Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
First Amendment To the Phase I Land Use Element of the Gener
Affidavit of Publication Stixe of California Cty o: Orange SS Cty of Huntington Beach crge Farquhar, being duly sworn on oath, says: That he is a cit14.11,:?Df the United States, over the age of twenty-one years. �j/1��� rha`4he is the printer and publisher of the Huntington Beach M y News, a weekly newspaper of general circulation printed and pub- lished ih Huntington Beach, California and circulated in the said County of Orange and elsewhere and published for the dissemination Published Huntington Beach News, June of local and other news of a general character, and has a bona fide 26, 1975. subscription list of paying subscribers, and said paper has been NOTICE of PUBLIC HEARMG established, printed and published in the State of California, and AMENDMENT TO THE County of Orange, for at least one year next before the publication LAND USE ELEMENT of the first insertion of this notice; and the said newspaper is not NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a pub- devoted to the interest of, or published for the entertainment of any lic hearing will be held by the City Council particular class, profession, 'trade, calling, race or denomination, or Jr tine kALY of Huntington Beach, in the any number thereof. lLnt n�gtonhahe Beach,mber oat tt a hour ofCivicenter 7.00 The Huntington Beach New was adjudicated a legal newspaper P.M., or as soon thereafter as possible,- of general circulation by Judge G. K. Scovel in the Superior Court on Monday, the 7th day of July, 1975, of Orange County, California August 27th, 1937 by order No. A-5931. meet to t eo se Phase In Lend nUsenElement of the General Plan. This Amendment That the NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING i concerns seven specific areas of the City: 1. Yorktown School Site generally located j at Yorktown and Magnolia Avenue; AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT 2. Huntington Harbour Area generally to- of which the annexed is a printed copy, was published in said news- noted south of Edinger avenue and north of thel&untington Harbour Main Channel adjaMnt to the City boundary; paper 8t least One issue 3. Signal Property at Bolsa Chica, Tal- bert.and Springdale Streets; 4. Kendall Property at the southwest cor• commencing from the 26th day of June ner of Slater and Graham streets; 5. North of Huntington Center north of Center Drive, east of the Southern Pa- 1 9 and ending on the 6�th day of June Freeway; o. Hamilton School Site, east of J3ropk-- hurst Street, south of Hamilton Aye- 19225—, both days inclusive, and as often during said period and nue; and times of publication as said paper was regularly issued, and in the 7. Newland School Site west.of Newland_ regular and entire issue of said pewspaper proper, and not in a Street, north of Indianapolis Avenue. supplement, and said notice was published therein on the following The.amendment also deals With several Bates, to-wit: administrative changes. All interested persons are invited to June 26 1975 attend said hearing and express their i opinions for or against said Amendment. Further information may be abtairted from the Office of the CWj C1er4S. LATED: June 24, 1975. �,/� CITY OF HUNTtNGTQ,N B9ACH By: Alicia M. Wentworth ublisher city clerk Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2 7 t h day of June 19-2-IL Notary Public Orange County, California i--------------- - -•- THOMAS D. WYLLIE ; JIV Notary PuMfc-California I Orange County r My Commission Expl►et i S•Pf*mbw 12. 197S . City of Huntington Beach County of Orange' ► ' . State of Califo J ffidavit ofPublication of GEORGE FARQUHAR Publisher Huntington Beach News Films Clerk BY Deputy Clerk J� Huntington Beach Planning Commission P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 . TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Planning Commission DATE: July 2, 1975 RE: Second Amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element Transmitted for your review and adoption at a public hearing scheduled for July 7, 1975, is the second Amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element of the General Plan. (This information was also forwarded to you on June 27, 1975. ) As you recall, the Phase I Land Use Element of the General Plan was adopted in December, 1973, and first amended in March, 1975. The pur- pose of this second amendment is to investigate areas of the City where changing conditions require reconsideration of past decisions and to initiate several minor administrative adjustments. The changes considered in this proposed amendment derive from three sources: directed studies from the Planning Commission and City Council, requests from property owners, and "housekeeping" chores generated by the Planning Department. The document contains an analysis of each area under study, a summary of recommended changes to the Phase I . Element for adoption (Section 3.0) , and an environmental assessment. Staff recommendations are included in the Amendment. At a public hearing on June 17, the Commission voted to adopt these recommendations with two amendments. 1. That the recommendation regarding the area north of Huntington Center (pp. 24-28; 49) be revised by requiring implementation through Specific Plan or comprehensive site plan as a requisite for using the Planned Multiple Use, Commercial Designation; and that the recommendation be further revised to include the following conditions applicable to the Planned Multiple-Use, Commercial Designation north of Huntington Center: a. street plans should be interrelated to most effectively accommodate the mixed traffic types and volumes that will be generated; b. a pedestrian walkway system should be established to integrate mixed uses; C. access points should be restricted; d. signing should be regulated in a manner to prevent intrusion over residential uses. s t r ' 2. That the Freeway Designation (pp. 39; 51-52) east of Beach adjacent to the San Diego Freeway be designated Planning Reserve and that the Council notify Cal Trans of the development constraints on the parcel. In addition to the information presented within the Amendment document, several other reports provide related information and may be referred to for more in-depth or specific data. These reports include EIR 74-4 regarding the Signal Properties which was approved by the Environmental Review Board on March 18, 1975; EIR 73-26 regarding Kendall property which was .approved on July 2 , 1974; and EIR 74-6 regarding Huntington Harbour which was posted for public comment on May 6 , 1975 (pp. 109-120 enclosed) . A fourth relevant document is an economic study prepared by Alfred Gobar Associates for Signal Landmark Properties regarding commercial use potential in the vicinity of Bolsa Chica/Talberf/Springdale. A copy of : this document is enclosed. Also transmitted for your review is additional information developed by the Planning Staff at the request of the Planning Commission: 1. A letter from the Huntington Beach City School District regarding the Newland School Site. 2. Additional information regarding state freeway right-of-way adjacent to the San Diego Freeway. 3. Additional information regarding the Planning Reserve at Beach and Adams. A Negative Declaration Application (75-43) on the Amendment was filed with the Environmental Review Board on May 16, 1975 and granted on June 3, 1975. It is the Planning Commission.' s recommendation that the Amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element be adopted as amended. Resp tfull submi to , hard A. Harlow Secretary RAH:MF:ja i .Q . HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT HUNTINOTON BEACH PLAM1ININei DEPT, jUU j l WS June 12, 1975 Huntington B@a@h, CA 92648 Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Attention: Mr. Richard Harlow, Planning Director Re: Newland School Site Dear Mr. Harlow: The Board of Education of the Huntington Beach City School District, after having declared this site surplus, voted not to sell the site at this time. The School District has no plans to construct a school on this site. The School District respectfully requests that the present R-1 zoning be maintained on the property in question. In our opinion, it would be proper to delete the school designation on the master plan for the area. Yours truly, HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT C. C. Palmer Deputy Superintendent, Business CCP:lc' C. C. PALMER S. A. MOFFETT BETTY FUNKHOUSER- DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT BUSINESS INSTRUCTION AND PERSONNEL 735 14TH STREET ■ P.O. BOX 71 ■ HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIF. 92648 ■ (714) 536-8851 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department DATE: June 17, 1975 SUBJECT: Additional Information re State Freeway Right-of-Way In response to Staff presentation of the Amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element on June 10, the Commission requested additional information regarding State freeway right-of-way east of Beach, west of Newland, adjacent to the San Diego Freeway. The Amendment currently proposes redesignating this area from Freeway to Medium Density Residential . It was the Commission' s opinion, however, that practical development difficulties might preclude the realistic possibility of Medium Density uses on this site. In March, 1975, the State deleted the Route 39 Freeway. As a result, the site under consideration was declared surplus and is to be sold. It must, therefore, be redesignated on the Land Use Element from Freeway to some alternative use. The subject property is a 7-acre site currently zoned R3. Adjacent development to the west is R3 (apartments and fourplexes) and to the east (in the City of Westminster) is R1. It is apparent that, theoretically at least, the property could be compatibly developed as either multiple family or single family use. The impact of the freeway on the property, the shape of the parcel, and the availability of access complicate the situation. Generally speaking, single family uses are discouraged adjacent to freeways though technologies do exist to reduce noise impact and similar sites in the same vicinity are ,.already developed to low density residential uses. Development potential is also constrained by shape. The property is an elongated parcel that is approximately 1700 feet in length.. The width increases from north to south. The northern end is approximately 150 feet wide, while the southern end is 350 feet wide. The problem of configuration is accentuated by the problem of accessibility. There are only two possible points of access for the site. The first point is the cul-de-sac of San Angelo Drive located at the northern end of the property. This location only provides a frontage of 44 feet, thereby limiting the useability of the site. The second possible access point is at the southern end of the property off of Wells Road in the City of Westminster. There are several problems associated with this location: first, vehicular traffic would have to pass through an existing single family neighborhood to reach an arterial street; and secondly, the developer would have to coordinate his efforts with both the City of Huntington Beach and the City of Westminster. __41 . • • r ' Page 2 From this discussion it appears that there are no good solutions to the problem.. To be compatible with existing uses, Low Density Residential could be permitted on the south, taking access from an extension of Wells and Medium Density Residential could . be permitted on the north adjacent to existing multiple family uses. This would lower overall density, reduce the impact on existing single family units in Westminster, and still permit the property to be developed if it is sold by the State. Another alternative is to designate the entire area Medium Density Residential. Because this is a General Plan, such designation would allow zoning flexibility to mix . low and medium density uses as necessary on the parcel to formulate the most desirable develop- ment possible under the circumstances. It is not really within the scope of the General Plan to investigate detailed site planning problems. The General Plan must serve as a development outline with more complete details filled in by zoning, specific plans, precise plans, and development proposals. A third alternative is to request the State not to sell the problem parcel because of its development constraints. The property could then be landscaped and provide open space in the area. Based on past experience, however, this may not be a realistic alternative as the State has been reluctant to hold on to excess property in the past. This. alternative would .also keep this property off the City tax rolls. It seems that any of these alternatives could be pursued. In any case, however, the State should be informed of the development constraints on this property and .notified of the City' s intent to require that any development of the area be compatible with surrounding uses and consistent with quality development standards. MF:ja ' e /�PWI �Z v y0R43A Y/LG,C APT ��h SU�PLI >;PA// P.PoP�.�Tf e� -n r TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department DATE: June 17„ 1975 SUBJECT: Additional Information re Planning Reserve, Beach and Adams On June 10, in conjunction with a presentation of the Land Use Element Amendment, the Commission requested additional information regarding oil operations on the Planning Reserve at Beach and Adams. According to the Building Department, there are 13 producing wells on the site currently extracting from 10 to 20 barrels per day per well. While it is impossible to accurately predict the life expectancy of this field, the Building Department Oil Field Inspector estimates it at 15 to 30 years. MF: ja o J LL L.M.E//ieff✓r. ----------- Op.[1d. Alerts' • •41 2206 2208 - 2204 i IniHJi [Ike) ♦gps�D/Y n• Ro/both/%d;aid.T r./6WrrA;n �RWS6u/.' ---- i --•�/oum}J Y • ` ♦�Sun to. /. - 210 8 J/W.M.E/liefl✓i my"rir + (dun Ucn.co. ._•.__ foot c�6r orh•• 4 4 'Q"JBI AyAerdf D'Oriew ST. 6Re6r&rf jy q fre.rn•Nunhn9Een Oda L/d 6 1 - � � 'Crewn_Culcher•' ir dnMMhr,Qdoh-rvNpi i^ Do6"'q�,Dec. P.tee,exec.) � l At•✓',s.rRt a sMso•a oar�in.rt/.o'ad 2008 0 08A//snEie O/Co.X � }is iq 1 - ' T _: pr4�fis/ Ale "/. �•'Oouq" - - ��c; ' Rw Shull { •pel y^ ' • RwSh le ♦8 Pea/r.Mc/renrie t� Yunker Morten 8 Do/% 1 Mi%/er fee 1 1 d pr' �J'T• 8♦s yorA" / - Red SNr O.i Co a �e%pnA cn Cs• 1' 'Red Srrr/45' O✓' cc Di/J Ltd. r/i 9coM v y, Turner hJ.te. •# ; '•fu ef-Nrw/dnd' * Ti Rrr/y/Inr re 1 TI9 Turner^ 6 t w. A (Da ) 3qew/iry)j I Gnkkn abort ar ♦j# '♦Pe99y' r+ 3 ' w /fit r tibn,Ali J-Z `/ S.s[ o:/c.. { N t fie' � = 1•A ♦t � ROCHESTER ST. i Sc arlR ea ,FAt 4er�d.cr•..• Q I �h/rfe+d•[aer 04-1 rb,pre e Drinby t°k vote/Erto.fnN E,"e19w/e` Hy Z f4Q 2; • ♦ 1 1 f3 Il�l�- c u 5 z �.Camp oi/Cb•/.tc.i I_ Imo- ro i Toxeco/nc. `•� AJ/enlic Ot%Co. 9 •7 s ^Lez4" New/and' d /on Art..!' ♦6 T. - r' ADA>4 AYE. -M•ra/C. •'A t 6 4 •a "LBZ tii •: �� 12 The Hempfen O/% CD • •10 W///rsnl H.BroyJon Trusl 0 • + �Brown� •15 :. t411951 • �+1 LBB2U" 17 /Me/nf 8roS♦�2 A,t Brown — • e • lo.S.' 2 �; • 5 "W04 to 2fiJher4CreeOi 'LBZU'• .;• I•ze �•. s B D,ovens 2 aDD= o I rye en^;/;o 1 �M. "6oNen erj/e 9 i •BZu" /�--- Conn Ceerre A-7 ryp ,erye+' s•Irrocr Oaf I 1 T'�a�,a,- •' ♦13 / o vne w.rn J ST i 1• •yA go -• Tnc..nson Pd/ eron" z 9 1 fr)'/.rl/O/'/%S' Teraco/ne. Jetin!Reandfrre"fAr/nes" . •�'f•M Z I :vo%ne!-Crown" ♦odreo Oil Co. i�4 '•Mi •T T 1 { 'dror•n" N9.nplon -Co 23 R. 6 Lae 5/brars 'L B��t' emar mro., 4J SIA l�lda/" Ow Lo/1�00�y of C'a/rfornia Qi Cbrp Ar*Cksw c/d• K. / 16 2 W'aeAowrn"•1 ta/e,Y6ycN• •�•re4e t Tr >Q l Thoflso/T) Chia ' 1 'n�"a-.Wee 1 •:'- 32 n..o.warin�w.a.a ¢� Q ST. ------.- -;-- ------ Roer+�" :pn..ie✓n 1 ' Q ♦¢ / �� alb ♦6 rCopho a ee.ry -be Af.Aaderj my hia'---• - Mrr�ira Ae/abraA{r.,+nff� (�' arch=" Morton iOe//sy • r� to t1'ryyr•J'�`ya 4f!/Mar' .`.•w.to.•% Arv.A•S.oi/C. L�4p n�"�� J Q T "Jbrn,trnrJb" ST. /rq so.Ce../aur,__._____ _K/ �.hie F/rndMeaNh" S/ane�aM i Co.of Ca/ O ¢ 'sfeeneRe ^ 'T�/bert mmui7iy POL.1 s T -- - ------- -- trj A.Mirr / 'amni/e• W1 � � n n • Ef 1VIROnMEnTAL REVIEW BOARD J/ CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH•CALIFORNIA �- P.O. BOX 190.92648 TO: Planning Department FROM: Environmental Review Board DATE: June 3, 1975 SUBJECT: Negative Declaration No. 75-43 (Second Amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element of the General Plan) The Environmental Review Board, at its meeting of June 3 , 1975, granted the above negative declaration request, .having found that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse effect upon the physical environment. No environmental impact report has been prepared for this project. Findings are based upon the information contained in the negative declaration request; the preliminary Second Amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element dated May, 1975; discussions by this Board; and the following recommendation : When actual projects are proposed for the following sites, separate, individual environmental documents will be required to be processed for such projects: Yorktown School Site Hamilton Avenue School Site Huntington Harbour Area Huntington Center Area. Q' M`elVin A. Tooker, Acting Secretary Environmental Review Board :df 5.00 ALTERNATIVES 5.10 No Project The implications of the "no project" alternative are as follows: 1 . The City of Huntington Beach and the local school districts would not receive the additional revenues the project would generate. 2. Huntington Harbour water quality would not be affected by the project. 3. The residential and recreation amenities that this project will provide will not be available. 4. The site will continue to be private open space until some other action is approved. 5. The increases in traffic and noise and the incremental decrease in air quality caused by the project will not occur. 6. This alternative would have an adverse impact on the financial investment that the developer has made in this project. Additional economic impact on the developer would result from continuing holding costs . 5.20 Tourist Commercial - Residential Alternative An unusual aspect of this environmental impact report is the following in- depth presentation of the .alternative conceptual plan for Tract 8718 which is presented in Figure 22 . This conceptual plan was developed as an alternative as a result of various considerations associated with the trend toward providing a greater proportion of public facilities in the coastal zone. The plan characteristics are listed in Table 10. This alternative conceptual plan has already been presented to the California Coastal Zone Commission on a preliminary basis in order to explore the concepts. 40 The State Commission, their staff, and the staff of the regional commission, all concurred that it is the type of project which they want to see. In fact, the State Commission members expressed a desire to see such 109 z� . Archihcluroll'Innning April 1 , 1975 TABLE 10 IIUNTI_NGTON I AR2.0UR COMMERCIAL-RESIDENTIAL PLAN CHARACTERISTICS TOTAL SITE 25. 4 ac. Road Dedication 2. 2 ac Park and Beach (includes 90 cars) . 5. 6 ac Orange County Flood Control 2 . 2 ac Channel 2 . 8 ac RESIDENTIAL 6 . 6 ac. intensity 90 du/1400 sf . ave. density 13. 6 du/ac. coverage 22% open 78% parking 270 cars (3 :1) boat slips 54 recreation center 2 tennis courts/pool COYUMERCIAL 6. 0 ac. PHASE I PHASE II TOTAL intensity 58,000sf. 20,000sf. 78,000sf. density .22:1 far .08:1 far .3:1 far coverage 18 0 7.6% 25.6% open 82% 92.4% 74.44s parking 232 cars 80 cars 312 cars(1/250sf) IMPACT Building Area 204, 000sf. 4 . 2 ac. Parking 402 surface 3. 