HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING REFERENCE MATERIALa
rI
V
THE PROPER
MULTI- STORY
QgORiil
VALUES
�*QA KINi
QVBL/c
VALUES
VALUES
tbaoO
PLACE OF
STRUCTURES
IN AN URBAN COMMUNITY
actions in
urban land
market
4
actions taken
in the interest
of living Y
conditions
4
0
0
actions to
preserve or
advance customs,
traditions and
beliefs
five
or
inaction
/ ANp\
ErM I L
PATTERN
vsF /
SPECIAL STUDY 17 • PLANNING DEPARTMENT • CITY OF SANTA ANA • OCTOBER, 1961
10
r
CITY COUNCIL
A. Allen Hall, Mayor
Royal E. Hubbard, Vice Mayor
Dale H. Heinly
Bob Brewer
Henry H. Schlueter
CITY MANAGER
Carl J. Thornton
f PLANNING COMMISSION
W. B. Moore, Chairman
' Theo W. Jessee, Vice Chairman
Ora K. Heine
Thomas N. McMichael
Lee Smith
Carl Lewis
Philip Reilly
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
James G. Toepfer, Director
Paul Van Stevens, Senior Planner, Advance Planning
Dean Evans, Assistant Planner, Current Planning
e
e
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART
PAGE
I
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . .
1
II
BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . .
4
III
SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5
IV
APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . .
6
VLOCATIONAL
FACTORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8
VI
INDIVIDUAL SITE CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . .
13
x
VII
REGULATORY TECHNIQUES . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15
VIII
SANTA ANA TODAY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18
IX
THE FUNCTION AND FUTURE OF SANTA ANA . . . . . .
21
X
APPLICATION OF LOCATIONAL FACTORS . . . . . . .
24
XI
RECOMMENDED MODIFICATIONS OF SANTA ANA'S
ZONINGORDINANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30
XII
WHAT OTHER PEOPLE SAY . . . . . . . . . . . . .
35
XIII
BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . .
43
r
I SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following report is designed to provide a rational basis
for determining the proper location of multi -story structures
in an urban community. It explains how and why the problem
developed, the significance of the problem from both the
general public and private developer points of view and the
urban planning considerations relevant to the subject.
Genera] reasons for selecting certain areas are outlined
along with a survey of regulatory techniques utilized through-
out the United States so that ultimate development will not
destroy the physical assets of any given area existing prior
to that development.
included also is an analysis of the function of Santa Ana as
a city, suggestions concerning the future of Santa Ana as the
primary urban center between Los Angeles and San Diego, and
a brief discussion of potential developmental problems that
will probably accompany the city's growth.
The locational considerations are applied to selected areas
of the city, and specific areas as indicated by the analysis
are considered to be immediately suitable for multi -story
structures. Along with this designation of general areas
are specific recommended modifications of the Zoning Ordinance
of 1960 to eliminate some current inconsistencies and to
provide for the continued maintenance of open space during
the city's more intensified development. Included in the
recommended modifications of the Zoning Ordinance is a regula-
tory technique designed to minimize the inherent conflict
between multi -story structures and single -story residences
located outside of the area most suitable for immediate multi-
story development. This is assuming the practice of strip
commercialization of major streets is to continue.
The conclusions that are implicit in and can be drawn from
this report are:
1. There is a rational basis for permissive legislation
allowing multi -story structures in certain areas and
prohibiting them in others.
2. A basic source of the current problem is directly
traceable to incompatibilities of use due to the
placement of the various land -use districts.
3. The Zoning Ordinance of 1960 does not contain adequate
provisions to minimize conflict between tall and low
structures and the effect to inhabitants and occupants
thereof.
4. There is an excessive amount of strip commercial zon-
ing along arterial streets that will lead to future
1
11
conflicts that can be minimized by site regulations but
prevented only by extensive rezoning to residential
districts.
5. That individual site regulations are as important as
the actual selection of areas considered suitable for
multi -story structures.
6. If conflicts of land use are inevitable due to a
changed function of an area then the transition period
should be as short as practical and ultimate compati-
bility probable.
7. An adopted land use element of the General Plan of Com-
munity Development (Master Plan) designating the gen-
eral distribution of land uses would have helped to
avoid conflicts between uses of land.
8. That permissive public legislation alone will not
result in multi -story structures being erected.
9. That the property owners of the areas selected for
multi -story structures should realize the importance
of formulating a plan for the development of these
areas so as to make it possible for Santa Ana to
better its relative position in the county and greater
region.
Based on the data, reasoning and assumptions explained in
greater detail in the body of the report the Planning Depart-
ment recommends:
1. That the zoning Ordinance of 1960 be amended as out-
lined in Part XI, establishing HEIGHT DISTRICTS I and
II.
2. That the area designated on Plate A be declared to be
in HEIGHT DISTRICT II.
3. That any change in the designated Height Districts be
allowed only after a meticulous application of the
locational factors.
4. That a projected land use element receive priority
attention so that a guide to future land use may
exist.
5. That the property owners of areas declared suitable
for the location of multi -story structures should
carefully evaluate the function and future of
Santa Ana and develop and carry out a plan to encour-
age the construction of an orderly developed multi-
story service, commercial, professional, residential
and governmental complex.
The Planning Department presents these recommendations with
knowledge of two important omissions which are, first, that
there is no recommendation to rezone strip commercial areas
to higher density residential districts; and second, that
there is no recommended density control limiting maximum
population density in high density areas.
The first omission is explained because such a recommendation
has been repeatedly made and not accepted. When the land
use element of the general plan is complete, a similar
recommendation will undoubtedly be made again.
The second omission is explained because the Planning Depart-
ment feels that to limit total population concentration
without relating population to space needs and municipal
services and facilities would be both arbitrary and indefen-
sible. After completion of the population element of the
General Plan such recommendations will be more appropriate.
it is sincerely hoped by the Planning Department that any
solution arrived at in this, and all urban problems with
which the city will be confronted in the future, will be
solved in such a manner that Santa Ana becomes a community
distinguished among communities.
3
II BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM
In the recent past, the Planning Commission and the City
Council were confronted with vigorous protest from home-
owners over the proposed location of multi -story structures.
Since the issue developed in widely separated areas of
Santa Ana it was clear that the problem was basic to the
entire city.
As a result of the increasing concern shown by many Santa Ana
residents the Planning Department was requested to submit a
report designed to show the effect, if any, of the location of
multi -story structures to near and adjacent single family
residences and to the entire city.
A preliminary study presented at subsequent Planning Commis-
sion and City Council meetings served to illustrate the many
considerations involved and to demonstrate the necessity of
a more precise, detailed study prior to a major policy deci-
sion.
The City Council, accepting the recommendation of the Plan-
ning Commission, declared a ninety -day moratorium on build-
ings in excess of two stories in areas of greatest possible
conflict. The City Council then instructed the Planning
Department to refine the preliminary study and submit it to
them within the ninety -day period, along with recommended
modifications of the Zoning Ordinance should the results of
the study s
III SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM
The original problem concerning the effect of multi -story
structures on nearby and adjacent single family homes was
expanded to include the proper location of tall buildings
in general. This question required an examination of the
existing height limitations and led to the further question
of what specific requirements, if any, should be imposed on
multi -story developments regardless of where they are
allowed to locate.
Thus the initial impetus of three neighborhood problems has
resulted in two major questions - where, in an urban commu-
nity, should tall buildings be allowed?, and under what
conditions or restrictions should they be allowed? These,
obviously, are questions crucial to the future of Santa Ana.
In effect, they are part of the single question every commu-
nity should ask and seldom does - namely, what kind of a
place should this city become.
It is hoped that any legislative
report does not make Santa Ana".
inhabitants constantly dream to
symbol of man's highest cultural
*Josiah Royce.
action resulting from this
. . a place from which all
escape, but (rather) a proud
achievement"*.
5
IV APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM
N
Once the basic questions were identified their immensity was
clear to the Staff. It was also clear that the final report
" would have to represent the best opinions and logical solu-
tions available. For this reason a procedure for developing
this report was formulated that provided four weeks of basic
research designed to result in a preliminary report in sixty
days. This timing allowed one month for review, revision,
and printing of the final report prior to the ninety -day
deadline.
0
The first step in any research task, once the problem is
identified, is to collect reference materials to take advan-
tage of previous work on the same subject. To accomplish
this, personal correspondence was sent to twenty-three of
America's largest cities, all of which have a considerable
number of tall buildings. The cities contacted were:
New York Miami
Cleveland
Philadelphia Chicago Tulsa
Dallas
Houston
Pittsburgh
Oakland
Omaha
Indianapolis
Boston
San Francisco
St. Louis
Cincinnati
Columbus
Detroit
Kansas City Los Angeles
Salt Lake City San Diego
Honolulu
In addition, requests for similar information and opinions
were sent to the following planners, architects and devel-
opers, each of whom enjoy national reputation in their
fields and all of whom have valuable experience to share
with the people of Santa Ana:
Victor Gruen & Associates
Simon Eisner & Associates
William L. Pereira & Associates
Welton Becket & Associates
Ted Adsit (Quinton
Engineers, LTD)
Livingston & Blayney
Janss Corporation
Irvine Company
David D. Bohannon Organization Louis Mumford
Believing in the contribution of universities to basic
research, the following schools were asked for reference
material and opinions:
University of Southern California Cornell University
University of California at Berkeley Columbia University
N
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Harvard University
University of Wisconsin University of
Illinois
Then, since any regulation of buildings affects building
design, the Orange County Chapter of the American Institute
of Architects was invited to participate in the formulation
of materials for this report.
