best Management Practices Plan and Integrated The proposed project of surface water and groundwater Pest Management Plan shall be prepared for implementation would result in a associated with change in land use by the golf course. The purpose of both plans would be to decrease in the from open space to residential and reduce the use of harmful chemicals onsite, and to reduce amount of sediment golf course land use. (S) the potential offsite movement of high concentrations of loading produced by sediment, salts, excessive nutrients, and chemicals. the site to local drainages. Effective D -5(b) Construct an oil and grease trap within the catch implementation of a basin for the clubhouse parking lot and/or construct a Best Management perimeter infiltration trench. The catch basin shall include Practices plan during a trap that prevents floatables from discharging with the construction and an drainage water. The golf course operator shall be Integrated Pest Man - responsible for monitoring and periodically cleaning out the agement plan during catch basin. operations would reduce the potential D -5(c) A groundwater monitoring well shall be installed for water quality near the north property line near the maintenance yard and impacts to a less than another well installed along Live Oak Springs Canyon significant level. Creek near the 6th fairway. The wells shall be sampled on a The groundwater quarterly basis for a minimum of three years, and then monitoring wells annually for an additional seven years for a total of 10 years, would be used to with the sampling reports sent to the City and the Regional determine compli- Water Quality Control Board. Constituents sampled for will ance and the effec- include nitrate, phosphate and any pesticides applied to the tiveness of proposed golf courses. An initial well sample shall be taken at management activi- completion of grading, but before the installation of ties and to determine landscape vegetation. if any unexpected water quality effects occur to the local groundwater. Effect D-6 Decrease in the available D-6 None necessary. The project is expected potable water supply and the supply to result in less than of groundwater for local private significant impacts on wells. (NS) the provision of water supply in the area, provided that groundwater resources are not contaminated City of Santa Clarita 2-7 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 2.0 Summary Table 2.2-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts City of Santa Clarks 2-8 by project actions ( see Effect D-5 above). The open space and agricultural uses at the project site currently generate minimal amounts of localized dust emissions. Construction of the proposed development would result in significant and unavoidable air pollutant emissions during the construction phase and significant project -related and cumulative air quality impacts during long term operation of the facility. Mitigation measures available during construction would reduce fugitive dust emissions to below threshold levels, but nitrogen oxides emissions are not mitigable to below thresholds. Measures to reduce operational impacts include the use of electric golf carts, compliance with the City's TDM ordinance, and incorporation of energy efficient designs. These measures would not be sufficient to reduce daily emissions below the SCA QMD threshold guidelines. Impact Alitigation Measures Residual Impact Effect AQ -1 Construction of the AQ-I(a) Water trucks shall be used during construction to The dust control proposed development could result keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent measures are consid- in exceedance of recommended dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this will require ered adequate to re - significance thresholds. (US) twice daily applications (once in late morning and once at duce the cumulative end of workday). Increased watering is required whenever impact of construe - wind speed exceeds 15 mph. Grading should be suspended tion dust emissions if wind gusts exceed 25 mph. and project specific emissions of PM1O AQ -1(b) Amount of disturbed area should be minimized are below the and onsite vehicle speeds should be reduced to 15 mph or threshold level. NO, less, emissions cannot be effectively reduced. AQ -1(c) If importation, exportation and stockpiling of fill Because of the material is involved, soil with 5% or greater silt content that amount of grading is stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept necessary to con - moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust struct the project as generation. Trucks transporting material shall be tarped proposed, and the from the point of origin or shall maintain at least two feet of efficiencies associ- freeboard. ated with using enough equipment to AQ -1(d) After clearing, grading, earth -moving or grade the site in an excavation is completed, the disturbed shall be treated by economical and watering, or revegetation, or by spreading soil binders until effective manner, the area is paved or otherwise developed- Specifically, the significant short term residential lots shall be revegetated with a non-invasive air quality impacts cover until they are sold. that cannot be reduced below threshold levels dur- ing construction are anticipated. Effect AQ -2 Dust generated AQ -2 None required other than standard dust control This impact would during construction could expose measures during construction grading. remain less than construction workers and adjacent significant. residences to San Joaquin Valley Fever. (NS) City of Santa Clarks 2-8 !<J (1 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR IL JI Section 2.0 Summary L U P Ll 0 O D D 1J n 5 Table 2.2-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Mitt ation Measures Residual Impact Effect AQ -3 Future mobile and AQ -3(a) Golf carts for the project site shall be electric only. Emission reductions stationary emissions associated associated with these with the proposed residential land AQ -3(b) The applicant shall comply with the City's measures are use and two golf courses may Transportation Demand Management ordinance to reduce expected to be less result in exceedances of trips and, subsequently, air pollutant emissions, than 5% of the significance thresholds. (US) project's daily AQ -3(c) Incorporate energy-saving design solutions in the emissions of CO, clubhouse to reduce energy consumption by at least 20 ROC and NO,. No percent below current Federal guidelines as specified in other mitigation Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations. measures available appear sufficient or feasible to further reduce project associated emissions below the thresholds. BTULflGY' Natural communities at the project site include chaparral and alluvial fan scrub vegetation, with an overlay of oaks that form pockets of woodland in the ruderal portions of the Sand Canyon drainage and adjacent to the main flow channels of the Oak Spring Canyon alluvial fan. The project site generally lacks wetland communities except for some retention basins, but the riparian community of alluvial fan scrub is considered sensitive because ofstate-wide declines in this community type. The proposed project would cause a significant and unavoidable reduction in the local extent of this community. The revegetation and golfcourse landscaping plan proposed by the applicant would increase the amount of wetland communities within the project site and restore scrub communities on slopes at the edges of the development, but overall net value of onsite habitats would be decreased about 57%. No listed rare, threatened, or endangered plant or animal species are known to occur at the project site, nor are any expected.. Two sensitive plant species, Peirson's morning-glory and Plummer's mariposa -lily, are found infrequently onsite; project impacts to the regional population of these species are not considered significant. A total of 28 sensitive animals are known or probably utilize the habitats available at the site, project development would result in locally significant declines in several of these species' populations. Mitigation measures are recommended for species where implementation of the golf course revegetation plan can aid in maintaining populations onsite. However, a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact is expected to occur to coast homed lizard and rufous -crowned sparrow populations. Impact Mitt ation Measures Residual Impact Effect B-1 Project development Beyond substantial reductions in the size of the project, no In the long term, the would reduce the amount of plant mitigation measures are available to effectively reduce the implementation of and wildlife habitat available at cumulatively significant impact of losses to biologically the golf course the site. Substantial decreases in sensitive communities and general habitat that currently revegetation plan and locally and regionally significant exists at the site. The following measures are, in part, long term biologically sensitive communities incorporated into the draft revegetation plan for the site and maintenance of the would also occur. (US) are recommended for inclusion in the conditions of approval golf course to foster for the project if it is approved. some wildlife habitat would serve to reduce B -1(a) The proposed project will be required to comply the adverse environ - with the conditions of the oak tree permit. This shall mental effects of include the payment of the equivalent value fees for removed 1 project development. 2-9 city of Santa Clanta Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 2.0 Summary Table 2.2-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Im act Mitigation Measures Residual Im act and transplanted trees, with onsite plantings of oaks credited The project would against the fee. The biological monitoring plan shall substantially increase include specific monitoring of onsite oak tree plantings for a the amount of period of two years after completion of site development and wetland -type com- landscaping. At the end of two years, all oaks shall be munities on the site, checked for health conditions compared to before project but these gains are implementation and any trees observed to be declining in offset by the losses to health shall be monitored for an additional three years. other communities. Specific recommendations for preservation of declining Therefore, this oaktrees shall also be made. Oak trees that die in the impact would remain natural areas between the fairways shall be replaced on an significant and equivalent value basis. The dead trees shall be left standing immitigable, to provide cavity nesting areas for birds and roosts for raptors unless they present a safety hazard or a disease hazard to other oaks., B -1(b) At least 50% in aggregate of the shoreline edge of the golf course lakes shall be revegetated with native freshwater marsh elements. B -1(c) Proposed fairway roughs shall be revegetated with native perennial bunch grasses at a mix of 2:1 to non-native species. These roughs shall be maintained as native perennial grasslands unless after three years of effort, it is shown that such revegetation would be unsuccessful, B -1(d) The Integrated Pest Management plan proposed for the project shall be prepared in accordance with the current practices advised by the Statewide Integrated Pest Management Project, University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. B -1(e) The slope revegetation and fire clearance zone shall be initially planted only with native species. Limit fire hazard fuel modification to hand -thinning of individual shrubs, clearing dead fuel, "multi -cutting," replanting with fire-resistant native shrubs or other methods to attain fire safety while producing a biologically viable community. Effect B-2 Project No mitigation measures are necessary, but the following is Project development implementation may reduce the recommended. would reduce the population and available habitat amount of habitat for sensitive plant species. (NS) B -2(a) Seed collection and plant salvaging efforts for the available for Peirson's morning-glory shall be attempted in chaparral Peirson's morning - areas prior to site mass grading. The purpose of such glory and Plummer's collection would be to re-establish the plant within the scrub mariposa -lily. revegetation zone - 2 -10 City of Santa ClaWt-a C� �I. �lII LJ lJ E I� t I� Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 2.0 Summary ri U E LJ D 0 tJ I I I 0 I Table 2.2-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Mid ation Measures Residual Impact B -2(b) The location of Plummer's mariposa -lilies shall be marked during the spring flowering period, with the bulbs dug up in the late fall to winter for transplanting before the heavy winter rains of January through March. The purpose of such collection would be to re-establish the plant within the scrub revegetation zone and the revegetated roughs or possible relocation into the remaining native habitats. Effect B-3 Future development of B -3(a) Construction workers shall be notified through Because 84% of the the residential and golf course uses preconstruction meetings that a variety of sensitive wildlife site would be graded may affect sensitive fish and are present at the site and that they shall not willfully harm and a net loss of wildlife resources at the site. (US) any species, especially snakes and other reptiles. During the approximately 60% construction meeting, the proper method of moving snakes of available habitat from construction zones shall be illustrated. would occur, the impact to the coast B -3(b) Include creation and maintenance of freshwater homed lizard and the marsh habitat along the margins of the golf course lakes to rufous -crowned increase the potential for recovery of two -striped garter sparrow cannot be snake, mountain kingsnake, and western spadefoot toad mitigated to less than populations in the project vicinity. significant levels. B -3(c) The clawed frogs could potentially invade the proposed golf course takes and decrease potential habitat values. To avoid this, these ponds shall be drained prior to construction and filling of the proposed lakes. During the draining, the frogs shall be caught with netting or by other means and killed. At the same time as the frogs are netted, two -striped garter snakes and any other sensitive species in the ponds shall be captured. The native animals shall be maintained until the golf course lakes are filled and native vegetation is installed along the banks, at which time, the snakes and other sensitive species shall be released into the new habitat. B -3(d) A capture and off-site relocation plan shall be developed for the San Diego homed lizard. Such a plan would include the scouring of the north portion of the alluvial fan scrub to capture horned lizards and the identification of suitable unoccupied habitat to which they could be relocated. B -3(e) Install swallow boxes in the retained natural areas between the fairways as pari of the Integrated Pest Management plan for the site. Also consider the installation of bat boxes to be located at least 800 feet from residential areas.. 2-11 City of Santa Clarita Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 2.0 Summary Table 2.2-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Mitt ation Measures Residual Impact Effect B4 Development of the No mitigation measures are required. The revcgetation of No significant project could cause an indirect and portions of the site as proposed under the revegetation plan impacts relative to cumulative impact to regional fish will serve to preserve the golf course as an area that provides animal movement are and wildlife resources because of sufficient food, water, and cover to allow larger, more expected to be caused the interruption of wildlife mobile animals to move through the site without major by the proposed de - corridors or habitat linkages. (NS) restrictions. velopment, and the golf course revegetation would serve to preserve the options available to large mobile wildlife to move between areas. TIi4NSPQiLT 27tJNICIRCilLr4Tlt?N . .z The proposed development would generate about 3,800 vehicles per day on Sand Canyon Road. Traffic impacts of the project were analyzed at six intersections in the site area and on the Antelope Valley Freeway. With the existing roadway design, an acceptable level oftraffic operation would occur with full site development at all study locations except the northbound Sand Canyon off -ramp of the Antelope Valley Freeway. A planned Caltrans bridge improvement project will improve the level ofservice at this intersection to an acceptable operation., Consequently, no roadway improvements are required for the existing road system to adequately serve project -related traffic. It is recommended that a southbound left turn lane be installed on Sand Canyon Road at the main site entrance And at Live Oak Springs Canyon Road to facilitate turning movements and maximize safety. Ifspectalor tournament goffevenis are held at the site; an event specific traffic control plan is required. Cumulative and project traffic would combinewith existing heavy west approach traffic at the Sand Canyon and Lost Canyon Roads intersection to warrant signalization of this intersection. Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact Effect T-1 Additional traffic T-1 The timing of the proposed project shall be conditioned The Sand Canyon associated with the project and based on the timing of the proposed bridge improvements. Bridge and ramp at cumulative projects may alter the This would avoid potentially significant cumulative impacts the Antelope Valley current level of service at associated with this facility. Freeway is projected intersections within the study area. to operate at a very (NS) poor level of service during the evening peak hour (LOS F) with the existing bridge and ramp configuration. When the bridge and ramp are widened, the intersection operations would be within the minimum acceptable level for freeway ramps. The west approach at Sand Canyon and City of Santa Clarita 2.12 fl Li �J C1 11 fl l� (J F1, i (l Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR L)I Section 2.0 Summary lJ !_J L I tI U I 0 I n 0 0 Table 2.2-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Mitt ation Measures Residual Impact Lost Canyon Roads intersection would be congested immediately after the end of the school day. Effect T-2 The proposed project None necessary. Operations along the would generate additional traffic Antelope Valley along the Antelope Valley Freeway would Freeway. (NS) remain generally at current levels after project added traffic. Effect T-3 The additional project None necessary. The higher volume of traffic may cause Sand Canyon traffic may expose Road to exceed its capacity. (NS) undetermined areas of safety conflicts along Sand Canyon Road. Consequently, the accident characteristics of the road should be monitored by the City to identify any possible future problem areas: Effect T4 Cumulative and T4 A traffic signal as warranted should be installed for the After installation of project traffic may require Sand Canyon and Lost Canyon Roads intersection by the the signal, traffic on signali7ation at the Sand Canyon applicant. A reimbursement mechanism shall be created so the west approach and Lost Canyon Roads that future additional traffic will pay a fair share portion of would no longer be intersection to provide for safe the cost of this traffic signal. congested during the turning movements and adequate after-school off-peak levels of service. (S) period. Effect T-5 Traffic associated with T-5 A traffic control plan shall be instituted for each Spectator tournament special events at the golf course spectator golf tournament event that shall include at a events could cause may create periodic local traffic minimum: periodic high congestion. (S) congestion on area • the number of traffic control officers; access routes. • the location and time period of control; • contingency plans for emergency vehicles; and • parking restrictions/controls on residential streets. Traffic control officers can respond to most of the traffic issues associated with a spectator golf tournament of short city of santa cianta 2-13 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR_. Section 2.0 Summary Table 2.2-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Im acr Mitt ation Measures Residual Impact duration. A second option could utilize a system of trams and remote parking areas to minimize the number of vehicles on Sand Canyon Road. Specific requirements should be established for individual tournaments and should be matched to the expected conditions that are likely to be e caused by the specific tournament. Effect T-6 The project access None necessary, Site access Points may require signalization to intersections are provide for safe turning expected to operate movements and adequate levels of adequately. service. (NS) Effect T-7 Project traffic added to None necessary, No significant traffic Sand Canyon Road may result in conflicts on Sand additional accidents because of Canyon Road are limited sight distances and anticipated. relatively high speeds. (NS) Effect T-8 The new project access None necessary. No significant traffic roadway intersection on Sand conflicts are Canyon may create turning anticipated. movement conflicts with the Comet Way intersection to the north, (NS) Effect T-9 Left turning T -9(a) A short left turn lane, about 50 feet long, with a 400 This effect would not movements into access routes to foot transition is recommended at the main site entrance to be significant after the site may create traffic minimize conflicts with turning traffic, mitigation congestion and safety conflicts due recommendations are to backing up of traffic. (S) T -9(b) A left turn lane shall be striped on Sand Canyon implemented. The Road at the entrance to Live Oak Springs Canyon Road to left turn lane and minimize the potential for accidents. transition area can be accomplished within the existing and post - project right-of-way improvements for Sand Canyon Road. Aesthetics examines the potential of the proposed project to alter the visual environment of the subject site. The analysis considers the change in viewsheds available from public areas, such as roadway corridors, and also considers the potential far the proposed project to contribute to new lighting or glare in the vicinity of the subject site. Finally, the design of the proposed clubhouse is compared to the current urban design character of the area. The substantial amount ofgrading proposed for the project would result in major changes to the natural topography ofhill portions of the ro erty, and this alteration would conflict with City policiesfor rid efine preservation and hillside development. This 2-14 City of Santa Clarita r� L! J 0 G H (`) Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR IL JI Section 2.0 Summary L� C 11 0 0 0 I I Ill Table 2.2-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts conflict is considered a significant and unavoidable impact of the project as currently designed. Potential light and glare impacts have also been identified which can be adequately mitigated with design controls. Impact Mitt ation Measures Residual Impact Effect AES -1 The proposed AES -1(a) The applicant shall comply with the Hillside Plan Though the trans - project would irreversibly alter the Review/Permit Requirements as established in the Uniform formation of the landform profile of the subject site, Development Code. Any recommendations forthcoming topography through changing its aesthetic character. from the Community Development Director, as provided for grading would gen- Some of the modifications may in Section 17.89.030 of the Code shall be implemented. erally adhere to the conflict with the City's Ridgeline City's guidelines, the Preservation and Hillside AES -1(b) If grading leads to exposure of low cohesion modification of a Development Ordinance, (US) sandy soils four feet or greater in height, slopes shall be City -identified Sec - protected with jute matting and landscaping to the ondary Ridgeline satisfaction of the City Engineer. would represent a significant unavoid- AES-1(c) If grading leads to exposure of bedrock or hard- able impact. pack soils which resist revegetation, landscaping shall be implemented through the excavation of plant holes in a random pattern with an average of five feet on center. Plantings shall come from the palette included in the City's Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance or as otherwise approved for the site. Effect AES -2 The proposed The proposed project includes a detailed revegetation plan The proposed project development has the potential to that will result in the re -greening of the subject property is visually accessible affect scenic vistas from public within five years or less. The alteration of the viewshed is a from only one sensi- viewing locations within the Santa generalized impact, and is not of itself mitigable. Other tive viewing location Clarita planning area. (NS) measures within this section address aesthetic impacts that corridor: the stretch will affect viewsheds. of State Route 14 and Soledad Canyon Road. While views from this location will be altered, because of the visual dominance of fore - and background views, the change is not considered significant. Effect AES -3 The proposed AES -3(a) The maintenance facility shall be sided with a Residual impacts project includes structures that material other than metal. Recommended materials for all would be less than may be aesthetically inconsistent or part of the facade treatment include (a) wood in a board- significant. with the existing community and -batten finish, or (b) stone masonry.. The facility's design character of the Sand design, material, and color treatment shall complement the Carryon area. (S) clubhouse facility. The structure's roofline and facades shall be articulated through the incorporation of gables, eaves, or 2-15 City of Santa Clarita Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 2.0 Summary Table 2.2-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact windows. A landscaping plan for the area surrounding the maintenance facility shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval. It shall incorporate the plant palette used for the remainder of the development, and shall be oriented to provide dense screening from adjacent properties. AES -3(b) The parking facility shall be designed as two lots; one on either side of the clubhouse facility. This would reduce the scale of the parking facility, reduce the level of glare from paving and from vehicles emanating from one location, and provide increased opportunities for visually buffering the facility with landscaping. AES -3(c) Residential development proposed within the proposed development shall adhere to all applicable standards and guidelines of the Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance, the Community Design Element of the General Plan, and the Sand Canyon Special Standards District to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. Effect AES4 Light and glare AES4(a) Except for locations where the intemal roadway With the recom- produced from development and intersects with Sand Canyon Road, street Lighting shall not be mended measures, users of the golf course facilities permitted. Bridges, signage, and clubhouse entryways may be impacts should be would extend the urban lit area of illuminated with discreet up -lighting. Signage and clubhouse less than significant. the City of Santa Clanta, alter the entryways may also use back lighting. nighttime sky view, and produce daytime glare from reflective AES4(b) Lighting of driving range shall be limited to metallic materials and glass splash lighting from canted berm areas. associated with vehicles. (S) AES4(c) All lighting of clubhouse and maintenance facilities shall be of an accent nature. Any security lighting shall be screened such that lighting globes are not visible from a distance of 20 feet. AES4(d) Parking lot lighting shall be limited to bollards not to exceed four -feet in height. Trees and walkways may be lighted with accent lighting. AES4(e) Parking lot perimeters shall be bermed to a minimum of four feet in height to preclude spillage of vehicle head-Iighting off site. No berming is required in the main parking lot for the perimeter adjoining the clubhouse and between the clubhouse and the access road. No berming is required for the small parking lot from the clubhouse counterclockwise to the southeast comer. City of Santa Clarita 2-16 L J D IJ fl Li Ll f L) J L) rj f� L U U U P I tJ n O I n I P Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 2.0 Summary Table 2.2-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts . ........ .. Existing noise levels on the western side of the project site are generally low, with infrequent traffic noise from Sand Canyon Road. The east side of the property is subject to higher noise levels associated with offsite aggregate mining operations, but the current operations are located at least 1,300feet from the east property line. In addition, future mining operations over the next ten years are expected to he concentrated at the new claim areas located more than one mile from the east property line. Location ofresidential uses within the site's current noise environment would not conflict with established environmental goals of the City. Ifinining is resumed in the gravel pits nearest the proposed residences, average daytime noise levels associated with typical mining activities would approach, but not exceed, the compatibility level. Project construction would result in heavy equipment operating for several days near offsite residences and high noise levels would occur at these residences. Because of the topographic alterations proposed for the site, the use of temporary noise barriers would be ineffective to mitigate this short term increase in noise levels. 7his is considered a significant and unavoidable impact ofproject construction. Traffic noise associated with the proposed development would not create noise levels along site access routes that would exceed the City's guidelines for compatibility with residential land uses, nor would the activities ofgolf course patrons create a significant impact. No significant long term noise impacts are associated with development of the proposed project: however, the project would cause an adverse increase in ambient noise levels for residences adjacent to the site and those located along Sand Canyon Road north of the project entry. Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Lrnpact Effect N-1 Operations at the N-1 No mitigation measures are necessary because the A potential exists for adjacent quarry could cause proposed project would not conflict with adopted annoyance reactions unacceptable noise levels for the environmental goals of the City. Specific warnings at time by the future resi- proposed residential land uses and of lot purchase regarding the potential for mining noise is dences if active conflict with adopted City Noise not considered necessary because the mining operation is mining resumes ad - Element policies- (NS) clearly visible to any potential purchaser and noise levels jacent to the eastern would be within compatibility limits. property line. This would likely include complaints to the City and the mining operator. However, based on the signifi- cance criteria, no significant noise im- pact would result from the proposed project's location near the mining operation. Effect N-2 Heavy equipment Temporary, portable noise barriers can be used at times to The recommended noise associated with construction reduce the impact of construction noise, but because of the measures would of the proposed project could affect extensive topographic alteration associated with the golf reduce the noise adjacent residential land uses. course grading, the use of such barriers is not expected to be impact of the grading (US) effective. The following mitigation measures are operations at the site. recommended to reduce construction noise. 2-17 City of Santa Clarita Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 2.0 Summary Table 2.2-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Lnpacts Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact N -2(a) No more than two pieces of equipment should Nonetheless, some operate simultaneously within 200 feet of a residence during loud noise that is grading operations. above City land use compatibility levels N -2(b) Any internal haul roads for transporting fill material is still likely to occur around the site shall be located a minimum of 500 feet from during project the nearest offsite residence. construction and this effectis considered unavoidable. Effect N-3 The additional traffic No mitigation measures are required. No significant traffic noise associated with the proposed noise impacts are project could affect adjacent expected to be residential land uses. (NS) generated by the project. Effect N4 Noise associated with No mitigation measures are required. While noise levels patrons of the golf course could would not be great cause nuisance noise effects to enough to cause a adjacent residential land uses. (NS) significant effect, an adverse increase in ambient nuisance noise levels would be associated with the proposed project. 2.3 ALTERNATIVES A range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed development project is required to be evaluated within an EIR per the State CEQA Guidelines § 15126(d). The alternatives addressed in this document are those that could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project, with the discussion focusing on the comparative merits of the alternatives relative to environmental effects (without consideration of economic effects) and on alternatives that could substantially reduce or eliminate significant adverse impacts. Alternatives addressed in this EIR in Section 7.0 include: No project alternative no development existing entitlements West slope residential/Oak Spring golf course Reduced grading Mixed use development Existing general plan build -out Equestrian/residential/golf course City of Santa Clarita 2-18 iI Eli �l lJ H. Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 2.0 Summary The "environmentally superior" alternative is that which would cause the least amount of adverse change in the physical environment, which typically is the "no project" alternative. In this instance, the no development scenario of the "no project" alternative is not likely to continue in the long term because of the existing entitlements granted to the individual parcels that comprise the development site. The existing entitlements would result in less than significant operational air quality impacts and somewhat a reduced aesthetic impacts, but would result in greater biological impacts, significant noise impacts, and potentially significant growth -inducing impacts. The reduced grading alternative would be superior to the project by reducing visual impacts, but would retain similar significant and unmitigable air quality and biology impacts. It is judged that of the altematives examined that can feasibly meet the applicant's objectives while balanced against 0 environmental effects, the west slope residential alternative (one golf course) and the equestrian/residential/golf course alternative would be superior to the project, largely because of a reduction in biological and aesthetic impacts and a resolution of some neighborhood concerns. Both of j these alternatives are essentially revised project design concepts for the site. The economic feasibility of J these alternatives is unknown. U f IJ I I U P I I 2.4 AREAS OF PUBLIC CONTROVERSY The primary issues of public controversy have been the potential effects of the proposed golf course on the water quantity and quality for the downstream residences of Oak Spring Canyon, who are reliant on limited groundwater supplies provided by private wells. Additional public controversy has involved the location of residential uses within Oak Spring Canyon in relationship to the mining activities in the Angeles National Forest, particularly with respect to the location of 51 of the residences in the proposed 103.4 acre annexation parcel. Other areas of public controversy include the extensive grading of the site, particularly with regards to the grading of the secondary ridgeline within the site, the loss of biological resources, particularly the loss of heritage oak trees, the amount of traffic that may be generated by the project and its effect on traffic conditions along Sand Canyon Road, the potential nuisance effects of the golf course on the existing equestrian rural residential area, the existing high velocity floodflows through the site, and the potential noise and air pollution effects of the project. 2.5 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED The City of Santa Clarita must determine whether or not the proposed planned development with residences oriented to two golf courses is suitable for the project site as compared to the previously approved rural residential tracts. The City Council must determine if the golf course provides adequate buffering for the onsite residences to the mining operation in the Angeles National Forest that is outside the City and if the commercial operations (clubhouse, driving range) of the golf course are adequately distant and buffered from the existing off-site residences. As part of the resolution of this issue, the City needs to determine if alternative designs for the golf course as proposed by the EIR may be more appropriate than the project, or whether or not alternative land uses as discussed in the EIR or may be offered by the public are more suitable for the project site. 2-19 City of Santa Clanta Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 2.0 Summary The City Council also needs to determine if the potential threat of groundwater pollution associated with the golf course is adequately mitigated by the measures contained in the EIR and to be incorporated into specific Golf Course and Integrated Pest Management plans. The adequacy of equestrian trails to be provided within the site as required by the Sand Canyon Community Special Standards, the provision of road access along the north property line, and the development of the golf course on mineral resources in Oak Spring Canyon are also issues to be resolved. In addition, the City needs to consider the effect of the proposed development on the potential future roadway circulation in the area since the project would prevent the development of a north - south parallel route to Sand Canyon Road in this area. If the proposed project is approved, the City Council will need to determine if the mitigation measures contained in the EIR are reasonable or not, and whether or not they or other suggested measures should be imposed as conditions of development within the Conditional Use Permit for the proposed project. LJ 1 [J LJ n �J i� J City of Santa Ciarita l 2-20 V it I n Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR lJI Section 3.0 Project Description 11 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION (� 3.1 PROJECT APPLICANT Hunters Green Development Corporation C 16095A Live Oak Springs Canyon Road Santa Clarita, CA 91351 E3.2 PROJECT SYNOPSIS n U a H t_f n n The proposed development includes the construction of two 18 -hole golf courses, clubhouse, lighted driving range, and parking lot on a 411 acre site. The 123 acre residential portion of the project includes pad grading for 83 single-family residential lots, which would be accessed via both public and private roadways, the latter within a gated community. The lots would be sold on an individual basis with residential structures constructed later by the future property owners. Total construction grading is balanced on the site at 2.2 million yards of cut and fill. Access to the site would be provided via Sand Canyon Road and Live Oak Springs Canyon Road. Additional new infrastructure would include two water reservoir (tank) sites. The proposed project requires the approval of Master Case No. 95-049, which includes: • Zone Change 95-001 (PD Zone), • Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM 52004), • Conditional Use Permit (CUP 95-003), • Oak Tree Permit (OTP 95-009), • Hillside Review (95-002), • Development Agreement (DA 95-004), and • Development Review (DR 95-004); along with a • Pre -Zone (PZ 95-001) and Annexation (AN95-001) for a portion of the project site. The Oak Tree Permit would be for the removal of up to 138 scrub oaks and 130 coast live oaks, including up to seven (7) heritage oaks. 3.3 PROJECT LOCATION The project site is generally located in the eastern portion of the City of Santa Clarita in northern Los Angeles County (Figure 3.0-1). The southeastern portion of the site is located adjacent to the City in unincorporated area. The site lies in an area of low foothills, ridges and bottomlands that form the lower northern slope of the San Gabriel Mountains. Locally, the site is east of Sand Canyon Road and north of Live Oak Springs Canyon Road, and adjoins the Angeles National Forest on its eastern boundary (Figure 3.0-2). Regional access is provided to the site from the Antelope Valley Freeway (State Route 14) at the Soledad Canyon/Sand Canyon Roads interchange, located less than one mile north of the site. 3-1 City or Santa utanta Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Paula Ub' - Ventura• _C,�a River � d Simi Vall PACIFIC OCEAN Not to scale Regional Location Map 5 Burbank • Pasadena Santa • Monica Los Angeles I NORTH Figure 3.0-1 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR 0 0 0.5 1.0 Source: USGS Mart Canyon Quadrangle, 7.5 Minute series,1988 Scale in Mlles riacaa Project Location 1 NORTH Figure 3.0-2 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 3.0 Project Description The site is divided by a ridgeline that is oriented northwest -southeast through the center of the site. The western side of this ridge drains to Sand Canyon, while the eastern side drains to Oak Spring Canyon. Both areas then drain to the Santa Clara River, located approximately one-half mile to the north of the site. The eastern City limit is contiguous with the eastern project site boundary and divides the Oak Spring Canyon area of the site into a northern portion within the City and a southern area requiring annexation. 3.4 OWNERSHH'/PARCELIZATION The 411 acre site includes seven different properties, all of which are privately owned. One of the properties (APN 2841-001-017) is located outside of City jurisdiction and is the subject of the annexation request (see Figure 3.0-2), Table 3.4-1 provides data regarding the individual properties. Table 3.4-1 Parcel and Ownership Pattern i 2840 013-005 Bow Enterprises, Inc. 17.5 4.3% 10 sfr 2840-013-013. 014. 015 Mary Danas 13.5 3.3% 3 sfi 11 2840-0IG-020 Arthur and Lorena Gollin Trust 9.4 2.4°/a 1 2841-001-017 Griffin Industries 103.4 25.1% 21 Based on number of existing parcels since approximately 13 were part, are no longer within current site boundaries. 3.5 PROJECT OBJECTIVES some The applicant's objectives are to develop a gated residential community with a high degree of aesthetic amenities associated with the two 18 -hole golf courses. The golf courses would also serve as a private retail commercial venture by being open to the public for recreational purposes. 3.6 REQUIRED DISCRETIONARYACTIONS To implement the proposed project, the City must: 1. Prezone and annex the southeastern portion of the site; 2. Process atone change to implement a Planned Development (PD) overlay on the site; 3. Approve the Tentative Tract Map for the subdivision of the land into 83 single family residential lots, six (6) golf course lots, one (1) maintenance yard lot, and one (1) water tank lot; clry or zanra 34 11 Li i P P I U U n U U I L1 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 3.0 Project Description 4. Approve a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the construction and operation of the golf courses, clustering of the residential lots, and implementation of the PD overlay zone (including the gating of the residential community); 5. Approve an Oak Tree Permit (OTP) for the removal of up to 138 scrub oak trees and 130 coast live oaks (up to seven of which are heritage oaks); 6. Conduct a Hillside Review to determine if the proposed grading meets the provisions of the Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance guidelines; and 7. Approve and sign a Development Agreement with the applicants that would serve to legally bind both parties to specific agreements regarding off-site funding of infrastructure projects and other items that are not part of the above entitlement requests. Additional discretionary actions that are necessary for the project to proceed include approval of the annexation by the Los Angeles County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), issuance of a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit by the United States Army Corps of Engineers for any construction within either "wetlands or waters of the United States," and annexation of a portion of the site into the County Sanitation District No. 26. The proposed development must also acquire Streambed Alteration Agreements (Fish and Game Code Sections 1601-1605) with the California Department of Fish and Game for alteration of blueline streams within the project site. 3.7 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS 3.7.1 Proposed Land Uses and Zoning The project site is primarily in a natural state, with past historic uses including various agricultural activities such as dryland farming for hay, grazing, and egg -laying operations- The site is designated for Residential Very Low and Residential Estate land uses under the City's Land Use Element. These designations provide for residential land use on minimum lot sizes of 1 and 2 gross acres, respectively (I and 0.5 dwelling units/acre). The site also lies within the City's Sand Canyon Special Standards District, which is intended to maintain, preserve, and enhance the rural and equestrian character of Sand Canyon. The proposed development would create 83 residential lots within 123 acres of the site (0.67 du/acre), (� The residential lots would include five (5) in the northwest comer of the site, one (1) along Live Oak LJ Springs Canyon Creek, two (2) along Live Oak Springs Canyon Road, and the remainder generally along the western slopes of Oak Spring Canyon in the middle to southeasterly portion of the site. Two 18 -hole golf courses are proposed, one extending across the slopes that drain towards Sand Canyon and the other within the alluvial floodplain and bottomlands of Oak Spring Canyon. A clubhouse would be located between the two courses, while a driving range and maintenance facilities would be located on the awestern side of the 160 acre parcel within Oak Spring Canyon. Figure 3.0-3 illustrates the proposed layout of the residential lots and golf courses configuration. The site is currently zoned as Residential Very Low (1 acre minimum lot size) for those portions within the City, while the southeastern annexation parcel is zoned A-1-2 under the Los Angeles County Zoning n Ordinance. The latter is an agricultural zoning that allows one residential unit per two acres (density of �J3-5 City of Santa Clarita n L1 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 3.0 Project Description 0,5 units per acre). The proposed zoning and general plan land use designations are for Residential Estates (RE) for the lots within the annexation parcel, with the Residential Very Low (RVL) zoning retained for the lots within the current City boundaries. The applicant also proposes that the residential lots be clustered within the site under a PD (Planned Development) overlay. 3.7.2 Proposed Development The applicant proposes to subdivide the property and construct all roads and other infrastructure and the golf course and associated facilities. A two-story, 26,000 square foot clubhouse would be constructed that includes a pro shop, snack bar, interior parking for 167 golf carts, and locker rooms on the ground floor and a dining and banquet area, kitchen, lounge/bar, and course administrative offices on the upper level. Adjacent to the clubhouse would be a 330 space parking lot with low level (15 -feet or less in height) pole lighting. Directly north of the parking lot and clubhouse would be a night -lighted driving range. The lighting for the driving range would not be pole mounted, instead ground lighting of the drop zone would be provided by lights embedded in low mounds on the range. Driving range users would hit balls from the south end of the range to the northwest. The driving range has been canted towards the northwest to allow for additional landscaping along the western property line and to reduce the potential for golf balls to land on adjoining properties. The course maintenance facilities would be located west of the north end of the driving range, and would include a 1,000 square foot building. This building would be constructed of steel siding and would house the golf course machinery, repair shop, and pest control materials. A composting area would also be located at this facility. Construction of all the golf course facilities is anticipated to occur at the same time and would require 6- 12 months to complete. Graded pads would be constructed for each residential lot, which would then be sold on an individual basis. The applicant has requested permission to adjust lot lines at a later date in compliance with development standards and to allow the combining of lots. The residences in the eastern portion of the site would be within a gated community operated through a homeowner's association. The gates would be unmanned. Residential lots backing on the golf course will have a portion of their properties contained in an easement to the golf course. No architectural design standards have been established for the residential community, with each residence expected to be individually designed and constructed over a period of 10 to 15 years. A 100 -foot wide building setback has been established along the eastem property boundary with the Angeles National Forest. City of Santa Clarita 3-6 C G 11 .s c � y a l 7 .. 0 1000 2000 Scale in Feet Best available plan at this scale provided by Apphcant. Larger scale bluelines at 1"=200' and 1"=100' available for review at the City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department. 4r—. T rvriu zcnw �o p O u\i Y 1,1@ h Site Plan NORTH Figure 3.0-3 ✓ y. LEGEND _�.•..�+,,! TEES,. GREENS AND FAIRWAYS NATIVE AND NON-NATIVE DROUGHT .a TOLERANT GRASSES RE -VEGETATED NATIVES AND NON -NATIVES AT GRADED AREAS .AND FIRE CLEARANCE ZONES NATIVE SITE VEGETATION ORNAMENTAL. AND DROUGHT TOLERANT AREAS NOTE. Propcaed rwds, clubbawe vW Puling bt, retcdN: u[e,uM main(mancc Yard wJl Jso beve amacieled oniunmW Undeapn�g.. RE -VEGETATION MAP OAK SPRINGS GOLF COURSE SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 0 52004 Figure 3.4-4 !' Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Iul Section 3.0 Project Description 3.7.3 Landscape Standards The 36 -hole golf course is being designed for inclusion in the Signature Cooperative Sanctuary Program run by the New York State Audubon Society (which is independent of the National Audubon Society). This program provides information and guidance in environmental planning with a stated goal of meeting the New York Audubon's Sustainable Resource Management Principles. A Conservation Guide is prepared for the site that includes tasks necessary to acquire certification in five environmental areas, all of which are required to meet Signature status. The five categories include wildlife conservation, habitat enhancement, waste management, energy efficiency, and water conservation. Some of the elements and goals of these certification programs are; ( • requirements for the conservation of wildlife on site through the protection of suitable `J habitat; • provision of adequate space, food, water, and shelter for wildlife; j l • specific plans for the protection of migratory bird habitat; LJ • maintaining corridors and greenspace far the free movement of animals; • use of natural and. naturalized landscaping materials; • reduction in the use of pesticides through use of integrated pest management programs; • reduction in waste generation; • use of composting of green wastes; • reuse and recycling onsite; • use of energy efficient sources for buildings, on-site transportation, lighting, and heating and R cooling; l J • use of locally available construction materials; and (� • use of water conserving devices and methods. l J As part of the proposed project, the applicant has submitted a Native Revegetation and Monitoring Plan that sets objectives for restoring portions of the graded areas and enhancing habitat through the L introduction of year-round water in the form of golf course lakes. A copy of the Draft Plan is available j for review at the City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department and Figure 3.0-4 illustrates the conceptual revegetation plan for the site. The concept recommends that the standard golf course fairways, tees, and greens would be surrounded by a rough composed of revegetated native scrub and grassland areas and undisturbed native vegetation. Riparian and wetland habitats would be created along some of the golf course drainages and the water hazards. These wetlands would include islands of natural vegetation within golf course lakes, stands of low herbaceous vegetation (such as cattail, rush, and veronica) around the opposite perimeter of the water hazard from the fairway, and plantings of willow and cottonwood. Figure 3.0-5 provides illustrative cross-sections of these golf course plantings. Oak trees will be preserved throughout the site, with most of those in Oak Spring Canyon left in undisturbed natural vegetation. Coast live oak trees that would be disturbed by grading would be transplanted within the golf course if they are healthy and suitable for transplantation. Replacement trees are also currently being grown from acorns collected at the site from healthy trees. [} 3-9 City of Santa Clarita n L1 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 3.0 Project Description 3.7.4 Proposed Infrastructure Seven streets are proposed for the site, which would all be private except for one public street (A Street). The five lots in the northwest comer of the site would be served by the approximately 600 foot long public street, which would be terminated by a cul-de-sac and the entrance to a private drive (G Street) that traverses the western golf course to the clubhouse parking lot. The golf course drive would terminate at a gate at the west end of the main residential street (B Street), which would also serve as an extension of Live Oak Springs Canyon Road from the south. The southeast end of this street would be gated at Live Oak Springs Canyon Road. Four cul-de-sac streets (D, C, E, and F) would branch from this main road. A, C, D, E, and F Streets would all be 34 feet of pavement on 58 -foot right of ways. B Street would be slightly larger, 36 feet of pavement on a 60 -foot right -of way. The golf course drive would be 28 feet of pavement on a 36 -foot right of way and would have shallow gutters but no curbs. Connection of Live Oak Springs Canyon Road to the site is dependent on the extension of this road from its current terminus to a point about 1100 feet further east. This roadway extension is included in the development plans for Tract No. 46364 (Griffin Homes) in Los Angeles County. The applicant is proposing to provide an equestrian trail easement through portions of the site. One west to east trail connection would be located along the north property line in Oak Spring Canyon, connecting at the northeast corner of the site with routes into the Angeles National Forest. This easement would be associated with the realignment of the existing dirt road in this location along the ridge that forms the north property boundary. Two water tank sites are to be provided, one on a separate lot (#89) located along the south property line in the middle of the site and the other located within a residential lot (#52) located at the most southern part of the site. The tanks would be constructed by the applicant and would contain a total of 2.5 million gallons. Potable water service would be provided by the Santa Clarita Water Company. The applicant currently proposes to use potable water to irrigate the golf courses. However, the applicant is also investigating the possibility of using local groundwater for golf course irrigation and would consider the use of reclaimed water if such were to become available. Since it is unknown if the applicant would use local groundwater for irrigation and the proposed project includes only the use of potable water, groundwater use is not considered in the context of this EIR. Separate environmental documentation may be necessary if, after the project were constructed, groundwater were proposed to be used to irrigate the site. The clubhouse, maintenance facilities, and all residential lots would be provided with sewers that connect with the County Sanitation Districts sewer mains in Live Oak Springs Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road. I C I E I [J E I■J l.J Cify of Santa Ciarita L l 3.10 I, NOT TO SCALE Drought Tolerant I & Shrubs Grasses .mnuu .......... b.. uubL, a [u.. u.. prof Rushes & Cat'Tails Native Grasses/Shrubs & Drought Tolerant Fairway Grasses NOT TO SCALE GOLF COURSE CROSS SECTION WATER EDGE TREATMENT OAK SPRINGS GOLF COURSE SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT n 52004 Lwow+n.+YrWrzrn'¢ •[minc�rYu{mnurxn LY[M\4V pCY N:\I:YIN Y.I V" ' • MIX.1iT IIIAYC IM,µW{ t \\Mfl+f6 Figure 3.0-5 Ly - West Elevation North Elevation Elevations of Clubhouse Figure 5.6-7 Source: Robinson Development Services, Inc. LEGEND ® CHAPARRALSHRUB ALLUVIAL FAIL SAGE SCRUB ALLUVIAL FAN SCRUB/OAKS RUDERAL/DISTURBED GRASSLAND 4� EXISTING OAK TREES NOTE: COMMUNITY BOUNDARIES ARE APPROXIMATE AND DO NOT ATTEWT TO DEFINE ECOTONA AREAS VEGETATION ISI' OAK SPRINGS GOLF COURSE SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT N 52004 unx.r'PC .AMC w lE(14xr. • nxnxrc.E xEnox.vxn+ r.xorI.,. .1111 I.CIT Enna ixnuxn a nnxruru Figure 5.4-1 t C Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 3.0 Project Description I The drainage concept for the site provides for sheetflow across the golf course areas to the existing primary drainage channels. The northwest corner five lots would be served by a storm drain in A Street that discharges to a storm drain to be constructed in Sand Canyon Road by the Los Angeles County [j Flood Control District. The lots along Live Oak Springs Canyon Road would all drain directly to the existing natural Live Oak Springs Canyon channel located on the project site. Sheet flow from most of �11 the western golf course would also drain to this channel. The Los Angeles County Flood Control District J is currently proposing to construct a debris basin on the project site near to where this channel leaves the subject property. Flows from this debris basin would be contained in a buried storm drain to be constructed from the basin north to the approximate location of the future private Boulder Creek Road. �J The drain is routed west to Sand Canyon Road, and then north under Sand Canyon Road, eventually emptying into the Sand Canyon channel. �J Other portions of the western golf course would continue to drain by sheetflow northward via unimproved drainages that eventually lead to Sand Canyon and Oak Spring Canyon wahes. CFlows from the golf course clubhouse and parking lot and the Oak Spring Canyon residential development would be gathered into storm drains via road gutters. These storm drains would discharge r onto the eastern golf course located in Oak Spring Canyon. Off-site flows would be directed through the golf course via drainage swales and overland flow, similar to the existing alluvial plain environment. Drainage from the site to the north would be within the natural channels of Oak Spring Canyon. A portion of storm flows is expected to be intercepted by the lakes to be constructed on the golf course. 3.7.5 Construction Grading Development of the proposed project would require the grading of approximately 2.2 million cubic yards of soil. Grading would be balanced at the site, with local cuts providing fill material to minimize the need �1 to haul additional fill material to the site or haul excess material offsite. All slopes are proposed to be contour graded by rounding the top and toes of slopes, with blended transitions into remaining natural C slopes. The maximum cut depth proposed is about 60 feet, with a maximum fill of 22 feet. The tallest cut slope (toe to top) would be about 100 feet, while the tallest fill would be about 30 feet. A typical mass grading construction spread is composed of two tracked bulldozers, six scrapers, one l j motor grader, one roller, and one water truck, and is capable of moving about 10,000 cubic yards per day. Based on the assumption that the project would be completed in approximately one year, a single a construction spread would be sufficient for site grading. However, the initial rough grading stage may use two spreads to reduce the construction period and reduce the time during which the project would be a dust and noise nuisance to offsite residences. In addition to this heavy equipment, construction grading may include several dump trucks for hauling dirt and front-end loaders for loading the trucks. CJ aCity of Santa Clarita 3-13 LJ I r ll U l.) ii 1 �1 l� I I E a n Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 4.0 Regional Environmental Setting 4.0 REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING This section provides a brief description of the environmental setting in the region as well as the immediate project area. 4.1 REGIONAL SETTING The project site is located in the eastern portion of the City of Santa Clarita in northern Los Angeles County. The City of Santa Clarita encompasses over 40 square miles and is located about 35 miles northwest of the City of Los Angeles Civic Center. The City is located at the junction of Interstate 5, a major north -south interstate highway, and State Route 14, a freeway that provides access to desert areas to the east including the cities of Palmdale and Lancaster: 4.1.1 Historical Development The project area is part of the larger Santa Clarita Valley which has a long history dating back to the late 1700s when Gaspar de Portola claimed the area for Spain. Around 1797, the valley became part of the San Fernando Mission and cattle grazing activities began. In 1842, gold was discovered in Placenta Canyon, thus starting the California gold rush. Later in the 1800's, oil was discovered in Pico Canyon and oil field development ensued in the region. Historically, initial development in the area was fueled by railroad and oil operations. The area has also historically attracted motion picture filming but most recently has developed into a series of residential communities that provide housing to serve the employment base within the greater Los Angeles area. Although the current development character is predominantly single-family residential, there are scattered pockets of industrial, service/strip commercial, institutional, and recreational uses in the area. 4.1.2 Physical Setting The Santa Clarita Valley is an irregularly shaped area draining a watershed of approximately 500 square miles. This drainage area is generally defined by and encompasses significant mountain ridges of the San Gabriel, Santa Susana and the Sierra Pelona Mountains, several significant canyons, the Valley Floor and the Santa Clara River bed. The relative relief of the area is dramatic with elevations ranging from 1,000 feet above sea level along the Santa Clara River near Castaic Junction to approximately 3,200 feet along ridgelines near Pico and Towsley Canyons, in the southwest portions of the City. Elevations in the San Gabriel Mountains range from 4,000-6,000 feet east of the City. 4.1.3 Regional and Local Climate As noted above; the City of Santa Clarita is surrounded by the Santa Susana and San Gabriel mountain ranges on the south, east, and west, and the Sierra Pelona Mountains on the north. Because of these physiographic features and its general proximity to coastal and desert influences, the City of Santa Clarita is in a transitional microclimatic zone that includes two climatic types termed `valley marginal" and "high 4-1 city orsanta cranta L Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 4.0 Regional Environmental Setting desert". Located sufficiently far from the coast to escape damp air and fog, summers are generally hot and winters are generally sunny and warm. Overall the area's climate is relatively mild with average daytime temperatures ranging from 89.7 degrees Fahrenheit (° F) in the summers to 63.6° F in the winter. Temperature lows average from 58.9° F in the summer months to 41.3° F in the winter. Annual precipitation in the valley is about 13 inches, almost all of which occurs between October and early April. Precipitation in neighboring mountain areas is substantially higher, ranging from about 22 to 24 inches per year. Wind patterns are typical of the mountain/valley regime with day time wind flowing up valley and nighttime flow patterns reversing and flowing down valley as the nighttime air cools. Within the area there are two distinct wind patterns for the northern and southern portions of the City. In the Newhall area in the southern portion of the City, predominant daytime wind flows from the south/southeast from the San Fernando Valley through the Newhall Pass. In the north, near the intersection of I-5 and SR -126, the highest frequency of winds occurs from the west and east. At this location, daytime winds are from the west up the Santa Clara River Valley, 4.2 PROJECT AREA SETTING LJ The proposed project is located in the Sand Canyon area, a subcommunity of Canyon Country, Canyon Country has over 30,000 residents and is the largest community within the City's planning area. Canyon Country, which includes the area along Soledad Canyon Road east of Saugus, is developed with a wide range of housing types including large -lot single-family custom homes, single-family tract homes, multiple -family development and mobile home parks. Commercial and manufacturing activities are concentrated along Soledad Canyon Road and along the north side of State Route 14 (Antelope Valley Freeway). The Sand Canyon area is located southeast of Canyon Country, and is accessed by Sand Canyon and Placerita Canyon Roads. Freeway access is provided by the Soledad Canyon/Sand Canyon interchange at State Route 14, about one mile north of the project site. The area is comprised of predominantly low density single-family residential and associated equestrian uses. The area is generally rural and is characterized by large stands of oak trees and large single-family homes. l -J Physiographically, the project site is divided by a prominent ridgeline that is oriented northwest -southeast between Sand Canyon and Oak Springs Canyon. The western side of the ridge drains to Sand Canyon, ; 1 while the eastern side drains to Oak Springs Canyon. Generally the western side of the slopes gradually descend onto the alluvial plain of Sand Canyon, whereas the eastern slopes steeply descend onto the alluvial fan of Oak Springs Canyon. Slope gradients on the site range from level on the bottomlands to L� very steep (1:1) along the hillsides. Elevations on the site range from about 1350 to 2000 feet above sea level. city or Santa Wanta 4-2 U Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 4.0 Regional Environmental Setting 4.3 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS �j The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 requires a discussion of cumulative impacts when they are L: significant. The State CEQA Guidelines indicate that discussion of related or cumulative projects may be drawn from "a list of past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects producing related or L cumulative impacts... " The cumulative project list, analyzed herein and described below, is included in this environmental setting because it presents the urban development context under which the proposed project is being considered. The City of Santa Clarita has identified the following list of pending projects f i for consideration in this EIR: I'J IS 11 4-3 U uty Santa Ctarita Within QN of Santa Clarity r C1) Tentative Tract No 49334: This project includes 32 single-family residential units proposed on the west side of Sand Canyon Road between Placenta Canyon Road and Live Oak Springs ( Canyon Road. 1, 2) Tentative Tract No. 34466: This project includes 299 single-family residential units located 1 J south of the western terminus of Lost Canyon Road on the west side of Sand Canyon Road. 3) 28368 Sand Canyon Road- In -N -Out Burger: This fast food restaurant is currently under construction east of Sand Canyon Road immediately south of the Antelope Valley Freeway l _ c (SR -14). Within County o Los Angeles 4 { 4) Tentative Tract No 50173: This project includes 14 single-family residential units proposed westerly of Sand Canyon Road on Sultus Street on the west side of Rolling Hills Avenue. 5) Tentative Tract No. 50446r This project includes 6 single-family residential units located at Q the intersection of Brooken Avenue and Radclay Street to the west of Sand Canyon Road. 6) Tentative Tract 30738: This residential project would include 45 single-family residences and is located between Tentative Tract No. 34466, described above, and the Angeles National Forest boundary. I'J IS 11 4-3 U uty Santa Ctarita r Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.0 Impact Analysis L 5.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS The following sections contain a discussion of the possible environmental effects of the proposed project ( for the specific issue areas that have been identified through the Initial Study process as having the possibility to cause a significant effect. "Significant effect" is defined by the State CEQA Guidelines (1 §15382 as "a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions L' within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. An economic or social change by itself shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment, but may be considered in determining whether the C physical change is significant" (� The assessment of each issue area begins with an italicized introduction that summarizes the environmental effects considered for that issue area. This is followed by the setting and the impact analysis. Within the impact analysis, the first section identifies the methodologies used and the "significance thresholds", which are those criteria adopted by the City, other agencies, universally recognized, or developed specifically for this analysis to determine whether potential effects are C significant impacts. Each effect under consideration for an issue area is separately listed in bold text, with the discussion of the effect and its significance following. Each bolded effect listing also contains a parenthetical summary of the significance determination for the environmental effect as follows: US Unavoidably Significant: An impact that cannot be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires a Statement of Overriding Considerations to be issued if the project is approved per §15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines. S Significant: An impact that can be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires findings to be made { under §15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines. J NS Not Significant: An impact that may be adverse, but does not exceed the threshold levels and does not require mitigation measures. However, mitigation measures that could n further lessen the environmental effect may be suggested if readily available and easily (J achievable. DB Beneficial: An effect that would reduce existing environmental problems or hazards. I 0 U I Following each environmental effect is a discussion of mitigation measures and the residual effects or level of significance remaining after the implementation of the measures. In those cases where the mitigation measure for an impact could have a significant environmental impact in another issue area, this impact is discussed as a residual effect. 5.0 -1 City of Santa Clarita P 1 P P LTJ E 1' F1 Q 1.+ P 11� Lei Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.1 Earth Resources 5.1 EARTH RESOURCES This section analyzes geological and seismic hazards to which the new residents and golf course users maybe exposed due to development of this project. Geological hazards in the area include liquefaction, landslides, hydroconsolidation, and destabilization of slopes by grading. Seismic hazards include ground shaking, surface rupture, liquefaction, and subsidence. Significant hazards identified far the proposed development include: cut slopes having the potential of failure, activation of landslide by removing supporting material during or following grading, settlement of fill; liquefaction of soils, hydrocompaction of soils, and the possibility that insufficiently compacted soils could subside during an earthquake. Engineered mitigation measures are to be used to reduce these hazards to an acceptable level of risk. The project would also insignificantly reduce the potential availability of "significant mineral resources "found in Oak Spring Canyon 5.1.1 Geologic Setting The project property is within the Transverse Range Geomorphic Province of California. This area is characterized by east -west trending mountains and faults. Mountain ranges within this province include the Santa Ynez, Santa Susana, Topatopa, San Gabriel, Sierra Pelona, and San Bernardino Mountains. Sedimentary basins include the Ventura, Soledad, and Ridge Basins, and the San Fernando Valley. Major drainages include the Santa Clara River, Big Tujunga Canyon, San Gabriel River, and Los Angeles River. Mountain ranges in the Transverse Ranges are comprised of rocks that are progressively older from the west to east. East -west trending folds and faults predominate in this area. Mountain ranges are separated by valleys, faults, and downwarps. Mid to late Pleistocene faulting uplifted the area, resulting in the present-day landforms. Geologic environments represented in the rocks found in the Transverse Ranges include periods of non - marine deposits (Saugus, Mint Canyon, Sespe formations), marine deposits (Pico, Repetto, Monterey, San Fransisquito) volcanics (Conejo Volcanic series),and metamorphic or igneous rocks (Lowe Granodiorite, Pelona Schist, Mendenhall Gneiss). Important faults within this province include the San Andreas, San Gabriel, Red Mountain, Cucamonga, Raymond Hill, San Fernando, and Ventura faults.. Many historical earthquakes have been documented along these and other faults. a. Site Geology. The site is on the northern flank of the San Gabriel Mountains. Terrain across the site includes the Oak Springs wash on the northeast to eastern part of the site, and a smaller drainage area towards the northwestern part of the property. Topographic highs are comprised of rocks of the Mint Canyon Formation. Lowlands are covered with Quaternary aged (within the last 2 million years) alluvium. The alluvium is derived as erosional remnants of the surrounding Mint Canyon Formation and other rocks. Other earth materials mapped onsite by Gorian & Associates (1995) include landslides, debris flows, and non -engineered fill. 5.1-1 city or Santa Gana !1 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR rl Section 5.1 Earth Resources I The Mint Canyon Formation is of Miocene age (Miocene is from 5-22 million years before present). It is a non -marine sedimentary formation comprised of thin to thick bedded, light gray to greenish gray and tan to light brown conglomerate, sandstone, and silty claystone. Some greenish gray to dark olive green r bentonitic clay seams were noted by Gorian & Associates (1995). Geologic structure of the Mint Canyon Formation at the site included beds dipping towards the west, southwest; and northwest at an angle of 15° to 50°: A broad southwesterly plunging anticline -syncline is inferred to cross the central and (1 southeastern portions of the property (Gorian & Associates, 1995). U Ouaternary Alluvium are present in the low-lying areas of the site. The alluvium in the tributary l canyons consists of brown to gray silty fine sand and gravel; alluvium in the central area of Oak Spring Canyon consists of interbedded sand, gravel, cobbles, and boulders of granite composition. The alluvium is generally unconsolidated at the surface to moderately consolidated at depth. (� Landslides and Debris flows were noted by Gorian and Associates (1995) in the northwest and �J southeast part of the proposed development. One block glide landslide having a depth of six feet, was also noted by Gorian (1995). ) Non -engineered fill was encountered by Gorian (1995) in the area of fairway #6 of the western golf course. This fill supposedly is an area of backfill of an old meandering drainage channel of Live Oak Springs Canyon Creek. Topsoil mapped by the Soil Survey (Soil Survey Antelope Valley Area, 1970) include the following: IUI Hanford sandy loam, Oak Glen sandy loam, Oak Glen loam, Oak Glen gravely sandy loam, and Saugus ,., loam. J Per Gorian and Associates (1995), groundwater was measured onsite at depths of 33 and 35 feet. Per n research described in their report, the highest groundwater level within well number 7188A, located at l� the intersection of Sand Canyon Road and Live Oak Springs Canyon Road (measured November 27, 1978), was at 3.8 feet below ground surface. Depth to groundwater is expected to vary with season. A l groundwater geophysical survey was completed by Sub Surface Surveys (1995) for the Oak Spring l Canyon portion of the property. They interpret the survey data as recording groundwater at different levels across the site. Near Oak Spring Creek, water is inferred at about 14 feet below grade. Away from the creek, water is inferred at 80 feet. This location was drilled and water was encountered at 71 !J feet below grade. b. Seismic Conditions. No active or potentially active faults as identified by the State Geologist (Hart, 1992) are mapped on the subject property. As mapped by Saul (1983), the Pole Canyon fault terminates within the north -central portion of the property. This fault is not mapped as active or j potentially active. Other small offsets and faults were mapped onsite by Gorian and Associates (1995), t They found no direct evidence of Quaternary or Holocene movement along these faults t Although no mapped active faults cross the site, the proximity of active faults is such that the area has l' experienced strong seismically induced ground motion and will probably experience continued strong City of Santa Clarita { 5.1-2 I] L, C P LJ L Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.1 Earth Resources seismically induced ground motion in the future. Several active or potentially active faults in the vicinity of the project area are listed in Table 5.1-1. The expected peak ground acceleration that these faults may generate at the site are also listed (Gorian & Associates, 1995), Table 5.1-1 Nearby Faults and Associated Seismic Accelerations Fault Approximate distance , from site miles Estimated Richter Ma itude Maximum Credible Rock Acceleration - Repeatable Ground Acceleration San Gabriel 2.5 6.7 0.70 0.35-0.50 San Fernando 7 6.4 0.64 0.30-0.45 Santa Susana 9 6.6 0.34 0.15-0.25 San Andreas 16 8.1+ 0.38 0.20-0.25 Oak Ridge 18 6.7 0.21 0.10-0.15 San Cayetano 18 6.7 0.14 0.05-0.10 Newpon-Inglewood 25 6.7 0.14 0.05-0.10 Malibu Coast 1 27 6.6 0.13 0.05-0.10 The Northridge earthquake of January 1994 produced strong groundshaking and damage to numerous (� structures in the City of Santa Clarita. The epicenter of the earthquake was about 13 miles southwest of t the project area. As listed in Table 5.1-1, seismically induced ground accelerations of up to 0.5 g n (g=gravity, 32 ft/sec/sec) are expected to occur at the subject site. L_7 Seismic events also have the potential to cause liquefaction of surface sediments and destabilization of slopes (landslides and debris slides). Liquefaction potential for most of the site is low because of the (1 depth to groundwater; As described in the City of Santa Clarita General Plan (1991), the project site is t ,not within an area subject to liquefaction. Gorian & Associates (1995) studied the area for liquefaction potential and concluded that potions of the southwest comer of the project area may be susceptible to aliquefaction. They state that further evaluation of this area is necessary to better understand the liquefaction potential and to develop mitigation measures if necessary. Several small landslides and debris flows are mapped on the property (Gorian & Associates, 1995); No landslides were identified on the project area in the City's General Plan (1991). 5.1.2 Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds. The following conditions constitute a geologic hazard that has the potential to significantly impact the site- • onsite active or potentially active faults • locating structures on soils with the potential for liquefaction or hydroconsolidation • seismic ground shaking that could activate landslides, debris flows, or other large scale mass wasting event 1J .improper fill subject to compaction lJ improperly engineered cut of fill slopes '(�I • undercutting bedrock in a manner that destabilizes. the slope City of Santa Clarita 5.1-3 I Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR r' Section 5.1 Earth Resources i • removal of vegetation from areas, resulting in adverse erosion of the area i • modifying the site drainage in a manner that causes adverse erosion or flooding of the area Per the City of Santa Clarita General Plan, several city ordinances will apply to the development of this ( l l.1 site. Some of these ordinances include: • Grading (17.20) • Removal of Brush and Vegetation (17.25.020) • Storm Drainage Precautions (17.25.030) • Import and Export (17.26) • • Excavations and Fills (17.27) Ridgeline Preservation (17,27,03 0) • Drainage and Terracing (17.28) • Grading Designation and Location (17.29) F" I • Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance (17.80) . b. Project Impacts. (� Effect ER -1 Grading of site has the potential to create destabilized cut slopes. (S) U The project is proposed to involve the development of two golf courses and construction of 83 residential U lots., Extensive grading, including cut and fill, will modify the topography of the area. The conceptual grading plans indicate that slopes to be cut would not exceed 2:1 (horizontal: vertical), which is an i acceptable angle of repose for these materials. If this slope aspect is exceeded (made steeper), then iJ proper geotechnical considerations are necessary to ensure the stability of the cut face. Special consideration is also necessary for cut slopes that expose adverse bedding of the bedrock. Adverse l S bedding occurs when the angle of cutting exposes blocks of material that become unsupported and can l S slide downslope along the bedding plane. Adverse bedding slopes were not identified following a review C� of the grading maps; however, the maps reviewed may not be the final grading design. Thus, if adverse L slopes are encountered during construction, the following mitigation will be necessary. Mitigation Measures. ER -1 The Uniform Building Code (UBC) pertaining to cut and fill shall be followed. Engineering considerations are to include design of drainage back slopes, drainage downslope channels, and buttressing unstable slopes. The buttressing is to involve the proper placement of compacted fill material, compacted to the UBC 1 } specifications for such an application. Lj Significance After Mitigation. Proper engineering of the cut slopes should mitigate this effect to less than significant. t_S City of Santa Clarita 1 5.7 � 11 L Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.1 Earth Resources Effect ER -2: Cutting slopes and re -emplacement of fill material would leave slope faces exposed to extensive erosion. This erosion has the potential to destabilize slopes and impede the proper drainage of the area. (S) Slopes stripped of vegetation could be adversely eroded by irrigation watering or periods of rainfall. 0 During the construction period, the onsite slopes would produce debris similar to a "burned and bulked" condition during a capital storm (see Section 5.2), with the onsite debris production being approximately 128 cubic yards per acre. This sediment would be transported downstream, where it can clog drainage conveyances and create flooding problems. This effect is discussed further in Section 5.2, as is the requirement for Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce the amount of sediment washed off the site. After project completion, the applicant proposes to revegetate the golf course area with fairway grasses and a mix of native plants along cut slopes. If revegetation on the cut slopes is not initiated as soon as the earthwork is complete, excessive erosion may occur. Excessive erosion could also occur if ninappropriate irrigation methods are used. `J Mitigation Measures. ER -2(a) All slopes are to be constructed per the requirements of the UBC pertaining to cut slopes. This engineering is to include terraces with drainage back slopes (drainage keys), downspouts, and proper surfacing of the drainage backslopes. Maintenance of the drainage keys is to include removal of debris before the beginning of the rainy season and periodic debris removal as necessary during the rainy season. Fill ER -2(b) A proper watering system, such as drip irrigation, shall be established for site cut slopes to minimize the volume of water during the establishment of the vegetation, thus reducing the potential of erosion during this period. Significance After Mitigation. Through the proper design, implementation, and maintenance of the slopes and drainage features and the use of BMPs, erosional effects can be reduced to less than significant.. Effect ER -3 This project includes the extensive use of rill material to construct the golf course and building pads for residences. The fill has the potential to settle (or rebound) under the weight of the house built upon it, from landscape irrigation, from swimming pools constructed, and from seismic shaking. (1 (S) l J Proper segregation of earth materials to be used for fill, and the placement of the fill is a critical issue (l facing this project. During the grading of the area, the Mint Canyon Formation rock is to be cut in ttJJ places. This formation contains bentonitic beds, which are a clayey material that expands and is prone to slippage, especially when wet. During grading, large rock and bentonitic material would be generated LJ that would need to be incorporated into the fill areas. Rock and bentonite need either to be removed from the fill or buried to a depth and in a manner that the proper compaction characteristics can be met C per the recommendations of the geotechnical engineer. Otherwise, differential settling of the fill either City of Santa Clarita 5.]-5 E Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.1 Earth Resources due to the weight of a structure or because of seismic shaking could create unacceptable ground movement, resulting in cracking of the foundation of structures. Building lots that straddle cut and fill lines create the possibility of a building pad lying across the cut/fill lines. Since the fill material may further compact under seismic shaking, while the cut area remains at the cut elevation, the building pad foundation could be vertically offset and significant damage done to any structure lying across the cut/fill line. Mitigation Measures. ER -3(a) Fill density shall follow UBC. If the fill material does not meet the strength and compaction requirements, the material shall be rejected and used elsewhere on the property, such as in the golf course construction. All adverse vegetation shall be removed from the fill prior to emplacement. Fill lifts and compaction testing shall be per UBC and signed off by the supervising geologist or engineer. ER -3(b) Areas across the cut/fill line shall be well documented and disclosed to the purchaser of the lot involved. This disclosure will allow subsequent property modification, such as the construction of a swimming pool, to consider the possibility of differential setting of the lot. Significance After Mitigation. Through proper design and implementation, this effect can be reduced to not significant. Effect ER -4 Grading will expose barren soils that are unconsolidated and easily eroded, which can result in extensive offsite transport of eroded material during storm events and impact drainage channels with a sediment load. (S) Site slopes and bottomlands are currently highly erosive, but removal of vegetation would increase the possible debris generation potential of the area during intense rainfall. Transport of the material offsite during storm events would increase existing problems along Sand Canyon Road (see Section 5.2) and possibly cause some local depositional problems along Oak Spring Canyon. Mitigation Measures. ER -4 Per City requirements, grading is not to be performed during the rainy period (October 1 to April 15) unless the grading plans include provisions to mitigate erosion, flooding, or the deposition of sediment or debris. Grading performed during the rest of the year shall contain a provision for dust suppression. Significance After Mitigation. Proper timing and design of the grading schedule should mitigate this effect to not significant. City of Santa Clarita 5.1.6 LI L I] L1 U j� F) it H U P U P Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.1 Earth Resources Effect ER -5 Known landslides and debris flows are located near and on residential lots and movement of these earth masses could damage structures. (S) Landslides are located on lots 69, 71, and adjacent to 39 and 55. Debris flows were noted on lots 62, 63, and 64, and above lot 45. If these features are either undermined during construction or are not stabilized during grading operations, future downhill movement of material could cause structural damage to any buildings or other structures located on those lots. Mitigation Measures, ER -5 Landslides and debris flows are to be stabilized or removed. Stabilization or (1 removal shall be performed under the direction of a competent engineer or geologist. FJ 1J l_J I I P n Significance After Mitigation. Proper stabilization or removal of these features would eliminate these geologic hazards. Effect ER -6 Strong seismically induced ground shaking will occur at this site. The ground shaking has the potential to cause fill material to settle, destabilize slopes, and cause physical damage to structures, property, utilities, road access, and humans. (S) The project site is located in an area subject to strong ground shaking during seismic events and building codes adopted by the City have been established to set standards for construction in such an area. Besides the direct physical damage to structures caused by the ground shaking, marginally stable landslides, slopes, and inadequately compacted fill material could move and cause additional damage. Gas, water, and electrical lines can be ruptured during the ground shaking, or broken during the movement of material activated by the seismic event, which can jeopardize public safety after an earthquake. In general, development of the project site does not create any greater risk than similar developments in the Santa Clarita area, and the location of the proposed uses in this area does not create a significant environmental impact. Nonetheless, project specific construction and design measures are needed to minimize any risks associated with strong ground shaking at the site. Mitigation Measures. ER -6 Placement of fill material and compaction shall be done to withstand settling that could occur with seismic ground shaking. Landslides, unstable rock slopes and debris flows shall be stabilized to prevent movement during or following an earthquake, Significance After Mitigation. Through proper design, the effects of an earthquake can be reduced to an acceptable level of risk. IF City of Santa Clarita 5.1-7 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.1 Earth Resources Effect ER -7 The project and surrounding area is seismically active. Active and potentially active faults have been mapped within the City limits that have the potential to cause ground rupture. (NS) No known active or potentially active faults have been mapped on the project site. Although not all faults are known, or identifiable on the ground surface, the potential for ground rupture by faulting on this site appears to be low. Mitigation Measures. None necessary. However, if during grading faults are observed that could be active or potentially active, the project design shall be modified to account for the possibility of ground rupture. Fault setbacks, per UBC, shall be followed. Significance After Mitigation. At present, ground rupture is considered an insignificant impact for this site. Effect ER -8. Certain portions of the site near local drainages have the potential to liquefy during seismic conditions, which can result in damage to overlying structures. (S) Shallow groundwater may exist in the area of Oak Spring creek and the northwestern part of the site along Live Oak. Springs Canyon creek. Depending on the soil stratigraphy, depth to groundwater, and seismically induced ground shaking, liquefaction could occur. Liquefaction has the potential to damage or destroy structures built on the liquefiable material because of the loss of support. Areas earmarked for structures shall be assessed for the potential of liquefiable sediments. Soil borings and material testing is to be performed for areas having the potential for liquefaction. Mitigation Measures. ER -8 If liquefiable soils are encountered during grading, then proper re-engineering of the soils shall be performed or the proposed structures moved to areas away from liquefiable soils. Areas of properties that have the potential of liquefaction shall be identified, and purchasers of these lots shall be told of the liquefaction potential. Significance After Mitigation. With proper design and notification, this effect would not be considered significant. C, L� Effect ER -9 Hydroconsolidation of soils occurs when groundwater causes soils to recompact, resulting in settling of the material. (S) l Gorian and Associates (1995) stated that some areas of the property have the potential for hydroconsolidation: These areas are located primarily in the bottomlands and possible hydroconsolidation would affect Lot Nos. 1-8 in particular. Differential settling of soils because of hydrocompaction could result in structural damage of residences. City of Santa 5.1-8 l) �l I it H L Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.1 Earth Resources Mitigation Measures. ( ER -9 The potential for hydro consolidation shall be further examined in the detailed l� geotechnical report to be prepared for the final grading plan. If there is a risk of hydroconsolidation, the earth materials are to be re -engineered to reduce this risk, or (j the proposed structures relocated to an area without the potential of L hydroconsolidation. Areas of a lot that have the potential of hydroconsolidation that is not mitigated shall be identified, and property purchasers be notified of the risk of �j hydroconsolidation. Sijznificance After Mitigation. Through proper design and notification, this effect can be reduced to less r1 than significant. (� Effect ER -10 Project would develop an area designated as "significant mineral deposits" rj and prevent the exploitation of this natural resource for at least the UU foreseeable future. (NS) U Oak Spring Canyon contains alluvial sand and gravel deposits that have been designated as MRZ-2 (areas U where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present or where it is judged that a high likelihood for their presence exists) by the California Division of Mining and Geology (S.E. Joseph, et al, 1987 CDMG Special Report 143). Within the MRZ-2 area, sectors were developed if the then current land use was similar to those in areas which had feasible mineral extraction in the past. The classification of lands into sectors was based on economic and social exclusion factors that eliminated those lands that were already developed for residential, commercial, industrial and recreational uses, along with roads, dams, bridges, transmission corridors etc., but this sectorization did not consider planned land use. Establishment of sectors in no way infringes on the authority of local governments that are charged with the responsibility of making land use decisions (CDMG Special Report 143, pg. 45). The Oak Canyon alluvial area (bottomlands) is designed as Sector A-12, while other sectors are designated for most of the land to the east of the site within the Angeles National Forest (Sectors B-1 and C-1), and the Santa Clara River (additional Sector A). The CDMG estimates that Sector A contains a total of 900 million tons of sand and gravel, Sector B contains 1,600 million tons of sand and gravel, and Sector C contains 6,000 million tons of crushed rock resources. The proposed project site is estimated to contain approximately 1.2 - 2.2 million cubic yards of aggregate resources (2.0 - 3.7 million tons based on .065 tons per cubic foot and 5% wastage; CDMG Special Report 143), or about 0.4% of the total resource amount identified for Sector A. In California, reported construction sand and gravel sold or used by producers totaled 112.9 million tons in 1992, 106.2 million tons in 1993, and an estimated 102.5 million tons in 1994 (USDOI, Bureau of Mines, 1994). Statewide, an additional 1 I million tons of aggregate from crushed stone was used in 1993. Assuming that sand and gravel use is roughly proportional to population, Los Angeles County used about 31 million tons in 1993. Therefore the project site would represent only 7-12% of one year's production of sand and gravel in the regional market. On a economic scale of development of 250,000 tons per year, the project site would represent about 0,8% of annual regional production for an approximate ten year period. In comparison, City of Santa Clarita 5.1-9 a [l Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR-1 Section 5.1 Earth Resources the mining operations east of the project site is planning on extracting about 12.7 million cubic yards (21 million tons) over the next 10 years (Tetra Tech, 1991), The CDMG Special Publication 143 indicated that 510 million tons of aggregate reserves were contained in the combined Saugus -Newhall and Palmdale Production -Consumption areas by the end of 1981. Reserves are those aggregate deposits that are owned and controlled by sand and gravel mining , companies for which a valid permit for extraction exists, as compared to the resources described above. Total projected aggregate consumption for the 50 -year period to the year 2032 was 54 million tons for the Saugus -Newhall Production -Consumption area and the amount of reserves is sufficient to provide for the estimated needs of this area by more than sevenfold (CDMG Special Report 143, pg. xiii). However, it was noted that the San Fernando Valley Production -Consumption area was consuming 30% of the production from the Saugus -Newhall area, and if high demand from the San Fernando Valley and the Western Ventura County Production -Consumption areas were to occur, then the reserves could be depleted in 50 years and additional resources would need to be permitted for extraction. Given the amount of reserves and resources still available in the Saugus -Newhall area and the lack of I indications of a shortage in supply for the area, the commitment of the land to golf course and residential use is not expected to have a significant impact on the supply of sand and gravel resources. The recycling of aggregate resources from demolition wastes as part of City and County requirements to substantially reduce solid waste generation has also added new resources to the market. In addition, since the sand and gravel resource area would be occupied by the golf course, the project would not represent an actual irretrievable commitment of this resource since the golf course could be converted to gravel production if there became a critical need for this resource. However, the presence of residential uses adjacent to the golf course would make this scenario highly unlikely. t The City during the development and approval of its 1991 General Plan did not consider mining and n extraction uses as appropriate to the project site when it was designated for development as Residential J Estate and Residential Very Low, The City's Land Use Element contains a specific Mineral/Oil Conservation Area overlay designation that is intended to permit the continuation of mineral extraction and oil field uses while providing for further development of the City. While this overlay was placed on L the sand and gravel deposits in the Santa Clara River north of the site and the existing mining operations to the northeast of the site (1993 General Plan Land Use Map), it was not so designated for the project site. In addition, the major portion of the aggregate deposits within the project site is located in the 160 l_1 acre northeast parcel, an area that was entitled for development of 140 residential lots in 1990. The proposed project would not alter these substantial existing limitations on the potential use of the site for j mineral extraction, and so would not create a new significant impact on regional mineral resource �f deposits that did not already exist. Mitigation Measures. None necessary since the available supply of sand and gravel would not be L) substantially reduced by the proposed project. j� Significance After Mitigation. The potential loss of aggregate resources because of project development is considered adverse, but not significant. r City of Santa Clarlta Cl 5.1-10 j� Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR 11 Section 5.2 Hydrology, Drainage, Water 5.2 IIYDROLOGY, DRAINAGE, WATER The eastern portion of the property lies within the floodplain of Oak Spring Creek and one of the proposed golf courses would lie within this regulatory, floodway, but none of the residences would be affected. The western slope golf course and Lots Nos. I & 4 contain the stream channel for Live Oak `` Springs Canyon Creek and the golf course and Lots Nos. 1-8 lie within the shallow flooding zone of the l� creek. Current planning by the LACFCD includes construction of a debris basin along the western property boundary; this would decrease existing flooding problems downstream of the debris basin and L along Sand Canyon Road. Mitigation is necessary for those residential lots that would continue to be exposed to shallow flooding. Construction of the proposed project could result in excessive erosion and downstream sedimentation during the construction phase; implementation of Best Management LJ Practices as required by the NPDESpermit required for the project would minimize this effect. The sale L J drainage concept appears adequate to handle the expected site runoff, and is not expected to cause any increases in existing downstream flooding. However, the relocation of the access easement along the north property line in Oak Spring Canyon could create an impassable condition during adverse weather and the road grade shall be reduced or an all-weather surface installed The change inland use could result in decreased surface water and groundwater quality; a Best Management Practice Plan and Integrated Pest Management Plan that include specific physical structures and programs to reduce the potential for reductions in water quality shall be required. 5.2.1 Setting The project site lies within two different watersheds, Sand Canyon and Oak Spring Canyon, both of which drain into the Santa Clara River less than one mile north of the site, The streams within these canyons, like most in the area, are intermittent with streamflow generally occurring after winter rains begin and with flow maintained only as long as rains continue sufficient to sustain flows. With suburban development of portions of the watersheds, some local intermittent flows can develop during the summer in the urbanized channels because of irrigation overflow, but this flow is negligible when compared to (l winter flows. The natural stream areas are susceptible to major debris flows because of erosion from J steep mountain slopes with sparse vegetation. Most of the major flood events in the area are the result of high intensity rains, which can be further aggravated by major fires that denude vegetation in the affected �1 watershed. Flood control planning is therefore based on stream flows that are "burned and bulked", �J reflective of a burned watershed with high debris flows contained in the normal (clear) water flow, 11 n Ninety percent of annual rainfall in the area occurs during November through April as a result of winter storms from the northwest. Infrequent summer thunderstorms and showers from tropical depressions account for the remaining rainfall. Average annual precipitation in the area is about 14 inches, with up to 20 inches falling at the higher elevations to the south of the project area. The amount of rainfall that occurs in any one year can vary greatly, ranging from less than 10 inches to over 40 inches. The 50 -year 24-hour precipitation event for the project site is 7.0 inches, while the 25 -year event is 6.0 inches and the 100 -year event is 8.0 inches (U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Atlas 2, Volume )a).. 5.2-1 City of santa cianta U Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.2 Hydrology, Drainage, Water a. Sand Canyon Watershed. The Sand Canyon drainage has been partially controlled by past l development and off-site stormwater flows are via drainage swales along roadways and through earthen open channels within urbanized areas. Sand Canyon Creek is partially improved with double wire fence, stream stabilizers along various reaches, and timber and rail wall revetment along its lower reaches. The f Live Oak Springs Canyon drainage, a tributary to Sand Canyon, flows through the western end of the property, through the three off-site lots along Sand Canyon Road, through the northwesterly portion of the site, and then exits the site by passing over the sidewalk and curb at the Comet Way intersection. Flows are conveyed along Sand Canyon Road via asphalt and concrete shallow trapezoidal channels on both sides of Sand Canyon Road for about 700 feet north to near Road Runner Road. The east side l J flows are directed under Sand Canyon Road towards the west side via two 12 -inch corrugated metal pipes (CMP) at the south driveway of the church and three 18 -inch CMPs at the north church driveway. The combined flows are then routed under Road Runner Road via two large CMPs and into an open dirt (� channel that then merges with Sand Canyon wash. Annual average storms result in flooding and debris ! s deposition from Live Oak Springs Canyon Creek onto Sand Canyon Road between Comet Way and Road Runner Road, and frequently north to Lost Canyon Road. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA, 1989) has prepared flood mapping for the 100 - year peak discharge,which has a 1% probability of occurring in any year. Figure 5.2-1 illustrates that the L J lowland areas of the site along Live Oak Springs Canyon Creek are exposed to shallow flooding at depths L -J from one to three feet (Zone AO), with the 100 -year flood (Zone A) located along the creek. The 50 - year peak storm runoff in Live Oak Springs Canyon Creek entering the site comes from 497 acres per ! 1 Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) File 38.4 1, and has a flow rate of 1416 cubic feet per second (cfs) for burned and bulked flows. Burned and bulked flows leaving the site and combined with flows from the Comet Way area are 1680 cfs. The 50 -year peak discharge has a 2% probability of occurring in any one year based on LACFCD calculation methods. The project engineer (Sikand Engineering, May 1995) calculated the 50 -year peak runoff under existing conditions for the western slope of the site (Sand Canyon drainage) using the LACFCD rational method. Flows were calculated for burned conditions and burned and bulked conditions to estimate the debris flow potential of the site. These hydrology calculations are herein incorporated by reference per the State CEQA Guidelines; a copy of the calculations and large scale mapping is available for reference at the Community Development Department of the City of Santa Clarita. These calculations were reviewed by lJ the EIRpreparer and appear to be reasonable. J The hydrology analysis divided the west slope area into several small sub -basins of 3 to 20 acres each. 1 Most of the sub -basins drain into Live Oak Springs Canyon creek, but two larger sub -basins drain to the ) north. Burned and bulked flows from the individual sub -basins ranged from 6 to 104 cfs, while calculated debris potential ranged from 128 to 3000 cubic yards. Existing calculated flows for the subbasins that do (� not flow directly into Live Oak Springs Canyon creek are shown in Figure 5.2-L J As previously stated, debris -ladened flows from Live Oak Springs Canyon have created flooding and sedimentation problems along Sand Canyon Road north of the project site. The LACFCD in 1989 5.2-2 SantaCiarita �] P11 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR NV j - I l LACFCD FEMA s s'j Floodway Zone A I / Floodplain' Zone AO Sources: LACFCD Map 382 -MLI per Sikand Engineering, May 1995; FEMA, 1989 Base Map: USGS Mint Canyon Quadrangle r 920;rfs, 0 1200 2400 Scale in Feet cfs = cubic feet per second 100 -Year and Capital Storm Flood Map NORTH Figure 5.2-1 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.2 Hydrology, Drainage, Water recommended the construction of a debris basin adjacent to Sand Canyon Road and north of Boulder Creek Road, a small dirt road that provides access to the northernmost of the three developed lots on Sand Canyon adjacent to the project. This debris basin was proposed to have a capacity of 6,000 cy. Outlet flows from this debris basin were to be contained in a reinforced concrete box (14 feet wide by 7 feet high) buried under Sand Canyon Road. The box would outlet north of Road Runner Road into a short open channel that would merge with Sand Canyon wash. It was also proposed that an upstream lateral of the box culvert consisting of a 48 -inch reinforced concrete pipe storm drain be constructed in Sand Canyon Road from the debris basin to the intersection of Live Oak Springs Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road. Four inlets at this location would divert gutter flows into the storm drain system. Current planning for this debris basin by the LACFCD is to place it further upstream and onto the project site in the square area at the west property line. b. Oak Spring Canyon Watershed. Oak Spring Canyon has three main tributaries flowing from Angeles National Forest lands upstream of the site. To the south of the project site, Rabbit Canyon drains 960 acres of forest lands onto the site. The main (middle) branch of Oak Spring Canyon drains 1410 acres through the mining pit to the east of the site, and an unnamed drainage north of the middle branch drains 650 acres onto the site at the northeast corner. Peak flow from the capital flood entering the site from Rabbit Canyon is 2290 cfs, with 3490 cfs from the main branch and 920 cfs from the northern drainage (Figure 5.2 -1) - Debris potential for Oak Spring Canyon was estimated based on Los Angeles County Flood Control debris production curves (based on the 50 -year event) for the Santa Clara River watershed (Tetra Tech, 1991). Based on these curves, Oak Spring Canyon could potentially generate 63,900 cubic yards (cy) of debris upstream of the site, with about 47,250 cy generated in Rabbit Canyon and 34,900 cy from the unnamed drainage. Not all of this material would flow into or through the site, rather this material would be distributed along the creeks depending on the actual flow conditions and physical characteristics of the streams. The average annual sediment rate for all of Oak Spring Canyon including the project site and the upstream tributaries was estimated to be about 10,800 cy. These values are subject to a high degree of variability that is dependent on actual rainfall and watershed conditions, but present a general picture of potential debris flow in normal and wet years. Floodway and floodplain mapping for the 100 -year runoff event has been prepared for the Oak Spring Canyon area by FEMA. Figure 5.2-1 illustrates the current flood mapping for Oak Spring Canyon per LACFCD Map 382 -ML l (Sikand Engineering, May 1995). The 700 -year peak discharge estimates used by FEMA in creating floodway maps are clear flows and the 50 -year burned and bulked flows (capital storm) used by LACFCD are approximately the same. The floodway area was apparently developed prior to the mining operations on adjacent lands, which have altered the topography of the area and the probable flow path of storm waters. Flows from Rabbit Canyon would be expected to enter the site 100 feet north of the location shown for the floodway, and that from Oak Spring Canyon would similarly occur north of the mapped flow path. In addition, the Gillibrand mining operations has created a large pit in Oak Canyon just upstream of the site.This pit controls flows from typical storms by storing water and releasing it via an earthen channel when the storage volume exceeds the pit capacity. It is unknown what U �J L LJ I J F1, City of Santa Clarita, 5.2A J I I I C n P U U FJ E Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.2 Hydrology, Drainage, Water the capacity of the pit is, but it is estimated at about 10 acre-feet. This storage capacity is not significant compared to the flows associated with capital storms and is not considered in the hydrology calculations. Because Oak Spring Canyon is an alluvial plain, it is somewhat misleading to designate a floodway, since during a storm, the dynamic deposition and erosion of sediment could cause the main flow path to move anywhere within the canyon between the elevated bills. Itis noted that there are also some discrepancies between the flood elevations generated by the FEMA floodplain mapping and the mapping using the updated current topography for the site. The updated analysis is considered more accurate. Sikand Engineering (May 1995) conducted a HEC -2 analysis to determine flow depths and velocities within the Oak Spring Canyon area under both current and post -project conditions. Under current conditions, flows on the project site ranged from I to 6 feet deep with velocities between 2 and 9 feet per second. Discharge from the northerly end of the site was 3,850 cfs at a depth of 2.6 feet (cross-section 14). Velocity at this point was calculated at about 8 feet per second, with the flood width somewhat constrained to about 232 feet. Downstream of this point; flood waters are calculated to spread out to 1,400 feet in width with a flow of 4,660 cfs and a slower velocity of about 2 feet per second (cross- section 10). c. Water Quality. The protection of water quality in the onsite drainages is under the jurisdiction of the Regional Water Quality Board. This board establishes requirements prescribing the quality of point sources of discharge and establishes water quality objectives through the Water Quality Control Plan for the local basin. Water quality objectives are established based on the designated beneficial uses for a particular surface water or groundwater basin. Beneficial uses designated for the Eastern Subarea of the Upper Santa Clara River Subunit, which includes the project tributaries, include industrial service and process supply, agricultural supply, groundwater recharge, water contact and non - contact recreation, freshwater replenishment, wildlife habitat, warmwater fish habitat, and fish spawning habitat (Regional Water Quality Control Board, 1978). Groundwater within the basin is designated for existing beneficial uses that include municipal and domestic water supply, industrial service and process supply, and agricultural supply. The basin plan contains narrative and specific numerical objectives for a variety of parameters and potential pollutants based on these beneficial uses designations. (� d. Groundwater. Groundwater in the project area is generally limited both in quantity and L) availability to the alluvial deposits within the Santa Clara River and the lower reaches of tributary streams to the river. Crystalline bedrock is relatively near to the ground surface in the area and groundwater {1 within the shallow alluvial deposits drains towards the Santa Clara River, Groundwater depth within the �f Santa Clara River is illustrated by a municipal well owned by the Newhall County Water District (No. 7197 G) located in the. Santa Clara River about one mile upstream of the confluence with Oak Spring Canyon. The depth to groundwater in this public water supply well varied between 18 and 53 feet during the 1986 to 1988 periods, for which records are readily available (Tetra Tech, 1991). Water quality sampling of surface water along the Santa Clara River in 1974-1976 indicated that water L J quality in the project; area (at Lang, about two miles upstream of Oak Spring Canyon) was relatively good, and decreased in quality downstream because of urban, agricultural, and wastewater discharges r City of Santa Clarita 5.2-5 n Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.2 Hydrology,Drainage, Water (U.S Geological Survey, 1978). For example, total nitrate was less than 1 milligram per liter (mg/1) at Lang, but increased to 4.4 mg/1 at the I-5 freeway. The quality of groundwater is expected to be similar to that of the surface water since most of the groundwater is derived from infiltration of surface water through alluvium. Three abandoned water wells are located within the project site within the Sand Canyon watershed along Live Oak Springs Canyon Creek. One well is located near the intersection of Comet Way and Sand Canyon Road, while the other two wells are located near the fairway and proposed adjacent lake for hole No. 7.: No water wells are known to have been developed on the site within the Oak Spring Canyon area. A number of small domestic wells are located in the rural residential area north and westerly of the project site along Oak Spring Canyon Road. Based on comments received during the scoping meeting for this EIR, the water supply from these wells is considered to be limited by the residents that depend on them. Based on hydrological studies prepared by W.F. Hardt and Associates (1986; as reported in Tetra Tech, 1991), the annual average runoff volume for Oak Spring Canyon is 470 acre-feet per year, If it is assumed that about 10% of this runoff percolates into the groundwater basin, then the local replenished supply is about 47 acre-feet. During drought periods, available supply for replenishment could be substantially less. 5.2.2 Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds. Flood hazards were based on a comparison of proposed site uses and their locations relative to available flood hazard mapping. Impacts related to flooding are considered significant if the flooding causes direct or indirect risks to human lives and property. Significant impacts would also occur if the project created alterations within the floodway that would increase flood elevations by more than one foot. Any change in the 100 -year flood elevation or limits will require the processing of a Letter Of Map Revision (LOMR) with FEMA. The assessment of drainage effects is based on a review of the conceptual drainage plans for the site and hydrology calculations submitted by the applicant. Potential water quality effects are based on typical nutrient and other contaminant loadings associated with the existing and proposed uses. Significant impacts would occur if the project were to result in a change in the water quality of onsite creeks or groundwater that would prevent the achievement of water quality goals or objectives for this drainage. b. Project Impacts. Effect D-1 During construction of the proposed development, the soil surface will be disrupted and become subject to erosion, with potential offsite sedimentation of eroded material. (S) Construction grading is expected to occur primarily during the spring and other periods of low rainfall. Nonetheless, if large amounts of bare soil are exposed during the rainy season or in the event of intense summer thunderstorms, the exposed soils of the site could be entrained and eroded from the site. The City of Santa Clarita 5.2-6 LJ J 1] J I J J L� FJ .l 11 iJ j� Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Il JI Section 5.2 Hydrology, Drainage, Water eroded soils would be washed into the drainages where they would degrade the water quality of the creek or could cause significant sedimentation adjacent to downstream residences. The amount of material potentially eroded from the construction site is greater than under the existing condition and similar to conditions after a wildfire since the soil would not be protected from the direct rainfall impact. Uncontrolled discharges of sediment are considered a significant impact. Li Mitigation Measures. Regulations under the federal Clean Water Act require that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) storm water permit be obtained for projects that would disturb (j greater than five acres during construction.. Acquisition of such a permit is dependent on the preparation u of a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) that contains specific actions, termed Best Management Practices (BMPs), to control the discharge of pollutants, including sediment, into the local surface water drainages. The following mitigation measure addresses this requirement. D-1 A SWMP for site construction shall be developed prior to the initiation of grading and implemented throughout the construction phase. The SWMP shall include specific temporary BMPs to control the export of material from the site and into the local drainages. BMP methods may include, but would not be limited to, the use of temporary sediment basins, hay bales, sand bagging, and soil stabilizers.. Additional BMPs shall be implemented for any fuel storage or fuel handling that could occur on-site during the construction phase. Permanent BMPs may include extensive revegetation and construction of pollutant trapping devices. Significance After Mitigation. No significant water quality impacts during construction are anticipated (� after implementation of appropriate BMPs. aEffect D-2 Exposure of future residences and property to the 100 -year flood. (S) A comparison of Figure 5.2.1 with the site plan indicates that the 100 -year flood zone of Oak Spring Canyon creek, as defined either by FEMA or the revised floodplain per the HEC -2 calculations, will occur only within the golf course area and no residences or project roadways would be located within that area. The HEC -2 calculations indicate that no increase in the elevation of flood waters would be (j expected and the general flow path would not be altered by the golf course given the proposed �J topography. Therefore, no significant impacts are associated with the proposed project relative to the 100 -year flood hazard in Oak Spring Canyon. aThe storm drainage system within the residential areas along the ridges provides for surface water runoff to be gathered along streets and routed to discharge onto the golf course. No significant impacts are associated with this portion of the concept drainage plan, The eight residences proposed in the western portion of the site adjacent to Live Oak Springs Canyon creek would lie within the shallow water flood zone. The construction of the proposed debris basin and the LACFCD proposed storm drain system would alleviate most of this hazard for the lower five n residential lots. The project proponent is proposing to provide the land for the debris basin and some �J 5.2-7 City of Santa Claris n LJ Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.2 Hydrology, Drainage, Water funds, with the remaining cost of the improvements financed by the County to reduce this existing flood hazard. Currently, the LACFCD is anticipating that construction of this improvement would begin in 1996, with completion expected in 1997. It is possible that all of the residences could be constructed prior to the resolution of the current drainage problem. In addition, this improvement would not eliminate the shallow flooding problem for the upstream three lots (Lot Nos. 6, 7 & 8). Exposure of new residences to an existing flood hazard is considered a significant impact since it conflicts with the adopted environmental goals of the City of Santa Clarita. Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures are required regarding the 100 -year flood zone in Oak Spring Canyon or for the golf course. Because the residences near Live Oak Springs Canyon Creek could be exposed to flood damage, the following measure is recommended - D -2 Potential purchasers of Lots Nos. 1-8 shall be notified of the flood hazard existing along these lots and the current status of flood control improvement efforts. Housing sites shall comply with requirements of the local floodplain management ordinance. These requirements include the location of building pads above the estimated 100 -year flood elevation. No certificate of occupancy shall be issued for these residences until adequate mitigation of the flood hazard at the individual sites has been met to the satisfaction of the City Director of Community Development and the City Engineer.. Significance After Mitigation. No significant residual impacts are anticipated regarding the 100 -year flood given the above mitigation measure. The FIRM maps for Oak Spring Canyon should be corrected to indicate the post -project 100 -year floodplain. This will require preparation of a new HEC -2 flow model study based on final grading contours and submittal of revised flood elevations to the Federal Emergency Management Agency for approval. Effect D-3 Change in runoff patterns from the site would alter the potential for on-site and downstream flooding. (NS) The applicant's engineer prepared a hydrology analysis for the proposed project that estimated the existing and post -project surface water runoff. While onsite drainage features would tend to decrease the time needed to concentrate flows, and so potentially increase peak flows, the project would also reduce the slope of the site and thereby decrease flow velocities, allowing more time for percolation of water into the soil. The revegetation of the site with native plants and golf course landscaping would also serve to stabilize onsite soils, decreasing the debris production potential of the site, which would no longer be subject to a burned and bulked condition. In addition, drainage on the golf course is directed towards the onsite water features, further decreasing the amount of site runoff. Figure 5.2-2 illustrates post -project 50 -year storm flows based on increasing the 25 -year storm intensity for developed areas available from the hydrology report (Sikand Engineering Associates, 1995) to a 50 -year intensity. Overall peak flows would decrease by 30-50% for most of the onsite subbasins, primarily because of the reduction in debris production, and peak flows from the site are not projected to exceed existing burned and bulked flows for City of Santa Clarita 5.2-8 ri I] r_] U lJ U Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR th. IIS I.S9� y�T IJ I J n 11 0 I I P P 0 1200 2400 Scale in Feet Base Map: USGS Mint Canyon Quadrangle cis = cubic feet per Second T Post Project Capital (50 -Year) Storm Flows NORTH Figure 5.2-2 , N; ^�a y�T IJ I J n 11 0 I I P P 0 1200 2400 Scale in Feet Base Map: USGS Mint Canyon Quadrangle cis = cubic feet per Second T Post Project Capital (50 -Year) Storm Flows NORTH Figure 5.2-2 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.2 Hydrology, Drainage; Water the capital event. In particular, no significant increases in peak flows are expected for those subbasins that drain to the north towards the existing rural community in the Oak Springs area. Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is necessary. Significance After Miti ag tion. No significant environmental effects are anticipated provided that the drainage system is adequately designed and constructed. Effect D-4 Rerouting of the easement road along the north property line would expose the road to steep slopes and erosion, making this road impassable in poor weather. (S) An existing local flood hazard is present in Oak Spring Canyon at the project site due to high flows along the dirt access road. Storm flows from Oak Spring Canyon wash across the road where it enters the project site, causing erosional gullies. Also, the road acts to somewhat direct the flows westerly down the road and the road in fact serves as part of the drainage channel. Storm flows have been reported by the residents of the area as from relatively shallow with low velocities, with the dirt road remaining passable most of the time, to over three feet deep and of least 150 feet wide during storm events. As stated on page 5.2-5, the HEC -2 model estimates a flow depth of 2.6 feet with a velocity of around 8 feet per second in this area for the 50 -year capital storm. It is noted that flow velocities greater than three feet per second when combined with depths greater than three feet are considered hazardous. The road currently lies in the more level portions of the site and skirts the ridge that forms the northerly property line. The proposed project would reroute this road along the northern property line and up the ridgeline, which would be reduced in height by the golf course grading. Based on proposed topography, a 50 foot section of the road would have a slope gradient of between 10-20%. Under storm conditions, this steep road segment would be exposed to high velocity sheet flow and erosion, making the road impassable to most vehicles. Grading for the proposed golf course would direct the main Oak Spring Canyon flows towards shallow swales that cross the fairways. These grassy swales would potentially reduce flow velocities of smaller storms, but would not alter the depth or width of major storm flows. The HEC -2 model run for the post - project scenario for the capital storm indicates that the total discharge in cubic feet per second would remain the same, but that flow depth would slightly decrease to 2.4 feet, and velocity would substantially decrease to 3.5 feet per second. Based on this analysis, the project would have the beneficial effect of reducing flow velocities and water exiting the drainage swales to cross the dirt road and exit the site would have less erosional force than that currently exiting the site. Therefore, the passability of the dirt road would remain the same or improve as compared to existing conditions. Mitigation Measures. The following measure is necessary to reduce the access problems associated with the road re -alignment. I IJ LJ F1 lJ L1 J l) City of Santa Clarita J 5.2-10 LTJ r, Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR USection 5.2 Hydrology, Drainage, Water l Jl D-4 As part of the final grading design, the road shall be designed with a maximum slope of 10% and improved with decomposed granite. Alternatively, portions of the road Gsteeper than 10% shall be paved per Fire Department access requirements. Significance After Mitigation. The above measure would eliminate the access problem caused by the project and reduce that effect to an acceptable level.. To reduce existing wash-out conditions, the road would need to be paved or an otherwise all-weather crossing installed where Oak Spring Canyon Creek exits the site. I 11 CJ I C I 11 G I Effect D-5 Decrease in the quality of surface water and groundwater associated with change in land use from open space to residential and golf course land use. (S) The introduction of suburban uses has the potential to change the quality of surface water that drains from the site and ultimately to groundwater due to the percolation of surface waters. The proposed residential and golf course uses would contribute various pollutants to the surface water, including fertilizer, pesticides, hydrocarbons (oil and grease from roadways), rubber, and organic wastes, but would also cause a reduction in the soil erosion potential of the site and subsequent sediment loading in Live Oak Springs Canyon Creek and Oak Spring Canyon. The alteration of groundwater quality in the Oak Spring Canyon area is a particular concern because of the number of individual domestic wells in this area and the limited water quantity contained in the local alluvial aquifer. Stream water chemistry is complex because of the various mixtures of runoff waters from different sources (overland flow, subsurface flow, direct precipitation, and saturated overland flow) that comprise the stream water.. At the project site, the vast majority of runoff water is composed of direct precipitation runoff and the stream water quality is related to the wash-out of particulates and gases contained in the atmosphere and the wash off of surface materials entrained in the stream flow. Generally in natural streams, concentrations of dissolved solids (often referred to as salinity) tend to be high at low flows during dry weather when the flow is dominated by groundwater drainage via springs, and low during periods of high flow when solutes are diluted by large volumes of rainfall. Stream chemistry is also affected by the land use pattern upstream of the site. Typically following irrigation, a major portion of the applied water is evaporated, leaving behind formerly dissolved solids. Some of these salts remain in the soil, but others may enter the stream flow through surface water runoff and the contribution of shallow subsurface flows. If these salts are not "flushed out" by sufficient clean flows, excessive salt concentrations can build up, that when dissolved in runoff, can be detrimental to the natural biota of the stream. Other pollutants that can affect surface water include higher than natural concentrations of trace metals, biodegradable wastes (which affect dissolved oxygen levels), excessive major nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus from fertilizers, pesticides, and sediment concentrations. The applicant at this time proposes to use only water from the Santa Clarita Water Company for the irrigation of the golf course. Since this is a domestic water supply that is regulated to meet drinking water standards, it would not be expected to contribute any pollutants to either surface water or groundwater. In addition, the project would not reduce the currently available supply of groundwater, and thereby potentially cause both a supply and quality problem, but would actually increase the local City of Santa Clarita 5.2-11 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.2 Hydrology, Drainage, Water supply through infiltration of irrigation waters. While recent advances in landscape irrigation techniques generally minimize the amount of water that deep percolates, return water losses are nonetheless estimated at 15% of applied water. This percolating water has the potential to carry any leachable materials from the ground surface to the underlying groundwater. Salt build-up in soils is often a potential problem in areas newly proposed for irrigation. A majorproblem can occur when the water is reused and retreated because salt content tends to accumulate with each cycle. The project will reuse some of the irrigation water as it is captured within the golf course lakes, however, most of the water used on the courses during an irrigation cycle will be from domestic water and should not have an adverse salt concentration. Nonetheless, salts do tend to accumulate within the soil due to ionic attractions between soil particles and the salts. Periodic overwatering is necessary to flush the salts below the root zone. If properly done, any residual effects on downstream receiving surface waters would be less than significant. However, care is necessary to prevent excessive salt export or build-up in the underlying groundwater aquifer that could affect downstream domestic wells. Water quality testing has been done at golf courses in various areas to determine the amount of leaching of pesticides (including herbicides) and fertilizers to the underlying groundwater. In a Cape Cod study conducted on 10 golf courses with very porous, sandy soil, it was concluded that none of the then registered pesticides were detected at toxicologically significant levels. In a Florida study, test wells were drilled on two golf courses and water samples tested for 37 different pesticides. None of the chemicals targeted for detection were present in the samples taken from the two golf courses. An Ohio study found that almost all of the pesticide residue remained in the thatch, or where thatch was not present, in the top inch (2.5 centimeters) of soil (Cohen, February 1990). However, significant levels of chlordane which had been applied at this golf course years earlier and now illegal were found in some samples. These studies indicate that golf course pesticide use does not necessarily result in groundwater contamination, though the potential for contamination does exist depending on the specific chemical and its persistence. All pesticides sold in California must be registered through the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA). The purpose of this mandatory registration process is to determine the safety and health risk effects of pesticides and requires the submittal of chronic health effect toxicological studies, fish and wildlife toxicity studies, residue quantification, and chemical behavior studies in water, soil, food crops, and crop foliage among other evidence. Most pesticides sold in California have undergone a similar registration process through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Registration is supposed to be denied to those chemicals for which data indicates that significant and unmitigable hazards would result from their use. The primary method used by the registration process to reduce the hazards of pesticide use is in warning and use information included on the product labels. Any pesticides used at the golf courses would be applied according to label specifications by trained personnel. This would reduce the potential for misuse of pesticides that could lead to contamination problems. A number of State laws have also been enacted to reduce the risk of upset associated with the storage and handling of hazardous materials, including pesticides. Businesses that use and store hazardous materials are required to submit Business Plans to local administering agencies. Hazardous materials stored in excess of regulated thresholds must be reported. As part of the Business Plan, emergency City of Santa Clarita 5.2-12 1I 11 C 1 j Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR L Section 5.2 Hydrology, Drainage, Water response plans and procedures must be developed and training sessions must be provided to employees. Businesses are periodically inspected by local administering agencies (Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, Waste Management Division) to ensure that handling, storage, and waste disposal practices conform with appropriate laws and regulations. As part of the safe handling and storage of chemicals, a specific locale within the maintenance area would be designated for the mixing of pesticides, a typically Within a bermed area with an impermeable floor covering. This allows any spills to be contained and cleaned up in a small area and reduces the potential for groundwater contamination. Pesticide storage is similarly done in such an area and within safety lockers. Assuming that the proposed project (j will comply with appropriate safety regulations, the risk of contamination associated with spillage or �J other activities at the maintenance area would be minimized. n The actual degree to which a particular chemical is likely to leach into the groundwater is dependent on `J precipitation and watering patterns at a site, the physical and chemical characteristics of the soil, and the chemical properties of the substance. Table 5.2-1 lists several typical golf course pesticides and their' corresponding potential exposure to aquatic organisms based on their potential to leach from application u sites and be transported within water. (l Table 5.2-1 Typical Pesticides Used at Golf Courses I P u 1 Pesticide Bendiocarb Use - Insecticide GtIS Hank Nonleacher S+C>S;Leach Ra€ Small PittCnti;Rl lac' sore Low Benefin Herbicide Nonleacher Small Low Bensulide Herbicide Intermediate Medium Moderately High Chlorothalonil Fungicide Nonleacher Small Low Chlorpyrifos Insecticide Nonleacher Small Low Dicamba (2,4-D) Herbicide Leacher Large High Ethoprop Insecticide Intermediate Large High Fenarimol Fungicide Intermediate Large High Glyphosphate Herbicide Nonleacher Extra Small Very Low Iprodione Fungicide Nonleacher Small Low Mancozeb Fungicide Nonleacher Small Low Metalaxyl Fungicide I Leacher Large High Oxadizon Herbicide Nonleacher Small Low Propamocarb Fungicide Nonleacher Extra Small Very Low Siduron Herbicide Intermediate Medium Moderately High Triadimefon Fungicide Intermediate Medium Moderately High Trichlorfon Insecticide Leacher Large High Potential exposure refers to the probability that aquatic organisms in surface water would come in contact with a chemical due to its loss in runoff or through leaching. The potential for loss is based on specific chemical characteristics and a relative ranking of pesticides as determined by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) and a Groundwater Ubiquity Score (GUS), an index of leachability that is based on a pesticide's mobility and persistence (see Balogh and Walker,: 1992, Chapter 5). The available ranks are very low, low, moderate, moderately high, and high... The actual use of these chemicals or any other particular chemicals at the site and their application rates are unknown since the operating and management plan for the site has not yet been developed. However, 52-13 Santa Clarita Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.2 Hydrology, Drainage, Water an important feature of the proposed golf course is its intended inclusion in the New York State Audubon Signature Cooperative Sanctuary Program, as described in Section 3.7.3. In regards to water quality, the New York Audubon through its program, which includes yearly recertification, would serve as a third party monitoring agency to determine if the golf courses were meeting the goals of the Audubon program, which includes criteria for the reduction of pesticide use and management of portions of the site for wildlife habitat values. The applicant has also prepared a draft Native Revegetation & Monitoring Program (L. Newman Design Group, Inc. and Frank Hovore & Associates, March 1995) that in part includes some Integrated Pest Management goals, policies, and actions to reduce reliance on chemical controls. Effective implementation of these plans and programs would reduce the potential for any off- site water quality problems. Nonetheless, because of the potential for adverse impacts to surface and groundwater quality due to the application of pesticides and fertilizers, this impact is considered significant and requires mitigation. Mitigation Measures. Several measures can be used to reduce the amount of pollutants contained in surface water runoff from the site, including regular street sweeping, litter and trash control, household hazardous waste "clean-up" days, and education of residents regarding proper disposal of materials. To reduce potential effects on surface water runoff from the golf course, the following is recommended: D -5(a) A Best Management Practices plan and Integrated Pest Management Plan shall be prepared for implementation by the golf course. The purpose of both plans would be to reduce the use of harmful chemicals onsite, and to reduce the potential offsite movement of high concentrations of sediment, salts, excessive nutrients, and chemicals. D -5(b) Construct an oil and grease trap within the catch basin for the clubhouse parking lot and/or construct a perimeter infiltration trench. The catch basin shall include a trap that prevents floatables from discharging with the drainage water. The golf course operator shall be responsible for monitoring and periodically cleaning out the catch basin. Best Management Practices involve the proper handling, storage, and disposal of materials to prevent pollutants from entering storm drains and channels. Examples are given below for specific actions: General Construction and Site Supervision Keep pollutants off exposed surfaces by having trash cans and recycling receptacles around the site. Cover and maintain dumpsters. Check frequently for leaks. Never clean a dumpster by hosing it down at the site. Keep materials out of the rain by covering exposed piles of soil or construction materials with plastic sheeting or temporary roofs. City of Santa Clarita 5.2-14 L, l� ll L n 11 J H r, Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR ILII Section 5.2 Hydrology, Drainage, Water • Designate one area for auto parking, vehicle refueling and routine equipment repairs. The designated area should be well away from gutters and storm drains, and in the case of C refueling areas, bermed to prevent the escape of spilled materials. • Make sure portable toilets are in good working order. • Use the minimum amount of water necessary for dust control. Do not use excessive amounts �j that result in water draining from the dust control area. lJ • Revegetate either permanently or temporarily as quickly as possible. • Remove vegetation only when necessary and just prior to earthmoving.; Schedule large j projects into phases that allow for erosion control of smaller areas rather than having a single, L; large exposed site. LJ Heavy Equipment and Earth Moving Activities l� • Schedule excavation and grading work for dry weather. L• Never hose down spilled materials or "dirty " pavement or impermeable surfaces where fluids have spilled. Use dry clean-up methods (saw dust, cat litter, rags). • Sweep up dry spilled materials immediately. Do not bury them or try to wash them away. • Clean up spills in dirt areas by digging up and properly disposing of contaminated soils. • Report significant spills to the responsible agencies immediately. �j • Perform major maintenance, repair jobs, and vehicle equipment washing off site. L I • Do not use diesel oil to lubricate equipment or parts. • Use drip pans or drop cloths to catch drips and spills of equipment parked overnight and if (j motor oil, radiator coolant, or other fluids are drained and replaced at the site. Collect all L J used fluids and store in separate containers for recycling whenever possible and otherwise rI proper disposal. Roadwork and Paving • Develop and implement erosion and sediment control plans for embankments and drainages. • Recycle used oil, concrete, broken asphalt, etc. • Shovel or vacuum saw cut slurry from the site. • Cover or barricade storm drain openings during saw -cutting. • Cover catch basins and maintenance holes when applying seal coat, slurry seal, etc. • Collect and recycle abrasive gravel or sand. • Dispose of small amounts of dry concrete in the trash. aFresh Concrete and Mortar Application • Secure open bags to keep wind-blown material away from streets, storm drains, rainfall, and runoff. • When cleaning up after driveway or sidewalk construction, wash concrete dust onto dirt areas Q and not down the street and into storm drains. City of Santa Clarita 5.2-15 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR_ Section 5.2 Hydrology, Drainage, Water • Wash out concrete mixers and other equipment only in designated wash-out spots or at the equipment yard, where water flows into containment ponds. Recycle cement wash water by pumping it back into mixers for reuse. • Never dispose of cement washout into driveways, streets, gutters, storm drains, or drainage ditches. • Place erosion controls (berms, hay bales, etc.) down-slope to capture runoff carrying mortar or cement before it reaches the storm drain. • Set up and operate small mixers on tarps or heavy drop cloths. The Integrated Pest Management program should include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following: • Use of biological, physical, and cultural controls rather than chemical controls. • Use of insect -resistant cultivars. • Mechanical weed control to be used wherever and whenever possible as the first choice. • Establishment of thresholds for the use of fertilizers. • Determination of the probable cause of an insect/disease problem and correction as necessary (i.e.: soil nutrient problems, irrigation, water quality, plant type, etc.) prior to chemical use. • Development of thresholds to determine when pesticide use is necessary. Pesticides are to be used only when necessary to cure a problem and in positively identified pre -emergent situations and not as a preventative measure or as a regular, periodic application. • Fumigation activities to be limited to greens only. • Use of chemical forms that are the least toxic to non -target organisms (such as the use of a sodium salt if 2,4-D herbicide is used). • Preferentially, the IPM should not permit the use of 2,4-D at the site and similar toxic chemicals that have a high potential for leaching from the site. • Chemical controls should preferentially begin with the use of dehydrating dusts (silica gels, diatomaceous earth), insecticidal soaps, boric acid powder, horticultural oils, and pyrethrin based insecticides. • Late evening application of pesticides. D -5(c) A groundwater monitoring well shall be installed near the north property line near the maintenance yard and another well installed along Live Oak Springs Canyon Creek near the 6th fairway. The wells must meet the minimum requirements of Bulletin 74-90 (California Well Standards) and the Los Angeles County code. The wells shall be sampled on a quarterly basis for a minimum of three years, and then annually for at least an additional seven years for a total of 10 years, with the sampling reports sent to the City and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. At the end of ten years, the data shall be analyzed to determine if there is a need to continue the monitoring. Constituents sampled for will include nitrate, phosphate and any pesticides applied to the golf courses. An initial well sample shall be taken at completion of grading, but before the installation of landscape vegetation. i� H l� n U IlLf n Fi City of Santa Clarita 5.2-16 H L, P I I P r I I Il E Pi D n Q I n Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.2 Hydrology, Drainage, Water Significance After Miti ag tion. The proposed project would result in a decrease in the amount of sediment loading produced by the site to local drainages. Effective implementation of a Best Management Practices plan during construction and an Integrated Pest Management plan during operations would reduce the potential for water quality impacts to a less than significant level. The groundwater monitoring wells would be used to determine compliance and the effectiveness of proposed management activities and to determine if any unexpected water quality effects occur to the local groundwater. Effect D-6 Decrease in the available potable water supply and the supply of groundwater for local private wells. (NS) The project is currently proposed to obtain the water supply for both the residences and the golf courses from the Santa Clarita Water Company. As indicated in Appendix B, the Santa Clarita Water Company has indicated that the property is within their existing service area and they have included water service to the site in their overall master planning. Discussions with the Santa Clarita Water Company (B. Marietta, Jr., telephone communications) during the preparation of the EIR indicated that the Company felt that they could serve the project within the framework of the existing master plan. In this event, the project would not rely on any local groundwater for its water supply and would therefore not decrease the limited supply currently available in the Oak Spring Canyon drainage. The Santa Clarita Water Company obtains its water supply from three sources: the alluvial aquifer (underflow) of the Santa Clarita River, the Saugus Formation underlying the alluvial aquifer, and the State Water Project (SWP) from Castaic Lake. The maximum theoretical storage capacity for the Santa Clara River alluvial aquifer is estimated at 240,000 acre-feet and it has been agreed on by the three main local water agencies (Santa Clarita Water Company, Valencia Water Company, and Newhall County Water District) that the alluvial aquifer has a safe yield of about 32,000 acre-feet per year. The Santa Clarita Water Company currently has rights to extract 12,000 acre-feet per year from the alluvial aquifer and is applying for a permit to extract up to 15,000 acre-feet per year. The Company also has an entitlement to 20,000 acre-feet per year from the SWP and has obtained up to 13,000 acre-feet in one year from this source, though the typical average annual use of SWP water is 6,000 - 7,000 acre-feet. The Company has the ability to extract up to 6,000 acre-feet per year from deep wells located in the Saugus Formation, which is estimated to have 1.0 million acre feet in storage. The Santa Clarita Water Company preferentially uses water from the alluvial aquifer first due to the higher costs of SWP water, and from the Saugus Formation only when necessary because of its poorer water quality and higher pumping costs. Currently available water supply for the Santa Clarita Water Company totals 38,000 acre-feet per year, while current use averages about 18,000 - 19,000 acre-feet per year. The maximum annual water requirement for the project site is estimated at 5.4 acre-feet per acre of golf course turf and 2.3 5 acre-feet per unit for the residential lots (Ahmanson Ranch FEIR, November 1992). Initially, the natural revegetation areas in the golf course would require about 2.0 acre feet per acre of supplemental water annually until the native plants are well-established, which should occur in 3-5 years. Total initial maximum water demand of the project is 1114 acre-feet per year as shown in Table 5.2-2. This annual water demand is based on maintaining typical turf grasses in optimum conditions when water is readily available (reclaimed water in the case of Ahmanson Ranch), while some drought tolerant 5.2-17 City of Santa Clarita Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.2 Hydrology, Drainage, Water landscaping within the course is also used. The proposed project is seeking to maintain many natural features, including oak trees, within the golf course which cannot withstand excessive watering during the summer drought period. Therefore, turf and rough grasses are being selected for their ability to withstand summer drought and water need will be based on the actual daily water need of the course vegetation using evapotranspiration data. Table 5.2-2 Project Water Demand The initial demand as calculated above would be about 5.8% of the remaining available supply of the Santa Clarita Water Company. After establishment of the drought tolerant vegetation used for the roughs and the revegetated slopes, long term water demand is expected to drop to 891 acre-feet per year. Based on the Santa Clarita Water Company's supply estimates, adequate water supplies are available to serve the project and no significant impact is anticipated. Given that even with the project the Santa Clarita Water Company would have an additional 17,000 acre-feet of supply available for additional development, the cumulative effect of the water demand is considered less than significant. The water demand estimated above includes irrigation losses associated with runoff and percolation of water below the root zone. Runoff water would be captured for the most part in the golf course lakes and reused, but the percolation losses would add water to the underlying alluvium in Oak Spring Canyon and Sand Canyon. Percolation water losses are estimated at 15% of applied water, therefore the project over the long term would add 133.7 acre feet per year to the underlying alluvial groundwater, with approximately 50% of this total percolating into the alluvium of each canyon_ The 66.8 acre-feet of percolating water to the Oak Spring Canyon alluvium would increase the natural average annual replenished supply of 47 acre-feet per year by about 142%. Since the project is expected to result in an increase in the amount of groundwater in Oak Spring Canyon downstream of the site, it would not have a significant impact on the water supply of downstream private wells. The issue of water quality is addressed in Effect D-5 above. Mitigation Measures. None necessary. Significance After Mitigation. The project is expected to result in less than significant impacts on the provision of water supply in the area, provided that groundwater resources are not contaminated by project actions (see discussion in Effect D-5 above). �1 D I� LS l� City of Santa Clarita ; 5,2-18 11 ........ Zvater!l*MA nd hate . = Antos! Water Demand, ' I.aadi7se<Acre' ©rinifs acredet er ear:; acs%et Turf (fairways, greens, tees) 97.7 5.4 528 Roughs and ruderal oaks 80.5 3.5 281 Shrubs/reve etated natives 55.0 2.0 110 Residential area 83 2.35 195 Total 1174 The initial demand as calculated above would be about 5.8% of the remaining available supply of the Santa Clarita Water Company. After establishment of the drought tolerant vegetation used for the roughs and the revegetated slopes, long term water demand is expected to drop to 891 acre-feet per year. Based on the Santa Clarita Water Company's supply estimates, adequate water supplies are available to serve the project and no significant impact is anticipated. Given that even with the project the Santa Clarita Water Company would have an additional 17,000 acre-feet of supply available for additional development, the cumulative effect of the water demand is considered less than significant. The water demand estimated above includes irrigation losses associated with runoff and percolation of water below the root zone. Runoff water would be captured for the most part in the golf course lakes and reused, but the percolation losses would add water to the underlying alluvium in Oak Spring Canyon and Sand Canyon. Percolation water losses are estimated at 15% of applied water, therefore the project over the long term would add 133.7 acre feet per year to the underlying alluvial groundwater, with approximately 50% of this total percolating into the alluvium of each canyon_ The 66.8 acre-feet of percolating water to the Oak Spring Canyon alluvium would increase the natural average annual replenished supply of 47 acre-feet per year by about 142%. Since the project is expected to result in an increase in the amount of groundwater in Oak Spring Canyon downstream of the site, it would not have a significant impact on the water supply of downstream private wells. The issue of water quality is addressed in Effect D-5 above. Mitigation Measures. None necessary. Significance After Mitigation. The project is expected to result in less than significant impacts on the provision of water supply in the area, provided that groundwater resources are not contaminated by project actions (see discussion in Effect D-5 above). �1 D I� LS l� City of Santa Clarita ; 5,2-18 11 U U P, I I n P Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.3 Air Qualltv 5.3 AIR QUALITY The open space and agricultural uses at the project site currently generate minimal amounts of localized dust emissions. Construction of the proposed development would result in significant and unavoidable air pollutant emissions during the construction phase and significant project -related and cumulative air quality impacts during long term operation of the facility: Mitigation measures available during construction would reduce fugitive dust emissions to below threshold levels, but nitrogen oxides emissions are not mitigable to below thresholds. Mitigation measures to reduce operational impacts include the use of electric golf carts, compliance with the City's TDM ordinance, and incorporation of energy efficient designs. These measures would not be sufficient to reduce daily emissions below the SCAQMD threshold guidelines. 5.3.1 Setting The physical and regulatory air quality setting of the Santa Clarita Valley is described in detail in the City's Air Quality Element (June 1991), which is herein incorporated by reference. The Air Quality Element is part of the City's General Plan and is available for review at local libraries and the Santa Clarita City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard. The following is a brief summary of the information in this document and other pertinent materials. The semi-permanent high pressure system west of the Pacific coast strongly influences California's weather, creating sunny skies throughout the summer, and controlling the pathway and occurrence of low pressure weather systems that bring rainfall to the area during October through April. As a result, the Santa Clarita Valley is generally mild during the winter, with hot, dry summers. Daytime heating of this inland valley creates upslope winds, with this pattern reversing at night and down valley nighttime breezes are prevalent. Because of the surrounding topography and the mountain/valley drainage flow, distinctly different predominant wind patterns occur within the southern and northern portions of the City with the downslope winds converging in the valley bottom. The wind patterns in the valley also reflect the coastal influence, as winds in the northern part of the city are dominated by onshore daytime breezes up the Santa Clara River valley from the Oxnard Plain, with a reversal of this flow to down river during the night. These predominant wind patterns are broken during the winter by winter storms coming from the north and northwest and by episodic Santa Ana winds, Santa Ana winds are strong northerly to northeasterly winds that originate from high pressure areas centered over the desert of the Great Basin. These winds are usually warm, very dry, and often full of dust. They are particularly strong in the mountain passes and at the mouths of canyons. Daytime summer temperatures in the area average about 90°F. Minimum nighttime summer temperatures are typically in the high 50s to low 60s, while the winter high temperature tends to be in the 60s.. Minimum winter temperatures are in the 30s and 40s throughout most of the Santa Clarita Valley. Annual average rainfall in the Santa Clarita Valley is about 13 inches, while the surrounding mountains can receive over 22 inches. City of Santa Clarita 5.3-1 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.3 Air Quality Two types of temperature inversions (warmer air on top of colder air) are created in the area, subsidence and radiational (surface). The subsidence inversion is a regional effect created by the Pacific high in which air is heated as it is compressed when it flows from the high pressure area to the low pressure areas inland. This type of inversion generally forms at about 1000 to 2000 feet and can occur throughout the year, but is most evident during the summer months. Surface inversions are formed by the more rapid cooling of air near the ground during the night, especially during winter. This type of inversion is typically lower and is generally accompanied by stable air. Both types of inversions limit the dispersal of air pollutants within the regional airshed, with the more stable the air (low wind speeds, uniform temperatures), the lower the amount of pollutant dispersion. The primary air pollutant of concern during the subsidence inversions is ozone, while the greatest pollutant problems during winter inversions are carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides. a. Air Pollution Regulation. The federal and state governments have been empowered by the federal and state Clean Air Acts to regulate the emission of airborne pollutants and have established ambient air quality standards for the protection of public health. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is the federal agency designated to administer air quality regulation, while the Air Resources Board (ARB) is the state equivalent in the California Environmental Protection Agency. Local control in air quality management is provided by the ARB through county -level Air Pollution Control Districts (APCDs). The ARB established the air quality standards and is responsible for control of mobile emission sources, while the local APCDs are responsible for enforcing standards and regulating stationary sources. The ARB has established 14 air basins statewide, with the City of Santa Clarita located in the South Coast Air Basin under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD - a multi -county APCD). Federal and stricter state standards have been established for ozone (03), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulates less than 10 microns in diameter (PMIo), and lead (Pb). California has also set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, visibility reducing particles. Appendix C provides a summary of the state and national ambient air quality standards. This appendix also provides a description of the criteria pollutants and their health effects. b. Current Ambient Air Quality. The local air quality management agency is required to monitor air pollutant levels to assure that the air quality standards are met, and if they aren't, to also develop strategies to meet the standards. Depending on whether or not the standards are met or exceeded, the air basin is classified as being in "attainment" or as "nonattainment." The South Coast Air Basin is in nonattainment for both the federal and state standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen dioxide, and the state standard for PMIo. The nearest air monitoring station to the project site is located in the Newhall portion of the city. This station measures ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and PMIo. Table 5.3-1 summarizes the annual air quality data over the past three years for the local airshed. City of Santa Clarita 5.3-2 1] I L; Ll G J tJ LTJ LII i 11 ll CJI U D Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.3 Air Qualitv Table 5.3-1. Ambient Air Quality Data at the Santa Clarita Monitoring Station i'nllutanil 1902 .1983, ............................. 1944 Ozone, ppm - Worst Hour 0.22 0.22 0.26 Number of days of State exceedances (>0.09 ppm) 127 92 118 Number of days of Federal exceedances (>O.12 m) 40 22 66 Carbon Monoxide,. ppm - Worst 1 Hour/8 Hours 8.0/3.7 8.0/3.9 8.0/3.9 Number of days of State exceedances (>20.0/9.0 ppm) 0/0 0/0 0/0 Number of days of Federal exceedances >35.0/9.0 m 0/0 0/0 0/0 Nitrogen Dioxide, ppm - Worst Hour 0.11 0.13 0.12 Number of days of State exceedances >0.25 m) 0 0 0 Particulate Matter <10 microns, pg/m' Worst 24 Hours 84 75 66 Number of samples of State exceedances (>50 µg/m') 8 8 13 Number of samples of Federal exceedances (>150 µg/m') 0 0 0 Annual Geometric Mean (State standard = 30µg/m' ) 31.0 28.2 31.7 Annual Arithmetic Mean(Federal standard = 50 m') 35.5 32,7 35.8 Source: ARB, 1992 & 1993 Annual Air Quality Data Summaries; SCAQMD, 1994.. As illustrated by the above data and following chart, the primary pollutant of concern in the City of Santa u Clarita is ozone, though occasional exceedances of the state PMIo standard also occurs. Ozone is a U secondary pollutant that is not produced directly by a source, but rather it is formed by a reaction between NOx and reactive organic compounds (ROC) in the presence of sunlight. Reductions in ozone concentrations are dependent on reducing the amount of these precursors. The major sources of ozone precursor emissions in the South Coast Air Basin are motor vehicles, the petroleum industry, and solvent usage (paint, consumer products, and certain industrial processes). Santa Clarita records some of the highest ozone readings in the South Coast Basin, primarily because of the transport of ozone precursor pollutants from the Los Angeles Basin into the area. l J One -Hour Ozone Standard Ezceedances at Santa Clarita Station n I n 0 E 11 c e p Z Z 140 120 100 90 so 40 20 1992 1993 1994 ® State *National The South Coast Air Basin is also in nonattainment regarding the state standard for particulate matter (PMto). The major sources for this pollutant are mineral quarries, grading, demolition, agricultural tilling, road dust, and vehicle exhaust. Locally, Santa Ana winds are responsible for entraining dust and occasionally causing elevated PMIo levels. 5.3-3 or sanra warm i� Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR i Section 5.3 Air Quality i i� 5.3.2 Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds. The analysis of air quality issues follows the guidance and methodologies recommended in the South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook (November 1993). Pollutant emissions were quantified using stationary source factors from the USEPA AP -42 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emissions Factors and the Mobile - Assessment for Air Quality Impacts (MAAQI, January 1994) computer program acquired from the SCAQMD. A significant adverse air quality impact may occur when a project individually or cumulatively interferes with progress towards the attainment of the ozone standard by releasing emissions I which equal or exceed the established long term quantitative thresholds for pollutants ,or t l causes an exceedance of a state or federal ambient air quality standard for any criteria pollutant (as determined by modeling). I 1 The following significance thresholds have been set by the SCAQMD for project operations within the South Coast Air Basin: • 55 pounds per day of ROC • 55 pounds per day of N0, • 550 pounds per day of CO • 150 pounds per day of PM o • 150 pounds per day of SOx Short term construction emission thresholds have been set by the SCAQMD on a quarterly basis as follows: • 2.5 tons ofROC (� • 2.5 tons of NOx lJ • 24.75 tons of CO • 675 tons of PM10 • 6.75 tons of SO, U In addition to the above thresholds, if construction emissions exceed 75 pounds per day for ROC, or 100 j pounds per day for NO., or 550 pounds per day for CO, or 150 pounds per day for PM10 or SO., the air quality impacts of construction would be considered significant. b. Project Impacts. rr( Effect AQ -1 Construction of the proposed development could result in exceedance of lJ recommended significance thresholds. (US) 534 City of Santa Ctarita I 1 U I P, Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.3 Air Quality Construction of the proposed development would initially consist of rough grading of the entire site, construction of the golf course, clubhouse, and appurtenant structures, and construction of infrastructure (roads, utility lines, drainage improvements, etc:). Rough grading is anticipated to be completed within one year, with golf course construction to be completed in 6-9 months with completion in Year 1998. However, the residential units would be sold on a custom lot basis and full buildout of this portion of the site is expected to occur over a 15 year period. Only minimal finish grading is expected to be necessary for the construction of the residences. n The grading phase of development uses the largest amount of heavy duty construction equipment, which L is the primary source of emissions during construction. It is estimated that the rough grading phase would involve the use of a single construction spread utilizing 11 pieces of heavy equipment (see Section 3.7.5). Table 5.3-2 summarizes the grading emissions for the grading phase (see Appendix C for G calculations). U FJ Table 5.3-2. Grading Emissions During Project Development (� In addition to the emissions associated with the construction equipment, a small amount of emissions is 1.i contributed by the construction workers traveling to the site. The contribution of emissions from this source would be negligible, less than one pound of NO, and ROC per day. As illustrated by the above table, construction emissions of NO, are expected to exceed both the daily and quarterly thresholds FJ recommended by the SCAQMD and are considered a significant impact. P n The project site currently generates some dust during weed control operations in the west lowland areas, but this amount of dust generation is considered negligible. During project grading, the loam soils that underlie the site will be turned over and pushed around, exposing the soil to wind erosion and dust entrainment by onsite operating equipment. The amount of fugitive dust (as compared to the PM,o listed above) generated by construction is expected to be a significant nuisance that will require implementation of standard dust control measures listed below. Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures are required to reduce the cumulative impacts of dust and PM10 emissions.. AQ -1(a) Water trucks shall be used during construction to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this will require twice daily applications (once in late morning and once at end of workday). Increased watering is required whenever wind speed exceeds 15 mph. Grading shall be suspended if wind gusts exceed 25 mph, 5.3-5 City of Santa Clarita 11t3C N© C[} BM Etn€s8€on. Stlurce lLttday A s/gtr k6stday tnstgtc IUs7day ` tus/ r ibstday th3lgtt €hslday tnstgtr On-site heavy equipment 15.1 0.7 206.0 9.4 1 66.6 3.0 23.8 1.1 21.0 1.0 Suspended dust - -- -- - _ -- -- -- 31:7 1.0 Totals 15.1 0.7 206.0 9.4 66.6 3.0 23.8 1.1 52.7 2.0 SCA MD Thresholds 75 2.5 100 2.5 550 F24.75 150 6.75 ISO 6:75 (� In addition to the emissions associated with the construction equipment, a small amount of emissions is 1.i contributed by the construction workers traveling to the site. The contribution of emissions from this source would be negligible, less than one pound of NO, and ROC per day. As illustrated by the above table, construction emissions of NO, are expected to exceed both the daily and quarterly thresholds FJ recommended by the SCAQMD and are considered a significant impact. P n The project site currently generates some dust during weed control operations in the west lowland areas, but this amount of dust generation is considered negligible. During project grading, the loam soils that underlie the site will be turned over and pushed around, exposing the soil to wind erosion and dust entrainment by onsite operating equipment. The amount of fugitive dust (as compared to the PM,o listed above) generated by construction is expected to be a significant nuisance that will require implementation of standard dust control measures listed below. Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures are required to reduce the cumulative impacts of dust and PM10 emissions.. AQ -1(a) Water trucks shall be used during construction to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this will require twice daily applications (once in late morning and once at end of workday). Increased watering is required whenever wind speed exceeds 15 mph. Grading shall be suspended if wind gusts exceed 25 mph, 5.3-5 City of Santa Clarita J Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR ( 1 Section 5.3 Air Quality l AQ -1(b) Amount of disturbed area shall be minimized and onsite vehicle speeds shall be reduced to 15 mph or less. AQ -1(c) If importation, exportation and stockpiling of fill material is involved, soil with 5% or greater silt content that is stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation. Trucks transporting material shall be tarped from the point of origin or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard. AQ -1(d) After clearing, grading, earth -moving or excavation is completed, the disturbed area shall be treated by watering, or revegetation, or by spreading soil binders until the area is paved or otherwise developed. Specifically, the residential lots shall be revegetated with a non-invasive cover until they are sold. Significance After Miti ag tion. The dust control measures are considered adequate to reduce the i cumulative impact of construction dust emissions and project specific emissions of PM10 are below the threshold level. Reduction of NO, emissions is dependent on the retuning of diesel construction equipment and installation of high pressure injectors, but this measure is considered to be difficult to enforce or monitor by the City. The use of alternative fuels could reduce NO. emissions by 29-53% for on-site mobile equipment, but the use of such fuels is typically limited to lower horsepower equipment because the power requirements for grading are most effectively provided by a slow burning fuel such as diesel, and the total emissions reduction would be minimal if equipment suitable for alternative fuel use were used. Because of the amount of grading necessary to construct the project as proposed, and the n efficiencies associated with using enough equipment to grade the site in an economical and effective manner, significant short term air quality impacts that cannot be reduced below threshold levels during construction are anticipated. Effect AQ -2 Dust generated during construction could expose construction workers and adjacent residences to San Joaquin Valley Fever. (NS) San Joaquin Valley Fever (Coccidioidomycosis) is a disease caused by a fungus (Coccidioides immilis) that is a common inhabitant of soil in desert and dry grassland areas of the and and semi -and portions of the southwestern United States from Texas west to California. The fungus generally enters the body L through the lungs while carried on dust particles or as spores. Nearly everyone living for many years within the endemic range of this disease are exposed to and infected by the fungus. About 60 percent of infected individuals do not develop any symptoms. When symptoms do occur, they are usually mild and U are often diagnosed as a cold or influenza. However, the disease can be severe and manifested by a wide range of symptoms including fever, chills, and coughs, which occurs in about two of every 1,000 persons infected. Occasionally, symptoms will be severe enough to require hospitalization and can be fatal in particularly susceptible individuals. Immigrants to the area nearly always become infected after a period of time, and are more likely to exhibit symptoms than permanent residents that contracted the infection as n I children. Once exposed, a person has lifelong immunity, but the earlier infection can be reactivated in City of Santa Clarita 5.3-6 it i P r P— E lI a U I Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.3 Air Quality persons who are immunosuppressed due to cancer treatment, organ replacement, or illnesses such as AIDS. The incidence of reported cases of valley fever more than doubled in Los Angeles County in 1992, rising to 1.1 cases per 100,000 individuals, compared to an average incidence of 0..4 reported cases per 100,000 individuals the previous nine years (County of Los Angeles, Department of Health Services, 1992). Reported cases remained at this level in 1993 (County of Los Angeles, DHS, 1993), with the largest number of cases in both years occurring in the San Fernando Health District, an area that includes the Antelope, Santa Clarita, and northern San Fernando Valleys. Total number of cases in both years was 95 for all of Los Angeles County. Preliminary data for 1994 indicate a similar, if somewhat lower incidence rate. This is despite the fact that media attention to the Simi Valley "epidemic" following the January 17, 1994 earthquake heightened awareness of both the public and the medical community to the disease. The three year increase in reported cases in Los Angeles County parallels the trend reported for all of southern California and is probably related to recent climatic conditions. Abundant winter rainfall provides for heavier growth of the fungus, while subsequent summer drought conditions allow the spores to become friable and easily dispersed by wind, construction, and other activities. The proposed project would generate dust during the grading operations that could contain the fungus spores and thereby increase the possibility of disease incidence in the adjacent area. However, virtually all long term residents in the area have been previously exposed to the disease over the last few years and are likely to have already acquired immunity. Therefore, the project would not create a significant change in the current exposure of the neighboring community to this endemic disease. Dust control measures required during grading construction (see Effect AQ -1 above) would further reduce the potential spreading of the fungus spores. Once the soil surface is stabilized by the revegetation of the site as a golf course and landscaping, the amount of fungus potentially associated with the site and subject to wind dispersal would be less than that under natural conditions. Mitigation Measures. None required other than standard dust control measures during construction grading. Significance After Mitigation. This impact would remain less than significant. Effect AQ -3 Future mobile and stationary emissions associated with the proposed residential land use and two golf courses may result in exceedances of significance thresholds. (US) Long term emissions associated with the proposed development are primarily the result of the use of motor vehicles. Table 5.3-3 summarizes the mobile emissions associated with the proposed development based on the traffic generation (see Section 5.5). Default assumptions were used in the MAAQI analysis except that the residential fleet mix was adjusted to 0.5% heavy duty truck. In addition, because the project is proposed as a high end residential estate development, it is expected that higher insulation standards and energy efficient appliances would be used in the residences and the reduction in air pollutant emissions associated with these measures is included. 5.3-7 City of Santa Clanta Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR_ Section 5.3 Air Quality Table 5.3-3 Operational Emissions Associated With Proposed Project, Ibs/day Emission SourceO Rpt t' NU ;;O Phi Residential 224.8 18.0 15.6 1.1 1.6 Golf Course 577.4 55.7 65.4 4.6 7.7 Total 802.2 73.7 81.0 5.7 9.3 SCA MD Thresholds 550 55 55 150 150 Note: See Appendix C for calculations. When compared to the SCAQMD thresholds of significance, the residential portion of the project would not exceed the thresholds. However, the golf courses would exceed the thresholds for CO and NO. and the total project would exceed the thresholds for CO, ROC, and NO., which is considered a significant impact. Mitigation Measures. Because the project would create a significant impact due primarily to increased vehicular traffic associated with project development, mitigation measures would need to focus on reducing the number of trips and vehicle miles traveled. Mitigation measures suggested for residential subdivisions by the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (November 1993) would serve to reduce ROC and NO. emissions by only 0.1-6.0%, which is insufficient to reduce these emissions to less than significant levels. In addition, most of these measures relate to alternative transit modes that would not be expected to be effective in this type of community. To the extent that the golf courses offer a recreational resource closer to the City's population than courses in the San Fernando Valley or elsewhere, the golf courses would reduce vehicle miles traveled by City golfers. However, such reductions would be expected to be offset by the attraction that the golf courses would have to the regional population, who may commute to these courses. Nonetheless, the following measures are recommended to reduce air pollutant emissions.. AQ -3(a) Golf carts for the project site shall be electric only. AQ -3(b) The applicant shall comply with the City's Transportation Demand Management ordinance to reduce trips and, subsequently, air pollutant emissions. AQ -3(c) Incorporate energy-saving design solutions in the clubhouse to reduce energy consumption by at least 20 percent below current Federal guidelines as specified in Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Significance After Mitigation Emission reductions associated with these measures are expected to be less than 5% of the project's daily emissions of CO, ROC and NO.. No other mitigation measures available appear sufficient or feasible to further reduce project associated emissions to a level below the thresholds. Therefore, project -specific and cumulative air quality impacts are considered significant and unavoidable. City of Santa Clanta 5.3-8 LJ I ILl J Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.4 Biology G5.4 BIOLOGY Natural communities at the project site include chaparral and alluvial fan scrub vegetation, with an overlay of oaks that form pockets of woodland in the ruderal portions of the Sand Canyon drainage and adjacent to the main flow channels of the Oak Spring Canyon alluvial fan. The project site generally (j lacks wetland communities except for some retention basins, but the riparian community of alluvial fan I scrub is considered sensitive because of state-wide declines in this community type. The proposed project would cause a significant and unavoidable reduction in the local extent of this community, The revegetation and golf course landscaping plan proposed by the applicant would increase the amount of wetland communities within the project site and restore scrub communities on slopes at the edges of the development, but overall net value of onsite habitats would be decreased about 57%. LJ L; E U U r n - No listed rare, threatened,. or endangered plant or animal species are known to occur at the project site, nor are any expected. Two sensitive plant species, Peirson's morning-glory and Plummer's mariposa - lily, are found infrequently onsite; project impacts to the regional population of these species are not considered significant. A total of 28 sensitive animals are known or probably utilize the habitats available at the site; project development would result in locally significant declines in several of these species' populations. Mitigation measures are recommended for species where implementation of the golf course revegetation plan can aid in maintaining populations onsite. However, a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact is expected to occur to coast horned lizard and rufous -crowned sparrow populations. 5.4.1 Setting A biological assessment of the subject property was prepared by Frank Hovore & Associates (1995) for the project applicant. The northeast 160 acre parcel of the site was also the subject of a biological resources investigation by Independent Environmental Consultants (Henrickson, 1989). A Draft Native Revegetation and Monitoring Plan for the golf course was prepared by L. Newman Design Group, Inc. and Frank Hovore & Associates (March, 1995) for the applicants. These reports are herein incorporated by reference as provided by the State CEQA Guidelines §15150; the reports may be reviewed at the City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department. The following analysis is based on the findings and information contained in these reports, in addition to brief field visits of the site conducted in June and August by the EIR consultant. The conclusions of this analysis reflect the independent judgment of the EIR preparer. In the following discussion, scientific names have generally been excluded to aid reading of the text by the lay person. Common names and the corresponding scientific names for the species found within the site are contained in the appendices of the incorporated biological assessments (Henrickson, 1989; Hovore, 1995). a. Vegetation. Two major natural vegetation communities are present within the project site, chaparral and alluvial scrub (Figure 5.4-1). The chaparral community is a rather diverse mixture of soft - 5.4 -1 City Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.4 Bioloqv leaved sage scrub and hard -leaved shrubs that extends over the slopes and ridgelines of the site. Typically, it consists of thin, poorly developed post -fire growth of scrub species on the southern exposures, with a denser, more diverse shrub growth on northern exposures and ridge crowns. Community composition corresponds most closely to a mix of Riversidian Sage Scrub and Chamise Chaparral (CDFG Element Codes 32700 and 37200; Holland, 1986) or could possibly be considered Coastal Sage - Chaparral Scrub (Element Code 37G00). Predominant species on the southern exposed slopes are black sage, lord's candle, California buckwheat, California sagebrush, deerweed and chamise. Northern exposed slopes also contain chamise along with hoary -leaved lilac (ceanothus), holly -leaved cherry, wooly blue curls, groundsel, and yerba santa. Where small seeps provide minor amounts of surface soil moisture, giant rye, acourtia, and elderberry form dense patches. The toe of the slopes support stands of holly -leaved cherry, holly -leaved redberry,little-leaf redberry, chaparral honeysuckle, cottonthom, golden yarrow, scarlet bugler, and squawbush. The condition and composition of the plant communities indicate that fires have occurred onsite within the past ten years, and Henrickson (1989) reports that a major fire came through Oak Spring Canyon in November 1987 and that a previous fire appeared to have occurred 2-4 years earlier on the western slopes. Oak Spring Canyon consists of a low, broad, alluvial plain that is braided with numerous minor flow channels, with a single larger main channel exiting the site in the northwest comer of the 160 acre parcel. The eastern half of the canyon appears to receive high energy flows less frequently than the west side, and so contains a better developed community including a dense mixture of coast live oaks and woody shrubs, while the western side contains relatively younger plants and species more tolerant of flooding conditions. The shrub coverage within the floodplain can be generally assigned as Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (Element Code 32720) or possibly Alluvial Fan Chaparral (Element Code 37H00). The site vegetation does not fit the described element codes well because Oak Spring Canyon includes elements that are more commonly found in dry Mojavean ecosystems than the inland Riversidean habitats. As is the case with much of the Santa Clarita area, the project site is part of a transition zone between the coastal and desert ecosystems. An example of this is that the northern portion of the alluvial fan is dominated by an extensive stand of Great Basin sagebrush. The alluvial fan scrub may also be considered Scalebroom Scrub, a recently described and relatively uncommon community that forms on coarse soils that readily dry out, but are subjected infrequently to flood scour that removes most of the larger shrubs. Regardless of community terminology, all alluvial fan scrub habitats are of special concern because the past urbanization of these communities has made them increasingly rare. Species associated with the onsite alluvial fan scrub include toyon, sugarbush, chaparral whitethom, chaparral flowering ash, beavertail cactus, eriastrum, snake broomweed, California camissonia, bush honeysuckle, scarlet bugler, purple penstemon, rabbitbrush, buckwheat, and goldenbush. The upper (southern) portion of the alluvial fan scrub contains numerous oak trees. While in some locations these form dense enough stands to be considered coast live oak woodland, they are considered here as an overlay to the underlying scrub community because of the similarities in understory components and the extensive integrading of the communities within the site. Common associates of the oaks that are not found elsewhere are a perennial heliotrope (Phacelia ramosissima) and the introduced City of Santa Clarity 5.4.2 IJ I �I U L.J L� D If i L P D I H D cI L Lj Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.4 Bioloav horehound. The oaks are an important botanical component of the site since they provide significant microclimatological differences in average temperature, sunlight, and humidity, while also serving to increase the structural diversity of the site and provide nesting and food for many wildlife species. The oaks are not considered as a woodland community within the Sand Canyon portion of the site because the understory elements have been removed through grazing and annual (or more frequent) plowing of the lowland areas. The invasive, non-native annuals that dominate the ruderal vegetation of these lowlands include various grasses (red brome, soft chess, wild barley, fescue), mustard, tree tobacco, doveweed, wild tarragon, storksbill, telegraph weed, popcom flower, Russian thistle, and extensive stands of yellow star thistle. The ruderal vegetation in Oak Spring Canyon is not annually plowed, and so contains less thistle and more grasses, along with more flowering annuals. The northwest comer of the site adjacent to Comet Way contains a number of planted ornamental trees and shrubs, including numerous pine and locust trees, Pfitzer juniper, European olive, fairyduster, Arizona cypress, and several agaves. A single, very large big -berry manzanita also stands in a clearing near this comer. b. Fish and Wildlife Habitats.. No natural fish habitat exists within the project site, though the downstream Santa Clara River and some of its tributaries support a variety of native and introduced fishes. The shrub habitats provide cover and food for a variety of small reptiles, birds, and mammals, and species diversity observed at the site was typical for this type of habitat. The largest mammals seen or otherwise noted on the site (via scat, tracks, etc.) were mule deer, coyote, bobcat, gray fox, and raccoon.. Long-tailed weasel, ringtail, Audubon cottontail, California ground squirrel, dusky -footed and desert woodrats, along with other small mammals, were either seen or are expected on the site. No evidence of mountain lion or black bear was seen at the site, though the presence of deer onsite indicate that mountain lion may be in the area. No suitable roosts exist in the project vicinity for bats, but several are expected to forage over the site. The oaks juxtaposed with the open wash vegetation and nearby grasslands provides ideal habitat for several birds of prey (raptors). At least one pair of red-tailed hawks nest on the project site, and red - shouldered hawk, white-tailed kite, Cooper's hawk, great horned owl, barn owl, American kestrel all appear to breed locally if not on the subject site. Golden eagles have been recently reported in the area over Sand Canyon. Loggerhead shrikes are also present at the site and apparently breed in the area. The alluvial fan habitat and the oaks support many smaller birds, with scrub jay, California quail, phainopepla, bushtit, plain titmouse, mockingbird, California and rufous -sided towhees, and acom woodpeckers found commonly. Common migratory species that may breed onsite include orange- a crowned and Wilson's warblers, ash -throated flycatcher, western kingbird, western wood peewee, and northern oriole. Bmshland species such as wrentit, California thrasher, and wintering sparrows were more abundant in the chaparral habitat. The open hillsides and ruderal areas also contained winter a migrants during the Hovore & Associates field survey. Species included lark sparrow, homed lark, fox sparrow, white -crowned sparrow, and golden -crowned sparrow. Western meadowlark was the only bird species found onsite that is limited to the ruderal grassy fields.. rr 5.4-5 City of Santa Clarita n LJ Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.4 Biology Several reptile species were noted through virtually all habitats, including side -blotched lizard, western fence lizard, and western whiptail. The alluvial fan and oak habitat is expected to provide habitat for alligator lizard, western skink, and possibly silvery legless lizard. Snake abundance and diversity in Oak Spring Canyon area is expected to be relatively high because the area is somewhat isolated from human disturbance and the location adjacent to the populations of the Angeles National Forest. Based on habitat, southern Pacific rattlesnake, western coachwhip, gopher snake, common kingsnake, whipsnake, and rosy boa would be expected at the site. c. Sensitive Biological Resources. A "sensitive biological resource" refers to any rare, threatened or endangered plant or animal species, or those species considered regionally declining by local authorities. Habitats are also considered sensitive if they exhibit a limited distribution, have high wildlife value, contain sensitive species, or are particularly susceptible to disturbance. This section lists those rare or otherwise sensitive species that were found on the site, were targeted during the biological surveys, or that have the potential to occur in the project vicinity. The potential for occurrence of sensitive resources is based on site characteristics and the known regional distribution and habitat affinities of the species. For information regarding the regulatory authority concerning sensitive species, greater detail regarding the habitat requirement and distribution of these species, and authorities cited, please refer to the incorporated biological assessments (Henrickson, 1989; Hovore, 1995). No plant species that is listed under the State or Federal Endangered Species Act has been found within the project site. Peirson's morning-glory (Calystegia peirsonii) is listed as a Special Plant (California Department of Fish and Game, March 1995, Special Plants List) and is a federal candidate category 2 (insufficient biological evidence to support a listing) for listing as threatened. Henrickson (1989) found the plant scattered uncommonly throughout the chaparral habitat and noted that locally the species may be relatively common in the Newhall and Mint Canyon areas. Henrickson noted that large numbers of this plant have been found on adjacent Forest Service lands and attributes part of its presumed rarity on its fire -following nature, inconspicuous foliage, and similarity to the common, weedy bindweed that is found in the same habitat. Plummer's mariposa lily (Calochortus plummerae) was found uncommonly in the scrub habitats on clay soils by Hovore & Associates. This plant is also listed as a Special Plant and a federal candidate species category 2. Its distribution is somewhat limited, but it has been found commonly in the Santa Clarita region (Henrickson, personal communication, 1995). California orcutt grass (Orcuttia californica) is a federal and state endangered species that is associated with vernal pools and was searched for at the site; however, no vernal pools are present in the area and this species is unlikely to be present at the site. An associate of this plant, prostrate navarretia (Navarretia fossalis) similarly does not occur at the site. Slender -horned spineflower (Centrostegia leptoceras) is also a state and federal listed endangered species that is known to occur locally in Soledad Canyon and Big Tujunga Wash. Henrickson did not locate this species within the 160 acre parcel during his survey, which was conducted during the optimal blooming period. His survey is considered definitive for this portion of the site. Portions of the upper Oak Spring Canyon alluvial fan outside of 5.4-6 f� i� ll LJ �1 LJ D City of Santa Clarita 11 H r� Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Ill Section 5.4 Biology Henrickson's survey appear to have marginal habitat for this species, but the most appropriate habitat was located in the lower area that was investigated. It is probable that this endangered species does not Cexist at the project site. The shortjoint form of the common beavertail cactus (Opuntia basilaris) is a federal candidate category � 2 for listing. Hovore & Associates examined many of the cacti on the site, but none were of this t i phenotype. (j Over 50 species of sensitive animal species with declining populations occur in the project region, as l listed in Table 1 of the Hovore & Associates study. Information about the status and known locations of each of the species considered is contained in the Hovore & Associates study and is not repeated here. (� Based on the discussion contained in that study and a brief walkover of the site habitats, the list of f sensitive vertebrate species of concern known or possibly found at the site have been listed in Table 5.4- 1. State or federally listed species are accorded the highest protection status, however, no state or federally listed rare, threatened, or endangered animals are expected to occur or substantially utilize the habitats available at the site. O LJ D L.i LTJ Many sensitive species that could occur onsite are listed by the federal government as Category 2, a designation that indicates that existing information may warrant listing as a threatened or endangered species, but substantial biological information necessary to support such listing is lacking. This status does not afford any protection on these species beyond that contained in Fish and Game codes regulating the take of native species, but rather this list serves to indicate those species which may become listed in the future. California Species of Special Concern are those animals listed by the Department of Fish and Game because of declining population levels or naturally rare levels that may be under population stress; listing under this category is informal and does not provide any additional protection status to the species. The status of each of the species contained in Table 5.4-1 relative to the project site and the effect of the proposed project on the populations of these species are discussed below in the impact section. Wetlands are the primary communities of concern because of substantial state-wide losses, with over 90% of the wetland acreage formerly present in southern California having been eliminated by agriculture and urbanization. Despite having two major drainages through the site; no specific wetland communities are present onsite except for a series of man-made retention basins located along the north property line in the middle of the western slope portion of the site. Three of the four basins still contained standing water when visited in early August 1995. The furthest downstream basin has a concreted overflow sluice and its depth is controlled via an 8 -inch diameter iron pipe. The other basins have earthen embankments placed across the drainage channel. All of the ponds were ringed by mulefat, with a few large willow trees along the edges, and the deepest pond also had cattail and rushes along its banks. The water was filled with various algae and contained the highly invasive African clawed frog (Xenopus laevis). 5.4.7 City of Santa Clarita L� tJ Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.4 Biology [ 1 Table 5.4-1. Sensitive Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring at Project Site ( I CSC= California Species of Special Concern; C2—Category 2 Source: Hovore & Associates, 1995; California Department of Fish end Game, August 1994. Most of the deeply cut channels in Oak Spring Canyon do not have extensive vegetation, but where scouring has missed areas, typical species found were mugwort, mulefat, mustard, California everlasting, purple nightshade, and scalebroom. Water depths and flows within the soils appear insufficient to support true riparian or wetland communities and the density and type of vegetation present does not qualify any of the braided channels as wetlands. On the west side of the property, Live Oak Springs Canyon Creek occupies an incised channel that is about ten feet deep where it enters the property and about four feet deep in the northwest corner. The channel banks generally lack wetland species, with the typical bank vegetation consisting primarily of weedy ruderal species such as yellow star thistle, horehound, jimson weed, curly dock, blessed thistle, and various grasses. A few scattered mulefat and willow shrubs are located in the northwest comer, but not enough to constitute a wetland community. Lary or aanta tdanre 5.4-8 L.� H H J h Ig..tCEaTaS..CnLa�+tud<a Western spadefoot toad Scaphiopus hammondi CSC C2 Coast homed lizard Phrynosoma coronatum frontale and P. c. CSC C2 blainvillei Coastal western whiptail Cnemidophoms tigris multiscutatus CSC C2 Silvery legless lizard Aniella pulchra pulchra CSC C2 Rosy boa Lichanura trivirgata CSC C2 Coastal patch -nosed snake Salvadora hexalepis virgultea CSC C2 Two -striped garter snake Thamnophis hammondii CSC C2 San Bernardino ring-necked snake Diadophis punctams modestus None C2 San Diego mountain kngsnake Lampropeltis zonata pulchra CSC C2 San Bernardino mountain kingsnake Lampropeltis zonata parviruba CSC C2 Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos CSC None Cooper's hawk Accipiter cooperi CSC None Northern harrier Circus cyaneus CSC None Sharp -shinned hawk Accipiter striatus CSC None White-tailed kite Elanus caeruleus CSC None Long-eared owl Asio otus CSC None California spotted owl Strix occidentalis occidentalis CSC C2 Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus CSC C2 California horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia CSC C2 (C3c) Bell's sage sparrow Amphispiza bellii bellii CSC C2 Southern CA rufous -crowned sparrow Aimophila mficeps canescens CSC C2 Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus CSC None California mastiff bat Eumops perotis californicus CSC C2 Pale big -eared bat Plecotus townsendii pallescens CSC C2 San Diego black -tailed hare Lepus califormcus bennetti CSC C2 San Diego desert woodrat Neotoma lepida intermedia CSC C2 Southern grasshopper mouse I Onychomys torridus ramona I CSC C2 CSC= California Species of Special Concern; C2—Category 2 Source: Hovore & Associates, 1995; California Department of Fish end Game, August 1994. Most of the deeply cut channels in Oak Spring Canyon do not have extensive vegetation, but where scouring has missed areas, typical species found were mugwort, mulefat, mustard, California everlasting, purple nightshade, and scalebroom. Water depths and flows within the soils appear insufficient to support true riparian or wetland communities and the density and type of vegetation present does not qualify any of the braided channels as wetlands. On the west side of the property, Live Oak Springs Canyon Creek occupies an incised channel that is about ten feet deep where it enters the property and about four feet deep in the northwest corner. The channel banks generally lack wetland species, with the typical bank vegetation consisting primarily of weedy ruderal species such as yellow star thistle, horehound, jimson weed, curly dock, blessed thistle, and various grasses. A few scattered mulefat and willow shrubs are located in the northwest comer, but not enough to constitute a wetland community. Lary or aanta tdanre 5.4-8 L.� H H J i1 kJ CI n n Hunter; Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.4 Bioloov A determination of jurisdiction by the Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act was done by Dames & Moore for the 160 acre parcel in 1990. The findings of this study were that the parcel did not contain the requisite characteristics to be considered under Corps jurisdiction either as wetlands or "waters of the United States" for the following reasons:. 1. No obligate or facultative wetlands occur within the parcel and no hydric soils are present, despite the presence of wetland hydrology. This conclusion was based on wetland delineation procedures and evaluation criteria in the 1989 Wetland Delineation Manual. 2. No ordinary high water mark is readily identifiable along the drainages. 3. The integrity of the natural drainage from the parcel to the Santa Clara River has been substantially altered through road construction within the main channel and plowing, grading, and filling by agricultural and residential uses. It is noted that actual determination of jurisdictional authority resides with the Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency. Based on the field study, this 404 determination is expected to pertain to the upper Oak Spring Canyon area also:. As discussed above, wetland communities are lacking along the Live Oak Springs Canyon drainage, and though a high water mark could potentially be determined for most of this drainage even though it has been diverted and disturbed by agricultural activities, it does not constitute "waters of the United States" because it is no longer an uninterrupted tributary to the Santa Clara River (see Section 5,2 for description of this drainage channel). In any event, the amount of acreage that would be involved in any filling activity within Live Oak Springs Canyon Creek would be less than one acre and would be permissible under a nationwide permit classification. The California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) lists about 125 plant communities in California as "highest inventory priority," a listing done because the CDFG considers these communities "rare enough to merit inclusion in the inventory." These communities are not formally protected, but do constitute a working list of the comparative rarity of a particular community type. No CNDDB priority habitats listed for this area occur within the project site boundaries, though two listed habitats, Riversidean sage scrub and Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, are approximated in part by some of the vegetation formations at the site, What presently constitutes "Riversidean sage scrub" at the site is actually a successional chamise chaparral that will eventually return to the more normal vegetative component mix of that community over time. The alluvial fan scrub and oak -dominated habitats are sufficiently rich in species diversity and relatively rare in distribution to be considered an important natural community by the CNDDB. 5.4-9 City of Santa Clarita Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.4 Biology 6.4.2 Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds. The impact to biological resources were based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, which state that a project would have a significant impact if it: • substantially affects a rare or endangered species of animal or plant or the habitat of the species; • interferes substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species; or • substantially diminishes habitat for fish, wildlife or plants. b. Project Impacts. Effect B-1 Project development would reduce the amount of plant and wildlife habitat available at the site. Substantial decreases in locally and regionally significant biologically sensitive communities would also occur. (US) Project development would involve the grading of 84% of the acreage of the site and the subsequent destruction of most of the overlying vegetation within the graded area. The primary biological resource to be retained in the graded areas are the coast live oak trees, however, of the 982 oaks at the site 130 (13%) would be removed by the project. Subsequent to the landform modification, the applicant would begin to revegetate the site as a golf course. The tee, greens, and fairways would be planted in standard golf course grasses, but it is proposed that a plant mix including the use of native drought -tolerant grasses be used for the roughs edging the fairways, as indicated in the Draft Native Revegetation and Monitoring Plan. This plan also contains mitigation strategies for the protection of oak trees left in place and specifics regarding the correct procedures for transplanting oaks to be moved. Acorns had been collected from the site in the fall months of 1994 and approximately 1000 acorns were planted at a local nursery. These plants would provide the stock for plantings throughout the golf course.. The applicant also plans to introduce a permanent open water element to the project site, a resource that is currently generally lacking, though the retention ponds in the north portion of the site do serve as an important water source for local wildlife populations. Cut slopes above the fairways are proposed to be revegetated in part with native shrubs, as are the fill slopes that adjoin the residential lots to the Oak Spring Canyon golf course. Table 5.4-2 and the following figure provide a summary of the existing acreage and the post -project acreage. city of Santa clarita 5.4-10 r� J F� U 11 '1 J l' I LJ it U 1J I P l.J Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.4 Bioloov Table 5.4-2. Existing and Post -Project Plant Communities habitat to their present condition. s NA = Not Applicable 250 200 150 d v Q 100 50 0 Habitat Acreage GhnpwTaVShuC AWN Fan Nwal Fan oakslRudeml G. ow wax Revegelelion Sege Sauo SarWOeln EbaeN.✓GW wits Cana a Existing D Post -Project , The proposed vegetation alterations involve not only a change in the acreage of the different plant communities, but also involve a change in the ability of the onsite resources to support wildlife and sensitive plant and animal populations. To assess this change in general habitat suitability, a ranking assessment was performed based on the existing and expected characteristics of current and future vegetation. This habitat suitability assessment considered general habitat value based on plant diversity, 5.4-11 City of Santa Clarita Aei eage �ammnn" ifiahita4 Existing PnstProjeet Perceatchange Chaparral 205.5 45.9 -78% Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub 54.1 11.8 -78% Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub/Oaks 85.1 52.2 -39% Ruderal Area 34.8 -100% Ruderal Area with Oaks' 6.0 5.0 -17% Disturbed Grassland 25.0 -100% Retention Ponds/Golf Course Lakes 0.5 7.1 +1320% Revegetated Shrubs/Fire Zone 55.0 NA' Fairways/Tees/Greens — 97.7 NA Revegetated Roughs — 75.5 NA Urban 60.8 NA Post -project the oaks would be incorporated as part of residential and golf course areas, an ecologically similar habitat to their present condition. s NA = Not Applicable 250 200 150 d v Q 100 50 0 Habitat Acreage GhnpwTaVShuC AWN Fan Nwal Fan oakslRudeml G. ow wax Revegelelion Sege Sauo SarWOeln EbaeN.✓GW wits Cana a Existing D Post -Project , The proposed vegetation alterations involve not only a change in the acreage of the different plant communities, but also involve a change in the ability of the onsite resources to support wildlife and sensitive plant and animal populations. To assess this change in general habitat suitability, a ranking assessment was performed based on the existing and expected characteristics of current and future vegetation. This habitat suitability assessment considered general habitat value based on plant diversity, 5.4-11 City of Santa Clarita Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.4 Bioloov structural diversity, and disturbance (isolation, fragmentation of habitat, and amount of weedy vegetation). It also considered the regional supply of the specific habitat type and the known or probable ability of the habitat to support sensitive species. Appendix D contains the factors used in the ranking analysis, the method of summing the various factors, and the generalized suitability of the individual habitats to support native biological resources. The suitability factor was then multiplied by the acreage of the habitat to provide a number that reflects that habitat's contribution to the total value of biological resources within the site. The methodology employed is loosely based on the analytical framework provided by the Habitat Evaluation Procedure used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, except that the rankings are based on the biological judgment of the EIRpreparer rather than on field data and individual species habitat models. The following figure summarizes the findings of this analysis. Habitat Suitability ncn .JV MO 150- 100 50 aapwmVShnb MR" FM Nlvel Fen OalaRutlerd Grass Oparwater Totals Re-getabm Saga Sorb ScnbOala FJernr*dW sa Cane M Existing ® Post -Project The alluvial fan vegetation with the overlying oak woodland has the highest suitability factor of existing onsite resources because of the known presence of sensitive species within this area and the relatively high structural diversity and low level of disturbance. The best example of this community present on the site is that located adjacent to Rabbit Canyon in the southeastern comer of the site. As indicated in the above chart and Table 5.4-2, the proposed project would disturb this highest value per acre area the least, and thereby retain most of its habitat contribution value. The chart also indicates that the chaparral community provides the greatest amount of existing habitat value on the site, primarily due to the substantial amount of acreage on the site (about 50% of the total site acreage). The extensive reduction in the extent of this vegetation type is responsible for the greatest loss of net habitat value. City of Santa Clarita 5.4-12 L� LJ C F1 L U L C? G I lJ I lJ n Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.4 Bioloqy The ruderal area and disturbed grassland are the least valuable existing communities and the golf course fairway and rough vegetation would more than replace the current habitat value of these communities. Note however that this would occur at the expensive of the more valuable chaparral vegetation. The addition of the golf course lakes would serve to substantially increase the value of this wetland -type community within the site. Nonetheless, overall habitat value at the site would decline 57%. This is considered a significant impact that cannot be fully mitigated. In particular, the loss of the alluvial fan scrub habitat, a sensitive habitat type, cannot be mitigated onsite. It is also noted that the portions of the alluvial fan vegetation that would be left between fairways would eventually change to another vegetation type (probably mixed chaparral and oak woodland) because the stabilization of the soil surface associated with the golf course would reduce the scouring action of storm flows through the site and allow the establishment of different vegetation. The City has an Oak Tree Preservation ordinance (Section 17.17.090 of the Development Code) that is intended to protect and preserve oak trees within the city. The ordinance requires an oak tree permit to be obtained prior to cutting, pruning, removing, relocating, endangering, damaging, or encroaching into the protected zone (5 feet beyond the dripline) of any oak tree, with specific exemptions for pruning of branches less than 6 inches in circumference (about 2 inches in diameter) or trees with a circumference less than 6 inches, emergency conditions, nursery stock and planted trees, and public utility maintenance by the service company. Any removal, pruning, or relocating of oak trees on the property would be done in compliance with the conditions developed for the specific oak tree permit that the applicant is requesting. Certain findings must be made specifically regarding the removal or relocation of Heritage Oaks, of which up to seven may be so affected by the proposed project. Standard conditions of the oak tree permit require the replacement/relocation of trees either on- or off-site and certification of compliance with the conditions of the permit and the health of all replacement and relocated on-site trees after planting and two years after planting. A fee equivalent to the value of the trees removed from the property or donation of equivalent value boxed trees to the City may be also be made.. Equivalent value is determined using the current edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal published by the International Society of Arboriculture. Mitigation Measures. Beyond substantial reductions in the size of the project, no mitigation measures are available to effectively reduce the cumulatively significant impact of losses to biologically sensitive communities and general habitat that currently exists at the site. The following measures are, in part, incorporated into the draft revegetation plan for the site and are recommended for inclusion in the conditions of approval for the project if it is approved. B -1(a) The proposed project will be required to comply with the conditions of the oak tree permit. This shall include the payment of the equivalent value fees for removed and transplanted trees, with onsite plantings of oaks credited against the fee. The biological monitoring plan shall include specific monitoring of onsite oak tree plantings for a period of two years after completion of site development and landscaping. At the end of two years, all oaks shall be checked for health conditions compared to before project implementation and any trees observed to be declining in 5.4-13 City of Santa Clarita Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR , Section 5.4 Biology L health shall be monitored for an additional three years. Specific recommendations for L L preservation of declining oak trees shall also be made. Oak trees that die in the natural areas between the fairways shall be replaced on an equivalent value basis, f The dead trees shall be left standing to provide cavity nesting areas for birds and L roosts for raptors unless they present a safety hazard or a disease hazard to other oaks. B -1(b) At least 50% in aggregate of the shoreline edge of the golf course lakes shall be f revegetated with native freshwater marsh elements. B -1(c) Proposed fairway roughs shall be revegetated with native perennial bunch grasses at a mix of 2:1 to non-native species. These roughs shall be maintained as native perennial grasslands unless after three years of effort, it is shown that such [ 1 revegetation would be unsuccessful.. B -1(d) The Integrated Pest Management plan proposed for the project shall be prepared in accordance with the current practices advised by the Statewide Integrated Pest Management Project, University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural l Resources. u B -1(e) The slope revegetation and fire clearance zone shall be initially planted only with native species. Limit fire hazard fuel modification to hand -thinning of individual shrubs, clearing dead fuel, "multi -cutting," replanting with fire-resistant native shrubs or other methods to attain fire safety while producing a biologically viable community. L J Significance After Mitigation. In the long term, the implementation of the golf course revegetation plan and long term maintenance of the golf course to foster some wildlife habitat would serve to reduce the adverse environmental effects of project development. As discussed above, the project would substantially increase the amount of wetland -type communities on the site, but these gains are offset by J the substantial losses to other communities. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and immitigable. Effect B-2 Project implementation may reduce the population and available habitat for sensitive plant species. (NS) Peirson's morning-glory and Plummer's mariposa -lily are the only sensitive plants known to be present J on the project site. The morning-glory typically occurs in chaparral and scrub habitats in the area after fires and other disturbances. The species has been reported from several sites in the Santa Clarita. Valley, with five localities in the Mint Canyon quadrangle area, and over 20 sites overall in northern Los Angeles County. Henrickson (1989) provides a biological opinion that while this plant was originally j thought to be rare when first listed because of a notable lack of collections, it is possible that such alack LJ of records is due to its blooming period during summer when little collecting is done, its inconspicuous City of Santa Clarita 5.4-14 ll H Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.4 Biology nature of growing in the understory beneath shrubs, and its close resemblance to the common bindweed. Henrickson reports that he has surveyed an extensive stand of this species in the Mint Canyon -Vasquez Canyon area about 4-5 miles north-northwest of the site that contains concentrations of up to 10,000 plants per acre. He also notes that large numbers of this plant exist in the Angeles National Forest lands to the south and east of the site. LJ' The proposed project would remove about 78% of the chaparral vegetation on the site, but would revegetate 55 acres of scrub for a net loss of 51% of the available habitat for this plant at the project site. Hovore & Associates noted that this could be considered a locally significant impact, but given the + discussion in Henrickson, it is considered an adverse, but less than significant reduction in the available habitat for this plant. The project is not expected to result in an extirpation of the plant at the site, and the ongoing disturbance associated with maintenance in the fire clearance zone which would be U revegetated with native scrubs could aid in the long term maintenance of a Peirson's morning-glory J P population at the site. The Plummer's mariposa -lily is found on clayey soils generally in the scrub communities within the site and project development would eliminate approximately 70% of existing habitat, with a net loss of 35% of possible habitat. Similar to the morning-glory, Henrickson (1975, personal communication) indicated that this plant is relatively common in the project vicinity. Therefore, the project specific impact to the C mariposa -lily is considered to be adverse, but not significant. Cumulative impacts of other developments in the area are also expected to be adverse, but less than significant given the large supply of habitat for this species available in the Angeles National Forest and areas designated for open space. [j Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures are necessary, however, the following are recommended for consideration by approval authorities. l 1 B -2(a) Seed collection and plant salvaging efforts for the Peirson's morning-glory shall be attempted in chaparral areas prior to site mass grading. The purpose of such n collection would be to re-establish the plant within the scrub revegetation zone. B -2(a) The location of Plummer's mariposa -lilies shall be marked during the spring flowering period, with the bulbs dug up in the late fall to winter for transplanting before the heavy winter rains of January through March. The purpose of such collection would be to re-establish the plant within the scrub revegetation zone and the revegetated roughs or possible relocation into the remaining native habitats. Significance After Mitigation. Project development would reduce the amount of habitat available for Peirson's morning-glory and Plummer's mariposa -lily. Effect B-3 Future development of the residential and golf course uses may affect sensitive fish and wildlife resources at the site. (US) aCity of Santa C/: 5.4-15 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.4 Biology [ l As previously stated, no rare, threatened, or endangered animal species are present on the project site l J and project development would not result in any onsite impacts to such species. A total of 27 types of animals that are considered to be sensitive by either the federal or state government because of declining population levels are either known or likely to occur at the site. One amphibian, the western spadefoot toad could potentially occur on the site, breeding in the retention ponds or in the gravel pit pond located east of the site. Projectimplementation could possibly result in the local extirpation of the species from l the site because of the filling of the existing retention ponds and general grading of the scrub habitats.. Nine sensitive reptile species are expected to occur at the site, three of which were observed at the site. The coast homed lizard was identified during the Henrickson survey as being found throughout the alluvial fan scrub dominated by Great Basin sagebrush and adjacent ruderal grasslands in the northern portion of the 160 acre parcel. Identification of the actual subspecies present onsite is difficult because both subspecies have been found in the area, which is within a transition zone for these two subspecies. Based on the general known distribution of the subspecies, onsite animals are likely to be the San l� Diegoan form (P, c. blainvillei). Construction of the golf course in this area would remove virtually all r habitat for this animal, and these animals do not flee from the construction area and so are likely to be killed during construction. This is considered a locally significant impact. The coastal western whiptail was observed in chaparral habitat and could occur throughout the site except in the plowed fields. The whiptails at the site may not be the listed taxon because, as previously discussed, the project site lies within a transition zone between coastal and desert ecosystems and between northern and southern floristic zones. However, for purposes of impact analysis, they are L assumed to be the coastal form. Project development would remove most of the habitat for this active predator within the site, but there is extensive habitat for this species on adjacent lands and project development is not expected to result in a substantial decrease in whiptail populations. Three individuals of the two -striped garter snake were observed swimming in the retention ponds during ( j the August field visit. It is likely that these snakes breed in the immediate vicinity of the ponds and were .) probably feeding on the invasive exotic African clawed frog, which has a very dense population in these ponds. The two -striped garter snake and San Bernardino ring-necked snake are both generally associated with seasonal and perennial streams with good water quality and seasonal pools_ It is� possible that both species reside in the upper reaches of the Oak Spring Canyon drainage within the site. The project as proposed would reserve most of that area, but possible individuals further downstream or at the retention ponds would be eliminated by project construction. Because of the limited habitat J available for these snakes and their reduced local populations, the project is considered to have a significant impact on local populations. The silvery legless lizard can be expected onsite in the loose soils and thick deposits of leaf litter in the oak woodland areas and in favored locations in the chaparral. It is not as rare as generally believed, but is difficult to locate without specific focused studies. It is capable of surviving in urban habitats as long as loose soil or thick leaf litter is readily available. While project implementation would reduce n population levels, this is not expected to have a significant impact on this species. wry 5.4-16 Li Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.4 Biology 1 � Rosy boas are found on rocky hillsides in sage scrub and chaparral habitats, while the coastal patch - nosed snake occurs in similar but moister habitats and in the oak woodland areas. Project implementation is not expected to cause a significant impact to these two species because of their El relative abundance and the abundance of available habitat. ((i It is questionable which of the subspecies of the mountain kingsnake may actually reside in the project l; site, however, specimens from Sand Canyon and Placenta Canyon most closely resemble the San Diegoan form and it is presumed that this subspecies is likely to occur at the site. Due to the apparent relative rarity of this animal, loss of the chaparral and alluvial fan vegetation may cause a locally significant impact on this animal. Lr' All of the birds listed in Table 5.4-1 are California Species of Special Concern and are so listed l primarily because their preferred habitats have been fractured and extensively reduced by agriculture and urbanization. The birds of prey (golden eagle, white-tailed kite, northern harrier, sharp -shinned hawk, {� Cooper's hawk, California spotted owl, and long-eared owl) all have extensive ranges that cover many t_1 habitats, and can be expected as rare to common transients at the project site and most of these are not U expected to breed at the site. No direct evidence exists for Cooper's hawk nesting at the site, but they could potentially nest in the larger trees in the alluvial fan area. The white-tailed kite has nested in Sand and Placenta Canyons several times in the past two decades and could possibly breed at the site. Long- eared owls prefer to nest in willow forests, which are lacking at the site, but have been known to nest in oak trees and is a breeding bird in Sand and Placenta Canyons. Project development is not expected to cause a significant impact to those raptors that only forage at the site or occur as transient winter visitors, ( but loss of nesting localities for the other species would be considered a locally significant impact. All l.J three locally breeding raptors are somewhat tolerant of development, and are capable of using the golf course habitat and the revegetation areas. L The small predatory loggerhead shrike has declined throughout its range, probably due to habitat destruction but also due to declines in its prey base of songbirds and large insects. It probably nests at (� the site in the taller vegetation of the alluvial fan scrub and chaparral habitats. It is capable of surviving 1-1 in the habitats established by the golf course development and implementation of the project would not have a significant impact on this species, California horned larks nest on open ground, usually beneath or within clumps of grass or other vegetation, and are often found preferably in ruderal grasslands and disturbed habitats. The listed subspecies was recently downlisted as being too common, and the incremental loss of habitat associated with the project is not expected to cause a substantial decrease in this species population levels. Sage sparrows were not detected by sight or song during any of the field surveys, though small numbers of this bird have been seen in nearby localities in similar chaparral habitat. It is unknown whether or not f� the listed subspecies is the one present at the site since the desert subspecies is known to occur further to LJ the east, however, for purposes of this assessment, the listed taxon is presumed to be present. The project would alter most of the available nesting habitat for this animal, but given its known ability to City of Santa Clarita 5.4-17 n Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.4 Biology nest adjacent to suburban development, the project is not expected to have a significant impact on this animal. Rufous -crowned sparrows are becoming increasingly rare because of the loss of open sage scrub habitats that they nest in. This species is known to breed in chaparral habitats in Placenta and Tick Canyons and the incremental loss of breeding habitat for this project may be cumulatively significant. Three bat species, the pallid bat, California mastiff bat, and the pale big -eared bat, are expected to utilize the project site for foraging. These bats require caves or crevices for roosting and breeding, and their presence at the project site would be limited to foraging. A primary concern regarding these species is the use of pesticides to control insect populations on the golf course. Insecticides are thought to be a significant factor in the decrease in bat populations throughout California. While alteration of their natural foraging habitat at the site would not be expected to cause a significant decrease in population levels, the long term use of pesticides at the site could pose a cumulative impact to bat populations. The remaining three mammals, San Diego black tailed hare (or jackrabbit), San Diego desert woodrat, and southern grasshopper mouse, potentially occur at the site in the alluvial scrub and chaparral habitats. As is the case with other taxon discussed, the hare and woodrat subspecies listed may not be the ones that are resident at the site. Given the amount of available habitat in adjacent Forest Service lands and elsewhere, development of the project would represent a minor incremental loss of habitat for these animals and is not considered project or cumulatively significant. The southern grasshopper mouse has been recently trapped from chaparral ridgelines about 10 miles from the site, but it has not been found in nearby Bee or Placerita Canyons. It is expected that it could occur throughout the natural habitats present on the site and on adjacent forest lands. Project implementation would remove the majority of available habitat for this animal, but it is relatively widespread and the project is not expected to cause a project -specific or cumulative impact to this animal. Mitigation Measures. Of the 28 listed taxon in Table 5.4-1, project implementation is expected to have a significant impact on five sensitive animals: the western spadefoot toad, coast homed lizard, two -striped garter snake, mountain kingsnake, and rufous -crowned sparrow. It is noted that the presence of clawed frogs limit the usefulness of the existing retention ponds as breeding habitat for other amphibians because of their feeding behavior. In addition, these frogs pose a threat to offsite native species and are currently a significant factor in losses of the endangered stickleback in the Santa Clara River. The golf course lakes offer a potential opportunity to expand the breeding and foraging habitat for the two -striped garter snake, western spadefoot toad, and mountain kingsnake. The following mitigation measures are recommended to reduce project -related impacts to sensitive species. B -3(a) Construction workers shall be notified through preconstruction meetings that a variety of sensitive wildlife are present at the site and that they shall not willfully harm any species, especially snakes and other reptiles. During the construction meeting, the proper method of moving snakes from construction zones shall be illustrated. city or Santa Clang 5.4-18 l� I 1 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.4 Biology 13-3(b) Include creation and maintenance of freshwater marsh habitat along the margins of the golf course lakes to increase the potential for recovery of two -striped garter snake, mountain kingsnake, and western spadefoot toad populations in the project vicinity. B -3(c) The clawed frogs could potentially invade the proposed golf course lakes and decrease potential habitat values. To avoid this, these ponds shall be drained prior to 1 construction and filling of the proposed lakes. During the draining, the frogs shall be caught with netting or by other means and killed. At the same time as the frogs are 1 netted, two -striped garter snakes and any other sensitive species in the ponds shall be captured. The native animals shall be maintained until the golf course lakes are filled and native vegetation is installed along the banks, at which time, the snakes and other (' sensitive species shall be released into the new habitat. �J B -3(d) A capture and off-site relocation plan shall be developed for the San Diego horned Ulizard. Such a plan would include the scouring of the north portion of the alluvial fan scrub to capture horned lizards and the identification of suitable unoccupied habitat to {{ which they could be relocated. f� 13-3(e) Install swallow boxes in the retained natural areas between the fairways as part of the Integrated Pest Management plan for the site. Also consider the installation of bat Lboxes to be located at least 800 feet from residential areas. (� Significance After Mitigation. Because 84% of the site would be graded and a net loss of approximately 60% of available habitat would occur, the impact to the coast horned lizard and the rufous -crowned sparrow cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels. Effect B-4 Development of the project could cause an indirect and cumulative impact to regional fish and wildlife resources because of the interruption of wildlife corridors or habitat linkages. (NS) Habitat linkages are generally defined as connections between habitat patches that allow for physical and { genetic exchange between otherwise isolated animal populations. Such linkages may serve a local ( purpose, such as between foraging and denning areas, or they may be regional in nature. Some habitat linkages may serve as migration corridors, wherein animals periodically move away from an area and then subsequently return. A group of habitat linkages in an area can form a wildlife corridor network.. At this time, it is important to distinguish between a specific migratory corridor and general movement C�pathways within a habitat linkage. Certain animals follow specific corridors as part of an evolutionary -1 pattern or as seasonal movements and they have little ability to modify their behavior to follow that route given physical changes. Examples of this are certain amphibians that follow specific routes between aestivation sites and breeding pools, steelhead trout and salmon that tend to return to specific nativity streams, and caribou that follow specific trail routes between breeding and wintering grounds. Movement pathways are simply a route that an individual highly mobile animal such as a mountain lion, City of Santa C/arita 5.4-19 l� Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.4 Biology '1 coyote, or mule deer may travel between seasonal resource areas. Such pathways typically follow drainage patterns, ridges, and passes, but the individual animal, and the population as a whole, can choose to take a different route between the resources provided that alternatives are available. Habitat linkages are generally areas by which larger, separate areas of similar habitat values are connected physically. The habitats within the link do not necessarily need to be the same as the habitats that are being link, it merely needs to contain sufficient cover and forage to allow temporary inhabitation by ground -dwelling species. Typically habitat linkages are contiguous strips of natural areas, though dense plantings of landscape vegetation can serve for certain urban -tolerant species. Depending on the 1 species intended to utilize a corridor, specific physical resources (such as rock outcroppings, vernal pools, oak trees) need to be located within the habitat link at certain intervals to allow slower -moving species to traverse the link. For highly mobile or aerial species, habitat linkages may be discontinuous �11 patches of suitable resources, spaced sufficiently close to permit travel along a route in a short period of �1 time. When habitat linkages are too small or narrow, they may collapse ecologically due to encroachment or edge effects. An example is a corridor intended for deer movement that is so narrow that adjacent residential lighting is too bright for deer to tolerate crossing open pools of light. For small mammals, such as rodents and reptiles, habitat linkages need to be sufficiently wide to decrease the predatory effects of feral dogs and cats associated with suburban development. In general, the larger a link is, the better it functions for the movement of animals and genetic material between major areas of open space. The proposed project site lies along a drainage through which animals can be expected to traverse to and from the San Gabriel Mountains en route to the Santa Clara River and the Sierra Pelona. Large animal movement within Oak Spring Canyon appears to follow a network of movement pathways, with deer and coyote tracks evident along the braided stream channels. Reticulated networks of small rodent trails are also evident throughout the grasslands, ruderal areas, chaparral, and alluvial scrub. Some significant cross -drainage movement between Oak Spring Canyon and Sand Canyon appears to occur via the low pass at the terminus of Bronco Road and along the ridgeline between the two canyons. However, the western portion of the site is surrounded by existing development, and there appears to be little '� J movement offsite further to the west. 1� The project as proposed would interrupt the smaller trails and pathways along with most of the populations that currently use these pathways. The project would reduce animal movement across the ridgelines from Oak Spring Canyon to Sand Canyon, but this would affect local movement pathways j 1 only and not a major migratory route or an important habitat linkage. The golf course as a vegetated I area unoccupied by people during the night would continue to serve as a down canyon pathway for larger mobile animals, but would disrupt such movements and genetic flow for smaller animals such as rodents and rabbits. The regional importance of such a disruption is minimized by the presence of large expanses of natural land to the east that provides the same ecological function as the project site. Therefore, the project would not create a significant barrier to the general regional movement of fish and wildlife resources.. wry 5.4-20 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR LSection 5.4 Biology D- 0 D Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures are required. The revegetation of portions of the site as proposed under the revegetation plan will serve to, preserve the golf course as an area that provides sufficient food, water, and cover to allow larger, more mobile animals to move through the site without major restrictions. Significance After Mitigation. No significant impacts relative to animal movement are expected to be caused by the proposed development, and the golf course revegetation would serve to preserve the options available to large mobile wildlife to move between areas. 