Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous State Highway Documents - Proposed Highway 39 i GOODWIN J.KNIGHT G.T.McCOY r~ GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA FRANK B.DURKEE STATE HIGHWAY ENGINEER - DIRECTOR STATE OF CALIFORNIA JDenartMMt of bfir � I SACRAMENTO(�y '✓ DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS April 1, 7 � LEASE REFER TO PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING / /fin _ LE NO. P.O.BOX 1499 I ^i/" SACRAMENTO 7 •� C�yofyG 4 _ 00.01 City Council, Huntington Beach �' City Hall 1 Huntington Beach, Calif. Gentlemen: i Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 26_, a copy of which is attached, adopted on January 24 and 25, 1957, by the State Senate and Assembly, respectively, requests the Department of Public Works to undertake a study to provide a basis for an overall plan of freeways and expressways in the State of P y y California, which plan will'not be limited to State Highways. The Resolution requests agencies of city and county governments to cooperate in the conduct of the study. As rovided in the Resolution, a committee of seven officials rom the counties and a like number representing the cities, has been appointed by the Legislature to act in a technical advisory capacity to the Department of Public Works. A list of the committee members is attached. It should be self-evident that definite advantages are to be derived by selecting a State-wide plan of freeways now, rather than to proceed in the selection from time to time with a resultant system which is not connected nor integrated. The resolution requests that the study include necessary connections to the freeway system as nearly as is practicable in advance of detailed engineering design of projects. In order to provide plans for such connecting links from the freeway system, information must be made available from county and city master plans of streets and roads to which the connections are to be made. i The rapid increase in population, automotive traffic and industrial growth of California makes the selection of such a system imperative; however, any such plan must have the whole-hearted support and cooperation of all the people of California. The Department cannot complete the study and evolve a satisfactory plan of freeways without the enthusiastic support and aid of the representatives of city and county governments. Such a freeway system when established .will have �-, -2- a profound impact upon every portion of the State and the benefits to all largely will depend upon the thoroughness of the study and the effective use of the experience and technical skill of all government officials in planning the best possible freeway system to service the entire State. No matter how small or large your city, your support and help is needed in the conduct of this study. Your advisory committee joins with the Department in requesting the enthusiastic support and aid of the entire official family of your city. Any information or suggestions which you feel would assist in the conduct of the study will be- welcome. Very truly yours, G. T. McCoy State Highway Engineer I Senate Concurrent Resolution No ., 26 ,..-, Relative to an over-al_�_ state--wide plan of freeways and expressways sta4 for the State of Californ.ia . WHEREAS,, the Legislature of California finds', a) Adequate,, safe., and economical highway tran,9port-a- tion. .is vita t o the future development of the State of Calii'orn" a, '. (b) It has been amply demonstrated that properi-y designed and located freeways and expressways are the most cconomj,cal means of- providing -highway. adequacy--and-- safety, (c). California is rapidly developing indl-,7idual freeways and expressways and segments thereof,,, but in many—ages on a piecemeal basis , which program has been greatly acclelerated by the enactment of the Federal-aid. Highway Act of J'_956 and ww11 be expanded considerably more if Congress carries out it;s s`r,ated intent'Lons regarding apportionments of federal. funds for `1nter­ state highways , (d) There Is need for the people of California and' Its industry to informed of plans for the ult'Lmate agriculture" and indusl -L u freeway and expressway system of the entire State as. nearly as such can now be determined by basic engineering studies , . {e) There 'is need for the establishment of a plan for such a state-wide system of freeways and expressways determined with - out regard to present jurisdiction over the highways . roads-_' ' �and streets that might be Included, In order that appropriate state,;' county,, and city transportatlon plans and fiscal arrangements. may b.*e worked out and properly coordinated; now,, therefore , be lt'- ;Resolved by the Senate of the State of California, the Assembly thereof concurring,, As follows ,,a) The Department of Public Works Is requested to under takea study which will provide a basis for an over all s'u-at(-,, -- wide plan of freeways and expressways for the State of Cai1' fr,-r-n*"_a ,, such study not to be limited to state highways and such E'L-.ud.y tc; locate the pitent]-al freeway and expressway routes of suCel a. state-wide system and the necessary connections thereto as nearly as is practicable --'"-n advance of detailed eng-1meering design of pro je,c*'L;s , (b) The Department of Public Works is requested tj employ by contract or otherwise such engineering consu'-tants or othor special-Ists as it deems may be needed for conduct of the study and the preparation of reports . (c) The' Department of Public Works' is requested to defray the costs of the study from moneys available in the State Highway Fund for highway planning and is further requested to undertake to secure matching contributions of federal funds available for highway planning to the extent ; that such are available. (d) Agencies of the State Government and cities and counties and the City and County. ..of San Francisco are re- quested to cooperate with the Department of Public Works in the conduct of the study, (e) The Speaker of the Assembly and the President pro tempore of the Senate are directed jointly to appoint a com- mittee of seven officials of counties and seven officials of cities to act in a technical advisory capacity to the Depart- ment of Public Works , and the department is directed to cooper- ate and- confer with the technical advisory committee so appointed, (f) The Speaker of the Assembly and the President pro tempore of the Senate shall refer the subject matter of this resolution to the appropriate joint interim committee which may deal with highway transportation problems if such com- mittee is created at this session of the Legislature, or if no-' such committee is created, then the subject matter shall be jreferred to the appropriate interim committee of each of the irespective houses by the Speaker and the President pro tempore respectively. ; (g). The Department of Public Works is requested to report from =time to time on the progress of its study to the appropriate interim committee or committees as designated under the provisions of the preceding paragraph and to submit its final report on the subject matter of this resolution to the appropriate committee or committees not later than September „1,t, 1958 I TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE In accordance with the provisions of Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 26 the President pro Tenpore of the Senate and the Speaker of the Assembly were directed jointly to appoint a committee of seven officials of counties and seven officials of cities to act in a technical advisory capacity to the Department of Public Works . The list of the committee members appointed on March 8, and 12, respectively, is as follows : County Officials City Officials — SAM R. KENNEDY - Road Commissioner 0. W. CAMPBELL - City Manager County of Los Angeles City of San Diego Los Angeles San Diego A. C. KEITH - Road Cc—issioner LYALL A. PARDEE - City Engineer County of Riverside City of Los Angeles Riverside Los Angeles VERNON G. SMITH - Road. Commissioner JESS GILKE.RSON - City Engineer Kern County City of Long Beach Bakersfield Long Beach Ea R. HANNA - Road Commissioner JEROME KFITHLEY - City Manager San Benito County City of Palo Alto Hollister Palo Alto VICTOR W. SAUER - Public Works Director DUDLEY FROST - Port Commissioner Contra Costa County Port of Oakland Martinez Oakland E. J. GUIDOTTI - Supervisor E. A. FAIRBAIRN - City Engineer Sonoma County City of Sacramento Guerneville Sacramento HEINZ KAISER - Supervisor ROBFRT W. COWDEN - City Manager Orange County City of Redding Newport Beach Redding C.M.GILLISS �IIbrrltDr 'DIRECTOR e �yt^i os Th m0 K/^ ✓. STATE OF CALIFORNIA Pqartrunt of P:Uhlt*r Porks SACRAMENTO oz1, �+ June 6, 1958 Boards of Supervisors and City Councils State of California The Engineering Division of the 1957 Governor's Traffic Safety Conference adopted and presented to Governor Goodwin J. Knight a single resolution. This resolution urges legislative bodies to authorize and to support the engineer in a program of cooperative highway planning with other jurisdictions so as to effect integration in the planning of street and highway systems among local agencies. A number of county boards of supervisors and city councils have authorized engineers and planners to partici- pate in such cooperative planning. Thus, it is evident that much has been done in this particular field. It was the consensus of the Engineering Division of the Governor's Traffic Safety Conference that much more in this direction can be accomplished provided the concept is adequately presented to local legislative bodies and to the engineers concerned. The General Counsel and Manager of the County Supervisors Association of California has approved the distribution of the resolution to the Boards of Supervisors. The Streets and Highways Committee of the League of California Cities has endorsed the resolution with the following suggested change in the last paragraph . . . . "and to support the engineering and planning agencies in a program of cooperative highway p ann ng. A copy of the resolution is attached for your information. /, ry tru y yours, M. H, est, Chairman Steering Committee Attach. Engineering Division, Governor's Traffic Safety Conference RESOLUTION ENGINEERING DIVISION GOVERNOR'S TRAFFIC SAFETY CONFERENCE WHEREAS, community growth in California continues to accelerate at a rate amounting to a population increase of revolutionary proportions. WHEREAS, the attendant explosive increase in the number of motor vehicles is creating problems which demand a review of present traffic safety and highway programs, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that street and highway engineering authorities at every level of government be encouraged to provide technical knowledge, leadership, and assistance toward the establishment of a coordinated city, county, and state street and highway transportation system. With the realization that traffic is not limited to political boundary lines, each legislative body is urged to authorize, and to support the engineer in, a program of cooperative highway planning with other jurisdictions to the end that each proposed highway improvement project becomes, first, a part of a local integrated system, and secondly, a part of an over-all integrated system. Adopted October 4. 1957 m. EDMUND G. BROWN G. T. MCCOY GOVERNOR O►CALIFORNIA ROBERT B. BRADFORD BTTAAT►#HIGHWAY ENGINEER F ' DIRECTOR ^ / STATE OF CALIFORNIA Pep artment of Public gor SACRAMENTO DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS August ►LEASE REFER TO PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING Augus`� 19, 1959 FILE NO. P.O.Box 1499 SACRAMENTO 7 Mr. Earl. T. Irby, Mayor City Hall Huntington Beach, Califorhia Dear Mr. Irby: Senate- Concurrent Resolution 62 (attached hereto) , adopted during the 1959 Regular Session of the California Legislature, requests the Department of Public Works to undertake an analysis of the city street and county road deficiency reports, and to report the findings of the Depart- ment to the appropriate Legislative Committees not later than August 1, 1960. The study will consist of "an analysis which will audit city street and county road deficiency reports to bring such reports up to date and make future projections thereof insofar as such projections are practicable within the time available for the study; " and "shall include a report on the advisability of legislative consideration of a 1 cent increase in the state gasoline tax, and whether such additional tax revenue should be divided 60 per cent to cities and 40 per cent to the counties of the State, together with alternative recommendations, if any . " The resolution provides for the appointment of a committee of 14 members consisting of officials of cities and counties or others interested in street , road, and high- way problems to act as an advisory committee to the Department of Public Works in this study. This committee has been appointed and a list of the membership is attached hereto . The resolution further requests agencies of the State government and cities and counties of the State to cooperate with the Department and to furnish such necessary data as may be requested in order that the study results may fulfill the intent of the Legislative requests . Section 2156 of the Streets and Highways Code relating to the city street and county road deficiency reports was amended during the 1959 Regular Session by Senate Bill 972 which is now Chapter 678 of the Statutes of 1959. r • -2- Chapter 678 directs the road commissioner in each county to prepare and. submit a report on the county road deficiencies to the county board of supervisors on or before October 1 of each year, the county road. de- ficiencies to be prepared in accordance with the instruc- tions, forms, and standards contained in the Public Works Guide adopted by the County Engineers Association and approved by the Board of Directors of the County Super- visors Association of California. Chapter 678 also pro- vides that the appropriate city official submit to the city council an annual report of the city street defi- ciencies on or before June 1 of each ,year, the city deficiencies to be prepared, in accordance with instruc- tions contained in the document entitled : "Engineering Standards and, Instructions for County Road and. City Street Deficiency Surveys" appearing in the Senate Journal of the 1957 Regular Session for April 4, 1957. A copy of Chapter 678 is attached for ready reference . The reports required under Chapter 678 are the reports that will be audited by the Department of Public Works. It is expedient therefore that the work of pre- paring the up-to-date deficiency reports in proper form and. to prescribed standards be carried, out conscientiously by the city and, county organizations . It is reasonable to believe that this study and the findings therefrom will be the basis of Legislative consideration of the city and county road, and street . deficiency needs . The study is "therefore of vital impor- tance to all of the cities and counties of the State of California. It is believed that this study can be best carried through to a successful conclusion if conducted along the lines of the excellent cooperative and coordinated working procedures and, relationships which were developed between the city, county, and, State organizations during the Federal 210 and State Freeway-Expressway studies . The Highway Planning Survey under the supervision of F. NI. Reynolds, Principal Highway Engineer, has been assigned the responsibility for carrying out the study and. the preparation of the report . The Federal Aid. Secondary, and City and. Cooperative Departments, together with the Division of Highways Districts, will cooperate and. partici- p ate with the cities and counties in this study to the . maximum extent that time and availability of qualified. personnel will permit . • -3- Additional information as to time limits, modifications of standards ( if any) , forms designed to facilitate the use of electronic equipment in the analysis, and information on other necessary needed data will be furnished directly to the city and county authorities and also be made available to the Division of Highways Districts as early as these several data requirements can be developed, reviewed, and resolved, with the advisory committee. The first meeting of the Department with the Advisory Committee is being scheduled for August 31, 1959, in Sacramento. Sincerely, G. T. McCorl State Highway Engineer Attachments Sez '.e Concurrent Resol.t Lon No. 62 Resolution Chapter 208, June 15, 1959 Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 62—Relative to city streets and county roads. WHEREAS, City street and county road deficiencies, as im- partially reviewed by the Senate Interim Committee on High- ways, Streets, and Bridges in 1954 and 1956, and more re- cently as reported by counties and cities for the Federal "210" Study, exceed the deficiencies of the State Highway System; and WHEREAS, The Southern California Research Counicil spon- sored-by Pomona and Occidental College has found: 1. That the physical plan needed by the expanding popula- tion in Los Angeles County alone between now and 1970 re- quires funds equal to $13,290 for each family; 2. That $10,200 per family , is needed solely for county roads and city streets exclusive of state highways or free- ways; 3. That water supply, flood control, sewage, schools, hos- pitals, parks, and recreation, together, require only $3,090 per family; and 4. That between now and 1970 seven and one-half billion dollars will be required to correct city street and county road deficiencies within Los Angeles County alone, which repre- sents approximately 40 percent of the total county road and city street needs in California; and WHEREAS, Estimated costs of correcting city street and county road deficiencies within the State, determined in ac- cordance with minimum standards approved by the Senate Interim Committee on Highways, Streets and Bridges for the Federal "210" Study exceed seventeen and one-half billion dollars; and WHEREAS, Cities now receive only 6-percent of the total state and federal highway user revenues, and the counties receive only 15.8 percent thereof; and WHEREAS, The greatest percentage of expenditures for city streets and county roads now come from local property taxes and other nonhighway user revenues; and WHEREAS, It will take more than 148 years to correct city street deficiencies and 78 years to correct county road de- ficiencies with existing sources of revenue; and WHEREAS, The State will require all existing state and fed- eral revenue to correct deficiencies in the State Highway and Freeway System; and WHEREAS, There is a great demonstrable need for additional revenue to meet city street and county road deficiencies; and WHEREAS, Equal consideration must be given to city streets and county roads along with state highways and free- ways, and all deficiencies on all three systems must be cor- rected at a substantially comparable rate in order to have a complete transportation system; now, therefore, be it 2 •® Resolved by the Senate of the State of California, the As- sembly thereof concurring, as follows: 1. The Department of Public Works is requested to under- take an analysis which will audit city street and county road deficiency reports to bring such reports up to date and make future projections thereof insofar as such projections are practicable within the time available for the study; 2. The Department of Public Works is requested to defray such additional costs as may be required by the analysis, with the money available from state and federal highway planning funds; 3. Agencies of the State Government and the cities and counties of the State are requested to co-operate with the Department of Public Works in the conduct of the analysis and to furnish such necessary data or information at their own expense when requested by the department if the city or county either has such data or information available or is equipped to obtain such data or information; 4. The Speaker of the Assembly and the President pro Tempore of .the Senate are 'requested jointly to appoint a committee of 14 members, to consist of officials of cities and counties and others interested in street, road and highway problems, to act in an advisory capacity to the Department of Public Works, and the department is directed to co-operate and confer with the advisory committee so appointed; 5. The Department of Public Works shall employ by con- tract or otherwise such engineering consultants or other spe- cialists as it deems may be needed for the conduct of the study and the preparation of the report. 