The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutGrowth Policy Study Summary Report CITY CLERK'S COPY y ! • 1 . .- ► •• "� , + GROWTH POLICY ' STUDY SUMiV ARY REPORT huntingfcn k� ., �honni , R� j �t S t i ' S h i ,Via'• ," � • t CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL JERRY.A.MATHEY,Mayor HENRY M.DUKE, Vko mayor TAU W.MARTLETT ALVIN M.CNN N0111YIA GRANDEL 011163 K MIN V.V.GREEN DR.D NALD D.SHIPLEY DAVID D.ROWLANDS, City Administraiar ! y i PLANNING CQANISSION 'BDNIARD H.KERINS,Csaimun FRANK P.HIQUINS, ViceChairmon h..""MRT D.BAZIL J MM)R.MOYLE VNLLIAM J.GEIGER MARCUS M.PORTER KATHERINE L.WALLIN, RICHARD A.HARLOW,l vcratary i i I I n GROWTH P LICY STUDY SUMMARY REPORT" huntington beach planning dept. a „ jonuory 1974 � , i • Growth Policy 'summary PAGE 1 , Introduction 1 1 . 1 Purpose 1 1 . 2 What is a Growth Pal icy? 2 .� 2.0 Existing Growth Policy 5 2. 1 Derivation 5 2. 2 Summary Current Growth Po l icy 2. 3 History of Past Growth 7 a' 2.4 Projection of Future Growth 8 2. 5 Implications 17 2. 6 Evaluation 18 3. 0 Alternatives for the Future 21 3. 1 An Inplied Growth Policy 22 3. 2 Revised Growth Policy 25 3.3 Evaluation 27 ^y 3.4 Impacts of Revised Growth Policy 28 3.4 . 1 Population Size 28 3.4. 2 Population Growth Itate 28 3. 4. 3 Population Distribution 30 3.4.4 Sun,►nn ry 30 4 .0 Implementation 31 4.1 Techniques of Growth Control 31 1 4.1 . 1 The General Plan 33 4 .1 . 2 Zoning Techniques 36 3 4 . 1 .3 Subdivision Controls 38 1 4 .1 .4 Isnv.i:onmental Impact Reports 38 4. 1. 5 Comprehensive Growth Control Ordinance 41 4. 2 Court Decisions 42 4. 3 Growth Strategy 43 4 .4 A Growth Control Program 45 i 4 -• f i i i i � . 1 { scion I introduction A r, Growth 11ol icy Summary 1.0 Introduction In 1909, when the City incorporated , Huntington !leach was a quiet .. seaside coinriunity of 815 people and about 3-1/2 square miles. I 1960, approximately 15,000 persons inhabited the area which then included an additional 20 square miles ; and by 1973 the population had grown to almost 150,000, .and the City limits encompassed over 27 square miles. These phenomenal figures testify to the important role growth has played in the history of Huntington Beach and suggest that an understanding of this factor is essential to any planning process which seeks to direct the City' s .future course. ' 1 . 1 Purpose To pront-ote such understanding is the purpose of the Growth Policy Stud • published by the Huntington beach Planning Department�iri October, 1973. This landmark document is the City' s first attempt to meet the issue of growth head on, to identify major growth factors anti their implications, to evaluate alternative means of approaching future growth, and to investigate methods for implement- ing those alternatives . Representing a technical analysis and evaluation of urban growth in the City , the study is designed to provide information needed for Huntington Beach to consciously develop a comprehensive Growth Policy that will protect and main- tain the quality of life desired h% its citizens . i 0 i' e 1 ! • I� E '1'11c• torowtl, 1'olic_�Stud}, doe:: not nri.•titute ,t sal tit iu,l to major grow i- pro 5 1 en►s. Re docs not set fol-th a complete foundation for r d evviopillent of a growth strategy; t,or does it detail a work p:og :am 1 fur implementing a growth policy. ";:then, it is a comprehensive look at gi-o►it}r, a statement of potentials for guiding growth ill pursuit of common community goals , aial a basis for developing a detailed program of growth policy implementation. The Growth folic • Stud, was presented to generate public a►rareness , discussion, and r ir' tput leading to the formulation of ;, formal Grc►;th Policy for the C.1 ty. This summary report is designed to highlight the mass of information and synthesize the conclusions of the Growtl, folic • Stttd • in an effort to simplify, the task of understand ri,g the volt is document n and to encourage �,issemint'tion and debate of the vital issues it raises. The folIowing discussion, therefore, condenses the 255 pages of the original studly to synopsis form. While this stunm,ary report provides a convenient abridgement :or public examination, the in-depth perspective prerequisite for knowledgeable public action is Crest derived from the complete Growt!, Policy Study. 1 , {What is a Growtl, Policy? { A . (;I'O •tl, Policy is a comprehensive set of aggregate local govern- mental, policies which combine to influence tite size, growth rate, and geographic distribution of a city,s population in a manner that achieves a desired quality of life. These aggregate policies , I while specifically addressing the issues of growth, relate to all functional areas of city government which impact it; i .e. , housing, transportation, public services, land use, etc. And they are citywide, consistent among all municipal agencies . A Growth C, Policy is designed to influence growth not arbitrarily determine it. Such power is beyond the scope of a municipal agr.ncy; but through a Growth Policy, city influence is directed at regulating the growth factors of size, rate, and distribution. That is, a Growth Policy addresses the questions of how much growth a city, call accommodatc, the speed at which growth should he permitted, and C. whore additional population increments could best be situated. Because these factors are interrelated, a Growth Policy must establish a balance among; them. tlltiriate size, for example, has little meanirzk• to city planning without consideration of distribu- t ion. l.ilcewise, rate of growth or how fast an ultimate population is reached, has more impact. on provision of public services than the C actual size of tite population eventually achieved. Finally, it is important to emphasize that the rationale for a Growtl. Policy is not population itself but the quality of life nought by city residents. A Growth Policy is a tool for achieving; that desired lifestyle ; and, therefore, it must be based securely on community valt1e5 -- a common sense of future , a sense of destiny. C, l i , 4 I I Technically, a Growth Policy contain--, three levels of policy state- ment. Most general is the Top Let,el i'olicy which expresses a city' s basic approach to future growth. I'lai 'fop l.eve.l. Policy establishes the tone or atmosphere to be reflected by the Second and Supporting; I,evel policies which translate it into greater degrees of specifi- city. Second Level Policy Statements deal -tith the three critical growth factors (size, rate, ,and distribution) ; :and Supporting; r-t Policies define these general directives into clear-cut instructions that can lie implemented in Jay-to-,la%l decision making;. These policy- level relationships are indicated on Fig;ui•e 1 -1 . Basically, a Growth policy can tal-e three Jifrerent approaches; to future growth: 1 . It can encourage growth. �40 +` ?. It can accommodate growth. i S. It can control growth. The alternative pursued in a Growth Policy depends on the (duality of Life goals of a city' s residents. Because growth :affects all communities diff.-rent-ly and because the "desired future" of each city differs , the content of a Growth Policy is parochial with emphasis personalized to a city' s special needs and desires. Some communities, especially newer ones, may seek to ,attract additional Population so that sophisticated public facilities can he supported. Other communities may wish to limit growth because they see addition- al population and its resulting; land consumption and congestion its endangering their natural environment. At this point in time , most citie, utilize a Growth Policy of accommodation. However, such a policy is seldom a formal , conscious statement of intention . More Mely, it is ,a subliminal direction resulting from the daily activities of city agencies. In any case, a Growth Policy reflects the "personality" and public opinion of the community it serves. i r 1 FIGURE I - I GROWTH POLICY INTERIZ1:i.ATIONS111PS r TOP LEVEL GROWTH POLICY Second Level Policies ! supporting PolicieF Polmlation Population Population Size Growth Rate Distribution j A. 1'eve lopment I . Residential 0 0 .', Commercial 0 0 lI 3. Industrial 0 0 0 t, 4. Redevelopment 0 0 0 S. Utility Service 0 0 0 i, 6. Freeways 0 0 0 7. Arterial IIwy. 0 0 0 r 8 . Public Transportation 0 0 0 9. Regional Transportation 0 0 () 10. Annexations 0 0 0 r. 11. Fiscal Planning 0 0 0 B. Environment & Resources 1 . Open Space 0 0 0 ` ?. Parks 0 0 0 3. Shoreline 6 Beaches 0 0 0 4. 0i1 0 0 0 C , S. Flood Plains 0 0 0 C. Society & Culture 1 , Ilau, ii:[; 0 0 0 C 2. [i(1ucat1on 0 0 0 4 i, 0 i I t i •i r! i .I • s I i i t section 2 existin growth Pdi%.fy f? .,, 2. 0 Existing Growth Policy 1f a Growth Policy can be "informal" or "subliminal' as explaiied In Section 1 . 2 , then the Growth Policy which guided Huntington Beach from its incorporation in 1909 to the present must definitely be classified as one of accommodation. in fact in view of the phenomenal growth witnessed by the City over the past 20 years, the Growth Policy might be considered one of active eccommodation. flow this informal but, nevertheless, significant policy statement wds developed, what it is, and what it implies for the City's future is the subject of: this Section. 2. 1 Derivation Until publication of the Growth Polio Stud , no documented Growth Policy for the City ever existed. As with many cities, Growth Policy was the often disjointed and uncoordinated efforts of •jullicinal I' -il;encies reacting separately to events of bast decades._ What i:; defined as Current Growth Policy here and in the Growth llal is study is really a synthesis of formal and informal City lie icii6s and an interpretation of policies extrapolated from analysis of pnst and present growth trends . While it may be presumptuous to combine there policy s into a "comprehensive" statemenit of direction when ill reality many developed by accident and necessity without in-depth consideration of long-range consequences, such an effort is necessary for understanding the current or at least recent City atritude toward growth and for comparing it to present community needs and desires . i A Wn i 1 5 t f w • r1 2. 2 Summary Current Growth Pol V TJ)Geyel Policy ~ To accommodate and provide for growth as set by the market forces of the Southern California and Orange County econoaty Without due regard to long range impacts . rV Second Level Policies 1 . population Size - 'I'o accommodate a population size based upon full development of all land resources within the City. 2. Population Growth Rate - To accommodate as rapid a rate of r� population growth as economic conditions allow. 3. :'opulation Distribution - To allow population to be distributed ' throughout the City based upon the existing; blaster Plan of band Ilse , actions of private developers , and it general trend to reduce densities without consideration to its full implications. I Sup sorting policies Development 1 . Residential - To decrease the amount of multiple family zoning r ' and allowable densities in the City without full regard to the implications of such actiors. I. 2. Commercial - To allow development of all commercially zoned land without full consideration of the economic benefits and impacts of such devel.onment. C 3. Industrial - To encourage the development of all industrial land, either zoned or master planned, within the City. 4 . Redevelopment - To encourage the redevelopment of ulder portion% of the City by private capital . 5. Utility Service - To provide for all utility services to properties as they are proposed for development. :►. Freeways - To encourage and plan for the development of the: Route 1 and 39 Freeways . 7. Arterial Highways - To devolop all arterial highways to their design capacity as land developi;ient and increased traffic generated demand. a. Public Transportation - To rely upon other entities of govern- C ment to provide for public transportation in the City. G ANN I� 0. Regional Transportation - To p,i :, ively participate in rvg;iolial transportation studies. 10. Annexation - To allow annexation of unincorporated areas without fill' consideration of the resultant impacts. 1 ! . I.,isc:aI Planning - To develop and maintain a six- year fiscal n plan for the City hased upors ::»went. g;ro►vdi projections. Iinvi ronment ant.: Resources I . Open Space - To allot~' the undeveloped portions of the City to develop as market conditions direct , preserving; a small percentage as permanent open space . 2. Parks - To providr,• a park systviii at the rate of five acres per 1000 population . 3. Shoreline and Beaches - To provide for shoreline development that allows maximum public use of the beaches . a . Oil - To allow for full extraction of all oil producing; areas and development of such areas when oil operations cease. S. Geologic: Hazards and blood Plains - To allow development to 0 occur in flood plains and areas of possible geologic hazard { without full consideration of implications of such actions. Society and Culture ). . housing; - To allow the Housing market to determine the segments ry of the population whose housing needs will be met. 2. Education - To allow the development of all housing units without full consideration of the impacts of such development upon the local school system. a� 2. 3 History of fast Growth The result of these policies Can he observed in the City' s past growth which can best he described as spcctacular. Reflecting a trend set by orange County, Huntington [teach saw a 900 percent r> population in.-rease during; the 1060's with 100,000 new residents coming; to the City in ten years. The cur-ent growth rate, though less remarkable, is still about 10,000 people per year. The discovery o1' oil in I920 generated the City's first boom period, it phenomenon repented on a larger scale in the 19601s . With an abundance of desirable faatures -- large areas of cl.�,-ap, vacant 1) lanes ; coastal location; proximity to regional markets ; expanding industrial hale; rtvailahility of domestic water; and freeway access • - City fathvrr, promoted exparisloil, equating; growth with 4 prut,.res:c. 3 r n During; this period of rapid devc.lolmwr.tit, the City 's image chitiig ed from that of in oil and ag;ricuitural comnittnity to a suburban �. recreation center. anti in industrial and commercial base was firmly established. To meet demands for more and better services generated by countless new residents , municipal facilities expanded at all levels. Increasing; tax revenues , however, failed to meet rising costs. '2.•1 A Projection of Future Growth from this brief summary, it is apparent that until recently the City was too involved in first promoting; growth and later coping; with it to have time to reflvet upon the consequence: of its actions . Of greater importance than the past , though, is the future; and the following discussion projects the future develop- ment of the City based on the Current Growth Policy presented in Section 2. 2. Given these policy statements, it is estimated that total popula- tion saturation of the City will occur by the end of this century when over 247, 000 people will reside within existing; City limits . It is assumed that both Iiolsa Chica and Sunset Beach will be annexed by 2000 bringing; tiie total population to over 275,500 as indicated in figure 2-1 . Population projections also reveal that the current growth rate of 10,000 per year will continue through the end of this decade and decrease thereafter to 14 percent between 1990 and 2000. The result will be higher population densities throughout most of the City with greatest densities in proximity to the coastline. These projections are graphically depicted ore figures 2-2 through 2-3 . r : It is further assumed that: 1 . In-migration will continue to be the primary source; of popula- tion growth; ' 2. The Huntington I3each Freeway (Route 30) will be constructed as �. proposed; 3. The city will encourage the development of the former Pacific Coast Freeway (Route 1) as a multi-modal transportation corridor; 4 . "Non-resident" influx and tourism will increase as more lci..mrc time is provided by decreases in average hours per work week; S. The increase in population will necessitate a demand for more goods and services from both private and public agencies or establishments ; 8 o..rtr••Y.p.,lJ 1:.L.'.+.4,. 41 IX♦.s.......r..r,.. .. .. -....•........... ..r .. ♦.+.......1..... .. f ...r... <Y:1. 1.... .y•. .:I:J.. .+.. • - jSf. ti«,,; `.7Yt.'.:�a'r+ n FIGUM: ::-1 M POPULAT)ON GROWTH Population Percent of Fears Population Added Increase 1972 1380000 1980 197,200 59 ,200 42% 1990 239,900 42, 700I 22% n 2000 275,100 42 ,7002 141 1 Ir the unincorporated section of the Bolsa Chica area Is annexed by the city, it is expected to be fully :developed during; this time interval , exclud- ing the gap section. In addition, it is anticipa- ted that the Sunset Beach area would be annexed by 1990. Both areas combined would account for approximately 43 percent of the population added to the city's total from 1980 to 1990 , of which the 40 percent would occur in the Bolsa Chic:: area. 2 The gap section of Bolsa Chica Bay is expected to be fully developed during this time interval. It is estimated that it would account for 52 percent of the population growth during this time interval . S •� 1 .'I l,t 9 1 f i ..+-...v..... c•..«u..r.-.......�..._�.... _-...,..-...._ .._....... _...._.. .-........, ...�,rs+.a,, ........,.».,..,...._......._.........,........_.........-�,.�-.-...w cd:c...o-::4LS;.�,.i,T.Itr SSi:i:,ri:7!-'�."t i CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 04AW.E CDIAiITY CALIFORMA �ti 1 100-1500 1500.2500 2500.4000 ABOVE 4000 i, FIGURE. 4=� POPULATK) V GROWTH ESTIMATES 1972-80 Alft c : 59,200 IRPhuntington booth pkwing &parh»ent 10 i CITY OF I' .. HUNTINGTON BEACH J CRAKE COUNTY GLIFORWM I .. _ ... 1 100-1500 1500-2500 • t,., 2500-4000 ,ABOVE 4000 ,•.. -. 1 .,•�- ti FIGURE z-;; P001PULATION GROWTH ESTIMATES 19 /90 42,700 huntirgton beach plarwM-ig department '++�.tasc'.r�..•.w�•-'ra rr+ai:+.tislCMYt:tt..�4.:dz1��""' i r. Adk I CITY of HUNTINGTON BEACH +y"t COMTY CALIFOM" ri 100•1500 15M2500 / ABOVE 4000 !' FIGURE 2.4 POPULATION GROWTH ES"T. 35t2OO `i � i hsVt1 beach *mkV •4 I" a..«. ......r..... .. ...._._.�....._.......,_......__.._._......._...... ..+....r.r.. .,.......,.......... .. —__.' -_._.�.+.....«......,..............•.w.wataa..�«e..n�Mw-«wliY'�1.�A1.'.;.1��• h !1 ` CITY Or HUNTINGTON BEACH .../. ...... �"�'� ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORMA . ..... ..... . r1.1.w•1•+•• -• — ...111.►.•1. III ..f... .1 •.. 0011/w....O. ..•1 ..•.t./ •• ..f1•f ••r•.1N1••.. ..+Ir ....•. •.1• f••.Ir. •.I.f f•1.t. .••11 ••.r.t •11.. •If••. f1.• •.•..r• �I` to \ •••.t ••1.. .f.•.1 tiff• 11••►/ /.•. ..•••r. •.•.•, .. •4 .f•►.. •..►• •tt►•i •iff• •.1•.. ff1• ♦t 1t t1• t1t••� t1. •.HIf 1.1•. ...r•• i••1♦ ..11•. f.1. •1...•• t.•.•�� •f. rl ...... ... ..•.. ...... .... ...... tt11• ,..,_ too .../11 rf/...0...... .... .•..too . . •t11. 011•• ..040.6 ..../ l .•.1• t1.•• ,111111/ •1.1• C� v 1, i y r{� 1t..1• .rttr M ::: +.� •..•.0 1r..• •1• • ...... ..... r....... •:::: ..3 ...... ..... t.f.•. ...... ....t .,•./ .. ...... 0.061 I.r1.i . . . .. ...... ..... .... .. . . .. ...... ..... .... .1•• .1.•1. •.•t. •.. • •.• ...•1 � �- / DENSITY IN THOUSANDS ••'••' •••••�7 ' P"J1� ...... ..... . UNDER 5 c t' '• r,� 11tI // t i fL LA .'�: • i CITY WIDE DENSITY: 4986 PERSONS t: PER SQUARE MILE FIGURE 2-5 f i GAOSS POPULATION DENSITY •197- rihuntington mach planning &, rhn nt I� III i CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH .. 11 (YUNfC COUNIY CAUFORN,A n ... .. ..... . too •..r!••••..• •••.••..•� .•••.••..•r• •••••.•• .....1...•.. .•.•.. r. ••••• •..... ....... �.. 2 a •••..1...... / ...•.. r •.� �� •••••0000* •..•• •...•.. Y• •• • •• •• •low, •.�•.•.• V. DENSITY IN THOUSANDSto t "•'• " '•' - UNDER 5 •• �� ' .:.•..� .♦...•..... � 1. 060. .` ..•.. ........... . f •..♦. O \ ..:: :... .. 1 5. 10 ..... 10- 1540 -• i' - �. ., ...•. 15 .20 CITY-WIDE DENSITY: 7164 PERSONS PER SQUARE MILE C. FIGUREZ--6 GROSS P ULATION DENSITY 198C� POPULATION huntmgton beOCh planning department ]4 !1 I I CITY OF 1 HUNTINGTON BEACH ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORMA 1 •.•1• ••,•/• ••••• ••1•••1••••• ••••• ••.• ..... ..... ....• f iii �� ::::•• a. ::::: :::• i i ' •• • .rr...p r.r.• .. r .•..7. ..r.• ••.• 1 ••..• ••.. . 0•1a0 •...., DENSITY IN THOUSANDS ..... •.•.." ,.•.. ...... ..,.. .•.... •.... . . ..... .... ...... ..... •..•.. to ® UNDER 5 .... ...... ..... ......•- r- .... ...... ..... ...... . .... ...... ..... ..... .... ...... ..... ..... C' •...... ... ...... ..... ..... •...•�;; **too .1.. ..... .... .... l- .... 10. 15 ..... • �� 15. 20 i CITY-WIDE DENSITY: 7929 PERSONS PER SQUARE MILE FIGURE 2-7 ROSS POPUL.ATON hwtingtrm b► mh p6nning &partrrmt 15 -...�..-.,- _..-.. .. .. . .. ... _.�......... ....... .-.-�......-� ..._...._._...-....-.......+... .•u.rYe:.,..aatC:/�,;7•.S.♦T.:.?:i.�i.Z`.�:::1:a.;�A'YSw " �i h I i CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ! ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORMMA JI Ire � J( ...... ............ .... ....... .�r 1, :: ...... ..... ..... ............. ..... �..... ,�' ...... ............ ............• ..... .... off I Is K. • . •. •o. •,••,•,••• .� ••+... ...ii. ••••'6.••••o••••••'• ♦ • :' is :I'ii: '• +• \111 •• •+ • ••••.+4•••.• �f• r / .• •• • 6.6 •.to •.• r••r• to to ••... ••r••w••••• •..•• ••r•.• ••..• ••••••••.••r ..••• \\ •••..• •••.• ..•••• ..r•• ..••.� ••.••• ..•.• .r••+• .•••• •..• : .• a siiii si:ii• iiii� :::' 9400* DENSITY IN THOUSANDS """ "�� '�'��MrMr04... ♦ .r•.. ..... •..••+1.••.•• .... UNDER6 ..... ..... r.+... ..... rill ..•-. ♦ p .r. rrrrrrn 5. 1 @ ��, , ..... ...... ..... ..... .... :.... ..... .... ..... , 10 15 "'�. ... l 15. 20 CITY-WIDE DENSITY: 8512 PERSONS PER SOUARE MILE ; r FIGURE 2-8 GROSS POPULATION DENSITY-2000 Cl liphuntington beach *ming departmmt i 1 16 .' •-w�IMru.h..'•.q.....•..r..�-�......•........••........._......-....... �....,..�...•.1,.. ..,..'V• ...r.._ .. ......w.... ...Y ../1.::./.. .C47ai.r�N.•.. ... ..v}� ♦1.(r{.Rt`'•-..4n•':(/i.�4.��.Y',lti'•Tl. Tom.--- 1 G. •rhe increase in population g,ro% th wi 11 generutu a demand rot- medical, educational and puhli- facilities ; 7 . There will continue to be growth pressures channeled towards laity government; and B. The existing master Plan will he implemented. 2. 5 Implications The previous discussion dealt with the City' s future under the • Current Growth Policy in terms of numbers. Now it is perhaps -, appropriate to consider the impact of the Current Growth Policy in terms of community life. Calling; for accommodation and provision for growth without full consideration of its long;- range consequence •,+ the current policy wotuld have significant influence on the City's future urban, natural , and social environments . tinder the Current Growth Policy, for example, there would be a decreasing proportion of multiple-family uses. but rapid development of all planned residential areas. If the policy of allowing; utilization of all commercially zoned land continues , the excess of commercial uses could markedly disturb the stability of' the City's economy and encourage high turn over and vacancy rates as -� well as a reduction of assessed valuation on commercial properties. The Current Growth Policy would also foster development of over 2, 000 acres of planned industrial acreage which would supply t,ie I City with an "average" amount of industrial uses relative to popula- tion size. In addition, the existing; policy plans for and encourages construction of both a coastal and Route 39 freeway. Such major transportation arteries could conceivably generate large-scale development and rapid population growth in previously undeveloped parts of the City increasing the burden on already congested surface streets and requiring; extension of public utilities. A major impact of the Current Growth Policy on the natural environ- 3 ment would he to decrease the ratio of parks and open space acres from 18. 24 acres/1, 000 people to 14.35 acres/1 ,000 by not encoura1;- ing; sufficient new facilities to keep tip with additional growth. However, the policy does reflect a desire to preserve and conserve the shoreline as a vital natural and recreation resource. While the Current Growth Policy seeks eventual removal of oil pumping units as they cease production, it does not address the. more serious environmental issues of geological hazards anti flood plains -- probably as a result of a lack of information and technical data regarding; these natural adversities. Therefore, it is unlikely that provisions would be made in the future to reduce the risk. to public safety caused by these factors . �► 17 t.— .�_.._...__.__ .. .. ..._____......__. _`----_._........_... ..,.,:.u.r..:� ..�•+J... ,. ...,.... .....�-.—.—..��..........�.....,...-.�+►rrx3,w�xYT.A;S.::;r r.tsM:rlfz►x,7rrw.w"... , The major influence that the Current Growt'i Policy will have on the social environment concerns housing and education. For all practical � purposes , the current policy ignore:; the housing needs of several sectors of the community. Either consciously or unconsciously, the � Current Growth Policy has promoted and will continue to provide housing designed for 1►i.gher income families . The most severe repercussions in the future will be felt by the elderly and poverty income households who will find thcm!;clves increasingly Less ai,le to compete for dwelling units . That the Current Growth Policy ' ignores any educational objectives will be responsible for its impact oil tl►e future of ti►e City's :school systems. lly promoting J and accommodating growth, the policy overlooks consideration of the effect additional development has on the schools . As a result, the J school districts have: been and would continue to be burdened with � .� providing ever-increasing and ever-more-costly educational facilities and services to a rapidly expanding population. i 2. 6 )*valuation I The preceding pages have presented a scenario of Huntington )leach: e) Future based on direction from the Current Growth Policy. is this ? tl►e future desired by the City's residents? Is this Growth Policy adequate for guiding municipal decisions over the next decades? In Section 1 . 2, it was explained that the purpose of sa Growth Policy is to help achieve a desired quality of life. To determine whether or not the Current Growth Policy is adequate, then, would require r� evaluating its capacity for securing the quality of life sought by the citizens of Huntington Beach. The most comprehensive definition of Quality, of Life Coals' for . the City is set forth in the Policy Plan developed by the llunt,ington Beach Citizens "ommittee for Goals and Objectives. This document contains generally accepted community desires , aspirations , and dreams regarding the City' s immediate ana long-range future. The implications derived from these policies can easily he translated Into Quality of Life Goals to establish a value framework for judging ti►e adequacy of the Current Growth Policy. In .regard to residential development, the Policy Plan implies thslt densities should be decreased and subsequently that population growth III residential zones be reduced. It further proposes that commercial development be controlled, that the downtown commercial area be redeveloped, and that tourism be encouraged. Like ti►e Current Growth Policy, the Policy Plan encourages development of planned industrial acreage but seeks to minimize penetration of the City by freeways. i 18 '1 While a decreasing; ratio of open space and parks would occur under the Current Growth Policy, the Policy Plan recommends a minimum of 16 acres per 1 ,000 people. The Policy Plan also stresses the importance .if shoreline preservation and maximizing; recreation potentials . In harmony with the Zurrent Growth Policy , the Policy Plan oncour ges the removal and restoration of oil production areas and does n,:)t address geologic and flood hazards . ' Concerning; the social environment , the Policy Plan diverges drama- tically from the Growth Policy stating specifically that members of all economic, racial , and ethnic groups he provided for within the City. And though not directly addressing the question of growth and schools , the Policy Plan strongly implies that greater efforts should be made to improve communication between the City and the School Districts regarding planning; activities. From this brief, sumnary of the Policy Plan, it is apparent that the Current Growth Policy cannot. be considered a completely adequate tool for achieving; the desired quality of life. Though in some -, cases its directives are in harmony with the 'Quality of life Goals expressed in the Policy Plan, in many important aspects it falls short of the aspirations voiced by residents of the City. Wherefore, the Current Growth Policy cannot be expected to produce a Huntington Beach; Future that meets the needs and desires of its citizens . I i' t 19 i i n I 1 ^ Ii 1. section 3 aliernativea. for the future t 4 f i i s 3.0 Alternatives for the future A commitment to keep up with growth -- a policy of acConmodatiun has guided the primary energies and resources of 1[uutington [teach for some tlme. This commitment was made in the past and only now is it boing examine} and questioned. From the recommendations of the Policy Platt, it is apparent that. file City's residents desire a future different than the one which would result from continued implementation of the Current Growth Pol �y. 'therefore, if the � desired quality; of life is to be achieved, Municipal encreies will [lave to be reclianneled, values and policies rese?ected. r. The Growth Policy Study constitutes the beginning of this rechan- i. nclzng`M'n"`rese eMiig-process. In the past, as shown by the Current Growth policy, pro-growth values dominated policy with little concern for the future; and present residents of the City suffer the consequences of previous decisions. The .intention of i the Growth Policy Stud is to encourage a future value distribution whit 1-)-5 nces growt wyI th a concern for quality of life. Waile the measures req+aired to balance these values may seem drastic , they are only the result of a deferred-payment approach. What the Growth Policy Study recommends will help begin a })ay-as- you-go system w iere t1i0'efiects of each action will he considered before any final decision is made. Only in this ;gay will ti►e i attributes which prompted the City' s spectacular growth he protected in its wake. � t Alft Z1 i. '.r'•....^+eMAiY.%IN.r/'cJ.Nwevn r.r..�.y.... ................. ..•.ate............•. .» ... rru�+rdYPt'....-4.L. .. ... ... ..+.......,... «..+......... nn., ... v .t .. , '1 rdi �,r'.lef/:.G-�'A' I a I PAST VALUE DISTRIBUTION n pro-growth values control izro th (limited future values concern) 1 UTURE VAIM11 DISTRIBUTION pro-growth control growth (quality of life vaI ues) a� "Value Balance" C, 3. 1 An implied Growth 1'ol icy t Given the inability of Current Growth Policy to achieve the Quality or Life Goals set by City residents , it is obvious that a new Growth Policy must be. developed. And it seems the best foundation upon i which to build a new Growth Policy is , of course , the directives of the Policy Plan. The following summary, therefore, outlines an alternative Growth Policy interpreted from that statement o: citizen objectives, i Implied Growth Policy (Policy Plan) C Top Level Policy: !'] an and provide for growth somewhat moderated over market forces with soma consideration of: impacts on the duality of life and natural resources. C.: Second Level Policies: I . Population Size: Generally reduce population size by reduction of residential densities with some provision of public needs for community facilities and open space. !i 1 .� 22 ^. ..�.�w ~•.1 yr .+ LiqMLL]S<Y1RllaifL�'A4Yi4ifii W4+'N1G�-•iiWa>sr+..++�+�� --- � q,� I ' 7 I� 2. Population Growth Rate: Give some consideration to the rate ON% ofgrowth while encouraging revenue generating uses . 3. Population Distribution: Generally encourage the dispersal of Population re ying primarily on streets and arterial high- ways for movement while considering compatibilities with residential development. Supporting Policies 1 . Development 11. Residential Development: Reduce population size by lowering, generally, residential densities and by considering of population distribution within the context of a growth policy. i { la. Commercial Development: 1) General : Control general commercial development by rcduci the amount of commercially zoned land. j2) Tourism: Encourage tourist- oriented commercial f evelopment. i 3) Redevelopment: Encourage redevelopment of downtown 'J commercial areas relying primarily on private 1 initiative. co Industrial. Develo ment: Generally ercottrage industrial IecT ve"lopment wits concern for distribution and land use y -, compatanilities . d. Transportation and Circulation: 1) Freeways : Minimize freeway development and intrusion. -� 2) Arterial Highways f Streets: Encourage efficient cTeve opment with emphasis on safe and compatable distribution. 3) Public Transportation: Consider mass transportation systems in coor ination with regionnl agencies and plans. c. Annexation: Allow annexation for pre-planned areas con- ! s leri-`n pacts on city objectives, economics, and service and resource requirements . I,f ! 1 23 I i_...._.......�.........»...�.......... .. .. _ __�......,. . ...n.a ,..... ......__.._.._._.._.....T...._.._,.............». .M V.Ia'.:1 i1:=it.t.]k=`-C,:a:vi:;:\-Yt6»r+' III n' f. Fiscal Planning: Develop and maintain short and long; range fiscal planning consistent with and as an inple- ^ menting tool of the (,eneral flan. SOCIETY AND CULTURE : I . Housing : Encourage and provide a variety of housing types anJ costs emphasizing; availability and opportunity for lour r' and moderate income needs . { 2. Communit - Facilities : Encourage a wide range of facilities anTrvices tthat meet the needs and goals of the population. 3. Schools : Coordinate the activities of all school districts anti governmental services and agencies . f ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCIiS : . Community Appearance: Encourage the preservation of .areas of scenic benatty. r'+ 2. Parks Recreation and Open Space: Encourage the acquisition :anU coorclinated dcvMopment ana planning; of public open space, providing 16 .acres of total open space per 1,000 peuple. � City parks are to comprise H acres (of the 16) per 1, 000 people. 3. Natural Resources : Encourage the conservation and protection or all natur5l. resources. a. Oil : Provide for the eventual development of oil lands as deple?tion occurs. C. b. Flood Plains . Allow development in flood plains with some conshl ration of the Implication of such action. 4 . Shore inn : Maximize use of the shoreline; and beaches by the provision of support facilities with concern for the protec- tion of visual quality. While this flternative ,alit expresses a greater concern for the policy i consequences of growth than the Current Growth Policy, its attentions are primarily focused at the impact of population size on quality of life.. As ,a result, this alternative does not address the question of population growth rate, and emphasis on population distribution C is confined to {{protection of certain values rather than a policy realignment. Tlu refore, though this alternative policy more closely represents the desires of the City's res :donts, it is still not comprehensive enough to direct municipal decision making in a way that insures achievement of their Qualit— of Life Goals, C 24 C H1w:xF++,psr. . r..........r ....,....... s.... .w. .... .. .. , '. S i.•J ...., .... .. .. ... . ., r ... i:..J. :...`.! :$;;:5,(* ;.1". -.;i::,f: ?fvtr •�Nl�:C a.a I t } 3. ' Revised Growth folic Still using the Quality of Life Goals established in the Policy Plan as a foundation but modifying them with plannithg; experience and expertise, a second alternative can be developed which is strictly oriented to growth manipulation. Not only does this Revised Growth Policy alternative attack the question of growth G, directly, it also ltas the advantage of being developed conceptually. Unlike the Current and Implied Growth Policies which had to be assumed from their Supporting; Policies , the Revised Growth Policy was derived first in terms of Top and Second level Policies. Supporting; Policies were later developed to reinforce these high- level directives. s., Revised Growth Policy 1'oh Level Policy: To influence and channel population growth in a manner that will ; -� optimize the quality of life for the residents of the City. Second Level Policy: i . Population Size: To plait for a population size that is consistent with environmental duality and provision of urban services and amenities as related to rate and distribution policy. 2. Growth Rate: To .limit the rate of growth to a level that will enatle tic:-conscious planning and management of population size and distribution policies. i 3. �Po�ulation' Distribution: To distribute population in a manner hint will optimize environmental and urban qualities emphasiz- inl; preservation of natural resources and movement of people and goods. }C; Supporting Policies Development t 1 . Residential Develo ment: Plan for and regulate residential l development that, will accommodate an identified variety of needs consistent with environmental and urba: quality goals . Commere is 1 Ilevclopment a. General : Identify general commercial needs and establish a alanced framework for provision of these needs consid- '� oring quality of life implications in terms of service and distribution and city fiscal responsibilities . 2S J b, 1'ourisin: Encourage tet►rist commercial development for economic benefit to the (;ity with planned cons ideration r un impacts to other aspects of the City. C . Itedevelo anent: Encourage redevelopment as a means of improving tie quality of life and the channeling of growth with the City taking an initiatory or participatory role when necessary. r 3. Industrial Development: Encourage appropriate industrial ec�velopment within the context of planned industrial areas. 4 . Utility Service: Plan and regulate development of public � utilities in concert with utility agencies and city growth policy considering impacts oil ►►at►►ral resources. S. Transportation and Circulation a, Freeways : Analyze freeway needs and impacts on growth � and coordinate response with regional transportation planning. b. Arterial Ilighways t, Streets : Provide for planningand development n—conj'e►on with land use distribution c►nd transportation objectives. c, Public Transportation : Actively consider mass transporta- tion systems by coon inating and participating with regional agencies and plans. , 6. Annexation: Allow annexation for pre-planned areas upon satisfactory conclusions of consideration of impacts on City objectives , economics, and service and rosource requirements. 7 . Fiscal Planiiin&: Develop and maintain short and long range fiscal p anning consistent with and as an implementing tool (including regulation and feedback to growth policies) of the �.. General flan. Society and Culture it i 1 . Housing.: Encourage and provide a variety of housing types and costs including the needs of those employed in the City and ' equal opportunity for all economic racial and ethnic C! 1 II Y , , groups. Community F�aci_lities: Encourage and provide a wide range of ,ac titles and services that responsibly meet the needs and goals of the population. 3. Schools: Limit or regulate residential growth so 'as to allow and E ntain a high level of educational quality and the adequate provision of educational facilities. , o a a. ..w....�,�...-.... -.-......._.. ». .... ................ i'.v-' . ..:♦......• .cnr-....::c•. .....7.7: .rt �:.:.♦.". "t.:�i:A.•'•*.l�r•t.•f•w.%�i.;i:SI' I ►1 Environment and Resources ,►y 1 . Ce,mmunity Appearance: Encourage fiscally responsible areas of scenic preservation and establi :.h and enforce aesthetic stand- ards for all future development . ?. Parks, Recreation and Open Space: Encourage the responsible acquisition and coordinated evelopment (where appropriate) .� and planning of public open space, to include consideration of the amount, type, and distribution of open space elements. 3. Natural Resources: Establish programs for the conservation and protection o natural resources. a. oil : Plan all oil lands for the phased conversion to apt imilm Ilse. b. blood Plains : Consider the implications of development in potential flood plains and regulate accordingly. ., C. Geologic Hazards : Consider the implications of develop- ment in potential flood plains and regulate accordingly. 4 . Shoreline: Optimize use of the shoreline so as to pormit rensonabre use in concern with regulation to protect environ- mental and aesthetic values. Specifically addressing the growth factors of size, rate, and distribution, the premise of the Revised Growth policy is that growth can and should be influenced; and the hest way to influence gro!r•th is`by balancing the interaction of these growth factors. The essence of the Revised Growth policy is summarized belov: 1 . Growth must be influenced and directed to optimize quality of life; ?. Ultimate population size will result from a balance of environ- mental values and urban services ; 3. Rate of growth must be reduced to allow the City time for adjusti;!ent of its decision making; processes in line with the new growth policy; and a . Pol)ula..i(an distribution is an essential factor determining; the :maintenance and provision of environmental values. 3. 3 Evaluation Each of the three Growth Policies presented Current, Implied, And .a Revised -- is related and yet each represents a different approach 27 ti I I to the future (See Figurc 3-1) . Current Growt!t Policy can he summari:ed as a pol icy of accommodat. ing growth without i .ill ^ consideration of its impacts. The Policy Plan, as interpreted in the Implied Growth Policy, takes a stand against accommodation. Its overall intent is to reduce growth with emphasis on reduction of population size. The Revised Growth Policy is an extension of the spirit of the Policy Plan which is that of responsible concern and provision for -be quality of natural and urban environments. r` The Revised Growth Policy suggests that this can best he accomplished by careful consideration of all growth factors -- size, rate, and distribution -- and that these factors should be evaluated and balanced to provide a final growth strategy. Because of its direct concern with the three fundamental growth factors and its relation- ship to the Quality of Life Goals of the Policy Plan, the Revised ' Growth Policy is recommended by the Growth Policy Study as a basis for further development and refinement of an official Growth Policy and growth strategy for the City of liuntington Beach. 3.4 -Iml3acts of the Revised rrr-•;th P914 cy 'rite impact of the Revised Growth Policy is difficult to meatiure because it is a broad, conceptual framework for influencing; growth. Its real impact will be observable only after its principles are incorporated into the decision making process and translated into specific programs for implementations. In any case , the impact of n the Revised Growth Policy on current affairs will not be dramatic. Rather, it will be reflected in gradual. policy changes and value realignments throughout the municipal system. Its impact on the future, however, should be considerable. !I 3.4 . 1 Population Size The Revised Growth Policy neither specifies nor recommends an ultimate population figure. Instead, it deals with the relationship of size to quality of life and other environ- mental and population factors intending; to encourage a population size which when properly distributed provides adequate support for urban services as well as protection of open space and conservation values. Nevertheless, the Revised Growth Policy , through its influence on residential development, is expected to reduce ultimate population below the figure currently expected. E 3.•t . � Population Growth Rate The Revised Growth Policy strongly .-ecommends that growth rate be reduced to allow time for planning; and full imple- mentation of size and distribution policies. Without 28 i am DERIVATION OF AL';ER,YATIVE GROWTILPOLICIES1 t;Rl7lir'T!! POLTr:'i ! Source _ ,Alternatives History of Current Current POLICY SET ONE Supporting Top & 2nd • (Current) Past Growth Policies Level Policy Principle Implied Implied Quality Statements Supporting Top & 2nd POLICY SET TWO i Policy Level Policy (Implied) 4 of Life Goals Values Revised Revised Top f 2nd Supporting POLICY SET THREE Level Policy Policy Growth Values (Assumed) M FIGURE 3 -1 f 9� 7 immediate reduction in growth pressure, it will be extremel difficult to replace daily crisis reaction with crisis anticipation and prevention. A growth :Flow down, therefore would facilitate execution of a comprehensive Growth Policy and aid achieve1nent of the Quality of Life Goals. 3.4 . 3 Population Distribution In undeveloped areas of the City, a distribution policy could be implemented immediately resulting directly in provision of additional open space lands. Because protec- tion could be afforded vital resource areas , conservation of the natural environment wo►ild be easier and a compre- hensive open space and conservation program would be feasible. In already developed areas, however, Ito immediate changes would occur. To attempt to alter existing development patterns would be unreasonable and not necessarily desirable -- and redistribution would be carried out only after detailed investigation or in concert with redevelopment programs. 3 .4.4 Summary The Revised Growth Policy is a means to encourage and � enhance the futurn quality of life in the City. It is not absolute, nor is it complete, for it will evolve and change as ideas, values, and other factors change over the , years. Its ultimate impact will depend upon the degree of commitment and the degree to which it is utilized and A implemented in the creation of the future. it is only a j tool and not an and in itself. It asks questions and implies that certain things must be considered. Its only purpose is to assist in the development of a finer city, a finer future. If it can assist - in the crystalization of certain ideas and directions For the City, then it fins served its purpose. By asking difficult questions and providing few pat answers, this Growth Policy will insure that the process of studying and answering these questions will have meaning and validity and tremendous impact upon the future environment of the City. ! 30 lip .r., ... ...., .. ......r_.r..• ......�... .. ... _...........,....,.... .., r.++ w ._.'i.n. ... ., ,.. ...... ._.__. .. �s ..�......r... .,.r^r r'.".•l'M'1.1:7.F.✓1if:wt....%,1lLi l;:tti47r"` r I 1 i I ii I •. 1 f l section 4 implementation. _.»........_�....-..-•._............ .. .. . ... ... ... ....... ....... .. .... ..... -.,.wnt, .. ....^......�...rm.P��.�.. .:.'�.�_i.-J.}.r�Z�.,,J%Aj7Y,ar) l t 1 3f 1 p 4 . o Implementation As explained earlier, the degree to which the City' s future will be influenced by the Revised Growth Policy depends on how comprehensive- 1y its principles are applied by government agencies. How the Growth Policy can be implemented and what steps are necessary to develop a final growth strategy are the concern of this section. 4 . 1 Techniques of Growth Control Implementation of any plan depends upon the tools available once general goals and objectives are established. In implementing any policy of this scale, it must be understood that cities and indeed all levels of government represent only a small part of what is "growth" in our society. The impacts of governments then, are subject not only to legal restrictions, in implementing or limiting growth, but also to greater forces acting within our society. Recent trends toward smaller families and reduced birth mites are examples of forces acting beyond the control of government. Figure 4-1 attempts to indicate major social impacts on growth. It is apparent from this chart that while there are many factors beyond the scope of government control , the City can do something to influence each of the three growth characteristics : size, rate, and distribution. Technique!; of growth control can be placed in five categories : comprehensive planning, zoning, subdivision regulations, Environment- al Impact Reports, and growth ordinances. Furthermore, each may be appropriate on an interim or long-range basis or both. Also, the technique may influence one , two, or all three dintensions of popula- tion growth as identified in this study. The following sections will examine techniques currently available in each category, their j 31 1lip ._._.._...._,._..»............_.... ter: FIGURE. -I-1 ',bIJOR FACTORS OF I; PACT ON GROWTH �I SIZE: NUMBER OF BIRTHS/DFATIIS IN/OUT MIGRATION r' LOCAL ACCOMMODATiON OF GROWTH n ILA TE NATIONAL HCONOMY BU Y LUING AND rInRKIs*PING DEMANDS (REGIONAL F, I.00AI.) STABILITY OF RESIDENTS (IIO{V LONG DO THEY RESIDE IN A COMMUNITY) LOCAI. ACCOMMODATION OF GROWT}I 1 DISTRIBUTION: URBAN L.A. $ ORANGE CO. TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE LOCAL LAND USE $ MARKET i LOCAL ACCOWIODATION OF GROWTH 4 i 0 From this chart it can be seen that the City can have an impact on all of the factors --size, rate and distribution--which affect growth. Within these areas of impact there are a number of technioues available to local government. � I � � 32 lip 1� y.w,:Na:.....u..w:aK� .. ........�... .. ._, er,. .... lot.- interim and long range applicability, and the dimensiol; or growrii they n influence most . 4 . 1 . 1 The General Plan As shown in Figure 4-2 , the growth Policy plays a funda- mental role in preparation of a General Plan to guide the City's future course. Its directives concerning population size, rate, and distribution will influence the preparation of every General flan Element and consequently every aspect of future community development. 'Therefore, of all tech- niques of growth control tht• t-eneral Flan is perhaps the most basic as it provides the guiding; framework for all other techniques. The plan does not in itself supply the mechanisms for growth controi , but it establishes para- meters and directions for implementation. The General Plan is considered a broad policy document to r guide subsequent specific actions. Since zoning, subdivi- sion approval and several other planning; matters are now required to be consistent with the General Plan, it will undoubtedly acquire a different legal status in the future. Exactly what that status is will be determined through pending and future court actions . Within traditional concepts of the General Plan, issues of population size and distribution have always been an un- challenged concern. Distribution of population b , desig- nation of. residential Areas and dwelling unit densities is a basic part of the Land Use Element; and the resultant residential acreages and density ranges combine to set forth a population size or, as it is sometimes called, "population holding capacity". Concern for the population growth rate generally has not been a part of this princess. Planning has been done by renction or accommodation as opposed to control. Popula- tion projections , economic forecasts, land absorption rates, and other growth factors have been based oil market forces. Recently several cities in California have made the growth rate a concern of their General Plan, and several have been challenged and await court decisions. The State Planning; Act leaves the door open for cities to develop elements of the General Plan that fit their needs. Also, in recent legislative sessions there have been proposals made for a mandatory growth element. Figure 4-3 indicates the nine required elements of the ;-, General Plan and their impact in growth. As indicated, 33 i FIGURE •I-1 COMPONENT.'; of T111? i CUMPREIIIiNSIVI; GENERAL PLAN 1Policy 111,111 ' ,(Quality~�—o-ff Life) 1 Growth Policy + Size, Rate, and Distribution Policy Plan: Policy Plan : Policy Pltin : Development Environment F Society t; Resources Culture ' Land Use Clement open Space Klement FlIousing Klement Circulation Element Conservation Klement Related Elements Related Elements Seismic Safety Element ...i.. Public SafetLIilement i I ' i I Scenic highways Element Noise Iilement •I r Related Elements i i �r i J� i �.:3i i+;..:f e,lr.t:.... ... •..._...�-�.._. -.............�.._.-...-... ,. ..... -.._.,_....... .. ............... ..... ......._...._.. .....-..----a..nti.•.. .•.r......... nrr�^:ltt......Lv7.i.errdnitt.:✓aa.:JIfiFA?IU• FIGURE 4-3 �"'► GENERAL PLAN TECHNIQUES CTNERA : PLAR IMPACTS ELEMENTS MANDATORY SIZE RATE DISTRIBUTION LAND USE • 0 =` CIRCULATION 0 1� OPEN SPACE 0 0 0 c CONSERVATION 0 0 0 `) SEISMIC SAFETY 0 0 i NOISE 0 0 SCENIC HIGHWAYS 0 HOUSING 0 0 SAFETY 0 0 I PERMISSIBLE i POPULATION GROWTH 0 U 0 1 �. CURRENTLY USED i POTENTIAL 0 i 35 R I r the land use and circulation elements are presently impact- ing size and distribution. The remaining elements have r the potential to impact at least one: dimension of growth. A population growth element has been listed as a Possible "permissible element" as indicated in Section 65302. 1- of the State Planning Act. Of seven new mandatory elements, the open space, conserva- tion and seismic safety elements hold the greatest poten- tial for impacting growth, both on an interim and long range basis. The General Plan or any element will not in itself be Life. tool for controlling growth. Resultant effectuation n programs and ordinances w,.11 be tho means whereby the actual control will be instituted. The General Plan is, however, an important and inherent part of any local , growth control effort. 4 . 1 . 2 Zoning Techn i gue:-% Otte of ChM tools that Cities have in limiting or control- ling growth is the section within the state enabling legislation for regulation of land use through the police powers, i.e. , zoning . According to these zoning regula- 0 i tions, cities may: i a. . regulate the use of building, structures and land between .industry, business, residence and open space including agriculture, recreation, enjoyment of scenic beauty and use of natural resources and other pur- poses. b. regulate signs and billboards. co regulate locations, height , bulk, number of stories, size: of buildings and structure, the size and use of C lots, yards, courts, and other open spaces, percent- age of a lot which may be occupied by a building or structure, the intensity of land use. d. establish requirements for off-street parking and 9 p B loading, C. i i e. establish and maintain building setback line. f, create civic districts around civic center, public I parks , public buildings, public grounds; establish regulations thereof by setting limits to the types of use and intensity of use of land within the City, 3G i FIGURE 4-q '► ZONING TECHNIQUES -"" f1FTF MTV- OPEN SPACE ZONING 0 0 0 RESOURCE PRESERVATION 0 0 MANAGED PRODUCTION OF RESOURCES 0 0 0 OUTDOOR RECREATION 0 0 1' PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY 0 0 0 RESIDENTIAL ZONING REZONING 0 N DENSITY CHANGES w d ZONING TO CONTROL TIMING OF DEVELOPMENT 0 0 0 LARGE LOT ZONING 0 0 0 UNCLASSIFIED ZONES 0 0 0 COMPENSATED REGULATION 0 0 } TRANSFER OF �. D1 VELOPMENT RIGHTS 0 0 ZONING WITH , COMPENSATION 0 0 CURRENTLY USED • POTENTIAI, 0 i ALJMJL 37 lip ..-_...rm.i..•\.a\. er;l.n'*.«.a.......«.. ........... _. ......... ...... ._... .« ...w...... .,..r. .. s .. ...-. ..-.._Y .. _....a i.. .i= .. . 1.. ..S a .. 'Z:'.SP'� .. Within the zoning ordinance, there are several techniques or tools available that control nr limit growth. These � are summarized on the following matrix and evaluated in terms of impact upon size, rate and distribution and whether the technique is of interim or long term value. The techniques are grouped in five categories : open space zoning, regulation to timing of development, interim regu- lations, residential zoning, and compensated regulation. 4 . 1 .3 Subdivision Controls After land has been subdivided into residential lots, it can rarely be put to any other reasonable use without extensive redevelopment programs. Ownership is too frag- mented and the lots too small to support uses other than single family or small multiple family dwellings. Early subdivision regulations were intended to prevent � swindling of prospective land buyers by setting minimum standards for subdivision design, mainly streets and utilities. The subdivision process has been traditionally viewed as beneficial to the local economy and equated with the growth is progress philosophy. however, recent legislative additions to the Subdivision Map Act have significantly altered the regulation of subdivisions. Authority for subdivisions comes from the Subdivision Map Act and "home rule" provisions of the state constitution. Although local jurisdictions may not impose subdivision controls that are in conflict with the Map Act, California courts have held that they may impose supplemental regula- tion upon which it is silent. In 1971 , the State Legisla- ture adopted ABISG1 which significantly altered the scope of the Map Act by allowing local agencies to regulate subdivisions with growth impacts. Local control over subdivisions has ther::tiy expanded r considerably. No longer are local governments able to approve subdivisions with minimum consideration; and since subdivision of land is the primary source of residential growth in Southern California, the controls that Cities exercise over the subdivision of land can be significant ,y tools for growth control. 4 .1.4 Environmental Impact Reports The California Environmental Quality Act and the city of ce Huntington Beach Ordinance Code Section 9720 (Environmental Impact Reports) provid,� a potential growth control tech- nique. Section 9721. 