Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Coast Freeway - ORA 60 - Freeway Agreements - Pacific Coast
/7( /'-�SS�'/�7�L y 7-�R�S�4r�jfi'�'/lit/ c0/✓I/�.Z TTE� cd•�� The City Council of Huntington Beach, at its regular meet- ing held Monday, July 6, 1970, adopted Resolution No . 3187 opposing AB 1701, which proposes to delete, without study or evidence, the portion of Route 1 freeway from Atlanta Avenue to the Santa Ana River, within the City of Huntington Beach. Enclosed. is a copy of Resolution No. 3187 and your support in our opposition to AB 1701 is urgently solicited . Sincerely, Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ: aw: pa Enclosure 7-Ora.,LA-1824o I. PROPOSAL This report concerns the freeway location of the portion of State Highway Route I from 0.2 mile south of Adams Avenue at Beach Boulevard in the City of Huntington Beach to proposed Route 240, 1.2 miles south of Bay Boulevard. The length of this line is approximately 7.5 miles. Also considered is the extension of Route 240 from the end of its present adoption at Route 22 in Seal Beach to proposed Route 1, 1.2 miles south of Bay Boulevard. The length of this portion is approximately 2.(,), miles . II. PRINCIPAL CITIES AND COMMUNITIES The Route 1 and Route 240 freeway alternates pass through the following cities and communities in the counties of Los Angeles and Orange with populations as shown: Huntington Beach 78,,406 Seal Beach 19,9o8 Surfside and Sunset Beach 1,456 III. EXISTING HIGHWAY A. General Route I - The legislative description covering the portion of Route 1 discussed in this report is "from Route 5 south of San Juan Capistrano to Route 101 near El Rio. " The existing highway is identified locally as Pacific Coast Highway and State Sign Route 1. It is also identified as Ocean Avenue in the City of Huntington Beach. The existing highway is 4 lanes with varying shoulder widths and is included in the Federal-aid System under the designation of FAP 28. Present planning calls for development of the existing highway to a conventional 4-lane divided facility with left-turn pockets and signals prior to freeway con- struction. Between Beach Boulevard and Bay Boulevard, this improvement has been programmed in three units,, with construction beginning in the 1966-67 fiscal year. -I- -2- 7-Ora,LAm1,240 Agreement No. 1461, executed on April 21, 1964, between the State and Orange County provides for raising and widening the Anaheim Bay Bridge on existing Pacific Coast Highway. This project was initiated in order to improve channel access from the ocean to the Huntington Harbour development and a planned county aquatic park. It is scheduled to be advertised for bids in the near future. The State's participation will consist of contributing a sum equal to the cost of widening the existing structure and approaches on existing alignment and grade. The Pacific Electric Railway parallels existing Route 1 on the south side. Because of its uncertain future, estimates in the attached summary of compara- tive data reflect freeway costs with and without continued operation of the railway. Route 240 e The legislative description of Route 240 is from Route 1 near Seal Beach to Route 405. " The route is nonexistent. B. Principal Deficiencies Route 1 m The existing highway has no access control, lacks separate turning lanes, and has insufficient capacity to handle anticipated future traffic . Route 240 m There is no existing Route 240. Early selection of the routing is desirable to facilitate local planning and development. As proposed, it would provide an important freeway link and would lend itself to stage construction in usable units. IV. TRAFFIC A. Present Traffic on Existing Route I . The 1965 Traffic Census shows an average of 25,000 to 30,000 vehicles per day between Beach Boulevard and Bay Boulevard. Peak month daily traffic was 30,000 to 4o,000. Trucks represented about 5 percent of the total. B. Future Traffic on Alternate Routes The anticipated daily traffic for the year 1990 is 125,000 vehicles for the Red line and 115,000 vehicles for the Green line on a continuous freeway routing from Beach Boulevard to Route. 22. m3® 7-Ora JA-1,24o C. Accidents Accident rates for existing Route 1 between Beach Boulevard and Route 22, a distance of 11.95 miles, are shown below: Number of Number of Accidents Fatalities Year Accidents Fatalities Per MVM Per 100 MVM 1962 390 4 3.89 3.99 1963 519 15 4.70 1.3.57 1964 530 9 4.07 6.92 1965 457 9 3.74 7.36 By way of comparison, the 1964 State-wide average for 4-lane undivided rural highways showed a rate of 3.66 accidents per million vehicle miles and 9.45 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles. V. ROUTE PLANNING Route 1 and Route 240 are included in the California Freeway and Expressway System. Route 1 is also included in the State Scenic Highway System. The portion of Route 240 north of Route 22 and the portion of Route P2 east of Los Cerritos Channel were adopted on October 20, 1954. The portion of Route 22 west of Los Cerritos Channel and a connecting portion of Route 1 through Long Beach were adopted on July 21, 1965. Route 1 south of this project through Newport Beach was adopted on May 22, 1963, and design is in progress. A Route 240 location between Bay Boulevard and Route 22, part of the present study, was previously considered. In this connection, a Division public hearing was held on August 31, 1961: and a California Highway Commission hearing was held on July 24, 1962. On February 28, 1963, action was deferred by the Commis- sion until related route planning was further advanced. The status of other parts of the California Freeway and Expressway System in the general vicinity of the present route proposals is as follows: (1) The San Diego Freeway (Route 405) north and west of Beach Boulevard (Route 39) is completed. (2) The San Gabriel River Freeway (Route 605) is either completed or under construction from the San Bernardino Freeway (Route 10) to its terminus at the San Diego Freeway (Route 405) . -4- 7-Ora.,LA-1,240 (3) The Route 240 freeway between Route 405 and Route 22 is currently under construction. (4) The Garden Grove Freeway (Route 22) from the San Diego Freeway (Route 405) to the Santa Ana Freeway (Route 5) is completed, except for a 2.2-mile length east of Bolsa Chica Road currently under construction. (5 ) The proposed Route 39 freeway which joins the Route 1 portion of this study in the City of Huntington Beach is being studied. VI. MASTER PLANS In the City of Huntington Beach, the Master Plan of Highways., as well as plans for land use., was considered in the studies . No location for the freeway is indicated on these plans. A report entitled " Preliminary Plan Seal Beach" dated December 9, 1965, has been prepared for the City of , Seal Beach by Design Associates, Inc. It shows a freeway route approximating the Red line location for Routes 1 and 240 from the vicinity of Warner Avenue to Route 22. Through the City of Seal Beach, Route I is also shown to continue northwesterly from approximately Bay Boulevard to a connection with the east termi- nus of the adopted Route 1 freeway at Pacific Coast Highway in Long Beach. The City of Long Beach General Plan of Highways and Freeways shows a proposed alignment for the Route 240 freeway as an extension of Route 605 south of Route 22 to Pacific Coast Highway. The Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways shows a location for the Route 1 freeway that conforms quite closely to the Red line and terminates at Pacific Coast Highway in Seal Beach. The location of Route 240 is similar to the alignment shown on the Long Beach General Plan of Highways. VII. PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTION The estimates of cost for both Routes 1 and 240 are based on development of an 8-lane freeway with a 36-foot wide median. VIII. STUDIES OF ALTERNATE ROUTES Studies for the Route 1/240 freeway location were Initiated in March 1964. -5- 7-Ora,,IA-1,240 The two alternates presently under consideration are shown in green and red on the attached map. The alternates are identical except for the section .between the Slater Avenue Flood Control Channel and Point "Ago . Other preliminary studies dis- cussed with local officials were eliminated from consideration prior to the public hearing because of excessive cost, poor traf- fic service, conflicts with major controls and developments, The attached summary of comparative data shows the total cost of alternates for the 10.5-mile study. The total cost of the Red line is estimated to be $60.2 million and the Green line is about $84 million. The major part of this difference is in the cost for rights of way. Traffic and land use data are also tabulated for comparison. IX. CONSIDERATION OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND RESOURCES A. Schools All studies have been coordinated with the Ocean View School District Master Plan. The Green line . affects two proposed sites for future schools near Bolsa Chica Avenue. The Red line also affects one of these sites. This site planning is still flexible and school, authorities offered no objection to either alternate. The Red line also affects two acquired school sites in the Huntington Harbour development, one on Saybrook Lane at Bolsa Chica Channel and the other on Algonquin at Heil Avenue where construction is now in progress. A corner of each site will probably be required for freeway construction because of other controls. School authorities anticipated no particular problems with development at either site. However, at meetings subsequent to the public hearing,, they expressed con- cern that the Red line might create an unsatisfactory situation at both sites. These difficulties now appear to have been reconciled as discussed in Section XII. B. Recreation and Park Facilities The Division of Beaches and Parks furnished plans for a proposed addition to Bolsa Chica Beach State Park. Special consideration was given to the positioning of the Green line to avoid interference with a tri- angular parcel of beach frontage to be added to the park at the southwest corner of Warner Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway. -6- 7-Ora,,LA-19240 Consideration was given to the proposed 64--acre Orange County Aquatic Park. The Green line is . compatible with park development and will provide a bridge for small craft access from the ocean to the park as well as to other inland waterways. The Red line will separate the park and navigable waters from the Naval Weapons Station with an alignment along the station's safety are perimeters. The Corps of Engineers has under way a feasibility study of a proposed recreational harbor including offshore improvements and the need for an additional. navigation entrance south of Huntington Harbour. A high-level bridge has been considered and could be provided on the Green line for a channel crossing near Warner Avenue9 but in the absence of presently navigable waterways, this cost was not added to the Green line estimate. C. Airport The Division met with Orange County Airport repre- sentatives to review the proposed freeway location with respect to possible future extension of the Meadowlark Airport runway. The alignment meets all anticipated requirements. The airport is now oper- ating oy4 a limited basis and a portion of the property has been designated as a. possible future school site. D. U. S. Naval Weapons Station Both the Red and Green alternates pass through the Naval Weapons Station at Seal Beach, a rigid alignment control. The freeway locations had to meet certain critical Station requirements for safety and the maintenance of operational integrity. With the co- operation of the Navy in a series of meetings, it has been possible to develop the two satisfactory locations proposed. These will meet all safety are requirements and are compatible with proposed channel revisions to separate pleasure boats from the hazards of ammunition loading operations in Anaheim Bay. E. Haynes Power Plant The Haynes Power Plant, owned and operated by the City of Los Angeles, was a major consideration in freeway location studies. Numerous locations east and west of the plant were investigated but were strongly opposed by the Department of Water and Power due to their effect on existing and planned facilities. -7m 7-Ora,LAm1,240 The study lines were reduced to the single proposed alignment in order to avoid serious disruption and excessive costa The proposed line occupies the Los Alamitos Flood Control Channel right of way between the plant and Leisure World. The channel would be maintained by viaduct construction and by a box culvert under a fill section. The Department of Water and Power considers this proposal acceptable since there is vacant land available to meet right of way replacement requirements on the south side of Westminster Avenue. F. Property Values and Impact on Tax Rolls 1. General Considerations In general, large scale investment and development are proposed or under way throughout the study area. The determination of a freeway routing and its construction as a part of an expanding road network will assist the communities in reaching planned land use and economic objectives and will enhance the local tax base. 2. Leisure World The unique financial structure of the Leisure World retirement community of approximately .11,000 people makes the replacement of required right of way a matter of critical importance. Of particular concern to the management is the growing uncertainty, attributed to the route adoption proposals, regarding the resale of living units as they become vacant. The effects of reduced occupancy upon the financial commitments of a given mutual unit and upon the entire community are discussed at length in the public hearing record. Leisure World representatives have reviewed freeway alignments and interchange requirements. Discussions covered ways in which right of way taking might be re- duced and the possibility of replacing right of way and living units by an exchange of State-owned property adjacent to Leisure World. G. Major Developments 1. North American Aviation North American Aviation has site preparation under way for the first phase of construction of a $30 million aerospace complex on a 124-acre site bounded by Bay Boulevard, Westminster Avenue, and the proposed freeway. About 2,700 employees are presently assigned to the 7-OraLA-1,240 adjacent NASA facility and the new complex will accommodate approximately 9,000 more personnel. North American representatives have requested cer- tain freeway design refinements to permit optimum site development. 2. Huntington Harbour This 875-acre,, $200 million residential marina., planned for 2,000 families, is partially constructed and was viewed as a major alignment control. The positioning of the Red and Green alternates reflects this consideration. 3. Bolsa Chica Properties The Bolsa Chica Marina is proposed for development in an oil field lying immediately behind Bolsa Chica Beach State Park. The proposed freeway swings inland behind this 2,000-acre site. 4. Huntington Beach Company Construction is scheduled to begin soon on a 6,000 residential unit development to include a golf course and community and commercial facilities. Development is plan',,,11.ed to be compatible with present and future oil field operations. The proposed freeway lies in- land of this 700-acre., ocean-oriented property. H. Aesthetic Values This portion of Route 1, generally a coastal routing, is included in the State Scenic Highway System. Both proposed alternate locations traverse low lying areas somewhat removed from the ocean. Where the Green line follows the existing coast highway along Sunset Beach, the elevation of the freeway would offer the motorist increased opportunities for an ocean view which Is now impaired by a strip of beach home development. The Northwesterly Orange County Coastal Projects Coordinating Committee concluded that an inland align- ment would preserve the integrity and scenic importance of the beachfront. The Seal Beach Preliminary General Plan integrates a Route 1/240 freeway green belt concept with proposed park development and considers adJacent landscaped settings for freeway travelers. -90 7-Ora,,LA-1,24o I. City Streets, County Roads and Regional Transportation The proposed freeway routings are a part of the State- wide Freeway and Expressway System and are recognized as major elements in the traffic circulation system in the local master plans previously discussed under Section V1. The indicated user benefits show that the freeways would add appreciably to the traffic service of the basic road network. This reflects improved local distribution and circulation and improved through traffic service with attendent relief of local facilities . Each freeway proposal is compatible with waterway and marina development. Existing and proposed streets and proposed major road extensions would permit excellent interchange spacing. Both alternate freeway locations would retain the coast highway for beach access and other local service. Planned interim improvements to present Route 1 were discussed previously in Section III. J. Other Factors 1. Materials and _Qeo.loEy The possible effect .of the active Newport-Thglewood fault zone on freeway structures was a major factor in determining the proposed alignment southerly of Talbert Avenue in Huntington Beach. Preliminary materials investigations Indicate that more detailed study during design will be required to determine specific construction methods that may be employed to minimize differential subsidence through oil well sites, slough areas, and peat deposits. 2. Drainage Although there are a number of major flood control channels in the area, no major drainage problems are anticipated. X. ACTION TAKEN SUBSEQUENT TO INITIATION OF STUDIES A. Conferences In addition to the meetings previously discussed in Section IX, a series of informal meetings has been held with the Roads and Traffic Subcommittee of =10- 7®Ora,LA-1,240 NOCC PCC., This organization, with broad, representative membership, was formed by the Orange County Board of Supervisors in July 1963 to coordinate all aspects of area-wide planning. Other meetings to review the progress of studies were held with local officials and technical staffs and with representatives from governmental agencies, busi- ness and development firms, and community organizations including Leisure World, B. Local Authorities Notified of the Provisions of Section 75.5 of the Streets and Highways Code The Orange County Board of Supervisors, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, the City of Huntington Beach, the City of Seal Beach, and the City of Long Beach were notified of the initiation of studies on March 3, 1964, and of the public hear- ing on December 29, 1965 . Community values were discussed with the local jurisdictions during the course of route studies. Each jurisdiction directly affected presented or endorsed information and recom- mendations regarding community factors for the public hearing record. C. State Agencies Contacted in Conformance with Section b4 of the Streets and Highways Code and SCR lq__LLq581 The State Lands Division, the Department of Conserva- tion, the Department of Parks and Recreation, the Division of Beaches and Parks, and the Division of Small Craft Harbors were notified of route studies on March 3, 1964, and were advised of the public hear- ing on December 29, 1965. Early comments were received from the last three agencies; the Department of Parks and Recreation and the Division of Small Craft Harbors submitted route recommendations for the hearing record. D. Other Agency Contacts The Department of Water Resources, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Fish and Came, the State Department of Education, The State Office of Planning, the State Cemetery Board, the Public Utilities Commis- sion, the Division of Aeronautics, the Interdepartmental Committee on Scenic Highways, the Advisory Committee on a Master Plan for State Scenic Highways, the U. S. 7-Ora.,IA-1,24o Army Corps of Engineers, the Federal Aviation Agency, and the U. S. Naval Weapons Station were notified of the initiation of studies and of the public hearing. The Department of Water Resources, the Department of Fish and Game, the U. S. Army Corps of aig*Lneers., and the Federal Aviation Agency replied to study announcements but reported no planning conflicts. In addition.,to the agencies listed above, the U. S. Department of the Interior was notifed of the studies; and hearing announcements were sent to local utilities, school districts,, flood control agencies, developers., the Metropolitan Transportation Engineering Board, and the Golden Rain Foundation of Leisure World. XI. PUBLIC HEARING A. General A well-publicized public hearing for the subject rout- ings was held on February 3., 1966, at the Huntington Beach High School. Mr. Harry P. Schmidt, Supervisor from Merced County, served as presiding officer. Alternates were presented without expressed preference. A good number of the 300 or so persons in attendance were residents of Leisure World. B. Summary of Local Reactions The public hearing record forwarded to the attention of the Commissioners under date of April 4, 1966, indi- cates widespread support for the Red line. There was no support for the Green line. Opposition to the freeway was voiced primarily by spokesmen for Leisure World. Orange County and the City of Huntington Beach endorsed the Red line as recommended by the Northwesterly Orange County Coastal Prollects Coordinating Committee (NOCCI-CC) . The Red line was also supported by the Orange County Harbor Commission, the California Department of Parks and Recreation and its Division of Small Craft Harbors,, the Los Angeles District of the U. S. Corps of Engineers, and the U. S. Naval Weapons Station. The Red line had additional support from three chambers of commerce, a board of realtors, and the Orange County Coast Association, Inc. -12- 7-Ora,LA-1,240 The NOCCPCC recommendation of the Red line was further endorsed by the Huntington Harbour Corporation and by Bolsa Chica Properties. Orange County Supervisor Baker reiterated his endorse- ment of the Red line but urged that consideration be given to any adverse effects upon Leisure World. The City of Seal Beach also urged that consideration be given to a freeway that would not adversely affect Leisure World, The City added that if this is not possible, the State must purchase