The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutEllis-Goldenwest Specific Plan - EIR 82-1 REQUE i FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date Auqu�t 16, 1982 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council - ' Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator Prepared b : James W. Palin Department of Development Services P Y � P P Subject: ELL - LDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN AND EN MENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 82-1 Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attache STATEMENT OF ISSUE: tS4�eno -to Arw_ 6-LL /^'('c* Transmitted for public hearing is the draft of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report 82-1. The Plan encompasses a 290-acre area bounded by Ellis Avenue to the north, the City boundary to the west, Garfield and Ernest Avenues to the south and a line extending north from Crystal Street to the east. (The eastern boundary of the Specific Plan will ultimately coincide with the precise alignment for Gothard Street.) The Planning Commission approved the Specific Plan on July 7, 1982. Should the Council so decide, the Specific Plan could be adopted subsequent to your public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission approved Environmental Impact Report No. 82-1 and recommended City Council approval by the following vote: MOTION BY: Higgins, second by Winchell AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 1292 recommending City Council adoption of the Ellis-Golden west Specific Plan by the following vote: MOTION BY: Porter, second by Livengood AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The Planning Commission recommended City Council adoption of two ordinances, one to amend District Maps 38 and 39 to incorporate the Ellis-Golden west Specific Plan and one to add Article 930 to Division 9 referencing said Specific Plan, by the following vote: MOTION BY: Porter, second by Livengood AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None I Pio a/81 c -2- PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS: I. Approve Environmental Impact Report No. 82-1. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 5145 approving the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. 3. Adopt Ordinance No. 2569 amending District Maps 38 and 39 to incorporate the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. 4. Adopt Ordinance No. 2570 adding Article 930 to the ordinance code to indicate that specific plans are on file in the Department of Development Services. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff further recommends that the City Council approve Resolution No. 5146 imposing a special fee upon persons seeking development approvals in the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area to reimburse the City for the cost of preparing said specific plan. At their July 7, 1982 meeting, the Planning Commission considered a motion to impose such a fee. The motion failed by a vote of three ayes and three noes. ANALYSIS: Background Information The direction to prepare the Elli--Goldenwest Specific Plan originated in December 1980, when the City reviewed a General Plan amendment request to redesignate a portion of the area from estate residential to high density residential. The City Council retained the estate residential designation on the entire area and directed staff to study the feasibility of low density, equestrial planned developments. In May 1981, staff completed a conceptual study of the Ell is-Golden west estate residential area. In July 1981, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a specific plan for the Ellis-Goldenwest area to implement the estate-residential designation and the objectives contained in the conceptual study. Purpose of Specific Plan The purpose of the Specific Plan is to provide implementing zoning for and to coordinate all development and improvement of the Ell is-Golden west estate residential area. The current zoning in the Ellis-Goldenwest area is not consistent with the estate residential designation in the General Plan. Many properties in the Specific Plan area have an RA, Residential Agricultural, zoning which does not permit further subdivision of the property and allows only one dwelling unit per acre. There are three areas in the Specific Plan that have been subdivided into small lots (sometimes called encyclopedia lots) which have an LU, Limited Use, zoning. This zoning restricts use of the property to farming, grazing, trails, orchards, greenhouses, picnic grounds and other similar uses. Other properties in the Specific Plan area have an M I, Light Manufacturing, zoning which is not consistent with the City's General Plan. The Specific Plan, if adopted, will replace the existing zoning with policies, development standards and descriptive maps specifically designed for the Ellis-Goldenwest area. It will allow the properties currently zoned RA to develop at a higher density. It will allow the properties currently zoned MI and LU to develop in a residential manner that is consistent with the General Plan. The Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area provides unique opportunities for residential developments that incorporate open space, natural topography and equestrian activities. The area is characterized by rolling terrain and natural drainage swales and is located adjacent to significant open space and recreation areas including Huntington Central Park, the Bolsa Chico lowlands, and the proposed Bolsa Chico Linear Regional park. It is also a focal point for -3- equestrian uses and oil operations. Without proper planning the area will most likely be developed in a piecemeal, uncoordinated fashion because the area is divided among approximately 104 property owners whose holdings range in size from 2,800 square feet to over 80 acres. There is also a lack of public improvements such as roads and sewers to serve these properties. The Specific Plan will coordinate development and public improvements in the area to ensure that they ultimately combine to create a cohesive community that incorporates open space, natural topography, equestrian uses and continued access to underground oil reserves. Public Input There has been significant public review and comment on the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan to date. The Planning Commission held three study sessions on the Plan (February 7, March 9 and April 27, 1982) and a public hearing which extended for two meetings (June I and 15, 1982). The Planning Commission held two additional meetings (June 22 and July 7, 1982) to discuss issues that arose during the public testimony. The Department of Development Services held two meetings for property owners in the Ellis-Golden west area and one for oil operators to present the plan and take public input. Additional meetings were held with the Huntington Beach Company, Chevron Oil and other interested persons on an individual basis. The Specific Plan has been revised several times to reflect the concerns of property owners and oil operators in the area. The staff reports and minutes for the Planning Commission study sessions and public hearings on the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan are attached for your information. All letters of public comment received by the Planning Commission are also attached. We call your attention to attachment 2 of the June 15 staff report to the Planning Commission which contains a detailed discussion of oil activities in the Specific Plan area and explains the provisions of the Plan regarding the continuation of these activities. We also call your attention to the July7 staff report to the Planning Commission which contains a brief survey of equestrian developments in Orange County regarding the amounts of horse facilities that are being provided in these developments. Adoption Procedure Resolution No. 5145 has been prepared for City Council adoption of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. Once the Plan is adopted, the appropriate district maps in the City's zoning code must be amended to indicate that the Specific Plan is the new zoning for the area. Ordinance No. 2569 has been prepared for this purpose. Also attached is Ordinance No. 2570 that will include a page in the zoning code alerting readers that the Specific Plan is kept under a separate cover on file with the City Clerk and the Department of Development Services. Environmental Status EIR 82-1 provides an assessment of the proposed Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan for development of up to 870 dwelling units on 290 acres. A draft EIR was prepared and distributed to public agencies and individuals for a 30-day review period ending June 14, 1982. Comments received on the EIR have been incorporated into the text of the EIR where appropriate. Prior to taking action on the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan, the City Council must determine that the Environmental Impact Report is adequate and conforms with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and State EIR Guidelines. -4- FUNDING SOURCE: Section 65453 of the California Government Code authorizes the City to charge back the costs of preparing and adopting Specific Plans to those builders, developers and others who benefit from the development of those plans. At the time the Specific Plan is presented to the City Council for adoption, the City must prepare a cost breakdown of the Plan and related environmental documentation and make a determination of the total cost thereof. After the Specific Plan is adopted, the City may impose a special fee on persons seeking development permits for projects required to be in conformance with the Plan. The total cost of the Plan is to be divided among developers based on the relative amount of benefit derived from the Plan. Staff has prepared a cost breakdown for preparation of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan and E.I.R. No. 82-1 (attached). Staff recommends that the total cost be apportioned among developers on the basis of acreage. As shown in the attached cost breakdown, the total cost of preparing the Specific Plan and E.I.R. was approximately $44,786 which would result in a special fee of $154 per acre charged to the developer as part of his application fees. Resolution No. 5146 imposing this fee has been prepared for your adoption. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: The City Council may revise the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan prior to its adoption. The Council may also choose not to adopt the Plan. ATTACHMENTS: I. Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan and E.I.R. 82-I. 2. Cost breakdown 3. Resolution No. 5145 approving the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. 4. Ordinance No. 2569 amending District Maps 38 and 39. 5. Ordinance No. 2570 adding Article 930 referencing the Specific Plan. 6. Resolution No. 5146 imposing a reimbursement fee. 7. Planning Commission minutes. 8. Planning Commission staff reports. 9. Letters of public comment to the Planning Commission. CWT:CI:de ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN-PREPARATION COST Staff Time Project Planner $12 ,480 Project Planner 12,480 Project Managers 7 , 696 3 Benefits 21% 6, 858 Subtotal 39,514 Printing Materials 180 Topographic Map 4,759 Miscellaneous Materials, slides, graphic supplies, base maps, etc . 200 Postage 133 Total: $44, 786* *NOTE: This total does not reflect overhead costs or indirect costs incurred by other City departments COST PER ACRE: $44, 786 ; 290 ac. - $154/ac. I RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN WHEREAS, after notice duly given pursuant to Government Code section 65500 , the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach held public hearing on Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan on June 1, 1982 which was concluded on June 15 , 1982; and Such specific plan provides for development covering approxi- mately 290 acres , bounded by Ellis Avenue to the north, the city boundary to the west, Garfield and Ernest Avenues to the south and a line extending north from Crystal Street to the east (the eastern boundary of the specific plan will coincide ultimately with the precise alignment of Gothard Street) , which is consistent with the city' s general plan and will not be detrimental to the general health, welfare , safety and convenience of persons working or residing in the immediate vicinity; and The Planning Commission has recommended adoption of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan to this Council , NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach that Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan, as incorporated in the document attached hereto and by this ref- erence made a part hereof, is hereby adopted. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of 1982. ATTEST: Mayor City Clerk /ahb 7/28/82 1. REVIEWED AND APPROVED : APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Admin strator Cityk6torney INITIATED AND APPROVED: 671i�re tor of evelopment Services 2. ORDINANCE NO. 2!5&C� AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 9061 THEREOF AND DISTRICT MAPS 38 AND 39 TO INCORPORATE ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN ( ZONE CASE NO. 82-11 ) WHEREAS, pursuant to the state Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and the Huntington Beach City Council have had separate public hearings relative to Zone Case No. 82-11 wherein both bodies have carefully considered all information presented at said hearings , and after due considera- tion of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and all evidence presented to said City Council, the City Council finds that such zone change is proper, and consistent with the general plan, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows : SECTION 1. That the present zoning included within Ellis- Goldenwest Specific Plan, covering approximately 290 acres , bounded on the north by Ellis Avenue , the city boundary on the west, Garfield and Ernest Avenues to the south and a line ex- tending north from Crystal Street to the east, ( the eastern bound- ary will ultimately coincide with the precise alignment of Gothard Street) is hereby eliminated, and the specific plan established therefor provides regulated development in accordance with the objectives set out in such specific plan. SECTION 2. The Development Services Director is hereby di- rected to amend Section 9061 , District Maps 38 and 39 (Sectional District Maps 34-5-11 and 35-5-11 ) to reflect Zone Case No. 82-11 , described in Section 1 hereof. A copy of said district maps , as amended hereby are available for inspection in the office of the City Clerk. /ahb 6/11/82 1. L_ SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of 1982. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk C i tv,4 A t t o r n REVIEWED AND APPROVED : INITIATED AND APPROVED: City Adminis rator rector of Development Services 2. #w, i 15 ( Coy-14 PLANNING ZONING DM 38 SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 34-5-II SCALf IK FEEi I NOTE ADOPTED AUGUST 15, 1960 ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET CITY OF ANY ZONE ADJOINING ANY RIGHT OF WAY IS INTENDED TO EXTEND TO THE CENTER CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE N0. 765 of SUCH RIGHT of war AMENDED ORD.NO. AMENDED ORD.NO. LEGEND. RA -$IOENTAL AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT 6-3-1963 970 �] COMBINED WITH OIL PRDDJCTION HUNTINGTON BEACH 2-51696 1167 � COMB fED STR WLISTRICTiM 12-5-1966 1271 ® SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT 2-3-69 1467 NI LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT 6-26-70 1578 ® HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT 10-19-70 1606 ® COMBINED WITH OIL PRODUCTION } ® COMMUNITY FACILITIES(RECREATIONAL)DISTRICT ORANGE O J N Y CALIFORNIA 10-IB-7 1659 1 CIVIC DISTRICT 1661 ® PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDED BY ZONE CASE: I-17-72 nog Two FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT 315,505,66-4%68-46,70-8,70-10,71-9,71-26,71-17,71-44,73-20,74-22,74-5,74-22,77-19, 2-22-72 1722 © LIMITED USE I0 -15-73 1876 4-7-74 1977 9-15-75 2010 7-6-76 2077 zs z7 II-21-77 2229 \33' I 2?26 34 ^ 34 35 / 1 l I OR L CENTRAL —K DR j RI RI-CD I °°RI-CD 132D.A. Ir JASON W000 RI NEWFAFtY OF Ntl RI RI OR '` RI RI RI-CD W ,b R FR. G SDK R RR RI R I AT, R I g R I N W CR 5 P RI RI RI U p� y ° y JUOWICK RI 2 /Vy nLfT ET G6o. P C,F. .R.. y 5 R I RI JRI _L & j e KENWICK CR, 3 O 40 \\ RI- o .8 �p O CID Tat RI Fro R I R. LITTL ) RI- \ 11 4O9 T� R I 0EP°� 6 R A-0-CD ? aV p /r RI Q RI e' (PREZONED) RA-0—CD 4Js. I.Al t RI—CD °�w•':Js°. +m°RI of ,, 3w' 330 sa cT °5° a LU 0 CD LU-O-CD LU-O-CD LU-O-CD (PREZONED) R I LU-O-CD LU 0 CD LU-0 CD LU 0-CD w (PREZONED) LU 0 CD LU 0 CD LU 0-CD LU-0 CD —CD — — — — -CD 959 0 U Q G1 Z O 2 3 f ss N69•41'51'W OF 726.30' Ellis-Go enwest Specific Plan bt w % Z / W O U J m 2—.30' GARFIELD AVE. 3s 34 34 ue 1t! ATTACHMENT 5 (cony ) PLANNING ZONING DM 39 /►'SECTIONAL ECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP • 35-5-1 I - NOTE:ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET. ANY ZONE f ADOPTED MARCH 7, 1960 ADJOINING ANY RIGHT OF WAY 19 INTENDED TO Ell CITY OF CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO 754 O THE CENTER OF SUCH RIGHT OF WAY n!5^CEO LND_M. < iOF {AO__NQ ASM 4 0�H0. ® aFYIfK°CL,Lt561C<TgN 9 6-60 790 -6-IB 13 ,B54 p 3-Go IS, 11-71 IBS) �� P ANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 7.60 79B II 113 IT ® RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT 12-19-60 BOB 1-,9-]] IB IB 515-61 BJ9 'S-]-7) [� INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT HUNTINGTON BEACH 112 61 ROD 1 B1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT 6.61 Bm 12-17 73 KIDI -]-62 89a.900 10-IS-73 W76 © COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT 6-IB62 90R 8 5-74 19)6 FRONT YARD.SETBACK LINE 1- 2 .3 It_R-71 91, ®i INGLE FAMILI RESIDENCE DISTRICT 9.62 9J7 ' 76) 946 ]-6-76 2081 ® OFFICE-PROFE5510NAL DISTRICT ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA paz. 1 -s65 R ?_j_i� pge O TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE DISLR6i 12 I—S ,'62 5-2-]] 2104 pOj LIMITED MULTIPLE "MILT RESIDENCE gStR1C1 b-20-Y7 AMENDED BY ZONE CASE: ^ i re 2ne 2-17-69 47s © HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL 111,126,127,I30,133,134,L38,141,149,196,212,237,238 6.16-69 ,1.,7.73 R;.3110 [� RESTRICTED MANUFACTUP-DISTRICT 9.2.69 1122 2-11-]B AlE;.4590 ® COMMUNI T Y FACILITIES(RECREATIONAL)DISTRIC' 250,238,274,293,429,505,542,67-27,68-15,68-54,69-11,69-21,70-10.70-27,71-1'4,71-17,72-B.PP72-6 I3-19110 16� 3n-00 2418 COMMUNITY fACRIrIE;ICIVICl DISTRICT 72-18,72.9.72-6,72-34,72-44,73-5,73-8,73-16,73-IB,PPA7}1,73-21,73-23.73-20.74-6,74-15.PP74-3,76-17,76-26 e,76-26 C.71-7,77-17, B-16-7I 1.2 7-21-RD z114 T 2-17-BI I4T2 COMBINED WITH OIL PRODUCTION 77-27,SP73-1,79-I0,80-9,80-J7,PP6AB2-I,81-13, a 1!-i2 14. 3-Is-ezRE5.s104 2]16 B.7-]2 :T'B 1144 u COMBINED WITH OIL PRODUCTION 26 15 !4 35 9-5-72 1774 FM CIVIC DISTRICT - 6-5-12 141 J3 ]D TALBERT mmz PREUSE PLAN OF STREET AL MENr ., 4 2:73 MZ6 AVE. T Q 640' MI-CD a .ca- L' 8 MI-A N ff (Q)R2-PD ✓1 47 MI-A � � I � - .. 50 J I ✓�71111T/!I n/111111I/JIItD�. (0 f� (Q)R2-PD j CF_R : : RI C 4 MI-CD R- m :. R M I A 1\I',•��', ' R I MI-CD ' j 66oG_ P➢PA81NL "1 ICF-R a9ri == t-_ .. IRI C2. TY TAYLOR GR '^ ¢ r ti 57120 j 3 RI RI RA-0—CD M I M1� RI ONTARIO DR C 2 SD 660€/� w R I CiF C g MIw Ow cR. �Dueaec DR RI RI8299.I1 ALBERrRAI DR o RI R3 o MI—CD RI RI RI RI r _ �z F' so MI YUKON 1) L'R4NKUN DR G.A . . RI R3 R3 40 MI-CD iHNKE` aPPLEB'U RI _ R3 Ri R2 R3 R3 o MI - __._- �. I — ` 'Ml�ol R2 R2 . ..__ C 2 s c2 6-50 T- '� M I P.' i R 2.. 614EJ.---- R5 Ellis-Goldenwes R3 1 COMMODORE CR i Specific Plan 1 � M2-0 _OITf329:5 TJ M I—0 R3 IDIS iP.ICT�° R3- R2 '100 - (DISTRICT ONE)ERNEST B AVE m! R5 •C`T^ N 330 MI-O-CD 3 1 PACIFICA C01 1MUNITY PLAN (DISI F ICT ONE) R3 j w M2-QI 00.z'� 1610) -• 1--2999D MI-A-CD M I-o MI-0 — J - �I R2 A�>N_�a- 9 R5 o EFEB a O '- _ R.5 R2 ¢ a m 1-A-Cp-0 3 31J—O I-'RS Oa R3 J3o E 300 R 5 R2 II R2 2 J _R2._Jj — _ GARFIELD AVE )4 )5 36 2 2) r ORDINANCE NO. -� 67v AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY ADDING THERETO ARTICLE 930 REFERENCING SPECIFIC PLANS The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows : SECTION 1. The Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is amended by adding thereto Article 930 entitled , "Specific Plans ," to read as follows : 9300. SPECIFIC PLANS. The following specific plans are on file in the office of the City Clerk and the Department of Development Services : ( a) Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. (b) Seabridge Specific Plan. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of 1982. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk Ci y Atto n y REVIEWED AND APPROVED : INITIATED AND APP OVED: City Administrator rector of Development Services /ahb 6/11/82 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ESTABLISHING A SPECIAL FEE FOR APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS IN THE ELLIS- GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN AREA WHEREAS, California Government Code section 65453(a) au- thorizes the city to be reimbursed the cost of preparing a specific plan; and The city has prepared and adopted the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan for development of a 290-acre area bounded by Ellis Avenue on the north, the city boundary on the west, Garfield and Ernest Avenues to the south, and a line extending north from Crystal Street to the east ( the eastern boundary of the specific plan area will coincide ultimately with the precise alignment of Gothard Street) ; and The total cost of preparation of such plan has been deter- mined to be $44,786, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach that the total cost of preparation of such plan shall be apportioned among property owners in the area at a charge of $154 per acre as a special fee. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the aforementioned special fee shall be collected from each property owner on acreage included in his application for tentative tract map approval . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of 1982. ATTEST: Mayor City Clerk AJF :ahb 7/28/82 1. I REVIEWED AND APPROVED : APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Adminis rator City A orney r, INITIATED AND APPROVED: D rector of eve opment Services 2. CENTURY RIDERS CORRAL NO. 100 P. O. BOX 2303 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA. 92647 A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION 1V Dedicated to Equine Legislation and the Acquisition ORGANIZED 1944 and Preservation of Riding and Hiking Trails Dear City Council Mei;,ibers, Due to '51-ie complexity of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan we would like to ask that a special raeoting be held to take public input, staff input and vote on the plan that se night if possible. Our members consist of both horseowners and property owners in that area. Many of us sat through at least four Planning Commission regular meetings when this area was discussed and then continued due to time constraints. Our members are extremely concerned that this area be successful both from a horseman' s and a developer' s view- point. We have spent many hours getting input from experts in all phases of this type of development and would very much appreciate being able to present it at the time the plan itself is being considered. Due to the lapse in time between public input and actually voting on the plan Planning Co-,mmission made some unrealistic requirements that need to be corrected at the Council level. We are not asking for special favors but from past experience feel that a special meeting dealing with okly the Ellis-Goldenwest speeific plan would be the best way for the Council to take input and haver out a plan that will be an asset to the city. Yours truly, James Hunt, president M. H. MAROW ions-275-4081. (213) 472-1697 REC ElYEb �J/7"y/ or= f--fll�r"'Tr/•�,G—"7c��.-f 15".�=�C.r`,r A U 6 16 1982 / Development Services 4 i I� /f/t / �L1t Si" �i�4fJfGi� .R��or�r✓ .45t f�C-�3i�r%Vrn✓G �Ji�r i'i s' 1?-I—':;D k-- 72) f'�r/✓J/.nlA7,E r�A-Nt�C7�urk/L�i�'' /�iSK},�.5 f�?DI�oJ,�Z� J , c%-fAI/n/.A-74� A F 4 �� ivic/r.ES.i'.c1.c'..�/ ��9.LI�LlC.67rON r.i/ 1�Y�Ltl�it./EN7 ,,pa A h/Z7' �/.1/NT.!�r i1/•l�/ �/ N/rTN �-/R.(ITc D V S4-. 4 �i�tJC'J /d7�C.//-.�I �XT/�A✓/� 3rUC� or- E�!LTi�1G JV1�3-'T i��.I' %�4S'l L' y /r�.lr0�PU12 Rr�-?_.f�' fnf �•F.�.nfr�ffrvCr- �✓/ II �✓'� 7//1�-- �/T--� ��i N�"Ti C_ /�J G�LT.P}!nJ N�.OJs1> a�J�i�c�/t'-�,4 J3t� l�-/ouJia►l�- , �/iGr'�rF� G7-..�1 i�✓rf�vcirr-r� Mucf/ �,45'7r�E'. ,_!�'✓,�[.rc��iuft-ni?"� �C►w�2 k'-�s,� A<�o Cr3nr�/2o c_ t�'S. '!� �--/-�ry OGVN,�/1J' YV� �✓trE- GC,NSr.OF/zr�f *- �'�c'cr-f.4rt/L"� 864 N . Bundy Drive Los Angeles, California 90049 !�^ Iq Ho 4-N-mm 9�+ S ( v ) PLANNING ' ZONING DM 39 4 SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 35-5-II 0-E ON ,EET ADOPTED MARCH T. 1960 NOTE:ALL DIMENSIONS AXE IN FEET. ANY ZONE ADJOINING ANY RI6NT Of WAY IS INTENDED TO EXTEND CITY OF CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 754 To THE CENTER OF SUCHNIGHT OF WAY A1SNffi3 �`K A �K ® OIYLIFIED CLASSIFICATION -60 790 6-18-73 1854 0-5-60 795 6 1 -1e-73 qS3 FIFA-3 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT II-7-GO 1. q-Il-73 1874 RESIDENTIAL AMECULTVIML DISTRICT 2-N-w SOB II-19-73 18TS 5-6-6. 639 l-7-73 1112 ® —TRIAL DL4TRILT HUNTINGTON BEACH q6-61 916 2 -137 W. ® LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT 5-7-62 899.900 10-15-73 676 ® COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT 6-IB-62 BOB 8-5-74 1938 FRONT YARD,SETBACK LINE 8-6-62 918 12-9-14 S, ® SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT 1-I9-62 937 Il-le-74 1951 -T-- 946 7-6-78 20M ® OFFICE-FROFE390NAL DISTRICT ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA Sie ° 2-'_77 216. 4-5-65 32 1-3-77 21D7 ® TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT -17-66 e2 5-2-77 2184 12-IB-67 1373 a-20-T7 2201 R3 LIMITED MULTIPLE FAMILY RE910ENCE DISTRICT 6-I]-66 1421 12 -77 22'S4 AMENDED BY ZONE CASE: 2-17-68 1475 16-a 223e © "—WAY COMMERCIAL 6-6-69 MCG 12-17-73 RESR.10 RESTRICTED MANUFACTURING DISTRICT 111,126.127,130.133,134,D3B.141,149,198,212,237,238 9-2-69 1522 2-21-78 RESO 4S90 COMMUNITY FACILITIES(RECREATIONAL)DISTRICT 250,258,274,293,429,505,542,67,27,68-15,68-34,69-11,69-21,70-10,70-27,71-14,71-17,72-8,PP72-6 1y°_�s,�° 6jg 3-IT-eo 2418 COMMUNITY FACILITIES(CIVIC)DISTRICT 44 72.18,72-19.72-6,72-34,72-44,73.5,73-8,73-16,73-1%PPA73-1,73-21,73-23,73-20,74-6,74-15,PP74-3,76-17,76-26 B,76-26 C,77-7,77--17, fi-6-71 —0B 7-21-60 2472 -17-72 1709 2-17-81 5104 ® COMBINED WITH OIL PRODUCTION 77-27,SP73-I,79-IO,BO-9,80-17,PPSAB2-I,81-13, 4-3-72 nto 3-16-82RESN254 27 26 6-7.72 1T6S 3-I5-82 25t4 -pO COMBINED WITH OIL PRODUCTION 26 25 9-5-72 1773 CIVIC DISTRICT N 35 9-5-72 1774 ® 35 36 TALBERT 6-4-72 1147 np22 PNEC SE FLAHOFSTREET 2-2-73 *26 —_� .-z-73 qzs AVE. ------= P`nA3TE srREEr � s p v - 6t0 z U MI-CD MI-A 0- 111". (Q)Ft2 PD N 43 R MFA o o SO RIEDE T. J ✓ I �IGIIIII11IJ1110� m ; (Q)R2-PD C 4 —R MI—CD MI—A Rid - (I:_:NT!NG'1'0N !1FNTRAI.^'ARK) , MI—CD PROMN DR, t: RI '' RI N. TAYLOR OR n RI ~ RI : 57120 3 50 RA-0-CD M I MI RI DNTARID DR C 2 ° RI RI J OUEBEC DR RI RI 6004s a MI N Na7 pe9.N ]' RI RI w M aor ALBERTA 0R om °i R 3 I. MI-CD RI RI RI RI ` SO6 M( i Y ON DR FRANKLIN DR r E1 i I RI R3 R3 JD, MI-CD 5 8YW DR f S 0 APPLE RI F1 FRI R2 R3 R3 ��E LISP— — •c RI a—sA—_ T-- ml ;. R2 ,C. ; 50 I MI-ol R2 ____``- C2 c2 r— 650 y M R5 so Ellis-Goldenwes R3 Specific Plan COMMODORE CR /\ _MFigOft 2e7' I M2-0 R3 150 � 323751TO M I—0 R -_-- - I~_. (DISTRICT,, (R3� R2%R2 TWO) N LN .. ' u i'�R2.';R2 - 2ss so (DISTRICT ONE) ERNEST AVE M1 W R5 $,�•�/ / C4 1'- 330 tMI-O-CD F 3 "° ACIFICA OR 4MUNITY PLAN R3 .; c (DI ICT ONE) W M2-Ola '` Nos zs990 = MI-A-CD MI-0 MI-0 arRz qw) = W A R5 g o FE Q o R5st R2 1-A-� u 3 E R5 30170 R2 R2 'm o°' R3 330E P Soo R 5 R2 ' R2 $ RA-0_ R5,,"^ R2 GARFIELD AVE 3t 35 35 36 3 2 2 I •"LANNING SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 36-5-11 o CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA USE OF PROPERTY MAP 15 SO 31 TALBERT II AVENUE CF-E =GLA0Y5 AVE LU LU w. Ld LU _j cn 0 co 2.7 STERLIN g AVENUE o u I I ,%E RIVER MINER A VJNER AVE -5 AMAZONRVEN CR DR., LE CONTE D -"b- DARCY CR.- 9- TRINITY RIVER CR I.KLI-E DIR L ILLL/ z PHOENIX AVE [ o z CR fi 10, 10 ON, IDP NOD.eLE DR. BLUI BIRD AVE CR R O w z co ST CR R z OF o z 1. -pr - E.z TERN AVE Li IELD AVENUE t � IN THE Superior Court ' -�� OF THE 912 STATE OF CALIFORNIA In and for the County of Orange CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH �.-4—+C� CITY CLERK PROOF OF PUB i CATION PUBLIC HEARING State of California ) County of Orange )ss. APRIL L. ELLIOTT NCYtICIz�'PU641ir . That I am and at all times herein mentioned was a citizen of =b-Qolleaerat8pedfkPW the United States,over the age of twenty-one years,and that I ez 1 NOTICE IB�HE EBY GIVEN that a am not a party to,nor interested in the above entitled matter; ppublic hearing will be held by the City that I am the principal clerk of the printer of the Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Cen- 30 ter,Huntington Beach,at the of P.M.,or u soon thereafter possible r powble- Monday the i8th d. .Au�u E a newspaper of general circulation,published in the City of the purpose of toe enwest S c Plan and Environmental H U N T I N G T O N BEACH Na e2-1.The proposed Impact Specific P includes . 2he ncre area, bounded by Ellis Avenue to the north,the County of Orange and which newspaper is published for the Ernest Avenues City boundary t the west,Garfield and to the south;and a Nne disemination of local news and intelligence of a general charac- extendin*north from Crystal Street to ter, and which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had the east The Specific Pthe if adopted. will be the zomn� foe the .dove-man- and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers, Woned area and mill include pdicies and and which newspaper has been established, printed and pub- regulations,goverwal land tee'0rla- lished at regular intervals in the said County of Orange for a open PM oeatt ther es period exceeding one year; that the notice, of which the p�nenttttodevelopmentof the arm annexed is a printed copy, has been published in the regular Copies of the spsc�fic Plan and a Iegel `dacripWon of the area we on file in the and entire issue of said newspaper,and not in any supplement Department of Development Services., thereof,on the following dates,to wit: Copies of the PLn will be mailed upon regzt��(71�4 an invited to AUGUST 59 1982 attend said hwmg and sprees then opinions for or against said EI 2Gold.- west Specific Plan and MR 82-1.Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 9SM;(714)b38-b227. DATED:J 0 19TF OCITY O GN BEACH By.ALICAM. WORTH.City Clerk 982 1 certifv (or declare) under penalty of Pub.Aug.Beach Ind. p y perjury that the forego- Pub. BeachlndRev.tt30310 ing is true and correct. Dated at......GARDEN GROVE California,thi 6 t.h...day of A U G •..19..82... Signature worm No.CAF-81380 A CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 82--26 COUNCIL - ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To Honorable Mayor and From Charles W. Thompson, City Council Members City Administrator Subject ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN Date August 2 , 1982 Attached for your information is the RCA and back-up material on the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan which is scheduled for public hearing at the August 16, 1982 Council meeting. Because of the length of the documents, this information is being presented to you in advance of the normal schedule for your review. If you have any questions, please contact me. Respe lly subm' tted, N arles W. mpson, City Administrator CWT:pj Attachment OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 2000 Main Street itington Beach, California 92648 �l NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING .is-Goldenwest Specific Plan and EIR 82-1 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center,Huntington Beach,at the hour of 7:30 p.m.,or as soon thereafter as possible on Monday the 16th day of August,1982 for the purpose of considering the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report No.82-1.The proposed Specific Plan includes a 290acre area bounded by Ellis to the north,the City boundary to the west,Garfield and Ernest Avenues to the south,and a line extending north from Crystal Street to the east.The Specific Plan,if adopted, will be the zoning for the above-mentioned area and will include policies and regulations governing land use,circulation, grading,development standards,open space corridors and other activities pertinent to development of the area.Copies of the Specific Plan and a legal description of the area are on file in the department of Development Services.Copies of the Plan will be mailed upon request by calling(714)536-5271. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan and EIR 82-1.Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk,2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach,California.92648(714)536-5227. Dated:July 30,1982 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH By:ALICIA M.WENTWORTH City Clerk Pub.8/5/82 Hunt.Beach Ind. Publish NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan and EIR 82-1 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center, Huntington Beach, at the hour of 7: 30 P.M. , or as soon thereafter as possible on Monday the 16th day of August , 1982 for the purpose of considering the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report No. 82-1. The t� proposed Specific Plan includes a 290-acre area bounded by Ellis Avenue to the north, the City boundary to the west, Garfield and Ernest Avenues to the south, and a line extending north from Crystal ' Street to the east. The Specific Plan, if adopted, will be the ? zoning for the above-mentioned area and will include policies and regulations governing land use, circulation, grading, development standards, open space corridors and other activities pertinent to development of the area. Copies of the Specific Plan and a legal description of the area are on file in the Department of Development Services. Copies of the Plan will be mailed upon request by calling (714) 536-5271. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan and EIR 82-1. Further information may be obtained from the GeL-Aeesy 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. 92648 - (714) 536- 3 i. Z 7 DATED July 26, 1982 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH By: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk lof RAQ 111-130-09 110-153-10 Robert Jeffrey Ellis-Goldenwest � E. WaY�7 Pat O Maccinga Specific Plan 507 Amber Drive 32146 Sailview Vane (May 18, 1982 JH) Huntington Bch, Calif Westlake Village, Calif 91361 92648 111-130-12 110-152-22 110-153-12 Stanfell F bills John W Shank 3rd et al Joe M. Anderson 804 N Glenwood Circle 643 S Olive Street UU Main Street Fullerton, Calif Los Angeles, Calif Htbtingbon Beach, Calif 92632 90014 92648 111-130-14 Waldo E Bemis 110-153-13 Huntington Surfside Cibpr Muriel W Ensign Elmer E. Brown 411 Main Street Suite B 416 W Las Palmas Drive 524 S 9th East Huntington Beach, Calif Fullerton, Calif 92632 Salt Lace City, Utah 92648 110-152-23 84105 111-130-15 110-153-01 110-153-14 Wilvian J Renner Orville W Carber George Cantor 807 Frankfort Street P.O. Box 1080 323 Via Lich Soud Huntington Beach, Calif Hawtborne, Calif Neeport Beach, Calif 92648 90250 92663 110-151-15 110-153-03 UO-153-15 Huntington Pacific Corp Security Pacific Bank Oorder W. Wattenbarger 2110 Main Street National TR 6202 Caa*-U Drive Huntington Beach, Calif Tax Division #01-5-13970-0 Huntington Beach, Calif 92648 P.O. Box 60802 92647 110-151-17 Terminal Annex UO-153-16 Pacific American Oil Co Oopp Los Angeles, Calif Milton H Marrow 7385 Santa Monica Blvd. 90026 864 N. Bundy Drive Hollywood, Calif -- --- In Angeles, Calif 90046 90049 110-162-17 110-153-04 110-153-21 Evelyn V. Ruger et al lewie P. Derigo Norman A Parker P.O. Box 7 807 Main Street 5292 Al.lstobe Drive Bancroft, ID Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 83217 92648 92649 110-152-19 110-153-05 110-163-13 John Gustafson Charles P McKenzie et al ]- 'I! t 5161 Pearce Street P.O. Box 477 Huntington Beach, Calif Sun City, Calif 92649 92381 110-152-20 110-153-06 U --163-13 W R Bailey Emil Grandjean Est. Walter D Service 4060 Chapaun Place George V Gransjean 7050 RmuAng Iran Low Riverside, Calif P.O. Box 1060 Pocatello, ID 92586 Carlsbad, NM 88220 83201 110-163-15 Ellis-Gol est Specific 110-183-19 Thomas W. Woodward Jr - -=-_ ----- Janes R Ma ig 1823 Hammon May 18, 1982 (JH) 2260 Park Newport Drive #10_ Oroville, Calif Newport Beach, Calif 95965 92660 110-164-16 110-165-12 110-183-23 Kathryn C Tilton Anne Ferguson BVaigeline H W Gentry 401 Prospect Circle Ruth E Martin 3637 Shell Avenue #333 So. Pasadena, Calif 16921 Dominican Drive San Joee, Calif 91030 San Diego, Calif 92128 95106 110-164-18 110-165-14 110-184-12 William C Scouller Robert Mackensen Noonan A Parker Miriam Lawson 1993 Colusa Highway 5292 Allstorie Drive 613 Huntington Avenue Yorba Linda, Calif EMtbxjtan Reach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92648 95991 92649 110-164-19 110-165-16 110-184-13 John C Telinde George Cantor Richard V Quine 5202 Cornell Avenue Ted Oliver 2200 Park Newport1401 Westminster, Calif P.O. Baas 2491 Newport Beach, Calif 92683 Laguna Hills, Calif 92653 92660 110-164-20 UO-165-17 110-184-16 Ronald P Borghetti Duane V. Woolpert et al Willian B Blanchard 10208 Disney Circle 2300 E Pacific Coast Highway Se dma, Arizona Huntington Beach, Calif Lang Beach, Calif 86336 92646 90804 110-164-21 110-165-20 110-184-17 Lewie P Derigo Ted Oliver Charles F Barrett. 807 Main Street P.O. Box 2491 Betty Mo uillen Huntington Beach, Calif Laguna Hills, Calif 2630 Wastwood Blvd. 92648 92653 Loe Angeles, Cali--90064 110-165-01 110-165-22 110-184-lK Helen H Gibson Bruce C Gabrielson Myron M Was. 1917 N Rodney Dr Apt 319 18875 Beagle Lane 23636 Sidney Bay Street Los Angeles, Calif Riverside, Calif Laguna Niguel, Calif 90027 92504 92677 110-165-05 110-165-24 110-184-20` Kenneth H. Miller Peter H. Laimbeer Mae Shepherd 2901 Tam 0 Shanter Drive 11240 Talbert Avenue 564 N Popla Street El Dorado Hills, Calif Fountain Valley, Calif Manteca, Calif 95630 92708 95336 110-165-08 110-183-15 U --184-21 Union Bank Trust OD Richard T. Leaver Clare W. Hardy TR P #1752 TR P#7022 9393 Sierra Mar Drive Gilbert W. Williams P.O. Boas 2193 Tenn Annex Los Angeles, Calif 489 W Street Los Angeles, Calif 90054 90069 Salt Lake City Utah 84103 110-185-01 110�-1.86-11 Philip A Lantin Ellis-Golst Specific PlanGearge W Baines 2531 E. Marshall Avenue Y 18, 1982 (JH) Carl Oakford Phcmix, Arizona 6901 Buis Avenue 85016 Huntington Beads, Calif 926, 110-185-03 110-185-20 110-186-12 H. J. White Stephen F Gallagher Yvette C Lawrence 6491 Jones Avenue 1695 W Crescent Avenue Caul d&cfard Riverside, Calif Suite 222 6901 Ellis Avenue 92505 Anaheim, Calif 96801 Huntington Beach, Calif 926, 110-185-06 110-185-21 uo-186-13 Ray Cartwright John Gustason Marvin P Adler 3381 Alcazar Drive 5161 Pearce Drive 8906 Warner Avenue Dana Point, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Fbuntain Valley, Calif 92629 92649 92708 110-185-09 110-186-02 110-186-14 Mrs. Frank Armstrong et al James G. Burcha¢n Heaiaen Har= Dorothy C Thorpe 9331 Nantucket Drive Lcmcaine Harms P.O. Boat 1825 Huntington Beach, Calif 5655 116th Place SE Rancho Santa Fe, Calif 92067 92646 Bellevue, Washington 98004 110-185-10 110-186-03 110-186-15 Sarah 0 Martineaue Ronald L. Knudtson JUl.ian I HatImmy 209 Baltimore Avenue 408 12th Street P.O. Boot 3404 Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Santa Fe Springs, Calif 92648 92648 90670 110-185-11 110-186-07 110-186-16 Ernest L Dalany Patricia G Pyyak Alioe E Gughes c/o Michael Dalany 9757 Toucan Circle J. I. Hathaway 631 Orangegrove Avenue Fountain Valley, Calif P.O. Hoot 3404 Sierra Madre, Calif 91024 92708 Santa Fe Springs, Calif 906 110-185-13 110-186-08 110-186-i8 A J Head C T Reynolds Hilda H Clayson Mrs. Viva H Paar Katharine J RW mlds P.O. Boot 124 191 Howard Avenue 2235 Millersport Highway Pasmdena, Calif Rochelle Paris, N.J. 07662 Getzville, N.J. 14068 91102 110-185-17 110-186-09 110-186-20 H J White AAA Johnson Rm&aph C Manning 6491 Jonse Avenue 3079 Maiden Lane 1650 3rd Street Riverside, Calif Altadena, Calif Norco, Calif 92505 91001 91760 110-185-18 110-186-10 110-186-21 Hattie Mea Mitchell Lester K Layton Orville W Carter P.O. Box 4 1200 San Julien Place P.O. Boot 1080 Meadview, Arizona Lake San Marcos, Calif Hmeha:ne, Calif 86444 92069 90250 l�LJ 110-180-02 A C Marion Ellis-Golderiwest Specific Plan P.O. Box 108 Huntington Beach, Calif May 18, 1982 (JH) 92948 110-180-02 Muriel F Johnscn 2387-3E Via Mariposa West Laguna Hills, Calif 92653 t 110-014-38 111 120-11 Signal. Carpanies, Inc Specific Plea Bernard A Lidcie Ellis-Goldenwest 17890 Sky Park Blvd. May 18, 1982 QH) 1201 Dove St Suite 600 Irvine, Calif Newpatt Beach, Calif 92714 92660 110-014-52 Ul-071-27 Ul 120-1.3 HUntington Pacific Dorp James T Hudson JChn A Thomas 2110 Main Street 818 141rh Street 19782 Scenic Bay Lane Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92648 92648 92648 110-200-29 111-071-28 111-120-16 Huntington Beach Catpany Viamra Corp Colleen Armstrong Tax Division Ocean View Mushroom JObn A Thomas 225 Bush Street 18196 Goldenwest Street 19782 Scenic Bay Lane San Francisco, Calif 94120 Huntington Beach, Calif 92648 Huntington Beach, Calif 9264: 110-16e-3 111-072-09 111--120-26 City of Huntington Beach Elver g Coetsch Stan 610 Main Street Huntington Beach, Calif 92"8 110-180-04 111-072-09 LU-120-27 A C Marion Huntington Beach Co. Travis B Mitchell et al P.O. Box 108 2110 Main Street William J Scott Jr et al Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif MS Long Beads Blvd. 92648 92648 Long Beach, Calif 90806 111-071-22 111-110-01 111-120-28 Sully Miller Contractors Co. Bruce L Greer Weir oil Cc Inc 3000 E South Street 18792 Stewart Street 401 20th Street Long Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 90805 92648 92(48 111-071-24 111-110-19 1A-120-29 Ocean View bkwJw an Growers Co Irvin G Greer Jae Muniz 18196 Goldenwest Street 1209 Park Street 19251 Newland Street Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92648 92648 92646 111-071-25 111m120-06 111-130-07 Mabel H Bradley Linda L Thomas Bezrard A Lactose P.O. Box 270 19782 Sonic Bay Lane 1201 Dome St Suite 600 Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif Newport Beach, Calif 92648 92648 92660 111-071-26 111-120-09 Ul-130-08 Richard J Pariseau American oil Service Inc 5622 Brighton Drive 18906 Goldenwest Street Huntington Beach, Calif Huntingtoa Beach, Calif 92649 92648 110-222-02 110-222-26 Ruth E Li.nsemayer Clark Hbrnald P Borghetti 1136 N Central AVE #206 10208 Disney Circle Glendale, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 91202 92646 110-222-04 110-222-14 110--IW29 Robert D Lang Louis C Spelts Daniel F Sailer P.O. Box 5 471 Walnut Place P.O. Boot 231 Stanton, Calif 90680 Costa Mesa, Calif Midaey City, Calif 92627 92655 110-222-05 110-222-16 Tan King Kenneth Hubbs Keith H Long 901 Dover Dr. 7072 Hoover Way 75370 Desert Valley Lane Shiite 200 Buena Park, Calif Indian Wells, Calif Newport Bch, CA 90620 92260 92660 110-222-06 110-222-18 Leland C Fuller Nellie A Tr wnley 11 -'Z 2 2 -og Margaret M Fuller Rt 1 Brno 23 "dkict H aces Rt 2 Box 461 o c'. Montague, Calif �}a,n�. Qit c , 7 , Corbett, Oregon 97019 96064 V%A1► 110-222-07 110-222-19 Lois P Butters Thyra G Butler 6643 Dolores Drive 6112 Adenmoor Avenue C Paradise, Calif Lakewood. Calif ice, 95969 90713 U4 -08 110-222-20 Q `� JOhn L Ei.lertsen et al 4518 Winona Ave Apt #5 Wastm;net-A_r= Cal;f San Di -92W 92115 �, Calif 110-222-10 310„222-21 110-222-26 Mary C Newcomer �ers Allan R. Jacobson a Blvd. �� E Pcw 6$22 Loyola Dr. 1040 S Or � 5470 Castle Hills Drive Huntington Beach, CA Unit 20 San Diego, Calif 92647 Pasadena, Claif 91105 92109 110-222-11 110-222-22 Alita M Baker Margaret J Ste=an Ord Clark 225 Elk St Space 76 455 S Irving Blvd. Century 21 Heret, Calif Los angeles, Calif 5916 Warner Ave. 92343 90020 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 110-222-13 UO--222-23 Rex Long Harold C Marton John Gustafson 9393 Emery Ct. #7 1126 Pac Mut Blvd. 5161 Pearce Drive Fountain Valley, CA Los Angeles, Calif Huntington Beach, C311 92708 90014 92649 110-221-02 110-2?1-15 Stevens Miller Clark Janes E Mitchell P.O. Box 2206-D 18815 Via Palatino' Pasadena, Calif Irvine, Calif 91105 92715 110-221-03 110-221-09 110-221-19 William D Main Elizabeth M Hargrove Margaret J Pettitt 3632 E Loomis Street 225 N Claudina Street 13191 Newland Street Lakewood, Caiff Anaheim, Calif Gar deb Grave, Calif 90712 22805 92644 110-220-02 110-221-10 110-221-20 Ronald I Brindle Barbara A Lambert Bill D Terry 18851 Goldenwest Street 119U SW Lambert Rd 4294 Vanguard Drive Huntington Beath, Calif Santa Ana, Calif Icr Calif 92648 92705 93436 110-221-04 110-221-U 110-221-21 Alexander Crosnan Vance R Kahle Joseph Dickinson P.U. Box 1123 218 14th Street c/o John A Carr Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 3330 E Stearns Avenue 92647 92648 Orange, Calif 92669 110-221-05 110-221-12 110-221-22 Robert H Allen Edward R Hoffman Duna F Scoull.er Dennis L Allen 2290 Bridgen Rd Miriam S Lawson 4147 Gardena Avenue Pasadena, Calif 613 Huntington Avenue Long Beach, Calif 90807 91104 Huntington Beach, Calif 9264 110-221-06 110-221-14 UO-221-24 'title Ins & Trust Co Melvin F Keller TR #38-5P5227R77676 4534 SW Hewett Blvd. 1717 Walnut Grove Avenue Portland, Oregon Rosemead, Calif 91770 97221 110-221-07 110-221-15 110-221-23 W R Bailey Wareen C Deutsch Isabelle McNevin 4060 Charnan Place 9100 Wilshire Blvd 1100 E Ocean Avenue Apt 3 Riverside, Calif Beverly Hills, Calif Ii* g Beach, Calif 92506 90212 90802 110-221-01 110-221-16 110-221-26 Robert C Mize Jr City of Huntington Beach Fran ss Bergey Hay Marjorie M Le Gaye U98 ftvigator Drive 550 N Golden Circle Drive Ventura, Calif Santa Ana, Calif 92705 93003 110-221-08 110-221-17 110-222-01 Keith Walker Union & Trust Bank of LA Zola L Carter 19712 W Ave of the Oaks TR#P7022 2901 Pacific Avenue Newhall, Calif P.O. Box 2193 Terns Area Icvq Beach, Calif 91321 Los angeles, Calif 90054 90806 �in� � l�t�-fr a 1 of e►.,..�t s� 10-1 Ol 110-191-18 Julian thaway Clark P.O. Bo 404 San a ings, Calif �x�glees 90 110-190-02 110-191-06 110-191-18 Muriel r Johnson Harriet T Shea Richard T Leaver 2387-3E Via Maritosa West Randi Fjaeran 9393 Sierra Mar Drive Laguna Hills, Claif P.O. Box 1998 Los Angeles, Calif 92653 Chula Vista, Calif 92012 90069 110-190-05 110-191-08 110-191-21 Constance Ann Hendricks Charlotte Gratz Duane V Wbolpert et al 299 Hermosa Way 634 S Orchard Drive 2399 E Pacific Coast Highwa San Luis Obispo, Calif Burbank, Calif Iong Bah, Calif 93401 91506 90804 110-190-06 110-191-12 UO-192-01 Pacific Amer. Oil Co Corp Charles P McKenzie et al Don Martinson 7385 Santa Monica Blvd. P.O. Box 477 2208 Alta Vista Drive Hollywood, Calif Sun City, Calif Vista, Calif 90046 92381 92083 110-191-01 110-191-13 110-192-03 Thomas H Goodings H A Lang Est. Ted Oliver William T G Beckett Marie M Cartes P.O. Box 2491 3580 Ridgecrest Drive 4336 Beard Avenue North Laguna Hills, Calif Carlsbad, Calif 92008 Robinsdale, MN 55422 92653 110-191-02 110-191-14 110-192-06 Fred W Gooding Harold C Morton Richard V Quine Diamond Land & Livestock Co 523 W 6th Street Roan 1126 Christopher V Quine D Sidney Smith Los Angeles, Calif 90014 2200 Park Newport #401 Shoshone, Idaho 83352 Newport Beach, Calif 9266! 110-191-03 Milton H Marow 110-192-07 RichoW T Leaver 272 S Rexford Drive Hugo J En*rjbach 9393 Si.arra Mar Drive Beverly HI11s, Calif John E Mothera.I Los Angeles, Calif 90G12 P.O. Box 713 90069 110-191-15 Lava Hot Springs, Idaho 8.' 110-191-04 110-191-16 110-192.08 A W McKinnon Heber T Hanks Laura A Guthrie Fay M Larson Jahe K Knecht Ernest R Mayhew 8229 Las Pasadas Drive 825 Wiladonda Drive 4041 Tivoli Avenue Whittier, Calif 90605 La Canada, Calif 91011 toes Angeles, Calif 90066 110-191-05 110-191-17 110492-09 Ted Oliver Sophia B Duncan Mid2del Lee Taylor P.O. Box 2491 % Randi Fjaeran 615 12th Street Laguna Hills, Calif P.O. BQx 1998 HMtbqton Beach, Calif 92653 Chiu a Vista, Calif 92012 92648 3-10-192-11 George M Carmichael et al Clark 1571 Ramillo Avenue Long Beach, Calif 90815 110-192-12 Thelm G Swartz Mr. Jack Teberg 2231 Magnolia Long Beach, CalifJacat Oil Co. 9806 26133 Hatmore Dr. Calabasas, CA. 91302 110-192-19 Richard Wilton Meyer Jr Bob & Carol Bingham 13191 Newland Street 13 915 Shady Dr. Garden Grove, Calif Santa Ana, CA. 92664 92704 110-193-03 Martin W Bird Mr. Bill Atha Margaret B Conover Petro-Lewis Co. 157 West 200 South 1440 E. Burnett Sprimgville, Utah 84663 Long Beach, CA. 90806 UO-193-04 Lindborg-Dahl Investors William J Bouska 17220 Newhope St. 226 1305 Idaho Street Fountain Valley,CA Coos Bay, Oregon 92 708 97420 110-193-05 Harold C Morton Doris Jean Morris 523 W 6th Street Rmn U26 3333 Nutmeg Lane Los Angeles, Calif Walnut Creek, CA 94598 90014 Mr. Hilman P. W&Iker Chevron USA, Inc. P. O. Box 606 La Habra, CA 90631 Mr. Bob Rende Orange County E.M.A. P. O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Joseph Dow 16186 Alert Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92649 &et) E t Lis— Gt A" C. Qlark Page 2 df 2-1-82 L10-210-11 - ZaV 0 110-212-18 Ruth Gordon, eg al I d Judy Mark 2219 Greenleaf Street 173 Wightman Street Santa Ana, CA 92706 Ashland, OR 97520 110-211-01 110-211-10 110-213-02 ,yneth P. Smith Ignacio F. Estrada Delbert F. Catron Box 702 715 Alabama Street sC7.32 Van Buren Avenue Lake Arrowhead, CA 92352 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Midway City, CA 92655 110-211-02 110-211-11 110-213-03 Ronald P. Borghetti Mike V. Perez Kenneth V. Beer 10208 Disney Circle 2230 Florida St. Beverly B. Bullock Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Beach, - CA 92648 2207 East 3020 S Salt Lake City, Utah 841 L10-211-03 110-211-13 110-213-05 Kilton H. Marow R.G. Zepeda Jann V. Parks 272 S. Rexford Drive 1310 West Palm Lane 223 Lincoln Avenue Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Phoenix, AR 85007 Huntington Beach, CA 92( 110-211-04 110-212-01 110-213-07 "-harles G. Tunstall Marvin W. Cobb Erik Wallbank 8851 El Rancho Ave. 312 Arboleda Road 2300 Black Oak Way Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Santa Barbara, CA 93105 Ashland, OR 97520 110-211-06 110212-02 r John F. Thompson Cecil J. Folmar 727 Williams Avenue 230 Hospital Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Westminster, CA 92683 110-211-07 110-212-06 Dale E. Thompson Vxblet McKee 2007 Anchor Street 3324 Wyoming Circle Anaheim, CA 92802 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 110-211-08 110-212-07 Dale E. Thompson Charles 4arnes 2117 S. Anchor Street 1019 California St Anaheim, CA 92802 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 110-211-09 110-212-10 Lora C. Howell Leslie Brown 11 East Orange Grove Road 8281 Tyler Circle Apt. 622 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Tucson, AR 85704 c. Clark 2-1-82 df 11-120-01 110-200-04 110-200-22 & C Oil Co., Inc. J.I. Hathaway Grace M. Barnes 11 Main Street #B P.O. Box 3404 J.M. Neill :untington Beach, CA 92648 Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670 169 W 1900 N Sunset Clearfield, Utah 04015 11-120-28 110-200-05 110-200-23 eir Oil Co. , INC. Emil W. Plegel Virginia M. De Nubila 01 20th Street J.I. Hathaway 11728 Chaparal Street untington Beach, CA 92648 P.O. Box 3404 Los Angeles, CA 90049 Santa Fe Springs, CA -9067% 11-072-0A 110-200-06 110-210-01 Huntington Beach Company Jessie F. Smyth William Landis 225 Bush Street David Dahl 1180 S. Beverly Drive San Faancisco, CA 94120 608 20th Street Los Angeles, CA 90035 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 111-072-04 310-290 99 110-210-02 Iuntington Beach Company Adele A. Hankey 2110 Main Street 3-2-- 28232 Ortega Highway Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RuTrtlmr - 8 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 111-072-11 110-200-13 110-210-03 Mola Development Corp. Armstrong Petroleum Corp. Michael W. Niccole, et al 808 Adams Avenue P.O. Box 1546 400 Orange Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Huntington Beach, CA 92G^ 111-072-14 110-200-14 110-210-04 Irene C. Whitfield, et al Robert C. Sunderland Isabelle McNevin Dexter G. Whitfield I? .0. Box 497 1100 E. Ocean Ave. Apt. 3 928 South Ross Street Valley Center, CA ` 920,97 Long Beach, CA 90802 Santa Ana, CA 92701 111-072-17 110-200-15 110-210-06 Huntington Pacific Corp. 2110 Main Street Akira Ishibashi John R. Schuesler Huntington Beach, CA 92648 P.O. Box 753 4832 Curtis Circle Lomita, CA 90717 MV gtm Beach, CA 926� 110-200-01 110-200-20 110-210-07 Don Raymond Albrecht Irene P. Jessup Louis Spelts, et al 21292 Yarmouth Lane c/o Huntington Beach,Co. 171 Walnut Place Huntington Beach, CA 92646 2110 Main Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 110-200-03 110-200-21 110-210-10 Four Seasons Farms Michael W. Blasgen Dennis Niccole 19852 Scenic Bay Lane 13481 Fairfield, Apt. 59J 400 3rd Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Seal Beach, CA 90740 Huntington Beach, CA 926z Publish NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan and EIR 82-1 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center, Huntington Beach, at the hour of 7:30 P.M. , or as soon thereafter as possible on Monday . the 16th day of August , 1982 . for the purpose of considering the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report No. 82-1. The proposed Specific Plan includes a 290-acre area bounded by Ellis Avenue to the north, the City boundary to the west, Garfield and Ernest Avenues to the south, and a line extending north from Crystal Street to the east. The Specific Plan, if adopted, will be the zoning for the above-mentioned area and will include policies and regulations governing land use, circulation, grading, development standards, open space corridors and other activities pertinent to development of the area. Copies of the Specific Plan and a legal description of the area are on file in the Department of Development Services. Copies of the Plan will be mailed upon request by calling (714) 536-5271. All interested persons are invited, to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan and EIR 82-1. Further information may be obtained from the 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. 92648 - (714) 536-r-�. z. Z 7 DATED July 26, 1982 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH By: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk r o r , Pub 1 i s h fls IY z-- NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan and EIR 82-1 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center, Huntington Beach, at the hour of 7:30 P.M. , or as soon thereafter as possible on Monday the 16th , day of August 19 82 . for the purpose of considering the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report No. 82-1. The proposed Specific Plan includes a 290-acre area bounded by Ellis Avenue to the north, the City boundary to the west, Garfield and Ernest Avenues to the south, and a line extending north from Crystal Street to the east. The Specific Plan, if adopted, will be the zoning for the above-mentioned area and will include policies and regulations governing land use, circulation, grading, development standards, open space corridors and other activities pertinent to development of the area. Copies of the Specific Plan and a legal description of the area are on file in the Depart- ment of Development Services. Copies of the Plan will be mailed upon request by calling (714) 536-5271. All interested persons are invited. to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan and EIR 82-1. Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. 9z648 - (714) 536-5227 DATED July 30, 1982 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH By: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk ` NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC F iING Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan and EIR 82-1 Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan ,ad EIR 82-1 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach,in held by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach,in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center,Huntington Beach, the Council Chamber of the Civic Center,Huntington Beach, at the hour of 7:30 p.m.,or as soon thereafter as possible on at the hour of 7.30 p.m.or as soon thereafter as possible on Monday the 16th day of August,1982 for the purpose of Monday the 16th day of August,1982 for the purpose of considering the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan and Environ- considering the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan and Environ- mental Impact Report No.82-1.The proposed Specific Plan mental Impact Report No.82-1.The proposed Specific Plan includes a 290-acre area bounded by Ellis Avenue to the north includes a 290-acre area bounded by Ellis Avenue to the north the City boundary to the west,Garfield and Ernest Avenues the City boundary to the west,Garfield and Ernest Avenues to the south,and a line extending north from Crystal Street to the south,and a line extending north from Crystal Street to the east.The Specific Plan,if adopted,will be the zoning to the east.The Specific Plan,if adopted,will be the zoning for the above-mentioned area and will include policies and for the above-mentioned area and will include policies and regulations governing land use,circulation,grading,develop- regulations governing land use,circulation,grading,develop- ment standards,open space corridors and other activities ment standards,open space corridors and other activities pertinent to development of the area.Copies of the Specific pertinent to development of the area.Copies of the Specific Plan and a legal description of the area are on file in the Plan and a legal description of the area are on file in the department of Development Services.Copies of the Plan will department of Development Services.Copies of the Plan will be mailed upon request by calling(714)536-5271. be mailed upon request by calling(714) 536-5271. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said Ellis-Goldenwest express their opinions for or against said Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan and EIR 82-1. Specific Plan and EIR 82-1. Further information may be obtained from the Office of the Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk,2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach,CA 92648 City Clerk,2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach,CA 92648 (714)536-5227 (714)536-5227. Dated:July 30,1982 Dated:July 30,1982 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH By: ALICIA M.WENTWORTH By: ALICIA M.WENTWORTH City Clerk City Clerk Pub.8/5/82 Pub.8/5/82 Hunt.Beach Ind. Hunt.Beach Ind. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan and EIR 82-1 Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan and El R 82-1 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, held by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center,Huntington in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center,Huntington Beach,at the hour of 7:30 p.m.,or as soon thereafter as Beach,at the hour of 7:30 p.m.,or as soon thereafter as possible on Monday the 16th day of August,1982 for the possible on Monday the 16th day of August,1982 for the purpose of considering the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan purpose of considering the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report No.82-1.The proposed and Environmental Impact Report No.82-1.The proposed Specific Plan includes a 290-acre area bounded by Ellis to Specific Plan includes a 290-acre area bounded by Ellis to the north,the City boundary to the west,Garfield and the north,the City boundary to the west,Garfield and Ernest Avenues to the south,and a line extending north Ernest Avenues to the south,and a line extending north from Crystal Street to the east.The Specific Plan,if adopted, from Crystal Street to the east.The Specific Plan,if adopted, will be the zoning for the above-mentioned area and will will be the zoning for the above-mentioned area and will include policies and regulations governing land use,circulation, include policies and regulations governing land use,circulation, grading,development standards,open space corridors and other grading,development standards,open space corridors and other activities pertinent to development of the area.Copies of the activities pertinent to development of the area.Copies of the Specific Plan and a legal description of the area are on file in Specific Plan and a legal description of the area are on file in the department of Development Services.Copies of the Plan the department of Development Services.Copies of the Plan will be mailed upon request by calling(714)536-5271. will be mailed upon request by calling(714) 536-5271. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said Ellis-Goldenwest express their opinions for or against said Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan and EIR 82-1.Further information may be Specific Plan and EIR 82-1.Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk,2000 Main Street, obtained from the Office of the City Clerk,2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach,California.92648(714)536-5227. Huntington Beach,California 92648(714)536-5227. Dated:July 30,1982 Dated:July 30,1982 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH By:ALICIA M.WENTWORTH By:ALICIA M.WENTWORTH City Clerk City Clerk Pub.8/5/82 Pub.8/5/82 Hunt.Beach Ind. Hunt.Beach Ind. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH P.O. BOX 190 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CALIFORNIA92648 BUILDING DIVISION(714)536-6241 PLANNING DIVISION(714)536-5271 April 29, 1982 ��•�° °O� p°' TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: The enclosed draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR 82-1) has been prepared for the City of Huntington Beach assessing the en- vironmental effects of the proposed Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan which provides for the development of up to 870 residen- tial units on a + acre site bounded by Ellis Avenue to the north, the City boundary to the west, Garfield and Ernest Avenues to the south and a line extending north of Crystal Street to the east. In order to determine all possible environmental effects asso- ciated with the project, the draft EIR is being distributed by the City to other public agencies and interested parties for review and comment. If your comments have not been received by May 28, 1982 , we will assume that you concur with the adequacy of the draft EIR. Sincerely, Carol Inge Assistant Planner CI:bas Encl. roe CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 82- 26 0 COUNCIL - ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To Honorable Mayor and From Charles W. Thompson, City Council Members City Administrator Subject ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN Date August 2, 1982 Attached for your information is the RCA and back-up material on the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan which is scheduled for public hearing at the August 16, 1982 Council meeting. Because of the length of the documents, this information is being presented to you in advance of the normal schedule for your review. If you have any questions, please contact me. Respe lly submitted, arles W. T mpson, City Administrator CWT:pj Attachment X ' REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date Auaust 16, 1982 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator Prepared by: James W. Palin, Department of Development Services w. Subject: ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 82-1 Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: i STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Transmitted for public hearing is the draft of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report 82-I. The Plan encompasses a 290-acre area bounded by Ellis Avenue to the north, the City boundary to the west, Garfield and Ernest Avenues to the south and a line extending north from Crystal Street to the east. (The eastern,boundary of the Specific Plan will ultimately coincide with the precise alignment for Gothard Street.) The Planning Commission approved the Specific Plan on July7, 1982. Should the Council so decide, the Specific Plan could be adopted subsequent to your public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission approved Environmental Impact Report No. 82-1 and recommended City Council approval by the following vote: MOTION BY: Higgins, second by Winchell AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 1292 recommending City Council adoption of the Ellis-Golden west Specific Plan by the following vote: MOTION BY: Porter, second by Livengood AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The Planning Commission recommended City Council adoption of two ordinances, one to amend District Maps 38 and 39 to incorporate the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan and one to add Article 930 to Division 9 referencing said Specific Plan, by the following vote: MOTION BY:Porter, second,by Livengood AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None01 PIO 4/81 -2- PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS: I. Approve Environmental Impact Report No. 82-I. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 5145 approving the El lis-Golden west Specific Plan. 3. Adopt Ordinance No. 2569 amending District Maps 38 and 39 to incorporate the Ell is-Golden west Specific Plan. 4. Adopt Ordinance No. 2570 adding Article 930 to the ordinance code to indicate that specific plans are on file in the Department of Development Services. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff further recommends that the City Council approve Resolution No. 5146 imposing a special fee upon persons seeking development approvals in the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area to reimburse the City for the cost of preparing said specific plan. At their July7, 1982 meeting, the Planning Commission considered a motion to impose such a fee. The motion failed by a vote of three ayes and three noes. ANALYSIS: Background Information The direction to prepare the Elli^-Goldenwest Specific Plan originated in December 1980, when the City reviewed a General Plan amendment request to redesignate a portion of the area from estate residential to high density residential. The City Council retained the estate residential designation on the entire area and directed staff to study the feasibility of low density, equestrial planned developments. In May 1981, staff completed a conceptual study of the Ellis-Goldenwest estate residential area. In July 1981, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a specific plan for the Ellis-Goldenwest area to implement the estate-residential designation and the objectives contained in the conceptual study. Purpose of Specific Plan The purpose of the Specific Plan is to provide implementing zoning for and to coordinate all development and improvernent of the Ellis-Goldenwest estate residential area. The current zoning in the Ellis-Goldenwest area is not consistent with the estate residential designation in the General Plan. Many properties in the Specific Plan area have an RA, Residential Agricultural, zoning which does not permit further subdivision of the property and allows only one dwelling unit per acre. There are three areas in the Specific Plan that have been subdivided into small lots (sometimes called encyclopedia lots) which have an LU, Limited Use, zoning. This zoning restricts use of the property to farming, grazing, trails, orchards, greenhouses, picnic grounds and other similar uses. Other properties in the Specific Plan area have an M I, Light Manufacturing, zoning which is not consistent with the City's General Plan. The Specific Plan, if adopted, will replace the existing zoning with policies, development standards and descriptive maps specifically designed for the Ell is-Golden west area. It will allow the properties currently zoned RA to develop at a higher density. It will allow the properties currently zoned MI and LU to develop in a residential manner that is consistent with the General Plan. The Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area provides unique opportunities for residential developments that incorporate open space, natural topography and equestrian activities. The area is characterized by rolling terrain and natural drainage swales and is located adjacent to significant open space and recreation areas including Huntington Central Park, the Bolsa Chico lowlands, and the proposed' Balsa Chico Linear Regional park. It is also a focal point for K� Icy -3- equestrian uses and oil operations. Without proper planning the area will most likely be developed in a piecemeal, uncoordinated fashion because the area is divided among approximately 104 property owners whose holdings range in size from 2,800 square feet to over 80 acres. There is also a lack of public improvements such as roads and sewers to serve these properties. The Specific Plan will coordinate development and public improvements in the area to ensure that they ultimately combine to create a cohesive community that incorporates open space, natural topography, equestrian uses and continued access to underground oil reserves. Public Input There has been significant public review and comment on the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan to date. The Planning Commission Meld three study sessions on the Plan (February 7, March 9 and April 27, 1982) and a public hearing which extended for two meetings (June I and 15, 1982). The Planning Commission held two additional meetings (June 22 and July 7, 1982) to discuss issues that arose during the public testimony. The Department of Development Services held two meetings for property owners in the Ellis-Goldenwest area and one for oil operators to present the plan and take public input. Additional meetings were held with the Huntington Beach Company, Chevron Oil and other interested persons on an individual basis. The Specific Plan has been revised several times to reflect the concerns of property owners and oil operators in the area. The staff reports and minutes for the Planning Commission study sessions and public hearings on the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan are attached for your information. All letters of public comment received by the Planning Commission are also attached. We call your attention to attachment 2 of the June 15 staff report to the Planning Commission which contains a detailed discussion of oil activities in the Specific Plan area and explains the provisions of the Plan regarding the continuation of these activities. We also call your attention to the July 7 staff report to the Planning Commission which contains a brief survey of equestrian developments in Orange County regarding the amounts of horse facilities that are being provided in these developments. Adoption Procedure Resolution No. 5145 has been prepared for City Council adoption of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. Once the Plan is adopted, the appropriate district maps in the City's zoning code must be amended to indicate that the Specific Plan is the new zoning for the area. Ordinance No. 2559 has been prepared for this purpose. Also attached is Ordinance No. 2570 that will include a page in the zoning code alerting readers that the Specific Plan is kept under a separate cover on file with the City Clerk and the Department of Development Services. Environmental Status EIR 82-1 provides an assessment of the proposed Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan for development of up to 870 dwelling units on 290 acres. A draft EIR was prepared and distributed to public agencies and individuals for a 30-day review period ending June 14, 1982. Comments received on the EIR have been incorporated into the text of the EIR where appropriate. Prior to taking action on the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan, the City Council must determine that the Environmental Impact Report is adequate and conforms with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and State EIR Guidelines. r�� FUNDING SOURCE: Section 65453 of the California Government Code authorizes the City to charge back the costs of preparing and adopting Specific Plans to those builders, developers and others who benefit from the development of those plans. At the time the Specific Plan is presented to the City Council for adoption, the City must prepare a cost breakdown of the Plan and related environmental documentation and make a determination of the total cost thereof. After the Specific Plan is adopted, the City may impose a special fee on persons seeking development permits for projects required to be in conformance with the Plan. The total cost of the Plan is to be divided among developers based on the relative amount of benefit derived from the Plan. Staff has prepared a cost breakdown for preparation of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan and E.I.R. No. 82-1 (attached). Staff recommends that the total cost be apportioned among developers on the basis of acreage. As shown in the attached cost breakdown, the total cost of preparing the Specific Plan and E.I.R. was approximately $44,786 which would result in a special fee of $154 per acre charged to the developer as part of his application fees. Resolution No. 5146 imposing this fee has been prepared for your adoption. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: The City Council may revise the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan prior to its adoption. The Council may also choose not to adopt the Plan. ATTACHMENTS.: I . Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan and E.I.R. 82-I. 2. Cost breakdown 3. Resolution No. 5145 approving the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. 4. Ordinance No. 2569 amending District Maps 38 and 39. 5. Ordinance No. 2570 adding Article 930 referencing the Specific Plan. 6. Resolution No. 5146 imposing a reimbursement fee. 7. Planning Commission minutes. 8. Planning Commission staff reports. 9. Letters of public comment to the Planning Commission. CWT:CI:de v� ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN-PREPARATION COST Staff Time Project Planner $12 , 480 Project Planner 12, 480 Project Managers 7 , 696 32 , 656 Benefits 21% 6 , 858 Subtotal 39 , 514 Printing Materials 180 r Topographic Map 4 , 759 Miscellaneous Materials, slides, graphic supplies, base maps, etc . 200 Postage 133 Total : $44 , 786* *NOTE: This total does not reflect overhead costs or indirect costs incurred by other City departments COST PER ACRE: $44 , 786 290 ac. - $154/ac . RESOLUTION NO. .�/' A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN WHEREAS, after notice duly given pursuant to Government Code section 65500 , the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach held public hearing on Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan on June 1 , 1982 which was concluded on June 15 , 1982 ; and Such specific plan provides for development covering approxi- mately 290 acres , bounded by Ellis Avenue to the north, the city boundary to the west , Garfield and Ernest Avenues to the south and a line extending north from Crystal Street to the east (the eastern boundary of the specific plan will coincide ultimately with the precise alignment of Gothard Street) , which is consistent with the city' s general plan and will not be detrimental to the general health, welfare , safety and convenience of persons working or residing in the immediate vicinity; and The Planning Commission has recommended adoption of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan to this Council , NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach that Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan, as incorporated in the document attached hereto and by this ref- erence made a part hereof, is hereby adopted. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 1982. ATTEST: Mayor City Clerk. /ahb 7/28/82 1. REVIEWED AND APPROVED : APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Administrator City torney -�_19 64 INITIATED AND APPROVED: hector of evelopment Services 2. ORDINANCE NO. a5(pj AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 9061 THEREOF AND DISTRICT MAPS 38 AND 39 TO INCORPORATE FLLTS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN ( ZONE CASE NO. 82-11 ) WHEREAS, pursuant to the state Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and the Huntington Beach City Council have had separate public hearings relative to Zone Case No. 82-11 wherein both bodies have carefully considered all information presented at said hearings , and after due considera- tion of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and all evidence presented to said City Council, the City Council finds that such zone change is proper, and consistent with the general plan, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows : SECTION 1. That the present zoning included within Ellis- Goldenwest Specific Plan, covering approximately 290 acres , bounded on the north by Ellis Avenue , the city boundary on the west, Garfield and Ernest Avenues to the south and a line ex- tending north from Crystal Street to the east, ( the eastern bound- ary will ultimately coincide with the precise alignment of Gothard Street) is hereby eliminated , and the specific plan established therefor provides regulated development in accordance with the objectives set out in such specific plan. SECTION 2. The Development Services Director is hereby di- rected to amend Section 9061 , District Maps 38 and 39' (Sectional District Maps 34-5-11 and 35-5-11 ) to reflect Zone Case No . 82-11 , described in Section 1 hereof. A copy of said district maps , as amended hereby are available for inspection in the office of the City Clerk. /ahb 6/11/82 1. j��G SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of 1982. Mayor ATTEST : APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorn REVIEWED AND APPROVED : INITIATED AND APPROVED: 4- City Administrator ' hector of Deve7.oprnPjzt� .Services 2. SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 35-5-II CITY OF LEGEND HUNTINGTON BEACH ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA USE OF PROPERTY MAP 21 16 26 25 JJ y l / J5 J6 TALBERT AVE. II - J �1u�11 - m R:'vi -j CF-R —.R ONTARIO DR 1 z CF-C --- DANTON CR _ OUEBEC DR 4lBERT�o WDR - RANKIIN pF S DR Pam`' lIS N AVE f- 1 IQ]fill UlIII --- - U uj w � m ---- -- --- -- --- -- - --- -{ of Z --- - Z w 1 r -- 3 GARFIELD AVE. 35 J6 3 2 2 1 V PLANNING ZONING DM 38 SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 34-5-1I NOTE ADOPTED AUGUST 15, 1960 ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET CITY OF ANY C ADJOINING ANY RIGHT OF WAY 15 INTENDED TO EXTEND TO THE CENTER CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE CE NO 785 of SucH RIGHT OF w4r AMENDED ORD NO. AMENDED ORD NO LEGEND RA RESIDENTIAL AGRICA.T DISTRICT 6-3-1963 970 COMBINED WITH CIL RRODJC11m HI�NTINGTON BEACH 4-3-1965 32 [� CpARINEO WITH OIL PROD CT° I2-5-1966 1271 Q SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT 2-3-69 1467 Q LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT 6-26-70 1578 L4 H4GHWAY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT 10-19-70 1606 ® CoMaINED wITH OIL RRoOUCi10N F-A] CIVIC FCT LIT,E R I NCR E HTIONALIDISTRICT ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA 7-18 168, °o;=RIGT J 10-18-71 1681 (C ANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDED BY ZONE CASE'. I-17_72 E709 RD ,Wo FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT 315,505,66-49, 68-46,70-8,70-10,71-9,71-26,71-17,71-44,73-20,74-22,74-5,74-22,77 19, 2-22-72 1722 MIT DSE 10-15-73 1876 4-7-74 I977 9_15-75 2010 7-6 76 2077 24 ET II_ 21-77 2229 }7 36 155 54 I 54 a3 t OR l L CENTRAL RERIE OR -- -------.---- R I RI-CD 1 C =p' RI RI- f JA 50NWppD • NEWBIRV DR 1- IF RI RI RI RI—CD RI CLEFFOX -- OR R I R I a R I R I R R RI RI RI Q Q Q Q N pa _ � v U U M,T T CF—R } ,. ... .. .,... RI RI H EN WICIipq s � yo \ / RI- RI RI `�° R 1 A CID /RBI LITTL c IT ^'O CD is RI qRI R A O CD RI °q RI `'�\ (PREZONED) RA-0-CD ��is• �� RI-CD -- ss s D, i to.-, ,.' ,�r A se ryT �y.: LU-O-CD LU-O-CD LU-O-CD LU-O-CD � } p ate. (PREZONED) R I LU-O-CD LU 0-CD LU-O-CD LU 0-CD (PREZONED) rU-O—CDrLIO-CD LU-O-CD LU-O-CD -CD - - - - - —Al 959 C. I I 3 - E� sz° "R' 51". 26.AIT OF Ellis-Go enwest Specific Plan � F- r w i � 3 z / o / J O F 99.41'0T•E 2151 TO, i6N GARFIELD AVE. 55 ). e.�a •'S 9 E PLANNING ZONING DM 39 SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP • 35-5-1 I „o, ---- --- ----- .,II, / 1 NOTE:ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET ANY ZONE EADOPTED MARCH 7, 1960 ADJOINING ANY RIGHT OF WAY IS INTENDED TO EXT CITY OF CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO 754 D THE CENTER OF SUCH aDHr of WAY AMENDED QRD NO AMENDEQ ORD-NO AMENDED R9JLNQ- �� QUALIFIED CLASSIFICATION b6 60 90 6-18 75 854 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT -J.60 795 G-IS-13 II-]-60 ]9B IC-15 13 1874 LA� RE90ENTIAL AORICULTVRAL DISTRICT Iry-11,11 BOB I-19-73 1878 -15-61 BJ9 IS-7-7J II12 �11� INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT HUNTINGTON BEACH m 2 61 9]D ]741B9I o LIGHT INDUSTRIAL SETBACK LINE 1 6 61 8]6 12 1115 IBB] COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTVICT 5-]-62 899.900 10-IS]J 1876 fT 6-18-62 'M9 1'_ 19]6 FRONT YARD SE iBACN LINE 8-6-62 919 12-9-]4 L� SINGLE FAMILY RESIDC NCE 0 iRICT -9 62 9]7 II-IB-74 1951 T-61 946 1-6-76 2081 � OFFICE-I`R.1ESSIONAL DISTRICTS I,IB-64 105G 2111 ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 1 6; !;a1 s_z'; 2151 R-J LIMTED TIO MMVLTIPLE EFACMILYSRESIDENCE DISTRICT 5-2-17 p221p84 AMENDED BY ZONE CASE: 2S I S. 1'aie $-;°;a' 221e L� HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL 9-569 1506 12 17-]3 HE;M 3Bi0 � RE STRICTED MANUFACTURING DISTRICT 111,126,127,130.133,134,138,141,149,196,212,237,238 -269 "1 2-21-7e RCSe4590 F.R COMMUNITY FACILITIES(RECREATIONAL)DISTRICT 250,258,274,293,429,505,542,6727,68-15,68-54,69-11,69-21,70-10,70-27,71-14,71-17,72-8,PP72-6 '3-s71 168 317-BO 24I8 �({-� COMMUNITY FACILITESIf.MCI DISTRICT 72-IB,72-19.72-6,72-34,72-44,73-5,73-8,73-6,73-18,PPA73-1,73-21,73-23,73-20,74.6,74-15,PP74-3,76-1776-268,76-26 C.77-7,,77-17 a-I6-]1 I662 7-21-BD 1471 _ ziFe1 4]2 [� c°MBNE° w1rH OILPRllalcrl°N 77-27,9P 73-1,T9-IO,BO-9,80-R,PP54 B2-1,81-13, A-IJ 1 1 i7 49 J 15-R2RE;R21o4 _ 27]6 9 -71 1T69 ]15-B2 544 I-0� COMBINED WITH OIL PRODUCTION 26 25 95-12 I]I] C CIV1f, D15T PICL TALBERT 6-5-72 741 nunz PRECISE PLANOFSTREETf"IINTH�:' 7 .'z:ii iers AVE. `ATE STREET Y V 640 J ; c4- MI-CD MI-A a f/ (Q)R2-PD 5 MI-A o d ,JO J � 1F.F s, � (/ UIOJ�I��ll/71UlIl/J1110Ii` m fl (Q)R2 PD C 4 imit�rnrr. -- 675' RI- CF—R MI—CD Ti9S.:- MI—A RI``` 660E MI—CD — w'; R 1 ; AN DR_ CF-R ___ -° 'RI C2 H TAYLOH DR 57720 N 3 RI RI r� /�L� M 12 50 RA-0—CD M I RI ONTARIO DR- 0( RI RI CF C 6°°4MICROUEBEC DRRI R1 i-- R1 11�s RI �MOIM_iJov_ ALBERTA OR m ^' R 3 MI—CD RI RI RI 4 i, IS R 1 M I FRANNLIN DR C4 Y NON DR N RI R3 R3 40 MI-CD 8 Da 7 1 1 9 4",EBNL, RI R34 - RI R2 R3 R3 - ELLIS a R2 � ml R250 L I-01 R2 i C2 s ' c2 650= MI / � R2, 6M.EL R5 50 Ellis-Goldenwes "° Ra Specific Plan COMMODORE CR / ?gigOq 28]' M2_0 R3 I50 2 32975 TOE R3..:.:: M I-0 R3 R2''! (DISTRICT R2 ti TWO))7 HLOT 7 i30O ' 41 29990 -2:•R2,';p2 (DISTRICT ONE)ERNEST Bo AVE M1 R5 (' E a 330, MI-O-CD� V° 7' _ w PACIFICA COMMUNITY PLAN (DIS ICT ONE) R3 A M2-01 05 zm 9 w MI-A-CD MI-O MI-0 ,g. R2 �, R5 �GFFER w„ a oR5R� RZ �Q LU :221---X oRS -" R3 ]30 E 300 R2 R2°RA-Om R5 R5�^ R2 � R2 —$ GARFIELD AVE 34 35 J5]6 —�G 13 a ORDINANCE NO.2 570 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY ADDING THERETO ARTICLE 930 REFERENCING SPECIFIC PLANS The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows : SECTION 1. The Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is amended by adding thereto Article 930 entitled , " Specific Plans ," to read as follows : 9300. SPECIFIC PLANS. The following specific plans are on file in the office of the City Clerk and the Department of Development Services : ( a) Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. (b) Seabridge Specific Plan. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of 1982. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk C1 y Atto n y REVIEWED AND APPROVED : INITIATED AND APP OVED: City Administrator DITrector of-Development Services /ahb 6/11/82 I � ' RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE 'CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ESTABLISHING A SPECIAL FEE FOR APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS IN THE ELLIS- GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN AREA WHEREAS, California Government Code section 65453(a) au- thorizes the city to be reimbursed the cost of preparing a specific plan; and The city has prepared and adopted the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan for development of a 290-acre area bounded by Ellis Avenue on the north, the city boundary on the west, Garfield and Ernest Avenues to the south, and a line extending north from Crystal Street to the east ( the eastern boundary of the specific . plan area will coincide ultimately with the precise alignment of Gothard Street) ; and The total cost of preparation of such plan has been deter- mined to be $44 ,786, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach that the total cost of preparation of such plan shall be apportioned among property owners in the area at a charge of $154 per acre as a special fee. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the aforementioned special fee shall be collected from each property owner on acreage included in his application for tentative tract map approval . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of 1982. ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor r AJF:ahb 7/28/82 1. REVIEWED AND APPROVED : APPROVED AS TO FORM: 7l City Adminis rator 2City A orney INITIATED AND APPROVED: D rector of eveiopment Services ) � 2. s y LETTERS OF PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN AND EIR 82-1 Received during the period of February 12, 1982 to June 17, 1982. I . February 12, t982 6822 Loyola Drive Huntington Beach, CA Grace H. Winchell, Chairman Members of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA Dear Chairman Winchell and Commissioners : I attended the Huntington Beach Planning Commission meeting on February 9, 1982 and listened to the Ellis/Goldenwest Specific Plan proposal. I was impressed with the thoughtful preparation and presentation by the Development Services Department, and I was pleased with the concerns of the members of the Planning Commission. I own three "encyclopedia" lots in the area and I have control of two additional lots. I purchased these lots hopinm that some day the area would be developed into equestrian estates and my family would be able to live on the property. I am concerned that as plans are made to develop the area, I will be forced to sell my lots. These five lots total over t5,000 square feet, providing an area large enough to stable one horse. Will provisions In the development plan allow me to participate in the development of the land I own or, because I have so small an interest in the area, will I be forced to give up my property? Sincerely, ��%c-rQ�v �• d w Allan R. Jaco son RECEIVED FES 17 IM Deveio wnt ser*" t ATTACHMENT 8 WILLIAM LANDIS ATTORNEY AT LAW 1180 SOUTH BEVERLY DRIVE EPT" LOS ANGELES,CALIFORNIA 90035 277-3322 0, _ March 3, 1982 City of Huntington ,Beach Department of Development Services Planning Division P. O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Attn: James W. Palin Director Re: Ellis-Goldenwest-Edwards 290 acres Specific Plan Study Dear Mr. Palin: As the owner of five acres located at the southwest corner of Goldenwest & Ellis, I wish to have you consider my. concerns relative to the future development of this area. It is my opinion, as a real estate developer of 30 years experience, that the overall plan using the existing topography has merit. It appears, though, that the proposed density would be too limited to justify the establishment of an Improvement District. As this review relates to my property, I would hope to see that this expected high traffic corner be considered for a commercial zoning that would lean toward but not be limited to equestrian and allied purposes. Your attention to this input is appreciated. Ver trulX_yours, W LLI AM LAN IS WL/ls t AMERICAN LANDSCAPE SUPPLY 18 8 5110ft GOLDEN WEST STREET - HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92648- (714) 842.8866 MARCH 5, 1982 GE-CEIVED MAR 8 '982 Development Services HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSIONERS P.O. BOX 190 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIF. 92648 ATTENTION: MR. JAMES W. PALIN SECRETARY RE: GOLDENWEST/ELLIS ZONE CHANGE DEAR MR. PALIN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: THIS IS TO INFORM YOU THAT WE ARE IN OPPOSITION TO THE SPECIFIC PLAN AND ZONE CHANGE BEING CONSIDERED FOR OUR PRO— PERTY WHICH FALLS IN THE ABOVE STUDY PLAN. WE HAVE APPROX— IMATELY FIFTEEN ACRES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF GOLDEN WEST ABOUT 600 FEET NORTH OF GARFIELD. AT THE PRESENT TIME TWO OF OUR ACRES ARE M1—CD, THE BALANCE OF THIRTEEN ACRES IS RA—O—CD. OUR REQUEST IS THAT OUR M1—CD ZONE BE EXPANDED TO OUR ENTIRE FIFTEEN ACRES FOR A ZONE CHANGE TO M1-01—CD. THE SUB— JECT PIECE OF LAND IS DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM AN M1—O—CD ZONE. ALSO, THIS FIFTEEN ACRES WOULD BE AN EXCELLENT BUFFER ZONE FROM GOLDEN WEST STREET FOR YOUR ESTATE HOMES. FURTHERMORE, OUR DEEP ZONE IS BEING RESEARCHED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS AN ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCE IN THE FUTURE AS GEOTHERMAL ENERGY FOR THE SECURITY OF THE NATION AND THE BENEFIT OF THE CITIZENS OF HUNTINGTON BEACH. AT PRESENT, WE HAVE A COMMERCIAL GARDEN CENTER AND CREATE JOBS AND INCOME FOR THE COMMUNITY, PLUS BEING A BEAUTIFUL GREEN BELT AND A VITAL ASSET TO THE CITY. APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND WANT IT ON RECORD THAT WE ARE IN OPPOSITION TO A ZONE CHANGE TO ESTATE RESIDENTIAL FOR OUR FIFTEEN ACRES. THANK YOU. RROONALD I . BRINDLE E. ANN BRINDLE ram' r• lntington tseacn Lomb ny 2110'VrAIN STREET,HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFOR N'1%92648 (714)960-4351 . R.J.WORK VICE PRESIDENT-GENERAL MANAGER March 8, 1992 HU^STINGTON BEACH PLANNING DEPT. Mr. Charles W. Thompson MAR 9 1982 City Administrator City of Huntington Beach P. 0. Box 190 2000 Main Street HuntirL!,)n Bexh,CA 9?618 H htington Beach, CA 92648 7 Dear Charles: The Huntington Beach Company appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Department of Development Services' Specific Plan efforts in the Ellis- Goldenwest area. Like you, we believe that this area is unique in the City and offers outstanding opportunities for a variety of uses and development that maximize the area's resources and that are compatible with the City's social, environmental, and economic goals. As the major owner of land in the Specific Plan area, the Huntington Beach Company is genuinely interested in staff's planning effort. We are concerned, however, that the Specific Plan process currently underway is not consistent with the direction established by the City Council. a little over a year ago, in that property owners have had little opportunity for input at key stages of the Plan's development. In addition, a number of major land use and circulation issues that will significantly impact the ultimate use of properties within and surrounding the Specific Plan area remain unresolved at the General Plan level. I think you will agree that both the City's and the various property owners' interests are best served by a comprehensive, coordinated plan for the long- range use and development of this area. For this reason, the Huntington Beach Company has engaged the consulting firm of PBR (Phillips Brandt Reddick) to assist in the analysis of future development of the Company's land holdings in central Huntington Beach. As you know, PBR is currently involved in planning efforts for the Bolsa Chica area, and is very familiar with some of the major planning issues affecting this area of Huntington Beach. We are confident that PBR will provide a valuable service due to their expertise in large scale planning projects. In light of this, we believe the City should consider suspending its planning efforts for this area until PBR has developed several alternative plans for the City's consideration. We do not anticipate that this would cause undue delays in the City's planning efforts because we are prepared to involve PBR immediately to work with us and the City in developing an acceptable specific plan. l ' r{ During the next several weeks, we would like to meet with representatives of PBR and interested City officials to discuss the significant development issues to be addressed in this planning effort, and we look forward to a productive and cooperative relationship in this undertaking. Very truly yours, RJW/e CC: Mr. James W. Palin Director of Development Services City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 2 No, ,.,. AINVERICAN LANDSCAPE SUPPLY 18851 OLDEN WEST STREET • HUNTINGTON BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 842.8866 MARCH 17 , 1982 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH C)� �, F.O. BOX 190 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92648 TO THE MEMBERS OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCfTi �` AND THE CITY ADMINISTRAT'OR:O,;I-• C/ RE: ELLIS/GOLDENl $f STUDY PLAN THERE, HAS BEEN A STUDY PLAN STARTED ON THE ABOVE AREA, WIIICH IEAPPENS TO INCLUDE OUR FIFTEEN ACRES THAT PRESENTLY IS A GARDEN CENTER. AFTER ATTENDING A STUDY SESSION AT THE PLAN— NING COMMISSIONERS MEETING ON TUESDAY MARCH 9TH, WE WERE DEEPLY DISAPPOINTED AND DISTRESSED THAT THESE DICTORIAL IDEAS ARE HAPPENING TODAY IN THIS FREE AMERICA. THE AREA INVOLVED IS A 290 ACRE SITE, THAT IS BEING GIVEN SOME VERY STRICT LIMITATIONS AND SPECIFIC RESTRICTIONS NEVER DEMANDED ON OTHER DEVELOPMENT AREAS IN THIS CITY. THE AREA HAS ONE MAJOR LAND OWNER, WHO IN THE PAST HAS USED THEIR OWN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT STAFF WIZEN THEY ARE READY TO DEVELOP AN AREA, SO IT IS A WASTE OF DOUBLE TIME AND TAXPAYERS MONEY BEING SPENT ON THE SAME AREA. NOW AS TO THE RESTRICTIONS LAID OUT, THEY HAVE DIVIDED THE AREA INTO FIVE NODES THAT CONSIST OF 30-50 ACRES, SAYING THESE LANDOWNERS MUST DEVELOP AT THE SAME TIME AND WITH THEIR NEIGHBOR WHOSE LAND FALLS IN EACH PARTICULAR NODE. THEN, FUTURE ROADS AND EQUESTRIAN TRAILS WIND TI1RU THE VARIOUS PARCELS LINK- 1NC, CENTRAL PAI:K WITH OTHER RLCRGATIONAL, ARIAS , 13UT Till, PROPF.,R'I'Y OWNER SHOULD PAY FOR THE MAINT'ENANCI. AND COST — WHEN IT WILL 13E FOR THE PUBLIC. TIIE RESTRICTIONS SAY AS LITTLE AS TWO HOMES PER ACRE OR A LIMITATION OF 15, 000 SQ. FT. LOTS. NOW, IF TIII,SE ARR N1;W RESTRICTTONS FOR THE CITY OF IIUNTINGTON 13EACII , THEN ALL FUTURE UNDEVELOPIED AREAS WILL HAVI: TO COME UNDER THESE RESTRIC— TIONS OR IT IS DIRI,CT DISCRIMINATION ON THESE CERTAIN PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE IELLIS/GOLDENWEST AREA. BUT, THE REAL DISTRESSING ITEMS DISCUSSED WERE RFDEVELOP— MENT AND ASSESSMENT TAXES . FIRST, REDEVELOPMENT FOR THIS AREA IS IRONIC WHEN ITS NEVER BEEN DEVELOPED A FIRST TIME AND IS IN TIIE MIDDLE OF A MAJOR OIL FTELD. THAT THIS AREA IS A BLIGHTED AREA AND THAT THE CITY COULD DECLARE.' EMINENT DOMAIN AND THEN REDEVELOP THE WHOLE AREA IS A VERY SOCIALISTIC WAY OF STEALING PROPERTY. THEN A STAFF MEMBER REPORTED HOW THE COUNTY OF ORANGE AT PRESENT HAS LTTI'LI•, TAX RI.;VENUE OFF THIS AREA, AND WOULD BE FOR REDEVELOPMENT, AND THE COUNTY WOULD RECEIVE A LARGE PER— ,1 , AMERICAN LANDSCAPE CA E SUPPLY 1-8851WM GOLDEN WEST STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92648 • (714) 8428866 ELLIS/GOLDENWEST STUDY PLAN PAGE TWO CENTAGE PORTION OF THIS REDEVELOPMENT. WELL, NO ONE IS TAKING OUR LAND AND SAYING IT IS A BLIGHTED AREA WITHOUT A FIGHT AND A HELL OF A LAWSUIT AGAINST THIS CITY . NEXT, THE ASSESSMENT TAXES , BECAUSE ONE DEVELOPER 19ANTS IIIS LAND DEVELOPED, SHOULD AN ASSESSMENT TAX FOR STREETS , WATER SEWER LINES FALL ON THE EXISTING PROPERTY OWNERS? THAT THEY SHOULD BE ASSESSED MORE ON THEIR PROPERTY TAXES? THIS AGAIN IS ONLY AN UNDERHANDED WAY TO FORCE YOUR HAND ON DEVELOPMENT OF YOUR PROPERTY. SITTING AT THAT MEETING AND LISTENING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS TAKE STRAW VOTES ON OUR PROPERTY AND HEAR 1111AT LIMITATIONS AND RI.?STRICTIONS SHOULD BE ENFORCED WAS QUITE UP- SETTING. THEN, BECAUSE IT WAS A STUDY SESSION, THE PUBLIC WAS NEVER INVITED TO RESPOND TO STAFF PROPOSALS , AND THE PLAN- NING COMMISSIONERS JUST HEARD A ONE SIDED REPORT, AND THEN DIRECTED STAFF TO CONTINUE THEIR STUDY . STAFF IS INDIRECTLY PAID BY THE TAXPAYERS , BUT THIS STAFF IS BUILDING A CASE AGAIN- ST US TAXPAYERS TO STAB US IN ,TIIE BACK AND DICTATE WHAT, WHEN, AND }IOW WE HAVE TO DEVELOP OUR LAND. IT IS QUITE UNFORTUNATE, TIIAT NO QUESTTONALRES WERE SENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS, TO FIND OUT WHAT THEIR WANTS ARE OR TIIAT EXISTING BUSINESSES WERE NOT EVEN CONSIDERED. A ROAD IS PLANNED GOING THRU THE MIDDLE OF OUR LAND, RIGHT THRU THE OIL FIELD AND OUR GEOTHERMAL WELL AND THE CENTER OF OUR NURSERY . BECAUSE IT APPEARS TIIAT IT WILL BE TOO LATE, WHEN WE GET A CHANCE TO VOICE OUR OBJECTIONS TO THESE DIFFERENT RESTRICTIONS AND LIMITATIONS; WE WANT THE COUNCIL MEMBERS TO BE AWARE OF WHAT IS HAPPENING. FURTHERMORE, WE ARE BEING FORCED TO REQUEST A ZONE CHANGE AND PROTECT OUR INVESTMENT. FNCLO:�I;D IS AN EXISTING ZONE MAP OF TIIF ARF.A WITH OUR PROPERTY MAREl"D OFF FOR YOU. APPRECIATE YOUR IMMEDIATE ATTEN- TION TO TEIIS PROBLEM. THANK YOU. R1:S11ECTFul,1'Y, RONALD .I . BRINDLE E. ANN BRINDLE ENCLOSURE Ri P,! .y RI = R I _ _ r _ _�_: Cr R CF ..• i Ir____ : .RA-0-CD .RA-O-CD RI-CD {ram — CP-C r, - _ RI _ m! =C D - ,`. � MI-0-CD N R2 _ - RAC -- RA-0-CD a,_,= 9 h12-v • R:Clcc RA-0 !-0 RA-0 — u 1 , �2 . � R� C. C� i fir#-ft[ cask>eR MI-C2 MI-0 RA 01 RA-01 p 4 ! P; .0-CC — — y ns R: .PS• PG _ C�—0 i '-RA-C'_'-CD `z '� `M�—1 MI /:~" Rc . , pq HUNTINGTON 8EACH CALIFORNIA PLANNING DIVISION Existing Zoning YIN I { MAYOR • J■ Ruth Finley City OF H1111t1I1gt011 Be CI1 Ro YPORO Rinso TEMPORE COUNCILMEMBERS P. O. BOX 190 • 2000 MAIN STREET • CALIFORNIA 92648 Ruth S.Bailey Jack Kelly Don MacAllister Bob Mandle John Thomas April 13, 1982 Ronold and Ann Brindle American Landscape Supply . 