7 states : 38 AMA �N e , FIGURE -1- 5 OTHER TECHNIQUES TEMINIQUES SIZE RAT B Dlsl,)Il EDT I ON SUBDIVISION CONTROLS 0 0 0 DESIGN & IMPROVEMENT 0 0 0 fr'7 SPECIFIC PLANS 0 0 0 ! I PARCEL MAPS 0 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 0 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS 0 0 0 COMPRE 111-USI VE 7 GROWTH ORDINANCE: 0 0 0 CURRENTLY USED 0 POTENTIAL 0 t s 39 (7 i i � � I + C? t I 5 i , i "CONTENTS 01: REPORT. Environmental impact reports pre- pared pursuant to this article shall, contain a detailed statement setting forth the following: (a) The environmental impact of the proposed action. (b) Any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided if the proposal is implemented. (c) Mitigation measures proposed to minimize the impact. (d) Alternatives to the proposed action. (e) The relationship between local short-term uses of � man's environment and the maintenance and enhance- ment of long-term productivity. (f) Any irreversible environmental changes which i:4nuld be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented. (g) The growth-inducing impact of the proposed action. (h) The boundaries of the area which may be significantly affected by the proposed action. r (i) Any other information or data that may be required by the environmental review board by resolution in I accordance with .Section 9721 .1 (e) of this article.' '. If the conclusions reached in the environmental impact report can dentonstrat€: that the Y project impact (if an ro ' clt is p p detrimental to the environment or has a growth inducing impact which outweighs the asitive benefits of the P g p project, the project may be denied or mitigation measures could be imposed. The environmental impact report tech- nique could affect the size, rate, and distribution dimensions of grow0. Section 9721. 9 effect of findings states: "No permit or entitlement shall be ,approved or issued. if a finding is made pursuant to this article that the proposed project is likely to cause substantial environ- mental damage after considering alternatives to the proposed project (including abandonment) and mitigating measures proposed to minimize the impact of such proposed project, which is not outweighed by substantial benefits to the community resulting from such proposed project." 40 ;�:. .,ems.r... n....�.-..... ... .... ... ..- ................_�_............w.,.. 1 ... ........... ...- _._...�..•.,. .a...aa.i ......... . «a ..,a•('!1'..Itr:lY...s,•r:.dltt�.);4�a5(•..`{..+.AF I This essentially requires that some means of weighing; the ft environmental impacts (of which growth coils iderat ions are a part) against communitywide benefits (the public interest) must be devised to effectively use the environmental impact report as a technique to control growth. It is evident that the environmental impact report cannot stand alone as a means to control growth. It is essential- ly an informational device which must be part of a growth control program to be effective. 4.1 .5 Comprehensive Growth Control Ordinance Several communities across the nation (Ramopa , New fork; Boulder, Colorado; Petaluma, California) have developed varying types of Growth Ordinances with strong implement- ing measures to limit or control growth. In the case of the Ordinances , the cities have attempted to develop a -, comprehensive look at growth and relate all types of regulation into one system. The most significant example in California is the Petaluma Residential Control System, Petaluma, California, has probably moved furthest towards controlling growth than any other city in the nation . The -ti city found in establishing goals .limiting grnwth through development of a General Plan that strict controls were needed to provide the quality of life goals desired. The most significant aspects of Petaluma's plan is the implementation technique used -- the Residential Control ' -71 System or Growth Ordinance. Bused on the city' s "lious'Ing , Clement", a quota system was devised to limit the number ! of units developed within the city for any year. Once it quota has been established, it may not be modified by f more than 10 percent in any one year. Petaluma then set up a development time schedule and an I evaluation system. All proposed developments compete with each other to be included in the quota of units to be developed within the year. All proposals for the year must be made in May of a given year. The city then evaluates And rates each development in terms of environ- mental impact and compatibility with the city' s "quality of life: goals" as expressed in the General Plan. By limiting the number of units per year, or the rate of growth, Petaluma can then take time to carefully consider all projects and their impact and develop cautiously toward a better community for all. J 4l. ow t� 1 ' IN The Petaluma :;ase is presently in court, and the decision of that case will have a significant impact on how far r cities can go to limit or control the rate of growth. The result of this case will certainly influence the future implementation of growth control techniques. 4. 2 Court Decisions r� i Actually, the exter►t to which any of the above techniques can be 1 used to control growth is liable to scrutiny by the courts. The i idea of planning growth in the community is a very new and complex one. Laws are: confusing, and in many cases , unclear at the present on what communities may do to control growth. The reason for r1 uncertainty is that two important societal values (both protected by law) are conflicting in terms of growth limitation. (in one !rand, it is the role of government to insure that the residents of any community are provided with a minimum of services such as sewer and water, drainage, streets, utilities and schools. r� If, a community cannot provide these services, it is legally respon- sible. Beyond these minimum services, communities are expected to provide for the "quality of life" for residents of ti►e community. Often local government cannot provide these minimum services when the rate of growth exceeds the ability of the community to respond with services. The entire community suffers as a result . Morator- iums and ".initiative" moves have been used, sometimes legally and sometimes not , to slow the rate of growth and allow communities time to provide proper services. Recently several communities have adopted widespread limitations on development as a result of their limited ability to provide services to newly developing areas. On the other nand, one of the most valued rights granted in the Hill of Rights is that of individual ownership oT property. This has traditionally been interpreted to include the right to use land to its maximum potential (Le. , to develop it to its maximum use capacity) . The conflict in growth ordinances and even morator- iums has come as a result of the courts' decisions that it may be an "undue hardship" on the landowner to restrict development of his property even though the City may not be able to provide proper services for future residents on the land. This type of decision has resulted in what is termed "inverse condemnation", where the landowner may sue the City and force it to pay for tiie land and/or losses incurred by taking the land owner's "right to develop". The final outcome of these conflicts between the rights of the general public and rights of the property owne► cannot be fully determined at this time. Resolution in California o: the Petaluma case will determine how far a city can go in limiting or controlling growth within its boundaries, while the resolution of a case in ' 42 low i e w1..L A.w r�.wn...f ........'. ............ .. .. ..... ....0 ....r .:. -. ............ ........n^+.f•.Jl fN.rr«...r+wi\'..4NT. www..4.AwPa+ww\.liNt/N.M n' • San Jose will determine the legality of initiative and moratoriums to limit growth. 'The only definite facts toward implementing ;1 growth plan derived from cases in California to date would be that if the City can clearly demonstrate that the general public welfare or provision of services are endangered by development, methods controlling development or growth are possible. Limiting growth, then, depends on how "reasonable" is the action taken by the City. 4.3 Growth Strate y, The way is open for the City to control growth, but the course is not clear. The concepts of law are constantly changing, and it is i ., evident that those cities who are now in court will be setting legal precedents on how far cities can go in regulating; growth. Ivithirt the context of size and distribution, cities; certainly have the ability within the definition of "reasonableness" to control these c,imensions. It is the ability to control rate that is disputed. j -� The question facing Huntington Beach today is how far does the Cit I want to go in cont-rolling growth. This summary report has, in y general terms, projected future growth and corisec;uerices basest on present trends and policies. If it is deemed that, these conse- E quences warrant , the City can take an offensive position and actively pursue a program to control growth. The extent to which the City will go depends on how much risk it wishes to take. If � J the City chooses not to take an active ap proach and wait for precedent to be set by the courts, it should be dons: with the knowledge that the growth rate is presently 10,000 persons per year and will continue as such for some time. Prior to setting a. Growth Control Program in motion agrowth, strategy must be formulated. By the nature of growth adefined in this report, the growth strategy must be comprised of a series of interrelated components. Figure 4-6 indicates the formulation of a growth strategy. The Growth Policy is broad enough in scope that a dumber of alternative futures can be developed. The:secondary, and supporting policies must be evaluated and tradelmar offs� or balancing determined. Based on the trade offs, a number of concepts can be developed which will set forth a strategy for the j size and distribution dimensions of population growth anti implemen- tation techniques. This has always been a legitimate concern of the General Plan and zoning. f The rlo,t critical dimension of growth is rate. The decision must be made whether to take an active approach and attempt to control the population growth rate or to Wait for court Precedent to be set . This decision is part of formulati a strategy that d ng; a growth strategy. Formulating; oes not consider all three dimensions of population growth will only be a partial strategy and thereby inneffective. i ''' 43 ' yy t I v I � i I f { t i FIGURE 4-6 GROWTH STRATEGY G R O W T H 5 T R A T E G u-- t alternative concepts general implementation I plan techniques � 1 _ 1 Mpolici determine (implementation t growth + cegTee techniques Alternative � controlp Y of rowth rate Growth growth control Control program Programs f review and implementation { 1 eoperationsvaluation of technique; nPrograms h t j 1 r I S T R A T E G r'------------I The formulation of a growth strategy will take the farm of a number of interrelated components. The following is a list of actions that need to be taken: 1 . Adnpt Growth Policy - Tills report should serve as a vehicle for public dialogue and receive close scrutiny. The revised policy set should be adopted as the guiding framework for developihia a growth control program. 2. Develop Alternative Conceets - Identify the trade offs involved in the revised ,grown policy and develop a series of alterna- tive concepts. These concepts would be evaluated and one chosen for the General Plan. The emphasis would be on size and distribution. 3. Determine the degree to which, the City wishes to control the ; �r�owwth rate - The Lit), must etermine how far it wis yes tc go in controlling the rate of groivt5. It is by far the riskiest of the three dimensions. 4 , Review and evaluate all operational Rrocedures - All departments shout revleW their operations and determine—to what degree they influence growth and evaluate what role they should play in a growth control program. r' 4 .4 A Growth Control Program Subsequent to the completion of the growth strategy components, a program for controlled growth can be developed . With issues such as how far the City wishes to go in controlling rate with size and �3 distribution determinations having been made from the general plan; and with operational procedures reviewed and evaluated, the action program can be put together. The program should be a series of plans , policy, ordinances , and programs that working and interacting together would be a conscious �j effort by the City to control growth in a manner designed to achieve the quality of life desired by City residents. 1' Adft E 45 F 1 i �.+.w.wry-xrC..t�A'.l...ta..aar-r.w..—... ..... ......•.........v., .. .. :'a. .... , ... .... ., ............... ._t•.....4 ...,.....l r: .. .,"i •... ,.. :r ,.._�T;:�'.+.. ,j,�.yr• t r f O i i 1 " I i { r i . S= `i 1 HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DEPANTMENT * RICHARD HARLOW Director i * EDWARD SELICH Srilor Planner * MONICA FLORIAN A►sociaiaPtanntrr DAVE €AOIE AuociataPlamw ! AL MONTES A:aistatrt Ptannw MAUREEN WILD Aaelrtant Pjanw SAVOY BELLAVIA Assimnt Planner ' FRED RITTER Auhtant Planner 1 . . JOHN COPE MEL TOOKER Aasinant Planner DICK WINGHELL Pltrning Aide EMILIE JOHNSON Pianning 4ide DAN BOB KIRBY INR Planning Aid# • Plaaning Aide SERGIO MARTIN€% Planning Aldo THOM JACOBS Illustrator i +A GEORGE ERMIN Planning Draftowsn • BOB slamom Planning Draltatran * ALAN LEE Planning Oraftwwn JUNE ALLEN Adminlstrotlw tacnvtary JANA HARTGE Pdnclpt!Clark SUSAN PIERCE SrcretaryTypist GISELA CAMPAGNE Secretary * MARY CAIIDINAL Clark TWn REPORT WRITTEN BY:MONICA FLORIAN FEBRUARY 1074 . * Panlaipating Staff • de construction BEGIN: C3ROW11 OPTIONS beach(rest) zone s+ r •t' �Rt policy plan iluad channel Edison easement . & ` er+Ar'onmental • ..� .....� jmpact-. industrial J .y complex �. c tfeef . . nn parking- 6i e + i lot fu!I standing pad xing ' roon: school full only return toy ` � "' "�"" start •• �.r".►` public park (rest) �,o...r.�w.� -:' ; j a traffic— .; C use alternateCL a' cuf•de sac historic site olf { t g , �,atk site 4 v, taursa ttrct i tProught spat {D b1I ou•e r t 1 rrar a ! smog area :. . .i-, ,. S1 bad genera! 't plan t *t: START: ENTER HUNTINGTON BE AI:N ,rf i GENERAL PLAN BACNWROUND REP 0�� f `huntington beach Bann t, �. • •lam '. •. ,- r .•7 • + '. - , r fit' } }� .011y'OF.HUNTINiitON BEACH ,01TV COUNCIL t` JIe1 AY A.1NA"r"f 11nYt7i .1t ixy 11.UUK,E,maroz ho-T#mwgfe W. T1 t 11AATI.I;rr` > ' A1,ti'I11�1•C't1f�.�e � N01�t'WA I ttR`.tyEi;MUM QUIAM V.GREEN t [1�1.'1H1i�A1.Il P.511Ii ILY ' 1l+�VID C.�1YgV1-LANDS,Ot*Ad"dWsIxRbt 1 :. KANN E11A�UigH:KFMNS,l.2rtilrsr.n. 4 '*1U AMJ.UUGFR 6' ll11AkCY S ldi. fit ILAWKRJ E 1..WALUN lN3 ill A.REYNOLV%5onettm • I i . . } prepared by HUNTIN TON BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT october 1973 THIS REPORT IS A PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF STUDY AND HAS NOT BEEN ADOPTED BY ANY OFFICIAL BODY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH. eN GROWTH , POLICY ten dollars STUDY ill I ► REFACE' A The following report is the culmination of a nine month effort by the Planning Department staff to place into perspective the issue of growth in Huntington Beach. Growth and how to control it is not easy to grasp. Although of ^► vital concern to many, the legal framework has not been firmly established. Thus, each community must carefully analyze its own unique situation in order to determine how to best meet its needs. i Initially stated as a Planning Department goal in the 197.7 work program, a number of events occured in 1972 which firmly set the r direction that a growth policy study should take. first, the Orange County Planning Department completed substantial work on their growth policy which contained a basic methodology that could easily be adapted to Huntington Beach. Second, the }Huntington Beach Citizens Committee for Goals and Objectives presented their report on a Policy Plan which was subsequently adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council with some minor modifications . Third, the State Legislature began a process of enacting numerous legislative bills which significantly affect the local planning process. Thus , with direction firmly set , the planning staff in March of this year began a concerted effort to develop a growth ty policy statement for Huntington Beach. ' j The issue of growth is much more than establishing a maximum population figure. The quality of life that is provided for far exceeds the importance of quantification in pure numbers. However, the intangibles associated with the term "Quality of Life" are much more difficult to quantify. It will require a delicate balancing of policies in order to establish a quality of life that can be afforded by the residents of this community. Thus, it is hoped that this document can be a vehicle for dialogue by those concerned with the growth issues facing Huntington Beach. 1 K. A. Reynolds IDirector of Planning O �. • I I v � i { GROWTH POLICY STUDY Table of Contents n SECTION TITLE PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION 5 1.1 Objectives of the Study 5 1. 2 Relationship of Growth Policy to Planning Program 7 1.3 Critical Growth Factors 8 1. 4 Study Approach Methodology 8 i 2.0 HISTORY OF PAST GROWTH 13 1 ntro uction 13 2. 2 Population Growth 13 I:. 2. 3 Physical Growth 34 J 2.4 Economic Growth 43 { 2. 5 Governmental Growth 61 3.0 CURRENT GROWTH POLICY IN HUNTINGTON BEACH 77 S.1 � Policy Derlivation 77 3. 2 Definition of Growth Policy 77 3. 3 Policy Interrelationships 78 3.4 SLIMmary: Current Growth Policy 80 4.0 FUTURE GROWTH MODEL: CURR'.:NT GROWTH POLICY 85 ntro uRion 85 4. 2 Population Growth 86 4. 3 Physical Growth 103 4.4 Economic Growth 119 5.0 IMPACT OF CURRENT GROWTH POLICY 127 9.1 'Introduction 127 5.2 Urban Environmental Impacts 129 5.3 Natural Environmentai Impacts 141 5.4 Social and Cultural Impacts 1S4 6.0 FRAMEWORK FOR CHOICE 163 f6.1 IntrodUction -- 163 6.2 Growth Policies 164 6. 3 Huntington Beach Growth Policy 165 6.4 Nature of Choice 166 6.5 Areas of Choice 167 6.6 ! Growth Ethic 1.68 7.0 ALTERNATIVE GROWTH POLICIES 171. ntro uct on 171 7. 2 Growth Policy Components 172 7. 3 Alternative Policy Sets 173 1.4 Alternative Futures 174 7. 5 Scope of Growth Policy 176 i 1 , i • r SECTION TITLE: PAGE 8.0 POLICY SET TWO: IMPLIED 179 .1 Source 179 r, 8. 2 Derivation 179 8.3 Discussion 179 8. 4 Implied Growth Policy 180 9.0 POLICY SET THREE: REVISED 185 9.1 Source 185 9. 2 Derivation 185 9. 3 Discussion 186 9. 4 Revised Growth Policy 186 10.0 POLICY COMPARISON AND EVALUATION 193 10.1 et o 0 ogy 193 r 10. 2 Top Level Policies 194 10. 3 Second Level Policies 19S 10.4 Supporting Policies 196 11.0 IMPACT OF REVISED GROWTH POLICY 219 1T.1- Gen-era-1 Comments 219 Ci 11.2 General Impact 220 11 .3 Impact Today 22.1 11 .4 Impact on Population Size 222 11.5 Impact on Population Growth Rate 223 11 .6 Impact or. Population Distribution 223 11.7 Huntington Reach Tomorrow: A Brief Senario 224 11.8 Summary 226 12 .0 IMPLEMENTATION 229 12. 1 Intro uction 229 i 12. 2 The Growth Issue 230 12. 3 City's Impact on Growth 233 C� { 12. 4 Techniques of Growth Control 252 12. 5 Developing a Growth Strategy 253 M PT I . f rr 1 i 014 SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION SECTION HIGHLIGHTS Urban Growth Policy is a local state and national issue. r Y , The objective of this Growth Policy Study is to provide a technical resource document for decision-making and public debate. The comprehensive scope of the Growth Policy Study lends itself directly with many functions of the planning program. fThree major growth factors are evaluated. . .size, rate and distribution of urban growth. The methodology of approach centers around three urban growth inquiries . . .where Huntington Beach was yesterday, i where. it is currently and what alternatives there are for j the future. 3 i A SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1. 1 Objectives of the Study The question of urban growth policy in America has become a local, state and national issue. Many communities have begun to inquire about the "growth phenomena" and how the implications of urban growth will affect them. Bitter debates among all interests from public and private sectors have set the stage for political forums pertaining to issues of urban growth. Opinions expressed by planners, environmentalists, developers, politicians , economists , educators , and experts, specialists and para-professionals representing a wide spectrum of activity groups and interests have been strongly voiced. The communication media has to some degree broadened the urban growth issue where all citizens have the opportunity to evaluate the issues. While many of the issues have evolved, many questions still remain to be answered. There exists an atmosphere of uncertainty as to the "real" implications of urban growth unique to each community. flow urban growth affects one community may obviously affect another . community differently. The decision of a community to' encourage accommodate or control a particular level of growth varies accord- ing to its needs and the quality of life it desires, t� Consequently, it becomes necessary to technically analyze and { evaluate urban growth in order to fully understand its implications . It is essential that a comprehensive growth policy study of past, I current and future growth of a community be the first step in focusing on the realization of what urban growth means to a community. ACM 5 isf 4 7 FIGURE 1. 1 COMPONENTS OF THE r COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL. PLAN Policy Plan (Quality of Life) Growth Policy Size, Rate, and Distribution Policy Plan: Policy Plan: Policy Plan: Development Environment $ Society F Resources Culture Land Use Element I FOpen Space Element Llousing Element n i ! Circulation Element Conservation Element f Related Elements Related Elements Seismic Safety Element Public Safet • Element Sce ent 3nic Highways Elem Noise Element Related Elements �1 U G Aft i U i n Thus, ti►e objective of this study is to provide a technical resource document that focuses on tile issues o(' Growth Policy in IluntiIII, n I1��ach. '1'ha document i not :111 encompassing sand certaiIII). it is 11111 intended to provides any dcrinitive 1-CsOlut ions towards urban growth. Ilowever, it does provide a tool for decision making; and public debate. It does address itself towards the major growth factors affecting Huntington Beach and how the impacts of these growth rn r"actors have affected Huntington Beach i,i the past; how growth is currently operating in the city and what alternative growth policies may be implemented. 1 . 2 Relationship of Growth Policy to Planning_Program I Perhaps one of the most significant aspects of the Growth Policy Study is how it can be used in planning the future of Huntington Beach. The comprehensive scope of the Growth Policy Study lends itself directly with the many short-range and particularly long-range planning functions of the City. The comprehensive approach utilized in the Growth Policy Study provides a resource of data and information as well as value judgements relevant to many functions of the planning program. Its reference to the "Policy Plan" sets forth the Quality of Life Goals as expressed by the community. The Implied Growth Policies derived from the Qut:lity of Life Goals are major considerations in the analysis and evalua- tion of urban growth impacts and alternatives . The link between the Policy Plan and tho eventual development of a growth policy will assure the coordination of all the elements of the General l Plan. Refer to Figure 1.1. t The Growth Policy Study relates directly or indirectly with all the mandatory General Plan elements, thus, identifying the degree of relationships and impacts of population, physical and economic growth with the General Plan elements. 1 �•� The identification of possible negative and positive impacts on the urban, natural and social environment are considerations that various decision making bodies may expand on. i•Iopefully, the future economic, physical and social. fabric of the community may be strengthened by sound decisions regarding land use , D zoning and master planning as a result of the findings of this study. i Adft i 1 ,J 7 !, I �s I i i I it Most importantly, the public awareness of growth issues published i in this document may serve as a mechanism for community input in further expressing what citizens of Iluntington Beach may desire. nII i i 1. 3 Critical Growth 1';ectors Within the contents of the Growth Policy Study, three major growth factors are evaluated. . .size, rate and distribution. r'+' The issue of how much growth Huntington Beach can accommodate and i still be a balanced community is examined. An ultimate population size based on the Master Plan is projected of Hlultington Beach for the year 2000. Estimates are also made as to }low much residential , !n commercial and industrial development would ultimately exist in Huntington Beach based on Current Growth Policy. i The rate of urban growth in Huntington Beach is also examined in terms of past growth and projected rates up to the year 2000 when Huntington Beach is expected to reach total saturation. The rate of population growth is also projected in interval years of 1980, n� 1990 and the year 2000. The identification of inter-related forces that influence the rate of growth are analyzed. These forces are i further evaluated in determining the degree of impact on the rate of growth. The distribution of growth is still another critical factor that is 0 i most significant. The study attempts to forecast where growth will occur in different sections of the City, as well as what can be expected in areas within the City's "sphere of influence". Future population densities are projected based on existing conditions and future land use plans reflecting the Current Growth Policy. Estimates are made as to what public facilities and services will be generated as a result of distribution. The impact's of growth distribution are measured and valued in respect to the Quality of Life Goals . 1. .1 Study A2_roach .Methodology The methodology of approach in this study is oriented towards one major theme. . .11untington Beach yesterday, today and tomorrow. Section Two documents the history of past growth. The primary task is to trace the physical , economic, population and governmental �I growth that has evolved from past policy. The purpose of this section is to highlight the significant factors that have influenced the shape and form of Huntington Beach into what it is today. G U i i Section Three addresses itself to Current Growth Policy in Huntington lienr.h. it should be understood that while there is not a formal set pf i;row th pal icy :•tatemellts , the derivation in this study of Current 0) Growth 11u 1 i cy ill Ilu11t ington Beach ro f 1 ect s :in overlap between past and tr.111. ianal policies that arc currently operating. The purpose of the identification of current growth policy is for romparitive analysis between policy sets and a frame of reference for alternative policies . Section Four and Five are geared at approaching the issue of what the future Huntington Beach will be, based on Current Growth Policy. Section Four reveals the level of growth in a model solely reflective of Current Growth Policy. Section Five attempts to state the various levels of positive and negative growth impacts and the relationship to the Quality of Life Goals. The purpose of the two sections is to strengthen the foundation for the analysis of alternative growtth 1 policies. Section Six emphasizes the "framework for choice" for alternative growth policies. It attempts to convey the alternatives of accom- modating, encouraging or controlling growth. The purpose of this D section is to serve as an introduction to alternative growth policies. Sections Fight and Nine outline two different policy sets . The :; policy set in Section Bight is derived from the principle state- ments from the Policy Plan. Section Nine develops a scat of revised policies derived from the Quality of Life Goals as exprczsed in the Policy Plan. The purpose of these two sections is to establish .� alternative policies for comparitive analysis . A comparison and evaluation of the alternative policy sets is incorporated in Section Ten of this study. The purpose of this i } section is to state the degree of orientation towards the different factors of growth. , The impacts of the Revised Growth Policy are discussed in Section f Eleven. This section investigates the short and long range impacts on urbanization and population growth that may occur as a result Iz- of the Revised Growth Policy. ' 4 Finally, an analysis of the implementation of a growth policy for t Huntington Beach is conducted in Section Twelve. The major purpose of this section is to identify various growth control techniques that may be applicabl•i to growth in Huntington Beach and haw a growth strategy may be developed. j jAd ft. 9 1 *9 fol !ti (7) SECTION 2. 0 HISTORY OF PAST GROWTH SECTION HIGHLIGHTS 1 . Huntington Beach's past growth , especially during the decade of the 1960 's , can best be described in superlatives . Past growth might be summed up by the phrase, "Growth equals progress". 2. Compared to western Orange County, Huntington Beach 's growth Pattern is similar. The west county experienced its explosive growth during the decade of the 1950' s while Huntington Beach grew during the 1960's . 3. In absolute numbers the population increased over 900 percent in 10 years. This was a gain of over 100,000 new residents , which amounted to about 22 percent per year. Currently the growth rate is still high, with about 10 ,000 new residents per year through 1972. t 4. In spite of the city' s relatively young median age of approx- innately 25 years , population distribution has been relatively stable since 1968. Number of persons over 25 years of age has equalled the number under 25 years since that time. S. From incorporation to the present, approximately 24 square miles have been annexed to the city, of which over 20 square ! miles was added between 1957 and 1959. Present city limits encompass over 27 square miles . Aft 11 4, LM. ,� .., .. ,...... . .,:lwr..... .. .. ..... .... ....... ..i .r,. .. . '1'.. .. ........ ._ ._.. . r . ...,.......r._.�..•...„..va:....ev1.- . :Via ••Ytrl�.r.— _ J 6. The first building surge came during the oil boom of 1920 . This buom gave the city its image of an oil-producing commu- nity. P 7. The second boom began in the early 1960 's and is still con- tinuing. This boom was the result of a right combination of factors : Large areas of vacant land , f Coastal location, Abundance of cheap land, Nearness to the Los Angeles and Orange County regional markets , An expanding industrial base, including the location of Mc Donnell-Douglas corporation in the city, Completion of the San Diego Freeway, n Availability of domestic water. 8. During this latter boom, an increase in the industrial and commercial base Has firmly established. The city's image changed from that of an oil and agricultural community to a bedroom residential and recreation-oriented city. . 9. Commercial and industrial building activity is remarkably stable when compared to residential subdivision activity. Residential activity is more responsive to economic influences and market conditions . C 10. All phases of governmental growth have expanded in the city during past years . Demands for increased services have risen as the area urbanized. Rising costs are causing increasingly lower levels of service by the city government. 11. Citizen interest groups are man and active on a varietyof topics. e. trend apears to be that if a topic is of such nature so as to have a direct impact on the community, a citizens interest. group will be formed to study the issue and to recommend solutions and policies. C~ C. 12 ...._...__...`..,.,..-.......... ._ _........-..................... .._.... ...ti...... .n...r a+.. ..r. .: ':1; .. •.::tL^I'�: ,-4:rr+...r R.7YNw+^"•T A f i SECTION 2.0 HISTORY Of: PAST GROWTH 2.1 Introduction ..1 Any attempt to identify growth policies and their impacts on present, e and future growth must first be prefaced by an examination of past growth. This first step is necessary .in building a foundation for the discussions that hollow. This examination into the past identifies some of the past policies that helped shape Huntington Beach's growth. Primarily, however, it quantifies that growth. Pour fundamental aspects of past growth ure examined: population , physical, economic, and governmental , Each aspect is a distinct i entity in itself, but at the same time, an integrated part of the whole. Because of this , there is some overlap. ! 2. 2 Population Growth Orange County Growth Compared to Ifuntinpton Beach There is a very close correlation. between the-generalized patterns of growth for Orange County and Huntington Beach. This can be seen by making a few comparisons between the two., What is typical of Orange County is also typical of Huntington Beach. <.. 13 .i.,�.'.1. ... w�... _ �._......... . .. .-,_........ . ...♦..a'3 .. . ........._..... _.._._. . .............«-..�.wn w..«. .yr.'N.4.tL.J4.'..:q i''xPl;rr le.^M..+w>w I M The west county experienced its rapid growth period between 1950 - 196G . Iuntington Beach's was during the following decade, 1960 - 1970. Because of this explosive growth in both the county and Ilutttington Deitch, planning and governmental services were geared to reactir.& to pressures of change rather than to planning for growt or its control. Orange County had an average annual grovith rate of 15 percent during the decade of thj 19501s. Huntington Beach's growth rate during the decade of the 1960's was � about 22 percent per year. Orange County's growth was generally shaped by arterial highway and freeway routes . In Huntington Beach the general pattern was similar: growth first occurred along Beach Boulevard ; then parallel to the San Diego freeway; Lnd parallel to I:•rookhurst 5trect. Fig0rc 2-1 comparr!s population, rate of increase and density for Oranges County and Huntington Beach. It can be see.n that this ity's proportional share of the county° 5 population experienced a sizable increase between 060 and E i. In 1960 , Huntington Bench ranked llth of all incorpc ' ted cities in the county with less than 2 percent of t, total county population. By 1970 Huntington Beach rat. d 4th out of 26 cities , but had only 8 percent of th. total population. Rate of increase ,for i :stern Orange County was greatest during the decade JOS, '1960 when the county grew 69 percent. Iluntingtcm ich experienced its greatest change between 1960-1970 whL t grew over 900 percent. The countY s steady inL, a se in population density was � caused by a steady influ•. of new residents during the past 20 years. Density in Huntington Beach has fluctuated during the past 20 years. This was causeO by annexing predominantly vacant land (22 s0uare miles). Changes in population composition tivere measured by exam- f . ining median age and non-white popullation. Median age in Orange County declined from 32 ye.,,rs to 26 years during the past three decades. In Huntington Beach median age f declined .from 30 years to 25 years in *s1e decade of the 19601s . F1 w _ l i ;e .t 46 i Figure Population, Rate of Increase and Density Huntington Beach Compared'to Orange County April 1st i 19A0 1950 1960 1970 Population i Orange Co. 131 ,000 216,000 704 ,000 f Hunt. Beach 3 700 1 ,420,000 '% of Orange Co. S,202 17. ,500 116,000 2. 8 2.4� 1.61 8. 2101 - Rate of increase i Orange Co. ---- 39.4$ 5 Hunt. Beach 9• 3% 50. 4% ---- 28.8.1 54.8% 900.9% Densit *l Orange Co. ---- 277 9001 ,816 Hunt. Beach ---- 1.112 492 4 358 1 Persons per square mile Sources : U. S. Federal Censuses; Huntington Beach Planning Department artment 1 'I v+ There was a low rate of increase in non-white population in Orange County during the past 20 years . This segment of the population increased from 1.2 percent to 2. 7 per cent. r' In Huntington Beach there was a very slight decrease in the non-white population during the past 20 years . This population decreased from 2. 1 percent to 2.0 percent in 1970. 212. 2 Population Size. In this discussion and all further d;scussions on Huntington Beach where population statistics are used , the focus will be for that period of 1960-1972. This is the period. for which refined date is available. In order to avoid much duplication and repetition Figure 2-2 is being included at ;his point in its entirety. It will be referred to in other sections of this report . r-, Population has grown tremerldously for the past 13 years . The annual rate of increase has decreased substantially over this time period, from over 50 percent in the early 60's to less than 10 percent in the 701s. In spite of this reduction in rate of increase , growth in absolute numbers has been sustained at an average of over 10,000 per year. Natural increase is a form of population growth. Because of the tremendous influx of population into Huntington (leach , its existence has been overlooked. Figure 2-3 shows that over the past 10 years , Huntington Beach's C rate has fluctuated from a high of 18.8 in 1965 to a low of 14 .4 in 1970. Converting this rate into a percentage, or from a rate per 1000 to a rate per 100 , would yield 1 .69 percent for 1960 , 1 . 88 percent for 1965 , .and 1 .44 percent for 1970. At these rates it would take Huntington Beach's population about 50 years to double, assuming; no in-migration or out-migration. 2. 2. 3 Rate of Change. In this section rate: of change has been defined as that f' change within age groups . Population increase cr rate of change in total numbers was discussed in the previous section. figure 2-4 shows a trend during the. past- 10 years for distribution of the population within the various age groupings. 16 4� Figure 2-2 Growth in Huntington Beach July lst Pop. S Den.. Population Inc. Dur. Sq. Pers./ Ch. Over Sq. Mi. Pers/Dev. Year Population Increase Prev. Yr. Mi. Acres Su. Mi. Prev. Yr. Dev. Rer,• . Res. Sq. M L 15,000 23.41 14 ,984 641 1961 19,000 4 ,000 27 24. 88 IS,923 764 + 19 1962 31 ,100 12,100 64 24.98 15,987 1,245 + 63 1963 47,200 16,100 52 25.17 16,110 1 ,875 + Sl 3.49 13,524 1964 58,800 11 ,600 25 25.40 16,260 Z,315 + 23 i965 72,000 13,2GO 22 26.13 16,725 2,755 + 19 5.08 14 ,173 1966 82,900 10,900 1S 26.36 16,867 ,145 + 14 1967 91,000 8,100 10 26.61 17 ,026 3,420 + 9 6.77 13,442 1968 101,900 10,900 12 26.61 17,029 3,829 + 12 1969 110 ,000 8,10r. 8 26.61 I7,029 4,134 + 8 1970 12U,000 10 ,000 9 26.73 17 ,105 4 ,489 + 9 10 .22 11,742 1971 129,200 9,200 8 26.73 17 ,105 4 ,834 + 8 1971- 139 ,300 10,100 8 27.29 17,465 5,104 + 6 11.33 12,295 1973 149,900 10,600 8 27. 29 17 ,465 5,493 + 8 1.940 3,700 3. 57 2,285 1,036 1950 5,200 1 ,500 41 4. 72 3,018 19112 + 7 1960 15,000 9,8&0 188 23.41 14 ,984 641 - 42 19'9 120,000 105,000 700 26.73 17,105 4,489 +600 Source: tiunr.ington Beach Planning Department � I Figure 2-3 Natural Increase r' 8irtk Deatji Natural Rate off Year Pap. Births Rate Deaths Elate Increase Natl Inc a- 1960 I1 ,492 315 24. 7 121 10. 5 194 16. 9 �! 1 . 1965 74,242 1,704 23. 0 313, 4. 2 1 ,393 18. 8 1970 11S9960 2,156 18.6 491 4. 2 11665 14. 4 I na to per 1000 pepul atior, Source: Orange County Planning Department, Orange County Progress Prog i Report, Vol. 8, 1971, pp. 63 - 66. F r : i . L; } • V . Cl c� 18 � Figure 1-4 i Percent Distribution of Population in Huntington Beach � I 1 i ,age Group (years) 1960 1965 1970 r 6 - 4 10 15 11 S - 9 10 14 13 10 14 9 10 11 is - 19 7 7 8 20 - 24 7 6 7 25 - 34 12 18 18 35 - 44 14 is 14 45 - 54 11 8 10 ' ' 55 - 64 9 4 4 s 65 + 11 3 4 Total 100 100 100 Sources : 1960 and 1970 U. S. Federal Census 1965 U. S. Special Census s i tr I r 19 I i Overall change in population distribution for the past 10 years has been remarkably stable in all but three age groups , 25-34, 55-64 , and 65+. The latter age groups experienced changes of 5 percent or greater. The 25-34 f category had a 6 percent increase . This is significant because this age group is a primary employment group and . childbearing group. The other two age groups , 55-64 and 65+, experienced net decreases , s and 7 percent respect- ively. This decrease is significant bk°cause the social and civic needs of these groups , especially for those r 65 years and over, may not be satisfactorily met . The majority of services is aimed at those 55 years and younger because this is the most populous group with the greatest demands. Figures 2-5 and 2-6 show that in spite of the tremendous pop0 ation influx and changes within age groups , overall population composition has been stablized since 1968. The under-25 years group contains a predominantly dependent population, or those not in the labor force. Large percentages in the category are indicative of a young and rapidly expanding population. The over-Z5 n years group contains those who are self-supporting or capable of employment. 2. 2.4 Population Distribution. U 1 . Settlement Patterns . Patterns of settlement have boon -bro en into e distinct eras. Figure 2-7 indicates that up to about 1959 most of the growth Was concentrated in the Original Townlot Area. For this study, this, is the area generally bounded tn- Beach Boulevard , Garfield Avenue, Goldenwest �' u� Street, and Pacific Coast Highway. The period 1959-1963 marked the beginning of resid- ential tract activity. Figure 2.8 indicates a predominantly linear pattern of distribution along Bench Boulevard and roughly parallel to the San f' Diego Freeway in the northern part of the city. Figure 2-9 indicates the beginning of Huntington Harbour and of condominium developments . T%ese developments occurred between 1964-1967. Figure 2-10 represents development from 1968 to the present. Since 1907 many large apartment complexes , especially along; Warner Avenue, have been constructed. 20 ,C, M G C 0 J U Figure 2-5 Percent Oistribution 'of Population Under and Over 25 Years 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 under 25 yrs. 43 48 S2 53 53 52 51 51 50 50 50 i � over 25 years 57 52 46 47 47 48 49 49 50 50 50 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 I Sources: U. S. Federal Census , 1970; Huntington. Beach Planning Department N 1-+ r I , 60 P ii kr 2 r-I H z v 60 a. AL- i I i i 40 i W 61 62 63 64 66 68 67 68 69 70 C, YEAR i FIGURE 2.6 ' c c: G DISTRIBUTION OF P(.")PULATION UNDER & OVER 2.5 YEARS C Ilip Ewntington beach planning depwtment 22 r. A CITY OF i HUNTINGTON BEACH OnAhr,. CCOTY CALWOR?AA s'1 X000 LESS THAN SO UNITS50-IDO UNITS ! 1,00 OR MORE UNITS } 61% SINGLE FAMILY 39% MULTIPLE FAMILY J FIGURE 2.7 GROWTH IN H.B. PRIOR TC� 19c 1 lip huniingtan beach planning department 23 u • J 1 CITY OF � { HUNTINGTON ©EACH ---- « ORANCL COUNTY CAUroFMIA •:.•:Sri••: • \ ' •:•+art :L'::.'.' ``46 • ; .. 100 UNITS �` irl 100.250 UNITS 250.400 UNITS ' ; ' "N• * .•�=. 400} UNITS �. 78% SINGLE FAMILY -- 16% MULTIPLE FAMILY 5% CONDOMINIUM -- 1% MOBILE HOME FIGURE 2.8 Alft GROWTH IN H.B. 1959 T0" 1963IRP �. huntington beach planning department 24 `� I CITY OF I HUNTINGTON BEACH GUNGE C04,MTY CALITQMU •� THAN 100 UNITS I � LESS T :•a 100-250 UNITS .r. 250.400 UNITS � ,; :•:•:• r - 400+ UNITS 1•, 68% SINGLE FAMILY - 14% MULTIPLE FAMILY • 109E CONDOWNUM - 8% MOBILE HOME C FIGURE 2.9 r' GROWTH IN H.B. 1964 TO 1967 hUntington beach planning departnvent zs P I CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH r i QaCNGE CnUNTV CAU ORWA .. .� .. i rlfrflrlrr,r•; �"�"'"iifrr• rrrirr / r �rrrrr•rrf 1••. ._.; _ •...r r r f• • I r ,r I r 1 1 r 1 r I r r r r rr•fr1•r•1 1 1 .: If.-Vs. r• • I .0 % ' 1 lK �. ♦f•ti I fr•��rf •r:•: :• f/ � LESS THAN 100 UNITS ... frrr 1OD-250 UNITS •V,�� Y: }i�:rr M''M.M.'MM 25&4W UNITS /+ 40G+ UNITS 40% SINGLE FAMILY - 49% MULTIPLE FAMILY 6% CONDOMINIUM - 5% MOBILE HOME FIGURE 2.10 C'' GROWTH IN H.B. 1968 TO 1972 C, huntincgton beach planning department 26 c� A 2. Redistribution of the Po illation . Population. was j realstriBute in the sense that there was a shift in emphasis from single family residential develop- ments toward other f`OTMS of housing;. Activity in � single family ;lousing; was still high , but apartments , condominiums , and mobile homes were having an effect. This trend towards other types of housing began n around 1969 and ha!; continued into the present . Since 1969 , single family residential development has consistently comprised less than 50 percent of all types of units as can be seen in Figure 2- 11. 3. Population Density. City size increased about 400 �1 4 5U percent krorn 9 -19G0 and about 15 percent from 1960 to 1970 as can be seen in Figure 2-2. Because of this tremendous areal increase during the 50 's , population density decreased by 56 percent during this period . Since 1960 the increase has been �I steady due to increasing population. n 2.2.5 Population Composition. 1 . Sex Ratio. The sex ratio is the number of males l� per 100 remales . In determining the sex ratio two variables were examined: the ratio of males to j females for all age groups and the ratio of males � to females for the 16-64 age group. This is he � group that comprises the labor force. Figure 2-12 shows that for all age groups there � were more finales than females i;i Huntington Bench up to 1967. In 1967 the rate was even and since that time it has been slowly decreasing. An average for the decade indicates 100. 0 or an even ratio. The 16-64 group reached equality in about 1965 and like the above gaup, has continued to decline. r-8 Figure 2 -13 shows a distribution of a 10-year average for the 16-64 group. The 35-44 and 45-54 groups have the highest ratio. These two groups comprise the bulk of the labor force. t=' Figures 2- 12 and 2- 13 used together indicate that historically , Huntington Beach is a rapidly growing city. This can be seen 1)y the high sex ratio in the early 60 's . Typically, the male moves nand works In the city where there are jobs available , then brings `) in the family. 27 i 'I I I n Figure 2- 11 ni Building Permits Issued � - - i SF of Year SF MF Condo M Total Total � 1960 1 ,655 80 95 1961 2 ,964 267 - 31231 92 ; 1962 3,903 152 - - 4 ,055 96 1963 2, 765 11,674 744 161 5 ,344 52 1964 2,060 645 613 92 3,410 60 1965 21296 ill 446 570 3,423 67 1966 1, 535 185 75 75 1 , 870 82 1967 1,626 540 - 97 2,263 72 1968 1 ,855 841 62 162 2,920 64 i 1969 1, 823 3,198 - 474 5,495 33 1970 693 1 ,439 32 297 2 ,461 28 � 1971 11266 20257 311 142 7 , 309 17 -1�` 1972 1, 779 1 , 391 428 251 3,849 46 t. SF n Single family ;iF w Multiple family Condo z Condominium G, _ Mi Mobile home Source : Huntington Beach Planning Department i � I 23 M.gure 2-12 Sex Ratio 16-64 Years on Year All Ages Age Group 1960 102 .4 107. 6 1961 101.8 104.4 1962 101.1 101. 1 ,.� 1963 100 .5 100. 3 1964 102. 7 102. 3 1965 100. 3 99. 6 1966 100. 3 99. 2 1967 100.0 98.9 1968 99.8 93.9 1969 99. 2 98.1 1970 98. 3 97.1 Average 100.0 99. 2 Sources: U. S. Federal Census 1.970 ; Huntington Beach . , Planning Department 0 i I v .. I 29 44 , 'v.rt,o;.:::.:.c._.ru• .,,-.«-...........^^'-----------'--^^-•,........,....«.,..,.toa.;,:.i-•-:.:„�......�.----- . ...._..,,...........-..._.......... .........•-.,.-.wr►,..+r.,n.rr�A'ti�:t7:.`-:'v • y r. 120,0 --� -•-- n 110.0 a w U. 8 100.0 �-- r � r� d 00.0 f� V I O x N C i 70.0 16- 25- 35- 45- 55- 24 34 44 54 64 � AGE GR' OLIPS'(YEARS) FIGURE 2.13 C.; 10-YEAR AVERAGE OF SEX RATIO) fmting� boxh plamir departmwt f• 10 � t Since the mid-601s more females are living in 11unt- ington Beach. Many of these are also in the labor �► force, probably as working wives . This trend is more prevalent now than it was in the early 1960' s . I Another reason for this apparent domina-ice of the sex ratio by females is thiat in the mid 1960's , the effect Viet Nam War was being felt on the number of young males in the Inhor force. This war might also explain the low 10-year average in the 16-24 group as shown in Figare 2-13 . 2. _Ag_e_. figure 2-1.4 indicates that the medial: age declined rapidly from 1960-63 when it reached its r' lowest point. This is indicative of a large influx of young families with young children. Since 1964 , median age has steadily increased to where in 1969 it was 24 . 7. Although there is no figure available for 1970, median age is estimated to be 2S years . This is still below the county median of 26 years (? for 1970. 3. Race. figure s-1S shows that Huntington Beach is overwhelmingly a "white" community. Persons of Spanish surname are included in with this "white" population. There are and have been very few nonwhites in the city. During the post decade the total has declined from 2. 1 percent to 2. 0 percent. Although this decrease is slight , this in itself is significant. While the non-white population has increased in proportion to the overall population in most communities , ther4 has been a decrease in Huntington Beach. In the Fast, the housing market in this city has been aimed primarily at the middle anti upper middle �. class family. Traditionally these are professional or highly skilled workers , the majority of which ar- "white". Also , due to the newness of the residential market in Huntington Beach, there are no real clusters or concentrations of miniorities in the city. 4 . Marital Status . Since there is no comparison avail- � . �? able on Oils s subject for 1960 for Huntington Beach, 3.. a comparison is made between Huntington Beach and ` Orange County for 1970. t f I i f •+ 31 1.:.,:,. ...��. ..,a.. ..::54.7: .. �-- ... .... ._..__......_.._.........._.w.r .._ .., . . ...._... ......................«...--.., s.-,ar�ue]".'S'.:11at.^.V.1:. .-rr v:-+T.�yr.+ a• Figure 2-14 n Median Age Year Median Age . n 1960 30.3 1961 27. 0 1962 23. 7 1963 22. 7 1V64 23.0 V 6 5 23. 2 �? 1966 23.6 1967 23' � 1968 24. 6 19ti9 24. 7 ` 1970 25.0 O � Sources : 1960 1962-69 U. S. Federal Census 5 � 1961: 1970 Planning Dept. Estimate tl i 1 I 1 32 � I .......`....—......ai.i>rrn:�rr•t a (..,,.,....... '.T"5i:+�17I"•: 'F'1i${P./Yi.1.va� • t Figure 2-15 Distribution of Races Year Total tl White2 t Negro I All Others3 I 1970 11S0960 100 113 ,610 98 99 .09 29251 2 1969 112,021 100 1100299 99 62 . 06 1 ,660 1 1968 104,124 100 102,792 99 39 .04 1,293 1 1967 940377 100 93,149 99 S1 .05 11177 1 1966 86,646 100 85,610 99 47 .05 989 1 1965 750053 100 74,335 99 22 .03 696 1 �n 1964 64,228 100 63,546 99 10 .02 672 1 1963 500290 100 490864 99 19 . 04 407 1 1962 34 ,143 100 33,749 99 -4 - 3943 1 1960 11,492 100 11, 249 98 -4 - 2433 2 1 Totals do not equal 100t because of rounding. 2 "White" population includes both "whites" and persons with Spanish surnames. 3 "All Others" includes Orientals , American Indians , etc. - 4 Included with "All Others". No further refinement is available for these two years , 1960 and 1962. Sources : U. S. Federal Censuses 1960 and 1970 U. S. Special Censuses 1962 - 1969 i j k 33 D k f i ;V//NSJ:i.......::4 Ft1[i'Jw.+�w....—.�. ..�......�..... K:- ,l..i.. n• ....._.� .,, �. i ti-,:L i.�i ...... ....1"�:.Y'%k' ..'^+./[ii,.ew{w.•Nw.+ w.+w_+'+..s.w+ta'f'iJ r Figure 2-16 shows that the percent distribution is somewhat similar between Huntington Beach and Orange County for the categories of Divorced , Separated and r,,! Widowed. Huntington Reach has 3 percent fewer singles than has Orange County, but 5 {percent more married couples than does the county . 2.3 Physical Growth i 2.3. 1 Malcal Setti g and Development Milestones . 1 . Physical Setting. Huntington Beach is located along the northwest coast of Orange County, approximately �. 35 miles southeast of Los Angeles . The city is close to a good surface transportation system in ; that the San Diego Freeway forms a part of the northern city boundary. React: Boulevard , Warner :{ Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway are three of the many heavily travelled arterial streets that link }Huntington Beach with other communities . The city is located on a rather flat floodplain, which was created by the Santa Ana and San Gabriel Rivers . The Huntington Beach and Bolsa Chica Mesas create areas of physical relief in the city. 2. Develo ment Milestones . An oil boom in the 1920 's created the First large population influx into Huntington Beach. It was this boom that also gave the city an image of an oil-producing community. C. Large land annexation5 added about 19 square miles to the city limits between 1957 and 1959. Most of this land was vacant (uninhabited) . In the early 1960's when ,the city was experiencing the first wave of the population explosion, Huntington ,-- Bench was advocated as the place to live because of its physical attributes , clean air, lack of conges- tion, - wide open spaces and the S-1/2 miles of beach . These attributes were looked upon as commodities to . .'I be suld and consumed rather than as resources to be conserved. McDonnell-Douglas Astronautics complex located in {' the city in about 1963. This created a potential economic and industrial base and also an employment potential. These factors helped bring in new residents. i 3 A .� t� I .........�,..._. .. ,... «... .•........r..-s_...........,......�.........�._......,....,-..........._,-...._..._..».�.......„,.,.,v..«'f.,n. :i�....,«,—X.t?.'Cr:a».w.vvt ntaw+tt.r++..►.c� i Figure 2-16 1 1 S 1970 Percent Distribution of Marital Status for Persons 14 Years and Over ! iging a Marred Divorced - Separated i owe Huntington Beach 20 71 4 1 4 t Orange County 23 65 5 2 5 Source: U. S. Federal Census _ x A Ln Completion of the San Diego Freeway in the mid-1960' s made Huntington Beach accessible to Los Angeles County. '- 2.3.2 Development Prior to 1950 By 1950 the city had grown to 4. 72 square miles as Figure 2-17 indicates . Development was concentrated in an area r bounded generally by Beach Boulevard , Adams Avenue , Goldenwest Street and Pacific Coast Highway. Overall development activity was relatively slow. By 1950 there were 2,100 dwelling units and a population of 5,200, The city' s image was that of a small coastal community that produced oil. Oil appurtenances dominated the landscape. The other major industry at that time was agriculture. 2.3.3 Development 1950-1960 This era is characterized by the large annexations of relatively vacant or uninhabited land. As was mentioned ' previously 19 square miles were annexed between 1957 and � 1959. Figure 2-18 shows the expanded city limits. i .. Development, especially residential subdivisions , began in the latter part of the decade. This growth was gener- ally linear along Beach Boulevard , or in the Original j Townlot Area. �' l f 2.3.4 Development 1960-1970 I These are the years of tremendous growth for which j Huntington Beach became known. Over 100 ,000 new residents C" made this city home. Because of this growth, the city's image changed from that of an oil-producing community to that of a diversified residential-industrial and recreation- oriented city. The city also added 3 more square miles to its limits , most of which was in the western portion. See Figure 2-19. G Industrial and commercial bases are being established. Residential development is spectacular. Single family dominates in the early part of the decade. Multiple family, as apart.nents , condominiums , etc. , tends to _ 36 . riO �.wwry M+.wwww.w+r......�;..�.. ......+..�......�...._.._......r.�...........ter...+++.4..v ♦.NL .N ra.w.�.....—.......... r 1 j_ r � 1'�►. CITY OF `0 HUNTINGTON BEACH ORANGE C"TY CALIFORNIA \`` •''• ri �1�'":—.,... �. —tip. h ! Cti ^' FIGURE 7.17 ' CITY LIMITS -1950 Nxitinswn b*mh, ptiam*sg ftneM 37 ef�,��.[.J;�'.�.��..:'.i+..':Y:��:c...�.----.. _....-..._...»....,.....-...,-.. ...�........ •.1.. :1.. .• .........__�.-- ...».w��M r,�.i.==--.r,..+.w-..•+.+�n.-...s:�'.r...M.'IfiC�'.�`'v.��.rrTiP�ai�X irG'�ih 1. i I CITY OF r �`'•`�"` HUNTINGTON BEACH ()RA?4a tooirY CALIFORNIA �• 1r-+•'=4•�,.•'". �'•"�� roc`'•,^ I� •� �"� `'31 f7..,,._ 1 r- {• 1 r O p . I Lei . FIGURE 2-18 CITY LIMITS-Ila , �. huntington beach panning departmnt 38 G • ...w..•"+-..-.-. ..._...... .. .. .... ... ...... .. � . . .! 1. •, •.. , .. r r.. �-Ah'.7,M.z...ee.:ryr�w�• , CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CPANGE cevirf CALIFORNIA � --]]vl l�it�.r r7• -141 TX j>Jrr:s �•: r• . 11.� j •+ i r •Fly. ` ; .; �•. �•;.��Hi. ,�.::.a. 1 � .r jttt,�1�, � t�, + f • 1 ��f�1,.L-�" ;X�I ,�`r S,r�+r�f •it,�f.�t ,•�1 '��` ' �E. t,�i J / r� j. �id•a � •t`r 1p . �`w,..we.« 1 1 FIGURE 2.19 CITY BOUNLE)AWIES-1970 huntington heath planning department 39 ..o: ._ :S'. ..... »1.,... ,.n..». ,..........a.�,.nrq..�s{'•vt:AC=1,:.(r'x•. ',•i;•1'�„K.C.,.TrLv increasingly dominate the resident iral building activity in the latter hart of the decade. Agricultural activity is being phased out by (love lopriten t in general . This development boon is as result of the right set of conditions : Large areas of: t►acant land , coastal location, abundance of cheap land, nearness to the Los Angeles and Orange County regional markets , location of McDonnell- Douglas Corp. in the city , and completion of the San ►" Diego Freeway. 2. 3. 5 Development 1970-1973 The city is still develc,ping at a rapid pace. Population influx is still at about 10 ,000 new residents per year . It broader industrial base is being established with development of the Huntington Reach Industrial Park by Lusk. Oil and agriculture are being do-emphasized as major industries . Emphasis is now on planning rather than on reacting. During this period annexation totalled one square mile. See Figure 2-20. 2. 3.6 Land Requirement Patterns C This section is an examination of some of the amount of land required to accommodate population. General theory has it that as an area urbanizes , efficient use of the land tends to increase . Or put another way , it should take less land to accommodate the same increment of C, population increase . Land should be more efficiently used as urbanizationn increases because of the economies of scale for certain public facilities. Figure 2-21 indicates the trend in population density per square mile since incorporation. There was a slow steady increase in density from 1910 to 1950 . The decrease between 1950 to 1960 is a result of the large annexations of predominately vacant land. From 1960 to the present density has increased sharply due to the tremendous population influx. It can be assumed that during this past decade the effects of urbanization have caused land to be used more efficiently. It was during this time period that the shift from extensive to inten- sive land use occu.red. Cl 40 m Q ...( +w.�+.....—�..........�.. _ .... ...............-_.... ... .�.....rww w»I.....a. ..e .rt .........+....�..+e��...vt•al i.ti1..... if...iN. . ��i'r�n ♦1,..• Yr :[�.rFir.}Ji...�rr.7A.i i t CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ' ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORMA 41 �fj, • f.. '� 7.