The American Society of Planning Officials, through the Plan-
ning Advisory Service, to which the City subscribed, was kind
enough to release materials not normally circulated to add to
the compilation of basic data.
The various departments of the city administration participated
to the extent that they provided analyses of the effect multi-
story structures in various locations could have on the serv-
ices they are required to provide.
Finally, all of the nearby school and public libraries were
combed for relevant information and written materials.
The second step of the preparatory process was to sort, select
and analyze the material for inclusion in the final report
which follows.
1
V LOCATIONAL FACTORS
The factors that should be considered prior to permissive
public legislation that would allow the construction of multi-
story buildings, both commercial and residential, are as
follows:
1. Land prices. it is frequently argued that "economics"
is the sole cause and final rationale for any decision
affecting urban development. This opinion, of course,
is based on the definition of "economics" in its
broadest sense. There is'little question that all of
the factors that will be discussed in this Part can be
shown to be "economic" depending only upon one's frame
of reference. For purposes of clarity and brevity the
4: .-4-�, r 4: 11 cnnnincll Inc 190an CPnn T'.%'Fprl from the other
of multi -story structures. This was considered necessary
because of the immensity and complexity of the subject
of Economics and the many connotations of the word
"economics". In this more narrowly defined sense of
"economics" it can be shown that sound economic justifi-
cation for the construction of multi -story structures
sometimes coincides with and sometimes conflicts with
the other locational factors classified under the broad
heading of public necessity.
It is considered that multi -story structures are desir-
able to assure normal investment return.
High land valuation is traceable to several sources. One
of these is the market demand for certain facilities
(more apartments, office or whatever). The demand is
usually a result of a need for such facilities due to
population increase, business expansion or the develop-
ment of a unique facility such as a civic center.
Another source of high land valuation is the "prestige"
of a given area which is usually due to the quality
(worth) of existing and adjacent development. Prestige
areas can be occupied by business activities which have
few locational preferences. That is, the particular
business activity is such that it could be conducted in
one of several areas.
Thus, high land prices, caused by demand for facilities
and business activities which have strong location pref-
ences such as a desire to locate near a specialized
center or the "prestige" of a given area caused by the
quality of previous development is an "economic" consid-
eration for the legislative designation of areas as
suitable for multi -story construction.
2. Site or area accessibility. The area should be acces-
0
sible by both vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The
purpose and result of multi -story buildings is the
concentration of people. It must be possible or prac-
tical as the concentration of population increases for
the inhabitants of the buildings to move physically to
and from each structure and to travel by automobile,
mass transit systems or on foot from other areas to
the area of concentration. This means that streets,
mass transportation systems, existing or possible,
must be able to handle traffic in increasing volumes.
The experience of other cities*indicates that tall
buildings result in increased population concentration
to the degree that the automobile alone cannot provide
sufficient transportation which further suggests that
tall buildings will probably result in a need for mass
transportation systems.
Thus, the factor of site and area accessibility would
indicate that multi -story buildings should be located
at or near major arterial intersections, freeway inter-
changes and transportation and mass transit terminals
or major stops.
3. Off-street parking and loading areas or taciiities.
Space for the parking or loading of vehicles used
by occupants of multi -story structures must exist or
be reasonably obtainable. If the street system of a
city is to accomplish the primary purpose of moving
vehicles from one part of the city to another or
entirely through the city then streets must cease
being used as parking lots and loading areas. If the
necessary off-street parking and loading facilities
are not provided by the developers of each structure
then some other form off-street parking facilities,
including multi -story and subterranean parking garages,
will be necessary to prevent congestion.
To emphasize the importance of terminal facilities it
should be noted that the ratio of car ownership to
population has increased steadily and is currently one
car to 2.4 persons (men, women and children)in Orange
County. Thus, adequate off-street parking and loading
facilities must exist or be practically obtainable as
a condition requisite to the designation of an area as
logical for the construction of multi -story buildings.
4. Municipal services and facilities. Public services,
facilities and utilities, other than the street system,
must be available or must be constructed as the need
arises to support the increased population densities.
Such services include water systems, storm drains,
sewers, parks, schools, police and fire protection, and
gas and electric power. Obviously, if a given level or
standard of service is to be provided on a per capita
basis, then the municipality and the private utility
9
companies must accept the fact of increased costs for
land, materials and personnel in proportion to the
increased population densities possible with multi-
story structures. The developer of multi -story struc-
tures should not receive an indirect subsidy from the
' general public in the form of higher taxes from all
taxpayers to defray the cost of enlarging or replacing
municipal services and facilities necessary for an
individual project.
Thus, various municipal facilities, services, and public
utilities must be existing or the municipality must be
able and willing to pay the cost of creating the neces-
sary services and facilities to adequately serve the
high population densities which result from multi -story
construction.
S. Public necessity. The concentration of population, by
allowing increased building heights in particular areas,
should be considered in terms of the general public
necessity rather than a single developer's desire to
construct a multi -story building. For instance, depend-
ing upon the function of a particular city it could be
necessary to allow high population concentration for
various reasons such as:
a) especially desirable areas due to spectacular
topographical features (beaches, bays, mountains,
canyons, lakes, etc.);
b) proximity to man-made special resources like
marinas, golf courses, large parks;
c) Proximity to areas of prime importance to the
economy such as governmental centers,
universities, regional shopping centers, banking
and institutional centers, the courts, airports,
etc.;
d) proximity to terminal points of major rapid
transit systems to other cities or other areas
of regional importance so that commuter traffic
does not require many changes in modes of
transportation (from train or bus to car to walk-
ing - all of which increase commuting time, which
is unproductive, frustrating, and economically a
waste.
e) to raise the total population to a point that
will allow the development of those special urban
resources that constitute part of the "good life"
such as civic operas, legitimate theatres,
orchestras, professional athletic centers (tennis,
golf, baseball, football, etc.), zoos, museums,
etc. The point here is that city population must
reach a particular level so that income and pur-
chasing power is sufficient to support such
activities on an urban level.
10
(f) to make possible a concentration and grouping
of interrelated activities so that transporta-
tion costs in time and money can be minimized
for both goods and people.
Thus, the public necessity or convenience is a justifica-
tion and rationale for the placement of multi -story struc-
tures. The justification may be to make it possible for
more people to enjoy a natural or man-made resource; to
concentrate business activity around a governmental or
business center for economy and efficiency of operation;
due to area proximity to transportation terminals; or
simply to make a population increase containable within
the relatively fixed limits of a city.
6. Ultimate compatibility of use. The use of land is
the activity being engaged in upon the land. One of
the underlying bases of the public planning -function
is the elimination or minimization of conflicts be-
tween various uses of land to assure maximum enjoyment
of all properties to their owners: Conflicts in land
use can cause damage to the dollar value of property
as well as to the health and safety of the occupants
of property. Therefore, one of the primary locational
factors is a determination that the construction of
multi -story structures will not result in permanent
or prolonged incompatibility of use. It is obvious
that changes in the function of a city or the relo-
cation of a strategic facility such as a civic center
can cause a period of incompatibility. This transition
period is usually acceptable to the affected areas
because of the anticipation of profit by being (within
a reasonable time) absorbed by the new and usually more
intense use. However, if the transition period is
exceedingly long or the adjacent properties are so
located as to enjoy little probability of a change to
the more intense use, then there is damage, both finan-
cial and psychological, to the less intense use. A
characteristic of most Southern California communities
is an unrealistic belief in dynamic everlasting expan-
sion. This belief has resulted in over -zoning and
scattered uses of land which constitute an unending
transition period for many areas.
The possibility of ultimate compatibility of use should
be reflected in adopted elements of a community general
plan so that a basis for individual and public investment
will exist.
Thus, ultimate compatibility of use with the shortest
practical transition period should constitute a consid-
eration prior to permissive public legislation desig-
nating areas for multi -story construction.
11
7. Local public opinion. Public opinion resembles the
sixth sense of human beings in that it can be over-
whelmingly apparent or can be indiscernible. In any
case in a democratic society the aspect of local
public opinion must be rated as a locational factor.
Legislative action or inaction should be the culmi-
nation of various interests and views representing
sound local public opinion. The necessary locational
factors may exist to the degree that all that stands
between the developer and his construction of a high-
rise building is a local ordinance created by local
public opinion. The very important "optimum planning
goals" have occasionally been eclipsed by a lack of
consideration of this seventh factor. It is, in
effect, the undeniable right of the general public to
determine its own living environment even without
regard to other considerations.
Thus, local public opinion is paramount in the deter-
mination of proper locations for tall buildings. As
a locational factor it may prove equal to all the
aforementioned factors or may be indiscernible.
All of the foregoing, in the broadest sense, can be consid-
ered economic factors in that all of them can create value
or become the basis of price. The price or value established
is one aspect which must be weighed against the other consid-
erations such as the general good to the public in terms of
maintaining minimum standards of light, open space, air,
preventing undue congestion and not allowing the use of one
property to the detriment of another. In urban areas it is
sometimes necessary to restrain by public legislation the
desire to maximize returns in order to assure maximum equity
to all property users.
12
VI INDIVIDUAL SITE CONSIDERATIONS
In determining the proper location of multi -story buildings
the corollary question of - under what conditions or restric-
tions should they be allowed? - must be•answersd.
Government should not control development or any aspect of
society without valid and politically acceptable reasons.