property deemed unsalable and replace all living units to be removed by the freeway. Representatives of the Leisure World retirement community opposed the freeway. They pointed out that freeway encroachment could upset the complicated financial structure of the community and called for an immediate solution to offset a depressed resale market. One spokesman was hopeful that if a realign- ment is not possible an early exchange of land might afford a solution. North American Aviation repeated an earlier request for a southerly design adjustment of the line,, en- tirely within their property, to permit maximum development of their site. The Richfield Oil Corporation expressed concern regarding the effect of the proposed freeway align- ment on three producing oil wells and on possible secondary recovery operations involving leases in the vicinity of Main Street in Huntington Beach. XII® STUDIES AND CONFERENCES SUBSEQUENT TO THE PUBLIC HEARING Additional studies were made of freeway alignment and design along the Los Alamitos Channel lying between Leisure World and the Haynes Power Plant. The purpose of this investi- gation was to develop a possible design which would least affect the retirement community. Although complete avoidance of Leisure World was not found feasible, a reduction in required property is possible through a revision of geometries and a westerly shift in alignment. The Division reviewed this plan and the public hearing study at a meeting with representatives from the Golden Rain Foundation,, several Mutuals of Leisure World and with officials from Seal Beach. It was indicated that the freeway proposal would be acceptable but that the State should Immediately make available to Leisure World an adjoining 7.7-acre State-owned parcel as an exbb.ange area for replacement of living units re- quired for freeway right of way. The Division is proceeding -13- 7-OraLA-1,,24o with design and appraisals necessary to expedite these right of way transactions. In this connection, the revised plan has been reviewed by the Department of Water and Power. The Department has indi- cated the encroachment upon the Haynes Power Plant would be acceptable. Suitable replacement area is presently available. The Division reviewed the interchange location at Main Street In Huntington Beach. Considering other controls in the area., it does not appear that a major freeway revision through Richfield Oil Corporation holdings is desirable. The proposed line is considered less disruptive than other variations which were previously rejected. Design studies are currently being made to investigate alignment and ramp pattern adjustments to minimize the property requirements at the North American Aviation site between West- minster Avenue and Bay Boulevard. a-e1q1t, On Hamm 12, 1966, the Division met with the Superintendent of the ocean "View School District and members of his staff. The school architect,, the Huntington Beach Director of Public Works, and a representative from the Huntington Harbour development were also present to review possible adjustments to accommodate two proposed schools in Huntington Harbour,,. It was determined that projected city streets could be adjusted to avoid the school sites and that adjacent property would be available for replacement of any rights of way, required by the freeway. The Division agreed to confirm its willingness to provide exchange property and to make street and cknannel adjust- ments as may be necessary, and the Superintendent stated that the school district would withdraw its previous objections to the Red line. XIII. ATTACHMENTS Map of studied routing. Summary of comparative data. SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE DATA ROUTE 1; 240 FREEWAY STUDY LINES COLOR CODE RED GREEN LENGTH IN MILES 10.5 10.ca z z CONSTRUCTION 39.6 43.1 *43.3 H O E-, a RIGHT OF WAY 20.6 40.7 *41 .4 ca TOTAL 6o.2 83.8 *84.7 r 20-YEAR USER SAVINGS a (MILLIONS OF DOLLARS) 160 150 Fz+ E-H as c� A BENEFIT RATIO 2.7 1 .8 a SINGLE PARTIAL TAKE 0 0 NFAMILY FULL TAKE 17 yo o w PARTIAL TAKE 1 1 ca P' Q INCOME H C0 RESIDENTIAL FULL TAKE 1 62 z NUMBER OF LIVING UNITS 121 461 a RESIDENTIAL 125 68. q VAC ANT a ACREAGE - SIZE 36 31 z INDUSTRIAL IMPROVED o VACANT 39 39 U COMMERCIAL IMPROVED 1 4 w VACANT 2 42 o SPECIAL PURPOSE 16 24 x TOTAL NUMBER OF LIVING UNITS DISPLACED 138 531 TOTAL NUMBER OF PAR ELS 376 21 . * -Pacific Electric Railway continues in operation JANUARY 1966 ee 6 9l ® s ROUTE �J3 r Y § lcNN ROUT't � c .. ROUTS 24" fWV e vo r r PROJECT LIMIT @ � ` PACIF€c ' QC PROJECT\ LIMIT m UT ';a`"; �� � n �s< .�r�,�3 ®i,� ���,4 � ���, ��,' ���cv wa.•�.:� P�,C[P(C GC)AaT 34WY PROPOSED APPROXIMATE SCALE IN MILES ROUTE 1 240 FREEWAY / JANUARY 1966 BEACH_ BLVD RTE 39 TO GARDEN GROVE FREEWAY RTE 22 F STATE OF CALIFORNIA—HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN, Governor DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS DISTRICT 7 P. O. BOX 2304, LOS ANGELES 90054 April 29, 1966 7-Ora-1;240 PR-7-333 PR-7-568 P64, 2,36 � City Council APIMOVED BY 1 CITY Cov CIL City of Huntington Beach MAy Fifth and Orange ...........................----P. 0. Box 190 C Huntington Beach, California . CITY CLERK Gentlemen: The California Highway Commission has before it for consid- eration the matter of the relocation and improvement as a freeway of a portion of State Highway Routes 1 and 240 in Orange and Los Angeles Counties . Route 1 in Orange County between 0.2 mile south of Adams Avenue and Route 240, 1.2 miles south of Bay Boulevard, and Route 240 in Orange and Los Angeles Counties between Route 1, 1.2 miles south of Bay Boulevard and Route 22. The State Highway Engineer, in accord with established prac- tice, has recommended to the Commission that the route be relocated as shown on the attached map. For your information, the recommended routing conforms to the studied alternate referred to as the Red Line in the accompanying Report of Route Studies . On receipt of the State Highway Engineer's recommendation, the Commission on April 21, 1966, passed a resolution declaring its intention to consider adoption as a freeway of the subject portion of highway. A copy of this "Notice of Intention on Freeway Location" resolution is attached. This resolution provides that the Commission will hold or cause to be held a hearing on this route location if requested by any of the affected local legislative bodies within thirty (30) days after the first regular meeting of such local leg- islative body following receipt of written notice of the Commission action. The staff of the Division of Highways held a public hearing in Huntington Beach on February 3, 1966, to present the results of its studies with respect to this project and to receive in return from those present any additional information which may have a bearing on the routing, particularly with regard to the local community aspects . Page 2 April 29, 1966 7-ora-1; 24o - PR-7-333 - PR-7-568 All of the information presented for record at and subsequent to this hearing has been forwarded to the Commission for its consid- eration. In addition, each member of the Commission has been furnished a copy of the transcript of the proceedings of this hearing to facilitate his personal review of the project proposal. The Commission now wishes to insure that it has before it all the facts relative to this route location matter in order that it may act for the best interest of the State. To this end, if your Honorable Council feels that additional pertinent information is now available which might be helpful to the Commission in the final route selection, it would be proper to submit such information at this time. If you feel that further presentation or explanation of this highway project would be helpful to_ -you, please advise this office and the Division of Highways will have a representative present at the next regular meeting of your Council. If your Honorable Council feels that a public hearing by the Commission is necessary to fully inform the Commission as to local interests, the Commission will on request of the Council hold such a hearing. If your Honorable Council considers that a public hearing by the Commission on this proposed relocation is unnecessary, will you please so advise by regular resolution. Your cooperation in advising us of your wishes in this matter will be sincerely appreciated. V my you , 00 q A District En ineer Attachs . cc: J. R. Wheeler Ken Reynolds f s J NOTICE OF INTENTION ON FREEWAY LOCATION, ROAD 7-Ora-1 7-Ora,LA-240 WHEREAS, memorandum dated April 13, 1966, by J. C. Womack, State Highway Engineer, reporting to the California Highway Commission that studies for a freeway along a revised location of State highway Route 1 in Orange County between 0. 2 mile south of Adams Avenue and Route 240, 1<2 miles south of Bay Boulevard, Road 7-Ora-1 and for a freeway location of State highway Route 240 in Orange and Los Angeles Counties between Route 1, 1.2 miles south of, Bay Boulevard and Route 22, Road 7-Ora,LA-240 have been completed and submitting therewith maps showing the locations which are recommended for adoption; having been read and discussed, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the State Highway Engineer be authorized and directed to give public notice of the Commission ' s intention to consider the adoption of freeway locations on State highways in Orange County between 0< 2 mile south of Adams Avenue and Route 240, 1 .2 miles south of Bay Boulevard, Road 7-Ora- 1 and. in Orange and Los Angeles Counties between Route 1, 1 . 2 miles south of Bay Boulevard and Route 22, Road 7-Ora,LA-240 and also to give written notice to the Boards of Supervisors of Orange and Los Angeles Counties and the City Councils of Huntington Beach and Seal Beach of such intention. Such notice to the Boards of Supervisors of Orange and Los Angeles Counties and the City Councils of Huntington Beach and Seal Beach shall spedify that if any of these bodies considers a public hearing on the matter necessary, the Commission will hold or cause to be held such hearing, if requested by such local legislative body within thirty days after the first regular meeting of such local legislative body following receipt of written notice by the State Highway Engineer. To Date v i DUPLICATE Signed Date Signed Rediform SEND PARTS 1 AND 3 WITH CARBONS INTACT. w 4S 465 PART 3 WILL BE RETURNED WITH REPLY. 'STATE OF CALIFORNIA—HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN, Governor DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY COMMISSION P. O. BOX 1499, SACRAMENTO 95807 November 17, 1964 Mr. Paul C. Jones City Clerk City of Huntington Beach P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Mr. Jones: This will acknowledge receipt of your letter sending us Resolution No. 2061 passed by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach on November 2, 1964 adopting and recommending the route for the Beach -- Freewa through the City of Huntington Beach as shown on r. the map accompanying the resolution. We note that between the south city limits near the Santa Ana River and Beach Boulevard near Adams Street the recommended routing follows the route adopted by the Highway Commission on May 22, 1963. Your letter and resolution will be brought to the attention of the Highway Commission. Very truly yours, '�-t I ROBERT T. MARTIN Assistant Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA—HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN, Governor DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SACRAMENTO p� i•in November 12, 1964 City Council of the City of Huntington Beach City Hall, Second Floor Fifth Street and Orange Avenue Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen : The City of Newport Beach has asked the California Highway Commission to reconsider the location of the route adopted on May 22, 1963 for the Coast Freeway from just south of MacArthur Boulevard in Newport Beach to just north of Adams Avenue in Huntington Beach. The Commission has agreed to hear testimony from a representative of Newport Beach in support of the City ' s request. Your city is invited to have its representative present to observe and comment . After thorough study, the State Highway Engineer has assure the Commission that the presently adopted route will accomodate design adequate to carry and distribute the projected traffic load. Therefore, comment and testimony will be limited to route considerations, such as the relative effects of various alternates on the cities involved and the effects of changing a long-adopted route. The hearing; will convene at 2 p.m. , December 16, in the basement auditorium of the Public Works Building,_ 1120 N Street, Sacramento. ` Sincerely, JOHN ERRECA Director of Public Works STATE OF CALIFORNIA—HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN, Governor _ DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SACRAMENTO November 12,, 1964 City -Council of the City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California Cei2tl �en o The City of Newport Beach is invited to appear before the Highway Commission at 2 p.m.., December 1 , to c � ify i n support of the City's reaues t to reopeil. the May 22, 196,E route adoption on the Coazt Freeway from about MacArthur Boulevard in Newport Beach to about Adams Avenue in Huntington Beach. In the interest of an early conclusion, the Commission would appreciate the City 's appointing one spokesman to make the c ity's presentation. The Commi s,�iIon has previously heard from the Mate Highway ngineer that his studies indicate design adequate to the projected traffic load and. distri- bution can be provided on any, of the iiaa. or alternate$. through this area.. Therefore, Newport Beach's representative will be requested to limit his .testimony to the subject of routing, rather than design, traffic oount,s, or other related. matters . The Commission will receive testimony concerning such. Thatter a as the relative effects of various alternates on t-he cities Involved and the effects on the cities of dropping a, long-adopted The hearing will be held in the basement auditorium, of the Public Works Building, 1120 N Street, Sacraame' nt;o. Sincerely, JOIDII ERRBCA Director of Public trtorks cc : City Council of the City of Costa Mesa City Council of the City of Huntington Beach ,--"-' Orange County Board of Supervisors C EDMUND G. BROWN _ John Erryecay GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA UNilt10► J. C. WOMACK STATE HIGHWAY ENGINEER DIRECTOR ,! STATE OF CALIFORNIA �y Beportmcnt of Public Works SACRAMENT© DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS PLEASE REFER TO PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING July 28, 1964 FILE No. P.O.BOX 1499 SACRAMENTO 7 VII-Ora-1 (Old VII-Ora-60-B, NptB,CMsa,A,NptB) The City Council P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Gentlemen: This is in response to your Resolution No. 2013 dated July. 6, 1964, relative to the adopted location for the future Pacific Coast Freeway and the Council ' s concern as to possible effects upon Hoag Memorial Hospital. This Resolution was forwarded by City Clerk Paul C. Jones' letter of July 15, 1964. We have recently corresponded with hospital offi- cials and advised them that final design plans have not yet been completed for the freeway segment and interchange in the general location of the hospital. Until these design preparations are completed, we cannot assess the effects, if any, upon hospital property. As these future design plans are prepared for the area, they will be carefully evaluated and every attempt will be made to minimize any effect upon hospital property. The selection of a route location in the Newport Beach area was a most difficult one, and the Division of Highways and the California Highway Commission are very cog- nizant of the sincere interest of the many persons who have spoken for or against certain routes. It was obvious that with so many interests involved the selection of a specific location would result in the pleasing of some and the dis- pleasing of others. The Commission nevertheless is very conscious of the personal and community values involved in freeway location matters and is most careful to arrive at a final decision which, while favoring the public good, will result in a minimum of disruption or inconvenience. The Council ' s sincere interest and concern are appreciated. S ie CK Highway Engineer r +, STATE OF CALIFORNIA—HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN, Governor DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS DISTRICT VII p" P. O. BOX 2304, LOS ANGELES 54 March 3, 1964 VII-Ora/LA-170(24o)- S1B,A/A PR-VII-333 VII-Ora/44-60(1)-Z/Z PR-VII-568 The City Council City of Huntington Beach Civic Center Orange Between 5th and 6th P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: The California Highway Commission, in its procedural policy outlined in the California Administrative Code (copy attached), desires that you be notified when the Division of Highways. initiates studies for location of a freeway in or near your area of interest. We are now initiatin location studies for the State Legislative Route 170(240� Freeway between Route 60(1) and Route 179(22) . These . studies will also include a portion of State Legislative Route 60(1) Freeway between Beach Boulevard, Route 171(39) and Route 179(22) . The approximate study area is indicated . in red on the attached map. In order to coordinate our studies with your local plan- ning, we would appreciate receiving any master or general plans which are available for your area. Information desired at this time includes existing and proposed road classifications, churches, schools, parks, city boundaries, and any major de- velopments affecting our studies. We hope to meet with you and your technical staffs at various times during the preliminary study period to discuss our studies and to obtain your suggestions and recommendations concerning route locations. We anticipate that our first meet- ing with all affected city and county representatives will be held in two or three months or as soon as possible after pre- liminary zones of study are determined. VII-Ora/IA-170(240)-SIB,A/A Page Two March 3, 1964 PR-VII-333 VII-Ora/IA-60(1)-Z/Z PR-VII-568 The California Highway Commission will not adopt a free- way route until all information and data has been assembled and a public hearing held to secure the views of officials, civIe or other groups and interested individuals. At the hearing, you will have the opportunity to present facts in accordance with Section 75.5 of the Streets and Highways Code (copy attached). Very truly yours, R. E. DE F BACH District gineer Attachs. : Study Area Map California Administrative Code, Title 21, Public Works Section 75-5. Streets and Highways Code cc: James Wheeler x g "� ��LAND PARK m CR ENT �— AVE. `"z p�; 1 r— — co (78 o St LINg; i I 1 N CE Z� ®L ---i W (214) _ - u � 178 ANAHEI AVE ►--f, or x r 0 180 (250) ARDLOW LONG BEACH m RD. Z ORANGE _ J o MUNICIPAL y� m AIRPORT O o BALL °A Iw �� A IV A M AFT '° %m Z '7 � 168 (19) = sT CYPRESS '- STANTON'Q -RRT o 2 VISTA AVE `� SIGNAL �o ~ ST. a 17O (24®)TELLA ' m (51)k� L IN l V o J a ,I LL'_ sTEARN ao ST tj ®S ;- I I D 0 R A' N G E GARDEN '7 Z 60 I ) FfMlo ST.® ATF+ERTou ®T. 605 J W w z ; CHAPMANJK o K A� 1 t4 182 VE V ALAMJITOS o _ 0 2 179 W 60 (1) m Y G R 0 V E v LAMPSONQ U, (5) (51) LA (22) (2 w '------- a = _ x S I O GARDEN GRO ROEni 3 - ` ® � g a ® C ADO T. - I 179 (22) BLvo. _ - Fpl g ® I AVE. a (2.2 p Q TRASK —V E A^ 4. STA - CLARA w 1 179 l a L. 3 1(`P05) W MINST R A RTH 43 ,.(55) sT. y ® L L• ` (22) 2 ® WEST MINSTER`,'j- - I 10 -1 ' LS�1 m AVE` �S A N (51) T TUST1 rr I = u► QI 0 SUGAR 'i AVE. 1 Q - --- i i p a Z 1 S EL ER--- ��'- AVE - _ 184 z SEAL =� HEIL v, W BEACH ''� ` . ,�I CL W o AVE W HI (73),,E 'i RT YA LLE ir Y ' '�4;.;ti>•;�.. �...- Z NUNTZI •r__m 43 AVE. '- o AVE - (55) �O q Q.AIM VE..! T 0 00 .5 DwN GrASR(39). ` ADAMS AVE COSTA HUNTINGTON — m Z STUDY AREA BEACH ` . FOR h ROUTE 60(I) 81 ROUTE 170(240) FREEM BETWEEN ROUTE 171(39) V LEGEND AND ROUTE 179(22) IN ORANGE EXISTING ROUTE 81 LOS ANGELES COUNTIES STUDY ZONE ». . STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE DIVISION 1. STATE HIGHWAYS CHAPTER 1 . ADMINISTRATION ARTICLE 2. THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY COMMISSION Sec. 75.5 Hearing on location of highways; presentation of estimates of effect of route on community values; failure to comply with requirements (New) . 75. 5 Hearing on location of highways; presentation of estimates of effect of route on community values; failure to comply with requirements.. At any public hearing or meeting before the commission or department on the selection of any State highway or freeway route at which comparative estimates are presented of the benefits that would accrue to drivers of motor vehicles in the use of alternative routes, on request of any city or county affected, estimates for the same time period, and based on similar assumptions, as the driver benefit estimates shall also be presented of the effect that the selection of either route would have upon community values, including but not limited to property values, State and local public facilities, and city street and county highway traffic . Such estimates are required only if requested by an affected city or county which transmits with its request such information relative to the estimates as it may wish to have presented. The department, whenever it announces that a public hearing or meeting is to be held on the selection of any State highway or freeway route, shall notify any affected city or county that it may make such a request. Failure of the department or the commission to comply with the requirements of this section shall not invalidate any action of the commission as to the adoption of a routing for any State highway, nor shall such failure be admissible evidence in any litigation for the acquisition of rights of way or involving the allocation of funds or the construc- tion of the highway. (Added Stats. 1956, 1st Ex. Sets. , c 69, -.