6. Such analysis shall include a report on the advisability of legislative consideration of a 1 cent increase in the state gasoline tag, and whether such additional tax revenue should be divided 60 percent to cities and 40 percent to the counties of the State, together with alternative recommendations, if any; 7. The Speaker of the Assembly and the President pro Tempore of the Senate shall refer the subject matter of this resolution to the appropriate joint interim committee which may deal with highway transportation problems, if such com- mittee is created at this session of the Legislature, or if no such committee is created, then the subject matter shall be referred to the appropriate interim committee of each of the respective houses by the Speaker and the President pro Tempore respectively; S. The Department of Public Works is requested to report from time to time on the progress of its analysis to the appropriate interim committee or committees as designated under the proceedings of the preceding paragraph and to submit a report on the siAbject matter of this resolution to the appropriate committee or committees not later than August 1, 1960; and be it further Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate shall transmit a copy of this resolution to the Department of Public Works. r 9 ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS UNDER AUTHORITY OF SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO, 62 City Officials Ira J. Chrisman, Mayor, Visalia E. A. Fairbairn, City Engineer, Sacramento John A. Morin, City Engineer, Oakland. Lyall -A. Pardee, City Engineer, Los Angeles County Officials Francis Dunn, Jr. , Chairman, Board. of Supervisors, Alameda County A. S. Koch, County Road. Commissioner, Orange County William McIntosh, County Road, Commissioner, Lassen County Victor W. Sauer, Director of Public Works, Contra Costa County Other Interested Organizations Harry V. Cheshire, Jr. , General Counsel, Automobile Club of Southern California Kenneth Kendricks, Vice President and. Regional Manager, Standard Oil Company tClaud.e Minard, Director, California Railroad •Association Edwin S.-Moore, Executive Vice President, California State Automobile Association Wade Sherrard., Managing Director, California Trucking Associations, Incorporated. Loran C . Vanderlip, Director of Research, State Chamber of Commerce V Senate Bill No. 972 (11 APTER GIs An act to amevd Section 2156 of the Streets and Highways Code, relating to cou.nt•;►f road deficiency reports. [Approved by Governor May 28, 19558. Filed with Secretary of State May 28, 1959.] The peoplr_ of the State of California. do enact as follnius: SECTION 1. Section 2156 of the Streets and Highways Code is a.mehded to read: 21.56. Every county and every city shall prepare an annual report on road and street; deficiencies pursuant to the follow- ing: (a) On or before. October 1st of. each ,year evenly divisible by 5, commencing with 1960, the County road commissioner in each county shall submit, to the board of supervisors an annual report, on deficieneies existing on the county road system as of Ji►ly .lst, of that ,year, and such report, shall include- (1) An itemized list of the road tlefie,ieneies and an estimate of the, cost to be incurred in eliminating such deficiencies; (2) A plan or alternative plan for the finaneing of such improveinents to the county road syst,e►n, specifyin" the source or sources of .funds for such expenditures; (e3) A list of thp. constr►lct•ion projects completed daring the year and expenditures therefor; (4) A list of eonstructioll projects in process as of Jnly 18t of each year and the estimaled completion cost, and comple- tion date for each project; and (5) Such. other technical or fin.mcial information as the road commissioner may deem appropriate or as may be re- quested by the board or supervisors. in all other year's the report may be in summary form and shall include : (1) A. summary of the previous year's deficiency report; (2) A list of projects completed since vile previous report, together evilIt the final costs of file projects; (3) A revision of the cost: estimates of iineorreeted items oii 11.ip previous years tlt+fi(,icncy report; (4) A list of ne%v drticiency items with estimated costs; and (5) ,Snc.h olher tr.chnien]. nr fiii,tncia.l information as may he re(piesled h'- thi hoard of supervisors or as file road Com- missio►ier ma.y deem appropriate. ' a � - 2 �-- (h) E4,wh city council shall designate the appropriate city official who shall submit to the city council on or before Julie . Ist of each year all annual report of defwieueies existing on f.he city street system and such report shall include the following (d) nn itemized list of the street, defleiencies and an esti- male of file expenditures to be incurred in eliminating such deficiencies; (`?) A plan or alternative plan for the financing of such illiproveuumuts to the city street system, Specifying tile source. or som-ek of funks for Such expenditures; (3) A list of tile eoiisl.rnet.ion projects completed during the yeal' and Cl'p('111d1tU1'eS ill�'1'eflll'; (4) A list of co1,struct.i in projects in process as of .lune ust of each year and the, estiluated completion Bost and coin- pletion date .for caell project; and (5) Such o0wr technical or fimmcia.l information as the city official may de(All appropriate or as may be-requested by the city eollucit. ((?) The allllllall repol'Iti on city sll'eet (deflciellcles shall be pre1►al' d Ill 'aceord'ilive with I.h(', illsta'll('.Ligns collfalllled ill the (locanuelll. clllitlr(l "d,nr;iup,ering 81,111(hir(Is a1141 l list rnctiolls for C;()nnl.y Roml and City wtrecl, Deficiency 5111-veys," ap- pearill, ill the 8(mate .tourlla.l of the, 1957 Regular Session for Al-wit 4, 1957, eommencin;{ oil Irl;;e 1613 Ihereol'. (d) The a1111111al rel►ol-Is oil (-()fluty road deficiencies shall he pi-cllalre(d in alceonhilve \61,11 I.he inslrucl.ions, I'ornls, and slalldalyds contained ill the Public Works (euide adopted by flip, Comay Engitwers Association and a1prove(d by the lloatrd of .Directol.s of the (1olam.y Hupervisors Assooiat.ion of fol'llla. J. W.'VICKREV - GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA •I .;RO RT B. BRADFORD STATE HIGHWAY ENGINEER I ,+'• DIRECTOR STATE OF CALIFORNIA Bepartment of Public gorks SACRAMENTO DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS October 5, 1959 PLEASE ` RTC61{. PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING FILE H •` OCT P..O.Box 1109 `" 1959 SACRAMENTO! G. All City of Hudngfon CITY CLERK L City Council ;^ .. ' City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: The responsibilities of the Department of Public Works, Division of Highways, and cities and. counties in connection with the legislative intent of Senate Concurrent Resolution No . 62 were outlined in considerable detail to all the interested city and county officials by Mr. McCoy's letter of August 19, 1959• The Advisory Committee appointedunder the authority .of Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 62 and the Department have held two ,point meetings to develop the methodology, controls, and procedures necessary to initiate the work on Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 62,. After extensive study, research, review, and consideration of all the many factors involved., the neces- sary criteria and forms have been agreed upon by the Advisory Committee and. adopted. by the Department for use by the cities and. counties in the development of the reports of the estimated deficiencies for the study and. analysis of the Department . The Department is required. to submit a report not later than August 1, 1960, on the subject matter of Senate Concurrent Resolution No . 62, to the app,ropr-iat,,e» Legislative Committee. In order to meet this report date it is ces a y tM-tithe city and. county deficiency reports be available to the Division-,of Highways in Sacramento not ,.7..•5.,.� � — s F later than May 1, 1960. For this reason it° is; therefore, expedient—that'—fk"F" 'cit es and. count ies"'initiiate fhei� deficiency study work at the earliest possible date. The District offices of the. Division of Highways have been supplied. with reproducible forms and. instructions, and within a few days will distribute a supply of these forms and data to the cities and counties . w -2- Representatives from Planning Survey, Federal Aid Secondary, and City and Co-operative Projects Departments in Sacramento and representatives from the District office will be available to participate in any area meetings which may be scheduled. in connection with this study. These representatives will be prepared to discuss the study and. answer any questions that may develop . The State Division of. Highways Districts will cooperate and. district personnel will participate in this study-: in a technical capacity, and also carry out field. reviews of the existing deficiencies with authorities of the local agencies to the extent that time and, availability of qualified. personnel will permit . . This Senate Concurrent Resolution No . 62 study provides another ideal opportunity to utilize and further improve the excellent cooperative and. coordinated, working procedures which were developed. and, which were so effective in completing recent state-wid.e studies . t . Sincerely, J.Cjte!�Hig�hwayy V C Engineer 04 EDMUND G. BROWN J. C. WOMACK i, .f - GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA ROBERT S. BRADFORD STATE HIGHWAY ENGINEER DIRECTOR STATE OF CALIFORNIA Department of PubUt works SACRAMENTO DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS September 6 196o PLEASE REPER TO , PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING PILE NO. P.O.BOX 1490 SACRAMENTO 7 City Council City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: Enclosed is a report of city street and county road deficiencies prepared by the Department of Public Works, Division of Highways, in accordance with the provisions of Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 62 adopted by the Legislature at its 1959 session. The deficiency report received from the city was audited and no material changes were considered necessary to obtain uniform application of standards and instructions. The Department appreciates very much the great amount of work and effort required in compiling this report, and the co-operation extended to the Division of Highways by city representatives during the course of the study. Sincerely, J: C. H0MACK S ate ihway Engineer Attachment City of Laguna Beach LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF CITY HALL ED H. BEAVER 05 FOREST AVENUE CITY CLERK AND FINANCE OFFICER March 6, 1957 MENU ONE: HYATT 4-1124 mAp 8 1957 Huffiflen Beach CITY CLEM The Honorable City Council City of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: Enclosed is a certified copy of Resolution No. 1557 of the City Council of Laguna Beach approving the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways and recommending study by State highway authorities of a coastal highway routing which will by-pass Laguna Beach. This resolution is sent to you for your information on instructions of the City Council of Laguna Beach. Very truly yours , ED. H. BEAVER City Clerk Encl . A RESOLUTION NO. 1557 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH APPROVING THE ORANGE COUNTY MASTER PLAN OF ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS AND RECOMMENDING STUDY BY STATE HIGHWAY AUTHORITIES OF A PROPOSED ROUTING OF A COASTAL HIGHV,AY SERVING THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH AND OTHER COASTAL COIVMUNITIES AND LOCATED IN SUCH MANNER AS TO BY-PASS AND NOT BISECT THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH. WHEREAS, the County of Grange , after long and careful study, has developed a r:'.aster flan of Arterial Highways for Orange County (attached as -Exhibit "A") and said Plan was, after extensive public review, including review by the City Council of the City of Laguna Beach, adopted by the Grange County Board of Supervisors on May 31 , 1956; and WTMREAS, ncluded on said Plan are various suggested "Supple- mentary or Alt rnate Routes" designated by ,dotted lines , one of which shows a proposed coastal highway routing inland of the present Coast Highway 101-A from the vicinity of Seal Beach to the vicinity of Dana Point ; and WHEREAS, an early official determination as to the final loca- tion of said coastal highway is of paramount concern to the City of Laguna Beach and to other coastal communities in that planning and development of residential , commercial and recreational areas is having to be curtailed pending such determination; and WHEREAS, it is of paramount importance to the future develop- ment of the City of Laguna Beach that the proposed coastal highway routing be so located as to by-pass and not bisect the present territory of the City of Laguna Beach and those areas adjacent to her boundaries which are within her sphere of influence and likely to become a part of City territory in the reasonably foreseeable future ; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Laguna Beach: . . (1) Subject to the condition that the location of the said supplementary or alternate coastal highway route is such as to by- pass and not bisect the City of Laguna Deach and its reasonably anticipated growth area, endorses and approves the I:Taster Plan of Arterial highways as adopted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors May 31 , 1956; (2) Hereby recommends to the State Division of highways and to the State Highway Commission approval in principal of immediate engineering studies of the proposed routing of a coastal highway as shown by dotted line on said 11aster Plan for the following reasons : ( a) The entire planning and development of the present beachfront area and of the entire City adjacent to the existing Highway 101-A in particular are dependent upon the early loca- tion and development of a new and more suitable routing of the coast highway so as to by-pass and not bisect the City and the area of its anticipated growth; (b) The City of Laguna Beach- Plaster Plan of Streets and Highways is currently being studied by a planning consultant firm and may be revised and its adoption is inseparably linked to the ultimate location of the coastal highway; (c) Economy of construction and ease of traffic flow would both appear to be served by the adoption of a proposed coastal route which will by-pass and not bisect the said City and its area of anticipated growth, in comparison to widening and further development of existing Kighway 101-A with conse- quent high cost of land acquisition, destruction of valuable business, beach recreational facilities and properties, and further concentration of traffic in already congested areas ; (d) It is publicly known that the State Division of Highways is taking preliminary steps to improve traffic flow at the locations where the existing Highway 101-A intersects the City of Laguna Beach. The planning and designing and rerouting of the new coastal highway so as to by-pass the City and its area of anticipated growth is of ultimate impor- tance to the development of the entire Laguna Beach area; (e) The proposed rerouting so as to by-pass and not bisect the City of Laguna Beach has the official approval and endorsement of the Laguna Beach Chamber of Commerce and is of interest to local communities and property owners throughout the entire Laguna Beach district . BE IT RESOLVED, that certified cb-,6ies Of this Resolution be transmitted to the State 117ighway Commission, the State Division of Highways District Engineer, the State Division of Beaches and Parks , the Grange County Board of Supervisors , the Orange County Planning Commission, the Grange County Road Commissioner, the City of Newport Beach, the City of Costa Lesa, the City of 111untington Beach, the Irvine Company, the Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce, the Laguna Beach City Planning Commission, the Chamber. of Commerce of the City of Laguna Beach and the City' s Planning Consultants . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Laguna Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6th day of February, 1957. JESSE E. RIDDLE Mayor ATTEST: ED. H. BEAVER City Clerk I , ED. H.. BEAVER, City Clerk of the City of Laguna Beach, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Laguna Deach held on the 6th day of February, 1957, by the following vote , to wit : AYES : Councilmen �Jlharton, Riddle and Gunn. NOES: Councilmen, None. ABSENT: Councilmen, None. ED. H. BEAVER (SEAL) City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE Ss CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH) I , ED. H. BEAVER, City Clerk of the City of Laguna Beach, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full , true, and correct copy of Resolution No. 1557 , passed and adopted by the City Council of Laguna Beach, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on February 6, 1957. IN WITNESS WHEREOF I hereunto set my hand and affix the official seal of the City of Laguna Beach, California, this 7th day of February, 1957. yy 77 City Clerk of the City of Laguna Beach, California 2 e /PUE NJ�a/�.l i��LS / ,/i�2 7.i.`� 1 •%� \) ��N�Q / �\r /�-// , I`I r AMENDMENTS 71 6 9 LA PLANNING BOARD OE y1 COMW5510N 5UDF4JISOR$ - �° �, `o CERTIFICATIONS P4 44 ( ' BCEA �1 j \o coNma COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION s- 1f P� 4 S .._...r.. :':::::_::; _'PUCEN iN 2 e '`✓ nr.