Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutIndustrial Land Use Study - 1976-1979 The Planning Staff has been requested to analyze the possibility of a .ceneral plan amendment for the area outlined in Figure 1. The amendment request proposes placing an industrial land use designation on the entire area, thereby expanding the Gothard Industrial Corridor by 373 acres. The following report summarizes the basis i.ssuis involved in analyzing the feasibility of the requested general plan amendment. BACKGROUND The area encompasses approximately 508 acres of land that is primarily vacant but also supports a diverse mixture of agricultural, industrial, equestrian, residential, and oil-related uses. Zoning within the Area is indicated in Figure 2. This area has been addressed in a number of previous reports, including: -Proposed Amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element Technical Report, December 1974. -Industrial Land Use Study I, June 1976 . -General Plan Amendment 76-2, November 1976. -Industrial Lard Use Study II, February 1977. -General Plan Amen,-1nent 77-21 Part 3, Industrial ,t Areas, July 1977. -Garfield-Goldenwest Study, March 1978. These and other reports were consulted to provide an historical back- ground for the area and to assess changing conditions that have affected and continue to affect land uses in this area of the City. GENERAL PLAN HISTORY Much of the area being considered has at one time or another been designated for industrial use. Prior to 1973, the area bounded by y` Ellis Avenue, Go thard Street, Main Street, Clay Avenue, and Edwards � . Street was designated for industrial use. Four factors influenced j the industrial designation, in order of importance: 1) Alignment of the proposed Route 1 and Route 39 Free;aays through and proximic to the area, 2) proximity and relationship to the Central Industrial Corridor, j 3) existing industrial and oil-related uses withi.n the area, and 4) availability of large amounts of vacan'.: land. However, in August, 1972, the State Leyisl.atu1, deleted the Route 1 Freew.ay System, considtirably les3ening the area' s desirability as a location for new industrial park development. The other three factors arc essentially unchanged today, but the lack of convenient freeway access to the area is a crucial deterrent to new industrial development. The proposed Route 39 Freeway was similarly deleted in April, 1974, further removing the study area from • i i -:.,,yet • :/ :. ,ti: ;: ..,.. Cr,.�......;r� ;.!r.....r.......•. •:i . ;� .. . I �•.-:__ ..- 1 cr.r.�..:. ..cat.: . ...». %�'�.. j�t,_:i;,. •I{j! 'T•lifj :`.i;if;;i:��`, :'i " �''..� - . �M.•tl:Yti •�t' .1•. '::::..r�.', I}j �:.4' .�it F. ».CF-R t Cr.E �' SPACE ! —� INDUSTRIAL } 1J ��� •. ` ' j LO1V �.. R-- •-- OPEN _, ( 1.., '! "r,� y, 1{•!rt.� t !t- 't;;r-^ ,f,. 'Jib ir SPACE 1 � OF.NSITY :ram �. �1 Vo t - ESTATE 0-2 _ ( MEDIUM f 1 i-.•• DENSITY ' I i j Li ESTATE - Lw 4 T '"r INOUSTRIAL _ f ''/� — •-- •r •�� , OFFICE ESTATE 0.2 _._ _-'—_ 'PROFESSIONAL Ir so for :/111 Ji i—F f .. r � �_" ....._..�;. .—:_.:i • .. ,- ',�.�.� i ,- _... ,ram„ P' •t RESOURCE ... . MiDIUM •�- .:... PRODUCTION -DENSITY 1 �•'� I J - ' '��' =� • .� Al tt r•....h' ' r y l";� 1, `•w.l�,* 1 1 DENSITY I �''l• 1MEDIUM �� (�`; ; 1—v �COMMERCIALI, ' f �•,�: ���,� Imo` {l �.».:.-. r l t •1t i r =". `' -�_- _ �I Figure 1 EXISTINGI.,07NENERAL PLAN huntingion beach planning department R • T •• , '4 w r.tl r a, t Y:. ry owlw !:`.•7.r{. •� ` i� C1RF .. F��n Q Q � �. pp �RI : 4 `•;R f t+ •• s��•-i CF-p r .. . •C4 CF'R LMI•cD MI-A ' I .t- _ CI R C2 � i•� T 9A•0•CD MI f•C Po RI rr r,.,t. .., .• .• RZ MI ti ` • N M.-0-CD ••:� rot RA-CD ... RA-0•GG RA-0 ...•. A.O. (` •;.\ I=: YC2 /rr� all o waf t :�i A•0 MI•G •r �[ RA-0 r f 0 cc MI.02 ,ew- ri L.J .. "•., �.1� MI.O "A4 gk01 1 . INOtl • I. Y1 rrt•J ! � r •� "• Ir .� • 1. ::: R4.0 CI.O ritAU2C� atl (�' `M- » 2 fis c" .T. ••,.. , .j M2.02 .,.. t C,I RA-0 ` r R2 R3- t' .0,'. ! ►`i' ''• 1M7.02 CC " = f f rr Ili..... A2 C4 ' �FI.O•`�•"�,•T`(AI• -. !'1 . ., `2•L!�-f 1 .C7.O /.. 1 _ yA -•t R03-0/it w V t: ,� . / , ; `• , 77Y �r ,,.. O ti . r, M G24.CVD C2.0 ROSO +� .� f ; C2.0CA R:O�A�(T!c'.•toi t f "r r o �• .. .. ,` �. F- CF,C ` `ram'1-+ " •+. C E•CD at I•a ,_ -0 1 �+.� e..� �ti ./.�l/%�• wo{~ : CF' Cs. o•• Figure 2 EXISTING ZONING huntingtcn beach planning department • Page 2 nearby freeway access. The concept of a north-south freeway between the San Diego Freeway and the coast has, however, been indicated on the 1978 orange County Master Plan of Art%.-ial Streets and Highways, although the precise alignment has'not been resolved. The Phase I Land Use Element, adopted in December 1973, designated the study area as a Planning Reserve, in order to allow for more comprehensive planning for future land uses in the area. Accordingly, the area was addressed in Section 2 of the December 1974 amendment to the Phase I Land Use Element. Several alternative concepts were analyzed in this amendtr.ciat, and low density residential uses were preferred over- industrial uses for- the area west of Goldenwest Street for the following reasons: 1) Deletion of the proposed Route 1 and Route 39 Freeways seriously reduced convenient access to and desirability of industrial areas. 2) Low density residential uses were seen as more compatible with • Huntington Central Park than industrial uses. 3) Arterial circulation was not adequate west of Goldenwest Street. 4) Topographic variations within the area presented greater constraints to industrial development than in other industrial areas in the City. ' � I 5) subdivision patterns redi3ced the desirability for new development. The land us.. Flan adopted for the area called for a reduction in industrial i acreage and established Garfield Avenue as the southerly boundary of the Central Industrial Corridor and the proposed Gothard-Crystal alignment � as the westerly b.:)undary. Ellis Avenue was established as the sourtherly boundary of Huntington Central Park and the Estate residential designation } was placed on the land south of the park. However, the Planning Reserve eesignation was retained for the 111-acre area bounded by Ernest Avenue, Crystal Street, Garfield Avenue, the railroad, Clay Avenue, and Golden- west street. This remaining Planning Reserve area was addressed in General Plan Amendment 76-2, prompted by concerns over increasing residential development amid existing industrial and uses south of Garfield Avenue. Additionally, the Planning Staff had recently completed the Industrial Land Use Study in June 1976. This study presented several important conclusions regarding industrial land use within the City of Huntington Beach, among these: 1) At the time the study was conducted, about half of all industrial land in the City remained vacant. 2) Marginal industrial uses were prevalent along the Central Industrial Corridor. i • i I i I i i I i I Paige 3 3) Such marginal uses exhibit substantial, net losses in revenue for the City and at the same time do' not, generate significant employment and income multiplier effects to other sectors of the local economy. 4) The City is not maximizing the potential benefits from existing industrial land. 5) Much of the industrial land along the Central Industrial Corridor is poorly suited for industrial development. 6) Significant residential encroachment has removed much of the prime industrial acreage in the northern portion of the City from . available supply. 7) Significant efforts must be made by the City to enchance the desirability of the Corridor if the :.ity is to capture its - projected share of regional industrial growth. After evaluating the City's industrial properties in light of present and projected local and regional demands, the Staff recommended a program of industrial land reduction for those properties not especially well- suited foi: industrial use. Among the first areas to be recommended. for deletion,.from the industrial category were the Edison Area and properties ,-. in the Central Industrial Corridor located 0outh of Ellis Avenue. Based on the evaluations presented in the Industrial Land Use Study, the Staff recommended the redesignation of the area south of Garfield Avenue to medium density residential in General Plan Amendment 76-21 adopted in November, 1976. The 32-acre area north of Garfield Avenue was redesignated to industrial at the same time. Additionally, seven acres located south of Ellis Avenue immediately east of the railroad were redesignated to medium density residential in General Plan Amendment 77-1, adopted in March, 1977. The present configuration of land uses in the study area are as follows: CATEGORY ACREAGE Residential Estate 0-2 60 acres Estate 0-4 148 acres Medium Density 107 acres Commercial Office Professional 18 acres Industrial 135 acres Public Use Open Space 40 acres TOTAL 508 acrc.-s I i • Pane 4 A program of industrial land reduction for the Central Industrial r Corridor and Edison Arna was proposed by the' Planning Staff in General Plan Amendment 77-21 Part 3, in July, 1977. however, concerns over the diminishing amount of developable industrial land and maintenance of .a strong tax base led the Planning Commissi.on 'to advocate maintaining all industrial land in the Gothard Corridor, with the goal of improving the desirability of the corridor for new development. The City's policy of assisting developers with • offsite str,set and drainage improvements, adopted in May, 1976, reiterated the City's commitment to strengthening the tax base of the Community by encouraging quality industrial development. PLANNING ISSUES Given this commitment to retain and improve the Gothard Corridor, the Staff has been asked to analyze the feasibility of expanding the Corridor at its southern end. Time constraints preclude a detailed analysis of the many issues involved, however, the :Staff has attempted to identify and summarize the key issues affecting the amendment request. The following section outlines these issues. LAND USE Perhaps the major land use issue affecting the request to expand the Gothard Corridor involves the compatibility of additional industrial uses .•yaith Huntington Central Park.. The Southern boundary of the park west of Goldenwest Street has not firmly been established. If the existing alignment of Ellis Avenue is to serve this purpose, the newly created industrial area will be separated from the park only by a 100-foot primary arterial. The entire eastern boundary of the park presently abuts the Gothard Corridor either directly or across Gothard Street. The mixing of industrial truck traffic and park traffic is not the most desirable situation. As requested, the proposed amendment would create an expanded industrial area that "wraps around" the park on two sides. Three possible alternatives exist to alleviate this situation: 1) If the southern boundary of the park is established 660 feet north of the existing Ellis Avenue alignment, a buffer area is established. Such an area could support Estate density residential uses or some other form of transitional uses. 2) There is a possibility that the alignment of Ellis Avenue could be curved northward to intersect with Talbert Avenue at Edwards Street, as proposed by General Plan Amendment 79-113. Such an alignment would also create a possible buffer area between the part: and the industrial area. �wi �- YI Page 5 � 3) The northen boundary of the industrial area west of Goldenwest Street could be shifted to the south away from the sluff, utilizing the existing topographical depression that runs to the uouthwest as a natural. boundary. This would also create a traneitional area between the park and the industrial area characterized by variable terrain, appropriate for Estate residential uses. Additionally, the existing depression would facilitate natural drainage from the adjacent north and south areas. The forty-acre portion of the study area located north of Ellis Avenue and east of Goldenwest Street is currently designated Open Space on the General Plan Land Use Element. This area is comprised of the Ocean. View Mushroom Farm and the C. :y-owned Sully-Miller Pit. While a master plan for Huntington Central Park has not been adopted, the concept of .using the Sully-Miller Pit: for a fishing area adjacent to recreational vehicle camping facility has been discussed. The ultimate use of. the mushroom farm has not been deterinined, although some recreational use related to the park seems appropriate. Again, the topographical features of this portion of the study area discourage industrial uses. As suggested above, the swale that runs some 600-700 feet south of Ellis Avenue could be utilized as a natural separation between industrial and open space areas. Moving to the eastern portion of the study area, the requested amendment calls for the redesxgnation of approximately eighteen acres of office professional land that straddles Main Street west of Huntington Street to establish a straight line boundary for the industrial area along Huntington -- Street so as. to incorporate the Cambro property south of Garfield into the Gothard Corridor. No office-professional development has taken place within this triangular area, and its suitability for industrial use is hampered only by its relative location in the City and the fact that it �I is bisected by Main Street. The establishment of the southern boundary of the Gothard Corridor has been an issue for several years. Both Garfield Avenue and Clay Avenue have served this purpose, and numerous arguments exist to support either alternative. Garfield Avenue is preferred for the following masons: 1) The Southern Pacific Railroad terminates at Garfield Avenue; the area to the south derives no direct benefits from the railroad operations. 2) Main Street south of Garfield serves as the "gater.ay" to the downtown area. Industrial uses and the traffic they create detracts significantly from this function. . 3) Industrial usei south of Garfield Avenue would encroach on the Civic Center area. y1) I I Page 6 4) Nearly half of the area south of Garfield Avenue is zoned for medium and high density residential uses, and some residential development t-, already occurred. Pressures to develop the remaining vacant resident- ially-zoned parcels will .continue to increase over time as vacant, developable land in the remainder of the City is depleted. 5) The desirability of industrial property diminishes with increasing distance fro;a the San Diego Freeway. On the other hand, Clay Avenue is preferred for these reasons: ?i 1) Much of the area is devoted to oil production and related activities. As long as these uses continue to operate, industrial development would be more compatible than residential development. +� 2) Residential uses south of Garfield Avenue would isolate the existing Cambro facility from the Gothard Corridor and would perpetuate the compatibility problems that presently exist. ►. 3) Likewise, the resource production area south of Garfield Avenue and west of Goldenwest Street would also be isolated from the industrial l corridor. 4) The existing alignment of Clay Avenue follows a natural ridge which {' creates a logical topographical separation between land uses. 5) The proposed alignment of Gothard Street with Crystal Street will provide access to the area which does not presenity exist for truck traffic. 1; I 3) The large lots within the area south of Garfield are not conductive to i uniform, integrated residential deve..upment. �« If Garfield Avenue is preferred as the southern boundary of the industrial corridor east of Goldenwest Street, the extension of the industrial area west of Goldenwest Street will allow the existing resource production area to be integrated into the industrial corridor. If Goldenwest Street is preferred as the western boundary (and Garfield Avenue the southern boundary) the resource production axea should somehow be incorporated into the Seacliff Planned Community. Moving finally to the western edge of the study area, the industrial designation should not be extended west of Edwards Street, if in fact it is taken that far. Although M1-02 zoning exists west of Edwards Street, the bluff lop area should be preserved for lower intensity, open space related uses. industrial use of this area would have negative impacts on the linear regional park which has been considered for the bluff area. Additionally, the adopted Open Space and Conservation Element identifies the existing Estate Residential area as a planned open space development area. Under this designation, open space and natural resource features are encouraged to be incorporated into develop- ment plans for the area. Page 7OON ram, From a 'land use point of view,. the major obstacles to .indvstrial usaga of the study area lie primarily in the, relatively adverse conditions presented by the variable terrain of the area.t in several locations, small lot configurations present additional problems. to facilitating industrial developments. Responses -from industrial brokers who were polled during the City's 1967-77 industrial studies indicated that the most attractive industrial properties were those that were assembled and graded with adequate drainage, utilities, and offsite improvements. The City would have co make a major commitment and devote significant resources to make the study area a desirable location for new industrial development. CIRCULATION ISSUES In addition to the various land use issues raised in the above section, a nu;nber of circulation issues need to be identified in evaluating the proposed industrial usage for the study area. This section will discuss circulation issues in the area and their effect on industrial uses. i PROPOSED FREEWAYS As menti.oned 'rabove, the alignment of the proposed Route 1 Freeway through the study area was the significant factor in originally planning the study area for industrial uses. The deletion of this freeway prompted the City to reevaluate the suitability of the area for industrial use and it was subsequently redesignated for Estate Residential and Open Space uses..- The deletion of the proposed freeway places additional emphasis on Gothard Street as an artery to carry industrial traffic to and from the San Diego Freeway, located three miles north of 'Zhe study area. The Route 39 Freeway offered a north-south connection between the inland county area and the coast. Originally, this freeway was aligned west of Beach Boulevard, paralleling the railroad. The alignment was subseq- uently moved to the east side of Beach Boulevard and then apparently deleted in April, 1974. However, the December, 1978 Orange County Master Plan of ?arterial Streets and Highways reinstated the Newland alignment of the Route 39 Freeway, and it is now the Sta.ff's understanding that this Freeway was never deleted from the State system. Although the precise alignment of the freeway has yet to be determined, the concept of the north-south connection remains. If the freeway is eventually located a mile and a half east of the area, the feasibility of industrial j uses for the area is considerably improved. With the freeway, the emphasis on Gothard Street is greatly reduced; the focus being on Talbert, Ellis and Garfield Avenues. SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD The existence of the railroad was the major factor in creating the Central Industrial Corridor. While the importance of rail transit has declined significantly with the advent of a comprehensive network of freeways, the railroad still constitutes a desirable feature: for locating industrial uses. The abandonment of the railroad south of Garfield Avenue formed a logical boundary for the .industrial corridor. Expansion of the industrial corridor to the west would not accrue direct benefits from location along the railroad, although the railroad may still be used for transporting materials to and from the study area. Use of .the railroad south of Ellis is somewhat hindred by the current alignment of Gothard Street. The proposed realignment of Gothard to intersect with Crystal Street will signficantly improve ::he potential for using the railroad at the southern end of the corridor. The railroad right-of--way has also been Considered for a future mass transit route. Both the City, and the County have endorsed such a use for the railroad corridor altnough such plans are preliminary and very conceptual at this time. Any future industrial development abutting the right-of--way should comply with established setbacks to maintain the option for future mass transit use. GOTHARD STREET Gothard Street plays a very important role in the development and maintenance of the industrial corridor with the deletion of proposed freeway plans. i This arterial provides the crucial link between the study area and the San Diego Freeway. An EDA grant was used to uubstantially improve e Gothard Street between Warner Avenue and Ellis Avenue, however sufficient funds were not available to continue work south of Ellis Avenue. The desirability of industrial properties south of Ellis Avenue is seriously --� affected by poor arterial circulation and road conditions. The proposed realinment of Gothard Street westerly to intersect with Crystal Street Will significantly ittiprove circulatioal into and within the study area. Additionally, the proposed alignment will allow improved access to the area south of Garfield Avenue as well as the area west of Goldenwest Street, should these areas be recommended for industrial use. ` Such a realignment will a?Joy better Yise of the railroad south of Ellis Avenue by eliminating space conflicts presented by the existing Gothard alignment. A major commitment of resources will be necessary to realign Gothard Street; however, such a project will significantly increase the desirability of existing and 'proposed industrial properties south of Ellis Avenue, MAIN STREET Main Street crosses the southeast portion of the study area between Huntinqton Street and Clay Avenue, currently traversing an office pro- fensional district and a medium density residential area. Main Street acts as the gateway to the downt:uwn area, and carries a substantial amount of beach going traffic. Industrial usage of adjacent areas and the traffic created may seriously impact Main Street. Care must be taken to divert industrial traffic on o other streets to avoid I-lain Street. i i li i g LAKE STREET L?ke Street is currently designated as a primary arterial on the Circulation Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways, although the arterial has never been extended north of Yorktown Avenue and the City does not own the right-of-way to do so. A proposal currently exists to delete .his portion of Lake Street from the Plan. If Lake Street is deleted, the importance of Main Street is increased, and the concerns expressed above are amplified. ELLIS AVENUE The• present condition of Ellis Avenue must be upgraded if the study area is to become a desirable location for new development. The importance of.. the Ellis alignment west of. Goldenwest Street in establishing a1 boundary between the park and more intensive uses to the south has. been addressed above. Should the proposed Route 39 Freeway be constructed, Ellis .Avenue, along with Talbart Avenue, will provide important links between the industrial area and the freeway. For this to occur, Ellis must be extended past the railroad right-of-way. As with Gothard Street improvements mentioned above, improvements to Ellis Avenue will necessitate � a significant commitment of resources because of existing soil conditons and grade separation. GOLDENWEST STREET Goldenwest Street serves as a major north-south arterial for local and beach going traffic. The proposed deletion of Lake Street will augment the importance of Goldenwest Street in serving beach-bound traffic. Goldenwest also bisects and is the major access route to Huntington Central Park. If the industrial area is extended west of Goldenwest Street, care must be taken to avoid creating additional delays in the smooth flog of traffic along Goldenwest and mixing of industrial truck traffic. The circulation issues briefly mentioned above are critical concerns in evaluating the feasibility of expanding the industrial area. Because of the distance from exisitng freeways, the role played by arterial streets in conveniently moving industrial traffic to and from industrial areas is crucial to their success. The City's de-ree of commitment i to improvJng arterial circulation and offsite improvements to attract new quality industrial developments in this portion of the City cannot be overemphasized. Looking to the future, construction of the proposed Route 39 Freeway will enhance the feasibility of the study area for industrial use, but the existing arterials must be considerably improved if the proposal for industrial development of the area is to succeed. REVENUES/EXPENDITURES AND FISCAL IMPACT With the passage of Proposition 13 in June, 1978, major :!and use decisions ­) take on added importance, aF local government financing is considerably altered by changing taxation laws. The decrease in property tax revenues has prompted -municipalities to take a closer look at the relative revenues created by and erpenditures, needed co support varying typea of i i I i 10 land uses. Somewhat related to these kinds pf analysis are those � I that involve assessing the supply and demand, for certain types of land uses, both on a local and regional perspective. In 1976, growing concern over residential encroachment into industrial areas and s general concern over the present and future status of the City's industrial areas . prompted the Staff to undertake a systematic evaluation of Huntington Beach's industrial properties and developments. The following section presents a summary of the Staff's analysis of revenues and expenditures for industrial uses. It is important to note that the data presented is based on an analysis that was conducted in 1976, using 1975 dollar figures. Tha effect of Proposition 13 on local, revenues and expenditures has not been subsequently evaluated. REVENUE/EXPENDITURE ANALYSIS Industrial development tends to have a mixed effect on municipal finances I depehding upon the type of activity and location. On the average, the I aerospace industry shows a net gain to the City, whereas general light industry exhibits a net loss. The significant positive effect of Mcdonnell-Douglas on not City revenues is a function of revenues generated (mainly from property taxes) exceeding expenditures for municipal services. Municipal service expenditures for light industrial development exceed revenues accrued to the City. The mrj or reason for the $250 net loss per acre of light industry is found in the low revenues ,gennrated by developments along the Central Industrial Corridor. Light industry in the Huntington Industrial Park Area shows a net per acre gain to the City,;twhile the Central Industrial Corridor shows a considerable net � loss. Total revenue from the Huntington Industrial Park Area is almost 74 percent higher than revenue generated by sites along the Gothard Strip. With the exception of the area north of Heil Avenue, many corridor de- velopments represent marginal improvements (such as wholesale distributors, warehousing, and open storage operations) upon land of low assessed value. As a result, property tax revenues to the City are almost three times lower than those from the Iuntington Industrial Park Area. r REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES PER ACRE OF INDUSTRIAL LAIJD l City Net Gain ' City Revenues City Expenditures Loss Per Gr. Gena::ated Incurred Ae. pEr Year Ci _dr Light Ind stry +11309 •-1,559 250 Aerospace +21489 -11464 +1,025 Huntington Industrial Park Arrm Light IrOustry +1,626 -1,559 + 67 Aerospace +2,499 -1,464 +11025 Central IrJus trial Obrridor Light Industry + 955 -1,559 -• 604 An additional analysis of the Huntington Beach Industrial Park was performed and divided into two categories: 1) general manufacturing, wholesale trade, and miscellaneous business services; 2) ,warehouse and storage. General manufacturing, wholesale trade, and miscellaneous business service showed a net gain zor the City while warehouse and storage showed a net loss for the City. HUNTINGTON INDUSTRIAL PARK City Net Gain City Revenues City Expenditures Loss rer Gr. Generated Incurred Ac. Per Year Manufacturing, whole- +11695 -1,559 +136 sale trade, misc. business services Warehouse and storage +1, 248 -1,559 -311 Using the figures prrsented in the 1976 study the existing planned land uses for the study area show the following net revenues and losses. .y ESTATE RESIDENTIAL ' t The study indicated