��rj ..�7�`:. �'`• � try '1 .a c+ Y� � .•I ij" M•��•� , ,icy +1 1' 47�ai •�� t r � r 1 FIGUflE 2.20 PRESENT CITY LIMITS-1973 hunvingt®n beech planning deparftv*nt u Al ., ` .. .... �r..... .. .. ............. ....�....,,..,...._.. ,,...... wv.+ •faa:a..�ura+ti9<irX:i'w ::L:..L'�`<I7":•,tt-. f r ritltl0 4W w d 3000 0 OW J 10uo : I : I 0 1 o0 1910 1920 1930 1940 1960 1960 1970 YEAR FIGURE 2.21 C �. PULATION PER SQUARE MILE 1910/ 1970 42 ...._.,..........._..___..... .... ....,.....,,s:,v..i:'.s„t'."'.%�.��•� ,.,•i�::.c��:xix:tv.�:�-�.�ifiwaatt�,t.•...�.s:a r r OIN I Figure 2-72 further supports the idea that during the I960's there was a Ghift from extensive to intensive .•�v land use. This table shows that : 1 . All categories had a steady increase through tine except the "Persons/Residentially Developed Square Mile," which had a variable rate. This last colunin indicates that low density residential development was predominant during this past decade. This type of development is extensive rather than inten- sive. Future trend will probably continue to increase as the vacant areas decrease and the city approaches saturation. r' 2. There is quite a distinction between gross size anti density and residential development and density. The city is incited urbanized when one looks at the density per residentially developed area . In 1963 , residential development used 14 percent of total city area. By 1972, this had increased to 42 Percent of total city area. 2.4 Economic Growth Annexations of the late 1950 's increased the development potential ' of Huntington Beach in terms of the urban economic base. Because of the annexations more land was available for development. General economic growth can be mea3ured by building activity and + increases in personal income . 1. Buildin ActActivit Figure 2-23 indicates building valuation sine1960. Me total valua Lion curve and the dwelling valuation curve are subject to pronounced peaks and valleys . The commercial and industrial curve is somewhat flat when compared with the other two. Three penh.s are identified, 1963, 1965 and 1969. 1972 may be a peak year also, but more information will be needed. Three I recessions are also recognized, 1964 , 1966-1968 and 1970. The 3.964 recession was caused by an overbuilt situation in I� the county. The 1966-68 recession was a general economic 1„ recession. This era also marks the beginnings of heavy involvement in Viet Nam. The 1970 rec::ssion was caused by the tight money situation. So far the Coastal Zone Initiative and the Friends of Mammoth Decision requiring; Environmental Impact Reports on all projects }� have not had much effect on these curves . �i 4 z J It V 1 I i it I I , i FIGURE Z-ZZ Comparison of Gross Square Miles and Density to Square Miles and Density Developed Residentially for Selected Years Gross Persons/ Sq. Mi. Dev. Pers/Resid. Year Sq. Mi. Gr. S . Ali. Resid. Dev. Sq._ Mi. 1963 25. 17 1 ,875 3. 49 13,524 1965 26.13 2 ,7SS 5. 08 140173 1967 Z5.61 39420 6. 77 13,442 1970 26.73 4 ,489 10 .22 119742 1972 27. 29 5j104 11. 33 12,295 i Source: Huntington Beach Planning Department I ' k t 1 1 I ! CI). 44 u ^-"__ .—......._....�.__...._ .._..._...v.__...... ... ... . .. ..__ ._.........._...� ..-..,.M.......... .... .. .-.._.. .r..., ., ,,,. a ..s•. ...r.r,'at,,..•r'tM..a.;^r,w•.7:a.r..F:—i.�FY!F i 1. �I 110 101) 91) (' 80 F 70 8a fO*lo� �I 50 r 40 30 9!0 '� II 10 1page fl 60 fi1 82 83 84 65 88 87 68 89 70 71 72 Y"A FIGURE 2.23 i �wrw� TOTAL ■.�rr�.. 06 DENTIAL ••� C6MMERCiAL&"lNDU5TRIAL i l BUILDiNG VALUATION 1 huntington beach panning depw ment 45 I `-j.^ Yi'v . .:Y:e+..,,,..__... .. ........_. .............,.....s.�.,•. 3{.. '.: v, .....-.-�_.... ... ......�....ova................�«�.......�................,Nwr.,.,..y,..�;•CS.'}:fF EM.�^i'Y RY!++ "Total Dwelling Valuation" curve is responsive to economic pressures outlined above . The commercial and industrial valuation curve is very stabl^, with little fluctuation as compared to the dwelling curve. Development in these areas , ' while slow, has been steadily is creasing over the past 11 years . 2. Personal Income. This factor is an indicator of purchasing power. H ure 2-24 shows that median family income has increased 15,800 in ten years or 96 percent in Huntington Beach. Orange County median income has increased $3,330 or 46 percent during this same period of time. In 1960 median family income in Huntington Beach was 19 percent lower than Orange County, while in 1970, Huntington Beach's median income was 12 percent above the county' s . � 2,4 , 1 Alricu]�ture. Because of the limited amount of information available that relates specifically to Huntington Beach, this discussion confines itself to the number of acres in agricultural uses . Figure 2-25 shows that agricultural acres has declined 6,980 acres in the past 13 years. This use is being phased out by development. At one time crops included lima beans , sugar beets , chili poppers , asparagus , tomatoes , mushrooms , and all varieties of truck crops . 2.4.2 Oil. This natural resource, at one time, grade the Huntington Beach Oil. Field the Number 2 oil producing field 3n California. Currently , however, this field is ranked Number 5 in terms of production. Figure 2-26 lists the top ten producing oil fields and Huntington Beach' s percentage share of the state' s total production. In 197.1 , this field accounted for five percent of the total state production. As a comparison the Wilmington Field, California' s largest producing oil field, accounted for 20 percent of the state's total . State-wide production has declined as much as five percent � annually in recent years ; along with the United States ' total production, which has declined two percent in 1971 . S 46 f `r',i :7:K:tx':;. ..� .fie,. .,...�r..''.t..:.♦.n.s%,Yj'war,x^t�-ri.+.'j�: ' t iFigure 2-24 Median Family Income Huntington Beach Compared to Orange County 0 1963 1967 1 5 n Huntington Beach $6,050 $7 ,800 $9,650 $11 ,850 Orange County 7, 219 NA NA 10,550 NA a not available C� Sources U. S. Census n O 1,. 1ltlli yytrr 1� i.' t j. l� 1 y }., 4? .�.s:::�::+'.:,r��'X"}V.'.s:rtxxs:..."'^.... .__ .�... ...,� «.............s....w...arr.:.:.•��i.�:t•..:ev..-:n+sv.r..v....�+...r�.•.w+�.............•......arrwrv�wKuliC,AtRI�i.�lr!(Rs> , ,t i I Figure 2-25 Acres Used for Agriculture in Huntington Beach o T ota 'It y Year Acres for that Year 19571 8,681 74 1963 39647 23 1965 2,878 17 s 1967 2 ,246 14 �. 1970 1 ,7002 10 { 1 After the large annexations ; 2 Estimate Source: Huntington Beach Planning Department p i; t ,e 4 C f, c i r• C. 4 j, • i C• 48 . 1, _ •-• •••,•••+•••r.....ruw.t:r!'A'v+'.tr.Yeca:+Iyitx>f_j.:.y:12'r;d.'-+SKSSi1P:7Y'�:..i=:sn,«ef.++aat#r� ' 1 Figure 2-26 Ten Oil Fields of Largest Production Numer b of Production B/D $ of Rank Producing State 1971Fields Wells 12/31/71 Year 1970 Ys;ar 1971 Total 1971 1 Wilmington 2,510 224 ,135 200,020 20 (L. A. Co.) 2 Midway-Sunset 5,415 89,705 91 ,939 9 3 Dos Cuadras 17.6 54 ,343 76 ,036 8 (Sta Barb. Co.) 4 Kern River 4 ,526 69,369 70 ,161 7 5 Huntington Beach 1,253 44,903 451,175 S (Orange Co. ) 6 Ventura 882 27,642 27 ,974 3 (Ventura Co.) 7 San irdo 916 28,260 270614 3 (Monterey Co. ) i 8 South Belridge 2 ,282 24,878 25 ,369 3 9 McKittrick 879 270449 249708 2 10 Beverly Eiills 135 26,792 220747 2 G. A. Co. ) Total Ten Fields 18,924 617 ,476 611,743 62 of State Total 48 61 62 62 State Total 39,855 1 ,018,986 9810980 - So : I Conservation Committee of Oil $ Gas Producers, "Annual Review of Oil Gas Production" 1971 p. 2. I I +� 49 _ _ I j '. ..1+-....a.t n YC:\17t1'i.rn!ish�Z+,nxtit✓�'7�' While California ' s and the nation' s total production ills on the decline, production ri om the Huntington leach field has increased during the just two years . T!iis is due primarily to secondary recovery methods such as stentn and/or water floc'ing. Historically, secondary recovery methods have resulted in maximum production within a relatively short period of time; however, a more rapid production decline than <'• was experienced during primary production can also be expected. Present indications are that the Huntington Beach field will follow the typical pattern with produc- tion peaking within the next two years and declining thereafter. r. Oil was first discovered in the city in the year 1920. Figure 2-27 indicates the total yearly and cumulative production for each decade since the initial discovery. IiJ This table also lists the number of producing wells since the discovery well and shows that the producing wells have been on the decline since 1960. Figure 2-28 compares cumulative production of oil from the Huntington Beach field with the Los Angeles region, of which Huntington Beach is considered a part. This table also compares Huntington Beach' s cumulative pro- duction with the total production of the state. In the past decade, the Huntington Beach field has accounted for 14 percent of total oil production for the Los Angeles region and 6 percent of the st.ate' s total. Only two other fields in California surpass the cumulative production total of the Huntington Beach field as of December 1971. C' ' . . i 2 .4. 3 Commercial Growth. Commercial development is usually two to five years ' behind residential development, depending on the type C of commercial use. Commercial development, as with industrial development , does not appear to be affected by the same general economic pressures that affect residential development. Figure 2-23 indicates this. Both experienced a slow ©� steady rate of growth. Figure 2- 29 indicates the increase in total retail sales in the city from 1959 to 1972. Retail sales have increased from $11 ,660,000 in 1959 to $249 ,679 ,000 in 1972. A ten year rate of increase for 1960 to 1970 is 104 percent. l SU R .`..'w+✓.Vl+.•fl.'IM+rY rIYw+N.av aa.r....r�..wr......�.....a.«...........................r........�.e Ve.t'....... .a..s. ........ ..........�...y� t 1 . +6 A.A-::"I... .+st' a••.l''N/iq'i✓•:i'.=".'W L;Y 1'.I.J W1.fr4 M1/wnM•Mf," 1 ' r1 Figure 2-27 Oil Production in Huntington Beach 'total Daily Yearly Cumulative Producing Production Production Production Year Ifells BBL Df BBL M BBL 19202 3 118 43 43 1930 455 30,713 11 ,212 173,659 1940 574 25,945 9,496 290 ,063 1950 1 ,210 56, 219 20,520 458 ,414 19603 1 ,725 59,016 21 ,600 660 ,000 1970 13,332 449903 16,390 846 ,072 1971 1,285 45,175 19 ,136 863,208 1972 10210 58,520 21 ,418 884 ,626 1 Assuming a 365-day year 2 Oil was discovered in Huntington Beach in mid 1920. 3 Estimate by the Huntington Beach Planning Department Source: State of California, Department of Natural Resourcos, Division of Oil � Gas, "Summary of Operations , California Oil Fields", Sacramento. C"a 51 `^i�a sa.aC+..Y'!,..:l.:a.t'::.r...aw......+•+••..�_._..-. _.,.�.............-....,....-..-...w.r.•.x.a., .t.i"±.wir: .......-.-......,w.... -.+.w.♦.w...,+..«..........,-,...rs+,...p..xr'n•.:«f7.rw•.Nl�«r'It.TfS»�:.jly..N L1 �I Figure 2-28 Comparison of Oil Production , Huntington Beach to Los Angeles Region and the State 3E.A. Region State Cwn Prod Cum Prod fi.B. as a Cum Prod H.B . as a Year M BBL. M BBL. $ of L.A. M BBL. $ of Stato 1920 43 N.A. N.A. 1 ,211 ,406 1330 173,659 P N.A. 3,270 ,366 5 194.0 290,063 2,577,323 11 5 ,380,253 S I� i 1950 458,414 3,709,484 12 8 ,320;903 6 1960 660,000 40850,911. 14 11 ,7490666 6 ►;!, 1970 8460072 6,032,597 14 15,015 ,860 6 ' 1971 863,208 6,3240662 14 15,748 ,081 6 J'd Source: Conservation Committee of Oil F, Gas Producers, �. "Annual Review of Oil F, Gas Production," 1971 , 'fables I 6 II . I r. . 0 52 Alft f' on Figure 2-29 ^± Growth in Retail Sales in !Huntington Beach All Outlets Annual Sales in Increase Year Thousands of Dollars Over Previous Year 1959 $ 11 ,660 1960 34 ,820 27 1961 16,982 15 1962 18,909 11 1963 29,671 57 1964 41 ,814 41 1965 49 ,143 18 1966 650276 33 1967 830589 47 1968 116,401 81 1969 143,472 23 0 1970 168,718 18 1971 2000020 19 1972 2490679 25 1960 14 ,820 1970 168,718 100 Source: State Board of Equalization, "Trade Outlets f, Taxable Retail Sales in California." 53 ,"` }.[.: r 1.•r,..,i%•.•�'�.:K';'.Yrs.............-.. .. ........t««....._................,,«.....+....«.s:. ..:Ks. ..,................. ,... -........�.....•...-...r..._+...�.-.++...r.+.r••.cnrr�•T a Figure 2-30 indicates a three year net gain in retail sales for the top ten cities in Orange County. The three years covered are 1970 , 1971 and 1972. Huntington Beach is second, behind Orange for this time period. Figure 2-31 compares total retail sales for the top ten cities in the County for 1972. Several other factors are also listed. Huntington Beach ranked fifth in total retail sales in 1972. In average dollar amount per unit, the city ranked second with $346, 200, behind Du ena Park. Huntington Beach accounted for about 8 percent of total retail sales in Orange County in 1972. Comparing Huntington peach to Orange County and to the r ; State, the city in 1972 increased 24 .8 percent over 1971 totals. In the same period of time , Orange County gained 20.4 percent and the State 14 .6 percent. rt i 2.4.4 Industrial Growth Industrial development typically lags about two years behind commercial development , or four to seven years behind residential development. Industrial development in Huntington Beach has averaged about 40 acres per year for the past several years . �- s : The industrial base in Huntington Beach i.�. becoming highly diversified. There is still a }wavy reliance - � on the aerospace industry and government contracts . `; McDonnel-Douglas is the largest employer. Over the long haul industry is the most important t employment generator for a city. A good industrial base insures a steady employment base and tax revenue source. . r Figure 2-32 lists the number of acres zoned in the city .I E for selected years from 1959 to 1971 . Total number of acres has decreased from a maximum of about 3,200 acres in 1963 to the present total of 2 ,300 acres in 1971. 2.4.5 Employment oil This discussion will confine itself to the past few years ►� ` because of lack of available information. In 1971 there were almost 20 ,000 jobs in Huntington Beach , of which approximately one-third were in manufacturing. ; i f 54 del ....-.......,......................--�.—... ...-. ...... .. . .. ... ....., ..a............ .«.--. .. .._ —.�-,.. ::..t,•.':cY•p,r,'..<tr...«.i.uR.rnt:�.zviw.+raraaust.ri++w�p r ion Figure 2-550 Three Year Net Retail Dollar Gains Since 1969 Top Ten Orange Couaty Cities (1970 - 171 - 172) Retail Store "Cotals Thousands) City $125,75Z Orange 990136 Huntington Beach r. 89,056 Costa Mesa 83,678 Santa Ana 68,256 Anaheim 450843 Fullercon 43,203 Newport Beach 41,640 Garden Grove 36,424 Buena Park 19,589 Westminster Sources : "Trade Outlets 4Taxable Retail Sales ," State Board of Equalization, Huntington. Beach Economic Development Department. i 1 55 —..a.s:N.»r�ery�,•,:L7'{i7:,i{t::'!.'��i"•.'EYl'S7� t a • z Figure 2-31 Comparison of Total Retail Sales 1972 Top 10 Cities in Orange Count} Average per Pop. G Co. Sales r of Unit a of 1971 j City Rank (Thousands) Outlets (Thousands) County (Thousands) 1 Santa Ana 17C,000 - 2 $384 ,357 1 ,449 $265.3 13. 3 $320,667 :Anaheim 183,000 - 1 243,135 1 ,426 248.3 12 .3 303,718 r i Costa Mesa 76,900 - 7 2.783404 935 333.4 9 .7 233,517 I Orange 82,000 - 6 2371708 867 274 . 2 8. 3 173 ,951 Huntington Beach 143,500 - 3 226,408 654 346 .2 7.9 183,200 ` Garden Grove 123,000 - 4 200 ,134 881 227. 2 6.9 174 ,106 Fullerton 88,600 - 5 184 ,638 673 274.4 6.4 155,991 Buena Park 63,900 - 8 180,494 460 ?32 .4 6. 3 156 ,928 + Ivc:wYort Beach 54,200 - 10 162 ,271 730 122.3 5.6 138 ,968 i Westminster 62,200 - 9 85,081 383 222.1 3.0 86,088 TOTAL NUMBER OF ORANGE COUNTY OUTLETS - 11,592 WITH TOTAL SALES OF $2,879 ,953 AND AVERAGING $248.400 PER UNIT. r State Census 2/1/72 Source: "Trade Outlets Taxable Retail Sales ," State Board of Equalization, i } 7. y i d'1 Figure 2-32 Acres Zoned for Industry in Huntington Bench for Selected Years Year Acres !b 1959 2,250 1961 3 ,000 1962 3,900 t7 1963 3,1.63 1964 2,990 1965 2 ,667 r' 1967 2 ,265 1969 2 ,290 1971 2 ,290 C� I i Source : Huntington Beach Planning Department i Q) I i a i 57 { • I I Human Resources and Development (1111D) , in one of its periodic reports on employment in Orange County (1972) , summarized employment in the North Coast Statistical Area 1 , of which Huntington Beach ;s a Dart. The next three paragraphs are paraphrased from that report . The North Coast Statistical Area is comprised of the cities of Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley , Seal reach and Westminster. In 1971 there were 41 ,900 jobs avail- j able, which accounted for 10 percent of the county total. Employment in 1970 was 11 . 4 percent above the previous year with growth in nearly every major industrial division. This area is very heavily dependent on the defense dollar. Over 55 percent of missile and aircraft employment in the county is centered in this statistical area. North American Rockwell and the U. S . Naval Weapons Station are s. both located in Seal Beach. McDonnell -Douglas Astronautics complex is in Huntington Beac1.. The Nvi-al Weapons Station accounted for 21 percent of federal employment in Orange County at the time of the survey by 1iRD. Statistical Area I has a strong retail sector, however its service industries are relatively minor. This statistical area accounts for 30 percent cf the county's oil drilling and 15 percent of the farming. Figures 2-33, 2-34 anti 2- 35 were excerpted from reports �. by 1iRD. These three tables are included to give an idea of employment patterns anti unemployment rates . These tables are compiled by mail city which conforms to zip code boundaries rather than to city limits. Figure 2.-33 lists factors for wago and salary employment by industry for Huntington Beach for the years 1967 , 19699 and 1970. For the past three years , employment has been increasing in the city. There were about 17 ,400 jobs in 1967. By 1970 the number of jobs had risen to about 22,700, or an increase of over 30 percent (5,300 new jobs) . It is not possible to give a complete breakdown of employ- ment by industry because of disclosure regulations. However, it can be seen that manufacturing, trade and government ,:,ccounted for over three-fourths of all jobs in 1970. i Figure 2-34 compares employment for all cities in the county for the same three years. In 1970 Huntington Beach was ranked seventh in the county, with approximately 5 percent. Anaheim and Santa Ana have traditionally accounted for approximately 40 percent of all ei;iployment in the cuunt.y. 58 ; C,i (" I ' I ....---...+....—.«_....._........._.-^ - - - .. ..._, .. ._........ a .. ...... . ......... ........ . ...., r . .... .. ..a•tt.,..a..—rl�.:rrr.r.Ara:r....^nr+r.r..«ry�! I O I r i Figure 2-33 Huntington '-'each Mail City Wage and Salary Employment by Industry ..o.:a Locat:ions July .July July Industry July 1970 1970 1969 1967 Total 986 229650 181713 17P395 Agriculture 2-5 307 1 458 M • 12 508 559 509 ��Jining Cons tructie:: Sn 567 214 523 Manufacturing 49 7 ,428 5,991 8,426 Durable goods 36 7 ,028 Aerospace 6 Nondurable goods 13 400 Trans . , comm. , and utilities 33 849 718 871 Trade 356 5 ,407 4 ,243 2 ,660 Fin. , ins . , and real estate 67 665 665 451 Services 316 29232 11811 1 ,488 Government 64 4 ,617 4 ,308 2 ,008 Unclassified Percent Distribution Inus�trF otaa 00.0 0� .0 -__ i � 2.6 ` -• Agricu ture 23 -17 --7.1 Mining 1. 2 2. 2 3.0 2.9 Construction 6 .0 2. 5 1. 1• 3. 0 Manufacturing 5.0 32.9 32.0 48. 4 Durable goods 3. 7 31. 1 * '' .� Aerospace 0..6 t * �` Nondurable goods 1 . 3 1 . 8 Trans . , .comm. , and utilities 3. 3 3.7 M 5. 2 Trade 36. 1 23.9 22. 7• 15. 3 Fin. , ins. , and real estate 6.8 2. 9 3.6 2. 6 Services 32 . 1 9.9 9. 7 8. 6 11 Government 6 .6 20.6 23.0 i1. 5 y Unclassified 0. 4 0. 0 •m��?;,a:aent as ercent o t?ran Pe Lotint o ai f 41 . 5 3 ate""_ A gricu tare 3. 9 3. 8 2.4 5. Mining 20. 4 20. 2 29. 8 29. 3 CA Construction 3. 5 2. 3 0.9 3.0 Manufacturing 2. 5 6. 1 4. 6 6.6 Durable goods 2 . 7 7. 5 Aerospace 1. 8 Nondurable goods 2.0 1. 5 * �' Trans. , comm. , and utilities 6. 5 5.9 5. 6 7. 7 Trade 4 . 9 5.6 4. 6 3. 4 f Fin. , ins. , and real estate 3. 9 3. 3 3. 6 3. 1 Services 4. 5 71. 1 2.6 2. 7 Government 5. 9 6. 9 6. 7 3. 7 Unclassified 3 5 2.9 fi * 'k of reported Uuo to isc o7;are regulations. r� Source: INCOM Project. "Employment by Industry for Mall Cities in Orange County," 1970 (State of Calif. Dept. of Human Resources and Development , Employment Data and Re trch, and the Orange County Planning Dept. ) 59 Hip ' a.,i,.., .. ... .. y++nJ...v.ar+a-s•.•,..:lakvJfMrt.h:a:Ynwr j '1 I i Figure 2-34 Employment Rank by Mail City JuIly 1970 July 1969 Julv 1967 of Total $ or T•0t-al b of Total Rank Mail City Emn1o,-rnent Mail City Employment ,fail City Employment 1 Anaheim 20. 1 Anaheim 22 ,1 Anaheim 24.1 2 Santa Ana 28.0 Santa Ana 19 .4 Santa Ana 18.6 3 Fullerton 9.6 Fullerton 9.6 Fullerton 10.9 4 Costa Mesa 6. 5 Costa Mesa 6. 1 Costa Mesa 5.9 5 Orange earl: 6 . 3 Orange-Villa Park 6.1 Carden Grove 5.3 6 Newport Beach 5.9 New-port Beach S. 4 grange-Villa Park 5. 3 7 Huntington Beach 5. 3 Garden Grove 4 .8 Newport Beach 5.1 8 Buena Park-La Palma 5.0 Huntington Beach 4 . 8 !Huntington Beach 4.7 9 Garden Grove 4 . 7 Buena Park-La Palma 4 . 7 Buena Park-I.a Palma 3.9 ,'.0 La Habra 2. 5 La Habra 2.5 La Habra 2.5 11 IWestninster 2.1 Westminster -.1 Seal Beach 2.2 12 Seal Beach 1. 3 Seal Beach 1. 5 Westminster 1.7 I. 13 Stanton 1. 2 Stanton 1. 3 Brea 1. 3 14 Brea 1. 2 Brea 1. 2 Stanton 1.1 15 Los Alamitos-Ro�-smoor 1.1 Los Alamitos-Rossmoor 1.0 Laguna Beach 1.0 16 Tustin 1.1 Tustin 0.9 Tustin 0.9 17 Laguna Beach 1.0 Laguna Beach 0.9 Los Alamitos-Rossmoor 0.8 18 SJC-Mission Viejo 0 .9 Placentia 0 . 7 Placentia 0. 7 19 Sar_ Clemente 0. 7 San Clemente 0. 7 San Clemente 0. 7 20 Cypress 0. 7 Cypress 0.7 Cypress 0 .4 : 21 Irvine 0.7 Fountain Valley 0.6 Fountain Valley 0. 3 22 Cypress 0. 7 SJC-Mission Viejo 0 .5 SJC-Mission Viejo 0. 3 23 Placentia 0. 7 Yorba Linda 0.3 Placentia 0. 3 24 Cap Beach-Dana Point 0. 3 Irvine 0.3 Cap Beach-Dana Point 0.3 ' 25 Yorba Linda 0 . 3 Cap Beach-Dana Point 0. 3 Irvine INA Source: INCOM Project. "Employment by Industry for Mail Cities in Orange: County," 1970 (State of Calif. , Dept. of Human Resources and Development, Employment Data and Research, and the Orar County Planning Dept.) 1 Y i - Figure 2-35 compares unemployment rates for cities in the county for 1971 . The county rate was 7. 2 percent, while ' Huntington Beach had a rate of 7. 1 percent. The range was from a high of 8.9 percent for Stanton to a low of 5.0 percent for Yorba Linda. 2.5 Governmental Growth Governmental growth can be measured in scvoral ways. In this report four such indicators .are included : changes in governmental units , expansion of services , citizen participation mechanisms , and inter- governmental coordination. 2. 5.1 Change in Governmental Units. As the city grew in size and economic: base demands increased for services both in the number of different services required and levels of service . The nuMber of i governmental units increased in three general areas : county special districts , city asses:;mcnt districts and i school districts. 1 } 1 . Count Special Districts . These districts are set i--, up By tic county to provide services that are more feasible at this level . These districts may cover the entire county as does the Orange County Flood Control District , or partiLular areas , such as the Talbert Water District. Figure 2-36 lists those county districts currently operating in Huntington �-� Beach and their year of formation, if known . A total of 19 such districts have at one or another operated in ffu:-rington Beach. Currently all but the i Orange County Water District Reserve , the 3olsa Drainage District , Westminster Drainage District and the Orange County Water Works District #5 are- now in operation, } 2. City Assessment Districts . These districts are T—ormed to provide -or such off-site improvements as curbs , gutters , street lighting and sewers. A total of 24 such districts have operated in Huntington Beach: 7 now active and 1.7 inactive. One additional + district has been proposed. 3. School Districts. There are five elementary school istricts zn -TlinLin^ton Beach and all but one cltcr- lap with neighboring communities , Huntington Beach City is the only district wholly within the city !I 1 61 I 0 �t1�.;.nT.r•f++ .., :.l it!.+:e+... ,.-.w.............. . ....-...•.wr• ♦ ':.+.i.s. .L•..a.. '.�i.. . ... ...�. ._. . .....rr.....w...r.--.... .......rw.w+v+ 1 , ' ..www.+.o•.n..^^III A.+44'/.r.n.rrr+-• 1 ' i .��. r Figure Z-35 Unemployment Rates for Cities within Orange County r 1971 Annual Average Unemp. City Rate n� Orange County SMSA - Total . . . . . . 7. 2 Anaheim. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.7 Brea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. 1 Buena Nark . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8. 1 Costa Mesa . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6 Cypress 6. 3 !: Fountain i'ailcy Fullerton . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. 6 i Garden Grove . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. 7 Huntington Beach . . . . . . . . . 7. 1 !'6 Laguna Beach . . . . . . . . . .. . 6. 1 La Habra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.0 Los Alamitos . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. 4 Newport Beach . . . . . . . . . . . 6. 4 Orange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4 Placentia. . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. 8 ,San Clemente . . . . . . . . . . 6. 8 r Santa Ana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8. 3 ;r Seal Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. 1 Stanton. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.9 Tustin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.9 Westminster. . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5 Yorba Linda. . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.0 Residual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. 4 Sources : "Area Manpower Review," Anaheim-Santa Ana- Garden Grove GNISA, Annual Manpower Planning Report; State of California, Dept, of )Inman Resources and Development, 1972 62 •-..-,.«r«.+. •.....,.......�..».. .. .....___... .. ._... _ ._... _,,._........._«....,,.w...,.u.e.,...... ........... .. ..... ....�^.• .-,«eWe.•.^>s..••.,rwua.w..r rv+vr.e.+r arrww.w,...w , f Figure 2- 36 Special County Assessment Districts Operating in Huntington Beach Year o District - Formation _ Talbert Drainage District 1904 r Magnolia Memorial Park Cemetery 1926 District Orange County Flood Control District 1927 �^ 'Metropolitan Water District of So. Calif. 1928 Orange County Water District 1933 Orange County Water District Reserve 1935 ( Orange County harbor District 1934 a Midway City Sanitary District 1939 Orange County Mosquito Abatement District 1947 I Orange County Sanitation District N3 1948 Orange County Sanitation District 011 1948 (3 Orange County Municipal Water District 1951 j Talbert Wator District 1954 Costa Mesa County Water District 1960 � Orange County Transit District 1970 Laguna Beach County Water District Unknown Bnlsa Drainage District Unknown I�r Westminster Drainage District Unknown Orange County Waterworks #5 Unknown Sources : County of Orange , Office of the Auditor-Controller, 4� Tax Rates, 1960- 72, Huntington Reach Planning Department. 63 '� ,<fi.:wv .•..,........... .--..�.o.,.....,.......�.,.,".•..+rrw.�n;114 91CYtw7dT,JJ:i t�"t""T limits . Oceanview has 22 of its 24 schools in the city, Fountain Valley has seven of thirteen in lluntington Beach, and Westminster has six of 23. Huntington Beach Union high School district serves all of the above-mentioned elementary school districts . There are five high schools existing, three of which are in the city. The Coast Community College District has two junior colleges , of which one is in Huntington Beach. Figure 2-37 lives an indication of the growth in school enrollment in three districts since 1950. ` These three districts were chosen because it was felt they were most representative of the city as a whole. Huntington Beach Elementary School District , as was mentioned above, is wholly within the city limits and Gceanview has all but two of its schools in Huntington Beach. Huntington Beach }sigh School District has three of five schools in the city. As the table shows , there has been a great deal of growth over the past two decades , 2. 5. 2 Expanding Scope of Governmental Services Governmental. services have expanded in three ways : in absolute numbers , in the amount of costs for services C, rendered, and in the .amount of revenue generated to pay For services demanded. 1. Expansion of City Departments and Employees. When Huntington Bench was incorporated in 1909 there were six departments : City Council , Clerk, Treasurer, Co Attorney, Police and Library. Since then 15 addi- tional departments have been created by ordinance . Some of these departments , prior to being given departmental status , existed as divisions of other departments . Some departments were originally provided for in the charter , but were not created Q until such time as the need demanded their creation. Three departments , Water, .Streets and Sanitation, have since been combined under Public Works. Today there are 18 departments , each with it, several divisions or subsections . Figure 2.38 lists these departments and the date created by ordinance. It can be seen that one-third of these departments have been created. since 1960. With creation of these new departments the city has been able to respond to demands for increased services from its residents . U 64 ACNE& 14014 Figure 2-37 Enrollment of; public School Districts Huntington Huntington Beach Year Beach Oceanyiew High School 1950 930 •142 914 1951 954 457 976 1952 1 ,021 480 1,027 1953 1 ,071 510 1 ,078 1954 1,134 493 1 ,138 1955 1 ,152 512 1 ,215 1956 1 . 190 659 11478 1957 1 ,198 720 10769 1958 1 ,19Z 802 1 ,988 1959 1 ,254 950 21286 1960 1. ,382 1 ,449 2,820 },� 1961 1 ,628 3,058 3,579 ( 1962 1,974 4 ,762 4 ,664 i 1963 2 ,446 6 ,692 6 ,31Z 4 1964 20782 8,OF0 7, 717 1965 3,183 9,786 90225 1966 31970 100$21 10,503 f.� 1967 4 ,698 11 ,538 11,633 1968 5,366 12,706 13,328 1969 5,909 13 ,236 14 ,495* 1970 60371 13 , 584 15 ,662 1971 6,880 13,822 17 ,595 1,972 6,966 13,945 1R,762* �J , Huntington Beach Planning; Department estimate i Source: Orange County Planning Department , (grange County ( Progress Reports , Vols 2 - 9 I �a 65 .........r;+.: .. »..�«++y,..r",erx`:L'►s�".M.H1Li.'7*R'i�"'+ r Figure 2-38 City Departments and Date Created by Ordinance Department Date_______ i City Council 1909 r' City Clerk 1909 City Attorney 1909 City Treasurer 1909 Police 1509 Library 1909 Fire 1939 Administration 1948 Recreation and Parks 1949 ; Building 1956 Streets 1956 Water 1957 Purchasing 1958 Sanitation 1959 Planning 1961 Finance 1963 Public Works 1963 Harbors and Beaches 1963 fit . Economic: Development 1969 Public Information 1969 Personnel 1971 s � Source : Huntington Beach City Clerk' s Office 0! r GG j S rl +..wwr•....•....�..w....�s..«....,.�..�.,....................,«.. ... ..,.-.. ........... n ..•.a,.,t.... ........ ............ _.....w.•af.r...t tw i.h i.. +'li:r`ar sl:t+[;IJ•flttf•tir rsllra+v+nave...ry�1 t ' r , n Along with an expansion of departments in local government , there has been an increase in the number of employees . Figure 2-39 indicates that the number of full-time city employees has more than quadrupled in 12 years. 2 . Rising Costs of City Services . Costa of services Te-ndered by the city has also risen. The budget (or city expenditures) has more than tripled in eight years. Figure 2-40 lists expenditures and expenditures per capita. It can be seen, too, that expenditures per capita has almost doubled during the same time period. These findings could bo indicative of the fact that it is becoming increas- ingly expensive to provide services for a rapidly growing city. Because of rising costs , it is more expensive for the city to provide a lesser level of service to its residents . City expenditures were a sum of the general fund , �► library, music and promotion, recreation and parks , water utility, water bond interest and redemption funds , and animal licenses . By increasing tax rates the city or school districts can get more funds to pny for rising costs of services. Figure 2-41 lists the average city-wide rate, the school-related rate, and percent the school Tate is of the total city rate. The city tax rate is an average of rates for all tax code areas in Huntington Beach. The school tax rates are an average (of all tax code areas within the city) of all school related taxes applicable in Huntington Beach. This latter rate includes elementary an,, high school district taxes, Coast Community College District taxes , and county-wide: special school taxes . 'I The city-wide average tax rate has almost doubled in the past 12 years. In fiscal year 1961 , the rate was $6. 52/$100AV, while in fiscal year 1973, the rate was $11.91/$100AV. School tax rates have risen over twofold during this same period of time, from $3. 38/$100AV to $7.14/$100,1V. Although the school tar, rate has more than doubled ' in the past 12 years , its proportionate share of the total tax rate has risen only eight percent, from { 52 percent in fiscal year 1961 to 60 percent in ' fiscal year 1973. This proportionate increase is `4) significant in itself. School costs are rising and taking an increasingly greater share of the total tax dollar. 67 i ; f I �'i.�w�i+...:s-:... .•l.ra*•..........._.�.—..._ _......__.. ....,.............._...�..,,.:. ...1...c. ............. ..... ...�.-.....,,....�..........._.. -,......+'u1..r:-tisrsstu.+tst7�'Yt'+7.�41'SxfJrw L . I , Figure 2-39 C � City Employees ear (July 1st} Total City Employees) 1960 136 19612 210 19622 '-40 19632 270 19642 310 r I+ 1965 340 19661 363 1967" 420 1968 470 1969 530 1970 580 C 1971 680 1972 737 1 Includes only full time employees . 2 Employee totals for 1961 to 1964 and 1967 Are Planning Department estimates. Sources : Huntington Bench Finance and Planning Depts. C.. i I 1 68 p ♦..-w.'+wW rant/4+ww.rwarww.►�..�...........�.-................................. •...w........- rw wi'.:Ia.. tea.......�......�.. .�.Y�www..4YYfl.iA..ii a.:r:.1':C.::. .:�f7%f;C:y{,;:::F:t C3Ifi:*f•tuw.'.,?' n leisure 2-40 n City Expenditures and Expenditures Per Capita Fiscal Expenditures/ Year City Expenditures Capita 1964 $ 411090783 $ 70 1965 50667,956 79 1966 6,528,767 79 r1 1967 7,388,137 81 1968 8,132,948 80 1969 100390,544 94 1970 139309,213 ill 1971 14,776,231" 114 1972 18,288 ,749 131 Source : Huntington Beach Finance and Planning Departments. s Y S } f r t' s. 69 t' ,':�t.i:.7;;2;;$.+:R,ru..•.•.•r...r...•,-......_.._... .._-........._.+........_............+.,....v+w•V.'a_r t•_^ar<a.r...» .._.. ._..«....r.•....,.�........�....... 1 -••.•-.,.wr.s«r,w.w.pY�"�.Y i+•MT r A4^;salry Figure 2-41 ram. Average City-Wide and School -Related Tax Rages for Huntington Beach Fiscal Years 1961-1973 Fiscal City-Wide School-Related t of School Rate o - Year Tax Rate 1 Tax Rate 2 Total. City Rate 1951 $ 6.S2 $3.38 52 , 1962 8. 18 3. 64 45 1963 9. 05 4 .40 49 1964 9. 23 4 . 59 50 1965 9. 15 4. 69 51 .- 1966 9. 33 4.84 52 1967 NA NA NA 1968 9.43 5.14 55 1969 9.63 5. 27 55 1970 10.39 5. 89 57 1971 10.55 6.24 59 r, 1972 11 . 80 6.96 59 1973 11 .91 7. 14 60 I Average of all tax code areas in the city. 2 Tex rules for all civy- and county-wide taxes applicable to ffuntingten Beach. NA - not available Souk: County of Orange. Office of the Auditor-Controller, Tax Rages , Fiscal Years 1961-1973; Huntington Beach Planning` ` Department . . t� i I C, 70 w • r"1 3. increasing Revenue to Pay for Services Demanded. Rapid population influx places a burden on a city'3 ^ capacity to service residential demands and revenue generating potential to pay for these needs . Assessed valuation, which is a measure of a city's worth in terms of property tax revenue, is one way a city can afford to service its residents . Figure 2-42 lists assessed valuation (AV) , AV/capita , and rank of Huntington Beach in the county for both variables . Assessed valuation quadrupled during the decade of the 1960's. Huntington Beach's rank with other cities in the county for assessed valuation rose from sixth in 1962 to third. This city has been third since 1966 Assessed valuation per capita decreased steadily from 1950 to 1965. It went from $6,600 in 1950 to $2,100 in 1965. Since 1966 it has been steadily increasing. In 1973 it was $2,700. The city's rank among other county cities has dropped from second in 1962 to tenth in 1971 . In 1972, the last year figures were available, Huntington Brach was ninth of 25 cities. I 2.5. 3 Citizen Participation. Figure 2-43 indicates some of the citiien interest groups that have been active in this city over the years. The citizens ' interest groups under discussion here are official in nature as the members have been appointed by the City Council from the community-sit-large. This discussion does not include those citizens groups that are of a county-wide or regioni nature, nor those that do not have some official nature. This list is by no means exhaustive. Those 18 groups listed in Figure 2-43 are the ones whose origin has been documented in official records , such as the City Council minutes or ordinances. There are several additional groups that have been or are existing whose year of origin have not been documented. These citizens groups have been very active on a variety of topics. The trend appears to be that if a topic is of r} such a nature so as to have a direct impact on th-a commu- nity, a citizens interest group will be Permed to study the issue and to recommend solutions and policies. Many of these groups have met with a fair amount of success . 71 t it i1� �.1[1 ..N'.. .Ir...r•w-...•� .. . ��.r.....r., ....r ....»....... :>. ... ...... ... ..........•......«............... r......w.....w+r....^..M..r.ww l.ti4wM.fl+'f•+w 1 r. Figure 2-42 Assessed Valuation, Assessed Valuation Per Capita and Rank in County for Selected Years Rank in Ran - in Fiscal Assessed County County Uat Valuation (AV) AV�Capita (AV/Capita) 1943 $ 10,587 ,140 NA NA NA 1950 34,4350855 NA $6,622 NA 1953 43,673,970 NA NA NA r, .. 1960 75,903,380 NA 5,060 NA 1961 NA NA NA NA 1962 969347,340 6 39098 2 1963 105,377,280 6 2,233 NA 1964 126,176,360 6 2,146 5 1965 151 ,863,520 5 2,109 6 1966 189,763,880 3 2,289 4 1967 220,691,540 3 21425 6 1968 273,4891800 2 2 ,684 6 :1969 248,033,290 3 2,582 6 1970 3050631,576 3 2,547 NA 1971 339,793,919 3 2,630 10 1972 370,2301779 3 2,658 9 1975 4100283,199 NA 2,737 NA NA Not Available .., ftu : Orange County Planning Department, Oranga. County Progress Reports , Vuls . 2 - 9 ; Huntington Be acT Planning Department '.: C1 1 f 72 f . . . ' ,..,,... e.. ..... ....... •�..+...tt•. ... . i,.'.;ri • ;.f:�'-1,T'- ;'L:!i•i:.fYl+sl.}::, 5 r Figure 2-43 Citizen Participation Groups Group Year Started Library Board 1909* h Planning Commission 1950* Recreation and Parks Commission 1960* Urban . Land Institute Citizens Steering 1965* Committee + Urban Land Institute Liaison Committee 1965 i Charter Revision Advisory Committee 1966 -, Personnel Board 1966* Design Review Board 1968* Mid-Beach Policy Plan Committee 1968 Mid-Beach Development Committee 1968 Policy Plan Citizens Steering Committee 1971* Environmental Council 1971* Oil Field Committee 1971* Art Council 1971* Environmental Impact Report Committee 1972* Drug Prevention Board 1972* Historical Society 1972 Allied Arts Commission 1973* * Year of origin that can Fe veri ie ,y of cia documentation such as City Council minutes or ordinances. Source: Huntington Beach Planning Department , C'► 73 �,. .. . .. .. .._..^..•.. rr.r ♦..+.r-.. r-t'.... .. ,.. nn...-p. �•...71"t'tNTt. I r The number and variety of these citizens groups would indicate that the average citizen is aware of his commu- nity and has a desire to parti.-?pate on a level where he , can influence decisions affecting his community. l 2 . 5.4 Intergovernmental Coordination. Intergovernmental coordination mechanisms are present in r various forms. There are informal , voluntary efforts at communication, formal joint powers agreements , and prof- essional associations of governmental officials . Examples of formal joint powers are police and fire agreements with adjacent cities . Professional associations include Supervisors and Mayors Conference (SAMCO) , Southern r California Association of Governments (SCAG) , and Inter- governmental Coordinating Council (ICC) . Other organiza- tions of which Huntington Beach is a member include League of Californin Cities , Health Planning Council of Orange County, the Orange County Criminal Justice Council and the Orange County Housing Authority. 0 A t:- 74 r • 4 3 I t� 1 i 1 SECTION 3.0 CURRENT GROWTH POLICY i� SECTION HIGHLIGHTS i 1 . The Current Growth Policy was derived from formal , informal , and implied policies of Huntington Heach and is in a period of transition. 2. Growth Policy is defined as : A set of aggregate local governmental policies which combine 14 to Influence the city's population size, rate of population growth, and the geographic: distribution of the population in such a way that a certain quality of life is achieved. 3. The Current Growth Policy is essentially one of accommodating growth as set forth in the Top Level Policy: ;o accommodate and provide for growth as set by the market forces of the Southern California and Orange County economy without due regard to long range impacts. cl L1' Adft 75 �*f � _ •. -:Iin.•..+.� _ ._.. .... www ,.v . .. ....�...-�.n ... ♦- ..:l,.:.Mw+r.._.. ..-...,�w.,,.......r .. ...---.• •.+.yi.'A..I YI..,R e: r"1 i� n SECTION 3.0 CURRENT GROWTH POLICY 7 3.1 Policy Derivation The .following statements regarding the Current Growth Policy of Huntington Beach were synthesized from formal, infori:al , and implied a policies of Huntington Beach. With growth concerns being a trend which has developed in the last few years it is impossible to accurately define a Current Growth Policy for Iiuntin;yton Beach. However, in order to provide a basis for comparitively analyzing the growth policy sets presented in this report (Sections 8, 90 and 10) a reasonable attempt to define Current Growth Policy for rJ Huntington Beach had to be made. It is important to realize that Huntington Beach is in a state of transition from the Current Growth Policy as set forth in this report to a desired policy of controlled growth. a 3.2 Defi:ii Lion of Growth_ Policy :i The definition of Growth Policy as used in this report is borrowed from the extensive work done by the Orange County Planning Department in their Population Growth Policy and Development Strategy Studies . The Growth Policy for Huntington Bench is defined as follows: t� A set of aggregate local governmental policies which combine to influence the city' s population size, rate of population growth, and the geographic distribution of the population in such a way that a certain quality of life is achieved. 77 ` i ,• ., t ,..!:! .i•e...sr +�.... -. +.�-+.n....,.. . ....p•s' f 4,. .... . ...--... - ......+�...+rt,.ewri..._.r..+.....r...�'+rr f.n�w.�1 `wYwrwIwY.w�ww�w. 7 t 1 r The Orange County study e�-panded further on this : Certain key points are important regarding this concept of a local n government growth policy. "Aggregate" policies -- In many cases, the policies described as making up the County growth policy are not associated with a single agency or organization. For example, land use policies for the County are a composite of the policies of n 26 cities and the County of Orange. Thus, in describing the current growth policies it is necessary to imagine a "line of best .fit" to the multiple policies actually in existence. "Local Government Policies" -- Key policies that directly or indirectly influence population growth may relate to a variety of functional areas with which local governments are concerned. Thus , policies relating to transportation, housing, land use regulation and many other growth factors may all be part of a growth policy. "Influence" -- As explained previously, local government ry policies by themselves cannot determine population growth but can influence it significantly. "Quality of Life" --- It is important to emphasize that the ultimate rationale For a growth policy is not population itself but the quality of life which alternative growth policies can produce. "Population Composition" -- The definition of growth policy includes the dimensions of size, rate, and distribution. It does not include composition, or characteristics of the population. Composition is excluded in order to avoid singling out any specific group within the population as a direct object of currelit or any modified growth policies . Composition is viewed mainly as a consequence of population change rather than a dimension to be directly influenced. 3.3 Policy Interrelationships The Growth Policy is comprised of a series of policy statements at three levels, each becoming more specific. The Top Level Policy is the most general being an all-encompassing statement of more specific policy levels. The Second Level Policy statements deal N with the three critical growth factors : size, rate and distribution. The supporting policies are the most specific and may impact one or more of the Second Level Policies . figure 3-1 indicates how the supporting policies impact the Second Level Policies. 78 i j t d;1 FIGURE 3-1 GROWTH POLICY INTE10113LATIONSHIPS TOP LEVJ3L GROWTH POLICY Second Level Policies Supporting Policies Population Population Population Size Growth Rate Distribution A. Development 1. Residential 0 0 0 2. Commercial 0 0 0 3. Industrial 0 0 0 4 . Redevelopment 0 0 0 S. Utility Service 0 0 0 b. Freeways 0 0 0 7. Arterial Ilwy. 0 0 0 8 . Public Transportation 0 0 0 9. Regional Transportation 0 0 0 10. Annexations 0 0 0 lI. Fiscal Planning 0 0 0 D. Environment & Resources s. 1. Open Space 0 0 0 2. Parks 0 0 0 i 3. Shoreline G Beaches 0 0 0 4 . Oil 0 0 0 S. Flood Plains 0 0 0 C. Society $ Culture 1. Housing 0 0 0 2. I:ducat ion 0 0 0 79 :f f+ 3.4 Summary Current Growth Polic 3. 4. 1 Top Level Policy To accommodate and provide for growth as Get by the market forces of the Southern California and Orange County economy without due regard to long range impacts . 3.4.2 Second Level Policies 1. Population Size - To accommodate a population size based upon full development of all land resources within the city. 2. Population Growth Rate - To accommodate as rapid a rate of population growth as economic conditions allow. 3. Population Distribution - To allow population to be distributed throughout the city based upon the existing Master Plan of Land Use, actions of private developers, and a general trend to reduce densities without consideration to its full implications . r. 3.4 .3 Supporting Policies Development 1. Residential - To decrease the amount of multiple family zoning and allowable densities in the city without full regard to the implications of such actions. 2. Commercial - To allow development of all commercially zoned land without full consideration of the economic benefits and impacts of such development. 3. Industrial - To encourage the development of all industrial land, either zoned or master planned, within the city. 4 . Redevelopment - To encourage the redevelopment of G�( older portions of the city by private capital. ;1 5. Utility Service - To provide for all utility services to properties as they are proposed for development. Oil 'I 80 �i ,i I I G. Freeways - To encourage and plan for the development of the Route 1 and 39 Freeways . 7. Arterial highways - To develop all arterial highways to their. design capacity as land development and increased traffic generated demand. B. Public Transportation - To rely upon other entities of government to provide for public transportation in the city. 9. Regional Transportation - To passively participate in regional transportation studies. 10. Annexation - To allow annexation of unincorporated areas without full consideration of the resultant j impacts. i 11 . Fiscal. Planning - To develop and maintain a six year fiscal plan for the city based upon current growth projections . Environment and Resources 1. Open Space - 'To allow the undeveloped portions of the city to develop as market conditions direct, preserv- ing a small percentage as permanent open space. I 2. Parks - To provide a park system at the rate of five acres per 1000 population. "a. Shoreline and Beaches - To provide for shoreline development that allows maximum public use of the beaches. 4 . Oil - To allow for full extraction of all oil producing areas and development of such areas when oil operations cease. S. Geologic Hazards and Flood Plains - To allow development to occur in flood plains and areas of possible geologic hazard without full consideration of implications of such actions. j by Society and Culture 1 . Housing - To allow the housing market to determine the segments of the population whose housing needs will be met . Ci son g 1 :1 z 2. Education - To allow the development of all housing units without full consideration of the impacts of such development upon the local. school system. i 1 i 1 a C• 82 i. :Y..;A. ./>S:i.'.r.Y i.r ........ ..1.(I't'il" :'S 41=,•1.nl W.+- :a:l'ssra.LYf',f t SECTION FOUR: GROWTH MODEL SECTIQNAL HIGHLIGHTS POPULATION GROWTH Huntington Beach will continue to grow rapidly under it's t'J Current Growth Policy. 1973 1980 1990 2000 Population Size 1501000 197,200 239 ,900 275,100 Rate of Increase --- 31% 221 151' Gross Population i� Density 5,700 7 ,400 8 ,200 99400 f J� I PHYSICAL GROWTH T i Future annexation of unincorporated areas within the City's i sphere of influence will increase the size of Huntington Bench from 26. 51 square miles to 29. 20 square miles . Based on the City's Master Plan , Huntington Beach will be a relatively "balanced community" in terms of land use ratios . The need for redevelopment in the future will be a major issue in Huntington Beach. 83 ti-r....,..... ,...,_ T..y,..J:.,.....—.._...__.. ...---...._.. .._...___......... ._...,....a..,.•u.........---• -- r...__...-...........,-..................».....�........«.....«.sr,r.'mwH,r.-.•wry ECONOMIC GR0WTH Based on cost/revenue analysis studies of the City 's plaster Plan of Land Use categories , luntington Beach may experience an economic deficit. SOCIAL AND CULTURAL IMPACTS Under the Current Growth Policy the need for low and moderate income housing will not be met. The majority of housing in Huntington Beach will continue to be geared towards the needs of families in higher income brackets . Due to increasing development and the influx of more families into Huntington Beach, the school systems will be faced with tremendous costs of providing educational facilities and services. G4 84 C� R,w„aa-..arruat:,p.r v.,,.•........+.....r..,............................+..,.�....... r.- , . - �,.,.,«.. .... .r,.. «.+ !IM :r t i{ P r t 1 tr r:'t .Y t � •`i ! � , '1�! rn 7 at 7 f f r•'. � t, `. �r r Et. + ".;.i y}. ,! >,� 1 '9 r' T1 7 , -e. !� tll I Itl ..7 rt "1 S "+j •.S { 7 y r s t t 7 , r r{.,� i ?t,. �ti ,. .' r y -7. � T ! +, •ail" .3J. L t,- Y { '1 ' t� r i 1 1'�" t 3i! 'y ` !, A M 'i :1 i • s 1 SECTION 4. 0 FUTURE GROWTH MODEL: CURRENT GROWTH PU LI CY (� 4. 1 Introduction �i 4 . 1 . 1 Methodology of Approach ,., M..._ - ._..._ Determining the city's future growth patterns requires an analysis of the city's past and current growth. Sbct•ion , ,.� 2.0 identifies the history of past growth from the city's early history to 1972. ' The emphasis of this section will focus on Lhe i Zerval I ears between 1972 to the year 2000. Tha year 2000 has ! been set as the horizon year because it, is estimated . that given the existing growth pr1icy, total saturation would be reached by the end of this cos:tury. r The methodology of approach In the evaluation of the city's future growth to the year 2000 relies on a number of significant forces . These Forces that form and shape communities coupled with basic general assumptions provide the tools for measuring the extent of urban growth patterns . " An attempt has been in this section to identify the signifi- cant growth forces and to state in simile terms what can be expected to occur in terms of population , physical and economic growth. is ACEM l� 8S } �'`i"r:.',ii~,ice'.-. ,d:ti�u.+..........,_.. .. .. ... .. ..._.... ..r.,..... . _.....---• .. _.�"...,. . .,...-.-... .......,. « �,r...rwvvar.r• ..,�iY.Q$A+�..3�„(•$.cSC}Y.1t..1 N 4.1. 2 Assumptions Based on Current Growth Policy 1 . Based on the Huntington belch' s sphere of influence , the city will succeed in nunexing the liolsa Chica and Sunset Beach Areas . 2. The city will reach its ultimate growth by the year 2000. r 3. In-migration will continue to be the primary source of population growth. 4 . The Huntington Beach Freeway (Route 39) will be con- structed as proposed. 5. The city will encourage the development of the former Pacific Coast Freeway (Route 1) as a multi-modal transportation corridor. 6. The housing market , coastline and economic base of the city will continue to attract residents . 7. "Non-resident" influx and tourism will increase as more leisure time is provided by decreases in average hours per work week. 8. The increase in population will necessitate a demand � for more goods and services from both private and public agencies or establishments . 9. The increase in population growth will generate a demand for medical , educational and public facilities . � 10. There will continue to be growth pressures channeled towards city government. 11. The existing master plan will be implemented. 4. 2 Population Growth I 4. 2. 1 Size It is generally recognized that Huntington Beach has indeed experienced a tremendous population increase within the last decade. Population size of Huntington Beach has grown from 11 , 500 in 1960 to a current popula- tion of approximately 150,o00. (See Figure 4-1) 86 C% FIGURE 4•1 n PROJECTED POPULATION SIZE 300 .roo .�•�` CO200 Now, '"r 149 900 ` ISO V—UI 1 1 7' a°. r. 100 SO . ' 1 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 YEAR � 4 Oda& 87 Cam.,:...:....... 3 f The planning staff: population projections indicate that by the year 2000, Huntington Beach wLll have a population of over 247,700 within its present city limits . In addition, the possibility of annexation of the unincorpo- rated areas of Bolsa Chica and Sunset Beach is expected to generate an additional 26,200 and 1 ,200 residents, respectively. The grand total would thus be approximately 275,100 people, estimated to he around 9.4 percent of Orange County total projected population by the year 2000. (Sse r Figures 4-2 through 4-5. ) 4.2. 2 Growth Fate Based on population projections , Huntington Beach can ? continue to expect a high growth rate until the end of ' this decade. from 1980 to the period of ultimate population or total saturation a decrease in the growth rate is anticipated. (See Figure 4-6. ) Population projections indicate that from 1972 to 1980 , there would be a 42 percent population increase: accounting for an � estimated population growth of over 59,000. From 1980 to 1990, the growth rate will accrease to 22 percent, approximately 42,700 in absolute numbers . As the period of total saturation approaches, (Estimated to occur by the year 2000) the growth rate will further r decrease to 14 percent, contributing an additional. 42 ,700 residents. l 4 . 2. 3 Aistribution � An indication of distribution. can be determined b �y project- ed gross population densities (GPI)) . The GPD is the number i of persons per squere mile for all land within a given area. Figures 4-10 through 4-13 illustrate the projected patterns of population distribution during ten year intervals from 1972 to 2000. µ, I gee figures 4-7 through 4-9. 88 AM& .. r _ 590 2100 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 570 0 2580 2430 30 Gi'Ar1.;E COVJTY CALIFORMA � r I f 1306 0 2650 1300 0 ;1 0 \` 4460*A 375 265 2150 3330 '2510 11802490 4g .+ "61C 7001 590 2540 i2220 1520'2530 12150 1y630 8b0 178 2900 i 2280 62Q 12050 2590 �! j ` ` �►�� rl••., _ - i t 1. - .._ .. __ i ..l_1. 115 2060 30, 11010 1850 'r { 177 r� r � r 2201 820 I200 _.0 ♦ �j 550 0. 16190 2040 300 20301 180 226 }' 0 7j0. 10"1130 2480 325T 270911 Q/� 1 20 620 360 2070i 247C 1459 2 X40 2000 0 2500 284 as<c . r ` 730, 1660:1350 740` I86 Z10 f . 7Q 0 12550, 250 i` 70 04 ,ti t 11 FIGURE 4-2 i TOTAL POPULATION ESTIMATES 1972 ',OOO huntirigfc ,i Aonninq department s� \ 590 2000 - "1 ^ 100 � CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH `70 0 580 2560 � oq-,W:' cmflTv CGLIMRMA . 1240 360 y640 2700 1 "� 1120 r' 1 ' 3330 730 2370 330 2510 1200 32H0 90 Y � ti 39? 963 69D 540 1 220 199 2530 23,7Ci'.,463 � 1 74W400 2020 900 b80 62 2280 259 , , 1951 1640 X:2, 460 770 9' 1033 192�►943 380 57 1120 zoos ' . 21 0 '2040' 153 :390 2520 2424380 0.•' 20 2160 260 390�3830 270 ' _/r 2 11740 30OC2520 2700 1Z/o 2�9 i 2000 31O 500. 2970 1¢ t- r 13 1430 209 700��I4D /YIO 270 330 110 -_ 79(: Jr 70a dl � FI FIGURE 4.3 TOOTAL POPULATION ESTIMATES 1980 97 O r huntingtan beech planning department 90 S 1 , �2OGO �590 100 ' CITY OF w HUNTINGTON BEACH 570' 0 1,580 �1560 Sac; aaa•oGE [CUNT' CALIFOR!CA r1 1240 36 640 2700 0j f0 37 14,200 30 2730 2370 330 2510 120t 320 111 ! ti •. t1t4047' 1927 95 710 2750 19 1 253 170 ��117 1200 1166- 400 202 900 2280 8600 titi •1640 321 460 1770 U 255 540 ( 7" ' 43 380 0 !! 160C2340oil I I �1 (~ ,�- ' s ;40 l 1. 12,078 3 6r 040 1530 2390` 520 2420 0 ' 3 160 2600 2390 830 2700 ' 61 .� 0 405 110 3000 2520 700 147C t 3 5 460 3100 250 970' 12 0 i 6a 267 2030 1700 140 •• r10 5 0 270 300 •110 79 rr 700 t . ;.1 FIGURE 4.4 TOTAL POPULATION ESTIMATES 1990 239,900 huntington heo ch planning department _.! -' � — 590\J` '112000 _1.. Q 21oQ CITY OF 570 0 2580 256 - 5:0 HUNTlNGTON BEACH - _ CRANGC COUNTY CAUFORKA 1100 360 2650�270 I I 0 -I10 — I 'I ` 14,200 t• 3330 2650 2200 3330 2510 120 1 3490 (� t4750 345 9 60 2710 2750-19 0 1200 � 2530 21701*20 (� 930 344014010 G 0 r' 13000 r1• ••�:• 1170 2380 0 2550 3540 _ c 390 0 11600 2340 ••••• :rr.••. 