HomeMy WebLinkAboutEquestrian Use Study - May 1974 EGILJEST ljbu%n N1
STUDYa CLERICS
py
I tjNTlN=N BEACH PI ANNING DEPARTMENT
$ �
F
-A III IRRFFN V
Eli
VOW z
x.
i�
aE�
a
a
j
• CITY OF NU(1TIf aon BEANJ.j P.O. BOX 190, CALIFORNIA 92648
PLANNING DEPT. (714) 536-5271
To Interested Citizens:
Enclosed is a copy of the recently completed Equestrian Use Study
for the City of Huntington Beach. This report, which identifies
viable equestrian use alternatives, was presented to the City
Council at its June 3 study session. During that informal gather-
ing, the Council expressed preference for long-range alternatives
D and E and development of a trail in the Central Park area.
A special study committee was also authorized by the Council to
recommend an acceptable route for the park trail, a desirable
location for a City equestrian facility, and a long-range use
concept to direct future land use planning. Bill Williams (847-9167)
was appointed to serve as a representative of the equestrian
community on the Committee which also includes City Councilman
Duke, Planning Commissioner Bazil, and Recreation and Parks
Commissioner Mosteller.
Your comments and suggestions regarding this report and the future
of equestrian uses in the City should be directed to Mr. Williams,
the Committee members, or me at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
Monica Florian
Senior Planner
MF:mc
Enclosure
Equestrian Use
",NA Study
Iwntingtan beach plamig department
•
ABSTRACT
• It is the purpose of this study to identify viable equestrian use
alternatives in an effort to generate discussion and to facilitate
development of a comprehensive statement of City policy regarding
equestrian use. In this pursuit, it identifies particular assets
and liabilities of equestrian use, presents and evaluates five
alternative equestrian use concepts, discusses some factors
• involved in designing and developing a trails system, and presents
Planning Department recommendations.
Ranging from complete exclusion of all equestrian uses to large-
scale expansion of existing areas, the long-range equestrian use
concepts outlined by the study cover a variety of possible policy
• choices available to City decision makers:
Alternative A: Exclusion - Phase out existing equestrian uses,
provide no trails other than regional river path; enforce
restrictions against horses on public rights-of-way.
• Alternative B: Confinement - Confine equestrian uses to City-
owned stables at Central Park and suitable grails in park;
encourage development of river equestrian center to serve river
trail system.
Alternative C: Tolerance - Permit existing uses to continue;
• establish temporary trails; (assume that equestrian uses will
eventually be replaced by market demand) .
Alternative D: Consolidation - Designate "equestrian areas"
where commercial stables will be permitted; prohibit horses on
residential lots; develop a trails system to serve equestrian
-• areas and connect with regional systems.
Alternative E: Expansion - Designate areas where commercial and
private stables are permissible; develop a comprehensive trails
system that serves such areas, connects them with other open
spaces, and links them with regional systems.
•
Each of these concepts represents a viable solution to the "problem"
of what to do with horses in a metropolitan area. The alternative-
selected will depend on the City' s goals for tomorrow and will
reflect a balance of individual good and public interest to
determine what is best for the whole community.
•
Though each equestrian use alternative would provide a different
type of future for horses and horse enthusiasts in the City, one
factor is common to all except "A" ; that is, the potential of
Huntington Central Park to serve as a central equestrian facility.
Adfti
•
Therefore, the report suggests several possible approaches to
establishing an equestrian center there.
All these concepts represent long-range programs which will affect •
future equestrian use. To meet the immediate needs of horsemen in
the community requires a plan that could be implemented over a
short-term basis and so the report sets forth three short-range
trail proposals which both address current needs and maintain a
considerable degree of flexibility for future actions .
•
Alternative Trail 1 involves a 3-mile trail through the Bolsa Chica
and along the Wintersburg Channel. This route would be free of
traffic and man-made barriers ; it would provide diverse and inter-
esting scenery; it would link two equestrian areas of the City;
and it would involve few property owners . Development cost of the
project would be $23 ,640 with $3 ,600 for leased right-of-way and •
$675 for yearly maintenance.
Alternative Trail 2 utilizes the land and scenic resources provided
by Huntington Central Park and City-owned acreage adjacent to it.
This proposal offers immediate availability of right-of-way; it is
the most scenic and presents the greatest variety of terrain; and •
it would be an excellent core system should the City decide on a
more extensive trail in the future. A 1. 5 mile Central Park trail
would cost $33 ,480 to develop and $300 a year to maintain.
Alternative 3 is designed to link the major commercial stables in
the central portion of the City. This concept explores three •
alternative horse crossings on Goldenwest -- Garfield, Ernest, and
Ellis -- and relies heavily on City-owned land and acreage that
is currently in equestrian use. Each approach necessarily includes
some private, non-equestrian parcels , however. A Garfield crossing
(existing) would involve 2 .5 miles of trails and cost $3, 300 to
develop; right-of-way leases would be approximately $1 ,980 and •
yearly maintenance would be $750. A crossing at Ernest would
include 1.75 miles of bridlepath at a development cost of $12 ,310 ,
right-of-way leases totaling $900 , and maintenance of $350 a year.
Two miles of trails would accompany an Ellis crossing. Development
would require $17 ,640 , leases would involve $1 ,350 , and maintenance
would be $400 yearly.
It is the recommendation of the Planning staff that a signalized
horse crossing be installed immediately at Ernest and Goldenwest
to alleviate a serious safety hazard for both riders and drivers.
The staff also recommends that immediate consideration be given to
establishing a Central Park trail and that an equestrian facility •
be established in Phase III plans for Central Park. Excluding the
equestrian facility which is a long-range proposal , implementation
of this plan would cost about $53 ,000 .
•
ii
•
•
The staff further recommends that the specific path and the desirable
nature and location of the equestrian center should be determined
by a special committee appointed by the City Council. This
• committee should include a member of the Council, a Planning
Commissioner, a Recreation and Parks Commissioner, and a representa-
tive of equestrian interests in the community. Its proposals -- to
be returned to the City Council in 30 days -- should include an
acceptable route for the Central Park trail, a recommendation on
the equestrian facility, and a suggested long-range use concept to
• direct future land use planning in the City.
ACOL
•
•
•
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. 0 INTRODUCTION 1
1. 1 Intent 1
1. 2 Equestrian Issues 2
1. 2. 1 Benefits 2
1. 2. 2 Liabilities 2
1. 2. 3 Types of Use 3
• 1. 3 Existing Status of Equestrian Use 3
2. 0 CONCEPTS 7
2. 1 Alternative A: Exclusion 8
2. 2 Alternative B: Confinement 8
2. 3 Alternative C: Tolerance 8
2. 4 Alternative D: Consolidation 9
2. 5 Alternative E: Expansion 9
2. 6 Summary 9
2. 7 An Equestrian Center 10
3. 0 TRAILS SYSTEM 13
• 3. 1 General Considerations 13
3. 1. 1 Corridors 13
3. 1. 2 Barriers 15
3.1. 3 Criteria for Trail Selection 15
3. 2 Short-Range Trail Alternatives 15
3. 2. 1 Alternative Trail 1 : Bolsa Chica 16
3. 2. 2 Alternative Trail 2: Central Park 18
3. 2. 3 Alternative Trail 3: "Feeder System" 21
4 .0 CONCLUSION 27
4 .1 Summary 27
4.2 Recommendation 28
Adft
•
i
•
it
i
section 1
introduction
•
•
• 1. 0 Introduction
4ot too long ago Huntington Beach was a small seaside community
surrounded by vast agricultural areas and the accouterments of
pastoral life. As population grew and urban development expanded,
however, this bucolic nature was transformed until only a few
vestiges of provincial lifestyle remained. one of these last
remnants of the City' s rural past is the horse whose present
status is tenuous at best and whose tomorrows are uncertain. The
role of the horse in a metropolitan environment and the future of
equestrian use in Huntington Beach is the subject of this report.