a slight surplus of between $140 and $150 to the City ? per acre of developed, lower density uses. The surplus to the school districts was considerably greater, from $1,750 to $1,921 per developed acre. t MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL Both condominium and apartment development at a density of 7 .1 -15 units per acre showed a slight loss to the City of -$233 and -$142 per acre, respectively. Losses to the school district were also noted, -$508 and -$1,542 per acre, respectively. OFFICE PROFESSIONAL , Office professional development showed a net loss of -$1,058 per ' acre to the City. The school districts received a surplus of $5,671 per acre. INDUSTRIAL Figures presented in above table. OPEN SPACE Par):u repreuented a net loss to the City of --$1,344 per developed acre i • I i I I i 1 The figures presented in the above table were the subject of considerabl controversy when they were originally published, as was the entire Revenue/Expenditure Study. Analyses were made on existing uses and averages were reported rather than a range reflecting variations in individual developments. Because of this approach, the' data could not confidently be applied to future conditions and developments. The figures presented in the 1976 study are of even less credibility now since the passage of Proposition 13 and its subsequent effects on local taxation laws. The City is now pursuing the development of a Local Government Fiscal Impact Model. Such a model will utilize a computer to evaluate revenues and expenditures abiociated with specific development proposals, alter-n native land use plans, and existing developments. The model will be able to aggregate revenue and expenditure projections for a plan with several land use types as well as provide data for individual land use categories. This model is expected to be usable by Fall, 1979, and should provide a valuable tool for decision makers in considering land use amendment proposals. The Fiscal Impact. Model may also assist the Staff in determining the best mix of land uses for the City in terms of the local and regional economy. Industrial acreage has accounted for between six and thirteen percent of the total incorporated area of the City over the past twenty years; the figure now is about nine percent. The proposal being C considered will incrQase total industrial acreage by 373 acres. from nine "percent to twelve percent of the total City area. Two philosophies have existed in the past concerning how much of the City's land area should be devoted to industrial development. The first, based on regional employment. projections, projects the City's share of industrial acreage. at approximately 1150 acLes, or 5.5 to 6 percent of the County's industrial base for the year 2000. This translates to between six and ten percent City-wide. The second philosophy says, in essence, the more the better. This position is especially appropriate in light of the changing tax structure brought on by the passage of Proposition 13. The Fiscal Impact Model is a ected to shed additional light on this basic planning question. In conclusion, the determination of the proper amount and location of industrial uses for the City, of Huntington Beach involves numerous issues that must be identified and evaluated. Ultimate goal's must be balanced with existing conditions and ever-chanaing external influences j and assumptions about the future. This report Eas attempted to l briefly state the issues at hand that affect the proposed request to expand the industrial corridor. I , i i 1 1 , i i 1 Environmental council LIDLV CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACI4 twWroIONOF" Post Office Box 190 • Huntington Beach, California 92648 rr� �r1 TO: Honorable 4ayur and City Council FROM: Environmental Board DATE: March 91 1979 SUBJECT: Industrial Development in light of the City' s expressed desire to attract quality industrial uses into the City's industrially zoned land, the Environmental Board is concerned about some recently proposed projects. Several projects proposed or recently constructed in the Gothard Corridor represent what the City has classified as "marginal" uses and/or cut up what would otherwise be relatively large parcels into lots too small for most of the more desirable types of industry. Typical of this waste of industrially zoned land is a project at Talbert and rothard, which has been presented on Negative Declaration 79-15. This project cuts an approximately 15 acre site into four quadrants, and then recycles them from one "marginal" use to a new "marginal" use. If the City seriously desires to improve the quality of industry, it must place guidelines and controls on these zones which dis- courage division of.narcels and those uses which are considered "marginal. " In addition, in those areas where economically sized parcels are desired, but do not now exist, the City may consider utilizing its Redevelopment Agency for consolidating properties. Attraction of quality industrial firms to Huntington Beach could be significantly facilitated by a staff specialist to recruit new businesses and to assist firms in moving into the City. Previously, this function was handled by Bill Back until his retirement; then by Phil DeLao, Senior redavelopment Specialist, who is no longer with the City; now, it resides in Advance Planning - however, that department only contains two employees, giving this task a very low priority. The Environmental. Board encourages your attention to this area which has an important effect on the economic base of our community. Respectfully submitted, t Irwin H_& k Chairman s I� A.k • r w r� !:1 lid CO J ■ V fi • r- i' G • t. i � (D- huntington beach planning department r 1 J 0ABSTRACT The objective of this report is to provide specific recommendati r'1 concerning the dispositio;l of industrial land in Huntington Beach. The study presents two alternative land use plans that reflect the direction set at the September, 1976, joint study session of the City Council and Planning Commission to reduce the industrial land inventory, It also includes a revised industrial land suitability analysis, revenues/expenditure comparison of land uses over time, and a property A owner survey. Alternative #1 separates the Central Industrial Corridor into two major districts and eliminates considerable acreage from the corridor south of Slater Avenue and in the Seacliff and Edison areas. it assumes that the City perceives a vital role for industry in the com- CIO munity and that it will encourage new development to the fullest measure. About 733 acres are retained for future development, exceed- ing projected land needs by eight percent. Approximately 576 acres are deleted from the industrial inventory of which 337 acres would require General Plan amendment. City commitment to industrial pro- motion would total about $1,300,000 for capital improvements and advertising only. Compatibility would primarily be improved with Central Park and with planned residential uses in the southern corri- dor. However, approximately ..88 acres of non-conforming industrial uses would be created in the interim period of transition. Alternative #2 maintains the Central Industrial Corridor from Edinger 0to Warner Avenues, but divides it into a number of small districts { below Warner Avenue. Considerable; area is also removed from the Seacliff and Edison areas. This alternative assumes the primacy of the City's residential character in future courses of action. ` Alternative #2 provides 636 acres for Future industrial development, calling short of the projected land requirement by six, percent. About G 693 acres are removed from the industrial inventory of which 434 acres would require General Plan amendment. City commitment in the form of advertising and capital improvements would total $1,000,000. The additional land reductions north of Slater Avenue improves compati- bility around Central Park and Ocean View High School. During the interim, however, approximately 120 acres of non-conforming industrial uses would be created. i t :.ny. TABLE OF CONTENTS � Section Title -Page ABSTRACT i 1. 0 GENERAL BACKGROUND 1 2.0 METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS 3 2.1 Potential Industrial Sites 3 2.2 Suitability of Industrial Sites 4 3.0 INDUSTRIAL LAND USE ALTERNATIVES 7 3.1 Role of Industry in Huntington Beach 7 Q 3.2 Alternative #1 g 3.3 Alternative #2 11 3.4 Property Owner Questionnaire 12 APPENDIX 15 Q 0 ' 1 i f. l' 0 fli R . fI '`i1Y.uR:%al} ::.u•...,.....1....."...... .t.. ,... ..r..w.r..rn..... •....... ._.... _-... ..... ....i....... _......,.. a..a..:... ?I.:i:w._.+1+.-r`.r I t'. TABLE OF FIGURES Number Title page 2-1A Site Suitability for Industrial Development: Huntington Industrial Park Area 2-1B Site Suitability for Industrial Development: Central Industrial Corridor 2-1C Site Suitability for Industrial Development: Seacliff Area and Edison Area 4 3-1A Alternative #1: Central Industrial Corridor 3r-1B Alternative #1: Seacliff. Area and Edison Area ' 3-2A Alternative #2: Central Industrial Corridor 3-2B Alternative #2: Seacliff Area and Edison Area L f 1 " 1 ' f. i ""r(411✓!,'it.a..:rS.i:ii.'..:vt..vi«,rr.n.wr..•,.... .._ r..v..v............ Y a..w.•.rM.Cr.W,J.t.....•r.1. -.. • ....•:'n:1.n ri:r.f Na....._ .. ... .'.t'. F1'• !"' n 7 i ,7 4 1 0 1.0 GENERAL BACKGROUND a . The disposition of industrial land and the impact of industrial development on the local economy have been major issues in Huntington Beach for many years. For the past several years pressures have increased to rezone industrial property to other uses along the Gothard-Southern Pacific Corridor. Discretionary bodies, however, have been reluctant to allow such changes because of the desire to expand the .City's economic base and increase municipal revenues through industrial development. The Industrial Land Use Study emerged from a request of the City Council and Planning Commission to conduct a systematic analysis of industrial land to ascertain present and future needs. C� Part l of the study was completed in June, 1976. The analysis revealed that the City would have an over-supply of industrial acreage relative to projected needs through. the year 2000. The study also indicated that much of the vacant land was not well suited to indus- trial use, and that the City was not maximizing benefits due to long- term vacancy potentials or the encroachment of low revenue generating marginal industries. The study recommended various measures to improve marketability but indicated that implementation did not 1' U --•.,Mt�....�.l.rl. .:a:«.........a._s.. .<n:1 .. r.....4:,'.. .a.. ..,............ ._...arl/...._ ... .. ..........,a ......a.. •.wav..,.... w .,. - :^ . ..r.. r.t.. ..•a.r•..... .r...'.Ii•').;1.i,r.:.:..a*.i. =A :=✓.•war.+ • r.s quarantee full success. As a result, broad guidelines were suggested for reducing industrial acreage, primarily in the Central Industrial Corridor and the Fdiscn Area. Subsequent recommendations to the City Council and Planning Commission have focused on the corridor area. In September, three alternative land use plans were submitted in joint study session: one. plan suggested no change, while the other two provided for considerable acreage reductions. The City Council and Planning Commission t! supported a variation. of the two land reduction alternatives. " The Planning Staff was directed to develop an industrial land. plan that maximized the advantages of these alternatives, i.e. , providing enough land to meet :he projected land requirement, retaining the best sites, maximizing land use compatibility, and minimizing the existence of non-conforming uses. a The Staff's industrial land use recommendations are included in this report. Also included are a revised industrial land suitability analysis, a comparison of projected net revenues/expenditures gener- ated by industrial and non-industrial uses, and an industrial owner poll concerning intentions for development and perceived problems. C� These items were also requested at the September joint study session. } G j i I� 0 i c � d Y A Q 1 2. 0 METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS 4 The ,study proceeds from an identification of potential sites for future industrial development to an estimate of future land require- ments for the City through the year 2000. ' Land needs are then measured against the suitability of potential sites for development to derive two industrial land use alternatives. 2.1 Potential Industrial Sites The amount of land available for future industrial development was revised for purposes of the analysis. The City' s industrial inven- tory totals, approximately 2,045 acres, of wi.4ch 1,404 acres are considered available to meet future land needs. A parcel was allocated for future use if it .is now zoned and/or general planned for industry. The only exception to' this rule is that -.portion of the Gothard Strip between ,Garfield and Clay Avenues, which is designated medium density residential by the General Plan.. This area was in- cluded- because of its transitional nature and• the problems that must be confronted in changing land uses to a non-conforming character. A parcel was also available for future industrial use if it is currently vacant or recyclable. Uses are considered recyclable if 3' �'Wt"yL J<•. .. .w. ...�'.,..li.:::/. •tu...a_ ..v..I.a 3...1.:< • .l.»...... ..... <........e�..r.ti{Wf<w.Mew.»rr......sw.i. ,'i l;ytJ„'.1.1.ter.••h�i ..ix:,,y:.:7�4iFa(p..i1VM+' t . n o � they are non-conforming, oil -related, or primarily open sturage. About 11184 acres (84 percent) are vac:ant or in oil production, and 220 acreu (17 percent) are recyclable. Measured against the City's projected land requirement of 677 acres yields a net over-supply of industrial land amounting to 727 acres. It should be pointed but that Huntington Beach will capture its share of projected regional demanu only if the City makes a maximum commitment of resources to this objective and implements the measures recoimnended in Part 1 of the n Industrial Land Use Study. 2.2 Suitability of Industrial Sites Site evaluation procedures were refined to more accurately reflect the significance of various locational criteria and site considerations. The revised industrial land suitability criteria and weightings appear in the appendix of this report. The most important change was to introduce criteria comparable on a regional basis. The highest point allocations within the various categories often reflect the conditions prevalent `at. the best industrial sites in orange County, including the Irvine Complex, Northeast Anaheim, the Huntington Industrial Park Area, and others. As a result, the overall ratings of potential sites in Huntington Beach more closely approximate their competitive position within the County as well as the City. I As before, the study is intentionally not oriented to those firms that find advantage at rail locations or on physically marginal land because of the poor revenue/expenditure balance that such uses gener- ate to the City. In general, however, the criteria and weightings attempt to balance the advantages and problems perceived by the developer/firm and the City. The site analysis is partially based on the industrial user' s cost structure and a prioritization cf area advantages as revealed in various industrial surveys throughout the C~' County. At the same time, the criteria and their importance reflect the City' s concerns of attracting viable industry, while identifying problem areas requiring public expenditure.. . Potential industrial sites were evaluated according to the following criteria: 1. Transportation access and exposure, including vehicular (freeway and arterial) and rail. 2. Site recycle capability and compatibility with surrounding land uses. C 3. Access to public utilities and municipal services. 4. Character of physical features, including topography, soils, and drainage. 4. i r •i ;�l •I i "Vr J •. � ,. .. .. •.,. ....... i.... •. —• ' t '. � 1 •r�JI;y fat'. N they are non-conforming, oil-related, or primarily open storage. About 1,184 acres (84 percent) are vacant or in oil production, and 220 acres (17 percent) are recyclable. Measured against the City's projected land requirement of 677 acres yields a net over-supply of industrial land amounting to 727 acres. It should be pointed out that Huntington Beach will capture its share of projected regional demanu only if the City makes a maximum commitiuent of resources to this objective and implements the measures recommended in Part 1 of the n Industrial sand Use Study. 2.2 Suitability of Industrial Sites Site evaluation procedures were refined to more accurately reflect the significance of various locational criteria and site considerations. The revised industrial land suitability criteria and weightings appear in the appendix of this report. The most important change was to introduce criteria comparable on a regional basis. The highest point allocations within the various categories often reflect the conditions prevalent at the best industrial sites in Orange County, :including the Irvine Complex, Nnrtheast Anaheim, the Huntington Industrial Park � Arer.., and others. As a result, the overall ratings of potential sites in Huntington Beach more closely approximate their competitive position within the County as well as the City. As before, the study is intentionally not oriented to those firms that find advantage at rail locations or on physically marginal land p because of the poor revenge/expenditure balance that auch uses gener- ate to the City. In general, however, the criteria and weightings attempt to balance the advantages and problems perceived by the developer/firm and the City. The site analysis is partially based on the industrial user's cost structure and a prioritization of area advantages as revealed in various industrial surveys throughout the 0 County. At the same time, the criteria and their importance reflect the City' s concerns of attracting viaLle industry, while identifying problem areas requiring public expenditure. Potential industrial sites were evaluated according to the following criteria: C 1. Transportation access and exposure, including vehicular (freeway and arterial) and rail. 2. Site recycle capability and compatibility with surrounding land uses. C 3. Access to public utilities and municipal services. 4. Character of physical features, including topography, soils, and drainage. 4. d y F ON 5. Parcel size, shape, and frontage; degree of ownership consolida- tion. 6. Economic factors, including land values and tax rates. The study evaluated 11404 acres of avail-able acreage to three ranges of suitability for industrial development: high, medium, and low. ,% Instead of rating each individual lot, the potential acreage was divided into 57 study sites. Lots were combined to form a single large site where some basis of homogeneity (ownership, physical features, lot size, existing use, or zoning) or barrier separation (arterials, railroad, drainage channels, etc.) could be determined. The results of the industrial land suitability analysis follow and are depicted in Figure 2-1: High Medium Low Total Vacant Recycle Vacant Fecycle Vacant Recycle Huntington Industrial 467.7 431.3 0 36.4 0 0 0 n Park Area 4 Central Industrial 720.8 25.0 9.6 177.0 85.2 347.1 76.9 Corridor Seacliff Area 114.0 0 0 0 0 94.0 20.0 9 Edison Area '101.8 0 0 0 0 73.1 28.7 Subtotal 456.3 9.6 213.4 85.2 514.2 125.6 Total 1,404.3 465.9 298.6 639.8 The suitability study rated approximately 456 acres as prime land for industrial development. Most of the prime space is concentrated in the Huntington Industrial Park Area. The Central Industrial Corridor contains only 35 acres or seven percent of the highest quality indus- trial area, all of which is located between Edinger Avenue and Warner Avenue. In contrast, the corridor accounts for 88 percent of the moderate and 66 percent of the low rated acreage. Moderate quality :rites intersperse with low quality sites from Warner Avenue to Clay Avenue. The poorest sites are concentrated in the area between Slater Avenue and Talbert Avenue, and in the southern corridor below p Ellis Avenue. The remaining 216 acres in the Seacliff and Edison Areas were also rated poor. 5. Me xl+.r...11..: .at . .r.i .ter._ .. ...,, .._:'t!«?J... , ....w.i...4:.,.t.�..+..... ...... .r...... ...•...........,a......-..•..._....++.., »....._..._«�. .....tiw.+..v.....�.... w rw.stw�a 9� r i ,I• •� ,rt 1•.. t itl-..,—i�. 1 � i r : ,�,' _ i�_. I�J�L altwv,o LEGEND Ate. MEDIUM C...r. LOW 1 :'Lf •:./ .. ..t1 tit,i "I. L. F) I ' 1' u o _ I m !+ BOLSA 1 i i 'i i I i•- W.w • 1 1 1 C FADDEN u x A� a WC FADC CF-E Elm . �j.• � ' � •• +yi.',A/.I.Y ilwij`,.N. •y.�S.' ?T�t�:• 1 4L. 0 F-E MIT o. CF-R , ImmOG ED1 GER c N to to 19 I SITE SUITABILITY FOR HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT FLANN'ING DEPARTMENT HUNTINGTON INDUSTRIAL PARK AREA f,. Ir, if 6u �. anrl i� } ... ((�I,IT ,m, 1 . . .I::w1.Jr� • • 6♦V CF•Ein :.rr•r;.-:::.�: ,,— r� �.:.Irrt+H1 — CF•E_ i .1. `;-._.5:1':./r'ram=' • ,�r'-'IJ t1�1 { �� - ,! - ,L,1{( :••�, ._. � i •� _ ,.,. :�,.::�:_.,, c�°�• �� � �: ... .>.:�.� .� ill.,: ,1 , HEIL Tic— .:�: " �, i�flffft I' lr G- .•. q'r CF�R ' r1r111f000 �� �:1���• �'v �_ _ r •'," .( ,� -!'. ..:1 .... CF.p +J : sYd { CFwE : = At E ,, ..:.:: ai , pill ' b�.: }f ..f: rr Il::!'Il i 1t1„'•rtt�juj f {' `'.4 �,,; .• 1 '� it .� } tf "V --•�Irl��[}• }t .,. t i�, �Y CF-E �_,�i: }}{r CF•E , .1}�f .,, ..r .., F tlafic'/r !1 � •- �'�.r _ ._a_ .1�}x1� ' ly`-►?ram.".=:T..7 •:1 .. ► _ CF IT ALBERTit r I f RFIELD F—Ez� r : - LEGEND t r• � � , " rl du � I HIGH 1;'t 'f�y _ 1 i ! YORKTO N. MEDIUM r, �.► t l 'l.J � f. % M LOw 1 - 1600 �F-� - _ 1t SITE SUITABILITY FOR HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PI�dNNING DEPARTMENT CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL CORRIDOR r r1 J-1L;A lELO w; . lilt,, M ::.. Ei .R......... .'.::::.. _ Y ,f CF-C ` CF-E ..................... Mk- A A LEGEND HIGH �• C'" . :� `' MEDIUM [` LOW SEACLIFF AREA 1" = 1600' P3 VV-1 I I �...■ �(il. Ti H:`i 1 ` f___•---0 .,11Y :X- 1".. " 1 r +CF�EM t rta. v 1 1 CF•E � to FR � �,w.'� I►...;i 1,� . _l.. :;rt.., �. ,:... \ L LEGEND CIO •. -f HIGH ,,, c,,,q MEDIUM Law EDISON AREA 1" = 1600' HUNTINGTON 9FACH CALIFORNIA SITE SUITABILITY FOR PUNNING DEPARTMENT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT 01 In I 3. 0 ' INDUSTRIAL LAND USE ALTERNATIVES 1© 1 3.1 Pole of Industry in Huntington Beach I In formulating an industrial land use plat:, the role of industry in a city like Huntington Beach as well as site suitability must be considered. Many suburban communities have traditionally accepted the assumption of seeking and encouraging industrial development based upon its beneficial effects, i.e. , the creation of new jobs and ancillary investments, the generation of municipal and school revenues, and the reduction of the tax burden on local residents. Few, however, have ever questioned the validity of this assumptionJ7 , As a bedroom community within the gr.iater Los Angeles met"opolitan w area, the desirability of encouraginT and maintaining a large indutrial base in Huntington Beach must '.%e seriously examined. Huntington Beach is primarily a middle and upper income residentia community, most of whose residents work in areas outside the City limits that have achieved scale-economies or competitive advantage w in a diversity of employment activities. The coastal and climatic amenities continue to make Huntington Beach a more desirable place to live than work, and people will pay the high prices of hrnnes to L locate here and work elsewhere. The City has attracted a reasonable share of industrial growth over the past decade and will continue to do so in the future. However, the over-supply of industrial land has created problems of long-term vacancy potential and the encroach- ment of many marginal industrial users. Most new industry as well as that moving from other locations in the Los Angeles Basin have found it more efficient to locate in large industrial agglomerations (i.e. , Irvine, Anaheim, etc. ) rather than compete with high value residential users for moderate or poor quality sites in Huntington Beach. 0 Encouraging the development of an excessively large industrial base in the face of the community's residential character has produces] other adverse effects on the City. The attraction of marginal indus- trial uses and their disharmony with high valued residential and park developments is most obvious. Less so is the fact that the jobs 0' created are usually low or moderate wage. As a result, many workers reside outside of Huntington Beach and spend their disposable income in other communities. This also holds true to a great extent with quality industrial developments like those in the Huntington Indus- trial -Park Area. Most homes built in the City are not geared to the incomes of most industrial workers. If the City is truly committed to extensive industrial development, it must also encourage sufficient low cost housing construction to maximize the total benefits of industry. Industrial activity also provides little benefit to middle and upper income residents who work outside the City limits. The jobs created in Huntington Beach do not usually offer significant improvement of their socio-economic positions or substantial relief O of local tax burdens. From the City' s standpoint, the 1976 Revenue/Expenditure Analysis of Land Uses has shown that most existing industrial uses do not have a significant fiscal impact on municipal revenues. Most indirect sales tax revenues usually do not accrue to the City, and property tax revenues are lower per acre than many residential categories. The City also foregoes revenue if industrial land is left vacant indefinitely versus permitting residential development that yields higher property tax revenues and attracts populations with high disposable incomes. This conclusion is based on a time series analysis of revenues and expenditures generated by industrial and C residential uses.. The following table summarizes the cumulative net balance per acre to the City in 1990. It assumes various uses of industrial land over a 13 year period. Data is derived from the 1976 Revenue/Expenditure Analysis of Land Uses and is adjusted to the costs and revenues generated by new construction in the resi-' dential and industrial categories. Adft �a. IF I a Cumulative Ne•c Gain or ON Loss per Acre to the Use of Industrial Land City 1990 1. Develop Single Family Residential $ 2,890 Immediately n 2. Develop Medium Density Residential 6,184 after being vacant for 5 years 3. Develop Quality Industry Immediately 3,267 4. Develop Quality Industry after being 912 vacant for 5 years I` 5. Develop Quality Industry after being - 1,443 vacant for 10 years 6. Open Storage for 5 Years then 432 h develop Quality Industry 7. Open Storage for 10 years then - 21323 develop Quality Industry The foregoing discussion should not imply that industry is .bad for .: s the City, but 'that it be placed in proper perspective so that policies can be formulated that apply to Huntington Beach. 