HomeMy WebLinkAboutMaster Plan - Land Use 1974-75 EIR ADDENDUM
DEPARTMENT
AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT
• . 1 c.; E; 1974
11.0 Reply to Comments from the Environmental Review Board, P. 0 BOX 190
December 3, 1974: Hu gwch. Cant. 92648
11.1 COMMENT:
Define fault trace and its relationship to the Seismic-Safety dement. Check
with State Geology Division about definitions. Is a fault trace only a sur-
face trace or can it be subsurface?
REPLY:
Fault trace, as defined in the "Explanation of Special Studies Zones Compiled
by the State Geologist", is the line formed by the intersection of a fault and
earth's surface. It is a generally understood fact among geologists that a
fault trace refers to surface and subsurface traces. (Reference: California
Division of Mines and Geology, San Francisco District Office) . In the instance
of a subsurface trace, the location on the surface is pinpointed by projecting
the fault to the surface along it's plane. If the angle of the fault is---
unknown, then the fault is projected straight up, as in the instance of a
vertical fault. In reference to the City's Seismic-Safety. Element, this
definition means that the area within 50 feet of the projected surface
location of the buried trace constitutes the "active fault zone". Property
within this zone is then subject to the regulations outlined in the Seismic-
Safety Plan.
11.2 COMMENT:
10.25 - Check if reference to the inundation of property should be the 200-
year flood or the 100-year flood.
0
- 1
REPLY:
The most recent map (September, 1974) depicting flood levels in Huntington
Beach for the 100 and 200 year floods has just been received from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
1. Planning Reserve Planninti Unit (South of Huntington Central Park)
This planning. area contaihs 10.6 acres of vacant land in the
southwest corner, which lies within the Santa Ana River flood
plain. Depth' of flood water is calculated as follows:
200-year flood: 5 feet
100-year flood: 3.2 feet
50-year flood: 1.4 feet
This, 10.6 acre section also lies within a ponding area, and is
subject to tidal flooding. i
2. Government Center' / Old Town Planning Unit
• Flood depths for the 61.5 acre section at the bottom of the bluff
lying northwest of .the intersection. of Atlanta and .Beach are
three (3) feet in the 200-year flood and 1.2 feet; in .the 100-year
flood.
street realignments, general assessments are made concerning
grading, drainage, etc. When negative impacts are identified,
mitigating measures are suggested. •
6.4 COMMENT:
The overall averaging of the park acreage is not an adequate
criterion; each area of the study needs park space within a
reasonable distance. Also, 174 acres proposed as park site
by the report are located in Central Park Phase III, which is
not yet acquired (and may not be acquired) by the City.
i
REPLY:
Park needs for each study area are identified separately on pages 10.45
through 10.47 and park acreage is existing or proposed in or near
each area. Much of the land indicated for Central Park expansion
or other open space has already been purchased or authorized for
acquisition by the City. Even if no further acquisition is approved,
the amendment specifies open space (e.g. privately-owned recreation)
uses for that area.
6. 5 COMMENT:
Historical Sites: Designation as historical sites of the H.B.-
Playhouse and the ranch house on H.B. Company property would be
in error; these should not be considered as historical sites and
it should be so noted.
REPLY:
These sites should be removed from the Land Use Amendment, and
will be considered by the Open Space and Conservation Element.
6.6 COMMENT:
The report should contain a section covering economic impacts
which might result from implementation of the plan:
a. Estate sites, both the cost to the City in services and the
difficulty in attracting buyers.
b. Cost of realignment of streets.
c. City cost/revenue to be generated.
d. Expense of Phase III of Central Park site.
REPLY:
Economic impacts of the proposed amendment are presented in
Section 10.3.9, pages 10.71 through 10.76. Additional information
regarding .estate lots is presented in Large Lot Study, September, •
1974. Realignment costs are to be dealt with in the Circulation
8
Element. No costs are presented for Phase III acquisition because
the Element does not require purchase of that open space area.
6.7 COMMENT:
Comments have been prepared in Department of Public Works; these
will be distributed to ERB and Planning Staff.
6. 8 COMMENT:
Will the adoption of this amendment set in concrete the street
alignments as shown; and, even if it does not, will not the
adoption of this element have a significant impact in the -later
preparation of the Circulation Element?
REPLY:
See Reply 2.1
6. 9 COMMENT:
Due to the difficulty of pulling pertinent information out of
the document, would it be possible to have a graphic display of
some nature, such as a table or matrix, to pull the impacts cited
in the report together and focus attention on them?
REPLY:
A matrix is presented in Figure 6.9 of this addendum.
6.10 COMMENT:
Regarding discrepancy over estate development densities.
REPLY:
Refer to Reply 5. 3
6.11 COMMENT:
It should be noted that there will be no returning to land uses
which would be less environmentally detrimental once this amendment
is adopted. We should carefully consider the effects of reducing
densities in some areas of the City and then designating additional
residential in other areas which would have a more adverse
environmental effect both in services and economically (such as
the estate development) . We must get into the economics on both.
The element did not get into the commercial need in areas where it is
proposing additional residential, we probably should pursue neighbor-
hood commercial facilities to serve those inhabitants. Otherwise,
• we are proposing adoption of an element that would increase the
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and add to air contamination.
.9
General EnviroMental Impacts of Proposed Land
Use Amendments Relative to Existing Zoning
q d 1 \ +1 to G9 N •H
r. 3 N 9 A 44 0 W 4
Source r �, �, �, �, -044
)ograph ±
Lls
L Resources
)logic Considerations
Dod Hazard
-haeological Resources +
ads and Lakes +
linage and Ground Water + + + + +
Dlogical Resources + +
r Quality - + + + +
ise + + + +
re Services - + + +
,lice Services + +
ood Control
creation and Parks + + + + + •
hools - - + +
dical Services
ectrical Consumption + + + +
.tural Gas Consumption - + + + +
!wage Waste Disposal - + + + +
)lid Waste + + + +
Lter Consumption - + + + +
tman Habitat + +
Ipulation Density and Distribution - + + + +
-affic Flow - + + + +
>st Revenue Analysis - - - - +
-owth - + + + +
•
10
REPLY:
• Commercial acreage sufficient for demand generated is provided by the
plan amendment. Economics are discussed in Section 10.3.9.
6. 12 COMMENT:
Figure 10. 1 - In the calculations the report sets forth acreages
and generation factors, but it is impossible to. determine whether
this is on the existing use of the property, existing zoning, or
on the proposed zoning.
REPLY:
Figure 10.1 reflects existing zoning.
6. 13 COMMENT:
Table 8.1, page 8.2 - Table needs updating, as well as an explanation
given of what this table actually contains. We have existing in
the City General Plan Designation on .MH, existing zoning MH, and
MH non-conforming in the R5 district.
i
Item 5 - Public and Quasi-public- uses - report lists number of
schools; however, it has not taken into consideration the private
school acreage. j
• Recreational Special Facilities. - The. amendment reflects one
golf course when we have two existing. Report lists beaches
and marinas as two acres each - figures need reassessment.
Institutional - The legend carries hospitals, so my question is
'what about the hospitals?'
Other: We have Edison, leased and unleased. Report should
indicate by whom this acreage is leased.
i
REPLY:
Existing Section 8 will be. deleted. j
6.14 COMMENT:
. i
Is this the first of a number of environmental assessments? That
decision in itself could have a detrimental or adverse economic
effect upon future development within a community .because, at the
time zoning is proposed and .subsequent development pursued.,
additional delays and expenditures of monies would be required
for. this subsequent environmental evaluation. That should .have
been outlined as a .detrimental effect.
_ 1
i
i
1
11
REPLY:
The EIR for the Land Use Element amendment is prepared in accord- •.
ance with CEQA regulations which stipulate that EIR' s for General
Plan Elements "should take on broader scope than the analysis
which is done on a specific project which has specific, well-defined
limits. "
6. 15 COMMENT:
10.8 - When the Policy Plan was processed through the ERB it was
only to be a planning and feasibility study; you will recall it
was determined not to be a project. Any subsequent recommendation
on the use of those policies will have to be properly analyzed
and the environmental effects of those policies assessed.
REPLY:
The EIR addresses the environmental impacts generated by the five
land use amendments. These amended plans are derived directly
from the goals and policies contained in the report. Therefore,
the secondary implications of the goals and policies are addressed
by the EIR.
6.16 COMMENT:
The figure of 806 acres of park lands should be rechecked, as it
seems to me we have had an increase this year in acreage. •
REPLY:
There are presently approximately 817 acres of existing parks
and beaches in the City.
6.17 COMMENT:
In regard to the public utilities consumption rates, again it
was difficult, to determine whether these were on existing uses
or existing zoning, or whether it was a combination, or whether
it was upon the proposed amendment - this should be qualified.
REPLY:
Utility consumption rates under Environmental Setting are computed
on existing population. Rates under Environmental Impacts are
computed on maximum potential population under the amendment
compared to that under the existing zoning.
6.18 COMMENT:
Page 10.15 - The statement is made that there will- be significant
land form alterations from the realignment of Ellis and Edwards.
If this is true, some recommendations for alternatives or i
mitigating measures will have to be set forth.
12
garfieid F .:;..... ... . - LEGEND
RESIDENTIAL
ti •••:'•'•'•.:.•.�•:•'•.:% •� �•.
:•..::....:•:•.•::•:•.:•.;::•.•::::• 7� � • Low
. : •••;• •• MEDIUM
HIGH ,
..
..
COMMERCIAL O M E R CIA L
r
RE
TAIL I L
a n:o
r fo
•• Y• •, OFFICE/PROFESSIONAL
PUBLIC
•
SCHOOLS
_ •�.��•
:: see
:•::•
•::::
•:::. 00
r
?:�� �'��'�' ndiana oli •�
.y.
.6. o
anAft.
PARTIAL MASTER PLAN OF STUDY AREA FIVE
huntington beach..Planning department
figure 3,4
•
3.2. 3 Existing Land Uses (Figure 3.5)
A general inventory of existing land uses within the
study area indicates that the area can be characterized
. as a predominately residential area with supporting
community facilities, highway commercial along Beach
Boulevard, small pockets of industrial .uses and large
areas of oil resources and/or vacant land. The southern
section is predominately an older residential district
with some new apartment development and a large mobile
home park in the southeast portion of the study area.
The northern section is typified by spotted development,
large areas of vacant land and numerous active. oil wells.
Within the study area there are approximately 350 gross
acres of undeveloped land. Presently, there are 88
active, productive oil wells in this area. The new
civic center and Huntington Beach High School account
for approximately 60 acres or 7.5 percent of the total
study area.
The existing land use inventory provided in Table 3.1
identifies acreage and percentage of the existing land
uses. However, only the major categories are identified.
Even though the residential category is .not divided into
the different densities the southern portion of the study
area is typified by single family dwellings , whereas
most of the new development in the northern portion is
multi-family developments. However, there are spotted
portions where a mixture of single-family and multiple
family dwellings exist.
3.2. 4 Existing Zoning Inventory (Figure 3.6)
Within the study area there are a number of different
zoning classifications. Of the 809 gross acres in the
study area, approximately 470 gross acres accounting
for 5 percent is zoned for residential use (R1, R2, R3,
R4) . R2 and R3 are the two major residential classifica-
tions in this area. Commercial, Office-Professional,
Community Facilities and Industrial classifications make
up the remaining zoning in the area (see Table 3.2) .
Zoning designations in this area have very little
continuity and in many cases are not compatible with
one another. Some of the zoning problems in this area
are:
1. . Industrial districts- surrounded by residentially
zoned areas.
3. 7
i
::��i • ■ ■ IIIIIIII� az�'t"ao-aa • •
.r N r •
SDI
1
r{ 1 NO,ol�
1
1
I
• I IIIIIII
r
r'"11 4'
I 6aaa,s, �'r
aJ•r a •>.
II ac9
aL 4< it a'•xa
I
I
.
�f
•
TABLE 3. 1
• SUMMARY OF. EXISTING GENERAL LAND USES
Land Use Category Gross Acres Percentage
Residential 306 -37. 9-
0
Mobile Home 51 6 .3
Commercial 19 2. 3
Industry 8 . 9
•
Community Facilities 62 "7 . 6
Public and Quasi-Public 13 1.6
Oil Resources or Vacant 350 43. 4
TOTAL 809 100. 0
�•
•
3. 9
•
■ • �, u
■
moommom gas
IN
IN it
an on as ON
....::..:::.:.:.....:.....
■ • ■ ■summon ■
■ w
k.: IN 0 a aIN a ..} .r.K•::::i::
■ ■
none
{
..r~.
a
f•:
4 b q
Q a Y•
a
r-0
f. 4 a 4 5 H ?o b
•
a H.a ax H
4 a Y b
a
a 4.b. 8 a H a•0 a�;{vr:4.. ...5 v :� •: .:.v.•......: y�h'}:':
a s•a .:.u;.
w w {
H H a b sr 6
r4 P b 9 •:k
a a.
IN X
b h 9
.7c n
a 4 b :
...................
• fb 9aP a ,Ha,•?..�
Q n'T.4•},`Sn a s Yob-0 F a s�h'�'�i}:{i?i:� Q Q
'P v b: f 4 nA ■ •b b H
t 4 a.P A{•• 4a:}a t.4abaP waba4�H 3 Q 5'44-0v}}'.;{<:: \\ \ ; .;':::';:!::{_ \R/ti � .•`�.••: •::`t';}'':i�:� \\ •
•
■ • \ ti ::}
Yr7i
• 01
•
•
•
arfield 9
If �
mansion yorkfown
• ,��
i.
�° ♦ adams
?4,
I, e
indiona olis
�4%*
41110�
4%* C
• ; ,�, we
�. afla a
ME
ACTIVE FAULT LINES
huntington beach-planning department
•
f igure.3.1,0
otio r e
arfield ........................
M ' - LEGEND
/ DRAINAGE DISTRICT
' BOUNDARIES
■ ; PROPOSED STORM
■/■////■ DRAIN LINE
,�■■■■_ ' WATER MAIN
- • RESERVOIR
It u■(f
mansion
r �� _ ■ orktown
r
r -
i r
r - -
■ ■
- r
r
A -
r
■
r
cue n(■uuu■( uu■ss/ adams ■//
f indiana olis
r
o
Fo`c a atlanta
AtStk
�j
.UTILITIES
. huntington beach planning department
figure 3 .11 •
•
3.2 . 8 . _ Population Estimation
The following population estimations are based on the
• existing zoning. The population ratios per residential
type were derived from the special census count completed
in November of 1973. Both the population estimations in
this section and the estimations made in the alternative
land use plan analysis section should only be used as a
tool for comparative analysis between the existing
zoning and the alternative plans. Population estimates
are based on the following figures provided in Table 3.3.
TABLE 3. 3
POPULATION RATIOS : PERSONS/UNIT
•
Category Units/Gross Acres Persons/Unit*
1. Low Density (Rl) 6 .5 3. 55
2. Medium Density (R2) 15 2.4
•
3. Med.-High Density (R3) 25 2.2
4. High Density (R4) 35 1. 8
5. Mobile Homes (MH) 9 1. 8
TABLE 3. 4
ESTIMATED POPULATION BASED ON EXISTING ZONING
Category Gross Acres Number of. Units Number of Persons
Low Density 58 374 1,.328
Medium Density 283 4,239 10 ,174
Medium-High Density 128 3,203 7,047
High Density 4 133 240.