\ • ,,LP 1 �; T�/J'4YM�*� PA4X :.�' 'S'•. °uccr.°;.°a••\ ♦ f�� � %• Oxu.(,E—(ApIIiGIw�xG CLW iSIO /?/ 1 `' `��� % � •iiFSt: na 6f 4 1?i ("N r��-- ra..cc auTr n.aiw`m:�isio� BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ........ r ........., �` - ;.DAIRY CfTY� �''1 I � — n 1 r.•�` `d•� � � y` '� \.�' /QJ� Rez :n.Gape low:t B°v°c+n5uar.ivra ll\ t( _^/ ..\` a A' - __—_ max,i — •�_• .� _ �.� 1 '� �---•�f!t �� 1 �� J� \ �� u•*n�� _ .j j� � �..- •�/ ,/t F4 �� � '+r\ ! I�' ��-J n a.KtCUti.Burn C+Slc[r:.uoa t • _ / �•o r I � r-9 f � ?r .rrzsr: L.e..uurF. mxir WA f SEAL N�c� w .. 1 • l ' i• .rc i T ` q •11, a Go I Ap •�° �c� 1 ( tJ�`-+. �'�V() �(,' J //� � �_J Rua �. ---- /COSTA I z - ^ °a�i-� `+q, . , Y . .i.' \' }' E ^,S� ! •`� , kI I �.v--I 1 t _, �,_/"`'C` ! i , % �•.a,.:., ,yip ' _ O NEWPORT BEACNY r .. -�/ •^ o C LAGUNA BEACu fr/ J • j // LEGEND L yJ� A ' � ti��'/ / ,.1 //��, � � .-� / 1I� ` �J� •A �}. COUNTY ARTE2IAL NIGuVJdYS q •i5• ./� '�I !.�' AMva.v �V(�./ ` : ,I�11 I` MAJ04 4YSECO�A4Y —� SAN JUAV �� \•- —- ,/'\ { •: I.•X.',w4A's::v:trt a.vyy p uPLSTRA:m `� � 4AiE :REEWAYS 1 o e T L. "^ � � � ,.�•^�. «.400;.0 N \ ! ROITES By STATE WG"Av COy,,= 1 J o DRDPOSED T'STAiF AAA STLR. PLAN °� S,� �r � d DArtSgN or:CuwAY3 •SUGGESTED 20L'TCS SUPPLEMENTARY OY 1LTERNATi 'kl e c� A kTERIAL HIGHWAYS � �UYP JSSFPa 4;NDLETCN SAN CLEMENT[ .�t' NAVAL 4FSE ZOT ION / EXHIBIT F ORANGE CALIFORNIA ,►A I I` COUNTY O ,,.., �' PREPANED IN THE CIF,E OF THE GRANGE COONTT FtiANNING .EB I.. ity of Xewport BedC California R tCVVEAfAR O ;y .; s957 Of y° �,�ton �, cirY C(ER�h March 14, 1957 City of Huntington Beach Civic Center Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: Enclosed is a copy of a resolution adopted by the Citizens ' Advisory Committee on Capital Improvements of the City of Newport Beach on the 4th day of March, 1957 . Said resolution was received by the Council of the City of Newport Beach on March 11 , 1957 , and copies thereof were directed by the Council to be sent to the addressees mentioned in said resolution. Yours very truly, Margery Sc rouder City Clerk - Treasurer City of Newport Beach MS;e Enc. CITIZENS'- ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON CAPITAL..IMPROVEMENTS March 4, 1957 RESOLUTION URGING STATE HIGHWAY AUTHORITIES TO EXPEDITE ENGINEERING SURVEYS AND EARLY ADOPTION OF A ROUTE FOR THE PROPOSED COASTAL FREEWAY IN ORANGE COUNTY. WHEREAS, the County of Orange, after long and careful study, has developed a Master Plan of Arterial Highways for Orange County and said plan was, after extensive public review, adopted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors on May 31, 1956 and by the City Council of Newport Beach on October 22, 1956; and WHEREAS, included on said plan are various suggested "supplementary or alternate routes" designated by dotted lines, one of which shows a proposed Coastal Freeway routing inland of the present Coast Highway 101A from the vicinity of Seal Beach to the vicinity of Dana Point; and WHEREAS, an early official determination as to the final location of said Coastal Freeway is of paramount concern to the City of Newport Beach and to other coastal communities in that planning and development of residential, commercial, and recreational areas necessarily is being curtailed pending such determination; and WHEREAS, cooperative action by the County of Orange, coastal communities, and other interested groups is leading to a presentation before the State Highway Commission in Sacramento on March 21, 1957 of the urgent need for an early determination of said Coastal Freeway route; and WHEREAS, a Citizens' Advisory Committee on Capital .Improvements, appointed by the City Council of Newport Beach and broadly representative of areas and interests throughout this city, has considered the need for a Coastal Freeway and is aware of its urgency; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Citizens ' Advisory Committee on Capital Improvements of the City of Newport Beach: 1. Hereby urges and recommends to the State Division of Highways and to the State Highway Commission approval in principle of an immediate engineering study and early adoption of a route for a Coastal Freeway as suggested by the dotted line on said Master Plan, for the follow- ing reasons: (a) The entire planning and development of the present Newport Harbor area and of the Upper Bay area in particular are depen- dent upon the early location and development of a new and more suitable routing of the Coastal Freeway. (b) The City of Newport Beach Master Plan of Streets & Highways is currently being revised, and its readoption is inseparably coupled to the ultimate location of the Coastal Freeway. (c) Economy of construction and ease of traffic flow would both appear to be served by adoption of the proposed Coastal Route, in comparison to a widening and further development of the existing Highway 101A with the consequent high cost of land acquisition, destruction of valuable business and recrea- tional properties, and further concentration of traffic in already congested areas. (d) Sections of the proposed Coastal Freeway route over land owned by the Irvine Company have been preliminarily engineered by the Irvine Company, and its willingness to deed rights-of-way for the proposed routing has been made known to the State Division of Highways. (e) It is known that the present highway bridge across Upper New- port Bay is inadequate and must in the near future be replaced It is obvious that the planning and future development of the Upper Bay depends on the type and ultimate location of a new bridge. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Resolution be transmitted to the City Council of the City of Newport Beach with the request that copies be sent to the State Highway Commission, the State Division of Highways District Engineer. the State Division of Beaches & Parks, the Orange County Board of Supervisors, the Orange County Planning Commission, the Orange County Road Commissioner, the City of Huntington Beach, the City of Costa Mesa, the City of Laguna Beach, the Irvine Company, the Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce, the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission, and to the City's planning consultant, Hahn, Wise Associates. The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the Citizens ' Advisory Committee on Capital Improvements of the City of Newport Beach at a general meeting thereof held on the 4th day of March, 1957. J. Leslie Steffensen General Chairman $ _W THE IRVINE COMPANY Post Office Box 37 - Tustin - California March 20, 1957 Honorable Board of Supervisors Santa Ana, California Attn: Heinz Kaiser Gentlemen: You have requested, from this Company, a letter confirming verbal statements by certain of its officers in connection with pro- posed realignment of Coast Highway (Alt. Highway 101) through a portion of our coastal property. We will attempt below to set forth in general our proposal in connection with the granting of rights of way in the event the California State Highway Commission would adopt this alignment and agree to build all or substantial porticns thereof within approximately 5 years, or other mutually agreed schedule. • We would give, without monetary consideration, a right of way for Freeway construction, approximately 200 feet in viidth and as re- quired outside of this easement, necessary slope and fill rights. Certain underpasses and road interchanges at definite points would have to be agreed upon. In view of the fact that we do not desire to suggest the alignment affecting other property owners Westerly, we prefer to, in this letter, to start at the point of the proposed Marine Avenue interchange, proceeding thence southeasterly along present alignment to a point approximately at the present Irvine Coast Country Club entrance; thence in a general easterly direction following the general alignment of the canyon to intersection with present Mac- Arthur Boulevard; thence following an alignment northeasterly of the Newport Reservoir and thence at an elevatio:z of apprm-,imately 400 feet to the vicinity of Laguna Canyon. * It is our further proposition that existing U. S. Highway 101-A, not included in the preceding description, be conveyed to local high- way authority to approximately Crystal Cove. We would like to provide from this point southeasterly that present alignment be ultimately abandoned and permit proper relocation from Crystal Cove to the vicinity of Abalone Point or our Cameo Cove subdivision. It is our opinion that this area could be better served and better developed if this portion of the highway could be relocated. - 30 - Hon. Board of Supervisors March 20, 1957 Page 2 t A matter of this magnitude haradled by letter must of necessity be along general lines and details would, of course, have to be covered in a later agreement covering matters of interchanges, underpasses, frontage roads, existing easements and general title rights. By frontage roads we particularly refer to extension of existing frontage roads in Irvine Terrace and Irvine Coast Country Club areas. Yours very truly, THE IRVINE COMPANY By /s/ W. B. Hellis W. B. 13ellis, Manager .o WBH:fp - 31 - PETITION FOR ROUTE, STUDY ' ORANGE COAST FRE'EVSAY s A Petition for FREEWAY ROUTE STUDY for a COASTAL FREEWAY IN ORANGE COUNTY Presented to the CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY COMMISSION Prepared by the Orange County Road Department and the Orange County Planning Commission March 25, 1957 I N D E X Page Petition 1 Map of Proposed Coast Freeway 3 Resolution, Orange County Board of Supervisors 4 Resolution, City of Seal Beach 6 Resolution, City of Huntington Beach 9 Resolution, City of Costa Mesa 13 Resolution, City of Newport Beach 15 Resolution, City of Laguna Beach 19 Resolution, Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce 23 Resolution, Citizens' Advisory Committee of Newport Beach 26 Resolution, Metropolitan Transportation Engineering Board 29 Letter from Irvine Company, dated March 20, 1957 30 A. S. KOCH L. McCONVILLE COUNTY SURVEYOR AND ASST. ROAD COMMISSIONER ROAD COMMISSIONER .. ❑. VINEYARD TELEPHONE: (DmE A ® Upmmge DEPUTY COUNTY SURVEYOR KIMaERLY 7-3311 1EXT. 292] ���jjfffJJJJ OFFICE OF P. N. HOOD COUNTY SURVEYOR BUSINESS MANAGER AND ROAD COMMISSIONER COURT HOUSE ANNEX SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA March 25, 1957 California Highway Commission P. O. Box 1499 Sacramento 7, California Gentlemen: On December 11, 1956, the Board of Supervisors of Orange County directed the Road Commissioner and the Planning Commissioner of Orange County to assemble the pertinent data to present the enclosed petition to the State Highway Commission. This petition is a request to your honorable commission that it direct the State Highway Engineer to conduct a study of a freeway route through the coastal area of Orange County. We believe that these data presented herewith are sufficient arguments to warrant such a study. It is therefore respectfully requested that you take favorable action upon this request. Yours very truly, A. S. KOCH County Surveyor & Road Commissioner HARRY E. BERGH Planning Director - - - SAFETY DAYS - ON THE JOB; IN THE HOME; ON THE HIGHWAYS - - - � M PETITION FOR ROUTE STUDY ORANGE COAST FREE VAY It is the consensus of opinion in Orange County that the existing Pacific Coast Highway must be ultimately supplanted by an alternate highway route constructed to freeway standards in order to best serve the traffic needs of the vicinity for the future. It is the object of this petition to present this opinion to the California State Highway Commission and to outline the reasons therefor. This presentation consists primarily of a recapitulation of the thoughts presented in the resolutions enclosed and which are a part of this presentation. These resolutions are from the following organizations: 1. Orange County Board of Supervisors 2. City of Seal Beach 3. City of Huntington Beach 4. City of Costa Mesa 5. City of Newport Beach 6. City of Laguna Beach 7. Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce 8. Citizens Advisory Committee of Newport Beach 9. Metropolitan Transportation :engineering Board The unanimity of community opinion is best expressed in these official resolutions. A review of these resolutions will convince the commission that the proposal made herein has the complete endorse- ment of the community. The petition presented to your chairman contains certified copies of all the resolutions mentioned. All other copies of this petition are in mimeograph form. The beach areas available to the public for recreation along the Pacific Coast are limited; consequently, it is of utmost importance to the State of California as a whole that these facilities, he properly planned and developed as part of our rapidly expanding economy. Access to this recreational area is most certainly one of the basic planning needs of interest to all the people of Califom ia. The ultimate value to the public of these beaches will undoubtedly depend upon the access- ability of such facilities. It is our belief that freeway access will be the only ultimate solution to the traffic needs for the beach areas. Present highways are greatly overloaded; and it must be recognized that further development of the present highway route would undoubtedly be uneconomical. Consequently, except for minor interim improvements, an ultimate plan for freeway access appears to be of paramount importance, as so called "surface" highways would be entirely inade- quate in the future. The location of proper access facilities to all developments is a most basic consideration. All planning in the community is now some- what curtailed by the conviction of the necessity for freeway planning. This is affecting all levels of planning at the State level, County and City level. The development of State, County and City beaches and parks must be coordinated with access planning. Commercial and - 1 - residential developments on all levels of community jurisdiction must necessarily be affected by the ultimate location of the major arterial routes through the area. The communities of Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa, Newport Beach and Laguna Beach are all in the process of reviewing their master plans for streets and highway developments. The location of a freeway through these communities will affect their planning for local streets. It is the firm belief of all the Coastal communities that when the commission considers the adoption of a freeway route through this area, that all future improvements could be more economically planned by working this routing into the over- all community plans. It has long been recognized in the State of California that it is of utmost importance to preserve future rights of way for freeway development in order to effect a maximum possible savings in the interest of the general public. This State Highway policy is also true in the development of one of California's most important recreational areas. In addition to these thoughts, we are able to present the fact to the commission that the early consideration of a freeway route through this area will make it possible for the State to obtain approxi- mately twenty five percent of the necessary right of way free of charge. This fact :is established by a letter enclosure from the Irvine Company confirming this statement. Such an offer could not be reasonably held open indefinitely as the Irvine Company must by necessity proceed with their plans of development on an orderly basis. As with the community in general, the area owned by the Irvine Company must continue to develop logically, and it can only best be done by sound planning. It is therefore respectfully requested by Orange County that the State Highway Commission direct the State Highway Engineer to initiate and conduct a study for route adoption purposes of a freeway routing as an alternate for the present Pacific Coast Highway (Highway 101-A) through Orange County. - 2 - RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA March 12, 1957 On motion of Supervisor Kaiser, duly seconded and carried, the following Resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, it is the considered opinion of this Board that the existing Pacific Coast Highway must ultimately be supplanted by an alternate route constructed to freeway standards in order to best serve the traffic generated in the vicinity of the Pacific Coast, both in Los Angeles and in Orange Counties; and VvHEREAS, it is considered that it is of the utmost importance to preserve the future rights of way for freeway development in order to effect the maximum savings possible for the general public; and WHEREAS, it is considered consistent with good community planning to determine the final location of freeway routes at as early a date as possible in order that the community may develop around such planning; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board does hereby request that the State Highway Commission direct the State Highway Engineer to initiate and conduct a study for route adoption purposes of a freeway routing as an alternate for the present Pacific Coast Highway (Highway 101-A), starting at at the San Diego Freeway in the vicinity of Dana Point in Orange County as a southern terminus to the Los Angeles County line on the north end. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that certified copies of this Resolution be transmitted to the State Highway Commission, the State Highway engineer, and the State Highway District Engineer - District VII. AYES: SUPERVISORS HEINZ KAISER, WILLIAM J. PHILLIPS, C. M. FEATHERLY, W M. H. HIRSTEIN AND WILLIS H. WARNER NOES: SUPERVISORS NONE ABSENT: SUPERVISORS NONE - 4 - 0 90 STATE OF CALIFORNIA } ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I. L. B. WALLACE, County Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the said Board at a regular meeting thereof held on the 12th day of March, 1957, and passed by a unanimous vote of said Board. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 12th day of March, 1957. L. B. WALLACE County Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange county, California By /s/ Mabel L. Casteix Deputy 5 - RESOLUTION NO. 952 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING THE ORANGE COUNTY MASTER PLAN OF ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS AND RECOMMENDING STUDY BY STk TE HIG—V"VAY AUTHORITIES OF A PROPOSED ROUTING OF A COASTAL HIGHWAY SERVING THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AND OTHER COASTAL COMMUNITIES. WHEREAS, The County of Orange, after a long and careful study has developed a master plan of arterial highways for Orange County and said plan was after extensive public review adopted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors on May 31, 1956: and WHEREAS, said master plan shows a coastal highway as a supple- mental or alternate route inland of the present Coast Highway 101a-A from Seal Beach to Dana Point: and WHEREAS, an early official determination as to the final location of said coastal highway is of paramount concern to the City of Seal Beach and other coastal communities: NOW, THEREF()R E, the City Council of the City of Seal Beach does resolve as follows: SECTION 1: The master plan of arterial highways as adopted by the Orange; County Board of Supervisors on May 31, 1956 is hereby endorsed and approved. SECTION 2: The City Council does hereby recommend to the State Division of highways and to the State Highway Commission approval in principle and immediate engineering study of the proposed route of a coastal highway as shown on said master plan. SECTION 3: The City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach shall certify the passage and adoption of this resolution by the City Council of the City of Seal Beach and shall cause three copies of the same to be transmitted to the Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange to be presented by them to - 6 - the State Highway Commission. PASSED, APPI,CVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Seal Beach held on the 5th day of March, 1957, by the following votes AYES: Councilmen Tanere, Moss, Flanagan, Spencer, Calvo NOES: Councilmen None ABSENT: Councilmen None Paul Calvo MAYCR OF THE CITY F 'SEALE CH ATTEST: /s/ F. W. Hickman CITY CLERK _ 7 _ f so STATE OF CALIFCRNIA. } COUNTY CF GRANGE ) SS CITY OF SEAL BEACH ) I, F. W. HICKMAN, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach and ex- officio clerk of the City Council, do hereby certify that the above and fore-going Resolution was introduced, passed, approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Seal Beach at a -regular meeting thereof held on the 5th day of March, 1957, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen Tancre, Ross, Flanagan Spencer, Calvo NOES: Councilmen Tone NOES: Councilmen None /s/ F. W. Hickman CITY CLERK _ ,g. _ V q RESOLUTION NO. 1301 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ORANGE COUNTY MASTER PLAN OF ARTERIAL HIGH-WAYS AND RECOM- MENDING STUDY BY STATE i=iIG_1'V/AY AUTHORITIES OF A PROPOSED ROUTING OF A COASTAL HIGHWAY SERVING THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AND OTHER COASTAL, COMMUNITIES. WHEREAS, the County of Orange after long and careful study has developed a Master Plan of Arterial Highways for Orange County (attached as Exhibit "A") and said plan was after extensive public review, including review by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, adopted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors on May 31, 1956; and WHEREAS, included on said plan are various suggested "supple- mentary or alternate routes" designated by dotted lines, one of which shows a proposed coastal highway routing inland of the present Coast Highway 101A from the vicinity of Seal Beach to the vicinity of Dana Point; and WHEREAS, an early official determination as to the final location of said coastal highway is of paramount concern to the City of Huntington Beach and to other coastal communities in that planning and development of residential, commercial and recreational areas is having to be curtailed pending such determination; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach: 1. Endorses and approves the Master Plan of Arterial Highways as adopted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors May 31, 1956. 2. Hereby recommends to the State Division of Highways and to the State I-Iighway Commission approval in principle, and - 9 - to q immediate engineering study of the proposed routing of a coastal highway as shown by dotted line on said Master Plan, for the following reasons: (1) The entire planning and development of the present beach front area and of the easterly area of the City adjacent to the existing Highway 101A in particular are dependent upon the early location and development of a new and more suitable routing of the coastal highway. (2) The City of Huntington Beach Master Plan of Streets and Highways is currently being studied by a Planning Consultant firm and maybe revised and its readoption is inseparably linked to the ultimate location of the coastal highway. (3) Economy of construction and ease of traffoc flow would both appear to be served by adoption of the proposed coastal route, in comparison to widening and further develop- ment of the existing Highway 101A with consequent high cost of land acquisition, destruction of valuable business, beach recreational facilities and properties, and further concentra- tion of traffic in already congested areas. (4) It is publicly known that the State Division of Highways is taking preliminary steps to improve traffic flow at the intersection of Highway 101A and Highway #39 in this City. The planning and design of such improvements will have a major effect on (a) the opportunity for needed inland expansion of the Huntington Beach State Park and (b) the ultimate routing of a new coast highway, and should be based on a prior decision as to such routing. - 10 - (5) The proposed routing has the official approval and endorsement of the Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce and is of :interest to communities and property owners through- out its length. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that certified copies of this Resolution be transmitted to the State Highway Commission, the State Division of Highways District Engineer, the State Division of Beaches and Parks, the Orange County Board of Supervisors, the Orange County Planning Com- mission, the,Orange County Road Commissioner, the City of Newport Beach, the City of Costa Mesa, the City of Laguna Beach, the Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce, the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission, the City of Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce, and to the City's Planning Consultant, Hahn, Wise and Associates. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Hunting- ton Beach, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21st day of January, 1957. VICTOR TERRY Mayor ATTEST: JOHN L. HENRICKSEN City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) County of Orange ) ss City of Huntington Beach ) I, JOHN L. HENRICKSEN, the duly elected, qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is five; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative - 11 - vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21st day of January, 1957, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Lockett, Bryant, Irby, Bartlett, Terry. NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: None John L. Henricksen City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT IS A CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL ON FILE IN THIS OFFICE ATTEST January 24, 1957 s/ John L. Henric'ksen City Clerk and Ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California By Deputy - 12 - RESOLUTION NO. 336 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA ENDORSING AND APPROVINIG, IN PRINCIPLE, THE MA STER, PLAN OF ARTERIAL HIGHFRAYS AS ADOPTED BY THE ORANGE, COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. WHEREAS, a Master Plan of Arterial Highways for Orange County has been developed and adopted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors; and WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa is vitally interested in the expansion and improvement of arterial highways within the County and particularly interested in the development of the Coast Highway from the vicinity of Seal Beach to Dana Point; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa does endorse and approve, in principle, the Master Plan of Arterial Highways as adopted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors on May 31, 1956; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the State Division of Highways and the State Highway Commission, be, and they are hereby, urged to initiate engineering study of the proposed development of a coastal highway in order that a decision may be reached to the advantage of all the coastal communities of Orange County; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that certified copies of this Resolution be transmitted to the State Highway Commission, the State Division of Highways District Engineer, the State Division of Beaches and Parks, the Orange County Board of Supervisors, the Orange County Planning Commission, the Orange County Road Commissioner, the City of Huntington Beach, the City of Newport Beach, the City of Laguna Beach, the Irvine Company, the Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce, the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission, and to the City's planning consultant, Welton Beckett and Associates. 13 - f r t PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 4th day of March, 1957 C. M. NELSON Mayor of the City of Costa Mesa ATTEST: /s/ A. C. Swartz City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa By /s/ C. K. Pruit Deputy STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss I, A. C. SWARTZ, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 336 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4th day of March, 1957. /s/ A. C. SWARTZ, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa By /s/ C. K. PRUIT Deputy DATED: March 5, 1957 - 14 - r f RESOLUTION NO. 4559 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ORANGE COUNTY MASTER PLAN OF ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS AND RECOMMENDING STUDY BY STATE HIGHWAY AUTHORITIES OF A PROPOSED ROUTING OF A COASTAL HIGHWAY SERVING THE CITY OF NEW PORT BEACH AND OTHER COASTAL COMMUNITIES. WHEREAS, the County of Orange after long and careful study has developed a Master Plan of Arterial Highways for Orange County (attached as Exhibit "A") and said plan was after extensive public review, including review by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, adopted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors on May 31, 1956; and WHEREAS, included on said plan are various suggested "supplementary or alternate routes" designated by dotted lines, one of which shows a proposed coastal highway routing inland of the present Coast Highway 101A from the vicinity of Seal Beach to the vicinity of Dana Point; and WHEREAS, an early official determination as to the final location of said coastal highway is of paramount concern to the City of Newport Beach and to other coastal communities in that planning and development of residential, commercial and recreational areas is having to be curtailed pending such determination; NO1h , THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach: 1. Endorses and approves the Master Plan of Arterial Highways as adopted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors May 31, 1956. 2. Hereby recommends to the State Division of Highways and to the State Highway Commission approval in principle, and immediate engineering study of the proposed routing of a coastal - 15 - highway as shown by dotted line on said Master Plan, for the following reasons: (1) The entire planning and development of the present Newport Harbor area and of the Upper Bay area in particular are dependent upon the early location and develop- ment of a new and more suitable routing of the coastal highway. (2) The City of Newport Beach Master Plan of Streets and Highways is currently being revised and its readoption is inseparably linked to the ultimate location of the coastal highway. (3) economy of construction and ease of traffic flow would both appear to be served by adoption of the proposed coastal route, in comparison to widening and further development of the existing Highway 101A with consequent high cost of land acquisition, destruction of valuable business and recre ational properties, and further concentration of traffic in already congested areas. (4) It is publicly known that the State Division of Highways is taking preliminary steps to improve traffic flow at the inter- section of Highway 101A and Highway 39 in the City of Huntington Beach. The planning and design of such improve- ments will have a major effect on (a) the opportunity for needed inland expansion of the Huntington Beach State Park and (b) the ultimate routing of a new coast highway, and should be based on a prior decision as to such routing. (5) Sections of the proposed coastal route over land owned by the Irvine Company have been preliminarily engineered by 16• - the Irvine Company, and its willingness to deed right-of- way for the proposed routing has been made known to the Division of Highways. (6) It is known that the present highway bridge across Upper Newport Bay is inadequate and must in the near future be replaced. It is obvious that the planning and future develop- ment of the Upper Bay depends on the type and ultimate location of a new bridge. (7) The proposed routing has the official approval and endorsement of the Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce and is of interest to communities and property owners throughout its length. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that certified copies of this Resolution be transmitted to the State Highway Commission, the State Division of Highways District Engineer, the State Division of Beaches & Parks, the Orange County Board of Supervisors, the Orange County Planning Commission, the Orange County Road Commissioner, the City of Huntington Beach, the City of Costa Mesa, the City of Laguna Beach, the Irvine Company, the Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce, the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission, and to the City's planning consultant, Hahn, ilise & Associates. The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 22nd day of uctober, 1956, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCILMEN: Hart, Vililley MacKay, Stoddard, Higbie, Ridderhof, ,dill - 17 - NOES, COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT, COUNCILMEN: None ATTEST: Margery Schrouder City Clerk Dora O. Hill Mayor 18 RESOLUTION NO. 1557 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH APPROVING THE ORANGE COUNTY MASTER PLAN OF ARTERIAL HIGHVvAYS AND RECOM- MENDING STUDY BY STATE HIGHVvAY AUTHORITIES GF A PROPOSED ROUTING OF A COASTAL HIGHWAY SERVING THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH AND OTHER COASTAL COMMUNITIES AND LOCATED IN SUCH MANNER AS TO BY-PASS AND NOT BISECT THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH. WHEREAS, the County of Orange, after long and careful study, has developed a Master Plan of Arterial Highways for Orange County (attached as Exhibit "A") and said Plan was, after extensive public review, including review by the City Council of the City of Laguna Beach, adopted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors on May 31, 1956; and WHEREAS, included on said Plan are various suggested "Supple- mentary or Alternate Routes" designated by dotted lines, one of which shows a proposed coastal highway routing inland of the present Coast Highway 101-A from the vicinity of Seal Beach to the vicinity of Dana Point; and WHEREAS, an early official determination as to the final location of said coastal highway is of paramount concern to the City of Laguna Beach and to other coastal communities in that planning and development of residential, commercial and recreational areas is having to be curtailed pending such determination; and WHEREAS, it is of paramount importance to the future development of the City of Laguna Beach that the proposed coastal highway routing be so located as to by-pass and not bisect the present territory of the City of Laguna Beach and those areas adjacent to her boundaries which are within her sphere of influence and likely to become a part of City territory in the reasonably foreseeable future: 1.9 - NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Laguna Beach: (1) Subject to the condition that the location of the said supplementary or alternate coastal highway route is such as to bypass and not bisect the City of Laguna Beach and its reasonably anticipated growth area, endorses and approves the Master Plan of Arterial Highways as adopted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors May 31, 1956; (2) Hereby recommends to the State Division of Highways and to the State Highway Commission approval in principal of immediate engineering studies of the proposed routing of a coastal highway as shown by dotted line on said Master Plan for the following reasons: (a) The entire planning and development of the present beach- front area and of the entire City adjacent to the existing highway 101-A in particular are dependent upon the early location and development of a new and more suitable routing of the coast highway so as to by-pass and not bisect the City and the area of its anticipated growth; (b) The City of Laguna Beach Master Plan of Streets and Highways is currently being studied by a planning consultant firm and may be revised and its adoption is inseparably linked to the ultimate location of the coastal highway; (c) Economy of construction and ease of traffic flow would both appear to be served by the adoption of a proposed coastal route which will by-pass and not bisect the said City and its area of anticipated growth, in comparison to widening and further development of existing Highway 101-A with consequent - 20 - high cost of land acquisition, destruction of valuable business, beach recreational facilities and properties, and further concentra- tion of traffic in already congested areas; (d) It is publicly known that the State Division of Highways is taking preliminary steps to improve traffic flow at the locations where the existing Highway 101-A intersects the City of Laguna Beach. The planning and designing and rerouting of the new coastal highway so as to by-pass the City and its area of anticipated growth is of ultimate importance to the development of the entire Laguna Beach area; (e) The proposed rerouting so as to by-pass and not bisect the City of Laguna Beach has the official approval and endorse- ment of the Laguna Beach Chamber of Commerce and is of interest to local communities and property owners throughout the entire Laguna Beach district. BE IT RESOLVED, that certified copies of this Resolution be transmitted to the State Highway Commission, the State Division of Highways District Engineer, the State Division of Beaches and Parks, the Orange County Board of Supervisors, the Orange County Planning Com- mission, the Orange County Road Commissioner, the City of Newport Beach, the City of Costa Mesa, the City of Huntington Beach, the Irvine Company, the Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce, the Laguna Beach City Planning Commission, the Chamber of Commerce of the City of Laguna Beach and the City's Planning Consultants. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Laguna Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6th day of February, 1957. J.ESSE E. RIDDLE Mayor _21 _ ATTEST: ED H. BEAVER City Clerk I, ED. H. BEAVER, City Clerk of the City of Laguna Beach, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Laguna Beach held on the 6th day of February, 1957, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Councilmen Wharton, Riddle and Gunn. NOES: Councilmen, None. ABSENT: Councilmen, None. ED H. BEAVER City Clerk (SEAL) STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH ) I, ED. H. BEAVER, City Clerk of the City of Laguna Beach, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of Resolution No. 1557, passed and adopted by the City Council of Laguna Beach, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on February 6, 1957. IN WITNESS :%4rHEREOF I hereunto set my hand and affix the official seal of the City of Laguna Beach, California, this 7th day of February, 1957. /s/ E. H. Beaver City Clerk of the City of Laguna Beach, California (SEAL) - 22 - HUNTINGTON BEACH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE RESOLUTION NO. 412 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ORANGE COUNTY MASTER PLAN OF ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS AND RECOMMENDING STUDY BY STATE HIGHWAY AUTHORITIES OF A PROPOSED ROUTING OF A COASTAL IHIGHWAY SERVING THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AND OTHER COASTAL COMMUNITIES. WHEREAS, the County of Orange after long and careful study has developed a Master Plan of Arterial Highways for Orange County and said plan was after extensive public review, including review by the Board of Directors of the Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce, adopted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors on May 31, 1956; and WHEREAS, included on said plan are various suggested "Supplement- ary or alternate routes" designated by dotted lines, one of which shows a proposed coastal highway routing inland of the present Coast Highway 101A from the vicinity of Seal Beach to the vicinity of Dana Point; and WHEREAS, an early official determination as to the final location of said coastal highway is of paramount concern to the City of Huntington Beach and to other coastal communities in that planning and development of residential, commercial and recreational areas is having to be curtailed pending such determination; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce: 1. Endorses and approves the Master Plan of Arterial Highways as adopted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors May 31, 1956. 2. Hereby recommends to the State Division of Highways and to the State Highway Commission approval in principle, and immediate engineering study of the proposed routing of a coastal highway as shown by dotted line on said Master Plan, for the following reasons: %3 - r (1) The entire planning and development of the present beach front area and of the easterly area of the City adjacent to the existing Highway 101A in particular are dependent upon the early location and development of a new and more suitable routing of the coastal highway. (2) The City of Huntington Beach Master Plan of Streets and Highways is currently being studied by a Planning Consultant firm and may be revised and its re-adoption is inseparably linked to the ultimate location of the coastal highway. (3) Economy of construction and ease of traffic flow would both appear to be served by adoption of the proposed coastal route, in comparison to widening and further development of the existing Highway 101A with consequent high cost of land acquisi- tion, destruction of valuable business, beach recreational facilities and properties, and further concentration of traffic in already congested areas. (4) It is publicly known that the State Division of Highways is taking preliminary steps to improve traffic flow at the intersection of Highway 101A and Highway #39 in this City. The planning and design of such improvements will have a major effect on: (a) The development of this City's 47 acre tract located - Ocean Ave 101A and State Highway #39 and (b) The opportunity for needed inland expansion of the Huntin- ton Beach State Park and (c) the ultimate routing of a new coast highway, and should be based on a prior decision as to such routing. - 24 - t, (5) The proposed routing has the official approval and endorse- ment of the Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors and is of interest to communities and property owners • throughout its length. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: that certified copies of this Resolution be transmitted to the State Highway Commission, the State Division of Highways District Engineer, the State Division of Beaches and Parks, the Orange County Board of Supervisors, the Orange County Planning Commission, the Orange County Road Commissioner, the City of Newport Beach, the City of Costa Mesa, the City of Laguna Beach, the City of Seal Beach, the Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce, the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission, the City Huntington Beach, and to the City's Planning Consultant, Hahn, Wise and Associates. The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the Board of Directors of the Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce at a regular meeting thereof held March 11, 1957, /s/ W. L. Schryer W. L. Schryer, President ATTEST: /s/ William Gallienne William Gallienne, Secretary-Manager - 25 - t, CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS March 4, 1957 RESOLUTION URGING STATE HIGH4iiAY AUTHORITIES TO EXPEDITE ENGINEERING SURVEYS AND EARLY ADOPTION OF A ROUTE FOR THE PROPOSED COASTAL FREEWAY IN ORANGE COUNTY. WHEREAS, the County of Orange, after long and careful study, has developed a Master Plan of Arterial Highways for Orange County and said plan was, after extensive public review, adopted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors on May 31, 1956 and by the City Council of Newport Beach on October 22, 1956; and WHEREAS, included on said plan are various suggested "supplementary or alternate routes" designated by dotted lines, one of which shows a proposed Coastal Freeway routing inland of the present Coast Highway 101A from the vicinity of Seal Beach to the vicinity of Dana Point; and WHEREAS, an early official determination as to the final location of said Coastal Freeway is of paramount concern to the City of Newport Beach and to other coastal communities in that planning and development of resi- dential, commercial, and recreational areas necessarily is being curtailed pending such determination; and WHEREAS, cooperative action by the County of Orange, coastal com- munities, and other interested groups is leading to a presentation before the State Highway Commission in Sacramento on March 21, 1957,of the urgent need for an early determination of said Coastal Freeway route; and WHEREAS, a Citizens' Advisory Committee on Capital Improvements, appointed by the City Council of Newport Beach and broadly representative of areas and interests throughout this city, has considered the need for a Coastal Freeway and is aware of its urgency; - 26 - f NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Citizens" Advisory Committee on Capital Improvements of the City of Newport Beach: 1. Hereby urges and recommends to the State Division of Highways and to the State Highway Commission approval in principle of • an immediate engineering study and early adoption of a route for a Coastal Freeway as suggested by the dotted line on said Master Plan, for the following reasons: (a) The entire planning and development of the present Newport Harbor area and of the Upper Bay area in particular are dependent upon the early location and development of a new and more suitable routing of the Coastal Freeway. (b) The City of Newport Beach Master Plan of Streets & Highways is currently being revised, and its readoption is inseparably coupled to the ultimate location of the Coastal Freeway. (c) Economy of construction and ease of traffic flow would both appear to be served by adoption of the proposed Coastal Route, in comparison to a widening and further development of the existing Highway 101A with the consequent high cost of land acquisition, destruction of valuable business and recreational properties, and further concentration of traffic in already congested areas. (d) Sections of the proposed Coastal Freeway route over land owned by the Irvine Company have been preliminarily engineered by the Irvine Company, and its willingness to deed rights-of-way for the proposed routing has been made known to the State Division of Highways. - 27 - t (e) It is known that the present highway bridge across Upper Newport Bay is inadequate and must in the near future be replaced. It is obvious that the planning and future develop- ment of the Upper Bay depends on the type and ultimate location of a new bridge. a BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Resolution be transmitted to the City Council of the City of Newport Beach with the request that copies be sent to the State Highway Commission, the State Division of Highways District Engineer, the State Division of Beaches & Parks, the Orange County Board of Supervisors, the Orange County Planning Commission, the Orange County Road Commissioner, the City of Huntington Beach, the City of Costa Mesa, the City of Laguna Beach, the Irvine Company, the Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce, the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission, and to the ' City's planning consultant, Hahn, Wise & Associates. The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the Citizens' Advisory Committee on Capital Improvements of the City of Newport Beach at a general meeting thereof held on the 4th day of March, 1957. J. Leslie Steffensen General Chairman - 28 - METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING BOARD A RESOLUTION requesting a study of the proposed PACIFIC COAST FREEWAY WHEREAS, it is the considered opinion of this Board that the existing Pacific Coast Highway must ultimately be supplanted by an alternate route constructed to freeway standards in order to best serve the traffic generated in the vicinity of the Pacific Coast in both Los Angeles and Orange Counties; and WHEREAS, it is considered that it is of the utmost importance to preserve the future rights of way for freeway develop- ment in order to effect the maximum savings possible for the general public; and WHEREAS, It is considered consistent with good community planning to determine the final location of freeway routes at as early a date as possible in order that the community may develop around such planning, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Metropolitan Transportation Engineering Board does hereby request that the State Highway Commission direct the State Highway Engineer to initiate and conduct a study, for route adoption purposes, of a freeway routing as an alternate for the present Pacific Coast Highway (State Highway 101-A), starting at the San Diego Freeway in the vicinity of Dana Point in Orange County as a southerly terminus to the Los Angeles County Line on the northerly end, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that certified copies of this resolution be transmitted to the State Highway Commission, the State Highway Engineer, the State Highway District Engineer-District VII, the Los Angeles Metropolitan Traffic Association, Boards of Supervisors and Road Commissioners of Los Angeles and Orange Counties, and any other interested jurisdictions. Unanimously ADOPTED by the Metropolitan Transportation Engineering Board at a regular meeting on February 27, 1957. (Si ned) `Halter R. Lindersmith WR oor na or - 29 - HOTEL GLAREMGNT BERKELEY 5 League f CaliforniaCitiesT If O R N 6N A L L 3 3 S' Jllember Imenca,; City" Offeial Pub I 4,10 S T A T l F R U N T E R �N 1- / , S AN6ELES 17 Berkeley, California - July 10, 195 R � IGAN *9 3 a To: Mayors, City Attorneys, City Engineers, City Pi g and City Clerks in Non-manager Cities. Subject: Freeway location procedures. Freeway location controversies have been a source of concern ;�ss�ac t� `officials. Similarly, this problem has been' of continuing interest and co a Dogrd of Directors of the League. During the past several years League representatives have met on different occasions with top officials of the Department of Public Works and with the State Highway Commission in an effort to work out a more satisfactory procedure for determining freeway locations. The League Board of Directors in 19S7 authorized the appointment of a committee of mayors which met with the State Highway Commission do December 18, 1957 to discuss the matter. The Mayors' Committee on Freeway Locations with Mayor Ted Meriam of Chico as chair- man urged the Highway Commission to revise its procedure relative to adoption of freeway locations. A revised procedure was adopted by the commission on February 26, 1958 which incorporated recommendations made by the mayors' committee. At its last meeting the Board of Directors of the League recommended that a bulletin be sent to all cities outlining the revised freeway location procedure. Attached is the complete text of the resolution adopted by the California Highway Commission. Briefly, the revised freeway route adoption procedure provides: (1) at the initia- tion of studies for a possible freeway, and from time to time after the studies start, the state highway engineers will confer with local governing bodies and their technical staffs regarding the location of the proposed freeway; (2) when sufficient information has been accumulated to permit intelligent discussion, the State Highway Engineer will hold meetings to acquaint the public with and to obtain views on the studies made and information developed; (3) the State Highway Engineer will submit a report to the Highway Commission covering the results of the conferences and meetings, the relationship between all proposed locations and any local master plans and a rec- ommendation as to the location of the freeway; (4) the Highway Commission will con- bider the location of the freeway and will hold a public hearing on it if the local legislative body requests such a hearing; (5) the Highway Commission will adopt a location for the freeway. The entire spirit and purpose of the revised freeway route adoption procedure is in- ,ended to provide additional guarantees that local views will be fully heard and :arefully considered before any conclusions or recommendations as to specific routes are made. It is the intention of the Highway Commission to provide for frequent con- sultation between local officials and state highway officials from the time freeway route studies are initiated through all phases to the time of adoption of a route by the Commission. It is believed that the revised freeway route adoption procedure will establish better and earlier communications t] t en state and local officials and that it will facilitate a more orderly developmentxb?"the state's freeway system. :nn addition to the new freeway route adoption policy there is attached a resume of the principal sections of the Streets and Highways Code which pertain to freeways and affect cities. Gordon R, Forrest, Field Representative 799 A G R E E X E N T The City of Huntington Beach, a body politic and a municipal corporation of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as "CITY", and the State of California, Department of Public 'forks, Division of Highways, hereinafter referred to as "STATE", do enter into the following agreement: WHEREAS, the State and City contemplate installa- tion of full-traffic-actuated traffic control signal system and highway lighting at the intersection of Brookhurst Street with State Highway Route VII-Ora-60-HntB (Pacific Coast Highway), within the City of Huntington Beach, and WHEREAS, said parties desire to provide herein for the Maintenance functions that are to be performed by the parties hereto and to specify the proportionate share of the costs that are to be borne by City and State; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLdW'Ss SECTION I For and in consideration of the covenants and conditions to be kept and performed by Clay as set forth herein, State agrees: (a) To furnish traffic control signal system and highway lighting hereinbefore mentioned, through construction by contracts with construction contractors licensed by the -1- yr Mate of California, said contracts to be carried out in accordance with provisions of the State Contract Act, Chapter 3, fart 5. Division 3, Title 2 of the government Code, and to be completed in conformity with plans and specifications of the State of California, Department of Public Works, Division of Highways. (b) To bear entire expense of preparation of plans and specifications, and the State's share of expense of the construction engineering, inspection and construction costs to complete the traffic control signal system and highway Lighting, referred to herein, such share to be a, sum bearing the same proportion to the total cost of installation of traffic signals and highway lighting as the number of highways under jurisdiction of State which may enter the intersection involved bears to the total number of highways entering such intersection. (c) To maintain and operate the entire traffic control signal system and highway lighting an constructed. SECTION II For and in consideration of the covenants and conditions to be kept and performed by State as set forth in this agreement, City agrees: (a) To reimburse State promptly upon rendition of statement therefor, City's share of expense of the construction engineering, inspection and construction costs, to complete the traffic control signal system and highway lighting referred to herein, such share to be a sum bearing the same proportion to the total cost of installation of traffic signals and highway lighting as the number of highways under jurisdiction of City which may enter the intersection involved bears to the total number of highways entering such intersection. (b) It is estimated that the cost of the City's share is oo.00, however, the actual amount to be determined after award and completion of the construction contract. (a) To reimburse State for its proportionate share of the cost of general maintenance and operation of said traffic control signal system and highway lighting, in accordance with the terms of that certain agreement for maintenance of Mate highways within the City of Huntington Beach, effective July 1, 1950s and sub- sequent amendments thereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed by their respective officers, duly authorized, by the City, this _ day of � 195 , and by the States this day of 195�- DEPA RTMT OF FDIC WORKS Acting through the Division of Highways State of California:. G. T. McCOY State Highway Engineer by Deputy State Highway Engineer CITY OIL HiJNTINGTON BEACH by Mayor by City Clerk r"y 1 RESOLUTION OV i)M BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF 2 ORAWE COUNWp CALIFORNIA 3 NoTeMber 18, i,$ 4 On motion cf Supervisor Phillipap duly seconded and carried, the 5 following Resolution was adopted: 6 WHE ASO on October l4, 1959s this Board of Supervisors duly posed 7 and adopted Its Resolution of Intention to change the name of certain 8 portions of Highway 39 ( ntlx ton Beach Boulevard) In OrarW County 9 territory to Beach Boulevard and certain portions of Fullerton Road .in 10 Orange County territory to Harbor Boulevard,# and. 11 WSM AS, by said Resolution* the 18th day of Novembers 1959, at 12 11 s 00 o'clock A.M. was fixed as the date for a hearing to consider the 13 proposal to change portion of the of said streets, and 14 WHWUW, noticed of said hearing was given in the mar as p►ro- 15 vl.ded by law, and 16 WWWYAS, on the 18th day of November, 1959* at 11 t 00 o t clock A.X. 17 said matter came on for hearing and no Objections were made to said 18 proposal. 