8 ac. (270/semi-subterranean) 110 a development before they would approve additional residential development within Tracts 5483, 8636, or 8718. However, everyone is aware that it is a conceptual plan only and that, in addition to needing numerous refinements, such a project would involve both a general plan amendment and a rezoning in the City of Huntington Beach. N A fact sheet listing many of the characteristics of the proposed conceptual plan is presented in Table 10 . These conceptual plan features are based upon a commercial feasibility study (Appendix X ), the need to provide public open space and recreational facilities, and the residential-recreational theme of Huntington Harbour. A traffic engineering analysis for the alterna- tive has been prepared also (Appendix Y ) . Owing to the seemingly strong interest of the Coastal Zone Conservation Commission in this alternative, this section is being written at a depth of analysis which might serve as the basis for assessing the impacts likely to be associated with corresponding changes in the general plan and in the zon- ing assigned to Tract 8718. Thus, if the City of Huntington Beach initiates a general plan change, and corresponding change in zoning, then this report may be suitable to serve as the EIR for those actions. In as much as a general plan amendment and/or zoning change involves con- cepts of how the land is to be used, it is thought that the alternative conceptual plan presented incorporates sufficient detail . If such changes actually occur, then much more detailed plans would be developed and presented to the City of Huntington Beach for their consideration for approval . 5.21a Physical Environment This has already been presented in Section 3.10a. 5.21b Impact of the Project Upon the Physical Environment Essentially, these impacts will be quite similar to those presented in Section 113 3. 10b. However, the impacts on several factors might change to a small go extent. For example, the number of boat slips will be reduced from 104 to 54, but this will be offset by the inclusion of some guest docking area alongside the commercial facilities. This might change the water quality aspects slightly, as may the inclusion of the larger public beach. However, the magnitude is not expected to be great. The public beach would include some form of appropriate retaining wall to keep the sand at the beach. The only aspect which needs more discussion seems to be air quality. In terms of magnitude, the relative number of vehicle trip ends estimated in the traffic engineering analysis can be used to compare the potential effects of both projects on air quality. The Townhouse Study Plan, with 132 residential units, will generate 1 ,056 trip ends per day. Whereas, the Tourist Commercial - Residential Alternative will have 5,840 associated trip ends. Thus, the alternative will produce about 5 112 times the vehicular pollutants associated with vehicular traffic. The additional pollutants from the alternative project may or may not have a significant effect on local air quality. Specific micrometeorological data is not available for the project site to serve as a basis for an air quality model . Based on the calculations of the regional impact of the Townhouse Study Plan, (in Section. 3.14b) it is anticipated that the commercial alternative will not have a significant adverse effect on regional air quality. It will have an incremental effect. However, even this will be minimized by the fact that by having the commercial facilities nearby, some residents of the area will walk or bicycle to the site. Other residents of the area, who would have driven farther to find such facilities, will drive less and, therefore, emit fewer pollutants. In addition, commercial facilities tend to "capture" trips rather than generate them. The out-of-area drivers who i arrive at the commercial facilities will be mainly people who would have 114 been driving around the region anyway, and who happen to choose to visit these particular conanercial facilities. 5.22a Biological Environment This was presented in Section 3.20a. 5.22b Impact of the Project Upon the Biological Environment These impacts associated with the alternative conceptual plan will be almost identical to those associated with the Townhouse Study Plan (see Section 3.20b) . The only differences will be due to the revised distribution of landscaping, the deletion of some boat slips, and the addition of transient docking facilities adjacent to the commercial facilities. The same type of effects would'tend to occur, only the distributions and magnitudes might change slightly. 5.23a Human Interest Environment This was presented in Section 3.30a. 5.23b Impact of the Project Upon the Human Interest Environment These aspects of the environment are the ones likely to be affected most b P Y the alternative conceptual plan, as compared to the impacts projected for the primary proposal in Section 3.30b. The impacts will be assessed in terms of changes relative to those which were projected in Section 3.30b. In terms of the corresponding categories, this alternative plan would not create any impacts significantly different than those presented in Sections 3. 31b (Archaeologic and Historical Resources) and 3.32b (Paleontological Resources) . 115 IAI With reference to land .use and zoning, the changes would be dramatic. Instead of a low density townhouse plus public beach project, it would include a combination public beach and park, a tourist specialty commercial center (with transient docking facilities) , and medium density townhouses (with 54 boat slips). The present land use designation (Low Density Residential ) as well as the present zoning classification (R-1 ) for Tract 8718. would have to be changed. Various changes in the land use designations might be considered for each sub-area within Tract 8718. For example, the tourist oriented commercial area might be designated for specialty commercial use or commercial retail . The combination beach and park sub-area might be switched to a park designa- tion, or the beach portion could have a separate beach designation. The townhouse area could be changed to a medium density residential designation. Another approach would be to combine all of the sub-areas under one land use designation which would allow for a variety of specific uses simultaneous- ly. Thus, it might be possible to designate the site for use as a Specific Plan, a Planned Community, or as a' Planning Unit (Destination Resort). A Specific Plan could incorporate all of the uses proposed. A limitation on the possibility of having it designated as a Planned Community (PC) would be the fact that PC' s are supposed to have a minimum of forty acres, accord- ing to the Land Use Element, Phase I . 11 However, the same document indicates that the uses proposed would also fit into a Destination Resort Planning Unit. In addition, some other combination of land use designations or another broad classification might be possible. Obviously, the new zoning requirements would have to correspond to the land use designations. Ms. Monica Florian, Senior Planner, City of Huntington Beach, was contacted regarding the conceptual plan. She indicated that the city would tend to consider giving the site two basic land use designations, commercial and medium density residential , with a recreation symbol placed on top of one of 116 them 41 The boundary between the two land use designations would probably n a form which is more flexible than the be t type shown in the Land Use Element, PhaseI , which is somewhat dated. Irrespective of the various technical titles involved, it is important to consider how these proposed land uses would relate to each other and to other parcels in the vicinity. Owing to the site's relationship with various waterways, the site is buffered by open space everywhere except at the northeast end. At that point it adjoins Edinger Avenue and Tract 5483 (which is undeveloped but undergoing planning as a townhouse project) . The proposed public roadway on the site occupies the portion of the site bordering Edinger Avenue. These land uses do not seem to be incompatible. In addition, where the site adjoins Tract 5483,there is a common road proposed which would serve both parcels. These uses are also not incompatible. The market feasibility study (Appendix X ) shows that there is enough of a market area to the east to support the commercial facilities which are proposed. In addition, the same study proposes uses which would not provide Lmuch competition to the nearest commercial properties to the east along Edinger Avenue, the main motor vehicle access route. In addition to the tourist commercial area, the public beach and park would serve both the neighborhood and some people from throughout the community. The site is not as large as most community parks, but there is only limited access to it owing to the waterways and the large area controlled by the U. S. Navy. A key aspect of the proposed alternative is the fact that it would allow much more public access to Huntington Harbour and a greater variety of public activities than would occur if the site.were developed under the present low I 117 density land use designation. The demographics of the site would also change. By reducing the number of townhouses from 132 to 90, the permanent population projected for the site would be changed from 1 ,211 down to 823. However, although the population would be less, the density on the residential portion would be higher. This increased density would be mitigated by having the public beach and park adjacent to the residential area. The other significant change would be the provision of places of employment. Many of the service jobs would be ones suitable for young people living in the area. The peak demands for their services would tend to occur during the summer months when many young people are not students. The circulation aspects of the site would also change significantly from those shown in the Townhouse Study Plan. The street patterns would change, the traffic volume would be increased significantly, access problems would occur, a bike path would be provided, and public docking facilities for boaters wishing to visit the site would be created. Someday, such docks .might become useful for a passenger ferry operating in the harbor, if one ever occurs. The detailed traffic engineering aspects are presented in the traffic engineering analysis (Appendix Y ) which has been prepared as another addendum to the first traffic engineering analysis (Appendix N ) . As is shown in that appendix, the conceptual plan creates some problems. However, most of them can be remedied whenever the plan is refined. This would occur after many people have had the opportunity to submit comments. It is recommended that the interested readers of this report take the. time to read the extensive traffic engineering analysis (Appendix Y ). The design alternatives presented by the traffic engineers, if. incorporated in future revisions of the conceptual plan, would mitigate or eliminate altogether the problems found. Hence, although the present plan, if implemented, would Create some circulation problems, no significant impacts.are anticipated. The acoustical aspects of the project would not change significantly due to the fact that no significant problems would tend to occur on the site even 118 wr if Edinger Avenue is extended to Pacific Coast Highways unless poorly planned residential units would be placed immediately adjacent to Edinger Avenue. That is not done in this conceptual plan. The traffic volume along the access road within the site would not be high enough to create any significant problems at the low average speeds anticipated. There would not be many significant adverse impacts on the public utilities or community services. Of the various representatives referenced previously, only Mr. Patapoff expressed any reservations during a followup telephone conversation?' He indicated that the sewage flow could not be projected until more specific information became available about the restaurants. The schools would benefit from fewer students and higher revenues. V With reference to recreation, this alternative would provide many more opportunities for the public. They would have convenient parking, a com- bination park and beach, commercial facilities to visit, transient docking facilities, and a bike path. Key aesthetic impacts would be associated with the greater variety of land uses and public access to views of Huntington Harbour. The alternative would also provide more revenues for the city and for the school districts. Some estimates of the revenues have been generated by consultants to the proponents.42 They estimate that the market value of the commercial area would be $4,034,000 and that it would generate an average sales volume of $645,000. The revenues it would generate include: Sales Tax $ 67,450 Property Tax 17,550 Bus. Licences 1 ,927 Personal Prop.Tax 4,836 Utility Taxes 3,125 $ 94,888 119 Separately, the residential area would have a market value of $6,500,000, with average prices of $56,000 for the non-channel facing units and $84,000 for the channel facing units. Combined, the net revenues to the city generated by the alternative would be even greater than those which would be generated by the townhouse study plan. 5. 30 Alternative Tentative Tract 14aps Some alternative concepts were explored before the presently proposed Tentative Tract Map was developed. Figures 23, 24, and 25 show the alternative concepts. Alternative 1 was rejected because there were many potential water quality problems associated with the dead end internal channels. In addition, the long cul -de-sac would have been inconvenient for the residents and emergency vehicles. a Alternative 2 (Figure 24) was prepared in case the geologists had indicated that surface rupture was likely to occur directly above the best known location of a deeply buried fault zone. This did not turn out to be the case, hence, the design was dropped in favor of Alternative 3. Alternative 3 (Figure 25) was rejected because it did not provide much public access to the waterways. 5.40 Higher Density Residential If the densities were raised to much higher levels then, more people would have access to purchasing homes in the area and the unit prices would probably be lower. The number of school children and the traffic volumes would increase proportionately. Densities greater than 6.5 units per acre would require a general plan amendment and corresponding changes in the zoning districts assigned to the parcels. Altogether, this is sHch a large area that develop- ment at much higher densities might tax the abilities of some of the community agencies to service the site. If much higher densities occurred on Tract 8636, then a second bridge might become necessary. 120 1 ^ 477Li 04-7i6 — Ne S' Publish_ 6/26/75 Postcards -o- NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the . City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center, Huntington Beach, at the hour of , 7:00 P.M. ; or as soon thereafter as possible, on Monday, the 7th day of July 1975- , for the purpose of considering an amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element of the General Plan. This amendment concerns seven specific areas of the City: 1. Yorktown School Site generally located at Yorktown and Magnolia Avenue; 2. Huntington Harbour Area generally located south of Edinger Avenue and north of the Huntington Harbour Main Channel adjacent to the City boundary; 3. Signal Property at Bolsa Chica, Talbert and Springdale Streets; 4. Kendall Property at the southwest corner of Slater and Graham Streets; 5. North of Huntington Center north of Center Drive, east of the Southern Pacific Railroad, south of the San Diego Freeway; 6. Hamilton School Site, east of Brookhurst Street, south of Hamilton Avenue; and 7. Newland School Site west of Newland Street, north of Indianapolis Avenue. The amendment also deals with several administrative changes. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said Amendment Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk. DATED: June 24, 1975 CITY OF- HUNTINGTON BEACH BY: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk Affidavit, oNf Publication State of California County of Orange ss City of Huntington Beach George Farquhar, being duly sworn on oath, says: That he is a hed HurHinSLOn Ficach "we, June' citizen of the United States, over the age of twenty-one years, 51 Published That he is the printer and publisher of the Huntington Beach News, a weekly newspaper of general circulation printed and pub- NoTlq op., Pu1al e-oJ1Rfllfa- lished in Huntington Beach, California and circulated in the said AMENDMENT 10 f4i County of Orange and elsewhere and published for the dissemination LA*D use ELEMENT of local and other news of a general character, and has a bona fide NOTICE IS HEREt3Y.Glyfll.,thaX a gut} subscription list of paying subscribers, and said paper has been liC hearing'wii tie held bit t1�j printed and published in the State of California, and zing Commission of cite City �fur►tint- established " + 1? ton Beach, California, for the Nhwale'af County of Orange, for at least one year next before the publication considerir*Uh arrienddidW,td the Phase of the first insertion of this notice; and the said newspaper is not I Land Use Element of the General Ptah. devoted to'the interest of, or published for the.entertainment of any this amendment, cpncerns won 1A4 lilt areas oti ttid.C,t r.. particular class, profession, trade, calling, race or denomination, or +.. �' ' any number thereof. t..YoFktown .school•t� et Yorktown aMd Migottii 1 + The Huntington Beach New was adjudicated a legal newspaper a. Hriritington,k' A ni of general circulation by Judge G. K. Scovel in the Superior Court cared sdi,ttl'."Q'�' lr ud r . of Orange County, California August 27th, 1937 by order No. A-5931. tiortti of �F�!�!}} r Channel A6it 3. Signal Propm4y 81.Boise MICA' ti iiYt That t1le AMEND14ENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT and Spripgdaie.Weet's; 3. Kendall Flnperty it ttie sdtithwil "$fsr- ner. of Slat4i and•Graflatn 5tii8{d; 5. North of Hunt, on::Ceriieh Itor(h of of which the annexed is a printed copy, was published in said news- Center,orive„e of the 3oi►thegn Pa- cific Railroad, slqutrh oh thil. Sam QIegO Freeways paper at least one 18 ti ue 5. Hamilton Schbot;,51% e�stt of br6ok- hurst.Street; eolith Gf Ham lto V. nuer and # commencingrfrom the 5th day of June /. Newland:Sphool Site *ft,,of_Newjatw Streej,-horth of Indianapolis AJernt�i11e0'.' The amendment 'also dbals with•"o- 192.5— and ending on the 5 t h day of June eral admirilstraerve chanps.- Said hear(na will be troll!at the 604 of hL0 P.M., 'on June 1�, lays, in the 19'J both days inclusive and as often during said period and -ouncii Chambei kuiitift of the.Civic �-�—+ ys + g p Centef; 2000 Main Waet, Huntington times oP publication as said paper was regularly issued, and in the Beach, Caidomia: regular and entire issue of said pewspaper proper, and not in a All interested persons are invited to supplement, and said notice was published therein on the following attend said hearing and. express their dates, to-wit: opinions for or against the proposed nn amendment .to the Phase 1 Land Use' June 5 , 17 r]5 Element of the General 'Man. Furthel 'Informbtion mly be obtained from the City Planning Qepartmeijt. Telephone N9; 014)•53k5271. DgTF3p tills Sth-day of June, 1975. CiTN.'PLANNI- +COMMISSION / " _ y,• �• BJr Richard A. Harlow, ublisher I• _ N.' -.- Subscribed and sworn to before me this b t h day of June 19_35_. 4 t C"Mibd +•i�_ ��'!s Notary Public " Orange County, California ----------- r - THOMAS D. WYLLIE r r � Notary Public-California � r r m - Orange County My Commission Expires '' September 12, 1978 f It ;q10 y 1 h * »•�/ /� I ,"I . �..� ' SITE PLAN n.