5.4-21 City, of Santa Clafita H C [1 C! J l; U I I I 11 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.5 Transportation/Circulation 5.5 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION The proposed development would generate about 3,800 vehicles per day on Sand Canyon Road Trak impacts of the project were analyzed at six intersections in the site area and on the Antelope Valley Freeway. With the existing roadway design, an acceptable level of traffic operation would occur with full site development at all study locations except the northbound Sand Canyon off -ramp of the Antelope Valley Freeway. A planned Caltrans bridge improvement project will improve the level of service at this intersection to an acceptable operation. Consequently, no roadway improvements are required for the existing road system to adequately serve project -related traffic. It is recommended that a southbound left turn lane be installed on Sand Canyon Road at the main site entrance and at Live Oak Springs Canyon Road to facilitate turning movements and maximize safety. If spectator tournament golf events are held at the site, an event specific traffic control plan is required. Cumulative and project traffic would combine with existing heavy west approach traffic at the Sand Canyon and Lost Canyon Roads intersection to warrant signalization of this intersection. The following discussion is based on the traffic impact study prepared for this EIR by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (1995). This study is herein incorporated in its entirety per State CEQA Guidelines §15150 and may be reviewed at the City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department. 5.5.1 Setting The proposed development is located on the east side of Sand Canyon Road and north of Live Oak Springs Canyon Road, about one mile south of the Antelope Valley Freeway (SR -14). The development would access the existing local roadway system through two access points. A public street would be constructed to Sand Canyon Road, about 350 feet south of Comet Way, that would serve as the main access for clubhouse and golf traffic as well as for several housing units. Live Oak Springs Canyon Road would also connect to both the residential and recreational uses. The proximity of the site to various roads in the study area is illustrated in Figure 5.5-1. The current travel conditions in the site area were identified and the level of traffic congestion was calculated to define baseline conditions for the project traffic impact analysis. City Traffic Engineering staff identified six intersections to be evaluated as part of this study, All of these were on Sand Canyon Road or at ramps to the Antelope Valley Freeway. In addition, the freeway section between Sand Canyon Road and Via Princessa was also investigated. a. Description of Roadways that Serve the Project Area. The following is a description of roadways in the project area that would be affected by project generated traffic, Antelope Valley Freeway (SR -14) - The Antelope Valley Freeway extends between I-5 in Los Angeles to north of the Palmdale/Lancaster area, and it is a major travel route between southern and central California. In the vicinity of Sand Canyon Road, the freeway is oriented in an east -west direction, and has four travel lanes in each direction. A modified diamond interchange at Sand Canyon Road serves regional access needs of the area. Adjacent interchanges are located at Soledad Canyon Road (about 2 5.5-1 City of Santa Ctarita J LJ L j C j L� LJ J- L• �J L_J I C J r l n Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.5 Transportation/Circulation miles to the east of Sand Canyon Road) and at Via Princessa (about 2.5 miles to the west). The Antelope Valley Freeway carries about 73,000 daily vehicles, east of Sand Canyon Road, and about 81,000 vehicles per day west of the interchange. Soledad Canyon Road - Soledad Canyon Road is a locally significant arterial street that extends from Bouquet Canyon Road to communities east of Santa Clarita. In the site vicinity, Soledad Canyon Road is parallel to and just north of the Antelope Valley Freeway; and it provides an alternate travel route to the freeway. In the study area, Soledad Canyon Road has two through lanes in each direction and left turn lanes at major intersections. Traffic volumes on Soledad Canyon Road are about 15,300 daily vehicles east of Sand Canyon Road and about 25,000 daily vehicles west of Sand Canyon Road. Sand Canyon Road -Sand Canyon Road is a local collector street that is gradually being improved to arterial standards to the north of Lost Canyon Road. It is the only current access to the residential developments between the Southern Pacific Railroad and Placenta Canyon Road. Sand Canyon Road is currently a two lane rural road that is generally between 25 and 35 feet wide, with roadside berms and drainage ditches.It extends in a north -south direction between Sierra Highway on the north and Placerita Canyon Road on the south. The existing bridge over the Antelope Valley Freeway is 40 feet wide with one lane in each direction plus a left turn lane for southbound traffic. Current traffic volumes range from about 9,100 daily vehicles near the Antelope Valley Freeway to about 3,100 vehicles per day on the south end of the road. Lost Canyon Road - Lost Canyon Road is a two lane, rural road that intersects Sand Canyon Road just north of the Southern Pacific Railroad. The facility has two travel lanes that are not delineated, and the intersection with Sand Canyon Road is controlled by a two way stop for Lost Canyon Road. This road carries very low volumes of traffic, less than 900 vehicles per day west of and less than 700 vehicles per day east of Sand Canyon Road, from the existing sparse residential development and several schools. Placerita Canyon Road'- Placerita Canyon Road is a two lane rural road about 30 to 40 feet wide connecting Sand Canyon Road with the Newhall area. It currently carries slightly over 3,000 vehicles per day near Sand Canyon Road. Little Tuiunga Road - Little Tujunga Road connects Sand Canyon Road with the Los Angeles urban area F1 through Angeles National Forest. It is a winding, mountainous, two lane road that carnes about 600 daily vehicles near Sand Canyon Road. (j I I 11 b. Existing Traffic Volumes. As shown in Figure 5.5-2, existing daily traffic volumes on study area surface streets range from a high of about 25,000 daily vehicles on Soledad Canyon Road to less than 1,000 daily vehicles on Lost Canyon Road and Little Tujunga Road. The Antelope Valley Freeway carries about 75,000 to 80,000 daily vehicles in the site area. Existing peak hour traffic counts were conducted at five locations in the study area, so that potential site impacts could be fully evaluated. The existing morning peak travel hour generally begins between 7:00 AM and 7:15 AM at all study intersections and the peak PM traffic hour is generally between 4:30 PM 5.5-3 ury or Santa wanra i� u rI L l 1 �1 I 1, 1J P E E P 0 1_) P Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.5 Transportation/Circulation and 5:30 PM. The peak hour traffic demand is illustrated in Figure 5.5-3 for the morning peak and in Figure 5.5-4 for the evening peak. c. Existing Level of Service. The existing traffic operation at each study intersection was calculated using standard methodologies for determining Level of Service (LOS). The signalized. intersections were analyzed using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology. This technique compares current demand to available approach capacity. The critical or mutually exclusive traffic flows through the intersection are summarized to calculate the operating Level of Service of the intersection. The City of Santa Clarita has defined the maximum desirable congestion level in residential areas as LOS "C" (V/C ratio of 0.80) and at freeway ramps as LOS "D" (V/C ratio of 0.90). The congestion level at unsignalized intersections was calculated using Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) calculation techniques. This procedure calculates a Level of Service from a determination of average vehicle delay through the intersection. The HCM analysis procedure is a standard technique for comparing levels of congestion at stop sign controlled intersections. Table 5.5-1 lists the existing operating characteristics of study area intersections. The data show that all intersections, except the SR -14 northbound off -ramp at Sand Canyon Road, are operating with little or no traffic congestion. The northbound off -ramp at Sand Canyon Road is currently operating at LOS "E" during the evening peak hour period_ LOS "E" is a highly congested level of operation where vehicles must generally wait more than one signal cycle to traverse the intersection. Table 5.5-1 Existing Study Area Traffic Operation INTEIiSIC.'T'1d1+i i57'1NG CU1tt�R5TIU1�tLUV1;L A 111 Peak " 1�1 Peak Signalized lrtterseetions 1 >c QS . 1u r vs Sand Canyon Rd/Soledad Canyon Rd 0.41 A 0.63 B Sand Canyon Rd/SR-14 NB Ramps 0.38 A 0.93 E' Soledad Canyon RA/SR-14 SB Ramps 0.52 A 0.47 A A11iPEak F.1YIi'eak Unsigualizetltnt€r5ecti s' I .. ;; Relay .. Sand Canyon Rd/Lost Canyon Rd 1.1 A 08 A Sand Canyon Rd/Live Oak Springs Cyn Rd. 0.7 A 0.9 A 5.5-5 of Santa C/arita 752 x505 Figure 5.5-3 EXISTING TRAFFIC DEMAND - AM PEAK Kimlev—Horn❑a ss❑ocictes. In C I� L FI kJ P I L �I C L_J 334 Figure 5.5-4 U EXISTING TRAFFIC DEMAND - PM PEAK Kimley—Horn❑an`s�ates, Inc.J 1, Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR f 1 Section 5.5 Transportation/Circulation ) L -J Although traffic demand on all critical approaches to this intersection contribute to the congestion problem in the PM peak, the congestion problem primarily results from an extremely high left tum demand from the ramp to Sand Canyon Road that far exceeds the available capacity of the one approach lane provided for this maneuver. The existing narrow bridge for Sand Canyon Road across the Antelope Valley Freeway allows only one departure lane and prevents improvement at this intersection. d. Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program (CMP). Los Angeles County has developed a Congestion Management Program (CMP) that establishes procedures and guidelines for the analysis of development impacts on a defined system of critical freeway and arterial roads in the County. The Antelope Valley Freeway (SR -14) is on the CMP system of roads; consequently, potential impacts to the freeway system must be considered. In general, the study area must include: Arterial monitoring locations, including freeway ramps where the proposed project will J add 50 or more vehicle trips during either peak hour, and 2, Mainline freeway monitoring locations where the proposed project will add 150 or more 1. 1 trips in either direction to the mainline volume. The study analysis includes the Sand Canyon Road ramps to the Antelope Valley Freeway, and the City has requested analysis of the mainline section south (west) of Sand Canyon Road. Consequently, the l CMP system components that may be impacted by the proposed development have been evaluated herein. I The mainline freeway, south of Sand Canyon Road, carries about 81,000 daily vehicles and about 6,800 vehicles during the peak travel hour. The peak direction of travel has about 60 percent of the peak period volume, or 4,050 vehicles per hour. The capacity of the mainline freeway, in each direction, is about 7,200 vehicles per hour. Therefore, the V/C ratio for the freeway south of Sand Canyon Road is 0.56 r and the current LOS is "A",. 5.5.2 Project Traffic Volumes 15 a. Trip Generation. Standard trip generation factors for golf course and residential uses were determined from the Trip Generation Handbook, 5th Edition by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE, 1991). Single Family Detached Housing (Land Use 210) and Golf Course (Land Use 43 0) data were used in the analysis. Both weekday and weekend travel data were compared to identify the highest travel hour for the entire project, and the weekday PM peak was found to have the highest site vehicle traffic. These data are shown in Table 5.5-2 and Table 5.5-3. The standard generation rate for the golf course was modified to account for the size and number of ancillary uses on the site. The data plot for weekday traffic shows that the standard curve (T = L J [(0.157/x)- 0.00028]-' works well for standard municipal or private golf courses of up to 27 holes and about 200 acres (ITE. January 1991, pg. 661). Above that range, the data points show that a higher traffic generation rate often occurs. The subject golf course would have 36 holes on about 292 acres and City of Santa Clanta L i 5.5-8 tlI L L_: C' U El n n lJ Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.5 Transportation/Circulation Table 5.5-2 Projected Daily Traffic Demand Residential 87 d.u.° 440 440 880 380 380 760 Golf 292 Ac. 1,460 1,460 2,920 1,190 1,190 2,380 Course Total 1,900 1,900 3,800 1,570 1,570 3,140 conservative. and slightly overestimates traffic associated with the project. Table 5.5-3 Projected Peak Hour Traffic Demand Source: Trip Generation, Fifth Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1991. has a number of amenities, including banquet facilities and dinning room, that would likely cause a greater than normal traffic generation. The standard daily trip generation equation would result in a trip rate of about 4.19 trips per acre. The data points for large acreage golf courses have a wide range for total trip ends. The high traffic generation courses are assumed to be well established, well known destination golf courses near urban areas with a high level of amenities, while the low generation data would be representative of a municipal course with no amenities. The proposed project is anticipated to become a well established course with considerable amenities, but somewhat remote from the urban center. Therefore, it would have a higher than average trip generation, but not as high as a destination course. A factor of 10 trips per acre per day was selected as the appropriate value for analysis. This rate is the weighted average of three ITE data points for large golf courses. It is about 1.6times greater than the average trip generation for a golf course and about 50 percent of the peak rate for a destination golf course. In addition, it should be noted that trip generation for the residential component of the analysis has been based on a total of 87 residential units. The total number of residential lots was reduced to 83 during the preparation of the environmental analysis. Therefore, the trip generation for the residential component of the project is considered conservative. 5.5-9 City of Santa Clarita Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.5 Transportation/Circulation The proposed development is estimated to produce about 3,800 trips on an average weekday and 3,140 trips on an average weekend day. The golf course contributes about 76 percent of the traffic on either study day. About 144 vehicles are generated by the site in the morning peak hour and 202 vehicles are generated in the evening peak hour. The peak hour traffic is comprised of about 55 percent golf course related travel and 45 percent residential traffic. As shown in Table 5.5-3, the two uses tend to produce a balanced traffic flow by producing peak directional flows in opposite directions. The various properties at this site were previously approved for a development level of about 222 single family residential units. As a comparison, a residential development would generate about 2,260 daily vehicle trips during an average weekday, 180 trips during the morning peak, and 220 trips during the evening peak. The residential traffic, however, would be primarily outbound in the morning and inbound in the evening, unlike the golf course traffic which is opposite that orientation. Consequently, because of the peak hour directional traffic orientation, the proposed development would produce about 48 percent less traffic during the morning peak hour and 27 percent less during the evening peak hour than the reconstituted existing entitlements. b. Trip Distribution. Projected site traffic was generally assigned to Sand Canyon Road in proportion to existing traffic and to produce a conservative estimate of impacts to the site area. Consequently, 90 percent of the site traffic was assumed to and from north of the site. About 55 percent of the site traffic was assigned to the Antelope Valley Freeway, and about 30 percent was assigned to Soledad Canyon Road. A similar distribution was assumed for both site land uses. The projected site traffic distribution is illustrated in Figure 5.5-5, and the resulting daily traffic demand is shown in Figure 5.5-6. The site has two major access points to the local street system, one on Sand Canyon Road and one on Live Oak Springs Canyon Road. It was assumed that a majority of site traffic (about 80 percent) would use the northern site driveway. This access would serve both residential and recreational land uses. The Live Oak Springs Canyon Road access is expected to accommodate about 20 percent of the site traffic, mostly residential in nature. The resulting morning peak hour site traffic demand is shown in Figure 5.5-7 and the evening peak hour is shown in Figure 5.5-8. 5.5.3 Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures a. Methodology and Impact Thresholds. This traffic impact analysis follows the standard methodology and report format used by the City of Santa Clarita. The analyses are based on discussions with City staff, other traffic studies in the project area, and field studies in the project area. The impact evaluation assesses current travel conditions in the site area, travel conditions with the completion of the project, resulting traffic impacts as defined by the City's criteria, and recommended mitigation measures. Vehicular traffic from the proposed residential and golf course development was forecasted and allocated to the surrounding street system using standard techniques. The City of Santa Clarita has defined the maximum desirable congestion level in residential areas as LOS "C" (V/C ratio of 0.80) and at freeway ramps as LOS "D" (V/C ratio of 0.90). This impact threshold is used in the following analysis. City of Santa Clarita 5.5-10 U [I lJ L l� LL r� 11 li L a n D C n- 0 0 0 0 I I J 1� P PJ 11 11 P n U pi 0 I I I r� 11 H u J 3 u 0 8 8I 0 H. Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.5 Transportation/Circulation ib. Project Impacts. Traffic impacts on the site area were determined for traffic conditions at full site development, which was assumed in 1996. The total future traffic demand includes three components: 1) the existing traffic flows increased by an annual growth rate (in this case, 2 percent per year) to account for the growth in regional traffic demand; 2) traffic from other known projects in the site area that are likely to be constructed by project completion, and 3) project traffic. This section first discusses the non -project components of the total future traffic demand, and analyses the contribution of each component to the total future level of traffic congestion in the area. As such, it sets the stage for the anticipated baseline condition at project buildout: Ldroved and Pending Projects The City of Santa Clarita identified three other projects in the City and three projects in the County within the Sand Canyon area that would contribute traffic demand to the area n roadways. These projects are shown in Figure 5.5-9. Projects 1, 3, 4 and 5 take access directly from LSand Canyon Road, and all traffic from these developments were allocated to Sand Canyon Road., Project 2 (TT 34466) is proposed to take access from Lost Canyon Road and from Soledad Canyon Road via an existing undercrossing of the Antelope Valley Freeway about one mile west of Sand Canyon Road. Traffic from this development was allocated to the road system based on the ultimate destination. The allocation process generally resulted in 60 percent of the traffic using the Soledad Canyon Road (I access and 40 percent using Lost Canyon Road. Project 6 (TT 30738) would have multiple access �� points, but all traffic was allocated to Sand Canyon Road as a conservative measure. �j The projected trip generation from the three proposed projects is listed in Table 5.5-4. The In -n -Out J Burger (Project 3) has no morning peak hour traffic because it is not open at that time. The regional distribution of traffic from these projects is illustrated in Figure 5.5-10 for the morning peak hour and �' Figure 5.5-11 for the evening peak hour. The cumulative projects would generate a total of 5,280 daily trips, with 300 trips in the morning peak hour and 475 trips in the evening peak hour. n 0 P n I Table 5.5-4 Trip Generation For Other Area Projects City of Santa C/anta 5.5-15 i'it4Jl4CTED-TRAVEL D1 11iAlYD. . ...... Altii'eak T'N[i'ea1 Deuelapmeut $ize Datly in Ont to .. I: tluf TT 49334 32 d.u. 360 10 20 25 15 TT 34466 299 d.u. 2,980 60 160 190 110 28368 Sand Canyon 2,900 sq. ft. 1,290 0 0 35 30 TT 50173 14 d.u. 140 4 7 10 5 TT 50446 6 d.u. 60 1 3 5 2 TT 30738 45 d.u. 450 10 25 30 18 Total Trak 5,280 85 215 295 180 City of Santa C/anta 5.5-15 O O O O O O Figure 5.5-9 OTHER AREA PROJECTS and Associates, Inc. a 0 �c LJ a Figure 5.5-10 L! TRAFFIC FROM OTHER AREA PROJECTS - AM PEAK ❑_❑ �j Kimley—Horn and AssoCiotes, Inc. 0 8 0 6 C — 3S �5 'n `� X50 j L n \ ! 1 8 Figure 5.5-11 s L a TRAFFIC FROM OTHER AREA PROJECTS PM PEAK Kimley--Horn and Associates. Inc. n LJ L 1. I U P. U I 0 I a a E G Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.5 Transportation/Circulation Future Total Trak Demand The future traffic demand excluding site traffic is shown in Figure 5.5-12 for the morning peak hour and in Figure 5.5-13 for the evening peak hour. The projected volume includes existing traffic, future traffic growth for one year, and traffic from other area projects. The future total traffic demand including site traffic, is shown in Figures 5.5-14 and 5.5-15 respectively for morning and evening peak hour traffic demand. Table 5.5- 5 summarizes the projected intersection operation in the site area for future conditions without site traffic. Most intersections would operate at LOS "A" during both peak hour travel conditions. During the evening peak hour, the operation at Sand Canyon Road/Soledad Canyon Road would operate at LOS 'B", and the Antelope Valley Freeway northbound ramps would degrade from "E" to "F". Table 5.5-5 Summary Of Future Intersection Operation Without Site Traffic •'INTERSE TINGCt;NMSTIONPITTIIRE 01+tGESTIt)1d .............................. •.: LEVEL Ni'rxW" _ YfE ' A1tiFYeak . Pltii I'e>rk :AM Peak P1ti4 i'eSis Slgoa tz, fntersectiou ICIi LUS lCII I QS ICii i i35 ltu: Lt3S Sand Canyon Rd/Soledad Canyon Rd 0.41 A 0.63 B 0.45 A 0.69 B Sand Canyon Rd/SR-14 NB Ramps 0.38 A 0.93 E 0.43 A 1.02 F Soledad Canyon Rd/SR-14 SB Ramps 0.52 A 0,47 A 0.56 A 0.55 A Uassgualixed lntersel tion Delayi ' EUS Delay ;LOS I?iay Lt)S • Ueiay LOS Sand Canyon Rd/Lost Canyon Rd 1.1 A 0.8 A 1.8 A 1.5 A Sand Canyon Rd/Live Oak Springs Cyn Rd 0,7 A 0.9 1 A 1 0.6 A 0.9 A 5.5-19 City of Santa Clanta 7g0 na ` 52. x525 n h.. fifiA Figure 5.5-12 FUTURE TRAFFIC DEMAND WITHOUT SITE - AM PEAK and Associates. Inc. LJ L lJ lJ E G 11 P 1 J D n I I p Figure 5.5-13 FUTURE TRAFFIC DEMAND WITHOUT SITE - PM PEAK --F1 ! mle�Horn❑w ss❑oclotes. Inc. P 5 X98 mo `52 X52 e�h� fifiA Figure 5.5-14 FUTURE TOTAL TRAFFIC DEMAND - AM PEAK Kimleq Horn❑an sssociates. Inc Saz m 5a rj}4. Figure 5.5-15 FUTURE TOTAL TRAFFIC DEMAND - PM PEAK 1 Kimley-Hom❑a sates. Inc. Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.5 Transportation/Circulation Effect T-1 Additional traffic associated with the project and cumulative projects may alter the current level of service at intersections within the study area. (NS) The traffic operation with all projected traffic demand, including site traffic, is shown in Table 5.5-6. All intersections would operate at LOS "A" during the morning peak hour, while four of the six intersections analyzed would also operate at LOS "A" during the evening peak hour. The LOS at the intersection of Soledad Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road would be reduced from "A" to "C" during the evening peak hour; but this is an acceptable level of service and would not cause a significant traffic impact. The Antelope Valley Freeway northbound ramps at Sand Canyon would continue to operate at a very poor level of service (LOS "F") condition with site traffic during the evening peak hour until the bridge improvements are completed. Table 5.5-6 Summary Of Future Intersection Operation With Site Traffic 1NTR$SELiIOPI EXI$M0 ,Q0NGES'fID1+I I ijTUlti t �N ESTit)lY .' 1...7B1 slx . AINt i'eatt '° Pure ak AN1i Peak;:. Plt� i'eak Signalized infersectian ICU= LOS ICU " : LQ$, LOS . Icu LO5 Sand Canyon Rd/Soledad Canyon Rd 0.41 A 0.63 A 0.48 A 0.75 C Sand Canyon Rd/SR-14 NB Ramps 0.38 A 0.93 E 0.47 A 1.08 F Soledad Canyon Rd/SR-14 SB Ramps 0.52 A 0.47 A 0.58 A 0.56 A Unsignalized lnter$ec#rnn nelay Los AelaS . 14$ Delay L iS .Delay LOS . Sand Canyon Rd/Lost Canyon Rd 1.1 A 0.8 A 1.3 A 1.6 A Sand Canyon Rd/Lost Canyon Rd (off-peak) 4.5 A - 13.0 C Sand Canyon Rd/Live Oak Springs Cyn Rd 0.7 A 0.9 A 0.8 A 1.1 A Sand Canyon Rd/Site Access - - 0.6 A 1.0 A FUTURE INTERSECTION OPERATION WITH BRIDGE RVIPROVEMENTS Sand Canyon Road/SR-14 NB Ramps 038 1 A 1 0.93 1 E 1 0.34 1 A 0.72 C The intersection of Sand Canyon and Lost Canyon Roads experiences unusually high traffic volumes in the early afternoon when the local schools, Sulfur Springs Elementary and Pinecrest, end the school day. Parents who pickup their children between 3:00 and 3:30 pm cause traffic congestion on the west approach of Lost Canyon Road. This off-peak condition was also analyzed and included in Table 5.5-6. The current travel conditions for the school -related travel is LOS "A", however, the intersection operation would degrade to LOS "C" at the completion of project development. Operations on the west approach only of Lost Canyon Road is currently at LOS "C" with an average of 15 seconds delay, which would degrade with the proposed and cumulative projects to LOS "F" with 60 seconds average delay. cny or z anra crania 5.5-24 i I� Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.5 Transportation/Circulation While this is an adverse change in traffic congestion, it is not considered a significant impact because it would effect only one approach of the intersection, the intersection as a whole would operate at an aacceptable LOS of "C, and the congestion occurs for only a limited period less than one hour. Mitigation Measures. The current poor level of operation on the northbound Sand Canyon Road off - ramp from the Antelope Valley Freeway will be improved in the near future with a planned construction Lproject. Caltrans plans to widen the existing three lane bridge to an ultimate width that allows seven travel lanes (three through lanes per direction and a left turn lane). The near term lane configuration will { l include two lanes in each direction and one left turn lane. The improvement project is scheduled to begin L J in mid 1996, As a part of the bridge widening project, the northbound off -ramp to Sand Canyon will be widened to three approach lanes. The new ramp will be striped for a left turn lane, a left and through (� lane, and a right turn lane. The improved bridge and ramp are assumed to be in place and operational when the golf course is complete. Q T-1 The timing of the proposed project shall be conditioned based on the timing of the proposed bridge improvements. This would avoid potentially significant cumulative impacts associated with this facility. Significance After Mitigation. The Sand Canyon Bridge and ramp at the Antelope Valley Freeway is ^ projected to operate at a very poor level of service during the evening peak hour (LOS F) with the IL J,I existing bridge and ramp configuration. When the bridge and ramp are widened, the operation improves dramatically. The resulting v/c ratio for future conditions is forecasted at 0.72, resulting in a Level of C Service "C. This expected level of traffic ramp congestion is well within the minimum acceptable level for freeway ramps as defined by the City of Santa Clarita. The west approach of the Sand Canyon and Lost Canyon Roads intersection would be congested with relatively long delays immediately after the two schools end the school day. However, the intersection as a whole would operate at an acceptable LOS "C". Effect T-2 The proposed project would generate additional traffic along the Antelope Valley Freeway. (NS) I n I n The 1993 Los Angeles County CMP requires that potential impacts to the Antelope Valley Freeway must be considered if site mainline traffic volumes exceed 150 vehicles per hour or monitoring location volumes exceed 50 vehicles per hour. Neither of these requirements are met with traffic from the proposed development; consequently, a CMP traffic impact analysis is not required and the site is not expected to contribute a significant amount of traffic to the freeway system. Mitigation Measures. None necessary. Significance After Mitigation. Operations along the Antelope Valley Freeway would remain generally at current levels after project added traffic. 5.5-25 city or sanra crania Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.5 Transportation/Circulation Effect T-3 The additional project and cumulative traffic may cause Sand Canyon Road to exceed its capacity. (NS) The practical capacity of a two-lane rural road is generally considered to be in the range of 10,000 to 14,000 vehicles per day (Highway Capacity Manual, 1994, Table 7-11). The actual capacity varies depending on the number and spacing of intersections, roadway width, roadway alignment, and tffi rac distribution characteristics. As traffic demand approaches the theoretical road capacity, access to the street becomes more difficult, vehicular conflicts increase, and traffic delay becomes more frequent. The project traffic demand on Sand Canyon Road north of Lost Canyon Road is expected to increase from an existing 9,100 daily vehicles to about 13,100 daily vehicles after the completion of the proposed project. The major contributor to the growth in traffic along Sand Canyon Road would be the two golf courses, which would add about 2,900 vehicles per day, or about 73% of the total traffic increase. The Circulation Element of the General Plan (City of Santa Clarita, 1991; Table C-1) indicates that for a two-lane undivided street, a projected future daily flow rate of 13,100 vehicles would produce an LOS "E" operating condition on Sand Canyon Road north of Lost Canyon Road. This projected level of congestion is overstated because of the specific physical characteristics of Sand Canyon Road and traffic operational characteristics in the area., The LOS "D" capacity of 12,500 daily vehicles is based on physical characteristics that include frequent driveways, on -street parking, and 12 -foot lane widths, and on operational characteristics that include a high travel volume in one direction and a high proportion of daily travel during the peak travel hours_ Sand Canyon Road north of Lost Canyon Road has no driveways, no on -street parking, and wide travel lanes, and it also would have a more uniform flow of traffic throughout the day with future projected traffic. Consequently, the projected traffic volume would produce an LOS "C" traffic operation, which is an acceptable level. Mitigation Measures. None necessary. Significance After Mitigation. The higher volume of traffic may expose undetermined areas of safety conflicts along Sand Canyon Road. Consequently, the accident characteristics of the road should be monitored by the City to identify any possible future problem areas. Effect T-4 Cumulative and project traffic may require signalization at the Sand Canyon and Lost Canyon Roads intersection to provide for safe turning movements and adequate levels of service. (S) Although the traffic volume on Sand Canyon Road is projected to increase dramatically, peak hour traffic at Lost Canyon and Sand Canyon Roads intersection would continue to operate at LOS "A'', with only a minor delay (1.6 seconds) at the intersection. However as noted above, during a 15 to 30 minute period at the end of the school day, congestion at the intersection would reach LOS "C", with a substantial delay expected on the west approach because of school -related traffic. Future traffic delays of about 60 seconds per vehicle are expected on this approach between about 3:10 to 3:30 pm. l� LJ l� LL D City of Santa C/arita i J 5.5-26 U I P P JI J U a Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.5 Transportation/Circulation A traffic signal warrant analysis was conducted for future traffic at this intersection to identify the need for a traffic signal and is included in Appendix D-2 of the separate traffic report for the proposed project. The intersection does not warrant a traffic signal under current conditions, but with the addition of already approved project traffic, the morning peak hour just meets the warrant minimums, and would continue to meet warrant in the morning peak hour with the addition of project traffic. The traffic from the schools on the west side of Sand Canyon Road causes the intersection to meet the one-hour warrant. The intersection is not projected to meet signal warrant during the evening peak hour. At the end of the school day (3:00 pm to 4:00 pm), the side street traffic would warrant a traffic signal at the intersection per Caltrans traffic signal warrant No. 11. Mitigation Measures, T-4 A traffic signal as warranted should be installed for the Sand Canyon and Lost Canyon Roads intersection by the applicant. A reimbursement mechanism shall be created so that future additional traffic will pay a fair share portion of the cost of this traffic signal. Significance After Mitigation. After installation of the signal, traffic on the west approach would no longer be congested during the after-school off-peak period. Effect T-5 Traffic associated with special events at the golf course may create periodic local traffic congestion. (S) While not part of the applicant's proposal, the golf courses are anticipated to ultimately host tournament golf events on a periodic basis (annually or semi-annually). While private tournaments without spectators would not generate an unusual amount of traffic, a major PGA tournament or other spectator event can attract in excess of 20,000 daily vehicles. This traffic would have a demand and peaking characteristics sin -filar to any sporting event. A major spectator golf tournament of this nature would require special traffic control on Sand Canyon Road. Mitigation Measures. The City of Santa Clarita will have direct control over conditions and requirements associated with individual spectator tournaments at the proposed golf courses. The City can require a traffic control plan for the event that specifies how the traffic will be controlled. Generally, traffic control officers are used for such events, and they are very effective in minimizing traffic congestion. T-5 A traffic control plan shall be instituted for each spectator golf tournament event that shall include at a minimum: a• the number of traffic control officers; • the location and time period of control; • contingency plans for emergency vehicles; and • parking restrictions/controls on residential streets. 5.5-27 City of Santa Clarita Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.5 Trans portationiCirculation Traffic control officers can respond to most of the traffic issues associated with a spectator golf tournament of short duration. A second option could utilize a system of trams and remote parking areas to minimize the number of vehicles on Sand Canyon Road. Specific requirements should be established when a request to host such a tournament is received by the City and the requirements should be matched to the expected conditions that are likely to be caused by the specific tournament. Significance After Mitigation. Spectator tournament events could cause periodic high congestion on area access routes. Effect T-6 The project access points may require signalization to provide for safe turning movements and adequate levels of service. (NS) A traffic signal warrants analysis was completed for the two main, unsignalized access points to the site. A Caltrans peak hour volume warrants analysis was used to determine if a traffic signal were needed to control traffic at the main site access to Sand Canyon Road and at the intersection of Sand Canyon Road and Live Oak Springs Canyon Road. The analysis, included in the Traffic Report Appendix, shows that neither intersection warranted a traffic signal at full site development. The Live Oak Springs Canyon Road access carried less than half the traffic required for a traffic signal during either peak hour; and the new site access had less than half the required traffic during the morning peak hour and about 80 percent of required traffic during the evening peak hour. Neither location would need a traffic signal with full site development. Mitigation Measures. None necessary. Significance After Mitigation. Site access intersections are expected to operate adequately. Effect T-7 Project traffic added to Sand Canyon Road may result in additional accidents because of limited sight distances and relatively high speeds. (NS) The existing speed limit on Sand Canyon Road is 45 mph, but prevailing speeds often approach 50 mph. At this speed, 300 to 400 feet is required for a driver to safely stop for an obstruction. As traffic demand and the volume of merging/turning traffic increases on Sand Canyon Road, vehicle conflicts would increase. It is important that a safe driver sight distance is present at the site entrances at all times. Sand Canyon Road in the site vicinity is relatively straight with generally good driver sight distances. Observations at both the new site entrance and Live Oak Springs Canyon Road indicated that a minimum of 450 feet of sight distance was available to drivers on Sand Canyon Road. This visibility is appropriate for conditions on Sand Canyon Road; consequently, no mitigation measures are suggested. Mitigation Measures. None necessary.. Significance After Mitigation. No significant traffic conflicts associated with additional traffic on Sand Canyon Road are anticipated. City of Santa Ciarita 5.5-28 J U lJ CJ J FI U L� J J iL 1J H U I� U Lj Li U n Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.5 Transportation/Circulation Effect T-8 The new project access roadway intersection on Sand Canyon may create turning movement conflicts with the Comet Way intersection to the north. (NS) The new site access is about 350 feet south of Comet Way, which is relatively close in comparison to existing distances between major access points on Sand Canyon Road. Neither the ITE Traffic Engineering Handbook nor the ASSHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Streets and Highways identify criteria for minimum spacing of major access points. Both publications identify important criteria in selecting access location, including adequate driver sight distance, lack of visual obstructions, number of vehicles using the access point, alignment, etc. Both the proposed site access and Comet Way have good driver and intersection sight distance, both intersect Sand Canyon at about a right angle, and neither is projected to carry high volumes of traffic. It is not likely that either intersection would carry sufficient traffic to warrant signalization, and traffic would generally access each street from the north. No unusual conditions would exist that would indicate that the planned distance between the two streets would be unsafe. Consequently, no modifications to the proposed design are suggested_ Mitigation Measures. None necessary, Significance After Mitigation. No significant traffic conflicts are anticipated. Effect T-9 Left turning movements into access routes to the site may create traffic congestion and safety conflicts due to backing up of traffic. (S) The volume of turning traffic at both the main site access to Sand Canyon Road and Live Oak Springs Canyon Road is not large enough to require a separate left turn lane from a traffic capacity standpoint. However, the width of the roadway and prevailing speeds on Sand Canyon Road suggest that a left turn lane may be beneficial for traffic safety. The peak hour through and left turn travel demand, particularly during the PM peak, is sufficient at the main site entrance to cause conflict between southbound through and southbound left turning traffic. The Live Oak Springs Canyon Road entrance also has considerable left turning vehicles and a left turn lane is recommended to reduce the potential for rear -end accidents. Mitigation Measures. iJ T -9(a) A short left turn lane, about 50 feet long, with a 400 foot transition shall be constructed at the main site entrance to minimize conflicts with turning traffic - 0 U LJ P Comet Way currently has a left turn lane and the widened street proposed by the project should extend to the new site access to provide for the above left turn lane. A two-way turn lane or extended left turn lane can be installed in the widened street between Comet Way and the site entrance - 5.5 -29 urry or sans Luanta Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR j l Section 5.5 Transportation/Circulation T -9(b) A left tum lane shall be striped on Sand Canyon Road at the entrance to Live Oak Springs Canyon Road to minimize the potential for accidents. Significance After N iti ag tion. This effect would not be significant after mitigation recommendations are implemented. The left turn lane and transition area can be accomplished within the existing and post - project right-of-way improvements for Sand Canyon Road. ( i LJ D n E E City o/ Santa C/arita t 5.5-30 U 0 1 0 I P rl it I U P l.J 11 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.6 Aesthetics 5.6 AESTHETICS This section examines the potential of the proposed project to alter the visual or aesthetic environment of the subject site. The analysis considers the change in viewsheds available from public areas, such as roadway corridors, and also considers the potential for the proposed project to contribute to new lighting or glare in the vicinity of the subject site. Finally, the design of the proposed clubhouse is compared to the current urban design character of the area. The substantial amount of grading proposed for the project would result in major changes to the natural topography of hill portions of the property, and this alteration would conflict with City policies for ridgeline preservation and hillside development. This conflict is considered a significant and unavoidable impact of the project as currently designed. Potential light and glare impacts have also been identified which can be adequately mitigated with design controls. 5.6.1 Setting a. Regulatory Setting. The City of Santa Clarita has adopted a range of policies and ordinances aimed at protecting and enhancing the visual character of the incorporated portion of the Santa Clarita Valley. The City's General Plan includes a Community Design Element, which identifies goals and policies to guide the City's decision -makers in numerous components of community design. Relevant to the proposed project, these include protection of neighborhood identity,'natural resource preservation, open space and park design, landscape architecture, and architecture. The Uniform Development Code, in addition to providing the core zoning requirements, contains special sections relevant to design issues. Specifically these include Section 17.16.090, Sand Canyon Special Standards District, and Section 17.80, Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance. The Sand Canyon Special Standards District includes special prescriptions with respect to trails, bridges, street lights and paving, drainage, street trees, gating, clustering, and screening of dumpsters. The Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance includes detailed standards relative to ridgeline preservation, slope gradation, slope landscaping, contour grading, road design, massing, and landforms. The Ridgeline ordinance includes the Ridgeline Preservation Map (1992), which identifies Primary and Secondary ridgelines that the City considers significant in terms of visual quality. The map identifies an east -west trending ridgeline within the subject site as a "Secondary Ridgeline." All of the documents and codes mentioned above are hereby incorporated by reference and available for review by the public at the City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department. b. Visual Character of the Sand Canyon area. The community design character of the Sand Canyon community is rural and equestrian. The neighborhood is characterized by large -lot single family houses shaded under mature native oaks and a variety of landscape specimen trees. Aside from Sand Canyon Road, local streets serve as local means of access. They are generally oriented along drainages, which cut through properties and under roads as they follow vegetated ravines and swales. Sand Canyon Road is oriented north to south and slopes gently upward to the south. Streets have either no curb treatment or rolled curbs. Street lights are few in number, and are located only at intersections. Terrain 5.6-1 city or Santa wanta Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR �l Section 5.6 Aesthetics is moderately to steeply sloped, and the community enjoys a secluded ambiance resulting from the enclosing effect of the numerous ridgelines. Elevations within the immediate vicinity range from approximately 1500' at the Santa Clara River to 2300' in the southern reaches of the neighborhood. From higher locations within the community, dramatic views of the San Gabriel Mountains are evident to the south and southeast. The ridgelines within view to the east include 4,635' Mendenhall Peak and 4,878' Magic Mountain. To the south is Bear Divide, which separates the Santa Clarita Valley from the San Fernando Valley. The dense chaparral on these north -facing slopes provides a muted green backdrop to the varied greens of the densely landscaped and wooded neighborhood. No commercial uses are in evidence within the neighborhood, and aside from a few churches and a school, the community is exclusively single-family residential. As throughout Southern California, architectural styles are vaned. Nevertheless, there is preponderance of California Ranch Style design, characterized by low -slung single -story profiles, generous exposed eaves treatment, incorporation of used LI brick or flagstone wainscoting, and the use of board and batten finish treatment. The style, popularized in the late 1940s and 1950s by architect Cliff May, is also characterized by an easy flow between outdoor and indoor spaces, and often incorporates breezeways and sliding glass doors. c. Visual Character and Landform of the Subject Site., Figures 5.6-1 through 5.6-3 present images illustrating the existing visual character of the site. The property straddles a low ridgeline which J transects the area from southeast to northwest, creating two separate drainages: Oak Spring Canyon Creek on the northeasterly side, and Live Oak Springs Canyon Creek, a tributary to Sand Canyon, on the ( westerly side. The west side is generally intermingled with existing low-density residential development. I_J Figure 5.6-1 includes images of the westerly drainage area, including a view of Live Oak SPrings Canyon Road and a northerly view across the property from the southerly property line. This figure also includes an image of the City -identified Secondary Ridgeline. Figure 5.6-2 and 5.6-3 include images of the tJ easterly portion of the property, including images of the chaparral -covered slopes, heritage oaks, the intermittent stream that drains Oak Spring Canyon, and a view across the eastern wash towards the adjacent mining operation. The visual resource character of the subject site is dominated by the San Gabriel Mountains, whose foothills extend into and across the site. Very little of the property is visible from the immediately surrounding area. This is in part due to the dense landscaping and natural vegetation of the perimeter properties and the lack of open vistas to the property, and in part due to the general lack of viewing 1 corridors. Only Sand Canyon Road carries anything other than local travelers, and the site frontage at Sand Canyon is moderately wooded. On the other hand, the property can be viewed readily from the opposite side of the Santa Clara River, from either the State Route 14 and Soledad Canyon Road corridors. From this vantage point, the property becomes a middle -ground view, with the much taller San Gabriel mountain ridges forming the LI backdrop. City of Santa Clarita 5.6-2 I� U Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR A. View southeasterly along Live Oak Spring Canyon Road. The low density of development, absence of street lighting and sidewalks, rolled curbs and wooded landscaping character impart a semi -rural ambiance which defines the Sand Canyon Area. B. View looking northerly towards the western portion of the subject site. A chaparral -covered ridge is part of a city -identified Secondary Rid¢eline. Site Photographs Figure 5.6-1 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR A. View looking east from southwest corner of the property. The ridgeline in the foreground would be graded for homesites. The background ridgeline is within the Angeles National Forest, and would remain. B. View of low-lying land in the northeast quadrant of the subject site. The foreground tree is an example of a heritage oak. Site Photographs Figure 5.6-2 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR A. View looking south within northeast quadrant of the subject site. The stream flows during winter, Note the Great Basin Sagebrush mixed with oaks and elderberry. The area shown would become part of the golf course.. B. View looking west from the interior ridgeline. The mining operation in the middle -ground is within the Angeles National Forest, and would remain. The low-lying alluvial fan scrub with oaks would become fairway areas. Site Photographs Figure 5.6-3 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.6 Aesthetics Much of the aesthetic character of the subject site is tied to its dramatic topography and its vegetation. Elevations vary from over 2,000' in the southeast corner of the property to under 1,600' at the westernmost section. Much of the western and southwestern part of the property is characterized by steep slopes of greater than 50% grade. When looking northerly across the property from close range, ridgelines on the property often silhouette the horizon. When looking south or east across the property, however, the much larger San Gabriel range silhouettes the horizon, and the ridges on the property appear as the lowest of the foothills leading to the Santa Clara River. 5.6.2 Impacts and Mitigation Measures. a. Methodology and Significant Thresholds. The assessment of aesthetic impacts involves qualitative analysis that is inherently subjective in nature. Viewers react to viewsheds and aesthetic conditions differently. This evaluation measures the existing visual resource against the proposed action, analyzing the nature of the anticipated change. The subject site was observed and photographically documented on several occasions, as was the surrounding area. The City of Santa Clarita General Plan and Uniform Development Code was reviewed for policy instruction relative to visual resources and community design policy. In addition, two models have been used that may assist in conveying physical change that a viewer would experience. The first involves cross-sections of the subject site illustrating the profile of the existing natural grade to that of the proposed grade. The cross-sections illustrate the consequence of the cut and fill activities at four transects, selected for their visual sensitivity or diverse location. The second model is photo simulations of the site from four locations, showing the before and after condition of the visual character. An impact is considered significant if it can be reasonably argued that (a) the change would adversely affect a viewshed from a public viewing area, or (b) an existing identified visual resource is obstructed, (c) a City -identified Primary or Secondary Ridgeline is modified so as to alter its significance, or (d) a new light and glare source or sources are introduced that substantially alter the nighttime lighting character of the area. In this analysis, modifications to the viewshed were considered less than significant if the modification is unnoticeable or visually subordinate to the overall viewshed. A modification that is visually dominant or one that adversely modifies the existing view adversely is considered a significant impact. b. Project Impacts. The proposed project has the potential to alter viewsheds, modify natural landforms, accommodate structural development that would be inconsistent with the existing community character, and introduce new sources of light and glare. The following discussion reviews these conditions and identifies and describes impacts and mitigation measures. Effect AES -I The proposed project would irreversibly alter the landform profile of the subject site, changing its aesthetic character. Some of the modifications may conflict with the City's Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance. (US) City of Santa Clarita 5.6-6 r� C L� P_ [I I d U 1-: P h LI C I t� I Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.6 Aesthetics The proposed project would result in the development of new roadways, two 18 -hole golf courses, a clubhouse, a driving range, 83 single family home sites and access roadways to service these features. Much of the subject site includes steeply sloped foothills that would not readily accommodate such development. Consequently, of the 411 acres at the subject site, 345 would be graded. This represents 84% of the overall site area. A grading plan at V=100' is incorporated by reference into this document, and is available at the City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department. In all, a total of 22 million cubic yards of earth would be moved. The grading is balanced onsite, meaning that no cut material would be exported, and no fill would be imported. The grading would adhere to contouring principles, meaning that tops and toes of slopes would be rounded to replicate a natural profile. The maximum cut depth is proposed to be about 60', with a maximum fill of 30'. The tallest cut slope (toe to top) would be about 100', while the deepest fill would be about 33'. Consisteney with Grading Policy in the City of Santa Clarita. The plan was compared to the Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance for conformance. In Subsection 17.80.030, Hillside Plan Review/Permit Requirements, eight objectives are established. The applicable objective statements are reviewed below. 1. Natural topographic features and appearances shall be conserved by means of landform grading so as to blend any manufactured slopes or required drainage benches into the natural topography. Though massive in scope, the grading plan does incorporate a contouring method which would replicate (� a natural topographic pattern. However, the current topography is highly precipitous and includes large areas of greater than 50% slope angle. Therefore, the softening of the ridgelines and slope angles would ((�� differ from adjacent un -graded areas. E E P I I l.) 2. Significant, natural, topographic prominent features shall be retained to the maximum extent possible. The access roadway would involve substantial alternation of the identified Secondary Ridgeline, This EIR includes alternatives that could conceivably better achieve the objective of retaining this feature. 3. Clustered sites and buildings shall be utilized where such techniques can be demonstrated to substantially reduce grading alterations of the terrain and to contribute to the preservation of trees, other natural vegetation and prominent landmark features and are compatible with existing neighborhoods. The proposal meets this objective. While retaining a single-family character, the proposal compresses the lots along the roadways while leaving the bulk of the land area open for fairways, greens, and open space. The result is an achievement of the overall density requirement with the use of smaller lots. City of Santa Clarita 5.6-7 U Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.6 Aesthetics i 5. Plant materials shall be conserved and introduced so as to protect slopes from slippage and soil erosion and to minimize visual effects of grading and construction on hillside area, including the consideration of the preservation of prominent trees and, to the extent possible, reduce the maintenance cost to public and private owners. The proposal includes a detailed revegetation plan which is described in the Draft Oak Springs Golf Course Native Revegetation & Monitoring Plan (L. Newman Design Group et al, 1995), which -has been incoporated by reference into the project description and is available for review at the City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department. This objective is achieved by this revegetation plan. a 6. Curvilinear street design and improvements that serve to minimize grading alterations and simulate the natural contours and character of the hillside shall he utilized. The roadway system takes a curvilinear shape, and uses a narrow width profile which would reduce grading needs and allow for greater contouring. The proposed project meets this objective. L) 7. Grading designs that serve to avoid disruption to adjacent property shall be utilized The grading plan illustrates that no direct effects from proposed project grading would be incurred by adjacent property owners. Visual effects are discussed below. Drainage effects are discussed in Section 5.2, Hydrology, Drainage, Water. CJ 8. Site design and grading that provide the minimum disruption of view corridors and scenic L vistas from and around any proposed development shall be utilized. Viewshed effects are discussed below. The proposed project would effect middle -ground views from the Antelope Valley Freeway (State Route 14) l Soledad Canyon Road corridor. rl Section 17.90.040.E.1 and 2 of the Ordinance, Development Standards, outline a series of Criteria for l 1 innovative applications and Perimeter Protection which allow the Planning Commission to approve encroachment onto significant ridgelines. The relevant criteria are summarized below. L 1. a. The proposed use is proper in relation to adjacent uses, the development of the community and the various goals and policies of the General Plan. This land -use based criteria is largely achieved, especially with respect to the west -facing slopes of the subject site. The Sand Canyon drainage area is already characterized by estate and low-density residential development, as is the proposed project. However; the northeast facing slopes of the Oak Spring 1 drainage has a more rural -equestrian character. The proposed project would introduce a more suburban L low-density character to this area. In addition, the clubhouse complex would largely be visible from the Oak Spring drainage area, the first semi -commercial and congregate facility which would face the area. n City of Santa C/arita !J 5.6-8 l C Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.6 Aesthetics fJ Lc The appearance of the use or development will not be different than the appearance of tJ adjoining ridgeline areas so as to cause depreciation of ridgeline appearance in the vicinity. L' As illustrated below in grading profiles and photo -simulation model illustrations, the ridgelines would substantially alter the incline of slopes for the areas graded. They would appear more gentle then {I unaffected slopes on adjacent lands. Therefore, this criteria would not be met. 1 L d. The establishment of the proposed use or development will not impede the normal and Lorderly development and improvement of surrounding property, nor encourage inappropriate encroachments to the ridgeline area. The proposed project is bordered by lands within the Angeles National Forest to the east, and an approved subdivision to the south. Therefore, it would have little influence on the surrounding (development pattern, (1 2.a The visual impacts of the proposed use of development will be confined to the immediate { local neighborhood and proposed new use or development area, and u 2. b. The proposed use or development will be shielded from general public view by a perimeter ridgeline or perimeter ridgeline system. r U E I t_J Though much of the proposed development would not be visible from the Sand Canyon Road district because of intervening properties, trees, and tertiary ridgelines, the visual impact of the proposed project would be readily visible from areas north and northeasterly of the subject site. In particular, the northeast -facing slopes of the proposed project would be seen from the State Route 14/Soledad Canyon Road corridors The project does not, therefore, meet this criteria. Section 17.80.04011-8, Grading Design, establish standards for grading. The following summarizes compliance of relevant standards. 1. No graded or cut embankment with a slope of greater than [2r1] shall be located adjacent to a publicly maintained right-of-way... The proposed project complies with this standard. 2. The overall slope, height or grade of any cut or fill slope shall be developed to appear similar to the existing natural contours in scale with the natural terrain of the subject site. and 4. Where any cut or fill slope exceeds 10 feet in horizontal length, the .,.contours of the slope shall... appear similar to the existing natural contours. The proposed project alters the slope profile of the subject site. The precipitous inclines that exist would be softened substantially, and would contrast with un -graded areas. 5.6-9 city or sans crania Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.6 Aesthetics 5. Grading shall be balanced on site whenever possible to avoid excessive cut and fill and to avoid import or export. The proposed project complies with this standard. Visual Effects of Grading. The grading plan was analyzed in terms of its effect on landform through the generation of a series of grading profile diagrams. The index map illustrating the location of the profiles is presented in Figure 5.6-4 and the profiles are illustrated in Figures 5.6-5 and 5.6-6. Transects A and B illustrate the before and after profile of the western portion of the property. Transect A extends from Sand Canyon Road to a prominent knoll northeast of the property. Transect B shows a profile from a point along Live Oak Springs Canyon Road to another prominent knoll, Both profiles cut across the proposed road into the development, and both cut across the Secondary Ridge identified in the City's significant ridgeline map. As illustrated in Transect A, this trajectory would all be cut lower than the natural grade. At one point in the transect 1,225' from Sand Canyon Road, the cut would approach 50' in depth. Transect B illustrates a pattern of cut and fill, with cuts predominating. The deepest cut would be 29', while the greatest depth of fill would be approximately 6'. Transect C illustrates a grading profile from a point northwest of the proposed parking lot through the lot, through the clubhouse, and to a location southeast of the proposed clubhouse. 1t also shows a pattern of cuts and fills, with maximum fills of 30' in depth, and cuts of up to 50'. Transect D illustrates the grading profile of an east -west line in the southerly portion of the subject site. This area would involve less grading than the other locations, and consists primarily of fill for the road area. Fill would approach 14' in depth. Though graphic representation, the model illustrates the leveling effect of the proposed grading. Tall ridges would in some cases be lowered, while deep ravines would be filled. Because the proposed grading would affect one of the City's identified Secondary ridgelines, the impact is considered significant. Mitigation Measures. The City has adopted a comprehensive approach to hillside grading through its Mageline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance. The ordinance and guidelines contain explicit techniques and methods. A review of the concept design indicates that the applicant is generally in compliance with the guidelines. The following measures are considered to augment those already adopted by the City. AES-I(a) The applicant shall comply with the Hillside Plan Review/Permit Requirements as established in the Uniform Development Code. Any recommendations forthcoming from the Community Development Director, as provided for in Section 17.89.030 of the Code shall be implemented. L J 1 L 1� U LI TI U �i City of Santa Ctaiita Ii 5.6-10 F Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR 4 FR F, 17 A �J. .4 + W, RM X Z - 44- -23 2 'AL, A f ti Hi 'A, J 16 X C�) Ell Ll25 Y A —A' Transect Photosimulation 01 View Lation 0 0.5 1.0 Base Map: USGS Mint Canyon Quadrangle I — - - - Source: USGS Mint Canyon Quadrangle, 7.5 Minute series, 1988 Scale in Miles Profile and View Perspective Index Map NORTH r Figure 5.6-4 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Transect A - A' Transect B - B' Existing - - - Proposed 1640 N A 1630 Exisling _d +. 14th Fairwey -- Proposed:. W 1620LProperty 7810 18M Faimay 6N Tae600 - SN Fairway 1580 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Distance Grading Profile Diagrams Transects A and B NORTH Figure 5.6-5 1760 1740 1720 J 1700 .: Access Road C 1680 O !. 10 1660 - .. y . Property Line , , LL] 1640 y 1620- i� " ` 14th Fairway Sand Canyon Road 16th Tea; 1600 1580 7560 - 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Distance Transect B - B' Existing - - - Proposed 1640 N A 1630 Exisling _d +. 14th Fairwey -- Proposed:. W 1620LProperty 7810 18M Faimay 6N Tae600 - SN Fairway 1580 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Distance Grading Profile Diagrams Transects A and B NORTH Figure 5.6-5 h Hunters Green Residential Development sl and Golf Course EIR L Transect C - C' 1800 n' Grading Profile Diagrams 1-J Transects C and D LJ NORTH Figure 5.6-6 '11th Tee: 1780 1w Tee �JII 1760 Property - - CWGhouse,. Line 1740 p '—Existing m neo^..�,, ------ 'cwent Qtym �' i Proposed , Lams v W 1700 LotNo a8 , + t �Parking lot 1660 1640 U0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Distance ff L� Transect D - D' 1890 a 1880 1870 1850. +�} � t "B'Street .. C O 1640 ' i I�Ejisting y g ,i dLu " ' Eaat-prop arty - Prosed o p 1820 ' • - ,+ 'n t , � 1810 1800 yv „ 1790 00 . __ . ^_ ... s ., - .. �. 1780 0 , 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 Distance n' Grading Profile Diagrams 1-J Transects C and D LJ NORTH Figure 5.6-6 11 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.6 Aesthetics i u AES -1(b) If grading leads to exposure of low cohesion sandy soils four feet or greater in 1 height, slopes shall be protected with jute matting and landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. i AES -1(c) If grading leads to exposure of bedrock or hard -pack soils which resist revegetation, landscaping shall be implemented through the excavation of plant holes in a random pattern with an average of five feet on center. Plantings shall �J come from the palette included in the City's Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance or as otherwise approved for the site. Significance After Mitigation. The Hillside Development Standards Ordinance allows for development ,! on secondary ridgelines provided that a hillside review is granted and the project complies with the (-? provisions of the ordinance. Though the transformation of the topography through grading would adhere (� to the many of the standards in the Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Standards Ordinance, several standards and criteria are not met. This is particularly true because of the expanded (=j regulation the City has adopted concerning significant ridgelines, and the location of a City -identified 1 1 Secondary Ridgeline on the subject site. Therefore, the grading plan as proposed would represent a significant unavoidable impact with respect to compliance with the City's ordinance.. rj �J Effect AES -2 The proposed development has the potential to affect scenic vistas from public viewing locations within the Santa Clarita planning area. (NS) j lJ Though relatively large in area, the subject site is not readily visible, This is due to its relatively isolated location southeasterly of the Sand Canyon district. The hilly topography and wooded habitat obscure western views of the subject site. Though the main entrance along Sand Canyon Road would be easily `} viewed from this arterial roadway, the entryway is in fact remote from most of the fairways, home -sites, and clubhouse facilities. In other parts of the west -facing locations, existing low-density residential development obstructs public views into the proposed project site. The east side of the subject site is readily viewed from Oak Springs Canyon Road east of the Graceton (� neighborhood. However, this road is a very lightly traveled dirt facility which provides access to a limited number of private properties. The most prominent view of this eastern part of the proposed development r� is gained from State Route 14 and Soledad Canyon Road. These major roadways are identified in the General Plan as gateways into the City of Santa Clarita from the northeast, further augmenting their importance. L1 Plates 5.6-1A and B through 5.6-3A and B illustrate present visual conditions and simulations of the post -project conditions from four locations that are most prominent visually. Please refer to Figure 5.6-4, the index map, for view perspective locations. Plates 5.6-1A and illustrate the view from Live Oak ,! Springs Canyon Road. The simulation shows how a minor ridgeline within the site would be lowered as a result of the access road. Plates 5.6-2A and B and 5.6-3A and B illustrate viewsheds gained from two locations along Oak Springs Canyon Road. In particular, these point out the foreground viewshed alteration that would transpire from the implementation of the proposed project. All three of these City Santa Clarita of 5.6-14 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR (1 Section 5.6 Aesthetics lJ locations, though visible from public viewing areas, are not accessed by large numbers of viewers. L Therefore, these viewsheds are considered to be of low visual sensitivity. C Plates 5,6-4A and B illustrates the view from Soledad Canyon Road. A similar view is gained from State Route 14, the Antelope Valley Freeway. This viewshed is of high sensitivity for two reasons: first, it is accessed by thousands of viewers daily; and second, it is along a corridor identified as a gateway to the (� City. The photo and simulation show how the subject site is a middle -ground view; dominated by the San �J Gabriel Mountains in the background. Because of the visual dominance of the fore- and background views, the change created by the project is not considered significant. Mitigation Measures. The proposed project includes a detailed revegetation plan that would result in the re -greening of the subject property within five years or less. The alteration of the viewshed is a a generalized impact, and is not of itself mitigable. Other measures within this section address aesthetic impacts that would affect viewsheds. Significance After Miti ag tion. The proposed project is visually accessible from only one sensitive viewing location corridor: the stretch of State Route 14 and Soledad Canyon Road due north of the subject site. Views from this location would be altered, with views of extensive grading and construction work, and views of ongoing residential construction as the project builds out. However, the proposed project would result in alteration of middle -ground views, which are considered the least sensitive of vistas. Site t� alterations would be overshadowed by the more dominant remaining vistas of the San Gabriel Mountains. Therefore, the impact is considered less -than -significant: CJEffect AES -3 The proposed project includes structures and facilities that may be Jaesthetically inconsistent with the existing community design character of the Sand Canyon area. (S) Other than roadway infrastructure and a parking lot, the proposed project currently includes only two structures: the clubhouse facility and a maintenance facility. The 83 residential lots would be developed j by future owners, and codes, covenants, and restrictions are not proposed at this time. �J The proposed clubhouse design is illustrated in Figure 5.6-7. It shows a split-level profile, with strong ?1 horizontal lines and well-defined roof -line. The roof is accented with gables and a stone masonry �J chimney. The same stone masonry is illustrated as a wainscoting material and as retaining wall material for perimeter planter areas. Windows are strongly articulated with horizontally-oriented transoms. The a overall design recalls the Prairie Style of Frank Lloyd Wright. The use of stone masonry and hip roof treatment is consistent with the many California Ranch style residences in the Sand Canyon area. The clubhouse as designed would not be in conflict with the design aesthetic of the Sand Canyon area. a nCity of Santa Clanta 5.6-15 i� Plate 5.64A Existing Viewshed from Live Oak Springs Canyon Road. o = == o == = = = = == = o = = m Plate 5.6-1B Post -project Viewshed from Live Oak Springs Canyon Road. F K t >4 .4 l 9. l d•9 xAt��s`<.... ..... .n... .udrt'*urn 'e:. o... id. W x s Y ti'. Plate 5.6-1B Post -project Viewshed from Live Oak Springs Canyon Road. Plate 5.6-2A Existing Viewshed from Oak Spring Canyon Road curve. = = = =-- i = = = = = = = = = [moi ^ : C = = = a = = = = = Q O = = = C=7 = = O CD Plate 5.6-213 Post -project Viewshed from Oak Spring Canyon Road curve. I Plate 5.6-3A Existing Viewshed from Oak Spring Canyon Road, corner property line. Plate 5.6-313 Post -project Viewshed from Oak Spring Canyon Road, corner property line. Plate 5.64A Existing Viewshed from Soledad Canyon Road. C7 = = = J G U iJ Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.6 Aesthetics The maintenance facility would located in the northernmost portion of the property, on the low-lying land within the Oak Spring Canyon drainage. The structure would measure 1,000 square feet, and would be located at least 400 feet from the nearest residence along Graceton Road, and 200 feet from the nearest L�structure, a stable, also along Graceton Road. No elevations for the structure are available, but it is 1 expected to be constructed of steel siding material. Provided the structure did not exceed 15 feet in height, the visual effect would be minimal. However, the steel siding material could cause glare and may f not tie in with the aesthetic character of the golf course. The parking lot would accommodate 330 vehicles and measure nearly two acres in size. The large size of the lot and the resulting concentration of vehicles represent a prominent visual feature of the project when viewed from the SR 141Soledad Canyon Road viewing corridor: The lot would be terraced, stepping down from south to north, creating even greater visibility. The presence of vehicles would represent a apotential for daytime glare and nighttime headlamps lighting the top of the ridgeline. ^ No designs are available for the 83 residential properties. There is a potential that the development of Lresidences in styles that strongly contrast could adversely affect the collective aesthetic of the community, Mitigation Measures. AES -3(a) The maintenance facility shall be sided with a material other than metal. Recommended materials for all or part of the facade treatment include (a) wood in a board -and -batten finish, or (b) stone masonry. The facility's design, material; and color treatmentshall complement the clubhouse facility. The structure's roofline and �; facades shall be articulated through the incorporation of gables, eaves, or windows. LJ A landscaping plan for the area surrounding the maintenance facility shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval. It (� shall incorporate the plant palette used for the remainder of the development, and tJ shall be oriented to provide dense screening from adjacent properties. D AES -3(b) The parking facility shall be designed as two lots; one on either side of the clubhouse facility. This would reduce the scale of the parking facility, reduce the level of glare from paving and from vehicles emanating from one location, and provide increased opportunities for visually buffering the facility with landscaping. AES -3(c) Residential development proposed within the proposed development shall adhere to all applicable' standards and guidelines of the Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance, the Community Design Element of the General Plan, and the Sand Canyon Special Standards District to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. aSignificance After Mit ae tion: Impacts would be considered less than significant. U 5.6-24 City of Santa Clarita Plate 5.64B Post -project Viewshed from Soledad Canyon Road. t Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.6 Aesthetics LJ (1 Effect AES -4 Light and glare produced from development and users of the golf course (� facilities would extend the urban lit area of the City of Santa Clarita, alter the nighttime sky view, and produce daytime glare from reflective metallic l materials and glass associated with vehicles.. (S) (_ I At present, there is no nighttime lighting of this area. The darkness is consistent with the rural nature of the property, and with its adjacency to the Angeles National Forest. Use of lighting in the driving range, in the parking lot, or as street lights would adversely affect nearby residents and degrade the nighttime Cj view of the Sand Canyon area. Use of overly bright lights or unshielded lights, including security lighting, may result in a significant light impact at night. Adjacent residential uses may be impacted by such lights, or the lights of headlights associated with activity at the golf course. Mitigation Measures. (; AES -4(a) Except for locations where the internal roadway intersects with Sand Canyon Road, ustreet lighting shall not be permitted. Bridges, signage, and clubhouse entryways may be illuminated with discreet up -lighting. Signage and clubhouse entryways may also use back lighting. AES -4(b) Lighting of the driving range shall be limited to splash lighting from canted berm areas. AES4(c) All lighting of clubhouse and maintenance facilities shall be of an accent nature. Any security lighting shall be screened such that lighting globes are not visible from I a distance of 20 feet. U 11 U P C AES -4(d) Parking lot lighting shall be limited to bollards not to exceed four feet in height. Trees and walkways may be lighted with accent lighting. AES -4(e) Parking lot perimeters shall be bermed to a minimum of four feet in height to preclude spillage of vehicle head -lighting off site. No berming is required in the main parking lot for the perimeter adjoining the clubhouse and between the clubhouse and the access road. No berming is required for the small parking lot from the clubhouse counterclockwise to the southeast corner. Significance After Mitigation. With the above measures, impacts would be considered less than significant. 5.6-27 wry or sanra L1 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.7 Noise F, 5.7 NOISE Existing noise levels on the western side of the project site are generally low, with infrequent traffic (i noise from Sand Canyon Road The east side of the property is subject to higher noise levels associated with offsite aggregate mining operations, but the current operations are located at least 1,300 feet from the east property line. In addition, future mining operations over the next ten years are expected to be Lconcentrated at the new claim areas located more than one mile from the east property line. Location of residential uses within the site's current noise environment would not conflict with established environmental goals of the City. If mining is resumed in the gravel pits nearest the proposed residences, average daytime noise levels associated with typical mining activities would approach, but not exceed, the compatibility level. (� Project construction would result in heavy equipment operating for several days near offsite residences and high noise levels would occur at these residences. Because of the topographic alterations proposed for the site, the use of temporary noise harriers would be ineffective to mitigate this short term increase in noise levels. This is considered a significant and unavoidable impact of project construction. 11 1 Traffic noise associated with the proposed development would not create noise levels along site access routes that would exceed the City's guidelines for compatibility with residential land uses, nor would the activities of golf course patrons create a significant impact. No significant long term noise impacts are associated with development of the proposed project; however, the project would cause an adverse increase in ambient noise levels for residences adjacent to the site and those located along Sand Canyon Road north of the project entry. CJ 5.7.1 Setting I ' The City of Santa Clarita has adopted a Noise Element for the General Plan (June 26, 1991) that provides basic information regarding the physical characteristics of noise and the existing noise environment in the City. The Noise Element is herein incorporated in its entirety per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15150. The following is a summary of the information contained in the Noise Element and is intended to provide sufficient background to allow consideration of the potential noise impacts of the proposed annexation n and future development, uNoise level (or volume) is generally measured in decibels (dB) using the A -weighted sound pressure level (dBA). The A -weighting scale is an adjustment to the actual sound power levels to be consistent with that of human hearing response, which is most sensitive to frequencies around 4000 Hertz (about the highest note on a piano) and less sensitive to low frequencies (below 100 Hertz). In addition to the a actual instantaneous measurement of sound levels, the duration of sound is important since sounds that occur over a long period of time are more likely to be an annoyance or cause direct physical damage or environmental stress. One of the most frequently used noise metrics that considers duration as well as sound power level is the equivalent noise level (Leq). The Leq is defined as the steady A -weighted level that is equivalent to the same amount of energy as that contained in the actual time -varying levels over a period of time_ Typically Leq is summed over a one hour period... LI City of Santa Clarita 1 5.7-1 i� Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.7 Noise The sound pressure level is measured on a logarithmic scale with the 0 dB level based on the lowest detectable sound pressure level that people can perceive (an audible sound that is not zero sound pressure level).. Decibels cannot be added arithmetically, but rather are added on a logarithmic basis. A doubling of sound energy is equivalent to an increase of 3 dB. Because of the nature of the human ear, a sound Ll must be about 10 dB to be judged as twice as loud. In general, a 3 dB change in community noise levels is noticeable, while 1-2 dB changes are generally not perceived. The actual time period in which noise occurs is also important since noise that occurs at night tends to be �J more disturbing than that which occurs during the daytime. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) was adopted by the State of California and many communities as a means to recognize this characteristic. The CNEL is equivalent to the weighted average of the hourly Leqs over a 24-hour period. The weighting includes an addition of 10 dB to nighttime noise levels and 5 dB to evening noise r, levels to account for the greater amount of disturbance associated with noise at these time periods. U The City of Santa Clarita has adopted several noise policies contained within the City's Noise Element (1991; pg. N-18 to N-20). The policy most applicable to the project site and proposed development �J requires that new residential development in areas where the ambient noise level is in the 60-65 dBA range should provide mitigation measures to reduce interior noise levels (Policy 3.1). The range stated in (� the policy is assumed to be based on the CNEL No specific exterior or interior standards for acceptable J noise levels are explicitly set by the Noise Element, but Exhibit N-2 of the Noise Element provides land use compatibility guidelines for residential uses, with levels under 60 dBA CNEL considered normally rl acceptable, and that up to 70 dBA CNEL is conditionally acceptable (generally requiring some standard t noise mitigation). Existing Noise Conditions Noise levels in the project vicinity are reflective of the rural environment and are estimated to be below 60 dBA CNEL. The Noise Element provides noise level data only for the Antelope Valley Freeway (State Route 14) and the railroad in this portion of the city. Noise contouring for the freeway indicated existing (1990) noise levels of 65 dBA CNEL at about 1,200 feet from the centerline of the road (Noise Element, page N-16), with the 60 dBA CNEL at about 3,800 feet. The nearest portion of the project site is over 4,000 feet from the freeway, and so existing sound levels at the site from this source are within the normally acceptable range for residential use. Additional information regarding the local noise environment is available from the acoustical analysis r 1 prepared for a proposed development located north of the property in Oak Spring Canyon (Davy & U Associates, Inc., April 1990, Acoustical Analysis Tentative Tract 34466, Appendix E of the Oak Springs Estates FEIR, November 1990). Measurements at this site indicated hourly Leqs in the 46-56 dBA range (") during the afternoon, and projected CNEL based on these measurements of 48-58 CNEL. This LJ acoustical analysis also estimated the noise impact of the Southern Pacific Transportation Company railroad based on direct measurements of train pass-bys and a railroad noise prediction methodology. The 60 dBA CNEL is reported by this study to be located at 282 feet from the centerline of the track, 5.7-2 City of Santa Clarita 11 U U Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.7 Noise which is over 2,200 feet from the proposed project site. Therefore, noise from railroad operations are also well within the normally acceptable range for residential use. The P,W- Gillibrand Company conducts mining operations in the Angeles National Forest immediately u east of the project site. Mineral extraction conducted in this area includes mining for ilmenite ( a titanium feedstock), apatite (a phosphate mineral), zircon (industrial sand), magnetite, and miscellaneous aggregate materials including sand and gravel. Mining operations were formerly conducted in the alluvial gravel deposits of Oak Spring Canyon immediately east of the site boundary, and in Rabbit Canyon, the tributary to Oak Spring Canyon immediately southeast of the site. Excavations are now being conducted in the Oak Spring Annex area, over 3,000 feet from the site boundary, and open pit mining is proposed for portions of hillsides located over one mile from the project site (Final Environmental Impact n Statement for the Gillibrand Soledad Canyon Mining Operations, September 1991). Processing of the material is conducted at Gillibrand's plant located in Pole Canyon, about two miles northeast of the project site. Activities at the processing plant are not detectable at the project site per the FEIS (page 3- 9 9), and mining noise audible at the site is limited to infrequent vehicular traffic along dirt roads and the Li loading operations currently being conducted in the Oak Spring Annex area. j Noise measurements of water truck pass-bys and of blasting activity were performed by City of Santa lJ Clarita staff at the eastern property boundary. Typical noise levels from the water truck were 50-60 dBA at the property line near the Oak Spring Canyon mining pit, with the truck on a dirt road about 350 - 400 r j feet from the measurement site. Noise levels taken where the mining road is adjacent to the property line were 80 dBA, 25-50 feet from the truck. The dynamite blast measured a peak instantaneous noise level of 72 dBA at the property line, about 1000 feet from the blast site. l� 5.7.2 Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds. Existing and future traffic noise levels were quantified using the California Vehicle Noise Emission Levels (Caltrans, January 1987), standard noise modeling equations, and traffic volumes provided by Kimely-Horn and Associates, Inc., for this EIR. The effect of stationary noise was estimated based on methodologies contained in the Handbook of Noise Control (C. M. Harris, 1979) and adapted to a spreadsheet program. Appendix E contains the spreadsheet input and output results for the noise calculations. The threshold of significance for noise impacts is based on the City's Noise Element policy previously described above. In addition, an increase in noise levels that exceeds 3 dBA is considered significant [� since it represents a doubling of noise energy, while exterior noise level changes of 1-2 dBA are not considered significant since they are generally not perceptible to sensitive receptors. CJ b. Project Impacts. (� Effect N -I Operations at the adjacent quarry could cause unacceptable noise levels for (� the proposed residential land uses and conflict with adopted City Noise Element policies. (NS) City of Santa Ctarita 5.73 I LI Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.7 Noise Observations during the site visit indicate that current noise from the Gillibrand operations is limited to I j excavation and loading operations by a single front-end loader in an open pit mine located about 1,300 -i feet east of the site, along with infrequent haul trucks and water trucks operating along a dirt road located near the east property boundary between Rabbit Canyon and Oak Spring Canyon. The distance from the j excavation operations and topographical differences between the site and the excavation operations result in a noticeable decrease in the audibility of the mining operations for receptors located on the project site, such that these operations are either not noticeable or form a part of the background ambient noise. C' Figure 5.7-1 illustrates the noise levels associated with construction equipment based on limited data r' samples (U.S.. Environmental Protection Agency, 1971). Based on these noise levels and assuming on a worst case basis that five pieces of equipment are operating in Oak Spring Canyon during typical working hours, the maximum hourly daytime noise level at the site's eastern property line would be 65.0 dBA, (�1 with a 61.0 dBA CNEL based on current mining operations. At the nearest proposed residence, without !J regard for topographical differences that create an effective noise barrier, the sound level would be 56.6 dBA CNEL These levels are within the acceptable range for compatible land use and the location of residences in this area would not conflict with adopted City noise policies. It should be noted that the (J noise calculations assumed that the water truck would create a noise level of about 88 dBA at 50 feet J (see Appendix E), which is 8 dBA greater than that measured in the field. No equipment was working within Rabbit Canyon during the site visit, and the location of beehives in this area indicate that little activity is expected, Assuming a worst case future operation of three pieces of I equipment in this area during normal daytime operations, the CNEL at the nearest proposed residential pad would be 62,4 dBA: This level is within the acceptable range for compatible land use and the location of residences in this area would not conflictwith adopted City noise policies. However, comments -J received at the scoping meeting indicated that the mine operates sporadically, and has worked shifts from J 6`00 am to 3:00 pra at times, frequently on Saturday and infrequently on Sunday.. The hours between 6:00 and 7:00 am are considered nighttime and noise during this period can cause greater disturbance to residential uses. If the time of operations is adjusted to include this period for the assumed three pieces of equipment, the CNEL at the nearest residence would increase to 64.3 dBA. A similar adjustment for r the Oak Spring Canyon operations yields a CNEL of 59.1 at the nearest residential pad. These levels are l still within the acceptable range for compatible land uses. Nonetheless, equipment operation during the early morning and on Sunday is expected to be considered a nuisance to future residents and may result in noise complaints to the City and the operator. The Gillibrand mining operations occasionally uses blasting during quarry operations and road construction. Blasting is impulsive and generally is less than l second in duration, which can cause a "startle" effect depending on the actual sound level. Blasting can be audible out to a distance of 1-2 miles from the blast site, though the "startle" effect would occur within a more limited radius. Based on the r FEIS (1991), blasting is expected to occur primarily in the new claim areas during quarry operations and about 25-30 times per year or once every two weeks (Appendix C, page 5-34). Given the distance to the primary blast areas (over 1.5 miles), the barrier effect of local ridgelines between these mine areas and the (� project site, and the infrequency of blasting operations, this noise source is not expected to create a } significant constraint to the proposed residential use of the project site. Based on the City's measurement } City or Santa Clarita 1 :5.711 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Noise Levels Associated With Construction Equipment Figure 5.7-1 Noise Level at 50 Feet, dBA 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 , Compacters (Rollers) to Front Loaders Z w ,5 Backhoes Z o Tractors/Dozers i Scrapers/Graders Pavers 1I 1 a I I i Trucks o Concrete Mixers Concrete Pumps Movable Cranes o Derrick Cranes Pumps P. cl °I Generators Compressors i �i Pneumatic Wrenches r I � i t 2 Jack Hammers and Rock Drills wi Pile Drivers (Peak) a' Vibrator I I I � Saws - Note: Based on Limited Available Data Samples Source: USEPA, 1971.. Noise From Construction Equipment and Operations. Noise Levels Associated With Construction Equipment Figure 5.7-1 i� Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR r� Section 5.7 Noise of the current blasting location, the instantaneous noise level at the nearest proposed residence would be L about 66 dBA, or a sound level similar to normal conversational levels. As stated above, because of the infrequency of the blasting and its limited number of occurences in any one day, this would not exceed n City criteria for incompatible noise levels. F In addition, the FEIS for the Gillibrand muting operations (Tetra Tech, Inc., 1991) indicates that truck i , traffic in the Oak Spring Canyon and Rabbit Canyon area will be reduced by 20 truck trips per day from L_ the existing (199 1) volume of 60 trips per day as operations are expanded at the three new claim areas. The new haul roads associated with the claim areas are located 1-2 miles further to the east from the site [? boundary, thereby reducing noise levels incident in the project area. All of the new claim areas are also jJ more than one mile from the site's eastern property line. The new claim areas are expected to produce sufficient minerals for the Gillibrand operations for the next ten years. LJ Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures are necessary because the proposed project would not � conflict with adopted environmental goals of the City. Specific warnings at time of lot purchase l regarding the potential for mining noise is not considered necessary because the mining operation is L1 clearly visible to any potential purchaser and noise levels would be within compatibility limits. r 1 To estimate the peak construction noise impact on the adjacent residences, it was assumed that about LJ Significance After Mitigation. A potential exists for annoyance reactions by the future residences if active f11 mining resumes adjacent to the eastern property line. This would likely include complaints to the City �J and the mining operator_ However, based on the significance criteria, no significant noise impact would �� result from the proposed project's location near the mining operation. Effect N-2 Heavy equipment noise associated with construction of the proposed project i , could affect adjacent residential land uses. (US) L_ The nearest sensitive noise receptors to the project site are the three residences located along Sand Canyon Road west of the site, the residences along the south property line on off of Live Oak Springs Canyon Road and Clearlake Drive, and those northwest of the proposed parking lot and clubhouse area. The nearest homes are located approximately 30-50 feet from the The property. grading phase of project construction tends to create the highest construction noise levels because of the operation of heavy equipment. Noise levels associated with heavy equipment typically range between 75 to 95 dBA at 50 � feet from the source (EPA, 1971). Continuous operation of equipment near the property line during a iJ nine -hour workday can cause noise levels that are substantially above the ambient levels present in the project vicinity_ r 1 To estimate the peak construction noise impact on the adjacent residences, it was assumed that about four pieces of heavy equipment would be operating in the vicinity of the property line during cut and fill f11 operations. Because the equipment cannot physically operate in the same location at the same time, they �J were assumed to work within an average distance of 250 feet from the residences. It was also assumed that the dozer equipment would operate six hours out of a nine -hour workday (8 am - 5 pm), and three pieces (scraper, roller, and water truck) would work half-time. Operation of this equipment would result in a daily CNEL of about 70 dBA for the nearest residences, with an hourly Leq of more than 74 dBA. City of Santa Clarita 5.7-b n L: C Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.7 Noise These average sound levels would exceed the City's exterior noise criteria for residential use and would l increase daytime noise levels more than 10 dBA over existing conditions. This is considered a significant, though short-term noise impact. It is noted that grading equipment would actually be operating at various locations throughout the site at various times and at various distances from the homes, with intervening topography often substantially reducing noise levels. Nonetheless, construction noise and possible vibration would be highly disturbing when the heavy equipment is operating near the property line. Based on the amount of grading necessary in various locations of the site, the residences on Clearlake Drive and northwest of the proposed parking lot would be the most disturbed. Mitigation Measures.. Temporary, portable noise barriers can be used at times to reduce the impact of construction noise, but because of the extensive topographic alteration associated with the golf course f 1 grading, the use of such barriers is not expected to be effective. The following mitigation measures are recommended to reduce construction noise. N -2(a) No more than two pieces of equipment shall operate simultaneously within 200 feet of a residence during grading operations. N -2(b) Any internal haul roads for transporting fill material around the site shall be located a minimum of 500 feet from the nearest offsite residence. Significance After Mitigation. The above measures would reduce the noise impact of the grading operations at the site. Nonetheless, some loud noise that is above City land use compatibility levels is still likely to occur during project construction and this effect is considered unavoidable. rrl, l,f Effect N-3 The additional traffic noise associated with the proposed project could affect adjacent residential land uses. (NS) LJ Table 5.7-1 illustrates the change in noise levels associated with traffic generated by the proposed project and cumulative projects. Project added traffic would increase local traffic noise by 2.0 dBA along Sand CCanyon Road north of the project entry, while project traffic plus cumulative traffic would cause a maximum increase of 2.3 dBA. This level of ambient noise increase is perceptible to sensitive receptors, but it would not exceed the criteria for significant impacts of a 3 dBA change. In addition, the changes in the 65 dBA CNEL contour lines would not place any existing residence within this contour based on a review of aerial photography (1"=400') for the project vicinity, Given the accuracy associated with the traffic forecasting and inherent in the noise model calculations, the changes in the contour levels are not considered to be a significant impact. n Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures are required. l 1 Significance After Miti ag tion. No significant traffic noise impacts are expected to be generated by the project, but an adverse increase in the ambient noise environment for residences located on Sand Canyon Road north of the project site would occur, C I 5.7-7 city or santa trans Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 5.7 Noise Table 5.7-1 Calculated CNEL Contours' F1 Li (I LJ 11 ' See Appendix E for calculations. LJ • illstaniae Ytt CIYI�Ia C©tFYOSFC:TiiC4C effects to adjacent residential land uses. (NS) . The golf course would introduce a recreational population to an area of rural residential land uses. Golf r, courses open at dawn and close at dusk, so golfers would be present on the course throughout the from roadwa rentirtiaG f4et occur at the driving range until about 10:00 pm and at the clubhouse and parking lot until 11:00 pm. j ] Itoadwav and Sceuarla Gltil:i :SAA 74 dBA 65 dBA 6Q il1;A < that driving range noise was indistinguishable from background noise at about 200 feet, while the sound 5S dB Sand Canyon Road north of Live would produce a sound level of 45.5 dBA at the nearest residence. The sound levels associated with the parking lot, driving range, and golf course would be below an hourly Leq of 60 dBA at the nearest residence and would not cause an exceedance of the City's CNEL noise criteria for compatible land use, Oak Springs Canyon Road sounds would be less than or equivalent to that produced by neighboring residences and equestrian uses, Existing 60.5 28 60 130 280 Existing plus project 62.5 38 82 176 379 Future cumulative 62.8 40 86 184 397 Sand Canyon Road south of Live Oak Springs Canyon Road Existing 62.2 -- 46 99 212 Existing plus project 62.6 — 49 105 226 Future cumulative 63.2 — 53 1 115 1 247 F1 Li (I LJ 11 ' See Appendix E for calculations. LJ At nearest existing residences 120 feel from road centerline for north section and 70 feet from road centerline for south section. Effect N-4 Noise associated with patrons of the golf course could cause nuisance noise 1 effects to adjacent residential land uses. (NS) The golf course would introduce a recreational population to an area of rural residential land uses. Golf r, courses open at dawn and close at dusk, so golfers would be present on the course throughout the C daytime hours. Operating hours have not been set for the project, but it is assumed that activity would occur at the driving range until about 10:00 pm and at the clubhouse and parking lot until 11:00 pm. j ] Noise associated with the golfers would include voices, car doors and trunks closing in the parking lot, golf cart noise, and the hitting of golf balls. The primary location of such noise would be the parking lot and the driving range. Measurements of sound levels at Knollwood Country Club by City staff indicated L that driving range noise was indistinguishable from background noise at about 200 feet, while the sound level of a golfer striking a ball is about 75 feet at 10 feet from the golfer. This sound level at the golfer would produce a sound level of 45.5 dBA at the nearest residence. The sound levels associated with the parking lot, driving range, and golf course would be below an hourly Leq of 60 dBA at the nearest residence and would not cause an exceedance of the City's CNEL noise criteria for compatible land use, including consideration of the evening noise generation at the driving range and parking lot. While these sounds would be less than or equivalent to that produced by neighboring residences and equestrian uses, they would be more consistent throughout the day and into the evening and such sounds may be considered a nuisance by adjacent residential users. 11 Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures are required. Significance After Mitigation. While noise levels would not be great enough to cause a significant effect, an adverse increase in ambient nuisance noise levels would be associated with the proposed project. 1 1.1 5.7-8 City of Santa Ctarita ll 111 II H, Li C IJ h G' 11 E U 41 J IJ I lJ Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 6.0 Long Term Effects 6.0 LONGTERM EFFECTS 6.1 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS The proposed project would involve introduction of recreational and residential uses in an area that is generally rural. This increased development activity in Sand Canyon is likely to draw additional attention to this area, but is not expected to induce growth that is not already planned. The site is generally self- contained and surrounded by existing or pending rural residential development and the Angeles National Forest. Major infrastructure systems are in place to accommodate the project, and with the exception of two water tanks that are planned to provide fire flow and water pressure, there are no major infrastructure extensions required. The additional fire flow capacity provided by the project could allow for limited additional infill development on adjoining rural properties. Based on an average household size of 3.14 persons per unit, the proposed project would generate an additional 260 residents in the area. This would generate an incremental need for additional services, governmental, and commercial facilities. This additional demand for services and economic growth is not expected to significantly impact the region and the costs of such will be at least partially offset by the additional tax base. 6.2 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE EFFECTS Alteration of the area to urban (rural residential and recreational) uses, although potentially reversible, will likely result in a long term commitment of the site to such uses. Development of the proposed project will result in substantial landform alteration that will be irreversible. However, given the extent of open space areas committed to the golf course uses, it is possible that these uses could be intensified, perhaps with residential uses, at some future time. The mineral resources identified in Oak Spring Canyon would be generally inaccessible for future extraction, unless such a use becomes desirable and economically preferable to the proposed golf course use because of critical resource limitations. As such, project development would not irreversibly impact this potential resource area, but if development proceeds, it is highly unlikely that the golf course would be converted to mining activity given the long term supply of such resources in other locations.. Construction of new buildings and roadways would involve substantial quantities of building materials and energy; some of which are non-renewable. Consumption of such materials and energy are associated with any new development project and these commitments are not unique or unusual to this project or region. Addition of approximately 260 new residents in the area would irreversibly increase the local demand for finite energy resources, such as petroleum and natural gas. However, increasingly efficient building fixtures and automobile engines are expected to partially offset this demand. Additionally the project would require an irreversible commitment of law enforcement, fire protection, sanitation, water supply, wastewater treatment, and solid waste disposal services. The proposed project would also create demand for school and active recreational facilities, although it would serve to increase 6-1 wly ar aania uarna Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 6.0 Lona Term Effects the availability of golf course facilities in the region.. Additional residents in the area and associated j 1 vehicle trips generated would result in additional air emissions and further degradation of the air LJ resources in the air basin. The degree to which recreational commute distances can be reduced by the increased availability of local golf course facilities may tend to offset this potential effect. L1 LI rI t, 1-1 City of Santa C/arita Cl 6-2 'I LJ C E 1J Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 7.0 Alternatives 7.0 ALTERNATIVES A range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed development project is required to be evaluated within an EIR per the State CEQA Guidelines § 15126 (d), The alternatives addressed are those that could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project, with the discussion focusing on the comparative merits of the alternatives relative to environmental effects (without consideration of economic effects) and on alternatives that could substantially reduce or eliminate significant adverse impacts. A feasible alternative is one that can be "accomplished within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, legal, social, and technological factors" (Public Resources Code § 21061.1 and State CEQA Guidelines §15364). In addition to development alternatives, the "No Project" alternative is also specifically required to be discussed. The purpose of this alternative is to discuss what effects may continue to occur given the current uses of the project site. 7.1 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 7.1.1 No Development This alternative proposes that the site remain in its current undeveloped state for at least the near future. The former agricultural activities that occurred on portions of the property could be resumed, consisting of dry farming for hay and limited grazing on the west slope lowlands and grazing within the Oak Spring Canyon area. If economical, chicken farming could be resumed in the area adjacent to Live Oak Springs Canyon Road. Physical actions expected to continue at the site under this alternative would include plowing of the west slope lowlands at least once per year for fire control. Earth Resources. No land alteration would take place in the near term under this alternative, and no onsite residential population or construction workers would be exposed to potentially unstable slopes or other geological hazards. (� H rologX Drainage. Water. No onsite population would be introduced into the area that could be j exposed to the existing flood hazards. Current problems with siltation and flooding of Sand Canyon Road would continue until such a time that the Los Angeles County Flood Control District designates sufficient funds to construct the proposed debris basin. Given the past history of this debris basin, this may not be accomplished for several more years. E 0 rJ lJ No changes would occur to the existing hydrologic environment and there would be no potential for any groundwater contamination from onsite sources during the short term. Existing natural debris flows from the project site to offsite areas would continue under intense rainfall conditions. If the site were to remain undeveloped for the long term, it is possible that some type of irrigated agriculture would be attempted on the site in order to gain some economic return from the land.. Irrigated agriculture would most likely occur on the lowlands in Sand Canyon and on the reasonably level portions of Oak Spring Canyon. In this event, irrigation water would be pumped from the local 7-1 wry Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 7.0 Alternatives groundwater basins, which may limit the supply available to other users and deplete the local groundwater basin. Agricultural pollutants such as fertilizer and pesticides may percolate into and contaminate the groundwater basin. Air Quality. This alternative does not introduce any new pollutant sources in the short term. BioloQv. Wildlife and plant populations would remain at their existing levels unless some form of dry land or irrigated farming is attempted. Farming in the Sand Canyon area would not be expected to cause any significant impacts since it would be limited to the ruderal vegetation areas, though several oaks may be removed to facilitate farming. If farming is attempted in Oak Spring Canyon, it would remove most of the alluvial fan scrub vegetation in the 160 acre parcel, and similar to the project, result in significant and unavoidable impacts to coast homed lizard populations. The removal of alluvial fan scrub would be a cumulatively significant impact also. The project site would remain subject to wildfire to which the native plant communities are adapted. TransnortationlCirculation. This alternative would not generate any substantial traffic on a daily basis. If agricultural production is attempted, there would be some increased trips on a seasonal basis when the crop is planted and harvested, but this would not result in substantial alterations to local roadway and intersection levels of service. Aesthetics. No mass grading or other major landform alterations would occur under this alternative. The site would retain its current natural and rural character, or if farmed, would develop a pastoral character. Noise. No new noise sources would be introduced to the site and the operation of agricultural machinery would be sporadic and create noise levels that are within City criteria for compatible noise levels with adjacent residential uses. Other Issues: This alternative would not pose any substantial changes that may cause significant adverse alterations in the physical environment. The primary adverse effect of this alternative is the continuation of the existing wildfire hazard, which would be substantially reduced by the proposed project because of the change in primary vegetative cover from dry scrubland to irrigated grasses. From aland use perspective, this alternative is unlikely to exist in the long term since most of the project site is located within the City boundaries and is designated for a suburban use rather than as open lands or agricultural acreage. Growth pressure to develop the project site is already present, especially when the current entitlements for the property are considered. 