Mobile Home 52 462 831
TOTAL 19 ,620
on
3.19
4
3.2.9 Existing Circulation (Figure 3. 12 and Figure 3.13)
Excluding Beach Boulevard, the major north/south bound
arterials within the study area are Goldenwest and Main
Streets. The major east/west streets are Garfield,
Adams and Atlanta Avenues.
Based on average traffic flow counts Goldenwest and Main
Streets account for the highest amount of traffic within
the study area. Main Street is designed to serve as a
primary arterial between Garfield and Adams; south of
Adams it serves as a secondary arterial. Goldenwest
Street serves as a major arterial. It is presently
deficient in it' s capacity to accommodate its higher
traffic counts. Consequently, plans have been made to
expand its ultimate right-of-way to 120 feet. This is
indicated in the Master Plan of Arterial Streets and
Highways. (See Figure 3.14)
Garfield, Adams and Atlanta Avenues account for the higher
east/west traffic counts within the study area. Garfield
and Adams are presently Master Planned as primary e
arterials along the portions that exist within the study
area. While Atlanta presently serves as a primary
arterial but is Master Planned.- as a major arterial.
3. 3 Land Use and Circulation Issues i
3.3. 1 Residential
As indicated in the Background Section, the study area
is predominately a residential: district. Older, single
family homes occupy most of the southern section of the
study area; a mixture of single- family and multiple
family dwellings exist in the east and east/central
sections of the study area and large vacant pockets of
residentially zoned parcels generally exist in the north
and north/central sections of .the study area.
.One of the major- issues relative to residential uses
within the study. area is the conservation of the existing
single family neighborhoods. The general area south of
Memphis Street has been identified by staff as a predom-
inately low density residential district. It is the
staff' s contention that in the evaluation of land use
alternatives the -low density -residential district
should remain intact. However, the need to ultimately
plan for alternative land uses: in this specific low
AMk
3. 20
•
0
�N
J
2
V
BOL sa 4vE J z .
�Q0 8 jQ� 3 Q
119DO 9700 99A0
-� MCFADCEN AVE.
\� 2400 91DO Dew a 920M U700— 20500 21600' zmoo \79e8
EDINGER AVE
IL
5700 4900 59w ee00 7e00 7900 7000 ;9pp .
REIL AVE '
$6900 11AW WAM w900 2Z700 2ZD0 19900 19100 9900 21
- g WARNER AYE.
. `--- sm 9200 7900 MOD BI00 &'IOONNEWSLA RAVE.
Q � 03500 4000 4100 T4LBER14VE.
N4��
LIp��I v� �
1 _ 6CALEMP �-. \. 400 IDO 1000 ELLIS AVE. a Y N
AVERAGE TRAFFIC VOUAI 2 p
PER 24 HOUR PERIOD
co
ow GARFIELD AVE.
20000
4200 4500 3200 32w Ie00 YORKTOWN AVE.
40000
50000
60000 0700 O7W ADAMS AVE.
�o Ri 93
9
Sj 4700 COD 1973 MDIANAPOLlS AVE.
� � � � �
' '`1�p ti ^yjjjjp"'' -e000 e000 ee00 9100
A7LANTA AVE.
S
�1. Woo B100 9000 II800 HAMILTON AVE
2900 2,00 BANNING AVE.
�4y
o -- �ssoTi�e -iwD�a�
TRAFFIC FLOW MAP
huntington beach planning department
figure 3.12
1
AMENDMENTS_ -
v�urmc n,r -
m.wawx cw7 .
LEGEND:
--- FREEWAY
MAJOR__ _.--_120'R/W
... PRIMARY_____ _I00'R/W
SECONDARY_. __8O'R/W
2
NOTE: .
SOLID LINES INDICATE EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
I� NOT NECESSARILY ULTIMATE RIGHT OF WAY
\ - - LINES INDICATE AREAS WHERE NO RIGHT -
RIGHT OF WAY EXISTS
=ixft SYMBOL DENOTES PRIMARY COUPLET
i
FEET
MASTER PLAN OF ARTERIAL
E - STREETS AND HIGHWAYS
huntington beach planning department
figure ` 3.13
density area will have to be addressed to assuming that
this older residential section of the City will eventually
reach its marginal use.
The existing mixture of single family and multiple family
residential parcels in the east and east/central sections
of the study area present a problem of neighborhood
planning. That is , the lack of homogenity of residential
uses and densities in these sections present some
physical constraints and social problems .
The physical constraints are related to establishing
consistency and compatibility of residential types
within the area. Residential neighborhoods should be
planned comprehensively to accommodate a similarity of
residential densities within a district. If mixtures of
residential types are to exist, a physical transition
from one type of residential district to another must
be properly planned. Also, existing small lot sizes,
typical to several portions of the study area, presents
additional physical constraints in establishing residen-
tial neighborhoods.
The social problems involved in combining low density
with higher densities, residential neighborhoods are
especially significant in impacts on local school
districts. The amount of school age children per acre
generated by families residing in higher density resi-
dential types places a greater demand on the school
district. Also, if a high degree of transiency of
families residing in apartment type dwellings exist,
educational facilities and services are difficult to
plan for. It is generally recognized that single family
neighborhoods tend to be much more stabilized than
multiple family residential areas .
Thus , the need to establish defined residential neighbor-
hoods in these sections within the study area is
essential in setting forth the alternative land use
plans. The amount of vacant lands as well as oil resource
areas in states of transition, should incorporate the
same planning principles in establishing residential
land use designations .
3. 3. 2 Retail-Strip Commercial i
At present the land fronting Beach Boulevard from
Garfield Avenue to Indianapolis is zoned for commercial
uses. It is staffs' contention that any additional
commercial along Beach Boulevard may be undesirable..
AMX
IFIF3. 23
(Refer to Policy Plan.) The desirability of. such a
district is questionable for several reasons. The
biggest problem resulting from strip commercial is
traffic congestion. In addition to the traffic hazard
and circulation problems it is rarely visually pleasing
due to massive stretches of signing, parking areas, and
the individually designed buildings.
Also, depending on the type of uses, strip commercial may
limit the level of retail business due to sporadic loca-
tions of commercial facilities . That is , the concentra-
tion of business activity that benefits both the consumer
and retailer. Possible land use alternatives should be
examined to alleviate an over-abundance of commercial
along Beach Boulevard.
•
. 3. 3. 3 Official Professional District
There are presently several areas zoned for office and
professional uses. The demand for this amount of office
and professional land area is questionable. The location
and amount of land for the office and professional uses
should be re-evaluated in terms of demand, consolidation,
optimum level of service and accessibility. Also, it
should be noted that while the R-5 district is for office-
professional and transient lodging, when much of the R-5
• in the study area was zoned when it was a residential
district.
3. 3. 4 Civic :Center
• The Planning Commission, in May of 1973, established a
policy decision for the level of activity . around the
civic center site. The area would have low and medium
density residential districts along with office and
professional and retail commercial uses. ' In essence the
Planning Commission favored a medium high activity level
• for the Civic Center area-.
3. 3. 5 Industrial Uses
There are several areas presently zoned for industrial
uses within the study area. Approximately 8 acres of
developed 'industrial uses presently exist within the
study area. It is questionable if the areas zoned
industrial should develop as such. The principle
factors affecting this are the deletion of the Route 1
and 39 Freeways, the possible abandonment of the Southern.
• Pacific Railroad line, and the southerly termination of
the central industrial corridor.
Aft.
3. 24
lip
Due to the uncertainty of the proper location of the
existing industrial zoned areas, a determination must be
made to retain the existing industrial uses or plan for
alternative long range land uses. Factors that should
be considered in the evaluation are circulation, compati-
bility of land uses, environmental constraints, market-
ability, and viability of existing industrial development.
3. 3. 6 Open Space Potentials
•
There are several areas that have potentials for. being
preserved due to their historic, landmark, or scenic
qualities.
A. Colonel Northam Residence. This is a noticeable
landmark in the City. It is located on a knoll
north of Mansion, west of the Southern .Pacific
Railroad line. The house was built in Whittier
in 1896 and moved to its present location.
B. Huntington Beach Playhouse. The playhouse is located
on Main Street north of Mansion Avenue. It is
currently being used by the Huntington Beach Commu-
nity Players.
C. Bluff. The bluff line along Delaware Street between
Detroit and Baltimore has not been irreversibly
altered by development. This area has been identified
as .a vista area in the Open Space Potential .Report,
February 1974, and the Conservation Technical report,
March 1974. This area has the potential of being
developed into a park site.
i
D. ' Lake Area. The lake is between Yorktown and Utica
on Huntington Street. It is a fresh water pond that
has a nonporous bottom enabling it to retain water
throughout the year. This provides a potential for
a passive recreational park uses.
•
? E. Scenic Corridor. The Open Space Potential Report
has identified Main Street as a potential scenic
corridor. This corridor would extend from Garfield
Avenue south to the Pacific Coast Highway.
The possible deletion of Main Street as a primary
arterial between Garfield and Clay will significantly
alter the circulation pattern. Thus, the deletion
may impact the scenic corridor concept to some
extent.
3. 25
•
3. 3. 7 Circulation
A. Main Street
There is a possibility of reclassifying Main Street
from a primary arterial between 17th Street and
Pacific Coast Highway and between Clay Avenue and
Huntington to a local street. This action would
produce a significant impact on the study area.
r First it would reduce the congestion in the older
downtown portion of the City. Secondly, it would
alter the ..vehicular circulation around the Civic
Center.
B. Gothard Street
There have been two proposed -realignments of Gothard
Street. One realignment would call for a westerly
realignment along the extension of Crystal Street.
The second plan calls for extending Gothard Street
directly south. An Environmental Impact Report
prepared. by Herman Kimmel and Associates, Inc. and
Environmental Impact Profiles. prefers the westerly
realignment. If the westerly realignment was adopted
it could be extended south across Garfield Avenue
to intersect with the undeleted portion of Main
Street. This realignment would improve circulation _
f in the Civic Center area without impacting the
- downtown portion of the City.
C. Lake Street
Lake Street has been designated as a primary arterial
up to the :Mansion/Yorktown Avenue intersection. The
Master Plain of Arterial Streets and Highways shows
Lake Street as possibly extending northward to
Garfield 4�venue.
D. Mansion Avenue and Yorktown Avenue
The precise plan of street ali,gnment 'calling for the
connection of. Mansion Avenue with Yorktown Avenue
has been deleted from the environmental impact report
on street improvements .for the 1974-75 fiscal year.
Therefore, no real decision has been made on the
realignment .of this connection. Its current
alignment creates a circulation and accessibility
problem.
i
r
•
E. Southern Pacific Railroad
There are three areas of concern relative to
the railroad lines to the study area.
1. The possible abandonment of the railroad line
south of Garfield Avenue.
2. The relationship of the railroad line to land
uses.
3. The railroad right-of-way as a possible mass
rapid transit rail line.
These issues have been studies in the formulation
of the land use alternatives both in this report
and the planning reserve South, of Huntington
Central Park land use study. It can be anticipated
that as a result of these studies some previous
industrially designated land will probably be
redesignated for some other uses. The issue of
what should be the most southerly boundary of the •
central industrial corridor will influence the
abandonment of this rail line.
Both the City and the Orange County Transit District
desire to retain the railroad right-of-way as a
possible mass rapid transit route. The Planning
Commission has moved to protect the right-of-way
by establishing a 15 '-20 ' setback on both sides of
the right-of-way.
F. Deletion of Route 1 Coastal Freeway
. . In August of 1972, the state legislature deleted
the Route 1 Freeway proposal from the state freeway
system. It is generally recognized that much ,of
the City' s present circulation system was originally
planned around the concept of the freeway develop-
ment. Since this freeway has been deleted there is
a need to revise the Master Plan of Arterial Streets
and Highways, the major revisions should be in the
undeveloped portions of the City.
The Route 1 Freeway was originally routed through
the study area along Beach Boulevard from Atlanta
Avenue north to Adams Avenue. At Adams Avenue it
was then routed northwesterly through the remainder
of the study area.
Ate,
3. 27
•
G. Route 39 Freeway
In April of 1974, the California Division of Highways
announced cutbacks in road construction funds. The
cutback resulted in the deletion of the Route 39
Freeway on the 20 year funding plan.
A re-evaluation of the Master Plan of Arterial
Streets and Highways is _in order along with proposed
land uses .
3.4 Alternative Land Use Plans
S, 3. 4.1 General
Upon completing the analysis of background information
and identifying land use and circulation issues, 'a
series of alternative plans was developed. Factors such
as residential densities , commercial development potentials ,
f open space, population, circulation and other relevant
factors were used in analysis and evaluation process.
Meetings were held between departmental personnel and
Planning Commission sub-committee members: After the
interchange of ideas, two alternative plans were
developed. These two alternatives reflect two of the
three population growth concepts set forth-by the
Planning Commission. The two alternatives reflect
moderate and extensive development. It is the consensus
of the staff and the sub-committee members that moderate
or extensive development offer the best alternatives
suitable and appropriate for the study area. Intensive
development was not considered compatible for this
area. The two alternatives are composites of other
alternatives and there exists .a large degree of similarity
in land use and circulation proposals.
3. 4.2 Alternative One: Moderate Development (Figure 3.14)
An inventory of proposed land uses is provided in Table
3 .5. Approximately 610 acres or 75% of the study area
would be allocated for residential use. Based on the
amount of residential proposed an approximation of
population generated is provided in Table 3.6.
•
3.28
•
arfield ...� ......... LEGEND
» 7 RESIDENTIAL
rl� °
`o� o LOW DENSITY
e
MEDIUM DENSITY
� •tit��.: :�'r vYr. ,++1i.;�.
COMMERCIAL
sQ �
;}:SitJ
OFFICE-PROFESSIONAL
r t�:
RETAIL
a :io or town
PUBLIC
SCHOOL
t ` CIVIC CENTER
CIVIC CENTER
EXPANSION
J PROPOSED PARK
or % •E
cee �, CITY YARD t
" e HISTORIC SITE
1
I
CY '
k It• i
•
MR •}i7{AML
'�w 1
ti ...
ALTERNATIVE ONE: MODERATE DEVELOPMENT
huntington beach" planning department
figure. 3.14
w
•
TABLE 3.5
ALTERNATIVE ONE: LAND USE INVENTORY
•
Land Uses Approximate Gross Acres
Residential
Low Density 163
Medium Density 405
• Mobile Home 42
Commercial
Retail 88
Office-Professional 11
•
Public
Community Facilities 75
(Civic Center, High School and other facilities)
Parks 15
• Railroad Right-of-Way 10
TOTAL - 809
TABLE 3 .6
• ALTERNATIVE ONE : POPULATION ESTIMATE
Residential
Type Gross Acres Max. Un/gac. Total Units Pop/Unit Pop. -
Low Density 163 7 1,141 3. 55 4 ,050
•
Medium Density 405 15 6 ,075 2 .3 14 ,972
a
Mobile Home 42 9 378 1.8 680
• TOTAL 18,70.2
•
•
3.3.0lip
•
i�
A. Residential
Low and medium density residential categories are
the two residential designations provided for •
in alternative one. The largest designation being
medium density, which will allow a maximum of 15
units per gross acre. This medium .density designa-
tion is located primarily north of Memphis Avenue.
However, the existing mobile home park at Indiana-
polis Avenue and Beach Boulevard and the areas •
between the railroad right-of-way and Lake Street
have also been designated as medium density residen
tial.