1. 1 Intent
It is the purpose of this study to investigate potentials for
equestrian use within the City, to question the role the horse
now plays in the community and what role, if any, it should play
a in the future. The objective of this investigation is to develop
viable alternative concepts in an effort to generate public and
political discussion and to facilitate development of a comprehen-
sive statement of City policy regarding equestrian use. Toward
this end, the report identifies particular assets and liabilities
of equestrian use, presents and evaluates five alternative equestrian
use concepts, discusses some factors involved in designing and
developing a trails system, and finally, presents Planning Department
recommendations.
Emil
JW J_W
1
•
1. 2 Equestrian Issues
Before determining the fate of equestrian use within the City, it
is desirable to examine some pertinent equestrian issues facing
the community. Specifically, these include the benefits to be
received from horses in a metropolitan area, the liabilities to be
suffered, and the differences between commerc-Lal and private
equestrian use.
1.2. 1 Benefits
The most immediate benefit of permitting horses in the
City is convenience to residents who own them. Having
their horses nearby means less time must be spent
traveling, more time can be spent enjoying the animals.
As well, horseback riding is an important recreational
alternative that appeals to many. However, it is an
opportunity not readily available in many neighboring
communities and rapidly disappearing from metropolitan
Southern California. In addition to personal convenience
and recreation, equestrian use may also provide a valuable
open space resource as stables, corrals, and pastures
contribute open areas and visual relief from the surround-
ing landscape. In a less tangible way, equestrian use
may preserve rural or agrarian values -- values which are
very much a part of the American Ethic. And not the
least advantage to be derived from equestrian use is
the psychological benefit accrued from companionship
between man and animal.
1. 2. 2 Liabilities
on the other hand, maintaining horses can create problems
unacceptable in an urban area. Whenever horses are
confined, for example, there is a potential health hazard
generated by flies, rodents, and the possibility of
water pollution. Horses can also be a safety hazard •
both to individuals and motor vehicles. Finally,
equestrian uses may be a nuisance to the community in
terms of dust, odor, and visual blight. It is obvious
that all these liabilities can be mitigated with careful
and conscientious action by horse and stable owners.
Nevertheless, these potential threats to public health,
safety, and convenience must be recognized in any
decision made regarding the future of equestrian use
in the City.
2
•
1.2. 3 Types of Use
The question facing the City is not only whether eques-
trian uses should be permitted for if equestrian uses
are allowed, then the City must decide what type of use
is acceptable. Keeping horses might involve, for example,
one or two animals on individual lots for personal enjoy-
ment. This is private equestrian use. Commercially,
keeping of horses might involve a stable where individuals
board their horses, a stable where horses can be rented
by the hour, or a combination of both.
Each use presents its own advantages either to individuals
or to the community, and each use is accompanied by
special problems. Private use, for instance, represents
the maximum of personal convenience to horse owners; and
consequent low-density development perhaps best preserves
a rural atmosphere. However, control of private stables
is difficult; and, therefore, health, safety, and
nuisance problems are more likely to occur. Commercial
• stables represent a concentrated horse population, so
problems can be more acute. Because regulation and
inspection is easier, though, these problems are more
readily controlled. Also, because commercial stables
generally have greater financial resources, good manage-
ment and modern facilities are more likely, thus,
mitigating risk to the community.
1. 3 Existing Status of Equestrian Use
Articles 963 and 949 of the City Code (included in the Appendix)
provide for both private and commercial equestrian uses; and
according to figures presented by interested horsemen in 1972,
the City had 35 stables (private and boarding) with a total of
625 horses. Latest estimates indicate there are now 700 to 800
horses but that private stables are declining. Currently, eques-
trian uses are concentrated in four major areas of the community
a -- three of which are in proximity to Huntington Central Park.
These areas, indicated on Figure 1-1, include:
1. Western Huntington Beach, around Warner and Bolsa Chica.
2. Directly south of Huntington Central Park.
i 3. Northeast of Huntington Central Park.
4. Scattered locations southeast of Huntington Central Park.
Aft i
3
... . ....... ..........
•
BOLSA
M&ADDEN
----------------- ID!N=
................ ..................................................
Ha
veimm
. ..................................
SLAIN
am
GARFIELD
..............................- I................... ................. YORKTOWN
/r
ADAMS
.................
'k INDIANAPOLIS
......... ATLANTA
...............
BANNING
ik
Figure 1-1
EXISTING EQUESTRIAN AREAS •
huntington beach planning department
•
With the exception of the Santa Ana River Trail, there are no
designated equestrian trails in Huntington Beach. However, a
horse crossing exists at Garfield and Goldenwest Street to serve
i� the areas of stable concentration where there are informal eques-
trian paths (heavily traveled routes by horse enthusiasts, either
with or without the property owners permission) . The Trails Element
Preliminary Plan of June, 1972, though, set forth the criteria for
developing a 13-mile official trails network which includes:
•
1. Trails off-road wherever possible.
2 . Eight to ten foot rail-fenced pathways.
3. Loose dirt bed with eucalyptus and/or bean pod mulch to
minimize dust.
4 . Graphics denoting use and direction.
0. Graphics warning motorists of equestrian crossing.
• 6. Policing generated voluntarily by equestrian clubs.
The Phase I Recreational Trails Element of October, 1973, however,
recognized that this preliminary study did not address itself
sufficiently to the question of how and to what extent the City
should accommodate equestrian uses on both an interim and long-
01 range basis. As that document concludes:
There is no doubt a present demand and need for equestrian trails.
Stables are operating under City Ordinance, and residents are using
the facilities. It is the staff' s feeling that before any money be
committed to equestrian trails a further definition of City policy
on accommodating horses must be determined. It is recommended that:
1. A study, to be completed in 90 days, be done to present
specific alternatives for the accommodation of equestrian
uses in the City both on an interim and long-range basis.
From this study, the City Council could formulate a definitive
• policy for staff to use in providing equestrian trails. It is
suggested that the Planning Department coordinate this study
with assistance from the Recreation and Parks and Public Works
Departments.
2. $7,000 be set aside from the Phase I grant money for equestrian
• trails. The output of the 90-day study would include a
recommendation of how to spend this money.
The remaining pages of this report constitute the results of this
proposed study.
i
5
secn«, z
alternative use
COf1C2p15
•
2. 0 Alternative Use Concepts
• It appears that the keeping of horses within the City is at a
point of transition. That is, while equestrian activities are
permitted, they are by ordinance considered temporary. As a
result, stables represent a form of underdevelopment on lands
awaiting urbanization. It is to be expected that as development
pressures increase, equestrian areas will be converted to uses
of greater intensity until eventually they are completely replaced
by urban development.
Now is an excellent time for the City to make a conscious decision
about the future of equestrian use. Such activities currently
exist, vacant land is available for expansion or alteration of
existing uses if such is deemed desirable, and development of a
trails network is possible. The result of no City action, continued
application of existing ordinances, and market forces will ultimately
be the complete disappearance of the horse and its related uses from
the community. If equestrian uses are to be permitted and encouraged,
. therefore, such decision must be made before natural economic forces
restrict alternatives available to the City.
To promote discussion and crystallize thinking about the future of
equestrian activities, five alternative use concepts are presented
on the following pages. Ranging from complete exclusion of all
equestrian uses to large-scale expansion of existing areas, these
alternatives cover a variety of possible policy choices available
to City decision-makers. Selection of one such alternative (or
amended alternative) is essential before a realistic trails system
can be developed because the intent of the City regarding the future
of horses in the community will regulate the nature of the trails
system (if any) needed.