19 WWj, T`.R Ft ` , IT ZS ORDW= AS FOTJ.XNSt 20 That those portions of HighwW 39 (Huntington Beach Boulevard) 21 hereinafter designated, In Orange County territory, be changed to Beet 22 Boulevard and those por'tiOnS Of Fullerton, Road hereinafter designated, 23 in Orange County territory# be ehwWed to Harbor Boulevard; that be- 241 ginning in the Fullerton-1& Habra area and progressing in a, southerly 25 direction,, these changes are as fort 26 Change State Higbww to Beach Boulevard 27 1. From Ocean Avenue south to lb er'ial Highway 28 2. Prom south La Habra city limits stuthwe sterly to the fiction with Poster Roe in. Los Angeles doufty 29 stud the Grange County line 30 3• From the junotion with Alicante Road on the Los 31 Angeles County line southwesterly to the Junction with l.r4cftel.d Avenue on the Los Angeles County line 32 'Pesol.utior, No. 59-1261 1. 1 . From a point approximately 800 feet south of dos Coyotes eve southwesterly to its intersection 2 with grant Avenue 35. Prom Chapnan Avenue south to Garden Grove Boulevard 4 6. Prom Hazard Avenue south to smeltzer Avenue 5Change Fullerton Road to Harbor Boulevard 6 1. From the north Orange County line south to ` ittl er Boulevard 7 2. Prom a point approximately 2W feet south of Kerner 8 Way south to La Habra avenue extended 9 3. Prom a point approximately 800 feet south of Superior Avenue south to Grace Avenue extended 10 . Prom a point approximately 4!iO feet south of Imperial 11 Highway south to Banequet Avenue extended 12 5. Prom Shoemaker Avenue extended south to Las Palmas Drive 13 15 NOES: SUPERVISORS NONE 16 ENT: SUPERVISORS NOITE 17 STATE OF CA IFORN A 18 COWN OF ORANGE 19 1, L.B. WPJ.JAC , County Clerk and ex-of'flcio Clerk of the Board 20 of 3upervisors, of Orange County, California.. hereby certify that the 21 above and foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the 22 said Board at a regular eta. thereof held on the 18tb day of 23 November,, 1959, and passed by a unanimous mous vote of said Board. 241 IN WrMSS WW.PMFv i have hereunto set my hand and seal this 18th 25 day of November,, 1959. 26 L.L. "WALLACE 27 county, Clerk and ex-off olo CIerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange 28 Countys California 29 B 30 Deputy 31 32 I I i January 7, 1960 strata Highway Commission state of California RE: Highway Agreement Publics 'forks Bldg, relating to Route 60 Sacramento, California Freeway Centlemene Enclosed herewith a certified copy of Resolution No, 1403 relating to subject freeway agreement, f We respectfully request that the Resolution be placed on the .Agenda for the next regular meeting of the Commission. t f Very truly yours, J. L. Henricksen City Clerk J :lk Encl, ea: Mr. L. fit, Gillis Dist. Engr. . Div. of Highways 2 3 4 A W1630LUMN OF TIRE QUY Covlflkil'il OF Tla CITY OF HUNTU(nolf ASAM USGINDINIG PRESWAY AMU* UM UL&TIsa To ROU1% 40 FRRNWAY* 6 BS IT RESOLVED by the City Oouaoil of UL6 it of 7 yjUntingt9a 2040h# California# ae folloWe. 8 WRER"at the Oity of Runt iAston Bea0h feel$ that. its 9 boat Jjiterosts are not belaig considere4 azd will not be 10 served %W the oonatraotion of a portion of a freeway t4- 11 tween the S=ta Ana River arA first Stroot in the Oity of 12 fhmtingten -AoAohj arA 13 UERW41 Us prozent ro0e adoptod at the insistande 14 of the Division of XighwVs# precludes &coos& and egross 15 fr*IML tbo hioljv doalrable boaohfront reareatioml areas; 16 and 17 WIMAgAaf ongineertat studiall of the iv ion of Bl&- 18 Waye have not oh own definitell thair recommendations for 19 the flual ralignmout of a freeway roate parallel to the 20 coast 1$ae and have not ostablIshed a freeway rout* on or 21 parallel to State Sign Roa ; sAd 22 iWE'l Sp the proposed subject. freeway in oompleteI7 23 lsolaW from the existing freeway eXates in Qrarwge County 24 and is to a logical extension of =,y exiating or propoead 25 freowayt and 26 WAZREAL�j the conatmation of the subjeat freeway will 27 not now.# nor In the future# serve the best intereats of 28 the people of the alit.Y of canting-to n BeaOUt nor the users 29 1 Res* So* 140 2 of the beaoh area; 3 4 NOW TUROOSS BX IT RRUBY A X OL �Z that the City COU40ilof the City of lluatln&ton Beach hereby rescind 5 6Ufsir adtion of JaAuavy 1 %h# 1 * approving the adopt. 7 Rio. of Us tr"wqagreement relatiAg to Route 60 fro&ay 8 M the State of a if xn # tough the 9 Departzent of Publia Works# Dlylo-ion of lighwayal oAd 10 DR T PURTHM.AZZOLUD that the OltV Comoil of the 11 fifty of AmUr4ton lloaoh tworoby requesto that# the State i 12 l h W `ml*ai*u *r4or the Division of Ulghways to 13Ousipend her activity " thia projoot. 14 PASSES AND AVOPTSD by to Olt ° Uounoil of tho Olt 15 at Huntington # l € rn $, at a regular ` 16 t T#Of 'hold on the &JAI day of P-g o . # 17 18 19 <_,�,;, O ;. 20 21 22 ATTZST s 23 24 " , 25 i ty 26 27 28 29 2 . 1 r o* -1403 2 3. 4 STATE GNIA of Orango as 5 city Huntington beaehl 6 7 8 1'* JO * HB X * the duly eleotad# qualified 9 0ity Clerk of the City of Huntington . aft 10 3* 00undil of said a ' '- 11 do hero'by aertify that tho wholO numbar of memberoo 12 U 0Y 0011n0il Of the City 01 HUUtingtonBeadh is fiVe; 13that the a r resolution was passed 444 adopted by 14 Ltho affirmtive vote of more th= a m4ority of all the 15 mealmrs of said gity Council at a regular -meetlng t1wroof 16 beld on tho LIgI a gr"o 19 # by Vie following 17 VO't*r 18 AYZ54 couaOilmext 19 "Abaci 3:4 E 21 22 ABSENT 23 arry 24 25 it, Clem and ex-ofti0io Clerk o 26 the 01.°t,'�'` O FF of the Git of 27 aun in t o California 28 ° 29 3 . i it 1 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF 2 ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 3 February 9, 1960 4 On motion of Supervisor Hirstein, duly seconded and carried, S the following Resolution was adopted: 6 WHEREAS, Article 2 and 3 of Chapter 9 , Division 2 of the Streets 7 and Highways Code authorize a county if it so desires to expend funds 8 apportioned to it out of the California Highway Users Tax Fund for aid 9 to the cities in the improvement, construction, or repair of a street 10 within a city, and 11 WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Supervisors and the Orange 12 County League of Cities have agreed upon a cooperative financial pro- 13 gram for the establishment, construction and maintenance of a County 14 Arterial Highway System known as the Arterial Highway Financing J z r 15 Program, and onn 211 16 WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has, by appropriate action, 6�_ Oo0 17, provided in the budget of the Special Road Improvement Fund for the u 18 Fiscal Year 1960-61 funds for the improvement of streets within the 19 incorporated cities of the County, which streets are a part of the 20 County 's Master Plan of Arterial Highways , and 21 WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has given consideration to' the 22 recommendations made by the Advisory Committee established under the 23 policies of the Arterial Highway Financing Program. 24 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors 25 hereby establishes as the tentative Fiscal Program for the Fiscal 26 Year 1960-61 under the Arterial Highway Financing Program the follow- 27 ing additional projects : 28 PRIORITY PROJECT ALLOCATION 29 42 . Harbor Boulevard Westminster to Chapman $125,000.00 30 43 . Westminster Avenue 31 Highway 39 to Hoover 29,256 .00 32 Resolution No. 60-123 1. 1 PRIORITY PIWJECT ALLOCATION 2 44. West Commonwealth Underpass 30,000.00 3 45. Orangethorpe Avenue Harbor to West City Limits 40,000.00 4 46. Dover Drive 5 8001 S/Westcliff - Pacific Coast 32*625.00 Highway 6 47. Bolsa Avenue Harbor to 0001 W/Maxine 630000.00 7 48. Knott Avenue 8 La Palma to Artesia 75,500.00 9 49. East Street 10 Riverside Freeway to La Palma 5,300.00 50. North Nicolas Lowering 11 NIly Malvern 20,000.00 12 51. Edinger Street Santa Ana River to Center Street 66,500.00 13 52. Fifth Street 141 Harbor to Santa Ana River 64,850.00 ZZ 15 53. Magnolia Street oog Crescent to Lincoln 21, 700.00 pu 16 `''e" OZz 54. La Palma .Avenue Oo 0 17 , Western to Beach 120 000.00 u 18 55. Chapman Avenue 7001 W/Dale to Stanton 7, 700.00, 19 _ 56. Magnolia Street 20 Santa Ana Freeway to La Palma 9,000.00 21 57. Magnolia Street 22 Larson to Garden Grove Blvd. 50,500.00 58. Miller Street 23 Trinidad Way to Artesia 19,500.00 24 59. Ball Road 25 13001 E/Dale to Stanton 14,000.00 _ 60. Knott Avenue 28, Ball to South City Limits 8,500.00 27I 61. Grand Avenue 28 McFadden to Delhi 383,500.00 62. Cerritos Avenue 29 Knott to Yana Drive 27,800.00 30 63. Hazard Avenue Goldenwest to Huntington Beach 212000.00 31 64. Wintersburg Avenue 32 Newhope to Santa Ana River 27,280.00 2. I PRIORITY PROJECT ALLOCATION 2 65. Bastanchury Road Malvern to Nicolas 45,000.00 3 66. Bastanchury Road 4 Harbor to Brea 892000.00 5 67. Dale Street Artesia to Malvern 46,500.00 6 68. Fairview Street 7 Delhi to Segerstrom 123,000.00 g 69. Fairview Street McFadden to 1st Street 52,000.00 9 70. Miller Street Y0 Cerritos to Orange 120500.00 11 71. Fairview Street 5th Street to Westminster 51,000.00 12 72., Segerstrom 280000.00 131 141 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the attention of each City Council ,ZZ 13i is hereby directed to the agreement between the County of Orange and °uu the Orange County League of Cities that certain conditions must be 00 uVm i 0;0 17I met prior to July 1, 1960, in order for the above tentative allocations 1BI to become a commitment on the part of the County. Further, that the 19 Advisory Committee to the Arterial Highway Financing Program must 20 receive documentary evidence of compliance with the following three 21 basic terms of the original agreement: 22 1. Mutually satisfactory Master Plan of Highways must be 11 231 approved. 24 2. Satisfactory uniform setback lines must be established by 25 ordinance in conjunction with the Arterial Highway System. 26 3. Provisions for the limitation of vehicular access to the 27 Arterial Highway System must be a matter of policy or ordinance. 28 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Road Commissioner be and 29 he is hereby instructed to distribute this Resolution to all cities in 30 the County of Orange and to proceed under the officially adopted pro- 31 cedures of the Arterial Highway Financing Program with the preparation 32 of the necessary agreements to execute the program, with the 3. 1 understanding that such agreements cannot be finalized until both 2 parties to the agreement are qualified under the above conditions. 3 AYES : SUPERVISORS Wm. H. HIRSTEIN, WILLIS H. WARNER, C. M. NELSON AND C. M. FEATHERLY 4 NOES: SUPERVISORS NONE 5 ABSENT: SUPERVISORS WILLIAM J. PHILLIPS 6 7 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. 8 COUNTY OF ORANGE ) 9 I, L. B. WALLACE, County Clerk and ex-offici,o Clerk of the Board 10 of Supervisors of Orange County, California, hereby certify .that 11 the above and foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by 12 the said Board at a regular meeting thereof held on the 9th day of 13 February, 1960, and passed by a unanimous vote of said Board members 14,11 1 1 present. z IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this N woo zZ 15 LLF= IS jj 9 th day of February, 1960. 0° 171 L. B. WALLACE County Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of 18 the Board of Supervisors of Orange 19 i� County, California 20 By Deputy 21 22 23 i 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 , 32 4. = BILL Lopy PLEASE MARE.CHECK STATE OF CALIFORNIA PAYABLE TO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS BILL .DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS Mail Check to _ SHOW-BML NUMBER BOX 2.304 No. ON REMITTANCE TeRMINAL Ar:NEx 41428-D7 LOS ANGELES 54. CALIFORNIA CITY OF HUXTINGTON BEACH � June 10, 60 ' DATE �I��'' FALL � ]--------------------------------------- -195, HVNTINGTON BEACH?, CALIFORNIA FORM A-263-B EST.8497.6697E 12-57 20M SPO Maintain traffic signals and lights at 1.ntersoetions vi thin the city for the period Jul; 1, 1959 to June 30, 19602 per detail attached. 72.64 'a 12 months 871.6 Adjustments 103-37 Extraordinary Maintenance $1,231.76 Adjust charges ,for the entire fiscal year 1958-1959 from o stimated $40,00 per month for sign4l maiiateriance to actual 4xperience rate of 435.7064, a decreavre of �4..2936 or 10.734,$• Signal .charges - 12 months 639..96 10-73 of 639.96 68.69 cj 01,163.07 . y y DMSION OF HIGHWAYS 41428-D7 BILL,CONTINUATION 'SHEET BILL N0. BILLED TO CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH SHEET NO. 2 TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINTENANCE 59-60 FISCAL YEAR $ 38,OOPER MONTH PER INSTALLATION And INTERSECTION LIGHTING AS BILLED - Item Monthly No, Route Location Installation Folio Unit City Share 1 ORL-60 PAC. COAST HNY Main Street Act. Signal 33-30-7500 38,00 1/3 12.67 2 , ORA-171 HUNTINGTON BEACH BLVD.- Wain-Ellis * " 33-246-1500 " 1/2 19,00 3-20L MV 33-19-312 14078 7,39 3 Nintersburg Act. Signal 33-226-1540 38.00 1/2 19.00 2-20Z MV 33-19-313 10,08 5,04 4 17th St. & Garfield 2-20r MV 33-19-490 15,90 3/5 9.54 5 ORL-60 PAC. COAST HWY (Oa 11-6-59) SU ADJ. Aot. Signal / 33-80-3520 38.00 1/4 t� pp 3-20a MV • $3-19-201 14.78 SaF.T TOTAL £ 72*64 y 4142$D7 Sheet No, 3 0IT�r OF I3�JNTINGTON BEACH. vc i11 a ! 3id0 2t 0Rfk-60--HntB PACIFIC CSC' HIGHWAY and Brookhurst '3"2OK t v Folio 33w-19-201 Turned on 11-6-59 . 7-25/-0 Mos x 7� x 1�� =- $28 95 Folio 33-060-3520 Turned on 11-649 7-25/30 0 3 x 38-00 x 1/4 = 074*42 PAGE TOTAL; 103.37 1 ao �_ Davmaslq get unknoum ,VISION OF HIGHWAYS TRAFFIC SIGNAL DEPARTMENT 4 1 4 2 3 1).7 Form A379 Hod (a) MEMORANDUM OF CHARGES TO EXTRAORDINARY MAINTENANCE KEY N0,ILL 0 - LOCATION H.Untl x t "l e elb yand l . -:R l 0 yp[ WORKPERFORMED - k '4 nignal -,,ioJ2 end head replaced., r SUSPENSE E L A B O R E Q U I P M E N T R E N T A L DATE CLASSIFICATION ' : HOURS CHC NO. DESCRIPTION HOURS RATE AMOUNT 332 280 + � .-5 oetTr „.65 , 0 TOTAL .TOTAL . w0 M �tTERIA• LS_ . died OPERATING EXPErSE j DATE RR NO. DESCRIPTION QUANT PRICE AMOUNT fok;wj ,, sa - 00 o i .34 O 00 d. Pt A80,v 20000 1 ` ! '6 OUTSIDE AGENCY PARTICIPATION TOTAL MATERIALS City_ - of TOTAL HRS LABOR X • %C' City/County of TOTAL EQUIPMENT RENTAL City/Counter of TOTAL COST ; t, ; C n i Cit f Funtin to Blea0 , IO . D I S T R I B U T I O N O F C 0 S T a e Count Route Section Percent EXPENSE LABOR E UIPT TOTALS , 35 I t -- DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS . , 142807 TRAFFIC SIGNAL DEPARTMENT Tor% A579 Lind (a) � . MEMORANDUM..OF CHARGES'.TO EXTRAORDINARY MAINTENANCE KEY NO. LOCATION .hint ngt-6A Ba4oh and61 n-� I item, f 0r�.«�:L71-4-1 t w.0. WORK PERFORMED �� , X E . oe - deteetox, pads r SUSPENSE -E LABOR EQUIPMENT RENTAL-: DATE 1CLASSIFICATION HOURS CHC NO. DESCRIPTION HOURSI RATE AMOUNT 1 - Fla etricI4Kn 2. � trol .7 TOTAL TOTAL .� MAkTERIA- LS and OPERATING EXPENSE DATE 'RR NO* DESCRIPTION QUANT PRICE AMOUNT ..$ Detector- Pad., 4- RR OUTSIDE AGENCY PARTICIPATION TOTAL MATERIALS 3, l. O _ Cityla,qp f 86 h TOTAL HRS LABOR X %A0 x .0 City/County of TOTAL EQUIPMENT RENTAL City/Coup of TOTAL COST 15. DISTRIBUTION OF COST Sere Count Route Section/ Percent EXPENSE LABOR E UIPT TOTALS t, s' -- - Ds.VISION OF HIGHWAYS 04,2607 TRAFFIC SIGNAL DEPARTMENT Form 1579 Mod (a) MEMORANDUM OF CHARGES TO EXTRAORDINARY MAINTENANCE KEY NO. 49 . 7 _LOCATION Huntinaton Beath Blvd`...:and tinter ur exa 9, Ora-1 .1-HntB `rJ.O. 60- 3 6-k WORK PERFORMED Rais w d, det�otor pad,. r SUSPENSE E�/M ' L A B 0 R E Q U I P M E N T R E N T A L DATE CLASSIFICATION HOURS CHC NO. DESCRIPTION HOURS RATE AMOUNT 9 0-59 5337 Patrol P_ 75, 11 ,50 I TOTAL j pa, TOTAL0. M -A T E R I A L S clad O P E R A T I N G E X P E N S E DATE IRR NO. DESCRIPTION QUANT PRICE AMOUNT Oct« Detcotor ptd. 61 HR I i OUTSIDE AGENCY PARTICIPATION TOTAL MATERIALS . _ C it y/ftomitzy of Hunti � Lto Beack TOTAL HRS LABOR X '1;_ 0 C1.8 City/County of I TOTAL EQUIPMENT RENTAL City/Counter of i TOTAL COST151 .. ; Ci Cunt of 11 G tv of Hum-tington toe.o'a � ..6 DISTRIBUTION OF COST share County Route Section ' Percent EXPENSE LABOR Kt UUIPT TOTALS Y i r BILL C6py PLEASE MARE CHECK STATE OF CALIFORNIA PAYABLE TO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS BILL DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS Mail Check to 0`.;71- :x.<. .. t 1111`. BOX 2.304 No.� SHOW BILL NUMBER TERMINAL ANNEX 1 ON REMITTANCE LOS ANGELES 54. CALIFORNIA 41324-D7 City of Huntington Beach P. 0. Box 90 May 24, 60 Huntington Beach, California [DATE]----------------_-----_----------_---195-_ Attn: James Wheeler City Engineer FORM A-263-8 EST.8873.70416 2-58 40M V SPO Total costs to the City of Huntington Beach to cover the City' s share of the installation of traffic signals and highway lighting at the intersection of Brookhurst Street with Pacific Coast Highway, VIi-Ora-60-HntB, per agreement No. 799 dated. July 2, 1959. Work was performed under Contract 60-7VC31 and completed November 17, 1959. Amount Due (Detail attached) $4,779.91 f`� COPY DIVISION OF CITY OF � CONTRACT ITEMS STATE ' BEACHES & ?=: R'11L� HUNTINGTON BEACH TOTAL 1-13 Channelization & Widening $ 22,850.45(100%) .$22,850.45 14 Traffic Signal System & Highway Lighting 8,5001:,00�`50%) $ _4,250.00 2595) 4 250.00 25%) 1 000.00 `br'O`�'AL CONTRACT ITEMS 5 78.68%} 250 0 l0.6696)�0 00 10.66%) 9 550 5 EXTRA WORK Haul, Frame & Erect Signs(Prorated) 108.19 14.66 14.66 1 7.51 TOTAL CONTRACT AND EXTRA WORK 3 ,I�j8.54-(78.67%) 4,254.66(lo.67%) 4 56(lo.66%) Depreciation charge on Construction Warning Signs Used While the Contract was in Progress (Prorated) 33.83 4.59 4.58 �-.00 Traffic Signal Paint 13.69 50%) 6.85(25%) 6.85(25%) z7.39 Traffic Line Paint 31.00 101 ) 31.00 Traffic Signal Lights 7.66 50 3.83(25%) 3.83(25%) 15.32 Signs 751.44 100% 751.44 Serv.Agree.#1447410 Pacific Electric R.R. 71.44 10o� 71.44 TOTAL CONTRACT CHARGES 32,367.70(79.08%) 4,279.93(10.46%) 4,279.92(lo.46%) 40,927.55 CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING Materials & Services 327.89 Salaries .