Santa Ana River Santiago Creek Greenbelt Plan - 1971ORANGE
COUNTY BOARD
OF
SUPERVISORS
R.
W.
Battin,
First
District,
Chairman
D.
L.
Baker,
Second
District
W.
J.
Phillips,
Third
District
R.
B.
Clark,
Fourth
District
R.
W.
Caspers,,Fifth
District
ORANGE
COUNTY
PLANNING
COMMISSION
Woodrow
Butterfield,
First
District, Chairman
Howard
Smith,
Second District
Dan Foley,
Third
District
Fred Jefferson,
Fourth
District
Arnold
Forde,
Fifth District
First
Printing:
March; 1971
Revised
Printing:
October,
1971
For information or additional copies:
Orange County General Planning Program
211 West Santa Ana Boulevard
Santa Ana, California 92701
Telephone (714) E344050
0
PREFACE
This is the second printing of the SANTA ANA RIVER/SANTIAGO
CREEK GREENBELT PLAN. The first printing was completed in
March of 1971, Since that time, the plan has been con-
sidered and approved by the Orange County Planning
Commission and the Orange County Board of Supervisors.
At the public hearing of June 23, 1971, the Board of
Supervisors adopted the Greenbelt Plan as a component of
the Orange County Master Plan of Land Use. In addition,
the Board adopted the following:
* a statement of intention to purchase Yorba Regional
Park Site in fiscal year 197142;
* authorized a Council and Coordinator to implement
the Plan;
* instructed the Coordinator, once appointed, to
investigate all possible methods of granting property
tax relief; and,
* instructed the Department of Real Property Services
and the County Surveyor to inventory all public
and quasi -public lands within the River/Creek
corridor.
The Greenbelt Plan represents a far reaching planning
effort in preserving and enhancing an important resource
within Orange County: the Santa Ana River/Santiago Creek
Corridor. However, little would have been accomplished
without the active support and assistance of the ten
corridor cities, the Citizens Committee of 100 and numerous
other citizens groups throughout the County. A sincere
expression. of gratitude goes out to all those who donated
their time to actively assist in the creation of this Plan.
It is my earnest hope that the existing atmosphere of
cooperation and understanding will continue to prevail as
this Plan is implemented.
Forest Dickason
Planning Director
ECKBO
DEAN
AUSTIN &
WILLIAMS
Forest N ckason, Planning Director
Orange County Planning Department
211 West Santa.Ana Boulevard
Santa Ana, California 92701
Dear Forest:
We are pleased to transmit to you the Santa Ana River�Santiago
Creek Corridor Plan for Recreation and Open Space, We hope
this Plan greenbelt, parks, and trails along 37 miles of
River and Creek through dense urban areas -� will provide focus
and direction for Orange County's sharpening concern for open
space and environmental quality,
The Santa Ana River Corridor Plan has been conceived as Orange
County's link in the tri-county coast�to-crest Santa Ana green®
belt. We urge the County to continue its example -setting and
support for that effort.
Jared Ikeda and Royce Neuschatz of our staff join me in special
thanks to Dick Ramella and Bill Cunningham of your staff for
their help throughout the work. Our thanks also to the many
agencies and individuals who provided facts, ideas, and evalua�
tion during the past nine months -® RPAT, Flood Control, Orange
County Water District, Department of Water Resources, the Corps
the cities, whose input was ably coordinated by John Collier,
Anaheim Parks Director, and the Santa Ana River Citizens Advi�
sory Committee under Chairman John Willoughby whose liaison
role with the cities has been central and will, we hope, con®
tinue and expand.
The General Planning Program's new Citizens Direction Finding
Commission, with its mandate to consider basic goals, policies,
issues, and priorities for the County's future, may wish to
review and comment on the proposed Plan.
Bringing the Plan to reality will require vigorous leadership,
firm official commitment, and unflagging citizen effort in the
years ahead. We believe Orange County is ready for this!
We look forward to presenting this Plan to the County Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors.
Very truly yours,
ECKB , DEAN, ADST N & WILLIAMS
Francis Dean
Landscape Architecture, Urban Design, Environmental Planning San Francisco, Los Angeles and Honolulu
7440 North Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, California 90041 Telephone (213) 254-9257
SANTA ANA RIVER-SANTIAGO CREEK CORRIDOR
PLAN FOR RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
Table of Contents
"THE PLAN
IN BRIEF" -
Summary
INTRODUCTION
The Santa
Ana River
and the
General
Planning Program
The Santa
Ana River:
Threat,Commodity,
or Rare Resource?
Study
Purpose and
Phases
Study
Area
Research
Santa
Ana River Citizens
Committee
Other
Studies in Progress
A LOOK AT
THE CORRIDOR
- 1970
PLAN PROPOSALS
Lower
River: Ocean
to 17th
Street
Middle
River: 17th
Street
to Imperial
Santa
Ana Canyon
Santiago
Creek
General.
Policies and
Design
Guidelines
TMPLEMENTATION
Priorities
Interim
Measures
Administrative
Structure
Securing
the Land
Funding
Sources
Acres.
.and Dollars
SANTA ANA
RIVER IN THE
REGIONAL
OPEN SPACE
PICTURE
Page No.
1
7
7
7
9
9
9
10
10
11
15
15
20
24
31
35
45
46
48
51
54
60
65
70
Maps, Studies, Charts
Page No.
Map:
Santa Ana River®Santiago
Creek Planning Areas
11
Study:
Rivermouth Area
19
Study:
Big Bend Area
23
Study:
Santiago Creek
33
Maps:
Plan Proposals
Lower Santa Ana River
34a
Middle Santa Ana River
34b
Santa Ana Canyon
34c
Santiago Creek
34d
Study:
Channel Designs
38 - 41
Study:
Corridor Area Road Designs
42 - 44
Maps:
Implementation Proposals
Lower Santa Ana River
50a
Middle Santa Ana River
50b
Santa Ana Canyon
50c
Santiago Creek
50d
Charts:
Acreage Analysis,
Planning Areas and
Total Greenbelt
67 - 69
SANTA
ANA RIVER-SANTIAGO
CREEK
CORRIDOR
GENERAL
PLAN
FOR
OPEN
SPACE AND
RECREATION
"TNE PLAN IN BRIEF"
The Puroose
Maximize recreation/open space potential of the Corridor,
in.terms of multi -use possibilities and linkages among
open spaces in and near the Corridor.
The Method
Collect, map, evaluate data within Corridor study area -
1-1/2 miles each side of River and Creek; evaluate in-
fluences and demands. on Corridor; identify opportunities,
constraints, conflicts, unknowns; select those most pro-
mising, explore feasibility; review and evaluate current
policies.
Work with Regional Parks Advisory Team; other local,
state, federal agencies; ten Corridor cities plus others.;
citizen groups; Riverside and San Bernardino Counties.
The River
The Santa Ana flows, above- or underground, more than 90
miles from headwaters near Big Bear Lake, through San
Bernardino, Riverside and Orange Counties, to the Pacific.
Orange County's 27-mire portion is roughly one part
natural Canyon, two parts leveed sand -bottom channel, dry
much of the year. Most of the water stops at Prado Dam,
at the head of the Canyon in Riverside County, built by
the Corps of Engineers in 1940 to protect Orange County
towns and farmlands from flood damage. (Most of norther-
ly Orange County is natural flood plain.) Corps is now
restudying the entire.River.
Santiago Creek is the River's main tributary within the
County. Ten miles of Creek, from the River up to -Villa
Park Dam, are encompassed in this Plan.
The Santa Ana still waters much of Orange County; water
conservation, quantity, and quality are critical planning
aspects. So are sand deposition, debris and silting,
salt water intrusion.
And now: recreation, open space, wildlife enhancement,
ecological concerns, education are recognized as addi-
tional River planning considerations. The River is not
just a machine for processing water but a resource of
many uses and benefits to people.
Still missing: basin -wide land and water planning.
®1-
The Planning Areas
The River in Orange County has four fairly distinct seg-
ments:
Canyon: still natural, agricultural, and .open; no
permanent channel.
Middle River: levees, old gravel pits, complex
water conservation needs.
Lower River: constricted by channelization and
urban crush.
Santiago Creek: more intimate scale downstream,
unsightly gravel pits but scenic valley setting
upstream.
The Concept
Santa Ana River -Santiago Creek Corridor as linear .green-
belt, linking park nodes and significant open spaces, with
channel and riding -hiking -bike trails as spine.
Save or restore River look and atmosphere where possible.
Emphasize trees, informal space, and quiet -- contrast to
surrounding urban texture and "busy-ness".
Balance open space/recreation demands with Corridor poten-
tials -- some areas of intensive use, some of natural
preserve, many in-between.
The Santa Ana River -Santiago Creek Corridor as Orange
County's link of "coast -to -crest" greenbelt along the
Santa Ana.
The Proposals
The principal proposals of the Plan are:
Lower River: Ocean to 17th Street
* Rivermouth regional park with restored natural
estuary -marsh, bluffs, camping, small boating,
and other activities.
* Fairview regional park, utilizing State surplus
land, possibly linking through to Upper Newport
Bay.
* Trail enhancement along levees and into adjacent
park areas.
* Linkages
to surrounding
areas via
power
line
rights
-of
-way
and to Mile
Square
Parl<
via Warner
Avenue.
Middle River: 17th Street to %mperial Highway
* Warner Basin: rehabilitate for water spreading
and variety of water recreation, plus Santa Ana
River Center -- "water museum" and interpretive
facility; modify channel design.
* Miller Basin: water spreading plus water recrea-
tion in retarding basin, plus related land for
golf course and other uses.
* Regional parks - rehabilitate old pits.
* Agriculture - preserve.
* Trail enhancement - along levees and into small
and large park areas, with trail stops.
* Linkages: Santiago Creek;power line rights -of -
way; via Jefferson to Anaheim Lake/Miller Basin.
Santa Ana Canyon
* Entire Canyon, the sole significant natural area
remaining in the developed half of the County,
should be preserved open and natural, retaining
riparian ecology, citrus groves, hillsides, natural
river bottom (despite the new freeway). Utilize
flood plain zoning in flood hazard area, conserva-
tion/open space zoning or other measures for hill-
sides. Permit compatible open space uses subject
to site plan review.
To clarify effects of open space vs. development of
Canyon, conduct thorough economic/social/environ-
mental impact study, evaluating short- and long-
range costs and benefits, of alternate uses of Can-
yon.
* Acquire Yorba Park.
* Freeway: "scenic highway" corridor protection mea-
sures, most important of which wll be zoning and
other measures to retain Canyon open and truly
scenic!
* Santa Ana Canyon and Esperanza Roads to be scenic
park roads. Present plans for road extensions,
bridges, connections through mountains, etc. should
be cancelled or deferred pending results of Canyon
study and broad land use decisions.
®3-
*
Trail
extension
and
enhancement;
linkage
via
old
canal
to
Yorba
Linda
and
via
Coal
Canyon
to
Butter-
field
Trail
and
Main
Divide.
Santiago Creek
*
Study
flood
control
needs
and
feasibility
of
reha-
bilitating
gravel
pits
as
retention
basins
and
regional
parks.
This
would
also
relieve
pressure
for
channel
structure
in
lower
Creek
area
and
open
possibility
of
more
natural
treatment.
*
Agriculture
- preserve.
*
Extend
and
link
existing
small
parks
along
Creek.
*
Linkage
via
abandoned
railroad
to
north
and
south.
Santiago
Creek
greenbelt
itself
links
to
Villa
Park
Dam
Park
upstream
and
via
Peters
Canyon
into
Irvine
Ranch.
*
Trail
extension
along
Creek
and
into
parks.
*
Preserve
and
protect
hill
setting.
General
Policies
Retain agriculture.
Site plan review for public and private developments in
or near Corridor.
Protect hills.
Discourage sand and gravel mining in or near Corridor;
rehabilitate existing pits.
Extend and enhance trails as continuous element -- for
riding; hiking, biking.
Encourage educational -recreational facet in connection
with public works.
Provide running stream wherever possible.
Plan River landscaping to establish continuity and char-
acter (general tree types are .given).
Special design treatment for freeways and all roads in
Corridor area.
Retain all publicly held land and use in accordance with
Plan.
Retain and support Santa Ana River Citizens Advisory
Committee as core for ongoing citizen participation;
involve other groups and individuals.
Implementation
Overall Priorities
*
Santa
Ana Canyon
open
and
natural.
*
Rivermouth park
feasibility.
and
estuary:
secure
land,.study
*
Trail
expansion
and
improvement.
*
Warner
Basin
rehabilitation.
Interim
Measures
*
Defer
actions
on
land
use
and public
projects
pending
Plan
adoption.
*
Appoint
plus
groundwork
Santa
Advisory
for
Ana
Council,
joint
River
Corridor
to
River
Coordinator,
expedite and
Agency.
to lay
*
Begin
further
studies.
Santa Ana Canyon economic/social/environmen-
tal cost -benefit study
Rivermouth study
Santiago Creek study
River Agency formation study
*
Develop site plan
advise on current
review
private
procedure,
and public
criteria;
projects
early.
*
Zoning review,
County zoning with
to
coordinate
Plan.
local
oity and
*
Coordinate
with
Riverside
County
to
preserve large,
valuable
upper
Canyon
ecological
area.
*
Support
new "beneficial
uses"
being
considered by
Santa Ana
River
Regional
Water
Quality
Control
Board.
Administrative
Structure
A
joint Agency,
involving
County
and
cities, is
-5�
needed
to implement
Corridor
Plan
coherently,
avoid
fragmentation
and
conflict,
develop
equitable
financ-
ing, seize
opportunities,
maintain
Plan,
site
plan
review
and
possible
permit
procedures,
etc.
Securing the Land
A review of methods, from Acquisition to Zoning.
Funding Sources
A review of federal, state, local sources.
Acres and Dollars
The Plan's proposed greenbelt totals 8;400 acres,
exclusive of Flood Control District channel, along
and around 37 miles of River and Creek. Of that
total, 29 percent is public and quasi -public, the
remainder private; over half the private land is
agricultural.
Based
on
crude
cost
estimates
for
non-agricultural
land,
certain
areas
were
designated
"marginal"
in
terms
of
probable
recreation/open
space
benefit.
Unavailability
of
reliable
land
value
figures
and
the
general
nature
of the
Plan
make
land
and
de-
velopment
cost
estimates
impossible
at
this
time.
-6-
INTRODUCTION
The Santa Ana River and the General Planning Program
This Santa Ana River�Santiago Creek Corridor General Plan
is one of a series of County Planning Department studies
within the Conservation Element of the General Planning
Program. The Conservation Element is receiving priority
attention due to public interest and to the awareness
that decisions on natural resources, including open
space, are irreversible. This Plan falls in the compo"
Went grouping called River Corridors, but interrelates
with all the other groupings: Open Space; Regional
Parks, Harbors and Beaches; Agricultural Preserves;
Natural Resources; Ocean and Shoreline; even Mountain
Development.
Orange County General Planning Program
Policies � Plans � Programs
Government
• •
• -and
ervat
Mountains
anta Ana River: Threat, Commodi
or Resource?