The restrictions placed on building construction in terms
of height and bulk limitations were found necessary through-
out urban history because individual did not respect the
rights of individual.
In the perfect market, "natural zoning would result, land
uses of similar or complimentary character would naturally
group themselves with maximum benefit to the property
owners and to the community. But the market is not perfect;
hence the city planner, having determined on the most advan-
tageous grouping of uses, must enforce this grouping through
a zoning ordinance. Without such enforcement, the natural
pattern will greatly be disturbed by the accidents of owner-
ship, the poor judgment of owners, the fact that for some
uses location is a matter of relative indifference, and the
short-term advantage taken by a few individuals acting on
self-interest, without regard to the community".*
The object of controlling building bulk and height is to
protect the rights of each individual to light, air, open
space and to protect the man-made environment for all.
I£ a site is chosen because it can be demonstrated that a
majority of the locational principles apply, then after the
building is constructed, (or buildings, since all properties
in the same district must by law enjoy the same privileges)
the locational principles must still be found to apply.
By way of further explanation assume a site at the intersec-
tion of two major freeways (site accessibility); adjacent to
an institutional and commercial complex of regional importance
(public necessity for concentration); with ample municipal
services (municipal services factor); where lending institu-
tions will finance tall buildings (demonstration of market
demand forecasted); and the majority agree that tall build-
ings are desirable on this site (local public opinion).
Now assume that each property is developed without particular
site limitations: no required open space, no density maximum,
no required parking, in effect, much like the development in
many downtowns across the country. The result is congestion
*Ratcliff, R.V., Urban Land Economics (McGraw-Hill Book Co.,
Inc. 1949), p. 385.
13
of the highways and general area, a partial elimination of
view (total for non -occupants of tall buildings), an over-
loading of existing municipal facilities and, in general,
the destruction of the environment. The result, obviously,
is that the very reasons for the selection of the particular
area have been nullified by virtue of unrestricted develop-
ment.
Thus the site restrictions should be such that the reasons
the site was originally desirable remain intact after total
development.
Because the primary locational factors will vary, it follows
that particular area site limitations should vary. Perhaps
in one area, for the efficient and economic operation of
specific business enterprises, it is desirable to concentrate
employee population. The resulting site limitations may
allow high densities but require substantial amounts of off-
street parking. in still another area it may be that a par-
ticular view prompts permissive legislation to assure that
as many people as possible can enjoy that view. In such a
case densities again may be high but maximum ground coverage
may be low or required yards large in order to assure that
all persons concentrated in the area will be physically able
to enjoy the view without blocking the view of others.
Thus the second consideration of specific site restrictions
would indicate that it is necessary to have flexible regula-
tions or different sets of regulations tailored to protect
the principal assets of any given area.
To accomplish the goals of the two general principles of
site consideration detailed regulations should be developed
taking into consideration the following site factors:
a) open space in terms of yards, building bulk,
building shape and percentage of lot coverage;
b) visual impact in terms of extent and size of signs,
landscaping, building materials, and architecture
as contrasted with views created by natural happen-
stance (topography, geography);
c) population density_ including both employee and
permanent resident;
d) traffic generation from each particular structure;
and
e) terminal storage facilities for automobiles.
14
VII REGULATORY TECHNIQUES
There are many regulatory techniques practiced in the
United States to assure the maintenance of adequate open
space, light, air and to prevent congestion. For the most
part, existing ordinances were written in response to par-
ticular problems and after the fact. In some cases ordi-
nances were especially designed to carry out the purposes
of a general plan. Unfortunately, in a few cases, ordi-
nances developed in one city were indiscriminately used by
other cities with questionable beneficial result.
Usually legislation affecting property use and development
represents an amalgamation or synthesis of many regulatory
techniques. While many recently adopted ordinances repre-
sent a reluctance to depart from the established, it is
necessary for each community to formulate developmental
regulations with great care since each city while substan-
tially alike, is nevertheless in many ways unique.
In the preceding Part of this report it was suggested that
in order to properly accomplish the goals of the two
facets of site consideration it was necessary to specifi-
cally regulate open space, visual impact, population density,
traffic generation, and terminal parking facilities.
Except for off-street parking requirements and architec-
tural control, which are excluded from this report, the
r regulatory techniques affecting the other site factors
have a considerable degree of overlap. In many cases more
than one technique is used in conjunction with one or more
of the other techniques. Thus, in considering the follow-
ing list, keep in mind that they are primarily intended to
assure the maintenance of adequate light, air, open space
and to prevent congestion.
The techniques in most general use throughout the United
States are:
1. Fixed Yards usually expressed in feet and in terms
of minimum front, side and rear; often found in
conjunction with a fixed height limit that results
in the elimination of certain areas of a property
for purposes of construction; a very rigid but
prevalent technique whose results are shown by
Diagram 1.
2. Flexible or sliding yards also expressed in feet
and in terms of minimum front, side and rear. A
deviation of Number 1 above to increase flexibility
of design and building placement. Generally there
is a minimum total yard and one side or the other
or the front or back has an individual minimum.
This allows the building to be placed toward one
1
15
lot line or the other but provides for certain
yards as illustrated in Diagram 2.
3. Fixed height limits usually expressed in terms of
a maximum number of feet or stories or both. The
effect of this type of control is a uniform limita-
tion district by district. Incongruities and incom-
patible uses can be created by an ill-considered
zoning pattern resulting from promiscuous zone
changes. The usual effect of fixed height limits
by district is demonstrated by Diagram 3.
4. Height control plane is a more recent inovation to
allow greater freedom of design and building place-
ment than the fixed yard and height techniques.
The plane is in terms of a maximum allowable build-
ing height expressed by a predetermined degree
inclined plane measured from a vertical at each lot
line toward the interior of the lot. For instance,
any structure could be erected that would not inter-
sect a 450 inclined plane as illustrated in Diagram
4. Note that the taller the structure the greater
the distance from the property lines.
5. Bonus or premium provisions have been written into
some ordinances to provide sufficient incentive in
terms of greater allowable floor area and height in
return for open space. For example, there may be
a fixed height limit of 35 feet but as an open space
bonus additional height is allowed for each "x" feet
the structure is set in from all property lines.
The bonus must be greater than the amount of floor
area lost to open space if incentive is to be
created. This system is illustrated by Diagram 5.
6. Floor area ratio is a method of establishing total
allowable floor area based on total lot area or a
factor thereof. For instance, the maximum permis-
sible floor area, may be x times the total lot area.
This system allows considerable variations in design
as shown by Diagram 6.
7. Bulk control is much like number 6 above but is
expressed in terms of allowable cubic feet of build-
ing as a ratio of building site area. For example,
the cubic feet (volume) of a given structure cannot
x times the lot area.
This type of provision is usually combined with a
regulation that determines the placement of the
permitted bulk on any particular site. Great freedom
of design is possible with the bulk control technique
as is illustrated by Diagram 7.
8. Maximum lot coverage usually expressed as a fixed
percentage of the total lot. Since this is a fixed
open space requirement, it is usually used in conjunc-
tion with other height and setback regulations.
Diagram 8 represents the application of the maximum
lot coverage technique.
16
9. Lot area ratio is generally expressed in terms of a
maximum number of residential units, offices or
suites per square foot of land. This method, like
other density limitations, can result in total lot
coverage unless combined with open space require-
ments as demonstrated by Diagram 9.
10. Conditional use permit, as a technique, probably
requires little -explanation. But primarily it is
combined with a fixed height limit and requires Plan-
ning Commission or City Council approval, after
public hearing, for any structure in any area above
the fixed limit. No diagram is provided since the
result would be buildings of any height approved by
conditional use permit.
11. Angle of light obstruction is a technique that was
developed in Great Britain which is used most
generally as a test to determine the amount of light
and view available at any required window. It is
primarily useful in high-rise residential development
and to protect a specific view. The technique
employs the use of an arc or fan which is 700 on both
sides of the centerline of a window. The arc is sub-
divided into 28 equal segments; 14 segments must be
unobstructed above a 450 vertically inclined plane;
14 remaining on each side of the window are unregu-
lated. The principle here is the recognition that
light does not only originate overhead but can be
available at several points around the building in
question. Diagram 10 demonstrates the angle of
light obstruction technique.
The foregoing are regulatory techniques used to assure the
maintenance of light, air, open space and to prevent con-
gestion in a high density urban area. It is essential to
understand that the various techniques are frequently used
in conjunction with other regulatory devices such as off-
street parking requirements, architectural controls, re-
striction of access to public roads, etc.
The underlying reason for the existence of such techniques
is the historical evidence that man will not adequately
regulate himself. Thus various legislative groups have
found it necessary to regulate the use of property to make
it possible for each individual to enjoy the use of his
property without undue interference with the rights of
others to equal enjoyment of their properties.
17
• Diag.1 FIXED YARDS
SAMPLE ORDINANCE
There shall be a side yard
of not less than five feet•
There shall be a front yard
of not less than ten feet.
There shall be a rear yard
of not less than ten feet.
Diag• 2 FLEXIBLE YARDS
SAMPLE ORDINANCE:
There shall be combined
side yards of not less
than fifteen feet but
in no case shall either
side yard be less than
five feet.
Diag• 3 FIXED HEIGHT
SAMPLE ORDINANCE:
In no case shall the height
of any structure exceed
six stories or seventy
feet.
O
10
oQ �c
c �
5 •;a` 5 !Q
10
street
10
l
Diag. 4 HEIGHT CONTROL PLANE
SAMPLE ORDINANCE:
In no case shall any structure intercept a plane making an
angle of forty-five degrees from the horizontal towards
the interior of the lot and originating at each property
line.