-u SCALE 140 \ The Landau Partnership (;1-i�i9"'71ANA COV.PJ ..L$ V FIGURE S2. TOURIST COMMERCIAL- RESIOENTIAL ALTERILATIVE C� 4k 402rf4e-aZ Z RESOLUTION NO. 4099 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN OF LAND USE BY ADOPTING A SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE PHASE I LAND USE ELEMENT WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach on the 19th day of December, 1973 adopted the Land Use Element for the City of Huntington Beach for long-term, physical- de- velopment of said city; and The City Council desires to update and refine the Land Use Element in keeping with changing community needs and objectives; and The amendment to the Land Use Element serves as a transi- tional step in developing a comprehensive plan by establishing a revised land use policy guide for certain segments of the Huntington Beach planning area, and copy of such second amend- ment `to the Land Use Element is on file in the office of the City Clerk; and Public hearing on the adoption of such second amendment was duly conducted before the Planning Commission and approved by a majority of the voting members of such Commission, and transmitted to the City Council . Thereafter, the City Council, after giving notice as prescribed by Government Code Section 65355, held at least one public hearing, and said second amend- ment to the Land Use Element was duly considered; and At said hearing before the City Council all persons desir- ing to be heard on the •Seco-nd Amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element were heard, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, pursuant to the provisions of Title 7, JOC:ahb 1 . Chapter 3, Article 6 of the Government Code of the State of California, commencing with Section 65350, that the Second Amendment; to the Land Use Element of the City of Huntington Beach is hereby approved and adopted and made a part of said Land Use Element . PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7th day of July, 1975. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: DON P. BONFAZ)YI Attorney By ty Jerk Acting City Atto e" APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: . • City Administrator 2. 1 . Re No. 4099 STNI'K OF CALIFORNIA ) COMI'Y OF ORANGE ) s s: C11'Y OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do.hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City. Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7th day of J111v_ 19�5 by the following vote: AYES: . Councilmen: Bartlett, Wieder, Matney, Duke, Gibbs NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: Coen, Shipley City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California The foregoing instrument is a correct copy of the original on fife its this office. Attest dC1 -------- ----------o..,..... 19 _. AMA. itr TvIQRTH ';ity Clem, Clcr'; of the City CoUof iy of jluntington Beach,Cal. �� eputy • CITY OF HunTinGTon BEACH J. P.O. BOX 190, CALIFORNIA 92648 PLANNING DEPT. (714) 536-5271 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Planning Department DATE: February 13, 1975 ATTN: David D. Rowlands, City Administrator RE: Amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element of the General Plan Transmitted for public hearing and adoption at your February 18 meeting is the most recent revision of the Amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element. This document incorporates the latest recommendations of the Planning Commission and the City Council . The Amendment concerns five significant sections of the City: South of Huntington Central Park, Townlot Area, Government Center/Old Town, Sunset Heights, and the Quarter Section bounded by Beach, Ellis, Newland, and Garfield. It sets forth added residential standards to be applied within these five areas, Q goals and policies statements for each, and recommended land use plans. Adoption of this Amendment will establish a much needed development guide for land use decisions in these important areas. ;]w itted, /42v, /I w Director of Planning and Environmental Resources RAH:MF:mk • CITY OF HUf1T naon BEACH J� P.O. BOX 190, CALIFORNIA 92648 PLANNING DEPT. (714) 5365271 1 - a® 1 .7t ` TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Planning Department DATE: March 5, 1975 ATTN: David D. Rowlands, City Administrator RE: Amendment to the Phase I Land Use Eleme of the General Plan Transmitted for consideration at your March 10 , 1975 meeting is the Amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element. As you will recall, public hearing on the Amendment was closed on February 18 , 1975. At that time, the Council approved four of the five area plans: Townlot Area, Government Center/Old Town, Sunset Heights, and the Quarter Section bounded by Beach, 15 Ellis, Newland, and Garfield. Council also requested that the Planning Reserve Unit South of Huntington Central Park be returned at your March 10 meeting for further consideration. When a decision is made regarding this area, Resolution Number 4010 -.can be adopted, thus establishing much-needed development guidelines for the five planning areas covered by the Amendment. Respectfully submitted, 62 L a Richard A. Harlow Director of Planning and Environmental Resources RAH:MF:gc I\ E CEIVEp ��RI7•, y . 40 204 S. Wilbur Ave. Covina, Calif. 91724 `Q7 FEB February 11, 1975 The City Council 1.3 A11 IO : gI 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Calif. 92648 Attention: City Clerk Alicia Wentworth Subject: Town-lot Area Amendment to Phase I Land Use Element Scheduled Hearings, February 18, 1975 Dear Sirs, As a property owner in the town-lot area (lots 6, 8 and 10 of Block 306) I wish to express my concern for the planning for that area. I believe the land-use should be based on the most prominent feature of the area, that is, the ocean and beach. Thus, the planning should start at the ocean front and move north to Palm Avenue instead of starting at 6th Street and moving west to Golden West. To me, it seems that the present and future needs of the City and its residents can best be served by directing the development of this area as follows: 1) Ocean strip. Golden West east to 6th Street. Ocean Avenue north to Olive. Use for Motel/Hotel, restaurant, offices, shops and/or high density residential. The use of any particular parcel within the strip would be determined by zoning. 2) Remaining town-lot. Golden West east to 6th Street. Olive Avenue north to Palm Avenue. High density residential . Very Truly Yours, irkpatri , Jr. Copies to All City Councilmen Affidavit of Pvlftcation • Published _Huntingt ach News, Feb. State of California 6, 1975. County of Orange 1 ss NOTICE:OF--,PUBLIC .HIEARING City of Huntington Beach / All ENDMENT, T0,THE tLAND,USE ELEMENT OF.THE G•ENtRAL. PLAN George Farquhar, being duly sworn on oath, says: That he is a NOTICE IS HEREBY.GIVEIV.that a.pub- citizen of the United States, over the age of twenty-one years. lic hearing.will, be held, by the City That he is the printer and publisher of the Huntington Beach 1 Council of the city of bee- of the Beach, in the Council, -Chamber of the ,Civic News, a weekly newspaper of general circulation printed and pub- Center, Huntington Beach, at the hour lished in Huntington Beach, California and circulated in the said of 7:00 'P.M., or as soon thereafter as County of Orange and elsewhere and published for the dissemination Possible, on Tuesday the 18th.day of of local and other news of a general character, and has a bona fide ebruary, 1975.; for the purpose of subscription list of paying subscribers, and said paper has been - end U e a proposed amendment to the established, printed and Land Use Element of the General Plan.. p ' published In the State of California, and The renewing is necessary 'due to the County of Orange, for at least one year next before the publication modification to the original amendment. of the first insertion of this notice; and the said newspaper is not 'The amendment and subsequent modi- fications involve changes to the land devoted to the interest of, or published for the entertainment of any use designation in five planning areas particular class, profession, trade, calling, race or denomination, or within the City generally referred,to as: any number thereof. 1. Planning Reserve South of Huntington The Huntington Beach New was adjudicated a legal newspaper Centrar Phrlf generaly_-located west ,of general circulation by Judge G. K. Scovel in the Superior Court of-Gothard Street Aq the City boundary ,line; north_ of Garfield-Avenue to the of Orange County, California August 27th, 1937 by order No. A-5931. Huntington Central Park.-The modifi- cation ao the origina' "ridment.in- That the AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE 1.th p Proposed change on a.portion j of.the area that was desienated•as open space ,related uses to 012 and 0-4 ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN apd.e desi dwelling •units per acre agd•redesignates the open SPace areas. of which the annexed is a printed copy, was published in said news- ;2. Government,Center-/Old Town Planning Unit - generaily located. south of Gar- field'Avenue 'to Atlanta Avenue, 'and paper at least one issue east of Goldenwest Street. to Beach Boulevard.' That area designated as Civic.Cenfer and Civic Center expan- Commencing from the 6th dayof February lion in the original amendment is .proposed,to be modified to Govern- ment Center expansion. 192— and ending on the 6th day of _February 3. Townlot Planning-Unit - generally lo- cated south-of Palm Avenue, to Pacific Coast Highway and,east of Goldenwest Street to •Main Street. A modification both days inclusive, and as often during said period and to the.original amendment is proposed times of publication as said paper was regularly issued, and in the which would modify the Specific Ptai,j regular and entire issue of said pewspaper proper, and not in a design that property fronting on Pacifificc Cooaa st Highway to an Ocean supplement, and said notice was published therein on the following Front Commercial/Residential desig- dates, to-wit: nation. 4. Sunset Heights Planning Area - gen Feb 6� 19'75 eratly located south of Heil Avenue: to-Warner Avenue and east of Algon-! quip Street to Botsa Chica Street. 5. East of Beach Boulevard/South of Ellis Quarter Section - generally 10-, Gated east of Beach Boulevard to New- ��,_�� land and South of Ellis Avenue to Garfield Avenue. 61 Patlisher A document depicting said proposed Subscribed and sworn to before me 'this 7th da of changes is on file in the Planning De Y partment Office. All interested persons are invited to February 1915— attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said Amendment. Further information may be obtained; Notary Public from the Office of the City Clerk: ` Orange County, California DATED: 2/5/75CITY OF. HUNTINGTON'BEACH .Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk THOMAS D. WYLLI® t Nofary Public-Callfareilf v - i Orange County ? My Commisslon Erplrof ______________Sep+ember 12_1911__` �1 ikily of Huntington Beach County of Orange State of California i A ffida v it ofPublication of GEORGE FARQUHAR Publisher 'Huntington Beach News Filed Clerk By Deputy Clerk Affidavit of Pob ' ation Stateof Cfi:lifornia County of.Orange ss / City cf. Huntington Beach • moo George Farquhar, being duly sworn on oath, says: That he is a citizen of the United States, over the age of twenty-one years. That he is the printer and publisher of the Huntington Beach Published Huntington Beach News Dec. News, a weekly newspaper of general circulation printed and pub- 26, 1974. lished in Huntington Beach, California and circulated in the said NOTICE of PUBLIC HEARING County of Orange and elsewhere and published for the dissemination AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE of local and other news of a general character, and has a bona fide ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN subscription list of paying subscribers, and said paper has been NOTICE As HEREBY GIVEN that a• established printed and published in the State of and Public hearing will held by the city � California, Council of the City off Huntington Beach, County of Orange, for at least one year next before the publication in the Cqunc t chamber of the Civic of the first insertion of this notice; and the said newspaper is not center, Huntington Beach, at the hour devoted to the interest of, or published for the entertainment of any of 7:00 P.M? or as soon thereafter as particular class, profession, trade, calling, race or denomination, or JanuaPossible,; Monday, the . se day of of con- any number thereof. s dering an amendmenIT75,' for the t toLand The Huntington Beach New was adjudicated a legal newspaper Use Element of the Generill Plan. The of general circulation by Judge G. K. Scovel in the Superior Court amendment involves proposed changes of Orange County, California August 27th, 1937 by order No. A-5931. pl the land use designation in five planning areas within the city generally referred to as: That the PUBLIC HEARING — AMENDMENT TO 1. Planning Reserve south of Hunting- ton Central Park — generally located west of Lake Street to the city bound- ary ary line, north of Garfield d Avenue to AND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN the Huntington Central Park. of which the annexed is a printed copy, was published in said news- 2. Government center/Old Town Planning Unit— erterally located ngrtb gf Gar- field Avenue to Atlan-ta Avenue, and paper at least _ o n e issue west of Goldenwest Street to Beach . Blvd. 3. Townlot Planning Unit— generally lo- commencing from the 26th day of December sated south of Pjlm Avenue, to Paci- fic Coast Highway and east of Golden- west Street to Main Street. 19r2 and ending on the 26th day of December 4. Sunset Heights Planning Area — gen- erally located south,of Jieil Avenue to Warner Avenue and east of Algon- 19V—, both days inclusive, and as often during said period and quin Street to Bolse Chiea Street. times of publication as said paper was regularly issued, and in the s. East of eeach Blvd./south of Ellis: regular and entire issue of said ews a er proper, and not in a Quarter Section — g+enewla located gu P P P P P east of,Beach Blvd. to Newland Street supplement, and said notice was published therein on the following and 399th of Ellis Avenue to Garfield dates, to-wit. Avenue. A Document depicting said proposed Dec . 26, 1974 changef is on file in the Planryng De- Partmerlt Qf fin. All irytefefkterppr�sg .pcp i ited to attend said h gilyg and: exp their opinions for of .dS�n•st"paid amendment. Further . informat7dn may be obtained from't,bp_Off ice-of the Cite!gw4. DATED: -Decerrlbe,r 20. 1974. 07 P usher CITY OF HU'PTINGTON BEACH Subscribed and sworn to before me this 27th day of B�Y; ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, C;ty Clv% December eecember 19�4 ti/'4' ck_10_ - :�fj� Notary Public Orange County, California ' - THOMAS D. WYLLIE P J Notary Public-California i P Orange County My Commission Expires i lop ------ September 12, 1978 i --------------------------' C* of Huntington Beach ' County of Orange State of California 4 ffida v it ofPublication of GEORGE FARQUHAR Publisher 'Huntington Beach News Filed Clerk By Deputy Clerk �I. . Publish Postcards f NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AMENDMENT TO 'rHE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the . City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center, Huntington Beach, at the hour of 7 00 P.M. , or as soon thereafter as possible, on ____day, the lath day of February 19 75 , for the purpose of rehearing a proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The rehearing is necessary due to modifications to the original amendment. The amendment and subsequent modifications involve changes to the land use designation in five planning areas within the City generally referred to as: 1. Planning Reserve South of Huntington Central Park - generally located west of Gothard Street to the City boundary line, north of Garfield Avenue to the Huntington Central Park. The modification to the original amendment involves a proposed change on a portion of the area that was designated as open space related uses to 0-2 and 0-4 residential dwelling units per acre and redesignates the open space areas. 2. Government Center/Old Town Planning Unit - generally located south of Garfield Avenue to Atlanta Avenue, and east of Goldenwest Street to Beach Boulevard. That area designated as Civic Center and Civic Center expansion in the original amendment is proposed to be modified to Government Center expansion. 3. Townlot Planning Unit - generally located South of Palm Avenue, to Pacific Coast Highway • and east of Goldenwest Street to Main Street. A modification to the original amendment is proposed which would modify the Specific Plan designation on that property fronting on Pacific Coast Highway to an Ocean Front Commercial/Residential designation. 4. Sunset Heights Planning Area - generally located south of Heil Avenue to Warner Avenue and east of Algonquin Street to Bolsa Chica Street. 5. East of Beach Boulevard/South of Ellis Quarter Section - generally located east of Beach Boulevard to Newland and south of Ellis Avenue to Garfield Avenue. A document depicting said proposed changes is on file in the Planning Department Office. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said Amendment . Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk. DATED: 2/5/75 CITY OF- HUNTINGTON BEACH BY: Alicia M. Wentworth a City Glerk � Huntington Beach Planning Commission P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Planning Commission DATE: January 6, 1975 ATTN: David D. Rowlands, City Administrator RE: Amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element of the General Plan Transmitted herewith is the Amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element of the General Plan as recommended for adoption by the Planning Commission on December 17, 1974. Staff presentation was made at a joint study session with the Commission and City Council on September 24 , 1974. Public hearing is scheduled for your meeting of January 6, 1975. In December of 1973, the Planning Commission and City Council adopted the Phase I Land Use Element. Prepared in response to a state-mandated deadline of December 31, 1973, the Element contained six "Planning Units" which required further study. The amendment being proposed to the Land Use Element contains three of these planning units plus two other study areas. Section 8. 0 of the report summarizes the amendment and presents in succinct form the plans recommended for adoption. The recommendations are the result of four months of study sessions between the Planning Staff and .6 Commission. Alternative plans for each planning unit and study area were evaluated prior to formulation of a recommended plan. The Environmental Impact Report (74-13) is contained in Section 10. 0 and was submitted to the Environmental Review Board on October 12 , 1974. The EIR, . modified by two addenda, was adopted by the ERB on December 12, 1974 and is recommended for acceptance. R;aVr . submi to , �144W---arlow Secretary RAH: ja Enclosure G �IJ" IV I - 20 Publish 12 26 74 /Z /7� Postcards ■ram■ ■ �wr■w.w.rww NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic. Center, Huntington Beach, at the hour of r P.M. , or as soon thereafter as possible, on ��...MQndgv.__. -76- the " 6_6th,. day of � January 19`4--, for the purpose of considering an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The amendment involves proposed changes to the land use designation in five planning areas within the city generally referred to as: 1. Planning Reserve South of Huntington Central Park- generally located west of Lake Street to the city boundary line, north of Garfield Avenue to the Huntington Central Park. 2. Government Center/Old Town Planning Unit, - generally located north Of. Garfield Avenue to Atlanta Avenue, and west of Goldenwest Street t- Beach Blvd , 3. Townlot Planning Unit - generally located south of Palm Avenue, to Pac:itiF Coast Highway and seat of Goldenwest Street to Main Street. 