After decades of treating the Santa Ana River as a threat,
a nuisance, or a commodity, the last three years have
�7�
brought the beginning of reconsideration of this River as
a many -faceted resource, and particularly as a rare re-
creation and open space. resource.
This recognition comes late, but not too late. Many im-
portant opportunities remain. Many have been lost. Some
are in immediate danger. Recognition of the Santa Ana's
recreation and open space potential is part of the grow-
ing recognition of Orange County's environmental crisis.
The explicit, implicit, unquestioned growth -is -progress
slogan is being questioned. The newly emerging yardstick
is environmental quality.
It has always been easier to divide the water environment
by function and administer each .function, than to respond
to the totality of the environment and its interrelation-
ships. This approach is now being challenged by new capa-
bilities in management and environmental modeling.
Orange County's Santa Ana River comes from San Bernardino
and Riverside Counties. The need to consider the whole
River as a system on a basin -wide scale has been discussed
in the three counties for the past few yearsl as an idea
whose time had not yet come. It is coming fast. The
major water districts have taken a positive step by join-
ing together as SAWPA (Santa Ana Watershed Planning Agency)
for water quality management planning. The limitations,
however, are immediately apparent, and stated bleakly by
SAWPA's consultant ecologists in their overview statement.
It is our strong feeling that the resilience of the
Watershed is so constricted that it will be impossi-
ble to reverse the historical inertia of the respon-
sible institutions soon enough. We anticipate ac-
celerating erosion of the quality of life in the
area for the next decade. By itself, a single agen-
cy like SAWPA has a hopeless task.2
The Santa Ana River -Santiago Creek Corridor Open Space
and Recreation Plan addresses itself to recreation/open
space opportunities presented by the River resource as
one of its multi -uses. The concept of a Santa Ana River
greenbelt corridor from coast to crest was proposed more
than 20 years ago. Those years have had particular im-
pact in Orange County!
Yet the
tern --
concept
sometimes
is
still
severely
valid in terms
constricted
of
by urban
a
linear
develop-
pat-
1 Proposed
in
Santa
Ana
River
Regional
Par
Stu
y ,
prepare
for Riverside
by
Eckbo,
Dean,
Austin
& Williams,
May 1968.
2 C. S.
Holling
and
A.
D.
Chambers,
Report
to
the
Santa
Ana Watershed
Planning
Agency
Concerning
Resource
Management
in
the
Santa
Ana Watershed,
July
7970.
Page 2
-8-
ment and channelization -- linking major and minor park
nodes and linking via other linear elements -- power
lines, railroad lines, and streets -- to other parts of
the County.
Santa Ana Canyon from Prado Dam to Imperial is the last
significant open natural area in the urbanized north
half of the County. The beautiful natural river bottom
is now and is proposed to remain unchannelized, the agri-
culture preserved, the hillsides open, encouraging only
uses compatible with the open natural character and, in
the flood hazard area, with that hazard. Here is a sig-
nificant -chance to act p_ro environmental quality, accen-
tuating the positive values of open space, parks, and
agriculture and other open -type uses, and eliminating the
negatives -- increased traffic, air pollution, water de-
mand and pollution, wastes, energy demand, runoff, and
ecological disturbance.
Study Purpose and Phases
The .purpose of the Santa Ana River -Santiago Creek Open
Space and Recreation Study is to develop a general plan
maximizing recreation and open space potential, in terms
of multi -use possibilities and linkages among open spaces
in and near the Corridor.
Phase I of the work, completed in July 1970, yielded a
tentative design plan with policies and guidelines, for
transmittal to the Department of Water Resources which
is coordinating inputs to the Corps of Engineers' River
studies.
Phase II has afforded the opportunity for more detailed
plan development, together with implementation proposals.
-Study Area
The Study area encompasses 27± linear miles of the Santa
Ana River in Orange County from the sea up to the River-
side County line, plus consideration of the 3®mile por-
tion up to Prado Dam in Riverside County. Santiago Creel<
winds 10 miles from its confluence with the River up to
Villa Park Dam, the limit of the study area.
Research
While the "corridor" was arbitrarily defined as 1-1/2
miles- either side of the River and Creek, we researched
and inventoried lands far beyond that limit in order to
identify potential linkages and open space. Lands so
indicated on the plan have existing uses with multi -use
potential and/or proximity to open spaces, parks, or
recreational attractions. In Santa Ana Canyon, the
"corridor" was construed as crest to crest.
-g_
Data was furnished by the Planning Department,.the cities
along the River and Creek, and the many agencies involved
Full information on land use zoning, and plans was soli-
cited. We have tried, in the course of the work, to
assure completeness and keep up to date, but this is a
constant problem in such a large and developing area of
so many jurisdictions. We are grateful for the prompt
and full cooperation of all. Map data was supplemented
by visual and photographic tours and, somewhat late in
the program, by current aerial photographs from the De-
partment of Water Resources.
The Phase I report was presented and reviewed by the
agencies involved and by City representatives. Phase II
brought frequent opportunities for ideas, review, and
comments from officials and from citizens, which are in-
corporated in this report.
Santa Ana River Citizens Committee
Following completion of Phase I. a citizens' advisory
committee was appointed to help guide the planning.
Mayors of each city in the County selected four citizen
representatives, including park and planning commission-
ers and others of demonstrated interest and involvement,
including members from the Citizens' group advising on
Route 57 Freeway design studies.
This committee of 100 reviewed and commented on the Phase
I report, toured the River, reviewed and modified the
Consultants' proposals for uses and implementation, pre-
sented them to their City officials, and provided valua-
ble comment and input through the second phase of the
work. Many of their ideas have been incorporated.
Others, which the Consultants felt were incompatible
with the assignment of maximizing open space potential,
are acknowledged in this Report.
Other Studies in Progress
As work on this Plan progressed, it became apparent that
there were too few "givens" to develop solid design al-
ternatives. Route 57 (Orange) Freeway: route under
study. Pacific Coast Freeway: indefinite, in conflict.
River channel needs: awaiting Corps work, but with
County consensus on requested maximum outflow of 203000
cfs from Prado. Santiago Creek flood control measures:
in need of thorough engineering study. Ecological eval-
uations: in progress, not definitive. And so the origi-
nal assignment -- to maximize the Corridor's recreation/
open space potential by identifying opportunities, "best
bets", policies and guidelines, with emphasis on multi -
uses and linkages -- was reaffirmed. Continuing coordi-
nation with the freeway, flood control, and other studies
is vital to realizing the Corridor's open space and re-
creation potential.
-10-
A LOOK AT THE SANTA ANA R%VER�
SANTIAGO CREEK CORRIDOR em 1970
Here
is
a
brief
description
of
the
Corridor
and
some of
its
qualities
and
landmarks,
pressures
and
trends.
Four distinct areas, each with its own character and
potential, have been identified.
Santa Ana Canyon: From Prado Dam to Imperial
Highway
Middle River: From Imperial Highway to 17th
Street
Lower River: From 17th Street to the Ocean
Santiago Creek: From Santa Ana River to .Villa
Park Dam
Canyon Area: From Prado Dam to Imperial Highway
The upper portion of the Canyon is narrow, heavily wooded,
and dramatically beautiful. In the riverbottom area, fine
stands of cottonwood, willow, and elderberry provide habi-
tat for birds and small animals of many species. Areas
washed out in the 1969 flood already show natural restora4
tion. No definitive ecological study has yet been made,l
but the species, sequences, and dependencies would proba-
bly be comparable to those described in the Tri-County
Conservation League's study of Riverside County's River-
side Narrows area. The upper Canyon's sides are steep,
and access is further restricted by the Santa Fe Railroad
on the north and Riverside Freeway on the south side.
The only access now is via a dirt road from Green River
Golf Course, just downstream. The Golf Course was damaged
in the 1969 flood and a temporary channel has been built.
Further downstream Featherly Regional Park lies between
the Riverside Freeway and the River; some temporary pro-
tective channelizing has been installed here also.
The next point of interest is Horseshoe Bend; where the
River turns abruptly north and then southwest again.
Horseshoe Bend's dense native vegetation along the River
is a significant riparian habitat that the Department of
Fish and Game has determined to be of outstanding impor-
tance. Adjacent to this area are extensive and healthy
citrus orchards. The remainder of the River, 21 miles
to the Sea, is channelized. The lush growth and magni-
ficent hills and mountains, the impressive vistas into
and out from the Canyon have incalculable environmental
and ecological benefits.
They are, however, fragile and must be handled with care
especially with the completion of the Riverside Free-
way. The Freeway and other urban developments in the
vicinity have altered and injured the Canyo-n quality,
but immense value remains and citizens and public offi-
cials will have choices to make: regarding restoration
and enhancement of environmental quality or continued
erosion of it.
The next
area
downstream is
agricultural
land; the
por-
tion
north of
the River has
been proposed
as Yorba
Region-
a1 Park.
1 Orange County Flood Control District has engage Dr.
Gordon Marsh to inventory flora and fauna along the
River in Orange County. Santa Ana Watershed Planning
Agency has engaged ecologists C.S. Holling and A.D.
Chambers for an ecological overview of the entire
River basin. Their report on "Resource Management in
the Santa Ana Watershed", dated July 1970 has recently
been published.
-12-
Middle River: Imaeria7 Highwa.v to 17th Street
The River in this area is characterized by a very wide
sandy channel within built-up levees and water spreading
grounds within the channel. Along the River, vegetation
is sparse. There are many sand and gravel pits outside
the channel on both sides, some still being mined. There
has been no rehabilitation of abandoned pits with one
notable exception: Anaheim Lake, where a deep pit has
been filled with water for spreading -- and for fishing.
Between Imperial Highway and the Riverside Freeway cros�
sing over the River, industry is developing along the
north side, housing, along the south side. Downstream
from the crossing is the huge Warner gravel pit -with ad-
jacent residential development on the west side, open
lands on 'the east side, with some industry nearby. Fur-
ther downstream a few healthy citrus groves remain, amid
drive-in theatres and industrial plants. Anaheim Stadium
is adjacent to the west.
This area is in transition, but without clear direction,
and with no attention to environmental concerns. Its
appearance is barren -® empty parking lots, empty chan-
nelized River, empty neglected land. The need is great --
for human scale, order, unifying elements, some refresh-
ing things to look at, some shady and pleasant places to
be. The challenge in this area is to repair existing
environmental damage and create a pleasing environment
and sense of place. There are outstanding open space
possibilities, if gravel pits and "waste" areas along
the River can be rehabilitated and related to the adja-
cent areas.
Lower River: 17th Street to the Ocean
The River here is even more constricted than above. It
is a sand -bottom, leveed channel, slightly narrower than
upstream, passing through an intensively urbanized area
-- residential back yards, commercial uses, golf courses,
three freeways.
This River area is, for the most part, treeless, except
for a pleasant area at the confluence with Santiago Creek
where Alona Park and Riverview Golf Course offer a wel-
come green look. Urbanization in Santa Ana and Garden
Grove is well established and expanding; there are mature
trees in residential areas. The Flood Control District
has planted trees and ground cover an the outer slope of
the levee in some areas.
Several stables are situated adjacent to the River; the
Flood Control District allows horseback riding along the
top of the levee subject to permit, and has provided
access from the stables. The "trail" is straight, sunny,
monotonous, perhaps, but it is the on1.Y long riding trail
-13-
in the area and is much appreciated by users, whose num-
bers are increasing dramatically each year.
Near the San Diego Freeway crossing are extensive open
lands with scattered industrial plants; industrial ex®
pansion is probable. South of the crossing Costa Mesa
and Huntington Beach are rapidly developing housing near
the River, but with no planned linkage or orientation
toward it.
Below Victoria Street three channels empty into the sea.
The Greenville Banning Channel joins the Santa Ana River
near the San -Diego crossing and parallels it to the sea.
The Talbert Channel joins from the west at Pacific Coast
Highway, where a large sewage treatment plant is located,
and joins the other two. Along the Talbert Channel,
open lands extend from the Southern California Edison
Plant at Huntington Beach to the River, parallel to but
separated from Huntington Beach State Beach by Pacific
Coast Highway. Shellfishing in the Channel is allowed
subject to permit. Near the beach east of the River are
some apartments. Just inland, across Coast Highway and
a slough -like drainage canal, is a large area of open
land, some above and some below a bluff. The land is
currently used for oil extraction.
The
surrounding
area
is
heavily
urbanized,
but open space
linkage
possibilities
are
promising.
Santiago Creek: From Santa Ana River to Villa Park Dam
Santiago Creek is the River's only Orange County tribu-
tary having some "nature" of its own. The upper area is
mainly wilderness. Irvine Lake and Irvine Park are in
this portion, and Villa Park Dam Regional Park is being
developed. Downstream from Villa Park Dam, the charac-
ter is rural, with small orchards and scattered homes,
but development is making inroads. The Creek has been
heavily sand -and -gravel -mined all the way downstream to
the Newport Freeway, with no rehabilitation whatsoever.
Some pits are more than 100 feet deep and subject to
flooding.
South
of
Orange,
the
Creek links
a
number of
small
parks
and
golf
courses.
The
parks,
many
years old,
have
the
intimate
scale
of
the Creek
itself
and relate
well
to -
the
surrounding
neighborhoods.
The
Creek itself
has
been
modestly
and
handsomely
channelized
within
the
park
areas
(WPA
vintage)
and
parking
is
allowed
within
the
channel.
The
portion
nearest
the River
is an
earth
levee channel,
narrow
and
wooded (though
less
heavily
than
before '69),
with
homes
adjacent.
The
confluence
with
the Santa Ana
River
is
at
Riverview
Golf
Course.'
-14-
PLAN PROPOSALS
LOWER RIVER: OCEAN TO 17TH STREETI
Urbanization has pressed hard on the lower portion and
mouth of the River, with few open lands remaining. The
mighty Santa Ana, after its 90®mile trip from lofty
mountains through boulder -strewn wash, sandy valley,
verdant banks, broad Prado Basin, Dam, and beautiful
Canyon, has been single-, double®, and triple -channeled
for its final tame and inconspicuous exit to the sea,
amid a jumble of oil wells, apartments, barren land,
.parked cars, and industrial operations.
Regional Park: Rivermouth
A significant terminus is needed for this major river
system which for eons has profoundly influenced the
.coastline from:Bolsa Bay to Newport Bay.
The park area proposed encompasses both low-lying por-
tions and bluffs, with their outstanding views and re-
creational opportunities, and also proposes preservation
of open space and access in the small finger canyons
which are part of the landform.
The Plan proposes re-creation of an estuary -marsh in
the low-lying lands at the River's mouth, to restore to
some extent the natural appearance of a rivermouth anal
to serve as a much needed bird and wildlife sanctuary
and nursery for the sea, and as the focus of a unique
regional park.
Preliminary opinions indicate feasibility, and public
interest has been broadly expressed. Physical problems
are many and complex. Financial problems likewise, for
the land is costly and much of it is s-till under lease
for oil drilling operations.
Planning and implementation will be complicated, but
opportunities are at hand. Present channelization has
been determined to be inadequate; total replanning is
needed, and can provide the opportunity for ecological
area redevelopment with compatible recreation, possibly
including some limited and carefully located marina faci-
lities.
