DocuSign Envelope ID: 40CC30FD-06EF-4374-83AA-BB673FE11E6C
Gavin Newsom, Governor
David Shabazian, Director
May 4, 2023
VIA EMAIL
Mr. Andy Ne
wkirk
Senior Planner
City of Goleta
130 Cremona Drive, Suite B
Goleta, CA 93117
[email protected]
Dear Mr. Newkirk:
CITY OF GOLETA TITLE 17 (ZONING) AMENDMENTS
The California Geologic Energy Management Division (Division) appreciates the opportunity to submit comments on the project referenced above (Project).
The Division’s authority is set forth in Division 3 of the Public Resources Code (PRC), and of the California Code of Regulations, title 14, (CCR). PRC section 3208.1 establishes well re-abandonment responsibility when a previously plugged and abandoned well may be impacted by planned property development or construction activities. Local permitting agencies, property owners, and/or developers should be aware of, and fully understand, that significant and potentially dangerous issues may be associated with development near oil, gas, or geothermal wells.
The Division has reviewed the Project. To assist local permitting agencies, property owners, and developers in making wise land use decisions regarding potential development near oil, gas, or geothermal wells, the Division provides the following information.
Our records indicate there are oil, gas, or geothermal wells located in and around the City of Goleta. For comment and well review for future development on parcels where wells are located, please contact the Division. Records and locations for oil, gas, and geothermal wells located in California are available online at https://www.conservation.ca.gov/calgem/Pages/WellFinder.aspx The Divisi
on categorically advises against building over, or in any way impeding access to oil, gas, or geothermal wells. Access is considered the ability for a well servicing unit and associated necessary equipment to reach a well from a public street or access way, solely over the parcel on which the well is located. A well servicing unit, and any necessary equipment, should be able to pass unimpeded along and over the route, State of California Natural Resources Agency | Department of Conservation Northern District
Orcutt Office and Mail: 195 S. Broadway, Suite 101, Orcutt, CA 93455 | T: (805) 937-7246 | F: (805) 937-0673 Sacramento Office and Mail: 715 P Street, MS 1803, Sacramento, CA 95814 | T: (916) 322-1110 | F: (916) 445-3319 Ventura Office: 1000 S. Hill Road, Suite 116, Ventura, CA 93003 | T: (805) 937-7246 | F: (805) 654-4765 Ventura Mail: 195 S. Broadway, Suite 101, Orcutt, CA 93455 conservation.ca.gov
1 DocuSign Envelope ID: 40CC30FD-06EF-4374-83AA-BB673FE11E6C Mr. Andy Newkirk
May 4, 2023
and should be able to access the well without disturbing the integrity of surrounding infrastructure. Items that can affect well access include, but are not limited to, buildings, housing, fencing, hardscape, landscape, trees, pools, patios, sidewalks, roadways, parking lots, waterways or channels, and decking. Impeding access to a well could result in the need to remove any structure or obstacle that prevents or impedes access.
There are no guarantees a well abandoned in compliance with current Division requirements will not start leaking in the future. It always remains a possibility that any well may start to leak oil, gas, and/or water after abandonment, no matter how thoroughly the well was plugged and abandoned. The Division acknowledges wells plugged and abandoned to the most current standards have a lower probability of leaking in the future, however there is no guarantee that such abandonments will not leak.
The Division advises that all wells identified on development parcels prior to, or during, development activities be tested for liquid and gas leakage. Surveyed locations should be provided to the Division in Latitude and Longitude, NAD 83 decimal format. The Division expects any wells found leaking to be reported to it immediately.
PRC section 3208.1 gives the Division the authority to order or permit the re-abandonment of any well where it has reason to question the integrity of the previous abandonment, or if the well is not accessible or visible. Failure to plug and re- abandon a well may result in enforcement action, including an order to perform re-abandonment well work, pursuant to PRC section 3208.1, and 3224. Responsibility for re-abandonment costs may be affected by the choices made by the local permitting agency, property owner, and/or developer in considering the general advice set forth in this letter. The PRC continues to defi ne the person or entity responsible for re-abandonment as:
1. The property owner - If the well was plugged and abandoned in conformance with Division requirements at the time of plugging and abandonment, and in its current condition does not pose an immediate danger to life, health, and property, but requires additional work solely because the owner of the property on which the well is located proposes construction on the property that would prevent or impede access to the well for purposes of remedying a currently perceived future problem, then the owner of the property on which the well is located shall obtain all rights necessary to re-abandon the well and be responsible for the re-abandonment.