---, l. ) Library references: Highways 43-46; C.J.S. Highways 64 STATE OF CALIFORNIA G-) DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 12 OS.SPRING STREET DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS LOS ANGELES 12,CALIF. PHONE:MADISON 0-3030 DISTRICT VII MAILING ADDRESS BOX 2304. TERMINAL ANNEX LOS ANGELES 54, CALIFORNIA PLEASE REFER July 15, 1963 TO FILE No. VII-Ora-60-B, NptB,A,HntB Route Adoption Honorable City Council City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: Attached for your information and file is one certified copy of a resolution passed by the California Highway Commission, changing the location and declaring to be a freeway a section of State Highway Route 60 in Orange County and in the Cities of Newport Beach and Huntington Beach between 0.8 mile south of MacArthur Boulevard and 0.2 mile north of Adams Avenue, Road VII-Ora-60-B,NptB,A, HntB. One print of the adoption map is -also attached. Very truly yours, R. E. Deffe abh District Engineer Attach. 3 Passed-by C.H.C. M Ply 2 i 963 VII-Ora-60-B,NptB,A,HntB RESOLUTION CHANGING LOCATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND DECLARING A FREEWAY RESOLVED by the California Highway Commission -that pursuant to the authority vested in it by law, this Commission does h-6reby- alter and change the location of a section of State Highway Route, 60, in Orange County and in the Cities of Newport Beach and Huntington Beach between 0.8 mile south of MacArthur Boulevard and 0.2 mile north of Adams Avenue, and .offidially designated as Road VII-Ora-60-B,NptB,A,HntB],_ -as said location is shown on the map submitted on May 22, 1-96-3, by J. C. Womack, State Highway Engineer; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said section of State highway, as so altered and I changed, is adopted as the location of said section of State highway provided, however, that the existin4 traversable highway shown on said map as the existing State highway shall remain as the State highway location until the , section of State highway adopted by this resolution has been constructed and is opened for' traffic and appropriate disposition of the existing State highway has been made as provided by law; and , BE 'IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said section ofiState highway is declared to be a freeway, as said term is defined ,in the Streets -and Highways Code, and shall have the status of a freeway., for all purposes provided by law and is designated as, a part of the California Freeway and Expressway System. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Commission has -found and determined, and hereby-declares, that such alteration and change of the location of said State highway is for the best interest of the State. 3 Passed�y C.H.C� MAY, 212 1963 VII-Ora-60-B,NptB,A,HntB RESOLUTION CHANGING LOCATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND DECLARING A FREEWAY RESOLVED by the California Highway Commission that pursuant to the authority vested in it by law, this Commission does hereby-alter and change the location of a section of State Highway Route' 60, in Orange County and in' the Cities of Newport Beach and Hun I tington Beach between 0.8 mile south of MacArthur Boulevard and 0.2 mile north of Adams Avenue, and officially designated as Road vii-ora-6o-B,NptB,A,HntB9as said location is shown on the map submitted on May 22, ' 1963, by J. C. Womack, State Highway Engineer; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said section of State highway, as so altered and I changed, is adopted as the location of said section of State highway provided, however, that the existing, traversable highway shown on said map as the existing State highway shall remain as the State highway location until the, section of State highway adopted by this resolution has been constructed and is opened for traffic and. appropriate disposition of the existing State highway has been made as provided by law; and , BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said section ofiState highway is declared to be a freeway, as said term is defined ,in the Streets `and Highways Code, and shall have the status of a freeway,,, for All purposes provided by law and is designated as a part of the California Freeway and Expressway System. THIS IS TO CERTIFY That the foregoing is a full and correct copy of the original resolution passed by the California Highway Com- mission at its meeting regularly called and held on the22nd day oU------May--------- 196-3, in the City ofaacn ntQ-, a majority of the members of said Commission being present and voting therefor. Dated this23rd- -day f May------------------- 1961. ROBERT T. MARTIN ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY COMMISSION EST, 1566. 54416 12-61 5M SPO Igo 29 June 1970 TO: City Council FROM: City Attorney SUBJECT: Resolution Opposing Assembly Bill No. 1701 At the request of the City Clerk•; the attached resolution is submitted opposing Assembly Bill No. 1701 which would delete, without study or evidence, a portion of the Route 1 freeway, from Atlanta Avenue to the Santa Ana River, and directing the Director of Public •Works to repre- sent the City Council in Sacramento in opposition to Assembly Bill 1701 . Respectfully submitted, _ C DON P. BONFA City Attorney DPB:bc Attachment f M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council FROM: City Administrator DATE : January 12 , 1970 SUBJECT : Coast Freeway The Administrator concurs with the recommendation made by Mr. Wheeler in the attached memorandum. Minute action of the City Council would be in order . I Y _illArdw City dministrator DM.bwo OFFICE MEMORANDU.., To Doyle Miller, City Administrator Date January 12, 1970 From Director of Public Works In Re Coast Freeway At the next Highway Commission meeting Newport Beach will ask that route studies be reopened on the Route 1 (Coast) Freeway. I should be instructed by council action to state the position of our City. ! It is my recommendation that the city of Huntington Beach is agreeable to reopening the route studies so long as no dwelling units need be taken in Huntington Beach to accomplish the proposal of Newport Beach. ames R. Wheeler Director of Public Works JRW:ae �O �Gly i19<1� K,4 G G� 1 . 07-0ra-1 R29.9/R24.7 Between the- Huntington Beach 2 elty limit at the Santa Ana River and Opinty live (Adams 3 Ave) 4 PREEWAY AgRE E "N 5 HIS AGREEMNT, made and entered into In duplicate on this 6 day, op 19.L12, by and be- 7 tween the. STATE OF CALTYOR.NIA, acting Toy and through the Depart- 8 rent of Public Works,, Division of Highways, hereinafter for, convenience referred to as the "STATE" and the City of Huntington 10 Beach, hereinafter for convenience referred to as the "CITY". 11 WITN"ESSETIf: 12 WH AS, the California Highway Commission on May. 22, 1963., 13 passed a resolution declaring that portion of Rotate l In the 14 County of Orange and. the Cities of Newport Beach and Huntington 15 Beach between 0.8 mile south of M.cA.rthur Boulevard. and 0.2 mile 16 north of Adams .Avenue to be a freeway, and 17 WHTMAS, ' the California 'Highway Commission' on September` 20, 18 1955, passedi'a resolution declaring that portion of Route 1 (Old 19 Route 60) in the Cities- of Newport Beach and Huntington. Beach 20 and the County, of Orange between :Sta.te Route 55 (Old 'Route 43) 21 and 30001 westerly of State Route, 39 (fold Route 171) to be a 22 freeway, and 23 WfMFXAS., the State and the City of Huntington Beach have 24 heretofore entered into a. freeway -agreement dated November 7, 25 1961, covering the Route. 1 (Old Route 60) Preeway., between the 26 City Limit at the 'Santa Ana River and. the Route 1/39 (aid Route 27 60/171) Interchange., and 28 WHEREAS., subsequent to entering into said freeway agreement 29 dated November 7, 1961, the State and the' City_ have .mutually 30 agreed to certain revisions of ,plan,. and 31 WARMS, a plan map for such freeway has heretofore been f i prepared showing, the, proposed plan tate he 'lei 3 for closing dity st 0r 4 over :.`,.—d-, uh4eT or te. 4 oom,dotjoh,'.with such free 4y,. s for reldoatlon of citT atroots., and for copstructiota 6 . of froh o s and. other ad s „.Exe 9 . rdent lmtweon the Attli a and, the 0#7 of Uantingtoix 10, Beach dated Wovembdr, Tj 19610 bo.t)oen the duty . t 11 4t the to Am H.iver and thy? Route 1 § (0141.TIM' 12 /11 '. 13 2.. agrees sents t o the -�o ing 14 of pity $tmiDtdo relocation of iitr eets, con- is stao.tlon of. frontage, roads ether. Idpil road4j. 16 qnd other. 00nstruotion afTeoting d ty .ttre0to.. All 18 . :t t�O�weeg the,,- am—it 19 at the- Santa- Aimm ,favox and'. - 4y Avenue 1, 20 A.vome), ' ; 4-: 'pa"t h reof"by," ,. red' nce. 21 State"State"In tat on a ` ' aee 23 s `fe d its .. :n a;4cdx t" 2.4 .. : Pap, 4ttgehotd- here to or as'.the same her 25 after be. zoolfled.- b " subsequent ,agreement between 26 at 27 Vi e.,; indt 1. siguej s °,s " other traffic. 29 determined by the State- In order toregulate.,, war 30 or .gulde traffic upon the hIghwayls., 31e agrees to aequ.�Lre all necessary. , . 2 ;. i r I right of way as may be required for construction 2 of frontage roads and other local roads, and the 3 construction, reconOtruotion or alteration of city 4 streetsi and the City hereby authorizes the ,State 5 to acquire in :its behalf all such necessary right 6 of way. 7 ' 5. The City Will: accept control and mainten- 8 ante over each of the relocated or reconstructed 9 city streets and the frontage roads and other State 10 constructed local roads on notice to the City Engineer 11 from the State that the wore thereon has been c . 12 pleted, except as to any portion thereof Aich is 13 adopted by the ,State as a part of the freeway proper. 14 The City Will also accept title to 'the portions of 15 such roads lying outside the freeway limits,. upon 16 relinquishment by the State. 17 6., The �grade separations shown- on the plan map 18 Ekhlbit B utill either be underpasses or overpasses 19 as detailed engineer�.ng studies tay determine will 20 best fit the locality..: It Is understood -between, the 21 parties that the right of ways may:be Acquired in see- 22 tions or units and °that, , both as to: .the acquisition 23 of right,off` way and the oonatruction of the freeway 24 projects$ the obligations of State :hereunder shall. 25 be carx.ed out.* at such' time and for such unit or 26 units of the project as -funds -are_ budgeted and made 27 . lawfully available for -ouch;:expenditures.i 28 '7., This agrL9P.ment-.may be modified at 'any time 29 by the mutual consent of the parties hereto, as may 30 become .necessary for the best accomplishment through 31 ,Mate and City cooperation of the :whole freeway. 3 I project for the benefit of the people of the State and of the 2 City* 3 IN WIMSS WMMOF.. the parties hereunto have set their 4 hands and seals the day above first wrl.tt6n. 5 State of CalifoxT)Ia 6 APP V: Department of Public Works 7 JO M. MMA Director o Purl ic•Norks 8 De a � t ws veer 9 BY 10 By P ROVIM AS TO V Or F. Bagshaw 11 Assistant Direct MAY 4 1967 12 TM CITY OF INOTIO ' :EACH mw cipal corporation 13 t Qrney - tate" 14 15 .. . MAYOR 16 17 18 CITY CLER& 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 .. 4 ,. �41e�enme fn ` THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH MAP ON FILE WITH CITY CLERK Febr. 16 , 1967. City Council City Hall City of Huntington Beach �/ -, 0_4 �k� Honorable City Council , �'^'""/ tc,.�, G Re : Pacific Coast Freeway `I- ------ �-�---- Legislative Route 171 . .FEB 2 01967 Adopted by the State -"---------- on June. 23 , 1963 . Four years will have passed coming next June since the above referred to Freeway Route was adopted, from a point 1320 feet North of Adams Avenue westerly of Beach Blvd. , thence southerly and southeasterly to the easterly City limits at Coast Highway. The major portion of the route adopted at that time from the easterly City limits at Coast Highway to Atlanta Avenue at Beach Boulevard is the route area included in the Freeway agreement adopted in the year 1955. A freeway agreement for the one mile portion of the '1963 route adoption from a point 1320 feet North of Adams Ave . , westerly of Beach Blvd. , to Atlanta Avenue has not been approved by the City Council. The fact that no Freeway Agreement exists for the one mile portion of the 1963 route adoption is of considerable concern to most of the property owners within the adopted route. Some of the property owners have had numerous meetings with the State project engineer, the senior planning engineer, and right-of-way representatives , relative to time schedules for acquisition by the State of right-of-way and improvements . Because of no freeway agreement the Mate cannot give the property owners the necessary information. This leaves the property owners in somewhat of a dilemna, especially those that have plans for business expansion improvements, or the problem of relocating their business. Also a number of property owners have tenants who are . concerned as they must find new locations, and they keep asking-How long do we have before the State takes over the improvements? In substance it is the duty of this Council , representing this City, to not only inform the property owners involved, but also the citizens of the City, and give real valid and honest reasons for the unrealistic delay in the approving of a freeway agreement. It is imperative that an answer be given at this time in order that the property owners can intelligently and effectively make plans for the future. Signed by the following property owners : See signatures on sheet attached Page 2 Signatures of property owners : awe U( Wy OF HUNTINGTO,Vr 8'FACH,CALIF. 6 i 7 I I February 24, 1967 Mr. John L. Henricksen 618 Adams Avenue Huntington Beach, California Dear Mr. Henricksen: Your letter requesting Council to take action in the approval of a freeway agreement with the State of California for the sector between Atlanta Avenue and Adams Avenue was presented to the Council at their regular meeting held February 20, 1967. The Council directed the City Attorney to contact the State to obtain agreements for this sector of the freeway,which, when received, will be sent to the Council for further consideration. At that time, definite approval will no doubt be considered. If there is nay further information we can give you in regard to this matter, please feel free to con- tack my office . Sincerely yours, Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ/st l I I STATE OF CALIFORNIA—HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN, Governor DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS DISTRICT VII June 13, 1966 P. O. BOX 2304, LOS ANGELES 90054 07-Ora-1 Route Adoption 07109 - 021400 E;F- L--E Dw-. The Honorable City Council City of Huntington Beach P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: Attached for your information and file is one certified copy of resolution passed by the California Highway Commission on May 18, 1966. By this resolu- tion a section of State Highway 1 in Orange County and in the Cities of Seal Beach and Huntington Beach between 0.2 mile south of Adams Avenue and Route 240, 1.2 miles south of Bay Boulevard, was adopted and de- clared to be a freeway. A print of the route adoption map is also attached. Very truly yours, } R. E. DEFFEBACH Deputy District En in er Attach. cc: James R. Wheeler, City Engineer ' Passed by C.H.C� MAY 1 8 1966 7-Ora-1 RESOLUTION CHANGING LOCATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND DECLARING A FREEWAY RESOLVED by the' California Highway Commission that pursuant to the authority vested in it by law, this Commission does hereby alter and change the location of a section of State highway in Orange County and in the Cities of Seal Beach and ,.Huntington Beach between 0.2 mile south of Adams Avenue and Route 240, 1.2 miles south of Bay Boulevard, Road 7-Ora-1, as said location is shown on the map submitted on April 13, 1966, by J . Co Womack, State Highway Engineer; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said section of State highway, as so altered and changed, is adopted as the location of said section of State highway provided, however, that the exist- ing traversable highway shown on: said map as the existing State highway shall remain as the .State .highway location until the section of State highway adopted ,,by this resolution has been constructed and is opened for traffic and appropriate disposition of the existing State highway has been made as provided by law;, and I BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said section of State highway is declared to be a freeway, as said term is defined in the ,Streets and Highways Code, and shall have the status of a freeway for all purposes provided by law and is designated as a part of the California . Freeway and Expressway System. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Commission has. found and determined and hereby declares, that such alteration and change of the location of said State highway is for the best interest of the State . THIS IS TO CERTIFY That the foregoing is a full and correct copy of the original resolution duly passed by the California Highway Commission at its meeting regularly called and held on the__1----th 8 ----day of-------MaY----------------------------- 196_6 in the City of......1qs----An-g-e-l-es---------------------- Dated this 23rd ---------------------- 196_6 --------- day of Ma I "m ---. - ---------- ------- UO' ------------------ --------- - ------- --------- --- RiOB R4 T. MARTIN ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY COMMISSION EST.3593.26830-500 7-64 3M OSP �41e�enme fn ` THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH MAP ON FILE WITH CITY CLERK sy STATE OF CALIFORNIA—HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN, Governor DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS ttlm DISTRICT VII P. O. BOX 2304, LOS ANGELES 90054 i June 13, 1966 07-Ora,LA-240 M . Route Adoption 07109 - 038000 [By UN.. U 15 The Honorable City Council City of Huntington Beach Fifth and Orange Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: Attached for your information is a conformed copy of a resolution passed by the California Highway Com- mission on May 18, 1966. By this resolution a section of State Highway 240 in Orange and Los Angeles Counties and in the City of Seal Beach between Route 1, 1.2 miles south of Bay Boulevard and Route 22, was adopted and declared to be a freeway. A print of the route adoption map is also attached. Very truly yours, _K I E_ v ' R. E. DEFFEBA Deputy .Distri t engineer Attach. cc: JRWheeler — ----- passers by C.H.C. 7-Ora,LIB-240 RESOLUTION ADOPTING LOCATION FOR STATE HIGHWAY AND DECLARING A FREEWAY RESOLVED by the California Highway Commission that c pursuant to the authority vested in it by law, this Commission does hereby select, adopt and determine the location of a section of State Highway in Orange and Los Angeles Counties and in the City of Seal Beach between Route 1, 1 .2 miles south of Bay Boulevard and Route 22, and officially designated as Road 7-Ora, LA-240 as said location is shown on the map submitted on April 13, 1966, by J. C . Womack, State Highway Engineer; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said section of State highway is hereby declared to be a freeway, as said term is defined in the Streets and Highways Code, and shall have the status of a freeway for all purposes provided by law and is designated as a part of the California Freeway and Expressway System. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Commission has found and determined, and hereby declares, that such selection and adoption of the location of said State highway is for the best interest of the State . THIS IS TO CERTIFY That the foregoing is a full and correct copy of the original resolution duly passed by the California Highv�ay Commission at its meeting regularly called and held on the 18 th —day of Mai——----—, 195 6, in the City of___Lgs Angeles Dated this23_12_-day of--14a l___---- -___-_, f 96.6. ROBERT T. MARTIN ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY COMMISSION EST.3593.2"30-500 7-64 5M OSP p State of California Highway Transportation Agency Memorandum To i Mr. Robert B. Bradford, Chairman Date: April 13, 1966 and Members of the California Highway Commission File : 7-Ora-1 24.5/32.0 7-Ora,LAm240 0.0/2.690.0/0.3 From : Department of public Works-Division at Highways Subject: Notice of Intention Submitted for your consideration are maps showing the recommended locations for the following portions of State Highway Routes 1 and 240 in Orange and Los Angeles counties. a) Route 7-Oraml between Beach Boulevard, 0.2 mile south of Adams Avenue, and Route 240, 1.2 miles south of Bay Boulevard. This recommended location is approximately 7.5 miles in length and is estimated to cost 33,500,000 for an 8-lane freeway, including 19,400,000 for construction and $14,100,000 1 for rig!.ts of way. For map record purposes, the recommended location supersedes a short segment of the previous adop- tion along Beach Boulevard through the interchange area at Adams Avenue. b) Route 7-Ora,LA-240 between Route 1, 1.2 miles south of Bay Boulevard, and Route 22 at Los Alamitos Channel. This recommended 8-lane freeway location is approximately 2.9 miles in length and is esti- mated to cost $26,700,000, including $20,200,000 for construction and $6,500,000 for rights of way. STUDIES OF ALTERNATE ROUTES In July 1962, the Commission held a hearing with respect to the location of a portion of Route 240 between Bay-"Boulevard and Route 22 and subsequently, on February 28, 1963, deferred adoption until related route planning had been further advanced. FORM WH•38 Rev. Mr. Robert B. Bradford and April13, 1966 Members of the Commission -2- 7-Ora,LA-1,240 Studies for the combined Route 1/240 freeway location now under consideration were initiated in March 1964. During the course of studies, and as a result of discussions and reviews of major controls with local officials and technical staffs,, two alternates were developed for presentation at the public hearing. These alternates., discussed in the accompanying Report of Route Studies and shown on. the attached map, are identical except for the section between Slater Avenue Flood Control Channel and Point "A". The summary of comparative data contained in the report shows the cost, traffic, and right of way estimates for each location as presented at the hearing. SUMMARY OF LOCAL REACTIONS The testimony, resolutions, statements, and letters contained in the Public Hearing Record forwarded to the attention of the Commissioners under date of April 4, 1966, indicate almost unanimous local preference for the Red line. There was no sup- port for the Green line. Opposition to the freeway or reserva- tions regarding its location were primarily limited to the location proposed for Route 240 between Bay Boulevard and Route 22. Resolutions by Orange County and by the City of Huntington Beach endorsed the Red line as recommended by the Northwesterly Orange County Coastal Projects Coordinating Committee (NOCCPCC ). The Red line was also supported by the Orange County Harbor Commission., the California Department of 116.rks and Recreation and its Division of Small Craft Harbors, the Los Angeles District of the U. S. Corps of Engineers, and the U. S. Naval Weapons Station. The Red line had additional support from the chambers of commerce of Orange County, Huntington Beach, and Sunset Beach; From the- 1-hn.tington Beach Board of Realtors; and from the Orange County Coast Association, Inc. The NOCCPCC recommendation of the Red line was further endorsed by the Huntington Harbour Corporation and by Bolsa Chica Properties. Orange County Supervisor Baker reiterated his personal endorsement of the Red line but urged that every possible con- sideration be given to any adverse effects upon Leisure World. The City of Sea! Beach di.d riot oppose adoption of the Red line but urged that consideration be given to an alignment and design that would not adversely affect Leisure World. The City0s statement added that if no alternatives are possible, the State must accept full and immediate responsibility to purchase property and must act to replace all units to be removed or deemed to be unsalable, Mr. Robert B. Bradford and April 13, 1966 Members of the Commission -3- 7-OraLA-1,240 Opposition to the proposed routing was expressed by representatives of Leisure World, a retirement community in Seal Beach. They pointed out that freeway encroachment could upset the occupancy rate and the complicated financial structure of the community and called for an. immediate and specific solu- tion to offset a depressed resale market. One spokesman was hopeful, if a realignment is not possible,, that an early exchange of land might afford a solution. In addition to Leisure World and the Naval Weapons Station, the only properties affected by the proposed Route 240 ,location are the Haynes Power Plant and the North American Aviation plant site. The Division has met on several occasions with representatives of 'the Department of Water and Power., City of Los Angeles, to discuss possible freeway alignments. Early study alternates on either side of the Haynes Power Plant were considered too disruptive to plant facilities and operation. The location along the Los Alamitos Channel, as presented at the public hearing, is acceptable to the Department of Water and Power. North American Aviation recently purchased a 124-acre site for development of a $30,000.'000 aerospace complex adjacent to the present NASA-leased site. They have requested a southerly adjustment of the line, entirely within their property, to make a maximum of the southwest corner of their site available for development. The Division considers this a design matter and has agreed to investigate such a refinement following route adoption. After the public hearing, the Richfield Oil Corporation expressed concern regarding the effect of the proposed freeway alignment on three producing oil wells and on possible secondary recovery operations involving leases in the vicinity of Main Street in Huntington Beach. Considering the interchange proposed at Main Street 'and the major controls in this area, it does not appear that a major revision is desirable. The proposed location requires fewer oil wells and older wells than preliminary lines which were investigated and rejected. Also subsequent to the hearing, the Division has met with representatives from Seal Beach and Leisure World to dis- cuss revised geometries which would further reduce the taking of acreage and buildings . in Mutual No. 9 of Leisure World. The representatives indicated that the revised plan would be accept- able but were insistent that immediate steps be taken to make Mr. Robert B. Bradford and April 1'R, 1966 Members of the Commission -4® 7-Ora.li.4-1,24.0 a contiguous 7.7-acre State-owned parcel available to Leisure World as an exchange area for the replacement of living units required for freeway right of way. The Division is proceeding with design and appraisals necessary to expedite these right of way transactions. In this connection, the revised plan has been reviewed by the Department of Water and Power, and the Department has in- dicated that encroachment upon the Haynes Power Plant would be acceptable. RECOMMENDATION On the basis of engineering studies, the public hearing, and conferences with local officials and representatives, the Route I and Route 240 locations identified as the Red line are recommended for adoption. It is believed that all interested parties would be best served by an early adoption. The Red line is recommended for adoption consideration on the basis of nearly unanimous local support . It is lower in cost and better in traffic service; it affects fewer families and is more compat-ible with present and planned development than is the alternate Green line. It is further recommended that the Commission take appropriate action to authorize the State Highway Engineer to proceed in accordance with your resolution of February 26., 1958, T to notify the Boards of Supervisors of Orange and "Os Angeles counties, the City Councils of Seal Beach and Huntington Beach, and the local press of the Commission' s intention to consider the adoption of the subject portions of Route 1 and Route 240 and their designation as freeways - J. q WOMACK ate Highway Engineer Attach. �41e�enme fn ` THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH MAP ON FILE WITH CITY CLERK �41e�enme fn ` THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH MAP ON FILE WITH CITY CLERK REPORT OF ROUTE STUDIES RELATIVE TO- FREEWAY LOCATIONS., IN ORANGE 'COUNTY ON ROUTE 1 BETWEEN BEACH BOULEVARD AND ROUTE .240, 1 . 2 MILES SOUTH OF BAY BOULEVARD AND IN' ORANGE AND LOS A'NG'ELES COUNTIES ON ROUTE 240 .'BETWEEN ROUTE 1, ..1 .2 MILES. SOUTH 'OF BAY �BOULEVARD AND ROUTE 22 AT wLOS ALAMITOS .CHANNEL ROA-D'7-Ora"l 24e5/32o0 ROAD 7®Ora.,LAe240 :000/2<6,0.0/0.3 'APAIIL 1966 u U 34 �• ar+«n�. _ ....,.... © 4 tiff m m9 $ s° GRIFFITH PARK 16A m d • 0 a 90 0, I ° 4°a 5 - • 'sd`� w, A- SAN MAR!NO + I 210°s 0 164 g gab I i F Try a / o vs F.w RO n ® S.PISADENA 19 B,. N 4,r Tr^'a �/ IRWINDALE cHai.00d Bna d Aw' �0•A i °r ua ° T" i o 70 o ne r' d ®3 pas C / m _ TEMPLE 0 _•> S,, Yam.. a sew. 99 'r° on Yam SAN E CITY Kuaa S Rd. < Brad OQ �' 5 " G 1 a . BALDWIN 2 o HOLLYWOODoY +y2 0 4� / LL LBAMBRArG�ABRIEL ob a: ` % PARK e,r Y ®o< end <a. 101 c ROSEMEAO EL MONTE a° 43 rt Bra,w freawa san Bamardino Q 1 ,�° LY HILLS g o•d.d O s+. 101 �, as'µ 60 F•,wa) j °¢ © 10 wn,nna e ° VA ° ei d y. Ano c.,w Bna. 60 pt Bna o oym 8 + sr gafi`' _ a S. MONTEREY SouTH N ° ey 10 10 T orb PARK EL MONTE a 170 o pKO c ena n S `�+ �o LA < .•e 9�° rcew, weld end ayr eLd.Q°e 60 m°0 m eve®® pe PUENTE ante MoniG Sr 10 O Adams o ana, 0 1b v n om o�mme�60 B`• _ o J,,hron o eWd. •�� ° 4 ,p Pomona 4 MONTEBELLO A° `,°s INDUSTRY o LOS A�GELES ° b Baron, Ar,. �Q\ CULVER o° M o WE NON COMMERCE o city. g vanao Aw. 5 lot Fka 0 90 a a, 4 ,�• F °3 0 00000 °oo 0.. 000eo 0000edia oe000 0 oo slouaon0000 om YWOOD �4a o PICO R A w.°o E es 90 An. Q 19 ao WHITTIER Y YaMs`P ""'I' o A' Fb,me° Aw HUNTINGTOa•aa• are. aoo °pe°oeo 4° 39 d O PAR BELL BELL GARDEN 9p oLOS tir p 5 NIETO p° se Aw. WALNUT 42° dV°ING EW RKF'r'•+«�.0 UDAH 7 ° t e`n P°vO oOO O f01SOUTHGATE o°o0 o Br ap _ ee B ra. 5 e m a° ° DNEY SANTA FE OW v o° < q© H. o SPRINGS 0 Ra. Im .I I Im.n,I H4 LENNOX ® 42 / 5 6 VHm"++ 00 1 Y LA HABRA — ' N ®o -4 ®® m ®o0oeoo oo.�YNWOOD o® o<o00 0000 0 Goo a �°000 j 0 3 I s ane HAWTHORNE° 000 47 0 0 i 39 1 c E v 4 Q r, NORWALK- D o eacem+on end E $ % LAWNOALE®o e C MPTON 19 0 > 605 5 LA MI RADA FULLERTON iATTAN o, ,as 'o GARDEN - BELLFLOWER Y 101 ow 9 y o 0• 0 0 :ACH \ caaY R,aanea a 91° end. a,+es., 9I Ar.. m—m vmsm—®m moo— _® Ara \ Aw. NORTH LONG BEACH NRTESI 9I r 0, 1 BUENA PARK are.HERMOSA � O Freewa 4 DAIRY BEACH T < \ VALLEY (p%0®Dame me 91 1 DAIRYLAND E f"' 9 TORRANCe 47 % w ' S IO I+ REDOND r°, na. nd. a BEACH t } m Q anon LAKEWOOD r ® ' L+rcoln Ara Iwao 40 I a 214 �0 CYPRESS' 605 8 i eiQ o w sp.In6 sr. "•t 2 8 LOS ALAMITOS 39 WALTERIA weev s+ a° /e K-11. PALO VERDES am � o° � SIGNAL 19 1 I a STANTON z ESTATES I LOMIT clrY p.a},a 1 c ceo.r HILL ROLLING HILLS WILMINGTON o s+ °A� € GARDEN ESTATES An •I1° o — „a.om 240 �" GROVE a` ROILING HILLS.. e s. U 22 ( •ooaon € y ® WESTMINSTER Dome----m- M�p� O LONG Bats I $. w,mnmar« 3 d, 3 405 s EACH F Palos 213 :® ' 8 eoHo Aw. ve yr an,. 1 I < l.,• ° SEAL BEACH SOpj• SAN PEDRO ' O zsn s+. C .2 'SUNSET BEA H\._. •' % 40S 00 aP o° o° STUDY AREA ° ° I o° 57 00 0 HUNTINGTON a° LOS ANGELES AND VICINITY BEACH ti• 0 Scale e 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 MILES \� o �41e�enme fn ` THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH MAP ON FILE WITH CITY CLERK 'gkrut1Y G.�rII.fltlt (trinUrrxur y yw M� i Cy WFORN\0' Talifarnia i�4fuav Gntmiewi= P. O. BOX 1499 SACRAMENTO 7. CALIFORNIA March 4, 1963 The City Council City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: At the meeting of the California Highway Commission on February 27, 1963, State Highway Engineer J. C. Womack submitted a report concerning the location of the Pacific Coast Highway (Legislative Route 60) between 2. 2 miles south of MacArthur Boulevard and Beach Boulevard. Three copies of Mr. Womack's report and the accompanying memorandum are enclosed for your information. The procedural resolution under which the Commission acts in adopting freeway locations requires, among other things, that the State Highway Engineer shall submit a recommendation as to the location of the freeway and that the Commission shall give the local governing bodies an opportunity to request a hearing by the Commis- sion if they so desire, or that the Commission may on its own motion call such a hearing. In this case,' the Com- mission has scheduled a hearing to be held at the Santa Ana Elks Club on March 14, at 10 a.m. Normally, the State Highway Engineer submits Ids recommendation as to location along with his report and prior to any Commission hearing; however, in this case, for reasons brought out in the memorandum, Mr. Womack has deferred his recommendation until after the Commission hearing. As this procedure may raise some questions as to the course of subsequent actions by the Commission, I am advising you and the other affected local jurisdictions that barring unforeseen future developments, it is our inten- tion the hearing to be held by the Commission on March 14 will be the final hearing on this freeway location. 2 City Council March 4, 1963 City of Huntington Beach Mr. Womack has advised me that he will submit his recommendation as soon as possible after the hearing and , in ample time to be considered by the Commission at its regular meeting in April. Members of the Commission are fully aware of the desires of the local jurisdictions to settle this freeway problem at the earliest possible date, and we are hopeful that this procedure will allow us to make the final determination in April. The above information is being furnished at this time with the thought that it may be helpful in the prepara- tion of your testimony for the hearing. Sincerely, ROBERT B. BRADFORD Director of Public Works and Chairman, California Highway Commission Attach. Y FORM W11-89 6 , STATE OF CALIFOMIA / SACRAMENTO 7 Interdepartmental Communication t � Date: February 19, 1963 Mr. Robert B. Bradford, Chairman To: and Members of the File No. VII-Ora-60-A, California Highway Commission NptB,CMsa,B,HntB U.S. 101 (Alt) . L_ From: Division of .Highways Subject: Recommendation for Hearing Submitted herewith for your consideration is a "Report of Route .Studies" covering the relocation and/or reconstruction -of the portion of State Highway Route 60 (U.S. 101 Alternate ) in Orange County, Road VII-Ora-60-A, NptB,CMsa,B,HntB, between 2 .2 miles south of MacArthur Boulevard (Route 184) and Beach Boulevard (Route . 171) . The various alternates discussed have been investigated as possible freeway locations for this por- tion of Route 60. The estimated cost of providing an 8-lane freeway with a 22-foot median for this 11-mile segment ranges from $61,300, 000 to 468,70'0:,000 depending on the alternate selected. The lengths and estimated costs of the various alternates are shown in the report. Two alternates have been developed for the portion between 2 .2 miles south of MacArthur Boulevard and Bayside Drive . These alternates were presented at the public hearing of April 19, 1962. Twenty alternates or co-mbinatiorB of alternates are discussed in the "Report of Route Studies" for the portion from Bayside Drive to Beach Boulevard. In this section the Green, Red, Yellow, and Brown alternates were presented at the afore-mentioned public hearing . The Orange,Dashed. Orange, and Dashed Red lines were developed as a result of information and suggestions brought forth at the hearing. The Green line was revised in the. area 2 - February 19, 1963 Mr. Robert B. Bradford and V'II-Ora-60-A,NptB, Members of the Commission CMs,a�B,HntB from Newport Boulevard to the Santa Ana River subsequent to the public hearing, and is now termed the Green (revised) alternate. A considerable amount of interest has developed with respect to this project, not only. in the communities affected but also within many other communities of the Orange County Coast. There are differences of opinion among the directly affected communities as to the proper location for the free- way; however, there is general agreement as to the need for the freeway and the necessity for an early decision as to location. Due to these differences of opinion, there is little doubt that a Commission gearing will be required prior to route adoption. We have estimated that by July 1 costs of the various alternates will increase between $1 and $5 million due to rapid development of the area. An early route adoption would undoubtedly minimize these cost increases. In view of the fact that several alternates have been developed and other alternates have been revised sub- sequent to the Division 's public hearing, and in the interest of avoiding any unnecessary delay in adoption of the route, it is recommended that the Commission, on its own motion, set the time and date for a Commission Hearing. As community aspects of the various alternates will undoubtedly be of paramount importance in making a final decision as to routing, and in consideration of the fact that the affected communities have not had the opportunity to officially present their views as to some of the studied rout- ings at a public hearing, the State Highway Engineer's recom- mendation as to routing is being deferred until after the Commission Hearing, While this report is being submitted to the Commission by the State Highway Engineer without recommendation, this is being done with the understanding that the presently declared freeway will continue to be developed as necessary, in order Mr. Robert Bo Bradford and - 3 - February 19, 1963 Members of the Commission VII-Ora-60-A,NptB, CMsa,B,FintB to handle the present traffic and the contemplated increase in traffic thereon, both during the period prior to the ulti-- mate' constriction of the Coast Freeway and thereafter. There- fore 9 regardless of the ultimate location of the Coast Freeway, the construction of which will not occur for several years, acquisition of rights of way, .:.including restriction of access And improvements on the present highway, will be necessary duriaig the interim period before the new Coast Freeway is constructed. It is gay opinion therefore that the present resolutions of . the Commission authorizing acgsition of rights of way and access rights along the present route should remain in effect and the . Commission should so indicate. J C. W014ACK tate Highway Engineer Attachment l REPORT OA"{ry� ROUTE STUDIES RELATIVE TO THE FREEWAY LOCATION OF ROB-UTE 60 (U.S. 101 ALTERNATE) IN ORANGE COUNTY BETWEEN 2.2 MILES SOUTH OF MAC ARTHUR BLVD. (RTE. 184) AND BEACH BOULEVARD (RTE. 171) ROAD VII-ORA-60-B,NptB,CMsa,A,HntB FEBRUARY, 1963 s ow ! UMC saes%'{ ,`'-''e' yZ;►' :,.•,. \\ °'�"' r, ' saw • ...:: fftum.'� ►� • L 0 S S A N yes r:; .�. , ,- M� nss✓aM , 6' E' L E S " RNARDYNO soar s'° ....-. ®.t. IN TM NIEA wa SEE YAP C3 Mbw dEr ` Bew slow .� FM THIS AIEA i 3'i'i sussuBr eu.Ir SEE YAP C-@ a lsOG:a tsesewso.a rragy mam. wee• srs essAerPrw!- ,,,.,, saw .Lr.00.. AtyfuO "LLB. TLYYar6 CEV1W . Lbs rr NEST ACeAeh « core► , / auae err urv.a IL p..... . i assum R I V E'R S I D E we -LESENQ- - - oraBrwao ' _,Trovm"State INghaao unconstrusat"Stets Hlo wsp 4. STATE Of CAIIFORNIA:. F wr+r'M. •w...° r V_OEPARTYENT-OF PUBUC WORKS .q ' t u DIVISION OF,HIGHWAYS � f w QIST'R1Ct ,0 � e ice• P Scale era ° S A N .rw ?' mao �CAI I8. D I E G 0 VII-Ora-60-,B.,NptB,CMsa., AHntB PROPOSAL Relocation and/or reconstruction to freeway standards for the portion of Route 60 (U.S. Highway 101 Al'ternate) in Orange County- between 2.2 miles south of MacArthur Boulevard (Route 184) and Beach Boulevard (Route 171) a distance of approximately 11 , miles. This proposed improvement is known locally as the Pacific Coast Freeway or Coast Freeway. PRINCIPAL CITIES OR COMMUNITIES The alternate locations for the Route 60 freeway presented in this report pass through or directly affect the Cities of Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, and Costa Mesa. The 1963 Pow- lation estimates of these cities are 34,,100, 31,400 and 50.,700 respectively. In addition to the above cities, all of the Orange County coastal cities have displayed a keen interest in this proposed freeway location and several organizations have submitted resolutions expressing their opinions. EXISTING HIGHWAY A. General The Legislative description of Route 60 is from: "Route 2 near El Rio to Route 2 south of San Juan Capistrano. " The existing facility is generally identified as the Pacific Coast Highway. In Newport Beach south of Route 184, it is identified as Coast Boulevard. In Huntington Beach,, it is known as Ocean Avenue. The existing facility south of Newport Beach is a four- lane divided highway with a prevailing median width of four feet. Within Newport Beach and north to Route 271 the existing facility is an undivided four-lane highway. There are, within Newport Beach, two sections of six-lane divided highway totaling some 2.2 miles in length. On September 20, 1955, the California Highway Commission declared the existing highway to be a freeway between Route 43 and a point 3,000 feet westerly of Route 171. This route is included in the Federal Aid System of Highways under the designation of FAP-.28. VII-Ora-60-B,NptB, CMsa:, 2 A,HntB B. Traf f i c The present average daily traffic on this segment of Route 60 is 'as follows: 2.2 miles south of Rt. 184 to Route 184 26,,000 ,-,.. Route 184 to Route 43 33,000 Route 43 to Route 171 22,,000 Trucks average about 4 per cent of the total traffic. C. Princiml, Deficiencies Deficiencies of the present highway are lack of access control and inadequate traffic capacity. ROUTE FLANNINGO As noted above, the California Highway Commission in September 1955, declared the existing highway to be a freeway between Route 43 and a point 3,000 feet westerly of Route 171. This location of this segment of declared freeway is restudied within this report. 'A freeway agreement was executed with the City of Huntington Beach January 12, 1959. The City Council by minute order on September 21, 1959, rescinded its action in approving the freeway agreement executed" January 12, 1959. By resolution of June 3, 1961, the City Council noted that further discussions with the Division of Highways had resulted in a plan acceptable to them and recommended its adoption. They further recommended deletion of present freeway status of Route 60 westerly of State Sign Route 39. A revised freeway agreement was executed with - the City on November 7, 1961. This revised agreement differs- from the original agreement in the elimination of schematic intersection details in the vicinity of Beach Boulevard. The n'ew agreement will accommodate a northward turn of the freeway routing onto Beach Boulevard whereas the original agreement pointed the freeway along the existing highway through the heavily developed sections of Huntington Beach. No freeway agreement has yet been executed for that portion of the declared freeway within Newport Beach. VII-Ora-60-B,NptB,.CMsa,, 3 - A,HntB The freeway location for the remaining portions of the Route 60 freeway in Orange County have not as yet been established. Freeway location for these remaining portions in Orange County are currently under study. MASTER PLAN The Orange County Master Plan dated April 4, 1962, shows a- proposed location for the Pacific Coast Freeway paral- lel to and approximately 1 to 1-1/2 miles-inland of the exist- ing highways A copy of this Master Plan is attached as Exhibit D. The Master Plan for the City of Newport Beach, adopted January 13, 1958, shows a proposed freeway location following similar alignment as the Orange County Master Plane Master plans of other affected cities do not include a location for the Coast Freeway. FLOOD CONTROL AREAS This project is not in conflict with any planned reservoir for Federal Power Withdrawal areas, The area between the Santa Ana River and Beach Boule- vard (Route 171) is included in the Orange County Flood Control District, The construction of flood control channels and other facilities has progressed to the point where many portions .of the area are being developed for residences and businesses. Crossing of flood control channels will be required by all alternates in this area. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS High level crossings ,m Upper Newport` Bay Each alternate alignment crossing the Upper Newport Bay contemplates a structure having a minimum vertical clear- ance of 40 feet, and a minimum horizontal span of 100 feet. These clearances cox1form to the request of the State Small Craft and Orange Co ty Harbot Commissions, Final docision as too clearance req irements mill be by the U.S. Corps of Engineers.. The need .for increased clearance of the present _. highway bridge has been under discussion for several years, and is still a subject of active interest to the community. VII-Ora-60-B,NptB,CMsa y-A,HntB 4 . Prior reports to the Commission on the subject of increasing the clearance of the existing highway over the Newport Channel have recommended deferment of final decision until the route studies -..are. completed. At the public hearing of April 19, 1962, it was stated that in addition to bearing the entire cost of the "high level" freeway structure,, it may be possible for the State to participate in the cost of a separate "high level" 'local crossing of the bay, The extent of the Statelsparticipation would have to be measured by the "benefits to- highway user" yardstick. ' An example was cited ' for the alternates close to the existing highway. A thigh level" separate structure for local traffic could reduce the number of ramps required at the Dover Drive Interchange. This savings in cost, due to the type of interchange required, could be considered in the computation of State participation in the "high level" local crossing,, The Red Line was considered to be too far inland to be influenced in this regard by a "high level" local crossing. TYPICAL SECTION It is proposed to develop this project as an ultimate 8-lane freeway with a 22-foot wide median. A minimum right of way I-is planned on the basis of 190 feet except for some critical areas where structures are proposed to reduce this required width. The number of lanes to be constructed initially will be determined at the time that construction is imminent. The cost estimates attached are on the basis of 8-lane construction. STUDIES OF ALTERNATE ROUTES The various alternate locations which have been studied are shown on the attached Exhibit A and are discussed briefly below: In this discussion, for purposes_ of simplification, the project has been divided into two parts., consisting of the segment from 2.2 miles south of Route 184 (MacArthur Boulevard) to Bayside Drive,, and the portion from Bayside Drive to Route 171, (Beach Boulevard). Unit 1 (2.2 miles south of Route 184, MacArthur Boule- vard, to Bayside Drive) Green Alternate The Green Alternate commences at the Pacific Coast Highway at the south end of this project and leaves the existing facility to pass Cameo Highlands and Corona Highlands on the northeasterly side. In the VII-Ora-60-B,,NptB,CMsa-'�A,HhtB 5 area southeasterly of MacArthur Boulevard, it is located along the north side of 5th Avenue. From MacArthur Boulevard to Bayside Drive it is close to and on the. northerly side of the existing highway. The Green Line requires the relocation of the Grant- Howell Youth Center, the St. James Parish School, and requires some revision in -development plans for the Catholic Church. Green-Blue-Green Line This alternate departs from the Green Line near Corona Highlands and swings inland approximately 1/2 mile passing behind the Harbor View Hills subdivision. It then tarns southwest,, passing through an undeveloped area to join the Green Line opposite the Irvine Country Club. This vacant area between MacArthur Boulevard and the Country Club is currently being planned for development as a town center by the Irvine Company. Unit II (Bayside Drive to Route lZj,_Beach Boulevard The present rapid rate of development and the imminence of further development in this area greatly influences the feasibility of the various locations. In some cases, locations which appeared economically feasible at the time of the public hearing have advanced in cost to the point where they are essentially secondary choices. Since the original alternate locations have been pre- sented at public hearings, they are described herein along with other locations which have been investigated subsequent to the hearing. -The various alternate routings which have been investi- gated for this proposed freeway segment are shown on the attached project map Exhibit A. The Red,, Yellow, Green, and Brown alternates were presented at the public hearing of April 19 1962. Subsequent to this public hearing the Orange Lines and the Dashed-Red Line were developed and investigated. In addition, a Revised Green Line was investigated to reflect the changing conditions from Newport Boulevard north through the Newport Shores area,, VII®Ora-60-B,NptB4ONsl,9A,HntB 6 - 1 , Red Line--Between Dover Drive and Newport Boulevard this alternate is located between 17th Street and Ogle S:t et:. North of Newport Boulevard to Placentia A*ehue:m the Red Line is approximately centered between 16th and- 17th Streets® From Placentia Street to the end of the project it is located approximately parallel to and about one mile inland of the existing highway. The Red Line crosses a low land area just south of. the' Santa Ana River which the City of Costa Mesa feels will be' a valuable asset to the tax base of the community inasmuch as it is being :contemplated by private developers as a proposed marina. West of Cannery Street, it crosses vacant land which is planned for immediate development as residen- tial and commercial by the Signal Oil Company. 2. Yellow Line--The Yellow Line is located in a median position between the Red Line and the existing highway. Between Irvine Avenue and Santa Ana Avenue, the Yellow Line is positioned between Clay Street and Broad Street. North of Newport Boulevard, the Yellow Line passes between Hoag Memorial .Hospital and the Hughes Electronic Plant. . North of the Santa And River the Yellow Line is approximately parallel to and about 4000 feet inland of the existing highway. Development of an apartment complex on the formerly vacant parcel between the Hughes Electronic Plant and the Hoag Memorial Hospital has raised the cost of this alternate considerably above that presented at the public hearing of April 19, 1962. 3. Green Line-- The Green Line from the Upper Newport Bay Channel to Newport Boulevard is located some 500 feet inland of the existing highway. This location leaves the usable existing commercial frontage of the present highway basically un- affected. Between Dover Drive and Santa Ana Avenue, the Green Line is positioned between Cliff Drive and Kings Road, From a point south of Newport Shores to the north end of the project the Green Line is located along the line of the existing Pacific .Coast Highway and Beach Boulevard, VII-Ora-60-B NptB, CMsa';A,HhtB 7 This portion of the Pacific Coast., Highway was declared a freeway by the California Highway C_om:___ mission in September of 1955. Through the Newport Shores Area., viaduct construction was considered because of the high right of way acquisition costs. With the freeway elevated the existing highway would be left relatively untouched. 4. Revised Green-- This is a revision to the original Green Line in the area from Newport Boulevard to the Santa Ana Riverb By locating the revised Green Line about 500 feet inland in the area between Newport Shores and Newport Boulevard, it was possible to avoid the recently created com- mercial frontage adjacent to the existing highway. Viaduct construction through the Newport Shores Area as contemplated by the original Green Line was changed to "at grade" construction. 5. Dotted Green and Dashed Green--These are variations of the Green Line between Dover Drive and Irvine Avenue. These alternates contemplate a location immediately between the existing commercial devel- opment along the present highway and the residential section atop the bluff. The Dotted Green alternate is based upon a side-hill. location and generally requires property fronting on both sides of Kings Road for necessary right of way. The Dashed, Green Line contemplates substantial use of structures so as to minimize the amount of right of way required through this section. The level of the roadways can be so positioned as to be lower than elevation of Kings Road but higher than the existing commercial buildings fronting the existing highway® Retaining wall design actually creates additional parking spaces for the, existing - commercial developments The bhsh6d Green Line requires the property which fronts on the south side of Kings Road but it leaves Kings Road as a usable facility. Brown Numbered Altemates--These cross connections have been developed to fully investigate various. combinations of the basic alternates. By intei_ 66nnecting the southerly portions of one alternate 8 VII-Ora-60-B,NptB) CMsa,A,HntB with the northerly portions of another alternate many various combinations have been investigated in an effort to determine the most feasible locations available. 7. Orange--This alternate was developed after the public hearing of April 19, 1962. It generally follows a location suggested as a compromise by the Mayor of Newport Beach. It is located southerly of the Red Line through Costa Mesa and passes through the pres- ent maintenance yard of 'the City'of Newport Beach. Although the City' s offer for the use of the mainte- nance yard site was helpful for the right of way between Superior Avenue and Newport i Boulevard, other right of way problems on either side of this section partially nullified this advantage. ' 8. Dashed Orange-- The Dashed Orange Line was developed as a variation of the Mayor' s suggestion at the public hearing. Its location is more compatible with the city street pattern as it remains parallel with the local street network on each side of Newport Boulevard. 9 . Dashed Red-- Developed subsequent to the original public hearing this alternate minimizes the effect of the Red Line upon the potential Marina area just easterly of , the Santa Ana River. The Dashed Red Line leaves the Red Line at Whittier Avenue veering north- ward to cross the proposed Marina area at its narrow- est point which is in the vicinity of Hamilton Street. The Dashed Red Line northwesterly of the Santa Ana River is located parallel to and approximately 7,000 feet inland of the existing highway. Comparative ,engineering and economic data pertinent to the alternates 'discussed above are summarized on the attached Exhibits 11B11 and 110 . ACTION TAKEN SUBSEQUENT TO INITIATION OF STUDIES A. Conferences Numerous discussions were held with local officials n I for the purpose of explai ing studies prior to the public hearing of April 19., 1962. VII-Ora-60BNptB.,CKs'a;,A,,HntB _ 9 ® The Green Line in the Corona Del Mar area would require the relocation of a Youth Center and a pai-ochi' al school. The relocations (of these facilities were discussed with representatives of these organizations and with the Irvine Company,, and all .parties concerned appeared to agree that a satisfactoty relocation could be accomplished. B. Local Authorities Notified of Provisions of Section 75,5 of the Ureeds ,—Rways Code. The following; local authorities were notified by letter., 9 on the dates indicated of the provisions 'of Section 75.5 of the Streets and Highways Code. Orange County Board of Supervisors 11-28-58 City Council of Newport Beach 11 28-58 City Council of Huntington Beach 11-28-58 City Couhcil 'of ,Costa Mesa 11-28.-i58 The above authorities were again notified of Section 75.5 prior to the public hearing held April 19, 1962. C. Other State envies Contacted in Conformance with Section b4 of Streets -a-n-d H Lwa s ode A'�' M 12 (195n The following State agencies were notified of this project by letter on the dates indicated: Department of Natural Resources 7-7-60 State Lands Commission 7-7-60 Division of Beaches and Parks 7-7-60 Division of Small Craft Harbors 7-7-60 California -Aeronauties Commission 4-12-61 Californiaj)ept_ of Fish and;ftme 4-12-61 Dept. of Parks and Recreation 3-12-62 Dept. of Natural-,-. Resources 3-12-62 Replies were received from the above agencies as follows: State Lands Commission - July 12, 1960 Mr. Burton Tooker, Land Agent., stated that their interests were mainly concerned with the coastal area from the high tide mark seaward, but they would be concerned with any route adjoining the high tide mark which might nullify installations subsisting from marine operations. VII-Ora-60-BNptB2CMsa,,AHntB 10 Division of Beaches and Parks - August 4, 1960 Mr. James E. Warren, Supervisor of Development, stated they were interested in our studies, particularly 'as to the effect they might have on access to Doheny and Huntington Beach State Parks. Department of Parks and Recreation The State Park Commission, at its February meeting, 1962, passed a resolution requesting the State Highway Com- mission to locate the freeway in such a way that the local road be retained and an inland route be selected for the freeway. This resolution was forwarded for presentation at the public hearing,. Department of Natural Resources -July 21., 1960 Mr. E. F. Dolaer, Deputy Director, expressed an inter e' st in the possible effect any coastal freeway might have on the future development of marina facilities between Seal Beach and Newport Beach. He suggested that a meeting be held with all State agencies concerned ip order to, let each agency indicate its interest in the area.- Agencies listed under (C) above and the U.S. -Corps of Engineers were notified by letters dated October 4, 1961, of a meeting to be held October 16, 1961, at District VII offices to present for discussion study lines under consideration. Attending this meeting were representatives of Depart- ment of Beaches and Parks and U.S. Corps of Engineers. No apparent conflicts with the study lines presented were indicated by either agency. Division of Small Craft Harbors The Small Craft Harbors Commission at its February 20, 1961, meeting, adopted a resolution recommending to the California Highway.-Commission that any bridge con- structed over Upper Newport Bay provide a minimum horizontal clearance of 100-feet with a vertical clear- ance of not less than 40 feet measured from mean high tide line. Vjj-Ora-60-B2NptB,CMsa�A.,HntB D. Other Agencies Contacted Public Utilities Commission - 8-11-6o U.S. Corps of Engineers - 8-11-6o Mr. H. W. Thompson, Chief of Engineering Division, U.S. ,Corps of_ Engineers,, replied September 6, 19602 stating- they would be interested in any crossings of Anaheim, Upper Newport, Sunset and Bolsa Chica Bays. No reply has been received from the Public Utilities Commission to date. E. Public Hearing A well publicized.-,-public hearing was held on April 19., 1962, in theauditorium of the Newport Harbor Union High School: tb :,present the results of studies for the proposed freeway Iocations. Approximately 1000 persons attended this hearing,, including representatives of Orange County., and the Cities of Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach and Laguna Beach,, and other civic and private organizations. The District Engineer presided at this hearing and pre- twelve alternates or combinations of alternates without an expressed preference. A representative from the U.S.,_Bureau: of Public Roads .: offered no comment on this project. State Senator Murdy and State Assemblyman Sumer were present but had no comments. As mentioned above,, the State Park Commission submitted a resolution requesting the California Highway Commission to locate the Coast Freeway in such a way that the exist- ing highway be retained and that an inland route be selected for the freeway. The Division of Small Craft Harbors submitted a letter and a copy of their February 20, ,1961, resolution recom- mending, minimum clearandes of 100 feet horizontal and 40 feet vertical for any structure crossing of Upper Newport Bay. The letter expressed the Division' s opinion that route selection should take into consideration that coastal lagoons are an important natural resource. VII-Ora-60-B,,NptB,,A.,HntB 12 Mr- Koch, speaking for the Orange County Board of Super- visors, reviewed the results of studies completed to date by the Orange County Coastal Transportation Committee and summarized their viewpoints as follows-. 1. The tremendous volumes of traffic anticipated in the future along the coastal area established the fact that a freeway is the only practical solution to this traffic problem. 2. The existing Pacific Coast Highway must not be severed but should remain in operation so as to provide local access to the beach recreational facilities. 3. If a freeway facility is to be constructed through. this area, it must not sever the recreational area from the community,, therefore, it should be located inland from the existing highway at a location best suited to the needs of the community. The City of Costa Mesa submitted a resolution stating that there is no suitable route for a freeway on the south side of Costa Mesa. Reasons given by Costa Mesa were-o 16 Encroachment of the freeway onto potentially valuable marina lands which when developed will have an extremely healthy economic effect upon the area. 2. Any freeway route through South Costa Mesa between the Arches and Harbor Boulevard conflicts with need to establish "clean" traffic flow through downtown sec- tion of Costa Mesa. The location of a freeway within one mile of the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and Newport Freeway will place all land between these points under freeway interchange facilities. 3. Five per cent of Costa Mesa' s total area is now devoted to freeways,, and further increase in this tax free area for freeway use is not considered desirable.. Costa Mesa in previous resolutions has urged initiation of studies for location of the Route 60 Freeway and hat endorsed and approved in principle, the master plan of arterial highways as adopted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors on May 31, 1956e It was noted that Costa VII-Ora-60-B,NptB,CMsa.,',A,,IfntB 13 Mesa has never adopted the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways and as a result has received no County financial aid for County arteries by virtue of its failure to adopt the plan. The Citiep of Huntington Beach and Newport Beach sub- mitted repautiono f4vorlrig the Red Line. The resolution . submitted by Newport Beach also suggested that the State' consider an additioA,-gl alternate southerly of the Red Line. The 6h4ffib@rg of Commerce of Huntington Beach and Newport Beach submi tted resolutions supporting those sub- mitted by their respective cities. The City Council of Newport Beach in its resolution expressed preference for the blue alternate in Unit I. The City of Laguna Beach submitted a written statement . requesting that consideratior. be given to the section of the proposed Pacific Coast Freeway between Corona Del Mar and Laguna BeAgh before establishing any location southeasterly of MacArthur Boulevard, The League of Orange Coast Civic, Associations requested that the State Highway Engineer 'recommend a route terminat- ing at MacArthur Boulevard to permit future consideration of the inland route, proposed by their Association, between Corona Del Mar and Laguna Beach' 1 The Corona Del Mar Chamber of Commerce submitted a written statement favoring the Blue Line, I The Harbor View Hills Community Association submitted a written statement favoring the Blue Line. Comments and written statements by individuals covered all of the proposed alternates presented at the 'hearing. Copies of the report and transcript of proceedings of this hearing were forwarded for the Commission' s attention under date of June 69 1962. F. communications and/or documents ts received subsequent to ...the public hearing By letter of April 27, 1962, the Irvine Company expressed preference for the Green Line in the vicinity of Mae Arthur Boulevard. Of particular, concern to the Irvine Company'- is the effect of the Blue Line upon the planned Newport VII-Ora-60-B,,NptB,, CMsa'k,_A,,,HntB 14 Center which has been in the planning stage for two years. They feel the adoption of the Blue Line route would seriously jeopardize the entire project as con- ceived. By letter of May 8, 1962, the Corona Highlands Property Owners Association-, Incorporated., expressed preference for the Bl4e Line asit would utilize open land and would be located further from the quiet residential district. By letter of May 10, 1962, the Harbor View Hills Com- munity Association reconsidered its position as expressed at the public hearing. By this later letter they -ex- pressed preference for the Green Line in Unit I rather than the Blue Line as they had indicated at the time of the public hearing. They also expressed a unanimous desire of their members for depressing the freeway both westerly and easterly of MacArthut Boulevard. By letter of April 5,, 1962, the Newport Heights Improve- ment Association opposed any of the proposed routes shown at the public hearing. The above letters were included within the Report and Transcript of the public hearing. By letter of May 18, 1962, the League of Orange Coast Civic Associations, representing many civic organizations from Emerald Bay to Dana Point lincluding the City of Laguna Beach) expressed a preference for the blue alter- nate in Unit I and the Red alternate in Unit II. They also presented a report to establish that �he Coast free- way should not be located through beach communities where the traffieway would damage aesthetic, scenic, recrea- tional, and real values of the beach area; and to request simultaneous and coordinated study of entire freeway alignment between Beach Boulevard and Capistrano Beach. ' The report discussed in considerable detail a bypass route located approximately four miles inland from MacArthur Avenue to Capistrano Junction. By letter of May 22, 1962, the City of Laguna Beach re- affirmed its position opposing any freeway route which would bisect its City, and opposing any adoption south- erly of MacArthur Blvdi, . as this would eliminate con- sideration of some alternate routings, such as the one presented by the League of Orange Coast Civic Associa- tions. VII-Ora-60-BjNptB,CMsa,A,HhtB 15 - In letters dated July 20, 1962, and July 11, 1962, the League of Orange Coast Civic Assn. '. and the City of :Laguna Beach did request the California Highway Commission to issue a directive to its engineering staff to study and make recommendations on other route locations between MacArthur Boulevard and the Dana Point junction immedi- ately., and before the Commission adopts any location southerly of MacArthur Boulevard, The Council of the City of Newport Beach, by Minute Resolution dated October 29, 1962, requested that the freeway route from Pacific Highway to the northerly ex- tension of Marguerite Avenue be adopted as a temporary connection until such time as the Commission adopts the route from-Corona Del Mar to Dana Point,, and that the ' temporary connection be constructed at the same time as the freeway is constructed northerly of Marguerite Avenue. A similar resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of Laguna Beach. The Signal Oil and Gas Company,, by letter of November 15, 1962, expressed preference for the Green alternate as the company is about to develop-a large area easterly of Beach Boulevard. The development will be both a regional shopping center and single family residential area. The development contains about 500 acres. The Red Line and the Dashed-Red Line pass through this area. By letter of May 31,, 19620 BEECO, Ltd. , owners of approxi- mately 600 acres situated north of 101 Alternate and extending from the Santa Ana River on the west to Superior Avenue on the east,, reviewed the problems of the various alignments upon development plans for the property. The Dashed-Red is preferred and the Red Line is second choice. BEECO feels that any bisecting line may have an adverse effect upon a very ambitious and successful secondary recovery program which has greatly increased the value of the oil reserves on this property. The loss of ability to realize the maximum from this field would cause great damage. Copies of these additional letters are included in the supplement to the Transcript of Public Hearing. This supplement was forwarded for the Commission' s attention under date of February 19, 1963. VII-Ora-60-BNptB,CMsa-'$A,HntB 16 G. Additional Studies As discussed under Studies of Alternate Routes., several variations in alternate locations were studied subse- quent to the public hearing. As a result of a resolution submitted by the City of Newport Beach at the April 19, 1962, public hearing, the Division has investigated the locations represented by the Orange and Dashed Orange Lines on Exhibit A. Changes in land use and building developments adjacent to existing Pacific Coast Highway between Newport Shores and Route 43 required certain revisions to the original Green Line. To avoid undue disturbance to the proposed Marina,, the Dashed Red Line was investigated. H141 Additional Conferences On December 21, 1962, a meeting was held with the technical staffs of Orange County and the Cities of Newport Beach,, Costa Mesa and Huntington Beach and other local agencies to present the results of additional studies made subsequent to the public hearing., of April 19., 1962. The presentation included a discussion of right of way and construction costs which had been updated to December 21, 1962. Basically, the technical staffs held the same positions expressed at the public hearing. 