Diag• 5 THE BONUS OR PREMIUM SYSTEM
SAMPLE ORDINANCE:
No structure shall exceed thirty-five feet. Provided how-
ever, two additional feet of height are allowed for each
one foot the structure is set back from all property lines.
r
Y
Diag. 6
SAMPLE
In no case
amount
Top View
FLOOR AREA LIMIT
ORDINANCE:
shall the gross floor area of a structure exeed an
equal to the area of the lot it is constructed on.
Lot A
1000 sq. ft.
Front View
Bldg. A
1000 sq. ft.
per floor
ONE FLOOR
Diag.7 BULK CONTROL
Lot B
1000 sq. ft.
SAMPLE ORDINANCE:
In no case shall the volume of any
structure exceed the product of the
width of the narrowest street on which
the lot fronts and lot area.
Max. Volu mi
50,000
Cubic Ft.
0
5 Lot Area =1000 Sq.Ft.
Bldg. JB
50sq. fel
per H
TWO
FLOORS
.
Diag.8 MAXIMUM
LOT AREA COVERAGE
SAMPLE ORDINANCES:
In no case shall any struc-
ture occupy more than
30% of the total lot
area. ( lot A)
In no case shall any struc-
ture occupy more than
50 % of the total lot
area. ( lot B )
Diag• 9 LOT AREA RATIO
SAMPLE ORDINANCE:
In no case shall any structure
contain more than one
dwelling unit per thousand
square feet of lot area.
FRONT VIEW
TOP VIEW
10,000 sq ft
J
a
Dia
Legal
Requiv
SAMPLE ORDINANCE:
No building shall be permitted unless from the centerline of each
legally required window an arc of 140 degrees may be con-
structed horizontally, such arc being divided into 28 equal
segments such that at least 14 of these segments are free of
obstruction above a 45 degree plane inclined from the
vertical axis of said window,
VIII SANTA ANA TODAY
Santa Ana is currently experiencing a substantial growth
period. The condition of various regulatory devices when
the growth spurt occurs determines in large part the re-
sultant type of city after the growth rate has subsided.
Few cities in California were fortunate in anticipating
the rapid rate of growth. As a result, many regulatory
devices were inappropriate on entirely lacking. Interim
ordinances, stop gap measures and various hastily con-
ceived devices help to ease the growth strain but none can
match the stability and comfort of a carefully drawn,
publicly accepted general plan of community development.
A cause of concern to many property owners in Santa Ana,
as expressed at various meetings, has been the direction-
less growth of the city. More than once has it been
pointed out that change is not necessarily progress. in
response to the public concern the Planning Department has
been instructed by the Planning Commission and City Council
to prepare various studies as well as the various elements
of a general plan. The Streets and Highways element and
the Drainage Phase of the public facilities element have
been adopted. The water and sewer phases of the same
element are nearing completion. A capital improvement
schedule and budget is also nearing completion. All of
these represent an active planning program.
During the course of the preparation of the various general
plan elements decisions must be made in respect to new
development trends. When possible, these decisions are
based on as much valid information as is obtainable. As
other elements of the general plan are adopted a firmer
basis for legislative judgment will come into being.
The land use pattern (the way properties are currently being
used) reflects the many developmental decisions that have
been made in the past. The miles of zoned but unused com-
mercial and industrial properties demonstrate that Santa Ana
too, has failed to properly assess its actual potential.
The zoning pattern (the way land is currently zoned)
reflects a source of use incompatibilities that is just
beginning to be a point of concern to property owners. In
the zoning pattern there are seeds of conflict that can
potentially generate sufficient public interest to cause a
major modification of the existing zoning pattern. For
instance, there are in excess of 1300 single family homes
abutting properties zoned for business purposes.
The problem of where multi -story buildings should locate
would be academic if most major streets, with their shallow
depth lots, were not stripped with commercial zoning.
Currently there are approximately 117 street frontage miles
of property zoned for business purposes. Only 38 miles are
18
developed as zoned and this figure includes 14 miles in
the downtown and shopping centers. (Special Study #16 is an
analysis of Santa Ana's commercial zoning and development).
The amount of unused business zoning demonstrates the
present adequacy of the shopping centers and downtown area
to provide retail services and business locations necessary
for the functional efficiency of Santa Ana.
Since the current problem of building heights is directly
traceable to incompatibilities of use allowed by the zoning
pattern, it is obvious that changing the zoning pattern
will alleviate the problem. However, since the various
permitted heights vary by district it is conceivable that
two adjacent properties may be properly zoned in terms of
use but not in terms of permissible heights. Therefore it
is further obvious that some change in height regulations
may be necessary.
Since the growth of the city and the evolution of its
function can create sufficient justification for a change
of use in an area (for example, the civic center area) it
follows that certain periods of transition are inevitable.
The transitional friction created by a more intense use
being interjected into an area of less intense use (apart-
ments into a single family residence area) can be minimized
by slowly expanding the intense use areas rather than
wholesale rezoning with the resultant sporadic, leap frog
type of development.
Areas selected for multi -story structures should be suit-
able and clearly necessary for today and the immediate
future, not for the next twenty or thirty year needs of
the city. Changes of zone should be based on similar con-
siderations. It is unlikely that a movement exists in
Santa Ana to prevent progress. What is desired is appar-
ently a conservative transition to a reasonably acceptable
predetermined goal.
A review of the height regulations of each district with
reference to their effect, one upon another, reveals rather
glaring inconsistencies. For instance, the four parallel
streets - Broadway, Sycamore, Main and Bush (going west to
east) - are zoned as follows: Broadway, professional with
a maximum height limit of six stories; Sycamore, multiple
family residential with a maximum height limit of six
stories; Main Street, commercial with a maximum height
limit of two stories; and finally, Bush, zoned as Broadway
with again a six story maximum height limit. What logic
would limit Main Street to two stories? The logic was that
many streets were stripped with commercial zoning and in
most cases backed up to residentially zoned property. It
was further reasoned that as the demand for taller buildings
increased the ordinance could be amended or the individual
project granted by variance or as an exception to the rule.
This logic provided protection for many homeowners in
19
Santa Ana. What logic would permit six story apartments
or offices between commercial districts and residential
districts limited to two stories? There is none that could
be ascertained by the Planning Department. At most, it is
an example of a misplaced zoning district originally
designed to act as a transitional buffer between commercial
and residential districts limited to two stories. The
result of such inconsistent zoning practice jeopardizes
one of the primary purposes and intent of zoning.
n
North Broadway is an example of such an area zoned for
professional uses in order to provide a transitional
buffer between the commercial activities on Main Street
and the residences on Victoria Drive and streets west.
But the effect of the six story height permitted in the
professional district could nullify the beneficial results
of the use buffer, while illustrating the inconsistencies
of the various height limitations. At the time of the
zoning ordinance revision in 1960, the permitted heights
were not reviewed since few, if any, multi -story buildings
existed. The demand grew more rapidly than anticipated
and as a result threat of conflict exists on Broadway
north of 17th Street and in other areas.
These, and many other possible examples indicate the need
for a revision of certain developmental regulations in
Santa Ana.
20
IX THE FUNCTION AND FUTURE OF SANTA ANA
Part V of this report was an attempt to provide a rational
basis necessary to answer the question: where, in an urban
community, should tall buildings be allowed? The specific
location or locations selected in a particular community
should represent a legislative judgment that a sufficient
number of the locational principles do, indeed, justify the
designation of a given area for high-rise construction.
There is no magic number or percentage of applicable
factors that must, of necessity, exist. Nor will permis-
sive public legislation cause tall buildings to be erected.
But a combination of the locational factors, coupled with
permissive public legislation, will allow the construction
of tall buildings in any area so designated and preclude
them from any other area.
PART VI of this report was an attempt to provide a rational
basis necessary to answer the question: under what condi-
tions or restrictions should tall buildings be allowed
regardless of where they locate? It is hoped that the
individual site considerations are sufficient to provide
principles that, if adequately and properly considered, will
result in a reasonable amount of light, air, open space and
a minimum of congestion. Cities throughout the United States
provide vivid testimony of unplanned, unguided and unrestric-
ted development. It is not coincident that these are the
same cities undergoing massive federal urban renewal pro-
jects. To avoid the subsequent rebuilding of various areas
within a city, other than by private developers, experience
indicates that sufficiently restrictive developmental
requlations should exist before the fact if they are to
prove very useful.
In order to apply the locational principles and site con-
siderations to a particular community it is necessary to
know and understand that community and the forces that are
involved in the evolution of that community. Santa Ana,
like all communities, plays a particular role in the
greater context of county and region. A city's role or
function does not remain static but changes with the times
as does each element comprising the total function of that
city. To anticipate the needs of Santa Ana as a potential
location for high-rise construction it is necessary to
understand the past development and changing character of
this city.
Historically, Santa Ana was a rural village which provided
a focal point for a predominantly agrarian society. At
the same time Santa Ana was the retail shopping center for
the county. With the construction of more vehicular path-
ways to larger cities in Los Angeles County, more and more
21
people discovered its rural charms and selected it as a place
of residence, commuting to and from their place of employment.
As the population gradually increased the various activities
conducted within the city increased. Since Santa Ana was the
county seat, the activities of various governmental units,
both legislative and judicial, acted as a magnet for the
various professions. Soon Santa Ana was n9t only a retail
and residential complex, but became the governmental center
of the county.