& Wages 3,591.46 Equipment Rental 348.51 412bT.Ub 3,375.02 446.42 440a.42 -- 4.,267.86 TOTAL COST OFPROJECT , 2 m 2 s7 7 _ Total Direct Charges to Date: Contributors Prorata 4,726.35 4,726,34 t; 11MDIRECT CHARGES: City of Huntington Beach 12yo of 446.42 = 0.57 53.57 4,779.92 4,779.91 Total Cost to City of Huntington Beach $ 4,779.91 PRG. ,ED RESOLUTION --- COASTAL TRAM RTATION N/S r WHEREAS, it has come to the attention of the Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce that the State Division of Highways apparently intends to create a Pacific Coast Freeway overlaying and utilizing the route of the existing Coast Highway along the coastline in Orange County: and , WHEREAS, such an intent was publicly stated during the hearing at Seal Beach on Aug. 31st by engineer George Hill, and such a routing was displayed on maps of the Division. i THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the NEWPORT HARBOR C.IW01 R OF COMMERCE make it known that it is unequivocally opposed to any plan that would utilize the present alignment of the Coast Highway through Newport Beach as a Freeway for the following reasons; 1. The motoring public would not be served by such a route that would at best furnish only one half use because of its proximity to the See, and Bay. 2. Expense of right of way and improvement would be entirely out of line to any benefits to be obtained. 3. Irreparable loss of valuable land would be caused to the continuing and growing detriment to the City. 4. Location of a Freeway, by its nature intended as a high speed inter city, inter county route, in close proximity to the sea and bay and beach, would generate hazardous driving conditions because of the. nature of the route, scenery, and location. 5. Building of a Freeway along the alignment of the existing Coast Highway would hamper, deter, and preclude the ultimate development of the bays, marinas, parks and beaches for the enjoyment, recreation and benefit of all persons because of the obstruction, hazards, and limitations it would cause. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this association does call to the attention and insistently remind the California Highway Commission, the Division of Highways, and all others to whom these greetings come, that the COU14TY OF ORAidGE did on March 25th, 1957 present to the said Highway Commission in session in Sacramento, a petition for a route 4 F P A GE 2 study of a proposed ORANGE, COAST FREEWAY removed inland from the alignment of the Pacific Coast Highway 101—A (Rte 60A) . The petition for a route study bore with it the approval of all cities of the coastline, this association, and other associations of similar nature, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange, and that such a petition is as important, efficacious, and more wotthy of study and adoption, engin— eering and building today that it was when presented in 1957- BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this association remind the California Division of High— ways and the Highti.ray Commission and the engineers of said agencies that they, the aforementioned agencies, and engineers have over the years contended that it was the principle objective of the Freeway System to move through traffic and such traffic can best be moved by developing a Freeway around the Cities of the coastline, inland from them, rather than bisecting the cities, or fencing the freewgys and cities off from the areas that must be served for local travel, enjoyment and recreation. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: that copies of this resolution be mailed to all members of the Highway Commission and to the Division of Highways, to the Cities of the Orange County Coastline and to the Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange and that said Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange, restore to all maps of Orange County depicting Highways and any plans for future Highways for the proposed Orange Coast Freeway, in the approximate alignment as shown on the maps of 1957 and be made available to any and all other interested parties. Regularly moved, seconded, and adopted by the Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce in regular session assembled, Newport Beach, California.( on September 18, 1961) I - 3 RES OLUT I ON ''°" Sept. 21, 1961 CRAI�,& COUNTY COAST ASSOCIATION � y PROPOSED COAST FREEWAY a WHEREAS the Orange County Coast Association during the past 25 years has been one of the organized, effective sounding boards and voices for the cities and communities of the Coastal area of Orange County, and WHEREAS through the efforts of this association and its members the recommendations proposing the creation of an ORANGE COAST FREEWAY were studied, pursued, and reduced to an approximate definition and alignment on that certain map "Master Plan of Arterial Highways of Orange County" adopted in 1956 by the Board of Supervisors of Orange County; and WHEREAS such map with resolutions of all of the cities and associa- tions of the coastal area and of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange approving such proposal was presented and received by the California Highway Commission on March 25, 1957 when a feasibility study was ordered; and WHEREAS it now appears from revelations verbally made at Seal Beach on August 319 1961, and substantiated by maps displayed that such study has neither been made or undertaken and in fact has been abandoned: NOW THEREFCRE BE IT RESOLVED that the Orange County Coast Association does hereby petition the California State Highway Commission to aban- don any plan for alignment of a Pacific Coast Freeway along the route of the present Coast Highway in Orange County and does further plead that the Commission order a feasibility and engineering study of the Orange Coast Freeway as proposed in the aforementioned study that would by-pass rather than bisect the coastal communities. BE IT FURTHER RES'ULVED that the Orange County Coast Association urge the Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange to restore the dotted line approximating the Orange Coast Freeway to the alignment adopted on the aforementioned map and further instruct its Planning Department and Highway Department and the County's advertising agency representatives to restore this dotted line of approximation to all county maps until such time as a route study and definite alignment shall have been made. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this resolution be forthwith dispatched to the California Highway Commission and its members; to the Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange; to all of the cities and associations of the County of Orange who were signatories to the proposal made and presented to the Highway Commission on March 25, 1956 and to any other interested persons. The undersigned, president and secretary of the Orange County Coast Association do hereby certify that above resolution was moved, seconded and regularly passed at duly noticed, called, and convened meeting of the association at the Irvine Coast Country Club in the City of Newport Beach in the County of Orange, State of California , noon, September 21, 1961. f WA.LTER B e MELLOTT , President o p WILLIAM GALLIENNE, Secretary-Treasurer Talk by Edward T. Telford, Assistant State Highway Engineer, before the Newport Beach i Chamber of Commerce, Balboa Bay Yacht Club, Wednesday, September 27, 1961. THE FREEWAY SYSTEM IN ORANGE COUNTY 7 I have been asked to discuss with you here today the freeway system in Orange County, To do this, I believe it is necessary to i consider the place of the county in a vast metropolitan complex, and the vital needs of your county for an integrated system of motor vehicle transportation which will provide the individual citizen with facility of access and movement within the community and between his community and other communities in the region and in the state. The modern metropolis has evolved in response to the advanc- ing technology of power, production, communication and transportation. Today's patterns of travel and transportation are the collective total of individual response to the demands and to the operation of today's i ! metropolitan community. It is fashionable in certain quarters to present the motor vehicle as a monster, with the citizen as perverse , or irrational because he chooses to make use of the best transportation system available to him. It is, in fact, the only system available to the American citizen today which gives the individual the freedom of choice in the movement of himself and his goods. Some indication of the importance of the freeway system may be gathered from the fact that the inner portion of the Hollywood Freeway carries approximately 210,000 vehicles every 24 hours. Approx- imately the same number use the Harbor Freeway. This means something i more than 300,000 individuals pass a given point in the 24-hour period. In addition, there is a very substantial tonnage of freight moved; and, of course, if you want to get into the capacity to move persons, I i ® 2 we may assume a total of five seats available per vehicle, and you can take it from there. Another interesting point is that in one hour you could move 700 55-passenger buses on a single lane of a freeway, with substantial capacity remaining for other vehicles in the same lane, but you would probably have problems in collecting a capacity load of passengers for each bus, and in distributing them. Extending into Orange County, we find that traffic on the Santa Ana-San Diego Freeway-U.S. 101 ranges from 92,000 at Buena Park' to 25,000 at El Toro Road. -These figures represent average daily traffic for the year 196o0 - In 1939 the Legislature of the State of California established the freeway principle by statute, and authorized the Department to construct any portion of the State Highway System as a freeway, or to make any existing State highway a freeway. The law states: " 'Freeway' means a highway in respect to which the owners of abutting lands have no right or easement of access to or from their abutting lands, or in respect to which such owners have only limited or rem stricted right or easement of access. " In 1959 the Legislature of the State of California enacted Senate Bill 480 establishing the California Freeway and Expressway System.' This came about in response to the demonstrated need for a long-range plan which would provide for a motor vehicle transportation system adequate for the future needs of the State. In this law, provision is made for a freeway system adequate to provide for a doubling in population and motor vehicles between now and 1980, and I i ® 3 a multiplication by three of the annual motor vehicle miles traveled. In addition to the freeway system, there will, of course, be a substantial increase in the total mileage of local streets and roads. This will be a normal development in connection with increased land use, because the ultimate destination of every trip must be on a local road. Senate Bill 480, 1959 Legislature, provides the basic plan for 1500 miles of freeway in Los Angeles, Orange and Ventura Counties. 250 miles of the system will be in Orange County, Present sources of revenue appear adequate to complete most of the system by 1980. On June 30, 1961, 720 miles of freeway routes had been adopted by the California Highway Commission; 67 miles were under construction; and we had completed 101 miles of expressway, together with 219 miles of freeway me all in District VII of the California Division of Highways. Today, with U.S. 101 in operation as a freeway, our thoughts turn to completion of other portions of the freeway system in Orange County. Probably most interesting to this audience is the fact that we at the District VII level are basing our plans on having funds in the next two fiscal years for completion of the following work: 1 - San Diego Freeway southeast to Beach Boulevard. 2 o San Gabriel River Freeway from Garden Grove Freeway to San Bernardino Freeway. 3 ® Garden Grove Freeway from San Diego Freeway to Main Street in Santa Ana, 4 o Widen Santa Ana Freeway -- Anaheim to Santa Ana. i w � ® � o Today the Newport Freeway is under construction between Tustin and the mouth of the Santa Ana Canyon. From Newport to Tustin, planning is well along and it appears that the Airport problem is on its way to solution. This has affected our progress on San Diego and MacArthur as well as Newport Freeway. Other routes such as Brea Canyon, Laguna Canyon, Riverside and Artesia are in the design stage, with some right of way being acquired. There are many other items, smaller but important to traffic. Generally these lie in channelization, signals, etc. on conventional State Highways, I am certain that we are all agreed that it would be helpful if these things could be accomplished at a more rapid rate. There are, however, problems, both planning and fiscal, that tend to limit our progress. For the five-year period July 1, 1958 to June 30, 1963, Orange County°s minimum under the Mayo Amendment is figured at about $67 million, with 100% Mayo at about $103 million. Actually we expect our program to total about $110 million for that five-year period. For the long-range future, we can identify remaining State Highway needs in Orange County in an amount more than $600 million. To meet this, we plan to use a target of $35 million annually for our budget recommendations. �I This is on the basis of prorating the total estimated needs in each county of District VII against the total money expected for the District in each year, and conforms to recent changes in the law. Projects in Orange County will of course be in competition with those i 5 - in other counties. The California Highway Commission must consider the relative importance of all needs when considering the Highway budget for the entire State. At this stage perhaps we should consider some of the side effects of the freeway system. We have an interesting quote from Life Magazine of June 20, 1960: "More important than the Dodgers or civic buildings in giving Los Angeles its new personality are the ribbons of freeway which are gradually tying the city's scattered pieces together. " Horace W. Brower, president of Occidental Life Insurance Company of California, recently made a statement concerning his com- pany's decision relative to its $25,000,000 Occidental Center development: "The new freeway system will make Occidental Center immediately accessible from all sections of Greater Los Angeles -m both by automobile as well as all forms of public transportation. " The Eastland Shopping Center in West Covina was planned to fit the San Bernardino Freeway as then proposed. Walt Disney, in selecting the site for Disneyland, conferred with us as to the Santa Ana Freeway. Bullock's are building a department store adjacent to the Ventura Freeway in the San Fernando Valley. Broadway Department Store planned its Anaheim store with close consideration of our program for completion of the Santa Ana Freeway. The relationship of Fashion Square to existing and planned freeways is surely more than coincidence. 6 Incidentally, at all of these sites the freeway grade is at or above ground level. The advertising value of the display to passing traffic is very large. In E1 Monte, despite fears and controversy, annexation, population and business all increased vigorously after the San Bernardino i Freeway was opened. One development, a 35macre Sears shopping center, represents an initial investment twice as great as the total right of way for the freeway project in El Monte. It may properly be said that the freeway system serves the community by providing capacity for transportation. The economic development depends upon the use made of that capacity. In fact, the freeway provides more transportation capacity per dollar of investment or per acre of land used than any other type of street or highway, .and that capacity is built in and permanent. Now let us consider the Orange County Coast from Seal Beach to San Clemente and inland to include the San Diego Freeway, In this area we expect a population of more than 500,000 by 1980. For the purpose of our discussion it falls into three general sections ®® Seal Beach to Beach Boulevard in Huntington Beach, Beach Boulevard (State Highway Route 171) to southeast of Corona del Mar, and the Laguna-Dana Point portion. In the first sector there are numerous plans under consider- ation for development of small boat facilities and related developments. When these reach a reasonably firm stage we will be in a position to determine what can best be done to meet the long-range needs for transportation along this portion of the coast. The only thing certain 7 at this time is that if we do not connect the San Gabriel River Freeway south to the Pacific Coast Highway, the traffic from north and northwest will overburden East Long Beach and Seal Beach roads. Traffic desire is forecast as an average 70,000 vehicles per day along the coast. In the ,Huntington Beach-Newport sector we have studies under way for a north-south freeway (Route 171) to replace Beach Boulevard in the State Highway System. This will provide coastal connection from the San Diego Freeway and points north. Between Beach Boulevard (Route 171) and Route 43 at the Arches we have a freeway declaration dated September 20, 1955. This action was taken because bait shack development had started and the only protection to the motorist 's investment lay in Acquisition of access rights. Access to the State Beach Park remains unchanged but with prospect of improvement at the two existing lo- cations. Traffic demand is forecast at 81,000 vehicles per day. At the Arches, Pacific Coast Highway connects with Route 43 which was declared a freeway on July 20, 1944. This route connects to the planned San Diego Freeway, to the Santa Ana Freeway and to the Riverside-San Bernardino area via the Santa Ana Canyon. Next along the Pacific Coast Highway we have the existing low level bridge at the entrance to the upper bay, then MacArthur Boulevard at Corona del Mar. MacArthur Boulevard, State Highway Route 184, was declared a freeway July 24, 1940. Within. this area we are working to establish a general plan which will best serve the long-range needs of the area, and be within possibility of accomplishment with funds that may reasonably be anticipated. - 8 - I cannot offer you firm conclusions at this time but I can lay before you some of the considerations as they relate to the numerous alternatives involved. To begin with, developments such as the University of California campus, industrial and recreational; Marine and Air, have led to a population growth forecast of 175% in the next 20 years. As a consequence of all this, traffic forecasts are: San Diego Freeway - Route 158 - 60,000-70,000 vehicles per days Route 171 (Sign Route 39) - 68,000 Route 43 (Newport Freeway) - 70,000 Route 184 m MacArthur - 48,000 Route 185 o Laguna Canyon - 24,000 Obviously the future is demanding action. At the Arches, junction of Route 60 and Route 43, improve- ment requires space and space means moving away from the bay. At the bridge over the entrance to upper bay, the existing structure is nearing the end of its service life and marine traffic needs more clearance. The alternatives for consideration range from lines well inland to lines close to the present road. The inland lines would force traffic from the vicinity of the Balboa Bay Club inland some distance to cross the upper bay on i trips to Balboa or Corona del Mar. One of these lines vigorously j supported by some would extend seven miles