7.1.2 Existing Entitlements As discussed in Sections 1.4 and 3.4 of this EIR, several current entitlements exist for various portions of the property. This "no project' alternative addresses the environmental effects associated with development as currently allowed, without the need for any further discretionary entitlements. A total of City of Santa Clarita 7.2 U H U 0 l� J P 0 �i Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR LSection 7.0 Alternatives 158 residential estates units could be constructed within the project site as currently configured, with 140 of these units located on the 160 acres that comprise the northeast corner of the site (Figure 7.0-1). In C addition, if the previously approved Hunters Green development were reconstituted, then a total of 222 I residential estates units could be built in the general project location. Grading under the current site configuration for this alternative would be approximately 500,000 cubic yards, with the vast majority of grading (460,000 cy) occurring within the 160 acre block. This grading would include channeling Oak Spring Canyon creek through this parcel. Grading under the reconstituted development would be approximately 980,000 cubic yards and include extensive grading of the west slope and the 160 acre block. The number of oak trees removed or relocated would be about 50 under the first scenario and [ J would be about 80 trees removed and 13 relocated under the second scenario. Earth Resources. Substantial grading would occur under this alternative, but most of it would be located �j within the 160 acre parcel rather than in the less stable west slope area given existing entitlements. If the old Hunters Green development is reconstituted, substantial grading would also occur on the west slope and similar adverse effects could happen. However, cut and fill depths would be less than that of the iproposed project and subsequent geologic problems would also be less. j j) dv rolo,gy. Drainage. Water. The flood hazard in Oak Spring Canyon within the site would be reduced l through the construction of a flood control channel and this alternative would not expose onsite 1 residences in this area to a flood hazard. The Live Oak Springs Canyon drainage is expected to remain in its present condition until LACFCD obtains sufficient funds to construct the debris basin; this would t expose several residential pads to an existing shallow flooding zone and current drainage problems along Sand Canyon Road would remain. Because this alternative would not extend the Oak Spring Canyon l i flood control channel downstream, with such construction dependent on other projects, this alternative could result in downstream erosional problems because of the increased velocities that may be expected Ldue to the new channel The channel and residential development in Oak Spring Canyon would also be expected to result in a � slight decrease in the infiltration of surface water into the underlying alluvial aquifer. This is not U expected to cause a significant effect on the supply of groundwater at the site. Actually, because it is presumed that existing entitlements would be served by the Santa Clarita Water Company, the use of imported water on the site could lead to increase percolation of imported water and a subsequent increase in groundwater levels. Air Ouali . Air emissions associated with the existing entitlement of 158 units would not cause an exceedance of any of the thresholds for operational emissions (See Appendix C for calculations). Similar to the project, construction emissions during the grading phase would be expected to exceed threshold levels; however, such exceedances would occur over a shorter period of time because of the L1 lower amount of grading necessary. The reconstituted tracts alternative would exceed the threshold for carbon monoxide emissions during the operational phase by 4%. This significant impact could be reduced by a slight reduction in the number of units developed. 4- n City of Santa Clarita 7-3 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR 1 0 6-70 Units M .9s 2 n -0 C, r b a r t$2 Road 0 1200 2400 Flood Control Channel Scale in Feet Base Map: USGS Mint Canyon Quadrangle 11 Existing Entitlements Alternative -- NORTH r Figure 7.0-1 LJ h �f lJ L a �J L.i Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 7.0 Alternatives Biolo>?v. This alternative would result in the removal of about 90% of the vegetation on the 160 acre parcel and virtually all wildlife species, which would be a significant and unavoidable biological impact. None of the alluvial fan scrub vegetation present in this area would be retained under this alternative based on the existing tract map. With existing parcels, no significant vegetation would be removed on the west slope, but under the reconstituted tracts, grading would account for approximately 60-70% of the chaparral vegetation based on the existing tract maps. This would also result in a significant impact to this biological resource. The vegetation in the southeast parcel would remain mostly undisturbed because only two units could be developed in that area. Because the reconstituted tracts would not contain a revegetation plan and virtually all of the residential estates would contain non-native landscaping, the net habitat value of this alternative would be less than that of the proposed project. Transportation/Circulation. Traffic generation for this alternative would be 1,600 and 2,260 for the existing entitlements and the reconstituted tracts, respectively. While this daily volume is less than that generated by the project, the volumes would be the same to twice as much in the critical peak hour direction compared to the proposed project. Traffic effects would be the same as for the proposed project for the existing entitlements, but would be slightly greater for the reconstituted tracts. However. it is not expected that any intersection would decrease its level of service below D as a result of this alternative. Aesthetics. Landform alteration for the existing entitlement would be limited to the 160 acre parcel. A road and residential units are planned for the secondary ridgeline (see Figure 7.0-1), but the landform t alteration of this ridgeline would be less than that under the proposed project. Residential pads would generally be located within the lowlands and along drainage floors, and the higher ridgelines would not be disturbed. The reconstituted Hunters Green development would substantially alter the landforms on the west slope of the project site, but overall grading would be about 50% of that proposed by the IJ E n 0 n I project. Noise. Construction noise levels would cause similar short term impacts as those associated with the proposed project, but because of the lower amount of grading necessary, these temporary impacts would occur over a shorter time frame. Traffic noise generated by the residential estates would not cause an exceedance of City criteria along access routes, but would represent a substantial increase in existing noise levels along Oak Spring Canyon Road. The residential estate pads located in the southeast comer of the 160 acre parcel would be located a minimum of 400 feet from the property line and the adjacent gravel pit, with a deed restriction extending 210 feet from the corner of the property that disallows any structures in that portion of the lot in order to provide a buffer between the residential lot and the adjacent mining use. However, noise levels from grading activity in the mine pit near the property line could result in sound levels exceeding a CNEL of 65 dBA at the nearest residence, which would be a significant impact. This impact could be reduced by the construction of a sound barrier (concrete block wall) along the property line. Other Issues. This alternative would not require annexation of additional land into the City and would be in compliance with existing zones and land use designations. It would substantially increase the 7-5 ary Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 7.0 Alternatives exposure of residential units to wildfire hazard, with the Oak Spring Canyon development surrounded on j three sides by brush. This alternative would require the paving of Oak Spring Canyon Road to the project site, and would extend a paved road and urban infrastructure to the south property line of the 160 acre parcel. Such an extension of infrastructure would be growth inducing and would likely result in a request for subdivision of the 103 acre southeasterly parcel into residential estate units at the current planned land use density. Section 7.5 describes the environmental effects associated with such development. 11 7.2 WEST SLOPE RESIDENTIAL/OAK SPRING GOLF COURSE 11 This alternative revises the proposed land use plan to place all of the proposed residential uses on the west slopes of the project site within the Sand Canyon area, while only the golf courses would be located within Oak Spring Canyon. Figure 7.0-2 provides a schematic illustration of this alternative development concept. This alternative would essentially provide for development of the existing Hunters Green and Tract No. 45148 entitlements, while changing the Tract 47803 entitlement from residential estate land use to primarily recreational. Under this alternative, both golf courses could be 1j C_5 built in Oak Spring Canyon with a few holes winding through the west slope residential area, or only one golf course would be built and the City would not annex the southeasterly 103 acre parcel. In addition, this alternative would relocate the driving range, clubhouse, and maintenance facilities towards the eastern property line. Access through this site would be provided via a main road from Sand Canyon that extends east -west �l through the site. It would cross the secondary ridgeline and then extend eastward across the golf course ^ to the clubhouse. This primary access road would be a public street until it enters the golf course, at which point it would become private. A paved secondary access would be provided in the west corner via Live Oak Canyon Springs Road near Trail Ridge Road. Another primary/secondary access could be provided along the northern property boundary via Oak Spring Canyon Road, which is currently a dirt l I road. Under this alternative, it is anticipated that either the applicant alone or in conjunction with development that would occur on the parcel to the north of the golf course would pave this road to the intersection with Lost Canyon Road. Golf course users would then access the course from the north via Lost Canyon Road rather than through the west slope residential area. If this were to occur, the residential community could then become gated. 0 Grading under this alternative would be approximately 470,000 to 490,000 cubic yards on the west slope of the property, with an additional 300,000 to 350,000 cubic yards for the first golf course located primarily in the north end of Oak Spring Canyon and about 400,000 to 450,000 cubic yards more for the second course. About 80-110 coast live oak trees would be removed under this alternative, with about 40 of these coming from the west slope area and the remainder from Oak Spring Canyon. Earth Resources: This alternative would involve a lower amount of grading than the proposed project, but would still substantially altcr the existing landform. Residential units would be exposed to geologic y hazards within a slightly more unstable area, but as is illustrated by the residential development south of City of Santa Clarita ' I 7-6 { j n Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR i I i � • C'G f • �� •_ 0 1 anii1 �'S' • ����\ \ YY� Zl � I� V Road ® Residential Area 0 1200 2400 ® Golf Course Scale in Feet Base Map: USGS Mint Canyon Quadrangle West Slope Residential/ Oak Springs T Golf Course Alternative NORTH Figure 7.0-2 !1 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 7.0 Alternatives the project site, onsite geologic hazards can be adequately mitigated through standard grading {� requirements. Hvdrolo,a Drainage. Water. This alternative would have similar effects as the proposed project. 1 Residential uses along the Live Oak Springs Canyon creek would be exposed to an existing shallow flood zone. A debris basin would be constructed that would reduce the existing hazards on Sand Canyon Road and to those residential uses located downstream of the debris basin. Air Quality. This alternative would have similar air quality impacts as the proposed project if both golf courses are constructed. However, if only one golf course were developed, fewer trips would be associated with that use at the site and emissions for all air pollutants would drop below the SCAQMD threshold levels for the operational phase. Construction phase air quality impacts would be similar as the proposed project and would also be significant for this alternative. (, Bioloev. This alternative would have similar impacts as the proposed project since a similar land area would undergo construction. However, under this alternative there would be reduced grading on the slopes of the City -designated secondary ridgeline, preserving slightly more chaparral vegetation. If only one golf course were built, this alternative would retain a greater net habitat value than the proposed project. But construction of a second golf course under this alternative would require the location of I more golf holes in the southeast annexation parcel, which would disturb a greater amount of the highest value per acre habitat at the project site. With two golf courses, this alternative would have slightly j 1 greater impacts on biological resources, which would be significant and unavoidable. I 1 Tranportation/Circulation. The single golf course alternative would generate fewer trips, but as noted f in Section 5.5, the existing road capacity is adequate to meet the demands created by full build -out of the ' proposed project. An alternative means of access could potentially be developed for the golf course under this alternative via Oak Spring Canyon Road or an extension of a road from the area north of the fi golf course. Under this scenario, right and left turning movements at the Lost Canyon/Sand Canyon intersection would be associated with the project rather than just through traffic. This unsignalized intersection currently operates at LOS A, and the addition of golf course traffic tuming movements Ll would not significantly degrade the intersection level of service. If a road is extended through the parcel to the north, golf course traffic would be expected to have a minimal effect on the new roadway system. �} Paving of Oak Spring Canyon Road along the current alignment to access the golf course may create a traffic safety hazard because this road currently has a hairpin curve about 800 feet west of the site. The road has both vertical and horizontal curves at this location that limits sight distances and thereby increases the potential for traffic accidents.. Because of limited right-of-way availability, this safety issue could not be resolved along this roadway. �{ l� Aesthetics. The secondary ridgeline would be less disturbed under this alternative, but a road -cut over the ridgetop would still be visible to offsite viewers along Soledad Canyon Road and the SR14 freeway. Grading on the west slopes would be reduced and required cut slopes would be slightly lower under this City of Santa Clarita 7-8 �I L U I L E, Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 7.0 Alternatives alternative, but there would still be a substantial amount of grading. The relocation of the parking lot and clubhouse to the eastern property line would reduce visual and lighting effects associated with this use for the adjacent landowners in the existing Oak Spring Canyon community. However, the proposed location is also adjacent to rural residential land uses, and though the parking lot would be within a side drainage and somewhat screened from the adjacent parcels, it could still have similar lighting effects as the proposed project location. Noise. Traffic noise generated by this alternative would be the same as the proposed project if primary access is via Sand Canyon Road for the golf course. If an alternative access is developed, project -related traffic noise along Sand Canyon Road would be reduced, while it would be increased along the alternative access route.. Given the level of traffic generated by the golf course use, traffic noise would not create a significant noise impact that causes an exceedance of the City's criteria for compatibility with residential land uses. (� Construction noise under this alternative would remain short term unavoidably significant. Residential j uses on the site would be less exposed to noise from the offsite mining operations under this alternative, but as noted in Section 5.7, this is a less than significant impact of the proposed project. t n I U tJ PJ I lJ Other Issues. This alternative would reduce perceived land use conflicts associated with the current location of the maintenance yard and parking lot for adjacent landowners, but potentially introduce these problems to another set of landowners. If Oak Spring Canyon Road is used as an access route for the golf course, it may be perceived as disruption in the physical characteristics of this rural residential community. From a design perspective that relates to the success of the proposed recreational use, the location of the clubhouse and other facilities on the eastern property line creates a more difficult design for the golf course layout. Standard golf course design is to have the 1st and 10th holes start at the clubhouse and itE facilities, with the 9th and 18th holes ending at the facilities. With the proposed golf course area for this alternative, the holes adjacent to the residential uses would be relatively distant from the clubhouse and its facilities and may not provide for a workable fairway arrangement. It is also noted that this alternative provides a substantially reduced edge between onsite residential uses and the golf course and therefore may not meet the basic objectives of the project applicant to develop a golf course -oriented residential community. This alternative may be considered to be growth inducing to the area east of the clubhouse and north of the Angeles National Forest boundary because the project would extend water, sewer, and utilities to near the eastern property line and also potentially provide better road access. 7.3 REDUCED GRADING This alternative proposes the same uses as the proposed project, but would reduce grading by 50% to 1.1 million cubic yards and the removal of oak trees by 50% to 65 coast live oaks through the reduction in 7-9 city of Santa Clarita Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 7.0 Alternatives lot sizes and golf course area. To reduce grading, the western golf course would need to become more circuitous around existing ridges, and generally steeper with shorter holes. The residential lots located in the annexation parcel would be relocated from the hillside to the valley floor. The reduction in grading may necessitate the elimination of the driving range in order to provide sufficient area for both L golf courses. Earth Resources. As with the proposed project, geologic hazards associated with the site could be mitigated through the use of standard construction measures. Hydrology. Drainage, Water. This alternative would retain steeper slopes than under the proposed project and debris potential would be higher than under the proposed project, but less than existing conditions. Other effects would remain the same as under the proposed project. r l-1 it Ouali . This alternative would have the same operational air quality impacts as the proposed project. The reduction in grading would not reduce daily construction emissions because the same t number and type of equipment would be needed to effectively grade the site; however, the construction period would be less and the net emissions reduced. It is noted that the reductions in net construction emissions is not necessarily pertinent to air quality impacts since these occur within a daily time frame (ie: total emissions on a particular day combined with daily meteorology largely determines whether or ) not the ambient air quality standards would be exceeded). The reduction in timeframe is important from a dust nuisance perspective for the adjacent residences. [� Bioloev. It is presumed that a reduced grading alternative would reduce the amount of chaparral vegetation removed from the site, thereby decreasing the impact on the populations of Peirson's morning-glory and the rufous -crowned sparrow. However, this alternative may necessitate additional grading in the lowlands of the southeastern parcel in order to fit both golf courses into the site. This would result in a decrease in the amount of the highest quality per acre habitat. This alternative would also reduce the number of oak trees cut, but the amount of oak woodland retained as undisturbed habitat would be expected to decrease. The net habitat contribution of this alternative and the proposed project r would be about the same. t Transportation/Circulation. This alternative would have the same less than significant effects as the proposed project on traffic and circulation. Aesthetics. Reduced grading would decrease the landform alteration of the secondary ridgeline and a possibly preserve this ridge more closely to its present form than the proposed project. The effects of light and glare from the parking lot are assumed to be the same under this alternative, though it is likely that these facilities would need to be relocated into a lowland area in order to meet the reduced grading objectives of this alternative. Noise: This alternative would be expected to have the same effects as the proposed project in the long term. Construction noise levels would cause similar short term impacts as those associated with the City of Santa Ctarita Ir 7 -IO t ( 1 H Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 7.0 Alternatives proposed project, but because of the lower amount of grading necessary, these temporary impacts would occur over a shorter time frame. l� Other Issues. The specific layout of the golf course has not been determined for this alternative because 1 it is unknown how achievable this alternative is from a golf course design perspective. It is possible that this alternative would result in golf course configurations that are too steep and too circuitous to be playable. I( 7.4 MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT This alternative would provide for residential development along the west slope of the project site on about 156 acres, while sand and gravel extraction would occur within the Oak Springs Canyon area, similar to the adjacent Gilibrand quarry (Figure 7.0-3). A single golf course of about 100 acres would be designed that would be surrounded or adjoined by 50 single family lots. The land use designation for ( these homes could be at the currently requested residential estate (RE) and residential very low (RVL) �} zones if extensive easements for the golf course were provided across the lots (similar to that proposed by the project for lots 16-46). Alternatively, the golf course could be divided into a separate parcel(s), with the residential area designated as residential low (maximum 2.2 units per gross acre, 20,000 square �1 foot minimum net lot area). This latter designation may require a General Plan Amendment. The level of development would still be consistent with the densities found in the Sand Canyon area. Grading for (� the residential development and golf course under this alternative would be about 500,000 to 520,000 1 1 cubic yards. The number of coast live oak trees removed would be approximately 50 for the residential t development. i Access for the residential portion of this alternative would be provided via Sand Canyon Road and Live L Oak Springs Canyon Road from the western portion of the property, with no road grading or extension over the secondary ridgeline that divides Sand Canyon from Oak Spring Canyon. If needed, emergency access could potentially be provided by acquisition of easements either to Clearlake Drive, Pashley Street, or a connecting route to Oak Spring Canyon Road via the drainage between Graceton Drive and Pashley Street. Gravel extraction would occur within the State -identified resource area of alluvial deposits in Oak Spring Canyon and Rabbit Canyon adjacent to the existing excavations. Total sand and gravel resources available are unknown, but are estimated as 1,2 - 2.2 million cubic yards (1.8 - 3.3 million tons), or an approximate 7-13 year supply if excavated at a rate of 250,000 tons per year. Given this limited amount of material, it is not expected that a separate processing facility for the site would be economically feasible, rather the excavated material would be hauled to an off-site location for processing. It is (� expected that standard highway trucks with a 16 cubic yard capacity would haul the material rather than l� larger off-highway trucks such as are used to haul ore on the Gillibrand site. Excavation equipment is estimated to include a wheeled loader, one bulldozer, one roller, one water truck, and three haul trucks. A total of 42 truck trips per day would be needed to haul material to the processing plant, while 34 truck .S City of Santa Clarks � 7-11' I Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Lot . r. Yr + = fi Clubhouse ' y Read �•. • Ii ._Y•I 24.x_.._.._. Maintenance Facility x., r �,\ i • ,. sr qngs ttt r `; Existing 1 . Quarries r NDS" -s �•Y a T7 •_� <.p.° -7 } V '`bit • • � w ; S L�1 \ �'J A;- off\ + Road Sand and Gravel Extraction Area 0 1200 2400 ® Golf Course Scale in Feet Base Map: USGS Mint Canyon Quadrangle T Mixed Use Development Alternative L �1 U H 0 j j n NORTH n Figure 7.0-3 111f n a Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR (� Section 7.0 Alternatives C trips per day would occur to haul processed material to the market. Loading at the processing plant is expected to require a single wheeled loader. CDepending on the operator, the haul road for the gravel extraction would either be a connection to the existing haul roads on the adjacent Angeles National Forest land, or a new haul road would be constructed down the main branch of Oak Spring Canyon creek, exiting the creek at Whitewater Canyon FJ Road or at the railroad underpass of the creek and Oak Spring Canyon Road. The haul trucks would continue west on Lost Canyon Road to the freeway and thence to an existing processing facility. The gravel extraction is expected to either directly or indirectly remove 80-90% of the coast live oak trees located within Oak Spring Canyon and Rabbit Canyon. This would total approximately 220 - 250 coast live oaks. The southeastern parcel would not be annexed to the City under this alternative. A General Plan Amendment to Industrial would be required for the 160 acre portion that is within the City to allow the mining use. The Los Angeles County General Plan may also need to be amended to allow mining uses in the agriculturally zoned southeastern parcel. �I 1 Earth Resources. This alternative would allow exploitation of a known mineral resource. Open pit mining within the canyon bottom would not create any geologic hazards provided that the pit slopes are L not overly steepened. i Construction of the residential uses on the west slope would involve a lower amount of grading than the l ' proposed project, but would still substantially alter the existing landform. Residential units would be l exposed to geologic hazards within a slightly more unstable area, but as is illustrated by the residential development south of the project site, onsite geologic hazards can be adequately mitigated through standard grading requirements. Ci $vdroloev. Drainage. Water. Flooding exposure and resolution of existing problems would be the same 1 under this alternative as for the proposed project in the Sand Canyon area. The mining pits could serve to reduce the amount of debris flowing down Oak Spring Canyon during the 50 -year peak discharge; D however, as the mining pits would capture the debris, water exiting from the pits would be clear flows that would have an increased potential to cause erosion in downstream areas. This may necessitate some downstream bank protection to decrease flooding problems. The sand and gravel operation would require water primarily for dust control because offsite processing is presumed under this alternative. Water for dust control would require between 2,000 to 20,000 (� gallons per day (1.6 to 16 acre-feet per year; the average residential use is about 1 acre-foot per year). If lJ this water is obtained from offsite wells, no effect would occur to the local groundwater supply. If this water comes from onsite wells, it would reduce the supply that would otherwise be available for other local well users. n I 7-13 city or Santa warrta C� Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 7,0 Altematives ( I L, Excavation within the pits would not be expected to be below the groundwater level and contamination of the groundwater from this source would not be expected. t Air Quality. This alternative would result in a reduction of the emissions of carbon monoxide and 4r41 reactive organic compounds as compared to the proposed project, but would substantially increase the L amount of sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter emitted. The latter two emissions would substantially exceed SCAQMD thresholds for daily emissions and would cause a significant and unavoidable impact on air quality (see Appendix C for calculations). The use of haul roads along the Oak Spring Canyon drainage would result in substantial dust nuisance impacts for those parcels located along this route. BioloQv. This alternative would result in reduced grading in the Sand Canyon watershed because of the (� fewer number of homes associated with the project. In addition, grading in the chaparral area would be virtually eliminated and no significant impacts would occur to the Peirson's morning-glory or the rufous -crowned sparrow. In the short term, the alluvial scrub vegetation in the northern end of Oak Spring Canyon would be preserved until the pits were extended to this area, this would decrease impacts to the coast horned lizard in the short-term, but eventually similar impacts to this species would occur as under the proposed project. U Development of the gravel pits would remove all of the alluvial fan scrub vegetation and the majority of the coast live oaks within Oak Spring Canyon (600+ trees). This would result in a significant and �? unavoidable impact to these biological resources. Impacts to sensitive species would be expected to 1 increase because roost and nesting sites for sensitive raptor species would be removed. The net habitat value of the site under this alternative would be substantially less than that under the proposed project. TraMportation/Circulatioar. The residential uses in the Sand Canyon area would not create a significant amount of traffic that could affect area intersections. The number of truck trips associated with the gravel operation would be minimal (42 trips per day) and would not affect the operational characteristics of any area intersection. Depending on which haul route is used, this alternative may create a potential safety hazard. If the Oak Spring Canyon drainage is used as a haul route, the crossing under the railroad trestle becomes a choke -point with somewhat limited visibility where heavy duty vehicles would enter the narrow road. Given the small number of truck trips associated with the gravel operations (about 5 per daytime hour), this is not expected to be a significant impact. f*J j Aesthetics. The secondary ridgeline would be preserved under this alternative and the residential C 1 development in Sand Canyon would be similar to adjacent development. The gravel pits would initially j be isolated from adjacent residential views until excavation occurs in the northern portion of the canyon. The pits may be considered a significant decrease in aesthetics at this future date. The mining pits (� would not be readily visible from Soledad Canyon Road or the SR14 freeway. Generally, this Ll alternative would have less of a visual effect on general public viewsheds than the proposed project. City of Santa Clarita n 7-14 n i E P F1 P, C D Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 7.0 Alternatives Noise. Traffic noise associated with the 50 residential units and the haul trucks would be less than the proposed project and would result in similarly less than significant impacts. Mining operations in the southeastern parcel would be sufficiently distant from existing residences that no significant noise impacts would occur. However, if mining occurs in the northern portion of the 160 acre parcel, significant noise impacts would occur to the adjacent residential users. This noise impact could be mitigated by the construction of a 12 -foot high berm on the west and east property lines. Other Issues. As previously stated, this alternative would require a General Plan Amendment in the City to allow for the proposed mining uses in this location. Such a designation may encourage similar industrial uses to be located in the area north of the project site. Given the availability of the rail line in this location, the relatively near freeway access, and the location of other industrial uses to the northeast, the development of an industrial business park in this location may be a reasonable alternative land use configuration. The environmental and planning implications of this concept is beyond the scope of this alternatives analysis. 7.5 EXISTING GENERAL PLAN BUILD -OUT This alternative considers the environmental effects if the project area were developed in accordance rji with the maximum density allowed under the City of Santa Clarita General Plan. This alternative includes the annexation of the southeasterly parcel as an area conceptualized to become part of the City under the General Plan. The western slope and 160 acre parcel are designated as Residential Very Low (1.0 dwelling unit per acre) and the annexation parcel is designated as Residential Estate (0.5 dwelling unit per acre). Assuming that approximately 12% of the land would be used for infrastructure (roads and drainage channels), General Plan buildout would allow approximately 278 units to be built within the existing City area and an additional 46 units in the annexation area, for a total of 324 residences. I I n P 0 n Grading under this alternative would be approximately 460,000 cubic yards for the 160 acre parcel, about 700,000 cubic yards along the western slope, and about 200,000 cubic yards in the annexation parcel (assuming that most of the development would occur along the valley floor at this density rather than along the ridgelines). Total grading would approximate 1.4 million cubic yards. Both Oak Spring Canyon and Rabbit Canyon creeks would be channeled within the project site. Because of the higher residential densities, it would be anticipated that a greater number of oaks would be lost, particularly in the southeastern portion of the site. The estimated number of oaks removed under this alternative is 140 scrub oaks and 150 coast live oaks. Earth Resources. This alternative would involve a slightly lower amount of grading than the proposed project, but would still substantially alter the existing landform. Residential units would be exposed to geologic hazards within a slightly more unstable area on the west slope, but as is illustrated by the residential development south of the project site, onsite geologic hazards can be adequately mitigated through standard grading requirements. 7-15 wry or aanra tans U Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 7.0 Alternatives Ll dy rololy: Drainage. Water. This alternative would require channeling of Oak Spring Canyon creek throughout the development area. This would reduce flooding impacts on the site, but may result in f increased erosion potential downstream. Environmental effects in the Live Oak Springs Canyon drainage would be the same as under the proposed project. i1 This alternative would reduce the amount of recharge to the underlying groundwater because of the introduction of a greater amount of impermeable surface than under the proposed project, but this is not i 1 expected to result in a substantial impact to the groundwater. The residential uses would introduce a u potential for contamination of the local groundwater with urban related pollutants (oil and grease, soap, pesticides, fertilizer, etc.) that are washed off in the surface water and then percolate into the U groundwater downstream of the site, but this problem could be minimized by the incorporation of sand filters in the drop basins that collect runoff from the streets. F1 This alternative would use imported water and would not cause a water supply problem that could be associated with use of the local groundwater supply. (� Air Quality. This alternative would result in similar construction grading impacts as the proposed l project, and would result in greater carbon monoxide and reactive organic compounds emissions than j the project. Similar to the proposed project, these emissions would cause a significant and unmitigable l impact. BioloQv. This alternative would be expected to convert about 70-85% of the onsite biological resources into suburban landscaping and residences based on the existing development south of the project site. All of the alluvial fan scrub vegetation and the wildlife associated with this habitat would be removed, 1 with urban tolerant species replacing existing site species in the retained oaks scattered through the suburban landscaping. The amount of chaparral retained within the site is expected to be the same as that under the proposed project and impacts to this particular habitat and associated species would be the same. This alternative would not create any wetland -type habitat or revegetate cut slopes with native species; therefore the net habitat value of this alternative would be substantially less than that under the proposed project. Impacts to sensitive species would be correspondingly greater also. This alternative �} would have an additional impact on the biological resources of the adjacent Angeles National Forest since there would not be a golf course buffer between the forest lands and feral cats and dogs associated � with residential development. t J TransWrtation/Circulation. This alternative would have virtually the same average daily trip generation as the proposed project, but would increase the directional peak hour flows by about a factor of three J (280% for morning and 320% for evening). Depending on the ultimate road network, this could create a significant impact at the Sand Canyon/Lost Canyon intersection sufficient that traffic light warrants (� would be met at this location. This alternative would also increase the general level of congestion at the l Sand CanyonRoad/freeway ramps, but as with the proposed project, this existing problem should be resolved by the bridge replacement. U City of Santa Clarita { , 7-16 i 1 n U P P CI P1 U U P, a I I P Q Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 7.0 Alternatives Aesthetics. This alternative would result in a similar level of landform alteration as the reconstituted tracts alternative and slightly less than the proposed project since the additional residential development permitted would occur primarily in the annexation parcel. The secondary ridgeline would be altered by the siting of a primary residential collector through this area and the construction of homes along the road. Depending on the actual design plans, "skylining" of residences could occur along this secondary ridge. In general, this alternative is deemed to have a similar aesthetic effect as the proposed project. Noise. Traffic associated with General Plan buildout would not increase noise levels along access routes to the site above City criteria. Residences located in Oak Spring Canyon would be potentially subjected to substantial noise levels if mining operations are reinstituted in the pits adjacent to the project site. This significant noise impact could be mitigated for the residences located in the canyon bottom through the construction of an approximate 12 foot wall and berm combination along the adjoining property line. Construction of this sound barrier could result in drainage problems as the wall would block flows from Oak Spring Canyon and Rabbit Canyon. This problem would be resolved by construction of reinforced concrete culverts under the berm sufficient to pass the 50 -year peak discharge event. Other Issues. Construction of this alternative may encourage the development of the parcel located to the north of the site as the existing planned residential densities (Oak Springs Estates, Tract No. 34466). Development would also extend infrastructure to the eastern property line, encouraging potential future growth of the canyon area north of the Angeles National Forest, similar to the growth inducing potential of the current entitlements. 7.6 EQUESTRIAN/RESIDENTIAL/GOLF COURSE This project alternative would add an equestrian facility to the southerly end of the golf course, with an equestrian trail located along the eastern and southern boundaries of the site that connects with proposed and existing Angeles National Forest trails. Equestrian -style lots at greater than I acre in size would be located south of the parking lot near this facility. The golf course commercial facilities would be relocated to the northern portion of the annexation area. The Oak Spring Canyon area would remain primarily as a golf course, with golf course oriented residential located at the Sand Canyon entrance to the site, along Live Oak Springs Canyon Road, and along the site access road northwest of the clubhouse. While a private access road through the west slope golf course would be provided, similar to the proposed project, the primary access to the clubhouse would be from the extension of Live Oak Springs Canyon Road. The proposed roads south of the clubhouse area to the equestrian facility would be public, whereas the roads north of the clubhouse could be private and gated. Figure 7.0-4 provides a conceptual illustration of this alternative. Under this alternative, it is proposed that the ridgeline area above about 1800 feet would be minimally graded, only enough to accommodate the access road between the Sand Canyon drainage and the Oak Spring Canyon drainage. Total grading for this alternative is estimated at 1.5 - 2.0 million cubic yards. A similar number of oak trees would be removed under this alternative as for the proposed project. 7-17 City of Santa Clarita Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR rq Road ® Golf Course Base Map:. USGS Mint Canyon Quadrangle Equestrian Trail 0 1200 2400 Scale in Feet Equestrian/Residential/Golf Course Alternative 1 NORTH Figure 7.0-4 W. l j..'� it it it u _ �. qr —' it j'I Road ® Golf Course Base Map:. USGS Mint Canyon Quadrangle Equestrian Trail 0 1200 2400 Scale in Feet Equestrian/Residential/Golf Course Alternative 1 NORTH Figure 7.0-4 U Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 7.0 Alternatives II Earth Resources. This alternative would have the same effects on earth resources as the proposed project. PFj dv rologv. Drainage. Water. This alternative would have the same effects on drainage, flooding, and water resources as the proposed project. Air This alternative would generate approximately the same amount of air pollutants as the proposed project. This alternative would slightly reduce the acreage associated with the golf course and C� so the traffic generation and subsequent air pollutant emissions estimates, but would introduce an additional recreational use that would generate traffic and air emissions. Assuming that these two recreational uses would have similar per acre trip generation, the air pollutant emissions would be similar. BioloQv. This alternative would increase impacts to the alluvial fan scrub vegetation dominated by oaks {� located in the southern end of the site. The equestrian facility could potentially remove a few acres of this highest valuable habitat and have associated significant adverse impacts. The net habitat value of this alternative is expected to be similar, but somewhat less than the proposed project. Fiji Transnortatiorr/Circulation. This alternative would generate approximately the same.. amount of traffic as the proposed project. The equestrian facility would not generate substantial trips during the typical U peak hours, rather it would primarily be aweekend trip generator. Therefore, no significant difference in U traffic effects is anticipated for this alternative compared to the proposed project. Aesthetics. This alternative proposes grading alterations to reduce the amount of landform alteration visible along the secondary ridgeline from Soledad Canyon Road and the SRI freeway. This would n reduce the visual effect as compared to the proposed project, but would still substantially alter this t l landform. The relocation of the clubhouse facilities would reduce any light and glare effects or visual effects relative to the adjacent Oak Spring community. QNoise. This alternative would have the same noise effects as the proposed project. D Other Issues. This alternative would reduce perceived land use conflicts associated with the current location of the maintenance yard and parking lot for adjacent landowners. From a design perspective that relates to the success of the proposed recreational use, the location of the clubhouse and other L ! facilities further to the south creates a more difficult design for the golf course layout. Standard golf (% course design is to have the 1st and 10th holes start at the clubhouse and its facilities, with the 9th and 18th holes ending at the facilities. In an attempt to correct for this problem, a snack shack with restroom a facilities and other amenities is proposed for the west slope golf course, This would allow the golf course design to have the 9th hole end and the 10th hole start at the snack shack. This alternative introduces an additional land use to the site with an equestrian facility. It is unknown whether or not lots could be sold adjacent to such a facility or if it would be deemed an important IF City of Santa Clarita 7-19 U Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 7.0 Alternatives amenity that would meet the objectives of the applicant. It would, however, help meet the recreational goals of the City. 7.7 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE The State CEQA Guidelines § I5126(d) requires the identification of the "environmentally superior" alternative among those discussed in the document, and if this is the "no project" alternative, than an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives is to be identified. The environmentally superior alternative is that which would cause the least amount of adverse change in the physical environment. This typically is the "no project" alternative, since this alternative generally does not involve any physical changes in the environment unless an ongoing detrimental activity is occurring. In this instance, the no development scenario of the "no project" alternative is not likely to continue in the long term because of the existing entitlements granted to the individual parcels that comprise the development site. The existing entitlements would result in less than significant operational air quality impacts and somewhat reduced aesthetic impacts, but would result in greater biological impacts, significant noise impacts, and potentially significant growth -inducing impacts. Therefore, the "no project" alternative is not judged to be superior to the proposed project. The reduced grading alternative would be superior to the project by reducing visual impacts, but would retain similar significant and immitigable air quality and biology impacts. It is judged that of the alternatives examined that can feasibly meet the applicant's objectives while balanced against environmental effects, the west slope residential alternative (one golf course) and the equestrian/residential/golf course alternative would be superior to the project, largely because of a reduction in biological and aesthetic impacts and a resolution of some neighborhood concerns. Both of these alternatives are essentially revised project design concepts for the site. The economic feasibility of these alternatives is unknown. City of Santa Clarita 7-20 U 1J I I U 11 0 I n H P Cl i J a Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 6.0 References and Agencies Contacted 8.0 REFERENCES AND AGENCIES CONTACTED 8.1 Balogh, James C. and William J. Walker (1992). Golf Course Management & Construction: Environmental Issues. California Department of Transportation (July 1994). 1993 Traffic Volumes on California State Highways. California Department of Transportation [Caltrans] (January 1987). California Vehicle Noise Emission Levels (Final Report). Report No. FHWA/CA/TL-87/03. California Environmental, Inc. (May 1989), Preliminary Environmental Audit SE 114 Section 24, T4N, R15W San Bernardino Meridian Vicinity of Oak Spring Canyon Road, Los Angeles County, California. (� California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board [ARB] (1991, 1992, 1993). California Air Quality Data, Annual summaries of air quality data for gaseous and particulate (� pollutants. l J City of Santa Clarita (June 1991). City of Santa Clarita General Plan. P D U 0 5 lJ U I LrJ City of Santa Clarita (November 1992). Unified Development Code. Cohen, Stuart Z. (February 1990). The Cape Cod Study, Reported in Balogh and Walker, 1992. Dames and Moore (January 1990). Determination of 404 Jurisdiction Tentative 'Tract Map No. 47803 Oak Springs Canyon Los Angeles County, California. Davy & Associates, Inc. (April 1990). Acoustical Analysis Tentative Tract 34466. In Planning and Design Solutions (November 1990), Oak Springs Estates FEIR, Vol. II, Appendix E. Heter, J. C. (1995). "The Soledad Canyon Ilmenite Mine (P.W. Gillibrand Co.) San Gabriel Mountains, Southern California" in Tabilio, M. and Dupras, D.L., eds. (1995). 29th Forum on the Geology of Industrial Minerals: Proceedings, California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 110, p. 145-154, Frank Hovore & Associates (1995), Oak Springs Golf Course Tentative Tract 52004 Biological Constraints Assessment. 8-1 uny or sanra Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 8.0 References and Agencies Contacted Geo/Systems, Inc. (April 1989). Preliminary Soils and Engineering Geologic Investigation Report for Proposed Tentative Tract No. 45148 Sand Canyon at Comet Way, City of Santa Clarita, California. Gorian and Associates (March 1995). Robinson Golf Design, Inc. Geotechnical Feasibility of Proposed 36 Hole Golf Course and Residential Development Vesting Tentative Track 52004, City of Santa Clarita, California Harris, Cyril M. (1979). Handbook of Noise Control. McGraw-Hill, Inc. Independent Environmental Consultants (May 1989). Biological Resources of Tentative Tract No. 47830 Oak Springs Canyon Road, Los Angeles County, California. Institute of Transportation Engineers (1991). Trip Generation. Fifth Edition. Institute of Transportation Engineers (1988). Transportation and Land Development. Joseph, S.E., R.V, Miller, S.S. Tan, and R.W. Goodman (1987). Mineral Land Classification of the Greater Los Angeles Area: Classification of Sand and Gravel Resource Areas, Saugus -Newhall Production -Consumption Region and Palmdale Production -Consumption Region. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 143, Part V. L. Newman Design Group, Inc. & Frank Hovore & Associates (March 9, 1995)., Draft Oak Springs Golf Course Native Revegetation & Monitoring Plan, Tentative Tract No. 52004, Santa Clarita, California. Prepared for Robinson Golf Design, Inc. National Research Council (1994). Highway Capacity Manual. Transportation Research Special Report 209. Planning and Design Solutions (November 13, 1990). Final Environmental Impact Report for Oak Springs Estates. SCH# 89060728. Prepared for the City of Santa Clarita. Volumes I and 11. Skiand Engineering Associates (May 1995). Hydrology Study for Tract No. 52004. South Coast Air Quality Management District (November 1993). CEQA Air Quality Handbook. South Coast Air Quality Management District (January 1994). Mobile Assessment for Air Quality Impacts, MAAQI Computer Program, Version 1.00. Sub Surface Surveys (May 1995). Groundwater Investigation, Hunters Green. L.J D [) H n n U D 8.2 l 1 City of Santa Clarita I I L1 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR (j Section 8.0 References and Agencies Contacted {� Tetra Tech, Inc. (September 1991). Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Gillibrand Soledad Canyon Mining Operations, Angeles National Forest, California. Prepared for the U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Angeles National Forest. Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences (1980). Interim Materials on Highway Capacity. Transportation Circular #212. L' � U.S. Department of Agriculture ,Soil Conservation Service (1470). Soil Survey Antelope Ya1leyArea California.. United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines (1994). 1993 Minerals Yearbook. Volume 1 Annual Report and Volume II: Area Reports: Domestic 1993-1994_ l United States Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA] (1985). Compilation of Air Pollutant CEmission Factors. EPA AP -42. Supplements added from the EPA Bulletin Board System. i United States Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA] (December 31, 1971). Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations. PB 206 717. l United States Geological Survey (March 1978). Water -Quality Investigation Upper Santa Clara River DBasin, California. Water Resources Investigations 77-99 8.2 AGENCIESANDIVIDUALS CONTACTED Glenn Adamick, City of Santa Clarita Department of Community Development Christine Kudija, City of Santa Clarita Department of Community Development (j Chris Price, City of Santa Clarita Department of Building and Engineering Services (� Dr. James Henrickson, California State University, Los Angeles n Frank Hovore, Frank Hovore & Associates (j Dr. Lanny Lund, University of California Riverside Bill Manetta, Jr., Santa Clarita Water Company Doug Farmer, Sikand Engineering Associates Jerry Price, Sikand Engineering Associates a8.3 LIST OF PREPARERS This Environmental Impact Report was prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. under contract to the City of Santa Clarita. Christine Kudija, Environmental Coordinator and Glenn Adamick, Assistant Planner 11, were the project coordinators for the City Community Development Department. Persons involved in data gathering, analysis, project management and quality control include: 8-3 I wry or aania ulama Cl Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Section 8.0 References and Agencies Contacted ( 1 Rincon Consultants, Inc. �l Stephen Svete, AICP, Principal, Project Director (Aesthetics) Duane Vander Pluym, D. Env., Principal, Project Manager (Biology, Hydrology, Air Quality, Noise) Michael P. Gialketsis, REA, Principal L Walter Hamann, CEG, RG, Principal (Earth Resources) Bill Calabrese, Islay Hill Computer Graphics (Aesthetics) S I Penfield & Smith Engineers and Surveyors Craig Steward, P.E. (Peer Review Hydrology) Wendell Nichols, P.E., CEG (Peer Review Earth Resources) Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Kenneth Johnson, P.E. (Traffic/Circulation) Serine Ciandella (Final Report - Traffic/Circulation) ary or sanra warrra 84 J J H LJ 11 n U I I p I D iJ I I I LTJ I APPENDIX A INITIAL STUDY lJ 1. EARTH Discussion of Impacts The subject site, consisting of approximately 411 acres, is located generally east of Sand C Capon Road and worth of Live Oak Springs Canyon Road within the Sand Canyon area of the City. The site is bounded on the north, south, and west by large lot singlc family n I residential development and on the east by the Angeles National Forest. The project site is characterized by flood plains, canyons and sloping terrain. The site is presently undeveloped. Part included of the submittal package a preliminary geotechnical report. n IIJI GRADING Aceordmg to the applicant's environmental questionnaire, appraximately 240 acres of the site is expected to be graded in conjunction with the development. The applicant has indicated that grading of 2.2 million cubic yards of cut and 2.2 million cubic yards of fill is necessary to accommodate the project. The maximum depth of cut is 60', with the average depth being 10'. The maximum depth of fill is 45', with the average depth being 6'. All grading shall conform to the City s hillside Ordinance. Due to the relatively large L scale of the grading activities, additional information in the form of an environmental impact report (EIR) is required. (� Li HILLSIDES The project site includes both elevated hills and ridgelines. The site contains an identified secondary ridgeline, which would be altered by the development. Additional information, in the form of an environmental impact report, is necessary to determine conformance with the City's Hillside Ordinance. SEISMIC The project site is not located within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone established for the San Gabriel Fault. A Fault Investigation and Geological Mapping Studies has not beenconducted for the subject property. a The potential for impacts described in the above sections necessitate additional information in the form of an environmental impact report (Community Development). 2. AIR Discussion of Impacts The project will have short-term air quality impacts associated with project grading and construction. The use of machinery for grading and construction will create dust, emissions, and objectionable odors. These impacts will be alleviated, as the applicant is required to adhere to Building and Safety requirements which control the short-term, intermittent impacts related to grading and construction. Long-term impacts would be P 0 3- 4. 5. related to the automobile vehicle trips generated by the golf course, accessory facilities, and the 83 single family residences. Due to the relatively large scale of the project, further information in the form of an environmental impact report is required to assess possible long-term impacts to air quality (Community Development). _ WATER Discussion of Impacts U Two USGS intermittent "blueline" streams flow through the project site. Portions of one stream, east of the project site, may have been altered and improved by on-going mining activities within the Angeles National Forest Portions of the project site are located within floodway or floodplain areas. The project will alter the existing absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface runoff. As indicated in Section 1, more than one-half of the site will be altered by grading activities. J l.J The addition of two -18 hole golf courses and accessory structures, required parking spaces, 83 single family residences, and roadways is expected to significantly affect existing drainage patterns, possibly decrease absorption rates, and may affect the water quality of existing wells within the region. Additional information in the form of an EM is required to assess the potential impacts (Community Development). f-, PLANT LIFE i� Jj Discussion of Impacts Ll The applicant has submitted detailed biota and oak reports which evaluate project LJ impacts to the site's biotic resources. Both reports provide mitigation to project impacts. n The project site contains 982 oak trees, of which 89 are of heritage size, and also contains chaparral, scrub vegetation and grasslands. The project proposes the removal of 138 l J scrub oak trees and 130 coast live oak trees, including seven heritage oak trees. The l ) project is anticipated to significantly impact the existing condition of the site. Additional information in the form of an environmental impact report (EIR) is required to assess r) the potential impacts (Community Development). U ANIMAL LIFE _. Discussion of Impacts -I The applicant has submitted a detailed biota report which evaluates project impacts to the site's biotic resources. The report also addresses the project's effects on any wildlife movement and endangered species. The project is anticipated to significantly impact the eodstinq condition of the site. Additional information in the form of an environmental impact report is required to assess the potential impacts (Community Development), 1J 6. NOISE Li Discussion of Impacts Future construction of the facility may result in a short-term increase in ambient noise LI levels, due to the use of heavy equipment during project grading and construction. The applicant would be required to conform to applicable City codes that regulate hours of operation and permitted noise levels during development of the project. The project is U expected to incrementally increase existing noise levels due to associated increases in traffic and human activity. The site is located adjacent to an on-going mining operation located in the National Forest. Noise from this existing use may impact residences (j proposed in conjunction with the project. Additional information in the form of an environmental impact report is required to assess the potential impacts (Community Development). 7, LIGHT AND GLARE Discussion of Impacts LJ The project will create a new source of light and glare to the immediate area. The Sand Canyon area can be characterized as "rural'. The canyon is characterized by large lot single family residential and equestrian uses. Lighting proposed in conjunction with the (� project, specifically the parking lot and club house area may be more intensive than lighting typically associated with a standard residential project. Due to this potential impact, additional information in the form of and environmental impact report is required to assess potential impacts (Community Development). 8. LAND USE Discussion of Impacts nThe site is presently vacant and is zoned RVL (Residential Very Low), RE (Residential Estate), and A-1-2 (Light Agriculture - two acre minimum lot size). Portions of the property are located within the unincorporated area of Los Angeles County and are (� proposed: to be annexed into the City. f J The project does propose a total of 83 single family residential lots. The 83 lots would n be clustered on approximately 123 acres, with the remaining acreage being comprised JI of -the golf course and accessory buildings. Clustering projects have previously been approved in Sand Canyon and are permitted by the City's Unified Development Code. A total of 51 residential lots would be located on property zoned A-1-2 and located within the unincorporated area of Los Angeles County. This property is a part of the Crystal Springs development (Tract 32571), specifically lots 44 and 136, which have not been n recorded. This development included clustering of the units, with the overall lot average LJ meeting General Plan and zoning designations. In approving Tract 32571, the County required the developer to dedicate to the County the right to restrict the construction of 0 more than one residence on each lot. There are existing approved entitlements on portions of the property which aIlow for the construction of 222 single family residences, LJ - P which includes the two residences for parcels 44 and 136 of Tract 32571. Development of the project site, including the creation of 51 residential lots on lots 44 and 136, would comply with Zoning and General Pian densities in the area, as this proposal results in the construction of 140 fewer single family lots.. Based upon the density provided in the General Plan the site could accommodate $60 residential units. The applicant is proposing to create easement areas on portions of the single family lots. .As proposed, these easements would be granted to the golf course but would be included in the gross square footage of the lots to meet clustering requirements. The Citys Unified Development Code does not provide for the counting of easement areas in the gross area of a lot. Excluding the easement area, several of the proposed lots would include approximately 14,000 square feet of usable land area, or below the required one and two acre minimum lots sizes far the RVL (Residential Very Low) and RE (Residential Estate) zones. The City's General Plan does contain language encouraging the transfer of development rights to preserve significant ridgelines, oak trees and land use buffers. The site could accommodate 83 residential lots provided that the transfer of development rights on-site was permitted. Portions of the project site will remain untouched and preserved by the development in a natural state and the development rights of these areas could be transferred to other areas of the site to allow for higher densities and smaller lots. This transfer of development rights could be implemented by the adoption of a FD (Planned Development) overlay zone. The PD zone in summary is intended to accomplish the following: 1) Facilitate development of areas designated on the Zoning Map or proposed for rezoning by permitting greater flexibility and, consequently, more creative and imaginative designs for the development of such areas than generally is possible under zoning regulations; and, 2) Promote more economical and efficient use of the land while providing a harmonious variety of chnices, a higher level of amenities, and preservation of natural and scenic qualities of open spaces. 3) Ensure that development conforms to plans and exhibits submitted by the applicant_ In addition to the golf course (36 holes and accessory structures) and single family homes, the applicant is proposing to construct a 26,000 square foot clubhouse. The applicant is proposing to construct a total of 330 parking spaces for the golf course facility •• The City's Parking Code requires a minimum of 10 parking spaces per each hole plus additional parking for all other buildings excluding starter offices, comfort stations, and locker shower rooms. The clubhouse would contain a restaurant/banquet facility which would accommodate a maximum of 200 persons. The City's Unified Development Code allows for a public or private recreational facility in any of the City's zones provided that a conditional use permit is approved. The construction and operation of a golf course and 83 single family homes is considered to be compatible with the adjacent residential uses. The applicant is also buffering the proposed residences from the adjacent mining use with the golf course. U �1 �I U H I 11 r 1_ LJ H P U I n Specific noise impacts are discussed in the Noise Section of this report. L Hillside Ordinance impacts are discussed in the Aesthetic Section of this report. Numerous goals and policies of the General Plan encourage the development of golf J courses within the City. L With the inclusion of the following mitigation measures, no significant impact is anticipated (Community Development). Discussion of Mitigation Measures A conditional use permit shall be approved The condition use permit shall allow for the development of a golf course. A tentative tract map shall be approved allowing for the creation of 83 single family residential lots. The project shall include a total of 400 parking spaces. `J A PD overlay zone shall be established on the project site. 9. NATURAL RESOURCES Discussion of Impacts (� Due to the size and type of development, the project will impact water service and may LJ affect water availability. This impact may be significant and additional information in the form of an Ell; is required to assess this impact. Development of the project would result in an incremental increase in the demand for the remaining natural resources, though this impact is not anticipated to be significant (Community Development). 10. RISK OF UPSET/MAN-MADE HAZARDS Discussion of Impacts The project may result in a limited, short-term exposure to various hazardous and toxic a materials during the construction phase. Such impacts are anticipated to be of a limited nature and occurrence, and would cease after project completion. With the application. of the following mitigation measures, no significant impact is anticipated (Community Development)_ aDiscussion of Mitigation Measures a Compliance with all City codes with respect to construction procedures and the use of hazardous materials will be enforced by City Building Inspect=. D11. POPULATION P I 12. 13. Discussion of Impacts The project proposes 83 residential units and a golf course (36 holes). The City's General Plan indicates that the average household size is 3.1 persons. Based on this estimate, the population proposed for the project would be approximately 270 persons. The project is anticipated to incrementally increase the residential population, though on a cumulative basis this increase is not considered to be significant. No significant impact is anticipated (Community Development). HOUSING Discussion of Impacts The proposal will provide a total of 83 residential units. The addition of 83 units in the City is not considered to be a significant impact. Puture development of the golf course would be beneficial to the residents of the City and provide a much needed recreational facility. No significant impact is anticipated (Community Development). TRANSPORTATIONICIRCULATION Discussion of Impacts The project is anticipated to create a significant number of trips on the area circulation system. The addition of these trips upon the existing area circulation system is anticipated to have a significant impact Proposed access to the project would be from Sand Canyon Road and Live Oak Springs Canyon Road. Interior roadways would be constructed within the project site. The City's Traffic Engineering Section has indicated that additional information is necessary to assess the potential project impacts, and should be included in an EIR (Community Development). II ,_J Pi 14. PUBLIC SERVICES U Discussion of Impacts Fire service is provided for by the Los Angeles County Fire Department, and the nearest station is located approximately one mile from the project site. The Fire Department will condition the prcdect to comply with all applicable standards. Police service is provided by the Las Angeles County Sheriffs Department The project will increase the demand for fire prevention and sheriff patrol services within an existing service area, though this increase is not considered to be significant. Parks and Recreation impacts are discussed in Section 19 (Recreation). Water service and usage impacts are discussed in Section 9. Additional services are not expected to be significantly impacted. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures into the project no significant impact is anticipated (Community Development). Discussion of Mitigation Measures U LJ I I LJ IJ P C U I U 15. 16. 17. is. The applicant shall comply with aU applicable regulations and fees of the affected agencies. ENERGY Discussion of Impacts An incremental increase in the use of energy will occur for purposes characteristic of single family homes and a 86 hole golf course with accessory structures. The proposal would not result in a substantial increase in the use of existing energy resources due to the availability of such resources. No significant impact is anticipated (Community Development). Discussion on Impacts Utilities and applicable public facilities are provided for via Sand Canyon Road. These utilities include gas, water, electrical, sewer and telephone. Water impacts are discussed in Section 9. Additional utilities such as gas, electrical and telephone would be extended to the site. The applicant will be required to extend services which are not currently existing, including the extension of sewer service to the site. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures into the project, no significant impact is anticipated (Community Development)_ Discussion of Mitigation Measure The applicant will be required to connect the project to the necessary systems and utilities to the satisfaction of the City Engineer - HUMAN HEALTH Discussion of Impacts The project may have short-term construction related impacts (dust, noise) on human health. These impacts are not anticipated to be significant as they will he short-term, intermittent and of a localized nature (Community Development). AESTHETICS Discussion of Impacts The project site contains an identified secondary ridgeline. The applicant is proposing to develop on this ridgeline. Graded slopes are designed at slope ratios of 2A. Graded areas and slopes may be visible to areas of Sand Canyon. Grading impacts are discussed in detail in Section 1. Additioz+al information related to conformance with the Hillside Ordinance is necessary to asspas potential aesthetic impacts. This information should be included within an EM (Community Development). ls. Discussion of Impacts The project does include the provision of a public golf course to service the residents of Santa Clarita. The project is expected to generate a population of approximately 270 persons, which on a cumulative bass, would have a significant impact upon the quality and/or quantity of parkland in the City. The project site is presently used by equestrians and pedestrians for hiking and riding activities. Additionally, the site contains several trails that provide access to the Angeles National Forest. The proposed project would result in the removal of many of these informal trails. The City's General Plan contains numerous goals and policies that require the provisions of trails on projects in the Sand Canyon area The City's Unified Development Code contains Special Standards for the Sand Canyon area. These standards include the provision of hiking and riding trails in new developments. The applicant is proposing to establish trails on the project site and is working with the Parks and Recreation Department and residents of Sand Canyon to designate the number of trails and their exact locations on the site. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, no significant impacts are anticipated (Community Development). Discussion of Mitigation Measures The applicant shall be required to pay park -in lien (QUMMY) fees. The applicant shallprovide riding and hildn trails to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks and Recreation. 20. CULTURAL RESOURCES Discussion of Impacts The site is not known to have any historical, religious, or cultural significance. A Cultural Resource Survey was prepared for the site. No significant impact is anticipated with the following mitigation measure (Community Development). Discussion of Mitigation Measure Should archeological remains be found on the site, an archeological "hold" shall be placed on the prgject until a qualified archeologist has inspected the site and determined that construction can be resumed. The project proposes grading of 2.2 million cubic yards of cut and 2.2 million cubic yards of fill, balanced on-site. The project proposes substantial alterations of an identified secondary rid line. The City has found that there is evidence before the City that the project may have a potential to adversely affect wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. E Ca E F_I iJ U I I I U C. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Section 15065 of the California Environmental Quality Act states, in part, that if any of the following can be answered yes or maybe, the project may have a significant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact Report shall be prepared. YES MAYBE NO P— 1. Does the project have the potential to degrade the C� quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild- life population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? fXJ [ J [ J 2. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which 1 occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long -terra impacts will endure well into the future. [ 7 [ 7 DO P— 3_ Does the project have impacts which are individually limited C� but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) [ 7 [XI [ j 4. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? [ ] QiJ [ J D. DETERMINATION On the basis of this Initial Study, it is determined that: The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and i a NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. [ J Although the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, (i there VML NOT be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures �J described in this Initial Study bave been added to .the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED., [ 7 The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [XJ P— COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CI'T'Y OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA Prepared By: Gleam Adasck, Assistant Planner 9-2-1— C( (Signature) (Date) Re ' by: a - Fred Fo is ad- Aare iA e Planner :lignature) (Date) Ln t\395049-gen L� C j I I u L ,l I I APPENDIX S NOTICE OF PREPARATION, RESPONSES TO NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND u SCOPING MEETING MATERIALS AND COMMENTS I n I E D L I I C I E I L' J P El I11 I n I 0 NOTICE OF PREPARATION City of Santa Clarity Department of Community Development M* 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355.. .. (805)255.4330 TO: SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report The City of Santa Clarlta will be the lead agency and will prepare an Environmental Impact Report for the project identified below. We need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental Information which Is germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities In connection with the proposed project. Your agency will need to use the EIR prepared by our agency when considering your permit or other approval for the project. The project description, location, and the probable environmental effects are contained in the attached materials. A copy of the Initial Study Is attached. Due to the time limits mandated by State taw, your response must be sent at the earliest possible dale, but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. Please send your response to Glenn Adamick, Assistant Planner 11 at the address shown above. We would appreciate the name of a contact person In your agency. Project Title: Hunter's Green Development and Golf Course Project Applicant: Hunter's Green Development Corporation Date: April 17, 1995 Signature: Title: Assistant Planner 11 Telephone: (805) 255.4330 Reference: California Administrative Code, Title 14, Sections 15082(8), 15103, 15375. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION 23920 VALENCIA BOULEVARD SANTA CLARITA, CA 91355 PROJECT SUMMARY: Hunter's Green Development and Golf Course, MC 95-032 (TTM 52004, CUP 95.003, OTP 95-009, HR 95-002, DA 95-001, DR 95- 004, PZ 95-001, AN 95.001) Tentative Tract Map, Conditional Use Permit, OakTree Permit, Hillside Review, Development Agreement, Development Review, Pre -Zone and an Annexation to allow for the development of a 420 acre property with a 36 hole golf course with accessory facilities and structures, and 87 single family residential lots. Location and Description The project site is located east of Sand Canyon Road and north of Live Oak Springs Canyon Road, within the Sand Canyon area of the City. Surrounding land uses include large lot single family residences to the north, south and west, and the Angeles National Forest to the east. There are existing approved entitlements on portions of the property which allow for the construction of 223 single family residences. Topography ranges from flat terrain to elevated hills and ridgelines. The site contains an identified significant ridgeline per the City's Hillside/Ridgeline Map. The project includes the alteration of portions of this ridgeline. A total of 982 oak trees exist on-sRe. Eighty-nine of these trees are classified as heritage oak trees. The site contains two intermittent "blueline" streams. (See initial study, development plan and attachments for more detailed site information.) Characteristics The project proposes the development of a 420 acre site with a 36 hole golf course, clubhouse, driving range, roadways; parking and 87 single family residential lots. Grading of 2.2 million cubic yards of cut and 2.2 million cubic yards of fill is included within the applicant's proposal. Proposed access to the site would be from Sand Canyon Road and Live Oak Springs Canyon Road. Both public and private streets would service the projectThe applicant is proposing to remove 138 scrub oak trees, and 130 coast live oak trees, including seven heritage oak trees. Probable Environmental Issues Based on the Initial Study prepared for this proposal, project development may have a significant impact on the environment (See Environmental Assessment, Form B). Areas and issues of potential impact requiring study in the focused environmental impact report (EIR) include, but may not be limited to, the following: 1) Geology, Soils, Landform, Hillside Development, Seismicity, Grading 2) Hydrology, Drainage, Water E I LJ L L I L I 3) Alr Quality 4) Biology (Flora and Fauna) C5) Transportation/Circulation The focused EIR shall address such topical requirements as the potential short- and long-term effects of the project on the environment, direct and indirect growth -inducing impacts, and f' cumulative impacts associated with project implementation. Appropriate mitigation measures (� and/or project modifications will be discussed and proposed, as applicable, to reduce identified impacts to a level of insignificance. A mitigation monitoring program will also be developed, as r required. The applicant has prepared several technical reports related to the project. Copies of these reports can be obtained at this office. Please review these reports for potential use in the (1 Environmental impact Report. All oak tree information will be provided under separate consultant J and will be verified by the City's Oak Tree Consultant. wvmNgaJxs.gH I _f P 0 P 0 H P I STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME RETP WILSON, Goro 9 j 330. GOLDEN SHORE, SUITESO LONG BEACH, CA 9WO2 (310) 590-5113 C Ell May 5, 1995 !4 ill Y 9 1993 Mr. Glenn Adamick City of Santa Clarita " �J Department of Community Development 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, California 91355 U Dear Mr. Adamick: Notice of Preparation of Draft Environmental Impact Report Hunter's Green Development Golf Course SCH $95041049, n Los Angeles County The Department of Fish and Game (Department) appreciates this opportunity to comment the Lr on above -referenced project, relative to impacts to biological resources. To enable Department staff to adequately review IJ and comment on the proposed project, we recommend the following information be the draft Environmental included in Impact Report. 1• A complete assessment of flora and fauna within and adjacent to the project area, with particular emphasis upon identifying endangered, threatened, .and locally. unique species and sensitive habitats. a• A thorough assessment of rare plants and rare natural communities, following the Department's f May 1984 Guidelines for Assessing Impacts to Rare Plants and Rare Natural Communities (Attachment 1). b• A complete assessment of sensitive fish, wildlife, reptile, and amphibian species. Seasonal variations in use of the project area should also be addressed. Focused species-specific surveys, conducted at the apprriae time sensitiveto speciesareeactive ormotherwiseWidentifiable, are required. Acceptable species-specific survey procedures should be developed in consultation with the Department and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. j1 C. Rare, threatened, and endangered species to be addressed should include all 'those which meet the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) definition (see CEQA Guidelines, 915380). d• The Departments California Natural Diversity Data Base in Sacramento should be r1 LJ contacted at (916) 327-5960 to obtain current information on any previously reported sensitive species and habitats, including Significant Mr. Glenn Adamick May 5, :1995 Page Two Natural Areas identified under Chapter 12 of the Fish (, and Game Code. Also, any Significant Ecological Areas 11 (SEAS) or Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs) that have been identified by the County of Los Angeles or any areas that are considered sensitive by the local jurisdiction that are located in or adjacent to the project area must be addressed. 2. A thorough discussion of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts expected to adversely affect biological resources, n with specific measures to offset such impacts. l a. CEQA Guidelines, 515125(a), direct that knowledge of L� the regional setting is critical town assessment of environmental impacts and that special emphasis should be placed on resources that are rare or unique to the region. rl b. Project impacts should also be analyzed relative to V their effects on off-site habitats and populations. Specifically, this should include nearby public lands, open space, adjacent natural habitats, and riparian 11 ecosystems. Impacts to and maintenance of wildlife 1 corridor/movement areas, including access to undisturbed habitat in adjacent areas, should be fully aevaluated and provided. C. A cumulative effects analysis should be developed as described CEQA Guidelines, §15130., General, and specific plans, as well as past, present, and anticipated future projects, should be analyzed relative to their impacts on similar plant communities and wildlife habitats. LS 3• A range of alternatives should be analyzed to ensure that alternatives to the proposed project are fully considered and evaluated. A range of alternatives which avoid or otherwise minimize impacts to sensitive biological resources should be included. Specific alternative locations should also be evaluated in areas with lower resource sensitivity where appropriate. lJ a. Mitigation measures for project impacts to sensitive l� plants, animals, and habitats should emphasize evaluation and selection of alternatives which avoid or a otherwise minimize project impacts. Off-site compensation for unavoidable impacts through acquisition and protection of high quality habitat elsewhere should be addressed. U Mr. Glenn Adamick L May 5, 1995 Page Three t b. The Department considers Rare Natural Communities as r threatened habitats having both regional and local !I significance. Thus, these communities should be fully avoided and otherwise protected from project -related impacts (Attachment 2). ( C. The Department generally does not support the use of 11 relocation, salvage, and/or transplantation as mitigation for impacts to rare, threatened, or endangered species. Department studies have shown that these efforts are experimental in nature and .largely r1 unsuccessful. 4. If the project has the potential to adversely affect speciesl Of plants or animals listed under the California Endangered Ll Species Act (CESA), either during construction or over the life of the project, a CESA-Memorandum of Understanding (CESA-MOU) must be obtained under 52081 of the Fish and Game Code. CESA-MOD's are issued to conserve, protect, enhance, and restore State -listed threatened or endangered species and their habitats. Early consultation is encouraged, as ( significant modifications to a project and .mitigation l� measures may be required in order to obtain a CESA-MOU. a• Biological mitigation proposals should be of sufficient LJ detail and resolution to satisfy the requirements for a CESA-MOU. b• A Department -approved Mitigation Agreement and �> Mitigation Plan are required for plants listed as rare under the Native Plant Protection Act. 5. The Department opposes the elimination of watercourses and/or their channelization or conversion to subsurface drains. All wetlands and watercourses, whether intermittent or perennial, must be retained and provided with substantial setbacks which preserve the riparian and aquatic habitat values and maintain their value to on-site and off-site wildlife populations. a. The Department has direct authority under Fish and Game I Code §1600 et. seq. in regard to any proposed activity L� which would divert, obstruct, or affect the natural flow or change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake. Departmental jurisdiction under 91600 C� et. seq. .applies to all lands within the 100 -year floodplain. Early consultation is recommended, since modification of the proposed project may be required to avoid or reduce impacts to fish and wildlife resources. FI ff- Mr. Glenn Adamick May 5, 1995 aPage Four b. A discussion of potential adverse impacts from any increased runoff, sedimentation, soil erosion, and/or urban pollutants on streams and watercourses on or near the project site, with mitigation measures proposed to alleviate such impacts, must be included. Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment. Questions regarding this letter and further coordination on these a issues should be directed to Ms. Chanelle Davis, Wildlife Biologist, at (909) 627-1613. Sincerely, Patricia Wolf Acting Regional Manager Regibn 5 Attachments cc: Ms. Chanelle Davis Department of Fish and Game l Chino Hills, California �J Ms. Mary Meyer Department of Fish and Game Ojai, California U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Carlsbad, California U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles, California U.S. Environmental Protection Agency San Francisco, California State Clearinghouse Sacramento, California I n P State of California THE RESOURCES AGENCY Department of Fish and Game May 4, 1984 GUIDELINES FOR ASSESSING THE EFFECTS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS ON RARE AND ENDANGERED PLANTS AND PLANT COMMUNITIES The following recommendations are intended to help those who prepare and review environmental documents determine when a botanical survey is needed, who should be considered qualified to conduct such surveys, how field surveys should be conducted and what information should be contained in the survey report. 1. Botanical surveys that are conducted to determine the environmental effects of a proposed development should be directed to all rare and endangered plants and plant communities. Rare and endangered plants are not necessarily limited to those species which have been 'listed" by state and federal agencies but should include any species that, based on all available data, can be shown to be rare and/or endangered under the following definitions. A species, subspecies or variety of plant is 'endangered' when the prospects of its survival and reproduction are in immediate jeopardy from one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, over exploitation, predation, competition or disease. A plant is "rare" when, although not presently threatened with extinction, the species, subspecies or variety is found in such small numbers throughout its range that it may be endangered if its environment worsens. Rare plant communities are those communities that are of highly limited distribution. These communities may or may not contain rare or endangered species. The most current version of the California Natural Diversity Data Base's Outline of Terrestrial Communities in California may be used as a guide to the names of communities. 2. It is appropriate to conduct a botanical field survey to determine if, or the extent that, rare plants will be affected by a proposed project when: a. Based on an initial biological assessment, it appears that the project may damage potential rare plant habitat; b. Rare plants have historically been identified on the project site, but adequate information for impact assessment is lacking; or C. No initial biological assessment has been conducted and it is unknown whether or not rare plants or their habitat exist on the site. 3. Botanical consultants should be selected on the basis of possession of the following qualifications (in order of importance): a. Experience as a botanical field investigator with experience in field sampling design and field methods; b, Taxonomic experience and a knowledge of plant ecology; C. Familiarity with the plants of the area, including rare species; and d. Familiarity with the appropriate state and federal statutes related to rare plants and plant collecting. 4. Field surveys should be conducted in a manner that will locate any rare or endangered species that may be present. Specifically, rare or endangered plant surveys should be; a. Conducted at the proper time of year when rare or endangered species are both 'evident' and identifiable. Field surveys should be scheduled it to coincide with known flowering periods, and/or (2) during periods of phenological development that are necessary to identify the plant species of concern. CI L F LJ u P II P 1J ff� l.� L P b ono the occurarence ofr rhabitat os otherphysicalfeaturest atherhe cthannactual ce of rf eld iare nspection) sped on) basedecies should be reserved for ecological studies, not for impact assessment. Every species noted in the field should be identified to the extent necessary to determine whether it is rare or endangered. vation ons of e or C. suspected rare species r that is consistent (voucher apecimens)Itshould be made only swhen llsuch actions rwould not jeopardize the continued existence of the population and in accordance with applicable state and federal permit regulations. Voucher specimens should be deposited at recognized public herbaria for future reference. Photography should be used to document plant identification and habitat whenever possible, but especially when the population cannot withstand collection of voucher specimens. d Conducteusing systematic y field l iall habitats of the site to ensure a reasonablyblthorough coveragef potential areas. e. Well documented. When .a rare or endangered plant (or rare plant community) is located, a sCaliforia Native houldnbe completed end submitted t the Naes (or Cmmunity) Fietequivalent nt written form ural Diversity Basee 5. Reports of botanical field surveys should be included in or with environmental assessments, negative declarations, EIR's and EIS's, and should contain the following information: a. Project description, including a detailed map of the project location and study area.. b. A written description of biological setting referencing the community nomenclature used and a vegetation map,. c„ Detailed description of survey methodology. d. Dates of field surveys. e. Results of survey (including detailed maps). Uf. An assessment of potential impacts. El. Discussion of the importance of rare plant populations with consideration of nearby fl populations and total species distribution, n I P R h. Recommended mitigation measures to reduce or avoid impacts. i. List of all species identified. j. Copies of all California Native Species Field Survey Forms or Natural Community Field Survey Forms. k. Name of field investigator Is) • ), acted, herbaria visited, and disposition of voucher References cited, persons cont specimens. 2 U ATTACHMENT 2 Sensitivity of Top Priority Rare Natural Communities in Southern California* Sensitivity rankings are determined by the Department of Fish and Game, California Natural Diversity Data Base and based on either number of known occurrences (locations) and/or amount of habitat remaining (acreage). The three rankings used for these top priority rare natural communities are as follows: S1.- Less than 6.known locations and/or on less than 2,000 acres of habitat remaining (j S2.- Occurs in 6-20 known locations and/or 2,000-10,000 acres of habitat remaining S3.- Occurs in 21-100 known locations and/or 10,000-50,000 acres of habitat remaining the refers to The number to the right of the decimal point after ranking the degree of threat posed to that natural community regardless of the ranking. For example: 51.E - veru threatened �J S2.2 - threatened S3.2 - no current threats known Rank S1.1 Sensitivity Rankings (February 1992) Community Name Mojave Riparian Forest Sonoran Cottonwood Willow Riparian Mesquite Bosque Elephant Tree Woodland Crucifixion Thorn Woodland Allthorn Woodland Arizonan Woodland Southern California Walnut Forest Mainland Cherry Forest Southern Bishop Pine Forest Torrey Pine Forest Desert Mountain White Fir Forest Southern Dune Scrub li Southern Coastal Bluff Scrub 11 Maritime Succulent Scrub Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage ScrubF Southern Maritime Chaparral Valley Needlegrass Grassland Great Basin Grassland n Mojave Desert Grassland Uf Pebble Plains Southern Sedge Bog Cismontane'Alkali Marsh _ L1 P L St 2 Southern Foredunes Mono Pumice Flat Southern Interior -2- Sensitivity Ranxinas (Cont.) community Name Basalt F1. Vernal Pool SiJ1 Venturan.Coastal Sage Scrub Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Riversidean Upland Coastal Sage Scrub Riversidean Desert Sage Scrub Sagebrush Steppe �J Desert Sink Scrub L Mafic Southern Mixed.Chaparrel San Diego Mesa Hardpan Vernal P. (� San Diego Mesa Claypan Vernal P. �) Alkali Meadow Southern Coastal Salt Marsh n Coastal Brackish Marsh 11 Transmontane Alkali Marsh Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh S. Arroya Willow Riparian Forest Southern Willow Scrub Modoc-G.Bas. Cottonwood Willow Rip. Modoc-Great Basin Riparian Scrub Mojave Desert Wash Scrub Engelmann Oak Woodland open Engelmann Oak Woodland Closed Engelmann Oak Woodland Island Oak woodland California Walnut Woodland Island Ironwood Forest Island Cherry Forest S. Interior Cypress Forest Bigcone spruce -Canyon Oak Forest E S2.2 Active Coastal Dunes �! Active Desert Dunes Stab. and Part. Stab. Desert Dunes Stab. and Part. Stab. Desert Sandfield a Mojave Mixed Steppe Transmontane Freshwater Marsh Coulter Pine Forest S. California Fellfield White Mountains Fellfield S2.3 Bristlecone Pine Forest aLimber Pine Forest I U i ELEMENT RANKING_ ...........................................................................••..... "One ...... (1 - CLOSAL RAHXINO TM pbpo(rasa IG•lanki IS e nMolien Of W Overall eordidon at On element Wwgheut he gla►af rollers. , SPECIES LVM .-- Cl w Lor than i viable E0. OR less than 1000 individuals OR loo than 2000 •eras. C2w 6.20 E0. OR 1000-3000 indiddbals OR 21>0010.000 Ogres. - 1 C3 w 21.100 Eos OR 3000-10.000 WIviduala OR 10.000.50.0 X7 Ogres ... caw Apparantiy $acute: this ran► Is dolly lower then G3 but facials Geist to cause some Concern: I.S. there is GPM. Nraat, or somewhat narrow habitat. CS. r•pwletien demenotrably %movie to ineradicable dye to being tamrtwNy found in the world. SUSS►EC199 LEVEL - G Subspecies receive a T+anl attached to the 0 -rank. With the wbop Ries, the G•tank WIWI the COnd'") of the entire saec;ar. whtross the T•rahk reflects the global Wtvsti•n of just the lubroering. For sesmpto: CAod sllthe ro0uete vv.Aa.rwapx. This plant Is ranked 02T1. The Gran► refor$ la the wh•lo spacing range of CAof!roArA1 n•susla. The T•rsnk reform Only to global labd cordiuen of vu. Aafrrapri. •loba••.••....•..•••••••..••.•.....••.••••.•••••.•..•••••....••••••..••.•...•.•••.•••.••••.. r1 LJ STATE RANXW G t TM arere rens is auipned mueA the same urea as NO global lantc, $aopt atata lank. In CaLferria /hen Oise tannin a Mrret number attached to the S•rank. Loo then 1103 OR Iso than 1000 individuals OR lots than 2000 Ocras $1.1 w very threatened ; $1.2 w tivenenod 91.3 w M current threats known 6.20 E00 OR 1100D•3000 individuals OR 200010,000 ares 1 52.1 w very IMUUMd 52.2 w threatened 52.2 w no Current throats known - 21.100 E0a OR 3000.10.000 individuals OR 10.00050.000 Oars (� . 53: $3.1 w very threatened L 53.2 w threatened - S3.3 w M current threats known Sa Apparently .aura within Caffarr:a: /hie tank is clearly lower than 93 bvt factors exist to awes same eoMam: Were LJ is same threat. or somewhat narrow habitat. NO THREAT NUMSER.. - SS Oementtrably secure to Ineradicable In CalifOmia. NO THREAT NUMSER. it Maur. fr - UM•rtrnq saws 1M renk Of On element is exprato0 in OWr sym►Na: l tura major ways: been 9y expressing the lank as • sense Of valves: LO. OH AS sites are Walookat- the Wwwat hes r mut au lan► is s•rMthmg Mneraeh9S son Ar at lost Tests but odta►h 9293 means the N• Asurlcdl. 11 I a {Gist/ ISIS • AN C6lerria vital 009 53. CX Al Silas are astirpngod: this alnmeal N osyMt in W will 1SX • AN California sits. re soirpolot0'-. By Oddins O'1' t• the rank: voish. ' Le. $21 Tons prsoant• mo/emity then OXC Extinct in W will; Ouata M a.%dn N • taeo&on a lann 01lo 0 The element very tan.lwt W 1f SM. tiveI"A associated Orith R. t P , [ J NI)DS nn corrvrunhiss R•5 Feb.1992 Page 1 Top Prlortty Rue Natural-Communfllee GFrom Region Five L Coda wribsr L taros' Few Am=ft NVIS S1.1 Rank: L21330 Cis Southam Duna Snub Cis Southam Coastal buff Scrub 31200 Cis Maritime Succulent Scrub (j 32rD0 nvarsidsan Alluvial Fan Sage Saab f 32720 Gs Cis Y Southam Maritime Chaparral 37= Cis Vasey Neadlaprass Grassland 42110 Des Y Great Basin Grassland L43000 l Das Y MojaveDo" nGrassland a3777 Cis Pebble Plains. 47000 05 Y Sounem Sedge Sop 51177 Cis CiamORLM Miceli Manch 52310 Das Mojave Riparian Forest 61700 Das Sonoran Cottonwood WJbw Ripaifarl F61620 61510 Das Mesqults Sosque Elephant Tree Woodland 75100 Das Des Y Y Crucirmion Thom Woodland 75200 Y Altmom Woodland 7� pt V Arizonan Woodland If Gs Southern California Walnut Forest 61600 Cis Y Mainland Cherry Forest 61620 Ca Y Southern Bishop Pine Forest 63122 Cis Torrey Pine Forest 63140 Des Y Desert Mountain White Fr Forest 65330 S 1.2 Ra 21230 Cis Southam Foredurres 35410 44310 Des Cis Mono Retia Flat Soushern Interior Basalt Fl. Vernal Pool S2.1 Rank: 32300 Cis Y Venturan Coastal Saps Scrub Scrub Ca Di#pan Coastal Sage 32500 Cis Y Mysmidian Upland Coastal Sapa Ser. 32710 32730 Ca Y Mversidnn Dean Sage Scrub Des Y Sagetinuh Steppe _ Des Y Desert Sink Scrub 36120 on Y Mafic Southam Mired Chaparral n 37122 earn Diego Masa Hardpan Vernal P l , 4=1 cis San Diego Mea Claypan Vernal P. . 44322 Cis Des Aksi Meadow 4531 D Ca South" Coastal Salt Marsh 62120 CIS Coastal Brackish Marsh 92320 Des ymna tbrdarre Aksk Marsh 62410 (j 4 Wdad as rimer as Dor asmontara) or des Oar 000&M NMS rare f»rrmrnW& AS Feb. 1992 L Pete 2 Ckab NmWr Loa WMI Few Rradc Nen fsi4lc 61320 Cs Cossur and quay Freshwater WM Cts S. ArroyoWaow Kpanan Forest 93320cis !1610 pee I Southern WJIow Scrub 11Aodot-0 Bas Cottonwood Yiriuow kV. 63600 es Y Modot-Great Basin Kparian S"93700 71100 D f 4100re Desert Wash Soub U 71101 Cis Y Engelmann Oak Woodland 71102 Cis Y Open Engelmann Oak Woodland 71190 Gs Y Cbsed Engelmann Oak Woodland 71210 Cis Cit Y Island Oak Woodland 01700 Cis Y California Walnut Woodland 01010 CIS krand Ironwood Forest 03230 Cis krand Cherry Format S. Interior Cypress Forest 64160 Cis Y 62xne 6trute-Canyon Oak Forest 922 Ranks LLLIII 21100 Cis Y Attire Coectal pyres 22100 Des Attire Desen ares f l 22200 22300 Des Sub. and Part. Sub. Desert Dues l J 34220 Das Y Sub and Part Stab. Desen Sandbeld 02420 Des Des Y Mojave Mixed Steppe Y Tmnsrrontana Freshwater Marsh 04140 Ca Y Coulon Pve Forest 91130 Cis Y S Wifo4lia Feuheld 01140 Des Y White Mount" Feltfield � 92.3 Rank. 66400 Des lldsus=ms Pine Forest 06700 Des Y Lenber Pro Forest, w sodded as archer as (for damontane) or des (for d"on) U n f1STATE OF CALIFORNIA—IUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY BETE WILSON, Gp.w.gr `J DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 7, 120 SO. SPRING ST. (j LOS ANGELES, CA 90012-3604 II JI May 19, 1995 eZi E C E i V E D IGR/CEQA/NOP (� City of Santa Clarita lJ MaY 2 21995 HUNTER'S GREEN DEVELOPMENT �pMNI.Hi :rac ui>M [+I AND GOLF COURSE Cpr OF SANTA CI AN IT A Vic. LA -14-33.42 SCH# 95041049 Mr. Glenn Adamick, Assistant Planner II City of Santa Clarita UDepartment of Community Development 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 l Santa Clarita, CA 91355 C; Dear Mr. Adamick: Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the above -referenced Hunter's Green Development and Golf Course. The project proposes the development of a 420 acre site with a 36 {� hole golf course, clubhouse, driving range, roadways, parking and �J 87 single family residential lots. Based on the information received, we have the following comments: aTo assist us in our efforts to completely evaluate and assess the impacts of this project on the State Transportation System, a Traffic Study should be prepared to analyze the following (� information: Il 1. Assumptions used to develop trip generation/distribution including the method and assumptions used to develop the (� percentages and assignment. �J 2. ADT, AM and PM peak -hour volumes for both the existing and C future (Year 2015) conditions. This should include the Antelope Valley Freeway (SR -14), and affected ramps, streets, crossroads and controlling intersections, as well as an analysis of existing and future conditions on mainline freeway. 3. An analysis of future (Year 2015) conditions which include project traffic and the cumulative traffic generated for all approved developments in the area. 4. Discussion of mitigation measures appropriate to alleviate anticipated traffic impacts. These discussions should include, but not be limited to, the following: * financing * scheduling considerations * implementation responsibilities * monitoring plan 5. I.C.U. and level of service (LOS) analysis for affected freeway ramp intersections on the State Highway indica- ting existing + project LOS, and existing + project + other (� projects LOS (Existing and Future). Mr. Adamick May 19,1995 Page Two 6. Developer's percent share of the cost, as well as a plan of realistic mitigation measures under the control of the developer should be addressed. What this means is that any assessment fees for mitigation should be of such proportion as to not only cover local impacts but should be extended to cover mainline freeway deficiencies that occur as a result of the additional traffic generated by the project. Any transportation related mitigation measures or work such as signalization, grading, widening, drainage, or freeway mainline or ramp improvements etc., which involve State right-of-way will require a Caltrans Encroachment Permit. Any measures thatexceeds $300,000.00 in cost will also require a Caltrans Project Study Report (PSR). Any transport of heavy construction equipment which requires the use of oversize transport vehicles on State Freeways/Highways will require a Caltrans transportation permit. We recommend that large size trucks that are transporting construction materials or equipment be limited to off-peak commute periods. We look forward to reviewing the DEIR. We expect to receive a copy from the State Clearinghouse. However, to expedite the review process, you may send two copies in advance to the undersigned at the following address. Wilford Melton District 7 IGR\CEQA Coordinator Office of Advance Planning 4-11G 120 So. Spring Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Thank you for this opportunity to comment. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please call me at (213) 897- 1338. ow Sincerely, WILFORD MELTON Senior Transportation Planner IGR\CEQA Coordinator Office of Advance Planning cc: Mr. Mark Goss State Clearinghouse 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 U LI Il J 11 nh\4062 11 1 ttGE7 POS l SLATE OF GINpRNIA_{Ny,ROwtENTwI ►tOTECt10N ACENh CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD LOS ANGELES REGION 101 erNTRt PLAU Deur MONTEREY ►ARR, CA 91)3,.2176 (711) 1A 75m L rAL. (213) 2647"0 May 23. 1995 City of Santa Clarity Dept. of Community Development �j 23920 Valencia Blvd., Ste. 300 J Santa Clarita, CA. 91355 Attn_ Glean Adarnick -- Subject: NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT ENVIRON MENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE HUNTER'S GREEN DEVELOPMENT AND GOLF COURSE J We have reviewed the subject document regarding the proposed Clproject should address the attached comments. project and we feel that the In addition, it should be noted that construction of large subdivisions such as the proposed project create significant areas of impervious surfaces. The creation of these impervious Surfaces increases the potential for downstream flooding and negative impacts on water quality. Such consequences typically result in a call for increased flood i control. measures by downstream landowners, the provision of which further hardens pnhficloo tints l can res by (i degrade natural habitats and affect water quality. Therefore, approvals of such projects need c ii[ conditioned u the provision of structural and/or nonstructural measures necessary to retain this excess rurtuff un site. Thank You the li contact KirbyrMcClellan at (213)266'7655ormyseOpportunity to revew lf at(213)2667549 docaye ument. 4ueSlw7u, please De*j.mith.ef Regional Programs Attachments j� ca Governor's Office of Planning LJ and Research P nnY-3a-'Q5 09; 34 ID: CR00CE -Ln REGION I i TEL N0::!13-ZGG-7600 a9ez P02 - i i SOIL EROSION CONCERNS: 13'a. Every precaution should be taken to prevent water quality impacts resulting from soil erosion and increased surface runoff, especially during grading and construction j activities, i 13'6. We encourage the development of a comprehensive Nonpoint Source Management r` These HYNNs could he submitted ac part of a Stotmwater Pollution Prevention Plan LJ with appropriate structural and nonstructural Best Management Practices (BMPs). These BMPs could be submitted as pan of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan rt (SWPPP) for the proposed project. LI fd c. Based on the information provided, the project site is in an arca potentially subject to high erosion and high mud flows resulting in sedimentation problems. Development L of the site may result in additional impermeable surfaces, which could intensify storm water runoff and accelerate soil erosion. The project proponents should address additional erosion control measures specifically geared to minimize this -- f Iz tendency for high erosion in the project area: l -J Mood, In any con.ctructinn project that totals more than five oasts, it is necessary to file a Notice of Intent to be covered under the State Board's "Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction Activity" (General Permit No. CAS000002). To receive additional information on requirements for sturrnwatcr discharges and NPDES related matters, please contact �] Mark Puntford at (213)266-7596 at this Regional Board. U D n F1 H LJ r I I I C LJ L E C� I I I C Mf1y-114-!95._09:34 ID:CRuOCE - Ln REGION TEL t10:213 -Z!66-7600 #902 P03 BEENEFICIAL USE IMPACTS AND WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION: Ya. All waterbodies in the project site arca (both surface and groundwater) that may be impacted by the proposed activity, should be clearly identified. A detailod site map showing the project location in relation to nearby waterbodies should be included. l/b. Any potential adverse imparts to the desgnattxl henefictal wiles of these waterbodies should he discussed. Discussion of appropriate mitigation measures, such ac Rest Management Practices (BMPs) designed to protect these beneficial uses should be included. Project proponents must demonstrate compliance with all State and Regional Board waler quality ubicctives, beneficial uses, and the attti-dcgradaliun policy. This cuutpliatttx trust be denlonsu'ated not only flit the final ptuduct but Abu durilig the construction phase. Urc. For a complete listing of beneficial use designations and their descriptions, please refer to our Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), Los Angeles Region. To obtain a copy of the Basin Plan, please call Vilma Correa at (213) 266-7519. L I d. Any till and dredge activity, including bank stabilization, within "the waters of the U - .S." requires a Section 404 permit from the 1L S. Army Corps of hnginccm Also, when a Section 404 permit is required, project proponents will need to apply for a Section 401 Water Quality Certiflcatlon from this Regional Board. For more ittful111atiuu uu ]cyuitcutcuts fur Section 401 Water Quality Certilicatiun, please contact Lauma Jurkeyics at (213)277-7609. ❑ e. Final disposal actions (whether land based or into any watcrbody) of dredged and excavated materials has to be described in the study. The receiving land or waterbody must be identified. Prior to inland disposal of nonhazardous excavated soils (other than that retumed to the original excavated site), a general Waste Discharge Requirement (WUR) has to hr nhtainrd from this Regional Board. Please contact John Lewis at (213)266-7646 MnY-24-'95 09:35 ID:CRWGCE - Ln REGION TEL tC:233-266-7600 #922 PO4 _ {J NATURAL HABITAT CONCERNS: 13,'a. Avoidance of wetland and riparian habitats is the prcfcncd alternative to limit impacts to water quality and protection of designated beneficial uses. When bank and/or instream projects are proposed, the hydrology of the area changes and can result in further degradation of regional waters. M7 ' The project study should clearly identify and characreri7e the extent of the existing n L1 riparian zone or wetlands on site and any loss of riparian or wetland habitat, which wuuld result froth the prupuscd activity. ���� C3"c. Please address immediate and long -tents impacts tosultink Crum the pruposed scream modifications on the riparianhvctland vegetation and the hydrology of the waterbudy (ies) Likely to be impacted by the proposed activity. ed. The project should address appropriate Best Management Practioes (BMPs) to mitigate impacts during grading and construction activities, including any vegetative restoration wnrk. We strongly "courage planting of native vegetation. ❑ e, The proposed project is located in a sensitive ecological area or an area designated as a unique ccolukical habitat (habitat supporting unique species of plants and animals). J Therefotc, the ptujcct study shuuld discuss in detail. steps taken to avoid or mitigate adverse impacts (such as prutectiun measures to safeguard flora and fauna, buffer 1 zones, habitat restoration, etc). Please consult wit11 the State Dcpartment of Fish and �f Game before implementing these measures. O f. Prior to any discharge of groundwater to surface waters as a result of any dewatering activities that may occur during construction, you will need to contact Josh Workman at (213)266-7615 to obtain a general permit for such discharges. D E LI I 2 LOS ANGELES COUNTY C0 � 199 . LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION EApril 20, 1995 GGlenn Adamick, Assistant Planner II City of Santa Clarita Department of Community Development 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE. Hunter's Green Development Notice of Preparation Dear Mr. Adamick: THOMAS E. JACKSON CHAIRMAN HAL BERNSON YVONNE BRATHWAITE BURKE LARRY CONNELLY DEANE DANA JAMES DIGIUSEPPE HENRI F. PELLISSIER WILLIAM WENTWORTH WRY H. WERNER ALTERNATE MEMBERS RICHARD ALATORRE LARRY J. CALEMINE KENNETH I. CHAPPELL CRISTINACRUZ-MADRID GLORIA MOLINA LYNNE PLAMBECK STAFF JAMES J. COLANGELO EXECUTIVE OFFICER JUNE D. SAVALA ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT LJ The project to be analyzed by your draft EIR will require an amendment to the City's Sphere of Influence and approval of an annexation to the City. In order for LAFCO to utilize the EIR for our discretionary actions, the document must address the factors listed in Section 56841 of the j� California Government Code, and the determinations required by Section 56425. Copies of both L Sections are attached. �lThank you for the opportunity to comment on the scope of this document. We look forward to l 1 reviewing the draft EIR. Please do not hesitate to contact me i£you have any questions. I� Sincerely, t . Colangeve Offic L.J D 11 a L500 WEST TEMPLE STREET, ROOM 383. LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90012 J [213] 974-1448 • FAX (213] 617-2201 I u Factors to be considered 56841. Factors to be considered in the --� in review of proposal review of a proposal shall include, but not (� be limited to, all of the following: (a) Population, population density; land .area and land use;. per capita assessed valuation; topography, natural boundaries, and drainage basins; proximity to other populated areas; the likelihood of significant growth in (� the area, and in adjacent incorporated and ..lJ unincorporated areas, during the next 10 years. (b) Need for orcanized community services; the present cost and adequacy of governmental services and controls in. the area; probable future needs for =hose services and controls; probable effect of the proposed incorporation; formation, annexation, or exclusion and of alternative courses of action on the cost and adequacy of services and controls in the area (, and adjacent areas. `f "Services," as -:sed in this subdivision, refers to govern.