0�`� 3 Q ZZ24Q ....... `� 7r Wo 340,12520 226 0- 22 570 `3 20A 153 _ _ BOLSA CHICA BAY `4 216 zoo 2480 3830 2700,Ma— t "CHICA" SECTION 1 WITHIN EXISTING ` 7 4 8 311t�3000 2520 2700 145 CITY BOUNDARIES - 7,300 w 4 0 310 250 2970 12, ; IN UNINCORPORATED AREA- 17,000 f i 201h 67 2090 1700 3140 0 GAP SECTION • 5,200 7 0 270 3300 1 n SUNSET BEACH79 rq 7QU j; 1200 � 1 FIGURE 4-5 TOTAL POPULATION ESTIMATES-2000 275,100 huntington beach panning department 92 :_ FIGURE 4 -6 POPULAT I nN chow n Population Percent of Years Population Added Increase 1972 138,000 1980 197 ,200 59 ,20r, 421 1990 239 ,900 42,7001 221 2000 275,100 42 ,7002 14% 1 If the unincorporated section of the Bolsa Chica � area is annexed by the city, it is expected to be fully developed during this time interval , exclud- ing the gap section. In addition, it is anticipa- ted that the Sunset Beach area would be :annexed by 1990. Both areas combined would account for approximately 43 percent of the population added to the city's total from 1980 to 1990, of which the 40 percent would occur in the Bolsa Chica area. 2 The gap section of Bolsa Chica Bay is expected to be fully developed during this time interval. It is estimated that it would account for 52 percent IC of the population growth during this time interval. IL r two 7 I h 93 =y • l� r f CITY 4F :ti HUNTINGTON BEACH OnAWA t01 TY CALWOWA l�. .ti • •w� .. 151� /f !. /. ME + 100.1500 t 4 %m/ 1500.2500 2500 ABOVE 4000 �. �r FIGURE a-7 POPULATION GROWTH ESTIMATES 1972- XWX 59200 Ilip huntington beach planning department 94 �; . J CITY OF ��•r HUNTINGTON 9Cs14CN ORrt" CM"TY VLW M1MA lot J J i r INo 10U•1500 .. .x I 01500-2500 1 o ..... c+ •••;; 2500•�10Q0 �• 8--mm ABOVE 40M { FIGURE 4-8 POPULATION GROWTH ESTIMATES 19 /90 42,7a0 huntingtan beach planning depootment A CITY OF -HUNTINGTON BEACH WOW O MTY CALIFt1lNYA r00, i v t Vj1 1M1500 I V__4 oC. 1500-2500 ABOVE 4000 F:GURE 49 POPULATION GROWTH EST. 1990/2000 35 200 lwntingtcxi bead planning department 9! tJ CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH .....a...... �`"""�'r ORANGE COUNTY CALIFOPMA •may � •r•••I.►•... b � � -1.+ram+�— .•..•.•....• �\y��(•• !".. +••••• •1•.I.AI•..• 1+..•......• •..r •.••••• ••.f• ' • ` •11.11 •..1. 1 •••• •••.•.�••...• •..Ir.•.•1.1 }.. . • fM•• M ♦.•IN.�i..1V \ 1 ••1•• ••.•• •11••+ .•... ...... •,•.{.•••...• 1.11..�... •• �.� r} 1►,•1� ••..• ••11./ •++1• .•++.• •+••�...•...• •..►•i��j.•+• '1. 11M�_ `�1.� ...•.1 .....•..... •...��1. ..• •..•. �•- ••.too 61.......... .. .... ..• •.. . .0 .• `1 1 S. •..11• •.111 •..•••• ...1• OF to r�� •, '` ' •, I • .• •.,,•► 44410 •1,•• .. to . .. ...... ..... .... 0. .. . ...•.. .•.. 1••1 DENSITY IN THOUSANDS Vr 1 UNDER 5 D� t�` ..... CITY WIDE DENSITY: 4966 PERSONS PER SQUARE MILE L ;1 FIGURE 4-10 Aft. GROSS POPULATION DENSITY •1972 IFIPhuntington beach *nning department ;a 97 J� 1 CITY OF' r HUNTINGTON BEACH ORANGE CJLNTY CAIIFORMA ri .. . ...::..::.. .� •••.• .•••r• .r.•a •r4r+r•Z.r.••i• 1 r r �.. •• �� •••r\ ..••• •••a•• j .00 ♦• •• •I.•.• •I••• •11•. r••• •\ •! . •.•• • •• .•1 ...•••!1••. •.••� •• •.. .• r.r II1,. ••1 M .1• DENSITY IN THOUSANDS `\ ... " •.... .••.• `•• ` ... .. ... ../.. ..•.. ... ,.. •• .1, •.... i!r•r UNDER 5 ,� •• •. .1.1• !!.• r .... 5. 1010- 15 ��. �, i........ •• • may.�_ 15- 20 CITY-WIDE DENSITY: 7164 PERSONS PER SQUARE MILE � ..._. Ca FIGURE 4-11 GROSS POPULATION DEINSITY-1980ri i,. huntington beach planning apartment i A CITY OF k HUNTINGTON BEACH ORA113E CM41Y CALIFORMA ..... ...... ..... .... ....... .N r.�• .►• f ITT K �'� 1.... •..••• I.... .rr• •.....• •{•.. l•♦ �� •IIl/ .•Ir1. •.{.• ..•• aa..Hf iiiif a1rf.. flfl• •1.• •.•••.• •f11i {{i•. ..rla r.11• !/ f• ' r1I.1. •I/•• ' ••If. Ifl ��fi• iff.• , •' .... \ ...�. lfll. .00 ......... ..• . • •lf .of . ..... .. \. •♦ ff •frr•. fsf•• f• l .Iari. •ff.• .l .tiff. .1..• .♦ rlr.fl fi.1i ••f•f l.lff .If1i .If11f 1/ •Ir11• ..l.i llllf .lilt. 11 f �rti AN1 r .f.Y• ...... ..... •...f• ••'•DENSITY IN THOUSANDS • ••••• ••••• ►.•••1•rf..••. f/•.• •.•.• Ir1 UNDER 5 .... ...... ..... ..: •-f .... ...... ..... ..... ..f1�..... l...f ..... .... .....0 ..... ..... .::�:.. 5, 10 �F \: . ..... ..... ..... to- is Y 15 . 20 1 CITYAVIDE DENSITY: 7929 PERSONS P R SQUARE MILE FIGURE 4•12 huntington beach planning depariment 1 99 s f CITY OF HUNTINGTON OEACH _i� ,�-�;�' Ali;•, ` � ,, a,`,, _ . ... . � t { •; _ � 'r� '��- '+ire I.9 y�{S�• ••��•• .......seer• •r•• •..•.r• 1 � •,sees •••.. w.••rr• sees ••.. •.sees ••• sees•• •er•�.•.••�• ...... •............ ..•..r......• 1 ..sees r...•�..1.1• ••.••...I..•. .... ••sees ••.•• ..•e.. •...•......♦ ••••re�•f•\� •.sees •.•.1�.•.r 1. •••...e•••.e •...• I�.ffeV-4 \ .I..I• r•11. 1•.Ir. .•�1...1.•• ♦sees 1� sees ` ...i•i ills• .••.e. .f...•..sees sees• N ••.♦ ` �, frerye` sees\• :f...f � y ♦sees ••..•• _ � • / •.\ �•• i 1 •sees !•sets .r ._ { ., • .r• � r•. l •.•... ••sees � `' `.` ••� .•� • •sees• ••sees •'.'�••. � sees•! ••sees • .•••�•• �.•.•• ..sees � „� •� ' sees• •'•• • . .;..�.,..� :n •••.'.• ••. .•••f. e e s.• �� •�. .••�f a ' ...f.f• sere. , sees , sees.• sees • .•. . .. .. _----f'r` _ . j_'_J: . • •:: :'0.0 :i:: 1.. • f. sere!• .rf.• , •. • ..• • ••..f• sees• •• •• sees•• sees• t sees•• •ref• •......♦ • Nf• •stet! to N• sees• ♦..•• •.• ' sees.• •...• ••.ser sees •.• \ •f•f1. t o ves toff♦ . ..� fe1. r ...•./ ee /ee.f �.• ♦ere s i•f�• •,i • ells •.• •.• ::::: sees. •.•sf• so..•• ofo ' f•.f• ::ee: ::fe:! see.• ere / \,, , DENSITY IN TI4OUSANDSet ...• .•tees♦ ..fee. ffeef .. .. f•..e 4 o ot Wha { Lt�jUNDER 5, sees: ♦.f.f.e.e. •.:.:.e.e.e. • 11 1 •fee• feeees . O •e. •see •fee• ..sfr •ew•e ee.• { ..... .fee• 10. 16 16.20 CITY-WIDE DENSITY:8512 PERSONS PER SQUARE MILE DI FIGURE : ,I GROSS POPULATION DENSITY- 0 0 flI huntington beach planning department i c.E 100 I I.--rw•u•.....•. +.....:a:n.-..a... ..... ,...... .,...`�........_,........_,.».«.... a .. 1,v . .. .. ...._ _....._.-+......1.. .�..err. ., _ r'.X... .Cie..%�:f�fa:��T�Si:,fjlYlKr.^w..+;rt� Y In 1970 , the city-wide G1111 was 4 ,489 persons per square mile. It is estimated by the planning staff that the clty-wide GPn would enlarge to 7,400 , 8, 200 and 99400 person per square mile by 1990 , 1990 and 2000 , respect- ively. Aside from the fact of higher population densities anti- cipated throughout the great majority of the city, the most densely populated sections of the city would be those areas within closer proximity to the coastline . However, projected population distribution figu:res do indicate !;nme areas located away from the coastline have equivalent population densities. Overall the areas not directly adjacent to the coastline are estimated to accommodate the majority of the population distribution; while areas adjacent to the coastline would generail.v have the higher population densities. (See density map,- and Figure 4-14 . ) 1 . Bolsa Chica. The estimated gross population density ?� igure for 1980 includes the added acreage and popula- tion of the Bolsa Chica area. It is assumed that the i entire area will he annexed before 1980. It is further assumed that while: Clere would be a rapid spurt of development, the impact of the population generated would not have a radical effect on the citywi.de GPU until 1990. This would be partly clue to the later development of the remaining portions of the "Chica" i area and the phasing; in of the development of the ? "Gap" sections of Bolsa Chica. A large section of the Balsa Chica area has been allocated for a state wildlife preserve. The preserve is planned to consume 530 acres of the three square mile area. Consequently, the overall density will 'i not present an unfavorable condition city-wide. However, the overall gross population density of the .� Bolsa Chica area would be approximately 10,000 persons per square mile. { 2— Cej'n ry figures for 1990 and 2000 include the antici - pated annexation of the Bolsa Chica area and Sunset Beach. Thus , the city' s existing size of 26. 5 squa.ro miles would increase to 29. 03 and 29. 2 with the annex- ! ation of Bolsa Chica and Sunset Beach, respectively, s 101 •y -xJoti..a<. � .. .._ -......wTs..-......._.,�w....-�.+ v+t t.w�•... Sw--.TTf:sYr' y` 1 FIGURE •1-14 GROSS I'(TOLATION DENSITY r- F.Aft PERSONS PER* SQ. MILE 1972 1980 1990 2000 under 5 541 24% 19% 191 ° 5 - 10 46% 581 57% 47% 0 " 10 - 15 - - 181 21% 31% r- a 4 � 15 - 20 -- - - 3t 311 * By quarter sections } ' i is c; i. c 102 wwww'd+S9,;ttc^/{it'fV-,:.kir:a.rr.:n.. ........................«-o...........r..... «......, .. ... ... . . _ � I r"1 2. Sunset Beach. Due to t1ty size and anticipated land uses of tile- Sunset area , the addeti acreage of approximately 125 and t,,;t- iuiattd population of 1 , 200 would not have a signi I'ic;int impact on tale ci ty' s overall gross population den%ity ; however , it should be noted that this particular area will probably not be annexed for some years to come. n 4 . 3 Physical Growtli 4 . 3. 1 Existing blaster PIL-ii One of the primary purposes of the master plan is to serve as a guide for future growth and development. The existing I Huntington Beach master plan is in compliance with the growth policy that has formed and shaped Huntington Beach from a sleepy beach town community into the third highest populated city in Orange County. The recent concern regarding; how much growth Huntington Beach should sustain and still be a community that could provide tite optimum physical , economic and social environ- ment , must be confronted. The objective of this analysis of the master plan is to determine the following: 1) Based on the existing master plan, how much population would Huntington Beach accommodate? 2) Would Huntington Beach be a "balanced" community in terms of land use ratios? 3) Does the existing master plan reflect the desires and aspirations of the people of Huntington Beach? It should be pointed out at this time, that all referen e to the master plan refers only to the four study areas . Therefore, the Bolsa Chica anti Sunset Beach Areas , anti- cipated to be annexed by Huntington Beach , have not been completely master planned as of thin date. Also , study area "D" has not been fully planned. Consequently, an attempt to identify it in the master plan has been made solely for the purpose of analysis in this section, Figures derived fog• study area "D" are calculated estimates used from preliminary plans for the area. 1 . How much population would Huntington Beach accommodate? Based an the existing master plan, liuntington Beach. would accommodate a total population of over 24S,400. 3 See Study Area Map, Figure 4-15. 103 i lo I CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH OQANGC COUNTY CALIFORAIA ' 3 , I �••.� Study Area"C" Sunset Beach ' Study Area I3015a Chica Arm�. y ' I ! � t• \Study Area '�p.. t Study Area$'A•, :..., 1. "-.. FIGURE 4.15 MASTER PLAN STUDY AREAS huntingtan beach planning department 104 c' 3 i .=�+rw.+.r..;.a..cr+.rru..ra.+s.r�r.,.r+...•.ra...�...w.._.........»w-«v....... .............w.. .a..r.�.�:.\.r ..r«. ......._.-_....�.-....._.,�,n.:;rv�wi<.h-.eR:.as:Gt�V�o�1rn�u4•lrtt-'N.�v..r rr.�+w+..r..+r n llowevcr, this does not include the unincorporated Bolsa Chica and Sunset Iteach .areas where an additional r1 27 ,000 residents are expected to live. The following break-down is provided in Figure 4-16 . 2. Would Huntington Beach he as balanced community in terms of land use ratios? 11%e amount of acreage allocated for the different categories of land use in the existing master plan is illustrated in Figure 4-17. An analysis of the proposed ]and uses comlaared to typically accepted population standards reveals that in all categories of land use , other than industry, there would be a ►"' surplus of acreage allocations designated in the master plan. However, Huntington Beach would none the leas be somewhat of a balanced community. In terms of land use ratios , Huntington Beach would compare relatively well with the ideal percentages of land use within an urban community in the population range of 100,000 to 250 ,000. (See Figure 4-18) 3. Does the existing master plan reflect the desires and aspirations of the people of Huntington Beach? It would certainly be unfair to claim that the existing master plan is totally without due consideration of the peoples ' needs and future dreams of what Huntington Beach should be like. Many favorable conditions in a regards to the various elements or within tine scope of those elements of the master plan have been provided for. However, to assert that the existing master plan is without deficiencies and could not be pore compatible to the goals of the people of Huntington Beach it, an understatement. In October of 1972 tine Huntington Beach Citizens Committee for Goals and Objectives submitted a Policy ,C Plan for the city' s adoption. Within the context of ' this document, specific community goals and objectives were identified. As stated in the Policy Plan, 0 ' 10 s 4 .µ'J t7�t+Y•4:WA A Arc- .... _.....�._....,�,.,�.,....r-.«...•.,,c'.:aa;. ia;,t:••:7 i.': :.; ::.F:.:;,•:.ss.•w. .-.,�...a:..w...-sw•.�•.++.w......�r+.rr�ww.r.+.�rnr�a � + f - .. •ail, .r �. h i FIGURE 4 - 16 r' r i MAST1iR PLAN AREA POPULATION STUDY AREAS POPULATION Study Area "A" 69,800 Study Area "B" 51 ,600 t Study Area "C" 69,000 Study Arcs "D" 57,300 } Total 247,700 Unincorporated = Dolsa Chica Area 26,200 C� Sunset Beach 19200 GRAND TOTAL. 2750100 r f f t 't i ' •i 3-. 106 i� ;c' 4 :r'•:ra«.:r{,sr.w,:r..+t=5}t../t. Zi 71 FIGURE 4-17 Master Plan Acreage Inventory by Study Area % Land Use Land Use Area "A" Area "B" Area "C" Area "D" Total Ratio Residential 3253 1932 2918 1417 9529 56.1; i Commercial 274 568 215 360 1417 8 . 31 Industry 318 785 786 178 2067 12.1% Public or Semi- Public Uses 1040 1151 1129 536 3856 22.7% Undesignated 54 26 - 27 107 TOTAL 4939 . 4462 5048 2518 16,967 *Total City Acres 16 957 acres (26. 51 square males) 1 Mote: Does not incluAe Bolsa Cnica and Sunset Beach areas . t If these areas are annexed total city area would encompass 29. 2 square miles. s FICUIt1.. 4 - 18 LAND USE RATIOS Ideal Land Uses in2 Huntington Beach Land Uses Communityl American cities Master Plan Residential 54% 41 .40t3 56 t r4 Commercial 51 2.9 t3 0 t Industry 12% 5. 84$3 12 1 1 Public Land 23t 18. 3313 23 1 Uses Sources 1. !{untin ton Beach California. Urban Land Institute, Washington, D.C. ecem er 1965 2. Bartholomew, Harland. Land Uses in American Cities. z.+ Harvard University Press L.. r` 1 PCrcenta^es rom case study by the Urban Land Institute o 2 Percentages from !Harvard University study of Nine UrG ;n Cities having a Base Population Range between 100,00c, to r 250,000 3 Percentages do not include street acreage r "T—^1•iViMYti t MY,•..�.w.r..�s� ...+.+..a• ••a.�YfN:.S•..'...L•LM'anww�.s.`.r-...s.aa a .... .+�r..«..r ..r.� n+.w,.,�..y �'+: A , the revised Policy Plan, after public hearings , staff, Council and Commission review is intended to document the goals of the City so that policies , specific actions and the Master flan will be coordinated toward common goals which reflect the attitudes and opinions of the populace. ' 4 An analysis of the objectives , principles and standards 9et forth in Section I as well as Section II (Subcommittee Reports) of the Policy Plan reveals chat the existing master plan is not compatible in many areas with the Policy Plan. 1 . Residential i While a reduction of densities in residential areas have been planned for, overall residential densities will by far generate a population in excess of the j desired limit. No standards for open space requirements in new residential developments have been developed in the Master Plan. The amount of multi- family units in proportion to j single family units will be greater than the ratio expressed by the residential subcommittee of one multiple family to three single family. No housing, program has been developed in the Master ' I Plan that would outline the development of low or ( moderate income housing. �. Commercial The MMaster Plan has provided no changes in the present state of Beach Boulevard. } The Master Plan provides for an overall surplus of commercial land uses compared to commercial needs based on population standards. 3. Industry In some sections in Study "A", "B" and "C" no buffer has been provided between certain residential neighbor- hoods and industrial sites . 109 J . ti,�'7..1:%w��,}"•rtc«...r_ - .--+.-,.,.w. .,..:a..-............._... ..... . . ._.._....._,......_......—.,�....n.,s,✓av:burrs:w•iti:fur';;,.o^;^,'YL1.+R*SitlaGr 4 . 'Transportation ana Circulation The Master Plan provides for the development of the rejected Route I Freeway proposal and the adopted Route 39 Freeway. No specific commercial truck route for the exporting and importing of goods has been proposed in the blaster . flan. r No plans for a future ► .ass rapid transportation system have been provided. Bicycle trails have been designated in the Master Plan as part of the Trails Element , Preliminary Plan. n 5. Open Space and Parks The Master Plan does not provide a park standard of 8 acres per 1 ,000 population. Nor does it indicate a total open space standard of 16 acres per 1 ,000 r' population. i 4. 3. 2 Annexation As mentioned earlier in the population growth section, 0 Huntington Beach is anticipating the annexation of the j unincorporated areas within its s,iihere of influence. The ! City Council has determined that both the Bolsa Chica and Sunset Beach areas are within the city' s sphere of influence. (Refer to Figure 4-19) 1 . Bolsa Chica It has been estimated by the planning staff that the Bolsa Chica annexation would generate an additional S "ultimate" pnpulation of 26,000 residents to the city' s total by the year 2000. -' A portion of the area identified as part of the Bolsa Chica nay area is presently located within the exist- ing city boundary limits. Based on the general plan developed .for the entire northern section, the portion has been designated as a low density single family j residential area. It would consume approximately 219 ( acres , of which 20. 3 and 6. 2 acres Would be allocated for schools and parks , respectively. The remaining 192 acres would he used for an estimated 852 dwelling units. 110 T 0 �......;.ww.......-.;�I.t7� it`Lfi.n`i.n2is.✓r;H...r.::iJw..!l:i..:.GK:✓..•.✓.,.,-r«..v.....u..i�.a:...:••'xr:...,i:,.•ww_..i..w......iwnrrr••.......r..Y».r�.T..,..++. (r.:7 ^TL�w w.:wf.'•ea..4"v1'R^ I � } ' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ORS'j6C COUNTY ULIFORMA t �;.r�-, .: �� ., .;:. � ^"-^--BE �'^-ems, . SUNS 00 80LSA CHICA AREA ! ! '~•- 1 I 1 Fv 1 y I � i i FIGURE 4.19 1 I cJ SPHERE OF INFLUENCE huntingtvn beach planning ck pmbTwnt i�x r• The unincorporated section, in which the city is hope- fully anticipating annexation, accounts for a total of 1 ,625 acres. Of this total , 753 acres have been master �^ planned. The amount of acreage allocated for the different land uses is illustrated in Figure 4-20 .4 The gap section of the balsa Chica Ray is not expected to be developed unitl after 1990 . This is partly due to the phasing in of the proposed state rt; wildlife preserve. Preliminary estimates indicate � that the preserve would use 530 acres of the 972-acre i area. i Since the gap section is yet to be master planned, no detailed land use calculations can be tabulated. Consequently, rough estimates based on certain assumptions regarding this section of Bolsa Chica and typical population standards have been used in an attempt to quantify the extent of land uses in this section. A breakdown of estimated amounts of land use acreage is provided in Figure 4-21 . As indicated in Figure 4-21 , the overall density would be approximately 7 dwelling units per acre. This density has been used based on the assumption that this section would be developed similar to Huntington Harbour , an exclusive section of Huntington Beach, � primarily single family water-front homes. The amount of population ,generated would of co,)..rse depend heavily on the ultimate densities established for the area. In any case , the population capacity of the "gap" section should not exceed 10 ,000 addition- `•� al residents . 2. Sunset Beach The Sunset Leach area, consisting of the Bast Sunset Beach section and the Sunset Reach Proper accounts for eN. approximately 1.15 acres . AT Its present state, Sunset Beach is predominately residential , with a high percent- age of recreational land uses , street acreage and vacant land. It alsc contains a percentage of strip commercial along the Pacific Coast Highway. G ase on preliminary master plan of Bolsa Chica area by Signal Oil Co. C 112 C tiAriM.^,1T{-T:..::Yi.r-t�•.:�Y•.L�:bt_:bar e<7 .:.,....,.i.uw+.•....«......+...«........ivxrt:.7.•s ..a.;-.1.n...:a.':+.....rw..w......w».....w+.................+w. +-., i, FIGURE 1I-20 THE UNINCORPORATED SIiCTI ON f 0I: THE IIOLSA MICA AREA LOTS Olt DENSITY LAND USE ACRES UNITS PER ACRE Commercial 42. 3 -- Schools 15. 0 -- l� Parks 98. 5 -- R-1 139 .8 632 4.52 R-Z P.D. 287.9 4 ,262 14 .80 R-3 60.6 1 ,671 24.00 SUB-TOTAL 653.1 7,222 9. 58 THE "GAP" 971. 7 GRAND TOTAL 1 ,624 . 8 I Ain i f i ;I it k F l 113 1 1 ..,..... .....e L .V.1J.P:'.....�.,........._ .. ......,.+...v."w'wcs+.tr;b.yrwisaatwruY3;twi+■r;� FIGURE 4-21 LAi�O USE ESTIMATES Of- THE "GAP'* SECTION OF THE ILOLSA MICA AREA ULTIMATE POPULATION: 9 ,200 RANGE IN LAND USE ACRES ESTIMATE OR STANDARD Residential 386-364 7 DU per acre average Commercial 23-25 2.42 per 1000 population Schools 15-?0 One, possibly two elementary schools Parks 18-23 neighborhood Parks : 2. 5 acres per 1000 pop. Wildlife Preserve 530-530 Preliminary estimates TOTAL. 972-972 i' f 114 r' Be V 1 Ip Typical of many car.lirr develroped areas , Sunset Beach has its problems . Residentially, the majority of homes are older homes in fair to poor condition and would necessitate rehabilitation or complete renovation In the near future. There is also a situation of many "dual use" lots where C commercial-residential combinations exist. In addition, all of the commercial lots are sporadically located ;Tong the Pacific Coast highway. This commercial strip creates traffic and -:,nine problems , and other adverse conditions that do not hermit full economic benefits for retailers. Street patterns and access points to and from the Coast Highway and the beachfront are not well planned. Conse- quently, the area has a vehicular traffic problem. Street improvements are needed in almost all instances . ( There is also a lack of off-street parking. Also , the capacity of the street system would not serve any increase in traffic volumes . The existing public utilities are adequate in providing for the existing population. However, any increase in demand would create a strain on the existing water and sewage line capacities . Finally, aside from recreation, Sunset Beach is with- out any public facilities to serve its residents or visitors. In summary, Sunset Beach has several adverse conditions. But due to its prime beach front location and redevelop- ment potential, the area could provide an excellent opportunity to be replanned into a community that would certainly be an asset to Huntington Beach . 4 . 3. 3 Redevelopment M Typically, redevelopment occurs in older sections of a city F that have been plagued by blight or deterioration. Also , governmental decisions regarding the need for public D improvements , street or highway construction, public facilities , etc. , may also require redevelopment. Cy 115 a+ I � 1 Currently , Huntington Beacir is not overly burdened with the need for redevelopment. This situation is primarily due to the fact that the majority cif the city is relatively new and well maintained. Ovr.r 90 percent of the housing stock was built after 1961). Consequently, m►:ch of the commercial , industrial and other land uses were developed after residential was established. Overall , neighborhoods in Huntington Beach are presently in excellent physical condition. However, there are definite areas within the city where redevelopment is currently needed as well as areas that show signs of potential blight. The identification of these areas ►1nd a brief description of their conditions Is proviged in a housing survey used in the housing element. The major area necessitating redevelopment is the downtown section. This area contains many of the city' s older residential and commercial structures . Physically the area is victimized by wear and tear indicating a need for n rehabilitation of some structures and complete renewal for others. Included in the downtown section is a number of older commercial and retail stores. The economic decline and physical deterioration of this section of the downtown area correlates with the city' s urban growth that occurred in other sections of the city. Thus , the significance of the downtown area ns a primary commercial area has dwindled over the years. Current policy regarding the future of the downtown area �•` encourages the rejuvenation of the wren, through the process of redevelopment. The Top of the Pier Plan in an example of the city's desire to change the existing conditiah of the downtown area. However, the implementation of this plan and the redevelopment of the remaining sections of the downtown area is now being pursued through an agreement C'•` between the City and VTN and certain property owners. Because t.hc_ city has insisted on a heavy reliance on private capital as the sole mechanism for redevelopment, chances are it would be too expensive and difficult for private interest to rc.inuelop any sizeable portion of the downtown area. This in part would be due to the tremendous cost oil simply acquiring the land and assembling it for S See flousilm n ventor : Phnse I of the Housing Element or the �y General Plan, City of -Huntington Beach, California. 1972. 1-16 C: i. ,1 Ai new development . In addition , the diif.:culty of buying out the many individual ownerships and absentee landlords , �'► coupled with redevelopment cost and time , the area would not be very attractive to developers. Due t.o the nature of this situation, it becomes difficult to project when redevelopment of the downtown area will occur under the current growth policy. Obviously, it is inevitable that this section of the city will be redeveloped. but until some modifications in policy are made that would incorporate a redevelopment program that utilizes a combi- nation of private and public financial resources , redevelop- ment of the downtown section has too many uncertainties to make any predictions about the area. The importance of a well planned redevelopment policy progra►h would not only be beneficial to the downtown section but would certainly be applicable to the other areas necessitating future redevelopment. As mentioned earlier, other areas besides the downtown Section have been identified as possible problem areas. The need for program implementation to insure that these areas that shown signs of deterioration and decay are rehabilitated car. not be over emphasized. When not checked, n these adverse conditions tend to spread into adjacent neighborhoods and could reach the point where complete renewal is required to physically improve the entire area. The magnitude of this unfavorable situation is further complicated when the social and economic impacts as a result of an urban renewal program are recognized. This is particularly true in areas where the elderly and the poor are faced with the phychological , social and economic hardships created as a result of relocation provisions . Another interesting aspect regarding the future need of redevelopment is the theory that Huntington Beach may be confronted with a mass city-wide housing d%:�terioration problem by the end of this century. This prediction is based en the fart that since a large percentage of homes were built between 1960 to 1970 , the majority of these homes will have reached their marginal utility by the year 2000. 7 Thus , the possibility of a city-wide redevelop- ment project is not unreasonable to assume. However, the extent of the future conditions of these neighborhoods depends heavily on the upkeeping and maintenance by both the private and public sector through programs such as neighborhood conservation, code enforcement , and other housin element programs . 6' See Figure 4-22. 7 In 1972 approximately 70% of the existing homes were developed between 1960 and 1970. 117 «—�•w.+w.r.n+.....«.......r._—.,.....- .,,,_....,_..... .. ... .__,..,,-...�...,c. ..,....«__.._._... .......-.n.«r..«...w..a.+....u...:,t'ftt'::.:�p•L.r;E'i:.'CS:Fis�:..+i'.`Tv.2 , i r � I f CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ORANGE C"TY CALIFORMA ------------------- r ! No ri / � l Cie 1 r� FIGURE 4'22 EXloii"NG SURVEY AREAS CON AININK71% SUMAND, RD IOUSIM.7 huntington btuKh planning :kepartment I v,....v.aw.c•.f•�:+i:r>ara.ai+.r.r..-....�............�..-....�. -.-...._........+-».. ......... :r ,s�•:... .,.. r.ws.........-+..�,..,,.�+c,.^.a .cr n.er...,..�.�.r..•. ;-rt•:tf:t�:,.:r:'w{�"t:T,rrrgr.SS1AKL'..�� { l 4 .4 Economic Growth Based on Current 'fiends n Until recently there was very little concern or knowledge related to the economic impact of land use decisions . Under direction of the City Planning Commission the Planning Department has prepared revenue expenditure analyses of various types of land uses , specifically residential , commercial and industrial developments . Based on the summary charts of results found on the next pages , estimates of r) annual per acre dollar benefits or deficits by master plan categor;- are shown in Figure 4-2 3. Both the residential and commercial categories shown in figure 4-23 are considered to generate retail sales for the purpose of estimating revenue on a per acre basis. On a city-wide basis the residential and commercial are dependent upon each other for this revenue generation, that is , sales are generated by residential developments but there must be commercial developments of sufficient size and quantity to handle the residential demand. Thus , retail sales on a community-wide basis cannot be generated by each use but rather a i total retail sales revenue will be generated as a result ::f inter- action between the two. Based on a previously accepted standard of a maximum need for 2.42 acres of commercial per 1 ,000 population, Huntington Beach (i.e . existing city limits) would require only ti00 acres of commercial property. Based on projections of the current master plan there n is a total of 1 ,420 acres of commercial , or a surplus of 820 acres . Due to this surplus of ccmmercial acreage an estimate based on the net gain or .loss shown by master plan category was attempted with the assumption that the amount of revenue generated for retail sales would. be entirely influenced by residential development rather than the total commercial acreage. Therefore $4 ,175, the average retail f sales tax per commercial acre, was deducted from the commercial category in Figure 4-23, as can be seen in Figure 4-24. f` i If we were to assume that the commercial surplus of 820 acres could somehow generate $4 ,180 per acre of retail sales tax revenue the i economic deficits of $3,910,525 could be reduced by $3,427,600. s Thus , it seems obvious that any future growth policy and decisions must fully consider the importance of this surplus. In view of the questionable economic future of our city as revealed by the figures presented , the adopted Top of the Pier Plan (TOP) holds promise of offsetting, at least partially, the projected economic deficit. While exact figures of revenue generated per acre by the "TOP" plan would be difficult to accurately estimate, it is known that uses projected in this plan have economic potential far beyond that of typical commercial developments . 119 t FIGHRI: 4-23 n Summary of Estimated Not Gain or Loss by Master Plan Category ?Master Plan Net Gain or Category Loss/Ac. /Yr. Residential. r Low Density -5 350 i } (S or 7 un./ac. ) Mobile Home -$ 125 (9 un./ar.. ) Medium Density +$ 300 .1 (15 un. /ac. ) n Medium Ili Density +$ 625 US un ./ac. ) High Density +$11125 (35 un./ac. ) Commercial +$2,500 Industrial +$ 25 1 120 AL-1 doom&- -..—.... .......�.-...---...........,..................."...+,..�...rsa•..r;u•:.+..�w..r,,...----_..__.....-----..+r.sc.u..r+.•rw..a....a-..,:+r:.t:rk'ti!.-t..w vi 14:..�:e+."w�Fi:Fly:i"31+x'.i�'Yrsw+." 1.16 1M., 4 -'.iI r+ Estimated City Wide Net Gain or Lass Totals by Land Ilse. Category ?caster Plan Net Gain or Acres in Citywide Category Loss/Ac./Yr. l� Category Gain/Loss/Yr. "tesident al Low Density -$ 350 X 7,286 -$205S0 ,1D0 1 (5 or 7 un./ac. ) Mobilehomes -$ 125 45 -$ 5,625 (9 un./ac . ) Medium Density +$ 300 1 . 255 +$ 376,500 (15 un./ac. ) Medium Ili Density +$ 625 943 +$ S89037S (25 un./ac. ) High Density +$1,125 5.4* +$ 6,075 (35 un./ac .) Commercial -$1,675 1 ,420 -$2,378 ,500 Industrial +$ 25 2 ,070 +$ 51 ,750 $3,910,525 10 estimated to nearest $25 * Designated in the ;Master Plan of study area "C" , a ,IOTE: The high density residential designation master planned in. study area "D" are based on a population density of 60 persons per acre. Using a standard family unit count of 2.1 persons per high density dwelling unit, the total number of dwelling units per acre would be approximately 29 units per acre. This unit per acre category would fall in the mediun-high density range as apposed to high density (3S and above units her acre) . 121 t f. ........._....-•y:.s,x,.....»......_......... ..._�..-._..,. ,,..._.........+...,».a,.,.».rceTS.a.-xi+TnV7.LT'r.:�;"x� ax'ir• 4 1 FIGURE 4-25 COMMERCIAL 6 PROFESSIONAL CITY REGEINUE/EXPENDITURE a PER ACRE SUA�fM ommu;.ity Rcgional Office Non- Invent. Inventory Areospgce Commercial" Commerciall Professional Type Type Type Revenue • 4 Property Tax S 651 S1,427 $2,505 S573 $402 S 765 Retail Sales 4 ,180 60,679 -- -- -- -- i 4 Bus. Lic. Fees 112 9? 112 44 44 33 Utility Tax 253 253 200 253 253 253 j - 5 ,19b 8 ,3Y�? 2,817 $87U 699 J1� ,U51 Expenditures. 1 Police $1 ,892 $1,892 $1 ,000 $ 29 $ 29 ; 29' - t Fire 269 269 269 269 269 269 Pub. Wks . Maint . 144 144 144 144 144 144 Misc. Gen. Fund 201 201 201 261 201 201' Non-Gen Fund 202 202 202 202 202 202• i , 2,708 ..2,708 $1,816 $845 845 S 845 Net Gain or Loss/ Acre/Year +$,488 +$5,632 +$1 ,001 +S 2S -$146 +S 206 1. Huntington Center only example 2. McDonnel-Douglas only example FIGURE 4-26 RESIDENTIAL E CITY REVENUE/EXPENDITURE ! PER ACRE SUNR4ARY Singl. No. ile Cando. Condo. Condo. 4-plex Apts . Apts . Apts. Family homes (? !:::./ (32 un./ (IS un./ (14 un./ (15 un./ (20 un./ (30 un.l (S un./ (8.5 un./ ac.) ac.) ac.) ac.) ac.) ac.) ac.) ac .) ac.) REVENUE Property Tax $ 580 155 a 629 809 $ 916 $ 775 568 5 709 991 Retail Sales Tax 270 272 294 504 630 S88 630 840 1260 Per Capita Rev. 400 300 420 721 901 841 761 901 1201 Bus. Lic. Fees - 20 - - - 84 90 120 180 Utility Tax 120 132 144 2S2 312 252 276 36') 540 Trailer Lic. Fee - 289 - - - - - - - 1370 1163 1487 2286 S2759 2540 32325 2930 4172 EXPENDITURES Police $ 285 $ 187 $ 217 $ 372 $ 465 $ 616 660 S 880 $1320 Fire 269 269 269 269 269 269 269 269 Z69 ` Pub. Wks. Maint. 320 144 144 144 144 320 144 144 144 l Misc. Gen. Fund 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 Non-Gen. Fund S88 491 607 896 1070 1012 935 1070 1359 Refuse Collect. 110 - - - - - - - - 1773 1291 1438 8 2 2149 2506 2209 2 3293 :r # Net Gain or Loss/Acre/Year -$ 403 . -$ 124 49 +$ 404 +$ 610 + 34 +$ 116 +$ 366 +$ 879 •J ��{{yy ,P 1 � Specialty shopping areas can yield retail sales per square foot several times that of "typical" commercial. Resort hotels generate high volumes of money from out-of-town visitors . Professional offices while not generating revenue from retail sales yield a much higher property tax revenue than commercial developments . 1hile some of the surplus mentioned can be used by regional commercial or recreational-oriented commercial it appears that there will be a significant surplus of commercial zoning. Prices 7 being paid for prime multiple family Land are now approaching those being paid for less desirable commercial locations. Therefore the city will face increasing demands for rezoning of surplus commercial r' properties and thus it would be advisable to formulate a policy at the earliest possible date. I i i 1 f s t •j S 124 '—+-+.w.w.a.ai�wr..or a...�. -.........-...............-_......_......-.w-..w..,.w..,..a.:t4.... ..^ti ....,....«....-..-._.._......,_ ..-. ..._...,.._._....� .__.-...•.« t 1 SECTION 5. 0: IMPACTS i SECTIONAL HIGHLIGHT URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Based on a cost/revenue analysis Huntington Beach will have to absorb a net economic loss as a result of it's growth policy of approving low density residential developments. Huntington Beach may experience an under subscription of general commercial areas due to a surplus of commercial OD land uses. The redevelopment of the downtown section will economically benefit the City but will create some adverse effects . Both Route 1 and Route 39 "transportation corridors" will have a significant impact on the land use, population and economy of Huntington Beach. 31 Circulation will be a problem in specific areas of Huntington Beach in the near future. The future demand for public utilities in the Bolsa Chica area may present a problem to Huntington Beach. NATURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Huntington Beach will not be able to -eet it's open space and park goals in tOTMS of acres per 1000 population. Ash- 125 I� ..•1.Sfcu.•.... .l arsw.«.�+..-+...... ..... ..-...... ...... ...._.._...._....-....r.+tt:•itl...a•.........»_. -- _..............w ��._............+..v.wrr.,..b.t liva'.hN .. .,..V',..�:.5 .. y i The recognition of the shoreline as -2 natural resource may be threatened due to pressures cf development. rti The beaches as a recreational resource will continue to attract thousands of people into the area. The amount of influx into the beach area will create both positive and negative effects on the urban and natural environments. As oil wells cease to produce, large pockets of land will be available. It is estimated that over 3000 acres of oil zones will be vacant. Major facilities and areas in Huntington Beach are located on fault lines. In addition most of the unincorporated section of the area anticipated to be annexed by Huntington Beach is located along a major faultline. With the exception of the Huntington Beach mesa and Bolsa Chica mesa, all of the city is located in a flood plain. s, SOCIAI, AND CULTURAL IMPACTS Under the Current Growth Policy the need for low and moderate income housing wili not be met. '. The majority of housing in Huntington Beach will continue to be geared towards the needs of families in higher income ` brackets . Due to increasing development and the influx of more families into Huntington Beach, the school systems will be faced with tremendous costs of providing educational facilities and services. r° c; G : 126 ' t ...�...�W^.QiM.V.M\I•cl.lw.wow..w....��........�.�............�..�............�....w...w.....w.i. ..x .. w-...•.:......................rw.vrtYX..:17Rl+w.C4:+s.M..,wa4(S..YNat'.'!.:.Mwiq"fw+w+�...+.M+r^+."^' r A rti 1 5.0 IMPACT OF CURRENT GROWU POLICY 5.1 Introduction 5.1.1 PURPOSE The primary purpose of this section is to generally identify the most. significant impacts of the current growth policy. The objective of this exercise is to reinforce the foundation for the development of alternative growth policies based on an evaluation k of the current growth policies versus the quality of life goals. This is not to imply that this effort is a single purpose attempt to condemn everything about the current growth policy. But the underlying purpose is to identify those impacts where unfavorable conditions may develop under the current growth policy. 5.1 .2 METHODOLOGY The methodology of approach for identifying what are the future impacts consist of two basic steps : i a. Identifying where a collision of values exist between current growth policies and quality of life goals . b. Identifying impacts by making value judgements regard-ing the current growth policy. 127 { �''Y..:.r.h`r+'�.i+i:�iJ.rM.w...,....�_.. _. ... ...-.....�_«-......... .�...�......<.•t+e•ti"....'. .s..-..—._... . ...�...�.........««.....-_,.w_........ ...u.,r..•,,tiK..rs�.+e,:c.�YS�,..`eS;:.?medlar" 1 . . i i 4 1 . Current Growth Policy Versus Quality of Life Go:►ls The basis for determining what are the significant impaci. � stems from sound criteria. The significance of estab- lishing criteria that i, bath relevant and easily understood is a primary ta:;k for the evaluation of impact, . The questions of (1) What is an impact? and (2) To what degree is it an impact? are rational inquiries . In order ' = to agree upon what constitutes an impact , the criteria used to identify impacts must reflect an analytical approach that can be acceptable by the great majority of residents. The criteria that the planning staff has developed evolves from an analysis of the current growth policy versus the quality of life goals. For the purpose of clarification let us define these two factors . a. CURREM GROWTH POLICY: As referred to throughout this report , the termi- nology implies the conditions that are developing or would develop as a result of an informal set of operational policies directly or indirectly influencing the growth of Iluntington Beach. b. QUALITY OF LIFE GOALS This term refers to the generally accepted community goals , desires , aspirations and dreams regarding the immediate and long range future of Huntington Beach. As the basis for a meaningful evaluation and as a consciaus effort to provide a means of community input, the general implication derived from the stated I objectives and principles in the established policy plan8 are used to reflect the concepts of the Quality of Life Goals. The purpose of using the Policy Plan l is that it provides a source of information that relates directly to the people of Huntington Beach. It offers a mechanism for communicative dialogue that can be ` generally understood and easily referred to within the � content of this section. r � See r Polic • Plan for lluntin ton Beach California prepare y t ;e I untington Beach Citizens Conunittee for goals and Objectives . October, 1972. 128 1 Therefore, given the Current Growth Policy and the Policy Plan as two major factors that reline to the future destiny of Huntington Beach , a comparative analysis can be made between the policies of growth and the concepts of duality of life, thus , providing; one method of identifying; impacts. 2 . Value .judgements Regarding; Impacts A second approach towards the identification of major impacts is through the assertion of value judgements . Many of the stated objectives and principles as outlined in the Policy Plan do not necessarily relate to the city' s growth. The implications of the policies are used when possible but in the c.se where a comparative analysis of Current Growth Policy versus Quality of Life Goals is weak or unworkable, value judgements are made to identify impacts . While the value judgements may not directly reflect the desires and/or opinions expressed in the Policy Plan, they are nonetheless conscious statements that open the door for public debate and discussion by all those who have a concern of the c.ity' s future growth. 5.1 . 3 General Summary ' The Currear Growth Policy is to accomodate and provide for growth without full consideration of the long range impacts . In terms of the objectives and principles as set forth in the Policy Plan for Huntington Beach, the Current Growth Policy does not fully reflect the goals , desires and "Quality of Life" that are implied or stated in the Policy flan. In many of the comparative policies of the urban, natural and social environment there exists, some degree of incom- patibility or collision of ialues between the Cisrrent Growth Policy and the Policy Dian (Quality of Life Goals) , The degree of incompatibility and level of impact is discussed in greator detail in the following; sections . f. �.2 Urban Environmental Imjjacts 129 {L.w.rna.a•...c..rw......... .. .. .. ... ...... ...., ......-.�..... :.spin• .. ...... .. -... ....�... .,s-ar _,i. z.. •..CSL"./':...:5.':Ss.•�:zY:. � I S I 1 5.2.1. Residential Whereas it is the stated object-1ve of the Policy Plan to r f "encourage and maintain a well balanced variety of residential densities and uncrowded living environments to provie the highest quality of life .for residents of the city" , the policy implication, based on stated principles, is to reduce residential densities , and thus reducing the amount of population growth in residential zones . The Current Growth Policy regarding residential develop- ment is that of decreasing the amount of multiple family =f zoning. This policy is highly compatible with the I ' supporting principles of the above objective. j !lcwever, the Current Growth Policy also encourages Lhe continuing rapid development of all residential areas as designated in the city's master plan as well as those areas proposed to be annexed. Consequently, while there would be a reduction of multiple family residdential development , E the amount of single family residential development would nonetheless offset any considerable limitations of popula- tion that would otherwise be generated by multiple family development. This , in fact, is due to the density allocations that have been master planned for residential developm,>nt. See Figure 5-1 . The existing master plan has allocated over 9 ,500 acres of residential land use . ;t has been estimated tha: the pronosed residential acreage would acco,:.modate an ultimate , population of over 247, 700 residents with"n the existing city boundaries. 9 The impacts of continuous rapid residential development are quantifyable in economic terms of city revenues and expenditures. This is particularly true in lieu of the fact that the great majority of future residenit,ial land uses will be single .family dwelling units or low density residential development based on the Current Growth Policy. I 9 Refer to Section 4 .0 : Physical Growth-Existing Master Plan 1.30 AL FIGURI: 5-1 *'1 RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES BY MASTER PLAN STUDY AREAS (DENSITY CATEGORIES BY ACRES) STUDY MOBILE bfEDIUM AREA LOW HOME MEDIUM HIGH HIGH "A" 2982 39 195 39 1377 392 164 Picot 2512 288 112 5 "D" 415 379 623 ACREAGE TOTALS 7286 38 1254 938 5 f �7 131 f i .•nrq.sts a.ileer+.e�.r........-,._ _.�..... ...._. .•....a:,:'...-:.;...•..:nr�. .. .."' _ X'�Nnrwlr I Based on a planning staff report regarding tin analysis of city revenues and expenditures of residential developments , single family units per acre in Iluntin ton I3each are a net loss to the city at the present time. 10 This would indicate that unless a change in the revenue/ expenditure profile is made, future: single family residen- tial development will continue to be an economic loss to �• the community. See the Economic Growth, Section 4. 4, for more detail. 5.2. 2 Commercial Major principles of the commercial development section of the Policy Plan are as follows : 1 . Control general commercial development by reducing amount of commercially zoned land. 2. Encourage redevelopment of downtown commercial . �. 3. Encourage tourism as a means of commercial development. i The Current Growth Policy regarding commercial development has been primarily geared to allowing development of all commercially zoned land without full consideration of the impacts of such development. To a large extent, this policy .is in conflict with the principle of controlling general commercial devolopment. r. As mentioned in Section 4.0 of this document, approximately 1,400 acres have been master planned for commercial use . The great majority or this total is in the category of general commercial use. As a general rule of measurement, typically a population standard of 2. 42 commercial acres per 1 ,000 population is acceptable. Thus , given an ultimate population of 275,000 , the amount of commercial generally needed would be 666 acres. Of course, other considerations such as the economic C ? efficiency, level os service and type of facilities must be further evaluated. But even with these considerations Huntington Beach would do finitely have a surplus of I commercial acreage, i URevenue/Expen 1ture Analysis of Residential Developments , City � of Huntington Beach, California. Jania ry, 1473. 132 .... a..••..1:.,♦ ..A tvn...a r-w.+....,....w.....�........r.e•..• ......... •pew...n,M.t.«,.+,`..w.�..w w.•Mh'-.yMw1. A 1 Y The impacts of this situation could result in creating; a most unfavorable condition. An excess of similar type cotmnercisl facilities may create a condition of over subscription. This may hamper individual retailers from achieving the optimury level of economic stability. Many will be forced to operate on marginal profits where retail sales may be diluted due to too much c011111etit.ion. Thus the ability of retailers to improve their operations and facilities would practically be impossible. Consequent- ly, theses facilities that would be operating on a weak i<< economic foundation would be forced to sell out. A chain reaction of high turn over and vacancy rates , coupled wi tli a reduction of assessej valuation would finally result in a condition where these facilities would be an econo;,Ac and physical liability to the entire comp+unity. 5.2. 3 Industrial Development A comparative anal}-sis between the Currant Growth 1'alic and the Policy Phan indicates that there exists a high y level of compatibility. Both policies seek to encourage the Development of land zoned or mister planned Afor industrial use. Since bath policies are compatible this would indicate that there wou)ci not be a collision of values and therefor^, there would be no impacts , j 1101'ever, since some r•f the sij,ni ficant imp;Icts cou1-I not f be identified in the above approach, let us briefly discuss some of the implications of the Current Growth Policy j regarding industry. Perhaps , tine most important inquiry is what would be the implications of the .amount of industrial land planned for future development. The total amount of industry al land , as Well as the rate and distribution of industrial develop- � ri ment, are significant factors relevant to urban grown. Over 2,000 acres has been master planned for industrial use. This accounts for approximate) 14 , city`s total acrea e. ,Y percer;t of the g Approximatrl} 1 ,100 acres or 55 percent of this total presently remains undevelope,l. C) Due to the tremendously rapid development of the city in the last decade and the typical lag of industrial develop- anticipated the majority of .future industrial development is anticipated tO occur within the next decade. The question then becomes how ti Ould Huntington Beach t �} compare with ots""tier communities in terms of total industrial acreage? �+ 133 ------------ 1 I A comparative analysis between other communities similar j in population size to Huntington Beach shows that :.acreage- f. wise, industry would account for a normal percentage: of the total land uses. 11 Another means or quantifying the amount of industry that the city has planned for is through the use: of a population standard. An established standard of 8 act-es per 1 ,000 population is used here. 2 Given an ultimmte population of 275,100, Ilur• Lington Beach would support a total of 2,200 acres o industrial land. From the above methods of comparative analysis we can he generally safe in stating that overall the amount of n 1 industrial land master planned for Huntington peach is ` satisfactory based on population standards . 5. 2.4 Transportation and Circulation An evaluation between the Current Growth Policy and the Policy Plan reveals that there exist some level of incompatibility regarding the policies of transportation and circulation. In regard to freeway development , the Current Growth Policy continues to encourage and plan for the development of both the Coastal transportation corridor and the Huntington Beach Freeway (Route 39) . The Policy Plan implies a policy to "minimize penetration of the city by freeways". This statement does not notes- sarily denote a halt to freeway development but it does j express a concern regarding the alignment of freeways . The present alignment of both routes does signify a conflict with the principle of restricting freeway penetration. 1 . Annexation and anticipated residential development of �^ the Bolsa Chica area is in the deleted Route 1 Freeway alignment. .1 Keker to Secticin 4. 0. Physical Growth-Existing Master Plan. C*j i 12 Total Industrial Land Area Standard Established by . the Los Angeles Regional Planning Commission was set at one acre/17.5 people ar 1 ,000 people/8 acres. i . 134 • :aa:'f.iS..:.�:..:R;-::dl::.a,-n.c.bv.,.y.,... .,..y, ......w.....,o.,,..'t....' .... .....M*.r�..,•.aa.a r.^ ''I: _.. _. ...... .., ;,^,7C'' iC:'. . .. •y ..•Y,^/r,CJz. . . .. .; •,�,�� .:f.JiSr'«.''i.:. ifl.: .r< •t i n 2. In lieu of the Current Growth Policy to continue to encourage the future development of both Routes 1 and 39 either as freeways or "transportation corridors" development of areas within these transportation corridors has occurred. Since there exist an uncertainty as to whether or not the freeways will be developed, let us briefly examine the possible impacts. 1 . Construction of freeways . a. Rout4 1 and Route 39 may necessitate realignment due to continual residential development along their path. b. Any designated path of freeways would penetrate into existing or proposed residential neighbor- hoods consequently causing some relocation of families. Also, commercial and industrial facili- ties may have to relocate. C. Depending on the designated paths , the develop- ment of Routes 1 and 39 may serve as a catalyst that would accelerate the: rate of urban growth. 1) Route 1 : Rate of development in the Bolsa Chica area will he influenced by freeway development. 2) Uoutes 1 and 39 : Development of the free- ways would have a significant impact on the rate of redevelopment of the downtown section. 3; Routes 1 and 39 : Development of the free- way. would accelerate the development of prime industrial sites located adjacent or 0 within proximity to the freeways , .1) Routes I and 39 : Development of commercial areas at major access and exit points to freeways would occur. 0 2. No Freeways • a. Some form of "permanent" development would occur within the designated paths of the freeways unless zoned otherwise. In all probability , under the Current Growth Policy these corridors would continue to be developed for urban land use, d 135 .... _.. _._..._......._.,,,,�.,..e•r.axna;rrsarA�:rsti::'.rr►.w i',yf:'4tt.r t i . t i b. Development , or in the case of the downtown section, redevelopment of areas that would other- wise be accelerated due •to freeway development would be developed in any case . ' In regards to arterial highways and secondary streets both the Policy Plan and the Current Growth Policy encourages development of all arterial Highways . Emphasis of the Current Growth Policy is to provide arterial highways in conjunction with or in advance of all new land developments . The impact of this policy is that of accommodating and indirectly generating a rapid urban growth. Rapid extension of arterial streets has an impact on the size, rate and distribution of population growth . Size ' The simple fact that the extension of streets does pave the way for development, has a significant bearing on the amount of population that would be accommodated or generated by new development. Consequently, the amount of arterial development coincides with the amount of development. 4bvinusly, the reverse is also true r;here the development of land is dependent upon the extension of arterial streets . In any caso the relation between the development of arterial streets and types of urban development is significant in terms of population growth . Rate r. A rapid rate of arterial highway development can accelerate a rapid rate of urban development. Thus , a rapid rate of urban development would generate a rapid spurt of popula- tion growth. C. Distribult inn The extension of arterial streets to undeveloped areas can obviously generate urban development in areas away from the city. The extension of streets can form and shape the physical layout of the city and distribute population in �; .. terms of gross population densities . �1 In conjunction with the Policy Plan stated objective of ail efficient transportation system is the implied principle of a good circulation pattern. 136 f / +Y4'...P.' r ..•I•.s .. f. ... ..fl.•Ct....'l..'.. ...:1V...•'Jls. ...ia....ru i. ^ur. s.s..'Y w" ..... ..i-. . . f'. ..•......a..+ .N:zu..«.-... .< .. .5.... �nrf.w T.n(t, r1 Under the Current Growth Policy the futcii•e rate of popul�t- ,� tion increase will generate a substantial rate or increase , in the number of vehicles on the city's streets . In addition, the future traffic that would be concentrated along activity corridors will add to increasing volumes of traffic in specific areas . r Whether these traffic volumes are rluantifiable in terms of average daily traffic flow or peak l;nur flows , the increases will create a significant impact of the future circulation pattern. An evaluation of future iwp:?cts on the circulation pattern stems from a detailed analysis of existing and future conditions. Recently the city hired a( ri� consulting firm to review and update a comprehensiveestudy on traffic and circulation in Huntington beach . Within ` the near future a full report will be avail.nble. Therefore e10 purpose of this discussion is to briefly hig hli 'ting circulation conditions and identify future problem areas on the city's circulation pattern. Figure 5-2 illustrates the latest traffic flow volumes recorded in Huntington Beach. With the exception rf a Few specific areas , increases in traffic volume have not become a major problem in the city. Generally, accessi- bility and movement is good due to the level of service. � i That i.s , in terms of street design , freedom to maneuver, ' traffic flow capacities , signalization , anti other favor- able conditions , the level of service is good. . However, based on previous traffic studies and known t conditions , there are some major problem areas . The criteria used in the identification of these problem areas are based on two major fac rs ; 1 tr and (2) speed and delay stuclies . The f ( ) accident rates s problem areas are illustrated in Figure 5z'cr circulation In regards to the future circulation pattern , the city-wide level of service will depend, to a large extent, on the city' s efforts to alleviate or resolve existing and anti- cipated circulation problems . As the basis for further study, identification of "probable" circulation problem areas is illustrated in Figure 5-4 . Identification of the5e specific intersections and corridors land uses , street alignments , is based on certain assumptions and facts regarding future � anti traffic g generators. 