Atak 7
2. 1 Alternative A: Exclusion
Phase out existing equestrian uses; provide no trails other than •
regional river path; enforce restrictions against horses on public
rights-of-way.
Alternative A represents the most severe option available to the
City: exclude equestrian use. Selecting this alternative would
entail a policy of active removal of non-conforming equestrian uses •
and refusal to renew or grant equestrian use permits. To discourage
existing use, the City could prohibit horses on public rights-of-way
and prosecute trespassers on private property. If the City prefers
this alternative, no equestrian trails would be necessary, of course.
Only the County regional trail along the Santa Ana River would serve
riders in this area. Selecting this alternative, the City would `
join its neighbors Westminster, Costa Mesa, and Newport Beach in
making no provision for horses.
2 . 2 Alternative B: Confinement
Confine equestrian uses to City-owned stables at Central Park and
suitable trails in park; encourage development of river equestrian
center to serve river trail system.
Alternative B would restrict equestrian uses to two defined areas
of the City. This concept would prohibit private stables but permit
commercial ones (either boarding or rental) in Central Park and near
the Santa Ana River. A City stable managed by concessionaire (or
the City, itself) could provide revenues for trail maintenance as
well as stable operation; and an equestrian center near the Santa
Ana River would take advantage of the regional trail system. This
center could either be managed by the City or the private sector. +
Alternative B would provide the City maximum control of equestrian
use and necessitate only a limited trails system. However, this
alternative would obviously limit the number of horses and stables
that could be accommodated within the City.
2 . 3 Alternative C: Tolerance
Permit existing uses to continue; establish temporary trails; (assume
that equestrian uses will eventually be replaced by market demand) .
The consequences of Alternative C, as defined above, would vary
little from the results of natural market forces. In other words,
the City would continue to tolerate existing equestrian uses,
perhaps renew or grant new permits, until growth pressures brought
about conversion of these temporary uses and open space areas.
Non-conforming private equestrian uses would be allowed to continue
until they became a health or safety hazard. Assuming that some S
equestrian activity would continue for several years, temporary
' b
trails which require minimum commitment of City funds would be
provided for the convenience of riders and the safety of the general
public.
2.4 Alternative D: Consolidation
Designate "equestrian areas" where commercial stables will be
permitted; prohibit horses on residential lots; develop a trails
♦ system to serve equestrian areas and connect with regional systems.
Accepting Alternative D would require defining a specific area or
areas of the City where commercial equestrian uses would be welcomed.
Such areas would best be primarily vacant or underdeveloped, current-
ly employed for equestrian uses, and not in proximity to residential
♦ or dense development. Within and between these areas, the City
could develop and maintain a comprehensive trails system designed
as a permanent recreational facility and regional trail link. To
minimize instruction and enforcement difficulties, keeping horses
on individual lots would be prohibited.
2.5 Alternative E: Expansion
Designate areas where commercial and private stables are permissible;
develop a comprehensive trails system that serves such areas,
connects them with other open spaces, and links them with regional
systems.
Alternative E would represent a wholehearted commitment by the City
to encourage and foster a viable equestrian subculture. Under this
concept, portions of the community would be set aside for commercial
stables and low-density residential areas would be designated for
"horse estates" . Selecting this alternative could mandate develop-
ment of a Citywide equestrian trails network which would link estate
areas with stables, stables with each other, and both with other
open space nodes (i.e. , Central Park, beaches, Bolsa Chica, Santa
Ana River) . The City system should also be designed to connect
with regional bridle paths. This alternative would perhaps best
preserve a rural atmosphere and maximize recreation and open space
values of equestrian use. It would also require the greatest
commitment of resources to a trails system and would probably
encourage more horses.
a 2 .6 Summary
Each of these alternatives represents a viable solution to the
"problem" of what to do with horses in a metropolitan area. Each
requires different policies and actions to implement its proposals;
Adak 9
and each provides its own advantages and disadvantages to the
community and to individual horsemen. The alternative selected
will depend on the City' s goals for tomorrow and will reflect
the judgment of the City Council as it balances individual good
and public interest to determine what is best for the whole
community.
2.7 An Equestrian Center
Though each equestrian use alternative presented above would provide
a different type of future for horses and horse enthusiasts in the
City, one factor is common to them all (except Alternative A -
Exclusion) ; that is, the potential of Huntington Central Park to
serve as a central equestrian facility. Whether it is the ultimate
decision of the City Council that equine uses be severely restricted
or that they be greatly expanded, Central Park -- particularly its
proposed expansion -- could play an important role in equestrian
recreation planning.
An equestrian center at Central Park could provide boarding to
supplement or replace existing stables; it could offer rental
horses for general public recreation; it could provide a central
location for horse shows; and it could preserve considerable open
space acres as pasture and grazing land. Such a center would be
feasible if it were built by the City and leased to a manager or
if city land were leased to concessionnaires to construct and
operate stables. In either case, the center could accomodate as
many or as few stables as desired.
The following cost breakdown represents expenditures required to
construct an average-size commercial stable. This facility would
serve about 125 horses and would include stables, arenas, and
riding area over 17 acres (5 acres developed stable facilities
and 12 acres pasture and riding area) .
Income from an equestrian center would vary depending upon the
number of horses served, the facilities provided, the number of
horses available for rent, and, of course, the user fees charged.
However, local stable owners estimate gross income from an average
commercial stable would be about $80, 000 a year with net income
about 20 percent of that ($16,000) . Direct income to the City
would depend upon lease agreements. The City of Palos Verdes
Estates netted $3, 600 in fiscal year 1973-74 from a 70-horse
operation by charging the proprietor 6 percent of the gross
receipts. (The percentage has now been raised to 8. ) In the S
City of Rolling Hills Estates, the present proprietor of the
88-horse stable guarantees the City $5,000 per year. Obviously,
city-owned equestrian facilities are not high-income properties
but neither are they a financial burden to the community.
t
10 AMk
I lip
FIGURE 2-1
COST ANALYSIS: EQUESTRIAN FACILITY
40 box stalls @ $1000/stall installed $ 40, 000
! 85 paddock stalls @ $325/stall installed 27, 625
8 wash racks on septic system 4, 000
grading and site preparation 7, 000
40 3 arenas in galvanized pipe 6, 500
lights for 1 large arena 5,000
parking 6,864
landscaping-springling @ $. 50/sq. ft. 4, 000
6 tack rooms 12, 000
rest rooms on septic system 6, 000
* 3 hot walkers @ $1250 each 3,750
Bull Pen 1, 500
TOTAL $124 ,239
OF
a
•
11
•
Assuming a gross income of $80 ,000 for a 125-horse, 17-acre, city-
owned stable and a lease agreement of 8 percent of gross receipts,
City dividends would be $6,400 a year or $376 per acre of
equestrian use. t
s
a
•
R
•
s
12
a
s
•
•
•
section 3
trans
Sys
tem
•
•
•
•
3. 0 Trails System
• While the character of the trails system will depend upon which
Alternative Use Concept is selected, several factors will remain
constant. Regardless of the scope of the trails plans, for example,
its objective will be to serve both individual horsemen and the
community by providing riding paths that link important equestrian
areas, that are as interesting and scenic as possible, and that are
• safe for both riders and the general public.
3. 1 General Considerations
To develop a trails system like the one defined above requires
• analysis of the trails potentials offered by the urban form and
topography of the community. The extremes to which the City is
willing to go in securing right-of-way, preventing development,
rerouting traffic, etc. , to secure a "desirable" system will, of
course, depend on how important equestrian uses are to be in
community life. If Alternative B is selected, for instance, City
I• involvement in recreational equestrian trails would be moderate.