'it suggests that the City is not maximizing the use of its industrial acreage. The industrial land inventory should be reduced. However, sufficient acreage should be retained to approximate the City's capability to t 0 attract its share of regional iniustrial dentand. This means main- taining the Huntington Industrial Park Area as the focus for future development, and the best sites in the Central Industrial Corridor that promise relatively short-term quality developments. The two alternatives presented in this report generally meet these require- ments. G7 3.2 Alternative #1 Alternative #1 separates the Central Industrial Corridor into two distinct districts. Considerable acreage is removed from the corridor south of Slater Avenue as well as the Seacliff and Edison -� Areas. It assumes that the City perceives a. vital role for industry in the community and that it will undertake the measures necessary to attract the projected share of County demand. Alternative #1 was derived by ranking all potential sites according to suitability score, and retaining the highest rated sites to a level that approxi- mated the future industrial land requirement. As a result, 733 -Acres a are maintained for future development, exceeding projected land ;needs by eight percent. About 650 acres are vacant and 83 acres are con- sidered recyclable. In addition to providing sufficient acreage to A92tk 9. ;P } :y I meet future needs, the highest quality sites are retained. Approxi- mately 69 percent of the acreage received a high suitability rating, 31 percent was moderate, and 5 percent was rated low. Alternative #1 removes 596 acres from the industrial inventory. As shown in figure 3-1, most changes occur between Slater Avenue and Talbert Avenue and south of Ellis Avenue in the Central Industrial Corridor; and in the Seacliff and Edison Areas. About 337 acres A would require General Plan amendment and zone change, while 259 acres would require zone change only. Six acres occupied by the Cambro Manufacturing Company would require General Plan amendment to reflect existing and long-term use. In addition, the special study area (75 acres) between Garfield Avenue and Clay Avenue west of the rail- road right--of-way would retain its existing residential General Plan designation. The extent of commitment by the City would total approximately 1 $1, 300, 000 for capital improvements and industrial advertising. In addition, staff nupport would be necessary for precise street align- ments, industrial ordinance revision, coordination with the OrangeI County Transit District, and small lot redevelopment. In the case of small lot redevelopment, however, the commitment is minimal because the major problem areas are removed from industrial designation. Alternative #1 also provides land use compatibility over the long- term in the central and southern portions of the corridor. Compati- bility would primarily be improved with Cenral Park in the central f corridor and with planned residential uses in the southern sector below Ellis Avenue. I Certain problems are inherent in the implementation of this alterna- tive. Approximately 88 acres of non-conforming industrial uses would be created. Most of the estimated industrial land reduction would probably be converted to residential designations, creating , interim mixed uses. Short-run residential construction would fill } in the vacant areas, but such- uses would frequently be mixed with marginal industrial uses having indefinite future tenure. On the other hand, the redesignation of industrial. land to residential use could raise land values and hasten tha removal of non-conforming �.� industrial uses. Problem areas include the fallowing: 1. Mixed uses at the southeast corner of. Slater Avenue and Gothard Street (6 acres) . u� lData is derived from Public Works Department current costs for road and utility improvements, and Economic Development office yearly advertising expenditures. 0. A92t& I I I1 fdA411T)I'k �,r"I';IL_......L lfP,#R1��i._�11 � __� li � � __1___�•�DINCE�. •'� ° " Fuj .,. . ::i�•-�'" a�.=-7"�I� � J { ;... ....,. �•(.jii '�jL:i+Iyli:/, �;�::I::I�� ii �,�Lp `, ; I•� ,:.:.. Ir.w.( •.�'� �•� 0 � •7�•�: t°`r`"^'`..�Z�711�,,jII11f�I1� ■�..eW1.,.1�� ,i. a 1...:j`:. 1.. ' ..1 L...7 LN X-. .... I y ! r ; , . q � C ....I.. :.I....... .d r.. I. �" "►:; �{ - + :. 1 i l 1'• , (-'� ,�;'{ .... . ..- r O /' C, E JI,II�I �I .. r _ � � a f_ •!•ice� �;•.�r::. -•. �'`f �•l i'j l j I' S� f..its� l i l -•%11. .. ; CF-C y.✓i .Il�` II ! •I r 1 � ? � t Crap j y I -� CF«E � � 4 ` .. ''� w ' Iw:-:.17 I •r1wc:..) �tn,� t.3 ..�J— 4� ` l k�� •{ __ 1 I� _, WARNER �T'' ��� t ►41; �� 1 . _� CF.E GIII' •�3 CF-E I"•(( i �` 1�(;:'.1lllllul��''I!}7I::lIi"ll l,1 ��:` 1 t., �,�.. , .. l,,,r;�11� •� � I�0} ' J• "' lIijlltl '�y t'I .— ~I I i ' ME .19 6Y r ?'• LEGEND SL E• , r INDUSTRIAL LAND RETAINED 4 , , , INDUSTRIAL LAND DELETED 11 1 ' ' ' ' REQUIRES GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT �F•R %�;� """ "" ` _ AND ZONE CHANGE ■r■■ INDUSTRIAL LAND DELETED REQUIRES ZONE CHANGE ONLY �t�'•'•'•j —" 7'�r _ _ •'•`•`•'•[ `•`•'•' r LBERi I 1� -y �� H k f t � � �: �� .•.�.r 1� CF-p • • 1 ' / •�• • T'l( ' fiv Mae ■■�■■■■■■■■r■■ T GARFIELD u '` 11 �r..l 1f{♦I)))11r1 �.. . � I '' If� Ilr'f' /� ic t.:..li �YOR7KTOW`N, ALTERNATIVE 1 HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA PLANE' NG DEPARTMENT CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL CORRIDOR K J Y A !% r GARFIELD M ■ (1 ti 1■rR�R■ . � . GPM 1 now: f :: GF•E CFTC , y ■M � ..... «.. H N: R■r:rr �:� /t .,fit.." t / ,:/ - ME me A* f vtot R■■■■ r■ // % \A R-1i r no ■ r _ SEACLIFF AREA 1" = 1600' •� Ca r.... .�` DLO dj( }.:} M+r.. m. • 1 a ATLANTA f XI. ift w,, �;. _ . . . . .•.,..•.•. :;.•.•:.Rare*r:.• 1 • . u.e.,.,... 1. '• . CF•E LEGEND f 3 ��p�r. ' �� .� � rr••u it s INDUSTRIAL LAND.RETAINED .�. -•- #: • • QUIRESAGEN ER PLAN AMENDMENT • 'PLAND DELETED '�ryC �\ r AND ZONE CHANGE Cp,�st R INDUSTRIAL LAND DELETED REQUIRES ZONE. CHANGE ONLYON '•• R a ., Arm / t �I r; EDISON AREA t" = 1600' HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA PIANNING DEPARTMENT ALTERNATIVE 1 L f� f: • 1 a 2. Oil tank farm on the north side of Talbert Avenue west of Gothard Street (15 acres) . 3. Auto dismantling/rock quarry on the northeast corner of Talbert Avenue and Gothard Street (15 acres) . r� 4 . Mixed uses bounded by Garfield Avenue on the north, the railroad right-of-way on the east, Clay Avenue on the south and Goldenwest Street on the west (80 acres) . 5. Oil tank farm at the northwest corner of Hamilton Avenue and Newland Street in the Edison Area (26 acres) . 3.3 Alternative #2 Alternative #2 maintains the Central Industrial Corridor intact: from Edinger to Warner Avenues, but divides it into a number of small districts below Warner Avenue (Figure 3---2) . The Seacliff Area and most of- the Edison Area are also removed from the industrial land inventory. This alternative assumes an important role for industry in the economic and land use mix of the City. Since it calls for a greater land reduction, however, it is even more reflective of an , assumption that Huntington beach is foremost a .residential community. D As a result, it becomes less imperative that the City allocate land to meet a projected industrial demand and area requirement. The methodology employed to derive Alternative #2 is similar to that used for Alternative #1. However;' add'iti6hil moderate`and law rated sites : were eliminated along the south side of Slater Avenue, along Gothard Street between Warner and Slater Avenues, and between Goldenwest Street and Crystal Street north of Garfield Avenue. These changes were based on the probability of quality industrial development and/or land use compatibility considerations. Alternative #2 provides 636 acres for future development, falling short of the projected land requirement by six percent. Approximately 604 acres are vacant and 32 acres are recyclable. As in Alternative #1, the best potential sites are retained as well as areas where quality industrial developments now exist. Since more medium rated sites have been dropped from the inventory, the proportion of high quality sites rises to 73 percent. Alternative #2 removes 693 acres from the industrial inventory. Extensive changes occur: between Warner and Talbert Avenues and south of Ellis Avenue in the Central Industrial Corridor; and in the Seacliff and i'dison Areas. Approximately 434 acres would require General Plan amendment and zone change, while 259 acres would require zone change only. Again the Cambro .site would require General Plan ► amendment to light industrial, while the area between Garfield and 11. r Q (" and Clay Avenues west of the railroad tracks would retain the exist- 0 ing residential designation. The City commitment to industrial encouragement would be slightly less than for Alternative #1. Capital improvement and advertising total about $1,000,000. Staff time would also be required for ordinance revision, precise plans, and coordination with the Orange 49 County Transit District. Alternative #2 removes two small lot areas: one located at Warner and Got)'ard, and the other at Slater and Gothard. It also provides a higher degree of long-term land use compatibility from Warner Avenue to Clay Avenue. The additional land reductions improve compatibility primarily around Central Park and Ocean View High School. Similar to Alternative #1, this proposal creates non-conforming and mixed uses over the interim period of transition. Approximately 120 acres of existing industrial development would become non-conforming. Again, short-run residential construction would produce mixed land use patterns. By increasing the scope of the total industrial land 0 reduction, however, increasedland values could hasten the removal of non-conforming industrial uses of a marginal nature, even more so than under Alternative #1. Specific problem areas would include the five listed under Alternative #1. Additional areas would include: Ci 1. Mixed uses at the southeast corner of Warner Avenue and Gotrhard Street (20 acres) . I 2. Mixed uses at the northeast corner- of Slater Avenue and Gothard Streex: (10 acres) . 3. Oil extraction/equipment storage and miscellaneous open storage area bounded by Ernest Street on the north, Crystal Street on the east, Garfield Avenue on the south, and Goldenwest Street on the west (33 acres) . 3. 4 Property Owner Questionnaire Input from industrial property owners was requested at the September joint study session. The Planning Department polled all property ! owners in the Central Industrial Corridor and Edison Area to solicit their intentions for development artd obstacles they perceive to ! ' industrial development. Approximately 75 percent of the owners a responded. The results are summarized in the following tables: 2. 40 f r J -- L—.�__� ,� _. •EDINGE_R tn Lu •I•'. I. ........... l -� I �i ��rrl .I• �• -7{ I•` � 11•„1'w X :,. a•' �A. I ,!_� IL '•� . .�......[�I'�1•,.Itlt�}..�l�I L •�*1;::: :wl� 1 _..1 ",,,^� -l" !n f ,.I..Ir '. �� it • ... .!•I mo,�k.:Sl: W CF•E ��ry.:A..K..... ......Q '... ' a+�•4�• i 1'I f .O', 'IJ.'ll r�, l ' ( cr1{. If dy . l�/. •• I CF•E .�.r I ,. � f ii � '�t �' »�r:.'ti�r '':r••H+::..;..:._ I)��{f.+�L,�1. 1 �I!��.•r�•�w::•. i''"`t`!._ � �r ts'! � j 1:•. r.:r'.s.a': :�`.,i u I�!�1•r��, I� ti__ ' .,{f-- 1•:---'---{ •.:za• rt.-'it �.Yi -w�.l'�+,rr ....r:::: ..:�.i. Jfjl1:!!' !1�'!i'i _-- �:Y C rrc;- 7 j'.w : ) rfItf':.'t-,i'' (__:_ ��f-1//.}x D s ~� ` ��[1 :. t 1 1• f 5 V A i�!...::,.i. !�'I.S/ i� tlp$�71�ifi ntl. CFwR tt 7 t !'"' T, + 11 i2 iri_.. /x _YL c ,E Mri c RV ER 1 l+! r tI( f CF•E-- • . Halal r i•('���( .a; —• -• I I e.i:lri ll� • :• i r - Tq t CF•E •:•:•:•:••••.••:.:.. cr.E 'r tr r` r 1�7t )((J •'j � 1 �fs�('�Z 1!��.li1L.f'7'�1 rfl/.filly�����L: .J�:.l1;J •••••i•.� I'; _"11 I' . 1. r... LEGEND }/. :•:•:�:• :•:•' . j 1' r • • • J INDUSTRIAL LAND RETAINED I •; r t 'ITT- INDUSTRIAL LAND DELETED ,�t� i�� REQUIRES GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT �F-a,,, .•7''` "�•• ►� •��,�i,I,' AND ZONE CHANGE •�••• '••" f u ails •••••••••1i••••••• f.-12�t 5 G1r ■°"■ INDUSTRIAL LAND DELETED �':'�'�' ;�'�'�'� =-Tr; '-� f a REQUIRES ZONE CHANGE ONLY • • • • • H• • • • / •..l�.i.L[a .• t!" 2 LBERT )71 `r� t 1. -�� --•- ��_ ", i I 'll ! .:-• t?� ;.i.•� .µ� 1 i. .. i• f; _ .. 2-- _ ■ .� ELLIS I � � if I�} i ■ r ■ r a ■ ■ . .. .�. . . . . __ R :■:":":":■C■: ��,,-. • h:1 .;.,.•� . . . GARFIELD /F •'' �. �%�� YORKTOWN I Afft ALTERNATIVE 2 HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA j PLANNING DEPARTMENT CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL CORRIDOR ell In a -� GARFIELD ' r ������■ �f - M SION are■■ ,'r r CF•C CF.0 ti orirr I jj / no r' I ry ■i::N■ i:i•r �* ~.�/� + DAMS; ■■r■ asit so ICE 8 c ■a > / � II ' 01. SEACLIFF AREA lLl l:l: i� `r•� _�t"' wl _1�1 �3 .,1 1 r .� t r J r1 ,j t •ATLANTAI .1, C �X 3.� j,� • aC z E ry. I' 1 tl 1. '► AM 0 1 . ll•• r• •• '•••r•••�•.•r•.'•'. � � • II a./...1. .. u.,wr.. BAN ING5 4 LEGEND \ �.• i ; • ..,,,, INDUSTRIAL LAND RETAINED • INDUSTRIAL LAND DELETED cr�p'dC/�c/ REQUIRES GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT %,, � b4St ���4• AND ZONE CHANGE `�9 ■■■" INDUSTRIAL LAND DELETED REQUIRES ZONE CHANGE ONLY L DISON AREA 1" = 1600' I HUNTINGTON QEACH C41.1FORNIA PLANNING DEPARTMENT ALTERNATIVE 2 t �Ir s 0 I III VV For what use do you believe our most suited? y y property to bc. Use Percentage Industrial-Manufacturing and/or Wholesale Trade 15% Industrial-Storage or Oil Related 22% Low Density Residential 11% Medium or High Density Residential 37% i� Commercial 15% I How would you rate your property as a potential industrial site? !� Suitability Rating Percentage High 37% :n Moderate 21% ' Low 42% I i What obstacles impede industrial development of your property and the surrounding area? i Problem Percent Transportation Access 12% Land Use Compatibility 30% Oil Production Encumbrances 8% �? Ownership Fragmentation 12% Utility Access 1% i 'O Topography, Drainage, Soils 5% City Code Restrictions and Fees 6% Coastal Commission 1% Property Taxes 1% u No Problems 24% The poll generally supports the results of the suitability analysis conducted by the Planning Department. About 63 percent of the owners gave their property a moderate or poor rating, and 76% indicated a variety of problems that has retarded industrial development. The most significant problem was thought to be the incompatibility of industrial uses with nearby residential areas, Central Park, and 13. f h�yti 1� I schools. In the southern portion of the Central Industrial Corridor, the conflict of residential development and oil related activities was ranked most significant. Transportation access, utility access, lot fragmentation, and physical features combined to account for 30 percent of the responses. Most of the owners who rated their property highly suitable for industrial use and indicated no serious problems tended to also be owners of industrial businesses at the site, in the process of developing the property for industrial use, i or involved in small-scale oil leases. In terms of best use; most owners (48 percent) believed their land to be more suited to residential use than industry. Approximately 37 percent felt that industrial development would be the best use of the area. These were usually owners of existing businesses in the study area or owners in the process of industrial development. By type of industry, most owners thought that the corridor and Edison Area were most fit for storage or oil operations. Those owners favoring commercial uses were primarily concentrated near the i; intersection of Warner and Gothard, and at the intersection of Slater and Gothard. I� f I i ti 4. • ,41, • i n i APPENDIX i n I 4 �17 I elf 1 i I -........._..._..w.�--ems..........-.... .-.... ._ ... ..__... .-........y.n.. ...:.. �. -. J..it �4HwS va" I N � INDUSTRIAL LAND SUITABILITY CRITERIA Transportation Access and Exposure 22 Freeway 10 Local Circulation - Existing 5 Local Circulation - Proposed 4 Railroad 3 Land Use 17 Existing Land Use any? Potential Recycle 5 Compatibility of Adjacent Land Uses - Existing 6 Compatibility of Adjacent Land Uses - Proposed 6 Fire Protection n Utilities and Municipal Services 3.7 Fire Protection 3 Water 5 Sewer 5 Electricity and Gas 4 J Physical Features 16 i Topography 5 Soils 4 Local Drainage 4 � J Regional Floud Hazard 3 i Lot and Ownership Considerations 10 i Size 5 Frontage and Shape 5 Economics 8 Land Value 4 + Tax Rate 4 I • + TOTAL a5 i f i 1.7. f'f!1'fRMf17!! i 11�M 1• f ■ I � IriM � Mrserwia 1. Transportation Access and Exposure . 1 Access to Freeway Interchange 10 - Site less than 1 mile from interchange. 9 - Site 1 - 1. 5 miles from interchange. 8 - Site 1.5 - 2 miles from interchange. 7 - Site 2 - 2.5 miles from interchange. 6 - Site 2.5 - 3 miles from interchange. 5 - Site 3 - 3.5 miles from interchange. 4 - Site 3.5 - 4 m:1es from interchange. 3 -- Site 4 - 4.5 miles from interchange. 2 - Site 4.5 -- 5 miles from interchange. I - Site more than 5 mixes from interchange. d Local Circulation System - Existing 5 - Site borders fully developed primary arterial. 4 - Site borders fully developed secondary arterial, or local street within an industrial park. 3 - Site borders primary or secondary arterial, not fully developed. 2 - Site borders local street with suitable access to arterial. system. 1 - Site borders a local street with poor access to arterial system, or is landlocked. Local Circulation System - Pro2osed 4 - Site will border fully developed primary arterial. i. 3 - Site will border fully developed Fecondary arterial, or local street within an industrial park. • 2 - Site will border local street with suitable access to arterial system. 1 - Site will border local street with poor access to arterial system, or is landlocked. Railroad Access 3 - Site borders primary railroad line. 2 - Site borders secondary railroad line. 1 -- Site not bordered by rail service. 2. Land Use f Existing Lard Use and Potential Recycle r 5 - Site is vacant. 4 - Site requires removal of non-conforming or marginal in- dustrial uses; value of improvements range from $0 - $2,500/ ac.e. AWL1.8. -....... ....».-.-.._ . ...-....._. ♦.. .. .. .. .. ... ....._..ter.... .. .... .......+.• • a.. J..•.1..I..N. .- .• �I ��♦ r A Gj VV 3 - Site requires removal of non-conforming or marginal in- dustrial uses; value of improvements range: from $2,500 - $10,000/acre. 2 - Site requires removal of non-conforming or marginal in- dustrial uses; value of improvements range from $10,000 - $25,000/acre. 1 - Site requires removal of non-conforming or marginal in- dustrial uses; value of improvements exceeds $25,000/acre. Compatibility of Adjacent Land Use - Existing 6 -- Site is surrounded by industrial uses or vacant land. 04 5 - Commercial or office uses abut site on at least one side; remaining sides in industrial uses or vacant. 4 - Residential, open space, or Schools abut site on one or two sides with suitable barrier (arterial, railroad, flood control channel) . 3 - Residential, open space, or schools abut site on one or p two sides without suitable barrier. 2 -- Site abuts non-conforming uses (other than commercial) on three or four sides with suitable barriers. 1 - Site abuts no:i-conforming uses (other than commercial) un three or four sides without suitable barriers. Compatibility of Adjacent Land Use - Proposed 6 - Site is surrounded by industrially designated property. 5 - Commercial, office, planning reserve or planned community i designation abuts site on at least one side; remaining sides are industrial]-- :esignated. 4 -- Residential, open space, or school designation abuts site on one or two sides with suitable barrier. 3 - Residential, open space, or school designation abuts site on one or two sides c ' thout suitable barrier. 2 - Site abuts non-conforming designation (other than com- mercial, planning reserve, and planned community) on three or four sides with suitable barrier. 1 - Site abuts non-conforming designation (other than com- mercial, planning reserve, and planned community) on three or four sides without suitable barrier. 3. Utilities and Municipal Services Fire Protection The fire: rating for the City is determined by the Insurance ' Service Office grading system. A poor rating reflects a lack j of adequate water supply for. fire fighting, specifically water mains and fire hydrants. Average grade for each site is used. Al2bk 19. . - .. i O I ' 3 - Rating of 1-3 2 - Rating of 3-6 1 - Rating of 6-9 Access to Water Utility 5 - Site fronts existing wafer main sufficient to serve entire area; farthest potential development within 600 r' feet of main. 4 - Site fronts existing water main sufficient to serve entire area; farthest potential development beyond 600 feet but less than 1/2' mile of main 3 - Unserviced site located within 600 feet of water, or site fronts main but contains isolated or otherwise unserviced � parcels. 2 -- Unserviced site located 600 - 1000 feet of eater main. 1 - Unserviced site located beyond 1000 feet of water main. Access to Sewer Utility 4 5 - Site fronts existing sewer main sufficient to serve entire area; farthest potential development within 400 feet of main. 4 - Site fronts a;isting sewer main sufficient to serve entire area; farthest potential development beyond 400 feet but less than 1/2 mile of main. C 3 - Unserviced site located within 400 feet of sewer main, or site fronts main but contains isolated or otherwise unserviced parcels. 2 - Unserviced site located 400 - 700 feet of sewer main. 1 - Unserviced site located beyond 700 feet of sewer main. Access to ::lectr:.cal Utility ~ 2 - Site presently serviced. 1 - Site presently unserviced. Access to Natural Gas Utility C ' 2 - Site presently serviced. I 1 - Site presently unserviced. 4. Physical Features Topography 5 - Severest slope 0-3 percent 4 - Severest slope 4-7 percent 3 - Severest slope 8-11 percent 20. W t �4 Q t/.IMilr'� tlr0►'�ifiilllrl�l Lr A 7. - Severest slope 12-15 percent, 1 - Severest slope more than 15 percent Sails Criteria include: density of upper soil layers; expansiveness �!! of surface soils; .load hearing capacity of upper soil strata; I and consolidation or settlement potential of soil strata. Each site is given an overall rating of excellent, good, fair, or poor based on the average rating applied to each criterion. 4 - Average rating excellent. 3 - Average rating good. 2 - Average rating fair 1 - Average rating poor Local Drainage �► 4 - Excellent: no drainage problems with only minor grade modifications required. 3 - Coed: 75 percent of site without drainage problems; re- maining area requires moderate site work or public drain- age facilities. 2 -- Fair: 50 percent of site without drainage problems; retraining area requires moderate site wort or public drainage facilities. 1 - Poor: less than 50 percent of site withoua drainage probes; remaining area requires moderate site work f „i public drainage facilities. ' n Regional Flood Hazard 3 - Site is outside the regional flood hazard area defined by the C.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2 - Site is partially in regional flood hazard area. 1 -- Site is totally within the regional flood hazard area. A 5. Lot and Ownership Considerations Size 5 - ,site is a single_ parcel or group of parcels under one �► ownership containing 10 acres or more; and individual Sots meet a _minimum standard of 15,000 square feet. 4 Site is a single parcel or group of parcels under one ownership containing less than 10 acres; individual lots may or may not meet 15,000 square foot minimum :standard. u 231. i a ww�wra A r i ■ 3 - Site is a group of parcels under multiple ownership; individual lots meet a 15,000 square foot minimum . standard and may be consolidated. f 2 - Site is a group of parcels under multiple ownership, jin- divi&ual lots meet a 15,000 square foot minimum standbut have potential. consolidation problems. 1 - Site contains substandard lots under multiple ownersh with potential consolidation problems. { Frontage and Shape 5 - All parcels of site contain frontage of more than 100 feet; depth of all lots at least 100 feet. a - Most parcels of site contain frontage of more than 80 feet; r depth of all lots sufficient to meet 15,000 square foot minimum standard. 3 - Most parcels of site contain frontage of more than 80 feet; depth of some lots insufficient to meet 15,000 square foot minimum standard. 2 - Most parcels of site contain frontage of less than 80 feet; i depth of some lots insufficient to meet 15,000 square foot minimum standard. 1 - Most parcels of site contain frontage of less than 80 feet; some parcels isolated; depth of some lots insufficient to meet 15,000 square foot standard. C } 6. Economic Factors Assessed Land Value 4 - $10,000 - $15,000 per acre. 3 - $ 61500 - $10,000 per acre; or $15,000 - $18,500 per acre. 2 - $ 3,000 - $ 6,500 per acre; or $18, 500 - $22,000 per acre. 1 - Less than $ 3,000 per acre; or more than $22,000 per acre. Assessed land values are measured against Countywide values with the best industrial sites ranging from $10,000 - $15,000 per acre. Tax Rate 4 - Less than. $9.25 per $100 assessed valuation. 3 -- $9.25 - $10.25 per $100 assessed valuation. G 2 - $10.25 $11.25 per $100 assessed valuation. 1 - More than $11.25 per $100 assessed valuation. Huntington Beach rates are measured in context of Countywide rates. cel 2. i I E '4 r . I' 1 Ira � t i huntingt©n beach plonviing department I I ABSTIMCT The objective of this report is to survey and analyze industrial land use in the City of Huntington Beach to provide an understand- ing of current conditions and potentials for future expansion. Toward this end, the study examines the City's existing industrial uses, employment structure, and revenues/expenditures generated by industrial uses; analyzes regional economic growth and the City' s future land requirements; provides a suitability study of vacant sites for industrial development; and explores future courses of action affecting the City's industrial land inventory. The data collected reveals that about 2, 000 acres are general 'planned or zoned for industry in Huntington Beach, one-half of which is still vacant. Small light industrial. and wholesale trade establishments dominate the developed areas. However, warehousing, storage, wrecking yards, and junk yards constitute an important r+ share of acreage in some places, most notably along the Central Industrial Corridor. The largest firms in the City are concentrated in aerospace, public utilities, and the oil industry. The study suggests that the City is not maximizing benefits from its industrial land. Existing light industrial development was !� found to have a positive effect on local school revenues but a negative effect on the City' s financial balance. While the City shows a net revenue gain from developments in I.-he Huntington Indu::trial Park Area, it exhibits a substantial net loss from activities along the Central Industrial Corridor. This reflects the high proportion of marginal uses with minimum improvement in ? the Gothard corridor. Moreover, such industries do not generate significant employment and income multiplier effects to r..ther sectors of the local economy. In relative growth terms, the City can be expected to maintain a 5. 5 to 6 percent share of Orange County's industrial base through iC"$ the year 2000. By the turn of the century, the City will require approximately 677 acres above the area currently developed to accommodate expected industrial growth. This leaves about 339 acres in excess capacity. If Huntington Beach is to capture the projected share of future industrial growth, however, the City (and other promotional organizations) will have to continue or expand present industrial encouragement efforts. Not every acre in the vacant industrial land inventory is highly suited to industrial development. Only 66 percent of the vacant space surveyed received a high rating for potential expansion. About 75 percent of the best sites are located in the Huntington j W� Industrial Park Area, while must of the rest are interspersed along the Gothard corridor. Past land policy favored retaining J the Central Industrial Corridor. IJowever, it has not sufficiently protected good quality sites from residential encroachment, or invasion from marginal business structures, storage facilities, and wrecking yards. Much of the corridor' s land is poor, subject to flooding, inaccessible, or otherwise undesirable. The impor- tance of rail service and the Route 39 Freeway to the corridor has diminished, leaving a multitude of mediocre sites for future industry. At the same time, not enough prime .land was allocated for future industry in the Huntington Industrial Park Area. Since A the available land around the industrial park area is now entirely in residential development, the City is confronted with the alterna�- tive of improving the attractiveness of the Central Industrial Corridor. Based on the research and analysis presented in this report, the j Planning Department recommends the following: i I. The City and other promotional groups should continue existing measures to expand industry in the Huntington Industrial Park Area. 2. It it is desired to increase ,FiuntIngton Beach's share of future County growth beyond that projected, the City should become actively involved in upgrading the potential o; the Central Industrial Corridor and expanding the need for sites now considered excess capacity. The following measures are suggested: A. The City should encourage the development of small indus- trial parks, and prohibit the proliferation of marginal activities that demonstrate little economic benefit. B. The City should provide more flexibility in the industrial zone by permitting mixed use developments,. f C. The City should implement measures to upgrade the suita- bility of sites. These might include encouraging sufficient consolidation of parcels; precise planning of streets to inaccessible parcels; and increasing the priority of ?.ndustrial areas on the Capital Improvements Program for utilities, drainage, and streets. D. The City should work closely with Southern Pacific Railroad to enhance the potential of rail--oriented properties. r� E. The City should pursue measures that will hold sites for ` long-term development. These could include either helping to organize ventures that purchase the land for long--term 4� use .or permitting low intensity interim uses. 3. If Treasures do not sufficiently increase the potential of sites in the Gothard corridor, a portion of the excess land capacity a 4 • 4} 4 3 should be reduced according to a prioritized list of general areas and individual site evaluations. 