Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutUrban Land Institute Report - 11/29/1965 through 12/3/1965 I HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA A Report to the City of Huntington Beach FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS by A PANEL OF THE URBAN LAND INSTITUTE November 29 through December 3, 1965 URBAN LAND INSTITUTE 1200 18th Street, N.W. Washington, D.0 _40""oX8� � fy�k a is r .p ' a � w m -Alf? lit �. . � Aviv -IV Not SAN € ' u s �r" „ E a � l t , w W:� s a Zvi d ro 9 m Downtown Huntington Beach, Looking Northwest I TABLE OF CONTENTS Page FOREWORD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 ACKNOWLEDGMENT . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 6 i MEMBERS OF THE PANEL. : .. . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . : : . 7 HIGHLIGHTS OF THE PANEL'S REPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . 17 BACKGROUND OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH STUDY. . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS BY JOSEPH W. LUND, CHAIRMAN OF THE PANEL. . . : :" . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . 21 LAND USE AND POPULATION DENSITIES . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 TRANSPORTATION. : . . . . . . . . . .". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37., CIVIC CENTER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 DOWNTOWN AREA DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . ". . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 BEACH AREA DEVELOPMENT. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 47 OIL ORDINANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT . . . .. . . . . .. . . .. . .. ... . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 55 PARKS AND RECREATION. . ... . . . . . . . 58. IMPLEMENTATION AND COMMUNITY ACTION . . ." . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ." 59 APPENDIX A - DISCUSSION OF THE PANEL'S REPORT. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 LAND USE AND POPULATION DENSITIES . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . 612 SIGN CONTROL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . '63' LIBRARY FACILITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 TRANSPORTATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 CIVIC CENTER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT 66 3 Page URBAN RENEWAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 BEACH AREA DEVELOPMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 OIL REVENUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 LANDSCAPING OIL INSTALLATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 INDUSTRIAL ZONING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 IMPLEMENTATION . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 APPENDIX B - QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY THE SPONSOR (WITH INDEX, TO THE PANEL'S ANSWERS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Frontispiece - Downtown Huntington Beach, Looking Northwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Figure 1 - Geographic Relatonship Between Huntington Beach - and Other Urban Areas in Orange County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Figure 2 Original Townsite and Present City Limits of Huntington Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Figure 3 - Huntington Beach, California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Figure 4 - Oil and the Beach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 5 - _Huntington Harbour. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Figure 6 - Study Area Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Figure 7 - Single Family Residential Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Figure 8 - Transportation Arteries and Facilities. . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Figure 9 - Alternative Civic Center .Sites. . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Figure 10 - Downtown . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . 44 Figure 11 - Surfing at Huntington Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46 Figure 12- - Beach Activity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Figure .13 - aOil Areas—Cleanup and,.Beautification Needed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Figure 14 - Industry in Huntington Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 4 FOREWORD At the request of the City of Huntington Beach, California, a Panel of the Urban Land Institute conducted an on-the=ground study of Huntington Beach, November 29- December 3, 1965. The purpose of the panel study was to review various problems of land use, planning and development and to suggest means of solving them. At the con- clusion of their investigations on Friday, December 3, 196.5, ,members.of the Panel presented their findings and recommendations to the sponsor and invited guests at a public meeting in the Sheraton Beach Inn, Huntington Beach, California. This report forms a permanent record of the Panel's proposals. ` This is the 59th panel study the Institute has undertaken since the service was initiated in 1947. The 13 men selected to serve on the Huntington Beach Panel were chosen because of their outstanding knowledge,and accomplishments in various phases of urban development, including: urban planning, zoning and redevelopment; real estate investment and property management; tourist and recreational development; shopping center planning, development and management; industrial park development; plant loca- tion; economic consulting; residential development; and other related activities. These businessmen contribute their time and knowledge to this and other ULI work without personal remuneration. Urban Land Institute was established in 1936 as an independent, nonprofit research and educational organization to study and report on trends affecting urban real property and to advance research" and education in the planning, ,development and rebuilding of urban areas. Three Councils implement this work: the Central City Council; the Com- munity Builders' Council; and the Industrial Council. Membership of the Panel which'conducted the,Huntington Beach study was, drawn from all three ULI Councils. The study is representative of the action phase of the Institute's broad program to improve the standards and techniques of planning and developing urban land. It is hoped that the following observations and recommendations will help correct existing land use problems; guide future growth in Huntington Beach into compatible and harmonious patterns; and unite the business, governmental and civic leadership strongly behind an action program which will benefit the entire community. 5 = ACKNOWLEDGMENT The Urban Land Institute wishes to acknowledge the outstanding work done by the City of Huntington Beach, the Planning Department, and the'. special ULI Liaison Committee in formulating the questions and preparing the comprehensive two-volume" Advance Kits which were forwarded to the Panel members prior to this study. Special recognition is 'due Mr. Jake R. Stewart, City Councilman and Chairman`'of the ULI Liaison Committee; Dr. Henry Kaufman, Past Chair- man, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Vice-Chairman of the 'Liaison Committee; Mr. Doyle Miller, City Administrator; Mr. Kenneth A. Reynolds,` Planning Director; and Mr. John L. Costello, Administrative Analyst. Individual members of the ULI Liaison Committee, the staff of the Huntington Beach Planning Department, the directors of various departments of the City government, and Mr. George T. Sheridan, Assistant to the Vice President, Huntington Beach Company, are to'be commended for the excel- lent'work and willing assistance they so generously contributed to this 'study. Further thanks are due the many city and county officials, business and civic leaders, the Chamber of Commerce, community organizations and citizens 'who cooperated with the Panel and were so hospitable throughout the entire ULI study. 6 MEMBERS OF THE PANEL JOSEPH W. LUND of Boston, Chairman of the Panel, is president of R. M. Bradley and Company, Inc., (one of the largest general realty firms in New Eng- land), a past president of the Urban Land Institute and of the National Association of Real Estate Boards and a former chairman of the Boston Redevelopment Au- thority. Mr. Lund is a member of the Central City.Council and a trustee of ULI. RONALD L. CAMPBELL of San Mateo, a.professional city planner,is executive vice president of the David D. Bohannon Organization, a community development firm which has developed high quality communities (residential areas, shopping centers, and industrial parks) throughout the San Francisco Bay area. Mr. Campbell is a member of ULI's Community. Builders Council. U. A. DENKER of Wichita, formerly president and vice chairman of the board of The Wheeler Kelly & Hagny Investment Company (developers of The Village and The Midland Industrial Properties in Wichita), is a real estate broker and counselor specializing in real estate investment and development. For many years he has served as a member of the ULI Central City Council and is a trustee of the Institute. CARL R. DORTCH of Indianapolis is executive vice president of the Indianapolis Chamber of Commerce.. He formerly directed the Chamber's governmental re- search activities and served as budget consultant to the U. S. Senate in hearings on national defense appropriation requests. Mr. Dortch is a member of the ULI Central City Council and is a trustee of the Institute. ROY P. DRACHMAN of Tucson is the owner of the Roy Drachman Realty Company which, in partnership with the Del E. Webb Corporation, has developed a number of shopping centers in Arizona and Southern California. He is chairman of the ULI Community Builders Council and a trustee of the Institute. EARL D. HOLLINSHEAD of Pittsburgh is manager of John W. Galbreath&Company, Pittsburgh. He formerly headed the Real Estate Division of the U. S. Steel Cor- poration and was largely responsible for selecting the site of the Fairless Works in Morristown, Pennsylvania. Mr. Hollinshead is chairman of the ULI Industrial Council and a vice president and trustee of the Institute. RICHARD M. HURD of New York City is president of Hurd & Company, Inc., a real estate consulting firm which specializes in financing shopping centers, commercial and industrial properties and lease purchase transactions. Mr. Hurd is a trustee of the Institute and a member of the Community Builders Council. WILLIAM F. MORTON of San Francisco is vice president and general manager of the Crocker Estate Company and the Crocker Land Company, developers of in- dustrial parks, commercial and residential properties in the Bay Area. Mr. Morton is a member of ULI's Industrial Council. , 7 r I i HUNTER MOSS of Miami is a real estate counselor and mortgage banker, heading his own firm, Hunter Moss & Company, and was formerly vice chairman of the Baltimore Urban Renewal and Housing Agency. He is chairman of the Central City Council, and a vice president and trustee of the Institute. ROBERT T. NAHAS of Oakland is president of R. T. Nahas Company and other cor- porations engaged in land development, construction, and general contracting. As president of Coliseum, Inc., he paved the way for Oakland's new $30 million sta- dium and arena complex currently under construction. Mr. Nahas is president of -Urban Land Institute. WILLARD G. ROUSE of Baltimore is executive vice president and director of James W. Rouse & Company, Inc., and Community Research and Development, Inc., (a research and development firm specializing in shopping centers). The latest residential project undertaken by the Rouse interests is the totally-planned com- munity of Columbia in Howard County, Maryland. Mr. Rouse is co-vice chairman of the Community Builders Council and a trustee of the Institute. STUART P. WALSH of San Francisco is president of Development Planning Asso- ciates, Inc., an economic consulting firm specializing in community development, land use, market research, and location analysis. Mr. Walsh is a member of the Industrial Council and a trustee of the Institute. RICHARD S. WILLIS of Boston is senior vice president of the New England Mutual Life Insurance Company, director of the Norfolk County Trust Company, a member of the Boston Real Estate Board and the American Institute of Real Estate Ap- praisers. Mr. Willis is a member of ULI's Central City Council. Staff of Urban Land Institute for the Huntington Beach Study J. Ross McKeever, Associate Director, Urban Land Institute Robert E. Boley, Director, Central City and Industrial Programs Jerry S. Church, Central City and Industrial Programs SPONSOR OF THE STUDY THE CITY OF HUNTING TON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 8 HIGHLIGHTS OF THE PANEL'S REPORT The following is a summary of the major findings and conclusions of.the Panel. Complete statements of the Panel's recommendations. appear in the "Findings, Con- clusions and Recommendations" section of this report, pages 21-61. LAND USE.AND POPULATION DENSITIES Upgrading Use and Value of Residential Land . To upgrade the use and value of the city's residential land, the present subdivi- sion standards should be revised to provide for: • A city-wide street tree planting program; • Larger lot sizes in some areas; • Underground utilities; • Variation in front yard setback requirements to break up the present grid pat- tern of streets; • Variation in right-of-way widths and paving standards to permit "planned com- munity" and "cluster" developments. Pacific Coast Highway To improve Huntington Beach's "front yard," the Panel recommends that through persuasion or by any other legal means the following initial improvements be required: • More attractive landscaping on the part of all property owners along the Pacific Coast Highway; • Screening by plantings and walls all unsightly oil tanks, equipment and appurte- nant structures; • Refurbishing and painting of the fronts of most commercial buildings; • More attractive architectural design for buildings on the beach; • More thoughtful choice of colors in all buildings, even the lifeguard stands; • Planting of trees, shrubbery, vines and flowers along the wall on the ocean side of the highway. Sign Control The Panel recommends that the City adopt and rigidly enforce the proposed sign control ordinance recently prepared by the City Planning Commission. Beach Boulevard Beach Boulevard is the present principal north-south artery and will continue to be a very important access route to the heart of the city, its beach area and the Civic Center. Wherever legally possible, the City should: 9 BRA ,BREA ,S�•-�t FULLERTON r / PLACENTIA ti DAIRYLAND BUENA PARK ANAHEIM CYPRESS STANTON QRANGE _.._...WESTMI y I�• y V/y� �_ — J i � ti9 ;.� a � GARDEN GROVE SEAL NSTER BEACH SANTA ANA TUSTIN � a VALLEY ti:,7 1 — �. O "• r J- 1 �HUNTINGTON BEACH �� !�L/ f ice. /1/ �. COSTA MESA :v NEWPORT BEACH \ . t L 1 LAGUNA BEACH — SAN CLEMENTE Los Angeles •\ �j / - - - .o -- San Diego Figure 1 — Geographic Relationship Between Huntington Beach and Other Urban Areas in Orange County 10 • Control the proliferation of signs; • Discourage the impractical and uneconomical strip zoning of property for com- mercial purposes; • Upgrade and stiffen the building codes and fire codes to encourage the con- struction of better and more permanent commercial structures; • Channel traffic at important street intersections and limit excessive curb cuts; • Encourage the construction of shopping areas integrated with other uses; • Require adequate off-street parking for all new business establishments; • Adopt a service station architectural control ordinance with provision for design and location approval by a City construction permit for any future service sta- tions built in Huntington Beach. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM Bonding Limit The general obligation bonding portion of the capital improvements program should be held to not more than $14 million, or approximately 50 percent of the allowable bond- ing margin at this time. Capital Improvement Priorities In general, the Panel would grant a high priority to nearly all the items included on the City's five-year program, especially .basic. municipal services such as: •Extension of water facilities.; • Good drainage; • Improved streets and highways;, • Adequate, attractive and efficient municipal offices; i • A sufficient number of fire stations, library facilities, and recreational areas. A possible addition to the` priority list for immediate attention might be'certain beach improvement projects. Future planning should include some aspects of urban renewal in the downtown area. On the other hand, projects within the five-year program to be funded by general obligation bonds should be confined to land and improvements. Equipment which will not have a usable life for the duration of the indebtedness should be excluded. The Panel has serious reservations about including the proposed district park, especially the 120-acre golf course and 15-acre driving range, in the improvement program and recommends that it receive further critical review. (As now shown, it would absorb 40 percent of the proposed bonded indebtedness.) Federal Funds Neither a blanket denial nor total acceptance of all federal programs is warranted or desired.1 Each program andeach project should be carefully examined and the degree of involvement or noninvolvement of other agencies (county, state, and federal) should be 1Editor's Note. For a complete one-volume guide to all federal services, grants, contracts, programs, financing, leases, research, loans, etc., see: Encyclopedia of U.S. Government Benefits, published by William H. Wise & Co., 336 Mountain Rd., Union City, New Jersey, 1,024 pages, $11.95. 11 ORIGINAL 0 INA T WN SITE PRESENT IT R E CITY October 1, 1965 Prepared by Huntington Beach Planning Department Figure 2 - Original Townsite and Present City Limits of Huntington Beach 12 determined in establishing the relative merits of specific programs. Decisions to apply for or reject specific federal programs should be based on such individual examinations. TRANSPORTATION The Panel recommends that the City: • Plan for the installation of a median strip separation to provide left-turn storage lane capacity for all major and secondary highways; • Design the traffic signal system so it will ultimately provide for synchronized signals; . • Develop and install a uniform street lighting system; • Commence city-wide tree and shrub planting along the major thoroughfares starting with the commercial areas; • Restrict to the greatest extent possible the location and length of curb cuts; • Prohibit curb parking during the peak traffic hours when traffic volumes justify such curtailment. "Beach Freeway" The Panel recommends that the alignment for the "Beach Freeway" be estab- lished in the most westerly location (i.e., to the west of Goldenwest Street). Meadowlark Airport The City should take reasonable steps to encourage the improvement and possible expansion of Meadowlark Airport. However, the City of Huntington Beach would not be justified in building and maintaining a publicly-owned airport of this character because there are other more urgently needed improvements which must be financed with the funds available. CIVIC CENTER All municipal activities (except district fire stations and branch libraries) should be concentrated in one location. A downtown site should be the community's first choice for a Civic Center to house these functions. This area could become the city s front door and, as such, would create the "new" Huntington Beach image. An immediate start should be made to determine the project's financial feasibility, both with and without the assistance of the federal urban renewal program. DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT The downtown area of Huntington Beach2 can and should be rejuvenated. As noted above, the downtown area is the best site for the Civic Center if a suitable amount of land can be made available to accommodate a combination Civic Center with con- comitant parking area and a downtown shopping center. Such development would augment and complement the City's beach development program. The community should seriously consider the use of a federal urban renewal program to redevelop the downtown area. 2It should be recognized that Huntington Beach never has had, and probably never will have, a dominant, fully- developed central business district 13 A m Ail, BAYS" ac �. m — Looking Northwest (Southern California Edison Steam Generating Plant in Foreground) 6. A , + ¢: Looking Southeast (November 1961) wp f -_:T + Courtesy Pacific Air Industries qF a FIGURE 3 - HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 14 f BEACH AREA DEVELOPMENT Public Use As an overall philosophy, the Panel believes that the public should not be denied the right to use the sand beach area throughout its entire eight and one-half mile length, subject to just compensation being paid to private property owners. Furthermore, the right of private owners to develop their properties should not be denied, but with cer- tain limitations.3 No private. development should be permitted southeast of the Municipal Pier on the ocean side of the Pacific Coast Highway. Upgrading the Use and Development of the Beach To assure that the image of the eight and one-half miles of beach will be upgraded a 1 and developed to its highest and best potential, the Panel recommends that the City: • Commission a study and master plan for the entire beach area; • Acquire for public purposes the Pacific Electric Railway right-of-way adjacent to publicly-owned beach areas when it is no longer in use by the railroad. OIL ORDINANCE The City should adopt and diligently enforce the proposed oil ordinance to control oil production practices. Provisions should be made in the code for the beautification of off-shore drilling platforms to bring their appearance to that of true islands with no visible characteristics of an off-shore rig. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT Any action timetable for the development of industrial land in Huntington Beach should recognize that: • Industrial development of land in the oil producing areas can best proceed after the cleanup, consolidation, and general improvement program (recommended for this area) has been substantially completed. • The timing of an agressive industrial development program for land in Hunting- ton Beach (far enough away from the oil fields so as not to be affected by oil field problems) depends on how soon it is possible to make such land competitive (both in price and availability) with comparable property in nearby industrial parks and tracts. The Panel recommends that a portfolio of sites in Huntington Beach be prepared which includes full property descriptions and firm prices, together with commitments to sell or lease on short notice. Huntington Beach must be sure it can deliver land at competitive prices before spending money on an industrial development promotion program. • The beach should not only become self-supporting, but beach activities should be managed in such a way that they produce a "profit" and become a significant contributor to the city's economic base. Some method should be devised to make 3This is not to be interpreted as an attempt to deny a private owner's right to develop his beach property, so long as such development does not preclude access to the beach and to the ocean by the general public. 15 nonresident beach users bear the maintenance and service costs of the beach. Such income could make possible the sale of revenue bonds for acquisition of the Pacific Electric Railway right-of-way strip southeast of the Municipal Pier. With regard to changes in existing industrial zones, the Panel offers the follow- observations: • If the Huntington Beach Freeway is located west of Goldenwest Street, this would make possible the establishment of a "Central Industrial Belt" (zoned for restricted manufacturing) bounded by Edinger Avenue on the north, Garfield. Avenue on the south, the railroad on the east, and the Freeway on•the west. • Because of its close proximity to the beach, the present Southeast Industrial Area, south of Atlanta Avenue between Beach Boulevard and Cannery Street, is more suited to residential use. PARKS AND RECREATION, The City should continue,its current policy of buying small neighborhood tracts for park land as the acreage becomes available. At least three more recreation centers of about 10,000 square feet each are needed in close proximity to proposed school sites. IMPLEMENTATION AND COMMUNITY ACTION To implement the Panel's recommendations, an official steering commitee of five or seven representative citizens should be formed. Among those who assume the pri- mary responsibility should be the top executives of major industrial and commercial enterprises. Also, neighborhood groups and home owners associations should be in- volved in a community development program for Huntington Beach. 16 BACKGROUND OF THE ULI PANEL STUDY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA Growth Huntington Beach, California, situated approximately 35 miles southeast of Los Angeles and 90 miles northwest of San Diego is one of the fastest growing urban areas in the United States. Incorporated on February 17, 1909 as a town of 815 people and 3.57 square miles, Huntington Beach grew to a population of 3,690 in 1930, largely as a result of the "oil boom" of the early twenties. However, itwas not until the late 1950s that the city began to experience its most rapid growth. Several large annexations (totaling 20.15 square miles) took place from 1957 through 1960, bringing the city's land area to 24.86 square miles. The 1960 census of population credited the city with 11,492 people—a substantial increase over 1950, but only a faint indication of the inundation which was to follow. Between April 1960 and September 1965 the population of the City of Huntington Beach, now comprising 26.13 square miles exploded to an estimated 74,572—an increase of 549 percent. By 1970 the population of the city is projected to total 132,000, or an increase of well over 1,000 percent for the decade. TABLE I POPULATION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA: 1910-1965 Year City Population Increase Percent Increase 1910 815 -- -- 1920 1,687 872 107% 1930 3,690 2,003 119 1940 3,738 48 1 1950 5,237 1,499 40 1960 11,492 6,255 119 1965* 74,572* 63,080* 549** *Estimate by the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department. **Five-year increase (based on 1965 estimate). Oil and the Beach More than anything else, two natural endowments have created the "Huntington Beach Image". One, a surface resource, gave rise to the city's name and, in the long run, is the community's most priceless asset;the other, an underground (and under sea) resource, gave the city an economic base and triggered its first population "boom". 17 i t Ag 1p s 1 `` ! ��,�� '• '�+nib h t ' f �x �,�' } ^ e a a••� � rig � Y++ � r F,Ira ? E ----------- 4 a w � p. e D � Figure 4 — Oil and the Beach 18 Both have shaped the city's past and present, and continue to influence its future; both dominate the landscape, either unchallenged (where they are far enough removed from one another) or in competition with each other (where they share common ground). Most cities would be content to have either a beautiful beach or producing oil wells—Huntington Beach has both. Consequently, both must be protected (sometimes one from the other), on the one hand, and developed to their highest potential, on the other. Therein lies the paradox. Problems The type of unbridled growth the City of Huntington Beach is now experiencing, and will continue to experience in the years ahead, brings acute "growing pains". Add to these the problems of accommodating large numbers of beach users and drawing up and enforcing an ordinance to control and clean up unsightly oil producing and storage facilities, and it becomes clear that growth,oil and the beach are not unmixed blessings. It was a thorough consideration of these and many other problems that prompted the City of Huntington Beach to requestthe Urban Land Institute to conduct a panel study of the city. Specifically, the City asked that a ULI panel review proposals and make recommendations on the following broad topics (for a complete listing of the sponsor's questions, see Appendix B): • Land Use and Population Densities (master plan, zoning, etc.) • Capital Improvements (budget, priorities, federal assistance, etc.) • Transportation (freeways, highways, streets, airport development, etc.) • Civic Center (location, acreage, functions, financing, etc.) • Downtown Development (Should one be created? Where? Size? How?) • Beach Area Development (upgrading, control, parking, financing, etc.) • Oil Ordinance (desirability of proposed code, enforcement, etc.) • Industrial Development (program, types of industry, industrial zoning, etc.) • Parks and Recreation (policy, need, location, financing, etc.) Implicit in any consideration of the above topics (though not specifically requested by the sponsor), is the task of developing a means of implementing whatever recom- mendations the Panel might propose. Hence, "Implementation" became the concluding section of the Panel's report. ULI Panel Study Urban Land Institute assembled a 13-man Panel, selected from all three of its Councils (Central City, Community Builders and Industrial), to study and make recom- mendations on the problems submitted by the sponsor. Three weeks prior to their on-the-ground investigations of Huntington Beach, the Panel members received a two- volume advance kit prepared by the City's ULI Liaison Committee and the Planning Department. The advance, kits contained general background information and pertinent data on the subjects to be studied. Thus, the Panel members arrived with a compre- hensive understanding of the basic facts relating to the City of Huntington Beach and its development problems. 19 On .Monday morning, November 29, 1965, the Panel met with representatives of the City Council, the Planning Department, the ULI Liaison Committee, and other local people familiar with the planning, land use and development problems of Huntington Beach. They provided the Panel additional detailed information on local conditions and technical considerations pertinent to the study questions. Following the briefing session, the Panel took a field inspection tour of the city to understand better the magnitude of the problems submitted for review. Helicopter trips were also arranged for Panel members to provide a clearer visual impression of the city's geographic relationship to the greater Los Angeles-Long Beach-Orange County area. Throughout the remainder of the week the 'Panel members, individually and in teams, held impromptu interviews with knowledgeable local authorities,visited numerous residential, commercial and industrial developments in and around the city, analyzed further the problems submitted by the sponsor, and formulated their conclusions. On Friday, December 3, 1965, the Panel members presented their findings, and recommendations to the sponsor and the citizens of Huntington Beach at a public meet- ing in the Sheraton Beach Inn. Following the formal presentation, the meeting was devoted to an open discussion of the report and the Panel members answered questions submitted from the floor (Appendix A). The report which follows presents the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Panel on ways to solve, or at least mitigate, many of the growth problems being faced by the City of Huntington Beach. �q (� �11 o . �w : x Figure 5 — Huntington Harbour 20 r FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .INTRODUCTORY REMARKS by Joseph W. Lund, Chairman of.the Panel 'Urban Land Institute, through its Panel members, wishes to commend the City of Huntington Beach for its enterprise in making this report possible. Rarely has a panel been accorded such close cooperation from all levels of municipal and business leader- ship. What seemed an impossible task has been accomplished in a manner that the Panel hopes will justify the City's confidence in having expended the effort, plus the hard cash, to bring a ULI Panel to Huntington Beach. Although probably there will not be complete agreement with all of the Panel's conclusions, the findings are based on information provided either by the sponsor or gained through the personal observations and investi- gations of the Panel members. The City's Image The City of Huntington Beach has accomplished miracles in'absorbing and guiding the community's recent fantastic growth. �In spite of severe handicaps such as oil blight, costly expansion of necessary service systems, and a mixture of resort activities with permanent, year-round residence, the results to date are remarkable. The image of Huntington Beach is changing and is going to be further changed from that of a "honky tonk" beach strip, bordered by unsightly oil installations, to a desirable, well-rounded community offering attractive residential amenities to 65,000 newpeople in the'last five years, with more to come. The city's development image is gradually being upgraded from the temporary trailer camp to the well-planned neighborhood for upper middle-income permanent residents. The continuous and rapid improvement of concept and design in the single- family house area has been unusual. Some of the earlier experiments have suffered from lack of proper market analysis and poor basic layout, but the detrimental effects from these shortcomings seem rather minimal in the broader view of the community as a whole. Details of the Panel's opinions onplanning'and municipal management will be brought out in the body of this report. The following comments call attention to the fact that economic factors and long-term improvement of the City's tax base require special study in depth. Surplus Tax Resources When a community is growing primarily for residential purposes, it requires a disproportionate share of high-priced 'homes to pay for expensive services such as schools, police and fire protection, and street maintenance. Over the long-term, most 21 communities must seek special, economically productive commercial and industrial facilities that produce substantial tax revenue in excess of the cost of services provided. In the cities from which most of the Panel members come, the central business district has traditionally supplied 25 to 30 percent of property tax revenue while con- suming only about five percent of the total cost of government. Major industries, either singly or collectively, pay taxes from which a municipal profit has been reaped. These plus factors offset the rising costs of supporting schools and providing the municipal housekeeping costs needed for proper servicing of the widespread residential sections. In larger cities, the cost of welfare for under-privileged citizens has become a serious burden that Huntington Beach has not yet had to face, and, it is hoped, will not have to face to any large extent in the future. Huntington Beach now has three major sources of plus revenue. The most obvious is the mammoth plant of the Southern California Edison Company which pays the City and County large revenues while needing minimal services from the municipal and county governments. A future expansion will add another important sum on the plus side of the ledger. The plant of the Douglas Space Systems Division is another similar source of tax revenue. It should be pointed out, too, that the high payroll of the Douglas facility is another important factor in the economy of Huntington Beach, though the Panel has no knowledge of the percentage of its employees who live in the city. One possible dis- advantage of such a plant is its vulnerability to sudden changes in technology and opera- tions that could radically reduce its employment and taxpaying capability. Until recently, the oil industry was the principal source of plus revenue. It will continue to be an important revenue producer for many years. It is hoped that much of its blighting effect on surrounding land values will be reduced in the future by enforce- ment of the City's proposed new oil code and through wholehearted community coopera- tion in creating a better image for its residents and the millions who pass through Huntington Beach or come to enjoy its beaches. New Quality Developments—Emerging Assets It appears to the Panel that the Huntington Harbour development will create a new important plus factor, especially if (as indicated) much of its population will be in residence only for the summer season. Seasonal facilities may cause some problems, but they do not burden the community with school costs. The concept of a high value improvement, which is apparent in the success of Huntington Harbour, contributes a new concept of values to the whole city. From what the Panel has learned about the Huntington Beach Company's plans, we believe the development of this company's large acreage will give another boost to the profit side of the municipal ledger. Huntington Center,the regional shopping center now under construction, will bring substantial plus revenue to the City and County through ad valorem and sales taxes. The CBD A Missing Asset The traditional importance of a central business district was mentioned earlier. It is the Panel's firm opinion that no such revenue producing complex is likely to develop on the scale that one would expect in a city the size of Huntington Beach. But the city will have supplementary profitable shopping areas, which are all to the good. ,It will 22 have substantial growth in office uses, which are also helpful. But the special benefits from a large central concentration of high-rise structures for all types of commerce and cultural activities, do not seem to be an achievable goal for Huntington Beach. The city may have industrial growth sooner or later, if certain deficiencies are corrected. Specific prospects and suggestions for improvement in this field are covered in the industrial development section of the report. The Beach An Untapped Asset Before oil, there was Huntington Beach. Perhaps because of the oil discovery, the beach has lagged'as a municipal asset for the last 40 years. In various areas where the Panel members have had experience, many desirable resort and permanent residential communities have been created from the slim base of a strip of shore front. In Huntington Beach the strip is long and has magnificent potentials. Without some development assistance soon the Panel feels that because of many unusual factors it could become more of a liability than an asset. The Panel was told that scarcely 15 percent of the total use of the beach is by residents of the city. As the population of Southern California grows, this ratio will probably diminish in spite of the city's continuing growth. People from all parts of Southern California will demand the right to use the beach. The Huntington Beach of the future will depend on the,community making wise decisions now which will make this natural resource an economic and aesthetic asset for the City and Orange County. Looking to the Future The next ten years will tell whether or not Huntington Beach will become a per- manently thriving community. The Panel's comments and recommendations are keyed to the future, not to the past. This Urban Land Institute report represents the concensus of a 13-member panel. Each individual has contributed his time, knowledge and convictions. Even though dif- ferences of individual opinion are a prime stock in trade of Urban Land Institute panels, resolving varying convictions and bringing any differences into a unified, consistent report has been part of the chairman's function. The members of the Panel trust that their consolidated findings will help guide future growth and foster continued prosperity in the City of Huntington Beach. 23 STUDY AREA INDEX r P� LAND USE AND MASTER PLAN OF LAND USE I 9 I I I I „I "o, _- O „ i 1 1 / — a -- c3� \ ry ttg &�WM -J W r �u f I r I • � I F� I CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH o�, ,- Mmul - ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA Z •��t � 4 r.c ...xxix.oc.t. - i Figure 6 — Study Area Index 24 I LAND USE AND POPULATION DENSITIES Evaluation of the Master Plan of Land Use Before attempting to evaluate the master plan as presented to the Panel, it should be noted that a total plan has not yet been completed and land uses for certain large areas (such as Zone 5) have not been finally determined.) For some time to come the predominant land use in Huntington Beach will be single-family dwellings. However, the City must soon allocate zoned areas for a well- balanced community and take a firm hand in requiring adherence to a sound and flexible master plan of land uses. There will be a future need for planned unit residential development plus "cluster" and "townhouse" types and density zoning.2 Also there will be a need for reasonably sized areas for high-rise development confined to the area along the western fringe of the city where good views of Huntington Beach's greatest asset, the Pacific Ocean, may be capitalized upon. The commercial zoning shown on the now incomplete Master Plan provides more than enough commercial areas to adequately serve the needs of the ultimate population of Huntington Beach. Upgrading of Use and Value of Residential Land Because the areas peculiarly adapted to industrial uses are restricted in the City of Huntington Beach and because this municipality, like all others, has a problem in providing an adequate tax base to support its growing school and other municipal needs, the Panel recommends upgrading the use and the value of the city's residential land. In view of the demonstrated demand for land for residential projects in the South Coast Plain Area, the present subdivision standards of the City of Huntington Beach should be revised to provide for: • A city-wide street tree planting program (to avoid a monotonous appearance use different species of trees in different areas of the city); • Larger lot sizes in some areas; 1Because Zone 5 in the City's master plan comprises an extensive area that is being "master planned" by the area's single private ownership, the City's restudy and preparation of its master plan for the other four zones can proceed without delay. In fact, early action on the land development plans by the Zone 5 single ownership should be encouraged because of the benefits which will accrue to the city-at-large as a result of the catalytic action that timely, high-quality development of Zone 5 could stimulate. 2It is recommended that the Planning Department review the procedures for planned unit residential development as offered by the illustrative ordinance presented by Urban Land Institute and the National Association of Home ! Builders in the land use study published in May, 1965, by Urban Land Institute as Technical Bulletin 52, Legal As- pects of Planned Unit Residential Development. 