If Alternative E is selected, on the other hand, the City would be
justified in developing an extensive (and undoubtedly expensive)
trails network. In both cases, however, some general considerations
must be kept in mind.
•
3.1.1 Corridors
Trails are linear systems which thereby lend themselves
to existing corridors throughout the City. That is,
• flood control channels, utility easements, dykes, bluff
ACOL 13
s _
•
lines, the river, and the railroad already form linear
networks that crisscross the City and could conceivably
be incorporated into an equestrian trails system. Because •
these corridors already provide open passageways generally
unobstructed by development and because many are publicly
owned already, their use where possible tends to minimize
cost and inconvenience.
More specifically, these potential equestrian corridors •
include:
1. Bolsa Chica Dyke - Built to protect recent housing
tracts, this facility (although under County
jurisdiction) would provide a non-automobile
equestrian bridge across Bolsa Chica Gap. The !
dyke itself is a large earthen berm about 60 feet
wide.
2. City Flood Control Channels - especially the Slater
Channel between Wintersburg Channel and Huntington
Central Park and the Murdy Channel. •
3. County Flood Control Channels - especially the
Wintersburg and Sunset Channels. (All County
flood channels within the City have been designated
environmental corridors for potential trails and
greenbelt usage. ) !
4 . Bluff line
5. Railroad right-of-way - which parallels Gothard and
Lake and may be abandoned by the railroad south of
Garfield. !
6. Edison Easement
7. Santa Ana River - where regional equestrian trails
are planned.
•
Existing corridors do not provide the whole answer,
however; and a significant handicap is the fact that
such systems do not always link desired areas or supply •
interesting or scenic surroundings. Additionally, they
are sometimes obstructed by barriers which preclude trail
development.
•
14
•
3.1. 2 Barriers
These barriers include natural or man-made obstacles that
• prevent through access either physically or because of
safety hazards. The most significant obstructions are
heavily trafficked streets. To overcome these hazards
would require special signalized crossings which might
interrupt vehicular traffic or construction of overpasses
or underpasses whose cost might be unacceptable except
• in conjunction with Alternative Use Concepts D or E.
Some of the most serious trail interruptions would include
Pacific Coast Highway, Goldenwest Street, Warner Avenue,
and Beach Boulevard where high traffic volume is accompa-
nied by high speeds.
• In some instances, flood control channels serve as barriers
as well as corridors. Where channels intersect proposed
trails, special bridges might be required or equestrian
traffic would have to be routed over existing bridges
thus promoting a dangerous combination of horses and
cars. Again, the resource commitment to be made by the
• City in overcoming these obstacles would depend upon the
Alternative Use Concept accepted.
3. 1. 3 Criteria for Trail Selection
• If an equestrian trails system is to be developed, several
general criteria should be adhered to regarding safety,
cost, and routing. To protect horses, riders, and
motorists, for instance, trails should be off road
wherever possible, and road crossings should be minimal.
Trails should be fenced, clearly marked, and voluntarily
• policed by equestrian groups. To minimize cost, existing
corridors should be utilized as much as possible, use of
private lands should be minimized, and low-maintenance
materials should be used in trail construction. Finally,
to afford greatest convenience to riders and to discourage
"unofficial" paths, trails should join equestrian areas,
• connect with regional trail systems, and link with other
open space areas.
3. 2 Short-Range Trail Alternatives
• The development of a comprehensive trails system must obviously
await selection of a long-range equestrian use alternative.
Because implementation of any such alternative would involve a
significant length of time, however, three short-range trail
proposals are presented on the following pages. Executing one
• of these suggestions would serve the immediate needs of equestrian
15
•
•
enthusiasts in the City while maintaining a considerable degree
of flexibility in regard to future actions. Depending upon the
use alternative selected by the City Council, these short-range
proposals might serve only until existing equestrian uses were •
replaced by development demand. On the other hand, if equestrian
activity is to be incorporated securely among the City' s land
uses, the trails could be expanded. In this manner, the City
could provide for existing needs without permanent commitments
while keeping options open for an expanded trail system at some
later time if desired.
3. 2. 1 Alternative Trail 1 : Bolsa Chica
Indicated on Figure 3-1, Alternative 1 involves a trail
through the Bolsa Chica commencing approximately at the •
Talbert Street realignment and Edwards on the east,
intersecting the Wintersburg flood control channel in
the west, and continuing north along the channel to
Warner Avenue and south to the terminus of the channel .
Such a trail could parallel the existing dike across •
the Bolsa Chica from its origin at Edwards or follow
an existing fence demarking the centerline of the
proposed Talbert realignment extension along the border
of Final Tract 7635. Paralleling this fence until it
crosses the dike, the trail could then be coincident
with the dike to the flood control channel. (Both •
possibilities are outlined in Figure 3-1. ) Using
either route, the dike trail would be about 2 miles
long. An additional 1 to 1� miles would be available
along the Wintersburg channel.
•
3. 2. 1. 2 Evaluation
This interim proposal offers several advantages. Because
the area is primarily undeveloped, it is free of traffic
and other manmade barriers thus providing a safe riding
environment. The natural character of the Bolsa Chica •
also means minimum commitment of municipal resources
would be required for construction and maintenance.
The proposed trail traverses level terrain which
minimizes necessary grading, and maintenance could be
limited to repairs after heavy rains. Additionally,
the route would provide diverse and interesting scenery •
for riders now restricted to corrals or roadsides.
•
16
•
... .. ....
r :
................. AWADDIN
\ ; MINM
I
.....
........ _ v_ . HUL
s
/_.. t
....... ............... ........... ....... ..__.__..._. ........... ( BATH
ausWANT
m ° E
..........__a......._._.!
�� ....
3 GARFIELD
Z,.�......� t ...............
� M7RRTOMM
' f
• Government Owned
Land f' ADAMt
Lease Necessary ' • y '
....... ..................._._____ .._._-_.__'-_._........ MOIANAFOLIS
• '`....� ATLANTA
yd.�`\,`_\,�
..o..,.,...,m,„�„„�„..„,,,3....•....... HAMLTON
Fpuro 3-1
�. ALTERNATIVE TRAIL 1 : BOLSA CHICA
huntington beach planning department
• 17
•
The location is also ideal. Situated between two existing
equestrian areas in the City, it could serve riders from
both locations. And in a longer range perspective, the
trail is conveniently near possible equestrian facilities •
in the Huntington Central Park vicinity and might
eventually be linked with riding paths in the State
Ecological Preserve.
3. 2. 1.b Cost Analysis
Because the City has no existing trails, accurate cost
figures on development and maintenance of bridle paths
are unavailable. Based on information from other cities
and counties, however, the cost of developing a Bolsa
Chica trail could be estimated at $23,640 . Maintenance
would be about $675 a year and leased right-of-way would
be approximately $3, 600 yearly.
FIGURE 3-2
•
COST ANALYSIS: ALTERNATIVE 1
Right-of-way 2 mi. lease @ $1 ,800/mi./yr. $ 3 , 600
Development 2 mi. @ $1,320/mi. grading 2, 640 •
2 mi. @ $10, 500/mi. fencing 21 ,000
TOTAL $23,640
Maintenance 3. 5 mi. @ $200/mi./yr. 675 •
These figures assume use of the Wintersburg channel at
minimal charge from the Orange County Flood Control
District, and, as with all other alternatives presented
in this document, cooperation from property-owners in •
accepting reasonable lease agreements for 10-foot wide
trails.