4. Sunset Heights Planning Area - generally located south of Heil Avenue to Warner Avenue and east of Algonquin Street to Bolsa Chica Street. ; (see next page), , . All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said amendment Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk . DATED: December 20 1974 CITY OF MWINGTON BEACH BY: City Alicia 1= Wentworth �, Publish Pos tc a\r4s NOTICE O.F,,PUBLIC HE\&RING NOTICE IS HEREBi\4�IVEN that a pu is hearing will be eld by the City�•.Council of the City of Huntingt Beach, in the Couhcil Chamber-,.of the Civic Center, Huntington`Beach, at the hour P. , or as soon th eafter a� posa le, on `� the day of 19 for.the purpose of considering 5. East of Beach Blvd./South of Ellis Quarter Section - generally located east of Beach Blvd. to Newland 'Street and south of Ellis Avenue to Garfield Avenue. A Document depicting said proposed changes is on file in the Planning Department Office. 1 i11--tgterested persons are inv�d to attend said hearing and express the i ions for or againit.. said Further informations be obtained from tht 'Office of the City Clerk . DATED: CITY OF- HUNTINGTON: BEACH BY: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk s None Number of Excerpts Publish Once LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach , California, for the purpose of considering an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The amendment involves proposed changes to the land use designation in five planning areas within the city generally referred to as : 1. Planning Reserve South of Huntington Central .Park- generally located west of Lake Street to the city boundary line, north of Garfield Avenue to the Huntington Central Park. 2. Government Center/Old Town' Planning Unit - generally located north of Garfield Avenue to Atlanta Avenue, and west of Goldenwest Street to Beach Blvd. see next page) Said hearing will be held at the hour of 7:00 P.M. , on December 17 , 1974 in the Council Chamber Building of the Civic Center, 2000 Main Street , Huntington Beach, California. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against the proposed Amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Further information may be obtained from the City Planning Department . Telephone No. (714) 536-5271 DATED this 5th day of December, 1974 CITY PLANNING COMMISSION By Richard A. Harlow Secretary 3. Townlot Planning Unit -generally located south of Palm Avenue, to Pacific Coast Highway an west of Goldenwest Street to Main Street. 4 . Sunset Heights Planning Area - generally located south of Heil Avenue to Warner Avenue and east of Algonquin Street to Bolsa Chica Street. 5. East of Beach Blvd./South of Ellis Quarter Section - generally located east of Beach Blvd. to Newland Street and south of Ellis Avenue to Garfield Avenue. l� A Document depicting said proposed changes is on file in the Planning Department Office. r, • R r Wk4ITE-CITY ATTORNEY BLUE-CITY CLERK CITY OF HUNTIN TON BEACH No. dREEN-CITY ADMINISTRATOR CANARY-DEPARTMENTAL REQUEST for ORDINANCE or RESOLUTION • Date Request made by Department 12/19/74 HZonica Florian Planning INSTRUCTIONS: File request in the City Administrator's Office quickly as possible but not later than noon, one week prior to the Council Meeting at which it is to be introduced. Print or type facts necessary for City Attorney's use in preparation of ordinance. In a separate paragraph outline briefly reasons for the request of Council Action.Attach all papers pertinent to the subject.All appropriation requests must be cleared and approved by the Director of Finance before submitting to City Administrator's Office. Preparation of an Ordinance or Resolution is hereby requested: Resolution for adopting the Amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element of the General Plan. A Copy of Planning Commission Resolution No. 110 is attached for your information. The zAnondment is scheduled for public hearing before the City Council on January G, 1976. • • Desired effective date Si ned: Approved as to availability of funds ` Director of Finance City Attorney—Please prepare and submit printed copies to this office by: City Administrator • (ITY OF HunTinGTon BEACH / P.O. BOX 190, CALIFORNIA 92648 �:— PLANNING DEPT. (714) 536-5271 0/ TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Planning Department DATE: January 20, 1975 ATTN: David D. Rowlands, City Administrator SUBJECT: Letter from City of Fountain Valley concerning proposed mobile home park Attached is a letter from the Planning Director of the City of Fountain Valley expressing concern over the proposed mobile home park south of Ellis, west of Newland adjacent to the Fountain Valley city limit lines. The Fountain Valley Planning Commission requested that this information be transmitted to the City Council and Planning r� Commission for information purposes. Res ectfully s 2U (Z Cichard A. Harlow Director of Planning and Environmental Resources RAH: ja Enclosure • CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY V CITY HALL 10200 SLATER AVENUE '�c��7UMTl. (714) 962-2424 CALIFORNIA 92708 January 14 , 1975 RECEIVED JAN 151915 Mr . Dick Harlow Planning Director PLANNING DEPT. City of Huntington Beach P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California Dear Mr . Harlow: EIR - MOBILE HOME PARK SOUTH OF ELLIS , WEST OF NEWLAND ADJACENT TO THE FOUNTAIN VALLEY CITY LIMIT LINES On January 8 , 1975 the Fountain Valley Planning Commission expressed strong opposition to the proposed mobile home park south of Ellis Avenue , west of Newland Street . It was the Commission' s opinion that the property in question should be developed single family residential . Also , the Commission felt that the EIR submitted for its review is inadequate because it does not properly develop and analyze the single family residential alternative , especially with regard to aesthetics , economics , and social factors . We plan to comment in more detail regarding the EIR at your January 21 EIR Review Committee Meeting . The Planning Commission desires that its statement of opposition be forwarded to the Huntington Beach City Council and Planning Commission .to be made a part of their records . I request , therefore , that you transmit copies of this letter to your Commission and City Council . In conjunction with this we would like the Commission' s opinion to be incorporated into the proceedings for the pending master plan change change recently continued by the Huntington Beach City Council for further study until early February . We want to urge the City of Huntington Beach to establish a maximum of 41� dwelling units per acre across the subject property on the master plan. Your help with regard to these matters will be sincerely appreciated. V r r ly ours , Clinton Sher od Planning Director cc : Mr . James W. Palin Mr . James Neal , City Manager Mr . T. Woodruff , City Attorney v :To:' City Council From: Leonard F t Dec. 23. 1974 City of Huntingto each 606 - 15 Street. H.B. Subject: Gov't Center/Old Town Land Use; Jan. 6, 1974 Public Hearing. 'It seems that the area was scrutinized in detail, then efforts were made to do the best possible planning job. I like many of the planned features : 1. Low density below Memphis, except R-2 for the existing trailer park. The proposed low-density area is solidly and almost exclusively homes (with some exceptions) . Such an area deserves to be conserved. 2 . R-2 above Memphis This is largely vacant land with several clusters of homes and some multiple units . A more desireable development might evolve if it were allowed to: divide an R-2 lot in two, build a home on each half, and sell the homes separately. 3. A park that also preserves the bluffs . The proposed park along Delaware from Baltimore to Detroit also takes in 2 blocks of bluffs --- a good dual benefit. 4. A park around the lake below Yorktown and off Delaware. 5. Keep railroad for potential rapid-transit use. A. WAII _r►lt►rtoA n.n,,,morntol e in the area above the high school 0 attempts to reduce the amount of strip commercial along Beach Blvd. 7. Office-professional on Main above the civic center. 8. Preserving historical landmarks, when possible. Economic considerations may override, but: e I especially like the Barn since this serves a dual purpose as a historical site and as providing ft unique atmosphere for the H.B. Playhouse. 0 Others have expressed desires to preserve the Colonel Northam residence. � w cc: Planning Dept/Planning Commission r T.a: City Council From: Leonard G ht Dec. 23, 1974 City of Huntingtach 606 - 1 Street, H.B. Subject: Town Lot Land Use; Jan, 6, 1974, Public Hearing References : 1. Proposed Amendment to the Phase 1 Land Use Element ' (as amended in Dec. 17, 1974 public hearing) . H.B. Planning Dept, October, 1974. 2. Town Lot Zonina Preference Summary, Leonard Wright, Oct. 3. 1973 (enclosed) . Summary information on the Town Lot area Ref. 2 (enclosed) gives summary information on zoning preferences of Town Lot residents. It also includes zoning assumptions and summarizes comments received. Outstanding Job on a difficult area (see Ref. 1) Because of its past history and current situation, the Town Lot area must have presented difficult decisions. No matter how good a job is done, it's impossible to completely satisfy everyone. It seems to me tnat strong effort was expended to be objective, consider the reasonable best-interests of resident-owners (partially summarized in Ref. 2) and to still consider standard planning concepts. Strong support for 'the land use recommended in Ref. 1 '" = __ I feel that the Planning' Commission and the Planning Dept have developed an excellent and optimum plan for those of us who' want to keep on living here. e This satisfies what a strong majority of the residents want (excellent preservation-- and protection for those living east of 17th Street) . • enhances having a livable area (good quality-of-life) • encourages resident-ownership and less trend towards transiBnts, absentee ownership and related problems. • enhances better development of the area. o possibly less additional overcrowding of the schools. Recommend being allowed to build homes on 25-foot lots in R2. R3 and possibly R4 zones. . W Enclosure : Ref. 2, T.L. Zoning Preference Summary ec: Planning Dept (no enclosure) Planning Commission (no enclosure) A To :,•Planning Department F Leonard Wright City of Huntington ch 606 - 15th St. 10-3-73 Subject: Town Lot Zoning Preference Summary Rcferel;We : 1. Town Lot Specific Plan Study draft report, August 28, 1973 Purpose : To aid in evaluating information for the rezoning of the Town Lot area. Scope : This report covers the area from 6th to 17th and from Palm to Ocean. Approach c Four people surveyed the resident property-®masers . The questions asked were : 1. Do you own this property or do. you rent? If they owned the property, a second question was asked : 2. How would youlike to have your block zoned --- for houses, duplexes or apartments? Only the responses of property-owners were tabulated in the summary (Table 1 and Figures 2 through 4) . The number of owner-occupied buildings (whether home, duplex or apartment) were tabulated-as well as the number of buildings used solely as rentals. In most instances only responses from building occupants were used to determine if owner-occupied or "rental only. " In some instances queries were ma.HP Phn»t the. opmPrshln of s.n ia,r_.e�nt "hip"i lr!incr�; , Tri meat hl mnie. the tabulated informatioh covers a portion of the buildings. The intention was to cover the entire area in general, rather than to get concentrated, detailed information on a 'few blocks .. Some blocks were not covered. These, almost without exception, fall. into one of the categories : *solidly apartments 'mainly vacant lots or with oil equipment or old industrial buildings . oa combination of these Assumptions . 1. Greatest "weight should be given the desires of those who live here and intend to continue doing so. Much lesser weight should go to these whose main concern is what they can take out of the Town Lot area (specula- tors, developers, these who intend to sell) . 2 . Since some developers have abused parts of own Let area (aver the strung opposition of resident-property-owners) , the results of their abuses is not justification for giving them their way can future development. 3. To protect a given density and to . prevent further inroads , the zoning must be for that density. ;r 4. Several differen criteria might be used in ©ning evaluation. These include: a. how the area was before the intensive developer action of the past few years. Also how the area is now. See : 'Fig. 1 map 'Fig. 3-1. p.43 of Ref. 1. *City map of Town Lot structures and associated notes. b. what the resident property-owners want. (Figs. 2 and 3) . c. the extent of owner-occupied property (Fig. 4) d, keeping the area desireable for resident home-owners. e. proximity to the ocean and" other specific areas. . Statistical summary of findings Fig. 2 details : *the extent of owner-occupied buildings (this should be regarded as a percentage since no one was at home at many places) . `the responses of preperty-owners. Table 1 summarizes the Fig. 2 information. Remember th-q.t oPrtnin parts of the summary do not include blocks that: *are solidly apartments 'have mainly vacant lots or oil equipment or old industrial buildings *a combination of these Different parts of the horizontal rows of blocks may have different characteristics, so that the statistics could be more concentrated in some parts of the row than in others. Consider: *Fig. 3 of blocks where owner responses favor homes . *Fig. 4, blacks where responses showed as many or more owner-occupied buildings as Urentals only." *Fig. 3-1. p.43, Ref.l, Visual Survey. Summary of comments by those surveyed 1. Strong feeling for z©nina for homes, even by those who own multiple units . Many are discouraged by the intrusion by developers. Most pre- ferred zoning to a lower density. 2. Some wanted to keep the zoning as it is . Generally these fell into one of the categories : *they plan to sell in the foreseeable future (many of these would have ;ranted to stay here if developer intrusion hadn't ruined their area. *they are speculating with this property and/or with additional property in this area. _ -3- *they feel the Oge has already been done. *they may want to build another unit themselves (most of these people don't like anything the developers are building and would prefer that the developers don't further abuse the area) . 3. The main concerns about what the developers have been doing are : a. absentee landlords not keeping up their places nor the quality of their tenants. Not enough control on apartments . Much too many dogs. Dogs knocking ever trash cans, dirtying lawns, ruining grass. Stealing. b. Parking problems. Even though apartment may have spaces availa- ble, tenants park on the street and use up spaces in front of other buildings . Excessive .crowding when visitors come. c. the poor quality of what's going up. No yards in the rentals (including many of the. new duplexes ) so children are turned loose on their neighbors. Poor materials and w®rksmanship make. many feel the units will deteriorate fast, d. too much crowding of people together. e. developers scrambling for property pay higher and higher prices, with the intent of cramming as much as possible ©nt© it. This causes the assessed valuation to go up and our property taxes along with it. 4. Aithsugh enly views of property-owners were s»mmeriZed; reYlt ors (especially in and around homes) were overwhelmingly and strongly for zoning for homes. We told them we appreciated their views, but wf:re only using responses from property-owners. i h i r "t'ab le I. s-tat ; s�t s um.�a►� off- Fig, z - /i { s k VVI yh ary o �- survey r'e Sys o fixes. _ - ---- - - ---�--__ Aca�i a Pec2., Or'2.np } ouve j vvz. t Oceae TOTAL.3 - - -- to -- ---.. _ Pal•,, Acacia. recan oa^ge ve wai�u�' «re„t-a 31 .43 kS ss 4t0 on ly - G 42 35 2 z945 -..._. I o} owners; i Homes on ly 43• 3 9 ~ �o me sJ��,y,le xis . $ 5. -_ �- .- - � • - l`F y 3 z �. I , i u Or 4u i A-hy�h/n� • ---- - 1 � 09p d D 7L R. (S) 6�' (b 0 0 ® R j� m (�Z �� r p0 ��' huMe 4,• , 3v 0 A (9) (Ov 0 i 1010 (D '56 X I W �!', e R2 R2 D R2 b 9,2 !0 RZ �! R2. l R2 ® `,`4, j ® ( U ® 0 SY ®,�I CIO ��f k � ® oil 1 � m.0 I ® R3 C .1 E3 h A (� C,.. 2 A e x � .. _.._ 16 �Y < 1 f! A A I (g)A A© A I t m D. CD S C c O A A e ® r d rJ � 2 A A I -�A- A q A ® l� ��i OD ® ° e �Q A I© 2 > (22 W a In ut nlbbe. A -. . fAQ '..,.,-- D 1? D • . 3Cli. C1 r't Ilo lS iy 13 ►.z Il I n 9 8 -7 N KQy Z o„ln •. The Gon�inuf'S '{-�1r�u�h 23rc� (C�o►df►� west) S'1`reet. T�;s u,\ ftio" 2rQ,� !S -6 mug^. 0 Flo,ne Ri 6R1-o Comple-tely un, efeloped except •for o;l weltg a^j ate occas ;D^al house. A 1z 3> vwpIQX R3 IQ A(I brand -the Iart f Qw ✓►, oe,-t- 5- ('Sor,e n of u un;t M O2 Very new �o a -92w years © o;I e7AlpMe,,t C3 . Le5S t1,2r, Z Yr,o^thS o1cl, -N Current 2on1ndd Mt In l4K9, CV!'�12 EN7- . Si/t i US (aP�,rox1 -1 S reetf of Sdq-tur or hor1'2- tom( H )(Jr1A) G-(b (,j BEil-CH TaW &j L-vT SrODY ftZE,4 - 4 Ma.►- 72 str.eets not sAown. (3/ocK y btocK 'Summary of Survei ..•resporises, 17-L 16fh 15 t k / �fh r 3 th 12th 11•t.� I0-� q g�f� -7th;, j wOP 3R IPr3R 8P 3IZ 7H 4P, qP 39 t3P °l iP 4R 7P 2R 4P LIR 3P SR SP 2a �►t;, l by ou.n I H drD 2 16 o rD 1� M D 20 i3 3P i r�F oR ( P 5R 8P 2R 2R 1-. qK 16P 49 5P 3R 7P SR ` ! P ;fRIH 3 o=• � s• .� qP `tP 7R 8P �R 5P N 3 1 D orK IH Dor A 5� 2 R 6N 3 N crD iaH �Ij A aor D t 4 ! D z I ft o rD I A �v3 y o ID D ? rD ro t4 �l S' G ,bwnCr ` � Pec2A 'w1�4 3v PC�can eca.n 4� °Q o s� 3! I 4R 5P I 14P� 7P 5A bP 29 3P 7A 7P 5P sR 3P qA �� I ? . JH 114 yH 3N H�ptercS �FH 2H 3H 'D i I LIu 1R3 and Ft orl� u� {v_-PIQxc 1 6roclt o� I i N Rsn yb� ETC It it z� HP SR 4P 7P P P, 3P GR 3P I 2.P SR V ZR 3P 7H 4P 4R SIP yR i �� N3 N M 3H I Pt !D !f �H 3H 0 1 H 2N ! An{��ra , IH or.D Ar 1 6V �A v 1 O - U U tL. c0 0 f 1 ve __ 6I v� _ __ ____ o►;ve 3 3f 3P, -V fvR 5P 2F, g.P_ ...... •q P 3R IP~ 6R+ J4P 101, 3P SR F}DI 1 1'i Or D 2 4t! 2D any lhir6'-3 Z ;; t; ZH •v 13 u t 14U . I A / 7 . /A N �. 3u 1 H 1 ? t It d Zr- q I IR 4P ZR 3P 5R tP 314, cr.° 3 3. '01z i I Pt N F� 2 pN 1A r1 3 ro P;913 , Q/°c,Ks where ow✓1 er re-s pauses 7avoc l; uses. - �o! t7�h •t;,f. St;l+ �f� 3th 2 n ith io'�h th ��, �'�� �a1n - f� OP k '7 r zR 4 $P 3 R 9P 2.1Z I� '-7 5H 5tP ° v = A .. JNarD 7-14or-D ID I � oD t;4ar.D 11' Nroo ; �.0 z 6y Ov,nFt IID D p ' NNE -•o� %�s 9P IR- 9P 2P_ ip 7R 8P �I1< `�5P �R � 6P �R sP 3R 7P SR CO ° zir H 34 1H SN 2 i't 61N I3 tI orb (�tt 5H - I D orR I Dor A -.� _ � o. !D IPtn ikI /� or 1D ID z � � .. / AorD 1A Q�. p-� ' O .i: ; � a:b.S�.,tea. � � `S ��•• ? 110 X N J W26 5 3IJ ia� 3P tR zP 4R P 59 ` &P 29 3P ?F 7P SR I3P H..t,tcra.S H 14H qf{ 2h 3H 5FJ I H v in I uu I ana I N orb ! ? b loc P- af' n -•U��1C tl tl Il It tt � c C f0 Ord 8 ___ _ -- O.-r."��_ 'O►^ n`'`C' C a�J 0 `D 7� SIP 2R a-�� � �L `'N` z rrt}hr� ;2H =?� t'<: l pl `ID l .4 ZH 3A I� ►, co -� M Ig n N 3H I ►1n{}� f I}} or.D i N Z hr 1 6U ro � H -Z N rt bu Ar 0 3, o l s ve 61;rrp- y w 3 �}P 4,R 5 P ,`..Y., g P j P 3 R 1 P- 6 R 14 P I o R 3 P 5 r 5 n c� I A! I t-t or D yu R 2D gny;h;�,-. �! i� 3 H ZN N v v 13 u t ;I u ; I Pt / j /A �- 3�� t H 4u ry Ir N o 4 m°g =t .. s " N V✓a l„ m � y W " warnKl; mot; �� IP IR yP zR 3P 5*1+ IP 3R 3 ri I3eg Pt N H 2-8 to Or r�o >fr 1 R s' o ti r��. lf. 8/cGKS :w►lene resloonse-C •S- howecl .as rnan.y br 6,,re owner OccuP.:21 6ui'C'�iis� �1�2.�Y�'Q?�a/f ori'%y�r 174C1i dh I-�,l•� O n ' Pal►►r oP 3R IP 3R = dY 3f` -7.H 4R vP 1•4P �: 7 LR 'iP yR gP 3R 3P 2�Z `0 57 SH bH 4H LiH 51� 4H 3►-� .2y o ozr r+ti I ►�afD 214or1> I� fJN �D II•� orl ! � ( by Cvif1Q . D D 1 ? c�1• f 4 a A c'Z c r) � ® •s • _ a r • A c•a° P 3 p oRR j ... 