San Clemente golf-course master plan returned to subcommittee after resident safety and irrigation concerns

At a special meeting, the San Clemente golf committee reviewed a revised master plan for the municipal golf course and voted to send the plan back to the subcommittee for additional work after residents raised safety concerns and committee members stressed that irrigation and infrastructure must be prioritized.

The master-plan presentation by staff and consultant emphasized irrigation upgrades and infrastructure work as the largest budget items, along with greens and bunker renovations. Samantha (Recreation staff) told the committee, "The irrigation system is an absolute priority. We have to fix the infrastructure on the course for any level of sustainability, and irrigation is the priority." Josh, a consultant with Staples Golf Design, said the design team had kept the course's par‑72 configuration and tried to address safety and maintenance needs: "I think the main thing is to really look at this on the broader... goals that we had and whether or not these are being met."

Why it matters: Committee and public speakers said the course hosts a very high volume of play and that infrastructure and safety fixes affect both operations and neighbors. Samantha said the course logged 114,000 rounds last year. Residents who live along Magdalena, on or near holes 6, 8, 10, 13 and 14 described frequent impacts from errant golf balls, property damage and safety risks that, they said, have grown as player distance and technology have changed. Multiple residents urged the committee to change tee angles, move tee boxes or add vegetation and netting to reduce balls reaching homes.

Public comment focused on safety and neighborhood impacts. Andy Horner, a member of the men's club board, supported moving the driving range and No. 2 tees back about "50 yards" to create a larger practice and social area. Multiple residents described frequent strikes and property damage: one speaker said his household has collected in excess of 450 golf balls since moving to the street; another reported averaging "about 500" balls per year striking homes or landscaping at his address. Jared Palak said his 1‑year‑old was struck by a ball and required emergency care; several other commenters described broken windows and dents to vehicles.

Specific plan elements discussed by staff and the consultant included: prioritizing an irrigation-system overhaul; retaining par‑72; restoring Hole 13 but shifting its green to reduce risk to adjacent homes while preserving the protective net; adding a relief/alternate hole to improve maintenance flexibility; expanding practice facilities and reorienting the practice putting green next to the driving range; and reconfiguring some cart paths, tees and tree plantings to change sight lines and aim points on holes that currently send balls toward residences.

Residents raised additional concerns: a proposal for a two‑tier (double‑deck) driving-range practice facility drew objections from neighbors who said it would harm views and possibly reduce property values; others opposed large visible nets or tree plantings that would block ocean views. Some public commenters suggested alternative locations for practice facilities on underused city parcels behind the Little League field; staff said property limits constrain some changes but that tree plantings, tee‑angle adjustments and other smaller changes remain options.

Committee deliberations reflected a range of priorities. Several committee members supported angling tees and expanding greens only where they address safety or maintenance needs. Others cautioned against changing holes unnecessarily or adding an extra tee box on every hole. Committee members asked staff and the consultant for more detail on green expansions (whether additions would be new greens or extensions of existing surfaces), on planned maintenance equipment in the capital budget, and on net heights for a two‑tier range.

The committee then voted to send the draft plan back to the subcommittee for additional revisions and directed the subcommittee to work with the consultant on the items raised at the meeting. Committee member Paige's appointment to replace a departing subcommittee member was also approved. Staff said the subcommittee will reconvene quickly, the committee will likely hold another special meeting to review the updated plan, and the plan will return to the City Council for final approval once committee work is done. Staff asked residents who want updates to provide email addresses; staff said they mailed nearly 600 letters and also referenced having sent a large email distribution.

Ending: The committee did not adopt the draft plan at the meeting; it decided to seek more detailed options on safety measures, irrigation budgeting and specific design adjustments before referring a revised plan back to the full committee and then to City Council.