2. The person or entity causing construction over or near the well - If the well was plugged and abandoned in conformance with Division requirements at the time of plugging and abandonment, and the property owner, developer, or local agency permitting the construction failed either to obtain an opinion from the supervisor or district deputy as to whether the previously abandoned well is required to be re-abandoned, or to follow the advice of the supervisor or district deputy not to undertake the construction, then the person or entity causing the 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: 40CC30FD-06EF-4374-83AA-BB673FE11E6C Mr. Andy Newkirk
May 4, 2023
construction over or near the well shall obtain all rights necessary to re-abandon the well and be responsible for the re-abandonment.
3. The party or parties responsible for disturbing the integrity of the abandonment - If the well was plugged and abandoned in conformance with Division requirements at the time of plugging and abandonment, and after that time someone other than the operator or an affiliate of the operator disturbed the integrity of the abandonment in the course of developing the property, then the party or parties responsible for disturbing the integrity of the abandonment shall be responsible for the re-abandonment.
To view PRC section 3208.1 in its entirety, please visit:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/index/Documents/CALGEM-SR-1%20Web%20Copy.pdf
No well work may be performed on any oil, gas, or geothermal well without written approval from the Division. Well work requiring written approval includes, but is not limited to, mitigating leaking gas or other fluids from abandoned wells, modifications to well casings, and/or any other abandonment or re-abandonment work. The Division also regulates the top of a plugged and abandoned well’s minimum and maximum depth below final grade. CCR section 1723.5 states well casings shall be cut off at least 5 feet but no more than 10 feet below grade. If any well needs to be lowered or raised (i.e., casing cut down or casing riser added) to meet this regulation, a permit from the Division is required before work can start.
The Division makes the following additional recommendations to the local permitting agency, property owner, and developer:
1. To ensure that present and future property owners are aware of (a) the existence of all wells located on the property, and (b) potentially significant issues associated with any improvements near oil or gas wells, the Division recommends that information regarding any identified well(s), and any other pertinent information obtained after the issuance of this letter, be communicated to the appropriate county recorder for inclusion in the title information of the subject real property.
2. The Division recommends that any soil containing hydrocarbons be disposed of in accordance with local, state, and federal laws. Please notify the appropriate authorities if soil containing significant amounts of hydrocarbons is discovered during development.
As indicated in PRC section 3106, the Division has jurisdictional authority over the drilling, operation, maintenance, and abandonment of oil, gas, and geothermal wells, and attendant facilities, to prevent, as far as possible, damage to life, health, property, and natural resources, damage to underground oil, gas, and geothermal deposits, and damage to underground and surface waters suitable for irrigation or domestic purposes. In addition to the Division’s authority to order work on wells pursuant to PRC section 3208.1 and 3224, it has authority to issue civil and criminal penalties under 3 DocuSign Envelope ID: 40CC30FD-06EF-4374-83AA-BB673FE11E6C Mr. Andy Newkirk
May 4, 2023
PRC section 3236, 3236.5, and 3359 for violations within the Division’s jurisdictional authority. The Division does n ot regulate grading, excavations, or other land use issues.
If during development activities any wells are encountered that were not part of a construction site well review, a Division engineer in the Northern District - Orcutt office is to be notified immediately, and an amended site plan with well casing diagrams for Division review shall be filed. After appropriate review, the District office will send a follow-up well evaluation letter to the property owner, applicant, and local permitting agency.