=ntal services whether or r.or. the services are services which would be ILI provided by local agencies subject to this division, and incudes the public facilities n necessary to prov:_de those services. (c) The effect cf the proposed action and of alternative actions, on adjacent areas, on mutual social and economic interests, and on the local governmental structure of the county. (d) The conform_ty of both the proposal and its anticipated e..ectswith both the adopted comm'_ssion policies on providing planned, orderly, efficien_ patterns of urban development, and the policies and priorities set forth in Section 56377.. (e) The effect ofthe proposal on maintaining the physical and economic �] integrity of agricultural lands, as defined by L1 Section 56016. (f) The definiteness and certainty of the boundaries of the territory, the nonconformance of proposed boundaries with lines of assessment or ownership, the creation of islands or corridors of unincorporated territory, and other similar matters affecting the proposed boundaries. (g) Consistency with city or county general (� and specific plans. �J{ (h) The sphere of influence of any local agency which may be applicable to the proposal r (} being reviewed. (i) The comments of any affected local agency.' n l� L U L) I I L F E I 0 L I l� LI CHAPTER 4. SPHERES OF INFLUENCE LAFCO required to determine 56425. (a) In order to carry out its and periodically update purposes and responsi--ilities for planning spheres of influence for and shaping the logical_ and orderly each local agency and development and coordination of local make written determinations governmental agencies so as to advantageously provide for the present and future needs of the county and its communities, the commission shall develop and determine the sphere of influence of each local governmental agency within the county.. in determining the sphere of influence of each local agency, the commission shall consider and prepare a written statement of its determinations with respect to each of the following: (1) The present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open -space lands. (2i The presentand probable need for public facilities and services in the area. (3) The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services which the agency provides or is authorized to provide. (4) The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the commission determines that they are relevant to the agency., (b) Upon determination of a sphere of influence, the commission shall adopt that sphere, and shall periodically review and update the adopted sphere. (c) The commission may recommend governmental reorganizations to particular agencies in the county, using the spheres of influence as the basis for those recommendations. Those recommendations shall be made available, upon request, to other agencies or to the public. P MICHAEL FREEMAN FIRE CHIEF FORESTER & FIRE WARDEN June 20, 1995 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT 1320 NORTH EASTERN AVENUE LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90063.3294 Mr. Glenn Adamick, Assistant Planner II City of Santa Clarita Department of Community Development 23920 Valencia Blvd, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 (213) 881-2481 L 1995 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT -- (SANTA CLARITA) REVIEW OF THE NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND INITIAL STUDY FOR THE HUNTER'S GREEN DEVELOPMENT AND GOLF COURSE, CUP#95-003, OPT#95-009, TENTATIVE TRACT #52004 (EIR#253,1995) FIRE PROTECTION AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE AVAILABILITY The subject development will receive fire protection and paramedic service from the County of Los Angeles Fire Department. Fire Station 123, located at 26321 N. Sand Canyon Road, Canyon Country, CA 91351-4020, is the jurisdictional engine company for this property. PROJECT IMPACT ON SERVICES Fire protection serving the area appears to be adequate for the existing development/land use; however, limited tax revenue has created uncertainties as to whether the Fire Department will be able to continue current levels of service. Each additional development creates greater demands on existing resources. Consequently, the impact that this project will have on the adequacy of the Fire Department's level of service remains uncertain. SERVING THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND THE CITIES OF AGOURA HILLS CALABASAS GLENDORA LAKEWOOD MAYWOOD RANCHO PALOS VERDES ARTESIA CARSON HAWAIIAN GARDENS LA MIRADA NORWALK ROLLING HILLS AZUSA CERRITOS HIDDEN HILLS LANCASTER PALMDALE ROLLING HILLS ESTATES BLPARK CHUNTINGTON PARK LA PUENTE PALOS VERDES ESTATES ROSEMEAD BEELLL COMMEROMMERCEE BELLFLOWER CUDAHY INDUSTRY LAWNDALE PARAMOUNT SAN DIMAS BELL GARDENS DIAMOND BAR IRWINDALE LOMITA PICO RIVERA SANTA CLARITA BRADBURY DUARTE LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE MALIBU POMONA SIGNAL HILL I i U I n SOUTH EL MONTE- SOUTH GATE TEMPLE CITY WALNUT WEST HOLLYWOOL WESTLAKE VILLAGE. WHITTIER DISTANCE TIME EQUIPMENT MILES MINUTES STAFFING Engine 123 3,7 6.3 3 Engine 107 4.9 8.5 3 Engine 307 4.9 8.5 4 Squad 107 4.9 8.5 2 PROJECT IMPACT ON SERVICES Fire protection serving the area appears to be adequate for the existing development/land use; however, limited tax revenue has created uncertainties as to whether the Fire Department will be able to continue current levels of service. Each additional development creates greater demands on existing resources. Consequently, the impact that this project will have on the adequacy of the Fire Department's level of service remains uncertain. SERVING THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND THE CITIES OF AGOURA HILLS CALABASAS GLENDORA LAKEWOOD MAYWOOD RANCHO PALOS VERDES ARTESIA CARSON HAWAIIAN GARDENS LA MIRADA NORWALK ROLLING HILLS AZUSA CERRITOS HIDDEN HILLS LANCASTER PALMDALE ROLLING HILLS ESTATES BLPARK CHUNTINGTON PARK LA PUENTE PALOS VERDES ESTATES ROSEMEAD BEELLL COMMEROMMERCEE BELLFLOWER CUDAHY INDUSTRY LAWNDALE PARAMOUNT SAN DIMAS BELL GARDENS DIAMOND BAR IRWINDALE LOMITA PICO RIVERA SANTA CLARITA BRADBURY DUARTE LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE MALIBU POMONA SIGNAL HILL I i U I n SOUTH EL MONTE- SOUTH GATE TEMPLE CITY WALNUT WEST HOLLYWOOL WESTLAKE VILLAGE. WHITTIER h P C E Mr. Glen Adamick, Assistant Planner II June 20, 1995 Page 2 FISCAL IMPACT A development of this nature will place a greater demand on existing fire protection and paramedic resources. SERVICE RESPONSIBILITY The applicant shall participate in an appropriate financing mechanism to provide funds for fire protection facilities which are required by new commercial, industrial or residential development in an amount proportionate to the demand created by this project. The developer shall contact C the County of Los Angeles Fire Department at (213) 881-2404 to discuss mitigation arrangements. [ CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN The development of this project must comply with all applicable code and ordinance requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire flows, and fire hydrants. Fire flows of 1,250 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure for a two- hour duration will be: required. (� Final fire flow will be based on the size of the building, its relationship to other structures and �J property lines, and the type of construction used. Fire Department requirements for access, fire flow and hydrants are addressed when approval for tentative subdivision maps are considered. FORESTRY DIVISION UWe have reviewed the Notice of Preparation and Initial Study for the Hunter's Green Development located at the junction of Sand Canyon and Lost Canyon in the City of Santa Clarita. The statutory responsibilities of the Forestry Division of the County of Los Angeles Fire n Department include erosion control, watershed management, rare and endangered species, LJ vegetation, archeological and cultural resources and the County Oak Tree Ordinance. Potential impacts in these areas should be addressed in the Draft Environmental Impact Report. a d Mr. Glen Adamick, Assistant Planner II �1 June 20, 1995 Page 3 L� The following subjects should be considered by the Draft Environmental Impact Report: The Oak Tree Permit and Report, Recommended Conditions of Approval and Mitigation ` Measures should be included in the Draft Environmental Impact Report. 1 The applicant should incorporate innovative design to reduce or eliminate the impact to the oak resources. A fuel management/modification and fire hazard reduction plan should be developed and implemented prior to construction. Appropriate soil erosion control structures and vegetative cover must be provided to prevent r} erosion. Plants suited to the climate of the area should be considered including drought tolerant u (xeriphytic), species. Landscape design and construction should consider utilizing low -fuel volume and drought tolerant species. Due to the wildland fire hazard surrounding the project we do not recommend using highly t} flammable and heavy fuel volume Eucalyptus, Pines, Junipers or Cypress plant species, within 100' of any structures. n In order to limit the potential threat of wildfire, the use of native/low fuel volume plants should lJ be mandatory in the revegetative plan for this project. r� The existing vegetation may be utilized to create a fire safe environment. The fuel management lJ plan should consider shrub species such as Sumac, Toyon, Elderberry and Holly Leaf Cherry, Ll as well as tree species such as Oak, Sycamore and California Bay that can be maintained in a Ll fire safe condition, provided they are not overtopping any structure. The proposed project may contain a SEA (Significant Ecological Area). Creative environmental design to protect and preserve this sensitive area is recommended. The flora and fauna analysis should address any rare, endangered and/or sensitive species that exist on the project site. The preservation, relocation and/or construction impacting any of these species should be fully explained in the EIR. An archaeological and historical records check and field survey should be conducted to determine potential impacts to these resources and to verify your statements in the Initial Study. ll Mr. Glen Adamick, Assistant Planner II June 20, 1995 CPage 4 Areas designated as open space shall not be utilized for equipment or vehicle storage, or for access to the area of development. Such areas shall not be used for dumping of fill materials. n If you have any additional questions, please contact this office at (213) 881-2481. J Very truly yours, l' � PAUL H. RIPPENS, CHIEF, FORESTRY DIVISION GPREVENTION BUREAU PHR: bas L 1, a I C n P 1 0 Of LOS .+1 Ali • C4lli9""�� HARR1W. STONE, Dirraor June 12, 1995 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 900 SOUTH FREMONT AVENUE ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91803-1337 T.I.ph.. (918)459-5100 Mr. Glenn Adamick Assistant Planner II City of Santa Clarita Department of Community Development 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Dear Mr. Adamick: L 1 = 1995 ADDRESS ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO: P.O.BOX 1460 ALHAMBRA. CALIFORNIA 91802-1460 IN REPLY PLEAS REFERTOFILE. e-4 RESPONSE TO A NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR HUNTERS GREEN DEVELOPMENT AND GOLF COURSE Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Notice of Preparation for the proposed Hunter's Green Development and Golf Course. We have reviewed the Notice of Preparation and offer the following comments: Waste Management 1. The California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991, as amended, requires each jurisdiction to adopt an ordinance by September 1, 1994, requiring each "development project" to provide an adequate storage area for collection and removal of recyclable materials. The Negative Declaration should discuss standards to provide adequate "waste storage areas" for collection/ storage of recyclable and green waste materials for this project. 2. Current estimates indicate that a shortfall in permitted daily land disposal capacity in Los Angeles County will occur within the next few years. The proposed development will generate construction and demolition waste and will negatively impact solid waste management facilities in the County. Therefore, the proposed environmental document must identify what measures the project proponent will implement to mitigate the impact. These measures may include, but are not limited to, implementation of waste reduction, recycling and composting programs, as well as programs to divert the construction waste from the landfills. C n �J U j P H CJ Mr. Glenn Adamick June 12, 1995 (l Page 2 G3. The environmental document needs to fully asses the impact, if any, on the quality of stormwater as the result of the a project. Mitigation measures, if necessary, should be incorporated into the project. The document should reference National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit CA0061654 issued by the California Regional Water Quality C Control Board to the County and local agencies. The document should indicate compliance with all relevant stormwater quality management programs of the Federal, State, County, and local agencies. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Ms. Amita Garg of (818) 458-6570. rl Lj Traffic and Lighting C We recommend that the State of California Department of Transportation be given the opportunity to review this project for impacts on roadways under their jurisdiction. L If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact tJ Mr. Myron Tucker of our Traffic Investigations and Studies Section at (818) 458-5909. CTransportation planning Ll We agree with the City of Santa Clarita that the applicant should prepare an Environmental Impact Report. Among the topics we recommend for inclusion in the report is the circulation impact to n County highways as delineated on the County Highway Plan. L} The proposed project directly impacts Sand Canyon Road. We recommend that the City continue to retain this roadwas a major {� highway. (� If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Ms. Ravi Risam at (818) 458-4353. I P P n Mr. Glenn Adamick June 12, 1995 Page 3 If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mr. Vik Bapna at the previous page address or at (818) 458-4363. Very truly yours, HARRY W. STONE Direct gr of Public Works BRIAN T. SASAKI Assistant Deputy Director Planning Division VB:my 371 Enc. 1 W�Sif wllf! J lFR�MxlIOn n .GIC W1ETL Y.N�OEYEM COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS I1L1',I OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY 1955 Workman MITI Road, Whittler, CA 90601-1400 Mo Jing Address: PO. Box 4998,. Whittier, CA 90607.4998 CHARLES W. CARRY Telephone. (310) 699-7411, FAX: (310; 695-6139 Chfer Engineer and Genero( Manager F Mr. Glen Adamick a City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard Santa Clarita, CA 91355 ClDear Mr. Adamick: I D n U Pi I May 18, 1995 File No: 26-00.00.00 Hunter's Green Develonment and Golf Course RECEIVED MAY 2 2 1995 COMM_.: i, Vt: '' MEN i CITY JF SAV7A CLA?. iA This is in reply to your letter which was received on April 19, 1995. We offer the following comments regarding sewerage service: 1. The area in question is outside the jurisdictional boundaries of the Sanitation Districts and will require annexation into District No. 26 before sewerage service can be provided to the proposed development. For specific information regarding the annexation procedure and fees, please contact Ms. Alma Horvath at (310) 699-7411, extension 2708. 2. The wastewater flow originating from the proposed project will discharge to a local sewer line, which is not maintained by the Sanitation Districts, for conveyance to the Districts' Soledad Canyon Trunk Sewer, Section 5, located in Lost Canyon Road at the Antelope Valley Freeway. This 18 -inch diameter trunk sewer has a peak capacity of 9.1 million gallons per day (mgd) and conveyed a peak flow of 3.0 mgd when last measured in 1992. 3, The County Sanitation Districts provide sewage treatment in the Santa Clarita Valley by operating two water reclamation plants (VWs), the Saugus WRP and the Valencia WRP. These facilities have been interconnected to form a regional treatment system known as the Santa Clarita Valley Joint Sewerage System (SCVJSS). As a result of a recently completed flow equalization project, the Saugus WRP has a rated capacity of 5.6 mgd and currently treats an average flow of 7.1 mgd. All solids, and any wastewater flows which exceed the capacity of the Saugus WRP, are conveyed to the Valencia WRP for treatment. The Valencia WRP has a design capacity of 11.0 mgd and currently treats an average flow of 8.4 mgd. The current treatment capacity of the SCVJSS is 16.6 mgd (11.0 + 5.6). All future expansions of the SCVJSS wastewater treatment facilities including sludge processing will be carried out at the Valencia WRP site. A 6.0 mgd expansion of the Valencia WRP is in progress and is being constructed in two phases. Phase I is currently on-line and consists of a 3.5 mgd expansion which is expected to meet the demand for wastewater treatment through 1997, as forecasted in the Regional Comprehensive Plan. Phase II will consist of the remaining 2.5 mgd of capacity, which is scheduled to be on-line in 1998, and will be sufficient to meet the demand through 2002.. These phased expansions are planned to allow adequate lead time to design and construct the required capacity as the wastewater flow materializes. The SCVJSS will have a total capacity of 19.1 mgd after both phases are completed. [.I r� Mr. Glen Adamick 2 May 18,1995 L 4. A copy of the Districts' average wastewater generation factors is enclosed to allow you to estimate.. the volume of wastewater the project will generate. 5. The Sanitation Districts are empowered by the California Health and Safety Code to charge a fee for 4 the privilege of connecting (directly or indirectly) to the Sanitation Districts' Sewerage System or increasing the existing strength and/or quantity of wastewater attributable to a particular parcel or operation already connected This connection fee is required to construct an incremental expansion of the Sewerage System to accommodate the proposed project which will mitigate the impact of this project on the present Sewerage System. Payment of a connection fee will be required before a permit to connect to the sewer is issued. n 6. The design capacity of the Districts' wastewater treatment facilities are based on population forecasts adopted in the Southern California Association of Governments' (SLAG) 1994 Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP). The RCP is in the process of being adopted as part of the, 1994 South Coast Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The AQMP is jointly prepared by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and SCAG as a requirement of the Federal Clean Air r, Act (CAA). In order to conform with the AQMP, all expansions of Districts facilities must be sized and service phased in a manner which will be consistent with the Growth Management element of the 1994 RCP. The Growth Management element contains a regional growth forecastfor the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial which was prepared by SCAG. Specific policies included in the RCP which deal with the management of growth will be incorporated into the AQMP strategies to improve air quality in the South Coast Air Basin. The available capacity of the Districts' treatment facilities will, therefore, be limited to levels associated (� with approved growth identified in the adopted RCP. As such, this letter does not constitute a f guarantee of wastewater service, but is to advise you that the Districts intend to provide this service up to the levels which are legally permitted and to inform you of the currently existing capacity and T any proposed expansion of Districts facilities. If you have any questions, please contact Sean Christian at (310) 699-7411, extension 2707 or the undersigned at extension 2722. l� Very truly yours, Charles W. Carry Dainis Kleinbergs Civil Engineer Financial Planning & Property Management Section DK:eg Enclosure H G P C P J I F I TABLET LOADINGS FOR EACH CLASS OF LAND USE SUSPENDED FLOW COD SOLIDS (Gallons (Pounds (Pounds DESCRIPTION UNIT OF MEASURE per DaPer Da r Da RESIDENTIAL Single Family Home Parcel 260 1.22 0.59 Duplex Parcel 312 1.46 0.70 Triplex Parcel 468 2.19 1.05 Fourplcx Parcel 624 2.92 1.40 Condominiums Parcel 169 0.79 038 Single Family Home Parcel 156 0.73 0.35 (reduced rate) Five Units or More No. of Dwig. Units 156 0.73 035 Mobile Home Parks No. of Spaces 156 0.73 0.35 COMMERCIAL Hotel/Motel/Rooming House Room 125 0.54 0.28 Store 1000 ft2 100 0.43 0.23 Supermarket 1000 ft2 150 2.00 1.00 Shopping Center 1000 ft2 325 3.00 1.17 Regional Mall 1000 ft2 150 2.10 0.77 Office Building 1000 112 200 0.86 0.45 Professional Building 1000 ft, 300 1.29 0.68 Restaurant 1000 ft, 1,000 16.68 5.00 Indoor Theatre 1000 112 125 0.54 0.28 Car Wash Tunnel - No Recycling 1000 ft2 3,700 15.86 8.33 Tunnel - Recycling 1000 ft2 2,700 11.74 6.16 Wand 1000 ft2 700 3.00 1.58 Financial Institution 1000 ft2 100 0.43 0.23 Service Shop 1000 ft2 100 0.43 0.23 Animal Kennels 1000 ft2 100 0.43 0.23 Service Station 1000 ft, 100 0.43 0.23 Auto Sales/Repair 1000 ft2 100 0.43_ 0.23 Wholesale Outlet 1000 ft2 100 0.43 0.23 Nursery/Greenhouse 1000 ft2 25 0.11 0.06 Manufacturing 1000 ft2 200 1.86 0.70 Dry Manufacturing 1000 ft2 25 0.23 0.09 Lumber Yard 1000 ft2 25 0.23 0.09, Warehousing 1000 ft2 25 0.23 0.09 Open Storage 1000 ft2 25 0.23 0.09 Drive-in Theatre 1000 ft2 20 0.09 0.05 Night Club 1000 ft2 350 1.50 0.79 Bowling/Skating 1000 ft2 150 1.76 0.55 NEWHALL COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 33780 North Pin. Street P.D. Boz 330970 Sante Clarlla, California 91332-0970 T91aPhona (805)259-3610 FAX (805) 259-9673 Directors ROBERT W. WADE, President DONALD B. HAYES. Vice President EDWINA. DUNN LYNNE A. PLAMBECK DAVE RAPOPORT Acting General Manager JEAN A. Di ANGELOUS Secretary Auditor REBA MITCHELL Office Manager SUZANNE OYS Attorney ROBERT H. DAHL Engineer C FRANKLIN STEINER 199 April 20, 1995 City of Santa Clarita Department of Community Development 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, California 91355 Attention: Glenn Adamick, Assistant Planner II Subject: Notice of Preparation of a DEIR Hunter's Green Development and Golf Course Dear Mr. Adamick: Please be advised that the subject project lies outside the boundaries of the Newhall County Water District and will have no impact upon our District. Very truly yours, JAD/so :O/UjNT`YW_ATER DI,SATRRRIICCT )i Angelous =neral Manager U 79709 yamwen Street. Room 218&VA (� 'Jan Nuvs. Caldorma 91905 PACIFIC Z&y B E L L C A Pacific Telesis Company May 12,'1995 MIr 17 1995 J City of Santa Clarita C Department of Community Development 23920 Valencia Boulevard Suite 300 aSanta Clarita, CA 91355 Attention: Glenn Adamick Planning Technician RE: Hunter's Green Development East of Sand Canyon Road and North (� of Live Oak Springs Canyon Road U Gentlemen: n This is with reference to a letter dated April 17, 1995, l' regarding the above -referenced pending project. Pacific Bell has reviewed the map and application and has FjJ no objections or recommendations to submit at this time. Thank you for notifying us. If you have any questions, j�j please call this office or the Engineer, Kraig Kelly on LJ (805) 252-0107. Sincerely, aW. S. Clissold Right of Way Administrator a(818) 373-5968 n WSC:p1C L_1 P -11 :' I� SANTA CLARITA WATER COMPANY MAY 1 1995 J - MCMI Ll :17Y CF SA.V'a ^LPw1iP So*� 22722 WEST SOLEDAD CANYON ROAD • SANTA CLARITA. CALIFORNIA 91350 • 805-259-273' W MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 903 SANTA CLARITA. CALIFORNIA 91380-9003 l_ 1 May 16, 1995 City of Santa Clarita Department of Community Development 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Attn: Mr. Glenn Adamick Assistant Planner II Re: Draft EIR — Hunter's Green Development Dear Mr. Adamick: LI I After reviewing the referenced EIR, we propose no significant changes to the statementSmade in the draft report of March 28, 1995. The property is within our existing service area and we have included water service to it, in our overall master planning. (l Very truly yours, 6U_ � .K;�IZ,. -4 W. J. Manetta, Jr. President WJM/naf U :_J U 1J L aJohn W. Newton& Associates, Inc. JDtoff111ona C.ppnolsuftanis 165 High St. Suite 103 Post Office Box 471 Moorpark. California 93021 I U ij Glenn Adamick U Assistant Planner Department of Community Development QCITY OF SANTA CLARITA 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, California 91355 May 9, 1995 Re: NOP, April 17, 1995 Hunters Green Development and Golf Course aDear Glenn: RECEI V ED MAY t 1 1995 CO!ANUNI!v 0-V_.G?McNT .._ITS OF SAN'.: C:?R'A Telephone (805) 378-0073 Fax No. (805) 378-0080 Thank you for providing us with the NOP. On behalf of Phillip W. Gillibrand, P.W. Gillibrand Company, in specific response to the NOP, please consider our comments and ensure that the following issues are addressed in the DEIR: EARTH d. The proposed project would cover, and therefore prohibit a future extraction of "Designated" mineral deposits determined by the California State Mining and Geology Board to be of regional and statewide significance, important to the regional and state economy, as Chaptered in the California Administrative Code, Title 14, Natural Resources, Section 3550.9, et.seq., effective January 2, 1987. 6. NOISE b. The project will subject future residents to severe or unacceptable noise levels from adjacent mining operations on the Angeles National Forest. Noise associated with heavy, off road construction equipment operation, blasting and safety back up alarms, over the next approximate 50 years, will travel unabated, to future residences due to mining elevations exceeding 2000'due East and contiguous to the proposed project boundary. C. The project will subject future residents to potentially severe or unacceptable vibrations from blasting and heavy, off road construction equipment operations, over the next approximate 50 years, from the adjacent mining activities referenced above. REAL ESTATE BROKERAGE MINERAL REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT Commercial • Industrial • Land RESOURCE Engineering • Land Division • Permits Planning • Zoning Residential Relocation DEVELOPMENT Glenn Adamick May 9, 1995 Page 2 LAND USE J �l On or about April 4, 1985 the Los Angeles Regional Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract Map No. 32571 (redesignatejl TR -46365 at a later time) limiting future development of a portion of the proposed project property to two (2) large open space parcels, lot 44 & lot 136. The total area of these parcels is approximately 103.94 acres, and its unsubdivided legal description is Parcel 7, of Parcel Map No. 12479, as recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder July 3, 1980. (I This acreage (Parcel 7, PN 12479) is restricted from .further U subdivision and is regulated by Conditional Use Permit No. 2156, approved as a companion implementing action with TT -3257 in 1985. This action provided for the maximum allowable density to be achieved for TT -32571 by providing clustering ofL the project West of a ridgeline on the total 345 acre project,�� thereby buffering the future development from the existing and on-going mining operations referenced above. 136 total units were approved, for phased development, leaving the two (2) oversized parcels (44 & 136) as buffer separation between the project and mining activities. Additionally, the California State Mining and Geology Board "Designated" the proposed project property (Parcel 7, PM -12479 along with all of the Angeles National Forest property contiguous to this 103.94 acres, as "MRZ-2" & "MRZ-3" (significant mineral deposits and unevaluated significant r1 mineral deposits). These resources were "Designated" to be I� of regional significance, as Chaptered in the California Administrative Code, Title 14, Natural Resources, Section 3550.9, et.seq., effective January 2, 1987. All of the above substantiates that a substantial alteration 11of the planned land use of the area is proposed by the oroiect. C. Same as 8.b. above. d. Same as 8.b. above. 9. NATURAL RESOURCES The proposed project would result in substantial depletion n of nonrenewable natural resources, which are "Designated" �J to be of regional and statewide significance, and which are protected from encroachment of incompatible development per Public Resources Code Sections 2763, 2764 &2790. C1, 6 U Glenn Adamick May 9, 1995 Page 3 lJ 18. AESTHETICS b. The proposed project will result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site (existing, approved open pit, heavy industrial mining operation over the next approximate 50 years), open to public view of future residents, creating a future land use conflict with no potential for resolution. Approval of the proposed project ((� would create the inherent conflict between mining and l� golf course estate residential land uses. UWe further request that the Initial Study questionaire for Master u Case No. 95-032 be amended, incorporating the above information as unmitigatable impacts, which will result from development of the 103.94 (, acre property (Parcel 7, PM 12479), as proposed in the Hunter Green 1J Development and Golf Course project. Finally, it is not legally possible to develop the undeveloped portion of TT -32571 (Parcel -7), in our opinion. In 1990-91 a proposal was made to the City of Santa Clarita to develop Parcel 7, PM 12479 (the undeveloped balance of TT-32571/TR-46365). The developer was apparently attempting to (_1 circumvent the restrictions placed on the property by the LARPC, by failing ll to record the final phase of TT-32571/TR-46365 and proposing annexation of this 103.94 acres (lots 44 & 136) to the City. The project, Santa (� Clarita Vesting Tentative Tract No. 49185, "Griffin Springs" was subsequently withdrawn after a hearing before the City Planning Commission where much of this historical information came to light. I{ Attached are copies of a few informational documents presented to t_J City staff and the Planning Commission in 1991. Hopefully, all of this information will help the current project proponents avoid a costly process (� that has no hope of being approved in its present configuration. lj The bottom line, from Mr. Gillibrand's perspective, is that residential development on the portion of the proposed project property adjacent to his on-going mining operations on the Angeles National Forest, cannot be allowed to occur. He will, however, keep an open mind to the overall golf' course related proposal if a redesign eliminates residential development U on Parcel 7. U Please feel free to contact Mr. Gillibrand or his Operations Manager {� Charles Wiseman at 805/526-2195, or the undersigned, for further informa- tion or to discuss these matters in greater detail. I've taken the 1, P Glenn Adamick May 9, 1995 Page 4 liberty of providing a copy of this material to the Hunters Green Development Corporation and to Robinson Golf Design, Inc., in order to expedite -their awareness of Mr. Gillibrand's concerns, and to establish direct contact opportunities. Thank you Glenn. 'Slincerely, John W. Newton Land Use Consultant Attachments cc: Phil Gillibrand Charles Wiseman Mayor JoAnn Darcy Fred Follstad Stan Fargeon Ted Robinson Jr. G - IVALLEY n RD. _ L.J P�J�•� �� �� p RR /CANYON D PACIFIC N NTS - ,R, 9 - z JZNEaN E� .NPS �'Iy RD1 o GGM ,iy. iQ J SITE " o , Z tAOaG 0 RD, � ` J VICINITY MAP PAP,CEL- 7, PM 12479 L WS jk�.NGELES COUNTY L 0 John Schwarze 0 Zoning Administration FROM GRIFFIN HOMES T32571, CUP 2156 IERIVRAM JoAnne Darcy Sr. Area Field Deputy 805-253-7230 5-20-87 Tract 32571 (Crystal Springs Ranch) was sold by Crocker Bank to Griffin Homes. Under the terms of the CUP there was a condition to restrict development near the hillsides so future residents could not see or be bothered by the Gillibrand titanium project on the west side of the mountain nearby - Because I understand Griffin Homes changed the plan, I request that .Regional Planning enforce the original prohibition and protect ,hillside encroachment. Please provide me with a status report. Thank you. m-4 ca ^v C) ::Or - CJ LO - --------- — h ' }� Cl OVARMWT Of WahONAL PLANNNG WO IM.O T.npM Bb N1 Lw AnpW. Camel. GW12 Q7Lbt11 -- - J. E MOM. MCP PUnnMp oweew (1 March 11, 1991 — - - - Lynn Harris,�.� Director of Community Development City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard n Santa Clarita, CA 91355 1J SUBJECT: TEHTATI9E TRACT NO. 89185 Dear M�s�r,ris: It has come to our attention that you are currently processing Tentative Tract No. 49185. In reviewing our records, we have determined that the proposed subdivision is actually a re- subdivision of a portion of Tract No. 32571. The-`site in question consists of two oversized lots which were-provided to help achieve Cl consistency with the maximum allowable General Plan density for 1 that tract. Further, the property in question is regulated by the provisions of Conditional Use Permit No. 2156. The construction of more than two homes on the site would violate the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit. U If you have any questions, please let me know. Sincerely, DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL PLANNING F; James E. Hartl, AICP Director of Planning John R. Schwarze, ICP Administrator, Current Planning Branch JS:PH:hp I P F John W. Newton & Associates, Inc. Pe%aiionaf Coniuftants Asadurian Professional Building 165 High St., Suite 204 Post Office Box 471 Moorpark, California 93021 Telephone (805) 529-3651 May 7, 19H7 Mr. PhiLl.ipW. Gillibrand 1'.W. G11.1.1 BRAND CO. 5131 Tapo Canyon }toad Y.U. Fiox 3476 Simi Val1_ev, Calitornia 93063 Re: Tract Map 32571,. Crystal Springs, Griffin Development Co., Lots 44 and 1,36 Dear Phi I: In response to your inquiry regarding clarification of the conditions imposed upon the Tentative Tract Map No. 32571 by the Los Angeles Regional Planning Commission, when it was approved on -jr about. April 4, 1985, these are as follows: CONDITION NO. 13: Required dedication on the "Final Map" of construction rights to "more than one residential and related accessory building on any one lot..." (Lots 44 and 136). CONDITION NO. 14: Required a note on the "Final Map" that the project `particularly Lots 44 and 136..." were located next to "open pit mining operations within the National Forest Boundary..." CONDITION N0. 15: Again reiterated that in addition to Ti-517ding rights being dedicated to prevent further subdivision or further density beyond what was approved with the Tentative Map, this Condition cautioned that "If units are filed, each unit must have open space area to individually meet zoning and General Plan density requirements, or when taken cumulatively with all previous units recorded, meet zoning and General Plan density requirements"; basically means that the project was allowed to "cluster" west of the ridgeline onto parcels smaller than the one -acre zoning that was in place, and in exchange created larger parcels (Lots 44 and 136) east of the ridge Fine larger than its zoning provided for, but necessary to guarantee that the maximum number of units allowed, overall, would not and could not be exceeded in the future. Tentative Tract Map No. 32571, when approved, accommodaFed all of the units that were possible given the zoning and L� l� �1 r-1 L L It n REAL- ESTATE BROKERAGE MMPAL REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT rrxnrrwr,nl • hxii Orinl • Land RESCUPCE Engineering • Larx'1 Division •PP( IN Lj RAs•Wnt✓rl rhphrntr DEVELOPMENT Plonninq • Zonno ;J (j Mr_ Phillip W. Gillibrand �I May 7, 1987 Page Two land use designations for the property; no further subdivision within the entire 'I7-32571 boundary is possible. GONDITIUN NO. 16: This required that the developer ensure that a buyers in the project area be properly notified of the existence of open pit: mining operations contiguous to the property boundary, by way of the Department of Real Es Cate Public Report. D U k�J U 1 hope this further clarifies and expands upon the Iinguage of the approved Map conditions. Please feel free to contact me if you need additional information, supporting data, or further r t_ claritication of these items. Singerely, �l jj John W. Newton ! (. I JWNtabs D U k�J U . U �r F�4r 16 1995 - Dr. Dennis K. Ostrom, President i1 Sand Canyon Home Owners Association t J 16430 Sultus Street Canyon Country, California 91351 May 11, 1995 LI Glenn Adamick, Assistant Planner II City of Santa Clarita Department of Community Development 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 J Santa Clarita, Calif. 91355 Re:EIR Hunter's Green Development and Golf Course FJ Dear Glenn_ LI On Monday night, May 8, the Sand Canyon Home Owners Association (SCHOA) met to identify possible environmental impacts of the proposed golf course. The "possible environmental impacts" listed below are, for the most part, concerns of individuals and do I --I not represent concerns arrived at by a vote of the majority: The purpose here is to make the City aware of these concerns. After being made aware, we expect that the city planning staff will deal with them in their usual professional manner. Following is a list of the possible environmental impacts; the order of listing is not significant: 1. Traffic - Everybody understands that developed property will generate more traffic than undeveloped property. We also have been told by the developer that the proposed development will generate traffic that, at worst, is not significantly greater on average than [� the entitlements (approved developments) that already exist on the same property. Would you verify this last point? Given the above, concerns do remain: • Traffic during tournaments - player and spectator traffic could disrupt normal neighborhood environment. • Traffic control - Street lights, curbs, turning lanes etc, take away from the Sand r� Canyon "flavor" and must be kept to a minimum. • The residents that live near the entrance to the facility are concerned about the focusing of the traffic near their home. ( • Parking for the golf course on occasions where parking capacity is inadequate. 2. Lost Canyon Infrastructure - Earlier developments, some of which occupied property I that is contained in this development, had made agreements to fund improvements to the L Lost Canyon area. Residents in this area are concerned that these improvements will not be funded if the golf course is approved. ( 1 i I I lJ I LJ E E P n I I 11 3. Access to National Forest and Horse Trails - Some residents in the area enjoy riding horses. Many currently pass through the subject property to the National Forest. They are concerned that the development will cut off their access to the National Forest. 4. Security of the site - Residents understand the need for security at the golf course and they want the golf course to be secure. They are concerned that it may not be done tastefully from all viral angles, but just the customer's angle. 5. Ground Water Pumping - Several residents depend on well water. There is a concern that the magnitude of the water needed to water the golf course greens and fairways, not to mention the water traps, will lower if not deplete the existing water table. This may impact nearby wells. 6. Water Pressure - The developer mentioned that the Santa Clarita Water Company will be supplying some, if not all, of the water. There is a concern that such a large water use on the existing system will significantly lower the water pressure. 7. Light pollution - The facility will have evening business that requires outdoor lighting, e.g. eating facility, driving range, parking. Adjoining residents and those that have a view of the golf course are concerned that the lighting will detract from their outdoor evening pleasure. 8. Fence along driving range - The facility has a driving range that is located on the property line where there are adjoining residents. These residents understand the need for tall protective fencing next to a driving range. They also feel that such a fence will detract from their usual visual pleasure. Hunters Green Development and Golf Course EIR Scoping Meeting City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department Rincon Consultants, Inc. in association with Kimley-Horn and Associates a Penfield & Smith July 12,1995 HUNTERS GREEN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CEIR Scoping Meeting - July 12,1995 - 7:30 PM P AGENDA 1. WelcomeIntroduction Christine Kudija, City of Santa Clarita CGlen Adamick, City of Santa Clarita Stan Furgeon, Hunter's Green Development Stephen Svete, Rincon Consultants J (1 Z Overview of the Project (� History of the Project Project/Site Description Planning Process Steps r i 3. Applicant Presentation 4. Description of the EIR Process CScoping Meeting Purpose CEQA Input Process LJ Initial Study Notice of Preparation L Draft EIR Comments/Responses to Comments S. Open Discussion Discussion: Environmental Issues to be Analyzed 6. The Next Steps (7 Schedule Adjournment City of Santa Clarita rin, u HUNTERS GREEN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR Scoping Meeting - July 12, 1995 - 7:30 PM Comment Sheet We want to know your concerns, so we can address them in the EM.. Name. Affiliation: (resident, businessperson, community group member) Address: Phone. Please submit to Ms. Christine Kudija or Mr. Glen Adamick City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department 23920 Valencia Boulevard Santa Clarita, California 91355 City of Santa Clarita LJ I L El ii HUNTERS GREEN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR Scoping Meeting -July 12, 1995 -7:30 PM Issues to be Addressed in the EIR 1. Environmental Issues Earth Resources Hydrology, Water, Drainage Air Quality Biological Resources Transportation/Circulation Aesthetics Noise 2. Alternatives 3. Cumulative Effects 4. Other CEQA Issues City of Santa Clarity HUNTERS GREEN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR Scoping Meeting - July 12, 1995 - 7:30 PM EIR Kickoff EIR Process Flow Chart 45 Day Pubic Review Finalize Draft EIR Prepare Draft Responses to Comments Staff Develop Mitigation City scoff andAperova andAUernatives Review C' Resiew and Approval City of Response to Comments Consultant City Staff Work Period O Review Public Review or Hearing tion ® CITY OF SAMA CLARITA Hunters Green EIR Project Schedule TASK Jun -95 Jul -95 Aug -95 Sep -95 Oct -95 Nov -95 1. EIR Kickoff Meeting 40 City Review * * * Public Review 2 Scoping Meeting 3. Prepare EIR Project Description and - - Alternatives Description 4. Preliminary Draft EIR - - - - 5. Draft EIR * tx Public Review/Hearings 7. Response to Comments, Final EIR -� 8. Mitigation Monitoring Program - 0 Public Meetings/Hearings L7 Draft Product ■ Final Product — Project Activity - - City Review * * * Public Review HUNTERS GREEN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR Scoping Meeting - July 12, 1995 - 7:30 PM Welcome! Please Sign In... Sirnature/Printed Name ,—" �C,rry AL1 cI«t Yh Address Z7i�G'S/�IT7G7f 9 C. 27 ti )-'7�Z� ?J p U, D I / �6Y Y Lin Caua, 17 (f Ll �7J �c ���2 C%:pig Si',•2iric-� Cir S'ri r�� CC v Clty of Santa Clarrta � 7 �l I u lJ L C CJ P I� Fill 0 0 p I 0 a I HUNTERS GREEN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR Scoping Meeting -July 12, 1995 -7:30 PM Signature/Printed Name Welcome! Please Sign In... Address �.:7 rCity of Santa Clarita P � HUNTERS GREEN ENWRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT RECEIVE EIR Scoping Meeting - July 12,1995 - 7:30 PM ill 2 41995 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT fl4 SANTA CL' RITk 1 Comment Sheet We want to know your concerns, so we can address them in the EIR... Name: d l r!{ZQ h 01 Affiliation: (resident, businessperson, community group-� member) Address: Z /AciC, Phone. Fz)s- - 05?F//4�S3 Z, Con9/3S /. Gol-P Cdvrvs ; err s Gn�an is or, a (,may �r y T� e caws 646WId L l c13e weGjs s����l. � j Scud �pl ' t �v� ill r�.-�� i� `err �sof- a �i °'ftv cc L) IL t �� M"�" S 5 J�y�� (lY Ileca(¢H�( )S �hey�4IL� I" y v r� h5s Kms( �. lJIrl V(sl /vk& e6� a,,ua l r , ) _ T h6lsc -po r ri /ui rL5 rcc n y e aOak �`� `� VS �i vl�c our i1pYS25 . l5 (]/��cc°C2�rq� �L2� �ccu� o �e pig,- v-�- j�� r R 614 a ft Pwv-e !,toy— Please Please submit to Ms. Christine Kudija or Mr. Glen Adamick City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department 23920 Valencia Boulevard Santa Clarita, California 91355 nwn oK 'I — -�011✓,n p ll, City of Santa Cladta r) RECEIVED r HUNTERS GREEN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT j ft 2 41995 UEIR Scoping Meeting - July 12,1995 - 7:30 PM � L„ IM-* Q'-'.LLQLMENT f ." • r S1N-1 Ci' 'TA U Comment Sheet We want to know your concerns, so we can address them in the EIR.. �j Name: _/'C (G �r C ?n h iK g L t Affiliation: r rS Jz /t7 LJ (resident, businessperson, community group member) Address. Phone. P057 - a-9�zi,1.S-3 C i 01beT- CGf00'5C- A YP-U(zAC. jJ E6M t66 Z 716 AE /1251� f}V f/-Cur17�h�fi7>D LY�/UI/1/G TG �UG�i 1t/r7�1i(� g AjPrM MNi=7&Qf- YC4&1C:ItY. -T 041V"F 7VLEp-� 71�t5� �CvfT11 41e 'JI01E, E tF 15 A" rncr�L BU�)�6aSSb�5 9t1//CE/�1- _ HAJSUCr 70 60 tAivO oi%e/&C Pt-,SID6"'C S 04k- 1 r1aAr -Th'E f��s Pi0c�0 6&F ,9'�vAtii •F12011't H'k5 cuyJ) 10wE 817 5 AS (fmslr3 LU(TjtoLj -TWfi-G ISG Vl OAW6 z -- k15Y c`SlwrM�lli�!/. t hVU�S7A16iUr, ,Pi LJACY A -KA D�51 � 7� I- A�5 t_�P�we �r � Po�Si3+�. U&)L, ✓SS TkF- DXjc)/^16 iZ4'kkj1E 6,5 tibUvj�-70 Tb AA4FI7, dL /,)'yam ANO llnPa✓f` 15 0 714E- ti0�U ins//.��s lye �1U/�i G��`v WE G1'N/I/DT A GGI'-PT 7- 0/kv2c-0�1- Gv>= A4OL45J 7v ��rc --(ykjnIGS aiit-� -r0 56. 7r1'l 5>A -Z -S, L&J-5 A- PlUa f 4r1W Qv16rL16C. Fykf�5E+� /J �rvl�t2r A� t jrud I D6�I?�dLJ i� M,09- ha164 t f.fGJr--r 5A4(e f . JnAC�SS -fa^"4WO"42 Ort) MUC4-1- lJ5� TrZ92La &,46 A CAIL i1X0L1t7r A fkD3 , 714t5 G • C . C) L -L W-4 2 n4 LAS OF L'OUI-1 CL y Uie At�' 000 U/k-�ii j LUSS - NU w ccs cShA06 &LLOkIt5o 7� i✓� -TN25 P /�(JT -I-H (D t3 rvG - rl Please submit to Ms. Christine Kudija or Mr. Glen Adamick U City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department 23920 Valencia Boulevard Santa Clarita, California 91355 O� CJty of Santa C/ariYa 70 c<r L 5 ��J�rI.Ts o s Aril �r/rS�Ls PAV wrC 1v1uNbG�niaZ E1�vicv�s. C�h P�n/6 2�s/(J�iIiC S A-U rvl�s�vr �U;=ter✓ ,ti ���D PAY �t�Uf o�[�l lei v614,1C S wLd}24 �iV3l U�70 46 2 7 E,L DV/a -f-0 Nr--G0rr/aTe Civ Gi` ( P/le�v To �bT cess o� EQU- 76 vvvllLrAwj�j 2 wlCL r3 Gs�Y ��IIIJG5 - 7W 5 1� ie a� �u2�t��v ✓Yt� rvt�•vy ol� rrs /-y6 Slfil rl/,� T c/F�LpP�J� cS UZ�j /vbl U 7`a rfis W�u 5T l R D1�1�55 I Ll STl c � � 5 l cAI/ (1 L1 HUNTERS GREEN ENVMONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (� ER Scoping Meeting - July 12, 199 - 7:30 p.m. Comment Sheet Background: Residents within the Sand Canyon area, including Crystal Springs Ranch and Oak Springs, take great pride in their ranching and equestrian history. We take pride l J in preserving the rural charm and traditions of our Canyon_ A major component of the l J sural charm in our community is its open space as well as its access and availability of recreational equestrian trails. IDuring the last several years, development has diminished the amount of open space in the Canyon, which has severely restricted recreational activities such as horseback riding, mountain bike riding, and hiking. Development in this area has severely restricted recreational activities not only for the residents of Sand Canyon, but also for the residents of the City of Santa Clarita who want to enjoy the Canyon's environmental resources. Problem: What currently serves as equestrian and other recreation in Sand Canyon will be compromised through the development of the Hunters Green proposed golf course if taccess to trails is limited. The lack of trail access and availability due to development threatens our rural charm, open space, and recreation in our community. This problem begs the question: "how can our environmental recourses be used in a way that not only provides recreation through golf, but can also provide recreation through an integrated equestrian and multipurpose trail system which can benefit the City, the Sand Canyon area r residents, and the golf course developers?" Solution: The environmental resources in Sand Canyon should be developed in a way I�I that recreational activities are preserved and available to all Santa Clarita Valley residents. l.J The Hunters Green proposed golf course development should not only provide golfing recreation, but it should also provide access to an equestrian/multipurpose trail system in n the Sand Canyon area. Therefore, the City of Santa Clarita should insure that: 1. any development of the environmental resources in Sand Canyon will preserve its open aspace, recreation, and rural charm. 2. the Hunters Green ETR will include a study of the impact of the proposed golf course a on the existing and planned trail system for Sand Canyon. 3. the Hunters Green Development will be consistent with the City's General Trails Plan - 4. the Hunters Green Development will provide a north/south and east/west access to the City's General Trail system. cc: JoAnne Darcy, Mayor Dave Doughman, Parks and Recreation Commission Chairperson 1-41 a JG� U uai UO, as ui:{o r.y. OUJ 2Z)f1 J12d Ci11 H.�LL ig VU3 c�ECEIV�, August 29,1995 AUG 3 1 1995-� COUMV41TY OEYE.OPM+� S CRT OF SANTA CVRr.- Mr. Glenn Adamick CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Jl SUBJECT: TWIN GOLF COURSES/RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OAK SPRINGS CANYON AREA l I met you during your recent outing/walk along on August 5, 1995 on Oak Springs Canyon Road. At that time you strongly encouraged our written comments. (� It appears that the more investigating I do the more negative aspects are uncovered. Initially I thought the golf courses were a positive to our community. I now voice strong opposition. Having lived in ^ �JJ this area for 15 years X have witnessed the water table diminish leaving us with a scarce water supply. If the golf courses further tap into this source, my property will become virtually worthless. Our access and egress merely sufficient at present will be much jeoparidized when the road is relocated with the ups and downs as proposed by the developer. Maintenance with our private tractors will be virtually impossible. The funneling of millions of cubic feet of water accustom to sheet over a large area into a small restricted discharge near. Grabeton Drive is sure to wash out and create great danger to (, the residents. The chemicals and pesticides from both courses will now percolate (� into our already poor water table and during the rainy season is �) sure to wash into the Santa Clarita Aqua Fir contaminating some portion of Santa Clarita water source. (RECENT L.A. TIMES ARTICLE: � SUNDAY AUGUST 6,1995 by KENNETH R. WEISS) The article was in SlllJl reference to Lake Sherwood and Westlake which after reading it was quite a definite eye opener. In short I join OAK SPRINGS HOME OWNERS concern about the fcasibilit� of this project and urge that the City of Santa Clarita avail themselves of the possible repercusions of permitting this project (� to become a reality. H A detailed list of suggestions to follow shortly. G�R6E S. GRUBER U MR. & MRS GEORGE S. GRUBER 27563 Oak Springs Canyon Road Canyon Country, California 91351 1..1 I 1 i J L I I I L): 'DL447 MUV V7 j:, i:,iµZ, IVU ,L-11 r .,-- R C E I V E 7 t,UG 81995 cnu,aurnw q_ILL OWN 27500 Oak Spring Canyon Road AcCanyon Country, Calif. 91351 August G. 1995 Dear Mr. Adamick As you suggested at the informal meeting putting in writing my concerns about the course in the Oak Spring Canyon area. I yeaterday that if the property is to be which it surely will be sooner or later, highly preferable to hundreds of houses. do have serious concerns. This letter i thoughts and experiences after living i over thirty years. yesterday, I am proposed golf think it was clear developed at all, a golf course is But we residents s based on my own n this canyon for There are four requirements the city should insist on in 1' order to mitigate the negative impact this development will 1' have on the homes already here: A water, line brought in from Santa Clarita Water Co. to L service all homes in the Oak Spring Canyon area because: n Of possible contamination of our private wells due to 1� the use of strong pesticides on the golf course. Of lowering of our water table if the golf course, in the future, decides to dig wells. Of the increased fire hazard, particularly on the ( north and east boundaries. Outsiders have no u concern about, or even any conception of, the extreme fire hazard in our canyon. (We had friends, college educated, who couldn't understand why I was so upset when they brought their three boys up to our house to set off firecrackers in our dry pasture. And nthese people lived in Northridge!) s� Paying of the re -aligned road from Graceton to the northeast corner of the property because: Of the narrowing of the road from the existing wide wash to a typical two lane road. Besides the huge amount of water emptying onto the existing road during heavy raine (from Rabbit Cyn., Oak Spring Cyn., Lost Cyn. and from the east end of Oak Spring Canyon Road, 1.e. from four washes), the wator persists for WEEKS. D Water from the Rabbit Canyon watershed is the worst, cutting gullies where the elevation drops and turning the sand and gravel into soft mush where it spreads aout. Fortunately, because the wash is so wide, we can L�; drive in the firmer areas. But if all the water stays on one narrow dirt road, it will be impassable. An emergency exit through to Sand Canyon in case of earthquake, fire, or other disaster because: The golf couree will shut us off from both Gillibrand's mining road and what the kids call "Windy Straits" leading over the hill to Bronco Drive. Clearly stated information to be given to all prospective home buyers about the loudness and hours of the rt mining operation because: The mine operates sporadically and not always very a close to the golf course property. It is entirely possible that future homeowners could be in for a horrible surprise when they actually start living in their homes next to the mine. Working hours of jl the mine are 5 a. m. to about 3 p.m. They frequently work six days a week. After the Northridgs quake they worked on Sundays, too. The heavy equipment they use is extremely loud, and I believe Gillibrand has a permit for nearly fifty years. I cannot figure out why the homes were put next to the mine instead of the more commercial and service operations. Thank you for meeting with us. I look forward to seeing the ll materials Chris said you will make available at Copy -It, f which is on Camp Plenty Road (near Don Cuco's Mexican Restaurant) and much handier for Canyon Country people. r� Opp/ ,�-1�y L1 1 I F, U G Pi I I P P i J I I It 0 E I I I C A u a u 3 t 1995, �OMiar:..r Mr. Glenn Adamick " s Assistant Planner City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department 23920 Valencia'Blvd.,, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355-2195 Dear Mr'. Adamick: The homeowners of Oak Springs Canyon (,OSC) really appreciate the time Chris and you spent discussing the effects that the proposed golf courses will have on all of us. We felt it was a good meeting because the approximate 30 homeowners who .attended the meeting represented all areas of the canyon and,were able in an open forum voice all of their concerns. Even though most were fairly vocal and sometimes demanding, we represent a highly educated and successful group of homeowners that have :good reason L to be a eady upset with City of Santa Clari=a, .i-1 w Want is to maks sure that the City of Santa _larita seaports us with the negative impacts of t h. u' propose.: d2`:eiG dim cnt ankf all future developments. As you ere aware, the homeowners in and around Graceton Drive met in uuly 1?95 with the .'.evel'operz +ard were all very disappointad with the outcome of the me=ting, basically, feeling that all �--he important issues ;Jere b.ssic•sl_1 _,gnored or not addressed. we are all still in disbelief with the latrar Mr. Fargeon sent to you on July 27, 1995. Now that you have listen to the homeowners of OSC you can understand our fnel•nas and level of frustration dealing With Mr. Fargeon and what value we place on his letter. Overall, the homeowners of OSC are in favor of the _or000sed development, but only if it done right! nope_ully, we can come to a positive resolution to the following issues that were addressed by everyone on Saturday ,ugust 5, !995 to to City of Santa Clarita. Commercial Development We understand that the developers are placing all the commercial aspects of the development .adjacent to the residents of Oak Springs Canyon to achieve top dollar on their residential lots. We, the homeowners of OSC, have invested alot of time and money in our own properties to achieve the same results. We don't understand how a developer can be so insensitive to this fact, and not isolate the existing homeowners living in an area zoned for residential, from the negative factors of the commercial development. The driving range with the splash lighting, traffic and noise will definitely effect the Boystons and Feeders and will have a negative impact on all of us. The parking lot, restaurant, club house, etc, right behind my house and the Boystons will impact us and the neighborhood with traffic, noise, car and parking lights, restaurant related noise, and a potential inc re a -'..e in Cr imc {per the a_tiC•ie I y -ave you ,:r r, r.:1 n.71 e ❑ w wave ) cr,_.nom prr +C_7-1 in r7oL f7,nlirsa par:rin7 101 3) is oars as jail Kr. --w ea l y me in that 4 years ago Mr. '-i,-nu-t'rson assured me chat those ridges behind me would ynever be altered, because it would effect the drainage through my property. He even showed me how the then proposed projects would not even be visible from Graceton Drive. Based upon my discussion with him, I placed the site of my home to the very back of my property_ Now after initially investing over $525,000 in buying my property in 1990, and investing over $325,000 in building my dream home, I'm now faced with th_s unpleasant situation. Use of Well Water The developers are planning to sink test wells in our area, so that in the future they can use our aquifer to undoubtedly water their fairways and supply water to their lakes. Water is a major problem in our area. A lot of the wells are dry, or do not generate enough water to support the property. As you have noticed, not to many people have lawns in Oak Springs Canyon, and the situation is getting worse_ The draining of the Saugus aquifer by the City of Santa Clarita already i3 having a significant impact on us. we cannot take the risk of having our wells run dry. We estimate that over 2 million gallons per day will be needed to water these courses. It must be a condition that no well water from the property can be used now •:�r anytime in the future to support the commercial activities of this development. The residents of Oak Springs Canyon would consider the use of well water if public water is brought to our homes in the canyon. This would only be fair. Drainage The homeowners of OSC are really concerned with the impact of 2.2 million cubic yards of cutting and 2.2 million cubic yards of filling will have on our drainage system. There is a lot of concern for the channeling of water over Oak Springs Canyon just east of Graceton Drive. Already, this is an extremely hazardous area in the winter time, with water •reaching at times to a height of 3 feet with a width of at least 150 feet. Our concerns about run-off also result from the fact that parking lots and structures are proposed in the area that will not allow water to percolate into the soil and the run-off will drain over this section of the road. The total surface area will be significantly reduced due to the leveling of the area, eliminating most slopes,- thus alot less surface area to allow water to percolate. Also, ridges with top soil will be cut up to 70 feet that will result in less porous soil available to accept the rainfall, in which, again the water will flow into this area. It appears the funneling of the water over Oak Springs Canyon Road will have a significant effect on homeowners on the north side of Oak Springs Canyon. I am concerned on the level of impact the grading will have on my property, as the majority of the grading will occur right behind my house. I am in fear that this will affect my heritage oak trees, land stability, the spring that is now detoured by a "City approved" retaining wall 2 P, U 11 0 I U U I P I 1 around 1v uJUJe Y d the srI v (� altered to run d1L l4 behind or `] d. mV nDu T^ t3 U between comet. Way ark 3�' t.❑ ur a _ _r amount of water that will he generated down Oak Springs Canyon, as this route acts as a wash during the rainy season. Also. Mr. Art Gollin is concerned with the ponds on his property, and how currently they have a positive effect on the amount of run-off down Oak Springs Canyon. If thev are filled in, it will increase the flow of water down Oak Springs Canyon Road. Also; it will effect the current animal and plant habitat in the area. Toxic Chemicals The maintenance facility paced rigtc next to a home and neighborhood is very upsetting. The noise in the morning and during the day, the upsetting of the present aesthetic appeal of C the area, and the idea of storing toxic and dangerous chemicals in an area near homes, children, animals and wei,ls is unacceptable.: For the protection of our families and animals, any toxic chemical used for latrn maintenance or any commercial t location, should not be used or stored within 300 yards of our existing homes or wells. Aesthetica Mr. Fargeon in our July meeting assured the resid-_nts living on Graceton Drive that we would not sea the effects of any commercial det,-alopment or, the traffic above the sou -111 ridges of Graceton Drive. after walking the proposed development with you, I feel that Mr. Fargeon is in error. It needs to be a condition of this development that no �Itraffic or commercial development ' will be noticeable by anyone on Grac-ton Drive, vv understanding that a potential 2,000 cars will be 3_iving in and out of ::his proposed development each day! Movement of Oak Springs Canton Road There is a major concern with moving this road to t:o nort adjacent to the hills. We have no clue on how this road can be designed to not adversely affect the only way out of the canyon. Homeowners are really concerned about the idea of elevating the a road near the main wash area and the possibility of creating a ledge at the wash during heavy rains., Also, the elevated area will require a significant cut in the hillside which could D trigger mud slides making the road impassible to emeraency vehicles and trucks bringing necessary supplies to animals, etc. Operating Hours The homeowners of OSC are concerned with the hours of operation of the commercial facilities. We request that it be a condition a that the operations open at dawn and close before 3:00 p.m., as this is a residential neighborhood. Safety Safety is a concern for all of us. The golf course should be constructed with public safety in mind. we all know that the 0 3 I� deve..per, owner and J.. i1:r _i _ L all - ,,ages caused by —rrant golf ba!13 ,pr rhe N tit pct rl 1 ri r- �. rtti Erna. 3 Cle dated I� ,;u--,.<" :995 twat i d_r.z -ic . i 1 nave anneal Mi 0.''y 20R t0 4 consider this in the design of the _olf courses. 1 also asked that Mr. Ted Robinson readdress tae fairway behind my house, and it they have both ignored my request_ My house is not a house you build next to a fairway with over 20 windows facing the proposed "par 511 fairway and a 12x12 sloped cement tile roof. Concern must also be given to all my neighbors that could possibly be impacted or injured. Financial Viability (� Some of the homeowners are concerned with the financial viability �J of this project and would like to know who will be responsible for its clean-up upon failure. D Fertilizers and Pesticides The homeowners of OSC are concerned with the quality of the well l water with all the fertilizers and pesticides that will be used. +u� There have been articles published in the "Los Angeles Times" lately discussing how the golf courses at Lake Sherwood and Westlake have polluted both bodies of water where fish are no O longer aloud to me eaten and people.: no longer aloud to swim. Also, the ground water is now so -.olluted in certain areas from the golf fertilizers and pesticides that the wells can no longer a be used. We are presently contacting the newspaper to obtain copies of those articles, which we will then forward to you. We recommend that test be performed on an annual basis to check for contamination from fertilizers and pesticides used or, the golf 11 courses. J Valencia Golf Course Revisited n We discussed the fact that we are concerned wit_`, the level of the 11 golf fees and how the average person in the Santa Clarita Valley could not afford to D1aY golf on the new courses. We are really afraid that another Valencia golf course scenario could evolve, (� a situation where millions of gallons of water are used for the l benefit of a few people that don't even live in this area. This water could be used for the benefit of the people of Santa n Clarita. l� Endangered Species and Oak Trees We know that there are endangered species in this area, this is a major concern. Also, the removal of over 100 oak trees is a major concern plus the impact on natural vegetation and wildlife. `rid Grading u The significant amount of grading has us concerned with such matters as the affect the dust and dirt will have on us during the construction phase. The concern is for the effects it will t have on human and animal health, possibly the introduction of "Valley Fever" and other possible damages to humans, but also the affects on the horses and animals in this canyon. Please remember that my father is still battling valley fever and two of his L�1 it U nei.7,1,borz died f rGm 1 x, UaL'✓ oarthq+ia �a , Equestrian Trails The development will impact the existing horse trails to the National Forest. Mr. Fargeon has promised a dedicated trail along Oak Springs Canyon and along the National Forest. Mrs. Laura Hauser of Crystal Springs and the Sand Canyon Trails Committee will be addressing this area with Mr. Fargeon. Environmental Impact Report We discussed the need of a "Complete" EIR we are currently petitioning homeowners in our area formally requesting a "Complete" EIR. LI feel that I have addressed all the issues and concerns brought up in our meeting. If there is an issue that I.missed, please L let me know. we look forward meeting with you to resolve these issues with the developer. Sincerely, Allen E. Penrose I I I P Henry Schultz -Sierra Club P5 �J CC, Laura Hauser Dennis Ostrom Rick Putnam Stan Fargeon George Gruber Jay Heck Mark Hanson Richard Cunningham Alan R. Glasser, Esq. QLynn Plambeck-SCOPE I I I P Henry Schultz -Sierra Club P5 GUG— 1. -� - `d _• 1-1 L. 14 '.1 1 ] 3S P ON 1 Pollution Levels Unhealthful at 2 Lakes Near Thousand Oaks E f l.. Los Angeles Times (c) 1995 Los Angeles 'f imes. All rts. reserv.-� 02375851 08652 Pollution Levels Unhealthful at 2 Lakes Near Thousand Oaks Environment: Sw.iy say. Sherwood and Westlake Lake were 'impaired' by runoff of pesticides, fertilizer and heavy metals. Los Angeles Times (l.' ) - SUNDAY August 6, 1995 By: KENNETH R. WEISS; TIMES STAFF WRITER Editlon: Ventura County Edition Section: Metro Page: 1 Pt. B Word Count: 1,227 (� TEXT: L Although Ventura County's largest lakes are In good shape, a new study shows that two ( i smaller lakes naar Thousand Oaks have collected unhealthful levels of pollutants over the years lJ h•om surrounding lawns, houses and streets. Largemouth bass caught In Lake Sherwood for the study contained more mercury than the Food and Drug Administration allows In fish sold at market. -, Water samples taken from Lake Sherwood and the nearby Westlake Lake had concentradons of u lead and cooper that exceeded state standards for Inland waters. And bass pulled from Westlake L� Lake had elevated levels of selenium, which Is toxic to wildlife and humans in anything more than l minute doses. The urban lakes study deems the health of Lake Sherwood and Westlake Lake to be at least "modentply lrapz!ied" because of fertilizers, chemicals and heavy metals that have drained into them. In sharp contrast, Lake Casitas near ON and Lake Piru were among the healthiest of the 23 Likes studied 0 Q I j U I I I I p APPENDIX C AIR QUALITY DATA 'D p 11 0 C� f� I 0 I I 0 CIS 0 n Table 1 State of California (� Air Resources Board L Ambient Air Quality Standards p F I U LJ G (Footnotes On reveme side) ARB Feu Shcs 39; 1!ryl California Standards 1 National Standards 2 Pollutant Concentration 3 Method 4 Primary 3'S - Secondary 3.4'6 Method 7 - Avera in 9 9 Time Ozone1 Hour 0'09 pan Ultrawalet 0.12 ppn Same as Ethylene (160 uym3) Phommetry (235 sgmd) Primary Sid. Chemiluminescence Canon BHaur 9.0 ppm (10 mym31 Non-0ispx gpprrl (10 mghn3) Non -dispersive Monoade IntrarM Infrared 7 Hour 20 ppg7m Spectroscopyppm Soectroscupy (23 mm3) (NOIR) (40 Cft3) (NOIR) Annual 0.053 PPm N:vogen Average Gas Phase (100 0) Same as Owxne ch0-25 Primary Std' Gas Phase 1 Hour ppm nesCame Chamdumirgscence (470 1 70 ug/m3) Annual 1 80 11ym3 Average (0.03 nom) 24 Hour 0.04 ppm. 365 ug/m3 Suih.r Caa4e (105 o0/m31 Ultra%n"t (0.14 coral _ 3 Hour - 13W uyrri 3 F:uoresceme Pararasoam ine 10.5 opml 1 Hour 0.25 ppm (655 ug/m3) . Suspended Annual Pa,-Wate Geometric 30 ugrm3 - Mat:er Mean Sin Seiscii" memal (PM10) Inwtsgn Secaration 24 Hour 50 ug/m3 Vaiume Sampler IWWm3 aria am Same as Granmetric Annual Graxmemc Primary Analysis Anmmeac Anaryals 50 uym3 Sumdard Mean Sulfates 24 Hour 25 uym3 Turbidimetric I - Barium SuOate 30 day 1.5 uym3 Lead Average Wp1nK _ Atomic Calendar Same as Ataoremn Adsorption Cuarier 13 uyrrp Primary Std. Hydrogen SYitioe t How 0.03 pan Cadmium Hydr- (42 uym3) oxide STRattan Viny Cnonce I 24 Hour ( 0.010 ppm Tedlar Bag Icnoce^.tine) (26 ug/m3) Collection, Gas - chroinatooracriv S how In sufficent amount l0 PrddurR an eSOnoon V'so'!y coefficient 01023 perlulometer tlua to Rec.c-g 6 (10 am to 6 pm, P5T1 particles when the r;11D" humidify is less " Fa:.ces titan 70 cercent Measurement in azuoana with ARB Memod V. Applicable Only in the Lake Tahoe Air Basin Ca-z- 6 hour 6 porn r7a^:ace (7 mg/m3) - ' s p 7,8 hour 'n sufficient amount to Produce an esonccan R.ec-c-; (10 am !a coeftent of 0.07 cer kilometer due 10 Fa-: es 9 6 pm, PST) particles when me relative humidify is+ess Iran 70 percent Measurement m accolearce vrtlh ARB Method V. (Footnotes On reveme side) ARB Feu Shcs 39; 1!ryl NOTES: 1. California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1 -hour and 24-hour), nitrogen dioxide, suspended particulate matter - PMt 0, and visibility reducing particles, are values that are not to be exceeded. The standards for sulfates, Lake Tahoe carbon monoxide, lead, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride are not to be equaled or exceeded. 2. National standards, other than ozone and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic means, are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations above the standard is equal to or less than one. 3. Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parenthesis are based upon a reference temperature of 250 C and a reference pressure of 760 mm of mercury. All measurements of air' quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 250 C and a reference pressure of 760 mm of mercury (1,013.2 millibar); ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas. ' 4. Any equivalent procedure which can be shown to the satisfaction of the Air Resources Board to give equivalent results at or near the level of the air quality standard may be used. 5. National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health. Each sate must attain the primary standards no later than three years after that state's implementation plan is approved by the Environmental Protection Agency. 6. National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant. Each state must attain the secondary standards within a "reasonable time" after the implementation plan is approved by the EPA. 7. Reference method as described by the EPA. An "equivalent method" of measurement may be used but must have a "consistent relationship to the reference method" and must be approved by the EPA. 8. This standard is intended to limit the frequency and severity of visibilty impairment due to regional haze and is equivalent to a 10 -mile nominal visual range when relative humidity is less than 70 percent. 9. This standard is equivalent to a 30 -mile nominal visual range when relative humidity is less than 70 percent. ARB Fact Sheet 39; (revised 11/91) EX-TIM:t tcMV ii Ll U n U L_1 I U U Hl L (] Ozone (03) J l_J I LJ C 11 EFFECTS OF CRITERIA POLLUTANTS Ozone, the major constituent of smog, is created in the atmosphere by the complex photochemical interaction of reactive organic compounds, including hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides. Ozone is a pungent, colorless toxic gas with direct health effects on humans including respiratory and eye irritation and possible changes in lung functions. Groups most sensitive to ozone include children, the elderly, persons with respiratory disorders, and people who exercise strenuously outdoors. Ozone also causes direct damage to vegetation, causes cracking in untreated rubber, and accelerates deterioration of structures. Carbon Monoxide (CO) Carbon monoxide is a colorless and odorless gas that is formed as a by-product of combustion. It's primary source is the automobile and other types of motor vehicles, and congested intersections can become "hot -spots," where significant concentrations of this gas can occur. CO replaces oxygen in the hemoglobin of red blood cells, thereby causing physiological and pathological changes, and in sufficiently high concentrations, death. Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Nitrogen dioxide is also a by-product of fuel combustion, with the primary source being motor vehicles F and industrial boilers and furnaces. The principal form of nitrogen oxide produced by combustion is nitric oxide (NO), but this reacts rapidly to form NO2, creating a mixture that is typically referred to as aNOx. Nitrogen dioxide is an acute irritant, but at typical atmospheric concentrations, it is only potentially irritating. A relationship between NO2 and chronic pulmonary fibrosis may exist, and an increase in bronchitis in young children at concentrations below 0.3 parts per million (ppm) may occur. Nitrogen dioxide absorbs blue fight and causes a reddish brown cast to the atmosphere and reduced u visibility. It also can contribute to the formation of PMro and acid rain. Fine Particulate Matter (PMio) Fine particulate matter includes small suspended solids and droplets under 10 microns in diameter. This material can lodge in the lungs and add to respiratory problems. PM,o is derived from road dust, soot, combustion products, abraded materials from brakes and tires, and the suspension of earth materials during construction activities and wind storms. Fine particulate matter can also be formed in the atmosphere from nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide reactions with ammonia_ Particulate matter is also a primary factor in reducing visibility. Fine particulate matter poses a serious health threat to all groups, but particularly to the elderly, children, and those with respiratory problems. More than half of the fine particulate matter inhaled into the lungs remains there, which can'cause permanent lung damage. These materials can damage health by interfering with the body's mechanisms for clearing the arespiratory tract or by acting as carriers of an absorbed toxic substance. lJ P it �l SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT HEAVY-DUTY EQUIPMENT EMISSIONS _ Per Table A9 -8-A, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Nov. 1993 Equipment Type (G or D Number Usage per day in hours Emissions in pounds per day Carbon Reactive Nitrogen Sulfur Monoxide Organic Cmpnds O>ades Obdes PM10 Fork Lift - 50 Hp D 0 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A" 0.0 I ? Fork Lift -175 Hp D 0 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A 0.0 Off -Highway Truck D 0 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tracked Loader D 0 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tracked Tractor D 2 10 7.0 2.4 252 2.8 2.2 l J l f Scraper D 6 10 75.0 16.2 230.4 27.6 24.6 Wheeled Dozer D 0 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 `+ Wheeled Loader D 0 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wheeled Tractor D 0 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Roller D 1 10 3.0 0.7 8.7 0.7 0.5 l Motor Grader D 1 10 1.5 0.4 7.1 0.9 0.6 IJ Miscellaneous D 1 10 6.8 1.5 17.0 1.4 1.4 Total: 93.3 21.1 288.4 33.4 29.4 Number of days operating/week: 5 Averaged Daily lbs: 66.6 15.1 206.0 23.8 21.0 1� operating/quarter: 65 Quarterly tons: 3.0 0.7 9.4 1.1 1.0 Thresholds (SCAQMD, Nov. 1993) Daily, lbs 550 75 100 150 150 i 1 SCAB✓Coachella Valley Quarter, tons 24.75 2.5 2.5 6.75 6.75 L L U �I f! Air Pollutant Emissions of Alternatives Existing Entitlements 416.7 33.4 30.1 1.9 2.9 Reconstituted Tracts 574.6 46.0 41.6 2.6 4.0 West Slope Residential (18 holes only) 540.6 48.5 51.4 3.5 5.8 Mixed Use Development Residential + Small Golf Course 287.7 25.8 27.6 1.9 3.1 Sand & Gravel Operation Vehicle 77.3 13.8 168.9 14.5 16.1 Sand & Gravel Operation Dust 1474.7 Mixed Use Total 365.0 39.6 196.5 16.4 1493.9 General Plan Buildout 838.2 67.1 60.7 3.8 5.9 Significance Thresholds 550 55 55 150 150 Percentage of Threshold Alternative CO ROC NOx sox PM10 Proposed Project 145% 134% 147% 4% 6% Existing Entitlements 76% 61% 55% 1% 2% Reconstituted Tracts 104% 84% 76% 2% 3% West Slope Residential (18 holes only) 98% 88% 93% 2% 4% Mixed Use Development 66%p 72% 357°% 11% 996% General Plan Buildout 152% 122% 110% 3% 4% 400% 350% 300% D 250% x N W x' LL 200% O t- z W U w 150% Q. 100% 50% 0% Air Quality Comparison of Alternatives CO ROC NOx Sox POLLUTANTS ■ Proposed Project ❑ Existing Entitlements O Reconstituted Tracts ❑ West Slope Residential (18 holes only) ❑ Mixed Use Development ® General Plan Buildout Il ------------------ PROJECT DESCRIPTION -------------------------- PROJECT NAME AND DESCRIPTION: Hunters Green JIResidential and Golf Course Development- OJECT STARTING YEAR: 1998 CITY: SAUGUS-BOUQUET CANYON 0.4 ZIP CODE: 0.0 LOS ANGELES 0.1 AREA NUMBER: AREA2 0.0 UCOUNTY: U., DESCR. AND SIZE: RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE FAMILY, 83 DWELLING UNIT AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS: 838 (PER DWELLING UNIT-- 10.10) 0.000 OF VEHICLES: 439 TOTAL PROJECT VMT: 6443 miles PM10-Tire Wear TIMBER ---TRIP PURPOSE DATA: JERAGE Home -Other Home -Shop Home -Work TRIP SPEEDS: 24.6 24.6 24.6 mph AVERAGE TRIP LENGTHS: 6.1 5.3 9.0 miles FLIP PERCENTAGES: 45.9 9.3 44.9 percent AHICLE MILES TRAVELLED: 2469.8 429.6 3543.8 miles VEHICLE DATA DISTRIBUTIONS: Heavy Duty Vehicles Passenger Vehicles 0.0 EAverage Daily Trips Number 0.58 4/day 99.58 873/day LEAD of Vehicles 0.58 2 99.58 436 Vehicle Miles Travelled 0.58 31 miles 99.58 6411 miles TRIP COLD/HOT STARTS: 1008 COLD, 08 HOT EPECTRICAL SUPPLIER: SCE CONVERSION FACTOR from PER DWELLING UNIT Eto MEGAWATT-HR/DAY is 5626.5/365/1000 nd to MILLION CU FT/DAY is 6650.0/30/1,000,000 F�7I�1 TYPE: Project Specific DATA CASE: Project With Mitigation U EMISSIONS (in lbs/day) vaveeeev==vee==vvavveeevvevveeeevvevveeee VEHICLES -- F, e#_Ae-Other Trip CO ROC _Ox ox M10 -Exhaust rPM10-Tire Wear -LEAD PASS. TRUCK BOTH ------ ------ ---- Running Emissions -- 30.2 0.4 2.1 0.0 3.2 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.000 0.000 HF�ne-Shop Trip Running Emissions-- He -Other Trip Start & Soak Emissions-- CO Cold Start 66.1 0.2 66.3 ROC Cold Start 3.6 0.0 3,6 C.. 0 5.3 0.1 ROC 0.4 0.0 �rox o.s 0.0 30.6 2.1 3.3 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.000 5.3 0.4 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.000 43.9 3.1 4.7 0.5 0.1 0.8 0.000 MITIGATED EFFIC. 30.6 0.08 2.1 0.08 3.3 0.08 0.6 I Ox 0.1 0.0 M10 -Exhaust 0.0 0.0 PM10-Tire Wear 0.1 0.0 �EAD 0.000 0.000 Home -Work Trip Running Emissions-- O 43.4 0.5 OC 3.0 0.1 Ox 4.5 0.2 Ox 0.5 0.0 M10 -Exhaust 0.0 0.0 M10 -Tire Wear 0.8 0.0 LEAD 0.000 0.000 30.6 2.1 3.3 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.000 5.3 0.4 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.000 43.9 3.1 4.7 0.5 0.1 0.8 0.000 MITIGATED EFFIC. 30.6 0.08 2.1 0.08 3.3 0.08 0.0 0.0% 0.5 0.08 5.3 0.08 0.4 0.08 0.6 0.08 0.0 0.1 43.9 3.1 4.7 0.1 0.8 66.3 3.6 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 NOx Cold Start 2.1 0.0 2.1 2.1 0.08 CO Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 ROC 'Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 NOx Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 ROC Hot Soak 0.8 0.0 0.8 0.8 0.08 Home -Shop Trip Start S Soak Emissions -- 1.5 1.5 CO Cold Start 13.4 0.0 13.4 13.4 0.08 ROC Cold Start 0.7 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.08 NOx Cold Start 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.08 CO Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 ROC Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 NOx Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 ROC Hot Soak 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.08 Home -Work Trip Start & Soak Emissions -- 418 ROC CO Cold Start 64.6 0.2 64.8 64.8 0.08 ROC Cold Start 3.6 0.0 3.6 3.6 0.08 NOx Cold Start 2.1 0.0 2.1 2.1 0.08 CO Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 ROC Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 NOx Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 ROC Hot Soak 0.8 0.0 0.8 0.8 0.08 Other Evaporative Emissions -- ROC -Diurnal 2.5 0.0 2.5 J J J J 11 J I 11 J I u J J TOTAL EMISSIONS SUMMARY VEHICULAR-- PASS. TRUCK BOTH MITIGATED EFFIC. CO ------ 223.0 ------ 1.3 ------ 224.3 ------ 224.3 ------ 0.08 ROC 17.7 0.1 17.9 17.9 0.08 NOx 12.9 0.3 13.2 13.2 0.08 Sox 0.8 0.0 0.9 PM10 1.5 0.0 1.5 1.5 -0.08 LEAD 0.000 0.000 0.000 STATIONARY-- ELECT. GAS BOTH MITIGATED EFFIC. CO ------ 0.26 ------ 0.37 ------ 0.62 ------ 0.51 ------ 17.98 ROC 0.01 0..10 0.11 0.09 18.18 NOx 1.47 1.47 2.94 2.42 17.78 Sox 0.15 0.00 0.15 PM10 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.05 15.78 TOTAL-- EMISS. THRES. %THRES MITIGATED %THRES CO ------ 224.9 ------ 550.0 ------ 418 ------------ 224.8 418 ROC 18.0 55.0 338 18.0 338 NOx 16.2 55.0 298 15.6 288 Sox 1.0 150.0 18 PM10 1.6 150.0 18 1.6 18 LEAD 0.000 N/A N/A J J J J 11 J I 11 J I u J J Mitigation Measures Applied to Stationary Sources Built in enrgy efficient appls 1, Efficiencies Applied: CO 3.0%, ROC 2.5%, NOx 3.09-, PM10 6.5%. l Applied to: Electricity. Double glass paned windows Efficiencies Applied: CO 4.5%, ROC 4.5%, NOx 4.0%, PM10 2.50. Applied to: Gas and Electricity. [� Energy efficient for A/C Efficiencies Applied: CO 0.0%, ROC 0.0%, NOx 0.0%, PM10 0.5%. Applied to: Gas and Electricity. Wall/attic insul beyond Title 24 Efficiencies Applied: CO 13.0%, ROC 14.0%, NOx 13.0%, PM10 7.5%. ri Applied to: u Gas and Electricity. E F 0 LL -------------------PROJECT DESCRIPTION------------------------- I PROJECT NAME AND DESCRIPTION: Hunters Green Golf, Golf Course Development only f PROJECT STARTING YEAR: 1998 CITY: SAUGUS-BOUQUET CANYON ZIP CODE: COUNTY: LOS ANGELES AREA NUMBER: AREA2 L.U., DESCR. AND SIZE: NON-RESIDENTIAL, GOLF COURSE, 127201000 SQ.FT. AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS: 2921 (PER 1000 SQ.FT.-- 0.23) NUMBER OF VEHICLES: 1462 TOTAL PROJECT VMT: 22322 miles --TRIP PURPOSE DATA: Work. Non -Work AVERAGE TRIP SPEEDS; 24.6 24.6 mph AVERAGE TRIP LENGTHS: 10.2 5.9 miles TRIP PERCENTAGES: 40.0 60.0 percent VEHICLE MILES TRAVELLED: 11912.5 10410.3 miles J VEHICLE DATA DISTRIBUTIONS: Heavy Duty Vehicles Passenger Vehicles Average Daily Trips 12.9% 376/day 87,1% 2548/day Number of Vehicles 13.51 197 86.51 1264 Vehicle Miles Travelled 12.51s 2790 miles 87.5% 19531 miles TRIP COLD/HOT STARTS: 5096 COLD, 501 HOT Irl ELECTRICAL SUPPLIER: SCE L1 CONVERSION FACTOR from PER 1000 SQ.FT. to MEGAWATT-HR/DAY is 0.0/365/1000 f� and to MILLION CU FT/DAY is 0.0/30/1,000,000 RUN TYPE: Project Specific---DATA-CASE:-Project-Without-Mitigation EMISSIONS (in lbs/day) (� VEHICLES-- PASS. TRUCK BOTH MITIGATED EFFIC. ------ Work Trip Running Emissions ------ ------ ------ -- ------ CO 128.2 44.3 172.5 172.5 0.01 ROC 8.9 4.9 13.8 13.8 0.0°s NOx 13.4 15.3 28.7 28.7 0.0% sox 1.4 1.1 2.4 -� PM10-Exhaust 0.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 0.0% PM10-Tire Wear 2.3 0.6 2.9 2.9 0.0% I` LEAD 0.000 0.003 0.003 L_J Non -Work Trip Running Emissions -- CO 112.0 38.7 150.8 150.8 0.01 ROC 7.8 4.2 12.0 12.0 0.0% NOx 11.7 13.4 25.1 25.1 0.006 Sox 1.2 0.9 2.1 �J PM10-Exhaust 0.1 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.01 J PM10-Tire Wear 2.0 0.5 2.6 2.6 0.0% LEAD 0.000 0.003 0.003 Ll Work Trip Start & Soak Emissions -- CO Cold Start 84.1 6.2 90.4 90.4 0.0% r ROC Cold Start 4.6 0.4 5.0 5.0 0.0% j{ NOx Cold Start 2.7 0.3 3.0 3.0 0.0°s CO Hot Start 10.7 0.7 11.4 11.4 0.006 ROC Hot Start 1.0 0.1 1.2 1.2 0.001 NOx Hot Start 1.4 0.2 1.6 1.6 0.01 ROC Hot Soak 2.1 0.2 2.4 2.4 0.006 Non -Work Trip Start & Soak Emissions-- I CO Cold Start 126.1 9.3 135.4 135.4 0.006 ROC Cold Start 6.9 0.6 7.6 7.6 0.00-. f l aNOx Cold Start 4.0 0.5 4.5 4.5 0.016 CO Hot Start 16.0 1.0 17.0 17:0 0.0% n�1 ROC Hot Start 1.5 0.2 1.7 1.7 0.01 LUJ NOx Hot Start 2.1 0.2 2.4 2.4 0.0% ROC Hot Soak 3.2 0.4 3.5 3.5 0.01 []ther Evaporative Emissions -- ROC -Diurnal 7.3 1.2 8.5 TOTAL EMISSIONS SUMMARY EHICULAR-- PASS. TRUCK BOTH MITIGATED EFFIC. CO 477.1 100.3 577.4 577.4 0.0°s ROC 43.4 12.3 55.7 55.7 0.00- .0%NOx NOx 35.4 30.0 65.4 65.4 0.0% Sox 2.6 2.0 4.6 PM10 4.5 3.1 7.7 7.7 0.0% LEAD 0.000 0.006 0.006 [rATIONARY-- LJ------ ELECT. GAS BOTH MITIGATED EFFIC. ------ CO 0.00 ------ 0.00 ------ 0.00 ------ 0.00 0.001 ROC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% NOx 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% sox 0.00 0.00 0.00 PM10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0..00 0.0% n 1TPML1-- EMISS. THRES. %THRES MITIGATED %THRES CO ------ 577.4 ------ 550.0 ------ 1056 ------------ 577.4 105% ROC 55.7 55.0 10151, 55.7 101% NOx 65.4 55.0 119% 65.4 119% Sox 4.6 150.0 3% PM10 7.7 150.0 50- 7.7 506 LEAD 0.006 N/A N/A I in I P J 11 --------------------PROJECT DESCRIPTION -------------------------- PROJECT NAME AND DESCRIPTION: Existing Entitlement Residential Estate Development Only PROJECT STARTING YEAR: 1998 CITY: SAUGUS-BOUQUET CANYON ZIP CODE: COUNTY: LOS ANGELES Project Without Mitigation AREA NUMBER: AREA2 L.U., DESCR. AND SIZE: RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE FAMILY, 158 DWELLING UNIT AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS: 1596 (PER DWELLING UNIT-- 10.10) NUMBER OF VEHICLES: 813 TOTAL PROJECT VMT: 11944 miles ----- TRIP PURPOSE DATA: Home -Other Home -Shop Home -Work AVERAGE TRIP SPEEDS: 24.6 24.6 24.6 mph AVERAGE TRIP LENGTHS: 6.1 5.3 9.0 miles TRIP PERCENTAGES: 45.9 9.3 44.9 percent VEHICLE MILES TRAVELLED: 4575.0 798.4 6570.7 miles VEHICLE DATA DISTRIBUTIONS: Heavy Duty Vehicles Passenger Vehicles Average Daily Trips 0.58 8/day 99.58 1617/day Number of Vehicles 0.58 4 99.58 808 Vehicle Miles Travelled 0.58 58 miles 99.58 11885 miles TRIP COLD/HOT STARTS: 1008 COLD, 08 HOT ELECTRICAL SUPPLIER: SCE CONVERSION FACTOR from PER DWELLING UNIT to MEGAWATT-HR/DAY is 5626.5/365/1000 and to MILLION CU FT/DAY is 6650.0/30/1,000,000 RUN TYPE: Project Specific DATA CASE: Project Without Mitigation 9.9 0.08 EMISSIONS (in lbs/day) 0.7 0.7 _______________________________=_________ VEHICLES-- PASS. TR BOTH MITIGATED EFFIC. ------------------ Home -Other Trip Running Emissions-- Sox ------ ------ CO 55.9 0.7 56.6 56.6 0.08 ROC 3.9 0.1 4.0 4.0 0.08 NOx 5.9 0.2 6.1 6.1 0.0% Sox 0.6 0.0 0.6 Emissions -- PM10-Exhaust 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.08 PM10-Tire Wear 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.08 LEAD 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.3 8.7 Home -Shop Trip Running Emissions -- CO 9.8 0.1 9.9 9.9 0.08 ROC 0.7 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.08 NOx 1.0 0.0 1.1 1.1 0.08 Sox 0.1 0.0 0.1 PM10-Exhaust 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 PM10-Tire Wear 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.08 LEAD 0.000 0.000 0.000 Tome -Work Trip Running Emissions -- CO 80.3 1.0 81.2 81.2 0.08 ROC 5.6 0.1 5.7 5.7 0.08 NOx 8.4 0.3 8.7 8.7 0.08 Sox 0.9 0.0 0.9 PM10-Exhaust 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.08 PM10-Tire Wear 1.4 0.0 1.5 1.5 0.08 LEAD 0.000 0.000 0.000 Some -Other Trip Start S Soak Emissions -- CO Cold Start 122.5 0.3 122.8 122.8 0.08 ROC Cold Start 6.7 0.0 6.7 6.7 0.08 Ll E I I iL J r `NOx Cold Start 3.9 0.0 3.9 3.9 0.08 CO Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 tOC Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 Ox Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 ROC Hot Soak 1.5 0.0 1.5 1.5 0.08 "e -Shop Trip Start & Soak Emissions -- CO Cold Start 24.8 0.1 24.9 24.9 0.08 [-,ROC Cold Start 1.4 0.0 1.4 1.4 0.08 �lOx Cold Start 0.8 0.0 0.8 0.8 0.08 CO Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 ROC Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 Zx Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 Hot Soak 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.08 H� a -Work Trip Start & Soak Emissions-- �GO Cold Start 119.8 0.3 120.1 120.1 0.08 OC Cold Start 6.6 0.0 6.6 6.6 0.08 $IOx Cold Start 3.8 0.0 3.9 3.9 0.08 O Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 kOC Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 NOx Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 TOC Hot Soak IT 1.5 0.0 1.5 1.5 0.08 Other Evaporative Emissions-- ROC -Diurnal uTOTAL 4.7 0.0 4.7 EMISSIONS SUMMARY VEHICULAR-- PASS_- TRUCK- BOTH-- MITIGATED EFFIC. [to 413.1 2.4 415.5 415.5 0.08 ROC 32.9 0.3 33.1 33.1 0.08 `iOx 23.9 0.6 24.5 24.5 0.08 11. 3Ox 1.6 0.0 1.6 ,I)M10 2.8 0.1 2.8 2.8 0.08 'PEAD 0.000 0.000 0.000 SU+I TIONARY-- ELECT. GAS BOTH MITIGATED EFFIC. 0 ------ 0.49 ------ 0.70 ------ 1.19 ------ 1.19 ------ 0.08 OC 0.02 0.19 0.21 0.21 0.08 NOx 2.80 2.80 5.60 5.60 0.08 Ox 0.29 0.00 0.29 M10 0.10 0.01 0.10 0.10 0.08 TjAL-- EMISS_ THRES_ %THRES MITIGATED %THRES O 416.7 550.0 768 416.7 768 ROC 33.4 55.0 618 33.4 618 ,_Ox 30.1 55.0 558 30.1 558 �Ox 1.9 150.0 18 PM10 2.9 .150.0 28 2.9 28 �EAD 0.000 N/A N/A I Q --------------------PROJECT DESCRIPTION -------------------------- PROJECT NAME AND DESCRIPTION: Existing Tract Maps Reconstituted Projects PROJECT STARTING YEAR: 1998 CITY: SAUGUS-BOUQUET CANYON ZIP CODE: COUNTY: LOS ANGELES AREA NUMBER: AREA2 L.U., DESCR. AND SIZE: RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE FAMILY, 222 DWELLING UNIT AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS: 2242 (PER DWELLING UNIT-- 10.10) NUMBER OF VEHICLES: 1121 TOTAL PROJECT VMT: 16469 miles -----TRIP PURPOSE DATA: Home -Other Home -Shop Home -Work AVERAGE TRIP SPEEDS: 24.6 24.6 24.6 mph AVERAGE TRIP LENGTHS: 6.1 5.3 9.0 miles TRIP PERCENTAGES: 45.9 9.3 44.9 percent VEHICLE MILES TRAVELLED: 6308.2 1100.9 9059.9 miles VEHICLE DATA DISTRIBUTIONS: Heavy Duty Vehicles Passenger Vehicles Average Daily Trips 0.58 11/day 99.58 2230/day Number of Vehicles 0.58 5 99.5% 1115 Vehicle Miles Travelled 0.58 80 miles 99.58 16388 miles TRIP COLD/HOT STARTS: 100% COLD, 08 HOT ELECTRICAL SUPPLIER: SCE ll �J CONVERSION FACTOR from PER DWELLING UNIT to MEGAWATT-HR/DAY is 5626.5/365/1000 and to MILLION CU FT/DAY is 6650.0/30/1,000,000 RUN TYPE: Project Specific DATA CASE: Project Without Mitigation EMISSIONS (in lbs/day) r� J VEHICLES-- PASS. TRUCK BOTH MITIGATED EFFIC. ----------- Home -Other Trip Running -Emissions - ------ ------ CO 77.1 0.9 78.0 78.0 0.08 ROC 5.4 0.1 5.5 5.5 0.08 NOx 8.1 0.3 8.4 8.4 0.08) Sox 0.8 0.0 0.9 PM1O-Exhaust 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.08 PM10-Tire Wear 1.4 0.0 1.4 1.4 0.08 (� LEAD 0.000 0.000 0.000 �1 Home -Shop Trip Running Emissions -- CO 13.5 0.2 13.6 13.6 0.08 ROC 0.9 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.08 NOx 1.4 0.1 1.5 1.5 0.08 Sox 0.1 0.0 0.1 PM10-Exhaust 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 PM1O-Tire Wear 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.08 LEAD 0.000 0.000 0.000 Home -Work Trip Running Emissions-- �I CO 110.7 1.3 112.0 112.0 0.08 ROC 7.7 0.1 7.8 7.8 0.08 NOx 11.6 0.5 12.0 12.0 0.08 Sox 1.2 0.0 1.2 PM1O-Exhaust 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.08 PM10-Tire Wear 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.08 LEAD 0.000 0.000 0.000 Some -Other Trip Start & Soak Emissions -- CO Cold Start 168.9 0.4 169.3 169.3 0.08 ROC Cold Start 9.3 0.0 9.3 9.3 0.08 r� LNOx Cold Start 5.4 0.0 5.4 5.4 0.0% CO Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% IROC Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% NOx Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% ROC Hot Soak 2.1 0.0 2.1 2.1 0.0% Ox Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% _,,ROC Hot Soak 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0% T�''}ne-Work Trip Start & Soak Emissions - 0 Cold Start 165.2 0.4 165.6 `ROC Cold Start 9.1 0.0 9.1 NOx Cold Start 5.3 0.0 5.3 [1-0 Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 LL -AOC Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 NOx Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 1R0C Hot Soak 2.1 0.0 2.1 Other Evaporative Emissions-- 1�OC-Diurnal 6.5 0.0 6.5 ------ 0.98 TOTAL EMISSIONS SUMMARY 165.6 0.0% c'me-Shop Trip Start & Soak Emissions -- EFFIC. 9.1 CO Cold Start 34.2 0.1 34.3 34.3 0.0% ROC Cold Start 1.9 0.0 1.9 1.9 0.0% POx Cold Start 1.1 0.0 1.1 1.1 0.0% •CO Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% ROC Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% Ox Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% _,,ROC Hot Soak 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0% T�''}ne-Work Trip Start & Soak Emissions - 0 Cold Start 165.2 0.4 165.6 `ROC Cold Start 9.1 0.0 9.1 NOx Cold Start 5.3 0.0 5.3 [1-0 Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 LL -AOC Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 NOx Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 1R0C Hot Soak 2.1 0.0 2.1 Other Evaporative Emissions-- 1�OC-Diurnal 6.5 0.0 6.5 O L OC NOx Ox M10 TOTAL -- 110 ROC Ox Ox PM10 ,-,LEAD J II ------ 0.68 ------ 0.98 TOTAL EMISSIONS SUMMARY 165.6 0.0% PASS. TRUCK BOTH MITIGATED EFFIC. 9.1 0.0% 0.0% ------ ------ ------ 5.3 0.0% 572.9 572.9 0.0% ROC 45.3 0.0 0.0% 45.7 0.0% NOx 32.9 0.9 0.0 0.0% 0.0% SOX { 2.2 0.1 2.2 0.0 0.0% �PM10 3.8 0.1 3.9 3.9 2.1 0.0% O L OC NOx Ox M10 TOTAL -- 110 ROC Ox Ox PM10 ,-,LEAD J II ------ 0.68 ------ 0.98 TOTAL EMISSIONS SUMMARY 0.03 VEHICULAR-- PASS. TRUCK BOTH MITIGATED EFFIC. 'O ------------ 0.0% ------ ------ ------ 569.6 3.3 572.9 572.9 0.0% ROC 45.3 0.4 45.7 45.7 0.0% NOx 32.9 0.9 33.8 33.8 0.0% SOX { 2.2 0.1 2.2 �PM10 3.8 0.1 3.9 3.9 0.0% 0.000 0.000 0.000 HEAD 5-,ATIONARY-- ELECT. GAS BOTH MITIGATED EFFIC. O L OC NOx Ox M10 TOTAL -- 110 ROC Ox Ox PM10 ,-,LEAD J II ------ 0.68 ------ 0.98 ------ 1.67 ------ 1.67 ------ 0.0% 0.03 0.26 0.30 0.30 0.0% 3.94 3.94 7.87 7.87 0.0% 0.41 0.00 0.41 0.14 0.01 0.15 0.15 0.0% EMISS. THRES. %THRES MITIGATED %THRES 574.6 550.0 46.0 55.0 41.6 55.0 2.6 150.0 4.0 150.0 0.000 N/A 104% 574.6 104% 84% 46.0 84% 76% 41.6 76% 2% 3% 4.0 3% N/A Cl --------------------PROJECT DESCRIPTION-------------------------- PROJECT NAME AND DESCRIPTION: Single Golf Course Northeaset Parcel only, 160 acres PROJECT STARTING YEAR: 1998 �J CITY: SAUGUS-BOUQUET CANYON ZIP CODE: COUNTY: LOS ANGELES AREA NUMBER: AREA2 L.U., DESCR. AND SIZE: NON-RESIDENTIAL, GOLF COURSE, 6970 1000 SQ.FT. l� t AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS: 1600 (PER 1000 SQ.FT.-- 0.23) NUMBER OF VEHICLES: 800 TOTAL PROJECT VMT: 12210 miles -----TRIP PURPOSE DATA: Work Non -Work ( AVERAGE TRIP SPEEDS: 24.6 24.6 mph 1.1 AVERAGE TRIP LENGTHS: 10.2 5.9 miles TRIP PERCENTAGES: 40.0 60.0 percent VEHICLE MILES TRAVELLED: 6516.2 5694.5 miles j VEHICLE DATA DISTRIBUTIONS: Heavy Duty Vehicles Passenger Vehicles Average Daily Trips 12.9% 205/day 87.106 1394/day Number of Vehicles 13.5% 108 86.5% 691 Vehicle Miles Travelled 12.5% 1526 miles 87.5% 10683 miles TRIP COLD/HOT STARTS: SO% COLD, 50% HOT ELECTRICAL SUPPLIER: SCE �J CONVERSION FACTOR from PER 1000 SQ.FT. to MEGAWATT-HR/DAY is 0.0/365/1000 {� and to MILLION CU FT/DAY is 0.0/30/1,000,000 RUN TYPE: Project Specific DATA CASE: Project Without Mitigation EMISSIONS (in lbs/day) r J VEHICLES-- PASS. TRUCK BOTH MITIGATED EFFIC. Work Trip Running Emissions CO70.1 24.2 94.4 94.4 0.0% ROC 4.9 NOx 7.3 2.7 7.5 7.5 8.4 15.7 15.7 0.006 0.006 Sox 0.8 0.6 1.3 PM10-Exhaust 0.1 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.0% PM10-Tire Wear 1.3 0.3 1.6 1.6 0.0% LEAD 0.000 0.002 0.002 Non -Work Trip Running Emissions-- CO 61.3 21.2 82.5 82.5 0.01 ROC 4.3 2.3 6.6 6.6 0.0% NOx 6.4 7.3 13.7 13.7 0.0% sox 0.7 0.5 1.2 PM10-Exhaust 0.1 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.01 iJ PM10-Tire Wear 1.1 0.3 1.4 1.4 0.05k LEAD 0.000 0.002 0.002 Work Trip Start & Soak Emissions -- CO Cold Start 46.0 ROC Cold Start 2.5 3.4 49.4 49.4 0.2 2.8 2.8 0.0% 0.006 (7 NOx Cold Start 1.5 0.2 1.7 1.7 0.0% t1 CO Hot Start 5.8 0.4 6.2 6.2 0.0% ROC Hot Start 0.6 0.1 0.6 0.6 0.0% NOx Hot Start 0.8 0.1 0.9 0.9 0.01 �1 } ROC Hot Soak 1.2 0.1 1.3 1.3 0.0% Non -Work Trip Start & Soak Emissions-- CO Cold Start 69.0 5.1 74.1 74.1 0.016 ROC Cold Start 3.8 0.3 4.1 4.1 0.00; [J Cj NOx Cold Start 2.2 0.3 2.5 2.5 0.0% CO Hot Start 8,.7 0.6 9.3 9.3 0.0% ROC Hot Start 0.8 0.1 1.0 1.0 0.0% �J NOx Hot Start 1.2 0.1 1.3 1.3 0.0°s ROC Hot Soak 1.7 0.2 1.9 1.9 0.01 �ither Evaporative Emissions -- ROC -Diurnal 4.0 0.6 4.6 EMISSIONS SUMMARY VTOTAL EHICULAR-- PASS. TRUCK BOTH MITIGATED EFFIC. CO 261.0 54.9 315.8 315.8 0.0% ROC 23.8 6.7 30.5 30.5 0.0% NOx 19.4 16.4 35.8 35.8 0.066 G�SOx PM10 1.4 2.5 1.1 1.7 2.5 4.2 4.2 0.0% LEAD 0.000 0.003 , 0.003 (-'I'ATIONARY-- LJ------ ELECT. GAS BOTH MITIGATED EFFIC. Co 0.00 ------ 0.00 ------ 0.00 ------ 0.00 ------ 0.0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% CROC NOx 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 Sox 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% 1PM10 "OTAL-- EMISS. THRES. %THRES MITIGATED %THRES co ---- 315.8 ------ 550.0 ------ 57% ------------ 315.8 57% I'ROC 30.5 55.0 55% 30.5 556 NOx 35.8 55.0 65% 35.8 65% sox i� fPM10 -LEAD 2.5 4.2 150. 0 150.0 21 3% 4.2 3% 0.003 N/A N/A L, Fif P, 0 P Home -Work Trip Running Emissions -- CO 24.0 0.3 --------------------PROJECT DESCRIPTION-------------------------- 0.0% PROJECT NAME AND DESCRIPTION: Hunters Green ROC Mixed Use Development Alternative 0.0 1.7 PROJECT STARTING YEAR: 1998 0.0% L CITY: SAUGUS-BOUQUET CANYON ZIP CODE: 2.5 COUNTY: LOS ANGELES AREA NUMBER: AREA2 2.6 0.0% L.U., DESCR. AND SIZE: RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE FAMILY, 50 DWELLING UNIT 0.3 C1 AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS: 505 (PER DWELLING UNIT-- 10.10) NUMBER OF VEHICLES: 243 TOTAL PROJECT VMT: 3566 miles 0.0 0.0 0.0 ----- TRIP PURPOSE DATA: Home -Other Home -Shop Home -Work PM10-Tire Wear 0.4 AVERAGE TRIP SPEEDS: 24.6 24.6 24.6 mph 0.4 AVERAGE TRIP LENGTHS: 6.1 5.3 9.0 miles LEAD TRIP PERCENTAGES: 45.9 9.3 44.9 percent 0.000 rr VEHICLE MILES TRAVELLED: 1367.1 237.8 1961.6 miles La L VEHICLE DATA DISTRIBUTIONS: Heavy Duty Vehicles Passenger Vehicles Average Daily Trips 0.58 2/day 99.58 483/day Home -Other Trip ("1 Number of Vehicles 0.58 1 99.58 241 U Vehicle Miles Travelled 0.5% 17 miles 99.58 3548 miles 36.6 TRIP COLD/HOT STARTS: 100% COLD, 0% HOT 36.7 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIER: SCE ROC Cold Start CONVERSION FACTOR from PER DWELLING UNIT 2.0 to MEGAWATT-HR/DAY is 5626.5/365/1000 { and to MILLION CU FT/DAY is 6650.0/30/1,000,000 RUN TYPE: Project Specific DATA CASE: Project Without Mitigation EMISSIONS (in lbs/day) aaaaaa-aaaaaaaaaaaaeaaaaavaauasaaaaaaaaaa VEHICLES-- PASS. TRUCK TRUCK- BOTH_- MITIGATED EFFIC_ Home -Other Trip Running issions-- CO 16.7 0.2 16.9 16.9 0.0% ROC 1.2 0.0 1.2 1.2 0.0% �. NOx 1.7 0.1 1.8 1.8 0.0% ) Sox 0.2 0.0 0.2 PM10-Exhaust 0.0 PM10-Tire Wear 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0% LEAD 0.000 0.000 0.000 Home -Shop Trip Running Emissions -- CO 2.9 0.0 2.9 2.9 0.0% ROC 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0% NOx 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0% (� Sox 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 PM10-Exhaust 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% PM10-Tire Wear 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0% LEAD 0.000 0.000 0.000 C� Home -Work Trip Running Emissions -- CO 24.0 0.3 24.3 24.3 0.0% (� ROC 1.7 0.0 1.7 1.7 0.0% L NOx 2.5 0.1 2.6 2.6 0.0% Sox 0.3 0.0 0.3 PM10-Exhaust 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 PM10-Tire Wear 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0% LEAD 0.000 0.000 0.000 1 Home -Other Trip Start 6 Soak Emissions -- CO Cold Start 36.6 0.1 36.7 36.7 0.08 ROC Cold Start 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0% %Ox Cold Start 1.2 0.0 1.2 1.2 0.08 CO Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 nROC Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 UVOx Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 ROC Hot Soak 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.08 � me -Shop Trip Start & Soak Emissions -- CO Cold Start 7.4 0.0 7.4 7.4 0.08 ROC Cold Start 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.08 NOx Cold Start 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.08 CO Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 ROC Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 SNOx Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 t_:ROC Hot Soak 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.08 Mme -Work Trip Start & Soak Emissions-- CO Cold Start 35.8 0.1 35.9 35.9 0.08 -ROC Cold Start 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.08 NOx Cold Start 1.1 0.0 1.2 1.2 0.08 r1CO Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 L,ROC Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 NOx Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 ROC Hot Soak Ci 0.4 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.08 Other Evaporative Emissions-- L,ROC-Diurnal 1.4 0.0 1.4 TOTAL EMISSIONS SUMMARY VEHICULAR-- PASS. TRUCK BOTH MITIGATED EFFIC. ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ CO PCO 123.4 0.7 124.1 124.1 0.08 ROC 9.8 0.1 9.9 9.9 0.08 NOx 7.1 0.2 7.3 7.3 0.08 t'sOx 0.5 0.0 0.5 'PM10 0.8 0.0 0.8 0.8 0.08 LEAD 0.000 0.000 0.000 LTIONARY-- ELECT. GAS BOTH MITIGATED EFFIC. ------ 0.15 ------ 0.22 ------ 0.38 ------ 0.38 ------ 0.08 30 0C 0.01 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.08 NOx 0.89 0.89 1.77 1.77 0.08 (-�SOx 0.09 0.00 0.09 �?M10 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.08 TOTAL-- EMISS� THRES_ %THRES MITIGATED %THRES 0 124.5 550.0 238 124.5 238 ROC 10.0 55.0 188 10.0 188 Ox 9.1 55.0 178 9.1 178 tiOx 0.6 150.0 08 PM10 0.9 150.0 18 0.9 18 LEAD C 0.000 N/A N/A n --------------------PROJECT DESCRIPTION -------------------------- PROJECT NAME AND DESCRIPTION: Small 18 -hole course West slope only golf course UPROJECT STARTING YEAR: 1998 CITY: SAUGUS-BOUQUET CANYON ZIP CODE: (in COUNTY: LOS ANGELES 42.6 AREA NUMBER: AREA2 MITIGATED L.U., DESCR. AND SIZE: NON-RESIDENTIAL, Emissions GOLF COURSE, 4356 1000 SQ.FT. NOx AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS: 828 (PER 1000 SQ.FT.-- 0.19) &i ie_'. L,-,;, k, , NUMBER OF VEHICLES: 413 TOTAL PROJECT VMT: 6311 miles o j� 'TTE n ----- TRIP PURPOSE DATA: Work Non -Work 8.1 8.1 AVERAGE TRIP SPEEDS: 24.6 24.6 mph / AVERAGE TRIP LENGTHS: 10.2 5.9 miles 0.3 TRIP PERCENTAGES: 40.0 60.0 percent _ (? VEHICLE MILES TRAVELLED: 3368.1 2943.4 miles Li VEHICLE DATA DISTRIBUTIONS: Heavy Duty Vehicles Passenger Vehicles 25.6 Average Daily Trips 12.990 106/day 87.1% 720/day 1.4 Number of Vehicles 13.5% 55 86.5% 357 0.1 Vehicle Miles Travelled 12.5% 788 miles 87.5% 5522 miles 3.0 TRIP COLD/HOT STARTS: 50% COLD, 50% HOT 0.0% ROC Hot Start ELECTRICAL SUPPLIER: SCE CONVERSION FACTOR from PER 1000 SQ.FT. to MEGAWATT-HR/DAY is 0.0/365/1000 and to MILLION CU FT/DAY is 0.0/30/1,000,000 RUN TYPE VEHICLES - Screening Run DATA CASE: Project Without. Mitigation Work Trip Running CO ROC NOx sox PM10-Exhaust PM10-Tire Wear LEAD Non -Work Trip Running Emissions -- CO EMISSIONS (in lbs/day) 42.6 ----------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- PASS. TRUCK BOTH MITIGATED EFFIC. Emissions -- 0.0% NOx 3.3 36.2 12.5 48.8 48.8 0.0% 2.5 1.4 3.9 3.9 0.0% 3.8 4.3 8.1 8.1 0.0% 0.4 0.3 0.7 0.2 0.7 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0% 0.6 0.2 0.8 0.8 0.09. 0.000 0.001 0.001 CO Cold Start 23.8 Non -Work Trip Running Emissions -- CO 31.7 10.9 42.6 42.6 0.0% ROC 2.2 1.2 3.4 3.4 0.0% NOx 3.3 3.8 7.1 7.1 0.06 Sox 0.3 0.3 0.6 PM10-Exhaust 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0% PM10-Tire Wear 0.6 0.2 0.7 0.7 0.0% LEAD 0.000 0.001 0.001 Work Trip Start & Soak Emissions -- CO Cold Start 23.8 1.8 25.6 25.6 0.0% ROC Cold Start 1.3 0.1 1.4 1.4 0.0% NOx Cold Start 0.8 0.1 0.9 0.9 0.0% CO Hot Start 3.0 0.2 3.2 3.2 0.0% ROC Hot Start 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0% NOx Hot Start 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.001 ROC Hot Soak 0.6 0.1 0.7 0.7 0.0% Non -Work Trip Start & Soak Emissions— CO Cold Start 35.6 2.6 38.3 38.3 0.0% ROC Cold Start 2.0 0.2 2.1 2.1 0.0% lf� 0 �1 �) U 1.3 0.0% 4.8 NOx Cold Start 1.1 0.1 �1 CO II ROC Hot Start Hot Start 4.5 0.4 0.3 0.1 L NOx Hot Start 0.6 0.1 ROC Hot Soak 0.9 0.1 Ether Evaporative Emissions -- ROC -Diurnal 2.1 0.3 VEHICULAR-- co 1-� ROC NOx SOX PM10 LEAD FTATIONARY-- CO ROC NOx sox PM10 I tt OTAL- i� CO ROC NOx }Sox PM10 n LEAD U 0 U P I PASS. 134.9 12.3 10.0 0.7 1.3 0.000 ELECT. EMISS. 163.2 15.8 18.5 1.3 2.2 0.002 1.3 1.3 0.0% 4.8 4.8 0.006 0.5 0.5 0.0% 0.7 0.7 0.0% 1.0 1.0 0.001 2.4 TOTAL EMISSIONS SUMMARY TRUCK BOTH MITIGATED 28.4 163.2 163.2 3.5 15.8 15.8 8.5 18.5 18.5 0.6 1.3 18.5 0.9 2.2 2.2 0.002 0.002 0x 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 550.0 55.0 55.0 150.0 150.0 N/A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 %THRES 30% 29% 34% 1% 1% N/A EFFIC. 0.0° 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% MITIGATED EFFIC. 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% MITIGATED %THRES 163.2 30% 15.8 29% 18.5 34% 2.2 1% PARTICULATE MATTER Scenario: Mixed Use Development Alternative/ Sand and Gravel Dirt Piling Mean wind speed 12 mph Note: Moisture Content Moisture content 2% Dry 2% Amount of dirt 2083333 lbs/day Moist 15% 34 % Time wind speed>12 mph Wet 50% PM10 Emissions 3.6 lbs/day 20.0 lbs/day Haul Road Vehicle Travel Dirt Pushing Silt Content 7.5% Moisture Content 2% Hours Operating 8 PM10 Emissions 61.8 lbs/day Wind Erosion of Storage Piles Silt Content 7.5% Days with >0.01" rain 34 % Time wind speed>12 mph 25% Acreage of piles 2 PM10 Emissions 20.0 lbs/day Haul Road Vehicle Travel Surface Sin Load 8% Mean Vehicle Speed 15 mph Number of Wheels 18 Vehicle Weight 35 tons Days with >0.01" rain 34 Vehicle Miles Traveled 184.8 miles PM10 Emissions 1389.3 lbs/day Methodology Source: SCAQMD, 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook I lJ SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT HEAVY-DUTY EQUIPMENT EMISSIONS Per Table A9 -8-A, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Nov. 1993 Project: Hunters Green - Mixed Use Alternative, sand and gravel operation CEmissions in pounds per day Usage per day Carbon Reactive Nitrogen Sulfur Equipment Type (G or C Number in hours Monoxide Organic Cmpnds Oxides Oxides PM10 Fork Lift -50 Hp D 0 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 #NIA 0.0 Fork Lift -175 Hp D 0 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A 0.0 C� Off -Highway Truc D 3 8 43.2 4.6 100.1 10.8 6.2 Tracked Loader D 0 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tracked Tractor D 1 8 2.8 1.0 10.1 1.1 0.9 Scraper D • 0 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 G Wheeled Dozer D 0 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wheeled Loader D 1 8 4.6 1.8 15.2 1.5 1.4 Wheeled Tractor D 0 8 Roller D 1 8 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.5 0.0 7.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.4 Motor Grader D 0 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ^ Miscellaneous D 1 4 2.7 0.6 6.8 0.6 0.6 (+�f Total: 55.7 8.5 139.1 14.5 9.5 Number of days lJ operating/week: 5 Averaged Dairy h 39.8 6.1 99.4 10.3 6.8 operating/month: 20.8 Monthly tns: 0.6 0.1 1.4 0.2 0.1 Thresholds (SCAQMD, Nov., 1993) Daily, lbs 550 55 55 150 150 r I=� I 0 F Page 1 I EMFAC7F-VEHICLE EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS Protect:. Hunters Green Scenario'.. Sand 8 Gravel on-Hghway Truck taps Date 07/17/95 Daily 2 -Way Trips'. 42 year: 19% Average Trip Length` 60 Speed: 35 %Cold Start'. 50.0% TCG -Temperature: 75 %Hot Start:. 50.0`k CO -Temperature:. 50 000 NOx-Temperature. 75 0.26 FLEET MIX 0.00 proportion 000 0.00 Miles Cold Start 0.00 0.00 Total NCatI Cat Diesell NCa1I Cat I esel %Autos 000 116 98.58 0.26 0 0 0 % LD Trucks 0 W 016 99.54 0.30 0 0 0 1% Mu Trucks I 000 1.06 98.96 0.00 0 0 0 HD Trucks I 100.00 9.80 40.20 50.00 1 247 1 1 013 1 1,260 % Motorcycles I 0.00 100.00 I 0.00 0.00 1 01 0 1 0 Hot Start 0.00 0.00 000 0.00 1.83 (Tire Wear) Cold Start 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hat Soak 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Diurnal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Resting 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Evaporative 0.00 0.00 000 0.00 000 TO AL 5.78 527 2161 cinM ce rrnoc 29.83 0.46 CMMor Run TOO co NOx PM NCat Auto Run 4.80 NCM ran Rin 43.10 we re. Rin 2.73 NCI m. an 004 Cal Auto Run 0.21 cI ". Rug 2.11 Cae ". Rin 0.36 cm h.e Rin 0.01 Diesel Auto Run 0.31 D..I nee RM. 104 ci w ". Rin 1.25 m.w r... Rye 045 NCat LDT Run 3.17 NCM Lor Rin 27.72 Nan Lor Rin 2.29 NCI LOT R. 0.04 Cat LDT Run 0.28 "LMR- 2.71 ce LDr Rae 0.51 CM LOT Rn 0.01 Diesel LDT Run 030 Dew LOT Rin 1.00 Die* LOT Rn 1.13 pew Lor Rye 0.42 NCat MOT Run 3.87 NCI Mm mn 35.76 We MDT Rin 2.31 Womor Rin 0.04 Cat MDT Run 0.46 CMMor Run 2.51 cin MUT Rin 0.92 cMMm Rm 0.01 HDT Run 2.08 wrRm 7,78 ewT R- 10.74 NOTRm 1.70 Motorcycle Run 1.88 Me wn 7.55 Maroc Rin 0.91 MI ew R. 0.01 NCat Auto Hot Start 16.15 wemt.wste 34.28 NClraewa 4.59 Narr.m-vn, a 0.20 Cal Auto Hot Start 048 Clr.wwavt 10.35 cm M.ew a.rt 1.05 cin M. Tin, Wen 0.20 Diesel Auto Hat Start 0.18 oew M..wa 3.51 oeei..wsul 0.09 mew r.Ro nn, w 0.20 NCat LDT Hot Start 9.83 WMILIMMStell 21.15 We LDrwa 5.54 Nce Lurr..w 0.20 Cat LDT Hot Start 0.62 CM LOr w she 13.06 Ce LOT w Set 1.38 Cin Lot T. we.. 0.20 Diesel LDT Hot Start 0.31 Daae Lm w 385 New LOTNa 31 0.69 Dew LDTnn w 0.20 NCat MDT Hot Start 11.89 28.79 we Mtrrw 5.17 ww MOTnnw 0.20 Cat MDT Het Start 1.09 w swa 11.68Moto cw Hot Start 345w a. 3.92 MI wa. 064 Nm w- 066NCat Auto Cold Start 1438 Cdaa 123.31 we w. teas 376 Moue wnnw 010 Cat Auto Cdd Start 3.72 cewa 100.80 ce r..o caaa 199 Diesel Auto Cold Start 0.58 m Cee 721 De.e Mm cera 0.31 NCat LDT Cold Start ffma.4rwa. 15.10 Ceti a. 69.46 NCMLDTcaea. 471 Cat LDT Cold Start 425 0,M a.n 128.76 Diesel LDT Cold Start 096 T c.wa 5.70De.rLor teas1.00NCat MDT Cold Start 13.06 rc s, 54.88 rvce Morceaa 4.30Cat MOT Cdd Start 546 cae 151.93 ceMorcoraa, 4.29Motom cle COW Start 828 tee 107.51 Me tae O.6t NCat Auto Hot Soak 6.81 Cat Auto Hot Soak 044 Explanation NCat LDT Hot Soak 5.78 Cat LDT Hot Soak 074-7- NCat Vehicles without catalytic convertors NCat MDT Hot Soak 5.56 Cat Vehicles with catalytic convertors Cat MDT Hit Soak 0.36 LDT Light duty truck Motorcycle Hot Soak 0.53 MDT Medium duty truck NCat Auto Diurnal 5.59 HDT Heavy duty truck Cat Auto Diurnal 0.64 Run Exhaust emissions (glim) during warned up operation NCat LDT Diurnal 4 74 Hot Start Exhaust emissions (gimp) following short (< 1 hour) engine -of Cat LDT Diurnal 0.69 Cold Start Exhaust emissions (gAnp) following long (>4 hours) engintwtl NCat MDT Diumal 457 Hat Soak Evaporative emissions (glinp) immediately blaming ergine -of Cat MDT Diumal 060 Diurnal Evaporative emissions (gmcur) due to daily rise in temperatur Motorcycle Diurnal 041 Resting Evaporative emissions,(g/hou0 due to fuel line Or plastic tank NCat Auto Resting 0.09 Evaporative Evaporative emissions (g/mi) due to hrel system heating Bunn Cat Auto Resting 0.14 NCat LDT Restina 1 040 Cat LDT Resta 0.15 NCat MDT Resting 0.39 Cat MDT Resting 0.14 NCat Auto Eva Wm 0.240 Cat Auto E"Poratiftm 0.055 NCat LDT Evapomthnre 0.211 Cat LDT Evaporative 0.050 NCat MDT Eva 0206. Cat MDT Evaporative 0.039 period period Iermeation I operation b --------------------PROJECT DESCRIPTION-------------------------- QJECT NAME AND DESCRIPTION: Hunters Green tZeneral Plan Buildout Alternative P -DJECT STARTING YEAR: 1998 CITY: SAUGUS-BOUQUET CANYON ZIP CODE: .OUNTY: LOS ANGELES AREA NUMBER: AREA2 L ., DESCR. AND SIZE: RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE FAMILY, 324 DWELLING UNIT OVERAGE DAILY TRIPS: 3272 (PER DWELLING UNIT-- 10.10) ArtMER OF VEHICLES: 1636 TOTAL PROJECT VMT: 24011 miles --TRIP PURPOSE DATA: Home -Other Home -Shop Home -Work ORAGE TRIP SPEEDS: 24.6 24.6 24.6 mph OVERAGE TRIP LENGTHS: 6.1 5.3 9.0 miles Pr�P PERCENTAGES: 45.9 9.3 44.9 percent kiICLE MILES TRAVELLED: 9204.0 1601.0 13206.4 miles VEHICLE DATA DISTRIBUTIONS: Heavy Duty Vehicles Passenger Vehicles �-Ehicle erage Daily Trips 0.58 16/day 99.5% 3255/day mber of Vehicles 0.5% 8 99.58 1627 Miles Travelled 0.58 117 miles 99.58 23893 miles ZP COLD/HOT STARTS: 1008 COLD, 0% HOT CTRICAL SUPPLIER: SCE 2ONVERSION FACTOR from PER DWELLING UNIT ?to MEGAWATT-HR/DAY is 5626.5/365/1000 d to MILLION CU FT/DAY is 6650.0/30/1,000,000 Rj, TYPE: Project Specific DATA CASE: Project Without Mitigation 1J1 EMISSIONS (in lbs/day) ICLES-- H me -Other CO Trip OC J+lOx Sox PM10-Exhaust �M10-Tire Wear LEAD PASS. TRUCK BOTH MITIGATED EFFIC.. Running Emissions -- 112.7 1.3 7.8 0.1 11.8 0.5 1.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.000 0.000 qm..... a aoo a o00He-Shop Trip Running Emissions -- O 19.6 0.2 ROC 1.4 0.0 (� x 2x 2.0 0.1 t Ox o.z o.o M10 -Exhaust 0.0 0.0 M10 -Tire Wear 0.4 0.0 EAD 0.000 0.000Home-Work Trip Running Emissions-- 0 161.6 1.9 }SOC 11.2 0.2 NOx 16.9 0.7 1.7 0.0 IOx M10 -Exhaust 0.1 0.0 M10 -Tire Wear 2.9 0.0 0.000 0.000 H�EAD e -Other CO Cold Start Trip Start Start & 246.4 13.5 114.0 8.0 12.2 1.2 0.1 2.0 0.000 19.8 1.4 2.1 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.000 163.6 11.4 17.6 1.8 0.2 2.9 0.000 0.0 Soak Emissions-- 0.6 247.0 13.6 114.0 8.0 12.2 0.1 2.0 19.8 1.4 2.1 0.0 0.4 163.6 11.4 17.6 0.2 2.9 247.0 13.6 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.0$ 0.08 0.0$ o.o$ 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 P J NOx Cold Start 7.9 0.0 7.9 7.9 0.08 CO Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 ROC Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 NOx Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 ROC Hot Soak 3.1 0.0 3.1 3.1 0.08 r1Home -Shop Trip Start & Soak Emissions-- � CO Cold Start 49.8 0.1 49.9 49.9 0.08 ROC Cold Start NOx Cold Start 2.7 1.6 0.0 0.0 2.7 1.6 2.7 1.6 0.08 0.08 CO Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 ROC Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 NOx Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 ROC Hot Soak 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.08 Home -Work Trip Start & Soak Emissions-- n CO Cold Start 240.9 0.6 241.5 241.5 0.08 ROC Cold Start 13.2 0.0 13.3 13.3 0.08 NOx Cold Start 7.7 0.0 7.8 7.8 0.08 Co Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 ROC Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 NOx Hot Start 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 ROC Hot Soak 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.08 (� Other Evaporative Emissions-- L ROC -Diurnal 9.4 0.1 9.5 TOTAL EMISSIONS SUMMARY VEHICULAR-- PASS. TRUCK BOTH MITIGATED EFFIC. ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ �l CO 830.9 4.9 835.8 835.8 0.08 U ROC 66.1 0.6 66.7 66.7 0.08 NOx 48.0 1.3 49.2 49.2 0.08 (� Sox 3.2 0.1 3.2 ty PM10 5.5 0.1 5.7 5.7 0.08 LEAD 0.000 0.000 0.000 STATIONARY— ELECT. GAS BOTH MITIGATED EFFIC. CO ------ 1.00 ------ 1.44 ------ 2.44 ------ 2.44 ------ 0.08 ROC 0.05 0.38 0.43 0.43 0.08 NOx 5.74 5.75 11.49 11.49 0.08 Sox 0.60 0.00 0.60 PM10 0.20 0.01 0.21 0.21 0.08 CS OTAL-- EMISS. THRES. STHRES MITIGATED %THRES ------ --------- --- ------ -- ---- CO 838.2 550.0 1528 838.2 1528 ROC 67.1 55.0 1228 67.1 1228 NOx 60.7 55.0 1108 60.7 1108 Sox 3.8 150.0 38 PM10 5.9 150.0 48 5.9 48 LEAD 0.000 N/A N/A P U p u U Fj U I U I U I I I 0 I I I Lit APPENDIX D HABITAT SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT L U J CS P P Habitat Suitability Assessment Number of Species Factor Value Habitat Value [Plant Diversity + Structural Diversity + Disturbance]/1.5 Plant Diversity 1 - 5 Low 1 Medium 3 High 5 Structural Diversity 1 -5 Grass 1 Shrub; isolated Trees 3 Grass/shrub/tree 5 Disturbance/Isolation 1 - 5 Very disturbed 1 Moderate 3 Undisturbed 5 Regional Supply of Habitat Common Ell Reduced Scarce LJ Sensitive Species n Total Habitat Suitability Factor = U Net Habitat Contribution = n n P U 1-5 1 3 5 [No. Present' (Status + Presence)]/2 0 1 1.5 2 1 3 5 1 3 5 (Habitat Value + Supply + Sensitive Species)/25 Acreage of Community . Habitat Suitability Factor D Page 1 Number of Species P� 1 1 2 3+ C Status Sensitive or Rare listed Threatened j� Endangered L Site Presence Possible �j Probable + Known n Total Habitat Suitability Factor = U Net Habitat Contribution = n n P U 1-5 1 3 5 [No. Present' (Status + Presence)]/2 0 1 1.5 2 1 3 5 1 3 5 (Habitat Value + Supply + Sensitive Species)/25 Acreage of Community . Habitat Suitability Factor D Page 1 Habitat Suitability Assessment Project: Hunters Green Residential and Golf Course Development Notes: No habitat wide given for suburban landscaping. Regional Supply applicable only to natural habitats or Incorporated habitat elements Chaparral/Shrub Revegetation Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub Alluvial Fan Scrub/Osks Oaka/Ruderal Grass Elements/Golf Course Open water Swroe Totals pply Number Status Presence 1 2 1 Habitat Value f 2 1 Plant Stnwiural 2 1 Habitat Aerea a Diversify Diversity Disturbance Summ Exlsdng Ve"bo n 1 1 1 1 1 Chaparral 205.5 2.5 3 4 8.3 Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub 64.1 3 3 4 6.7 Alluvial Fan Scruh/Oalm 85.1 5 5 4 9.3 Ruderal Aron 34.8 1 1 1 2.0 Oakt/Ruderol 6.0 1.5 3 1 3.7 Disturbed Grassland 25.0 2 1 3 4.0 Retention Ponds 0.5 1 4 4 2 6.7 0 0.08 7.82 Post-Pryrecl Vegetation 0 0.11 8.05 6 Chapaml 45.9 2.5 3 3 5.7 Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub 11.8 3 3 3 6.0 Alluvial Fan Scrub/Oaks 522 5 5 3 8.7 Rsvegetated ShmWFire2are 55.0 1.5 3 1 3.7 Retained Oaks in Landscaping 5.0 1 3 1 3.3 Falrnayarrees/Greens .97.7 1 1 1 2.0 Revegetated Roughs 75.5 1.5 1.5 1 2.7 Golf Course Lakes 7.1 2 4 2 5.3 Notes: No habitat wide given for suburban landscaping. Regional Supply applicable only to natural habitats or Incorporated habitat elements Chaparral/Shrub Revegetation Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub Alluvial Fan Scrub/Osks Oaka/Ruderal Grass Elements/Golf Course Open water Swroe Totals pply Number Status Presence 1 2 1 5 f 2 1 5 6 2 1 3 1 0 D 0 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 2 1 3 4 2 1 3 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Emsting A-90 Contribution post -project Acreage Contribution Loss %Acreage %Value 206 110 101 31 51% -72% 54 36 12 7 -78% -82% 85 59 52 35 .99% -41% 6 2 5 1 -17% 46% SID 10 173 16 190% 56% 1 0 7 3 1320% 1171% 411 217 350 92 5791 Page 2 l Suitability Habitat nmed Factor Contribution 8 0.53 109.60 6 0.67 36.07 4 0.69 59.00 0 1 0 02727 4.18 1.80 r L 1 0.24 6.00 3 0.51 0.25 TOTAL- 216.70 0 l.5 0.45 20.50 4 0.58 6.61 4 0.67 34.80 1 0.19 10.27 0 0.17 0.87 0 0.08 7.82 0 0.11 8.05 6 0.45 3.22 TOTAL* 92.13 r�l LJ l�1 LJ a 0 1� n �1 I D 0 F I 0 u C li I U I I L 0 I I I APPENDIX E NOISE CALCULATIONS �I LJ U U FJ E n (] I.' I P HEAVY EQUIPMENT NOISE IMPACT ESTIMATION Scenario: Equipment grading within site Receptor Location: Distance based on nearest residence to substantial grading Noise Source Noise Level Range, dBA Ave. Maximum SPL @ 50 IL, dBA Number Use Factor Distance, Ft Leq, dBA Beekhos 72-94 85 0 0.89 250 #N/A Compactor Nighttime Hours Operating: 83 0 0.89 250 #WA Concrete MbW 75-88 85 0 0.89 250 #N/A Concrete Pump 81-83 82 0 0.89 250 #N/A Compressors 75-86 81 0 0.89 250 #NIA Crime (mobile) 76-87 83 0 0.89 250 #NIA Derrick acne 87-69 88 0 0.89 250 #N/A D8 Dozer (no muffler or engine eno.) 76-96 90 0 0.89 250 #N/A D8H Dozer (muffler d partial engine enc) 83 0 0.89 250 MA D8K (muffler. engine enc., lubricated backs) 80 1 0.75 250 65 Electrical Generator 71-82 90 0 0.89 250 #N/A Foridilt 80 0 0.89 250 #N/A Garbage Tnrck (Compacting) 90 0 0.89 250 #N/A Grader 80-93 85 0 0.89 250 #N/A Hoe Excavator (tracked) 85 0 0.89 250 #N/A Jackhammers 81-98 88 0 0.89 250 #N/A Lader 72-85 85 0 0.67 250 #N/A ar.HighwqTruck 83-95 88 0 0.5 250 #N/A Paver 87-89 89 0 0.89 250 #NIA Pick-uptruck 79 0 0.89 250 #N/A Pick-up (2.5 tor) 79 0 0.89 250 #N/A Pick-up (4- tml drive) 75. 