'sP :2.R �P f _ 6P qR . 5P 3R 7P SR \ 8P HF• p0 I IH ��H $14 2 R 61H �3 H mrp !oH Hn �H � '4�Zr+- t D o r R r1t>°fi R /fP °r !D 1 D ! Pf I A c r.D I P% t �Q-3 �3 N v_ • ec2:+ i j N��S 3u pecan a W CQ o ¢can 3P l � 3.P 4R 16P -7I? yol,'� .'„� !P P 5)< bP 2 3P 7R 7P--GR 5P sR $P kR H, I ? 1 H N �i-Pter.4 y �FH ; ;.� 3 f1 5 H I i•f �. m Liu ^': I Liu �_.pl�nc' I bJoc6L of �r N � . 12 �. APB N yb'C r �i acrvSS S't, Il 11 11 C jJ a J,'P,, • .,- ., .. + r n eP•'�' C � d 3 J 'iP SR SNP 7� ;; F �R ' 3P IOR P 2p 5R' `-�P 2R 'y 3P 7H yP 4R IP 19 y z D 1 H Z H • I Am �ht� I H or hh N n Ar I 6u �. ° bu °13P . 3R - SP .2'R.' g,.P., qP,..3 14P IoR 3P 5R oP sR �. I 'N or D ' ?. 4u ,2D A,nyfar -Z 2H N` 114 3 N Zy r► 3 �`v, 1 3 It H I Pt ��� 41 CO . r:,��-�;_ "'"�-�•S- r�� -�.'�t ri ,, l P 1 R 4 2 '' � SR 1.P 3 P, � 3' (� 4 J19 s3 2H 1A i fJF3 •. o Tp•:• Ed Sellich, Dick w From: d Wright Dec . 23, 74 Huntington Beach pining Dept - 15th Street, H.H. Goad handling of the Land Use Element Sat the Dec. 17 public hearing) I liked the - business-like and efficient way you handled the Dec. 17 public hearing. I also liked the way you put the citizens ' letters and petitions in a folder and circulated them among the Commissioners during the Town Lot part of the public hearing. This was a very timely and economical approach. I 'd appreciate it if you'd do the same thing during the Jan. 6 City Council public hearing. Federal. funds for low-income housing 1. Town Lot senior citizens usually don't go out at night. They also have transportation problems getting to the Civic Center. 2. Possibly you could have a meeting at the old civic center during the day. 3. After Jan. . 6 we can help inform senior citizens of your meeting, if you like. Most of them live from 7th to loth with others up to 14th. I don't know whet kind of response you'd get with a daytime meeting downtown. (,--^y p h one is 534-3 577) borne, or G 3 2-28'y7, w orx) 4. I don 't know what the major feelings and situations are. From a very small sampling; (very little input from those likely to be affected) , some comments have been: o Senior citizens will appreciate whatever they get. o Most Town Loters have lived here a long time and would prefer to have housing right here (their own homes or on the civic center site) . Most woule. prefer to stay in their homes if they own them. Probably prefer not: to be in a largely undeveloped area. a They probe.bly don't like hi-rises. ® A hi-rise like the Christian Church planned is good. 5. Other possil-ilities include: • Refurbishing existing homes. • some arrangement for living in the homes tax-free, possibly with an agreement on the future disposal of the property. This might or might not be a touchy subject. VTN Study Item 4 above along with any inputs on a senior citizens hi-rise may be useful inputs to the VTN Study and also for location of the senior citizens hi-rise (if this approach is taken) . 12-23-74 Toi Lot Land Use Flemen leonard alright oo6 - 15th St. . H.B. Reference: Proposed. Amendment to the Phase 1 Land Use Element, K.B. Planning Dept, October, 1974 (as amended) . Strom support for the land use recommended in the Reference I especially like : ® the zoning and zoning boundaries. o the circulation plan. e desires to establish defined residential neighborhoods. ® desires to preserve the existing low-density residential neighborhood to maintain the characteristic of the area, ® establishing and maintaining well-planned commercial developments. e maintaining existing open space and providing for more when possible. * phase out existing industrial zoning (mainly oil wells) . Benefits of the recommended land. use • This satisfies what a strong majority of the residents want (excellent preservation and protection for those living east of 17th Street) . ® enhances having a livable area (good quality-of-life) . e encourages resident-ownership and less trend towards transients, absentee ownership and related problem-z. o enhances better development of the area. ® possibly less additional overcrowding of schools. Recommend being allowed to build homes on 25-foot lots in R2 .and R3 zones. Some benefits of this are: ® more resident owners. e a more saleable product for the developer. ® an automatic lowering of the potential density when used in an R3 zone. ® This might put the cost of homes in reach of more people. A similar approach might work in other parts of the city. 12 21 2� Iq 18 17 16 15 !y 13 12 11 Io 9 Y nth Pales+ Pa►►�; • eon 61odK A c ac acacia gao block rn Imam Pecan (A I xe ow t>en9M V,) yoo b IocK Homes _ orange , �- � Orange � Sec l+locK , J M 'lVvl +� +l .� I've m enst o I've D y NigI D Y P ex MLL ; I ;is vJa M Wa t . ��ov oc 1. 1044 b I cc sK. ir ■ a 9 � 6tti it 22 21 Zo IQ 18 17 I6 y 15 `ry 13 1Z 11 1 8 t: 0as� {}i wly 1 . Provide for future expansion of Huntington Central Park. 2. Provide for adequate land area for future civic center expansion. 3. Develop a recreational trails system as an interim use for the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way between abandonment of the railroad and its development as a mass transit corridor. 4. Preserve and protect historic, scenic, geological, topographical, and archaeological sites. 5. Preserve the bluff line from development. 6. Establish estate zoning for high income residential only. Huntington Beach Planning Commission P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: January 29 , 1975 ATTN: David D. Rowlands, City Administrator SUBJECT: Amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element of the General Plan In response to Council referral, the Planning Commission reconsidered proposed land use amendments in the Planning Unit south of Huntington Central Park, the Townlot Area, and the Government Center - Old Town at a special study session on January 28 . As a result of that meeting, the Commission arrived at the following recommendations for those three study areas : 1. South of Central Park: Figure 1 reflects the desired land use designation for this planning unit. The open space category along the southern park boundary will provide a buffer around park per- mitting private and public uses such as agriculture, recreation facilities , parks, single family residential units on one acre parcels, resource production and other open space uses. Adjacent to this area and encompassing areas of steep slope, the bluffs, and several archaeological sites is Estate Development at two units per gross acres. It is the Commission' s feeling that this area is desirable for large lot development and the keeping of horses. A previous suggestion of mixed 2, 4, and 7 units/gac was discarded to maintain compatible residential development (i.e. , horse-related) throughout the entire area. Also, because the reduction of open space acreage would permit additional development and thus greater population, the Commission reasoned that converting greater acreage to two units/gac would help balance such growth by restricting density. Higher densities are still provided in the vicinity of Garfield and Goldenwest where lot sizestiand ownership patterns make estate development unfeasible. 2 . Townlot Area: Figure 2 reflects the desired land use designation for the area in question - the first block along Pacific Coast Highway. The recommended land use category for this acreage is Oceanfront Commercial/Residential which would permit all multiple family residential uses and commercial uses other than highway- related commercial activities such as fast food operations and gas stations. The Commission believed that this designation more adequately depicted the Special Ocean orientation of the Townlot area than did the title "Commercial/Residential" suggested by the Council. PAGE TWO 3. Government Center/Old Town: Figure 3 depicts the Commission' s recommendation for redesignation of the Civic Center and Civic Center Expansion Sites. To alleviate the problems cited by the Council in this area, the Commission suggests development of a Government Center category for both sites. This category would permit civic facilities, government offices and their public or private office uses. In this way, options would remain open for expansion of the Civic Center at some future time without a necessary commitment now on the City' s part. At the same time, uses compatible with the existing Civic Center could be channeled into this area. The Planning Commission recommends that these changes be incorporated into the Amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element of the General Plan and that the City Council adopt the Amendment as soon as possible to establish an up-dated guide for development decisions in these im- portant areas. Respectfully submi ted, Richard A. Harlow Secretary RAH:MF:gc Garfield . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . .. . .. . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . ..% r : . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . ....... . . . . ..... . . . . o eoo 1600 . . .. . . . . . . . . .. ... . . ... . . .. . .. . . ... . . .. SCALE 1 1600' a ' •�:::::. :: •; . • .. . .. . . . •. . .. .. x . 3 . . ..... . . . . .... . . . .... . . ..... . . . . . .. .. . ... . . . . ... . . . . . ... ... . ... " " Yorktown .... . . . ::. . . :. . . ... VO .f • . . • . . . . . . •. . .. . • •• • • • . •. .. - Legend- . . ... . . .. . . . .. ... - . . . . . . ... .. . . . . . . .. . ..... . . . .. ... . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . r• �— . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . .. . . . • . .. . Residential ° " ' . ::. . . . . . . . . . .. . ._..._. ...-._._.- ....._._.. . AdaMs LOW DENSITY 0. 7un/goc • . ••• . ' . • '.. . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . .. .. . . . .. . . . . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . .. • • • MEDIUM DENSITY 8 . 15 un;/gac . .' • •• " • ' •• '• • • • • •• ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . •.:.•:::.•:.•: •:::.•.. •.• ;...•.::... . . . • HIGH DENSITY ABOVE 15 un/gac <' ..• :•:: Commercial ® General Indianapolis U. Office - Professional >< ' • Public • • � • • �•� High School . . . . . . . . ® Government Center Chicago — Atlanta Fire Q Proposed Park Figure 3 0 •oo 1600 SCALE 1"= 1600, ' r� df rC%l.•�i v:: Legend : . Residential • :f }:•: LOW DENSITY 0. 7 un/goc ;±$>:;:�Y; :< '::>�:� s�_:`y+�• •, , MEDIUM DENSITY 8 . 15 un/gac HIGH DENSITY ABOVE 15 un/goc b Commercial ® General Public Recreation Center Other Ocean Front; Commercial/Residential Figure 2 0 0 0 800 1600 SCALE 1"- 1600' • ix •• ••irk:::.4:-�::�>::4•%:',�;�:%%%:.�.<ti•>: :: ':: :: %:;; ;: • • . . • Gar :�i '��' �;t •:::.•:::. ::::.•: . -• t �t4 :' ''Ts� rt •:••::• ::::::% :•• Legend __ . .. . . . . . . .: . . . .. ;,,,:.ski .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... . .. Residential ESTATE 0-2 un/gac �'.'•''•''�','• MEDIUM DENSITY 8 - 15 un; gac Industrial ® Light RECOMMENDED PLAN Public Utiliy Oil Resource Production Public k Open Space Figure 1 FF Fire =. :. 204 *ilbur Avenue Covina, Calif. 91724 January 20, 1975 The City Council 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Calif. 92648 Attention: City Clerk Alicia Wentworth Subject: Town-lot Zoning Amendment to Phase I Land Use Element Scheduled Hearing, Feb. 3, 1975 Dear Sirs As a property owner in the town-lot area (lots 6, 8 and 10 of Block 306) I wish to object to the proposed zoning that would restrict the area to single family residences. There are, and will be, many more people who desire to live close to the beach than can be accomodated by single family residences. Residential apartment development is the only way to provide the most people with the residential units they want and need. There are definite economic advantages for the city in directing the town-lot area to apartment development. These are: 1) The cash flow of 6 apartment dwellers would be greater than a single family and 2) Tax revenue from apartment developments would be greater than from single residences due to the greater investment. Very Truly Yours F. W. K'rkpatrick, J . FWK:csl Copies to All City Councilmen ,3 1 -Mr. F. W. Kirkpatrick, Jr. _ 204 S. Wilbur Avenue / y�cC i ' {�;�.R'•' Covina, Calif. 91724. �'�" DE January 20,. .197$• pm JUST P© FROM i'IEIQOI WpOOO. ,! Jla!, OFTHEGOVERME&m • �iJ ` �> %htt/a./nlis�DJ/! X>t�r9�awl 15 q The City Council 2000 Main Street N Huntington Beach, Calif. 92648 r Attention: City Clerk Alicia Wentworth i 0 P'd- I /3, /9 7s' p Azz _ - 53(.,3S77 C 1 A . January 30, 1975 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: City Attorney SUBJECT: Land Use Element of the General Plan This memorandum responds to Council' s request for a legal analysis of the adoption of the proposed amendments to the Land Use Element of the General Plan. We shall analyze the legal implications of adoption of the proposed Land Use Element from (1) the legislative requirements, (2) judicial attitudes , and ( 3) the legal implications on the City of Huntington Beach. Legislation There is a legislative mandate upon the City to adopt a General Plan which must include nine mandatory elements. Two of these mandatory elements of the General Plan are a Land Use Element and an Open Space Element . We shall now review, in some detail, these legislative requirements. • Government Code Section 65300 requires that every city "shall adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan. " Government Code Section 65302 requires nine mandatory elements in the General Plan and insofar as the Land Use and Open Space Elements are concerned provides : "The general plan shall consist of a statement of development policies and shall include a diagram or diagrams and text setting forth objectives , principles, standards, and plan proposals . The plan shall include the following elements : " (a) A land-use element which designates the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of the land for housing, business , industry, open space, in- cluding agriculture, natural resources, recreation, and enjoyment of scenic beauty, education, public buildings and grounds, solid and liquid waste disposal facilities, and other categories of public and private uses of land. The land-use element shall include a statement of the standards of population density and building intensity recommended for the various districts and other territory covered by the • plan. The land-use element shall also identify ,n. 2 ., areas covered by the plan which are subject to • flooding and shall be reviewed annually with respect to such areas. " (e ) An open-space element as provided in Article 10. 5 . . . . " Article 10. 5, Section 65563 of the Government Code, specific- ally requires every city to adopt "a local open-space plan for the comprehensive and long-range preservation and conservation of open-space land within its jurisdiction. " Article 10.5 defines open space land under Section 65560 as follows : " (b ) 'Open-space land' is any parcel or area of land or water which is essentially unimproved and devoted to an open-space use as defined in this section, and which is designated on a local, regional or state open-space plan as any of the following: 11 (1) Open space for the preservation of natural resources including, but not limited to, areas required for the preservation of plant and animal • life, including habitat for fish and wildlife species; areas required for ecologic and other scientific study purposes; rivers , streams, bays and estuaries ; and coastal beaches , lakeshores , banks of rivers and streams , and watershed lands . 11 (2 ) Open space used for the managed production of resources, including but not limited to, forest lands , rangeland, agricultural lands and areas of economic importance for the production of food or fiber; areas required for recharge of ground water basins; bays , estuaries, marshes, rivers and streams which are important for the management of commercial fisheries; and areas containing major mineral deposits, including those in short supply. " i " ( 3) Open space for outdoor recreation, in- cluding but not limited to areas of outstanding scenic , historic and cultural value; areas particularly suited for park and recreation purposes, including access to lakeshores , beaches , and rivers and streams; and areas which serve as links between major recreation and open-space reservations, including utility easements, banks of rivers and streams, trails , • and scenic highway corridors. - 3 -- I' M Open space for public health and safety, including, but not limited to, areas which require special management or regulation because of hazardous or special conditions such as earthquake fault zones, unstable soil areas, flood plains, watersheds, areas presenting high fire risks , areas required for the protection of water quality and water reservoirs and areas required for the protection and enhancement of air quality. " Government Code Section 65562 states that the legislature enacted the open space land requirements for the following purposes : " (a) To assure that cities and counties recognize that open-space land is a limited and valuable resource which must be conserved wherever possible. " (b ) To assure that every city and county will prepare and carry out open-space plans which, along with state and regional open-space plans , will accomplish the objectives of a comprehensive open-space program. " • Government Code Section 65564 further requires that : "Every local open-space plan shall contain an action program consisting of specific programs which the legislative body intends to pursue in implementing its open-space plan. " (Emphasis added) . Government Code Section 65566 requires that : "Any action by a county or city by which open- space land or any interest therein is acquired or disposed of or its use restricted or regu- lated, whether or not pursuant to this part, must be consistent with the local open-space plan. " I Government Code Section 65567 further provides that : i "No building permit may be issued, no sub- division map approved, and no open-space zoning ordinance adopted, unless the proposed construction, subdivision or ordinance is consistent with the local open-space plan. " • Government Code Section 65553 provides that : "No street shall be improved, no sewers or connections or other improvements shall be laid or public building or works including school buildings constructed within any territory for which the legislative body has adopted a specific plan regulating the use of open-space land until the matter has been referred to the planning agency for a report as to conformity with such specific plan, a copy of the report has been filed with the legislative body, and a finding made by the legislative body that the proposed Improvement , connection or construction is in conformity with the specific plan. " (Emphasis added) . Government Code Section 65911 provides that : "Variances from the terms of an open-space zoning ordinance shall be granted only when, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, • location or surroundings , the strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classifica- tion. "Any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant or special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is situated. "This section shall be literally and strictly interpreted and enforced so as to protect the interest of the public in the orderly growth and development of cities and counties and in the preservation and conservation of open- space lands . " These mandatory elements are not only required to be an integral part of the General Plan, but also all zoning ordinances must be consistent therewith, and if the zoning is not consistent , any resident or property owner is expressly authorized to initiate litigation to effect compliance. • - 