Thank you for considering the Division’s comments. If you have any questions, please contact our District office at (805) 937-7246 or via email at [email protected]
Sincerely,
Trey Powell
Senior Oil and Gas Engineer
Signature on behalf of
Miguel Cabrera
Northern District Deputy
ZN:ji:kv
cc: Chrono
CSWR
[email protected]
[email protected]
4 Ken Alker Title 17 Zoning Amendments - Agenda Item B.1 Kenwood Village, LLC
81 David Love Place, Suite 100
Goleta, CA 93117
May 11, 2023
City Council
City of Goleta
130 Cremona Drive
Goleta, CA 93117
vai email to: [email protected]
Dear City Council Members,
I own the approximately 10-acre vacant property on the 7300 block of Calle Real, west of Baker Lane. I have had a housing project pending on this site since 2008 and have had a complete pending Environmental Impact Report since 2016. My goal has been to develop housing opportunities for my employees at Impulse Advanced Communications. We have struggled to attract and retain tech employees due to the high cost of living in the City and the shortage of units near my business. In short, I support the City's adoption of the proposed Title 17 Zoning Amendment; specifically Section 4(KK) of the proposed ordinance.
As the Council may know, Kenwood Village has been listed on the site inventory for the 2007-2014 Housing Element, the 2015-2023 Housing Element, and now the 2023-2031 Housing Element.
Furthermore, as I've communicated numerous times with City staff and City decision-makers, I am amenable to a project that includes a denser design and designation of 20% of the units affordable to lower income households. My vacant site is ideally located near commercial zones and schools, and is already surrounded by housing. The proposed Title 17 (Zoning) Amendments Ordinance aims to address the State legislature's concerns regarding sites, such as mine, that are considered for, yet continually passed over for affordable residential development. Recommending approval of the proposed ordinance, including the clarifications in Section 4(KK), will support development of lower income housing within the City and facilitate implementation of the 2023-2031 Housing Element.
I appreciate the City's willingness to provide this much needed clarification and look forward to further discussions with the City regarding approval of this shovel-ready project. Accordingly, I respectfully ask that the City Council recommend approval of the proposed ordinance.
Sincerely,
Ken Alker
5 May 15, 2023
Goleta City Council
Re: Title 17: Section 17.52.050, subsection 5. Story Poles Dear Council Members,
I write to you today as Chair of the DRB and as an architect as you consider the discussion regarding story poles. While the intent of the ordinance to require story poles is valid and necessary, the implementation of it is hindering, expensive and dangerous. I don’t know of another jurisdiction that requires this prior to Conceptual review.
The point of story poles is to obviously give staff and the public an opportunity to see the size, bulk and scale of a project as it relates to its surroundings. That’s a good and necessary thing. The problem with the ordinance as written is that it requires this at the Conceptual level…before a project has even come to DRB for a first look and discussion. This is a huge disservice.
I’ve been on the Design Review Board for around 16 years (if memory serves), and the projects for which story poles have been necessary have been many. In every instance, What comes before the board at Conceptual is rarely (if ever) what the project winds up being. It is my experience that most projects of that scale (and expense) try to max out the building site. And why wouldn’t the developer do that when they’re spending that much money on a project? This is precisely where the DRB plays a significant role in the process. We are the ones who assess neighborhood compatibility and in every case of this magnitude, changes are made. Most are quite significant. Why would we want story poles at Conceptual? As an architect I think story poles at Conceptual design review is ludicrous. Conceptual review to an architect is a litmus test between client and community to see if we’re on the right track. Conceptual review is literally just that…is this concept a good idea or not? There was a time when a ‘napkin sketch’ could be presented to gauge the idea before it starts to get flushed out into the reality of the finished project.
Development is a very expensive endeavor. And done well, it is an asset to a community. To comply with the Title 17 requirement to erect and maintain story poles from conceptual through the appeal period means that the story poles would have to be engineered for safety to the public. This means the design has to be far more than conceptually developed. It’s putting the cart before the horse, so to speak. And I guarantee that the project will change from what is initially being proposed.
Please consider changing the ordinance so that the erection of story poles is required after Conceptual review. Let the applicant and the DRB flush out the design first.