0 0.89 250 #N/A Pile Driver (peak) 95-105 101 0 0.89 250 #N/A Pneumatic Tools 83-88 86 0 0.89 250 #N/A Pump 69-71 66 0 0.89 250 #N/A Rook Drill 81-98 98 0 0.89 250 #N/A Scraper 80-93 88 1 0.5 250 71 Sheepsfoo Roller 72-75 75 1 0.5 250 58 Shredder 75 0 0.89 250 #N/A On -road Truck 82 0 0.5 250 #N/A Vacuum Truck 76 0 0.89 250 #N/A Van 77 0 0.69 250 #NIA Water Truck 88 1 0.5 250 71 Water wagon 83 0 0.89 250 #N/A TOTAL Leq DURING NORMAL OPERATIONS: 74.6 dBA Daytime Ambient without Equipment Operation: 50.0 dBA Nighttime Ambient without Equipment Operation: 40.0 dBA Daytime Hours Operating: 9 Evening Hours Operating: 0 Nighttime Hours Operating: 0 ESTIMATED Loin: 70.4 dBA ESTIMATED CNEL: 70.4 dBA Distance attenuation assumed at 6 dBA per doubling of distance Note: #N/A = Not Applicable References: EPA (1971), Noise From Construction Equipment and Operations, EPA PB 206 717 Hams, C. M. (1979), Handbook of Noise Control, 2nd. Ed. Equipment Use Source: Assumed rRlncon Consultants Page 1 lJ HEAVY EQUIPMENT NOISE IMPACT ESTIMATION Scenario: Existing mining operations in Oak Spring Canyon 83-95 88 2 0.5 Receptor Location:: East property line 60 Paver 87-89 89 0 0.89 500 #N/A AVERAGE NUMBER OF NIGHTIME HOURS OPERATING: 79 0 NOISE NOISE LEVEL MAXIMUM 61 ASSUMED 0 LEVEL 500 RANGE SPL @ 50 FT NUMBER USE DISTANCE Leq NOISE SOURCE (dBA) (dBA) OF UNITS FACTOR (Feet) (dBA) Backhoe 72-94 85 0 0.89 100 #N/A Compacta 500 83 0 0.89 500 #N/A Co mu, Mixer 75-88 85 0 0.89 500 #N/A Concrete Pump 81-83 82 0 0.89 500 #N/A Compressors 75-86 81 0 0.89 500 #N/A Cram (mobile) 76-87 83 0. 0.89 500. #N/A Derrick Crane 87-89 88 0 0.89 500 #N/A D8 Dozer (no muffler or engine one.) 76-96 90 1 0.56 1300 59 D8H Dozer (muffler & partial engine enc.) 500 83 0 0.89 500 #WA.. D8K (muffler, engine enc., lubricated back&) 500 80. 0 0.89 500 #N/A Electrical Generator 71-82 90 0 0.89 500 #N/A Forklift 500 80 0 0.89 500 #N/A Garbage Truck (Compacting) 90 0 0.89 500 #N/A Grader 80-93 85 0 0.89 500 #N/A Hoe Excavator (backed) 85 0 0.89 500 #N/A Jackhammers 81-98 88 0 0.89 500 #N/A Loader 72-85 85 1 0.89 1300 56 Off -Highway Truck 83-95 88 2 0.5 1300 60 Paver 87-89 89 0 0.89 500 #N/A Pick-up buck NUMBER OF NIGHTIME HOURS OPERATING: 79 0 0.89 500 #N/A Pick-up (2.5 ton) 61 79 0 0.89 500 #N/A Pick-up (4wheel drive) 75 0 0.89 500 #N/A Pile Driver (peak) 95-105 101 0 0.89 500 #N/A Pneumatic Tools 83-88 86 0 0.89 500 #N/A Pump 69-71 66 0 0.89 500 #N/A Rock Drill 81-98 98 0 0.89 500 #N/A Scraper 80-93 88 0 0.89 500 #NIA Sheepstoot Roller 72-75 75 0 0.89 500 #N/A Shredder 75 0 0.89 500 #N/A Truck Tractor 82 0 0.89 500 #NIA Vacuum Truck 76. 0 0.89 500 #NIA van 77 0 0.89 500 #N/A Water Truck 88 1 0.89 1300 59 Water Wagon 83 0 0.89 500 #N/A TOTAL Leq DURING NORMAL OPERATIONS: 65 dBA ASSUMED DAYTIME AMBIENT WITHOUT CONSTRUCTION: 50 dBA ASSUMED NIGHTTIME AMBIENT_ 40 dBA NUMBER OF DAYTIME HOURS OPERATING: 9 NUMBER OF EVENING HOURS OPERATING: 0 NUMBER OF NIGHTIME HOURS OPERATING: 0 ESTIMATED Ldn: 61 dBA ESTIMATED CNEL: 61 dBA Distance attenuation assumed at: 6 dBA per doubling of distance Note:: NA = Not Applicable References: EPA (1971), Noise From Construction Equipment and Operations, EPA PB 206 717 Harris, C.M. (1979), Handbook of Noise Control, 2nd. Ed. Rincon ConsuHants Page 1 U O U U n Li c �l L.) [1 �T� lJ C C P 11 n U 11 1 J 0 I D 0 E lJ Lel HEAVY EQUIPMENT NOISE IMPACT ESTIMATION Scenario: Existing mining operations in Oak Spring Canyon Receptor Location: Nearest proposed residence NOISE LEVEL RANGE NOISE SOURCE (dBA) AVERAGE MAXIMUM SPL @ 50 FT NUMBER (dBA) OF UNITS ASSUMED USE FACTOR DISTANCE (Feet) NOISE LEVEL Leq (dBA) Backhoe 72-94 85 0 0.89 2300 #NIA Compactor 0 83 0 0.89 2300 #NIA Concrete Morar 75-88 85 0 0.89 2300 #N/A Concrete Pump 81-83 82 0 0.89 2300 #N/A Compressor 75-86 81 0 0.89 2300 #WA Crane (mobile) 76-87 83 0 0.89 2300 #N/A Derrick crane 87-89 88 0 0.89 2300 #N/A DIS Dozer (no muffler or engine enc:) 76-96 90 1 0.56 2300 54 DISH Dozer (muffler & partial engine enc.) 83 0 0.89 2300 #N/A DISK (muffler, engine enc., lubricated tracks) 80 0 0.89 2300 #N/A Electrical Generator 71-82 90 0 0.89 2300 #N/A Forklift 80 0 0.89 2300 #N/A Garbage Truck (Compacting) 90 0 0.89 2300 #N/A Grader 80-93 85 0 0.89 2300 #N/A Hoe Excavator (tracked) 85 0 0.89 2300 #N/A Jackhammers 81-98 88 0 0.89 2300 #NIA Loader 72-85 85 1 0.89 2300 51 Oft -Highway Truck 83-95 88 2 0.5 2300 55 Paver 87-89 89 0 0.89 2300 #NIA Pick-up truck 79 0 0.89 2300 #N/A Pick-up (2.5 ton) 79 0 0.89 2300 #NIA Pick-up (I -wheel drive) 75 0 0.89 2300 #N/A Pile Driver (peak) 95-105 101 0 0.89 2300 #NIA Pneumatic Tools 83-88 86 0 0.89 2300 #N/A Pump 69-71 66 0 0.89 2300 #N/A Rock Drill 81-98 98 0 0.89 2300 #N/A scraper 80-93 88 0 0.89 2300 #N/A Sheepsfoot Roller 72-75 75 0 0.89 2300 #N/A Shredder 75 0 0.89 2300 #N/A Truck Tractor 82 0 0.89 2300 #N/A Vacuum Truck 76 0 0.89 2300 #N/A Van 77 0 0.89 2300 #NIA Water Truck 88 1 0.89 2300 54 Water Wagon 83 0 0.89 2300 #N/A TOTAL Leq DURING NORMAL OPERATIONS: 59.8 dBA ASSUMED DAYTIME AMBIENT WITHOUT CONSTRUCTION: 50.0 dBA ASSUMED NIGHTTIME AMBIENT: 40.0 dBA NUMBER OF DAYTIME HOURS OPERATING: 9 NUMBER OF EVENING HOURS OPERATING: 0 NUMBER OF NIGHTIME HOURS OPERATING: 0 ESTIMATED Ldn: 56.6 dBA ESTIMATED CNEL: 56.6 dBA Distance attenuation assumed at 6 dBA per doubling of distance Note: NA = Not Applicable References: EPA (1971), Noise From Construction Equipment and Operations, EPA PB 206 717 Harris, C.M. (1979), Handbook of Noise Control, 2nd. Ed. Rincon Consultants Page 1 HEAVY EQUIPMENT NOISE IMPACT ESTIMATION Scenario: Early morning mining operations in Oak Spring Canyon Receptor Location: Nearest proposed residential pad Ave. Maximum Noise Level SPL @ 60 ft, Noise Source Range, dBA dBA Number Use Factor Distance, Ft Leq, dBA ill J Baekhos 72-94 85 0 0.89 2300 #NIA Compactor 8 83 0 0.89 2300 #NIA 1 Concrete hexer 75-88 85 0 0.89 2300 #N/A Distance attenuation assumed at Concrete Pump 81.83 82 0 0.89 2300 #NIA Harris, C.M. (1979), Handbook of Noise Control, 2nd. Ed. compreason 75.86 81 0 0.89 2300 #N/A Rincon Consultants crane (moate) 76-87 83 0 0.89 2300 #N/A i Derrick pane 87.89 88 0 0.69 2300 #N/A. De Dozer (no muffler or engNe enc.) 76-96 90. 1 0.56 2300 54 DSH Dozer (mumer E partial engim ere.) 83 0 0.89 2300 #NIA DSK (muffler. «pine enc., luhricated tracks) 80 0 0.89 2300 #NIA Electrical Genuator 71-82 90 0 0.89 2300 #NIA Forum 80 0 0.89 2300 #N/A Garbage Truck (Compacting) 90 0 0.89 2300 #N/A Grader 80-93 85 0 0.89 2300 #N/A Hos Excavator Macked) Jackhammers 81-98 85 88 0 0 0.89 0.89 2300 2300 #N/A #N/A Loader 72-85 85 1 0.89 2300 51 L� l� oe+nghwayTruck 83-95 88 2 0.5 2300 55 paver 87-89 89 0 0.89 2300 #N/A r) Pick-up buck 79 0 0.89 2300 #NIA u Pick-up (2.5 ton) 79 0 0.89. 2300 #NIA Pick-up (4,wheel dove) 75 0 0.89 2300 #NIA Pile Driver (peak) 95-105 101 0 0.89 2300 #NIA Pneumatic: Toots 83-88 Be 0 0.89 2300 #NIA Pump 69-71 66 0 0.89 2300 #N/A Rack Drill 81-98 98 0 0.89 2300 #N/A (� Scraper 80-93 88 0 0.69 .2300 #N/A !( Sheepdoot Roller 72-75 75 0 0.69 2300 #N/A Shredder 75 0 0.89 2300 #N/A Orr-madTnmk 82 0 0.5 2300 #N/A Vacuum Track 76 0 0.89 2300 #N/A van 77 0 0.89 2300 #N/A Water Truck Be 1 0.89 2300 54 waterwagon 83 0 0.89 2300 #N/A TOTAL Leq DURING NORMAL OPERATIONS: 59.8 dBA In+ Daytime Ambient without Equipment Operation: 50.0 dBA LJ Nighttime Ambient without Equipment Operation: 40.0 dBA Daytime Hours Operating: 8 Evening Hours Operating: 0 Nighttime Hours Operating: 1 ESTIMATED Ldn: 59.1 dBA ESTIMATED CNEL• 59.1 dBA �} Ll Distance attenuation assumed at 6 dBA per doubling of distance Note: NA = Not Applicable References: EPA (1971), Noise From Construction Equipment and Operations, EPA PB 206 717 Harris, C.M. (1979), Handbook of Noise Control, 2nd. Ed. Equipment Use Source: Assumed - n tl Rincon Consultants Page 1 Ii P Pi G C P 0 I P lI F HEAVY EQUIPMENT NOISE IMPACT ESTIMATION Scenario: Mining operations in Rabbit Canyon Receptor Location: Nearest proposed residence Paver 87-89 AVERAGE 0 0.89 810 NOISE NOISE LEVEL MAXIMUM 0 ASSUMED 810 LEVEL Pick-up (2.5 ton) RANGE SPL @ 50 FT NUMBER USE DISTANCE Leq NOISE SOURCE (dBA) (dBA) OF UNITS FACTOR (Feet) (dBA) Backhoe 72-94 85 0 0.89 810 #N/A Compactor 83-88 83 0 0.89 810 #N/A Concrete Miuer 75-88 85 0 0.89 810 #N/A Concrete Pump 81-83 82 0 0.89 810 #N/A Compreesore 75-86 81 0 0.89 810 #N/A Crane (mobile) 76-87 83 0 0.89 810 #N/A Derrick Crane 87-89 88 0 0.89 810 #N/A DL Dozer (no muffler or engine one.) 76-96 90. 0 0.89 810 #NIA DEH Dozer (muffler 3 partial engine enc.) 83 0 0.89 810 #NIA DDK (muffler, engine em., lubricated tracks) 80 0 0.89 810 #N/A Electrical Generator 71-82 90 0 0.89 810 #N/A Fore 80 0 0.89 810 #N/A Garbage Truck (Compacting) 90 0 0.89 810 #N/A Grader 80-93 85 0 0.89 810 #NIA Hoe Excavator (tracked) 85 0 0.89 810 #N/A Jackhammers 81-98 88 0 0.89 810 #N/A Lcader 72-85. 85 1 0.89 810 60 Off -Highway Truck 83-95 88 1 0.5 810 61 Paver 87-89 89 0 0.89 810 #NIA Pick-up truck dBA 79 0 0.89 810 #N/A Pick-up (2.5 ton) NUMBER OF NIGHTIME HOURS OPERATING: 79 0 0.89 810 #N/A Pick-up (4 -wheel drive) 62.4 75 0 0.89 810 #N/A Pile Driver (peak) 95-105 101. 0 0.89 810 #N/A Pneumatic Tools 83-88 86 0 0.89 810 #N/A Pump 69-71 66 0 0.89 810 #N/A Rock Drill 81-98 98 0 0.89 810 #N/A scraper 80-93 88 0 0.89 810 #N/A Sheepsfoot Rolla 72-75 75 0 0.89 810 #NIA Shredder 75 0 0.89 810 #NIA Truck Tractor 82 0 0.89 810 #N/A Vacuum Truck 76 0 0.89 810 #N/A Van 77 0 0.89 810 #N/A Waternuck 88 1 0.89 810 63 Water Wagon 83 0 0.89 810 #N/A TOTAL Leq DURING NORMAL OPERATIONS_ 66.4 dBA ASSUMED DAYTIME AMBIENT WITHOUT CONSTRUCTION: 50.0 dBA ASSUMED NIGHTTIME AMBIENT: 40.0 dBA NUMBER OF DAYTIME HOURS OPERATING: 9 NUMBER OF EVENING HOURS OPERATING: 0 NUMBER OF NIGHTIME HOURS OPERATING: 0 ESTIMATED Ldn: 62.4 dBA ESTIMATED CNEL: 62.4 dBA Distance attenuation assumed at 6 dBA per doubling of distance Nater NA = Not Applicable References: EPA (1971), Noise From Construction Equipment and Operations, EPA PB 206 717 Harris, C.M. (1979), Handbook of Noise Control, 2nd. Ed. Rincon Consultants Page 1 HEAVY EQUIPMENT NOISE IMPACT ESTIMATION Scenario: Early morning mining operations in Rabbit Canyon Receptor Location: Nearest proposed residential pad Ave. Maximum Noise Source Noise Level Range, dBA SPL @ 50 ft, dBA Number Use Factor Distance, Ft Leq, dBA 9ackhoa 72-94 85 0 0.89 810 #N/A Comperrtcr Nighttime Hours Operating: 83 0 0.89 810 #N/A Concrete borer 75-88 85 0 0.99 810 #N/A concrete Pump 81-83 82 0 0.89 810 #N/A Compressor 75-86 131 0 0.89 810 . #N/A Cans(mowle) 76-87 83 0 0.89 810 #N/A Derrick Crane 87-89 a8 0 0.89 810 #N/A De Dozer (no MUMW or drams one.) 76-96 90 0 0.89 810 #NIA DSH Dorer (mvMw S partial mains enc.) 83 0 0.89 810 #N/A DSK (muftr, engine enc., lubrteated trucks) 80 0 0.89 810 #N/A Electrical Generutor 71-82 90 0 0.89 810 #NIA Foddet 80 0 0.89 810 #N/A Garbage Truck (Compecting) 90 0 0.89 810 #NIA Grader 80-93 85 0 0.89 810 #NIA Hoe Exwmor Mcked) 65 0 0.89 810 #NIA Jackhammers 81-98 B8 0 0.89 B10 #NIA Loader 72-85 85 1 0.89 BID 60 Ort-HVmwTnnk 83.95 88 1 0.5 BID 61 Pawn 87-89 69 0 0.89 BID #N/A Pick-up welt 79 0 0.89 810 #N/A Pk kwp (2.5 an) 79 0 0.89 BID #N/A Pi& -up (4 -wreck ddw) 75 0 0.89 B10 #N/A Pik Drhw (posk) 95-105 101 0 0.89 810 #N/A Pneumatic Toch 83-88 86 0 0.89 810 #N/A Pump 69-71 66 0 0.89 810 #N/A Rock Drill 81-98 96 0 0.89 810 #NIA scraper 80-93 88 0 0.89 810 #N/A Skweparool Ro1W 72-75 75 0 0.89 810 #NIA shredder 75 0 0.89 810 #N/A On -rood Tnwk 82 0 0.5 810 #N/A Vacuum Tnwk 76 0 0.89 810 #N/A Van 77 0 0.89 810 #NIA Water Tnwk Be 1 0.5 810 61 Wolff wagon 83 0 0.89 810 #NIA TOTAL Leq DURING NORMAL OPERATIONS: 65.4 d8A Daytime Ambient without Equipment Operation: 50.0 dBA Nighttime Ambient without Equipment Operation: 40.0 d8A Daytime Hours Operating: 8 Evening Hours Operating: 0 Nighttime Hours Operating: 1 ESTIMATED Ldn: 64.3 dBA ESTIMATED CNEL: 64.3 dBA Distance attenuation assumed at 6 d&4 per doubling of distance Note: NA = Not Applicable References: EPA (1971), Noise From Construction Equipment and Operations, EPA PB 206 717 Hams, C.M. (1979), Handbook of Noise Control, 2nd. Ed. Equipment Use Source: Assumed Rincon Consultants U LS U 1 I 11 U U .) in U U II G ROADWAY TRAFFIC NOISE Project: Hunters Green Development Project No. Date: 25 -Sep -95 Roadway: Sand Canyon Road north of Live Oak Springs Cyn Rd PROJECT DATA and ASSUMPTIONS Vehicle Noise Emission Levels (CALVENO or FHWA) Distance to Receptor: Site Condition (Hard or Soft): Upgrade longer than 1 mile: Existing Total Traffic Volume (ADT): Ambient Growth Factor: Future Year : Total Project Volume (ADT): Total Cumulative Growth Volume (ADT): Source of Traffic Data:, Kimley-Horn Associates Daily Vehicle Mix Existing Project CALVENO 120 feet Soft 0 % 6,800 vehicles 0.0% 1998 3420 vehicles 810 vehicles Future Automobile 97.5% 96.0% 97.5% Medium Truck 1.8% 2.5% 1.8% Heavy Truck 0.7% 1.5% 0.7% Evening (7-10 pm) Source: Assumed given land use and road characteristics Percentage of Daily Traffic Average Speed Existing Day (7 am -7 pm) Evening (7-10 pm) Night (10 pm - 7 am) Automobile 45 45 45 Medium Truck 45 45 45 Heavy Truck 45 45 45 Source:. Speed Limit Future Day (7 am -7 pm) Evening (7-10 pm) Night (10 pm - 7 am) Automobile 45 45 45 Medium Truck 45 45 45 Heavy Truck 45 45 45 Source: Speed Limit Page 1 95-1210 Existing and Future Day (7 am -7 pm) Evening (7-10 pm) Night (10 pm - 7 am) Automobile 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% Medium Truck 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% Heavy Truck 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% Source: Default Assumption Average Speed Existing Day (7 am -7 pm) Evening (7-10 pm) Night (10 pm - 7 am) Automobile 45 45 45 Medium Truck 45 45 45 Heavy Truck 45 45 45 Source:. Speed Limit Future Day (7 am -7 pm) Evening (7-10 pm) Night (10 pm - 7 am) Automobile 45 45 45 Medium Truck 45 45 45 Heavy Truck 45 45 45 Source: Speed Limit Page 1 95-1210 Project Day (7 am -7 pm) Evening (7-10 pm) Night (10 pm - 7 am) Automobile 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% Medium Truck 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% Heavy Truck 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% Source: Assumed Average Speed Existing Day (7 am -7 pm) Evening (7-10 pm) Night (10 pm - 7 am) Automobile 45 45 45 Medium Truck 45 45 45 Heavy Truck 45 45 45 Source:. Speed Limit Future Day (7 am -7 pm) Evening (7-10 pm) Night (10 pm - 7 am) Automobile 45 45 45 Medium Truck 45 45 45 Heavy Truck 45 45 45 Source: Speed Limit Page 1 95-1210 ROADWAY TRAFFIC NOISE Project: Hunters Green Development Project No...95-1210 Date: 25 -Sep -95 Roadway: Sand Canyon Road north of Live Oak Springs Cyn Rd Vehicle Noise Emission Levels` CALVENO RESULTS Ldn at Site Distance to dBA Contour Line DAY -NIGHT AVERAGE LEVEL (Ldn) 120 feet from roadway centerline, feet from road centerline 75 70 65 60 55 Existing 60.0 dBA #NIA 26 56 120 258 Existing + Project 62.0 dBA #NIA 35 76 163 351 Future with Ambient Growth 60.0 dBA #NIA 26 56 120 258 Future with Ambient Growth and Project 62.0 dBA #NIA 35 76 163 351 Future with Ambient Growth and Cumulative Projects 60.5 dBA #N/A 28 60 129 278 Future with Ambient, Cumulative, and Project Growth 62.3 dBA #NIA 37 79 171 368 Change in Noise Levels Due to Project 2.0 dBA Due to Ambient Growth 0.0 dBA Due to Ambient and Cumulative 0.5 dBA. Due to All Future Growth 2.3 dBA CNEL at Site Distance to dBA Contour Line COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE LEVEL (CNEL) 120 feet from roadway centerline, feet from road centerline 75 70 65 60 55 Existing 60.5 dBA #N/A 28 60 130 280 Existing + Project 62.5 dBA #N/A 38 82 176 .379 Future with Ambient Growth 60.5 dBA #N/A 26 60 130 280 Future with Ambient Growth and Project 62.5 dBA #N/A 38 82 176 379 Future with Ambient Growth and Cumulative Projects 61.0 dBA #N/A 30 65 140 301 Future with Ambient Cumulative. and Proiect Growth 62.8 dBA #NIA 40 86 184 397 Change in Noise Levels Due to Project 2.0 dBA Due to Ambient Growth 0.0 dBA Due to Ambient and Cumulative 0.5 dBA Due to All Future Growth 2.3 dBA 'NOTES:. Based on "California Vehicle Noise Emission Levels (Final Report)", January 1987, California Department of Transportation, Report No. FHWA/CA/TL-87103 #NIA = Not Applicable Page 2 R/ncon Consultants l_1 I lJ L, I U ROADWAY TRAFFIC NOISE Project: Hunters Green Development Project No. Date: 25 -Sep -95 Roadway: Sand Canyon Road south of Live Oak Springs Cyn Rd PROJECT DATA and ASSUMPTIONS Vehicle Noise Emission Levels (CALVENO or FHWA) CALVENO Distance to Receptor: 70 feet Site Condition (Hard or Soft): Soft Upgrade longer than 1 mile: 0 % Existing Total Traffic Volume (ADT): 4,500 vehicles Ambient Growth Factor:, 0.0% Future Year: 1998 Total Project Volume (ADT): 380 vehicles Total Cumulative Growth Volume (ADT): 720 vehicles Source of Traffic Data: Kimley-Horn Associates Daily Vehicle Mix Existing Project Future Automobile 97.5% 96.0% Medium Truck 1.8% 2.5% Heavy Truck 0.7% 1.5% Source: Assumed given land use and road characteristics Percentage of Daily Traffic rl Automobile L] Medium Truck Heavy Truck D Automobile Medium Truck Heavy Truck Automobile Medium Truck Heavy Truck Page 1 Day (7 am -7 pm) 77.5% 84.8% 86.5% Source: Default Assumption Day (7 am -7 pm) 77.5% 84.8% 86.5% Source: Assumed Day (7 am -7 pm) 45 45 45 Source: Speed Limit Day (7 am -7 pm) 45 45 s Source: Speed Limit Existing and Future Evening (7-10 pm) 12.9% 4.9% 2.7% Project Evening (7-f0 pm) 12.9% 4.9% 2.7% Existing Evening (7-10 pm) 45 45 45 Future Evening (7-10 pm) 45 45 45 97.5% 1.8% 0.7% Night (10 pm - 7 am) 9.6% 10.3% 10.8% Night (10 pm - 7 am) 9.6% 10.3% 10,8% Night (10 pm - 7 am) 45 45 45 Night (10 pm - 7 am) 45 45 45 95-1210 Rincon Consultants Automobile Medium Truck Heavy Truck Average Speed Automobile Medium Truck Heavy Truck Automobile Medium Truck Heavy Truck Page 1 Day (7 am -7 pm) 77.5% 84.8% 86.5% Source: Default Assumption Day (7 am -7 pm) 77.5% 84.8% 86.5% Source: Assumed Day (7 am -7 pm) 45 45 45 Source: Speed Limit Day (7 am -7 pm) 45 45 s Source: Speed Limit Existing and Future Evening (7-10 pm) 12.9% 4.9% 2.7% Project Evening (7-f0 pm) 12.9% 4.9% 2.7% Existing Evening (7-10 pm) 45 45 45 Future Evening (7-10 pm) 45 45 45 97.5% 1.8% 0.7% Night (10 pm - 7 am) 9.6% 10.3% 10.8% Night (10 pm - 7 am) 9.6% 10.3% 10,8% Night (10 pm - 7 am) 45 45 45 Night (10 pm - 7 am) 45 45 45 95-1210 Rincon Consultants ROADWAY TRAFFIC NOISE Project: Hunters Green Development Date:. 25 -Sep -95 Roadway: Sand Canyon Road south of Live Oak Springs Cyn Rd Vehicle Noise Emission Levels':: CALVENO RESULTS Ldn at Site DAY -NIGHT AVERAGE LEVEL (Ldn) 70 feet Existing 61.7 dBA Existing + Project 62.1 dBA Future with Ambient Growth 61.7 dBA Future with Ambient Growth and Project 62.1 dBA Future with Ambient Growth and Cumulative Projects 62.4 dBA Future with Ambient, Cumulative, and Project Growth 62.7 dBA Change in Noise Levels #N/A Due to Project 0.4 dBA Due to Ambient Growth 0.0 dBA Due to Ambient and Cumulative 0.6 dBA Due to All Future Growth 1.0 dBA 49 CNEL at Site COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE LEVEL (CNEL) 70 feet 63.2 dBA from road centedine Project No: 95.1210 Distance to dBA Contour Line from roadway centerline, feet 75 1 70 1 65 1 60 #N/A #NIA 42 91 #N/A #N/A 45 97 #N/A #N/A 42 91 #N/A #N/A 45 97 #N/A #N/A 47 101 #N/A #N/A 49 106 75 Distance to dBA Contour Line from roadway centerline, feet Existing 62.2 dBA #N/A #N/A 105 Existing + Project 62.6 dBA #N/A #N/A 49 Future with Ambient Growth 62.2 dBA #N/A. #NIA 234 Future with Ambient Growth and Project 62.6 dBA #N/A #N/A Future with Ambient Growth and Cumulative Projects 62.9 dBA #N/A #NIA Future with Ambient, Cumulative, and Project Growth 63.2 dBA #N/A #N/A Change in Noise Levels Due to Project 0.4 dBA Due to Ambient Growth 0.0 dBA Due to Ambient and Cumulative 0.6 dBA Due to All Future Growth 1.0 dBA 'NOTES: Based on "California Vehicle Noise Emission Levels (Final Report)", January 1987, California Department of Transportation, Report No. FHWA/CArrL-87/03 #N/A = Not Applicable 55 46 99 212 49 105 226 46 99 212 49 105 226 51 109 234 53 115 247 Page 2 Rlncon Consultants I p I APPENDIX F COMMENTS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Ii n I I D u 11 11 G U Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F - Response to Comments RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 1 l This appendix contains all of the written comments received regarding the Draft EIR during the 45 day public review period of September 29, 1995 to November 13,1995. The appendix also contains written comments received after the close of the review period and verbal comments received during the public hearings as contained in the minutes of those hearings. Each comment received by the City has been �I included within this appendix. Responses to all comments are have been prepared to address the concerns raised by the commentors and to indicate where and how the EIR addresses environmental aissues. Where appropriate, changes have been made in the Draft EIR in response to these comments. The specific comments contained within any particular written letter has been numbered if not previously t done in order to provide a reference to it in the response. Each letter is presented first, with the +J responses following. In some instances, comments were numbered already, but in order to properly address the issues raised, they have been renumbered, The minutes of the hearings of October 3 and f 1 November 21, 1995 follow the written comments and responses to verbal comments follow each set of L minutes. 1 J A total of 22 public agencies, organizations, and individuals prepared written comments on the Draft 1 EIR.. They are listed below in the following order: state agencies, federal agencies, regional and county agencies, City agencies, and citizens. 1 Antero Rivasplata, California State Clearinghouse John Parrish, California Department of Conservation, State Mining and Geology Board �j Jason Marshall, California Department of Conservation Steve Buswell, Caltrans David Castanon, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers G� Clara Johnson, Angeles National Forest Paul Rippens, County of Los Angeles Fire Department n Sant Plescia, The Gas Company u Jack Petralia, County of Los Angeles Department of Health Services Dainis Kleinbergs, County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County John Schwarze, Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning Wendy Phillips, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region Rabie Rahman, City of Santa Clarita n Richard and Corrine Cunningham 1� George Gruber Mark. and Linda Hanson (� Ruth Kelley u John Newton (Land Use Consultant, P.W, Gillibrand Company) Dennis Ostrom, Sand Canyon Home Owners Association U Lynne Plambeck, Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment (SCOPE) U Allen Penrose !, Theodore Robinson, Jr. (Robisnson Golf Course Design Project Designer and part Applicant) City of Santa Clarita F-1 APPENDIX F COMMENTS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS M STATE OF CALIFORNIA — PETE WILSON, Govemor Governor's Office of Planning and Research f1400 Tenth Street F 1995 Sacramento, CA 95814 J� November 13, 1995 j� CHRISTINE KUDIJA CITY OF SANTA CLARITA 23920 VALENCIA BLVD. j SUTIE 302, SANTA CLARITA, CA 91355 USubject: HUNTER'S GREEN DEVELOPMENT & GOLF COURSE SCH #: 95041049 IDear CHRISTINE KUDIJA: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental document to selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and none of the state agencies have comments. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State L I Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental L documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. �} Please call at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. When contacting the Clearinghouse in this matter, please use the eight -digit State �j Clearinghouse number so that we may respond promptly- Sincerely, romptlySincerely, ANTERO A. RIVASPLATA Chief State Clearinghouse I Pi P E I J Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F - Response to Comments J �I Commentor: Antero Rivasplata, Chief, State Clearinghouse California Office of Planning and Research Date: November 13, 1995 1 Response: LJ 1. None necessary. It is noted that certain state agencies did have comments that were not submitted to the State Clearinghouse and these have been responded to in this appendix. / u LI kl J tJ P� L; t� u City of Santa Cfarita F-2 L1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA - THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION rj STATE MINING AND GEOLOGY BOARD j J 801 K Street, MS 24-05 Sacramento, California 95814-3528 Glenn Adamick, Assistant Planner Community Development Department City of Santa Clarita C 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, California 91355 1J I LI LJ D F` Q NOV 1_c 1995 0310167 TELEPHONE: (916) 322-1082. TOO LINE: (916) 324-2555. FACSIMILE: IS 16) 324-0948 November 13, 1995 Re: Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course Designated Mineral Lands Dear Mr. Adamick: We understand that the City of Santa Clarita currently is considering the proposed development project known as the Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course. A portion of this proposed development is within lands classified by the State Geologist as containing important aggregate and other mineral deposits. These lands, also, have been designated by the State Mining and Geology Board (Board) as an area of Regional Mineral Significance (Public Resource Code § 3550.9). A map showing the mineral resource zone, labeled Sector A-12, from SMARA Designation Report Number 6 (July 1985), is enclosed for your reference. The proposed construction of residential sites in this area would impact the future development of aggregate deposits in the adjacent mineral resource areas labeled Sectors B-1 Z and C-1. These lands, also, have been designated by the Board as areas of Regional Mineral Significance (SMARA Designation Report Number 6, July 1985). L 3 P u P The Classification and Designation process was established to ensure, through appropriate lead agency policies and procedures, that mineral deposits of regional significance are available to the region's local communities for their development and growth when needed. Part of the property slated for the Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course covers the area designated as Sector A-12 of the Saugus -Newhall Production - Consumption Region, and is next to and in view of Sectors B-1 and C-1. These sectors contain aggregate resources that represent a significant part of the total mineral reserves in this region. With the limited aggregate reserves remaining in the San Fernando Valley and adjacent population growth areas, the reserves in the Saugus -Newhall area represent an DeWayne Holmdahl, Chairman Bob Grunwald, Vice Chairman Sands Fipuers Alvin Franke Llt Raymond Krauss Julie Mann Robert Munro Sheila M. Murphy Lee Thibadeau Glenn Adamick, Assistant Planner Community Development Department City of Santa Clarita C 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, California 91355 1J I LI LJ D F` Q NOV 1_c 1995 0310167 TELEPHONE: (916) 322-1082. TOO LINE: (916) 324-2555. FACSIMILE: IS 16) 324-0948 November 13, 1995 Re: Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course Designated Mineral Lands Dear Mr. Adamick: We understand that the City of Santa Clarita currently is considering the proposed development project known as the Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course. A portion of this proposed development is within lands classified by the State Geologist as containing important aggregate and other mineral deposits. These lands, also, have been designated by the State Mining and Geology Board (Board) as an area of Regional Mineral Significance (Public Resource Code § 3550.9). A map showing the mineral resource zone, labeled Sector A-12, from SMARA Designation Report Number 6 (July 1985), is enclosed for your reference. The proposed construction of residential sites in this area would impact the future development of aggregate deposits in the adjacent mineral resource areas labeled Sectors B-1 Z and C-1. These lands, also, have been designated by the Board as areas of Regional Mineral Significance (SMARA Designation Report Number 6, July 1985). L 3 P u P The Classification and Designation process was established to ensure, through appropriate lead agency policies and procedures, that mineral deposits of regional significance are available to the region's local communities for their development and growth when needed. Part of the property slated for the Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course covers the area designated as Sector A-12 of the Saugus -Newhall Production - Consumption Region, and is next to and in view of Sectors B-1 and C-1. These sectors contain aggregate resources that represent a significant part of the total mineral reserves in this region. With the limited aggregate reserves remaining in the San Fernando Valley and adjacent population growth areas, the reserves in the Saugus -Newhall area represent an y Glenn Adamick Hunters Green Development November 13, 1995 Page 2 important future source for the region. In land use conflicts, between urban development and access to mineral resources, it is important that the significance of the mineral resources be recognized and that their potential loss carefully be evaluated. The City of Santa Claris responsibility as the permitting agency in this is set out in Article 4, § 2763 of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (copy enclosed). Therefore, we trust that the City will take sensitive account of the importance of the aggregate resource discussed above as it concerns land use proposals that might be incompatible with State, regional and City interests in utilizing these resources. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact the State Mining and Geology Board at (916) 322-1082. X -M enc: J. W. Newton for P. W. Gillibrand Sincerely, John G. Parrish, Ph. D. $xecutive Officer ..a......,. ^ .<.., .., EXPLANATION Aggregate Resource Sectors Seploledby Raperfiesownedor Saugus -Newhall and Palmdale P- N C Regions caneAlled by aggreqola g pmducen By S. E. dIyvpb, S. S. Ton, and R. W, Goodman Modified by Lbda F. Campion V 1985 PREPARED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE SURFACE MINING AND RECLAMATION ACT OF 1975, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 2761 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F - Response to Comments Commentor: John G. Parrish, Executive Officer California Department of Conservation, State Mining and Geology Board Date: November 13;1995 Response: 1. The specific designation of the aggregate resources within the site as being part of Sector A-12 has been added to the text. 2. Comment expresses an opinion regarding a potential impact on adjacent lands due to the location of the proposed residential development. The residential area would be buffered through distance from the existing mining operations by the proposed golf course and such buffering would reduce potential noise effects to an insignificant level as discussed in Section 5.7 of the EIR. Dust nuisance effects from the mining operation that may effect the residential use are already required to be controlled by the operator by the SCAQMD. The proposed expansion of mining in the Sectors B-1 and C-1 are even more distant from the residential development and in part screened from view by intervening hillsides. Residential use of the land has been planned for in the City of Santa Clarita General Plan (199 1) and such use was deemed to be compatible with out -of City mineral extraction operations. The project is consistent with General Plan policies 6.1 and 6.2 to use open space (in this case the golf course) as a buffer between mineral resource areas and sensitive uses and to maintain such areas. The EIR acknowledges that the project site contains regionally significant mineral resources (Section 5, 1, Effect ER -10). However, the project site (a portion of Sector A-12) contains only about 0.4% of the total resources identified in Sector A (CDMG Special Report 143, 1987). The City of Santa Clarita through the development of its General Plan considered the various potential uses of the project site and designated the area for residential development. The City's Land Use Element contains a specific Mineral/Oil Conservation Area overlay designation that is intended to permit the continuation of mineral extraction and oil field uses while providing for further development of the City. While this overlay was placed on the sand and gravel deposits in the Santa Clara River north of the site and the existing mining operations to the northeast of the site (1993 General Plan Land Use Map), it was not so designated for the project site. In addition, the major portion of the aggregate deposits within the project site is located in the 160 acre northeast parcel, an area that was entitled for development of 140 residential lots in 1990. The proposed project would not alter these substantial existing limitations on the potential use of the site for mineral extraction, and so would not create a new significant impact on regional mineral resource deposits that did not already exist. See also response to comment 2 above regarding the effect on off-site resources. During the EIR and conditional use permit review process, the City as lead agency will be considering the onsite mineral deposit's importance to the regional market as required by the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA). Additional information from CDMG Special City of Santa Clarita F-3 U Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F - Response to Comments C� Report 143 has been added to the EIR text so that the City can better evaluate the effect of the project on the supply of mineral resources in the area. In addition, the EIR contains an alternative (Section 7.4 - Mixed Use Alternative) that proposes aggregate mining of the site for the City L Council to consider. With regard to Article 4, § 2763 of the SMARA, the City of Santa Clarita as lead agency has not designated the project site as having important minerals to be protected and has acted on the lands in compliance with subdivision (a) of § 2762 during preparation of its General CPlan, as discussed in response to comment 3 above. F1 [1 P U I I P D F4 City of Santa Clarita STATE OF CALIFORNIA - THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor U DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION DIVISION OF ADMUMTRATION DIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY DIVISION OF On. AND GAS DIVISION OF RECYCLING November .13, 1995 Mr, Glenn Adamick, Assistant Planner Community Development Department City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, California 91355 1K C_I n .E ' . NOV 1 ,'. 199 c 21A " � 4 "' ' �' ' 41 A 801 K Street Ir I SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-3528 LJ Phone (918) 445-8733 FAX IS 16) 324-0948 FJ Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Hunters Green Residential LJ Development and Golf Course - SCH#95041049 Dear Mr. Adamick: The Department of Conservation's (Department) Division of Mines and Geology (Division), under the direction of the State Geologist, is responsible for classifying the State's mineral resource lands, as required by the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) (Public Resources Code Section 2710 et seq.) The Division drafts reports on the classification of mineral resource lands in order to help local governments set informed planning priorities with regard to preserving the State's needed mineral resources. The State Mining and Geology Board (Board), which has responsibility for overseeing the development and conservation of the State's mineral resources, utilizes Division reports in designating classified land as areas of statewide or regional importance. This designation establishes a statewide or regional importance for the classified mineral resource deposits. The Department, in conjunction with the Board, has reviewed the Draft EIR for the Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course. Part of the project site lies within .Z an area classified as Mineral Resource Zone 2 (Division Special Report #143 Part 5; 1985), containing existing marketable resource deposits. This deposit has also been designated by the Board as a deposit of regional significance (SMARA Designation Report #6; 1985). Under this designation, a lead agency is required to consider a mineral resource deposit's 3 importance to the regional market before permitting land use which would threaten the potential to extract those mineral resources, as required by SMARA, Public Resources Code Section 2763(a). Mr, Glenn Adamick November 13, 1995 Page 2 We understand that the Board has submitted comments on this project's significant cumulative impacts to region -wide mineral resource management. The Department concurs with the Board's comments. If you have any questions, please phone me at (916) 445-8733. Sincerely, w /1/ Office of Governmental and Environmental Relations cc: J.W.-Newton for P.W. Gillibrand Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F - Response to Comments Commentor: Jason Marshall, Acting Assistant Director Office of Governmental and Environmental Relations, State Department of Conservation Date: November 13, 1995 Response: Comments discuss the mission of the State Division of Mines and Geology. No response necessary. 2. It is noted that CDMG Special Report 143 was published in 1987, not 1985. The EIR acknowledges that the project site contains regionally significant mineral resources (Section 5. 1, Effect ER -10) and additional information from CDMG Special Report 143 has been added to the EIR text so that the City can better evaluate the effect of the project on the supply of mineral resources in the area. However, the City during the development and approval of its 1991 General Plan did not consider mining and extraction uses as appropriate to the project site when it was designated for development as Residential Estate and Residential Very Low. The City's Land Use Element contains a specific Mineral/Oil Conservation Area overlay designation that is intended to permit the continuation of mineral extraction and oil field uses while providing for further development of the City. While this overlay was placed on the sand and gravel deposits in the Santa Clara River north of the site and the existing mining operations to the northeast of the site (1993 General Plan Land Use Map), it was not so designated for the project. site. In addition, the major portion of the aggregate deposits within the project site is located in the 160 acre northeast parcel, an area that was entitled for development of 140 residential lots in 1990. The proposed project would not alter these substantial existing limitations on the potential use of the site for mineral extraction, and so would not create a new significant impact on regional mineral resource deposits that did not already exist. In addition, the project as designed with a golf course overlying the mineral deposits would be more readily converted to aggregate production if there became a critical need for this resource. It is acknowledged that the presence of a developed golf course and residential use would make this a highly unlikely scenario, but no more unlikely than the potential for the site to be used for aggregate production under the existing land use designation and current entitlements. The amount of mineral resources within the project site was discussed in Section 5:1, Effect ER -10, and determined not to be substantial based on regional supply. It is noted that the aggregate resources at the site represent less than 0.4% of the total identified resources within its sector (Sector A) of the Saugus -Newhall Production -Consumption area. During the EIR and conditional use permit review process, the City as lead agency will be considering the onsite mineral deposit's importance to the regional market as required by SMARA. In addition, the EIR contains an alternative (Section 7.4 - Mixed Use Alternative) that proposes aggregate mining of the site for the City Council to consider. 4. Commentor expresses an opinion that the project would cause a significant cumulative impact to region -wide mineral resource management. As noted in the response to comment 2 above, the 17 City of Santa Ciarita 11 i F-5 � J [1 N Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR CAppendix F - Response to Comments j proposed project would not alter any existing significant effects that may have been deemed to have ` f occurred when the site was previously permitted for and designated for residential land use. U rl 11 0 :J 0 P n U Q F-6 City of Santa Clarita ID: NOV 15'95 15:33 No.008 F.03 November 15,1995 IGR/CEQA/ # I OO I O/CP Hunter's Green Residential Development & Golf Course City of Santa Clarita SCH# 95041049 Vic. LA -14.33.42 Mr. Glenn Adamick City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91351 Dear Mr. Adamick: Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the Hunter's Green Residential Development & Golf Course referenced above. Based on our review of the information received, we have no comment at this time. We will contact you further should we identify any matter that should be brought to your attention. You are aware that MTA's Congestion Management Program provides for city traffic mitigation credit and debit reporting. If available, please include in the Environmental Impact Report the cumulative number of credits approved for the city, and this project's credits/debits. If you have any questions regarding this response, please call me at (213) 897-4429. Sincerely, STEVE BUSWELL IGR/CLQA Coordinator Office of Transportation Planning cc: Mark Goss State Clearinghouse Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F - Response to Comments Commentor. Steve Buswell, IGR/CEQA Coordinator Caltrans Date: November 15, 1995 Response - 1. No response necessary. Completion of the traffic mitigation credit and debit report is typically completed by the City in conjunction with their CMP reporting efforts. The traffic credits and debits associated with this project will be determined at the time that the final project is approved and its conditions of approval are finalized. City of Santa Clarita F-7 EPLY TO ATTENTION OF: Office of the Chief Regulatory Branch DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY LOS ANGELES DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 300 NORTH LOS ANGELES STREET LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012. City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department Attn: G. Adamick 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, California 91355 Dear Mr. Adan -Lick: October 17, 1995 OCT 18 1995 C,1MWJNTr DEVELOPMENT' C:TY OF SANTA CLARIl A It has come to our attention that Hunter Green Development Corporation plans to construct a residential development and two golf courses in Oak Springs Creek in the City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California. This activity may require a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit. A Corps of Engineers permit is required for the discharge of dredged or fill material into, including any redeposit of dredged material within, "waters of the United States" and adjacent wetlands pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972. Examples include, but are not limited to, 1. creating fills for residential or commercial development, placing bank protection, temporary or permanent stockpiling of excavated material, building road crossings, backfilling for utility line crossings and constructing outfall structures, dams, levees, groins, weirs, or other structures; 2, mechanized landclearing grading which involves filling low areas or land leveling, ditching, channelizing and other excavation activities that would have the effect of destroying or degrading waters of the United States; 3. allowing runoff or overflow from a contained land or water disposal area to re-enter water of the United States; 4. placing pilings when such placement has or would have the effect of a discharge of fill material. P, -2- C, Enclosed you will find a permit application form and a pamphlet that describes our regulatory program. If you have any questions, please contact Aaron Allen of my staff at (213) 894-0349. r I D 1_1 ((� Enclosures l.� n F P, P U a U1 U P U1 Sincerely, David J. Castanon Chief, North Coast Section Regulatory Branch Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F - Response to Comments Commentor: David J. Castanon, Chief, North Coast Section Regulatory Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Date:. October 17. 1995 Response: As discussed in Section 5.4, page 5.4-9, of the EIR, no significant wetlands or"waters of the United States" have been determined to be present at the project site, and alteration of the minimal areas that may be so determined would be permitted under a Nationwide Permit. At the time of final design, it is the applicant's responsibility to coordinate an actual determination of the extent of any such wetlands or waters of the United States with the Corps. City of Santa Clarita n F-8 c N f�� United States Forest Angeles NF 12371 N. Little Tujunga Cyn. Rd. I1 Department of Service Tujunga RD San Fernando, CA 91342-6303 J Agriculture Reply To: 5400 Land Ownership 1950 Environmental Policy Date: December 1, 1995 LJ lJ I] LJ I C I u U IJ P Mr. Glenn Adamick Assistant PLanner II City of Santa Clarita Department of Community Development 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Dear Mr. Adamick: 4110 First, we would like to apologize for sending our comments regarding the Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course proposal after the closing date of November 13, 1995. Due to unforseen circumstances involving the federal budget and other pressing matters we were unable to meet the November 13, 1995 deadline for comments. We hope you will receive our comments for the draft and incorporate them into the final EIR document. This is a well written and concise draft EIR. We do have a few comments and concerns with the content and conclusions presented in the draft. First, there is no discussion of the affect this development proposal will have on the administration and management of the National Forest adjacent to this proposal. With any residential or recreational development adjacent to National Forest land there are accompanying conflicts with established uses. For example, there usually is increased illegal off road vehicle use, encroachment/trespass by adjacent landowners and increased fire hazards due to the increased amount of people adjacent to the National Forest boundary. Conflicts occur with illegal hiking/riding/mountain biking trails being constructed. We appreciate the effort to develop green space in the form of a golf course between the wildland/urban interface.: These green spaces serve as buffers to .large wildfires coming from the large expanses of chaparral vegetation within the National Forest. Residential development does present its own unique challenges to wildfire suppression in the urban/wildland interface. JWe are concerned with the proposal to develop that portion of the Hunters 3 Green Project within the area to be annexed to the City of Santa Clarita. We have gone on record numerous times to the County of Los Angeles Planning Commission stating our opposition to residential development (, ) Caring for the Land and Sa ig People FS -6200-28 (7.82) within this area. Conflicts with the ongoing mineral operations and 3 other adjacent uses are the reasons for our objection to residential development. The landscape standards fail to discuss any restrictions on the use of invasive exotic plants that could become established and eventually threaten Forest Service land or the Santa Clara River. There is insufficient discussion of water quality and water supply concerns. How or why can there be no reduction of groundwater supply resulting from irrigation of the golf course? The golf course will be S irrigated with Santa Clarita Water Company water, which comes from the Santa Clara River. The document states that agricultural and urban discharges have decreased the water quality of surface water downstream, but fail to reveal the decline expected from this development, or the consequences of that decline in surface water quality. Surface water supply and water quality are critical issues for aquatic organisms, yet this issue is not discussed in sufficient length in the document. The federally endangered unarmored threespine stickleback (Gastersteus aculeatus williamsoni) occurs downstream of the project area and could be affected by.sedimentation, nitrate concentration, herbicides, fungicides and hydrocarbons from the project area, there is (p very little discussion'of these effects. The registration of an herbicide or other pesticide for use on golf courses does not mean they can be used in the vicinity of endangered fish habitat. Are all of the proposed chemicals non-toxic to fish? Are they approved for use around endangered species? Which chemicals are toxic to which kind of animals, and what animals in the project vicinity can be expected to suffer acute or chronic effects? How will these chemicals effect two -stripped garter snakes, which are supposed to live in golf course lakes? During dry periods of the year or during times of drought, surface water availability in the Santa Clara River is extremely limited. This concentrates the stickleback and make them more vulnerable to catastrophic events. Therefore, increasing water withdrawal from local wells will reduce available surface water, potentially eliminating stickleback habitat downstream. There is no discussion of this potential. Has the Santa Clarita Water Company received State Water Control Board permits for additional withdrawal from the Santa Clara River. The Forest Service has protested such requests in the past. Retaining biological reports at the Community Development Department severely restricts our zone biologists ability to respond to the adequacy of the surveys. The Draft KIR does not reveal when surveys were conducted or how much effort was involved. In fact, the Draft EIR gives the impression that very little field work was conducted. The area outside of Henrickson's survey for Slender -horned spineflower could contain this endangered plant, therefore the project could destroy some of these endangered plants. There is no definition of appropriate habitat for this plant, nor a description of the area referred to as "marginal habitat" so there is not sufficient information present to judge the conclusion. If you cannot estimate their presence by survey, Caring for. the Land and Serving People _ 1��( FS -6200-28(7-82) a You must assume their presence as was done with several animals and disclose the impacts to the public and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. LThe presence of African clawed frogs, considered a nuisance and exotic pest, will be a serious and continuing problem in the ponds and lakes associated with the golf course. How will this serious pest problem be Jo managed? What control programs will be implemented? What will prevent these lakes and ponds from becoming a continuing invasion source for a dense population of clawed frogs in the Santa Clara River? Creating numerous breeding pools for these voracious predators could have serious C� consequences to any native species left in the Santa Clara. Will additional exotic species, such as Gambusia, be introduced into the Q 'I lakes to control mosquitos? All animals introduced or maintained in the golf course lakes can be expected to escape into the Santa Clara during a flood event. These potential effects are not discussed. In general, there is a lack of discussion regarding off-site impacts from J 'Z the proposed project. Impacts will not stop at the project boundary, yet C� there is almost no revelation of effects expected downstream, or on adjoining Forest Service land. There is only a small mention of dedicating a trail easement on the north { and northwest side of the project boundary. That is the only mention of a trail system or trail connections between the city of Santa Clarita and the National Forest. There needs to be more discussion of recreational l3 trails, access for these trails and management of any trails. In fact there is not much discussion of any recreation potential or loss outside of the proposed recreational development associated with the golf course. Are there opportunities for public recreation outside of a golf course �l and its facilities? The trail easement needs to be extended all along �l the boundary with the National Forest. What are the plans for this trail easement? What type of development and use is anticipated or planned C for? You have provision for a 100 foot setback from our boundary line as a n lj buffer. This is very commendable but we suggest a 200 foot setback from the National Forest boundary as more acceptable for fire suppression. The mitigation for oak trees removed or destroyed in compliance with the City oak tree ordinance we believe is inadequate and should be amended. A survival rate of 5 years is a minimum to determine whether you are successful in planting or relocating. There are no specifies where the mitigation is to take place, the suitability of the area where f replacement will take place or where the money would be used if replacement value is paid for. Monitoring should be for 5 years at least not the 2 years mentioned in the document. More time is necessary to take into account weather variables. It also seems there should be more design to utilize existing native vegetation in the fairway design and landscaping especially in keeping more oaks on site. 8 Caring for the Land and serving People FS -6200-28 (7-82) E� In mitigation measure B -1(b) you call for 50% native vegetation for the �b edge.. of each lake, why not 100% and create a native riparian system instead of mixture of native and non native species. In mitigation measure B -1(c) you call for a mix of native perennials with non natives. Why not go with an all native mix with a more stringent success effort to establish the native grasses with some certainty? This has been done on numerous road cuts and mine sites within the western United States some without the benefit of irrigation as you propose. I The hydrology section needs to be strengthened especially in regards to the effects of this project on the floodway and storm drainage. The existing land use plan designates a floodway for the Oak Springs canyon. Previous development proposals have presented a natural managed floodway that includes parkland, trails and channel stabilization. It is not clear how the storm flow will be handled across the constructed landscape mentioned in the document. There is a good range of alternatives. As stated above we do not favor any residential development in the southeast corner of the project area iq that is adjacent to the National Forest boundary. Any development project should blend into the landscape and environment and not dominate it if at all possible. - If you have any questions concerning our comments please feel free to contact Steve Bear at (818) 899-1900. &"C��� �LARA JOHNSON District Ranger cc John W. Newton John W. Newton & Associates Inc. (,7c') Caring for the Land and Serving People FS -6200.28 (7-82) I 1 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F - Response to Comments L Commentor: Clara Johnson, District Ranger LJ Angeles National Forest Date: December 1,, 1995 Response: G1. No response necessary. j 2: The proposed residential area will be substantially buffered from the National Forest lands by the lJ proposed golf course, which will serve to reduce the casual, uncontrolled access that could occur if the residential units were directly located adjacent to the forest boundaries. The project will also be 1 providing an equestrian trail that would connect into designated National Forest trails: by providing an identified means of access, this would reduce the amount of illegal spurious trail construction and provide a location whereby illegal hiking/riding/biking can be controlled. It is noted that the project site currently serves as an unrestricted means of egress into the National Forest and there was evidence of encroachment/trespass into the adjacent mining area from the site and of off-road L vehicle use extending into the forest from the site. These activities would be curtailed under the proposed project and so would be expected to result in a decrease in land use conflicts. It is agreed that the golf course would serve as a wildfire buffer area because of the presence of turf and irrigation systems. Therefore, fire hazards are expected to decrease as a result of project implementation, not increase. The problems that currently exist with wildfire suppression in the urban/wildland interface would not be significantly altered by the 83 residential lots proposed for the site, and since the golf course would provide heightened access for vehicles to the Rabbit Canyon area, the project may aid in the control of wildfires in the Sand Canyon Community. P, 3. Your concerns are noted for the decision -makers. Land use conflicts are expected to be primarily a {� result of nuisance noise and dust that may be associated with the ongoing mining operations. As indicated in Section 5.7, noise associated with mining operations would meet City standards and adust within the mining area is controlled by regulations of the South Coast Air Quality Management {� District. Also, the residences would be located sufficiently distant from dust sources such that most of the entrained material would settle out before reaching the residential uses. With regards to a visual issues, it is also noted that there are already several residential units in the Oak Spring Canyon area that can readily view the existing and future mining operations. In addition, the majority of new mining resources to be extracted in the adjacent mining operation (10.7 million cubic yards of 12.7 million cubic yards) would be at Claim Groups II and III, which are over 2.5 miles from the nearest proposed residence and in areas that are not visible from the project site (Tetra Tech, 1991). The future mining operation in Claim Group I is located over 1.5 miles from the nearest proposed residence, and while it would be visible to the proposed project, it is also visible to residences in the existing "Crystal Springs" tract in Sand Canyon and mitigation measures to reduce its visual impacts were delineated in the EIS for the new mining operations (Tetra Tech, 1991). For these reasons, the land use effects of the proposed project on the adjacent mining area are considered less than significant. City of Santa Ciarita F-9 u Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F - Response to Comments 4. The Draft Native Revegetation and Monitoring Plan that was submitted for the proposed project by the applicant and incorporated by reference into the EIR does contain reference to restrictions on the use of invasive exotic plants. 5. The project as proposed would not use any local groundwater, but would instead rely on potable water supplied by the Santa Clarita Water Company. Because of the percolation of applied imported water to the site, the project would actually increase the amount of locally available groundwater. If reclaimed water were to become available, the applicant would consider use of such water supplies. However, if the applicant were to use reclaimed water or seek to use onsite wells as a water supply, additional environmental documentation and specific technical studies would be needed to determine the effect on local wells water quantity and quality. The Santa Clarita Water Company has indicated that they "felt they could serve the project within their Master Plan," provided that the applicant construct the backbone delivery system (feeder lines and two reservoirs totaling 2.5 million gallons) as indicated in the proposed project description (pg. 3-10). The Company's currently available annual supply is 38,000 acre-feet, with 12,000 acre-feet coming from the Santa Clara River upper alluvial aquifer, 6,000 acre-feet from the Saugus Formation deep wells, and 20,000 acre-feet from the State Water Project. The initial water demand of the project would be about 1114 acre-feet per year, or about 6% of the remaining available water supply for the Santa Clarita Water Company, with the irrigation needs of the project dropping to about 891 acre-feet per year when the drought -tolerant landscaping becomes established. The cumulative effect of the golf course on the supply available for the City of Santa Clarita is considered to be less than significant. This information has been added to the EIR text. 6. The potential for surface water contaminated with either fertilizer or chemicals was considered a significant impact by the EIR (Section 52, EffectD-5). Because the actual chemicals to be used at the site are unknown at this time, specific water quality declines cannot be determined nor can specific effects to non -target organisms. In addition, the implementation of Golf Course Management and Integrated Pest Management plans, to be prepared as a condition to approval of the project, can serve to reduce water quality impacts to a less than significant level based on the case studies discussed in Balogh and Walker (1992). Specifically, surface run-off of any fertilizers and pesticides is to be controlled within the site through the drainage plan and the operation of the Golf Course Management Plan. This plan would include such features as restrictions on fertilizer and pesticide applications within 24 hours of forecasted storms. Computerized irrigation systems to be used at the site are intended to reduce the potential for irrigation run-off and the drainage system for the golf course is designed so that most of the run-off of the course is directed towards onsite ponds, where any runoff irrigation water can be collected and re -used. As part of the IPM plan; non -chemical means of control would be implemented whenever feasible and chemicals used only under specific circumstances. Chemicals proposed to be used at the site are expected to be chosen for their low mobility and lack of effects on non -target organisms. Potential water quality impacts were considered significant primarily for Oak Spring Canyon Creek and Live Oak Springs Canyon Creek because of the more limited amount of diluting water present. City of Santa Clarita F-10 H Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F - Response to Comments During the dry season; any irrigation waters from the site would not make it to the Santa Clara U River as surface flow, and therefore would not affect any instream biota since such waters would likely continue only, if at all, as underflow within the river system. During the wet season, any runoff waters from the site that reach the Santa Clara River would be highly diluted with other u urban and natural waters since the project site represents less than 0.5% of the Santa Clara River watershed above Sand Canyon. The project would also decrease the amount of sediment currently G generated at the site that potentially affects downstream fish habitat by decreasing the average slope of the land and increasing vegetative cover. CThe nearest known population of the unarmored three -spine stickleback is located upstream of Lang, which is upstream of the confluence of the Oak Spring Canyon and Sand Canyon tributaries into which the project site drains. The nearest downstream population is some 12 miles west, below McBean Parkway, It is impossible for any water contaminants that may leave the project site to affect the upstream population, and the effect on the distant downstream population would be minuscule since the project site would contribute less than 0.2% of the water to that area. In addition, the 12 miles of river provide a substantial expanse for natural biodegradation and removal of contaminants before such would reach the unarmored stickleback population. 7. The Santa Clarita Water Company has adequate permits for water withdrawal to serve the proposed project without increasing its allotment. Currently, the Santa Clarita Water Company pumps about n 8-9,000 acre-feet out of its entitlement of 12,000 acre-feet per year: Unrelated to the proposed L) project, the Santa Clarita Water Company is seeking to increase its entitlement to Santa Clara River water to 15,000 acre-feet per year, While continued pumpage of the alluvial aquifer would result in (� a decrease in surface water, the return flows associated with imported SWP water use in the City of tJ Santa Clarita as provided by the Santa Clarita Water Company results in an increase in the amount of surface water that otherwise would not have been available. Other threats to the stickleback (water quality, predation by exotic species, genetic changes caused by breeding with other sticklebacks) are more critical to the maintenance of this endangered species than the effect of the nproposed water withdrawal. l-, 8. Incorporation of technical material into an EIR and its location at a central repository is recommended and strongly encouraged by CEQA (Stale CEQA Guidelines §15006 and §15150). The location of the City Community Development Department approximately 20 minutes from the commentor's address does not seem to impose a great burden on obtaining the documents for review.. As stated in the EIR, only brief field visits by the EIR consultant were conducted to verify the findings of the applicant submitted reports (Hovore, 1995). Discussions with the Frank Hovore indicated that considerable time was spent at the project site by several biologists under his direction. Mr. Hovore has considerable field experience in the area, having served in the past as the Director of the Placerita Canyon State Park Nature Center. 9. The information requested was contained in the Hovore report which was incorporated into the EIR by reference. Slender -horned spineflower occurs in open, stable -substrate dry washes in Bee Canyon, Soledad Canyon, and Big Tujunga'wash. The spineflower appears to be confined to less City of Santa Clanta t i I F-11 Pi Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F - Response to Comments disturbed terrace alluvial deposits where generalized over -bank flooding is infrequent, but where surface runoff may collect and stand for short durations (Hovore, 1995). A suite of other species characteristically may occur in association with this small plant, often in areas of fine cryptogamic crusts. Marginal areas of this habitat is limited at the site to the lower portions of Oak Spring Canyon, with the upper drainage washes being typically relatively well vegetated, disturbed by trail use where open, and containing rather permeable top soils that do not retain moisture for any extended period. While there is a chance that the slender -horned spineflower could occur in the upper area of Oak Spring Canyon, it is highly unlikely that it would occur in the even more marginal habitat of that area and not in the lower 160 acre parcel. Therefore, the EIR preparer agreed with the Hovore report that it was unlikely that this species exists at the site and no significant effect is anticipated. This conclusion is different from that reached regarding several of the animals, which have known populations near the site along with suitable habitat present at the site. 10. The African clawed frogs are a serious pest problem that already exists within the Santa Clara River and the proposed project will not alter that condition. As part of project development, the population of clawed frogs onsite will be extirpated, thereby reducing at least one known source of these frogs. As part of the Golf Course Management Plan, actions will be taken to manage the golf course ponds for the benefit of a variety of native wildlife. If a new population of clawed frogs becomes established at the site, actions will be taken to reduce their population. However, it may be virtually impossible to eliminate this species from the site since source areas within the offsite residential areas probably exist. Breeding pools already exist within the site, within the Santa Clara River, and in other areas that can provide a continuing invasion source for clawed frogs to the river habitats and the proposed project will not significantly alter this existing condition. 11. Current plans are not to introduce any exotic species into the golf course lakes that could cause significant problems. It is noted that Gambusia sp, and many other exotic fish are already found within the Santa Clara River and the location of such in the golf course ponds would not significantly alter these existing populations. 12. Because of the design of the proposed project and the expected implementation of a native revegetation plan within the golf course, the project is not expected to generate any substantial offsite impacts to biological resources. The project would instead serve to reduce existing human disturbances in offsite areas because of the lack of restricted access through the site. 13. The exact nature and type of trail to be provided by the applicant is still undergoing revisions based on discussions between the applicant, the Sand Canyon Trails Committee, and the City of Santa Clarita. Current plans would indicate an easement within the entire length of the 100 -foot buffer area along the National Forest boundary and an easement along the relocated Oak Spring Canyon Road along the north end of the site. The trails would tie into the proposed Indian Canyon Trail at its terminus at the southeast corner of Section 24. The issue of trail recreational use was not considered significant by the City during the preparation of the Initial Study and is therefore not discussed in depth in this focused EIR. To meet the requirements of the conditional use permit and City of Santa Ciarita F-12 H G I 11 11 P r L1 tJ Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR .Appendix F - Response to Comments the zoning requirements, the applicant will be required to provide equestrian trails to the satisfaction of the City Community Development Director, 14. There appears to be no need for a 200 -foot buffer zone from the forest service for fire suppression purposes. The nearest residential pad is 150 feet from the forest boundary and the proposed golf course would provide on average a 900 -foot buffer strip of greenscape to prevent forest wildfires from traveling into the Sand Canyon community. 15. Comment regarding the adequacy of the City's Oak Tree permit conditions are noted and are contained herein to notify the decision -makers of your concerns. The City has in the past determined that these conditions are adequate to protect the oak tree resources of the City.. It should be noted that since the applicant is proposing to landscape the golf course in part with relocated oak trees and new oak trees, it is in the applicant's own self interest to maintain and establish oak trees for a much greater time period than that required by the City. The oak tree relocation and planting effort is being planned by the firm of Lee Newman and Associates, who have had extensive experience in the planting and maintenance of oak trees within a variety of suburban conditions over the past 15 to 20 years. Because of the expense associated with moving a tree and propagating new trees, it is unlikely that they would be purposely located in areas that are not suitable. The draft Native Revegetation and Monitoring Plan submitted by the applicant contains an extensive listing of the appropriate conditions and methods for planting and maintaining oak trees and the commentor is referred to that document. The golf course architect has indicated that especial care was taken in the design of the golf course to preserve as many heritage oak trees as possible and to lay out the course in a manner that disturbed such oaks to the least extent possible, while at the same time taking advantage of the enhancement that such trees bring to the golf course. If the project is approved, the City will review the final landscape design plan with respect to the preservation of oak tree resources. 16. Because the golf course lakes are also part of the fairway playing area, it would be impractical to use solely native vegetation around their edges and still maintain the playability of the course and the design elements of water hazards. It should be noted that the primary purpose of the proposed development is to create a desirable golf recreational area. U 17. Fairway roughs are a part of the playing area for a golf course and native perennial grasses are not U fully conducive to such a use nor do they necessarily provide the visual design element required for the success of the golf course. Where appropriate, it would be desirable for the perennial grasses LJ and other native species to replace exotics. It is noted that revegetation efforts on road cuts and LJ mine sites are not subjected to golf cart traffic and hackers. a18, The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing floodway gradients within the site, rather portions of the existing drainages would be stabilized through the establishment of turf grass and other landscaping. As described in the EIR text, this will tend to reduce storm water velocities, but will not increase the height of storm waters nor the general flow path. In reviewing the previous tentative tract maps for the project site and further downstream, the EIR preparer did not City of Santa Clarita F-13 Pi 0 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F - Response to Comments discover any proposals for a natural floodway that included trails and parkland. The existing entitlement for the 160 acre property in Oak Spring includes a standard trapezoidal flood channel with a natural bottom and riprapped sides with residential lots adjoining the flood control channel easement. 19. No response necessary. Your comments regarding the preference for alternatives that do not include residential uses in the proposed annexation area are included herein to notify decision - makers. Li II LJ II L I D [I! t_J D 11, 0 City of Santa Clarita R r -1a L-� I F P. MICHAEL FREEMAN FIRE CHIEF FORESTER & FIRE WARDEN November 7, 1995 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT 1320 NORTH EASTERN AVENUE LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90063-3294 - (213) 881-2481 Ms. Kristine Kudija, Assistant Planner II City of Santa Clarita Department of Community Development 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Dear Ms. Kudija: SUBJECT: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT -- HUNTERS GREEN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND GOLF COURSE, SCH #95041049 n CITY OF SANTA CLARITA (EIR #295,1995) lJ �j PLANNING DIVISION We have no additional comments. FORESTRY DIVISION We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Hunters Green Residential and Golf Course Development located at the junction of Sand Canyon and Lost Canyon in the City �) of Santa Clarita, The statutory responsibilities of the Forestry Division of the County of Los Angeles Fire u Department include erosion control, watershed management, rare and endangered species, tJ vegetation, archeological and cultural resources and the County Oak Tree Ordinance. l The following subjects have not been fully addressed in the Draft Environmental Impact Report L and we request that they be addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Report: a AGOURA HILLS ARTESIA AZUSA BALDWIN PARK BELL BELLFLOWER BELL GARDENS BRADBURY SERVING THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND THE CITIES OF CALABASAS GLENDORA LAKEWOOD MAYWOOD RANCHO PALOS VERDES SOUTH EL MONTE CARSON HAWAIIAN GARDENS LA MIRADA NORWALK ROLLING HILLS SOUTH GATE CERRITOS C HIDDEN HILLS LANCASTER PALMDALE ROLLING HILLS ESTATES TEMPLE CITY COOMMERMMERCEE HUNTINGTON PARK LA PUENTE PALOS VERDES ESTATES ROSEMEAD WALNUT CUDAHY INDUSTRY IAWNDALE PARAMOUNT SAN DIMAS WEST HOLLYWOOD DIAMOND BAR IRWINDALE. LOMITA. PICO RIVERA SANTA CLARITA WESTLAKEVILLAGE DUARTE LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE MALIBU POMONA SIGNAL HILL WHITTIER Ms. Kristine Kudija November 7, 1995 Page 2 * The City of Santa Clarita's Oak Tree Ordinance, Oak Tree Permit, Oak Tree J Report,Location Map, Re -planting Map and Monitoring Agreement should be in the Final Environmental Impact Report. * An archaeological and historical records check and field survey should be conducted to determine any significant findings, verification of either the records check or the field survey should be in the Final EIR. I * Revegetation and landscape plans, including details on mitigation Conditions of 3 Approval, are needed to evaluate the impacts to the existing flora and fauna species. * Upon approval, the agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a Condition of Approval. The mitigation monitoring measures for the project should be fully addressed in the DEIR. S I * Cumulative impacts from the project to the natural environment of the City of (� Santa Clarita to be addressed. U * Recent changes to the County Fire Code requires that landscape design plans be submitted to the County of Los Angeles Fire Department, Brush Clearance Unit. Two fuel modification plans will be required for Fire Department approval during the preliminary plan review. If you have any additional questions, please contact this office at (213) 881-2481. Very truly yours, PAUL H. RIPPENS, CHIEF, FORESTRY DIVISION PREVENTION BUREAU PHR: jmb H Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F - Response to Comments Commentor: Paul Rippens, Chief, Forestry Division, Prevention Bureau County of Los Angeles Fire Department n Date:November7, 1995 lJ Response: 1, The Oak Tree Report and other information are incorporated by reference into the EIR as allowed under State CEQA Guidelines §15150 and are therefore already a portion of the EIR. The ainformation requested regarding the Oak Tree Ordinance, the Oak Tree Permit program, and Oak Tree Reports are available for review at the City of Santa Clarita. The actual Oak Tree Permit would not be granted until the project is approved, which cannot occur until after the Final EIR is certified; therefore, it is not possible to include the Oak Tree Permit in the Final EIR. A Mitigation Monitoring Plan is being prepared for the project, but this is not a part of the Final EIR since the monitoring program is subject to changes that might occur as a result of City Council approval of specific aspects of project final design. While a mitigation monitoring plan is required under CEQA, it is not a required part of an EIR (see State CEQA Guidelines § 15120-15132). 2. Archaeological reports were prepared for the various portions of the project site during previous environmental review of prior approved projects. No archaeological artifacts were determined to be at the project site by these reports. The archaeological reports are available for review by qualified individuals at the City of Santa Clarita within the administrative records for TTM 45148, TTM 47324, TTM 47803, and at the County of Los Angeles for Tract 46364. 3. As stated in Section 5.4, the proposed project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact on the biological resources of the project site. Revegetation and current design plans were C incorporated by reference and are available for review at the City of Santa Clarita. Further detailed plans would be available at the final design stage of planning if the project is approved, which can occur only after the Final EIR is certified. 4. A. Mitigation Monitoring Plan is being prepared for the project, but this is not a part of the Final EIR since the monitoring program is subject to changes that might occur as a result of City Council approval of specific aspects of project final design. While a mitigation monitoring plan is required under CEQA, it is not a required part of an EIR (see State CEQA Guidelines §15120-15132) 5. The cumulative impacts of the project on biological resources were determined to be significant and unavoidable, as discussed in Section 5.4 of the EIR. U6. The requirement for landscape design plans to be submitted to the County of Los Angeles Fire Department is noted. This is not part of the environmental review process required under CEQA and is not relevant to the EIR. Itis expected that the applicant will provide such a plan as required under the County Fire Code if the project is approved. PF -15 City of Santa Clarita 11 The Gas Companye October 20, 1995 Glenn Adamick Assistant Planner City of Santa Clarita 23820 Valencia Blvd. Suite 300 Santa Clarita, Ca. Dear Mr. Adamick: Technical Services Department 1995Mountain Viaw Region Sotnern califoml Gas Company I The following is in response to your, 9/27/95 letter requesting information relative to an Iwo cnrpomn Ce I Environmental Impact Report on the proposed development of the Hunter Green Development Alun m 1z.k, c and Golf Course. Mailing.4ddrcu: Within the areas of interest and responsibilities of the Southern California Gas Company, we find B. 2M the proposed development reasonable and acceptable. Mnnt— ILrb„ c.4Ll Santo Plescia Planning Aide 91754-8931 This letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve the subject development, but only as an information service. Its intent is to notify you that the proposed project can be served from existing mains in the area. This can be done without any major impact on overall system capacity, service to existing customers, or the environment. L) Average consumption is estimated at 1095 therms per year per single family dwelling unit. This estimate is based on past system averages and does not encompass the possible effect of the State's new insulating requirements and consumers' loads vary with types of equipment used. The C� L availability of natural gas service as set forth in this letter is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. We can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action that effects gas supply or the t, condition under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with the revised condition. r }LJI We have developed several programs which are available, upon request, to provide assistance in selecting the most effective applications of energy conservation techniques for a particular project. if you desire further information on any of our energy conservation programs, please call ^ IL (213) 881-8203. J Sincerely, yj� C lJ Santo Plescia Planning Aide n N .a D Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR. Appendix F.- Response to Comments Commentor: Santo Plescia, Planning Aide The Gas Company Date: October 20, 1995 Response: 1. Comments indicate that the project can be served by existing gas mains without any major impact on overall system capacity. No response is necessary. City of Santa Clarita F-16 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ■ DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES PUBLIC HEALTH PROGRAMS AND SERVICES ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH " BUREAU OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 2525 Corporate PI. Rm. 150, Monterey Park, CA 91754-7631 • (213)881-4011 sv:cm� a; impact. RECEIVEEi October 25, 1995 NOY 21995 To: Christine Kudija, Assistant Planner II COMMJ.pfiv C,EvELJPMENT Department of Community Development.. CITY AR:TA City of Santa Clarit , From: Jack Petralia1 Director of vsronmental'Protection Subject: NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF ADRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - HUNTERS GREEN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND GOLF COURSE, SCH 95- 041049 This is in response to your September 29, 1995.Notice of Completion of a Draft. Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) regarding the Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf. Course, SCH #95041049.. This Bureau has reviewed the DEIR and submits the following comments: - The project applicant states that the project will be served by an existing public water supply system and public. sewers; If there f is a change in either of these conditions, further consultation/approval by this Department may be required. - Landscape irrigation system plans and specifications must be submitted to this Department's Cross Connection & Water Pollution 2. Control Program for review and approval. If reclaimed water becomes available for the project, its use must conform to guidelines established by the State Department of Health Services and this Department. - Groundwater monitoring well (Section 5..2) must meet the minimum requirements of Bulletin 74-90 (California Well Standards) and the. Los Angeles County Code, and the construction of the well must be 3 performed by a person possessing a C-57 license. A monitoring well construction permit issued by this Department and the payment of an applicable fee is required. All public food facilities (golf course clubhouse) must be constructed and operated to meet the requirements of the California Health and Safety Code. Plans and.. specifications must be submitted, with applicable fee, to. this Department's Plan Check Program for review and approval, and the operator must apply for and be issued a Los Angeles County Public Health License and Permit. License and. permit: requires the payment of an. annual fee. If you :have any questions or need additional information, please let me know:. sv:cm� a; impact. Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F - Response to Comments Commentor: Jack Petralia, Director of Environmental Protection County of Los Angeles, Department of Health Services Date: October 25, 1995 Response: 1. No response necessary. Current plans still indicate that the site would be served by public water and sewer systems. 2.. Comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the EIR and no response is necessary, 3. The requirement for the groundwater monitoring well to meet the requirements of Bulletin 74-90 has been added to the EIR text. 4. Comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the EIR and no response is necessary City of Santa Clarita F-17 WA"IWAlll RECIAMAIION k. OLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS 1955 Workman Will Road, Whittier,. CA 90601-1400 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 4998, Whittier, CA 90607-4998 Telephone: (310) 699-7411, FAX: (310) 695-6139 Mr. Glen Adamick City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Dear Mr. Adamick: OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY CHARLES V4 CARRY 0h1ei Engineer and Genera! Manager October 19, 1995 File No: 26-00.00-00 Hunter's Green Development and Golf Course U r1 L ocr 0 1995 -LLhGIr� The County Sanitation Districts received a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the subject project on October 4, 1995. We offer the following comments and corrections regarding sewerage service: 1. The areas in question are outside the jurisdictional boundaries of the Sanitation Districts and will require annexation into District No. 26 before sewerage service can be provided to the proposed developments. For specific information regarding the annexation procedure and fees, please contact Ms. Ruth Charles at (310) 699-7411, extension 2708. 2. The wastewater flow originating from the proposed project will discharge to a local sewer line, which is not maintained by the Sanitation Districts, for conveyance to the Districts' Soledad Canyon Trunk Sewer Section 5, located in Lost Canyon Road at the Antelope Valley Freeway. This 18 -inch diameter trunk sewer has a peak capacity of 9.1 million gallons per day (mgd) and conveyed a peak flow of 3.0 mgd when last measured in 1992. Please note that the sewers in Live Oaks Springs Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road discussed in Section 3.7.4 are local sewers and are not maintained by the Districts. 3. The County Sanitation Districts provide wastewater treatment in the Santa Clarita Valley by operating two water reclamation plants (WRPs), the Saugus WRP and the Valencia WRP. These facilities have been interconnected to form a regional treatment system known as the Santa Clarita Valley Joint Sewerage System (SCVJSS). The Saugus WRP has been rated at a capacity of 6.5 mgd and the Valencia WRP has a design capacity of 11.0 mgd. All solids and any wastewater flows which cannot be treated at the Saugus WRP are conveyed to the Valencia WRP for treatment. The SCVJSS has a permitted treatment capacity of 17.5 mgd (11.0 + 6.5) and currently treats an average flow of 15.9 mgd. Expansions of the SCVJSS is currently underway and has been planned to allow adequate lead time to design and construct the required capacity as the wastewater flow materializes. The next expansion of the SCVJSS will come on-line in 1996, increasing the system capacity of 19.1 mgd. 4. A copy of the Districts' average wastewater generation factors is enclosed to allow you to estimate l the volume of wastewater the project will generate. F1 I f l Mr. Glen Adamick [J 11 u E October 19, 1995 5. The Sanitation Districts are empowered by the California Health and Safety Code to charge a fee for the privilege of connecting (directly or indirectly) to the Sanitation Districts' Sewerage System or increasing the existing strength and/or quantity of wastewater attributable to a particular parcel or operation already connected. This connection fee is required to construct an incremental expansion of the Sewerage System to accommodate the proposed project which will mitigate the impact of this project on the present Sewerage System. Payment of a connection fee will be required before a permit to connect to the sewer is issued. 6. The design capacity of the Districts' wastewater treatment facilities are based on population forecasts adopted in the Southern California Association of Governments' (SCAG) 1994 Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP)., The RCP is in the process of being adopted as part of the 1994 South Coast Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The AQMP is jointly prepared by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and SCAG as a requirement of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA). In order to conform with the AQMP, all expansions of Districts facilities must be sized and service phased in a manner which will be consistent with the Growth Management element of the 1994 RCP. The Growth Management element contains a regional growth forecast for the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial which was prepared by SCAG. Specific policies included in the RCP which deal with the management of growth win be incorporated into the AQMP strategies to improve air quality in the South Coast Air Basin. The available capacity of the Districts' treatment facilities will, therefore, be limited to levels associated with approved growth identified in the adopted RCP. As such, this letter does not constitute a guarantee of wastewater service, but is to advise you that the Districts intend to provide this service up to the levels which are legally permitted and to inform you of the currently existing capacity and any proposed expansion of Districts facilities. If you have any questions, please contact Sean Christian at (310) 699-7411, extension 2707 or the undersigned at extension 2722. DK:eg Enclosure I(� L� L1 �l IIn'1 N:\ ASSESV u Very truly yours, Charles W. Carry y Dainis Kleinbergs Civil Engineer Planning & Property Management Section TABLET LOADINGS FOR EACH CLASS OF LAND USE COMMERCIAL Hotel/Motel/Rooming House Room FLOW COD SOLIDS DESCRIPTION UNIT OF MEASURE (Gallons per Daver (Pounds Daver (Pounds Da RESIDENTIAL 1000 ft2 150 2,00 1.00 Single Family Home Parcel 260 _ 1.22 0.59 Duplex Parcel 312 1.46 0.70 Triplex Parcel 468 2.19 1.05 Fou lex rP Parcel 624 2.92 1.40 Condominiums Parcel 182 0.85 0.41 Single Family Home Parcel 156 0.73 0.35 (reduced rate) Five Units or More No. of Dwig. Units 156 0.73 0.35 Mobile Home Parks No. of Spaces 156 0.73 0.35 COMMERCIAL Hotel/Motel/Rooming House Room 125 0.54 0.28 Store 1000 ft= 100 0.43 0.23 Supermarket 1000 ft2 150 2,00 1.00 Shopping Center 1000 ft= 325 3.00 1.17 Regional Mall 1000 ft2 150 2.10 0.77 Office Building 1000 ft2 200 0.86 0.45 Professional Building 1000 ft2 300 1.29 0.68 Restaurant 1000 ftz 1,000 16.68 5.00 Indoor Theatre 1000 ftz 125 0.54 0.28 Car Wash Tunnel - No Recycling 1000 ftz 3,700 15.86 8.33 Tunnel - Recycling 1000 ft2 2,700 11.74 6.16 Wand 1000 ft2 700 3.00 1.58 Financial Institution 1000 ft2 100 0.43 0.23 Service Shop 1000 ftz 100 0.43 0.23 Animal Kennels 1000 ft2 100 0.43 0.23 Service Station 1000 ft2 100 0.43 0.23 Auto Sales/Repair 1000 ftz 100 0.43 0.23 Wholesale Outlet 1000 ft2 100 0.43 0.23 Nursery/Greenhouse 1000 ftz 25 0.11 0.06 Manufacturing 1000 ft2 200 1.86 0.70 Dry Manufacturing 1000 ft2 25 0.23 0.09 Lumber Yard 1000 ft2 25 0.23 0.09 Warehousing 1000 It, 25 0.23 0.09 Open Storage 1000 ftz 25 0.23 0.09 Drive-in Theatre 1000 ft2 20 0.09 0.05 Night Club 1000 ft2 350 1.50 0.79 Bowling/Skating 1000 ft, 150 1.76 0.55 TABLET (continued) LOADINGS FOR EACH CLASS OF LAND USE L*ZERCHARM'M-9&L0ADING.tRL SUSPENDED FLOW COD SOLIDS DESCRIPTION UNTO OF MEASURE (Gallons Per Dav) (Pounds RMDavj (Pounds 2M.N2.11 COMMERCIAL Club Auditorium, Amusement 1000 ft, 1000 ftx 125 350 0.54 0.27 Golf Course, Camp, and 1000 ft, 100 0..443 03 0.;'9 Park (Structures and 0.23 Improvements) Recreational Vehicle Park No. of Spaces 55 0.34 Convalescent Home Bed125 0.54 0.14 Laundry Mortuary/Cemetery 1000 ft, 3,825 166.40 0.28 8.61 Health Spa, Gymnasium 1000 ftx 100 1.33 0.67 With Showers 1000 ft, 600 2.58 1.35 Without Showers 1000 ft, 300 1.29 0.68 Convention Center, Fairground, Racetrack, Average Daily Sports Stadium/Arena Attendance 10 0.04 o.oz INSTITUTIONAL College/University Student 20 0.09 0.05 Private School I0o0 ft, 200 0.86 0.45 Church 1000 ftx 50 0.21 0.11 L*ZERCHARM'M-9&L0ADING.tRL Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F - Response to Comments Commentor: Dainis Kleinbergs, Planning &Property Management Section County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County Date: October 19, 1995 Response: The need for annexation into District No. 26 was noted in Section 1.3 of the Draft EIR. 2. Information noted. The fact that the trunk sewer is at only 33% of peak capacity confirms the findings of the Initial Study that impacts to that system are not potentially significant. 3. Information noted. The fact that the wastewater treatment facilities have a remaining capacity of 1.6 mgd, with an additional 1.6 mgd to come online in 1996 confirms the findings of the Initial Study that impacts to that system are not potentially significant. 4. Based on the provided factors, the project could generate 24,280 gallons per day of sewage, which represents 1.5% of the treatment plant's remaining available capacity. This is not considered a significant amount, S. It is noted that the project will be required to pay a sewage connection fee. 6. Approval of the proposed project would reduce the number of units that have already been assumed by the 1994 Regional Comprehensive Plan to be located at the site since such plan was based on the past entitlements and the City's General Plan designation for the project site, As such, the proposed project would reduce potential demands on the wastewater treatment facilities as compared to that projected by regional planning efforts. City of Santa Clarita F-]8 G I C' C Li U P D ul P . P I October 18, 1995 Ms. Christine Kudija Assistant Planner 11 City of Santa Clarita Department of Community 23920 Valencia Boulevard Santa Clarita, CA, 91355 Los Angeles ment of Rei Direcior of Planning. James E Hall. A/CP Development Suite 300 SUBJECT: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT HUNTERS GREEN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND GOLF COURSE SEPTEMBER 27, 1995 SCH# 95041049 Dear Ms. Kudija: OU 7. 0 1995 Thank you for providing this department with a copy of the above document for our review. Staff has reviewed the Draft EIR and has the following comments: FAILURE TO DISCLOSE IMPORTANT AND PERTINENT INFORMATION While the Draft EIR is critically deficient in a number of respects, the most salient of these is its failure to adequately disclose the history of the project site with respect to the 103.4 acre Los Angeles county portion at the southerly end targeted for annexation. This area (identified as the "fourth parcel" on page 1-3) was a part of7ract 32571 (Lots 44 and 136) which was approved by the Regional Planning Commission on April 4, 1985 (Tract 46364 as noted in the Draft EIR is actually a unit of Tract 32571). This area was approved for not more than two dwelling units and was intended to provide a substantial buffer to the Gillebrand mining operations within Forest Service property to the east. This was a requirement not only of the Tentative Tract map but also by virtue of the concurrently approved conditional use permit (CUP 2156) which regulates the property to this day, regardless of the owner's allowing the tentative tract map to expire. A copy of this CUP is attached. Please note that the CUP runs with the land. As such, the project, as designed is in direct violation with the provisions imposed by the Regional Planning Commission. Furthermore, it is very important to disclose that, in the original approval of Tract 32571, the overall subject property of 346 acres was deemed to yield a maximum of 138 dwelling units as per the Santa Clarita Areawide General Plan. The number of units approved was 136. As such, the density yield from the 103 acres of this current proposal has in effect, been used and has been clustered on the westerly portion of the project site. 320 West Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 213 974 6411 FAX 213 626 0434 2. This information should have been researched and included in the Draft EIR as it is pertinent and crucial to any decision on the project. FAILURE TO HIGHLIGHT AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED The Draft EIR lacks this basic requirement of disclosure pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15132. A review of the Notice of Preparation e NOP) letters in the document clearly shows that there is controversy in many areas which r the Draft EIR has failed to summarize. Not only is this a disservice to the public but a serious omission of information to decision -makers. J FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY ADDRESS LAND USE ISSUES In spite of the NOP's stating that EIR issues need not be limited to those initially identified, coupled with the important land use comments received from the public, no land use section or meaningful discussion has been provided in the Draft EIR. The Oak Springs portion of the project site as well as the areas to the east have been classified as Mineral Resource Zones 2 (MRZ-2) by the State Division of Mines and Geology. These represent areas where mineral deposits are present. State law requires that these areas be conserved and protected from incompatible development. The County of Los Angeles, in approving Tentative Tract 32571, gave serious weight to this mandate. The Draft EIR makes scant reference to this issue and concludes that this project will not have a significant effect on mineral resource reserves. This Department cannot agree with that conclusion since the direct and permanent loss of any significant resource area (2.2 million cubic yards of maximum potential yield from this portion of the MRZ, page 5.1-9 of the Draft EIR) could have considerable future countywide implications. More important is to acknowledge that having people move so close to a mining area will undoubtedly create an unfavorable future condition of opposition to mining operators. It is our understanding that there are approved current mining activities in Oak Springs canyon that could conceivably last as much as 50 years into the future. NO ANALYSIS OF WATER SUPPLY AND AVAILABILITY The NOP indicated that water availability would be addressed in the Draft EIR yet nothing close to this has been included. This Department believes that a development of this magnitude (including two golf courses) will have an obvious impact on supplies and availability of valuable potable water. Staff recommends that the Santa Clarita Water Company be requested to reassess this matter and that data from the Los Angeles County Development Monitoring System be utilized for information regarding demand. C L, 3. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS j The Draft EIR contained a number of miscollated pages making the review difficult and time consuming. The Draft EIR should have included a list of Draft EIR recipients in order to (� $ ascertain whether the appropriate parties have been included. For example: the 1� Santa Clarita Water Company, the State Division of Mines and Geology, S.C.O.P.E., Santa Clarita Civic Association, etc.. We request that all future EIR's henceforth include this information as is standard practice with this Department. The Draft BIR contains a very poor and non -user friendly copy of the site plan. To compound the problem, the Draft EIR in several areas of the text cites lot numbers, features of the plan, road names, etc. which are impossible to locate on the site plan. r We request that all future EIR's include a pocket, with a full scale map for ease of lul review. This too is standard practice with this Department. Fi Access is wholly disregarded. Staff would be interested to know if this project meets l a County Subdivision Code requirements limiting to 75 the number of units on a single means of access in a high fire hazard area. This should be addressed in any Final EIR including any temporary exceedances of this critical safety consideration either with this project or in combination with other existing or proposed units. CONCLUSION Since this Department and County government, in general, is experiencing serious staffing 11 and budgetary problems, our time and resources have been severely limited. As a result, (� our comments are not all-inclusive and may not touch on all potential areas of concern. We request that a full copy of the Final EIR as well as any approval documents be provided to this Department with responses to the issues raised. Q I P P CSI If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (213) 974-6461 Monday through Thursday. Our offices are closed on Fridays. Sincerely, DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL PLANNING James E. Hartl, AICP Director of P1 John R. Schwarze, Aninistrator Current Planning Branch JRS:FM:fm c: LAFCO State Division of Mines and Geology Dave Vannatta, Deputy 5th Supervisorial District John Hartman, Section Head Land Divisions C' LJ I P PJ n A public hearing on Conditional Use Permit Case No. 2156-(5), Oak Tree Permit No. 83-001, and Tentative Tract Map No. 32571 was held befor the Regional Planning Commission of Los Angeles County on April 4, 1985. After considering the evidence presented, the Regional Planning Commission in concurrent actions on April 4, 1985 granted the Oak Tree Permit, Conditional Use Permit and conditionally approved the tentative tract map in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and Title 21 (Zoning Ordinance) and 22 (Subdivision Ordinance) of the Los Angeles County Code. These actions enable the property shown on the attached legal description and the tentative tract map dated 'February '12, 1985 to be subdivided into 136 lots, subject to the attached conditions. Your attention is called to the following: Condition No. 1 of the conditional use permit provides that the permit shall not be effective for any purpose until the applicant and the owner of the property involved, or their duly authorized representatives, have filed at the office of the Department of Regional Planning the affidavit stating that they are aware of and accept all the conditions of the permit. 2. Condition No. 3 of the conditional use permit pointing out limitations of the grant. Lo Angeles County DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL PLANNING 320 West Temple Street. Los Angeles Certified -Receipt California 90012 Requested 974-6401 Norman Murdoch Planning Director April 9, 1985 ■ Engineering Service Corporation , ■I 6017 Bristol Parkway Culver City, Calif'. 90230 (j Gentlemen: RE: OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 83-001 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 2156-(5) ( l� TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 32571 (Map date February 12, 1985) To create 136 single family lots within an area designated as Non -urban Hillside Management and Floodplain Management in the Countywide General Plan and Hillside Management, Watershed, N1 and N2 in the Santa Clarita Valley Area Plan, in the Sand Canyon Zoned District. C' LJ I P PJ n A public hearing on Conditional Use Permit Case No. 2156-(5), Oak Tree Permit No. 83-001, and Tentative Tract Map No. 32571 was held befor the Regional Planning Commission of Los Angeles County on April 4, 1985. After considering the evidence presented, the Regional Planning Commission in concurrent actions on April 4, 1985 granted the Oak Tree Permit, Conditional Use Permit and conditionally approved the tentative tract map in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and Title 21 (Zoning Ordinance) and 22 (Subdivision Ordinance) of the Los Angeles County Code. These actions enable the property shown on the attached legal description and the tentative tract map dated 'February '12, 1985 to be subdivided into 136 lots, subject to the attached conditions. Your attention is called to the following: Condition No. 1 of the conditional use permit provides that the permit shall not be effective for any purpose until the applicant and the owner of the property involved, or their duly authorized representatives, have filed at the office of the Department of Regional Planning the affidavit stating that they are aware of and accept all the conditions of the permit. 2. Condition No. 3 of the conditional use permit pointing out limitations of the grant. 3. That Hiring the fifteen -day period following your receipt of this letter. the Commission's decision regarding the conditional use permit may be appealed to the Board of Supervisors through the office of the Clerk of the Board, Room 383, Hall of Administration, 500 Nest Temple Street, Los Angeles, California 90012. The permit will not become effective until and unless the appeal period has passed without the filing of an appeal. 4. That the decision of the Commission regarding the tentative tract map shall become final and effective on the date of decision provided no appeal of the action taken has been filed with the Board of Supervisors within ten days following the decision of the Commission through the office of the Clerk of the Board, Room 383, Hall of Administration, 500 West Temple Street, Los Angeles, California 90012. The conditional use permit and Oak Tree Permit unless it is utilized prior to April 4, 1990. stating reasons why additional time to commence Commission may grant a one-year time extension permit. Such request must be received prior to shall be null and void Upon written request is needed, the for the conditional use April 4, 1990. U �I L.i ISI The tentative tract map approval shall expire April 4, 19BB. If the subject tract map does not record prior to the expiration date, a reque t, in writing for an extension of the approval must be received prior to the expiration date. P U If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact the Subdivision Section of the Department of Regional Planning at (213) 974-6433. Very truly yours, DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL PLANNING :Norman Murdoch,q�anning Di'/ reRAdmtnAtration c st aDiv t ®r Subdivis Div ion GT:RL:MB:jmr Enclosures; legal; affidavit; findings and conditons cc: Board of Supervisors Zoning Envordement Subdivision Committee Real Estate Commission FHA VA Crocker Bank I FINDINGS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2156 (TRACT MAP NO. 32571) G 1. The project proposes to develop 136 single family lotson a Road r acre site at the eastern terminus of Live Oak Springscanyon on Road iia thenSoand CanyonoZone approximately The roposal concentrates development on the relatively flat portions of the site. E. The subject property is depicted in the Rural, Hillside Management and Flood Plain categories of the Countywide General Plan and the Hill- side Managementtt,yy watershed, N1, N2 categories of the Santa p.arita threshold aandithere ore The equiresoa Conditional Use Permit.ect exceeds the density 3. ,mprovementdare consiect stenthwith theions goalsfor andits policiees ofthe n General Plan and with the zone classification since it is in sub- stantial compliance with the following conditions and has met the burden of proof for the Conditional Use Permit for hillside manage- ment areas, in that: d so as a. The safety proposed f co�entct is located and futureacommeinityeresidentsp protect the safety will not create significant threats to life and/or property due to the presence of geologic, seismic, slope instability, fire, flood, or erosion hazard. L� b. The proposed development demonstrates reathat tivvee ll and imaginative design resulting in a ent community character and benefit current and future community r� residents. Lf c. The oosed cultural and scenictis resources oflthelth area.e natural biotic, roject will not be ntal to lic a d. The proposed design and/or environmental econsiderations.health (�j and safety, � De. The approval of proposed dwelling units exceeding the rnmiber permitted by the low density threshold for the proposed develop- ment in Non -urban hillsides is based on the ability to mitigate problems of public safety, design and/or environmental con- siderations as provided in the General Plan. L' f. The ping andd coommjeu itysfacilit es,lcanebeeprovidedgwith essential shopping costs on the public annddsisithout consistent with theeobjectives andpolicies otal comcommunity,tyty, of the General Plan. 4. The property is zoned A-1-1 (light agriculture - 1 acre minimum lot size), and therefore requires a CUP to cluster units in this density controlled development. rl 5. The proposed project will not be detrimental topublic health and i) safety, design and/or environmental considerations. !'d FRMTNGS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2156 page 2 L TRACT MAP NO. 32571 6. Through appropriate conditioning the proposed project will be the Santa Clarita Valley T'I �1 developed in a manner consistent with and compatibly with adjacent residential areas. Area Plan 7. The Proposed jesempefarchitectural ccretis aaentresidential 1 li and detailing tinurrcoatibilitywith development. 8. The proposed grading will be balanced cut and fill with no 'off-site grading g. The applicant proposes to place all utilities underground. 10. The proposedhave a variety of front yard setbacks imaginative will to c 11. The project shall be developed and maintained in compliance with Los Angeles County Health Department. (lel the requirements of the 12. Possible negative environmental impacts imposed upon existing be mitigated through the conditions California oak trees will required by Oak Tree Permit No. 83-001. t� 13. Environmental act Report for on Tractect No.was 33893. The appr Te t�JJ by the Regional Planning Commission determined that implementation of this proposal will Commission cause no significant adverse effects on the environment which canno the of available contro. be adequately mitigated through application the proposed land division indicates noochangeso A review of f the impacts that would warrant further study or R. BASED ON THE FOREGOING, THE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION CONCLUDES: 1. tathe proposed use will not beain substantial conflict with That h d general plan othe 2. That the requested use at the location proposed will not: a. Adversely affect the healthl peaces ecomfort or welfare f working persons residing or b. Be located to the ,in theent or vicinityOfathen property oof other persons of property P site, or L c. Jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety or general welfare, and e([I 3. That the proposed site is adequate in nnsize amend and e to acc deve�lopme�� the yards, walls, fences, parking, rt features prescribed in the Zoning Ordinance, or as is otherwise if required in order to integrate said use with the uses in.the surrounding area, and r 1.� u FINDINGS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2156 page 3 TRACT MAP NO. 32571 L4. That the proposed site is adequately served: {� ys or streets of sufficient width and improved as L necessary to carry the kind and quantity of traffic such use a. BY highwa would generate, and facilities as are required. �j b. By other public or private service THE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVES: That, in view of the findings of fact presented tedtabove attached Conditional 1. is GRANTED, , Use Permit No. 2156 (5) L1 conditions. ri P D 0 CEJ D II, I 6. That all development of the subject property shall conform to the conditions approved for Tentative Tract No. 32571 and Oak Tree a Permit No. 83-001- 7. That a maximum of one hundred thirty six (136) residential Units may be constructed on the property. 8. That all development shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Zoning Ordinance (Ordinance No. 1494) and the Subdivision Ordinance (Ordinance No. 4478). 9. That open space shall comprise not less than 70 percent of the net area. J 10. That three copies of a landscape plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Planning Director prior to recordation of a final resrtract ofdeiewaddress the subdivision evatin andehanceent any scenic shall n U 11. Prior to any alteration or construction within the highwater mark of any major streambed, the applicant shall notify the Department of Fith and Game and obtain an agreement in compliance with State Fish and Game Code, Sections 1601-1603. 12. That any adjustment to the lot lines must be to the satisfaction of the Department of Regional Planning. Ln� L_ J U CONDITIONS FOR COM=IONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2156 CONDITIONS 1. This permit shall not be effective for any purpose until a duly of the property involved authorized representative of the owner saidRegionalPlanningCommissionhiitionsi, has filed at the office hofis all the co affidavit stating ff of this permit; 2. It is hereby declared to be the intent that if any provision of be the permit shall this permit is held or declared to the privileges grantherinvalidshall be void and 3. is themade a ion of sshhallebeisuspended iIt permit f anyfco�ndition hereofais violated, the granted hereunder shall lapse; provided that the and privileges applicant has been given written notice to cases such violation and thirty (30) days; has failed to do so for a period of 4. That all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and of the specific be complied with unless set n Ll zoning of the subject property must forth in the permit or shown on the approved plot plan; 5. That the subject property shall be developed and maintained in file marked substantial compliance with the tentative tract map on tentativeapproved for "Exhibit N.3251ll be deemed to bearevised Exhibit tboA7esha 6. That all development of the subject property shall conform to the conditions approved for Tentative Tract No. 32571 and Oak Tree a Permit No. 83-001- 7. That a maximum of one hundred thirty six (136) residential Units may be constructed on the property. 8. That all development shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Zoning Ordinance (Ordinance No. 1494) and the Subdivision Ordinance (Ordinance No. 4478). 9. That open space shall comprise not less than 70 percent of the net area. J 10. That three copies of a landscape plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Planning Director prior to recordation of a final resrtract ofdeiewaddress the subdivision evatin andehanceent any scenic shall n U 11. Prior to any alteration or construction within the highwater mark of any major streambed, the applicant shall notify the Department of Fith and Game and obtain an agreement in compliance with State Fish and Game Code, Sections 1601-1603. 12. That any adjustment to the lot lines must be to the satisfaction of the Department of Regional Planning. Ln� L_ J Ll - Page 2 V1 CONDITIONS FOR CONDITIMM-MM pxD= N0. 