4. The Edison Area should be phased out of the industrial land use inventory. a �a F. ...1 a..w .l.:.w1'Cr'.... a. ..._....... ....�. ........V-.-............. ..... .... . . _... .................. -... .. ..._r.�......�..............•-�-. wti..M.«....w lA..a4-J-.M+w f.A.l f..i..t:+r+J W+.w1 lug. 1 4r J:4 \. tf MIX OF CONTE14TS SECTION TITLE PAGE ABSTRACT 1. 0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Intent and Purpose 1 ry 1.2 Methodolooy 2 1.2.1 Industrial Land Use and Employment Density 2 1.2.2 Future Employment and Land Use 2 Requirements 1.2.3 Vacant Land Use Suitability 3 n 2. 0 INVENTORY OF EXISTING INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONS 5 2. 1 Established Industrial Development Policies 6 2.2 Existing Uses on Industrial Designated Land 6 �h 2.2.1 General Planned and Zoned Industrial Land 6 2.2.2 Existing Industrial Uses and Pending 7 Projects 2.3 Industrial Employment 14 2. 4 Revenues and Expenditures Generated by 17 Industrial Uses 3. 0 FUTURE. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL 21 3.1 Regional Perspective 21 3.1.1 Existing Areawide Industrial Density 21 3. 1.2 Regional Employment Projections 23 3. 1. 3 Area Planned fcr Future Industrial 23 Development 3.2 Industrial Potential in Huntington Beach 25 3. 2. 1 Future Land Requirements 25 3.2.2 Suitability of Undeveloped Industrial 26 Sites 4 . 0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOfdMENDATIONS 31 4. 1 Past Land policy 31 4. 2 Industrial Uses and Municipal Revenues 32 4 . 3 Industrial Growth 32 Btu } „i.}�s l�• f y..�ii •V�y .-. _.. ,. 1. ... ./ .. . ., i. .. .. ......... . ...�.,.... .._..._.....—... ..... .l • .'..Cn..+M".s-was K .!r aa>.•�...+«•-^ 1 SECTION TITLE PAGE 4.4 Land Requirements and Suitability of 32 Vacant Land 4.5 Huntington Industrial Park Area 34 4.6 Central Industrial Corridor 34 Edison Area 36 f!' IRS is VWX101 ' n i � n I 'I • C i I -•-......,...,................. ........_. _......_....._....,......._... . ....... .... ... .�t_.. . ... .,.,........... . .,...... ..�.... ,...,��. ..:qb.. :-near.a:..:tb•u`•-'." n TABLE OF F•7GURES ' r� • E NUMBER TITLE PAGE 2--1 General. Plan Industrial Land 8 2-2 Existing Industrial Zoning 10 ro 2-3 Existing Industrial Uses 12 2-4 Industrial firms and Employment 15 within Huntington Beach 2-5 Employment by Standard Industrial Code 16 Classification , 0% 2-6 Summary of Annual City and School Revenues 18. and Expenditures per acre of Industrial Land 3-7 Regional Employment Projections . 24 3-8 Suitability of Vacant Land for Industrial 28 Development fro r. I I x x f'7''•'"S ti Y y Y Q 1.0 INTRODUCTION + 1.1 intent and Purpose a This report presents an inventory and analysis of industrial land within the City of Huntington Beach. It is anticipated that such a study will afford the City's decision-makers an understanding of existing industrial conditions and potentials for expansion so , that further action on industrial lard use can be undertaken with recognition of its implications. For the past several year's pressures have increased to rezone industrial property to other uses along the Gothard-Southern Pacific corridor. Discretionary bodies, however, have been reluctant to allow such changes because of the desire to expand 'the City' s economic base and increase municipal revenues through industrial development. This study emerged from a request of the City Council and Planning Commission to conduct a systematic analysis of industrial land in order to ascertiain present and future needs. 'The scope of the study was expanded to include all industrially designated land in the City. The existing industrial inventory and land suitability analysis were completed in early 1976. To adequately estimate future land needs in the City, however, the report was again expanded to its present form to kill Its •_ { rs¢tS}W 3' _ .4x• include a regional perspective. . 1.2 Methodology The study proceeds from an inventory of existing industrial con- ditions within Huntington Beach to a regional analysis of industrial development and employment in the rest of Orange County. Future land requirements for the City are then estimated through the year 2000 by projecting employment in the industrial sector and n applying a density factor to the available vacant industrial land. Land needs are then. matched against the suitability of vacant sites for development. j 1. 2.1 Industrial Land Use and Employment Density I In order to determine the amount of available industrial land in the City, a parcel was classified "industrial" j if it is zoned and/or general planned for such use. Industrial land as defined is then organized by geographic area in the City and by five general categories of use: general industrial development, public utility, oil r related uses, non-conforming uses, and vacant. The 1 category of general industrial development is subdivided l into aerospace; other manufacturing and wholesale trade; and warehouse and storage. The City's employment density applicable to future land requirements is derived from an average of densities in the three general industrial ' development subcategories. This local factor is then weighted 25 percent by the average industrial density in Orange County as a whole. I 1.2.2 Future Employment and Land Use Requirements The City's future industrial employment growth. is pre- dicted from the SCAG-76 Growth Forecast Policy. The SCAG report includes employment projections for Orange County and Regional Statistical Area 38 (consists of Huntington Beach, Westminster, Fountain Valley, and Seal Beach) �. through the year 2000. The projections consider the demand and supply sides of economic growth. They are also significant to the extent that the allocation of total employment to Orange County and RSA 38 is treated in a context of competition with all other counties in the SCAG region.- C Total employment within RSA 38 is allocated to Huntington Beach and the three other cities according tQ local City population growth projections and SCAG's employment/ 1Refer to SCAG-76 Growth Forecast Policy for a complete discussion ,. of mechodo o` gy a�nr. assumptions. ILI 2 y? • 1 1 • populatloii ratio, to tho• year 2000. Growth projections in the industrial secLor are derived from average 1970-1976 employment/industrial employment ratios. t'uture land requirements are then estimated by application of the in- dustrial density factor to the projected industrial employment. M 1. 2.3 Vacant Land Use Suitability Potential industrial sites are evaluated according to the following criteria: 1. Accessibility to transportation (rail and vehicular) 2. Fire protection rating I ^ 3. Compatibility with surrounding land uses 4. Accessibility to public utilities 5. Suitability of physical features (soil, ,topography,, drainage) A 6. Size and shape of parcel; degree of ownership consolidation 7. Required site work (grading and structure removal) The study evaluates the vacant parcels to three ranges of suitability for industrial development: high, medium, and low. Land with non•-conforming uses is also analyzed. The evaluation criteria and scoring system appear in sample form in the appendix of this study. Data sheets for specific parcels are available through the Planning Department. The evaluation criteria reflect a certain degree of bias. Vacant parcels are analyzed according to locational advantages suitable to small to medium scale light industrial developments such as those found in the Huntington Beach Industrial Park. The study is less oriented to those firms that find advantage at rail locations or on physically marginal land. Some criteria are also applicable to non-industrial development. However, such criteria must be considered as part of the industrial developer' s cost structure. The competitiveness of highly suitable sites within the a City and elsewhere in the County is intense enough that marginal or even moderate quality sites could be rejected by the developer. r1 ' ell n 2.o INVENTORY OF EXISTING INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONS 2.1 Established Industrial Development Policies In the development of industrial land uses within a community, the establishment of industrial goals and development standards are important policies that should be consistent with the City' s General Plan. The City of Huntington Beach, through the process I'I of citizen participation, has adopted general policies and standards applicable to industrial growth. The major objective and supplementary principles of the City's position regarding industrial development is outlined in the City' s Policy Plan, dated January 1974. These general policies are as follows.- Industrial Development Objective: Seek and encourage industrial development to broaden the Cit 's g p Y economic base. Industrial Development Principles: 1. Work with industry to provide proper site planning that will provide for expansion and future needs. M ,,�y"r -.: Kim :;r 5 4 1 { I.I i A 2. Encourage industrial development in several dispersed industrial parks. 3. Provide for proper location of land uses both within and adjacent to industrial areas. Buffer and transition standards should be established. 4. Establish rigid environmental standards. n� i I, j S. Provide access to industrial areas by all available forms o 1 transportation without disturbing surrounding land uses. 6. Carefully reevaluate the location of areas zoned for industrial development. C1 The above policies evolved from extensive citizen input in formu- a •in' vseveral policy statements relating to land use development, 1 L g P environment and resources, and societal and cultural aspects within the community. This effort to seek citizen participation in formu- lating City goals and objectives was accomplished through a citizens 0 steering committee policy program conducted from 1970 to 1973. A detailed discussion and explanation of the process and final adoption of the policies is plrovided within the contents of the City's Policy_Plan document. 2.2 Existing Uses on Industrial Designated Land 0 In March of 1976, an acreage inventory of industrial land within Huntington Beach was conducted by the City' s Planning Department. The survey included an analysis of general planned and zoned industrial land by existing use and geographic area within..the City. n Also included was an inventory of pending industrial projects. 2.2.1 General Planned and Zoned Industrial Land Figure 2.1 provides an inventory of acreage designated Light Industrial by the General Plan Land Use Element. Over .1,436 acres or 8. 3 percent of the City's total 17,372 .acres is presently general planned Light Industrial. Geographic -- ally, the Huntington Industrial Park Area accounts for approximately 52 percent of the Light Industrial category. Another 40 percent of the industrial land is located along the Central Industrial Corridor. From the standpoint of use, about 64 percent of the Light Industrial Land is f vacant and 30 percent is developed to general industrial activity. The rest of the land is in oil-related uses, non-conforming uses, or public utility. C 1 Huntington Beach Policy Plan: Huntington Beach Planning De a ment, January, 1974. 6 a ` rsY> ! }x L% • -1 r A A similar pattern prevails with respect to industrial zoned land. However, the use of the M-1 and M-2 categories as in- dustrial criteria results in considerably more land zoned for industrial uses than general planned. Figure 2-2 shows a total of 2002 acres or 11.5 percent of the City's total Area zoned M-1 or M-2. Approximately 38 percent of the in- dustrial zoned land is located within the Huntington Indus- trial Park Area. The Central Industrial Corridor accountsfor another 34 percent of the M-1/M-2 categories in the City. The remaining industrial acreage is located within the Edison,Area (16 percent) and in scattered parcels south of Garfield Avenue and west of Beach Boulevard defined as the li Old Town/Seacliff Area (12 percent) . About 23 percent of the total area is developed with general industrial function while 46 percent is vacant. The rest of the acreage is in public utilities (12 percent) , oil related activities including extraction (14 percent) and non-conforming uses (3 percent) . 2,2.2 Existing Industrial Uses and Pending Projects Figure 2-3 presents a tabularized description of all uses of industrial designated land, whether it is zoned , general planned, or bota. The accompanying map, however, is limited to showing only industrial development, i.e. , general industrial, public utility, and oil related uses. From Figure 2-3 'it iE obvious that the vast majority of the existing industrial uses and current projects are concen- trated in two general sections of the City: the Huntington Industrial Park Area and the Central Industrial Corridor. Relatively large, industrial acreages appear 'in the Edison area and Old Town/Seacliff area, but these are dominated by public utilities (Southern California Edison and Orange County Sanitation District) and oil related activities, . respectively. The Huntington Industrial Park Area, anchored in the northwest by the McDonnell-Douglas astronautics complex, contains an approximate total of 263 acres of general industrial development (35 percent of Ine total area) . Most of this acreage is dominated by the 200 acre aerospace - complex with its 1,150,000 square feet of floor space. Two industrial parks are located south, of Bolsa Avenue: the Huntington Beach Industrial Park and the Huntington Beach Business Park. The John D. Lusk and Sons' Huntington Beach Industrial Park ". encompasses a total of 303 acres of which 61 acres or. 20 7 Y i,�s ,+' f' r FIGURE ^1 I PLO114DUS�RIAL L Np t'r GENELNL PERK 754.4 39.6 pgA Area 'jai f part- 568,3 ? 9 Huntington Ina uatr gal corridor , 1 1pp.� central Induetr 11436.3 Edison Area Total A ' PERK .COS GRCSS RE 29.6 425.6 361 0 U.E ment 45.3 Indue�ial Deve1QP .1 General Ineludes Extractions 3 3-5oil Related Uses (in 5U•3 63.1 C' G Utz lity �� pub 11 1pp.0 Nan_conforJaing Uses 1,436.3 Vacant �Qtal �i . e Industrial 1 Planned indU�tx�-al land i5 based on tr 1 Genera category' �N,R• KvS1133 {t hsr � 1 ' ..:..A-- r�x..v�,c..-:y, "i' ;J•• a=?+."^'Ka't`- 4.`"-=C`_ -;�L::4 tii:, --ti: -,--r'-✓^l' �. P- . L- :t> .ti. -{'- vh.T ;J`1s -r:,. -Y_ y-rs .K,. .J:;.tr•"c•. �y _�" •'1`w:./'- ray. _ C.'" - A }. s ? 1- r s "I t 1 ..-•c„'= �.rx- "'yam,` ,3;._ r^�� r ?• ^ Vy. - iy'iT•u �'•• .h�.w t. 1�'- ✓ man •a - w•{a '�� r aF.. 4_ x 1 t' [ M S.. n 'pia•-7• ��••- N Y_-�.- tit- ••! ''Z:i' "'1 7. -ir.- w•1.w T a i+ _^.T'- 4 I �'f. 1 .tit:ems:: f.v _ �,Y►, "�.` -k. _ �T i- ! w z �i, 1 G. _w a- i:;' .fs ``Cr. :..tom .y,n: .' - �.• a •• ..- .'- _ '�� - tw rs� •=� .'f���-.-rl- -*'�...-.'F"•l tt �•1'.4.�• L-• �1- c:':..Y_ ','S - } '\.,�.v ..t'L-- :[,y. .L•":. rM•. "Y1 J.'i: ." _ •t I;2'• _ tIn r S' r"� A� ti. n.' -�._. t. t /- i a i.�+: .i.' ." ��:� 'ice^ s - Tt ny'``w T. ':t,4.: 7+. w":. _ +• _- _ v-7 -.r-•. .�.•;•• . A '2' 1` Z. M i " '.i .tea-" i .b`7 Y. .�_%i1.�•. .'-3..» •,;? %mil l .0 =': , C -�!ti::.,..+'ter.+ r.':,�•..... a-,-.�-- n h. _ _ a•-' ,, , . .ter __ _ s i.r v• •:.,I.:,.....,,..-�.,..-.:,.--..�,.�.�..:..*I--4-.I,"!:,../.-.,,�R•- .,.;-,-'-I 1�-.-I1�-�.'.-.-­....,.:,..1--.�,.:.�.'.I-1...-I..,U....--..1--,-:.--7."-...��-.-�,-*�.�..:.-,�,..../.1 I:."I r�.-.-..-.-�-i--�..,�",I...:..,-:-"-.i;-.,....—-...-..,.....,.�.l,-,;--,-,S...I ,I.tI.�.-: ,..I-..,,-i.1-'1,I,-.­..I.,*-��.�.-.-.II.-.1--.'--;-.t-1-.--I'I.-t-�-,I:��.A..--�",..�"�.�I.,-,-%�.,.,-.,..r..�..:.....,.'7,-..----.I.� �",.-'.....,:-.I,....1;�.-L1�Z.--Z."�,t 7'�.1-.".,I.I,. -,�...-....',' i....�:.....,,....,1�: .,l-�'-.",'.P.-.'--.-..Iz.�,�;. '-:.....- I�.�.�- ..I..:,� .' ,...I...'l,...,;� l,-..�1".-.,:I.I�,�'-M.1..* ,X-�. 1- %i�t S �C� -J 7 4 r'"'r •it- �i < 4 �5 a. l.' •.r 4�•tIY a'.e,•a. .-..Y •�,F N`y . .•�' '.,.' 'fit+••'1 - n••,• „•�. y.. _ h� :s ,ti. -: • . t+ c . t_' -s•- �'t- �1M1Y- =i `42 .' - - •'i- ..�•. moo- _i.. tip. . t - r �. r. - . i> . - ,1 ,tin`.`• •_ . - f - - - . , •{_•' " - `�)- •.]. - t i� t ti E 4• t .` - •t - `, ' ' .. �� t . . ' r ` . . ♦�. ;;' * 019 t > . Rr .f f_-I. ' - ` if r 4 a Y _ ` ..: - . . .1 - ti " • - Pa' - ..�.--,1...�-,:.t-.....,-.;,.,-,-,.",---,-.--_.i,..,-..,�--,..,,.:....:-".. .--��."�...,., - �- - 4 _ ,r - -. ,u,.�-:..--,-.�'1..-.,,-�-.,-',1z;l-.,-I4,1�.I�-,1--,";--..-."-.*...j-�I...,',o--�.l:`,-.--".�-�.�.��—-!��,.��"Z..�-..1,...-.-----�.,":,.--,-�--.�,;''�..,.,..1.,�''*,..".,,�.�,-.--:1--,I,.�.1..---.-.-:;,-..,1�,I.1.I,-.�'..-'—..!..-.,-I.i�.�1,,.,-,,�I-�--,,...,�. -I-��-"�...�.-.;1..-.,I'-1-.'�._,"...I�,'*,.�-,:.;;,;��..-,..,-�,i..,-�"�X-, -...��,...'-�;�-:.-..-.1�...:�-,---.....,.,.,-I i,,:.,.�,t..,--:�--.,-- -...,..,-.:I.I..,,.-,,--.,��.I..�-,,..-�:.-.;-.:.:::.,.�;"-.�-.-..*-,-�:,,I.�.".�i-.�.—I,,'-.---_--t-�-.I.�-.-._:,,l''-.1.I'.,.-"­...1,.-�-'1,!,:-I�� �-,-I*,-�11,I.,-,s,.1.Dl.-�.��.,-,;-:-.,r,,I-..*-.-/�:--.,I-.-� .,,�...%�-t�-�.,t.---�;;,-,�,..,-�...1,,�!........,..-.-.I,II-..-...'�.--m:1',.'.--.'`--,-..I 1'-,,z-��-.-:�.--h�t,.,.--.,,..,"I-..�t,,-,-..*...--..z--,.��-."-�,--..�-"-.�...i�-'".-�,�..1:-I-:S---Z.,.,.:........;....,::-,1..-....,...,-.,I-.-*-..-..�,-;.t_...'....-z-..-,-.-.-�,....I,'�I��,.-..I....-.,."-,-.,,..--.�-...'......::I-,�,,-"�,,..,,'.I-�-"I*�l-.,�..,-.....,..'...:...-:T.�... .�.',".,-...-�-.....,-��-.--I�",�.�--,.,.1.'.,.'.I I.-I'1-..-..'.,-.. • .. -, _. 0a040�900 D-:.....I..�. .I......I.. .-I..-..... .1�-I�.I.-.I.-.�..,I�:...I..-.-I�.�,,..-.,.��....I:..I-II..--.,,.....,..I-.-...�q.A--.�...� ...-m-....-I.s..-..I.-._..L%LI-2 i,c—.b.=l.-.,i..�I_s....�...�-..--.k..o�ol....:II.-t,l,�.1�o1--..--.--,PP..71..l,f�.I.L�y.s..L..�.0 I..�,Q...m.**.��N..."f.,-�+T.�..:I---..,I.I;I I�F-M fX-.-+.,.N.-�,:-.-.--...,��.,,..I I:--,....'.'.:-...1:G..,.\-�...-*.-..."-4-�,.-I J.....,e-.T.G I-...:�.�,.....:-O--.�-.,:-.I I..-'..I-..-�.r.,..�.I N D,...--I,.-...1-.1..-...��"..--E�.�I-.-."-,"...I��-.I.1--.....-,-..r..:,.M-.:..,.�,%I..�;.11.a:-..--\-.I.-..I.,,..-.I:�..--I.C I.-.I.,-,...I--..,.,-.....�\......I'.:M.1.:.-,.H'.,!...-'-.�,",.."I.�-.-,.O.,�.I'.E...''I-.....�,.,:.�..-I.�k-F.-.�C-1.-,.1-f--,-.�-...-....�..K.I--�.,..I..,I,..-.-.�.-"..A.-I�.�,.--I�,.....-.,�I.I.�-F....I.;'.M�".�".I..P-..,V,�'--..:7.......�...,,�..I"..,��..,:..I'.�.,�,m.......�,...:�:,I...HI I,.1.-�...�A.-.,-..,I...-�.-�-.--.".I.-�,.I.,..�..-.I.1.'I.-,...,I...�.-I...�,.:..,.I1-�..:.,..-.,...��.�I�I,.,�.-....�I...-..:-.-..;�-.I.:-.I I...,�-�I..,....-:.�-...I,-I.::..I.........�..-....-","�I.....!I�.I'.-:-.�....-�'-1..�1 I�-.�.,.�.,-�,II...,�,�-.-."..-1-.-�-,..-I I.�..,t-.�-,.-1�...�.-.:I,I.....II".11....I.�:..-...-�.......-.-�.I.-�.-I.-I....'I.,....-.�-....-.....-:-.....::�..--.,-..:.,..,,�,.�...�-......��.�.I..-.�,.I�I-.�-.I,.:.....-.-.-.....,��.-,.I.-.-.,-I:.-.1�.-.I-.p..."�I,I.-,."..:.1���.'--..A.,..-.�i�.'.-.-1�.—"..--1.-,-4...r...;.I-..-1 k,.-.-.:...�.:%....--�-..:,I..:�:-.---....�.'--.I,...--..-�...P..I..I—'�....I..,�I.,'-�.,.-..I'.�...I.-.,-�..I,-',..�..I�..�.�-,-I...-.-.�..1 I.,.�....-.-..,-,.-,...,I..-.,'I�-�.—.�..1..-.���-.1-�I-..-..I-.l I.-.I--..-.,�i---�-.....-.'I�-.-,.--.�--�..I�:...,.�..�....l.II"/,I._i1.r,!�z.-,:��-....-.�-:-..,-I-'...-�-.,�.,��I.-..1....,..1%.:.......,��.,1�,1.----.,.-.....--...�I,....-I.1.-....I,.�.--.".'.,�.1I.......'.�.1-.1.,.':..-'-:.:...�,..�----..�.'�-I,\..,-..,.,--...11..--I..�­-....-;��.I'....AI�..�I 1-..:..,.I,."-.I��-,-.-�—..&7-.I.-,��I�I.-�-:.:I.:.-...,�....�.�-..-."..I..-..---.v-..--....-.�.�.�II."-.....--.,.,.�,,..,..-.�:.,�.../..-::.�.��-�-.".-I,I.�I.-"I,...--.�.I.----�-..,.�,,I..,...�,....':..I.,--,.�-.I..,,�:I..�,.I I--.,:.,-....-I'-�-,7-..I..--��t..,-.:-.--­--..I.-�....7�-.�..-I.*�.,�.�..---I...-�..I..*II.,,...-,,�.I....,-.I--'"---,-e.1.:1"!.5 I...:,\..--.-.,.-�I:I�--,-.,I�.-...,:.-.-:..-..�-:I.fI�.�I.---_--.Il..'I,,:..-�...I.-..-....�...I.,":�-.7.-1.'.�----;.-�-...I:..-,�'.�--...-I�-'...z;I.!...-.---..,...:a....,-...-I-��..I....-,�-�."-.,'�.,-I.'I.-I.�.-..L,.,1;.--,!..--.,"-._�'..-1,—.,I.'-�".,..'.-....-....'-.."I..!jII..'-,.--.�:,...,-:0.—:.-.-.;�..�..�--,II,---�",—.,.�:.'-..�..-�.I�-.�I I,:..��..-.�:.�I-.",,,..7-..�.-..,.7�-;--,.,.-..�..'..�1,�.---.,;�-..',..,...,.-...�1.-..�I-..�...-1.,'-­..z'...-_:�.,--...":.-,---.�-,,":�-..I,-...1-.:-,1.-1—:.I,�.:",a..,.I'."'...I...1,�*��T--^,..l.I--.;.,�.-,,�:,..,1..,',�-.�-"- ;�I,..�---".":,1':�,��...-�,1..'--'...-�-,�..�".'.�1,,.-,',.,.'-",...--I,,-,.-.--.,.�..-,...,,,--...,.,',....,..,-4�..,..-I,,,--.e-..�p--..,...-,-,.-:,.:..-1:-.--.,�.--7.-.-,-:,�.-;.!:.,-.:,:',,,.-.,...,.,-...".I-',,;.�,,-':.,..-..I.,.1..�.-;��;.-,.,"",�.I,-..�,,r-I...1,;-�.i�.-..--.-.,4�,-----.,�;.�-,,�-,"-.,:-��..:-I-..�-�--�---.1.,-,.:,-,..-'-'.i-I.-i-1;—,.--.�.,':,'..:�.,��-,--,.,..--.;----I.'-,.',:.,.-'I,..'�I,."'-.-,,.:.:-,.I-,'�...�,..��­-..''.7I-..:,.-�—*'-�.:.-...',.,-.1..--,Y..*—I,.-,-I".-�,--,��,;:.,-.'--..I".'�-�,-.....-.�-.l,..� 0 - .---.,:-.-..i,�-�.-.:,.." ' _ _ I • . . -:",.I.:----;-.,.,-,..-..',-:.',;-......,�,.,..--�.,,1�"-1:.;t,:'j.--*..-.1:I�...:,-,..-:,-��-.--;*��-,..:'-.I..L.,...�..�-,..�.....-",-.'.%O--C,.�-I-.:-..�—.\.:.:--.,1 7..I--II-"..-.-,-.,,,--.-;--�,,-.I.-*.Z,-.-..--,:,..,,,1-I.-....*..:7..I..--"7.N,a..�,".-,,--�.�-,_.-..,---.,--"-.�,'...-.l";.-1.:,,:-�--:.-1'��.,.....--—�..-..I'..-.:�-tt,.,,.,-.�.,-.....,,,:-.�l.:.1',.�,.--".....---,,.-I.---,�..��.'�,-,�,--�,",-.,��.,:,.�1-",,--..-I�_-:.,"I.--",..:-.-,1-I.,-.I-.-;-,-.�.*-,-*.-.,�-.!-:...1.--,.�;:�II.,,-,,..;-.`'-.-,.�---��:--,;�:-:-,.�..,�,-1-,�-'-I—I��4..,,.,.,1:..-.�,:-..-.-�--.,.-.,.,.-'.,-.-.-�---..,--,W,-..,.-��,I,-,-,..,-..-,-'.�-Z-,-.,-,...1.-,.!.-'�*-,..-.'�w---Z.,.,..��W-�-...-.-�.-'..,.W..�'l-"'.-.��.-.�.-�---:-.:,.:...,-,..--�,I.----,-*-......�-:.-.�,.-.-,...,':�-.-.'.I..-..�.,.-�l..-.-....,�.i.:-,7..--—I,.-,..::-�,-��-.,.,...,-:,-���,;�.-,.I..%.�'-...--,.,":...:,..,,.�.--..--.:..,"i..�'.-.:.7-�,..",.I-,:--,..-.�----.-,�',..,�.I';*,....-.."..--..,,-,�,,.�,"��'.----",--.,..��...-.'...,.-."..,1-I,..,*l-.."�r-,�.-i�--v,.:--'-I-_I�,..:..,-�..*,-,-.z--.--�.-....,���7...,,..--�I::.;,;4-,;.-..�.,.-;I-.,I.-,1.-'..�..*,'.,.,.-.---I-,�-.:�.�,�:-�..;---z,-'.'-'.-.,"-.�.-�,­...�.-:----..,,....-),-_...;,..-:.,,,,-,`-�;*,"....,.'..,,,-.,..-',.,1�f.'-,.-..-''-:.r........4: ..-4-I.���.-..��-,,....W.,-,-1.-:-.--.-.I1��...-`,�.1"..--,--:'--�—.-.-....,,1...-.'—...".I.�-. "�'.,�.1.-'I.:-�.".:,',-,-�-. :'�..;-.,"- --."--.%.,,,-:.1.�'%;,..:�-Z,:-.-��--�;';��.,..,,..'.;,':---.--Z..''-.'-_.,""-...1.'';.1.I�-�.l,�'--..,..--t.,'...,.1e,.';"'I..,"--.t'�,,I,.--,i,.--'.--.--l";.�1Z,:1�;1-"",:-.:--...A-.��.,-.-.''-:,.�-I���,;..':�-�.-:�-r,-t.,-!--.-,.,:l'-%'I:-.:-..._,.I�.�.-�,'�,!'I.,.;,l.---l—.�t�.�,--:�"".;"�-,,:..'-1-I*.�,.''--:.l,"4"-",-,-��'�;.-.�Z�.--.�,"-.,l,,-,.--�.�.1---;-.1-,"^-:�--.'-�,,.;'��,-�.-..,-"-:.c-,,..,I,;r�--�.:;.-..,,--",,,;-��.'-t,-.--�.*—:"...,,,--t.--,..."I-,,..!',,"'""�i-'�-.Z,.',-�-;..,;..":--..-,,Z-.,,".�,I,.�-,.,--,,.,-I.-.� , .. ,f� 1. e' _ _ sir-��� _ .. .i - •�. .£ -i. _ tMRy1C' t�L7-tt7Pl• ^♦ - - w +ny.•`!w r t•. 5 •.♦ ..-.:..-..-:.,-"�-�-.�-",..-.'-,.-'.I"'."'-1:.-,.-'.,..l,.'--.-.'.!---'I....-...:-.....y�L�.�-.t.I:-�I'.-..'!.�",—..."�.�.�-'-.-.-._%..I-.-�..1..'I-.�.-,...:.-;.-----,.:'-.I-:,'.---.; ,.1,.-".I�--'-,..�-�.,�..,-,..:-zI,�..-..--;-,-,".-,...1.-.-.,-�.-.�.-:�;�M..,-7',-..-';�.--.I',I'.-.;.,,-�*�.:.l,...:..,...,--.,w,..w.-:':.!:-'.,,,- .t.--.--�l-�,-�.--��---:.I.,.-----.-....;.,--,"-.,,�'-�-."...:...-I.1t.-..�,,-.--..--�,,.::---.,.-...-1'1-'.::.-.-:-.."..,..,.�-��."...*-"�1-.-.-.�-.1,-.,:...:.*:,'...-.-��.,-,.�.-..."..-..�.l---..,'.,-.�-!'--'�-..-I,."�:�'.,-%.-'..-!,�'--,:....,,.-..-�..-".'--,"----.:;�.-,".,Z"-�,-t.—.-1:,--".�---��..!-P-�''n1�',,-I.-:.1t'-,�,..-I­.:;��.,.;s,,..-�,---l".,-..:...-.I"',.,.:�-'-':..,�.Z-I.-,.-"��.".-.;I:1:,.-I..-1'"-".,",�,,,..I.-;,.,:.,�.,,�,I�-''�,�:.�-..-.�--,,..,.,�-',,-.,....--,-;,--:,..-",,-.�:-,;...-.--,�...1...�,,.--..-..1,"..-.,.�'-.,-.:.,1.--:,.;.,�­,,..-1...1.%*.--,',.1-*,-,--.,',�*..-.,�7�-Z,,,-I---"----,�---,t..,%'.-7�.�--,-.*.-.�..,I,*",,-'-:�-.,*-,-.II."1.I.--,"..-,.,-.-,,I.--..!...��."�,-�-�,.�.-.,�;..'.-,.�.,,.�...�..,--."-.1...-_,:::.,,�-,-.1��'":.--,.I.—r.�I.-.,.;f., - .. .. •!. �.-`, - _ - - - - ',�, I\ice �••, . .ft2-1 ' .. , _ .. -Ta, - - ''may,+' !` y - •t., -, .. *K_ Lam- w - - -/-'" r _ y�. _ ,�.-• z ;t'_' _ 'Wit:- - .C^:. .1` „;; '-.• -•+r,a t`•-' - .a-- _ t" 1t ry.. _ _ kn.L'y•• 1•?` S -L _ tf,:_ .. . - .r` h. _ ++,.` r _ ra - `s 't. t. ' R 1' -f -•t �,� �`_.rr ,Y t _v'4 _ _ .u+ :irk. i ti�'V _ Yea - '�T y rw.{ lr _ i -x i C t k. + L` t.- .' Y h a r '.rr 1 t S �fyf �1-.- 1.�. :``yam. tt 3 r+ S r �: F .ti• t s `r-.•.••� ti.z r 0 . FIGURN' 2-2 h EXISTING INDUSTRIAL ZONINGl AREA GROSS ACRES PERCENT r+ Huntington Industrial Park Area 762.7 38.1 Central Industrial Corridor 681. 0 34. 0 Edison Area 317.0 15.8 C Old Town/Seacliff Area 241.3 12.1 i Total 2,002. 0 100.0 U USE GROSS ACRES PERCENT _. 0 IGeneral Industrial Development 465.4 23.3 Public Utility 248. 2 12.4 Oil Related Uses (Includes Extraction) 276.7 13.8 Non-Conforming Uses 53. 0 2. 6 � Vacant 958.7 47.9 2,002. 0 100.0 cf I i i i i i 1 Industrial zoned land is based on the M-1 and M-2 categories. J i i x3� �..w. ;;r•3:3ca. f • Wit.. _ �.,.-.I.,*.,'I"�.���..-.:,./.-..:.',,,..�.;I�_�I-..-..-.�..._-..�I'...j-.�-:�-....._-'..�,,,.I.7,-1_.,..,..,-�__,��.--__,.,_..._...:I.:.-,.,__':.�*-,...---7 Z.-..-_--.,.�--�.-..._.,'...1'--"--...�..---.*-,,�7-..I....�.-.,.,.,�,,.,.--,.�".�."�..,-',,�-,:.'..L.-...-.,�"-.:�--.,.-_.%.7-�1-.-��-*,--��,�,..,.�.--.;�....�.,-f.1-:-...,:.I.*,,.-,-,"7,I-��,:"_.�,-�I�..�-,.*�.,..'�.,�.'-I,_/,_-.-,-�..%��:.-*._..�-:._......_-­.-,,.,.',,q.�­.:�..,.""..,;_..-...'-7,�:.��-I-_�I.�.���L-,..�-,�._,.:.IL..­�,-L,...-�:.�\-I._�t�I'.,.f-.--.I�I.�.�.I-,.---;.I.,-...,--_.--:-,,-..,�..7.:..I-.Y..,.,.I_�I.-.�."...._-�...*--.�':.-1�_�..,7I-.---I7..",,..�..'.�-.�*....,..'�..,_--_, :T 't•`,-Y'i, `+.i-•}' '''4: .-..y .11'e':S`_:t:.. ..ti,,.:i• c^aSw .'t �_ - I. 1 .h.- ���i�������I���i������I���I��i 0*oa0-0-*00-..--.b.1.-.L�-....--..�-I,...�..��.._:�./_�...._..I--�..I�..-.I-.-.-I....-.L......�...�..I-.-..�..I I.�I...I..*..-L...-....�....-�-.,.I-.�.I....-.'I-.I.I....._.'....'11...,-;-.-.....I,-.'._I....�.I��.�....-.....I.�,....II.,..7'...I I-..I....L.-.�.IL-I.-...I�.II_.._I...-L I'---II.�.�I,I-�......-I..-�.....�.-..1..-�_1.I.-.-...­...-.....-..�-....-.I�'........,��I 1..,�I��I I..I....-1..-.-I._...-�I,".�....�I..�1.._—.'.,—,�....;I.l:,.'_�.!4','.-i..�I.-.�._I I-L,.."-�:A,,.I..5 L.�,.II..7.,.,�.,;-',...I:�_t,..-ti-1."�.,,V-,�,��I�:.._*-�I,,_r..-_I,��:'.:..-.I o I�..�.---..�--........,--,:...�1.-..,,��.,,-,.,;..M.---,�.,-.__...-.��..,..�.�=..�-1.,'._..'..�.-�.L�.:�.'­��,'.-.---.�...---:I,,.:��-­..."�.,­.-,.,I,..:.--..�_-,�I_L,..:-.-...._.._.�.9.I...i"..,.',.-.:.�.-\-!.I�-Q....-.L..,'.-I.-....L—.-,.III..---.....-:.I..,.....-.I..:-_.....%..�.--1:..I,-I.--.-��..:�..�..%:.-.-.��.-,,'.�..-,I�..--_,.-.,-.IL-II-�-..:'9.-,,-,,I�.I.I..-,.�.��-.:....,I...-.,...._._..,......-�..."-...I'.-.....-_._..I.,,...I..�..I--1 J-..:..--...-1.-1-.,�1�-.,...,.�I..,�...---'',L,:.-.-I��,�,­,�'..--..-..Z-7.I 1.-I....':�'.1....-..I�..��,.:..I��.,7.-&.:Z.-;7---,..I,1,,...II_-,_I,..-,;.II....�"�,-�-...-..�:.�.I--"....�.,—�...."-.-I�,�I.,..�,-,_.----....I,�-..I.I",--�.&.-_.......I..--,.".,--._­--.__.�-,...:...........1'-�--�,�.:�..�I�..�-I\.1_.."­.I.-.I.'_-,-,-.1­7,--I-I1.-I.;..-..1I��...,_.1,,Z I.R--.I�-..I-1.,.1-_...��..-._I�.1-.;,�_-�,:.*_�­1'.-...::..-1;�..�..,-.-I1L,-.-A-..,.I.-."1.I.._,..,....1...-._..,'...,—..4.-I'7.'.I-_'_I..-�.:__-�..�-1.��-.-1-�-,!. .L"1.,�I.I I-�----"_:....I.:-.,Z.,...1,.�,,-;.�-.:...:-�,-I.-.N..,,.�..I�,--.'.�-,-."L I�.,1.�..'1..m".�"-_.�._..._,�.-.I,*--I.'..,.7-.".�.I.­I.L-..I 7...,.'��.:�.-..,-.:'.I!�-._.-I1,.I.-i��-�-,,:I i-'--,...-,.I.�-:,..-,"..., 1..._..,..'-:�.�..-�,,1--__--_...�L L:I,/-'.,,,`._"."I�.-.'..,-�:-.,'.'..-_.-'._.:..,...,"...-,,,..1�.-�'�.-.�.,.,�-,,'.:-*.".�,:.,,-��-..-.1��::-...-.:1*�..�'�-,..kj 7:4—.1....�-..v-.,.,�.-._:.:I.-��.�7-­-�:�,I,--11" ,l..\.,".7-"-9..,,----I�i,�t-*...-L.�_,S,..—a*;_.I.,-.;�.'- J,_I.�­_*,�,,7\,-A".c.- .�,��-:�-/..lC..-l._.;.--I-.''I,..,�,,.,,_t."i L'lk*.-.-Z.:,-�I­-.,.�,"��,:l­ �-.-.,.1�._..t.'�.__,,-:1 Z,-III .1,-..,...I-I.'..]�..�I. �. - wt_/�,.}ai �! -ti�<-'i._�. }.n..-: ti.'` !'!L_S?s. N'-t' 'ya ,,.'rF �•.:" a+•itl�.. rt� ti` V K�,1 w Jam... a•: "qW.13' ti»,�` it .., �^S'� �i. -•-r r •'ice 1e- ' •�ls y �� f.. -��• sM-^=.. .e R^. �ai' L `tom N iY_- f R. ' `R-ram - -^�, •YM r 7•.a, v ff Si .'1" ,.