The Plan proposes a detailed Rivermouth area study of
problems and potentials to be conducted under the aus-
pices of the County or a joint River agency, in conjunc-
tion with the Army Corps of Engineers. Cost/benefit
1 These notes supplement the Lower Santa Ana River rea
map, following p. 31.
-15-
analysis must be broadly scoped, recognizing the recent
destruction of most of our Southern California estuaries.
Detailed ecological studies are required, but general ones
have already demonstrated the immense value of marshlands.
So great is their value that this study should be made
even if Upper Newport Bay and Bolsa Chica could be pre-
served.
Related lowland areas along the River can offer eques-
trian facilities and overnight camping as well as nature
study and "exploring". Bluff and upland areas offer fine
view points and active recreation and might also be favor-
able.for limited resort use and related concessions. New-
port Beach has expressed concern with potential traffic
which a regional park in this location might generate
plus additional pressure on the beach. These concerns
deserve consideration as part of the proposed detailed
study. Because of the topography and present development,
this p-ark would not relate directly to the beach but would
offer a different kind of interesting environment as well
as the open space and recreation facilities which are in
such desperately short supply in this part of the County.
Special beach access, via tram for example, could be pro-
vided if and when desired.
Newport Beach owns a dump site within the proposed re-
gional park area. The Plan recommends that the City not
dispose of this land now, but seek to transfer it to the
Santa Ana River joint agency proposed in the Implementa-
tion section and receive credit for it. Second choice
would be transfer or sale to County Parks. The State has
no funds for park purchase at present, but should consi-
der this location in the future.
Pacific Coast Freeway
From a recreation/open space viewpoint, a freeway through
this area would not be welcome. Access to and circula-
tion within the proposed park spaces should be handled
on their own terms. If, however, the Coast Freeway does
go through, it should be designed for maximum compatibili-
ty with the recreation uses, views, and ecological pre-
serves, with services of a special design team.
Talbert Channel Area
Open land between Talbert Channel and the beach should
be developed as beach -related upland area (not far up!).
Lest it and the beach be destroyed by parking, we propose
parking -service centers relating to the Pacific Coast
Freeway, if it goes through. The route has yet to be
selected; it should be studied in conjunction with a sys-
tem of parking, beach access, services, and Channel re-
lated uses.
-16-
..
�, ,, ♦__ _
.• �+�
Linkages
Linkages are exciting possibilities in this reach:
* from Mile Square Regional. Park to the River, along
Warner Avenue ®- a wide (100 feet) specialized
"parkway" treatment with curving paths, dense land-
scaping, pleasant rest spots.l
* along wide power line and railroad rights-of�svay
west of the River, extending deep into heavily
urbanized areas as a potential, greenbelt network.
* to Newport Bay via Fairview Hospital lands, Orange
Coast College, Te Winkle Park, County Fairgrounds,
Santa Ana Country Club, and Airport Clear Zone.
Hiking, biking, riding trails through these open
lands would be one of the County's great recreation
opportunities.
Channel
Present channelization is inadequate for a 20,000 cfs re-
lease, and improvements are being planned. Substantial
recreation use or even substantial landscaping of the
channel itself appears to be unfeasible, but levees and
edges have some potential. Additional lands along the
River could offer valuable recreational opportunities.
If a live stream is feasible in this area, it could be
either inside or outside the channel, depending on channel
ternat ves are: c.reat ng a green e t t roug re-
sidential areas north of Warner via park dedication
legislation and (2) creating a greenbelt through future
industrial development south of Warner via site plan
requirement, but this special design for the avenue it-
self seems best able to be implemented and is the one
the City prefers. Alternatives (1) and (2) would be
valuable additions.
�17-
treatment and on what additional lands might be secured.
The potential of a stream for enhancing the trails and
park areas is very great, especially where amenities
are so few.
Channel -fronting Greenbelt Areas
Channel -fronting greenbelt areas are proposeg
the Edison right-of-way between Victoria and the San
Diego Freeway and along industrial areas on both sides
of the River between the San Diego Freeway and Warner
Avenue. Implementation of the latter would be by dedi-
cation, by grant of easement or development rights, by
public agency purchase in fee or by contract, by excess
condemnation in conjunction with flood control and pos-
sible freeway projects, or a combination. Since it may
be some time before these major public projects are in
final plan stage, the other methods ®- in conjunction
with site plan review -- should be utilized. Site plan
review of industrial development is urgent now to assure
setback, landscaping, height control and related measures
for greenbelt protection. A width of 200 feet is recom-
mended for greenbelt each side.
Trails
Present trails along the levee are of great value, but
small parks, rest stops, detours through larger parks,
and landscaping are needed to punctuate the long,
straight trail.
-18-
Si{a.�ion Plawt
Greeo�bel� Ii�Nka9e®_ ._ I , _'
AYevdlOS
SGhooi
School
Trails
�uestriah
lei) ii'ies
Street "Gres
�I�N'l 1 Y�
i
Picbiic Play Areas -.
PACIFIC
OCEAN
--"-- - --
�__ __
/�� � `�_65A}. VGY�e.
—•'� COwntry L1411
:�� J
�1;
y�� ArcheAlog�c�,! Prese.rre �
r. � idute.u�s
��.,
Costa. Mesa.
Country Club
5{'rearr�
Play Area..
E4ues}rian Caanping
Woodedl Canyavi Access
ulilderhess Play Area.
j_"" Hike -iw C.ampiny
Nature Cewter
Marshlands
i
�mal l '�oa"rs
Canyon access 1"0. bay
a; c
F L
__
• _
�'1�
:�N
PLAN PROPOSALS
MIDDLE RIVER: 17TH STREET TO IMPERIAL HIGHWAY]
Uses
In contrast and balance to the quiet natural Canyon area
upstream, and the close press of development right up to
the channel downstream, this portion of the River, set
in a heavily urbanized area with excellent access, is
suited to a variety of intensively developed recreation
opportunities, with emphasis on water -oriented activities.
Among the possibilities:
Fishing
Boating (limited power)
Canoeing and kayaking
Swimming -- perhaps "water hole" style
Large lawn areas for picnicking and sports
Trails for riding, hiking, biking
Equestrian facilities
Special facilities for minibikes and other motorized
vehicles
Active sports and games
Day camping
Arboretum and demonstration gardens
Santa Ana River Center and Museum, including his-
torical and nature exhibits and exhibits on all
aspects of water science and technology
Golf courses
Community recreation and cultural facilities
A
series
of
regional
parks
and
smaller
areas
is proposed
on
not
enough
the
definitive,
Plan,
to
accommodate
with possible
for the
many
areas
activities
specialized
are large
listed.
and diverse
activities
These
in
are
addi-
tion
to
those
noted.
Of.5and Gravel, Water, and People
Realization of the potential outlined above will require
major rehabilitation of mined -out gravel pits for water
spreading and for recreation, building on the pioneering
example of Anaheim Lake, where a deep empty pit is now.
filled with water and used for percolation and for trout
fishing, through the cooperative efforts of the Orange
County Water District, Anaheim Parks Department, the con-
cessionaire, and (next season) State Fish and Game.
1 These notes supplement the Middle River Area map.
_P0_
Warner Basin s= owned by the Water District and suitable
for spreading, is a top®priority opportunity. Rather
than continue to spread water in shallow rectangular
basins in the River channel, the Water District, Flood
Control District, and Parks Departments have expressed
enthusiasm for the Plan's proposals to realign the levee
and provide for the spreading and recreational uses of
water outside the main channel in gentle lake forms
appropriate for a park instead of a geometry book.
A complex of moderate®size lakes and streams appears to
be more feasible than a single large lake. Then neces®
sary periodic drainage and cleaning can be programmed
so that water®oriented recreation is available all year
round, rather than having to close down for a two or
three-month period,_as Anaheim Lake must.
The Burris pit area, now in litigation, may offer simi-
lar possibilities, depending on the outcome of the case
and on very thorough engineering studies.
Pits still being mined should be zoned immediately to
require preparation and implementation of rehabilitation
plans for recreational re -use.
Miller Basin, adjacent to Anaheim Lake, is a Flood Con-
trol District -owned retarding basin suitable for water
spreading and recharge, and for water recreation as well,
The Plan recommends securing the adjacent open space for
possible golf course, for supporting recreation activi-
ties and as a "setting". (Anaheim Lake use and its feel=
ing and quality as a recreation place is somewhat limit-
ed by lack of related shore -land space.) Miller Basin
should link to Anaheim Lake and down Jefferson to the
River.
Linkages
The power line rights -of -way offer outstanding opportu-
nities for greenbelt links into surrounding urban areas.
These, together with the River as a spine or core, might
one day have potential for a transportation system con
necting the many commercial/recreation attractions in
the area.
Santiago Creek is perhaps the most important linkage.
The confluence of the Creek with the River deserves spe-
cial design treatment as a landmark.
Channel
The existing channel is adequate for a 20,000 cfs release
according to the agencies concerned, and no redesign for
�21�
flood control has been discussed. The wide sand -bottomed,
leveed channel has little permanent recreational value
per se at present. Modification of a portion of it in
the Warner Basin and Burris pit areas is very promising,
as described earlier and shown on the special study.
Stream
A live stream year-round may be possible in this area and
and upstream. The environmental and recreational value
would be greater if the stream were diverted and pumped
to recreational areas outside the flood channel, rather
than within it.
Agriculture
In terms of maximizing open space opportunities, the sub-
stantial agricultural areas bordering the River between
Orangewood and Ball should remain agricultural. One pre-
serve has already been secured. The pressures for de-
velopment are enormous and are recognized but careful
consideration and reconsideration of agricultural and/or
recreational use is in order. This could be an oasis in
the urban desert.
If development is economically inevitable, however, the
Plan recommends that it be recreational in nature and,
whatever the use, that it be green and.open in feeling,
affording access to the River greenbelt and providing
extensions of that, through site plan review.
La�Ces =�� � � ' ai.
�-, �E � P ��, 1 ',
� � � s ���
m
�
-'
—
�—
La.k�
Anaheim la�lce.
s`irail --Gre��nbel'r l�inkag�
..., � _.
...
� =ty
$O�a411G 6AP�n
Picnic Area.
�xke
5�"reet Tree�'��hiin9
picnic d- �ay AYea
f11�1iS341TiiiS'iLSti
'`�.: �'
��
1'icu�ic �-Pl�y
area
�iverda�e �o�
�recway
G-a�.SLap In9
•
. � ; � � �;
PLAN PROPOSALS
SANTA ANA CANYON: IMPERIAL HIGHWAY TO PRADO DAM'
Last Significant Open Space
Santa Ana Canyon must be considered as a visual whole,
crest=to-crest; the arbitrary 1-1/2 mile planning area
no longer applies. The Canyon, from Imperial Highway
to Prado Dam, is a magnificent natural open space re-
source, the last in the developed portion of the County.
The Plan recommends conservation of both flood plain and
hillsides as an open, natural area crest to crest. Uses
compatible with this desired character are listed below.
Implementation methods, including purchase, agricultural
and open space preserves, open space easements, and zon-
ing are discussed later in the report. Development pres-
sures are intense, stimulated by the new Freeway and by
many other actions and inactions. If no action is taken,
the Canyon will probably be urbanized, the River channel-
ized, with short-term benefits to a few -- and the total
loss to the many of an irreplaceable resource. It is
within this context that the County should decide to act
or not to act.
Natural Area
This entire area should retain and enhance its natural
quality, with emphasis on open space rather than active
recreation. The upper canyon area, lying mainly within
Riverside County is proposed as an ecological preserve,
with walking trails, interpretive facilities, and strict-
ly limited access. In addition to its ecological, esthe-
tic, and environmental values, this area can also serve
as an educational opportunity unmatched in the area. The
520 acre area is large enough to be meaningful for eco-
logical study and observation.
The smaller area at Horseshoe Bend designated as ecologi-
cal preserve is also very beautiful, very valuable, and
very vulnerable because it is only some 60 acres. The
Flood Control District has recognized its importance and
has presented a no -channel alternative for this area.
Both have been designated priority areas by the Depart-
ment of Fish and Game.
The natural
qualities
would
be
retained
and
enhanced
by
a year-round
running
stream
of
at
least
50 cfs.
Various
ese notes supplement the Santa Ana canyon Hrea yap.
-24-
agencies have indicated this possibility.
Compatible uses
The goal of a natural open canyon does not exclude people
and use, but offers contrast to the urban®suburban pat
tern. Among the uses compatible with open space charac�
ter are:
agriculture
nursery stock growing
horse ranching
stables and equestrian facilities
fish hatcheries
game bird ranching
educational facilities
conference center
agricultural and horticultural
expe
golf courses - not in River bottom, but possibly
in side canyons
resort facilities
all carefully sized, sited, and planned for compatibility
with the open natural canyon "look", with rigorous re-
view, as discussed in "Implementation".
Canyon Entrance
Imperial Highway marks the westerly entrance to the Can-
yon. Here the development pressures on open land now
agricultural are extreme, but the value of the Canyon
area and the Canyon "experience" rests on retaining open
space, agriculture, and the handsome eucalyptus trees
which mark and characterize the area in order that the
Canyon's special feeling be preserved.
The
easterly
"entrance"
below
Prado Dam requires the
continuing
attention
of
Riverside
County.
The Canyon itself is absolutely unique and incalculably
precious.
The
10
mile
Canyon
drive
is a
significant
door
to
both
counties.
The
surrounding
hills
are
a part
of
the
scenic
setting
and
the look
and
nature
of
them
must
be
preserved.
So
much
has already
been
lost.
The
oppor�
tunities
remaining
today, if not
taken,
will
be lost
tomorrow
morning.
Channel or No -Channel
We
recommend
that
the
Canyon
area
serve
as
f7oodway,
rather
than
cut
the ecologic
preserves
and
park
areas
-25-
with a 400-foot-wide channel, even one designed to "fit
into" such a setting and provide for recreation outside
the channel. The Canyon is the County's only opportuni-
ty to preserve a natural area. Recreation of all kinds
will be provided downstream. Here we recommend risking
an occasional washout and waiting for the natural restor-
ation, perhaps helping it along, rather than "artificial-
ize" this last remaining natural area.
Corps of Engineersestimates indicate that the Riverside
Freeway would be clear of the 20,000 cfs release level.
Also noteworthy is the Corps' estimate that uncontrolled
release would rise only slightly higher than 20,000 cfs
in this area. Our recommendations for retaining a
natural area in the Canyon, with the fewest possible per-
manent facilities, coordinate with the no -channel propo-
sal.
Just as development in the Canyon would and has created
demands for channelization, channelization in the Canyon
would tend to open to urban development precious Canyon
open spaces which would then be protected from flood
hazard. Almost any such development would be incompati-
ble with the natural qualities we are recommending be
retained and enhanced here. Sand erosion and deposition
problems must be met by imaginative engineering measures
other than channels.
A Corps of Engineers official has stated:
"We
consider
the
Santa
Ana
Basin
to
be
an irreplace-
able
resource.