The low density designation is located. south
of Memphis Avenue. This designation of seven or
less units per gross acre in this area is in concert
with the concept of preserving the homogenity of
the existing low density neighborhoods. Both of
the density designations employed in alternative
one are consistent with the growth concept of
moderate development. Population estimates based •
on the proposed residential densities reveals that
the study area would accommodate approximately
18,700 residents.
B. Commercial
The retail commercial- designated in alternative •
one, except two areas , is either existing or is
tentatively scheduled for development within the
immediate future. The two exceptions. are the
proposed commercial designations at the southwest
corner of Garfield and Beach and the northwest •
corner of Atlanta and Beach. Much of the commer-
cially designated areas have been concentrated into
specific locations. Thus , most of the strip
commercial along Beach Boulevard would be eliminated.
This plan designates office-professional uses on
the east side of the proposed realignment of Main
Street. This office-professional designation is
directly across from a proposed commercial develop-
ment (Seacliff Village) at the northwest corner of
Mansion Avenue and Main Street. The realignment
of Gothard Street into Main Street and the connec-
tion of Beach Boulevard and Goldenwest Street via
Mansion Avenue and Yorktown Avenue provide maximum
accessibility to the Civic Center, the proposed
shopping center and the office-professional area.
•
3. 31
•
C. Circulation
Streets within the study area identified as arterials
in alternative one are as follows :
1. North-South arterials
a. Beach Boulevard as a major highway
b. :' Delaware as a primary arterial from
• Garfield Avenue south to Adams Avenue
and Delaware as a secondary arterial
from Adams Avenue south to Atlanta
Avenue.
C. Lake .Street as a primary arterial south
• of Mansion. Avenue
d. Gothard Street is realigned to link with
Main Street and designated as a primary
to 17th Street. South of 17th, Main
Street• arterials n longer l7thStreet designated will serve as an
arterial between_ Mansion Avenue and Pacific
Coast Highway.
2 . East-West arterials
a. Garfield Avenue is to serve as a major
arterial.
b. Mansion Avenue is connected to Yorktown
Avenue via 17th Street. This entire link
between Goldenwest Street and Beach Boule-
vard will function as a primary arterial.
C. Adams Avenue is also to function as a
primary arterial between Lake Street and
Beach Boulevard, but between Lake Street
• and 17th Street it will serve only as a
secondary.
d. Indianapolis Avenue as a secondary arterial
between 'Lake 'Street and Beach Boulevard.
e. Atlanta Avenue as a primary arterial
• between Beach Boulevard and Lake Street.
•
3. 32
i - -
D. Open Space
Four areas have been identified in alternative one
for potential open space and/or park sites.
1. . The existing small lake located south of. York-
town Avenue between Huntington and Delaware
has been identified as a possible park site.
The development of a park around this lake can
preserve this natural feature and provide a
pleasant setting for a neighborhood park.
2. Another possible park site that would also
preserve a natural feature and create a
pleasant and unique setting is the undeveloped
portion of the bluff line south of Detroit
Avenue and east of California Street. •
3. Colonel Northam' s residence (Huntington Beach
Company mansion) located northeast of the new
Civic Center has been identified in the Open
Space Potential and Conservation Technical •
Report as a potential historic landmark.
4. The existing railroad right-of-way from Garfield.
Avenue south would be utilized as a recreational
trail during the interim period between the
abandonment of the railroad tracks and the
development of a mass transit system. •
This interim period could be as long as 10 to
15 years .
3. 4. 3 Alternative Two: Extensive Development (Figure. 3.15)
An acreage inventory of proposed land uses is provided
in Table 3. 7.
A. Residential
Alternative two incorporates the extensive population •
growth concept in terms of low density and medium
density residential development. The low density
residential district is located south of Memphis
Avenue and the medium density district is north of
Memphis Avenue.
•
B. Commercial
The northwest corner of Mansion and Main were desig-
nated for community shopping. General retail uses
that are existing on Beach Boulevard between Utica •
Aft
3. 33
•
garfield LEGEND
~ `o c RESIDENTIAL
3
r o 0
1 0
11 o LOW DENSITY
m
c �
•.'�{...: MEDIUM DENSITY
�s f COMMERCIAL
® RETAIL
} * PUBLIC
onsion or fow
SCHOOL
CIVIC CENTER
CIVIC CENTER
.EXPANSION=
PROPOSED PARK
.CITY YARD
•
E adn HISTORIC SITE
Indiana:: s
�f
r
ALTERNATIVE TWO: EXTENSIVE DEVELOPMENT
huntington beach .planning department
figure 3 .15
and Adams and Knoxville and Indianapolis were
retained. Several convenience shopping areas
were designated throughout the site.
TABLE 3. 7;
ALTERNATIVE TWO: LAND USE INVENTORY
Approximate
Land Use Gross Acres
Residential
Low 170
Medium 515
Commercial
Retail 39
Public
School 42
Civic Center 30
Park 11
City Yard 1
Fire Station 1
TOTAL 809
Based on the residential land use inventory, the follow- .
ing population estimate is provided in Table 3. 8.
TABLE 3. 8
ALTERNATIVE TWO: POPULATION ESTIMATE
Residential Gross Maximum Total Population
Type Acres Un./G Ac. Unit Unit Population
Single Family 170 X 7 = 1,186 .5 X 3. 55 = 4,153
Multi Family 515 X 15 = 7,609 .5 X 2. 3 = 15 ,980
TOTAL 20,133
C. Civic Center
The Civic Center site was expanded to include the
triangular area bounded by 17th, Utica, and Lake
--Streets.
AOWL
am
on
i
•
D. Schools
The Huntington Beach Union High School was retained
• in its present state.
E. Open Space
Two parks were proposed for the area, one along the
bluff line between Baltimore and Detroit. The other
• park is located on Delaware between Yorktown and
Utica.
The Colonel Northam residence and the Huntington
Beach 'Playhouse have been designated as historical
sites.
F. Circulation
Lake Street would be realigned along Huntington
Street north of Yorktown. Gothard would be realigned
to link with Crystal Street. Main Street would be
deleted_ as .a primary arterial from Adams to Pacific
Coast. Highway and from Huntington Street to the
proposed Gothard/Main intersection. Delaware from
Adams south to Atlanta would be deleted as a
secondary arterial.
• With Garfield as the most southerly boundary of. the
central industrial corridor the railroad line would
be abandoned south .of Garfield.
3. 5 Reconmendations
•
Provided in this sub-section is a recommended Land Use Plan
and accompanying policy statements. In essence the recommended
Land Use Plan and policies represents the conceptual approval by
the Planning Commission.
3. 5. 1 General Conclusions
. During the evaluation process of the proposed Alternative
Land Use Plans, several conclusions have been reached. by
staff and the Planning Commission. The following conclu-
sions were generally reached by both the staff and
Commission:
AIRk
3. 36
•
A. A moderate level of residential development, consist-
ent with the moderate growth policy concept as set
forth in the preliminary Population Growth Element,
was most suitable for the study area. .
•
B. The concept of conserving existing low density resi-
dential districts should be initiated where possible.
C. Medium density, residential, not to exceed a maximum
of 15 units per acre, should be established in the
remaining residential areas. •
D. The long range elimination of all existing industrial
zoned areas is proposed as a result of the proposed
land use designations within the study area.
E. Where feasible, the elimination of commercially •
zoned parcels along Beach Boulevard in order to
control the amount of strip commercial_ along Beach
Boulevard.
F. An office-professional area should be designated in
the civic center area on the east side of Main
Street between Clay and Mansion Avenues.
G. All of the area bordered by Clay on the north, Main
Street on the east, Mansion on the south and Golden-
west on the west (excluding Reservoir Hill) should
be designated for retail commercial use.
H. Providing as much open space as possible, including
the suggested location of two neighborhood parks
was generally agreed upon as proposed in the
recommended Land Use Plan (Figure 3.16) .
•
I. With regards to circulation the following major
concept proposals were looked upon favorably:
1. The northerly extension of Lake Street, east
of the railroad right-of-way between Garfield
and Mansion/Yorktown. •
2. Delaware Street as a secondary arterial
between Garfield and Atlanta Avenues.
3. Seventeenth Street should be eliminated as a •
primary arterial between Main Street to Mansion
and Yorktown to Garfield.
Aft
3. 37
4. Main Street would be reclassified from a major
arterial between Garfield and Clay and south
of Adams .
5. Gothard shall link with Main Street approx-
imately where Main Street connects with Clay .
Street and run further south to link with 17th
Street.
• 6 . Adams between Lake and 17th Streets should be
eliminated as a primary arterial street.
3.5.2 Proposed Goals and Policies
The proposed goals and policies provide the framework
for the establishment of land use designations within
the study area. Furthermore, the proposed policy state-
ments focus on critical community development issues
applicable `to the study area. It is intended that the
proposed goals and policies will be used as guidelines
in the decision making process by both the Planning
Commission and City Council.
Residential
Goal
Encourage and .maintain a well-balanced variety of resi-
dential types and encourage a living environment that
will provide a high quality of life for residents.
Policy
•
1. Establish defined residential .neighborhoods `that
are homogenous in character.
2. Provide for a level of moderate residential develop-
-ment consistent with the proposed population growth
element. to the -General Plan.
3. Assure aesthetic qualities of residential types
within civic districts through design review.
4. Provide for residential development .that maximizes
open space by encouraging planned residential .
developments on larger parcels or unsubdivided land.
•
3.38m
5. Balance population growth by defining and conserving
existing homogenous single family districts. and
providing a variety of housing types in other
sections of the area.
Commercial
Goal
To establish and maintain well-planned commercial devel- .
opments which are aesthetically pleasing, convenient
and economically sound for both consumers and businesses.
Policy
1. • Reduce the amount of strip commercial along Beach
Boulevard, specifically where one ownership or
consolidated ownership of larger areas exist.
2. Concentrate commercial facilities in locations that
will optimize the level of retail services and will
adequately serve consumers.
3. Establish new and preserve existing convenience
commercial facilities to serve local residents.
4. To establish and maintain high quality office
professional uses in the vicinity of the civic
center.
Industrial
Goal
Phase out all existing industrial uses' and industrially
zoned areas which are non-compatible with existing and
proposed land uses.
Policy
1. Rezone existing industrially zoned land which is
non-compatible with surrounding zoning or land uses.
2. Phase out existing industrial uses and encourage
the relocation of industrial facilities in planned
industrial areas within the City. •
•
3. 39
•
Open Space
Goal
Provide maximum open space by preserving where possible
unique natural physical features , historical landmarks,
and potential scenic corridors.
Policies I
• 1
1. Acquire land for parks , open space and recreation
prior to or at the time the surrounding area is
developedlin accordance with the Open Space and
Land Use Element.
• 2. Preserve And protect historic, scenic, geological,
topographical, and archaeological sites.
3. Develop a recreational trails system as an interim
use for the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way
between abandonment of the railroad and its develop.-
• ment as a mass transit corridor.
Civic Center
Goal
• Establish and maintain for the. civic center area a medium.
high activity level.
Policy '
1. Provide for adequate land area for future civic
• center expansion.
2. Establish compatible land uses around the civic
center which would reflect the medium. high activity
level:
• , 3. Protect the quality of civic center area through
the expansion of the civic district zoning suffix.
3. 5. 3 Recommended Land Use Plan (Figure 3. 16)
• The recommended land use plan ..for the study area reflect
the general conclusions and opinions of the Planning
staff and Commission.
3. 40
•
All suggested Planning Commission changes and modifica-
tions to the land use and circulation proposals have
been accounted for and integrated into the proposed land
use plan proposal. For comparative purposes an inventory
of the proposed land uses and a population estimate is
provided in Table 3.9 and Table 3.10. Portions of the
VTN study area which encroach into this study area were
left in the destination resort category pending outcome
of VTN's effort.
Adft
i
I
I
I
i
I
i
I
3.41 .
i
•
S
arfield F° < LEGEND
RESIDENTIAL
.LOW DENSITY
o
•.•��i °v►R MEDIUM DENSITY
COMMERCIAL
OFFICE-PROFESSIONAL
•
. mansion oiktow RETAIL
,n a „� �•` x PUBLIC
F SCHOOL
CIVIC CENTER
CIVIC CENTER
EXPANSION
.,` PROPOSED PARK
• r
o`
„dams ._ "., CITY. YARD'
FIRE STATION
HISTORIC SITE
CY
PLANNING UNIT
DESTINATION
:•r•:::s:•.: ;;.: .•
RESORT
olis
•r i
allonia
RECOMMENDEDED LAND USE PLAN
huntington beach planning department
figure 3 .16
TABLE 3.9
PROPOSED LAND USE ACREAGE SUMMARY
LAND USE GROSS ACRE
RESIDENTIAL
LOW DENSITY 109
MEDIUM DENSITY 446
COMMERCIAL
OFFICE-PROFESSIONAL 15 •
RETAIL 98
PUBLIC
SCHOOL 38
CIVIC CENTER 33
CITY YARD 1
FIRE STATION 1
PARK 4
DESTINATION RESORT 64
TOTAL 809
TABLE 3. 10 •
PROJECTED POPULATION ESTIMATE
RESIDENTIAL GROSS ' MAXIMUM TOTAL POPULATION POP.
TYPE ACRES UNITS/GAC UNITS UNIT
•
LOW DENSITY 109 x 7 = 736 x . 3. 55 = 2708
MEDIUM DENSITY 446 x 15 = 6690 x 2.3 = 15387
TOTAL = 18095
•
3 .43
•
section 4
townlot planning unit
•
•
•
i
•
4 . 0 . TOWNLOT PLANNING UNIT
4 . 1 Introduction
4 .1. 1 Purpose. of Study
The Townlot area was defined. as a planning unit for
purposes of further study. Its historic context and
ocean relationship make it an area of distinct concern.
The "Townlot Specific Plan Study" dated August 26, 1973
has laid the groundwork for planning concepts which
includes the reduction of residential densities in
portions of the area, the consolidation of commercial
development, the limited provisions of multi-story
development, and possible changes of the circulation
patterns. While .direction and criteria have been
established, - the delineation of land uses has not yet
occurred.
• The purpose of this study is to analyze all of the back-
ground information, identify major issues ,. both land use
and circulation, and establish alternative land use
plans for the Townlot area.
•
• 4 . 1
•
4. 1. 2 Study Area (Figures 4 . 1 and 4 . 2)
The Townlot area consists of approximately 316 gross •
acres bounded by Palm Avenue on the north, Sixth Street
on the east, Pacific Coast Highway on the south, .and
Goldenwest Street on the west.
4. 2 Background Inventory •
4. 2 . 1 Surrounding Influences (Figure 4. 3)
Uniquely situated along the ocean the Townlot study area
represents a transitional zone between the "downtown" •
anO the new beach community of Huntington Seacliff.
There are a number of unique and special features sur-
rounding the Townlot area. Besides the nearness of the
ocean to this area, other unique features include the
downtown area to the southeast, two new planned communi- •
ties , Seacliff and Beachwalk to the northwest and north,
and the existing homogeneous single family neighborhood
also to the north.
Three other special study areas surround the Townlot
area. Located to the southeast is the Destination Resort •
Planning Unit. To the northeast is the Old Town/Govern-
ment Center Planning Unit and located to the north is
the Seacliff Planned Community Planning Unit. All of
these planning unit areas, excluding the Destination
Resort area, are being studied for future land uses by
the Planning Department. A private consulting firm •
(VTN) is preparing a comprehensive land use plan for the
downtown area that includes the designated Destination
Resort area.
4. 2 .2 Existing Zoning (Figure 4.4) •
Based on the existing zoning, 89 percent of the Townlot
area is zoned for residential use. Another 10 percent
is zoned for commercial use and the remaining 1 percent
is designated for public use.