(__ t. - r4"9 - :IL.' - rY - rf: 4 � .�wY F Y+" ,' .yi:�3.!- j.� v +...1' ���.i .,l,',-, '_c r^'`' .mow. y`+� 4 N\• =t i` <.. +rl t :.:3%�•: 1.^=` r ;,�,, v: i'. 1 ' _s` 5 V' •a -..•-t at.,. :S_•�, _ 'tom.. +'!w _ ^r`:r. Yl!• V. �.f. ^•r- 7N 1-•. --car �t' _ J- a' L ».rip .,t '` 2'+ l -S :r Y-' ;-` 4 �1 a.` _ :r.•r ' S '-: " �t'� ar .ti _ .;� .y 1' �'+3^i..i y h ,rL 1 i ,} {: _ w 7` :1. i_ 1- 'fit.. -t. `, _ •i_ �: . - _ ;S�. _ _ ,iL ,: r w. - - ' .. . _ 4 � _ _L' t + _. - '.l, - -- - '1' - k i .*k, y it } _ t t�� .� .' auk 4 ., t �+ac3. \ �e.��� �i' 3` fTRAIC�bl1 i,* ... - w - M ,,,�. . % - -. 1 % - . . . . • - . m r. . . . . � . 4 . I .' r :­,,/,'-�',"-,.--.,..I,­_.�1.�-..-."�:..--�.....,:�..;_�...-__,,...;?.I�,..-,-.LL*,�,_._...-'....,I....-,-�...,.�.�-,._..�.I.,..I�_,',-,.�,-..!..-1..-.I._,1.:I..-..-,..I.--.III_.!,;.-.I.,�.1;.L.I"�..-�I�-,-.:.I�-_...I I.:;�.1�--L-..�7_­*_,�.�..L.�..,.�..TI-":.=�-.I..-.,,...-.I..,I..-I 1.-.I_,-1�.*.I..I.-.-�,..:I,:�1.,.I--,.�.- : z *r �� a ; ° F ` �. :; I ' ,r 4 . ;'� . . . . . * -' . '''` . . . . � . ; R ua .,x t .. - - < - • ~ -I rHr��U���ff1��ti��G�yT/O. id 8£�f�.4 [IFO .G4 - - _= �!- :-^ �r • - Ti�`Il7A4LT - _ _ .-._ - - •a: _ n:.;, 1 . � _ ' - :fn ..! 1 J' T.1' .- _ '..1 1[[ ,`: i^ •. i, r- 'a tS"• .c. 'e +` t =r. : . "t,t1 .ti: t tip....' _ }�\". S, i• ' L s.T w.e ,L..hr:'.�' a t4F 1 4�. a t. ;'�... �:s a z 1-`.' iv .h - k t�.. �. :} =y a. - r~ ; ;i :w i" -:rM1' +� L4- �e:. 1 a,. -1.�. L:; 4. .:S•�.. ; n ai:' =r: ti y t t 1� �•v -•.r �t Y 1., •t t� - ... �`1 ; • .;, : ty. +�.,y.e '•1 r» ti~ _= tip t ..,.�, .yam....n,�+�._ �1• 'Y .ly_ - fir:. a.iN i.. C_ b . •tom -N C a••-. ••�r•r't "k =ti., h =}L' 9a .i _ _ �, - — __ —_ "'tJ!'. __ _5<< -. :S).=.. _._c�i �:����,., n.-�::r..c`.�>..._.' z.r •._.3--+c_..V__•�,'" ...�i•. La1i��:•__+ F.Xf5TIN(1 USES 0.11 INDUSTRIAL 1ON13) LAND ANI).'oll OPNERAL PLANNED INDUNTI(IAL LAND 11Y h GU0GHXPl1IC AREA AREA AND USE GROSS ACRES` PERCENT ffuntington Industrial Park Area 762.7 100.0 General Industrial 263.2 34.5 Development n Public Utility 8.3 1.1 Vacant 491.2 64.4 Central Industrial Corridor ' 605.6 100.0 General Industrial 107.2 27.3 Development Public Utility 27.9 4.1 Oil Related Uses 23.0 3.3 (Includes Extraction) Nan-Conforming Uses 56.3 6.2 Vacant 391.2 57.1 Edison Area 317.0 100.0 General Industrial 7.0 2.2 Development Public Utility 203.7 64.3 Oil Related .Uses 28.7 9.0 (Inclu(:2s Extraction) Vacant 77.6 24.5 ` Old Town/Seaeliff Area 241.2 100.0 General Industrial 8.0 3.3 i Development Public Utility 8.3 3.4 > � Oil Related Uses 225.0 93.3 (Inludes Extraction) TOTAL (ISE 2,006.0 100.0 f General industrial 465.4 23.2 t Development Aerospace 1 202.3 Other Manufacturinq 178.3 ' Wholesale Trade, and Misc. 13uninasu Servic-n I. Warehouse and Storactu2 84.8 + Public Utility 248.2 12.4 Oil Industry 3 276.7 13.8 Oil Holated Uses 72.8 Extraction 203.9 Icon-Conforming Uses 56.3 2.8 Vacant 960.0 47.8 r +,I !: 1. [icier to standard industrial code list of industrial categories }} on page f 2. Includes warc3houncs, lunber•yards, auto wrecking, junk yards, and atorage. 3. Includes oil equipment and supply yards, storage tank,, and oil offices. ARY 12 �: f t`�,4,., sus•. .. � � r E\ s ►itlt;-r 7fttifl L.� '. }� if,,' \iTl: sr'r r RIi use � lRRlTllil/f/11R11f1E tilt. a.(( tlilWON - r' rilllil4+'' •• Cr - SFIZ. i ai .ramWS . r kuLlp r iilfl, ara;r�. V. �,7�III��7NIIr� a rr :.. ter. r.e . .' w' �� N.' 9 Itliili!? rrt`rt�rri is a r� rr ,, a. 1iflll�l a■w.�a r r ss■iI iiil[ E« a tr ...�s- +r /ii1>In! M rr 000 r. �r rr .11tniteuiur tlitl� r� �.. sne .t r -ILiLiI rr ii illy r. !L iiLLI ��� �r i� r- r- r [-' is �� r .w it1113 a.` �r arfl r ii/itllili i r .. ) ►•yi.r -3 _ �r *�A r� atr �� �r Vi!/� ■I• rn■ lti111111E1HiEl /fill lli .r Z. .■. r� rs /ilLIIt r - Il1<t1 R!lttfRR�IRI� i= rr' �+r rr rr■ rr rr r /liter r. t[littlilillill titill111 rlli ar r - I. r� -a, �.r rr rr rr r my s. r.. art tIs Ai r ltti;>t r0�lLliilLil - rr rw ar •a rr rr r i'� •. R a� ar rrs ;�sititili - r .�r► l7�,7< r ra _.r �r rr rE r■.+ \Rl4r +�/ur /illtfi11111II1# i1I1t111E 2 a i . r r irr rr rr rr a. t r f . r � a >•■a +rr �r rr rr rs .ilrliiiiiil r r- alr rr r.. ar r1/!il ill1 a+�r► r rr MM rW Won rr- r�. r it/8r slliIIr IIIL11ti1111tiR +'■ r.Ir. r x �. ,Isr r r. s� sf rr ■M r� i L.,�. i w+rr�p ~!ffj �tii ,� ' •..�r M all all IIt !ti•ili lfl t1i e ars M emu. s � - -/lIll �.G s!llti3i 4!• rr -,WW w'r`�we.—E L111 .ri rfa :r.rr,sr rs .ia r-.� j r I! r •ilLt1 r sa;r� -- rr:ra rs r•.� i:_+rim iw=ia ai ii i� MI N i� �� 0-.r�Ia ' l�►'rrY�a_. r ..�..tr !=' �.r �� M rr r A r —�•-- rr rya r� r■r r�� rr #/ r4101.=ar Si .r rr sr Ali tl�- sr 7I r. ■t ra..r �rrg, ;r.� F� -r�si���`�'�r/�[/i111i1R1f a r .v.�� ..a\a�Y r�rt r r �aR�a�►*st�radliiYarrs a aatiiar■�as iraNinIV Jar r s r rr a. a.. ..r rr j-i .2r rr . . r ]]r: rar.MOM-mue.-MM all rr►rar.rr.:■lil� `�� i: ° 3 r UK' wau +r tiRlltRlll1t11Di - MOM 00101rrAMge uet+ 10 " '� it:-? ` ''" �•."� - ;?�1j7L11t: 0 ��tt�tttt 't��ttttt�t�t :s =�ttnrnt nrrtmtrttttt ,...tll,lt. .. .. � r �tt lLlla7� lv,� ♦%vwstills s '�7tttimtat == itlttt1l�♦♦♦• �� /�t��t�t rr a.E,.ri�r!♦ ��� �♦a . MS �r .a, ► ��� 1 ';•2t ,K•ti all * • , ti1Ht �mallH li�� . 1z-41 Ei=lfil�tf!!t '=mm .~ice • i;++ ■ ■- - Egli— Saw In ande Y j r• Ifi .fir - L�■. Mom ES 144im ®WE ■ �umI � riutu�.� � ► ■ ..� - �� ' " ■ ■!■ ,.Ilrlir Irtrrurur ■grttorr�nAtt�'���I .,.,- � ., , ' Milt— a r.f t11. moo .w " # ■. I y� �- y rr q AMIS r r . wrw+r�wl w +• ` cam t�ilrlltq frr w { r wtl: w rr rIM t r u■ rtrA ■.� r 11 1. r��t�tlr�ut■Y■ail WE ®ryr wwi ..... : .. , n ��� O A w+1/ �I�w •� C .111�l N.1..111N...... Q14111 iffI lituu -- Ills tlin't itttnfirtirt+l � 111 111 r�rr1 i � i f �-.*..rr�.� ®r v� tll Iq soli Ilp •■��■—r-� -�1•-t�1 pt1.7� �/IrAR� Ilff!/ff11111 IIAl1/IAIM*wI r�`r•, w ♦�rlrlll Ilrllr ►� divisions NIP rt�►r fur,n/r..r1 r. trt.w wr • � ,-Y ,,,,� tlrlc «-S � ilrrnrugw 1 'T�Is - rflrr. --'r, , .r.yrtArilnuru:�::. rr/rfrf i1�li w"/�„~„ rr rri�IA1`li u ��I* Lltl�..w. 7is Ills Z 4w wffim' ly�r,w l 11tlll r ��� w/ ow "' /.{+• .. ■ " r1 1/It 111/rwl•r`w� IIr/7rI�[r�t w��rwiw��Q, � Its 111 1� r ■ ■ Illl w�lZw aw1.r. 1 ■ ���� �- � litlrr��u�;����r��'ll �rtlr TIwrfr ■ r rl .= R'�11%NurI�ir=12 ail ■ uun �l iaa: �II 1111A11A11%till rr nl 1 r --r-- ■fwlf —mrl C � ■a�� �ir■uu ire■ a«, .._ � � ' , 1 M ;;;;� r, Iu1u111rrrl milli r�111111111 r — to►I1!t�� t :•:cr.;:t.�■:_ : )) SOm1, rmf11,1 n lnit.r f . ��'";::.J'• 1'rr-. � 7 IIINIIYIMIN ai:iFIMAUIr _ .:r,� ,.• tl owl rr1 twiwtn� ";11» �;" 1:d 14aIAU.A�PIIHI? AIIr'Irtr I 1r listings r Nwwnw� r 1 �� ylil�rn•"riot .� � • fL� w 1�11 r�yrw rr M11=tr�lf, 11 �n] rrtt- rl� ' 1, flf�t1�1111 r rr ww w'� t iS � wr2. lrw r-/.trlA►O� ��� rr rw i r` ►°• t �;.r ww t ;w��ir1 I moos. I f t 1 wrw � 1111 rr gig �;'SY" �� '` �� � I ,,•�7 ,��' :'��1� �� wl��l 111 .�r111��1 �'1 :7 M' lx*t�v''��j�j!7 !�j� �' �•;.:••'��•;'•:f Z• 111 I1 II�N r9: � �r•1 goes11II iy 1.'�I'•:•71 A M r1 I11111 IIf�1 I�Ar�.� r' t • r � � t'1 qp } 41 ►� �'�„, �• ►�`�♦�;p'�4i► or tiil ��*�i-•I 'i+��� 1= '�"'�! +fix •uMr�' jet r�' �� � ��nRr�,, .rr►�YYY o, `�/: 011 �`«�`+' MN 'r,;0_V+ +I f�' ' �� ry A,�e'i►,jyYlrr �`��� 1`'rail I.r��''► +,�i . rat r �I��� rrrxx pit ���+��`���.� , .♦ wry, .•x µ . let Inlets is WMI main NON •, �� a r rrr'S.tir4 - e®®� o � rtr*fill116 Ira ■err !�'' ',. rs•` r�•��•►�;�, ��± �,{� L,r►- fir. � dh ... 01, OV f'!i`N��r �T+)� '•+'� N.��r�i u�M.5in'r l� N like, < 1 ♦, - ! f mrr rrn1ri el: Now do am �.� «w,Yrr;�1111111r11 n Y rw w ■1;M, wo..jw Ore. �, MMM III h �1 1 � percent was developed and occupied as of March 1976. The first industrial building was constructed in 1971, and the park now contains 00 buildings with a total floor area of about 970, 000 square feet. The vacancy factor for constructed buildings in the park is presently less than one percent. All development has occurred south of McFadden Avenue on M-1-A-15, 000 or 20,000 square foot minimum lots. Of the remaining 94 acres south of McFadden, approximately 59 acres are now subdivided and either under construction, sold, or in escrow. North of the Huntington Beach Industrial Park is the Kaiser Aetna Huntington Beach Business Park. The Kaiser Aetna area is planned to acconunodate a total of 129 acres of light industry. About 1.4 acres at the southwest corner of Bolsa Avenue and Springdale Street are now zoned for commercial development. The owners expect to integrate commercial services that will support the ad- jacent industrial developments.. The Huntington Beach Business Park is tentatively scheduled for first phase development in 1976 or 1977.- The Central Industrial Corridor, commonly referred to as the "Gothard strip", contains approximately 187 acres of general industrial uses, or 27 percent of the corridor' s area. All buildings are curren_ly occupied. The Central Industrial Corridor extends north-south along Gothard Street and the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way be- tween Edinger %venue and Garfield Avenue. Excluding those � D industrial uses between Edinger Avenue and Heil Avenue, the majority of uses along the central corridor are marginal. The industries south of Warner Avenue are typically wholesale distributors, warehousing and storage operations, and manufacturing concerns that find ad- vantage in locating along railroad lines or upon land that is physically marginal. Although the Central Industrial ' Corridor has been industrially zoned and general planned for many years, the demand for such sites has not been promising. However, two new industrial parks have recently been planned along the corridor that may -- ir further industrial development. 1„ The Iluntiogton Beach Industrial Development Company developing an initial 10 acres of light industry in in area east of the Southern Pacific Railroad tracY.s between Talbert Avenue and Taylor Drive. The developers hope that the 10 acre development will generate construction CJ within the adjoining 40 .acres of vacant industrially zoned properties to the cast. In 1-473, a specific plan SIM Y, ^ ..n.xnva_rev3:sli^163k.. 'Y.Ac�SC"'!L1.::Y:'a4'•.L31"iL' a� A of this area was approved by the City Council.l The plan provides for the orderly development of the area as a planned industrial complex bordered on the south by a landscape buffer. Another recent project along the corridor has been pro- posed by the Mountjoy Construction Company. Encompassing approximately 14 acres, the project site is located on the r, east side of Gothard Street between Ellis Avenue and Talbert Avenue. 2. 3 industrial Employment This section examines the existing industrial employment structure r- in Huntington Beach. In January 1976, .the Huntington Beach Office of Economic Development surveyed the industrial firms in the City according to location, type! of activity, Standard Industrial Code (S.I.C.) classification, and employment. Another survey of the City's industrial base was completed at the sane time by the planning Department as part of the Urban Data Inventory program. The results of both were combined into a cross-sectional analysis of industrial employment in the City. Figure 2-4 presents employment by size of firm and major sector. Figure 2-5 contains an inventory of employment based upon the federal Standard Industrial Code system. The S.I.C. classi- fication offers a convenient method of looking at employment struc- ture in that a single code number identifies the principal type of activity pursued by each firm. It thus permits disaggregation of the seven major employment sectors from Figure 2-4. In January 1976, industry accounted for about one-third of the total r persons working within Huntington Beach. Approximately 10, 830 persons work for 306 industrial firms. The industrial distribution is radically skewed by five firms which each employ more than 250 persons and account for 86 percent of the industrial employment base. The largest employers are: (.1) McDonnell-Douglas, 7,500; (2) Southern California Edi3on, 700; (3) General Telephone, 590; C (4) Burmah Oil and Gas, 300; and (5) Cambro Manufacturing Company, 250. Only McDonnell-Douglas and the Cambro Company fall into the general industry category. These companies located in Huntington Beach some time ago and are riot typical of the economic scale or activities attracted over the past five years However, the 'Reiser Lock Company has tentative plans to relocate its Los Angeles based plant to a 42 acL parcel in the Huntington Beach Industrial Park. This firm would ultimately employ about 2,500 people. 1 Taylor Drive Specific Plan, Huntington Beach Planning Department, cto er _F973: w� FIGURE 2-4 h INDUSTRIAL FIRMS AND EMPLOYMENT WITHIN HUNTINGTON BEACH Firm Size h (Employees) No. Firms Employment 1000+ 1 7500 500-1000 2 1290 250-500 2 550 100-250 0 0 50-100 2 100 25-50 9 278 10-25 27 335 1-10 263 777 306 10,830 Use Employment No. Firms Aerospace 7500 1 Other Manufacturing 1247 173 -s Wholesale Trade 125 39 Misc. Business Services 162 65 Warehouse and Storage 103 15 Public Utilities 1290 2 Oil Industry 403 11 r� 10,830 306 tiA 15 �. Ica tic, r.. . M Piqua+ 2-5 1:14PLQYMI:NT GY G7 4,11ARP ItIDUSTRIAL CODE CLASa1FICAr101i h liar AND S.I.C. CODE F11l1LirYMl:llT fit). film AEKO5PACE 7,500 1 3760 Guided Mianiltts, Space 7,500 1 Vericlea dud Parts other ManufacturinU 1,247 173 2000 Food R hlndre•d Products 15 J 2200 Textile Productn a 3 1 1300 Apparel Fabrics 14 5 2400 Lumber, Exccpt Furniture 16 2 2566 rurnitury i Fixtures 67 10 2700 Printing i Publishinq 61 10 2800 Chemicals i Allipd products I20 • 8 1000 Rubber i Plastic Products 212 11 3200 Stone, Clay, gloss Concrete as 13 3300 Primary Metal Industries 21 4 3400 Fabricated Metal. except 130 20 r• Machinery ♦ Trans. Equip. 3500 Machinery, except Ciectrlcal 102 28 3600 Electrical and Electronic 00 le Machinery 3700 TradRlrortatton Equipment 51 14 3000 Instruments & optical Goads 102 a 1900 lilac. Manufacturing Ind. 100 16 Wholasaltt Trade 125 39 5010 Mocor Vehicles i Auttimobile 10 Darts and Supplies 5020 Furniture, Ilume Furnishings 10 5 50411 Sporclnq, Recreational, Photo, 6 3 (lobby Goods, Toys 5060 Electrical ,wdx 7 3 5070 Hardware, i'lunbing, Ite.3tinq 5 2 5080 Machinery. Equipment, Supplies 29 9 5093 "Inc. nurnble Goods 51 11 51')0 floe-Dural-le Goodn 7 3 �•' Misc. nusineus Servicer: 16: G5 1500 Construction - General 12 5 t�ontract„rn 1600 Conatiuctinn - Othtrt 37 15 17O0 CnnRtructir; - V1,rcial Trndex 3 2 7310 AJ44ertisiny 4 2 73JO Mailing, R:praluctirtn. Con- l0 2 nerctnl Art. Photon, Stenographic Servirt-s 7140 Services to Nuildinin O'w,.l l i nei n ` 7170 CrnrpoLer L G.tta Proce.sning 1 1 7190 Misc.-Rercarc•b k TuAl inq 36 12 7501 Aw omobile R^hnir t Forvieo 13 6 7600 MiRc. Repair t Services 29 11 0900 Misc. - F:nginenriny 14 8 Warehoumv and Storage 103 i5 r 4200 Motor Freight Transportation 32 3 5030 1•inber t Construction Material 21 2 7390 Ifise. - Rentals, etc. 39 9 7500 Salvaginq - Auto 6 1 oil Rulated 403 11 2900 P-Irol^wl Rt:finir•7 and 160 t: ,r 31 4. 5 71', •gin rttr.;, 7 1 Puhlrc Utlltut•r 1,29U 2 4400 Ce"unication SY0 1 4 t40 rlretric, raj:, banitary fervioor, 700 1 it. (Ii;A1J liar, r1 I !� The other 301 concerns presently located in thv city provide employ- ment for about 14 percent of the .industrial lanor force. Most establishments employ less than 10 people. They are the major scale and type of operation that has been filling up the Huntington Beach Industrial Park (South of McFadden Avenue) and the small parks along the Central Industrial Corridor (north of Heil Avenue) over the last five years. The small plants are usually involved in a combination of activities in order to reduce costs. it is typical to find many firms engaged in manufacturing and/or wholesale trade and business services. Retail sales in combination with the above operations are less common, though the Huntington Beach Zoning Ordinance permit an industrial firm to use up to 25 percent of its floor space for commercial retail ancillary uses. 2.4 Revenues and Expenditures Generated by Industrial Uses Local communities normally seek industrial development in order to . promote economic growth. It not only expands employment in the =� industrial sector, but generates impulses to the rest of the local economy as well. New employment is created in support activities of other economic sectors and revenues accrue to local municipali- ties and school districts. This section deals with the revenue/ expenditure aspects of industrial development in Huntington Beach. =� The 1976 ReyenuesZExpendituras Analysis of Land Uses sampled a variety of areas within the City to determine municipal and school district Financial returns and costs per acre generated by , industrial development. The study sampled 50 sites in the Huntingto. Industri-S_'_ park Area and Central Industrial Corridor, Oldtown Area, and Edison Area. The results are shown in Figure 2-6, Industrial development tends to have a mixed effect on municipal f finances depending upon the type of activity and location. On the average, the aerospace industry shows a net gain to the City, whereas general light industry exhibits a net loss. The significant !� positive effect of McDonnell-Douglas on net City revenues is a function of revenues generated (mainly from property taxes) exceed- ing expenditures for municipal. services. Municipal service expendi- tures for light industrial developments exceed revenues accrued to the City. As depicted in Figure 2-6, the major reason for the $250 net loss per acre of light industry is r,•, ..d in the low revenues u generated by developments along the Central Industrial Corridor. Light: industry in the Huntington Industrial Park Area shows a net per acre gain to the City, whale the Central Industrial Corridor shows a considerable net loss. Total revenue from the Central Industrial Park Area is almost 74 percent higher than revenue generated by sites along the Gothard strip. With the exception of: �� the area north of Heil Avenue, many corridor developments represent ' FIGURE' 2-6 SUMMARY OF ANNUAL CITY AND SCHOOL REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES PER ACRE, OF INDUSTRIAL LAND1 ' City Revenups2 City City Net Gain or Expenditures Loss per Gr.Ac. Citywide Generated Incurred per Year Light. Industry +1,309 -1,559 - 250 Aerospace +2,489 -1,464 +1,025 Huntington Industrial Park Area Light Industry +1,626 -1,559 + 67 Aerospace +2,489 -1.,464 +1,025 Central Industrial Corridor Light Industry + 955 -1,559 -604 0 i School School Net Gain or. School ;revenues Expenditures Loss per Gr.Ac. C3 Citywide Generated Incurred pe:: Year Light Industry 4.2,868 0 +2,868 Aerospace +7,588 0 +7,588 171 Huntington Industrial Park Area i Light Industry +3,984 0 +3,984 Aerospace +7,588 0 +7,588 Central Industrial Corridor r. 1 Light Industry +1,368 0 +1,368 1 Revenues/Expenditure Analysis of Land Uses: Huntington Beach Pldnning Department, 1976. 2 Includes sh,Aire of property tax collected for recreation and parks purposes. , " �1 marginal improvements (such as wholesale distributors, warehousing, and open storage operations) upon land of low assessed value. As a result, property tax revenues to the City are almost three times lower than those from the Huntington Industrial Park Area. r± Industrial development in Huntington Beach makes a significant contribution to the local school districts. The McDonnell-Douglas aerospace facility contributes almost three times as mubli net revenue per acre as light industrial development. Looking at light industry by geographic area, the . Huntington Industrial Park Area generates three times more net revenue per acre than the Central Industrial Corridor. The foregoing analysis should be qualified to the extent that it is based on a case study of existing industrial usea 'in Huntington Beach. Its applicability to future developments depends on the method by which it is employed. The location, size, and makeup of In future developments must be considered when using the average annual figures in order to accurately assess the potential economic costs and benefits. Although light industry shows a net loss to the City, moreover, the analysis only accounts for the direct effect. In- direct revenues from the growth of support industries, related construntion, and consumer expenditures are not reflected in the study. Its I << J 19 _ ,f �, ._ ry I I t1 3. 0 FUTURE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL 3.1 Regional Perspective In order to determine future land requirements in Huntington Beach, the City's industrial development must be understood in context of the regional economy. This section analyzes areawide industrial density, . future employment growth, and projected regional land needs within Orange County. 3.1.1 Existing Areawide Industrial Density j I To ascertain industrial density in Orange County, an area- i wide land survey was conducted by the Huntington Beach Planning Department in the early part of 1976. This survpy i was compared with the most recent Orange County Planning O Department inventory (December, 1972) to establish a general trend. Employment data was derajed from the annual reports published by the California Employment Development Depart- ment. In December 1972 , the number of wage and salary jobs in activities located within Orange County was apprcximately 401,700. Industrial employment accounted for 175, 540 or 35 percent of the total available jobs. At the same time, the Orange County land use survey showed a total of 12, 552• acres developed to industrial uses. This yielded a rough County-wide industrial density of 14 employees per acre. U 21 j�� YY°SS 4 ill i i Although the recent recession has slightly reduced tho rate of job creation and land dhivelopment, the Orancic County economy has remained relatively healthy. In January 1.976 , about: 793 ,000 residents constituted the County' s labor. pool , of which 7.2 percent were classified as unemployed. Accord- ing to the State Employment Development Department, the i County provided work for approximately 596,000, of which industrial firms accounted for 205,875 employees or 35 i percent of the total jobs. r The 1976 land use survey shows a total of 24,103 acres zoned . and/or general planned for industrial use in Orange County (including Huntington Beach) . Approximately 10,991 acres are vacant and 13,112 acres developed. The developed por- tion of. the County yields a regional density of 15.7 em- ployees per acre. Over the past three years , Orange County's industr!al density has shown a general increase. A recent Orange County Business solicitation of County business leaders may suggest some reasons for this trend. First, there has been a steady influx of large, well financed companies that are n well positioned to he active in a depressed real estate i market. These firms seek large facilities usually measuring 80, 000 square feet or more. Firms looking for space in Orange County represent a mix of local companies which are 1 expanding or relocating and remaining in the area, plus an on-going influx of businesses primarily from the Los Angeles area. The influx of the large firms is based upon their recognition of the County's competitive property tax structure and the availability of a large skilled labor pool. Moreover, the availability of industrial land affords oppor- tunities for business firms to expand their operations on an orderly, long-range basis. r- Large space users have brought about a significant change in the County' s industrial meal estate market. These firms seek existing vacant properties, rather than building a facility to their specifications. Inflationary factors result in the existing structure costing s:.gnificantly ;ass than it C7 would cost to buy land and construct a new facility. These firms also defer their capital expenditures and retain them for more immediate use in the business. As a result, sale to developers of raw land which would be suitable sites for speculative projects has dropped appreciably. However, it is believed that the Crunty wi.11 attract a wide variety of f business firms from the standpoint of size in future years. This steady demand should eventually Stimulate a new cycle of construction of speculative buildings. Industrial density will fluctuate. in the future, but for the j purposes of this study it is assumed that the County deiisityan 32 .�'•r.:Nir•...�.'�.t n will maintain a stability of 14.9 employees par acre through the year 2.000. This figure represents an average of the 1972 and 1976 densItics. 3.1.2 Regional Employment Projections The SCAG-76 Growth Forecast Policy is the basis of employ- ment projections for Orange .oun and Regional Statistical Area 38 (RSA 38 contains the Cities of Huntina ton Beach, !9 Westminster, Fountain Valley, and Sea! Beach) %hrough the year 2000. The results are presented in F'igurr- 3--7. The projections indicate that Orange County' s tota'. employment . and industrial employment will almost double by the year 2000. Between 1976 and 2000, the County will. show a net gain of 158,757 industrial employees. In the already urban- ized areas of the County, Anaheim and Santa Ana a=e forecasted to attract the bulk of the expected employment gain. The newer areas of southeast Orange County, focusing on the Irvine Industrial Complex and Newport Beach, are also forecasted to he rapid employment growth generators. The area encompassed by RSA 38 will grow at a steady rate, such that it will maintain a total and industrial employment share of about 10 percent between 1976 and 2000. W: thin RSA 38, Huntington Beach will grow slightly faster titan the surrounding Cities of Westminster, fountain Valley, and Seal Beach (as a group) . By 2000, the industrial base of Huntington Beach will more than double, showing a net ga:.n of approximately 10, 352 employees. The City will account for 6 percent of the County and 58 percent of the RSA 38 industrial labor force. 3.1. 3 Area Planned for future Industrial Development Ca The 1976 County-wide land use survey shows a total of 13,112 industrial acres developed, leaving approximately ! 10, 991 acres, or 46 percent, developable. If the regional industrial densi,;y of 14. 9 employees per acre is applied to i ry the County growth projections, industrial growth will consume the available acreage as follows: 1.97f,-1980 + 46, 064 employees + 3,092 acres 1980--1990 + 62.,673 emplovees + 4 ,206 acres 1990-2000 + 50, 020 employees + 3, 357 acres ;} TOT1�L: +158,757 employees + 10, 655 acres In the short-run (1976-1980) , an estimated 3,092 acres (or 28 ,orcent) will be needed to absorb the expected industrial growth. By 2000 , industrial employment growth will require about 10,655 acres, or 97 percent, of the currently avail- able acreage. �3 J i I 4 N ' FIGURE 3-7 l REGIONAL EI.IPLOYM-14T PROnCrIONS 1976-2000 1970 1973 1976 1980 1990 2000 County :`oral Enploynent 475,700 100% 538,740 100% 595,800 100% 770,000 100% 983,000 100% 1,153,000 100% Industrial 2 136,059 100% 164,376 100% 180,500 100% 226,564 100% 289,237 1001 339,257 100% plo;nent RSA 38 j Huntington Beach: Total Emplo2^ment 25,117 5.3% 29,090 5.4$ 32,72E 5.5% 37,442 4.9% 31,410 5.2% 51,237 5.3% industrial 9,213 6.81 9,058 5.5% 9,540 5.3% 12,162 5.4% 16,700 5.8% 19,892 5.9% Employment Other Cities Total Enplolment 20,983 4.4% 26,525 4.9% 29,840 5.Oe 36,958 4.8.% 45,190 4.6% 58,763 5.1% -^ ? Industrial 5,3S6 4.0% 6,531 4.0% 7,166 4.0% 9,179 4.1% 11,223 3.9% 14,594 "'.3% �. Emplo�mcnt RSA 38 Total Employment 46,100 55,615 62,568 74,400 96,600 120,000 Huntington Beach 54.5% 52.3% 52.3% 50.3% 53.2% 51.0% I Other Cities 45.5% 47.7%. 47.7% 49.7% 46.8% 49.0% i Industrial 14,609 15,589 16,706 21,341 27,923 34.486 Lnployment Huntington Beach 63.1% 58.1t 57.1$ 57.09 55.8% 57.7$ Other Cities 36.9% 41.9% 42.9% 43.0% 40.28 42.3% 1. SCAG-76 GRO TH FORECAST POLICY: Southern California Association of Governments, January 1976. 2. Industrial Employmeat includes only ger_eral manufacturing and wholesale trade. 3. Other Cities of RSA 38 includes Westminster, Fountain Valley, and Seal Beach. S� This does not mean that every acre presently designated for industry in Orange Counl.y will be pressed into use. Differ- ences in regional demand within the County will result in In some communities expanding industrial inventories while others will retire acree7e. The 1976 County land use survey found this already occurring. Several communities in north Orange County are currently rezoning sizeable portions of I their industrial lane] to residential and other uses. Others 1 are maintaining the existing amount of industrial land but ! -� are reducing acreage at unsuitable locations and increasing i . acreage at more favorable locations. Hopes are to consolidate vacant parcels for industrial park development in order to improve competitive position within the County. The SCAG growth study indicated that Anaheim, Santa Ana, and Irvine are likely to have the Fastest growth rates. ! These areas will probably expand their inventories of vacant industrial land. The Iry p Irvine Industrial Complex already has plans for expansion to a 2,000 acre site adjoining 11 Toro Marine Base and a 330 acre site in Tustin. ! 