Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHuntington Beach Freeway - ORA 171-Highway 39 - State Divisi STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY RONALD REAGAN, Governor DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY COMMISSION I�``'d` s k. c'I�� P.O. BOX 1139, SACRAMENTO 95805 �I dv A, M' c)t J a J cops 7 A d PA i m, -s- - 71.-- May 26 , 1972 Mr. Paul C. Jones City Clerk Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Jones : This is to acknowledge receipt of your Council 's joint resolution with the cities of Westminster and Fountain Valley together with the transmittal letter requesting an opportunity to appear before the California Highway Commission to petition the reopening of route studies on the Route 39 Freeway between Route 405 and Route 1 in Orange County. We are advised that July would be the earliest Commission meeting date that would afford the Division of Highways time to develop their briefing report on the matter. Assuming that this will meet with your approval, we are reserving time for your appearance on the July 20 agenda from 10 : 40 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. in the City Council Chambers in San Jose. Please find the attached guidelines to assist you in the preparation and delivery of your presentation. Meanwhile ,, copies of your letter are being forwarded to the State Highway Engineer and the Director of Public Works for their information. If you need any further information or assistance, please let us know. Sincerely, HAROLD A. RICHARD Assistant Secretary GUIDELINES FOR HEARINGS BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY COMMISSION The California Highway Commission makes every effort to give due consideration to each matter brought before it in public hearing sessions. Short presentations that are well organized and non- repetitious effectively convey the intended message and allow time to fully develop the subject through questions and discussion within the hearing schedule time limits . While we realize that circumstances and questions cannot always be predicted with sufficient accuracy to completely eliminate the possibility of overruns , the Commission does appreciate efforts made to stay within the time allotted. In the interest of conserving time and ensuring the effectiveness of your presentation, we invite you to provide the following infor- mation and material approximately ten days prior to your scheduled appearance : 1. A list showing the name, address , and affiliation of each delegate who will appear before the Commission. 2 . Written statements , outlines , ,or other material to be pre- sented by each speaker, if you feel it would be helpful in presenting your petition. Copies of material sent in advance will be forwarded to each Commissioner. 3. A list of items or. equipment you will need for your presen- tation, e.g. , slide, movie or overhead projection equipment, maps , or easel. Any questions concerning the scheduling of your hearing or other matters associated with it should be directed to either Robert W. Boles ,' Executive Secretary of the California Highway Commission, or to Harold A. Richard, Assistant Secretary, at 445-3259 , Area Code 916 , or Post Office Box 1139 , Sacramento, CA 95805 . Rev. 4-6-72 (#2-1) STATE OF CALIFORNIA—TRANSPORTATION'AGENCY RONALD REAGAN, Governor DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS P.O. BOX 1499,'SACRAMENTO 95807 February 16, 1971 f . Mr. Paul C. Jones City Clerk City of Huntington Beach P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Mr. Jones: This will ackno,wl.edge receipt by both Mr. James A. Moe, Director of Public Works, and me, of copies of the City Council's Resolution No . 1362 urging a high priority be placed on construc- tion of the Route 39 Freeway. Your support of this freeway is certainly appreciated. Please be assured that the contents of the resolution will be carefully considered in the deliberations on the future programming for construction. Sincerely, A. LEG State Hi y Engineer i r ING _vURBAN LAND INSTITUTE Citizens Steering Committee P.O. BOX 11 • HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIF. 92648 • PHONE (714) 536-7613 February 1 , 1971 TO : HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: Urban Land Institute Citizens Steering mm' t '' - 4l e g Co i �ee..._w RE : Route 39 Freeway Re-study Recommendation ; ,ATTN: Doyle Miller, City Administrator rr Paul Jones , City Clerk Gentlemen: Having examined the advantages and disadvantages of a realignment study of the Route 39 Freeway, the ULICSC , on a motion by Robert Dingwall , second by Jack Koebig , unanimously recommends that the City Council continue supporting the present adopted alignment of the Route 39 Freeway for the following reasons : A. . Because of service requirements for the Talbert Valley area Uf Huntington Beach. B. Probable elimination of the Route 57 Freeway from the San Diego Freeway to Pacific Coast Highway. C . Service to prime industrial property at Garfield Ave . and Gothard St. -will be adequate from the Route 1 Freeway. D . Red Alternate of Route 39 Freeway would eliminate substantial acreage of industrial property, parti- cularly at the interchange with the Route 1 Freeway. E. Problems of design and cost of construction for the Red Alternate as it crosses the Orange County Flood Control channels and Southern Pacific Railroad. F . Unknown problems involved in the Beach Blvd. , Diego Freeway and Edinger Ave . interchanges as a result of the Red Alternate alignment . G . Practicality of meeting criteria established by the State Highway Commission for a freeway alignment rehearing ; to wit : 1 . New evidence available that was developed since the original hearings . i r Route 39 Freeway Re-study Recommendation - Continued 2 . All effected jurisdictions must agree to a study. H. If a rehearing is opened: 1 . There would be no set route study alignments . All possible routes would have to be explored. 2 . Time delay if restudied would be 2 to 7 years , or more . 3 . The possibility that no route could be adopted due to current public opinion. 4 . Time delays of industrial development along the Red -Alternate would take - place , because of align— ment and design uncertainties . 5 . Time delay on Top-of-Pier and related projects , because of no dates on design or construction of the freeway. The Urban Land Institute Citizens Steering Committee recommends . that the City Council ; 1 . Adopt Resolution 3262 , which states : a. Huntington Beach supports placing the Route 39 Freeway on a higher priority. b . Huntington Beach supports proceeding with early design, freeway agreements , right-of- way acquisition and construction of the Route 39 Freeway. C. Immed,iate limits of this project should be from the Pacific Coast Highway to. the Garden Grove Freeway. d. , That Huntington Breach will work cooperatively to implement development of Route 39 Freeway by finalizing street alignments , highway classifications , interchange configurations and projected traffic:`- counts . 2 . Direct the Transportation Sub-Committee to continue implementation of the Route l and Route 39 freeway system in Huntington Beach. AMENDMENTS MASTER PLAN OF ARTERIAL :+wWM 1'gM4M1 A M STREETS ANC,- HIGHWAYS Ct LEGENI; FREEWAY MAJOR_ _-__..J20'R/W 1 M PRIMARY._-__I00'R/W SECONDARY-_80'R/W i � - NOTE: s, OLII'. LINES INDICATE EXISTING PoG N OF W WAY NOT F£CESSAR0.Y ULTIMATE RIGHT Qi WAY \ DASHED LINES RE AREAS WHERE NO i RIGHT OF WAY EXISTS SYMBOL DENOTES PRIMARY COUPLET low CERTIFICATIONS: RA~Cow"Im - �• I ^\ I rr, ram-- , f � r CITY COUNCIL �I .o<"u.[. Y ♦rx on o I ! Q ,ww+w C CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH - ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA MINUTES TRANS-SUB-COMMITTEE OF URBAN LAND INSTITUTE AND CITIZENS STEERING COMMITTEE January 7 , 1971 Council Chambers 10:00 A.M. Present: Wm. Wren, Roger Watson, Larry Curran, Ed Sullivan, Jack Feehan and staff members - Bill Hartge, Ralph Leyva, Jere Murphy. Absent: Don Bravender. Bill Wren - Introduced Larry Curran and the subject of Route 39 Freeway Realignment Study. Ed Sullivan - Stated their position of supporting adopted Jack Feehan route of State Freeway 39. Larry Curran -Explained his position on realigning Route 39 Freeway. Present alignment removes tax base as opposed to providing access and exposure for the Central Industrial Area. Bill Wren - Reviewed pros and cons of Route 39 Freeway Realignment to Orange-Crossover-Red Alternate. Route 1 Freeway status makes the Route 39 Freeway to Pacific. Coast Highway our only area in which to improve Freeway timing. Pushing the Route 39 westerly would increase the length of Route 1 Freeway that would have to be built as a part of this segment of Route 39 Freeway. Curran. - Can we get a statement from the District 7 office of timing on the Route 39 Freeway with respect to restudy of alignment? Wren - Reviewed meetings with District 7 , State Division of Highways regarding timing of freeway con- struction. I Curran - Asked about economics of one alignment over the other. Wren - The City would have to hire a consultant to provide a complete analysis. Meeting adjourned on the premise that the staff will seek answers to questions raisedand the Transportation Sub- Committee will make a recommendation to the ULI CSC soon thereafter. -2- ` 4 •. fib;'-=•''\ b MINUTES Transportation Sub-Committee Urban Land Institute Citizens Steering Committee January 14, 1971 2 :00 P.M. Administrative Annex, Civic Center Ift3ntington Beach, Calif. MEMBERS PRESENT: Dill Wren, Roger Watson, Donn Bravender, Larry Curran - Sub-Committee Bill Hashimoto, Norm Brinkmeyer - Divi- sion of Highways Herm' Kimmel, Ralph Leyva, Jere Murphy - City Staff Wren: How can the City help spped up design and con- struction of Route 39 Freeway? Hashimoto: Design - Committee (City staff people) (4 cities involved) is established to assist here. Regional basis rather than on city by city basis. No specific recommendation being sought now but rather various design alternates. Edison has been a major concern of Division of Highways. How to best design the freeway along the Edison right-of-way. Division of Highways desires local input before design hearing - meet with local organizations - PTA, homeowner organizations, etc. Help from City would be useful in this j area. City Staff is currently producing sufficient technical information. City should have an answer to the M question of the use of the remain- ing property left by the freeway between Newland St. and Edison right-of-way. Steps should be begun to prepare for Design Hearing - i meeting with the local groups. Public hearing may be held on any portion or combination of freeways, ie. Route 39 and portion of Route 1 to the Santa Ana River. i i • I - Speed up on Route 39 would be 0 from early 1980 to 1977. Present Priorities as Division of Highways Sees Theme: Newport Beach Loop - lst Priority Route 1 - south. to San Juan Capistrano - 2nd Route l - north of Newport Beach to Long Beach m 3rd Route 39 - 4th Route 39 Design Hearing - 1 to 1k years away. 3 years of lead time from right-of-way acquisition to construction. Right-of-way acquisition must be begun after a freeway agreement. Westminster and Orange County have passed resolutions supporting Route 39 Freeway. y A freeway committee would help to speed up construc- tion timing. Problems in Newport Beach may cloud the Route 1 Freeway in the area of San Juan Capistrano. Problems in Newport Beach may cloud the Route 39 Freeway. Newport Beach loop is definitely a higher need area than Route 39. Route 39 would be higher than Route 1 with only a little push. First priority of construction of the Route 39 Freeway is from San Diego Freeway south, then from San Diego Freeway north. Curran: What happens to timing with realignment study? Hashimoto: State Highway Commission requirements on re-study: 1. New information available that was not in existence at the time of adoption. 2. Agreement between cities involved or effected that new hearings be held on a freeway. 3. A total restudy of all routes in study area. Number of alternates cannot be restricted. Length of segment can be limited to just a portion of a freeway. Fountain Valley School concern does not constitute new evidence or new information. All cities effected by a freeway study must agree to restudy - Westminster, Fountain Valley, Huntington Beach, Orange County. Joint use of Orange County Flood Control.. District not necessarily economical in this area. Cast of land not high dnough. There is a possibility of local service to Garfield and Goldenwest with Red Alternate. Railroad and Freeway should be at same height if grade separation with local streets is possible. Kimmel: Has the Division of Highways made any changes based on the traffic and land use information recently provided? Hashimoto: Street alignments in the Mid-Beach Area are to be solidified by the City. 'Then meet with the Division of Highways to feed new traffic counts to them. Curran: Would realignment of freeway infringe on Huntington Center? Hashimoto: Farther west . the freeway is located the more enfringement on the Center. Meeting adjourned on the basis that the City Staff will finalize street patterns in the Mid-Beach Area and then meet waith the Division of Highways to discuss relationships created between the Route 1. and Route 39 Freeways and said revised street pattern. Also, the Urban Land Institute Citizent Steer- ing Committee mayl assist the Division of Highways to obtain local input before design hearings are held on the Route 39. I ' MINUTES AND RECOMMENDATION Transportation Sub-Committee Urban Land Institute Citizens Steering Committee January 14, 1971 4:00 P. M. Administrative Conference Room Civic Center Huntington Beach, Calif. MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Wren, Roger Watson, Larry Curran Jerry Murphy - Staff MEMBERS ABSENT: Donn Bravender Discussion was held on the pros and cons of a restudy of the Route 39 Freeway alignment. Having examined the advantages and disadvantages of a .realign- ment study of the Route 39 Freeway, the Transportation Sub- Committee, on a motion by Roger Watson, seconded by Larry Curran, unanimously recommends that the Urban Land Institute Citizens Steering Committee continue supporting the present adopted alignment of the Route 39 Freeway for the following reasons: A. Service requirements of the Talbert Valley area of Huntington Beach. I; B. Probability of elimination of Route 57 Free- way from San Diego Freeway to Pacific Coast Highway. C. Service to prime industrial property at Gar- field Ave. and Gothard St. will be adequate from the. Route 1 Freeway. D. Red Alternate of Route 39 Freeway would ' eliminate substantial acreage of industrial property particularly at' .the interchange with the Route 1 Freeway.' E. Probl_em of design and cost ,of construction of Red Alternate as it crosses the Orange County Flood Control channels and Southern Pacific Railroad. F. Unknown problems involved in the Beach Blvd.- San Diego Freeway and Edinger Ave. inter- changes as a result of Red Alternate alignment. G. Practicality of meeting the criteria established by the State Highway Commission for a freeway alignment rehearing: 1. New evidence available that was developed since the original hearings. i I I I F. 2. All effected jurisdictions must agree to a restudy. H. If a rehearing were opened: 1. There would be no set route study align- ments - all possible routes would have to be explored. 2. Time delay if restudied would be 2 to 7 years or more. 3. No re-adoption of any route could occur due to current public opinion. 4. Time delays of industrial development along Red Alternate because of align- ment and design uncertainties. S. Time delay on Top-of-Pier - no dates on design or construction of freeway. The Transportation Sub-Committee also recommends that the Urban Land Institute Citizens Steering Committee recommend that the City Council support the adopted alignment of the Route 39 Freeway. Said committee also recommends the City Council adopt Resolution 3262 which states: 1. Huntington Beach supports placing the Route 39 Freeway on a higher priority. 2. Huntington Beach supports proceeding with early design, freeway agreements, right-of- way acquisition and construction of the Route 39 Freeway. 3. Immediate limits of this project should be from the Pacific Coast Highway to the Garden Grove Freeway. 