5 - Government Code Section 65860 states: " (a) County or city zoning ordinances shall be consistent with the general plan of the county or city by January 1, 1974 . A zoning ordinance shall be consistent with a city or county general plan only if: " (i ) The city or county has officially adopted such a plan, and " (ii ) The various land uses authorized by the ordinance are compatible with the objectives , policies , general land uses and programs specified in such a plan. " (b ) Any resident or property owner within a city or county, as the case may be, may bring an action in the superior court to enforce compliance with the provisions of subdivision (a) . *** Any action or proceeding taken pursuant to the pro- visions of this subsection must be taken within six months of January 1, 1974 , or within 90 days • of the enactment of any new zoning ordinance or the amendment of any existing ordinance as to said amendment or amendments . " (c ) In the event that a zoning ordinance becomes inconsistent with a general plan by reason of amendment to such a plan, or to any element of such a plan, such zoning ordinance shall be amended within a reasonable time so that it is consistent with the general plan as amended. " The legislature has even imposed restrictions upon changes in zoning, when a general plan element is modified. Government Code Section 65862 states : "No hearing . . . for the purpose of bringing zoning into consistency with the general plan in the sense of Section 65860 shall be held within two weeks of the date on which a general plan, or any element thereof, has been recom- mended for adoption or amendment , or adopted or amended, by the planning commission or legislative body, as the case may be . . . when such recom- mendation, adoption, or amendment is the action from which inconsistency arises. " • The foregoing briefly summarizes the legislative mandate to the cities relative to adoption of the Land Use Element and Open Space Element of the General Plan. Cities appear to have no legal alternative available except to comply with the fore- going legislative mandate. This legislation was undoubtedly necessitated by a failure of California cities to adequately Plan their communities. Prior to 1956 only eight cities in California had adopted general plans . The first legal require- ment for cities to adopt general plans was imposed by the legislature in 1955. However, even as late as 1971, seventy- nine cities and twenty-nine counties had adopted general plans . Quoting from an article written by a local attorney, James M. Parker: "One of the more egregious examples of political indifference to uncontrolled urban sprawl may be witnessed in the San Fernando Valley and other areas of the City of Los Angeles . The fact that in 1965, the City of Los Angeles had been working on its general plan for twenty-four years and that in that period, only sixty percent of it had been completed, most of that being out of date in 1965 , may perhaps contribute enlightment (sic ) on the relationship between planning and orderly growth. " • It was apparently against this background that the legislature mandated that the cities adopt general plans and specifically set forth the content and element of such plans and imposed deadlines for adoption of the various elements. Judicial Attitudes c-ince the legislation mandating cities to enact general plans and elements thereto is of recent origin, there have been no court decisions involving general plans enacted by a city. In analyzing the legal implications, we can only speculate on how the courts will react to the legislative mandate imposed on cities. The only significant case pertaining to general plans (although somewhat tangentially ) is Selby Realty Company vs . City of Buenaventura, 10 Cal 3rd 110, 514P. 2d 211, 109 Cal Rptr 799. The Selby case involved a highly detailed general plan covering five years of street improvements in the City of San Buenaventura. The map included in the plan contained a circulation element indicating a proposed street cutting through plaintiff Selby' s • • - 7 - property . Subsequent to the adoption of this general plan, Selby applied for a building permit to construct an apartment complex on this parcel of land. The City denied the permit because the proposed street shown on the general plan and Selby refused to dedicate to the City that portion of land needed for the new street . Selby contended that such a dedication for the street would make his apartment complex virtually impossible to construct as originally contemplated. Selby then sued the City in inverse condemnation alleging that promulgation of the general plan and the refusal of the City to issue a building permit amounted to taking of his property without compensation in violation of the California Constitution. The California Court of Appeal held in favor of Selby, but the California Supreme Court reversed and held that . adoption of a general plan based on the facts of Selby was not a taking within the meaning of the Constitution. Quoting from the court ' s decision in Selby at page 805 : "The deleterious consequences of haphazard f community growth in this state and the need to prevent further random development are evident to even the most casual observer. The Legislature has attempted to alleviate the problem by authorizing the adoption of long-range plans for orderly progress . Thus , it has provided not only for the i adoption of general plans but also regional plans . . . , specific plans , district plans . . . , and a comprehensive plan for the conservation of San Francisco Bay . . . . In addition, the voters recently passed an initiative measure pro- viding the mechanism for adoption of plans to preserve and protect the state ' s coast- line. . . . "If a governmental entity and its responsi- ble officials were held subject to a claim for inverse condemnation merely because a parcel of land was designated for potential public use on one of these several autho- rized plans , the process of community plan- ing would either grind to a halt , or deteriorate to publication of vacuous generalizations regarding the future use of land. We indulge in no hyperbole to suggest that :if every landowner whose property might be affected at some vague and distant future time by any of these legislatively permissible plans was entitled to bring an action in declaratory relief to obtain a ,judicial declaration as to the validity and potential effect of the plan upon his land, the courts of this state would be inundated with futile litigation. . . . " The Supreme Court decision has been interpreted by some as meaning that general plans have no legal consequences, and are by nature flexible and tentative, and therefore a city can have no liability in inverse condemnation for adoption of a general plan. However, the more plausible application of the California Supreme Court 's decision in Selby is that there is a recognition by that Court of not only the legislative mandate to the cities to plan their cities, but also the recognition that the cities now have no alternative under the legislative mandate other than to plan their cities as required by state legislation. Legal Implications in City The legal implications of the land use element of the general plan have been reviewed with the planning staff in the process • of preparation of the plan. From purely a legal, technical standpoint the more vague and general the enunciated policies the less susceptible the city would be to any type of litigation challenging the validity of the plan. From a planning standpoint the more precise and definitive the enunciated policies , procedures and goals, and their method of implementation is set forth, the more valuable and meaningful such plan becomes. While in a few areas from purely a legal standpoint , we would like to see perhaps a little more generality, it is a vast improvement over the previous master plan of the city, which in essence was not a general plan but simply mirrored existing zoning. 1. Large lot zoning Minimum lot sizes have been sustained in a number of California cases where the minimum was related to the value and existing use of the land. Pratt vs . Adams 1964, 229 CA 2d 602; Hammer vs. Ross 1963 , 59 C 2d 77 ; Hill vs. Manhatten Beach 1971, 6 C 3d 279; Mores vs . San Luis Obispo 1967, 247 CA 2d 600, upheld a minimum five acre lot zoning requirement . In a discussion with Mr. Booth, City Attorney of Palo Alto this date, he informed us that the City of Palo Alto has successfully sustained its ordinance zoning property in ten acre parcels . He indicated that the matter would probably be appealed by the property owner to the Appellate Court . The case is Byer vs . • 9 City of Palo Alto, P 22 974. We conclude that lot sizes of one acre would be valid. 2 . Proposed expansion of Central Park and Civic Center The general plan' s greatest contribution is its long range point of view for attaining the ultimate goals, and additionally the plan serves a vital informational role and pro- vides encouragement to citizens to participate in achieving these goals. To be meaningful the plan must be a compilation of development policies and the evolution of planning legisla- tion in California has required formulation of long range policies. ' The general plan is a comprehensive, long range, policy guide for the development of a governmental entity as a whole; and we must emphasize that it is no longer merely a declaration of policy intention. The general plan imposes an obligation upon the city to execute its policies 'in accordance with such general plan, and to the extent that there is a change of policy, the general plan must be amended to reflect that change of policy, and zoning ordinances made consistent with such changes within a reasonable period of time. Cities are constantly evolving entities, and planning must reflect this evolution, and this is the rationale behind • the state legislation. a. South Central Park The proposed expansion of Central Park to encompass all lots within the southern terminus of the proposed park, in- volves property presently zoned RA. Property owners are not precluded from developing this property in accordance with the RA zoning regulations. Since the city, by adopting the land use element , has indicated its objective of acquiring this property in the future, the only issue is the exact time when acquisition must take place. Insofar as the proposed expansion involves the property zoned M1 within the southeasterly portion of the proposed expansion, the same principle applies. The California Supreme Court in the Selby case has stated: "We cannot discern in the foregoing allegations any concrete dispute between plaintiff and the county which admits of definitive and conclusive judicial relief. The county has taken no action with respect to plaintiff's land except to enact a general plan describing proposed streets, as required by state law. The fact that some of the proposed street , if ultimately constructed, will cross plaintiff' s property gives this plaintiff • 10 - no greater right to secure a declaration as to the • validity of the plan or its effect upon his land than that available to any other citizen whose property is included within the plan. The plan is by its very nature merely tentative and subject to change . Whether eventually any part of plaintiff' s land will be taken for a street de- pends upon unpredictable future events. If the plan is implemented by the county in the future in such manner as actually to affect plaintiff' s free use of his property, the validity of the county' s action may be challenged at that time. " We must analyze the proposed definition of "open space" insofar as this designation applies to property southerly of the proposed park boundary. Open space will be defined as reflected in Mr. Harlow' s memo to Council and will permit : "Private and public uses such as agriculture, recreation facilities , parks , single-family residential units on one acre parcels resource production and other open space units . " This designation is consistent with all existing uses with the single exception of the automobile service facility on • the northeast corner of Ellis and Goldenwest , and this facility would become a pre-existing, nonconforming use and could continue to be used for existing operations . b. Civic Center Expansion I The area immediately adjacent to the Civic Center complex is designated as "government center. " Under the definition as reflected. in Phase I and as recommended by the Planning Commission at their meeting of December 17, 1974 , the definition of "government center" included Rl residential use . This was compatible with the existing zoning on this property. However, Council has determined, as a policy matter, that "office-professional" is more compatible for this property since it is in the immediate vicinity of the Civic Center. To carry out Council ' s direction, the definition of "government center" would be modified to include R5 zone uses and exclude residential use . The existing Rl zoning would then be incon- sistent with the proposed modification of the definition of "government center" under the land use element . To carry out Council ' s direction, the appropriate procedure would be to adopt the land use element with the modified definition of • i s • - 11 - "government center," and subsequently within a reasonable period of time to change the zoning on the affected property from R1 to R5 in order to make it consistent with the general plan. Insofar as acquisition by the City is concerned, the same principles apply as discussed in relation to the proposed expansion of Central Park. Respectfully submitted, DON P. BONFA City Attorney /JOHN J: O'CONNOR Deputy City Attorney • DPB:JJO'C : cs • 00 m o Q. 0 •00 1600 M�Go Gj ."K SCALE 1"• 1600 is�ti• .'?: •..•' ?:?':!;ii•}•?S.}i7'i:Stii'::is•i::: ::i;.;nr ::::::•::•l;:••;:• 'fix '>' • • • • a . • Gar . . . . .... .. . . . • . 11�.��;l�Yl.��� .►!t�� iir-i iiiiiiii i• _ �t�Pl'7. •�•'Y�� •i• i i i i i i • ••i i i•• Leg -end . . ... . .. ... . . . .. r _ .. ...... .. . . . . . . l�•_r.•_t-;.•• 11,E Residential � ESTATE 0-2 un/gac „ MEDIUM DENSITY 8 - 15 un, gac Industrial CM Light RECOMMENDED PLAN . ` Public Utiliy Oil Resource Production Public k - Open Space ~'.F Fire., Figure. 1 0 •00 1600 SCALE I 1600' I me ::;.;::•::•::. � . .... ..... • • • ••••••••• • • • X. so Legend Residential 4'= LOW DENSITY 0. 7 un/Boc Ki� fX> .E �;'' MEDIUM DENSITY 8 - 15 un/Bac ;`F4 ides%• % HIGH DENSITY ABOVE 15 un/Bac b Commercial ® General Public Recreation Center Other Ocean Front Commercial/Residential Figure 2 Ilk 11 HOF . 1, 1' T C 7 0 0 cr ti O c n .0 �� s rt Proposed The Phase I Land Element Summary Report February, 1975 • • section 8 amendment summary Revised =_==-75 i 8 . 0 :'juendment Summary As explained in Section 1, the purpose of this amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element is to provide land use policies for five areas of the City (Figure 8.1) . These areas are described and analyzed in Sections 2 through 6 along with alternative long-range development plans. This chapter of the report . summarizes the discussions contained in these previous sections and sets forth for adoption a recommended goals and policies statement and a recommended land use plan for each planning unit. 8 . 1 Scope of the Amendment Adoption of this amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element con- stitutes approval of the goals statements, land use plans, and added residential standards for the five planning units only. They will supersede the designated land uses established in the Phase I Element. Adoption of the amendment will not affect any other area of the City. It should be reiterated at this point that the proposed plans relate only to land use and do not include:; circulation patterns. That is, adoption of the amended land use plans will not modify the existing Master Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways. However, the circulation concepts discussed in this Land Use Element Amendment will be further evaluated in the Circulation Element of the General Plan tentatively scheduled for completion in June, 1975. aim 8 .1 NEW ............................. MOACM ................. ........ ................ ,. Y SUNSET HEIGHTS ! SAM 1 PLANNING RESERVE SOUTH OF HUNTINgTON CENTRAL PARR { , . •::r:.. _.. ............ ........... ..... ......... EAST OF BEACH/ ..... SOUTH OF E IS ..f.. ►, Cffi17 / \ f f OLDTO GOVERNMENT....•_ R...'. ,. WN TOWNT/'VA •YY;r {•.. ........... ........... ........... .5 / @MNAIOIR 1 Y: a* AFLAWA •::t: qwafaN STUDY AREAS huntington beach planning department Figure 8. 1 8 . 2 Goals and Policies Statements For three of the planning units with unique development problems and/or potentials, goals and policies statements have been formulated to provide basic guiding principles for future growth. Generally, these goals and policies reflect the statements in the adopted Policy Plan refined to suit the particular situation currently existing in the planning units. It is intended that these goals and policies be adopted as an integral part of the land use amendment. 8 . 3 Added Residential Standards Also presented for adoption are revised residential standards for the five planning units. These standards which generally reduce residential densities are outlined in Table 8 . 1. With adoption of these standards, then, the City will have two residential density standards: one set existing citywide (except for the planning units) and one set for the five areas covered by this amendment. This situation is only temporary, however, until adoption of the Phase II Land Use Element in mid-1975 establishes one comprehensive density standard for the entire community. 8 . 4 Recommended Plans The following pages present a compilation of recommended plans for the five planning units. Each unit is briefly described, the goals and policies statement is set forth, and the recommended land use plan is summarized in terms of gross acres and projected population. 8 . 4 . 1 Planning Reserve Unit South of Huntington Central Park This planning unit is defined as that area generally bordered by Huntington Central Park on the north, Pacific Electric Railroad on the east, Clay and Garfield Avenues on the south and the City boundary on the west. This area is in a predevelopment stage where transitional zoning districts exist and where oil extraction is the major land use. Because this planning unit is a prime target for future growth, the need for long-range planning is essential to set forth land use policies that will foster orderly development. 8. 4 . 1. 1 Proposed Goals and Policies The following statements are proposed for adoption as development goals and policies for the Planning Reserve Unit south of Huntington Central Park: 8. 3 Table 8.1 PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS LOCATION CATEGORY DENSITY OCCUPANCY TYPE REQUIREMENTS ESTATE 4 units maximum Primarily Single family Areas of: (Gross Acre) families with Res. , low den- .Critical Public Service children. sity 1, 2, & .Natural Hazards/ High incomes. 3 story Limitations construction. .Underdevelopment .Natural Amenities :Undivided Acreage LOW 7 units maximum Primarily Single family Within neighborhoods (Gross Acre) families with Res. , low den- bound by arterial street children. sity planned system. Convenient to unit develop- neighborhood facilities. ments. 1, 2, & 3 story cons- truction. MEDIUM 8-15 units Families with Mobilehome Transitional areas be- (Gross Acre) children, Parks, Town- tween lower and higher married houses, dup- density uses. Located couples. Low- plexes, tri- near arterial highways, High incomes. plex. 1 & 2 convenient to shopping story con- and work areas. struction. i HIGH Above 15 units Singles, Garden apart- On or near arterial high- (Gross Acre) Young married ments. Re- ways. Provides buffer families, creation or transition between with or with- oriented intensive use areas and out children. apartment lower density develop- Medium-High complexes. ments. incomes. 