25 I • Underground utilities; • Variation in front yard setback requirements to break up the present grid pattern of street lines; • Variation in right-of-way widths and paving standards to permit "planned com- munity" and "cluster development.113 These recommendations are intended to encourage the location in Huntington Beach of substantially higher-priced homes which the Panel believes can be attracted to the city. In considering a larger lot size requirement in parts of the city, also include an "average lot size" for an area which permits smaller.building sites, if a proportionate share of the area is placed in a common green or other private open space as a part of the planned development program. Industrial Development If the City is to encourage sound industrial development, there must be areas where well-designed housing-in a modest price bracket is available for the industrial ,employee. The following is recommended: • An industrially zoned area where no residential uses are permited; • A residentially zoned area where the lot sizes, street patterns and other re- quirements are modest enough to permit good housing at a reasonable price; •A multiple housing area for town houses, duplexes, cluster developments, and garden apartments'on a similar modestprice scale. The- City's industrial zoning regulations provide standards that would protect in- dustry of the same general high character as that of the Douglas Space Systems Center; however, the following modifications are recommended providing for: •The landscaping, in accordance with an approved landscaping plan, of areas ad- jacent to street frontage, across the front of the buildings and side yards between street and building lines; •The complete screening of ventilators, air-conditioning units, and other mechan- ical features normally located on the roof either by upward extension of parapets or by an enclosure having permanent screening; •The control of the size, location and type of signs permitted, and the prohibition of any signs located on the roof; extended above the roof or overhanging the yard areas; 3See Urban Land Institute's Technical Bulletin 50, The Homes Association Handbook, October, 1964, for many examples of modern subdivision planning. See also Footnote 2. 26 • Because of its proximity to the ocean, the area indicated for industrial use in the southeast section of the city, near the Southern California Edison Power Plant, would best be used for residential development. • If the Huntington Beach Freeway is located west of Goldenwest Street, the City could, through changes in the master plan, establish a "Central Industrial Belt" between Goldenwest Street and the railroad. This would be a suitable MI-A (restricted manufacturing) district. The boundaries should be Edinger Avenue on the north, Garfield Avenue on the south, the railroad on the east, and the Freeway on the west. Land Us e Ratios 4 Determination of the proper economic balance of land use ratios in Huntington Beach would require an economic analysis of the City's tax structure, future demands, and future assessment base. Methods and procedures previously recommended will improve the City's tax base. In a study for the development of an ideal town the area allocation in most cate- gories are very close to those indicated for Study Areas 1 through 4 of the City's Master Plan. For example, Huntington Beach's 60.9 percent residential compares with 54 per- cent in a sample case; eight percent commercial versus five percent commercial; 13 percent industrial to 12 percent industrial, but 11 percent public use versus 23 percent. However, the city's beach area more than compensates for this last difference. Location of Land Uses The first consideration intended by the following comments is the Panel's desire to help the people of Huntington Beach create a better image for the city. Visitors viewing Huntington Beach from .the Pacific Coast Highway get a poor impression of the city for the following reasons: •Entering from the south, a visitor first sees the large steam generating plant, followed by a mishmash of uncontrolled commercial trailer courts, dilapidated buildings with.some presentable looking motels, then an unappealing, poorly kept business district. Interspersed on the land side of the beach are oil well der- ricks, pumps, bulk storage tanks, and other unsightly utilitarian structures. •The main downtown section of the city, consisting of approximately 10 blocks has a total beach frontage of 1,400 feet-490 feet, or 35 percent, is vacant. The land uses include: nine residential units; five gas stations; one delicatessen; two sandwich shops; one bar; three surfing equipment stores; one auction studio; one parking lot and one antique shop in a residence. •In a total of 24 developed units, of which 36 percent are residential uses, there are: No quality occupancies; no major tenancies; and no reasons to expect "Main Street" as it is to attract a higher quality tenant. I It is obvious that an inch-by-inch, foot-by-foot, building-by-building, owner-by- owner improvement program for Huntington Beach's "front yard" must be started if the city is to improve its overall image. 27 The. Panel recommends that, through persuasion or by any other legal manner, the following initial improvements be required: • More attractive landscaping on the part of all property owners along the Pacific Coast Highway; screening by plantings and walls of all unsightly oil tanks, equip- ment and appurtenant structures; •Refurbishing and painting of the fronts of most commercial buildings; •More attractive architectural design for buildings on the beach; •More thoughtful choice of colors in all buildings, even the lifeguard stands; •Planting of trees, shrubbery, vines and flowers along the wall on the ocean side of the highway. It should be the objective of a citizen committee to work everlastingly at creating a beach that is not only the finest for swimming and surfing but is also the most beautiful along the California Coast. Such a plan may sound overwhelming when first considered, but the City can approach along term plan step-by-step starting with the planting of only ten trees. The City should employ on a continuing basis a competent Southern California landscape architect (with knowledge of plant materials that will thrive in the Huntington Beach area) to prepare a city-wide street tree planting program. Sign Control One of Huntington Beach's greatest opportunities to better its public image lies in a vigorous, community-wide cleanup campaign. The most fertile field lies with sign and billboard controls. A healthy business community and a rapidly developing area need adequate and proper signing. However, in the case of Huntington Beach, the com- petition among developers and various business uses to catch the motorists' attention has resulted in a disproportionate volume of signs, posters, flags and other devices—to the great detriment of the city's appearance. The Panel recommends that the City adopt and rigidly enforce the proposed sign control ordinance recently prepared by the City Planning Commission. The second consideration that guides the Panel in its recommendations is eco- nomic. For example, an attractively designed, well-located, high-rise apartment area fronting on the ocean highway would improve the image of Huntington Beach and would also increase the taxable base of the City. The upgrading of the commercial area will increase the City's tax base substantially. Good planning is good business. The various land use classifications are properly located when they adhere both to the objectives of physical and aesthetic upgrading and economic practicality. Certainly the preservation of the ocean front and the beach fits both objectives. Beach Boulevard's Potential as a "Strip" Commercial Area One of the poorest visual and economic characteristics of Southern California areas is the so-called "strip" commercial development with its multiplicity of signs, poorly designed eating places and service stations. Beach Boulevard is the present principal 28 north-south artery and will continue to be a very important access route into the heart of the city and to its beach area and Civic Center. It is particularly important that wherever legally possible, the City: • Control the proliferation of signs; • Discourage the impractical and uneconomical strip zoning of property for com- mercial purposes; • Upgrade and stiffen the building codes and fire codes to encourage the construc- tion of better, more permanent commercial structures. Along this boulevard, the City has wisely provided for limited access with attrac- tive masonry walls shielding residential areas. This same limited access philosophy should be applied to the commercial development by limiting excessive curb cuts and requiring developers to plant attractive wall coverings, to soften the look of long uni- form masonry walls. Also, a tree planting program along the entire boulevard is recommended to give vertical relief to the monotonous horizontal projection. Another shortcoming in the Master Plan is the zoning of all four corners of an arterial intersection for commercial purposes. It would be far better for the City and the developers if these commercial areas were on one of the corners allowing residential development on the others. Some secondary commercial uses, such as offices, might also be desirable and practical on the other corners. This does not apply specifically to Beach Boulevard, but to all residential areas in the city. It is recognized that zoning once established is difficult to rescind. However, the following recommendations will help solve the problem of too many of improperly located commercial areas: • Channel traffic at important street intersections and limit excessive curb cuts; • Encourage the construction of integrated shopping areas; • Require adequate off-street parking for all new business establishments. (These off-street parking areas should be planned and screened with a landscaped strip between the back of the sidewalk and the beginning of the parking pavement.) • Adopt a service station architectural control ordinance with provision for design and location approval by a City construction permit for any future service station built in the City of Huntington Beach. Service stations as unusual forms of business activity are rightfully subject to special controls. With adequate controls the City can greatly upgrade the quality of automotive service facilities available to its citizens. Service stations will then become a business and community asset rather than the eye-sore they frequently are. Master Planning for a Central Business District A Central Business District, i.e., one that provides a full line of retail outlets in addition to offices and other service type businesses, does not appear to be either a necessity or a strong probability for the City of Huntington Beach. I 29 Civic Center Throughout this report, considerable attention is given to the possibility of a down- town location for a new Civic Center. It is desirable that the Civic Center be located close to a major commercial-retail development but this is not an absolute requirement. It is recognized that a new Civic providing adequate governmental housing is an absolute necessity. The location and construction of such a Center can play a dual role. Not only can it serve its basic purpose of providing badly needed public facilities, but it can also be (and should be) used to develop a strong favorable image for the City of Huntington. Beach. A downtown location would remove a considerable amount of the present blight which is the predominant feature of the "lower Main Street" area. The Civic Center must be an architecturally appealing and artistically designed complex of buildings. What better way is there to improve municipally the image of Huntington Beach than to have this complex of buildings seen by the motorists driving through Huntington Beach on the Pacific Coast Highway? An additional benefit would be the multiple use of the necessarily large parking areas which would be used during the week by government employees and citizens, and during the weekends could be used to augmentthe need for ocean-front parking by beach visitors at a profit to the City. High-Rise Development High-rise development should be located in areas providing the maximum advantage of an open view in the natural locations available. One purpose of high-rise is to provide for good housing and still retain open space. High-rise development should be surrounded by open areas and provide for the most appealing outlook possible for the tenants from at least three sides of the building. At the present time, however, the economic feasi- bility of high-rise development in Huntington Beach is open to question. Criteria for a Good High-Rise District It is obvious that the first criterion for a good high-rise district is a market. There is some doubt that there is a market in this area at the present time for a high-rise development. Among other criteria are: • A locatioh with proper orientation to a good view; • Favorable relationship to adjacent land use; • Access to transportation via bus and taxi; • Service facilities such as restaurants, drug stores, food centers, dry cleaning, barber and beauty shops; • Freedom from unusually troublesome odors, noise and congestion. 30 Beach Area Standards Beach area standards for density, parking, setbacks, height of structures, lot coverage, etc., should reflect the basic necessity of maintaining this greatest physical asset of the city and provide maximum opportunity for the citizenry to enjoy the sandy beach and the ocean with sufficient controls so that one person's enjoyment does not encroach on another person's right of enjoyment. ..For example, there might be parcels in private ownership (north of the municipal pier) where the height limit of structures would not be permitted to exceed two stories interspersed with open spaces for public access to,the water. There might be other parcels where residential buildings as high as 10 or 15 stories would be permitted, again with adequate open space between structures. The basic criterion is to make maximum use of the view without restricting accessibility to the beaches. Specifically, the Panel suggests that.the present 357foot height limitation for build- ings in the city should be maintained on structures built'on the ocean side of the Pacific Coast Highway between Main and 7th Streets so that benefits could accrue to high-rise structures of over 35 feet in height that might be built on the inland side of the highway adjacent to the downtown shopping area. High-rise apartment structures might be built on the inland side of the highway if the view to the ocean is not obstructed by structures built on the ocean side. Any high-rise structures built on the ocean-side of the Pacific Coast Highway should be spaced so as to prevent a solid wall between the highway and the ocean. The entire beach and frontage area should be subject to rigid sign control and should be designated as an architectural review area. .Development of the Beach and Adjacent Area4 The following comments pertain to the inland (or northeast) side of the Pacific Coast Highway. In general, properties opposite the stretches of beach (with the excep- tion of the Main Street area) should be reserved for desirable, well-planned, attractive residential development—apartments, motels, hotels, and restaurants. The Main Street area should be reserved for commercial purposes and as a possible site for the new Civic Center. The areas of the city's "front porch"—Main Street and the ocean—should become an impressive focal point and image-maker for the city. Extreme care must be taken to:insure that the most architecturally pleasing and attractive as well as functional uses be placed adjacent to it. On the ocean side of the Coast Highway, the City or other government agencies should obtain title to the beach areas south of the Municipal Pier not now publicly- owned. City or State-owned beach property is being maintained in an exemplary manner from the standpoint of cleanliness. However, a great deal more attention should be given to color and styling of concession buildings and to the planting of trees and shrubbery which will thrive in the sandy soil. As few buildings as are absolutely neces- sary should be constructed in the City and State-owned and controlled beach areas. 4See also pages 47-51. 31 There appears to be a lack of understanding among many people in this area of the uniqueness, the potential beauty and tremendous asset value of what is one of the finest stretches of ocean frontage to be found anywhere in the United States. Even a century from now, the beach itself will still be the most important physical asset of the city. It, therefore, demands the utmost thoughtfulness and attention to protect and improve the attractiveness and beauty of this frontage. In order to achieve an architecturally pleasing character,there should be a varia- tion in height limits for the area adjoining the ocean front boulevard. If the high-rise areas are sufficiently spaced, they can create an attractive front skyline and at the same time not block the view from inland residential areas. Early high-quality development is apparently possible and should be encouraged to act as a catalyst to desirable future development. The Panel strongly recommends that the City avail itself of the services of com- petent architectural, landscape, color and design consultants to aid the officials of the City of Huntington Beach in the implementation of these recommendations. . w Sao mry� �w a , y ems, �e r Ad Fl lam`• � rn _ e m Figure 7 — Single Family Residential Development — Grid Pattern, 6,000-Square Foot Lots, Few*Trees 32 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM The future of Huntington Beach may very well be determined by the acceptance, or rejection by its citizens of a practical but challenging capital improvements program. Growth and progress do not come without problems. A mushrooming growth rate mag- nifies municipal problems of providing services-desired and demanded by its citizens generally in an inverse ratio to the income available to a city government. Bonded Debt Limitation In view of all the problems of municipal housekeeping, of planning and zoning, of the protection of life and property, of transportation, of safety, and of health and rec- reation which accompany the magnitude of population growth recently experienced and anticipated within the City of Huntington Beach, a commitment approaching the 15 per- cent bonding margin of the City (or $28 million) might be justified on an emergency basis. To say this and no more, however, would ignore completely the realities of the city's community life—the expected behavior and reaction of its citizens, the estab- lished pattern of Huntington Beach's sound and basically conservative public fiscal policies, and the stringent requirements for a substantial consensus among voters (and taxpayers) before debt creation and property tax increases can.be effected. .This would be a disservice to the City's governmental officials. They bear their public responsibilities well and have evidenced a keen desire to develop and present a balanced and acceptable package in a capital improvements program. For this, they are to be commended. It is a sensible move. It is timely and necessary. The program must have wide public acceptance and community involvement if the City and the services it renders are to achieve the goals, the aspirations and the rewards of a soundly con- ceived financial plan. Huntington Beach has established a commendable and remarkably consistent prac- tice and policy of "pay-as-you-go" without increasing the City's portion of the property tax rate. Property taxes paid either by the individual or corporate taxpayer, however, have been on a sharp upswing. This is due largely to spiraling school costs and upward revisions in property assessments. How much of a tax increase for the redemption of City indebtedness the community will accept and absorb in the future is the major ques- tion. Voters will provide the answer. At some point before that judgment is made, they (or persons representative of them) must be involved in the decision-making process. Since a beginning is now being proposed to look ahead for five years, the Panel recommends that the general obligation bonding portions of the capital improvement program be held to not more than 14 million or approximately 50 percent of the al- lowable bonding margin. This may be considered minimal to the needs of this fast-growing community. Even so, it rep"resents a potential City tax rate increase of from 22 to 36 cents within the next five years to meet principal and interest requirements, even with an anticipated increase in the taxable base. 33 The. limitation of 50 percent of margin is not necessarily based upon apparent community needs and requirements but upon a practical expectation of what might be accepted. The creation of debt and the concommitanttax increases must be sold both to those who are new residents of the city (and, thus, may not have deep community ties, spirit and conviction) and to those who must be convinced that an affirmative vote is truly in their own economic interest and the community's future progress. Capital Outlay Priorities Within every well-managed family, financial decisions affecting the household are made after full discussion of resources, needs and alternatives. It is within this frame- work of planning that provision is made for new drapes, replacement of the family car, and for Junior's new bicycle. The family budget may be tight, but it looks right at this planning stage. Then it happens. The roof springs a leak. Plans must.be reviewed.and revised. New priorities must be established. A dry carpet may now be more desirable and practical than new drapes. Or the family car may now fet new tires; rather than be replaced completely. So, it is with a capital improvements program. First, will come discussion, i.e., citizen participation. Both public officials and citizens must be involved. The subsequent dialogue and decision-making will set the future course of action and make possible value judgments for the priorities of commu- nity improvements. Second, the recommendations of the ULI Panel may stimulate revision or reevalua- tion of the program as it has developed to date. Specifically, to capitalize upon the full recreational potential of this area, substantial beach improvement projects may be added to the program for immediate attention. Or, it may be that some aspects of urban renewal in the downtown area should be included in the City's future planning. In view of the heavy demands for adequate governmental services placed upon the City by the rapid population growth of the area, virtually all of the items within the pro- gram rate high priority for attention within the first five-year improvement program. Certainly, basic municipal services such as the extension of water facilities; good drain- age; improved streets and highways; adequate, attractive and efficient municipal offices in which to conduct the City's business; and a sufficient number of fire stations, library facilities and recreational areas are of equal importance in satisfying the requirements of a balanced community life. In .general,, the Panel would grant a high priority rating to all items within the city's five-year program with these reservations and suggestions: 1. Projects within the program to be funded by general obligation bonds should be confined to land and improvements. Equipment which will not have a usable life for the duration of the indebtedness should be excluded. 