With the completion of the Santa Ana Freeway vehicular access
was facilitated and Orange County, including Santa Ana, was
"discovered" by the incoming migrants from the east. The
relatively low cost of land, the climate and the generally
pleasant living conditions combined to make orange County a
subdivider's paradise.
Industry soon followed the labor pool creating more jobs
locally which made possible a greater concentration of people.
The growth of the industrial district of Santa Ana provided
another perceptible shift in the economic base of the commu-
nity.
In the relatively short span of ten years Santa Ana has
grown from a rural town, retail center, bedroom town to the
governmental and institutional headquarters of orange County
with a diverse and expanding industrial base.
Santa Ana's function should be the more obvious as surround-
ing cities develop their distinctive characteristics. Anaheim,
with Disneyland, is becoming a focal point for tourists, con-
ventions and the like. The beach cities are developing
choice residential and recreational areas. The Irvine Com-
pany is proceeding to make possible the establishment of a
major university which should result in an increasing sophis-
tication and urbanization of the entire county. Santa Ana
remains the governmental, institutional and retail center it
slowly became. But more recently there is increasing emphasis
on service businesses and the professions as the population
continues to increase.
The various business activities must be housed and places of
residence constructed for the workers of sundry colored
collars. That is, this must be done if Santa Ana is to con-
tinue to serve as the "headquarters" city of the county.
The role or function, then, of Santa Ana is that of a head-
quarters. To maintain its relative position among cities of
the county and the greater region, it follows that office
facilities, residential facilities, and community facilities
in general, must be allowed to expand by permissive public
legislation to absorb the population and business activity
increase. But in so allowing the expansion, it is the respon-
sibility of the City Council to assure that the necessary
uses of land remain functional, economic and socially accept-
able in their relation, one to the other.
22
it is the thesis of this report that expansion of various
uses of land can come about without conflict, without lengthy
and unacceptable transitional periods and without resulting
in the blight, congestion and confusion found in many urban
areas across the land.
23
X APPLICATION OF THE LOCATIONAL FACTORS
TO SANTA ANA
It was shown in the preceding Part that the nature of cities
evolves or changes with time. In applying the locational
factors discussed in Part V in order to select proper areas
for the construction of multi -story buildings it is important
to keep in mind the fact that Santa Ana twenty years in the
future will be a different city. It is not inconceivable
that some day the entire city will serve as a governmental
and business nucleus for a large part of Southern California.
The purpose of this section�.;;s to suggest areas suitable now
and for the immediate future. At a later date the facts may
indicate a need for substantial expansion or perhaps a total
revision of the theory involved.
As implied in Park IX the city and county civic center is
the heart of governmental activity in Santa Ana. The surround-
ing office facilities combine with it to make the general area
the high command of this headquarters city. The adopted
Streets and Highways Element of the general plan was geared
to get vehicles (hence people) into, out of and through the
central business district. The widening of some streets has
been accomplished. The widening of others has been planned.
Nevertheless, when the arterial street system is complete,
including necessary one-way couplets, the downtown area will
be the most accessible area, from any direction, in the entire
city (factor of accessibility). Currently there are terminal
off-street parking facilities available downtown. These will
have to be better located and increased by the construction
of multi -level or subterranean garages to handle the number
of automobiles possible on a completed arterial street system
(factor of terminal facilities). In order to continue pro-
viding municipal services at the same level now being pro-
vided in the central business district it will be necessary
to reconstruct sewer facilities (general plan of sewer facil-
ities will soon be completed and more police and fire depart-
ment personnel will be required, in accordance with the
resultant concentration of population. Storm drain and fresh
water facilities should prove adequate with changes as speci-
fied in existing plans.
Thus, if multi -story construction occurs in the central busi-
ness district it will be necessary to provide additional
facilities to continue with the same level of municipal serv-
ices now provided (factor of municipal facilities).
According to the factor of public necessity for the concen-
tration of population there are various justifications from
a public point of view for permissive legislation allowing
the concentration of population. As applied to the central
business district it is obvious that there are no spectacular
views or natural topographical features which it would be
desirable for as many people as possible to enjoy. By con-
24
trast, this was a principal reason for allowing high-rise
apartments on a hill overlooking Mission Bay in San Diego
as well as the basis for high-rise apartments on the seven
hills of San Francisco. There is also no man-made resource
in terms of a large park, marina, or etc.
However, the factor of proximity to an area of prime import-
ance to the economy is overwhelmingly present. It is this
factor that dictates the selection of the civic center -down-
town area as a multi -story district. Concurrent with the
justification for more concentrated office facilities is
the necessity of providing apartment units to house the
many workers staffing those office facilities.
From a transportation point of view a rapid transit system
is justified only between areas of high population density.
Thus it is reasonable to assume that the civic center -down-
town will be the terminal point for any major transit sys-
tems ultimately developed (factor of proximity to terminal
points of transit systems).
The desire to raise the population to a point that justifies
the urban niceties would lead to increased densities in the
central core since so many of the other factors are present
(the "good life" factor). As previously explained the
factor of economic necessity created by market growth will
assure the construction of tall structures assuming permis-
sive public legislation exists. An expanding population
will expand the activities conducted in the civic center -
downtown. The expansion of those activities will economi-
cally justify the construction of tall structures to make
more compact and directly link those related activities for
more efficient operation. Actual construction will result
in ultimate compatibility of use in the area (compatibility
of use factor). The difficult seventh factor of local
public opinion seems to favor the downtown as the site of
multi -story structures over all others. In any case no
large scale opposition to zone changes or ordinances affect-
ing height developed concerning the core area.
Therefore it would appear that the locational factors indi-
cate the civic center -downtown area as one very probable
and logical location for multi -story structures. The parti-
cular size of the area as well as the individual site con-
siderations depend to a great extent on how far into the
future it is desirable for the district to anticipate.
Nevertheless, the function of Santa Ana as a city and the
locational factors developed in this report combine to
provide a rational basis for the designation of one area of
concentration.
How do other areas of the city measure up against the prin-
ciples of site selection? One beginning would be to find a
focal point of regional importance. The Fashion Square
complex is such a focal point. It is currently bounded on
25
the south by the Santa Ana Freeway (with off and on ramps)
along the east by Main Street (a principle north -south
arterial), and when the Garden Grove Freeway is completed
will be bounded on the north by a freeway. Thus there is
unquestionable site accessibility. In the immediate area
there are acres of available offstreet parking. The parking
lots are of sufficient size to provide adequate area for the
construction of multi -story or subterranean off-street park-
ing facilities should the need arise. The Fashion Square
complex has probably the best terminal off-street parking
facilities in Santa Ana.
Municipal facilities are adequate and can be reasonably
expanded in the Fashion Square complex because of its recent
development to a high standard.
The public necessity for the concentration of population in
the Fashion Square complex is somewhat apparent because of
the regional proportions of the business activities.' This
factor will be more obvious after completion of the offices
planned for the Union Square development immediately north
of Fashion Square. There will be a corresponding need for
housing for the employees who desire to live close to6their
place of employment. in addition, the various services and
goods offered for sale in the immediate area adds°incentive
for the construction of apartments. The Fashion Squa3Ze area,
' because of its quality of development, provides an opportu-
nity for permissive public legislation allowing higher density
apartment units which take advantage of the open space and
• pleasant environment maintained at nonpublic expense. The
result can be a general increase in population with a minimum
of conflict with single family areas, that will.eventually
provide the basis for the "good life" of urban areas mentioned
previously.
Economic necessity can be found to exist because of the high
land valuation of the general area. The current high prices
are partially a result of the prestige created by Fashion
Square and the market demand for facilities near such a com-
plex.
Since the Fashion Square area will be surrounded by two free-
ways and a major street it seems reasonable to assume that
local public opinion will not result in legislation preventing
further vertical growth of that area.
Thus it appears that an application of the locational factors
would indicate that the Fashion Square complex could reason-
ably be designated as an area generally acceptable for high-
rise construction.
Potentially, there are other areas of the city where it seems
logical to anticipate the development of a nucleus of activity
which would satisfy the requirements of the locational factors.
The best indication is obtainable from an analysis of the
26
Streets and Highways Element of the general plan. Since site
accessibility is one locational factor which must exist those
areas most accessible contain inherent possibilities as high-
rise areas, especially if a sufficient number of the other
side factors can be found subsequently to apply. The more
obvious areas are at 17th and Tustin which will also have an
adjacent full interchange with the Newport Freeway. Another
is Bristol and the Santa Ana Freeway which will become the
area of interchange of Bristol, Santa Ana Freeway, Garden
Grove Freeway and the Pomona Freeway. Still another could
ultimately be the triangle formed by the Newport Freeway,
Main Street and Dyer Road. All of these and probably others
exist as reasonably potential sites for high-rise buildings
dependent on type of development and growth of the city in
the light of the locational principles developed in this
report.
In Santa Ana there have been proposals for multi -story struc-
tures in areas not meeting the locational factors to the
degree of the civic center -downtown and Fashion Square loca-
tions. It is obvious that some basis must exist to justify
proposals for multi -story buildings on Broadway north of 17th
Street; 17th Street and Bristol; 17th Street and Mabury; and
Warner Avenue (Delhi Rd) and Bristol Street.