4. That Huntington Beach will work cooperatively to implement development of Route 39 Freeway by finalizing street alignments, highway classifications, interchange configurations and projected traffic counts. MEETING ADJOURNED. I - --— M .p STATE OF CALIFORNIA—TRANSPORTATION AGENCY RONALD REAGAN, Governo DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS December 3, 1968 DISTRICT 7, P.O. BOX 2304, LOS ANGELES 90054 07-Ora-39 0.0/7.4 07112 - 036510 �psxL+fib The Honorable City Council City of Huntington Beach Post Office Box 190. Huntington. Beach, California Gentlemen: Attached for your information and file is a certified copy of a resolution passed by the California Highway Com- mission on October 21, 1968. By this resolution the initial section of the Route 39 Freeway in Orange County and in Cities of Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, Westminster and Garden. Grove was adopted -and declared to be a freeway. The section extends between Route 1 Freeway and Lampson Avenue. A print of the route adoption map is also attached. Very truly ours, R.l P. BLOC&KER Assistant District Engineer Programs & ,Budgets Department Attach. cc: Mr. .J. R. Wheeler Director of Public Works Passed by C.H.C. 0 tri'T 2 1968 07-Ora-39 RESOLUTION CHANGING LOCATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND DECLARING A .FREEWAY -RESOLVED 'by the Callf'ornla 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 39 In Orange County and in the Cities of Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, Westminster, and Garden Grove between Route 1. Freeway and Lampoon Avenue, and officially designated as Road 07-Ora-39, as, said location is shown on the map. submitted on April 5, 1968, by J. A ; Legarra, 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 exi-sting, traversable highway shown on said map as the existi.ng 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 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; and 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-----2-1-s-t----day of-------0_c_t_ob_e_r------------------ 196-3, in the City of..............Bakersfield Dated this_2 3 4--------day of...Qc t o b e r 1961. --aw,1-n ,z---�__ ROBERT T. MARTIN ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY COMMISSION EST.496.11052-500 6-67 5M OSP �41e�enme fn ` THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH MAP ON FILE WITH CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFOR�IIA--TRAi,'SPC)IZ'[AT[O�J AGENCY RONALD REAGAN, Governor DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS � ' P.O. BOX 1079,SACRAMENTO 95805 December a, 1968 City Council City of Huntington Beach 5th & Pecan Avenue Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen : ' At its October meeting the Highway Commission adopted a freeway routing for State Highway 39 in the County of Orange and the Cities or Hunt- ington Beach, Fountain Valley, Westminster, Garden Grove , and Stanton, between Route 1 Freeway and Lampson Avenue . Attached is a copy of the Commission ' s Route Adoption Report. Respectfully, PETER L, TWEEDT Secretary Attachment i is I '• 1 -tober 21, 1968 CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY COMMISSION ROUTE ADOPTION REPORT 7-Ora-39 - Freeway ,- Between Route Freeway and Lampson Avenue FACTORS CONSIDERED BY THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY COMMISSION 1. EXISTING HIGHWAY A. General The legislative description of Route 39 is as follows :_ "Route 39 is from Route 1 near Huntington Beach to Route 2 "passing through or near Buena Park and via San Gabriel Canyon. " The location adopted is the southerly 7 miles of the route. Within the limits of the project existing Route 39 is known locally as Beach Boulevard . Beach Boulevard serves commuter and recreational traffic and is the main artery providing access to the Pacific Coast re-- gional facilities in the. Huntington Beach area . There is considerable strip commercial development along its length. Within the project length Beach Boulevard is a four- lane divided highway with no control of access except at freeway. interchange locations . B. Principal Deficiencif!s As the,- principal roue to Huntington Beach and other adjacent coastal cities , the existing highway is heavily congested during periods of peak traffic flow due to signalized stops, lack of access control, and an inade= quate number of traffic lanes. This condition will become increasingly aggravated by the continued buildup of industry; housing, and commercial development . 2 . TRANSPORTATION NETWORK The Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways shows .the freeway along Beach Boulevard. The City of Huntington Beach Master Plan of Land Use shows the freeway generally between the Green .and Red lines, but a June" 1965 report endorsed by the .City Council states the Green location to be the most .desirab'le . However, it is noted that the city later expressed preference for the Red line. 2 - The City of Westminster Comprehensive General Plan and Traf- fic. and Trahsport�at'ion Supplement shows the freeway generally on the Orange line except near the Garden Grove Freeway .interchange. The Stanton Comprehensive General Plan shows two alternates for the proposed freeway. Select systems of streets and roads were taken into consid- eration . Traffic estimates were based on the Los Angeles Regional Transportation Study. 3 . LOCATION STUDIES Four alternate locations were studied . Green-Red Red Orange Green-Dash Green-Red. (which was studied after the first .public 'hearing. )� The locations are shown on Exhibit "A" . Exhibit ".B" shows .the engineering and economic data and. the effect on local tax base.- ' Exhibit "C shows residential units by cities . - -shows the effect -ob school district tax base . The• State Highway .Engineer, recommend'ed; the Orange alternate which is approximately 7 .4 miles long and estimated to cost $92 ,700, 000. 4. COMMUNITY CONSIDERATIONS = A. The cities directly affected by one •or mote of the Route 39 freeway study line south of Lampson Avenue are: October- 1967 Population Huntington Beach 93 , 49'1 Fountain Valley 21, 664 ` Westminster 55, 417 Garden Grove 118,771', Stanton = 17 , 814. Orange County Orange County has not expressed official preference for a spgcific alternate .- ! City of Huntington. Beach The city originally officially-- endorsed the `Green-Red Line as` ts first choice and the Green-Dash Green-Red as its second choice . ' S ,ihsequent to. the State Highway Engineer ' s••recommendation;- but before the Commission public bearing;- the' city endorsed the Red alternate . Y• ' 3 - City_ of Fountain' Valley Fountain Valley supported the Green-ked '.1.-oute c.it.inq, its lower cost, the minimum ' displacement. of res.i.c?c n- tial units and its more 'central "locat..i_on with i-esp(.-�cte to overall freeway spacing. City of Westminster Westminster supported the orange al.tet:i1i ate .:inr3 the westerly alternates . The .Cit.y ' s opposition to the westerly alternates is based primarily- on the.i.r et-f�:ct:s on the developing industrial area at: Bolsa Avenue and the San Diego Freeway. City. of Garden Grove The city requested adoption of the Red route north of Westminster Avenue on the basis that this line provides advantageous access and exposure to the "City ' s central industrial district and has less effect on the City ' s neighborhoods . City. of Stanton A report submitted at the first public hearing by the City of Stanton opposed route adoption unless the adjoin- ing segment to the north is included . The City stated , -however, that if a route adoption is made within the present limits , the orange line is its preferred loca- tion . Other cities north of Lampson Avenue took positions with respect to the alternates studied. They. are not factors in this adoption because crossovers will permit adoption in any corridor to the north without their being prejudiced by this adoption . B: Other Public Entities The Midway City Sanitary District favored the Orange route . citing the adverse effect westerly alternates would have on its tax base. The Orange Coast Junior college District opposed the Red route south of Bolsa Avenue because the Golden west College Campus recently opened will be seriously affected . Various other school districts and chambers of commerce _ supported the position of the cities in which they were located . Citizens groups were well represented . Several made pre-' sentations at the Division of Highways and Commission hear-, ings and filed reports eiti.er at the hearings or subsequent thereto. Other, groups not- testifying filed reports . All of the reports are included and were considered as part of the hearing record. - 4 - Among those favoring the Red line were : Citizens Action League. , Concer.ned .Citizens. Council Home Council of Huntington Beach . . Huntington Beach Citizens Freeway Association Property Owners Protective League Willows Foundation Some of. the important points made by these groups was their .concern over the effect of the Orange line .on ,,family dwell- i,ngs, on tax base and on school .district boundaries and the possible advantages of the ; Red line from the standpoint of service to industrial areas and better traffic service over- all. Among those. favoring the orange,,line were : Citizens _ Group ,114000" New Westminster Homeowners Association Westminster Homeowners Association Some of the important points made by the .-groups favoring the Orange line was their concern over the effect . of" the Red location on industrial developments and on the tax base of smaller communities : Petitions were filed .and statements .were made by individuals supporting either the Red line or the orange 'line . 4. EFFECT ON TAX BASE „ Much of the.' testimony centered around, the effect the several alternates will have on the tax base. Exhibit B lists the effect on the general tax base of the cities involved . Because future extension of Route 39 ,north. of Lampson Avenue will also . affect Garden Grove and Stanton, ;already affected by the portion south of Lampson Avenue,- additional data were requested of these cities . These data, modified to be on a comparable basis, v3ere considered . They are shown in Exhibit E.. These, reveal that the ,total effect . on the assessed valuation of Garden Grove . is' not . excessive on the, orange line although it is higher than for the other alternates . ,The total effect, of the Orange line on the assessed valua- tion in Stanton is, much less than for- the other alternates and is close to the others when ' the crossover corridors are considered . The effect on school district tax bases is shown in Exhibit D. "The effect .,of the Orange iine' is. greater than `that of the ..other lines, .except for the 'Westminster 'School District which is ' affecte.d - .least by' the Orange line ., Comparable data for extension of `the Red and 'Orange -lines 'nor th _of Lampson Avenue were not developed. 5. OTHER FACTORS User benefits are comparable on. all alternates . The engineering and economic data chart (Exhibit B) shows the number of parks , churches, and schools affected . The Red alternate would require approximately 16 acres of the Golden West College mentioned above. The Orange line traverses a newly acquired site for Foun- tain Valley School District administration. and maintenance buildings." Maintenance buildings are under construction immediately west of the Orange line . The District does not have any immediate plans to construct the administration buildings . The. Orange line requires a portion of a Catholic school site ; however, church officials indicate there are no im- mediate plans -for building either the school or the church . 5 The three westerly alternates affect parks to some degree . Portions .of the Edison Co. transmission line right of way are being considered for recreational areas with one pres- ently developed as a playground. The Orange line encroaches slightly on the right of way in some areas being considered for recreational use . No places of historic interest are involved . Aesthetic con- siderations are equal on all alternates. Publicly owned fa cilities .involved are : On the Green line a materials site. On the Orange line a Division of Highways maintenance station , and On all three westerly alternates the present WestminstertCity Hall facilities would be required, however, the City has no objection to their being taken . CONCLUSIONS 1. After careful consideration of all testimony, reports, and data, the decision can be reduced to a choice between the Orange line recommended by the State Highway Engineer and the Red line which was favored by the majority of those who Provided testimony at and subsequent to the Commission hearing. 2 . There is no question but what the impact of the ')range line on residential prope'ty would be greater than on the Red line if the freeway were to be built today. Considerable 6 - weight must be given to the fact that the freeway cannot be financed for many years , and in the meantime the vacant land now existing in the corridor of the western, alternates can be expected to be built up. A large part of this devel- opment will be expensive industrial improvements . It fol- lows that the present advantage the Red line has over the Orange line in cost can be expected to decrease as these improvements are built on the Redline . from die - stand- point of which alternate will be least disrLiptive when the freeway is built, they can be considered to be about equal. . 3 . Preservation of areas for industrial use is important to the community because of their value to the tax base in themselves , and to' att'cact people to the community, which in turn adds to the tax base. The ()range line will permit greater overall development of this part of orange County. 4. The affected cities in general have expressed more concern over the loss of existing and potential industry and commerce than over the loss of housing. Adoption of the orange line will permit unhampered development of the industrial area . The Red line, however, would go through the industrial areas taking approximately 1/5 of industrial land within 1/2 mile of the freeway location . Adequate freeway access to indus- trial land would be available from other freeways if the orange line is adopted . 5. While schools are affected by any of the alternates, the Red line -will have ' a- serious effect on the development of the Golden West College campus . 6 . The Edison Company power line along which the orange route goes already creates a community boundary. 7 . The orange line is endorsed by the Cities of Westminster and Stanton . The City of Huntington Beach favors the Red line but is not adversely affected by the' Orange line . The City of Fountain' Valley opposes the ;-)range line, although only a narrow strip would be severed from the remainder of the City. Garden Grove has endorsed the Red line and at one time approved the Orange line as its second choice . The Orange line is believed to have a more balanced impact on all the communities involved in this project . The California Highway CommisE,'ion adopted the recommended Orange line on October 21, 1968. Documents Considered: Transcript and record of hearings held by the Division of Highways ,in- Huntington Beach on June 22 , 1967 , and December 1, 1967 . - 7 - Documents -.Considered : cont 'd . Letter from John A . Legarra to California Highway Commission dated April 5, 1968. Correspondence from cities replying to California Highway Commission inquiry as to their position on whether adoption would prejudice freeway location north of Lampson Avenue . Transcript and record of hearing held by the California Highway Commission in Huntington Beach on July 26 , 1968 . Letter from John A. Legarra to California Highway Commis- sion dated October 8, 1968, answering questions as],ed at the Commission hearing and correcting data in the he-aring record : APPROVED : VER&QP J. CAI A, CHAIRMAN i FRED C. ;,FXNfN , VICE ZCHAIAill N LIM LEE, MEM ER WM. S. WHITEHURST, MEMBER i VOTED "NO" , ON ADOPTION, SEE SEPARATE REPORT ATTACHED: r ALEXANDER H. POPE, MEMBER ABSTAINED: ROBERT E. HERDMAN, MEMBER V. EARL ROBERTS, MEMBER I SEPARATE REPORT I favored the Red , route over" the Orange route for the following reason's : 1. The Red route is almost one mile shorter than the Orange route. 2 . The Red, route is substantially closer to the mi.dpo.i.nt be- twe,en the parallel routes to the east and west . (routes 57 and 605) . 3 . The Red route terminates- at Lampson Avenue approximately in the center of the Route 39 corridor (midway between the Green and Orange routes) and provides maximum flexibility for the northerly extension of Route 39. Such flexibility is needed and is particularly important in this situation because of the design problems in routing Route 39 through the .area of the Route - 5-Route 91 interchange. 4. The Red route follows the existing .Pacific Electric right of way for .most of its length . 5. The Red route goes through large areas which are commer- cially and industrially zoned and which are now partially vacant. The Orange route goes through areas which are primarily zoned for residences and which are already sub- stantially developed . It is, in my opinion , much easier for a commercial-industrial area not yet fully developed to adjust to the construction; of a new freeway than it would be for, a built-up residential area to make that adjustment. 6 . The Red route is .favored by local cities having a total population in excess of three times as large as the total population of the cities favoring the Orange route. LEXAN ER H. POPE, MEMB R •'II601.5A CHKA AVE I,•• W W 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 I'�'�' < < < > SCALE IN THOUSANDS OF FEET SPRINGDALE St r PROJECT PROJECT �o LIMIT' ;r z �,y LIMIT GR "E ;I GREEN �r fL Sl 4 GOLDEN WE51 ST z GREEN • • RED 19 tif .w._.. RED //aLVD BEACH ORANGE (DISC)" CO U MAGN011A rii MAGN01iF xv: sr > > V7 �7 �✓ O flY ly z sit 1 EE z , `�` `i �� BROOKHURS; _ x - SI L5 t ROUTE RECOMMENDED BY -STATE HIGHWAY. ENGINEER PROPOSED ROUTE 39 FREEWAY ROUTE I FREEWAY TO LAMPSON AVENUE X JULY 1968 ~ D SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE DATA FOR PROPOSED ROUTE 39 FREEWAY BETWEEN ROUTE,1 FREEWAY AND LAMPSON AVENUE ENGINEERING AND ECONOMIC DATA EFFECT ON LOCAL TAX BASE FOR ALTERNATE STUDY LINES STUDY LINE Green- Green- COLOR Dashed Dashed Green Green- Green- Green- DESIGNATION Red Red Orange Red Red Red Orange Red LENGTH (MILES) 6.4 6.6 6.4 1.0,E 7.4 � HUNTiNGTON 1.5 0.8 l.g 1.7 o a BEACH 0.9% 0.5% 1.1 COST CONSTRUCTION 49.5 53.0 46.2 53•6 H d IN RIGHT OF WAY 32.6 30.0 38.1 29.2 �E' VALLEYIN -- -- -- 2.1% MILLIONS TOTAL 82.1 83.0 84.3 82.8 o WESTMINSTER 2.6 2.3 1.3 2.0 H' 4.5% 4.0% 3.4% SINGLE PARTIAL 46 40 57 53 � 3 GARDEN 0.07 0.07 1.7 0.07 FAMILY a x GROVE 0.05% 0.05 1,1 0.05% PARCEL RESIDENT FULL 654 402 914 680 c STANTON 0.2 0.2 0.2 A 3 1.0 1.0 1.0 MULTIPLE w COUNTY (UNIN- -- -- p -- RESIDENTIAL UNITS 199 120 544 111 W CORPORATED) 0:9% COUNT TRAILER SPACES 220 255 0 220 d 01 TOTAL 4.4 3.4 5.8 4.0 COMMERCIAL 13 18 �3 13 AND TOTAL ASSESSMENT 1966-67 INDUSTRIAL 6 22 2 4 - MILLION LAND MISCELLANEOUS 21 26 �9 16 HUNTINGTON BEACH 166 VACANT - ALL TYPES 172 185 97 171 FOUNTAIN VALLEY 33 'J OIL OPERATING 9 11 5 9 USE NON- WESTMINSTER 58 WELLS OPERATING 23 30 15 �3 GARDEN GROVE 151 DATA PARKS, CHURCHES STANTON 20 m AND SCHOOLS 2 4 6 2 }� x TOTAL PARCELS 936 704 COUNTY (UNIN- AFFECTED 1164 958 CORPORATED 351 q H TOTAL FAMILY 1073 777 1458 , 1011 bj UNITS DISPLACED * Includes trailer spaces JULY 1968 TABULATION OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS BY CITIES ROUTE 39 FREEWAY BETWEEN ROUTE 1 FREEWAY AND LAMPSON AVENUE STUDY LINE GREEN- DASHED FAMILY GREEN- GREEN- CITY UNITS RED RED ORANGE RED HUNTINGTON SINGLE 244 31 215 301 BEACH MULTIPLE 136 5748 TOTAL 380 88 480 349 FOUNTAIN SINGLE -- -- 139 VALLEY MULTIPLE -- -- 2 -- TOTAL -- -- 141 -- WESTMINSTER SINGLE 4o6 367 261 375 MULTIPLE 63 63 2 63 TRAILER SPACES 88 123 -- 88 TOTAL 557 553 263 526 GARDEN SINGLE 4 4 �75 4 GROVE MULTIPLE -- -- -- TOTAL 4 4 499 4 STANTON SINGLE -- -- -- -- MULTIPLE -- -- -' -- TRAILER SPACES 132 132 -- 132 TOTAL 132 132 -- 132 COUNTY SINGLE -- -- 75 (UNINCORPORATED) MULTIPLE -- -- -' -- TOTAL -- -- 75 TOTAL SINGLE 654 402 914 680 MULTIPLE 199 120 544 111 x • TRAILER SPACES 220 255 220 TOTAL 1073 777 1458 1011 DULY 1968 EFFECT ON SCHOOL DISTRICTS ' TAX BASE ROUTE 39 FREEWAY . BETWEEN ROUTE 1 FREEWAY AND LAMPSON AVENUE STUDY LINE GREEN- SCHOOL DISTRICT DASHED GREEN- GREEN- RED RED ORANGE RED O H HUNTINGTON BEACH 0.3 0.2 1.2 0.3 z H CITY ELEMENTARY 0.40 0.2% 1.4% 0.4% O U a a FOUNTAIN VALLEY -- -- 0.7 H � ELEMENTARY 1.9/ Q OCEAN VIEW 0.9 0.6 1.1 0.9 o ELEMENTARY 1.3% 0.8% 1.5% 1.3% WESTMINSTER 2.9 2.4 2,3 2. 