3. 2. 2 Alternative Trail 2: Central Park
•
Alternative 2 utilizes the land and scenic resources
provided by Huntington Central Park as well as City-
owned acreage adjacent to its borders. Figure 3-3
outlines one such possible route which parallels an
existing jogging trail in the northeast section of
•
18 Adft
•
Jy :.. •t•J rw�r�r i.
Tiod
J ALL_-1_3_I_.1.J 1 •\
• TALMMU M, AVE.
• MYreau "�'�" ��� {�
.�s
i • i I
AVE
�• i I
i {
• j I
I
Figurt 3-3
ALTERNATIVE TRAIL 2
• HUNT TON
CENTRAL PARK
huntington beach planning department
• 19
1W ..
•
the park then meanders about a currently undeveloped
portion to Goldenwest. Across Goldenwest, the trail
continues on city-owned parcels bordering the park
through a eucalyptus grove, beside Huntington Lake, •
and down the bluff to Edwards. Altogether, the bridle
path would traverse approximately 1. 5 miles.
3. 2. 2.a Evaluation
•
This alternative offers several distinct advantages not
the least of which is the immediate availability of
right-of-way: no section of the trail would be located
on private property; and, therefore, development of the
network could begin almost immediately. Of all the
alternatives, this one is undoubtedly the most scenic •
and presents the greatest variety of terrain for riders,
crossing, as it does, meadowlands, hillsides, groves,
fields and lake shores. Because much of the area is
already graded, minimum expenditures would be required
for this necessary task. On the other hand, however,
because the trail would often pass through high use and •
highly visible areas of the park, an attractive railing
system would be required and thus added expense incurred.
While this alternative would give the City' s horsemen
a pleasant place to ride, it would not provide a
"feeder system" of trails to bring riders from their •
stable areas to the park. The trail described above
would be an excellent core system, though, should the
City decide upon a more extensive trail in the future.
It could easily be linked with the Bolsa Chica trail
proposed in Section 3. 2. 1 and/or with the "feeder system"
outlined in the following section. Most importantly,
it would be a desirable adjunct if an equestrian
facility was developed in Phase Three of Central Park
as discussed in Section 2 .7 .
3. 2. 2.b Cost Analysis •
The following table represents an expenditure breakdown
for 1. 5 miles of trail in Central Park.
•
20
•
•
FIGURE 3-4
COST ANALYSIS: ALTERNATIVE 2
•
Right-of-way 1. 5 mi. (secured) $ 00
Development 1. 5 mi. @ $1, 320/mi. grading 1, 980
• 1. 5 mi. @ $21,000/mi. fencing 31,500
SUBTOTAL $33 ,480
Signalization (3-way) $10,000
• Maintenance 1. 5 mi. @ $200/mi./yr. $ 300
Total cost for development of the trail would be $33 ,480
plus a minimum of $10,000 for a signalized crossing at
Goldenwest. Yearly maintenance would be about $300 for
some regrading and repair.
3. 2. 3 Alternative 3 : "Feeder System"
This alternative is actually three variations on the
same theme; namely, to link the major commercial stables
in the central portions of the City. The prime obstacle
to this objective is Goldenwest, a highly trafficked
arterial. The three proposals set forth in this section
attack the problem of Goldenwest with different horse
crossings: Garfield, Ernest, and Ellis. The three
• routes are similar with the exception of the linkages
necessary to complete their various crossings. They
rely heavily on City-owned land and acreage that is
currently in equestrian use or that is covered by riding
agreement between stable and property owners. Necessarily,
however, each system includes some private, non-
equestrian parcels. These alternatives -- 3a, 3b, and
3c -- are illustrated in Figures 3-5, 3-6, and 3-7.
3. 2. 3.a Garfield Crossing
• This trail utilizes the existing signalized horse
crossing at Garfield and Goldenwest. It encompasses
about 2. 5 miles of unfenced bridle paths on . 5 mile of
City land, . 9 mile of equestrian-use lands and 1. 1 miles
of private land. Securing this trail would require
•
21
•
•
TALBERT AVE.
TT �
t" CF-R
(HUNTINBTON CEW RAL PARK)
Governrnent Owned Land
i
Lease Necessary •
•••••• Equestrian Use Land-
Minimum Fee
ELLIS
i F
-,;;v ce:
•
•
•
•
•
i
•j
• J
i •
r--- •
H I li
AVE. GARFIELD
Figure 3-5
ALTERNATIVE TRAIL 3a
GARFIELD CROSSING
huntington beach planning department •'
as
0
negotiating with numerous parcel owners, and some paths
would be adjacent to roadways. As detailed below, total
development cost of the program would be about $3,300.
h• Maintenance would average approximately 0,750 per year
and right-of-way would run about $1, 980 yearly.
FIGURE 3-8
COST ANALYSIS: ALTERNATIVE 3a
•
Right-of-way 1.1 mi. lease @ $1, 800/mi./yr. $1, 980
Development 2. 5 mi. @ $1,320/mi. grading 3, 300
• Maintenance 2. 5 mi. @ $200/mi./yr. 750
3. 2. 3b Ernest Crossing
Alternative 3b suggests utilizing a signalized crossing
• at Ernest. While this necessitates additional expenditures
for traffic control, it requires less right-of-way across
private land. The trail includes 1. 75 miles of paths;
. 5 mile on private lands, .75 mile of equestrian use
land, and . 5 mile of City-owned property.
Cost for developing this trail system would be approx-
imately $12, 310 as indicated in Figure 3-9. Annual
maintenance would be about $350 and right-of-way $900
a year.
FIGURE 3-9
COST ANALYSIS: ALTERNATIVE 3b
Right-of-way . 5 mi. lease @ $1,800/mi./yr. $ 900
Development 1. 75 mi. @ $1,320/mi. 2,310
Signalization (3-way) 10, 000
Maintenance 1. 75 mi. @ $200/mi./yr. 350
•
3. 2. 3c Ellis Crossing
This final variation includes a signalized crossing at
Ellis to join its 2 miles of trails. The system would
involve . 75 mile of private land, . 75 mile of equestrian
•
Ads&
23
lip,
TALBERT AVE.
.�� C F-R
(NUNTINVON CEN'i RAL PARK)
Government Owned Land
I
r— Lease Necessary
i •••••• Equestrian Use Land-
Minimum Fee
ELLIS
•
•
•
•
•
-
AV E. GARFIELD
RWre 3-6
ALTERNATIVE TRAIL 3b
Awk ERNEST CROSSING
•
huntington beach planning department
24
•
( TALBERT AVE. i
CF-R
(HUNTINGTON CrE RAL.PARR
Government Owned Land
Lease Necessary
.•.... Equestrian Use Land-
Minimum Fee
• j
01
TP
JL
•
•
•
• i
i I
• i
i
••
i
r /rT-
AV E. GARFIELD
• Figure 3-7
ALTERNATIVE TRAIL 3c
A!Wk ELLIS CROSSING
huntington beach planning department
25
•
•
use acreage, . 5 mile of City-owned property, and a more
expensive 4-way signal. A crossing at Ellis, however,
would be useful to both automobile and horse traffic.
Development costs for Alternative 3c would total $17 ,600
with maintenance requiring about $400 yearly. Right-of-
way would involve expenditure of $1 ,350 each year.
FIGURE 3-10
•
COST ANALYSIS: ALTERNATIVE 3c
Right-of-way . 75 mi. lease @ $1 ,800/mi./yr. $ 1 ,350
Development 2 mi. @ $1, 320 grading 2, 640 •
Signalization (4-way) 15, 000
Maintenance 2 mi. @ $200/mi./yr. 400
•
!
•
26
•
I,.
Secior, 4
COCICIUSIOf1S
4. 0 Conclusion
It is apparent from the previous discussion that numerous equestrian
use alternatives -- both long range and short range -- are available
to the City. Which alternative is selected will have significant
implications for the future of the equine-centered subculture in
Huntington Beach.