Taking one of these as an example and measuring it against
the locational factors, results in a determination of the
desirability of the area as a site for high-rise construction,
in the light of the benefit to be derived to the general
public. For example, Broadway north of Seventeenth Street
measures up as follows:
Economic necessity - must exist due to requests but
directly traceable to one reason for increase of land
valuation - that of prestige. In effect, the high
valuation homes to the west, the zoning limitation
to professional activity and the required front yards
combined to make the North Broadway area a "prestige"
area. Thus, if development is such that the area
become less desirable as a place to live (in terms of
dollar value the greatest investment is in single
family homes) due to congestion, tall buildings or what-
ever, the "prestige" of the area will be destroyed.
It is obviously tye threat of an extended transition
period, with little likelihood of the residential prop-
erties west of Broadway changing to a more intense use,
that concerns the homeowners. Since there is no general
plan which indicates substantial future change in the
area there is good probability that the transition period
will become permanent. That is, that the incompatibility
of use between multi -story buildings on Broadway and
single story residences to the west will exist unless one
' or the other is removed.
27
Site accessibility - poor, best feature -along an arterial
with off -ramp connections to the Santa Ana Freeway. Little
probability of new interchange or more east -west major
streets. After completion of the Garden Grove Freeway the
use of North Park Blvd, will probably decrease.
Terminal parking and loading facilities - limited due to
small lots and type of recent construction, can be im-
proved by construction of joint use facilities but
required off-street parking, unless waived by variance,
should prevent construction of many tall structures,
especially on the west side of the street.
Municipal facilities - available to the degree authorized
by the City Council and the willingness of the public to
assume the costs of those facilities.
Public necessity - no spectacular views other than of the
high quality homes in the area, outstanding topographical
features or man-made resources. Business primarily profes-
sional types that could be conducted in any business dis-
trict; no nearby stops of major non -automotive transit
facilities and not sufficient area to anticipate substan-
tial population shifts due to its development profession-
ally.
Local public opinion as observed at public hearings concerning
aspects of North Broadway is substantially in opposition to
multi -story construction at least on the west side of Broadway
north of 17th Street.
Thus, all factors considered, it appears that there is not
overwhelming support in fact for the selection of the north
Broadway area as an area suitable for high-rise construction.
This is not to suggest that Main Street activities will not
eventually absorb the properties on the east side of Broadway
north of 17th Street or the west side of Bush Street in the
same area.
A similar analysis of the other sites mentioned results in
much the same conclusion. An element of confusion enters when
a specific proposal is made seemingly in direct opposition to
the locational principles. The reason is usually, unless
there is some specialized activity centered nearby, one of
speculative economics. For example, high land valuation can
result from the construction of a multi -story building for
those properties whereon similar structures can be built and
to the property on which the first multi -story structure is
built. This "reverse" economics has been known to work as
follows: property is purchased at a reasonable figure (com-
paratively less than the most obvious locations for high-rise
structures); some inflation ensues, population increases
causing increased land valuation but not to the point where
reasonable dollar return absolutely demands taller structures.
Money is acquired to finance a multi -story structure and it
is built. The area increased in prestige value and actual
m
value. This spontaneous appreciation accrues as equity to
the owner of the multi -story structure. Adjacent lands,
provided they too can be used by high-rise structures,
experience a similar appreciation. However real the profit
is to any individual there is predominantly false apprecia-
tion to most surrounding properties. Especially if these
properties are devoted to a use of less intensity. Since
there will be constructed only a limited number of high-rise
structures in any area in a fixed period of time the result-
ant long transition period will amount to a form of property
confiscation to those who wish to remain in a less intense
use category or those whose properties are so situated as to
be effected by but not included in the more intense use
category for many years, if at all. A noticeable failing of
many communities has been an unshakeable belief in ever-
lasting expansion. This belief has resulted in overzoning to
a fantastic degree. For example, Santa Ana's practically
unlimited commercial and industrial properties that have been
available but undeveloped for years.
Most probably, smaller areas than herein recommended would
result in the same total number of high-rise structures as
would occur with the elimination of all heights limits, in
a given period of time. However, their locations would vary
creating period of long transition wherever they locate.
Further, the ultimate development of Santa Ana will probably
be the same if accomplished stage by stage or all at once.
For example, since the area recommended as suitable for
multi -story construction contains 1684 potential building
sites, it would take over four and a half years to reach
total development, if one multi -story building were construc-
ted per day. The reason for permissive public legislation is
to make easier the transition period and to shape the City
to a desired end.
That end result of Santa Ana, in terms of multi -story struc-
tures, can either be a pleasant, efficient urban complex
or a duplication of most existing urban areas. While the
future must remain unknown, it need not be ignored.
M
XI RECOMMENDED MODIFICATIONS OF SANTA ANA'S
ZONING ORDINANCE
The numerous considerations presented in this report show,
in the opinion of the Planning Department, a definite need
for the revision of the height limitations contained in the
Zoning Ordinance of 1960. The recommended modifications
are designed to apply to the land use configurations and
zoning pattern found in Santa Ana which, it is assumed, will
not be substantially altered. As a result of this assumption
the proposed changes are necessarily complicated to compensate
for the placement of various districts. Were strip commercial
zones along major streets eliminated the task of ordinance
writing would be much simplified. In any case, the primary
goals of the modifications are:
1. To minimize the effect of multi -story structures
on adjacent and nearby residential uses of land.
2. To make possible greater flexibility of building
design and placement.
3. To assure a certain minimum amount of open space
in all multi -story developments.
it should be noted that there is no direct limitation on
population concentration provided in the recommended ordi-
nance. Such a limitation will eventually be necessary to
avoid congestion and the overloading of municipal facilities.
However, any limitation of population concentration should
be the result of an analysis of the maximum possible densi-
ties related to the space needs of the city as determined by
the standards adopted as part of the population element of
the General Plan of Community Development. To make such a
recommendation without study would be arbitrary and inde-
fensible.
It is also the opinion of the Planning Department that most
multi -story buildings will be constructed in the recommended
area of high concentration due to the existence of the pre-
requisite locational factors. However, a substantial
portion of the recommended ordinance is designed to minimize
conflict that will occur between multi -story structures and
single story residences, should any multi -story structures
happen to be constructed outside of the area of greatest
concentration. That such is a possibility is demonstrated
by the proposals that created the impetus for this study.
In any case, it should be understood that the particular
amount of open space, expressed as a minimum standard, is a
value judgment that must be made. It is obvious that some-
where between no open space, which is like a cave, and total
open space, which is like outer space, lies a minimum stand-
ard acceptable to the majority of inhabitants of Santa Ana.
30
It is recommended that the following modifications of the
Zoning Ordinance of 1960 be made at this time:
1. Amend the Al, RE, R1, R2 and R3 District regulations
so that the Building Height Section reads as follows:
"No structure shall exceed thirty-five (35) feet
in height."
2. Amend all other Districts except the R4 District, so
that the Building Heights Section reads as follows:
"No structure shall exceed thirty-five (35) feet
in height except as provided in Section 9242."
(Note: The R4 District provisions would remain
unchanged.)
3. Amend Section 9242 (Height) to read as follows:
"Section 9242. Height.
(a) There is hereby established separate and
distinct Height Districts I and II in which
are contained special provisions allowing
structures to exceed the maximum height per-
mitted in the applicable Land Use Districts.
(b) Unless otherwise designated on the appropriate
Sectional District Maps all land within or
subsequently annexed or incorporated into the
City of Santa Ana is hereby declared to be
in Height District I.
(c) All lots within Height District I shall be
subject to the following height exceptions
and regulations:
(1) On any lot or portion of a lot in the
Al, RE, R1, R2, R3, R3H and R4 Dis-
tricts no structure shall exceed the
height therein specified.
(2) On any lot or portion of a lot in the
P, CD, Cl, C2, C4, C5, Ml, M2, LM and
CM Districts:
a. No structure shall exceed
thirty-five (35) feet in height
within one hundred and forty
(140) feet of any property in
the Al, RE, R1, R2, R3 or R3H
District.
b. Any structure on a lot or por-
tion of a lot contiguous to or
f
31
separated by a street, alley,
flood control channel or ditch,
pedestrain walkway, or rail-
road right-of-way, from prop-
erty in the Al, RE, Rl, R2,
R3 or R3H District may exceed
thirty-five (35) feet in height,
provided that no part of said
structure exceeding thirty-five
(35) feet in height intercepts
a plane that rises one (1) foot
in every four (4) lineal feet
drawn from the nearest point of
each property in the aforemen-
tioned Districts toward the
interior of the building site
whereon it is proposed to erect
a structure in excess of thirty-
five (35)feet in height.
Further, there shall be provided
and maintained along all such
property lines or zone boundary
lines mentioned hereinabove, a
fifteen (15) foot landscaped
strip. When said landscaped
strip is contiguous to or is
separated from a property in
the Al, RE, R1, R2, R3 or RM
District by any of the afore-
mentioned ways other than a
street, said landscaping shall
include not less than one (1)
tree for every ten (10) lineal
feet of said landscaped strip,
not less than ten (10) feet
high at time of planting, of
trees of any of the following
species:
Ficus Benjamina
Ficus Elastica
Ficus Nitida
Ficus Retusa
Schinus Teribinthifolia
Harpephyllum Caffrum
Cupania Anacardioides
Pittosporum Undulatum
Pinus Halepensis
Pinus Radiata
Pinus Pinea
Pinus Torreyana
Pinus Thunbergi
olea Europaea
32
Myoporum Laetum
Podocarpus Elongata
Pyrus Kawakami
Bauhinia Purpurea
Adacia Pendula
Acacia Baileyana
Acacia Longifolia
Magnolia Grandiflora
Persea Borbonia
Fraxinus Uhedi
Eugenia Paniculata
Cedrus Deodora
Pinus Canariensis
Cupressus Sempervirens
Tristania Conferta
Eucalyptus Citriodora
Prunus Caroliniana
c. When a and b above are not
applicable then each part of
any structure exceeding thirty-
five (35) feet in height shall
be set in from one or the other
or from both side property
lines not less than a combined
total distance equal to one-
half (-Z) of the overall height
of the structure, signs in-
cluded. Further, each part of
any structure exceeding thirty-
five (35) feet in height shall
be set in from the front or
back or from both the front and
the back property lines not less
than a combined total distance
equal to one-half ('h) of the
overall height of the structure,
signs included.