3.2 Yndustrial Potential in Huntington Beach Given the expected regional framework of future industrial employment growth and land requirements, attention is now directed to a specific analysis of the future industrial potential in Huntington Beach. This section proceeds from a study of the City's future land requirements to a suit-ability analysis of undeveloped industrial sites. 3.2..1 Future Land Requirements I ! Land needs in the City are based upon an adjusted density factor which more closely reflects the type and scale of industry to be attracted in future years. The industrial density factor is derived from the current densities in the City's general industrial development sectors plus the Count density. it is determined as follows: 1 Aerospace 37. 1 employees/acre C, Other Manufacturing, Wholesale Trade, and Misc. Business Services 0. 0 employees/acre Warehouse and Storage 1. 2 employees/acre Crange County Average 14. 9 employees/acre ~" City Average: 15. 3 employees/acre The inclusion of aerospace and warehousing is significant to the extent that potential large and small space-using firms attracted to the City are accounted for. These sectors are less important in terms of the type of industry attracted in the future. Most new industry will fall into nV 25 i i the general manufacturing (other than aerospace) and whol.0:- sale trade categories, requiring building floor space in the 10,000 to 30,000 sryurire foot range. Industrial densities will typically range from 8 to 15 employees per acre ! These characteristics are applicable to the Huntington Beach Industrial Park Area and certain portions of the Central Industrial Corridor. Application of the City's industrial density of 15. 3 employ- ees per acre to the expected employment growth yields the I" following future industrial land requirements: 197E-1980 + 2,622 employees +171.4 acres I i980-1990' + 4,538 employees +296. 6 acres It 1990-2000 + 3,192 employees +208. 6 acres +10,352 employees +676. 6 acres Short-run industrial growth (1976-1980) will generate a need for 171 acres, or 25 percer:. of the total required area. The cumulative total will reach 468 acres (69 percent) by 1.990, and 677 acres (100 percent) by 2000. The City currently has about 960 acres of vacant industrial land ` available for development and 56 acres in non-conforming uses. The foregoing analysis thus indicates that the City has approximately 340 acres in excess of its estimated requirement. C. This conclusion is not intended to mean that 340 acres of i industrial space should be rezoned to other uses. It merely affords decision-makers an understanding based upon ' a consistent methodology that 'she City has too much j industrial land relative to its needs. Its future appli- cability necessarily depends upon the methodology employed. Given the instability of projections in the long-run (beyond 1980) , the actual future land requirement could be quite different than estimated in this study. However, the margin of error Is not believed to be so great that the City would find itself with a shortage of industrial space in future years. Cj 3.2.2 Suitability of Undeveloped Industrial Sites The City currently has about 960 gross acres of vacant land available for industrial expansion. over one-half of = the total vacant area is concentrated in the Huntington �? Beach Industrial Park Area, while the rest is located along the Central Industrial Corridor and within the Edison Area. In order, to determine development potential, an industrial suitability analysis of vacant sites was conducted by the Planning Department in late 1975. Figure 3- 8 depicts the .r 26 :..'.'ct..}.t M s ON ' results of the evaluation by range of suitability and geographic area. The suitability study ratted approximately 664 acres as prime land for industrial development. About 74 percent of the prime space is concentrated in the Huntington Industrial Park Area. Without exception, parcels in this area are almost ideal from the criteria of excellent transportation access to a minimum of required site work. The essential advantages responsible for the past success of the indus- trial park will apply to future industrial development:, quality, services, and awareness of the market. Quality encompasses such things as construction, design, access, environment, and centralized location. Service refers to the flexibility of the park developer to satisfy the changing needs of existing tenants as well as those of potential clients. ]Market awareness is reflected in the knowledge' that many industries have not been adversely affected by the changing economy, but in fact continue to be growth industries. As a result of these circumstances, the Hunting- ton Industrial Park and Business Distract should be the major area of future industrial encouragement in the City. Since the Huntington Industrial Park Area at full develop- ment will -meet only 73 percent of the total projected land requirement, favorable areas along the Gothard corridor must 0 be considered for the future. The suitability analysis determined that about 25 percent, or 167 acres, of the highest rated industrial space is located along the Central. Industrial Corridor. Parcels rated high intersperse with medium and low quality parcels with no clear continuum along the corridor. one concentration of prime industrial parcels is located north of Warner Avenue. Another group extends along the west side of Nichols Street between Warner and Skater Avenues. A final concentration of prime undeveloped land extends along Talbert Avenue east of Gothard Street, and along the cast side of Gothard Street between Ellis Avenue and Talbert Avenue. Approximately 57 percent of the potential site area along the Central Industrial Corridor received a medium cr low suitability rating. The study found that such sites possessed one or a variety of problems. The following are prevalent: U • 1. Landlocked parcel or parcel abutting a railroad and/or a local street. 2. Parcel in an area of mixed uses encroaching into the industrial area. 3. Low fire protertion ratting baser] an a lack of adequate ' .Miter supply (water mains and fire hydrants) for fire fighting. . III FIGURE 3-8 ~ � SUITABILITY OF VACANT LAND FOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT (GROSS ACRES) Vacant Land High Medium Low Total Huntington Industrial Park Arem 491.2 0 0 491. 2 n Central Industrial Corridor 167. 1 155.7 68.4 391.2 Edison Area 6.1 10.2 61. 3 77. 6 . !D ; Total 664. 4 165. 9 129.7 960.0 f Land with Non--Conforming Uses High Medium Low Total Central Industrial Corridor 4.5 48. 9 2. 9 -�6.3 i 1 I iI I Cf i i 28Sam,s S , L� �� �= �= „litltf111tr11t11 �' .�♦�.�1 If1,�11111f1111111::W a►`'t:''{l1■lrrrrr rrr,� �i{11f1l,�p trtllt ♦ ��111�111111111111111, � ��+*"' ''� ICI I�.�♦ �- w+► 11111111! AI{Il. .,,., will {Itag1sm.'mm rri� ■1! �� ��r11111/g�1�1 R� �CKIrD11r�"MII� ` � �♦ ��♦{�.. IAM�wr rw ww wr r , ..r wM rM r1 IIl11t �i r11I1t••=�z'" fl�/tll/ i1t�D11ttrr ■1tltrtr Imo,�� wr{r► r r� t " �.•w=3 , /lllll rry 11111111r �r �. 11! list '7 ��A � 111111 .. ..�+t.e.� 11r � ww wry ww�•C rj '�lt► � �,�,ww rr wr UI 1,1 �41IAAlltlllilll►dl►�rAllll r1l11111111111r1rr rl Ifi�ttY111111111Y �ry .Lis r��i � C -. I: . rii4+ari Mull r111101111 IBM �[�u ! 1111 r�w' .rrr riw�`r�w Mww:rw'wrMi�- � 1 w �II�I• w w Wir w.w * lAI c =m�w:. • � � 1 l 111� Its 1U 1�\ �11 utlllt+� . �u ununn " ,11 t111Ii1,Ir lily lrnlllru����� Slit lfll! IIIrr" �� �r=�� ! r � 5,111 1111f11111lr�w /"•� 1 �"".fir ~ t^ '' DIIU,21111111111�. 11111191111 :M11! �rrfl11il1tin►�: rl�l lltllllM''` /tI1D-R,III11111D•ww �A1�wt" w ..- � • �it111� 1111111 ,�� 1f11111•ArnRrntianw FF�rtt Ifr �A� � ■r1 �• �® � it moo+ MwrMlwr�t,iwrlw t111 �� 'llllr Ur Ift !11 M.. �7" WM t1111111111i11 SOy 11rltM -OIL 1/t111r ���� /II:" w.w. IRllll�tll nwi�i aw _� w® lllllr �Ir loll 111I �� c .� ri1112 .w ww.n,rl r�i11r,1 w ���® . ,��e' ,���. ®� t fl{f=w w`w ww wd w �• rw r rr " wl►�!,I Yl11lw ww ww �1 rA Z �" ����/�r C u,�r ww ww ~ IR,1"�1Rfw r t„/try hills. www 1 _ ■/ .rwi �i wi i�r R �AA j (jilt #11/1w.w� �� till/ mill t1111r wo rr loll ~tlrllt w ■rlllrlitw w� w fi1r/I� 1!�/ /111r111111trrI10 y r;4i11��' � F, � u �,lnll1t1t1;,rlr,rlrl■ tlttrDDl,�rrrrMrr t1�t1f Vt tIo ' aW$E .�#rli■,1tt1111�11t'` �1ir1111r� 1� t��lr*� ,w�■r1111111t1111�/lttlfAa I■ �tDl 1 11r �r " �nt1111iIi1t 11i�r �* MUM Ir Rom! f u I�s� wM w �i�lafulllrl�n�� IIr _ Nows�tr=Iru' 111moommumel r T rr - y � a l w � I■ -. 1 n Irl rnnulsnl 1 ►,i'�lllll ItNU1111111: � _ 1 r�� � ( M • � � M.? , 1 4 •• �� f. i,�®r11\1111r1� rl�lill . Yr ido 0 MIN MIN min oil it moil-01111 u{.rdo1�11111►gip/� ..-,.. T No L rll�lllpq ..,. r r rr wrrrr= w�i� I14r/Ir* .���r ww. . Carr . I � �: *M'1111111MIN' fell to r111rI1� � slow oil r r Ipfnmm AI? •.ter w ill IV 17:01 ®♦ EIE vi: _ �• �r � �r rr wr w r 1{ Il 011��tl _ NO = 1IR Ir I Imo- NO• •1r r{r 1 1 1 rr511 ® iriiiq�ni,irttnTtrlil. � 1 1111�'rrrlr� r s s Iitrr��" :: m till 0/11 t t ONtA0 Allr IN "IN ��r1 { Illr rl/1y01:11rr�1 11 1 N� Mrpll.gtr rt r�r r, . r�4 r► r•.r �•, r�rr =• Itlrr w� 1V11/11R;/�IIIIt/� !{{11111It�Rllf/U// \t _: ��,; r.ttttr wr.r n'rrrnnnlw ISrON ',.111 hr wi NO ./ IILt 111{rl rM �r r ■L•� � w�r wr r. � � ''/AR/t1�1�11{r, r u ����i � *" rr rrr�Alr■ � w LN'.' 7_q 1l 1 1111/ rw r.+wr» rr rr`rr► �wr'111r�� ■r A. _. `w �rt r «rr rr rr`r■111 ON w MM IN r ��-w rMlwwlrr■i� �Atltl�'Md r gar , i - IPillfu w �a�11t1�A r Ilft,; ,;r uuriii=i� r{Irp uulvr• r�r1{11� tfill rr •Mfw�yr �� �.. r 1 1 rf�rfr/l.ftrr.rr r rr rr ff"ON r nr �.ICG ra{Irtl : = �� `•� IIIr� =rr���Yr���11 jr�t1/tl w ��1{Irt / ri{irrr °�= mm 's"' ■ 11 rn11R Ir{rl{r•�� �ttrttl� � �.; �IIIIIIItA111t1t1•�IiI11r1i1111111 r �� ■r{RIt �!1! C ��' �r MiloMIN .4 � M.r...;�� ,.�„^ II'flll>�1 '� ,,.; ; r": �Nk N�� „����ununnn IiNu�lir■i • ,: - �;,W � q ■11 p 'r w: rmnnrnuin uirmumN�=_ �tC ;"i; � �a...: '<', ■.-n� Immuuniti uamm::H� r r ur trrKjl 41 lilt pi �►► ON ♦ "r�•�:�: C1 � _ ri►ri>.rr�rMll r. n�l� err r MONSOON* l/ �rvil//Illlll�ll aarrrrrwtltnarsr r . ,.1t t ,. �._...� lrum,rllrrnnr,� fir. Insults NO �O���A 11�� I I �wrttt rtttuttt� A 1111111��/�� yr~i',RiON 'S� r1� +i"' il�lllittl �� I w rr; tit H. � rr rr w'rr rr rrrMr ww rril=/11/�=1 US rr Cas ww 1� tea■ Ii�llll ' r NO.SOON r11-,-;o ON rw N. r rr rr rltilr/r, 1 ON 11111 1 w 'rr� riON r11i11 IIII IIII r Neil w �'�jt11t III ( r 1 r rtttrilrrrnurRt III mwdkm IIIII III , �� � �rrlttlrtlrtttit � 3 �t � An�� ■ . rrtttrrrtlrttre�It11.�� ■ low I. oir� �/ •♦ �. '�,''., `'Y • �► `i` ♦��+'�':+;err �/ i �+ ✓. 540 h raj"';''f,•ri�L'� ', A �ty� I f.ty p �r tij+. If rfL r �+1j+ rIiI I PIP `, ♦, +�� • •, �"1+rim!Ii .+ ,�� � ♦ r � i I I �� VO i«ti�'►� i�i a�+��� }+�i►` fit►�i��ii,�iii� i I Ii♦ _ ��• ♦ ♦ ♦` \ ✓� ��\\ III I�` �, +► I 9- �i ,�• a•t,�I� i�J!�ii�//+t�I�� iii�ii +ri���r +�i`1� , iW+cii-i• i Ian a,��►���+' �/ 1 i)� ♦\�% 10►++�i+'i\\ia aMU il' 1p F :1\K:y/r. u�nri►1�.C'.�r��w �■r/1// AL ei •v� r h 4. Steeply rolling topcv.-i .iphy (more than 8 percent) re- quiring significant (Trading modification. 5. Poor drainage. 6. Small and/or irregular shaped lots with fragmented ownership patterns. The advantages that once rendered the Gothard corridor ideal for industrial development have changed significantly over the past several decades. The primary justification for the corridor has traditionally been the accessibility of railroad service. This took precedence over all other fac- tors and negated the site problems previously discussed. C► The Courity planned the corridor for industrial use at a time when many manufacturing and wholesaling enterprises consid- ered railroad locations highly appropriate for minimizing costs. This line of thought was maintained by the City when the corridor was annexed in the 19501s. However, many modern factories are becoming less railroad-oriented, finding it n sufficient to be well. served by trucks. Warehousing, stor- age, and a few wholesale distributor firms find some advantage to r. ttaining rail access, but the tendei.ey in recent years is toward locations well served by truck routes and regional freeway systems. In recognition of this trend, the City maintained the in- dustrial corridor into the 1960's, when the State proposed to extend the Route 39 Freeway west of Beach Boulevard. The route was later changed to the east side of Beach Boule- vard. The Route 39 Freeway was totally deleted from the State master plan in 1973. Another factor reducing the 0 desirability of the Gothard strip was the creation of the industrial parks in the -northern part of the City. Many moderate to marginal sites along the corridor have lost their competitive position as a result. The medium and, low quality sites are best suited to warehousing, storage, or O other activities that find advantage in close location to rail service. The problem exists, however, that the demand for such sites is now low relative to acreage supply and will persist in future years. The declining importance of the railroad, the deletion of the Route 39 Freeway, the pressures imposed by competition from industrial parks in the City and the rest of the County, and the site disabilities inherent to the corridor will likely produce a slow rake of growth in the foreseeable future. As a result, consideration should be given to reducing the industrial acreage inventory along the corridor and/or implementing measures that will improve site suit- ability and attract a greater share of the County's future growth. Y x• c . I i The Edison Area has the lowest industrial potential of the three general areas considered. Only 8 percent of the 1 Edison Area received a high suitability rating, whereas about 61 acres, or 79 percent, of the vacant area was rated low. The analysis found the following problems to typify the area: 1. Low fire protection rating. 2. Low grade soils (muck or peat layers present) . 3. Poor drainage. 4. Site work requiring moderate or extensive grading. 5. Distant access to regional freeway systems. The Edison Area will remain dominated by utility develop- ments with only storage, warehousing, and marginal. manufac- tuning activities compatible on the surrounding vacant industrial properties. The largest vacant M-1 property (Rotary Mud Dump) is so physically impacted that any type of development could be economically prohi.bitivu. Such on-site 1, problems will place the Edison Area at a considerable disadvantage relative to the more favorable areas in the Huntington Industrial Park and along tho Central Ind>strial Corridor. Consequently, if consideration is given to reducing excess industrial acreage in the City, vacant par- cels in the Edison Area should receive the highest priority. � 1 i . 4 p 1 O .tr:,ry9 3 0 c:.:.: .� 4t 4:S,K}}:; p"A 4 n�ad,3.;;c %.�MA9.i n ' n n a n � 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Several conclusions and recommended actions regarding industrial land use have been suggested by this study. Ca 4. 1 Past Land Policy 2 Industrial expansion in a 'comcrunity is not just a matter of the manu- facturer finding the right community and an attractive site. Local zoning and land use policy also affects patterns ofmanufacturing expansion. An interesting paradox exists in this regard. The City [> has courted the industrialist, offering him favorable taring, pur- chasing, or leasing arrangements. On the other hand, zoning and land policy have inadvertently thwarted him. With specific focus on the Central Industrial Corridor, land use policy has not pro- tected good quality sites from residential encroa or in- vasion from marginal manufacturing uses, unrelate.. .;usiness 1� structures, storage facilities, and wrecking yards. All too often, land zoned for industry in the corridor (as well as the Edison area) is poor, swampy, subject to flooding, inaccessible, or otherwise undesirable. The importance of rail service and the Route 39 Free- way to the corridor has diminished, leaving zoning to set aside poor land for industry while permitting the exploitation of good 1 industrial sites (around the Huntington Industrial Part. Area) f non-industrial purposes. r 10 r srS: 31 'i..... .i• ,^«...r...p'......•s..a................-............ ..._.. _.._.....« .._..- ... . ... .. ...... __......,..... .. . .... _.. . .._w.. ..{..,i...Y..s.. . a ... .. 1 M 4. 2 Industrial Uses and Municipal. Revenues � Most future employment will continue to concentrate in light manu- facturing and wholesale trade activities. The City should en- courage development of modern park or condominium projects (similar to those in the Huntington Industrial Park Area or the projects north of Heil Avenue in the Central Industrial Corridor) to accommodate the growth of such activities. Further prolifLration of lower quality activities (such as storage, warehousing , ' wrecking yards, etc. ) , especially in the Gothard Corridor, should be dis- couraged. Though it is difficult to specify exact activities constituting "low or high quality", industries should be favored which pay a substantial amount of taxes and involve little by way r'+ of dust, noise, unsightly development, and other offensive qualities. Moreover, they should pay high enough wages so the workers will live in local homes of sufficiently high value to pro- vide through taxes enough revenues to at least approach the cost of community services required. These considerations are important in context of the City's revenue/ expenditure balance. Light industrial development was found to generally have a direct positive effect on local school district revenues, but (with the exception of the aerospace industry) a direct negative effect on municipal, finances. The higher quality developments in the Huntington Industrial Park Area show a net C gain to. the City. However, marginal industrial uses along the Central Industrial Corridor show a substantial net loss. 4.3 Industrial Growth Relative growth will manifest itself in the City maintaining a 5.5 C ! to 6 percent share of the County' s industrial base through 2000. The City's negligible relative growth will reflect intense compe- tition presented by rapid growth generators in Irvine, Anaheim, and Santa Ana. However, the industrial. base of Huntington Beach will grow slightly faster than the combined neighboring communities of Westminster, Fountain Valley, and Beal Beach. These prospects C should not deter the City from attracting quality developments rather than marginal ones that merely fill, up the available vacant space without benefiting the community. • 4. 4 Land Requirements and Suitability of Vacant Land • r By 2000, the City will require approximately 677 acres above the i total area currently developed to accommodate expected industrial growth. This falls well short of the 1,016 acres remaining in the land inventory. The City will consequently have an excess industrial land capacity of 339 acres. Not every acre in the land i d 32 wx PRELIMINA.10 v, ...........� r.:;' n t: F t f inventory is highly suited to industrial development. Only 669 acres or 66 percent of the potential space surveyed received a high rating. The remaining one-third was rated moderate to low. Much of the medium and low grade land would not be competitive with higher quality sites in the City and in the rest of Orange County. Such sites would remain industrially undevelopable in the long-run until prime sites areawide were exhausted. Marginal sites might attract compatible industry in the short--run. However, by evidence of existing industries along the Gothard corridor and in the Edison area, these firms would not be important employment and City income generators, nor would they be aesthetically Pleasing. The City must continue present industrial encouragement actions to insure that is Huntington Beach attracts its projected share of Orange County,'s future growth. The City should become more vigorously involved in industrial promotion if it desires to capture a share of the region's growth beyond that projected (and hence to expand the pro- jected land requirement) . Measures should be directed at upgrading the attractiveness of medium and low quality sites, enhancing railroad locations, and holding land for long-range development. The Central Industrial Corridor should be the prime focus of such activity (refer to section 4. 6) . If additional effort fails to expand the City's industrial po- tential, consideration should be given to reducing a portion of the excess industrial space. Several methods are suggested: 1. Industrial land can be reduced through General Plan amendment and rezoning to non-related uses. Selectivity of sites to be eliminated should reflect a prioritized list of .general sub- areas (refer to Sections 4. 6 and 4.7) and individual site 0 evaluation determined from the suitability analysis. . The suit- ability analysis and regional perspective should be periodic- ally reviewed to maintain consistency with possible changes in site conditions and land requirements. It is thus not necessary for an immediate bulk reduction of industrial space. Each site. should be evaluated as General Plan amendment and re! -iing co requeits arise; if development applications consistently pro- pose marginal industrial activities; or if efforts -to enhance the quality of low and medium range sites continuiA ly fail. 2. Another method of reducing acreage, while simultaneously an- • hancing the attractiveness of industrial land., is to permit greater flexibility in mixed use development. Planned unit developments should be allowed in which industrial uses are mixed with support business, commercial retail, and/or office professional space. The City zoning code currently permits 25 percent of building floor spare in ancillary commercial uses. The scope of support or related uses should be expanded while 'w allowing 50 percent of total floor area in such uses. This recommendation could apply areawide or be restricted to sites that have been difficult to develop. NULLy.. M 11 -- --ram. r 4.5 Huntington Industrial Dark Area 111 The Huntington Industrial Park Area contains 74 percent of the City's vacant prime industrial land, and is capable of meeting 73 percent of the future land requirement. In addition to the site advantages in the large park formal;, it offers a centralized lo- cation for the City's industrial base and minimizes conflict with h non-related uses. This area should thus .be the major focus of industrial encouragement. 4. 6 Central Industrial Corridor The Central Industrial Corridor possesses sufficient high and 0 moderate quality sites to meet the remainder the City' s future land requirement. However, the major conditions on which the corridor's existence was originally based (rail service and the Rout'e 39 Freeway) have .significantly diminished its attractive value, . leaving little justification for retaining the excess acre- age supply. The attractiveness of the corridor is further reduced by its decentralized nature, physical site and ownership problems, and the encroachment of residential and open space park uses into the industrial areas. Before acreage ' is reduced, however, the City should implement measures to expand the area' s potential. 1. The City should promote small industrial parks (similar to those in the corridor north of Heil Avenue) or planned unit develop- ments on the best high and medium quality sites. . Mixed use developments could be applied to problem areas as well. These might include small lot subdivisions where non-conforming resi- dential development has been dominant for many years. Mixed i use development would permit small businessmen to live and c �. work at the same establishment. 2. Efforts should be directed at upgrading the suitability of all sites. Some average and marginal sites. are characterized by multiple owned small lots while others have poor traffic and I' utility access. An attempt should be made. to organize property owners within the small lot areas to formulate a plan for con- solidation. If this is unworkable, the City should become active in lot consolidation by implementing the provisions of the 1968 Master Plan of Non-Structural Blight. Landlocked parcels could be upgraded by precise planning of street align- ments. The City should further insure that parcels have suit- able access to roads, utilities, and drainage facilities, either through formation of an assessment district or by providing a greater share of funds from the capital improvements program i to industrial land. . 0 39 s;.AAN . •V i.'a.::':L.i.r_..:.awArl�l•✓J.J r�K�L.a }w I A 3. Although the supply of railroad-oriented properties currently exceeds industrial demand, the City and other local pro- motional organizations should work in close cooperation with Southern Pacific Railroad to attract industry. In some areas, railroads have created industrial development departments to survey areas along their lines and work with communities to attract industries requiring rail frontage. The railroads' purpose centers on increasing activity along their lines in order to increase the volume of fAeight traffic to be handled. 4. To maximize the use of the 'best sites along the corridor, further encroachment of marginal industrial developments, open storage facilities, and junk yards should be prohibited. In A the long-term, an industrial area with high quality development and environmental standards would become a selling point for further industrial expansion. 5. if land is retained for quality development, the individual landowner may find that -he cannot afford to hold potential industrial land as a long-term investment. The City should help organize a development corporation, an industrial foundation, or some other group of businessmen 'to purchase and hold the land until it is needed. ' Another alternative focuses on. the City permitting interim uses that would hold the site for long-term development yet would provide some economic return n and ,mi.nimize the intensity of use until. needed. Such uses might include agriculture (cultivation) , nurseries, griaenhouses, etc. 6. If measures fail to upgrade sites or fail to attract quality industry, consideration should be given to reducing some of the excess land capacity. Sites within the .following general areas of the corridor are recommended by order of priority. 'f (total developed and vacant acreage within the areas included) : A. Sites south of Ellis Avenue and north of Clay Avenue. Developed: - j p d. 37.4 Acres. Vacant and Non-Conforming;: 135.8 Acres. g i B. Sites west of Gothard Street between Warner Avenue and Ellis Avenue. Developed: 70.9 Acres. Vacant and Non- ' Conforming: 25. 9 Acres. Op C. Sites along the north side of Taylor Drive east of the railroad right-of-way. Developed: 9. 6 Acres. ' Vacant ! and Non-Conforming: 25. 6 Acres. of D. Sites bounded by Warner Avenue on the north, the railroad tracks on the east, the south boundary of the Ocean View � fligh School site, and Gothard Street on the west. Developed: 4.4 Acres. Vacant and Non-Conforming: 15. 6 Acres. E. Sites east of Gothard Street between Slater Avenue and Talbert Avenue. Developed: 39.4 Acres. Vacant and Non- A Conforming: 75.8 Acres. F. Other sites nast of Gothard Street between Talbert Avenue and Ellis Avenue. Developed: 8.4 Acres. Vacant and Non- Conforming: 54.5 Acres. G. Other sites east of Gothard Street between Warner Avenue A and Slater Avenue.. Developed: 28.4 Acres. Vacant and Non-Conforming: 31.2 Acres. H. Sires north of Warner Avenue. Developed: 48.7 Acres. Vacant and Non-Conforming: 83.2 Acres. 0 4.7 Edison Area The Edison area is dominated by public utilities. Only a small fraction of the land is available for general industry, most of which is moderate or low in suitability with a long-term 4 development potential. With the exception of several small parcels adjacent to the Edison plant, all sites north and east of the orange County Flood Control District DOI Channel should be phased out of the inJustrial land inventory. c i • C, c- It 36 u ! . 4 i lot 04 APPENDIX n QN 37 l ' 4 1975 n VACANT INDUSTRIAL LAND USE STUDY EVALUATION CRITERIA I. Physcial 1. Transportation .a. Arterial Street Circulation (existing and proposed) 5 - Parcel bordered by at least a primary arterial. 4 - Parcel bordered by a secondary arterial. , 3 - Parcel within 4 mile of at least a primary arterial. 