Thank you for your consideration,
Scott Branch
6 May 16, 2023
Dear Mayor Perotte
and Councilmembers,
Please accept my comments below regarding the proposed revision to the story pole ordinance and the need for the Council to consider additional information before making any decision on the proposed revision. I am a member of the Design Review Board (although I am not representing that body in these comments) and was dismayed when the DRB was bypassed in being able to comment on the City’s proposed changes to the story pole ordinance. However, If the DRB had been included in the review process, I believe the DRB would have recommended different changes to the story pole ordinance.
The primary purpose of story poles is to depict a project’s size, bulk and scale in relation to adjacent buildings and from various viewing points. Storypoles are a “tool” the DRB uses to facilitate its review of the project and for other decision makers to consider in their dis cretionary project review. Currently, the City requires story poles to be erected for the first discretionary review hearing, which is DRB conceptual review. However, a project could change after DRB’s conceptual review. Thus, I believe there is a drawback in requiring story poles be installed for the first discretionary review: the story pole installation only reflects the project as submitted, not with any changes that the DRB recommends at their conceptual review. Thus, these story poles installed for the first DRB review, may need to revised and re‐installed for the DRB’s 2nd review at preliminary, a step not considered in the Title 17 revision.
Therefore, I recommended this revision to the ordinance: install story poles for DRB’s preliminary review hearing, they would represent the proposed project through its discretionary review process, not the one when the project was submitted. There may be a difference. You wouldn’t put up a “Notice of Development” sign
that was inaccurate. Why have story poles that would not represent the project? With story poles accurately reflecting project dimensions, the PC and the Council would be notified to make a site visit to see the story poles to be used at DRB’ s preliminary review. This joint site visit is used in other jurisdictions and should be used by the City of Goleta. This procedure would eliminate the necessity for taking story poles down after DRB’s preliminary review and re‐erecting them for later discretionary review by the PC and the Council. Also, to facilitate fu ture reviews of what the story poles depict, there must be documentation (i.e., a photo) in project materials, now not required.
The revisions to the story pole ordinance I recommend above would ensure there is accurate “noticing” of the proposed project at the first story pole installation which would show the project’s affect on the community streetscape. Also, the revision would reduce and streamline a now burdensome and costly process for the applicant.
I hope my comments have been helpful and thank you for considering them.
Cecilia Brown
DRB member (2002‐2012, 2022 to present)
7 From: Inge Cox <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2023 3:38 PM
To: Paula Perotte <[email protected]>; Stuart Kasdin <[email protected]>; Kyle Richards <[email protected]>; Deborah Lopez <[email protected]> Subject: Item B1
Dear Madam Mayor, and all Councilmembers:
I apologize for the delay in getting my comments to you but would appreciate if the Clerk reads my comments into the public record.
Title 17 changes comments
To: Mayor Perotte, City Council, Debra Lopez CMC
From: Ingeborg Cox MD,MPH
power to change a whole neighborhood without it having a recourse to the City Council.
Removing so many steps in the appeals process it is bound to unsettle many people.
because if they are placed in a Residential Zone the impact will be there. This needs to be evaluated and mitigated.
addressed. When the play area of Winchester II Open Space (WIIOS) was enlarged removals of existing trees were included. It is known that trees help with Climate Change. I hope that tree removal is addressed correctly now.
8 Under Clean-Up Revisions:
Minor Conditional Permits (MCP) are NOT superfluous when habitat restoration or enhancement projects are considered. If the Development Plan does NOT address them, because of an oversight why cannot the MCP make up for the omission? Environmental Review:
Environmental Impact Reports (EIR’s) that have been certified many years ago and no longer address the current status of the property need to have an additional CEQA review to include missing elements.
Section 3 Environmental Assessment
The Ordinance is not. Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) "because…. that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment." If there are new buildings involved there will be changes to the environment.
Section 4 title 17 of the Goleta Municipal Code Amendments B. Subsection 17.03.070 (B) is amended to read as follows:
Excluded from the Floor Area. Floor area does not include……… “communication equipment rooms,
attics, any crawl space other non-habitable space below the finish grade, bay windows and other Architectural projections, driveways, ramps….
Bay windows, equipment rooms, crawl space, attics should be part of the Floor area.
Sincerely yours,
Ingeborg Cox MD,MPH
PS: please let me know if you get this comment.
9