1 `ormation was obtained from traffic stud Lampman and Associates; TOPICS November, 1972. Y by Alft 137 `. .0 r.:i+.:......1.,.......—..... ._. .._ ..,.—.,..,..,.,,,,,,,n.w,r•w..w..c.ava.�-srywsyyad . IL J"SA 'JA)O KAI WC I AOttN -%i�s LR L LdrL ff4 ,--I LJFJ Kff-Q 400 lrl.w ;!4CO !Acn fklfO 203W 62w 8 71 T&LURt 4LO ELUS Elf o " E 0 11 04 0600 132W f 900 1.; ON10 6,0 N 1.es 81' L ...- `4 1 4 -61ca—ill tcq—.jj 42 AYLANTA .142 0 V LAM 2"Uu PA$"R Cf %[ml(S MR 24 1,Q'H FtQM All,I FIGURE 5.2 TRAFFIC FLOW twntington bench planning department 138 -t CITY OF ----- HUNTINGTON BEACH I ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA of n �lti, i ACCIDENTS INTERSECTION RATE ABOVE I I CONTROL LIMIT =twSTREET SEGMENT ABOVE CONTROL LIMIT�y DELAY ti +' V STOP TIME DELAY ABOVE AVERAGE 1trre"e TRAVEL TIME BELOW STANDARD y FIGURE 5.3 EXISTING TRAFFIC CIRCULATIbN PROBLEM AREAS huntington becxh *nnincg department 139 .._�__.._ •.r.r,..r r::• .......... .---..._ __,.-.._. ....__ .___.�.-. . �.,......•a^rnlsv.rrn+�,+..;anN,1t•:a+,: r .I :.. 7T .G . CITY OF ' eue�� HUNTINGTON BEACH MAMIE COUNTY CALTURNIA }!' C'� ANTICIPATED HIGH RATE ACCIDENT AREAS C s A INTERSECTION .� ' .■r a gRTERIAL a�F �1 t ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC DELAY AREAS 0 INTERSECTION ARTERIAL C,�I i� FIGURE 5.4 FUTURE C1R UL�TION Ila, PROBLEM AREAS huntington Beach planning department 140 'I 3; "+i.:FC.�r• ...,..4'.:,r�i!;::::nczel".r.;s:.�a � ...• ..... ............«.....a...... r:x................ ,...:,......•-.., . v»,v. •i+Cit4.13,:IY+�'s.'hJ.V,tr1:•._i.Y_174:..:"r.it•tMCnrM+i+. •Lr%Iara++.lW..rw.t4�f. 1 , , 5 h 5. 2. 5 public Utilities r� The implications of the folic)' Plan regarding; public utilities i;r to provide all necessary utility systems to meet projected demands . The Current Gro%t}i Policy has bef-:ti that of providing n Slater and sewer lines as ra pidly I f as funds are available. andThis policy has served as another impetus for urban growth has as in the tremendously rapid rate of j development of the city. l . lVa t e r In 1972 the average (}aily consumption for the city Was 20 million gallons . Assuming that tite average daily consumption per person remains relatively constant, tine average daily consu a level of over 34 . 5 million gmption would reach allons for the city. In addition, if the ci t)• succeeds in annexing the unincorporated fiolsa Chita area the demand for water supply is estimated to add an ndditional gallons . 3 million r, Thus , Zhe ci ty's total average daily Would be approximately3g. 5 million gallons.consttmptiArr i�� 1d ?.. .Sewe r '• The average Orange County resident discharges 100 g"llons of water per dery into the seraage system. :\ssurni rig that this rate will r•em, by the period of ultimate poi�ulation$saturation, thet average fl." of Water discharge Mould be over 275,00() Million gallons per day. 1 5. 3 NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS he recent Ttationr tl , state, regional and local concern re I' the quality Of our natural environment and resources hr;$regarding ;1 vary Sig ilificant role in the future of man ,s total environment. • Played Most communities are nnk realizingvxronment. be confronted. Governmental decionstmunt�reflect at issues most expressed by Its citizens and be within tite legal he desires developed by all levels of government. b guidelines 141 i n The issues pertaining to the degree of environmental quality are most controversial and complex. The majority of lortIl communities are realizing that "trade-offs" must be made in order to ensure a balance of physical elements that form the fabric of their community. The purpose of tills section is to evaluate the Current Growth policy impact on the natural environment of Huntington Beach. Four key elements have been identified as significant environment and resources policies relevant to growth in Huntington Bench. An ' evaluation of each policy is made to determine the level of impact. 5. 3.1 OPEN SPACE ANb PARKS C; The open space and parks program in Huntington Beach is Perhaps one Of its proudest assets . The city has been more fortunate than many communities in that due to recent expansion it has had the opportunity to designate a sufficient amount of acreage for open space and C parks. Currently the city has approximately 2,736 acres of public and private Open space. It aIso has plans for future develop vent of approximately 570 acres of proposed open space. In addition, with the development of new school sites it is C'estimated that the total school open space would account for approximately 1 ,001 acres. Thus , the total open space, including schools , would he 3,495 acres . (See Figure 5-5) . At the present time the city's total open space acreage per population ratio is 18. 24 acres/1 000acr present "city par : " per population ratio i�f51441on. he ; 1 ,000 population. While the amount of proposed open space acreage for future use will add to the total open space, the amount of Population increase will. actually decrease the open space/Population ratio to 14. 35 acres per 1 ,000 population. The City park ratio will also decrease to 4 .18 acres/l ,000 Population. See Figure 5-6. In February of 1973, the City Council voted to increase its previous parks goal from 2.5 acres per 1 ,000 residents to Q�'' 5.0 acres per 1 ,000 population. While this goal may he adequate fer its present needs , the city will not meet future demands for parks acreage. xty 'ar s include beaches neighborhood community,parks. y, and 142 AVk f • .1 r. FIGURE :i-5 SUMNURY OF OPEN SPACE Existing Proposed Category Acres Acres TOTALS •� Permanent Publicly 1 ,561 572 2 ,133 Owned Open Space j Permanent Privately 361 0 361 Owned Open Space School Sites 814 1.87 1 ,001 Total Open Space 2 ,736 759 3,495 ' n t, t 143 .�...� ,........ ...... ..... _....... ... ..........._._.� ... ee.'.t:'n',.•'!:. . r ._...._.,`. ....�... ._._.._... ....«.�. .�.ww v+cvrw. ..I fY+v:, . •!'rt,�'.M.'D^f.J)..w... r FIGURE 5-6 r OPEN SPACH AND PAI(KS DATE POPULATION ACREAGE ACRES/1 000 POP, j July 1973 150,000 2 ,736 18. 24 Ultimate 275,000 3,495 14 . 35 r i July 1973 150,000 816 5.44 r^' r s Ultimate 275,100 1 ,066 4.18 i f r ' 0f ' V 144 f I r1 As stated in the Policy Plan the recommended standard for total open space is a "minimum of 16 acres of combined private, city and regional parks land, including 8 acres of A city parks land per 1 ,000 persons". Consequently, there exists a difference of policy values in regards to future open space ai.t; park needs . In order for the city to close the gap between the difference it will have to expand its present parks and recreation programs and plan n for additional open space. 5.3.2 SHORE LINE AND BEACHES Recognizing that the shoreline and beaches are a tremendous r' asset to the community and region, Huntington Beach has vigorously pursued a policy of balancing the future use of the shoreline between its natural , recreational and economic resources . Both the Policy flan and the Current Growth Policy reflect a desire to preserve and conserve the shoreline for its j natural features. ` Both policies also seek to enhance the physical and recrea- tional quality of the shoreline by providing supportive facilities and services . Finally, both pol.ici.es express a desire to make the beach . area ecoitomically self-sufficient by providing an optimum level of economic opportunities . Because both the Policy Plan and the Current Growth Policy are highly compatible, the identificaticn of impacts based on a collision of values is non-existent. However, let us briefly expand on the growth implications of the three major policy categories. Shoreline Preservation and Conservation i I" The physical features and natural resources of the � i shoreline are unique characteristics uncommon to any non-coastal community. Consequently , these character- istics are valued by millions of people who come from all parts of the region to enjoy the shoreline and its beaches . II ' Besides acknowledging the economic and land value of I � the shoreline, the value of its natural resources for wildlife and "human activity use" is unmeasurable. lay l ,J • 1 A• Thus the permanent protection of the shoreline as a natural resource and as a balanced ecosystem is a primary issue of both residents and non-residents alike. The threat of disrupting the natural environment and ecology of the coastal zone has prompted the recent establishment of the Coastal Zone Conservation Commission. However' the Current Growth Policy of r1 Huntington Beach has adhered to efforts to preserve and conserve the shoreline and beaches . 2. Supportive Facilities and Services Perhaps the greatest uses of the shoreline have been Ci .� the beach-oriented recreational activities . At the present time, there are four public beach sites designated as regional parks and one designated as a state beach. (Figure 5-7) . C Consequently, because the bench is a unique recreational resource it attracts many thousands of people each month. It has been estimated that last year over 3.6 million , people visited the municipal beaches. C. Figure 5-8 indicates number of beach user days for 1972. Of this total , approximately 80 to 85 percent are nott-residents of Huntington Beach. ' Currently, the influx of people into the beach area cI has presented a major problem to the city. This is especially true during the summer months when "user days" are the greatest. The large number of people coming to the beach area has a significant i impact . p the amount of support C facilities and services that the city must provide. While the city has provided many facilities and services such as parking, recreational and beach facilities , lighting, maintenance and operating personnel , the demand for facilities and services will continue to grow in the future. C 146 Aft C i A ' A rrGURr.. 5-7 WNTINGTON BEACH PUBLIC BEACIIES 1 BEACHES ACMES Huntington State Bolsa Chica State 180 City Beach 104 Huntington beach Co. (State Beach) 50 73 TOTAL: 407 Xft Q : d 'J 147 s n FIGURE 5-8 n. 1972 BEACft USER DAYS MONTH USER DAYS MONTH USE-it DAYS JAN 999300 JULY 951 ,316 FEB 64,857 AUG 731,654 MAR 188 ,800 SEPT 176,393 APR 58 ,725 OCT 44 ,963 .R MAY 585,000 NOV 24 ,254 JUNE 692,215 DEC 200005 TOTAL USER DAYS, 1972 - - - - 3,647 ,482 n 1 * Municipal Bench A n q! 148 I wr i A Considering that the Current Growth Policy is that of accommodating population growth , a reasonable assump- tion is that many tiew residents will be using the beaches. With a projected population increase of over 125,000 new residents by the year 2000, coupled with a regional population increase, the demand for utilization of the beech as a recreational resource [► will increase dramatically. Thus , the side effects such as traffic congestion and operating expenditures will substantially increase. In terms of cost and revenues the present situation has presented a problem to the city of Huntington ' Beach. The amount of expenditures has been consider- ably higher than the amount of city revenues . For example, in Fiscal Year 1971 there was a deficit of over $520,000 for operation of the beach area. 15 The Current Growth Policy has been that of making the �? beach area economically self-sufficient through methods of increasing revenues. While this policy has helped to alleviate the inbalance between costs and revenues , expenditures still exceed revenues. 3. Economic Opportunities of Deach Area The desire to makes the beach area economically self- sufficient has been highly expressed by citizens and city government policy alike. ID One of the primary methods that has been emphasized has been the encouragement of beach area as a tourist attraction. Revenues that could be generated through commercial , recreational , residential as Office-professional develol�ment would �morewell thanamake t . the bench area economically self-sufficlent. The impact of this policy is on the need to revitalize the presently unfavorable physical and economic condition of the beach area. This would require a redevelopment .f' program that would provide for both public and private financial resources . 1 • or isca, car 1971 the sources of revenue for the operation Of the city beach totaled $466,419. 66. were $994 ,481.13 leaving a deficit of $S28c061-47. e toalXl7Aendit nnuaires Bud et 1972-73, "Budget Message",1tY Pu ication, g '��. A1r. I)avic, D. Rowlands , i ASft 149 i I The major project proposed for the development of the downtown section and beach area is the "Top of the ell Pier Plan". It is hoped that development plan would solve many of the existing and anticipated economic and physical problems . However, while there would certainly be a number of positive results of such a development , there could also be some negative impacts. Some general assumptions can be made as to what economic, physical and social impacts may occur as a result of the Top of the Pier development. Specifically, in regards to such urban elements as residential densities , C ' public improvements , transportation and circualtion and such natural environmental issues such as the beaches as well as social issues such as relocation of families and rehabilitation of homes may all create ' significant impacts as a result of the TOP plan. A detail study of the impacts of the Top of the Pier Plan should be provided prior to the period of development. 5. 3. 3 OIL Indigenous to Huntington Beach is its oil resources. Over r' 1 ,000 oil producing wells are currently in operation. However, since 1960 the number of producing oil wells has been declining. The Current Growth Policy regarding oil zones has been C that of removing oil pumping units after they cease to produce oil. This policy is in compliance with the stated principle in the Policy Plan. Provide for the removal of oil zones and enforce > provisions for an orderly clearance of all oil production equipment and restoration of land, as wells become non-productive.16 E' It has been roughly estimated that within the next 20 years C; most of the oil wells will cease to produce. Thus , a situation will exist where large pockets of land consuming approximately 3,250 acres will be vacant. 16 A olx, c}• plan for Huntington death , California Natural Resource C section, Page 5. 1 j 6 i The general plan has designated these oil zones to be developed as primarily single family residential areas. 5. 3. 4 Geological Hazards and Flood Plains Perhaps of all subject matters that have not beer. seriously considered under the Current Growth Policy regarding the natural environment, has been the impacts of geological hazards and flood plains . Probably, due to lack of information and technical data the concern of these natural physical adversities has been over- looked. Fortunately, the planning staff is presently in the process of gathering and documenting significant facts regarding these conditions . It is not in the scope of this section to outline in detail all the significant findings . It is .� anticipated that a detail study will be completed by this Fall. However, let us briefly discuss some of the implications of the Current Growth Policy pertaining to geological hazards and flood plains . 1. Geological hazards As illustrated in Figure 5-9 , much of the city's southwestern section is located in a network of identified fault lines . At this time no accurate information as to the potential dangers of major fault areas can be determined. however, it is interesting to note that major areas such as the Edison Company Generating Plan, the proposed civic center, the proposed Top of the Pier Plan, the proposed Route 39 Freeway , the proposed Pacific Coast Freeway, and some existing school sit-es are located right on fa ult ault lines. •„ In addition most of the unincorporated section of the Bolsa Chica area, anticipated to be annexed by Huntington Beach, is located along fault lines . 2. Flood Plains With the exception of two mesa sections of the City, all. of Huntington Beach is located in a flood plain. (See Figure; 5-10) . c;f i ftu 151 .up t. f CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ORANGE CW4TY CALIFORMA I 1 flit %.I I i h -=��, ipr � • i iirr i , � �►r ��, rr r IWO rrrr i rrrr %I' - to, 1 cirri J ``• �. 4, iriiA% l� - rrrrr ♦�i� r rrI i� _ rrr • , � �l'i �if iii ~ rj,}� rrr1l rr�rgr rrrrl rj Y rr +• +'rr rrrr ~ r rr I 1 i OI •M { FIGURE 5.9 U EARTH QUAKE FAULT LIN16W fl P hrintingtan beach planning department 1S2 CITY OF r�'' �yl!�:�`• ;.-.. , HUNTINGTON BEACH Ofif ;SL CCLINIY CAWFORNA IL 117 -o ��,'' '' �~r � ,'�,• fit, _� �^%+ 7. BOLSA CHICA „'' t a r its ri'4''• -. MESA jr.. 1 t1 -�,.,�. (• HUNTINGTON 5EACH MESA 2 12 }6 0 ,r 1�•1M Ir FIGURE 5.10 FLOOD PLAIN IGOfhuntington beach planning department 153 Masi I I t I � While flood control channels have been constructed to handle routine flood waters , the extent of inundation of a 100• year-flood would be t:1tcontrolln1i1e, However the city does have a definite plan in case of a flood disaster. The plan includes I.eeping the Santa Ana River within its banks, evacuation of people to designated schools , first aid, housing and feeding those victimised by the flood disaster and police protection of flooded areas. Included in the plan are sirens to warn people to evacuate. In regards to both earthquake faults and flood plains , i obviously little can be done about development that has already occurred in these risk areas . But a future growth policy should consider the implications of ,these natural conditions and set guidelines for proper and safe land use planning of Areas located within the sphere of influence of earthquake faults and flood plains . 5.4 SOCIAL AND CULTURAL IMPACTS 5.4.1 Housing `. As stated. in the Policy Plan the primary housing objective is �. to "provide and maintain a quality of living environment so that members of all economic, racial and ethnic groups may reside in Huntington Beach". All of the supportive principles of the stated objective address themselves towards the desire of providing a variety of housing opportunities to all Families , with particular emphasis on housing low and moderate income families . For all intent and purposes , the Current Growth .Policy' has ignored the desires express in the housing section of the y ! Policy Plan. The city has consciously or unconsciously !, allowed its Current Growth Policy to provide a hnusing supply that primarily serves families in higher income j brackets . . � The city has let the housing market determine its own , housing stock. Because of the high valuations of new housing developments and revenues generated , the question of providing low and moderate income housing has been overlooked. 1S4 ---+r.....+v.r......l+r.« ... ..--r......�................-......_.. ....._ .....+-.r—w.v ........._ ....-ay.._--..+......�.....-......+..c.r�/.i/n Ut9 YL.li{!{.'.1i1'.i�•m:.�1�.YJ M'yw' •rho city 11 .ant overly concerned itself with ways and means ION of establis, low and moderate income hottsing programs that could work in ` ingt.on Beach. Consequently, the great majority of hou: stock is beyond the economic. reach of low t and moderate incornu families . In a }rousing inventor taken in 1972, olliv 7 pe"cent of all A houses were valued untie - $20,000 and only 9 percent of all rentals rented for less t !iat $100 a month, l7 T}ttts , only 8 percent of all housing uni were available to lower• income t households (or those witlt 11. {;s than $8 ,000 annual income) . This percentage is decreasing; further as a result of a majority of new houses current.y s-;ll.ing for :30 ,000 and -, above. Those families who earn less than $10 ,000 a year simply cannot afford to buy a hom^ in flutitingt'on Heach without having to Pay more than 25 percent of -heir family income for shelter. . future impacts oL the Current Growth Policy ref. ling housing are mcst severely felt by wo distinct t )nomic groups : the elderly and those with poverty lr'vc incomes . The elderly comprised approximately 4 perce;nt of rr, city' s total Population. A great majority are on f3;xed comes and over 50 percent have an annual .income of 1.055$5,000, Over 80 percent pay more titan Z5 perce:r�• ttan l' their r� income for shelter. Approximately G percent of all family households In Huntington Beach are below the poverty income level . Many of these Families must rely on public assistance for paying their housing costs and additionul. cost of living expenses . Projections for housing demand based on studies by the Economic Research Associates and the Huntington Beach Planning Department, indicated that households with less I . than $10,000 annual income will represent approximately 40 percent of the future demand to 1985. 20 percent of the housing demand would be fromoximatel families with incomes below $5,000. If the city continues to ignore the housing needs of the Poverty stricken, poor, and moderate income families , as a result of its Current Growth Policy , it will not Meet objectives expressed by concerned citizens . 17 7 ou in��s nventor : Phase I of the liottsin�; Blement to the General lai' r'' 1 Y�luntington Beach, California. December, 1972. ` I - I i Ir 1 r, 5.4 .2 Education r, While the school section of the Policy Plan does not directly address itself to the city' s growth , it does strongly imply a concern regarding the lack of communication between city planning activities and school districts, 18 The stated objective in the subcommittee reports , Section II of the Policy Plan, is as follows : nj Promote an excellent level of communication and �II coordination between all schools (both public and f private, pre-school through junio college) and tha city. This objective is particularly important as it reflects one ` of the major concerns highly expressed in the following paraphrase of the school section subcommittee (Policy Plan) : � Our meetings with various representatives from the school districts . . . . all had one common n theme, the need .for better communication between the schools and the city. The schools feel they are not consulted enough on zone changes , map sites , population projections . This lack of communication was also apparent at C• ' the Community Congress School Sub-Committee Forum. . . . Sub-Committee members all expressed the idea that to the city, the schools were almost a foreign subject. These men felt that city planners do not avail themselves of school expertise on planning for the future, especially as regards the number of rr children in the district and the size of the school . City Planners , on the other hand , feel they do all they can to help encourage communication with the schools. They make available population figures, projections , maps and charts of projected growth areas , etc. but somewhere , somehow this communica- tion gap exists . Ife feel we have laid out a good objective to help close this communication gap and provide an open channel for communication between the City and the schools . 18 See School Section : Summary Page 44-45 A Policy flan for Huntington Beach, California. G MK 156 , t �:, The Current Growth Policy has virtually ignored this objec- tive. The city continues to allow residential development to occur without strongly communicating with the affected school district, the impacts on its school system. Conse- quently, a coordinated joint effort between the school districts and the city in comprehensively planning for the future is practically non-existent, although much concern has been shown recently by the High School board and City Council. The side effects of this lack of communication is that While the city is approving residential developments , the schools are faced with the burden of providing educational n facilities and services. As a result, the cost of main- taining a high level of educational quality has become more and more difficult. The demand for new school facili- ties , operating expenses , additional equipment and person- nel increases as the number of school children increases . The communication problem is apparently not due to a lack of concern but due to bureaucratic conditions that exist when city government , one high school district , and five elementary school districts are involved. In December 1972, the planning department prepared as part of a reven-je/expenditure analysis of residential develop- ments , a breakdown of the number of the school children generated by residential type. The estimates are illustra- ted in Figure 5-11. For purposes of estimated future student generations , the students per acre category per residential type was inter- polated in order to figure students generated by resident- ial density. This was done in order to estimate the amount :( of both elementary and high school students generated as a result of master planned residential densities . The findings are: p rovitled in Figure 5-12. r� 1 157 IN�Ii�v E �o FIGURE S-11 4 Student Generation by Residential Type ' Elementary Schools High Schools Type of stu./ units stu./ stu. / units stu./ Total Development unit acre acre unit acre acre stu./ac.. Single Family 1 .31 x 5.0 = 6.55 .29 x 5.0 = 1. 45 A.11p ':abi le Homrs .05 x 8.5 = .43 .02 x 8. = .17 .60 Condo. (7 un/ac) .65 x 7.0 = 4. 55 .12 x 7.0 = .84 Condo. (12 un/ac) .65 x 12.0 = 7.80 .12 x 12.0 = 1.44 9. 24 Condo. (15 un/ac) .65 x 15.0 = 9. 10 .12 x 15 .0 = 1. 8C 1.1. 55 Four-Plea .65 x 14.0 = 9.10 .12 x 14 .0 1.68 10. 78 ' ,lpts. (15 un/ac) .40 x 15.0 = 6.30 .06 x 15 .0 = .90 5.90 Apts. (20 un/ac) . 30 x 20.0 = 6.00 .06 x 20 .0 = 1.20 7. 20 Apts. (30 un/ac) .20 x 30.0 = 6.00 .06 x 30 .0 = 1 .80 7.80 SOURCE: R.evenue/Expenditure Analysis of Residential. Developmenes City of Huntington Beach, r California. January, 1973. Pg. 30. I i -i3 O FIGURE 5-12 ESTVIATED TOTAL NUMBER OF STUDENTS BY AiASTER PLAN STUDY AREAS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STUDENTS GENERATION BY RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES Low Density Medium-High Total (5 to 7 un/acre) Medium Density Density Students Study Stu./ Total Total Stu./ Total Total Stu./ Total Total By Study :area Acre Acres Stu. Acre Acres Stu. Acre Acres Stu. Area "A" 5.55 x 2 ,982 = 16 ,550 7. 87 x 195 = 1 ,535 6.0 x 39 = 234 18 ,319 S : aS x 1,377 = 7,642 7. 87 x 392 = 3,085 6.0 x 164 = 984 11,711 "C" 5. 55 x 2 , 512 = 13,942 7. 87 x 288 = 2,267 6 A x 112 = 672 16,881 �• "D" 5.55 x 415 = 2,303 7. 87 x 379 = 2 ,983 6.0 x 623 = 3,738 9 ,024 k t TOTAL = 55 ,935 'IIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS GENERATION BY RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES 1 .14 x 2 ,982 = 3,400 1.35 x 195 = 263 1. 50 x 39 = 59 3,722 1 .1.4 x 1,377 = 1,570 1. 35 x 392 = S29 1.50 x 164 = 246 2,345 "C" 1.14 x 2,512 = 2,863 1. 35 x 288 = 389 1.50 x 112 = 168 3,420 "D" 1.14 x 415 = 473 1.35 x 379 = 512 1. 50 x 623 = 934 1,919 TOTAL = 11,406 s SOURCE: Huntington B:;ach Planning Staff n i 1 I SECTION 6.0 FRMIEWORK FOR CHOICE SECTION HIGHLIGHTS 1. Planning for growth control will require the investigation and evalva tion of choices and value "trade-offs", and the selection anex commitment, to new choices and policies . 2. The basic choice is between the past policy of accommodating grov-A and an orientation to planned growth alternatives, whereby conscious awareness and control of growth is exercised. � 3. Huntington Beach has a growth policy in operation that is oriented to the accommodation of growth. This policy is seen in: t Master plan and area plan,- . i Operating policies and daily actions . Physical commitment to date of 74% of land resources and ! 59% of currently projected popul :ion. i� 4. The city today is the result of choices and decisions of the j past. To implement a growth policy it is necessary to rechoose ( policies with emphasis on creating a balance of values that consider more factors of growth Impact and the quality of ! values of the community. i i f V n i I S. The purpose of this report is to assist in the development of o growth ethic -- an approach and attitude that recognizes the impacts of growth and what to do about it. , 1 n II f (/f I ew r 0 V ry�1 C,..' C. ` 162 AML i i • i 1 h n 0 6.0 FRMIEWORK FOR CHOICE: AN INTRODUCTION TO ALTERNATIVE GROWTH POLICIES I6.1 Introduction 10 Current interest in populLtion and environmental quality is rep- resentative of changing attitudes in our society. Change is inherent in our way of life and when a change in attitude porsists beyond the "fashionable" stage, a corresponding change in society .values occurs. Well conceived and positive directions in value changes is an expression of cultural progress. As the impacts of growth are increasingly realized, a new attitude is emerging--one that is questioning the current approach to growth and looking for criteria for decisions on future growth. This questioning has produced the attitude that control of growth is , perhaps , desirable and an option that can be exercised. The premise that we can plan for future growth is the basis of this report . i At this time attitudes And values regarding growth are relatively now and still evolving. Thus , there is little precedent in eval- uating and regulating growth. Up to now the role of planning has been to assist in the identification and implementation of community values in terms of development policy and plans . However, we mus: expand beyond this approach and look at planning for growth as a matter of value manipulation and policy selection. 163 1. Manipulation of Values : Investigation of alternative policies and evaluation of value choices and "trade-offs" required to effect desired change. 2. Policy Selection: Our way of life today is the result of choices an commitments already made. Value manipulation will result in the reassessment and the reselection of values and policies to which we must be commited--otherwise our concern for the future and our efforts to improve it are meaningless . 6.2 Growth Policies The previous section did not intend to imply that past and current growth was not anticipated. Inherent in any plan is growth of some kind. The issue at this time, however, is the degree of conscious control on growth needed to produc•; a desired quality of life . In the Phase II Growth Policy report , Orange County identifies three categories of how growth is considered ir. general plans . l 1.. Plans er. ;ouraging growth 2. Plans accommodating growth 3. Plans questioning growth C" ' Those categnries are generalizations , but on a large scale they depict the attitudes and patterns that have occurred. in assessing alternatives for the future, two basic directions rr,' , are available: 1. Accommodating Growth : Continue the current attitude of growth r� accommodation. --,,.�/ 2. Planned Growth: vv— Adopt a phil so—p y toward growth whereby conscious awareness and control is exercised. .. 1 Orange County Planning Department , Orange County Po ulation Growth Policy _F Development Strateg Stu ye Phase I t�nrt anta Ana , 1972. C 164 6. 3 fiuntington Beach Growth Policy- Orange County suggests that the Huntington Beach Master Plans falls into the growth accommodating category. Considering the growth of the city over the past twenty years , it would appear that a policy of "active accommodation" has prevailed. This is an oversimplifi- cati•an, however, the results speak for themselves. Oil a small scale , there has been specific attention given to growth, with the intent to influence growth. This has been frequently related to economic concerns. 6.3.1 Planned Growth. r' While the city master plan has generally accommodated growth, several area plans have consciously considered or planned for growth. The Top of the Pier and Town Lot studies were oriented to growth planning. In these instances the policy was one of consciously encouraging 0 growth. The civic center study (under consideration as of this writing) questions growth alternatives . Each suggested alternative represents a different level of potential growth. Additionally, the adopted Interim Open Space element and the open space element that is currently being prepared, address growth, although indirectly. Both deal with open 0 space and recreational features that significantly interact with population distribution and size, in terms of ;avail- able lands , population to be served , and economic support. Therefore, Huntington Beach has been influencing growth through the planning process , however, the conscious study � and manipulation of growth end its impacts has not been formally addressed on a city-wide scale. If I 6. 3. 2 Operational Growth Policy. !.� Planning policy is one aspect of influencing growth. In the day-to-day operations of various city departments the city's subliminal growth policy is being carried out . In a generalized way , the entire city structure is commited to the provision of services as needed. The statement "as needed" is significant , for it supports the overall policy of growth accommodation. It is not necessarily the respon- sibility of line departments to question growth and it would be a nearly impossible task considering the tremendous effort required to just keep up with the rate of growth we are experiencing. 165 :J r r It is important to realize that there are twc factors in the city's influence over growth , i .e. the planning and �. policy making function and the implementation function. To effect any kind of comprehensive approach to control of growth, such policies and programs must be carried throughout the entire city operating; structure. 6. 3. 3 Physical Commitment. Thy net result of the pervading policy of accommodation is a substantial physical commitment including streets , facilities , utilities , and utilization of natural resources . r, Total land area: 19000+ Area used: 14 ,000+ acs = 74% Current pop. proj : 255:000+ Current pop : 150,000+ = 59% The above are quantifable commitments based upon the entire planning area which includes the 1 ,700 undeveloped acres of the Bolsa Chica. Less difficult to measure are the losses . to environmental quality, the potential hazards of develop- ments in flood plains and over -vaults , and the contribution of the City to pollution levels and the general consumption of natural resources . This is not to imply that Huntington Beach is solely �- responsible, for the city is only a part of the county and regional systems of urban :services and resource consumption. 6.4 NATURE OF CHOICE 0' As we have seen a commitment to }seeping up with growth--a policy that growth is good and should be accommodated--tins been the primary focus of our energies and resources. This represents a choice made at some point in the past , and only now are we looking at this choice and questioning its validity. Ironically , .' the value and resulting commitment to an evenly distributed horizontal pattern of growth has delayed our reaction time to a point when we have already significantly reduced the choices or options available to us . Should we recommit to a policy of consciously controlling our destiny, the choices will not bG easy to make or carry out. The difficulty and resistance to refocusing and rechanneling values and pilic:ies is only the result of choice:: � and commitments already made. Ilawever, to effect results , choices are necessary and the beginning of this movement can already be seen In changing attitudes , trends , anti especially in much of the new legislation occurring on the federal and state levels. r, . 166AN r r. 1 The overall intent is to balance our endeavors . The measures 0% required to do so in the area of growth may seem drastic, but are only the result of u deferred payment approach in past policy and value selection. The remainder of this report will recommend measures to help recstablish balance and begin a pay-as-we-go system. ,., -Do we have to make a choice? No, we don' t have to make a choice, but in so doing we must be prepared to assume ultimate responsibility for this course of action. It is unlikely that nothing will happen there are too many questioning what is happening today, especially -�. elected and appointed officials in government. In Huntington Beach, the quality of life that has prompted the tremendous growth is being lost in the wake of that growth . PAST VALUE DISTRIBUTION --, pro-growth values control growth values (limited future concern) n FUTURE VALUE DISTRIBUTION pro-growth control growth (quality of lift: values) 71iie Ilalance" 6. 5 Areas of Choice As a city , Huntington Beach has only a limited ability to control growth . Urban and population growth is an issue that operates on a much larger scale in so far as its relation to cultural trends and attitudes and even the national economy. Orange County suggests that a city can limit , but not control growth , which is to say that Huntington Beach will be addressing the issue at its effect rather than underlying; cause . Aft 167 i A The decisions and policy on higher levels of government have profound influence on the city, however. The state of California has taken a substantial lead in many areas . While the legislation has not explicitly addressed growth, the side effects will have influence and such programs as the Coastal Initiative and the new general plan elements will impact aspects of growth, especially the patterns of distribution. The degree to which Hunti.agt.on Beach decides to influence growth `. is variable and will depend upon the desire of the city. The sections that follow will attempt to identify alternative policies and their ultimate result. r 6.6 Development of a Growth Ethic So far th:s discussion has been submitting words like values , accommodation, planned and unplanned growth, choice , and commitment. What does all this mean? Simply stated, we have decided at this point in time to stop, 'look around , and question r� the quality of life and the prospects for the future . Growth and the way that we are currently treating it is a potential threat to our way of life. This report is a step in the process that is looking at this situation so as to identify the problems and the possibilities. We are looking not only at the result of growth, but also at the community values that inadvertently cause it . Perhaps the must difficult and sensitive areas involve those values s that are threatened by growth that the values themselves create. i One of the most significant results of this report will be to assist in the development of a growth ethic, i.e , an approach i and attitude that recognizes the impacts of growth and what to do about it. We have progressed beyond the stage of questioning i and are now actively evaluating and seeking alternatives . Only when we make definitive choices and policy decisions and begin to implement them, will results be seen. We have already seen the products of a non-control philosophy and are fairly assured of more of the some if this continues. We had best act now, � before we lose the option of choice. r 168 r. pM A SECTION 7.0 ALTERNATIVE GROW If POLICIES SECTION HIGHLIGHTS 1. The key components on which the growth policy is based are : AolV 1-in: While limited in its orientation to growth, the 'Policy an is an invaluable statement of community values , goals , desires and directions. c Quality of Life Goals : This is the value framework for the developmento f alternative policies. These goals are general- ized statements of the values and qualities of life for which the residents of the city are striving, and are round in the objective statements of the Policy Plan. t Growth Factors : The previously defined factors of population •� size, rate of growth and distribution ark used to identify the t impacts and elements of population growth. 2. Three basic sets of alternative policies have been identified r and derived : s Current Policy (Set 1) : This represents past and, in part, current policy and attitudes tow,%rd growth in the city. i Through an attempt at growth control this is essentially a policy of growth accommodation. u Jk 169 R Implied Growth Po'-Icy (Set 2) : This policy set is derived From the princ'l statements of the policy flan. It is not complete as a growth policy, however, it represents a decided if change in attitude toward growth from the Current Policy set. Revised Policy (Set 3) : This recommended policy set is oriented to control and—influencing of growth. It is based upon the Quality of Life Goals as interpreted by the key growth factors . It is a policy guideline with varying levels of interpretation and application possible. 3. The scope of this growth policy is , as yet , limited. It will 1 require refinement and further delineation. It cannot be implemented until appropriate revisions to city policies , � plans , and procedures are carried out. i t i J {1�1 +� l i i V I tit r, 7.0 ALTERNATIVE GROWTH POLICIES 7.1 Introduction The record of past growth and the continuing pressure for growth in the city today, has raised mnny questions concerning growth and its implications to the quality of life and the quality of the environment in the city. Alternative growth policies attempt to identify new ways and new directions for growth in the city. In order to identify where we stand now and what the impact • of growth in the city has been to date, the extensive research in the previous sections was accomplished. The projection of current growth into the future has indicated that we can expect more of the same kinds of development and itse of our resources . We have reached a point where the element of scale is beginning to make an impact on many forms of development and ways of doing things. In themselves these forms and ways are satisfactory, however, the .� propagation of these items beyond certain limits is beginning to create a compounding of undesirable side effects. Therefore, it is our intent to look for alternative policies , different ways of d iing things so that the value; of life and the qu; iity of life can be protected and maintained as future growth continues. We are taking the attitude that some control or regulation of growth ell is not only desirable, but essential . There has never been a comprehensive attempt in Huntington Beach to identify and regulate growth. The purpose of this study is to meet the issue of growth head on and to identify the actions neces- sary to regulate and influence growth in the city. The outcome will be a Revised Growth Policy. 171 1 'rWvw4s•. +PN/i,.w'...•.....•+•........_ ..- ......_... .�.-+.�_._ .. ..r......+...+w.v,.....t t.:.1:. . ., rn..................�..+.+.�.c.rs;rw.,xs.r.....•.vr.•.a.n+.•NNI i;.'L'M.CS::iLkq;,'..'44't:�`;,�'•j.f ij./.ff1*�'Pfl 7. 2 Growth Policy Components r 7. 2.1 Policy Plan. The Policy Plan has been a key resource in the development of alternative growth policies . It contains tip to date statements of community values , goals , desires and direc- tions. As such, this represents a framework or foundation from which to derive a multitude of policies . While growth was not the specific issue of the Policy Plan there have been numerous references and implications that have been invaluable in the determination of community growth values . Additionally, the basic Policy Plan format has been used as the categories for statements on growth policies. 7. 2. 2 Quality of Life Goals. Since the objective of a Revised Growth Policy is to provide � for the optimization of life in terms of human and natural resources it is essential that there be a guiding framework upon which to base policies . This framework has been called Quality of Life Goals and is found in the objective statements of the Policy Plzen. The Quality of Life Goals are assumed to be generalized statements of the values and C, qualities of life for which the residents are striving. The nature of goals is that they are abstract and somewhat + vague. As a result they are not easily or appropriately �1 quantified. Therefore, it has been necessary to deal with 1 them as values. These values are subject to interpretation, C 'i however, they do provide a general direction and intent. The subjective nature of these goals indicate that fulfill- ment of these goals can be achieved in a variety of ways . There are alternative policies or plans that can, to some degree, fulfill one single goal. Therefore, the principal statements of the Policy Plan are identified as basic policies that, are intended to fulfill the goals set forth in the objective statements. It is possible to evaluate goals and policies as separate entities since the po'.:<<:ies represent only one way, the preferred one, for acl.ieving the goals . The Creme-adous advantage these goals statements afford the :'tty cannot be fully measured at this time. Pew communities ;.:'.;e ev:r been able to identify and establish a framework such as this as a guide for the future and as a framework for decision making. The result of these goals could be a revolution. Not a violent or negative one, but a change v in realignment of directions and policy that over the past has been assumed or arbitrarily established. 172 I'fi_�J ....—��....,+s.c...r............,......-.. ......_._ .._........_._.. _ .. .............,...+ra..... ....n....... ........_.�.... _ ..........,... ..... -. . .,.. ct i•Y },i`:..:.i:f1=Z��.Iis':"v�`.�^..1^i'.b3.CSG i` I 7. 2. 3 Growth Factors . 19 while the above items provide a value system based upon community goals , attitudes , and desires ; it is necessary to include additional values that represent and define key aspects of population growth. 'These "growth factors" have been identified as population size, population rate of growth, and population distribution. The purpose of 4 these factors is to add dimension, since teach is represent- ative of a different aspict or impact of the overall issue of population growth. When used in the context of n growth policy, these factors act as broad definitions and descrip- tive summaries of the more detailed aspect!•• of the policy. n Additionally, they have been invaluable in the comparison and evaluation of various policies , for they assist in identifying types and impu crs of growth. 7. 3 Alternative Policy Sets n 7. 3. 1 Current Policy (Policy Set 1) While there has never been a consciously derived policy of growth control or limitation there is a set of policies in operation. {Without this Current Growth Policy, it would have been impossible for the city to accommodate the develop- ment that has occurred. This current policy is most influencial at this time. It represents the established operational. policy which has been in existence and is currently guiding decision making. Its existence predates ' In the Policy Plan, therefore, is not necessarily related to the recently formulated Quality of Life Goals . it is also more representative of past growth, since many current attitudes are in transition. 7.3. 2 Implied Growth Policy (Policy Set 21 r i i. The Policy Plan is the most current representation of community goals and objectives . While not specifically 'a growth policy, the principle statements of the Policy Plan consider many aspects of growth. These statements are the basis for the Implied Growth Policy. This policy, while relatively consistent with the Quality of Life Goals is not, as yet, operational. furthermore, it is not complete or j consistent in its application to population growth , since this was not the orientation of the Policy Plan. The q� implied policy does contain many relevant and valuable 1.73 u tiur+w.frtih•—.t«.�`.r..--. ... _ _ ... ...._.«u wwty - •• .• ••��+r.n� t .. w•...........-+•..•.--- ....................�.�.... ..mow-v n�:4w'F`... ,'.i ..'..?l:.-..�t.,�.:�j. r� Growth Policy directions . One of the most significant aspects of this policy is its inconsistency and difference with the Current Growth Policy. This indicates the community's desires and values as to changing certain directions and certain policies within the city. 7.3.3 Revised Growth folic Policy Set 3) ;+ ry The Revised Growth Policy contains the recommended policies ror the planned channeling and influencing of population ;rowth in the city. This policy is a synthesis of community goals , policies and growth factors . It has the advantage over the other policy sets in that it is specifically oriented to the issue of population growth . As such it is an extension of the process of identifying community goals and values initiated by the Policy Plan. The result of this policy will be to add direction and dimension to the revision of policies in the city. The Revised Growth Policy is a vehicle for debate and refinement. Every attempt has been made to correlate the Growth Policy to the Policy Pl'an. This has not been completely possible since the: Policy flan is not a complete or consistent growth statement. 7.4 . . Alternative Futures The above policy sets - Current, Implied, and Revised - are presented in a format as alternative growth policies . Each one represents a different way of looking at and addressing growth in the city. Each one represents varying degroes of impact oil the quality of life. No policy set is definitive in itself. Each is subject to varying degrees of intcrpre- tation and enforcement. Should no action be taken on a Revised Growth Policy, the current policy will remain in effect and the future growth of th city will be somewhat In line with the projections in an earlier section. The Revised Growth Policy represents the greatest deviation from the current norm. As such it will be subject to great concern and debate, however, it does represent a choice. ' This .J's a choice as to the future of the city and how the quality of life can be maintained within the context of continued population growth. r .The diagram entitled "Derivation of Alternative Growth Policies" (Figure 7-1) summarizes the process and source of the three policy sets that have been identified. This also outlines to some extent .the methodology that was used in deriving these policies. The ,.the and implied policies were relatively easy to identify r 174 M .-.+...............�.»�...._�...._.... «.._...,..........-........._..-..._......,.....ten..,. e:.:wc.a».+...........�-_. .__�.._.-............».r�.,.......�.......r»...:w..i«.a.r.+rw xev4.,sw:.ca-+t,.M+:+n.4+rsw.r c� T0 0a DERIVATION OF ALTERNATIVE GROWTH POLICIES GROWTH POLICY Source Alternatives History of Current Current POLICY SET CNE Supporting Top & 2nd (Current) Past Growth Policies Level Policy Principle Implied Implied Quality Statements Supporting Top & 2nd C > POLICY SET TWO i of Life Policy Level Policy (Implied) Goals Values Revised Revised Top & 2nd 'Supporting POLICY SET THREE! ' Level Policy Policy g cy CRevised) I Growth Values (Assumed) i FIGURE T-1 t since they were based upon existing policies or policy statements. It was necessary only to reinterpret known sources into growth policy statements . The revised policy was the most difficult to r determine. It required a consideration and synthesis of the other policy statements - their strengths , their weaknesses , their oversights - and consideration of the intent and values of the Quality of Life Goals as influenced by other growth values . These growth values have been discussed in earlier sections and r consisted primarily of the growth factors of population size, population growth rate and population distribution. Utilizing these factors to extend the dimension of population growth, it was possible to create a revised policy that expanded the influence and consideration of growth and to determine a set of policies that was balanced in diverging, yet interrelated factors . The r subject will be addressed in greater detail in a following section. 7.5 Scone of Growth Policy It is important to realize that this Growth Policy is not a panacea. n In itself, it will not provide all of the answers ; it will not provide all of the solutions and directions for the implementation of growth policies in the city • i' is merely a first step. The Revised Growth Policy has been addressed at a level consistent with the Policy flan. At this level of consideration, it provides guidelines for decision making and for the derivation of detailed specific policies and procedures. Until this Growth Policy is transformed into planning concepts for the revision of the city general plan and until distinct changes are made in day-to-day operations , the influence of the Growth Policy will not be felt. It is essential, however, that this policy provides basic guidelines that will aid decision making. Without this broad framework, �. specifically derived growth policies will be arbitrary and possibly inconsistent with one another. The guiding premise of the Revised Growth Policy is that growth can and should be influenced and that there are certain key factors and areas of emphasis that must be addressed. Once this premise is adopted as policy , it will then be possible to identify the degree to which the policy must ; be interpreted and carried out to bring about the desired change . The. section on implementation will discuss this aspect of the Growth Policy in greater detail. 176 . C.1 -7 '^"MVY'.e:M;.::t'xe.rkYRl�fNhMr,..1u..tWa..t. ..•:1J".WAS.a...,.. y..sn.v rrr. ......,4-.1:i. ... • ...... .. ...;N r.r r..Y):.. ."1.,r L• 7' 'f: r�Y�!..;r,� 1'�.'� Z.......,.�.f'.:ki�+►n" A n SECTION 8.0 POLICY SET TWO: IMPLIED SECTION HIGHLIGHTS 1. This policy set is derived From the principle statements of the Policy flan. These statements are viewed as one set of alternatives that could fulfill the objective statements (Quality of Life Goals), I 2. The essence of the Implied Policy is found in the Top and Second Level Policies. Growth should be considered and related, to some extent, to the quality of life in terms of the urban and natural environments. Overall population size should be reduced. O Population growth rate is not an explic. ' t rincern. .i Population distribution policy emphasizes the safe and efficient use of the automobile and its relation to residential areas . 0 .i I C5 177 +..�..uxw..r.w.... .. ---.._.._.._.._.. .._.._..._.._^-- •+...r.ati.i ,c.. ... .......... ......_._._...............,..-...._........,......_...,,,arras..rwaar.Q:rs+ssrL: rstSS+j'5i7�Yfffitt� A n 8.0 POLICY SET TWO: IMPLIED 8.1 Source: This policy set has been derived exclusively from the Policy Plan. This cannot be considered a complete statement .of Growth Policy, r' since this subject was not the orientation or emphasis of the Policy Plan. It is , however, an excellent representation of growth values of the city to the degree that they were discussed. n 8. 2 Derivation: The principle statements of the Policy Plait were analyzed and interpreted into Implied Growth Policy. The principle statements were viewed as one set of alternative policies - the preferred one - that could fulfill the objectives statements (Quality of Life Goals) . This Implied Policy was first derived at the level of Supporting Policies . They were then reviewed an,! consolidated to determine the top and second level. policies. 8.3 Discussion: ' There is a concern for growth, especially in the sense that continued size increase will unfavorably impact the quality of life. Taken in isolation, this concern is a valid one. This Implied 'Policy indicates that size is the prime growth factor and, therefore, the area to be primarily effected. The Policy Plan does not address itself to the rate growth and it was assumed that it was not a concern of the docume:,t. The emphasis on distribution of population is oriented more to the protection of certain values , i 179 '+w.o...wsro.+�.•-^^�.-^ ^-... _. ...._ ........racer;:.i!�ue a..wr—.....- _'--.-- .+.....v.►z4•r'.A.gsoJ�.q N Ri3lT �t,�1 I X'A• n rather than the realignment of distribution policies. r) 8.4 Im lied Growth Policy_ (Policy Plan) 8.4.1 Top Level Policy.: Plan and provide for growth somewhat moderated over market forces with some consideration of impacts on the duality of life and natural resource; . 8.4.2 Second Level Policies : r, 1. Population Size: Generally reduce population size by rcti n o residential densities with some provision of public needs for community facilities and open space. 2. Population Growth Rate: Give some consideration to ` the rate of growth while encouraging revenue generating uses . 3. Population Distribution: Generally encourage the dispersal of population relying primarily on streets and arterial highways for movement while considering r compatabilities with residential development. 8.4. 3 SuAporting Policies 1 . Development a. Residential Development: Reduce population size by lowering, generally, residential densities and by considering of population distribution within the context of a growth policy. C, b. Commercial Development: 1) General: Control general commercial development y re ucing the amount of commercially zoned land. 2) Tourism: Encourage tourist oriented commercial ev- pment. 3) Redevelopment: Encourage redevelopment ofiao' wn town commercial areas relying primarily on private initiative. G 18Q mop) Y.l".7 PC'i..w «. i;�i��•ir::.+i.:r.'Si..lY?.J:P.'.:�..�-t........rY ....w...s..,.......,.,,.[.•.. :aa^,-:L'.:..... . n•.�. .ww.ww..,.r:d a.i:....,: r'+e r- ..r u,y'vY. M K�L'm.^ ..».fV K Y+rxYtxfwRl.ynNrrtA • M r C. Industrial Development: Generally encourage industrial eve opment with concern for distribution and land use compatabilities. d. Transportation and Circulation: 1) :reewa s : Minimize freeway development and intrusion. 2) Arterial Itishwa s & Streets : Encourage efficient development with emphasis on safe and compatible distribution. 3) Public Transportation: Consider mass transporta- tion systems in coor ination with regional agencies and plans. e. Annexation: Allow annexation for pre-planned areas , consi Bring impacts on city objectives , economics , r and service and resource requirements. f. Fiscal Plannin : eve and maintain short and Lang range isca panning consistent with and a, an implementing tool of the general plan. n SOCIETY AND CULTURE 1. Housin : Encourage and provide a variety of housing types and costs irtphasizing availability and opportunity for low and moderate income need.. 2. Community Facilities: Encourage a wide range of facil- ities and services that meet the needs and goals of the population. 3. Schools : Coordinate the activities of all school isc str cts and governmental services and agencies. ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCES 1. Communi�earance: Encourage the preservation of areas o sceni` c beauty. Q ?. Parks Recreation and O en 5 ace: Encourage the acquisition ang coordinated evelopment and planning of public open space, providing 16 Acres of total open space per .1,000 people. City parks are to comprise 8 , acres (of the 16) per 1,000 people. 181 Iwo t r I 3. Natural Resources : Encourage the conservation and j protection 6T natural resources . r= a. Oil : Provide for the eventual development of oil Lands as depletion occurs . b. Flood Plains : Allow development in flood plains With some consideration of the implication of such action. ` 4 . Shoreline: Maximize use of the shoreline and bearhes � 6y the provision of support facilities with concern for the protection of visual quality. r 1, �h `1 I' 1� C. ff t . 1r` i. 182 rl "'.r'r•'*W.•T:r�ryJ!:.'.t"w'"'.i f'i=T.• iMY�•cL:�ct�.rw:•..•r,•ur+•..w..r....w.•..,.r»...wrr�.r.at.i<:-.3::4.C::o.a.w..w.w.........�,.......�.�.,�,w+..�..� ... .� _ A i SECTION 0.0 POLICY SET TIiRI?r: REVISED SECTION HIGHLIGHTS 1. This policy set is derived .from the Quality of Life Goals of the Policy Plan. These goals were evaluated in terms of population growth factors to produce a policy emphasizing growth and its impacts. 2. The essence; of the Revised Policy is :sound in the Top and Second Level Policies. Growth must be influenced and directed to optimize to the quality of life . Population size is to result from a balance of environ- mental values and urban qualities and services . The rate of growth crust be reduced. Distribution is a factor essential to the provision and maintenance of environmental (natural and ix:-ban) values . i 183 't r1 r`1 9.0 POLICY SIiT TfiRrm RIivISI:D 9.1 Source: This policy set has been derived from a multitude of sources , including the Quality of Life Goals of the Policy Plan and the ry studies and evaluations of the Planning Department. This policy has the advantage in being strictly oriented to population growth • an advantage not afforded to Policy Sets I and II . Orientation of the Revised Growth Policy is to influence growth; and, with this emphasis , does not attempt to be a complete guiding policy for the city. Its intent is to supplement and expand other policies and, especially, to operate within the ;! framework of the Quality of Life Goals . 9. � Derivation: d This policy sett has been the most difficult to prepare since there are no explicit guidelines or direction: upon which to base it . As stated, the Quality of Life Goals is the overall criteria; however , these goals are sufficiently broad •�s to permit ,a variety of appropriate policies. Unlike the other policy sets, the Revised Growth Policy was derived first in terms of Top and Second Level Policies , after which the Supporting Policies were s determined. This was not possible in the other policy sets . A They were determined from the Supportinj, Policy level , since that was the only source of criteria for their content. The Revised Policy reversed this procedure duo to the fact that, in order to determine a single supporting growth policy, it is necessary to have a high level premise that growth is the issue 185 .i • , t n and the subject , as defined, of the policy statement. In this way it is possible to establish a foundation that will influence r� and control growth which is a desired policy and that growth should be defined within the interacting framework of size, rate , and distribution. Supporting Policies were then developed. They are a synthesis of the growth factors , as defined, the, intent of the Quality of Life Goals , and evaluations of the factors and impacts of growth policy and the Current and Implied Growth policies. It was still necessary to make certain assumptions in preparing these policies . 9. 3 Discussion: The premise of the Revised Policy is that growth can and should be influenced. The degree of influence is still open for di cs ussion. Of prime importance in this policy set , Is the balancing and interaction of growth factors. Size, rate, and distribution are envisioned as working together to provide a balanced approach to growth policy. This is why the pinpointing of an exact optimum population size is impossible , and not desirable , sinee size could vary depending on the distribution and rate. This issue of balancing and relating these population factors cannot be over- stressed. Additionally, the Revised Policy has attempted to realign supporting policies to the factors that they can most logically influence or work with. C, 9.4 Revised Growth Policy 9.4 .1 Top Level Policy:� r� 'ro influence and channel population growth is a manner that will optimize the quality of life for the residents of the city. 1 9. 4. 2 Second Level Policy: C� 1 . Po'Pulrtion 'Size: To plan for a population size that is consistent wltn environmental duality and provision of urban services and amenities as related to rate and distribution policy. *� 2, Growth hate : To limit the rate of growth to a level tH a* w 11 enable the conscious planning and management of population size and distribution policies . r 186 �-.-...+.w.w.w.w.+.....«�.--.....�.. _.. _...,.................,.....................�.........,. .nNi l<. ...aw...w...�..... .. ..�+�.,..�.wr..... ..-.....mow.err.y..I.II1rY.M..t.lel�J%/IAI.MIIMY.�r.. 1. 3. Population Distribution: To distribute population in a manner that will optimize environmental and urban qualities emphasizing preservation of natural resources 1 and movement of people and goods . 9. 4 . 3 Su2p orting Policies_ r' Development 1 1 . Residential Development: Plan for and regulate resi- dential evelopment that will accommodate an identified variety of needs consistent with environmental and urban quality goals . 2. Commercial Development: a. General : Identify general commercial needs and Tsta- lisp a balanced framework for provision of ? .� these needs considering quality of life implica- tions in terms of service and distribution and city fiscal responsibilities . b. Tourism.- Encourage tourist commercial develop- ment for economic benefit to the city with planned n consideration on impacts to other aspects of the city. c. Redevelopment : Encourage redevelopment as a means of improving the quality of life and the channeling of growth with the city flaking an initiatory or C) participatury role when necessary. 3. Industrial Development: Encourage appropriate industrial development within th%- context of planned industrial areas . irk 4 . Utility Service: Plan and regulate development of public ut-utilities in concert with utility agencies and city growth policy considering impacts on natural resources. S . Trans2ortation and Circulation: ;I. Freeways : Analyze freeway needs and impacts on growth and coordinate response with regional transportation planning. i Al 1.87 if .. .. • . .,y...r.-. ?A'J71"'^".(73:;Rii:LT�w:�s+,1 i n b. Arterial Highways & Streets : Provide for planning and Uevelopment in conjunction with land use e% distribution and transportation objectives. C. Public Transportation: Actively consider mass transportation systems by coordinating and participating with regional agencies and plans . G. Annexation: Allow annexation for areas pre-planned upon satisfactory conclusions of consideration of impacts on city, objectives , economics , and service and resource requirements . 7. FIscal Plannin = : Develop and maintain short and long range fiscal planning consistent with and as an imple- menting tool (including regulction and feedback to growth policies) of the general plan. Society and Culture 1. dousing : Encourage and provide a variety of housing types and costs including the needs of those employed in the city and equal opportunity for all economic, racial , and ethnic groups . 2. Community Facilities : Encourage and provide a wide 0 range of facilities and services that responsibly meet the needs and goals of the population. 3. Schools : Limit or regulate residential growth so as to allow and maintain a high level of educational quality and the adequate provision of educational facilities . Environment and {resources 1. Community Appearance: Encourage fiscally responsible are-is of scenicpreservation and' establish and enforce aesthetic standards for all future development. C, 2. Parks Recreation and Open Space: Encourage the responsible acquisition anti coordinated development (where appropriate) and planning of public open space, to include consideration of the amount , type , and distribution of open space elements . Ca 3. Natural Rasources : Establish programs for the conservation an protection of natural resources. n 1 , � 188 Jab— l"E 'c { 1 a. Oil: Plan all c•il lands for the phased conversion M to optimum use. b. Flood Plains : Consider the implications of deve opment in potential Flood plains and regulate accordingly. ! C. Geologic Hazards: Consider the implications of evelopment in areas of potential soils or geologic hazard and regulate accordingly. Q. Shoreline: Optimize use of the shoreline so as to permit reasonable use in concern with regulation to n protect environmental and aesthetic values . A } • 0 ti. AhA 1. Q i. t , i i i' 169 ..,.�';!':'. :'i+..:nn••.r ter..+.w.,..,xwr.i'wrw•r+.ss.s.rv...r-••+.n>I+^.Cr+7.r.*Ns�'y+A1M1n1::'�t.4LTTlL'.r'N'er. r9 r"1 r� SECTION 10.0 POLICY COMPARISON AND EVALUATION SECTION HIGHLIGHTS 1. This section is a discussion of the alternative policy sets . Each set - Current, Implied , and Revised - is discussed and compared and the thought processes behind the Revised Policy are represented. 2. An attempt has been made to identify which growth factor - size, rate or distribution - will be most influenced or impacted by any policy area. 3. Policies discussed are Top Level , Second Level and the various areas of Supporting Policies. 191 �.as...,w..v+*....-.. ....ti . . ..............-....... ..,.,.,..«.....� _.. ..._....»» --.�.,.,wu�.xxrrc;c•rr�:x:r'7r. r�7;i�• lei i 10.0 POLICY COMPARISON F, EVALUATION 10.1 Methodology The following discussion encompasses methods for evaluation of the Revised Growth Policy. The Quality of Life Goals were used as an umbrella of community goals and values within which the Revised Policy could operate. Then a comparison of Current and Implied policies is used to identify the emphasis in orientation of these policies. This . was used to aid in the development and alignment of the Revised Growth Policy. The key consideration of the Revised Policy was the application of that policy in a way that will promote the needed or desired impact. The evaluation of areas of policy impact has been used to determine the primary impact factor, areas without policy or wrongly impacted areas . This is especially relevant since most of the policy areas covered are traditionally indirect in their influence, i .e. , they react to needs created by population growth. The result of reacting to these needs is to accommodate growth, however, they still remain in the position of responding to the first cause, which is the pressure and desire for population growth. The principle of policy alignment, as used in the Revised Growth 4'5 Policy, was to identify those areas where policies can and should have the most impact. In the case of the Growth Policy they were used to identify where the policy could most effectively be applied. As a result it was possible to better balance and interrelate the growth iartors of population size, population growth rate and population distribution. While one of the three growth factors 0 was identified as the area of primary emphasis of the Revised 193 4.r.wr^ 1 �1tt'S2'f,:^...+r ixrr ar.. .. .. ..._..__....... ..� ...n......r,r".e'.rAI•......aw.«....-....._�..w.�.w«.rrw —�.�... ww+rn.Mwoww.'.+aM` xcroxr�r�srrss+.yam l Policy, it is also realized that the policies have some affect on all of the growth factors. They do, in fact , operate as an inter- r, related system. 10. 2 Top Level Policy 10. 2.1 General While there is no specific quality of life goal to establish top level growth policy, a summary of the intent and values of the Quality of Life Goals indicates that the values are diverse , yet balanced. The primary value areas include concern for the natural environment , the urban environment and services , and fiscal responsibility. Tile top level growth policy would orient to these values and provide a framework that would allow for the optimization of these qualities within the city. n 10. 2. 2 Current Policy. ' The Current Growth Policy is , not one of questioning growth , but accommodating the growth that is determined by the market forces of the area. r, 10.2. 3 Implied Growth Policy. The Implied Growth Policy better responds to the Quality of Life Goals. The intent is to consider growth, especially in the areas of the quality of urban life and natural resources . This policy emphasizes the need for planning and better Provision for growth in the city. I� 10. 2.4 Revised Growth Policy. The Revised Policy takes the intent of the Implied Growth Policy one step further. It suggests that the city can and should influence and channel population growth in a manner that is consistent with the Quality of Life Goals . c:► i 1 ' i 't i <l 194 C► Jir.s:Y,X'J'v'�i.�i:..:'}:(�l:.l-r`r..q.o•..,• n w,...ter..-r...•......-��...............«r-......r w.:.:....:s,.....,.....�.................. .—.v.L...........««... .wr.vrn..r.-mN.r....r r*r•';»t.w+ ..+. A N, 10 . 3 Second Level Policies 10. 3. 1 Population Size. The Current Growth Policy i, oriented toward the accommo- dation of a population size based upc,n a continued develop- ment of land resources within the city. The Implied policy , however, makes a stand to reduce the overall population size considering such elements as open space and community facilities. Emphasis of the Implied Policy is on the reduction of residential densities. Revised Policy expanded the orientation to include rate and distribution. This is to imply that size, as a single controlling factor, must be balanced with the other elements of population growth. The key concern of the Revised Policy is that there be adequate population to provide urban services as desired , yet, an adequate limit of population to provide the environ- mental quality. Therefore, population Sizes and the Revised n Policy is striking a balance of growth that has consi3ered the advantages and disadvantages of population size. 10 .3. 2 Population Growth Rate.. The Current and Implied Policies give some consideration to population growth rate. The rate of growth is of short-range or interim consideration compared with other growth factors. However, the excessive rate of growth that the city has experienced has dictated that a policy of accommodation be used. As such, this rate of growth has allowed and propagated an attitude of trying to keep up with the rate. Under these circumstances it has been difficult to properly plan and manage the growth of the city. Revised Polic : The intent of the Revised Policy is to mlit tie rate of growth. By so doing it will be possible �I to plan and manage growth in a more systematic fashion. By maintaining the rate at a manageable level it is then possible to influence and channel population size and AI distribution. 10. 3. 3 Population Distribution Current Growth Policy generally follows the distribution pattern set forth in the current 'Master Plan. The current J attitude is one of density reduction. 11owever, this attitude responds, to a certain extent, to trends of the marketplace in the area. Additionally, it h-as beast 195 U �.CkC7t tx.v.wn.rr�.�.-,...... .. ... .-. .._....--.......w< • w...��..-_.... ._..�..�w............_.. .....,...y,...re.rw.M,�rwrsr�. 7Sis.11'.7 w.>l.aw y generally accepted that density reduction is a solution to the problems that population growth is creating. However, no other noticeable consideration has been given r to the impact of distribution on the Quality of Life. The Implied Policy emphasizes distribution in terms of arterial highways and residential land use compatibilities . However, the attitude toward dispersal of population is maintained. r Revised. Growth Polite: The Revised Policy does not condemn or deny the concept of population dispersal and density reduction. Its intent is to consider distribution as a key population factor that will have significant impact upon the quality of the environment i.isofar as the provision of open space and the provision of urban services in terms r' of movement of people and goods and provision of utilities and community services . In summary, the top and second level policies set the stage for delineation of more detailed aspects of . the supporting policy. Current Growth Policy can. be summarized as a policy of accommodating growth without full consider- ation of the impacts of population growth. The Policy Plan, as stated in the Implied Growth Policy, takes a stand against this policy of accommodation. Its overall intent is to reduce growth with emphasis on reduction of �r population size. The Revised Growth Policy is •an extension of the spirit of the Policy Plan. The spirit of the Policy Plan, as interpreted, Is one of responsible concern and provision for the quality of the natural and urban environments . The Revised Policy suggests that this can be best accomplished by the careful consideration of all growth factors : size, rate and distribution, and that these factors be carefully evaluated and balanced to provide the Final growth strategy. 10.4 Supporting Policies 10.4.1 Residential. Development 1. Quality of Life Goal : Encourage and maintain a well balanced variety or residential densities and uncrowded living environments to provide the highest quality of life for residents in the city. C 196 C�( y ... I )4a'{{!N'l..n.MNM.w.w+.r•w....T".�....-..... ._.�...."a...._.._. .............w a.w.... .. '.T.l:..:li{•�...........+.«....__. NiM1r.w., __.�...�...r.. .,.w...w.. wN Mww� it , i M 1 2. General N Residential development is the area of greatest impact in population growth. It represents the major thrust of growth, with the majority of the other policy areas providing a support in response to this growth. The prim.ry role of residential development is evidenced i by the noticeable lag in other types of construction behind the residential , including commercial , industrial and schools. Therefore , any regulation or influencing in growth in terms of size , rate and distribution will have a maximum impact on all other aspects of city growth. In 3. Current Policy The current attitude is one of reducing the amount of multiple units anti reduction of uensities in this city. The overall impact would be a reduction of overall population size. 4. Implied Policy The attitude of reduced population size through density reduction is maintained. However, the Implied Policy includes consideration of certain distribution factors © and the overall consideration of a residential growth policy. S. Revised Policy 0 Revised Policy provides for the planning and regulation ;y of residential development as an essential ingredient to the overall growth policy. It further suggests that F the regulation of size through density reduction is E, not neccssarily appropriate, rather that other policies and growth factors be considered at the same time. The basis for this is the variety of housing needs and housing types indicating that a variety of density types is appropriate. This would suggest that popula- tion be a function of residential needs and a consider- ation of environmental. and urban quality goals . t a. Size This would be the area of primary impact of population growth policy. The residential policy would establish overall size guidelines , ! however, until the relationship between size , p services and environmental quality can be deter- mined the arbitrary manipulation of densities is inappropriate. , ,�." ► �, 197flip f .n...»�........_._... ... ._........,... -...____..__.»...�.... -,i';'.y,............�..................._...»..........+....,..................rw,rr.,.YarYrtrnr']tr.t:.F�71r;.y •vii-s`t•.zcaay. .......��... ....uLa. r'Ctii•.CMi ` II I . b. Rate r'1 This is the secondary emphasis area. Mitle the overall intent of the policy would be to reduce rate, the residential rate Mould be secondary factor. In other words , other policy areas would be used to regulate the rate of residential development. C. Distribution This is also considered a secondary effect. However, the residential distribution is an extremely important factor that must be related r to population size, densities and other policy areas . 10. 4. 2 Cemn.ercial 1 . Quality of Life Goals : a. To establish and maintain a well planned program of commercial development which would be aesthe- tically pleasing, ecologically sound and economi- cally feasible to both consumer and supplier. b. To promote and encourage the development of services and. facilities oriented toward the tourist industry. 2. General 0' Commercial der.Aopment is considered a secondary or indirect population growth factor. This is due to its nature of responding to nee-Is of proximate population. G� 3. Current Policy Encourage development in both general and tourist categories . This is responding to a general accommo- dation of market pressures in the general commercial sector and a- somewhat passive encouragement of tourist. C•. commercial potential. 4 . Implied Policy A dual expression which encourages tourist commercial and -recommends the control and reduction of general c 198 ft } Inv -++..w.. ..t:.�'t:c¢�::�rsrti.4.,.i.....,....-..........«..�... -.... ,.-............�.,.,........-.,... ..H....v..�s..... .........._.... ...._.". ......... .,....ulr.a«}a a}I.:tF:7fli-Y.XSWif/�tKiJ1)•twra+�wu..«+•...y i ( 1 � f commercial development. This implies a desire to expand city revenues while carefully regulating the impact of commercial development to residential areas . S. Revised Policy a. General Commercial ^' The Revised Policy would agree that the control and regulation of this type of commercial is desirable. It further suggests that before strict reductions or controls be imposed , a more careful consideration of population needs be identified and that, perhaps , a hierarchial system of commercial service centers be established. This system would provide criteria for decisions on commercial development in future areas . .a b. Tourist Commercial Tourist commercial could also be encouraged by the Revised Policy since the impact of this type of commercial and population growth per se, is nominal. The impact of this type of development on the quality of life of the city must be assessed and evaluated before final long range committments are made. In general, the Revised Policy does not identify a population factor for primary emphasis , but rather suggests that all factors of size, rate and distribution be simul- taneously considered for the development of overall commercial programs . 14.4.3 Redevelopment 1 . Ruality of Life Coal : There is no specific Quality of 'r Life Goa state or redevelopment. However, this section was separated as it may have impact, on overall population growth objectives. 2. General Redevelopment has not really been experienced within Huntington Beach. Any redevelopment that has occurred has been reconstruction on isolated parcels throughout older portions of the city. Redevelopment has several distinct advantages . First , in certain areas , only ,a through an organized redevelopment program, either public or private, can the quality of the environment 199 '•.t+:�.�t.,cezr._w..........,�._. _. .._._......._.... .. ...._-.......`.............._.-._..._. ... ....................,.-......,n...w�.c�+w.�r:w!.''.d'f;e7.i'G:S�S�.+ti7,"F�'' 1 and the quality of life within certain areas be improved to a level desired in the Quality of Life Goals . Secondly, redevelopment could provide an opportunity r' to rechannel certain types of growth into already established areas . This would have the effect of recycling certain portions of the city and making it possible to preserve certain open space or natural resource areas in other portions of the city as; the pressure is redirected. 3. Current Policy J The attitude of the city is to encourage redevelopment � of older portions , however, the responsibility has been primarily put to the private sector. Q . Implied Policy This too, encourages redevelopment, again relying upon private initiative; however, emphasis of redevelopment is in the downtown commercial area. S. Revised Policy Revised policy also encourages redevelopment For the advantages mentioned above. The policy also suggests that the proper encouragement in realization of any meaningful redevelopment may have to be precipitated by action of the city itself. ; I 10.4.4 Industrial Development 1 . Quality of Life Goal : Seek and encourage industrial development to Froacren the city's economic base . {, 2. General The quality of Life Goal, in this instance , appears to be more oriented to short term needs and desires. The situation has been identified in earlier portions of this report and consists of a development time lag between other types of development and industrial construction. It is difficult to fully assess the grovith implication of industrial development. . There is no doubt that this type of activity would increase desirability of residential development. While this is perhaps a negative impact in. terms of population size, there are certain distribution advantages as, far as accessibility to employment and the use of lands for industrial construction which might atherwise eventually be committed to residential . t. 200 vr'4.e.♦ a. +....... ...... ... ....nF.n,.w-.:,+.......... .r< .rYP:a Ri7]'.i.1 YWi•t i4ar:......e rr+.w+r.-e., 3 3. Current Policy r"► 'I'o encourage development of all residential land as zoned or master planned in the city. This policy is based upon the industrial land use allocations of the current General Plan. However, prior :sections have indicated that there is a potential discrepancy between the am6unt of available land or land zoned for industrial purposes and that which is actually being; absorbed. Additionally, deletion of the Pacific Coast Freeway and the questionable status of the Route 39 Freeway suggests that current industrial policy and plans are in need of evaluation. 4 . I_ inplied Growth •Policy This policy also encourages industrial development . However, this encouragement is qualified by a concern for the distribution of industrial uses and, especially , r� the relationship of these uses to residential areas in terms of land use compatibilities and street circulation. S. Revised Growth Policy , c) This policy, essentially in line with the Implied Policy , suggests that industrial development occur within the context of planned industrial areas . This also implies a consideration of what can actually be expected to occur insofar as industrial development is concerned, and then a deliberate distribution of that in an optimal fashion. The primary area of emphasis to population growth would be in the area of distribution from the standuoin4 of jiccess for people and goods as well as the relative planned use relation- ships between various parts of the city. 10. 4. 5 Transportation and Circulation 1 . Quality+ of life Goal : To provide an efficient trans- portation system that considers city and regional master planning; and anticipated growth. 2. General The section has been divided .into specific; areas deal- ing with transportation and circulation types . The Quality of life Goal indicates that planning and growth should be considered in concert since the primary function of transportation and circulation is the 201 1�''+:FYt��'.�Y.�'be..w,r....-.-.... .... ... ._.._..__�.._._..._....�..........r............'.1.w....C:.:I:. ..._...:L..r.+.....w+....•.-.+r.-n.. rv. .•...-+^-^—�....-.,..�.+..r.....w.w.Ma+eM+ movement of* people and goods. The obvious area of greatest impact on population would he in the wren of population distribution. 10. 4 .6 freeways 1 . Planning Polite: To encourage and plan for the develop- ment o : the Route 1 Freeway/Transportation Corridor and 39 Freeway. This policy is , of courser in a state of change and has already been outdated by the deletion of the Route 1 Freeway and subsequent designation as n transportation. corridor. Z. Implied Policy rI In contrast to the Current Policy , this statement prefers that freeway development and intrusion be minimized. This is seemingly oriented to the notion that freeways to encourage traffic and growth and n� generally endanger certain Quality of Life Goals. ` 3. Revised Policy This policy strikes a middle ground between the prior two policies . It suggests that all factors , pesitive and negative, of freeway development be considered. a. Size While freeway development tends to encourage population growth and therefore pressure for r', Size increase , it also has a tendency to encourage other types of development which may be appropriate within community values. 'Therefore, population size is considered a secondary factor to be regulated by other means. b. Rate Again, a freeway development will accelerate the rate of development. However, if regulated , this factor can be controlled to a satisfactory level . c. Distribution; Primary Impact Area The intent of the Revised Policy would be to utilize any appropriate freeway development to channel population and growth distribution and, therefore, have its greatest positive impact in this area. 202 »....v•.., .,y. ..n.ac .r..;4;'J.F;..`.li�'...,:'?S%'.�:•CzyH;!!1ti.tc+w,•�uf:. i t 1 Supporting Policy_ n 10. 4 . 7 Arterial Ilighways and Streets 1 . General Development of the arterial system within the city has accommadated population growth. Since street rights-of-way consist of approximately 20-25 percent of any urbanized area, this is a substantial. invest- ti ment of resources. � 2 . Current lolscy Construction of streets to meet developmental needs has encouraged population growth and accommodated it. This accommodation has been essential to the functioning of the city . Elowever, its major side ! effect has been to create a total reliance upon the I automobile which has tended to der.), certain segments I of the population a more flexible ability to move throughout the city. 1 3. Implied Policy ` This again encourages development but adds emphasis S regarding a safe and compatible distribution system. This policy considers a side effect of the automobile and a concern for protecting the Quality of Life from imposition of this element. 4 . Revised Policy To deny arterial development is naive , however, the Revised Policy suggests that arterial development must be considered in conjunction with transportation --. objectives of the city and of the region. This also impliez a consideration of population distribution. a. Size This is an area of secondary emphasis since arterial construction is primarily in reaction of response to population growth. b. Rate This is again of secondary emphasis , however, it may be possible that arterial construction will be i used as a means of regulating and influencing the rate of population growth. 203 IRV _�,,...:...,.:R .�.. �....... .. ..... ... .. ..-----.................... i C. Distribution This is considered a primary emphasis . The develop- r ment of arterials can and should be used to ch4nnel and regulate distribution of population in the sense that it must be carefully aligned with land use needs and interrelationships. An example is that commercial and industrial lands are dependent r; upon accessibility. 10. 4.9 Public Transportation 1 . General The impact and need For public transportation is just beginning to be realized, especially since the negative side effects of the automobile and overall population growth are being felt:.. Transportation advocates suggest that our cities are in the midst of functional and environmental crises. It is safe to say that continued propagation of and reliance upon the automobile will have severe effects upon the Quality of Life. 2. Current Policy Essentially, the Current Policy is to passively par- ticipate in any regional transportation studies which is relying primarily upon other entities of government to provide for public transportation. The primary danger to this approach would be that the city may not derive an optimum benefit from any public transports- �. . tion systems as a result of this passive attitude. 3. Implied Policy This represents a more substantial interest in consid- eration of public transportation. However , the pre- vailing attitude remains somewhat passive. 4 . Revised Policy This policy recommends that the city actively consider rind participate in public transportation proposals. This is not to advocate specific transportation proposals ; however, it is felt that by participation the best interest of the city and of the region can be .more fully met. C 204 } } r +R a. Size Secondary impact. b. Rate Secondary impact. 0 C. Distribution i Primary emphasia. It i, anticipated that the greatest impact of transportn`..ion would be in the distribution of population. This would be ,-, especially so since the (till implement:atinn of any transportation systems will be occurring over z long period of time , and that size and rate factors would he well manag.d and directed by that t,me. 10. 4 .9 Utility Service 1. quality of Life Goal : There is no specific goal in this area. 'C) 2. General i t Utility service is considered a major policy area due to its alignment with population growth Hsofnr its the provision of services and the genarul tendency of accommodating and providing for addi'ional growth. It is anticipated that this may also 'Ce an instrument j for use in the regulation of growth. 3. Current Policy To provide for all utility services to properties as the are proposed for development. This policy tends .0 Y P P I P �' to isolate on specific properties in an add-on or extended typu fashion and has not historically been the subject of comprehensive planning except in the reaction to wide spread need.. 4 . Implied Policy There is none derived since there was no specific reference to this category in the Policy Plan. I I 205 ' S. Itevised 1'olicX Utility service is considered in the same context with t7 other community services and facilities , such as arterial streets . The implication to growth -s extremely important since the resources required to accommodate growth are substantial and the implications to regional and nation-wide environmental problems are also substantial. The Revised Policy recommends that utilities be planned on it comprehensive scale. To accomplish this , it must be done on it level in concert with the service districts . Furthermore , the impact on environmental resources should be considered in future growth decisions . r .1. Size Secondary emphasis . Although the impact of utility service on natural resources may cumulatively impact population size to a very r, significant degree , oil r. regional scale. This impact would most likely occur at higher levels of government. b. Rate Primary emphasis . This factor is considered extremely important since it is possible that utility services could be a key factor in the regulation of population growth. A planned I: prcgram of utility extensions could very well establish it maximum area or number of people to be served within a specified time period. C. distribution !; Primary emphasis . Any sequential or phased time table would have distribution implications and, therefore, affect the dist? .bution of population in that area. 10.4.10 Annexation 1 . ualit of life Goal : Encompass within city boundaries only those areas crtt i common interest- in which can be efficiently and economically served city facilities. C 206 f; ..^•.....+.w .-Rt.. .,,... ,..� .- ....._... .... ...........,.........,.r...... ....... _..7.........,ry.. 1 I i. 2. General This policy area is considered as having a secondary impact on population growth. The principle reason for this statement being that once areas are annexed to the city the other factors of development, including services , are then in a position to predominate. However, the policy towards annexation can insure that further expansion of the city will be properly planned for and anticipated within the context of the city , policy. 3. Current Policy Primarily to allow annexation of unincorporated areas without full consideration of impacts , thus aligning with the ot+crall attitude that expansion and growth , in themselves , are good. 4. Implied Policy Emphasis is placed upon the preplanning of annexation areas and the consideration of impacts on the objectives and the services of tho city. S. Revised Policy_ This is merely a restatement or the Implied Policy. The overall 4pproach would insure that nevi areas would favorably impact and be consistent -dith the city growth polic::es and (duality of Life Coals, 10. 4. 11 Fiscal Planning ' 1. Quality�o_f�Life Goals : Provide a fiscal planning process for' l unto i gin Beach that (1) Is directly related to the city's objectives as reflected in the blaster Plan and is recognized as being a funda- mental means of gaining those objectives . The city budget is a siae�tEr range budgeting prncess consistent with the fiscal plan; (2) the city, when developed, in accordance with the Master Ilan should be economi 0 cally balanced. Growth and specific uses should be balanced by comparable growth in other uses to assure that city services will at all times be supported by adequate tax base. 207 '"v,aua.roN:M�•w.r..... ..,. . . . . .......... ........-+.. .......•..,,>x:. i..avt+. .•.« ..�.�..__. v.•..,www•..•.......««..r-.......+.-...arr..c-.r.o};•'l.�a Mrri:.N'yj.C,•�:,:, :iS7, r 2. ('eneral The role of fiscal planning in consideration of growth r policy and city development policy cannot be under- stated. Perhaps the greatest challenge at this time to fiscal Planning, is for public int.crest and support in parks, open space and environmental programs. All of these desires are extremely costly and require r, careful analysis and planning to responsibly meet these demands. 3, Current Policy This has been oriented mainly to a year by year fiscal plan for the city and is based upon current growth and projections . This is basically a. policy of accommoda- tion of current growth, however, attempts are currently being made to expai►d fiscal considerations into a 6 year plan. 4. Implied Policy ` Mis expands the area of fiscal planning .into consider- ation of long term needs . Furthermore, this policy ties fiscal planning more closely to the city Master Plan. S. Revised Policy This policy is generally in concert with the Implied Policy. It recognizes that fiscal plw-aing is a secondary factor to population growth. Its basic intent is to accommodate growth, however, its orient- ation must change as growth alternatives and new policies are devised. A further implication is that a Revised Growth Policy implies revisions to the city general plan and, therefore, a realigning of fiscal policies consistent with that plan. Cj 10.4 . 12 }lousing 1 . Quality of Life Goal : Provide .and maintain a quality living environment so that, members of all economic , s racial and ethnic groups may reside in Huntington Beach. G 108 1. C: .rr.vy'.'P•T:.net: t2:J:.:,C.., r+. ... ., .. , ... .. ... ..._.........s.....a.r.e,:r.....a. ......... ._..__.,._... -....... .., ., . .n... .,..r .. � .. e.., ....• . ........ .. ... . .. .. .'+.-r.. .-.Jl'.I.:...9I '.{.A'Tif'r..itiwwT T.r•,j"� ' lI , ;1 `r 1� 2 . General This policy area refers to the variety of housing needs in terms of costs , housing types and demographic variety that constitute the full range of population character- istics in any major area . As such, housing policy is closely aligned to residential development. n . Current Policy Current attitude has allowed the housing market to be a prime determinant in the provision of housing. While this satisfies to majority of needs there are - �r still sectors of the population that will not be properly served by the market place. In an area such as Huntington Beach it :is difficult to p•covide for all these needs without some assistance from government entities . 4 . Implied Policy The identification of a greater variety of needs is indicated in the desire for expanding the availability and opportunity for low and moderate income housing. + � 5. Revised Policy This suggests a restatement of the implied policy proposal. %hilt an element in itself, housing policy, in the context of population growth , must be carefully coordinated and considered as it reip.tes to residential �.� growth policy. A residential development policy would be in the area of implementation of housing goals, Special emphasis would be on the factors of size and distribution. In Huntington Beach a residential ` policy of density reduction would be inconsistent with ti the fulfillment of housing needs , therefore , these two ��•, policy areas must be carefully integrated so that the I . '-. means to implement these policies are mutually compatible. 10.4. 13 Schools 1. Quality of Life 130,11 Promote communication and coordination between ail schools and the city utilizing those educational resources and facilities for the city programs. 71 xas .ti 2 . General The relationship between population growth and schools has become an increasingl}• sensitive area since much of recent growth has made it impossible for school facilities to maintain a preferred level of service. ;ronically, the quality of life statement of the Policy Plan makes no reference to educational quality; however, in considering growth policies the quality of education has been assumed to be a primary Quality of life Goal . ;. Current Policy The concern now being expressed over crowded school �. facilities is representative of a policy that has allowed a residential development to occur without full consideration of impacts . 4 . Implied Polite Tho emphasis of ne Implied Policy is on the coordina- tion and communication of school districts with various aspects of government. As stated above , . this policy is felt to be somewhat negligent in its :application to growth concerns . 5. Revised Policy Since educational quality is considered an important aspect of urban life, the Revised Policy suggests thnt the limiting or regulation of residential growth occur so as to optimize the level nf education. a. Size Raw population size Is a factor in the provision of education, but for the purposes of growth policy, at this point in time, it is considered a secondary consideration. i b. Rate Primary emphasis . This area is considered extremely important since the rate of growth has been the primary cause for the problem in maintaining school facilities and services. T Ile refore, it could be possible that the school issue could be used as a means to regulate and lirtit residential growth. C' i 210 i r41.e!7.-1 d,.,j".SS.';•.1:.. _s+rw7, r...n..rn . ..-r...nr-.o,r ... •r...-n......:a.._.,. .. ... ...,........-....-......,.,..,,....,. .........................rw+rr.a rar.o w..wi,Gli L s C. Distribution r Like size, this is a Factor within the context of school facilities . However, it is considered at this point in time to be of secondary emphasis . i 10.4 . 14 Parks and _Open Space 1 . -Quality of Life Goal f Capitalize on the outdoor and environmental potential 1 of the city by providing comprehensive coordinated 's IP recreation parks and open space programs that will fill the needs of all segments of the community. ' General r. Recent emphasis has shifted to the issue of open space within the environment. In all lihelihood this has been the result of the impact of population growth. We have reached a point where growth pressures have become sufficiently extreme as to make apparent certain deficiencies in past policy. Open space is one of those concerns . t• 3. Current Policy Currently the provision of open space has been minimal and somewhat project oriented. The city does have, hnwever, an excellent park program with a policy of � 1 providing parks at the rate of 5 acres per 1 ,000 population. { A . Implied Policy This, policy represents the current interest in park M and open space and recommends increase of such facilities to 16 acres per 1 ,060 people . This raises �. the park amount to 8 acres per 1 ,000 and creates an additional 8 acres of open space per 1 ,000 people. r 5. Revised Policy t . The attitude toward encouraging acquisition and develop- ment of }park. and open space is nlso part of the Revised .' Growth Policy. ! I l.► 211 i t -. ws+..r«.. ..�.....,.... ...._.-....__-.�-.�_..-.-...�.,,.. ... .n.a. .,.. C' :{; .+�• ..-........•.,...,.—�..+....v..•..ar.,..a�.,.........+..w-.«+.ln...yw.ar,q,ul'•[r�x.+.r>tntntn.rr '. M r a. Size I Rather than specify specific standards , the Revised Policy suggests that park and open spare be related directly to population size and that a balance be a_hieved between the needs of the population and the ability of the population to economically support such facilities. This would require :1 further consideration and study before specific standards could be applied. The quality of open space is also a factor. A well located park with views and good access and exposure will bu more satisfactory than one tucked away in a corner with one side exposed. No size standard will insure Q quality and usefulness of open space. b, Distribution Primary emphasis. It can be anticipated that an agressive open space program of encouraging open t1 space and park areas could have a significant effect on population distribution. There are two aspegts to this consideration. First would be the proximity of population to the open space areas , and second would be the distribution of population so as to allow for the preservation and maintenance of major open space areas . 10.4 .15 Natural Resources ' 1 . Quality of Life Coal : Provide for the proper mainten- ance, improvement and use of city's natural resources . Z. General Public concern and involvement has become a major factor in the past several years . Significantly, the ca legislature and the courts have responded to public desire; therefore, the natural environment has been able to receive the attention it deserves . We are- still in a transitional period between the expression of concern and the initial legislation, and the final I development of techniques and methods for the preser- vation and acquisition of natural and open space elements. This especially applies to levels of local government. «1MAlft APT rr.yti+v [T1 n•s w..�r. wr.,.............-........rv-...................._.. _....._._........r r♦s 1 w .w.. . ..... .. -��.w .ra.0.. - • - •.nv .....�.w•..-+.•r.-w •1tw.u.,uwJJ.fY:a[i':i a4}M M[M/tM.Fr.. 5 , 15 3. Current Policy ~ historically , there has been little environmental concern. This has been changing rapidly and, Current Policy is caught in the transition period between concern and the ability to take effective action in preservation of the environment. 4 . Implied Police + The Implied Policy is one step further along the transition. The concern for preservation is prevelant and the ability to bring; pressure on certain areas has r increased. Actual tools for implementing of major recommendations are still in the Formative stages . S. Revised Policy j Revised Policy is the further extension of environmental ✓� concern. At this point in time, this policy suggests that programs be initiated for the conservation and . protection of natural resources . These programs are part of environmental management systems that can be integrated and utilized within the context of the planning, process . It is anticipated that the develop- ment of tools and techniques for implementing major environmental programs will evolve in the foreseeable future and be usable to influence a change in this ! area. While environmental conservation will have impact on all of growth factors , it is anticipated that it will Influence the factor of distribution to the great- est extent. In this regard , much future growth will be channeled from environmentally sensitive areas to portions of the city that can better accommodate h population growth. I 10. 4. 16 Oil j i 1. General � 1 Historically, oil production has dominated a signifi- cant portion of the city. While often tin unsightly activity, utilization of significant areas for oil production has had the advantage of delaying dev- elopment of these areas . At this point in time, this delay has given us the opportunity to anticipate and + consider more fully the future use of these lands. Additionally , these oil areas are in large ownerships which has the advantage of permitting more comprehen- sive planning and development. I 213 W """r.`,:'- _ _. ... .._._...._..__�_._... .:. .-.........,.......____ ___-•..-...... ..-,......-«.•.».......w,v'.7w.:.f?1Ri•E.:'6f•:3T.T:+�-;iei?'.r'.^.7?*' • s r 2. Current Policy 'I'raditional ly the attitude h0s i,ee►i to accommodate development upon the depletion of* the oil reserves. 3. Implied Policy This policy , too , anticipates the development of these , lands ; however, it implies a greater concern for pro-planning. 4 . Revised Policy Emphasis of the Revised Policy is in the area of C ff population growth rate regarding oil lands . The policy anticipates that these lands can be phased for develop- ment, thus utilizing a staged program to influence and regulate the rate of growth within these areas . 10.4. 17 Geologic Hazards and Flood Plains 1 . General These two areas have historically been somewhat diffi- cult with which to deal . Regarding geological hazards , C there has always been a concern and danger associated with such things , especially active fault lines. This danger, which has been witnessed in earthquakes over the years , is nevertheless difficult to quantify and to determine to what extent development or non-develop- ment should occur or relate to a fault line. Scientific C evidence is still limited at this time. Regarding; flood plains , the policy of co►►nty and regional districts hits been to establish or optimize flood protection; therefore, encouraging; or allowing; development in potentially dangerous areas . The danger of these areas is difficult to assess since many of the factors used include such factors as 100 year floods , which are difficult to assess and very nebulous. � 2, Current Policy In the past development has been allowed or accommodated C in both flood plains and potential geological hazards and there ahs been no consideration as to the implicationf of such action. C; 714a?? z. A f 3. Implied Policy 'rho Implied Policy makes no reference to Ecologic hazards although it does express some cu7cern for flood plains . 'rho concern is nominal sin%7e this policy suggests that development can occur after some consideration is given to the implications of such action. 4 . Revised Policy I This policy contends that development in flood plains and approximate to geologic hazards should be carefully regulated. We are entering a period in which the ability to measure and quantify such relationships should be more possible than in the past. The potential danger to any form of development, in certain instances , is very real and moat be considered and acted upon. It is anticip:oted that the growth factor impacted the most will be that of population distribution. Therefore, in the future certain develop/rent must be away from potentially dangerous areas , leaving them for open space or some other productive use . :I 10. 4. 18 Shoreline { 1 . (quality of Life Goal Recognize that our shoreline should be developed as a unique irreplaceable regional recreational asset in a ;r,.N balanced manner that preserves it bayed on sound economic and environmental standards. 2 . General The shoreline is perhaps the most unique and important t, natural feature in the city. The city' s ability to regulate the shoreline has decreased over the past '. seve-al years due to state activities , especially their recent active acquisition policy and' implementation of Proposition 20. While this has rciievt*d the city of some control , it has in the long run insured greater public use and benefit of this asset. 3. Current Policy To maximize public use of the shoreline and benches . ALAMA 215 �w ri�n Z9i /.A'T}..S•.r.rr........ .. .. ._ ....w.........wN•i1. i{:i.C.e .fie t! e...u-.r.�.......+..MwIP^(`.11...a.ww'....wwr..r.Tf+w.Yfr MO'..1f f'} � 1 4 . Implied Policy This also maximizes the use of the shoreline while expres_�ing concern .for the protection of the O suit l quality of the area. 5. Revised Policy I , Rather than maximize use , this policy recommends that the use be optimized; which is to say that the use by the public be insured and accommodated, but within the context of the protection of environmental and aesthetic values . A balance between these values and the_ use of this asset should be sought. This , therefore, implies a certain regulation and limitation as to the use of the shoreline . It also implies :► concern and antici - pation of public use that will tint detr,'tct or unfavc►r- ably impact the environment of the city. Detailed discussion of the :alternative growth policies � are concluded. It should be noted that: the Revised Policy is an extension of at,, evolutionary process initiated by the Quality of Life Goals. This policy is inv.isioned as -he next step in defining and working toward implementation of these goals. . i i 'f( i ".i i 1 I i Il� i i f j 215 AMI Ao .j •+rK':1V:14-r.::T.:3�ii':.CAita.a,•Itn.r •r.( a^r. .n.»...., ssu..... � ,.. .n. .wia.r•.a 1..... r... ... ,.. ._..........,...o.... .x .�. �a.....,t..h.Y r<•t•. ....4.F=.'Y .;iiJ4�;i:JrilJVJ ar.. ur: w SECTION 11 .0 IMPACT OF REVISED GROWTH POLICY SECTION HIGHLIGH`fS 1 . Specific Impact is difficult to assess since the policy is based on values and goals and must be carried to the level of the general plan before specifics can be determined. i 2. This study is the result of the impact of the Policy Plan and other factors that indicate a need and desire for influencing ,growth. i 3. The degree to which growth will be influenced will depend on the comprehensive application of policy. A. Today's impact will be less tangible than the long run impact. ` Policy changes will be required. Values will be realized. A commitment must be made. S. Population size will most likely be reduced from current projections ; the finnl size resulting from a balancing of environmental values and other growth factors . ► G. Population increases must be reduced to allow time for planning and implementation of a gro::th policy. �1 217 r ..,,y.t µ•,;{7,... :x+...�.............. -. .. ._- _-__ _• '._.. ...._..,..... .art: .._ .. .-.... _ .. �.-...«.........,,_.�._..... ......,. -.... ...r.aca.r:.i:.a'..''-',...,,:ni'.'d 1 7. Population distribution will be the last area fully affected due to the extent of existing development. The most immediate * r effect will be in plans and programs for conservation, opzn space and hazard areas . 8. A senario describing one possible future the growth policy could Help create concludes the section. r c i i r I � i C! . C_1 �1 218 ..__ ... ....-- ..... .. .. .alfi-'3..i'.L1'S'i.la:». '`i1::'idID1s..•.+L' !t� w ell ,.� 11.0 IMPACT 01: REVISED GROWTH POLICY 11.1 General Comments It is difficult to fully assess the impact of a Revised Growth Policy. Thls, in part, is due to the fact that the policy is oriented to a high level that deals in broad concepts and a broad framework that is subject to specific interpretation. This condition is result of two factors : 1. The Revised. Growth Policy is based on values. These valves � have been derived from the Quality of Life Goals of the Policy Plan and from studies of population factors and areas of growth that can be influenced. Values are inherently subjective; they are difficult to measure and quantify. They are , however, the basis for the development of policy for they express the i desires, goals, ideals and aspirations of the city. Without this sense of future and destiny, any measurable or quantifiable standard has no meaning or context:. Therefore, this growth policy, in derling with goals and aspirations , is much more difficult to assess and interpret. However, in the long run � it- will be infinitely more meaningful to the future and quality of life for Huntington Beach. 2. The growth policy is not an end in itself. This is merely a first step in the development of comprehensive planning and policies that will implement and maintain the growth policy itself. Therefore, the Revised Policy is , as yet , onn step away from implementation. However, it will be used for the formulation of specific policy that will be aimed at two areas. ti 219 �a k':r...Y",....:I^.r++I«............. .. ... .. ._.-......... ..........v yr ♦ .i... ... . ,. ,.... .... r ..............+w .............�.. . . ..r.+.... .vtwR6: '.Y..... .. 'f„'•«� First , there 4 g { 1 be spec i f i c ol►erat ioiial po l i cy and content s that will be developed for the day-to-day decision making MId for the realignment of operations and functions of city staff activities . Secondly, it will be used to provide basic criteria for revision and maintenance of the city general plan and the various elements that relate to that general plan. 'Therefore , the specifics of growth regulation will be fixed in detail at the level where they can be most effective. That will be at the operational and general plan level . 11. 2 General Impact C Prior to discussing the impacts of the growth policy itself, it is appropriate to note that this policy is the product of the impact of the Policy Plan on the City of lluntington Beach. There is no doubt that the Policy Plan implies a concern for growth . This premise is substantiated by the comparison of past policy with the poli:.y and values expressed by the Policy flan. This discrepancy or, perhaps more appropriately, desire for change expresses the community attitude that the qual'ity of life is a major factor to be considered in all future decisions . 