2 - Parcel within 4 mile of a secondary arterial. 1 - Property is within ': mile of at least a primary arterial ! � but poor local road system exists. t " b. Rail Access 5 - Parcel borders rail service. ' j 4 - Parcel less than 600 feet from rail service. 3 - Parcel between 600 feet and 4 mile from rail service. 2 - Parcel between h and mile from rail service. 1 - Parcel greater than mile from rail service. ' ( c. Truck Routes (existing and proposed) 5 - Parcel borders truck route. • 4 - Parcel less than 4 mile from truck. route. 3 - Parcel -between h mile and k mile from truck route. 2 - Parcel between and mile from truck route.. 1 - Parcel- greater than one mile from truck rout:-. .D 2. Fire Protection 5 - Rating of. 1--2 4 - Rating of 3-4 3 - :?ating of 5-6 1 - Rating of 7-8 c.a 1 - Rating of 9-10 NOTE: The fire rating for the City is det.:rmined by the Insurance Service Office grading (1970L the city received an overall grading of three (3) , which is considered to be very good for a city of this size. however, some areas of the City have a rating of nine (9) based on a lack of adequate water supply for fire fighting, specifically water mains and fire hydrants. Considering that as these areas become developed, water main and fire hydrants will have to be provided, a fire rating of three (3) can be applied. Therefore, a fire rating of thx�eo 43" 38• given to all properties wit' ' 3. Adjacent Land Use , i Existing 5 - Parcel is surrounded by industrial uses. 4 - Parcel is surrounded by vacant land. 3 - Parcel abuts non conforming use on one side. 2 - Parcel is in an area of mixed uses encroaching into the .industrial area. 1 - Parcel is surrounded by non conforming uses. Proposed 5 - Parcel is surrounded by industrially designated property. 4 -- Parcel is within a holding area or planning reserve. 3 - Parcel abuts non conforming use on one side. 2 -- Parcel abuts non conforming uses on two sides. 1 •- Parcel is surrounded by non conforming uses 4. Accessibility to Utilities a. Water 5 - Property fronts existing water mains sized to accommodate 4 -- Property is located within 300 feet of water main 3 - Property located between 300 feet to 700 feet of water main C 2 - Property between 700 to 1000 feet of water main 1 - Property is beyond a h mile from water main b. Sewer 5 - Property fronts existing sewer maim size to accommodate. C, 4 - Property is located within 300 feet of sewer main 3 -- Property is located between 300 to 700 feet of sewer main 2 - Property is located between 700 to 1000 feet of seerer main i 1 - Property is beyond a : mile from sewer mair i c. Electricity CI All sites were considered fully serviceable (5 rating) i . 5. Physical Features a. soils- The following criteria was used in evaluating soil character- istics %-Athin the stuly area that were most relevant to industrial building and construction. A. Density of upper soils layers C� D. Expansiveness of the surface soil C. Load bearing capacity of the upper soil strata RELIMImplaNAR11 39 • r. �r . D. Consolidation or settlement potential of soil strata • Applying the abc)O! cr i l -i-i.i, t.ho yi_nc:ra L a ren north cat` Warner Avenue to Edinyo, was ra l.0 l " Fair Lo Puor" (3 and 2 rating) and the parculs south of Warrior to Gai:ficld were rated "good." (4 rating) b. Topography A 5 -- 0-4% Slope (relatively Flat) 4 - 5-8t Slope 3 -- 9-12% Slope 2 - 13-162 Slope 1 - 17%-Above slope (hilly and rough terrain) c. Drainage 3 - Good: only minor site work. 2 - Fair: temporary drainage problems 1 - Poor: standing water: most of year A d. Size 4. meets minimum standards 3. substandard lot however adjacent property under same ownership 2. substandard and may be consolidated ell 1. substandard .with weak potential to be consolidated ` I e. Street Frontage 5. 10 04- 4. 75-100 3. 50-75 2. 25-50 1. 1-25 6. Site Work Required ri a. Grading 3. minimal 2. moderate 1. extensive b. Removal of Structures 4 . no structures 3. minor removal of miscellaneous items (fencing, junk) 2. minor demolition of larger items such as oil well, tanks, piping, small structures, trees. pj 1. extensive demolition and removal of major structures J I e"RELIMINARY 40 s 1975 VACANT INDT'SrRIAL LAND USE STUDY Parcel No. Net Acr,age Site Location 0 SDM Final Rating I i II I. Physical 1. Transportation a. Arterial Street Circulation: Existing I Proposed b. Rail Access c. Truck Route Access 2. Fire Proteetici. 3. Compatibility of Adjacnet Land Use Existing Proposed 4. Accessibility to Utilitiom a. Water b. Sewer c. Electricity 5. Physical Features { a. Soil --. b. Topography c. Drainage d. Size _ e. Street Frontage PRELII Ry 41 1 �x A . 6. . Site Work Required a. Grading . A b. Removal of Structures Total 11. Economic 1. - Assessed valuation per acre 2. Drainage Fee Cost Per Acre ION Total 9!It • PRELIWI A A . r"w 42 r r CITY OF HUf1TIf1GTOf1 BEA ( .�J DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES r,, • P. 0. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 536.5271 TO: . Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator FROM: Edward D. Selich, Planning Director 3 G 7� re DATE: March 2, 1978 ,�..� 0` � „ SUBJECT: GOTHARD CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY INTRODUCTION: At the. City Council's request, the Planning Staff prepare , 91) ; an analysis of what would be neoessary. to improve the Gothard Corridor. 1he. attached report is a revised version of an earli r report which analyzed this problem. . The. report contains eight recommendations which, if accepted in, total or in part by the City Council, could result in an action program., RECOMMENDATION: Approve the eight recom tio mendans of the' , Gothard Corridor Improve ment study, and• direct staff to prepare. an action plan based on those recommendations for City Council approval. ANALYSIS: The Gothard Corridor Improvement Study recommends the following: 1. Revise the Ml-A zoning ordinalice pertaining to permitted uses and development standards to be mare restrictive. . Rezone only areas capable of supporting Ml--A development and provide for industrial park development.' . Retain Ml. zoning in logically defined districts to accommodate existing uses. Revise M1 development standards to control the aesthetics of new develop- ment. 2. In context. of either a specific plan, or total M1 or M1-A zoning . of the corridor, revise permitted uses and• development standards to be more restrictive. In the case of permitted uses, .,wri.te in an exception that allows existing development to remain as conforming uses but restricting the Entrance of objectionable uses in the future. The existing uses would be nonconforming only in terms of the development standards. To gain compliance at least for standards related to aesthetics, amortize the use over a period of time. Page Two 3. Either as part of a specific plan, special formation district, or allocation of capital improvement funds, provide adequate street, off-site landscaping, and utility improvements. Over- head utility undergrounding could also be accomplished by an undergrounding district. Arterial highway improvements should be done in advance to assist in attracting quality industry. q. Seek out economic development administration funds to develop a beautification program -for the corridor to promote economic development. 5. Either by zoning revisions or specific plan, permit greater flexibility in mixed industrial, retail, and office development. Current regulations are overly restrictive and do not permit modern business parks. 6. Modify zoning regulations to permit industrial planned develop- ments. Incentives should be included to encourage land consoli- dation where possible. 7. Implement redevelopment in areas where zoning incentives and capital improvements are not sufficient to attract quality industrial development. t s 8. Establish setback lines on arterial streets within Gothard Corridor to assist in improving the aesthetics of future development. i �. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve a purtion of the eight recommendations and direct Staff to prepare an active plan for City Council approval. it Respectfully submitted, I Edward D. Selich Director .EDS:gc i �f S 1 GOTHARD CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY REVISED 3-1--78 1.0 GENERAL BACKGROUND A comprehensive land use plan for the Central Industrial Corridor was presented to the Planning C6", ission in September,. 1977, in the form of General. Plan Amerdn!ent_ 77-2, Part 3. The plan generally preserved existing quality industrial development and prime vacant areas, and redesignated other areas to residential uses with a mixed density character. As a result of the. public hearing, the Planning Commission. decided to retain all industrial land in the Gothard Corridor and redesignate industrial property in the Edison Area to planning reserve. General Plan Amendment 77-2, Part 3, consisting of the Edison Industrial Area, is scheduled for City Council public hearing in November. The commitment to retain industrial land in the Central Industrial Corridor has generated considerable interest in improving the area. As a possible -means of attaining this goal, the Planning Commission has requested the Staff to analyze the feasibility and implications of changing all industrial zoning in the Gothard Corridor from M1 to M1-A. The present phase of the industrial Land Use Study deals specifically with this request. r .r.rve� 1.1 Methodology The study proceeds from a survey of all industrial zoning in the Central Industrial Corridor to an analysis of the area and uses affected by a change to M1-A. The scope of the study area includes only land that is also general planned industrial. Changing the zoning to bil-A may achieve some improvement of the area but there will most certainly be negative impacts generated as well. The goal of improving the Gothard Corridor must be clarified in terms of specific objectives and any rezoning must be analyzed in context of achieving them. Thus, in addition to examining the impacts associated with total Ml-A zoning, the study also sets down alternative improvement objectives, and analyzes rezoning and other solutions that are most appropriate to attaining those objectives, thereby minimizing adverse effects. I � L ewrwM...�N.....i 2.0 SUMMAP.Y OF EXISTING CONDITIONS This section summarizes ibhiiig and laiia uses in the Central Industrial Cdxridor: 2.1 Existing Zoning The Central Industrial Corridor contains approximately 569.5 acres of general.planned industrial land., F114W:b 1=1 sii ai rites the. exist- ing zoning within the general industrial area: Figure 1-2 depicts the distribution of the various zoning categories in the corridor. The Gothard Corridor is dominated by M1 zoning.. About 456 acres or 80 percent of the tatal .acreage i's designated M1 by ,itself or in combination with civic district tend/or oil production. Most of the corridor is zoned Al alone (270 acres) . The M2 industrial district occupies only 11 aches or three percent of the total area, and is restricted to the Ferro site south of Ellis Avenue and east of the Southern Pacific Railroad right,�of-way. Community facility zoning accounts for another 29 acres and comprises rive percent of the total acreage. Two small segments of the Huntington Beach Company property along Garfield Avenue are zoned RA and R5, and occupy about five acres or one percent of the corridor. FIGURE 1-1 GOTHARD CORRIDOR EXISTING ZONING ZONING CAT-.GORY ACREAGE PERCENTAGE bfl 456. 5 60.2 M1 270.0 M1—CD 90.3 Ml-0 78.6 Ml—Ol 3.0 Ml—O—CD 14.6 Ml—A 62.3 1.0.9 j Ml—A 34.4 i Ml—A-15,000—CD 19.5 M1—A—CD 8.4 M2 16.5 2:9 M2-0 15.0 M2-01 1. 5 CF 29.3 5.1 CF-C 20.9 CF-R BA Other 4.9 .9 RA-0 1.8 R5 3.1 TOTAL 569.5 100.0 tt I ' w —RATER Nq"A RetRritted Mani,dwing M2 CF-C CDoLo nityFaci5lk.(Gilt) •— CF-R wt CF-R Commuiity FWDUCn jaecreationai) ml RA Remwentw Avkwturai `� T RS officeftofeiimw mlIp I�^ 0,01 Combined with ou Production - - ( � Nil 261 ctminiti►WRIU uia �� Tli F:xiti�rinc:ia►nlnt: 1 11 in IfAMA Fktuffr 1.2 yl \ r� L/ r Although the City' s restricted manufacturing district, Ml-A, is most suited to the types of industrial development found in the large industrial parks of Lusk and Itaiser Aetna, several segments of the Central Industrial. Corridor have been rezoned to this category in recent years. The Ml-A zone accounts for 62 acres or 11 percent of the corridor's total acreage. It is currently limited to three nodes. One site is located on the southeast corner of Slater Avenue and Gothard Street. This area is characterized by 'small lot frag- mented ownership. The intent of the Ml-A zoning here was to co- ordinate the precise plan of a local street through the site, and guide small lot consolidation toward large and buildable industrial lot sizes (15#000 square: foot minimums) . Another Ml-A pocket abuts the railroad right-of-way between Talbert Avenue and Taylor Drive. This area was zoned MI-A in order to Encourage industrial develop- ment under strict standards. Lots were of sufficient size to con- struct small park-type developments according to restricted manu- facturing standards. A final site occupies eight acres on the east side of Goldenwest Street and north of Garfield Avenue. The rezoning to Ml-A was designed to place stricter standards, especially with regard to setbacks and screening, on industrial developments along Goldenwest Street in approach to Central Park and the Civic Center. 2.2 Existing Land Uses Figure 1-3 summarizes existing land uses within the study area by zoning category. Existing and approved industrial development and public uses comprise 298 acres or 51 percent of the Gothard Corridor. Approximately 235 acres are vacant, and 36 acres are in nonconforming i commercial and re sidential uses. Within the Ml zoned areas, vacant land and industrial- development are relatively even in coverage, 187 acres (41 percent) to 207 acres (45 percent) , respectively. Specific industrial uses have been de- tailed in previous reports (Marginal Industrial Use and Abatement Measure Study) . A :vide range of uses may be found in the Ml zones since a great variety is permitted under tha ordinance. Some common usea include automobile repair shops, lumber yards, truck maintenance yards, wrecking yards, equipment storage yards, ice storage, mini-warehouses, machine shops, plastics or fiberglass fabrication, sheet metal shops, electronics firms, construction material storage, and miscellaneous wholesale businesses. Public and quasi-public uses include the General Telephone Maintenance Yard and Orange County Transfer Station. Where oil related uses are present, the "0" desig- nation suffixes the MI zone. The Ml-A zones are also evenly divided between vacant land and industrial development. About 31 acres are vacant, and 30 acres are developed. Although intended to be somewhat more restrictive than 141 zoning, the MI-A areas permit many similar uses. The developed t� FIGURE 1-3 GOTIIARD CORRIDOR EXISTING ZONING ZONING CATEGORY ACREAGE PERCENTAGE M1 456.5 100.0 Vacant 187.4 41.1 General Industry 206.6 45.3 Public & Quasi-Public Facility 27.7 6.1 Nonconforming Commercial & Resi.dential 34 .8 7.5 M1-A 62. 3 100.0 Vacant 30.8 49.4 General Industry 30.3 48.6 Nonconforming Commercial & Residential 1.2 2.0 M2 16.5 100.0 Vacant 12.2 73.9 General Industry 4. 3 26.1 CF 29.3 100.0 Fire Station 6.2 21.2 ; City Yard 14.7 50.2 Park 8.4 28.6, RA and R5 4.9 3.00.0 Vacant 4.9 100.0 TOTAL 569.5 100.0 Vacant 235.3 41.3 General Industry 241.2 42.4 Public & Quasi--Public Facility 57.0 10.0 Nonconforming Commercial & Residential 36.0 6.3 I Ml-A areas include a new 10-acre industrial park, several closed INTAGE warehousing operations, a lumber yard, a trucking and crane operation, �--- and an auto wrecking yard. The auto wrecking yard is prohibited in 100.0 the M1-A zone but was approved prior to the zone change. The remaining acreage in the Gothard Corridor is zoned M2, CF, RA, and R5. The only M2 development is the Ferro Fiberglass Company south of Ellis Avenue. About 1.2 acres within that complex are still vacant. The community facilities in the corridor include the City Corporation Yard, two fire stations, and park space. The RA and R5 properties 100.0 are vacant. i 100.0 100.0 f t ! i e� 1.00.0 r 100.0 I I I 1�. • •.,•a. tr .i - ..t...r.. .. .. ....... ..,........r.«.........,......,.._............,......_.r r.•r..'l':....r 1T'f1 �1 A�, ,�.... .,`nl A wie�w.r I 3.0 FEASIBILITY OF REZONING Ml-A Rezoning the Gothard Corridor to Ml-A implies that approximately 477.9 acres of M1, M2, RA, and R5 would be rezoned Ml-A. The other 91. 6 acres are already designated Ml-A or community facility. This section evaluates the consequences of rezoning the corridor to 141-A. 3.1 M1 and I41--A Zoning Standards The MI-A zoning ordinance places stricter standards on development than Ml zoning, primarily in the areas of lot size, lot frontage, setbacks, landscape buffers with residential uses, screening of out- side storage, the use of construction materials, and uses permitted. 3.1.1. Lot Size and Frontage The MI-A zone requires a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet as opposed to the 10, 000 square foot minimum dictated by the Ml ordinance. Where special conditions warrant, Ml-A zoning can be suffixed by smaller lot minimums, such as 15,000 or 10,000 square feet. An important exception that applies to both the Ml and Ml-A site is a provision that allows virtually any lot size to be a legal building site provided that it existed as a legal building site prior to the effective date of the ordinance. .tp MI-A requires a minimum lot frontage on an arterial of 100 feet, while M1 requires an 80 foot minimum. Again, the M1-A zone can be prefixed with a smaller than standard frontage if special conditions dictate. Bcth Ml-A and Ml allow reduced minimum building site and frontage if a plot plan or administrative review is ap- proved by t-he discretionary body. 3. 1. 2 Yard Requirements The Ml front and exterior yard setback minimums are 10 feet. No minimun interior• and rear yard setbacks are set except where the property abuts residential uses in which case the yard requirement is 45 feet•. The Ml-A zone specifies an average front and exterior yard setback of 20 feet along arterials. This is reduced to a 10 foot• minimum on local streets. The interior yard setback minimum is 15 feet, while no minimum standard is established for rear yards. Interior and rear yards must be 45 where the lot abuts residential, uses. The setback differences reflect the variation in intended l - minimum lot size standards and set appropriate building to lot relationships. !( 3.1.3 Landscaping ` The landscaping requirements of the two zoning categories are essentially the same in area coverage. Landscape i coverage for both is approximately six percent of the lot area. The Ml-A zone tends to be more restrictive in specifying the distribution. The Ml-A ordinance states that all required front and exterior side yard setbacks must be landscaped and maintained in accordance with Public Works landscape standards. The Ml-A zone also specifies the use of landscape buffers where industrial uses abut residential areas. Trees are required to be of sufficient size and density to provide maximum screening and buffering of noise and visual intrusion. 3.1.4 Permitted Uses The permitted uses under M1 and Ml-A are not significantly different. The only major difference is that Ml-A specifically prohibits wrecking and salvage yards. The M1 0 7 ..� r zone allows such uses subject to a conditional use permit. In terms of other marginal uses, the Ml-A and M1 ordinances permit virtually any form of open storage activity, but in the MI-A zone sufficient screening must be installed. Adequate screening is defined as either landscaping, walls, or a combination of the two. ":reening on open storage need not exceed seven feet in height and the stored items must be confined to the rear two-thirds of the property to reduce visibility. Some other uses found in the M1 ordinance but not listed under M1-A include automobile repair shops, truck maintenance yards, and oil operations. 3.1.5 Construction Materials Structures erected within the M1-A district rarest be con•• structed of ceramics, masonry, concreto, stucco or other materials of a similar nature. Metal huilding s would be prohibited except under conditions approved by the Planning Commission. There are no restrictions placed on construction materials in the M1 zone. 3.2 Impact of Ml-A Zoning on Vacant Lind ..Y r. Approximately 204.5 acres of vacant land and 35 acres of nonconforming residential and commercial uses would come under the !41-A zoning pro- visions. Redesignation would not guarantee a faster rate of industrial development of the vacant parcels nor recycle of the nonconforming uses. Other actions would be necessary to improve the marketability of the area because of the existence o:� problems that are not addressed by zoning alone. small lot subdivisions, frag- mented ownerships, and deficiency of public improvements are examples of the most obvious problems. The impact of Ml-A zoning on the quality of new industrial develop- ment- will vary according to the differences in development standards and permitted uses specified in Section 3.1. This section discusses impacts from the standpoint of the feasibility of new development on vacant parcels, aesthetics, and the quality of new uses. 3 .2 .1, Feasibility of New Development within the Framework of Existing MI-A Standards Because of the larger lot size and setback requirements under M1-A, 8 to 10 acres would appear to approximate the most economically feasible minimum parcel size for develop- j ment of industrial parks. :Smaller parcels i.mp''y that the f lot gust be reserved for one or two specializes; users r w saw I requiring use of the entire parcel., or reduction of the minimum lot requirement by suffix to 10,000 or. 15,000 square , feet to accommodate a number of smaller users. If i.t is desired to retain the 20,000 square foot minimum, most vacant parcels are either sufficient alone or in combination with contiguous lots to attain 8 to 10 acres or more to de- velop industrial parks. Approximately 180.7 acres of vacant land and 9.8 acres occupied by nonconforming uses fall into this category. Only 50 acres are divided into scattered parcels that would preclude industrial park development. 3.2. 2 Visual Aesthetics: Building Composition and Landscaping The aesthetics of new developments would be improved in context of the more restrictive standards. New structures would take on an aesthetic character similar to that in the Lusk and Kaiser industrial parks. Fewer metal and wooden structures would appear in the corridor. The land- scaped buffers with residential uses and the screening of new open storage uses would be other positive features. Although these standards represent improvements over M1 aesthetics, the net gain may be less significant upon closer examination. Many open storage uses tend to stack � items much higher than the required height such that their operations are visible. There would be little improvement in new developments from this standpoint. Although the landscaping coverage- requirement is about. 6 percent for both M1 and MI--A, the standards are probably sufficient. The key to imprr. 7ement is adequate enforcement of the code. Even on many existing developments under the 141 zoning, landscaped area in below that required, or if it is to code it is not maintainee well. This last point is directly related to the uses p.�.:mitted under M1 and Ml-A zoning. Yf many marginal uses are permitted, which is the ! case under both M1 and I•l--A zoning, the industrial user cuts Lcosts by eliminating or not maintaining items such as land- scaping that are not perceived to be necessities to the viability of his business. 3 .2 .3 Quality of New Industrial Development New industry entering the Gothard Corridor under MI-A is likely to resemble the wide range of uses now there, i.e. , some would be substantial such as those in industrial parks, while others would he marginal. Since most of the remaining land is capable of development to M1-A standards, it is a reasonable to assume that most future uses will be quality operations. The problem remains of attracting them which suggests the need for other measures. The fact that ob- jectionable uses can still enter the corridor is traceable .to the uses permitted under the ordinance. With the exception of wrecking yards there is little difference be- tween Ml and M1-A zoning. 3.3 Impact of M1--A Zoning on Developed Land Approximately 2 38.6 acres of existing industrial development in the corridor would come under the provisions of M1-A zoning. Almost every use would assume a nonconforming status upon rezoning from M1 to Ml-A. From the standpoint of permitted uses, however, only 50.8 acres or 21 percent of total development could be termed nonconforming These uses include wrecking and salvage yards (22.7 acres) , auto repair shops (7.1 acres) , truck maintenance yards (4.4 acres) , and oil tank storage (16.6 acres) . Approximately 66.7 acres or 28 percent of total development would remain as permitted usos under the open storage provision, but would become nonconforming from a lack of sufficient screening of storage areas as well as not meeting building setback, lot size, and/or building composition requirements. These would include such open storage uses as lumber yards, construction material storage, compost `�. soil storage, ready mix concrete production, recreation vehicle storage, wood pallet production, and equipment rentals. Regnrdless of whether they were permitted uses or not, the uses would not have to comply with Al-A screening -provisions, the various minor require- ments such as setbacks, or any measure that-, upgraded the operation's aesthetics. Only if the business was expanded or improved could the operation be conditioned at the City's discretion to bring the entire site up to M1-A standards. The remaining 121.1 acres of existing development would become nonconforming from one or a number of minor criteria, such as setbacks, lot size, structure composition, and/or distribution of landscaping. Most of this development (102.1 acres) includes the park: type developments north of Heil Avenue on the Mountjoy property east of Gothard Street and north of Ellis Avenue, on the Frame site north of Slater Avenue and west of Nichols Street, and the telephone maintenance facility and Orange County Transfer Station. The impact on such uses would be insignificant because most are already de- veloped at or close to Ml-A standards. As in the case of open storage uses, the nonconformities could not be regulated unless they expanded or improved their operations. i �.�oiw.aisnw�.Me wemMrrawiow� �I 3.4 Conclusion From the foregoing analysis, it is clear that rezoning the Gothard Corridor Ml-A will have limited value, regardless of the objectives pursued.. Ml-A zoning will most effectively improve the development standards of new uses locating in the corridor. it will also pro- hibit the entrance of the most objectionable uses. At the same time, however-, it will not keep cut most open storage uses, and it will place virtually every existing use in some nonconforming status. The zone change would not eliminate the objectionable nonconforming uses, nor could the users be compelled to upgrade the operation's aesthetics and meet other standards unless the use expanded. As an alternative within the existing M-A framework, the Corrmissiun could I consider a partial rezoning. Only rezone those vacant areas capable of supporting M1-A development, while leaving the developed portions and scattered vacant parcels in the M1 district. This emphasizes control over new development while minimizing nonconforming uses. However, it fails to address the problem of raising the aesthetic standards of existing development. This suggests the need to consider alternative or supplementary measures to bring more comprehensive improvement to the Gothard Corridor. I `l I ,-- t 4. 0 RECOMMENDATIONS Ml-A zorsing offers some improvement to the Central Industrial Corridor. However, complete Ml-A zoning will not alone mitigate all adverse effects or ensure total achievement of improvement objectives. This section suggests a number of recommendations for improvement. 4.1 Improvement. by Preservation of the Industrial Land Use Pattern and Encouragement of Beautification A more limited approach with fewer disruptions to improving the corridor assumes the following group of objectives: i 1. Prevsnt new marginal uses from entering the area. 2. Promote new quality industrial development. 