18851 Goldenwest Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUBJECT: Your letter of 3/17/82 .regarding the proposed Ellis-Goldenwest-Specific Plan Dear Mr. and Mrs. Brindle, I appreciate your concerns regarding the City ' s proposed plans for development of the Ellis-Goldenwest area and would like to thank you for taking the time to communicate them to us. You are correct that the City is preparing a Specific Plan for a 290-acre area that includes your 15-acre property just west of Goldenwest Street. I would like to emphasize that the plan is currently in a draft form and is subject to change. Public hearings will be held before both the Planning Commission and the City Council before adoption of a final plan, and all property owners will be invited to speak at these meetings. I would like at this time to comment on a few of the points that you bring up in your letter. First I would like to explain briefly why your property has been planned for residential uses . The City has studied all the property within its boundaries and has adopted a General Plan (in effect since 1976) that indicates what land uses would be appropriate in every location in the City. This General Plan is intended to insure that there will be a variety of housing types in the City and a good bal,-ince of commercial and industrial uses when the City is collihlet:ely built out. The City has indicated that: the 290-acre Ellis-Goldenwest area, in which your property is located, is particularly suited for residential developments on large lets oi- with large amounts of common open space. This is because of the area' s unique topoc}raphy, its proximity to Central Park and to the proposed County Bolsa Chica Linear Park , its use as an equestrian area and other concerns . The Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan proposes an average density of three homes per acre of land in order to be consistent with the City' s General Plan. +1"I FPHnN1' 17t.11 Say qcs + Tlierr_ are approximately 104 different property owners in the i;l. lis-Gol.denwest area. Some own lots as small as 2 ,800 square feet in size. The City is rightly concerned that if each of. the 100+ property owners in this area were allowed to develop .in any way they wanted, the area could end up looking like a patch work quilt of unrelated and uncoordinated uses . The purpose of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan is to coordinate development in the area. It will lay out a basic street pattern and a backbone system of riding trails for the area, indicate some open. space corridors , and minimize extensive grading or alteration of the natural topography. The plan will also contain develop- ment standards (i .e. , lot size, setback, density) as any regular zoning on the property would do. I also checked with City Planning Staff about the proposed road across your property. " They have informed me that the road is proposed to line up with Ernest Avenue to the east but that the exact alignment through your property could be planned to avoid existing oil wells and the geothermal well. Lastly, I Would like to discuss your points about redevelop- ment and assessment districts. The Specific Plan currently pro- poses that .projects be developed on parcels of at least ten acres in size. Since your property is 15 acres you could meet this provision without joining with your neighbors and without any need for consolidation through redevelopment. As I mentioned earlier in this letter, however, there are a number of lots in the area that are only 2 , 800 square feet in size. Some of these lots are on the sides and bottoms of drainage r_evines . The Specific. Plan states that the City may want to consider the use of redevelopment to help consolidate lots in these special problem areas. Similarly, with respect to an assessment district, the plan does not advocate this action but simply identifies it as a way to help provide circulation and public works improvements to all property owners in the area at the same time. Without the assessment district each property owner will provide the necessary improvements on his property when he is ready to develop. (Some parcels in the center of the area may be land locked until outer parcels develop. ) The City would need the approval of property owners of 51 percent of the area in order to form an assessment district. 1. hope that T have an.swer.ecl some of- your quesl i <�n, abOUt thc proposed Specific Plan. I will forward your letter to the members of the City Counci 1 and the Planning? Commission. Nease feel free to come in and talk to us about the Plan if you have additional questians or concerns. Also, if you want to request a change of zoning on the property you must file an application with the Department of Development Services. Sincerely, leu,z Z/ Ruth Finley Mayor RF:CI :bas 3' -+onr w.••sr.w. ORANGE COUNTY DIVISION P O. BOX 3334. ANAHEIM. CALIF. 92803 March 18, 1982 I "ITINGTO`I BEACH PLANNING DEPT. City of Huntington Beach MAR 18 1982 Dept. of Development Services P.O. Box 190 P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 '48 Hunti:,�':�n Beart Attn: Carol Inge, Ass't. Planner Subject: Development of area betwn. Ellis and Garfield, w/Edwards and e/Goldenwest This letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project, but only as an information service. Its intent is to notify you that the Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the above-named project is proposed. Gas service to the project could be pro- vided from an existing main as shown on the attached atlas sheet without any significant impact on the environment. The service would be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrangements are made. The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letters is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, the 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 which affects gas supply or the condition under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with revised conditions. Residential (System Area Average) Yearly Single Family 1095 Therms/year/dwelling unit Multi-Family 4 or less units 640 Therms/year/dwelling unit Multi-Family 5 or more units 580 Therms/year/dwelling unit These estimates are based on gas consumption in residential units served by Southern California Gas Company during 1975 and it should not be implied that any particular home, apartment or tract of homes will use these amounts of energy-. This is particularly true due to the State's new insulation requirements and consumers' efforts toward energy conservation. a We have developed several programs which are available, upon request, to provide assistance in selecting the mos.l effective application; of energy conservation techniques for a particular projoc.t. If you desire further information on any of our energy' conservation programs, contact this office for assistance. Sincerely, D.M. Glover Technical Supervisor ES/pj g Enclosure Chevron ATTACHMENT 9 Chevron U.SA. Inc P.O. Box 606, La Habra, CA 90631 • Phone (213) 694-7655 Hilman P.Walker April 27, 1982 Dtsn ict l and Stjoervisor S-,utnerr Calitcnnia Dtsviet Land Deodrtmerit.Western Region Draft Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan Huntington Beach, California Mr. R er J. Work Preside t Huntingt Beach Company 2110 Main treet Huntington each, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Work: As you know, Chevron has been following the development of the draft Ellis- Goldenwest Specific Plan for the past few months through workshops and discussions with the City of Huntington Beach Planning Staff. We now have before us the draft Plan dated April 12, 1982. It proposes that drilling of new wells on the Huntington Beach Company"A" Lease parcel west of Ed- wards, the Huntington Beach Company "B" Lease and Jones Community Lease parcels north of Garfield be limited to three 1-112 acre drilling islands on the "A" Lease and one optional drilling island on the "B" Lease. Last month the Planning Department Staff requested Chevron to provide it with a map showing our preferred drillsite locations. After a thorough month long study Chevron developed a map which I am enclosing here for your information. A copy of this letter and the map is also being sent to the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department. Chevron has determined from its operational experience on your leases and the Jones Community Lease that to most efficiently and economically develop the remaining oil (estimated in the draft Plan to be approximately 805C' of the initial reserves in the Upper Tar [Bolsa] and Lower Tar [Upper Ashton] Zones lying between 1900 and 2400 feet) that Chevron will require five drilling islands, each being approximately 1 -112 acres in size, on the Huntington Beach Company "A" Lease parcel . The Plan provides for one guaranteed and two optional drilling islands. While the Plan provides for one optional drilling island on the Huntington Beach Company "B" Lease parcel , Chevron believes that two drilling islands will be necessary, one on the "B" Lease parcel and one on the adjacent Jones Community Lease. ATTACHMENT 9 (cunt' ) Mr. Roger J. Work, President April 27, 1982 Huntington Beach Company Page 2 The criteria for selecting the islands is the increased cost and mechanical difficulty of directional drilling beyond the 200' radius as shown on the map into the shallow de th required to penetrate the Upper Tar [Bolsa] and Lower Tar [Upper Ashton Zones. Also the area topography, shown in brown on the map, makes it impossible to locate drilling islands in certain areas of the Huntington Beach Company "A" Lease parcel thereby increasing the need for a greater number of drilling islands. After comparing the April 12, 1982 draft Plan map with our future operating requirements on your leases, Chevron has come to the conclusion that the proposed rezoning of the Huntington Beach Company "A" Lease parcel from the existing -01 suffix, which permits unlimited drilling on the entire surface, would be inappropriate for the following reasons: 1 . The Plan estimates that approximately 80 of the oil reserves in this area remains to be recovered. Chevron anticipates that it will require an additional 30 years or more to recover these reserves. We therefore anticipate an extended and con- tinuous use of the' surface of the Huntington Beach Company "A".and "B" Lease parcels as well as the Jones Community Lease for over 30 years. The restriction of our surface use to one guaranteed and three optional drillsites would be an unreasonable restriction of our existing rights as it would severely limit our ability to develop the remaining reserves in an economical and efficient manner. 2. The draft Plan states on Page 29: . The second concern is to limit the drilling of new wells so as not to create additional sources of incompati- bility in an area ultimately planned for residential uses. The percentage of the specific plan area that is devoted to oil activities should be minimized if the area is going to support high quality residential developments . . .11 In view of the anticipated duration of Chevron's future oper- ations, i .e. , over 30 years, we do not believe that now is the appropriate time to rezone the area so as to resolve the "in- compatibility" with planned residential uses. Such use will not take place for the foreseeable future because the present location of production facilities blocks residential development. Chevron believes that limiting residential use in the area should be the present goal , so as not to create additional sources of incompatibility with existing and expanded oil production. ATTACHMENT 9 (cont` ) ' Mr. Roger J. Work, President April 27, 1982 Huntington Beach Company Page 3 3. Huntington Beach Company's development plans for this area are presently in the formative stage. Chevron believes that any future zoning should consider its lessor's development plans with which we have in the past been able to integrate our production facilities. The Plan does not take your future development into consideration. 4. We agree with the Planning Staffs' prognosis that a number of problems can develop when residential use and oil activities are located close to one another. Noise, vibration, and arti- ficial lighting all associated with rework, redrill , and drilling operations can be a source of annoyance to people who move into the new residential communities surrounding our existing oper- ations. In the past we have considered accommodating residential develop- ment but in any such accommodation Chevron usually ends up the loser as such accommodation places a great economic burden on our oil operations thereby raising the end price of the product and creates hostility between the company and new residents for whom noise abatement and other nuisance limiting procedures never seem to be satisfactory. Therefore, realizing that accommodation will only lead to problems and that our operations on your leases will continue for at least 30 years, we have come to the conclusion that accommodation cannot be successfully realized where the oil operations are so intense as in these parcels. For these reasons, we believe that the draft Plan and the proposed rezoning as it applies to the Huntington Beach Company "A" and "B" and Jones Community Lease parcels as outlined in red on the attached map, are inappropriate. These leased parcels should be dealt with by the City separately at some future date after oil production has terminated. I hope that you will take these comments into consideration in any future planning for the area. Sin erel y our Hilman P. Walker HPW/sd Enclosures cc w/enc: Mr. James Palin Mr. W. D. Edman Director of Development Services La Habra City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Mr. J. D. Frogaatt Huntinntnn RFarh. CA 0264p re)nr-nra ATTACHMENT 9 (cont' ) A �3 se � � •l y rr es so w, to ® e � � �, ••�� / psi t` RI►. et 28 to *• ee ' 3(,0• 1 THIS MAP IS F�R <E>a" ; OF CHEVRON USA. �..., CHEVRON :53 , MAKES NO REPRESENTA SS b f HunF.A Leore f j ..LIMES NO .e �' tnt.Basch Go, 1 -CATION OR DEPTH TIES. -0UNDARIE PIPE LIM,TELE• twti 100 . Ia OR ff LINES OR OTHER IM ON THE SURFACE Of 4; w s L J6 1 )ETfaMIss MAP.THIS COMPANY! , tS iNICATED WITH BEf0�/ANVY6d) "� OF ANY KIND IS bONt�N THE S(X�f !0 te6 'LITIES SHOWN ONINe `/ 7 eI. tte �^ S 4t LW/_ rs u.c /e/L" 35 � r • A�ltt ip �'.\ et f0 ,•`,11 : III7 f ee 71 C*A lfoqu�- r' �•T ACrCS /ss Olr7 J r— f3v +�9* 'EVRON , r� i V LCOJ� t A!S • s17 _ V898 _ » LApolo �� es \ A env i i .r \ `% w 4-�Si' ` ter Pr7 1:�. z73;t rnA n" 1 SyS o. owes. ' y66 •,�., lw '' r`N N! 2IJ �! •, �y' tile."•v' , VI 66 Its- let ;ee 3t 113 /eJ ' w KS A•t/e Ire '• Ali ! �. .. - SCHLEICHE - UNION TEXACO ORfON 10MORfON /yo//,.ncr-Meyei•sJ - �'� • • to e • - . 12 �•' : T iNFtucMAUUN CONTAINED ON THIS MAP IS FOR r T PRIVATE fxCLUSIVE USE OF CHEVRON USA. _ 4 '" + O• IN . SAID , O NY MAKES NO REPRESENTATION r �''•'� y' ', roCO RNINfj; ND ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR• 4 s • ACCURAeY OF LOCATION OR DEPTH OF ANY TIES, - - J r t SE ION CORNERS. BOUNDARIES. PIPE LINES,TELE- 11 } •. N • ' .� CHEVRON ,,G,,,�„ `�"� THE GROUND,rNDICATEDON THIS MAP.THIS NY _ 2 ✓onesGOrnrn� !; �� r SHOULD BE COMMUNICATED WITH BEFQRE ANY r • ! s EXPLORAT006WORK OF ANY KIND IS DONE IN THE 61 p, ►4 © + 0ls VICINITY OQNE IkelLFFIES SHDWU OH THIS MAP. • �`''- all ® CHEVRON • --13 � ; 220 - 42 to �. m /Hunt.BeoeA<GO.-Hunl.B•LJe.J ® L th hr6 �10 `1J'®�it f ®142 ; 206 o T 1 4w,1 i 7,A. 100 - /9/ i � '©192 ! 233i H n z H to Q 0 It v PH ON COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS TE AREA CODE A CODE ES: ?t4 S40-291y 0 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA '`y� 962-2411 P. O. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 101344 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP, SAN DIEGO FREEWAY) May 14, 1982 MAY 171982 City of Huntington Beach Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Attention: Carol Inge, Assistant Planner Reference: EIR 82-1 for Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan This letter is written to update the statement concerning the Districts' facilities included on page 78 of subject EIR. Please be advised that the Slater Avenue Pump Station is presently being rehabilitated and a new parallel force main is under construction. These actions will insure interim reliability until completion of the Coast Trunk Sewer system which is antici- pated during the next decade. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Hilary J. Baker Senior Engineering Aide HJB:ss + ti J. 1. HATHAWAY, OPERATOR P.O. BOX 2124 SANTA FE SPRINGS. CALIFORNIA 90670 RECEIVk 'A May 18, 1982 MAY 19 1989 City of Huntington Beach P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attention: Planning Commission Gentlemen: In order for us to develop our properties and to protect them against drainage we will need an oil island on our existing Dennison Lease. From this locale we can reach other properties we have under lease without encroachment through the sub-surface rights of others for which permission would most likely not be granted. A plot is attached showing the approximate location of the site. Your favorable consideration of this request will be appreciated. Very truly yours, J. I. HATHAWAY, OPERATOR By: v id Enclosure r, ' ✓ 'A{aro• 1 � -. LEGEND - GF-R Mandatory Oil Islands = Optional oil Islands Existing -01 zoning (Will be removed upon adoption ♦� of the Specific Plan) ♦ �•�•�� Proposed Roadways r ♦ � •� 1. � # Tom,;- !•" ♦ - - -- t ;- ft 80,1000 -. SOURCE. Ifuntin ton Beach Plannin-g-D-ivision. 1982 r" HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA PIA► NINC, DIVISION CONCEPTUAL LOCATTONS OF PROPOSED OIL ISLANDS ii.� y .,., MURRAY STORM ` DIRECTOR,EMA ROBERT G. FISHER 4 V NTY O F DIRECTOR OF PLANNING LOCATION: 2 1 811 NORTH BROADWAY SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 5 3 RANG E MAILING ADDRESS P.O. BOX 4048 V ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY SANTA ANA,CA92702-4048 TELEPHONE: PLANNING (714)834-4643 May 19, 1982 FILE Bolsa Chica Lin. Reg. Park Bolsa Chica LCP Ms. Florence Webb Acting Deputy Director Department of Development Services City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Ms. Webb: Thank you for transmitting a copy of the draft Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan which we received on May 14, 1982. In order to assist you in the workshop scheduled for May 20, 1982, the following comments are offered at this time. 1. Figures No. 9 and No. 18 of your draft specific plan show Edwards Street deviating from its present alignment at a point just south of Talbert Avenue and passing westerly along the base of the bluffs to an intersec- tion with the westerly extension of Garfield Avenue. Edwards Street would no longer extend along its present alignment. Such a new align- ment for Edwards Street is inconsistent with the Orange County Board of Supervisors adopted Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan (LCP/LUP) which is now under consideration by the California Coastal Commission. Although future mutual studies of road alignments in the Bolsa Chica area by your City and the County during the LCP Phase III and Specific Plan work may consider such a new alignment for Edwards Street, there is no certainty that it will be found to be a desirable route or subsequently acceptable to the Coastal Commission. Accordingly, it is suggested that you design the Specific Plan in such a way that Edwards Street may take a route along or near its present alignment. 2. The draft specific plan shows a collector street extending from the cur- rent intersection of Edwards Street and Ellis Avenue westerly into the County Bolsa Chica LCP/LUP area and then curving south into your specific plan area in a loop to return to Edwards Street. The County's Bolsa Chica LCP/LUP indicates the area just westerly of the intersection to be recrea- tion and design4ted Open Space on the Orange County General Plan map and the land use component of the LCP/LUP which was adopted by the Board of Super- visors on January 20, 1982. The two 5 acre parcels just westerly of Ed- wards Street are possible partial or total components of the Bolsa Chica Linear Regional Park. If your plan is adopted with the collector street as shown, the boundary line for the regional park should probably be Ms. Webb May 19, 1982 Page 2 along the collector street. There may be a question as to whether the local collector street passing through the open space/recreation area is consistant with the LCP and General Plan. An amendment of the County's Local Coastal Program might be required in the future. We believe there are arguments for the road to pass through such an area but further study is needed as indicated in paragraph one above. 3. In general, the westerly boundary ofyour specific plan would help define the boundary of the Bolsa Chica Linear Regional Park in this area. As you know the Bolsa Chica Linear Park Boundary Study has optional park boundaries in the vicinity, subject to your land use planning in the area. The above comments are those which have been noted in the few days since receipt of your plan. If further review of your document reveals other considerations, we will let you know in the next few days. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in your planning. If there are any questions please feel free to call -me at 834-5388 or Kenneth Winter at 834-5387. Very truly yours, R. L. Rende, Manager Project Planning Division RLR/KW:crn cc: Ken Winter Grace Fong oc'za ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT OISTRICT May 19, 1982 ��CEtVFD Ms. Carol Inge Assistant Planner City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Ms. Inge: SUBJECT: EIR 82-1 ELLIS - GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN Thank you for sending us a copy of the Ellis - Goldenwest Specific Plan for our review and comment. The Specific Plan area is currently served by Route 25 (Goldenwest Avenue). We suggest that provisions be made for buses in the design of the streets and the locations of bus stops (i.e. pavement sections, bus turnouts, etc.) Further, as this area develops and ties in to the development for the Bolsa Chica Wetlands, bus service may be provided through the Specific Plan Area via Edwards and Garfield. Therefore, we suggest that you also take transit into account in the design of Edwards and Garfield, making provisions for bus stops as well as pedestrian access to the proposed subdivisions. If there are any questions, please contact me or Mike Haack at 971-6405. Sincerely, Dick Hsu Environmental Coordinator DH:SX 11222 ACACIA PARKWAY • P.O. BOX 3005 • GARDEN GROVE, CALIFORNIA 92642 • PHONE(714)971-6200 ATTACHMENT 7 W AMERICAN LANDSCAPE SUPPLY ,,-,,, 18851 GOLDEN WEST STREET- HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92648 - (714) 842.8866 �'- ' 1 t -,25,1_�1982 HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL P.O. BOX 190 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIF. 92648 p;- ►�' ,. TO THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL: CITY CITY Ct)I _" o"q 1idoIL OF:'fC' AS A TAXPAYER AND PROPERTY OWNER IN THIS CITY, THIS IS A FORMAL REQUEST TO ,FIND OUT WHAT PARTY IS BEHIND THE URGENCY TO REZONE THE ELLIS/GOLDENWEST AREA AND THE COST INVOLVED TO DATE. WE ARE VERY UPSET. AT THE WAY PROPERTY OWNERS ARE BEING DICTATED AND RAILROADED ABOUT THEIR OWN LAND AND INVESTMENTS. WE THINK THAT THERE IS COLLUSION, A CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND A CONSPIRACY INVOLVED, AND WE' RE AT THE VERGE OF CALLING FOR A FEDERAL INVESTIGATION AT WHY THE SUDDEN INTEREST TO REZONE AND PLACE THESE RESTRICTIONS AND LIMI- TATIONS ON THIS AREA? ATTENDED THE COMMISSIONERS MEETING ON APRIL 27, WHERE IT WAS SCHEDULED TO HAVE THE NEXT MEETING ON JUNE 1, HOWEVER, IT APPEARS A BACK DOOR MEETING WAS HELD ON MAY 11 REGARDING OIL ZONING, TO WHICH THIS OIL, MINERAL, AND PROPERTY OWNER WAS NOT NOTIFIED. AT THIS MEET- ING THEY PLANNED AREAS TO HAVE OIL ZONES, WELL, I HOLD THE GEOTHERMAL AND DEEP OIL ZONE ON 15 ACRES AND NEED AN 01 ZONE ON MY LAND. THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT SHOULD BE THERE TO HELP AND ASSIST THE DEVELOPER WITH THEIR PLANS, NOT DRAW PLANS, DESIGN BUILDINGS AND ROOFS AND LANDSCAPING. YET THESE PEOPLE ARE DESIGNING AND DRAWING DEVEL- OPMENTS IN AND MAKING SPECIFIC DESIGNS AND COMPETING AGAINST PRIVATE ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS. LET THE DEVELOPER COME IN AND DESIGN AND DEVELOP THE AREA, AND THESE DEVELOPERS HIRE THE BEST TRADESMAN FOR THE JOB AND HE PAYS THE BILL NOT THE TAXPAYER. ACTUALLY, THE CITY BY PUTTING ALL THESE SPECIFIC LIMITATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS ON THIS AREA SCARES AWAY ANY DEVELOPER, WHICH IS A SHAME FOR THE DEVELOPER COMES UP WITH NEW AND CREATIVE IDEAS FOR THE CITY. THEN THE PLANNING STAFF HAS DRAWN A LINE REPRESENTING A PROPOSED FUTURE ROAD THRU THE CENTER OF OUR LAND AND OUR EXISTING BUSINESS. WE HAVE SEEN DOING BUSINESS FOR 13 YEARS .IN THIS CITY AND WE ARE 100 PER CENT OPPOSED TO ANY ROAD GOING THRU THE CENTER OF OUR LAND OR BUSINESS . IT IS VERY SAD THAT IN OUR CITY THESE THREATS TO AN INDIVIDUALS LAND CAN BE HAPPENING. WOULD LIKE THIS MATTER CHECKED INTO AND A STOP PUT TO THIS OBSENE WASTE OF .TIME AND TAXPAYERS MONEY. AWAITING A REPLY. THANK YOU. RESPECTFULLY, RONALD I. B�NULE E. ANN BRINDLE f __ntington Beach Comp,,,,,,.iy co 2110 MAIN STREET,HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92648 (714)960-4351 May 27, 1982 Huntington Beach Planning Commission MAY 2 7 41C0;, Attn: Mr. James W. Palin, Secretary Development Services Department np.,a�t;p�*cr,i SE. 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Commissioners and Mr. Palin: This letter sets forth the response of the Huntington Beach Company to proposed Ellis- Goldenwest Specific Plan as transmitted under your cover letter dated April 21, 1982. This is also in response to your letter dated May 4, 1982. Reference is made to our previous letter dated March 8, 1982 and comments made at your March 9, 1982 study session. It has been the position of the Huntington Beach Company that a specific plan for our properties in this area is premature, for reasons stated later in this letter. It has been the apparent position of City staff that the Specific Plan must conform to the existing General Plan for the area, and that boundaries, land use, and specificity of the Specific Plan are therefore not flexible. Now, after having created, recommended, and publicized the Specific Plan, it appears that an after the fact effort is being made to demonstrate the property owner's involvement. Your letter of May 4 states that our lack of response to those details issued on April 23 leads you to "assume that the general provisions of the Specific Plan...are compatible with our ideas". This is in direct contradiction to our earlier correspondence and meetings. We are further concerned that the Planning Commission has imposed a deadline of July 31, 1982 for adoption of the Specific Plan in order to apply conditions to an approved subdivision within the Specific Plan area. The following points again express our objections to the proposed plan: 1. The proposed specific plan, and the process through which it has been drafted, is not consistent with good planning principles nor the direction set by the City Council for this area. Planning for the Ellis-Goldenwest area has been a series of responses to private zoning and development proposals, and has precluded a general planning effort responsive to broader issues. The City's most recent planning effort in this area was triggered in August, 1980 by Mola Development Corporation's application for a high density general plan amendment on a ten-acre parcel of land located south of Ellis Avenue and east of Goldenwest Street. (This property has since been acquired by the Huntington Beach Company.) The planning staff, citing previous Planning Commission interest in industrial development in this area, then expanded the study area to 46 acres and analyzed various industrial, medium density and high density land use alternatives. After the November, 1980 City Council hearing, at which the Huntington Beach Company stated its opposition to the all-industrial alternative, the study area was again expanded to include the present 287-acre area. The intent was to formulate land use and policy recommendations for Council consideration of alternative equestrian and non-equestrian development possibilities at various general plan densities. i Wry •� Page 2 The scope and direction of the Planning staff's study was altered significantly in response to Lindborg-Dahl's application in April, 1981 for a zone change to permit a residential subdivision on 15 acres of land within the study area. At this point, staff began to focus on more detailed development concepts in reaction to the proposed zone change rather than to continue the analysis of long-range planning and development needs for the larger area. At the July 7, 1981 Planning Commission meeting, staff presented its recommendation to prepare a "specific" plan for the estate area. The Commission discussed proceeding with a specific plan as opposed to a general plan amendment for the area and set forth .the following guidelines: citizen and property owner input in any further planning should be recognized, a planned development approach be considered to allow developers flexibility in designing projects, a specific plan to implement estate development should be developed, but if constraints were encountered in the process, the area should be considered for a general plan amendment. Although considerable opposition has been expressed, no alternatives to the proposed specific plan have been suggested by staff. Now, given the time constraints imposed by the Planning Commission for adoption of the Specific Plan, it is doubtful that changes to the plan or alternatives can seriously be considered at this point. 2. The proposed specific plan is premature for significant portions of the area and does not resolve major general plan issues. The land area being studied represents the major portion of the City's undeveloped acreage. Ownership and land use patterns suggest that development will occur over a period of decades. For this reason, careful consideration needs to be given to planning future development - not only for land use and aesthetics, but also for future circulation, fiscal and environmental impacts, infrastructure financing and phasing, and special district relationships. The proposed Specific Plan focuses instead on issues that relate to immediate development. The Specific PIan is inconsistent with the City's Circulation Element and the proposed Bolsa Chica circulation plans. The compatibility of development within the Bolsa Chica on land use patterns in the Ellis-Goldenwest area have not been considered nor has the compatibility of land uses to the east of the study area. As set forth in Chevron U.S.A. Inc.'s April 27 letter, the removal of drilling rights and application of detailed residential development standards within a major oilfield is totally inappropriate, is inconsistent with efforts to maximize domestic oil production and creates major land use conflicts at this time. For these reasons, the Huntington Beach Company has repeatedly requested that certain properties be removed from the Specific Plan so that proper general plan and zoning designations for oil production can be studied. 3. The proposed specific plan does not reflect the intentions of property owners in the area, nor has the process by which the Plan has been drafted encouraged property owner participation. In directing the staff to proceed with specific plans for the estate area, the Planning Commission stated a desire to involve property owners and interested citizens. Recognizing the different needs of large and small property owners, the Commission asked that planned community and planned development approaches be considered for this area to give owners flexibility. t Page 3 In subsequent meetings, the Huntington Beach Company was assured that property owners in the study area would be consulted by staff throughout the preparation of the specific plans for the area. In fact, no input was solicited from the Huntington Beach Company concerning the City's planning approach, area boundaries, status of existing land uses, or short-term/long-term development plans for Huntington Beach Company properties, which constitute over half of the study area acreage. The first opportunity to react to the specific plan occurred at a property owners' meeting on February 9, 1982, the same day that the plan was to be presented to the Planning Commission. Property owners were briefed on major points of the plan; however, printed copies of the draft plan were not made available until a later date. At the evening study session, the Commission discussion was divided between specific features of the plan and general approaches to planning the area and no public input was taken at this meeting. On March 8, 1982 the City Administrator and you received a letter stating the Huntington Beach Company's concerns about the staff's specific plan effort, its inconsistency with the direction set forth by the City Council for this area and the lack of opportunities for meaningful input afforded property owners. Our letter also notified you that we had retained Phillips Brandt Reddick (PBR) to analyze long-range opportunities for our significant land holdings in this part of Huntington Beach. Finally, the letter requested the City to consider suspending its specific planning efforts for the area pending the development of new comprehensive land use and circulation alternatives for the City's consideration. I believe this letter clearly stated our position with regard to staff's planning effort. Copies of this letter were not distributed to the Planning Commission until their April 27, 1982 meeting, almost 2 months after it was received. At the March 9 Planning Commission meeting, the staff requested direction from the Commission concerning several key features of the specific plan, including the minimum project area, the planning area boundaries, and the use of assessment districts and redevelopment. Again, copies of the draft plan were not available for review by property owners, and no public input was taken. On March 19, 1982, representatives of the Huntington Beach Company, PBR, and City Planning Staff met to discuss respective planning programs and planning needs for areas within and surrounding the Ellis-Goldenwest specific plan area. PBR indicated at that time that approximately six months would be necessary to study the area to develop good comprehensive land use and circulation alternatives. On March 29, we met with the City Administrator and you to review the City's planning process, at which time I discussed the lack of opportunity for us to respond in any meaningful way to the City's planning efforts and noted that no material had been made available by staff for public comment or review. I again asked that the areas west of Edwards Street and east of Goldenwest Street be removed from the specific plan study area. At this meeting you agreed to provide some general planning criteria to be reflected in plans developed by PBR for Company lands. Finally, on April 23, 1982, we received for the first time a copy of the draft specific plan along with your cover letter outlining elements of the plan that significantly impact Company properties. The draft plan was reviewed by the Planning Commission on April 27 at which time considerable opposition was expressed by smaller landowners in the audience. } � v Page 4 On April 27, you also received a letter from Chevron U.S.A. Inc., the principal oil producer and lessee of much of the Company's land in the specific plan area, expressing Chevron's concern about the proposed specific plan. This letter was reviewed with your staff at a meeting on May 6, 1982. Throughout the process of formulating the Specific Plan, property owners have been asked to react to staff proposals on relatively short notice, while discussions with staff have in most cases gone unreported to the Planning Commission. The plan has received little if any support from property owners in the area, yet a majority of these owners will be required to approve any special assessment districts that may be needed to finance and implement the plan. Further, the minimum development requirements of this plan is dependent on a degree of property owner cooperation which is unrealistic. 4. The proposed specific plan reflects only one possible alternative for development compatible with the City's General Plan. The proposed specific plan has been developed aroun a single land use designed to benefit a narrow segment of the housing market in the extreme upper end of the price range for housing. The Huntington Beach Company feels there may be many development alternatives that, after proper review and analysis, will be acceptable to both the City and the property owners and which will meet demands for equestrian and recreational land uses without excluding the largest segment of the home-buying public. We also believe that much more variety and visual interest may be created through the integration of more housing types now contemplated under the plan. Much of the area included in the Specific Plan is committed to long-term oil production. Given the tendency for market conditions and community needs to fluctuate over time, planning for these areas should look beyond immediate development issues, and adopt a flexible approach to resolve issues that may arise. We feel the Specific Plan as proposed precludes a thorough analysis of long-term opportunities for the Company's properties. 5. The proposed specific plan does not differentiate between the needs of large and small property owners and does not respect logical planning boundaries. Many of the issues raised in the Specific Plan involve the coordination of development in areas of diverse property ownership, yet much of the area included in the plan is under contiguous ownership. The area south of Ellis Avenue extending from Goldenwest to Gothard Street is essentially entirely owned by the Huntington Beach Company, and the Company has repeatedly expresse4 its desire that this area be planned as a single entity. The use of Crystal Street as a planning area boundary is arbitrary and bears no relation to the site's features. Goldenwest Street, a major higher-speed arterial, establishes what we feel is a more natural boundary for the City's Specific Plan, and we see no logical basis for including the area east of Goldenwest in the current Specific Plan effort. By the same token, the area west of Edwards Street is under one ownership, and does not share the same constraints and problems found in the "core" area between Edwards and Goldenwest. Because of this area's long term commitment to oil production, we feel it is inappropriate to include this area in the Specific Plan as well. Page 5 In summary, the Huntington Beach Company has expressed continued concern and opposition to the City's specific planning efforts and those elements of the plan which have been made available. We have attempted to cooperate with staff in developing a long range planning program and have retained a professional planning consultant to assist the City and the Huntington Beach Company in this effort. Now, despite the proposed six-month timetable suggested by PBR to study the area, City staff continues its expectation of immediate alternatives to the proposed Specific Plan. I urge you to consider the concerns expressed in this letter and at the June 1 public hearing, and ask that consideration be given to alternative approaches to planning this area. The Huntington Beach Company recommends that the proposed Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan be tabled pending further planning studies conducted through a cooperative effort between the City and private property owners. If this is not possible, I ask that the areas owned by the Huntington Beach Company, to the west of Edwards Street and to the east of Goldenwest Street be removed from the Specific Plan area. I hope this adequately sets forth our position on the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. We continue to extend our sincere offer to work with the City in our own planning efforts as outlined in our March 8, 1982 letter. Very truly ours, R� WORK CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ti INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION - HUNTINGTON BEACII To Mike Adams From Don Noble Assistant Planner Engineer Planner Sul)ject Ellis/Goldenwest Specific Date May 27, 1982 Plan & E.I.R. #82-1 The Public Works Department has the following comments and concerns regarding the Ellis/Goldenwest Specific Plan and E.I .R. #82-1: Drainage 1. Nuisance water will be permitted to flow in the drainage swales (see page 21, paragraph 3) . 2. Not all storm runoff should be diverted from the lake; only nuisance flows and initial storm waters should be conveyed through a bypass system (see page 85, paragraph 1) . Sewage 1. The County' s Slater Pump Station has been upgraded - would suggest they be contacted regarding overload (see page 78, last paragraph) . Water 1. No comment. Traffic 1. Straight streets rather than curvalinear alignments, are safer roadways. Item 4 of Section 2 on page 16 is therefore somewhat misleading. 2. Item "a" on page 48 should be clarified (i.e. paved width of 24 feet would not include curb and gutter, if applicable) . 3. Who would maintain "lot entry" bridges across drainage swales - homeowners association or individual property owners? (This should be resolved prior to Commission Meeting, if applicable) . 4. Goldenwest Street, between Garfield Avenue and Rio Vista, should be reclassified to a major arterial. 5. Intersections, where a rural street joins a standard street, should be standard planned, (i.e. how will curb lines, park- ways and drainage be handled?) 100 1 , Mike Adams Ellis/roldenwest Specific Plan May 27, 1982 Page 2 Landscaping of Arterial Highways 1. Street medians, where applicable, could be reduced in width from 14 ' to 10 ' or 121 . This would reduce landscaping costs and provide more roadway for traffic. 2. Parkway designs could include meandering walkways and bike trails behind curb line. 3. Parkways should not include tree planting directly behind curb or within sidewalk configurations (i.e. tree planting should be behind any sidewalk construction) . This action, in addition to, reducing damage to sidewalks and streets , will reduce maintenance costs and insure sight clearances for traffic. Misc. 1. Who will maintain "dedicated public horse trail easement"? 2. What is the status of the geothermal well study? 3. What specific conditions will be imposed upon developers to mitigate water quality damage to the lakes? DRN: lw cc: Paul Cook Ed Elevatorski - Ralph Leyva Stan Farber Bruce Gilmer Karl Huv Bill Patapoff Daryl Smith E.I.R. Correspondence File 101 ti. c ' Ch 9V= +: Chevron U.SA. Inc. P. 0. Box 606, La Habra, CA 90631 Phone (213) Written Comments on Draft EIR 82-1 Huntington Beach Ellis/Goldenwest Specific Plan City of Huntington Beach Planning and Environmental Resource Department P.O. Box 190 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attention: Carol Inge Dear Carol: The following comments refer to the draft Environmental Impact Report 82-1, and are limited to the topic of oil, beginning on Page 58. Each paragraph is analyzed and specific comments made where appropriate, followed by generalized comments regarding the Setting, Impacts and Mitigations sections of the EIR pertaining to oil operations within the Specific Plan area. 1. Environmental "Setting"beginning on Page S Paragraph 1: Chevron U.S.A. Inc. operates a total of 94 wells within the Specific Plan area, located on 4 distinct parcels which are governed by separ- ate and independent lease agreements. This fact should be pointed out in order to understand the need for segregated drilling areas on each of the 4 leases (i.e., off-site drilling, commingling of production, blanket pass through privileges, etc. , are'not rights which are implied in oil and gas leases). Paragraph 2: Chevron U.S.A. Inc. operates a total of 66 wells within the area west of Edwards included in the Specific Plan. To appreciate the inten- sity of oil operations in and around this area, a map highlighting oil activities would help in understanding the heavy oil related land use within the boundaries of the Specific Plan. An aerial photograph which depicts Chevron's intense use will be provided to the City of Huntington Beach. Paragraph 3: There are statements made in this paragraph which refer to declining oil production and recovery methods. These types of statements need to be related to a source or supporting study (i.e., is this information derived from the "Special Study" referred to in Paragraph 4, infra?). Paragraph 4: Based upon a recent discussion with the D.O.G., its our understanding that the "Special Study" referred to on Page 58 of the draft City of Huntington Beach Attention: Carol Inge Specific Plan, which allegedly supports the sufficiency of preserving only two drillsites, is not a written study and therefore not subject to the oil operator's review and comment. The D.O.G. also stated that before imposing drilling limitations, the City should both consider the advice of the affected oil operators and of an independent oil consultant. Thus, these statements, and presumably those in Paragraph 3, supra, are without written substantiation and call into question the validity of the proposed limitation on future drilling operations within the Specific Plan area. General Comments on oil "Setting": With a majority of the study area in oil related use, this section should discuss the economics of oil operations. This element could be a significant aspect affecting this area. Furthermore, the EIR should include a map illustrating the intensity of oil activities within the study area. Finally, the use of the alledged "Special Study" conducted by the D.O.G. as a source of information, presents a real question as to the validity of various statements and the appropriateness of limited drilling rights. II. Environmental "Impacts" beitinninx on Page S 9: Paragraph 1: This paragraph attempts to list "Impacts" that the introduction of residential developments will have on existing and future oil operations. No detailed analysis is given to the specific way in which oil operations will be affected (i.e. curtailing future domestic oil extraction and treatment operations, increasing the economic burden on all oil operators which may in turn be passed on to the consumer, reduced taxes and governmental fees, etc.). There is also a comment made that "many of the marginal producing wells may become abandoned in favor of residential development". This is a speculative opinion which does not belong in a draft EIR. Paragraph 2: Instead of discussing "Impacts", this paragraph attempts to suggest highly speculative mitigation measures that are very complicated and difficult to implement even under ideal conditions. This is especially true where there is a fragmentation of property ownership, which is acute in portions, if not all, of the Specific Plan area (both surface and subsurface). General Comments on "Impacts"Section: An adequate identification or anlysis of the potential impacts (e.g., econo- mics) residential development would have on oil operations has not been made. The analysis appears to gloss over foreseeable problems, and instead concentrates on inadequately investigated mitigation possibilities. c . City of Huntington Beach Attention: Carol Inge III. Environmental"Mitigation" beginning on Page 59: Paragraph 1: An obvious error is the reference made to converting gasoline powered pumping units to submersible electric pumps. The viscosity of the oil produced from the Specific Plan area presently prohibits the use of this type of pump. General Comments on "Mitigation"Section Overall, mitigation measures appear inadequate and misdirected. The focus is on mitigating the impact of oil operations on residential development instead of the impact of the proposed residential development on an area historically devoted to resource production. Chevron appreciates the opportunity to present its comments. If there are any questions or clarification needed, please feel free to call Vince Noble, Chevron's Environmental Compliance Coordinator at (714) 536-2561. Very truly yours, Hilman P. Walker LOM/sd cc: Vince Noble - Huntington Beach MILTON H 14AROW A7"1'ACHME 864 NORTH BUNDY OR �•- LOS ANGELES CA 90049Jim 4-0152513151 05/31/82 ICS IPMRNCZ CSP SNAG 2134721697 MGM TORN LOS ANGELES CA 70 05-31 0814P EST ` PLANNING COMMISSION KEC � 11ir. 0 PO BQX 190 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 J U N N 1982 'Yt•i0,'•11C•,?� Sr""."':'ice':;, (IRGENTS PLEASE PRESENT OUR OPPOSITION TO ELLIS-GOLDEN WEST PLAN, JUNE 1 HEARING, AS EXTRAVAGANT AND RESTRICTIVE. AS FIFTY YEAR TAXPAYERS ON SEVERAL PARCELS, WE JOIN OTHER OWNERS IN REQUESTING AESTHETIC., PRACTICAL, DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVEs1 MEDIUM nENSITY PESIDENTIAL, WITH RELIEF FROM RESTRICTIONS, RISK OR JOINT VENTURES, EXCESSIVE CGSTP AND PROJECT TIME. RESPECTFULLY, MILTON H MAROW 864 NORTH BUNDY OR LOS ANGELES CA 90049 20s16 EST MGMCDMP TO REPLY BY MAILGRAM, SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR WESTERN UNION'S TOLL - FREE PHONE NUMBERS > # Huntington Beach. Company co 2110 MAIN STREET,HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92648 1714)960.4351 R.J.WORK VICE PRESIDENT-GENERAL MANAGER June 9, 1982 i• ' r 1 Development Services Department City of Huntington Beach 2000 Whin Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attention: Ms. Carol Inge Dear Carol: The Huntington Beach Company appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Draft Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan and accompanying Draft Environmental Impact Report 82- 1, and submits the following comments for your consideration. Page Section 1 1 .1 Continued access to oil resources is identified as a major reason for undertaking the Specific Plan, yet the Plan clearly favors residential development and open space over oil production by placing restrictions on existing operations and greatly limiting new drilling opportunities. 7 1.4 Under Existing Zoning, reference should be made to the 82± acres which are presently zoned -01, in which new drilling is permitted. 11 2.0 The wording of this section should be clarified as to the intent of the Specific Plan for each subarea. it is not clear for which subarea(s) the Specific Plan sets forth development standards. Some reference to the section Containing development standards would be helpful, as well as.definitions for terms used in the Specific Plan. 11 2.1 The definition of minimum project size is confusing, as the terms project, development, area plan, development plan, and conceptual plan are all used but are not defined. This section should specifically state which minimum acreage requirement applies to the various types of entitlement applications, if this is the intent. From the information presented in Figure 7, it appears that only four out of over one hundred property owners in the Specific Plan area own areas of 10 acres or larger. The requirement that owners with less than 10 acres must consolidate or joint venture with adjacent property owners, is discriminatory and is unreasonable considering the existing pattern of ownerships: 107 � S Page 2 Page Section 13 2.2 Grading regulations should consider the possibility that some grading may be necesary prior to development to compact soils and provide proper drainage for individual properties or lots. Limiting grading to two feet of cut and two feet of fill outright seems overly restrictive. Open space corridors are to include a minimum 20-foot-wide public equestrian trail located in what is described as a "dedicated easement". If the trail area is dedicated to the City for public use, it is assumed that the City is then responsible for trail maintenance, contrary to the language contained in the first paragraph on Page 34. The Plan also states that such trails be located within privately owned open space easements of a minimum width of 100 feet. Where such easements are required, developers should receive credit against local park dedication requirements and in-lieu fees. 15 2.3 Reference is made to a master plan of trails and master-planned trails. A figure depicting such trails would be helpful. 15 2.4 Figure 10 represents existing circulation conditions instead of those proposed in the Specific Plan. The Circulation Plan assumes that nearly every arterial that impacts the planning area is to be realigned from either its existing or master-planned alignment. This assumption is premature until area-wide circulation issues have been adequately studied and resolved by the City, County, and Coastal Commission through general plan amendments currently pending. The alignments of these arterials should be finalized prior to adoption of the Specific Plan. 19 2.5 This section does not discuss how the design, phasing, and construction of major public works facilities is to be coordinated where said facilities are planned to cross private properties under multiple ownerships. The use of unimproved natural swales to convey drainage may present problems given the erosive quality of the sandy soils in much of the area and concerns about water quality in Sully Miller Lake, and will be expensive to maintain. The proposed realignment of Edwards and Ellis would impact the existing water supply system; development within the Specific Plan would seem to be contingent on resolving the location of key water system facilities. 23 2.7 The limitation of residential development to two basic patterns and the prohibition of flats is inconsistent with the stated objective of providing for a variety of housing types, and in this regard the Specific Plan is less flexible than traditional zoning. A more flexible approach to designing residential units is warranted in this area given other development restrictions contained in the Specific Plan. The wording in this section would also appear to prohibit apartments -this should be clarified. 108 Page 3 Page Section 29 2.8 The Specific Plan's approach to the compatibility 'of ongoing oil production in residential areas is backwards. Rather than removing large areas from production to accommodate expected residential developments, the burden of proof for compatibility with existing oil operations should rest with residential developers as such development is proposed. The consolidation of new drilling activity into a few small islands is made difficult by the pattern of oil leases within the area and is best left to the discretion of property owners and oil operators. 31 3.1 Under uses permitted, Planned Residential Developments should also include single-family homes, both detached and attached. No provision has been made for public recreation and open space areas such as trails, neighborhood parks and linear park, nor public and private streets, easements, flood control channels, and pump stations, etc. Permitted oil-related uses should be defined in more detail. Also, are unclassified uses such, as schools and churches to be permitted in the Specific Plan area? 32 3.3 Do the Open Space Corridor and Sensitive Development Area restrictions still apply to the' entire Specific Plan area or only to Subarea 2? As with Section 2.0 the relationship of subareas & special areas needs to be clarified. 57 Topography - Sensitive Development areas are to have been designated based on "significant topography", yet nowhere is the term significant topography defined nor criteria for this designation given. 58 Oil - Division of Oil and Gas special study should be referenced. 65 Transportation and Circulation - The EIR states that the possible realignment of Edwards, Gothard, and Ellis will have significant impacts on circulation in the Specific Plan area, yet these significant impacts are not quantified, nor are mitigation measures recommended. Cumulative impacts of development within and surrounding the Specific Plan area on circulation needs have not been addressed. 72 Visual Resources - The analysis of the existing setting is extremely subjective as it relates to the open, rural appearance that is valued by the community. With respect to vegetation, residential development will more than likely improve the quality and variety of landscaping and vegetation on-site. 109 ' r � r Page 4 Page Section 86 Alternatives to the Specific Plan, such as partial adoption of the proposed plan, use of conventional zoning districts, or a general plan study have been suggested and should be acknowledged. 87 The fiscal impacts of estate residential development pursuant to the proposed Specific Plan - including necessary circulation and public works improvements, maintenance burdens, and the potential loss of oil-related income to the City - have not been identified nor analyzed. Very truly ydurs, fC. . WORK RJW/e 110 ~ ATTACHMENT 10 AMERICAN LANDSCAPE SUPPLY 18851 GOLDEN WEST STREET- HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92648- (714)842.8866 JUNE 101 1982 HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION ATTN: MR. JAMES W. PALIN, SECRETARY cE '- 'J . �� DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT J U N 1 o 2000 MAIN STREET � } HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 DEAR COMMISSIONERS AND MR. PALIN: THIS IS TO CONFIRM PAST LETTERS AND REQUESTS REGARDING THE PROPOSED STUDY PLAN ON THE ELLIS GOLDENWEST AREA. NOW, WE ARE MAKING A FORMAL REQUEST TO HAVE OUR FIFTEEN (15) ACRE PIECE OF PROPERTY WITHDRAWN FROM THIS STUDY PLAN. WE HAVE BEEN OPERATING OUR BUSINESS FOR THIRTEEN YEARS IN THIS CITY, AND HAVE NO INTENTIONS OR PLANS TO DISCONTINUE OUR BUSINESS. EVERY INCH OF LAND IS VERY IMPORTANT AND USED 1 IN OUR BUSINESS AND WE ARE OPPOSED TO ANY ROAD GOING THRU THE CENTER OF OUR , PROPERTY, BE IT A PAPER ROAD OR A PROPOSED ROAD FOR THE FUTURE — WE DO NOT WANT ANY ROAD. WOULD APPRECIATE AN ANSWER TO OUR PROBLEM. THANK YOU. RESPECTFULLY, RONALD I . BRINDLE •r ' T Chevron Chevron U.SA. Inc. P.O. Box 606, La Habra, CA 90631 • Phone (213) 694-7655 Hilman P.Walker June 10, 1982 District Land Supervisor Southern California District i.rnd Depii tment,Western Region DRAFT GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA r r � MR. JAMES PALIN ► Director of Development Services City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Mr. Palin: Through informal discussions with members of your staff after the Planning Commission meeting on June 1, I have come to the conclusion that Chevron's requirements for existing and future oil and gas operations within the Specific Plan area can be met through minor changes to the draft Specific Plan and by a less inclusive amendment to the General Plan than that currently proposed by Chevron. After the Commission meeting I was told that the actual purpose of Paragraph 3 of the Staff Report dated June 1, 1982 is to amend the oil activities section of the draft Specific Plan in order to permit new drilling on two oil islands similar to those presently zoned -01. If this is the intent of Paragraph 3, then subject to the inclusion of definite wording to this effect in the draft Specific Plan and its final adoption by the City Council, Chevron will delete the lands east of Garfield from its General Plan amendment application. The amendment would then deal only with the lands west of Edwards which we believe should be redesignated as a "Resource Production" area in order to recognize that it is in fact dedicated to intense oil and gas production. We believe that it is absolutely necessary to preserve one oil island on each of Chevron's oil and gas leases east of Edwards because these leases prohibit Chevron from drilling off- lease. (Please note that neither of the attached leases provides for off-lease drilling). Also preservation of two islands will make it possible for Chevron to access the remaining oil by economical and efficient means. We wish to provide you with our recommendation for the location of the two Chevron 2.5 acre oil islands through the attached revised Figure 18 which we propose as a sub- stitute for that in the draft Specific Plan. The revised Figure 18 delineates two oil islands located to the east of Edwards Street. No change is proposed in the location of Island "A" because of our need to be able to efficiently reach all portions of the Jones Community Lease. The other island marked "B" is located on our Huntington Beach Co. "B" Lease somewhat south of the existing s Mr. James Palin Director of Development Services June 10, 1982 Page 2 -01 Suffix Island offset 100 feet from Garfield Avenue. This offset is necessary to meet the requirement of Public Resoure Code Sec. 3600. We believe that this is an appropriate change as it would free up additional surface area for other uses while allowing Chevron access all subsurface areas of lease. We also propose in the attachments what we believe is appropriate wording to revise the draft Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report to insure that Chevron's drilling rights will be preserved on these islands. The proposed language contains a suggestion that additional oil islands be specifically included so as to provide drilling access for other oil operators in the Specific Plan area to the east of Edwards Street. I would appreciate the opportunity to meet with your staff to discuss our proposal. Very truly yours, i C/v Hilman P. Walker HPW:sd Attachments N TALBERT CF-C 11 - `�' all, ; � coo 00 A ! M ..O 1 I. �Vl 1. Source: Huntington Beach Planning Division, 1981. ! ; ; 1 HUNTINGTON BEACH 04LIFORNIN —— — ——O t SUFFIX AREA ' £ PLANNING DIVISION A DRILLING ISLANO -01 / B DRILLING ISLAND-O1 s ' AMENDMENTS TO THE DRAFT ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN DATED APRIL 1992 1. Page'29 - 30, Section 28: "Oil Activities": a. Omit the last paragraph and substitute the following: "Because of the intense oil activity projected to continue in the area west of Edwards Street, the Specific Plan proposes that new wells be permitted anywhere within that presently designated -01 suffix area. All other drilling of new wells within the Specific Plan area, will be limited to 2.5 acre oil islands located as designated on Figure 18. b. Omit footnote 1 in its entirety. 2. Page 33, Section 2.2 C. "Oil Islands": a. Omit the second paragraph and substitute the following: "New drilling shall be permitted anywhere within the presently designated -01 suffix area located to the west of Edwards Street. All other drilling of new wells within the Specific Plan area shall be limited to 2.5 acre oil islands located As designated on Figure 18. i AMENDMENTS TO DRAFT ELLIS-GOLDENWEST ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 82-1 DATED APRIL 1982 1. Pale 58 Section "Oil - Setting": Omit the fourth paragraph in its entirety. 2. Page 59, Section "Impacts": Amend the first paragraph as follows: "Development of the Specific Plan area will introduce residential uses among active oil operations in the area east of Edwards Street. Residential development will affect oil operations with regard to questions of access, setbacks, noise and aesthetics. i Ad A/S d - •. -ter r, •THIS AGREM1MXT, made this Ed day of September, 1920, between MINGTON BEACH CONPANl, a corporation under the laws of the State OW-Vailfornls, partlr•or the first part, herein styled the Lessor, and `nSTANDARD OIL COHPANr, a corporation under the laws of said State, party of the second part, herein styled the Lessee, RITNESSTTNs 1. For and in consideration of the sum of Ton Dollars 0,410.00) gold coin of the-united states of America, to the Lessor in hand paid, talkl of other valuable considerations, the receipt of all Of which is hereby acknowledged, and in consideration of the performance by the Lessee of the covenants and agreements hereinaftor contained, the Lessor has leased, let and destined, and by these presents does lease, let and demise unto the Lessee, the lands horeinafter described, wi).h the sole and exclusive right to the Lessee to drill for, produce, ettraot, and take all, gas, asphaltum, and other hydrocarbon sub- --stances (and water for operation of this lease) from, and store tea saw said lands during the term hereinafter provided, with Tight to enter on said lands at all times for said nnrsoses. and from time to time construct, use, maintain, erect, repair, replace and remove thereon and therefrom, all buildings, tanks, machinery, tele- phone and telegraph poles and wires and other structures, including all pipe lines placed thereon by the Lessee, which the Lessee may desira-In carrying on its business and mining operations on said pre- s s with rights_of-way for passage over and upon and across, and y Ingress and egress to and from said premises. The premises referred to are all these certain lots of land situate in the County of Orange, State of California, described as 1QT 10.'u taiwMaing at a }hint 1Mbieh Is,I ntersection g ' ! the north line of the south Half•t Northwest QulAer ((* NV}) • of section Two (a), Township sit (8) south, Range Sloven (11) pest, B.B.B. & U., and the west line of the southern Pacific Railroad r. right of way, thence vast along the north line of south flair (4) or Northwest Quarter (NW*) of said section Two (2) to a point, 'vhich point is the intersection of thg easterly line of Circle Drive and { the north line of south Hair (a#) of Northwest Quarter (N1ii) of said section 2 thynoo continuing south and westerly along the southeasterly dine of said Circle Drive to the poiit where the "i ,••'�� '' outherI line of said Circle Drive intersects the Wiest line of i 4 `.w t wP" . . , iw• +'i.1 r1,i, 9 i • ss is TOO A M, is&ds and entered into the -31 day of `.My* 1920. IV the urderoicpaod soveral owners of the I" heroin- '- . WtW theoribsd, herein oUled Lessors. and OTMAHD 011. CMU,AIiY. s eamVoratlon. ereanised and existing under tho lows of the ctnts of California, hereinafter eallod the yoosee, rr xz2rS&MIIII The d000ription of the land owned W each L0000r Is set forth at the and of this lenoe, and Imedistoly ysooedinC Via signatures of Vio omiero tliorcof. '::aid Loauora. for end in oonuideration of ti►n am, or t10.00 to e.noli of tha-1 in liaml Laid. ruxl othor oonaidor_tionc oi' F value, the rooeirt theroor io hereby noknowledgod, do horoby agree with each other, ar] wit'i said Loaane. to, and tl!ry do l:erclrf, lease. let and denioo untohowlsl,Loeuoo odlrl land, vitr. b.+c sole and exoluoive rl&t to onid L00000 to drill for, produce, cAr:ot. ,md tams sil. ems. asdialtun and other hvdroonrbon subetan000 and a' aoater;ire.�. aM store Ll�o_on3a anon, said innd dupirk, the to . hereinafter provided, eith the riGht or ontrq on amid L^_nd at all _times for odd iurnosou. and iron `ire to t1mo to oonstruot. uue. oaintain, &root, repair, roplaoo and remove thereon and therefro-:, all buildirce, tanks, mahinery, telephone and tol*Mmlxh wirer,i and ether otruotures, 1noludin;l.all pipe lino vmloh onid Loouce nay dealt An owrrsrisa an its bueinou&_and mininr:_enosotinno on said_ _Taenlaoe, with 7ri+�,hts of UW for pave" ever and upon and-acrarc. _and lammeos and caress to and from Bald mremieeo. The possession of the Ieasec of rho rondo held by it ` rieder this lease shall be sole oars elooinslve, mWepstru only V=t "aesh terser.reserves thr rust to as and boom the particular „v load evened by Use or to isms& the am*, or cry► port thoroof. for syriealtural or gmxlvg Tiurposes. Which agriouitu ral or arxz- log use shall be arorried on subject to, and with no interference with, the rights ot eporation► of the ].eaoes horounder. _ .i ,..... -�, f.ice,^M:'.'r•...,�1..i.- ' •• 4 :� , •i ,� is:�' y'y s+ ' Ni:f � i •:i;.� � .s:;:=•1n, :tif:if'�, •,; y��'t,.yi .r} r �•+i7jiU'''�'i'•iSy�,ryyYwi�a !i•....'�i'::Si y�ii.�l.id.'i�f},. .:'1�if.. .�5.[..�'"'.�:'Si1�E:Ir.::::nYr..L.'S::h.,.... • r. v Environmental Board CI-f Y W HUN-i ING I-ON BEACH nit I0%n(A(It F'OsI OI11(-(! B4)V 19O . I I�i(' Icl1, C,III O(Il lit TO: Planning Commission FROM: Environmental Board DATE : June 11 , 1982 SUBJECT: Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan The Environmental Board full supports the Estate Residential/ designation. Planning Staff should be complemented for an outstanding job in preparing this report. Not only have they done a tremendous amount of research and field work but also have made the plan accessible to the public for input and explanation throughout its preparation. We urge Planning Commission to adopt this Specific Plan and EIR so that it will become an ordinance and be passed on to City Council to be adopted by July 31 and be applicable to the tentative tract map already approved in this area. The EIR addequately addresses the major converns in the Ellis-Goldenwest area. Following are some items we recommend incorporating into the Specific Plan. 1. Drainage in the swales should be allowed to occur naturally over the ground. Pipes or concrete channels should be avoided wherever possible. This not only allows natural percolation-filtering of runoff waters, thus mitigating impacts on lakes, but also allows natural plant growth contributing to the rural atmosphere of the area. 2. Condominium development of the area should be deleted as it is not in keeping with the estate residential character of the area. The condo regulations call for only 35% open space or 65 to 70% land coverage versus maximum site coverage of 35% for large lot and clustered lot standards. 3. Trail width should be sixteen feet instead of 20 ' from the outside of the trail fencing in .order to coincide with existing Orange County trail standards which will link to our City trails in the linear park and link to the Santa Ana River trail. 4. Rural road standards should be changed to finished edges of rolled concrete rather than gravel. The asphalt paving breaks up at edges and gravel becomes scattered in the recommended type of roadway. t i 5. Road widths on private roads should be decreased to 30 feet of pavement with 1 ' rolled concrete curbs in accordance with rural nature. This allows plenty of parking and access room. 6. Collector street should be 36 ' with rolled concrete curbs. 7. All common improvements to developments such as common equestrian stables, trails and fencing, perimeter project fencing, common open space landscaping etc. should all be constructed by the project developer prior to the sale of lots in the project. This is particularly important when only custom lots are being sold. 8. Equestrian standards to be reasonable and marketable are any lot of 15 ,000 sq feet could have 2 horses. Any family will normally have 2 animals. 20,000 sq. feet - 3 horses each additional 10, 000 sq. feet add 1 horse. 9. Double common wall houses should not be allowed as they are not estate residential in nature. 10. Homeowner association agreement and specific plan should be written so that common facilities , open spaces, equestrian facilities etc. be maintained in perpetuity so as to preclude a homeowners asso- ciation voting any of these items out in order to sell/and or avoid maintenance. 11. Preservation of large trees should be required plus additional trees should be required throughout the area,particularly along trails to enhance estate residential character. 12. Fencing (perimeter, interior-trail) , street signs, street lights, trees, trail landscaping etc. should be uniform throughout area and be approved by Planning Commission as to Exact type, color, design etc. Also all stable architecture and roof type should conform to individual house or common development standards. 13. Oil sites C,D,E and F should be preserved rather than making it an option of the property owner. Oil islands should maximize the use of natural landscaping and trees. 14. Swale areas should be left as dedicated open space. If at the discretion of Planning Commission or City Council some swale areas are left in private ownership they should be restricted to specific development guidelines. 15. The use of perimeter block walls should be dis- couraged. We would like to re-emphasize our support for the estate concept in this area. This use is compatible with the surrounding areas, Huntington Beach Central Park, linear park and equestrian uses. We urge you to approve the Specific Plan and adopt precise standards for the area so that i will develop uniformly with a definite character and permanency. It is important to send this ordinance onto Council so that they may approve it by July 31 and it will apply to the Lindborg- Dahl tentative tract already approved in this area. Res ctfully, Irwin Fiaydock Chairman IH:bas Chevron Chevron U.SA. Inc. P.O. Box 606, La Habra, CA 90631 Phone (213) 694-7655 Hilman P.Walker District Land Supervisor Southern California District Land Department,Western Region June 17, 1982 DRAFT ELLIS/GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA Mr. James Palin Director of Development Services City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Mr. Palin: As a follow-up to my comments at the June 15, 1982 Planning Commission public hearing on the Ellis/Goldenwest Specific Plan, I would like to reiterate Chevron's concern with respect to the size of the oil islands proposed for Sub-Area 2. The proposed one and one-half acre size could restrict our ability to drill new wells when we must also accommodate storage tanks and other related oil processing facilities on the island. I therefore propose that the Specific Plan be modified to permit the Director of Development Services at his discretion to permit the oil operator to specify oil islands no greater than two and one-half acres in size. To provide the director with this authority the Draft Specific Plan dated June, 1982 should be amended at Paragraph 5.3.3.9, "Oil Activities" as follows: "New drilling and new storage tanks shall only be permitted in specified sites or "oil islands". The oil operator shall own or have a lease on subsurface mineral rights covering an area of a minimum of twenty (20) contiguous acres within the Specific Plan boundaries for every one oil island requested. Before a permit for new drilling is issued, the oil operator shall specify the exact location and size of the proposed oil island (generally not to exceed two and one-half acres in size) subject to review and approval by the Director of Development Services." We believe that this change will provide adequate flexibility for our drilling and storage requirements in Sub-Area 2 while providing the City through its Director of Development Services with adequate control over the size of the oil-islands. Mr. James Palin June 17, 1982 Page 2 Again I want to personally thank you and your staff for your courtesy and patient consideration of our past comments concerning the Draft Specific Plan. Very truly yours, Hilman P. Walker HPW/ez cc: Mr. R. J. Work Vice President and General Manager Huntington Beach Company 2110 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 y STAFF REPORTS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS ON THE ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN AND EIR 82-1 February 9, 1982 March 9, 1982 April 27, 1982 May 18, 1982 June 1, 1982 June 15, 1982 June 22, 1982 July 7 , 1982 c huntington beach developmept services department srAf f �. REPOR TO: Planning Commission FROM: Development Services DATE: February 9, 1982 SUBJECT: ROUGH DRAFT OF ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN Attached for your review is a rough draft of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan (Sections one, two and three) . The plan is in a preliminary form and is subject to revision. Staff will be prepared to present and discuss the plan at your February 9th Study Session. CI :jlmC A-FM-23B c huntington beach development services department SYAf f .-REPOR TO: Planning Commission FROM: Development Services DATE: March 9, 1982 SUBJECT: ELLIS/GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES 1. 0 SUGGESTED ACTION: 1 . Take a straw vote on the various alternative development ap- proaches and planning issues as described in the staff report. 2. Direct staff to schedule and notify for a public hearing upon completion of the environmental documentation. 2.0 GENERAL INFORMATION: On February 9, 1982, staff presented a draft of the Ellis/Golden- west Specific Plan to the Planning Commission for review and comment. Several comments were expressed with the Commission directing staff to investigate alternative consolidation options. Following is an analysis of alternative development approaches. Following this, is a discussion of redevelopment and the formation of assessment districts, both of which may be used to help implement the plan. 3- 0 ANALYSIS• CONSOLIDATION ALTERNATIVES: The Ellis/Goldenwest Specific Plan area is divided among over 100 property owners. Their holdings range in size from less than one- tenth of an acre to over 70 acres. The following alternatives are intended to prevent piecemeal development on small parcels. den-Acre project Minimum - The draft Specific Plan proposes a mini- mum project site of ten acres. Owners of properties smaller than this must consolidate or joint venture with adjacent property owners before development. A ten acre site provides room for flexibility in the layout of a project. This could result in site plans that are more creative and more sensitive to topography than a development designed to fit a smaller parcel. Secondly, many properties will require little or no consolidation to meet the minimum size requirement. There are seven properties of ten acres or larger and 14 five-acre parcels within the Specific Plan area at this time. It is likely that a num- ber of building sites can be put together privately without City participation. /A-F M-23A `f•- 141W Ellis-Goldenwest March 9, 1982 Page 2 On the negative side, the ten acre project site could result in 15 separate developments within the Specific Plan area. In some cases property owners may not be able to work out agreements with adjacent properties, and this could delay development of some sites for many years. Lastly, combinations of parcels may occur which exclude or isolate other properties that are las: than ten acres in size. Delineated Project Nodes - In this alternative the Specific Plan area is divided into subareas or "nodes", 30 - 50 acres in size. (See Figures 1, 2 and 3 for example. ) All parcels within a subarea will be required to plan and develop as one project. The 30 acre and larger project area provides for more flexibility in terms of site design than a ten acre or smaller site. This may re- sult in site plans that are more creative and more sensitive to topo- graphy than a development designed to fit a ten acre parcel. This alternative would result in no more than five or six projects within the Specific Plan area and would ensure that no parcels are isolated as a result of the consolidation process. Special requirements re- garding density and/or housing type could be tied to each subarea to ensure a variety of housing opportunities. Consolidation of most of the subareas, however, will involve a larger number of property owners than the ten-acre minimum consolidation al- ternative. One property 'owif4L�ir could hold up the development of an entire subarea for many years. Subareas may not be able to consoli- date without City participation. Also, the time and costs involved in financing a project of 30 acres and larger may be prohibitive for many developers. Ten-A .r _ Project Minimum Within a Delineated Node - In this alternative the Specific Plan area is divided into subareas of 30 acres or larger for planning purposes. Development on a minimum site of ten acres may be permitted if it conforms to an overall development plan for the subarea. The subarea plans would be written by the affected property owners subject to review by the City for conformance with the Ellis- Goldenwest Specific Plan. Each subarea will be planned as one unit providing for the flexibility and creativity possible on a large site. Yet, developments can occur on ten-acre properties which alleviates the problems of consolidating an entire subarea. Also, special requirements regarding density and housing type may be linked to each node, if desired, to encourage a variety of products. There may be little advantage, however, in delineating the subareas if projects are built on an individual basis within each area. The Ellis-Goldenwest March 9, 1982 Page 3 development plan for a subarea will have to be specific about the distribution of units, infrastructure and open space in order to guide development of individual projects within that subarea. It will be difficult for property owners to agree on a plan unless that plan distributes units, open space and infrastructure requirements in an equitable manner. (The City would be reluctant to approve a subarea plan that is not acceptable to most or all of the affected property owners. ) However, a subarea plan that equalizes development opportunities on every individual parcel may not be able to take ad- vantage of the flexibility and creativity potential afforded by the larger project sites. As discussed previously, combinations of par- cels (within a subarea) may occur that isolate parcels of less than ten acres. PROJECT NODES: An optional approach for project planning, design and development is for the Specific Plan area to be divided into project nodes. These nodes should be limited in number and should be approximately equal and of a size suitable for optimal project development. The creation of subareas can be accomplished by a number of methods. This report reviews the two major development constraints in the Specific Plan area, ownership patterns and topography, as a means for the delineation of project nodes. The node size determined to be most suitable for this Specific Plan area was between 30 and 50 acres, yielding a total of five nodes. A project area concept based primarily on ownership patterns (Figure 1) will produce a plan for circulation and infrastructure which fol- lows property lines and produces a basic grid configuration. Al- though a grid pattern does not necessarily imply a bad design, it will within the Specific Plan area, preclude the option for curvi- linear streets and to a great extent, disregards topographic features. This configuration may also require additional linear footage of streets and utility lines in order to accomplish the same level of service. Node formation by ownership patterns may be somewhat arbitrary, with little regard for the basic characteristics of the individual parcels or even the parcels as a collective. The ownership pattern method can be effective in the formation of development nodes with readily identified participants and project development groups based on a percentage of node ownership. The creation of nodes by ownership patterns will also prove to be an equitable approach for project development. i i 60 so 23 Al 50 J- 53 50 31 / % / 41 J, oj s m HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA Project Nodes by PLANNING DIVISION Ownership Patterns Figure 1 r Ellis-Goldenwest March 9, 1982 Page 4 The formation of subareas by topographic features (Figure 2) creates an entirely different configuration. The pattern formed by the cir- culation plan and infrastructure will be determined by physical characteristics of the site and will be primarily curvilinear and sloping; taking into consideration certain engineering constraints. The curvilinear pattern will also assist in the development of a rural equestrian theme for the Specific Plan area, and enhance view opportunities. Nodes based on topographic features may not be flexible enough to form areas of equal size or characteristics. Therefore, some nodes may have a greater percentage of development constraints than others. To a great extent, these constraints to development will also become the amenities which will distinguish the nodes. The topographic features method will not take into consideration the existence of property lines resulting in a number of individual property owners lying within more than one node. The formation of project develop- ment groups may be more difficult due to these constraints and may require participation by the City in order to achieve adequate con- solidation. By combining both the ownership patterns and the topographic features methods, a new configuration (Figure 3) emerges which preserves many of the positive aspects of both approaches. This method is sensitive to a greater number of property constraints and is flexible enough to adjust node shapes and sizes to achieve the most equatible solution possible. The project nodes identified in Figure 3 range in size from 35 acres to 70 acres: They were arranged around the existing swales and those areas proposed for open space preservation, with the circulation and infrastructure layout, view opportunities and area characteristics as well as ownership patterns playing an equal role in determination of shape and size. This method for the formation of nodes will not avoid all of the problems identified in the other two, and the pro- cess of consolidation for the formation of project development groups may still require participation on the part of the City. HOUSING OPPROTUNITIES: Providing for a variety of housing opportunities is an adopted policy of the City' s Housing Element. The Specific Plan for this area can encourage the implementation of this policy through a number of pro- cesses. Three housing products have been identified as appropriate for the Specific Plan study area, including large lot single family projects, small lot cluster single family projects and planned resi- dential developments projects. The following are three approaches which may be employed to assure housing variety. 6c 5o 11 4-o 40-- 7o - --40 m 51� 54' 3C Ij t AM& HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIK Project Nodes by PLANNING DIVISION Topographic Features Figure i Ellis-Goldenwest March 9, 1982 Page 5 The designation of mandatory areas for various housing types is the most direct approach. This approach would take into consideration the various constraints on property and designate the housing types most appropriate for those areas. For example, areas with large portions undevelopable due to the existing slope and proposed grading policy may be designated as a cluster mandatory, thus preserving unique topographic features. A cluster mandatory or large lot mandatory designation may be applied to select sections within identified nodes or may be applied on the entire area of certain nodes; providing that the overall density of the Specific Plan area maintains a three unit per acre average. The remaining sections or nodes not mandated would have the option of developing any of the appropriate housing types. The second approach would set aside a percentage of each node for both large lot and cluster housing. The most equitable means would be to require the same percentage breakdown in each node. The over- all density of the node and the Specific Plan area would have to maintain an average density of three units per acre. The third approach is an indirect approach allowing the option of developing any of the appropriate housing types in all nodes, as long as the average density does not exceed three units per acre. This approach would rely on the proposed development standards to provide constraints to development which would require a variety of housing types in order to achieve the allowable maximum density. DENSITY ALTERNATIVES: In addition to the previously identified alternatives, the overall density within the Specific Plan area may also be changed. In order to accomplish this, a General Plan land use amendment would have to be prepared and adopted for the area. In general, the Planning Com- mission and City Council will have to weigh the advantages of allowing higher densities against the potential incompatibilities of such den- sities with the concept of an equestrian, estate community. Estate Residential - The City' s General Plan allows approximately 870 dwelling units to be built in the Specific Plan area (an average of three units per acre) . This density is compatible with the con- cept of creating an equestrian oriented community that incorporates open space and preservation of topography into development plans. The designation also allows for some variation in project densities. Variation in density may occur if some developers choose to build at less than the maximum allowed densit . (For example, property owners may subdivide into one-acre estates. A greater variation in density can be encouraged in the Specific Plan by assigning densities to individual subareas as previously discussed. Densities could range from one unit per acre to over five units per acre and still average 60 10 .0 ---------- -J 7177 2.' 1� :50 40 60 40 60 -J 10) 0 -J� Project Nodes by HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIN ', PLANNING DIVISION ON Ownership Patterns Topographic Features Figure 3 a '✓ rr Ellis-Goldenwest March 9, 1982 Page 6 out to three units per acre overall . Some projects may appear to have a greater density than allowed due to the ratio of open space to buildable land within the site. For example, if thirty units are allowed on a ten acre site and half (five acres) of the site is preserved as open space, then the thirty permitted units will be clustered onto the remaining five acres. The density on this developed five acres will be six units per acre. This situation is likely to occur to different extents adjacent to the proposed Bolsa Chica Linear Park and adjacent to the major drain- age ravines that traverse the Specific Plan area. Increased Densities - The City may wish to allow densities in por- tions of the Specific Plan area that raise the total number of units above 870 (the 3 unit per acre average) . This would require a General Plan Amendment on all, or at least part, of the Specific Plan area. An increase in overall density may make the area more attractive to developers and possibly speed up consolidation and development. High- er densities could result in more affordable housing units compared to the Estate Residential densities. Higher densities may also result in a greater variety of product types and provide a greater incentive for cluster developments. On the negative side, higher densities may create an atmosphere that is inconsistent with the image of an equestrian, es- tate community. IMPLEMENTING TOOLS: Two major constraints to development in the Specific Plan area are the diverse property ownerships and the lack of public improvements such as roads and sewers. This section discusses two methods - redevelopment -and formation of assessment districts - available to the City which may be helpful in mitigating these constraints. Redevelopment - Redevelopment can be used as a tool both for assem- bling parcels and for financing needed public improvements. The Redevelopment Agency has the authority (within the designated pro- ject area) to acquire and assemble land for public or private reuse. The agency may acquire land by mutual agreement with the buyer or seller or, if efforts to negotiate a sale are unsuccessful, the agency can use the power of eminent domain to condemn parcels of land and buy them at fair varket value. Because the ownership pat- terns are so fragmented in the Specific Plan area, one small pro- perty owner may block the remainder from assembling parcels large enough to make new development feasible. By using its power of eminent domain, the Redevelopment Agency can persuade such hold-outs to join in the project or can buy out their interest and allow the project to proceed. When a redevelopment project area is adopted, part or all of the Ellis-Goldenwest March 9, 1982 Page 7 future "tax increment" may be returned to the Redevelopment Agency and used to finance capital improvements. Tax increment financing works by "freezing" the tax base of properties at the time the pro- ject area is adopted. Increases in the assessed value of the proper- ties which occur over time result in increased tax revenues. This increase in revenues is the "tax increment" . In the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area tax increment financing may be a method for fund- ing at least some of the major roads, sewers, storm drains and water mains needed to serve the area at ultimate development. The Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area would most likely qualify as a "blighted" area under the California Community Redevelopment Law and, thus, could be designated as a project area. There are, however, a number of steps prescribed by law which must be taken to set up a redevelopment project and the entire process is time- consuming. Also, as of 1977, Re- development Law requires that the Redevelopment Agency consult with any taxing agency (i.e. counties, school districts, sanita- tion districts) that might be affected by the tax increment finan- cing. The law allows these taxing agencies to set up a fiscal review committee which may suggest amendments to the redevelopment plan to alleviate adverse fiscal effects. Although the law does not require the fiscal review committee to assemble, fiscal review must be anticipated in new redevelopment projects. Further, coun- ties may insist on receiving a generous portion of the tax increment, perhaps up to 50 or 60 percent, before agreeing to allow a redevelop- ment project to proceed. The Redevelopment Law does not provide that the Redevelopment Agency must submit to demands by the fiscal review committee, but threat of a time-consuming lawsuit makes it impractical for the agency to engage in prolonged battles with other taxing agen- cies over tax increment funds. Assessment Districts - Rough cost estimates based on the draft Ellis- Goldenwest Specific Plan indicate that master planned sewers, storm drains, water facilities and trails needed to serve the area will cost approximately $3 . 1 million. An additional $3 .2 million will be needed to construct the proposed internal collector streets and the utilities normally located within these street rights-of-way. Improvements to the arterials such as the realignment of Ellis Avenue and Edwards Street will cost yet more money. The City may require that property owners provide the necessary fa- cilities on a project-by-project basis. Unfortunately, the first developers into the area may have to construct much or all of the improvements in order to service their properties, and the high cost involved may be excessive for many developers. There may also be pressure to allow deviations (temporary or permanent) from the master plan alignments that could diminish the ultimate efficiency of the systems as currently planned. As an alternative, the City can try to form an assessment district in the Specific Plan area. This will enable all improvements to Ellis-Goldenwest March 9, 1982 Page 8 be built in a timely manner with the cost shared among all affected property owners. The authority to set up an assessment district is provided for in the Improvement Act of 1911, the Municipal Improve- ment Act of 1913 and the Improvement Bond Act of 1915. While the detailed provisions of these acts differ, the basic process is the same. As a first step the City adopts a resolution declaring its intention to form an assessment district and prepares a report containing a description of the improvements , an estimate of their total cost, and a proposed division of this cost among properties in the area. The proportion of the total cost assessed to each property is to be based on the amount of estimated benefits received by that property. The City then notifies property owners and sets a public meeting date to hear all protests. If protests are made by the owners of more than one-half of the area of the land to be assessed then the assessment proceedings must stop unless the protests are overruled by a four-fifths vote of the City Council (i.e. six ayes) . If a majority protest is not made, the City may proceed with the assessments. If provided for in the City' s resolution of in- tention, bonds may be issued for the unpaid assessments, and property owners can make regular payments (i.e. , yearly with property taxes) until the bonds are paid off. In the meantime, revenues from col- lected assessments or from the sale of the bonds can be used to fund the required capital improvements. It should be noted that the assessment district need not bear the total cost of all the required improvements. Monies from City funds such as the sewer fund can be used to help pay the cost of appropriate facilities. Or, as previous- ly discussed, tax increment financing from designating the area as a redevelopment project may also be used to offset the costs of some capital improvements. 4.0 SUMMARY OF ISSUES: After receiving comments from the property owners in the Specific Plan area and the Planning Commission, the staff has identified the following issues and recommends that the Planning Commission take straw votes on the following concerns: 1. Selecting an alternative approach for consolidation; 10 acre project minimum, five 30 - 50 acre nodes, or a combination of 10 acre project minimum within an identified node. 2. If the node approach is selected then a means for node forma- tion should also be identified. The options for formation are by property ownership, topographic features or a combination of the two. 3. Providing for a variety of housing types may be desired and r Ellis-Goldenwest March 9, 1982 Page 9 can be accomplished by one of the following: mandating develop- ment types, requiring that a certain percentage of project development or node be devoted to particular housing types or without regulation and allowing the site constraints to dictate housing types. 4 . Should the density of the Specific Plan area be increased. 5. Should the minimum lot size for the keeping of a horse on pri- vate property be increased from the recommended minimum of 15, 000 square feet. 6. Approval in concept of the general provisions and development standards presented in the draft Ellis/Goldenwest Specific Plan. 5. 0 ENVIRO MENTA , STATU : The City' s Environmental Review Committee has determined that the Ellis/Goldenwest Specific Plan will require an environmental impact report. Upon adoption, this report will serve as environmental documentation for subsequent development proposals which comply with the Specific Plan guidelines. Proposals which significantly differ from the adopted guidelines or proposals determined to have an impact of greater significance than anticipated in the Specific Plan, may be subject to additional environmental documentation. ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Letter from property owner, Allan R. Jacobson 2. Letter from property owner, William Landis CI:MA:jlm G� sraf f `"huntington beach developme'f'f[ services department REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Development Services DATE: April 27, 1982 SUBJECT: ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN 1. 0 SUGGESTED ACTION: Direct staff to schedule, and notify for, a public hearing on the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan (upon completion of the necessary environmental documentation) On June 1, 1982. 