'Thus , the growth policy is a product of the impact of the Policy Plan. It is an extersion of the process that was begun by the identification of community goals . Since the C Policy Plan is not complete in its application to growth , it is necessary to formulate a Revised Growth Policy which is a combination of the values expressed in the Quality of Life Goals and the consideration of major population growth factors . ; Like the Policy Plan, a Revised Policy, when adopted , will not in itself bring about change. Its impact will be felt at the time that its intent is crystalized to action policies and programs . However, the Revised Growth Policy does offer the initial potential to influence growth. Its impact in this area will depend upon the way in which it is converted into workable programs for implementa- tion. Its impact will also depend upon the conscious use of this growth policy in decision making processes. The key to effectiveness of any growth policy will be in its : comprehensive application. This comprehensive apprroach will encourage and allow the consideration of as many factors and dimensions of growth as possible. This will also provide the legal basis for the growth regulation process . Additionally , it is only through the comprehensive planning and regulation of growth factors that the impact of the policy can be measured and anticipated. without this consideration, arbitrary decisions In one area or factor of growth will have unanticipated side effects in other areas . For example, the reduction of overall population � size by the reduction of densities is not a complete control-of-growtl 220 t policy. Such a move would, of course , reduce the ultimate population but it would create impact on other problem areas . One such side effect could be in the area of housing. To adequately fulfill the variety of housing; needs of variety of housing types of varying; densities is necessary. A blanket reduction of density could unfavorably impact this problem area. Additionally, the reduction of population size through reduced ,.� densities could have negative or limited impact upon such important factors as rate and distribution of population. * This could also have little effect on such potential problems as power shortages and school Loading;. I I 11 . 3 Impact Today The impact of the Revised Growth Policy on today and the immediate future would be less tangible than what could be ultimately expected. The influence would be felt more in the ways of doing; and looking; at things . 11 . 3.1 Policy changes will be required. New criteria and consider- ations would be required for decision making;. Utilizing a policy that growth can and will be managed so that it will contribute to fulfillment of the desired quality of life. This would require a mare comprehensive approach that will i !� fully measure growth impacts in all areas affected, i.e . numerical size, cost of services , transportation, housing, environmental quality, etc. At this policy framework is established, decisions will be easier and more consistent. Perhaps the city Gould expand asrects of the Environmental Impact Report process by establishing procedures and check- 0 lists to be utilized by all departments in assessing growth impacts and correspondence to growth policy. In such a t way the growth policy can be brought down to daily operations and administration. Policy must be operational at all levels . Additionally, a policy orientation to the conscious. .; growing toward goals will replace an attitude of coping; and ' accommodating. i 11 . 3. 2 Values will be realigned. This is not to throw out contemporary values , but to realize that they must be considered in a comprehensive context. One obvious example is in the area of transportation. The value system that �+ has emphasized the personal automobile will be realigned so that other forms of transportation can coexist. The reaffirmation of the goal to provide for the safe and 19 t w5Uld have the effect of increasing the rate and amount of vacant land converted to residential uses. The impact of this F+ alone could be substantial. r , 221 :l r I i I i efficient movement of people and goods , will promote other solutions that , until recently, have been subliminated by n an exclusive single-pointed value syste:ai, :mother relatively recent value emergence is in the area of environmental quality. This area is an excellent example of how value changes can bring about alternation of the policy and decision making framework. While the process is not yet f complete, if that is ever possible, the inroads in the ni cons--iousness of people and , correspondingly , the governmenr. is dramatic. Continued value changes can be expected in this area and others , such as Dousing, education, economics , etc. The entire system of values is a dynamic , evolving , process. By expanding this process to include considerations and impacts of growth on the quality of life , a dimension n for influencing and planning for the future will result . 11 . 3.3 A committment must be made. It will require the adop- tion and full implementation of policies to bring about the desired directions. There could be resistance in areas where value realignment has not yet progressed. In Huntington Beach, however, the growth battle must be waged now. This will require a responsible response of all levels and aspects of government. This is certainly not the easy way out , but it is the only way in which to take control of the situation. It will require more study, more planning, more coordination with other government entities and the continual r maintenance and updating of these areas . 11.4 Impact on Pogulation Size The Revised Growth Policy does not specify or recommend an ultimate , population figure. The contention of this policy is that population size, in terms of raw numbers , is not the issue , but rather the relationship of population size to the quality of life and other 'environmental and population factors . The intent is to find a population size that, when properly distributed, provides adequate support for urban 'services as well as support for environmental and open space programs. There is currently no pure answer to this question. The result will be a compromise of the above values . The objective will be to find the optimized condition. Distribution will also have a profound impact on the size, since the efficiency and cost of services is directly related to distribution factors .: The areas to be impacted the most by population size will be the residential and housing areas . These two considerations must be treated as one. The overall impact on residential and housing of the Revised Growth Policy is anticipated to be a reduction of population size over what is currently projected. It is anticipated that this size reduction will be the result of increased open space areas in the form of hazard , recreation and environmental resource areas . All encompassing density reductions should not be necessary, 222 Ci i A but should be reserved for special situations. In all likelihood, the density policy will be a combination of higher and lower densities. bower in certain areas and higher in those areas where it would benefit the provision of services and the utilization of certain facilities . ^ 11 .5 Impact on Population Growth hate The rate of growth is a factor that has already had its impact felt in the city over the past decade. The rapid rate of growth the city has experienced has helped create the realization today that certain quality of life values are potentially in danger. Also, by +/7. accommodating the rate from pressures of the market�! place ; it has been more difficult to plain and anticipate development within the city. The Revised Policy recommends that the rate of growth be reduced . This is anticipated as an interim policy. The greatest impact it r., would have would be to allow time for planning and the full imple- mentation of the size and distribution policies . Without n reduction of pressure for growth , it would be exceedingly difficult to fully implement these other policies. The creation of a phased or staged development policy would allow for development needs and the provision of services . It is possible that the provision of utility services and arterial str%-ets could be used as a regulating device. Additionally, coordination and regulation regarding; the provision of school facilities should assist in the reduction of the growth rate and the matching of growth to the provision of such facilities . In summary the impact of the rate reduction would allow for the reorientation of our efforts . The day-to-day crisis of keeping up could be replac-ad by a consciously anticipated policy of growing toward our Quality of Life Goals. 11.6 Impact of Population Distribution As stated , the distribution of population is closely related to the other growth factors especially that of population size. Two cond.itions would be affected: 1. All undeveloped areas : It would be possible in undeveloped portions of the city to immediately implement a distribution policy. This would require a change in some policies and procedures . These areas would be most easily influenced and the most amendable to planning;. 223 2. Existing development: It is not proposed that immediate dramatic distribution changes occur in existing areas . i This is riot realistic, nor is it necessarily desirable. It is anticipated that if some redistribution policies are needed in existing areas that it would be a very long term and well conceived program. The factors that would be impacted most by new distribution 0 ! policies would include open space, recreational and flood plain and geologic hazard zones . There would be more open space and more types of upen space. The ability to support these open spaces would, of course , depend upon the popula- tion size. Their anticipated existence indicates that population would riot be distributed at those locations , i however, proximate to it. This would also encourage and allow a greater variety of open space elements and would relate more to natural environmental concerns regarding the urban environment. The methods of movement , i .e . , freeways , arterials and public mass transportation would have a profound impact on the distribution of the urban population. These elements could be used as e� means to regulate distribution and they would also be used in the planning and enabling of more efficient movement systems . This includes careful consideration of alternative trans- portation methods. Any substantial transportation system ` implemented within the city should be in concert with regional � systems . Another factor - redevelopment - within the context of the growth policy, takes on added significance as same of the pressure for development could be channeled into existing areas . The result of redevelopment within appropriate areas could assist in the environmental upgrading of these areas as well as allowing an outlet for development pressure that otherwise (j might utilize potential open space areas . ,M :1 11 .7 Huntington Reach Tomorrow: A Brief 5enario It is difficult to pinpoint the final product of a comprehensive Ci growth policy, especially since adoption and varying degrees of interpretation have yet to he finalized. However, it is still possible to paint a generalized picture of what could happen if the Revised Growth Policy were fully implemented. By the year 2000, the period of dramatic federal and state growth U and environmental legislation would be long past. The emphasis now ; would be on programs to fulfill the intent of the legislation with i concrete results . Technology has accomplished a great deal in ! solving pollution problems, but the commitment of the population to this end in the past 15 years has made it possible . The further change of life-styles has been felt as leisure time has increased U more, there are relatively fewer children , and the percentage of 224 A senior citizens has substantially increased . As the use of the i automobile became more restrictive in the 801s , there is more reliance on public transportation and }people tend to live closer to work . III }iuntington Beach many changes have occured -- not just because of the growth policy, but as a result of changing attitudes , trends , and technology throughout the Southern California region and the nation. The sense of stagnation that was felt in the 80's and early 90's as the slower growth policy took hold has been replaced by a new vitality as the newer transportation systems attain real effectiveness and recycling of portions of the city is in full swing. The population size is somewhat stabilized at a level slightly below the projections of 1973 (275 ,000) . The growth rate now e slight natural increase since the growth from new represents a lig development was completed over five years ago. The distribution has been the last factor to be significantly .influenced as a phase of major redistribution is in effect. Some older residential areas are being redeveloped into more intense clusters that support more open space and new transportation systems. Densities are more polarized between high and very low. In the latter category single family► homes are still abundant, but are now a luxury with the overall number of homes on the decrease . The greatest redistribution of population is into more intensely developed clusters of two types . One cluster type is concentrated , about commercial centers and community facilities , all within walking or tram distance. The other concentration is in the urban j corridors . The major corridor paralleling Beach Blvd . is a lineal A concentration of services and activities . This . is a major transportation spine that ties into local and regional systems. Also, this concentration has reduced the cost and increased the efficiency of urban services . It ;,as also made possible the expansion of open space areas in tho city. The open space belt system, designed to surround the intense corridors and clusters , is nearly complete, and experiments wit)i reforestration and limited agriculture are progressing . The flood disasters of the 80' s have encouraged this redistribution, and the seismic easements have reduced potential damage from earthquakes . The overall tendency has been to revitalize the cite as the sense r� of "community" has been heightened by closer interaction and proximity to services and facilities , while greater involvement in nature and recreation is possible on a more personal basis . Is this what the growth policy implies? The answer is , not necessarily. This is one passible glimpse at the future , and not a very complete one. It is one alternative of many, and may be an idealized verslon at that. There are too many other factors 225 IV I F involved -- the national economy, technology and others that will have significant impact. All a growth policy can do is to set a r direction, within limits , that can guide planning and decision-making. 11 .8 Summary The Revised Growth Policy is a means to encourage and enhance the r future quality of life in the city. It is not absolute , nor is it complete, for it will evolve and change as ideas , values , and other factors change over the years . Its ultimate impact will depend upon the degree of commitment and the degree to which it is utilized and implemented in the creation of the future. It is only a tool and not an end in itself. It asks questions and implies that certain n things must be considered. Its only purpose is to assist in the development of a finer city, in a finer future. If it can assist in the crystalization of certain ideas and directions for the city, then it has served its purpose. By asking difficult questions and providing few pat answers, this growth policy will insure that the r process of studying and answering these questions will have meaning and validity and tremendous impact upon the future environment of the city. f 1 I i Ali II k j 1 t v i G i r r w 1 226 c: " n �r, SECTION 12 .0 IMPLEMENTATION. SECTION HIGHLIGHTS 1. The purpose of this section is to develop a framework of action for implementing a Growth Policy and Strategy in Huntington Beach. 2. The legal parameters of how far a local agency may go in controlling growth are not presently clear. Several cases now pending in the courts will probably assist in more 0 precisely defining these parameters. 3. The techniques available for local agencies to control growth can be broadly classified as follows : The General Plan Zoning Subdivision Controls Environmental Impact Reports Comprehensive Growth Ordinance 4 . Huntington Beach will have to determine how far it wishes . to go in controlling growth and develop a growth strategy. S. The growth strategy will consist of a number of interrelated components: 227 a� :1"",:.� , rb:.. .....-.-.. ....� ..... ...,....._._...._.... ._... --........ ,.�.ri--•,. :C::tpi'7"....;:Tad.......:ti... ':;C. r 1 I Adopt Growth Policy Develop Alternative Concepts for the General Plan Determine the Degree to which the City Wishes to Control the Growth Rate Review and Evaluate all Operational Procedures that {' Influence Growth 6. Subsequent to the completion of growth strategy components a program for controlled growth can be implemented. I r,, r C. f c 228 "-..•..++«-.f il.+.,v .........��..,�.�W.._. .. ...... .... -... ......_....._._.... aw...lt.n...,...........-............. __....,..a.a..e.a^r. .s .................Is+.•s-.v.1+n»r'!-.Fr.-gtr.*{..a..«+r.w..G,: i A t1 4 SECTION 12.0 IMPLCDIENTATION 12. 1 INTRODUCTION This report has defined past growth in Huntington Beach in terms of 1) population size, 2) rate of growth , and 3) distribution of population. In addition, it has outlined the existing politics , both adopted and implied , in describing the Current Growth Policy. As a result of the City's "Policy Plan", new policies influencing growth were developed by the City. These were discussed in the "Implied Growth Policy". These two policie., were then evaluated In terms of the "quality of life goals" derived from the Policy Plan, and a third Policy Sat--the Revised Growth Policy was developed. The purpose of this section is to develop a framework of action within the Community. It has not been the purpose of this report to provide a complete development guide, or growth plan. The report, however, will provide the information needed, including alternatives in developing growth plans and strategies , for the Community itself to develop a Growth Policy most in keeping with the "Quality of Life Goals". With this in mind, the following statements describe what this report is intended to accomplish. THIS REPORT IS: I� a comprehensive look at growth within Huntington Reach and a designation of the major factors involved in dealing with growth within the city. 229 w • .:wa..-.. ... ... .. .._..�.._..-.....•.K. ...,. .-... ....._.-....»........»..—..... ..,.....»....,-+....�,..,;t.un,,.64.:7J.�::.�-raL.d.n j n --a st, Inment of key activities and ,mechanisms which local government in cull ch to use in guiding growth and development and >>ur:,ui.l)g r common gu - -a foundativ,, Ripon which to build further planning afforts ;.ncltiding a detailed progr.1m for policy implementation within the C.ity's "General Plan". THIS REPORT IS NOT: --a solution in itself to any of the Ciity's major problems . --a complete growth strat-gy guide. -a detailed work program for csrrying ou-t a growth policy This report, than, is to provile the basic information needed for Huntington Beach to continue to move towar, the best use of land and people: by carefully considerii)g growth a the community and what it means for the future. 12. 2 THE GROWTH ISSUE: t t' 1 1, 1 141. 2. 1 BACKGROUND CF `ihe City of Garden Grove; in its "Groe, Policy Element" to the General Platt has described a t; „ -rth policy as "n conscious ,public commitment to influence, the future environment in certain ways considered t lee in the ' LL public interest. The growth policy itse, which consists of a set of related policies , functions a.: he basic expression of public desire regarding the qu;Jity of the future environment. ) The Orange County Population Growth Policy and Devvelopment strategy also expresses the importance of growth by stating : "GROWTH IS A VARIABLE TO BE INFLUENCED .IN .PURSUIT OiF A DESIRABLE QUALITY OF LIFE". The significance given to growth in communities is rela- tively new, and quite different from the Fast. Until the' last several years growth in America has been considered 0, one of the best measures of success . "The bigger the bcttelr" was a commonly accepted platitude. t�. Gurcen grove .,eneral Plan: Growth Policy Element , Urban Development Department. Oct. 5, 1072. �r 250 . i I • "As the Commission on Population Growth and the American A Future (Rockefell,.r Commission) said in 1972 : . . .population growth has frequently been regarded as a measure of our progress. If that were ever the case , it is not now. There is hardly any social problem confronting this nation whose solution would be easier if our population were larger."2 Thus , many Cities and Counties have recognized that some better "measure of success or progress" need be developed to replace "growth for growth sake". These measures are the quality of life goals . By implementing growth policies and plans , Communities are taking the future in their hands and stating : "This is the type of community we want for the future". Orange County, Garden Grove, and with this document , the City of Huntington Bench , are pursuing this type of growth policy planning, based on the desires of the community ,., for future "Quality of Life Goals". These goals regarding growth are already expressed indirectly in the Policy Plan. By emphasizing the role of the citizens in developing these policies , this type of planning involves not only time, but hard work and committment to the future by the planning department and staff, the City Council and its various legislative and review bodies , and most signifi- cantly, by the citizens of Huntington ])each. To accomplish these qualities of life goals , then, not only must the community be aware of its future goals , but of the possible methods of achieving them. 12.2. 2 COURT DECISIONS The idea of planning growth in the community is a very complex one. Laws are confusing, and in many cases , ' unclear at the present on what communities may do to control growth. The reasons for uncertainty is that two important areas or values of society, both protected by law, are conflicting in terms of limiting growth. f ;I 2 "Nongrowti as a Planning Alternative", ASPO, Sept. , 1972. 231 i U01 t r ` PUBLIC SAFETY AND SERVICES r On one hand, it is the role of government to insure that the residents of any community are provided with a minimum of services such as sewer and water, drainage , streets , ? utilities and schools. If a community .:annot provide these services, it is legally responsible. Beyond these minimum services , communities are expected to provide for f% the "quality of life" for the residents of the community. Often local government cannot provide these minimum services when the rate of growth exceeds the ability of the community to respond with services. The entire community suffers as a result. Moratoriums and "initiative" moves have been used, sometimes legally, and sometime not n to slow the rate of growth and allow communities time to provide proper services . Recently several communities have adopted widespread limitations on development (i .e. Petaluma, which will be discussed later) as a result of the communities limited ability to provide services to newly developing areas. �1 LAND OWNERSHIP On the other hand, one of the most valued rights granted = in the Bill of Rights is the right to own lard by an ; individual. Th; s has traditionally been interpreted to include the right to use that land to its maximum potential (i.e. to develop it to its maximum use capacity) . The conflict in growth ordinances and even moratoriums has come as a result of the court's decision that it may ;. be an "undue hardship" on the landowner to restrict development of his property, even though the City may not be able to provide proper services for future residents on the land. This type of decision has resulted in what is termed "inverse condemnation", where the landowner may stie the City and force the City to pay for the land and/or losses incurred due to the City's taking of the land owner's "right to develop The final outcome of these conflicts between the rights of the general public and rights of the property owner cannot be fully determined at this time. Resolution in California of the Petaluma case will determine how far ' a city can go in limiting or controlling growth within its boundaries , while the resolutioi! of a case in San e.a; Jose will determine the legality of .initiative and moratoriums to limit growth. The only definite fects toward implementing a growth plan derived from cases in California to dine would be that if the City can clearly demonstrat- that the general public welfare or provision of services are endnagered by development, c, methods controlling development or growth are possible. 232 I A 1 The following quote expresses courts view: "Courts speak of the "reasonableness : of a regulation in determining its validity. It must be both reasonable on its fac,-. and reasonable as applied. There are four aspects of 4be term "reasonable" which courts consider. 1 . The rcgc>> :ction must promote an objectivc which is a proper topic of governmental co ncea-n and there must be a demonstrable relationship onween the regulation and the objective. 2. The objective , though a proper subject of govern- mental concern, must not be one ordinarily attained through eminent domain. 3. Landowners who Pre similarly situated must receive equal treatment. 4. The extent to which the regulation reduces the economic value of the land must nct be "too servere", but the extent of permitted devaluation may be , as we shall seed related to the objective of the regulation." Limiting growli , in the definition!; stated above, depends din on how "reasonable" is the action taken by the City. i 12. 3 TECHNIQUES GIF GROWTH CONTROL. i 12.3.1 The City' s Impact on Growth Implementation of any plan depends upon the tools of implementation available. once general goa)s and objectives are established. In implementing any policy of this scale it must be understood that cities , and indeed all 1p-vels of government , represent only a small part of what is "growth" ii in our society. The impacts of governments then, are subject to not only legal restrictions , in implementing or limiting growth, but also to greater forces acting within our society. Recent trends toward smaller families and reduced birth rates are examples of farces acting beyond the control of government. The following chart attempts to indicate major social impacts on growth. Open Space Zoning Handbook, Assembly Select Committee on Open Space Lands, 1973 233 a S i i MAJOR FACTORS OF IMPACT ON GROWTH r SIZE: NUMBER OF DIRTIIS/DEATIIS IN/GUT MIGRATION LOCAL ACCOMIODATION OF GROWTH t r.l RATE: NATIONAL ECONOMY BUILDING AND MARKETING DEMANDS (REGIONAL F LOCAL) n STABILITY OF RESIDENTS kFIOW LONG DO THEY RII S I M IN A COMMUNITY) rf LOCAL ACCOMMODATION OF GROWTH C i DISTRIBUTION: URBAN L.A. & ORANGE CO. TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE LOCAL LAND USE 6 M.ARKET LOCAL. ACCOMMODATION OF GROWTH Gj From this chart it can be seen that the City can have an impnct on All of the factors--size , rate and di ..t • nn--which affect growth. Within these: Tact there are a number of tcchn. q: able to local government. G 234 • Techniques of growth control can be placed in five categories : comprehensive planning, zoning, subdivision regulations , Fnvironnental Impact Reports and growth ordinances . Furthermore, each may be appropriate on an interim or long range basis or both. Alsc the technique may influence one , two, or all three dimensions of popula- tion growth as identified in this study. The following sections will examine techniques currently available in each category, their interim and long range applicability and the dimension of growth they influence most. 12.3. 2 The General Plan Of all techniques of growth control the general plan is perhaps the most basic, as it should provide the guiding framework for all other techniques. The plan does not in itself provide the mechanisms for growth control , but establishes parameters and directions for implementing actual growth controls. c� The general plan has traditionally been limited to the land use and circulation elements. These have been required by the State Planning Act. In addition, a j broad range of permissible elements has been set forth in the Act. Recent social and environmental concerns have prompted legislation which significantly affects the status of the General Plan. Of the most signI£icant is the addition of 7 additional mandatory elements , the requirement that zoning ordinances be consistent with the General Ilan, and the prohibition of approval of any subdivision that is not consistent with the General Plan. 0 The General Plan i.s considered to be a broad policy document to guide subsequent specific actions . Since zoning, sub- division approval and several other matters are required to be consistent with the General Plan it will undoubtedly acquire a different legal status . Exactly what that status is will be determined through pending and future court actions. Within traditional concepts of the General Plan, issue: of population size and distribution have always been an unchallenged concern , Distribution of population by designation of residential areas and dwelling unit densities is a basic part of the Land U T'lement. The resultant residential acreages and density ranges combine to set forth !" a population size or as it is sometimes called "population holding capacity". i Aft 235 A r Concern for the population growth rate generally has not been a part of this process. The planning has been done r on a reacting or accommodating basis a.; opposed to control- ling. Population projections , economic forecasts , land absorption rates , and other growth factors have been based on reacting to market forces. Recently several cities in California have made the growth rate a concern of their General Plan. Several hay. been challenged and wait court decisions. The State Planning Act leaves the door open For cities to develop elements of the general plan that fit their needs. Also, in recent legislative sessions there have been proposals made for a mandatory growth element. Figure 12-1 indicates the nine required elements of the General Plan and their impact on growth. As indicated the land use and circulation elements are presently impacting size and distribution. The remaining elements have the potential to impact at least one dimension of growth. A population growth element has been listed as n possible "permissible element" as indicated in Section 65302.1 of the State Planning Act. Of seven new mandatory elements , the open space, consor- vation and seismic safety elements hold the greatest poten- tial for impacting growth, both on an interim and long range basis . a 1 . Land Use and Circulation Elements. As the basic elements of the eneral Plan _wMich all at er elements eventually must relate back to, the land use and circulation elements are significantly affecting population size and distribution. Development of a growth policy and Other general plan elements will be important to these elements. The resultant growth ethic can be used to develop an environmental holding capacity. The term environmental holding capacity close parallels population holding capacity but differs in a number of 1 ways Population holding capacities have been generally developed as a result or designated residential land areas and t%;!I1ing unit densities . An environmental holding capncity views the ultimate population size coming from the trade offs of societal goals to achieve a desired quality of life which in turn influences the distribution in terms of acreage axed density. ..36 Population holding capacities generally have been developed as a reaction or accommodation of market forces . An environmental holding capacity identi- fies what the capacity should be in terms of the quality of life desired by the residents of the community. Because of the value judgements included an environmental holding capacity may not be as finite as the population holding capacity. Instead of an absolute number a range and series of criteria may be more appropriate. In summary the land use and circulation elements have great potential to positively influence growth if they are approached with that objective in mind and not to ' merely a--commodate market forces . 2 . Open Space, Conse::vation and Seismic Safety Elements . e Open Space, Conservation and Seismic Safety Elements provide opportunities to influence growth. The open space and conservation elements overlap in their areas of concern as defined in the State Planning Act, preservation and conservation of open spaces and conservation of natural and cultural resources. i� Identification of areas for conservation or preservation as open space or natural and cultural resources and subsequent implementation techniques can substantially j impact growth. The seismic safety element is concerned with identification of seismic hazards and risks of development. Findings of this element and subsequent implementation programs can also have significant impact on growth. 3. Other Mgndatory Elements. The remaining elements will notTi ve as significant an impact uF.,;n growth as those previously mentioned. However, cacti fins the potential to impact growth as follows . Noise Element - By defining noise levels associated with compat5 ility of land use and transportation systems and facilities the noise element may impact growth by establishment of noise control ordinances �r or other programs designed to mitigate adverse effects of noise . u i 237 i FP1- . 5afet Element - Protection of the community r from fITOS and geologic hazards including such r features for protection as evacuation routes , peak load water supply requirements , and geologic hazard mapping is the scope of the safety elerient . Significant findings and recomnendations from this element could impact growth in hazardous areas . f Scenic highways Element - The objective of the scenic highways element is protection and enhancement of the visual environment. Gro;rth in designated scenic highways corridors could be ' impacted but would depend upon the type of effec- tuation program instituted by the jurisdiction Cj which may range from use of police power, to less than fee interests (scenic easements) to acquisi- tion of tee simple interest. Housing Blement - The degree to which the housing element w will impact growth will depend upon the 0 action program developed for achieving housing goals . Conservation, rehabilitation, and code enforcement programs have potential, impacts. Participation in the Orange County Housing Authority and other types oC low cost housing program may also have an impact. C) 4. Population Growth Elements . Authorization for instituting such an element comes from Title 7, Chapter 3, Article 5 , Section 65303 (j) : "Such additional elements dealing with other 0 subjects which in the judgement of the planning agency relate to the physical development of the col-::.f or city." Exactly what a population growth element should contain is a matter cf local determination. It would be a C► vehicle whereby the agency could approach population growth on a crmprehensive basis and deal with all dimensions of growth. It would probably combine all the growth is3ues of the other ;!lemcnts as well as any areas not covered. This *echnique has not been widely used and in some cases challenged in the courts . C+ Although precedents have been establishes) in other states i California has not . Several cases are in court and j their resolution will be setting; a precedent. C+ 238 FIGURE 12-I w GliNERAL PLAN TECIA-SIQUES VENOM PLAN ELEMENTS WiNDATORY SIZE RATH DISTRIBUTION LAND USE • • CIRCULATION A OPEN SPACE 0 0 0 CONSERVATION 0 0 0 n SEISMIC SAFETY 0 0 NOISE 0 0 SCENIC HIGHWAYS 0 HOUSING 0 0 SAFETY 0 0 PERMISSIBLE POPULATION GROWTH 0 0 0 ��► CURRENTLY C NTL USED t � POTENTIAL 0 lop) Kn .. . i An argument can be made that such an element would 4 not be necessary if all the required general plan elements were done properly. The issue may be one of timing i.e. , can the jurisdiction wait tin':il all the General Plan e'ements are complete before dealing with the growth issue on a comprehensive basis . The degree of local concern will be the deciding factor on which , tray to go . n S. Summary of. the General Flan as a Technique.tie. The eneral Plan on any element will not in itself he the f tool for controlling growth. Resultant effectuation programs and ordinances will be the means whereby r the actual control will be instituted. The General C. Plan is , however, an important and inherent part of " � any local effort to control growth. 12.3. 3 ZONING TECHNIQUES C1% One of the tools that cities have in limiting or controlling ;. growth is the section within the state enabling; legislation for regulation of land use through the police powers , i.e . , zoning. According to these zoning reg;uIations , cities may: , a. regulate the Gse of building, structures and land .: between industry, business , residence and open space including agriculture , recreation, enjoyment of scenic beauty and use of natural resources and other purposes . b. regulate signs and billboards. c. regulate locations , height , bulk, number of stories , size of buildings and structure, the size and use of lots , yards , courts , and other open spaces , percentage ; of a lot which may be occupied by a building or struc- ture, the intensity of land use . d. establish requirement for off street parking; and lead- ing;. e, establish and maintain building setback line. i f. create civic districts around civic center, public parks , public buildings , public grounds , establish regulations therefore by setting; limits to the types of use and intensity of use of land within the city. r 240 I i I Within the zoning ordinance , there are seva ral techniques or tools available that control or limit growth . 'These are summarized on the Following matrix nd evaluated in terms of impact upon size, rate and distribution and whether the technique is of interim or long term value. The techniques are grouped in five categories : open space zoning, regulation to timing of development, interim regu- lations , residential zoning, and compensated regulation. 1. Open- Space Zoning. It is difficult to separate the growth issue from open space as preservation of open space areas will certainly impact growth. The State Pl:.nning Act requires that local agencies adopt open space zoning ordinances . The parameters for such ordinances are wide and the extent to which they go towards open space presentation is again a matter of li Local discretion. The following summarizes open space zoning techniques by the categories of open space as defined in Section 65562 (d) of the State Planning Act. i Preservation of Natural Resources - influenced by the conservation and open space elements , statutes or regulations in this area would be for the preservation of natural resources such 4 as plant and animal life, habitats , lakes , rivers , coastal beaches , etc. Managed Production of Resources - This category of open space regulation includes forest land , agricultural land , mineral deposits , ground ,ell water recharge areas , and other lands that need protection for managed production of resources. Although there is little legal precedent in California for this type of regulation other than agriculture it is a possible technique if it can be shown to be in the public interest . Outdoor Recreation - Regulations which preserve private lands for outdoor recreation is a possible technique if it conforms to the following : 1 , serves a multiplicity of goals (i .e . conser- vation and economic) 2 , some profitable use of the property remains 3. is-posed according; to well defined standards . The recently enacted Recreation Open Space (ROS) Zone falls in this category. �► 241 fr Public Health and Safety - Open space zoning for public health and safety .includes areas which r, require special management or regulation because of hazardous or special conditions such as earth- quake fault zones , soil problems , flood plains , watersheds and fire zones . The conservation open space seismic safety and safety elements would strongly influence these regulations. Zoning to f, avoid hazardous areas or large lot zoning to protect ?ublic health safety and well-being are examples of regulations that are possible. Open space zoning techniques that are used for ar.y of these purposes will primarily impact the distribution dimension of population growth. The extent to which size and rate are affected will depend upon other goal trade offs (i .e. in return for greater open space preservation would the resultant developed areas be allowed higher densities?) . Z. Residential Zoning. Regulation of the amount, of land avcl a . e for residential development and densities allowed in each zone is the primary implementation tool for residential proposals in the land use element. Rezoning. Several types of rezoning or zone r changes nges are available for use to control or limit growth. These techniques are: Residential to other residential categories . By changing the zone category within residential use , the densities are affected. The city has "down C, zoned" certain areas from higher to lower densities. This has had an impact in the size and distribution within the city. 'These impacts are both interim and long range in effect. Rezoning to other land uses from residential . h s type ot zone change has an impact on -both the size and the distribution of the city by making less land available for residential use . In most cases , the city to this point has used this type of zoning for specific zone change requests. It could potentially be used to reduce �y! the area of total developable residential land within the city and thus affect rate by making less land available for residential development . The rate would also be impacted because other land uses generally develop sloiver than residen- tial. This technique would have impact on both the interim, and long range development of the city. zal i Vensity Changes . Another technique used in controlling growth is to control density. In some ways this is similar to rezoning. Two mtijor techniques are available in changing density. These are: Change density for existing zones This has been aone in the city over the last several years and r� has had impact in reducing the ultimate population. This has been accomplished by an overall reduction in allowable density within residential areas . The rate of growth and distribution are impacted by this method. The impact of changing densities is both interim and long range. Add new density classification. This type of zoning technique has potent'5 in the city. One example of this would be large lot zoning. large lot zoning sets eery large minimum size regulations on lots and thus reduces the number of units per acre. This reduces the size and has an impact on the distribution within the community. This impact would be both interim and long range in effect . 3. Zoning Regulations to Control the Timing of Development. Local agencies have the ability to time development by indicating areas .for immediate conversion and areas for later conversion (i .e. holding zones) . Regulations such as these are a legitimate concern of 'local govern- ment because urban sprawl has adverse effocts on botL the residents of the new developments and the public at large. However since Huntington Reach is essentially an urbanized community and possesses no urban fringe application of thin technique is perhaps too late. Two zoning techniques are available for this purpose ; large lot zoning and zoning of areas for some rase :such as agriculture with conversion to highor intensity uses upon approval of a permit application. Large Lot Zoni;.g - Areas defined as not ripe for development may be zoned for very large minimum lot sizes in order to slow down the rate of growth. I This type of urge lot zoning must he distinguished from that which is so designated to preserve a particular natural feature or because of potential natural hazards . Nhen the land becomes ripe for development then small lots or multiple faMily dwellings may be permitted. UIA ? • rr.., Unclassified Zones - Also knot-in as holding zones with development allowed only upon permit approval or change in zoning can forestall urbanization of land not ready for development. Use of this technique must consider factors that are valid to any effort to stage development (i .e . lack of public services , prevention of urban sprawl , and other matters of concern to public health , safety r, and welfare . It is also important to note that some economic use must be available to the property owner in the interim. Any temporary financial loss suffered is assumed to be exceeded by the eventual development of the land to a more profit- able use than would be realized if low intensity urban sprawl were to be allowed. { 4 . Compensated Regulation. A new approach to zoning; which as been experimented with In some local agencies , { includes a technique which may take the form of some kind of payment to the landowner. Two possible approaches are discussed below: Transfer of Development Rights - This technique is in the formative process in South Hampton New York and is intended to halt the further conversion ;. of farmlands to surbu;•ban uses . The principle, however, may be applied to other areas where large land holders are involved. + i Essentially the South Hampton proposal is as follows : The development iralue of a farm is established. The development potential is then transferred to a Portion of the farms acreage. The development rights could be sold for a profit thereby allow- ing the farmer co liquidate his capital interest . 1'hc remainder of the far:i would then be assigned to a community land trust . The farmer, if he wishes , could rant back the farm and continue farming at a nominal rent . Where many small. fares are involved the development rights could be pooled and all development located in one area. � • I Zoni_ ng With Compensation - This technique was upheld in the state of Missouri as a valid exercise of the police power and proper exercise of the: potrer of eminent domain. The following quotation summarizes the case : �. ry44 Aft row • "The case concerned an ordinance to perpetuate single-family use of homes on the fringe of a forty-year old subdivision: of large and valuable homes . Earlier deed restrictions extended by the city ordinance , had been honored in the breach in the fringe area: Many of the homes there had undergone struc- tural changes to make them usable as rooming houses or for multi-family use . Compensation was to be assessed and paid for by a special assessment to be levied upon a benefit district with boundaries precisely the some as those or the subdivision. Damages from required reconversion to single family homes were estimated to exceed $37 ,000 . No damages were actually paid, apparently because the court found that benefits accruing from the restrictions were equal to the damages incurred. Nevertheless , the court found that the ordinance n was authorized under the Kansas City charter provisions , and that precedents existed in Missouri and other states to uphold compensable zoning regulations." 12. 3.4 Subdivision Controls . After land has been subdivided into r6sidential lots an rarely be put to any other :cason- able use without extensive redevelopment programs. Owner- ship is too fragmented and the lots too small to support uses other than single family or small multiple family dwellings. Early subdivision regulations were intended to prevent swindling of prospective land buyers by setting minimum I standards for subdivision design, :vainly streets and utilities . e� The: subdivision process has been traditionally viewed as beneficial to the local economy and equated with the growth is progress philosophy. However recent legislative addi - tions to the subdivision map act have significantly altered the regulation of subdivisions. � a^� The authority for subdivisions comes from the subdivision map act and "home rule" provisions of the State Constitution. Although local jurisdictions may not impose subdivision controls that are in conflict with the map act California courts have held that they may impose supplemental regula- tion upon which it is silent. H 24 5 :',r.4: .. ..•:'i.�,: ....r•,...»..... . . . ... .. _.........._.._.....�........ ...,_.^.r:K...,,.-..,,................-..<»rxx-c i•..r.••v<.'.•a•r:sc.;.5:.�,:•c'st,'t.rY.7:cq:•T'.j�' 'i;.ti;;'�,n.. r,:rr:C �. ppl- In 1971 the state legislature passed AB1301 which siguifi - j cantly altered the inap act. The changes that would alloy: local agencies to regulate subdivisions with growth impacts i as part of the criteria is summarized below. Design and Improvement - Cities and Counties are required by the Map Act to adopt an ordinance controlling and regulating the design and improvettent of subdivisions . Before the passage of A111301 "design" was restricted to matters such as street widths , grades , alignments , utilities , minimum lot sizes and widths , and dedication of land for park and recreation purposes. "Improvement" was defined as matters relating to street work and utilities installed by the subdivider for the use of lot owners in the subdivision and local traffic and 1:. drainage needs. The definitions have been expanded to include conformity to local specific or general plans as a concern of "design" and "improvements". "I Specific Plans - A111301 also expanded the scope of C specific plans as authorized in Section 65450 of the State Planning Act. The scope: of regulations exceeds those usually found in zoning and subdivision regula- tions. It enables local governing bodies to determine what is acceptable in advance ratifier than accommodating the desires of the developer. Parcel Maps - Control over divisions of land that are not considered subdivisions by the Map Act were also increased by 1301 . Previously splitting a parcel in less than five parcels was not subject to the provisions of the Map Act. Although still not defined as a sub- division , maps must now be filed for the resulting parcels and local governments can regulate the process to the same degree as subdivision:. Environmental Impacts of Proposed Subdivisions - AB1301 also prohibited the approval of tentative or final subdiva^.ion maps if the approval would result in substar.y1al environmental damage or if the proposed develop-ment was not physically suitable for the site . The California Environmental Quality Act reinforces those. �-equirements although it is an informational only and contains no requirement that decisions c be no,fis on the basis of the report. Section 11549. 5 of -he Business and Professions Code prohibits approval of a subdivision map if the design of the subdivision or -proposed improvements are -likely to cause substantial env;ronnental damage. r 246 A!Uft • I i . 5, M.wn6:l.qt,W r.t`a"'.e•e, ..............—.�.-.«-......Y.-•—._........—.........+...,...w�L..a.w.• e•............ ...... ._. w.nw..r.. wrr+nr.Y..T�wwMtiw...ti.Vr.r-.+r.+o+.�f 1 -....•-; •.tip _ FIGURE 12-2 ZONING TECHNIQUES i 1-37fF'ITI�i'rLTgi r` OPEN SPACE: ZONING 0 0 0 RESOURCE PRESERVATION 0 0 MANAGED PRODUCTION OF RESOURCES 0 0 0 OUTDOOR RECREATION 0 0 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY 0 0 0 n RESIDENTIAL Z014ING REZONING • s DENSITY CHANGES ! • 0 f ZONING TO CONTROL i TIMING OF DEVELOPMENT 0 U 0 ' LARGE LOT ZONING 0 0 0 UNCLASSIFIED ZONES 0 0 0 COMPEWATED REGULATION 0 0 TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS 0 0 ZONING WITH COMPENSATION 0 0 CURRENTLY USED 0 POTENTIAL 0 247 •+r.... .R:�..;t:ra:........._ ........ ....._..._�,-,......r,.,..............,......w..e;...:c:.:-.-nnF.tiT.:+a,c.y,..Kr,..r....,....«....wn+.�,......—....w..........ly,rw..K•.r..w+r.w-�brr, !+�i"'IT?.1C1 ` t i Local control over subdivisions has expanded considerably. No longer are local governments able to approve subdivisions r, with minimum consideration. Since subdivision of land is the primary source of residential growth in southern California the controls that cities exercise over the subdivision of land can be one of the significant tools that can be used to control growth. n 11.3. 5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS The California Environmental Quality Act and the city of Huntington Beach Ordinance Code Section 9720 (Environmental Impact Reports) provide a potential growth control technique. Section 9721. 7 states : "CONTENTS OF REPORT. Environmental impact reports prepared pursuant to this article shall contain a detailed statement setting forth the following : i a) The environmental impact of the( p proposed action. (b) Any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided if the proposal is implemented . (c) Mitigation measures proposed to minimize the C impact. (d) Alternatives to the proposed action. ( � The relationship between local short-term uses P of man' s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity. (£) Any irreversible environmental changes which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented. G; (g) The growth-inducing impact of the proposed action. (h) The boundaries of the area which may be sign'ifi - cantly affected by the proposed action. (i) Any other information or data that may be required by the environmental review board by resolution in accordance :iith Section 9721 . 1 (e) of this article." i . i 0. 248 .�... �.a.Ml::..LF'Y:{..S L'i.."t'+ra.hwu..a_-....... .......» ,.�..rw.a w+..+ar...�v.a..w.+«..s.... .11; ..:My................... .._�..-.......r.. w..... .........__.... r. .......,.-+.+��...+..`..�'f. . N r t The conclusions reached in the environmental impael report can demonstrate that the impact of any project is detritne.ti- tal to the environment or has a negative growth inducing impact which over weighs the positive benefits of the project , the project may be denied, or mitigation measures could be imposed. The environmental impact report technique could impact the size, rate, and distribution dimensions of growth. Section 9721.9 effect of findings states : "No permit or entitlement shall be approved or issued . . . if it finding is made pursuant to this article that the proposed project is likely to cause substantial environmental damage after considering alternatives to the proposed project (including abandonment) and mitigating measures proposed to minimize tite impact of such proposed project, which is not outweighed by substantial benefits to the community resulting from such proposed project." 0.) This essentially requires that some means of weighing the environmental impacts (of which growth considerations are a part) against community wide benefits (the public interest) must be devised to eff',c/ vely use the environmental impact report as a technique to control growth . 0 It is evident that the environmental impact report can not stand alone as a means to control growth. it is essentially an informational device which must be part of a growth control program to be effective. ,C) 12. 3.6 COMPREHENSIVE GROWTH CONTROL ORDINANCE Several communities across the nation (Ramopa, New' York, Boulder, Colorado, Petaluma , California) have developed varying types of Growth Ordinances with strong implementing measures to limit or control growth. In the case of the f' c-) Ordinances, the Cities have attempted to develop a compre- hensive lool: at growth and related all types of regulation into one, system. The most significant example in California is the Petaluma Residential Control System. PETALUMA RESIDENTIAL CONTROL SYSTEM Petaluma, California has probably moved furthest towards controlling growth than any other City in the nation. The City found in establishing goals limiting growth through development of a general plan, that, strict controls were needed to provide the quality of life 41 goals desired. The following excerpts from their Residential Development Control System describe this process. 249 'r:,;;a"",. ... <<a',r.:i,.«•......---.... ._... ..-... .�....-,.. .... .. .__...... ..«...+.,..�......_..- ....—.....+.r.».�.�.,.....—..«...w.+.,+.a rrvn.+YN+r.1J t717.'.rA'?.'.C�f�CI ' r I RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SYSTEM 01: PETALUMA: r It is the adopted policy of the City of Petaluma to establish control over the quality, distribution , and rate of growth it the City in the interest of : Preserving the quality of the community; Protecting the green open-space frame of the City ; Insuring a balance of housing types and values in the City which will accommodate a variety of families including families of moderate income and older families on limited, fixed incomes ; rnd r, r Insuring the balanced development of the City cast , north and west of the central Gore. These policies are more completely set forth in the Official Statement of Development Policy for the City r. of Petaluma, adopted by the City Council . The policies of the City arc given increasingly specific form in three documents: 1. The Petaluma General Plan adopted march 5, 1962, and as subsequently amended from time to time . . 2. The Petaluma Environmental Design Plans adopted March 27, 1972. 3. The Housing Element of the General Plan. It is the purpose of the Residential Development Control is System to implement the policies of the City of Petaluma as recorded in the Development Policy Resolution and the three official. documents referred to above. In order to accomplish this purpose , the City must be able to control the rate, distribution, quality and economic level of proposed development on a year-to-year basis . To this � End the City Council established the following Residential Development Contro_lSXstem for the City of Petaluma�whi+cTi system shall 1 o in effect from and after its adoption by resolution of the City Council until modiff.ed or terminated by resolution of the Council . The most significant aspects of Petaluma' s plan is the implementation technique used - the Residential Control System or Growth Ordinance. Based on the City's "Housing Element" a quota system was devised to limit the number of units developed within the City for any year. Once t� a quota has been established, it may not be modified by more than 101 in any one year. Zsu t FIGURE: 12-3 OTHER TECHNIQUES r� TECAbTI' SUBDIVISION CONTROLS 0 0 0 DESIGN & IMPROVEMENT 0 0 0 SPECIFIC PLANS 0 0 0 PARCEL MAPS 0 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL �., IMPACT 0 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS 0 0 0 COMPREHENSIVE GROWTH ORDINANCE 0 0 0 CURRENTLY USED 0 POTENTIAL 0 �7 4 I 0 Aft 2S1 i . .'