4. 1 Summary
As explained in Section 2 , equestrian uses are at a point of transi-
tion; and it is assumed that as development pressures increase,
equestrian areas will be converted to uses .of greater intensity
until they are eventually replaced completely by urban development.
If equestrian activities are to be permitted and/or encouraged by
the City, therefore, a conscious decision to do so must be made
before natural economic forces restrict available alternatives.
Existing long-range alternatives include: phasing out all existing
uses (A) ; confining equestrian uses to City stables at Central Park
(B) ; permitting existing uses to continue until they are replaced
by market demand (C) ; designating general "equestrian areas" where
commercial stables will be permitted (D) ; and encouraging ranch-like
ACOL 27
•
developments and expanded equestrian use areas around the City (E) .
Each of these alternatives represents a viable solution to the
"problem" of what to do with horses in a metropolitan area. The
alternative selected will depend on the City' s goals and policies.
Assuming that exclusion of equestrian uses is an unacceptable
alternative, it would obviously take a considerable amount of time
to implement any of the long-range proposals . To deal with the
immediate needs of the City's horsemen, then, the report presents
three short-range trail alternatives. These plans include a trail
through the Bolsa Chica (Alternative 1) , a Central Park trail
(Alternative 2) , and a "feeder" trail linking existing commercial
stables with a Goldenwest horse crossing at Garfield, Ernest, or
Ellis (Alternative 3) . Executing any one of these proposals would
serve the immediate needs of equestrian enthusiasts while maintain-
ing a considerable degree of flexibility in regard to future actions.
All of these trails could be phased out after a few years if
necessary or expanded into a comprehensive trails system if desired.
4 .2 Recommendation
It is the recommendation of the Planning staff that a signalized
horse crossing be installed immediately at Ernest and Goldenwest
to alleviate a serious safety hazard for both riders and drivers.
Furthermore, because it is apparent that Central Park will play a
vital role if horses are to be maintained in the City under any
alternative use concept, the staff also recommends that immediate
consideration be given to establishing a Central Park trail as
indicated in Alternative 2 . Such a trail would serve the immediate
needs of riders in the City while forming the basis of an expanded
trail system if such was desired in the future. It is additionally
recommended that an equestrian facility be established in Phase III
plans for Central Park.
Implementation of this proposal (excluding the equestrian facility
which is a long-range plan) would cost about $53 ,500 -- $43,500 for
the Park Trail and $10 ,000 for a signalized crossing at Ernest.
These figures are flexible depending on the degree of trail develop-
ment desired by the City Council. Seven thousand dollars is
already reserved for equestrian trails from Land and Water
Conservation funds . If the proposed horse licensing ordinance is
adopted, another $7 ,000 would be generated. Remaining funds might
be secured from Revenue Sharing monies, Recreation and Park budget,
the General Fund, or possible bond funds from the State Beach,
Park Fecreation and Historical Facilities Bond Act of 1974 .
The exact route of the Central Park bridle path and the desirable
nature and location of the equestrian center should be determined
by a special committee appointed by the City Council. This
committee should include a member of the Council, a Planning
28 .}
•
Commissioner, a Recreation and Parks Commissioner, and a representa-
tive of equestrian interests in the community. The Planning staff
would serve the committee in an advisory capacity.
To facilitate- implementation of these proposals, the committee should
be directed to report back to the Council within 30 days. Its
proposal should include an acceptable route for the Central Park
trail, a recommendation on the equestrian facility, and a suggested
long-range use concept to direct future land use planning in the
City.
•
AMk
•
•
•
•
•
29
•
• section 5
appendix
PLANNING COMMERCIAL DISTRICT S. 9490
ARTICLE 949
l� EQUINE STANDARDS - COtMRCIAL
(1769 - 8/72)
S. 9490 Intent and Purpose. The board and care of equines is hereby declared
to be a commercial enterprise of a recreational nature and a luxury
in an urban environment. The intent of this article is to establish standards for
the keeping of equines in a manner which will not endanger the health, peace, and
safety of the community and which will assure that equines are kept in a clean
and sanitary condition and not subjected to suffering, cruelty, or abuse. It is
further the intention of this article to provide for the regular inspection of
equine stables to assure that good stable management is a continuing practice.
Such inspection is for the purpose of minimizing fly production, reducing natural
fly attractants, and to prevent the breeding of flies.
S. 9491 Uses Subiect to Conditional Use Permit. The following uses may be
permitted for a period of time to be determined by the Planning
Commission, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit:
(a) Uses adjacent to an established equestrian trail or where a minimum riding area
of one (1) acre for every ten (10) equines is provided. Such uses may include
the following:
Animal and convalescent stables
Commercial equine stables
Livery and boarding stables
Private club riding stables
Public equine stables
i Rental stables
Riding academy
(b) Length of time and frequency shall be considered when application for a
conditional use permit has been made to hold horse shows or rodeos. (1769 -
8/72, 1847 - 6/73)
S. 9492 Yard Requirements. The yard requirements shall pertain to all
structures including but not limited to stalls, corrals, arenas and
fly-tight manure bins, except pastures, grazing areas, access roads, and watchman's
quarters. All such structures shall maintain a minimum of three hundred (300)
feet from any property that is used, zoned or master planned for residential use.
All yard requirements shall be measured from the existing property line, the ultimate
right of way line as adopted on the Master Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways
t and any amendments thereto, or any precise plan of a street or alley alignment,
whichever may be greater.
The following yard setback requirements shall apply:
(a) Front. The front yard setback shall be a minimum of fifty (50) feet.
(b) Interior Side. The interior side yard setback shall be a minimum of twenty-
five (25) feet.
(c) Exterior Side. The exterior side yard setback shall be a minimum of fifty
'50) feet.
6/8/73
S. 9493 COMMERCIAL DISTRICT PLANNING
�d) Rear. The rear yard setbAck shall be a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet.
SS Q=+93 CENE:RAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. The following general development Stan- •
dards establish minimum and maximum requirements for maintaining equines:
W `linimiun Building Site: two (2) acres.
(b) Minimum Riding Area: shall be one (1) acre for every ten (10) horses where
stable does not abut an established riding trail.
(c) Minimum Frontage: one hundred (100) feet.
(d) Maximum Building Height: twenty-five (25) feet.
(e) )Landscaping and Irrigation: landscaping and irrigation system shall be sub-
ject to approval of the Planning Department and provided in the following manner:
(1) A five (5) foot planter shall be provided along the front property line.
(2) A five (5) foot planter with perimeter trees and shrubs shall be pro-
vided along the side and rear property lines.
(3) A permanent irrigation system shall be provided.
(f) Si n: The minimum development standards for all signs snall conform to
Article 976.
•
(g) Parking: the minimum development standards for all vehicle parking shall
conform to Article 979.
S. 9493.2 Specific Development Standards. Corrals, Racks and Stalls. All corrals,
racks and stalls shall conform to the following requirements:
(a) Equine Corral. There shall be one corral provided for each equine, except
a mare and foal may be corralled together for a period not to exceed twelve (12) months
and corrals may be designed for more than one equine provided that all standards shall
be multiplied by the number of equines. Each equine corral shall meet the following
requirements:
(1) The minimum size corral shall be 288 square feet with a minimum dimension
of twelve (12) feet and shall have a minimum five (5) foot high fence.
(2) Each corral shall be provided with a combination manger and feeder and a
permanently installed water system with automatic drinking controls. The
watering cup or drinking device shall at all times be under a shaded area.
(3) Each equine shall ae provided with a minimum of ninety-six (96) square
feet of shelter covering with a minimum dimension of eight (8) feet.