4 ELEMENTARY 4. 1% 3.5% 3.3% 3.5% z GARDEN GROVE 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.2 a UNIFIED 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% HUNTINGTON,BEACH 4.2 3.2 5.3 3.7 W UNION HIGH 1.4% 1.1% 1.7 1:20 Q w w ORANGE COAST 4.2 3.2 5,3 3.7 WJUNIOR COLLEGE 0.7% 0.6% 0.9% 0,7% U2 O COUNTY JR. 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.2 COLLEGE TUITION 0.4% 0.4% p,8% 0. 4% TOTAL ASSESSMENT (1966-67) HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY ELEMENTARY 83 MILLION FOUNTAIN VALLEY ELEMENTARY 37 MILLION OCEAN VIEW ELEMENTARY 70 MILLION WESTMINSTER ELEMENTARY 70 MILLION H GARDEN GROVE UNIFIED E03 08 MILLION HUNTINGTON BEACH UNION HIGH MILLION d ORANGE COAST JR. COLLEGE U38 63 MILLION COUNTY JR. COLLEGE TUITION MILLION JULY 1968 U l TOTAL EFFECTS Oiy GARDEN GROVE AND STANTON AL i,L�INT a TE 41 - t,-' 1� 7, CITY COMINTT`TITY EFFECT ORANGE RED GREEN I CR-.\GE I GREEid RED I i Assessed Value in R/W 0.319 + 0.830 0.608 0.5S3 1 . 06? 0.764 $ Millions J Percent of City Total 1 .66% 5 .23% � 4.13% + 3.72% j 5 .54� � 4.901,5 Stanton Single-family Units �+1 i 175 + 114 [_60 1155 163 I � " 1 Multiple Units 19 22 14 - 1i . 1 Total Living Units in R;;r 00 1 -1 07 128 60 1166 167 1 j 1 •' � I i ( I Assessed Value in RIW 1 2 .775 0. 176 0.913 f 0.937 2 .074 0.913 $ Millions 1 � 1 1 � Percent of City Total I 1 .8420 I 0.12% 011% 0.54 0. 11 Garden -� I Grove Single-family Units 447 10 3^c`* �* o - - ' - ----7 - iYiultiple Units 275 ; 27; I 1 Iota! Living Units in 722 10 171 5?9 4 • i �41e�enme fn ` THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH MAP ON FILE WITH CITY CLERK I G�, r Founded 1 9 0 4 Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce i s to November 27, 1967 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Huntington Beach, Calif. Gentlemen: The action taken by the Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce on the Route #39 Huntington Beach Freeway is in support of the Green-Dashed Green-Red modified route. Our position has been to favor the Westerly- most alignment, and the modified route does not material- ly alter the basic reasons for this selection. If, however, the modification could provide a routing that might be agreeable to the City of Westminster, then this consideration is of utmost importance in getting the earlie- st possible adoption we all seek. We believe the Huntington Beach City Council should at lease endorse the modification as an acceptable alternate route, if necessary to reach a more unified position of the cities involved, Yours truly, Dale L. Dunn, Manager POST OFFICE BOX 272, 314 FIFTH STREET, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92646 (714) 536.6564 U 'N"U'DAN LAND INSTITUTE Citizens o Steering s Committee P.O. BOX 11 • HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIF. 92648 • PHONE (714) 536-7613 November 22, 1967 City Council City of Huntington Beach Gentlemen: The ULI Citizens Steering Committee, upon careful consideration of the recommendations of the Transportation Sub-Committee, does find as follows: The Citizens Steering Committee recognizes the importance of a westerly alignment to the city of Huntington Beach but the committee also recognizes the importance of the adoption of a north-south freeway route in the immediate future. For these reasons, if the most recent Dash Green Alternate Route represents the most westerly alignment acceptable to the cities to the north, the committee strongly recommends that Council consider supporting this in the public hearing of December 1 as, if not the primary route, at least an acceptable alternative . Respectfully submitted, URBAN LAND INSTITUTE CI IZENS STEERING OMMITTEE &A.1 nte itz ows i o ,airman Don Bravender Bo e C Ge©r M &-ackeu Gil A le4l ert L. NUT,� imen Walter Cleveland Sa& -6-WRI STATE OF CALIFORNIA—TRANSPORTATION AGENCY _ RONALD REAGAN, Governor DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS ' DISTRICT 7, P.O. BOX 2304,LOS ANGELES 90054 October 17, 1967 7-Ora-39 J PR-7-296 City Council 1 `1rL rD City of Huntington Beach 6th and PecanI P. 0. Box 190 �9..... Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: A second public hearing has been scheduled by the State of California, Division of Highways, relative to the proposed location of Route 39 Freeway between Route 1 Free- way, in Huntington Beach, and Lampson Avenue. This hearing will be held in the Huntington Beach High School Auditorium, 1905 Main Street, Huntington Beach, at 10:00 A.M., Friday, December 1, 1967. The purpose of this second hearing is to present the findings of an additional freeway location alternate studied as a result of information presented at the first public hearing held June 22, 1967. Updated data on the study alter- nates previously submitted at the first public hearing will also be presented, and local government officials, civic groups and interested individuals will be given an opportu- nity to express their views on all alternates. , For your convenience, a copy of the "Facts Relative . .It- and handout data which will be distributed to those attending this hearing and an advance copy of the press re- lease announcing the hearing are enclosed. .We wish to call your attention to Section 75.5 of the Streets and Highways Code which provides that, on request of any city or county and where such city or county furnishes appropriate information, the Division of Highways will present at the hearing the effect that the proposed routing would have upon community values. A copy of this Section of the Code is attached for your information. fOw Page 2 October 17, 1967 7-Ora-39 - PR-7-296 You are cordially invited to have a representative present at this hearing to express views pertinent to the project. Very truly yours, O T. R. LAMMERS Deputy District Engineer Attachs. cc: Doyle Miller James Wheeler Kenneth Reynolds i i 4 Al FACTS RELATIVE TO THE LOCATION OF THE ROUTE 39 FREEWAY BETWEEN ROUTE 1 (PACIFIC COAST) FREEWAY IN HUNTINGTON BEACH AND LAMPSON AVENUE The State Division of Highways recently completed an additional alternate freeway location study for the proposed Route 39 Freeway between the Route 1 Freeway in Huntington Beach and Lampson Avenue just north of Garden Grove Boulevard. This additional alternate was developed as a result of information presented at the first public hearing for this project held June 22, 1967. The project under discussion is the southern segment of the Route 39 Freeway. This freeway will ultimately extend from the Route 1 Freeway to the Route 210 (Foothill ) Freeway in Azusa. Our studies for the next segment north to the Route 60 (Pomona ) Freeway are expected to be completed towards the end of 1968, and the last segment completed about one year later. Appropriate governmental agencies and local governing i bodies were informed of the initiation of studies for this freeway in compliance with the policy of the California Highway Commission jregarding adoption of freeway routes. At various times during the study period, the Division of Highways has met with representatives of these groups and members of their technical staffs to discuss the studies and to obtain their suggestions. Del- �7 F - 2 - The Division of Highways is holding this second public hearing to acquaint you with information regarding the various route locations, including the alternate studied subsequent to the first hearing, and to give you an opportunity to present your views concerning these alternate studies. Alternate route locations shown on the attached map are the same as those shown on the aerial photograph on display. Comparative data relative to the alternates have been updated for all study lines and are tabulated on the pages facing the map. The purpose of these studies and this public hearing is to develop information which will allow the State Highway Engineer to evaluate the alternate locations for this freeway and to present his recommendation for adoption to the4California Highway Commission. Prior to adopting a specific location, the Commission ' will consider all pertinent information, including recommendations presented by affected agencies, local governing bodies, and the I State Highway Engineer. After the California Highway Commission receives the State Highway Engineer's recommendation, the affected governing bodies will be notified of the Commission's intention to consider an a adoption. They will also be notified which alternate the State F Highway Engineer has recommended. Whenever it serves the public interest, the Commission will hold an additional public hearing. This can be initiated by the Commission or upon request by one of the local governing agencies. - 3 - Evaluation of the merits of any particular alternate freeway location includes a combined consideration of three principal factors: 1. The effects which the alternate will have on the communities through or around which it may pass. 2. The degree to which the alternate will fulfill existing and future traffic demands. 3. The initial cost of the alternate, including both construction and right of way. The effects on the communities are based on existing as well as future development. The Division of Highways has gathered information relative to this factor by meeting with local officials and their staffs and reviewing master plans with regard to planned future developments. The comments received today will be very helpful in evaluating community effects. ` The method of estimating the benefits to traffic is based jon the monetary value of both the savings in time and cost of vehicle operation. For this project, the traffic service and user benefits for all lines are comparable and are in excess of initial costs of construction and right of way. As a result, the user benefits are not shown on the comparative data summary. The construction and right of way costs are determined by engineering and property appraisal methods. r 4 - This freeway, when completed, will serve as an important link in the California Freeway and Expressway System. It will connect existing and planned freeways in the area and provide benefits to the motorist in terms of increased safety, reduced travel time, and vehicle operating costs. Today's hearing concerns general freeway locations rather than precise freeway alignments. Preliminary plans have been prepared in sufficient detail to allow proper evaluation of the economic factors involved and to determine the feasibility of each location from a construction standpoint. At today's hearing, we will be unable to answer inquiries about individual pieces of property. Please send such inquiries to: State of California Division of Highways Public Information i P. 0. Box 2304, Terminal Annex Los Angeles, California 90054 Include both your mailing address and the le0al description of i your property with your inquiry. Legal descriptions may be found on your property tax bills. We thank those attending this hearing and all who have assisted and participated in these studies. �'��, �� x,.r•:;:';'e�;•:�:...::.�',c".�:� w�;aim:��r�•� a�`�;�:���.a;�:s;'�s.��,r', �: ..,, x� ��� � u� 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 SCALE IN THOUSANDS OF FEET � oaraH � sd � i'v Z !A. R LIMIT LIMIT ��" _ 1w i'% ®,: '�:;�,_..�. �;��,�,,:��' �c�.-�,:�•, :�;��,," ,` „;'.;` asa�.�,��;,,�s" aaaxe,•�{e�.0 w�����,,tn�� �c9";m,<.�e,.�„�, �,:���;�' r�':,y:�.�;�,.�w,�•»;�-x ���..:�,�-,'�•;,. .>...,, u, a� J�P ;, ex ti w s V sa -a r„ w.s`3 � ,f;e&.8"n i3'.t a t. � �3 3 ^•9„yw.{ �. � � .�,n-m..-,w�,., �„�: .a"a'a,.,,.,,,,,,..:,.�."T...x,.,;....,. ,,,,.., ..",x.x. .mr."x...x,e..ux,.s...�w,ze:,.ai�kn'.^e��a4,:��`.�: ,�`.w�:w.,waxes'��•w'a%$.,vs""�����.m,a'.:",,,�n.:�.-,�,r.:�:•,.x,c;"�"�' e..w3.".v,,,x.,,".L,..f�.a�ua .��xeti�. w,�$ .+x .� a: z T 'Al o' >.n r R`,... "Ki":L,k�<ti W,.w. •,a•.�a�{aa;'��'w '�.{�;sx,x"��m.�6-,a;�,xs�r,�•'ea`�x.,.,;,�„�.��•��.�•�a�.�'�,�s.,�.:m;,�..>x,e-=".,*n.-"_,_�,�"" -..� ._,.,,.:,`�. aza..a�xaa:m��mxv.���,m � { e 6 x � s i PROPOSED ROUTE 39 FREEWAY ROUTE I FREEWAY TO LAMPSON AVENUE ADDITIONAL ALTERNATE NOT PRESENTED ' DECEMBER 1967, AT JUNE 22, 1967 PUBLIC HEARING. SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE DATA FOR PROPOSED ROUTE 39 FREEWAY BETWEEN ROUTE 1 FREEWAY AND LAMPSON AVENUE 4 ENGINEERING AND ECONOMIC DATA EFFECT ON LOCAL TAX BASE FOR ALTERNATE STUDY LINES STUDY LINE Green- Green- COLOR Dashed Dashed Green Green- Green- Green- DESIGNATION Red Red Orange Red * Red Red Orange Red LENGTH (MILES) 6.4 6.6 7.4 6.4 HUNTINGTON 1.3 0.8 1.8 1.4 COST CONSTRUCTION 49.5 53.0 46.2 53.6 BEACH 0.99d 0.6% 1.3;B 1.0% x H FOUNTAIN -- -- 0.7 IN RIGHT OF WAY 29.7 28.6 36.5 27.3 H VALLEY 2.7% MILLIONS TOTAL 79.2 81.6 82.7 80.9 WESTMINSTER 2.4 2.1 1.3 2.0 ... 4.3% 3.8% 2.3% 3.5% SINGLE PARTIAL 46 40 57 53 0 FAMILY H GARDEN 0.07 0.07 1.5 0.07 a GROVE 0.05% 0.05 1.0,E 0.05% PARCEL RESIDENT FULL 602 402 914 627 � 0.2 0,2 0.2 MULTIPLE y STANTON � 0.9% 0.9% -- 0.9% RESIDENTIAL UNITS 199 120 407 ill naloPa 3 COUNT TRAILER SPACES 220 255 0 220 Ca COUNTY (UNIN-w __ __ 0.3 pq m E CORPORATED) 0.08% �H COMMERCIAL 12 i7 23 13 :4 0 TOTAL 4.0 3.2 5.6 3.7 AND INDUSTRIAL 4 17 2 3 MISCELLANEOUS 21 26 29 16 TOTAL ASSESSMENT 1965-66 1966-67) LAND VACANT - ALL TYPES 175 187 98 174 $MILLION $MILLION OIL OPERATING 9 11 5 9 HUNTINGTON BEACH 137 166 USE NON- FOUNTAIN VALLEY 27 33 WELLS OPERATING 23 30 15 23 WESTMINSTER 56 58 DATA PARKS, CHURCHES GARDEN GROVE 146 151 AND SCHOOLS 2 4 6 2 STANTON 19 20 .TOTAL PARCELS AFFECTED 884 700 1164 907 COUNTY (UNIN- CORPORATED 309 351 TOTAL FAMILY UNITS DISPLACED * 1021 777 1321 958 * Additional alternate not presented at June 22, 1967, hearing. ** Includes trailer spaces DECEMBER 1967 TABULATION OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS BY CITIES ROUTE 39 FREEWAY BETWEEN ROUTE 1 FREEWAY AND LAMPSON AVENUE t STUDY LINE GREEN- DASHED FAMILY GREEN- GREEN- CITY UNITS RED RED ORANGE RED HUNTINGTON SINGLE 192 3� 215 249 BEACH MULTIPLE 136 57 265 48 TOTAL 328 88 480 297 FOUNTAIN SINGLE -- -- 139 -- VALLEY MULTIPLE -- -- 2 -- TOTAL -- -- 141 -- WESTMINSTER SINGLE 406 367 261 374 MULTIPLE 63 63 2 63 TRAILER SPACES 88 123 -- 88 TOTAL 557 553 263 525 GARDEN SINGLE 4 4 224 4 GROVE MULTIPLE -- -- 138 -- TOTAL 4 4 362 4 STANTON SINGLE -- -- -- -- MULTIPLE -- -- -- TRAILER SPACES 132 132 -- 132 TOTAL 132 132 -- 132 COUNTY SINGLE -- -- 75 -- (UNINCORPORATED) MULTIPLE -- -- -- TOTAL -- -- 75 -- TOTAL SINGLE 602 402 914 627 MULTIPLE 199 120 407 ill TRAILER SPACE 220 255 220 • TOTAL 1021 777 1321 958 # Additional alternate not presented at June 22, 1967, hearing. DECEMBER 1967- y rr r• >k ax r EFFECT ON SCHOOL DISTRICTS ' TAX BASE ROUTE 39 FREEWAY BETWEEN ROUTE 1 FREEGFAY AND LAMPSON AVENUE t STUDY LINE GREEN- SCHOOL DISTRICT - DASHED GREEN- GREEN- RED RED ORANGE RED H [E-+ HUNTINGTON BEACH 0.1 0.2 1.2 0.1 44- ca CITY ELEMENTARY 0.1% 0.2% 1.5% 0.1% 'o cEi FOUNTAIN VALLEY __ __ 0.7 a H ELEMENTARY 2.3% H OCEAN VIEW 0.9 0.6 1.1 0.9 A ELEMENTARY 1.6% 1.0% 1.9% 1.6% ts4 WESTMINSTER 2.7 2.2 2.1 2.4 Z, ELEMENTARY 4.1% 3.4% 3.1% 3.6% o GARDEN GROVE 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.2 �.� UNIFIED 0.1% 0.1%- 0.3% 0.1% :D�10 HUNTINGTON BEACH 3.7 3.0 5.0 3.4 UNION HIGH 1.4% 1.1% 1.9% 1.3% A m ORANGE COAST 3.7 3.0 5.0 3.4 �%rw JUNIOR COLLEGE 0.7% 0.6% 1.0% 0.7% co oco COUNTY JR. 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.2 COLLEGE TUITION 0.02% 0.02% 0.05% 0.02% TOTAL ASSESSMENT (1965-66) (1966-67) HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY ELEMENTARY $ 77 MILLION $ 83 MILLION FOUNTAIN VALLEY ELEMENTARY $ 31 MILLION $ 37 MILLION OCEAN VIEW ELEMENTARY $ 56 MILLION $ 70 MILLION WESTMINSTER ELEMENTARY $ 66 miuiON $ 70 MILLION GARDEN GROVE UNIFIED $ 200 MILLION $208 MILLION HUNTINGTON BEACH UNION HIGH $ 271 MILLION $303 MILLION ORANGE COAST JR, COLLEGE $ 516 MILLION $563 MILLION COUNTY JR, COLLEGE TUITION $1,012 MILLION $638 MILLION # Additional alternate not presented at June 22, 1967, hearing. DECEMBER 1967 STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE DIVISION 1. STATE HIGHWAYS CHAPTER 1. ADMINISTRATION ARTICLE 2. THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY CMIISSION 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 bene- fits 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 assump- tions, 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 ann- ounces 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 construction of the highway. ( Added Stats. 1956, 1st Ex. Sess. , c 69, ------)1. ) Library references : Highways 43-46; !R C.J .S. Highways 64 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—TRANSPORTATION AGENCY RONALD REAGAN, Governor DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS z. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS DISTRICT 7, P.O. BOX 2304,LOS ANGELES 90054 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 20, 1967 PRESS RELEASE The State Division of Highways announced today that a second public hearing on the proposed Huntington Beach (Route 39) Freeway will be held December 1, 1967, at 10 a.m. , in the auditorium of the Huntington Beach High School, 1905 Main Street, Huntington Beach, The section of the future freeway under consideration extends from Pacific Coast (Route 1) Freeway in Huntington Beach to Lampson Avenue, about 3/4 mile north of' the Garden Grove (Route 22) Freeway. The study lines, all in the vicinity of Beach Boulevard, vary in length from 6.4 to 7.4 miles . The purpose of this second hearing Is to present the findings of an additional freeway location study conducted as a result of information, presented at the first public hearing held June 22, 1967. Results of all studies made by the Division of Highways will be presented at the hearing, and government officials, local agen- cies, civic groups, and the general public will be invited to express their views relative to the studies . The State Highway Engineer will consider all facts brought to light at the coming public hearing in addition to those facts ob- tained from the previous hearing before making any recommendations to the California Highway Commission. PRESS RELEASE 2 October 20, 1967 Aerial maps and photographs of the proposed routes will be on public display beginning November 10, 1967, at the following locations , 1. Huntington Beach Main Library 525 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 20 Huntington Center Northwest Corner of Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue Huntington Beach, California 3. Fountain Valley City Hall 10200 Slater Avenue Fountain Valley, California 4. Westminster City Hall 14381 Olive Street Westminster, California 5. Stanton City, Fall 7800 Katel'11,ai Aven-ae Stanton, California 6. Garden Grove City Hall 11391 Acacia Street Garden Grove, California �s AVE s - �' °r►�e W W 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 SCALE IN THOUSANDS OF FEET °w � �Fy W LL. VIEW ST SPRINGDALE ST Q ,a, o ,may° I� 1 PROJECT ?3P IR.YMIETIT�ooee a. � Lu LIMIT s *:q.Y. sr e° WEN 1 WE T GREEN ?; e —DASH GREEN RED mesellseem" ROUTE 4 39 FREEWAY ° RED :v p:': Yrc r 'T'x':' KvS: 't'•:q K,a Q P E R Y BEACH BLVD BEACH41 ::;:::.:; ::..s:.i• EDISON CO womm"m me" STUDIE NORTH ORANGE O MAGNOLIA 10' ST MAGNOLIA W ad Of w w '0 Z Q Q � V < J cc ixZ W <O < Lu N O W m uj Q cz W G = h 1 N o"e Q c P Z —�+ w � —Q+ V Y m / o a 0 0 3 Q uj O BROOKHURST "' co ST PROPOSED ROUTE 39 FREEWAY ROUTE I FREEWAY TO LAMPSON AVENUE ®=ADDITIONAL ALTERNATE NOT PRESENTED DECEMBER 1967 AT JUNE 22, 1967 PUBLIC HEARING STATE OF CALIFORNIA—TRANSPORTATION AGENCY RONALD REAGAN, Governor DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS DISTRICT 7, P.6. BOX 2304,LOS ANGELES 90054 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 23.9 1967 PRESS REILEASE The State Division of Highways announces that a, public hear- ing will be held on Thursday, June 22, 11.96'7, to discuss various proposed locations for the Route 39 Freeway between the Route I (Pacific Coast) Freeway, in Huntington Beach, and Lampson Avenue approximately 3/4 mile north of the Route 22 (Garden Glrove) Freeway, The hearing will be held in t:he auditorium of 41--he Huntington Beach High School, 1905 Main Street, Hunt--ington Beach, beginning at 1.0 a.m. , at which time highway officials will present the re- sults of the State' s freeway studies . Government officials, local agencies, civic groups and the general public will be given an opportunity to express their views . All facts and comments presented at this public hearing will be given full consideration by the State Highway Engineer prior to his making any route recommendation to the California Highway Commission. Aerial maps showing the proposed route locations will be on public display beginning June 1, at the following locations - 1. Huntington Beach Main Library 525 Main Street Huntington Beach, California ref PRESS RELEASE 2 May 23, 1967 2. Huntington Center Northwest Corner of Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue Huntington Beach, California 3. Fountain Valley City Hall 10200 Slater Avenue Fountain Valley, California 4. Westminster City Hall 14381 Olive Street Westminster, California 5. Stanton City Hall 7800 Katella Avenue Stanton, California 6. Garden Grove City Hall 11391 Acacia Street Garden Grove, California NOTE TO EDITORS : Attached is a map of the freeway study lines. 1001, S' AVE lam— ei�se W w w O l 2 3 4 5 6 Of SCALE IN THOUSANDS OF FEET eA �� w % y, 3CL • eh,�; j VIEW ST • ®e �t ° SPRINGDALE ST Q w w p •� ® eo ui Q PROJECT ,r >i w PROJECT LIliIdIT° �;��� � °,� g LIMIT 11' 0KNOTT �9j sl Q B GREEN AVE:-IIIIIR '1� es GOLDEN °WET ST J ,..�,� RED _..... O� ROUTE 39 PE RY RED O 0 ee R 0 0 ® •s o s� BEACH BLVD BEACH E ANG O N EDISO CO G E STUDIES NORTH 77. .......... ... ..... MAGNOLIA ST MAGNOLIA w r N Wp oc QO Z aZQ w ix Qd Z v w O LLJ Z Lof C wQ m C Q ac w_ < Q Q Qofp Q hP Z Vf Q w u Y m p Q w p O w Q01BROOKHURST w m 3 ST 0 I PROPOSED ROUTE 39 FREEWAY ROUTE I FREEWAY TO LAMPSON AVENUE r- - FACTS RELATIVE TO THE LOCATION y OF THE ROUTE 39 FREEWAY BETWEEN ROUTE 1 (PACIFIC COAST) FREEWAY IN HUNTINGTON BEACH AND LAMPSON AVENUE The State Division of Highways recently completed studies of alternate locations for the proposed Route 39 Freeway between the Route 1 Freeway in Huntington Beach and Lampson Avenue ,just north of Garden Grove Boulevard. The project under discussion is the southern segment of the Route 39 Freeway. This freeway will ultimately extend from the Route 1 Freeway to the Route 210 (Foothill) Freeway in Azusa. Our studies for the next segment north to the Route 60 (Pomona) Freeway are expe6ted to be completed the first part of 1968, and the last segment completed about one year later. Appropriate governmental agencies and local governing bodies were informed of the initiation of studies for this free- way in compliance with the policy of the California Highway Com- mission regarding adoption of freeway routes. At various times during the study period, the Division of Highways has met with representatives of these groups and members of their technical staffs to discuss the studies and to obtain their suggestions. `'- The Division of Highways is holding this public hearing to acquaint you with information regarding the various route locations investigated, and to give you an opportunity to pre- sent your views concerning these studies. 2 - The purpose of these studies and this public hearing is to develop information which will allow the State Highway Engi- neer to evaluate the alternate �.ocations for this freewa-. and to present his recommendation for adoption to the California Highway Commission. Prior to adopting a specific location, the Commission will consider all pertinent information including recommendations presented by affected agencies, local governing bodies and the State Highway Engineer. After the California Highway Commission receives the State Highway Engineer's recommendation, the affected governing bodies will be notified of the Commission 's intention to consider an adoption. They will also be notified which alternate the State Highway Engineer has recommended. Whenever it serves the public interest, the Commission will hold an additional public hearing. This can be initiated by the Commission or upon request by one of the local governing agencies. Evaluation of the merits of any particular alternate free- way location includes a combined consideration of three princi- pal factors: 1. The effects which the alternate will have on the communities through or around which it may pass. 2. The degree to which the alternate will fulfill existing and future traffic demands. I 3. The initial cost of the alternate, in- cluding both construction and right of way. The effects on the communities are based on existing, as well as future development. The Division of Highways has gathered information relative to this factor by meeting with local offi- cials and their staffs and reviewing master plans with regard to planned future developments. The comments received today will be very helpful in evaluating community effects. The method of estimating the benefits to traffic is based on the monetary value of both the savings in time and cost of vehicle operation. For this project, the traffic service and user benefits for all lines are comparable and are in excess of initial costs of construction and right of way. As a result, the user benefits are not shown on the comparative data summary. The construction and right of way costs are determined by engineering and property appraisal methods. This freeway, when completed, will serve as an important link in the California Freeway and Expressway System. It will connect existing and planned freeways in the area and provide benefits to the motorist in terms of increased safety, reduced travel time, and vehicle operating costs. Alternate route locations shown on the attached map are the same as those shown on the aerial photograph on display. Comparative data relative to the locations is tabulated on the pages facing the map. Today's hearing concerns general freeway locations rather than precise freeway alignments. Preliminary plans have been prepared in sufficient detail to allow proper evaluation of the economic factors involved and to determine the feasibility of each location from a construction standpoint. At today 's hearing, we will be unable to answer inquiries about individual pieces of property. Please send such inquiries to: - State of California Division of Highways Public Information P.O. Box 2304, Terminal Annex Los Angeles, California 90054 Include both your mailing address and the legal description of your property with your inquiry. Legal descriptions may be found on your property tax bills. We thank those attending this hearing and all who have assisted and participated in these studies. i 1 It 0 1 2 3 4 .5 6 , , Az a SCALE IN THOUSANDS OF FEET VIEW AV PROJECT ;.n��, , re LIMIT 1 ff, LIMITS s , .� d albs x art' 1A ¢� �. 'F t�3a;•'o ,s bg �'.s % a' a -..;,t R,u.s,�, r 4�a ` " max m;„;z ^s.:;• ::. •, c•;.<.n.c., -•,::ar$�.�:.xr�as<n: :,,.�: �<'.� z� ;a: .. ;:•z, •> .x,:� ;u •ac<. �a,<u�: zr,.^>,�a - -• �• .w n� � - M`W�. r 'agw- R" "�� "� hx 'n� .»;�ras,w b,n$•u, �,Wi`s�•ah„a4$:,h<x'..<.•��.ra<�, '�✓a';W`e $��,��,lsg,<�4',�:,W`,�.a'%���,�e�u`"i,'�,.�,,�"��'.•�Si-Ckia!„$`2{�i�w«d�,z�`�v +, y.�.`a°',},,'`w�'yE<5 �;�c�`,WWaK`S&%u$`"� n,�-'. � �:rq;.�,,., � ��-� '^„• � ' a W . was •� C � k a z 4 Cad'? •,. ra '<,K ; ` w< fia. i _ s sse<°.isce:�.--^�n-.: v�,:. ,= a,�,<.a,•�,�-•�-�`���m..a< `s� <.,. C �.,�,>,:�, ��•.� t� �,�� ate' f;� � '��a;� .����,- air t 's's ��> i� �; �h'�> Al e9 ' isza,. G: x a�a:•.ram:-. ,�.• •.•n�;_:xw;n�c .:w�>�z���-zap <��-v; r,�sd :•:�- ,,..�.. -;«,.�.-,�:M :+ zw;,.-•;z <�..�:;.�x�<w;,r.;,: w. ?.<, .,..�,,<m�<sam ' '�=� ;ul 01, _ a.7 t lk 4 ,y <:l b eta� ,:� F��� ;�� m 'z,��' �?�•�. ��� � � � �, ex, a'2, s�,.��v'�•ss3ma-��,�e-a�.�=��~��:' :aa�:; sa�z.<��Y���-.�u<• �.•�,�.,s„�y.:�.. �o..,,,����u:-��.�;�.�,��:'�m rz�,^ � ,,;�,�� �..- < ;,�:�; ar,:��, �x,�ro:.rma�rmaa+'�z�arra'�.,- < 3�m;�� ::�.<��; bZV illf § h PROPOSED ` ROUTE 39 FREEWAY ROUTE I FREEWAY . TO LAMPSON AVENUE . JUNE 1967 7-Ora-39 PR-7-296 Please refer to the, handout data submitted to your office in our letter dated May 18, 1967, regarding the pub- lic hearing for the proposed Route 39 Freeway. Attached are corrected data to be substituted for the two sheets entitled "Summary of Comparative Data" and "Tabulation of Residential -Units by Cities". N ' SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE DATA FOR PROPOSED ROUTE 39 FREEWAY`BETWEEN ROUTE 1 FREEWAY AND LAMPSON AVENUE ENGINEERING AND ECONOMIC DATA EFFECT ON LOCAL TAX BASE FOR ALTERNATE STUDY LINES GREEN STUDY LINE RED R E D ORANGE COLOR DESIGNATION GREEN RED ORANGE RED HUNTINGTON 1.3 0.8 1.8 f- 2 BEACH (0.9) (0.6) (1.3) LENGTH (MILES) 6.4 6.6 7.4 Z u a 0 U. �- FOUNTAIN 0.7 o VALLEY - 2.6 COST CONSTRUCTION 49.4 53.1 46.2 1.7 1.8 1.3 IN RIGHT OF WAY 26.9 27.2 36.2 = WESTMINSTER (3.0) (3.2) (2.3)- 0 3 GARDEN 0.07 0.07 1.4 MILLIONS T 0 T A L 76.3 80.3 82,4 a GROVE (0.05) (0.05) (1.0) 0.2 0.2 a STANTON ( 1.0) ( 1.0) --- SINGLE FAMILY PARTIAL 4 6 35 5 8 > a w COUNTY 0.3 RESIDENTIAL FULL 4 9 8 3 6 2 9 1 7 0-1) Lu UNINCORPORATED) - - 10.08) PARCEL MULTIPLE H U RESIDENTIAL UNITS 1 9 6 1 1 7 3 9 9 Q o T 0 T A L 3.3 2.9 5.5 COUNT TRAILER SPACES 2 2 0 2 5 5 0 AND LAND COMMERCIAL 11 16 23 TOTAL ASSESSMENT (1965 -66) USE INDUSTRIAL 4 17 2 HUNTINGTON BEACH $137 MILLION DATA MISCELLANEOUS 2 0 24 2 9 FOUNTAIN.VALLEY 27 MILLION VACANT - ALL TYPES 1 7 8 1 8 9 98 WESTMINSTER 56 MILLION OIL OPERATING 9 11 5 GARDEN GROVE 146 MILLION WELLS NON OPERATING 2 3 3 0 1 5 STANTON 19 MILLION PARKS, CHURCHES AND SCHOOLS 2 4 6 COUNTY (UNINCORPORATED) 309 MILLION TOTAL PARCELS AFFECTED 7 7 8 6 5 4 1 1 6 4 TOTAL FAMILY UNITS 9 1 4 7 3 4 1 3 1 6 DISPLACED* DUNE 1 9 6 7 *Includes Trailer Spaces TABULATION OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS BY CITIES ROUTE 39 FREEWAY BETWEEN ROUTE 1 FREEWAY AND LAMPSON AVENUE STUDY LINE FAMILY GREEN C I T Y UNITS RED RED ORANGE SINGLE 192 31 216 HUNTINGTON MULTIPLE 136 57 264 BEACH T O T A L 328 88 480 SINGLE 139 FOUNTAIN MULTIPLE - - - - - - 2 VALLEY T 0 T A L 141 SINGLE 302 327 261 WESTMINSTER MULTIPLE 60 60 2 TRAILER SPACES 88 123 --- T O T A L 450 510 263 SINGLE 4 4 226 GARDEN MULTIPLE - - - 131 GROVE TOTAL 4 4 357 SINGLE - - - - STANTON MULTIPLE - - - - - - - - - TRAILER SPACES 132 132 T O T A L 132 132 SINGLE 75 COUNTY MULTIPLE - - - - - (UNINCORPORATED) T 0 T A L 75 SINGLE 498 362 917 MULTIPLES 196 117 399 T 0 T A L TRAILER SPACES 220 255 - - - T O T A L 914 734 1,316 DUNE 1967 G T EFFECT ON SCHOOL DISTRICTS' TAX BASE ROUTE 39 FREEWAY BETWEEN ROUTE I FREEWAY AND LAMPSON AVENUE STUDY LINE SCHOOL DISTRICT GREEN-RED RED ORANGE a p HUNTINGTON BEACH 0.1 0.2 1.2 CITY ELEMENTARY (0.1) (0.3) (1.6) � N h o u FOUNTAIN 0.7 J VALLEY ELEMENTARY (2 3) J_ Es WESTMINSTER 2.0 1.9 2.0 o ELEMENTARY (3.0) (2.9) (3.0) OCEAN VIEW 0.9 0.6 1.1 ELEMENTARY (1.6) ( 1.1) (2.0) GARDEN GROVE 0.2 0.2 0.5 z UNIFIED (0.1) (0.1) (0.3) o_ 3 HUNTINGTON BEACH 3.0 2.6 5.0 UNION HIGH 0.1) (1.0) (1•8) J > Q ORANGE COAST 3.0 2.6 5.0 W W JUNIOR COLLEGE (0.6) (0.5) (1.0) Nf W N u- COUNTY JR. 0.2 0.2 0.5 a U. COLLEGE TUITION (0.02) ( 0.02) (0.05) TOTAL ASSESSMENT (1965 - 66) HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY ELEMENTARY $ 77 MILLION FOUNTAIN VALLEY ELEMENTARY 31 MILLION OCEAN VIEW ELEMENTARY 56 MILLION WESTMINSTER ELEMENTARY 66 MILLION GARDEN GROVE UNIFIED 200 MILLION HUNTINGTON BEACH UNION HIGH 271 MILLION ORANGE COAST JR. COLLEGE 516 MILLION COUNTY JR. COLLEGE TUITION 1,012 MILLION JUNE 1967 . k 467 STATE OF CALIfdRNIA—TRANSPORTATION AGENCY RONALD REAGAN, Governor DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS e� DISTRICT 7, P.O. BOX 2304, LOS ANGELES 90054 May 18, 1967 1 7—Ora-39 PR-7-296 BY CITY Co NC;jL IU City Council City of Huntington Beach 6th and Pecan CJTY ccE�i$_ P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: A public hearing has been scheduled by the State of California, Division of Highways, relative to the pro- posed location of Route 39 Freeway between Route 1 Free- way, in Huntington Beach, and Lampson Avenue. This"hearing will be held in the Huntington Beach High School Auditorium, 1905 Main Street, Huntington Beach, at 10:00 A.M., Thursday, June 22, 1967. The purpose of this hearing is to enable the Divi- sion of Highways to present the results of our studies and also to give local government officials, civic groups and interested individuals an opportunity to express their views. For your convenience, a copy of the -"Facts Relative ." and handout data which will be distributed to those attending this hearing and an advance copy of the press re- lease announcing the hearing are enclosed. We wish to call your attention to Section 75.5 of the Streets and Highways Code which provides that, on re— quest of any city or county and where such city or county furnishes appropriate information, the Division of High- ways will present at the hearing the effect that the pro- -posed routing would have upon community values. A copy of this.