Because
it
is
an
irreplaceable
part
of
the
environment
we hope
to
avoid
making
any
irre-
versible
decision
concerning
the
development
of
the
basin
that
we
will
all
be
sorry
for
at
some
future
date."1
To channelize all, or even part, of the Canyon portion of
the River would, we believe, be an irreversible decision
for urban sprawl. The Corps and the Flood Control Dis-
trict have indicated that flood plain management is a
feasible alternative for the Canyon. We recommend it as
the most desirable one in the long run, and urge the
Board of Supervisors to endorse the flood plain manage-
ment (no -channel) recommendation and transmit it to the
Department of Water Resources and Corps of Engineers.
Freeway: Scenic Highway?
The new Riverside Freeway is at present a harsh intruder
1 Talk by Seldon P. Kramer of the Corps, at UC Riverside,
May 1969.
-26-
_ s'- F � !' 3 a � _ t,- _ _
�' I - � i ' � 1 � 1 " _ -
1
i I / _ - i
. ,
1 i _- 1. ' i. c i '
I .
_ 1 I ! . .. 1. 1 - � _ � - f 1
1
I
r . .
This Freeway has been designated a Scenic Highway; a
full corridor protection program implementing that desig-
nation is needed immediately. Such programs usually
encompass grading, landscaping, signing, and roadside
land use controls. As mentioned elsewhere, however, the
real °'seenic" question here is whether the Canyon shall
remain an open, natural area.
L- -. ,.
..
/ _ /.: , f- 19. is -, - __ - .. i -
.,.
,_ 1 !•
,.- - � �l�.. ,, 1 _
. I I ,
�. - /- .i
_ I r �.. � I i - ! i � r i � ! . � � ._ i - � � _ � - 1
.!
.;
.�
.,
-'= I. -! i=_ '. ( � I ,. . 1. �� � - �., �_ _ 1 _
ii-
f1. la ,! !_ 7�p,_
!,
�27®
The current
idea
of linking
Jamboree
Road
through
Weir
Canyon
to the Freeway
and
across
the
River
is
a
major
example
of plans
which
need
thorough
re®evaluation,
for this
would surely
invite
prompt urban
development.
Green River Golf Course
The present temporary channelization measures should
not be augmented or "improved" further. We recommend
that if the golf course is severely damaged again by
floods, it should be relocated to the Middle River area
location designated "Regional Park" on the east side of
the River south of Lincoln and the present golf course
allowed and assisted to revert to natural conditions,
with trails, picnicking, and perhaps camping areas, re-
lating to the facilities at Featherly.
Featherly and Yorba Parks
Featherly .Park has been planned to complement its natur-
al setting and is very successful. Further channeliza-
tion is not recommended and further permanent facilities
should be minimized or avoided entirely. Action on the
planned Yorba Regional Park should proceed promptly.
This will be a fine addition to public open space in the
Canyon. Groves should be preserved and other portions
designed to reflect the Canyon's natural and quiet char-
acter.
The land between Esperanza and the River east of Imper- .
ial should be flood -plain -zoned and perhaps acquired as
part of Yorba Park. The Corps of Engineers reports that
that land, though no longer subject to 100-year-flood,
would be subject to "disastrous results" from "floods of
larger magnitude such as the standard project flood".1
As this report states later, flood plain zoning should
be delineated on the basis of the standard project flood.)
Canals
The Anaheim Union Canal portion shown is still in use for
water transport. If and when that use is abandoned, the
Orange County Water District's easement should be trans-
ferred to a public agency for use as a trail linkage,
following the excellent example set by Yorba Linda. Parts
of the Santa Ana Valley Irrigation canals are of visual
and historic interest and should also be a trail feature
of this area.
1 Letter
Los
W.
1971.
from
Angeles
Roberts,
Edward Koehm, Chief, Engineering
District, Corps of Engineers,
Zoning Supervisor, Anaheim,
to
dated
Division,
Mr. Charles
January 8,
_Zg_
Trails
The Plan proposes the extension of trails through this
Canyon area, linking to Yorba Linda via the old Anaheim
Union Canal, and to the Butterfield and Main Divide
Trails via Coal Canyon. A network of trails through
the hills is possible and desirable.
Agriculture
The groves close to the River in the Canyon area are now
an integral part of the environment and "look" of the
Canyon and are a productive and pleasing open space use.
Every effort should be made toward their preservation,
utilizing all available methods. If for any reason the
agricultural use is terminated, these lands should be
secured as public open space.
Rancho Santa Ana (Bixby -Bryant Ranch) on the north edge
of the River, opposite Featherly Park, is one of Orange
County's last great ranches, much cherished by the fami-
ly whose home it has been for generations. The famous
Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden, since relocated to
Claremont, originated here.
Because of its outstanding beauty and ecological value,
secluded location, magnificent trees including the su-
perb pomegranates lining the entrance road, and handsome
buildings bespeaking the style and hospitality of an
earlier age, the Plan proposes a historic -agricultural
preserve.
An agricultural preserve could be an immediate first
step. A scenic easement could be more permanent. If
State legislation can be accomplished for it, contrac-
tual purchase would be effective here. Whatever the
method, the continuing production of oranges should be
a matter of public policy to preserve this most signi-
ficant link with the past. Oranges in this northerly
part of the County are nearly extinct and are endan-
gered in the southerly half.
In time, limited public use might be arranged -m cer-
tain areas, certain times, certain numbers of people.
Development or Conservation
From the point of view of maximizing open space and re-
creational opportunities and conserving environmental
values, this Plan emphatically recommends the preserva-
tion of the Canyon as natural, open area crest to crest
with its fine riverbottom habitat area and beautiful
hillsides. However, much of this valuable area is with-
in the City of Anaheim, which has encouraged urban
-90-
PLAN PROPOSALS
SANTIAGO CREEK: SANTA ANA RIVER TO VILLA PARK DAM
Character
The parks along Santiago Creek south of Orange should be
extended so that the entire Creek becomes a greenbelt
park. The intimate scale of the present parks should be
retained in new ones. The delightful natural character,
some of which washed away in the 1969 floods, should be
restored and enhanced. Open lots and new developments
along the Creek should relate to the proposed greenbelt
with access, linkages, etc.
Upstream, the intimate, enclosed character gives way to
a combination of barren gravel pits and lush groves.
The visual feeling in this area is "valley", strongly
and beautifully defined by the surrounding hills. The
present quiet rural character and feeling that one now
enjoys driving Santiago Canyon Road should be the key-
note for park development in this area -- lots of trees,
views of hills, open, green space. As urban development
presses on this area, the need for this kind of contrast-
ing, refreshing place and experience will escalate. The
significance of this "Santiago Greenbelt" is augmented
by its linkage to Peters Canyon and into Irvine Ranch.
Sand and Gravel Pits
There are
eight
to
ten
large gravel
pits between
Newport
Freeway
operating,
and
Villa
all in
Park
need
Dam, some
of major
abandoned,
rehabilitation.
some
still
The
following
multi -use
possibilities
have
been
explored:
Water. In terms of geology and soils this area is
not ideally suited for water spreading, but could
still be used. At present there is no permanent
water source. If in the future, Orange County util-
izes water reclamation or another permanent water
supply can be obtained, possibilities of large scale
water use and water -oriented uses are desirable and
can be planned, but on a less ambitious scale than a
multi -use for water spreading would allow.
2. Fill. Sanitary landfill as a method for rehabilita-
ting pits has become _less and less acceptable due to
deleterious effects on groundwater quality. In this
location sanitary landfill would clearly not be
ese notes supplement the Santiago Creek Hrea map.
-31-
al lowed ,as verified with the Regional Water Quality
Control Board staff.
Clean
fill,
dirt,
building
materials, etc.,
might
be
a possibility
in
some
pits, but is not
a practi�
cal
large-scale
solution,
economically or
timewise,
to
rehabilitation
problems.
3. Flood control. Multi -use for flood control and re-
creation is very promising and needs and warrants
thorough study immediately, for flood hazard is
clearly severe.
A low wide dam and retention basin -- or a series of
them -- upstream from the Newport Freeway could be
developed by rehabilitating several pits, regrading
for the necessary capacity and for desirable non -
geometric forms and contours.
Holding flood waters here upstream would relieve the
constricted lower Creek portion, perhaps removing the
need for harsh and very costly concrete box channel
(covered or uncovered) and opening the possibility of
re-establishing the natural creekbed character by
recontouring and landscaping with native trees and
shrubs.
Hopefully,
enough
width
can
be gained
for
a pleasant
trail
and linear
greenbelt
treatment.
If
any
channel
structure
is
needed
it should
be carefully
designed
to enhance
the
natural
character,
in
the
best
WPA
tradition!
Inundation of -the basin areas would be intermittent,
and they could be planned for landscaping and uses
which would be compatible with those conditions, as
was done for Featherly Park, Whittier Narrows, and
soon -- on a much larger scale -- Prado Basin.
Uses of abandoned pits in their present unrehabilitated
condition are severely limited. Feasibility will -vary
with pit size, depth, configuration, flood hazard, access,
surrounding uses, and topsoil importing potential. Among
the possibilities are:
Golf driving range
Archery
Model planes
Minibike track
Ball fields
Garden plots
Nursery stock growing or storage
Stables, exercise rings, show rings
Training area for earth -moving equipment operators!
-32-
Sfireet '(gee �Ianiin9®
�Que�triaw Facilities
t'icslic�Pl�y Areas
1 L KKA5e
Cerro Urlla ?�.rk®
Pieniea �l�y Area.
Cx.mping
\: + s CamPiny
Lakes
' ''' (greenbelt Linlc{ge
Yerba Gt"y ?xrk
-33-
Some of these could be developed as interim uses, pend-
ing later rehabilitation.
Despite
their
present
despoiled
condition,
these
areas
have
regional
.park
potential
(and
little
else)
provided
regrading
to
more usable
forms can
be
accomplished
either
in
connection
with
flood
control
measures
or by
other
means.
Agriculture
Existing groves -along and near the Creek are a vital
functional and visual element in the environment. Agri-
culture preserves or, better, scenic easements should be
sought at once. Those just below Villa Park Dam are of
critical importance and value for agriculture first or,
second, for park land. Those further down are subject
to even greater pressures; if urban development is neces-
sary, it must respect and relate to the greenbelt with
access and with an open, green setting.
Linkage
The
Southern
Pacific
right-of-way
intersects
the
Creek,
offering
an additional
link
back to
the
River
and
south
into
the
surrounding
areas.
As mentioned
above,
the
San-
tiago
Creek
greenbelt
itself
links
to Villa
Park
Dam
Park
and,
via
Peters
Canyon,
into
Irvine
Ranch
lands.
Hills
The surrounding hills forming Santiago Canyon and Peters
Canyon, the Pera Hills and Santa Ana Mountains, are
open spaces of great visual, ecological, and recreational
importance. Measures to insure their preservation should
be planned and implemented rapidly. They are the setting
for this whole portion of the County.
-34-
L®WER SANTA ANA RIVER
GREENBELT
HUNTINGTON BEACH
8eaeh ReereatiaR
Fitill�ies
Skell F'sbinq
• Small Soa$ng �.ti
Rentals
° Off Seek Parking 6tru6tuu
Play F'ekl
°Hike-m limping
A C I F I C "Trails 1AAAa 1
O C E A N Faziliiies
4
w
o venicwar tamping
a Small Soat Marina
tioaf Rent I
° Resort Facilttes
vi sta Points
Greenbelt
Linkages
< Use of Pwer
Par
of Yards
• rails
(rail Rf
of
Green belt
Li nkage
Use of % er Line
• Nk("ef ula`y
Parks \
,. • 5A,o,1 Yardsa�,
• q,'de ' ' \Community Ree.re lion
Flo ie "`9 1=Stancia Fa.t,ilittes
f.e e t s Hi k Scluo Play Felds
w - ° T nnis Zau Ts
Ma HI a Ttlot
� � band 56e11
Ecology Tads ;
fla�y w'�z��y Stopove`' '(o klewport 8>3
wJdlrte Snnctnary COSTA
MESA
FOIINTAIN VALLEY
Unit
fsreen bell' /
Linkage
t>
Tat1
Park
GARDEN GROVE
2oo'Wiltl, ea<C7 side � � nP � Pa k
Tails Nei or aT ' est top
o Open fields 'par e, ^ co v Field
n
arkli6 esign Ira l Re1 as ,n t a* 1dt
eatment PTA e s iipf�nli ie -
° rt lots o T tot
SANTA ANA LOWER SANTA ANA RIVER GREENBELT
T^ LEGEND
- - q Greenbelt
Existing oriRPevelopmev%"Staees
o s000rt ............ Trails
-34a,
GARDEN GR09E.
• Rtai� Agrickftuv�
• D<velop 'mere iioK �
Urba. Deur�opweNt respe f�.g
ANAHEIM
P opose�.
"�rnils
OcNaiteiM Lake.
° Fshiag
�• Small 8o�rg
. W t r sPreazUny
_Zflh-
SANTA A NA CANYON
GREENBELT
IF
I A.aMeim IAaiom Cawal ,F\ ten R1aTural Cxweom
I it
It NT�Stl t !� 41 IF
' Ag aultwre R �L.s -
'Mt Nr to t V�rst le
�lda eau A
bf�' v ,ra t le
x,._ tb I �i D Qu$�e4 f Ope lSpzr�U + Y s�r$Ijatn'ktN letn
t e tq YrbzL r_ _ v� f
I tx�pm� :: ,S _ a Ck Hne[ , eg > 7 .: .� 4 It
r Y f I Pri1 IF '4 _ .P x tt 1 tHorseslw 'MKA ... r �" �,� ..f r� .. s`
F.,� 4 C to lcreftiYYeFILL i y .. t R„ rue
_ \ Exislt.w9 ' ayn AG (Ers�35' drilp5ewt�`
FfI `.r6 ;I Aitf'ntrs i� e d iit
nt
is u�-.••-�v+� ; ' Alztiv�',.;(v, �S ' *#:+
{IF YTa A Hill" LV P ,xKstfi re t l tP,}. rare teat
a do y_% ` o k :IF�y,`;willwJIf fe sAiItuzt T
tt�caog�A R + FFazry
ILI-
St
xrIr
sljny :. �
• ' � y % f¢ rre ,: r+4 'may y1� Y.*.,r4 ,,"',' -'`�, � r e �e +li ,•"i u
'.' .fin .�-'• 4 ♦' iI It
%�:etg w Ay It e § IF :- a 5 3 LL _ r s
�h-R4xr€xfS D rlol�;`",t t 'r,�a s F r \ E'
9 i
in^t2.af 61p w ik !'I Ilk
,,re„w Higkwzy _
Extsiin 3 - r 9 Rr ,.Pex'flc4fy Pak t e sy `�I r .