2 & 3 story construction. Large apart- In intensive use areas, went complex near major transportation & multi-story systems and highways, development. commercial areas, and 3 stories & activity generators. above. High rise demands scenic & view potential. ON EM 8 . 4 • Residential Goal Encourage and maintain a variety of residential types condu- cive to the physical, economic, and social characteristics of the area. Policies 1. Provide for a moderate level of residential development through estate, low, and medium density residential development. i. 2 . Promote the highest quality of residential development throughout the entire area with special emphasis in areas within close proximity to Huntington Central Park. 3 . Maximize private open space and preservation of natural resources in medium density residential areas through planned residential development zoning. 4 . Assure the aesthetic and design quality of development through civic district suffix zoning. I Commercial Goal Provide a level of commercial development which would meet community commercial needs and would be compatible with surrounding land uses. Policy 1. To phase out all commercial development which is incompatible with surrounding land uses. Industrial Goal To establish and maintain light industrial development in areas where it would be compatible with surrounding land uses and provide necessary facilities and services. 8.5 w Policy 1. To concentrate industrial uses in an area which is served by adequate transportation facilities and routes. 2 . To protect industrial areas from other encroaching land uses. 3 . To provide for compatible land uses surrounding industrial areas. 4 . To promote light industrial park development within industrial areas. 5 . Phase out marginal and non-compatible industrial uses. 6. Assure the highest quality industrial development through improved development standards. 7 . Within the vicinity of Huntington Central Park, provide for maximum compatibility between all industrial develop- ment and the park. Open Space Provide for the preservation of natural resources and open space to the maximum extent possible. Policies 1. Provide for the further expansion of Huntington Central Park to facilitate a diversity of passive and active recreational activities. 2 . Preserve the bluff line from development and optimize visual and physical amenities as a scenic greenbelt corridor. 3 . Encourage maximum landscaping and open space in all residential and industrial developments . 4. Protect unique natural features or resources, where possible, by integrating them into public, residential, and industrial developments. 8 . 6 .. ' I 8 .4 .1.2 Proposed Land Use Plan The following tables analyze the Recommended Land Use Plan for the Planning Reserve Unit (see Figure 8 .2) in terms of acreage and projected population. PLANNING RESERVE SOUTH OF HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK Proposed Land Use Acreage Summary Land Use Gross Acres Residential Estate 0-2 un/gac 150 Estate 0-4 un/gac MAX 137 Industry Light 85 Public Utility 10 Oil Resource Production 60 Public Fire Station 5 Other Open Space 87 Planning Reserve 106 TOTAL: 640 Projected Population Estimate Residential Gross Maxinm Total Population Type Acres Units/gas Units Unit Population Estate 150 x 2 = 300 x 3.55 = 1,065 Estate 137 x 4 = 548 x 3.55 = 1,945 TMAL = 3,010 8.7 • ;pup IN .• . ■ }'•,,',, .,:•.. .k.4:;{•:x}:{ti{:y• ■ • • :vtr$� yr¢•vy.; ..•,�:•}}}}':'•:.${.. .S..ti y� "+K�}::.:�} k:{�:�•'�•tip: ■ • ■ • ,i•:fir:ti ■ ■ ■ • • ■ ■ ■ • •memo ■ ■ • • • ■ t • ► Q Q Q 4 ■ ■ ■ • • fi}.. X. MMI • • ' 0 0 8. 4 . 2 Government Center/Old Town Planning Unit This planning unit is generally located in the central part of the City bounded by Garfield Avenue on the north, Atlanta Avenue on the south, Beach Boulevard on the east, and Goldenwest Avenue on the west. The area currently supports mixed uses, with residential and oil production predominant. The southern section contains one of the City' s older residential areas while the north is typified by scattered development and producing wells The Civic Center complex and Huntington Beach High School are also located here. 8 . 4 . 2. 1 Proposed Goals and Policies The following statements are proposed for adoption as development goals and policies for the Government Center/ Old Town Planning Unit: Residential Goal Encourage and maintain a well-balanced variety of resi- dential types and encourage a living environment that will provide a high quality of life for residents. Policy 1. Establish defined residential neighborhoods that are homogenous in character. 2 . Provide for a level of moderate residential development consistent with the proposed population growth element to the General Plan. 3 . Assure aesthetic qualities of residential types within civic districts through design review. 4 . Provide for residential development that maximizes open space by encouraging planned residential developments on larger parcels or unsubdivided land. 5. Balance population growth by defining and conserving existing homogeneous single family districts and providing a variety of housing types in other sections of the area. I IFIP I 8.9 Commercial Goal To establish and maintain well-planned commercial develop- ments which are aesthetically pleasing, convenient and economically sound for both consumers and businesses. Policy 1. Reduce the amount of strip commercial along Beach Boulevard, specifically where one ownership or consolidated ownership of larger areas exist. 2 . Concentrate commercial facilities in locations that will optimize the level of retail services and will adequately serve consumers. i 3 . Establish new and preserve existing convenience commercial facilities to serve local residents. 4. To establish and maintain high quality office pro- fessional uses in the vicinity of the Civic Center. Industrial Goal Phase out all existing industrial uses and industrially zoned areas which are non-compatible with existing and proposed land uses. Policy 1. Rezone existing industrially zoned land which is non-compatible with surrounding zoning or land uses. 2. Phase out existing industrial uses and encourage the relocation of industrial facilities in planned industrial areas within the City. Open Space Goal Provide maximum open space by preserving where possible unique natural physical features, historical landmarks, and potential scenic corridors. 8.10 a 1 Policies 1. Acquire land for parks, open space and recreation prior to or at the time the surrounding area is developed :in accordance with the Open Space and Conservation_ Use Elements. 2. Preserve and protect historic, scenic, geological, topographical, and archaeological sites. 3 . Develop a recreational trails system as an interim use for the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way between abandonment of the railroad and its development as a mass transit corridor. Civic Center Goal Establish and maintain for the civic center area a medium high activity level. Policy 1. Provide for adequate land area for future civic center expansion. 2. Establish compatible land uses around the Civic Center which would reflect the medium high activity level. 3. Protect the quality of the civic center area through the expansion of the civic distract zoning suffix. 8 .4 . 2 . 2 Proposed Land Use Plan The following tables analyze the recommended land use plan for the Government Center/Old Town Planning Unit (illustrated in Figure 8 .3) in. terms' of acreage and projected population. 8.11 i GOVERNMENT CENTER/OLD TOWN PLANNING UNIT PROPOSED LAND USE ACREAGE SUMMARY LAND USE GROSS ACRE RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY 109 MEDIUM DENSITY 446 COMMERCIAL OFFICE-PROFESSIONAL 15 RETAIL 98 PUBLIC SCHOOL 38 CITY YARD 1 FIRE STATION 1 PARK 4 OTHER i GOVERNMENT CENTER 33 I DESTINATION RESORT 64 TOTAL: 809 PROJECTED POPULATION ESTIMATE RESIIENTIAL GROSS MAXIMUM TOTAL POPULATICN POPULATICN TYPE ACRES UNITS/gac UNITS UNIT IOW DENSITY 109 x 7 = 736 x 3.55 = 2,708 MEDIUM DENSITY 446 x 15 = 6690 x 2.3 = 15,387 TOTAL = 18,095 Affft 8.12 lip Garfield .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 800 1600 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. SCALE 1„, 1600 :•.:: :::::::::. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . •::::: . . . . . . . .. . . .. . Yorktown . . :::: .. ...... .. . . .%.. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Legend . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . ResidentialSo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . .. . . .. Low Density 0 -7un/gac •;;;;,�;;.;;;;;;., . Adams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . •'� Medium Density 8 -15 un gac . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . Commercial •:.: :.:: :•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•. General Office Professional • :::::»::::::;:<:;<::>;;:<:::::;:::;:>::::::: >< F > ::%Public India is f nopol fir': �• High Sc hool o0f ® Fire ?L i •?� 0 Proposed Park •'''''• Other r::• lei:;��. ;�:.j�iu:'::�':��:f�d4;r...;,a?:!!S+`� ® ;'f:Yr; ::f;� ;�:�::%.-' •::u: Atlanta Government Center Destination ination Resort Aft Figure 8 .3 8 .4 . 3 Townlot Planning Unit This planning unit consists of approximately 316 gross acres bounded by Palm Avenue on the north, Sixth Street on the east, Pacific Coast Highway on the South, and Goldenwest Street on the west. Its historic context and ocean orientation make it an area of distinct concern. Uniquely situated, the planning unit represents a trans- itional zone between the old "downtown" and the new beach community Huntington Seacliff. Many of the problems in the area result from its controversial planning history that has seen varied proposals, indecision, and conflicting ideas. While direction and criteria have already been established here by the Townlot Specific Plan Study (August, 1973) , delineation of land use awaits adoption of this amendment. 8 .4 . 3 . 1 Proposed Goals and Policies The following statements are proposed for adoption as development goals and policies for the Townlot Planning Unit: Adft 8.14 Residential Goal Encourage and maintain a well-balanced variety of resi- dential types and encourage a living environment that will provide a high quality of life for residents. Policy 1. Establish defined residential neighborhoods. 2. Balance population by providing a mixture of resi- dential densities. 3 . Preserve the existing low density residential neigh- borhood to maintain the characteristic of the area. 4 . Designate the area located between Walnut Street and Pacific Coast Highway from Fifth Street to Goldenwest Street as a specific plan area. 5 . Provide proper residential zoning for multi-story type developments and potential high rise. Commercial I I Goal To establish and maintain well-planned commercial developments which are aesthetica*fly pleasing and convenient. Policies 1. Reduce the amount of strip_ commercial along Pacific Coast Highway. 2 . Concentrate commercial facilities in locations that will provide the optimum level of retail services. 3. Preserve existing and establish new convenience commercial facilities to serve local residents. 8.15 Open Space Goal Provide for maximum open space by maintaining existing recreational facilities and designating additional public open space wherever possible. Policies 1 . Explore the potential for a neighborhood park site to serve local residents. 2 . Protect and maintain existing public beach area to be used for future public open space and recreational uses. 3. Maintain the existing recreational facilities in and around the Townlot area. Industrial Goal Phase out all existing industrial uses which are non- compatible with existing and proposed land uses. Policies 1. Phase out industrial uses and encourage the reloca- tion of industrial facilities in planned industrial areas within the City. i I i I 8.16 FI 8 . 4 . 3 . 2 Proposed Land Use Plan The following tables analyze the Recommended Land Use Plan for the Townlot Planning Unit (illustrated in Figure 8 . 4) in terms of acreage and projected population. TOWNLOT PROPOSED LAND USE ACREAGE SUMMARY Land Use Gross ,Acre Residential Low Density 0-7 un/gac 99 Medium Density 8-15 un/gac 122 High Density Above 15 un/gac 37 Commercial Retail 3 Public Recreation Center 3 Other Ocean Front Commercial/Residential 52 316 PROJECTED POPULATION ESTIMATES Residential Gross Maximum Total Pop. Type Acres Units/gac Units Unit Population Low Density 99 x 7 = 693 x 3. 55 = 2460 Medium Density 122 x 15 = 1830 x 2 . 3 = 4209 Medium High 37 x 21 = 777 x 2.2 = 1709 Density AftTOTAL 8378 8.17 t • r 0 800 1600 �O SCft 1"s 1600 '� AO ae .•.•. . ... r • • • . • • : • • .. .; Legend d Re sidential s r d e n t r 0 1 Low De nsity _ ni st Y 4 7 un rrrrrrm Medium _ Density 8 15 un/gac ` '''`' •� • High Density above 15 un/9 a c Commercial �0 General Public d Recreation Center Other Ocean-Front Commercial/Resid' enti al I Figure 8.4 8. 4 . 4 Sunset Heights Planning Unit The Sunset Heights study area is- situated in the north- west portion of the City. Specifically, it en- compasses the quarter section bounded on the north by Heil Avenue, on the east by Bolsa Chica Street, on the south by Warner Avenue, and on the west by Algonquin Street. This area is a transitional one caught in �conflict between its rural past and today' s development pressures. It is an area of sharp contrasts: agriculture and commercial use, dirt roads and high density condcaminiums, deter- iorating houses and new four-plexes. It is also an area perplexed by problems: rapid growth, inadequate circulation, blight, geologic hazards, and community dissatisfaction. The following tables analyze the recommended land use plan for Sunset Heights (illustrated in Figure 8 . 5) in terms of acreage and projected population: 8.19 aw i SUNSET HEIGHTS LAND USE AND POPULATION SUMMARY (Without Commercial at Bolsa Chica and Heil) Proposed Land Use Gross Acres Percent of Total Medium Density Residential 24 . 6 15.2 (10 D.U./Acre Max. ) Medium Density Residential 106 . 4 66. 5 (14 D.U./Acre Max.) Medium-High Density Residential (24 D.U./Acre Max.) 15 9 . 3 Park and Recreational Land . 6 4 Commercial 8 5 TOTAL 160 100 Population by Zoning R2 PD 10 225 R2 1,413 R3 440 TOTAL: 2 ,078 D.U. x 2.4 Persons/D.U. = 4, 987 Population 8.20 0 800 1600 Heil SCALE I"= 1600' �p : . : ::::• . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . :. • P Warner .- ...................... i I i Legend Residential Medium Density 8-15 un/gac High Density Above 15 un/gac Commercial ® General Figure 8. 5 8 .4 . 5 East of Beach/South of Ellis Quarter Section This planning unit is located in the eastern portion of the City bounded by Ellis Avenue on the north, Newland Street on the east, Garfield Avenue on the south, and Beach Boulevard on the west. With the deletion of the Route 39 Freeway from construction plans by the 'State Division of Transportation, a considerable portion of the study area is incorrectly planned in the Phase I Land Use Element. The purpose of this proposed amendment, therefore is to reconsider land use designations in the planning unit and formulate guidelines for future development. The following tables analyze the-, .recommended land use plan for this quarter section (illustrated in Figure 8 . 6) in terms of acreage and projected population. EAST OF BEACH / SOUTH OF ELLIS QUARTER SECTION PROPOSED LAND USES I RECOMMENDED PLAN Approximate Percentage g Use Gross Acres of Total Residential Low Density 74 46.2 Medium Density 43 26 .9 Commercial Retail 41 25. 6 Public Park 2 1. 3 TOTAL 160 . 100. 0 POPULATION ESTIMATE RECOMMENDED PLAN Residential Type Gross Units/ Total Pop./ Total Acres Acre Units Unit Pop. Low Density 72 7 504 3.55 1,789 Medium Density 30 15 450 2.30 1,035 Aeak TOTAL 2 ,824 8.22 0 Soo 1600 SCALE 1"= 1600' EIIIS . . . . S S :tip:::•'': ''•':�::::r: : .: : • .�•:44:::\htiV.} 1 . J Garfield Legend i Residential Low Density 0-7 un/gac •'•'� Medium Density 8-15 un/gac Commercial GeneralAft. i Figure 8.6 8. 5 Amended Land Use Plan Figure 8. 2 presents a composite view of the proposed land uses in all five planning units. Table 8. 2 itemizes an acreage summary for .the total amended area and Table 8.3 illustrates a total projected population estimate. Table 8 .2 AMENDED LAND USE ACREAGE SUMMARY LAND USE GROSS ACRES Residential i Estate 0-2 units/gac 150 Estate 0-4 units/gac 137 i Low Density 0-7 units/gac 282 Medium Density 8-15 units/gac 742 High Density above 15 units/gac 52 Commercial General Retail 150 Office-Professional 15 Industry Light 85 Public Utility 10 Oil Resource Production 60 Public, Quasi-Public and Open Space 147 Other Planning Reserve 106 Destination Resort 64 Government Center 33 Ocean Front Commercial/Residential 52 TOTAL: 2 ,085 gac Aft 8.24 i Table 8. 3 PROJECTED POPULATION SUMMARY Planning Unit Projected or Study. Area Population 1. Planning Reserve South of Huntington Central Park 3 , 010 ; 2 . Government Center/Old Town 18,095 3 . Townlot 8,378 4 . Sunset Heights 4 ,987 5. East of Beach / South of Ellis Quarter Section 2 ,824 TOTAL: 37 ,294 Aft I i -- i 8.25 � m • LA g i Proposed Amendment To The Phase 1 Land Use Element Summary Report February, 1975 • section a amendment summary aev.�a =_„_,_ I • 8 . 0 :amendment Summary As explained in Section 1, the purpose of this amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element is to provide land use policies for five areas of the City (Figure 8 .1) . These areas are described and analyzed in Sections 2 through 6 along with alternative long-range development plans. This chapter of the report summarizes the discussions contained in these previous sections and sets forth for adoption a recommended goals and policies statement and a recommended land use plan for each planning unit. 8 . 1 Scope of the Amendment Adoption of this amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element con- stitutes approval of the goals statements, land use plans, and added residential standards for the five planning units only. They will supersede the designated land uses established in the Phase I Element. Adoption of the amendment will not affect any other area of the City. It should be reiterated at this point that the proposed plans relate only to land use and do not include;; circulation patterns. That is, adoption of the amended land use plans will not modify the existing Master Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways. However, the circulation concepts discussed in this Land Use Element Amendment will be further evaluated in the Circulation Element of the General Plan tentatively scheduled for completion in June, 1975. 8 .1 .. Affilk .,.�„ ..._ ... . ........... ...... ! ................ �. \ . .• SUNSET HEIGHTS ...i.........._.. . ........ ............ ....... PLANNING RESERVE SOUTH OF HUNTIN,TON CENTRAL PARR _T " BEACH/ ;... EAST , SOUTH OF ELLIS ti �,, ,•• .... .. :... :? �osrowN GOVERNMENT CENTER/ OLD TOWN • LOT TOWN � .�:,:,• ::.;:. ,_ :�•. ................,................. ........... ... ; ......._.. MA.«1� \ ......... .........--•mow.... ......w.. ARAMA 1 Ifli STUDY AREAS • huntington beach planning department Figure 8. 1 • 8 . 2 Goals and Policies Statements For three of the planning units with unique development problems and/or potentials , goals and policies statements have been formulated to provide basic guiding principles for future growth. Generally, these goals and policies reflect the statements in the adopted Policy Plan refined to suit the particular situation currently existing in the planning units. It is intended that these goals and policies be adopted as an integral part of the land use amendment. 