-section of -the Code is attached for your informa- tion. i i i b Page 2 May 18, 1967 7-Ora-39 - PR-7-296 You are cordially invited to have a representative present at this hearing to express views pertinent to the- project. Very truly yours, ' T. R. LAMMERS Deputy District Engineer Attachs. cc: Doyle Miller James Wheeler Kenneth Reynolds i i CITY f copy N FINAL REPORT ON THE PROPOSED ROUTE 39 FREEWAY THMUGH HUNMNGTON BEACH I Prepared by City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works ,Tazauaxy 1967 INTMDUCTION In December 19669 the staff of the City of Huntington Beach was directed by the City Council to make a final ,report evaluating the various alternate alignments under study Say, the Division of Highways. for the proposed Route 39 Freeway, This report, presented herein, evaluates information obtained from the Division of Highways, considers recommendations presented by the Huntington Beach Citizen's Freeway Association and the Huntington Beach Company, and presents the recommendation of the Engineering Department for the most pre- (erred alignment for this proposed freeway. The three general criteria used as a basis for developing freeway loca- tions area 1. The initial cost of the alternate including both construction and- right of way. 2. The degree to which the alternate will fulfill existing and future traffic demands, 3o The effects which the alternate will have on the communities through .or around which it will pass, These three criteria are used by the Division of Highways in their recom- mendation Uv the California Highway Commission. They have been the general items of discussion in the previous reports on the Route 39 Freeway although there has been some disagreement between presentations regarding the batter two criteria. We have attempted to weigh all arguments previously presented and to evaluate them with the greatest benefits to the entire City of Huntington Beach being the determining factor in the recommendation of a specific align- ment to the State, In order to simplify the comparison of alternate routes, we have eliminated from this report all but the three most diversified and most discussed routes. The routes we have compared are the Green-5-Dashed Red route, the. Red-Dashed Red route, and the ©range route. These represent the most desirable combina- tions: for basic westerly, central, and easterly alignments. All routes under study by the Division of Highways are shown on the attached exhibit map, The Dashed Rea alignment was chosed as a combination with the Red and Green routes because it is expected to be the most desirable alternate for the cities of Westminster and garden Grove. The 5 Connector between the Green and Red routes was chosen because it does not require any Golden West College property and creates a better inter- change with the Saar Diego Freeway. It was determined that the Green-5--Dashed Iced route will have the lowest cost, provide the most efficient traffic service, and be the most beneficial, to the entire citizenry and businebsamen of this Cityo It is, therefore, the staffts recosmmendation, that the City Council adopt this route as their most preferred for the Route 39 Freeway. INITIAD COST The following table sums up the initial costs estimated for the three alternates we are ccansidering: Cost in XMions Construction Riet of Way Total Green-5-Dashed Red 47.1 21.9 69.0 Red-Dashed Red 50.7 20.7 71.4 Orange 46.2 31.2 77.4 It is evident that the Red route exceeds the Green route by 3.5% according to current estimates© It is to be expected that the industrially zoned land along the Red route will have appreciated considerably more than the residential. property along the Green route at the time of right of way acquisition. �2- The eetimated cost of the Orange route exceeds the Green route .by 12.2% which. is a sizeable difference even while considering the limits of estimating accuracy. This is due to the more intensely developed land along the Orange route. The engineering and economic data sheet *Computed for all alignments by the Division of Highways is included as an exhibit at the end of this report. `fRAMC SERVICE The Division of Highways, using the land use and population data developed by the Los Angeles Regional. Transportation Study, projected the overall traffic benefits of all alternate alignments.' They found that the 20 year user bene- fits for all limes are comparable and in excess of initial costs of construction and right of way. These tenefits are heavily influenced by through traffic as well as freeway utilization in adjacent commwAties. Upon closer inspection of' the feasible interchange locations, it is apparent that all aligmentB do not provide an adequate level of service to the local users in Huntington Beach. At .this stage of route plarming it is not advisable to base the selection of an alignment on the Division of Highway's preliminary geometric ramp patterns. However, it is obvious that existing physical controls will require the elim- ination of an interchange at Edinger Avenue on the Red and Orange alignments. The complexity of the Freeway to Freeway interchange with the San Diego Freeway precludes an Edinger Avenue interchange with the Orange alignment. The proximity of the railroad, Gothard Street, and existing industrial develop- ment mace an interchange on Edinger with the red route unfeasible. On the other hand, a very satisfactory pattern of ramps can be designed for Edinger Avenue if the green route is adopted. -3- To wetter emphasize the importance of adequate interchange facilities to serve local traffic, we have included the following analysis of ramp volumes, in vehicles per day, for the interchanges in Huntington Beach. These estimated volumes for 1990 were prepared by the Division of Highways. They do not include ramp volumes at the proposed direct connection .to Goldenwest Street at the terminous of the Route 39 Freeway on the Green and Red routes, nor do they include the volumes on the Garfield, interchange. with the Orange route. It was felt that an equitable comparison could be' made by eliminating these connec- tions from consideration since complete data oa''them was not available. Alternate Route Edi.ner Ave. garner .Ave. Talbert Ave. Total Green-5-Dashed Red 231 300 26,100 47,600 97,000 Red-Dashed Red no I/C 23*806 37,100 60,900: Ord no I/C 2? 100 344900 62;000 The traffic on the ramps represents the utilization of the freeway by the local citizens and is related to the proinotioh and enhancement of land " development as well an supplementary local street capacity. The total interchange volumes indicate that the Green Line is superior to the Red or Orange routes for the Community. The significance of the projected volumes indicates that more `:,ban 35,000 cars per day are added to the City Street system due to inadequate local service on the Red and Orange alignments. A further analysis of the volumes on the city streets themselves, cover- ing the early years of freeway operation, indicate that no overload on the city arterials will occur adjacent to the freeway interchange as a result of those interchanges with the green alignment. This is an important consideration since the development of non-State highways is primarily the burden of the local community and its citizens. .»ts_ BotbL Golden. West college and the Hmtington Shopping. Center are contigu� ousl,y located on Winger Avenue. ache Shoppi.n' Center with almost 900,000 square fret represents a regional shopping facility which wilt ultimately serve a. trade area of up to ones-quarter of a million people. The College likewise is an area-wide facility serving all of southwest Orange County. Because of the large number of students and shoppers which will daily come_ to each of these facilities it is improtant that adequate traffic sea-vise be provided. Traffic studies for the Huntington Shopping Center indicate that one-third of all, shoppers would utilize an Edinger Avenue interchange on the green align_ mist. This would allow than Beach Boulevard approach to serve the San Diego Freeway traffic. Thus, a green aligment would distribute traffic in both directions on Edinger Avenue which would be most advantageous. In a similar manner ':he green route would serve the college by adequately distributing traffic between two interchanges on two freewaya and minimizing the use of, city streets by regionally oriented traffic. It has been clammed that an advantage of' the red route is the absence of an interchange on Edinger Airenue so that traffic can utilize the Warner interchange. The previous ramp volumes indicate that this is not the case, ice the Green alternates win handle more traffic than. the Red or OrarW ' alternates. What is likely to occur is the overloading of the Beach Boulevard interchange on the San Diego Freeway and very severe congestion and delay at the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue. It can also be anticipated that a noticeable loss of business Vat the Huntington Shopping Center wi.]l.l result directly from the poor traffic conditions if no Edinger Avarme interchange is provided. This will substantially reduce the sales tax income to the community. -5- Both the Green and Red alignments can provide direct connections to Goldenwest Street as part of the interchange with the Route One Freeway. This would eliminate the need to transfer to the Route One Freeway to reach the downtown areas of the City and the beach. Since Goldenwest Street has - been elevated to the status of a major six lane divided highway from the Route One Freeway southerly to the Pacific Coast Highway, it will have ade- quate capacity to handle the heavy volumes of beach bound vehicles on. summer weekends. A comparable connection to the city street system on the Orange route is not as desirable since it would have to connect to Yorktown Avenue or 171b Street and filter heavy traffic to the beach on lower capacity streets. FREEWAY SPACING One of the major considerations in freeway location to serve an area adequately is the spacing between freeways. Optimum traffic service is pro- vided with a uniform spacing of freeways which.serves each traffic corridor equally. When a number of freeways converge and parallel each other too closely, the area is cut up into small segments which is detrimental for proper development. Also, the concentration of freeway service in one area results in insufficient service for other paralleling traffic corridors. In the case of the Huntington Beach-Newport Beach coastal region, the master plan of freeways provides four north-south freeways converging along the coast within a distance of eight miles. From a traffic service standpoint, it would be very desirable to increase the spacing between paralleling north-south Freeways extending from Huntington Beach to Newport Beach, including the Corona del Mar Freeway, the Newport i Freeway, the Santa Ana River Freeway and the Route 39 Freeway. Thin would j reduce the excessive spacing between Routes 39 and 240 (the extension of the -6- I San Gabriel River Freeway from the San Diego Freeway southerly to the Coast Highway). Unless this is done, insufficient traffic service would be provided in the area between the Sari Gabriel Diver Freeway and the Route 39 Freeway. The City of Huntington Beach could be most adversely affected by a deficiency of traffic service in this corridor, particularly in view of the lack of existing east--west surface highways through this area° Comparing the alternate aliments for the Route 39 Freewa y, it is apparent that the most westerly alignment would divide the service corridor areas most uniformly and provide maximum opportunities for traffic service to the city. The Orange alternate, easterly oi? Beach Boulevard, would lie less than two miles from the proposed Santa Abi River Freeway, which is touch too close for this area. It is obvious that, from the standpoint of effective i service for regional and city traffic, a westerly alignment is the most beneficial, The Orange alignment is In close proximity to Beach Boulevard, providing a paralleling traffic facility near an existing major highways Beach Boulevard is an excellent high capacity traffic facility which needs no supplemental traffic service to verve the needs of those areas immediately contiguous to it. This duplication of service provides minimum advantages for the city in contrast with the westerly alignment where the additional traffic capacity would be most needed. The easterly alignment thus provides fewer advantages in serving overall traffic needs. i j COMMWITY EFTECTS The most discussed 'aspect of locating. freeiways is the effect which it I will bave on the' cotrmaunities through which it passes. This is usually the I item which the community disagrees upon most since where one alignment disrupts. one segment of the citizenry, a different alignment is affecting other citizens, i . land owners, or potential businessmen. In this report we have weighed the i I community effects 'on each,of, -three alignments impartially and have concluded that the most westerly alignment would provide the most development incentive, ]least disrupt the entire community and generally be the most beneficial, now i I and in the future, to the residents, industrial developments, and businessmen of Huntington. Beach. ° The following table is a summary of the house count and l*nd use data within the City of Huntington Beach. It shows the displacement of residential units, industrial property., commercial property, and eifecta on schools, parks, and churches. Green-5- Red- Dashed Red Dashed Iced Or. �. Single Family Residential Partial 6' 2 12 Full 167 15 212 Multiple Residential Unaits 88 2 250 I _ Commercial Improved 1 4 10 Industrial Improved 1 13 2 Parks, Churches & Schools . 1 1 2 Total Family Units Displaced 256 44 468 I The Orange route passes through heavily developed residential areas and seriously interferes with neighborhood patterns and community service facilities. This easterly alignment would represent a serious disruptive element through the community without compensating advantages. This alignment would not benefit adjacent development since most development here is new er is now pending. ' The Red route parallels the Pacific Electric Railway and Gothard Street, passing through predominately industrial areas. It has the advantage, as can be seen from the house count take, of not displacing nearly as many families as the Green or Orange routes. However, it so seriously affects the prime industrial land along the east side of Gothard Street from McFadden Avenue to Garfield.Avenue that its advantages are completely lost, Nearly 200 acres of industrially toned property would be takes or made undevel.opable for major industry by the"Red alignment. In addition, the freeway would separate the remaining developable land from, the railroad* Ara analogy was made in a previous report with an existing infstrial. area and it was concluded that industry is more attracted by a freeway than a rail- road. A eLose inspection was made of the 7a Mirada-Buena Park industrial area and it was found that ever y major industry was served by spur lines from one i of the two major railroads in the area. The industrial development in this area, in most cases, extended from one-half smile to' one-and-one-half miles from the Santa Area Freeway. It see-mod from this inspection that service by the railroad and access to a good city street system,which in turn was served by the Freeway were the determining factors in the industrial boom which is taking place in that area at this time. A similar situation is occurring in the indusatrial lands north of the Garden Grove Freeway in Stanton and Gardena Grove where new railroad spur tracts are being built to complement the highway and freeway service to industry. The Red route will also require substantial amounts of the Golden 'West College site. This can only be partially replaced by equivalent land acquisi- tions. The college could acquire, the same land as under the Red route which would result in a larger total parcel than they currently haveA rather than j a smaller one, The land requirements for the golden West College have become very critical and the Red alignment, would ssevas*ly limit their expansion potential,. I Freeways are estimated to have a useful, life of 50 yeas or longer. Their i I full utility over this long period in providing access from theCity to the metropolitan region will depend upon their berg properly located. The house count table on page b indicates that the green, route displaces over 200 more families than the Red route. ale the relocation of families is always a i i I serious matter and should enter any evaluation of alternates, these families I will be adequately compensated by the State for the short term inconveniences. This small number of families represents approximately one-half of one percent of the number of families in Huntington Beach and could easily relocate within the City in any one of a number of fine developments. As previously indicateda I the green route serves 35,000 more local motorists each day than the Red routes. In perspective, it seems clear that this continuing long tern day-in and day- out advantage in increased speed and safety outweighs the temporary inconveni- ence to a fewo In a sind lar analogy, discussions which tend to indicate that the Bed route would enhance the development of the industrial areas do not appear to staid the test of computer calculations. °late Red acute and its acquisition of large amounts of industrial land, coupled with its lack of adequate inter- change facilities, results in half the local utilization of the Route 39 Freeway as compared to the green route. It can only be-concluded that the, green, not j the red alignment, will result in greater development within the community and will be the greater incentive for increased growth. The area through which the Breen alignment passes would least disrupt I existing and potential commercial and industrial developments. The interchange i area between the two freeways would occur on the edge of an oil field where I the segmenting of land parcels and the utilization of large land,areas for I interchange needs would not be detrimental to city development. One effect of a freeway is the incentive that it sometimes provides for accelerating development of adjacent land and removing obsolete development I alongside it. The Green alignment would act as a, potent influence to generate this incentive for new development through the periphery of oil field areas and in outer westerly portions of the City where development has generally Lagged. -10- The Green alipment would provide an excellent opportunity for the development of industry between the freeway and the railroad. This locations provides a corridor, where industrial facilities can operate efficiently with a good freeway and railroad service. Direct access by freeway and rail represents a most significant consideration in the location decisions of industrial developers. The opportunities for attracting industry in this I ' corridor location would be materially enhanced with a westerly freeway allp- i meat. The westerly alignment also provides maximum traffic service for the Golden [hest College and the Huntington Center being developed along Edinger Avenue. Good traffic service is also provided for the new high school site and along the perimeter of various other developments which require service. without segmenting these areas. S"U* kR7t' i It is the staffs recommendation that the Planning Commission and City Council, adopt the Green-5-Dashed Red route as the preferred alignment for j the Route 39 Freeway for the following reasons: 1. It is the least expensive alignment. 