Shelters shall be sloped away from corral center, or rain gutters which
lead to the outside of the corral shall be installed.
(a) corral floors shall be graded to :lope away from the center of the corral.
(bl Box Stall. box stall is optional and may be provided in lieu of equine
corrals. Box stalls shall be a minimum size of 144 square feet and shall maintain a
minimum dimension of twelve (12) feet. ,
PLANNING COMRCIAL DISTRICT S. 9493.2 (c'
(c) Wash Rack. There shall be one wash rack provided for every thirty-five (35)
equines but in no case shall there be less than one (1) wash rack. Each wash rack shall
meet the following requirements:
(1) The minimum size wash rack area shall be six (6) feet wide and eight
(8) feet long.
. (2) Each wash rack shall be provided with a permanent watering system.
(3) Each wash rack shall be constructed with a concrete slab flooring.
(4) Each wash rack shall be connected to an approved sewerage.
S. 9493.3 Additional Specific Development Standards. In addition to the specific
a development standards set out in Section 9493.2, the following specific
requirements shall be met:
(a) In all enclosures where equines are maintained, the land surface of such
enclosures shall be graded above the remaining land surface.
40 (b) Exercise rings shall maintain a minimum dimension of thirty (30) feet.
(c) Arenas shall maintain a minimum of ten thousand (10,000) square feet with a
minimum dimension of eighty (80) feet.
. (d) Stallions shall be maintained in a manner that will protect people and other
animals.
(e) Density of equines: the maximum number of equines shall be twenty-five (25)
equines per acre.
• (f) Public Toilets: public toilets for each sex shall be provided. NOTE:
Portable outdoor sanitation facilities shall not be permitted except they may be permit-
ted for equitation events.
(g) Storage and tack areas: storage and tack areas shall be provided and desig-
nated on the plot plan.
40 (h) Trash, solid waste disposal areas, and dumpsters to be designated and con-
veniently located with an all-weather road access provided.
(i) Access: all public rights of way shall be fenced and limited ingress and
egress for vehicles and horses shall be provided.
(j) Watchman quarters: one mobilehome unit or equivalent for the watchman quarters
shall be provided and subject to Planning Department approval.
(k) Lighting for rodeos, stables, and horse shows shall be such that itis
directed onto the site.
(1) Back-siphoning device shall be installed to protect the public water supply.
i� An approved pressure vacuum breaker is recommended on the water line serving the corrals.
The vacuum breaker should be at least twelve (12) inches above the highest point of
water usage or an approved double-check valve may be acceptable.
' (m) Security lighting shall be provided and all utilities shall be underground.
S. 9494 COMMKIAL DISTRICT PLANNING
S. 9494 STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE. It is the intene of these standards tee attain
free circulation of nir and maximum exposure to sunlight for the purpusr of
improving; sanitation. Pipe fences are favored for maximum air circulation.
S. 9494.1 Fly and Insect Control. Fly and insect control shall be diligently prac-
ticed and subject to Article 312.
(a) Disposal of stable wastes shall follow one or more of the following suggestions:
(1) All thin layer spreading shall be subject to the approval of the Orange
County Health Officer.
(2) Immediate off-ranch delivery to farmers for direct fertilizer use, or to
a county landfill for destruction.
(3) Temporary placement shall not exceed forty-eight (48) hours in an all-
concrete, three-walled open storage bin with removal to on or off ranch
use or destruction on a suitable schedule. Size of storage bin depends
on projected daily volume of wastes. NOTE: the size and number could
be predicaWd on the number of allowed horses.
(b) Feed mangers or boxes shall not be placed near water sources since damp spilled
feed attracts flies and makes a good breeding site for flies.
S. 9494.2 Rodent Control. Rodent control shall be diligently practiced and the entire
premises shall be kept in an orderly and sanitary manner to prevent possible i♦
rodent infestation. The following guidelines and criteria shall be considered in review-
ing plans and in operation:
(a) All dry grains shall be stored in rodent proof metal containers and hay shall
be stored in a covered structure on a cement slab or on a raised wood platform that main-
tains a minimum clearance of eighteen (18) inches above the ground.
(b) Any tack equipment, device, substance, or material shall be stored on racks or
shelves at least twelve (12) inches above the floor surface. Tack room floors shall
maintain a minimum clearance of six (6) inches above the ground.
S. 9494.3 Water Management. Special attention shall be given to water systems because
accumulation of manure, bedding, and/or feed with water are ideal for fly
production. For effective reduction of these fly-production sources, the following
guidelines are provided:
(a) A nonleak valve for all troughs, bowls, cups, and other water sources shall
be provided.
W Automatic valves, or sanitary drains if water flow is continuous, are needed
equipment for large troughs or cups.
(c) In paddock and corrals, the developer should properly grade the earth surface
to suit the master drainage plan so that rain water or water trough overflow does not
form ponds.
PLANNING COMMERCIAL DISTRICT S. 9494.4
S. 9494.4 Stable Sanitation. Good sanitary methods around barns, stalls, paddocks,
j arenas, tack sheds, and the owner's or watchkeeper's quarters are as
important as manure management. A general cleanup program should accompany the manure
management system. Weed control near stables, corrals, water troughs, and surrounding
areas around paddocks helps the sun to penetrate and allows the movement of ai-r. This
helps to dry the manure and reduce resting places for certain flies. Controlling weed
growth from open waste water drains reduces potential habitats for filth, flies, gnats
and mosquitos.
S. 9494.5 Dust Control. Continuous dust control of the entire premises shall be
maintained and subject to Article 313. The following methods for dust
control shall be followed:
(a) A method for light water sprinkling of arenas and exercise pens shall be
provided.
(b) Chemical control of dust may be permitted.
(c) Perimeter trees and shrubs shall be required for dust control.
• S. 9494.6 Stable Management. The management of commercial horse stables shall meet
the requirements of the Orange County Health Department to keep environ-
mental problems at a minimum.
S. 9495 ENFORCEMENT. The Orange County Health Officer, under Article 312, 313,
i and 902, is herein vested with the duty and authority to inspect regularly
all commercial horse stables within the city. Report and recommendation by the Orange
County Health Officer shall be forwarded to the Director of Building and Safety.
•
•
a
•
t
PINING MISCELLANEOUS DISTRICTS S. 9630
�r ARTICLE 963
1 EQUINE STANDARDS, NONCOMMERCIAL e
?63 IN'TEN'T AND PURPOSE. The intent of this article is to establish standards
for the keeping of equines on a non-commercial basis and in a manner which
will not endanger the health, peace, and safety of the community and which will assure
that equines are kept in a clean and sanitary condition and not subjected to suffering,
cruelty, or abuse. It is further the intention of this article to provide for the
regular inspection of non-commercial equine facilities to assure that good stable manage-
ment is a continuing practice. Such inspection is for the purpose of minimizing fly
production, reducing natural fly attractants, and to prevent the breeding of flies.
S. 9631 USES PERMITTED. Equines may be permitted in any zoning district subject ::o
an administrative review application before the Board of Zoning Adjustments
and subject to the provisions delineated in this article. Equines maintained under this
article are intended for private, noncommercial use. Equines shall be kept on any land
within a reasonable distance of the owner's premises in order to assure that such ani-
mals receive proper care.
S. 9632 USES PROHIBITED. Commercial operations of any nature are prohibited under
this article.
S. 9633 YARD REQUIREMENTS. The yard requirements shall pertain to all structures
that relate to equines including but not limited to stalls, corrals, arenas
and fly-tight manure bins, except pastures or grazing Areas. All such structures shall
maintain a minimum distance of one hundred (100) feet from any dwelling unit other than
a unit on subject property that is used for human habitation.