2. Unless land acquisition costs for the proposed district park, and par- ticularly the 120 acres for a golf course and the 15 acres for a golf driving range, can be substantially reduced, this portion of the improvement program (which would absorb 40 percent of the proposed bonded indebted- ness) is out of balance with other pressing community requirements. The proposal needs further careful review. In this reevaluation,these factors should be considered: 34 0 What role does or should the city's magnificent beach play in the rec- reational environment of the community? • What .provision is to be made by Orange County for large park areas, including golf facilities? • Are there opportunities for joint participation with county, state and federal agencies in the development of park and recreational areas which would be beneficial to Huntington Beach? • At currently quoted land prices, to what extent would the citizens of the community be called upon and willing to subsidize the municipal golf player? • Are there other alternatives to the general obligation bond for financing a golf course for public use—by private investment or by a self-supporting revenue bond issue? 3. In the specific instance of the library, an alternative to the general obli- gation bond method of financing might be considered. This is the lease- purchase arrangement. While it is acknowledged that this device may entail higher interest charges, the additional cost would be compensated for by the expected increase in land values. It has the further advantage of less delay, permitting an earlier building date and avoiding increased construction costs. 4. Those portions of the capital improvements program which must be funded by bond issues and approved by the voters should be presented in separate packages; thereby giving the citizens of Huntington Beach an opportunity to make alternative choices for approval or disapproval. 5. To offset the tax impact of a debt program, the transfer of trash and refuse collection costs ($357,000 annually, or approximately 20 cents in the property tax rate) from the general property tax to a use or service charge basis is worth considering. Buying Land for Future Public Use Within its financial capabilities, it is proper and in the City's best economic inter- ests to acquire and to make provision now for the land and improvements which will be needed and required by Huntington Beach residents five, ten and fifteen years hence. The use of debt and interest charges is a valid economic instrument to provide facilities which will be needed and enjoyed by those who become future taxpaying citizens of the community. Federal Funds Designing a capital improvements program based on use of the various assistance programs of the federal government is a decision that the community itself must make— not the ULI Panel or a cadre of federal officials. The Panel does not wish to foster further debate surrounding the ideological or political differences (which even divides members of the Panel) on the issue of federal aid to urban areas. However, the fact is that a vast amount of federal funds is available for a myriad of community programs. Federal controls exist in some. In others, federal direction 35 is minimal or virtually nonexistent. The national government has committed federal taxes to a multiplicity of programs designed to assist community development in the fast-growing urban areas as well as the older more established cities. More and more cities are participating in these federal programs. Even those which were reluctant to do so a few years ago, are beginning to involve themselves in some federal programs. Within its own resources, requirements, time schedule, and desires, the City of Huntington Beach should make its own decision. In other sections of the report, the availability (and perhaps the desirability) of federal participation is noted. Neither a blanket denial nor total acceptance of all federal programs is either warranted or desired. Each program and each project, and the degree of involvement or noninvolvement with other agencies (municipal, county, state and federal), should be examined individually to determine its own particular merit as far as the City of Hunt- ington Beach is concerned. i r LA MF.ADA r 'O ��ped/H Mp1N LAVE TERMINALS 0 \ r "'LEPTON AIRPORT 1 Oran gelhorpe Ave �j E SIDE FRWY i t � Lincoln Ave r � 79 r Natella Are i e LONG BEAC AIRPORT H € f 45MI. GARDEN RK'Y LONG BEACH r 3 CADVE / RAPID TRANSIT t E 4R MAIN LWE TERMINAL 1 i D Bolsa Ave _ i of — H Ave , .. f; � ve N E COUNTY FRWY AIRPORT Figure 8 — Transportation 'Arteries and Facilities 36 TRANSPORTATION In all probability, Huntington Beach will have to continue to depend on its street and highway system as the primary means of moving people and goods. Therefore, it is of paramount importance that the highway planningnow underway correctly anticipate the ultimate requirements of the City. Because the future maximum area of Huntington Beach is now known, it is possible to determine with reasonable accuracy the traffic demands that will be placed on the city's street and highway pattern. The incidence of use by local residents is easily determinable and the City can make provisions that are reasonably justifiable for the temporary peak traffic loads created by the weekend influx of motorists destined for the waterfront areas. Adequacy of the Master Plan of Streets and Highways and Proposed Freeways The north-south arterials as now planned will provide 44 traffic lanes and the principal east-west arterials provide a total of 30 traffic lanes. In addition, the Pacific Coast Freeway and Highway 101 will provide 14 lanes for traffic paralleling the Coast. As the city continues to develop, there will be traffic congestion in the vicinity of the Douglas Plant, the Huntington Shopping Center, the college, and particularly along Beach Boulevard and the waterfront. However, there is a practical limit to the amount of land area that can be devoted to the provision of highway facilities, and the Panel •believes that the City of Huntington Beach is making adequate advance provision for these needs. The following recommendations are submitted for the City's consideration: • Plan for the installation of a median strip separation to provide left turn storage lane capacity for all major and secondary highways. These median strips should cross the ends of. secondary and local streets and permit turning or crossing only at the major highway intersections. • Design the traffic signal system,so that it will ultimately provide for synchronized signals. • Develop and install a uniform street lighting system. • Commence acity-wide tree and shrub planting program along the major thorough- fares, starting with the commercial areas. • Restrict to the greatest extent possible the location and length of curb cuts. • Prohibit curb parking during the peak traffic hours where traffic volumes justify such curtailment. 37 "Beach Freeway" The Panel recommends that the alignment for the "Beach Freeway" be established in the most westerly location (i.e., to the west of Goldenwest Street) as indicated on the plan included in the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works report dated June, 1965. The summary on .Page 6 adequately justifies this selection. An early de- cision will be beneficial to development plans of the city, county, state and private interests. With I the exception of the San Diego Freeway, the presently adopted traffic plan provides for traffic in only a north-south and east-west direction. In future planning, it will be desirable to insure adequate thoroughfares connecting U.S. 101 with the Bolsa Chica-Warner Avenue intersection and the Garfield-Edwards corner so that traffic may more directly reach the ocean front. If coordinated with private community development plans, adequate "by-pass" routes may be substituted. Mass Transit Huntington Beach will in all likelihood have to depend upon highways to handle future transportation demands. There is no way that the City, by itself, could realis- tically contemplate the development of mass transit at the present time. However, because of the inevitable overloading of the highway system, no matter how adequately planned, the City .should keep itself informed of and be alert to take advantage of any future proposals that might be conceived to develop a regional rapid transit system for the Los Angeles metropolitan area. . The Role of the Airport in Community Development A commercial airport, or a private airport, is an important asset to the develop- ment of any community, particularly one that is industrially oriented. Such an airport, serviced by national .and international airlines, .provides a strong focal point for the development of industry whose executives are required to travel a great deal for the conduct of their business affairs. It also provides a convenient locale for industries either related to the aircraft industry or which use air transport for the distribution of their products. Office build- ings, motels, hotels, restaurants and many.other facilities normally gravitate to the larger commercial airports, such as Los Angeles International. Smaller airports, serving the executive-type flying, also provide an important asset to industry where those industries maintain and provide planes for the transpor- tation of their executives and personnel. As more people own airplanes and use them for business and pleasure, an airport becomes an asset of considerable importance to the community. Huntington Beach's Need for Airport Facilities There does not appear to be any need for a commercial airport within the city limits of Huntington Beach for some time to come. The city is reasonably convenient to the Los Angeles International Airport and to the Long Beach Municipal Airport. Travel time does not appear to place Huntington Beach at a competitive disadvantage with its neighboring cities. Meadowlark Airport is privately-owned, and although the runways are not long enough to permit feeder line service, it is an asset to the community because of the use made of it by the Douglas plant personnel, the Huntington Harbour residents, and other 38 individuals who for reasons of business or pleasure fly privately-owned airplanes. At present, there are airports adequate to handle so-called executive flying in Orange County, Fullerton and Long Beach. The airport study issued by Orange County in August 1960, recommends that: ". . . the County of Orange schedule the development of two additional General Aviation airports during the period 1,965-1980; one to serve the Westminster/ Garden Grove/Huntington Beach area and one to serve the Laguna Beach/ Capistrano/Dana Point/San Clemente area. The City should- be alert to the possibility of this new facility being constructed in the future to serve the needs for executive flying in.Huntington Beach. The City should take reasonable steps to encourage the improvement and possible expansion of Meadowlark Airport. However, the City would not be justified in building and maintaining a publicly-owned airport of this character because there are other more urgently needed improvements which must be-financed with .the funds available. In study plans for the new Civic Center, it would be most desirable to include a heliport landing pad which would provide facilities for a shuttle service between Hunting- ton Beach and other airports in the vicinity. i 39 LEGEND: m FREEWAY ♦ ®.ADOPTED FREEWAY ROUTE PROPOSED FREEWAY ROUTE OMAJOR HIGHWAY-----120 FL R/W PRIMARY HIGHWAY-----100 FT.R/W — SECONDARY HIGHWAY 80 FT.R/W ° © POSSIBLE SITE LOCATIONS I EXISTING CIVIC CENTER I I I � A FUTURE GEOGRAPHIC CENTER o S FUTURE POPULATION CENTER "I 9C qk- i i a m L ff AJ r-- / I � I ALTERNATIVE - - CIVIC CENTER SITES CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA OCTOBER 1.1965 PREPARED BY THE NUNTINOTON [[GCN PLiNNIN9 DEPARTMENT _ Figure 9 — Alternative Civic Center Sites 40 CIVIC CENTER Land Uses Within and Adjacent to the Civic Center A Civic Center can contain as much or as little as the community wishes. For example, it could have as a minimum only the City's administrative offices. The fire and police department headquarters, as well as the City jail, need not necessarily be in such a center. However, it is recognized that many cities prefer to group the facili- ties together for convenience and efficiency. The Panel recommends concentrating all municipal activities in one location except, of course, district fire stations and branch libraries. All federal, state, school district, county and other governmental office uses should be combined in the same complex if at all possible. Ample parking for employees, but especially for the citizens who come to the Center, is a prime requisite. Cultural uses need not be in the Center, but it would be well for such facilities to be adjacent or nearby. People working in the Center all shop at times, and shopping facilities should be relatively close to the Civic Center. Pleasant surroundings are naturally a distinct asset; therefore, adjacentuses should be controlled by proper zoning. i Civic Center Location In considering the attributes of any Civic Center site, location is a most important factor. The location should provide the best possible access to all parts of the city. -Normally this would indicate that it be in the center of the city. However, with Hunting- ton Beach's system of freeways—existing and proposed—its Center could be located almost anywhere. Whether it is near the geographical center of Huntington Beach or not is relatively unimportant. The area of the present Civic Center site is far too small. The structures are inadequate in size, are outmoded and antiquated. However, a downtown location near the beach has tremendous possibilities, if a suitable site can be assembled. This area could become the City's front door. It would create the Huntington Beach image. There- fore, a downtown site should be the community's first choice. An immediate start should be made to determine financial feasibility. It would probably require the assistance of the federal urban renewal program. The alternative sites at Goldenwest and Warner and the one close to Goldenwest and Talbert simply do not appeal to the Panel. The alignment of the Huntington Beach Freeway is uncertain. There are no nearby shopping facilities. A Civic Center this far from the beach, possibly even off freeways, would not add nearly as much to the image of Huntington Beach as would the downtown location. The future Pacific Coast Freeway and the Huntington Beach Freeway, especially if the alignment of the latter is just to the west of Goldenwest Street, make Site B (on the Holly Sugar tract) an excellent location as far as access to all parts of the City is concerned. Main Street is a beautiful approach to downtown and the beach area. Even if the Huntington Beach Freeway alignment is farther to the east, it would not hurt the location or its value appreciably. But Site B lacks greatly in appeal because of its sur- roundings, and many amenities are missing. , 41 The, area bounded by Main, Mansion, Lake and Utica is much more pleasant and convenient. A beautiful high school is across Main Street to the west, future shopping lies immediately to the northwest, excellent existing housing to the south, the eventual continuation of quality housing to the southwest and direct access to all points. This site is the Panel's second choice. Acreage Requirements A Civic Center could be on a site as small as 10 acres, if high-rise; or as large as 30 acres if low-rise and additional uses not now contemplated are included. The Panel's second choice, across from the high school, is a 23-acre site, which should be adequate for the present and future governmental requirements of the city, assuming a one-story structure and based on an ultimate population of 300,000. On a two-story basis, it could house additional facilities—federal, state, school district or county. If there is a real possibility of governmental uses in addition to the City and school district, considera- tion should be given to the area north of Mansion_ and east of Main where it appears more acreage may be available. Cultural and Recreational Activities An appropriate location for the development of certain cultural facilities (such as a music hall, theatre, and .an art museum) would be adjacent to or in the general vicinity of the Civic Center. A golf course is not a compatible use in conjunction with the Civic Center. The Center should bring together city, county, state and federal governmental functions in a planned environment. With the growth of this community a new federal building will be required in due course. The Civic Center should be one of the strongest assets to the community—one in which its citizens may properly take pride. Civic Center Financing The new City governmental facilities are long overdue. The Civic Center should therefore have a high priority if budgeted in the general obligation bond issue. However, it may be desirable to finance the Center through private sources on a lease-purchase basis. It is understood that financing is available from the State of California Retire- ment Funds for any approved governmental body for one such structure. These alter- native methods of financing should be thoroughly explored. 