2156 CONDITIONS ( (� 13• Prior to the issuance of a -building permitr a site plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planner Director indicating that the proposed construction and grading 1s compatible with site limits hillside edresources. hasize:� established Rand engineew of erc nstrain�nhall emp geologicamount The Preservation of natural features and the grading and ti technique. �J 14. Evidence shall be submitted to the Department of Regional Flaming with showincessary ttoo i { tiesto install underground all new (facilities nets furnish service in the development. F1 15. All geologic and soil requirements due to unstable slopes will be desrcedsBof theEngineer ot (looemitigated GelgySecti)rartituse area will be delineatedu on the final map. C, 16. That parking on the subject property shell be provided at a minimum unit; taw(2) ratio of t (2) covered parking spaces per residential L17. That no building shall exceed two stories in height; 18. That subject project be developed and maintained in compliance the Los Angeles County Health Officer including � li with requirements of adequate water and private disposal sewage facilities in compliance be with Los Angeles County Ordinance No. 2269 and No. 7583 shall (j provided to the satisfaction of Laid Health Officer; lJ 19. Applicant shall contact the Fire Prevention Bureau of the Los Fire Warden to determine facilities Angeles County Forester and that may be necessary to protect the property from fire hazard. be as may Water mains, fire hydrants, and fire flow shall provided be required. �) 1J 20. That acceptance of the conditions of this grant be recorded with the County Recorder. 21• That fRegional (A one-year date.) n I M III this grant is used within five years from the date Plannin Commission approval, the grant will expire. time extension may be requested prior to such expiration Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F - Response to Comments Commentor: John Schwarze, Administrator, Current Planning Branch Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning Date: October 18, 1995 Response: Discussion regarding the land use of this area and the potential for impact was contained in the Initial Study for the project (EIR Appendix A, Issue Number 8) and determined by the City of Santa Clarita to be an insignificant effect; it was therefore not considered in this focused EIR. If the property is annexed, as is the intent of the proposed project, the project would be under the jurisdiction and land use authority of the City of Santa Clarita and not that of the County of Los Angeles. The need for buffering of the adjacent mining areas and the appropriate development potential would be as determined by the General Plan of the City. Residential use of the land has been planned for in the City of Santa Clarita General Plan (1991) and such use was deemed to be compatible with mineral extraction operations. The project is consistent with General Plan policies 6.1 and 6:2 to use open space (in this case the golf course) as a buffer between mineral resource areas and sensitive uses and to maintain such areas. Information regarding the past history of the parcel to be annexed has been taken from Appendix A of the EIR and added to Section 1.4 of the text. 2. As stated in the Initial Study (EIR Appendix A), the proposed project would allow a total of 51 residential lots within the area currently restricted by the County of Los Angeles to 2 lots. The additional units added to this area are a density transfer from other portions of the total project site, similar to the density transfer that occurred from the 103 acre parcel to the remainder of Tract 32571. Since this is a density transfer, it does not alter the density yield for the 103 acres that were granted by the County of Los Angeles. In fact as currently proposed, the project would reduce the number of currently entitled residential lots in the Sand Canyon area by 140 units and is 277 units fewer than the density provided for in the City's General Plan for the entire Hunters Green project site. 3. This information was researched and included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR. 4. Section 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines refers to the contents of the Final EIR, and not to the contents of the Draft EIR. It is not unexpected for a Draft EIR to not contain those sections required for a Final EIR. Specific public controversy and issues to be resolved sections have been added to Section 2.0 of the Final EIR. 5. The discussion regarding land use is contained in the Initial Study, Appendix A. The City of Santa Clarita determined through the Initial Study process that land use issues were not significant given that the proposed project would actually reduce the residential density planned for in the Sand Canyon area and the project site in particular, would meet the City's General Plan Designation and City of Santa Clarita F-19 H Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F - Response to Comments Zoning for the area through the issuance of the conditional use permit, and was in compliance: with tJ City policies and goals for the area. G The EIR acknowledges that the project site contains designated regionally significant mineral resources (Section 5. 1, Effect ER -10) and additional information from CDMG Special Report 143 has been added to the EIR text so that the City can better evaluate the effect of the project on the supply of mineral resources in the area, including the County -wide production of such resources. However, the City during the development and approval of its 1991 General Plan did not consider mining and extraction uses as appropriate for the project site, including the 103 acre annexation parcel, when it was designated for development as Residential Estate and Residential Very Low. The City's Land Use Element contains a specific Mineral/Oil Conservation Area overlay designation Q that is intended to permit the continuation of mineral extraction and oil field uses while providing for further development of the City, This overlay designation meets the requirements of state regulations regarding the conservation of resources. While this overlay was placed on the sand and gravel deposits in the Santa Clara River north of the site and the existing mining operations to the northeast of the site (1993 General Plan Land Use Map), it was not so designated for the project site. In addition, the major portion of the aggregate deposits within the project site is located in the a 160 acre northeast parcel, an area that was entitled for development of 140 residential lots in 1990. The proposed project would not alter these substantial existing limitations on the potential use of the site for mineral extraction, and so would not create a new significant impact on regional mineral resource deposits that did not already exist. The use of the golf course as a buffer to reduce nuisance effects of the adjacent mining operations on the proposed residential area is considered acceptable and in compliance with General Plan L; policies 6,1 and 6.2 to use open space (in this case the golf course) as a buffer between mineral resource areas and sensitive uses and to maintain such areas. The golf course would provide a greater distance between the extractive mining operations and residential lots than that provided for G under the existing entitlement on the 160 acre parcel. It is also noted that there are already several residential units in the Oak Spring Canyon area that can readily view the existing and future mining r} operations. In addition, the majority of new mining resources to be extracted in the adjacent mining �J operation (10.7 million cubic yards of 12.7 million cubic yards) would be at Claim Groups II and III, which are over 2.5 miles from the nearest proposed residence and in areas that are not visible lJ from the project site (Tetra Tech, 1991). The future mining operation in Claim Group I is located LJ over 1.5 miles from the nearest proposed residence, and while it would be visible to the proposed project, it is also visible to residences in the existing"Crystal Springs" tract in Sand Canyon and mitigation measures to reduce its visual impacts were delineated in the Tetra Tech (1991) EIS. For these reasons, the land use effects of the proposed project on the adjacent mining area are considered less than significant. 6. When the project was initially proposed and at the time of circulation of the NOP, it was thought that the applicant would be using groundwater in part for irrigation of the golf bourses. This is why Appendix B contains several references to the possible use of onsite groundwater. At the initiation nof the EIR preparation, the applicant indicated that only potable water provided by the Santa Clarita. I fFir F-20 City of Santa Clarita n Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Aooendix F - Response to Comments Water Company would be used to irrigate the golf course, as discussed in the EIR project description. Discussions during the preparation of the EIR with the Santa Clarita Water Company indicated that they "felt they could serve the project within their Master Plan," provided that the applicant construct the backbone delivery system (feeder lines and two reservoirs totaling 2.5 million gallons) as indicated in the proposed project description (pg. 3-10). Further discussion of the water supply issue has been added to the EIR text in Section 5.2, 7, It is unfortunate that the Draft EIR received by the Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning contained mis-collated pages. The Department was the only known commentor that received such a copy and additional copies were available from the City of Santa Clarita if the Department had requested such. S. A list of recipients of the Draft EIR is not a required part of an EIR under CEQA, and would be, misleading in any event since many of the commentors who obtain a copy of the EIR are unknown at the time of publication. 9: The copy of the site plan was the best available provided by the applicant despite several requests for better originals. Larger maps at scales of 1"=100' and 1 "=200' were incorporated by reference into the EIR and were available for review at the City of Santa Clarita Department of Community Development. The inclusion of large blueline maps within all copies of an EIR tends to be wasteful of paper and not cost-effective since few reviewers actually unfold the maps.. 10. The proposed project provides two means of access, not one as indicated by the commentor, One access is via "A' Street at Sand Canyon Road, while the other is at "B" Street, which would connect with the future extension of Live Oak Springs Canyon Road. Access was described on page 3-10 of the Draft EIR. Since it is expected that the extension of Live Oak Springs Canyon Road (Tract No. 463 64) would occur prior to the proposed development, no temporary exceedances of the 75 units in a high fire hazard area are anticipated. In addition, it is noted that construction of the golf courses as envisioned by the project would substantially reduce the current level of fire hazard in the area. 11. Comment noted. CEQA does not provide a mechanism whereby comments may be "reserved" to a future date. City of Santa Clarita F-21 332STATE OF CALIFORNIA - CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor uu CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD LOS ANGELES REGION 101 CENTRE PLAZA DRIVE MONTEREY PARK, CA 91754-2156 (213) 2667500 GFAX: (213) 2667600 November 16, 1995 Mr. Glen Adamick Community Development Department City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, California 91351 j� Re: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT �J RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND SANTA CLARITA (SCH #95041049) U P F�11- Dear Mr. Adamick: REPORT FOR THE HUNTER'S GREEN GOLF COURSE, VICINITY OF THE CITY OF Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the referenced document. This document addresses environmental impacts from development of 411 acres east of the City of Santa Clarita by the construction of 83 single-family lot pads on 123 acres, two 18 -hole golf courses, a clubhouse, lighted driving range, and a parking lot. We have the following comments to make regarding this project. a) Water Supply and Wastewater Treatment: The only information on water supply and wastewater treatment appears to be in comment letters contained in Appendix B, It is not clear from Appendix B how much potable water this project will consume, the source of this potable water, and the rate at which wastewaters will be generated. Please clarify this information. Also, assuming that the project will rely to a significant extent upon supplies of ground water, please analyze the capacity of underlying aquifers to meet this demand without incurring overdraft or impacting downgradient uses. Also, as noted in the letter dated May 18, 1995 from the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, the Saugus Water Reclamation Plant does not have capacity to accept additional waste loads. We assume that this project will rely upon the additional capacity being installed at the Valencia Water Reclamation Plant. b) Impacts to Beneficial Uses: While Section 5.2 of the EIR notes the various beneficial uses that have been designated for surface and ground waters, the EIR does not appear to include an analysis of impacts that will occur to these beneficial uses. Our letter dated May 23, 1995 (a copy of which is in Appendix B) specifically asked that impacts to designated beneficial uses be addressed. As stated in that letter, analysis of these impacts should include, among others, impacts to natural habitats (aquatic and riparian habitats) that would result from the proposed drainage and flood control measures associated with this proposed project. Additionally, please analyze alternatives that will avoid impacts to instream beneficial uses and riparian habitat. As you're aware, a hydraulic buffer of riparian zones and flood plains may reduce the need for flood control measures that impact beneficial uses. City of Santa Clarita November 16, 1995 c) Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP): We are pleased to note the various Best Management Practices that will be incorporated into a SWPPP (referred to as a Stormwater Management Plan in Section 5.2.2 of the EIR), to be implemented during construction. We recommend that you also restrict grading to the dry season, and that seeding for native vegetation be completed prior to the rainy season. d) Pesticide and Fertilizer Use: Impacts of eutrophication from fertilizers, and toxic effects from both fertilizers and pesticides, on surface and ground waters are potentially very significant. While we are pleased to note mitigation measures that will u incorporated into an Integrated Golf Course Management and Integrated Pest ( Management plans, golf courses may still significantly degrade water quality. We therefore recommend that, in addition to mitigation measures, the developer and homeowners assume responsibility for monitoring the effectiveness of the mitigation measures. Please contact Mr. Kirby McClellan at (213)266-7564 should you have questions. Sincerely, s Wendy Phil ips, Chief Planning Unit cc: Chris Belsky, State Clearinghouse Dainis Kleinbergs, County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County W.J. Manetta, Jr., Santa Clarita Water Company Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F - Response to Comments r Commentor: Wendy Phillips, Chief, Planning Unit L California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region aDate: November 16, 1995 nResponse: LJ 1. When the project was initially proposed and at the time of circulation of the NOP, it was thought that the applicant would be using groundwater in part for irrigation of the golf courses, This is why Appendix B contains several references to the possible use of onsite groundwater. At the initiation of the EIR preparation, the applicant indicated that only potable water provided by the Santa Clarita Water Company would be used to irrigate the golf course, as discussed in the EIR project (, description. Discussions during the preparation of the EIR with the Santa Clarita Water Company u indicated that they "felt they could serve the project within their Master Plan," provided that the applicant construct the backbone delivery system (feeder lines and two reservoirs totaling 2.5 million gallons) as indicated in the proposed project description (pg. 3-10). The project is estimated to initially require 1114 acre-feet per year of water, with water use reducing to about 891 r acre-feet per year once the drought tolerantlandscaping is established. This information has been cul added to the EIR text in Section 5.2. Wastewater generation from the site would be 24,280 gallons per day of sewage, which represents 1.5% of the interconnected treatment plants' remaining available capacity. This is not considered a significant amount: See also comment letter from the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles CCounty contained in this appendix. As stated in the Project Description, the golf course is currently proposed to not be using ( underlying groundwater at the site. Therefore, there would be no possibility of overdraft or l negative impacts on downgradient uses. In fact, given the expected percolation of applied irrigation water (generally termed "return water"), the project would increase the amount of local j I groundwater in the alluvium of Oak Spring and Sand Canyons. The Santa Clarita Water Company, �J which would provide water to the site, has three wells that are about 0.5 miles apart within the Santa Clara River downstream of the site, The primary wells are only 120 feet deep and obtain water from the subsurface flow of the river (upper alluvial aquifer). The Company also has wells U that are 1700 feet deep that penetrate the Saugus Formation aquifer, but they prefer not to use those wells for quality and costs reasons. The Saugus Formation wells are capable of withdrawing 6,000 acre-feet per year from a groundwater storage supply estimated at 1.0 million acre-feet. The Company has had its shallow wells at the mouth of Sand Canyon go dry in the past during the recent drought, requiring the use of their deep wells. The estimated safe yield of the Santa Clara River alluvial aquifer is 32,000 acre-feet per year, with the Santa Clarita Water Company currently entitled to 12,000 acre-feet. The Company also has an entitlement to 20,000 acre-feet per year from the State Water Project, which will provide approximately 50% of all future water supplies. The Company's total available supply is 38,000 acre-feet per year, of which it is currently using 18,000-19,000 ace -feet per year. This information has been added to Section 5.2 of the EIR. City of Santa Clarita F-22 I Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F - Response to Comments 2. Potential impacts of the project to beneficial uses of local water supplies would be caused primarily by soil erosion during the construction phase, as discussed in Effect D-1, and by changes in water quality, as discussed in Effect D-5. All drainage and flood control measures proposed by the project would occur onsite and such impacts of the project to natural habitats are discussed in Section 5.4 of the EIR. . Restriction of grading to a defined "dry season" is unnecessarily restrictive since such a dry season may incur several weeks of dry periods with only occasional rainfall. If appropriate BMPs are in place during the "wet season," downstream water quality would be minimally affected by runoff from the site. However, the applicant may choose to limit grading to the "dry season" to avoid the more costly BMPs required during the "wet season." Seeding of natives before the "wet season" is already part of the applicant's revegetation plan. 4. The mitigation measures include a requirement for monitoring of ground water for chemicals used at the site. This will essentially require the applicant to monitor the effectiveness of the Golf Course Management and Integrated Pest Management plans. City of Santa Clarita P-23 H U C I LJ lJ P I C I 0 I I P I CITY OF SANTA CLARITA INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Glenn Adamick, Assistant Planner II FROM: Rabie J. Rahmani, Associate Traffic Engineer DATE: November 14, 1995 SUBJECT: HUNTERS GREEN GOLF COURSE DEVELOPMENT - EIR REVIEW MASTER CASE NO. 95-049 As requested, we have reviewed the traffic portion of the subject Environmental Impact Report (EIR), dated September 27, 1995. The subject EIR was prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc, and the traffic and circulation element of the EIR was prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. The EIR indicated that the proposed project consists of 87 residential dwelling units and a 36 -hole golf course located east of Sand Canyon Road north of Live Oak Springs Canyon Road. The project will be constructed on 420 acres of undeveloped land which was approved for construction of 223 single-family residential units. The EIR assumes that the project will be constructed by 1996, the selected design year for an analysis purpose. The report forecasts that the proposed project would generate 3,800 vehicle trips per weekday, of which 144 and 202 would occur during a.m. and p.m. peak -hours, respectively. The report indicates that the project should be responsible for mitigation measures as follows: • Consider a traffic signal operation at Lost Canyon and Sand Canyon Road. • The applicant is required to submit traffic control plans for special events, such as tournaments. • Install a two-way left -turn lane on Sand Canyon Road from Comet Way to the project main entrance, including roadway widening. • Install a 50 foot left -turn pocket with 400 feet transition for the southbound traffic on Sand Canyon Road at Live Oak Springs Road. We have the following concerns with the traffic/circulation element of the EIR and with the Traffic Analysis: 1. The roadway capacity shown on page 5.5-26, in paragraph one, which referred to the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual, Table 7-11 is not correct. The level of service for Sand Canyon Road north of Lost Canyon Road was reduced to C from E without conducting adequate analyses. Also, interpretation on the General Plans' level of service criteria, in particular, the roadway characteristics, has no basis. Glenn Adamick J November 14, 1995 Page 2 f The new analysis may include, consideration for additional lanes (both directions) on Sand Canyon Road just north of Lost Canyon Road, to reduce the significant impact of this project in the area. 2. Staff concurs with the recommendation of requiring the applicant to submit traffic control plans for special events. 3. The signal warrant analysis at Lost Canyon Road and Sand Canyon for the a.m. peak hour was omitted. The school's a.m. peak traffic would coincide with a.m. commuter peak traffic. 4. The design of the left -turn pocket for the southbound direction on Sand Canyon Road at Live Oak Springs Road shall be according to the latest Caltrans Guidelines. This requires longer storage bays than the proposed length of 50 feet. The above staff concerns should be reviewed and addressed in the revised report. Thus, the submitted traffic and circulation element of the EIR is not accepted at this time. RJR:AY:Ikl traffic\hunhrl.ay cc: Anthony Nisich, City Engineer Bahman Janka, City Traffic Engineer Lel U I IJ U lJ FI U D D H Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F - Response to Comments (1 Commentor: Rabie Rahmani, Associate Traffic Engineer u City of Santa Clarita Date: November 14, 1995 �j Response: a1. The text has been modified. The Level of Service for two-lane rural roads is largely controlled by the hourly directional traffic volume. In general, Level of Service D capacity for a two-lane roadway would be 8,500 to 13,500 vehicles per day, depending on the terrain, and assuming the peak hour volume is approximately 10% of the ADT (Highway Capacity Manual, Table 8-10). In the case of Sand Canyon Road north of Lost Canyon Road, the morning and evening peak hour volumes are currently 7.8 and 8,6 percent of the daily traffic, respectively, which would translate to a slightly increased daily capacity for Sand Canyon Road, compared to the Highway Capacity Manual assumptions. uu; On the other hand, although the roadway has a rural appearance, it serves some uses that are more suburban or urban in nature, and has more driveways and side street interaction than a typical rural two-lane road. This would tend to reduce the functional capacity of the road. CJ By application of the City of Santa Clarita General Plan Circulation Element and its theoretical daily capacities; the roadway will exceed its Level of Service "D" capacity when the daily traffic volume exceeds 12,500 vehicles. The project contribution of traffic to future daily traffic, however, is quite n low during the peak hours compared to its total daily contribution (3 to 5% of the total daily traffic l� is added during the morning and evening peak hours, respectively). The addition of project traffic during off-peak hours can be accommodated without adversely impacting the functional operation j� of the roadway.. The project contribution to this roadway segment during the peak hours will be 58 to 122 vehicles r� in one direction -- less than 1% of the total daily projected traffic on the road.. The project's LJ contribution of traffic is expected to be spread out throughout the day, which will not create the need for additional travel lanes to accommodate the additional traffic load. If the project is required lJ to contribute to the roadway and/or bridge widening, responsibility should assigned be on a fair - share basis, or on payment of applicable fees. Based on the nature of the project traffic patterns, it is not envisioned that the completion of the bridge widening will need to be a condition of project development. 2. Comment acknowledged. 3. A morning and evening peak hour signal warrant worksheet is provided for the intersection of Lost Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road (Caltrans Peak Hour Volume Warrant - Figure 9-9). The intersection does not warrant a traffic signal under current conditions. With the addition of already approved project traffic, the morning peak hour just meets the warrant minimums, and would City of Santa Clarita F-24 J Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR ADoendix F - Response to Comments continue to meet warrant in the morning peak hour with the addition of project traffic. The traffic from the schools on the west side of Sand Canyon Road causes the intersection to meet the one- hour warrant. The intersection is not projected to meet signal warrant during the evening peak hour; and is not expected to meet warrant during any other hour of the day, Mitigation Measure T- 4 has been modified to indicate that the applicant should install the signal with a reimbursement mechanism developed so that future traffic would pay their fair share costs of the signal. 4. Comment acknowledged. City of Santa Ctarita r1 F-25 l FJ November 13, 1996 Planning Commission Santa Clarita, California Re: Proposed Hunter Green golf course EIR Dear Commissioners, C I reside at 28082 Oak Springs Canyon, and am directly affected by the Proposed Hunter Green Development. My wife, Corrine and I have two major concerns which we feel have not been addressed to our satisfaction: First, is the threat of reduced supply or �J degradation of the underground water supply that our family and most of the local area depends upon. The second, is Hunter Green's plan for an illuminated driving range and restaurant in close proximity to our home. The following are some requests which we would like to have incorporated into the Environmental Impact Report's recommendations a to the Developer, and the reasons which support them. We look forward to your careful consideration of these earnest matters. WATER QUALITY AND SUPPLY. a We, and most Oak Springs Canyon residents, as well as most of the Santa Clarita area depend upon well water. Locally, our wells are minimal producers. The golf course has stated that they do not intend to use underground water sources, yet they refuse to count out the possibility. We understand that, even if Hunter Green waives their tight to Cwell water, they can petition the Planning Commission to drill wells later if financial hardship demands it. The possibility that water will be scarce and expensive in the not to distant future is a reality for a desert community --the fact of cyclical periods of drought has been proven by the recent episode Southern California is just recovering from. In addition, The greater portion of the million gallons -per -day that Hunter green will be j� consuming will come from the Santa Clara river aquifer, adjacent to our community., l In the short term, the project's extensive grading will affect our subterranean water supply to some degree, and In the long term, Hunter Green's appetite for water will almost (� certainly insure that we will face a ground -water crisis which will force us to drill deeper, LJ Z or pay to install and hook up to metropolitan service. Both options are extremely expensive for one family, but consider the total cost to all residences which would be l forced to shoulder this burden in time. l The use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers is an integral part of golf course i management, We understand that the developer faces tight restrictions in the manner that lJ these chemicals are applied, however, the substances will be in use for the foreseeable t } 3 future in sandy, permeable river -bottom soil which is also our aquifer. We don't want to live with the possible threat of ground water pollution as a result of an unforeseen error, or accidental situation. Ground water pollution is tough to catch in an early enough stage in the best scenario --and difficult, if not impossible to reverse, once discovered. a THE LONG-TERM WATER SOLUTION: We request that the Hunter Green's developer install the basic water lines to Oak Springs residents to insure that the water needs of the golf course will not create severe financial hardship to its neighbors at a later date, In the eventthat there is a water crisis related to Hunter Green, there is a great probability that the project will not be solvent �} enough to fund a large-scale water mitigation plan. Installing a water main along Oak LJ n S_ 0 Springs Canyon road would be the least expensive option. Residents would be required to pay for actually hooking up to the water main (which would cost far more than installing the main line in total). The reason here is basic insurance that developing Hunter Green's golf courses and housing would never threaten the water lifeline of its adjacent neighbors -- at a time when installing a basic backup would cost the least for both the developer and Oak Springs residents. Contracting for the mainline in conjunction with the Hunter Green project is the most opportune time, and would forestall the inevitable and costly legislation mitigate a water war in the future. THE DRIVING RANGE AND RESTAURANT Zoning approval to develop a restaurant, sports bar and an illuminated driving range in close proximity to a rural, residential neighborhood in an area which was strictly zoned for residential would be difficult, if not totally out of the question. The present location of both the restaurant/clubhouse and driving range is a slap in the face to Grayston and Oak Springs homeowners. Efforts to mask the noise, lights and visual impact of the facilities will destroy the area's commanding view of the local mountains, and impacts upon the quiet, pastoral lifestyle that we believed we were investing in. If our next door neighbor's car alarm was on all night, one telephone can would stop it. A commercial enterprise cannot be responsible for its customers in the same manner. Nor can we expect the illuminated driving range to be as benign an entity as the developer has presented it. In reality, driving ranges are the ugliest and least desirable aspects of a golf course. In time, aftera significant number of balls have been lofted into nearby homes, a tall screen will be erected for "insurance purposes and the safety of adjoining residents." We don't want an eyesore for a neighbor or would we welcome a nearby source of noise and revelry every evening of the year. We believe the planning commission would agree with us. DEALING WITH THE DEVELOPMENT'S COMMERCIAL ASPECT: In keeping with our area's residential zoning, we ask that the driving range and clubhouse complex be moved to a different location which will not impact existing residents, or eliminated entirely. Mitigating the impacts of these facilities would reduce, not eliminate the imposition of the development. We will have no bargaining power in the future nor could we expect a commercial enterprise to willingly rebuild, or abandon altogether, a major part of its facility. The Hunter Green developer has not significantly addressed these very substantial complaints to date, and we ask that the Planning Commission direct the developer to re -design the project site plan to mitigate these grievances. Thank you for you consideration in this matter. S' , )-- and and Corrine Cunningham 28082, Oak Springs Canyon Canyon Country, California 91351 (805)298-4453 J Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR CAppendix F - Response to Comments L Commentor; Richard and Corrine Cunningham Date: November 13, 1996 IResponse: I I rI U I I U I l� I R I 1. The project as proposed would not use any local groundwater, but would instead rely on potable water supplied by the Santa Clarita Water Company. Because of the percolation of applied imported water to the site, the project would actually increase the amount of locally available groundwater. If reclaimed water were to become available, the applicant would consider use of such water supplies. However, if the applicant were to use reclaimed water or seek to use onsite wells as a water supply, additional environmental documentation and specific technical studies would be needed to determine the effect on local wells water quantity and quality.. The Santa Clarita Water Company has indicated that they "felt they could serve the project within their Master Plan, provided that the applicant construct the backbone delivery system (feeder lines and two reservoirs totaling 2.5 million gallons) as indicated in the proposed project description (pg. 3-10). The Company's currently available annual supply is 38,000 acre-feet, with 12,000 acre-feet coming from the Santa Clara River upper alluvial aquifer, 6,000 acre-feet from the Saugus Formation deep wells, and 20,000 acre-feet from the State Water Project. The water demand of the project is estimated to be initially at 1114 acre-feet per year, or about 6% of the remaining available water supply for the Santa Clarita Water Company. After the drought tolerant vegetation is established, water demand for the site is expected to decrease by 20%. The cumulative effect of the golf course on the supply available for the City of Santa Clarita is considered negligible since ample water for continued development (about 17,000 acre-feet per year) is apparently available to the Santa Clarita Water Company after the proposed project is accounted for.. This information has been added to the EIR text. Since the primary source of water for the Santa Clarita Water Company is Santa Clara River water underflow, the vast bulk of which comes from upstream sources that the Oak Spring Canyon groundwater wells are not tributary to, any increased pumpage at these wells are unlikely to significantly affect the water supply for Oak Spring Canyon wells. It is noted that wells in this area have been reported to dry up during drought periods already, a result that is probably caused by the relatively small watershed area that Oak Spring Canyon is tributary to and the shallowness of the wells, 2. The grading associated with the project would reduce the average slope of the site, thereby decreasing the speed at which storm waters leave the site and increasing the amount of insite residence time available for percolation of water into the underlying aquifer. Since the application of water at the project site would result in a certain amount of percolation to the underlying groundwater aquifer and this water is coming from sources other than the underlying aquifer, the net result is that more water would become available to the local groundwater aquifer.. F-26 City of Santa Clarita Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F - Response to Comments 3. The EIR agrees that the project could result in a significant impact to the water quality of local groundwater resources. The use of chemicals within an area of sandy soils does not necessarily result in local groundwater contamination, as indicated by studies at Cape Cod (reported in Balogh and Walker, 1992). Nonetheless, contamination has been found in other areas and is a potentially significant effect of the project. The monitoring wells proposed as mitigation measures would aid in the early detection of groundwater pollution. 4. Recommendation noted. Your comments and recommendations are included herein to notify decision -makers of your concerns regarding these issues. The golf course would be designated and zoned as a Public and Semi -Public use under the City's Unified Development Code. Limited commercial uses which are commonly associated and directly related to the primary use, namely the golf courses, are permitted (Chapter 17.13). Such uses are not necessarily incompatible with residential uses given the large number of residences in southern California that are located adjacent to golf courses, including located next to driving ranges. Commercial uses are generally buffered adjacent to residential uses, and the project applicant is proposing to do so through vegetation and distance. Nonetheless, as stated in Sections 5.6 and 5.7 of the EIR, the project would result in the decrease in private vistas currently available and nuisance noise effects. Your opinion regarding the commercial aspects of the golf course are contained herein to notify decision -makers of your concerns. 6. Commentor opines that the commercial aspects of the site should be located further from the existing rural residential areas or eliminated entirely. Aesthetics and noise issues have been discussed in Sections 5.6 and 5.7, respectively, based on standard criteria for assessing such effects. Alternative designs that would move the commercial aspects of the project are also discussed in Sections 7.2 and 7.6. Your comments are included herein to notify decision -makers of your concerns and preferences for the alternative designs regarding the location of the commercial aspects of the golf course. City of Santa Clarita F-27 7- I I November 13,1995 City of, Santa Clarita Planning Commission 23920 Valencia Boulevard SUITE #300 Santa Clarita, California 91355 NOV 1 519% ATTENTION: MR.GLENN ADANICR- PLANNING COMMISSION Dear Mr. Adamick: RE: COMMENTS TO THE E.I.R. In the E.I.R. OAR SPRINGS CANYON ROAD is slated for realignment to the rear of the north eastern property line of the project. This in it's self is not a problem. providing the realignment is constructed to city standards i.e.: width,asphalt,thickness of same and footing in other words acceptable to the city for dedication and subsequent maintenance. In as much as this would now become the permanent road for all 15 plus residents east of the development without any other access and the inevitable fact that the golf course will need well water potentially depleting an already diminishing water supply in the area and the potential contamination of this water table by pesticides,herbisides, fertilizers and such, it wopld seem fit that the developer provide city water lines to:the end of OAR SPRINGS CANYON ROAD and as far up the front as deemed necessary by the homeowners. Thus, allowing those homeowners that wish to hook up to city water at their expense. The residents on whose behalf I extend these recommendations (15 residents east of the terminus of the golf course property), are also joined in the recommendation that the golf course be re -designed in such a fashion that the driving range and commerical areas i.e.: club house and parking lot are not located near residences on Graceton Drive and creating a negative impact to those homeowners property values and most importantly to their quality of life. S. GRUgR Oak Springs Canyon Road Country, California 91351 ease disseminate to the entire c.c. (15) homeowners Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F - Response to Comments Commentor. George S. Gruber Date: November 13, 1995 Response: As stated in the EIR, this road is not currently proposed to meet City standards as a public road. A mitigation measure has been included in the EIR (Measure D-4) that is intended to insure that this proposed accessway would meet the needs of the property owners east of the site. 2. Commentor states an opinion that the project would eventually require the use of onsite well water. The project is currently proposed to use potable water only and reclaimed water if such becomes available. The Santa Clarita Water Company has indicated that it has a sufficient and available supply to meet the water demands of the golf course and that water supply to the site has been planned for. Therefore, there is no indication that the project would ever require the use of local groundwater. This discussion has been added to the EIR text in Section 5.2, Effect D-6 for clarity. If the applicant should choose to exploit well water from the site, additional environmental documentation would become necessary. 3. Commentor provides an opinion that the developer should provide public water lines to the adjacent community. This opinion is forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. 4. Opinion noted. The inclusion of these comments herein notifies decision -makers of the concerns regarding these issues. City of Santa Clarita F-28 H Mark and Linda Hanson 27944 Gracaton Of" Canyon Country, CA 91351 1805;251-3722 U November 13, 1995 Mr. Glenn Adarrick C City of Santa Clarlta Community Development Department 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarna, CA 91355 1805;255.4330 1805;259-8125 fax Reference:.: Draft Environmental Impact Report for Hunters Green Residential Development & Golf Course Dear Glenn Thank you for your continued support in soliciting feedback from the community regarding the proposed r golf course.: The following observations and feedback are based upon the content of the Draft Environmental Impact Repoli for the Hunters Green Residential Developmenf and Goff Course dated -� September 27, 1995, My comments focus on three substantive areas that are of great concern to me due to their Impact on my families health 8 safety and the quality of the residential setting in which we have elected to live] -} 0 Maintenance of existing water quality and quantity G n Impact to existing path of flood waters exiting proposed golf course 0 Proximity of commercial development to existing rural/equestrian residential property I will organize my comments in accordance with the numerical sections In the Draft EIR 0 5.2.c & 6.2.d Water Quality and Groundwater GWater in ample supply and quality are essential to sustain the residents of Oak Spring Canyon. Any unnecessary consumption or contamination of this water supply would significantly impact the existing residents. It is imperative that the proposed development address potable water issues prior to approval of the project to safeguard from catastrophic strategic effects.. CWater'quentlty' issues can be addressed by either restricting the use of local wells as a water source for the golf course or by providing 'commercial' water to the existing residents dependent upon private residential wells. The burden Is not on the existing residents to financially support any future water Infrastructure. Itis the development chat introduces the rlsk and therefore n Is the development that must mitigate the risk with surety.. Water 'quality' Issues are potentially more damaging and insidious in their Impact The use of fertilizers, pesticides and other byproducts from the operation of a golf course will have an impact on the groundwater. The critical question is the nature and extent of the impact. The future health of the families ad scent of this protect is dependent upon the City of Santa Clarita at it's willingness to take a strategic view of this project other then from a financial perspective. The recommendation to implement Best Management Practices and an Integrated Pest Management Plan provides neither reassurance nor surety ILfI that water quality willbe maintained.. This Is merely a framework for a best efforts approach. Reporting and monitoring conditions rather than preventing negative Impacts Is unacceptable. Health and safety of the adscent residents must be considered as paramount, not a consequence to be handled at a future Q date. Water quality concerns are additional reasons to require that this project provide municipal water as a condition of approval. QZO 39ud NOSN�H ZZLETSZS08 vE:ST 566T/ET/TT 3 0 5.2.b Oak Spring Canyon Watershed Flood waters traversing the proposed golf course site traverse the existing Oak Spring Canyon Road at four distinct locations and exit the property at throe distinct locations. Oak Spring Canyon Road is serviceable most days of the year and is reparable with existing farm equipment deployed by the residents. Alteration to these water flows to collect or direct the water to specific locations on the road will reduce the number of useable days and increase the potential for driver mishap. Should collection or redirection of flood waters be required has currently proposed) then some level of improvement should be mandated to channel the water to the North side of Oak Spring Canyon to alleviate the negative impact. Culverts or an Arizona crossing at the Northwest corner of the pro.ect sufficient to contain the water would help maintain the road at current levels of service. 0 5.5.b & 5.7 Aesthetics E Noise Placing a commercial development in close proximity to rural and equestrian residents Is a significant conflict. Any commercial aspect of this project, whether it be a club house, driving range, parking lot or a maintenance shed should be a minimum of 300 yards from the nearest rural property line. The proximity of the commercial elements of this project to the existing residents should exceed the standard for the Industry not challenge the minimums. This pro,ect Is proposing that commercial and rural residential be placed in close proximity without concern for the existing residents. It appears as though the concern is for the market value of the proposed parcels at the expense of the existing Santa Clarita residents. This is unacceptable and minimum distances must be established and enforced. I welcome your call to discuss this matter further. Your written response is solicited. Sincerely, Lrr[/ Mark L. anson P E1 39Cd NDSN"H ZZLETSZ903 VE :ST 966T/ET/TT LT Li Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F - Response to Comments Commentor: Mark and Linda Hanson Date: November 13, 1995 Response: P1. The project as proposed would not use any local groundwater, but would instead rely on potable LJ water supplied by the Santa Clarita Water Company. Because of the percolation of applied ' imported water to the site, the project would actually increase the amount of locally available groundwater.. If reclaimed water were to become available, the applicant would consider use of such water supplies. However, if the applicant were to use reclaimed water or seek to use onsite wells as a water supply, additional environmental documentation and specific technical studies would be needed to determine the effect on local wells water quantity and quality. 2. The use of fertilizers and pesticides do have the potential to affect downstream groundwater quality, as discussed in Section 5.2, Effect D-5, This is considered a significant environmental impact of the project. However, studies at a variety of golf courses have also indicated that well- managed applications of such materials do not necessarily result in groundwater contamination. C Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that properly designed and implemented Golf Course and Integrated Pest Management plans would reduce the risk of groundwater contamination to n insignificant levels. Such a plan is a method of preventing negative impacts as requested in the L' comment. Monitoring wells are recommended as part of the mitigation measures if the project is approved so that the City can determine if operations at the golf course create contamination. If any contamination above suitable criteria is detected, appropriate groundwater cleanup and other J actions would need to be implemented. Such actions at that time may include the provision of municipal water to downstream groundwater users. C3 As indicated in Section 5.2, implementation of the project would stabilize soils within the site and reduce the channel velocities of flood waters exiting the site. This in itself would reduce damage that might otherwise occur to the relocated access way along the northern property line. Mitigation measures proposed include the provision of a decomposed granite surface for the realigned road, which would also reduce erosional effects. The need for an improved crossing (concrete ford) would be determined by the City's Engineering Department at the time that final design plans for the site are available. Ll 4. Commentor opines that the commercial aspects of the site should be located further from the l 1 existing rural residential areas. Aesthetics and noise issues have been discussed in Sections 5.6 and 5.7, respectively, based on standard criteria for assessing such effects. Alternative designs that would move the commercial aspects of the project are also discussed in Sections 7.2 and 7.6. Your comments are included herein to notify decision -makers of your concerns and preferences for the alternative designs regarding the location of the commercial aspects of the golf course. CCity of Santa Clarita F-29 P Mr. Glenn Adamick Community Development Department City of Santa C.larita 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Valencia, Ca. 91355 Dear Mr, Adamick 27500 Oak Spring Canyon Road Canyon Country, Calif, 9135-- October 1351October 15, 1995 00 1 5 1995 CC V.V JN ••.:''E W SIAENT CITY r,F {tiY'n CI APITA My neighbor, Craig Feeder, was kind enough to have a copy of the Hunters Green Draft Environmental Impact Report made for those of us who live up here east of the proposed development, I want to pass it on to another neighbor and have not done as careful a review as I hope to do in the future. But there is one thing that I feel needs to be corrected right away: Figure 5.2-1 and page 5.2-4 (and other places, too) show only Rabbit Canyon, Oak Spring Canyon and an "unnamed drainage" emptying onto the property. This unnamed wash looks to me like the one that crosses out of the southern/western part of Hecht's property, several hundred feet south of the northeast corner of the proposed development. What concerns me is that there is no mention whatsoever of the water which rushes down Oak Spring Canyon Road itself, at the extreme northeasterly corner of the property. I wonder if the engineers were using "blue line streams" from the old U. S. Geologic maps. About 30 years ago, the north fork of the blue line stream (shown on those maps as being to the east of our property) was diverted. Instead of joining the south fork and exiting near Hecht's back corner, the water from the north fork rushes down Oak Spring Canyon Road. I have seen boulders as big as a man's head tumbling down past our driveway. Take a look at the damage it has done, the cuts through high banks at our place, the flooding at Hecht's and Chin's. One year it cut a gully all the way down the road from near the National Forest corner, across the proposed development's north boundary, down to where it met up with the water coming down from the south fork at the main wash. I don't know the measurements for how much water, or how fast, but that gully was wide enough and deep enough to put a car in. Some provision must be made for that water, And, by the way, it appears to me that on Gi l l i brand's maps, the canyon that those north and south forks drain does have a name --"Lost Canyon" (the canyon, not the road). P Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR CAppendix F - Response to Comments Commentor: Ruth Kelley Date: October 15, 1995 Response: 1: The FEIS for the Gillibrand Soledad Canyon Mining Operations (1991) had named the "Unnamed drainage" as Lost Canyon, however, comments to the EIS and verbal comments during preparation of this EIR indicated that the name Lost Canyon may be erroneous. The USGS map for the area does not provide a name for this drainage, hence the nomenclature used in the EIR. As indicated on Figure 5,2-1, the flow from this drainage is substantial at 920 cfs for the 100 -year storm event. This is the total amount for all flows exiting from this canyon and it has not been J differentiated into flow from the wash described in the comment letter or flows carried down Oak Spring Canyon Road. The applicant will need to provide a route through the golf course for all of the flow coming from this canyon since there is no other possible route to the Santa Clara River. If the project is approved, the owner of the golf course will need to bear the risk of such flows potentially damaging the golf course. While current erosional effects east and upstream of the subject property would not be altered by the proposed golf course, the course turf and other landscaping would act to reduce the flow velocity of waters within the course, reducing the n erosional power of such flows. Maintenance of Oak Spring Canyon Road as an access route to the lproperties east of the site has been addressed by mitigation measure D-4. iJ P, U 11 n P City of Santa Cfarita F-30 John W. Newton & Associates, Inc. Dzof essionafeonsuftanii 165 High St., Suite 103 Post Office Box 471 Moorpark, California 93021 November 13, 1995 Glenn Adamick Assistant Planner CITY OF SANTA CLARITA 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, California 91355-2196 Re: Notice of Completion Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course SCH # 95041049 Dear Glenn: Telephone (805) 378-0073 Fax No. (805) 378-0080 L In order to meet the deadline for comment at the end of the 45 day review period, November 13, 1995, I am providing the following, brief comments: Please extend the public review period for the DEIR. 1. L just learned Thursday, November 9, 1995 during a State Mining and Geology Board meeting in Sacramento that neither the Board, the Department of Conservation, nor the Division of Mines and Geology received the DEIR through the clearing house, for unknown reasons. You will be receiving contact from one or all of these State agencies, requesting additional time to comment. 2. The DEIR did not address my detailed written response to the Notice of Preparation. Merely attaching my May 9, 1995 letter, with exhibits, to the DEIR will not bring the document into a state of adequacy. These issues need to be addressed — Please re -review our comments on Earth, Noise, Land Use, Natural Resources and Aesthetics and cause the EIP Preparer to address these issues, appropriately. 3. We just now, tomorrow, going to join you, on site, for the purposes of your video taping and sound monitoring the on-going surface mining operations. The issues of land use compatibility and "noise, dust, vibration, visual, and aesthetic conflicts" will be more clear following this observation by you and other City staff. The results need to be incorporated into the document, CI Ll REAL ESTATE BROKERAGE MINERAL REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT Commercial • Industrial • Land RESOURCE Engineering • Land Division • Permits Residential Relocation DEVELOPMENT Planning • Zoning I NOV 1 4 1995 Telephone (805) 378-0073 Fax No. (805) 378-0080 L In order to meet the deadline for comment at the end of the 45 day review period, November 13, 1995, I am providing the following, brief comments: Please extend the public review period for the DEIR. 1. L just learned Thursday, November 9, 1995 during a State Mining and Geology Board meeting in Sacramento that neither the Board, the Department of Conservation, nor the Division of Mines and Geology received the DEIR through the clearing house, for unknown reasons. You will be receiving contact from one or all of these State agencies, requesting additional time to comment. 2. The DEIR did not address my detailed written response to the Notice of Preparation. Merely attaching my May 9, 1995 letter, with exhibits, to the DEIR will not bring the document into a state of adequacy. These issues need to be addressed — Please re -review our comments on Earth, Noise, Land Use, Natural Resources and Aesthetics and cause the EIP Preparer to address these issues, appropriately. 3. We just now, tomorrow, going to join you, on site, for the purposes of your video taping and sound monitoring the on-going surface mining operations. The issues of land use compatibility and "noise, dust, vibration, visual, and aesthetic conflicts" will be more clear following this observation by you and other City staff. The results need to be incorporated into the document, CI Ll REAL ESTATE BROKERAGE MINERAL REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT Commercial • Industrial • Land RESOURCE Engineering • Land Division • Permits Residential Relocation DEVELOPMENT Planning • Zoning I I LGlenn Adamick November 13, 1995 P Page 2 analyzed and appropriate mitigation measures need to be studied. The results will surely be identification of a �# number of significant, unmitigatible impacts which will L require future findings of overriding consideration, if the project is not redesigned to eliminate housing on the 104 acre P, parcel contiguous to the surface mining site. 4. The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act is not addressed in the DEIR, The legal requirement of the City to conduct e study [� of the economic impacts to the region, and to the state, when � considering incompatible land uses in areas "Designated" by the State Mining and Geology Board, to be protected, significant mineral resource deposits; has not been accomplished. 5. The U.S. Forest Service Angeles National Forest Land Management Plan has not been adequately addressed, including the mineral resources element, and the federal policies of protection of important mineral deposits for future generations. r( 7. The DEIR makes only a feeble attempt at recognizing the existence J of P.W. Gillibrand's surface mining operations. The site description and regional setting discussions fail to identify the operation, or the Angeles National Forest boundary contiguous to the project; the existence of numerous Plans of Operation for mining activities; or, the historical sequence of surface mining involving lode and placer claims over the last 100 years involving the 13,500 acres contiguous and East of the proposed project. If the project proponent will not redesign to eliminate the housing conflict, and place the housing element of the project North, onto the Prime West property, or other property previously approved for housing North of the 104 acre parcel; then, we will have no alternative but to 5S oppose Hunters Green. In the meantime, the DEIR needs to be re -worked, in significant detail, in order to comply with CEOA, as a first step to continuing on with the process. This does not have to be exhaustive, of course, but the very basics need to be adequately addressed; and, the legal requirementsof the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act concerning "Designated" mineral resources must be met, at a minimum. We will continue to assist in this process in any way that we can. Q cc: Phil Gillibrand n Dr. John Parrish II JI Frank Meneses - Clare Johnson Sincerely, - SMGB LACRPD John W. Newton USFS Land Use Consultant P.W. Gillibrand Company u Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F - Response to Comments �1 Commentor: John W. Newton I l Land Use Consultant, P.W. Gillibrand Company i! Dater November 13, 1995 Response: Request for extension of public review period noted. The public review period for this EIR' extended for a 45 day period, which is the normal period for review for documents submitted to the State Clearinghouse (State CEQA Guidelines § 15106). Additional time for verbal comment has 1 been provided during the Planning Commission public hearings. 1 2. Neither of these agencies requested additional time for commenting. See their comments and responses to their comments in this appendix: Comment is not specific regarding what issues were not addressed and it is the opinion of the EIR preparer that the pertinent issues were addressed. Please see Section 5.1 regarding Earth Resources, specifically Effect ER -10; Section 5.7 regarding Noise, specifically Effect N-1, Appendix A, Issue No. 8 regarding Land Use; and Effect ER -10 regarding conservation of mineral resources. With regard to the visual effect of pit mining, this is an existing impact that the proposed project would not create nor alter. Also the recent court decision of Baird vs. County of Contra Costa (1995) indicate that the courts find that the purpose of CEQA is to protect the environment. against a project, not to protect proposed projects from existing environmental detriments and therefore the visual effect of the existing mining operation is not germane to this EIR. Future homeowners would be well aware of the existence of this visual problem prior to their purchase of proposed homesites, and presumably, the selling price of those homesites would be commensurate with such a view. While the commentor may consider all of these issues to be "immitigable significant impacts," such a finding is not supported by the analyses contained in the EIR. 4. The results of the sound monitoring has been incorporated into the EIR. Despite the commentor's opinion, these results do not alter the conclusions of the Drag EIR and are within the parameters discussed in the EIR. Despite the claims of land use incompatibility, the commentor has not presented any evidence that indicates that the project, as buffered by the golf course, would result in a land use incompatibility that would substantially affect the ability to economically extract mineral resources from a claim area consisting of about 13,500 acres, with the major portions of future mining located more than one mile from the site. In fact, the EIS for the expansion of mining operations in this claim area found no land use conflict with the existing residential homes located 1,400 feet from the existing mining operations, and stated that "no effect on property values has been identified from existing mining operations" (pg. 3-113-114), an effect that should have been noticed if there was in fact a significant land use conflict. 5. The EIR acknowledges that the project site contains designated regionally significant mineral resources (Section 5- 1, Effect ER -10) and additional information from CDMG Special Report 143 City of Santa Clarita F-31 F) J Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F - Response to Comments C) has been added to the EIR text so that the City can better evaluate the effect of the project on the } supply of mineral resources in the area, including the County -wide production of such resources. However, the City during the development and approval of its 1991 General Plan did not consider ( mining and extraction uses as appropriate for the project site, including the 103 acre annexation �j parcel, when it was designated for development as Residential Estate and Residential Very Low, The City's Land Use Element contains a specific Mmeral/Oil Conservation Area overlay designation C that is intended to permit the continuation of mineral extraction and oil field uses while providing for further development of the City. This overlay designation meets the requirements of state regulations regarding the conservation of resources. While this overlay was placed on the sand and gravel deposits in the Santa Clara River north of the site and the existing mining operations to the northeast of the site (1993 General Plan Land Use Map), it was not so designated for the project site. In addition, the major portion of the aggregate deposits within the project site is located in the 160 acre northeast parcel, an area that was entitled for development of 140 residential lots in 1990. The proposed project would not alter these substantial existing limitations on the potential use of I the site for mineral extraction, and so would not create a new significant impact on regional mineral �l resource deposits that did not already exist. r 6. Since the project is not located within the jurisdiction of the Angeles National Forest Land lu{ Management Plan, it is not a requirement of CEQA to address this plan. The project is in compliance with Angeles National Forest policies regarding a 100 -foot building setback from forest boundaries. With regard to protecting the mineral resources on adjacent lands, the use of the golf course as a buffer to reduce nuisance effects of the adjacent mining operations on the proposed residential area is considered acceptable and in compliance with General Plan policies 6.1 and 6.2 to use open space (in this case the golf course) as a buffer between mineral resource areas and sensitive uses and to maintain such areas. The golf course would provide a greater distance between the extractive mining operations and residential lots than that provided for under the existing entitlement on the 160 acre parcel. It is also noted that there are already several residential �J units in the Oak Spring Canyon area that can readily view the existing and future mining operations. In addition, the majority of new mining resources to be extracted in the adjacent mining operation (� (10,7 million cubic yards of 12.7 million cubic yards) would be at Claim Groups II and III, which J are over 2.5 miles from the nearest proposed residence and in areas that are not visible from the project site (Tetra Tech, 1991). The future mining operation in Claim Group I is located over 1.5 j miles from the nearest proposed residence, and while it would be visible to the proposed project, it is also visible to residences in the existing "Crystal Springs" tract in Sand Canyon and mitigation measures to reduce its visual impacts were delineated in the EIS for the new mining operations (Tetra Tech, 1991). For these reasons, the land use effects of the proposed project on the adjacent mining area are considered less than significant. Please see also response to comment 5 above and revisions to the EIR text for Effect ER -10, 7, The EIR as required under CEQA is focused on the effect of the project on the existing environment, primarily that environment contained within the site boundaries, rather than on the effects of an adjacent land use on the project. Nonetheless; the EIR addresses the mining operations at numerous areas throughout the text, most specifically under Effect ER -10, hydrologic City of Santa Clarita P-32 I L Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F - Response to Comments L� environment (pg 5.2-4), aesthetic environment (particularly Figure 5.6-313), Effect N-1; and f considers aggregate mining as a land use alternative in Section 7.4. t 8. Commentor's opposition to the proposed project is noted for the decision -makers. During the EIR and conditional use permit review process, the City as lead agency will be considering the onsite mineral deposit's importance to the regional market as required by the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA). Additional information from CDMG Special Report 143 has been added to the EIR tent so that the City can better evaluate the effect of the project on the supply of i mineral resources in the area. In addition, the EIR contains an alternative (Section 7.4 - Mixed'Use Alternative) that proposes aggregate mining of the site for the City Council to consider. With regard to Article 4, §2763 of the SMARA, the City of Santa Clarita as lead agency has not { s designated the project site as having important minerals to be protected and has acted on the lands in SMARA during its General Plan. compliance with subdivision (a) of §2762 preparation of F-33 Lr1 � LIJ Ll } D L] City of Santa Clarita LI `J I Dr. Dennis K. Ostrom, President 'I Sand Canyon Home Owners Association November 6, 1995 C Glenn Adamick, Assistant Planner II City of Santa Clarita Department of Community Development l 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 t Santa Clarita, Calif. 91355 U D I n Re: EIR Hunter's Green Development and Golf Course Dear Glenn, Following are my comments regarding the golf course EIR. H,I � fZ C'k,J +00 1. Regarding water quality The project's use of pesticides cannot be allowed to affect the quality of the nearby residents water which is drawn from the ground using water wells. While the EIR did address the issue, it wasn't specific about what actions the project would take and what concentrations of pesticide originating chemicals in the water would warrant what actions. • The project needs to drill wells on the site, down stream of the majority of the project's water shed, and • test the water as it now is for pesticides and continue doing this well into the life of the project. • Action limits need to be set as to when the golf course will "shut down" the use of pesticides and/or supplement the residents water supply. 2. Regarding the residential lots which are part of the project. • The residential lots sizes shouldn't be any smaller than the current zoning or that which is indicated in the City's master plan, whichever gives the lowest density. The Sand Canyon Home Owners Association does not want clustering, as such, the pad sizes should be of such a size and proximity that "Estate size" homes can be accommodated.. A minimum pad size needs to be specified, i.e. 15000 to 20000 sq. ft_ ' %9/q f • The mine brings up an interesting issue about its intolerable noise and other aspects of its presence. How does having a home adjacent to this mine compare to having one adjacent to a busy street such as Sand Canyon, or the Freeway or the Railroad tracks or even a school? U [I 3. Regarding traffic. There is still concern about traffic in general_ We know that the project will generate about the same amount of traffic as the other approved uses for the same property, however, it is apparent that all of this traffic will be using Sand Canyon. t Any measure to alleviate this now, or in the future, would be appreciated. Also, residents opposite the entrance are concerned about the way the traffic might affect their C properties. Specifically: • Headlights of customers leaving the golf course in the evening. Will their headlights 1I cause a significant distraction and negatively impact those residents quality of life. • Traffic control for traffic entering and leaving the golf course. Will traffic controls impede nearby residents from entering and leaving their property. Those that own the affected homes are having the golf course entrance, actually another �J road, imposed on them. Whatever can be done to minimize the impacts of the new road, L especially the impacts to those closest to the entrance, must be done. H Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix r - Response to Comments L Commentor: Dr. Dennis Ostrom, President Sand Canyon Home Owners Association aDate: November 6, 1995 Response: I Since the actual chemicals to be used at the site are unknown at this time, specific action levels cannot be determined yet: For this reason, the EIR requires that specific Golf Course Management {� and Integrated Pest Management plans be prepared as a condition to approval of the project. These U plans would define the chemicals to be used, the criteria establishing when they should be used, the amount that, can be used; and the acceptable concentrations of such chemicals in the monitoring wells. The maximum acceptable concentration for any compound should be set at the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) drinking water standard established by the federal EPA, and if such has not been set, then the Reference Dose (RfD) obtained from preferably the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database and secondarily from the Health Effects Summary Assessment Tables (HEAST). The mitigation measures recommended in the EIR include the development of Ll monitoring wells at the downstream end of the two main channels leaving the site. Additional Iu! monitoring wells that the applicant should consider are those within the channels at the upstream end as they enter the property, especially for Live Oak Springs Canyon, since urban uses upstream n of the site could be contributing greater amounts of fertilizers and pesticides than the project would. J 2. Comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the EIR. The project as designed with smaller lot (� sizes is permitable under the Planned Development Permit. Your comments are included herein to L notify decision -makers of your concerns regarding lot sizes. 3. The noise effects of the mine are dependent on the activities that are occurring at the mine and the distance at which the mining equipment operate. As stated in Section 5.7 of the EIR, noise levels' for the nearest residence based on the development plan pad locations would be below the City's 65 C dBA CNEL criteria. Noise levels along the freeway and the railroad tracks both exceed these criteria. The noise levels experienced at the nearest proposed residence during operations in Rabbit Canyon would be similar to the existing noise levels along Sand Canyon Road within 60 feet of the J roadway centerline (see Appendix E for Sand Canyon Road noise calculations). It is noted that U mining operations do not occur on a daily basis in Rabbit Canyon (currently there are no mining activities at this location), while noise from transportation sources occurs continually.. 4- Project trip generation was greater than that which would typically be assigned to a standard golf course based on the size of the proposed facility and the number of amenities at the site. The applicant has submitted a different trip generation based on assumptions regarding actual use of the property which would result in a substantially lower number of trips associated with the project (see Q responses to letter by Theodore Robinson contained in this appendix). To the extent that the applicants assumptions are correct, the number of trips would be reduced, but the higher number used in the EIR is more conservative and therefore estimates the maximum potential for impacts. City of Santa Ctarita F-34 CJ Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F - Response to Comments Ca LJ D D H I �1 H I F-35 City of Santa Ctarita F] Lights from automobiles leaving the site do have the potential to shine across Sand Canyon Road towards two residences. The amount of disturbance that this would create is dependent on the uses in the front rooms of the houses and the amount of intervening vegetation. Given the topography C of this specific location, it is not anticipated that the headlights would cause a significant effect and if such were to occur, it could be easily remedied by the strategic location of shrubs along the eastern property line of these homes. (� �f Traffic control will be limited to a stop sign for the westbound exit from "A" Street at the site. No traffic controls would be imposed that would alter the current access for the existing residences. LJ D D H I �1 H I F-35 City of Santa Ctarita F] SCOPE j? Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment TO PROMOTE; PROTECT AND PRESERVE THE ENVIRONMENT, ECOLOGY AND QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE SANTA CLARITA VALLEY POST OFFICE BOX 1182, CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91386 I 11-13-95 C Glenn Adamiek Faxed 11-13-95 G Community Development Hard copy' to follow City of Santa Clarita via regular mail (� Re: Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course U SCH= 95041019 U Dear'vlr. Adamick: SCOPE has the following concerns and comments on this project and its EIR. Not' 1 1995 1. Trails - Access to the National Forest both for hiking and equestrian use must be assured. The US Forest Senice should be notified of this project and their input solicited. 2. Grading - The grading for this project is extensive and gill reduce the ability to revegetate natural Habitat. Grading should be reduced. Grading to secondary ridoelines should not be allowed due to visual impact. Geoioa • should be analyzed to determine whether grading will hit bedrock and make reyegatation impossible. Gradin$2 should not be alloyed were this situation occurs. --oise studies should be required to analyze the effects of removine ridaelines on noise levels for current residents. Grading of secondary ridgelines should not be alloyed %\here they act as a buffer for mining activities or freeway noise. 3 I 3, Cormmercial - NVe do not believe that commercial is an appropriate zoning desigtiation for this rural area and suggest that those acthities such as a bar and dining range not be permitted. If they are permitted they should be moved a%%ay from locations close to current residents. 0 y 1 1. Residential - Nevv residential development should not be located close to mining activities. Oaks - We request that the City- closely examine the plan to find areas where destruction of oak trees. LJ especially heritage oaks can be reduced. C, I6. Traffic - Any permit for this project should be conditioned on the prerequisite ci the %videnina of the Sand Canyon Bridge. The Bridge must be long enough to not require concrete in the River underneath it. The elimination of the bar and driving range would reduce traffic impacts significantly. L' 7. Hydrology - Proper capping of the indicated abandoned %\ells 11UST be completed and verified as a 7 condition to the permitting of this project. Improperly capped wells lead to immediate and severe water quality problems as they would alloy a vehicle for transport of pesticides. fertilizes and any other potential P .7 SCOPE''Hunters Green Pg. I 1 L pollution to the aquifer. The Water Qualin" Control Board and the water companies should be notified of the existence of these wells. u No discussion of potential surface run-off of fertilizers and pesticides into the Santa Clara River from storm events or routine irrigation was discussed. This is an EIR deficiency. Potential for pollution to the River from this source and its effect on the Unatmored Three Spined:Stickleback along -with other biota must be discussed. Because of the hti,drological connection of the Rimer and the ground water aquifer, surface run-off of pollutants is also a likely vehicle for ground water pollution. This issue must also be discussed. Any potential for collection of fertilizers and pesticides in settling areas or golf course ponds must be evaluated and eliminated to avoid harm to birds and animals. v Studies are cited to show- that direct leaching to ground water of pesticides and fertilizers has not occurred on certain golf courses. The titles and authors of these studies should be named in the EIR so that the documentation can be reviewed. The studies themselves should be included in an appendil and available to the public. 774Y is an EIR deficiency. `t I1n Integrated Pest Management System should be developed for the project prior to approval and included along. with Best Management Practices as a condition of approval. \-lonitoring wells as stated in the EIR must be a condition of approval. The monitoring agency authority -should also be established and clearly stated in the final conditions of approval. A revocation of the permit should be tD included in the event of non-compliance or the findings of adverse water quality impacts. Additionally. any lakes. ponds or collection basins should be tested for pollutant levels on the same time schedule. Run-off should also be collected and tested for pollutants. l IA water source other than local well water should be a condition of approval due to the adverse impact on e.- sting well users. D Th -re is no examination of the cumulative impacts to water supply in the Santa Clarita Valle}' of this prgject. 1 L Golf courses are major users of water. An examination of cumulative impacts is required both by CEC A and (� new state legislation SB 901. This iv an EIR deficiency. Thank -you for your time. D S_ircereh_ Y yttne A. Plambeck 1st Vice President U E C U lJ U E lj iJ Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F - Response to Comments Commentor: Lynne A. Plambeck, First Vice -President Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment (SCOPE) Date: November 13, 1995 Response: The applicant and the City are continuing to work together on the provision of equestrian trails through the site. If the project is approved, such trails are expected to be fully defined at the time of approval. The US Forest Service has been notified of this project; please see responses to their comments in this appendix. 2. Comment repeats findings of the EIR regarding the extensive grading impacts and recommends reduced grading. Several alternative concepts that may reduce grading are considered in Section 7.0 of the EIR. Bedrock will be reached in any significant hillside grading project and would be within several areas of the proposed golf course. This does not necessarily prevent revegetation, but it does require additional measures (such as providing for a topsoil) to increase the success of revegetation. It is noted that the bedrock is naturally exposed in several areas of the site and is partially vegetated in such areas. See Section 5.7, Effect N-2 of the EIR regarding the noise impacts of grading on current residents. The amount of grading proposed for the secondary ridgelines at the site would not significantly alter the attenuation features of this ridgeline with respect to mining activities or the freeway for offsite residents. 3. The golf course would not be designated nor zoned as commercial, rather it is a Public and Semi - Public use under the City's Unified Development Code. Limited commercial uses which are commonly associated and directly related to the primary use, namely the golf courses, are permitted (Chapter 17.13). Your opinion regarding the commercial aspects of the golf course are contained herein to notify decision -makers of your concerns. 4. Opinion noted. No further response is necessary. 5. The City's oak tree expert has reviewed the project and requested specific information regarding the effects on heritage trees. Because of the value of such trees, it is in the applicant's interest to preserve them as much as possible. LJ 6. The widening of the bridge is included in the Bridge and Thoroughfare District that encompasses LJ this area. Projects approved in this area will contribute on a pre -established basis by paying Bridge and Thoroughfare fees as a condition of approval. The lounge and driving range uses are typical uses within a golf course development and are already a part of the trip generation estimates. This is why a higher than typical trip generation rate (10 trips per acre as opposed to 4.19) was used in r , the EIR (see page 5.5-9). P P F-36 City of Santa Ctanta U Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F - Response to Comments U Commentor repeats a requirement of the California Division of Mines and Geology regarding the capping of any abandoned wells. Such is a standard condition of all development projects. Surface run-off of any fertilizers and pesticides is to be controlled within the site through the drainage plan and the operation of the Golf Course Management Plan. This plan would include ! such features as restrictions on fertilizer and pesticide applications within 24 hours of forecasted storms. Computerized irrigation systems to be used at the site are intended to reduce the potential { for irrigation run-off and the drainage system for the golf course is designed so that most of the run- L� off of the course is directed towards onsite ponds, where any runoff irrigation water can be collected and re -used. Nonetheless, the potential for surface water contaminated with either fertilizer or chemicals was considered a significant impact by the EIR (Section 5.2, Effect D-5). This impact is considered significant primarily for Oak Spring Canyon Creek and Live Oak Springs Canyon Creek because of the more limited amount of diluting water present. During the dry a season, any irrigation waters from the site would not make it to the Santa Clara River as surface flow, and therefore would not affect any instream biota since such waters would likely continue only as underflow within the river system. During the wet season, any runoff waters from the site l that reach the Santa Clara River would be highly diluted with other urban and natural waters since the project site represents less than 0.5% of the Santa Clara River watershed above Sand Canyon. r 1 8. It is against copyright laws to copy books and include them within an EIR. The Balogh and Walker u (1992) text is available through the University of California and California State University library C� systems. The development of an Integrated Pest Management Plan would be made a condition to the development of the project if the project were to be approved. Such a condition would prevent the operation of the development unless such an approved Plan is on file with the City. 0. Comments noted. Such items are to be included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program to be developed for the project if it is approved. 11. The project as proposed does not include any onsite water production wells and such would not be part of the Conditional Use Permit if one were granted for the project. If the applicant seeks to obtain a water production well, such a request will need to undergo a separate environmental documentation process. 12. The Santa Clarita Water Company has indicated that they "felt they could serve the project within their Master Plan," provided that the applicant construct the backbone delivery system (feeder lines and two reservoirs totaling 2.5 million gallons) as indicated in the proposed project description (pg. 3-10). The Company's currently available annual supply is 38,000 acre-feet, with 12,000 acre-feet coming from the Santa Clara River upper alluvial aquifer, 6,000 acre-feet from the Saugus Formation deep wells, and 20,000 acre-feet from the State Water Project. The water demand of the project is estimated to be initially 1114 acre-feet per year, or about 6% of the remaining available rr City of Santa Clarita F-37 N Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR f-1 Appendix F - Response to Comments C1 water supply for the Santa Clarita Water Company. Therefore, the cumulative effect of the golf � course on the supply available for the City of Santa Clarita is negligible. LJ P P, LJ p P C I U n P U P I F-38 City of Santa Clarita NOV-13-95 12:10P Continental Lawyers Title 818 304 9375 P.01 � November 13, 1995 Mr. Glenn Adamick City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 J City of Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Dear Mr. Adamick: �) 1 have enclosed my comments to the Environmental Impact Report �I concerning the proposed golf course in the Sand Canyon area. Total pages forwarded is 17, excluding this cover letter_ If you have any questions concerning my comments please give me a call at (818)304-9797, extension 708_ .Sincerely, Allen E. Penrose lJ Ll lJ lJ L] U P P I P U P Nov -.13-95 12: 10P Continental Lawyers Titae 818 .304 9375 CONXENTS TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT HUNTERS GREEN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMT AND GOLF COURSE AIR QUALITY Comment about gaining an immunity to San Joaquin Valley Fever is incorrect. My father is 72 years old and has lived here almost his whole life. He contacted the fever from the 1994 earthquake, His two neighbors that died from the disease were also long••time residents. Exposure to San Joaquin Valley fever is extremely dangerous. EIR down plays its possible effect on local residents. EIR does not disclose that 243 cases of Valley Fever were diagnosed in Ventura county in 1994, primarily due to the earthquake. Numerous deaths occurred. Valley fever is the most difficult disease to diagnose, with many people not realizing they have it and sometimes not until its too late. As of September 1995, 17 cases have occurred this year in Ventura county, all due to construction related activity (per Ventura County Health Services). The mitigation measures stated in the EIR were probability established for these 1995 construction projects, but yet people still came down with valley fever. The 2.2 million cubic yards to be graded is so close to residents and their animals, that this grading could cause the same results as those infected people in Ventura county. `Phe EIR states that the golf courses will reduce pollution because citizens of Santa Clarita will no longer have to drive r.o Z the San Fernando Valley to play golf. The developers have priced the golf courses so high that, r.hey are targeting players from other areas that can afford these prices. The EIR needs to be revised. 3 Air quality will be significantly decreased due to the spraying of toxic, chemicals on the golf course. This is the main technique of application. This is not addressed in the EIR. Beside the drifting of the spray into neighborhood properties, which would settle on the property or possible enter household airspace nearby, methyl bromide pesticide is planned to be banned by the Clean Air Act by 2001. This toxic chemical is extremely important to golf courses. Methyl bromide depletes the earth's ozone layer. Automobile and truck exhaust is extremely unhealthy for horses. The EIR does not address the health effect as a result of vehicle exhaust generated by the nearby parking lot next to the Graceton Drive area. This project will generate daily emissions that will exceed the SCAQMD threshold guidelines. We have an severe high level of S pollution already. The project needs Lo be modified to adhere to those guidelines. The EIR needs to give recommendations on how to achieve this. What level of grading would result in a pollution level that will meet the SCAQMD air quality requirements? Nov -.13-95 12:10P Continental Lawyers Title 818 304 9375 S 9 1p IZ As a result of the significant quantity of grading near various residents, grading must (not should) be suspended during wind gusts exceeding 25 mph. EIR anticipates air quality impacts above threshold levels during construction. The project should be modified not to allow this level of impact, especially for those residents near the grading. The EIR report should evaluate the number of expected vehicular trips caused by each aspect of the project. EIR should provide a listing of the number of cars and trucks associated with the golf course, the driving range, restaurant, bar, banquet facility and housing development. An evaluation should be made if adherence to emission standards could be met by limiting or modifying the commercial facilities being proposed or the number of homes being built. NOISE Agree that the project would cause an adverse increase .in ambient noise levels for residences adjacent to the site. That's why the results of our survey of 25 local golf courses reveals that the minimum distance between the driving range and the nearest residence was 350 yards. Also, a number of courses didn't have driving ranges. Some of the driving ranges didn't have lights so it would not disturb the neighbors. Noise level will have an extreme impact on the residents around Graceton Drive due to the proximity of the driving range, parking lot, bar and banquet facilities near their homes. The driving range (about only 100 feet away from one residence) will generate a consistent level of noise throughout the day and night by the hundreds of people each day driving golf balls. The parking lot is only about 70 feet away from one residence. Golf courses start as early as 6:00 a.m. Noise this early will. be significant, What about all the delivery trucks and trash trucks to supply the restaurants, bar, etc. What about auto alarms constantly going off? The cars, delivery trucks, garbage trucks, etc, will generate a persistent level of noise each day and night... Banquet facility will enable large parties to occur very close to existing residents, which usually has loud music; etc. Will there be a public address system to announce the next group of golfers to tee off? These type of noises will constitute a significant nuisance for the these residents. P.03 l] Ell P H U LJ n M Ll The noise level created by all the construction equipment will {� I� have a significant effect on the horses located in the Graceton t_ area. Horses will manic and flee when scared from noise and movement of construction equipment. Fences will not stop horses t-1 ,..,Nov -13-95 12:10P Continental Lawyers Title 818 304 9375 I lin a manic. Serious injuries could result to the horses and/or (� to the general public. n What about the noise levels associated with golf balls landing L ' off the nearby houses and yards, the spraying equipment, the charging of electric golf carts, the mowers and vulgar language C+ that is sometimes used early in the morning. L1 The EIR states "The assessment of aesthetic impacts involves qualitative analysis that is inherently subjective in nature. Viewers react to veiwsheds and aesthetic conditions differently". Also stated in the EIR "the proposed project would irreversibly alter the landform profile of the subject site, changing its aesthetic character. Some of the modifications may conflict with the City's Ridgeline preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance". From our perspective in Oak Springs Canyon, replacing a Secondary Ridgeline with a parking lot and road will have a significant adverse effect on our area. Cutting a Secondary Ridgeline 70 feet in unacceptable. The modifications _ will conflict with the City's Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside )5 Development Ordinance. The Secondary Ridgeline should not be. lJ allowed to be modified, especially being replaced with a parking lJ lot! C The EIR is correct in stating that because of all the slopes exceeding 50% grades, the soften grading areas will not match the un -graded areas. This is especially true right behind my house.. aSite design and grading will have a significant impact on the residents of Graceton Drive and Oak Springs Canyon. The grading of the Secondary Ridgeline and the proximity of the parking lot and commercial facilities to existing residents will significantly decrease the aesthetics and their respective property values. Viewing the commercial facilities from Graceton a Drive is unacceptable. The EIR should provide a schedule showing at least 25 local golf courses and the distance of the parking lots, driving range and club house to the neighboring homes. The 2S courses should be chosen at random. Nor selected by the tti developers. The selection should be based on the 25 closest golf courses to Sand Canyon, therefore, it would be impartial. Theses facilities are just too close and do not conform with other golf developments. The Secondary Ridgeline is not only viewed by thousands of people driving on the 14 freeway and Soledad Canyon Road, but by the 17 residents north of the freeway. Residents north of the freeway who do view these ridges and are aware of this project are upset with the proposal and do not want these Secondary Ridgelines n removed. It may be the opinion of the people prepttring the EIR I %M0 Nov -13-95 12_10P Continental Lawyers Title 818 304 937.5 P.05 u that these modifications will not be significant, but for the residents north of this proposed development, residents of L Graceton Drive and Oak Springs Canyon find these ridges to be a very important character of this area. The EIR is incorrect in stating that these viewsheds have little value. Don't forget that these ridges are being replaced with a road, parking lot, 1� commercial facilities and below, a driving range. This combination has a significant impact on the visual aspects of this area. An additional viewshed analysis should be prepared for those residents on Graceton Drive. The majority of the grading will occur to the south of these residents and no (� viewshed analysis was performed. This doesn't make sense and LJ should be performed. If this is a Secondary Ridgeline, someone in the past must have �] I thought that it was significant. Why is it that the EIR argues with this opinion. Now can they now say that it is not significant, especially when the City decided it was? Plates 5.6-2B,5.6-35 and 5.6-4B are all incorrect. The commercial aspects of the development are allshown too far to f,l the east. The parking lot should be shown almost right behind L �y the Boyston's house, with the commercial facilities to the southeast. Gives an inaccurate perspective of how close the commercial development is to the existing residences. The mitigation measure to split the parking lot is unacceptable. The commercial facilities should not, be viewed from the north, -LO but hidden by the Secondary Ridgelines or moved to lower ground to the east. Visual effects will still be awful. Basic scenario would still be that the Secondary Ridgeline would be replaced by (� a parking lot. Lj Sand Canyon Special Standardo does not allow the clustering of homes. The layout of homes in 193 acres are actually one acre a Zl lots, with the other acre as an easement to the golf course. This is a method that is trying to advert the zoning requirements. These lots should be treated as one acre and not allowed as designed. ZZ IThe clustering of homes are proposed on a Secondary Ridgeline. (� This doesn't fit with the City's Ridgeline ordinance. tJ 7-3 I The City is developing a policy not to allow the gating of communities. How will this effect the EIR and the development? L What kind of additional signage will occur on Sand Canyon Road, ZY both for traffic and to promote the golf course? How will this rj affect the aesthetics of the area? L`- The aesthetics around my house will be significantly modified. The City Planning Department., prior to construction of my home, 4 t; Nov -13-95 12:11P. Continental Lawyers Title 818 304 9375 U ' D C I r ri stated these ridges would never be modified. Therefore, the house was designed and located with the hillside features in mind. You will note the roof ridgelines to bear a relationship with the hills behind. Also, bay windows were designed and built with the valley in mind. This valley behind the house is proposed to be eliminated with a sharp grade in its place. The driving range with lights is not consistent with the existing community design character of the Sand Canyon area. This Z� facility should not be viewed by the residents of Oak Springs Canyon or across the freeway, or people driving on the freeway. I PUBLIC SAFETY The EIR does not address the effect of toxic chemicals draining through residential properties, for example those residents living below the golf course where toxic chemicals will be transported during rainy periods through their property. A collection basin and purification process must be designed where ever transportation of toxic chemicals could possibly occur. The toxic chemicals could have a harmful affect on people who have vegetable and fruit gardens, where horses are maintained in pastures or where children play. 2� Iwhere will all the toxic chemicals be stored? How will they be stored to prevent spillage? Golf course has designed a man-made hazard by having a par -5 fairway placed too close to a home. There is an extreme high level of risk associated with such a design. The owner, operator and designer will be held liable for a injury to person, animal and property. 30 EIR states the residences northwest of the proposed parking lot would be the most disturbed from the construction activity. EIR states that because of the extensive topographic alteration associated with the golf course grading, the use of noise barriers is not expected to be effective. This statement in itself should give anyone the nature of the impact the grading will have on the aesthetics of this area. The noise level. from all this grading will be unacceptable.. Grading of the site slopes has the potential to create destabilized cut slopes_ The "residual impact" in the EIR states 1 "proper engineering of the cut slopes should mitigate this effect to less than significant." "Should° is not acceptable, needs to be "will" or some other 1008 complete statement_ 5 Nov -13-95 12:.11P Continental Lawyers Title 818 304 9375 What effect will the grading behind "27920 Graceton Drive have on 32- the heritage oak trees in the southeast corner of the property? water sheds will be altered plus the grading will be significantly close to these oaks? 33 You have to live here to really understand the amount of water that flows out of the Oak Springs Canyon area. The developers obvious don't because they first designed the maintenance shed right in the middle of the creek. In the five years I have lived here, I have seen the water numerous times reach 3 feet deep and 50-60 yards wide flowing over Oak Springs Canyon near Graceton Drive. Absolutely no grading should be allowed during the rainy season. The developers absolutely don't care about the residents in Oak springs Canyon and should not be given the ability to grade when extensive off-site transport could occur. ,3y I Where will all the fuel be stored during the construction phase? A seasonal spring occurs behind the residences of 27900 and 27920 Graceton Drive. What will happen to these springs with all the 3; grading that will occur. Also, what is to prevent a landslide from destroying my homesite due to the level of grading right behind the home. P.07 r] [I I C' U rj j The volume of water will increase in velocity behind and to the 316 I west of my home. The retaining wall was designed for a valley behind the house, not a new ridge. n 37 I The mining operation manufactures a persistent level of noise, LJ even in the Graceton area. The cutting of ridges will destroy a natural buffer of these noises. n ,► : � .*_a The hydrology report should contain a summary showing all those U areas where an increase in volume or velocity of water will occur. EIR only speaks about the storm and peak flows in the Oak Springs Creek area. For example, what about the homes below the 3g golf course_ How will the changes affect these properties? HowwillOak Springs Canyon Road west of Graceton Drive and east of Comet Way be affected? Presently, there are retention ponds that capture some of this water. How will all the grading affect the volume and velocity of the water down Oak Springs Canyon Road to Comet Way? What measures will be made to slow down the velocity? The EIR talks about a Cape Cod study which had positive n environmental results. The actual report itself notes that it �l deals with only one set of pesticides in one hydrologic environment and recommends "that additional studies of this type be done in different hydrologic settings and include some l 6 ll HNov -13-95 12=11P Continental Lawyers Title 818 304 9375 'J nematicides, (which) tend to be more mobile and persistent than other pesticide classes... and tend to be used more in southern climates". Many environmentalists caution against too rosy an interpretation of the Cape Cod findings. Michael Surgan, chief scientist with the Environmental Protection Bureau of the New York Attorney General's Office, finds fault with some of the study's testing methods. The study is actually so open to interpretation that both sides of the chemical controversy use it to support their arguments. Researchers looked for traces of 17 commonly used turf chemicals in the groundwater under four courses. The Golf Course Superintendents Assoc. of America pointed out that no "current registered" pesticides were detected in toxicologically significant concentrar.ions; National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides points out that the u groundwater was still contaminated with seven pesticides, and u that chlordane, a highly persistent pesticide now banned for use on golf courses, was found at levels more than 200 times greater than the government's recommended limits. There is a reason why the Sierra Club is constantly challenging golf courses from being built (six courses were challenged in 1993 alone). A golf green n is nothing but a hazardous waste dump. Toxic chemicals are 11 harmful to the environment. An example; Dicamba (2,4-D) is known to cause birch defects, other reproductive problems and nervous system damage. In a recent study at the University of North a Carolina in Chapel Hill, children whose yards were treated with pesticides -including Diazinon, carbaryl and 2,4 -D --were four times as likely to develop muscle and other soft tissue cancers. in 1991, the New York State Attorney General's office published "Toxic Fairways", a widely -cited study of pesticide used on 52 Long Island golf courses. This report was concerned about ground water because of the 50,000 pounds of pesticides applied each year. They recommended reducing golf course pesticide hazards by limiting or ending the use of known carcinogens, minimizing the use of other pesticides, and fully informing golf course users n and the public about pesticide dangers and times of application. `J Golf course superintendents appear to have a higher mortaliy from certain cancers, including lung and brain cancers and non- Hodgkin's lymphoma, according to preliminary results of a study conducted by researchers at the University of Iowa College of Medicine. Mr George Prior died in 1982 from toxic poisoning from �D playing golf. A lawsuit in Los Angeles County occurred when a golfer placed a golf ball in his mouth and subsequently collapsed from toxic poisoning. Jury saw in his favor and won a multi- million lawsuit for non -disclosure of the level of toxic chemicals on the golf course. One case in Riverside where the nitrate levels in the groundwater was so high that it was killing all the young foals. The golf course is located next door. y� (Isleworth Country Club near Orlando, Florida dumped nitrate - saturate effluent into adjacent Lake Bessie, turning once -clear n Iwater an al.cgae-choked gray. Coral reefs are being destroyed by lJ Nov -13-95 12:12P Continental Lawyers Title 818 304 9375 Ll( adjacent golf courses. Lake Tahoe is turning color from adjacent golf courses. California Regional Water Quality Control Board made studies on two local lakes, Lake Sherwood and Westlake. Both lakes were extremely polluted. Lake Sherwood has the highest nutrient status including the highest ammonium concentrations found in any lake. A golf course lays on the west edge of the lake. Westlake is contaminated from run-offs from surrounding natural landscapes and golf courses. Ammonium, nitrate and phosphorus concentrations were detectable. P. 09 r. E lThe use of pesticides and fertilizers will pollute our ground (� q Z water and drinking water. This will have a significant adverse `J impact on the residents of Oak Springs Canyon. 4t3 As a result of the resident's wells being located next to the golf course and the City's water supply less than a mile away, an Integrated Pest Management program should be developed at this time and reviewed by the EIR. The golf course should be restricted to maximum amounts of pesticides, fungicides, herbicides and fertilizers and types stated. The program should be made mandatory. If the people performing the EIR are not qualified, then a local university should perform a study. These developers have built too many golf courses not to know what toxic chemicals they will be using. Human life can't be risked for this. The developer should at least bring in public water to the residents of Oak Springs Canyon. As stated by Mr. Cherrington, the New York Audubon Signature Cooperative Sanctuary Program is full of comments including 4q "may", "could", "should", etc. It is a non-binding program that only cost $100 a year. EIR should not put weight on this program. 115 - The developer will not give up his rights to the ground water. The wells continue to go dry in this area. 708 of the water used on these golf courses will come from the local ground water as the Santa Clarita water Company gets 708 of their water from the wells in the Santa Clara River. Therefore, the effects of these golf courses on the level of groundwater in this area should be part of the BIR. (The mayor of the City mentioned that reclaimed water. will eventually be used. Therefore, the EIR must include reclaimed water in its analysis. The proposed lakes to be developed should not be used to 47 intercept storm flows. The amount of silt, etc. will completely fill up these lakes during heavy rains. How will erosion, flooding or deposition of sediment or debris be eliminated from entering my property, especially around by house? Ll Hi Nov-13-95 12:.13P Continental Lawyers Title 818 304 9375 l� U U 11 After the golf course is completed, will the funnelling of the storm water through the golf course effect the quantity or velocity of water flowing from the golf course over Oak Springs Canyon Road, down through the neighborhood and under the railroad trellis? How about during the construction period? EIR talks about how peak levels will decrease 30-50% primarily because of the reduction in debris production? I don't understand this. The proposed parking lot area is to alter the flow from going north along Graceton Drive to the east and down Oak Springs Canyon Creek. Water will not percolate into the soil in the commercial areas because of roofs, cement, pavement, streets, etc. Also, when you grade an area, you actually lessen the surface square footage area to enable percolation. These changes should actually increase the flow of water down Oak Springs Canyon Creek at Oak Springs Canyon Road. The groundwater monitoring wells to determine compliance and effectiveness is not acceptable. once the plumb of toxic chemicals is created it is irreversible. It takes several years for the toxic chemicals to percolate to the ground water, once detected it cannot be reversed, and the wells will be useless. Its not like you can suddenly say we made a mistake with the use of toxic chemicals so we should change the formula and now everything will be okay. Once polluted that's it! What happens if the golf course goes out of business and the toxic chemicals subsequently enters the neighboring wells, who brings these residents clean water REALIGNMENT OF OAR SPRINGS CANYON ROAD Storm water will be funneled over Oak Springs Canyon Road and 5-L (could have an erosional effect on the neighbors property to the immediate west. Movement of Oak Springs Canyon will have a significant impact on the ability of the residents in the rear of the canyon to use the S'3 road in the stormy season. This will be significant. Extreme levels of water will cut the elevated portions of the road near the drainage area over Oak Springs Canyon Road. aThe design by the EIR for the movement of Oak Springs Canyon will absolutely not work. The developers or the people reviewing the EIR still have no idea how much water and erosion occurs down jj over Oak Springs Canyon Road. A person during hard rainy periods I� s.y can not stand up in the middle of the creek area without being swept away! Decomposed granite would last until the first major storm. Also, what is an acceptable level caused by the project? To whom's acceptable level? Traveling down the road, residents would be faced with mud slides and eroded slopes. Decomposed granite would not be sufficient. A guarantee of passage and year (� round maintenance must be agreed upon. J I P.10 Nov -13-95 12:13P Continental Lawyers Title 818 304 9375 P.11 L'i P LIGHTS L_ I agree with the EIR about the adjacent residential homes being f impacted by lights of the commercial facilities and headlights LJ ,5 associated with various activities at the golf course. EIR does not consider the headlights associated with the restaurant, banquet facility and bar usage at night. Disagree with the comments that the impact of lights will be less than significant. Present location of the parking lot and f t; -(o commercial facilities will be a nuisance. This is a rural- [_ equestrian area that will be heavily impacted by such commercial activities near the existing residents. Light and glare from the golf course will be significant. The EIR has not considered the lights from the cars and delivery trucks. What type of lighting will be used on the "teeing" area a 51 of the driving range. I don't think splash lighting can be used in this area. How will the golfers be able to see the ball. typically, the lights in the driving range teeing area are significant. Discreet up -lighting should be required as part of the commercial s° development. No other type of lighting should be allowed. What other lighting is proposed? 74 How can lighted globes not be visible from a distance of 20 feet? (� L Parking lot lighting shall not exceed four -feet in height is inconsistent with the comments stated later in the EIR about (, height limits of lighting. Page 3-6 talks about low level pole u lighting (less than 15 feet in height). �( IThis is a multi-level parking lot. How can a berm preclude spillage of vehicle head -lighting off site from the upper level? CONFLICTS The restaurant will be located near large horse properties that generate significant levels of flies and bees. This level of 6 Z insects will have create a significant conflict with the restaurant facility. The golf course will constantly complain about the level of insects caused by these horse properties. Recreational opportunities may be benefited to golfers, but will have a significant impact on the equestrian community. Due to f� the extreme high price of the golf fees (up to $75 a round), the general public in the Santa Clarity valley will not be able to afford to play golf at this facility. The equestrian community and those that use Rabbit Canyon Road for hiking access to the 10 n n U Nov -13-95 12:14P Continental Lawyers Title 818 304 9375 P.12. I 63 G 0 (,i national forest will be significantly impacted. There should be a requirement that this course remain a public course for 20 years. We feel that the course will eventually become private or immediately sold to private interest. 'Then no one in Santa Clarita will benefit. There are no real benefits to the citizens of Santa Clarita the way this course is designed. We are not. aware of a current problem with the stabilization of steep elopes. Where does this "beneficial effect comes from? Cs' In 1997 new golf courses have to be built to ADA standards. Does I this affect the EER? U BIOLOGY Will the golf course revegatation program work7 will native plants survive in a changed environment. A study needs to be done to determine if this 100% achieveable. otherwise, the golf owners will say "we tried out it didn't work, so we are going to �, use typical methods." I know neighbors have tried this in their IJ yards, and the plants all died. 1J 6I U The roughs shall be maintained as native perennial grasslands unless after three years of effort, it is shown that such revegetation would be unsuccessful. What. effects will this cause if this does happen? why not have a study performed before trying the native perennial bunch grasses to determine if rhis will work. t.y IIf native grasses do not work, then extensive water use will occur. What increase in the quantity of water will occur if these bunch grasses do not work? lJ The golf course will significantly affect the environment, lJ replacing a desert -dry scenario with a hot -humid. As stated in the EIR, serious losses to the natural community will be lost. How will this affect the neighboring areas? Also, how will this humid atmosphere affect the neighboring areas? For example, how will mosquito populations be controlled? What effect will all this new water and humidity have on the already fly and bee problem due to the horses? won't this significantly increase the number of these insects? F1 The City has an Oak Tree Preservation ordinance that is intended lJ to protect and preserve oak trees within the city. A total of 230 oak trees will be removed or cut down, including 7 heritage a oaks. This proposal will have a significant impact on both the amount of oak trees plus the underlining habitat_ The oak tree habitat will be significantly modified. How will these oak trees n and the habitat survive through this modification? lJ� Nov -13-95 12:.14P Continental Lawyers Title 818 304 9375 P_13 LJ EIR needs to determine how long it will take the newly planted j ?D acorns to turn into substantial oak trees. ETR states that 508 of the edge of each golf course lake shall be revegetated with native freshwater marsh elements. What is a '11 native "freshwater marsh element", we live in a dry desert. l� environment? C) doea not address the areas in the rough that are within 300 feet of resident. homes. The local fire code requires that L IEIR vegetation be removed within 300 feet of a neighboring residence. f� This needs to be addressed in the EIR. �J The majority of the snakes seen in this area are rattlesnakes. How are the construction workers going to remove these snakes. Where are they going to put them? How is this going to work with smaller reptiles, such as the horned lizard? How are these -13 construction workers even going to see the majority of the n n wildlife? What percentage of the wildlife is expected to be destroyed? Remember these workers are going to expedite the grading process, will it really be cost effective for them to care for these animals? How will all this grading affect the movement of rattlesnakes in this area? we typically find S rattlesnakes on the property each 7Y year. Will the contiguous properties be impacted by the movement of rattlesnakes on to their properties? The clawed frogs are all over the surrounding properties. After y5 4 the course is built, what is to prevent these frogs to develop in the new lake habitat? What effect will all the toxic chemicals have on the wildlife on the golf course? will the lakes have chlorine? will the toric chemicals transported off the property have an effect on the stickle -back fish located in the Santa Clara River? type of fencing will be installed around the perimeter of the golf courses? How will this fencing allow the movement of �J 7 7 JWhat wildlife through the golf course? Has the F,IR reviewed the type of fencing planned? Are the developers required to only use this fencing design? The City is proposing a multi -use trail system around the north, south and east perimeter of the golf course. This system will have two parallel fencing systems. How will this affect the J wildlife corridors. Deer, mountain lion, rabbit, coyote Presently use this area for food. Deer appear to be seasonal n depending on the bearing of local planta and water availability. �J These local plants in this area appear not present to the east or south. Coyote feed on the rabbit population in this area. i_ 12 1 C1 HJ Nov -:13-95 '12:14P Continental Lawyers Title 818.304 9375 E G` Ll P U f� 11 1j IOf the 28 sensitive animals known, what percentage of them will not be returning to this developed area. The future development of the residential and golf course uses may affect sensitive fish and wildlife resources at the site. The habitat value on the site will decline by 57%. This is a ist` significant impact that cannot be fully mitigated. The natural vegetation is being replaced by golf grasses, wetlands, parking lots and roads. What percentage of the current natural habitat is being eliminated? The report of Hovore & Associates noted that the removal of about 788 of the chaparral vegetation on the site would have a significant adverse effect on the Peirson's morning glory and �) Plummer's mariposa lily. Henrickson's report says it adverse, but not significant. Who is really right in this matter? This will have a significant impact in this area, which is what is important. Also, the one report by Henrickson dates back to 1975. Things have changed in the Santa Clarita Valley in the last 20 years. IVylWhat percentage re-establishment will occur with the seed collection related to the Peirson's morning-glory and the Plummer's mariposa -lily? What about the other plant species? 