L
All yard requirements shall be measured from the existing property line, the ultimate
right of way line as adopted on the Master Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways and any
amendments thereto, or any precise plan of a street or alley alignment, whichever may
be greater. ;
The following setback requirements shall apply:
(a) Front. the front yard setback shall be a minimum of fifty (50) feet .
(b) Interior Side . The interior side yard setback shall be a minimum of twenty- •
five (25) feet, except that the interior side yard setback shall be a minimum of fifty
(50) feet for one equine and one hundred (100) feet for two or more equines from any
property line that is coterminous with property that is residentially zoned, residentially
used, or master planned for residential use.
(c) Exterior Side. The exterior side yard setback shall be a minimum of fifty s
(50) feet .
(d) Rear. The rear yard setback shall be a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet,
except the rear yard setback shall be a minimum of fifty (50) feet for one equine, one
hundred (100) feet for two or more equines from any property line that is coterminous
with property that is residentially zoned, residentially used or master planned for 0
residential use.
S. 9634 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. The following general development standards
establish minimum and maximum requirements for maintaining equines.
Minimum Building Site: ten thousand (10,000) square feet for two (2) ox fewer 0
equines. For each additional equine over two (2) there shall be an additional ten
thousand (10,000) square feet provided.
s
S. 9634.2 MISCELLANEOUS DISTRICTS PLANNING
S.S.9634_2 Specific Development Standards. The following specific requirements shall
be met:
a' : rrals. There shall be a minimum size corral of 288 square feet provided for
eac^ equine except that a mare and foal may be corralled together for a period not to
exceed twelve (12) months . Each equine corral shall meet the following requirements:
(1) The minimum size corral shall be 288 square feet with a minimum dimension of
twelve (12) feet and shall have a five (5) foot high fence.
(2) Each corral shall be provided with a combination manger and feeder and a
permanently installed water system with automatic drinking controls. The watering cup
or drinking device shall at all times be under a shaded area.
(3) Each equine shall be provided with a minimum of ninety-six (96) square feet
of shelter covering with a minimum dimension of eight (8) feet. Shelters shall be
sloped away from corrals, or rain gutters which lead to the outside of the corral shall
be installed.
(4) Corral floors shall be graded to slope away from the center of the corral.
•
(b) In all enclosures where equines are maintained, the land surface of such enclos-
ures shall be graded above the remaining land surface so as to provide adequate drainage.
(c) Stallions shall be maintained in a manner that will protect people and other
animals.
(d) Density of Equines. The maximum number of equines permitted on any one site
shall be four (4) , except that more than four (4) equines may be kept on a site where
such equines are owned by the person residing on such site.
(e) Access. All public rights of way shall be fenced and limited ingress and egress
for vehicles and horses shall be provided.
(f) Back-siphoning device shall be installed to protect the public water supply.
An approved pressure vacuum breaker is recommended on the water line serving the corrals.
The vacuum breaker should be at least twelve (12) inches above the highest point of
water usage or an approved double-check valve may be acceptable.
S. 9635 STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE. It is the intent of these standards to attain
free circulation of air and maximum exposure to sunlight for the purpose
of improving sanitation. Pipe fences are favored for maximum air circulation.
5. 9635. 1 F'ly nnd _Insect Control . Fly anti Insect control shall he diligently
�T practiced and r+uhiect Cu Article '112.
(a) Disposal t)f stable wastes sliall follow one or more of the following suggestions:
(1) All thin layer spreading shall be subject to the approval of the Orange
County Health Officer.
(21 Immediate off-ranch delivery to farmers for direct fertilizer use, or to
a county landfill for destruction.
i
.W
PLANNING MISCELLANEOUS DISTRICTS _ S. 9635(a) (3)
(3) Temporary placement shall not exceed forty-eight (48) hours in an all-
concrete, three-walled open storage bin with removal to on or off-ranch use or de-
struction on a suitable schedule. Size of storage bin depends on projected daily
volume of wastes. NOTE: The size and number could be predicated on the number of
allowed horses.
(b) Feed mangers or boxes shall not be placed near water sources since damp
spilled feed attracts flies and makes a good breeding site for flies. •
S.• 9635.2 Rodent Control. Rodent control shall be diligently practiced and
the entire premises shall be kept in an orderly and sanitary manner
to prevent possible rodent infestation. The following guidelines and criteria shall
be be considered in reviewing plans and in operation.
•
(a) All dry grains shall be stored in rodent proof metal containers and hay
shall be stored in a covered structure on a cement slab or on a raised wood platform
that maintains a minimum clearance of eighteen (18)inches above the ground.
(b) Any tack equipment, device, substance, or material shall be stored on racks
or shelves at least twelve (12) inches above the floor surface. Tack room floors �I
shall maintain a minimum clearance of six (6) inches above the ground.
S . 9635.3 Water Management . Special attention shall be Riven to water sources
because accumulation of manure, bedding, and/or feed with water are
ideal for fly production. For effective reduction of these fly-production sources, •
the following guidelines are provided:
(a) A nonleak valve for all troughs, bowls, cups and other water sources shall
be provided.
(b) Automatic valves, or sanitary drains if water flow is continuous, are
needed equipment for large troughs or cups.
(c) In paddock and corrals, the owner should properly grade the earth surface
to suit the master drainage plan so that rain water or water trough overflow does
not form ponds.
•
(d) Frequently remove stall bedding from underneath water cups.
S. 9635.4 Stable Sanitation. Good sanitary methods around barn, stalls,
paddocks, arenas, tack sheds, and the owner' s quarters are as
Important nn manure management. A general cleanup program should accompany the manur,
management symtem. Weed control near rorrnls, water troughs, ttnd surrounding areas
around paddocks helps the Run to penetrate and allows the movement of air. This
helps to dry the manure and reduce resting places for certain flies. Controlling
weed growth from open waste water drains reduces potential habitats for filth, flies,
gnats, and mosquitos.
S. 9635.5 Dust Control. Continuous dust control of the entire premises shall
be maintained and subject to applicable provisions of Article 949
and Article 313.
S . 9635 .6 Stable Management. The management of equine facilities shall meet
the requirements of the Orange County Health Department to keep en-
vironmental problems at a minimum. It
S. 9636 MISCELLANEOUS DISTRICTS PLANNING
S. 9636 ENFORCEMENT. The Orange County Health Officer, under Articles 312, 313
and 902, is herein vested With the duty and authority to inspect regular-
iv all nonco5mercial equine facilities within the City. Prior to occupancy, a report
a=- TWIZ dation of the Orange County Health Officer shall be forwarded to the
Director of Building and Safety. Certificate of occupancy shall be subject to the
approval of the Orange County Health Officer.
4&
i
r
•
a
HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT
*RICHARD HARLOW Director
*EDWARD SELICH Senior Planner
*MONICA FLORIAN Associate Planner
DAVE EADIE Associate Planner
AL MONTES Assistant Planner
MAU R E E N WILD Assistant Planner
SAVOY BELLAVIA Assistant Planner
FRED RITTER Assistant Planner
JOHN COPE Assistant Planner
*EMI LI E JOHNSON Planning Aide
CHARLES LAUMANN Planning Aide
BOB KIRBY Planning Aide
SERGIO MARTINEZ Planning Aide
THOM JACOBS Illustrator
*GEORGE ERMIN Planning Draftsman
BOB SIGMON Planning Draftsman
ALAN LEE Planning Draftsman
JUNE Al,LEN Administrative Secretary
JANA HARTGE Principal Clerk
SUSAN PIERCE Secretary-Typist
GISELA CAMPAGNE Secretary
*MARY CARDINAL Clerk-Typist
*Participating Staff
REPORT BY: ADVANCE PLANNING STAFF