42 DOWNTOWN AREA DEVELOPMENT Downtown Rejuvenation The downtown area of Huntington Beach is unique in several respects. It does not have a single operation, or even a combination of operations, which can be described as a strong attraction to draw a large number of people to the downtown area as is the case in most American cities. The downtown area of Huntington Beach can and should. be rejuvenated because in its present state it is an eyesore and is not representative of the kind of city Huntington Beach is now and will be in the future. The downtown area cannot be considered apart from' its surrounding territory. What happens in the area lying between Beach Boulevard, 23rd Street, Pacific Boulevard and Quincy Avenue, and also in the beach areas, will materially affect the, City's r downtown. The Role of the City's Downtown The role of Huntington Beach's downtown should be to provide the necessary goods and services for people living in the immediately adjacent neighborhood and for those - who will visit the beach. In effect it will be a community-type-shopping center,as well as a location for a few business and professional offices and service banking facilities. It will also be the site for some restaurants.and, perhaps, hotels or motels. Huntington Beach may never have a major downtown area, but the city need be none the worse ,because of this fact. To properly play its role as a community shopping center, the city's downtown should have a large supermarket, a good size drug store, a variety store and other service shops, many of which are currently located along Main Street. These facilities should be grouped in one area to form the beginning of the downtown shopping center. Parking Ample off-street parking must be provided adjacent to these stores and any other downtown .buildings developed in the future. To accomplish this three or four blocks of downtown property would be required. The downtown area is the best site for the Civic Center, if a suitable and sufficient amount of land can be made available on which a Civic Center complex and-a downtown shopping center could be developed to augment and complement the City's beach development program. Adequate parking must be provided in such a way as to serve the business, the governmental, and the recreational facilities in this area. Once this is done, -it will trigger the development of other new buildings with ample off-street parking on nearby properties. . If the parking problem is not resolved through, the use of the urban renewal process, the Panel recommends the following: • Preferably, off-street parking should be provided through the use of an assess- ment district with the funds necessary for acquisition and operation allocated on a "zones of benefit" basis. , 43 b� IL rim tea_ - 71 w m t ` t Ila .P� w e a . w . r ' ; Ncw'.LT�w CBD? ` FIGURE 10 - DOWNTOWN °tr - " v 1 MIT,A " { as,S et► _+R.en p � r d, I �f•Mr � a M y' t c re ' G e A Main Street Looking East , 44 • Parking can be provided and preserved for local shoppers by privately-owned facilities where fees are absorbed by local merchants through a parking ticket validation procedure. • Free parking for the business establishments is most desirable if a method can be instituted to control the parking problem that arises as a result of the large number of visitors to the beach. Any increase in the value of land adjoining a parking facility would be in direct relation to the increase in the volume of sales resulting from the availability of such parking facility. Urban Renewal There is an oversupply of old, inadequate store buildings without proper parking. Some of these structures should come down and the land put to a better use. Perhaps others can be rejuvenated and continue to be useful. However, it would be a very diffi- cult job to rejuvenate downtown and the Main Street area on a piecemeal basis. Land in the downtown area is greatly overpriced in relation to its income. Sales prices are based ,purely on speculative uses and future values. It will be expensive to assemble and clear such property for reuse. In fact, unless action is taken through the condemnation process, it will likely be impossible. Absentee and multiple owner- ships add to the city's downtown problems. Huntington Beach should recognize it is not goingto be able to.do the job adequately without financial help from outside. For. this reason the community should seriously consider the use of a federal urban renewal program to help it accomplish its goals. Without urban renewal, Huntington Beach will be hard pressed to make any substantial progress in improving its downtown area. Much of the land between Beach Boulevard, 23rd Street, Pacific Boulevard, and Quincy Avenue should be included in the study area of any urban renewal program. The downtown area's geographic location is such that it will always be important in any future plans for Huntington Beach. It is possible that this land would be more valuable if it were now vacant and available for development. An urban renewal program would virtually accomplish this, and the Panel strongly recommends that the community seriously consider the use of this tool which many hundred American cities have found helpful. 45 r . z �°-5*��+-..;�, � �..`"tea� `n�''�wa��+� �, :a �^�� ��A"°'m� �� -� „e, y,' � -� � w. �,; � �r•,: yam ' ` � p # Oql"v n t „p 3 9 f m p:a E � a } t m {— s T ....i ,.. g Y l Figure 11 — Surfing at Huntington Beach 46 I BEACH AREA DEVELOPMENT As pointed out repeatedly in this report, Huntington Beach's greatest single sur- face asset is its broad beach. This beach, approximately eight and one-half miles in length, varies in depth from 500 feet (generally southeast of the pier) to a minimal footage (in the bluff area northwest of the pier). The sandy beach slopes gently to the ocean where bathing is, safe for swimmers and the unusually favorable surf conditions make the area a haven for surfing enthusiasts. The City pier bisects the area most used by the surfers. Use of the Beach It has been estimated that over 4.5 million people annually use the City portion of the beach. Based on records of the City's lifeguard department, users of the beach are distributed approximately as follows: From Huntington Beach 15.5% From elsewhere in Orange County 31.0% From Los Angeles County 48.6% From Other Areas 4.9% Surfing: There are approximately 300,000 surfing enthusiasts in California, attesting to the present and growing popularity of the sport. Surfing now rivals snow skiing as a challenging and worthwhile form of recreation. Long noted for its fine surfing conditions, Huntington Beach has little serious competition from other California cities where beaches are smaller and facilities limited. Hence, with the obvious prospect of ever-increasing numbers of beach users in the years ahead, Huntington Beach must anticipate the greater demands which will be made on the beach area and plan how best to accommodate them. Ownership: The eight and one-half milel length of beach area is comprised of the fol- lowing ownership categories: • Huntington Beach State Park (2.08 miles in length) is owned and operated by the State. Full facilities, including parking, lifeguard service, fire rings (walled pits for fires and barbecues) for picnics, concessions and lavatory facilities are provided. The area is fenced; thus, providing for control. • The beach area southeast of the pier (1.04 miles in length) .is in multiple owner- ship. As operated by the City, this area is provided full facilities (similar to those at Huntington Beach State Park) but is not fenced. It is one of the two areas most used by surfers. Throughout this report the generalized figure of eight and one-half miles is used in describing the length of the beach within the city limits. Actually, the exact figure, according to data furnished the Panel, totals slightly over 8.6 miles. 47 a7 [, '� Awl —411 f s a 4th of July 1965 1°�.>*£`i �,; Y. t w., #f *,",„E a 'z-,..: rw ✓ r„ "ts�+, .«� 'm�'`-�* �r*1 24 63 FIGURE 12 BEACH ACTIVITY i _ — `' '"j �11�11111 " From the Pier 48 • The , beach north of the pier (2.27 miles in length) is owned by the Huntington Beach Company. The company has short-term service contracts with the City and has lifeguard service only. This area is not fenced and is the second-most popular surfing area, • Bolsa Chica State Park (3.25 miles in length) is operated by the State and has limited lifeguard service only. It is not fenced. Ownership of the land between the Pacific Coast Highway and the mean high-tide line (i.e., the beach area including the bluff and the sand beach proper) is now divided among the State of California, the City of Huntington Beach, the Huntington Beach Com- pany, and the Pacific Electric Railway, either outright or by joint ownership arrange- ments. The entire publicly-owned portions of the beach are operated in part either by the State or the City for public use. Public Use An an overall philosophy, the Panel believes that the right of the public to use the sand beach area throughout the entire eight and one-half mile length should not be denied, subject to just compensation being paid to private property owners. Furthermore, the Panel believes that the rights of the Huntington Beach Company and any other private owners to develop their properties should not be denied, but with certain limitations.2 The beach area southeast of the Municipal Pier is under multiple ownership by the Huntington Beach Company, the City of Huntington Beach, and the Pacific. Electric Rail- way, either individually or jointly. Except for the railroad right-of-way, the beach is operated by the City through ownership or by a perpetual easement. The Panel recom- mends that the right-of-way be acquired and that the entire area be devoted to use by the public for recreational or recreation-oriented purposes. No private development should be permitted southeast of the pier on the ocean side of the highway. Beach Area Problems The most serious problems of the beach area are: • How to control beach erosion to prevent this valuable asset from becoming a diminishing resource; • How to provide adequate parking; • How to effect control of the beach users, recognizing the somewhat diverse requirements of swimmers, surfers and picnickers; • How to make the beach area a true asset to the entire City of Huntington Beach and particularly to the downtown area; • How to make the beach area not only self-supporting, but even more important, how to make it a significant contributor to the economic base of the city; • How to recognize both the rights of the public to use the stretches of sandy beach and the rights of private ownership of beach property; • How to acquire (for public use) title to or the right to use the Pacific Electric Railway right-of-way strip adjacent to publicly-owned beach areas, when the right-of-way is no longer used as a railroad. ZIt is not the intent of the Panel to deny the right of a private owner to develop his property, including the beach area, so long as such development does not preclude access to the beach and the ocean by the general public. 49 Upgrading the Use and Development of the Beach To assure that the image of the eight and one-half miles of beach will be upgraded and developed to its highest and best potential, the Panel recommends the following: • Commission a study and master plan for the entire beach area giving particular attention to the critical problems of parking and safe access,with the purpose of spreading the use of the beach and the parking throughout its entire length, thereby alleviating the heavy use and concentration at the pier. • Acquire the Pacific Electric Railway's right-of-way adjacent to publicly-owned beach areas when it is no longer in use by the railroad. • Provide similar facilities and lifeguard services for all public beaches. • Place all public beaches under single operational and maintenance control. • Provide facilities for automobile campers. • Provide more well-designed concessions and a small amusement area for children. • Provide a sightseeing train similar to those used at the New York World's Fair at beach level for transportation between beach areas and to give users addi- tional recreational activities. Self-Sustaining Facilities As adjuncts, the most needed facilities and accommodations are for parking, eat- ing, rest rooms, shopping, and, to a lesser degree, sleeping. At present, these facili- ties are provided to a limited extent, and will have to be augmented and upgraded to serve the increasing numbers of the beach users. Some method should be devised to make nonresident users of the beach bear a major part of the cost of maintenance and services of the beach,,and also to provide income to make possible the sale of revenue bonds for acquiring the portion of the Pacific Electric Railway right=of-way southeast of the Municipal Pier. To this end, it is recommended that: • Parking fees be increased from 50 cents to one dollar or higher; • Present concession rentals be restudied, looking toward a higher return to the City; • New income sources be generated through the erection of a children's amuse- ment area and the installation of more concessions and a sightseeing train. Further, the county's share of the cost of lifeguard service should be restudied, looking toward a sharing in the cost of beach cleanup and maintenance in addition to the present sharing of lifeguard cost. Promotion of the Beach Although Huntington Beach needs to foster an improved image, the Panel does not believe that a public relations compaign to promote the beach area is necessary. The beach frontage in Huntington Beach is unique, being unrivaled in the area south of Los Angeles. The future problem will not be one of how to draw people to the beach;.rather, 50 it will be how to contain those who come, and how to control their actions, channel their movements and capitalize on their attendance. The problem is to make certain that the beaches are used most profitably for the City of Huntington Beach. This can be accom- plished by encouraging more use of the beaches by those who spend the most money and less by those who spend the least. Master Planning for Beach Area Development The key to upgrading the beach is the master plan approach whereby land use and facilities planning is based on accurate estimates of future demands. Unless study and necessary action are undertaken soon, the limited existing facilities will be sorely over- taxed by the overflow of visitors who will engulf the beach area in the near future.3 In addition, the Panel recommends the following:4 • Parking on the Pacific Coast Highway should be prohibited. • To correct the summertime problem of pedestrian traffic crossing the Pacific Coast Highway, wide, well-lighted tunnels under the highway or overpass bridges should be constructed at strategic places. This will alleviate both pedestrian and automobile traffic congestion, facilitate beach control, and could induce in- creased sales in the retail stores in the downtown shopping area. • Public access to the beach from the highway should be provided at intervals across the beach property of the Huntington Beach Company. • All beaches should be fenced with specially designated entrances for automo- biles and pedestrians to allow for better beach control. • Control all parking within one-half mile of the beach. • Control the use of the beaches,excluding surfboards at all times in special areas set aside for use by families. Beach Parking Increased parking can be provided for the beach area southeast of the pier by acquisition of the Pacific Electric Railway right-of-way, when no longer in use. As a further suggestion, careful study will probably indicate that the number of parking stalls on the State-owned portion of the beach can be increased by redesign. It is the general opinion of the Panel that the key to more efficient operation of the beach from the stand- point of economics and orderliness lies in the control of parking. During the off-season, the use of the beach parking areas for automobile camper and trailer parking should be allowed. 3It is recognized that it would probably be physically and economically unfeasible for the City to attempt to provide all the facilities needed to comfortably accommodate future peak (i.e., height-of-season) beach populations. 4See also "Beach Area Standards,"page 31. 51 i I l f " a w -------------- as ems„ r1" Figure 13 — Cleanup and Beautification Needed 52 OIL ORDINANCE Without doubt, Huntington Beach should move and move as rapidly as possible with a cleanup program of oil wells for the beautification of the city, the improvement of its public image, and most importantly, the greater utility of its land surface. . The City is taking the proper approach in the .preparation of a fair and strong oil code. The Panel can give no legal advice, but it does suggest adopting the strongest controls legally possible. After adoption the controls should be enforced impartially and strictly. The code appears to be quite comprehensive and when put into final form should enable the City to accomplish the desired purpose of cleaning up the fields with- out curtailing oil production. The code contains provision for the City to step in and remove oil well equipment, seal off abandoned wells and correct nuisances in cases where an operator or owner will not do so himself. The City will have the power under the code to assess the cost of cleanup against the property involved. This is the "teeth" in the code, the power to enforce the regulations. The City should not lend funds to operators or owners who might be willing to cooperate but who feel they cannot financially do so. Enhanced land values of such parcels resulting from the cleanup should enable cooperative owners to arrange their own financing. The City has too many other more pressing demands for the use of public funds than to make money available for such loans. When an owner will not cooperate, the City should go in under the new code, correct the nuisance, and assess the cost against the property. Offshore Drilling The Panel is not satisfied with the proposed provisions for offshore drilling in the code. The location of the drilling islands is at the discretion of the State as long as rigs are located beyond points where wells can be drilled from shore. It is the Panel's under- standing that it might be possible for the City to acquire, without cost, title (excluding mineral rights) to the tidelands from mean high water to three miles out up to a depth of 500 feet. Doing so, would give the City the necessary control over placement and physical characteristics of the drilling islands. In any event, provision should be made in the code for the beautification of the platforms to bring their appearance to that of true islands with no visible characteris- tics of an offshore rig. Adherence to such a provision (as has been done in Long Beach) would help to preserve the beauty of the beach, the city's greatest long-term asset. Community Development Program The City can carry out a community development program for better control of oil industry practices by adopting and enforcing the code. The Panel expects cooperation from the large operators and it expects the City to enforce cooperation from those few small operators who may not cooperate initially. Once a start is made, public opinion will be strongly behind this action. The code needs smoothing out, legal review, and additional controls on offshore drilling; in general it is a sound document and will fulfill its purpose, but only if it is strictly enforced. 53 w Y 4 d4 t Fi t Or I � € t �Wt d + d�,�: F P.Vaa x. g g� e a Southern California Edison Company's Steam Generating Plant M, L II , r v w a Douglas Aircraft Company's Space System Center, Huntington Beach, California (Courtesy Douglas Aircraft Company) FIGURE 14 - INDUSTRY IN HUNTINGTON BEACH 54 INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT 1 The industrial development of Huntington.Beach may be divided into three general categories: 1. Land zoned industrially which lies in or adjacent to the oil producing areas; 2.' Industrial land outside of the oil producing zone (these parcels being generally along the rail line to the north, with one large tract of about 800 acres lying just south of the Douglas plant); 3. The profitable ''visitor industry" which is mainly oriented to food and drink, j parking and other service facilities, including the pier, located adjacent to the beach. The following is an action timetable for the development of industrial land in the above categories: 1. Industrial development of those parcels in the oil producing areas can best proceed after the cleanup, consolidation and general improvement program (recommended for this area) has been substantially completed. Use of industrial land for oil fields is perhaps not usually thought of as an interim use for industrial property, but such a profitable use has certainly enabled_ Huntington Beach to keep sizable industrial acreage in reserve since 1920. The ultimate development of the surface land in the city's oil field area is quite a unique opportunity. 2. The timing of an aggressive industrial development program for the second category of industrial land (i.e., land in Huntington Beach which is far enough away from the oil fields so as not to be affected by oil field problems) depends on how soon it is possible to make such land available and fully competitive with property- in nearby industrial parks and tracts. Outside of ,the variation in some foundation problems, the industrial tracts in Orange County all have similar physical characteristics, including utilities (available in most,places), approximately the same tax assessment treatment, and generally good .relations with the community. However, land prices in Huntington Beach are somewhat higher than land prices in other parts of the county. Generally, land owners in.Huntington Beach do not have all the finesse in designing sale or lease contracts to the needs of the manufacturer that is characteristic elsewhere. In some cases the owners of industrial land in Huntington Beach understandably must gear land sales and leases to the advice of their tax attorneys. As a result, Huntington Beach is fortunate, in the long run, that a substantial amount of good industrial land is being held off the market for possible future use. The Panel recommends that a portfolio of sites in Huntington Beach be pre- pared which .includes (among other pertinent data) full property description and firm prices together. with commitments to sell or lease on short notice. 1See also, "Industrial Development," pages 26-27. 55 (Where there are several owners of a given industrial tract, there is little use in promoting the sale of the parcel unless there is such prior commitment.) Huntington Beach must be sure it can deliver the merchandise (land) at a com- petitive price before the City starts spending money on an industrial develop- ment program. 