•
The residential categories in the Townlot area consist
of R2 , R3, and R4 . There is no .R1 designation in this
area. The largest portion of land is designated. R4.
This accounts for 35 percent of the total Townlot area.
The R3 designation accounts for 28 percent while the R2
designation consumes 27 percent of the total area.lip •
Aft
4. 2
I
y:......:....... ...::...: ......,....:y mnaxq. SOLSA -.
�..._ ....................
EDINGER
1 :
M�-w. .....
71
. :.... ........i......:...._.._.........---- .......... ...... ................ .... HELL G .
ASS
VORNEi
A
{
.i � ...€.. ... SLATER
5...
k,.. ............ .............,.
ELLIS
...vm:e..v.... v.,i.*eaoe":""3 .. OABFIkLD
.` .......... b :.
........... ............ __•--------- ............ ............... VORKTOWII
tt l:In i•i'{ iti i .. ........... ..... € - ......... INDIANAVOLIS
•:�dig. t iyiti}..i { ...�
J .
lr :..X. 3
...........,,...:.:..................yj,..,.......... ,..........:....k...,r. HAMLTON
_ ` !
t ..
i
' .eo-•+axes "Ore
-...
• • ...�� � ..�` 5.:...................-...... BANNING
r
ram, 13
0 3
VICINITY
MAI'
huntington beach. planning department
figure4 .1
•
palm • i: �: :• : :•::•:•:::: :::::•::•::::
pecan
orange
u t
m
3 aCi s
c m C `c
y C
m
°� °'
ocean
w E
BOUNDARY LINE
STUDY AREA BOUNDARIES
huntington beach planning department
figure 4.
1
I is
• 1 PLANNING RESERVE
I SOUTH OF HUNTINGTON
CENTRAL PARK
f --�00
SEACIIFF.PLANNED
COMMUNITY GOVERNMENT CENTER
OLD TOWN
SINGLE FAMILY
DISTRICT
7jT1
TOWN OT
-� ill �,I��I'. r ti�-,;, �•� ,-.-E J�
Qj
V T N STUDY AREA OVER LAP
DESTINATION 1
RESORT
.`
\I
•
SURROUNDING .INFLUENCES
huntington beach planning department
figure 4 .3.
palm: •{�'v+:1{:.r tivfitiiti{}}:•'titi; :;:;:;;r.: _ .:v:•: _ _ }:fi:: }:fi} ;:;•r,';:;r:.
i :,: '+s +� •>.'ti\:2'tti<%�:;�. t. tkk;,•;�';,^�1,�:.}'} .,f• f��y:;:tti:. %�:•:rvty•�"•}. �.,,�•'•;'•�'',;:�`%:
v ,;;.}•{:. •;^},.+•:�v::2{ ?•r../r:. }Y:x.r. ry............. �ii:.
.}}.1�� {ti:}•`.%:'•' +fir:{••r':.
r .t•t•' :•.•�.t• l••}{:{•nW..r{� ,rr rX.�y ;}'r't}
ps,
i::.rS.%`r ••?` •''�'Yir::r7�%�ry'• +.•. ti, .1 r �?f .i}rf
pecan': :rr.�,:•"•`.�'��,• •,w'�••.• .•ti �:�:rr:
X.
4 t:;
,.:
:• a
rr• ,
• • • • ••• • •• •• • • • • • • •h
• • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • •• •• •
• • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • 1 • • • ••• •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •'
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •�` • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • 1 • •• • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • •
3 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • L• • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .
�ii•�iiiiiiii •
• • • • • • • •• •• • • • • • • • • • • • • •w • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • •• C • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • 1 • • • • •• • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• 1 • • • • • • • • •
ocean w m E
a
:r:'r>:•y:{L•:h._::: }}:}:.}+6iY.:•::y.:::•.•.:::::.4:.:::,,.�:•:•::•:•:•:::{•:. ..}.:}:.::•.{y:xr.:r:�:•}:� ...s::?':':}:.... :':�t.`�:�.•.:��:_t�::::::::::'rr•.--• -
LEGEND
RESIDENTIAL
MEDIUM DENSITY R2
MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY R3 f £y
i Yi,E;B.
M.
::•: HIGH DENSITY R4
fS
COMMERCIAL •
® EXISTING ZONING
GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT C3
PUBLIC hun ington beach planning department
M1.. f4gere . 4
COMMUNITY FACILITIES C F 4 ,
Under the present code both the R3 and R4 zoning desig-
nations within this area allow one dwelling unit per
each 950 square feet of site area. The R2 designation
allows one dwelling unit per each 1,250 square feet of
site area. If the current attempt to reduce densities
within the City is approved. the R3 and R3 designations
in the Townlot area will be reduced to one unit per each
1, 000 square feet and one unit per each 1, 250 square
feet, respectively.
Commercially zoned property in the Townlot area consists
of approximately 30 gross. acres or 10 percent of the total
area. Commercial zoning along Pacific Coast Highway
accounts for 87 percent of the total commercial land in
this area.
Community Facilities zoning is the only other designation
in the study area. This CF classification accounts for
1 percent.
TABLE 4 . 1
Summary of Existing Zoning Inventory
Zone Gross Acres Percentage
Residential
R2 83. 0 2.6 . 7
R3 85. 0 27.5
R4 . 108 .0 34 .9
Commercial
C3 31. 3 9 .9
Community Facility
CF 3. 4 1. 0
4. 2 . 3 1965 Master Plan of Study Area Five (Figure 4. 5)
The Townlot area is located. within Study Area 5 . of the
1965 Master Plan. The Study Area 5 Master Plan was
prepared by the Planning Department staff October, 1965.
This Master Plan consists of only three land use desig-
nations within the Townlot area. Approximately 60
percent of the area is designated medium density resi-
dential. Approximately 10 percent is designated as
office and retail commercial. This commercial is located
AWL
4 . 7
0
palIn r .f: - t�:� r.:: :•::•:�:..r.'•. : �:=�: }::,•::}}::�:;:;t:} •:xx:•::�::�::. ::::;:.: .; •
r . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- .. . . . . . . • .: • .. . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . .
:•::::•::::•:::�:::•:::•:::��:::1::•::•�::•::� •:•:•:: • . ::::•:•::•.
..
41
• • • I • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • •• • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • r:
• • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • r.•
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • I • • • • I • • • • • • • • • • I ::
,r - • • • • • • • • • • • ' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • •
' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •.::: R. ,
• • • • • • ••••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
::••:::::::• •: •I •i•::::•i•::::::::••::::•i•::••::•••
• • • • • •• ••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • r•
�- 1 • • • • • • • • • • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . z.
}} •. .r .. .r...••, r. ..��. -r��r.•:r::�:i ra :•`•: :r:Y::f-r:� 1 1
\'~J '�ice• !�is•• ivv�i•i.•i•.v.•.•..i.•.:v:•...1•.•.i�•.• C
j--I ... �.. .�:�.:�: ` ':i.:��►-'i:'i'i i::f-r:i:'f't:\•:•J:�:\•�'J' S'�'J' •'•' ��' t
ocean O .v.r.•��:r:•:4•Q �., i t.. :�:�:i-r:����� �:r:i is t:!'i:J',t::l:r:�•�'!:; 1
:.t. .ti:•: :::: vvh•.t:•::::}:•}'•.:}. ::. :ti::•}:•::t}•:?:•:•: i'.v::•::•:•k '•:�.:t••::v:•:•::r.:titvr::•: } ti:�:::•:•:•:ti•}i:::::•'•:•}:•::::ti:•:.
LEGEND
RESIDENTIAL
• MEDIUM DENSITY
COMMERCIAL
"�•••-�• OFFICE AND RETAIL
INDUSTRIAL y
® LIGHT
PARTIAL MASTER PLAN OF STUDY AREA FIVE
huntington beach planning department
figure 4 • 5
i • • •
•
along Pacific Coast Highway between Sixth Street and
Seventeenth Street. The remaining 30 per of the
area is designated for light industrial.
The Land Use Element adopted December, 1973 . designated
this area as "Townlot" .
�. 4.2 . 4 Existing Land Use
A. Residential
Existing residential land uses account for over 50
percent of the total Townlot area. The majority of
dwelling units are located in the established east-
ern section of the Townlot area. Approximately
one-half of all the total residential acres are
consumed by low density single family type dwellings.
The remaining residential acres are divided between.
medium, medium-high and high density residential
f.. uses. The medium to medium-high density residential
uses are sporadically mixed with single family. homes.
The largest percentage of high density residential
land use is located in the central section of the
` Townlot area.
B. Commercial
Only 2. 3 percent of the Townlot area is presently
occupied by commercial land use. This represents
less than 25 percent of the commercially zoned . land.
With the exception of a few neighborhood stores and
• some offices , all of the commercial land uses are
located either along the Pacific Coast Highway or .
17th Street. Most of the commercial located along
Pacific Coast Highway is oriented toward service
stations, restaurants , drive-in eating places and
motels. The commercial along 17th Street is predom-
inately office use.
C. Industry
Industry in the Townlot area. accounts for 7.2 percent
of the total acreage. Of the total 22. 6 industrial
acres , over 80 percent of this land is being used
for oil extraction.
Adft
4. 9
•
D. Public Land
Public land accounts for 1.6 percent of the total
study area. The Recreation and .Parks Department
offices located at Orange Avenue and 17th Street
consumes 3 acres of the Townlot area.
E. Vacant Land
As of August, 1973, over 38 percent of the Townlot
area was vacant, accounting for approximately 119
acres. Most of this vacant land is located in the
western section of the study area and is intermixed
with parcels containing oil wells. .'
4. 2. 5 Schools
At the present time there are no public or private schools
in the Townlot area. However, there is one elementary
school and one intermediate school, both located" north
of Palm Avenue between 17th Street and 14th Street. The
Dwyer Intermediate School was built in 1935 and is in
need of renovation or replacement. The Smith Elementary
School was built in 1951.
Presently there are three future school sites designated
in or around the Townlot area. One of the proposed sites
is located in the northeastern corner of the study area.
However, there is some uncertainty as to the actual
location of the school site. Outside the study area two
other sites have been designated for elementary schools .
One site has been designated north of Palm Avenue and
east of Goldenwest. This site is not to be confused with
the existing Dwyer or Smith school sites . The other site
is proposed for an area west of Goldenwest Street approx-
imately between Palm Avenue and Orange Avenue in the
Seacliff development.
4. 2 . 6 Natural Physical Conditions
. The intent of this subsection is to identify and describe
some of the natural features that exist within the study
area. A general description of these conditions is
provided in terms of topography, soils, natural resources ,
and scenic conditions.
4 . 10
•
A. Generalized Topography .(Figure 4.6)
The study area is located on the Huntington Beach
Mesa and is an area with very little elevation
difference. The topography within the Townlot area
is between a low of 30 feet above sea level to a
high of 35 feet above sea level.
B. Soils (Figure 4. 7)
There are two soil variations within the study
area. Ramona is the soil type. Fine sandy loam
and sandy loam are the two variations.
Land subsidence has occurred in the southwestern
portion of the study area in the past. According
to the Geotechnical Inputs Report prepared by the
Planning Department, February, 1974, some subsidence,
reported to be as much as 5.1 feet, did occur .within
a portion of the study area between the years 1928
and 1965. The subsidence does not appear to be
directly related to oil field operations; however,
tectonic subsidence and withdrawal of ground water
have been postulated as two possible causes.
The Geotechnical Inputs Report also states the
subsidence within the City limits has not posed
any serious economic or safety problems in the past.
The chances of any future problems arising from
land subsidence due to oil field operations are
negligible at the current level of water injection
into the oil wells of 300 ,000 to 400 ,000 barrels
per day. Little additional subsidence is expected
from oxidation of peat deposits.
C. Natural Resources
Indigenous to the Townlot area is the natural
r resources of oil. There are approximately 177
oil wells presently located in the study area,
many of which are currently operating on a marginal
level of production. Some wells that have ceased
to produce have been removed. However, there are
a number of abandoned wells, tanks and equipment
that are presently located throughout the Townlot
area.
lip 4. 11
•
palm. :.:<.. .;.;.. •r•'•i'titi V
A�l
pecan 30
orange
iX
w L
m
d C
C �
0 C ` .•
m
is d > 35 if t ` m
0 ocean Q, 30 r ' = ° a
E
......................:}:;I:•?ti ::•}:{•:{.•? i;.}i:::•::tiff:•••:i fi:•:•:v:.. •.s'•:::•:i:•:::• :f:•:•:v:=r::•av:•:•••:•::{:. -
odc ft, �.
GENERAL TOPOGRAPHY
hun ington beach planning department
figure 4. 6
palm /. .l.
/RAMONA FINE RAMONA SANDY
SANDY LOAM LOAM
pecan
f
range
L
M t
m
d t
C 41 r
• C
o >
a
ocean E a
® LAND SUBSIDENCE
AREA
SOILS
huntington beach planning department
figure 4.7
D. Seismic Conditions (Figure 4. 8)
The main trace of Newport-Inglewood fault runs •
directly through .the City of Huntington Beach.
According to the Geotechnical Inputs Report
prepared by the Planning Department and the..
consulting firm of Leighton-Yen and Associates,
February, 1974 , this fault is still active with
a maximum probable earthquake magnitude of 6 . 6 •
on the Richter Scale. An earthquake of this size
within the City could cause considerable damage.
Located in the southwest corner of the study area
is the walnut Street fault running parallel with
Pacific Coast Highway. Also located just to the •
north of Palm Avenue is the South Branch fault.
This fault also runs parallel with Pacific Coast
Highway.
The study area is located on marine terrace deposits,
one of the older geologic formations in the City, •
and considered to be one of the most stable areas
in the City.
4 . 2. 7 Circulation
•
Approximately 121 acres or 39 percent of the Townlot
area is absorbed in streets and alleys . The study area
is laid out in a grid street pattern where west-east
intersections occur every 250 feet and north-south inter-
sections occur every 350 feet. All of the west-east
local streets are 60 feet wide. The west-east arterials ,
Palm Avenue, Orange Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway,
are 60 , 75 and 100 feet wide, respectively. All the
north-south local streets are 75 feet wide. The north-
south arterials , 14th, 17th, and Goldenwest Street are
75, 90 and 100 feet, respectively.
i
Twenty-four hour average vehicle usage is shown on the
Traffic Flow Map (Figure 4. 9) . This represents a daily
flow. ana does not take into account peak conditions,
such as summer weekend traffic on Coast Highway.
Stop signs are the major traffic control device currently
in use in the study area and are used to encourage travel
on designated arterial streets.
According to the TOPICS Report prepared for the City by
Lampman and Associates , November, 1972, where Goldenwest ,
Street and 17th Street connect to Pacific Coast Highway
Aft
4. 14 •
SOUTH BRANCH FAULT
Mimi
solwalm NMI MIMIMI was
palm{Gdd,'✓fi,'�k%:''r'f ~ 4:•~� :• w .Y............
y f
x
pecan
orange
T
r
s WALNUT STREET FAULT
_
C = d
00 ocean _ ....
�S
ACTIVE FAULT LINES
huntington beach planning department
figure 4 . 8
"
8 � In "
Q
" •
a It m
ti
,'\ V I U V
BOL SA AVE
J 2
> a
I �I1900 6700 6600 \ -
,�, -- --Mc FADf,EN avE.
a •
2400 " 9q0 geoD a IzfioD n700 20300 21600 zfilDo \732e
E DINGER AVE.