1. Costa Mesa opposed any route passing within its city limits. 2. Huntington Beach favors the Red or Dashed Red Lines. .3. Newport Beach would accept the Red, Dashed Red Lines or the Orange Lines. VII-Ora®60®B,NptB,CMsa,A,HntB 17 4. Laguna Beach and the League of Orange Coast Civic Associations expressed the opinion that the Route 60 Freeway studies between Corona Del Mar and Dana Point should be expedited and in the interim the adoption for this project should terniihate at Marguerite Avenue with the portion of the proposed route. south. of Marguerite Avenue to be designated as a temporary connection. 5; Mr, Koch- speaking for the Orange County Board of Supervisors expressed the opinion that further public hearings would not develop any pertinent additional information and that the State should schedule a Commission hearing as soon as possible to expedite a route adoption. No opposition .was made to this opinion. Mr. Koch reiterated the posi- tion of the Orange County Board of Supervisors that the .existing: highway should be maintained for local access to the recreational areas. Note: The Estimate of Cost for the Green Alternate includes some $800,000 for a continuous frontage road between Newport Shores and west of Beach Boulevard. The fact that allowances for the frontage roads, includ- ing a local crossing of the _.Santa Ana River, are included in the estimates is not to be construed as a commitment on the part of the California Highway Commission or the Division of Highways to construct these facilities. These local facilities were allowed for in the estimates on the assumption that their construction by the State would mitigate the severance damages to the abutting property owners and that they would be desired by the local jurisdictions I. Projection of right of way costs The publicity associated with the December 21, 19629 meeting with the technical staffs has resulted in numerous property owners along the Orange and Red Lines contacting the Division of Highways to give information as to planned developments of their property. The rapid rate of development in this area requires constant revisions to the right of way costs to keep the tabulation meaningful. The following data contains VII-Ora-60-BsNptBsCMsa,,A,HntB 18 right of way costs projected to July 1. 1963, on certain lines. These projected costs reflect those developments which are known to be imminent, Total Cost Total Families Line (Lmil. ) Affected Green Revised 46.8 189 Green-Dashed Green 48.9 137 (Retaining Wall Const. ) Dashed Orange-Dashed Red 49.5 434 Red-Dashed Red 50.9 330 Dashed Orange- 44.7 242 Brown(7)-Green Estimates of cost of right of way, for the Yellow Line do not include cost of a six-story building now under con- struction just west of Newport Boulevard. Estimates of the Yellow Line through this area will increase some $4 million due to this development. The Division of Highways is currently acquiring through the process of condemnation certain parcels along the existing highway within the,.limits of the Freeway Declara- tion of September 20., 1955. The costs involved by -reason of selecting, a different location for the Route 60 freeway through this area are not reflected in the costs of the inland locations. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A - Vicinity Map showing study alternates Exhibit B ® Summary of Economic and Land Use Data -. Unit I Exhibit C - Summary of Economic and Land Use Data -- Unit II Exhibit D - Orange County Master Plan of Arterial. Highways PROPOSED ROUTE 60 FREEWAY 2.2 MILES SOUTH OF MAC ARTHUR BLVD. (Rte. 184) TO BEACH BLVD. (Rte. 171 ) b. 11 ' W b. Ole P II O IEG O ® ' / 0P PALISADES RD. 'AAyG OBOE. 15 8 ,� N® � n ti 'QG > UPPER /'�� NEWPORT BA p` �Pv I m > Pd�• `1 �o � a � �.J L. J �\��� p�Go4 \\ Py� p a C � m �rF • l GPI pGs yGA ��p 22 r A ST.IPA w \ 1 m Ix 1' < A O Q toa. co Z �. W ytn \\-A �q 5� 3 Z )r ��. cr C�2 Z 19 t h ST. oo 9yo 0��,5 SA o��P y yc• r � a P � G� `� 4i \ r' s 9 1 1 a 17 t h ST C p GAF nth--STT.` c �� HWY. 5th AVE P Ur 1. . W ti � Psi' s � / /' •�`� �a' n_ BAY \ `. � . 0 ✓% 1' / RTE.60 PACIFIC_ LT. COAST NEWPORT BEACH PAC/ F/ C 0 C E A N f k PROJECT LIMITS r SUMMARY OF ENGINEERING AND ECONOMIC DATA UNIT I (2,2 Miles South"of MacArthur Boulevard to Bayside Drive) Length Consta R/W Total Ind, Single User in Cost Cost Cost and Family Mult< Familie,s Benefits Alternate Miles (Millions) (Million s) ._(Millions) Comm. Dwell. '- Well. Affected' (M11:1ion�l Green 4,0 9.1 8.9 18,0 0 6 0 6 Base Green-Blue-Green 4.2 9.1 8.7 17.8 0 2 0 2 -8 H H tbd j i SUMMARY OF ENGINEERING AND ECONOMIC DATA UNIT II BAYSIDE DRIVE TO BEACH BOULEVARD Alternate Variation Length Costs in Millions Ri ht of Way Requirements 20-year in Contt. R Total Ind. Single Mult. Families User Miles & Family Dwell. Benefits Comm. Dwell. Affected Millions Red 6_�6 21.3 24.8 46.1 69 98 18 182 7 *Dashed Red f+o.6 -0.6 0 +1 +3 -1 +1 3 *Orange-Red P.6 .6 24.5 46.1 96 209 28 362*Dashed Orange 6.5 -0.6 -1.2 +6 -95 +16 -62 )-7 *Orange-Yellow 6.9 21.4 26.8 48.2 86 311 22 435 -3 *Orange-Brown (7) Green 7.5 20.5 24.3 44.8 go 18o 22 304 *Dashed Orange +0,1 -0.8 -0.5 -1.3 +6 -95 +16 -62 -3 Yellow 6.8 20.3 28.0 48.3 45 428 18 518 Base Yellow-Brown (lo) Green (Rev. ) 7.4 21.0 24. 2 45.2 46 210 25 307 Base Yellow-Brown (9) Green (Rev. ) 7.4 20.8 27.0 47.8 61 307 20 404 -5 Yellow-Brown (7) Green 7.4 19.6 25.6 45.2 45 292 18 382 Base Yellow-Brown (8) Red 6.7 21>0 25.3 46.3 48 299 21 397 Base Green (Rev. ) 25.2 46.5 49 150 18 189 Dashed Green-Wall 7.41, 21.3 +4.4 -2.1 +2.3 -1 -42 -5 -52 Base Dashed-Green Viaduct +4.4 -0.2 +4.2 +18 -39 -2 -39 Dotted Green +1.2 +2.2 +3.4 +56 +13 -5 +3 Green (Rev. )-Brown (8) Yellow 7.1 20.6 24.5 45.1 31 272 16 304 -7 Green (Rev. )-Brown 8 Red 7.0 22.1 22.3 44.4 36 148 17 184 -9 17 *Studied subsequent to public hearing. . Q e� ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CITY. OF HUNT TI.GTON BEACH NEMORANDUIT To mTE FROM CITY ENGINEER SUBJECT Ap 01 Si HUNT INGTON BE NCH C I 'I I ZLNS 'F ".CEERILNG C 0 M M I T T E F July 13, 1962 City Council City of Hurtington Beach Civic Center Huntington Beach, California Subject: Freewa Locations and Status Gentlemen: The City Planning and Development Committee, a sub-committee of the Citizens Steering Committee, hereby recommends that the City Council take necessary action to obtain a complete and up to date report from the State Highway Department regarding freeway routes, proposed routes, and time schedules f07- the San#',Diego, coastal, and inter-linking Huntington Beach Freeway, and any other proposed freeway routes whicin will ultimately pass through or close to the city limits. We feel there are many reasons why we mist have first hand information with regard to these freeways. First, i* seems to the Committee that this infor- mation could actually be the h. -9 for advanced planning for the City of Huntington Beach. s.ondl ' it will vitally effect the schools, community services, and the future tax base and economic structure. This committee in its studies for the locations of the future civic center, must also be aware of these future freeway locations. Not only is this information itself of prime importance. Early decisions on routing must be made to avoid possible delay in important City growth and development. We believe that the State Division of Highways, if requested to do so by Your Body, will cooperate in furnishing the information regarding the proposed and planned freeways. We hope also that you will urge the State to act prompt- ly and will express the willingness of the City (and of various City planning groups) to cooperate in moving the freeway planning along as rapidly as possible. If you are in accord with this suggestion, we recommend that you express. these thoughts in an appropriate resolution and empoK,tr the City Administrator to take the necessary follow-up steps with the 'Mate. Sin" ely,. Z�2 ichard L. La ue Chairman, City Planning and Development Committee; Citizens' Steering Committee This recommendation is approved by the Citizens' Steering Committee and has its full support. _ E. A. Hartsook, Chairman CITIMS' STMING CQ*aTTEE HOWARD STEPHENS R. I�'dIARSHALL DICK LA Rl�—`- C. E. "Bill' WOODS President First Vice President Second Vice President Treasurer MEMORIAL HALL CIVIC CENTER C H N M B E R O F COMM ER C E P.O. Box 272 LExington 6-6564 July 169 1962 LExington 6-6%5 DIRECTORS WILLIAM GALLIENNE Manager Bartlett, Ted Honorable Mayor and Blakesley, Jack Y Denny, J. Sherman Members of the City Council Doutt,'Paul City of Huntington Beach, Downing, Mark California Farquhar,.Jim Feehan, Jack Fleischer, Barney Jones, Dave Gentlemen: -Jurkovich,R. M. Kimball, R. C. Kiser, Ralph C. The Board of Directors of the Huntington Beach Lance, Gerald Chamber of Commerce in regular session June 25th, La Rue, Dick at the suggestion of our Highway, Traffic and Safety Marshall, R. M. Y Minnie, Don Committee, went on record to urgently request the Myhre, Oscar City Council of Huntington Beach to make contact Payne, Dr. H. Peek, Lon E.. g Y with the State Highway Engineers and ascertain at, Schryer, W. L. the earliest possible moment the proposed alignment Stang, Edw. R. of the Coastal Freeway between Huntington Beach and Stephens, Howard Seal Beach. Tovatt, Anthony Wilson, Earl Woods, C. E. "Bill" Directors felt that it was becoming more import- ant to know just where the Coastal Freeway would HONORARY DIRECTORS traverse, however-; it Was conceded that the freeiray should be at least one' mile inland. Murdy, John A. Jr. Warner, Willis H,Hartsook, E. A. In conjunction with the Orang e. CounY - t Coast McCallen, M. M. Association who are asking the State Engineers to Pyles, R. M. give a precise alignment of the proposed Coastal Freeway, we therefore feel the importance: at this ADVISORY DIRECTORS time to ask your honorable body to urgently request State Highway Engineers to present their advanced Gisler, Ernest H. engineering of the alignment of the C oa sta'l .Freeway Lambert, Robert.'Stewart, Jake R. between Huntington Beach and Seal Beach. Waite, Noble Wells, Lyndon A. Yours tr af4eeins, President William Gallienne, Mana er CALIFORNIA ' S FINEST BATHING B ACH RUBY Mc FARI_.ANID J. WYLIE CARLYLE COUNTY RECORDER OHIEr DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF TITLES Of oramge SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA April 24, 1962 No. 0 City of Huntington Beach 'P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, Calif. _ We are returning UNRECORDED Right of Way Contract - State Highway naming City of Huntington Beach Cash together with your remittance of $ _ Check M.O. 6 ' The enclosed document is not a recordable document and was sent to your office by the Escrow -Department of the Division of Highways for your files. Ruby McFarland, Recorder By r ��Gr� Deputy i' I.. A S' I" 2110 MAIN STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA E.A. HARTSOOK v1CR PRUMD&NT AND*C.I.AL�AIIA+Crl March 28, 1962 City Council of Huntington ..each 'Civic Center Huntington Beach., California Gentlemen: As you are no doubt aware, engineering studies will be cosmneed shortly to determine the route of the Pacific Coast Froeveq from Highway 39 to Seal Beach. We believe that the alignment ultimately adopted wi.11 have an important affect on the .growth as well as the economic well-being and recreational potential of this area. A freeuW along the beach front in this coastal area would seriously IjVair the natural beach front environment. Arq routing along the shore would also tend to discourage development of the shoreline areas border- ing the -tcean. This has been clearly recognized by the State Beaches & Parks people who have reeownended that the aligmuent be placed inland. It has also been recognized by many of the interested parties who have studied the problem between the Newport area and Highway 39. From the Huntington Beach Company standpoint,, a freeway immediately along the shore in Huntington Beach or fairly close to the shoreline,, umuld have a most serious and detrimental affect on plans which we have disc�issed with you for the long range development of our properties. We are there- fore extremely interested in calling your attention to the seriousness of this problem with the hope that you may also feel concerned about the proposed freeway route. In our opinion there is a community of interest between the City of Huntington Beach., other coastal co ties and land owners, and the Hwxtington Beach Company. It would seem that the import- ance of a freeway aligmaent as far inland as possible through this area is ao clear that we should all make our positions known before the high- way 'studies for this area are conmencod in detail. We plan to do this and fool mxre that others wi.11 be doing the same thing. _ STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS 1t ANGU ct vo tr AU l.0%AN GBLES 4A,CALS P'. DISTRICT V11 P„GNa:MA a V4a 0.3®&e MAILING A00RH86 BOX 2304. TERMINAL ADINEX ASM KVKR March 7, 1962 TO FILI Wo. 7G TILII No. VII—Ora a-60-B,NptF,A,HntR PR-•VII-567 Ekmtington Beach City Council PO 0. .Box 190 tington Beach, Cali-fornia Oantl n A public hearing has been scheduled by the State of California, Division of Highways, relative to the proposed improvement of Legislative Route 60 in Orange County between 2.2 miles south of MacArthur Boulevard (Le islative Route 184) and Beach Boulevard (Legislative Route b711. As shown on the attached press release, this hearing will be held at 1 :30 P.R. , April 19, 1962 at Newport Union Righ School. _ The purpose of this hearing is to present to the public the proposed improvement 'within the limits described, and also to give local governmental officials, civic groups, and interested ,individuals an opportunity to present their views relative to the project. At this hearing you will have the opportunity to present facts concerning these benefits, if you wish to do so, in accordance with Sectiv., 75. 5 of the Streets and Highways Code. You are cordially invited to have a representative present at the hearing to express additional viers pertinent to the improvement. Very truly yours, J GEORGE A. HILL Distr tEngineer Attach. In the interest of the future potential of Huntington Beach, as a major reoidenti.al-recreational comwanity., we hope that you will register your feeling on this matter formally so that the State will have an opportunity to eonsid2r at than outset in their studies the point of view of as many groups along the coact av poseible® Yours very truly, STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 120 S* SPRING STREET DIVISION - OF HIGHWAYS LOS ANGELES 12,CALIF. PHONE:MADISON 6-ISIS DISTRICT V11 MAILING ADDRESS BOX 2304. TERMINAL ANNEX LOS ANGELES 54, CALIFORNIA PLEASE REFER December 12, 1961 TO FILE No. VII-Ora-60-HntB 7VlOH364 Freeway Agreement Mr. Doyle Miller City Administrator City of Huntington Beach P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California Dear Sir: Transmitted herewith for' the City Council 's file is fully executed freeway agreement dated November 7, 1961., between the State and the City of- Huntington Beach covering the Route 60 Freeway, Road VII-Ora-60- HntB, 'between the city litit' at the Santa Ana River and the Route 60/171 Interchange. Also enclosed for your engineering file is conformed copy of the above agreement . Very truly yours, GEORGE A. HILL District Engineer Attach. By A. W. HO / y Assistant Dist7ict Engineer Crtir.No.— FORM R/W-1 California ACCT. DIST. COUNTY ROUTE SECTION ALLOT. C A_ 9= E _6L__ 113ovember 27,o Vii Ora 0 )ititB !Imin& 6 -----------------------------------------------------------------19-----I- A908 ITY OF k"WIM-----0--4M----BE ACH, ------------- Station------------------------C to station------------------------------- ru=iclpal corporation ------------ ---------------------------- Side of Highway. Grantor_ 10/18/961 ak-1 RIGHT OF WAY CONTRACT—STATE HIGHWAY Document No. A'783 GRANT DEED --- ------------------------------in the form of -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- covering the property particularly described in the above instrument has been executed and delivered to----------------------JACKREUBEN-------------------------------------------------------- --- ------------------------Right of N -- Way Agent of the State of California.In consideration of which, and the other considerations hereinafter set forth, it is mutually agreed as follows: 1. The parties have herein set forth the whole of their agreement. The performance of this agreement constitutes the entire consideration for said document and shall relieve the State of all further obligation or claims on this account, or on account of the location, grade or construction of the proposed public improvement. 2. The State shall; (A) Accept title to the property conveyed by the above document No. A1783 free and clear of all liens, encumbrances, assessments, easements, and leases (recorded and/or unrecorded) except: a. Taxes for the fiscal year in which this escrow�"Jcl(5ses shall be cleared and paid in the man by manner required of the Revenue and Taxation Code. _R 86 ' 'D E EIVE C'11_y HUNTINGTON BEACH APR 9 - 1962 7 18 19 1 191 1 111121 1 1 2 13 1415.1,§ I b. Covenants, conditions, restrictions and reservations of record, if any. ca Easements or rights of way over said land for public or quasi-public utility or public street purposes, if any. d. The reservation as contained in the deed recorded January 25, 1899 in book 40, page 92 of Deeds,. e. The reservation as contained in the deed recorded September 4, 1902 in book 30, Page 351 of deeds. f An oil lease recorded July 12, 1955 in book 3136, page 149 of Official Records., g. An easement as recorded on April 3, 1956 in book 3460, page 516 of official Records. (B) Deliver to the City of Huntington Beach, a municipal corporation, a ,good and sufficient Director's Deed properly recorded to the property out- lined in red on the sketch attached hereto and made a part hereof, within 90 days after payment under Clause 5 as set forth below has been made, in full, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances except special assess- ments, if any, easements, restrictions and reservations of record, and an easement over a portion of said Land as conveyed to the Southern California Edison Company by deed recorded December 21, 1955 in book 3325, page 382 of Official records, and the effect of a map filed in book 17, page 35 of records of survey, and excepting and reserving therefrom access rights from said property to be conveyed along and across the line shown in green on the sketch attached hereto 'There shall also be excepted from the conveyance herein all oil, oil rights, minerals, mineral rights, natural gas, natural gas rights, and other hydrocarbons by whatsoever name known that may be within or under the parcel of land hereinabove described, together with the perpetual right of drilling, mining, exploring and operating therefor and removing the same from said Land or any other land, including the right to whipstock or directionally drill and mine from lands other than those here- inabove described, ail or gas wells, tunnels and shafts into, through or across the subsurface of the land hereinabove described, and to bottom such whipstocked or directionally drilled wells, tunnels and shafts under and beneath or beyond the exterior limits thereof, and to redri.11, retunnel, equip, maintain, repair, deepen and operate any such wells or mines, without, however, the right to drill, mine, explore and operate through the surface of the upper 100 feet of the subsurface of the land hereinabove described or otherwise in such manner as to endanger the safety of any highway that may be constructed on said land, as excepted in the deed from M. M. cCallen Realty Syndicate, a partnership, to the State of California, recorded October 2nd, 1956e CIV CITY of HUNTINGTON BEACH APR 9 m 1962 AM, P.M. g 181 Q 11011.11121 11 213141516 a (C) 'Pay all escrow. and recording fees incurred in this transaction including documentary stamp tax, if required, and if title insurance is desired by the .State,: the premium charged therefor. Said escrow and recording charges shall ziot, however, include reconveyance fees,. trustee t s fees or forwarding, fees for any full reconveyance of deed of trust or full, release of mortgage. It is understood that the State in no way will be obligated to pay escrow car- title- ! insurance fees incurred in connection with the conveyance to the granter referred to in Paragraph 2(B) above. 