3. The treatment of the third category, the ocean frontage, is a matter for local decision. Before 1960 (and before the major annexations to the city and the recent population "explosion") balancing the annual budget was no problem and the maintenance of the beach was accepted as the City's obligation. Since 1960, however, the need for schools, highways, police protection, and other public services has made balancing the budget a more difficult task. Therefore, the Panel believes that the beach should not only become self-supporting but that beach activities should be managed in such a way that they produce a "profit." This does not mean that the City need gouge any of the visitors; but if it can realize a small "profit" on each, the total results would add needed revenue to help carry out the beach development program recommended by the Panel. Competitive Industrial Acreage The industrial outlook for Huntington Beach must be viewed in the light of its com- petition. Three industrial parks on the Irvine Ranch offer fully developed ready-to-use plant sites close to the Orange County Airport and the new University of California campus at stated prices ranging from $35,000 an acre for the larger sites to 80 cents a square foot for the smaller sites, with a few premium locations priced up to $1.00 a square foot. Reportedly, over 400 acres of the total 2,600-acre industrial property have been sold. The Segerstrom tract of 1,000 acres in Fountain Valley offers sites competitive with Irvine. Raw land in Fountain Valley adjacent to rail and freeway is available at $22,000 to $25,000 per acre. Other industrial sites of various sizes with good highway access and all utilities at hand are being aggressively marketed in Orange County at similar or lower.prices. What does an industrial prospect find when he considers locating in Huntington Beach? Undeveloped land in the so-called industrial parks in Huntington Beach has no stated price, but is reported to cost $25,000 per acre and up, plus development costs of $5,000 or more per acre. While these properties are not presently competitive with comparable sites in other areas, the public beach and pier are ripe for substantial development of the "visitor industry." From personal experience with many beaches on both Coasts and inland lakes the Panel was surprised to find how meager the visitor service facilities are at Huntington Beach. The opportunity is here and should be pursued. Additional Observations and Recommendations • Huntington Beach should seek all types of industry already located in Orange County, except those industries requiring sites of 20 acres or more where price would be a decisive factor. • Based on land price and the demand for industrial acreage in Huntington Beach, industrial zoning totals appear adequate for the city's future needs. 56 • Local policy affecting the construction of new plants in Huntington Beach should be flexible, taking into account potential employment and tax revenue from each project. • The City's present industrial zoning ordinance provides adequate performance standards. • A program for attracting industry to the city is directly related to the other findings and recommendations of the Panel. Its success will depend on accom- plishing the other steps suggested. The Southern California Edison Company's industrial development department can provide detailed guidance. • Most of the city's industrial prospects are in the metropolitan Los Angeles area and are best identified by personal contacts. e Employing a full-time industrial coordinator, and starting a promotional pro- gram would be premature at this time because ready-to-use industrial sites are not readily available. • As noted previously, if the Huntington Beach Freeway is located west of Goldenwest, the area bounded by Edinger on the north, Garfield on the south, the railroad on the east, and the freeway on the west would be a suitable M-1 A (light industrial) district. • Different standards for industrial streets and improvements do not appear neces- sary, unless extremely heavy traffic is anticipated. 0 The only effective way to preserve land that is zoned and master planned for industrial use is by the acquisition of title or development rights, possibly by a community industrial development corporation. • The best interim uses for industrial property in Huntington Beach are agricul- ture and oil production. Trailer parks and other portable structures are also possibilities. In short, industrial development is usually a long-range, step-by-step process. Some of these steps are outlined above; many are included in other sections of this report. The point is that most of these steps must precede an industrial promotion effort, if it is to be effective. 57 PARKS AND RECREATION Park Acquisition Policy The City should continue its currentpolicy of buying park land as acreage becomes available, then improving the sites at some later date. Land prices are rising rapidly in Huntington Beach and acceptable sites may later become unobtainable. In the densely congested, older northeastern cities, it is practically impossible to acquire green areas. Many Small Parks Versus a Few Larger Ones The Panel endorses the City's present policy of purchasing several small neighbor- hood parks. A number of small parks located throughout the city provides better cover- age. They should adjoin school sites for more economical administration, maintenance, and policing. Other Park and Recreational Facilities The eight and one-half miles of beach give the city an unusually large open space and park-like facility. Also, when the proposed Orange County-Harbor District park becomes a reality, it will provide 160 acres at the northwest corner of the city. And, there is a 140-180 acre regional park now in the planning stage that will be located in Fountain Valley. This .facility will be readily available to the residents of Huntington Beach. It is assumed that the City is working closely with the County toward the pur- chase of these attractive park sites. City Community Centers The City should provide community centers similar to the present popular (but overcrowded) Recreation Center at 17th and Orange Streets. At least three more such centers of about 10,000. square feet each should be located in the north, east and west, either adjoining or near proposed school sites for maximum use and economy in supervision. Other Community Recreational Projects The City should continue to pursue its aspirations for a museum, a wildlife area and an art center. While these may not be immediately attainable, the anticipated land use plan could provide for such projects. The city obviously is lacking in cultural development but fortunately recognizes this problem and seeks a solution. In many communities some public spirited benefactor has financed the acquisition and develop- ment of similar facilities, often as a lasting memorial to the family name. Also, with the very great increase in federal funds available for various cultural projects, this source of funds for acquisition and development should not be neglected. The Panel understands, for example, that the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation matches City funds on a 50-50 basis for acceptable projects. Incidentally, if the City needs an area to dispose of trash and garbage, the sanitary land fill method of disposal lends itself to the acqui- sition of parklands as the federal government will pay one-half of the ground cost if the City agrees to use the resulting land for park purposes. Newland House Unless there is a proven, important historical significance to the Newland House on the east side of Beach Boulevard, its acquisition does not warrant expenditures from the general fund. If given to the City with a maintenance endowment, acceptance should be considered. 58 IMPLEMENTATION AND COMMUNITY°ACTION by Joseph W. Lund, Chairman of the Panel An additional responsibility of the Panel is to comment on the implementation of its findings and recommendations, or more .simply, to consider the question, "Where does the City of Huntington Beach go from here?" To this .question there is no easy answer. No blueprint for individual or collec- tive human behavior has ever been put in contract form and constructed, as one builds a bridge or a dwelling. In the long run, people can be guided, persuaded, or led by the hand; but, they cannot be.poured into a mold. The job to be done, then, is an exercise in human behavior. First, the community must decide where to start. The city needs a better image. It also needs a new municipal plant. Itneeds to plan for expanding its sources of revenue to keep pace with expected growth. By living and working in Huntington Beach, the Panel came to the conclusion that some comparatively simple steps could be taken now which are within the present limits of the City's financial and manpower resources.. Housekeeping In some areas, housekeeping is badly neglected. Litter and leftover building materials or oil equipment create horrid eyesores. These are seen by all the city's visitors who might otherwise be persuaded to stop and patronize businesses if the sur- roundings were more attractive. Commercial signs along the main street and all the traffic arteries vie with each other for attention, as if to win prizes for the worst offender: Control of business signing is a proper function of municipal authorities. Trees and shrubs can hide the installations that pull oil from the ground. Screen planting is not prohibitively costly. If the oil producers cannot be persuaded to install improvements, the City itself could well afford a landscaping program of this kind on a two- to five-year,basis,, starting with the most unsightly sections along the Pacific Coast Highway. Planting along the beach, for both beauty and shade, would greatly improve the appearance of Huntington ' Beach's finest recreational asset. The concession stands could be beautified with only a little imagination and the cooperation of the conces- sionaires. Blighted structures should be torn down in many parts of the city. Capital Improvements and Beach Development The next two priority jobs are more difficult and will cost money, but they are just as fundamental as good housekeeping. Capital improvements, and a good solution j to the problem of making the beach an aesthetic and economic asset should have the highest priority. They go hand-in-hand. These efforts will require a new approach on the part of all the business and residential population of the city. 59 Community Leadership At the briefing session, a question was asked about community leadership in Huntington Beach. No direct answer was forthcoming, nor was the Panel able to find that a specific leadership entity can be defined in the city. Huntington Beach's political leaders took a bold step in bringing the Panel to the city. The next steps must be taken by both the business and political leaders, in cooperation with those who represent leadership in all phases of community life. The following comments are based on the experience of other communities with which individual ,members of the Panel are intimately familiar and may help Huntington Beach organize its own vehicle for action. In Tucson, the home of Mr. Roy Drachman, the Mayor appointed a Citizen's Com- mittee to analyze and promote a necessary capital improvements program, some of which had been previously turned down by the voters. By involving 300 or more citizens on several special study committees, the civic needs were screened, refined, and finally approved by the overall committee. Then the propositions came before the voters as a proposal from the voters themselves. The personal involvement that educated the citizen group, assured the program's success. In Indianapolis, Mr. Carl Dortch's city, a similar effort toward solutions of prob- lems relating to business and government cooperation was sparked by the Chamber of Commerce. In my own city of Boston, a group of 15 top businessmen joined with other civic and labor groups to stimulate and guide the city government in revitalizing blighted areas of its obsolete, unsightly waterfront and decaying central business district. From these efforts have come a revival of community spirit and a positive image of a new Boston. The Panel recommends that an official steering committee of five or seven rep- resentative citizens be constituted. This committee must.be the small leadership group who will meet and work on a frequent,continuous and regular schedule. These men must agree that the transformation of Huntington Beach is their primary civic responsibility. They must work at it, even at the cost of giving up some of their leisure and business time. Improving the community in which their profit is made is a fundamental respon- sibility of every businessman. Neighborhood groups and homeowners associations will need to be involved. As the work spreads, it will be surprising how much talent and enthusiasm is available just waiting to be asked. By creating a sense of personal involvement in constructive achievement, the whole attitude of the community could change from that of "Let George do it" to "Come on George, let's do it." Among those who assume the primary responsibility should be the top executives of the major industrial and commercial enterprises. After all, these enterprises have the largest stake in the benefits to be obtained. The City's governmental department heads have greatly impressed the Panel with their abilities and enthusiasm. They can well provide the facts and plans that will be considered by the citizen organization. Department heads must cooperate, but they should not try to force policy decisions. If this should happen, the individual members of the committee would soon lose interest. 60 Finally, it must always be kept in mind that cities are made for people and, in the long run, cities are what the people make them. Huntington Beach can go forward only to the extent that its citizens truly want it to. The people of Huntington Beach—for their own reasons of civic pride, economics, or sense of accomplishment—must care enough to do the job. The leadership of the city must recruit fellow citizens with enthusiasm. Every talent will be required. The community has the assets on which to build. It has the talents necessary to do the building. With the background of self-study conducted in preparation for this panel study, City officials and others have learned a great deal about the community which they did not know before. This report is designed to help the City arrive at sound decisions leading to better planning, land utilization, and urban and economic development. Recognizing that the future is made by people who care enough to make it happen, the Panel is confident that constructive action will follow this study, and appreciates the opportunity of being a part of Huntington Beach - 1970. 61 APPENDIX A DISCUSSION OF THE PANEL'S REPORT Following the formal presentation of the Panel's findings, conclusions, and rec- ommendations, the meeting was opened to an informal discussion period during which questions were submitted from the floor and answered spontaneously by individual members of the Panel. Consequently, these comments are not necessarily the consenus of the Panel and, therefore, are not incorporated as a part of the preceding "official" report. LAND USE AND POPULATION DENSITIES QUESTION. WHAT WOULD BE THE ALTERNATE USES FOR PROPERTY ALONG BEACH BOULEVARD NOW ZONED FOR STRIP COMMERCIAL USE? COMMENT BY MR. NAHAS: It depends entirely on how much property an individual owns. If the commercial frontage is part of a large tract, then I think it can be included in a residential development. If it is a small, isolated piece of property, multiple resi- dential use might be considered. It is difficult to rescind zoning once it is established. Often there is an economic hardship involved, if a man's right to use his property is unduly restricted. There is a great deal of misinformation about the value of so-called commercial property. As a developer, I have used commercially-zoned property for other purposes because it simply was not valuable for commercial use, and I feel this applies to much of the prop- erty along Beach Boulevard. I do not think that commercial development in strip zoned areas can successfully compete with integrated shopping centers. A higher per square foot value can be produced many times with offices or with multiple residential uses. QUESTION. WHAT RANGE OF SIZES FOR RESIDENTIAL LOTS DOES THE PANEL SEE POSSIBLE FOR HUNTINGTON BEACH? COMMENT BY MR. CAMPBELL: We had quite a discussion on the lot size problem. Perhaps a little background is in order. The City's zoning ordinance generally provides for 6,000 square-foot residential lots and there has been a recent proposal to amend the ordinance to permit a smaller size lot or, inversely, as I understand it, by allowing a little higher coverage. Based on talks with developers in the city, it is the Panel's feeling that Huntington Beach may be selling itself short on what could be a financial asset because of the population pressure. Although people may not use the beach,. they certainly want to live near it; they feel it has a value. The local developers told us that homes within a short distance of the beach sell for $1,000 to $2,000 more than those farther away. We think larger lot sizes would substantially upgrade the city. Personally, I think you could go as high as 10,000 or even 12,500 square feet and you would be amazed at the quality of homes this change would attract. Conversely, we think you would be justified in reducing the lot size to yield six, six and one-half,or seven single-family units to an acre in some parts of the city. 62 Within the 6,000 square-foot areas, which should be the generally accepted mini- mum lot standard, 4,000 square-foot lots might be allowed, providing that 2,000 square feet per lot is put into a common green. The present street pattern imposed upon the city when the grid system was laid out should be broken up. We would like to see the city abandon some interior streets to achieve "super blocks." Within such "super blocks", lot sizes could drop to 4,000 square feet or possibly 3,500 square feet per single-family unit, providing the balance of 2,000 or 2,500 square feet is put in a common green. SIGN CONTROL QUESTION. PLEASE EXPAND ON THE COMMENT ABOUT SIGN AND BILLBOARD CONTROL. SPECIFY AND DISCUSS SIZE AND LOCATION.. COMMENT BY MR. NAHAS: Obviously,we cannot get into the details of this question. However, there should be some criteria in the zoning ordinance with respect to the relationship, of the size of the sign, the type of activity, the size of property involved and the traffic conditions on the street. All these factors are interrelated. We are talking about a great many restrictions and Iwant you to know by underscoring this, that these restrictions should be flexible to allow exceptions when those exceptions seem to be valid and a necessity for one reason or another. Every master plan and every ordi- nance should remain flexible enough to allow for change and new ideas. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM `QUESTION: WHY IS THE PLACEMENT OF A BOND ISSUE BEFORE THE PEOPLE IN SEPARATE PACKAGES BETTER THAN A LUMP PACKAGE? COMMENT BY MR. DORTCH. In studies of voters' approval of bond issues,the history has been that package deals have not been accepted as readily as those which offer the voter an alternative of choices. I simply suggest that as a start is made in this new direction, the voter- be given an alternative. As the capital improvements program is developed it might be possible to have five different alternatives: fire department, library, parks and recreation, streets and drainage, and Civic Center might make an appropriate breakdown. In this kind of a decision, voters deserve the opportunity to express their approval or dis- approval of each project. Also, the chances are if all items are together in one large single package, different factions of voters might object to one part or another of the complete package. Other parts, however, might receive a substantial consensus and the voters would be forced to express blanket disapproval causing the whole issue to go down the drain. I think the voters should be given a choice. COMMENT BY MR. DRACHMAN: In Tucson we were recently advised by a bond law specialist that we would have to break a bond issue down to several different items as required by the statutes in Arizona. Although it is possible that this would not be neces- sary in California, I think the advice of a bond attorney should be sought on this aspect. LIBRARY FACILITIES QUESTION: SHOULD THE LIBRARY BE MORE THAN A DISTRIBUTION CENTER FOR BOOKS? SHOULD IT BE A CENTER OF INTELLECTUAL AND CUL- TURAL ACTIVITIES'? WOULD NOT A CENTRALLY-LOCATED MAIN 63 f LIBRARY REDUCE THE NEED FOR A MULTI-BRANCH OPERATION AND ALL THE DUPLICATION ENTAILED IN LAND, BUILDINGS, BOOKS, SALARIES, AND AT THE SAME TIME BE ABLE TO PROVIDE BETTER SERVICE IN DEPTH? COMMENT BY MR. DRACHMAN: Although I am not an expert on this subject, I have had some experience with a library program, and I think that the community is better served with branch libraries and they should be good size branches. We have found in Tucson, that branches of 15,000 square feet are feasible. I am amazed at the number of students of all ages who do homework and research in the library for subjects they are studying. The library today is more than books; it has phonograph records, micro- filmed material and facilities for all forms of research. I think you will find that by providing branch libraries out where the people live makes sense and will be very widely used. The library certainly could be used for other cultural purposes, but it would be primarily a place where people would come to do research and study and to obtain books on loan. You can have a central library, but it does not make sense to have one library and not have branches. There should be branches where the people are located for the same reasons you have shopping centers in suburbs and outlying areas. TRANSPORTATION QUESTION: PLEASE AMPLIFY YOUR COMMENTS CONCERNING THE SUPER BLOCK CONCEPT PROPOSED FOR H U N T I N G T O N BEACH COMPANY'S PLANNED COMMUNITY AREA AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO THE PRESENT AND PROPOSED MAJOR TRAFFIC ARTERIES. COMMENT B Y MR. CAMPBELL: I think I express the opinion of the Panel in saying we are in favor of the "super block" and the "planned community" concept. The most refreshing thing that could happen in this city from the planning point of view would be the development of a few super block communities to demonstrate the amenity that can come from this kind of living environment. By a super block we mean an area the size of several normal city blocks combined where, in effect, the consolidated area is isolated from the surrounding city pattern so that