33W 4WD 3600 6800 l6pp T600 7500 3000
HEIL AVE
16900 64DD 16400 09DO 22300 22700 19900 IMOD 19600 2I - a
WARNER At E.
I6600
\\ -- WOO9200 7900 7Fa0 100 SLA R AVE. _
3700 4000 4100 'ALBERT AVE.
9GLL�E�1'n.P7o' �" 400 I1 0 C- 1000 ELLIS AVE. C1
AVERAGE TRAFFIC VOWhE 2 O
.PER 24 HOUR PERIOD I
_ I
.— mao e3Do - 7900 e6ao 640o y00
D000 --- GARFIELD AVE.
20000
30000
36GO 4200 4300 37DD am
40000 - jxQS 9,1 0 g00 -YORKTOWN AVE.
��
4 F W
O9 9! �j, p
60000 9yC 'b y, Q�pp 17gD Z'140D et>00 I -
Y ADAMS AVE.
70000
CO
9S
3600 4700 470D 420D 2,g0p
/NDIANAPOLIS AVE.
1973 W 9 1 1 i •
`F WOO 6000 6600 7100
d7LANT4 AVE.
y1, 33M wo 9400 low
HAMILTON AVE.
2300 1 2700 •
BANNING AVE.
�q y
N •.
TRAFFIC FLOW MAP
huntington beach planning department
figure 4 .9 a
a
AMENDMENTS
o.•w.nc nr, -- - -
c...swl cou k .
LEGEND:
FREEWAY
MAJOR_ ____._120'R/W
$ PRIMARY_____I00 R/%N
SECONDARY__80'R/W
.\ NOTE:
SOLID LINES INDICATE EXISTING RIGHT OF WA
NOT NECESSARILY ULTIMATE RIGHT OF WAY
DASHED LINES INDICATE AREAS WHERE NO
RIGHT OF WAY EXISTS- . -
ips ewa SYMBOL DENOTES PRIMARY COUPLET.
1
E
`,,
�C, y%
� ------
of �.
w L o _
.•y /:
Admbk
•
• MASTER PLAN OF ARTERIAL
STREETS AND HIGHWAYS
huntington beach planning department
• figure 4 .10
c
11.3 COMMENT:
There may be an error in calculations on page 10.66. ,
REPLY:
The population shown for "Recommended Plan" should be 41,257 persons.
I
i
i
I
r
HUNTINGTON BEACH
PLANNING DEPT.
EIR Addendum
• Amendment to the -Land Use Element NOV 2 71974
1. 0 Response to Comments by Don Kiser: P. 0. Box 190
1. 1 COMMENT:
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Reduction of higher base in favor of more costly residential,
service damand wise, is not to City benefit, (Section 2.5.1F)
REPLY:
The recommended plan for South of Huntington Central Park calls
for a decrease in industrial uses and an increase in low and
medium density residential uses. As indicated in the Revenue/
Expenditures Analysis (October_ , 1973) industrial acreage may
generate a net economic gain to the City of up to $206/ac or a
net loss of $158/ac depending on the type of use. Residential
uses may generate a net economic gain of $610/ac or a net loss
of $403/ac depending on density and unit type. Therefore, the
replacement of industrial acreage by residential acreage does
not necessarily constitute a disadvantage to the City.
1. 2 COMMENT:
Regarding potential problems posed by possible street alignments -
Ellis, Edwards, Gothard, Talbert - (Section 2 .5 . 1 H and I)
REPLY
All referencesto street alignments within the Amendment to .
the Land Use Element are conceptual in nature, and adoption
would not affect existing adopted circulation plans. The comments
presented will be dealt with in the Circulation Element of the
General Plan to be completed in mid-1975.
1. 3 COMMENT:
Regarding potential problems posed by street alignments Lake,
Delaware, Main, Gothard = (Section 3 . 5 . 1 I)
REPLY:
Refer to reply 1. 2 above.
1.4 COMMENT:
On Figure. 3. 16 , omit City Yard from long range plans.
REPLY:
Figure 3 . 16 should be. changed to omit. City Yard.
1.5 COMMENT:
,Regarding inability to alter circulation system in Sunset .Heights.
(Section 5. 6. 3)
1
I
i
REPLY:
Based on discussions between Planning and Public Works
Departments, the suggested changes will be deleted. •
Solution of the circulation problems will be achieved by
mechanical devices instead of street configurations.
1.6 COMMENT:
Map 5-17, no school?
REPLY:
The Sunset Heights Study (June, 1974) determined that school
needs could be adequately met by existing and planned schools
in adjacent areas.
1.7 COMMENT:
What is 1/2 St. Constantine for? (Section 6)
REPLY:
Constantine should be shown fully improved.
1.8 COMMENT:
Park Condemnation from Church: (Section #6)
REPLY:
The park designation is meant to show only a generalized j
location and not commit the City to condemnation or purchase
of any precise parcel.
I
2
2.0 Reply to Comments from Jack Miller: j
•
2 .1 COMMENT:
Regarding potential problems posed by possible street
alignments - Talbert, Ellis, Edwards, Mansion, Lake, Main,
Orange, and Olive - (Sections 2, 3, and 4) .
REPLY:
All reference to street alignments within the Amendment to
the Land Use Element are conceptual in nature, and adoption
would not affect existing adopted circulation plans. The
comments presented will be dealt with in the Circulation
Element of the General Plan to be completed in mid-1975.
2. 2 COMMENT:
The initiation of a precise plan of street alignments in Sunset
Heights is not possible.
REPLY:
Based on discussions between Planning and Public Works
Departments, the suggested changes will be deleted.
Solution of the circulation problems will be achieved
. by mechanical devices instead of street configurations.
2. 3 COMMENT:
Figure 6.9 should reflect the vacation of Modale and Carolyn
and the precise, plan of Hoyt, Constantine and Modale.
REPLY:
Figure 6.9 should be changed accordingly.
•
3
3.0 Reply to Comments from Walt Hurtienne and Jack Miller:
3.1 COMMENT: ,
Regarding potential problem& posed by possible street alignments -
Mansion, Ellis, Talbert, Slater.
REPLY:
Refer to Reply 2.1.
i
•
4
I,
. 4.0. Reply to Comments from Water Department:
4.1 COMMENT:
Regarding acquisition costs, 1970 prices for 42" trunk water
main $250,000 and implications for realignment of Edwards.
I
REPLY:
Refer to Reply 2.1.
4.2 COMMENT:
Regarding construction of Lake Street through reservoir.
REPLY:
Refer to Reply 2.1.
4. 3 COMMENT:
Regarding street alignments in Sunset Heights.
REPLY:
. Refer to. Reply 1.5.
5
5. 0 Reply to Comments from the Environmental Review Board,
November 15, 1974:
5.1 COMMENT:
Regarding estate lot designation south of Central Park
and problems posed by oil leases and small lots.
REPLY:
A Land Use Element sets forth desirable long-term uses
of land and, therefore, need not be overly concerned with
immediate or even mid range uses. However, oil production
in the area designated for estate development would not be
incompatible especially if well consolidation took place.
Concerning consolidation of small lots, it has been the
policy of the City to do so since adoption of the Non-
Structural Blight Element in April, 1968.
5.2 COMMENT:
Regarding need for utilities.
REPLY:
i
Obviously, the addition of any population will require additional
utilities, and the maximum potential population under the land
use amended is .greater than existing population. In similar
manner, the maximum population under existing zoning is greater
than both existing population and permitted population under the
amendment. The EIR compares the difference between these
two longer range possibilities and because less people will
be permitted under the amendment than under current zoning,
less utilities will be needed in the long range.
5. 3 COMMENT:
Regarding estate development density and student generation rate.
REPLY:
i
If the estate designation is redefined from a maximum of 4 un/ac
to a maximum of 2 un/ac. , the potential population and related
environmental impacts will be reduced accordingly. Students
per acre are tabulated on a formula basis which is averaged
over time. Therefore, there will be more elementary students
than high school students in residential areas.
5.4 COMMENT:
Regarding mitigating measures.
REPLY:
Mitigating measures are not contained in a separate section but
discussed in each. paragraph as adverse impacts are identified.
6
6. 0 Reply to Comments from Public Hearing, EIR 74-13
i
. 6.1 COMMENT:
The Council feels that this is the major element to be prepared
and will have a major effect upon the community of the future.
Most of the areas with which it deals involve lots under small
ownership, and this is probably the single document which gives
an opportunity to bring some kind of coherence to those areas.
6. 2 COMMENT:
It is the feeling of the Council that the only realistic way
of comparing environmental impacts is to compare the proposed
Land Use Amendment with what presently exists in the .City. She
cited as an example the presently existing medical facilities
in the community and what .demand for further such facilities will
be generated by the changes proposed in the element.
REPLY:
The methodology used to develop the EIR for the amendment to the
Land Use Element is described in Section 10.1.2B. Comparing
the amendment to existing land use would reveal .little, primarily
because the existing " situation is transitory in nature and with
no further action by the' City would develop according to. existing
zoning. Obviously any plan other than widespread comdemnation
• and relocation could increase the population and corresponding service
needs over that which -exists today. To know this would offer no
help to the decision-makers responsible for planning the involved
area. Much more useful to them would be an analysis of how
development may proceed under the amendment as compared to how
it may proceed under the existing governing .conditions. This
information is provided by the EIR. A major consequence of the
amendment will be to reduce total population in the long run and
this consequence is thoroughly analyzed in the EIR.
6.3 COMMENT:
While it should be stated that the Environmental Council feels
that this plan would be better than the. existing zoning, the
staff assumption that all impacts would be beneficial and positive
has resulted in no mitigating measures having been put forth in
the report.
REPLY:
Despite the fact that the overall effect. of the amendment is to
reduce population and the environmental impacts they generate,
not all impacts identified were positive. Most notably, in fact,
the proposed land use would generate more population than existing
zoning in a few areas, and the EIR identifies the resultant increases in utility
• consumption, air pollution, etc. Also, ' where concepts outline
7
REPLY:
Because the Land Use Element Amendment does not designate a
precise alignment for Ellis, no specific discussion of the impacts
is presented. This will be the role of the Circulation Element. ,-
6. 19 COMMENT:
10.16 - There is a contradiction between the statement made
here that policies for industrial development encourage incorporation
of natural features as open space and the paragraph in regard to
Government Center which states that no major land form alterations
are expected to result. We need additional recommendations on
firm policies and goals to retain natural land form features.
REPLY:
It is a stated goal of the Government Center plan to: "preserve
and protect historic, scenic, geological, topographical, and
archaeological sites. " (page 3.40)
6.20 COMMENT:
10.17 - Again, the statement is made that additional grading will
.be required. If this is significant at certain locations, it
should be spelled out at what locations and what the impacts
• will be, and alternative proposals and/or mitigating measures
proposed.
REPLY:
Areas requiring significant grading are addressed specifically
under each Study Area, pages 10.15 through 10.17.
6. 21 COMMENT:
10. 18 - The statement is .made that .expansive soils create damage
to lightly loaded structures. We need qualifications here on
what constitutes a "lightly loaded" structure and why the report
recommends that light structures be placed in those areas without
assessing the impacts. This carries over to 10.19 in Sunset Heights
as well, where a similar statement is made.
REPLY:
Lightly loaded structures include residential structures, some
single-story commercial structures, pavements, driveways, sidewalks,
canal linings, etc. Expansive clay soils can damage these kinds
of structures due to volumetric changes associated with increases
or decreases in moisture content because the structure does not
apply enough pressure to keep the soil from expanding. Because
• the recommended plan designated greater area than the existing
plan for open space, it was felt that the area to be occupied by .
lightly loaded structures would be reduced. A correpondent reduction
in potential hazard would. then. be. realized.
_ 13 _ .
7
. I
i
REPLY:
I
The proposed amendment in no way calls for the elimination of
oil production. The plan is a long-range one, however, and as
such assumes that oil recovery will eventually be infeasible
in the City. The conversion of oil lands to urban uses is a
result of economic factors and oil will continue to be produced i
. as long as it is economically feasible. The production of oil
will not be inconsistent with the amended Land Use Element.
Depending on the assessed values of the land uses which replace
the oil fields, City tax revenues may be increased or decreased.
6. 25 COMMENT:
10.23 - I .still have some problem with the terminology of the
i
"active fault zone, " whether it is actually ground movement at
a subsurface trace, or an identifiable surface trace intersecting
right on the surface. Needs clarification, especially in view
of the Seismic Safety Element' s recommendation that required
structures to set back 50' from the fault trace.
REPLY: i
An "active fault zone ' consists of that property within 50 ' of
an active fault trace (including both subsurface and surface
traces) . In the case of buried traces - such as those ,in
Huntington Beach - the angle of the fault determines how its
location is projected to the surface. For a vertical fault,
the trace is projected straight up, and 50' on either side
constitutes the "active fault zone" . If the fault is at an
angle, the fault surface location is projected by extending
the angle to its intersection with the surface. Where the angle i
is unknown, the fault is projected straight up. (Reference:
Division of Mines and Geology, San Francisco Office) .
6. 26 COMMENT:
10. 25 - Check if reference to the inundation of property should
be the 200-year flood or the 100-year flood. In addition to
the special hazard area, Government Center and the Old Town area
also have poor drainage, with ponding and flooding, and the EIR
on that district should be mentioned.
REPLY:
i
200-year flood is correct. Specific drainage problems already
exist in many areas of the City and will not result from the
Land Use Amendment. Such problems are dealt with in the normal
course of development. As Section 10. 3.2B points out, several
factors set forth in the amendment will help mitigate potential
problems (page 10.33) .
. i
15
In reference to the Sunset Heights area, the recommended plan
would not alter the land use designation over the existing
situation. No change in impact of expansive soils on lightly loaded
structures was anticipated, therefore, so no discussion of possible
impacts was included. Mitigation measures are included on pages
10.18 and 10.19, however, to minimize damage to development regard-
less of what land use plan is implemented.
6. 22 COMMENT:
10.20 - Summary 6 No. 2 - East of Beach MH use would be changed
to low density residential where expansive soils exist to reduce
damage potential. Would seem that an MH itself would be less
subject to damage than would a footing and foundation on a
lightly-loaded structure - statement here is ambiguous.
REPLY:
After further investigation as to what constitutes a lightly
loaded structure, it appears that low-density residential uses
and mobile home uses are equally susceptible to damage from expansive
soils as they both involve considerable paving. No change in
impact would therefore be experienced since the potential for
damage from expansive soils exists under both the recommended and
existing plans.
6. 23 COMMENT:
10. 21 - Statement is made that the recommended plan would not
impact over the existing plan. Should be some impact, especially
in the area of growth inducement. This carries down to Government
Center and Old Town as well; growth should be stimulated there
also.
REPLY:
Growth inducing impact is discussed in Section 10.7 . More specifically,
the existence of a comprehensive. plan for the five study areas may
stimulate development in the short run by lifting the air of
uncertainty from the areas and replacing it with fairly direct
proposals. Because the overall effect of the amendment is to
reduce population, in the long-run it will deter growth. The only
particular exception may be in the area south of Central Park where
long-range potential is increased. This area is primarily un-
developed now and would remain so for some time under existing RA
and M1 zoning. The amendment provides for development, but also
preserves significant open space areas and calls for some estate-type
development.
6.24 COMMENT:
• What effect on resource recovery would the elimination of oil
production have? Could be a secondary effect, also, on the tax
base of the City.