2. 0 GENERAL INFORMATION: Attached is a revised copy of the draft Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan for your review and comment. Staff will be prepared to review the major provisions of the plan, including the most recent revisions, at your April 27th Study Session. This staff report presents a brief chronology of the Planning Commission's actions regarding the Specific Plan to date. 3. 0 ANALYSIS: On February 9, 1982, staff presented a draft copy of the Ellis- Goldenwest Specific Plan to the Planning Commission for review and comment. Several issues were raised for discussion at that meeting, and staff was directed to investigate alternative consolidation approaches for the area, particularly the concept of 40-50 acre project nodes. At a subsequent study session on March 9, 1982, staff presented an analysis of four issues including minimum project size, project node configurations, project types (large lot versus cluster) , and project density. The four Commissioners who were pre- sent at the March 9th study session took straw votes on these four issues to provide staff with direction to prepare a final draft of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. The Commissioners reached no consensus on minimum project size, but the majority did agree that if project nodes are delineated they should be based on a combination of topography and property lines. The majority also agreed that the basic product type should be left optional to the property owner and that an overall average density of three dwelling units per acre should be maintained. • They directed staff to finalize the draft plan and bring it back to a third study session on April 27, 1982. In a separate but related action, on April 6 , 1982, the Planning Commission approved with conditions Tentative r1'ract 11473 for a subdivision of 15 acres within the Specific Plan area. During the A-FM•238 Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan April 27, 1982 Page 2 review and approval of this project, both staff and the Planning Commissioners had the opportunity to take a close look at provi- sions in the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan as they would apply to an individual project. Partly as a result of this analysis, staff made a number of revisions to the original draft of the Specific Plan. One important aspect of the recently approved tentative tract map is that the Planning Commission required as a condition of approval that development on the 15-acre site be in compliance with all development standards contained in the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. They added that this condition shall be enforced only if the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan is adopted by the City Council on or before July 31, 1982 . Staff has prepared a revised draft of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan (attached) which will be circulated to Department Heads for review and comment. It will also be made available to property owners in the area and other interested members of the public. Staff is currently preparing a draft Environmental Impact Report on the Plan. The EIR will have to be posted for a 30-day review period before any formal action can be taken on the Plan by the Planning Commission. 4 . 0 SUMMARY OF ISSUES: 1. The Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan has been revised to incorpor- ate direction from Planning Commissioners given at two previous study sessions; a draft EIR is currently being prepared. 2. The Specific Plan should be scheduled for public hearing at the earliest possible date after the environmental documentation is complete. This will help ensure that provisions of the Plan can apply to the recently approved tentative tract in the area. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan 2. Letter from property owners, Ronald and Ann Brindle and response from Mayor Finley JWP:CI:dfC.x_ • ry. wr+° huntington beach development services department sTaf f -REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Development Services DATE: May 18, 1982 SUBJECT: ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN 1 .0 SUGGESTED ACTION: No action necessary--for information only. 2.0 GENERAL INFORMATION: Following the Planning Commission Study Session of April 27, 1982, on the draft Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan, staff made additional efforts to receive comments from concerned property owners and oil operators. On May 6, 1982, staff met with representatives of Chevron USA Inc. (Hilman Walker, District Land Supervisor, Larry McCamish, Land Attorney, and Vince Noble, Environmental Compliance Coordinator) and the Huntington Beach Company (Larry Netherland and Bill Holman) . The meeting was held to discuss a letter to the Huntington Beach Company from Chevron (carbon copied to the City) regarding the number and locations of oil islands within the Specific Plan area. The draft Specific Plan proposes to permit continued operation, reworking and/or redrilling of oil wells active at the time of article adoption, subject to applicable City regulations. However, the Specific Plan also proposes that new drilling will only be allowed in identified oil islands (see Attachment W . Two sites are identified as being preserved for oil activities only and shall be a minimum of one acre and a maximum of one and one-half acres. The location of these two sites was determined with the assistance of the State Division of Oil and Gas. In addition, four optional sites for oil operation have been identified, the option is for the property owner as to oil production or residential development. The sites selected will also be a minimum of one acre and a maximum of one and one-half acres in size and are presently zoned with an -01 suffix allowing new drilling. The concern expressed by Chevron is that the number of oil islands identified for both their Huntington Beach Company "A" Lease parcel (west of Edwards Street) and their Huntington Beach Company "B" and Jones Community Lease parcels (east of Edwards Street and north Atltk JOE-7— A-F M-23A Ellis-Goldenwest May 18, 1982 Page 2 of Garfield Avenue) are insufficient to efficiently and economically retrieve the remaining oil. Chevron has determined that five dril- ling islands, each approximately l� acres in size, will be necessary for the "A" Lease parcel, and two drilling islands will be necessary, one on the "B" Lease parcel and one on the adjacent Jones Community Lease, east of Edwards Street. The Specific Plan presently proposes that three drilling sites be allowed on the "A" Lease and one on the "B" Lease and Jones Community parcels east of Edwards Street. Chevron concludes that rezoning from the existing -01 suffix, which permits unlimited drilling on the entire surface, would be inappro- priate for their future operations. They, therefore, feel that the City should handle separately these leased parcels at a future date after oil production has terminated. Chevron further expressed an interest during the meeting of changing the General Plan designation on the affected parcels from Estate Residential to Resource Produc- tion, since they claim that oil production would be the primary use over the next 20-30 years; therefore, the existing zoning and the General Plan can be in conformance. The Huntington Beach Company continues to express the concern that developing a specific plan for this area is premature and that their planning efforts in this area are continuing. They feel that adopting a specific plan will limit their planning alternatives without ade- quately exploring all options available. They have retained the services of a planning consultant (Phillips, Brandt, Reddick) to explore various options, however, they have not been able to offer the City any information as to the scope of these studies or time frames for review. The Huntington Beach Company may request removal of some of their parcels from the Specific Plan area, a letter will be forth-coming with their official position. On May 11, 1982, staff held a meeting with oil operators in the Specific Plan area in order to discuss in detail the Specific Plan proposals in regard to oil production. Representatives of the in- dependent oil operators as well as Chevron were present. The major discussion centered around the compatibility of oil pro- duction and residential development and the fear that oil operations are being squeezed out. There was concern that the value of the land surface was taking priority over the value of mineral rights, which weighted the value in favor of residential development. The need for locating additional optional oil islands within the Specific Plan area was also expressed, some of the independent operators will sub- mit potential island locations for consideration. The designation of mandatory oil islands was considered a reasonable approach pro- vided that the property owner was allowed interim use of the parcel not necessarily oil related, until oil production was feasible and that the removal of the mandatory designation was removable if oil production becomes infeasible. 1 � rrn Ellis-Goldenwest May 18 , 1982 Page 3 The next steps in the Specific Plan process will be a meeting with the property owners in the Specific Plan area on May 20 and a public hearing on the Specific Plan and the Environmental Impact Report on June 1. a.jlm Y srAf f huntington beach development services department R_EPOR TO: Planning Commission FROM: Development Services DATE: June 1, 1982 SUBJECT: ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 82-1 1. 0 SUGGESTED ACTION: Approve the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan as modified by this staff report and Environmental Impact Report No. 82-1, pending re- ceipt of additional comments within the 30-day review period, ending June 15, 1982. 2. 0 GENERAL INFOR4ATION: Attached is the current Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan and draft Environmental Impact Report. Staff proposes amending the current Specific Plan in order to accommodate a number of concerns expressed by property owners, oil operators and other interested groups and individuals since the Plan was last presented before the Planning Commission at the study session held on April 27, 1982. Staff proposes dividing the Specific Plan into three distinct sub- areas (Figure #1 attached) . Subarea one contains all the land west of the existing alignment of Edwards Street; subarea two is the central portion from Edwards Street to Goldenwest Street (west-east) and Ellis Avenue to Garfield Avenue (north-south) ; subarea three is the area east of Goldenwest Street. A major issue of concern is whether this division will jeopardize the intent of the Specific Plan. The proposed development standards will only be applied to subarea two; additional development standards will be proposed for subareas one and three prior to project submission. Following are the proposed changes to the Specific Plan; copies of all written comments received in regard to either the Ellis- Goldenwest Specific Plan or the Environmental Impact Report are also attached. 3 . 0 ANALYSIS: Staff recommends that changes be made to the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan prior to approval by the Planning Commission. The Specific Plan will then be amended to reflect the approved changes A-FM-23A Ellis-Goldenwest June 1, 1982 Page 2 and forwarded to the City Council for adoption. The proposed changes are as follows: 1. Page 11, Section 2. 0: Development Plan Omit paragraph and substitute the following: The Ellis-Golden- west Specific Plan provides for creativity at the individual project level and, at the same time, ensures that developments will ultimately combine to create a cohesive estate residential, equestrian community. The Specific Plan contains provisions which apply to the entire area such as preservation of topographic features, preservation of open space corridors, equestrian trails, internal circulation systems, community services and design features. The Specific Plan also contains development standards governing individual projects. The Specific Plan area is divided into three subareas (Figure #1 attached) . Subarea one contains all the land west of the existing alignment of Edwards Street; sub- area two is the central portion from Edwards Street to Goldenwest Street; and subarea three is the area east of Goldenwest Street. The detailed development standards proposed may be different in each subarea, which will provide for a greater degree of flexibility. The proposed standards include such options as large lot, clus- ter and planned residential developments, various lot sizes, detached and attached units and other options. 2. Page 11, Section 2 . 1: Land Use and Density Omit both paragraphs and substitute the following: The City' s General Plan designates the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area as estate residential. An overall maximum density of three units per gross acre has been applied to this area, which represents an averaging of the two estate residential designations in the General Plan. This approach provides for the same total number of units to be built and will be more equitable to property owners, less cumbersome to implement, and equally compatible with adjacent land uses as the differentiated categories. The Specific Plan requires a minimum project size of ten acres in order to ensure that proposed developments coordinate with the overall area plan. Projects with a minimum of five acres may be allowed to develop provided that a development plan based on a minimum project area of ten acres has been proposed; thus allowing the implementation of two independent projects based on an overall conceptual plan. Owners of properties less than ten acres in size will be required to consolidate or joint venture with adjacent property owners Ellis-Goldenwest June 1, 1982 Page 3 prior to development. This provision is not intended to pro- hibit the sale of individual lots for custom homes provided that the lots are subdivided in accordance with this Plan. A condi- tional use permit will be required for all developments to En- sure that the design of projects and dwelling units enhances the estate residential theme. Project proposals requesting a change in land use or a change in density for residential projects are subject to the General Plan amendment process. 3. Page 29-30, Section 2.8: Oil Activities Omit the last paragraph and substitute the following: The Spe- cific Plan proposes that new wells be limited to optional islands within the presently designated -01 suffix areas. In addition, the Specific Plan requires that two islands (Sites A and B) be preserved as mandatory sites for oil activity only, to insure future access to underground reserves.l These two sites may be one and one-half (1k) acres in size. Preservation of the other islands which shall be a maximum of one and one-half (1h) acres is optional and will be up to the discretion of the property owner. 4 . Section 3. 0 : Development Standards Staff is proposing that the development standards proposed in the Specific Plan apply only to subarea two. The general provi- sions as amended shall apply to all subareas; however, detailed development standards for subareas one and three would be more appropriate to propose at a time prior to project submission. This in-effect will allow the existing uses to remain as noncon- forming uses. New project proposals in subareas one and three could either implement the existing Specific Plan development standards or proposed new standards prior to project submission, consistent with the intent of the General and Specific Plans, which would, upon approval by the Planning Commission, be incor- porated into the ordinance. A. Page 31, Section 3. 0 : Development Standards Omit the section title and paragraph and substitute the fol- lowing: Section 3. 0 General Provisions. This section con- tains the general provisions which apply to all development projects within the Specific Plan area. B. Page 32 Section 3. 2: Development Procedure Add thefollowing: The proposed development standards are designed to encourage developments creating an aesthetically pleasing appearance, and enhance the living environment for the residents of the project, and to facilitate innovative architectural design and adaption of the development to the terrain and surrounding environment. Deviation from the pro- visions of this article, with the exception of maximum den- sity, may be granted at the time of approval of the project. Ellis-Goldenwest " June 1 , 1982 Page 4 Concurrently with filing a conditional use permit application, the developer may file an application for a special permit au- thorizing deviation from the provisions of this article, and such application shall be heard concurrently with the condi- tional use permit application. The Planning Commission may approve the special permit application in whole or in part upon a finding that the proposed development will: a. Promote better living environments; b. Provide better land planning techniques with maximum use of aesthetically pleasing types of architecture, land- scaping, site layout and design; C. Not be detrimental to the general health, welfare, safe- ty and convenience of the neighborhood or City in general, not detrimental or injurious to the value of property or improvements of the neighborhood or of the City in general; and d. Be consistent with objectives of planned unit development standards in achieving a development adapted to the ter- rain and compatible with the surrounding environment. C. Page 33, Section 3.3, C: Oil Islands Omit the last sentence of the second paragraph and substitute the following: Preservation of the existing -01 suffix oil islands is at the option of the property owner. D. Page 34, Section 3.4 : General Provisions Change section title to Development Standards (Subarea Two) . E. Page 42, Section 3.5 : Development Types, A. Large Lot Sub- division Maximum B--ullding Height. Change 30 feet to 35 feet and omit: Exception. Bu ld ng Height and Buildings Over Thirty Feet Setback Requirement. 4. 0 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Ellis- Goldenwest Specific Plan as amended and Environmental Impact Report No. 82-1, and forward to the City Council for adoption and certi- fication. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan & E. I.R. 82-1 2. Map, Specific Plan Subareas 3. Letters from: • Southern California Gas Company • County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California • Orange County Transit District • County of Orange Environmental Management Agency • J. I. Hathaway, Operator • Huntington Beach Company • City of Huntington Beach, Department of Public Works c--S-1 — CC:MA: 1lzn N L�LiV-D I �y ' • }fir._•_ so so _. I `•., '': : mm . . - so "PS 4M „� , . - - - - - - _.G.lf:s.•4..s wiaM}r i��iw+s•.._ r.r�•o ,Zre� TT- D o4V 4J��Y Y � �i ,. L • ' huntington beach development services department sTA f f REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Development Services DATE: June 15, 1982 SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 82-5 (ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN) AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 82-1 1. 0 SUGGESTED ACTION: 1. Approve Environmental Impact Report No. 82-1. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 1292 approving Code Amendment No. 82-5 (Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan) . 3. Review the two attached draft ordinances. 4. Recommend that the City Council approve, by resolution, the reimbursement of City costs for preparation of the Ellis- Goldenwest Specific Plan. 2. 0 ANALYSIS: On June 1, 1982, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing on the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. After public testimony and Commission discussion, the hearing on the Plan was continued to allow completion of the 30-day review period ending June 15, for Environmental Impact Report No. 82-1. Staff has reorganized the Plan in ordinance format, and incorporated a number of .concerns expressed by property owners, oil operators, and other interested groups and individuals since the study session held on April 27, 1982. The Specific Plan document now contains four primary sections: In- troduction, Implementing Standards, Next Steps, and Environmental Impact Report. The Implementing Standards section has been placed in ordinance format and reorganized to reflect staff ' s proposal to divide the Specific Plan into three distinct subareas. Subarea One contains all the land west of the existing alignment of Edwards Street; Subarea Two is the central portion from Edwards Street to Goldenwest Street (west-east) and Ellis Avenue to Garfield Avenue (north-south) ; and Subarea Three is the area east of Goldenwest Street. The Plan proposes specific development standards only for Subarea Two. In Subarea One, before development can occur, a specific plan must be submitted representing a cooperative effort of auproperty owners A96AM*m& A-F M-23A ( r Ellis/Goldenwest June 15, 1982 Page 2 in the subarea. A similar plan must be submitted for Subarea Three before development in that subarea can occur. The subarea plans will require Planning Commission review and approval. The plans are to address the issues of open space, circulation, land use compatibility, preservation of natural topography, access to oil operations, eques- trian trails, landscaping, and architectural features. Provisions of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan pertaining to oil and equestrian facilities have been revised since the June 1 public hearing in order to address Commission concerns expressed at that time. Staff has prepared a discussion paper on oil (attached to this staff report) to explain the rationale for the new provisions, which appear in Sections 4 . 3 . 1a, 5. 3 . 3 . 9 , and 6 .3 . 1 of the Implementing Standards . Revised provisions for equestrian facilities appear in Section 5. 3 . 3 . 7 of- the Implementing Standards. All developments will be required to provide for boarding of one horse per dwelling unit for a minimum of 25 percent of the total number of dwelling units in the project. This requirement may be satisfied by providing lots of 15 , 000 square feet in size or greater, by setting aside area for a common stable facility, by reserving room in the stable facilities of an adjacent development or by some combination of the above methods. Adoption Procedure Staff is recommending that the Specific Plan be approved at both the Planning Commission and City Council level by resolution. A re- solution for the Planning Commission is attached to this staff report. A similar resolution will be prepared for City Council adoption. Once the Plan is adopted, the appropriate District Maps in the City' s zoning code must be amended to indicate that the Specific Plan is the new zoning- for the area. This is done by ordinance at the City Coun- cil level, and a sample ordinance is attached for your review. Also atatched, is an ordinance for Council adoption that will in- clude a page in the zoning code alterting readers that the Specific Plan is kept under a separate cover on file with the City Clerk and the Department of Development Services. Preparation Costs Section 65453 of the California Government Code authorizes the City to charge back the costs of preparing and adopting Specific Plans to those builders, developers and others who benefit from the de- velopment of such plans. At the time the Specific Plan is presented to the City Council for adoption, the City must prepare a cost break- down of the Plan and related environmental documentation and make a determination of the total cost thereof. After the Specific Plan is adopted, the City may impose a special fee on persons seeking devel- opment permits for projects required to be in conformance with the Plan. The total cost of the Plan is to be divided among developers based on the relative amount of benefit derived from the Plan. Ellis-Goldenwest June 15, 1982 Page 3 Staff has prepared a cost breakdown for preparation of the Ellis- Goldenwest Specific Plan and E.I.R. No. 82-1 (attached) . Staff recommends that the total cost be apportioned among developers on the basis of acreage. As shown in the attached cost breakdown, the total cost of preparing the Specific Plan and E.I .R. was approxi- mately $44 , 786 which would result in a special fee of $154 per acre charged to the developer as part of his application fees. 3. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: EIR 82-1 provides an assessment of the proposed Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan for development of up to 870 dwelling units on 290 acres. A draft EIR was prepared and distributed to public agencies and individuals for a 30 -day review period ending June 14 , 1982. The enclosed EIR consists of the draft EIR, comments and recommenda- tions received on the draft EIR, and the City' s responses to the significant environmental points raised during the review process. Prior to taking action on the Code Amendment (Ellis-Goldenwest Spe- cific Plan) , the Planning Commission must determine that the Envi- ronmental Impact Report is adequate and conforms with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and State EIR Guidelines. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Revised draft Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan and EIR 82-1 in- cluding comments and responses. 2. Supplemental information on oil 3. Specific Plan preparation cost breakdown 4. Resolution No. 1292 approving Code Amendment 82- (Ellis- Goldenwest Specific Plan) . 5. Draft Ordinance No. and No. 6. Mailgram from Milton Marow 7. Letter from Ron and E. Anne Brindle 8. Letter from William Landis (resubmitted at the property owner' s request) . 9. Letter from Chevron to Huntington Beach Company, carbon copied to Department of Development Services 10. Letter from Ron Brindle dated June 10, 1982 cC_S�1 ATTACHMENT 2 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION ON OIL ACTIVITIES IN THE ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN AREA Provisions of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan pertaining to oil have been revised since the public hearing on June 1, 1982. The following information is presented to help explain the reasoning behind the new provisions. Problems of compatibility arise when active oil wells are located adjacent to residential uses. Redrilling of existing wells and drilling of new wells in particular, are noisy operations whose im- pacts can be partially, but not wholly, mitigated. (Redrilling starts from an existing well hole and may angle off from the exis- ting well underneath the earth' s surface. Drilling a new well es- tablishes a new hole on the earth' s surface. ) It is desirable to limit the locations of new wells in an area that is expected to develop as residential in the near future so that the potential for incompatibilities is minimized. Wells can either be drilled straight down or at an angle to the earth' s surface. This allows for flexibility in- the siting of oil wells. A recent analysis conducted by staff of the California Di- vision of Oil and Gas has indicated that it would be technologically feasible to reach most of the oil-bearing strata underneath the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area from a very limited number of strategically-located drilling sites, possibly as few as two sites. The oil operator, of course, is interested not only in technical feasibility, but also in the economic factors involved. Drilling at an angle is more expensive than drilling straight down. The diffe- rence in cost depends on a number of factors including the location and depth of the well, the angle at which it is drilled and the nature of the geologic material that must be drilled through. Whe- ther these costs are feasible depends upon the anticipated production of the well and the price of oil, now and in the future. In the absence of a detailed analysis of the area' s subsurface geo- logy, productivity potential and anticipated oil prices, this Spe- cific Plan has attempted to provide reasonable access to underground oil reserves through a combination of reworking and redrilling of existing wells and limited drilling of new wells. Figure 1 summarizes information about the existing oil operators, subsurface rights, active wells and areas that currently have the -01 suffix in the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area. (The -01 suffix allows redrilling of existing wells and drilling of new wells. This is differentiated from the -0 suffix which allows redrilling of existing wells but no drilling for new wells. ) The geographical dis- tribution of wells and subsurface rights is shown on Map A. Subarea One As indicated in Figure 1, Subarea One of the Specific Plan area con- tains approximately 66 active wells that are all operated by Chevron. 1%W ATTACHMENT 2 (CONT. ) FIGURE 1 Subarea One Approximate Acreage Number of Subsurface Lease/ of Number of Mineral Rights (In Active Existing Oil Operators Acres) Wells . -01 Sites Chevron 66.0 66 entire acreage TOTAL 66.0 66 entire acreage Subarea Two Hathaway 55. 0 22 1 (2.5 acres in size) Chevron 45.0 28 2 (each 2.5 acres in size) Petro-Lewis 25.0 9 0 Ishibashi 10.0 4 0 TOTAL 127.0 63 3 Subarea Three Petro-Lewis 17.5 4 0 Huntington Beach Co. 10.0 2 0 Bradley, Muhl 10.0 4 0 Jacat Oil 10.0 3 0 S & C Oil 2.5 2 0 Wier Oil 2.5 2 0 TOTAL 50.0 17 0 Source: City of Huntington Beach Planning Division, 1982. California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil and Gas, 1980. 4 TALBERT ~ -� C F—R L CF- R C F—Call — — _ SUBAREA 1 S 2 SUBAREA 3 J `[ 1; I I I - --- _ �_ HATHAWAY BRADLEY JACAT \� 0— H.B. CO. HATHAWAY•-- • PETRO-LEWIS __ -- HUNTINGTON •• PETRO- •• BEACH CO. • LEWIS PETRO-LEWISAlt • • - :- - - ISHIBASHI S &C • •• •• WEIR 177, • CHEVRON •i._ Active Wells - source: California Division of Oil & Gas, 1980 HUNTINGTON BEACH 04LIFORNIA PLANNING DIVISION Existing Oil Wells and Mineral Rights/Lease ATTACHMENT 2 (CONT. ) The area currently has the -01 suffix which allows continued opera- tion of existing wells and drilling of new wells. In Subarea One, the Specific Plan proposes to continue to allow all the uses permitted under the -01 suffix including new drilling. Subarea Two In Subarea Two there are four oil operators, three of which have subsurface mineral rights or leases consisting of twenty acres or more in size. There_ are currently three oil islands, 2h acres in size each where new drilling is Permitted.- One of these islands is on a Hathaway lease and two are on. Chevron leases. The Specific Plan proposes that continued operation, servicing, re- working and redrilling of existing wells be permitted throughout the Subarea, but that new drilling be confined to specified oil islands. The Specific Plan proposes to allow one new drilling site or oil is- land of approximately 1h acres in size for every 20 acres of subsur- face lease or mineral rights in Subarea Two. In other words, oil opera- tors who have subsurface rights to 20 or more contiguous acres may ask the City for one oil island per each 20 acres of subsurface area. The oil operator will be required to designate the location and size of the desired oil island subject to review and approval by the Di- rector of Development Services, before the City will issue a permit for new .drilling in that area. Under the existing configuration of leases, this provision would allow Chevron to request two drilling sites; Hathaway, two; Petro-Lewis, one; and Ishibashi, none. This could result in a total of .five oil islands in Subarea Two, which is two more than was previously recommended. The objective of the Specific Plan in Subarea Two is to provide for con- tinued oil operations while-at-the same time minimizing the amount of land devoted to new oil activities. This 14ill also result in more acreage being available for residential development and open space which are the area' s designated uses in the City'a General Plan. Subarea Three In Subarea Three, there are six oil operators working a total of 16 active wells. The- area has the -O suffix that permits continued operation, servicing, reworking and redrilling of existing wells, excludin new drilling. No part of Subarea Three currently has the -01 suffix allowing new drilling. The Specific Plan would continue to allow the uses permitted under the -0 suffix. ATTACHMENT 3 ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN-PREPARATION COST Staff Time Project Planner $12 , 480 Project Planner 12 , 480 Project Managers 7 , 696 3 Benefits 21% 6 , 858 Subtotal 39 , 514 Printing Materials 180 Topographic Map 4 , 759 Miscellaneous Materials, slides, graphic supplies, base maps, etc . 200 Postage 133 Total : $44 , 786* *NOTE: This total does reflect overhead costs or indirect costs incurred by other City departments COST PER ACRE: $44 , 786 290 ac. - $154/ac . ATTACHMENT 4 RESOLUTION NO. 1292 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING THE ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN. (CODE AMENDMENT 82-5) WHEREAS, Sections 65500-65507 of the California Government Code provide procedures for adoption of specific plans and regulations; and WHEREAS, a specific plan herein referred to as the "Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan" has been prepared containing the recommended contents of the above mentioned code sections; and WHEREAS, the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan provides for development within a 290+ acre site bounded by Ellis Avenue to the north, the City boundary to the west, Garfield and Ernest Avenues to the south and a line extending north from Crystal Street to the east which is consistent with the City' s General Plan and will not be detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety, and convenience of persons working or residing in the neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of .... Huntington Beach, California, has held a public hearing in compliance with the State Government Code to review said Specific Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby approves the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan (Code Amendment 82-5) ; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said Specific Plan is recommended for adoption by resolution, by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach. REGULARLY PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California, on the 15th day of June, 1982, by the following roll call vote: AYES : NOES : ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: r. James W. Palin, Secretary Grace H. Winchell, Chairman ,. TTACHMENT 5 I ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACHA RDINANCE CODE BY AMENDING DISTRICT MAPS 38 AND 39 TO INCOR- PORATE ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN (ZONE CASE NO. 82- ) WHEREAS, pursuant to the state Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and the Huntington Beach City Council have had separate public hearings relative to Zone Case No. 82-_ wherein both bodies have carefully considered all information presented at said hearings , and after due considera- tion of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission g e g and all evidence presented to said City Council, the City Council rinds that such zone change is proper, and consistent with the general plan, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows : SECTION 1. That the present zoning included within Ellis- Goldenwest Specific Plan, covering 290 acres more or less, bounded on the north by Ellis Avenue , the city boundary on the 4vest.. Garfield and Ernest Avenues to the south and a line ex- tending north from Crystal Street to the east, is hereby elimi- nated, and the specific plan established therefor provides regu- lated development in accordance with the objectives set out In such specific plan. SECTION 2. The Development Services Director 1.3 hereby di- rected to amend Section 9061, District Maps 38 and 39 (Sectional District Maps 34-5-11 and 35-5-11 ) to reflect Zone Case °do . 82-. described in Section 1 hereof. A copy of said district maps , as amended hereby are available for inspection in the office of the City Clerk. /ahb 6/9/82 1. ATTACHMENT 5 (cont' ) w SECTION 3. This ordtnariee shall take effect thirty clays after it,3 adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council or the City of Huntington Beach at; a regular meet-ingr thereof held on the dya of 1982. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney REVIEEWED AND APPROVED: INI`1'IATED AND APPROVED: City Administrator Director of Development Services 2. ATTACHMENT 5 (cont' ) t PLANNING ZONING DM 38 SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 34-5-II NOTE a[l pIY[N9gN3 W CITY OF ADOPTED AUGUST 15, 1 xnN[ aDA1 III aNY RIDNi 0, WNr IS M,I NDCD TO EXTEND TO rNf CINTER CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO, ♦NO. 767 or1 aucN RIONr Of w.r AMEN AMENDE QRD.NO, AMENDED ORD,NO, LEGEND PN R[[IOENnu.aquTwu asrnlcr 6-3.1963 970 [�] CO n D w L n JCTr HUNTINGTUN BEACH '-,1966 1152 `�, � "�`OWN", 12.5-1966 1271 m' flNctr r R[uo[NfE DIa,R1<r ?-3-69 1467 [}iE] LIONr 1NOUSI RIEL OIEr NICi 6-26-70 1576 [j,�] '1w 1 co..-AL o1frRlc, q-19-70 1606 OW ID*11N OIL RRpO„Cr1n4 l 7 7-17-71 1659 CDwYUNIr,ra[n.lrR!INrCRC N,gNnLI D�51 R��r ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 10-16-71 1661 L ]] 'LANI DE1, [D] LANNCO t,•II Or'YfNi AMENDED BY ZONE CASE: ,, naz 1709 37 iwo n a.NEnorNct o s,R n 70-6,70-1071-971-26,71-17,71-yy,73-20,7922,'N.5,74-22,77-19. 22 2 1 722 2- -7 [rJ t�YItFO�fE 315.505,66-N, 66-y6, 10-IS-73 1676 A-7-74 1977 9-15-75 2010 7-6-76 2077 II-21-77 2229 oaf fa I •,. i L i `—mil_ DR CCMRLL MRa DN _. _--___._. R CD RI RI [[!RI RI 7 RI RI RI s I cam, RI Q Da lDD.i� RI RI lRI y � T CF-R R I -- �" `�/ I W U at � �UpN 1 uy 4 Cp i CO R 1LITT 2 L \R RIoyRl T. RA-0-CD rs^`,s RI k RI (PREZONED) RA-0-CD RI-CD LU%-CD LU-O-CO LU-0-CD LU-0-CD (PREZONED) R I LU-0 CD U 0 CD LU-O-CD LU-O-CD 3 (PREZONED) LU-O-CD LU-O-CD [Lu_0_cDkU-0-CD -CD - - MC D R .6963 m z 0 z a� b N[9'yI'W. 7=5,�' Ellis-Go enwest Specific Plan r \) 3 z / o JA / Jo rN u GARFIELD iE as la s e W. ' L ATTACHMENT 5 (conti ) PLANNING ZONING DM 39 SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 35-5-II NOTE u.t awt Nsloes uE IM[err •Nr tDNr ADOPTED MARCH 7. 1960 •D401MIN6 ART 1116M1 Or w4Y PI INTCNd'D rn tF I F CITV COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 754 TO 1NE ctNTLe Di ea:N .*.1 Di w CITY OF "%HOLD ORD IR RwIft LT+° 1KNOLV PD N4 C01 aw nKo uAss/K•rEw •r n i w i'si 6 .rs I.:" CPD7 n•NN10 IK v2l lrwrNl IgSrnlr.T iiI RO ,'M ♦r! MI• (KA] RaI:tCNTIµ •WKULTIMI.1•I.I FIf, -n w n dI n ere n�ei eio Ij ;'{j IIIq I mf.1 LIDI•,RML as—, H UNTINGTON BEACH ! 61 {,• Im, IIDNT INDDEIRLI DIl1RIL1 e-,et l9Yq III IO IF" •,! IS 2,I C U{IN DMYUMIIr • L" I •�1e-62 a a,4 �9M iFOMI Y•R[ g[Te•GF LIME J A g 52 gle, Z !„ LEL7 E ,•Mllr +IMN[ aa,FIGI IR! R 17-{>{ 20M I�-sR�;-,-.1� n,rRE lRUr[SLDMM nIST,I„1 .�!'6! �1 r-l-,, t]� l-„ Tw0 i•MILr F[sID1 Nrl. asr FlcT ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA z le i ' qIH 73 LIMITto MULTIKE r•MILY RISICENCE D11-1 AMENDED BY ZONE CASE: i-n{s �» z-`err 3zRe I!°Nwlr COMMENCI•l {6-6{ IDOfi alr-,l RC:R!{IO RiTPKT[D Y•M1F•C1URrcq DIaIRICT 111,126,121.130,133,134,W.141,149,96.212,237,236 9z-6{ Ig22 ,i-21,e P[!l4590 COMMUNITY r•C0.RILl IRCCR[•TIOx•LI DIlrRICf 250,258,274,293,429.505,542.67.2768-13,68-54,69-11,69-21,70-10JO-27,71-14,71-17,72.8,PP72-6 'j.l'110 K� 7r 3ITg0 . ,. Co MUMaiITI[Yt[!•C LITM 1SMICoIV9uICc IT lDISTRICT 2I 7.e 2-16.72.9.72-6,72-34,72.44,73.5,73-8,73-16,73-I&PPA7}1,73-21,73.23,73-20.74-6,74-15,PP74-3,76-1776-268,76-76C,77-777-17 1 170 2—Sl 24.2. !1[DIKIR jj:, 3-nnRsli10477.279P73-1,71-10,80-9,80.17,PPSA82-1.81-13, 2,r 5 )q 144 MlN al ,is {. 1 i :? CiID c we 01s2Rrcr I a 3-11 4 �° sTRuNT 2{ei 14 AVE TALBERT 4-24-73 626 !9 qw O MI-CD MI-A N (Q)R2-PD US MI-A o J e0 m (Q)R2-PD r / - - C 4 MI—CD CF—R MI—A RI•�� A MI—CD -cuAn�IL —---- [,! R I .• (—.._ _ CF-R :r :-: :'RI R C2 - a 11YlOR p1 N. a7,20 RI RI M I gD_ MI RA-0—CD ' ___,a --. RI ONTARp J oR C 2 I1 e CF—/, RI Soo Re _ t/ LI MI W pW CA _[_::0:tX::9�CCDR RI RI Tom— r" I� p RI R3 MI—CD RI RI RI S RI : g w : MI Y ON DR FR4NKLIN DR G.4 RI R3 R3 p0, I MI-CD DR L,!llEeyw RI R FRI R2 R3 a R3 \ RI - -- 9-•�— _ MI °MI-01 R2 R2.i i ..- I C 2 C2 50 .. MI 5 -.. R2 � !. ..........:•_..-....J R5 °0 Ellis R3 "° COMMODORE Specific Plan ` / M2-0 R 3 MI5 0 M I—0 R3,•.::: :.R2..;1;,... W19TR T (R3M ;;R2 Two N IN LOT+ NlL 1. •• ' w » � 2'iR2 (DISTRICT ONE) I. ONE) RN AV91 R5 $•, CV4 f MI-O-CD F F e0 Ln N N rr PACIFICA C X AMUNITY PLAN (DIS ICT ONE) R3 ' M2-OI{Df' pe = MI•A-CD MI-0 1 MI-0 "RZ R5 w w Rai: R2 . aW { R5 as 1_A•WO �� R3 W ,i[gR LS ° R2 R2 Dz_lR2 �',, p!1 $J — u RA-0 _R5p^ _ -R2. flG — GARFIELD AVE a : _ ATTACHMENT 5 (cony ) DRAFT wr `ter ORDINANCE NO. AN •ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY ADDING THERETO ARTICLE 907 REFERENCING SPECIFIC PLANS The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows : SECTION 1. The Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is amended by adding thereto Article 907 entitled , " Specific Plans ," to read as follows : 9700. SPECIFIC PLANS. The following specific plans are on file in the office of the City Clerk and the Department of Development Services : Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the _ day of 1982. Mayor ATTEST : APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED : INITIATED AND APPROVED : City Administrator Director of Development Services s huntington beach development services department sTA f F _ REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Development Services DATE: June 22, 1982 _SUBJECT: PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN (CODE AMENDMENT NO. 82-5) 1 . 0 SUGGESTED ACTION: 1 . Approve Environmental Impact Report No. 82-1 . 2. Adopt Resolution No. 1292 approving Code Amendment No. 82-5 (Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan) with the administrative corrections recommended by staff and any revisions approved by the Planning Commission on June 22, 1982. 3: Review the two draft ordinances attached to the June 15, 1982 staff report (attached) . 4 . Recommend that the City Council approve, by resolution, the reimbursement of City costs for preparation of the Ellis- Goldenwest Specific Plan. 2. 0 ANALYSIS: On June 1, 1982, the Planning Commission opened the public hear- ing on the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. The hearing was continued to June 15, 1982 and closed on that date. Commission discussion on the testimony presented during the public hearing was continued to June 22, 1982. A number of specific revisions to the Plan were suggested at the June 15 meeting. A list of these items is presented in this staff report in order to facilitate Commission discussion on June 22nd. Administrative Revisions Staff recommends that the following revisions be approved in order to correct typographical and other minor errors in the text of the Specific Plan: 1 . Pages 11 and 15, Section 2. 0. Correct the legal description to read " . . . Map Book 110, Page 01, Lots 54 - 56, 58 . " 2. Page 15, Section 4. 3.1a. Clarify that new drilling will be allowed in areas having the -01 suffix prior to adoption of the Specific Plan. Reference the entire Article 968 . A•F M-23A Ellis-Goldenwest Speci.,_-c Plan June 22, 1982 Page 2 3 . Page 17 , Section 5. 3 . 1d. Clarify that existing uses may con- tinue subject to the existing terms and renewal dates of their existing use permit or conditional use permit. 4 . Page 19, Section 5. 3 . 3 . 1. Strike the second half of the sen- tence and add: "This provision shall not be interpreted to prevent the building of custom homes on individual lots that are subdivided after the adoption of this Specific Plan. " 5. Page 23, Section 5. 3 . 3 .7f. Add: "All corrals, racks, and stalls shall be of noncombustible construction, provided that the Fire Chief may modify these requirements where practical difficulties exist as long as the alternatives comply with the intent of the code. " 6 . Page 33 , Section 5. 3 .3 . 13 . 2e. Refer to Exhibit 3 rather than Figure 19 . 7 . Page 37, Section 6 .3 . 1a. Reference the entire Article 968 . Straw Vote Actions. The following is a list of the items approved by the Plan- ning Commission by strac, vote (or by consensus of opinion) on June 15, 1982: 1 . Retain Subareas One, Two, and Three in the Specific Plan, but apply development standards to Subarea Two only. 2. Include provisions to ensure a trail link from Subareas One, Two, and Three to the County' s trail system. 3 . Page 15, Section 4 .1. Stipulate that the development plan for Subarea One address the following additional concerns: g) Mitiga- tion of any adverse impacts of drainage into the Bolsa Chica; h) Mitigation of potential adverse impacts to archaeological sites; and i) Consistency with the maximum density designated for the area in the City' s General Plan. 4 . Page 19, Section 5.3 . 3 . 3b. Design the setbacks adjacent to arter- ials to include a 5 to 6 foot landscaped berm and no solid walls. Consider a berm with retaining wall . 5 . Page 19, Section 5. 3 . 3 . 3c. Approve the rolled curb and gutter street standards proposed by staff for collector and private streets. 6 . Page 19, Section 5. 3 . 3 . 3c. Revise the system of internal collec- tor streets (Exhibit 1) to eliminate the roadway through the Brindle' s property and any access onto Goldenwest Street, if possible. Avoid divisions of consolidated parcels. 7 . Page 21, Section 5. 3 . 3 . 6. Reduce trail width to sixteen (16) feet. -2- Ellis-Goldenwest Speci"tic Plan "' June 22, 1982 Page 3 Text Revisions. The following is a list of additional changes to the text of the Specific Plan that the Commissioners may want to discuss at the June 22nd meeting. Staff will be prepared on Tuesday, June 22, to indicate which changes we concur with. 1. Page 9 . Change "Specific Plan Goals" to "Specific Plan Policies" and add that these policies shall be used in con- junction with the Implementing Standards as a basis for review- ing proposed developments. (Staff. ) 2. Page 11, Section 2 . 0. Indicate that it is the City' s intent to extend the eastern boundary of the Specific Plan to Gothard Street when the ultimate alignment of that arterial is established. (Planning Commission. ) 3 . Page 17, Section 5.3 .1a. Do not include Planned Residential Developments (condominiums) as a permitted use in Subarea Two. (Planning Commission. ) 4 . Page 19, Section 5. 3 . 3 .1. Add that project areas of a minimum of five (5) acres will be allowed if the project density does not exceed two (2) dwelling units per acre. (Connie Mandic/Eques- trian Trails, Inc. (E.T. I . ) . ) 5. Page 19, Section 5. 3 .3 . 3b. Include an equestrian trail in the setback adjacent to perimeter arterials. (Mandic/E.T.. I . ) 6 . Page 21, Section 5.3. 3 . 5. Allow fenced riding corrals in open space corridors. (Mandic/E.T. I. ) 7 . Page 21, Section 5. 3 . 3 . 5. Require that all fencing in open space corridors be uniform. Possible design: 5 foot high, white wood rail with wire mesh. (Mandic,Environmental Board. ) 8 . Page 21, Section 5. 3. 3 . 5. Require that swale areas be dedicated to the City as open space. If swale areas are left in private ownership, apply specific development guidelines. (Environmental Board. ) 9. Page 21, Section 5. 3 . 3. 5. Do not allow individual private lots to extend on both sides of an equestrian trail . (Mandic/E.T. I . ) 10. Page 21, Section 5. 3 .3 . 6. Be more specific about how individual projects will have to provide trail links to the open space corridor trails. (Planning Commission. ) 11. Page 22, Section 5. 3. 3 . 6c. Require standard fence along trails as in comment No. 7 above. (Mandic, Environmental Board. ) 12. Page 22, Section 5. 3 . 3 . 7. Require projects to provide adequate area for one horse per dwellina unit. (MAnd;r-./E.T. I . ) -3- Ellis-Goldenwest Speci*r1c Plan June 22, 1982 Page 4 13 . Page 22, Section 5. 3 . 3 . 7 . Apply uniform architectural stand- ards to all common stable facilities. (Mandic, Envirormental Board.) 14 . Page 22, Section 5. 3 . 3 . 7 . Require the developer to build the common stable facility. (Environmental Board. ) 15. Page 22 , Section 5 . 3 . 3 . 7b. Do not allow "one acre of riding area" to satisfy requirement. Require a fenced arena of 5, 000 square feet for every 15 horses . (Mandic/E.T. I . ) 16. Page 23, Section 5. 3 . 3 . 7e. Include a sample design of a wash rack facility. (Mandic/E.T. I . ) 17 . Page 23, Section 5. 3 . 3 . 7f. Add that arenas shall maintain a minimum dimension of 50 feet and that exercise rings are optional . (Staff. ) 18 . Page 23, Section 5. 3 . 3 . 7f. Add parking requirements for cars and horse trailers for common stable facilities. (Mandic/E.'I . I . ) 19 . Page 24, Section 5. 3 . 3 . 8 . All common improvements (stables, trails, perimeter project fencing, common open space landscaping, etc. ) should be constructed by developer prior to sale of lots . (Environmental Board. ) 20. Page 25, Section 5. 3 . 3 . 8b. Reduce the setback requirements for common stable facilities . (Mandic/E.T. I . ) 21 . Page 26, Section 5. 3 . 3 . 9. Require that four oil island sites in Subarea Two be mandatory rather than optional . (Environmental Board. ) 22. Page 26, Section 5. 3 . 3 . 9. Allow oil islands to be a maximum of 2. 5 acres (rather than 1 . 5 acres) in size. (Chevron. ) 23 . Page 26, Section 5 .3 . 3 . 10 . 1 a&b. Adopt a standard design for all fencing within the Specific Plan area. (Mandic/E.T. I. , Envir- onmental Board. ) 24 . Page 27, Section 5. 3 . 3 . 10. 1c. Prohibit all solid fencing . (Planning Commission. ) 25. Page 29, Section 5 . 3 . 3 .11 c&f. Adopt standard design for light- ing and street signs throughout the Specific Plan area. (Mandic/ E.T. I . , Environmental Board. ) 26 . Page 29, Section 5 . 3. 3. 12. Homeowner association agreement should be written so that common facilities, open spaces, and equestrian facilities are maintained in perpetuity, so as to preclude voting any of these items out in order to sell and/or avoid maintenance. (Environmental Board. ) -4- Ellis-Goldenwest Spec. c Plan June 22, 1982 Page 5 27 . Page 29, general provision. Require the preservation of large trees and require additional trees, particularly along trails. (Environmental Board. ) 28 . Page 29, Section 5 . 3 . 3 . 13 . Condominium developments should not be allowed. (Environmental Board,Planning Commission. ) 29 . Page 31, Section 5 .3 . 3 .13 .1o . Require that accessory buildings are similar in design and materials to main residential dwelling unit. (Mandic/E.T. I . , Environmental Board) . 30 . Page 31, Section 5. 3 .3 . 13 .1r. Relax the turnaround radius require- ment on long driveways . (Mandic/E.T.I . ) 31. Page 31, Section 5 .3 . 3 .13 . 1s. Allow two horses on a 15, 000 square foot lot, three on 20, 000 square feet, four or five on 30, 000 square feet, and six on 40, 000 square feet. (Mandic/E.T. I . ) 32. Page 33 , Section 5. 3 . 3 . 13 .1s. Reduce the setback requirements for equestrian facilities on individual lots to 25 feet from property line; allow a smaller setback when pad for corral area is designated on each lot in a coordinated pattern. (Mandic/E.T. I . ) 33 . Page 34, Section 5. 3 . 3 .13 . 2i. Do not allow double common wall house. (Environmental Board. ) 34 . Page 37, Section 6. 3 . 1a. Allow new drilling in Subarea Three under the same standards as in Subarea Two . (Chevron. ) Attachment: June 15, 1982 Staff Report C I :d fn�( -5- r huntington beach development services department sTAF f .- - REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Development Services DATE: July 7, 1982 SUBJECT: ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN AND E. I .R. 82-1 (CODE AMENDMENT NO. 82-5) 1. 0 SUGGESTED ACTION: 1. Approve Environmental Impact Report No. 82-1. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 1292 approving Code Amendment No. 82-5 (Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan) with any revisions approved by the Planning Commission on July 7, 1982. 3. Review the two draft ordinances attached to the June 15, 1982 staff report (attached) . 4. Recommend that the City Council approve, by resolution, the reimbursement of City costs for preparation of the Ellis- Goldenwest Specific Plan. 2. 0 BACKGROUND Public hearings on the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan and Environ- mental Impact Report No. 82-1 were closed on June 15, 1982. At their June 22nd meeting, the Planning Commission discussed, point by point, a number of revisions that were raised during the public testimony. The Commissioners ended their discussion after ad- dressing point Number 12 of the text revisions as outlined in the June 22nd staff report. The Commissioners asked staff to incorpo- rate new language into the Specific Plan to reflect the changes discussed and to provide staff recommendations on the remainder of the items. 3. 0 ANALYSIS Staff has prepared new wording to reflect the changes discussed by the Planning Commission at their June 22nd meeting. Please see Attachment 1 for these revisions. Staff has also prepared comments and recommendations on the items that the Planning Commission did not get a chance to discuss on June 22nd. Please see Attachment 2 for these recommendations. Atl A•F M•23A Code Amendment No. 82-5 July 7, 1982 Page 2 In response to a question from the Planning Commission, staff contacted several equestrian developments in Orange County to request information regarding the amount of horse facilities that were being provided. The following information resulted from staff inquiries: High Horse Trails, City of Orange This project will contain 174 single family homes and a stable with 26 corrals built by the developer. (There is room for 80 additional corrals; however, the developer is not going to build them at this time. ) No horses are permitted on individual lots. Forty homes have been sold to date but only five corrals have been sold. A sales representative indicated that approximately 10 to 15 percent of the homeowners and prospective buyers are interested in the corrals. The Ranch, Carbon Canyon, Orange County This project will ultimately contain 350 single family homes and a stable with 36 corrals. No horses are permitted on individual lots. To date, 150 homes have been sold but only approximately five corrals have been sold. A sales representative indicated that there was "not much demand" for the stable facilities. Broadmoor Park, Orange Park Acres, City of Orange This development consists of 237 dwelling units, thirty-five of which are on one-acre equestrian lots. The remaining 202 units are clustered on non-equestrian lots. There is a common stable facility with approximately 20 corrals and room for additional corrals to be built by homeowners if desired. Stoneridge, San Juan Capistrano This subdivision contains 180 lots, 30 percent of which are equestrian lots. No common stable facilities are proposed. The Hunt Club, San Juan Capistrano This subdivision contains 132 lots, 20 of which are equestrian lots - additional lots may be equestrian if the homeowner obtains permission from neighbors. No common stables are proposed. Code Amendment No. 82-5 July 7, 1982 Page 3 The above information indicates that the demand for common stable facilities in several recent developments is as low as fifteen percent. Staff is concerned that the requirement to provide for the boarding of one horse per dwelling unit (as directed by the Planning Commission) will result in excessive area within projects being devoted to equestrian facilities. As a compromise, staff recommends that the Specific Plan contain a requirement to provide for boarding of one horse per every two dwelling units. Additionally, where a common stable facility is proposed, staff recommends that the developer be required to reserve adequate area for the entire facility but to construct only fifty percent of the proposed corrals and related facilities. This will clearly establish the equestrian area without running the risk of far exceeding demand. Staff is concerned that stalls built in excess of demand will pose unnecessary maintenance responsibilities and may be rented out to non-residents. If the Planning Commission chooses to stay with the require- ment of area for one ho rse per every dwelling unit then staff recommends that the developer be required to construct only twenty-five percent of any proposed stable facility. Exact wording for this provision is contained in Attachment 2, Item Number 14. 4. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: EIR 82-1, which was transmitted to the Commission for the June 15, 1981 meeting, provides an assessment of the proposed Ellis- Goldenwest Specific Plan for development of up to 870 dwelling units on 290 acres. A draft EIR was prepared and distributed to public agencies and individuals for a 30-day review period ending June 14, 1982 . Comments and recommendations received on the draft EIR and the City' s responses to the significant environ- mental points raised during the review process were attached to the document. Prior to taking action on the Code Amendment (Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan) , the Planning Commission must determine that the Environmental Impact Report is adequate and conforms with require- ments of the California Environmental Quality Act and State EIR Guidelines . Attachments: 1. Revisions approved June 22, 1982 2. Staff Recommendations 3. June 22, 1982 staff report 4. June 15, 1982 staff report CI : jmsQ,, L ATTACHMENT 1 The following are revisions approved at the June 22, 1982 , Planning Commission Meeting. • Page 9, SPECIFIC PLAN GOALS The following gea-ls poZicie.6 are a result of recommendations con- tained in the Ellis-Goldenwest Area Conceptual Study prepared by the Department of Development Services in May, 1981, and of input from the City Council and Planning Commission, City staff, property owners, oil operators and other persons and agencies that have par- ticipated in the preparation and review of this plan. These Beals poticie6 have been used as the basis for developing the implement- ing regulations contained in this Specific Plan -for and shaZZ be used as a basis bon reviewing development e€ in the Ellis-Goldenwest area: • Page 11, Section 2.0, SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY The EUis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area is generaZty bounded by Btktz Avenue to the north, the City boundary to the went, Gat6ieZd and Ernest Avenues to the zouth, and a Zine extended north brom Cryztat Street to the east (the eaztern boundary ob the Specific Plan area wiU coincide uZtimatety with the precize alignment jot Gothard Street) . The property described herein is included in the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan and shall be subject to policies and development standards set forth in this article. Precisely Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan includes the real property described as follows: Parcels in the City of Huntington Beach as per maps in the County Assessors Map Book 110, Page 01, lots 81-88 54-56, 58 recorded in Miscellaneous Maps of Orange County. • Page 15, Section 4. 0, SUBAREA ONE Section 4 .1, PURPOSE As a subarea of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan the following policy is adopted to provide direction for preparation of develop- ment standards: 1. Prior to the submission of any proposal for development, a specific plan for the development of the entire subarea shall be submitted representing a cooperative effort by all property owners within the subarea. Said specific plan shall be sub- ject to review and approval by the City' s Planning Commission and shall address the following concerns: g. The mitigation ob any adverze impacts brom drainage into the Botha Chica. ATTACHMENT 1 (Cont' ) h. The mitigation o6 any potential adveAze impacts to atchaeo- tog.icat sites . .i. Devetopment 4hatt be consistent with the density appt ied .in Subarea Two and 4hatt not exceed an ovvLatt maximum density of three units pen, gtozz acne. • Page 15, Section 4.2, SUBAREA ONE BOUNDARY Subarea One includes that portion of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area located west of Edwards Street. Precisely the real pro- perty described as follows: Parcels in the City of Huntington Beach as per maps in the County Assessor' s Map Book 110, Page 01, lots 81-58 54-56, 58 recorded in Miscellaneous Maps of Orange County. . Page 15, Section 4.3.1, CONTINUATION AND EXPANSION OF EXISTING USES The following uses are permitted prior to the approval of a spe- cific plan for the entire subarea: a. Oil. Use or maintenance of any installation, facility or struc- ture (excluding buildings as defined in Article 968 of the City' s Zoning Ordinance) used either directly or indirectly, to carry out or facilitate one or more of the following functions: drilling (.in aAeaz having an -01 zuJ6ix ption to the adoption o6 this Spec.iJic Han) , rework, repair, redrilling, production, processing, extraction, assisted recovery, stimulation, storage or shipping of oil, gas or hydrocarbons from the subsurface of the earth. Oil activities shall be in compliance with See- ttena-9689-9688-4-and-beet en9-9688-8-g688-8 Atti ct e 968 of the City' s Zoning Ordinance and with the City' s Oil Code. . Page 17, Section 5.3.1, USES PERMITTED The following are permitted uses: d. Existing Non Conforming Uses - Any uses existing at the time of ordinance adoption which do not meet the criteria for permitted uses within subarea two shall be allowed to continue subject to renewal the tenm4 and nenewat of any existing use permit or conditional use permit pursuant to the provisions of Article 984. ATTACHMENT 1 (Conti ) Page 17, Section 5. 3 . 2, DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURE All projects shall comply with the application procedures specified in this article. Deviation from the provisions of this article, with the exception of maximum density and minimum ptcoj ect atcea, may be granted at the time of approval of the project by special permit. Concurrently with filing a conditional use permit applica- tion the developer may file an application for a special permit authorizing deviation from the provisions of this article, and such application shall be heard concurrently with the conditional use permit application. The Planning Commission may approve the special permit application in whole or in part upon a finding that the pro- posed development will: a. Promote better living environments; b. Provide better land planning techniques with maximum use of aesthetically pleasing types of architecture, landscaping, site layout and design; C. Not be detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of the neighborhood or City in general, not detri- mental or injurious to the value of property or improvements of the neighborhood or of the City in general; and d. Be consistent with objectives of planned unit development standards in achieving a development adapted to the terrain and compatible with the surrounding environment. The Planning Commission may aZzo gtcant a conditional exception subject to the pnovizionz o6 Atcticte 983 jots development ptcofectZ Zezz than ten ( 10 ) and with a minimum o6 Give ( 5 ) gtcozz acAez in zize; pAovided that said ptojectz not exceed a maximum density o6 two ( 2 ) unites pets gtozz actce. Page 19, Section 5. 3. 3 . 1, MINIMUM PROJECT AREA The minimum project area for any development proposal shall be ten (10) acres;-g�e� e�ed;-heeae�e�r;-that-gregesa�s-ter-eastex� heroes-en-bets-st�he��e�ee�-�n-eceee�dartee-roatth-the-gre�t�s�e�s-et this- rt eke-sha��-be-aeeegtab�e-tee-tee e6a. This ptco vizio n z hatZ not ptcevent the building o6 custom homes on individual tots zub- divided a6ten adoption o6 this Speci6ic Plan. Pno9ectz with a minimum o6 dive ( 5 ) and tezz than ten ( 1 0 ) gAozz acAez may appt y 6oA a conditional exception (zee Section 5. 3. 2, DEVELOPMENT PRO- CEDURE) . Page 19, Section 5. 3.3 . 3, CIRCULATION a. Arterial Access. Direct access of residential streets and pri- vate driveways to arterials shall be limited and subject to the approval of the Departments of Public Works and Development Services. J � ATTACHMENT 1 (Cont' ) b. Setbacks from Arterials. A landscaped eemmen setback area shall be provided adjacent to arterials (Garfield, Ellis and Goldenwest) subject to review and approval of the Departments of Development Services and Public Works. The setback area shall be a minimum of twenty-J29} thiAty ( 30 ) feet and shall consist of a landscaped earthen berm (three-{3} Jive ( 5 ) foot mininnun height) with a slope not to exceed 3 to 1, (Exhibit t 2) . Pr-sol wa}}-er-see-thret�gh-ter�ee=-net-te-exeeee2-e-maxtmam-et-a}x-�6} feet-tn-he}ght-map-be-}eeatee�-st-the-twentp-�39}-feet-setbae�t }}ne---�4-sg}gt-ram}�-p}eket;-wret�e�ht-Oren-er-ether-s}mf�ar-t�*pe teaee-mad+-be-}eeatee�-vi}th}n-the-eemmen-setbaei�-areal-net-te exeeed-a-max}me�m-a€-4�- nehes-}n-he}�ht: The setback area may be used to pattiatty satis6y any common open space tequiAement; on may be inetuded as paAt o6 an individual tot and may be used in the catcutation o6 .dot size (any additional buitding set- backs s hatt be taken 5tom the tands caped setback tine) . Att 6encing within the tands caped setback area s hatt be subject to the fencing ptovizions o6 this Speci6ic Ptan. C. Right-oO-ways Got Attetiatz . - Additions to Ettis Avenue and Gothatd Stteet pubtic tight- o6 ways at ultimate atig nment s hatt include an eq uestt tan ttait on ,the south and west sides Aespeetivety. Additionat &fight-o6-way dedication may be tequiAed at the time o5 pAo- jeet development. The ttait wilt setcve as a tank between the Botza Chita Regionat PaAk and Huntington Centtat Patk ttaits with the Santa Ana Rivet Ttait; and wilt be ineotc- potated into the Ctcange County Masted Ptan ob Hiking and Riding Tta.i tz . - Additions to Ga)L6ietd Avenue and Goldenwest Stteet pubtic tight-os-ways shah be dedicated and developed in eon6oA- manee with .the City's stteet design standatds subject to the apptovat of the Departments o6 Development Services and Public works . - Additionz to BdwaA6 Street and 8ttiz Avenue pubtic A ght-oi-ways shall be oJJeAed to the City Jot dedication and a bond shatt be posted su66icient to coved the cost of all imptovements by the devetopet. The Depattment o6 Public wotks witt detetmi ne the amount of the bond to be posted. The City witt not accept the objet oA dedication oA make imptove- ment unfit a pteciz e atignment 5oA Bdwatds Stteet has been detetmined, any approp4iate Aebund witt be made at that time. d. Internal Collector Streets. Internal collector street shall be dedicated in conformance with the eeneegttda} align- ment shown on Exhibit 2 1; the coneeptuat atignments atso shown ate to serve as a guide boA ptecize alignment and dedication to be ptopased in conjunction with adjacent pto9ect devetopment. Said streets shall be developed in accordance with standard plans and specifications ter-rnra}-ee}}eeher-streets on file in the Department of Public Works and w}th-the-eenee�te�e}-des}gn-sten- ATTACHMENT 1 (Cont' ) r dares-ter-}eee}-ee}}eeter-streets-eentc�}ned-#n-the-�}}}s- 6e}eenveest-6gee}f}e-P}an the prcovisions o6 th.ir6 Sped 6 is Ptan.. e. Access to Internal Collectors. Direct access of private drive- ways to internal collector streets shall be limited and subject to the approval of the Departments of Public Works and Develop- ment Services. 6. Setbacks from Internal Collector Streets. �4-t�aent�-{�8}-feet }andseaged-setbaei�-area-sha}}-be-gre��ded-ad�aeent-te-�nterna} 8e}}eeter-streets---See-th�et�e�h-f ene}rce}-n�ep-he-}eeateel-with}n the-setbae3�-area;-net-te-exceed-a-xta�}x�ax�-et-4�-}nehes-}n- he}e�ht:--�Pra}�s-ad�aeent-te-eel}eeter-sheets-xtap-net-be-eeer�ted tewards-the-sat}staet}en-et-the-setbaeh-recut}cement: A 2and- ,scaped setback anea rshatt be prcovided adjacent to aU inteAnat eoUectorc Atteets subject to rceview and apprcavat ob the DepaAt- ment,s o6 Development SeAv,ieez and Public (Uar kz . The setback anea zhaU be a minimum ob twenty ( 20 ) 6eet. The setback anea may be head as common open space and may be u,sed to pant.iatty zat.izby any common open space tequikement; arc may be inctuded ass pare o6 an indiv.iduat .dot and may be used in the caZcutat.ion o6 tot zize• Th 5 anea may atso be used in the eaZcutation o6 bu.iZding s etback,5 . AZZ 6 encing within the tand,5 eaped setback anea zhatt be zub1eet to the fencing pnoviz ions ob thins Spe- c,i6.ic Plan. g . R,i ht-a -wa ,s 6ot Intenna2 CoUeeton Strceet�s . The pubtic ,tight- o6-way 6ot aZZ inteAnaZ cottectot stteet.6 6haZZ cntcude an eight ( 8 ) 600t d,iAt shoutdvL anea which can setve ass a Vca,it Link 6oA development pto ectz which do not have diteet accez.5 to the pub.t.ic Open Space Co idan and can aZzo zetve as an emet- geney patting anea ( Exhibit 3 ) . h. Residential Streets. Residential streets shall be privately owned and maintained. Said streets shall be improved in accor- dance with the-eeneegttta}-des}fin-standards-ter-res}dent}a} streets-eente}ned-}n-the- }}}s-6e}eleniaest-6gee} }e-P}an: •stan- daAd ptans and spec.i6icationz on bite in the Depattment a6 Pubtic Wo)L 4 and ,the ptov.i�sions ob th.iz Speci6ic Plan. .i. Temporary Access. Temporary access may be taken off an arterial provided that: (1) the temporary access is approved by the De- partments of Public Works and Development Services, and (2) the developer posts a bond with the City before recordation of a final map sufficient to cover the costs of removing the temporary access. The Department of Public Works will determine the amount of the bond to be posted. Conversion to permanent access is required as soon as construction of the necessary local col- lector streets and/or arterials to planned ultimate alignments is complete. ATTACHMENT 1 (Cont' ) Page 21, Section 5.3.3.5, OPEN SPACE CORRIDORS Open Space Corridors shall be established as depicted in Exhibit 1. Development of facilities in Open Space Corridors shall be limited to 41} recreational trails and-hail-teneing7 with appnopAia-te bencing and 42} public works, facilities and utilities;; and-44* €eneing-slang-prigrate-property-lines subject to review and approval of the Department of Development Services. The Open Space Corridor shall follow to the greatest extent feasible the alignment of the existing natural drainage swales which traverse the area. The Open Space Co&&idoa shatt be held as common open space and may be used to count towards sat s4ying common open space nequite- ments. The corridor shall inlcude a minimum easement dedication of twenty-42e* sixteen ( 16 ) feet for a public equestrian/recreational trail and shall be a minimum of twenty (20) feet from any developable area on the site. �4n-additional-epee-spaee-easextent-en-either-er teeth-sides-et-the-pe�blie-ee�c�estrianfreereatienal-trail-shall-be-es- tablished-as-e-nen-de�reiepable-area-under-pt�blie-er-pri*aate-e�oaner- ship; The Open Space Corridor shall be a minimum of 100 feet; the precise dimensions and location of the corridor shall be subject to review and approval of the Department of Development Services and Public Works. Bedieatien-x�ay-eettnt-towards-satisfying-eex�xten-open spaee-regsirernents-where-applieable---Bedieatien-in-exeess-x�ay-eeant tevaards-satin€ying-the-par3�-dad#eatien-reeit�ire�ents-et-Artiele9-9�4 and-996: . Page 21, Section 5.3.3.6, TRAILS A public equestrian trail easement of a minimum twenty-{gg} sixteen ( 16 ) feet in width shall be dedicated to the City for the-master plan a public equest&i an/necneation trails, as shown on Exhibit 1. All developments must provide trail access to the Open Space Cor- ridor trail subject to review and approval of the Department of Development Services. In developments involving lots having an area of fifteen thousand (15, 000) square feet or greater, the Plan- ning Commission may require additional easements of up to ten (10) feet in width for horse trail purposes. Horse trails shall be improved in accordance with the following standards: a. Tread width shall be a minimum of twenty-42g} ten ( 10 ) feet with sky area o6 three ( 3) 6eet on each side en-epen-spaee eerrider-trailB7 and a minimum of ten-419} eight ( 8 ) feet on access trails. Trail tread area should be graded smooth, free of weeds, stumps, roots, debris and large rocks. Adequate drainage shall be provided when grading. b. The trail shall be clear of all obstruction from ground level to a height of ten (10) feet. c. All trails shall be lined on both sides with a split- wood rail type fence, net-te-emeeed-fear-44}-Beet-in-he4:ght7 M ATTACHMENT 1 (Cont' ) W subject to review-and-appre�ra�-et-the-BepartMent-et-Beve�egx�ent Services-,---- the 6enc.ing pxov.iz ionz o6 this Speci6 is Ptan. • Page 22, Section 5. 3.3.7, EQUESTRIAN FACILITIES All developments shall provide for the boarding of one horse per dwelling unit ter-a-xgnxgttx�-a€-twenty- ve-��6}-�ereent-et-the-fetal nt�x�ber-ef-dwelllne}-tznits-ln-the-pre�eet---�Phls-ree�e�lrextent-�a�-he sails€led-bp-gre�trd�n�-bets-a€-16;999-se�eare-feet-ln-slse-er-e�reater; bp-settlne}-aside-area-der-a-eex�en-stai�le-tae�llt�*�-h�-re9er�aing reeat-gin-the-stable-taellltles-et-an-ad�aeent-develegx�ent-er-i��-sere ee�tbinatlen-e -the-shave-xgetheds: e.ithex on site ox in a common ztabte 6ac-itity, ox some combination ob the two; joint stabte ba- c.iZitiez in common with adjacent developmentz may zatiz6y this xequ.ixement subject to xeview and appxovat by the Depaxtment o6 De- vetopment Sexv.iees . For any area set aside for common nen-eex erelal stable facilities, the developer shall indicate (a) the number of horses to be boarded and, (b) that the area is sufficient to accom- modate said number of horses based on the following standards: • Page 26, Section 5. 3. 3.10, DESIGN FEATURES Section 5. 3. 3.10.1, FENCES, WALLS AND HEDGES a. Att 6enc.ing zhatt be ob a u.ni6oxm dezign (wood-xait) , wood con- ,stxuction with a natutcat 6.in.ish and a maximum height o6 6ive ( 5 ) 6eet ass pen Exhibit 4; exeeptionz may be made box ,the 6ot- tow.ing : Front yard fences. Fences, hedges and berms not exceeding three and one-half (3;�) feet in height may be located in the front yard provided that the fence is a wood picket, wood rail, wrought-iron or other similar type. - Solid Walls. The use of solid fencing including wood slat, poured concrete, concrete block and brick fences shall be limited to buffers sur- rounding oil opexationz adgaeent-te-arterials. All applications shall be subject to an intensified land- scape plan subject to review and approval by the Departments of Development Services and Public Works. Side and Rear Yard Fences. Fences, hedges and berms not exceeding six-{6} ive ) feet in height may be located in the required side or rear yards provided that the fence is in compliance with the pxovizionz ob th-iz Spec.ib.ic Ptan; a-weed-geketT-weed-rat�7 wrought iron or other similar type ob see-thxough Jene.ing with a maximum height o6 six (6 ) 6eet may be used .in conjunction with swimming pool axeas , ,subject to tc.ev,iew and appxovat by the . Depaxtment o6 Devetop- menb Sexv.ieez . M ' 4 ATTACHMENT 1 (Cont' ) ,-saw - Street Intersection Visibility. On corner lots, no fence, hedge, wall, sign, structure, mound of earth, landscaping, or other visual obstruction between forty-two (42) inches and seven (7) feet in height above the nearest street curb elevation, shall be erected, placed, planted or allowed to grow within the triangular area formed by the intersecting exterior property lines, or their prolongation, and a dia- gonal intersecting the twenty-five (25) foot property lines from the point where such property lines intersect. Trees which are trimmed free of branches or follage to a height on the trunk not less than seven (7) feet above the nearest street curb elevation are exempt from the above prohibition. • Page 31, Section 5.3. 3.13.1, LARGE LOT SUBDIVISION S. Equine Standards, Noncommercial, Individual Lot - Minimum Lot Size. No horse shall be kept, stabled or te- thered on any parcel of less than 15, 000 square feet in area. - number of Equines. ene Two horsez and immature offspring of up to twelve (12) months old may be kept on a lot of 15, 000 square feet. Twe Thxee or fewer horses and-their immature-effsgr4ng-ug-te-tae�ve-menthe-e�e� may be kept on a lot of 20, 000 square feet:; 6ou& honzez ake attowed on a 35, 000 z q uane 6 o o.t tot i�er-eseh-se�d4t�ena�-herse-ewer-tvae �8}-there-9ha��-be-an-se�e��ttena�-ten-theusanel-��8Y888} square-feet-of-let-area up to a maximum of six (6) horses on a 40, 000 bquate boot tot. Page 33, Section 5. 3.3.13. 2 CLUSTERED LOT SUBDIVISIONS e. Setback Requirements. All structures shall comply with the minimum setbacks shown in Fi:gere-19 Exhibit 5. *measured-frem the-ex�stfng-prepert�*-�fnes-er-€rem-the-u�tfmate-rfght-of-a►a�* • Page 37, Section 6. 3.1, CONTINUATION AND EXPANSION OF EXISTING USES The following uses are permitted prior to the approval of a specific plan for the entire subarea: a. Oil. Use or maintenance of any installation, facility or struc- ture (excluding buildings as defined in Article 968 of the City' s Zoning Ordinance) used either directly or indirectly to carry out or facilitate one or more of the following functions: rework, repair, redrilling, production, processing, extraction, assisted recovery, stimulation, storage, or shipping of oil, gas or hydrocarbons from the subsurface of the earth. Drilling of new wells is not permitted. Oil activities shall be in compliance with 6eetfena-9688-9688-4 A&ti cte 968 of the City's Zoning Ordi- nance and with the City' s Oil Code. s � y ATTACHMENT 2 Staff Recommendations The following is a list of the proposed revisions No. 13-34 from the June 22nd staff report, that the Planning Commission did not get a chance to discuss, along with staff comments and recommenda- tions on each item. 13 . Page 22, Section 5.3 .3.7. Apply uniform architectural standards to all common stable facilities (Mandic, Environmental Board) . Staff recommends that the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan not contain detailed uniform architectural standards for all common stable facilities. There is no need for stable facilities in all projects to be identical to one another. The Planning Com- mission will have the opportunity and authority to review the design of all buildings proposed in the Specific Plan area. General criteria for architectural review are contained in Section 5.3. 3.10. 2 of the Specific Plan. 14 . Page 22, Section 5. 3. 3.7 . Require the developer to build the common stable facility (Environmental Board) . Please see the discussion of this issue in the Analysis section of the July 7, 1982 staff report. Based on a survey of recent equestrian developments in Orange County, staff feels that the requirement to provide area for one horse per dwelling unit is excessive and should be reduced to one horse per every two dwelling units with the developer required to construct fifty percent of any proposed common stable facility. If, however, the Planning Commission retains the one-for-one requirement, staff recommends that the developer be required to construct only twenty-five percent of any proposed common stable facility, . reserving adequate area for the remainder of the facilities to be built by the homeowners at a future date if the demand exists. Appropriate wording would be added to Section 5. 3 . 3 . 8 COMMON AREAS (on page 24) as follows: "All common improvements including but not limited to trails, project fencing and common open space landscaping shall be made by the developer prior to the sale of any lots and/or units. Where a common stable facility is proposed the developer shall be required to reserve adequate area for the entire facility and to construct a minimum of twenty-five (25) percent of the proposed corrals and related facilities but not less than five (5) corrals and related facilities. " ATTACHMENT 2 (Cont' ) 15. Page 22, Section 5.3. 3.7b. Do not allow "one acre of riding area" to satisfy requirement. Require a fenced arena of 5, 000 square feet for every 15 horses (Mandic/E.T.I. ) . Staff concurs with the proposed revision. Every common stable facility should provide a fenced arena so that there is an im- proved and designated place to exercise horses. Staff recommends that the first alternative in Section 5.3. 3.7b Minimum Riding Area on Page 22 be deleted and that the words, exercise ring area" in the second alternative be changed to "riding arena" . 16. Page 23, Section 5.3.3.7e. Include a sample design of a wash rack facility (Mandic/E.T.I. ) . Staff recommends that additional wording rather than a diagram be added to Section 5.3.3.7e, Wash Rack, as follows: " (3) Each wash rack shall be constructed with a concrete slab flooring and metal pipe railing on three sides with a cross tie approximately one foot back from the front pipe. 17. Page 23, Section 5.3.3.7f. Add that arenas shall maintain a minimum dimension of 50 feet and that exercise rings are op- tional (Staff) . Staff concurs and recommends that the following wording be added to Section 5.3.3.7f Miscellaneous Provisions: " - arenas shall maintain a minimum dimension of fifty (50) feet. " 18. Page 23, Section 5.3.3.7f. Add parking requirements for cars and horse trailers for common stable facilities (Mandic/E.T.I. ) . Staff concurs and recommends that the following provision be added to Section 5.3.3.7f Miscellaneous Provisions: " - Park- ing shall be provided as follows: One (1) automobile space for every six '(6) corrals plus one (1) horse trailer space for every ten (10) corrals. " 19. Page 24, Section 5.3.3.8. All common improvements (stables, trails, perimeter project fencing, common open space landscaping, etc. ) should be constructed by developer prior to sale of lots (Environmental Board) . Staff concurs, except with respect to stables (see discussion of Point No. 14). 20. Page 25, Section 5. 3. 3.8b. Reduce the setback requirements for common stable facilities (Mandic/E.T.I . ) . Staff concurs and recommends that setbacks for common stable facilities in Section 5.3.3.8b on Page 25 be reduced from fifty (50) feet to twenty-five (25) feet as follows: "b. Recreation and leisure areas shall not be located within ten (10) feet of any ground-floor dwelling unit wall having a door or window provided, however, that common stable facilities shall be setback a minimum of twenty-five (25)- feet from any street, residential dwelling and/or property line. " 21. Page 26, Section 5. 3.3. 9. Require that four oil island sites in Subarea Two be mandatory rather than optional (Environmental Board) . Staff disagrees with the proposed requirement that four oil islands in Subarea Two be mandatory. The original intention to make some oil islands mandatory was to insure preservation of access to underground oil reserves. Discussions with oil operators indicate that access will be preserved in Subarea Two on a voluntary basis. (Preservation of future access must still be addressed in the development plans for Subareas One and Three. ) 22. Page 26, Section 5.3. 3. 9. Allow oil islands to be a maximum of 2.5 acres (rather than 1.5 acres) in size (Chevron) . Staff concurs and recommends that the third sentence in para- graph two of Section 5.3.3. 9 Oil Activities read as follows: "Before a permit for new drilling is issued, the oil operator shall specify the exact location and size of the proposed oil island (generally not to exceed two and one-half (2h) acres in size) subject to review and approval by the Director of Development Services. " 23. (Addressed at the June 22, 1982 meeting) 24. (Addressed at the June 22, 1982 meeting) 25. Page 29, Section 5.3. 3.11 c&f. Adopt standard design for light- ing and street signs throughout the Specific Plan area (Mandic/ E.T.I. , Environmental Board) . Staff concurs with this revision and recommends that street signs and lighting on collector streets and private residential streets conform to a standard design. Staff recommends that an Item K be added to Section 5.3 .3.10. 2 ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES as follows: "k. Street lights and street signs on collector and private residential streets and trail signs shall conform to a standard design for the Specific Plan area. " ATTACHMENT 2 (Cont' ) -.— v 26 . Page 29, Section 5.3.3.12. Homeowner association agreement should be written so that common facilities, open spaces, and equestrian facilities are maintained in perpetuity, so as to preclude voting any of these items out in order to sell and/or avoid maintenance (Environmental Board) . Staff concurs and porposes that the last sentence in paragraph one under Section 5.3.3.8 COMMON AREAS (Page 24) reads as follows: "The developer shall file with the Department of Development Services, for recordation with the final subdivision map, legal documents which will provide for restricting the use of common spaces and common facilities for the designated purpose, as approved on the final development plan. The City may also require at the time of project approval, that the homeowner's association relinquish all development rights in common areas to the City." 27. Page 29, general provision. Require the preservation of large trees and require additional trees, particularly along trails (Environmental Board) . Staff concurs and recommends the following additions: Page 29, Section 5.3.3.11g. Trees. Preservation of existing trees shall be required where feasible. Page 31, Section 5.3.3 .13.1. On-Site Trees. On-site trees on individual lots shall be provided as o lows: One (1) tree for every 40 feet of lot frontage but not less than two trees per lot. Page 35, Section 5.3. 3.13.2r. On-site trees shall be pro- vided as follows: One (1) tree per lot. 28. (Addressed at the June 22, 1982 meeting) 29. Page 31, Section 5.3.3. 13.1o. Require that accessory buildings are similar in design and materials to main residential dwelling unit (Mandic/E.T.I . , Environmental Board) . Staff concurs and recommends that an Item j be added to Sec- tion 5.3.3.10.2 ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES as follows: "j . Accessory buildings shall be similar in design and ma- terials to the main residential dwelling unit. " ATTACHMENT 2 (Cont' 30. Page 31, Section 5. 3.3 . 13 .1r. Relax the turnaround radius re- quirement on long driveways (Mandic/E.T.I. ) . Staff disagrees with this revision. The turnaround radius re- quirement on long driveways is a Fire Department requirement. This requirement may be waived by the Fire Chief if the unit or facility is sprinklered in accordance with standards on file with the Fire Department. Staff recommends that a statement to this effect be added to Section 5.3.3.13.lr on Page 31 as follows: "These requirements may be waived by the Fire .Chief if the building is sprinklered in accordance with the standards on file with the Fire Department. " 31. (Addressed at the June 22, 1982 meeting) 32. Page 33, Section 5.3.3. 13. 1s. Reduce the setback requirements for equestrian facilities on individual lots to 25 feet from property line; allow a smaller setback when pad for corral area is designated on each lot in a coordinated pattern (Mandic/ E.T.I. ) . Staff concurs and recommends the following wording for the second sentence in Section 5.3. 3.13 .1s. Equine Standards, Non- commercial Individual Lots: Yard Requirements. All such structures shall maintain a minimum distance of twenty-five (25) feet from any property line. This setback may be reduced when pads for corral areas are designated on each lot in a coordinated pattern. " 33. Page 34 , Section 5.3.3 . 13.2i. Do not allow double common wall house (Environmental Board) . Staff disagrees with this revision. Common walls allow preser- vation of larger usable yard areas on individual lots. They also facilitate clustered patterns that preserve large amounts of common open space. 34. Page 37, Section 6.3.1a. Allow new drilling in Subarea Three under the same standards as in Subarea Two (Chevron) . Staff disagrees with this revision. No new oil drilling is allowed in Subarea Three under current zoning, and there are no significant reasons to extend additional oil activities into the area at this time. The detailed development plan for Subarea Three may identify areas for new drilling at a later date if so desired by the property owners and oil operators. MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS ON THE ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN AND EIR 82-1 February 9 , 1982 Study Session March 9 , 1982 Study Session April 27 , 1982 Study Session June 1, 1982 Public Hearing June 15, 1982 Public Hearing •June 22 , 1982 Adjourned Meeting July 7 , 1982 Regular Meeting Approved February 1 /, 1982 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1982 - 7: 00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Bannister, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Kenefick STUDY SESSION: ELLIS/GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN Initiated by the Department of Development Services Florence Webb informed the Commission that staff had held a meet- ing with property owners in the involved area today at 1: 30 p.m. At this meeting it was stressed that the plan as presented was only the introductory step in the planning process, subject to modifica- tion after the review and public comment procedure. She intro- duced staff members Mike Adams and Carol Inge who together made a brief presentation of the draft plan. The presentation included identification of issues addressed by staff; e.g. , density, minimum development size, realignment of arterials, public open space, development types, and equestrian uses. Slides were presented showing existing conditions in the area and existing developments in Orange County built on property with simi- lar terrain and with a similar goal to provide a rural-type atmos- phere. The latter depicted how problems in open space, provision of interior drives, equestrian trails, and drainage swales had been met while still preserving the quality of the areas. The proposed general provisions of the plan were reviewed by Adams and Inge, covering proposed averaging of General Plan densities to allow three units per acre, a 10 acre minimum project site size, circulation to be provided, open space locations to preserve the existing topographical features of the area, design features, treatment of existing and future oil operations, equestrian uses, housing types, and implementation strategies. The Commission discussed the proposal. Commissioner Porter asked for clarification of the location of equestrian trails in relation to the arterials, and Ms. Inge responded that the equestrian trail connecting to Central Park will cross Ellis Avenue at an under- r Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission February 9, 1982 Page 2 crossing. Mr. Porter also noted that there may be areas which will pose difficulties in accommodating a development project even on an area 10 acres in size. Commissioner Schumacher expressed the opinion that maintenance of the equestrian trails should be financed by all the persons using the trails through some sort of assessment and not be the sole responsibil- ity of homeowners' associations in the project area, since the public will also be using the trails. She also questioned whether or not the equestrian trails would also serve as walking trails. Commissioner Mahaffey indicated that in his opinion the 10-acre requirements was too strict and assumes that a small parcel cannot be developed, thereby limiting an owner's right to use his land. He asked if any input had been received from property owners of the areas specifically designated on the plan as being restricted from building of any kind. Florence Webb said that consolidation will allow these owners to join other property owners to construct a project with mutual benefit to all parties. The Commission also reviewed the exact location of two previously approved tracts of five and 15 acres in the area, the current value of property in the area, and the possibility of City participation in the consolidation process. Commissioner Paone stated that the 10 acre size in his estimation is too small and would not result in the type of development the City desires to see in the area. He suggested that the 236 buildable acres be separated into four or six distinct areas with a developer allowed maximum flexibility in planning a project on the larger sections. He felt that this would ensure a 'variety of project types and greater diversity in housing than the City ,presently has. He suggested that some areas of higher density with clustered housing might be per- mitted so that the equestrian lifestyle being developed would not go exclusively to the wealthy. He advocated letting the proposed devel- opment standards go by the wayside and letting each developer propose his own standards and show the City how these would fit into the prop- erty for which they are being proposed. This approach would be both more and less restrictive, but there would be no arbitrary formulas for development. After extensive discussion it was the consensus that staff should re- turn to the Commission with some alternative approaches on minimum development size, development standards, densities, and some method of preventing consolidation from being totally haphazard (which implies some type of City participation or guidance in parcel configuration, possibly through the use of redevelopment processes) . This specific plan will be rescheduled for a study session on March 9, 1982. The Commission recessed at 8:05 and reconvened at 8:15 p:m. -2- 2-9-82 - P.C. .., A.�,ROVED 4-6-82 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED MEETING Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 1982 - 8:00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Bannister, Kenefick, Paone CONSENT CALENDAR: NONE STUDY SESSION ITEMS: ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN: Florence Webb, Senior Planner, capsulized the staff report, stating that staff needs direction from the Commission for a final version of the Specific Plan and to be able to prepare a draft EIR that takes the considerations of the Commission into account. She further stated that this will all take a considerable amount of time seeing that when the draft EIR is prepared, it must go to the various agencies and public for a 30-day review period. Each item was discussed by the Planning Commission with regards to project size, housing types, densities, etc. The first topic was project size. Commissioner Porter questioned how staff came up with 10 acres being the minimum size for a node. Other commissioners wanted to know what would happen to the pro- perty owners who owned 2 acres or less. Mr. Palin suggested that they would need the surrounding property owners for their sewer connections and electricity, etc. At this time, a letter from a property owner -.in the area was discussed. Mrs. Ann Brendall was asked to come forward and address the Commission about her concerns. She stated that her parcel contains a "deep well" that goes down 9, 000 feet and that she has been contacted by various agencies concerning the possibility of her well containing geothermal elements. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission March 9, 1982 Page 2 Chairman Winchell wanted to know what the best method would be for the individual property owners, especially those with small parcels. Ms. Webb stated that any of the methods would work. Commission consensus was concerned with the property owners whose property fell in the "green area" of the Specific Plan which would be for open space. Staff felt that everyone would have a share if they went with a joint venture. Naturally, the owners of smaller parcels would be more apt to be hurt by this Specific Plan. Redevelopment was briefly discussed, as regards the County' s share of tax increments. Staff stated that the County would waive the increments now and then get a percentage later. This percentage varies from county to county. Commissioner Mahaffey said he would like to see the property owners develop their own property "naturally", and use the Specific Plan as only a guideline. He felt that flexibility was lacking from the proposed Plan. Chairman Winchell was opposed to this statement, stating that this "natural" development plan would then annul any contiguous trail system. Commissioner Schumacher disliked the idea of a redevelopment district-- she felt that this would be "passing the buck" to another commission. A straw vote was taken on the subject of project size, product node configurations, variety of housing types and density. I-A. Project Size: 10 acre minimum IN FAVOR: Schumacher I-C. Project Size: 10 acre minimum within delineated project nodes IN FAVOR: Winchell I-D. Project Size: 10 acre average with 5 acre minimum IN FAVOR: Porter I-E. None of the above IN FAVOR: Mahaffey II-C. Product Node Configurations: Combination of topography and property lines IN FAVOR: Winchell, Porter, Schumacher II-D. None of the above IN FAVOR: Mahaffey III. Variety of Housing Types: Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission March 9, 1982 Page 3 III-C. Leave product type optional (grading regulations and open space corridors will encourage cluster development in some areas in order to get the maximum density) IN FAVOR: Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey IV-B. Density: Allow different densities in different subareas but keep overall density at three units per acre IN FAVOR: Winchell, Porter, Schumacher IV-C. Density: Allow different densities in different subareas, and allow overall density to exceed three units per acre (Would require a General Plan Amendment) IN FAVOR: Mahaffey A study session was tentatively scheduled by the Planning Commission for April 27, 1982. AFT AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE 936, HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CO Jim rnes gave a brief synopsis of the staff report. He ated that t existing Planned Development Ordinance was stru ured to accommod a 10 acres or more. The purpose of the pro sed amend- ments to t code is to build into the ordinance mo flexibility that small p cels may now be in conflict with. so, it should make open spac more proportionate. Regarding open spa , it was the consensus hat the demand at present is for more private en space and less ommon open space. Staff felt that the standard eveloped in t proposed amendments to Ar- ticle 936 did not sacrif a this an that, further, the City of Huntington Beach is more r tric ' e than other cities in Orange County. Chairman Winchell felt th a se ence should be inserted to deal with the distance a mai recreatio area should be- measured from the building. Commis oner Mahaffey tated that he would support these draft amen dm is the way they ar now presented. There was some question as o what constitutes a t vel lane. ON MOTION B ORTER AND SECOND BY WINCHELL, STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO SET TH PUBLIC HEARING TO DISCUSS DRAFT AME ENTS TO ARTICLE 936, FO THE FIRST AVAILABLE MEETING, BY THE FOLL ING VOTE: AY Winchell, Porter, Mahaffey ES: None ABSENT: Schumacher, Bannister, Kenefick, Paone ABSTAIN: None REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission `✓ March 9, 1982 Page 4 ONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 82-01 (Continued from 2-17-82) A licant: Stephen & Da lane Fraser A re uest to permit the construction of a one-bedroom, 589 sq re foot elling unit above a proposed two-car garage at proper lo- cated o the north side of 12th Street approximately 200 fe t east of Olive venue. The public earing was opened. Seeing no one came forw rd to ad- dress this i sue, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Ma affey made a motion to approve Con ' tional Excep- tion 82-01 with he findings to added at a later te. This motion failed for lack o a second. A MOTION WAS MADE B PORTER AND SECONDED BY S UMACHER TO DENY CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION O. 82-01 BASED ON THE INDINGS AS OUTLINED BY STAFF. THIS MOTION AILED TO OBTAIN FO OR MORE AFFIRMATIVE VOTES AS SEEN BELOW: AYES : Winchell, Porter, Schumacher NOES: Mahaffey ABSENT: Bannister, Kenefick Paone ABSTAIN: None Due to the failure to obtain fo or more affirmative votes, Con- ditional Exception No. 82-01 w a omatically continued to the meeting of March 16, 1982. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 82-1 (C tinued fro 2-17-82) Initiated by Development ervices A revision to sections f the Ordinance Co pertaining to wind- screens on projecting decks. Mr. Bellavia added correction to the staff r ort. On Page 1 of the proposed ordi ance in regards to height, it ill read as follows : "Windscreens on rojecting decks may be construct d, subject to provisions of ntington Beach Municipal Code Chap er 17. 24, to a height not a eedign nine (9) feet above the finish surface of the deck at he bulkhead line, and not exceeding the econd story finished f oor elevation at the exterior wall of the b ' lding. " So the wo ds "story" and "finished" were added to the to The pu is hearing was opened. Seeing no one came forward to address the C mmission on this issue, the hearing was closed. Co issioner Mahaffey made a motion to approve Code Amendment o. 8 -1 as corrected by staff. This motion failed for lack of a s ond. APPROVED ON 5-18-82 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Room B-8 - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY. APRIL 27, 1982 - 7: 30 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Higgins, Livengood, Mahaffey, Schumacher, Winchell COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Paone, Porter STUDY SESSION• ELLIS/GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN Initiated by Development Services Florence Webb informed the Commission that this was the third study session with the Planning Commission on the Draft Ellis/Goldenwest Specific Plan. She stated that, since the last study session, staff had revised the Plan. Some of these revisions were a result of the Commission' s analysis and approval of Tentative Tract 11473 and Con- ditional Use Permit 82-3 (Lindborg/Dahl) located within the Specific Plan area. Ms. Webb also noted that two new Planning Commissioners had been appointed since the last study session on the Specific Plan. She stated that, for these reasons, staff wished to briefly present the entire Plan at this Study Session. She introduced staff members Mike Adams and Carol Inge who, together, made the presentation. The presentation began with a review of the proposed realignment of Edwards Street and Ellis Avenue. and the proposed alignment of internal collector streets. Rural street standards were .discussed. Adams presented the proposed open space corridors, trail standards,. and sensitive development areas. Inge reviewed the Plan' s provisions regarding existing oil wells in the area and identified conceptual locations for five "oil islands" where new drilling would be per- mitted. Provisions regarding grading activities, fencing materials, and architectural review were presented. Adams reviewed development standards regarding lot size, lot coverage, open space requirements, equestrian uses, building setbacks and other requirements. Slides were shown to illustrate some of the provisions of the Plan. The Commission briefly discussed the Plan. Commissioner Mahaffey stated that he did not see anything in the Plan that identified why the Plan was necessary or justified. He stated that property owners Minutes, Study Session April 27, 1982 Page 2 in the area should be allowed to plan for their properties. Staff` responded that the Plan was written to provide implementing zoning ' for the Estate Residential designation in the City' s General Plan and because the area in question had some special characteristics such as varied topography and a lack of community facilities. Commissioner Livengood suggested that the Ellis/Goldenwest area might be planned in a manner similar to the Bolsa Chica in which a number of alternative plans were developed and presented to the de- cision makers. A motion was made to schedule the Ellis/Goldenwest Specific Plan for a public hearing on June 1, 1982. The motion carried by a 5-0 vote. Chairman Winchell then asked if anyone in the audience wished to make any comments on the proposed Plan at this time. Several pro- perty owners spoke. In general, they stated that they ought to be allowed to make their own plans for their properties. Commissioner Higgins suggested that staff send a letter to all pro- perty owners in the Ellis-Goldenwest area as soon as copies of the Draft Plan were printed. Mr. Palin answered that staff might go ahead and send a copy of the Plan to every property owner before the June 1st public hearing. The Commission adjourned at 9: 15 P.M. ames W. Palin, Secretary Grace Winchell, Chairman CI:j lm ? proved June 15, 1982 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, JUNE 1, 1982 - 7: 00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Higgins, Livengood, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Mahaffey CONSENT CALENDAR: Chairman Winchell requested a word change in the Minutes of the last meeting, on Page 2, where the straw vote was taken. She asked that, for clearer intent, her vote read "would support the motion" . This correction was noted. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER THE CONSENT CALENDAR, CONSISTING OF THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 18, 1982 MEETING, AND TWO CON- FORMANCES WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, NUMBERS 82-2 AND 82-3, WERE APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Paone, Winchell NOES: None ABSENT: Porter, Mahaffey ABSTAIN: None COMMISSION ITEMS: None. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: ELLIS GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN Initiated by City of Huntington Beach A proposal to develop a 290-acre area bounded by Ellis Avenue to the north, the City boundary to the west, Garfield and Ernest Avenues to the south and a line extending north from Crystal Street to the east. The Plan, if adopted, will be the zoning for the area. It requires a minimum project size of 10 acres and allows a maximum density of 3 homes per acre of land. Grading activities are generally limited to no more than 2 feet of cut and 2 feet of fill, and the drainage Swale .areas are delineated as Open Space Corridors in which no residential development will be allowed. The Plan also delineates Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 1, 1982 Page 2 a system of internal collector streets for the area and a backbone system of riding trails. Florence Webb informed the Commissioners that staff is recommending that the public hearing be opened on the Specific Plan, however, due to the fact that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR 82-1) pub- lic hearing will be heard on June 15th because of the review period, it was further recommended to continue the public hearing on the Specific Plan to that date also. Carol Inge, Mike Adams, and Chuck Clark shared in the presentation of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan, which included a slide presentation. Staff received a number of comments on the Specific Plan, such as the following: 1. The 10-acre minimum lot size is too restrictive. 2. There is not enough freedom to build on the small lots. 3. The collector street linking with Ernest Avenue cuts across private property in an undesirable location. 4. The development standards proposed are too rigid. 5. The Huntington Beach Company. states that planning efforts in this area are premature. 6. With regard to oil: a. there are not enough sites for new drilling, b. allowing residential in the area might force oil out, and C. regarding mandatory islands to preserve future access, tem- porary use should be allowed on sites that are now abandoned. It was also mentioned that the geothermal grant application efforts will not be jeopardized by the proposed Plan. Staff called the Com- missioners' attention to the fact that the Planning Division received an application from Chevron U.S.A. for a General Plan Amendment re- questing that the City redesignate a specified area from Estate Re- sidential to Resource Production. This involves approximately 115 acres in the proposed Specific Plan area. Commissioner Porter asked if, since the linear park was Orange County property, was the County in favor, or aware of the plans for the area. Staff stated that the County is aware of our efforts and goes along with whatever the City wants. Commissioner Schmacher referred to the slide presentation with regard to maintenance of the proposed easement and fencing. Public Works responded by stating that no -2- 6-1-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 1, 1982 Page 3 extra maintenance would be required with the proposed plan. Jean also felt that equestrian uses in the proposed plan were too flexible. She felt that the City should either impose this condition or drop the idea of an extensive trail system. The creation of an assessment district was briefly discussed. The Chairman opened the public hearing on the Specific Plan. Hillman Walker, representing Chevron USA, gave a presentation using an aerial view of the City to delineate the Chevron property in question. He cited the fact that many changes have occurred since the late 70' s with regard to the production of energy. He said that the Specific Plan document itself made reference to reports conducted by the State Division of Oil and Gas, when in fact, there was (.in his opinion) no written statement made by that Division. He further stated his company's need for more drilling islands and asked that the Chevron property be removed from the Specific Plan area. Emil Pletel, representing J. I. Hathaway, also requested that the Hathaway property be eliminated from the Specific Plan area. Bill Holman, representing the Huntington Beach Company, stated that the proposed plan was not consistent with the direction given to the Planning Commission by the City Council. (Commissioner Porter took exception to this statement. ) Mr. Holman felt that the planning in this area was premature and does not reflect the feelings of all the property owners. He recommended. that the Huntington Beach Company holdings either be deleted from the Specific Plan, or that the issue be tabled. He stated that the Company is in a position to support Chevron in amending the General Plan for the area between Edwards and Goldenwest Streets. Ann Brindle, a property owner in the area, was opposed to the Plan. At the recommendation by staff, the Chairman did not close the public hearing, but continued it to the meeting of June 15, 1982. Commission discussion ensued. Commissioner Higgins felt that there may be other property owners concerned about energy that, for one reason or another, could not attend the public hearing. He agreed with one of the suggestions during the hearing, that an outside consultant be retained to determine whether the property should be developed or not. He tended to agree that it seemed premature to implement a Specific Plan at this time. Commissioner Paone felt that it may be a good idea to hire a pro- fessional to access the situation, but also felt that planning in this area was not premature and that it is the Commission's job to plan. He did feel that perhaps the specific plan process was mis- understood by some to mean that the City is mandating development -3- 6-1-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 1, 1982 Page 4 when, in fact, it is only "drawing a picture" . Commissioner Schumacher agreed that more oil islands were needed, however, she felt that the proposed Specific Plan was "not something out of the blue" ; that it was general planned as estate residential, and that the economic situation reflected the fact that large custom houses were selling and not among the moderate income houses that are in a slump. Brief discussion also took place regarding access roads. Staff stated that there was a possibility of going back and contacting the Division of Oil and Gas before a consultant was hired. Florence Webb stated that the staff did work closely with D.O.G. and the oil operators and felt that their concerns were addressed in the Specific Plan. ON MOTION BY PAONE AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD THE ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF JUNE 15, 1982, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: Mahaffey ABSTAIN: None A recess was called; Commission meeting reconvened at 8 : 50 P.M. CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 82-04 A licant: J. I . Hathaway Thi ' s a request to allow the redrilling of an abandoned oil 11 on prop ty that is zoned RA-O-CD and located 330 feet nor of Schleicher oad; 660 feet west of Goldenwest Street. R filling of an abandon oil well is presently not allowed u r the provi- sions of Section 81 (Oil Districts) of the Ord' nce Code. The public hearing was ened. Emil Plete , representing J. I . Hathaway, asked that the a lication be proved and said he would answer any questions. The pu c he ing was closed. ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND S ND LIVENGOOD CONDITIONAL EXCEP- TION NO. 82-04 WAS APPROVE OR A PERI OF 90 DAYS, WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND DITIONS, BY THE LOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APP AL: 1. Based the fact that there are numerous producing it wells in a surrounding area and that the proposed test we ill located over an abandoned well, there are exceptional - -4- 6-1-82 - P.C. Approved July / , 1982 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, JUNE 15, 1982 - 7 : 00 PM _COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Higgins, Livengood, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schuma(ther COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None CONSENT CALENDAR: ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD THE CONSENT CALEN- DAR, CONSISTING OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 1 , 1982, WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Paone, Winchell , Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: ELLIS GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN (Continued from 6-1-82) Initiated by City of Huntington Beach A proposal to develop a 290-acre area bounded by Ellis Avenue to the north, the City boundary to the west, Garfield and Ernest Avenues to the south, and a line extending north from Crystal Street to the east. The Plan, if adopted, will be the zoning for the area. It requires a minimum project size of 10 acres and allows a maximum density of 3 homes per acre of land. Grading activities are generally limited to no more than two feet of cut and two feet of fill, and the drainage swale areas are delin- eated at open space corridors in which no residential develop- ment will be allowed. The plan also delineates a system of in- ternal collector streets for the area and a backbone system of ••ey riding trails. Environmental Impact Report No. 82-1 has been prepared for this specific plan. Charles Clark outlined the history of the General Plan designa- tion of Estate Zoning on this property and explained the organiza- tion of the specific plan document. He described the necessary Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 15, 1982 Page 2 steps in the approval process and informed the Commission that all correspondence received by staff has been included in the sub- mittals to the Commission. He noted that two property owners in the area have requested that their properties be removed from the Specific Plan. Carol Inge reviewed the changes which have been made since the prior review. First of those were changes outlined in the staff report which came about as a result of the comments received. She also described the reorganization of the Specific Plan into four major parts: 1) introduction and goals; 2) implementing standards; 3 ) "next step" action, which talks about the possibility of redev- elopment and assessment districts; and 4) the FIR plus comments re- ceived thereon and responses to those comments . The implementing standards section addresses each subarea separately. In Subarea One Miss Inge reported that it does not pose any detailed development standards but states that prior to development of any part of the area a development plan must be submitted and approved. Standards for the area would allow oil activities to continue, with new wells allowed in all parts of Subarea One currently havin-Q the -01 zoninq suffix. Subarea Two contains detailed development standards, with changes made to those standards in the area of equestrian uses and oil drill- ing islands. The latter change will permit one new drilling island for every 20 acres of subsurface mineral rights under ownership or lease; this could allow approximately 5 oil islands in Subarea Two. Another change recommended by staff is the use of rolled curb and gutter as part of the rural street standards instead of the dirt or gravel shoulder previously recommended. Standards for Area Three are similar to those for Subarea One. Con- tinued operation of existing oil uses would be allowed, with the same requirement for submittal of a development plan for any project proposed in the area in the future. Brief Commission discussion took place on these changes. The public hearing was reopened. H. Walker, representing Chevron, addressed the Commission to request the following amendments to the Plan: 1) With the inclusion in the oil category of storage and tanks, it is felt that the 1 . 5 acre size for oil islands may not be adequate, and Mr. Walker suggested that the wording be changed to allow an island "not to exceed 2 . 5 acres in size subject to the approval of Development Services," and 2) he requested that the area west of Edwards Street be removed from the Plan and considered as a resource production area I1� -2- 6-15-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 15, 1982 Page 3 V. Kahle, property owner in the area, spoke to the Commission to ask for information on how the small lots in the area would be able to be used. He was advised of the consolidation of parcels which would be required under the plan and also was in- formed that the present General Plan designation and zoning would not permit development of his lot as a residential site even without the implementation of the Specific Plan. Dean Albright spoke in opposition to some of the proposed street realignments, and also addressed Fire Department access into the area and the possibility that construction of dwellings and stables and the resultant runoff might have an adverse effect to the park blow the bluffs. Michael Knapp, representing the Huntington Beach Environmental Board, spoke in support of the Specific Plan and urged that the area to the west of Edwards be left within the Plan to ensure that when it does develop it is in accordance with the rest of the area. Mr. Knapp discussed item by item the recommenda- tions made by the Board in its memorandum- to the Commission (contained in the departmental file) and urged adoption of the Specific Plan with those recommended changes. Connie Mandic, representing Equestrian Trails, Inc. , spoke to the Commission in regard to the provision of equestrian facili- ties within the Specific Plan area. She also suggested that five-acre consolidations could provide a very good equestrian estate project, adding that such small acreages should be limited to two units per acre, while the 10 acre parcels could be allowed the three units per acre that the plan is proposing. Mrs.Mandic discussed as well the rural street standards, fencing in the projects, uses allowed in the open space corridors, trail widths and locations, square footage of lots as it might relate to the number of horses permitted to be kept, and other aspects of the development standards. Jay Panchal, engineer, presented alternative street sections for the Commission' s consideration. One section is intended to modify the private street standard, which Mr. Panchal indicated seems a little excessive for projects with 10 or less lots; he also submitted a section for the provision of equestrian trails along arterials. Bill Holman, representing the Huntington Beach Company, indicated to the Commission that his company now feels that the plan has been sufficiently revised to be generally compatible with their concerns relative to preserving the oil drilling activities and, secondIy, that the withholding of specific development standards in Subareas One and Three until such time as Surface develop- ment is contemplated is a step forward. However, the company would still ask that Areas One and Three not be included in the Specific Plan and the property owner be allowed to develop -3- 6-15-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 15, 1982 Page 4 those areas with future specific plans when development is proposed. Mr. Holman addressed specific areas in the plan document requiring "' correction or clarification. A new request made by the Huntington ' Beach Company is that the oil in Subarea Three be treated in the same manner as it is proposed to be treated in Subarea Two, giving the operator a new island with the location and size to be described when new drilling is permitted. It was Mr. Holman' s feeling that including this provision in the plan would prevent them from having to come back to the Commission to request a zone change should it be desired to drill in that area. The final point made by Mr . Holman was the. Company' s objection to the special fee that would be charged back_ to property owners on a per-acre basis to pay for the costs of the Specific Plan and their opposition to any mandatory in- clusion of equestrian facilities, which they feel should be the prerogative of a developer and property owner . B.G. Williams, representing an oil company and property owner in Subarea Three, addressed the Commission to confirm his understanding that if the plan is adopted oil operations can continue and to urge that the "0-1" suffix be added to all oil operations within the area. Mr. Kahle and the Commission further discussed the need for lot consolidation and the methods by which this could be accomplished . A There were- no other persons present to speak for or against the proposal, and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion included the following: Question of Subareas One and Three: The Commission reviewed the re- quests to exclude these two areas from the Specific Plan, considering the preservation of topographical features and the need for providing an integrated circulation system throughout the area. At the end of discussion a straw vote was taken on the subject. It was determined to leave both Subareas One and Three in the Specific Plan by the fol- lowing straw vote: Ayes: Livengood, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher Noes: Higgins Absent: None Abstain: None Question of Application of Development Standards to Areas One & Three : The Chairman then called for a decision on whether or not the Commis- sion wished to apply the same development standards to Areas One and Three as will be applied to Subarea Two. Noting that the June 15 staff report indicates that the Specific Plan now requires application of standards only to Subarea Two, Ms. Winchell said that an "aye" vote will support the staff ' s recommendation and a "no" vote will re- P" quire impositionof standards to all subareas equally. The following straw vote was taken: Ayes : Higgins, Livengood, Paone Noes: Winchell, Porter, Schumacher -4- 6-15-82 - P .C. Minutes , H.B. Planning Commission June 15, 1982 Page 5 Commissioner Higgins then requested that a straw vote be taken on each subarea individually. A straw vote on Subarea Three, with the same stipulation as be- fore on the meaning of votes, resulted in the following: Ayes : Higgins, Livengood, Paone Noes: Winchell , Porter, Schumacher (The above tie vote is interpreted to mean that the staff recom- mendation will be followed and no development standards will be applied to Subarea Three. ) The straw vote on Subarea One (same stipulation) resulted in the following : Ayes : Higgins, Livengood, Paone, Porter Noes: Winchell, Schumacher Development standards will not apply to Subarea One. Further intensive discussion took place in regard to Subarea Three, considering its location across Goldenwest Street from the remainder of the area, the current and adjacent land uses, and existing and planned street alignments. A second straw vote on whether or not to impose the development standards on this subarea produced the following vote: Ayes : Schumacher (to impose standards as in Subarea Two) Noes : Higgins, Livengood, Paone, Winchell. , Porter The Commission then proceeded to a page-by-page discussion of the items staff had presented. Items of concern resolved by either a straw vote or consensus include the following: . . The access road across the Brindle property off Goldenwest Street was discussed in detail . The consensus that emerged from this discussion was that staff should investigate the cir- culation and-ownership patterns to attempt to site the access road in a location which would not divide such a large, already consolidated parcel and to consider the possibility of not allowing any access off Goldenwest Street at all. . By consensus, the Commission directed staff to investigate Mrs. Mandic 's suggestion for five-acre parcels with a two unit per acre density restriction. . By consensus, the Commission directed staff to investigate berming along the arterials . In this same discussion, it was determined that fencing in the area should be uniform and that no solid walls should be permitted along the arterials. -5- 6-15-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 15, 1982 Page 6 The Commission discussed the trail system with staff , including interior trails, the possibility of establishing some kind of trail along the arterials, connecting links to the main trail within the project area, and the County trail system planned along Ellis Avenue. By consensus the Commission decided that the Specific Plan should make every effort to tie the project into any major trail system, in- cluding the County' s, and that the trail width in the Plan should be reduced to 16 feet. Also discussed by the Commission were street .alignments, open space corridors, use of the swales in the area, and equestrian uses . It was the conclusion of the Commission that sufficient public input and Commission discussion had been given to provide staff with adequate direction to revise the plan and respond to comments . Staff will re- view the information and prepare its responses to both oral and written suggestions for the next meeting . ON MOTION BY PAONE AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD, THE ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN WAS CONTINUED TO AN ADJOURNED MEETING TO BE CALLED ON JUNE 22, 1982, AT 7: 00 PM IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Paone, Winchell , Porter, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The Commission recessed at 9: 35 p.m. and reconvened at 9: 45. ONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 82-12/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 82-08/ TE TIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 82-558/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 82-15 A li t: Robert J. Zinn rabe To permit: the construction of an eleven story, 68 , 261 square foot office/me ' al building; 2) to permit a reduction in lot ea, lot coverage, and duction of parking for the proposed b ' ing; and 3) to permit sub ' ision of one parcel of land int wo parcels for the construction• of id building. Subject pro ty is located on the east side of Delawa Street approximate 450 feet south of Main Street within the Pacifi Specific P1 area . Jim Barnes reviewed the project and a uses proposed within the new building. He noted that the veld r is proposing to use the existing parking in the entir acifica co lex to satifsy the park- ing requirements for the lding. At presen there are 528 parking spaces dispersed thro out the whole develop en The zoning code requirements for ing for the entire development ith the new building would 894 spaces, with the new building it if generating a requirem of 380 spaces according to the parking rate in the code. s results in a 366 space parking shortage for the cifica com xy and of the issues identified by staff this shortage is nsidered the most significant. -6- 6-15-82 - P.C. *' RAFT 1 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED MEETING Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, JUNE 22, 1982 - 7:15 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Higgins, Livengood ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 82-1 Initiated by the City of Huntington Beach A proposal to develop a 290-acre area bounded by Ellis Avenue to the north, the City boundary to the west, Garfield and Ernest Avenues to the south, and a line extending north from Crystal Street to the east. The Plan, if adopted, will be the zoning for �. the area. It requires a minimum project size of 10 acres and allows a maximum density of 3 homes per acre of land. Grading activities are generally limited to no more than two feet of cut and two feet of fill, and the drainage swale areas are delineated as open space corridors in which no residential development will be allowed. The Plan also delineates a system of internal col- lector streets for the area and a backbone system of riding trails. Chairman Winchell noted that the public hearing had been opened, public testimony taken, and the public hearing closed at a previous meeting. Tonight's business will consist only of review and discussion of that public input and the Plan itself. Advance Planning staff reviewed the list of prior concerns which has been compiled as an outline for discussion and went over the recommended procedures for amending the district maps, . adding the specific plan to the zoning code, and approving by resolution the reimbursement by developers of the costs incurred by the preparation of the specific plan. Carol Inge led a point-by-point review of the discussion items: Administrative Revisions: The staff recommendations contained in this sect on of the staff report were agreed to by consensus of the Commission. However, Item 5, regarding construction standards for corrals, was deleted from the Plan because the Fire Department already has adequate controls. J/ Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 22, 1982 Page 2 DRAFT Straw Vote Actions: Items 1 and 2 remain as previously voted on by the Commission. In regard to Item 3, Ms. Inge asked for clari- fication on whether or not the Commission had intended to actually set the density for the Plan by this wording. The Commission dis- cussion included the status of the current General Plan designation, the need for a specific criterion for future development plans, and the Commission's desire that the intended intensity of development for the area be very clear at the outset. By consensus, it was determined that Item 3 be amended to state that density within the specific plan shall not exceed three (3) units per acre. Item 4 . Mike Adams presented cross sections depicting various setbacks and berm heights and showed slides of various berming con- structed in other projects. Extensive discussion took place concern- ing depth of setback, height of berm, possibility of using a wall at the property line as a retaining wall for such berm, and the desir- ability of allowing "feeder" trails along the arterials surrounding the plan area. The conclusion of the Commission was that if feeder trails were to be permitted they should go on the private properties and not in the right-of-way; it was also the consensus that minimum setback should be thirty (30) feet; the minimum berm height should be five (5) feet; walls should be designated as see-through; and the provision allowing for location of a 42-inch fence within the common setback area should be deleted from the plan. The Commission agreed with the insertion of a trail on Ellis Avenue to serve as a connecting link to the County's Master Plan of Trail Systems. Item 5. By consensus, the Commission concurred with staff ' s proposal for rolled curb and gutter street standards and approved the revised street sections as shown in the draft plan. Item 6 . Mike Adams discussed the internal collector streets as originally shown, and proposed to change to a collector loop system to avoid dividing already consolidated parcels, accessing the area from the north and south as opposed to Goldenwest Street. Bill Cooper, in response to questioning from the Commission, said that a cursory review would indicate that such a change should make little impact on fire protection services but that further research would be needed before making' a definite statement. The Commission discussed the general street layout in the area, including future realignment of Ellis, Edwards, and Garfield; the traffic hazards involved with the access off Goldenwest Street; and the vehicular capacities of the arterials serving the area. BY UNANIMOUS STRAW VOTE, THE COMMISSION DIRECTED STAFF TO ELIMINATE THE ACCESS POINT INTO THE AREA OFF GOLDENWEST STREET. By consensus, the Commission agreed to the staff' s revision to the internal collector system in concept only. They agreed that there should be some flexibility for change as development may require. Staff was directed to conceptually add the bluffline drive back into Subarea 1 in the Specific Plan. -2- 6-22-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning" Commission June 22, 1982 Page 3 DRAFT - Item 7. Trail width remains at sixteen (16) feet as determined by previous straw vote. Text Revisions: Item 2. The prior Planning Commission recom- mendation to indicate intent on the eastern boundary of the Plan was amended to read: "The eastern boundary of the Specific Plan shall be determined by the future alignment of Gothard Street in the General Plan. " Item 3. This item had been an Environmental Board recommenda- tE nno of to ,include planned residential developments as a per- mitted use in Subarea Two. . It is staff's feeling that at a three unit per acre density the PRD designation is entirely ap- propriate type of development. Commission concurred, and the PRD designation will remain in the Plan. Item 4 . Commission discussed Environmental Trails, Inc. ' s recommendation for five acre projects with a density of two units per acre. Staff expressed its opinion that writing such a provision into the Plan would not encourage the :type of con- solidation desired in the area. Commission discussion ensued. A straw, with an "aye" vote to allow the 5-acre minimum and a "no" vote to retain the 10-acre minimum, resulted in the follow- ing: Ayes: Winchell, Schumacher Noes: Paone, Porter The 10-acre minimum outlined in the plan stands as depicted in the Plan. . Commissioner Porter noted that a special permit might allow a five-acre project. A motion for straw vote was made by Paone and seconded by Porter to add language to the document to prohibit use of the special permit or conditional exception processes from being used to re- duce the minimum project area. Staff discussed the possibility that extenuating circumstances, such as a landlocked smaller parcel, might arise which would necessitate special treatment and expressed the opinion that the plan should leave some option for such a hardship. Exten- sive Commission discussion ensued. Paone and Porter amended their motion to state that a conditional exception or special permit created to reduce the �Unimum pro- ject area below that specified in the Plan may be approved for projects of five acres or more, provided that the density in such a project does not exceed two (2) dwelling units per acre. Ayes: Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher Noes: None -3- 6-22-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 22, 1982 Page 4 DRAr I Item 5. Public trails in setback adjacent to perimeter arterials. The Commission discussed the desirability of having trails on the arterials in terms of the possibility of encouraging excessive eques- trian traffic and of providing for smaller equestrian trails on private property along the arterials. A motion was made by Paone to approve staff' s recommendation for an equestrian trail on Ellis Avenue only to provide a connecting link to the County trail system, with no trails on the arterials and no trails in the setbacks adjacent to the arterials unless they are part of a developer's need to access other trails. This motion received no second. Commissioner Porter suggested that an equestrian perimeter trail 10 ' wide be included in the setbacks on the arterials and that no side- walks be provided on the arterials. On motion by Paone and second by Porter the Commission by the follow- ing straw vote approved the adoption of the staff's recommended language in paragraph (c) on page 19 concerning the trail on the south side of Ellis Avenue. Ayes; Paone, Winchell, Porter Noes: Schumacher Item 6 . Proposal to allow fenced riding corrals in open space corri- dors. Staff's recommendation is that no riding rings be allowed, but that the corridors remain open natural areas unobstructed by construction or fencing. On motion by Paone and second by Porter a straw vote was taken that the Commission not adopt the proposal. Motion resulted in the fol- lowing tie vote, and no change will be made in the Plan: Ayes: Paone, Porter Noes: Winchell, Schumacher Item 7. Uniformity of fencing. The Commission reviewed the proposal and staff's recommendations. On motion by Paone and second by Winchell a straw vote was taken to adopt a design of a five foot high natural wood fence with mesh permitted as optional, by the follow- ing vote: Ayes: Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher Noes: None Item 8 . Swale ownership. Staff noted that it does not recommend . tfi-e�edication of swale open space area to the City; also, fences. in the swales are not recommended. Discussion ensued. -4- 6-22-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 22, 1982 ti- Page 5 4R:::A :F:l A motion was made by Paone and seconded by Porter that the 100- foot minimum swale area shall be held in common ownership and that there shall be no structures of any kind in these swale areas except as otherwise expressly permitted in this Specific Plan. If the Specific Plan calls for trails within the swales, then fencing for those trails shall be permitted. Motion carried by the following straw vote: Ayes: Paone, Winchell, Porter Noes: Schumacher Item 9. No discussion took place on this item. Item 10. Provision of trail links from individual projects to the open space corridor trails. Mike Adams explained that this is addressed in another portion of the Plan, providing that projects can use the right-of-way in a collector street to access the main trails. Item 11. Fencing along trails. This item has already been dealt with in a prior item. item 12. Number of horses per dwelling unit. It is staff' s feel- ing that one horse per dwelling unit is excessive and could re- sult in a great amount of the open space being used for horses. Carol Inge discussed the percentages staff has found to be in use in other projects of a similar nature. The Commission discussed the problem at length, suggesting various percentage and square foot criteria which could be applied. A motion was made by Paone and seconded by Porter that 100 per- cent of the units in the project shall be provided with either the onsite ability to keep horses or the ability to use one stall in a common stable facility. The motion also incorporated the wording in Item 31 of the list of concerns, to allow two horses on a 15,000 square foot lot, three on a 20,000 square foot lot, four or five on a 35,000 square foot lot, and six on a 40,000 square foot lot. Motion carried by the following straw vote: Ayes: Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher Noes: None A MOTION WAS MADE BY PAONE AND SECONDED BY PORTER TO ADJOURN THE MEETING TO THE MEETING OF JULY 7, 1982. MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -5- 6-22-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission 1 June 22, 1982 Page 6 DRAFT Commissioner Porter suggested that when the Plan is brought up again it would be helpful if staff would highlight its own comments on each item which has not yet been discussed. Legal counsel Art Folger noted that the Commissioners who were not present tonight should be sure to review the tape of the meeting so that they may vote on the Specific Plan. The meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m. James W. Palin, Secretary Grace H. Winchell, Chairman :df -6- 6-22-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission July 7 , 1982 Page 6 e integrated, the lot coverage on Parcel 1 combined with cel ceed the allowable 25 percent of t all site. AYES: Higgins, Livengoo ell, Paone, Porter, er NOES: None ABSENT: None ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN or CODE AMENDMENT NO. 82-5 (Continued from June 22, 1982) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 82-1 Initiated by the City of Huntington Beach Y A proposal to develop a 290-acre area bounded by Ellis Avenue to the north, the City boundary to the west, Garfield and Ernest Avenues to the south, and a line extending north from Crystal Street to the the east. The Plan will be the zoning for the area. It requires a minimum project size of 10 acres and allows a maximum density of 3 homes per acre of land. Grading activities are generally limited to no more than two feet of cut and two feet of fill, and the drain- age swale areas are delineated at open space corridors in which no residential development will be allowed. The plan also delineates 0014 a system of internal collector streets for the area and a backbone system of riding trails. Environmental Impact Report No. 82-1 has been prepared for this specific plan. The public hearing remained closed. The Commission received a list of their proposed revisions from the June 22nd staff report, that they did not get a change to discuss at the meeting held on that day. Chairman Paone asked the Commissioners to deal with this in the same manner as the consent calendar, pulling any revisions that needed further discussion. The following items were pulled for in- dividual discussion and straw vote: Page 22 Section 5. 3. 3.7 Apply uniform architectural standards to all common stable acilities. After staff' s clarification, the following straw vote was taken. A "yes" vote will recommend that the Specific Plan not contain detailed uniform architectural standards for common stable fa- cilities. AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None Page 22 Section 5.3.3.7 Require the developer to build the common stable facility. A "yes" vote would recommend the requirement to provide area for Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission July 7, 1982 Page 7 one horse per every two dwelling units with the developer re- quired to construct 50% of any proposed common stable facility. A "no" vote retains the "one-for-one" requirement with the de- veloper being required to construct only 25% of any proposed common stable facility. The straw vote resulted in the following: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None Page 22 , Section 5.3. 3 .7b Do not allow "one acre of riding area" to satisfy requirement. Require a fenced arena of 5, 000 square feet for dvery 15 horses. Commission consensus agreed with this recommendation, however, a straw vote was taken to add clarifying language to explain that if there was one more horse than 15 (or, in other words, a 16th horse)it will require an additional 5,000 square feet of arena area. This vote resulted in the following: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None Page 24, Section 5. 3. 3.8 All common improvements (stables, trails, perimeter project fencing, common open space landscaping, etc. ) should be constructed by developer prior to sale of lots. Commission agreed with staff' s recommendation to remove the word "stable" from the listing since it is discussed in detail pre- viously (on Page 22) . However, Commission took a straw vote to determine if "wash rack" should be added to the examples listed. The vote resulted in the following: AYES : Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None Page 26, Section 5.3.3 . 9 Require that four oil island sites in Subarea Two be mandatory rather than optional. After staff's clarification of this recommendation. A "yes" vote will indicate that access will be preserved in Subarea Two on a voluntary basis. The vote resulted in the following: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None Pa e 31, Section 5.3. 3.13. lr Relax the turnaround radius re- quirement on long driveways. Staff did not agreed with this recommended revision because the requirement is set forth in the Uniform Fire Code. However, Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission July 7, 1982 Page 8 Commissioner Schumacher felt it was asking "too much" of the de- veloper. A straw vote was taken to include other alternatives such as hammerhead streets, circular drives and cul-de-sacs in lieu of turnarounds to fulfill the requirement. The straw vote resulted in the following: AYES: Higgins, Paone NOES: Livengood, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher Discussion on the above straw vote ensued. It was further clari- fied that the Fire Chief has the right to waive these requirements which are -set forth in the Uniform Fire Code. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER THIS SECTION WAS DELETED AND WILL BE REPLACED WITH A REFERENCE TO ITS TRUE ORIGIN IN THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Schumacher NOES : Porter ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The following straw vote was taken to approve of the recommended revisions which were not pulled for discussion: AYES : Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher NOES : None ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY WINCHELL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 82-1 WAS DEEMED ADEQUATE AND APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER AND SECONDED BY LIVENGOOD TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 1292 APPROVING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 82-5 (ELLIS- GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN) WITH REVISIONS APPROVED IN THIS AND PREVIOUS MEETINGS TO INCLUDE THE EAST BOUNDARY OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA TO BE GOTHARD STREET, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECONDED BY WINCHELL TO RECOM- MEND TO CITY COUNCIL THAT THEY APPROVE, BY RESOLUTION, THE RE- Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission July 7, 1982 Page 9 IMBURSEMENT OF CITY COST FOR PREPARATION OF THE ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN. THIS VOTE RESULTED IN THE FOLLOWING TIE: AYES : Livengood, Winchell, Schumacher NOES: Higgins, Paone, Porter ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chairman Paone called for a 5-minute recess. Commission reconvened at 7 : 50 PM. Commission consensus was that the issue regarding the two draft ordinances on the previous item should show some action. ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD THE TWO DRAFT ORDINANCES WERE ADOPTED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None IQJENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO. 82-4 In fated by the City of Huntington Beach The con M the General Plan of a proposal to retain 2+ acre as an addIrby Neighborhood Park, located north of Mar' n Drive andDale Vista Lane, and declare the remainin + acres of ed park as surplus to the needs of the ty. Chuck Claob A rich of staff gave a brief s de presentation. Before ope publi hearing, Chairman Paon cautioned the public wh to addre this issue, to a ress the issue at hand whictatement tha the proposa conforms to the General Plan; and not looking at any par cular esign or use. Commissioner Higgins asked if there would come a me that the particular use of the area could be addressed by th pu ' c. Staff stated that this would occur at the time an app 'cation i filed. Commissioner Winchell stated that she fe the Planning mmission should deal with the purpose of the nd use at this time. The public hearing was opened. Gerald Klein, E . , stated that the land which was de ' ated as parkland can ly be used as such; and further recommend that an EIR be co cted in the area. Other concerns voiced by the ublic includ traffic and safety impacts and the possibility of li ' fac- tio n the event of an earthquake. The following .persons addre d s issue: Marilou Shipman ` Tom Stone DRAFT LIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN AM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 82-1 August 1982 huntington beach planning division Q � � s 7 4 el•gH I K l.leN, _r HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIA • PLANNING DIVISION VictI'11ty Map riaure 1 i N- L. TALBERT ; CF C L - ,',..:.AII , t i . !r i 1 Source: Huntington Beach Planning Division, 1981. HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA Specific Plan Boundary PLANNING DIVISION TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction Purpose I History of Planning Efforts 5 Specific Plan Organization 5 Project Area Description 5 Specific Plan Policies 11 Implementing Standards 1.0 Intent and Purpose 13 2.0 Specific Plan Boundary 13 3.0 Application Procedures 15 4.0 Subarea One 17 4.1 Purpose 17 4.2 Subarea One Boundary 18 4.3 General Provisions 18 4.3.1 Continuation and Expansion of Existing Uses 18 5.0 Subarea Two 19 5.1 Purpose 19 5.2 Subarea Two Boundary 19 5.3 General Provisions 20 5.3.1 Uses Permitted 20 5.3.2 Development Procedure 20 5.3.3 Development Standards 21 5.3.3.1 Minimum Project Area 21 5.3.3.2 Maximum Density 21 5.3.3.3 Circulation 21 5.3.3.4 Grading 25 5.3.3.5 Open Space Corridors 25 5.3.3.6 Trails 26 5.3.3.7 Equestrian Facilities 26 5.3.3.8 Common Areas 29 5.3.3.9 Oil Activities 30 5.3.3.10 Design Features 31 5.3.3.10.1 Fences, Walls and Hedges 31 5.3.3.10.2 Architectural Features 33 5.3.3.11 Miscellaneous 33 5.3.3.12 Homeowners or Community Association 37 5.3.3.13 Development Types 38 5.3.3.13.1 Large Lot Subdivision 38 5.3.3.13.2 Clustered Lot Subdivisions 41 5.3.3.13.3 Planned Residential Developments 43 6.0 Subarea Three 45 6.1 Purpose 45 6.2 Subarea Three Boundary 46 6.3 General Provisions 46 6.3.1 Continuation and Expansion of Existing Uses 46 Next Steps 47 EIR No. 82-1 51 TABLE OF FIGURES AND EXHIBITS Figure Page I Vicinity Map i 2 Specific Plan Boundary 3 Site Topography 2 4 Existing General Plan 3 5 Existing Zoning 4 6 Existing Land Use 6 7 Existing Ownership Patterns 7 8 Circulation Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways 9 9 Existing Oil Wells and Mineral Rights/Leases 10 11 Soil Types and Active Earthquake Faults 54 12 Ambient Air Quality Standards 66 13 Ambient Air Quality Summary 68 14 Vehicular Source Emissions 69 15 Existing and Proposed Water Mains 74 16 City Master Plan of Sewerage Facilities 76 17 Archaeological Sites 80 Exhibit I Proposed Streets, Trails and Open Space Corridors 14 2 Landscaped Setback from Arterials 22 3 Standard Street Sections 24 4 Standard Fencing Details 32 5 Typical Street Light 34 6 Typical Street Sign 35 7 Typical Trail Sign 36 8 Cluster Housing Standards 40 INTRODUCTION PURPOSE The Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area has been the subject of special planning for a number of reasons. First, it is the only area in the City designated for Estate Residential development in the City's General Plan and as such requires special implementing ordinances. Second, the area is bounded by significant open space and recreation areas including Huntington Central Park to the north and the Bolsa Chica lowlands and proposed linear regional park to the west. This location, in combination with the area's natural topography, creates unique opportunities for views, open space and recreation areas to be incorporated into development proposals. Thirdly, the area is a focal point for equestrian activities in the City and, with proper planning, can continue to accommodate this use. The area is also rich in oil, and continued access to this resource is an important concern. Lastly, there are a number of constraints in the area such as the lack of public works facilities and the diversity of property owners and parcel sizes, which, if not addressed through the planning process could result in piecemeal, uncoordinated developments. The purpose of this Specific Plan is to implement the Estate Residential designation and to coordinate all development in the Ellis-Goldenwest area by way of a comprehensive strategy tailored to the unique characteristics of the site. Many properties in the Specific Plan area have an RA, Residential Agricultural, zoning which does not permit further subdivision of the property and allows only one dwelling unit per acre. There are three areas in the Specific Plan that have been subdivided into small lots (sometimes called encyclopedia lots). These small lots have an LU, Limited Use, zoning. This zoning restricts use of the property to farming, grazing, trails, orchards, greenhouses, picnic grounds and other similar uses. Residential uses are not permitted. Other properties in the Specific Plan area have an M1, Light Manufacturing, zoning which is not consistent with the City's General Plan. Development on these properties could not be approved until this zoning was brought into conformance with the General Plan or until the General 1 N A zo �� w {0 A SO 00 b {0 \ $0 {0 / {0 � � O 30 b 10 00 !0 70 -0 { !0 F'• 10 {0 W / b G Drainage '° r , � ,� 30 now"" 50 Swales w Bolsa Chica luffs , b�� Lowlands V\ ��" s ,D {rV to w {o A {0 SO {0 p 10 'A A f n 3 A p W < O *gh Po-in � s � A 1141Source: City of Huntington Beach Planning Division 1981 HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIA PLANNING DIVISION Site Topography TAL13ERT 7 '1 1. if CF-R (�.MT9W,x -F%1T:W Mw) OPEN SPACE O-NTA-0 .......... c C F LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 7_ yv, Is ESTATE (0-2) RESIDENTIAL INDUSTRIAL ESTATE (0-4) RESIDENTIAL 7i lag -T 1ARFIELD 0 PLANNED COMMUNITY RESOURCE MEDIUM DENSITY PRODUCTION RESIDENTIAL + 4- lopHUNTINGTON BEACH CXFORNIK PLANNING DIVISION Existing General Plan TALBERT cvjw� mRi, Rl ...S R MI-CD 5 5 Rl RI RI RI Fa-CD RI Rl RI RI RI WA RI Rl (9 CF-R - MI Rl RI MI-CD CF R CD MI-A Fl- MI-CD Pa"N m RI Rl P c RI RI t am RA-0-CD LL, 2-1 mI ONTARIO RA-0-CD RI RA m RI RI I (PREZONED) RI -0-CD CF-c MI W CR —QLNEI RI CD RI Of .4 F -0-CD LU-0-M C;D UFO-CD ALOV (PREZONED) RI RI RI LU-0 LU-0-0 MI-CD RI ft.AmRiEc STRICT ml Y CIA J. rlWl MNCIDNTI�AGRIMILTLINAL DISTRICT LU-0-c -0-co rVrl LWT INDUSTRIAL t (PREZONED)""STS""DISTRICT DISTRICT RI WWIWIUVI1" IMPRESS DISTRICT ILU N CLUS�-IWJW W �FJRSNT YARD SET6 C. LIME -CD XMILS 0 SPICLE F�Y RESIDENCE CISTWT 0 0 D W�-PROFESSICW�DISTRICT CD ml .—ICT R2 rP3 1 LANTED JdUlLTlftE FATLYRESIDENCEDISTRICT RA-CD -0-CD -------- ml 0 eb rR2 RESIMLf CoVoMffy FACILITIES(RFC DISTRICT —0 0 Q' LU-0-CD RA RA-0-CD CDlElA0dTY]FACLITIES(CIVIC)OPITACT U-0-CD I 'ID mCIVIC DISTRICT RA-0 RA-0-CD MM IRIECIM MAN W STREET AlAdREW ID r--0-j CORROW) W—OIL �TIM 2-0 -----IIIIARTE S� K�,- CEO LWINTEIS USE WI-0 'R 0 RI(2-7) -O-CD, RA-CD A-0 l -7 RA-0- MI-0 • iR2 RA-0 LU-0-CD RA-0-CD R 5 MI-02 RA-0 m-cD v5 I-A-CD MI-0 m F 0 m2-01. �RA-0]1 RA-()' RA-0-CD R5 R 5'1 RA-0-CD 05 R2 Yr RA-0 R 5,, M2-0.� �IRA-0 R2 cl Cl�0 2-CD 0 m -0 211 R4 ml 100 i - . -" R a A I 0� A.. 13 Agftk HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LFORNIK Existing Zoning P PIANNING, DIVISION w � Plan was amended. Upon adoption, the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan will be the zoning for the area. It will allow properties currently zoned RA to develop at a higher density than currently allowed. It will allow the properties currently zoned MI and LU to develop as residential in a manner that is consistent with the Estate Residential designation in the General Plan. HISTORY OF PLANNING EFFORTS The direction to prepare this specific plan originated in December 1980, when the City reviewed a General Plan amendment request to redesignate a portion of the area from estate residential to high density residential. The City Council retained the estate residential designation and directed staff to study the feasibility of low density, equestrian planned developments. In May 1981, staff completed a conceptual study of the Ellis-Goldenwest area which included analysis of property ownership, physical site characteristics, oil uses, community facilities, circulation, housing and equestrian activities and identified issues of concern. Included in this document was a set of planning objectives for the area. In July 1981, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a specific plan for the Ellis-Goldenwest area to implement the estate-residential designation and the objectives contained in the conceptual study. SPECIFIC PLAN ORGANIZATION This Specific Plan is divided into three major sections. This first section provides a description of the Specific Plan area and outlines the basic policies of the plan. Section Two contains implementing standards to carry out these policies. The third section recommends additional steps that the City may wish to take, such as the formation of assessment districts and the use of redevelopment, to further insure coordinated development of the Specific Plan area. Attached to the Specific Plan is an environmental impact evaluation as required by the California Environmental Quality Act. PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION Boundary - The Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan encompasses the area generally bounded by Ellis Avenue to the north, the City boundary to the west, Garfield and Ernst Avenues to the south and a line extended north from Crystal Street to the east as shown in Figure 2. Site Characteristics - The Ellis-Goldenwest specific plan includes 290 acres of primarily undeveloped land. It is characterized by gently rolling topography with slopes ranging from zero to over 35 percent. Bluffs rise 60 to 90 feet above the Bolsa Chica lowlands in the western portion of the site. Two pronounced ravines traverse the central and eastern portions of the area collecting storm water runoff and conveying it into Huntington and Sully Miller Lakes. Significant oil reserves underlie much of the area. General Plan - The City's General Plan designates the northern and western portions of the specific plan area for estate residential development at two or less dwelling units per gross acre. The southern and eastern portions of the area are designated as estate residential at four or less dwelling units per gross acre. (See Figure 4). Because of its natural features and resources, the area is designated for planned open space development in the Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan. This designation is intended to maximize the area's natural resources by incororating open space into development plans. 5 Vl � TALBERT j I - - - HUNTINGTON �-----� LAKE Ocean View Mushroomk-C «,TAaro HUNTINGTON CE NTRAL PARKGrowersWiaSully MillerGold Bar i Lake ><< Stables ;Metal rion Stables''SpecialtyP►oducts_L_S rseworldOIL j j Fourables SeasonsFi I fD Southern Farms BO LSA PRODUCTION California &Stables — 01 L---.....CH ICA _� Edison Co. ------' - i I, LOWLANDS Substation n Fox —A Private Private Stables - View Stables Stables Meadow--- I OIL - Stables BFD SFD PRODUCTION ' -- -- i American 1 / OIL PRODUCTION Landscape' ,r1 supply III VACANT I I Brindle 1 I INDUSTRIAL ,INDUSTRIAL ` ' ,✓ Tree 3-- a ----4 - - Company _.. .. �� i a -j,F; OIL PRODUCTION • OIL PRODUCTION - HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA PLANNING DIVISION Existing Land Uses a � Existing Zonin - Existing zoning within the area consists of a mixture of RA, Residential Agricultural 148 acres); R1-8,000, Low Density Residential with a minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet (15 acres); R1-15,000, Low Density Residential with a 15,000 square foot minimum lot (5 acres); M1, Light Industrial (102 acres); and LU, Limited Use (20 acres). All but 20 acres of the study drea has oil production suffix zoning which allows servicing of producing wells and reactivation of idle wells. All properties with frontage on Ellis Avenue or Goldenwest Street (approximately 121 acres) also have the CD, Civic District, suffix which requires any development on these parcels to be reviewed by the City's Design Review Board. As discussed previously, the RA zoning allows only one residential unit per acre and no subdivisions of existing parcels. The LU zoning allows farming, grazing, orchards, picnic grounds and other similar uses not including residential. The M1 zoning is inconsistent with the City's General Plan and does not enable development to occur until the zoning and General Plan are brought into conformance with one another. Existing Land Use - With respect to land use, the majority of the study area is utilized for oil and natural gas production and appears vacant except for scattered oil wells, storage tanks, pipelines, and service roads. The highest intensity of producing wells and related surface activity occurs along the bluff top area west of Edwards Street and north of Garfield Avenue; a transmission substation of the Southern California Edison Company occupies a seven acre parcel in this area. Between Edwards and Goldenwest Streets, four commercial horse stables occupy approximately 17 acres in addition to several private horse stalls and a 36-acre nursery. The area east of Goldenwest Street contains scattered oil wells and three single family homes. Ownership - The area west of Edwards Street is almost entirely under one ownership. This is also true of the area east of Goldenwest Street. The central portion of the study area has been subdivided into generally uniform five-acre rectangular parcels some of which are under unified ownership. Further subdivision of the typical five-acre parcels into smaller parcels has occurred, with three such areas having been subdivided into 2,800 - 3,150 square foot "encyclopedia" lots and one area divided into 600-foot deep lots with only 30-40 feet of street frontage. According to the March, 1981 tax assessor's listing, a total of 104 separate individuals own property in the study area. Seventy-nine of these are owners of encyclopedia lots. Existing Circulation Figure 8 shows existing roadways in the vicinity of the Specific Plan area. Arterial access to the Specific Plan area is currently provided by Ellis and Garfield Avenues and by Edwards and Goldenwest Streets. Internal circulation within the area is limited and consists of a network of private dirt roads that connect oil wells. The most established of these dirt roads is Schleicher Road, which bisects the area between Ellis and Garfield Avenues from east to west. The lack of adequate internal access in the study area is a result of land having been subdivided without dedication of right-of-way for access and public streets. The provision of a coordinated system of circulation is a major planning concern in preparing an overall development strategy for the Specific Plan area. 7 Men Nneer cabs POM a.dl. SS ftts w MMrnY Noel. Ark. Fole..Fl- HatllawaY Huntinpton �\ _�� `� yyy s✓ Y � � ,Beach Co. Southern Callfornw Jolwmm Q Whitfield �1 Edison tington Beach Co Huntington Hath- away Beach Co. Huntington Beach. Dahl S Huntington Pacific Corp Nubilflam M Armstrong Ishibashi Brindle I S&C oil Co. el wdr i, Sunderland - 0 o Huntington Beach Co. ;: -- x HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIK • Existing Ownership Patterns PLANNING DIVISION - a A AMEND"PITS nre rl, .ir i LEGtmo FREEWAY STREET CAPACITY rr.rr MAJOR 45.000 PRIMARY 3Q000 �� — --- SECONDARY 20.000 l NOTE: SOLID LOWS INMATE EXISTING RWHT OF VW ' NOT NECESSARILY ULTAIATE RIGHT OF WAY DASHED LINES D40CATE AREAS WHERE NO gWHT Of WIAY EXISTS it CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH • ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA CIRCULATION PLAN OF ARTERIAL STREETS AND HIGHWAYS AWPM BY CITY Co MIL RESOLUTION NO 4366-DEC 12,1976 Figure 8 w 0 TALKRT Y__ -`J r CF-R L --- -- ONTARIO SUBAREA 1 i f 41 f.. • HIM • HATHAWAY BRADLEY JACAT •.. • • • \ m H.B. CO. HATHAWAY- — • PETRO-LEWIS- - HU14TINGTON' ; •• BEACH CO. • •L WI PETRO-LEWIS • • . _ I ISHIBASHI sq'i C I r • •• so 00 •. 0 WEIR • •• CHEVRONS • • • • ✓ :• Active Wells - -- ------ - -- ` - - �' Source: California Division of Oil & Gas, 1980 - - jF Ask lopHUNTINGTON BEACH CALFOMIA Existing Oi Web and MineralFights/Leas es PLANNING DIVISION SPECIFIC PLAN POLICIES The following policies are a result of recommendations contained in the Ellis-Goldenwest Area Conceptual Study prepared by the Department of Development Services in May 1981, and of input from the City Council and Planning Commission, City Staff, property owners, oil operators and other persons and agencies that have participated in the preparation and review of this plan. These policies have been used as the basis for developing the implementing regulations contained in this Specific Plan and shall be used as a basis for reviewing development in the Ellis-Goldenwest area: - Provide for flexibility and encourage creativity at the individual project level while at the same time ensuring that developments ultimately combine to create a cohesive community. - Preserve significant topographical features and minimize alteration of the natural terrain. - Preserve open space corridors to accommodate recreational trails, master planned sewer facilities and drainage from up to a 100 year storm. - Provide for continued equestrian uses. - Encourage consolidation of parcels before development. - Provide adequate internal circulation and minimize direct access off of adjacent arterials; encourage an internal circulation system that conforms to the site's natural topography and provides view opportunities where possible. - Provide for public works facilities adequate to serve the area at ultimate development; utilize natural drainage swales for storm water runoff where appropriate. - Encourage coordinated design of development and improvements (i.e., roadways, fencing) to enhance visual appearance. - Allow a variety of housing types in residential developments. - Allow continued access to underground oil, gas, and mineral reserves; minimize potential incompatibilities between these uses and future development in the area. 11 � a IMPLEMENTING STANDARDS 1.0 INTENT AND PURPOSE The purpose of this article is to guide the orderly development and improvement of the area identified as the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area. This plan is established to guide the development of the area which is characterized by unique location, topographic features, land uses and ownership patterns; and should not be regulated by zoning district standards applicable city-wide. This Specific Plan will replace the existing zoning with policies, development standards and descriptive maps specifically designed for the Ellis-Goldenwest area. The Specific Plan provides for creativity at the individual project level and, at the same time, ensures that developments will ultimately combine to create a cohesive community. The Specific Plan area is divided into three distinct subareas (See Exhibit 1). The plan contains policies and development standards governing individual projects for each subarea, which provides flexibility and overall coordination. 2.0 SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY The Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area is generally bounded by Ellis Avenue to the north, the City boundary to the west, Garfield and Ernest Avenues to the south and a line extended north from Crystal Street to the east (the eastern boundary of the Specific Plan area will coincide ultimately with the precise alignment for Gothard Street). The property described herein is included in the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan and shall be subject to policies and development standards set forth in this article. Precisely Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan includes the real property described as follows: 13 ART�AL- eotj- im le;CREV AlUeIRKJI-wr 069*9* eomcev-vok-coin 4-%Dp- e-,j-gm-r wx),m -MbUe- ............ zi 10 --.0 10 50 so —2D so /� \ / I so 50--� 50 "�60- 60 '0 0 I mTGO X tvL so... 50 2 �50 40 .0 10 76 60 7'0 rr 50 w o re g Three 50 20 70 9D WO r m 10 so --------- -------------------------------------------- GARFIELn ma AML HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIK Proposed Streets.Trails and IR I PLANNING DIVISION Open Space Corridors Parcels in the City of Huntington Beach as per maps in the County Assessor's Map Book 110, Page 01, lots 54-56, 58 recorded in Miscellaneous Maps of Orange County. Parcels in the City of Huntington Beach as per maps in the County Assessor's Map Book 110, Page 19, block 190, lots 105; block 191, lots 1-21; block 192, lots 1-21; block 193, lots 1-11; page 20, lots 1-23; page 21, block 210, lots 1-4, 6-11; block 211, lots 1-14; block 212, lots 1-22; block 213, lots 1-12, A, B, C; page 22, block 220, lots 2-5; block 221, lots 1-26; block 222, lots 1-27; recorded in Miscellaneous Maps of Orange County. Parcels in the City of Huntington Beach as per maps in the county Assessor's Map Book 111, page 07, block 072, lots 10-12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21, 22 and part of 4; page 12, lots 1, 28; recorded in Miscellaneous Maps of Orange County. 3.0 APPLICATION PROCEDURES All requests for development proposals within the Specific Plan area shall be subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit pursuant to the provisions of Article 984, and a tentative tract map and site plan pursuant to the provisions of Article 936. The conditional use permit, tentative tract map and preliminary site plans shall be submitted to the Department of Development Services concurrently. The Subdivision Committee shall make recommendations on such projects to the Planning Commission for approval, conditional approval, or denial. Individual development on individual lots shall be subject to administrative review. 15 i„ 4.0 SUBAREA ONE 4.1 PURPOSE As a subarea of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan the following policy is adopted to provide direction for preparation of development standards: 1. Prior to the submission of any proposal for development, a specific plan for the development of the entire subarea shall be submitted representing a cooperative effort by all property owners within the subarea. Said specific plan shall be subject to review and approval by the City's Planning Commission and shall address the following concerns: i a. The provision of adequate open space area to accommodate the proposed Bolsa Chica Regional Linear Park. b. The provision of a scenic bluffline drive with views into the proposed Bolsa Chica Regional Linear Park and the Bolsa Chica lowlands and to serve as a transition area from open space to development. C. The preservation of natural topographic features to the greatest extent feasible. d. The integration and compatibility of new development proposals with surrounding land uses. e. To assure access to oil operations remaining within any proposed development; and the preservation of future access to underground oil reserves. 17 f. The coordination of circulation patterns, equestrian trails, open space corridors, landscaping and architectural features applied in Subarea Two of the Specifc Plan. g. The mitigation of any adverse impacts from drainage into the Balsa Chica. h. The mitigation of any potential adverse impacts to archaeological sites. i. Development shall be consistent with the density applied in Subarea Two and shall not exceed an overall maximum density of three units per gross acre. 4.2 SUBAREA ONE BOUNDARY Subarea One includes that portion of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area located west of Edwards Street. Precisely the real property described as follows: Parcels in the City of Huntington Beach as per maps in the County Assessor's Map Book 110, Page 01, lots 54-56, 58 recorded in Miscellaneous Maps of Orange County. 4.3 GENERAL PROVISIONS The Following general provisions shall apply to Subarea One of the Specific Plan. 4.3.1 CONTINUATION AND EXPANSION OF EXISTING USES The following uses are permitted prior to the approval of a specific plan for the entire subarea: a. Oil. Use or maintenance of any installation, facility or structure excluding buildings as defined in Article 968 of the City's Zoning Ordinance) used either directly or indirectly, to carry out or facilitate one or more of the following functions: drilling (in areas having an -01 suffix prior to the adoption of this Specific Plan), rework, repair, redrilling, production, processing, extraction, assisted recovery, stimulation, storage or shipping of oil, gas or hydrocarbons from the subsurface of the earth. Oil activities shall be in compliance with 968 of the City's Zoning Ordinance and with the City's Oil Code. b. Open Space/Recreation. Open space and recreation facilities related to development of the proposed Orange County Balsa Chica Regional Linear Park and the Orange County Master Plan of Riding and Hiking Trails. C. Public Utility Substations. Public Utility Substations not to exceed one 1) acre in total net area, excluding switchyard. 18 1 Irya r 'fiYi/IfFfiltiffil� I 5.0 SUBAREA TWO 5.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this section of the Specific Plan is to implement the Estate Residential land use designation of the City's General Plan for Subarea Two. The Specific Plan calls for residential development within Subarea Two at an overall maximum density of three units per gross acre. This density represents an averaging of the two estate residential densities delineated in the General PIan for this area. This section is Intended to guide the orderly development and improvement of Subarea Two in conformance with the overall policies of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. 5.2 SUBAREA TWO BOUNDARY Subarea Two includes the central portion of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area located south of Ellis Avenue, east of Edwards Street, north of Garfield Avenue and west of Goldenwest Street. Precisely the real property described as follows: Parcels in the City of Huntington Beach as per maps in the County Assessor's Map Book 110, Page 19, block 190, lots 1 ;5; block 191, lots 1-21; block 192, lots 1-21; block 193, lots 1-11; page 20, lots 1-23; page 21, block 210, lots 1-4, 6-11; block 211, lots 1-14; block 212, lots 1-22; block 213, lots 1-12, A, B, C; page 22, block 220, lots 2-5; block 221, lots 1-26; block 222, lots 1-27; recorded in Miscellaneous Maps of Orange County. 19 5.3 GENERAL PROVISIONS The following general provisions shall apply to all development projects within subarea two of the Specific Plan: 5.3.1 USES PERMITTED The following are permitted uses: a. Residential - Single family dwellings, large lot (12,000 sq. ft./minimum lot size). - Single family dwellings, cluster development (4,000 - 12,000 sq. ft. lot size). - Planned residential developments (condominium, community apartment and stock cooperative developments). - Accessory buildings, in conjunction with single family large lot projects (private garages, barns, stables or sheds). - Equestrian facilities, in conjunction with single family large lot residences (15,000 sq. ft. min. lot size). b. Open Space/Recreation - Open space corridors, publicly dedicated. - Common open space, private recreation area for the exclusive use by members of a homeowners association. c. Oil - Oil operations subject to the requirements of this article, Article 968 and the City% Oil Code. d. Existing Non Conforming Uses - Any uses existing at the time of ordinance adoption which do not meet the criteria for permitted uses within subarea two shall be allowed to continue subject to the terms and renewal of any existing use permit or conditional use permit pursuant to the provisions of Article 984. 5.3.2 DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURE All projects shall comply with the application procedures specified in this article. Deviation from the provisions of this article, with the exception of maximum density and minimum project area, may be granted at the time of approval of the project by special permit. Concurrently with filing a conditional use permit application the developer may file an application for a special permit authorizing deviation from the provisions of this article, and such application shall be heard concurrently with the conditional use permit application. The Planning Commission may approve the special permit application in whole or in part upon a finding that the proposed development will: , 20 a. Promote better living environments; b. Provide better land planning techniques with maximum use of aesthetically pleasing types of architecture, landscaping; site layout and design; c. Not be detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of the neighborhood or City in general, not detrimental or injurious to the value of property or improvements of the neighborhood or of the City in general; and d. Be consistent with objectives of planned unit development standards in achieving a development adapted to the terrain and compatible with the surrounding environment. The Planning Commission may also grant a conditional exception subject to the provisions of Article 983 for development projects less than ten (10) and with a minimum of five (5) gross acres in size; provided that said projects not exceed a maximum density of two (2) units per gross acre. 5.3.3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Proposed development within Subarea Two of the Specific Plan shall comply with the following standards: 5.3.3.1 MINIMUM PROJECT AREA The minimum project area for any development proposal shall be ten (10) acres. This provision shall not prevent the building of custom homes on Individual lots subdivided after adoption of this Specific Plan. Projects with a minimum of five (5) and less than ten (10) gross acres may apply for a conditional exception (see Section 5.3.2, DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURE). 5.3.3.2 MAXIMUM DENSITY The gross density of any project shall be a maximum of three (3) units per acre. 5.3.3.3 CIRCULATION a. Arterial Access. Direct access of residential streets and private driveways to arterials shall be limited and subject to the approval of the Departments of Public Works and Development Services. b. Setbacks from Arterials. A landscaped setback area shall be provided adjacent to arterials Garfleld, Ellis and Goldenwest) subject to review and approval of the Departments of Development Services and Public Works. The setback area shall be a minimum of thirty (30) feet and shall consist of a landscaped earthen berm (five (5) foot minimum height) with a slope not to exceed 3 to 1 (Exhibit 2). The setback area may be used to partially satisfy any common open space requirements; or may be included as part of an individual lot and may be used in the calculation of lot size (any additional building setbacks shall be taken from the landscaped setback line). All fencing within the landscaped setback area shall be subject to the fencing provisions of this Specific Plan. 21 D O �i 8d- t2o' 3d M»1. lerwK No'f�' R�v1 "P� ►IvC -t'o -l�cG�t'.D J� 3 HUNTIN Landsca�Red Setback GTON BEACH C4L�ORNIA fl�Oi"Y'i �Pr�alS PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT 2 22 c. Right-of-ways for Arterials. - Additions to Ellis Avenue and Gothard Street public right-of-ways at ultimate alignment shall include an equestrian trail on the south and west sides respectively. Additional right-of-way dedication may be required at the time of project development. The trail will serve as a link between the Boise Chica Regional Park and Huntington Central Park trails with the Santa Ana River Trail; and will be incorporated into the Orange County Master Plan of Hiking and Riding Trails. - Additions to Garfield Avenue and Goldenwest Street public right-of-ways shall be dedicated and developed in conformance with the City's street design standards subject to the approval of the Departments of Development Services and Public Works. Additions to Edwards Street and Ellis Avenue public right-of-ways shall be offered to the City for dedication and a bond shall be posted sufficient to cover the cost of all improvements by the developer. The Department of Public Works will determine the amount of the bond to be posted. The City will not accept the offer of dedication or make improvement until a precise alignment for Edwards Street has been determined; any appropriate refund will be made at that time. d. Internal Collector Streets. Internal collector street shall be dedicated in conformance with the alignment shown on Exhibit 1; the conceptual alignments also shown are to serve as a guide for precise alignment and dedication to be proposed in conjunction with adjacent project development. Said streets shall be developed in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file in the Department of Public Works and the provisions of this Specific Plan. e. Access to Internal Collectors. Direct access of private driveways to Internal collector streets shall be limited and subject to the approval of the Departments of Public Works and Development Services. f. Setbacks from Internal Collector Streets. A landscaped setback area shall be provided adjacent to all internal collector streets subject to review and approval of the Departments of Development Services and Public Works. The setback area shall be a minimum of twenty (20) feet. The setback area may be held as common open space and may be used to partially satisfy any common open space requirement; or may be included as part of an individual lot and may be used in the calculation of lot size. This area may also be used in the calculation of building setbacks. All fencing within the landscaped setback area shall be subject to the fencing provisions of this Specific Plan. g. Right-of-ways for Internal Collector Streets. The public tight-of-way for all internal collector streets shall include an eight (8) foot dirt shoulder area which can serve as a trail link for development projects which do not have direct access to the public Open Space Corridor and can also serve as an emergency parking area(Exhibit 3). 23 vumle. G'OL1f&TC - e3f�'r 40 L L H NTINGTSections U ON BEACH GiLIFORNIA Stal"H��'' Street PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT 3 24 s � h. Residential Streets. Residential streets shall be privately owned and maintained. Said streets shall be improved in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file in the Department of Public Works and the provisions of this Specific Plan. I. Temporary Access. Temporary access may be taken off an arterial provided that: 1) the temporary access Is approved by the Departments of Public Works and Development Services, and (2) the developer posts a bond with the City before recordation of a final map sufficient to cover the costs of removing the temporary access. The Department of Public Works will determine the amount of the bond to be posted. Conversion to permanent access is required as soon as construction of the necessary local collector streets and/or arterials to planned ultimate alignments is complete. 5.3.3.4 GRADING Limited grading may be allowed in Open Space Corridors for trails, access bridges or to enhance the open space character of the area subject to review and approval by the Director of Development Services. Grading activities for development in other areas shall not Involve more than a two foot cut and a two foot depth of fill. Grading shall be generally limited to the area required for building pads, swimming pools and small patios with the remainder of the site left in its natural terrain. Grading plans shall be subject to review and approval by the Director of Development Services. These provisions shall not apply to grading for roadways and drives nor for oil well cellars as required by the City's Oil Code. All structural designs shall fit the natural land forms to the greatest extent possible. Use of terraces, split level and platform structures shall be encouraged where appropriate. 5.3.3.5 OPEN SPACE CORRIDORS Open Space Corridors shall be established as depicted in Exhibit 1. Development of facilities in Open Space Corridors shall be limited to (1) recreational trails with appropriate fencing and (2) public works, facilities and utilities. The Open Space Corridor shall follow to the greatest extent feasible the alignment of the existing natural drainage swales which traverse the area. The Open Space Corridors shall be held as common open space and may be used to count towards satisfying common open space requirements. The corridor shall include a minimum easement dedication of sixteen (16) feet for a public equestrian/recreational trail. The equestrian/recreational trail shall be a minimum of twenty (20) feet from any developable area on the site. The Open Space Corridor shall be a minimum of 100 feet; the precise dimensions and location of the corridor shall be subject to review and approval of the Department of Development Services and Public Works. 25 5.3.3.6 TRAILS A public equestrian trail easement of a minimum sixteen (16) feet in width shall be dedicated to the City for a public equestrian/recreation trail, as shown on Exhibit 1. All developments must provide trail access to the open space corridor or trail subject to review and approval of the Department of Development Services. In developments involving lots having an area of fifteen thousand (159000) square feet or greater, the Planning Commission may require additional easements of up to ten (10) feet in width for horse trail purposes. Horse trails shall be improved in accordance with the following standards: a. Tread width shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet with a shy area of three (3) feet on either side and a minimum of eight (8) feet on access trails. Trail tread area should be graded smooth, free of weeds, stumps, roots, debris and large rocks. Adequate drainage shall be provided when grading. b. The trail shall be clear of all obstruction from ground level to a height of ten (10) feet. c. All trails shall be lined on both sides with a wood rail type fence subject to the fencing provisions of this Specific Plan. 5.3.3.7 EQUESTRIAN FACILITIES All developments shall provide for the boarding of one horse per every two dwelling units either on-site or in a common stable facility. (Each equestrian lot may satisfy the requirement for one horse only.) Joint stable facilities in common with adjacent developments may satisfy this requirement subject to review and approval by the Department of Development Services. For any area set aside for common commercial facilities, the developer shall indicate (a) the number of horses to be boarded and, (b) that the area is sufficient to accommodate said number of horses based on the following standards: a. Maximum Number of Horses. The maximum number of horses that may be allowed in a common stable facility shall not exceed two (2) horses per unit. b. Minimum Riding Area. There shall be provided a minimum of five thousand 5,000 square feet of fenced riding arena for one (1) to fifteen (15) horses; ten thousand (10,000) square feet for sixteen (16) to thirty (30) horses; fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet for thirty-one (31) to forty-five (45) and so on in increments of five thousand (5,000) square feet of fenced arena for every fifteen (15) horses. For those facilities providing for a more than one hundred (100) horses, the minimum riding area shall include at least two (2) separate arenas. 26 c. Equestrian Facilities Corrals. Corrals designed for one horse shall meet the following requirements: - 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. - Each corral shall be provided with a permanently installed water system with automatic drinking controls. - A minimum of ninety-six (96) square feet of shelter covering with a minimum dimension of eight (8) feet shall be provided. Shelters shall be sloped away from corral centers, or rain gutters which lead to the outside of the corrals shall be installed. - Corral floors shall be graded to prevent ponding within the confines of the corral. Corrals may be designed for more than one horse provided that the dimensions and other requirements set out in this section shall be increased to accommodate the number of horses to be confined in such corrals at any one time. d. Equestrian Facilities, Stalls: Box stalls are optional and may be provided in lieu of horse corrals. Box stalls shall be a minimum size of 144 square feet and shall maintain a minimum dimension of twelve (12) feet. e. Wash Rack: There shall be one (1) wash rack provided for every thirty-five 35) horses 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 and metal pipe railing on three sides with a cross tie approximately one (1) foot back from the front pipe, (4) Each wash rack shall be connected to an approved sewage facility and shall be provided with a back siphon device on the water source, and (5) Wash racks may be designed for more than one horse provided that the dimensions and other requirements set out in this- section shall be increased to accommodate the number of horses to be washed at any one time. f. Parking Requirement: Parking shall be provided as follows: One (1) automobile space for every six (6) corrals plus one (1) horse trailer space for every ten (10) corrals. g. Miscellaneous Provisions. The land surface of horse enclosures shall be graded above the surrounding land surface. A grading plan shall be submitted as a part of the application for a conditional use permit. Arenas shall maintain a minimum dimension of fifty (50) feet. 27 Exercise rings are optional and shall maintain a minimum dimension of thirty (30) feet. Storage and tack areas shall be provided and designated on the plot plan. Trash solid waste disposal areas, and dumpsters shall be designated and conveniently located with an all-weather road access provided. Continuous dust control of the entire premises shall be maintained and be subject to the regulation contained in Chapter 8.24 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. A method of water sprinkling for arenas and exercise pens shall be provided and shall be indicated on the site plan. A 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 shall be at least twelve (12) inches above the highest point of water usage or an approved double-check value may be acceptable. Security lighting shall be provided and all utilities shall be installed underground. A log containing the name of every horse, its location in the facility, the owner's name and address, and the name and addresses of persons to be notified in case of emergency shall be kept on the premises and readily available when needed. All fire protection appliances, appurtenances, emergency access, and any other applicable requirements, pursuant to Chapter 17.56 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code, shall meet the standard plans and specifications on file in the Fire Department. h. Fly and Insect Control: Fly and insect control shall be subject to all city and county regulations. Method of disposal of stable wastes shall be indicated as a part of the application for the conditional use permit, and shall be subject to approval by the Planning Commission. Feed mangers or boxes shall not be placed near water sources. i. Rodent Control: All dry grains" shall be stored in rodent-proof metal containers, and hay storage shall be covered. Bulk or commercial amounts of grain or hay shall be located no closer than fifty (50) feet to any enclosure or building where horses are quartered. j. Water Management: For effective control of fly production sources, the following shall be provided: (1) A nonleak valve for all troughs, bowls, cups, and other water sources, (2) Automatic valves or sanitary drains, if water flow is continuous, shall be provided for large troughs or cups, and (3) In paddock and corrals, the developer shall properly grade the earth surface to suit the master drainage plan so that rain water through overflow does not form ponds. 28 k. Dust Control: Continuous dust control of the entire premises shall be maintained and subject to the requlations contained in Chapter 8.24 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. 5.3.3.8 COMMON AREAS Common open space and private streets shall be guaranteed by a restrictive covenant describing the open space and its maintenance and improvement, running with the land for the benefit of residents of the development. The developer shall file with the Department of Development Services, for recordation with the final subdivision map, legal documents which will provide for restricting the use of common spaces and common facilities for the designated purpose, as approved on the final development plan. The City may also require that the homeowner's association relinquish all development rights In common areas to the City. All common improvements including but not limited to trails, project fencing and common open space landscaping shall be made by the developer prior to the sale of any lots and/or units. Where a common stable facility is proposed, the developer shall be required to reserve adequate area for the entire facility and to construct a minimum of fifty (50) percent of the proposed corrals and related facilities (i.e., wash racks, arena) but not less than five (5) corrals and related facilities. All lands to be conveyed to the homeowner's association and/or the City shall be subject to the right of the grantee or grantees to enforce maintenance and Improvements of the common space and public trails easement. Common open space recreation areas shall meet the following requirements: a. The common open space areas shall be designed and located within the development to afford maximum use by all residents of the project. b. Recreation -and leisure areas shall not be located within ton (10) feet of any ground floor dwelling unit wall having a door or window, provided, however, that common stable facilities shall be setback a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet from any street, residential dwelling or, in the case of vacant lots, from the property line. Also, such recreation areas, excluding trails and setbacks from arterials and internal collector streets, shall have minimum dimensions of fifty (50) feet if any part of such areas are to be included in the calculations for minimum common open space. c. The minimum square footage requirements for recreational and leisure areas provided by this article shall not satisfy any requirement of Article 974 and Article 996 relating to park and recreational facilities. d. Private waterways may partially satisfy the common open space area requirements up to 20 percent. 29 e. Enclosed buildings used for recreation or leisure facilities shall not constitute more than 15 percent of the required open space. f. Landscaping in common open space areas shall meet the following requirements: - All setback areas fronting on or visible from an adjacent public street, and all recreation, leisure and open space areas shall be landscaped and permanently maintained in an attractive manner. Such landscaping shall consist primarily of ground cover, ferns, trees, shrubs, and other living plants. - Decorative design elements such as fountains, pools, benches, sculpture, planters and similar elements may be permitted provided such elements are incorporated as a part of the landscaping plan. - Permanent irrigation facilities shall be provided in all landscaped areas. - On-site trees shall be provided as follows: one (1) thirty (30) inch box tree for each residential unit or the equivalent of thirty (30) inch box trees as provided herein. Seventy-five (75) percent of the total requirement shall be thirty (30) inch box trees and the remaining 25 percent of such requirement may be provided at a ratio of one (1) inch for one (1) inch through the use of twenty (20) or twenty-four (24) inch box trees. Additional trees and shrubs shall also be planted to provide a well-balanced landscaped development. - A landscape and irrigation plan shall be subject to approval by the Director of Development Services prior to issuance of building permits. 5.3.3.9 OIL ACTIVITIES Continued operation, reworking and/or redrilling of oil wells active at the time of adoption of this article shall be permitted subject to applicable City regulations. Gasoline powered engines on existing pumping units remaining in a development shall be converted to electric motors prior to occupancy of the first unit. The developer shall establish a fund prior to recordation of the final map to be administered by the homeowner association to cover the cost of landscaping well sites at the time they are abandoned. The amount of fund shall be determined by the Director of Development Services. New drilling and new storage tanks shall only be permitted in specified sites or "oil islands". The oil operator shall own or have a lease on subsurface mineral rights covering an area of a minimum of twenty (20) contiguous acres within the Specific Plan boundaries for every one oil island requested. Before a permit for new drilling is issued, the all operator shall specify the exact location and size of the proposed oil island (generally not to exceed two and one-half (2-1/2) acres in size) subject to review and approval by the Director of Development Services. 