9 e 6 (4;G k g., v$ r it
f A9ricull'rxrc �.'' Cavnp g iy, . � ��
z p ,� f i fl
as
AIRtNa ruts 'Ks: I Ile
; '/ P'cni k yx h i Y x, fsle,
i Retaw reu�tuJ, f =.,Play�hial�s r '. ;,, tell `'. �,€ F �+ r�s, V F `, ke(r7, r;�!"Y1, irr <s.y'; y
:"Cxnyow 1' Sti FILL
ery. FILL . s rr p jf1 f'
a ��( Ram e¢n 4nadapx t P ` g t A.sz f r (rues R xv CeI" I I, LL
�ry Urx�ev fo P <t? f St ez i \V%. f iz
A ,a Gre'uLfrlt &a '}t .y, 1 I. ,Syjt t t,tF.eiILI \' °e05M, �� 'f/f.
r t.�,r ¢L''. it 'xt ._, ri„r .I ti�� bh eri l.;11
t / ( F 6t •A raYu re jI
-
YI It ,Aa�''1\ 0 rr I E} �. e i✓ d,y.-� r,� �,, rt.Mtir7"�. bl rdG ;{ tl✓._ �s
wilder Arex >
k I'Srr Gr' vac, �c, s _ �w:kfi'a BStFILL9g�f' d s'y% rrlr:. , o Yf Vn`
,~ FILL ,rle
m t{C felft
t, lrnil Sr}tE J .
�r,IA
0 e 5 ace Uses �esjFt4 '$ z rle, -}r `"A r Lultur t !U 11 ,E.
�� �s p"P ! 9 ait�
cal- s / s°+:lr#li:>Hi`` i !�� 5e . lrrrne AS eeserve�� l ! f := SANTA ANA CANYON
p yru yiv8 a k2�ft
4� GREENBELT
t ".� l '( F F� - rt,'y#Hari Fs<c.4 a gl I !� Ik tr�
tttl�jells 1{r� r,,rrtrg rs< al I t 2 L E G E N D
l $h GveenbdY
� \ ri 7` P r FLFV_: ��'r'�$§ p l+d, `c s. - Eutsting er tw Peaeloprif StMq
IF
✓/g t ,r �. av,,e4 trS. ix3 f t 5s11
€ r'x ,e. N
s r t ire 4 s! ae c!�' s O R T fropo reA
9
qS s srD i'i t g _ r �.� $ `
�Irl.7li,k rails
e)H j kH�s�, s€;I '1�'..... Visfia PatnYs
'�ira xs ,i-e fs r4 ` s ''a�`;f•1 `` 4'. , o 1 soon n
7stiBFix
-36e-
° xecre r
• r°t I°t
• Picnic
'/ ° Ar S, ge
° T „ni Loy~ na
Recr 'on Ce
®AN TA ANA ,' ° a°wli„9 Green
° Play fields
ORANGE
rba
° 0 td°or Avnphi$,e j
° Plcnic FulGhes
• Play Feld, _
° M,del B° t P„•(
Existing
Agricult"uye
plterntivu:
Sebool� "``� ° Abaydoned, Aaily°ad
��ry�:. R:ylt°f way
Existl ng °R�d�ng•Hiki�y fzil
r�tultnve
Ite a fives:
° �tatn Agricult re
• P.k Deurfopr.,ehF
llrbav\ develop.neni-
respeai 9 Greenbelt O R
a �,
TU$TIN
0 5000 ft
VILLA PARK
"Park
° i;u,�.. Fulhtu
1°t I,t
Play Fields
Ta Wzln � Cavyon
E
��- n r „ Vg �
ie k
L�rrye Lawn Arcu �:
=�a„d� lakes Lazy„$„Go•
° Ptc„�ck�ng
• can,P�ng 'kanch
° Plzy fdd: `Dine 0°I°s
Outdoor Anpl,i�ezie•. •S.u.IcSk°p
° Possible rat „Pion - 10 Peters
bu.n \
<s7iny Agriculture
Alt r„atv°s
°Ret n Agricult re
° Park Deoelopment
4nh ,.k D,m
f> Villa Park dam Yark
aru of fke
SANTIAGO CREEK GR�IVBELT
LEGEND
Gre<nbelt
�. Existing ar in Development' Stages
e,�=�' P oPosed
......... -(rails
PLAN PROPOSALS
GENERAL POLICIES AND DESIGN GUIDELINES
The following concerns are general, relating to the
River corridor. .More specific ones are included in
the area descriptions and recommendations.
Agriculture
The Plan shows existing agricultural areas relating to
the Corridor. Preservation of these areas in agricul-
tural use is urgent. Possible future recreational or
other open space use should be the only alternative to
agriculture. Urban development should not intrude fur-
ther. The County must be flexible and imaginative in
finding ways to preserve these spaces. The legal powers
exist -- the commitment, the administrative responsibili®
ty, and the energy are needed.
Site Plan Review
-Site plans for all public works and private developments
,in or near the River corridor or having visual or other
impact on the River corridor should be carefully reviewed,
with reference to appearance, access, relation to parks
and open spaces along the Corridor and to linkage possi-
bilities, multi -use possibilities.
The visual quality of the hills which are the setting
and backdrop for the River and Creek must be protected.
If some development is necessary or unavoidable, it must
at least be design -controlled to avoid any scarring of
hillsides.
Sand and Gravel
Further excavation of sand and gravel should be
couraged in or near the Corridor. Major rehabilitation
of existing pits is already needed and will be very cost.
ly and difficult, especially since existing pits were not
plannedwith re -use or redevelopment in mind. Even with
advance planning for re -use, additional pits nearby are
questionable. Existing pits still in operation should be
so zoned to require prompt preparation of rehabilitation
plans in keeping with this Plan.
Trails
Trails along the River and Creek are the backbone of this
entire greenway and recreation system. They are the
-35-
significant continuous element. Where possible, trails
should be provided on both sides of the River, with
occasional crossings. It is best to plan separate trails
for horseback riders, bike riders, and walkers.
Public Works
Public works should, whenever possible, invite the pub-
lic! All River -related projects -- flood control facili-
ties, sewage treatment plants, gaging stations, MWD out-
let, water installations, Edison plant, etc, should be
developed for their educational -recreational value as well
as their special function, and should be well landscaped.
Picnic tables, benches, water fountains, perhaps play
facilities, as well as exhibits, explanatory signs, tours,
etc. would be welcome and welcoming.
Stream
A running stream would, be of immense ecological, recrea-
tional, and amenity value in any or all areas of the
corridor. This is not a question of restoring nature,
for the Santa Ana River, especially in the lower areas,
is far from natural; besides, it is the nature of South-
ern California rivers to be dry most of the time. Rather,
running water is of interest and pleasure to people any
time, any place, and would be especially welcome here.
Orange County Water District is interested and indicates
that water quality would be satisfactory for general use,
assuming, of course, that recreation and esthetic enjoy
ment and fish and wildlife maintenance are added to the
Water Quality Control Board's "beneficial uses". (See
"Impl.ementation: Interim Measures").
River Landscaping
The following general landscape guidelines are offered
as a guide to present or immediate -future planning. The
intent is to help establish continuity and River charac-
ter, with a sense of sequence, of change, from upper
canyon down to mouth.
Canyon Area: Sycamore, oak, cottonwood, willow,
similar natives.
Middle River: Continue Canyon trees, gradually
giving way to eucalyptus species.
Lower River: Eucalyptus, in this constricted area
which offers limited opportunity for
impact.
-36-
Rivermouth:
Eucalyptus,
willow,
bay,
sycamore,
and marsh
mixing into
alder,
-typical
cottonwood,
plants
California
and'
grasses.
Santiago
Creek:
Dense
in lower
eucalyptus,
above
sycamores,
in
narrow
pit
oaks,
rehabilitation
alders,
part;
plus
sycamores,
native
eucalyptus
areas.
shrubs
Freeways
Freeway
areas
in the
Corridor should
be
heavily
land-
scaped
with
materials
harmonious with
those
used
along
the
which
River.
we
Several
can only cite
new freeways are
the following
being
design
planned,
guidelines:
for
Do not
divide
park
lands
*
Do not
cut
off linkages
*
Avoid
noise
pollution
of
quiet
areas,
parks, open
spaces
*
Avoid
the
visual
disturbance
to quiet
areas of
seeing
whizzing
cars
*
Do not
locate
in
greenbelt;
if near,
incorporate
intervening
space
as part
of
greenbelt
*
Special
design
treatment
to
relate
to
greenbelt
and
to
make
the
freeway
beautiful
for
both driver
and
neighbor
Street and Highway Design in Corridor
All major and secondary highways which now cross the
River should have special landscape design treatment re-
lating to the River corridor. Regular street trees might
give way to or blend with "river" trees within a mile or
two of the River. Crossing areas should feature tree
plantings adjoining the channel as well as some softening
landscape treatment of the bridge.
Certain streets are indicated on the Plan as specific
linkages, needing generous parkway widths and special
design treatment including paths and parklike landscap-
ing. Gas tax funds may -- and should -- be used for
landscaping streets; as recommended in Open Space in
Orange Countv.
Public Owned Lands
All
publicly
held
lands
should be retained and used in
accordance
with
the
Plan.
-37-
J
-a
v
�v
a-0
��
w
°�
w
v
�
v
�
r
w
3
e
v>
-a
v
j
�
d
�_
P-
7
�
1
-d
s
s
3
w
�
�n
�
•
:�
H
•
•
•
i
-38-
-39-
N
N
\01
T
N
J
.�
N
R{
-�
s
•
r
v
•
•
- .�
-4U-
s�
v
��
s
i
i
a
o
�pp
VJ
�
V
a41m
�ƒ\
£$
\�
£/
+ƒe
/7j
{{\
�7/
(\ /
# J
_««_
N
a
w
h
j��
-43-
�.
w
w"'
'�"'►�
•
•
IMPLEMENTATION
The priorities which follow are simply a selection of
emphasis. They mean: spend most of your energy here,
here, and here. But implementation of this Plan will
be extremely complex and cannot be conceived in a
"linear" way, in a simple order.
The greatest need is for flexibility, for seizing -- or
creating opportunities.to effectuate proposals, using
a broad palette of methods and funds, and ever cognizant
of the overall concept. That is why we recommend first:
Put someone in charge! (See "Interim Measures")
The
next
need
is
for administrative.
authority,
a means
to
overcome
the
fragmentation
that
has brought
the River
to
its
present
desperate condition.
That is
why we
recommend:
a joint
agency.
(See "Administrative
Structure")
The
need
for
money
hovers
over
all,
non -linear,
in
fact
non -quantifiable,
at
this
time
and
within
the
scope
of
this
planning
task.
With
a someone
-in -charge
and
a
joint
agency,
there
should
be
a
substantial
revolving
fund
for
necessary
studies,
for
purchase
of fee
or
less
-than
-
fee
interests
when
urgent,
for
matching
funds.
(See
"Securing
the
Land"
and
"Funding
Sources")
-45-
IMPLEMENTATION: PRIORITIES
In the difficult task of selecting priorities within
the Santa Ana River -Santiago Creek corridor overall and
by segments, we must not overlook the enormous "priority"
which belongs to the overall corridor greenbelt concept.
"There is a good chance that these river corridors will
be the only open space elements in western Orange County;
therefore we enthusiastically endorse the Phase I report,"
wrote Chairman Ron Yeo of the UCI Project 21 Open Space
Study Team in November, 1910. (Emphasis added
Within the Santa Ana River -Santiago Creek Corridor as a
whole, the following projects and areas blend top signi-
ficance, heavy pressures, and potential realization and
therefore deserve immediate implementation priority. Re-
serving and securing land must take precedence, with
development of trails and selected parks soon, remember-
ing William Whyte's wise counsel to "use it or lose it".
1. Santa Ana Canyon - open and natural.
Flood plain zoning of areas subject to Standard
Project Flood hazard.
Conservation/Open Space Zoning around and above
flood plain -- interim pending recommended
economic/social/environmental impact study.
Yorba Park acquisition.
Agriculture preservation.
2. Rivermouth estuary -marsh and regional park: reserve
land; expedite study.
3. Trail expansion and improvement.
4. Warner Basin rehabilitation and multi -use.
Focusing on each of the four segments, the following de-
serve top priority:
Lower River
Rivermouth estuary -marsh and regional park: reserve
land, expedite study.
Fairview land acquisition from State.
Channel -fronting greenbelt areas: secure use of
utility rights -of -way and develop site plan review
procedure for reserving and protecting greenbelt.
Middle River
Warner Basin - site plan and develop for multi -use.
-46-
Secure small parcels.l
* at Ball Road and the River: small gravel pit
area
* north side of River between Taft and Lincoln
* north side of River south of La Palma from edge
of Warner Basin to Imperial Highway
* south side of River opposite Warner Basin
Secure large parcel on south side of River between
Lincoln and Glassell, rehabilitate pit for park.
Santa Ana Canyon
Preserve open and natural: flood plain zoning, open
space/conservation zoning, agricultural preservation.
Economic/social/environmentalstudy.
Yorba Park acquisition.
Santiaoo Creek
Secure parcels.
* along Creek between Cambridge Street and Hart
Park, rehabilitate
* adjacent to pits, west of Prospect, east of
railroad
Preserve agriculture.
Study flood control needs and measures, potential for
rehabilitation of some pits as retention basins, etc.
1 Other
small
parcels,
s
ade
on Implementation
an, are
also
desirable
but,
based
on land value
information re-
ceived,
excessively
expensive.
These are
designated
"marginal".
-47-
IMPLEMENTATION: INTERIM MEASURES
The
following
implementation
measures
and policies
can
be undertaken
at once.
They
look
to
and lead
to
other
implementation
recommendations
for
joint
administrative
structure
and
securing
the land.
Defer Action
Defer action by all public agencies and jurisdicP
tions on zoning, uses, projects, and facilities pend-
ing adoption of this Plan.
2. Interim Santa Ana River Coordinator and Counci
The
most
effective
first step
toward
implementation
is:
--
put
someone in charge!
The County
should
appoint
a
Santa Ana River
Plan
Coordinator,
pending
more
formal
arrangements,
wi.th
the following
tasks:
*
Expedite
adoption of Plan
by
County
and cities.
*
Centralize
information.
*
Identify
threats and opportunities,
alert
relevant
agencies,
coordinate and
expedite
appropriate
ac-
tion.
*
Develop,
coordinate, and
administer
further
studies.
*
Organize
and report to Interim
Santa
Ana River
Coun-
cil,
Board
-appointed, including
but
not limited
to:
Regional
Parks Advisory
Team
Orange
County
Water District
Corps
of
Engineers
Planning
or Park Directors
of
Newport
Beach,
Hunting-
ton
Beach,
Costa Mesa,
Fountain
Valley,
Yorba Linda,
Anaheim,
Orange, Villa
Park,
Santa
Ana,
Garden
Grove
and other interested
Orange
County
cities
Citizen
groups: UCI-Project
21 Open
Space
Study Team,
Santa
Ana River Citizens
Advisory
Committee,
Tri-
County
Conservation League,
and others
As
soon
as
the Plan is official,
the Coordinator
should
be
assigned
to move toward
implementation
through
se-
curing
the
land and laying
groundwork
for a
joint River
Agency,
as
described later.
3. Begin Further Studies
a. Santa Ana Canyon - economic/social/environmental
study of open space and development alternatives;
long and short range costs and benefits.
Santa
Ana
Rivermouth
regional
park
-
feasibility
study
and
development
of
detailed
plans.
_48_
Santiago Creek - flood control needs, feasibili�
ty of retention basins and gravel pit rehabilita-
tion.