14
6.27 COMMENT:
• 10. 26 - Although the Town Lot is fairly level and grades off to
the ocean, again we do have poor drainage with that area because
of the inadequacy of the drainage facilities.
REPLY:
Refer to Reply 6.24
6.28 COMMENT
A list of organizations and persons contacted or consulted in
the preparation of the report must be included, as well as a list
of the personnel preparing the report and their qualifications.
REPLY:
The following organizations were contacted or consulted in the
preparation of this report.
Joint Committee on Seismic Safety
Association of Engineering Geologists
California Division of Mines & Geology
California Institute of Technology
Federal Disaster Assistance Administration
• Fountain Valley School District
County of Los Angeles, Geology Department
Golden West College
Huntington Beach City School District
Huntington Beach Union High School District
Leighton-Yen & Associates
Ocean View School District
Office of Emergency Services
Orange County Flood Control District
Orange County Road Department
Santa Clara County Planning Department._
Structural Engineers Association of California
U. S. Geological Survey
Westminster Elementary School District
Department of Housing & Urban Development
Department of Building and Community Development, Huntington Beach
Department of Public Works, City of Huntington Beach
Fire Department, City of Huntington Beach
J. H. Wiggins Company
U.S. Department of Commerce
Air Pollution Control District
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Department of Fish& Game
Signal Landmark Company
Department of Harbors& Beaches, City of Huntington Beach
Department of City Planning, Los Angeles
Orange County Water District
Orange County Sanitation District
Orange County Planning Department
Recreation & Parks Department, City of Huntington Beach
Archeological Research Inc. �.
Santa Ana River/Santiago Creek Greenbelt Commission
United States Army Corps of Engineers
Office of Civil Defense, City of Huntington Beach
Department of Environmental Resources, City of Huntington Beach
The following is a list of personnel preparing the report and
their qualifications:
Edward D. Selich
Planning Program Administrator
Huntington Beach Planning Department
Education: B.S. Environmental Design with major in Urban
Planning, Cal Poly, Pomona, 67 units post graduate
courses; Master of Urban Planning, Cal Poly, Pomona
Experience: Planning Aide, City of Huntington Beach, California
Urban Planner, CST Engineering Co. , Newport Beach, Ca.
Associate Planner, City of Huntington Beach, California
Senior Planner, City of Huntington Beach, California
Planning Program Administrator, City of Huntington
Beach, California
Papers: "Gyno-Semantics of the Tstetse Flie" 3 pp. •
Jan. 1972.
Professional Associate Member, American Institute of Planners
Organizations:
Monica Florian
Senior Planner
Huntington Beach Planning Department
Education: B.A. University of California, Riverside
A.A. Riverside City College
12 units toward Certificate in City Planning,
U.C. Riverside
Experience: Associate Planner, City of Huntington Beach
Assistant Planner, City of Huntington Beach
Associate Planner, County of Riverside
Planner II, County of Riverside
Planner I, County of Riverside
Planning Technician, County of Riverside
.Organizations: Associate Member, American Institute of Planners
Phi Beta Kappa
17
i
• Albert R. Montes
Assistant Planner
Huntington Beach Planning Department
i
Education: A.A. in Architecture, Los Angeles Trade Technical
College in 1969
B.S. in Environmental Design, Cal Poly, Pomona, 1973
Experience: 1.969, employed by Hutchason and Hutchason, Inc. ,
an architectural firm based in Los Angeles.
1970 to 1972 employed as an Architectural Draftsman
for Intercommunity Hospital in Covina, Calif.
1972 to 1973 associated with architectural firm of
Hannish, Morgan and Causen.
1973 employed by City of Huntington Beach and
is presently classified as Planning Assistant
Organizations: Associate Member, American Institute of Planners
Emilie L. Johnson
Assistant Planner
Huntington Beach Planning Department
• Education: B.A. in Environmental Studies, University of
California at Santa Barbara
Graduate student at the University of California
at Irvine in Urban Planning, to receive a
Certificate of Urban Planning in December, " 1974 .
Experience: Writing Environmental Impact Reports for a
Planning/Engineering Consulting firm.
Assistant Planner with the City of Huntington Beach,
specializing in the environmental aspects of
Planning and focusing on the environmental
elements to the City's General Plan (e.g.
Open Space, Conservation, Scenic Highways,
Seismic-Safety, Public Safey, and Noise) .
Organizations: American Institute of Planners
American Society of Planning Officials
18 .
Savoy M. Bellavia
Assistant Planner •
Huntington Beach Planning Department
Education: B.S. in Urban Planning, School of Environmental
Design, California State Polytechnic
University, Pomona, Cal.
A.A. in Architecture, East Los Angeles City College
Additional courses in Planning from University of
California at Irvine
Experience: Land Use Planner with 'the Ministry of Housing and
Urbanism, Rabat, Morocco
Assistant Planner for City of Huntington Beach
Organizations: Associate Member, American Institute of Planners
Charles H. Laumann
Planning Aide
Huntington Beach Planning Department
Education: B.S. in Urban Planning, California State Polytechnic
University, Pomona in 1974.
Experience: From 1973 to 1974 employed as a Planning Intern for •
the City of Fontana, California. Currently
employed as a Planning Aide in Advance Planning.
1g _
7.0 Reply to Comments from John Vogelsang:
7.1 COMMENT:
• I question the use of the words "great surface rupture potential"
as used in pages 10.22 through 10.24. I feel they are misleading
and over-emphasize the potential as compared to what is stated
in pages 23, 46, and 47 of the Geotechnical Inputs Report.
REPLY:
References to "great surface rupture potential" should be amended .
to read"surface rupture potential. "
7.2 COMMENT:
I think the second paragraph of Page 10. 23 is much more restrictive
than necessary, particularly in reference to footnote #19. Foot-
note #19 states that a geologist must prove that there is no fault
under the property in question. I don't ink the state of the
art has progressed to the point where this is possible.
REPLY:
These requirements are expressly set forth in the adopted Seismic
Safety Element of the General Plan and reflect requirements of
The Alquist-Priolo Act which will be mandatory in the City by
late 1975 .
•
•
-20:
8.0 Reply to Comments from Air Pollution Control District
The discrepancy between Tables 10.1 and 4.3 results from the
methodology used to compute population. For the planning analysis
in Section 4 a realistic figure was needed. Therefore, population • .
was computed according to the number of units that could realis-
tically be developed. For the Environmental Impact Report, popu-
lation was based on worst possible case -- both under existing
zoning and the amended plan.
A discussion of the methodology used to develop the Environmental
Impact Report is presented in Reply 6.2.
I
I
I
i
I
i
I
1
1
1
j
21
9.0 Reply to Orange County Planning Department
Development of the area south of Huntington Central Park (per
the recommended Land Use Plan) will have definite impact on
the Bolsa Chica in the form of water runoff, urban intrusion,
faunal displacement, and noise. The proposed plan does specify
more open space than the existing plan, as well as estate resi-
dential use for the area closest to the Bolsa Chica, however.
Because the recommended plan does propose an additional 174
acres of open space, and low-density residential (for an area
designated industrial by the existing plan) , it is felt that
the adverse impacts of the recommended plan (as outlined
above) will be less substantial than under the existing zoning:
open space creates less runoff than impervious industrial
and residential surfaces, urban intrusion and faunal displacement
will be lessened, and residential and industrial traffic will be
reduced.
22
10.0 Reply to Comments from Environmental Impact Review Committee
10.1 COMMENT:
Much information is provided for discussing the environmental
aspects of development in the five areas, but the basis of
comparing the proposed potential development with existing
zoning potential development does not seem to paint the
real picture of what that development would do to the en-
vironment in those areas, since development is minimal or
only partial at the present time. The EIR indicates that
there would be beneficial impacts on the environment in
nearly every case and with every consideration, when in fact
that cannot be when a large percentage of the 41,257 persons
projected with full development of the recommended plan do
not yet live in those five areas.
REPLY: . Refer to Reply 6.2
10. 2 COMMENT:
Because of the criteria used in assessing the environmental
impact of the recommended plan, with no adverse impacts pro-
jected, there is no section on mitigating measures. This
committee feels there are many mitigating measures that should
be suggested, such as phasing of the development to not over-
load services and facilities, and designating park or open
space land that would at least provide the acreage calculated
as demanded by the residents to be in those areas.
REPLY: Refer to Reply 5.4
10. 3 COMMENT:
In the EIR, where many different aspects of the five areas are
considered, much material could have been summarized much more
coherently with the use of matrices, designating present, and
proposed populations, zoning, park space, etc. , and in parti-
cular schools and services.
10. 4 COMMENT:
Someplace in the report or the EIR, there should be a brief
(one page or so) review of the chronology of the Land Use
Element, to put this amendment into perspective. Perhaps j
also a summary of what percentage of the undeveloped land
these five areas represent, to ascertain the impacts to come
from other undeveloped areas.
REPLY:
An explanation of the role of the Amendment to the Land Use Element
is set forth in Section 1.1. Vacant and oil production lands in
the five Study Areas total approximately 1,063 acres. In 1973, •
vacant and oil lands, in the City as a whole equalled 2,049 acres.
Therefore, the Study Areas account for roughly 51 percent of the
City's undeveloped area.
23
10.5 COMMENT:
• Do the proposed modifications in the amendment project popu-
lations here that would be consistent with the population
maximum of 225,000 recommended by the Planning Commission
and City Council for the City of Huntington Beach?
REPLY: Yes.
10. 6 COMMENT:
With this element, and this amendment that analyzes five
specific largely-undeveloped areas, discussing relatively
large areas, these documents would probably be the most com-
prehensive reports that would be prepared for those areas,
especially in the areas where there are many different
owners. Consequently, the documents should be well organized,
easy to review, and not so superficial.
REPLY:
As specified in CEQA, EIR' s for General Plan Elements should
be general documents in keeping with the policy nature of the
Elements. This .is the format followed by this EIR.
10. 7 COMMENT:
•The section on alternatives is inadequate in the EIR; while
some alternatives are considered in the Element Amendment
itself, by no means are all reasonable alternatives considered
even there. A large proportion of the acreage in many of these
areas has in the past been used for agriculture -- and if there
were reasonable taxation procedures, there is certainly this
potential and need here where the climate is so good. for this
land use. Nearly all the adverse environmental impacts of
development for residential or commercial or industrial uses
would be alleviated with -this alternative.
REPLY:
Several reasonable alternative development plans are analyzed
for each Study Area in the document. Obviously, .extreme al-
ternatives for all areas could be presented but analyzing
impractical alternatives would not be in the best interests
of the Planning Commission and the City Council. Agriculture
was considered an impractical long range alternative because
of small parcel sizes and economic considerations.. Nothing
in the plan would prohibit agricultural uses on a short-term .
basis to phase development.
24
10. 8 COMMENT:
More thorough consideration of impacts of these developments on '
adjacent areas, and of adjacent areas .on these developments
should be included. Likewise, consideration of irreversible
environmental changes is very superficial.
REPLY:
Because' a General Plan Element is inherently general, it is im-
possible to identify irreversible changes such as those which
might be generated by a development project. This is especially
the case in comparing possible changes to be experienced between
the amended plan and the potential under existing zoning. An
expanded discussion of impacts on adjacent areas is contained in
Reply 9. 0. This section addresses the impacts on the Bolsa Chica
which is perhaps the most environmentally sensitive area affected
by the amendment.
10..9 COMMENT: .
While this committee directs its attention primarily to the EIR,
to evaluate this EIR it was necessary to consider much of the
detail in the element etself. Probably the greatest criticism
was that the alternatives considered were not broad enough to
really implement the policies and goals for the community.
REPLY: Refer to Reply 10.7 •
10. 10 COMMENT:
There is discussion of park needs in nearly every section, since
there is some residential proposed in every section. With medium
to high densities proposed in these areas, there is an even greater
need for park land to be available, not just dollars to be donated
for developing a remote park. Park land. to meet the demand is cal-
culated, but this amendment does NOT recommend or designate that
specific acreage in the areas where the population would be
occurring. Nor is there assurance that the 174 acres of Phase III
will be acquired, or what development alternatives would be rea-
sonable if it is not acquired.
REPLY: Refer to Reply 6.4
10.11 COMMENT:
In July, 1974 the Planning Commission recommended that densities
for Large Lot zoning in Area One South of Central Park be 0 to 2
units per acre -- yet this report designates 0 to 4.
REPLY: Refer to Reply 5 .3.
25
10. 12 COMMENT:
• Similarly, if the 39 Freeway does not materialize, what will
the zoning, and impacts of its development, be in the Ellis-
Beach section?
REPLY:
As discussed on page 6.15, Section 6. 3.1, Route 39 was deleted
from the State's freeway construction program in April, 1974 .
One objective of the amended plan is to redesignate the former
freeway right of way because it is currently cited as freeway
on the Phase I Land Use Element.
10. 13 COMMENT:
Some of the maps, as Figure 2.1, are hard to read, or do not
include all the streets that are discussed in prose sections.
10.14 COMMENT:
The discussion of schools, and provision for education of 8,290
elementary students, mostly from newly=developed properties, is
definitely inadequate. In no way could the three schools desig-
nated as schools proposed to be built in areas adjacent to these
sections, nor the .existing schools, handle this many additional
students without drastically changing the mode of education
in our community. It is at this stage, the- zoning and develop-
ment planning, that the City MUST take some initiative to plan
for the future quality of our residential developments, and the
youth they will produce. There are inconsistencies in some of
the numbers here.
REPLY:
The School District expressed no concern with the number of
students generated in the Study Areas or the District' s ability
to handle them.
10. 15 COMMENT:
More detail on the park needs would emphasize the importance of
parks in the immediate areas where there is medium -and high
density development. The beach cannot serve as the only re-
creational area for the Townlot -- with minimal open space on
each property, in many cases not useable for recreational ,pur-
poses, there is a psychological need and .a physical need that
must not be overlooked.
REPLY:
A detailed analysis of park needs is being conducted as part of
•the Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan.
,
10.16 COMMENT:
The total acreage for parks proposed in this amendment is 189
acres, with 174 of this being Phase III of Central Park. This .
189 acres is itself deficient 17.3 acres from meeting the park
need identified, and required by ordinance to. provide. If
Phase III is not acquired, or its acreage is decreased, then
the amendment would provide even less park land for residents
in crowded areas.
.REPLY: Refer to Reply 6.4
10.17 COMMENT:
There is STRONG objection to the statements on page 10.47. that
"decrease (in park land) has a beneficial impact on the environ-
ment" . Both the physical and psychological environments are
benefited by parks, though the economic impact on the City
might be adverse.
REPLY:
Page 10.47 does not contend that a decrease in park land has a
beneficial impact, but rather that a decrease in demand (i.e.
population) has a .beneficial effect.
10.18 COMMENT:
Medical services, and all otherservices as well, are considered
as receiving a beneficial impact by a reduction in 8,170 popu-
lation, or 16.5% -- rather than talking about the 41,257 -increase
in population which amounts to over 25% increase in our present
population, which is now being served by the hospitals, police,
fire, sewers, etc.
REPLY: Refer to Reply 6 .2
27
11.0 Reply to Comments from Mel Tooker
• 11.1 COMMENT: Regarding commercial development.
REPLY: Refer to Reply 6.11
11. 2 COMMENT: Regarding Gothard EIR.