20 It provides the beat traffic service tothe local users in the City of Huntington Beach. 3. It allows access to Golden West College and the &ontington Shopping Centero It is erroneous to claim that from"the -traffic viewpoint the lack, of an interchange on the Red route is advantageous. 4. It allows the best direct access route.to the beach areas. 5. It is most logically spaced with "respect to adjacent north-south j freeways. 6. It would provide incentive for the development of adjacent land° 7. It would complement the rail service to industrially zoned lands. -ll- 8. It could permit expansion of the existing college site rather than require it to be reduced sizeably, 96 It would promote and enhance a greater total residential growth within the City, as indicated by the increased ramp volumes* I i I . I • i i i i i I I I ' I I I i -12- v g AWE k } 0 1 2 3 4 S 6 �� � SCALE IN THOUSANDS OF FEET901 VIEW NNGDALE STN,a ,3",,�`a� �&� �" �.,� �v� amp, •s' � �. e��xzs�,- s :� - .�s�' PROJECT . e � PROJECT : ` " LIMIT LIMITS - - � �` � < A py a .T �,�w� v'm %> a. �a;�, a a.&.�,s .,, ,2a.v:? 5 ..r" '.� x1��;; aw.a. .r �^a �� � IBLVD J. „��,�, } j '��` � `�� az�<s, y'sa��,-�..�^.«�ss�,�-��. ���s.,.. .a��.•s.�; .a�-km.;�����ssr���.a a:sass, .. :..•a:.�sz.�sx. ,a .a. x�,a:sa ;a.�e:�°s,a� .:.a 'rr r;:�arwaarsmY: �,-. aa.sc,.;r :z�;;az.::,scaer ..• oil 1 10 :xc�'�ce: � � � aaM g ff t t K xs�:a:�;..�s. :���c �,�•�.� s ��a• .� �:�,�.za..a-�a.. .e�m- ���x•�.a�; ,.^�cs�.�z�. �» .a� s tea. ems. �� �...�.� �s�� � gg �h { PROPOSED ROUTE 39 FREEWAY ROUTE I FREEWAY TO 1 LAMPSON AVENUE g OCTOBER 19 6 6 f , r 4 • f� ENGINEERING AND ECONOMIC DATA FOR COMPARISON OF ALTERNATE STUDY LINES ROUTE 39 FREEWAY FROM ROUTE 1 FREEWAY IN HUNTINGTON BEACH TO LAMPSON AVENUE VARIATIONS OF COMBINATIONS OF BASIC ALTERNATES BASIC ALTERNATES BASIC ALTERNATES GREEN GREEN ORANGE GREEN RED ORANGE GREEN GREEN 5 6 BLUE DASHED COLOR DESIGNATION GREEN RED BLUE ORANGE 7 DASHED DASHED 5 6 DASHED DASHED DASHED ORANGE GREEN RED ORANGE RED RED RED RED ORANGE BLiT" LENGTH (MILES) 6.3 6.6 7.5 7.4 6.3 6.7 7.1i 6.4 6 6.5 6.4 7.5 7.6 COST CONSTRUCTION 47.9 50.0 46.8 46.2 48.7 50.7 47.6 46.4 4 1 47.1 48.8 47.6 46.9 IN RIGHT OF WAY 23.5 20.7 36.8 31.2 22.8 20.7 35.1F32 21•.7 21.9 21.6 37.8 34.1 MILLIONS TOTAL 71.4 70.7 83.6 77.4 71.5 71.4 82.7 69.8 69.o 70.4 85.4 81.o SINGLE FAMILY AL 20 24 48 48 2 2 61 33 34 35 57 52 RESIDENTIAL FULL 385 267 900 813 88 257 925 447 441 437 871 854 MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL UNITS 369 151 460 j 31Q,� 1 log 436 237 149 195 107 558 338 PARCEL COMMERCIAL 11 12pllt;Q 10 13 27 10 9 11 10 30 27 COUNT INDUSTRIAL 4 7 2 4 16 2 4 5 3 4 2 3 AND MISCELLANEOUS 13 7 15 18 14 17 18 18 20 18 20 17 --161 LAND VACANT USE ALL TYPES 1 242 133 108 110 245 115 95 96 99 99 113 135 DATA OIL OP 19 11 4 5 9 11 5 9 9 9 9 4 5 WELLS NON3VPERATINU 23 30 15 15 23 30 15 23 23 23 23 15 15 PARKS, CHURCHES AND SCHOOLS 7 2 9 7 7 2 5 2 2 2 2 9 5 TOTAL PARCELS AFFECTED 594 605 1224 1064 586 599 1239 637 636 631 630 1316 1147 TOTAL FAMILY UNITS DISPLACED 789 451 1391 1176 695 411 1385 695 603 655 563 1555 122� OCTOBER 1966 ` r 1TIN6Tq,�, . Huntington Beach Planning Commission P. O. Box 100 �y Q City Hall Huntington Beach, Californi APP*0V]& By Tx COUNCIL FEB 61967 Yam...... February 6, 1967 L E T T E R O F T R A N S M I T T A L TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: Planning Commission i SUBJECT: Huntington Beach Freeway ATTENTION: Doyle Miller, City Administrator Paul Jones, City Clerk Gentlemen: i On December 12, 1966, you referred the proposed Huntington Beach Freeway to the Planning Commission for study and a i report back. The Planning Commission considered the matter on January 31, 1967, and unanimously recommends that your Honorable Body adopt the Green-5-Dashed Red route as the preferred alignment. Respectfully submitted, K. A. Reynolds Secretary to the Planning Commission KAR/f �7 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN, Governor DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS P.O. BOX 1499, SACRAMENTO 4* September 24, 1965 07-Ora-39-3 .12 former VII-Ora-171-HntB City Council Rel. Req. No. 379 City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach, California RELINQUISHMENT OF HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAY Gentlemen: In conformance with Section 73 of the Streets and Highways Code, there is hereby filed with your city the attached certified copy of the vote of the California High- way Commission relinquishing described highway right of way. Relinquishment of the highway right of way becomes effective upon the recordation of a certified copy hereof. The Division of Highways district office will immediately upon recordation of the relinquishment inform your council thereof, giving you recordation data. Very truly yours, i J. C. WOMACK State Highway Engineer B Attach. Headquarters Right of Way Engineer Passed by C.H.C. SEP 2 31965 HIGHWAY OOMkjISSION RESOLUTION NO.;6�- j`` 4- RELINQUISHMENT OF HIGHWAY RIGHT OF' WAY IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ROAD 07-ORA=39-3 . 12 REQUEST NO. 379 WHEREAS, the California 1-11.ghway Commission on June .4, 1937 adopted that portion of the State highway Route 39 (formerly VII--Ora-171.-Hntb) ; and. WHEREAS, by a resolution adopted by the Huntington Beach City Council on April 19, 1965, the city agreed to accept said relocated city street, upon relinquishment thereof to said City by the State of California; and WHEREAS, the State of California has "acquired rights of ,,7ay for and has relocated said street, in the City of Huntington Beach at Ellis Avenue in connection with the S-' ate' s improvement of said State highway; and WHEREAS, this Commission has found and determined, and does hereby find and determine that it is desirable and in the public interest that said street be relinquished to the City of Huntington Beach for use as a city Street; i 5 I I NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS VOTED by the _ California Highway Comm .ssion that it relinquish, and it does hereby relinquish to the City of Huntington Beach, effective upon the recordation of a certified copy hereof with the Recorder of Orange County, all of the State of I California' s right, title and interest in and to said street in Said city, together with the right of way and appurtenances thereof, described as follows: That portion of relocated Ellis Avenue, in the City of Huntington Beach, constructed upon, •over. and across that portion of Lot 4 in Block D of Tract No. 7 as shown on map recorded in Book 9, page 8 of Miscellaneous I Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of Orange County, described as follows: 1 Beginning at a point in the southeasterly line iof said lot, distant thereon S. 44° 20' 14" W. , 145.00 feet from the easterly corner of said lot; thence N. 00 39' I 46" W.., 32.98 feet to a curve concave Southwesterly and having a radius of 225.00 feet; thence from a tangent bearing N. 480 01' 55" W. , Northwesterly along said curve through an angle of 420 391 05" an arc distance of 167.49 feet; thence N. 00 41' 00" W. , 10.00 feet to the northerly line of said lot; thence along said northerly line N. 890 19' 00" E. , 161.25 feet to a curve concave F Southwesterly and .having a radius of 285 .00 feet; thence from a tangent bearing S . 56" 13 ' 37" E. , Southeasterly along this latter curve through an angle of 80 41' 38" an arc distance of 43.25 feet; thence N. 890 20' 14" E. , 32 . 98 feet to said southeasterly line 'of Lot 4; thence along last said line S . 440 20' 14" W. , 106.68 feet to the Point of Beginninq. 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-_23rd----day of-....September 196.5, in the City of----_------------- ------_-----, Dated this---- 4th-_da of_____S_e_ �. ----- - ----- - ROBERT T. MARTIN ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE - CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY COMMISSION EST.3593.26630-500 7-64 SM OSP k 1:t p--�e s y By JUN.21 171�9 i HUNTINGTON BEACH FREEWAY ROUTE STUDY i i i i CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DEPARMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS i June 1965 k i 9La+'+I:n f BLVD CO3CCRAN5 A NUADA� Q "� i OB p R f vIT CpVs aaG .I PPP �___ 1 C qOo •��__'__' r�' ' �e9 ALO/t A S D m , S C0101E5 GMEN [Af u & DA 0% —W cWN'. .0 DI,SOb'8 e,,3}NgE°T nvC CTIEYA r .• If _ ` �� 6 PT 31A U 4 A Av[ rtUG«ES`v nvC -•nryar .,q �.f 'LAa Aa IIA �� _✓ ; .�"YULLERTO ' • eoL��eogwEALTN N — c� •a, 5 55 �" 101c4 fJ O n � ,POD} Q Iwq AAfR "y[ ••• pT�.1 3 $ry Ur, � xy! C � v� BUENA P RK; - 000. a«q).so . iy v ." �(jp f70UTN t }i " Da ANGEVNOA ra _.LIDO Gf` D" ..-r't. � [ _-1 IBApR T SP f g011340N 3T V �•^nI � F, -•c�'n� 'N rya aB " �'� r-aam..t. A 0Lv LA I—A R AIR LAN -E3<LNT _ ",E.< �0 a a 9p «Bf av T EG.E .Nn� V y u � O �N v L,N40L 0.p>0 y, �• +��{�q� j{i,,/j A _ NCOLN AVE \ 1 - _ DROA Ddnr �__-_�Y', r•- Z W �I I /F(( js"`. OVAN4EE P4N t D� —xpA `y nrg e P ,wR d CYP ESS RI AHEIM . ADP` ` f " 3 }EV,R.o IL�k jAll I L`1 z A --u cc 8PD1.G ST ® ----P CE—TI a O LOS I < � :14Ni�-)N I =, y -T- ! A;.AMITQS I x,ATELLA r a •o_�INS !� >Q 2 n a'+nN al Nu < D45b5 @ s ,.«.e � yP® r C-r �AVC 4T& EA /(�p/�� a nlAt__.. ________ __ _ ____ ��(If m _ •C % pGrtA GF------------- y Ip ERT 0 .AAIDEN �--v G RDEMGR "E ^TRAS I r " 3 •vE /¢ SANT. <La - as DGE (« v ' p mE9TalIN3T(P W STfr ,, AVE. Saw rA PNA •OOL n CITY YIR -. �. STD Vf L CZACM o - -- - _ SQ '' w v.`-!•_s• cT - .[,-`:w_'Y rT 't�1',a- (� •�'', ANT. � rv.J, T' $' •�� O U DlNGER ` � � --.5 � - � �H )}b')I[�"•y' �'i�(�d°�/�,�,. IIIFFF i n ram-•+$+mnsClusr R -!-+•.gp� I.( �` `p>y \ Y oqEI[; __-_ __t ___ - -''I - � - -- .� m_ °'l1 6 �� iq „Y '`'•s',r[ \`�.\.i �-•' r .a. I c �-j.ti 0' ;` �?�, `.�Siy'• f�Fi. o u '" SLA ERI AYC El Q; Arl T 4�AL©[RT i p f,' NTA N V. Li" o-yv RudeE,• % �(d cV •,;! ;,�.`r�. �yb o (30 .` ,*J-,}•�f .,I... a r �l.Ty 4 ,5 FIELD -L t . I 'S {' ANSiON � � vO0.ATOdw R� tT DaxCP \ p � - lp f �\ P O f 4 `��w� , �4 � - <Da5• CJUN�,va ADA43 AVC - AO p GJ `INOIA_N.e POLI V-jv O _-+.. U ¢ y ' a�fu' wAaWry. AT ANtA ` • nd rl[ •: ti0 f e..�u uo � � ro j„�^'... OfA CnDiC °✓-f Q COSTA MESA. /ya /i '-v- o {1 - --------- ) -111 P_ a ` • a �- iEb 2b Obg R v i`W11 CORONA DEL MAR m oR 9:GN _;+La t /� vE•. A -�ij� HUNTINGTON BEACH FREEWAY Alternates The State Division of Highways is considering four alternate alignments for the north-south Huntington Beach Free-way through the City of Huntington Beach.. The most westerly alignment would be located west of Golden West Avenue, a central alignmentwould be located west of the Pacific Electric Railroad and Hoover Street., and two easterly alignments are under considera- - tion on either side of Newland Street. An analysis has been made of these four possible freeway corridors to determine the effect of each on the City of Huntington Beach. The Huntington Beach Freeway willterminate at the Pacific Coast Freeway,, for which a route has been adopted up to Adams Avenue at Beach Boulevard. Each of the alternate alignments would join the Coast Freeway at this point to continue northerly. Aligrment, studies are also underway for the extension of the Pacific Coast Freeway, paralleling the coast in a northwesterly direction. All the current location studies for the Pacific Coast Freeway also begin at Beach Boulevard and Adams Avenue and continue northwesterly., approximately 1 1 miles inland from the Coast Highway. It is necessary to 2 evaluate each of the Huntington Beach Free-way alignments in relation to the overall freeway system. E-eewaL Spacing One of the major considerations in freeway location to serve an area adequately is the spacing between freeways. Optimum traffic service is provided -with a -uniform spacing of freeways which serves each traffic corridor equally. Where a number of free-ways converge and parallel each other too closely, this 0 cuts up an area into small segments which is detrimental for proper develop- ment.. Also, the concentration of freeway service in one area results in insufficient service for other parallelina, traffic corridors. In the case of the Huntington Beach-Newport Beach coastal region., the master plan of freeways provides four north-south freeways converging along the coast within a distance of eight miles, three of these being within two miles of each other. In contrast., there is a gap of six miles between the San Gabriel River Freeway and Beach Boulevard, which is indicated on the freeway master plan as a general location for the Huntington Beach Freeway. From a -traffic service standpoint, it would be very desirable to increase the spacing between paralleling north-south freeways extending from Huntington Beach to Newport Beach, including Routes 73 (Corona Del Mar Freeway), 55 (Newport Freeway), 57 (Orange or Santa Ana River Freeway)., and 39 (Huntington Reach Freeway). This would reduce the excessive spacing between Routes 39 (Huntington Beach Freeway) and 2b0 (the extension of the San Gabriel River Freeway from the San Diego Freeway southerly to the Coast Highway). Unless this is done, insufficient traffic service would be provided in the area between the San GabrielRiver Freeway and the Huntington Beach Freeway. The City of Huntington Beach wouldbe most adversely affected by a deficiency of traffic service would be provided in the area between the San Gabriel River Freeway and the Huntington Beach Freeway. The City of Huntington Beach wculd be most adversely affected by a deficiency of traffic service in this corridor, particularly in view of the lack of existing east west surface highways through this area. Comparing the four alternate alignments for the Huntington Beach Freeway, it is apparent that the most westerly alignment would divide the service corridor areas most uniformly and provide maximum opportunities for traffic service to the city. The two alternates easterly of Beach Boulevard would lie less than two miles from the proposed Santa Ana River Freeway, which is much too close for this area. It is obvious that., from the standpoint of effective service for regional and city traffic., a westerly alignment is the most beneficial. Local Interchange Service The westerly alignment would permit the development of new traffic inter- changes with all major east-west highway crossings, and also permit the retention of most interchange facilities now being constructed for the San Diego Freeway. Thus maximum interchange opportunities will be provided along the westerly alignment. In contrast., preliminary interchange designs for other alignments indicate a severe reduction in interchange ramp facilities in the most critical areas where traffic service will be most essential. These possible changes include most of the interchange ramps between the San Diego Freeway and Beach Boule- vard and the elimination of interchange ramps with Edinger Avenue. This is due to the interference that local service interchange ramps would impose upon inter-freeway movements. This modification of local service at critical cross streets would seriously affect accessibility to major installations in the city, such as to Golden West College and the Broadway Shopping Center. The central alignment would require the elimination or reconstruction of many of the interchange ramps presently being constructed between the San Diego Freeway and Beach Boulevard in addition. to the elimination of all ramps at Edinger Avenue. Since the central alignment is located adjacent to the rail- road, it would introduce design difficulties at all highway crossings due to the proximity of the tracks. Unusual ramp design patterns are sometimes necessary to minimize conflicts with the railroad where interchange ramps are provided to the major highway. The complexities of railroad grade crossing protection in conjunction with traffic controls at the ramp termin- als and restriction of visibility by bridge structures Great undesirable conditions as compared with other alternatives where these complications do not exist. The easterly alignments would eliminate local service interchanges at Edinger Avenue and Heil Avenue and also some of the ramps now being provided to Beach Boulevard from the San Diego Freeway. This curtailment of local access service with the easterly-alignments would seriously affect the potential of this large developing area in the vicinity of the two freeways and would tend to overload other interchange facilities in the vicinity. -2- The westerly alignment thus provides maximum opportunities for local service interchanges to serve the City of Huntington Beach and would result in no deletions of essential ramps at Beach Boulevard, Edinger Avenue and Heil Avenue. Supplemental Traffic Service The westerly alignment would provide supplemental north-south traffic service more than a mile westerly of Beach Boulevard in an area where existing facili- ties are very minimal and extensive. street improvements will be necessary to provide adequate traffic service. Huntington Beach will be many years in achieving full arterial status for Golden Nest Avenue over its entire length and considerable benefit would be provided by a freeway in this traffic corridor which is subject to very intensive development in the future. The easterly alignments are in close proximity to Beach Boulevard., providing a paralleling traffic facility near an existing major highway. Beach Boule- vard is an excellent high capacity traffic facility which needs no supple- mental traffic service to serve the needs of those areas immediately