Organizational
structure
of
joint
River Agency
for
implementation
of
Plan.
Site Plan Review
following adoption of this Plan, site plans for all
public works and private developments in or near the
River corridor (including Santiago Creek) having en�
vironmental/visual impacts on the River corridor
should be carefully reviewed with reference to:
* setback, dedication, or scenic easement along
channel (200 feet)
* appearance: landscaping, building, signing,
fences and walls
* access, circulation, traffic
* relation to parks and open spaces
* multi -use possibilities
Pending more formal organizational structure, it is
recommended that zoning changes, use permits, subdi-
vision plans, and project plans of all kinds be sub®
mitted for review and advisory action by the Interim
Santa Ana River Council, investigation and staff work
to be by Coordinator and/or Consultant. Where possi-
ble, seek early contact for review and input before
plans are well advanced.
Zoning Review
Where existing zoning by a city or the County con-
flicts with the Plan, it should be reviewed and ad-
justed to carry out the Plan. Principal responsibili-
ty for this rests with the city or County having juris-
diction, but should be coordinated and expedited by
the SAR Coordinator.
In addition, the present SG Zone should be applied to
operating excavation areas so that rehabilitation
plans will be begun.
6. Riverside Coun
Initiate or assist coordination with Riverside County
to:
Preserve
the
large
(520
acres)
and
-below
immensely
value®
ble
ecological
area
lying
just
Prado
-49-
7
0
* Continue to seek flood plain management, rather
than any channelization whatsoever, below Prado
* Coordinate
plans
for
an open natural
Canyon
by
zoning,
preserves,
or
such measures
as are
most
feasible,
to
preserve
the Canyon as
a scenic
open
space
and
beautiful
doorway
between
the two
coun-
ties.
Beneficial Uses and Water Quality
The Santa Ana River Water
plans February hearings on
"beneficial uses" of River
Quality
Control
Board
adding
to its
list
of
water
two new
items:
Recreation and aesthetic enjoyment
Fish and wildlife maintenance
This is a must; County, cities, agencies, groups,
and individuals who support the River -Creek green-
belt concept should explicitly support these amend-
ments to the Board's list, so that quality standards
may be set appropriate for these very desirable and
necessary uses.
Citizen Particiaation
The Santa Ana River Citizens Advisory Committee
("Committee of loo") which has participated so effect-
ively in the development of this Plan should continue
as the core of an on -going coalition of groups and
individuals interested in the Santa Ana -Santiago Cor-
ridor. Citizen assistance will continue to be needed
to develop city and County support for the Plan (or
modify it as needed). Citizen assistance, inspira-
tion, and drive will be essential to implementation
of the Plan.
-50-
L®iNER ��N�A A RIVER
IPI�E EN��.�I®
FOUNTAIN VALLEY '.
HUNTINGTON BEACH '.
A
C
I
F
I
C
O
C
E
A
N
W6�t10n Y develo etby ME5A � ���� '�
" �q. � � P'n ^ �{„ ��� PrivaS-e Laved
oSecuoeplewpe✓t8va�ksurplaslands o s000ls � �i""+'�-- „_,.:�i_j PrivaY Land—ntarginal,seefexT
open
li.L4GY1f'Cl1
-soa�
ANAHEYM
Regional Park: ��'�
'6 urns Pits ® Gemmunity
1VIIDDLE SANTA PbI�A �IVE;I$ -sru feasb,lt �®® \` Park
dy engiaeer�ag ® e Atgu�s too of
IIViP%EI�IENTATI®N ° �rde �?� t.oreA `9®®® fardi
wH. to t° � n -(rail Res
Ezistin' par p D ® Ria Vis Stop
AgriculYkre .Sat reDAna� i e ®®® th0 � °� w- D�
° Eafouvngr us la s w, ® � '�' Ian
of Ag Presew e ®® � � 're I
° Arq re I �®
Greenbelt °St
Linkage. re - ®® s
F �
°At we user dtv�lo t
GARDEN GROVE rigkt, fi Pwa h ryt�� way _ 00 � +� `�` ti
£ �
Anaheim Sta.Uum `s - -�' s�
° �as�kr mutt 5°�' �� a ions rk
p°ssib�lte. fist �+! �� ..� Lt tole- a UntonalGl
6'"�` ✓ ° Ac ulsiYou riva �:eha6�l;tik
EXisTing n `"% `� ® ,, lands 9i
® _ �° Atquisiton °t fa
'., m F
,• orri ,.:
� G 4 Agrieult .,; � °Secure UI la„d.
e k cour use °t � ®®� _ _ Neighborhood. P rk
Pre roe ®O -.i Existing „a• �( l Rest Slop,
.� ° � Izad ®i > r `�-AgrttulYkrr" Y' rai
S� plau eaie:o __ � ® [T "Entourage use °f °Atgws h°n efi pri ta•'Y
'-Igkborhoo { �" � Outdao y Prescrue wfreeway r v.na is
rk � �„ w ovte Ac u�re land p
°Acquire — ��� �. ®® 1 � st' At lxli u� ° Ed atoa oa °S} pl u review
f d ..... u�siti � v opmea molt -use °f s, Greet+bel}
° I by o ange ,. L ,k
Regional Yark:
µfiller Basin
°JaiaT deuelopme t+oper t'on wits.
prficipatiow of County, Flood, CeaYrol Dist,
<ih<:, d watro�t
ui r p wife` land
Anal•.eim Lake
1 k: - •
Coon � Green belt
us land - °� � Linkage
re pnvare
'' edlydiow an�v easew,eat
uist}ow, 100'minimum
Regional vk:
VJaxner 8
.. °.1n�.Y ao, .,., e..t dnd. op rtiou by
Y t ou fy
t loads
Park
io lP k:
a: m Arno
° A sitiaw of lav�sad(t at LaYalwa
° Omit er u� w t deed aveas bu-r
seturc a
Atq u�re easem� or
�. . - + a wfh Inndstape. 0. age ui yow t
a AzrkulYur r the tt c°tnm W.� °Ae Vist �P I ;\
u re use + f e en.na fi
di i tm g e to Greeabdt lor.ld°r ° d elopm t rights (resce�
v s paY ° Enm rage se et °f power hoe nekt Sthodls
f L F Ay Prue ueu °fiway ac
lrf � ° dcquire (sad. ,NeighborHaor!- lark y,, t. i
° sit -plan revie�, � ° Developmertf by Anakeim
MIDDLE- SANTA ANA RIVER IMPLEME.
y ,j LEGEND
ORANGE o ... Greenbelt
"f Public < Quasi -Public Land
SANTA ANA 'T
.�,.� ,.,"�"�'' ? Private Land
o s000 tr ,. Private Land— marginal, see Text
° Serxro
_ann_
SOOC ft
-50c-
z �
i °;
VILLA PAH,i{
NO
R LEGEND
�-�„-. �" Public er Quasi -Public Lands
TUSTI�I Private lands
o s000 r� ,... , ,. , _. Private. lams- marginal, see text
�e t
usebadc
-50d-
IMPLEMENTATION: ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE
Needed: A Joint Agency
To treat the River -Creek Corridor as a unified resource,
to realize the remaining opportunities, to bring together
the fragmented jurisdictions and functions of multiple
County and city departments, special districts, State and
federal agencies, a partnership is needed. Not another
government, but a formal cooperative structure for deal
ing with the Corridor. A joint powers agreement would be
appropriate. Where implementation maps say "acquisition
by County and cities", a partnership agency is meant.
This would supersede the interim Coordinator and Coun-
cil.)
Powers and Responsibilities
The Agency (as we shall refer to it) should have the
following powers and responsibilities:
1. Interrelate the multiple agencies involved, set and
coordinate policies and priorities.
2. Buy, receive,
and
hold
land.
Pool
all
or some
public-
ly held
lands
and
devise
a
system
of
equalization
or
credits
to donating
agencies.
Where
title
transfer
is unfeasible,
unify
development
and
operation.
3. Financing.
Raise funds.
Apply for funds.
:9
Devise formula whereby member jurisdictions and
agencies have proportional financial responsibili-
ties based on population, assessed value, distance
from Corridor, and.other factors. .
to
share
the
burden
of
acquisition
or
develop-
ment
costs,
of
special.
regional
facilities
to raise matching funds toward State and federal
grants
to finance administrative and staff work, special
stu-dies
Respond to opportunities: negotiate, combine related
needs, etc.
Identify threats and deal with them.
_51a
6. Manage land use.
Decide what needs design review.
Develop review procedure, possible permit or ap-
proval procedure, and detailed guidelines.
Negotiate and manage zoning, leasing, preserves,
easements.
Develop sand and gravel excavation policy and
.conditions, rehabilitation guidelines.
Review and amend or revise Plan periodically, pre-
ferably every two years.
Advise publicly on development proposals, legislative,
or other measuresthat would affect the Corridor.
Tie in
to tri-county
or.
Basin
-wide organization
oriented
to
the
River
resource,
or tie in to County-
wide
organization
for
open
space and other environ-.
mental
aspects.
Why Is Such an Agencv Needed?
To
realize
the
opportunities
remaining
before they
too
are
lost
to
conflicting
local
policies
and expectations
conflicting
conflicting
standards,
fiscal
recreation
interests
needs
and
and
demands,
constraints.
financial
varying
capabilities,
or competing
The
proposed
plan
identifies
opportunities
and proposes
lands
and
uses
which
represent
a
broad
balance
of re-
sources
with
needs
and interests,
insofar
as these can
be
satisfied
within
the
Orange
County
portion
of the
River.
The Plan is nova definitive statement but an indication
of direction for detailed :planning. There will be room
to.accommodate many specialized needs and interests, in-
cluding concession or commercial interests, but the in-
terested party's question should be put to the Agency in
terms of "Where would be the best place for this use?"
rather than "We want to develop this here!" A single
land -holding, planning, and management agency makes it
possible to put the question properly, identify and
evaluate alternative- answers, and make a selection based
on a broad view and thoughtful balance of all factors,
not just local and vocal needs and pressures. A single
administrative agency avoids confusion and competition
among jurisdictions and agencies. By structuring the
interested parties, it expedites implementation of de-
sirable public or private projects.
-52-
We propose the County Board appoint a task force to de-
velop such a unified administrative agency with appro�
priate financial plans, perhaps with the assistance of
government organization and financing consultants. Ini-
tial financing should be sufficient for administrative
and staff costs, selected further studies, and some kind
of revolving fund so that the Santa Ana River Corridor
Coordinator can move quickly when opportunities arise.
�53-
IMPLEMENTATION: SECURING THE LAND
Securing
the
land
is
urgent.
So
little
is
left.
The
parcels
identified
are
only
part
of
the
little
that
is
left
which
relates
significantly
to
the
corridor;
we have
not
included
developed
parcels,
except
insofar
as
their
developmentcan
be
designed
for
compatibility
with
the
corridor.
Privately -owned Lands
Privately -owned lands to be secured are identified on
the maps, with indication where lease, leaseback, commer-
cial -recreation concession, etc. might be appropriate.
"To be secured" usually means acquisition.) In the middle
and lower reaches urbanization pressures are so intense
that easements, preserves, zoning, and similar measures
are not secure and are probably not even economically pre-
ferable. Private golf courses need to be secured as
permanent open space through scenic or open space ease-
ment, purchase or donation, or by "limited lease" (see
below).
Publicly Held Lands
Publicly held lands identified for park/open space use
must also be secured, not taken for granted. The Flood
Control District and Orange County Water District are
already committed and sympathetic and have played major
roles in developing this Plan. On their lands planning
and design are needed to implement the Plan. Ultimately,
these publicly held lands plus County and city -owned
portions might be pooled and held by a single Santa Ana
River corridor agency, as discussed later.
Federal surplus land east of the River at Edinger has
been acquired by Santa Ana as its Centennial Park. State
surplus land is available west of Fairview State Hospital
which the County should immediately join with Costa Mesa
to secure, for it is of outstanding value as a major re-
gional park in the constricted lower reach of the River.
Freeway remnants have been identified and incorporated.
The future Route 57 (Orange) Freeway must be carefully
located and designed to respect, implement, perhaps ex-
pand the greenbelt.
i There
is,
of
course,
no
perfect
security.
T
ere
are
too
many
examples
of
public
agencies
eager
to,
or
forced
by
.narrowly
conceived
law
to,
sell
off
excess
land,
hence
the
explicit
policy
that
all
publicly
held
lands
should
be
retained
and used
in
accordance
with
the
Plan
_54_
Excess Condemnation
Excess condemnation -- for freeways, flood control,
sewer, water and similar projects can yield usable open
space/recreation lands.To take full advantage of such
opportunities, the proposed "SAR Coordinator" has to
"centralize information" and initiate or assist joint
planning among the involved agencies.
Land Management
Land management measures for securing the land include:
Flood plain zoning, which should be applied at once in
the Santa Ana Canyon flood -endangered area and Upper
Santiago Creek as proposed in Phase I and in the UCI-
Project 21 Open Space Study Team report, Open Space in
Orange County. Agriculture and open space/recreation
uses can be allowed with certain conditions.
The flood plain zone should be delineated on the basis
of the Standard Project Flood, even though these
floods are rare and development is often permitted in
such areas -- with disastrous results. As the Corps
itself says:
Many local agencies have adopted regulations
to control and direct future development of flood
plains. However, if restricted development is al-
lowed in the selected flood limit and standard pro-
ject zones, as prescribed by local agencies, pres-
sure will probably be applied to permit encroachment
upon the open space. Therefore, open space in the
flood plains should be limited to open space and
related uses. No loopholes that would lead to other
development should be sanctioned.)
Conservation/Open Space zoning, which should be applied
at once to the Santa Ana Canyon hillsides. The County
and the cities of. Anaheim and Yorba Linda must deter-
mine mutually acceptable language which can be applied
uniformly. The no -channel and open -natural -canyon pro-
posals for the Canyon are interdependent and relate to-
gether to the protection of this natural resource area
for the public safety, health, and welfare. Firm
commitment by the jurisdictions plus coordination
with the Assessor is again needed, for, to quote Open
Space in Orange County (page 73), "land can still be
assessed at its value for subdivision or other improved
1 U.
Open
S.
Army
Space
Corps
and
of
the
Engineers,
Flood
Plain,
Los
1969,
Angeles
District,
p. 13.
-55-
uses if there is a reasonable possibility that the
zoning restriction will be removed".
A Conservation
permit,
stitutional
commended
compatible
uses.
"look"
and
Open Space Zone could
agricultural, recreation,
A natural open Canyon
and atmosphere. Among the
allow,
is
and
the
uses
by
in�
re-
com-
patible
with
this
objective
are:
Agriculture
Horse
ranching
Nursery
stock
growing
Game
bird
ranching
Fish
hatcheries
Agricultural
-horticultural
experiment
stations
Conference
center
Botanic
garden
Stables
and
equestrian
facilities
Camping,
picnicking,
trails
Resort
facilities,
carefully
sited,
planned, and
sized
for
compatibility
with
natural
open Can-
yon
look
Golf
courses
-
not
in
River
bottom,
but possibly
in
side
canyons
Nature
interpretive
facilities
Educational
facilities
Site plan review must be a requirement of the Zone or
superimposed as an overlay assuring detailed considera-
tion of visual impact, flood hazard, ecological impact,
access, traffic generated, etc. Uses must not be so
located or so sized as to create the need for channel-
izing the River or for anything more than modest "im-
provements" in the side canyons. All uses must be
planned for minimum intrusion on the open space char-
acter sought here.