3. Orant.or() warrant(s) :that there are no oral or written leases on all or any portion of the property exceeding a period of one month, and the grantor(s) further agree(s) to hold the Mate harmless and reimburse the Mate for any and all of its losses and, expenses occasioned by reason of any lease of said property held by any tenant of grantor(s) for a period exceeding .one month. 4. The undersigned grantor(s) hereby agree(s) and consent(s) to the dismissal, of any eminent domain action in the . Superior Court',wherein n the herein described land is .included And also waive(s) any and all claims to any money that may now be on deposit in the uperi.or Court or with the State 'Treasurer in said action. 5. It is further understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto that in addition to the land conveyed herein under Paragraph (A), the grantor agrees to pay the principal, sum of $20,000.00 with interest there- on from the date hereof at the rate of 5% per annum to the State of California.,, Division of Highways principal an erect to be due and, payable in annual. installments as follows; (A) On July 1, 1962,. the sum of $1q,OQC�.00 P s interest on the sum of $20,000.00 from the date -of this contract up to and including the first day of duly 1962,.. and on July 1,, 1963,,- ' the sum of $10,000.CQ plus interest on, $10,600.00 from .- July 2, 1962p to July 11 1965, unless sooner paid In ac- cordance with provision for additional payments st'bt e�d below; all installments being payable in the lawful .money of the United. States of America and shall be delivered to the Division of Hi ghw .ys, Mate of California, at 120 South Spring Street, Los Angeles,, California. (B) Purchaser may rake additional payments upon the principal at an time before final installment., and interest shall thereupon cease as of that date upon said principal so credited. i i g e l i? '� wn A zY. ,qXB �b 'V a�* I a ' ..........._....�»....r-...«,.......�.......w...+v.......w..sw..,,._...................v,.»-.m..+....-.-v.n...n-."..-m.....:.w�.r.....-...m.:...�w.....,ee......:.,...,.-.....wn.wm.....uu+...cw.+�:Ku�....-..v,.:,.n.a:..o-K�.._._�.::...,.:.:,�..:. c...-e.a m.....�c�...�.. _ IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties have executed this agreement the day and year first above written. ,� �° G7fip'��p'F-H1t�NTf d r ru MAILING ADDRESS; By r City of Huntington Beach - - -- - - - - _- Huntington Beach, California Phone: DE 6a-2516 /' � 07Y CLERK' { --- ---- ------------ --------------------------------------------- ---- Grantor__-_ Recommended for.Approval, � STATE OF CALIFORNIA P' t ! DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS By_. + --------------------- DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS F 4 f Right of Way Agent Recommended for Approval, By--------------------c�f------ - --------------------- District Engineer By---------A"_ _ ------------- -- � istrlct4Rtgbl,?f'Wdy:Agent ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Supervising Right of Way Ment No Obligation Other Than Those Set Forth Herein Will Be Recognized EST.331. 84540 10-88 30M @ SPO F, 0 �r D- �' 16'7, .438a 5o 00 r 50 0 3p � O, o 75 396 o (� x 0 \ 1 > , G 0 � 5 16-74,.5 3 47.98 0 � - 5 � 0 40 .7 ' N 78°/S�24'E-. 82.7S' o A 10 12.6 2' \ \\ OR.'826 -,5 79 o 250./ o 530 ZS zs 1 —._ — O Od. _ D. 139-9 - _ _ o o — — NA s S 3 0 30E. JDY , / 14 �� '•` SSA 4fo'Strl�o of,L and /o / 529+52.58 S urv. Rte.60 _ X`°x�5 \ Santa Ana and Newpo, may. Co. 0+00 t SUry,Rte. , - SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE Written by i M (part) 10-4-61 9 Checked b KD DISTRICT COUNTY ROUTE SECTION NUMBER mPa'W' MWDEED U (CORPORATION) VEX om 60 1%ntB A1783 -CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------:LCalifornia________ - )nunQjLPaL1 a,corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of..........California------- , •does hereby GRANT to the STATE OF CALIFORNIA all that real property in the__QLtyy--oP---T,&=tinS_ton_--Beach County of---------------------- ------------------- State of California, described as: Those portions of the southeast quarter and the south halt of the northeast quarter of Section 14,0 Irmto is 6 South., san -11 West, in. the Rancho Los Bola as shovin on a map recorded in Book 510 page 14 of Miscellaneous Xapa,4 in the office of the Count3r Recorder of said County,, included within the following described Parcel: Beginning at a point in the easterly line of said Section 14,D . distant along said easterly linet S. 00 171 211.62- feet from the northeasterly corner cat said section. thence N. 890 421 12" W.,p 50.00 feetj thence S. 03 0' 291 43" W, 1702.65 feet; thence S. 25' 3V 14" W 386.94 feet; thence S. W 44' 3611 E.,v 77,1.48 feet, thence he northeast corner ot the real S. 786 15' 24" 'W... 82.75 feet to t property conveyed to the City of liuntb-Zton Beach by deed recorded In FORM RW-7 (REV.4.60) EST.3860.16967 4-60 10M(D SPO Bbok 455,o Page 406 of Official Records in to office of to CoWity H�Border of said County$ thence along the easterly. line of said read: property and Its southerly prolongation to the northeast, rl line of- she land described deed recorded Book 193 e 91 of Deeds in said aff ce i thence 36utheasterly along idno rly line to said easterly line o : eotien 14; thence 'alo'ng said .last mehtioned easterly line morthe l the' point of beginning. ME ,1:G thereft-om' that portloh thereof onveyed -to tfie 'state of dalifornia by deed in Book 3 65 Page 353 of said Official. corda. .. AiLSO EXCEPIVING therefrom all oil, oil rights e�ral s.mineral rights... natural g _.t natural .gas igh z, d other hydrocarbons whats.oetver name kno�n that May be i ka cr�und r the parcel of laud e einabo e describada together with the perpetual rightof drininso, ainIM., explores and operating therefor and removes the same from said land or any other Im do includingthe' r t ' tihipi;toc'k 4 direotionallY drill and mine from d's other than those hereinabove described,, oil or gas wellso tunnels and shafts Into:,,, through or across e subsurface of the land hereinabove desc 'ibed,- d to bottom such whipstocked or directlohally drilled wells,, tunnels and ohafts, under d beneath or beyond the •e erlor 1- I A ;fie' o ,, and to : dr.111., rctiunnelg equip,, maintain, repair$ deepen -i operate any' such wells or mines, with ut o however,, the right to -drill,, mine., exploreand e to throes the surface or the upper 100 feet of the subsurface of the land he above described or otherwise in such maru r as to endanger the safety of any highway thatmay be constructed on said lands %%U oonveyance is made for the pulses of a freeway and the motor hereby ,releases and relinquishes the grantee any and all abutter's rights_, Including access rights,, appurtenant to grantor's remaining property,, in and to said freeway. The grantor further understands that the present intention of the grantee is to construct and maintain a public highway on the lands hereby conveyed in fee and the grantor, for itself, its successors and assigns, hereby waives any claims for any and all damages to grantor's remaining property contiguous to the property hereby conveyed by reason of the location, construction, landscaping or maintenance of said highway. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said corporation has caused its corporate name to be hereunto subscribed and its corporate seal to be affixed hereto, this-----2Vh--------------day of — OVERI�JE — — r 19 EI �I F HUNTINGT•N H 6r _4---RivOr------------------- By----------------------------------------- ----------------------- ---------------------------President ATTEST: By------------------------------------------------- ---------- ---------------------------.Secretary y City Clerk [CORPORATE SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ss. -------------------------.-..-County of------ --------------------------- On this----2'_7A-----------day of--------NO ea e]C'------------------------------ 196-----, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said-------QraMfe ______________________County, personally appeared---------E]C nRs__:___R ____ filed"---------------------------, known to me to be the------------Mayar'--------------------------------naralyt;Sand —i au--1--_C' ---`-TSIp s knownto me to be the--------C —---------------------Se-UM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- of the corporation described in and that executed the within instrument, and also known to me to be the person--S---- who executed it on behalf of the corporation therein named, and -----they_---- acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the within instrument pursuant to its by-laws or a resolution of its board of directors. WITNESS my hand and official seal. — --------(Seal) —Ernestina_Di_ F'abiO Name (Typed or Printed) Notary Public in and for Said County and State My Commission Expires June 26 , 1965 (CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE, GOVT. CODE, SECTION 27281) THIS IS To CERTIFY,That the State of California, grantee herein,acting by and through the Department of Public Works, Division of Highways, hereby accepts for public purposes the real property, or interest therein, conveyed by the within deed and consents to the recordation thereof. I i IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this--------------------day of----------------------------------------------------------- 19 I -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director of Public Works By-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attorney in Fact 1 VII-Ora-60-HntB Route 60 Free'way between 2 the CL at the Santa Ana River and the Route 60/171 3 Interchange 4 FREEWAY AGREEMENT 6 THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into in duplicate on 6 thisi_y Z & day of R&fj . 19 by and between the._ 41-1 7 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through the Department of Public 8 Works, Division of Highways, hereinafter for convenience referred 9 to as the "STATE" and the City of Huntington Beach, hereinafter for 10 convenience referred to as the "CITY", 11 WITNESSETH: 12 WHEREAS, the California Highway Commission on September 20, 13 1955, passed a resolution declaring that portion of Route 60 in the 14 City of Huntington Beach and the County of Orange between State 15 Route 43 and 3000' westerly of State Route 171 to be a freeway, and 16 WHEREAS, the State and the City of Huntington Beach have here- 17 tofore entered into a freeway agreement dated January 12, 1959, 18 covering the Route 60 Freeway, Road VIZ-Ora-60-HntB, between the 19 city limit near the Santa Ana River and 3000' westerly of Route 171. 20 and 21 WHEREAS, subsequent to entering into said freeway agreement 22 dated January 12., 1959, the State and the City have mutually agreed 23 to certain revisions of plan, and 24 WHEREAS, a plan map for such freeway has heretofore been pre- 25 pared showing the proposed plan of the State as it affects streets 26 of the City, including provisions for closing city streets, for 27 carrying city streets over or under or to a connection with such 28 freeway, for relocation of city streets, and for construction of 29 frontage roads and other local roads, and 30 WHEREAS, it Is the mutual desire of the parties hereto to- 31 enter into a new freeway agreement in accordance with the revised 1 plan of said freeway, 2 NOW., THEREFORE., IT IS AGREED: 3 1 . This agreement supersedes the freeway agreement between 4 the State and the City of Huntington Beach dated January 12, 1959, !D between the city limit near the Santa Ana River and 3000' westerly 6', of Route 171 in its entirety. 7 2. The City agrees and consents to the closing of city 8 streets, relocation of city streets, construction of frontage roads 9 and other local roads, and other construction affecting city streets, 10 all as shown on said plan map attached hereto marked Exhibit B 11 between the city limit at the Santa Ana River and the Route 60/171 12 Interchange and made a part hereof by this reference. 13 3. The State' in the construction of said freeway will, at 14 the Statels ,expense, make such changes affecting city streets in 15 accordance with the said plan map attached hereto or as the same 16 may hereafter be modified by subsequent agreement between the 17 parties hereto. 18 4. The State agrees to acquire all necessary right of way 19 as may be required for construction of frontage roads and other 20 local roads, and the construction, reconstruction or alteration of 21 city streets, and the City hereby authorizes the State to acquire 22 in its behalf all such necessary right of way. 23 5. The City will accept control and maintenance over each 24 of the relocated or reconstructed city streets, and the frontage 25 roads and other State constructed local roads on notice to the 26 City Engineer from the State that the work thereon has been com- 27 pleted, except as to any portion thereof which is adopted by the 28 State as a part of the freeway proper. The City will also accept 29 title to the portions of such roads lying outside the freeway 30 limits, upon relinquishment by the State. 31 6. The grade separations shown on plan map Exhibit B will 2 I either be underpasses or overpasses as detailed engineering studies 2 may determine will best fit the locality. It is understood between 3 the parties that the right of way may be acquired In sections or 4 units and that, both as to the acquisition of right of way and the 5 construction of the freeway projects, the obligations of State 6 hereunder shall be carried out at such time and for such unit or 7 units of the project as funds are budgeted and made lawfully 8 available for such expenditures. 9 7. This agreement may be modified at any time by the mutual 10 consent of the parties hereto., as may become necessary for the 11 best accomplishment through State and City cooperation of the whole 12 freeway project for the benefit of the people of the State shd of 13 the City. 14 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereunto have set their hands 15 and seals the day above first written. 16 17 State of California 18 Department of Public Works ROBERT B�. BRADFORD 19 APPROVED: Direc4, 6'r of Public Works 20 c3y' ly: 4 4 Sate Highway Engineer nu 1� IT. COONEY NOV 2 8 H61 , Deputy Director '(Man q.,,ement 23 THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 24 APPROVED AS TO FORM: A Municipal Corporation 25 Z-1 26 Attorney (State) Mayor 27 ATTEST: 28 29 Ci Xlerk 30 31 3 �41e�enme fn ` THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH MAP ON FILE WITH CITY CLERK a .I STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 1 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS LOS ANGLES STREET S. ELES1SPRIN f2.CALIF. PHONE:MADISoN 6.1515 DISTRICT VII MAILING ADDRESS BOX 2304.TERMINAL ANNEX LOS ANGELES 54.CALIFORNIA October 4, 1961 PLEASE REFER TO FILE No. RW-VII-Ora-60-HntB A1783 - City of Huntington Beach City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach, Calif. Attn: Mr. Doyle Miller City Administrator Gentlemen: In accordance with the department ' s letter to you dated September 29, 1961, enclosed herewith is the Grant Deed which is mentioned therein. This deed is to be considered as an integral part of the Right of Way Contract, and its-'..execution should be accom- plished contemporaneously therewith. The second copy of the deed is for your files. Very truly yours, ?JAEBEN Right of Way Agent JR:wh Encl. l `-yl�� i �L`.�S STATE O CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUSLIC'WORKS t U` ( 120 S.SPRING STREET DIVISION, OF HIGHWAYS LOS ANGELES 12,CALIF. ` DIS l RIC! Vil PHONE:MADISON 6.1515 i MAILING ADDRESS { 60X 2304, TERMINAL ANNEX LOS ANGELES 54. CALIFORNIA OctobOctober 23, "i(fit.,'7 PLEASE REFER er J.f V 1 TO FILE No. RAT-VII_-Ora-60-HntB A1783. - City of Huntington Beach 7V1OH364 City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach, Calif. Attn: Mr. Doyle Miller City Administrator Gentlemen: 'transmitted herewith are triplicate counterparts of a pro- posed superseding freeway agreement between the State and the City of Huntington Beach covering the Route 60 Free- way, VII-Ora-60-HntB, between the City Limits at the Santa Ana River and the Route 60/171 Interchange. This proposed agreement will supersede in its entirety the agreement between the State and the City of Huntington Beach dated January 12, 1959, between the City Limits near the Santa Ana River and 3,000 feet westerly of Route 171. If this agreement meets with your approval, please arrange for its formal execution by the City of Huntington Beach, after which please return the original and one signed counterpart to this office together with two certified i copies of the City Council' s resolution authorizing execution of the agreement. The third copy is for your files pending return to you of one fully executed counter- part of the agreement. ! i Reference is also made to your letter of October 17, 1961, relative to the exchange of lands between your City and the State of California. In compliance therewith, transmitted are four copies of Right of Way Contract Ora-60-HntB, No. A1783, which are to be substituted for those previously forwarded to you by our letter dated September 29, 1961. f f City of Huntington Beach -2- October 23, 1961 These contracts are substantially in the same form as those previously transmitted with the following exceptions: 1. The payment by the City of Huntington Beach to the State of California is to be in the amount of $20,000 plus interest at the rate of 5% per annum. $10,000 plus interest on the sum of $20,000 from the date of this con- tract up to and including the first day of July 1962 shall be payable on July 1, 1962. $10,000 plus interest on said $10,000 from July 2, 1962 to July 1, 1963, shall be payable on July 1., 1963. 2. Pursuant to Paragraph No. 6 of the Right of Way Con- tract, the City of Huntington Beach may occupy or permit the occupancy of the premises mentioned in Paragraph 2(B). 3. The Director's Deed covering the property to be deeded to the City of Huntington Beach will be delivered within 90 days after final payment is made. All other terms and conditions with regard to signatures, etc. , remain as mentioned in our previous letter. Your cooperation in facilitating the execution of these docu- ments will be appreciated. Very truly yours, E. T. TELFO Assistant State Highway B gineer jR:wh Encls. AIM . Z --------------- October 17o 1961 state Of California Division, Of uiatwayq F,�;, Box 2304 g Terminal Los An&lee 54l California ttentionz Mr. Dan Gardner _rW,-VII-Ora-G0-41atD AJ.783 - Ci RmtIngton Beach I f ftntl u1. Its dined in our conference in my office Frey, October 1.3 1961# 1 took the eve ati d subject to the City t. the October 16th meeting. BY Unanimus, action tba City Comoil, authorized the Mayor Clark to execuft the amuled Freeway , and to process the necessary deeds Lu order to icconplish the right of way =sfer. The Council also d to pay tba State of California 0, ; to be palA as follows: $109:000 July It 1962 10,1 6 July is 1963 If .this,-proposal sal is with the approval of Division a of s, we would hopeto able to a;te the ms iiiidn with the next week or ten days. Thank you very moh for youYcooperation. Sincerely, Doyle Miller Cif Administrator U 1 w cc: City Engineer >� I I � OAPtC1AL6 n t' atasaVQYLtA4r ILUM y PAUL Q JON(W C I T Y O F © CHAQLM A. 9"Un __________________m_______ _ ______- ____ _ _ _�,____ Ate, 60 0 �® _ a WILLItM t".i. CLU AG C A L I F O R N I A T=A04=98 CLINT=Id VJFUGWV c�oste¢altaaP to aLft"I& HIGGIM rum c»cOF ILIA JAMMO W. W"M%L= MUM be C"M91k auvon ftemay QL L.Amsmv September $ 1961 DRANDaR a CAOTLU AAM of" ANT S (marrows Amacm7 NGSLU d WAIr1t OLLIN C. C&AVil AOWI LY A, WAUA& On. cruel oo 06 MawTea CLI17FORD IL TRJ" Senator John A. Nerdy, Jr. PLAA«ING 1623 West 17th Street VINCZ NTa WCOMMUM emm ueacova� Santa Ana, California Honorable Sir: We understand that your office has been a asur'ed by the State Highwdy Department that the City of Hunt iang ton Beach is in complete agreement with the State plate to construct as freeway on State Route 60 (Ocean Blvd. ) along the beach from Seal Beach to the Santa Ana River. Thiaa is not true. e Cit ®£ t ton Beach, along with every other beach city in Or as �atyg, is apposed to the construction of a freeway on the We r e the need for a coastal taal freeway located betwwn the beach t San Diego Freeway, preferably as mile to aa~t mile and a half inlmd. As you kmw, the District office of the California State Hi,ghwaa Departmut conductod a hearing on August 31, 1961 in the City, of Seal Beach concerning their proposal to extend the Saari. Gabriel Vreew,y� beyoa Garden Grove Blvd. to Bay Blvd, in Seal Beach. At this g�aablic he before Pr, George A. Hill and staff I read a letter executdd by the City of Huntington Beach opposing this proposed extion for tie reason that the oYn1 ssible extension would be to follow Route 60 (Ocean Blvd. ) throug upset Beach past the Bo.lsa Chica area through Hunt ton Beach to Highway34 intersection. Ipresenta the letterto Pig. ill asked that it be a as part of t o foal record of that hearing. We have enclosed as print of our copy of the letter which was aignGd by Mayor Gisler, Councils Lambert, Councilman Stewart, and Councilutan Waite. Covincilman Wells was out of town and could not sign it. The yor®s signature does not show on our carbon eapy but was very clear on the original which was prevented to that State. } f { Senator .John A. Nurdy, .Jr. September 8, 1961 { Page ,Two Proposedt ion of the Sm Gabriel Freeway Thialhas been Witten to eliminate any doubt about the position of the City of Hamtington Beach regard the cons t t ion of a f r . ay -from Seal Beach to Highway 39 on our ch. We are unanimous in our objection to any plan that will ultitialtely. result in the cone tion of a freeway on State Route 60 th4 h Huntington Beach. 4 _ Very truly yours, l i 4 L 4 Doyle Miller Cite Administrator k t D :1 r# 1. 