contiguous to it. This duplication of service provides minimum advantages for the city in contrast with the westerly alignment where the additional traffic capacity would be most needed. The easterly alignments thus provide fewer advantages in serving overall traffic needs. Access The westerly alignment for the north-south freeway provides an unexcelled opportunity for efficient traffic distribution into the central area of Huntington Beach. A major interchange provided at Main Street would repre- sent, in effect, the southerly terminus of the Huntington Beach Freeway, leading directly into the beach oriented part of the city. Main Street, as the central distribution artery, would provide for continuity of beach bound terminal traffic directly into the most attractive and the widest street in the city. Main Street could be developed as a monumental parkway with very high standards to emphasize this "gateway concept." The herringbone pattern of streets leading off Main Street toward the west.provides an excellent distribution system, for freeway traffic, radiating from Main Street at 23rd. Street, 17th Street, loth Street, llth Street, and 5th Street, all of which could be developed as principal collector streets. This uniform dispersal of access traffic, which the present street pattern makes possible, can be thus utilized most efficiently. The central alignment would not allow the development of a major entrance to the city at Main Street and this would handicap the distribution opportunities for freeway terminal traffic into Huntington Beach. The easterly alignments lie entirely on the east side of the old city and offer no opportunities for using Main Street as a distribution artery. They actually bypass Huntington Beach proper, providing no identity or effective entrance facilities except through a `side door" access route. This contrasts with the westerly alignment which would offer exceptionally fine entrance and distribution opportunities. -3- Driver iL—riltz With the proposed westerly alignment, a single freeway wouldcircumscribe the beach area of Huntington Beach, providing a convenient spacing of inter— changes on the east and northeast sides of the area. Drivers wishing to use the freeway system would travel toward the single circumferential free-way route for all destinations in any direction and enter the closest freeway rampo The decision to change direction would be made at the junction of the Pacific Coast and Huntington Beach Freeways at a convenient location where all central area traffic has already joined together on the free-way. Signing for freeway destinations would offer maximum simplicity for the Huntington Beach Freeway user who would merely be advised how to reach the freeway -system. The pattern of interchanges -would offer maximum clarity and driver comprehension. With the easterly alignments the complex pattern of freeway road-ways and ramps in the interchange area between the two freeways is not as comprehensible for the motorist. Some confusion is inevitable in directional signing to acquaint the motorist with the proper access streets to use in reaching two different freeways from the central portions of the city. There would also be more adverse., out—of—direction travel. Traffic from westerly portions of the city having destinations to the north would be required to enter the Pacific Coast Freeway and travel southeasterly in an adverse direction in order to enter the northbound Huntington Beach Freeway. This additional out—of—direction travel results in greater trip distances for many destinations. Disruption of City An ideal location. for a freeway is between two different kinds of land use where it can act as a buffer separating incompatible uses from each other. The 1.east desirable location is through the middle of a unified neighborhood where it acts as a divider splitting related elements of the community from each other. The area through which the westerly alignment would pass is now least developed and the freeway would interfere minimally with existing neighborhood develop— ments. It would also least disrupt existing and potential commercial and industrial developments. The interchange area between the two freeways would occur on the edge of an oil field where the segmenting of land parcels and the utilization of large land areas for interchange needs would not be detri— mental to city development. The central freeway alignment parallels the Pacific Electric Rail-way and Hoover Street, passing through predominantly industrial areas. This location would seriously in-terefere with the development of new industry in this area since it would separate the remaining developable land from the railroad. In the northerly section, the central route would pass between Golden West College and the Broadway Shopping Center. Although this alignment passes in close proximity to the college and shopping center, the present plan indicates no interchange ramps at Edinger Avenue, so that access to these -4- two major facilities would be seriously handicapped. The latest enrollment proje'ctions for Golden West College anticipate a student body of 10,000. Their land requirements have thus become very critical and the central align- ment, which would acquire a substantial amount of land along their easterly side, would severely limit their expansion potential. The two easterly alignments., on either side of Newland Street, would pass thro' uph heavily developed residential areas and seriously interfere with neighborhood patterns and community service facilities. These freeway locations would separate existing neighborhoods from schools, churches, shopping facilities, and other community facilities. The easterly align- ments would thus represent a serious disruptive element through the community -without compensating advantages. The configuration of the easterly Huntington Beach Freeway alignments in relation to the Coast Freeway alignment creates a triangular pocket Which -would be severely cut up with inter-freeway connecting roadways. The acute angle of intersection requires the consumption of a much greater land area than other alternates, and the remaining pockets of land would be. difficult to develop properly-with access severely curtailed. The interchange between the two freeways would occur in an area that presently has a residential character, as contrasted with the westerly alternate where interchange occurs in an oil field. Development Incentive One effect of *a freeway is the incentive that it sometimes provides for accelerating development of adjacent land and removing obsolete development alongsiae,"it. The westerly alignment would act as a potent influence to generate this incentive for new development through the periphery of oil field areas and in other westerly portions of the city where development has generally lagged. The easterly freeway alignments Would not benefit adjacent development since most development here is new or is now pending. In fact,, the freeway location in this area would have a detrimental influence on the residential development and probably accelerate decline of this area because of the disruptive influence that it would have. The westerly alignment would provide an excellent opportunity for the develop- ment of industry between the freeway and the railroad. This location provides an ideal corridor, insulated from residential development. Where industrial facilities can operate efficiently With good freeway and railroad service. Direct access by freeway and rail represents a most significant consideration in the locational decisions of industrial developerso The opportunities for attracting industry in this corridor location would be materially enhanced with a westerly freeway alignment. The westerly alignment also provides maximum traffic service for the new Golden West College and the Broad-way Shipping Center being developed along Edinger Avenue. Good traffic service is also provided for the new high school site and along the perimeter of various other developments which require service, without segmenting these areas. Since it would pass through a rela- tively undeveloped area., new developme nt built in the future could be designed to achieve a harmonious relationship withthe freeway. This is difficult to achieve when a freeway passes through an existing --neighborhoodo -5- fl One of the sites under consideration for development of the new civic center would be located at the geographical and population center of the city as projected for the future. The westerly freeway alignment would pass nearby -this site and the interchange with the Coast Freeway would also occur in this vicinity., providing maximum visibility and exposure of the civic center from all directions of travel on the freeway system. This would provide excellent identity for the city with the major freeway entrance near its geographical center offering direct access to the civic center. Arrival into Huntington Beach would therefore be most direct, rather than peripheral or incidental as -would be the case with the easterly alignments. It would further provide an opportunity to clean out much of the obsolescent development in the vicinity of the civic center site and provide an incentive for new facilities based upon a sound economic base in the vicinity of both the freeway and the civic center. Summary The westerly alignment of the Huntington Beach Freeway is the most desirable for the city of Huntington Beach for the following reasons,. 1. It would be located most logically with respect to adjacent north— south freeways, 2. It would offer the best interchangewith the San Diego Freeway. 3. It would provide the best traffic service to the city of Huntington Beach. 4, It would supplement the' north—south traffic movement from areas of potentially high traffic generation, Bolsa Chica Park and the proposed marina development. 5. It would provide I a transportation backbone., best located with respect to the college and-the. Douglas site in the north, and in the south afford us the best opportunity to serve the central and west beach areas. 6. Its conne-ction'to -the Coast Freeway near Golden West Street would ,provide the simplest and most comprehensible instructions to the motoring public. 7. -It' would cause the least disruption to our citizenry and, by being aligned mostly through undeveloped lands and marginally producing oil fields, would allow us to plan the devel6pment of land along its route. 8. It would provide incentive for the development of adjacent land. 9. It would complement the rail service to industrially zoned lands. ]a It would give additional identity to our city. In the north, upon entering Hunting-ton Beach, the eye would catch the Golden Kest College campus.9 the Broadway shopping center, the Douglas buildings. Further south there are possibilities of civic center locations that could be visible from the freeway. -6- 11. Combined with an inland location for the Coast Freeway, the westerly routing provides Huntington Beach with a superior freeway net; giving us I an opportunity to best develop a supplementary surface street system to j serve our own citizenry and those who will flock to use our beaches and harbors_. I 12e The_westerly routing, by virtue of the location of its connection to the Coast Freeway, would be one mile shorter thereby appreciably reducing the costs i I f' I i i I i i I i I I I I I I i ®70 �q 063X i O2J:3X ORANGE COUNTY ASSOCIATED CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE , . 2184 S. HARBOR BOULEVARD • ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA JEFFERSON 4.2665 February 11, 1965 MEMO TO: Supervisor David Baker Clerk of the Board, Orange County Board of Supervisors City of Garden Grove City of Stanton City of Westminster City of Huntington Beach City of Fountain Valley FROM: Orange County Associated Chambers of Commerce SUBJECT: Huntington Beach Freeway The enclosed resolution was approved by the Board of Directors of Orange County Associated Chambers of Commerce on Monday, February 8, 1965 at their regular monthly meeting. i ASSOCIATED CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE AND ORGANIZATIONS ANAHEIM • BREA • BUENA PARK • COSTA MESA io CYPRESS • DANA POINT • FOUNTAIN VALLEY • FULLERTON • GARDEN GROVE • HUNTINGTON BEACH •IMPERIAL,HIGHWAY ASSOCIATION • LAGUNA BEACH • LA HABRA • LOS ALAMITOS • MIDWAY CITY • NEWPORT BEACH • ORANGE COUNTY FARM BUREAU C�r'.AiS:^o P�r4i:e:ciTri-^,ay:u`:ritG'.tisdi«4tE:.?t.`kiu�tJ+;I>.i��?,:�"sii•."v,�nii; v e.�ht4.�.�ii' _ :-�r.i_aei.fan ,. dii-icii.�.;�� if:';:izrS� i'J7�ia� 'vr:=.ri:.ti[i5i»'.o�Yi��"rir: .iy�, -_ _._._---___.............�.. _......,.,, ,_.. ... .R.�...... .. ..._-. .. _ - .-., ,-.:r-•_,-Mrs—. m..r,:�. ..,s..- ,.LLr•.•.• .. , '�A,;I CIJ L`�Ji .ss.....__•__...y........�... �.W.,.......��_ O F _ -..•1.l�f<):1 L. a- Tx:u. - ......._._.,...._..._..........»._F....._ ...._....... _,."-,��AdOJ j 1 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, a determination of a route for the proposed Huntington Beach Freeway had to be reached that served the best interest of all cities concerned, and WHEREAS, officials of these cities were appointed to a technical study committee to study the matter, and WHEREAS, largely through the leadership of David Baker, Supervisor of District Two, a harmonious decision is being made by the cities in this district on the matter, NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Board of Directors of the Orange County Associated Chambers of Commerce extend congratulations to Supervisor Baker commending the Supervisor and the cities involved for their objective approach in endeavoring to reach a decision as to the route of this freeway, Hereby expediting the construction of this vitally needed and important freeway, And furthermore that copies of this resolution be sent to Supervisor Baker, the Clerk of the Board, and the cities involved. Approved by the Board of Directors of Orange County Associated Chambers of Commerce February 8, 1965 i E. A. HARTSOOK R. C. KISER JOHN SIGRI=f H. E. NISSEN t PRESIDENT FIRST VICE PRESIDENT SECOND VICE PRESIDENT TREASURER t � 4 F s MEMORIAL HALL CIVIC CENTER P.O. BOX 272 C H A M B E R O F C 0 M M R R C R }. 536-6564 September 42 l96`t 536-6565 WILLIAM GALLIENNE MANAGER DIRECTORS Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council TED BARTLETT JACK BLAKESLEY City Jity of Huntington Beach DON BYRNES City Hall JIM DEANE Huntington Beach, California MARK DOWNING J. S. FARQUHAR JACK FEEHAN DR. MAX FORNEY E. A. HARTSOOK Gentlemen: JACK HIGLEY R. M. JURKOVICH Attached Resolution relative to the WILLIAM E. KETTLER R. C. KISER designation of a Freeway Route running .DICK LA RUE KENNETH LAWSON CLIFF LINDENBERGER North and South through orange County to H. E. NISSEN WILLIAM S. PETERSON be known ate+ the "Huntington 1'LTunt�y'1gt^o Beach Freeway" • DON PRICE iJG LJ.11 ridJ. a7 Ill Il Miiv.i+s i.J. PAUL PHILLIPS W. L. SCHRYER o��`:L.E�t committee, in their studies, sug- D. M. SEIERSEN JOHN SIGRIST gests the route most westerly from Highway HOWARD STEPHENS i EARL WILSON #39• I HONORARY DIRECTORS The creation of a preference might be RICHARD T. HANNA J.A. helpful in future studies of the State E. WHETMORE JAM ESS E. DAVID BAKER M. M. MCCALLEN Highway Department. ADVISORY DIRECTORS Ux' er trul MAYOR ROBERT M. LAMBERT JAKE STEWART LYNDON A. WELLS � 1 ERNEST GISLER E. A. Hartsook, THOMAS WELCH President --�- MAN OF THE YEAR LEWIS W. DOUGLAS, JR. William Gallienne, Manager * OUR 60TH GOLDEN JUBILEE YEAR i August 26 1964 I HUNTINGTON BEACH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ° RES OLUT I ON # 112 WHEREAS: The State Highway Department has engineered studies of four proposed routes of ,a freeway extending from Pomona in Los Angeles County to Pacific Coast proposed freeway, eventually to be called "Huntington Beach Freeway" . and WHEREAS: These studies have been presented to City and County leaders requesting their preference as to route, and WHEREAS: The City of Huntington Beach has not as yet made any offer of preference, and WHEREAS: The Chamber of Commerce Highway and Transportation Committee, after due study and consideration, recommended the "Green Line" or the most westerly route being in the vicinity of Goldenwest Avenue, Huntington Beach, or more precisely on the east side of Goldenwest Avenue, and WHEREAS: This route, serving the north and west portions of Huntington Beach, would give greater traffic relief than other proposed routes. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the City of Huntington Beach be requested to express their desires for route alignment for the proposed Huntington Beach Freeway and that a preference of alignment as it effects Huntington Beach, be made known immediately to the State Division of Highways as a matter of record and intent. of policy and preference. Adopted this loth day of August9l964 E. A. Hartsook, President Authorized by the Board of Directors ATTEST: William Gallienne., Secretary-Manager - STATE OF CALIFORNIA—HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN, Governor DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION OF •HIGHWAYS a� nSSTRICT VII Pi,O. BOX 2304, LOS ANGELES 54 August 19, 1964 VII-Ora-39 PM 2/3 former - VII-Ora-171-Hnt B Rel - 297 City Council City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: This is to advise you that on July 30, 1964 the California Highway Commission adopted a resolution relinquishing to the City of Huntington Beach a portion of State Road VII-0ra-39 PM 2/3 por- tions of relocated 17th Street, and altered Garfield Avenue at Huntington Beach Blvd. We are transmitting herewith 3 copies of said resolution to- gether with maps attached showing that portion of the State High- way so relinquished. This resolution was recorded August 6, 1964, as Document No . 