In Santa Ana Canyon, at least, such zoning would be
in the public interest in many ways: preservation of
watershed, safeguarding water quality, preserving open
space natural areas, ecologically valuable areas, as
well as scenic and aesthetic values.
"The present rule, in California, seems to be that
while aesthetic purposes alone are insufficient,
they will be considered along with other factors of
public welfare in determining whether there has been
a proper exercise of the police power."
1.Open Space in Orange County, UCI-Project 21 Study Team,
_56_
"According to our higher courts, the danger in ex®
panding these controls, and particularly zoning, is
that we rapidly approach the prohibited 'taking' of
private property without compensation. While there
is reason for genuine concern, it is also remarkable
how elastic the decisions of our courts have been in
this area of the law. The more 'reasonable and
necessary' the enactment becomes, the more willing
our courts have been to permit regulations which
have resulted in the loss of value to property."l
Public agencies are not obligated to sustain _ath isspeculative
property values. They are responsible to do w
reasonable and necessary for the public welfare.
Agricultural and open space preserves under the Wiliiam�
on Act should be used wherever possible, for 10 years
or more of bought time is very worth while if the land-
owner is willing. One of the weaknesses of this method
is its voluntary nature.
The argument that this method unfairly shifts the tax
burden seems little applicable to the Canyon area.
Open space requires minimum public services and is, in
fact, the most "economic" use of land, while taxation
at some guessed -at subdivision potential here stimu-
lates the kind of urban sprawl which is most costly
and unpredictable -m on unstable, impermeable, steep
hillsides. As Los Angeles has found to its expense
and dismay with Santa Monica Mountains subdivisions,
unforeseen public costs arise later as engineering
proves an imperfect art, as grading ordinances assist
safety but produce ugliness, as lawsuits, new ordi�
nances, and citizen upsets proliferate.
Limited Lease. This method is appropriate for securing
golf courses as open space, and might apply to other
present and future privately developed outdoor recrea-
tion facilities as well as privately owned undeveloped
areas identified on the Plan.
"The County could lease private property having open
space recreational value. The lease would provide
the option of either buying at.a future date with in-
terim county operation of the recreation facilities,
or private operation with joint control over the fa®
cilities, operations and charges and a lower lease
payment to the private landowner to reflect taxes
that would otherwise be assessed against the land and
improvements."2
1 men Space in Orange County, p. 79.
2 Ibid.
m57®
Easements. Everybody talks about the great potential
of the the and open space easement technique, but
no one locally has much experience with it. (In the
East easements are bein used more and more, particu-
larly for golf courses. They are thoroughly legal
and available in California and constitute an enforce-
able restriction under which the owner may be re-
lieved of the tax burden of. possible higher uses. And
it is -- or can be -- permanent. Yet is has been
little used, and the conventional wisdom that has
arisen is that this method doesn't work in urban fringe
areas for the cost of development rights would approxi-
mate full fee. The cost would, of course, be simply
the value of the rights sold, which will vary widely
from property to property. The person in charge of
securing open space should test this method's feasi-
bility, not reject it out of hand. Experience gained
will be of broad interest.
Site Plan Review. The need to review all public and
private projects impacting the River corridor is urgent
and is discussed under "Interim Measures". It is also
a long-term, continuing need. An overlay zone, not
necessarily defining use but requiring review for con-
formity to Plan, guidelines, and standards (which need
some detailing) would accomplish this. Such zones are
commonly used for architectural control in Civic Center
areas, historical areas, etc. Such review can largely
be handled by the staff of the proposed Santa Ana River
joint agency. The staff could also consult on and
encourage site enhancement on private and public pro-
perties adjacent to the River as proposed for sewage
treatment and flood control facilities, and the res-
taurant, theater and Anaheim Stadium.
Scenic highway corridor implementation measures. As
urged in Open Space in Orange County, the County should
take the initiative in instituting corridor protection
measures including most of the above techniques to pro-
tect the scenic quality of the new Riverside Freeway.
Here the major issue surfaces again: will this highway
be "scenic" only in terms of prohibiting billboards and
planting some trees to help screen urban sprawl (hard to
do with hillside sprawl), or will it be scenic in the
fine old-fashioned way -- traversing a dramatic and
beautiful natural open area where rest and view stops
afford real rest and real view, a magnificent entrance
to the County. The State would, of course, be expected
to fulfill its responsibility in terms of prompt Freeway
landscaping.
Contractual purchase is a proposed method described in
Open Space in Orange County requiring State enabling
legislation, which the County should actively seek.
-58-
Briefly, it allows counties to acquire regional open
spaces of 50 acres or more under contract providing:
* county will pay all taxes on property until title
passes to it
* owner is restricted to certain open space uses
* term would be 40 years minimum, after which pro®
petty is deeded to county without additional
payment
As mentioned earlier, for open space preserves, ease
ments and zones, open space uses could include not only
agriculture but also recreational uses, possibly even
resort recreation under controls, which might be suf�
ficient to make this deal attractive to the owner.
For the public it would effectively preserve open
space for 40 years or longer and without immediate
large capital outlays. Presumably the Assessor would
set taxes based on the open space uses. ,-
There are many ways the public can preserve open space,
not all of them given here. More important than the
individual techniques is devising combinations with
initiative and flexibility.
®59_
IMPLEMENTATION: FUNDING SOURCES
HUD Open Space Grants
50/50 matching funds for acquisition of open space and
basic improvements such as roadways, signs, landscaping,
but not major construction. HUD judges applications
according to the following priority system:
1. Low income neighborhoods are first priority. Appli-
cations for such areas have never been turned down,
but little open space money is actually channeld to
such neighborhoods; often they lack the capability
to provide matching funds.
2.
"preservation
of
the
last
remnant of
open
space
avail-
able
in an area."
3. "preservation of any natural features which will help
to preserve the identity of any given area Too
often, runaway growth has resulted in one urban devel-
opment blurring into another. Here the acquisition
of stream valleys and ridge lines can help guide growth
and give a needed sense of harmony and compatibility
with the natural terrain."
4. "preservation of at least a few of those historic spots
which can help provide the kind of association with -the
past that can make the present more meaningful."
5. "provision of the kind of access to public open space
opportunities needed to make them more usef�l. For
example, the opening of a shore line area."
The priorities clearly indicate HUD's change of emphasis
from large remote tracts to lands providing visual and re-
creational relief in heavily populated areas:- HUD is also
interested in the use of innovative methods and less-than-
fee.techniques, and looks with great favor on collaborative
efforts among agencies and jurisdictions. In the years. we
have worked on the Santa Ana River for Riverside and now
for Orange County, we have had constant encouragement from
HUD but, to our knowledge, no applications have ever been
filed.
There is also a fund reserved for Demonstration Grants
under
this
program whereby
larger
grants -- up to�100%
in
certain
cases -- may be
sought
if there are unique
aspects
or
techniques which
HUD would
like to experiment
with.
.
National Recreation antl Park Association, Guide to New
Approaches to Financing Parks & Recreation, crA opor�s
Books, Washing, 1970, pp. 17-18.
_50_
Bureau of.Outdoor Recreation
Land and Water Conservation
Department of Interior,
50/50 matching funds for acquisition and development. The
Fund derives from motor boat fuel taxes, National Park
revenues,,surplus federal real property sales, and cer-
tain off -shore mineral leases. The Fund is administered
through the State,. which gets a proportional amount which
it in turn allocates within the State. Projects must be
eligible under the State's Outdoor Recreation Plan. Pri-
orities are as follows:
1. High quality, well documented projects.
2. Fund will assist in basic, rather than elaborate,
projects.
3. Project must serve .public's best interest in most
economic manner and provide most extensive opportu�
nity.
4. .fund will only consider assistance after all other
types of assistance have been sought.
The Secretary of the Interior retains contingency funds
for special projects. Riverside County Parks has applied
for such funds to acquire 900 acres in the River corridor,
as the amount needed exceeds what might reasonably be ex-
pected through regular allocation channels.
Title III, Elementary and Secondary Education Act
This title has been used to help establish outdoor teach-
ing areas in some localities.
Small Business Administration
When loans are not available privately at reasonalbe
terms, SBA finances by various methods small businesses
including resorts and other recreation enterprises which
contribute to the health or general well-being of the
public. (Private golf courses, for example, are not in-
cluded.)
Availability of financing may enable owners of open or
agricultural land to look favorably upon land management
and less -than -fee techniques outlined above, and will also
assist potential concessioners.
Water
and
Waste
Facilities
Planning
Water
Quality
Control
Measures
Water
Reclamation
Projects
With the crescendo of public and Congressional -Presidential
-61®
interest in pollution control and prevention and the re-
organization of federal agencies under the Environmental
Protection Agency, funding will be available for water
and waste management projects. Studies being made by
SAWPA, Orange County Water District; Sanitation Districts,
and others should be tied in to this Santa Ana River Open
Space and Recreation Plan so that multi -use opportunities
can all be coordinated.
Trail Funding
The new State -enabled tax on horses, with funds earmarked
for trail acquisition should be investigated. (The State
has not yet enacted laws enabling local jurisdictions to
use eminent domain and condemn for trails, but this is
still being sought.) Equestrian groups are trying to get
the Santa Ana River trail, long a feature of County and
city plans, designated on the State plan, which would
make it eligible for 50/50 matching funds from State
sources. Among the criteria.are scenic quality and rela-
tionship to urban areas. The latter is clear; the former
is the essence of this Santa Ana River Corridor Plan.
Wildlife Restoration Fund
This fund, amounting to $750,000 statewide, is administered
by the State Wildlife Conservation Board of the Department
of Fish and Game for land acquisition, development, and
preservation of key wildlife areas. The regular pari-
mutuel funding supporting the program has been enhanced.
by matching funds from the Federal Land and Water Conser-
vation Fund and other federal and local sources. Projects
have included fish hatchery and stocking, fish habitat de-
velopment and improvement, fishing access, fishing piers,
wildlife habitat development and improvement, hunting
access, and a few wildlife -related studies. In Orange
County the Fund has been used mainly for fishing piers and
reefs, but may have potential for fishing project develop-
ment and wildlife enhancement.along the Santa Ana River
corridor.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Corps projects are allowed 3% of total cost for beautifi-
cation and enhancement. Needless to say, the more costly
the project, the larger the amount for beautification.
However, since estimated time.to construction is eight to
ten years, and since project feasibility and desirability
must be judged on its merits and its benefit/cost ratios,
this source of funds should not be over -valued.
Tax Sources
Open Space in Orange County lists several possible tax
-62-
sources for funds to preserve open space which are appli-
cable to the Santa Ana River acquisition and development
needs.
Sales Tax on sporting oods: an additional sales tax
of one-half to one percent could be placed in a trust
fund.
Increase of existin Sales Tax: at the state level or
possibly at the local leve The report cites as an
example just one Orange County shopping center which
could produce $1 million per year at a 1% rate.
Highway Users' Tax increase: a one cent per gallon
charge would produce about $6 million per year for
Orange County but would require state legislative
action. Temporary use of this cent -a -gallon is the
favored method .for raising funds for repairing flood
damage. The popularity of recreational driving and the
fact that the automobile is the means of access to re-
gional recreation facilities validates this as a poten-
tial source for regional recreation facility funds.
Recreational Vehicle ticense could be state -required and
receipts rea ocate to counties for regional open space
and recreation.
Horse Tax: recent State enabling legislation permits
cities and counties to tax riding horses and earmark
funds for trail acquisition. Riverside has already
drawn up such legislation. On Board request, the Re-
gional Parks Advisory Team is investigating its useful-
ness for Orange County.
Real Estate Transfer Tax, now available to state and
local governments, is considered a feasible source for
open space funds according to Open Space in Orange Count ,
(page 78) which finds that the tax rate, even if raised
to 25¢ per $100 valuation would amount to a total of
$62.50 (only 1/4 of 1%) on a $25,000 home, $35 above the
present tax, and probably not enough to adversely affect
sales. The report also considers capital gains tax and
improvements -only ad valorem taxes but makes no favorable
comment.
General Funds, General Obligation Bonds, Revenue Bonds:
are well understood and need not be reviewed here. They
are both traditional and modern. The people of Orange
County have been showing increasing concern for open
space in their rapidly urbanising area. The administra-
tion of Orange County has been showing increasing concern
with the revenue gap caused by postponed and also unfore-
seen costs of growth. A major bond issue to secure a
"coast to canyon" greenbelt would, we feel, have an
-63-
excellent chance of success if the economics prove rea-
sonable. The recommended Canyon Environmental Design
Study would clarify the economic -social -environmental
costs and benefits of that portion.
Gifts
'Tis blessed to give, and there are tax advantages too!
For insight into the opportunities and complexities of
gifts and of foundations, see Guide to le NApproaches to
Financing Parks and Recreation, Nationa Re
creation andParks Association, pp. 75-83 with particular reference to
"unlimited deduction", pp. 81-82, whereby a donor can re-
ceive credit beyond the usual 30% limit.when his donation
is to a public agency for open space, park, recreation
purposes.
The key to the gift box is an individual whose specific
job it is to secure lands along the corridor for public
use and enjoyment, present and/or future, who is familiar
with all methods and with the owner's situation enough to
know when and how a gift might be "solicited".
The season for giving is all year, every year, and does
not stop when land is secured. Development should be
managed in such a way that gifts of land, easements,
special facilities, materials, and services are always
welcome and are actively solicited.
_6q_
IMPLEMENTATION
ACRES . . . AND DOLLARS
The
charts
which
follow
give
a
detailed
acreage
analysis
of the
Plan
proposals,
area
by
area
and
overall.
The Plan as presented is a modest proposal in terms of
its goal -- a Santa Ana River�Santiago Creek Corridor
Greenbelt ®- and the assignment to maximize recreation/
open space potential and identify opportunities. De-
veloped land has been excluded. Land fully committed to
development has, for the most part, been excluded.
The Plan
proposes
a greenbelt
area
of
approximately
8,400 acres,
trol District
or 13
channel)
square
along
miles
and
(excluding
around
37
the
lineal
Flood
Con-
miles
of River
and Creek.
The
overall
breakdown
is as
follows:
Publicly owned land
Quasi -public (SAVI, SCE, etc.)
Private
Agricultural
Gravel pits
Vacant
Marginal
TOTAL GREENBELT
3,,165
37%
805
10%
1,562
19%
384
5%
5,916
TOTAL GREENBELT-PLUS®CHANNEL
Acres Percent
293 3%
5,916 71%
8,372 100%
2.,000 approx.
10,372
The figures are for Orange County only, excepting Green
River Golf Course which lies in all three counties. The
large and extremely valuable 520-acre ecological preserve
in the upper Canyon in Riverside County and the adjacent
75-acre agricultural area in San Bernardino County are
vital parts of this coast-to-Prado link of the projected
tri-county Santa Ana River Greenbelt Park, "coast -to -
crest", which may yet prove the possible dream.