30 Fencing around the perimeter of all oil islands shall be set back twenty (20 feet from any arterial highway or internal collector street and fifteen (15� feet from any residential street, private property line, or common open space area. The setback area shall be landscaped in accordance with the standards set forth in the City's Oil Code. 5.3.3.10 DESIGN FEATURES 5.3.3.10.1 FENCES, WALLS AND HEDGES a. All fencing shall be of a uniform design (wood-rail), wood construction with a natural finish and a maximum height of five (5) feet as per Exhibit 4! exceptions may be made for the following: - Front yard fences. Fences, hedges and berms not exceeding three and one-half (3-1/2) feet in height may be located in the front yard provided that the fence Is a wood picket, wood rail, wrought-iron or other similar type. - Side and Rear Yard Fences. Fences, hedges and berms not exceeding five 5) feet in height may be located in the required side or rear yards provided that the fence is a wood picket, wood rail, wrought-iron or other similar type in compliance with the provisions of this Specific Plan. Wrought iron or other similar type of see-through fencing with a maximum height of six (6) feet may be used in conjunction with swimming pool areas, subject to review and approval by the Department of Development Services. - Solid Walls. The use of solid fencing including wood slat, poured concrete, concrete block and brick fences shall be limited to the buffers surrounding oil operations. All applications shall be subject to an intensified landscape plan subject to review and approval by the Department of Development Services and Public Works. - Street Intersection Visibility. On corner lots, no fence, hedge, wall, sign, structure, mound of earth, landscaping, or other visual obstruction between forty-two (42) inches and seven (7) feet in height above the wrest street curb elevation, shall be erected, placed, planted or allowed to grow within the triangular area formed by the intersecting exterior property lines, or their prolongation, and a diagonal intersecting the twenty-five (25) foot property lines, when measured along such exterior property lines from the point where such property lines intersect. Trees which are trimmed free of branches or foliage to a height on the trunk not less than seven (7) feet above the nearest street curb elevation are exempt from the above prohibition. - Height.Measurement of Fence or Wall. The height of a fence may be measured from either side of the fence. 31 3�Z Wcox> TRA,\I... Z"x6"5tr�. ►'ZA1 N 4c},1 W lam` M�44 s 3. ........... M. t 41 :.. 41 t Zl A1L C� 2"xb"StL��d�I.S 4"x4` DST 4�"�-Wp►.�� .M�S1} - I s 1 , 1 2"x6'"StDe- N 9"xh" SST 44 I ll' °-VO4 4 N , , P sO 1 1 1 � 1 1.► d.,. L.F• NOTE.' ula�'D Gonl��"R�acf'i ca.1 uJrti-1 NDctt,�.At_ ��N tgt} a►J ALL. 5v�AC� Ww�,2 -EA-0 or- -. G ewsc Cz.D"TO A TpvtA;r,414Qr. HUNTINGTON BEACH COILIFORNIA Standard Fencing Details PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT 4 5.3.3.10.2 ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES The creation of an estate, equestrian theme and the maintenance of consistency in architectural character shall be addressed ,in the project design. In reviewing projects, the Planning Commission shall look for the following design features: a. Street lights and street signs on collector and private residential streets and trail signs shall be consistent throughout the Specific Plan area. (See typical designs in Exhibits 5, 6 and 7.) b. The use of natural building materials, textures and tones, such as rough wood siding and/or stonework shall be encouraged. c. All structured walls shall have relief to create an interesting blend with landscaping, buildings and the casting of shadows. d. Hard surface areas (walks, driveways, patios, etc.) shall be designed as an intergral part of the architecture. e. Roof slopes shall not be less than a 3 and 12 pitch, no composition shingle roofs. f. Roof flashing, rain gutters and downspouts, vents and other roof protrusions are to be finished to match the adjacent materials and/or colors. g. Architectural screens other than fences shall appear to be an extension of the structure and designed to create exterior privacy. h. Roof protrusions such as roof-mounted air conditioning units and solar collector panels, shall be located away from the entrance street frontage and screened from view. i. Architectural planning site layout and structure design shall take full advantage of energy efficiency, such as natural heating and/or cooling, sun and wind exposure and solar energy opportunities. j. Accessory buildings shall be similar in design and materials to the main residential dwelling unit. k. Structural form and scale shall relate to the use of the building and shall be within a human scale so as not to overwhelm or dominate the natural surroundings. 5.3.3.11 MISCELLANEOUS a. Vehicular Storage. The open storage of boats, trailers, recreational vehicles or other similar vehicles is allowed only within the rear half of an individual lot and is prohibited within any side yard abutting a street right-of-way. No commercial oversize vehicle or special purpose machine shall be parked or stored in any portion of any yard area. 33 'C1f'�'►�Al. s-f -f Liu-, EXHIBIT 6 14 EXHIBIT 5 EXHIBIT 7 36 Common areas for storage of boats, trailers, recreational vehicles and other similar vehicles may be provided for in the development plan. Where such areas are provided, they shall be enclosed and screened from view on a horizontal plane from adjacent areas by a combination of six (6) foot high masonry wall and permanently maintained landscaping. b. Accessory Buildings Without a Main Building. It shall be unlawful to construct, erect or locate accessory buildings on any lot not having a permissible residential building. c. Li tin The developer shall install an on-site lighting system an all vehicular access ways and along major walkways. A lighting plan shall be submitted for approval to the Director. Such lighting shall be directed onto driveways and walkways within the development and away from adjacent properties. Lighting shall also be installed within all covered and enclosed parking areas. d. Sewer and Water Systems. Sewer and water systems shall be designed to city standards and shall be located within streets, easements or drives. In no case shall individual sewer lines or sewer mains for a dwelling unit be permitted to extend underneath any other dwelling unit. e. Fire Hydrant System. A fire hydrant system shall be installed to provide an adequate fire flow. The adequacy of such system shall be approved by the fire marshal after review of plans and engineering calculations have been submitted. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of building permits, and any fire hydrant system shall be in operation prior to the time of construction with any combustible materials. f. Street Signs. Where appropriate, the developer shall install on-site street name signs at the intersections of streets, as approved by the City Engineer. Street name signs shall also be approved by the Planning Commission for design and type pursuant to the appearance standards set out in this article. All signs required by this section shall be installed at approved locations prior to the time the first dwelling unit is occupied. g. Trees. Preservation of existing trees shall be required where feasible. 5.3.3.12 HOMEOWNERS' OR COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION A development shall be approved subject to submission of a legal instrument or instruments setting forth a plan or manner of permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreational areas, and communal facilities and private streets. No such instrument shall be acceptable until approved by the City Attorney as to legal form and effect, and by the Planning Department as to suitability for the proposed use of the open areas. 37 I Easement dedication for public equestrian/recreational trails shall be conveyed to the City and accepted by the City only after all improvements have been made. Regular maintenance of the trail shall be the responsibility of the homeowners association. Common open spaces are to be conveyed to the homeowner's association and the developer shall file a declaration of covenants to be submitted with the application for approval, that will govern the association. The provisions shall include, but not be limited to, the following: ' 1 b established ri to the sale of the a. The homeowners association shall eprior last dwelling units. b. Membership shall be mandatory for each buyer and any successive buyer. c. The open space restrictions shall be permanent. d. Provisions to restrict parking upon other than approved and developed parking spaces shall be written into the covenants, conditions and restrictions for each project. e. If the development is constructed in increments or phases which require one or more final maps, reciprocal covenants, conditions, and restrictions and reciprocal management and maintenance agreements shall be established which will cause a merging of increments as they are completed, and embody one homeowners' association with common areas for the total development. 5.3.3.13 DEVELOPMENT TYPES Large lot, clustered lot, and planned residential developments are permitted subject to the following standards. 5.3.3.13.1 LARGE LOT SUBDIVISION a. Lot Area. All lots shall contain a minimum of 12,000 square feet of area. b. Lot Width and Frontage. The minimum lot frontage shall be eighty (80) feet except for cul-de-sac, knuckle and flag lots. c. Cul-de-sac, Knuckle and Flag Lots: The minimum frontage for cul-de-sac, knuckle and flag lots shall be forty-five (45) feet. III d. Maximum Density. The maximum density shall not exceed one (1) dwelling unit on any lot or parcel. e. Lot Coverage. The ground floor area of all roofed structures shall not occupy more than thirty-five (35) percent of the lot size. f. Maximum Building Height. The maximum building height shall not exceed thirty-five (35) feet. i g. Setback Requirements. All structures shall comply with the following minimum setbacks. I h. Front Yard. The minimum front yard setback shall be twenty-five (25) percent of lot depth provided further that said front yard setback shall not be less than thirty (30) feet and need not exceed forty (40) feet. i i. Side Yard. The total of the two side yard setbacks on any lot shall be a minimum of thirty (30) feet and the side yard setback on any one side shall not be less than ten (10) feet. i j. Rear Yard. The rear yard setback shall be twenty-five (25) feet. Patio covers may be constructed to within five (5) feet of the rear property line. I k. Paved Yards. Yard requirements shall not apply to paved areas such as walks, driveways, and patio slabs. i 1. Architectural Features. Architectural features, including eaves and fireplaces, may project four (4) feet into the required front, side, and rear yard, provided such features maintain a minimum distance of five (5) feet from any portion of any other buildings. m. Open Unenclosed Stairways or Balconies. Open unenclosed stairways or balconies, not covered by a roof or canopy, may extend four (4) feet into the required front, side, and rear yard. F-bwever, such stairways or balconies shall maintain a minimum distance of five (5) feet from any portion of any other building on the same lot. I n. Distance Between Main and Accessory Buildings. The minimum distance between an accessory building and a main dwelling or other accessory buildings shall be ten (10) feet. i o. Setback of Accessory Buildings: - Front Yard. No detached accessory building shall be located within the front half of the lot. - Side Yard. The minimum side yard for detached accessory buildings shall be five (5). Rear Yard. The minimum rear yard for detached accessory buildings shall be five (5) feet except when adjacent to an equestrian trail where the setback shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet. p. Parking Requirements. Each dwelling shall be provided with a minimum of two 2 conveniently accessible and full enclosed off-street parking spaces. The net dimensions of each space shall be a minimum of 9 feet by 19 feet. 39 I Housing Cluster g Lot Lot Setbacks *Open Space Size (sq. ft. ) Coverage front side rear Factor 4000 - 4399 . 55 15 ' 5 ' 10 ' 2. 0 I f 4400 - 4799 .54 16 ' 5 ' 10 ' 1.9 4800 - 5199 . 53 17 ' 6 ' 11 ' 1. 8 5200 - 5599 .52 18 ' 6 ' 11' 1. 7 5600 - 5999 .51 19 ' 7 ' 12 ' 1. 6 6000 - 6399 . 50 20 ' 7 ' 12 ' 1. 5 6400 - 6799 . 49 21' 8 ' 131 1.4 6800 - 7199 . 48 22 ' 8 ' 13 ' 1. 3 7200 - 7599 . 47 23' 9 ' 14 ' 1. 2 7600 - 7999 . 46 24 ' 9 ' 14' 1. 1 8000 - 8399 . 45 25 ' 10' 15 ' 1.0 8400 - 8799 .44 26 ' 10' 15 ' . 9 8800 - 9199 . 43 27 ' 11' 16 ' . 8 9200 - 9599 .42 28 ' 11' 16 ' . 7 9600 - 9999 .41 29 ' 12 ' 17 ' . 6 10000 -10399 .40 30' 12 ' 17 ' .5 10400 -10799 . 39 31' 13' 18 ' .4 10800 -11199 . 38 32 ' 13' 18 ' . 3 11200 -11599 . 37 33' 14 ' 19 ' .2 11600 -12000 . 36 34 ' 14 ' 19 . 1 * Open Space Requirement = No. of lots x lot size x open space factor. HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIA Clusteir Housing Standards PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT 8 an q. Minimum Turning Radius for Required Parking Spaces. Every private garage, carport, or open parking space that is entered directly from a drive shall be provided with a minimum turning radius of 25 feet. r. Minimum Driveway Requirements. All private driveways or driveway easements less than 100 feet in length shall maintain a minimum clear width of 10 feet. Driveways over 100 feet in length shall meet the requirements of the City's Fire Department. s. On-Site Trees. On-site trees on individual lots shall be provided as follows: One (1) tree for every 40 feet of lot frontage but not less than two (2) trees per lot. t. Equine Standards, Noncommercial, Individual Lot - Minimum Lot Size. No horse shall be kept, stabled or tethered on any parcel of less than 15,000 square feet in area. - Number of Equines. Two (2) horses and immature offspring of up to twelve 12 months old may be kept on a lot of 15,000 square feet. Three or fewer horses may be kept on a lot of 20,000 square feet; four (4) horses are allowed on a 35,000 square foot lot up to a maximum of six (6) horses on a 40,000 square foot lot. - Yard Requirements. The yard requirements shall pertain to all structures that relate to horses 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 twenty-five (25) feet from any property line. This setback may be reduced when pads for corral areas are designated on each lot in a coordinated pattern. - Specific Development Standards. The keeping of horses on an individual lot shall be subject to all the requirements of Sections 9634.2 through 9636 of Article 963. 5.3.3.13.2 CLUSTERED LOT SUBDIVISIONS a. Lot Area. The minimum lot area for small lot subdivisions shall be 4,000 square feet with a maximum lot area of 14999 square feet. b. Common Open Space. The Amount of common open space required in a project shall be determined by the formula in Exhibit 3. As a minimum, thirty-five (35) percent of the total project area shall be preserved as common open space. Recreation facilities including but not limited to clubhouses, tennis courts, volleyball courts, swimming pools, common stables and trails may be used to satisfy the common open space requirement provided however, that no more than fifty (50) percent of the total common space area is• developed with said facilities. In addition, enclosed buildings used for recreation facilities shall not constitute more than fifteen (15) percent of the required recreational area. 41 c. Maximum Density. The maximum density shall not exceed one (1) dwelling unit of any lot or parcel. d. Building Height. The maximum building height shall not exceed thirty 30 feet. e. Setback Requirements. All structures shall comply with the minimum setbacks shown in Exhibit 8. f. Exceptions. The interior side yard setback may be reduced to zero to permit the following: g. Lot Line House. The interior side yard setback may be zero on one side of the lot provided the other side yard setback on said lot is twice the required amount; and the lot adjacent to the zero side yard is held under the same ownership at the time of initial construction of both lots. In no event shall the distance between residential units on two lots be less than two times the required side yard setback. The wall located at the zero side yard setback shall be constructed with maintenance-free, solid decorative masonry for the first story of the dwelling and the second story shall be constructed with maintenance-free, decorative masonry or masonry veneer with a minimum thickness of two (2) inches. No portion of the dwelling or architectural features shall project over any property line; and The zero side yard may not be applied adjacent to a public or private right-of-way. h. One Common Wall House. The interior side yard setback may be reduced to zero to allow single family units to be connected along a common party wall provided that the opposite side yard setback shall be two times the required amount and the lot adjacent to the zero side yard is held under the same ownership. Exposure protection between structures must be provided according to the specifications of the Huntington Beach Fire Department and Huntington Beach Department of Development Services. i. Double Common Wall House. The interior side yard setback may be reduced to zero on both sides of a lot to allow single family units to be connected along two common party walls provided that no more than four (4) units in a row shall be attached in said manner and all adjacent lots to the zero side yard are held under common ownership, and that the units on each end of the connected row have side yards which abut upon an open space area of at least thirty (30) feet in width. j. Rear Yard. The minimum rear yard setback shall be ten (10) feet provided, however, that said yard may be reduced to five (5) feet when the rear property line abuts a common open space area. 42 Patio covers may be constructed to within five (5) feet of the rear property line. k. Paved Yards. Yard requirements shall not apply to paved areas such as walks, driveways, and patio slabs. 1. Architectural Features. Architectural features, including eaves and fireplaces, may project three (3) feet into the required front, side and rear yard. m. Open Unenclosed Stairways or Balconies. Open unenclosed stairways or balconies, not covered by a roof or canopy, may extend three (3) feet into the required front yard and may extend into the required side yard to within three (3) feet of the property line. n. Parking Requirements. Each dwelling unit shall be provided with a minimum of two 2 conveniently accessible and fully enclosed off-street parking spaces. An additional one-half (1/2) space per unit shall be provided within the development for guest parking. The net dimensions of each space shall be a minimum of 9 feet by 19 feet. o. Minimum Turning Radius for Required Parking Spaces. Every private garage, carport, or open parking space that is entered directly from a drive shall be provided with a minimum turning radius of 25 feet. p. Minimum Driveway Requirements. All private driveways or driveway easements less than 100 feet in length shall maintain a minimum clear width of 10 feet. Driveways over 100 feet in length shall meet the requirements of the City's Fire Department. q. On-site Trees: One tree shall be provided per lot. 5.343.13.3 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS a. Development Procedure. Planned residential developments are permitted subject to the provisions of this Article and Article 936, provided, however, that where conflicts arise, the requirements of this Article shall take precedence. In addition, Planned Residential shall comply with the following special requirements. b. Site Coverage. Maximum site coverage for all roofed structures shall not exceed 35%. c. Building Height. Maximum building height shall not exceed thirty (30) feet. All structures greater than one story must be of a townhouse design, units may not be stacked over other units. d. Parking Requirements. Each dwelling unit shall be provided with a minimum of two 2 conveniently accessible and fully enclosed off-street parking spaces. An additional one-half (1/2) space per unit shall be provided within the development for guest parking. The net dimensions of each space shall be a minimum of 9 feet by 19 feet. 43 ANn 7_7-fl M 6.0 SUBAREA THREE 6.1 PURPOSE As a subarea of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan the following policy is adopted to provide direction for preparation of development standards. 1. Prior to the submission of any proposal for development a specific plan for development of the entire subarea shall be submitted representing a cooperative effort by all property owners within the subarea. Said specific plan shall be subject to review and approval by the City's Planning Commission and shall address the following concerns: a. The preservation of an open space corridor along the alignment of the natural drainage swale which traverses the area. b. The preservation of natural topographic features to the greatest extent feasible. c. The integration and compatibility of new development proposals with surrounding land uses. d. To assure access to oil operations remaining within any proposed development; and the preservation of future access to underground oil reserves. e. The integration of an equestrian trail linkage to Subarea Two, Huntington Central Park and Bolsa Chica Regional Linear Park, in coordination with the Orange County Master Plan of Riding and Hiking Trails. a9; f. The coordination of circulation patterns, equestrian trails, open space corridors, landscaping and architectural features applied in subarea two of the Specific Plan. 6.2 SUBAREA THREE BOUNDARY Subarea Three includes that portion of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area located east of Goldenwest Street. Precisely the real property described as follows: Parcels in the City of Huntington Beach as per maps in the county Assessor's Map Book 111, page 07, block 072, lots 10-12, 149 15, 17, 18, 21, 22 and part of 4; page 12, lots 1, 28; recorded in Miscellaneous Maps of Orange County. 6.3 GENERAL PROVISIONS The following general provisions shall apply to Subarea Three of the Specific Plan: 6.3.1 CONTINUATION AND EXPANSION OF EXISTING USES The following uses are permitted prior to the approval of a specific plan for the entire subarea: a. Oil. Use or maintenance of any installation, facility or structure excluding buildings as defined in Article 968 of the City's Zoning Ordinance) used either directly or indirectly to carry out or facilitate one or more of the following functions: rework, repair, redrilling, production, processing, extraction, assisted recovery, stimulation, storage, or shipping of oil, gas or hydrocarbons from the subsurface of the earth. Drilling of new wells is not permitted. Oil activities shall be in compliance with Article 968 of the City's Zoning Ordinance and with the City's Oil Code. 46 NEXT STEPS This Specific Plan provides the framework within which development may take place. Successful implementation of the Plan, however, may be constrained by the diversity of property ownerships in the area and by the lack of public improvements. This section discusses two methods that the City may want to consider to help mitigate these constraints. It should be understood that this section is not a complete analysis of these methods nor an endorsement for their use. Further analysis and information would be necessary to determine the desirability of these additional implementing actions. REDEVELOPMENT Redevelopment can be used as a tool both for assembling parcels and for financing needed public improvements. The Redevelopment Agency has the authority (within the designated project area) to acquire and assemble land for public or private reuse. The agency may acquire land by mutual agreement with the buyer or seller or, if efforts to negotiate a sale are unsuccessful, the agency can use the power of eminent domain to condemn parcels of land and buy them at fair market value. Because the ownership patterns are so fragmented in the Specific Plan area, one small property owner may block the remainder from assembling parcels large enough to make new development feasible. By using its power of eminent domains the Redevelopment Agency can persuade such hold-outs to join in the project or can buy out their interest and allow the project to proceed. 47 When a redevelopment project area is adopted, part or all of the future "tax increment" may be returned to the Redevelopment Agency and used to finance capital improvements. Tax increment financing works by "freezing" the tax base of properties at the time the project area is adopted. Increases in the assessed value of the properties which occur over time result in increased tax revenues. This increase in revenues is the "tax increment". In the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area tax increment financing may be a method for funding at least some of the major roads, sewers, storm drains and water mains needed to serve the area at ultimate development. The. Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area would most likely qualify as a "blighted" area under the California Community Redevelopment Law and, thus, could be designated as a project area. There are, however, a number of steps prescribed by law which must be taken to set up a redevelopment project and the entire process is time-consuming. Also, as of 1977, Redevelopment Law requires that the Redevelopment Agency consult with any taxing agency (i.e., counties, school districts, sanitation districts) that might be affected by the tax increment financing. The law allows these taxing agencies to set up a fiscal review committee which may suggest amendments to the redevelopment plan to alleviate adverse fiscal effects. Although the law does not require the fiscal review committee to assemble, fiscal review must be anticipated in new redevelopment projects. Further, counties may insist on receiving a generous portion of the tax increment, perhaps up to 50 or 60 percent, before agreeing to allow a redevelopment project to proceed. The Redevelopment Law does not provide that the Redevelopment Agency must submit to demands by the fiscal review committee, but threat of a time-consuming lawsuit makes it impractical for the agency to engage in prolonged battles with other taxing agencies over tax increment funds. ASSESSMENT DISTRICT Rough cost estimates based on the draft Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan indicate that master planned sewers, storm drains, water facilities and trails needed to serve the area will cost approximately $3.1 million. An additional $3.2 million will be needed to construct the proposed internal collector streets and the utilities normally located within these street rights-of-way. Improvements to the arterials such as the realignment of Ellis Avenue and Edwards Street will cost yet more money. The City normally requires that property owners provide the necessary facilities on a project-by-project basis. The first developers into the Ellis-Goldenwest area may have to construct much or all of the improvements in order to service their properties, and the high cost involved may be excessive for many developers. There may also be pressure to allow deviations (temporary or permanent) from the master plan alignments that could diminish the ultimate efficiency of the systems as currently planned. As an alternative, the City can try to form an assessment district in the Specific Plan area. This would enable all improvements to be built in a timely manner with the cost shared among all affected property owners. The authority to set up an assessment district is provided for in the Improvement Act of 1911, the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 and the Improvement Bond Act of 1915. While the detailed provisions of these acts differ, the basic process is the same. 48, As a first step the City adopts a resolution declaring its intention to form an assessment district and prepares a report containing a description of the improvements, an estimate of their total cost, and a proposed division of this cost among properties in the area. The proportion of the total cost assessed to each property is to be based on the amount of estimated benefits received by that property. The City then notifies property owners and sets a public meeting date to hear all protests. If protests are made by the owners of more than one-half of the area of the land to be assessed then the assessment proceedings must stop unless the protests are overruled by a four-fifths vote of the City Council (i.e. six ayes). If a majority protest is not made, the City may proceed with the assessments. If provided for in the City's resolution of intention, bonds may be issued for the unpaid assessments, and property owners can make regular payments (i.e., yearly with property taxes) until the bonds are paid off. In the meantime, revenues from collected assessments or from the sale of the bonds can be used to fund the required capital improvements. It should be noted that the assessment district need not bear the total cost of all the required improvements. Monies from City funds such as the sewer fund can be used to help pay the cost of appropriate facilities. Or, as previously discussed, tax increment financing from designating the area as a redevelopment project may also be used to offset the costs of some capital improvements. 49 � 4 (REVISED) DRAFT ELLIS-G,OL,DENWEST ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 82-1 7/82 HUNTINGTON BEACH CALFORNIA PLANNING DIVISION TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Topography 53 Soils/Seismicity 55 Oil 56 Biotic Resources 57 Land Use 58 Population 59 Housing 61 Transportation and Circulation 62 Noise 56 Air Quality 65 Visual Resources 70 Light and Glare 72 Public Services 72 Utilities 75 Archaeological Resources 81 Hydrology/Water Quality 82 Mandatory Findings of Significance 85 Project Alternatives 86 Appendix I - Environmental checklist Form 87 Appendix II - EIR Comments and Responses 87 52 TOPOGRAPHY Setting The topographic features of the Specific Plan area are shown on Figure 3. The westernmost portion of the area is located in the Balsa Chico lowlands and is at an elevation of zero to ten feet above sea level. Bluffs rise 60 to 90 feet from these lowlands up to the Huntington Beach Mesa. The remainder of the Specific Plan area is located on the Huntington Beach Mesa and is characterized by gently rolling terrain. The site's highest elevation (100 feet above sea level) is located atop a small knoll immediately west of the intersection of Edwards Street and Garf ield Avenue. The southern portion of the Specific Plan area between Edwards and Goldenwest Streets is relatively flat. The northern portion is traversed by two prominent ravines or swales. One swale begins approximately 1,320 feet south of Ellis Avenue, 900 feet east of Edwards Street and follows on alignment north to Ellis Avenue and into Huntington Central Park. The width at the bottom of this swale ranges from 80 to 150 feet with side slopes of 15 to 25 percent average. The second swale begins approximately 1,320 feet south of Ellis Avenue, 700 feet west of Goldenwest Street and runs in a northwesterly direction. West of Goldenwest Street the swale bottom ranges in width from 90 to 150 feet with side slopes of 15 percent average. East of Goldenwest Street the swale bottom is broader (up to 250 feet wide) and the slopes steeper (20-25 percent average). Impacts The topography of the Specific Plan area will be altered as a result of grading activities. Cut and fill will be required for the construction of streets and building pads. The magnitude of the impacts will depend upon the location of individual developments and roads and the extent to which developers incorporate existing topographical features into their site plans. Mitigation A number of measures are proposed for inclusion in the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan which would offset potentially adverse effects due to grading activities. The bluffs west of Edwards Street are delineated as an Open Space Corridor and residential development would be prohibited. These bluffs are also proposed for inclusion into the Orange County Balsa Chico Regional Linear Park. The two major ravines traversing the Specific Plan area are also designated Open Space Corridors in which development would be prohibited. 53 _ TALKRT � ) - f - -.- -- - .. v��`� .thy •:� ,�^_��`��_,,,�'' C F R CF / x ' e f : _Y r.... 'c ELT I ( MUCK&PEAT �- r..:. - -- •~•:{••.••\•}y:;. Y: .: ..{;;•'• �� '..•t�r 4f.�.�i `;:�r}:t•:... " .}�}y{'•.:}%tt J rti;S�f f.V}: F �t� .;1i'}.'t?}::: thr�R},, .x.'�. ..'7.•':ti, ..mo�ww-' .':�' �}�y , W •,}j:L}.�•}<::�{):��;��:; •'/'•,l'K•_Jii•v.`.}x�-•.�• „s•i O. I': :•:f:::; :};{� �}j{t' ' vti'ti'•}:t:4:•:•}:•ti•• .;''•''�,{i :'�.a+�..!xM..%.^.•}�irr`�'�-�-.1r .y I . .}:i':;{.:t ::}::' }:•Lv. •.}.:•::•.•'rv}.{ .ai•Zi Awl. .7.R. .t4rri Y• :}:Q•}:ax};.}, ••-r•' - - i. }x:�� "� •. ;:;:�,.. fir. •.tr•:.} BE.�.}. � :•:•,x' '{x}•_r'1•.',?.ti. ~:{:~;art;.?v'r: {; ::::�}'; .:ice«•,F"•`k51' '''v:{{hvly: •,: •• }';:ti{^•,•:v$'::'ri:;: r 'yc r:n•�, '7'iii:;;' _ :}.�=•� ••' :$:+NYr''tx''.v}:rr ::?F,}:.::. jt•5:;:; a.`y. .'•nr'f:.:=i :''!-.. rJ-,y t '� NORTH BRANCH _ '�'_.K....�".:.;. �.•:..,• ' .: FAULT LINES �!'► ;$"`ANTIOCH' LAYADOBE:`•'s.' " " �'a'' 'r�' y., '':' x ��333_ POSSIBLE EXTENSION OF — O Y RKTOWN AVENUE FAULT y��:f ,.r'tr:{:'rr:+}`:: •k :l:•;vr.7:'}:y .jdCt:;?'t s^; _ � k -r4::'t••�,�r{ ••1t.'�.;•;:+ �:Ck+'•;:::?:'t';':'� • •"}r••• � _ _ NCERTAINTY AS TO EXISTENCE r: t�o�}:,��.:�r:::r::`: `�::::�:?:::�;v::• :�:. ::�•:.:a... .�.�:.:.�.�..�:.- - OR EXTENSION OF FAULT �i E ':� ........... /0- r FINE SANDY LOAM�, ;� •, !�"i:< � � - ftr _ ''f '''' ••�V��. •.,.•S,r`�'''i�:":T•�Y.•. __—gyp • :••. .t, .L 1•*.y"• 2tS. �4.,.r _t 41 LOAM V. :RAMONA; LbAM Z. SOURCE: Conservation Technical Report,1974 - Geotechnical Inputs,1974 E ---- - HUNTINGTON BEACH 04LIFORNIK is? PLANNING DIVISION Soil Types & Active Earthquake Faults Properties adjacent to Open Space Corridors that contain significant topography are designated Sensitive Development areas with grading limited to two feet of cut and two feet of f ilI for an overall grade differential of four feet. In these areas grading shall be generally limited to the area required for construction. Grading in all other portions of the Specific Plan area would be limited to two feet of cut and two feet of fill for an overall grade differential of four feet. The Plan requires that structural designs fit the natural land forms to the greatest extent possible and encourages the use of retaining walls, terraces, split level and platform structures where appropriate. The internal collector streets proposed for the Specific Plan area are aligned around topographical features and avoid crossing the natural swales where possible. SOILS/SEISMICITY Setting Soils within the study area are predominantly Ramona loam and Ramona fine sandy loam. The northwest and northeast portions of the area are characterized by Antioch clay adobe, with a small area of peat located in the bottom of the ravine immediately south of Sully-Miller Lake. The study area lies within the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone and is traversed by the North Branch Fault, which underlies the southwest portion of the area in the vicinity of the intersection of Garfield Avenue and Edwards Street. Geologists are uncertain but suspect that an extension of the Yorktown Avenue Fault traverses the study area between the intersection of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street and the intersection of Garfield Avenue and Main Street. (See Figure 11) In compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazards Zones Act of 1972, a Special Studies Zone has been established in Huntington Beach that includes the most hazardous earthquake faults. This special studies zone extends to just west of the study area but does not include it. Impacts Development of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area would subject approximately 870 dwelling units and 2,975 future residents to geotechnical hazards associated with the soils and seismic characteristics of the site described above. The Ramona loom, Ramona fine sandy loam and the Antioch clay adobe soils contain clay-size particles and tend to expand when their moisture content increases. This expansion can cause damage to structures overlying the surface, particularly pavement, driveways and sidewalks. The Ramona loam and fine sandy loam soils have a low to moderate to high expansion potential.) The small peat deposit, immediately south of Sully-Miller Lake contains few clay particles and will have a tendency to settle, rather than to expand, over the long term. Conservation Technical Report, City of Huntington Beach Planning Division, March, 1974. 55 i The earthquake faults in the area are a potential cause of serious structural damage due primarily to ground shaking. Actual fault displacement and surface rupture has not historically occurred along this fault system in Huntington Beach and the probability is relatively low that it will within the next 100 years, even though one or more moderate-size earthquakes may occur. Mitigation The City requires developers to submit engineering reports on the soil and seismicity characteristics of their project sites prior to issuance of a building permit. These studies are reviewed by the City to insure that the structural designs incorporate measures necessary to mitigate any soil or seismic hazards. OIL Setting The Specific Plan Area contains a total of 146 producing oil wells, pipelines, storage tanks and other oil related facilities throughout the area. The major oil operator in the area is Chevron U.S.A. with 94 wells on four parcels governed by separate lease agreements. The remaining wells are owned and operated by independent oil producers. (See Figure 10. ) The area west of Edwards Street to the city boundary line is characterized by intense oil production activity. Chevron U.S.A. operates a total of 66 producing wells and other oil related facilities in this area. The area zoning presently allows for new wells to be drilled. Intense oil production is expected to continue in this area for many years through the utilization of enhanced recovery techniques. The area east of Edwards to Goldenwest Street is characterized by fewer active wells (63) operated by Chevron and several independent oil operators, with 17 additional wells between Goldenwest Street and Gothard Street. Three small sites (2.5 to 2.65 acres) in this area presently have zoning which allows for drilling of new wells. Primary production techniques have been employed in the Specific Plan area to date. These techniques generally recover approximately 15 to 20 percent of the oil contained in the underground reservoir. Impacts Development of the Specific Plan area could significantly impact oil operations by removing vacant land currently available for oil production and by limiting access to existing and potential drilling locations. Complaints may arise from new residents about the noise and visual impacts of oil activities remaining in or adjacent to development. 56 r Mitigation The Specific Plan allows for servicing, reworking and redrilling of existing oil wells including those remaining in residential developments. The plan also allows for drilling of new wells in a number of areas. These provisions ensure that land will be available for continued operation of existing oil operations In the Specific Plan area and for new operations in certain locations. Article 968 of the City's zoning ordinance requires that proposed developments on properties containing oil operations include a plan for the disposition or treatment of those oil operations. This plan must provide for adequate area around wells remaining in the development to permit continued oil operations and access for equipment and emergency vehicles. The City's Oil Code contains provisions limiting hours of operation, regulating sound attenuation, requiring screening or landscaping and other concerns. Adherence to the City's existing requirements should minimize the potential incompatibility of oil operations with residential development. In addition the following should be required of oil operations adjacent to residential developments: - Gasoline powered engines on existing pumping units remaining in a residential developments shall be converted to electric motors before occupancy of the first unit. - Developers shall establish a fund to cover the cost of landscaping well sites within residential' developments at the time of abandonment. - Perimeter fencing of all oil islands shall be set back twenty (20) feet from arterial highways and collector streets and fifteen (15) feet from private residential streets, property lines or common open space areas. This setback area shall be landscaped. BIOTIC RESOURCES Setting The Specific Plan area is part of the Huntington Beach mesa landform. The area is relatively undeveloped, however, it is in a highly disturbed state with dirt roadways and pipelines lacing the property. Portions of the site have been used for the disposal of dirt, rock, rubbish and other debris. The existing vegetation consists of a few native coastal bluff shrub species, however, the predominant plants are ruderal species. These conditions persist largely as the result of ongoing oil extraction, nursery operations, discing and dumping activities. The dominant and common plants in these areas are non-native species of weeds and grasses. Clusters and stands of eucalyptus trees visually dominate the area, in particular, the central swale between Ellis Avenue and Garfield Avenue east of Goldenwest Street. In addition a commercial nursery at the northwest corner of Goldenwest Street and' Garfield Avenue has introduced a large variety of plant materials. Assorted decorative plant species have also been used to identify property lines of existing development. None of the plant species are classified as _ rare or endangered. 57 The property supports wildlife composed of common species associated with the disturbed on-site vegetation. Doves, mockingbirds, finches, starlings, swallows and meadowlarks are common to the area. Ground squirrels and cottontail rabbits are abundant; mice and moles are undoubtedly present, but were not observed because they are nocturnal. In addition, four commercial stables are located within the study area which board approximately 250 horses. None of the wildlife species observed or expected to visit the area are classified as rare or endangered by the California Department of Fish and Game. Impacts Area development would result in the removal of much of the existing vegetaion, leaving only some of the existing plant materials along the bluffs and in the swales. This will result in a change in the diversity and number of some species of plants. The removal of this vegetation would destroy much of the habitat for the birds and mammals that presently reside in the area. Consequently, these wildlife species would be reduced in numbers or eliminated from the area. The biotic resources in this area are quite limited in numbers and species and are unstable because of exposure to oil operations and equestrian activities, and appear to include no important species of any kind. The loss of these resources would not be of a significant nature. Development within the area will result in the addition of traditional landscaping such as turf, shrubs and trees, resulting in an overall increase in vegetation for the area, as well as, new habitat for some animal species, and an increase in the horse population is anticipated with the opportunity for equestrian oriented residential developments. Mitigation Much of the area along the Huntington Beach mesa bluff and in the two main swales will probably be preserved in a natural state, with development limited to the implementation of a public trail system. No mitigation beyond landscaping need be considered for this area. LAND USE Setting Existing land uses in the Specific Plan area are shown in Figure 6. The majority of the area is used for oil and natural gas production and appears vacant except for scattered oil wells, storage tanks, pipelines, and service roads. A transmission substation is located on top of the bluffs west of Edwards Street on a seven acre parcel owned by the Southern California Edison Company. Between Edwards and Goldenwest Streets, four commercial horse stables occupy approximately 17 acres in addition to several private horse stalls and a 36-acre nursery. Informal riding trails criss-cross the central portion of the Specific Plan area. The property east of Goldenwest Street contains scattered oil wells and three single family homes. 58 Impacts Development of the Specific Plan area as residential would significantly alter the present land use of the area. The impacts on existing oil operations are discussed under Oil in this report. The construction of housing units and roads will result in a loss of open space. The existing horse stables, trails, nursery and single family homes would be converted to residental uses. The Specific Plan will encourage development that is consistent with the estate-residential General Plan designation. The Specific Plan requires a minimum project site of ten acres before a development proposal will be considered. This may have a positive impact on land use in the area by encouraging consolidation and discouraging piecemeal development. Another issue with respect to land use is the compatibility of new development with land uses adjacent to the Specific Plan area. The City addressed this issue when it designated the area as Estate Residential in the General Plan. Basically, the estate residential acts as a buffer between open space/recreation areas to the north and west (Huntington Central Park to the north and the proposed regional linear park to the west) and the industrial uses to the east and south. Mitigation A number of measures are proposed for inclusion into the Ellis-G oldenwest Specific Plan to mitigate adverse land use impacts. Existing land uses will be allowed to remain in the Specific Plan area as legal nonconforming uses in conformance with the provisions contained in Article 971 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. The plan delineates three open space corridors (including the proposed Bolsa Chica Linear Park) which total approximately 58 acres.' Preservation of these areas would result in a minimum of 20 percent of the site being retained as open space. The Plan allows cluster developments; which would result in additional common open space areas within individual developments. The Specific Plan delineates a master plan of trails and allows for the boarding of horses on individual lots or in common (private) stable area to allow for continued equestrian use of the area. The Specific Plan contains standards for providing a buffer between residential uses and adjacent arterials. These buffers will help mitigate any compatibility problems between development in the Specific Plan area and adjacent properties. POPULATION Setting The Specific Plan area currently supports essentially no population. 59 An estimated total of 172,813 persons resided in the City of Huntington Beach in 1981. (State Department of Finance) Projections of future population levels for the City are contained in the Orange County Report on the State of the County, 1978-79 as follows: Date Dwelling Units Population July 1981 66,962 173,662 July 1983 70,731 181,230 July 1988 80,223 194,147 The Southern California Association of Governments' SCAG 178 Growth Forecast Policy contains the following projections for Huntington Beach: Date Dwelling Units Population 1985 72,700 178,600 1990 839000 191,200 1995 88,600 205,400 2000 909700 210,600 Impact Development of the Specific Plan would result in an increased population of approximately 2,975 persons. This calculation is a worst case projection and assumes that all projects will develop to the maximum allowable density of three units per acre. The calculation also assumes an average of 3.42 persons per household, the January, 1979 household density factor for single family units in the City of Huntington Beach. Assuming that the Specific Plan area is completely built out and occupied by 1990, the area would comprise approximately 1.6 percent of the City's population at that time. 60 Mitigation No mitigation measures are required. HOUSING Setting The Specific Plan area currently contains three single family houses. It is designated in the City's General Plan for estate residential development at an average density of three dwelling units per acre. The City's Housing Element, adopted in 1979, analyzed the City's existing housing stock and identified specific housing needs and problems. One of the primary problems identified in the Element is the need for more housing units that are affordable to low and moderate income households. According to estimates made by the Southern California Association of Governments, there is a deficiency of approximately 9,500 low and moderate income units in the City of Huntington Beach.1 In order to mitigate this problem the City participates in a number of low and moderate income housing programs and continues to investigate the feasibility of new programs. Implementation of all the programs proposed in the City's Housing Element, however, will mitigate only a portion of the low and moderate income housing needs of the City. Impacts Implementation of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan could result in the addition of up to 870 units to the City's housing stock. The Specific Plan provides for both single family detached and townhouse/condominium housing units. Because of the low densities proposed for the area, it is expected that homes will be affordable primarily to higher income families. Being a sizable piece of the remaining undeveloped land within the City, development of the project site as high income residential units will ,reduce the amount of available land which can be developed as newly constructed low income housing. There are approximately 940 acres of vacant land in the City designated for residential use. The Specific Plan Area represents roughly 30 percent of this vacant land. New construction of low and moderate income homes is economically feasible, in general, only at medium and high densities. For low income housing to be constructed within the Ellis-Goldenwest area, it would have to be done at densities higher than those proposed and at the possible exclusion of the extensive open space which has been incorporated into the Specific Plan. The higher densities and elimination of large percentages of open space would be inconsistent with the low intensity goals set forth by the City for the Estate Residential area. 1 From information in the City of Huntington Beach Housing Element, September, 1979. 61 The City has set aside areas of the City for medium and high density residential development in its General Plan. At this time approximately 470 acres or fifty percent (50%) of vacant land available for residential uses in the City is designated for densities of 15 units per acre or greater. Mitigation No additional measures other than those currently being pursued by the City on a community wide basis are proposed. Although not considered affordable, the Specific Plan provides implementation for a lifestyle and housing stock at very low densities that do not currently exist in the City. In this respect, the plan is meeting the General Plan Goals of providing a diversification of housing types at different densities. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Setting The Specific Plan area is bounded by Ellis Avenue on the north, Garfield Avenue on the south, the City's master plan alignment of Edwards Street on the west, and Gothard Street on the east. The daily maximum traffic carrying capacity (ADT - Average Daily Trips) associated with these facilities are as follows: Garfield 45,000 ADT (classified as a major), Ellis 30,000 ADT (classified as a primary), the proposed alignments of Edwards and Gothard will both be developed as secondary streets (20,000 ADT). The present alignment of Edwards is totally within the Specific Plan boundary and the existing alignment of Gothard is outside the Specific Plan area; both are developed to secondary arterial standards. Goldenwest Street is an additional arterial which divides the Specific Plan area into two sections. Goldenwest is presently classified as a primary north of Garfield and a major to the south, with a capacity of 30,000 ADT within the Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan area, with the exception of resource production areas and equestrian facilities, is currently undeveloped thereby contributing few or no trips to the adjacent circulation system. Impacts By 1995, traffic volumes on Ellis and Garfield Avenues may increase significantly if these arterials ultimately extend into the Balsa Chica and interconnect with circulation patterns in that area. Projected traffic volumes for the arterials adjacent to the Specific Plan area are estimated to be 25,000 vehicles per day along Goldenwest Street, 6,000-7,000 on Ellis Avenue, 5,000 on Edwards Street, 13,000 on Gothard Street and between 13,000 and 25,000 on Garfield Avenue depending on whether Garfield Avenue will lead into Balsa Chica. These projected traffic volumes are within the planned capacity for the arterials. The possible realignment of Edwards and Gothard Streets as planned for in the Circulation Plan will have a significant 62 impact on the Specific Plan area. In addition, the possible realignment of Talbert to Ellis through the southern portion of Huntington Central Park will significantly impact the Specific Plan area. Development within the Specific Plan area will require the development of an internal street system which is responsive to the projected demands for the area. The proposed internal circulation plan calls for a system of collector streets designed to provide adequate circulation within the Specific Plan area and minimize direct access to the adjacent arterials. The system is comprised of six collector streets with access from the arterials limited to three location points off Ellis Avenue, two off Garfield Avenue, and one off Goldenwest Street. A loop system is incorporated into the design, which provides access to the central portions of the Specific Plan area. A secondary loop provides access from this central section westerly to the bluffs and becomes a bluffline drive adjacent to the proposed linear park. The other collectors branch off of the two loops to provide access south to Garfield Avenue and east to Goldenwest Street. The access point of Goldenwest Street aligns with the existing Ernest Avenue to link the portions east and west of Goldenwest Street. An additional collector is proposed for the eastern portion of the Specific Plan area linking Ernest and Ellis Avenues. Circulation impacts of development within the Specific Plan area will be both long term and short term. On a short term basis, construction vehicles and cars of workmen will utilize approach routes and add to daily traffic volumes. The long term impacts associated with ultimate development, at the maximum allowable density of three units per acre, indicate that a total of 8,700 trips per day can be anticipated. On a daily basis, the estimated additional traffic volumes would be distributed as follows 5,220 vehicles per day on Ellis Avenue, 1,740 on Goldenwest Street and 1740 on Garfield Avenue. The intersections of Goldenwest and Ellis and Goldenwest and Garfield are expected to be the most severely affected in the vicinity of the Specific Plan. The additional traffic is within the capacity of all streets and the proposed access to and from the Specific Plan area is also adequate for ultimate development. However, if other development occurs to the south of the Specific Plan area, or if Huntington Central Park becomes a greater traffic generator then traffic volumes may exceed present capacity along Goldenwest Street. Mitigation Although traffic volumes generated by ultimate residential development within the Specific Plan area will not adversely affect the existing street system, the installation of stop signs for traffic control should be installed at each entrance to the main roadway, collector, or arterial. 63 In addition the intersection of the internal collectors at Goldenwest Street and one of the locations along Ellis will warrant the installation of a traffic signal at ultimate development of the area. Ultimate development within this portion of the City may necessitate the redesignation of Goldenwest Street from a primary to a major from Slater Avenue south to Garfield Avenue. All development projects within the Specific Plan area will be reviewed by the City's Department of Public Works in relation to signalization or signalization improvements, as required. NOISE Setting The City's Noise Element focuses on noise sources within the city in the interest of protecting the public health, safety and welfare. The Noise Element sets forth guidelines for noise exposure by land use category and sets forth a program based on information provided to the City by Wyle Laboratories, designed to reduce the community noise exposure. The optimum noise level for all residential uses is Ldn 60db (day-night average sound level) for outdoors and Ldn 45db for indoors (Ldn 60db is approximately equivalent to CNEL 60db Community Noise Equipment Level, both noise rating scales are fully compatible with each other). The optimum criteria level of Ldn 60db for residential uses is compatible with the California Noise Insulation Standards. The principal sources of noise in the Specific Plan area are related to traffic and oil operations. The area is bound by two east/west arterial streets, Ellis Avenue on the north and Garfield Avenue on the south, with two additional arterials bisecting the area from north to south, Edwards Street and Goldenwest Street. The greatest volume of traffic occurs on Goldenwest Street. The highest noise levels also occur along Goldenwest Street and with an estimated traffic noise impact projected for 1990 by the Wyle Laboratories, of Ldn 60db, and estimated to occur approximately 175' from the center lane of traffic. In addition, there are a total of 151 producing oil wells and several other oil related activities within the area contributing to the overall noise impact. Impacts Three types of noise impacts may arise from development within the area: - Construction noise may impact surrounding land uses. - Area related traffic may increase noise levels on properties located along primary access routes and may adversely impact the interior noise levels of future residential developments. 64 Continual reworking and redrilling of existing oil wells and the drilling of new wells in select locations may increase noise levels for future residential projects within the Specific Plan area and adjacent residential developments. Mitigation Residential development must be compatible with the Noise Element of the City's General Plan. If residential structures are to be located within a CNEL 65db contour, then mitigation measures such as building setbacks, building orientation or construction of a noise barrier, such as a combination well/berm. Construction of structures along arterial streets for the purpose of noise, attenuation should be reviewed by an accoustical engineer to determine compliance with City standards. Construction noise represents a short term impact on ambient noise levels. Adherence to the City's noise ordinance, which limits the hours of construction to normal weekday hours should minimize any potential noise impacts; there are no existing residential projects immediately adjacent to the area. Adherence to the City's oil code, which limits hours of operation and calls for sound attenuation measures to be implemented should also minimize potential noise impacts from existing and future oil operations. AIR QUALITY Setting The climate of Huntington Beach is greatly controlled by a semi-permanent high pressure center over the Pacific Ocean. The cool ocean currents cause early morning cloudiness that changes to hazy sunshine. Moderate daytime onshore winds bring cool and usually clean air across the city during the summer smoggy season. The high pressure center creates persistent temperature inversions that limit the capacity of the atmosphere to disperse the air pollution emissions caused by the large population attracted by the mild climate. In order to evaluate the significance of the air quality impact of a proposed development, that impact, together with existing baseline levels, must be compared to the applicable Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS). These standards are the levels of air quality that "may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare" (Clean Air Act as amended August, 1977). Standards are periodically reviewed as new health effects information is developed and the Clean Air Act is regularly renewed. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations indicate that a permit to construct may not be granted if air pollutant emissions associated with the project would prevent the attainment or maintenance of any federal primary AAQS. The principal authority for air quality monitoring in the area, as well as enforcement of federal, state and local regulations designed to ensure compliance with the AAQS, lies with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 65 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS Pollutant Averaging Time California Standards' National Standards Concentration3 Mathod4 Primary" Secondsry3• Mathod' Oxident'O 1 hour 0.10 ppm Ultraviolet — — — (200 ug/m3) Photometry Ozone 1 hour — — 240 ug/m3 Some as Primary Chem iluminescent (0.12 ppm) Standard Method Carbon Monoxide 12 hour 10 ppm — (11 mg/m3) — Non-Dispersive Same as Non-Dispersive 8 hour — Infrared 10 mg/m3 Primary Infrared Spectroscopy (9 ppm) Standards Spectroscopy 1 hour 40 ppm 40 mg/m3 (46 mg/m3) (35 ppm) Nitrogen Dioxide Annual Average — 100 ug/m3 Gas Phase Saltzman Method (0.05 ppm) Same as Primary Chemiluminescence 1 hour 0.25 ppm — Standards (470 ug/m3) Sulfur Dioxide Annual Average — 80 ug/m3 — (0.03 ppm) 24 hour 0.05 ppm 365 ug/m3 — (131 ug/m3)9 Conductimetric (0.14 ppm) Paraosenillne Method Method 3 hour — — 1300 ug/m3 (0.5 ppm) 1 hour 0.5 ppm — — (1310 ug/m3) Suspended Annual Geometric 60 ug/m3 75 ug/m3 60 ug/m3 Particulate Mean High Volume High Volume Matter SamplingSampling Sulfates 24 hour 25 ug/m3 AIHL Method — —No. 61 Lead 30 day 1.5 ug/m3 AIHL Method — — — Average No. 54 Calendar — — 1.5 ug/m3 1.5 ug/m3 Atomic Quarter Absorption Hydrogen 1 hour 0.03 ppm Cadmium — — — Sulfide (42 ug/m3) Hydroxide Stracta Method Hydrocarbons 3 hour — — 160 ug/m3 Same as Flame Ionization (Corrected for 16-9 a.m.) (0.24 ppm) Primary Detection Using Methane) Standards Gas Chromatography Vinyl Chloride 24 hour 0.010 ppm Gas Chromatog- (Chloroethene) (26 ug/m3) raphy(ARB staff report 78-8-3) Ethylene 8 hour 0.1 ppm 1 hour 0.5 ppm Visibility 1 observation In sufficient amount to (8) Reducing reduce the prevailing visibility Particles to less than 10 miles when the relative humidity is less than 70% — — — Source: California ARB. Figure 12 66 E• c The South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) station in Costa Mesa serves as a monitoring source to determine the existing baseline air quality with respect to the various clean air standards. The difference between the Costa Mesa site and the Specific Plan area is insignificant due to the similar exposure to the ocean, wind and pollution sources. Data suggest that standards are exceeded on occasion, however, there are fewer instances of potentially unhealthful air quality in the Huntington Beach area than other parts of Southern California. Impacts Development within the Specific Plan area will generate air pollutants primarily from vehicular sources which serve the residents' transportation needs. Other sources will result from development related energy demand, from temporary construction sources and from expanded oil operations. Ultimate development of the Specific Plan area could result in an additional 870 units which could generate about 8,700 vehicle trips per day. At eight and a half miles per average trip, ultimate development of the area may add about 73,950 vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to the present traffic burden. Vehicular emissions were calculated from EPA AP-42 for the average vehicle in the South Coast Air Basin. The 1982 emission factors were used to determine vehicular generation of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, sulfur oxide, particulates, and hydrocarbon emissions (Figure 14). The estimated tonnage of emissions 1.68 ton/year may be reduced as newer motor vehicles replace older models, new advances in engine design and motor vehicle inspections are implemented, public transportation is expanded, or regional plans are implemented to reduce vehicular trips. Construction activities generate air pollution emissions from disturbance of the soil in clearing and grading and from combustion emissions from on-site equipment and from off-site trucks. These emissions vary widely depending on soil, wind or moisture characteristics and depend on specific equipment used. The California Air Resources Board estimates that it requires about 300,000 Brake Horsepower Hours (BHP-HR) of heavy equipment and truck activity to build out one acre into a housing development. Similarly, they recommend a fugitive dust emission factor of 1.2 tons/acre/month with an intensive construction duration of six months. The ARB also estimates the effectiveness of dust suppression measures required by SCAQMD Rule 403 to be 50 percent. Based on these assumptions and average combustion equipment emission factors for diesel-powered equipment, the resulting construction activity emissions have been tabulated. Construction-related emissions will be released throughout project buildout in various amounts. Of these, the oxides of nitrogen from diesel exhaust and the fugitive dust from grading have the greatest potential for a significant impact while the rest are insignificantly small, especially on a regional scale. 67 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY SUMMARY FROM MONITORING SITE CLOSEST TO PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT (COSTA MESA) (Days Standards Were Exceeded) 1977 1978 1979 1980 Ozone I HR'_ 0.10 ppm 31. 52. 26. 20. 1 HR >_ 0.12 ppm - 25. 16. 5. 1 HR > 0.20 ppm 0. 3. 1. 0. Max. Hourly Conc. 0.18 ppm 0.22 ppm 0.21 ppm 0.16 ppm Carbon Monoxide I HR > 35 ppm 0. 0. 0. 0. 8HR > 9 ppm 20. 9. 18. 6. Max Hourly Conc. 18. ppm 18. ppm 21. ppm 17. ppm Max 8-HR Conc. 12.4 ppm 12.8 ppm 15.9 ppm 13.9 ppm Nitrogen Dioxide I HR -' 0.25 ppm 0. 4. 4. 2. Max Hourly Conc. 0.23 ppm 0.30 ppm 0.29 ppm 0.31 ppm Sulfur Dioxide --___----NOT EXCEEDED--------------------------- Total Particulates 24HRS_' I00,Jkg/m3 13/61 10/61 26/61 6/20 24HRS! 15gAg/m3 3/61 11617161 0/20 Max Daily Conc. 202�tg/m3 175./g/m3 252/ug/m3 125.,„g/m3 Lead Imo.? 1.5,4g/m3 5/12 4/12 3/12 0/4 Max Monthly Conc. 3.64p,g/m3 3.1 I,.g/m3 1.90rg/m3 0.82r,g/m3 Sulfates 24HRS? 2 g/m3 3/61 2/610/61 0/20 Max Daily Conc. 37.8ywg/m3 27.2,4,►g/m3 24.2ug/m3 13.5/g/m3 Figure 13 68 t Residential development also creates additional energy demands met by the combustion of fuel oil in power plants and natural gas in stoves, furnaces, water heaters, etc. Emissions associated with the generation of electricity would occur throughout the utility grid system and would not necessarily contribute to air quality impacts in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project. Stationary source emissions can not be adequately assessed until actual development projects are proposed. In most residential development projects these emission sources are negligible. VEHICULAR SOURCE EMISSIONS (Ultimate Residential Development - 870 Units) Pollutants Emissions (tons/year) Carbon Monoxide 1.23 Nitrogen Oxides .21 Hydrocarbon/Organic Gases .19 Sulfur Oxides .02 Particulates .03 TOTAL 1.68 Note: Based on 8,700 vehicle trips per day at 8.5 miles per trip = 73,950 vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Emission Factors were taken from FAC 6C, from a computer run by the Orange County EMA dated July 29, 1981. Figure 14 69 Mitigation The major air quality impact will result from automobile emissions, control of which is beyond the developer or local regulatory agencies. Mitigation measures which encourage a reduction in private automobile use, although contributing only minimally in the reduction of air pollution, should be implemented; these include: - Installation of covered transit stops along Goldenwest Street. - Encourage bike and pedestrian use through the area. - Incorporate recreational opportunities within the Specific Plan area to reduce out-of-area travel. Emissions of particulate matter during construction may be greatly controlled by twice per day sprinkling. Erosion and runoff should also be minimized to keep silt from washing into streets. Emissions from oil operations can be minimized through adherence to the City's oil code. The amount of stationary source emissions are expected to be small. However, a number of measures can be employed, including: - Installation of water heater and building insulation, which will reduce natural gas and electrical consumption. - Utilization of solar technology. - Use energy conserving fluorescent lighting for interiors and high-pressure sodium for exterior lighting. VISUAL RESOURCES Setting The Specific Plan area is a large open site with gently rolling terrain. The vegetation consists of brush and grasses with a few scattered trees. One large cluster of eucalyptus trees is located in the central portion of the site. The general overall appearance is of small hills and ravines covered with natural vegetation. The majority of the site is" used for oil production and contains approximately 140 pumping units along with storage tanks, pipelines, and service roads. These facilities detract from the open, rural character of the area. The highest concentration of wells is along the bluff top area west of Edwards Street and north of Garfield Avenue. Some illegal dumping has occurred in the area resulting in litter and debris which also detract from the appearance of the site. 70 q , Surrounding properties which have views of the site are predominantly vacant with scattered oil production, Views of the area from the proposed expansion of Central Park and the proposed Bolsa Chica Regional Linear Park located to the north and west, respectively, will be an important future concern. Impacts Residential development of the Specific Plan area would create a major change in the appearance of the site. The open space would be replaced by houses and streets. Removal of much of the existing vegetation and trees is likely. Construction of new homes and roads may have an adverse visual impact on the area to the extant that the current open, rural appearance is valued by the community, On the other hand, development will have a beneficial impact on the area's appearance in that some oil facilities would be removed or consolidated, remaining oil facilities would be screened, litter and debris would be removed, and additional landscaping would be provided along arterials and throughout the area. The Specific Plan allows continued operation of existing ail wells. The presence of pumping units in the midst of expensive homes may constitute an adverse impact for residents of the area. Mitigation Measures A number of measures are proposed for inclusion in the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan to minimize adverse visual impacts and conflicts of land uses. The Plan delineates approximately 20 percent (58 acres) of the site for preservation as open space to be left in a natural state with respect to topography and vegetation. Cluster developments are allowed which would provide additional open space and opportunities for views. The plan limits the use of solid fencing in the Brea to maximize views and to retain an open atmosphere. Special buffering treatment along arterials is required. The use of setbacks, berms, and landscaping rather than masonry walls is encouraged. Grading regulations are included to preserve as much of the existing variation in terrain as possible. The plan requires that internal collector streets be improved to rural street standards to minimize the urban aearance created by squared-off curbs and gutters, concrete sidewalks and frequent street lights. The Planning Commission is Authorized to review all projects for architectural design and visual compatibility with the surrounding area. The City's Oil Code requires that all oil wells and tanks located in developed areas be screened by a fence enclosure by 1983. This will help mitigate adverse visual impacts between,residential uses and existing oil wallop 71 LIGHT AND GLARE Setting Present nighttime light levels surrounding the site are relatively dark. Street lights and automobile headlights contribute the major portion of the ambient artificial light in the area. The Specific Plan area itself is completely dark. Impacts Development of the Specific Plan area will introduce a new lighted area into the community. Surrounding properties which are planned for open space and industrial uses will not be significantly affected by the increased ambient light levels. Because of the building materials typically used for residential units, no significant increase in glare is expected to be produced by the project. Mitigation The Specific Plan requires that on-site lighting plans be reviewed by the City and that such lighting be directed onto driveways and walkways within the development and away from adjacent properties. PUBLIC SERVICES Fire Setting The Specific Plan area is served by the Gothard Fire Station adjacent to the area and well within the average response time of five minutes or less in 90 percent of the incidents. Impacts As development within the Specific Plan area occurs, additional demands will be placed on city fire protection services. In order to maintain this level of service, higher levels of manning will be necessary in the Fire Department. Mitigation No mitigation measures are proposed at this time. Police Setting The City of Huntington Beach operates a single police facility located at Main Street and Yorktown Avenue. The present authorized level of police manning is approximately 1.15 officers per 1,000 persons. 72 Impacts Development within the Specific Plan area may require an additional 2.6 police personnel, based upon ultimate development at the proposed density. Mitigation No mitigation measures are proposed at this time. Schools Setting The area lies within the Huntington Beach Elementary School District and the Huntington Beach High School District. Impacts Development within this area could generate an estimated 270 elementary school aged children and 313 middle school children. The Huntington Beach Elementary School District has indicated that sufficient excess capacity exists in area schools to accommodate the additional students. In addition 339 high school students may be generated with ultimate development in the Specific Plan area. These students would attend Huntington Beach High School, which is located within one mile of the area. District enrollment has been declining, howevero this trend is expected to level off in the future. The additional students at ultimate development pose a problem. Mitigation No mitigation measures are proposed. Parks Setting The Specific Plan area is immediately south of the proposed southern boundary of Huntington Central Park, a city-wide recreational facility. Huntington Central Park presently comprises a 297 acre area of various recreational activities. A conceptual master plan for future expansion of the park and the development of additional recreational opportunities is presently being reviewed by the city. In addition, the Specific Plan area traverses a portion of the proposed Balsa Chico Linear Regional Park. This park will provide passive recreational opportunities (bicycle, equestrian and pedestrian trails) and will eventually link Huntington Central Park with Balsa Chico State Beach. 73 NNMN JAlater Nlains 12 TALBERT CF - Existing 4-1"f aas�aafa�a� Proposed Water Mains` CF-C , 1jMi•J.Y3f�{�� Area requiring higher pressure from LI the proposed Resevior Hill BoosterStation/*Note: Additional smaller water mains � -- " \0. will be needed on internal streets 12"0 N Ln { Kx f : -}::•;max;!. .,hs.;j?":{}v nis<�e;p;[':vGji:!a}:-}:•:y::fi::: ?Gil — --- -— _ Ki- :•:} �• .: if ?, t / 8 i . :•= _ F ,h h I i ....:. . . .. .... SOURCE: Hunt/ :::•:•.:..:...... po - _ _- - on Beach Water Division,788t� {' .connector to Pro sed Resevoi .,�:: :•:+" - ill Booster lopHUNTINGTON BEACH G4LFORNIA PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING and Pr4F30SGCI Water Mains Impacts The Specific Plan establishes an open space corridor which meanders through the area comprising approximately 58 undevelopable acres within which a public trail system connecting with Huntington Central Park and Bolsa Chica Linear Regional Park, will be maintained. This additional open space along with the private common open space required in conjunction with cluster and planned residential projects will more than adequately provide the necessary recreational opportunities required by proposed development. Mitigation No additional mitigation measures are proposed. UTILITIES Water Setting The City of Huntington Beach water supply is derived from two primary sources: imported water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and groundwater from the Orange County Groundwater Basin. Existing water mains serving the study area are shown on Figure 15. The 42-inch pipe in Edwards Street is a transmission main used to transport water between Peck and Overmyer Reservoirs. The City does not allow individual developments or units to connect directly to this transmission water main. There is a 14-inch distribution main in Goldenwest Street between Garfield and Ellis Avenues and a 12-inch distribution main in Ellis Avenue west of Goldenwest Street. This latter facility in Ellis Avenue does not extend all the way to Edwards Street. Properties fronting the existing water mains on Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street have adequate water service for domestic needs and fire flow. Some of the remaining properties may be able to connect to an existing main with a six- to eight-inch pipe and obtain adequate services. Eventually, in order to provide adequate water service to all developments in the study area, distribution water mains will be required in Garfield Avenue between Edwards and Goldenwest Streets, in Edwards Street between Ellis and Garfield Avenues, in Ellis Avenue east of Goldenwest Street and west of the existing water main and possibly in the proposed alignment of Gothard Street. Small water mains (eight inches and six inches in diameter) will also be necessary in any local streets that are developed in the area to provide service to internal lots. 7' a� -- ----•• TALBERT �-�--- - � �•. _ W s CF-R Is - --- -_- AV , { j' Goldenwest p1TA119� `f:_ � � !'y .�• a j -Trunk Sewer - Nk CF-C J' - �\ 1 as -- — — — i Proposed Pump Station Existing City Sewer 000" 4 Pro CitySewer _- pow �"""�• ! Force Mails I Ellis Avenue r- Interceptor Sew Ea LQ West Boundary, - — F( -'Trunk Sewer (p -- - t —- --- ��„y;••••l: Gothard Pump Station, "r Ellis Avenue, ` Interceptor Sewer West i SOURCE:Huntington Beech Pubbe Waft t.1981 HUNTINGTON MRCH CALFORNIA PLANNING DIVI City Master Plan Sewerage Facitift. One portion of the study area has a particular problem with respect to water service. All of the study area west of Edwards Street and a small portion east of Edwards Street and north of Garfield Avenue, is at a higher elevation than most land in the City (see Figure 3). Existing pipe pressures in the water system are not adequate to provide water service to this area. A booster station is planned to serve a second high point in the City (Reservoir Hill) located approximately three quarters of a mile to the southeast of the Edwards Street/Garfield Avenue intersection. Construction of this facility and a 12-inch water main connection from the booster station to the study area will be necessary to provide adequate water service to the southwest portion of the study area. In the absence of this facility, construction of on-site booster stations to serve individual projects would be necessary. Impacts According to the City's Public Works Department, there are no problems associated with providing adequate domestic water service to the Specific Plan area if extensions of existing distribution mains and a booster station are provided as discussed in the previous section.1 Development of the Specific Plan area will contribute cumulatively to the demand for water in Southern California. The maximum peak daily water demands anticipated with development is 476,064 gallons per day. This is based on a density of three units per acre, 3.42 persons per dwelling unit and an average daily usage of 160 gallons per person. Mitigation Measures Water conservation measures that can be included in project design include the installation of low flush toilets, low volume shower heads, and faucet flow control; a minimum of landscaping requiring heavy irrigation and/or incorporation of drought resistant plants in the landscaping design; and preservation of natural drainage areas to replenish the water table. Sewerage Setting The Specific Plan area is located within the service area of the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County and the City of Huntington Beach. The area is not served by public sewerage facilities at this time. 1 Conversation with Ed Eievatorski, City of Huntington Beach Water Department, 1982. '7*7 The City's Master Plan of Sewers indicates that two major trucklines and one pump station will be needed to collect and convey sewerage from the Specific Plan area at ultimate development (see Figure 16). The proposed alignments of both sewer trunklines are located at the bottom of natural drainage swales. These alignments minimize the depth at which the pipes must be buried and capitalize on the force of gravity for adequate flow. The proposed West Boundary Trunk Sewer is a ten-to-twelve-inch pipe over a mile in length which originates south of Ellis Avenue, west of Goldenwest Street. It follows an alignment north across the Specific Plan area, continues across Ellis Avenue through Central Park and terminates at the City's existing Goldenwest Trunk Sewer just north of Talbert Avenue. The proposed Ellis Avenue Interceptor Sewer West is a ten-to-twelve-inch pipe approximately 4,000 feet long which originates south of Ellis Avenue approximately 1,300 feet west of Goldenwest Street. It follows an alignment northeast across the Specific Plan area, crosses Goldenwest Street and terminates at Ellis Avenue. A pump station will be required at the downstream end of this sewer to lift wastewater flow into the City's existing Goldenwest Trunk Sewer. Additional sewer lines will be required to connect individual developments to one of the two major trunklines. Impacts At ultimate development, the Specific Plan area will generate a peak flow of approximately 405,700 gallons per day based on an average generation factor of 230 gallons per day per unit. Development of the study area will increase sewerage flows and impact sewerage facilities beyond the immediate study area. Sewerage from both the proposed West Boundary Trunk and Ellis Avenue Interceptor West Sewers will initially flow off the study area into the City's Goldenwest Trunk Sewer. This sewer is currently flowing under capacity and will be adequate to accommodate the increased flow from the study area at the densities being considered. The Goldenwest Trunk sewer flows into County Sanitation District No. 11's Slater Avenue pump station and Slater trunk sewer. From here County Sanitation District No. 3 facilities pick up the flow and carry it to the County Sanitation District's Treatment Plan No. 2. The County Sanitation District has indicated that recent improvements to the Slater Avenue pump station and trunk sewer will enable these facilities to accommodate additional flow without adverse impacts.2 1 Peak Flow = (Total Average Daily Flow) .892 x 1.704 2 Letter from County Sanitation Districts of Orange County dated May 14, 1982 78 Some property owners may request to serve individual lots with septic tanks or similar systems. The use of these systems could have adverse Impacts on the quality of the groundwater in the area. Some of this groundwater may flow Into Huntington and Sully-Miller Lakes affecting the quality of these two bodies of water. Mitigation Measures The use of low flush toilets in individual projects may be used to reduce sewerage flow. To mitigate adverse impacts due to the use of septic tanks, the Specific Plan proposes that individual sewer systems be allowed on a temporary basis only on lots of at least one acre in size subject to approval by the Director of Public Works. Such systems would only be permitted if access to public sanitary sewers is not available and if it can be shown that no adverse health and safety Impacts are created. Storm Drains Setting The Specific Plan Area east of Edwards Street is in the City's drainage district number nine. The area west of Edwards Street is not in a drainage district. Much of the area west of Edwards Street drains directly into the Bolsa Chica lowlands via natural ravines cut into the bluff. The remainder of the site is traversed by two major ravines which collect and convey storm water runoff in a north and northeasterly direction into the Huntington and Sully Miller Lakes. Impacts Development of the Specific Plan Area will increase the amount of impervious surface (concrete, asphalt, rooftops, etc) which will, in turn, Increase the amount of storm water runoff. A system of drainage in the area will be required to accommodate runoff from watering of lawns and from minor storms as well as runoff from infrequent larger rainfalls (i.e., a 100-year storm). Because properties in the area will be developing at different times, Increased runoff from one new development may adversely impact an adjacent property. Mitigation The Specific Plan proposes a drainage system that relies on both open swales and underground pipes. Nuisance water and runoff from minor storms will be accommodated by surface flow and, where necessary, by underground storm drains. Runoff from storms up to a 100-year storm will be accommodated by natural swales. The two major swales in the area are preserved as open space corridors partly for this purpose. Smaller tributary swales have been designated as sensitive development areas. Development may occur in these areas as long as it does not block that portion of the swale needed to accommodate runoff from the 100-year storm. .. 79 O ro so 60 —20 ORA-�82 m 0 30 .0 0. 60 50 / , U I IS-—-—-—-—-—-—-—- ?0 20 33 Fj .0 30 ORA-88 so 40- 10r�se 6p__ti . , I 110 20 e -—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-— —-—-—-— GARFIFI Q 711 , ORA-366 0 -365 HUNTINGTON BEACH C&FORNIN PLANNING DIVISION Archaeological Sites An additional mitigation measure is for the Department of Public Works to review individual projects to ensure that development will not block upstream runoff and not cause increased flooding to downstream properties. Gas and Electricity Natural gas service and electrical service are provided by the Southern California Gas Company and the Edison Company, respectively. The Gas Company indicates that gas service to the Specific Plan area could be provided by the extension of existing mains. They add, however, that the availability of natural gas service is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies.1 Adequate electric power supply can be provided from 12KV distribution lines in the vicinity of the Specific Plan Area. Edison notes that the total electrical system demand is expected to continue to increase annually and if plans to proceed with future construction of new generating facilities are delayed, Edison's capacity to serve all customeX loads during peak demand periods could become marginal by the mid 1980's. Telephone General Telephone Company provides telephone service to the City of Huntington Beach. No local service constraints are expected under the proposed Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. Solid Waste The Rainbow Disposal Company provides solid waste collection to the City of Huntington Beach. No local service constraints are expected under the proposed Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Setting In 19739 Archaeological Resources, Inc., conducted a study of archaeological resources in the City of Huntington Beach. Three of the sites that were identified in this study are located in part within the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area. The three sites (ORA-889 ORA-3669 and ORA-365) are located west of Edwards Street (see Figure 17)1 A fourth site, ORA-829 is located immediately north of the project area. The Study identified ORA-88 as being in reasonably good condition worthy of further scientific 1 Southern California Gas Company, Communication from D.M. Glover, Technical Supervisor, 1982. 2 Telephone conversation with Stan Tkaczyk, Rainbow Disposal, 1982. 81 investigation. With respect to ORA 365 the study indicates that very little of the site remains but that this remaining portion is worthy of additional scientific investigation. Site ORA-366 was described as essentially destroyed. ORA-82, located oLtisde the Specific Plan Area, was identified as requiring further investigation. Impacts Grading activities for construction of roadways and residential units in the Specific Plan area could damage and/or destroy potentially important archaelogical remains. Drilling of new oil wells, which will be permitted in certain portions of the site, may also have adverse impacts on archaeological resources. The proposed realignment of Edwards Street and Ellis Avenue may cross portions of ORA-82 and ORA-88. Mitigation Factors The Specific Plan delineates an open space corridor west of Edwards Street to accommodate the proposed Balsa Chica Linear Regional Park. Most of Sites ORA-88, 365 and 366 are located within this proposed Open Space Corridor and would be subject to minimal grading for trails, bikeways and other passive recreational activities. As an additional mitigation measure, the City could require that a qualified archaeologist be present during the initial stages of any grading for construction of roadways, building pads or other uses. HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY Setting Storm water runoff currently flows from the study area by way of existing natural ravines. A small portion of the study area west of Edwards Street drains to the west into the Balsa Chica lowlands. The remainder of the site is traversed by two ravines and drains in a north and northeasterly direction into the Huntington and Sully Miller lakes. (See Figure 3). The first of these two ravines begins south of Ellis Avenue and east of Edwards Street. It runs north, crossing Ellis Avenue at a low point of 35 feet and continues beyond the study area to Huntington Lake in Central Park. The slopes of the land converging down into this swale range from five to 30 percent. A shorter tributary swale flows into the main ravine south of Ellis Avenue. The second major drainage course begins immediately south of Schleicher Avenue west of Goldenwest Street. This ravine begins at an elevation of approximately 50 feet and trends in a northeast direction towards Goldenwest Street. The swale crosses Goldenwest Street and continues in a northeast direction, eventually crossing Ellis Avenue at a low point of 14 feet. The 1 Archaeological Research, Inc., Scientific Resources Survey and Inventory (for the City of Huntington Beach, 1973. 82 drainage course continues north from the study area to Sully-Miller Lake. The slope of the land into this second drainage swale is gradual (five to 20 percent) west of Goldenwest Street. East of Goldenwest Street the slope into the ravine is more steep - over 30 percent at its steepest point. Impacts The volume of storm water runoff from any site depends not only upon the intensity of rainfall but also the ground surface. Asphalt, concrete and rooftop surfaces characteristic of urban development do not readily absorb water and produce higher volumes of runoff during a storm than natural open space and vegetated surfaces. According to the Public Works Department, runoff from the study area will roughly double at ultimate development over that produced in its currently undeveloped state. The Impact of this increased runoff on drainage facilities is discussed in the section on Public Facilities in this EIR. The increased runoff from the Specific Plan Area will also add to the existing water quality problems in Huntington, Talbert and Sully Miller Lakes. These three lakes, which receive drainage from the Specific Plan area, are experiencing problems from excessive nutrient inputs, high salinity, and inflow of trash and debris.The excessive nutrients cause eutrophication of the lake including dense algae growth, reduced clarity, oxygen depletion of the deep waters, oxygen saturation of surface waters, and the threat of a massive fishkill. A major source of the nutrient input appears to be nearby equestrian operations. The possible sources of the high salinity level for the lakes Include oil well brine, equestrian operation, and Irrigation water. Substantial quantities of horse manure, oanic debris, and silt are carried into the lakes during high rainfall and runoff.rg Mitigation Measures Huntington, Talbert and Sully Miller Lakes are all located within the existing or proposed boundaries of Huntington Central Park. Development plans for recreational uses in the park were analyzed in a recent Environmental Impact Report. A number of measures to improve the water quality in the three lakes were included in that E.I.R. The fol lowing would help mitigate adverse Impacts caused by development of the Ellis-Golendwest Specific Plan area: Huntington Lake: a. Means should be devised and implemented to prevent the inflow of horse manure and other debris from the equestrian area to reduce nutrient runoff into Huntington Lake. Draft Environmental Impact Report on the Proposed Huntington Central Park Expansion, prepared for the City of Huntington Beach, April, 1982. 83 b. A permanent lake aeration system is proposed to be installed to: eliminate oxygen depletions in the deep water, prevent excessive algal growth, increase fish habitat availability, increase fish survival and growth, and prevent fish kills. An aeration system should also promote the oxidation of accumulated organic matter in the lake sediments. This should reduce the oxygen demand of the sediments and reduce the nutrient releases from the sediments. C. Huntington Lake should be treated with potassium permanganate and with alum. These should be separate treatments and both should occur after aeration begins. The purpose of the potassium permaganate treatment is to help oxidize the organic materials in the water and sediment. The purpose of the alum treatment is to remove suspended materials from the water, reduce the nutrient content of the water, and to form an alum floc on the lake bottom and thus help prevent the release of nutrients from the sediments. d. Trash and debris can be removed manually by the use of hand tools such as nets and rakes. The material removed should be removed from the park through normal trash collection. The trash and debris could also be removed by the use of mechanical skimmers with screens or baskets operated by pumps. This method also transfers water to keep the cove areas from becoming stagnant through decomposition of the soluble organics that are associated with the debris. Sully Miller Lake: a. The water level in Sully-Miller Lake should be stabilized. Rapid elevation increases due to storm runoff should be controlled through the installation of a pump and reconstruction of the inoperative outlet drain. Supplemental water sources should be sought for diversion into the lake to prevent excessive reductions in elevation during dry periods. b. Nutrient and other dissolved substance concentrations in the present runoff water are definitely excessive. The sources of these materials should be more clearly identified, and control measures taken to reduce or eliminate these problems. Nuisance flows and initial storm runoff from the area should be collected and diverted around the lake and into the outlet drain. This is more desirable than allowing these runoff waters to enter the lake as these waters could contain debris, oil, and other undesirable materials. c. For long range maintenance o, good quality water at Sully-Miller Lake, it is recommended that at least two (2) intake and pump systems be Installed. The intake skimmers should be designed to operate with weir boards over the range of water levels recommended. Talbert Lake: a. Means should be devised to control and reduce the inflow of nutritive materials such as debris and silt through surface runoff. 84 f . b. The water level in Talbert Lake should be monitored and stabilized to the greatest extent feasible. Pumping may be necessary to dispose of excessive runoff at times; alternate water supplies may be necessary during dry periods for water level stabilization. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts occurring as a result of the implementation of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan are largely limited to traffic and air quality considerations. As discussed in the section on Traffic and Circulation, traffic generated by the project will increase volumes on nearby arterials of which several are expected to be near or beyond capacity by the year 1995. In regards to air quality, the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) assumes level of growth consistent with SCAG 78. The implementation of the AOMP may require that some of the growth provided for in County and City General Plans be modified, eliminated or delayed if that growth will prevent or interfere with the attainment and maintenance of ambient air quality goals. Since the growth accommodated by the proposed project will cumulatively impact the ambient air quality of the region, but will most likely not exceed SCAG 78 forecasts or cause local air pollutant concentrations to exceed the relevant standards, its consistency with the intent of the provisions of the AQMP is clear. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts and Irreversible Environmental Changes Although mitigation measures are recommended for many of the anticipated impacts resulting from development within the Specific Plan area, some of the impacts addressed in this environmental impact report are partially or totally unavoidable. Irreversible environmental change of a secondary nature can be expected from development within the area. Loss of open space will occur as vacant land Is converted to other uses, however, the requirement of open space corridor preservation will leave a portion of the area in a natural state. Alteration of topography will be another irreversible change, even though mitigation measures will be imposed as part of the development process. In addition implementation of development in the Specific Plan area will result in the following: - An incremental increase in air pollution from motor vehicles. - An increase in traffic on surrounding streets. - An increase in demand for public services and utilities. - An Increase in noise levels within the area. 85 An increase in population within the study area. Loss of much of the existing wildlife habitat and displacement of most of the wildlife currently inhabiting or visi ting the site. Growth Inducement The Ellis-G oldenwe st Specific Plan is not seen as a growth-inducing measure. It implements the City's existing General Plan density for the area of three dwelling units per acre. The Plan is intended to guide this growth in a manner that is consistent with protecting the open space quality of the area, existing topographic features, and other environmental concerns. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES "No Project" Alternative This alternative consists of retaining the existing zoning in the Ellis-Goldenwest area which is a mixture of RA, LU, MI, R1, with -01 and -02 suffixes. The resulting development under this alternative would most likely be a mixture of potentially incompatible uses on small project sites. Each project would have to be reviewed on an individual basis and conditioned to achieve desired protection of environmental features. Many objectives such as preservation of open space corridors, preservation of existing topography and limited access to arterials would most likely not be achieved. Short-Term Effects versus Long-Term Productivity The implementation of a Specific Plan for this area will have a long term effect of setting aside one of the few remaining areas within the city for equestrian/estate residential development. The area is one of the last areas within the city which has remained in a primarily natural state, rich in topographic features. The Specific Plan would preserve to the greatest extent feasible those topographic features. The proposed Specific Plan will allow residential development and require the preservation of open space corridors with a public trail system, linking Huntington Central Park and Bolsa Chica Regional Linear Park in order to enhance not only the residential development but also the communities recreational opportunities. The Specific Plan also identifies areas for future resource recovery opportunities; recognizing that oil production is of vital importance to this community and the nation as a whole. These sites will be preserved until it is determined that resource production is no longer feasible from these locations. Long-term productivity will be enhanced by properly maintaining these open space and resource production areas for the enjoyment and benefit of the community. 86 f . APPENDIX I ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM (To Be Completed By Lead Agency) I. Background I. Name of Proponent City of Huntington Beach, Development Services Department 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent 2000 Alain Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 536-5271 3. Date of Checklist Submitted February 16 , 1982 4. Agency Requiring Checklist Development Services Dept. of City of H.B. 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable Ellis—Goldenwest Specific Plan II. Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) Yes, Ma No I. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? X b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction • or overcovering of the soil? X c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X d. The destruction, covering or modification X of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? X f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river*or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? X f� 87 Yes M Abe No g. 'Exposure of people or property to geolo- gic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? X 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration X of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? X c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? X 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of di- rection of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? X b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pat- terns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? X C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood , waters? X d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? X e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, • dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? X g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? X h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supp lies? X i. Exposure of people or property to water re- lated hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? X 88 i Yes M�a be No 4. Plant*Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, gross, crops, and aquatic plants)? X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? X c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? X d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X S. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? X n c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? X d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? X b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? X 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub- stantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? X 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? X 89 Yes 1 No b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? X 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve. a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? X b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? X 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? X 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing hous- ing, or create a demand for additional housing? X 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? X ?PON b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or X ' demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact upon existing transpor- tation systems? X d. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods17 . X e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traff ic? X f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: X a. Fire protection? X b. Police protection? X c. Schools? X 90 rt Yes M be No d. Parks or other recreational facilities? _X e. Maintenance of public facilities, including X roads? f. Other governmental services? X 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. -Use-ef-tL4>stea4#ieF-ernet*n4s-e 4ue4-or-enema2 b. Substantial increase in demand upon exist- ing sources of energy, or require the s. development of new sources of energy? X 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? X b. Communications systems? X c. Water? X d. Sewer or septic tanks? X e. Storm water drainage? X f. Solid waste and disposal? X 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? X b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? X 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? X 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? X 91 Yes A4a No b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? X c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical charge which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? X d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? X 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild- life population to drop below self sus- taining 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? X b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short- term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) X c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively con- siderable? (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.) X d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X III. Discussion of Environrnental Evaluation IV. Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency) 92 1A. Consolidation of oil operations may result in changes to the geologic substructure. B. Construction on the subject site will result in removal and over- covering of soil. C,D. Construction on the subject site may result in modification of the existing topography, especially in swale areas. E. Construction on the subject site may increase erosion of bluff areas and swales. F. Construction on the subject site may result in added deposition in the Bolsa Chica and Central Park areas. G. The City-wide Geologic Study, prepared by Leighton-Yen and Associates, indicates that the North Branch fault and subsidiary faults traverse the site. 2A. Construction on the subject site may generate increased air emissions from equipment and residential traffic. A cumulative assessment of air quality impacts should be prepared taking into account existing air quality standards. B. The existence of oil operations on the site may produce objec- tionable odors. 3B. Projects which are eventually constructed on the site may sub- stantially decrease absorbtion rates and increase runoff. Some areas are at lower elevations than others and may experi- ence poor drainage. C. Construction on the subject site may alter the course of swales. E. Discharges from development and equestrian uses may alter sur- face water quality within the Central Park lake system and Bolsa Chica. F,G. Consolidation of oil operations may alter the course of ground- water flow and quantity. 4A, C. Construction on, the subject site will result in displacement of existing trees and shrubs. SA, C. Some species of animal may be displaced from the site while _ others will relocate to new niches within the residential developments. 6A. Increased automobile traffic and short-term construction will result in increased noise levels. 93 8. The proposed land uses will result in a substantial change from vacant, oil, and equestrian uses to planned residential and equestrian estates. 10A. Consolidation and operation of oil activity may subject the new developments to hazardous substances and/or explosions. 11. The proposed residential development will add population to the area. 12. The proposed project will add housing to the local supply, but will not provide significant opportunities for low and moderate income housing. 13 A, B, C, D, F. Projects eventually constructed on the site will result in a substantial amount of automobile traffic which may significantly impact the City' s circulation system. Based on the number of additional trips generated by projects which will ultimately develop on the site, a general assessment on street and intersection capacities should be presented. 14 A-F. The potential increases in intensity of use resulting from projects which will be developed on the site may result in sig- nificant demand for the expansion of existing utility systems. A general assessment of the concerns of the potentially affected agencies should be determined and presented in the EIR. 17A, B. Consolidation of oil operations may create health hazards for those living in adjacent residential developments. 18. The change in land uses from vacant to developed will alter the aesthetic character of the area. 19. The proposed project will result in additional recreational op- portunities in the area (equestrian, bicycling, etc.) . 20. The proposed land use changes may alter archaeological sites along bluff areas. 15. Development of the area of concern may result in substantial demand of energy sources. 94 E.I.R COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 95 • ,, ., . , COUNT' SANITATION DISTRICTS' TELEPHONES:ACODE 714 AREA CODE 714 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA '•�` S 4 D-a s t o �, 962-2411 P. 0. BOX 8127. FOUNTAIN VALLEY. CALIFORNIA 92708 10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP. SAN DIEGO FREEWAY) May 14, 1982 City of Huntington Beach Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Attention: Carol Inge, Assistant Planner Reference: EIR 82-1 for Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan This letter is written to update the statement concerning the Districts' facilities included on page 78 of subject EIR. Please be advised that the Slater Avenue Pump Station is presently being rehabilitated and a new parallel force main is under construction. These actions will insure interim reliability until completion of the Coast Trunk Sewer system which is antici- pated during the next decade. If you have any questions,. please do not hesitate to call. GCS='V' Hilary J. Baker Senior Engineering Aide HJB:ss 96 r . RESPONSE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT OF ORANGE COUNTY (Letter dated May 14, 1982) Comment regarding the current upgrading of The Slater Avenue Pump Station will be incorporated into the Final E.I.R. 97 ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT I May 19, 1982 Ms. Carol Inge Assistant Planner ! City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Ms. Inge: SUBJECT: EIR 82-1 ELLIS - GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN Thank you for sending us a copy of the Ellis - Goldenwest Specific Plan for our review and comment. The Specific Plan area is currently served by Route 25 (Goldenwest Avenue). We suggest that provisions be made for buses in the design of the streets and the locations of bus stops (i.e. pavement sections, bus turnouts, etc.) Further, as this area develops and ties in to the development for the Bolsa Chica Wetlands, bus service may be provided through the Specific Plan Area via Edwards and Garfield. Therefore, we suggest that you also take transit into account in the design of Edwards and Garfield, making provisions for bus stops as well as pedestrian access to the proposed subdivisions. If there are any questions, please contact me or Mike Haack at 971-6405. i Sincerely, ; Dick Hsu Environmental Coordinator DH:SX I 11222 ACACIA PARKWAY • P.O. BOX 3005 • GARDEN GROVE, CALIFORNIA 92642 • PHONE(714)971-6200 98 Y � RESPONSE ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT (Letter dated May 19, 1982) No response necessary 9P CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION ` HUNTINGTON BEACH To Mike Adams From Don Noble Assistant Planner Engineer Planner Subject Ellis/Goldenwest Specific Date -"'day 27, 1982 Plan & E.I.R. #82-1 The Public Works Department has the following comments and concerns regarding the Ellis/Goldenwest Specific Plan and E.I.R. #82-1: Drainage 1. Nuisance water will be permitted to flow in the drainage swales (see pag�aragraph 3) . 2. Not all storm runoff should be diverted from the lake; only nuisance flows and initial storm waters should be conveyed through a bypass system (see page 85, paragraph 1) . Sewage 1. The County' s Slater Pump. Station has been upgraded - would suggest they be contacted regarding overload (see page 78, last paragraph) . Water 1. No comment. Traffic 1. Straight streets rather than curvalinear alignments, are safer roadways. Item 4 of Section 2 on page 16 is therefore somewhat misleading. 2. Item "a" on page 48 should be clarified (i.e. paved width of 24 feet would not include curb and gutter, if applicable) . 3. Who would maintain "lot entry" bridges across drainage swales - homeowners association or individual property owners? (This should be resolved prior to Commission Meeting, if applicable) . 4. Goldenwest Street, between Garfield Avenue and Rio Vista, should be reclassified to a major arterial. 5. Intersections, where a rural street joins a standard street, should be standard planned, (i.e. how will curb lines, park- ways and drainage be handled?) 100. l � Mike Adams Ellis/Goldenwest Specific Plan May 27, 1982 Page 2 Landscaping of Arterial Highways 1. Street medians, where applicable, could be reduced in width from 14' to 10' or 121 . This would reduce landscaping costs and provide more roadway for traffic. 2. Parkway designs could include meandering walkways and bike trails behind curb line. 3. Parkways should not include tree planting directly behind curb or within sidewalk configurations (i.e. tree planting should be behind any sidewalk construction) . This action, in addition to, reducing damage to sidewalks and streets, will reduce maintenance costs and insure sight clearances for traffic. Misc. 1. who will maintain "dedicated public horse trail easement"? 2. What is the status of the geothermal wall study? 3. What specific conditions will be imposed upon developers to mitigate water quality damage to the lakes? DRN:lw cc: Paul Cook Ed Elevatorski Ralph Levva Stan Farber Bruce Gilmer Karl Huy Bill Patapoff Daryl Smith E.I.R. Correspondence File 101 RESPONSE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Drainage 1. Not applicable to E.I.R. 2. The Final E. I.R. will be amended to reflect this correction. Sewage 1. The County Sanitation District has indicated that the Slater Pump Station is being rehabilitated. This will be incorporated into the Final E.I.R. Traffic 1. Curvalinear streets, if designed properly, are safe and may help reduce traffic speeds in the Specific Plan area. 2. The Specific Plan has been amended to clarify the required width of private accessways. 3. "Lot entry" bridges would constitute private drive- ways and would be the responsibility of the individual lot owner. 4. The reclassification of Goldenwest Street to a major arterial between Garfield Avenue and Rio Vista will be addressed in the next amendment to the City' s Circulation Element. 5. Design of the intersections of r ural and standard streets will be subject to review by the Planning Commission. Landscaping of Arterial Highways No response necessary. Miscellaneous 1. Homeowners Associations adjacent to trails will be responsible for the maintenance of those trails. 2. The City has applied to the California Energy Commission for a grant to Study geothermal resources in Huntington Beach. As of 6/10/82, the City has not heard whether or not it will receive the grant. The provisions of the Specific Plan do not preclude the development and use of geothermal energy in the area. 3. Drainage plans of individual projects are subject to review by the Department of Public Works and to approval by the Planning Commission. Specific mitigation measures can be applied at the project level. 102 awmn Chevron U:SA. Inc. �, r:t--'• P. 0. Box 606, La Habra, CA 90631 Phone (213) Y:;��( i' ` . Written Comments on Draft EIR 82-1 Huntington Beach Ellis/Goldenwest Specific Plan City of Huntington Beach Planning and Environmental Resource Department P.O. Box 190 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attention: Carol Inge, _ Dear Carol: The following comments refer to the draft Environmental Impact Report 82-1, and are limited to the topic of oil, beginning on Page 58. Each paragraph is analyzed and specific comments made where appropriate, followed by generalized comments regarding the Setting, Impacts and Mitigations sections of the EIR pertaining to oil operations within the Specific Plan area. I. Environmental "Setting".beginning on Page 59: Paragraph 1: Chevron U.S.A. Inc. operates a total of 94 wells within the Specific Plan area, located on 4 distinct parcels which are governed by separ- ate and independent lease agreements: This fact should be pointed out in order to understand the need for segregated drilling areas on each of the 4 leases (i.e., off-site drilling, commingling of production, blanket pass through privileges, etc. , are not rights which are implied in oil and gas leases). Paragraph 2: Chevron U.S.A. Inc.. operates a total of 66 wells within the area west of Edwards included in the Specific Plan. To appreciate the inten- sity of oil operations in and around this area, a map highlighting oil activities would help in understanding the heavy oil related land use within the boundaries of the Specific Plan. An aerial photograph which depicts Chevron's intense use will be provided to the City of Huntington Beach. Paragraph 3: There are statements made in this paragraph which refer to declining oil production and recovery methods. These types of statements need to be related to a source or supporting study (i.e., is this information derived from the "Special Study" referred to in Paragraph 4, infra?). Paragraph 4: Based upon a recent discussion with the D.O,G., its our understanding that the "Special Study" referred to on Page 58 of the draft 103 City of Huntington Beach Attention: Carol Inge Specific Plan, which allegedly supports the sufficiency of preserving only two drillsites, is not a written study and therefore not subject to the oil operator's review and comment. The D.O.G. also stated that before imposing drilling limitations, the City should both consider the advice of the affected oil operators and of an independent oil consultant. Thus, these statements, and presumably those in Paragraph 3, supra, are without written substantiation and call into question the validity of the proposed limitation on future drilling operations within the Specific Plan area. General Comments on oil "Setting": With a majority of the study area in oil related use, this section should discuss the economics of oil operations. This element could be a significant aspect affecting this -area. Furthermore, the EIR should include a map illustrating the intensity of oil activities within the study area. Finally, the use of the alledged "Special Study" conducted by the D.O.G. as a source of information, presents a real question as to the validity of various statements and the appropriateness of limited drilling rights. IL Environmental "Impacts" beginning on Page 5 9: Paragraph 1: This paragraph attempts to list "Impacts" that the introduction of residential developments will have on existing and future oil operations. No detailed analysis is given to the specific way in which oil operations will be affected (i.e. curtailing future domestic oil extraction and treatment operations, increasing the economic burden on all oil operators which may in turn be passed on to the consumer, reduced taxes and governmental fees, etc.). There is also a comment made that "many of the marginal producing wells may become abandoned in favor of residential development". This is a speculative opinion which does not belong in a draft EIR. Paragraph 2: Instead of discussing "Impacts", this paragraph attempts to suggest highly speculative mitigation measures that are very complicated and difficult to implement even under ideal conditions. This is especially true where there is a fragmentation of property ownership, which is acute in portions, if not all, of the Specific Plan area (both surface and subsurface). General Comments on "Impacts"Section: An adequate identification or anlysis of the potential impacts (e.g., econo- mics) residential development would have on oil operations has not been made. The analysis appears to gloss over foreseeable problems, and instead concentrates on inadequately investigated mitigation possibilities. 104 r s City of Huntington Beach Attention: Carol Inge III. Environmental "Mitigation" beginning on Page 59: Paragraph 1: An obvious error is the reference made to converting gasoline powered pumping units to submersible electric pumps. The viscosity of the oil produced from the Specific Plan area presently prohibits the use of this type of pump. . General Comments on"Mitigation" Section Overall, mitigation measures appear inadequate and misdirected. The focus is on mitigating the impact of oil oper4tions on residential development instead of the impact of the proposed residential development on an area historically devoted to resource production. Chevron appreciates the opportunity to present its comments. If there are any questions or clarification needed, please feel free to call Vince Noble, Chevron's Environmental Compliance Coordinator at (714) 5 36-25 61. Very truly yours,, V Hilman P. Walker LOM/sd cc: Vince Noble - Huntington Beach 105 CHEVRON U.S.A. INC. (letter dated 5/27/821 A. Comments regarding the number of wells and a Statement on separate independent leases will be incorporated into the final E.T.R. B. Comment regarding the number of wells has been incor- porated into the final E.I.R. A map depicting oil activity will be incorporated into the text of the Specific Plan. C. The statement referring to a general decline in oil production will be del .eted. D. The statement referring to a special study conducted by the State Division of Oil and Gas will be reworded to reflect this comment. The special study referred to was a D.O.G. staff analysis. E. The inclusion of economic information may be presented in the document at the decression of the lead agency, however, the staff felt that economic comparasons would not provide information useful in the determination of environmental impact for this area. For additional comments see responses B and C above. F. The statement referring to marginal producing wells will be del- eted. For additional comments see response above. G. The reference to unitization will be omitted and the sentence reworded. H. The impacts of residential development on oil operations has been addressed, however additional mitigation measures will be included to reflect these impacts. I. The error has been noted and will be corrected in the document. J. Additional mitigation measures will be added to more adequately reflect the combination of both residential and oil production land uses within the Specific Plan. 10r, ce Huntington Beach Company 2110 MAIN STREET,HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92648 (714)960-4351 R.J.WORK VICE PRESIDENT-GENERAL MANAGER June 9, 1982 �. '1 ! ,► Development Services Department City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attention: Ms. Carol Inge Dear Carol: The Huntington Beach Company appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Draft Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan and accompanying Draft Environmental Impact Report 82- 1, and submits the following comments for your consideration. Page Section 1 1.1 Continued access to oil resources is identified as a major reason for undertaking the Specific Plan, yet the Plan clearly favors residential development and open space over oil production by placing restrictions on existing operations and greatly limiting new drilling opportunities. 7 1.4 Under Existing Zoning, reference should be made to the 82± acres which are presently zoned -01, in which new drilling is permitted. 11 2.0 The wording of this section should be clarified as to the intent of the Specific Plan for each subarea. It is not clear for which subarea(s) the Specific Plan sets forth development standards. Some reference to the section Containing.development standards would be helpful, as well as definitions for terms used in the Specific Plan. 11 2.1 The definition of minimum project size is confusing, as the terms project, development, area plan, development plan, and conceptual plan are all used but are not defined. This section should specifically state which minimum acreage requirement applies to the various types of entitlement applications, if this is the intent. From the information presented in Figure 7, it appears that only four out of over one hundred property owners in the Specific Plan area own areas of 10 acres or larger. The requirement that owners with less than 10 acres must consolidate or joint venture with adjacent property owners, is discriminatory and is unreasonable considering the existing pattern of ownerships. i07 Page 2 Page Section 13 2.2 Grading regulations should consider the possibility that some grading may be necesary prior to development to compact soils and provide proper drainage for individual properties or lots. Limiting grading to two feet of cut and two feet of fill outright seems overly restrictive. Open space corridors are to include a minimum 20-foot-wide public equestrian trail located in what is described as a "dedicated easement". If the trail area is dedicated to the City for public use, it is assumed that the City is then responsible for trail maintenance, contrary to the language contained in the first paragraph on Page 34. The Plan also states that such trails be located within privately owned open space easements of a minimum width of 100 feet. Where such easements are required, developers should receive credit against local park dedication requirements and in-lieu fees. 15 2.3 Reference is made to a master plan of trails and master-planned trails. A figure depicting such trails would be helpful. 15 2.4 Figure 10 represents existing circulation conditions instead of those proposed in the Specific Plan. The Circulation Plan assumes that nearly every arterial that impacts the planning area is to be realigned from either its existing or master-planned alignment. This assumption is premature until area-wide circulation issues have been adequately studied and resolved by the City, County, and Coastal Commission through general plan amendments currently pending. The alignments of these arterials should be finalized prior to adoption of the Specific Plan. 19 2.5 This section does not discuss how the design, phasing, and construction of major public works facilities is to be coordinated where said facilities are planned to cross private properties under multiple ownerships. The use of unimproved natural swales to convey drainage may present .problems given the erosive quality of the sandy soils in much of the area and concerns about water quality in Sully Miller Lake, and will be expensive to maintain. The proposed realignment of Edwards and Ellis would impact the existing water supply system; development within the Specific Plan would seem to be contingent on resolving the location of key water system facilities. 23 2.7 The limitation of residential development to two basic patterns and the prohibition of flats is inconsistent with the stated objective of providing for a variety of housing types, and in this regard the Specific Plan is less flexible than traditional zoning. A more flexible approach to designing residential units is warranted in this area given other development restrictions contained in the Specific Plan. The wording in this section would also appear to prohibit apartments -this should be clarified. 108 Page 3 a Page . Section 29 2.8 The Specific Plan's approach to the compatibility of ongoing oil production in residential areas is backwards. Rather than removing large areas from production to accommodate expected residential developments, the burden of proof for compatibility with existing oil operations should rest with residential developers as such development is proposed. The consolidation of new drilling activity into a few small islands is made difficult by the pattern of oil leases within the area and is best left to the discretion of property owners and oil operators. 31 3.1 Under uses permitted, Planned Residential Developments should also include single-family homes, both detached and attached. No provision has been made for public recreation.and open space areas such as trails, neighborhood parks and linear park, nor public and private streets, easements, flood control channels, and pump stations, etc. Permitted oil-related uses should be defined in more detail. Also, are unclassified uses such, as schools and churches to be permitted in the Specific Plan area? 32 3.3 Do the Open Space Corridor and Sensitive Development Area restrictions still apply to the entire Specific Plan area or only to Subarea 2? As with Section 2.0 the relationship of subareas & special areas needs to be clarified. 57 Topography - Sensitive Development areas are to have been designated based on "significant topography", yet nowhere is the term significant topography defined nor criteria for this designation given. 58 Oil - Division of Oil and Gas special study should be referenced. 65 Transportation and Circulation - The EIR states that the possible realignment of Edwards, Gothard, and Ellis will have significant impacts on circulation in the Specific Plan area, yet these significant impacts are not quantified, nor are mitigation measures recommended. Cumulative impacts of development within and surrounding the Specific Plan area on circulation needs have not been addressed. 72 Visual Resources - The analysis of the existing setting is extremely subjective as it relates to the open, rural appearance that is valued by the community. With respect to vegetation, residential development will more than likely improve the quality and variety of landscaping and vegetation on-site. 109 Page 4 Page Section 86 Alternatives to the Specific Plan, such as partial adoption of the proposed plan, use of conventional zoning districts, or a general plan study have been suggested and should be acknowledged. 87 The fiscal impacts of estate residential development pursuant to the proposed Specific Plan - including necessary circulation and public works improvements, maintenance burdens, and the potential loss of oil-related income to the City - have not been identified nor analyzed. LVery truly y6urs, r WORK RJW/e 110 RESPONSE HUNTINGTON BEACH COMPANY (Letter dated June 9, 1982) Comments on Specific Plan Page 1 The plan provides for significant opportunities for new drilling. Page 7 The Plan includes a map of all existing zoning in the Specific Plan area. Page 11 In Subarea Two the minimum project size for any development proposal is ten acres. Page 13 Homeowners Associations of developments adjacent to trails will be responsible for the maintenance of those trails. Private easements may count towards satisfying any common openspace requirements but not park dedication requirements. Page 15 The Specific Plan contains a figure, Exhibit 1 in the Implementing Standards, that depicts proposed master trails. Page 15 The provisions of the . Specific Plan do not preclude changes in the alignments of adjacent arterials should that be the recommendation of future studies. Page 19 A discussion of alternative methods of providing public works facilities is presented in the "Next Steps" section of the Specific Plan. Page 19 The Plan proposes a drainage system that utilizes a combination of natural swales and underground storm drains where necessary to create an adequate drainage system. Page 23 In Subarea Two, the Plan allows single family detached, single family attached and condominium developments. Stacked flats (one unit on top of another) and apartments are prohibited. Page 29 The Specific Plan allows continued operation of exist- ing oil wells and facilities throughout the Specific Plan area. New drilling is permitted in all of Subarea One (81 acres) . In Subarea Two provision is made for approximately five new drilling sites. Page 31 In Subarea Two, projects may include single family detached and attached units and condominiums or some combination, thereof. 111 Page 32 The Open Space Corridor and Sensitive Development area restrictions apply to Subarea Two only. Comments on E.I.R. Page 57 The concept of Sensitive Development areas has been eliminated from the Specific Plan. Where appropriate, the provisions formerly applied to that area now apply to all of Subarea Two. Page 58 The study by Division of Oil and Gas is no longer referred to in the Specific Plan. Page 65 The environmental impacts of arterial realignments would be addressed' in an E.I.R. for any amendment to the City's Circulation Plan. The impacts of development in the Specific Plan area on adjacent arterials are addressed in paragraphs 3 and 4 on P. 65 of the E.I.R. Page 72 The E.I.R. on page 73 states that development may have a beneficial impact on the area' s visual appearance. Page 86 The E.I.R. addresses the no project alternative. Page 87 C.E.Q.A. guidelines do not require such an analysis to be included. 112 MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS ON THE ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN AND EIR 82-1 February 9, 1982 Study Session March 9, 1982 Study Session April 27, 1982 Study Session June 1, 1982 Public Hearing June 15, 1982 Public Hearing June 22, 1982 Adjourned Meeting July 7, 1982 Regular Meeting l!� A , oved February 17, 1982 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1982 - 7:00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Bannister, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Kenefick STUDY SESSION: ELLIS/GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN Initiated by the Department of Development Services Florence Webb informed the Commission that staff had held a meet- ing with property owners in the involved area today at 1: 30 p.m. At this meeting it was stressed that the plan as presented was only the introductory step in the planning process, subject to modifica- tion after the review and public comment procedure. She intro- duced staff members Mike .Adams and Carol Inge who together made a .brief presentation of the draft plan. The presentation included identification of issues addressed by staff; e.g. , density, minimum development size, realignment of arterials, public open space, development types, and equestrian uses . Slides were presented showing existing conditions in the area and existing developments in Orange County built on property with simi- lar terrain and with a similar goal to provide a rural-type atmos- phere. The latter depicted how problems in open space, provision of interior drives, equestrian trails, and drainage swales had been met while still preserving the quality of the areas. The proposed general provisions of the plan were reviewed by Adams and Inge, covering proposed averaging of General Plan densities to allow three units per acre, a 10 acre minimum project site size, circulation to be provided, open space locations to preserve the existing topographical features of the area, design features, treatment of existing and future oil operations, equestrian uses, housing types, and implementation strategies. The Commission discussed the proposal. Commissioner Porter asked for clarification of the location of equestrian trails in relation to the arterials, and Ms. Inge responded . that the equestrian trail connecting to Central Park will cross Ellis Avenue at an under- v e Minutes, H.S. Planning Commission February 9, 1982 Page 2 crossing. Mr. Porter also noted that there may be areas which will pose difficulties in accommodating a development project even on an area 10 acres in size. Commissioner Schumacher expressed the opinion that maintenance of the equestrian trails should be financed by all the persons using the trails through some sort of assessment and not be the sole responsibil- ity of homeowners' associations in the project area, since the public will also be using the trails. She also questioned whether or not the equestrian trails would also serve as walking trails. Commissioner Mahaffey indicated that in his opinion the 10-acre requirement was too strict and assumes that a small parcel cannot be developed, thereby limiting an owner' s right to use his land. He asked if any input had been received from property owners of the areas specifically designated on the plan as being restricted from building of any kind. Florence Webb said that consolidation will allow these owners to join other property owners to construct a project with mutual benefit to all parties. The Commission also reviewed the exact location of two previously approved tracts of five and 15 acres in the area, the current value of property in the area, and the possibility of City participation in the consolidation process. Commissioner Paone stated that the 10 acre size in his estimation is too small and would not result in the type of development the City desires to see in the area. He suggested that the 236 buildable acres be separated into four or six distinct areas with a developer allowed maximum flexibility in planning a project on the larger sections. He felt that this would ensure a 'variety of project types and greater diversity in housing than the City presently has. He suggested that some areas of higher density with clustered housing might be per- mitted so that the equestrian lifestyle being developed would not go exclusively to the wealthy. He advocated letting the proposed devel- opment standards go by the wayside and letting each developer propose, his own standards and show the City how these would fit into the prop- erty for which they are being proposed. This approach would be both more and less restrictive, but there would be no arbitrary formulas for development. After extensive discussion it was the consensus that staff should re- turn to the Commission with some alternative approaches on minimum development size, development standards, densities, and some method of preventing consolidation from being totally -haphazard (which implies some type of City participation or guidance in parcel configuration, possibly through the use of redevelopment processes) . This specific plan will be rescheduled for a study session on March 9, 1982. The Commission recessed at 8:05 and reconvened at 8 :15 p.m. -2- 2-9-82 - P.C. 4 z i. 4ROVED 4-6-82 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED MEETING Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 1982 - 8:00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Bannister, Kenefick, Paone CONSENT CALENDAR: NONE STUDY §ESSIO„N ITEMS: ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN: Florence Webb, Senior Planner, capsulized the staff report, stating that staff needs direction from the Commission for a final version of the Specific Plan and to be able to prepare a draft EIR that takes the considerations of the Commission into account. She further stated that this will all take a considerable amount of time seeing that when the draft EIR is prepared, it must go to the various agencies and public for a 30-day review period. Each item was discussed by the Planning Commission with regards to project size, housing types, densities, etc. The first topic was project size. Commissioner Porter questioned how staff came up with 10 acres being the minimum size for a node. Other commissioners wanted to know what would happen to the pro- perty owners who owned 2 acres or less. Mr. Palin suggested that they would need the surrounding property owners for their sewer connections and electricity, etc. At this time, a letter from a property owner An the area was discussed. Mrs. Ann Brendall was asked to come forward and address the Commission about her concerns. She stated that her parcel contains a "deep well" that goes down 9, 000 feet and that she has been contacted by various agencies concerning the possibility of her well containing geothermal elements. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission March 9, 1982 Page 2 Chairman Winchell wanted to know what the best method would be for the individual property owners, especially those with small parcels. Ms. Webb stated that any of the methods would work. Commission consensus was concerned with the property owners whose property fell in the "green area" of the Specific Plan which would be for open space. Staff felt that everyone would have a share if they went with a joint venture. Naturally, the owners of smaller parcels would be more apt to be hurt by this Specific Plan. Redevelopment was briefly discussed, as regards the County' s share of tax increments. Staff stated that the County would waive the increments now and then get a percentage later. This percentage varies from county to county. Commissioner Mahaffey said he would like to see the property owners develop their own property "naturally", and use the Specific Plan as only a guideline. He felt that flexibility was lacking from the proposed Plan. Chairman Winchell was opposed to this statement, stating that this "natural" development plan would then annul any contiguous trail system. Commissioner Schumacher disliked the idea of a redevelopment district-- she felt that this would be "passing the buck" to another commission. A straw vote was taken on the subject of project size, product node configurations, variety of housing types and density. I-A. Project Size: 10 acre minimum IN FAVOR: Schumacher I-C. Project Size: 10 acre minimum within delineated project nodes IN FAVOR: Winchell I-D. Project Size: 10 acre average with 5 acre minimum IN FAVOR: Porter I-E. None of the above IN FAVOR: Mahaffey II-C. Product Node Configurations: Combination of topography and property lines IN FAVOR: Winchell, Porter, Schumacher II-D. None of the above IN FAVOR: Mahaffey III. Variety of Housing Types: S Minutes, H.H. Planning Commission March 9, 1982 Page 3 III-C. Leave product type optional (grading regulations and open space corridors will encourage cluster development in some areas in order to get the maximum density) IN FAVOR: Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey IV-B. Density: Allow different densities in different subareas but keep overall density at three units per acre IN FAVOR: Winchell, Porter, Schumacher IV-C. Density: Allow different densities in different subareas, and allow overall density to exceed three units per acre (Would require a General Plan Amendment) IN FAVOR: Mahaffey A study session was tentatively scheduled by the Planning Commission for April 27, 1982. AFT AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE 936, HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CO Jim rnes gave a brief synopsis of the staff report. He ated that t existing Planned Development Ordinance was stru ured to accommod a 10 acres or more. The purpose of the pro sed amend- ments to t code is to build into the ordinance mo flexibility that small p cels may now be in conflict with. so, it should make open spat more proportionate. Regarding open spa , it was the consensus hat the demand at present is for more private en space and less ommon open space. Staff felt that the standard eveloped in t proposed amendments to Ar- ticle 936 did not sacrif a this an that, further, the City of Huntington Beach is more r tric a than other cities in Orange County. Chairman Winchell felt th a se ence should be inserted to deal with the distance a mai recreatio area should be measured from the building. Commis oner Mahaffey tated that he would support these draft amendm is the way they ar now presented. There was some question as o what constitutes a t vel lane. ON MOTION B ORTER AND SECOND BY WINCHELL, STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO SET TH PUBLIC HEARING TO DISCUSS DRAFT AME ENTS TO ARTICLE 936, FO THE FIRST AVAILABLE MEETING, BY THE FOLL ING VOTE: AY Winchell, Porter, Mahaffey ES: None ABSENT: Schumacher, Bannister, Kenefick, Paone ABSTAIN: None REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission March 9, 1982 Page 4 ONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 82-01 (Continued from 2-17-82) A licant: Stephen & Da lane Fraser A re uest to permit the construction of a one-bedroom, 589 sq re foot elling unit above a proposed two-car garage at proper lo- cated o the north side of 12th Street approximately 200 fe t east of Olive venue. The public earing was opened. Seeing no one came forw rd to ad= dress this i sue, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Ma affey made a motion to approve Con ' tional Excep- tion 82-01 with he findings to added at a later te. This motion failed for lack o a second. A MOTION WAS MADE B PORTER AND SECONDED BY S UMACHER TO DENY CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION 0. 82-01 BASED ON THE INDINGS AS OUTLINED BY STAFF. THIS MOTION AILED TO OBTAIN FO OR MORE AFFIRMATIVE VOTES AS SEEN BELOW: AYES: Winchell, Porter, Schumacher NOES: Mahaffey ABSENT: Bannister, Kenefick Paone ABSTAIN: None Due to the failure to obtain fo or more affirmative votes, Con- ditional Exception No. 82-01 w a omatically continued to the meeting of March 16, 1982. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 82-1 (C tinued fro 2-17-82) Initiated by Development ervices A revision to sections f the Ordinance Co pertaining to wind- screens on projecting decks. Mr. Bellavia added correction to the staff r ort. On Page 1 of the proposed ordi ance in regards to height, it ill read as follows : "Windscreens on rojecting decks may be construct d, subject to provisions of ntington Beach Municipal Code Chap er 17. 24, to a height not a eedign nine (9) feet above the finish surface of the deck at he bulkhead line, and not exceeding the econd story finished f or elevation at the exterior wall. of the b lding. " So the wo ds "story" and "finished" were added to the to The pu is hearing was opened. Seeing no one came forward to address the C mmission on this issue, the hearing was closed. Co issioner Mahaffey made a motion to approve Code Amendment o. 8 -1 as corrected by staff. This motion failed for lack of a s ond. APPROVED ON 5-18-82 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Room B-8 - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 1982 - 7: 30 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Higgins, Livengood, Mahaffey, Schumacher, Winchell COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Paone, Porter STUDY SESSION: ELLIS/GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN Initiated by Development Services Florence Webb informed the Commission that this was the third study session with the Planning Commission on the Draft Ellis/Goldenwest Specific Plan. She stated that, since the last study session, staff had revised the Plan. Some of these revisions were a result of the Commission' s analysis and approval of Tentative Tract 11473 and Con- ditional Use Permit 82-3 (Lindborg/Dahl) located within the Specific Plan area. Ms. Webb also noted that two new Planning Commissioners had been appointed since the last study session on the Specific Plan. She stated that, for these reasons, staff wished to briefly present the entire Plan at this Study Session. She introduced staff members Mike Adams and Carol Inge who, together, made the presentation. The presentation began with a review of the proposed realignment of Edwards Street and Ellis Avenue and the proposed alignment of internal collector streets. Rural street standards were .discussed. Adams presented the proposed open space corridors, trail standards, and sensitive development areas. Inge reviewed the Plan' s provisions regarding existing oil wells in the area and identified conceptual locations for five "oil islands" where new drilling would be per- mitted. Provisions regarding grading activities, fencing materials, and architectural review were presented. Adams reviewed development standards regarding lot size, lot coverage, open space requirements, equestrian uses, building setbacks and other requirements. Slides were shown to illustrate some of the provisions of the Plan. The Commission briefly discussed the Plan. Commissioner Mahaffey stated that he did not see anything in the Plan that identified why the Plan was necessary or justified. He stated that property owners Minutes, Study Sd ion April 27, 1982 Page 2 in the area should be allowed to plan for their properties. Staff responded that the Plan was written to provide implementing zoning for the Estate Residential designation in the City' s General Plan and because the area in question had some special characteristics such as varied topography and a lack of community facilities. Commissioner Livengood suggested that the Ellis/Goldenwest area might be planned in a manner similar to the Bolsa Chica in which a number of alternative plans were developed and presented to the de- cision makers. A motion was made to schedule the Ellis/Goldenwest Specific Plan for a public hearing on June 1, 1982. The motion carried by a 5-0 vote. Chairman Winchell then asked if anyone in the audience wished to make any comments on the proposed Plan at this time. Several pro- perty owners spoke. In general, they stated that they ought to be allowed to make their own plans for their properties. Commissioner Higgins suggested that staff send a letter to all pro- perty owners in the Ellis-Goldenwest area as soon as copies of the Draft Plan were printed. Mr. Palin answered that staff might go ahead and send a copy of the Plan to every property owner before the June 1st public hearing. The Commission adjourned at 9: 15 P.M. ames W. Palin, Secretary Grace Winchell, Chairman CI:jlm roved June 15, 1982 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, JUNE 1, 1982 - 7 : 00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Higgins, Livengood, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Mahaffey CONSENT CALENDAR: Chairman Winchell requested a word change in the Minutes of the last meeting, on Page 2, where the straw vote was taken. She asked that, for clearer intent, her vote read "would support the motion" . This correction was noted. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER THE CONSENT CALENDAR, CONSISTING OF THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 18, 1982 MEETING, AND TWO CON- FORMANCES WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, NUMBERS 82-2 AND 82-3, WERE APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Higgins, Livengood, Paone, Winchell NOES: None ABSENT: Porter, Mahaffey ABSTAIN: None COMMISSION ITEMS: None. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: ELLIS GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN Initiated by City of Huntington Beach A proposal to develop a 290-acre area bounded by Ellis Avenue to the north, the City boundary to the west, Garfield and Ernest Avenues to the south and a line extending north from Crystal Street to the east. The Plan, if adopted, will be the zoning for the area. It requires a minimum project size of 10 acres and allows a maximum density of 3 homes per acre of land. Grading activities are generally limited to no more than 2 feet of cut and 2 feet of fill, and the drainage swale areas are delineated as Open Space Corridors in which no residential development will be allowed. The Plan also delineates Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 1, 1982 Page 2 a system of internal collector streets for the area and a backbone system of riding trails. Florence Webb informed the Commissioners that staff is recommending that the public hearing be opened on the Specific Plan, however, due to the fact that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR 82-1) pub- lic hearing will be heard on June 15th because of the review period, it was further recommended to continue the public hearing on the Specific Plan to that date also. Carol Inge, Mike Adams, and Chuck Clark shared in the presentation of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan, which included a slide presentation. Staff received a number of comments on the Specific Plan, such as the following: 1. The 10-acre minimum lot size is too restrictive. 2. There is not enough freedom to build on the small lots. 3. The collector street linking with Ernest Avenue cuts across private property in an undesirable location. 4 . The development standards proposed are too rigid. 5. The Huntington Beach Company, states that planning efforts in this area are premature. 6. With regard to oil: a. there are not enough sites for new drilling, b. allowing residential in the area might force oil out, and C. regarding mandatory islands to preserve future access, tem- porary use should be allowed on sites that are now abandoned. It was also mentioned that the geothermal grant application efforts will not be jeopardized by the proposed Plan. Staff called the Com- missioners' attention to the fact that the Planning Division received an application from Chevron U.S.A. for a General Plan Amendment re- questing that the City redesignate a specified area from Estate Re- sidential to Resource Production. This involves approximately 115 acres in the proposed Specific Plan area. Commissioner Porter asked if, since the linear park was Orange County property, was the County in favor, or aware of the plans for the area. Staff stated that the County is aware of our efforts and goes along with whatever the City wants. Commissioner Schmacher referred to the slide presentation with regard to maintenance of the proposed easement and fencing. Public Works responded by stating that no -2- 6-1-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 1, 1982 Page 3 extra maintenance would be required with the proposed plan. Jean also felt that equestrian uses in the proposed plan were too flexible. She felt that the City should either impose this condition or drop the idea of an extensive trail system. The creation of an assessment district was briefly discussed. The Chairman opened the public hearing on the Specific Plan. Hillman Walker, representing Chevron USA, gave a presentation using an aerial view of .the City to delineate the Chevron property in question. He cited the fact that many changes have occurred since the late 70 ' s with regard to the production of energy. He said that the Specific Plan document itself, made reference to reports conducted by the State Division of Oil and. Gas, when in fact, there was (.in his opinion) no written statement made by that Division... He further stated his company' s need for more drilling islands and asked that the Chevron property be removed from the Specific Plan area. Emil Pletel, representing J. I. Hathaway, also requested that the Hathaway property be eliminated from the Specific Plan area. Bill Holman, representing the Huntington Beach Company, stated that the proposed plan. was not consistent with the direction given to the Planning Commission by the City Council. (Commissioner Porter took exception to this. statement. ) Mr. Holman felt that the planning in this area was premature and does not reflect the feelings of all the property owners. He recommended. that the Huntington Beach Company holdings either be deleted from the Specific Plan, or that the issue be tabled. He . stated that the Company is in a position to support Chevron in amending :the General Plan for the .area between Edwards and Goldenwest Streets. Ann _Brindle, a property owner in the area, was opposed to the Plan. At 'the recommendation by staff, the Chairman did not close the public hearing, but continued it to the meeting of June 15, 1982. Commission discussion ensued. Commissioner Higgins felt that there may be other property owners concerned about energy that, for one reason or another, could not attend--the public hearing. He agreed with one of the suggestions during the hearing, that an outside consultant be retained to determine whether the property should be developed or not. He tended to agree that it seemed premature to implement a Specific Plan at this time. Commissioner Paone felt that it may be a good idea to hire a pro- fessional - to access the situation, but also felt that planning in this. area was not premature and that it is the Commission' s job to plan. . He did feel that perhaps the specific plan process was mis- understood by some .to mean that the City .is mandating development -3- 6-1-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 1,. 1982 Page 4 when, in fact, it is only "drawing a picture" . Commissioner Schumacher agreed that more oil islands. were needed, however, she felt that the proposed Specific Plan was "not something out of the blue" ; that it was general planned .as estate residential, and that the economic situation reflected the fact that large custom houses were selling and not among the moderate income houses that are in a slump. Brief discussion also took place regarding access roads. . Staff stated that there was a possibility of going back and contacting the Division of Oil and Gas before a consultant was hired. Florence Webb stated that the staff did work closely with D.O.G. and the oil operators and felt that their concerns were addressed in the Specific Plan. ON MOTION BY PAONE AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD THE ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF JUNE 15, 1982, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Higgins, Livengood, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher NOES : None ABSENT: Mahaffey ABSTAIN: None A recess was called; Commission meeting reconvened at 8 : 50 P.M. CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 82-04 Applicant: J. I . Hathaway Thi s a request to allow the redrilling of an abandone>rillinga l 11 on prop ty that is zoned RA-O-CD and located 330 feet nof Schleicher oad; 660 feet west of Goldenwest Street. R - of an abandon oil well is presently not allowed un r the provi- sions of Section 81 (Oil .Districts) of the Ordi nce Code. The public hearing was ened. Emil Plete , representing J. I . Hathaway, asked that the a lication be pproved and said he would answer any questions. The pu ' c he ing was closed. ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND S ND LIVENGOOD CONDITIONAL EXCEP- TION NO. 82-04 WAS APPROVE OR A PERIO OF 90 DAYS, WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND DITIONS , BY THE LOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APP AL: 1. Based the fact that there are numerous producing it wells in e surrounding area and that the proposed test we will located over an abandoned well, there are exceptional - -4- 6-1-82 - P.C. proved July 7 , 1982 MINUTES j HUNT.INGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, JUNE 15, 1982 - 7 : 00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Higgins, Livengood, Paone, Winchel.l, Porter, Schuma1.1her COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None CONSENT CALENDAR: ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD THE CONSENT CALEN- DAR, CONSISTING OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 1, 19.82, WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:, AYES : Higgins, Livengood, Paone, Winchell, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: ELLIS GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN (Continued from 6-1-82) Initiated by City of Huntington Beach A proposal to develop a 290-acre area bounded by Ellis Avenue to the north, the City boundary to the west, Garfield. and Ernest Avenues to the , south, and a line extending north from Crystal Street to the east. The Plan, if adopted, will be the zoning for the area. It. requires a minimum projeot size of 10 acres and allows a maximum density of 3 homes per acre of land. Grading activities are generally limited to no more than two feet of cut and two feet of fill , and the drainage swale areas are delin- eated at open space corridors in which no residential develop- ment will be allowed. The plan also delineates. a system of in ternal collector streets for the area and a backbone system of riding trails. Environmental Impact Report No. 82-1 has been , prepared for this- specific plan. Charles Clark outlined the history of the General Plan designa- tion of Estate Zoning on this property and explained the organiza- tion of the specific plan document. He described the necessary Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 15, 1982 Page 2 steps in the approval process and informed the. Commission that all correspondence received by .staff has been included in the sub- . mittals to. the Commission. He noted that two property owners in the area have requested that their properties be . removed from the specific Plan. Carol Inge reviewed the changes which have been made since the prior review. First of those were changes outlined in the staff report which came about as a result of the comments received. She also described the reorganization of the Specific Plan into four major parts : 1) introduction and..goals;. 2) implementing standards; - - 3.) "next step" action, which talks about the possibility. of redev- elopment and assessment districts ; and 4) the FIR plus comments.. .re- ceived thereon and responses to those comments . The implementing standards section addresses each subarea separately. In Subarea One Miss Inge reported that it. does not pose any detailed development standards but states that prior to development of any part of the area a development plan must be submitted and approved. Standards for the area .would allow oil activities to continue, with new wells allowed in all parts of Subarea One currently having the -01 .zoninq suffix. subarea Two contains detailed development standards; with changes �q made to those standards in the area of equestrian uses and oil drill- ` ing islands . The latter change will permit one new drilling island for every 20 acres of subsurface mineral rights under ownership or lease; this could allow approximately 5 oil islands in Subarea Two . Another change recommended by staff is the use of rolled curb and gutter as part of the rural street standards instead of the dirt or gravel shoulder 'previously recommended. Standards for. Area Three are similar to those for Subarea One. Con- tinued operation of existing oil uses would be allowed, with the same requirement `.for submittal of a development plan for any project proposed in the area in the future. Brief Commission discussion took place on these changes . The public hearing was reopened.. H. Walker, representing Chevron, addressed the Commission to request ,the following amendments to the Plan: 1) With the inclusion in the oil category of storage and tanks, it is felt that the 1 . 5 acre size for oil islands may not be adequate, and Mr. Walker suggested that the wording be changed to allow an island "not to exceed 2 ' 5 acres in size subject to the approval of .Development Services,-" and 2) he requested that the area west of Edwards Street be removed from the Plan and considered as .a resource production area. !� -2- 6-15-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. F. nning Commission June 15, 1982 Page 3 V. Kahle, property owner in the area, spoke to the .Commission to ask for information on how the small lots in the area would �P_ be able to be used. He was advised of the consolidation of . parcels which would be required under the plan and also was in formed that the present General Plan designation and zoning would not . permit development of his lot as a residential site, even without the implementation of the Specific Plan. Dean Albright spoke in opposition to some of the proposed street realignments, and also addressed Fire Department access into the area and the possibility that construction of dwellings and - stables and the resultant runoff might have an adverse effect to the park below the .bluffs. Michael Knapp, representing the Huntington Beach Environmental Board, spoke in support of the Specific Plan and urged. that the area to the west of Edwards be left within the Plan to ensure that. when it does develop it is in accordance with the rest of the area. Mr.. Knapp discussed item by item the recommenda- tions made by the Board in its memorandum to the Commission (contained in the departmental file) and urged adoption of the Specific Plan with those recommended changes . Connie Mandic , representing Equestrian Trails, Inc. , spoke to the Commission in regard to the provision of equestrian facili- ties within the Specific Plan area,. She also suggested that five-acre consolidations could provide a very good equestrian estate project, adding that such small acreages should be limited to .two units per acre, while the 10 acre parcels could be allowed the three units per .acre that the plan is proposing. Mrs .Mandic discussed as well the rural street standards, fencing in the projects, uses allowed in the open space corridors, trail widths and locations, square footage of lots as it might relate to the number of horses permitted to be kept, and other aspects of the development standards. Jay Panchal, engineer, presented alternative . street sections for the Commission' s consideration. One section is intended to modify the private street standard, which Mr. Panchal indicated seems a little excessive for projects with 10 or less lots; he also submitted a section for the provision of equestrian trails along arterials. Bill Holman, representing the Huntington Beach Company, indicated to the Commission that his company now . feels that the plan has been sufficiently revised to- be generally: compatible with their concerns relative to preserving the oil drilling activities and, secondIy, that the withholding of specific development standards in Subareas One and Three until such time as surface develop- ment is contemplated is a step forward. However, the company would still ask that Areas .One and Three not be included in the Specific Plan and the property owner be allowed to develop -3- 6-15-82 - P.C. Minutes, .H.B. Planning Commission June 15, 1982 Page 4 those areas with future specific plans .when development is proposed. ...�+ Mr. Holman addressed specific areas in the plan document requiring correction or clarification. A new request made by .the Huntington Beach Company is that the oil in Subarea Three be treated in the same manner as it is proposed to be treated in Subarea Two, giving the operator a new island with 'the location and size to be described . when new drilling is permitted. It was Mr. Holman' s feeling that including this provision in the plan would prevent them from having to come back to the Commission to request a zone change should it be .desired to drill in that area. The .final point made by Mr. Holman was the: Company' s objection to the special fee that would .be charged back- to property owners 'on a per-acre basis to pay for the costs of the Specific Plan and their opposition to any mandatory in- . clusion of equestrian facilities, which they feel should be the prerogative of a .developer and property owner . B.G. Williams, representing an oil company and property owner in Subarea Three, addressed the Commission to confirm his understanding that if the plan is adopted oil operations can continue and to urge that the. "O-1" suffix be added to all oil operations within the area. Mr. Kahle and the Commission further discussed the need for lot consolidation and the methods by which this could ,be accomplished. There were- no other persons present to speak for or against the proposal, and the public hearing was closed. Commission .discussion included the following: Question of Subareas One and Three: The Commission reviewed the re- quests to exclude these two areas from the Specific Plan, considering the preservation of topographical features and the need for providing an integrated circulation system throughout the area. At the end of discussion a straw vote was taken on the subject. It was determined to leave both Subareas One and Three in the Specific Plan by the fol- lowing straw vote: Ayes : Livengood, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher Noes : , . Higgins Absent: None Abstain: None Question of Application of Development Standards to Areas One & Three : The Chairman then called for a decision on whether or not the Commis- sion wished to apply the same development standards to Areas One and Three as will be applied to Subarea Two. Noting that the June 15 staff report indicates that the Specific Plan now requires application of standards only to Subarea Two, Ms. Winchell said that an "aye" vote will support the staff ' s recommendation and a "no" vote will re- quire imposition 'of standards to all subareas equally. The following straw vote was taken: 7 Ayes : Higgins, Livengood, Paone Noes: Winchell, Porter, Schumacher -4- 6-15-82 - P .C. Minutes , H.B. F nning Commission June 15, 1982 Page 5 Commissioner Higgins then requested that.a straw vote be taken. Ell on each subarea individually. A straw vote on Subarea Three, with the same . stipulation as be- fore on the meaning. of votes, resulted in the following: Ayes:. Higgins, Livengood, Paone Noes : Winchell, Porter, Schumacher (The above tie vote is interpreted to mean that the staff recom- mendation will. be followed and no development, standards will be applied to Subarea Three. ) The straw vote on Subarea One (same stipulation) resulted in the following : Ayes : Higgins, Livengood, Paone, Porter Noes : Winchell , Schumacher . Development standards will not apply to Subarea One. Further intensive discussion took place in regard to Subarea Three, considering its location across Goldenwest Street from the remainder of the area, the current and adjacent land uses and existing and planned street alignments . A second straw vote a on whether or not to impose the development standards on this subarea produced the following vote: Ayes : Schumacher (to impose standards as in Subarea Two) Noes : Higgins, Livengood, Paone, Winchell. , Porter The Commission then proceeded to a. page-by-page discussion of .the items -staff had presented. Items of concern resolved by either a straw vote or consensus include the following: . The access road across the Brindle property off Goldenwest Street was discussed in detail . The consensus that emerged from this discussion, was that staff should investigate the cir- culation and-ownership patterns to attempt to site the access road in a location which would not divide such a large, already consolidated parcel and to consider the possibility of not allowing any access off Goldenwest Street at all. .. By consensus , the Commission directed staff to investigate Mrs. Mandic ' s suggestion for five-acre parcels with a two. unit per acre density restriction. . By consensus, the Commission directed staff to i-nvestigate berming along the arterials . In this same discussion, it was determined that fencing in the area should be uniform and that no solid walls should be permitted along the arterials . -5- 6-15-82 - P .C . Minutes, H.B. Planni._� Commission June 15, 1982 Page 6 . The Commission discussed the trail system with staff, including interior trails, the possibility of establishing some kind of trail along the arterials, connecting links to the main trail within the project area, and the County trail system planned along Ellis Avenue. By consensus the Commission decided that the Specific Plan should make every effort to tie the project into any major trail system, in- cluding the County is, and that the trail width in the Plan should be reduced to 16 feet. Also discussed by the Commission were street .alignments, open space corridors, use of the swales in the area, and equestrian uses . It was the conclusion of the Commission that sufficient public input and Commission discussion had been given to provide staff with adequate direction to revise the plan and respond to comments . Staff will re view the information and prepare its responses to both oral and .. written suggestions for. the next meeting . ON MOTION BY PAONE AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD, THE ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN WAS CONTINUED TO AN ADJOURNED MEETING TO BE CALLED ON JUNE 22, 1982 , AT 7 : 00 PM 'IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE : AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Paone, Winchell , Porter, Schumacher NOES : None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ' The Commission recessed at 9 :35 p.m. and reconvened at 9 :45 . ONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 82-12/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 82-08/ TE TIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 82-558/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 82-15 . .Appli t: Robert J. Zinn rabe To permit: the construction of an eleven story, 68 , 261 square foot office/me al building; 2) to permit a reduction in lot ea, lot coverage, and eduction of parking for the proposed bu ' ing; and 3) to permit sub vision ,of one parcel of land int wo parcels for the construction. of id building . Subject pro ty is located on the east side of Delawa Street approximate 450 feet south of Main Street within the Pacifi Specific P1 area. Jim Barnes reviewed the project and e uses proposed within the new building. He noted that the veld r is proposing to use the existing parking in the entir acifica co lex to satifsy the park- ing requirements for the lding. At presen there are 528 parking spaces dispersed thro out the whole developmen The. zoning code requirements for ing for the entire development ith the new building would e 894 . spaces, with the new building it if generating a requirem of 380 spaces according to the parking rate in the code . is results, in a 366 space parking shortage .for the cifica com xy and of the issues identified by staff this shortage is nsidered the most significant. -6- 6-15-82 - P .C. DRAFT MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED MEETING Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, JUNE 22, 1982 - 7 :15 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Higgins, Livengood ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 82-1 Initiated by the City of Huntington Beach A proposal to develop a 290-acre area bounded by Ellis Avenue to the north, the City boundary to the west, Garfield and Ernest Avenues to the south, and a line extending north from Crystal Street to the east. The Plan, if adopted, will be the zoning for the area. It requires a minimum project size of 10 acres and allows a maximum density of 3 homes per acre of land. Grading activities are generally limited to no more than two feet of cut and two feet of fill, and the drainage swale areas are delineated as open space corridors in which no residential development will be allowed. The Plan also delineates a system of internal col- lector streets for the area and a backbone system of riding trails. Chairman Winchell noted that the public hearing had been opened, public testimony taken, and the public hearing closed at a previous meeting. Tonight's business will consist only of review and discussion of that public input and the Plan itself. Advance Planning staff reviewed the last of prior concerns which has been compiled as an outline for discussion and went over the recommended procedures for amending the district maps, . adding the specific plan to the zoning code, and approving by resolution the reimbursement by developers of the costs incurred; by .the preparation of the specific plan. Carol Inge led a point-by-point review of the discussion items: Administrative Revisions: The staff recommendations contained in this section o the staff report were agreed to by consensus of the Commission. However, Item 5, regarding construction standards for corrals, was deleted from the Plan because the Fire Department already has adequate controls. w Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 22, 1982 Page 2 DAAFT- Straw Vote Actions: Items 1 and 2 remain as previously voted on by the Commission. In regard to Item 3, Ms. Inge asked for clari- fication on whether or not the Commission had intended to actually set the density for the. Plan by this wording. The Commission dis- cussion included the status of the current General Plan designation, the need for a specific criterion for future development plans, and the Commission's desire that the intended intensity of development for the area be very clear at the outset. By consensus, it was determined that Item 3 be amended to state that density within the specific plan shall not exceed three (3) units per acre. Item 4 . Mike Adams presented cross sections depicting various setbacks and berm heights and showed slides of various berming con- structed in other projects. Extensive discussion took place concern- ing depth of setback, height of berm, possibility of using a wall at the property line as a retaining wall for such berm, and the desir- ability of allowing "feeder" trails along the arterials surrounding the plan area. The conclusion of the Commission was that if feeder trails were to be permitted they should go on the private properties and not in the right-of-way; it was also the consensus that minimum setback should be thirty (30) feet; the minimum berm height should be five (5) feet; walls should be designated as see-through; and the provision allowing for location of a 42-inch fence within the common setback area should be deleted from the plan. The Commission agreed with the insertion of a trail on Ellis Avenue to serve as a connecting link to the County' s Master Plan of Trail Systems. Item 5. By consensus, the Commission concurred with staff' s proposal for rolled curb and gutter street standards and approved the revised street sections as shown in the draft plan. Item 6 . Mike Adams discussed the internal collector streets as originally shown, and proposed to change to a collector loop system to avoid dividing already consolidated parcels, accessing the area from the north and south as opposed to Goldenwest Street. Bill Cooper, in response to questioning from the Commission, said that a cursory review would indicate that such a change should make little impact on fire protection services but that further research would be needed before making' a definite statement. The Commission discussed the general street layout in the area, including future realignment of Ellis, Edwards, and Garfield; the traffic hazards involved with the access off Goldenwest Street; and the vehicular capacities of the arterials serving the area. BY UNANIMOUS STRAW VOTE, THE COMMISSION DIRECTED STAFF TO ELIMINATE THE ACCESS POINT INTO THE AREA OFF GOLDENWEST STREET. By consensus, the Commission agreed to the staffs; revision to the internal collector system in concept only. They agreed that there should be some flexibil-ity -for change as development may require. Staff was directed to conceptually add the bluffline drive back into Subarea 1 in the Specific Plan. -2- 6-22-82 - P.C. t, Minutes, H.B. Planning' Commission June 22, 1982 Page 3 DRAFY Item 7. Trail width remains at sixteen (16) feet as determined by previous straw vote. Text Revisions: Item 2. The prior Planning Commission recom- mendation to indic a intent on the eastern boundary of the Plan was amended to read: "The eastern boundary of the Specific Plan shall be determined by the future alignment of Gothard Street in the General Plan. " Item 3 . This item had been an Environmental Board recommenda- tion not to include planned residential developments as a per- mitted use in Subarea Two. , It is staff's feeling that at a three unit per acre density the PRD designation is entirely ap- propriate type of development. Commission concurred, and the PRD designation will remain in the Plan. Item 4. Commission discussed Environmental Trails, Inc. ' s recommendation for five acre projects with a density of two units per acre. Staff expressed its opinion that writing such a provision into the Plan would not encourage the :type of con- solidation desired in the area. Commission discussion ensued. A straw, with an "aye" vote to allow the 5-acre minimum and a "no" vote to retain the 10-acre minimum, resulted in the follow- ing: Ayes: Winchell, Schumacher Noes: Paone, Porter The 10-acre minimum outlined in the plan stands as depicted in the Plan. Commissioner Porter noted that a special permit might allow a five-acre project. A motion for straw vote was made by Paone and seconded by Porter to add language to the document to prohibit use of the special permit or conditional exception processes from being used to re- duce the minimum project area. Staff discussed the possibility that extenuating circumstances, such as a landlocked smaller parcel, might arise which would necessitate special treatment and expressed the opinion that the plan should leave some option for such a hardship. Exten- sive Commission discussion ensued. Paone and Porter amended their motion to state that a conditional exception or special permit created to reduce the minimum pro- ject area below that specified in the Plan may be approved for projects of five acres or more, provided that the density in such a project does not exceed two (2) dwelling units per acre. Ayes: Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher Noes: None -3- 6-22-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission vim June 22, 1982 Page 4 DRAFI Item 5. Public trails in setback adjacent to perimeter arterials. The Commission discussed the desirability of having trails on the arterials in terms of the possibility of encouraging excessive eques- trian traffic and of providing for smaller equestrian trails on private property along the arterials. A motion was made by Paone to approve staff' s recommendation for an equestrian trail on Ellis Avenue only to provide a connecting link to the County trail system, with no trails on the arterials and no trails in the setbacks adjacent to the arterials unless they are part of a developer' s need to access other trails. This motion received no second. Commissioner Porter suggested that an equestrian perimeter trail 10 ' wide be included in the setbacks on the arterials and that no side- walks be provided on the arterials. On motion by Paone and second by Porter the Commission by the follow- ing straw vote approved the adoption of the staff's recommended language in paragraph (c) on page 19 concerning the trail on the south side of Ellis Avenue. Ayes; Paone, Winchell, Porter Noes: Schumacher Item 6. Proposal to allow fenced riding corrals in open space corri- dors. Staff's recommendation is that no riding rings be allowed, but that the corridors remain open natural areas unobstructed by construction or fencing. On motion by Paone and second by Porter a straw vote was taken that the Commission not adopt the proposal. Motion resulted in the fol- lowing tie vote, and no change will be made in the Plan: Ayes: Paone, Porter Noes: Winchell, Schumacher Item 7 . Uniformity of fencing. The Commission reviewed the proposal ancT staff's recommendations. On motion by Paone and second by Winchell a straw vote was taken to adopt a design of a five foot high natural wood fence with mesh permitted as optional, by the follow- ing vote: Ayes: Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher Noes: None Item 8 . Swale ownership. Staff noted that it does. not recommend _ tSe-medication of swale open space area to the City; also, fence-4. in the swales are not recommended. Discussion ensued. -4- 6-22-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 22, 1982 Page 5 4UU:: Ff7 A motion was made by Paone and seconded by Porter that the 100- foot minimum swale area shall be held in common ownership and that there shall be no structures of any kind in these swale areas except as otherwise expressly permitted in this Specific Plan. If the Specific Plan calls for trails within the swales, then fencing for those trails shall be permitted. Motion carried by the following straw vote: Ayes: Paone, Winchell, Porter Noes: Schumacher Item 9 . No discussion took place on this item. Item 10. Provision of trail links from individual projects to the open space corridor trails. Mike Adams explained that this is addressed in another portion of the Plan, providing that projects can use the right-of-way in a collector street to access the main trails. Item 11. Fencing along trails. This item has already been dealt with in a prior item. Item 12 . Number of horses per dwelling unit. It is staff' s feel- ing that one horse per dwelling unit is excessive and could re- sult in a great amount of the open space being used for horses. Carol Inge discussed the percentages staff has found to be in use in other projects of a similar nature. The Commission discussed the problem at length, suggesting various percentage and square foot criteria which could be applied. A motion was made by Paone and seconded by Porter that 100 per- cent of the units in the project shall be provided with either the onsite ability to keep horses or the ability to use one stall in a common stable facility. The motion also incorporated the wording in Item 31 of the list of concerns, to allow two horses on a 15, 000 square foot lot, three on a 20,000 square foot lot, four or five on a 35,000 square foot lot, and six on a 40, 000 square foot lot. Motion carried by the following straw vote: Ayes: Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher Noes: None A MOTION WAS MADE BY PAONE AND SECONDED BY PORTER TO ADJOURN THE MEETING TO THE MEETING OF JULY 7, 1982. MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -5- 6-22-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning CommissionM^ � June 22, 1982 Page 6 DRAFT Commissioner Porter suggested that when the Plan is brought up again it would be helpful if staff would highlight its own comments on each item which has not yet been discussed. Legal counsel Art Folger noted that the Commissioners who were not present tonight should be sure to review the tape of the meeting so that they may vote on the Specific Plan. The meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m. James W. Palin, Secretary Grace H. Winchell, Chairman :df -6- 6-22-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission July 7 , 1982 Page 6 re integrated, the lot coverage on Parcel 1 combined with P cel xceed the allowable 25 percent of t rall site. RYES: Higgins, Livengoo ell, Paone, Porter, er NOES: None ABSENT: None ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN or CODE AMENDMENT NO. 82-5 (Continued from June 22, 1982) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 82-1 Initiated by the City of Huntington Beach r A proposal to develop a 290-acre area bounded by Ellis Avenue to the north, the City boundary to the west, Garfield and Ernest Avenues to the south, and a line extending north from Crystal Street to the the east. The Plan will be the zoning for the area. It requires a minimum project size of 10 acres and allows a maximum density of 3 homes per acre of land. Grading activities are generally limited to no more than two feet of cut and two feet of fill, and the drain- age Swale areas are delineated at open space corridors in which no residential development will be allowed. The plan also delineates rnl� a system of internal collector streets for the area and a backbone system of riding trails. Environmental Impact Report No. 82-1 has been prepared for this specific plan. The public hearing remained closed. The Commission received a list of their proposed revisions from the June 22nd staff report, that they did not get a change to discuss at the meeting held on that day. Chairman Paone asked the Commissioners to deal with this in the same manner as the consent calendar, pulling any revisions that needed further discussion. The following items were pulled for in- dividual discussion and straw vote: Page 22, Section 5. 3 . 3.7 Apply uniform architectural standards to all common stable acilities. After staff' s clarification, the following straw vote was taken. A "yes" vote will recommend that the Specific Plan not contain detailed uniform architectural standards for common stable fa- cilities. AYES : Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher NOES : None Page 22, Section 5.3. 3. 7 Require the developer to build the common stable facility. A "yes" vote would recommend the requirement to provide area for I A Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission July 7, 1982 Page 7 one horse per every two dwelling units with the developer re- VW quired to construct 50% of any proposed common stable facility. A "no" vote retains the "one-for-one" requirement with the de- veloper being required to construct only 25% of any proposed common stable facility. The straw vote resulted in the following: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None Page 22, Section 5.3.3.7b Do not allow "one acre of riding area" - to satisfy requirement. Require a fenced arena of 5, 000 square feet for every 15 horses. Commission consensus agreed with this recommendation, however, a straw vote was taken to add clarifying language to explain that if there was one more horse than 15 (or, in other words, a 16th horse)it will require an additional 5,000 square feet of arena area. This vote resulted in the following: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None Page 24, Section 5. 3. 3.8 All common improvements (stables, trails, perimeter project fencing, common open space landscaping, etc. ) should be constructed by developer prior to sale of lots. Commission agreed with staff' s recommendation to remove the word "stable" from the listing since it is discussed in detail pre- viously (on Page 22) . However, Commission took a straw vote to determine if "wash rack" should be added to the examples listed. The vote resulted in the following: AYES: Higgins; Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None Page 26, Section 5.3. 3. 9 Require that four oil island sites in Subarea Two be mandatory rather than optional. After staff' s clarification of this recommendation. A "yes" vote will indicate that access will be preserved in Subarea Two on a voluntary basis. The vote resulted in the following: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None Pa e 31, Section 5. 3. 3. 13 .lr Relax the turnaround radius re- quirement on long driveways. Staff did not agreed with this recommended revision because the requirement is set forth in the Uniform Fire Code. However, • Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission July 7, 1982 Page 8 Commissioner Schumacher felt it was asking "too much" of the de- bum veloper. A straw vote was taken to include other alternatives such as hammerhead streets, circular drives and cul-de-sacs in lieu of turnarounds to fulfill the requirement. The straw vote resulted in the following: AYES: Higgins, Paone NOES: Livengood, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher Discussion on the above straw vote ensued. It was further clari- fied that the Fire Chief has the right to waive these requirements which are -set forth in the Uniform Fire Code. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER THIS SECTION WAS DELETED AND WILL BE REPLACED WITH A REFERENCE TO ITS TRUE ORIGIN IN THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: ' AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Schumacher NOES: Porter ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The following straw vote was taken to approve of , the recommended revisions which were not pulled for discussion: e AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY WINCHELL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 82-1 WAS DEEMED ADEQUATE AND APPROVED BY' THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER AND SECONDED BY LIVENGOOD TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 1292 APPROVING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 82-5 (ELLIS- GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN) WITH REVISIONS APPROVED IN THIS AND PREVIOUS MEETINGS TO INCLUDE THE EAST BOUNDARY OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA TO BE GOTHARD STREET, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood; Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECONDED BY WINCHELL TO RECOM- MEND TO CITY COUNCIL THAT THEY APPROVE, BY RESOLUTION, THE RE- Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission July 7, 1982 Page 9 IMBURSEMENT OF CITY COST FOR PREPARATION OF THE ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN. THIS VOTE RESULTED IN THE FOLLOWING TIE: AYES: Livengood, Winchell, Schumacher NOES: Higgins, Paone, Porter ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chairman Paone called for a 5-minute recess. Commission reconvened at 7 : 50 PM. Commission consensus was that the issue regarding the two draft ordinances on the previous item should show some action. ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD THE TWO DRAFT ORDINANCES WERE ADOPTED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None NERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO. 82-4 In' iated by the Cit of Huntington Beach The con mity to the General Plan of a proposal to retain 2+ acre as an add' on to Irby Neighborhood Park, located north of Mar' n Drive and eas of Dale Vista Lane, and declare the remainin + acres of undeve ed park as surplus to the needs of the ty. Chuck Clark and Bob A rich of staff gave a brief s de presentation. Before opening the publi hearing, Chairman Pao cautioned the public who wished to addre this issue, to a ress the issue at hand which is a statement tha the proposa conforms to the General Plan; and not looking at any par 'cular esign or use. Commissioner Higgins asked if there would come a 'me that the particular use of the area could be addressed by th pu 'c. Staff stated that this would occur at the time an app 'cation i filed. Commissioner Winchell stated that she fe the Planning mmission should deal with the purpose of the nd use at this time. The public hearing was opened. Gerald Klein, E . , stated that the land which was de ated as parkland can ly be used as such; and further recommend that an EIR be co cted in the area. Other concerns voiced by the ublic includ traffic and safety impacts and the possibility of li fac- tio n the event of an earthquake. The following -persons addre d s issue: Marilou Shipman Tom Stone STAFF REPORTS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS ON THE ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN AND EIR 82-1 February 9, 1982 March 9, 1982 April 27, 1982 May 18, 1982 June 1, 1982 June 15, 1982 June 22, 1982 July 7, 1982 huntington beach deveiopm t services department TAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Development Services DATE: February 9, 1982 SUBJECT: ROUGH DRAFT OF ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN Attached for your review is a rough draft of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan (Sections one, two and three) . The plan is in a preliminary form and is subject to revision. Staff will be prepared. to present and discuss the plan at your February 9th Study Session. CI:jlmHip C=r A-FM-23B f t huntington beach development services department STA f f -REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Development Services DATE: March 9, 1982 SUBJECT: ELLIS/GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES 1. 0 SUGGESTED ACTION: 1. Take a straw vote on the various alternative development ap- proaches and planning issues as described in the staff report. 2. Direct staff to schedule and notify for a public hearing upon completion of the environmental documentation. 