REPLY:
Section 3. 3. 7B should be amended to read: "An Environmental
Impact Report prepared by Herman Kimmel and Associates, Inc. �
and Environmental Impact Profiles; suggests the westerly
alignment.,,
11.3 COMMENT: Regarding development alternatives.
REPLY: Refer to Reply 10.7
11.4 COMMENT: Regarding ERMP
REPLY: Refer to Reply 6. 14
11. 5 COMMENT: Regarding noise
REPLY:
No adequate information exists upon which to identify more
• specific noise impacts generated by the amended plans. Analysis
will be contained in the Noise Element of the General Plan, and
its findings may modify the Land Use Element if necessary.
I
I
i
28
AM
4
Cr
fL
Proposed Amendment To The
Phase 1 Land Use Element
F Technical Report December, 1974
Legend
Residential
ESTATE 0.2 un/goc
^ ^ Fftj LOW DENSITY 0.7 un/gac
MEDIUM DENSITY 8'15 un/goc
San Diego Fr\a
C HIGH DENSITY ABOVE IS un/goc
> / Commercial
Goneral
/� /• / /' \ Office•Professional
\/ Industrial
Light
Public Ufiliy
Oil Resource Production
I / Public
' Expansion of Huntington Central Park
or other Open Specs
High school
Civic Center Future Expansion 19
9 Fire
s
/ PF49 Revsation Cantor
Proposed Pork
Other
Townlot Specific Plan
dP
o "
E3 ao
. ...............................
-
r
� - - Zf
0
P
•'•:Y:::::::::::::::::: Ito i I. - �•d(�:'i„•:
it Fc
I .inn,. �o�Y •�.,�:
�I
W d
t
\. L
•I „ O
ryNm1
ln..
II A.1 N
� .�: //' � _- -_ III IIIII I IPI' .,..n ����. ::�e•.5:::::::::::: `� •\
I III � • p.
I 2E:• a
Palm
....................iE� �I!I!III i11 I I I 3•
............... II!I ! I it
i ��--_� Pacific Coast Hwy.
Figure 8.2
HUNTINGTON BFACH 104LIFORNIA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE PHASE 1 LAND USE ELE/VIENT
AS ADOPTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION—DECEMBER 17,1974
Legend
Residential
EM ESTATE 0•2 un/gac
LOW DENSITY 0.7 un/gac
MEDIUM DENSITY 8.15 un/gac
San Die o Fr\a
HIGH DENSITY ABOVE 15 un/gac
^ > / Commercial
General
��/ � '��.'•�®'•,�••' Office•Professional
\ Industrial
Light
/ Public Uriliy
Oil Resource Production
I / Public
Expansion of Huntington Central Park
or other Open Space
H:3 High School
Civic Center Future Expansion 411
Fire
�\\y
Recreation Canter
Proposed Park
III% Other
�qHH, Townlot Specific Plan
o t CT
10 C°2«
.........................
.................................
. o
a
c
h
s• e
0 7P
c "rft<I
N .a P
•\.: �I n . :.,a :�'°EiEie'.:iiEiSiiEiEie. iEEEiiEiicEEE2iiii'r'°••�iEEiiEiEi:iESiii:.
�iiicEiiE::
I �:
IIII:��m
.b.
_
...................................
I: a
,ill::l'HN::4:
ii:
........................
/ / C J e •••••••
/ ...
I
ii
Palm P♦
1 _V
.................. I
(wrI�II IIiI III III II
-.._� Pacific Coast Hwy
Figure 8.2
Pam"vING°DEP R MENT�`"'FOR"iA PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE PHASd LKND USE ELEMENT
1 AS ADOPTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION I N-D E MBER 17,1974
K
. . . . . . . . . . .
3
Cr
CL
Proposed , Amendment To The
Phase 1 Land Use Element
Technical Report December, 1974
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Title Page .
1.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1
1.1 Intent and Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1
1.2 Authority and Scope . . . . 1.2
• 1. 3 . Methodology of Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. 3
2.0 PLANNING RESERVE PLANNING UNIT (SOUTH
OF HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 2.1.
2. 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . 2. 1
• 2. 2 Background information • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 2. 3.
2. 3 Land Use and Circulation Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. 10 '
2.4 Alternative Land Use Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.24
2.5 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. 35
3.0 GOVERNMENT CENTER/OLD TOWN PLANNING UNIT • • • • 3. 1
3. 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. 1
3. 2 Background Information - • • • • • • • • • • • • - • • • • • • • • 3. 4
3. 3 Land Use and Circulation Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. 20
3.4 Alternative Land Use Plans • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 3. 28
3.5 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. 36
4.0 TOWNLOT PLANNING UNIT • - • • • • • • • • • • • - • • . • • • • • • 4. 1
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . 1
4.2 Background Information_• • • • • • • • • • • • • • 4. 2
4. 3 Planning Issues - - • • • • • • - • • • • • • • • • • 4. 22
4. 4 Land Use Alternative Plans • • • - • • " - --- - • • • • 4. 24
• 4.5 Recommendations . • - - • . . . . . . - • • • • • • 4. 37
5. 0 SUNSET HEIGHTS AREA • • - - - • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 5. 1
5. 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. 1
5. 2 Background and History • • • • • • • • 5.2
5. 3 Inventory of Existing Conditions•-• • • • • • • • • • • • 5. 8
• .5.4 Planning Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • 5. 27
5.5 Alternative Courses of Action . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 5. 31
5.6 Recommended Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • • • • • • • • • • 5. 49
6. 0 EAST OF BEACH/SOUTH OF ELLIS QUARTER• • • • • • • • •6.. 1
• SECTION
6. 1 Introduction . . . . . • - •6. 1
. 6. 2 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 . 4
6. 3 Planning. Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • •6. 15
6.4 - Alternative Plans . . . . . . . - • . . • • • . • •6 .21
, 6.5 Conclusions' -and Recommendations • • • • • • • • • • • • •6.27
•
7. 0 ADDED-RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS. . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . 7 .1
7. 1 Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 .1
• 7. 2 Added Residential Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 .1
8. 0 AMENDMENT SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1
8 .1 Scope of the Amendment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1
8. 2 Goals and Policies Statements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 .3
8.3 -. Added Residential Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8. 3
8. 4 Recommended Plans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8. 3
8. 5 Amended Land Use Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . 8. 19
9. 0 IMPLEMENTATION. . . . . . 9.1
9.1 Environmental Impact Statement Implementation. 9.1
9. 2 Adoption of the Amendment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1
9. 3 Subsequent Zone Changes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2
9..4 Completion of the Phase II Land Use Element. . . 9. 4
10. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.1
10..1 General Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10. 1
10..2 Environmental Setting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10. 8
10. 3 Environmental Impacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10.15
and Mitigating Measures
10. 4 Alternatives to the Proposed Action. . . . . . . . . . . 10. 77
10. 5 Short-Term Uses vs. Long-Term .Productivity. . . .10. 78
10. 6 Irreversible Environmental. Changes. . '. . . . . . . . . :10.79
10. 7 Growth Inducing Impact_: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :10 80
AMk
am
0
.w
•
FIGURES
Figure
• Number Title Page
SECTION TWO: PLANNING RESERVE SOUTH OF
HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK
2. 1 VICINITY MAP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. 2
•
2. 2 STUDY AREA BOUNDARY MAP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4
2. 3 EXISTING GENERAL LAND USE. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . 2. 5
2.4 EXISTING ZONING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7
•
2. 5 GENERAL TOPOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : : . . . : . : . . . . . . -2. 8
2. 6 SLOPES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. 11
2. 7 NATURAL RESOURCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . 2.12
2. 8 SOILS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.13
2. 9 HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. 16
2.10 STONE AND YOUNGBERG REPORT: HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK
• PHASE III ALTERNATIVE ONE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. 17
2. 11 STONE AND YOUNGBERG REPORT: HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK
PHASE III ALTERNATIVE TWO. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2..18
2. 12 ALTERNATIVE ONE: MODERATE DEVELOPMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. 27
2. 13 ALTERNATIVE TWO: EXTENSIVE DEVELOPMENT. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 2. 30
2. 14 ALTERNATIVE THREE: INTENSIVE DEVELOPMENT. . . . . . . . . . .. . 2. 33
t 2. 15 RECOMMENDED LAND USE PLAN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.40
•
SECTION THREE: OLD TOWN/GOVERNMENT CENTER
i 3.1 VICINITY MAP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 3. 2.
3. 2 STUDY AREA BOUNDARIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . 3.3
3. 3 SURROUNDING INFLUENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . 5
• 3.4 1965 MASTER PLAN OF STUDY AREA 5. . . . . : 3. 6
3. 5 EXISTING GENERAL LAND USES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 .7
•
Figure Title Page
Number
3. 6 EXISTING ZONING.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.10
3. 7 GENERAL TOPOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. 13
3. 8 SOILS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. 14
• 3. 9 NATURAL RESOURCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.15
3.10 ACTIVE FAULTS..: . . . . . . .... ... . . . .. 3. 17
3. 11 UTILITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. 18
3.12 TRAFFIC. FLOW MAP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. 21
3. 13 MASTER PLAN OF ARTERIAL STREETS AND HIGHWAYS... . . . . . . . . . . 3. 22
3.14 ALTERNATIVE ONE: MODERATE DEVELOPMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 3. 29
3.15 ALTERNATIVE TWO: EXTENSIVE DEVELOPMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.34
3. 16 RECOMMENDED LAND USE PLAN. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 .42
• SECTION FOUR: TOWNLOT
4. 1 VICINITY MAP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . ... . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. 3
4 . 2 STUDY AREA BOUNDARIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. 4
4. 3 SURROUNDING INFLUENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . 5
4. 4 EXISTING ZONING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 4. 6
4. 5 PARTIAL MASTER PLAN OF STUDY AREA FIVE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. 8.
4. 6 GENERAL TOPOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 .12
4. 7 SOILS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . 4.13
4. 8 ACTIVE FAULT LINES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.15
4. 9 TRAFFIC FLOW MAP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.16
4. 10 MASTER PLAN OF ARTERIAL STREETS AND HIGHWAYS. . . . . . . . . . . . 4. 17
4. 11 DRAINAGE DISTRICTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. 20
4.12 ALTERNATIVE ONE: MODERATE- DEVELOPMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. 27
an
Figure Title Page
Number
• 4. 13 ALTERNATIVE TWO: EXTENSIVE DEVELOPMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . 31
4.14 ALTERNATIVE THREE: INTENSIVE DEVELOPMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. 34
4. 15 RECOMMENDED LAND USE PLAN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. 41
•
SECTION FIVE: SUNSET HEIGHTS AREA
5.1 VICINITY MAP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. 3
5. 2 STUDY AREA BOUNDARIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4
5. 3 ANNEXATION HISTORY. . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. 6
5. 4 1972 MASTER PLAN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. 7
5. 5 EXISTING LAND USE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. 9
5. 6 EXISTING ZONING. . . . . ... . . . . . . . 5.12
5. 7 LAND USE ELEMENT PHASE I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.14
5. 8 PROPOSED AND PENDING PROJECTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 5. 17
5. 9 TOPOGRAPHY: RELIEF BY ELEVATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. 20
5. 10 FAULT & GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. 22
• 5. 11 FLOOD PLAIN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. 24
5. 12 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 7201. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. 32
5. 13 ALTERNATIVE TWO: ACCOMMODATE THE EXISTING SITUATION. . . 5.35
• 5.14 ALTERNATIVE TWO: ZONING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. 39
5.15 ALTERNATE THREE A, REDUCED RESIDENTIAL LAND USE... . . . . . . 5. 41
5. 16 ALTERNATIVE THREE A, ZONING
REDUCEDRESIDENTIAL LAND USE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. 42
5. 17 ALTERNATIVE THREE B, REDUCED RESIDENTIAL LAND USE. . . . . . 5.43
5.18 ALTERNATIVE THREE B, ZONING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :. . 5.44
•
Figure Title Page
Number
SECTION SIX: EAST OF BEACH/SOUTH OF ELLIS
6. 1 VICINITY MAP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. 2
6. 2 STUDY AREA BOUNDARIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. 3
6. 3 EXISTING LAND USE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. 5
6.4 EXISTING ZONING.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. 7
6. 5 LAND USE ELEMENT PHASE. 1. . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.10
6. 6 CURRENT & PENDING PROJECTS. . . . . . 6. 16
6. 7 ALTERNATIVE ONE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. 22
6. 8 ALTERNATIVE TWO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. 25
6. 9 RECOMMENDED PLAN. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.30
SECTION EIGHT: SUMMARY
8 .1 STUDY AREAS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2
8 . 2 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO PHASE I LAND USE ELEMENT. . . . . . . . . 8. 21
SECTION TEN: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
10. 1 COMPARATIVE LAND USE/POPULATION STATISTICS. . . . . . . . . . . . .10.5
10. 2 STUDY AREAS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10. 7
10. 3 ELEMENTARY" STUDENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10. 48
10.4 HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10. 48
• 10. 5 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10. 66
10. 6 PLANNING RESERVE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10. 72
10. 7 GOVERNMENT CENTER/OLD TOWN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10.73
10.8 TOWNLOT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10.74
10. 9 SUNSET HEIGHTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.75
10. 10 BEACH/ELLIS SECTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10.76
TABLES
Table Title Page
Number
SECTION TWO: PLANNING RESERVE
SOUTH OF HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK
2.1 EXISTING LAND USE INVENTORY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. 7
2. 2 EXISTING ZONING INVENTORY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7
2. 3 HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK: ORIGINAL PROPOSAL. . . . . . . . . . . . 2.14
2.4 GOLF COURSE AND EQUESTRIAN FACILITY ACREAGE STANDARDS. . 2.15
2. 5 ALTERNATIVE ONE: LAND USE INVENTORY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. 26
2. 6 ALTERNATIVE ONE: POPULATION ESTIMATE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. 29
2. 7 ALTERNATIVE TWO: LAND USE INVENTORY. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.29
2.8 ALTERNATIVE TWO: POPULATION ESTIMATE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.32
2. 9 ALTERNATIVE THREE: LAND USE INVENTORY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. 32
• 2. 10 ALTERNATIVE THREE: POPULATION ESTIMATE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.35
2. 11 RECOMMENDED LAND USE PLAN: LAND USE INVENTORY. . . . . . . . . 2. 39
2.12 RECOMMENDED LAND USE PLAN: POPULATION ESTIMATE. . . . . . . . 2. 39
•
SECTION THREE: OLD TOWN/GOVERNMENT CENTER
3. 1 SUMMARY OF EXISTING LAND USES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. 9
• 3. 2 SUMMARY OF EXISTING ZONING INVENTORY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.11
3 . 3 POPULATION RATIOS: PERSONS/UNIT. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. 19
3. 4 ESTIMATED POPULATION BASED ON EXISTING ZONING. . . . . . . . . . 3.19
• 3. 5 ALTERNATIVE ONE: LAND USE INVENTORY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. 30
3. 6 ALTERNATIVE ONE: POPULATION ESTIMATE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. 30
3. 7 ALTERNATIVE TWO: LAND USE INVENTORY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 .35
3 . 8 ALTERNATIVE TWO: POPULATION ESTIMATE. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 3 . 35
Table Title Page
Number
3. 9 RECOMMENDED LAND USE PLAN: LAND USE INVENTORY. . . . . . . . 3. 43
3. 10 RECOMMENDED LAND USE PLAN: POPULATION ESTIMATE. . . . . . . 3 . 43
SECTION FOUR: TOWNLOT
4.1 SUMMARY OF EXISTING ZONING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7
4. 2 POPULATION RATIOS: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.21
4. 3 ESTIMATED POPULATION BASED ON EXISTING ZONING. . . . . . . . . 4.21
4. 4 ALTERNATIVE ONE: LAND USE INVENTORY,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . 28
4. 5 ALTERNATIVE ONE: POPULATION ESTIMATES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 .28
4 . 6 ALTERNATIVE TWO: LAND USE INVENTORY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.32
4. 7 ALTERNATIVE TWO: POPULATION ESTIMATES. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 4. 32
4. 8 ALTERNATIVE THREE: LAND USE INVENTORY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. 35
4. 9 ALTERNATIVE THREE: POPULATION ESTIMATES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 .35
4. 10 RECOMMENDED LAND USE PLAN: LAND USE INVENTORY. . . . . . . . 4. 42
4. 11 RECOMMENDED LAND USE PLAN: POPULATION ESTIMATES. . . . . . 4. 42
SECTION FIVE: SUI4SET HEIGHTS
i
5.1 INVENTORY OF EXIS'.CING LAND USE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . 5. 10
5. 2 INVENTORY OF EXISTING ZONING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.10
• 5. 3 INVENTORY OF LAND USE ELEMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.15
5.4 PENDING PROJECTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.18
5. 5 COMPARISON .TABLES: LAND USE ELEMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. 36
5. 6 COMPARISON TABLES: ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. 36
5. 7 POPULATION GENERATED BY ZONING, ALTERNATIVE 90. 2 . . . . 5. 38
5. 8 LAND USE & POPULATION SUMMARY, ALTERNATIVE NO. .3A . . . . 5.44
5. 9 LAND USE & POPULATION SUMMARY, ALTERNATIVE NO. 3B . . . . 5. 45
5. 10 LAND USE & POPULATION SUMMARY, ALTERNATIVE NO. 3B . . . . 5.46
Table Title Page
Number
• 5.11 LAND USE & POPULATION SUMMARY, ALTERNATIVE NO. 3B. . . . . 5. 47
5. 12 COMPARISON OF POTENTIAL POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.48
SECTION SIX: EAST OF BEACH/SOUTH OF ELLIS
6. 1 EXISTING LAND USE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.8
6. 2 EXISTING ZONING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. 8
6. 3 - LAND USE ELEMENT PHASE I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. 11
6. 4 CURRENT & PENDING PROJECTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.17
6. 5 EXISTING AND PROPOSED PARKS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. 19
6. 6 .PARK NEEDS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.20
6. 7 PROPOSED LAND USE, ALTERNATIVE NO. 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.23
6. 8 POPULATION ESTIMATE, ALTERNATIVE NO. 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. 23
6. 9 PROPOSED LAND USE, ALTERNATIVE NO. 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.26
6.10 POPULATION ESTIMATE, ALTERNATIVE NO. 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.26
6.11 PROPOSED LAND USES, RECOMMENDED PLAN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.31
6. 12 POPULATION ESTIMATE, RECOMMENDED PLAN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.31
f
SECTION SEVEN: ADDED RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS
7. 1 ADDED RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4
SECTION EIGHT: AMENDMENT SUMMARY
8.1 PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8. 4
8 . 2 AMENDED LAND USE ACREAGE SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.19
8. 3 PROJECTED POPULATION SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8. 20
section 1
introduction
1. 0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Intent and Purpose
As the second document in the transition from the Master Plan of
Land Use .to the Land Use Element of the General Plan, the Amendment
to the Phase I Land Use Element is a significant step toward a new
direction for Huntington Beach. . -The Introduction to the General Plan,
published .by the Planning Department in November 1973 set forth a
methodology whereby existing Master Plans and new state mandated
Elements would be brought together in a comprehensive General Plan
for Huntington Beach.