8 .3 Added Residential Standards Also presented for adoption are revised residential standards for the five planning units. These standards which generally reduce residential densities are outlined in Table 8. 1. With adoption of these standards, then, the City will have two residential density standards: one set existing citywide (except for the planning units) and one set for the five areas covered by this amendment. This situation is only temporary, however, until adoption of the Phase II Land Use Element in mid-1975 establishes one comprehensive density standard for the entire community. 8 .4 Recommended Plans • The following pages present a compilation of recommended plans for the five planning units. Each unit is briefly described, the goals and policies statement is set forth, and the recommended land use plan is summarized in terms of gross acres and projected population. i 8 .4 . 1 Planning Reserve Unit South of Huntington Central Park This planning unit is defined as that area generally bordered by Huntington Central Park on the north, Pacific Electric Railroad on the east, Clay and Garfield Avenues on the south and the City boundary on the west. This area is in a predevelopment stage where transitional zoning districts exist and where oil extraction is the major land use. Because this planning unit is a prime target for future growth, the need for long-range planning is essential to set forth land use policies that will foster orderly development. 8 .4 . 1. 1 Proposed Goals and Policies The following statements are proposed for adoption as development goals and policies for the Planning Reserve Unit south of Huntington Central Park: 8. 3 • • r i Table 8.1 PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS • LOCATION CATEGORY DENSITY OCCUPANCY TYPE REQUIREMENTS ESTATE 4 units maximum Primarily Single family Areas of: (Gross Acre) families with Res. , low den- .Critical Public Service children. sity 1, 2, & .Natural Hazards/ High incomes. 3 story Limitations construction. .Underdevelopment .Natural Amenities :Uhdivided Acreage LOW 7 units maximum Primarily Single family Within neighborhoods (Gross Acre) families with Res. , low den- bound by arterial street children. sity planned system. Convenient to unit develop- neighborhood facilities. ments. 1, 2, & 3 story cons- truction. MEDIUM 8-15 units Families with Mobilehome Transitional areas be- (Gross Acre) children, Parks, Town- tween lower and higher married houses, dup- density uses. Located couples. Low- plexes, tri- near arterial highways, • High incomes. plex. 1 & 2 convenient to shopping story con- and work areas. struction. i HIGH Above 15 units Singles, Garden apart- On or near arterial high- i (Gross Acre) Young married ments. Re- ways. Provides buffer families, creation or transition between with or with- oriented intensive use areas and out children. apartment lower density develop- Medium-High complexes. ments. incomes. 2 & 3 story construction. i Large apart- In intensive use areas, went complex near major transportation & multi-story systems and highways, development. commercial areas, and 3 stories & activity generators. above. High rise demands scenic & view potential. 8 . 4 • Residential Goal Encourage and maintain a variety of residential types condu- cive to the physical, economic, and social characteristics of the area. Policies 1. Provide for a moderate level of residential development through estate, low, and medium density residential development. 2 . Promote the highest quality of residential development throughout the entire area with special emphasis in areas within close proximity to Huntington Central Park. 3 . Maximize private open space and preservation of natural resources in medium density residential areas through • planned residential development zoning. 4 . Assure the aesthetic and design quality of development through civic district suffix zoning. Commercial Goal Provide a level of commercial development which would meet community commercial needs and would be compatible with I surrounding land uses. Policy 1. To phase out all commercial development which is incompatible with surrounding land uses. Industrial Goal To establish and maintain light industrial development in areas where it would be compatible with surrounding land uses and provide necessary facilities and services. ACE& 8 . 5 Policy • 1. To concentrate industrial uses in an area which is served by adequate transportation facilities and routes. 2 . To protect industrial •areas from other encroaching land uses. 3 . To provide for compatible land uses surrounding industrial areas. 4 . To promote light industrial park development within industrial areas. 5 . Phase out marginal and non-compatible industrial uses. 6. Assure the highest quality industrial development through improved development standards. 7 . Within the vicinity of Huntington Central Park, provide for maximum compatibility between all industrial develop- ment and the park. Open space Provide for the preservation of natural resources and open • space to the maximum extent possible. Policies 1. Provide for the further expansion of Huntington Central Park to facilitate a diversity of passive and active recreational activities. 2 . Preserve the bluff line from development and optimize visual and physical amenities as a scenic greenbelt corridor. 3 . Encourage maximum landscaping and open space in all residential and industrial developments . 4. Protect unique natural features or resources, where possible, by integrating them into public, residential, and industrial developments. Adft 8 . 6 8 .4 .1.2 Proposed Land Use Plan The following tables analyze the Recommended Land Use Plan for the Planning Reserve Unit (see Figure 8 .2) in terms of acreage and projected population. PLANNING RESERVE SOUTH OF HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK Proposed Land Use Acreage Summary Land Use Gross Acres Residential Estate 0-2 un/gac 150 Estate 0-4 un/gac MAX 137 Industry Light 85 Public Utility 10 Oil Resource Production 60 Public Fire Station 5 Other Open Space 87 Planning Reserve 106 TOTAL: 640 Projected Population Estimate Residential Gross Maximum Total Population Type Acres Units/gas Units Unit Population Estate 150 x 2 = 300 x 3.55 = 1,065 Estate 137 x 4 = 548 x 3.55 = 1,945 TOTAL = 3,010 8.7 TURN �:�f.$,tip. ¢.•. .. :�'Y�: ■ ■ • • ■ . } ►����♦ ` V; . . • • 8 . 4 . 2 Government Center/Old Town Planning Unit This planning unit is generally located in the central part of the City bounded by Garfield Avenue on the north, Atlanta Avenue on the south, Beach Boulevard on the east, and Goldenwest Avenue on the west. The area currently supports mixed uses, with residential and oil production predominant. The southern section contains one of the City's older residential areas while the north is typified by scattered development and producing wells The Civic Center complex and Huntington Beach High School are also located here. 8 .4. 2. 1 Proposed Goals and Policies The following statements are proposed for adoption as development goals and policies for the Government Center/ Old Town Planning Unit: Residential Goal Encourage and maintain a well-balanced variety of resi- dential types and encourage a living environment that • will provide a high quality of life for residents. Policy 1. Establish defined residential neighborhoods that are homogenous in character. 2 . Provide for a level of moderate residential development consistent with the proposed population growth element to the General Plan. 3 . Assure aesthetic qualities of residential types within civic districts through design review. 4 . Provide for residential development that maximizes open space by encouraging planned residential developments on larger parcels or unsubdivided land. 5 . Balance population growth by defining and conserving existing homogeneous single family districts and providing a variety of housing types in other sections of the area. I I 8.9 Commercial • Goal To establish and maintain well-planned commercial develop- ments which are aesthetically pleasing, convenient and economically sound for both consumers and businesses. Policy 1. Reduce the amount of strip commercial along Beach Boulevard, specifically where one ownership or consolidated ownership of larger areas exist. 2 . Concentrate commercial facilities in locations that will optimize the level of retail services and will adequately serve consumers. i 3 . Establish new and preserve existing convenience commercial facilities to serve local residents. 4. To establish and maintain high quality office pro- fessional uses in the vicinity of the Civic Center. Industrial Goal • Phase out all existing industrial uses and industrially zoned areas which are non-compatible with existing and proposed land uses. Policy 1. Rezone existing industrially zoned land which is non-compatible with surrounding zoning or land uses. 2. Phase out existing industrial uses and encourage the relocation of industrial facilities in planned industrial areas -within the City. Open Space Goal Provide maximum open space by preserving where possible unique natural physical features, historical landmarks, and potential scenic corridors. • 8.10 • Policies 1. Acquire land for parks, open space and recreation prior to or at the time the surrounding area is developed ;in accordance with the Open Space and Conservation_ Use Elements. 2. Preserve and protect historic, scenic, geological, topographical, and archaeological sites. 3 . Develop a recreational trails system as an interim use for the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way between abandonment of the railroad and its development as a mass transit corridor. Civic Center Goal Establish and maintain for the civic center area a medium high activity level. Policy 1. Provide for adequate land area for future civic center • expansion. 2. .Establish compatible land uses around the Civic Center which would reflect the medium high activity level. 3. Protect the quality of the civic center area through the expansion of the civic district zoning suffix. 8 . 4 . 2 . 2 Proposed Land Use Plan The following tables analyze the recommended land use plan for the Government Center/Old Town Planning Unit (illustrated in Figure 8 .3 ) in. terms of acreage and projected population. 8.11 GOVERNMENT CENTER/OLD TOWN PLANNING UNIT • . PROPOSED LAND USE ACREAGE SUMMARY LAND USE GROSS ACRE RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY 109 MEDIUM DENSITY 446 COMMERCIAL OFFICE-PROFESSIONAL 15 RETAIL 98 PUBLIC SCHOOL 38 CITY YARD 1 FIRE STATION 1 PARK 4 • OTHER GOVERNMENT CENTER 33 DESTINATION RESORT 64 TOTAL: 809 PROJECTED POPULATION ESTIMATE RESIIENTIAL GROSS MAXIMUM TOTAL POPULATION POPULATION TYPE ACRES UNITS/gac UNITS UNIT IOW DENSITY 109 x 7 = 736 x 3.55 = 2,708 MEDIUM DENSITY 446 x 15 = 6690 x 2.3 = 15,387 TOTAL = 18,095 Adft 8.12 • Garfield .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 800 1600 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SCALE 1 z 1600 ~ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . C •,� . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . • . Yorktown . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. legend .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . Residential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Low Density g • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 -7 un/ ac •.::•.•.•.:•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•. Adams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • " " ' Medium Density 8 -15 un/gac ' ""•'"""' Commercial General '• • Office - Pro fessional I : Pu blic F Incli anopolis 9 h Sc hool ch0 o I L—iFire ;., 0 Proposed ParkX . ��� � � • � • Other Atlanta Government Center .' Destination Resort Aft Figure 8 .3 • 8 .4 . 3 Townlot Planning Unit This planning unit consists of approximately 316 gross acres bounded by Palm Avenue on the north, Sixth Street on the east, Pacific Coast Highway on the South, and Goldenwest Street on the west. Its historic context and ocean orientation make it an area of distinct concern. Uniquely situated, the planning unit represents a trans- itional zone between the old "downtown" and the new beach community Huntington Seacliff. Many of the problems in the area result from its controversial planning history that has seen varied proposals, indecision, and conflicting ideas. While direction and criteria have already been established here by ,the Townlot Specific Plan Study (August, 1973) , delineation of land use awaits adoption of this amendment. 8 .4 . 3 . 1 Proposed Goals and Policies The following statements are proposed for adoption as development goals and policies. for the Townlot Planning Unit: j • 8.14 • I Residential Goal Encourage and maintain a well-balanced variety of resi- dential types and encourage a living environment that will provide a high quality of life for residents . Policy 1. Establish defined residential neighborhoods. 2. Balance population by providing a mixture of resi- dential densities. 3. Preserve the existing low density residential neigh- borhood to maintain the characteristic of the area. 4 . Designate the area located between Walnut Street and Pacific Coast Highway from Fifth Street to Goldenwest Street as a specific plan area. • 5. Provide proper residential zoning for multi-story type developments and potential high rise. Commercial i Goal To establish and maintain well-planned commercial developments which are aesthetica'�ly pleasing and convenient. Policies 1. Reduce the amount of strip_ commercial along Pacific Coast Highway. 2 . Concentrate commercial facilities in locations that will provide the optimum level of retail services. 3 . Preserve existing and establish new convenience commercial facilities to serve local residents. Adft 8.15 Open Space Goal Provide for maximum open space by maintaining existing recreational facilities and designating additional public open space wherever possible. Policies 1. Explore the potential for a neighborhood park site to serve local residents. 2. Protect and maintain existing public beach area to be used for future public open space and recreational uses. 3. Maintain the existing recreational facilities in and around the Townlot area. Industrial Goal Phase out all existing industrial uses which are non- • compatible with existing and proposed land uses. Policies 1. Phase out industrial uses and encourage the reloca- tion of industrial facilities in planned industrial areas within the City. Ash am 8.16 8. 4 . 3 . 2 Proposed Land Use Plan • The following tables analyze the Recommended Land Use Plan for the Townlot Planning Unit (illustrated in Figure 8 . 4) in terms of acreage and projected population. TOWNLOT PROPOSED LAND USE ACREAGE SUMMARY Land Use Gross .Acre Residential Low Density 0-7 un/gac 99 Medium Density 8-15 un/gac 122 High Density Above 15 un/gac 37 Commercial Retail 3 Public Recreation Center 3 Other Ocean Front Commercial/Residential 52 316 PROJECTED POPULATION ESTIMATES Residential Gross Maximum Total Pop. Type Acres Units/gac Units Unit Population Low Density 99 x 7 = 693 x 3. 55 = 2460 Medium Density 122 x 15 = 1830 x 2 . 3 = 4209 Medium High 37 x 21 = 777 x 2 .2 = 1709 Density AftTOTAL 8378 8.17 A Or. �c 0 800 1600 O Qsf SCALE 1".V600 y A `amp . ' ':;;;,• ,fir • . • • . • . • •'• Legend d TN Re sidential si d en t i a Low Density un/gac : :. 'rrrrrrm :...::: Medium �::;;;•�::�:: : ....::.•:: Densit 8-15 �::::::::::.::. Y un/gac ` _ ........ : . . . ......::: "'yam• • High Density above 15 un/gac b Commercial General Public Recreation Center Other Ocean-Front Commercial/Residential Figure 8.4 • 8. 4 . 4 Sunset Heights Planning Unit The Sunset Heights study area is- situated in the north- west portion of the City. Specifically, it en- compasses the quarter section bounded on the north by Heil Avenue, on the east by Bolsa Chica Street, on the south by Warner Avenue, and on the west by Algonquin Street. This area is a transitional one caught in :conflict between its rural past and today' s development pressures. It is an area of sharp contrasts: agriculture and commercial use, i dirt roads and high density condgminiums, deter- iorating houses and new four-plexes. It is also an area perplexed by problems: rapid growth, inadequate circulation, blight, geologic hazards, and community dissatisfaction. The following tables analyze the recommended land use plan for Sunset Heights (illustrated in Figure 8 . 5) in terms of acreage and projected population: 8.19 SUNSET HEIGHTS • LAND USE AND POPULATION SUMMARY (Without Commercial at Bolsa Chica and Heil) Proposed Land Use Gross Acres Percent of Total Medium Density Residential 24.6 15.2 (10 D.U./Acre Max. ) Medium Density Residential 106. 4 66. 5 (14 D.U./Acre Max.) Medium-High Density Residential (24 D.U./Acre Max.) 15 9. 3 Park and Recreational Land . 6 4 Commercial 8 5 TOTAL 160 100 Population by Zoning • R2 PD 10 225 R2 1,413 R3 440 TOTAL: 2 , 078 D.U. x 2. 4 Persons/D.U. = 4,987 Population 8.20 o eoo Iboo • Heil. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . SCALE 1"= 1600' �p . :•::•::' •:::ti•::: C . . . . . . . . .. . . . or ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p . . .. . . .. .. . . . . . . . . 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . .. :: • • • • • Wanner i Legend Residential Medium Density 8-15 un/gac •••• High Density Above 15 un/gac Commercial ® General Figure 8 . 5 8 .4 . 5 East of Beach/South of Ellis Quarter Section , This planning unit is located in the eastern portion of the City bounded by Ellis Avenue on the north, Newland Street on the east, Garfield Avenue on the south, and Beach Boulevard on the west. With the' deletion of the Route 39 Freeway from construction plans by the State Division of Transportation, a considerable portion of the study area is incorrectly planned in the Phase I Land Use Element. The purpose of this proposed amendment, therefore is to reconsider land use designations in the planning unit and formulate guidelines for future development. The following tables analyze the recommended land use plan for this quarter section (illustrated in Figure 8 . 6) in terms of acreage and projected population. EAST OF BEACH / SOUTH OF ELLIS QUARTER SECTION PROPOSED LAND USES RECOMMENDED PLAN Approximate Percentage Use Gross Acres of Total . Residential Low Density 74 46.2 Medium Density 43 26 .9 Commercial Retail 41 25. 6 Public Park 2 1. 3 TOTAL 160 . 100. 0 POPULATION ESTIMATE RECOMMENDED PLAN Residential Type Gross Units/ Total Pop./ Total Acres Acre Units Unit Pop. Low Density 72 7 504 3. 55 1,789 Medium Density 30 15 450 2 .30 1,035 • TOTAL 2 ,824 8.22 • i 0 800 1600 SCALE I"= 1600' Ellis :::•: ............ .. . .......... � .yt:•;.::}::•:;Nk.}}}tit}'/�.. I .j Garfield Legend Residential Low Density 0-7 un/gac Medium Density 8-15 un/gac Commercial ® General . Aft Figure 8.6 8. 5 Amended Land Use Plan • Figure 8. 2 presents a composite view of the proposed land uses in all five planning units. Table 8. 2 itemizes an acreage summary for .the total amended area and Table 8.3 illustrates a total projected population estimate. Table 8 .2 AMENDED LAND USE ACREAGE SUMMARY LAND USE GROSS ACRES Residential Estate 0-2 units/gac 150 Estate 0-4 units/gac 137 Low Density 0-7 units/gac 282 Medium Density 8-15 units/gac 742 High Density above 15 units/gac 52 Commercial General Retail 150 Office-Professional 15 Industry Light 85 Public Utility 10 Oil Resource Production 60 Public, Quasi-Public and Open Space 147 Other Planning Reserve 106 Destination Resort 64 Government Center 33 Ocean Front Commercial/Residential 52 TOTAL: 2 , 085 gac 8.24 • Table 8. 3 PROJECTED POPULATION SUMMARY Planning Unit Projected or Study Area Population 1. Planning Reserve South of Huntington Central Park 3 , 010 2 . Government Center/Old Town 18,095 3 . Townlot 8,378 4 . Sunset Heights 4 ,987 5 . East of Beach / South of Ellis Quarter Section 2 ,824 TOTAL: 37 ,294 Aft 8.25