2.0 GENERAL TNFORMATTON: On February 9, 1982, staff presented a draft of the Ellis/Golden- west Specific Plan to the Planning Commission for review and comment. Several comments were expressed with the Commission directing staff to investigate alternative consolidation options. Following is an analysis of alternative development approaches. Following this, is a discussion of redevelopment and the formation of assessment districts, both of which may be used to help implement the plan. 3.0 ANALYSIS• CONSOLIDATION ALTERNATIVES: The Ellis/Goldenwest Specific Plan area is divided among over 100 property owners. Their holdings range in size from less than one- tenth of an acre to over 70 acres. The following alternatives are intended to prevent piecemeal development on small parcels. Ten-Acre Project Minimum - The draft Specific Plan proposes a mini- mum project site of ten acres. Owners of properties smaller than this must consolidate or joint venture with adjacent property owners before development. A ten acre site provides room for flexibility in the layout of a project. This could result in site plans that are more creative and more sensitive to topography than a development designed to fit a smaller parcel. Secondly, many properties will require little or no consolidation to meet the minimum size requirement. There are seven properties of ten acres or larger and 14 five-acre parcels within the Specific Plan area at this time. It is likely that a num- ber of building sites can be put together privately without City participation. A-FM-23A Ellis-Goldenwest March 9, 1982 Page 2 On the negative side, the ten acre project site,- could result in 15 separate developments within the Specific Plan area. In some cases property owners may not be able to work out agreements with adjacent properties, and this could delay development of some sites for many years. Lastly, combinations of parcels may occur which exclude or isolate other properties that are lesE than ten acres in size. R i Delineated Project Nodes - In this alternative the Specific Plan area is divided into subareas or "nodes" , 30 - 50 acres in size. (See Figures 1, 2 and 3 for example. ) All parcels within a subarea will be required to plan and develop as one project. The 30 acre and larger project area provides for more flexibility in terms of site design than a ten acre or smaller site. This may re- sult in site plans that are more creative and more sensitive to topo- graphy than a development designed to fit a ten acre parcel. This alternative would result in no more than five or six projects within the Specific Plan area and would ensure that no parcels are isolated as a result of the consolidation process. Special requirements re- garding density and/or housing type could be tied to each subarea to ensure a variety of housing opportunities. Consolidation of most of the subareas, however, will involve a larger number of property owners than the ten-acre minimum consolidation al- ternative. One property °otYtir could hold up the development of an entire subarea for many years. Subareas may not be able to consoli- date without City participation. Also, the time and costs involved in financing a project of 30 acres and larger may be prohibitive for many developers. Tpn-Acre Project Minimum Within a Delineated Node - In this alternative the Specific Plan area is divided into subareas of 30 acres or larger for planning purposes. Development on a minimum site of ten acres may be permitted if it conforms to an overall development plan for the subarea. The subarea plans would be written by the affected property owners subject to review by the City for conformance with the Ellis- Goldenwest Specific Plan. Each subarea will be planned as one unit providing for the flexibility and creativity possible on a large site. Yet, developments can occur on ten-acre properties which alleviates the problems of consolidating an entire subarea. Also, special requirements regarding density and housing type may be linked to each node, if desired, to encourage a variety of products. There may be little advantage, however, in delineating the subareas if projects are built on an individual basis within each area. The Ellis-Goldenwest March 9, 1982 Page 3 development plan for a subarea will have to be specific about the distribution of units, infrastructure and open space in order to guide development of individual projects within that subarea. It will be difficult for property owners to agree on a plan unless that plan distributes units, . open space and infrastructure requirements in an equitable manner. (The City would be reluctant to approve a subarea plan that is not acceptable to most or all of the affected property owners. ) However, a subarea plan that equalizes development opportunities on every individual parcel may not be able to take ad- vantage of the flexibility and creativity potential afforded by the larger project sites. As discussed previously, combinations of par- cels (within a subarea) may occur that isolate parcels of less than ten acres. PROJECT NODES: An optional approach for project planning, design and development is for the Specific Plan area to be divided into project nodes. These nodes should be limited in number and should be approximately equal and of a size suitable for optimal project development. The creation of subareas can be accomplished by a number of methods. This report reviews the two major development constraints in the Specific Plan area, ownership patterns and topography, as a means for the delineation of project nodes. The node size determined to be most suitable for this Specific Plan area was between 30 and 50 acres, yielding a total of five nodes. A project area concept based primarily on ownership patterns (Figure 1) will produce a plan for circulation and infrastructure which fol- lows property lines and produces a basic grid configuration. Al- though a grid pattern does not necessarily imply a bad design, it will within the Specific Plan area, preclude the option for curvi- linear streets and to a great extent, disregards topographic features. This configuration may also require additional linear footage of streets and utility lines in order to accomplish the same level of service. Node formation by ownership patterns may be somewhat arbitrary, with little regard for the basic characteristics of the individual parcels or even the parcels as a collective. The ownership pattern method can be effective in the formation of development nodes with readily identified participants and project development groups based on a percentage of node ownership. The creation of nodes by ownership patterns will also prove to be an equitable approach for project development. = 43oO 60 o —50— Q- 6o 5o —5o 6o - 5o Q 60 40 —5o w 40— 7 40 70 'o 4 lo, RRELD 4h V HUNTINGTON BEACH C41-IFORNIK Project Nodes by PLANNING DIVISION Ownership Patterns Figure 1 Ellis-Goldenwest March 9, 1982 Page 4 The formation of subareas by topographic features (Figure 2) creates an entirely different configuration- The pattern formed by the cir- culation plan and infrastructure will be determined by physical characteristics of the site and will be primarily curvilinear and sloping; taking into consideration certain engineering constraints. The curvilinear pattern will also assist in the development of a rural equestrian theme for the Specific Plan area, and enhance view opportunities. Nodes based on topographic features may not be flexible enough to form areas of equal size or characteristics. Therefore, some nodes may have a greater percentage of development constraints than others. To a great extent, these constraints to development will also become the amenities which will distinguish the nodes. The topographic features method will not take into consideration the existence of property lines resulting in a number of individual property owners lying within more than one node. The formation of project develop- ment groups may be more difficult due to these constraints and may require participation by the City in order to achieve adequate con- solidation. By combining both the ownership patterns and the topographic features methods, a new configuration (Figure 3) emerges which preserves many of the positive aspects of both approaches. This method is sensitive to a greater number of property constraints and is flexible enough to adjust node shapes and sizes to achieve the most equatible solution possible. The project nodes identified in Figure 3 range in size from 35 acres to 70 acres: They were arranged around the existing swales and those areas proposed for open space preservation, with the circulation and infrastructure layout, view opportunities and area characteristics as well as ownership patterns playing an equal role in determination of shape and size. This method for the formation of nodes will not avoid all of the problems identified in the other two, and the pro- cess of consolidation for the formation of project development groups may still require participation on the part of the City. HOUSING OPPROTUNITIES: Providing for alvariety of housing opportunities is an adopted policy of the City' s Housing Element. The Specific Plan for this area can encourage the implementation of this policy through a number of pro- cesses. Three housing products have been identified as appropriate for the Specific Plan study area, including large lot single family projects, small lot cluster single family projects and planned resi- dential developments projects. The following are three approaches which may be employed to assure housing variety. to —10�l Sao l 60 0 el 60 bo\ i bo r eo sp ip 6° I i-50 50 — -40 i b , 1 z° io / I4060 10 40 1 o o r/ 1i l i zo �\ �70� c lo 'K' HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIA Project Nodes by r % PLANNING DIVISION Topographic Features Figure 2 Ellis-Goldenwest March 9, 1982 Page 5 The designation of mandatory areas for various housing types is the most direct approach. This approach would take into consideration the various constraints on property and designate the housing types most appropriate for those areas. For example, areas with large portions undevelopable due to the existing slope and proposed grading policy may be designated as a cluster mandatory, thus preserving unique topographic features. A cluster mandatory or large lot mandatory designation may be applied to select sections within identified nodes or may be applied on the entire area of certain nodes; providing that the overall density of the Specific Plan area maintains a three unit per acre average. The remaining sections or nodes not mandated would have the option of developing any of the appropriate housing types. The second approach would set aside a percentage of each node for both large lot and cluster housing. The most equitable means would be to require the same percentage breakdown in each node. The over- all density of the node and the Specific Plan area would have to maintain an average density of three units per acre. The third approach is an indirect approach allowing the option of developing any of the appropriate housing types in all nodes, as long as the average density does not exceed three units per acre. This approach would rely on the proposed development standards to provide constraints to development which would require a variety of housing types in order to achieve the allowable maximum density. DENSITY ALTERNATIVES: In addition to the previously identified alternatives, the overall density within the Specific Plan area may also be changed. In order to accomplish this, a General Plan land use amendment would have to be prepared and adopted for the area. In general, the Planning Com- mission and City Council will have to weigh the advantages of allowing higher densities against the potential incompatibilities of such den- sities with the concept of an equestrian, estate community. Estate Residential - The City' s General Plan allows approximately 870 dwelling units to be built in the Specific Plan area (an average of three units per acre) . This density is compatible with the con- cept of creating an equestrian oriented community that incorporates open space and preservation of topography into development plans. The designation also allows for some variation in project densities. Variation in density may occur if some developers choose to build at less than the maximum allowed densit . (For example, property owners may subdivide into one-acre estates. A greater variation in density can be encouraged in the Specific Plan by assigning densities to individual subareas as previously discussed. Densities could range from one unit per acre to over five units per acre and still average _ o 10 ab �0� 0� 1 p Ir C 20 \ }J 6 RFC HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIN Project Nodes by PLANNING DIVISION Ownership Patterns & Topographic Features Figure 3 Ellis-Goldenwest March 9, 1982 Page 6 out to three units per acre overall. Some projects may appear to have a greater density than allowed due to the ratio of open space to buildable land within the site. For example, if thirty units are allowed on a ten acre site and half (five acres) of the site is preserved as open space, then the thirty permitted units will be clustered onto the remaining five acres. The density on this developed five acres will be six units per acre. This situation is likely to occur to different extents adjacent to the proposed Bolsa Chica Linear Park and adjacent to the major drain- age ravines that traverse the Specific Plan area. Increased Densities - The City may wish to allow densities in por- tions of the Specific Plan area that raise the total number of units above 870 (the 3 unit per acre average) . This would require a General Plan Amendment on all, or at least part, of the Specific Plan area. An increase in overall density may make the area more attractive to developers and possibly speed up consolidation and development. High- er densities could result in more affordable housing units compared to the Estate Residential densities. Higher densities may also result in a greater variety of product types and provide a greater incentive for cluster developments. On the negative side, higher densities may create an atmosphere that is inconsistent with the image of an equestrian, es- tate community. IMPLEMENTING TOOLS: Two major constraints to development in the Specific Plan area are the diverse property ownerships and the lack of public improvements such as roads and sewers. This section discusses two methods - redevelopment and formation of assessment districts - available to the City which may be helpful in mitigating these constraints. Redevelopment - Redevelopment can be used as a tool both for assem- bling parcels and for financing needed public improvements. The Redevelopment Agency has the authority (within the designated pro- ject area) to acquire and assemble land for public or private reuse. The agency may acquire land by mutual agreement with the buyer or seller or, if efforts to negotiate a sale are unsuccessful, the agency can use the power of eminent domain to condemn parcels of land and buy them at fair varket value. Because the ownership pat- terns are so fragmented in the Specific Plan area, one small pro- perty owner may block the remainder from assembling parcels large enough to make new development feasible. By using its power of eminent domain, the Redevelopment Agency can persuade such hold-outs to join in the pro.ject or can buy out their interest and allow the project to proceed. When a redevelopment project area is adopted, part or all of the Ellis-Goldenwest March 9, 1982 Page 7 future "tax increment" may be returned to the Redevelopment Agency and used to finance capital improvements. Tax increment financing works by "freezing" the tax base of properties at the time the pro- ject area is adopted. Increases in the assessed value of the proper- ties which occur over time result in increased tax revenues. This increase in revenues is the "tax increment" . In the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area tax increment financing may be a method for fund- ing at least some of the major roads, sewers, storm drains and water mains needed to serve the area at ultimate development. The Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area would most likely qualify as a "blighted" area under the California Community Redevelopment Law and, thus, could be designated as a project area. There are, however, a number of steps prescribed by law which must be taken to set up a redevelopment project and the entire process is time- consuming. Also, as of 1977, Re- development Law requires that the Redevelopment Agency consult with any taxing agency (i.e. counties, school districts, sanita- tion districts) that might be affected by the tax increment finan- cing. The law allows these taxing agencies to set up a fiscal review committee which may suggest amendments to the redevelopment plan to alleviate adverse fiscal effects. Although the law does not require the fiscal review committee to assemble, fiscal review must be anticipated in new redevelopment projects. Further, coun- ties may insist on receiving a generous portion of the tax increment, perhaps up to 50 or 60 percent, before agreeing to allow a redevelop- ment project to proceed. The Redevelopment Law does not provide that the Redevelopment Agency must submit to demands by the fiscal review committee, but threat of a time-consuming lawsuit makes it impractical for the agency to engage in prolonged battles with other taxing agen- cies over tax increment funds. Assessment Districts - Rough cost estimates based on the draft Ellis- . Goldenwest Specific Plan indicate that master--planned sewers, storm drains, water facilities and trails needed to serve the area will cost approximately $3. 1 million. An additional $3.2 million will be needed to construct the proposed internal collector streets and the utilities normally located within these street rights-of-way. Improvements to the arterials such as the realignment of Ellis Avenue and Edwards Street will cost yet more money. The City may require that property owners provide the necessary fa- cilities on a project-by-project basis. Unfortunately, the first developers into the area may have to construct much or all of the improvements in order to service their properties, and the high cost involved may be excessive for many developers. There may also be pressure to allow deviations (temporary or permanent) from the master plan alignments that could diminish the ultimate efficiency of the systems as currently planned. As an alternative, the City can try to form an assessment district in the Specific Plan area. This will enable all improvements to Ellis-Goldenwest March 9, 1982 Page 8 be built in a timely manner with the cost shared among all affected property owners. The authority to set up an assessment district is provided for in the Improvement Act of 1911, the Municipal Improve- ment Act of 1913 and the Improvement Bond Act of 1915. While the detailed provisions of these acts differ, the basic process is the same. As a first step the City adopts a resolution declaring its intention to form an assessment district and prepares a report containing a description of the improvements , an estimate of their total cost, and a proposed division of this cost among properties in the area. The proportion of the total cost assessed to each property is to be based on the amount of estimated benefits received by that property. The City then notifies property owners and sets a public meeting date to hear all protests. If protests are made by the owners of more than one-half of the area of the land to be assessed then the assessment proceedings must stop unless the protests are overruled by a four-fifths vote of the City Council (i.e. six ayes) . If a majority protest is not made, the City may proceed with the assessments. If provided for in the City' s resolution of in- tention, bonds may be issued for the unpaid assessments, and property owners can make regular payments (i.e. , yearly with property taxes) until the bonds are paid off. In the meantime, revenues from col- lected assessments or from the sale of the bonds can be used to fund the required capital improvements. It should be noted that the assessment district need not bear the total cost of all the required improvements. Monies from City funds such as the sewer fund can be used to help pay the cost of appropriate facilities. Or, as previous- ly discussed, tax increment financing from designating the area as a redevelopment project may also be used to offset the costs of some capital improvements. 4.0 SUMMARY OF ISSUES: After receiving comments from the property owners in the Specific Plan area and the Planning Commission, the staff has identified the following issues and recommends that the Planning Commission take straw votes on the following concerns: 1. Selecting an alternative approach for consolidation; 10 acre project minimum, five 30 - 50 acre nodes, or a combination of 10 acre project minimum within an identified node. 2. If the node approach is selected then a means for node forma- tion should also be identified. The options for formation are by property ownership, topographic features or a combination of the two. 3. Providing for a variety of housing types may be desired and Ellis-Goldenwest March 9, 1982 Page 9 can be accomplished by one of the following: mandating develop- ment types, requiring that a certain percentage of project development or node be devoted to particular housing types or without regulation and allowing the site constraints to dictate housing types. 4. Should the density of the Specific Plan area be increased. 5. Should the minimum lot size for the keeping of a horse on pri- vate property be increased from the recommended minimum of 15, 000 square feet. 6. Approval in concept of the general provisions and development standards presented in the draft Ellis/Goldenwest Specific Plan. 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The City' s Environmental Review Committee has determined that the Ellis/Goldenwest Specific Plan will require an environmental impact report. Upon adoption, this report will serve as environmental documentation for subsequent development proposals which comply with the Specific Plan guidelines. Proposals which significantly differ from the adopted guidelines or proposals determined to have an impact of greater significance than anticipated in the Specific Plan, may be subject to additional environmental documentation. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Letter from property owner, Allan R. Jacobson 2. Letter from property owner, William Landis CI:MA:jlm C;5_ srAf f nuntington beach developmehc services department -REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Development Services DATE: April 27, 1982 SUBJECT: ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN 1.0 SUGGESTED ACTION: Direct staff to schedule, and notify for, a public hearing on the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan (upon completion of the necessary environmental documentation) On June 1,- 1982. 2. 0 GENERAL INFORMATION: Attached is a revised copy of the draft Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan for your review and comment. Staff will be prepared to review the major provisions of the plan, including the most recent revisions, at your April 27th Study Session. This staff report presents a brief chronology of the Planning Commission's actions regarding the Specific Plan to date. 3 . 0 ANALYSIS: On February 9, 1982, staff presented a draft copy of the Ellis- Goldenwest Specific Plan to the Planning Commission for review and comment. Several issues were raised for discussion at that meeting, and staff was directed to investigate alternative consolidation approaches for the area, particularly the concept of 40-50 acre project nodes. At a subsequent study session on March 9, 1982, staff presented an analysis of four issues including minimum project size, project node configurations, project types (large lot versus cluster) , and project density. The four Commissioners who were pre- sent at the March 9th study session took straw votes on these four issues to provide staff with direction to prepare a final draft of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. The Commissioners reached no consensus on minimum project size, but the majority did agree that if project nodes are delineated they should be based on a combination of topography and property lines. The majority also agreed that the basic product type should be left optional to the property owner and that an overall average density of three dwelling units per acre should be maintained. - They directed staff to finalize the draft plan and bring it back to a third study session on April 27, 1982. In a separate but related action, on April 6 , 1982, the Planning Commission approved with conditions Tentative bract 11473 for a subdivision of 15 acres within the Specific Plan area. During the A-FM-23B Ellis-Goldenwest Specii-� Plan April 27, 1982 Page 2 review and approval of this project, both staff and the Planning Commissioners had the opportunity to take a close look at provi- sions in the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan as they would apply to an individual project. Partly as a result of this analysis, staff made a number of revisions to the original draft of the Specific Plan. One important aspect of the recently approved tentative tract map is that the Planning Commission required as a condition of approval that development on the 15-acre site be in compliance with all development standards contained in the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. They added that this condition shall be enforced only if the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan is adopted by the City Council on or before July 31, 1982. Staff has prepared a revised draft of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan (attached) which will be circulated to Department Heads for review and comment. It will also be made available to property owners in the area and other interested members of the public. Staff is currently preparing a draft Environmental Impact Report on the Plan. The EIR will have to be posted for a 30-day review period before any formal action can be taken on the Plan by the Planning Commission. 4 . 0 SUMMARY OF ISSUES: 1. The Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan has been revised to incorpor- ate direction from Planning Commissioners given at two previous study sessions; a draft EIR is currently being prepared. 2. The Specific Plan should be scheduled for public hearing at the earliest possible date after the environmental documentation is complete. This will help ensure that provisions of the Plan can apply to the recently approved tentative tract in the area. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan 2. Letter from property owners, Ronald and Ann Brindle and response from Mayor Finley JWP:CI:dfC 3�- STAFF huntington beach development services department ._REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Development Services DATE: May 18, 1982 SUBJECT: ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN 1.0 SUGGESTED ACTION: No action necessary--for information only. 2.0 GENERAL INFORMATION: Following the Planning Commission Study Session of April 27, 1982, on the draft Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan, staff made additional efforts to receive comments from concerned property owners and oil operators. On May 6, 1982, staff met with representatives of Chevron USA Inc. (Hilman Walker, District Land Supervisor, Larry McCamish, Land Attorney, and Vince Noble, Environmental Compliance Coordinator) and the Huntington Beach Company (Larry Netherland and Bill Holman) . The meeting was held to discuss a letter to the Huntington Beach Company from Chevron (carbon copied to the City) regarding the number and locations of oil islands within the Specific Plan area. The draft Specific Plan proposes to permit continued operation, reworking and/or redrilling of oil wells active at the time of article adoption, subject to applicable City regulations. However, the Specific Plan also proposes that new drilling will only be allowed in identified oil islands (see Attachment W . Two sites are identified as being preserved for oil activities only and shall be a minimum of one acre and a maximum of one and one-half acres. The location of these two sites was determined with the assistance of the State Division of Oil and Gas. In addition, four optional sites for oil operation have been identified, the option is for the property owner as to oil production or residential development. The sites selected will also be a minimum of one acre and a maximum of one and one-half acres in size and are presently zoned with an -01 suffix allowing new drilling. The concern expressed by Chevron is that the number of oil islands identified for both their Huntington Beach Company "A" Lease parcel (west of Edwards Street) and their Huntington Beach Company "B" and Jones Community Lease parcels (east of Edwards Street and north A-F M-23A Ellis-Goldenwest May 18, 1982 Page 2 of Garfield Avenue) are insufficient to efficiently and economically retrieve the remaining oil. Chevron has determined that five dril- ling islands, each approximately lh acres in size, will be necessary. for the "A" Lease parcel, and two drilling islands will be necessary, one on the "B" Lease parcel and one on the adjacent Jones Community Lease, east of Edwards Street. The Specific Plan presently proposes that three drilling sites be allowed on the "A" Lease and one on the "B" Lease and Jones Community parcels east of Edwards Street. Chevron concludes that rezoning from the existing -01 suffix, which permits unlimited drilling on the entire surface, would be inappro- priate for their future operations.. They, therefore, feel that the City should handle separately these leased parcels at a future date after oil production has terminated. Chevron further expressed an interest during the meeting of changing the General Plan designation on the affected parcels from Estate Residential to Resource Produc- tion; since they claim that oil production would be the primary use over the next 20-30 years; therefore, the existing zoning and the General Plan can be in conformance. The Huntington Beach Company continues to express the concern that developing a specific plan for this area is premature and that their planning efforts in this area are continuing. They feel that adopting a specific plan will limit their planning alternatives without ade- quately exploring all options available. They have retained the services of a planning consultant (Phillips, Brandt, Reddick) to explore various options, however, they have not been able to offer the City any information as to the scope of these studies or time frames for review., The Huntington Beach Company may request removal of some of their parcels from the Specific Plan area, a letter will be forth-coming with their official position. On May 11, 1982, staff held a meeting with oil operators in the Specific Plan area in order to discuss in detail the Specific Plan proposals in regard to oil production. Representatives of the in- dependent oil operators as well as Chevron were present. The major discussion centered around the compatibility of oil pro- duction and residential development and the fear that oil operations are being squeezed out. There was concern that the value of the land surface was taking priority over the value of mineral rights, which weighted the value in favor of residential development. The need for locating additional optional oil islands within the Specific Plan area was also expressed, some of the independent operators will sub- mit potential island locations for consideration. The designation of mandatory oil islands was considered a reasonable approach pro- vided that the property owner was allowed interim use of the parcel not necessarily oil related, until oil production was feasible and that the removal of the mandatory designation was removable if oil production becomes infeasible. Ellis-Goldenwest May 18 , 1982 Page 3 The next steps in the Specific Plan process will be a meeting with the property owners in the Specific Plan area on May 20 and a public hearing on the Specific Plan and the Environmental Impact Report on June 1. 6..jlm srAf f huntington beach development services department , REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Development Services DATE: June 1, 1982 SUBJECT: ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 82-1 1. 0 SUGGESTED ACTION: Approve the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan as modified by this staff report and Environmental Impact Report No. 82-1, pending re- ceipt of additional comments within the 30-day review period, ending June 15, 1982. 2.0 GENERAL INFORMATION: Attached is the current Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan and draft Environmental Impact Report. Staff proposes amending the current Specific Plan in order to accommodate a number of concerns expressed by property owners, oil operators and other interested groups and individuals since the Plan was last presented before the Planning Commission at the study session held on April 27, 1982. Staff proposes dividing the Specific Plan into three distinct sub- areas (Figure #1 attached) . Subarea one contains all the land west of the existing alignment of Edwards Street; subarea two is the central portion from Edwards Street to Goldenwest Street (west-east) and Ellis Avenue to Garfield Avenue (north-south) ; subarea three is the area east of Goldenwest Street. A major issue of concern is whether this division will jeopardize the intent of the Specific Plan. The proposed development standards will only be applied to subarea two; additional development standards will be proposed for subareas one and three prior to project submission. Following are the proposed changes to the Specific Plan; copies of all written comments received in regard to either the Ellis- Goldenwest Specific Plan or the Environmental Impact Report are also attached. 3. 0 ANALYSIS: Staff recommends that changes be made to the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan prior to approval by the Planning Commission. The Specific Plan will then be amended to reflect the approved changes A-FM-23A Ellis-Goldenwest June 1, 1982 Page 2 and forwarded to the City Council for adoption. The proposed changes are as follows: 1. Page 11, Section 2.0: Development Plan Omit paragraph and substitute the following: The Ellis-Golden- west Specific Plan provides for creativity at the individual project level and, at the same time, ensures that developments will ultimately combine to create a cohesive estate residential, equestrian community. The Specific Plan contains provisions which apply to the entire area such as preservation of topographic features, preservation of open space corridors, equestrian trails, internal circulation systems, community services and design features. The Specific Plan also contains development standards governing individual projects. The Specific Plan area is divided into three subareas (Figure #1 attached) . Subarea one contains all the land west of the existing alignment of Edwards Street; sub- area two is the central portion from Edwards Street to Goldenwest Street; and subarea three is the area east of Goldenwest Street. The detailed development standards proposed may be different in each subarea, which will provide for a greater degree of flexibility. The proposed standards include such options as large lot, clus- ter and planned residential developments, various lot sizes, detached and attached units-and other options. 2. Page 11, Section 2.1: Land Use and Density Omit both paragraphs and substitute the following: The City' s General Plan designates the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area as estate residential. An overall maximum density of three units per gross acre has been applied to this area, which represents an averaging of the two estate residential designations in the General Plan. This approach provides for the same total number of units to be built and will be more equitable to property owners, less cumbersome to implement, and equally compatible with adjacent land uses as the differentiated categories. The Specific Plan requires a minimum project size of ten acres in order to ensure that proposed developments coordinate with the overall area plan. Projects with a minimum of five acres may be allowed to develop provided that a development plan based on a minimum project area of ten acres has been proposed; thus allowing the implementation of two independent projects based on an overall conceptual plan. Owners of properties less than ten acres in size will be required to consolidate or joint venture with adjacent property owners Ellis-Goldenwest June 1, 1982 Page 3 prior to development. This provision is not intended to pro- hibit the sale of individual lots for custom homes provided that the lots are subdivided in accordance with this Plan. A condi- tional use permit will be required for all developments to En- sure that the design of projects and dwelling units enhances the estate residential theme. Project proposals requesting a change in land use or a change in density for residential projects are subject to the General Plan amendment process. 3. Page 29-30, Section 2.8: Oil Activities Omit the last paragraph and substitute the following: The Spe- cific Plan proposes that new wells be limited to optional islands within the presently designated -01 suffix areas. In addition, the Specific Plan requires that two islands (Sites A and B) be preserved as mandatory sites for oil activity only, to insure future access to underground reserves.l These two sites may be one and one-half (131) acres in size. Preservation of the other islands which shall be a maximum of one and one-half (1h) acres is optional and will be up to the discretion of the property owner. 4 . Section 3.0: Development Standards Staff is proposing that the development standards proposed in the Specific Plan apply only to subarea two. The general provi- sions as amended shall apply to all subareas; however, detailed development standards for subareas one and three would be more appropriate to propose at a time prior to project submission. Thisin_effect will allow the existing uses to remain as noncon- forming uses. New project proposals in subareas one and three could either implement the existing Specific Plan development standards or proposed new standards prior to project submission, consistent with the intent of the General and Specific Plans, which would, upon approval by the Planning Commission, be incor- porated into the ordinance. A. Page 31, Section 3. 0j Development Standards Omit the section title and paragraph and substitute the fol- lowing: Section 3.0 General Provisions. This section con- tains the general provisions which apply to all development projects within the Specific Plan area. B. Page 32, Section 3. 2: Development Procedure Add the following: The proposed development standards are designed to encourage developments creating an aesthetically pleasing appearance, and enhance the living environment for the residents of the project, and to facilitate innovative architectural design and adaption of the development to the terrain and surrounding environment. Deviation from the pro- visions of this article, with the exception of maximum den- sity, may be granted at the time of approval of the project. Ellis-Goldenwest June 1, 1982 Page 4 Concurrently with filing a conditional use permit application, the developer may file an application for a special permit au- thorizing deviation from the provisions of this article, and such application shall be heard concurrently with the condi- tional use permit application. The Planning Commission may approve the special permit application in whole or in part upon a finding that the proposed development will: a. Promote better living environments; b. Provide better land planning techniques with maximum use of aesthetically pleasing types of architecture, land- scaping, site layout and design; c. Not be detrimental to the general health, welfare, safe- ty and convenience of the neighborhood or City in general, not detrimental or injurious to the value of property or improvements of the neighborhood or of the City in general; and d. Be consistent with objectives of planned unit development standards in achieving a development adapted to the ter- rain and compatible with the surrounding environment. C. Page 33 , Section 3.3 , C: Oil Islands Omit the last sentence of the second paragraph and substitute the following: Preservation of the existing -01 suffix oil islands is at the option of the property owner. D. Page 34, Section 3.4 : General Provisions Change section title to Development Standards (Subarea Two) . E. Page 42, Section 3 .5 : Development Types, A. Large Lot Sub- division Maximum Building Height. Change 30 feet to 35 feet and omit: Exception. Building Height and Buildings Over Thirty Feet Setback Requirement. 4.0 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Ellis- Goldenwest Specific Plan as amended and Environmental Impact Report No. 82-1, and forward to the City Council for adoption and certi- fication. ATTACHMENTS : 1. Draft Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan & E.I.R. 82-1 2. Map, Specific Plan Subareas 3. Letters from: • Southern California Gas Company • County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California • Orange County Transit District • County of Orange Environmental Management Agency • J. I. Hathaway, Operator • Huntington Beach Company . City of Huntington Beach, Department of Public Works C<Z CC:MA: ---- - 50 ,y(; M jgo1 xJJ /71 it 0 woo l/ a wo- 90 vie Pr opotsed Development Plark srAf f huntington beach development services department REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Development Services DATE: June 15, 1982 SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 82-5 (ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN) AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 82-1 1. 0 SUGGESTED ACTION: 1. Approve Environmental Impact Report No. 82-1. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 1292 approving Code Amendment No. 82-5 (Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan) . 3. Review the two attached draft ordin4nces. 4. Recommend that the City Council approve, by resolution, the reimbursement of City costs for preparation of the Ellis- Goldenwest Specific Plan. 2.0 ANALYSIS: On June 1, 1982, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing on the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. After public testimony and Commission discussion, the hearing on the Plan was continued to allow completion of the 30-day review period ending June 15, for Environmental Impact Report No. 82-1. Staff has reorganized the Plan in ordinance format, and incorporated a number of .concerns expressed by property owners, oil operators, and other interested groups and individuals since the study session held on April 27, 1982. The Specific Plan document now contains four primary sections: In- troduction, Implementing Standards, Next Steps, and Environmental Impact Report. The Implementing Standards section has been placed in ordinance format and reorganized to reflect staff ' s proposal to divide the Specific Plan into three distinct subareas. Subarea One contains all the land west of the existing alignment of Edwards Street; Subarea Two is the central portion from Edwards Street to Goldenwest Street (west-east) and Ellis Avenue to Garfield Avenue (north-south) ; and Subarea Three is the area east of Goldenwest Street. , The Plan proposes specific development standards only for Subarea Two. , In Subarea One, before development can occur, a specific plan must be submitted representing a cooperative effort of a4property owners AWELK A-F M-93A Ellis/Goldenwest June 15, 1982 Page 2 in the subarea. A similar plan must be submitted for Subarea Three before development in that subarea can occur. The subarea plans will require Planning Commission review and approval. The plans are to address the issues of open space, circulation, land use compatibility, preservation of natural topography, access to oil operations, eques- trian trails, landscaping, and architectural features. Provisions of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan pertaining to oil and equestrian facilities have been revised since the June 1 public hearing in order to address Commission concerns expressed at that time. Staff has prepared a discussion paper on oil (attached to this staff report) to explain the rationale for the new provisions, which appear in Sections 4 .3 . 1a, 5.3 .3 . 9, and 6.3.1 of the Implementing Standards. Revised provisions for equestrian facilities appear in Section 5. 3. 3.7 of the Implementing Standards. All developments will be required to provide for boarding of one horse per dwelling unit for a minimum of 25 percent of the total number of dwelling units in the project. This requirement may be satisfied by providing lots of 15, 000 square feet in size or greater, by setting aside area for a common stable facility, by reserving room in the stable facilities of an adjacent development or by some combination of the above methods. Adoption Procedure Staff is recommending that the Specific Plan be approved at both the Planning Commission and City Council level by resolution. A re- solution for the Planning Commission is attached to this staff report. A similar resolution will be prepared for City Council adoption. Once the elan is adopted, the appropriate District Maps in the City's zoning code must be amended to indicate that the Specific Plan is the new zoning- for the area. This is done by ordinance at the City Coun- dil level, and a sample ordinance is attached for your review. Also atatched, is an ordinance for Council adoption that will in- clude a page in the zoning code alterting readers that the Specific Plan is kept under a separate cover on file with the City Clerk and the Department of Development Services. Preparation Costs Section 65453 of the California Government Code authorizes the City to charge back the costs of preparing and adopting Specific Plans to those builders, developers and others who benefit from the de- velopment of such plans. At the time the Specific Plan is presented to the City Council for adoption, the City must prepare a cost break- down of the Plan and related environmental documentation and make a determination of the total cost thereof. After the Specific Plan is adopted, the City may impose a special fee on persons seeking devel- opment permits for projects required to be in conformance with the Plan. The total cost of the Plan is to be divided among developers based on the relative amount of benefit derived from the Plan. Ellis-Goldenwest June 15, 1982 Page 3 Staff has prepared a cost breakdown for preparation of the Ellis- Goldenwest Specific Plan and E.I.R. No. 82-1 (attached) . Staff recommends that the total cost be apportioned among developers on the basis of acreage. As shown in the attached cost breakdown, the total cost of preparing the Specific Plan and E.I.R. was approxi- mately $44, 786 which would result in a special fee of $154 per acre charged to the developer as part of his application fees. 3. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: EIR 82-1 . provides an assessment of the proposed Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan for development of up to 870 dwelling units on 290 acres. A draft EIR was prepared and distributed to public agencies and individuals for a 30 -day review period ending June 14 , 1982. The enclosed EIR consists of the draft EIR, comments and recommenda- tions received on the draft EIR, and the City' s responses to the significant environmental points raised during the review process. Prior to taking action on the Code Amendment (Ellis-Goldenwest Spe- cific Plan) , the Planning Commission must determine that the Envi- ronmental Impact Report is adequate and conforms with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and State EIR Guidelines. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Revised draft Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan and EIR 82-1 in- cluding comments and responses. 2. Supplemental information on oil 3. Specific Plan preparation cost breakdown 4. Resolution No. 1292 approving. Code Amendment 82- (Ellis- Goldenwest Specific Plan) . 5. Draft Ordinance No. and No. 6. Mailgram from Milton Marow 7. Letter from Ron and E. Anne Brindle 8. Letter from William Landis (resubmitted at the property owner's request) . 9. Letter from Chevron to Huntington Beach Company, carbon copied to Department of Development Services 10 . Letter from Ron Brindle dated June 10, 1982 C ATTACHMENT 2 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION ON OIL ACTIVITIES IN THE ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN AREA Provisions of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan pertaining to oil have been revised since the public hearing on June 1, 1982. The following information is presented to Help explain the reasoning behind the new provisions. Problems of compatibility arise when active oil wells are located adjacent to residential uses. Redrilling of existing wells and drilling of new wells in particular, are noisy operations whose im- pacts can be partially, but not wholly, mitigated. (Redrilling starts from an existing well hole and may angle off from the exis- ting well underneath the earth's surface. Drilling a new well es- tablishes a new hole on the earth' s surface. ) It is desirable to limit the locations of new wells in an area that is expected to develop as residential in the near future so that the potential for incompatibilities is minimized. Wells can either be drilled straight down or at an angle to the earth' s surface. This allows for flexibility in- the siting of oil wells. A recent analysis conducted by staff of the California Di- vision of Oil and Gas has indicated that it would be technologically feasible to reach most of the oil-bearing strata underneath the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area from a very limited number of strategically-located drilling sites, possibly as few as two sites. The oil operator, of course, is interested not only in technical feasibility, but also in the economic factors involved. Drilling at an angle is more expensive than drilling straight down. The diffe- rence in cost depends on a number of factors including the location and depth of the well, the angle at which it is drilled and the nature of the geologic material that must be drilled through. Whe- ther these costs are feasible depends upon the anticipated production of the well and the price of oil, now and in the future. In the absence of a detailed analysis of the area' s subsurface geo- logy, productivity potential and anticipated oil prices, this Spe- cific Plan has attempted to provide reasonable access to underground oil reserves through a combination of reworking and redrilling of existing wells and limited drilling of new wells. Figure 1 summarizes information about the existing oil operators, subsurface rights, active wells and areas that currently have the -01 suffix in the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area. (The -01 suffix allows redrilling of existing wells and drilling of new wells. This is differentiated from the -0 suffix which allows redrilling of existing wells but no drilling for new wells. ) The geographical dis- tribution of wells and subsurface rights is shown on Map A. Subarea One As indicated in Figure 1, Subarea One of the Specific Plan area con- tains approximately 66 active wells that are all operated by Chevron. ATTACHMENT 2 (CONT. ) FIGURE 1 Subarea One Approximate Acreage Number of Subsurface Lease/ of Number of Mineral Rights (In Active Existing Oil Operators Acres) Wells , -01 Sites Chevron 66.0 66 entire acreage TOTAL 66. 0 66 entire acreage Subarea Two Hathaway 55 . 0 22 1 (2.5 acres in size) Chevron 45.0 28 2 (each 2.5 acres in size) Petro-Lewis 25.0 9 0 Ishibashi 10.0 4 0 TOTAL 127. 0 63 3 Subarea Three Petro-Lewis 17.5 4 0 Huntington Beach Co. 10. 0 2 0 Bradley, Muhl 10. 0 4 0 Jacat Oil 10.0 3 0 S & C Oil 2.5 2 0 Wier Oil 2.5 2 0 TOTAL 50. 0 17 0 Source: City of Huntington Beach Planning Division, 1982. California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil and Gas, 1980. .l.r afs- pit . sac .,:aai.x 4 TALBERTNK 4�\ CF-C A- �- SUBAREA 1 i S 2 SUBAREA-3 D im HATHAWAY BRADLEY JACAT \ �; • !, ._ • • • . \\ H.B. CO. HATHAWAY•-. PETRO-LEWIS • 0 i! f • : I • - HUNTINGTON - . _ I ; •�- _-- PETRO- '" ••• • BEACH CO. ' LEWIS PETRO-LEWIS i • % ISHIBASHI r S 8 C • • • .• ;' WEIR • • CHEVRON'• ! -- • -- , • 0 0 0 0 + ' • -- - , - i=; _ L0_ J GARFIELD Active Wells - ~` Source: California Division of Oil & Gas, 1980 } HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIA PLANNING DIVISION Existing OilWells and Mineral Rights/Leases ATTACHMENT 2 (CONT. ) The area currently has the -01 suffix which allows continued opera- tion of existing wells and drilling of new wells. In Subarea One, the Specific Plan proposes to continue to allow all the uses permitted under the -01 suffix including new drilling. Subarea Two In Subarea Two there are four oil operators, three of which have subsurface mineral rights or leases consisting of twenty acres or more in size. There are currently three oil islands, 23� acres in size each where new drilling is permitted. One of these islands is on a Hathaway lease andtwo are on Chevron leases. The Specific Plan proposes that continued operation, servicing, re- working and redrilling of existing wells be permitted throughout the Subarea, but that new drilling be confined to specified oil islands. The Specific Plan proposes to allow one new drilling site or oil is- land of approximately 1h acres in size for every 20 acres of subsur- face lease or mineral rights in Subarea Two. In other words, oil opera- tors who have subsurface-rights to_ 20 or more contiguous- acres .mav- ask the City for one oil island per each 20 acres of subsurface area. The oil operator will be required to designate the location and size of the desired oil island subject to review and approval by the Di- rector of Development Services, before the City will issue a permit for new .drilling in that area. Under the existing configuration of leases, this provision would allow Chevron to request two drilling sites; Hathaway, two; Petro-Lewis, one; and Ishibashi, none. This could result in a total of five oil islands in Subarea Two, which is two more than was previously recommended. The objective of the Specific Plan in Subarea Two is to_-provide-_fox - con- tinued oil operations while at_ the same time minimizinj the amount of land - devoted to new oil activities_ _ . This will also result_ in more acreage being available for residential de—avelopment and open space which are the area' s designated uses in the City'% General Plan. Subarea Three In Subarea Three, there are six oil operators working a total of 16 active wells. The area has the -O suffix that permits continued operation, servicing, reworking and redrilling of existing wells, excluding new drilling. No part of Subarea Three currently has the -01 suffix allowing new drilling. The Specific Plan would continue to allow the uses permitted under the -O suffix. ATTACHMENT 3 ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN-PREPARATION COST Staff Time Project Planner $12 , 480 Project Planner 12 , 480 Project Managers 7, 696 32 , 656 Benefits 21% 6 , 858 Subtotal 39, 514 Printing Materials 180 r Topographic Map 4 , 759 Miscellaneous Materials, slides, graphic supplies, base maps, etc . 200 Postage 133 • Total: $44, 786* *NOTE: This total does reflect overhead costs or indirect costs incurred by other City departments COST PER ACRE: $44 ,786 290 ac. - $154/ac . ATTACHMENT 4 RESOLUTION NO. 1292 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING THE ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN. (CODE AMENDMENT 82-5) WHEREAS, Sections 65500-65507 of the California Government Code provide procedures for adoption of specific plans and regulations; and WHEREAS, a specific plan herein referred to as the "Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan" has been prepared containing the recommended contents of the above mentioned code sections; and WHEREAS, the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan provides for development within a 290+ acre site bounded by Ellis Avenue to the north, the City boundary to the west, Garfield and Ernest Avenues to the south and a line extending north from Crystal Street to the east which is consistent with the City' s General Plan and will not be detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety, and convenience of persons working or residing in the neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California, has held a public hearing in compliance with the State Government Code to review said Specific Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby approves the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan (Code Amendment 82-5) ; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said Specific Plan is recommended for adoption by resolution, by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach. REGULARLY PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California, on the 15th day of June, 1982 , by the following roll call vote: AYES : NOES : ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: James W. Palin, Secretary Grace H. Winchell, Chairman OTTACHMENT 5 DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY AMENDING DISTRICT MAPS 38 AND 39 TO INCOR- PORATE ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN (ZONE CASE NO. 82- ) WHEREAS, pursuant to the state Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and the Huntington Beach City Council have had separate public hearings relative to Zone . Case No. 82-_ wherein both bodies have carefully considered all information presented at said hearings , and after due considera- tion of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and all evidence presented to said City Council, the City Council rinds that such zone change is proper, and consistent with the general plan, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows : SECTION 1. That the present zoning included within Ellis- Goldenwest Specific Plan, covering 290 acres more or less, bounded on the north by Ellis Avenue, the city boundary on the west . Garfield and Ernest Avenues to the south and a line ex- tending north from Crystal Street to the east, is hereby elimi- nated, and the specific plan established therefor provides regu- lated development in accordance with the objectives set out in such specific plan. SECTION 2. The Development Services Director i5 hereby di- rected to amend Section 9061 , District ;naps 38 and 39 (Sectional District Maps 34-5-11 and 35-5-11 ) to reflect Zone Case ;10 . 82-_ , d escribed in Section 1 hereof. A copy of said district maps , as amended hereby are available for inspection in the office of the City Clerk. /ahb 6/9/82 1. ATTACHMENT 5 (cont' ) ` SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the d ya of 1982. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED : INI`.PIATED AND APPROVED: City Administrator Director of Development Services �i 2. ATTACHMENT 5 (cont' ) PLANNING ZONING DM 38 SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 34-5-II N F[[t NOTE ADOPTED AUGUST 15. 1960 ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET CITY OF ANY SUCH ADJOINING ANY RIGHT OF RAY IS INTENDED TO EXTEND TO THE CENTER CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE N0. TB! OF sucN RpNf OF w4r AMENDED ORD.NO. AMENDED ORD,NO. LEGEND' [[RS�A RElNXLNTL,L Ap1CULTUTAL DISTINCT e-l-196! 970 �Q] cp1RNEo YDTN pL Fn°DJcnw H�JNTINGTON BEACH '-�1965 IIl2 `�bNFD RRTN DR FROWOT,N 12-5-1966 1271 � SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT 2-3-69 1467 © LIGXT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT 6-26-70 1576 [� N10-Y GO MERCIAL DISTRICT 10-19-70 1606 ® 'ONb11 wITX III FRODUCTR)N 7-17-71 1659 L_ COMMUNITY FACILITIEs(RECREATIONALIDISTRICt ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA R,-19-71 1661 FM CVIC DISTRICT AMENDED BY ZONE CASE: I-n-7z 1709 ® CANNED DEVELOPMENTRESIDENCE ® Tw0 FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT 3I5,505,88-49, 68-46,70-8,70-10,71-9,71-26,71-17,71-44,73-20,74-22,'Mi,74-22,T7-I9, 2-22-72 1722 ® LIMITED USE 10-15-73 I876 4-7-74 1977 9-15-75 2010 7-6-76 2077 ze IF II-21-77 2229 xT x4 33 a4 + 34 3S _• 1111` � ` I , ^ I"Mlnmllo N(_ DR —AL oR RI RI-CD 1 RI-C =D R I NEwam DR y I a . '` RI RI RI-CD r ' R RI F97 T DR RIB RI RI RI 9 RI N R 5 a Q s w W RI RI RI I} 0 U p '� JUDw1 R R 1 ° i ..F. DLL , C F. •R' RIi D RI A EMwILR CIE f U 4r \ RI- 14, CD RI RI LIT,L Oq RI � � �•x. � ELD 40 li \RI RI " ----- > � — - D4 0+f RI 9 sb a.x R A-O-CD RI F RI N'' � se 6c 7l` (PREZO NED) RA-0-CD � 9 RI-CD 'i U-0-CD LU0-CD LU-O-CD LU-0-CD (PREZONED) 0CDRI LU•O-CD LU•0- D W (PREZONED) PLUO-CD r1-0-CD -CD - - - RF,D -CD 959 60 Q O IS 3 I- N e9•.151•w ,ze nD• Ell1S-GO enW2St Specific Plan OF I � Ld �. i z ILL! JA 0 8 es•u'oYE z1e 1.S0'= N„ GARFIELD AV E. n s4 s e ATTACHMENT 5 (cony ) PLANNING ZONING DM 39 SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 35-5-1I -- NOTE:ALL IMMERSIONS ARE IN FEET ANY ZONE ADOPTED MARCH 7, 1960 ADlOININO ANY RIGMT OF WAY IS INTENDED TO EKTF, CITY OF CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO 754 TO THE CENTER OF SUCH RgHT of WAY " O ".-1.14 '� °� ��' ® DLWLIFMO CLASSfK1r47N 9 6-60 790 6-III ! 9]I PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT q-3-60 195 6-IB-75 b53 -60 79B 10-15 7S IS a4 ® RESIDENTIAL AGRK:ULTURAL DISTRICT 12-19-60 BOB -19-TS IB 78 S-Il-61 B39 I]-7.7) II I2 y2.] Nd15TMK DISTRICT HUNTINGTON BEACH a 2°' °'° LT,. b91 ® LING. INDUSTRIAL FAMSTR RE DISTRICT 6-61 B76 1217-]J bBt COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT !-a-62 m.900 10 1]-7) b,fi rc� 6-IB-62 90R B 5-74 19% FRONT VAR[ SETBACK LINE 9-9-62 93, 1?-1814 1951D [� SINGLE F RESIDENCE DISTRICT -I1-fi! 9a6 ]-B-a6 2081 ® 0 FICE-PROFESSIONAL DISTRICT .-IB-64 IO56 2-1-77 2168 FM TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA IZ S 6, DIGS -)-17 2151 R! LIMITED MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT s-zat 2M AMENDED BY ZONE CASE: 6-n 6e 4z1 2222. NIGHWAY COMMERCIAL 2-1a-69 ] 2.6-78 axle 6-b-89 1506 12-17-al RESN3°I° ®® RESTRICTED FACILITIES ING RECRETRICT III,126,127.130,133,134,08,141,149,196,212,237,238 9.2-69 IS22 2-21-]e RESN 4590 ® COMMUNITY fACILITIES IRECREATIONALI DISTRICT ro-19-70 1606 2S0,2SB,274,293,429,605,542,67-27,68-IS,68-54,69-11,69-21,70.10,T0-27,71-14,71-IT,72-8,PP72-6 )n-Bo tale COMMUNITY FACILITIES Icrvlcl o15rRIc7 72-I8,72-19,72-6,72-34,72-44,73.3,73-8,73-16,73-18,PPA7}I,73-21,T3-23,73-20,74-6,74-15,PP74-3,76-17,76-268,76-26C,77-7,77-17, e-,-ii 1bE62 7:21-SO 2444 -17-71 Ia09 2-17-91 2472 COMBMED K9TN OIL PROdICIH1N 77-27,SP73-1,74-10,80-9,80-E7,PPSA82-1,81-13, 0-3.72 740 ]-15-e2RESRI'Da 21 26 8-7-1Z In' ]-IS 62 544 � COMBINED WITH OIL PRODUCTION 26 25 )4 3! 9-5-72 ,71) CIVIC DISTRICT 9-l-72 774 !! % 6-l-72 n41 OJ/III PRECISE PLAN OF STREET AL LAMENT TALBERT I l R-2.73 79] _rj AVE. .—E STREET J IIV/ 4-2-T) Ie26 S / 640 y MI-CD I. MI-A NY (Q)R2-PD 04 I` AVE ~ MI-A Y �/y G! YY�„ E�I � !/ Ulll�ll�ll/l1UlIUJll101�- '° m (Q)R2-PD C 4 CF-R MI-CD -------- .J(:NTR:I. til M I—A 131� ;x 66 a MI-CD P D2AK-DR, ,'; R I " C2CF-R ;ODE:__:€;:�--'RI EE TAYLOR OR • M I 3 RI RI ^ (� _ C 2 !D RA-0-CD B _ MI RI ONTARIO DR i I& — -v RI RI a �CF-(� R MI'J am CR �QUEBEC DR RI RI 6004e 1I lI 2e911 IY RI ___ wUIMTlM ALBERTRAI DR l ^ R 3 'c I. MI-CD RI RI RI RI MI Y KON DR FR4NKLIN DR C4 C I RI R3 R3 �D MI-CD VTi F+3 I R2 R3 m R3MI oI -_-_---` _- ! C 2 C2 Gso--^ MI R2` 6M' _ - R5 °o Ellis-Goldenwes R3 Specific Plan ' 4 \ M2�0 COMMORD C3 cR / wtxe. 2R,! I'D 2 1297]TO M I— R3, fi !R3 R2'1 (DISTRICT O ::R2 ti TWO)N N LOT, %goo i - R-)L 2' I29990 Z;'R2'%R2 (DISTRICT ONE) ERNEST ° AVE MIa R5 C4 f- 33D MI-O-CD En ' "' A. PACIFICA CIA AMUNITY PLAN 3 -.7wcRN�LaP'' (DIS ICT ONE) R3 M2-01 e - 1O! _ I—Z MI-A-CD MI-0 MI-0 ggrR2 Lu 3 R5 Q .J FE m a R5M R2 f I-A-cp.O 3 ) E R5 )ol to - R3 _ 2 R 3!D f Soo R R 5 R 5 R2 R R2 W R2 $J ?^ r��LL� — r GARFIELD AVE S4 33 3]!6 ! 2 2 ATTACHMENT 5 (cony ) DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. AN •ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY ADDING THERETO ARTICLE 907 REFERENCING SPECIFIC PLANS The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows : SECTION 1. The Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is amended by adding thereto Article 907 entitled , " Specific Plans ," to read as follows : 9700. SPECIFIC PLANS. The following specific plans are on file in the office of the City Clerk and the Department of Development Services : Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of 1982. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED : INITIATED AND APPROVED: City Administrator Director of Development Services srAFF huntington beach development services department -REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Development Services DATE: June 22, 1982 _SUBJECT: PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN (CODE AMENDMENT NO. 82-5) 1 . 0 SUGGESTED ACTION: 1 . Approve Environmental Impact Report No. 82-1 . 2. Adopt Resolution No. 1292 approving Code Amendment No. 82-5 (Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan) with the administrative corrections recommended by staff and any revisions approved by the Planning Commission on June 22, 1982. 3: Review the two draft ordinances attached to the June 15, 1982 staff report (attached) . 4 . Recommend that the City Council approve, by resolution, the reimbursement of City costs for preparation of the Ellis- Goldenwest Specific Plan. 2. 0 ANALYSIS: On June 1, 1982, the Planning Commission opened the public hear- ing on the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. The hearing was continued to June 15, 1982 and closed on that date. Commission discussion on the testimony presented during the public hearing was continued to June 22, 1982. A number of specific revisions to the Plan were suggested at the June 15 meeting. A list of these items is presented in this staff report in order to facilitate Commission discussion on June 22nd. Administrative Revisions Staff recommends that the following revisions be approved in order to correct typographical and other minor errors in the text of the Specific Plan: 1. Pages 11 and 15, Section 2. 0 . Correct the legal description to read " . . . Map Book 110, Page 01, Lots 54 - 56, 58 . " 2. Page 15, Section 4 . 3.1a. Clarify that new drilling will be allowed in areas having the -01 suffix prior to adoption of the Specific Plan. Reference the entire Article 968 . AWk A-F M-23A. Ellis-Goldenwest Spec_ _c Plan June 22, 1982 Page 2 3 . Page 17, Section 5. 3. 1d. Clarify that existing uses may con- tinue subject to the existing terms and renewal dates of their existing use permit or conditional use permit. 4 . Page 19, Section 5. 3. 3 . 1. Strike the second half of the sen- tence and add: "This provision shall not be interpreted to prevent the building of custom homes on individual lots that are subdivided after the adoption of this Specific Plan. " 5 . Page 23, Section 5. 3 . 3 .7f. Add: "All corrals, racks, and stalls shall be of noncombustible construction, provided that the Fire Chief may modify these requirements where practical difficulties exist as long as the alternatives comply with the intent of the code. " 6 . Page 33, Section 5. 3 .3 . 13 . 2e. Refer to Exhibit 3 rather than Figure 19 . 7 . Page 37, Section 6 .3 . 1a. Reference the entire Article 968 . Straw Vote Actions. The following is a list of the items approved by the Plan- ning Commission by stray vote (or by consensus of opinion) on June 15, 1982: 1. Retain Subareas One, Two, and Three in the Specific Plan, but apply development standards to Subarea Two only. 2. Include provisions to ensure a trail link from Subareas One, Two, and Three to the County' s trail system. 3 . Page 15, Section 4. 1. Stipulate that the development plan for Subarea One address the following additional concerns: g) Mitiga- tion of any adverse impacts of drainage into the Bolsa Chica; h) Mitigation of potential adverse impacts to archaeological sites; and i) Consistency with the maximum density designated for the area in the City' s General Plan. 4 . Page 19, Section 5. 3 . 3 .3b. Design the setbacks adjacent to arter- ials to include a 5 to 6 foot landscaped berm and no solid walls. Consider a berm with retaining wall. 5. Page 19, Section 5. 3. 3 . 3c. Approve the rolled curb and gutter street standards proposed by staff for collector and private streets. 6. Page 19, Section 5. 3 . 3 . 3c. Revise the system of internal collec- tor streets (Exhibit 1) to eliminate the roadway through the Brindle' s property and any access onto Goldenwest Street, if possible. Avoid divisions of consolidated parcels. 7 . Page 21, Section 5. 3 . 3 . 6. Reduce trail width to sixteen (16) feet. -2- Ellis-Goldenwest Specs__Lc Plan June 22, 1982 Page 3 Text Revisions. The following is a list of additional changes to the text of the Specific Plan that the Commissioners may want to discuss at the June 22nd meeting. Staff will be prepared on Tuesday, June 22, to indicate which changes we concur with. 1. Page 9. Change "Specific Plan Goals" to "Specific Plan Policies" and add that these policies shall be used in con- junction with the Implementing Standards as a basis for review- ing proposed developments. (Staff. ) 2. Page 11, Section 2 . 0. Indicate that it is the City' s intent to extend the eastern boundary of the Specific Plan to Gothard Street when the ultimate alignment of that arterial is established. (Planning Commission. ) 3. Page 17, Section 5. 3 .1a. Do not include Planned Residential Developments (condominiums) as a permitted use in Subarea Two. (Planning Commission. ) 4 . Page 19, Section 5. 3 . 3.1. Add that project areas of a minimum of five (5) acres will be allowed if the project density does not exceed two (2) dwelling units per acre. (Connie Mandic/Eques- trian Trails, Inc. (E.T. I. ) . ) 5. Page 19, Section 5.3 .3 .3b. Include an equestrian trail in the setback adjacent to perimeter arterials. (Mandic/E.T. I. ) 6 . Page 21, Section 5.3 . 3 . 5. Allow fenced riding corrals in open space corridors. (Mandic/E.T. I. ) 7 . Page 21, Section 5 . 3 . 3 . 5 . Require that all fencing in open space corridors be uniform. Possible design: 5 foot high, white wood rail with wire mesh. (Mandic,Environmental Board. ) 8 . Page 21, Section 5. 3. 3 . 5. Require that swale areas be dedicated to the City as open space. If swale areas are left in private ownership, apply specific development guidelines. (Environmental Board. ) 9. Page 21, Section 5. 3 . 3. 5. Do not allow individual private lots to extend on both sides of an equestrian trail . (Mandic/E.T. I. ) 10. Page 21, Section 5. 3 .3 . 6. Be more specific about how individual projects will have to provide trail links to the open space corridor trails. (Planning Commission. ) 11. Page 22, Section 5. 3. 3. 6c. Require standard fence along trails as in comment No. 7 above. (Mandic, Environmental Board. ) 12. Page 22, Section 5. 3 . 3 . 7. Require projects to provide adequate area for one horse_ per dwelling unit. (Mandic-/E.T. I . ) -3- Ellis-Goldenwest Speci-ic Plan June 22, 1982 Page 4 13 . Page 22, Section 5. 3 .3 . 7 . Apply uniform architectural stand- ards to all common stable facilities. (Mandic, Environmental Board.) 14 . Page 22, Section 5. 3 .3 . 7. Require the developer to build the common stable facility. (Environmental Board. ) 15. Page 22, Section 5.3. 3 . 7b. Do not allow "one acre of riding area" to satisfy requirement. Require a fenced arena of 5, 000 square feet for every 15 horses. (Mandic/E.T. I . ) 16. Page 23, Section 5. 3 . 3 .7e. Include a sample design of a wash rack facility. (Mandic/E.T. I . ) 17. Page 23, Section 5. 3. 3. 7f. Add that arenas shall maintain a minimum dimension of 50 feet and that exercise rings are optional. (Staff. ) 18 . Page 23, Section 5. 3 .3 . 7f. Add parking requirements for cars and horse trailers for common stable facilities. (Mandic/E.T. I. ) 19 . Page 24, Section 5. 3 . 3 .8 . All common improvements (stables, trails, perimeter project fencing, common open space landscaping, etc. ) should be constructed by developer prior to sale of lots. (Environmental Board. ) 20. Page 25, Section 5.3 .3. 8b. Reduce the setback requirements for common stable facilities. (Mandic/E.T. I . ) 21. Page 26, Section 5.3 . 3 . 9. Require that four oil island sites in Subarea Two be mandatory rather than optional . (Environmental Board. ) 22. Page 26, Section 5. 3. 3 . 9. Allow oil islands to be a maximum of 2. 5 acres (rather than 1 . 5 acres) in size. (Chevron. ) 23 . Page 26, Section 5.3 . 3 .10. 1 a&b. Adopt a standard design for all fencing within the Specific Plan area. (Mandic/E.T. I. , Envir- onmental Board. ) 24 . Page 27, Section 5. 3. 3 .10. 1c. Prohibit all solid fencing. (Planning Commission. ) 25. Page 29, Section 5.3. 3.11 c&f. Adopt standard design for light- ing and street signs throughout the Specific Plan area. (Mandic/ E.T. I . , Environmental Board. ) 26 . Page 29, Section 5. 3. 3. 12. Homeowner association agreement should be written so that common facilities, open spaces, and equestrian facilities are maintained in perpetuity, so as to preclude voting any of these items out in order to sell and/or avoid maintenance. (Environmental Board. ) -4- Ellis-Goldenwest Spec. :c Plan June 22, 1982 Page 5 27 . Page 29, general provision. Require the preservation of large trees and require additional trees, particularly along trails. (Environmental Board. ) 28 . Page 29, Section 5 . 3 . 3 .13 . Condominium developments should not be allowed. (Environmental Board,Planning Commission. ) 29. Page 31, Section 5. 3 . 3 .13 .1o. Require that accessory buildings are similar in design and materials to main residential dwelling unit. (Mandic/E.T. I . , Environmental Board) . 30 . Page 31, Section 5. 3 .3 .13 . 1r. Relax the turnaround radius require- ment on long driveways. (Mandic/E.T. I . ) 31. Page 31, Section 5.3 . 3.13 .1s. Allow two horses on a 15, 000 square foot lot, three on 20, 000 square feet, four or five on 30, 000 square feet, and six on 40, 000 square feet. (Mandic/E.T. I. ) 32. Page 33 , Section 5. 3. 3 . 13 . 1s. Reduce the setback requirements for equestrian facilities on individual lots to 25 feet from property line; allow a smaller setback when pad for corral area is designated on each lot in a coordinated pattern. (Mandic/E.T. I . ) 33 . Page 34, Section 5. 3 . 3 .13 . 2i. Do not allow double common wall house. (Environmental Board. ) 34 . Page 37, Section 6. 3 . 1a. Allow new drilling in Subarea Three under the same standards as in Subarea Two. (Chevron. ) Attachment: June 15, 1982 Staff Report C I:d f��( -5- huntington beach development services department srAf f REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Development Services DATE: July 7, 1982 SUBJECT: ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN AND E.I .R. 82-1 (CODE AMENDMENT NO. 82-5) 1. 0 SUGGESTED ACTION: 1. Approve Environmental Impact Report No. 82-1. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 1292 approving Code Amendment No. 82-5 (Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan) with any revisions approved by the Planning Commission on July 7, 1982 . 3. Review the two draft ordinances attached to the June 15, 1982 staff report (attached) . 4. Recommend that the City Council approve, by resolution, the reimbursement of City costs for preparation of the Ellis- Goldenwest Specific Plan. 2. 0 BACKGROUND Public hearings on the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan and Environ- mental Impact Report No. 82-1 were closed on June 15, 1982. At their June 22nd meeting, the Planning Commission discussed, point by point, a number of revisions that were raised during the public testimony. The Commissioners ended their discussion after ad- dressing point Number 12 of the text revisions as outlined in the June 22nd staff report. The Commissioners asked staff to incorpo- rate new language into the Specific Plan to reflect the changes discussed and to provide staff recommendations on the remainder of the items. 3. 0 ANALYSIS Staff has prepared new wording to reflect the changes discussed by the Planning Commission at their June 22nd meeting. Please see Attachment 1 for these revisions. Staff has also prepared comments and recommendations on the items that the Planning Commission did not get a chance to discuss on June 22nd. Please see Attachment 2 for these recommendations. v A-FM-23A e` Code Amendment No. 82-5 July 7, 1982 Page 2 In response to a question from the Planning Commission, staff contacted several equestrian developments in Orange County to request information regarding the amount of horse facilities that were being provided. The following information resulted from staff inquiries: High Horse Trails, City of Orange This project will contain 174 single family homes and a stable with 26 corrals built by the developer. (There is room for 80 additional corrals; however, the developer is not going to build them at this time. ) No horses are permitted on individual lots. Forty homes have been sold to date but only five corrals have been sold. A sales representative indicated that approximately 10 to 15 percent of the homeowners and prospective buyers are interested in the corrals. The Ranch, Carbon Canyon( Orange County This project will ultimately contain 350 single family homes and a stable with 36 corrals. No horses are permitted on individual lots. To date, 150 homes have been sold but only approximately five corrals have been sold. A sales representative indicated that there was "not much demand" for the stable facilities. Broadmoor Park, Orange Park Acres, City of Orange This development consists of 237 dwelling units, thirty-five of which are on one-acre equestrian lots. The remaining 202 units are clustered on non-equestrian lots. There is a common stable facility with approximately 20 corrals and room for additional corrals to be built by homeowners if desired. Stoneridge, San Juan Capistrano This subdivision contains 180 lots, 30 percent of which are equestrian lots. No common stable facilities are proposed. The Hunt Club, San Juan Capistrano This subdivision contains 132 lots, 20 of which are equestrian lots - additional lots may be equestrian if the homeowner obtains permission from neighbors. No common stables are proposed. Code Amendment No. 82-5 July 7, 1982 Page 3 The above information indicates that the demand for common stable facilities in several recent developments is as low as fifteen percent. Staff is concerned that the requirement to provide for the boarding of one horse per dwelling unit (as directed by the Planning Commission) will result in excessive area within projects being devoted to equestrian facilities. As a compromise, staff recommends that the Specific Plan contain a requirement to provide for boarding of one horse per every two dwelling units. Additionally, where a common stable facility is proposed, staff recommends that the developer be required to reserve adequate area for the entire facility but to construct only fifty percent of the proposed corrals and related facilities. This will clearly establish the equestrian area without running the risk of far exceeding demand. Staff is concerned that stalls built in excess of demand will pose unnecessary maintenance responsibilities and may be rented out to non-residents. If the Planning Commission chooses to stay with the require- ment of area for one ho rse per every dwelling unit then staff recommends that the developer be required to construct only twenty-five percent of any proposed stable facility. Exact wording for this provision is contained in Attachment 2, Item Number 14. 4. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: EIR 82-1, which was transmitted to the Commission for the June 15, 1981 meeting, provides an assessment of the proposed Ellis- Goldenwest Specific Plan for development of up to 870 dwelling units on 290 acres. A draft EIR was prepared and distributed to public agencies and individuals for a 30-day review period ending June 14, 1982. Comments and recommendations received on the draft EIR and the City' s responses to the significant environ- mental points raised during the review process were attached to the document. Prior to taking action on the Code Amendment (Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan) , the Planning Commission must determine that the Environmental Impact Report is adequate and conforms with require- ments of the California Environmental Quality Act and State EIR Guidelines. Attachments: 1. Revisions approved June 22, 1982 2. Staff Recommendations 3. June 22, 1982 staff report 4. June 15, 1982 staff report CI: jmsQ;s. ATTACHMENT 1 The following are revisions approved at the June 22, 1982, Planning Commission Meeting. • Page 9, SPECIFIC PLAN GOALS The following gee.-19 policies -are a result of recommendations con- tained in the Ellis-Goldenwest Area Conceptual Study prepared by the Department of Development Services in May, 1981, and of input from the City Council and Planning Commission, City staff, property owners, oil operators and other persons and agencies that have par- ticipated in the preparation and review of this plan. These Beals policies have been used as the basis for developing the implement- ing regulations contained in this Specific Plan -fer and shah be used as a bass 6otc Reviewing development of in the Ellis-Goldenwest area: • Page 11, Section 2.0, SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY The Ettis-Goldenwest Specific Ptan area iz generatty bounded by E. tiz Avenue to the notch, the City boundary to the west, GaA6ietd and EAnest Avenues to the south, and a tine extended noAth from CAysta2 Street to the east (the eastern boundary o6 the Specific Ptan area wilt coincide uttimatety with the precize atignment 4oA Gothard StAeet) . The property described herein is included in the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan and shall be subject to policies and development standards set forth in this article. Precisely Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan includes the real property described as follows: Parcels in the City of Huntington Beach as per maps in the County Assessor' s Map Book 110, Page 01, lots 5+-58 54-56, 58 recorded in Miscellaneous Maps of Orange County. Page 15, Section 4 . 0, SUBAREA ONE Section 4 .1, PURPOSE As a subarea of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan the following policy is adopted to provide direction for preparation of develop- ment standards: 1. Prior to the submission of any proposal for development, a specific plan for the development of the entire subarea shall be submitted representing a cooperative effort by all property owners within the subarea. Said specific plan shall be sub- ject to review and approval by the City' s Planning Commission and shall address the following concerns: g. The mitigation of any adverse impacts 6Aom drainage into the Botsa Chica. ATTACHMENT 1 (Conti ) h. The mitigation o6 any potentiat advenze impacts to anchaeo- 2ogicat zitez . i. Devetopment zhatt be consistent with the density apptied in Subarea Two and zhatt not exceed an ovenatt maximum density o6 thtcee units pen gnozz acne. • Page 15, Section 4.2, SUBAREA ONE BOUNDARY Subarea One includes that portion of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area located west of Edwards Street. Precisely the real pro- perty described as follows: Parcels in the City of Huntington Beach as per maps in the County Assessor' s Map Book 110, Page 01, lots 51-!58 54-56, 58 recorded in Miscellaneous Maps of Orange County. • Page 15, Section 4.3.1, CONTINUATION AND EXPANSION OF EXISTING USES The following uses are permitted prior to the approval of a spe- cific plan for the entire subarea: a. Oil. Use or maintenance of any installation, facility or struc- ture (excluding buildings as defined in Article 968 of the City' s Zoning Ordinance) used either directly or indirectly, to carry out or facilitate one or more of the following functions: drilling (in areas having an -01 zu66ix ption to the adoption o6 this Specific Ptan) , rework, repair, redrilling, production, processing, extraction, assisted recovery, stimulation, storage or shipping of oil, gas or hydrocarbons from the subsurface of the earth. Oil activities shall be in compliance with See- t e 9-9689-9686-4-aid-Beet a �-968�:8-9688;5 Axticte 968 of the City' s Zoning Ordinance and with the City' s Oil Code. • Page 17, Section 5.3.1, USES PERMITTED The following are permitted uses: d. Existing Non Conforming Uses - Any uses existing at the time of ordinance adoption which do not meet the criteria for permitted uses within subarea two shall be allowed to continue subject to renewa+ the tenmz and nenewat of any existing use permit or conditional use permit pursuant to the provisions of Article 984. ATTACHMENT 1 (Cont! ) Page 17, Section 5.3.2, DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURE All projects shall comply with the application procedures specified in this article. Deviation from the provisions of this article, with the exception of maximum density and minimum ptojeet area, may be granted at the time of approval of the project by special permit. Concurrently with filing a conditional use permit applica- tion the developer may file an application for a special permit authorizing deviation from the provisions of this article, and such application shall be heard concurrently with the conditional use permit application. The Planning Commission may approve the special permit application in whole or in part upon a finding that the pro- posed development will: a. Promote better living environments; b. Provide better land planning techniques with maximum use of aesthetically pleasing types of architecture, landscaping, site layout and design; C. Not be detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of the neighborhood or City in general, not detri- mental or injurious to the value of property or improvements of the neighborhood or of the City in general; and d. Be consistent with objectives of planned unit development standards in achieving a development adapted to the terrain and compatible with the surrounding environment. The Planning Commission may atzo gtant a eonditionat exception subject to the pnovizio'nz ob Atticte 983 jot development ptojectz tezz than ten ( 10 ) and with a minimum o4 4ive ( 5 ) gtozz aetez in size; provided that said ptojectd not exceed a maximum density of two ( 2 ) unfits pen gtozz acne. Page 19, Section 5.3.3.1, MINIMUM PROJECT AREA The minimum project area for any development proposal shall be ten (10) acres;-�re �ed=- ewe�er;-that-�regesa�s-ter-este �e�es-ems-bets-s��t�e�-��-aeeerdaaee-w�t�-tie-gre��s�e�s-et t� s- rt eke-s a��-be-aeeegtab�e-ter-res ew. This ptovi4ion zhatt not ptevent the buitdtng of custom homes on individual tots sub- divided abtet adoption o6 this Speetbtic Plan. Ptoject4 with a minimum o6 Jive ( 5 ) and te44 than ten ( 10 ) gtozz aetez may apply jot a conditional exception (see Section 5. 3. 2, DEVELOPMENT PRO- CEDURE) . Page 19, Section 5.3.3.3, CIRCULATION a. Arterial Access. Direct access of residential streets and pri- vate driveways to arterials shall be limited and subject to the approval of the Departments of Public Works and Development Services. ATTACHMENT. 1 (Cont' ) b. Setbacks from Arterials. A landscaped eemmen setback area shall be provided adjacent to arterials (Garfield, Ellis and Goldenwest) subject to review and approval of the Departments of Development Services and Public Works. The setback area shall be a minimum of twenty-{20} th.iAty ( 30 ) feet and shall consist of a landscaped earthen berm (three-{3} Jive ( 5 ) foot minirm n height) with a slope not to exceed 3 to 1 (Exhibit 2) . Ar-se�d wa}}-ems-see-tb�ese�b-Renee=-net-te-exeeee�-e-x�ax}xt�xxt-et'-s}�-{G} feet-}n-he}ght-May-be-}aeQted-at-the-twenty-{gg}-teat-setbae3� }one---A-sg}mot-ram}=-g�eket;-w�ee�ght-teen-ems-ether-s}m}}ate-t�*ge tepee-xqa�*-be-�eeated-with}n-the-eerAn�en-setbae3�-a�eaT-net-te e eeee�-a-Max}r�ttun-et-4�- nehes- n-he e}ht: The setback area may be used to paxtially zatizjy any common open space tequi&ement; otc may be .included as pant ob an individual lot and may be used in the calculation o6 lot z iz e (any add,it io nal building z et- baehs zhall be taken 6Aom the landscaped setback tine) . All 6enc.ing within the lands eaped setback atea z hall be subject to the benc.ing ptov.izionz o6 this Specific Plan. c. Right-o4-ways Got Attetiatz . - Additions to BZU4 Avenue and Gothand St&eet public t.ight- oJ ways at uttimate alignment shall .include an equeztAian tAa.il on the south and west sides Aezpectively. Additional tight-oi-way dedication may be Aequ,ited at the time o6 pto- jeet development. The tta.il will setve as a Zink between the Botza Ch.iea Regional PaAh and Huntington Centtal Patk ttaiZz with the Santa Ana Rivet T&a.il; and will be .ineoA- potated .into the Orange County Mastet Plan of Hiking and Riding TAaitz . - Additions to GaA4 ield Avenue and Goldenwest Sheet pubZic tight-o6-ways shall be dedicated and developed in eonjoA- manee with the C.ity's ztteet design ztandatds subject to the approval of the Departmentz o4 Development Setv,ieez and Public Wotkz . - Additions .to BdwaA& StAeet and Ettis Avenue pubtie tight-of-ways .shall be ob eAed to the City Jot dedication and a bond zhatt be posted zuMc.ient to coven the cost of all .imptovementz by the developet, The Depattment o6 Public WoAkz wall detetm.ine the amount o6 the bond to be posted, The City will not accept the oijet o6 dedication of make imptove- ment until a ptecize atignment Got Bdwatdz Sheet has been detetm.ined, any apptoptiate te4und will be made at that time. d, Internal Collector Streets. Internal collector street shall be dedicated in conformance with the eesee}9taa} align- ment shown on Exhibit 2 l; the conceptual alignmen-tz also shown ate to z etve as a guide Got pteciz e alignment and dedication to be ptopozed .in conjunction with adjacent pto1ect development. Said streets shall be developed in accordance with standard plans and specifications tee-�cz�a}-ee}}eete�-sheets on file in the Department of Public Works and w}th-the-eeneeptsa}-des}e3n-stan- ATTACHMENT 1 (Cont' ) da�d9-tee-�®eat-a®��eete�-et�eete-eenta�ned-tn-tie-R��9- 6e�den�eet-6geett a-P an the pnovti,stian,6 of thiz SpeciJic Plan. e. Access to Internal Collectors. Direct access of private drive- ways to internal collector streets shall be limited and subject to the approval of the Departments of Public Works and Develop- ment Services. Setbacks from Internal Collector Streets. A-twenty-��9}-teat �andeeaged-setae#-area-s�at�-te-games}�e�-ad�aeent-te-�nte�na� Ee��eete�-9t�eets:--See-t��e��h-tenetn�-�a�-te-�eeated-w�th�n tie-set�ae�-area;-net-te-e�eee�-a-�a�t��-et-4�-tnehee-�n- �e��t:--��a��s-a��aeent-te-ee��eete�-streets-�a�-net-�e-ee�nted tewads-tie-satstaetten-et-the-setae - e� teent- A tand- ,scaped setback anea shah be provided adjacent to att intennat cottecton ztneetz subject to neview and appnovat o4 the Depant- mente aJ Development Services and Public wane. The setback anea zhatt be a minimum ob twenty ( 20 ) Jeet. The setback anea may be hetd az common open space and may be u,sed to pattiatty zatizjy any common open space nequinement; on may be inctuded az pant o'6 an individual tot and may be u,sed in the catcutation o4 tot size. Thiz anea may at,sa be uzed in the caZcutation ob buitding setback,s . At2 bencing within the Zand,soaped setback anea shalt be subject to the bencing pnovizionz of thiz Spe- ci4ic Ptan. g. Rti ht-a -wa ,s an Intennat Cottecton Stneetz . The pubtic tight- a -way 6o& aZZ intetnat cottectot stneet5 z att intcude an eight ( 8 ) Joot dirt shoutden anea which can zenve az a tnait tinh 4on devetapment pnvjeetz which do not have dined accezz to the pubtic Open Space Canntidon and can atzo zenve az an emen- geney pankting anea ( Exhibit 3 ) . h. Residential Streets. Residential streets shall be privately owned and maintained. Said streets shall be improved in accor- dance with the-eenee�ta�-�est�n-standa �s-t®�- es �enta� streets-eentane�-}n-tie- ��ts-6e��enwest-Sgeete-Pan: stan- dand ptanz and zpeci6icationz on 4ite in the Depantment o6 Public wonkz and the pnovizionz ob thiz Speci4ic Ptan. i. Temporary Access. Temporary access may be taken off an arterial provided that: (1) the temporary access is approved by the De- partments of Public Works and Development Services, and (2) the developer posts a bond with the City before recordation of a final map sufficient to cover the costs of removing the temporary access. The Department of Public Works will determine the amount of the bond to be posted. Conversion to permanent access is required as soon as construction of the necessary local col- lector streets and/or arter als to planned ultimate alignments is complete. ATTACHMENT 1 (Conti ) / Page 21, Section 5.3.3.5, OPEN SPACE CORRIDORS Open Space Corridors shall be established as depicted in Exhibit 1. Development of facilities in Open Space Corridors shall be limited to {}} recreational trails dn&-trftil-iene4:R97 with apptcoptiate 6encing and {2} public works, facilities and utilities;; and-{3} tenene}-a�ene}-pate-pepet�-fines subject to review and approval of the Department of Development Services. The Open Space Corridor shall follow to the greatest extent feasible the alignment of the existing natural drainage swales which traverse the area. The Open Space Co&&ido& zhatt be head az common open space and may be used to count towatcds AatiAAying common open Apace ttequi&e- ments. The corridor shall inlcude a minimum easement dedication of twenty-{28} Aixteen ( 16 ) feet for a public equestrian/recreational trail and shall be a minimum of twenty (20) feet from any developable area on the site. �!n-ade�itiena�-e}�es sgaee-easement-en-eit�ie -ems tet�i-suedes-et-tie-p�3��e-ee��est��anf�ee�eat�ena�-tea}�-si�a��-lie-es- tab��s�.ed-as-a-nen-de�e�epai��e-a�ea-t�nde�-pt�b�}e-e�-p��rate-e6ane�- sh4:p; The Open Space Corridor shall be a minimum of 100 feet; the precise dimensions and location of the corridor shall be subject to review and approval of the Department of Development Services and Public Works, Bedeaten-x�a -eettnt-tewae�s-satstng-eeen-epen space-req��eatents-ar�e�e-app��eab�e---Beel�eat�en-�n-e�eess-x�a�-ee�nt tewa�ds-sates€ *one}-tie-}�a�3�-eled�eat�es.-�eei�t��e�rtents-et-Apt}ekes-9�4 and-996- . Page 21, Section 5.3.3.6, TRAILS A public equestrian trail easement of a minimum twenty-fii9} Ai.xteen ( 16 ) feet in width shall be dedicated to the City for tie-raster plan a public equestrian/Aec&eation trails, as shown on Exhibit 1. All developments must provide trail access to the Open Space Cor- ridor trail subject to review and approval of the Department of Development Services. In developments involving lots having an area of fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet or greater, the Plan- ning Commission may require additional easements of up to ten (10) feet in width for horse trail purposes. Horse trails shall be improved in accordance with the following standards: a. Tread width shall be a minimum of twenty-{2g} ten ( 10 ) feet with shy atcea o4 three ( 3 ) Jeet on each Aide en-epen-spaee eerr4:der-tra4:lS and a minimum of ten-{le} eight ( 8) feet on access trails. Trail tread area should be graded smooth, free of weeds, stumps, roots, debris and large rocks. Adequate drainage shall be provided when grading. b. The trail shall be clear of all obstruction from ground level to a height of ten (10) feet. c. All trails shall be lined on both sides with a sp++t- wood rail type fence, met-te-eeeee�- ett�-{4}-feet-}n- ie � t; ATTACHMENT 1 (Conti ) subject to revte*oa-ane�-apgrevat-et-the-HepartMent-et-Hevetegx�ent Serviees----- the sencing pnovizions of this SpeciJie Ptan. • Page 22, Section 5.3.3.7, EQUESTRIAN FACILITIES All developments shall provide for the boarding of one horse per dwelling unit ter-a-x�tntxgtzt-et-t�rent -tt�re-{��}-gereent-et-the-teta� nnxti�er-et-e�bae��tne�-t�ntts-tn-the-fir®feet:--�hts-ree��trex�ent-x�a�-he sattsttee�-3��-gre�tte�tne}-}ets-et-��-999-se�t�are-feet-tn-stse-er-greater; 3�p-setttne}-aste�e-area-ter-a-eer�en-stable-taet�ttp;-h�-reservtn� reerR-tn-the-stable-taett�ttes-et-an-ae��aeent-e�e�reteg�ent-er-h�-sere ee�tbtnat}en-et-the-shave- tethee�9r eithet on site on in a common stable Jacitity, o& some combination o6 the two; joint tstabte Ja- cititiez in common with adjacent developmentz may satiz6y this ,%equitement subject to review and .apptco vat by the Department o6 De- vetopment Servicez , For any area set aside for common nen-ee xtereta� stable facilities, the developer shall indicate (a) . the number of horses to be boarded and, (b) that the area is sufficient to accom- modate said number of horses based on the following standards: • Page 26, Section 5.3.3 .10, DESIGN FEATURES Section 5.3.3.10.1, FENCES, WALLS AND HEDGES a. Att Jenc`ng shatt be o6 a unijorm design (wood-rait) , wood con- asttuction with a naturat 6ini,sh and a maximum height of Jive ( 5 ) beet as per Exhibit 4; exceptions may be made Jor the Jot- towing : Front yard fences. Fences, hedges and berms not exceeding three and one-half (3h) feet in height may be located in the front yard provided that the fence is a wood picket, wood rail, wrought-iron or other similar type. Solid Walls. The use of solid fencing including wood slat, poured concrete, concrete block and brick fences shall be limited to buffers sur- rounding oil operations ad eeent-te-arterta�s. All applications shall be subject to an intensified land- scape plan subject to review and approval by the Departments of Development Services and Public Works. Side and Rear Yard Fences. Fences, hedges and berms not exceeding 54:x-45} Jive ) feet in height may be located in the required side or rear yards provided that the fence is in comptiance with the provizionz of this Speci6ic Plan; a-weee�-gteket;-weee�-rags; wrought iron or other similar type of see-thtcough 6encing with a maximum height ob six (6 ) Jeet may be used in conjunction with swimming poot atceas , subject to review and approvat by the . Depattment o6 Devetop- ment Servicez . ATTACHMENT 1 (Cont' ) - Street Intersection Visibility. On corner lots, no fence, hedge, wall, sign, structure, mound of earth, landscaping, or other visual obstruction between forty-two (42) inches and seven (7) feet in height above the nearest street curb elevation, shall be erected, placed, planted or allowed to grow within the triangular area formed by the intersecting exterior property lines, or their prolongation, and a dia- gonal intersecting the twenty-five (25) foot property lines from the point where such property lines intersect. Trees which are trimmed free of branches or follage to a height on the trunk not less than seven (7) feet above the nearest street curb elevation are exempt from the above prohibition. . Page 31, Section 5.3 .3.13.1, LARGE LOT SUBDIVISION S. Equine Standards, Noncommercial, Individual Lot - Minimum Lot Size. No horse shall be kept, stabled or te- thered on any parcel of less than 15, 000 square feet in area. - 3umber of Equines. ene Two horsez and immature offspring of up to twelve (12) months old may be kept on a lot of 15, 000 square feet. Twe Thnee or fewer horses end-the4-r x�xtatn�e-et9� gne�-t��-te-twee-xtentha-e�e� may be kept on a lot of 20, 000 square feet.-; 6ou& housed arse attowed on a 35, 000 z q uarce b o of to Pew-eaeh-ae�� t ena�-he re-e a -t6ae f8}-there-9ha+1-i5e -1()70 } se�tiae-feet-et-het-area up to a maximum of six (6) horses on a 40, 000 zquate foot .dot. Page 33, Section 5.3.3.13.2 CLUSTERED LOT SUBDIVISIONS e. Setback Requirements. All structures shall comply with the minimum setbacks shown in F-iqure-19 Exhibit 5. *meaeered-frem the-ex�et�ne}-g�epe�t�*-��nes-e�-€�e�-the-��t� te-��ght-e�-wad . Page 37 , Section 6. 3. 