.,w"ITS.'S.1`u*.'.Y44i-s-r++....�+-- �._...-..._. .�-.......... ..-•.�....-- ---...-.+..r.rra.-Ac f.... •r.r...+---......_. .... .,..........,..v......-...-+--�w•+m•aa I r- Petaluma then set up a development time schedule and an evaluation system. All proposed developments compete n with each other to be included in the quota of units to be developed within the year. All proposals for the year must be turned in in May of a given year. The City then evaluates and rates each development in terms of environmental impact anti compatibility $40 tite City's "quality of life goals" as expressed in the General Plan. n By limiting the number of units per year; or the rate of growth, Petaluma can then take time to carefully consider all projects and their impact, and develop cautiously toward a better community for all . The following two charts show the time schedule adopted by Petaluma and a flow chart describing; the process they (�,I will use. The Petaluma Case is presently in court . The decision of that case will have a significant impact on how fair cities can go to limit or control the rate of growth. The result of this case will certainly influence the e.,i future implementation of growth control techniques . 12.4 GROWTH STRATEGY The way is open for the city to control growth , but the course is �► not clear. The major obstacle is the extent that cities can legally control growth. Tito concepts of law are constantly changing;. Zoning certainly has a much broader interpretation than it did 30 years ago. Some cities have taken a pioneer approach to growth control and are now in court. Others have done nothing for fear of ' legal reprisals. It is evident that those cities who are now in :► court will be setting legal precedence on how far cities can go in regulating growth. Within the context of size and distribution cities certainly have the ability within the definition of "reasonitbleness" to control those dimensions . lt . is the ability to control rate that is in question. Tito question facing Huntington Beach today is how far does the city want to go in controlling growth. This report fins , in general terms, projected tite future growth and consequences based on present trends and policies , If it is deemed that these consequences warrant the City can take an offensive position and actively pursue a program ( to control growth. The extent to which the City will go depends on how much risk the City wishes to take. If the City chooses not to 1 take an active appproach and wait for precedence to be set by the courts it should be done with the knowledge that the growth rate is presently 10,000 persons per year and will cont:.nue as such for some time. ' i 4. if " --. .....,...,. .-....,.. .��..............,.........»..................�..........,. ...,. +..a.......�-_......., _. _�.........-.... .... _.....�...,...........,..........+rara.:are..er.. iLit4i+-^tfi�K'Ec' w Prior to setting a Growth Control Program in motion a growth strategy must be formulated. By the nature of growth as defined in this report the growth strategy must be comprised of a series of interrelated components . Figure 12-5 indicates the formulation of a growth strategy. The Growth Policy is broad enough in scope that a number of alternative futures can be developed . The primary , secondary, and supporting policies must be evaluated and trade offs or balancing determined, fused on the trade offs a number of concepts can be developed which will set forth a strategy for the size and distribution dimensions of population growth and implementation techniques . This has always been a legitimate concern of the general plan and zoning. Ir The most critical dimension of growth is rate. The decision must be made whether to take an active approach and attempt to control ! the population growth rate or to wait for court precedence to be ,! set. This decision is part of formulating a growth strategy. Formulating a strategy that does not consider all three dimensions of population growth will only be a partial strategy and thereby inneffcctive. 12. 5 DEVELOPING A GROW11 STRATEGY As mentioned the formulation of a growth strategy will ,-, tahe the form of a number of interrelated components . The following is a list of actions that need to he taken: 1. AdoRt Growth Polia - This report should serve as a vehiclefo pu �c dialogue and receive close scrutiny. The revised policy set should be adopted as the guiding framework for developing a growth control program. 2. Develop Alternative Concepts - Identify the trade offs involved in the revises growth policy and develop a series of alternative concepts . These concepts would be evaluated and one chosen for the general plan. The emphasis would he on size and distribution. 3. Determine the Degree to which the Cit • {Rushes to Control the Gro14t i Rate - The City must determine ow far it wishes to go in controlling the rate of growth. It is by far the riskiest of the three dimensions . AJWA 2S3 7wi •..�iJ,..'L`Yl7.J✓r^�....,... .... ......�...�..., ..- .. M....w..-.+w.rurq+Y3r.i't lr" d f:.r�M/w..w.++...r++•sW41Yi+'ae=*f1+w+I+wwrwr'.Y`+J 7/7.�w�•�i��v�r��+ e^!w!"T^•]^.1/R{• +.l lrrl,y.tYTl'a4�.'y'1'I,'4 1 v 1 U L 4 FIGURE 12-5 c GROWTH STRATEGY r---------- G R O W T H S T R A T E G �t----------`.-i 4 alternative gentral implementation ' r concepts plan techniques j L ! determine implementation control `f growth ' degree tecni:i ues kFAAlternative rowth of q Growth i B policies policy of growth rate Control program control Programs- reviewand implementation evaluation of techniques i operations 3 Ordinance r I prvgran�s G R 0 I3 T H S T R A T E G Y---------------f - A . Review and Evaluate all 02erational Procedures - All epartmients should sh6uld review their operations ana determine to what degree they influence growth and evaluate what role they should play in a growth control program. 12. 5. 1 DEVELOP A GROWTH CONTROL PROGRAM Subsequent to the completion of the growth strategy components a program for controlled grow-- h can be developed. With issues such as how , far the City wishes to go in Controlling rate; size and distribution n determinations having, been made from the general plan, and operational procedures reviewed and evaluated the action program can be put together. 'rho program would be a series of components : plans ,, policy, ordinances , and programs that working and interacting together would. be a concious effort by the City to control growth. 1 � I • t 41 Alft 255 � .. "--------^*-.rni r_,;;.'.'..:k!;s�tw..-«.«.r.,..-.......�...,«»..«.......�...».-�.....nwl..»««.waa�cs,•WtR�'�X.+.�A 1 — BIBLIOGRAPHY Bartholomew, 11arland. Land Uses in American Cities. Harvard University Press . California, State of, Assembly Select Committee on OtLn Space Lands . Open Space Zoning handbook. 1973. California, State of, Board of Equalization, "'Grade Outlets anti Taxable Retail Sales in California. " Sacramento. California, State of, Department of Human Resources anti Development . Orange County Planning Department. "Area Manpower Review, (.� Anaheim - Santa Ana - Garden Grove SMSA." Santa Ana, 1972. California, State of, Department of Natural Resources , Division of Oil and Gas . "Summary of Operations, California Oil Fields". Sacramento. Conservation Committee of Oil and Gas Producers. "Annual Review of Oil and Gas Production. " 1971. Cinkler, Earl . "Non-Growth as a Planning Alternative: A Preliminary I:xumination of an Emergency Issue." ASPO Report No. 283. September, 1972. Garden Grove, City of, Urban Development Department . "Growth Policy Element of the General Plan. " Garden Grove. 1972. Huntington Beach Citi4ens Committee for Goals and Objectives. "A i Policy Plan for Huntington Beach, California." Huntington Beach. 1972 . Huntington Beach, City of. "Housing Inventory : Phase I of the Housing Element to the General Plan." Iluntington Beach. 1972 . .;� Iluntington Beach, City of. "Revenue Expenditure Analysis of Residential Developments." Iluntington Beach. 19M Lampman & Associates . TOPICS. 11.472. Orange, County of, Office of the Auditor-Controller. Tax Rates . Santa Ann. 1960-1973. Orange, County of, Planning Department. "Orange County Population Growth Policy and Development Strategy Study; Phase II Report, " Santa Ana. 1972. Orange, County of, Planning Department. Orange County Pro8ress Report. Vols. 2-9 . Santa Ana. 196 - . 257 �.z�Y:s;l�:;:.t'-F.'.�._.;e+r+,.• —,-................�.......r,..........,.....•_...........�-+..•v,..•.c..+.`. :.:r tt1.r.,. �. ..._ ....-.«.».,«.w.........4. ..ry.q'.t,:.2YC.:U:'�':T.sn'•'.:l�i::m ? :�nw United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, � "Federal Decennial Census ." 1940-1970. "Special Federal Censuses . " 1962- 1969 . (Urban Land Institute. Iluntinkton Reach: California. Washington: 1965. r� 1 :A j . 258 .-�.... A..y.�...:r�r7`t:..,.;i:...,.:..rtx.+.rs....,...n...w.�.rT w:s a.•,n.::.:,�.,c`;�:t'."::;•i�r�,..nit:i�•;•,;.:*Jet.:x�r::trcr.itti�.r..a.•,...nzr�:,;......•,...w. �:nr�.��_. - c.....,,- . .. 'TA:''t3.C::1t a!a�trr.xe'lra4.setinliili,'C,F1vA HUN1 iNGTON SEACH I Lt4NNiNfI DFt'AHTM€NT '. t f F f ff t 1 !VlTH RSYNOLDS �� f }; �,.f }:,, i.1�M.t,ItU5'►;Lil3t, ;. .� . �� ,, 1�; 11.1►E.VAIHE tint�ehhr�- �' �I.Tann�R • ... .•:�A :yl FuLD mn*rFs ', Avokim nai iOT' j > �{ , a ''!+1,1llFtlb i 1tIRl,,•j', .Aliatant fleewx , ,i11)N1C'.A FLORIATM ut r 11AN13RL'1; ING f! } r SERGIO MAKTINE 1. 1`1rr Y►!elide' cc 3t11,uV�+t�b�",,"ELLAVi♦lt, !!'�on,vlty�'hltfd�n';r f '�y1 r 1sr T , °r77 ,• '. i ,1 = _ "IMCK'�`1'OIi:i.N • : •, • •• ieslltl�(r oAl KFRT,M0NTb:S,. e ,,• 1 r � ,. •�'I'ilU?11JArg1iS. .• . ','•'. '1li,rtnila+: �1 �.tf owa s fiMON • • •, • 'a r .;. e�EOI tiYi�(tome.: 'ALAN LFE. ._' .` •1'1 ►nisst.IMdN�r+rn ,. ' ,; ` +GE4ltGEERMIN • ' ;•C'v+strtittli��t ,' s �� ,' ,! �" ., ` ' 'JU1IN IIL}HGtr. .•' .. .i'I+r+rwb+ti tariu(t J.t' r� JUNE'Al.i.,N Adr Jotkl i lvc S3rma�i,ry: rj 1j' )AN HART(M. • �.iatt rf C�erlc 3USAN PIERCE. ( x t•a' .. . .. �a�{,`. • ,fit .` Y ,°• r:i, `�.r' +a _ l i 1 C LiELA C(MIPA�1✓NE•• • • • • r , • 0r77ti<`�'J ...,1 t y°I J NIMA.ItY CA1tDIYAL :, . .( irk•1rpi�i:,.;^ •.:r t t r, t '�. . . �'t'bctfCiirlaAL�telK' tT� f '�,�;t%i,i'r t ,''� iiI?.FQltT Xt1t'!'rEH RYs ADVAKC€FUMING STAk T - r A)CTOB L 19711 ( ,7 { !�f ' ` (I'.,� S �•'••• _t{1�% �.f �•r sl s •} r � `•� r - - .. .t ' , a,r 7,.r.,.•rr ,� t�1 t 't�f. �•,, _i• , ,. . .. .. ... „ .. ......... ..a Z...��... ..'[, ..,},<j 1'q•�Zlt'!: I Vim' 2 • GTY OF Hunfln Ton BEACH P.O. BOX 190. CALIFORNIA 92640 PLANNING DEPT. (714) 536-5271 Alicia Wentworth December i , 1973 City Clerk �I } Enclosed herewith is a copy of the proposed Revised Growth Policy. This policy statement contains recommended policies for the planned regulation of population growth in Huntington Beach. It is a synthesis of community goals , policies , and growth factors . As a ' result, this Policy will add direction and dimension to the revision of policies within the City. P Adoption of tI►e R^vised Growth Policy is a beginning step in determining the future of Huntington Beach and how the quality of life can be maintained within the context of continued popula- tion growth. Derivation and discussion of the Revised rrowth Policy is found Iin the Growth Policy Study, a copy of which was sent to you a t short time ago. P The attached, which is the same as Section 9.0 , Policy Set Three revised in ti►e Growth Policy, Study is scheduled for adoption at the December 18;1J7-37TIa'nn' i'ngrnission meeting . The Planning Commission cordially invites ;ou to attend this meeting and participate .in the public nearing. l Very truly yours , K. A. Reynol s Planning Director KAR:mc Er►c l . { I i � ' PF w 9. . Revised Growth Policy 9.4.1 Top! Level Polic •: To influence and channel population gruwtl► in a manner that will optimize the duality of life for the residents of the city. 9. 4 . 2 Second Level Polic : 1 • Population Size: To plan for a population size that is consistent with environmental quality and provision of urban services and amenities as related to rate and distribution policy. 2• Growth Rate: 'I'o limit the rate of growth to a level t tat will enable the conscious planning and managentcttt of population size and distribution policies • 3. Population Distribution: To distribute population ill a ntainivr that wi 1 apt i.nti ze environmental and urban dualities emphasizing preservation of naoiral resources i and movement of people and goods. 9.4 .3 Supporting Policies.: Development 1 . Residential Development : I'latt for and regulate rusi - 3entis cevcTopmment t it will accommodate an identified � variety of needs consistent with environmental and urban quality goals. 2. Commercial Development: General : Identify general commercial needs and estaMish a balanced framework for provision of these needs considering; quality of life implica- tions in terms of service and distribution and city fiscal responsibilitles. b. Tettrism: Encourage tourist commercial develop- mentf or economic benefit to the city with planned consideration. on impacts to other aspects of the city. C. Redevelopment: Encourage redevelopmctit as a means of improving the duality of life and the channeling of growth with the city taking an initiatory or participatory role when necessary, i i �.. ...,.. ...._. .. .. ........._..,................r,......-....r,..c., .........., .•. ., .. .ww,.r.:•sty..1.vts;...r:..rw.,,....,.«..ruascs,.eo.v3:•Tt>.;M»5L��J!�W:;V;X�' Industrial Development: [encourage appropriate indus- 3. ' trr evelopmetit iai t i.in the context of planned i industrial areas . a. Utility Service: Plan and regulate development of pu is utilities in concert with utility agencies and city growth policy considering impacts on natural resources . 5. Trans ortation and Circulation: a. Freeways-: Analyze freeway needs and impacts on growth and coordinate response with regional transportation planning. 1). Arterial Ili 1hwa s F, Streets: Provide for 4 planning and aeveioppienf'in conjunction with land use distribution and transportation objectives. � • C. Public Transportation: Actively consider mass transportation systems by coordinating and f participating with regional agencies and plans. 6. Annexation: Allow annexation for pre-planned areas 1 upon satisfactory conclusions of consideration of impacts on city, objectives, economics , and service and rescarce requirements. 7. Fiscal Plannin : Develop and maintain short and long range sc�planninb consistent with and as -in imple- mentiny tool (including regulation and feedback to growth policies) of th" general plan. Society and Culture 1. IIousin : Encourage and provide a variety of housing; types and costs including; the needs of those employed i in the city and equal opportunity for all economic, racial , and ethnic groups . 2. Community Facilities : Encourage and provide a wide j range o _ ace sties and services that responsibly meet the needs and goals of the population. 3. Schools: Limit or regulate residential growth so as to" o,I ow and maintain a high level of educational quality and the adequate provision of educational facilities , Environment and Resources 1. Community Appearance: Encourage fiscally responsible areas of scenic preservr*ion and establish and enforce aesthetic standards for all future development. i I � M rsOe�.^..IT.i"::+x+n rs— ...........................++... .�..•.e....+w'r<n....e[. t.`+ •...vim...+•..+..—.•r.rwty•+fAivawn a..r.r..........�n�r.+.•w+.•.i.WtTJaki,',':r. �i=+'� ','rtiMa 1^ i 2• Parks Recreation and 0 en 5 3ace: i:ncoura�;c the ansi le acquisjtion anc coordinatu�ll�volOmcnt resp and planning of P P 11 (where appropriate) tyi�c' space, to include consideration of the amount , and distribution of open space elc:mcrtts . • Establish programs for the 3• Natural itesources • rotection of natural resources• conservat�.on an p a• Oil-. Plan all oil lands for the phased conversion to oPtimum use. b, i:lood Plni115 Consider the floodpplainsoanduf elvc opment in potential regulate accordingly. Geola is Hazards : Consider the implications of � c• potential soils or cove opment in areas of geologic hazard and regulate accordingly. ; 4• Shoreline: Optimize use of the shoreline so as to permit reasonable tall. and concern nestheticwith values�ation to protect env�.ranmen i I � i s . 1 f ..........�.—. .......,..*r.ar.aa�e...+�....--.._.....�...—..+,...ru..r•..+rw...•...—+.•..ar..s..rsyvl.f.+✓�.C."...^f;'9L[�l.•A+��M�}iJ r ` PPacCS n ?.: o1:j T_ t, Mi TH F;U TIN1 f 0 EZAC HEi+11IRC.`ti:"rTi Trlr. CCK ;CIL C:t ".'r:. T1to� Rc.r'TSE� GR0,,j"T:i POLICY, PHZE I GUIDELINES In vier of the current, grmvth policy which r'acconedates and provides i'or growth as ,e: by the market forces of the Southern California and pran.e County econo:.� r.-ithout dae regard to long range impactsc', the Environmental Council of Funtingtcn .".each believes that the adoption of a growth element as part of a gene-ral plan and master plan for the city is ona oi' the rest pressing environ=ntal issues now before the city. The f ,"nvirenmental Council wishes to support :n thu strongest possible -may the - expeditious consideration and adopticn of a growth policy which will. pro-- I - vide an optimum craality of life for city residents and believes that this gtaalitf of life is and will. be determined privarily on the basis of such ocolo?ically fundamental pa.Ma=rters as availability of clean air, clean ester and open space in which to live. Since the 4nvirctizental Council has been commissioned Ly City Council { nctic:i to rzake recor=endati= concerning en-Aironrental natters being considered by the city and since a grar.th policy for the city is a matter of grave3t envi.rcnmental ccneern, the Fhvirenmental Council feels it a duty and art obligation to raUe the follcrring co=ments cn the Revined j arosth Policy, Phase I Stu:y `.o Le co:sidered ''or adoptian ty t<<a i Cyty Ccr::4i? on !:a.rch lE, 1974. a, i'ha statement of top level policy, thon4h perha^s necessarily %-, ry general at tnls sta,;e of davulopu-ent, reprnzantr, ar. initial!y , acceptable philosopiV around MAch specific plans raxat and p. sumably are to be built ;,nd evaluated; tni Envircnrentul Coaancil recoi=,ends ii.-ceptaance of this Initial phase top level oolic. he state:..ent of s-�c:cnd lovel i;olicy vets out the three rust inpurtunt envirant:ental aspects of :i eroxth policy. These policies should be :adopted and developed immediately with first priority . i„-,,,,-„-.,.,.w.�.�........5...........�•........,...-..»,..,r�..�. _. ........a...rrsa.✓r r.r.t:! -.Y.i.I:,,'.... .4.o...aN1.V..!.ltl:'41,,,`�v;1; .....Xr�7 ii7r%:t:-`.1L'•'.Ilii t4.�C.1•.sj��+ �i. �.":�,�,i�Ct•d+'bl». being given to porslaticn size, second priority to growth rate, and Third priority to population distribution. c. The supporting policies generally set out those specific planning matters which rust be considered in any adequate growth policy. The word "planning" should be substituted for "developcentH since it is the task of subsequent phases of the policy to determine the desirability or possibility within envircnmental resources ,i available and quality of life ;Thick follows from the use or abuse of these rescurce:s. Tourism and redevelopment like-Rise belong as considerations in a subsea ent phase Just as, for instance, does planning for low• -,ost imus{ng within the category of housing. . I . ' l. d. Since the environmental problem which residents of this city arc now experiencing both in the city and as residents of the greater metropolitan area nre the direct result of population size, density and rates of increase, the Environ—mental Council considers the adoption of an exact optimum population to be possible and of paramount importance on the basis of inform.ition now available if the city is to live "ithin its environmental means rnd attain n I � quality of life consistent with such necessities as clean water, clean air and uncrowded conditions. I In sur. ary, the 1~'nvironmeetal Council wishes to reiterate its support of the Revised Ora:rth Policy, Phase I Stuttr as ammended above, requests that theme ar.,end:?nts be made) reccmrendc that t1va a=ended 11dalines be adopted and asks that tha City Council proceed with all due hnste in completing the grawth policy and growth clement .aged i:iplerentizt; these. L , Affidavit avit of F7""blication State of 'callfornia County of Orange } ss City of Huntington Beach Gorge rarquhar, being duly sworn an 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 News, a weekly newspaper of general circulation printed and pub- itched itched in untington Beach, California and circulated in the said County of Orange and elsewhere and published for the dissemination of local and other news of a general character, and has a bona fide ; 1. fir„ subscription list of paying sub.:rribers, and said paper has been � r�•�_ � established, printed and published In the State of California, and County of Orange, for at least one y^ar next befe a the publication of the first insertion of this notice. and the said newspaper Is not f devoted to the Interest of, or published for the entertainment of any particular class, profession, trade, calling. race or denominatlon, or any number thereof. The Huntington Beach New %as adjudicated a legnl newspaper of general circulation by Judge G. K. Scovel in the Superior Court of Orange County,CaRforda August 271h. 1937 by order No. A•5931. euo,isnod Nurddatat A++dI'H �'F+t�, That the ... NOTICF OF z.iJr?. IG H?: �I ;G j� le..... fif)r+ei of;Pufl�ue MAP"flfl' r'�evfr+w tllf►Wf IMUYY,j•'r:•r;� RF;V, GROWTH 'FnL!GY PHAS' I GUIh".I.Ihr.S t iilffftt - I of which tha annexed is a printed copy, was published in said news- NOTICE It Nt1JIfi y duym tt+at�!dM!•a ' 114 holing wql sal NOW bp► (MI CAW.. ppU,of;thta CiW"fit."M paper ak least _..r �11:A iai813t� tlMs'Gn�i.ncil Cf11M6it if t 'rrvif.. +uw4 HuntlnQtorl Gwih. �.NA:hol+r:f!>7<'711r� P.M.. or M►'ii�N itisrfofttt,M�/�� conunencing from the F2 r1in ry o^ me PVV �a 1wl l�wah' it171. 28 th- day of �.� �-------- �r th.owvo..a tawvw++sA .. No, 311115,0VpISKUMN. TKc cttY3 �74 t h day of {+I��`,7�1l A V COUNCIL W.WiNTING M aio" CN I, 1 1'J.7_.__, and ending on the IFONNIA NV tINC POLICY aET THRtCr PEVISE0 GROWTH .POi.1CF'�P?MM►tiL*i GUIOELIHLS ' 1914 both days inclusive, and as often during snid period and 'Ala iq!jri+r!rd:P�+en+ 'l+wiCtt M times of publication as said paper was regularly Issued, and in the t4 b tw oraNlrat'•'' W" regular and entire Lssue of said pewspaper proper. and not in aI^ t _ °t>+Kstnf�a+atrtwi*+r•: supplement, and said notice was published therein on the tollowing t`►vn Imer�ist gw►��.~ cfai dates, to-wit: VATED, i�tYrut '•rh �ff�:'3.a;'; �!.jr,'.-; Feta_ T_H— _1a74 OFF�LIMTINGT01�'f1RAG11 I — ;� 11�, /ilkla t1.'t1'MK+inr111 ;, DIV Clinic ub!lsher Subscribed and sworn to before me this 3 Fit day of f�ca rc 11 192 , �r. Notary Public 1 Omnge County, California i rHC*AAS D. WYLLIE Notary Publit•c.ltf.ret. fi My Coma re"oft Ei ba ! 5spfrmbsr 11, ItT1 t E97 I I Ci y of Huntington Beach County of Orange State of California Af idavitof ublication of GEORGE FARQUHAR j Publisher Huntington Beach News i t i i •l: I Filed �.. Clerk i , i By Deputy Clerk s i ."�"�ww.�u�wr��r..... ..... .. ._.�..w��..:.��t h'w.YMr�•r r.w r,�. .. III I Publish 2/20/74 Pink CurdnCack �~ Postcardo 0 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING nViso GRWn1 POLICY FILASE I GUIDELIMS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that it public hearing will b* 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 P.M. , or as soon thereafter as possible, on Monday the 18th day of March , 1974 , for the purpose of considering Res.:tution No. 3U5 "A RESOLUCION OF THE CITY COWCIL OF HIMINcTON BX&cH, CALIFONNU AMPUM POLICY SLT THRIE: REY 30 GRWPEi POLICY PHAS>!L i GUMU'BLUTS.'' 1 j S i E. "1 i `' 3 All interested persons are invited to attend raid traring Bad express their opinions for or agslnet said xu . e.s.,.,.,�......• i Further Information any tie obtained frosa tho Office of the City E, t Clerk. DA�'D: spry 26L.1974 � CITY OF. ITUNTll�i.'1'Ufii aUCH BY: Alicia M. "tworth CitY , w: Aj Huntington Beach Planning commission P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92548 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Richard A. Harlow, Secretary ATTENTION: David D. Rowlands, City Administrator DATE: February 15, 1974 SUBJECT: Revised Growth Policy Phase I Guidelines After analyzing those farces and policies which are shaping the growth of Huntington Beach, the Planning Commission is concerned that continuation of the present Growth Policy may erode the quality of life that is desired by City residents. The Commission is articular) concerned with the population size, particularly distribution, and rate of growth. The Commission feels that it is necessary for the City to adopt a policy toward growth whereby I conscious awareness and control are exercised. The means for this ' are contained in Planning commission Resolution 1132. Enclosed for your review prior to the February 25, 1974 Joint Study 1 Session is the following supplementary information. j 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1132 2. Grovith Policy Study: ' Summary Report 3. Abstract of Growth Policy Study RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council hold a public hearing and adopt a Resolution similar to Planning Commission Resolution No. 1132. Respectfully subm tted, c iard A. Barlow Secretary RAH:ja Enclosures (3) r � r -•.•,..wava,w:,r.�s,/t.r......r..«nwn...r awa2yY.►7�= ill , it RESOLUTION NO. 1132 A RESOLu,r I on OF THE 1'LANt7I NG COM1d 1 S;,ION OF THE C 1,1,Y OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL.II�ORNIA ADOPTTNG POLICY SET` THREE: REVISED GROWTH POLICY 1111ASE I GUIDELINES WHEREAS , t hr. Revised Growth Policy contains recommended policies for the plaitned regulation and influencing of population groom in Huntington Beach; and WHEREAS, the Revised Growth Policy is a synthesis of community goals, Policies and growth factors in Huntington Beach; and WHEREAS, the: objec:t. ive of the Revised Growth Policy is to serve as a policy statement for the purpose of developing and implementing legislation and criteria for the orderJ" development and growth of the City and at the same time co afford protection to remaining social , cultural , and environ.aental assets; and WHEREAS, adopt io!i of the Revised Growth Policy is 17 bcgin� ning step in determ.inirq the future of Huntington Beach and how the quality of life can be maintained within the context of planned population growth; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the: Planning Commiss:.on of the City of Huntington Brach jilopt:� I�olicy Set Three: Growth Policy. Revised Growth Policy Top Level Pa l i To influence and channel population growth .in a manner that w..11 optimize.• the quality of life for the tesidents of the City. Second Leval Pc,licy: 1• E'�ulation Size : TO Plan for d population size that is cons i strr';-�t,t li environmental gt.ta 1 i ty and provision of urban servic:e, and dmenitio.s .is relatr.d to rate ,end } distribution policy. 2. Growth Rate: To 1 irttit: the rate of growth to a level that rai11 enable thL conscious planning .tied management. of Population size and di:;irribution policies. �• Po ulcZtlun Dist:ibutlon: TO distribute Pofiulation in �'manner that w.r11 o9tlmixc erivir•cinmhnt.�l and urbcrii qualities eniphasiz ing preset-vat ion cif n`rtux`i1 reaourcc?r; and movement of pt?olila and c1oods. Su ortin-9 Policies DOVelopmotit t. . 1. Residential .OGvc�l ,meant.: Plait for and regulate residential i -.....,......_._»_.._._.......�_._..., ...... ,. .. _ . ... .....,..,_. ..... .. ,...... . ...,.,._. _ _..,...�.__....__ .__.., ...�_.�.._. .�_............., .,.•,......,,........--.+.ro..n.c.•o-a.set development that will reflect an identified variety of needs consistent with environmental and urban quality goals. 2. Commercial Development: a. General: Identify general commercial needs and esstab s3h a balanced framework for provision of these needs considering quality of life implications in terms of service and distribution and city fiscal responsibilities;. b. Tourism: Encourage tourist corurercial development or economic benefit to the City with planned con- sideration on impacts to other aspects of the City. c. Redervelo meet: Encourage redevelopment as a means Of improving the quality of life and the channeling of growth with the City taking an initiatory or participatory role when necessary. 3. Industrial Develo2ment: Encourage appropriate industrial evelopment within the context of planned industrial areas. 4. Utility Service: Plan and regulate development of public utilities .n concert with utility agencier and city growth policy considering impacts on natural resources. j 5. Transportation and Circulation: a. Freeways ; Analyze_ freeway needs and impacts on growth and coordinate response with regional transportation plannina. b. Arterial Highways & Streets: Provide for plA nning and development in conjunction with land use distri- bution and transportation objectives. C. Public Transportation: Actively consider mass transportation systems by coordinating and participating with regional agencies and plans. 6. Annexation: Allow annexation for pro-planned areas upon_, s.titisfactory conclusions of consideration of impacts on city, objectives, economics, and service and resource requirements. 7. Fiscal. Planning : Develcp and maintain ahort and long range . fiscal planning consistent with and as an implementing tool (including regulat in and feedback to growth policies) of the general plan. Society and Culture � I 1. Housing: Encourage and provide a variety of housing t types and costs including the need, of those employed in the City and equal opportunity for all ecan.:imic, racial, and ethnic groups. 2. Community Facilities: Encourage and provide a wide range of facilities and services that responsibly meet the needs and goals or the populatio.i. 3. Schools: Limit or regulate residential growth so as to allow and maintain a high level of educational quality and the adequate provision of educational facilities. Environment and Resources 1. Community Appearance: Encourage fiscally responsible areas of scenic preservation and establish and enforce aesthetic standards for all future development. 2. Parka Recreation and �0 en Space: Encourage the responsible acquisition and coo-ordinated development (where appropriate) and planning of public open space, to include consideration of the amount, type, and distribution of open space elements. .3. Natural Resources: Establish programs for the conservation and protection of natural resources. a. Oil: Plan all oil lands for the phased conversion I to optimum use. b. Flood Plains: Consider the implications of develop- ment in potential flood plains and regulate accordingly. c. Geologic Hazards: Consider the implications of develop- meet in areas of potential soils or geologic hazard and regulate accordi;,gly. 4. Shoreline: optimize use of the shoreline so an to permit reasona le use in concern with regulation to protect 1. environmental and aesthetic values. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT: 1. The Revised Growth Policy will serve as a basis for continued study and discussion leading to the adoption of a final Growth Policy reflecting the needs and desires of the residents of Huntington Beach; and 2. The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is hereby requested to adopt a similar Resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach on the 18th day of December 1973 by the follow- ing roll call vote: . ..,w•...r.....«.s;,"wx_.w........». ..... ......... .... ..,.,- :e . .<......_.... ....+.. ....... ....... ..._. _ .. _ ...,�..-.-...,., ,...........w rr.i•.+r(atw'iK:.aw V.:.a .j," t'Y' Y . 1 AYES: Ge9 i er, E3axil, Kerins, Wallin, Boyle, Porter NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None ATTEST: . E wax. H• i;erx.n K. A. Cno s Chairman Secretary i l t. f if 1 •t t• f { ' ..-. w..r.w...w.+..�w .. •_........�..... �.•. M\M t�e�.YM+•4/.M4W�1'PM7{b w...w RVYt.f'.W4•UA!•.M.iw.w..w._r.�n-......r..r...�r�......w..�._..�-w f.M.nwi.a4.r..w�'.f1..I.1i:.1;'e'.4'... w..+ ...�.. .. .� ' A BSS:'RACT GROWTH POLICY STUDY j I I Tile Revised Growth Policy, Phase i Guidelines, serves as a policy statement for the purpose of developing and implementing legislation and criteria for the orderly development and growth of the City. ;it the same time it affords protection to remaining social, cultural, and environmental. assets so that the Quality of Life Goals as desired by City residents are attainable. in other words, these guidelines are an effort on the part of the City to adopt a philosophy toward growth whereby conscious awareness and control are exercised. By adopting these guidelines the City is reiterating its co=iLment to its residents to continue making Huntington Beach the:. place to live. During the past two decades Huntington Beach h—as—been advocated as the place to live because of several amenities, including a coastal location, clean air, lack of congestion, and wide open spaces. After analyzing those forces and policies which shaped past ctrowth, it was concluded that Huntington Beach may not be a desirable place to live at the turn of the century if these forces and policies are allowed to continue to shape future growth without being altered. The Growth Polir, Study, which was transmitted to the City Council last Not ens per, Haag the analysis which reached this conclusion about the Huntington Beach of the future. This document is the City's first attempt to meet the issue of growth head on, to :identify major growth factors and their implications, to evaluate alternative means of approaching future growth, and to investigate methods for implementing those alternatives. Representing a technical analysis and evaluation of urban growth :n the City, the study was designed to provide information needed for Ilunrington Beach to consciously develop a comprehensive Growth Policy that wjll protect and main- tain the quality of lifer desired by its citizens. The Growth Pc'.jcy Study does not constitute a solution to major growt pro ems. It does not set forth a complete foundation for development of a growth strategy; nor does it detail a word: program for implementing a growth policy. Rather, it is a comprehensive look at growth, a statement of potentials for guiding growth in pursuit of common co.nmunity goals, and a basis for developing a detailed program of growth policy implementation. The Growth Polio Sty was presented to generate public awareness, d?scusa3.aii an input leading to the formulation of a forrial Growth Policy for the City. • In A growth policy is a comprehensive set of aggregate local govern- mental policies which combine to influence the size growth rate, and geographic distribution of a city's population in a mann3r that achieves a desired quality of life. These aggregate policies, while specifically addressing the issue, of growth, relate to all functional areas of city government which impact it; i.e. , housing, transportation, public services, land use, etc. And they are citywide, consistent among all municipal agencies. A Growth Policy is designed to influence growth not arbitrarily determine it. Such power is beyond the scope of a municipal agency; but through j a Growth Policy, city influence is directed at regulating the growth factors of size, rate, and distribution. That is, a Growth Policy addresses the questions of how :such growth a city can accommodate, the speed at which growth should be permitted, and where additional population increments could best be situated. Because these factors are interrelated, a Growth Policy must establish a balance among them. Ultimate size, for example, has little meaning to city planning without consideration of distribu- tion. Likewise, rate of growth or how fast an ultimate population is reached, has more impact on provision of public services than the actual size of the population eventually achieved. Finally, it is important to emphasize that the rationale for a Growth Policy I .is not population itself but the quality of life sought by city residents. A Growth Policy is a tool for achieving that desired lifestyle; and, therefore, it must be based securely on comet city values --- a common sense of future, a sense of destiny. Technically, a Growth Policy contains three levels of policy state- ment. Most general is the Top Level Policy which expresses a city's b-sic approach to future growth. This Top Level policy establishes tILC tone or atmosphere to be reflected by the Second and Supporting Level Policies which translate it into greater degrees of specifi- city. Second Level Policy Statements deal with the three critical 9_owth factors (size, rate; and dintribution) ; and Supporting Policies define these general directives into clear-cut instructions • that can be implemented in day-to-day decision making. Basically, a Growch Policy can take three different approaches to future growth: it can encourage growth, accommodate growth, or control growth. The alternative pursued in a Growth Policy depends on the Quality of Life goals of a city' s residents. Because growth affects all coimaunities differently and because the "desired future" of each city differs, the content of a Growth Policy is parochial with eauphasis personalized to a city's special needs and desires. The Growth Policy which has guided Huntington Beach from its incorpora- tion in 1909 to the present is classified as one of active accommo- dation. This existing or Current Growth Policy is one of informal and unconscious direction resulting from the daily activities of city agencies. The Top Level Policy, which expresses the City's basic approach to future growth, is: , * 2 To accommodate and provide for growth as set by the marke : forces of the Southern California and Orange County economy without due regard to long range impacts. This policy equates growth with progress. The Growth Policy Study evaluated the future Huntington Beach based on direction from the Current Growth Policy. In order to do an evaluation of the Current Growth Policy, it was first necessary to determine what quality of life is being sought by Huntington .Beach residents. The most comprehensive definition of Quality of Life Goals for the City is set forth in the Policy Plan developed by the Huntington, Beach Citizens Committee for Goals and Objectives. This document contains generally accepted community desires, aspirations, and dreams regarding the City's immediate and long--zctzge future. The implications derived from these policies can easily be translated into Quality of Life Goals to establish a value framework for judging the adequacy of the Current Growth Pclicy. After comparing the Current Growth Policy tr. the Quality of Life Goals as set forth in the. Policy Plan, it became readily apparent that the Current Growth Policy cannot be con:s:idered a completely adequate tool for achieving the desired quality of life. Though in some cases its directives are in harmony with the Quality of Life Coals expressed in the Policy Plan, in many important aspects it falls short of the aspirations voiced by residents of the City. Therefore, the Current Growth Policy cannot be expected to produce future Huntington Beach that meets the .feeds and desUzs of its citizens. From the recommendations of the Policy Plait, it iv apparent that the [Uty's residents desire: a future different from t:he one which I1 would result from continued implementation of the Current Growth. i Policy. Therefore, if the desired quality of Iit'e is to be achieved, municipal energies will have to be rechanneled, values and policies reselected. The Growth Polic�SIt!jAX constitutes the beginning of this rechannel-- ing a-n�'rese ecting process. In the past, as shown by the Current; Growth Policy, pro-growth values dominated policy with little concern .for the future; and present residents of the City suffer the consequences of previous decisions. The intention oz the Growth Policy SLt2dX is to encourage a future value distribution wHIBE �` balances growth with a concern for quality of life. While the measures required to balance: these values nay saw drastic, they are only the result of a deferred--payment approach. What the Growth Policy Study recommends will help being a pay-as--you-go sys eia where the effects of each action will be coiseidered before any final decision is made. Only in this way will the attributes which prompted the City's spectacular growth be protected in its wake. �. 3 i r Given the inability of Current Growth Policy to achieve the Quality of Life Goals set by City residents, it is obvious that anew Growth Policy must be developed. And it seems the best Foundation upon which to build a now Growth Policy is, of course, the directives of the Policy Plan. The Implied Growth Policy was th-gin formulated. ' It is an alternative Growch Policy that was interpreted from the directives of the Policy Plan. Its Top Level Policy or basic approach to a Future Huntington Beach is: i To plan and provide for growth somewhat moderated over market forces with some consideration of impacts on the quality of life and natural resources. While this alternative policy expresses a greater concern for the consequences of growth than the Current Growth Policy, its atten- tions are primarily focused at the impact of population size on quality of life. As a result, this alternative does not address the question of population growth rate, and emphasis on population distribution is confined to protection of certain values rather than a policy realignment. Therefore, though this alternative policy more closely represents the desires of the City's residents, it is still not comprehensive enough to direct municipal decision making in a way that insures achievement of their Quality of Llf•e Goals. Still using the Quality of Life Goals established in the Policy Plan as a foundation but modifying them with planning experience and experti3e, a second alternative can be developed which is strictly oriented to growth manipulation. This Revised Growth Policy alternative directly attacks the question of growth. Its Top Level Policy is: To influence and channel population growth in a manner that will optimize the quality of life for the residents of the City. Specifically addressirc the grou.h factors of size, rate, and ? distribution, the prcmise of the Revised Growth Policy is that 1 growth can and should be influepced; and the best way to influence: growth TF-ay baT nc ng the interaction of these growth factors. The essence of the Revised Growth Policy is summarized below: 1. Growth must be influenced and directed to optimize quality of life; 2. Ultimate population size will re.,%ilt from a balance of environ- mental valuus and urban services; 3. Rate of growth must be reduced to allow the City time for adjustment of its decision making processes in line with the new groatth policy; and } 4 h. Population distribution is an essential fatter determining the maintenance and provision of environmental values. Each of the three Growth Policies presented Current, Implied, and Revised -- is related and yet represents a different approach to the future. Current Growth Policy can be summarized as a policy of accommodating growth without full consideration of its impacts. The Policy Plan, as interpreted in the implied Growth Policy, takes a stand against accommodation. its overall intent is tc reduce growth with emphasis on reduction of population size. TIuu Revised Growth Policy is an extension of the spirit of the Policy Plan which is that of responsible concern and provision for the quality of n.tural and urban environments. The Revised Growth Policy suggests that this can best be accomplished by careful consideration j of all growth .factors --- size, rate, and distribution -- and that these factors should be evaluated and balanced to provide a final growth strategy. Because of its direct concern with the three fundamental growth factors and its relationship to the Quality of Life Goals of the Policy Plan, the Revised Growth Policy is reconunendad by the Growth Policy .Study as a basis for further development: and refinement of an official Growth Policy and growth strategy for the City of Iiuntirgton Beach. The impact of the Revised Growth Policy is difficult to measure because: it is a broad, conceptual framework for influencir g growth. Its real impact- wi.11 be observable only after its principles are incorporated into the decision making process and translated into specific programs for implementations. In any case, the impact of the Revised Growth Policy on currant Affairs will not be dramatic. Rather; it will be reflected in gradual policy changes and value realignments throughout the municipal system. Its .impact on the future, however, should be considerable. The: Revised Growth Policy is a means to encourage and enhance: the future duality of life in the City. It is not absolute, nor is it complete, for it will evolve and change as ideas, values, and other factors change over the years. Its intimate impact will depend upon the degree of coanmitment and the degree to which it i.; utilized and implemented in the creation of t•.`, e future. It is only z tool and not an and in itself. It asks questions and implies that certain thingn must be considered. Its only purpose is to assir.t in the develop•uant of a finer city, a finer future. If it can assist in the crystal- ization of certain ideas and directions for the City, then it has served its purpose. By asking difficult questions and providing / few pat answers, this Growth Policy will insure that the process of i . studying and answering these questions will have meaning and validity and tremendous impact upon the future environment of the City. r 1 ._-.,_....�.._..�_...._. __. .. ..... ................._..w... ........... ... ._ _ ...... .. ...........-...... rrr .rt Yl••♦.n r.rn.+.t,'. ... T' I .. i , ...,tint, ,v. ...•.: �f�.l'1:1' � 1. Adopting the Revised Growth Policy, Phase I Guidelines, then, is the beginning step in formulating a strategy to manage and control growth so that the Quality of Life Goals as desired by City residents are attainable. It will also make }iuntington Beach cf the future a desirable place to live. Prepared by Huntington Beach Planning Department February 1974 1 r I I� { S { i i I , 6 ./..-..••wwM. .wrwww.r+.w_._...... _.-._.r..... ..�....+.r+.w......vh..�.r•w+..ws r.. .f"•.l`:.1'... nl.r.._s...., .. .... ++.w.�4.r.v.'l+nn...w.i o..wahn'.fit.i�{1.Yf:"•.'{1.'!i`::."�IG`fi'Iw�.11".1:511•.' w A PON Huntington Beach Planning Commission- CALIFORNIA 92648 P.O. BOX 190 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: Planning COmmissiOn DATE: January 25, 1974 ATTN: David D. Rowlands, City Administrator RE: Revised Growth Policy, Phase I Guid.:lines Transmitted herewith is the Revised Growth Policy, Phase I Guide lines, aS amended and adopted by the Planning Commission on December 18, 1973. BACKGROUND: ihz Revised Growth Policy is an effort on the part of the City to adopt a philosophy toward growth whereby conscious awareness and control is exercised. This policy set is one of three policy alternatives that was thoroughly researched and analyzed in the "Grr;,ith Policy Study" which was transmitted to the City Council last November. Current Policy, policy Set 1, is the established operational policy which has been in existence and is currently guiding decision making. Implied Growth Policy, Policy Set 2, is represented by the principle statements of the Policy Plan. Revised Growth Policy, Policy Set 3, contains the recommended policies for the planned channeling and influencing of population growth in the City. It is a si•nthesis of community goals, policies, and growth factors. PAST ACTIONS: The Planning Department staff has put forth a concerted effort in obtaining input from various boards, bodies, and groups within Huntington ?each. Copies of the Growth PolicyStudy, which 1 q contained Policy Set Three: Revised Growth Policy, was distri- buted to approximately 87 persons. At the November 13, 1973 Planning Commission meeting, staff made a formal presentation on the Growth Policy Study. i 11 tt 1 ,r, M Revised Growth Policy Page 2 A motion was made by Kerins and seconded by Bazil. Policy Set Three: Revised Growth Policy was set for a public hearing on December 4, 1973. Vote: AYES: Geiger, Bazil, Higgins, Y.erins, Wallin, Boyle, Porter NOES: None .ABSENT: None At the November 27, 1973 Planning Commission meeting, staff discussed with the Commission the question as to whether an Exemption Declaration was needed for the Revised Growth Policy. The Commission was informed ( by staff that the public hearing had been set for December 18, 1973. This was to allow time for the Environmental Review Board (ERB) and the City Attorney to resolve the question on the need for an exemption declaration and for public notification on the public hearing. A motion was manse by Boyle and seconded by Bazil. Pollcy Set Three: Revised Growth Policy was set for public hearing on December 18, 1973. Vote: AYES: Geiger, Bazil, Kerins, Wallin, Boyle, Porter NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins At the Decen )er 11, 1973 meeting the ERB concurred with the City Attorney's opinion that the Revived Growth Policy has no controlling factors over land use. It is, therefore, categorically exempt from the environmental process . On December 18, 1973 a public hearing on Policy Set Three: Revised Growth Policy was held by the Planning Commission. During thii hearing, several citizens addressed the Commission and spoke about the Policy. I � A motion was made by Porter and seconded by Wallin. Resolution No. 1132 was adopted as amended by the follotAng roll call vote: Vote: AYES: Geiger, Bazil, Kerins, Wallin, Boyle, Porter NOES: None ABSENT: HigginD ... .x, - ... :,is.. .... ..... .. nr.� ........�_.... ......,+.r.�.Yiu..7.:u',v.aa......,.nl•atn L.:q..f ►/L•tl, Revised Growth Policy Page 3 RECO1MENDATIONS: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council set the Revised Growth Policy, Phase I Guidelines for public hearing and adopt as 6 basis For continued study and debate leading to the adoption of a final Growth Policy reflecting the needs and desires of the residents of Huntington Beach. Respectfully subritted, Wes- � •�.+Q+:�• Edward D. Selich Acting Secretary EDS:MW:mc. I I �I .I 4 i f {{1 1([ i 7 f �.tre.lf.t 2'.+x r...,...w...... �...................,..-,....,�..... ...,,.«..... .,w....`.+.«...t•..:. :-i„,..... . ,. ,«. .r............. ._....�.......�....-.»•.........,....«.�...m.....�-�........ .............r.........,.,..,,d ' oil 1 f RESOLUTION NO. 1132 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING POLICY SET t THREE: REVISED GROWTH POLICY PHASE I GUIDELINES WHEREAS, the Revised Growth Policy contains recummenda:l policies for the planned regulation and influencing of population growth in Huntington Beach; and WHEREAS, the Revised Growth Policy is a synthesis of community goals, policies and growth .factors in Huntington Beach; and WHEREAS, the objective of the Revised Growth Policy is to serve as a policy statement for the purpose of developing and implementing legislation and criteria for the orderly development and growth of the City and at the same time to afford protection to remaining social, cultural, and environmental assets; and WHEREAS, adoption of the Revised Growth Policy is a begin- ning steF in determining the future of Huntington Beach and how the quality of life can be maintained within the context of planned population growth; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Reach adopts Policy Set Three: Revised Growth Policy. Revised Growth Policy Top Level Policy: To influence and channel population growth in a manner that will optimize the quality of life for the residents of tho city. Second Level Policy: 1. Population Size: To plan .for a population size that is consistent with environmental quality and provision of urban services and amenities as related to rate and distribution policy. 2. Growth Rate : To limit the rate of growth to a level that will enable the conscious planning and management of population size and distribution policies. 3. Population Distribution: To distribute population in a manner that w 11 optimize environmental and urban qualities emphasizing preservation of natural resources and movement of people and goods. Supporting Policies Development 1. Residential Development: Plan for and regulate residential t. development that will reflect an identified variety of needs consistent with environmental and urban quality goals. 2. Commercial Development: a. General: Identify general commercial needs and establish a balanced framework for provision of these needs considering quality of life ii,:R►lications 3- terms of, service and distribution .and city fiscal responsibilities. b. Tourism: Encourage tourist commercial development for economic benefit to 1-the City with planned con- sideration on impacts to other aspects of the City. C. Redevelopment: Encourage redevelopment as a means of improving the quality of life and the channeling of growth with the City taking an initiatory or ! participatory role when necessary. 3. Industrial Development: Encourage appropriate industrial i development within the context of planned industrial i areas. A. utilit Ve rvice; Plan and regulate development of public utilities in cencert with utility agencies and city growth i policy considering impacts on natural resources, 5. Transportation and Circulation. a. Freewa! s: Analyze freeway needs and impacts on growth and coordinate response with reg,onal transportation planning. b. Arterial highways s_ Streets: provide for planning and development in conjunction with land use distri- bution and transportation objectives. , C. Public Transportation: Actively consider mass transportation systems by coordinating hnd participating with reVional agencies and plans. i 6. Annexation: Allow annexation for pre-planned areau' upon satisfactory conclusions of consideration of impacts on city, objectives, economics, and service and resource requirements. 7. Fiscal Planning: Develop and maintain short and long range fiscal planning consistent with and as an implementing 5 tool (including regulation and feedback to growth policies) of the general plan. 1 Society and Culture t a f 1. tt .!Iing; Encourage and provide a variety of housing types and costs including the needs of those employed in the City and equal opportunity for all economic, racial, and ethnic groups. 2. Community Facilities: Encourage and provide a wide range of facilities and services that responsibly meet the needs and goals of the population. 3. Schools: Limit or regulate residential growth so as to allow and maintain a high level of educational quality � and the adequate provision of educational facilities. r Environment and Resources 1. Community Appearance: Encourage fiscally responsible i areas of scenic preservation and establish and enforce aesthetic standards for all future development. 2. Parks, Recreation and Open Space: Encourage the responsible acquisition and coordinated development (where appropriate) and planning of public open space , to include consideration of the amount, type, and distribution of open space elements. , 3. Natural Resources: Establish programs for the conservation and protection of natural resources. a. oil: Plan all oil lands for the phased conversion to optimum use. b. Flood Plains: Consider the implications of develop- ment n potential flood plains and regulate accordingly. c. Geologic Hazards: Consider the implications of develop- ment in areas of potential soils or geologic hazard and regulate accordingly. 4. Shoreline: Optimize use of the shoreline so as to permit reasonable use in concern with regulation to protect` environmental and aesthetic values. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT: 1. The Revisers Growth Policy will serve as a basis for continued study and discussion leading to the adoption of a fir:al , Growth Policy reflecting the needs and desires of the residents of funtington Beach; and 2. The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is hereby requested to adopt a similar Resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of. the City of Huntington Beach on the loth day of December 1973 by the follow- ing roll call vote: 1 AYES: Geiger, Hazil, Kerins, Wallin, Boyle, Porter NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None ATTEST: I � 7 "Cynol . Edward 11. Kerxn , Secretary Chairman r i s. . t. x i I ; { l f }t i 1 1 } t }fe 1 j(J 1 t I� ! a..«w+.•.k-f•vis s:,n ..«..._....«................,... ..��...-. ... .-... ........,.... .. ,.,. ...,. ,a .... .... „ �,x.-n.+..... ..... ....,..�.. ._.,.......—......ae,a:.�w....«urwrh.K�,..'._:..:'�Tte,:ar�+lr..,t t, 1 �4• i (ITT OF tiunTmTon BEACH J.J P.O. BOX 190, CALIFORNIA 92648 i PLAN14ING DEPT. (714) 536-'5271 November 6, 1973 Alicia Wentworth City Clerk , 1)var Mrs . Wentworth1 : Enclosed is a copy of the Planning Department's Growth Policy Study. This staff study was done in response to the concerns that have been expressed regarding growth in Huntington Beach both froin the City Council and Planning Commission. The report was presented to the Planning Commission at their October 30, 1973 :study Session along with a staff introduction. At the Yovember 13, 1973 Planning Commission Study Session, the Planning De:partmenL will be giving a formal iresentation on the Growth Policy Study. Copies of this report are being distributed to City Departments, Hoards and Comimissions, School Districts, community organizations. such as the Chamber of Commerce and League of. Women Voters, and the Citizens Steering ' Committee for Goals and Objectives. All are being invited to attend the Study Session on November 13, 1973. The Planning Commission will be developing a program fcr holding public review and discussions on this document. The Planning Commission cordially invites you to attend the Study Session and participate in the discussion. Very truly yours, K. A. Reynolds Planning Director MR:ja Enclosure ..�.rrurt.Z:_lt: ..,., .'!'•7v„ ,' ,.. .i. ..,•.i. ._.•.i,, ., . .... ,.r .,. . ... ....... .y•,. ,. r, •,��y. ., .�ti:.`f.::{ �4•,•i;r='�` 1 'fa`ynutH%F �3{V.^'r