1 Mayor Gisler Councilman St wart 4Cs=cilman Nalls councilumin Waite Councilmin Lmiabert t. Jr if It f ' N i } CC j �41e�enme fn ` THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH The document you are viewing contains additional information that is not possible to produce electronically. For information on how to locate this document for viewing , please contact or visit the City Clerk's Office for assistance . 2000 Main Street 2nd Floor — City Hall Huntington Beach CA 92648 (714) 536-5227 '" d .t ��o .ail ✓sG�'y�,� ale t� STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9� DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS /1AL / 120 S.SPRING STREET D I V I S I O N OF HIGHWAYS LOS ANGELES 12,CA';T- PHONEt MADISON 6-1515 �ECE DISTRICT VII +i MAILING ADDRESS OCT 1961 _ BOX 2304.TERMINAL ANNEX inch 4i LOS ANGELES 54,CALIFORNIA CjTy CLERK 1 September 29, 1961 PLEASE REFER TO FILE No. T RW-VII-Ora-60-HntB A1783 - City of Huntington Beach City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach, California Attn: Mr. Doyle Miller City Administrator Gentlemen: In accordance with your recent request, transmitted herewith are four copies of Right of Way Contract No. A1783 on State Route VII-Ora-6o-HntB. This contract provides for the City of Huntington Beach to con- vey to the State of California that property as set forth in the Grant Deed- mentioned in the Right of Way Contract and for the State of California to convey to the City of Huntington Beach that property as outlined in red on the map attached to the Right of Way Contract. The access rights to the state highway will be precluded along the line indicated in green on said map. The City of Huntington Beach is to pay the State of California the sum of- $40,000.00-as additional consideration in connection with the above-mentioned transfer of property. This offer, as dis- cussed in our meeting with Mr. Miller, is predicated upon the simultaneous execution of the Freeway Agreement and the Right of Way Contract transmitted herewith. The Grant Deed mentioned in the Right of Way Contract is not sub- mitted herewith inasmuch as it is in the process of being prepared. However, it will convey the area outlined on the maps previously forwarded to you; and it is anticipated that .you will be furnished with said deed within the next week to ten days. Will you please execute three copies of the Right of 'Way Contract, retain one for your files, execute the Grant Deed which will be transmitted separately and attach thereto a copy of the Minutes of the City Council meeting authorizing the execution of said deed. Thank you very much for your consideration in this matter. ince Fjel JR:wh 4ACK REUBEN Encls. nior Right of Way Agent PROPOSED ROUTE 60 FREE WAY 2.2 MILES SOUTH OF MAC ARTHUR ' BLVD. (Rte. 184) TO BEACH BLVD. (Rte. 171 ) a Li P�F. II ♦/ OP�F' 9 PALISADES RD. DIEGO tiG �RTE. 158 AN 9 UPPER •( 2 99 'F Q NEWPORT BAY p0� 6 GP s, G,Q O 22 n A ST. \ I m s _ W p Oq 9�0 � • co z CL Am 0 Q � W fqC, 3 z ' �f ~ �Z z 19 t h ST. 1 m gyp C3 s'� \\ ��P 9 5•C — � �. a • 17th 3T 1 'P� P cio C � / 5th AVE. BF t" a 15th ST. - � e Ay. �. \ --v• RTE.60 PACIFIC.. LT. f COAST NEWPORT BEACH PAC/ f/ C O C E A N / \ PROJECT LIMITS SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC DATA Page 1 00 S NMLI, 0S LENGTH IND. SINGLE I CONST Rf`1I TOTAL & FAMILY MULT. FAMILIES ALTER ,ATES . COST COST COST COM. DWELLINGS UKELLINGS AFFECTED UNIT 1 (2.2 Mi slSouth of MacArthur Blvd. to Jamboree Rd. ) AV :, GREEN3. 3 � 8 0 � 5.4 13.4 0 6 0 6 GREEN-BLUE-GREEN 3. 5 8.0 5. 13 2 0 2 0 2 gee - Green Alternate Provides $ ®Million. User Benefits . - Green-Blue-Green Alternate provide8 8 Million less User Benefits. 9� a UNIT II (Jamboree Rd. to ach Blvjd. ) GREEN-RED 7.3 23. 3 2�.2 � &s �6® 5 69 98 18 GREEN-1 LLOW—GREEN 7, 5P 21. 1 24. 8 ,���`g 45 937 4rz 204 18 , GREEN 8 a�i 27.8 24.6 A a.a .4 0-43 1.41, 15 x GREEN-DOTTED GREEN- g p GREEN 8. 1 -eOT0-P'l�:#(.+'l.2)z *(+1.6) (+2. *(+21) *(-4) f 13) GREEN-DASHED GREEN � a 3e GREEN(Viaduct) 8. 1 -a2 3) . Via= ro GREENS-DASHED GREED- GREEN(Wall) ( 5 -`*( 8) (�3. 3) *(+9) �31) _ 8. 1 .1 1 �1. n -:l 6 1 ( Figures represent differences as compared to GREEN ALTERNATE) # ( Figure represents 20 year lease value of parking area developed) User Benefits on above Alternates are considered equal and approximately $112 Million except for the Green-Red combination which provides $7 Million less User Benefits Subject to Change 1-1 s-;2 / rt� 1 To try UK- Date C ,.;x o— oll (00 7 33 v .� - . PLEASE REPLY TO Signed i Date Signed Rediform SEND PARTS 1 AND 3 WITH CARBONS INTACT. 4S 465 PART 3 WILL BE RETURNED WITH REPLY. INGTpN - - --y City of Huntington Beach , Q California TY January 18, 1961 O Mr: George H. Jones RE: Division of Highways 3700 Newport Blvd. Parcel A1783 y Unit I Newport Beach, California ORA60-Huntington Beach. Dear Mr. Jones: We understand that you have been employed to d, make an appraisal of the property involv6d in the Orange County Superior Court Case No. 68603 y People of the Mate of California versus the Pacific Electric Railway, et. al.. 4 Inasmuch as the City of Huntington Beach will be negotiating with the California Division of Highways :for the sale of the above captioned property, involving some 475,385 square feet, we would be interested in your stating the basis on which you would be willing to undertake an appraisal, of the market value and severance damageq if..•any.,- in connection with the proposed pa.rtia.l taking of the approximately 1.1 acres from the entirety of 45 acres as captioned above. Should additional, information be needed, we would welcome your inquiry. Please call. Lexington 6-2516, Et6ns .on 5. Yours very truly, Doyle Miller City Administrator MI:c l.a CC: City Attorney C. A. Sauer i I I t October 5, 1960 i I 1r. Tm G. Sibley Division of Highways RE.- RW►VIImORA-60-Hnt 6 B o P.O. Box 2304# Terminal. Annex A1783 - City of Los Angeles 54, California Huntington Beach Dear Mr. Sibley: Your September 15 letter requesting Council permission for a friendly suit concerning the state's acquisition of the above mentioned: property was discussed at the last two City Council meetings It is the unanimous opinion of the City Council that this litigation should await a report from our appraiser. We will notify your office immedihtely upon receipt of this valuation. Fours very truly, Boyle Miller- City Administrator DM-.dla i df � a I STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SPRING DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS1S N ELES1ST REST LO AGLES 12,CALIF. PHONE:MADISON 6.1515 DISTRICT VII MAILING ADDRESS BOX 2304. TERMINAL ANNEX LOS ANGELES 54. CALIFORNIA September 15, 1960 TOFIPLEASE REFER TO FLE No. $ Rw-vii-oRA-6o-HntB A1783 - city of Huntington Beach City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach, California : .Attention: Mr. Doyle Miller City Administrator Gentlemen: Permission is requested to file a friendly suit on the property being acquired for the freeway from Huntington Beach to the Santa Ana River. As you know, the area is rapidly developing and it is necessary for us to move swiftly to avoid being caught by rising prices. The purpose of this suit is, of course, to establish a date of valuation and we will proceed with all of the other necessary parcels of land on the same basis. Very truly yours, r. T. G. S EY Senior Right of ent TGS:eh cc: JFH September 16, 1960 Mr. John N,6 Sayer Statler Center RE: Division of Highways 900 Wilshire Blvd. Partel, A1783; Unit I Los Angeles 17, California Ora 60 - Hnt. Bch. Dear Mr. Sayer: We have enclosed a copy of City Council Resolution No. 1397, and a copy of a lease covering opera- tions of the Driftwood Inn. We have available in the office an appraisal of this 41.44 acres, dated ylay '20,, 1959, for your use. This appraisal establishes a market value of $11,000 per acre. We also have an appraisal of a 1,189 acre triangular parcel at the intersection of Huri�'ington Avenue and Coast Highway. The market value of this parcel, as of April 20, 1959, was estimated to be $34',000. These appraisal reports are in the custody of the City Clerk and may not leave the office, but they are available for your use at any time. Yours very truly, Doyle Miller. City Administrator DM:cla Encl. sz�NO 17 i i August 3, 1960 Mr. John N. Sayer RE: Di o ' ways Statler Center �11.783, 1 900 Wilshire Center ra © Prot. B Los Angeles 17, Californi Hear lair. Sayer: Your July 21 lette ining the basks upon which you would " e will to undertake an appraisal o .the Lion roperty was Mead to the fit m ouncil the ugust e�ee ding. By una mows vote o all members present, the offer was proved and agreement authorized. Will you pleas contact Cit Attorney, Charles A. ;t Bauer, to comp the ar gements. an ing yo your interest and prompt. . rep I am, Fours very truly, , Doyle Hiller City Administrator DM cic LOUIS J. PFAU JR. Y t{(T l IJ � �., i - COLBERT COLDWELL GEORGE M. MOTT / III�t{ISkI Ipt B. A. B A N K E R C H A R L E S D E T O V -P„T I '. .Ftg 4 t491!'t l .t E. W. A R N O L D J. V. E V A N S �r'f {S Wliq{ }t7 "1 jtp {' HOWARD MCGURRIN W. H. M C A D A M j' I {• ,4 }iiiii.� gpS$ iIkggllY THOMAS K. PROCTER DAN L. DUGGAN JAMES O. BRETT a �xy`y �,� �� `, t} �,d„i•I�t#�I � j'3 �f�{r-1 x*,f,{��ff�. ����(@��._} .� $�.,1 :�t{ t{C¥�*x'-4 kyI'i� {" kl 9 i Ig}-- ,,r..� i I , S1 llc '-I�. , i� ,., I r 1r`h ,'•'c 4•'y�.�1E:.� I• COLDWELL,BAN KER 6 COMPANY REAL ESTATE - INSURANCE - PROPERTY MANAGEMENT — LOANS DOWNTOWN OFFICE STATLER CENTER, 900 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, LOS ANGELES 17. MADISON 6-0611 July 21, 1960 Mr, Doyle Miller ,City Administrator ` City of Huntington Beach Huntington .Beach, California v5� Reference: Division of Highways .Parcel A1783, Unit 1 Ora - 601 - Hnt• B. Dear Mr. Miller: This is. in reply to your letter of July 19th requesting the basis on which I would be willing to undertake an appraisal of the- market value and sever- ance damages., if any, in connection with the proposed partial taking of 475, 385 square feet from the entirety of 45 acres: as.captioned above. It is. my gue.s:s. at this, time, without having inspected the subject property, that a fair and equitable appraisal fee would be in the amount of $2, 500. It is contemplated .that this: fee would be payable upon the s.ubmi:s.sion .of a documented written -appraisal report adequate in scope to form the basis of :subsequent .court testimony, if such should be_n.e,cessary. After s.ub- mi's.sion .of the appraisal report, conferences and/or court time would be billed'on the basis of $25. 00 per hour. If the foregoing is iri line with your thinking .may I suggest that we arrange a meeting at your convenience for us to inspect the property and to discuss: the various ramifications, of this: matter at which time we can confirm the foregoing tentative basis of employment. Many thanks for your inquiry. Please do not hesitate to' let me know if you have any questions in connection with this fee estimate or if you would prefer a further 'discussion -thereof prior to further consideration on your part. Very truly yours., a '' ' � ?ohnSayer JNS'/mae LOS ANGELES BEVERLY HILLS SAN FRANCISCO OAKLAND • SAN MATEO • PALO ALTO SACRAMENTO PHOENIX ��N(INGTpN ��pPORAT���C�9�y _ • City of Huntington California COUNTY CPv July 199 1960 900 Wilshire Blvd. u LosAngeles,' California Mr. Sayer.- It is. our understanding that you have been employed to ma)ee ZAA appraisal of the property involved in the strange County Superior Court Case No. 68603; People of the Mate of California venue the Pacific Electric R.ilwayq et. al. nap.much ash the City of Huntington Beach mall be negd- tiating with the California Division of H4 ghways for the sate 'of 4759385 square feet of property for freeway purposee adjacent to the Pacific Railway property, we would be intereeted., in your stating; the basis on which you would be willing to undertake the appraisal of this property. This property is located at` the in-, to °section of C�brillo Highway (Oca&n Avenueoo end Ile,aoh ' uulpvara (Highway 9)o please do not hesitate to contact this office if addi- tional information is needed. Yours very truly g ; Doyle Miller City Administrator' � Mole oc s C o A. Bawer E M l is '� '4 CITY OF EIUNT'INGT ON BEACH JAMES R.WHEELER City Engineer = ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT WILLIAM S. LEWIS 9y, `� • `e Aw P OQ Huntington Beach, California Street Superintendent July 26, 196o Mr. Doyle Miller City Administrator City of Huntington Beach Sir: Following our discussion regarding the offer of the Division of Highways for right of way at Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway, I made a brief study with the results as outlined in the following. Of the total area of some 10.5 acres I . have broken the right of way to be taken into three elements ; the first of these is the frontage roadway between the state highways and the pres- ently state owned property at the intersection of these two highways. Second is that portion of their required right of way where access will be replaced by a frontage road. The third is that portion upon which access will be taken and no entry from the state highway will be permitted. I do not have at my disposal actual records of sales, but am basing my estimates on the price of property as indicated in conversations about land sales in this area. Under Item 1, the frontage road= way, there is approximately 1.6 acres involved and I have used a figure of $8,500 per acre, plus the contract cost of the improvements at the time of ! their installation. The second item, where access is being replaced by a frontage road constructed by the Division of Highways, I am using the price of $15,000 per acre for the approximately 2.3 acres in- volved. This is consistent with the sales price of similar commercially developable properties in this area. On. the third item where access is taken I am using the same $15,000 per acre plus $"5,000 per acre for the loss of access, this item involves about 6.6 acres. a Summarizing the foregoing I submit the following table showing the unit prices, areas, extentions , and a total cost : 1-a Frontage 'roadway 1.6 ac. @ $8,500 per ac. $13 ,600.00 1-b Frontage roadway improvements 10,400.00 2 Access replaced 2.3 ac. .@ $15,000 34,500.00 3 ' Access taken 6.6 ac. @ $20,000 132.000 00 Total -------$ 190,500.00 Reducing this to an average cost for the acreage involved, my estimate indicates that the land should sell for about $18, 200 per acre in comparison with the staters offer of $12,4.00 per acre. Because you indicated to me in recent conversations that we will engage an appraiser to look at this property for us I will furnish no further information unless specifically requested to do so. Very truly yours , James R. Wheeler City Engineer JRW:a O RA City- of "unti. eac"unties b CP California �CUUNTY CPS' V PJune 8, 1960 y Mr. J. F. Herringtong Right of Way Agent V Division of fiighways4 District VII A Box 2304 RE: RW-VII-Ora-60-HntB Los Angeles 54, California No A1783 - City Of Huntington Beach Dear r® Herrington: Your June 10 19600 letter offering to purchase the above mentioned property from the City of Hunting- ton Beach for freeway, purposes was read to the City Council at their June 6 meeting. This matter was referred to the City Engineer, City Attorney, and City Administrator to study and report. We anticipate Council action on this matter in the near future® Yours very truly,,, Doyle Miller City Administrator DMC*cic _ STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 120 S.SPRING STREET DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS LOS ANGELES 12,CALIF. DISTRICT VII PHONE:MADISON 6.1515 MAILING ADDRESS BOX 2304.TERMINAL ANNEX LOS ANGELES 54. CALIFORNIA June 1, 1960 PLEASE REFER TO FILE NO. RW-VII-Ora-60-HntB No. A1783 - City of Huntington Beach City Council City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach, California Attention: Doyle Miller City Administrator Gentlemen: In accordance with the Freeway Agreement between the City of Huntington Beach and the State of California, you will find, outlined in red on the attached map, the property needed by the State to complete the free- way at Huntington Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway (Cabrillo Highway) . The total area needed is in the amount of 475,385 square feet and the State' s offer on said land is in the amount of $129,767.00, which includes land, ac- cess rights and cost to remove 3' x 8' neon sign. It would be appreciated if you would inform the undersigned agent as to your decision so that the proper steps may be taken to consummate this trans- action. If there are any questions you may have regarding the proposed take or construction of the freeway, please contact the undersigned agent. Very t, - ly yours, F. HERRINGIVN Right of Way Agent JFH:ch-1 Enclosure U U NCA 6 a � yZTI � o \ 10 \1D14 e ke° \off Jc`t 9�P ICJ O / � \ y N°• V f- \O` 14 I 'N \ t^ v W W r1.11f I / / \ fie° //� - u \\ H23• V� 0 o b m w 10 ,s° 50 o Cont.OQ\ J /%ra b•1012 \ °r f .350p3 v� I/k�j Al 1 O 5 Of - e b° �r r� �o( Oi yi G . + OO W "!'A' LO 411 bl1 S n \'t 92 "E. 4 49, - 32- N 51.2 '09"w — - - - - 625.98' 00 -► as� m7Jt • ZOOS%4=,E — '^- '- -— - '�"'f_4o9^7r7" - 4 it rc o •I 5 'p z O ___ —__ tric` ` '� DD., 59 c To Paci i C ° Ifo - �nd-Ca 1905 2O lss3'oc' � 51T%,o o�to Soulyec=ic 2ai/roa'. �/23- 6. Oct. T./9051`. �'/�r o /.00•Rr �° T�/00_S1ri -of-Land-f - acific E/eclric L dan Co. 0 /23-9/,May/9,/905 lss3'o6'E o .z 34 a -o - r P _ 42•51rip of/and toRte. _ 7a� _ --�—_ s:b I V-5 Santa Ana and Newport ey.Co. i $tXV.Rt@. I I a u C V NOTE: Theoretical Cenfer cf Tracks is 7..£"from it shown. ti ConSt. R� 4000 T• 775.21' !E a7 n C J.J Or C L■ 1 rifil 4 5' •' 1 2 « � R*ute 60 ftw. between 3 tho CL: near t� S t,a Arm River and 30001 v4sterly NI 6 TF.S AORNEYAWs madam Wid entered d into in duplicate on 7 this�� of � by and began theN" 6/2 8 TAU OP ALM ,� acts by knd throu& the DOP=tnWnt of 9 Public ' rIcs,, Division o� High.. hereimfter for eonvari.enoe 10 reforred to as the " TATE ", the City of H tington Zeaeh r 11 her•,&im: ter for convenionee. r eferred to at the "CITY"., 12 V 13 WHWW,, tbo Calif,or nia HIShvV ComMISSIOn on Member 201, 14 X5554: "sed a resolution, d4elarihg that portion 'of Route 60 15 la the,. it -Of Huntington Boaeh •t1o". Couirty of OrarZa bet veer. 16 ft to Route'43 =d- 3000' westerly of Stata Route 171 to be a 17 :tre .. and 18 WIMP ., a, ,plain map for auob freeway has heretofore been 19 ' ; ah the pxopo- a plan o.t the 6tate as, it afreats 21 ttroetzt. tr oaring °o ty streats swot or under.,or ors to, a *on. 22 tib-OtIm with s +b f # for rolooati n of city streets, for 23 'oonstruction of stage roads,and other loaal 'roads, and for 24 oonstruati.in of eartaln podestrian fatilities, 25 Now$ POD , it is asree.dv 26 1, The City .frees ". n + n s to the olos ng of city 27 str et ,# ;r rlooetion of it streets,# construbtion of frontage 28 roads and other Ids roado, and other 40nstr otlon affeotim 29 �t a* all as stmm on said plan; mp attAsahod hereto '30 a i it A bet en the city lit year the Santa am 3-1 River ,and 30001 wetterly of .«.tr to Route 171 and,made a part 1 hetoeof by this. reference. 2 2. The State in the t*nft,ructi cin of. bail :Freeway will, at `. 4 In iicaordahoo with the said.plan map a tt�ziched hereto as the w".5 ` $a= MAY hereafter .be modified-.by aubse ent try mgent between 7 3.. Td State -agrees to amequire all .necessary right of way 8 as. W. ble red for Conist;,;a*t+ion of rrootage roads and other 9 100al 'r c3:s, .and the eoz truation, reconatruation or alteration 10 Of an4, tb e City -hereby au't eC r .zee the to& $ � 11 uire.- 3n td�i 13 half All such neeessary risht, of .way. 12 `die City will accept sc�rtrcrl .Mite n r each ` 13 of the relocated or ret3onst:C`u{ t4d -aity stroots, the pedestriar. 14 faallities. and the' frontage roads and oth x° -Stae.e .donstruoted 15 i0dal''-roads, oh t3ptica ^to, the: City lrlslneer 'irk the State that 16 the' ,.Walk thereon ,has been 'ibompleted,; exceot as 'to any portion 17 Vier"f' ;*hi.ah is .adOptiad, by. the'",; Scat as a paw oaf the freeway 18 p r. I opetj and. .presehtation: of 'a s p+arate main enance. agre,ment 19 delineat-Ing .1n, detail the .'a a ;mod .Sp eel f'i c :Portlona of. the 20 junctions -of, •rellnqulshed. roads with the freeway. The ,pity 21 w4111 also aoiaept• title to th6.,poiti on s or Such roads lying 22 outside.- the:,f . .li~viit83, . �v relinquis�ment 'by tho State. 23 sae City will hold any suab r' elimqulabed roads iliviolate for 24 public. hi&way .purposes and..will,.: not vacate or ab"on, suab 25 rdadsi •or any portion thereof,* - without the State i a wri.tten 26 vonsent. 27 5. Thy: grade .9epzOatiqnfA shown on `plan snap ,Exhi.bit A 28 will a th4r .be u e a so '.or ov rpas,ses as detai,16d. engineering 29 71attudlem may dot4 miz.q will b4 t fi:t the loaality. It is under 30. br tw �n t '. a :that :��e, rl t of be' acquired 31 in .sections Car' unit-'a and that.;,:b6th''as to the a.cquUi,tiox3 C3.f �. 2 i I rl $ at way- and the aamstrudtio4 of the fria6way projects the 2 ohl Zatimw of State hey^a -Ader aa.l be rr'-Ied qut at such 3 time aad for such ''fit or, ualts of the projaa -�Cuada 4 aim budgptad and made I&wfNUIy zVo..Uablu for such expenditures. 5 `his ra=azit may be modifled at =W. time by the 6 mutes ao aazit of 4.Mtaa paths"s her atop as may t�e oaa necostary 7 for the bast adedViyatuaant through State wid, City coop4 atian 8 of the whole f rddw0q ,ptojoat for the aelftt of the people o 9 the State and of the GIty. 10 VI WTMISS ME nP! ' the parti&s ha rounto have set their 11 19"Is and seals the day abave first w.-:Lt t n. 12 vartmant of Public works 14 15 AMOVEDIROBERT B. BRADFORD Director of Public Works 16 17 18 T. Fred Basha t Assistant, r 't �eAN 12 1959 19 a. 01!,C n ton Beach FORM A -Mwvhla$ ; oln ..r.. 20 21 22 I 23 24 � � ti.��-•-- 25 %Ak 26 27 28 29 30 31 tv - w— Awr0m � ING • City of Huntington Beach California �COpNTY CP December 23, 1958 State of California Division of Highways RE: V Ora-60-HntD Box 2304 ® Terminal Annex 7Q 491 Los Angeles 54, California ATTK, L. R. Gillis, District Engineer Dear Sir, Transmitted herewith the r ginal and one copy of the proposed freeway ag e ent , as er, subject reference executed by the authorized C1it a6 sand attached to each copy 8 t a p the excerpt of Council c on approving the agreement, Very truly yours, J. L. Henricksen, City Clerk JLH:lk Encl. �41e�enme fn ` THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH MAP ON FILE WITH CITY CLERK