163 iy Construction of the golf course in the Oak Springs Canyon area would remove virtually all habitat for the horned lizard, and these animals do not flee from the construction area and so are likely to be killed during construction. This is considered a locally significant impact. This represents a mass slaughter of all these lizards. Trying to trap these lizards will have little impact on this slaughter. How many San Diego horned lizards are expected to be captured? What percentage of these reptiles are expected to be destroyed? The project will have a significant impact on the local Populations of the two -striped garter snake. Why won't it also have a significant impact on the rosy boas or patch -nosed snake? Where are they abundant and where is the habitat abundant? This also has to be a significant impact on the kingsnake. We have seen them on our property, but I have no idea what subspecies they are. Usually spot one per year near or on the property. I can't believe that the new course lakes will offer a potential opportunity to expand the breeding and habitat of these animals! rlAfter all this grading, how long will it. take for the garter and kingsnake populations to recover to their previous levels? 's6 (How will small predatory loggerhead shrike survive in a golf development if they feed on small birds and insects. Native birds and insects will be destroyed with their habitat. 13 P.14 Nov -13-95 12:15P Continental Lawyers Title 818 304 9375. P.15 H L M TPA" 1 FF1 The development will generate 3800 vehicles per day on Sand Canyon Road. This is significant for this narrow winding road, especially in the evening. The residents should be notified of J the level of traffic to occur because of this golf development: and bring forth their concerns. Presently, the residents have no (� idea that this level of traffic will occur. At the ~SCOPE" meeting, this level of traffic was not fully disclosed. The west approach at Sand Canyon and Lost Canyon Roads is already congested immediately before and after the school day. To add 3800 vehicles each day would make matters considerably worse. This is a significant adverse situation. '11.IThe stop sign at Lost Canyon and Sand Canyon Road has been knocked down about 5-6 times no far this year. This is a dangerous intersection. 13 I who will pay for the signal at Lost Canyon that will be required? -11 CIS The.EIR does not evaluate the increased risk associated with the sports bar and the servicing of alcohol in a rural community. This bar is proposed to be open into the late evenings. Customers will be drinking then driving on a dark, narrow and winding road through a residential neighborhood (from "A Street" to Lost Canyon Road). This just doesn't make sense. There is a highly used crosswalk for young students at Lost Canyon Road_ Drinking and driving through this crosswalk will create a significant risk. The intersection of Comet Way and Sand Canyon Road is already dangerous. Vehicles speed around the curve to the north of Comet Way (just south of the :railroad trellis) which allows only limited driver reaction time (this is a blind area where as low as four seconds is only allowed for the driver to make a left turn and reach a speed not to interfere with south -bound traffic). Added traffic and an additional distraction to the 14 Pesticides will also kill the insects. Also, what happens if the T �6 new limited "native vegetation" on the golf course doesn't work. lJ won't the use of pesticides that's destroying the bat population have the same effect on the shrike. this development have a local significant impact on the `61 IWon't rufous -Crowned sparrow? S IWon't the pesticides that kill the insects be eaten by the western spadefoot toad and the toad subsequently poisoned? ssJl what percentage of the golf course will be a riparian habitat. n L' M TPA" 1 FF1 The development will generate 3800 vehicles per day on Sand Canyon Road. This is significant for this narrow winding road, especially in the evening. The residents should be notified of J the level of traffic to occur because of this golf development: and bring forth their concerns. Presently, the residents have no (� idea that this level of traffic will occur. At the ~SCOPE" meeting, this level of traffic was not fully disclosed. The west approach at Sand Canyon and Lost Canyon Roads is already congested immediately before and after the school day. To add 3800 vehicles each day would make matters considerably worse. This is a significant adverse situation. '11.IThe stop sign at Lost Canyon and Sand Canyon Road has been knocked down about 5-6 times no far this year. This is a dangerous intersection. 13 I who will pay for the signal at Lost Canyon that will be required? -11 CIS The.EIR does not evaluate the increased risk associated with the sports bar and the servicing of alcohol in a rural community. This bar is proposed to be open into the late evenings. Customers will be drinking then driving on a dark, narrow and winding road through a residential neighborhood (from "A Street" to Lost Canyon Road). This just doesn't make sense. There is a highly used crosswalk for young students at Lost Canyon Road_ Drinking and driving through this crosswalk will create a significant risk. The intersection of Comet Way and Sand Canyon Road is already dangerous. Vehicles speed around the curve to the north of Comet Way (just south of the :railroad trellis) which allows only limited driver reaction time (this is a blind area where as low as four seconds is only allowed for the driver to make a left turn and reach a speed not to interfere with south -bound traffic). Added traffic and an additional distraction to the 14 u Nov -13-95 12:15P Continental Lawyers Title 818 304 9375 P.16 I Pi south will increase accidents in this area. At night, the curve cis causes the lights to be aimed at the driver exiting Comet Way.. This affects the driver's vision and reaction time. U L L!. U What percentage traffic increase will occur between Live Oak Springs and Lost Canyon? It appears that the percentage could be 75-1008. This means almost a doubling of traffic in this area. This is a very dangerous area because of the curves, drainage ditches, railroad trellis, churches, streets and driveways. There is also no street lights in this area. This area really needs to be examined, especially considering that alcohol will be served in the restaurant and bar. Do additional street lights have to be added on Sand Canyon Road, from the golf development area to Lost Canyon Road, to make this part of the street safer? This is a dangerous area at night with opposing headlights affecting the on -coming driver. r(< IA Street" doesn't look safe with the fairways so close. Appears the street is to narrow to handle all the delivery trucks for the restaurant and bar. lJ L we can't forget that lots of toxic chemicals will be delivered through "A Street". The intersection at Sand Canyon Road and "A Street" needs to be designed with absolute safety in mind. The banquet facility will be used for parties, wedding receptions, etc., mainly on Saturdays and Sundays. Does the expected number of vehicles each day consider the size of these activities and the associated vehicles? Local businesses would like to use this facility as a quasi -convention center. Is this considered in the average daily traffic? what about the driving range that is proposed to be open until lo:oo p.m.? Is this considered in the calculations? The driving range is open past dark to allow the general public to use this range, not solely for the use of the person playing golf on the course. The banquet facility- will create peak levels of traffic on "A Street" onto Sand Canyon Road. This will create significant traffic hazards in this area and also with cars exiting on comet Way. Also, considering visibility is extremely poor in this area at night. If banquets end at nighttime, this will be extremely dangerous. Cwon't large parties using the banquet facility create a significant volume of traffic on the 14 freeway. wouldn't. this (oi- generate more than 50 vehicles per hour at the beginning and end of the activities? Won't this require a special CMP traffic impact study? fc3 IWhy would Sunday golf traffic be less than any other day? Usually, Sunday is the busiest days 15 Nov -13-95 12:16P Continental Lawyers Title 818 304 9375 (oq Development TT34466 was approved a few years ago which required a new freeway off ramp east of Sand Canyon Road, a bridge over the Santa Clara River and a railroad bridge. I don't understand how this development was changed from what was originally approved. Development TP30738 was suppose to use the same roads as TT34466. Who is going to pay for the bridge expansion and the improvements to the freeway ramps? What happens if these improvements aren't (05 made? when will these improvements be made? Should the golf course be allowed to be developed prior to these improvements? 10(, A traffic control plan should be developed and reviewed by the EIR. Sand Canyon Road is too narrow to enable such a golf tournament. Also, where would the remote parking areas be located? This is also.an equestrian area, in which, emergency veterinarian services are sometimes required. Now will these veterinarians be able to make emergency calls during these tournaments? Hay deliveries occur periodically via large truck and trailers from hundreds of miles away. Actual day of deliveries can not always be scheduled. Sometimes delays can occur up to one week, depending on the farmer, warehouse availability, weather, etc. How will these trucks be able to make these deliveries? THE MINE EIR is absolutely incorrect about the noise levels generated by !o the mining operation. We sometimes get irritated here on Graceton Drive and we are alot further away. Noise really carries in this area. Joh The comments about the mining operation are not accurate. The mining operation commences each morning around 6:30 a.m. The equipment can be heard from Graceton Drive, let alone where the proposed 'lots will be developed. Blasting creates a significant amount of noise_ Not to inform buyers of these lots that mining operations occur at 6:30 in the morning which includes periodic blasting is completely inadequate. Who wants to hear this type of noise at 6:30 in the morning or the blasting. This is a significant situation. lextremely Titanium is .mined in the area east of the proposed development. opt This information is not included on page 5.1-9. Titanium is an important mineral primarily used in aircraft. ALTERNATIVES 'to The developer has stated to the residents of Oak Springs Canyon that the alternatives proposed are not realistic and cannot be 16 P.17,1 F P H D U n N D iJ HNov -13-95 12:16P Continental Lawyers Title 818 304 9375 P.18 C Qconsidered. Why were these alternatives stated in the report (lo I then. Alternatives should be developed that would be acceptable to the developer. An alternative plan should be proposed that incorporates a golf course development, housing, equestrian park and multi -use trail system. The proposal should include a looped trail system around C 1�� the perimeter of the development in the oak Springs Canyon area. A trail should connect Sand Canyon Road with the national forest. An equestrian park should be developed on the eastern edge of the (� project next to the mining operation, this will buffer the noise tl generated from the mine. The 103 acres that can not be used for housing could support the majority of this park. l.� L LJ IJ P D D lJ �I n 17 u Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F - Response to Comments r� Commentor: Allen Penrose Date: November 13, 1995 Response: 1. The information regarding the health effects of Valley Fever contained in the EIR was obtained from the California Department of Health Services and the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services and is more accurate than anecdotal information provided by the commentor. As stated in the EIR text, old infections can become reactivated and the illness can be fatal for particularly susceptible individuals. While exposure to Valley Fever can be dangerous, it is also true that virtually all people who live in the Santa Clarita Valley have been exposed numerous times to this disease during Santa Ana wind conditions. The increase in the number of reported cases in Ventura County after the earthquake has been correlated with increased awareness of the disease by the public, who otherwise would not have sought medical attention for their relatively mild symptoms. After a 1994 high of 244, the number of incidences in Ventura County dropped to 24 in 1995, with most of the incidences related to working conditions. 2. The EIR does not state that the project would reduce pollution, rather it indicates that to the extent that golfers from the Santa Clarita Valley may reduce their vehicle miles traveled, the amount of projected emissions may be more than actually would occur- As stated in the EIR, the project would have a significant and unmitigable air quality impact. Comment regarding golf course prices is not relevant to the discussion of environmental impacts, nor is it necessarily accurate given that a fee structure for the proposed project has yet to be established. The proper application of pesticides minimizes the amount of drift that occurs and it is in the best interests of the golf course owner to minimize such occurrences, both from a cost of materials standpoint and from a liability standpoint. The use of pesticides at the course would be done by licensed individuals with special training in the handling of such chemicals. Implementation of the Golf Course. Management and Integrated Pest Management plans would also reduce the risk of local air pollution due to pesticide drift since these plans would establish specific procedures for the use of pesticides (such as use only when wind speeds are low enough to prevent drift, only when other means of control have become ineffective, etc.). The air pollution effects of pesticide use are considered less than significant when properly applied. See Section 5.2 regarding the significant effects of pesticides with regard to water quality. Methyl bromide is specified by the USGA as a fumigant prior to the planting of greens. Therefore, use at the site would be limited to a single application at each green prior to planting. Because of the project's association with the New York Audubon Signature Program, it is likely that even this use of methyl bromide will be precluded and will be replaced by sterilization of the planting soil prior to planting In addition, use of methyl bromide within the State of California is scheduled to end on March 30, 1996, at which time this pesticide will lose its registration because of the lack of mandatory health effects studies. Senate Bill 808, which would allow an extension of the time limits City of Santa Clarita F-39 I Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR QAppendix F - Response to Comments Gl for submittal of the reports, is currently stalled. This bill would also provide for the automatic termination of the time extension and require the Director of the Department of Food and Agriculture to cancel or suspend registration of methyl bromide if certain conditions relative to the studies are not met. Based on current actions at both the state and federal level, it is likely that the current use of this chemical will be eliminated. 4. Based on the EIR consultant's past experience in preparing CALINE4 models for parking lots, the LJ lots and access roadway are sufficiently far from existing residences such that less than significant �; concentrations of air pollutants would occur offsite. This is particularly true in the case of those I residences that are located at elevations lower than the parking lot since exhaust emissions are hot and the pollutants are carried upward into the atmosphere, away from lower lying areas. As an example, analysis of a shopping center parking lot under worst case meteorology in Los Angeles indicated that carbon monoxide met ambient air quality standards within less than 100 feet of the parking lot. P P P P n P Comment repeats findings of the EIR regarding the significance of the air quality impacts of the proposed project. As stated in the EIR, there are no effective mitigation measures possible that would reduce project operational emissions below the SCAQMD significance threshold, based on the number of trips anticipated to be generated by the project. Please note that if the applicant's estimate of traffic generation were used (see comment letter by Theodore Robinson in this appendix), the estimate of air emissions would be substantially lower and could fall below the SCAQMD significance thresholds. Reduction in construction emissions is related to the number of equipment in operation at any one time and not simply to the amount of grading to be done. If the amount of grading were reduced in half, construction emissions would still be significant since it is most cost effective to use a certain number of grading equipment for a given construction size. If the construction period was lengthened to about two years and only about four pieces of heavy equipment were in operation at one time, then construction emissions could be less than the daily and quarterly emission thresholds. It is likely that such a construction schedule is not practical from a physical construction viewpoint given the amount of material to be graded. An extension of the schedule would also prolong potential construction noise impacts and increase the chance for water pollution due to sediment erosion from the site during winter storms. 6. The EIR already states that grading "shall be suspended if wind gusts exceed 25 mph" See response to comment 5 above. 8:, Air pollution calculations for the golf course were based on standard vehicle type distributions provided in the MAAQI program and are contained in Appendix C. The applicant has prepared a separate trip generation based on the individual components of the project which total less than the trip generation estimate used in the EIR; the commentor is referred to that list (see Theodore Robinson letter contained in this appendix). Appendix C contains vehicle data distributions for heavy duty vehicles and passenger vehicles for the golf course and the residential component. City of Santa Clarita F-00 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F - Response to Comments Please see Section 7.0 for a discussion of alternatives that are below the air quality thresholds and also Appendix C for a graphical comparison of the alternatives. 9. While the proposed golf course may create nuisance noise levels, these levels are within the City's standards for residential land use as stated in the EIR. Noise measurements conducted by City staff at a driving range (Knollwood Country Club) indicated that the striking of golf balls was masked by ambient noise levels at a distance of 200 feet. The noise level at about 10 feet from the golfer was approximately 75 dBA when the ball was struck, and using a standard attenuation rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance, this sound level would decrease to 65 dBA within 35 feet and to 55 dBA at 100 feet. Since the nearest residence to the driving range hitting area is over 300 feet away,„ noise associated with the driving range would not be significant based on City standards for residential land use. 10. The service area for deliveries and trash pick-up is located on the south side of the clubhouse and is nearly fully enclosed. Because of the barrier attenuation effect of the enclosure and the clubhouse, very little noise from this source would be audible at off-site locations. Auto alarms going off are an infrequent event and while they are considered a nuisance, they would not create noise levels that exceed City standards. 11. Banquets do not always have loud music, and frequently have no music at all. The banquet facilities are located on the southeastern end of the clubhouse and any banquet -related noise would effect the residences proposed for the project and not any off-site residences. In any event, noise levels associated with the banquet facilities are expected to create a less than significant impact since they would not exceed City standards. 12. It is unknown if a public address system will be used for the starter office. Given the location of the starter area on the lower level of the clubhouse, sound levels from any public address system will be directed eastward across the golf course and not towards any existing residence. 13. Studies done on farm animals in the past (J. Bond, 1970, "Effects of Noise on the Physiology and Behavior of Farm -Raised Animals" in Physiological Effects of Noise, ed. by B.L. Welch and A.M.S. Welch, pg. 295-306) indicate that noise can sometimes have an effect on farm animals, particularly loud sudden noises. K.D. Kryter (1972, "Non -auditory Effects of Environmental Noise," American Journal of Public Health 62:389-398) noted that sudden, unexpected bursts of impulsive or steady-state noises would lead to startle reactions, but that with continued exposure, the animals will more or less completely adapt. When equipment first starts to operate at the site, the horses can be expected to act startled and be alarmed, similar to their behavior during existing off-road vehicle use of the site. As the equipment continues to operate over a period of days, the animals will calm down. Noise levels at the barns on Graceton will be similar to that associated with farm equipment that is currently used in the area and the horses are expected to have a similar reaction. City of Santa Ctari F-41 H1 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F - Response to Comments P14. None of the sounds created by the list given by the commentor are sufficiently loud to cause a significant noise effect. Many of these sounds are also typical of residential neighborhoods. The course has been designed to minimize the possibility of errant golf shots from landing on roofs off- (� site. 15. Comments repeat statements form the EIR and provide an opinion regarding the significance of l visual impacts from the adjacent landowners' perspective. No response is necessary, your comments are included herein to notify decision -makers of your concerns regarding this issue. 1� 16. The survey suggested is beyond the scope of the EIR and would not produce conclusive results since the location and manner in which golf courses are designed varies greatly. For example, Vista Valencia, Knollwood, Woodland Hills, and Calabasas Country Clubs are all privately -owned courses that are surrounded by residences, whereas the municipal courses of Woodley, Balboa, Encino, and De Bell are located in major regional parks and their facilities are relatively distant from the nearest houses. If any trend is apparent, it is that the newer private courses are being developed L� similar to the project, with residential units closely associated with the golf course so that the open vistas afforded by the golf course can be provided as an aesthetic amenity to those homes. L17. Commentor offers an opinion regarding the concerns of residents north of the Antelope Freeway regarding aesthetics unsupported by the written comments submitted on the adequacy of the Draft EIR (see other letters contained in this appendix). The EIR does not state that the secondary Lj ridgeline has little value, rather it discusses the fact that most of the site that is to be altered is relatively visually isolated. The EIR also discusses that from the single viewing location that has a Lli significant public view as measured by the number of people who are present at this location (the 1 Antelope Valley Freeway), the secondary ridgeline is subordinate visually to the more dramatic backdrop of the higher San Gabriel Mountains. The effect is clearly illustrated in Plates 5.6-4A&B. ( With respect to Graceton Drive, Plates 5.6-2A&B illustrate the expected effect in this area since the t J picture was taken about 200 feet west of the Graceton Drive intersection with Oak Spring Canyon Road and the view is across the Graceton Drive properties. It is also noted that the majority of residents along Oak Spring Canyon Road would be unable to view the modifications made to the secondary ridgeline because of intervening ridges. 1 As stated in the EIR, visual aesthetics tend to be subjective and the commentor presents a different 1 subjective opinion regarding the visual impact of the project. These opinions are included herein to notify decision -makers of your concerns. ` 18. The EIR does not state that the secondary ridgeline is not significant, only that the alterations associated with the proposed golf course would not create a visually significant impact based on the criteria used in assessing the visual effects. The EIR determined that the project would cause a significant and unavoidable aesthetic impact due to its alteration of this secondary ridgeline (see Effect AES -1). QCity of Santa Ctarita F-42 n Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F - Response to Comments 19. The plates were developed using a software program that locates structures relative to their two dimensional location on the topographic map provided with the project site plan. Precise ground control was provided by photographing a survey stake of known height at a known location. The simulations are considered to be accurate. 20. Opinion noted; no response necessary. 21.. The commentor is in error regarding the Sand Canyon Special Standards District. Residential clustering is discouraged, but it is not prohibited (City of Santa Clarita Development Code § 17,16.090.B.2(h)). 22. Commentor agrees with the findings of Effect AES -1 in the EIR; no response is necessary. 23. Whether or not the project residential community is gated has no bearing on the environmental issues discussed in the EIR. The effect of such on the economic viability of the project is not a concern of the EIR. 224, The only additional traffic signage proposed is a stop sign at the westbound exit on "A" Street. A specific sign for the golf course has not been submitted, but a monument style sign is expected to be located at the "N' Street entryway and this sign would need to meet the City's Sign Ordinance and any other special restrictions that may apply. Such signage isnot expected to significantly affect, visual resources. 25. Comment does not raise an environmental issue regarding the adequacy of the EIR and no response is necessary. Your comments are included herein to notify decision -makers of your concerns regarding this issue. 26. Opinion noted. For the distant viewers across the freeway and for the motorists on the freeways, the proposed mound lighting scheme for the driving range would be indistinguishable from that which would be associated with residential uses. 27. The EIR specifically addresses the effects on water quality that may be caused by chemical use at the site in Section 5.2, Effect D-5. The drainage system for the golf course is designed so that most of the run-off of the course is directed towards onsite ponds, where any runoff storm water and irrigation water can be collected and re -used. These ponds would also serve to intercept chemicals that may wash off the site. 28. Toxic materials will be stored in the maintenance facility in compliance with the appropriate regulations for such storage. Pesticides will be kept in a locked storage cabinet containing waming signage in compliance with applicable state and local regulations. The maintenance facility will be designed to prevent spills from leaving the enclosed and covered area and the floor will be designed to be impermeable. City of Santa Clarita F-03 L1 LJ U n U n [1 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR (� Appendix F - Response to Comments P29. Opinion regarding the golf course design and the liability of the golf course owners is noted. 30. Comment repeats findings of the EIR text; no response is necessary. l 31. Comment noted. There are no absolutes possible given the high variability of any environment. Proper engineering of cut -slopes has been shown to reduce the risk of failure to acceptable levels. C32. The oak trees at this location will remain. While the watershed for these oaks will be decreased, the amount of applied water available in the root zone would potentially increase. It is expected that 1 these trees will be carefully maintained as part of the ongoing golf course maintenance_ a 33. Comment noted. The hydrology analysis prepared for the applicant indicated the extensive amount of flows in the canyon and the possibility for bulk transport of sediment. Best Management Practices are recommended in the EIR to prevent the transportation of sediment from the site as a result of grading. G34. Since the project has not yet been approved, a specific construction plan that would detail the location of fuel storage has not been prepared. 35. Subdrains will be required to be installed within any fill that overcovers a spring. The geologic investigation did not indicate that any adverse slopes existed at the area mentioned in the comment. A Grading will be monitored by a qualified registered geologist who will be responsible for detecting if adverse conditions could occur that may affect off-site properties and who would direct the (� appropriate remedial action. i J 36. The volume of water exiting the site at this location will decrease because of the change in the rj watershed, as discussed in Section 5.2. Because of the decrease in water volume, the increase in (J velocity is not expected to cause significant problems. I�37. The decrease in the height of the ridges proposed by the project would have a negligible effect on �) the noise barrier attenuation ability of these ridges. R38. Figure 5.2-2 contains the post -project flow rates for all significant drainages exiting the project site 1 1 The proposed project will generally result in a substantial decrease in peak flows that would Q otherwise be associated with the site. With regard to the existing retention ponds, the topography in this area would be substantially altered and flattened, which will reduce the velocity and volume of flows that leave the site. A portion of this drainage will be routed to a low spot in the course that will be drained via a twelve -inch diameter pipe; as flows exceed the capacity of the pipe, they will essentially form a retention pond within the low area. 39. The Cape Cod study is but one of several listed in the Balogh and Walker text that indicated that no pesticide contamination of groundwater was found. However, the text also lists several studies that showed the potential for contamination. The Cape Cod study is important because it shows both City of Santa Clarita n F-44 n Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F Response to Comments sides of the issue: the past use of persistent leachable materials (namely chlordane) can result in long term detrimental water quality impact, while the use of other chemicals without these characteristics may not create a similar problem. Based on this information, the EIR concluded that the project may have a significant impact on water quality if the project uses extensive amount of leachable, persistent chemicals (such as Bensulide, Dicamba, or Ethoprop - see Table 5.2-1). On the other hand, the positive results reported indicate that it is possible for a well-managed course to not create a significant effect, therefore this impact was not considered unavoidable. For these reasons, the EIR recommended that an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Plan be prepared for the project and that monitoring wells be installed to determine the adequacy of the management plan and as an early warning system regarding potential contamination, The recommendations contained in the "Toxic Fairways" report are the type of procedures that would be written into the operational manuals (i.e.: the IPM) for the course. For example, the use of Dicamba should probably not be permitted at this site because of its carcinogenic character and its tendency to leach into groundwater. 40. The misuse of pesticides is not limited to golf course operations alone, but occurs regularly at other commercial, recreational and residential land uses. As previously stated, the potential for environmental impact as a result of such is considered significant by the EIR. 41; The term "effluent" used in this comment typically refers to the outflow from wastewater facilities, which would not be a problem at this site given that all facilities would be sewered. The overuse of nitrate fertilizer can create the types of impacts included in this comment, though coral reef damage in many locales is primarily caused by increased sedimentation due to land use changes and the dumping of wastewater effluents into the ocean. Similarly, Lake Tahoe is turning color because of the large number of septic systems that have been developed on private lots on essentially granite bedrock - wastewater flows pass through these systems with little biodegradation of the wastes and ultimately all nutrients end up in the lake. Lake Sherwood is also an excellent example of this problem, and the development of the golf course at its western end was in part based on a decision by the Ventura County Board of Supervisors to allow development of the private golf course with surrounding residential homes as a trade-off to the bringing of sewer service by the developer into the area. 42. Comment agrees with the findings of the EIR text that the project has the potential to pollute groundwater resources. No response is necessary. 43. The development of an IPM is dependent in part on final design details that would not be available until the project is approved and proceeds further with its planning. There is also no purpose in preparing a detailed and precise operating manual for a specific golf course if the basic question of whether or not the golf course is an acceptable land use for the project site has not been decided. It is not necessary for the IPM to be reviewed in the context of an EIR since the City retains ultimate authority over the granting of the conditional use permit. If the IPM does not meet the mitigation measure requirements of reducing the risk of contamination to an acceptable level to the satisfaction of the City, the CUP will not be granted until the IPM is revised to meet City criteria. It City of Santa C/arita F-45 U Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F - Response to Comments Cl is anticipated that as part of the monitoring program to be adopted if the project is approved that the City would retain specific experts in Integrated Pest Management to review the applicant - submitted IPM. C C P P 1 J U I D P 11 11 44. The EIR has not placed any particular weight on the New York Audubon Program other than to note that they can serve as a third party monitoring agency. From the perspective of designing with the environment in mind, the New York Audubon would also serve as a resource of appropriate techniques that are more conducive to maintenance of environmental values. 45 The Santa Clarita Water Company, which would provide water to the site, has three wells that are about 0.5 miles apart within the Santa Clara River downstream of the site. The primary wells are only 120 feet deep and obtain water from the subsurface flow of the river (upper alluvial aquifer). Since the primary source of water for the Santa Clarita Water Company is Santa Clara River water underflow, the vast bulk of which comes from upstream sources that the Oak Spring Canyon groundwater wells are not tributary to, any increased pumpage at these wells are unlikely to significantly affect the water supply for Oak Spring Canyon wells. As stated in the comment, wells in the Oak Spring Canyon area have been reported to dry up during drought periods, a result that is probably caused by the relatively small watershed area that Oak Spring Canyon is tributary to and the shallowness of the wells. The Santa Clarita Water Company also has wells that are 1700 feet deep that penetrate the Saugus Formation aquifer, but they prefer not to use those wells for quality and costs reasons. The Saugus Formation wells are capable of withdrawing 6,000 acre-feet per year from a groundwater storage supply estimated at 1.0 million acre-feet. The Company has had its shallow wells at the mouth of Sand Canyon go dry in the past during the recent drought, requiring the use of their deep wells and reliance on State water. The estimated safe yield of the Santa Clara River alluvial aquifer is 32,000 acre-feet per year, with the Santa Clarita Water Company currently entitled to 12,000 acre-feet. The Company also has an entitlement to 20,000 acre-feet per year from the State Water Project, which can provide approximately 50°!0 of all future water supplies. The Company's total available supply is 38,000 acre-feet per year, of which it is currently using 18,000-19,000 ace -feet per year. This information has been added to Section 5.2 of the EIR. As stated in the Project Description, the golf course is currently proposed to not be using underlying groundwater at the site. Therefore, there would be no possibility of overdraft or negative impacts on downgradient uses. In fact„ given the expected percolation of applied irrigation water (generally termed "return water"), the project would increase the amount of local groundwater in the alluvium of Oak Spring and Sand Canyons. 46. Reclaimed water will be considered for use at the site should it become available. This would require the construction of a reclaimed water main line from the water treatment facilities several miles downstream the Santa Clara River. Because the project is currently not proposed to use reclaimed water and its availability is somewhat speculative, it is not an issue for consideration in this EIR. If the applicant proposes to use reclaimed water in the future, such use will require its own separate environmental documentation. F-46 City of Santa Clarita Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F - Response to Comments 4T Storm flows will be partially intercepted by the golf course lakes and the commentor does not provide an environmental reason why they should not. The project will serve to stabilize the soils of the project site, thereby decreasing the silt load currently generated at the site. However, capital storms are likely to transport large amounts of sediment from upstream sources and this would be deposited on the golf course and in any lakes within the golf course drainage. This is a golf course maintenance problem and not a significant environmental effect. 48. The project will be required to use Best Management Practices both during construction and operation of the golf course.. Typical methods employed include the use of temporary retention basins, matting, soil stabilizers, and rapid revegetation of disturbed areas. A certain amount of erosion and sediment and debris deposition is likely to continue to occur at this specific residence given that the slope behind the house will remain in its natural condition, though the top of the ridge will be substantially reduced in height. The net result at this residence would be a general decrease in current erosion, flooding, and sedimentation effects on an average basis. 49. During a typical rainfall event, the quantity of water exiting the site would be reduced because the project would provide a greater surface area suitable for percolation than now exists at the site and the turf grass and other landscaping would slow down the water, providing it additional time to percolate. During the capital event, the quantity of water exiting the site will remain unchanged since the soils are assumed to be fully saturated during this peak event. As stated in the EIR, the HEC -2 hydrologic analysis indicates that the velocity of peak flows in Oak Spring Canyon would be substantially decreased. Calculated debris production from the site as it currently exists is based on the steepness of the slopes and assuming a burned watershed denuded of vegetation. Under the proposed project, the average slope would be substantially decreased and the watershed within the site would not be assumed to be burned since the turf grass would be maintained. 50. The addition of impermeable surfaces at the site is more than compensated for by the decrease in slope and provision of a better percolating surface within the golf course turf areas. While the total surface area of a site may be greater before grading, the steep slopes and shallow soils are not as conducive to the infiltration of rainfall as the more shallow slopes and deeper soils of the golf course after development. 51. Groundwater monitoring wells are the standard method for the detection of groundwater contamination. The commentor is in error in stating that plumes are irreversible, hundreds of ongoing remediation projects within the state of California attest to the current technological ability to clean-up far more toxic sites than the project has the potential to create. While remediation is a relatively costly process, it is nonetheless possible. Since remediation is costly and the golf course owner is responsible for such remediation, the prevention of pollution through the appropriate selection of both control methods and types of chemicals used at the site becomes more cost- effective and serves the owner's self interest. In the event of an owner going bankrupt, government funds are available to clean-up toxic sites; these funds are financed through taxes on the manufacturers of toxic chemicals. City of Santa Clarita F47 L C J Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F - Response to Comments 52. Storm water from Oak Spring Canyon already has an erosion effect on adjacent properties. As discussed in the EIR, the project would reduce the erosional velocities associated with storm flows from Oak Spring Canyon, but would not eliminate them. 53. Maintenance of Oak Spring Canyon Road as an access route to the properties east of the site has been addressed by mitigation measure D-4. 54. The erosional capability of Oak Spring Canyon Creek and the depth of flows exiting the project site were readily apparent to the EIR preparer during field visits at the site because of the numerous rills and depth of those rills. It is presumed that such is also obvious to the golf course designer and the applicant's hydrologist who wilt be designing the drainage system. As noted in the EIR, the proposed gold course would serve to substantially decrease flow velocities through the project site. This in itself would reduce damage that might otherwise occur to the relocated access way along the northern property line. The possible need for an improved crossing (concrete ford) would be determined by the City's Engineering Department at the time that final design plans for the site are available. 55. The EIR does consider the effect of headlamps, which is why mitigation measure AES -4(c) recommends berms around the parking lot perimeter. 56. Commentor has misquoted the EIR. Light and glare from the site is considered a significant impact F' (Effect AES -4) and requires mitigation. With mitigation, this effect can be reduced to aless than significant level. LJ n Lam' D n P 57. See responses to comments 55 and 56 above. The applicant is proposing to only use splash lighting in the driving range and that is what is considered in the EIR. Range users would not be able to follow the flight of their ball, rather they would only be able to see where the ball lands. If standard pole lighting were to be proposed at the site at some future date, this would constitute a new project and require its own environmental documentation, 58. Mitigation measure AES -4(a) has been modified to allow back lighting also for signage and the clubhouse entryway. Other lighting proposed by the applicant included the use of pole lighting in the parking lot. 59. This mitigation measure refers to the actual light bulb surface and not to the light itself. 60. Page 3-6 contains a description of what the applicant proposes for the parking lot while mitigation measure AES -4(d) would modify that proposal to the four -foot high bollards. There is no further discussion regarding lighting in the EIR beyond page 5.6-27 except in the discussion of alternatives. � 61. The conceptual grading plans for the site do not indicate a tiered concept for the parking lot. If l J such were proposed, the parking lot would need to provide either dense vegetation or a low wall at the end of each stall to prevent light spillage. City of Santa Clarita F48 I Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F - Response to Comments 62. The proposed golf course is considered to be a compatible use with the adjacent equestrian -oriented residential lots. The distance between the nearest corral and the restaurant (more than 700 feet) should be sufficient to minimize the problems that may be caused by flies and bees associated with the horse barns and corrals. Complaints by the golf course would not result in any effect on the adjacent properties unless those properties are out of compliance with zoning or other City ordinances. 63. Comments do not pertain to the adequacy of the EIR and no response is required. It is noted that the price of the fees at this course have yet to be set, and the price quoted is substantially greater (more than 3 times) than that which is typical for courses in the region. The project is proposed to provide trail linkages to the National Forest around the east and north perimeter of the property. 64. The steep slopes at the site area major contributor to the sediment load in Oak Spring Canyon and other drainages that this commentor previously alluded to (see comments #47, #48, and #54). The project would serve to decrease this current sediment load. 65. The American Disabilities Act is a design requirement for the site and has no bearing on the evaluation of environmental impacts. 66. Revegetation of the habitat types proposed for the project site has been successful in the past at other locations, however, it is not an easy task and requires careful planning and implementation. A 100% achievable result is unrealistic for virtually all pursuits and would be for the revegetation effort. Sage scrub vegetation efforts often fail because of the use of plants in the wrong micro - habitat, or the use of nursery -grown plants that have become root -bound within the pots. Scrub revegetation is more successful if done from seed in a properly prepared seed bed. If container plants are to be used, they should be contract grown from a native plant nursery with specific experience in native shrub revegetation efforts. 67. The environmental effects on biological resources are significant and unavoidable whether or not a successful perennial grassland is developed within the fairway roughs. It is noted that these roughs will be periodically mowed and are to provide a hitting surface for the golf course, unlike typical restoration/revegetation efforts for grassland habitats. This is a unique circumstance and the project would provide a test study case (as suggested in the comment) for the implementation of such a revegetation effort at other future and possibly existing golf courses. 68. The water use factors for the native grasses would be the same as for naturalized, drought tolerant grasses that would replace them. 69, While the golf course would have a micro -climatological effect within the property boundary, it is unlikely to substantially alter the climate of adjacent areas into a "hot -humid" one. Such a large scale change is related to extensive suburban development, such as has occurred in the San Fernando Valley. The number of insects in the area are not now limited by access to water given the multitude of open water resources available to them in horse troughs, ponds, irrigation run-off City of Santa Clarita F-09 P E �J F E 11 E I P) Ll Id n l -1 1 LJ Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR r` Appendix F - Response to Comments 1J and other sources throughout the area. Therefore, the project would not serve to increase nuisance J insect species. Instead, control efforts by the golf course operator may result in a decrease in flying insects. 70. Comment repeats the findings of the EIR concerning impacts to oak tree resources. Oak trees and habitat have survived in the San Fernando Valley in spite of the lack of plans to suitably manage this FJresource as are proposed for the project site. A newly planted acorn would require about 5 years `— until it is more or less a young tree and 30-40,years before an oak attains a significant stature. U 71. Native freshwater elements formerly existed in much greater quantity along the Santa Clara River lJ before it was subjected to flood control measures and can still be found at the Placenta Canyon a State Park and a limited example can be found along the retention ponds present on the site. Typical plantings may include cattail, rushes, willows, mugwort, and mulefat, f� 72. Vegetation is currently not removed within 300 feet of residential uses adjacent to the site., Since JC J the golf course areas will be irrigated, they will meet fire code requirements. 73., The proper method for removing a snake is to pick it up with a snake stick, place it into a cloth bag (� (a pillowcase works well), and move it to an isolated area, such as the National Forest. Smaller animals would be handled in the same way as snakes. The mitigation measure (B -3(a)) was written f with the intent of preventing construction workers from unnecessarily killing wildlife when they � J encounter it, and not to require that construction workers seek out and remove all wildlife from the site. As stated in the EIR, the majority (estimate of about 90%) of small wildlife with limited (� mobility, such as horned lizards, at the project site will be killed during construction. �j 74, During construction, it can be anticipated that additional rattlesnakes will attempt to move from the r�I site into the adjoining properties. This is not expected to result in a substantial increase in the risk t-1 already associated with the presence of rattlesnakes on the adjoining properties. Because of the substantial change in habitat associated with the project, the long term carrying capacity for a rattlesnakes in the area will be reduced and the population of rattlesnakes in the area can be expected to decrease. I ! 75: Continuing maintenance actions will be taken by the golf course manager to reduce and eliminate any population of clawed frogs that attempts to become established in the golf course lakes. It is likely that the lakes will need to be stocked with a frog predator, such as bass, to help control the population. 76. Implementation of a well-designed IPM will reduce the potential negative impacts associated with chemical use on the site's resident wildlife populations, Specifically, non -chemical means of control of pest species will be implemented first before chemicals are used. Since the lakes will contain irrigation water derived from potable water which is chlorinated, there will be some chlorine residue within the lakes. Further addition of chlorine to these lakes is not envisioned. The project would have no effect on the unarmored threespine stickleback. For further information regarding this City of Santa Clarita F-50 n Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F - Response to Comments species, please see response to comment #6 by the Angeles National Forest contained in this appendix. 77. No specific type of fencing has been proposed for the perimeter of the golf course at this time. It has been indicated that split rail fencing will be used on the north and east sides of the golf course, a design which would readily, allow wildlife egress through the site. No requirements have been set for fencing type. 78. Two parallel split rail fences would have the same negligible effect on the movement of wildlife. The loss of food for wildlife as a result of the alterations in habitat created by the project is one of the reasons why the project is considered to have a significant and unavoidable impact to biological resources. 79. It is possible that all 28 sensitive species, if they are currently present at the site, may return to use the proposed site on at least a temporary basis. 80. As stated in the EIR, 84% of the site will be graded which will affect that proportion of natural habitats. 81. The EIR consultant contacted both Dr. Henrickson and Frank Hovore during the preparation of the EIR with regard to the sensitive plants in this area. The EIR consultant decided that Dr. Henrickson's approach was more valid given the extensive amount of habitat available for Peirson's morning-glory in the adjacent National Forest. 82. Since the actual number of these plants is unknown, it is impossible to establish a percentage factor With regard to rare plants, what is important is the establishment and maintenance of a viable population and not simply the absolute number of plants. The percentage of plants is proportional to habitat acreage loss and retained, which is provided in Table 5,4-2 of the EIR. 83. Since the actual population level of homed lizards at the site is not known, the number that can be captured and the percentage destroyed is impossible to calculate. It is estimated that a capture program may find 20-50% of the population, with the remainder destroyed. 84. The reasons for the differences in impacts for these species were given in the EIR text on pages 5.4- 16 - 5.4-18. Opinion regarding the suitability of the lakes to expand population levels is noted. 85. Depending on the suitability of restored habitats, garter snake and kingsnake populations may recover and potentially be larger than current within 2-3 years after completion of the golf course. 86. Small insects and other food sources will still be available to the loggerhead shrike after completion of the golf course. The EIR consultant has seen these small birds at several different golf courses in the region and their existence at these locations despite the fact that IPM plans are not instituted at these courses indicates that they are capable of surviving. The shrike obtains its food from several City of Santa Cfarita F-51 H lJ ((l C U r rr, 1J. P 0 P n P Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F - Response to Comments sources and not just from insects as bats do, and they have a greater amount of suitable habitat for nesting than bats do. 87. As stated on pg. 5.4-19 of the EIR, the project will have a significant and unavoidable impact on rufous -crowned sparrow populations. 88. The use of pesticides at the site will be limited and intended to resolve specific problem situations. Unlike historical golf course practices, the golf course operator will not be arbitrarily spraying strong chemicals throughout the project site. The provision of habitat and maintenance of that habitat will be key to the development of spadefoot toad populations at the site. With respect to spadefoot toad populations, the clawed frog is a greater threat than the proposed limited use of pesticides. 89. About 17% of the site would be in riparian type habitats, including alluvial fan sage scrub with and without oak trees and golf course lakes. This information was available by calculation from Table 5.4-2 of the EIR. 90. The traffic generation and associated traffic impacts of the project are available to the community through the CEQA EIR public review and final EIR process. 91. The existing congestion caused by school traffic at this intersection has been studied in the EIR Traffic Study. The intersection operates at Level of Service A, except during the morning and the afternoon peak school arrival/departure periods. The project contribution of traffic during these peak periods is not significant, and does not contribute significantly to the side street delay. 92. The comment is referring to the stop sign on the westbound approach of Lost Canyon. This stop sign is located in a painted (un -raised) median area, between two travel lanes, which makes it more susceptible to being hit by vehicles. City records indicate that the stop sign was knocked down 6 times in 1995, but that a recent improvement has reduced this frequency. 93. The analysis indicates that a signal is not warranted at this location under existing conditions, in spite of the delays experienced by vehicles exiting Lost Canyon Road during the peak school periods. A signal is warranted under future traffic conditions, in which case, the proposed project should be required to install the signal with a reimbursement mechanism developed so that future additional traffic would pay their fair share costs of the signal. 94. Enforcement of drinking and driving laws is the responsibility of the local law enforcement agencies. The traffic analysis identifies traffic impacts on system capacity and operations, 95. The source of the 4 -second estimate for southbound traffic sight distance is unknown. The project's contribution of traffic to peak hour conditions on Sand Canyon Road is not projected to significantly increase vehicle delay at area cross streets, or to impact the sight distance at this intersection. City of Santa Clar/ta F-52 LJ Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F - Response to Comments f I Li f� 96. The existing daily traffic on Sand Canyon Road is 6,800 to 9,100 ADT north of the project access. t. At build -out of the entire project, the proposed development will contribute 3,420 trips on a daily basis to this segment of Sand Canyon, representing a 39 to 50% increase. The traffic study has shown that, with the addition of approved and project traffic, Sand Canyon Road will approach l Level of Service "E" volumes. Improvement of this portion of the roadway are ultimately planned, and future developments will be required to pay into applicable fee programs, or to pay fair share contributions to these improvements. 97. The applicant will be required to provide a street light at the project's entrance. The City currently has no other plans to add street lighting along Sand Canyon Road and such is prohibited by the Sand Canyon Special Standards District §17.16.090.13.2.d. 98. The access road (actually "G" Street) to the project is 28 feet wide, with 4 -foot rolled berms on both sides, as described in Section 3.7.4 of the EIR. This exceeds minimum public street width n requirements, and is more than adequate to accommodate delivery trucks. There is sufficient lJ distance between the fairways and the road to allow for safe egress. 99. The golf course's need for toxic chemicals, such as pesticides, is expected to be less than that typical 0 of a golf course of its size because of the implementation of the IPM: Hazardous materials will be transported according to applicable regulations and would not be expected to involve an undue risk. (� Design of the project entrance will comply with all applicable design standards, and will be subject �J to approval of the City Engineer. 100. The trip generation rate from the ITE Trip Generation Manual is based on the overall golf course acreage, and assumes the likelihood that the development will include facilities such as a driving range, clubhouse, pro shop, restaurant, lounge, and banquet facilities. The trip generation rate used it in the EIR was based on an average of the lower rate created by standard municipal and private golf 1 courses that lack amenities and the higher values for traffic volumes associated with large acreage golf courses. This additional trip generation added to the ITE average rate accounts for those facilities within the development that could be considered to be destination uses. Information from LJ L� the applicant (see Theodore Robinson letter, Comment 42 in this appendix) support the use of lesser trip generation rates. 101.. Banquet traffic will typically occur outside peak commuter hours, with somewhat staggered arrival and departure patterns. Intersection lighting will enhance nighttime visibility at the project entrance. No significant safety hazards would be anticipated. r 102. The CMP requirement calls for CMP evaluation if the project adds 50 peak hour vehicles to a monitored intersection, or 150 peak hour vehicles to a mainline freeway segment. The trip generation rates for the project assumed on-site ancillary facilities, such as banquet facilities, and the n peak hour volumes added to the applicable roadway facilities do not meet the minimum threshold J criteria. City of Santa Clarita F-53 P U Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR �j Appendix F - Response to Comments C103. Trip generation rates published in the ITE Trip Generation Manual suggest that trip generation on weedend days is similar, but slightly less than on weekdays. However, the extra factor added to the C ITE Trip Generation rate for weekday traffic contributes to the greater disparity between the weekday and the weekend traffic projections. j104. The approved developments were conditioned to contribute to future roadway and bridge J improvements on a fair share basis. The proposed project will also be required to pay into applicable fee programs, and to contribute to applicable improvements on a fair -share basis. The actual fees paid or proportionate amounts required of this project may differ from previously approved projects because of differing levels of traffic and different traffic patterns. C105. Funds for bridge and freeway improvements will come from a variety of sources, including State and City funds, Bridge and Thoroughfare fees, fair -share contributions by new development, and others. The improvements to the Sand Canyon interchange are scheduled to begin mid-1996. No firm schedule has been set for the widening of the bridge over the river. The golf course contribution to Sand Canyon Road has not been shown to trigger the need for the widening prior to athe golf course development, 106. The project will likely be conditioned to provide traffic control plans for any tournament event. Such traffic control plan will require identification of adequate parking facilities, among other U things. If adequate parking is not able to be secured for an event, a permit will not be issued. (� Tournament traffic typically involves staggered arrival and departure patterns. Any congestion on Sand Canyon Road caused by a tournament would be a temporary and infrequent occurrence. Access to the area for emergency veterinarian or any other emergency services and hay deliveries is not expected to be blocked by tournament activity. 107. Individual perceptions of the intrusiveness of noise varies greatly, with millions of people residing l� within urban areas that are exposed to far greater noise levels than are present at Graceton Drive who do not share the same level of concern to noise. Noise criteria and standards have been set based on the average community response to increasing levels of noise. Please see the City of Santa Clarita Noise Element (1991) for further discussion of this issue. The EIR analysis is based on these criteria. 108, The noise calculations contained in the EIR include a scenario that assumes one nighttime hour of operation, namely the time period from 6:00 am to 7:00 am. The noise levels do not exceed the C City's noise criteria at the nearest residential pad for this scenario. If it is required under California state laws regarding the selling of property that the project applicant inform prospective residential buyers of this situation, then those buyers will be so informed. U 109. Ilmenite, from which titanium is extracted, is one of the heavy mineral ores mined at the adjacent mine site, in addition to the extraction of other minerals (apatite; zircon, and magnetite) and F-54 City of Santa Cfarita P Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F - Response to Comments substantial amounts of sand and gravel aggregate. The discussion in Effect ER -10 primarily concerned the aggregate resources within the site, since the aggregate is not a good source for the heavy minerals. This is one of the reasons why the mining operation has established permits for the operation of hard rock mines in three claim areas that are much farther from the project boundary than the current operations. 110. Alternatives were developed based on the requirements of CEQA and not on the potential preferences of the applicant. 111. The alternative proposed in this comment appears to be a modification of the alternative discussed in Section 7.6. Impacts of this alternative would be similar to that discussed in Section 7.6. Such an alternative is not expected to be any more acceptable to the applicant than those contained within the EIR. City of Santa Ciarita F-55 r ROBINSON GOLF DESIGN, INC. November 13, 1995 L� Mr. Glen Adamick Department of Community Development City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Suite 300 Santa Clarita, California 91355 j� Re: Oak Springs Golf Club, l J Response ERA 33971 SELvA ROAD, SurrE 135 DANA POINT, CALIFORNIA 92629 TELEPHONE(714)248-2492 FAz(714) 248-2496 Dear Glen, We have had the opportunity to review the draft EIR for Oak Springs and are writing to you as (� a result of concerns in selected areas of that report. Specifically, we would like to respond to some of the conclusions provided in Section 5.5 regarding traffic, Section 7 regarding design alternatives, and a few of the proposed mitigation measures. Traffic Referencing Table 5.5-2, the traffic counts estimated for the project total 3800, 880 relating to 87 residential units and 2920 relating to the golf facility. As to the residential component, we have no issue with the trip count other than to note there are 83 proposed residential dwellings rather than 87. At ten trips per house, the accurate count would be 830. This number would drop further if the number of lots is reduced to meet other requirements. The estimate of ten trips per household appears reasonable and stands up to a practical breakdown—Dad to work and back (2), Mom to school and the grocery store in the morning and back to school in the afternoon (4), the gardener or other service (2), and a UPS delivery truck (2). We would propose that final determination of the traffic impact for the residential component be calculated as ten trips per lot as set forth by the final tract map. On the golf courses, however, we're not sure we understand the logic relating the size of the project in acreage to traffic generation. A longer golf course requiring more acreage will actually service fewer rounds because the time necessary to play it is greater. Also, the Z number of rounds serviced by various clubs differs substantially depending upon demand and how the club is operated. Most public golf courses in the area are reporting rounds of 100,000-120,000 per year due to high demand. In contrast, the rounds at Oak Springs will be Z Mr. Glen Adamick November 13, 1995 Page -2 limited to 80,000 per course per year regardless of demand in order to maintain the quality of the operation. Clearly, traffic generation will differ as a result of operational practices. There is also a huge disparity in the size of clubhouse Facilities between various golf projects and their ability to service banquets and other related uses. Inmost well known destination type facilities, the size of the clubhouses are usually 30,000 square feet or greater for a single 18 hole facility. Rivera Country club is a good example. In contrast, the Oak Springs clubhouse will total about 14,000 in common area and will service two courses. Although we expect usage to be high, the practical result of the size constraint is that we cannot physically accommodate the usage levels reported by other destination type facilities. The use of data points for single large destination facilities and applying them by a doubling factor is not going to be accurate unless the actual sizes and capacities of the other facilities are comparable. Nor are estimates made on a per acre basis. As with the residential component, the real test as to the accuracy of these factors is whether the resulting estimate of 2920 trips per day relates to a practical breakdown of usage. As a comparison, the following breakdown assumes the actual capacity estimates of the facility in determining potential traffic: Golf Rounds Two courses ® 80,000 rounds/course equates to 160,000 rounds/year. At three cars per every four golfers, this usage results in 120,000 round trips or 240,000 trips per year. The resulting trips per day equals 658. Restaurant Assuming 450 people per day, half being golfers and everyone else arriving individually, the resulting trips per day equals 450. Driving Range Fifty stations at five buckets per station equally 250 golfers Half will arrive independently resulting in total daily trips of 250. Banquets At eight hundred people per week, half being tournament related, four hundred will arrive separately resulting in a weekly trip generation of 800 or 114 per day. Commercial Vehicles Thirty vehicles per day result in a daily trip generation of 60. Employees Including full and part time help, eighty employees will result in daily trips of 160. Adding the trips for each of the components listed results in an estimate of daily trips totaling 1692, less that 60% of the estimates forecasted by the EIR. As a result of this differential, we are concerned that the EIR uses estimating factors that set traffic estimates at levels unsubstantiated by the practical operating levels of the facility. The project will be unfairly penalized by applying these counts in determining the actual traffic impacts to the area. In an H P I P P lJ [1 P III P I I r I Mr. Glen Adamick November 13, 1995 Page -3 f effort to reflect a more accurate impact, we feel the EIR needs to adjust its comparative factors Iand then contrast the resulting estimates to a practical measure of actual usage. Altematives As possible revisions to the current design concept, the EIR proposes a west slope residential alternative under section 7.2 and an equestrian/residential/golf coarse alternative in section 7.6. Both of these alternatives are judged by thew report as feasible in meeting the objectives of the project and superior to the environmental effects of the plan as proposed. We have had the opportunity to review these alternatives from both a planning and economic viewpoint and would like to share the following observations: In section 7.2, the west slope/residential alternative places the residential aspects on the western facing slopes and locates the majority of the golf course facility within Oak Springs Canyon. In addition to potential issues raise by the EIR relating to this concept, we do not believe an effective design for the project is possible due to the following reasons: • This alternative assumes the primary access to the golf courses would occur from Oak Springs Canyon Road. As you know, Oak Springs is presently a dirt road which is not engineered to current standards. In 3 addition, it is private. It is extremely doubtful the fifty-three individual home owners would ever voluntarily approve such an impact to their rural life style. Even if the City was willing to condemn the right-of-way, access along two or three miles of winding road through a rural community would significantly degrade the economic potential of the project and the rural quality of the surrounding residential area. • Although located further away, the proposed location of the clubhouse would be fully visible and facing the existing residences on Oak Springs Canyon. Noise levels would be greater due to a lack of intervening land form. • The location of the parking lot would face the fourteen residences in the Angeles Crest Forest at the east property line with a resulting adverse impact to these residents. • The area designated for golf course concentrates the courses in the area with the highest habitat value and locates the residential in the area with S the lowest value. Oak tree impacts would rise with the concentration of playing area in the washes. We also anticipate the impact to other high value vegetation would increase, not decrease as the report suggests. • Routing of the golf courses in an economically practical fashion would be impossible—the holes traversing the secondary ridgeline would have to rise 130 feet. Although elevation changes of that magnitude are not unusual on golf courses, the distance available to accomplish this rise does not allow a Mr. Glen Adamick November 13, 1995 Page -4 viable routing of the project without massive grading and impact to the (o ridgeline. Grading requirements would be higher that the report suggests and predominately located in the areas of greatest visibility. 7 1J • The feasibility of building almost five miles of roadway and the grading issues relating to the location of that roadway up and down the secondary ridgeline and up and down the land form on the eastern border would pose significant visual and economic constraints to the development of the project. In section 7.6, the equestrian/residential/golf course alternative proposes the of an equestrian center at the southerly end of the golf course, a shifting of the clubhouse & driving range to the south, and a relocation of residential to the western entry along Sand Canyon. In addition to issues raised in the EIR, we do not believe an effective design is possible for the following reasons: • Primary access to the golf courses would be from Live Oak Springs. Essentially, access would occur over an additional two miles (+/-) of rural residential roads, an impact which would degrade both the economic viability of the project and the rural quality of the surrounding residential areas. • The routing issues raised in response to the previous alternative would also apply. In addition, they are compounded by an inability to locate two courses within the proposed envelope. As just one example, the area south of the Penrose residence is not wide enough to accommodate two fairways, thus making a traverse to the western area infeasible. Road crossings would also be required, thus compounding safety issues. In the process of producing an effective design for a golf course, many issues have to be taken into consideration: natural topography, visibility of the holes, vegetative constraints, distance between greens and following tees, routing in a loop pattern to manage traffic flow and maximize safety, and safety buffers. The reason the clubhouse and related facilities have been located in the center of the land area is to achieve the best overall solution given these concerns. As designed: • The mountain course remains on the western side of the property— topography issues are managed through distancing the traverse to higher ground. Traffic issues are managed by routing in a double loop system, thus maximizing safety. No roads are crossed at grade. Safety buffers are met throughout the course. The valley course remains in the lower wash area on the east side of the property—topography issues are minimized. As on the mountain course, routing has been accomplished in a double loop system. There are no road crossings and safety buffers are met throughout the course. u Mr. Glen Adamick November 13, 1995 l� Page -5 1 J Unfortunately, neither of the proposed alternatives offers an equally effective solution. In addition, both alternatives compound the impact to adjoining road systems and create the j� ( o potential of negatively impacting intervening residential. As such, we do not believe a quality LJ project can be built as proposed by either scenario. Even if construction is physically possible, the degradation of quality and increased infrastructural costs would be such that economic ('1 considerations would render the project unfeasible. Mitigation Measures We offer the following comments on a few of the proposed mitigation measures in an effort to insure we can meet all of the measures suggested: �j AQ -3c Title 24 requirements are the minimum goal in the design of the I clubhouse and we intend to do much better that that; however, we're not clear what a 20% savings below Title 24 entails. We would suggest this measure be stated as an objective rather than as a requirement. LJ P I I I LJ I 0 13-1(b) The revegetation of 50% of each lake maybe difficult as edging 12- requirements differ with every hole. We would suggest this measure be modified to reflect 50% of the lake edges in aggregate rather than each lake individually. B -1(c) It is unclear whether native bunch grasses can be found in either the quantity or quality to make revegetiation possible. It is our objective to plant the roughs using the most naturalized grasses possible while achieving the 13 other goals of the project, namely, drought tolerance and a decent hitting surface during winter dormancy. The purpose of hiring Dr. Charles Peacock was to assist us in this effort. We would suggest this measure be eliminated or modified to reflect adherence to recommendations made by the BMP and IPM plans for the project. /y I AES -4(a) We would like to add back lighting in addition to discreet up - lighting for signage and clubhouse entry. AES -4(d) Bollard lighting at four feet may workout just fine, however, higher fixtures of twelve or fourteen feet with shades directing the light down /S- might be more effective in preventing lighting spills. We would like the opportunity to consider this alternative if off site lighting concerns can be met. AES -4(e) The purpose of berming the parking lot is to prevent light from 16 spilling to the residential area to the north and northwest. As berming the interior areas of the project do not serve any purpose, we request this measure be modified to require berming only in the directions of concern. Mr. Glen Adamick November 13, 1995 Page -6 We appreciate the opportunity to respond to the EIR by Rincon and welcome any questions or comments if a clarification of our response is desired. Sincerely yours, ✓ Theodore G. Robinson Jr. H Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR (� Appendix F - Response to Comments Commentor: Theodore Robinson, Jr. Robinson Golf Design, Inc., (Project Designer) Date: November 13, 1995 Response: QI As noted in the EIR text in the footnote to Table 5.5-2, the number of residential units used in the traffic analysis was based on the initial number of units proposed for the site, which was changed by the applicant during the preparation of the EIR after the traffic report was completed. The trip J generation used is based on the ITE manual, which is the best available resource for determining trip generation. 2. Typically, trip generation estimates are based on industry averages, as published in the ITE Trip Generation Manual. The trip generation rate used in the EIR was based on an average of the lower rate created by standard municipal and private golf courses that lack amenities and the higher values for traffic volumes associated with large acreage golf courses. Use of the trip projections provided f in this comment would require actual traffic counts at comparable facilities as back-up l documentation to the assumptions made. �jj While the trip generation numbers provided by the applicant seem reasonable, the following J questions are raised:. What is the basis for assuming a) 450 people (customers) per day for the restaurant; 5 buckets (or customers) per day per driving range station, c) 800 people per week for the banquet facility? What is the mechanism by which the golf course would be limited to 80,000 C i rounds per course per year? Is this merely an operating policy, or would such a restriction be imposed on all future owners of the course? It would be very difficult and costly for the City to O monitor these restrictions, especially if the golf course changes hands several years in the future. J Due to the lack of documentation for the use of the trip generation factors used by the applicant, it is more conservative to use the higher trip generation rate based on ITE factors. Your opinions rj regarding the expected volume of traffic and its effect on the air pollutant emissions calculations are _J contained herein to notify decision -makers of this difference of opinion. It is also noted that the projections provided do not suggest any revisions to the peak hour traffic projections, upon which the majority of the traffic impact analysis and project mitigation is based. 3. As stated in the text, this alternative assumes a roadway from Sand Canyon Road similar to that proposed by the project, with a potential primary/secondary access route via Oak Spring Canyon Road. It is agreed that developing a primary access route for the golf course through the existing rural residential community would be difficult. However, there are still plans for residential development of the property located north of the site and a new Oak Spring Canyon Road that would connect with Lost Canyon Road could be provided through this future development. ri Otherwise, Oak Spring Canyon Road would be relegated to secondary emergency access only. t�1 City of Santa Clarita F-56 Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR. F - Response to Comments 4. While the clubhouse would be more visible to the existing residences, noise levels associated with the parking lot and clubhouse would be less due to the greater distance and the location of the parking lot within a small canyon, thereby creating some noise barrier effects. As stated in the EIR, the perceived land use conflicts associated with the parking lot and clubhouse would be moved from the residences located along the west side of the 160 acre parcel to those located on the east side of this parcel. The EIR agrees with this comment with respect to the construction of two golf courses within Oak Spring Canyon, which would create greater biological impacts (pg. 7-8 of the Draft EIR). However, as the EIR states, if only one golf course were built, a greater net habitat value would be preserved since it would not be necessary to located fairways in the highest value habitat located in the annexation parcel. 6. Comment regarding economic viability and design restrictions of routing the golf course as indicated have been added to the text. While grading requirements for this alternative may be greater than that estimated based on the conceptual design, it would still be less than the current proposed project, which would involve massive grading and impact to the ridgeline.. 7, The grading associated with this conceptual design is not greatly more than that proposed for the currently entitled residential estate developments, especially with regard to the provision of a roadway over the secondary ridgeline. It is believed that an economically feasible grading plan could be developed within the constraints of the conceptual alternative. The EIR preparer recognizes that the design aspects of the fairways and road adjacent to the secondary ridgeline would impose difficulties that may negate the value of providing fairways in this area, and that a feasible design may result in simply an access route over the secondary ridgeline with no other development. Such a design would question the need for an accessway over the ridgeline, which would result in a proposal for two different projects, one a residential community on the west slopes with access only via Sand Canyon Road, and the other a golf course in Oak Spring Canyon with access via Oak Spring Canyon Road or a new road. While Live Oak Springs Canyon Road is considered a "rural residential" road, this is primarily due to the provision of rolled curb and gutters rather than standard rectangular curbs. This roadway has at least a'36 -foot wide pavement on an approximate 60 foot right-of-way through an area that is best described as a mix of rural and large lot suburban homes. The roadway has the necessary capacity to handle the golf course traffic. The economic viability of the design which requires golf course traffic to go through the project residential area is unknown, but would be expected to reduce the selling price of the project residential lots. 9. This design alternative provides nearly the same acreage for the golf courses as the proposed project, with additional acreage gained by greater grading of the knoll located on the east side of the 160 acre parcel. Therefore, itis believed that two golf courses could fit within the conceptual design envelope. The two fairways that cross the area south of the Penrose residence under the proposed project are approximately 450 feet wide, while that proposed under this design alternative City of Santa Ctarita F-57 L Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR j� Appendix F - Response to Comments G is about 350 feet wide. An additional 50 feet of width could be provided under this design alternative and still maintain the integrity of the secondary ridgeline. A road crossing would be needed for this design, and while not desirable, this is not an infrequent occurrence for golf courses (� located within residential areas (for example, Knollwood Country Club in the San Fernando Valley U has several road crossings). 10. Comments regarding the design solutions provided by the proposed project as opposed to the design alternatives are noted for the decision -makers. n11. A 20% savings would entail the reduction of energy expenditures associated with space heating, lighting, and water heating as compared to a similar sized building and use based on per square -foot consumption factors available from the utilities. Meeting this requirement can be readily done Cthrough the use of passive solar design, increased insulation, solar water heating, reduced wattage light fixtures, and similar energy conserving techniques. If this measure were stated as an objective, (l it would no longer be considered an effective mitigation measure. lJ 12, The EIR text has been changed to reflect this comment. 13. A variety of California botanists and native plant nurseries are currently involved in efforts at native grassland restoration and revegetation throughout California and this is steadily increasing the �1 supply of plant material available. A recent meeting of the California Native Grass Association included a panel discussion by seed suppliers that indicated that the amount of native grass seed available has substantially exceeded demand. Past experience by botantists regarding grassland rrevegetation has indicated that type conversion (such as from chaparral to grassland) has been more L, successful than the planting of former grassland areas because of the general lack of grass seeds in the converted land. Given that the project involves a revegetation/landscaping design rather than a ^l more difficult restoration effort, sufficient plant material would be available to meet the needs of the J 75 acres to be revegetated at the site. The EIR preparer notes that due to the need for a hitting surface, such revegetation may not be appropriate for all portions of the rough. If this measure fwere eliminated or modified, the inclination of the golf course design would be to include more U naturalized grasses than natives due to the lower cost and greater experience with the non -natives - This would result in the measure becoming ineffectual. The measure includes an expiration clause that would allow conversion to a greater number of naturalized grasses if the revegetation effort fails. 14. EIR text has been changed to reflect this comment. � 15. It is doubtful that a higher light standard would be more effective at reducing light spillage than the l i low-level, pedestrian oriented lighting that is recommended in the mitigation measure. Lighting requirements are set for the ground level and because of the dispersion of light with distance, it would take a greater amount of wattage in a higher light fixture to meet the same lighting level provided by a lower fixture. Even if higher light standards would meet the concerns of adjacent C F-58 City of Santa Clarita Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F - Response to Comments n residences, it would create a greater amount of light on the skyline as viewed from other perspectives and create more nighttime glare than the lighting scheme recommended. 16. Berming of the interior areas does serve a purpose in that it reduces the casting of light on reflective F! surfaces, such as the lake to the south of the parking lot. Also, because of the layout of the parking LI lot, if the western perimeter is not bermed, then light from entering automobiles would spill across the golf course towards off-site residences to the north. The only area where berming is not needed P in the main parking lot is where the clubhouse would provide a light barrier and to the southeast where the light would illuminate the smaller parking lot. Perimeter berming is also required along the northeast and east sides of the smaller parking lot to prevent the illumination of the golf course J which would be observable as glare to distant receptors to the north. n lJ LI i' II G E �J 0 City of Santa Clarita F-59 L H L C L lJ C LJ I Planning Commission Hearing of October 3, 1995 Theikommissioners began discussing Item 3. Commissi er Chernngton said it was his understanding that the re/imbursement vision was a part oft 15 year Development Agreement and he did not see that e edded in the Resolution. Commissioner Mo o said he did not believe he included that in the otion. COmmissionerBrathwal said he did not feel that the reimbursem t agreementwas. part of the Agreement, although i was mentioned and discussed. Commissioner Cherrington s the 25 year option for require the developer to build out entire Va Princessa/1 an estimated 17 million doe with no reimburs would pay the entire 17 million. Co ssion16he developer offered to advance the money r tuci which would not be reimbursed as part o I included in the recommendation for 15 years. thevelopment Agreement would rc Mountain Roadway, which was ent. In other words, the developer ;ton said if he was not mistaken, the ion and allow up to 8 million dollars development. He thought this was Commissioner Modugno said it was his rec ectio\was as not part of it. The logic behind this was the fact that the developer inf ed thsion that roads would not come up front, the roads would be built as the evelopmelt.Chairperson Townsley asked istant City Amas Altmayer, if it would be appropriate do approve the ma er if indeed somew voted for. Mr. Altmayer said what was voted for was to h e staff prepare a reor the ommission's vote. If there ire things within the resol on that the Commissiagree 'th, then the Commission ;an change those items. ommissioner Bra Waite wanted to make an addition to Item Secti\1tem of the !solution. Hewedito include gray water. motion wa ade by Commissioner Brathwaite and seconded by Commigno,to )prove resolution with the addition of the expansion of the utilities twater Secti 2, item b. Said motion was carried by a vote of 5-0. i was made by Commissioner Modugno and seconded by Commissioner Do Item 3 of the Consent Calendar, Said motion was carried by a vote of 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4 MASTER CASE NO. 92-012 (PREZONE 92-001, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 51044, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-001, OAK TREE PERMIT 92-002 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SC 92041041) Glenn Adamick, Assistant Planner II, gave the staff report and a slide presentation.. He stated the applicant is proposing to develop a 411 acre site with two eighteen hole golf courses, and accessory structures such as a clubhouse, parking lot and maintenance facility. There would also be 83 single family residential 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 EIR. Mr. Vander Pluym stated at the close of the public review period, I 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 fust 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 n such groups as the Sand Canyon Homeowners Association; The Crystal Springs Homeowners LJ 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. LI G I1I LTJ P I 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 fust transaction in 35 years where they aze 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. 4 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 real estate. Carl Goldman, 15519 Saddleback Drive, Santa Clarita. He thought this project was a win -win- win situation. A win for Santa Clarita, a win for the residents in Sand Canyon and a win for Canyon Country. He did not see how anyone could be upset with this project. He endorses this project. Stan 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 biking. She is also concerned about traffic and the water tables. 5 H L 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. �l 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 L Commission so there would be a better understanding of the location of where these trails will be located in the final plan. i 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 u 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 F1 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 Townsley called a recess at 8:30 p.m. RECONVENE The meeting reconvened at 8:42 p.m. The meeting continued with those in opposition to the project. Steve ;Kroh, "14859 Canna Valley, Santa Clarita. Mr. Kroh stated he worked at golf courses when he was younger and he was concerned about the drainage of pesticides into the Santa Clara Riverbed and into his drinking water. He hoped this issue would be addressed by the Commission as well as the land use. Craig Feeder, 27873 Oak Springs Canyon Road, Santa Clarita. Mr. Feeder felt his quality of life would 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. operation would be in business on the day of the site visit, be on a Saturday. 7 She wanted to know if the mining Mr. Newton said no, because it would J n 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 L 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 (1 Commission its evaluation of the project at a later date. u 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 �J the wells in the area, the quality of the water, flooding and the driving range. He would like to have the driving range relocated. Lj 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 FI at the clubhouse. l f Diane Wilson, 26826 Sand Canyon Road, Santa Clarita. She is a member of the Trails r_ Committee and uses the trails for walking and horseback riding. She hoped the golf course lu would address keeping the rural lifestyle of the area. Ann Mills, 21117 Placerita Canyon Road, Santa Clarita. She was concerned about the golf 1J course being bought out and raising green fees. She wanted to know who was actually going to `J 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 (j 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 8 I the developer to retain the rural atmosphere. He also wanted to be sure that well water would not be used for the golf course. Linda Lambourne, 16325 Pineview, Santa Clarita. She said multi-purpose maintained trails have to be instituted with this project and irrevocably dedicated. She felt the trails should be. linked throughout the project and never eliminated for any reason. Lynne Plambeck, P. O. Box 1182, Santa Clarita. She was speaking as a representative of SCOPE. She said the organization did not have a position on the project at the moment. She expressed some of their concerns such as water, impact on wells, and pesticides that would drain into the Santa Clara River. Ms. Plambeck felt it was important to have dedicated access to the National Forest. She said they would also like to see avoidance of cutting down so many Heritage Oaks. 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 LTJ Uwas 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 L ' 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 tJ 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 r' Cherrington regarding the site visit. He said he was concerned with the driving range, that it �j 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 n also wanted staff to look into the water issues such as drainage, recycled water, and gray water. Commissioner Modugno felt the comments on the minim operation were very valid. He felt the project overall would be superb if some shifting around would be done and by addressing the aissues 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. �j Mr. Adamick said copies would be made and given to the Commission. Chairperson Townsley 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. (� 10 I Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR Appendix F - Response to Comments VERBAL COMMENTS Planning Commission Hearing of October 3, 1995 Commentor: Stan Fargeon, Applicant - Hunters Green Development Company Ted Robinson, Jr., Golf Course Applicant Ted Robinson, Sr., Golf Course Applicant Response: Applicants provided a discussion of the merits of the project. No response is necessary Commentor: Gary Johnson, President Santa Clarita Chamber of Commerce Connie Worden-Roberts, Valencia Industrial Association Ralph DeMaio Bob Kellar Carl Goldman Stan Sierad Renee Dannull Neill Anderson Laura Hauser Tom Rogers Frank Gibbs Response: Above individuals spoke generally in favor of the project. No response is necessary. A question was raised regarding the location of the equestrian trails it was discussed that nothing had been finalized, but the general area of access was indicated and that the trails would be multi-purpose for use by everything except motorized vehicles. Commentor: Steve Kroh Craig Feeder Russell Myers T. J. Glazier Doris Boydston Gary D. Hamilton Jane Fleck Jennifer Caldwell Ian Hill Response: The above individuals spoke generally in opposition to the project. Issues of concerns were addressed in the EIR. In particular, the issue of pesticides was discussed under Effect D-5. in the EIR. The potential for construction related sedimentation was discussed under Effect D-1 and noise was discussed in Section 5.7. The potential use of alcohol at the golf course is not an environmental issue to be addressed in the context of an EIR: City of Santa Clarita F-60 LJ Hunters Green Residential Development and Golf Course EIR rl Appendix F - Response to Comments LI Commentor. George Gruber John Newton (j Allen Penrose �J Response: The above individuals spoke generally in opposition to the project and also submitted (� specific written comments regarding the EIR, The responses to their comments are contained within this appendix along with their letters. a Commentor: Dennis Ostrom, Sand Canyon Home Owners Association Mark Hanson Richard Cunningham Lynne Plambeck, SCOPE ] I Iwl F-61 City of Santa Clarita Response: The above individuals spoke generally with regard to the project and also submitted specific written comments regarding the EIR. The responses to their comments are contained within this appendix along with their letters. Commentor: Susan Friedman Ann Mills Linda Lambourne Laurene West Response: The above individuals spoke generally with regard to the project and their concerns relative to various issues. Particular concerns were raised regarding the trail system and maintaining the rural quality of life, Beyond the design concept that a multi-purpose trail (f will be built generally along the east and northern perimeter of the site in Oak Spring u Canyon, a specific trail design for the site has not yet been submitted. Since the provision of a trail as required by the Sand Canyon Community Special Standards is proposed by the (� project, it is in compliance with this portion of the General Plan and no significant effect U (i.e.: non-compliance with an established environmental goal or policy) would occur. Commentor. Rosemarie White, San Fernando Valley Audubon Society Response: The EIR specifically stated on pg. 3-9 that the New York State Audubon Society is independent of the National Audubon Society. ] I Iwl F-61 City of Santa Clarita MIIKUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Tuesday November 21, 1995 7.00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita was called to order by Chairperson Townsley at 7:03 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, First Floor, Santa Clarita, California. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Brathwaite led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. ROLL CALL The secretary called the roll. Those present were Chairperson Townley and Commissioners Brathwaite, Cherrington, Doughman and-Modugnm Also present were Ken Pulskamp, Assistant City Manager, Rich Henderson, City Planner,•: Thomas Altmayer, Assistant City Attorney; Fred Follstad, Associate Planner; Michael Rubia ' Associate Planner, Glenn Adamick, Assistant Planner H; Kristine Kimbrough, Assistant Planner, II; Steve Stiles, Supervising Subdivision Engineer;. John Danielson, ;Parks Manager, and Lori Powell, secretary. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 1, APPROVAL OF:MW=S OF NOVEMBER 8, 1995 ITEM 2 ADOPTION OF RZ,SOLUTION NO. P95-23 DENYING MASTER CASE 95'-na. A motion was made by Commissioner Modugno and seconded by Commissioner Brathwaite to approve the Consent Calendar in its entirety. Said motion was carried by a vote of 5-0. CONTINUED HEARING ITEM 3 MASTER CASE NUMBER 95-091 (RESOLUTION P95-17) Chairperson Townsley recused herself on this item and Commissioner Brathwaite, as. Vice - Chairperson, continued with the hearing. Kristine Kimbrough, Assistant Planner II, gave the staff report and slide presentation. Ms. Kimbrough explained that the grading done in conjunction with the development of the single family residence left very little of the project site usable. As a result of this, the 1 Agenda Item_ � -% [ applicant is proposing to grade approximately 7,500 cubic yards at the rear of the property to increase the size of the back yard and to reduce the driveway slope. Ms. Kimbrough said staff and the Fire Department have concerns with the slope of the driveway because in one area the slope exceeds 20%which presents various safety issues. ill The applicant is proposing contour grading, 2 to 1 slopes and balancing on site. Ms. Kimbrough said there are two oak trees located at the northwest comer of the site. The grading would result in the encroachment into the protected zone of the trees. The applicant is proposing a five foot retaining wall so that the trees would not have to be removed. Ms. C Kimbrough stated that four oak trees would have to be removed to accommodate the grading. She said the monetary value of the trees proposed for removal was approximately $20,000.00. The applicant has stated that he cannot afford this amount and has inquired about alternate mitigation measures. The City's oak tree consultant has recommended a replacement program of live trees on the applicant's property to mitigate the removals. Vice -Chairperson Brathwaite opened the hearing at 7:10 p.m. for public testimony. The first speaker was the applicant, Charles Johnson, M520,.Cleardale Avenue, Santa Clarity Mr. Johnson said he and his family bought the home two years ago. He stated that the driveway is very steep and not safe. He will plant eight, 24" boxed trees to replace the �j ones that have to be cut down. Commissioner Cherrington had a few; questions for bin Johnson which Mr. Johnson answered. Mr. Johnson told Commissioner CherringWn there was no usable yard. The grading of the hillside would bring it down to. the patio level and give him approximately u 2,000 square feet of usable land in the back (� Donna Carpenter from William Rose and Associates, M31 Avenue Crocker, #110, Valencia, l� spoke next: She is the applicant's engineer for the project. She was at the meeting to answer any questions that the Commissioners might have regarding the project. LJ The hearing was closed at 7A5 P -ms Commissioner Brathwi to had questions for staff regarding the retaining wall around the `J trees and also the replacement trees. These questions were answered by Ms. Kimbrough. Commissioner Modugna made a motion to approve Master Case Number 95-091, (Resolution 95-14, Hillside Review.95-003, Oak Tree Permit 95-014). Said motion was seconded by Commissioner Dough man* and carried by a vote of 4-0, with Chairperson Townley abstaining. Chairperson Townley returned to the meeting. ITEM 4 MASTER CASE NO. 92.012 (PREZONE 92-001, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 51044, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92.001, OAK TREE PERMIT .92.002 AND ENVIRONMENTAL EVIPACT REPORT 92041041) 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 2 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. W. 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 Canypn Special Standards District and would comply with the standards with the exception of the clustering section. Mr. Adamick said the project would generate approximately 3,8(10 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 Elkincludes 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 Water Company; to serve the site. Recycling of water is not proposed. million gallons of water would be used per day. the Santa Clarita Approximately 2.3 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. 3 u L 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 F1that 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. CCommissioner Brathwaite had comments regarding the redaiured`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. W. Adamick said the applicant would l� 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 LJ and it was something that the applicant could do. Commissioner Modugno had a ques#on regarding the roads. Both Mr. Adamick and Mr. Henderson addressed thee issue. Mr. Henderson said Traffic staff has looked at road situation Chairperson Townley asked what the impact would be if there was a delay in the widening of the bridge over the 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 n 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. LJ q 4 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 Pcompany to review the financial viability of the project. Mr. Robinson addressed the issue of the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program. He stated F that the applicants wished to build this project in the most environmentally sensitive fashion t 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 1 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. l J The neat speaker was Bank Havore, 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 L be made as needed. n Neat was Dr. Bud Smart,. 106 Bruce Dr., Cary, North Carolina Dr. Smart is the senior L -J 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 L environmental management plan will be completed as soon as the final drawings are completed. Dr. Smart said a basic €ertilizer program will be established for the course. He also spoke about- the: pesticides that will be used. Dr. Smart stated the focus of the �J environmental management plan is on prevention, control and detection. Dr. Charles Peacock, 4912 files Road, Raleigh, North Carolina, was the neat speaker. He is the senior agronomicscientist with the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program. He is also a professor at North Carolina State University. He has been involved with turf a 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 a 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 u will strive to detect any environmental problems. The program would also evaluate the L.1 5 C U 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 CSouthern 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 C course. In the area of waste management they will adopt programs which restrict paper use to biodegradable products. L RECESS Chairperson Townley called a recess at 8:50 p.m. RECONVENE l� The meeting reconvened at 9:05 p.m. l Chairperson Townley said that because there were so many speakers for Item 4, Items 5, 6, 7 and 8 would becontinued to the neat Planning Commission meeting. A motion was made by Commissioner Brathwaita that items 5,-% 7,r and 8 be reagendized, n due to time constraints, to the neat regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Said It J motion was seconded by Commissioner Doughman. ' r, Before the vote was taken, Commissioner Modugno said there was a letter from the applicant ILJI 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. l J Commissioner Brathwaite amended his motion to reagendize items 5, 7 and 8 and accept the t J withdrawal of Item 6. The: amended motion was seconded by Commissioner Doughman and (� carried byavote of 5-0. U Public testimony, began at 9:09 p.m: John Newton, 165 High Street, Suite 103, Moorpark, CA 93021. Mr. Newton represents the L 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 neat 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 Townley 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. / 6 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 Clarity 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'B 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 ina 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 Clarity 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 raining operati6ivand she felt it would create problems. She also was concerned about the lack of a secondary access into Sand Canyon. Mr. Craig Feeder; 27873 flak 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 Clarity His main concern is the road. He said the developer told Mr. Gruber, who spoke earlier, that the road would be set to City standards. He said now staff is just recommending partial pavement and decomposed granite. - He felt with the tremendous amount of water that flows through the canyon, this would not be strong enough to hold up during the flooding. Ian Hill, 28316 Oak Spring Canyon Road, Santa 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. 7 7 ri 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 th2t 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. Boa 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 L 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 �1 abandoned wells on the property. If the wells are not properly capped, itis an immediate Ll 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 �j courses. lJ Diane Wilson, 26826 Sand Canyon, Santa Clarita. M& 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. C 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.fature and hopefully wM be able to initiate a dialogue with the hope of working out the issues relating to this. Mr. Robinson came back to answersome of the issues that were brought up. He wanted to Creiterate 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. ; Ll Mr. Robinson said to his knowledge, in the past 35 years, Ted Robinson, Sr., has developed approximately 1,65, golf courses and only 1 person has been hit by a golf ball. U He also addressed the issue of the driving range and the oak trees. Mr. Robinson stated this U 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 aof the smaller trees are mostly scrub oaks. Mr. Robinson said with the relocation of the Oak Spring Canyon Road, a vast majority of the (j road will be out of the flood plain. It will be a better road than what it is now. lJ Dr. Smart answered some of the concerns relating to pesticides. He said all the materials n that will be used are registered by the EPA All standards and regulations will be adhered l� 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. l_l 8 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 F, by the developers to work on the project for them. i 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 It acres of the southern portion of the property adjacent to the mining operation be eliminated.. Hewanted 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 1J J lot. Mr. Robinson said the driving range is well beyondexisting safety standards. He said although it has not been studied yet, it would be their intent to take a look at this matter. u 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 Towusley 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. W. Adamick ILJI said more detailed information will be given to the Commission at the nest 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. r1 Commissioner Doughman said he wauldlike to have more information regarding the driving �J range study from art` independent < source, and' information on water percolation and rj monitoring requirements; He also hada concern with reference to the off-site hydrology. He J 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 n 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 1 parcel so that it would not be offensive to some of the residents. He said some shifting needed to be done. LJ 9 9� O �7 O O Cl C Hunters Oran halal Development and Golf Course EIR Hunters Green Residential Dwelopmeat and Golf Course EIR Appendix F • Rasponss to Comment. Appendix F • Response Io comment. VERBAL COMMENTS driving range with trees to further reduce the likelihood of golf balls exiting the course.. It is noted that if such would happen, it is a liability issue that is an important Concern of the Planning Commission Hearing of November 21, 1995 golf course operators and so it is in their best interests to do all that is possible to reduce Item 4 their liability risk. Questions regarding economics are not an issue of concern in an EIR per Stare CEQA Guidelines § 15131 and no response is necessary. Commentor: Ted Robinson, Jr., speaking as the Applicant Frank Hovore, consultant to the Applicant Commentor: Allen Pectose Bud Smart, consultant to the Applicant Charles Peacock, consultant to the Applicant Response: Please refer to the detailed responses to this commentor's written letter contained in this appendix. Response: Applicant provided a discussion of the economic justification for the project and provided information regarding the New York State Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program Commentor. Jane Fleck. Mr. Hovore discussed the revegetation plan submitted with the golf course design. Drs. Smart and Peacock spoke with regard to the Golf Course Management and Integrated Response: Water issues were discussed and further clarified in the revised EIR in Section 52. It may Pest Management plans... No response is necessary. be possible to move some of the heritage oaks proposed for removal, but under the City's Oak Tree Ordinance, such oaks would still be considered destroyed. It is noted that given Commentor. John Newton, Consultant to the P. W. Gillibrand Company the steepness of the topography and the location of the larger oaks, it would be virtually impossible to design a golf course at this location without removing several heritage oaks. Response: Issues raised are further discussed in the detailed response to this commentor's written. The project is consistent with General Plan policies 6.1 and 6.2 to use open space (in this letter Contained in this appendix. It is noted that measurements of blasting operations use the golf course) as a buffer between mineral resource areas and sensitive uses and to Conducted by City staff while Mr. Newton was present indicated a peak sound level of 72 maintain such areas. The project has two means of access to Sand Canyon Road, via "A" dBA at the site's ustertl property line. The distance to the blast site was estimated by Street and via a future extension of Live Oak Springs Canyon Road. City staff at about 1000 feet and the noise level was substantially less than the 100 - 130 dBA claimed by W. Newton for that distance in this comment. Commentor. Craig Feeder Commemor. Tim Tindell Response: Proper application of pesticides would not result in airborne pesticide dust- It is noted that golf courses are maintained relatively densely vegetated and moist, which substantially Response: The project as proposed would not use local groundwater and would likely result in an reduces the amount of dust that might otherwise be entrained from the soil during high 'increase in the amount of local groundwater. See Effect D-6 in Section 5.2 added to the winds. The potential for grading to cause slippages is considered a significant impact in EBI Concerns regarding pollution of groundwater resources were addressed under Effect Section 5,1 of the EIR. Flooding issues are discussed in Section 5.2.. D-5. Commentor. Jay Hecht Communor. George Gruber Responsr.. -- Fire Department access requirements provide that if the road exceeds a 10% grade, that Response: Issues raised are further discussed in the detailed response to this commentor's written portion of the road would need to be paved. This paving requirement would not apply to letter contained in this appendix.. the portion of the road that is currently exposed to the erosional effects of the Oak Spring Canyon drainage. It is noted that the proposed project would serve to stabilize the soils of Commentor.. Tim Ben Boydston the bottornlands of Oak Spring Canyon within the site and to reduce the flow velocities of floodwaters through the introduction of maintained landscaping and turf. The need for an Response:. .The applicant indicated during his comments that the Course had been designed to avoid improved crossing (concrete ford) would be determined by the City's Engineering the likelihood of golf balls going off the course. Golfers on the driving range nearest to Department at the time that fired design plans for the site are available, the proposed residences would be hitting balls towards the northeast rather than to the northwest towards the residences. In addition, the applicant has proposed screening the City or sang clans Gay of sant. Cairns 2F-63 Hunters Orem Residential Development and Oon Cozens EIR Appendir F • Response to Commants Commenlor: In Hill Response:. Water issues were discussed and further clarified in the revised EIR in Section 5.2, Effect D-6. Commentor: Pat Saletore Response; It may be possible to move some of the heritage oaks proposed for removal, but under the City's Oak Tree Ordinance, such oaks would still be considered destroyed. It is noted that given the steepness of the topography and the location of the larger oaks, it would be virtually impossible to design a golf course at this location without removing several heritage oaks. Information regarding recycling program is not pertinent to the issues addressed in the EIR It is noted that if the project is to be in the New York State Audubon Society Signature Cooperative Sanctuary Progrank this program requires that the golf course develop an on-site recycling program, especially for green waste. Commentor.. Lynne Plamheck, SCOPE Response.' Please refer to the detailed responses to this commentor's written letter contained in this appendix Commentor: Diane Wilson Response: Opinion regarding conformance to the Sand Canyon Community Special Standards is noted. Please see staff report contained within the above minutes regarding project's compliance. Commemor: Jeff Seymour Response: Access to other properties is not an environmental issue of concern and no response is necessary. Commentor. Ted Robinson, Jr., speaking as the Applicant Response: Applicant and his consultants responded to several questions raised by the public. No response is necessary. Wry oraanb W.M. FSC