1, CONTINUATION AND EXPANSION OF EXISTING USES The following uses are permitted prior to the approval of a specific plan for the entire subarea: a. Oil. Use or maintenance of any installation, facility or struc- ture (excluding buildings as defined in Article 968 of the City' s Zoning Ordinance) used either directly or indirectly to carry out or facilitate one or more of the following functions: rework, repair, redrilling, production, processing, extraction, assisted recovery, stimulation, storage, or shipping of oil, gas or hydrocarbons from the subsurface of the earth. Drilling of new wells is not permitted. Oil activities shall be in compliance with Seetiens-9688-9688.4 AAticte 968 of the City's Zoning Ordi- nance and with the City's Oil Code. I ATTACHMENT 2 Staff Recommendations The following is a list of the proposed revisions No. 13-34 from the June 22nd staff report, that the Planning Commission did not get a chance to discuss, along with staff comments and recommenda- tions on each item. 13. Page 22, Section 5.3 .3.7. Apply uniform architectural standards to all common stable facilities (Mandic, Environmental Board) . Staff recommends that the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan not contain detailed uniform architectural standards for all common stable facilities. There is no need for stable facilities in all projects to be identical to one another. The Planning Com- mission will have the opportunity and authority to review the design of all buildings proposed in the Specific Plan area. General criteria for architectural review are contained in Section 5. 3. 3.10.2 of the Specific Plan. 14. Page 22, Section 5.3.3.7 . Require the developer to build the common stable facility (Environmental Board) . Please see the discussion of this issue in the Analysis section of the July 7, 1982 staff report. Based on a survey of recent equestrian developments in Orange County, staff feels that the requirement to provide area for one horse per dwelling unit is excessive and should be reduced to one horse per every two dwelling units with the developer required to construct fifty percent of any proposed common stable facility. If, however, the Planning Commission retains the one-for-one requirement, staff recommends that the developer be required to construct only twenty-five percent of any proposed common stable facility,._ - reserving adequate area for the remainder of the facilities to be built by the homeowners at a future date if the demand exists. Appropriate wording would be added to Section 5. 3 .3.8 COMMON AREAS (on page 24) as follows: "All common improvements including but not limited to trails, project fencing and common open space landscaping shall be made by the developer prior to the sale of any lots and/or units. Where a common stable facility is proposed the developer shall be required to reserve adequate area for the entire facility and to construct a minimum of twenty-five (25) percent of the proposed corrals and related facilities but not less than five (5) corrals and related facilities. " ATTACHMENT 2 (Cont' ) 15. Page 22, Section 5.3.3.7b. Do not allow "one acre of riding area" to satisfy requirement. Require a fenced arena of 5, 000 square feet for every 15 horses (Mandic/E.T.I. ) . Staff concurs with the proposed revision. Every common stable facility should provide a fenced arena so that there is an im- proved and designated place to exercise horses. Staff recommends that the first alternative in Section 5.3.3. 7b Minimum Riding Area on Page 22 be deleted and that the words, "exercise ring area" in the second alternative be changed to "riding arena" . 16 . Page 23, Section 5.3.3.7e. Include a sample design of a wash rack facility (Mandic/E.T.I. ) . Staff recommends that additional wording rather than a diagram be added to Section 5.3 .3 .7e, Wash Rack, as follows: " (3) Each wash rack shall be constructed with a concrete slab flooring and metal pipe railing on three sides with a cross tie approximately one foot back from the front pipe. " 17. Page 23, Section 5.3. 3. 7f. Add that arenas shall maintain a minimum dimension of 50 feet and that exercise rings are op- tional (Staff) . Staff concurs and recommends that the following wording be added to Section 5.3 .3.7f Miscellaneous Provisions: " - arenas shall maintain a minimum dimension of fifty (50) feet. " 18. Page 23, Section 5.3 .3. 7f. Add parking requirements for cars and horse trailers for common stable facilities (Mandic/E.T.I . ) . Staff concurs and recommends that the following provision be added to Section 5.3.3.7f Miscellaneous Provisions: " - Park- ing shall be provided as follows: one (1) automobile space for every six (6) corrals plus one (1) horse trailer space for every ten (10) corrals. " 19. Page 24, Section 5. 3. 3. 8. All common improvements (stables, trails, perimeter project fencing, common open space landscaping, etc. ) should be constructed by developer prior to sale of lots (Environmental Board) . Staff concurs, except with respect to stables (see discussion of Point No. 14). 20. Page 25, Section 5. 3.3.8b. Reduce the setback requirements for common stable facilities (Mandic/E.T.I. ) . Staff concurs and recommends that setbacks for common stable facilities in Section 5.3.3.8b on Page 25 be reduced from fifty (50) feet to twenty-five (25) feet as follows: "b. Recreation and leisure areas shall not be located within ten (10) feet of any ground-floor dwelling unit wall having a door or window provided, however, that common stable facilities shall be setback a minimum of twentv-five (25) feet from any street, residential dwelling and/or property line. . . . " 21. Page 26, Section 5.3 .3 . 9. Require that four oil island sites in Subarea Two be mandatory rather than optional (Environmental Board) . Staff disagrees with the proposed requirement that four oil islands in Subarea Two be mandatory. The original intention to make some oil islands mandatory was to insure preservation of access to underground oil reserves. Discussions with oil operators indicate that access will be preserved in Subarea Two on a voluntary basis. (Preservation of future access must still be addressed in the development plans for Subareas One and Three. ) 22. Page 26, Section 5.3.3. 9. Allow oil islands to be a maximum of 2.5 acres (rather than 1.5 acres) in size (Chevron) . Staff concurs and recommends that the third sentence in para- graph two of Section 5.3.3. 9 Oil Activities read as follows: "Before a permit for new drilling is issued, the oil operator shall specify the exact location and size of the proposed oil island (generally not to exceed two and one-half (2�-) acres in size) subject to review and approval by the Director of Development Services. " 23. (Addressed at the June 22, 1982 meeting) 24. (Addressed at the June 22, 1982 meeting) 25. Page 29, Section 5.3.3.11 c&f. Adopt standard design for light- ing and street signs throughout the Specific Plan area (Mandic/ E.T.I. , Environmental Board) . Staff concurs with this revision and recommends that street signs and lighting on collector streets and private residential streets conform to a standard design. Staff recommends that an Item K be added to Section 5.3. 3. 10.2 ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES as follows: "k. Street lights and street signs on collector and private residential streets and trail signs shall conform to a standard design for the Specific Plan area. " ATTACHMENT 2 (Conti ) 26. Page 29, Section 5.3. 3.12. Homeowner association agreement should be written so that common facilities, open spaces, and equestrian facilities are maintained in perpetuity, so as to preclude voting any of these items out in order to sell and/or avoid maintenance (Environmental Board) . Staff concurs and porposes that the last sentence in paragraph one under Section 5. 3.3. 8 COMMON AREAS (Page 24) reads as follows: "The developer shall file with the Department of Development Services, for recordation with the final subdivision map, legal documents which will provide for restricting the use of common spaces and common facilities for the designated purpose, as approved on the final development plan. The City may also require at the time of project approval, that the homeowner's association relinquish all development rights in common areas to the City." 27. Page 29, general provision. Require the preservation of large trees and require additional trees, particularly along trails (Environmental Board) . Staff concurs and recommends the following additions: Page 29, Section 5.3.3.11g. Trees. Preservation of existing trees shall be required where feasible. Page 31, Section 5.3.3.13.1. On-Site Trees. On-site trees on individual lots shall be provided as follows: One (1) tree for every 40 feet of lot frontage but not less than two trees per lot. Page 35, Section 5.3.3.13.2r. On-site trees shall be pro- vided as follows: One (1) tree per lot. 28. (Addressed at the June 22, 1982 meeting) 29. Page 31, Section 5.3.3. 13.1o. Require that accessory buildings are similar in design and materials to main residential dwelling unit (Mandic/E.T.I. , Environmental Board) . Staff concurs and recommends that an Item j be added to Sec- tion 5.3.3.10.2 ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES as follows: "j . Accessory buildings shall be similar in design and ma- terials to the main residential dwelling unit. " ATTACHMENT 2 (Cont' ' 30. Page 31, Section 5.3. 3.13.1r. Relax the turnaround radius re- quirement on long driveways (Mandic/E.T.I . ) . Staff disagrees with this revision. The turnaround radius re- quirement on long driveways is a Fire Department requirement. This requirement may be waived by the Fire Chief if the unit or facility is sprinklered in accordance with standards on file with the Fire Department. Staff recommends that a statement to this effect be added to Section 5.3.3.13.lr on Page 31 as follows: "These requirements may be waived by the Fire .Chief if the building is sprinklered in accordance with the standards on file with the Fire Department. " 31. (Addressed at the June 22, 1982 meeting) 32. Page 33, Section 5.3.3.13.1s. Reduce the setback requirements for equestrian facilities on individual lots to 25 feet from property line; allow a smaller setback when pad for corral area is designated on each lot in a coordinated pattern (Mandic/ E.T.I. ) . Staff concurs and recommends the following wording for the second sentence in Section 5.3.3.13.1s. Equine Standards, Non- commercial, Individual Lots: Yard Requirements. " . All such structures shall maintain a minimum distance of twenty-five (25) feet from any property line. This setback may be reduced when pads for corral areas are designated on each lot in a coordinated pattern. " 33 . Page 34 , Section 5.3 .3.13.2i. Do not allow double common wall house (Environmental Board) . Staff disagrees with this revision. Common walls allow preser- vation of larger usable yard areas on individual lots. They also facilitate clustered patterns that preserve large amounts of common open space. 34. Page 37, Section 6.3.1a. Allow new drilling in Subarea Three under the same standards as in Subarea Two (Chevron) . Staff disagrees with this revision. No new oil drilling is allowed in Subarea Three under current zoning, and there are no significant reasons to extend additional oil activities into the area at this time. The detailed development plan for Subarea Three may identify areas for new drilling at a later date if so desired by the property owners and oil operators. LETTERS OF PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN AND EIR 82-1 Received during the period of February 12 , 1982 to June 17 , 1982. February 12, 1982 6822 Loyola Drive Huntington Beach, CA Grace H. Wlnchell, Chairman Members of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA Dear Chairman Winchell and Commissioners : I attended the Huntington Beach Planning Commission meeting_ on February 9, 1982 and listened to the Ellis/Goldenwest Specific Plan proposal. I was impressed with the thoughtful preparation and presentation by the Development Services Department, and I was pleased with the concerns of the members of the Planning Commission. I own three "encyclopedia" lots in the area and I have control of two additional lots. I purchased these lots hoping that some day the area would be developed into equestrian estates and my family would be able to live on the property. I am concerned that as plans are made to develop the area, I will be forced to sell my lots. These five lots total over t5, 000 square feet, providing an area large enough to stable one horse. Will provisions in the development plan allow me to participate in the development of the land I own or, because I have so small an interest in the area, will I be forced to give up my property? Sincerely,& Allan A. Jaco son RECEIVED FEB 171982 Development Servim ATTACHMENT 8 WILLIAM LANDIS ATTORNEY AT LAW x y `,rL7 i BEAD H {�� KEPT. 1180 SOUTH BEVERLY DRIVE LOS ANGELES,CALIFORNIA 90035 [OAR 5 1982 ffXWxXNXNX3 277-3322 P. 0. Box 190 March 3, 1982 City of Huntington Beach Department of Development Services Planning Division P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Attn: James W. Palin Director Re: Ellis-Goldenwest-Edwards 290 acres Specific Plan Study Dear Mr. Palin: As the owner of five acres located at the southwest corner of Goldenwest & Ellis, I wish to have you consider my concerns relative to the future development of this area. It is my opinion, as a real estate developer of 30 years experience, that the overall plan using the existing topography has merit. It appears, though, that the proposed density would be too limited to justify the establishment of an Improvement District. As this review relates to my property, I would hope to see that this expected high traffic corner be considered for a commercial zoning that would lean toward but not be limited to equestrian and allied purposes. Your attention to this input is appreciated. XLLIA trul ours, M L IS WL/ls AMERICAN LANDSCAPE SUPPLY 18851MN GOLDEN WEST STREET - HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92648- (714) 842-8%6 MARCH 5 , 1982 K, HEIVE® MAR 8 i982 Development Services HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSIONERS P.O. BOX 190 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIF. 92648 ATTENTION: MR. JAMES W. PALIN SECRETARY RE: GOLDENWEST/ELLIS ZONE CHANGE DEAR MR. PALIN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: THIS IS TO INFORM YOU THAT WE ARE IN OPPOSITION TO THE SPECIFIC PLAN AND ZONE CHANGE BEING CONSIDERED FOR OUR PRO— PERTY WHICH FALLS IN THE ABOVE STUDY PLAN. WE HAVE APPROX— IMATELY FIFTEEN ACRES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF GOLDEN WEST ABOUT 600 FEET NORTH OF GARFIELD. AT THE PRESENT TIME TWO OF OUR ACRES ARE M1—CD, THE BALANCE OF THIRTEEN ACRES IS RA—O—CD. OUR REQUEST IS THAT OUR M1—CD ZONE BE EXPANDED TO OUR ENTIRE FIFTEEN ACRES FOR A ZONE CHANGE TO M1-01—CD. THE SUB— JECT PIECE OF LAND IS DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM AN M1—O—CD ZONE. ALSO, THIS FIFTEEN ACRES WOULD BE AN EXCELLENT BUFFER ZONE FROM GOLDEN WEST STREET FOR YOUR ESTATE HOMES. FURTHERMORE, OUR DEEP ZONE IS BEING RESEARCHED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS AN ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCE IN THE FUTURE AS GEOTHERMAL ENERGY FOR THE SECURITY OF THE NATION AND THE BENEFIT OF THE CITIZENS OF HUNTINGTON BEACH. AT PRESENT, WE HAVE A COMMERCIAL GARDEN CENTER AND CREATE JOBS AND INCOME FOR THE COMMUNITY, PLUS BEING A BEAUTIFUL GREEN BELT AND A VITAL ASSET TO THE CITY. APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND WANT IT ON RECORD THAT WE ARE IN OPPOSITION TO A ZONE CHANGE TO ESTATE RESIDENTIAL FOR OUR FIFTEEN ACRES. THANK YOU. 40& C,./, �0114r� RONALD I . BRINDLE E. ANN BRINDLE •' 1 •� P- ontington Beach Comb - ny 21 10-AIN STREET, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 (7141 960-4351 . R.J.WORK VICE PRESIDENT-GENERAL MANAGER March 8, 1982 HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DEPT. Mr. Charles W. Thompson MAR 9 1982 City Administrator City of Huntington Beach P. 0. Box 190 2000 Main Street Hunt nLton Beech,CA 9?618 H htington Beach, CA 92648 7 Dear Charles: The Huntington Beach Company appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Department of Development Services' Specific Plan efforts in the Ellis- Goldenwest area. Like you, we believe that this area is unique in the City and offers outstanding opportunities for a variety of uses and development that maximize the area's resources and that are compatible with the City's social, environmental, and economic goals. As the major owner of land in the Specific Plan area, the Huntington Beach Company is genuinely interested in staff's planning effort. We are concerned, however, that the Specific Plan process currently underway is not consistent with the direction established by the City Council a little over a year ago, in that property owners have had little opportunity for input at key stages of the Plan's development. In addition, a number of major land use and circulation issues that will significantly impact the ultimate use of properties within and surrounding the Specific Plan area remain unresolved at the General Plan level. I think you will agree that both the City's and the various property owners' interests are best served by a comprehensive, coordinated plan for the long- range use and development of this area. For this reason, the Huntington Beach Company has engaged the consulting firm of PBR (Phillips Brandt Reddick) to assist in the analysis of future development of the Company's land holdings in central Huntington Beach. As you know, PBR is currently involved in planning efforts for the Bolsa Chica area, and is very familiar with some of the major planning issues affecting this area of Huntington Beach. We are confident that PBR will provide a valuable service due to their expertise in large scale planning projects. In light of this, we believe the City should consider suspending its planning efforts for this area until PBR has developed several alternative plans for the City's consideration. We do not anticipate that this would cause undue delays in the City's planning efforts because we are prepared to involve PBR immediately to work with us and the City in developing an acceptable specific plan. During the next several weeks, we would like to meet with representatives of PBR and interested City officials to discuss the significant development issues to be addressed in this planning effort, and we look forward to a productive and cooperative relationship in this undertaking. Very truly yours, RJW/e CC:,"Mr. James W. Palin Director of Development Services City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 2 AMERICAN LANDSCAPE SUPPLY 18851 GOLDEN WEST STREET • HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 • (714) 842-8866 MARCH 17 , 1982 1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ,�� -;= P .O. BOX 190 /- HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92648 0U.2 7�G� TO THE MEMBERS OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNC f� �\ C AND THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR:0�1 RE: ELLIS/GOLDENWt y . STUDY PLAN THERE HAS BEEN A STUDY PLAN STARTED ON THE ABOVE AREA , WHICH HAPPENS TO INCLUDE OUR FIFTEEN ACRES THAT PRESENTLY IS A GARDEN CENTER. AFTER ATTENDING A STUDY SESSION AT THE PLAN- NING COMMISSIONERS MEETING ON TUESDAY MARCH 9TH, WE WERE DEEPLY DISAPPOINTED AND DISTRESSED THAT THESE DICTORIAL IDEAS ARE HAPPENING TODAY IN THIS FREE AMERICA. THE AREA INVOLVED IS A 290 ACRE SITE, THAT IS BEING GIVEN SOME VERY STRICT LIMITATIONS AND SPECIFIC RESTRICTIONS NEVER DEMANDED ON OTHER DEVELOPMENT AREAS IN TIIIS CITY. TIIE AREA HAS ONE MAJOR LAND OWNER, WHO IN THE PAST HAS USED THEIR OWN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT STAFF WIZEN THEY ARE READY TO DEVELOP AN AREA, SO IT IS A WASTE OF DOUBLE TIME AND TAXPAYERS MONEY BEING SPENT ON THE SAME AREA. NOW AS TO THE RESTRICTIONS LAID OUT, THEY LAVE DIVIDED TIIE AREA INTO FIVE NODES THAT CONSIST OF 30-50 ACRES , SAYING THESE LANDOWNERS MUST DEVELOP AT THE SAME TIME AND WITH THEIR NEIGHBOR WHOSE LAND FALLS IN EACH PARTICULAR NODE. THEN, FUTURE ROADS AND EQUESTRIAN TRAILS WIND TH RU THE VARIOUS PARCELS LINK- ING CENTRAL PARK WITH OTHER RECREATIONAL AREAS , BUT THE PROPERTY OWNER SHOULD PAY FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND COST - WHEN IT WILL BE FOR THE PUBLIC. THE RESTRICTIONS SAY AS LITTLE AS TWO IIOMES PER ACRE OR A LIMITATION OF 15 , 000 SQ. FT. LOTS . NOW, IF THESE ARE NEW RESTRICTIONS FOR TIIE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH , THEN ALL FUTURE UNDEVELOPED AREAS WILL HAVE TO COME UNDER THESE RESTRIC- TIONS OR IT IS DIRECT DISCRIMINATION ON THESE CERTAIN PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE ELLIS/GOLDENWEST AREA. BUT, THE REAL DISTRESSING ITEMS DISCUSSED WERE REDEVELOP- MENT AND ASSESSMENT TAXES . FIRST, REDEVELOPMENT FOR THIS AREA IS IRONIC WHEN ITS NEVER BEEN DEVELOPED A FIRST TIME AND IS IN TIIE MIDDLE OF A MAJOR OIL FIELD. THAT THIS AREA IS A BLIGHTED AREA AND THAT THE CITY COULD DECLARE EMINENT DOMAIN AND THEN REDEVELOP THE WHOLE AREA IS A VERY SOCIALISTIC WAY OF STEALING PROPERTY. THEN A STAFF MEMBER REPORTED HOW THE COUNTY OF ORANGE AT PRESENT HAS LITTLE TAX REVENUE OFF TIIIS AREA, AND WOULD BE FOR REDEVELOPMENT, AND THE COUNTY WOULD RECEIVE A LARGE PER- AMERICAN LANDSCAPE SUPPLY 18851 GOLDEN WEST STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 - (7I4) 842-8866 ELLIS/GOLDENWEST STUDY PLAN PAGE TWO CENTAGE PORTION OF THIS REDEVELOPMENT. WELL, NO ONE IS TAKING OUR LAND AND SAYING IT IS A BLIGHTED AREA WITHOUT A FIGHT AND A HELL OF A LAWSUIT AGAINST THIS CITY. NEXT, THE ASSESSMENT TAXES , BECAUSE ONE DEVELOPER WANTS HIS LAND DEVELOPED, SHOULD AN ASSESSMENT TAX FOR STREETS , WATER SEWER LINES FALL ON THE EXISTING PROPERTY OWNERS? THAT THEY SHOULD BE ASSESSED MORE ON THEIR PROPERTY TAXES? THIS AGAIN IS ONLY AN UNDERHANDED WAY TO FORCE YOUR HAND ON DEVELOPMENT OF YOUR PROPERTY. SITTING AT THAT MEETING AND LIS`PENING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS TAKE STRAW VOTES ON OUR PROPERTY AND HEAR WHAT LIMITATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS SHOULD BE ENFORCED WAS QUITE UP- SETTING. THEN, BECAUSE IT WAS A STUDY SESSION, THE PUBLIC WAS NEVER INVITED TO RESPOND TO STAFF PROPOSALS , AND THE PLAN- NING COMMISSIONERS JUST HEARD A ONE SIDED REPORT, AND THEN DIRECTED STAFF TO CONTINUE THEIR STUDY. STAFF IS INDIRECTLY PAID BY THE TAXPAYERS , BUT THIS STAFF IS BUILDING A CASE AGAIN- ST US TAXPAYERS TO STAB US IN ,THE BACK AND DICTATE WHAT, WHEN, AND HOW WE HAVE TO DEVELOP OUR LAND. IT IS QUITE UNFORTUNATE, TIIAT NO QUESTIONAIRES WERE SENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS , TO FIND OUT WHAT THEIR. WANTS ARE OR THAT EXISTING BUSINESSES WERE NOT EVEN CONSIDERED. A ROAD IS PLANNED GOING THRU THE MIDDLE OF OUR LAND, RIGHT THRU THE OIL FIELD AND OUR GEOTHERMAL. WELL AND THE CENTER OF OUR NURSERY. BECAUSE IT APPEARS TIIAT IT WILL BE TOO LATE, WHEN WE GET A CHANCE TO VOICE OUR OBJECTIONS TO THESE DIFFERENT RESTRICTIONS AND LIMITATIONS; WE WANT THE COUNCIL MEMBERS TO BE AWARE OF WHAT IS HAPPENING. FURTHERMORE, WE ARE BEING FORCED TO REQUEST A ZONE CHANGE AND PROTECT OUR INVESTMENT. I NCLOSI,D 1S AN EXISTING ZONE MAP OF THE AREA WITH OUR PROPERTY MARKED OFF FOR YOU. APPRECIATE .YOUR IMMEDIATE ATTEN- TION TO THIS PROBLEM. THANK YOU. RESPECTFULLY, RONALD I . BRINDLE E. ANN BRINDLE ENCLOSURE R i RI Rl:-. Rt RI R' C RI CF-R CF-R MI-CD M,I-A MI-CD CD c Rl R A-0-CD ml Rl Rl - • RA-0-CD ;RA-O-CD '� CF-C J RI-CD i co MI-CD Rl R RI L, U0 0 ml )-ccp. -pt -cD R2 MI-0-cD R 2 RA-CD RA-C-CD RA-0 RA-0-CD n -0 RA-C RA-0 RA-0 Ra c cl-- N-11 MI-0 RA-01 RA-01 RA-0 CD Rs P5 . RL P 2 M2-0 R2"� �RA-C)2-CD cl-0 /,i� R R4-0 2 f ml R 2 mi m t< HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIC0RNIN Existing Zoning PLANNING DIVIS!ON A MAYOR • ■!�' Ruth Finley V it of Huntington a,Becli MAYOR PRO TEMPORE Ron Pattinson COUNCILMEMBERS Ruth S.Bailey S P. O. BOX 190 • 2000 MAIN STREET • CALIFORNIA 92648 Jack Kelly Don MacAllister Bob Mandic John Thomas April 13, 1982 Ronold and Ann Brindle American Landscape Supply 18851 Goldenwest Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUBJECT: Your letter of 3/17/82 regarding the proposed Ellis-Goldenwest-Specific Plan Dear Mr. and Mrs. Brindle, 1 I appreciate your concerns regarding the City' s proposed plans for development of the Ellis-Goldenwest area and would like to thank you for taking the time to communicate them to us. You are correct that the City is preparing a Specific Plan for a 290-acre area that includes your 15-acre property just west of Goldenwest Street. I would like to emphasize that the plan is currently in a draft form and is subject to change. Public hearings will be held before both the Planning Commission and a the City Council before adoption of a final plan, and all property owners will be invited to speak at these meetings . I would like at this time to comment on a few of the points that you bring up in your letter. First I would like to explain briefly why your property has been planned for residential uses. The City has studied all the property within its .boundaries and has adopted a General Plan (in effect since 1976) that indicates what land uses would be appropriate in every location in the City. This General Plan is intended to insure that there will be a variety of housing types in the City and a good balance of commercial and industrial uses when the City is completely built out. The City has indicated that the 290-acre Ellis-Goldenwest area, in which your property is located, is particularly suited for residential developments on large lots oi- with large amounts of common open space. This is because of the area' s unique topography, its proximity to Central Park and to the proposed County Bolsa Chica Linear Park, its use as an equestrian area and other concerns . The Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan proposes an average density of three homes per acre of land in order to be consistent with the City ' s General Plan. I rFi EPHONF 1714) 536 55-4 There are approximately 104 different property owners in the Ellis-Goldenwest area. Some own lots as small as 2 ,800 square feet in size. The City is rightly concerned that if each of the 100+ property owners in this area were allowed to develop in any way they wanted, the area could end up looking like a patch work quilt of unrelated and uncoordinated uses. The purpose of the Ellis-Go-ldenwest Specific Plan is to coordinate development in the area. It will lay out a basic street pattern and a backbone system of riding trails for the area, indicate some open space corridors , and minimize extensive grading or alteration of the "natural topography. The plan will also contain develop- ment standards (i .e. , lot size , setback , density) as any regular zoning on the property would do. I also checked with City Planning Staff about the proposed road across your property. ' They have informed me that the road is proposed to line up with Ernest Avenue to the east but that the exact alignment through your property could be planned to avoid existing oil wells and the geothermal well. Lastly, I Would like to discuss your points about redevelop- ment and assessment districts. The Specific Plan currently pro- poses that projects be developed on parcels of at least ten acres in size. Since your property is 15 acres you could meet this provision without joining with your neighbors and without any need for consolidation through redevelopment. As. I mentioned earlier in this letter, however, there are a number of lots in the area that are only 2 , 800 square feet in size . Some of these lots are on the sides and bottoms of drainage revines . The Specific. Plan states that the City may want to consider the use of redevelopment to help consolidate lots in these special problem areas . Similarly, with respect to an assessment district, the plan does not advocate this action but simply identifies it as a way to help provide circulation and public works improvements to all property owners in the area at the same time. Without the assessment district each property owner will provide the necessary improvements on his property when he is ready to develop. (Some parcels in the center of the area may be land locked until outer parcels develop. ) The City would need the approval of property owners of 51 percent of the area in order to form an assessment district. I hope that I have answered some of your questions about the proposed Specific Plan. I will forward your letter to the members of the City Council and the Planning Commission. Please feel free to come in and talk to us about the Plan if you have additional questions or concerns . Also, if you want to request a change of zoning on the property you must file an application with the Department of Development Services . Sincerely, Ruth Finley Mayor RF:CI :bas SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA aS CC)MPANY ORANGE COUNTY DIVISION • P. O. BOX 3334, ANAHEIM, CALIF. 92803 March 18, 1982 H'':TINGTO'� BEACH PLANNING DEPT. City of Huntington Beach MAR 19 1982 Dept. of Development Services P.O. Box 190 P. 0, Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 Hunfu-4pn Bea& Attn: Carol Inge, Ass't. Planner Subject: Development of area betwn. Ellis and Garfield, w/Edwards and e/Goldenwest This letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project, but only as an information service. Its intent is to notify you that the Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the above-named project is proposed. Gas service to the project could be pro- vided from an existing main as shown on the attached atlas sheet without any significant impact on the environment. The service would be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrangements are made. The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letters is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, the 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 which affects gas supply or the condition under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with revised conditions. Residential (System Area Average) Yearly Single Family 1095 Therms/year/dwelling unit Multi-Family 4 or less units 640 Therms/year/dwelling unit Multi-Family 5 or more units 580 Therms/year/dwelling unit These estimates are based on gas consumption in residential units served by Southern California Gas Company during 1975 and it should not be implied that any particular home, apartment or tract of homes will use these amounts of energy. This is particularly true due to the State's new insulation requirements and consumers' efforts toward energy conservation. 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 contact this office for assistance. Sincerely, D.M. Glover Technical Supervisor ES/pjg Enclosure Chevron ATTACHMENT 9 i Chevron U.SA. Inc. P.O. Box 606, La Habra, CA 90631 • Phone (213) 694-7655 Hilmah P.Walker April 27, 1982 District Land Supervisor r Southern California District Land Department,Western Region Draft Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan Huntington Beach, California Mr. R er J. Work Preside t Huntingt Beach Company 2110 Main treet Huntington each, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Work: As you know, Chevron has been following the development of the draft Ellis- Goldenwest Specific Plan for the past few months through workshops and discussions with the City of Huntington Beach Planning Staff. We now have before us the draft Plan dated April 12, 1982. It proposes that drilling of new wells on the Huntington Beach Company"A" Lease parcel west of Ed- wards, the Huntington Beach Company "B" Lease and Jones Community Lease parcels north of Garfield be limited to three 1-112 acre drilling islands on the "A" Lease and one optional drilling island on the "B" Lease. Last month the Planning Department Staff requested Chevron to provide it with a map showing our preferred drillsite locations. After a thorough month long study Chevron developed a map which I am enclosing here for your information. A copy of this letter and the map is also being sent to the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department. Chevron has determined from its operational experience on your leases and the Jones Community Lease that to most efficiently and economically develop the remaining oil (estimated in the draft Plan to be approximately 80% of the initial reserves in the Upper Tar [Bolsa] and Lower Tar [Upper Ashton] Zones lying between 1900 and 2400 feet) that Chevron will require five drilling islands, each being approximately 1-112 acres in size, on the Huntington Beach Company "A" Lease parcel . The Plan provides for one guaranteed `aod two optional drilling islands. While the Plan provides for one optional drilling island on the Huntington Beach Company "B" Lease parcel , Chevron believes that two drilling islands will be necessary, one on the "B" Lease parcel and one on the adjacent Jones Community Lease. %ATTACHMENT 9 (cont' ) Mr. Roger J. Work, President April 27, 1982 Huntington Beach .Company Page 2 The criteria for selecting the islands is the increased cost and mechanical difficulty of directional drilling beyond the 200' radius as shown on the map into the shallow de th required to penetrate the Upper Tar [Bolsa] and Lower Tar [Upper Ashto Zones. Also the area topography, shown in brown on the map, makes it impossible to locate drilling islands in certain areas of the Huntington Beach Company "A" Lease parcel thereby increasing the need for a .greater number of drilling islands. After comparing the April 12, 1982 draft Plan map with our future operating requirements on your leases, Chevron has come to the conclusion that the proposed rezoning of the Huntington Beach Company "A" Lease parcel from the existing -01 suffix, which permits unlimited drilling on the entire surface, would be inappropriate for the following reasons: 1 . The Plan estimates that approximately 80% of the oil reserves in this area remains to be recovered. Chevron anticipates that it will require an additional 30 years or more to recover these reserves. We therefore anticipate an extended and con- tinuous use of the surface of the Huntington Beach Company "A".and "B" Lease parcels as well as the Jones Community Lease for over 30 years. The restriction of our surface use to one guaranteed and three optional drillsites would be an unreasonable restriction of our existing rights as it would severely limit our ability to develop the remaining reserves in an economical and efficient manner. 2. The draft Plan states on Page 29: ': . The second concern is to limit the drilling of new wells so as not to create additional sources of incompati- bility in an area ultimately planned for residential uses. The percentage of the specific plan area that is devoted to oil activities should be minimized if the area is going to support high quality residential developments . . .11 In view of the anticipated duration of Chevron's future oper- ations, i .e.. , over 30 years, we do not believe that now is the appropriate time to rezone the area so as to resolve the "in- compatibility" with planned residential uses. Such use will not take place for the foreseeable future because the present location of production facilities blocks residential development. Chevron believes that limiting residential use in the area should be the present goal , so as not to create additional sources of incompatibility with existing and expanded oil production. ATTACHMENT 9 (cont' ) Mr. Roger J. Work, President April 27, 1982 Huntington Beach Company Page 3 3. Huntington Beach Company's development plans for this area are presently in the formative stage. Chevron believes that any future zoning should consider its lessor's development plans with which we have in the past been able to integrate our production facilities. The Plan does not take your future development into consideration. 4. We agree with the Planning Staffs' prognosis that a number of problems can develop when residential use and oil activities are located close to one another. Noise, vibration, and arti- ficial lighting all associated with rework, redrill , and drilling operations can be a source of annoyance to people who move into the new residential communities surrounding our existing oper- ations. In the past we have considered accommodating residential develop- ment but in any such accommodation Chevron usually ends up the loser as such accommodation places a great economic burden on our oil operations thereby raising the end price of the product and creates hostility between the company and new residents for whom noise abatement and other nuisance limiting procedures never seem to be satisfactory. Therefore, realizing that accommodation will only lead to problems and that our operations on your leases will continue for at least 30 years, we have come to the conclusion that accommodation cannot be successfully realized where the oil operations are so intense as in these parcels. For these reasons, we believe that the draft Plan and the proposed rezoning as it applies to the Huntington Beach Company "A" and "B" and Jones Community Lease parcels as outlined in red on the attached map, are inappropriate. These leased parcels should be dealt with by the City separately at some future date after oil production has terminated. I hope that you will take these comments into consideration in any future planning for the area. Sin erely yours Hilman P. Walker HPW/sd Enclosures cc w/enc: Mr. James Palin Mr. W. D. Edman Director of Development Services La Habra City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Mr, J. D. Frogga tt Huntington Beach. CA 9?64P rnnrorr+ ATTACHMENT 9 (cony ) A MINDIG '•.,�ra eoi �; �'q I 64 5a L,.J jJ 9 92 53 49 •� 26 6 0 • rr �6r 26 j�s i �N1 L'yr7 ' � r •�~'7 �' 20 27l, lI ,:, gyp, �y �,,P �„y'''•,'�;> 1 f`s3 %K�,,��THIS MAP IS FbR <�>4N• 36o E OF CHEVRON U.S.A. CHEVRON tsa / MAKES NO REPRESENTA IQk 55 ,A Huift A Learef ,SUME,.S NO RESPONSIBI R! ;° unt.Bauch Go, 0TIQN OR DEPTH OF AIFf TIES, j OUKDAR1E�SrPIPE LINES,TELE- 4W2; 100 ` t36 OR P�"1ER LINES OR OTHER is pr' O J OR ON THE SURFACE OF 49 tw I L 3a IIS MAP.THIS COMPANY INICATED WITH BEFO ANYXIF°t� OF ANY KIND IS DOZN THE a J 30' rta ILITIES SHOWN ON *• F04 •► i7 fit„ i ' 4P LW a <wr I .74 r - V �. r )�s � 40 rt reo !N l re lat /84 01 a /A ,60•tA- ,� aLbao ,1- &la A 4P �31 •,, pDp4 '\ 9 Acres /a3 00 'EVRON 'ech 96 1 2lLc ewise) k0, ZWA to > O) of S i Now eat t 1 2 0 y9 242 7 233;a I►� f j .-,� ;f t 3 G�..�-.• /ill. 1 00 VIOL Q. i L66 1•`•� ,•�' •.�slN i ,43 r/3 + S/ �i`�� d or CARP/EL D No ,�88 •' /��Bs �,I f2 Jr , 163 A-tl! 120 v I .: i i SCHLEICHE 83 xaxcsyrr - UNION icv.�•,.$) ^�. ,� � � O �GoPclondJ9 O :r TEXACO , o,rrow, 10 .v'o,.>oa /yp//fncr-MeyersJ - �- T iNfulcMAt1UN CONIAINEU ON THIS MAP IS FOR T PRIVATE A ACLUSIVE USE OF CHEVRON USA. IN. SAID GQ Y MAKES NO REPRESENTATION .,•. - _ _ } y ==••� r LOCO CMIN�;AfIO ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR, 3 • '' 9• • T ACCURAL�OF LOCATION OR DEPTH OF ANY TlfS. - '•= + kk' '` O• SE ION CORNERS. BOUNDARIES. PIPE UNES,TELE• / == =y THE GROUND,OIDICAFER O*TI4IS MAP.THIS Y- CHEVRON ' 'SHOULD BE COMMUNICATED WITH BEF E ANY i 1✓ is ves Con71n� f:;al� � a` � a /! fXPLORATORY6WORK OF ANY KIND IS DONE IN THE �' sl -'!•'' e rs 't 14 OO • YICINRY OQHE VIUTIES SHOW6,ON THIS MAP. • '-' ._ R. Il` c n ® Pzo CHEVRON l.' •_, ® rAAC7-/Kuryf.BeOG�s Go.- `7unf,B Lse.l J/:Jr It % © /46 10 - ism'- .r-♦�JJ - 36c• ". ".•-- -•-�-+s-- s -2QO tvz .19 200 90 = �/9I` i � ©P92 r 113"" P33 ...4g37 H H x-^-9 Z� Hn to n o rt• v COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS, . TELEPHONES: AREA CODE 714 540-2910 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 9 6 2-2 41 1 P. ❑. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 9270B 10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUdLID OFF-RAMP, SAN DIEG❑ FREEWAY) .May 14, 1982 RECEIVED MAY 17 1982 Develepment Se!i.c City of Huntington Beach Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Attention: Carol Inge, Assistant Planner Reference: EIR 82-1 ;for Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan This letter is written to update the statement concerning the Districts' facilities included on page 78 of subject EIR. Please be advised that the Slater Avenue Pump Station is presently being rehabilitated and a new parallel force main is under construction. These actions will insure interim reliability until completion of the Coast Trunk Sewer system which is antici- pated during the next decade. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Hilary J. Baker Senior Engineering Aide HJB:ss J. 1. HATHAWAY, OPERATOR P. O. BOX 2124 SANTA FE SPRINGS. CALIFORNIA 90670 RECEIVED May 18, 1982 MAY 19 1982 City of Huntington Beach Development Se,�dcc; P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attention: Planning Commission Gentlemen: In order for us to develop our properties and to protect them against drainage we will need an oil island on our existing Dennison Lease. From this locale we can reach other properties we have under lease without encroachment through the sub-surface rights of others for which permission would most likely not be granted. A plot is attached showing the approximate location of the site. Your favorable consideration of this request will be appreciated. Very truly yours, J. I. HATHAWAY, OPERATOR By: jd Enclosure r� -+� TAIAEAT \1 LEGEND • CF-R Mandatory Oil Islands - Optional Oil Islands Existing -01 zoning �� w _ _ (Will be removed upon adoption ,✓ of the Specific Plan) -� J.. m. mmm Proposed Roadways - 7— IT f ,- • ♦ a , — _ .. 4 � �A%V44 - 41 ---------- Ir SOURCE. Huntington Beach Planning Div' 1982 IF HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIA PLANNING DIVISION CONCEPTUAL LOCATIONS OF PROPOSED OIL ISLANDS, .-i MURRAY STORM DIRECTOR,EMA ROBERT G.FISHER 'i 4 V NTX O F DIRECTOR OF PLANNING LOCATION: 2 1 811 NORTH BROADWAY SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 5 3 / R^N G E MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 4048 V SANTA ANA,CA 92702-4048 !ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY TELEPHONE: PLANNING (714)834-4643 May 19, 1982 FILE Bolsa Chica Lin. Reg. Park Bolsa Chica LCP Ms. Florence Webb Acting Deputy Director Department of Development Services City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Ms. Webb: Thank you for transmitting a copy of the draft Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan which we received on May 14, 1982. In order to assist you in the workshop scheduled for May 20, 1982, the following comments are offered at this time. 1. Figures No. 9 and No. 18 of your draft specific plan show Edwards Street deviating from its present alignment at a point just south of Talbert Avenue and passing westerly along the base of the bluffs to an intersec- tion with the westerly extension of Garfield Avenue. Edwards Street would no longer extend along its present alignment. Such a new align- ment for Edwards Street is inconsistent with the Orange County Board of Supervisors adopted Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan (LCP/LUP) which is now under consideration by the California Coastal Commission. Although future mutual studies of road alignments in the Bolsa Chica area by your City and the County during the LCP Phase III and Specific Plan work may consider such a new alignment for Edwards Street, there is no certainty that it will be found to be a desirable route or subsequently acceptable to the Coastal Commission. Accordingly, it is suggested that you design the Specific Plan in such a way that Edwards Street may take a route along or near its present alignment. 2. The draft specific plan shows a collector street extending from the cur- rent intersection of Edwards Street and Ellis Avenue westerly into the County Bolsa Chica LCP/LUP area and then curving south into your specific plan area in a loop to return to Edwards Street. The County's Bolsa Chica LCP/LUP indicates the area just westerly of the intersection to be recrea- tion and designated Open Space on the Orange County General Plan map and the land use component of the LCP/LUP which was adopted by the Board of Super- visors on January 20, 1982. The two 5 acre parcels just westerly of Ed- wards Street are possible partial or total components of the Bolsa Chica Linear Regional Park. If your plan is adopted with the collector street as shown, the boundary line for the regional park should probably be Ms. Webb May 19, 1982 Page 2 along the collector street. There may be a question as to whether the local collector street passing through the open space/recreation area is consistant with the LCP and General Plan. An amendment of the County's Local Coastal Program might be required in the future. We believe there are arguments for the road to pass through such an area but further study is needed as indicated in paragraph one above. 3. In general, the westerly boundary of your specific plan would help define the boundary of the Bolsa Chica Linear Regional Park in this area. As you know the Bolsa Chica Linear Park Boundary Study has optional park boundaries in the vicinity, subject to your land use planning in the area. The above comments are those which have been noted in the few days since receipt of your plan. If further review of your document reveals other considerations, we will let you know in the next few days. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in your planning. If there are any questions please feel free to call me at 834-5388 or Kenneth Winter at 834-5387. Very truly yours, R. L. Rende, Manager Project Planning Division RLR/KW:crn cc: Ken Winter Grace Fong ®c�a ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT May 19, 1982 2ECEIVED ox %0Asa, Ms. Carol Inge DeVe10?Mc"'Senicss Assistant Planner City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Ms. Inge: SUBJECT: EIR 82-1 ELLIS - GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN Thank you for sending us a copy of the Ellis - Goldenwest Specific Plan for our review and comment. The Specific Plan area is currently served by Route 25 (Goldenwest Avenue). We suggest that provisions be made for buses in the design of the streets and the locations of bus stops (i.e. pavement sections, bus turnouts, etc.) Further, as this area develops and ties in to the development for the Bolsa Chica Wetlands, bus service may be provided through the Specific Plan Area via Edwards and Garfield. Therefore, we suggest that you also take transit into account in the design of Edwards and Garfield, making provisions for bus stops as well as pedestrian access to the proposed subdivisions. If there are any questions, please contact me or Mike Haack at 971-6405. Sincerely, Dick Hsu Environmental Coordinator DH:SX 11222 ACACIA PARKWAY • P.O. BOX 3005 • GARDEN GROVE, CALIFORNIA 92642 • PHONE(714)971-6200 ATTACHMENT 7 j. sPIN: AMERICAN LANDSCAPE SUPPLY 18851 MM GOLDEN WEST STREET - HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 - (714) 842.8866 � �'�=p din HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL � D P.O. BOX 190 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIF. 92648 CITY 017 I-1(1;"„ TO THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL: � �• TO,'�CITY �5 COU(dCIL OrF(C`(.t! AS A TAXPAYER AND PROPERTY OWNER IN THIS CITY, THIS IS A FORMAL REQUEST TO FIND OUT WHAT PARTY IS BEHIND THE URGENCY TO RgZONE THE ELLIS/GOLDENWEST AREA ,AND THE COST INVOLVED TO DATE. WE ARE VERY UPSET AT THE WAY PROPERTY OWNERS ARE BEING DICTATED AND RAILROADED ABOUT THEIR OWN LAND AND INVESTMENTS. WE THINK THAT THERE IS COLLUSION, A CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND A CONSPIRACY INVOLVED, AND WE' RE AT THE VERGE OF CALLING FOR A FEDERAL INVESTIGATION AT WHY THE SUDDEN INTEREST TO REZONE AND PLACE THESE RESTRICTIONS AND LIMI— TATIONS ON THIS AREA? ATTENDED THE COMMISSIONERS MEETING ON APRIL 27, WHERE IT WAS SCHEDULED TO HAVE THE NEXT' MEETING ON JUNE 1., HOWEVER, IT APPEARS A BACK DOOR MEETING WAS HELD ON MAY 11 REGARDING OIL ZONING, TO WHICH THIS OIL, MINERAL, AND PROPERTY OWNER WAS NOT NOTIFIED. AT THIS MEET— ING- THEY PLANNED AREAS TO HAVE OIL ZONES, WELL, I HOLD THE GEOTHERMAL AND DEEP OIL ZONE ON 15 ACRES AND NEED AN O1 ZONE ON MY LAND. THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT SHOULD BE THERE TO HELP AND ASSIST THE DEVELOPER WITH THEIR PLANS, NOT DRAW PLANS, DESIGN BUILDINGS AND ROOFS AND LANDSCAPING. YET THESE PEOPLE ARE DESIGNING AND DRAWING DEVEL— OPMENTS IN AND MAKING SPECIFIC DESIGNS AND COMPETING AGAINST PRIVATE ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS. LET THE DEVELOPER COME IN AND DESIGN AND DEVELOP THE AREA, AND THESE DEVELOPERS HIRE THE BEST TRADESMAN FOR THE JOB AND HE PAYS THE BILL NOT THE TAXPAYER. ACTUALLY, THE CITY BY PUTTING ALL THESE SPECIFIC LIMITATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS ON THIS AREA SCARES AWAY ANY DEVELOPER, WHICH IS A SHAME FOR THE DEVELOPER COMES UP WITH NEW AND CREATIVE IDEAS FOR THE CITY. THEN THE PLANNING STAFF HAS DRAWN A LINE REPRESENTING A PROPOSED FUTURE ROAD THRU THE CENTER OF OUR LAND AND OUR EXISTING BUSINESS. WE HAVE BEEN DOING BUSINESS FOR 13 YEARS IN THIS CITY AND WE ARE 100 PER CENT OPPOSED TO ANY ROAD GOING THRU THE CENTER OF OUR LAND OR BUSINESS . IT IS VERY SAD THAT IN OUR CITY THESE THREATS TO AN INDIVIDUALS LAND CAN BE HAPPENING. WOULD LIKE THIS MATTER CHECKED INTO AND A STOP PUT TO THIS OBSENE WASTE OF _TIME AND TAXPAYERS MONEY. AWAITING A REPLY. THANK YOU. RESPECTFULLY, RONALD I. B NDLE 1.i It 1, liE. ANN BRINDLE ntington Beach Com y 2110 MAIN STREET,HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92648 co (714)960.4351 May 27, 1982 RECEIVED Huntington Beach Planning Commission r, Attn: Mr. James W. Palin, Secretary MAY 2 �� _ Development Services Department Development Se,-,;_: 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Commissioners and Mr. Palin: This letter sets forth the response of the Huntington Beach Company to proposed Ellis- Goldenwest Specific Plan as transmitted under your cover letter dated April 21, 1982. This is also in response to your letter dated May 4, 1982. Reference is made to our previous letter dated March 8, 1982 and comments made at your March 9, 1982 study session. It has been the position of the Huntington Beach Company that a specific plan for our properties in this area is premature, for reasons stated later in this letter. It has been the apparent position of City staff that the Specific Plan must conform to the existing General Plan for the area, and that boundaries, land use, and specificity of the Specific Plan are therefore not flexible. Now, after having created, recommended, and publicized the Specific Plan, it appears that an after the fact effort is being made to demonstrate the property owner's involvement. Your letter of May 4 states that our lack of response to those details issued on April 23 leads you to "assume that the general provisions of the Specific Plan—are compatible with our ideas". This is in direct contradiction to our earlier correspondence and meetings. We are further concerned that the Planning Commission has imposed a deadline of July 31, 1982 for adoption of the Specific Plan in order to apply conditions to an approved subdivision within the Specific Plan area. The following points again express our objections to the proposed plan: 1. The proposed specific plan, and the process through which it has been drafted, is not consistent with good planning principles nor the direction set by the City Council for this area. Planning for the Ellis-Goldenwest area has been a series of responses to private zoning and development proposals, and has precluded a general planning effort responsive to broader issues. The City's most recent planning effort in this area was triggered in August, 1980 by Mola Development Corporation's application for a high density general plan amendment on a ten-acre parcel of land located south of Ellis Avenue and east of Goldenwest Street. (This property has since been acquired by the Huntington Beach Company.) The planning staff, citing previous Planning Commission interest in industrial development in this area, then expanded the study area to 46 acres and analyzed various industrial, medium density and high density land use alternatives. After the November, 1980 City Council hearing, at which the Huntington Beach Company stated its opposition to the all-industrial alternative, the study area was again expanded to include the present 287-acre area. The intent was to formulate land use and policy recommendations for Council consideration of alternative equestrian and non-equestrian development possibilities at various general plan densities. t Page 2 The scope and direction of the Planning staff's study was altered significantly in response to Lindborg-Dahl's application in April, 1981 for a zone change to permit a residential subdivision on 15 acres of land within the study area. At this point, staff began to focus on more detailed development concepts in reaction to the proposed zone change rather than to continue the analysis of long-range planning and development needs for the larger area. At the July 7, 1981 Planning Commission meeting, staff presented its recommendation to prepare a "specific" plan for the estate area. The Commission discussed proceeding with a specific plan as opposed to a general plan amendment for the area and set forth the following guidelines: citizen and property owner input in any further planning should be recognized, a planned development approach be considered to allow developers flexibility in designing projects, a specific plan to implement estate development should be developed, but if constraints were encountered in the process, the area should be considered for a general plan amendment. Although considerable opposition has been expressed, no alternatives to the proposed specific plan have been suggested by staff. Now, given the time constraints imposed by the Planning Commission for adoption of the Specific Plan, it is doubtful that changes to the plan or alternatives can seriously be considered at this point. 2. The proposed specific plan is premature for significant portions of the area and does not resolve major general plan issues. The land area being studied represents the major portion of the City's undeveloped acreage. Ownership and land use patterns suggest that development will occur over a period of decades. For this reason, careful consideration needs to be given to planning future development - not only for land use and aesthetics, but also for future circulation, fiscal and environmental impacts, infrastructure financing and phasing, and special district relationships. The proposed Specific Plan focuses instead on issues that relate to immediate development. The Specific Plan is inconsistent with the City's Circulation Element and the proposed Bolsa Chica circulation plans. The compatibility of development within the Bolsa Chica on land use patterns in the Ellis-Goldenwest area have not been considered nor has the compatibility of land uses to the east of the study area. As set forth in Chevron U.S.A. Inc.'s April 27 letter, the removal of drilling rights and application of detailed residential development standards within a major oilfield is totally inappropriate, is inconsistent with efforts to maximize domestic oil production and creates major land use conflicts at this time. For these reasons, the Huntington Beach Company has repeatedly requested that certain properties be removed from the Specific Plan so that proper general plan and zoning designations for oil production can be studied. 3. The proposed specific plan does not reflect the intentions of property owners in the area, nor has the process by which the Plan has been drafted encouraged property owner participation. In directing the staff to proceed with specific plans for the estate area, the Planning Commission stated a desire to involve property owners and interested citizens. Recognizing the different needs of large and small property owners, the Commission asked that planned community and planned development approaches be considered for this area to give owners flexibility. Page 3 In subsequent meetings, the Huntington Beach Company was assured that property owners in the study area would be consulted by staff throughout the preparation of the specific plans for the area. In fact, no input was solicited from the Huntington Beach Company concerning the City's planning approach, area boundaries, status of existing land uses, or short-term/long-term development plans for Huntington Beach Company properties, which constitute over half of the study area acreage. The first opportunity to react to the specific plan occurred at a property owners' meeting on February 9, 1982, the same day that the plan was to be presented to the Planning Commission. Property owners were briefed on major points of the plan; however, printed copies of the draft plan were not made available until a later date. At the evening study session, the Commission discussion was divided between specific features of the plan and general approaches to planning the area and no public input was taken at this meeting. On March 8, 1982 the City Administrator and you received a letter stating the Huntington Beach Company's concerns about the staff's specific plan effort, its inconsistency with the direction set forth by the City Council for this area and the lack of opportunities for meaningful input afforded property owners. Our letter also notified you that we had retained Phillips Brandt Reddick (PBR) to analyze long-range opportunities for our significant land holdings in this part of Huntington Beach. Finally, the letter requested the City to consider suspending its specific planning efforts for the area pending the development of new comprehensive land use and circulation alternatives for the City's consideration. I believe this letter clearly stated our position with regard to staff's planning effort. Copies of this letter were not distributed to the Planning Commission until their April 27, 1982 meeting, almost 2 months after it was received. At the March 9 Planning Commission meeting, the staff requested direction from the Commission concerning several key features of the specific plan, including the minimum project area, the planning area boundaries, and the use of assessment districts and redevelopment. Again, copies of the draft plan were not available for review by property owners, and no public input was taken. _ On March 19, 1982, representatives of the Huntington Beach Company, PBR, and City Planning Staff met to discuss respective planning programs and planning needs for areas within and surrounding the Ellis-Goldenwest specific plan area. PBR indicated at that time that approximately six months would be necessary to study the area to develop good comprehensive land use and circulation alternatives. On March 29, we met with the City Administrator and you to review the City's planning process, at which time I discussed the lack of opportunity for us to respond in any meaningful way to the City's planning efforts and noted that no material had been made available by staff for public comment or review. I again asked that the areas west of Edwards Street and east of Goldenwest Street be removed from the specific plan study area. At this meeting you agreed to provide some general planning criteria to be reflected in plans developed by PBR for Company lands. Finally, on April 23, 1982, we received for the first time a copy of the draft specific plan along with your cover letter outlining elements of the plan that significantly impact Company properties. The draft plan was reviewed by the Planning Commission on April 27 at which time considerable opposition was expressed by smaller landowners in the audience. Page 4 On April 27, you also received a letter from Chevron U.S.A. Inc., the principal oil producer and lessee of much of the Company's land in the specific plan area, expressing Chevron's concern about the proposed specific plan. This letter was reviewed with your staff at a meeting on May 6, 1982. Throughout the process of formulating the Specific Plan, property owners have been asked to react to staff proposals on relatively short notice, while discussions with staff have in most cases gone unreported to the Planning Commission. The plan has received little if any support from property owners in the area, yet a majority of these owners will be required to approve any special assessment districts that may be needed to finance and implement the plan. Further, the minimum development requirements of this plan is dependent on a degree of property owner cooperation which is unrealistic. 4. The proposed specific plan reflects only one possible alternative for development compatible with the City's General Plan. The proposed specific plan has been developed around a single land use designed to benefit a narrow segment of the housing market in the extreme upper end of the price range for housing. The Huntington Beach Company feels there may be many development alternatives that, after proper review and analysis, will be acceptable to both the City and the property owners and which will meet demands for equestrian and recreational land uses without excluding the largest segment of the home-buying public. We also believe that much more variety and visual interest may be created through the integration of more housing types now contemplated under the plan. Much of the area included in the Specific Plan is committed to long-term oil production. Given the tendency for market conditions and community needs to fluctuate over time, planning for these areas should look beyond immediate development issues, and adopt a flexible approach to resolve issues that may arise. We feel the Specific Plan as proposed precludes a thorough analysis of long-term opportunities for the Company's properties. 5. The proposed specific plan does not differentiate between the needs of large and small property owners and does not respect logical planning boundaries. Many of the issues raised in the Specific Plan involve the coordination of development in areas of diverse property ownership, yet much of the area included in the plan is under contiguous ownership. The area south of Ellis Avenue extending from Goldenwest to Gothard Street is essentially entirely owned by the Huntington Beach Company, and the Company has repeatedly expressed its desire that this area be planned as a single entity. The use of Crystal Street as a planning area boundary is arbitrary and bears no relation to the site's features. Goldenwest Street, a major higher-speed arterial, establishes what we feel is a more natural boundary for the City's Specific Plan, and we see no logical basis for including the area east of Goldenwest in the current Specific Plan effort. By the same token, the area west of Edwards Street is under one ownership, and does not share the same constraints and problems found in the "core" area between Edwards and Goldenwest. Because of this area's long term commitment to oil production, we feel it is inappropriate to include this area in the Specific Plan as well. Page 5 In summary, the Huntington Beach Company has expressed continued concern and opposition to the City's specific planning efforts and those elements of the plan which have been made available. We have attempted to cooperate with staff in developing a long range planning program and have retained a professional planning consultant to assist the City and the Huntington Beach Company in this effort. Now, despite the proposed six-month timetable suggested by PBR to study the area, City staff continues its expectation of immediate alternatives to the proposed Specific Plan. I urge you to consider the concerns expressed in this letter and at the June 1 public hearing, and ask that consideration be given to alternative approaches to planning this area. The Huntington Beach Company recommends that the proposed Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan be tabled pending further planning studies conducted through a cooperative effort between the City and private property owners. If this is not possible, I ask that the areas owned by the Huntington Beach Company, to the west of Edwards Street and to the east of Goldenwest Street be removed from the Specific Plan area. I hope this adequately sets forth our position on the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. We continue to extend our sincere offer to work with the City in our own planning efforts as outlined in our March 8, 1982 letter. Very truly ours, R -WORK LAO CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ` INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HONTINGTON BEACH ^V/ To Mike Adams From Don Noble RI Assistant Planner Engineer Planner Subject Ellis/Goldenwest Specific Date May 27, 1982 Plan & E.I .R. #82-1 The Public Works Department has the following comments and concerns regarding the Ellis/Goldenwest Specific Plan and E. I .R. #82-1: Drainage 1. Nuisance water will be permitted to flow in the drainage swales (see page 21, paragraph 3) . 2. Not all storm runoff should be diverted from the lake; onlv nuisance flows and initial storm waters should be conveyed through a bypass system (see page 85, paragraph 1) . Sewage 1. The County' s Slater Pump Station has been upgraded - would suggest they be contacted regarding overload (see page 78, last paragraph) . Water 1. No comment. Traffic 1. Straight streets rather than curvalinear alignments, are safer roadways. Item 4 of Section 2 on page 16 is therefore somewhat misleading. 2. Item "a" on page 48 should be clarified (i.e. paved width of 24 feet would not include curb and gutter, if applicable) . 3 . Who would maintain "lot entry" bridges across drainage swales - homeowners association or individual property owners? (This should be resolved prior to Commission Meeting, if applicable) . 4. Goldenwest Street, between Garfield Avenue and Rio Vista, should be reclassified to a major arterial. 5. Intersections, where a rural street joins a standard street, should be standard planned, (i.e. how will curb lines, park- ways and drainage be handled?) 100 Mike Adams - Ellis/Goldenwest Specific Plan May 27, 1982 Page 2 Landscaping of Arterial Highways 1. Street medians, where applicable, could be reduced in width from 14 ' to 10 ' or 12 ' . This would reduce landscaping costs and provide more roadway for traffic. 2. Parkway designs could include meandering walkways and bike trails behind curb line. 3. Parkways should not include tree planting directly behind curb or within sidewalk configurations (i.e. tree planting should be behind any sidewalk construction) . This action, in addition to, reducing damage to sidewalks and streets , will reduce maintenance costs and insure sight clearances for traffic. Misc. 1. Who will maintain "dedicated public horse trail easement"? 2. What is the status of the geothermal wQll study? 3. What specific conditions will be imposed upon developers to mitigate water quality damage to the lakes? DRP7:lw cc: Paul Cook Ed Elevatorski Ralph Levva Stan Farber Bruce Gilmer Karl Huv Bill Patapoff Daryl Smith E. I .R. Correspondence File 101 Chevron 9, Chevron U.SA. Inc. •-a P. 0. Box 606, La Habra, CA 90631 Phone (213) 10� �' wo- �CAQ�C..,v ,�uVQ1o� Written Comments on Draft EIR 82-1 Huntington Beach Ellis/Goldenwest Specific Plan City of Huntington Beach Planning and Environmental Resource Department P.O. Box 190 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attention: Carol Inge Dear Carol: The following comments refer to the draft Environmental Impact Report 82-1, and are limited to the topic of oil, beginning on Page 58. Each paragraph is analyzed and specific comments made where appropriate, followed by generalized comments regarding the Setting, Impacts and Mitigations sections of the EIR pertaining to oil operations within the Specific Plan area. I. Environmental "Setting" beginning on Page 58: Paragraph 1: Chevron U.S.A. Inc. operates a total of 94 wells within the Specific Plan area, located on 4 distinct parcels which are governed by separ- ate and independent lease agreements. This fact should be pointed out in order to understand the need for segregated drilling areas on each of the 4 leases (i.e., off-site drilling, commingling of production, blanket pass through privileges, etc. , are not rights which are implied in oil and gas leases). Paragraph 2: Chevron U.S.A. Inc. operates a total of 66 wells within the area west of Edwards included in the Specific Plan. To appreciate the inten- sity of oil operations in and around this area, a map highlighting oil activities would help in understanding the heavy oil related land use within the boundaries of the Specific Plan. An aerial photograph which depicts Chevron's intense use will be provided to the City of Huntington Beach. Paragraph 3: There are statements made in this paragraph which refer to declining oil production and recovery methods. These types of statements need to be related to a source or supporting study (i.e., is this information derived from the "Special Study" referred to in Paragraph 4, infra?). Paragraph 4: Based upon a recent discussion with the D.O.G., its our understanding that the "Special Study" referred to on Page 58 of the draft City of Huntington Beach Attention: Carol Inge Specific Plan, which allegedly supports the sufficiency of preserving only two drillsites, is not a written study and therefore not subject to the oil operator's review and comment. The D.O.G. also stated that before imposing drilling limitations, the City should both consider the advice of the affected oil operators and of an independent oil consultant. Thus, these statements, and presumably those in Paragraph 3, supra, are without written substantiation and call into question the validity of the proposed limitation on future drilling operations within the Specific Plan area. General Comments on oil "Setting": With a majority of the study area in oil related use, this section should discuss the economics of oil operations. This element could be a significant aspect affecting this area. Furthermore, the EIR should include a map illustrating the intensity of oil activities within the study area. Finally, the use of the alledged "Special Study" conducted by the D.O.G. as a source of information, presents a real question as to the validity of various statements and the appropriateness of limited drilling rights. U. Environmental "Impacts" beginning on Page 59: Paragraph 1: This paragraph attempts to list "Impacts" that the introduction of residential developments will have on existing and future oil operations. No detailed analysis is given to the specific way in which oil operations will be affected (i.e. curtailing future domestic oil extraction and treatment operations, increasing the economic burden on all oil operators which may in turn be passed on to the consumer, reduced taxes and governmental fees, etc.). There is also a comment made that "many of the marginal producing wells may become abandoned in favor of residential development". This is a speculative opinion which does not belong in a draft EIR. Paragraph 2: Instead of discussing "Impacts", this paragraph attempts to suggest highly speculative mitigation measures that are very complicated and difficult to implement even under ideal conditions. This is especially true where there is a fragmentation of property ownership, which is acute in portions, if not all, of the Specific Plan area (both surface and subsurface). General Comments on "Impacts" Section: An adequate identification or anlysis of the potential impacts (e.g., econo- mics) residential development would have on oil operations has not been made. The analysis appears to gloss over foreseeable problems, and instead concentrates on inadequately investigated mitigation possibilities. City of Huntington Beach Attention: Carol Inge III. Environmental "Mitigation" beginning on Page 59: Paragraph 1: An obvious error is the reference made to converting gasoline powered pumping units to submersible electric pumps. The viscosity of the oil produced from the Specific Plan area presently prohibits the use of this type of pump. General Comments on "Mitigation" Section Overall, mitigation measures appear inadequate and misdirected. The focus is on mitigating the impact of oil operations on residential development instead of the impact of the proposed residential development on an area historically devoted to resource production. Chevron appreciates the opportunity to present its comments. If there are any questions or clarification needed, please feel free to call Vince Noble, Chevron's Environmental Compliance Coordinator at (714) 5 36-25 61. Very truly yours, G� Hilman P. Walker LOM/sd cc: Vince Noble - Huntington Beach MILTON H M A R O W ift ATTACHME 064 NORTH BUNDY 0R LOS ANGE14ES CA 90049 4-01525IS151 05/31/82 ICS IPMRNCZ CSP $NAB 2134721697 MGM TORN LOS ANGELES CA 70 05"31 0814P EST PLANNING COMMISSION PO BOX 190 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 JUN 2 1982 Development Services URGENT: PLEASE PRESENT OUR OPPOSITION TO ELLIS"GOLDEN WEST PLAN# JUNE I HEARING, AS EXTRAVAGANT AND RESTRICTIVE, AS FIFTY YEAR TAXPAYERS ON SEVERAL PARCELSo WE JOIN OTHER !OWNERS IN REQUESTING AESTHETICo PRACTICAL o DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES; MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIALp WITH RELIEF FROM RESTRICTIONS. RISK OF JOINT VENTURES, EXCESSIVE COST, AND PROJECT TIME. RESPFCTFULl,Yf MILTON H MAROW 864 NORTH BUNDY DR LOS ANGELES CA 90049 20 : 16 EST MGMCOMP TO REPLY BY MAILGRAM, SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR WESTERN UNION'S TOLL - FREE PHONE NUMBERS ► -Antington Beach CompLtny 2110 MAIN STREET,HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 M4) 960-4351 R.J.WORK VICE PRESIDENT-GENERAL MANAGER June 9, 198277 Development Services Department City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attention: Ms. Carol Inge Dear Carol: r The Huntington Beach Company appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Draft Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan and accompanying Draft Environmental Impact Report 82- 1, and submits the following comments for your consideration. Page Section 1 1. 1 Continued access to oil resources is identified as a major reason for undertaking the Specific Plan, yet the Plan clearly favors residential development and open space over oil production by placing restrictions on existing operations and greatly limiting new drilling opportunities. 7 1.4 Under Existing Zoning, reference should be made to the 82± acres which are presently zoned -01, in which new drilling is permitted. 11 2.0 The wording of this section should be clarified as to the intent of the Specific Plan for each subarea. It is not clear for which subarea(s) the Specific Plan sets forth development standards. Some reference to the section containing development standards would be helpful, as well as definitions for terms used in the Specific Plan. 11 2.1 The definition of minimum project size is confusing, as the terms project, development, area plan, development plan, and conceptual plan are all used but are not defined. This section should specifically state which minimum acreage requirement applies to the various types of entitlement applications, if this is the intent. From the information presented in Figure 7, it appears that only four out of over one hundred property owners in the Specific Plan area own areas of 10 acres or larger. The requirement that owners with less than 10 acres must consolidate or joint venture with adjacent property owners, is discriminatory and is unreasonable considering the existing pattern of ownerships. 107 Page 2 Page Section 13 2.2 Grading regulations should consider the possibility that some grading may be necesary prior to development to compact soils and provide proper drainage for individual properties or lots. Limiting grading to two feet of cut and two feet of fill outright seems overly restrictive. Open space corridors are to include a minimum 20-foot-wide public equestrian trail located in what is described as a "dedicated easement". If the trail area is dedicated to the City for public use, it is assumed that the City is then responsible for trail maintenance, contrary to the language contained in the first paragraph on Page 34. The Plan also states that such trails be located within privately owned open space easements of a minimum width of 100 feet. Where such easements are required, developers should receive credit against local park dedication requirements and in-lieu fees. 15 2.3 Reference is made to a master plan of trails and master-planned trails. A figure depicting such trails would be helpful. 15 2.4 Figure 10 represents existing circulation conditions instead of those proposed in the Specific Plan. The Circulation Plan assumes that nearly every arterial that impacts the planning area is to be realigned from either its existing or master-planned alignment. This assumption is premature until area-wide circulation issues have been adequately studied and resolved by the City, County, and Coastal Commission through general plan amendments currently pending. The alignments of these arterials should be finalized prior to adoption of the Specific Plan. 19 2.5 This section does not discuss how the design, phasing, and construction of major public works facilities is to be coordinated where said facilities are planned to cross private properties under multiple ownerships. The use of unimproved natural swales to convey drainage may present problems given the erosive quality of the sandy soils in much of the area and concerns about water quality in Sully Miller Lake, and will be expensive to maintain. The proposed realignment of Edwards and Ellis would impact the existing water supply system; development within the Specific Plan would seem to be contingent on resolving the location of key water system facilities. 23 2.7 The limitation of residential development to two basic patterns and the prohibition of flats is inconsistent with the stated objective of providing for a variety of housing types, and in this regard the Specific Plan is less flexible than traditional zoning. A more flexible approach to designing residential units is warranted in this area given other development restrictions contained in the Specific Plan. The wording in this section would also appear to prohibit apartments -this should be clarified. 108 Page 3 Page Section 29 2.8 The Specific Plan's approach to the compatibility of ongoing oil production in residential areas is backwards. Rather than removing large areas from production to accommodate expected residential developments, the burden of proof for compatibility with existing oil operations should rest with residential developers as such development is proposed. The consolidation of new drilling activity into a few small islands is made difficult by the pattern of oil leases within the area and is best left to the discretion of property owners and oil operators. 31 3.1 Under uses permitted, Planned Residential Developments should also include single-family homes, both detached and attached. No provision has been made for public recreation and open space areas such as trails, neighborhood parks and linear park, nor public and private streets, easements, flood control channels, and pump stations, etc. Permitted oil-related uses should be defined in more detail. Also, are unclassified uses such as schools and churches to be permitted in the Specific Plan area? 32 3.3 Do the Open Space Corridor and Sensitive Development Area restrictions still apply to the entire Specific Plan area or only to Subarea 2? As with Section 2.0 the relationship of subareas & special areas needs to be clarified. 57 Topography - Sensitive Development areas are to have been designated based on "significant topography", yet nowhere is the term significant topography defined nor criteria for this designation given. 58 Oil - Division of Oil and Gas special study should be referenced. 65 Transportation and Circulation - The EIR states that the possible realignment of Edwards, Gothard, and Ellis will have significant impacts on circulation in the Specific Plan area, yet these significant impacts are not quantified, nor are mitigation measures recommended. Cumulative impacts of development within and surrounding the Specific Plan area on circulation needs have not been addressed. 72 Visual Resources - The analysis of the existing setting is extremely subjective as it relates to the open, rural appearance that is valued by the community. With respect to vegetation, residential development will more than likely improve the quality and variety of landscaping and vegetation on-site. 109 Page 4 Page Section 86 Alternatives to the Specific Plan, such as partial adoption of the proposed plan, use of conventional zoning districts, or a general plan study have been suggested and should be acknowledged. 87 The fiscal impacts of estate residential development pursuant to the proposed Specific Plan - including necessary circulation and public works improvements, maintenance burdens, and the potential loss of oil-related income to the City - have not been identified nor analyzed. Very truly y6urs, ,411 j/ 2 K. !WORK RJW/e ,f 110 ATTACHMENT 10 AMERICAN LANDSCAPE SUPPLY 18851 GOLDEN WEST STREET - HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAUFORNIA 92W - (714) 842.8866 JUNE 10, 1982 HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION ATTN: MR, JAMES W. PALIN, SECRETARY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT ; 2000 MAIN STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 DEAR COMMISSIONERS AND MR. PALIN: THIS IS TO CONFIRM PAST LETTERS AND REQUESTS REGARDING THE PROPOSED STUDY PLAN ON THE ELLIS GOLDENWEST AREA. NOW, WE ARE MAKING A FORMAL REQUEST TO HAVE OUR FIFTEEN (15) ACRE PIECE OF PROPERTY WITHDRAWN FROM THIS STUDY PLAN . WE HAVE BEEN OPERATING OUR BUSINESS FOR THIRTEEN YEARS IN THIS CITY, AND HAVE NO INTENTIONS OR PLANS TO DISCONTINUE OUR BUSINESS . EVERY INCH OF LAND IS VERY IMPORTANT AND USED IN OUR BUSINESS AND WE ARE OPPOSED TO ANY ROAD GOING THRU THE CENTER OF OUR PROPERTY, BE IT A PAPER ROAD OR A PROPOSED ROAD FOR THE FUTURE - WE DO NOT WANT ANY ROAD, WOULD APPRECIATE AN ANSWER TO OUR PROBLEM, THANK YOU . RESPECTFULLY, RONALD 1 . BRINDLE Chemn Chevron U.SA. Inc. P.O. Box 606, La Habra, CA 90631 Phone (213) 694-7655 Hilman P.Walker June 10, 1982 District Land Supervisor Southern California District Land Department,Western Region DRAFT GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA MR. JAMES PALIN Director of Development Services JUN City of Huntington Beach Aevelcpment Se��ire:, 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Mr. Palin: Through informal discussions with members of your staff after the Planning Commission meeting on June 1, I have come to the conclusion that Chevron's requirements for existing and future oil and gas operations within the Specific Plan area can be met through minor changes to the draft Specific Plan and by a less inclusive amendment to the General Plan than that currently proposed by Chevron. After the Commission meeting I was told that the actual purpose of Paragraph 3 of the Staff Report dated June 1, 1982 is to amend the oil activities section of the draft Specific Plan in order to permit new drilling on two oil islands similar to those presently zoned -01. If this is the intent of Paragraph 3, then subject to the inclusion of definite wording to this effect in the draft Specific Plan and its final adoption by the City Council, Chevron will delete the lands east of Garfield from its General Plan amendment application. The amendment would then deal only with the lands west of Edwards which we believe should be redesignated as a "Resource Production" area in order to recognize that it is in fact dedicated to intense oil and gas production. We believe that it is absolutely necessary to preserve one oil island on each of Chevron's oil and gas leases east of Edwards because these leases prohibit Chevron from drilling off- lease. (Please note that neither of the attached leases provides for off-lease drilling). Also preservation of two islands will make it possible for Chevron to access the remaining oil by economical and efficient means. We wish to provide you with our recommendation for the location of the two Chevron 2.5 acre oil islands through the attached revised Figure 18 which we propose as a sub- stitute for that in the draft Specific Plan. The revised Figure 18 delineates two oil islands located to the east of Edwards Street. No change is proposed in the location of Island "A" because of our need to be able to efficiently reach all portions of the Jones Community Lease. The other island marked "B" is located on our Huntington Beach Co. "B" Lease somewhat south of the existing Mr. James Palin Director of Development Services June 10, 1982 Page 2 -01 Suffix Island offset 100 feet from Garfield Avenue. This offset is necessary to meet the requirement of Public Resoure Code Sec. 3600. We believe that this is an appropriate change as it would free up additional surface area for other uses while allowing Chevron access all subsurface areas of lease. We also propose in the attachments what we believe is appropriate wording to revise the draft Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report to insure that Chevron's drilling rights will be preserved on these islands. The proposed language contains a suggestion that additional oil islands be specifically included so as to provide drilling access for other oil operators in the Specific Plan area to the east of Edwards Street. I would appreciate the opportunity to meet with your staff to discuss our proposal. Very truly yours, Hilman P. Walker HPW:sd Attachments N TALBERT --_- — `'' CF-R --- - CF-R I .r ---�f%-�'-- 701 en -o Li Source: Huntington Beach Planning Division, 1981. ; -a - - --01 SUFFIX AREA HUNTINGTON BEACH 04LIFORNIP. PLANNING DIVISION A DRILLING ISLAND -01 B DRILLING ISLAND-01 AMENDMENTS TO THE DRAFT ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN DATED APRIL 1992 1. Page"29 - 30, Section 28: "Oil Activities": a. Omit the last paragraph and substitute the following: "Because of the intense oil activity projected to continue in the area west of Edwards Street, the Specific Plan proposes that new wells be permitted anywhere within that presently designated -01 suffix area. All other drilling of new wells within the Specific Plan area, will be limited to 2.5 acre oil islands located as designated on Figure 18. b. Omit footnote 1 in its entirety. 2. Page 33, Section 2.2 C. "Oil Islands": a. Omit the second paragraph and substitute the following: "New drilling shall be permitted anywhere within the presently designated -01 suffix area located to the west of Edwards Street. All other drilling of new wells within the Specific Plan area shall be limited to 2.5 acre oil islands located as designated on Figure 18. r l AMENDMENTS TO DRAFT ELLIS-GOLDENWEST ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 82-1 DATED APRIL 1982 1. Pie 58 Section "Oil - Setting": Omit the fourth paragraph in its entirety. 2. Page 59, Section "Impacts": Amend the first paragraph as follows: "Development of the Specific Plan area will introduce residential uses among active oil operations in the area east of Edwards Street. Residential development will affect oil operations with regard to questions of access, setbacks, noise and aesthetics. ' r THIS AGREEMENT, made this 2d day of September, 1910, between tINGTON BEACH COMPANYf a corporation under the laws of the State -'of Oalifornia, party,-of the first part, herein styled the Lessor, and STANDARD OIL COMPANY, a corporation under the laws of said State, party of the second part, herein styled the Lessee, WXTNI':SSI,TH2 1. For and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars (,ft0.00) gold coin of the United States of America, to the Lessor in hand paid, 'ind of other valuable considerations, the receipt of all of which is hereby acknowledged, and in consideration of the performance by the Lessee of the covenants and agreements hereinafter contained, the Lessor has leased, let and demised, and by these presents doer, lease, let and demise unto the Lessee, the lands hereinafter described, with the sole and exclusive-right to the Lessee to drill for, produce, extract, and take oil, gas, asphaltum, aml other hydrocarbon sub- stances (and water for operation of thi^ lease) from, and store the same n==said lands during the term hereinafter provided, with right to enter on said lands at all times for said purposeq, and from time to time construct, use, maintain, erect, repair, replace and remove thereon and therefrom, all buildinGs, tanks, machinery, tele- phone and telegraph poles and wires and other structures, incluoing all pipe lines placed thereon by the Lessee, which the Lessee nay desire carrying on its business and mining operations on said pre- Emnammommmomm ses with rights-of-way for passage over and upon and across, and Ingress and egress to and from said premises. The premises referred to are all those certain lots of land situate in the County of Orange, State of California, described as r ';FAl�le'ows, to-wits i ,a1'ti"e i '1cT,+rRAOT 10. 1."- Commencing at A. �61nt Mhich is'tht-Intersection ?of the north line of the South Half Of Northwest Quarter (0 WTI) of Section Two (2), Township Six (A) South, Range Bleven (11) West, S.B.B. L M., and the west line of the Southern Pacific Railroad right of way, thence west along the north line of South Half (�' ) of Northwest Quarter (Nis}) of said Section Two (1) to a point, ahtch point is the intersection of the easterly line of Circle Drive and the north line of South Half (Sj) of Northwest Quarter (N6'I) of said Section 2, thence continuing south and westerly along the southeasterly line of said Circle Drive to the point where the -,.southerly line of said Circle Drive intersects the Blest line of r ' /Oh uu � 1•r�?" , rV j ry <rr h�i 1� 1'W.• �1('� �4111 �'I r1:,5�4,FM�!`liy; IKti•�lil�ij:�; .1j1'!,�`t `1"" '',• t� .: •,r� '1�f•""��' " n,; .''�,is?�'.. �{I '•i1?i ,�•' 4 1 ';{�t. r.i, t 9 ,,• '•n 1 tl bl,i•I t' IQ tir TIt211 AanT7tdI TT, mode And entorod into tho 31 - day of July, 1020, by the undereigrned sovoral oanero of the lend herein- '&nor described, herein OILUod Leonora, and OTARDMID 01I, Cmlrmylt a corporation, oreanised and existing under tho laws of tice ctnte of Califarnin, hereinafter onllcd the Iecoee, 71 1 T rT : G r; "" T Ht The deooription of tha land owned 1pr each Leocor is net forth at the and of tl:lo lonse, arxi irnmediatoly precedent; t1Le eiCnnturco of Vie ovaiora tlinreof. Laid Leoaorc,, for nn1 in conuider:ation of the cu: of f'lo.no to naa' of t1•,c: in limn� bait?, curl otl,or oonadder%tioaic o� value. the roccipt -iliercof In hereby nc':nnwledacd, do horei3y o agree with each other, wiJ vit'i mild 7-ssrr, to, met t! -r do 1:cr(by' lease, lot and dative untoA,rwAil,Losaoo caid land, vita, f coils And enoluoive r1C).t to anicd Lcacoo to Orill for. produoi , c.ctr':ot, � i ta>o ell. Ras, aet37uilttu7 and other hydrocarbon submtanoou Arid vrater iro_i. and store the untio utxan, tl,dd Iii6iminnd. Qtiri;- t%c trr hereinafter providod, ciVi Via ri(:lit oi' ontry on aaid 1^.nl at all _timea for aaid tura0000, am] fra, time to tii.o to conotract, uce, maintcin. erect. repair, roplaco and rnriove thereon and therefro,, all buildlrCe. tanl;n. nmahinory, teloplione ni'd tnlegrap!i wirva,, and othor otruoturos, 1noludirl; all pipe lineo wI_ioh onld Lenueo may doetro_ina oarryLw. an Ito businove and minittr: operationo on said_ rreniuco, with 3r1(-.ts of any for pacca�;o over at)Kl upon nnd, ncrgcL, atui inLxece and errata to and from said promises, The possession of the Leoeee of tlio lamlo held try+ it uiTder thin lease shall be eole lard o=luslvo, exoeptirk; onlj that sash Lose" reserves the right to use and 000upy the pnrtieular land owned by hie, or to leave the some, or any part thereof. for nerioultural or grasing purposes, Krioh arrimilturn! or nrrx::- Ing use elrall be earrioxd on subjeet to. nryi with no intrx•ferenoo with. the rialats of operations of the I.eanee haraunder. ill tit i y,M"'�t",iM4� ,,'1. �, '.d '� ,Ili'� tl'i„ .A✓i�7}��.yl��i, , uif•...,a.� r,�+�_ ,Y dh-. I,d1" (. Environmental Board j CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNTINGTON BEACH Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Environmental Board DATE: June 11, 1982 SUBJECT: Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan The Environmental Board full supports the Estate Residential/ designation. Planning Staff should be complemented for an outstanding job in preparing this report. Not only have they done a tremendous amount of research and field work but also have made the plan accessible to the public for input and explanation throughout its preparation. We urge Planning Commission to adopt this Specific Plan and EIR so that it will become an ordinance and be passed on to City Council to be adopted by July 31 and be applicable to the tentative tract map already approved in this area. The EIR addequately addresses the major converns in the Ellis-Goldenwest area. Following are some items we recommend incorporating into the Specific Plan. 1. Drainage in the swales should be allowed to occur naturally over the ground. Pipes or concrete channels should be avoided wherever possible. This not only allows natural percolation-filtering of runoff waters, thus mitigating impacts on lakes, but also allows natural plant growth contributing to the rural atmosphere of the area. 2. Condominium development of the area should be deleted as it is not in keeping with the estate residential character of the area. The condo regulations call for only 35% open space or 65 to 70% land coverage versus maximum site coverage of 35% for large lot and clustered lot standards. 3. Trail width should be sixteen feet instead of 20 ' from the outside of the trail fencing in order to coincide with existing Orange County trail standards which will link to our City trails in the linear park and link to the Santa Ana River trail. 4. Rural road standards should be changed to finished edges of rolled concrete rather than gravel. The asphalt paving breaks up at edges and gravel becomes scattered in the recommended type of roadway. i 5. Road widths on private roads should be decreased to 30 feet of pavement with 1 ' rolled concrete curbs in accordance with rural nature. This allows plenty of parking and access room. 6 . Collector street should be 36 ' with rolled concrete curbs. 7. All common improvements to developments such as common equestrian stables, trails and fencing, perimeter project fencing, common open space landscaping etc. should all be constructed by the project developer prior to the sale of lots in the project. This is particularly important when only custom lots are being sold. 8. Equestrian standards to be reasonable and marketable are any lot of 15 ,000 sq feet could have 2 horses. Any family will normally have 2 animals. 20, 000 sq. feet - 3 horses each additional 10, 000 sq. feet add 1 horse. 9. Double common wall houses should not be allowed as they are not estate residential in nature. 10. Homeowner association agreement and specific plan should be written so that common facilities, open spaces, equestrian facilities etc. be maintained in perpetuity so as to preclude a homeowners asso- ciation voting any of these items out in order to sell/and or avoid maintenance. 11. Preservation of large trees should be required plus additional trees should be required throughout the area,particularly along trails to enhance estate residential character. 12. Fencing (perimeter, interior-trail) , street signs, street lights, trees, trail landscaping etc. should be uniform throughout area and be approved by Planning Commission as to Exact type, color, design etc. Also all stable architecture and roof type should conform to individual house or common development standards. 13. Oil sites C,D,E and F should be preserved rather than making it an option of the property owner. Oil islands should maximize the use of natural landscaping and trees. 14. Swale areas should be left as dedicated open space. If at the discretion of Planning Commission or City Council some swale areas are left in private ownership they should be restricted to specific development guidelines. 15. The use of perimeter block walls should be dis- couraged. We would like to re-emphasize our support for the estate concept in this area. This use is compatible with the surrounding areas, Huntington Beach Central Park, linear park and equestrian uses. We urge you to approve the Specific Plan and adopt precise standards for the area so that i will develop uniformly with a definite character and permanency. It is important to send this ordinance on to Council so that they may approve it by July 31 and it will apply to the Lindborg- Dahl tentative tract already approved in this area. actfully, Irwin Haydock Chairman IH:bas Chevmn Chevron U.SA. Inc. P.O. Box 606, La Habra, CA 90631 Phone (213) 694-7655 Hilman P.Walker District Land Supervisor Southern California District Land Department,Western Region June 17, 1982 DRAFT ELLIS/GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA Mr. James Palin Director of Development Services City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Mr. Palin: As a follow-up to my comments at the June 15, 1982 Planning Commission public hearing on the Ellis/Goldenwest Specific Plan, I would like to reiterate Chevron's concern with respect to the size of the oil islands proposed for Sub-Area 2. The proposed one and one-half acre size could restrict our ability to drill new wells when we must also accommodate storage tanks and other related oil processing facilities on the island. I therefore propose that the Specific Plan be modified to permit the Director of Development Services at his discretion to permit the oil operator to specify oil islands no greater than two and one-half acres in size. To provide the director with this authority the Draft Specific Plan dated June, 1982 should be amended at Paragraph 5.3.3.9, "Oil Activities" as follows: "New drilling and new storage tanks shall only be permitted in specified sites or "oil islands". The oil operator shall own or have a lease on subsurface mineral rights covering an area of a minimum of twenty (20) contiguous acres within the Specific Plan boundaries for every one oil island requested. Before a permit for new drilling is issued, the oil operator shall specify the exact location and size of the proposed oil island (generally not to exceed two and one-half acres in size) subject to review and approval by the Director of Development Services." We believe that this change will provide adequate flexibility for our drilling and storage requirements in Sub-Area 2 while providing the City through its Director of Development Services with adequate control over the size of the oil-islands. 60 60 Mr. James Palin June 17, 1982 Page 2 Again I want to personally thank you and your staff for your courtesy and patient consideration of our past comments concerning the Draft Specific Plan. Very truly yours, Hilman P. Walker HPW/ez cc: Mr. R. J. Work Vice President and General Manager Huntington Beach Company 2110 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648