(d) All lots within Height District II shall be
subject to the following height exceptions
and regulations:
(1) Any structure may exceed thirty-five
(35) feet in height if both of the
following provisions are complied
with:
a. Each part of any structure
exceeding thirty-five (35) feet
in height shall be set in from
one or the other or from both
side property lines not less
than a combined total distance
33
equal to one-half (h) of the
overall height of the struc-
ture, signs included.
b. Each part of any structure
exceeding thirty-five (35)
feet in height shall be set
in from the front or the back
or from both the front and
the hack mmnerty lines not
PLATE A
RECOMMENDED HEIGHT
DISTRICTS
Height District I - All area within the Santa Ana City Limits
except the area outlined below, which shall be con-
sidered Height District M.
XII WHAT OTHER PEOPLE SAY
The following is a cross-section of opinions received in
response to the inquiry: Where is the proper place of multi-
story structures in an urban community? They are not verbatim
quotations but rather rewritings, in the interest of brevity.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
F. S. Adams, Professor of City Planning
Up to local opinion - difficult to apply general
principles without local knowledge. The application of
general principles would require professional judgment,
based on experience.
American Society of Planning officials
J. R. Allaire, Senior Planner
High-rise structures should be allowed where it is
desirable that high density patterns of employment
and residence are to be encouraged. other aspects to
consider are visual impact, economic feasibility and,
in earthquake prone California, the substratum of the
soil.
Janss Investment Corporation
V. H. Palmieri, Executive Vice President
Provided that street capacity is sufficient and off-
street parking is adequate, conflicts between high-rise
structures and single family homes should, in the name
of progress, be resolved in favor of the high-rise
structures.
Victor Gruen and Associates
R. D. Berry, Associate
Any answer must be related to the general plan.
Primary justification is one of pure economics. When
intensification of land use reaches demand then high-
rise becomes necessary.
The increase in land valuation can come from two
sources:
1) The demand from a market growth such as a
strong need for housing, hotel, offices, or
other uses; and
2) The necessity to build high-rise because of
the location of certain areas of the city,
35
waking it highly desirable for reasons of prestige,
ease of accessibility or convenience for business
or recreational purposes.
Any attempt to superimpose high-rise zoning over an exist-
ing use not justified by one or both of the above economic
pressures stands no chance of being integrated into a
comprehensive plan for the entire city no matter how desir-
able or beneficial the planning objectives might be.
Even though there is a market growth for high-rise apart-
ments in Southern California, experience has shown that
only those areas with a particular market appeal can ever
be considered as realistic sites - those with spectacular
views, certain prestige areas, near high concentration
business areas, next to parks, marinas, golf courses, etc.
Any areas selected must be accessible by traffic carriers.
Regardless of the "optimum planning ideals" careful atten-
tion should be given to the economic and political impli-
cations of the problem.'
University of Southern California
(City and Regional Planning Department)
Professor Arthur L. Grey, Jr.
Frequently decisions concerning the proper location of
high-rise structures are based on sentimental concerns -
dividing into the "low density" and "high density" people,
like the conflicting philosophies of Le Corbusier on the
one hand and Louis Mum£ord on the other. Density and in;
tensity of use should be based somewhat on an understand-
ing of the "good life" which raises the question of what
total level of population is necessary to allow the devel-
opment by government or private enterprise of the special-
ized resources of an urban area. (These the Planning De-
partment interprets to be civic operas, little theaters,
ball parks, etc.). The needs or desires of the general
public in terms of living environment should be considered.
The number of single family homes sold in Southern Califor-
nia indicate that if apartments are to be community assets
they must provide an equally attractive package of amen-
ities (which can be done with high or low densities).
The argument of transition to a higher and better use
through increased intensities by permissive public ordi-
nance is not sufficient, in itself, to produce a rapid
transition. In many instances the result has been scat-
tered development with prolonged detrimental effects on
the properties that remain at former pre-existing use
intensities.
A program for projecting the proper placement of multi -story
structures shouid be based on the required quantity, balancing
36
all the space resources and uses of the community, one
against the other. Offices constitute one type of need
and multi -family housing another. Concerning the first,
the question of how much space is essential, the answer
will vary community to community. Opportunities may
come from the ability of the city to attract administra-
tive headquarters (which is often greatly exaggerated).
High-rise apartment needs should be based similarly on
the probable population, cost per square foot of unit,
rent paying potential, etc. The essential requirement
is to forecast a "level" of effective demand.
As for specific location, apartments are too often rele-
gated to sites considered (1) inferior for single family
development, (2) too costly for single family develop-
ment and (3) not likely to be'used for commercial devel-
opment.
It appears that the apartment has not been accepted as
a mode of housing for the normal American family and is
assumed to be for transients. Typically apartment
dwellers have more complaints against their neighboring
environment - traffic, noise, hazards - than do dwellers
in single family houses, so that most apartments are not
good places to stay for long.
Thus there are two considerations concerning the location
of high-rise apartments; one is the effect which the
apartments will have upon the amenity of apartment living
as a way of life, and the other is that the location
should not adversely effect other land uses. This caution
is particularly important when apartments (and the Plan-
ning Department assumes offices also) intrude into exist-
ing areas of lower densities.
What happens to the utility of houses located on lots
adjacent to an apartment building? This problem is liable
to be overlooked in the usual ebullient expectation of
continuous growth. In many neighborhoods, it is years
before the market will assimilate the substantial part of
the land zoned for denser use. In the meantime the livi-
bility of those single family homes that remain is most
certainly reduced. This is a kind of confiscation of
private property from the occupier who does not care to
move or who is not holding his property as a long -run
investment.
It is a difficult position to assemble serious answers to
your inquiry with a ninety -day deadline attached to your
deliberations.
Welton Becket and Associates
MacDonald Becket
Strategic geographical location to the growth areas of
37
Orange County has made Santa Ana not only a governmental
center but also an increasingly important service, finan-
cial and commercial center. These activities are impor-
tant to the community in terms of tax revenue and income
sources for residents. Thus it is suggested that one of
the primary goals of the city policy should be the reten-
tion and the enlargement of the above operations within
the city. Generally, high-rise buildings are necessi-
tated due to the tendency toward grouping of activities,
convenience of vertical over horizontal internal move-
ments, inherent prestige, quality, and land cost. Our
studies indicate the coming growth of Orange County to be
more urban in character which would create a need for
high-rise commercial structures and apartments. Much has
been written about cities which failed to foresee their
traffic, parking and land use dynamics. These cities,
due to a lack of realistic planning and zoning policy,
have and are still losing middle and high income residents,
as well as commercial and industrial establishments.
We believe that•a well conceived zoning policy which per-
mits high-rise structure in selected areas should not
create conflict with the traditional city environment.
Such a policy would also tend to rejuvenate the decaying
areas of the city and broaden its tax base.
of course, the revised zoning ordinance should contain
adequate safeguards, including minimum requirements for
density, parking and setbacks. Selection of areas for
multiple structures should be made after a careful study
of prevailing conditions, including traffic, utility
systems and direction of land use. Where possible, wishes
of the residents in the affected areas should be taken
into account, but a sub -section of the city should not be
allowed to retard the overall progress of the community.
In short, a long range zoning plan should be developed.
Simon Eisner and Associates
Simon Eisner
Regardless of where multi -story structures are allowed to
locate an essential consideration is the spatial relation-
ships between structure and structure, and structure and
environment. To begin with, a multi -story structure
should be no closer than one-half its height to any prop-
erty line. only with such open space requirements will
cities begin to avoid the mistakes of the past.
m
Louis Mumford
Ford Research Professor
Institute for Urban Studies
(Visiting professor at the University
of California at Berkeley, Fall, 1961)
The most useful studies of height regulation I know are
those done by the London County Council. Instead of
establishing heights they establish densities. These
permit total coverage of a plot in business areas if
the building is under three stories: but provide that
additional stories shall not increase the overall den-
sity: thus a ten story building must occupy only a
fraction of the lot. This is superior to any building
height regulation or any specific indication of setbacks;
apart from establishing front and back building lines,
for it permits changes in height to meet functional needs,
whilst it ensures minimum standards of light and insolation.
One of the things that makes rational building standards
difficult is that just as people who have loud speakers
usually tend to turn their radio up to the loudest volume,
so people who want high-rise buildings usually want to
jump from two stories to ten or twenty. This brings
about excessive densities, which in turn generate traffic
that cannot be taken care of at the center of the city.
What you need, possibly in a city, as big as Santa Ana
threatens to be, is sub -business centers at the outskirts,
with reasonable densities, instead of permitting exces-
sive densities to gild up at the center - the ultimate
result of which is to promote random suburban dispersal.
Livingston and Blayney
Lawrence Livingston, Jr.
Having visited Santa Ana earlier this year and noted the
degree of urbanization there, I would guess your city is
ready for high-rise development, provided it is concen-
trated rather than scattered. This thought is based on
the assumption that the alternative is more of the uneco-
nomic, massive urban sprawl that has made the Los Angeles
Metropolitan area what it is today.