3. Preserve most existing uses. Phase out only those that are most objectionable. 4. Encourage beautification and upgrading of existing uses. a I The following measures should be studied as means to achieving these objectives: 1 . Revise the MI-A zoning ordinance pertaining to permitted uses and development standards to be more restrictive. Rezone only areas capable of supporting MI-A development and provide for industrial park development. Retain Ml zoning in logically defined districts to accommodate existing uses. Revise M1 development standards to control the aesthetics of new develop- ment. 2. ' In context of either a specific plan, or total M1 or Ml-A zoning of the corridor, revise permitted uses and development standards to be more restrictive. In the case of permitted uses, wra.te in an exception that allows existing development to remain as conforming uses but restricting the ei:trance of objectionable uses in the future. The existing user; would be nonconforming only in terms of the development standards. To gain compliance at least for standards related to aesthetics, amortize the use over a period of time. 3. Either as part of a specific plan, special formation district, or allocation of capital improvement funds, provide adequate street, off-site landscaping, and utility improvements. Over- head utility undergrounding could also be accomplished by an undergrounding district. Artetial highway improvements should be done in advance to assist in attracting quality industry. 4. Seek out economic development administration funds to develop a beautification program for the corridor to promote economic development. 5. Either by zoning revisions or specific plan, permit greater flexibility in }nixed industrial, retail, and office development. Current regulations are overly restrictive and do not permit modern business parks. 6. Modify zoning regulations to permit industrial planned develop•- wents. Incentives should be included to encourage land consoli- dation where possible. ' 7. Implement redevelopment in areas where zoning incentives and capital improvements are not sufficient to attract quality industrial development. S. Establish setback lines on arterial streets within Gothard Corridor to assist in improving the aesthetics of future development. I , r 4.2 Potential for Success If a comprehensive program is developed and implemented, the Gothard Corridor can be improved. The opportunity to encourage and control new development is good if the City is willing to make the commitment. Regardless of the policy toward existing uses, most will probably remain there into the long-term. Any attempt to beautify the corridor will not be without its pzoblems but im- provement in this area is possible. Even with commitment, the positive -results will probably not be apparent until the long-term. I i IMe CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 78-16 ? COUNCIL-ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION 11UNT"wGrav 11.W11 To Honorable Mayor and From Floyd G. Belsito, City Council Members City Administrater Subject GOTHARD INDUSTRIAL Date February 8, 1978 CORRIDOR (RESOLUTION No. 4588) � �yrp,TiaN,,;� L�- �" ��� 4944�w The Industrial/Commercial Committee at the January 12th meeting requested that the City Council adopt a resolution establishing this Committee as a regular on-going City Committee. The Industrial/Commercial Committee at their January 12th meet- in also requested the City Council to adopt a resolution which wi�1 preserve induL;trial property within the industrial cor- ridor along Gothard Street and to direct staff to assist iadus- trial development in making this a viable industrial area. The attached resolution will implement theserequests. Respectfully submitted, cloy G. Belsito, �/, f _.� City Administrater `' '� G�� I FGB: J Attachment { �I I i C RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH EXPRESSING THEIR INTENT TO RETAIN THE PRESENT INDUSTRIAL ZONING WITHIN THE GOTHARD INDUSTRIAL CORRIDOR AND TO DIRECT STAFF TO ASSIST INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPERS IN THIS REGARD WHEREAS, 'the existing industrial property within the Gothard Industrial Corridor between Edinger Avenue and Garfield- Avenue is vital to the economic base of the City of Huntington Beach; and WHEREAS, there have been numerous requests to rezone said property to permit residential development; and WHEREAS, the City Council, Planning Commission, and staff have spent an excessive amount of time on studies generated by these requests; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to go on record expressing its intent to retain in the industrial classification that property which is currently zoned for industry. NOW; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach heeeby expresses its intent to retain in the industrial classification that -property within the Gothard Industrial Corridor iv;iich is currently zoned for industry. Said property is generally shown on attached Exhibit "A". BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission and staff of the City are encouraged to assist potential industrial developers within this area by providing greater assistance and reevaluating industrial planning, zoning, building and solicitation of industrial development so that a positive potential future of industrial use can be achieved. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all boards, commissions and staff members who are involved in the setting of priorities for public improvements within the City of Huntington Beach shall redirect their efforts and resources toward the improvement of public facilities and utilities within the industrial areas. t •,:+.'/:w..�. ,'r.�w. a.3.t.:'a .,:s: ..=t. ^•• •'r•�':a:"Tr"3=_ ,:%. PASSED AND. of the ADOPTED at 1978. City °f Hunting tan a regular meetir Beach held this _g of the City Ca nth day °f February,, APPROVED AS TO FORS ` uarY' i. ATTEST Cz tY Attarn Y INITr AND APATED r PROVED; City ter xty minis 6 � tra tar •� ' a �aYar t S1;[4A i t 1�.. •�'r 11� �yl�jt 1 1 s, x.. a r: �af 1: I .,`;••:�� .,'. ' as 1 � iiiY�".. a�• � ■ua , +;444. •mono T. ■artrrC�C�ie ? uauu■■�■■ ,■aaa■arwa r■ Ina:■rrraaCw■ , ,y I ■■ ■afau■ ■■aaaar■■rrr room ^.r ulrfr■aaa■auR■r■a +' rfaaa■■uaaa/raa■■■.. a■ar :f/■f■■■fflRlf r■RaCr■afaruurau t • aaaaaa■araarrCwa■■■. ■aur■ru■'■r moor• �r 4 ■lr■a■alwa :■l/Raw i■ , yt$ a«a■raatrra�ar■aa■■ a w■ff■aarwf■■■■■■wl �■fl r■■■aaaaaaau■aaraw iR as ■■ ■uuuu■■■■u■-. . jrai�r Rs■ r ,imam■ �O■MY , IN ■ f' 1la/■■ r wiit. :•fir ■n loans uu■rL ! .. i■Gi■iiGiii�0:1 CIAL ■a■a■raaCa■ M ' mar■ w �. ,lat mass somoiamiiiria. r rauaaa■aaa■■laa ESIw NITIAL �■�rraarar■rrrr■■■t ,■■■■■■■■Muuu��! ■■■■■r -.-,-, Iaar■aaaaaa1 ,rf/r■■rrru lawar■a■■■■■ ,f■fwa■f■af> v u■arw■■■r■a ua■raauaa■ ��• raa■■rra ' iY�i �rr■■r■■ Si.-ram '','�, l■aaa■aw� M rr�r■a 1 afro•■• u■ n■ ■n 4 a:■rrrraa■■■■ta■l + •-*-/ rratrwff/r •OiirYf■F1 . ■flair _ Vlis .�■a �.irr■ a■ iaa■nr .i ir■■.NM.a■a■lr uauaaar• k•� �aaa::t::: nmowm %f■lr■■aa■ wa■ some ara rC■■a �z 4. I .HI 1 . .4+ f MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL COMMITTEE MEETING Thursday, January 12, 1978 7:30 p.m. Room B-8 Civic Center In attendance: Jack Feehan, Chamber of Commerce, Ralph Kiser, Chamber of Commerce, Bruce Greer, Property Owner, William Clapet, Planner and Architect, John Silver, Property Owner, Bill Reed, H.B. Public Infor- mation Officer, Dick Harlow, Asst. City Administrator, Steve Holden, Businessman, Allan Daum, Foxx Development, Frances Park, U.S. Life Savings, John Sterns , Planning Commission, Bill Back, Economic Develop- ment Officer, Ron Russell , Homeowners Assn. , Roger Slates, Chairman, Planning Commission, Mike Zambory, City Engineer, John Behrens , City Building Director, Len Ferguson, State of California (guest) , Frank Buccella, Developer, Ed Selich, Planning Director, Bill Hansen, Consultant, Gail Hutton, Citizen, Harriett Wieder, Councilwoman, Mark Porter, Home Council , Dave Garofalo, Redevelopment Commission (after their meeting) . 1 Jack Feehan, Chamber of Commerce Industrial/Commercial Committee Chairman opened the meeting in the absence of Councilwoman Harriett Wieder at 7:45 p.m. and started with self introductions. Mrs. Wieder- arrived during introductions and conducted the meeting. She stated that Councilman Richard Siebert could not attend, but he did prepare a written statement to be read to the Committee later in the meeting. She gave the reasons for holding these neetings and re- viewed the highlights of- the past meeting so that the Committee could direct themselves to the problem and hopefully come up. with a recom- mendation to take to the City Council . She pointed out how important it is to a community of this size to have a group of people work together to bring economic development to the City (businessmen, developers, homeowners, and landowners) . Mrs. Wieder mentioned her past experience in Los Angeles City Hall and what they did to entice economic development there. She stated tier goal is to see that the Gothard Strip would be put to its highest and best use. Councilwoman Wieder called upon Public Information Officer Bill Reed to read Councilman Siebert's statement to the Committee. In his state- ment Mr. Siebert pointed out the City's past goal of providing a "balanced community" and suggested several goals for future develop- ment. (Copy attached) Mr. Siebert's statement was ;.ell received by the Committee. The Chair called on Ron Russell to give his input. He said that "any committee without a plan is generally planning for failure," so he suggested a list of priorities that the Committee might look into which could lead to a plan. He felt that the puroose of the Committee should be to establish a workable industrial plan for the City of Huntington Beach. Some of these priorities are: 1) Establish and sell the need for industrial growth in Huntington Beach. i Industrial Meeting Minutes -2- January 12, 1978 2) The need to define the types of industry we really want to in- vite to the City. 3) The need to. identify an area to apply the appropriate zoning and protecting it for a prescribed period of time. a) Implement and explore all available resources to encourage meaningful industrial growth. Both residential and industrial/ commercial developers can be very helpful with this. 5) The Committee should input some ecological influence on any plan to insure that there is not incompatible intrusion into any residential , industrial or commercial areas. 6) Explore plans to up-grade existing industrial areas . He would like to see implementation, not Just exploration, with a lot of input from the committee to Council and staff. Hopefully, this would identify priorities and implement action plans for the project. Chairman Wieder called on Jack Feehan from the Chamber of Commerce for their report. He explained some of the population projections y and the need for more Jobs in Huntington Beach. He also discussed the percentage of industrial land in Huntington Beach versus other cities in Orange County. Discussion centered on the figures , what 'Incentives could be given by the City and those that have been given al ready. Mrs. Wieder asked what had been done in the past to intice some of the industries here. Mr. Harlow gave a brief rundown on what the City did in the past. He mentioned that staff had asked Council to set priorities on how some of the Public Works money should be spent. j Mrs. Wieder asked about the "one-stop" office and the City's progress on the implementation of the ",Ombudsman" office that she would. like to see established in the City. This was discussed later in the meeting. Mr. John Silver of the Gothard Industrial League was called upon for the League's input. He introduced Mr. William Clapet, of Archi- tektron who did a study on the Gothard strip area and put together a report, "Blueprint For Development 1978," which he described as follows : BLUEPRINT FOR DEVELOPMCNT 1978 With the emerging new year the Gothard Industrial League has estab- lished s work program for 1978. This work program has as its primary on-going goal : to presevve and enhance the viability of industrial 11ses along the central i tAistri al corridor; promote a balance tax base and land uses for the City of Huntington Beach; and to provide i a ready resource of information and viewpoints representative of the industrial business constituency in this City. To fulfill this goal , League members have established a four-fold ! set of objectives : ; Industrial Meeting Minutes -3- January, 12, 1978 1. The establishment of a "blue-lined" industrial area which will protect the central industrial corridor from encroachment by incompatible or conflicting land uses. 2. The establishment of an industrial committee within the organi- zation of City government which recognizes the need for, and the rightful - place of, industrial uses and development in the City of Huntington Beach. 3. The promotion and sponsorship of industrial community clean-up and beautification campaigns to recognize quality of design and aesthetic enhancement. 4. The assistance in, and support of, City staff efforts to recruit industry to this area; promotion of sound land use and capital improvement programs ; and the undertaking of public information programs. ' i As a challenge, seeking a desirable goal , and one too often assumed impossible, we would like to pursue a cooperative agreement with groups and associations such as : The Chamber of Commerce, Board of Realtors, Downtown Merchants Guild, Home Owner's Associations , and other groups interested in the balanced future of the City. This cooperative effort is sought to make the City of Huntington Beach truly "The Total Community." Mrs. Wieder asked John Silver to explain his views on "Blueprint" and he stated that the league is recommending that the City Council blueline the industrial strip. Discussion followed with Planning Commissioners Slates and Sterns giving input and Dick Harlow re- viewing City policy over the past 10 years. As 'a result of the discussion, Mrs . Wieder asked if the Committee would like to ask the City Council to "blueline" the Gothard strip as stated in the League' s objective number 1 , or Councilman Siebert 's goal number 1. This was followed by more discussion in which several questions were asked as to what direction the City wants to go. Roger Slates suggested that this Committee support the Edison Plant expansion as this is the largest single industrial development in the City and it not only brings in the largest tax dollars , but pro- vides jobs , as well . There was a question and discussion regarding residential assessed valuation versus industrial assessed valuation and what was needed for a balanced community. It was pointed out that the purpose of this Committee was to broaden the City' s tax revenue base. Ron Russell made a motion that the Committee act on the Gothard In- dustrial League's second objective; to establish an industrial com- mittee within this group, view the area and bring back a report to I this Committee to take to the City Council . It was seconded and passed. x.o J ,fit, Industrial Meeting rAnutes -4- January 12, 1978 Mr. Harlow made some suggestions regarding the make-up of the com- mittee in regards to 'staff and voting. He stated that staff would be happy to help in any way, but should have only one vote; that being of Bill Back. The Committee agreed. He asked what was expected of staff and the role they play in the Committee. Council- woman Wieder explained she expects a leadership role. For instance: after minutes have been prepared, staff should review and see what action has to be taken to follow through . John Silver suggested the next meeting of the Committee by in the form of a bus tour of the industrial area so , that the Committee can see the area for themselves rather than depending upon maps for their information. Mrs. . Wieder mentioned that in order for this to become a formal City Committee, it has to be done by resolution of 'the City. Council , or it becomes a Mayor's appointive Committee. It was suggested , by Mr. Harlow that City Council members and Planning Commission members should not be voting members , but ex-officio members with input only, as some of the areas in question might come before them at a later date and there may be a conflict. The Committee agreed. It was suggested that the Committee elect officers . Ralph Kiser nominated Ron Russell as Chairman of the Committee. There being no other nominations , it was voted on and passed. It was decided that Bill Back serve as staff liaison, or Secretary, with Connie Bauer in attendance to record minutes . The new Committee will be called the City Industrial/Commercial Committee with the right reserved for the Chairman to change the name, if he sees fit. (Number 2 of the Gothard Industrial League 's set of objectives) It was recommended that Number 3 of the Gothard League's objectives : No. 3 (page 3) be deferred until the next on-site meeting when the Committee meets and tours the area. It was suggested that the number 2 and 3 goals of Co=to could be presented in the form of a resolution and pCity Council for consideration. It was agreed that done. Dick Harlow would follow-up on this request. The number 4 objective of the League' s will be followed through by Bill Back. Mrs . Wieder suggested that the Committee recommend the City have an "Ombudsman" . Dick Harlow said that the different departments have discussed this and they are working on it. Staff would like to get the City Council input before anything is decided because the logis- tics of the idea have to be discussed. Councilwoman Wieder asked if staff could develop for the next meeting, a print-out, phamphlet or brochure that can be handed to anyone coming to the City for help on development. Industrial Meeting Minutes -5- January 12, 1978 It was decided that the Chamber of Commerce will work independently, but, in cooperation with the City on the same information. The Chamber will have its own Industrial/Commercial Committee who will work in conjunction with the City Committee in assisting developers . At the last meeting, a request was made of staff to identify the kinds of business that produce the highest revenue for the City. Ed Selich is working on this , also the Committee should look at the highest and best use of the land, decide what they want to bring to the City and what they don 't want and use the information from staff as a guide to attract the most beneficial industries. The next meeting will be a bus tour of the industrial land on Thursday, February 9, 1978 at 10:00 a.m. The Committee will meet at City Hall and board a bus for a two hour tour (Ed Selich will arrange for bus) and adjourn at noon. Lunch will follow at La Fiesta Grande Restaurant for those who can make it. Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. i } I CITY OF HUNTING'Y"ON BEACH CA 78-07 1 COUNCIL - ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION H AINGTON 51AC11 To Honorable Mayor and From Floyd U. Belsito, / City Council Members City Administrator / Subject GOTHARD INDUSTRIAL\CORRIDOR Date January 27, 1978 (RESOLUTION NO. Y53gj This resolution has been prepared t the request of Councir woman Wieder on behalf of the Industrial Committee. Respect-fully submitted, C1' 12//011 Floyd Oe. Belsito, City Administrator i FGB:pj ; Attachment / r ; r .A �• CITY OF HUlil'1'MOTON REACH J If ITER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION rsuvnNci[W NAcn TO Floyd G. Belsito From Ed Seli.chg;�3. City Administrator Planning Director Subject HEARINGS ON GOTHARD INDUSTRIAL Date November 18, 1977 LAND Last night at the Chamber of Commerce Industrial Committee meeting it was suggested that all the General Plan Amendments and Zone Changes pending be scheduled for one City Council meeting, the rationale being that they should all be reviewed at the same time. If we follow our present schedule the hearings will come up as follows: November 21 Zone Change 77--26 (Buccella) north of Talbert east of railroad December 12 Zone Change 77-27 (Sommer) south of Talbert west of Beach December 19 GPA 77-3, Part 2 ,., Area of concern 2.5 (Family Home Builders) South of Slater east of railroad Area of concern 2.6 (Classic Development Corp. ) South of Ellis east of railroad If the Council concurs with the recommendation for all the above hearings at one meeting; I would suggest that it be done as a joint public hearing on the zone Changes and industrially related General Plan Amendments. This would eliminate the repetitive testimony that occurred at the Planning Commission hearings 'on the General Plan, Also, establishing a time limit on the hearing would assist as there has been substantial testimony at previous hearings. It was also suggested that the hearing be delayed until after January 1. The General Plan Amendments are on a schedule set forth in the adopted General Plan and we have a responsibility to hold the public hearing. if no decision can be reached at that hearing then the proper action would be to continue those items to GPA 78-1 which would be heard in May. In conclusion, I recommend that if the Council desires to near all these items at one Council meeting that the Council continue Zone Change 77-26 to December 19, 1977, and direct that Zone Change 77-27 and GPA 77-3 also be heard on December 19, 1977, and all the aforementioned Zone Changes and General Plan Amendments be done at a joint public ! ) hearing with a predesignated time limit. �+n+v �r 1 FOR IMMEDIATE F11051 Bill Iteed 536.5511 November ill, 1977 7840 :•..; ;;:;.:.::. Owt ::.. City o Huntington Hunti ton Beach � . P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 02648 A hold on further retuning in the so-called Golhard Strip industrial .one in Huntington Beach was urged Thursday night by llte city-chamber of commerce cornntereial•industrial committee. The committee,with its membership expanded to include industrial and commercial developers as well as city etuff and chamber members, met at the urb►ino of Councilwoman Harriett Wieder to take a look at the overall industrial and commercial development progress in the rill•. Thirty-five persons heard a discusaion of industrial development progress with city Economic Development Di.eclor Bill Back pointing out [lint the city rentains in [he lop seven in industrial development valuation in llm slate. But discussion centered on the value of the Golhard Strip as au industrial corridor. Alany of those attending the meeting currently own or operate Golhard Strip properties. M of those connected with the strip said the believe the area which runs north and Many p Y south from Edimer Avenue to plain Street adjacent to Golhard Street to be usable industrial property. However,the city planning department has made studies of llte area which show llte land north of Warner Avenue to he ideal for industry,but lh? land south of Warner to be marginal at hest. It was pointed out [lint land in lite marginal area is currently vadlred al about S100,000 per acre,but that some owners may be.mking much more than (flat and thus arc lint able to sell late land. I By contrast,land in the developed industrial parks to the north(if Belin»er Avenue is selling in excess of$$160,000 per acre,the developers said. industrial users in [bp! Gulbard area explained [he lack of first class development b%Rai iug there is too much threat of encroachment oil [Ile area by liontes. "This mesas houses,kids rtmninl;around and bicycles in [fit-streets and no one wants to buy industrial properly next to that,"one developer claimed. Guncilwomtan Wieder, trying to keep the mectinq centered oil attraction of industry ranter than un problenta developers claim they face in going; throu'It file city departments,asked Jack Meehan of the chamber,Ron Russell,representing homeowners near Golhard Street and John Silver,industrial n developer, to bn e o a committee to explore lwlential business prospects. 1 r Golhard Strip Add 1.1.1.1 Li the ineantime,committeemen,including Councilman Richard Siebert;said they believe there should be no further rezoning from industrial to residential until a study has been made of the business potential. "By (rezoning to allow)more hnuses along Gotilard, you are destroying the industrial ptential of the entire area,"Siebert warned [lie committee. The committee plans to meet at city hall again on Dec. 15 to lake a clo$vr hok at land uses in the strip and to disciiss what kind of business would bring file greatest rehire to the city in terms of luxes,employment and service. f I CITY OF HunTmGTon BEA ( H DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES * P. 0. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 921148 (71M 516 5M TO: Floyd G. Eelsito, City Administrator FROM: Edward D. Selich, Planning Director DATE: November 18, 1977 SUBJECT: GEMCO, SOUTHEAST CORNER GOLDENWEST AND EDINGER STATEMENT OF PROBLEMS Four forty-foot high electroliers (lights) were installed at Gemco's rear. property line, result being that the combination of height and intensity was such that adjacent residential properties were made to suffer discomfort and loss of privacy. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Instruct both Planning and Building staff to work towards an equitable solution. �ANALYS IS: Certain commitments were made by the developer during the public hearing process, one being that the lights would not exceed a height of 35 kEeet. A condition placed on the development was that a lighting plan be submitted to the Building Department for approval prior to installation. This condition, due to primarily a communication problem, was overlooked by the contractor who proceeded to install said lights without a design review. Planning staff members have been in contact with both Gemco's Architectural firm and the lighting contractor. They together with Gemco management have agreed to keep the lights off until a solution can be rendered. Re7pectfully submitted, V Edward D. Selich Director EDS:CPE:gc i J� Huntington Beach Planning Commission"N P.O. BOX Ito CAI_IF0RNIA Z6Z 1 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council ATTN: Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator FROM: Planning Commission DATE: June 6, 1977 SUBJECT: INDUSTRIAL LAND IN THE GOTHARD CORRIDOR AND EDISON INDUSTRIAL AREA The time is rapidly approaching for policy direction concerning the disposition of industrial land in the Gothard Corridor and Edison Industrial Area. The Industrial Land Use Study has sought to provide some direction in this matter. The original study has undergone a number of refine- ments over the past year without development of a concrete land use policy. The result has been to delay disposition of General Plan Amendment requests and to provide a piecemeal approach to land use planning in the Gothard and Edison Areas. The Industrial Land Use Study has reached its ultimate point of refinement. A comprehensive land use plan is needed now. The Commission recommends that the City Council direct staff to formu- late a comprehensive land use plan of the Gothard and Edison Areas for inclusion in General Plan Amendment 77-2. Respectfully submitted, EDWARD D. SELICH ' SECRETARY Monica Florian Assistant Planning Director MF:CC:ja r CITY OF 4un'rinGTon BEA(H I fell P.O. BOX 190, CALIFORNIA 92640 PLANNING DEPT. (714) 536-5271 TO: fionorable Mayor and City Council ATTENTION: Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator FROM: Planning De t � Department n DATE: September 9, 1976 SUBJECT: INDUSTRIAL LAND STUDY Transmitted for your review is the Industrial Land Use Study. This document provides a survey of industrial land uses in the City and analyzes future land requirements. It also describes the suitability of sites for future industrial development and examines some actions the City might consider for improving industrial potentials. This document and the policies it discusses are vital to the revision of the General Plan now underway, and the subject of industrial land use policy is one facing the Planning Commission with increasing frequency. Because of the importance of this matter and its far-reaching impacts on the future of the City, the Planning Commission at its September 8 meeting sought . direction from Council.. It is therefore requested that a joint City Council - Planning Commission Study Session be arranged prior to the November 16, 1976 public hearing on the General Plan to discuss the Industrial Land Use Study and clarify future City policy regarding the retention and/or conversion of industrial, lands. ReSpeCtfully s mitted, Zvr . Seli Acting Director of Planning and Environmental Resources EDS:MF:ja I� i I I