the people who live within the confines of such an area are not subjected to through traffic. The problem is how to get from such areas by arterial streets to the beach, which again we feel is a major asset and that people should have ready access to it. A more acceptable solution would be to surround the area with streets which might be com- pletely limited access. They might even be walled and adequately landscaped. Traffic could readily get to the beach via a limited access street since it would eliminate cross- ing a multitude of intersections. In the case of the Huntington Beach Company's property there is a peculiar develop- ment problem. The company is trying to concentrate well heads into blocks for surface development. Around these blocks will be a golf course under which will be a multitude of pipelines connecting the well heads. There might be 50 wells in a two- to five-acre block. It would be disastrous to run a major arterial street through.the area because it would defeat the purpose of this well-conceived and carefully planned community park. 64 QUESTION: WOULD THESE LIMITED ACCESS STREETS BE IN ADDITION TO ARTERIES ALREADY PROPOSED? COMMENT BY A11R. CAMPBELL:It maybe sufficient to add one or two lanes to Golden- west Street and add a lane or two to one of the other streets. If access is restricted and the intersection of streets is limited the surrounding streets might be adequate to serve a super block area. Q UESTION: WITH RESPECT TO THE ECONOMIC POTENTIAL OF THE COASTAL MARGIN, SHOULD THE CITY CONTINUE ITS EFFORTS TO RELOCATE THE COAST FREEWAY INLAND FROM HIGHWAY 39 TO THE SANTA ANA RIVER? COMMENT B Y MR. NAHAS: I understand the State of California has almost decided on the Coast Freeway alignment. I do not believe this is where the highway should be located. It ' should be built inland and the beach frontage should be preserved for the kind of desirable uses which we have been talking about. If there is any way the State could be persuaded to change this. alignment,.I certainly would attempt to do so. As far as providing the public the right to enjoy the ocean, Highway 101 is already there.and could be provided with additional vista points which would relieve some of the fast traffic. It takes 10 to 15 minutes for pedestrians to cross that highway even in the off-season. An inland freeway would relieve some of this traffic making 101 a most desirable highway from the standpoint of the public. If there is any possibility of changing the State's mind, I certainly would advise doing so. COMMENT BY MR. DRACHMAN: The more the Freeway develops close to the beach, the.more it is going .to divide the beach from the city, which I think would be a shame. CIVIC CENTER QUESTION: WHAT USES DOES THE PANEL RECOMMEND FOR THE PROPOSED DOWNTOWN CIVIC CENTER? COMMENT BYMR. DRACHMAN. The downtown-Civic Center would not only be aplace for the governmental offices,but also could be a location for some of the city's cultural buildings. It could be almost anything the community wants it to be, as was pointed out in the report. It should be developed near the beach so it could offer parking facilities that would serve both the beach recreational needs (on weekends) and the Civic Center needs during the week. If a community shopping center is built in the downtown area, it should be fairly close to the Civic Center so that all the parking could generally serve all three facilities. QUESTION. WOULD YOU DISCUSS FURTHER THE CIVIC CENTER SITES AND THE PENCILED SKETCH EXHIBITED? CO2UMENT BY MR. L UND: If the downtown area can be redeveloped as a site for the Civic; Center and shopping area, then that location is the Panel's primary choice. Because of the highway alignment on sites A and B, the Panel does not think they are the most feasible among the proposals outline. Site B was considered good from a loca- tional standpoint but the Panel did not feel it offered the proper amenities. Therefore, the high school site was our second choice if the downtown area is not feasible. COMMENT BY MR. CAMPBELL: It was the consensus of the Panel members that per- haps the best way to rehabilitate the downtown area would be to partially convert it to other uses. We feel there is some merit to encouraging daytime use of the downtown 65 area by ,closing Main Street, although there was some question as to whether this would be advisable. These are specifics and the Panel does not intend to plan the city; this should be done by the community, assisted by a planning consultant. However, closing Main Street and two or three of the abutting streets would create a large central mall which should be landscaped around the edge. The landscaped cen- tral mall could be used for central parking in the daytime for employees and visitors of the Civic Center and customers of what might be a modest, rehabilitated downtown shopping area. On the weekends, it would be a large parking lot for people using the beach. We feel there is real merit in a concept of this kind. The Panel' believes that if the City spends money on a dignified group of public buildings in this location, everyone traveling on Pacific Coast Highway will see these buildings and get a most favorable impression of the city. The possibilities in Hunting- ton Beach are tremendous, and we think such a project will improve the public image. DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT QUESTION: WHAT SHOULD THE OFF-STREET PARKING RATIO BE FOR THE DOWNTOWN AREA? ARE THE WIDE VARIETY OF'USES PERMITTED AND MINIMUM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE DOWNTOWN AREA SATISFACTORY? PLEASE DEFINE THE DOWNTOWN AREA. WHAT ARE ITS BOUNDARIES? COMMENT BY MR. DRACHMAN:The parking ratio for the downtown commercial area should be about 2.2 to one if the ratio formula is used in the zoning ordinance. Five parking spaces.for every 1,000 square feet of retail area, and 2.5 spaces for every 1,000 square feet in office use are generally recommended standards for the parking index relationship between the number of parking spaces and the retail and office use. This ratio and parking index would apply to the Civic Center, general office space, and stores and shops. It would not apply to beach area parking. On Saturdays and Sundays down- town parking could partially serve the crowded beach area. The C-3 zoning ordinance adequately covers the variety of uses and minimum standards for the downtown area. As far as the boundaries of the downtown area are concerned, most of the frontage would be within First and Seventh Streets along Pacific Boulevard. The alley between Fifth and Sixth Streets should perhaps be the boundary of the Civic Center and then over to Sixth Street along the northern or northwestern side of the present Civic Center extending to Palm Avenue, back along Lake Street to Third Street, Third to Orange Avenue, and then down the alley between Third and Second Streets to the alley that runs in back of the frontage along Pacific Coast Highway and over to First Street. This would be the primary downtown retail or commercial area. There is some property zoned for commercial use along Second Street; if there is a demonstrated need for it there we would not quarrel with its being included. QUESTION..- IN THE EXPERIENCE OF THE PANEL WOULD SHOPPING MALLS IN PLACE OF STREETS IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA BE PRACTICAL AND SUCCESSFUL? COMMENT BY MR. DRACHMAN. Most shopping malls have not proven entirely suc- cessful. They are nice to look at, but unfortunately do not solve the problem of pro- viding parking and changing the type of tenancy. It is a good idea to add some attractive 66 amenities to the downtown. area, but as far as solving the problem of downtown is con- cerned, a mall alone will not do it. COMMENT BY MR. NAHAS:Iwould like to emphasize Mr.Drachman's point. Actually, j I think Fresno, California and Grand Junction, Colorado, both relatively small towns, have done a. good job with .their malls. But malls do not make good merchants out of ! poor merchants. In Oakland, we have built a mall on Washington Street which was an unattractive declining retail area. We now have an attractive declining retail area. Ij QUESTION. HOW SHOULD DOWNTOWN PARKING BE FINANCED? SHOULD THE PARKING METER TAKE CARE OF THIS? COMMENT_BYMR. MORTON. Generally, I think you will find that parking meters are not a solution to parking problems. Meter parking in the downtown area will only drive the customer to outlying shopping centers where there are no parking charges. Park- ing meters in the downtown area should be avoided if at all possible. COMMENT BY MR. DRA CHMAN One suggestion was that a parking permit be sold by the City each year to the residents of Huntington Beach. This would entitle local resi- dents to' park on the beach or in any of the parking district areas for a period of six months to a year. The price could be as -little as a dollar or maybe as much as $5. Residents with stickers on their cars would not have to pay any additional fees, but the out-of-town people would be required to pay the parking charges enforced_at the beaches or at the various parking lots. It would be a way of raising some money locally, but at the same time give local residents a break on the use of parking areas. COMMENT B Y MR. CAMPBELL: I have a comment that will personalize this for you. First, one of the Panel"members and I went to the best men's store in town to make a purchase. We. visited with the proprietor and he told us that at a recent cocktail party two women told him they no longer traded with him because of the meter charge in the downtown area. Secondly, my wife was visiting with the motel maid this morning, who told.her that yesterday she went downtown to purchase what she felt was an expensive purchase—a davenport. While she was buying it her car was tagged. She came out and looked up and down the street and there were only three automobiles parked in the entire block. That merchant has .lost her as a customer. I would like to emphasize that you would put the :kiss of death on what is left of the downtown, if you .try to boost customer traffic in the area with a parking district depending on parking meters to support the bond. .It absolutely will not work and would simply drive the few customers you have left to the shopping centers. COMMENT BY MR. DRACHMAN. I think the question of weekend crowds might be answered by doing what is being done in one of Tucson's large regional shopping centers where there is a problem with commuters. The entrances to the parking lot are chained off until the commuters have gotten on the train and gone on to the city. Then the lots are opened. The same can be done in Huntington Beach. You can have free parking during the week. During the weekend put the chains up, or have an attendant, or use the coin-operated type gate .which has.worked very successfully in many places. The driver can get in but cannot ,get out until he has deposited 25 cents or 50 cents in the slot. There are many ways this can be done; there are experts in the field who should be consulted. 67 I am impressed with the capability of the City's public works director and I am sure he can advise the City on how to go about leasing the parking areas. URBAN RENEWAL QUESTION: PLEASE EXPAND ON HOW OR THROUGH WHICH PATTERN OF URBAN RENEWAL A PRESENT PROPERTY OWNER CAN PARTICIPATE IN URBAN RENEWAL PROJECTS. COMMENT BY MR. WILLIS: Here again this gets into detail which we are trying to avoid, but I suspect after the proper appraisal of the properties, If a redevelopment corporation is organized, a property owner may take a relative number of shares in the new corporation pro rata to the evaluation of his property. He becomes a stock- holder in the new company for better or for worse to the extent of his property's value. COMMENT BY MR. DORTCH: He also could become a tenant in the development. COMMENT BY MR. WILLIS: He gets first choice. COMMENT BY MR. LUND: There is a limited priority given to former tenants or owners in urban renewal areas who want to participate. This is difficult to define and it has never really been tested. The law states specifically that owners or tenants who are being displaced have priority in the redevelopment project. QUESTION: COULD A CORPORATION BE FORMED IN AN URBAN RENEWAL AREA FOR DIVIDING FUTURE PROFITS OF THE RENEWAL PROGRAM? COMMENT BY MR. LUND: Most redevelopment areas are sold to new private rede- yelopment corporations in which some of the previous owners frequently participate or some of the business activities which were located in the area participate. The private redevelopers purchase the property under certain control and certain conditions which may be set either by option or by negotiation. COMMENT BY MR. WILLIS: The present property owner can become a stockholder in the corporation and can share to the extent of the future profits. COMMENT BY MR. MORTON. I believe there are possibilities for business-type activities; a parking garage, for example, where the municipal agency can construct the facility and lease it out—the lessee splitting 50-50 with the city. QUESTION: UNDER THE BEST OF CONDITIONS, HOW LONG WOULD IT TAKE TO DEVELOP THE CIVIC CENTER IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA WITH URBAN RENEWAL FUNDS? COMMENT BY MR. LUND: I have served as chairman of the Redevelopment Authority in Boston, and there it takes an awfully long time; my guess would be three years to acquire land, replan, and deliver. COMMENT B Y MR. HURD: The program is speeding up. In the early years there was much opposition and it took a great deal of time. Optimistically, in Huntington Beach the planning and approval stage might take six to 9 months, and then perhaps a year to 18 months beyond that before the program would get fully underway. 68 BEACH AREA DEVELOPMENT QUESTION: PLEASE COMMENT FURTHER ON THE FUTURE USE OF THE PACIFIC ELECTRIC RIGHT-OF-WAY NORTHWEST OFTHE PIER. STATEMENTS WERE MADE THAT THE PUBLIC SHOULD HAVE ACCESS TO ALL POR- TIONS OF THE BEACH WITHIN THE REASONABLE LIMITATIONS OF THE RIGHTS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY; AND THAT THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS SHOULD HAVE THE USE OF THEIR PROPERTY WITHIN REASONABLE CONTROL OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AS IT EXTENDS TO THE USE OF THE BEACH. COMMENT BY MR. LUND: This issue of depth in shoreline ownership is under study and therefore, the Panel felt that to form any hard and fast proposal on the matter would be unfair to the public and unfair to the private owners and certainly unfair to the Urban Land Institute Panel. COMMENT BY MR. NAHAS: The consensus of the Panel was that the Pacific Ocean belongs to all the people and they should not be denied access to it. At the same time, we all strongly believe in the private enterprise system and the sanctity of private property. Property should not be taken at any time without just compensation. This is a difficult question and it is going to have to be solved with a compromise, but basically within the framework of unlimited public access along the beach and to the ocean and with the right to develop private property. If it is decided that the public should have that property, then it should be nego- tiated or condemned and paid for in the manner prescribed by law. Generally, I think it might be possible in some areas north of the pier to have very attractive high-rise buildings with open space between them providing public access to the beach. There was a serious question, however, as to whether any of us would want to live in those apartments in the summertime. We saw some pictures of the "lemmings" covering the beach at certain times of the year. This is a question that will have to be answered locally on an individual basis. COMMENT BY MR. MORTON. To quote the Panel's original statement, "As an overall philosophy, the Panel believes that the right of the public to use the sand beach areas throughout the entire eight and one-half mile length of the beach should not be denied, subject to the just compensation being paid to private owners. Furthermore, the Panel believes that the rights of the Huntington Beach Company and any other private owners to develop their property should not be denied, but with certain limitations." There is no desire among.the Panel members to confiscate private property or to interfere with a very desirable, outstanding development. Q UESTION: WHAT IS THE FEASIBILITY OF ATTRACTING A HIGH CLASS DISNEYLAND-TYPE DEVELOPMENT, YET DIFFERENT COMMERCIAL RECREATION ENTERPRISES ON OR NEAR THE BEACH TO ATTRACT AND CAPTURE SOME OF THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TOURIST DOLLARS? DO YOU THINK A DISNEYLAND OR MELODYLAND TYPE OF ATTRACTION MIGHT BE CONSIDERED FOR THE DOWNTOWN ARE A? COMMENT BY MR. WILLIS: I do not think so. Does anyone want to compete with Disney? Unless you can contemplate a park-like facility much different than those already in operation in the area it would seem to be extremely difficult. 69 Is there anything in the history and development of oil and its people which could provide a theme for a park that would be an attraction of a museum-like character with profitable sidelines? A little theatre might be considered as an adjunct to a downtown Civic Center. COMMENT BY MR. NAHAS: You build a Disneyland around a man, a character, a man of great ability and imagination; it is a unique thing. I do not know whether the area could support another theatre in the round so close to the one in Anaheim. It takes a considerable volume of business to make a profit from such a venture. To digress for just a moment, Huntington Beach sooner or later must have a gathering place for .people so they can identifywith the City of Huntington Beach. In our area of Oakland, we -are building an arena and,a stadium because we have a possibility in the sports field; but the purpose is the same. Whether it is a little theater, an auditorium, or a stadium, it has to be a place where people can gather for community activities of a cultural nature and I think you should start planning for one now. QUESTION. WHAT CAN THE CITY DO TO GET NECESSARY LEGISLATION TO IMPLEMENT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BEACH? COMMENT BY MR. CAMPBELL: Assuming the question means, "Is there'some way of creating a public authority?" there is under California law provision for the creation of a park district. The County Recreation Commission, the City Planning Commission and the City Council can establish a format for a recreation district. It must be a legal entity created by the local unit of government. Under California laws, there are.many forms for creating a municipal authority to undertake a specific project. However, it was the feeling of the Panel members that the use of the beach is of value to the people of the State of California and the country as a whole. Huntington Beach is contributing greatly to the State, from the oil revenue, and other taxes. We feel that other units of government should give the City a very strong supporting hand. It is our suggestion that you either turn to the State of California or the federal govern- ment to help the City acquire these recreation areas. If this were done, in all prob- ability the City would pursue its present program of leasing back from the State, assum- irig state ownership, retaining the local control which I think is necessary. The local civic problems in Huntington Beach are unique to the city, and I feel the local govern- ment should keep control. QUESTION. THE PANEL SAID THAT THE BEACH IS AN ASSET. IS THIS TRUE OF ALL COASTAL CITIES WHICH EXPERIENCE SUMMER TOURISTS AND VISITORS, OR IS THIS UNIQUE TO HUNTINGTON BEACH? COMMENT BY MR. LUND: Huntington Beach has eight and one-half miles of open beach like that of no' other city on the Coast. The other cities, not having the extent or cus- tomary use of their beaches, do not have the. same problem. QUESTION.• WHAT, IS THE AREA OF INFLUENCE FOR THE BEACH AS IT PER- TAINS TO HIGH-RISE DEVELOPMENT ALONG PACIFIC COAST HIGH- WAY. HOW FAR DOES IT EXTEND, ONE, TWO OR "X" NUMBER OF BLOCKS INLAND? COMMENT BY MR. NAHAS: . If high-rise is built on the ocean side of the Pacific Coast Highway, then aesthetically, the inland side of the highway obviously should be included in the beach's area of influence. How far inland it would extend is going to depend upon 70 market consideration. This would be almost impossible to predict at this time. One important criterion is that a new development requires a good environment if it is going to be successful. Marty cities around the country, including my own, have made some mistakes in this regard by trying to create a lovely project in a slum area with slums all around it. You can see the same thing in Chicago and some of our eastern seaboard cities. Environment is very important. Creation of the right kind of environment would determine the area of influence. OIL REVENUES QUESTION: BECAUSE THE BEACH IS OUR BIGGEST ASSET AND SINCE WE ARE NOT BENEFITING BY TIDELAND REVENUE AS IS LONG BEACH, WOULD IT NOT BE TO OUR ADVANTAGE TO PURSUE THIS GOAL ` FURTHER? COMMENT BY MR. HURD:Unfortunately, I know of no way the City can acquire the tide- land mineral rights. I doubt that the State will give these up. Any increase in the one percent return the City is now getting would be beneficial. LANDSCAPING OIL INSTALLATIONS QUESTION: WHAT WOULD YOU RECOMMEND TO LANDSCAPE THE OIL WELLS AND INSTALLATIONS? COMMENT BY MR. LUND: Specifically, Mr. Nahas said that a local Southern Cali- fornia landscape expert should be employed as a consultant to develop this program. COMMENT BY MR. HURD: Iwould like to offer an encouraging word about this matter. I think the Huntington Beach Company is very forward thinking in this regard; their land planner was here this week and after some of the Panel members had gone over the plan of the Huntington Beach Company he was asked to sit down and start sketching out some screening walls and shrubbery so the company could get started right away on the improvement. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT QUESTION.- SUGGESTION WAS MADE IN THE REPORT THAT A BOOKLET OR BROCHURE OF INDUSTRIAL SITES BE .MADE AVAILABLE. WHO WOULD DEVELOP THE PORTFOLIO OF INDUSTRIAL SITES? HOW CAN FIRM PRICES AND COMMITMENTS TO SELL BE DEVELOP? COMMENT BY MR. HOLLINSHEAD: The first job is to get someone with an engineering background to examine these parcels and areas, making separate sketches of them that can be put in a booklet, including dimensions, all available utilities, their size and connections: It should be an attractive layout and include a general description of the area. As far as getting firm prices is concerned, someone should be appointed to contact the various owners and work out such prices. I would suggest the selection of such a person is the duty of the steering committee, which we hope will be appointed to carry out the recommendations of this Panel. 71 INDUSTRIAL ZONING . QUESTION: THE PANEL RECOMMENDED THAT ALL INDUSTRIAL ZONING BE EXCLUSIVE. SHOULD OR COULD YOU NOT ALLOW SOME SERVICE COMMERCIAL USES WITHIN AN INDUSTRIAL AREA? COMMENT BY MR. WALSH. Yes, it is customary in a planned industrial district to provide for such commercial activities, if they are related to the industrial uses in the district. Exclusive zoning nearly always provides for living quarters of watch- men and people of that type. The point is that whatever nonindustrial uses are allowed should be related to the industrial uses for which the area is primarily zoned. QUESTION: IF THE SOUTHEAST INDUSTRIAL AREA IS NOT TO BE RESERVED FOR INDUSTRIAL USE, DO WE HAVE SUFFICIENT INDUSTRIAL LAND IN THE CITY? SHOULD WE LOOK FOR ADDITIONAL INDUSTRIAL ACREAGE? COMMENT BY MR. WALSH: This depends partly on the development of the central industrial belt discussed in the report. On the assumption that this area can be developed and the freeway location is permitted, then the city would have enough addi- tional industrial area to compensate for the loss of the southeastern tract. Q UESTION: MUCH OF OUR INDUSTRIALLY ZONED LAND IS IN SMALLER TRACTS, FIVE TO TEN ACRES. THESE ARE PROBLEM PIECES WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO HIGH DRAINAGE, SEWER, WATER AND OTHER ASSESS- MENTS. TO DEVELOP ONE OF THESE PARCELS YOU HAVE TO CON- TRIBUTE TO THE FUND FOR FUTURE CONSTRUCTION OF THESE FACILITIES, BUT YOU DO NOT HAVE THEIR IMMEDIATE USE. WOULD IT BE TO THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY IN ATTRACTING IN- DUSTRY TO GO AHEAD WITH THESE FACILITIES AND BE REIM- BURSED AS THE UTILITIES ARE USED, THEREBY MAKING COMPET- ITIVE SITES AVAILABLE? COMMENT BY MR. HOLLINSHEAD: There is a tendency to zone unattractive tracts for industrial use. The mud dump is zoned industrial. The sump dump was zoned industrial, I believe. So we are talking about problem areas which have to be examined in detail. Generally speaking, areas planned for industrial purposes should have all utilities brought to the property in advance and be served by good roads. Put yourself in the position of a manufacturer and provide him with merchandise he can use. Every parcel of land has different problems. Small pieces owned by many different owners presents an almost impossible situation because there is always one owner who wants to get rich and retire for the rest of his life on the basis of a half- acre parcel he happens to have in the middle of a very desirable piece of land; at least, that is generally the situation everywhere else'. QUESTION: IN VIEW OF THE EXISTING AND EMERGING USES IN THE SOUTH- EAST INDUSTRIAL ,AREA, COMMENT ON WHAT FUTURE USE OR USES WOULD BE SUITABLE. COMMENT BY MR. CAMPBELL: I assume that question is directed to the area where the sump dump and mud pond are located. I see no reason why, with adequate fill, that area cannot be converted to residential use. There could be problems under Cali- fornia, FHA and VA building requirements. These are very rigid regulations as to quality of sub-surface soil and so on. But there are many areas where sites such as this have been treated. Land values in Huntington Beach are such that the area will ultimately be well-suited for residential development. , 72 IMPLEMENTATION QUESTION: ASSUMING THAT EVERYONE IS MOTIVATED TO THE HIGHEST DEGREE FOLLOWING THIS REPORT, IN YOUR OPINION WHAT WILL BE THE DRIVING FORCE AND MOTIVATION BEHIND THE STEERING COMMITTEE AND INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED SIX MONTHS FROM TODAY AND WHERE WILL IT COME FROM? COMMENT BY MR. LUND: From my own experience, I would say that if the group gets together, if things begin to fall into place, if they work hard enough and become en- thusiastic, at the end of six months they may be able to really define the problems and see where they are going. Many of the actual accomplishments are a long way off: It requires dedication, devotion, and the same type of local pride, economic benefits or what-have-you to keep an individual or group of individuals going in any kind of difficult endeavor. All I can ,say is that Huntington Beach needs this and I am hoping that Huntington Beach will find the citizens who will carry out a program.. COMMENT BY MR..NAHAS: You have to have a steering committee of people who are capable of making decisions and. who are independent. If they have a conflict of inter- ests, that conflict should be widely known. The trick is to get an able man involved in doing something -for his community; then his pride will not allow him to do anything else. _ I made a mistake about 15 years ago of writing a scorching letter to the Chamber of-Commerce about something that I violently disagreed with them on, and I have been intimately connected with that organization ever since. The important thing is to get someone emotionally involved in doing something about this city, because it is his city and he wants to be proud of it. Once he becomes emotionally committed and if he has leadership ability, and if he commands the respect of the people, and if he is a part of this steering committee he will get others at a high level involved and the participation will snowball. This has happened in other communities; it certainly can happen in Huntington Beach. COMMENT BY MR. DRACHMAN.• It is up to the Mayor and the Council to "take the bull by the horns" and appoint a few people to start this committee. Now if they do not do this, there are others in the audience who must be interested in the community or they would not be here. It is up to you to get together with your neighbors and "start the ball rolling." If you show up at Council meetings with a large number of people the Council will have to consider your proposals. I do not think you will have to do this, but if you do, just use your common judgment. It is up to you to demand action. If you do not, nothing is going to happen. QUESTION. HOW WOULD YOU SUGGEST THAT UNITY OF THE NEW AND OLD RESIDENTS OF THE CITY BE ACHIEVED? COMMENT BY MR. L UND: I think the answer to that is in forming a city-wide com- mittee based on leadership in all parts of the city. This problem has been going on in older cities and newer suburban towns throughout the country and is something that each community has to work out for itself. COMMENT BY MR. NAHAS: It is important that the members of the executive com- mittee or steering committee be selected very carefully so they represent the various groups of influence within the community. In other words, this committee should be so 73 composed that every principal element of this community is represented by a man who is mutually respected. QUESTION. HOW WOULD YOU SUGGEST .GOING ABOUT .ORGANIZING A 300- MEMBER CITIZEN'S COMMITTEE TO GIVE ALL ELEMENTS OF THE CITY A VOICE? COMMENT BY MR. LUND:. Three hundred is not a,figure we are suggesting. This was a figure used because it was about the number of people who became involved in Tucson.. The committee might_be50 people;.itmight be 150. In a city the size of Hunting- ton Beach, it would be difficult to maintain interest and get each individual involved in a personal way if the group were larger. than 150. QUESTION. PLEASE EXPAND YOUR COMMENTS ON THE PHASING AND DEVELOP- MENT OF PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE OF A CIVIC CENTER PLAN. COMMENT BY MR. L UND: This comes right back to what we are talking about; the Civic Center plan; the beach plan, the clean-up-plan—all of these must be implemented by a group, and we recommend that the 'executive committee or a small steering com- mittee be formed to guide these programs. The steering committee should decide the priorities. All these jobs cannot be done at once. Perhaps the first one should be the easiest, because if that project is accomplished the next one will fall into line. 74 APPENDIX B . QUESTIONS PRESENTED BY THE SPONSOR (With Index to the Panel's Answers) Question Page LAND USE AND POPULATION DENSITIES 1. Evaluate the Master Plan of Land Use. and determine if it is providing for a balanced community. . . . . . 25 a. Are the ratios of residential, commercial, industrial, and public uses in proper balance? . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 27 b. Are the various land use classifications properly located? . . . . . . . 27; 28 c. Evaluate Beach Boulevard and its potential as a ''strip" commercial area. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28, 29 d. Should the Master Plan provide for a central business,district? If so,,where, how large, and what relationship should it have to the Civic Center? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29; 30; 41 2. Where should high-rise development locate in Huntington Beach? -. . . . . 30 What criteria are necessary to establish a good high-rise district?-., 30 3. What is the appropriate development of the beach and adjacent properties? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 a. Should standards for density, parking, setbacks, height, lot coverage, etc., be different than other sections of Huntington Beach? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 b. Should there be minimum height limits for beach frontage and should there be variable height limits on the water and inland: side.of Highway#1 to preserve a maximum view for, all properties? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 1. What percentage of our $28 million bonded debt limitation should we spend within five years? 33 2. Generally, what capital outlay areas should have priority.? 34, 35; '59, 60 75 Question Page 3. In view of spiraling costs, should the City bond itself now to buy lands and provide improvements that will be needed in 1970, 1975, 1980? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 4. Should the City's capital program be based on use of any and all federal funds available? 35, 36 TRANSPORTATION 1. Will the Master Plan of Streets and Highways and the proposed freeways provide an adequate system? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 2. Considering the possibility of land more densely developed than presently planned, should Huntington Beach take an active interest in mass rapid transit? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 3. What is the role of the airport with respect to community development? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 4. Considering the proximity of Orange County, Fullerton, and Long Beach Municipal Airports, is an airport needed in Huntington Beach? If so, should the expansion of Meadowlark Airport be encouraged? Should it be privately or publicly owned, and what type of facilities should it provide? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38, 39 CIVIC CENTER 1. What is the best location for the Huntington Beach Civic Center? Please comment on the present site versus other ' sites. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30, 41 2. How much acreage should be acquired and for what uses? . . . . . . . . . . 42 Please comment on county, state, and federal participation in a governmental center? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41, 42 3. Should a community recreational and cultural center be developed in conjunction with the governmental center? . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . 42 Please comment on size for such a center and uses such as golf course, park, museum, theatre, arena, 'etc. . . 42 4. How should the civic center be financed ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35, 36; 41, 42 Please comment on methods available, determination of amount, - phasing of development and recommendations as to acquiring public acceptance of a civic center plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60, 61 5. What should be the land uses within and adjacent to the civic center? Please comment on the type of commercial district, cultural uses, and esthetic controls for surrounding areas. . . . . . . . . 30; 41, 42 76 Question Page DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT Downtown Rejuvenation WHAT SHOULD THE FUTURE ROLE OF THE DOWNTOWN COM- MERCIAL AREA BE? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30; 41-44 1. Can or should the present downtown area be rejuvenated: . . . . . . . . . . 30; 41-44 2. If so, how can this best be accomplished? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .35, 36; 41-44 3. What suggestions does the Panel have for the future of downtown structures that have outlasted their economic usefulness? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27, 28; 45 4. What steps are recommended to obtain the leadership for a program and develop the necessary participation and an cooperation of property owners tenant businessmen, d P p p Y the City government? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 60, 61 5.. How should the improvements and program be financed? . . . . . . . . . . . 35, 36; 45 6. Assuming downtown is to remain a commercial center, define its limits or boundaries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . • • • • • • • • • 45 Downtown Parking 1. How should off-street parking be acquired and financed?. . . . . . . . . . . 30; 43, 45 2. How can parking be provided and preserved for local shoppers? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30; 43, 45 3. Should free parking be provided for shoppers? If so, what is the best method to provide it? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30; 43, 45 4. What effect would the addition of adequate parking facilities be likely to have on the value of adjoining commercial land? . . . . . . . . 45 5. Should the City government take the initiative in forming a parking district? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 BEACH AREA DEVELOPMENT Upgrading the Beach 1. How can the City assure that the image of the eight and one- half miles of beach will be upgraded and developed to its highest and best potential for tourism? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31, 32; 50, 51; 59, 60 77 Question Page 2. What facilities are important in bringing the populace to Huntington Beach to enjoy its vacation and recreational advantages? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31, 50 3. Considering the present use and ownership of the beach southeast of the pier, how should this property be developed so as to be of greatest benefit to Huntington Beach? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 4. What can be done to make the public areas of the beach and beach facilities more self-sustaining? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50, 51 5. To unify public thinking and.effectively promote an im- proved image of Huntington Beach, is 'it best to utilize the Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce, service clubs, home owners associations, advisory citizens committees and other local organizations, or should a public relations agency be established as a City department for that purpose'? . . . . . . . . . 60, 61 Beach Area Parking 1. How can parking best be provided for the beach area? . . . . . . . : 30; 43 2. How could it be used during the off season? . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . 51 OIL ORDINANCE 1. How should the City approach a cleanup program with: a. P-resent operation of marginal wells? . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 53; 59-61 b. Idle and nonproducing leases? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53;.59-61 c. Untidy operation of present facilities? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53; 59-61 2. Should City funds be available to: a. Land owners where operators have moved out leaving old equipment and debris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 b. Operators that are not financially able,to improve condi-. tions but are willing to cooperate in cleanup activities . . . 53 3. Should the City control off-shore drilling operations ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 4. How can the City carry out a community development program for better control of oil industry practices a. Where field operations have been practiced and are now depleted in perimeter areas of the field ? . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 53; 60, 61 b. To discourage further operating plans in these areas? .. . ... 53; 60, 61 c. .,To confine production of oil to a more condensed area? . . . . . . ;53; 60, 61 78 Question Page 5. Does the proposed oil ordinance provide the necessary control of oil production? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERING THE SIZE, GROWTH POTENTIAL, AND CHARACTER OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, WHAT SHOULD, BE DONE TO ATTRACT AND ACCOMMODATE INDUSTRY? . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55, 56 1. What types of industry.should be sought? 55, 56 What changes in local legislation and policies would make the area more attractive for present industry to expand and new industry to locate in the city? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26, 27; 57 2. Please comment on: a. Present industrial zoning totals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 b. Local policy affecting construction.of new plants: . . . . . . . .. . . . . 26, 27 c. Regulations governing industrial zones in the City: (1) Are the regulations properly written? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26, 27, 57 (2) If not, how can they be improved ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26, 27 (3) Should the City attempt to control industrial uses -through performance standards rather than using conventional zoning ordinances? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 (4) Should the industrial zones be exclusive in nature? . . . . . . . . 26 3. Please recommend a program for attracting industry to Huntington Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 55-57 4. Comment on establishing a favorable climate for industry and community attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 55-57 5. Comment on communicating with possible industrial prospects . . . . . . . 57 6. Should the City hire a full-time industrial coordinator? Is now the proper time to embark upon an industrial development promotion program? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 7. Is the Southeast Industrial Area (south of Atlanta between Beach and Cannery) properly located? Does it, or will it, represent a potentially good industrial district? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 8. If the Huntington Beach Freeway is located west of Goldenwest, this City could, through changes in the Master Plan of Land Use and Zoning, establish a Central Industrial "Belt" between Goldenwest and the railroad. Evaluate this potential industrial district and suggest its limits and boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27; 57 79 Question Page 9. Should the City have different standards for industrial streets and improvements? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 10. What are the most effective ways to preserve land that is zones and master planned for industrial use? . . . . . . 57 11. What are good interim uses for industrial property ? . . . . . . . . . 55; 57 PARKS AND RECREATION 1. Should the City maintain its current policy of buying parks now, as acreage becomes available, and improving them at some later date? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 2. Comment on the City's present policy of purchasing several small neighborhood parks and compare the pros and cons of this policy to providing a few larger community parks. .. . . . . . . . . . . 58 3. Should the City provide Community Centers? If so, how many and what should their size and location be? . . . . . . . . . . . 58 4. Should the City pursue the attainment and development of: a. A natural history museum? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 b. A wildlife area? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 c. An art center? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 d. The Newland House as a historical landmark? . . . . . . . . . . 58 5. Please comment on possible methods of financing recreation sites, buildings and projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35, 36; 58 6. Since the City spends large sums in the maintenance and operation of the beach each year, do we need the same acreage of parks per capita as inland cities ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27; 58 I 80 I