The amendment presented in- this document is a transition step which
�,. is intended to provide a land use policy guide for certain segments
of the Huntington Beach Planning area. Three planning units cited
for further study in -the- December 1973 adoption action .on the Land
Use Element are included 'in the document as .well as two other study
areas.
It is' anticipated that one more document will be necessary to com-
plete the transition of the Land Use Element to the "new direction" .
However, the Land Use Element does not become -finite at that time
as it is subject to continuous scrutiny and where justified, amend-
ment.
1. 2 Authority and Scope
MM
1.1
•
1. 2.1 Authority per C.I.R. Guidelines
Although the General Plan is a long-range, comprehensive
policy document, it must be periodically updated to meet. •
new .conditions and from time to time revised or ampli-
fied to respond to unforeseen changes or needs. The
plan is, therefore, subject to amendment to reflect
changes in goals, policies and physical, social or
economic conditions. Some changes may be minor and
not require changes in other parts of the plan. All
proposed changes, however, should be evaluated in regard
to environmental impact and consistence with the balance
of the document. An environmental impact analysis has
been prepared on the proposed amendment to the Land Use
Element. (Refer to Section 8. 0)
Section 65361 restricts the number of times per year that •
the mandatory elements of the General Plan can be
amended. "No mandatory element of a General Plan shall
be amended more frequently than three times during any
calendar year. . . " This provision does not apply to
adding new elements to the General Plan. Local agencies •
can amend the General Plan by adding new plan elements
as often as desired. For example, noise, seismic safety
and safety elements may be adopted during the calendar
year and this will not constitute an action under
Section 65361. Plan elements which are not required in
the planning law (e.g. , urban design, specific area •
plans, public buildings, etc. ) but may be of community
interest can be amended to the General Plan as often as
desired. This procedure only affects proposals to change
existing mandatory General Plan Elements. This require-
ment became effective on January 1, 1974.
Section 65862 requires that a two-week period of time be
provided between the adoption or amendment of the
general plan or element thereof and proposal for a re-
zoning for the purpose of bringing zoning into consist-
ency with the General Plan. This prohibits concurrent
action to amend the General Plan and the zoning ordinance •
at the same meeting. The two processes have been
separated in order to strengthen the General Plan as a
policy document and the zoning ordinance as an imple-
menting device. This requirement became effective on
January 1, 1974.
•
1. 2. 2 Scope of Amendment
The amendment presented in this document consists of the
following major points:
•
1. 2
k./
A. Identification of land use issues.
B. A statement of land use policies and proposals
distinguishing, where appropriate, among short,
middle and long-term-periods of fulfillment.
C. A description of the land uses and land use
intensities for the -planning. areas, including
the relationships of such uses to social,
environmental and economic goals and objectives.
D. The standards and criteria for physical development
within each use area with consideration for land
capacity.
• E. A description of the land use pattern, including
text and a diagram or other graphic representation
such as a map.
F. An outline for implementation, including a descrip-
tion .of measures necessary to achieve land use
objectives and policies and the timing or staging
of plan implementation.
1. 3 Methodology of Approach
The formulation of the .Land Use Amendment consists of principally
conducting land use studies of the subject areas. The first step
was defining the special study areas, identification of the major
issues within each study area and the development of alternative '
land use plans. The alternative plans are the -results of -numerous
staff and Planning Commission sub-committee meetings.
•
Upon completion of these land use alternative plan studies,
presentations were made to the Planning Commission during study
sessions. All of the alternatives for each study area were examined
and discussed. One of the alternatives for each area was selected
and modification to the selected plans were made. Both land use
• designations and circulation patterns were included in the modi-
fications. Final plans were developed from each selected plan and the
suggested modifications.
The final plans for each study area were formulated into one overall
land use plan that encompasses all of the special study areas. This
• overall composite plan was then .incorporated into. the total land use
plan. (Refer to Figure 8. 2)
1. 3
•
section 2
planning reserve .planning unot ,
:south of huntingto'n'
central :,', park
•
r
•
•
• i �
i
•
2. 0 PLANNING RESERVE PLANNING UNIT
SOUTH OF HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK
2. 1 Introduction
•
2. 1.1 Purpose of Section
This section presents a series . of alternative land use
plans for the study area.
•
In December of 1973, the Phase I Land Use Element was
adopted. As set forth in the element, the general area
south of Huntington Central Park was defined as a
"Planning Reserve" (Refer to Figure 2.1) . . This area is
part of a larger planning reserve area that extends
• outside of the City. limits into the Bolsa Chica.
As defined in the_ Phase I Land Use Element, a planning
reserve is .an "interim designation intended for areas
where long term comprehensive planning and development
is anticipated" . Uses may include:
A. Land areas in a predevelopment phase that are not
yet fully planned or ready for immediate development.
ACOL
2.1
/A................
i BOLI,
_.�
L.... ................. . _............... ............ ...................
1 Nnxr�
♦ .
vc r i
•~^i"\ �\ ire �'•'^•.....••-'
QUFIELD
............ ............... 1: YORKTOWN
ADAms
.� �• .......... - __...... MIANAFOLK
r
- ATLANTA
f i
♦ r
INMLTON
..................1..... f. IANNDIO
d- quo aw -pro am rrrr
AdIhk
r •
VICINITY MAP
huntington beach planning department
figure',2 .1
•
B. Land in transition to ultimate use that may be
designated by a "holding" zone (such as the "RA"
district) .
C. Resource production areas including land in use for
agriculture or oil extraction purposes.
In essence, all the above categorical land uses exist in
the study area. The study area is in a predevelopment
• stage, where transitional zoning districts exist and
where land for oil extraction purposes are combined
with base zoning districts. Thus; the need for long
range planning is essential in setting forth land
use policies that will guide the orderly development
of the area. It is the objective of this study to
provide a land use plan for the study area based on
40 it's physical, economic and environmental character-
istics.
2.1. 2 Study Area Boundaries
The study area is defined as that area generally
bordered by existing Huntington Central Park on
the north, Pacific Electric Railroad on the east, Clay
and Garfield Avenues on the south and the Citys ' boundary
on the west (see Figure 2.2) .
2. 2 Background Information
2. 2. 1 Existing Land Use (Figure 2. 3)
• Most of the study area is presently vacant. With the
exception of a plant nursery facility, Pacific Light
Industrial Use, horse stables and one single family
dwelling, all of .the area west of Goldenwest Street,
within the study area, is vacant or used for oil
• extraction.purposes.
The northeast portion of the study area is the most
developed and is characterized by industrial uses, a
public utility facility and public facilities such as
the Joint Powers Training Facility and the Murdy Fire
Station. Just south of Ellis between Gothard and .
Goldenwest there is a site used for agricultural
purposes where an existing dwelling unit also exists.
The southeast portion of the study area has some
marginal light industrial uses, generally along
Garfield. The old sugar beet factory and a
warehouse at Main and Garfield have been identified as
2. 3
•
tolberf
'b
�.ti}� 0'...
V
� rf
gills
� f
11,1� •
111 gorfield
---------------
•
STUDY AREA BOUNDARY LINE
lop STUDY AREA BOUNDARIES •
huntington beach planning department
figure.2 . 2
•
towert
•f.
HUNTINGTON CENTRAL
PARK
gills
•i • ■ ■, ■ ■ ■ ■ •P'■• ■'■ �■ »y
A ,
Garfield
LEGEND
RESIDENTIAL
,a
'Y
1
• • ■ • ■ • ■
r •{
i
1
----------
COMMERCIAL
MONO"
■ ■ ■ ■ INDUSTRY
PUBLIC
(HORSE STABLES)
VACANT OR OIVRESOURCE • •
EXISTING GENERAL LANDUSE
huntington beach planning department
Iy:
potential historical and cultural landmarks in the Open
Space and Conservation Potentials reports. Abandoned
and operating oil wells as well as oil and water storage
tanks exist in this general area. •
The triangular section southeast of I--lain Street. to Clay
Avenue is predominantly vacant.
An inventory of existing land uses is provided in Table
2 .1. •
2.2. 2 Existing Zoning (Figure 2.4)
Over half of the study area is zoned Residential Agri-
culture (RA) with combinations of Civic District (CD) •
' and/or Oil (O or 01) suffixes . The largest portion of
the study area designated Residential Agriculture is the
area west of Goldenwest Street to Edwards Street.
The next largest zoning designation in the study area are
the Industrial districts (Ml and M2) with combinations of •
Civic District (CD) and/or Oil (0 or 01) suffixes.
In ,the most southeasterly portion of the study area mix-
tures of Residential zoning (R2 and R3) , Commercial (Cl)
and Office-Professional (R5) exist.
An •inventory of existing zoning is provided in Table 2.2 .
2. 2. 3 Natural Physical Conditions
The natural physical features of the study area are sig- •
nificant factors of consideration in the development of
the land use plan. The study area is generally located
in the Huntington Beach Mesa. The northwest and northern
boundaries of the study area run somewhat along the
bluffline of the mesa. The natural physical features of
the study area explored were topography, slope, vegetation,
and soils characteristics.
A. Generalized Topography (refer to Figure 2.5)
The topographic features of the study area are
characterized with very high and low points of the •
City. Elevations range from 25 feet to 100 feet.
The majority of the interior portion of the
study area is relatively flat. The northern portion
of the study area, within close proximity to
the Huntington Central Park., provides the most
interesting topographic features due to moderate •
variations of elevations.
2 . 6
•
tolberf ti3r., J
✓"`� �.Y 7�J�r �:, 1 3.��)J 3� �J J 1 J 11 J �� J
Jj
• } ��� ��"� r� 3�' 1.'� � j 11 J
),
.
•
•�iii
•�•
••••�i
` V
i.y
,.�}, ::�}•:
•
•
P••
•
L1. .
{1 1 1 ..'
'1
1
. . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
%.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.................................. . . . .
•
KEY
RESIDENTIAL INDUSTRY
•1
RA Ml
•.4
r
R2 ® M2
PUBLIC
R3 .CFR.
COMMERCIAL
• •••.. CFC
R5
+n �
S:hs
• EXISTING ZONING
` huntin ton beach planning department
figure 2 .4
talbert
25 40
25
• � 25 �
ellii �'
I •
40
50
40
50
50
90
10 � 80 •
1>>,1 orfieid
11 a
60
80 •
90 'c
•
•
M
` GENERAL TOPOGRAPHY
huntington beach planning departmert
figure 2 . 5
•
y.
B. Slopes (refer to Figure 2 .6)
As a result of the topographic features (elevations) ,
the slope profile ranges 0 to 40% slopes . As stated
above , interior portions of land in the area are
relatively flat. The steeper slope areas are
located in the north portion of the study area.
C. Natural Resources (refer to Figure 2 . 7)
There presently exist five important natural tree
stands within the study area.. The primary species
within the tree stands are eucalyptus type trees.
. The location of tree stands are identified in
Figure 2 . 7.
Two sandpits, one of which is still in operation,
exist within the study area.
D. Soil Conditions (refer, to .Figure 2. 8)
Four basic soil types exist within the study area.
Over 50% of the study area contains ramona fine
sandy loam. The remaining area consists- of antioch
clay adobe , ramona loam, and muck and peat soil.
types. All the soil types , except muck and -peat
are suitable for active or passive activity including
Residential, Commercial or Industrial development.
2. 3 Land Use and Circulation Issues
2. 3. 1 General: Residential Versus Industry
Prior to adoption of the Phase I Land Use Element, _
all of the area south of Ellis between Gothard and
Edwards to Clay Avenue was planned for industrial
use. The proposed alignment of the Route 1 Freeway
contributed significantly in concluding that the area was
a suitable industrial district. Also, close proximity
and overlaping into the Central Industrial Corridor,-
existing industrial and oil - uses within the study area
and large areas of vacant land were other positive
factors that were considered. However, as a result of
the withdrawal of State plans for the Route 1 Freeway,
the suitability for industrial development in the study
area is lessened. Compatibility of land. uses, natural
physical conditions, economic opportunities and environ-
mental criteria have provided abase to.'evaluate alterna-
tive land uses for the area.
... AMA
2. 10
•