William L. Pereira and Associates
Jack Bevash, A.I.A.
For us to be helpful we would have to have before us a
substantial program with the following elements:
1) Development of a broad master plan for the city
in relation to regional or county master plans
which, in general terms, sets out the destiny of
the city in the most optimistic terms.
39
2) A central city plan which sets out the destiny for
the "heart" of the city organism.
3) A traffic and transportation plan to serve as a
guide in the development of an efficient, intelli-
gent, economic system for the movement of all
means of essential traffic.
4) A comprehensive district parking plan related to
projected growth in population and projected
demands for basic land uses.
5) Preparation of a Parks and Open Space Plan geared
to serve the long range needs of the citizens of
Santa Ana.
With the above studies I am sure it would be possible to
establish height limit districts within which control of
building volumes could be maintained and protection guar-
anteed to other land uses.
The following is a verbatim copy of a letter pertinent to this
report prepared by a group of resident Santa Ana architects.
It is included in full because the Planning Department re-
quested an opinion from the group. Many contributed hours
were spent in its preparation and, in the opinion of the Plan-
ning Department, represents the attitude that is necessary if
Santa Ana is to fully fulfill its destiny.
"The megapolis that will extend from Los Angeles to
San Diego is not a dream but a reality.
The population of Orange County is increasing at a rate
and density never before realized by any of the founding
fathers.
Santa Ana with its historical heritage as the major
metropolitan area, home of the County Administrative
and Judicial Seat, is held liable for orderly County
leadership in forms of planning.
Leadership implies responsibility and courage to accept
the challenge and to apply with expedience the direction
for all. This leadership can only be as great as the
concepts and objectives of the leaders.
We as professional leaders set forth this challenging
concept.
Santa Ana has been and shall continue to be the greatest
metropolitan community between Los Angeles and San Diego.
The dynamic orderly growth of Santa Ana shall be an
example for all the nation.
The program for success is to carry the story of this
single civic purpose to all the people and to excite them
to become a part of the concept. Physical Planning can
now flourish in a mind that is in tune with a concept.
This greatest of all conceived Metropolitan Area must have
first a direction by an immediate adopted "Master Plan of
Total Physical Growth". This master plan must contain
all the elements visioned in a "Great Metropolitan Commu-
nity" (the dwelling, the office, the factory, the cultur-
al center of environmental learning, the civic center of
administration and justice, the central and satellite
commercial trade centers, parks, playgrounds and circula-
tion, etc.).
Now that we have a direction the way is clear to study
any factors that may arrive to deviate or implement the
original concept. The program to be established should
be as follows:
1. The Administrative Cultural and Judicial Center
The city of Santa Ana derives part of its his-
torical heritage from the fact that it is the
seat for the County. It is important to Santa Ana
that this center remains and develops here. There-
for there should be a coordinated effort to estab-
lish and adopt an Administrative, Cultural and
Judicial Center Master Plan by the County of
Orange and the City of Santa Ana. Without this
coordinated effort there cannot be syllogistical
planning.
2. Commercial Trade Centers
a. Revitalization of the existing trade center to
become the center for the county.
b. Satellite Trade Areas. There should be supple-
mentary facilities to the central business
center for convenience.
3. Industrial development.
4. Residential Development.
5. Public and Special Facilities
6. Circulation and Parking
We realize that the Planning Department of the City of
Santa Ana has a limited time in which to suggest to the
City Council the place of Multi -story structures in an
urban community. As a group of architects that reside
in the City of Santa Ana, we wish to express our recom-
mendation for a possible solution to the problem.
The problem can only be thoroughly solved by the adoption
of a Master Plan. Therefore we recommend that the City
of Santa Ana immediately engage an Architectural or Plan-
ning Firm to prepare a "Master Plan of Total Physical
Growth of the City". During the preparation of the mas-
ter plan, an advisory committee should be established to
make recommendations to the Planning Department on spe-
cific problems that may arise. This Advisory Committee
W
41
Is
should be staffed with the following type personnel: a
planner, an architect, an attorney, a realtor, an econo-
mist or financial advisor; a member of the clergy, and a
business man. Each of these groups should select their
representative for this committee.
We further recommend that: the firm engaged by the City
to prepare the Master Plan shall review all variances to
the existing zoning ordinance prior to?;any action taken.
Sincerely,
Architects Resident in Santa Ana
Charles P. Kennedy (signed)
Wm. L. Paulkner (signed)
dam T..L3rk" (signed)
Robert M. Hernandez (signed)
Robert S. Lowrey (signed)
Gates W. Burrows (signed)
S. P. Grillias (signed)
Everett E. Parks (signed)
T. D. MacBird (signed)
Donald A. Honer (signed)
42
XIII BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES
f
Books
h
Local Planning Administration
International City Managers Association
Third Edition 1959
Urban Land Economics
McGraw-Hill Book Company
Richard U. Ratcli£f 1949
Urban Land Use Planning
Harper & Brothers
F. Stuart Chapin, Jr. 1957
Urban Planning and Municipal Public Policy
Harper & Brothers
Donald H. Webster 1958
Real Estate and City Planning
Prentice -Hall
Nelson and Aschman 1957
Periodicals
1
America
"The Urban Evolution"
David O'Shea Vol. Cl No. 17 July 1959
Horison Magazine
"The Flowering of San Francisco
Allen Temko Vol. 1 No. 3 Jan. 1959
"Metropolis Regained"
Grady Clay Vol. 1. No. 6 July 1959
"The Dawn of the 'High Modern'"
Allen Temko Vol. II No. 1 Sept.1959
Journal - Stanford Research Institute
"Problems Facing the City in Transition"
Frank W. Barsalou, Vol. 4 1960
Menlo Park, California.
Science
"Economic Implications of Urban Growth"
Coleman Woodbury, Vol. 129 No. 3363 June 1959
The Rotarian
"Shapes of Cities to Come"
William L. C. Wheaton,Vol. XCVII No. 4 Oct. 1960
.v
H
Reports
Accomplishments
Los Angeles City Planning
Density Zoning - U. L. I. Bulletin 42
Lovelace and Weismantel
E4%F'i3
Facts Pertaining to the Protection and
Development of TOURIST FACILITIES
within all Counties
Hawaii State Planning office and
Harland Bartholomew and Associates March 1961
General Policy Study for Tulsa
Segoe and Associates (Cincinnati)
Oakland Preliminary General Plan
Planning For Apartments
ASPO No. 139
Proposed Zoning
City Planning Board, Boston May 1958
Report to the Zoning Advisory Commission
" of the City of Philadelphia
Geddes-Brecher-Qualls, A.I.A.
Zoning - Proposed Bulk Controls for Philadelphia
Cities
City of Boston
City Planning Board
City of Cincinnati
H. W. Stevens
Director of City Planning
City of Columbus
Jack B. Bachtel
Planning Director
City of Dallas
James B. Good
Zoning Administrator
State of Hawaii
Frank Lombardi
Planning Director
State of Indiana, Marion County
Metropolitan Planning Department
C. D. Smith
ME
City of Houston
Ralph S. Ellifrit
Director of City Planning
a City of Los Angeles
Tracy H. Abell
Principal City Planner, Master Plan Division
Thomas W. Golden
Special Studies Section
City of New York
City Planning Commission
James Felt, Chairman
City of Oakland
Norman J. Lind
Assistant Director of City Planning
City of Philadelphia
Marcia J. Rogers
Chief, Redevelopment Section
Division of Land Planning
City of Pittsburgh
C. Ronal Woods
" Planning Director
Edwin B. Forrest
' Zoning Engineer
Salt Lake City Corporation
A. Dean Barney
Assistant Planning Director
City of San Diego
Harry C. Haelsig
City Planning Director
City and County of San Francisco
James R. McCarthy
Director of Planning
Edward I. Murphy
Assistant Director of Planning
City of Tulsa
Clyde W. Forrest
Planning Analyst
Consultants, Architects and Developers
American Society of Planning Officials
Jerrold R. Allaire
Senior Planner
45
Welton Becket and Associates
MacDonald Becket
David D. Bohannon Organization
William H. Piercy
Property Manager
Victor Gruen Associates
Richard D. Berry
Associate
Janss Investment Corporation
Victor H. Palmieri
Executive Vice President
Livingston and Blayney
City and Regional Planners
Lawrence Livingston, Jr.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Department of City and Regional Planning
Frederick J. Adams
Professor of City Planning
Louis Mumford
Ford Research Professor
Institute for Urban Studies
Visiting Professor, University of
California, Berkeley, California.
Orange County Chapter, American Institute
of Architects
William L. Pereira and Associates
Planning and Architecture
Jack Bevash, A.I.A.
Quinton Engineers, LTD.
Ted B. Adsit
Director, Urban Development Planning
Santa Ana Architects
Simon Eisner and Associates
Planning and Architecture
Simon Eisner
Universities
Cornell University
College of Architecture
K. A. Parsons
Associate Professor of City and Regional
Planning
m
Y
e
Harvard University
Graduate School of Design
Department of City and Regional Planning
Reginald R. Isaacs, Chairman.
University of Southern California
Department of City and Regional Planning
Arthur L. Grey, Jr.
Associate Professor, Chairman.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
F. S. Adams
Professor of City Planning.
University of Illinois, Urbana
Department of City Planning and Landscape Architecture
Robert D. Katz
Assistant Professor of City Planning
s
47