4259, Book 7166, Pages 653 to 656, in the office of the County Re- corder of Orange County . Yours very truly, LAN M. WEIR Senior Highway Engineer JJ:dh Attach. ` SUPERVISOR, SECOND DISTRICT DAVI D L. BAKER • ROOM 205, COURT HOUSE, COUNTY OF ORANGE SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA • PHONE : 5 4 7 - 0 5 4 7 ( AREA CODE 7 1 4 ) December 17, 1963 City Council City of Huntington Beach City Hall P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: This is to request that your City Engineer, City Manager, City Planning Director, and others who may have an interest in the North-South Freeway Route 0171 (Beach Blvd,) from Whittier Blvd. to the Garden Grove Freeway, be instructed to attend a meeting for a cooperative study of the pro- posed freeway;,on January 6, 1964. The purpose of this meeting will be to attempt to arrive at an agreement on the location of the freeway which will best benefit all cities involved. It is my contention that through a comprehensive study made jointly with the cities, we can be better prepared to work with the State Division of Highways in locating the proposed freeway. You will be notified as to the time of day and the, Rlaceof the meeting to be Sincerely, David L. BakerJ Supervisor Second District DLB:nw i I �Ca-Ce S U P E R V I S O R, S E C O N D D I S T R I C,T DAV I D L. RAKER. 4, i ROOM 705. COURT HOUSE, COUNTY OF ORANGE SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA PHONE : S 4 7 • 0 3 4 7 ( AREA CODE 7 1 4 ) /qm� to. December 17, 1%3 City Councils City of Huntington Beach City Hall P. ®. Box 190 • Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: This is to request that your City Engineer, City Hawaar, City Planning Director, and others vlko may have an interest in the North-Booth Freeway la to 0171 (Beach Blvd.) fro® Whittier Blvd. to this Carden Grove Freemy, be instructed to attend a meeting for a cooperative steady of the pro- posed freeway on .January 6, 1964. The purpose of this meeting will be to attempt to arrive at an agreement on the location of the freeway which will best benefit all cities involved. it is any contantion that throvah a c asive study & jointly with tbs chic+, we can be better prepared to cork with the State Divisions of Highways in locating the proposed freeway. You will be notified to to the time of day and t f the sheeting to be he Sincerely, David L. Baker Supervisor Second District DI.B:csw a 510m thI d .44 DOYLE MILLER, Administrative Officer STATE OF CALIFORNIA—HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN, Governor DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS a DIVISION! OF HIGHWAYS m� DISTRICT VII P. O. BOX 2304, LOS ANGELES 54 October 21, 1963 VII-Ora/Ora, LA-171(39)/62(39)-Z PR-VII-800 Mr. Doyle Miller City Administrator City of Huntington Beach P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California Dear Mr. Miller: Enclosed•,-is a reduction, scale 1" 20001 , of ' the study zone' map which was displayed at the Technical Staff Meeting of July 31, 1963, for the proposed Route 171(39)/62(39? Freeway between the adopted Route 179(22) "Garden Grove ' Freeway and Route 2 (Whittier Boulevard) . It should be understood that the study zones as shown are tentative and may be subject to change as our studies progress . Very truly yours, C. W. FORD Assistant District Engineer Enclosure i t E STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION OF HIGHWAYSI SPRINGST REST LOS ANGELES 12, CALIF. PHONE.MADISON 0-3030 DISTRICT VII MAILING ADDRESS BOX 2304. TERMINAL ANNEX LOS ANGELES 54. CALIFORNIA PLEASE REFER August 5, 1963 TO FILE NO. VII-Ora/Ora,LA-171/62-Z PR-VII-296 Mr. Doyle Miller City Administrator City of Huntington Beach P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California Dear Mr. Miller: Because of the many requests made at the initial Technical Staff Meeting on July 31, 1963, we are forward- ing a copy of the -"Notes for Talk by C. W. Ford" regarding the studies for the proposed Route 171/62 Freeway between the adopted Route 179 "Garden Grove" Freeway and Route 2 (Whittier Boulevard_) . _ It is anticipated that copies of the study zones map will be available in about two months. Very truly yours, R. E. DEFF 'CH District Engineer Enclosure INITIAL TECHNICAL STAFF DIEETTiIG Route 171/62 Freeway - Between Route 179 Freeway and Route 2 (Whittier Boulevard) VII-Ora/Ora,LA-171/62-Z PR-VII-296 NOTES FOR TALK BY C. 11. FORD 120 So. Spring St. a L, A:, Room 2 July 31, 1963 1. GEPIEMAL This project is for a portion of Route 171/62 F Freeway.,, between Route 179 (Garden Grove) Freeway and Route 2 (Whittier Boulevard). South of the Santa Ana Freeway, the route is designated Route 171 and north, is Route 62. I i. GENERAL CONTROLS General controlling features of the study area are as follows: (1) 1' Acting HlEl +aa.y Studies have been confined to an area approh:�.-- ri,ately 1 to 11 miles on either side of existing Highway 39. Studies further removed from the existing route would tend to offset tLe spacing of the Freeway and expressway System and „neatly ,,,educe the benefits to t�;—.e motoring public. 2 � a i. ( ) leeway 1�?teroh.a,nges „ Another difficult feature of this project is the interchanging with the Riverside and Santa Ana Freeways. A, freeway location to the east o�' Highway 39 would involve a 6- legged interchange. An alignment to the vest of Highway 39 would i volve more conventional type interchanges with Santa .Ana and Riverside Freeways. These interchanges wills of course, be `further. evaluated n our studies. (3) Puente Hills Another controlling feature which will have: a groat effect on our studies is the Puente Hills to the north. Although this area is not a portion of our present study* it f will be necessary to coordinate possible study areas with the zones on this particular. project. The hills area will involve.a difficult grade and alignment problem involving high grading' costs. Some. of the problems are shown on. model. s Ill. nIDIVIDUAb CONrInk OLIS Some of the very important individual features a.f:"acting the s t Oldy. zones areo. A. Recreational Facilities,, such as: 10 Knott's Burry Pam 2. Numerous public parks and golf courses. B. Educational Institutions 1. Biala College 2. Many elementary and high schools. C. Industrial Com2lexes 1: Developments along the Santa Ana Freeway. 3 2. Standard Oil Company D U. S. Army Nike Installation E. Fullerton Airport F.. Hospitals G. Utilities , 1. railroads 2. Transmission Lines and Substations mi DISCUSSION OF STUDY ZONES Referring to our Exhibit "C",` 'w* a can see that there are, four basic north-south study zones. There are several con- neeting bands which can be used to combine the basic zones. Study Zone A i j This study zone is located west of Beach Boulevard i in the vicinity of Knott Avenue between the Route 179 and Santa Ana Freeways. It, is west, of the U. ' S. .Army Nike Installation at Knott and Chapman Avenues and continues northerly through resi- dential areas and presently undeveloped lands. It intersects the Santa Ana Freeway between Valley `view Avenue to the vrest and the Standard ail Tanks to the east, then turns northeasterly east to the west of Biola College.. It crosses ,Imperial Highway east of Lult ieler Avenue then northerly between Luitwieler and Scott Avenues intersecting Whittier Boulevard in the vicinity of Scott Avenue. 4 Study Zone B This study- zone ' is located east of the U. S. Army Nike Installation and west of the E. -Railway as fa.- -north as Cerritos Avenue, then swings slightly northeast to parallel Beach Boulevard about 1/4 mile to the west through largely un- developed land and residential areas. North of Crescent Avenue, the study zone is just- west of Werstern Avenue up to the Santa Ana Freeway. It then turns northeasterly to Alondra Boulevard and then due north between the Standard Oil Tank Far.,ij and the La Mirada Country Club in the vicinity of Santa Gertrudes Avenue. Just south of Leffingwell Road, it turns northeast to intersect Whittier Boulevard east of the Whittwood' shopping center. Study Zone C This zone parallels Beach Boulevard and is approxi- mately one-quarter of a mile to the east. At Lincoln Avenue,, ititurns northeast to parallel the Edison Company Transmission Line interchanging with the Santa Ana and Riverside Freeways at their. intersection. It continues northerly passing just west. of the Fullerton Municipal Airport and then to the vicinity of Beach Boulevard. It parallels Beach Boulevard to just south of Imperial Highway where it follows the LA/Grange county Line or Valley Home Drive to Wittier Boulevard. Study Zone D This study zone is juslk; east of Da* le Street to Orangewood Avenue then turns northeast to the Edison Company a °.;sy?s i sion Line. It then parallels the Trans-mission mine to the Sati"Coa Ana And Riverside Freeways interchanging near Magnolia Avenue. This zone then passes east of Buena Park High School and Fullerton Airport and -through the Los Coyotes Hills and oil fields, intersecting Imperial Highway just ears of Beach Boulevard. It then parallels Beach to 'Whittler Boule- Varu o E a y I i 's -2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 0 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS 1 SPRING STREET LOS AN 12.CALIF. PNONE:MADISON 0.3030 DISTRICT VII MAILING ADDRESS BOX 2304.TERMINAL ANNEX LOS ANGELES 54, CALIFORNIA PLEASE REFER June 5, 1963 TO FILE NO. VII-Ora-171-HntB -c. �7 Mr. Paul C. Jones City Clerk City of Huntington Beach P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California Dear Mr. Jones: Attached is the original of a form approving Resolution No. 1773 of the City of Huntington Beach which provides for the prohibition of parking on the east side of Beach Boulevard at Speer Street:" Resolution No. 1773 was submitted with your letter of May 10, 1963. The State will evidence the provisions of the resolution. Very truly yours, A. W. HOY District Engineer J. T. Kassel District Traffic Engineer DEG:mc Attach. APPROVAL OF TRAFFIC REGULATIONS A Resolution of the City of Huntington Beach, numbered 1773, passed and adopted by the City Council of said City of May 06, 1963, provides for the prohibition of parking on the east side of Beach Boulevard beginning at a point representing the prolongation of the center line of Speer Street and extending approximately 125 feet south thereof. This resolution has been submitted to the Department of Public Works for approval in accordance with Section 22506 of the Vehicle Code. Beach Boulevard is State Highway Route 171, as defined by law. Resolution No. 1773, insofar as it relates to State Highway Route 171, is approved subject to the following condition: The resolution shall cease to be operative six months after receipt by the City Council of written notice of withdrawal of, appr0 val of the Department of Public Works. This approval is made pursuant to delegations of authority from the Director of Public Works through the State Highway Engineer to the undersigned Traffic Engineer, which delegations of authority are dated January 1963 and April 15, 1963. DATED: G. A. LL Traffl Engineer i Nay 10, 1963 j 1 r F i I l r Department of Public /Works ' DIVISION OF LTG IA,� � District VY1 Box 2304, Terminal ;Annex Los Angeles 54, California t Attention: J. T. Kassel District Traffic Engineer Re: VY1-Ora-171-HntB Gems leaven o The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at their regular meeting held on May 6, 1963, passed and adopted ," Resolution No, 1773 prohibiting parking on the east sidS\ of Beach Boulevard near Speer Street. Enclosed is a certified copy of Resolution No. 1773 � for your files. Sincerely yours, Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJeaw enc, `1 IF, Y 1 l INS TpN � ATFae�9� HObVAitD F. ROBIDOUX R � y C ITY O F CHIEF OF POLICE o � �,• Q --------------------------- ---------------------------- C A L I F 0 R N I A �CpUNTY cpy April 22, 1963 , - Honorable Mayor and City Councilmen City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach, California Refer: DR-45304 Gentlemen: Enclosed find a copy of our letter to the Division of High- ways, District Engineer, requesting placement of signs to prohibit or restrict parking in the area contiguous to the Beach Medical Center, ,17612 Beach Boulevard. Reference is made to the reply to this report from the Division of Highways (copy enclosed) wherein they indicate it would be desirable to prohibit parking at the location in question. It is therefore recommended that the City Council adopt a resolu- tion prohibiting parking on the east side of Beach Boulevard, beginning at a point representing the prolongation of the cen- ter line of Speer Street and extending approximately 125 feet south thereof. Under provisions of Section 22506 of the California Vehicle Code, this resolution must be submitted and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to taking appro- priate action. Respectfully submitted, HUNTINGTON BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT HOWARD F. ROBIDOUX Chief of Police HFR:ebh CC: Councilmen Miller Jones Address all communications to the Chief of Police r STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS L IPO SOUTH SPRING STREET OS ANGELES 72. CALIF. PHONE: MADISON 0-3030 DISTRICT VII I I MAILING ADDRESS I BOX 2304.TERMINAL ANNEX LOSJ(ANGyELES 54, CALIFORNIA/« April 114 1963 PLEASE REFER TO FILE No. I I _ VII- Ora-171-FIntB Your Hey'. r-45304 Flow rd V. Robidoux, Chief of Police City p��.'p y��y-�I'ur��a.;i ton Beach Huntington Beach, Calf..fornia boar Chief Rob d.oux b Fur-ther reference is made to your letter of January 2 , 1963 regarding uraf fic conditions in the vicinity of is-le Huntington Beach Medical Center, 17612 Beach Boulevard. This is to adV iee you that we have completed an investigation with t�-Iho re;�rults indicating. that it -would be desirable to proll'xi it parking on the east side of Beach Boulevard in advance of the entrance to the Nedical Center to facilitate tate the safe and orderlymove- ment of traffic . Upon submittal of a certified copy of an ordinance or. reso u t-ion b the C�ty Council of the City of Hunting on. Beach prohibiting parking on the east side of Beach Boulevard, beginning at a point representing the prolongation of the center line of Speer Street and extending approximately 125 feet south thereof, we will take appropriate action. Very truly yours, A. W. HOY District J�ngineer. By ��jtted by79.� ^i'� Diw tr .c t Traffic Engineer DEG-.be pN,, e `{` a RIM' d N oo iiA.76� �� UCi V ®O A " ° ,% " umutelA vy VOTOTW an OORT ° Ta I v o H 'T CD VW 0® e. worway got C961 On Cf)PT17S TO: POLICE DEPARTMENT HUNT.INGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA HOWARD F. IOBIDDUX INCIDENT REPORT. CHIEF OF POLICE NOW-CRIMINAL CRIMINAL (OF FrENSE SEC. NO.) (OFFENSE) LOCATION OF INCIDENT: PHONE REPORTED DY: ', ) N O INITIALS (LAST) ADDRESS PHONE Y DATE: TIME: AM PM RQCLIVIED BY: Uv HOW kRmCf IvQD: PHONM: IN PERSON- ON SIGHT: LETTER: RADIO: OTHER: tt OFFICERS ASSIGNED: e D -DETAILS- a . 293am roports oil tankers are Farling an the shoulder of Be6ah Mvdae in front of his propertyl The trucks are p prking too elam to the entrance to his drivamy th 1y croating u traffic vim obstruction for motoriat pulling iff out of Um Medical Centere parking lot. Requested tip mmouras before this condition contributes to the came of an accident. Ei k,4= �f-a F3EPOI�T WRITTEN fFlY: DATE & TIME ►7RITTEN ` V+' Iwo UE. DR H.B.P.D. - FORM 500 APPROVED BY: f INGTp�® CITY OF I- UNTINGTON BEACH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Huntington Beach, California TY February 14, 1963 I I Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach, California Subject: Intersection of Beach Blvd. & Garfield Avenue Gentlemen. 4 j The proposed construction of service stations at the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Garfield has resulted in a request by the Division of Highways for City Council approval of a diversion of drainage. Enclosed is a letter from the Division of Highways requesting a resolution showing approval. The proposed construction and closure of the culvert on the north side of Garfield Street has been coordinated by this office. The request for acceptance of responsibility- is routine and the overall plan meets with approval of this office. The work will be accomp- lished at no expense to the City. Very truly yours, 6James R. Wheeler City Engineer JRW r HEii:cn Enclo F -STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS S. DIVISION - OF HIGHWAYS LOS 120 AN SPRING STREET GELES 12,CALIF. DISTRICT VII PHONE:MADISON 0-3030 MAILING ADDRESS BOX 2304,TERMINAL ANNEX LOS ANGELES 54, CALIFORNIA February 7, 1963 PLEASE REFER TO�FILE No.— 407 .20 (A) VII,0ra-C171-HntB Richfield Oil, Corp. 762-E-2052 McDaniel Engineering Company 222 E. Lincoln Avenue Anaheim, California Attention: Mr . D. R. Stout Gentleffieh: Your letter and revised plans submitted on January 18 must be modified. The modifications include: 1) Changing the proposed flow line on the west side of Beach Boulevard in order to avoid ponding of -water north of Garfield Avenue . '2) The proposed regrading of the median ditch and road- side ditch ,on the east side of Beach Boulevard should be modified in order to maintain the existing drainage pattern. 3) The median nose on Beach Boulevard should be recon- structed as indicated in our previous letter. In addition it will be necessary for the City of Huntington Beach to submit- a letter to this office, indicating that they accept responsibility for blocking a 3 ' x 11 reinforced concretebox. The submission should be in the form of a resolution, accepting all li- ability which may result from the blocking of the box and .subsequent diversion of water from the east to the west side of Beach Boulevard. Upon receipt of four sets of corrected plans and the appropriate resolution we will resume the necessary processing towards issuance of a permit. Yours very truly, F. B. CORREA, ,Jr. As istant District ineer -Maintenance F. A. - READ District Permit Engineer