The obvious question is: how much will it all cost? This
Plan cannot answer that question. Land costs and private
ownership information were specifically excluded from the
Consultants' scope of work at the outset due to limited
time and funds. Moreover, most areas and projects proposed
-65-
in the Plan can be implemented in various ways, as indi-
cated on the Implementation maps and in the report.
Difficult as it is to make sound market value estimates,
even with time and funds, it is next to impossible to
estimate easement costs, leasing costs, and other less -
than -fee techniques without actual negotiation. Hence
the recommendation for immediate appointment of a Santa
Ana River Corridor Coordinator empowered to negotiate,
with a revolving fund.
Marginal Lands
At the conclusion of the planning effort, when greenbelt
areas and implementation ideas generally acceptable to
the planning participants had been worked out, the Plan-
ning Department supplied assessed value data for those
areas (non-agricultural) designated for acquisition --
acknowledging problems of (1) estimating market value
from assessed value and (2) Plan area designations not
corresponding to Assessor's parcels. Nonetheless, the
assessed value data served as a preliminary check on
economic feasibility of some of the areas shown on the
Plan. As a result, several were designated "marginal".
Lands designated "marginal" on the Implementation maps
are those private lands which, in light of assessed
valuation data provided, were judged excessively costly
relative to their probable open space/recreation value.
This judgment was made in terms of the overall Plan,
its relationships, and the recommended priorities. For
example, certain River mouth area lands had values as
high as some designated "marginal" but were deemed criti-
cal to one of the Plan's great potentials, while a re-
latively minor node along the narrow channel greenbelt
portion was put in the marginal group.
Lands designated "marginal" total 384 acres, with an
estimated value (at four times assessed value) of over
$13,500,000, upwards of $35,000 per acre average.
Marginal
lands
are retained
in
the Plan,
however, since
this
preliminary
check
method
is crude.
These lands are
integral
and
desirable
in the
greenbelt
scheme and should
be
secured
if
possible
at reasonable
cost.
-66-
C ORRIOOR GREENBELT TOTALS: ACREAGE ANALYSIS
TOTAL
QUASI
PUBLIC OWNERSHIP
PUBLIC
PUBLIC
PRIVATE
SUBTOTAL
low
River
18.1
206.8
10.88
307.9
223.7
767.38
30.93
1,022 .60
1,820.91
Riddle
Rive r
52.9
429. e4
60.81
31.94
232 .87
808.36
2fi.e7
1,247.48
2,082.71
Santa
Ana
76.46
205
265
466.46
235.i5
2,315
3,036.61
Canyon
Santiago
Creek
10
92
702
1,330.23
1,432 .23
Total
'Greenbelt
86.46
20fi .8
429.84
87 .fi9
339.84
753.57
265
2,763.20ac
292.95a<
5,915.37*ac
8,372.46 ac
* The breakdown of the total private land is.
Totals vary due Co r,un ding.
LOWER SANTA ANA RIVER: ACREAGE ANALy S[S
Agricultural
3,165
Gravel pits
Vacant
1, 562
14
384argina7 384
PUBLIC OWNERSHIP
QUASI PUBLIC
PRIVATE
SUBTOTAL
3 SCE**
79.49 *
Addition
Hwys.
.93
27. SCE**
46.80
292.42
30.93
126 .29
River
10.8fl
47 .7
608.5
667.08
Mouth
Nw pt.
Bch.
Fairview
1':
269.7
12.23
Area
Hos p.
137.03
431.06
17.1
41
Industrial
709.8
71.5 linkage
Park Area
68.0 along
789.30
79.5 channel
Centennial
bfi
25. 72 *
Park Area
Santa
fi.00
97. 72
Ana
3i-12
Wiliowick
110.
33.93 *
143. 93
Golf Course
-
Garden
Area
Grave
Totals
18.1 206.8
10.88
307.9 223.7 30.93 ac 150. 77
767.38 ac
* Marginal Land
** Southern California Edison
871.83
7 ,022.fi0 ac 7,820. 91 ac
MI OGLE SANTR ANA RIVER: AL RE AGE ANALYSIS
' PUBLIC OWNERSHIP
QUASI PUBLIC
PRIVATE
SUBTOTAL
LL
Alona Park
a P
19.86*
72,g2
Area
33 Riverview
9.56 off Manchester
'
43 Santa Ana
29. 2
An ah ei
Stadium
154 Anaheim
33.44*
Area
Stadium
408. 30 Agri.
- 687.44
91_70 Sunkist Agri.
533.44 Preserve
Burris
�
9. 3
9. 94
19.87
Pit
Rt. 57
Anaheim
�
138.19 Pits
187.43
Frwy.
L incain
25.37
26.87
52
104.24
Taft Area
SAV[***
Rio Vista
16.74
13.51
91.64^
130.90
School
9, 01
Area
100.65
Motor 14ode1
Minibi kes
fig
-
69
Are
Warner
224.3
10. 00*
252.59
Basin Area
18.29
2<� 9
Lincoln-
Glassell
173.78 Pits
113.78
Area
MIOOLE SANTA ANA RIVER Conti.: ACREAGE RNALYSIS
PUBLIC OWNERSHIP
UASI PUBLIC
PRIVATE
SUBTOTAL
Ri ve rd al.e
-
'
School
13.3
- 57.61
70.91
Area
Crescent -
Vista
34
12 Rt.91
16
Oel Rio
Frwy.
Anaheim
$2
School Are
Surplus
La Palma
116.60
176.60
Area
I4iller
52.9
70
122. 90
8 asin
Anaheim
85
85
Lake
J efifers on
-
7.5
7.5
Linkage
Totals
52.9
429.84
60.87
31.94
232.87
26.87 a
2$1.97 Pits
2,082.71 ac
808. 36 ac
hia rginal
Land
***
Santa Ana
Valley
Irrigation
Co.
500.00 Agri.
15 q.94*
340.57 Private
1 ;e�48 ac
-68-
S ANTA ANA CANYON: ACREAGE ANRLY SIS
486.46
PUBLIC OWNERSHIP
QUASI PUBLIC
.PRIVATE -
SUBTOTAL
Horseshoe Bend
16,46
10.15 SAVI***
880 Agri.
1;176.61
Area
270
T-I M
Walnut Canyon
205 Anaheim
205
Golf Course
Featherly
Park Area
265
670 Agri.
835
Green River
Golf Course
225 SAVI***
595 Agri.
820
Area
Totals
16.46
265
205
235.15 ac
2,045 Agri.
270 Private
ac
*** Santa Ana Valley Irrigation Co.
S ANTIAGO CREEK: ACREAGE ANALYSIS
2�5 at - 3,036.61 ac
102.00
PUBLIC OWNERSHIP
QUASI PUBLIC
PRIVATE
SUBTOTAL
ra
Santiago
Park -
30 Santa Ana
77. 89*
107,89
Hart Park
21 Hart Park
Area
30 Golf Course
54.54
105.54
li Orange
10
9 Orange
25
44
Newport
552.8 Pits
1,172.8
jFisher
Agri.
2.0 Santa Ana
]620
2 0
10
92
77 89*
ac
* tia rginal Land
620.00 Agri.
79.54 Private
,3340.23 ac 1,432.23 ac
-69-
THE SANTA ANA RIVER CORRIDOR IN THE
REGIONAL OPEN SPACE PICTURE
SCAG's
recently
adopted
Interim
Open
S ace
Element con-
tains
figures
significant
to consideration
of t 2 Santa
Ana River
-Santiago
Creek
Corridor
Plan.
The following figures are from three tables showing
regional recreation deficiencies currently, in 1980,
and in 1990.1
1970 Acres Existing
3
Pop. Req'd.2 Acres
Orange
County
1,460,000
8,760
2,489
Los
Angeles
County
75206,000
43,236
16,341
1980 Acres
Pop. Req'd.
Orange County 25275,000 13,650
Los Angeles County 893135000 493878
1990 Acres
Pop• Req'd.
Orange County 258345200 17,005
Los Angeles County 938395900 56,339
The proposed greenbelt is approximately 8,400 acres,
excluding the channel. Recreation space would be less
than 5,000 acres, of which about one -fifth would be
local facilities.
Furthermore,
the
River
cuts
right
through
areas
identi-
fied
as
among
the ten
areas
facing
greatest
density
in-
creases
in the
next
two
decades.
The
Anaheim,
Buena
Park,
and
Santa
Ana
areas
are
also
among
the
ten
expected
to
have
highest
densities
in
the
entire
SCAG
region
by
Southern California Association of Governments, Inter-
. im Open Space Element, Southern California Regional
Development Guide, September, 1970, p. 15.
2 At a standard of six acres per thousand.
3 Developed and partly developed county and city facili-
ties only.
-70-
1990.1
The Santa
Ana
River,
significantly,
is one of
only four
major rivers
identified
on the
"Open
Space Concept
Pl.an"
The others
are
the
San
Gabriel,
Los
Angeles, and
Santa
Clara Rivers.
Goals
and
policies
stated
in the
SCAG
Plan are
carried
out
very
thoroughly
in this Santa
Ana
River Corridor
Plan.
In brief,
they
are:2
"l.
Preserve
the
physical
characteristics
of the
region.
.
il
"2,
Promote
open
space
within
the
urban areas
to
provide
contrast
and
relief
from the
forces
and effects
of
the
urban
environment
.
exemplified
at
the
regional
scale by
the Santa
Monica
Mountains,
Santa
Ana
River flood
plain,
etc."
"3.
Encourage
preservation
of
productive
agricul-
tural
land
not
only
for
its
value in
providing
food
and
fiber
but
also
as
open space
relief
from
urbanization."
"4.
Urban
parks
--
promote
development
of
neigh-
borhood
and
community
parks
. . all
"5.
Promote
coordination
and
integration
of open
space
and
urban
development
policies,
espe-
cially
those
policies
directed
at bringing
about
desired
urban
growth."
"6.
Preserve
and
protect
historic,
scenic,
geo-
logical,
and
archeological
sites . .
."
The Santa Ana River Corridor Greenbelt is clearly of re-
gional significance and urgency. Ideally, there should
be a regional method for implementing such projects, and
this may come. Meanwhile, Orange County and its cities
have the challenge and responsibility to move ahead be-
fore the opportunities are further diminished or lost.
entirely.
1 SCAG,
Interim
Open Space Element, pp. 18-21.
2 Ibid.
p.
22.
-71-
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brooks, Mary E., Planning for Urban Trails, ASPO
Report #252, December 1969.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, Compiled
for the Executive Office of the President by the
Office of Economic Opportunity, January 1969,
The Ecology of the Santa Ana River, prepared by
Tri-County Conservation League, Mimeo., Prelimi-
nary, 1970,
Economic Impact of a Regional Open Space Program,
prepare for People for Open Space, by Development
Research Associates, Economic Consultants,
Los Angeles, 1969,
Feasibilitv Studv for Reoional Parks in the Santa
Hna canyon Area, preparea ror the Kegionai YarKs
Advisory Team by Orange County Planning Department,
May 1969,
Federal Assistance in Outdoor Recreation, Department
of Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation,
Washington, D. C., 1968.
Final Report, Joint Committee on Open Space Land,
California Legislature, February 1970.
Foothills Environmental Design Study, prepared
for Palo Alto by Livingston & Blayney, City and
Regional Planners, a series of four reports,
1970-71.
Guide to New Approaches to Financing Parks &
Recreation, National Recreation and Park Association,
ed. by Robert M. Artz and Hubert Bermont, Acropolis
Books, Washington, D. C., 1970.
Holling, C. S. and A. D. Chambers, Report to the
Santa Ana Watershed Planning Agency Concerning
Resource Management in the Santa Ana Watershed,
July 1970.
Interim Open Space Element, Southern California
Association of Governments, September 1970.
-72-
Little, Charles E., Challenge of the Land, Open
Space Action Institute, New York, 1968.
Man and Nature in the City, Department of Interior,
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Washington,
1968.
The
Master Plan of
Regional
Parks
for Orange
County,
as amended,
Committee
prepared
by Orange
for
County
Regional Parks
Planning
Advisory
Department,
1966.
National
Scenic
and
Recreation Trails,
Department
Washington,
of
D.
Interior,
C.,
March
Bureau
1970,
of Outdoor Recreation,
Open Space in Orange County, Report of the UCI�Project
21 Study Team on Preserving Open Space in Orange
County, UC Extension, Irving, March 1970,
Open Space Law in California, A Staff Report to the
Joint Committee on Open Space Lands, California
Legislature, October 1968,
Open Space: The Choices Before California, The
Urban Metropolitan Open Space Study, prepared for
the California State Office of Planning, November
1965, by Eckbo, Dean, Austin & Williams, published
by Diablo Press, San Francisco, 1969.
Orange County
Report I
General
Planning
Program,
Summar
Orange County General Planning Program, Program
Overview, Part III, Orange County Planning Depart-
ment, 1969.
Patterns
on
the
Land: People,
Open
Space,
Water,
Money,
at Riverside,
University
1969,
Extension, University
of
California
Phase I Report: Santa Ana River�Santiago Creek Op
Space and Recreation Study, prepared for Orange
County Planning Department by Eckbo, Dean, Austin
& Williams, July 31, 1970.
Private Assistance in Outdoor Recreation, Depart-
ment of Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation,
Washington, D. C., 1970.
-73-
Recreation
170,
A
General
Planning
Program
Report,
Planning
Department,
November
1970,
Orange
County
Review Report on Flood Control and Water Conserva-
tion in Santa Ana River Channel, prepared for Orange
County Flood Control District and Orange County
Water District by Leeds, Hill and Jewett, Inc.,
Consulting Engineers, San Francisco, August 1969.
Santa Ana River Regional Park Study, prepared for
Riverside County by Eck o, Dean, Austin & Williams,
May 1968.
The Southwest -- Open Space. and the Flood Plain,
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District,
(1969)6
_7q_
1'
,
-�
1-y
-��_
�._
�,..
__
� 1.
�.�-
-
�t
�, - -:r=-
Environmental
Planning
Division
Participating
Staff:
William Laubly, Senior Planner
Bill Cunningham, Project Director
Richard Bailey, Graphics
Brian Greenberg, Research
John Allday, Photography
Gary Voorhest, Cover Design
Prepared by:
ECKBO, DEAN, AUSTIN & WILLIAh95
Landscape Architects, Environmental Planners
7440 North Figueroa Street
Los Angeles, California 90041
Francis N. Dean, Partner -in -charge
Jared Ikeda
Royce Neuschatz
-75_
"Dear Sir or Ladies,
In regard to the 'hobo jungle' -- I hope you
leave a little spot for them. Because a lot
of people thank knew feel know that S.A.
River is a real 'groovy place.' Or being
that one likes to qet next to nature every
once & awhile. So don't make it look too
are when you decide to use your vacum
cleaner. Make it good for hikers, bikes, or
generally park. Hope they don't sweep all
of the rocks away etc.
When
you's
sick
at
heart
-- go
forth
under
the open sky
&
list
to
Nature's
teachering."
--Anonymous note to Anaheim
City Hall, in red ballpoint
scrawl on postcard.