through Costa Mesa and the Santa Ana River bottoms diagonally through the planned road net and existing development to Route 171. We are considering a total cost ranging from $60 million to $70 million - obviously we must 090 consider feasible alternatives. Various modifications are obviously possible all moving step by step toward a position close to the present crossing where a line could be developed along the bluff. This could preserve the present business district and the existing highway. Make no mistake about it, however; it would hit somebody, but eventually we must put a high level bridge here where the existing pattern has developed or go up strews with a complete change of pattern. From just northwest of the Arches (Route 43) to Beach Boulevard (Route 171), the existing Pacific Coast Highway (Route 60) can be maintained and expanded step by step as the need develops. Structures at two locations, Brookhurst and Route 171, will separate conflicting traffic movements. Southeast of Newport Bay, the Irvine Company isr planning the long-range development of their property. A startling population and traffic figure. is an inevitable consequence. We anticipate 78,000 vehicles per day between Corona del Mar and Laguna Beach. Laguna Beach, solidly developed, is an area where we can only offer service to the north and northwest. That is Laguna Canyon (Route 185" and Route 60. Route 185 was declared a freeway on November 17, 1954. It will be constructed when funds are available. We are working with the City of Laguna Beach in an effort i to find 'ways of handling more traffic on the existing road. Some years ago most of us felt that the San Diego Freeway would relieve the coast and solve our problem. Whether it was lack of vision or sheer horror doesn't really matter m® the trend of development makes certain that population on the coastal slope between Crystal Cove and Dana Point will need more highway capacity i - 10 than can be furnished without a freeways There is no doubt about it the San Diego Freeway with the Laguna Canyon Freeway will draw much traffic off the coast but that is taken into account in the figure of 70,000 vehicles per day for long-range demand on Route 60. Most of this traffic will have its origin or destination or both on the coastal slope and would not be served by any road back in the hills. In conclusion, the coastal area of Orange County is just beginning to develop and its long-range transportation needs must be met by sound planning. Execution of these plans will depend on money. We are in the process of completing a report on the possible alternatives between Corona del Mar and Huntington Beach, When this has been reviewed by the State Highway Engineer, we will be author- ized to hold a public meeting at which all matters will be reviewed i in detail. If you are interested, copies of this paper with attached charts showing procedure, steps, and time involved in development of a freeway are available. I I I i I ORANGE COUNTY BEACHES Length Area 196o Estimated Pos-sib e Beach Jurisdiction Miles Acres Attendance Daily.Attendance Remarks Bolsa-Chica State 2.5 7 268,980 3,o96 Sunset Beach Countyl 1.18 23 775,478 10,o28 Seal Beach City 1.0 25 599,6o0 10,900 Huntington Beach State 2.0 79 975080 34,444 it it City 1.0 50 2,378,.188 21,800 Corona Del-Mar..; City-State.:.. 0a75. 29- . .. --436 - .. . 12,644 Newport Dunes County 1.0 58 261,0o0 25,288 Maximum attendance 9,074 on 7/24/60 Newport Beach City 5.0 200) 87,200) ) ) Upper Newport Beach City 10.0 600)-- 6,516,386 261,600)-- 5,674,912 estimated Newport Beach City 1 ) first 8 months in-1961 Lower Y 5 4 74o) 322,64o) Santa Ana River County Nomo 2 Not, Available 872 Doheny State O,5 622 71.1,,020 27,032 San Clemente State 1.2 lo93 205,674 47,524 San Clemente City 0.5 14 381,84o 6,104 110,000 reported in 8/61 South Laguna County 0.75 23 Not Available 10,028 Laguna Beach City Oo86 9 6o,5885 3,924 Dana Cove County 0.5 2 Not Available 872 44.14 2,o96 13,570,134 885,996 1. Now a State beach 2. Includes 115 campsites 3. Includes 106 campsites 4. Based on 100 s.f. per person 5. Estimated by Orange County Planning Dept. Total length of shoreline in Orange County - 67.14 miles - including 25.4 miles along Upper and Lower Newport Bay. 23 miles of shoreline under private ownership. ANNUAL ATTENDANCE (1960) Seal Beach Area 196449058 Huntington Beach Area 3,353,568 Newport Beach Area 7,213,386 Laguna Beach Area 1,359,122 ESTIMATED POSSIBLE DAILY ATTENDANCE4 Seal Beach Area 249024 \ Huntington Beach Area 569244 Newport Beach Area 7109244 Laguna Beach Area 959484 Weekend Attendance is 32% - 56/ of weekly attendance Car occupancy - 3.5 - 5.0 persons/car 23 N J, MA.[YE -4-161-GOLDEN STATE I FREEWAY PROGRESS FREEWAY i STATUS or DISTRICT vu Fumy PRDJECrs -23-ANTELOPE VALLEY FREEWAY SUMMARY 1s or AUGUST 15.1961 PwLMOALE ,.�.•FNL... AMr6T[oPt rALItH p HA o1 n ^. i L I CGLG W i rnMEUAE.RrwE p rAc zos vPKar I ooA Aotn.o T1.or9[t• a In I]e cno.A•on.An i .]:e] 1 .0Txu vn ..] ]] u 23 aAxo>� COUNTY °O[.L 111. OAAI 4 e TK:O IfI If 79 HODYROOD ].1. Vf iol [I IJA ,, j <AEx< Lo=.B• xIll .1 FILLMORE If ••[[�AEOL .AxI.A[Ac .] 0]ll VA RT ]] 3r -23-ANTELOPE VALLEY ..N'O.T' w fl f° 2 FREEWAY -157-J•190-FOOTHILL [ o.�eo[ 10e _. 2 un {VENTURA P�ULAL COUNTY 3 FREEWAY M � rinnc tour w :i 11 ¢...157_-� PMAot.A• lef»e a A IEAc 16 HI—A' v]. m[ 138-OfAI ` �FRCEWAYC AN[Mwr vx n III e. ue 13 FREEWAY ;•: 'I�- - o ]e me...,...!^t RAx E[Ax.nmx me :-.-. L..I.-.._..I VENTURA 11 tANTARVEANA i-' """"• IS8 AN .An OHOO• x,IM v]e ]ol 3U MI FERNANDO i"" t1x o4MLL Nv[A If[ mq � M •0'N°s -2.158•SAN DIEGO 4 GOLDE ATE.. -161-COLORADO FREEWAY s•"T••"• ]�"',1ee ']' 1 % FREEWAY :v7 LA :A TA No1¢A• of n .ae ii" FREEWAY 159i w. EL Aa >"""""' E•eT" u •165-20S-PASADENA FREEWAY [LAI* 16' oe t cA..DA ...usox xm _ cAMwEKLo HOLLY WOODS - RBA K 9 onsA•i• n,n fl ]ev -159•FREEWAY (EXT)i fD 4'GLEN ALE SIERRA MONROvIA Y In.1 I) T11 1f�•'W•p , M ' MADRE DUARTE O%NARD .[Wa1MYPAA. • <µ�1" ] 2 I IGI M P SApENA 9 BRADBURY nOVitn n m4 AZ SA TOTAL[ nvl 91e 1.11 ni (1_ HUENEME �q M\ 5AN LENDORA CITY OF IGI \ E. gfl1NO ARCADI _ 190 =rrl<'•L.•[ 161?VENTURA FREEWAY TE PLE CITY 2F159•HOLLY WOOD s 46 PA U M AN ABEMEADB ILDW HE OVINAp`jM AS9 LA CLAREMONT FREEWAY VERNE E BEVERLY OS HAM ONTE PARK 26 26-SAN BERNARDINO .0 LOS ,, Na s GELE 2 ONTEREY UTH mWEST COVIN POMONA FREEWAY [ Is, ;REOLOWRHOrt 16 7.3 4 67PAR EL MONT 17) 77 0 •GO-PACIFIC COAST MONTEBE LO LAPUENTE WALNUT 19 FREEWAY SSAAN�A 17`;9 -CTYVER,165 /C R 72 -77-CORONA [V�RNON OM ERC INDUSTRY G• 2Lyr MAYWOOD �N�ytp WHITTIER 19 FREEWAY 0•17.i-SANTA MONICA FREEWAY - N INGTON BELL R E A •'iR-'- u[ :PA CUDAHY ' -172•POMONA L/ M LEWOOU SOUTH GAT I WN Y SANTA FE '�' FREEWAY 60-MARINA FREEWAY .� 5PRINGS NA RAA v rJ G � • WTHORNE 'LYNWOOD GG U \o -22/-SLAUSON FREEWAY SEELGUNDO } .' WNDAL MIRADw MANNA77TTAN ;C1 5 PA BEL T R FULL R ON TA BEACH pp A' l 5 PA AMOU T N R ALK I •19 1.� O p""=3 HERMOSA A ESIA 175 PL4CENTI W u BEACH LAKEW000 •tidA K \ RED 1 VAtLEY�AIRYLAND FRY[ -175-43-RIVERSIDE FREEWAY E CH ORRANCE r ' STATE OF CALIFORNIA 17�• CYPRESSANAHEIM 43 DEPARTMENT OF FUSLIC WORKS PALOS I6 SIGNAL STANTUN /7¢ DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS VERDES ROLLI .ALAMIT GARDEN IT •ORA ESTATES --- GROVE DISTRICT V I I HILLS ESTAT 5 Lp,r gEA H ESTM T •179•GARDEN GROVE FREEWAY -165-HARBOR HILSI65 I7�`• TUSTIN j FREEWAYS FREEWAY SEAL6 SANTA NA "xH BEACH FOUNTAIN 1\ VALLEY \ 967 SAN PEDRO- .L'[ •0./••1 TERMINAL ISLAND BRIDGE `` � -2474-166-SANTA ANA FREEWAY COSTA 58 w _ \/ caUNDIS:o OR Ew�� OlPRESRAYS -167-LONG BEACH FREEWAY MESA ; ORANGE COUNTY YRDB CONSIRUCEgM D IllII REHAYf NUNTINGACH I ELID�TED AR••NRRM BEACH b 4] FREEWAY Ram ADOPTED -.—.--v- © •170•SAN GABRIEL J 184 183 RIVER FREEWAY b 0 NEWPOR 6 B BEACEACH -43-NEWPORT FREEWAY FREEWAY PRIODRKSB MAP Q R LAGUNA b PREPARED BY BEACH D191RICT V II evaHWAY WFORMATIOr10FrICS -185•LAGUNA FREEWAY STATEOFCAUFORNIA Arw 2-138•SAN DIEGO DEPARTMENT OF wxlC walla FREEWA} mHUGH,OF HIGHWAYS REVISED •AUGUST 15,1961 2 5AN CLEMENTE I�— 1 130 ' ` lancoater B fry. J7 i 01.1 -IEsistinq Rt..59) •� •••- I 399 \ a ,�.� •• I 26 (New Rt.N)7>$ ••- l ' 1 13B 1 FrY. °o •Y � F4y Po 269 r . 1 ISI . 8 onl I51 � Roul. •. 138� F.Y ��. 2 ]9 2 6 i 1 9 53 2 61 Route 137 F.Y.]9 B ` Fr LL I $Imi Valley ` frY FOprhi// Son °266F;-•®• 1 �, :•.i Anq<laf Craal 1 "ntt. � g 9 • ISB 4=.9 26 101 153 . F` p 61 Ventura 4 0 lWhil nail Z y 101 ISS ...........' 65• • • , t puOa 153 2F F 22e,� 4: 4 99 so ca O of' ~y �Y 2 159 614 01 0� w s 2 u• 101 161 2M Foo/hill Fr / s0 /Venter. 4:FrY :■ '�� / �0 161 Y 9 ALT 63 : 205 16B : 21 0 � • 11 158 cv F �o 16]2 19 T i}�' .. y ` yN�\\sF Iry 0 190 ,• 9p � 162 San &rnorpin�l 4FwY. l 21 a / KT. s C°Osl FWy1162 Q'4 101 PBcil,c Y Monicc�. Fwy. 6 ¢16B Fw ITO 43� � i /Sono 2 Pomona IT • 6 I]S 1)2 s 2]2 160 li II � TI 221 9.Blouson ;:y.Y. Is 101 2T1 0 1 19 nz Se` — Cenl 163 LL� 16T o 188•• 19 Ir1 ry 10 .FwY. 4��' 186 �C• — AL. n _. a. 171 101 r o x o i 9 m o 03 5 n1 � r6O C. I75 �• ID 01 4 i 161 e T 6 Ana Riv<ral°. I]5 IB Fry. CALIFORNIA FREEWAY AND =LL � Fw 9F.y a,..ral°` II I58 9+ I71 ITI 19 5 \ )9 EXPRESSWAY SYSTEM 65 2)0� ALT 79 °en GrOae 10l secale.FwY 1To Fwr zz 16] 11 2l3 p C ITI !j 2 L •I6B � ( DISTRICT VII ) s � 3Q 1\`SS IB9-� O //�� -fQ e J 185 ° FrY• a i 0 4 ❑ Legislaliye Routes 2 die ' of Q Sign Routes I Issssssss>.Existing Stole Highways lol � New State Highways / 2 STATUTE MILES 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 'qTTEPS BEFORE I I IEE WAY 1 I .11., I/ , NOTICE' TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT that studies are beginning *explains California Highway Commission policy and procedure for future discussions ENGINEERING DATA ASSEMBLED by Division of Highways and discussed in general with local agencies to correlate with their planning and to determine if all logical alternatives o have been included for study. m o a. it d . o STUDIES ASSEMBLED AND DATA REVIEWED i , v by Headquarters Office of Division of Highways. Report approved for _ informal meeting with local staffs to discuss facts relative to right of way, construction costs, and user benefits. S O E MEETING WITH LOCAL STAFFS REPORT TO LOCAL GOVERNING BODY r a by local staffs m 0 o m E REPORT OF MEETING WITH LOCAL STAFFS 10 ar approval by Headquarters for public meeting m E o v PUBLIC MEETING ANNOUNCED o in the press and by correspondence to: Local members of legislature a County Board of Supervisors o Councils of cities affected T 1 T S � d PUBLIC MEETING HELD Comments and/or presentations by: State m Bureau of Public Roads Local government g Groups Citizens v B 0 .a REPORT OF PUBLIC MEETING (including transcript and all pertinent data received within 30 days) to Headquarters °e Office of Division of Highways and the California Highway Commission. a RECOMMENDATION to California Highway Commission by State Highway Engineer. LOCAL GOVERNMENTS NOTIFIED 30 days in advance by State Highway Engineer of Commission's intent to consider the location of a Freeway at its next or a subsequent meeting. Local resolutions asking E for California Hearing at initiative of Highway Commission hearing Ca lifornia Highway Commission ELocal resolutions to r waive California Hearing by California Highway Commission `o Highway Commission hearing `o E o u o c v E d E a o ADOPTION OF FREEWAY ROUTE T" by California Highway Commission t 6-60 rP PRELIMINARY DESIGN PREPARED CONFERENCES WITH LOCAL STAFFS HEADQUARTERS DESIGN APPROVAL I to 4 years FREEWAY AGREEMENT Prepared and executed v v o` N DETAILED DESIGN o 0 s Z � NN Q' N O p C T - % RIGHT OF WAY CERTIFIED o N RIGHT OF WAY APPRAISED 0 a , C O cn C 3 IF C C N O n N U RIGHT OF WAY ACQUIRED L as funds become available _E o f— U RIGHT OF WAY CLEARED I to 2 years IF CONSTRUCTION if 6-60 r, i AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WOM., DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS AND C1Ty r k. JNT i iX�67o Cal C � RATING TO URBAN PLANNING ASSISTANCE WMRKAS,, the Department of Public Works, Division of Highways, hereinafter called Nighways", and the hereinafter called � i 4-y are presently engaged in the preparation of the Los Angbles Regional Transporta- tion Steady, and . WHEREAS, a portion of said Study consists of a comprehensive land use survey in said area, and iWHEREAS, the Department of Public Works, State of CallfornlaD i has entered into an agreement with the Office of Planning of the Department of Finance of the State of California providing for the partial financing of such study by the, Federal Government under Section 701 of the Housing Act of 1954 (P.L. 560), 63rd Congress, as ascended, and WHEREAS, the C v Of desires desires to participate in said project and to receive the benefits accruing under the aforesaid agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto do agree as follows: . I s IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED: 1. The project will consist of a land use summary covering the present land use inventory for each 1960 census tract within f -2- t the project area, together with special land use information and residential and industrial land characteristics. To compile the information for said project, a four-page land use summary form will be used, said form being attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A" and by this reference made a part hereof. - 2. The project area shall consist of • 3. The land use survey is estimated to cost , It being understood that this program is administered on a matching. basis with the �� y being eligible for reimbursement for one-halt' the cost of the work but not to exceed with the remaining half to be paid for by services rendered by It is further understood that the services rendered by shall be those services applied directly to the project. i It will not include administrative costs or costs of office space, equipment, materials, supplies, utilities or communications. As services are completed by and bills are submitted to Highways, Highways agrees to submit such bills for reimbursement. One-half of such amount billed will be credited against obligation to provide services equal to the amount for which receives reimbursement. Such payments made to shall be in a manner provided for by Section 8 of the Accounting Procedures Relating to Urban Planning Assistance Grants as promulgated in May 1955, by the Housing and Home Finance Agency. It is further understood by that payments to will be limited to funds received for the project from the Federal government available for the purpose of this agreement. 4. No payments shall be made to hereunder until i has been notified in writing that a Federal grant contract { has betn entered into with respect to the foregoing project and that the amount proposed hereunder has been included within an approved budget for said project. . II AGREES: 'P 1 1. They will provide or cause to be provided services necessary to complete the land use survey within the project area. 4 2. That should the Federal government elect to terminate or suspend any or all of its obligations pursuant to the provisions r of the Office of Planning, Department of Finance, agreement with the Federal Government respecting the project or disallow as a cost of the project any portion of any payment made to under this agreement and as a result of any of the foregoing, require Highways to return all or any portion of the Federal grant monies paid hereunder, then agrees to reimburse Highways for such sums. 3. That all costs charged to the project shall be supported by properly executed payrolls, invoices, contracts or vouchers evidencing in proper detail the nature and propriety of the charges. � All checks, payrolls, invoices, contracts, vouchers or other accounting documents pertaining in whole or in part to the project shall be clearly identified, readily accessible and to the extent feasible, kept separate and apart from all other such documents. will provide or cause to be provided to Highways, the Office of Planning of the Department of Finance and the Federal Government. free acceas at all proper times to such books and records and the right to examine and audit the same and to make transcripts therefrom and to inspect all ,project data, documents, proceedings and activities. 4. agrees to render the services contemplated hereunder as expeditiously as possible commencing on or about 19 and complete the same by 19 5. In this agreement there shall be no discrimination by the undersigned or by its contractors against any employee who is employed in the work covered by this part, or against any applicant for such employment because of race, religion, color or national origin. This provision shall include, but not be limited to, the following: employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship, and further agrees to include the above paragraph in any agreement entered into by it for the performance of any services here- under. !, 6. All reports, maps, and other documents completed pursuant to this agreement and for which has received reimbursement in cash or as a credit for services, other than documents prepared exclusively for internal use within the State Office of Planning, shall carry the following notation: The preparation of this (report, map, document, etc . ) was financed in part through an urban planning grant from the Housing and Home Finance Agency, under the provisions of Section 701 of the Housing Act of 1954, as amended. I i tP wMs 4W 6ALPSOMA ' i MPAOTWEW OF PWGLM W*w ®1viIS1ON OF HIGHWAYS, WO~•NN4W DO11!!GT Vn ��+•s...�..�. 686+, VNMUN A. &NOW LAS Amide ice. cAUP040 SA December 20, 1961 MANO NOM LAM heard o f i sors County of Orange 6th k ttroadway SwU Ant, California !'leas• rotor to -our letter of September 18, 1961 o weerni" State-local agency agreemento for collection of lased use eiata for the LAM study under Section 701 of the 294 Federal Smaing Act. The caster contract between the State and the �oieral for t has beeeaa changed so that the Sato losers is never local 2//"3 Federal. Thee effective date r for Ladurring eligible costs is still AuAlust 19, 1961. Since the srtohinS basis has been chinged, we have drawn up new State-local agency agreements. The agreements which � were sailed to 'you on Auipst 15, 1961 are no longer usable, i l; AiW agency that desires to enter into the agree- ment should notif the Division of Highways in writing , and at the ti�iwe su a co �� �$-1"5rJctasp� the land use inventory. The es a city include all eligible itures incurred or anti gated on or after° Asaw, t 19, 1 1. Only expenditures ftreetly related to the lid use sa rvey project are sli a or oral participation . or for snatching local ag cy'i ber rias&. Subject to the above criteria,, oligible./expenditures may include salaries and woes (including re�iremrnt oontri cautions, vacation and sick leave assessments./and conVensation insurance) travel expense, trwoportation, reproduction, photographs (herd and aerial) and contract payments . c r -2- Ineligible expemd1twee Include the foll t t®, i ® Prior to . AxW*t 19, l9fts the effe ative 4te of the ftdoral grant. (b) Admin"tratiw, office bmsift,, equip- uent,, nateriales mwpllee and orwhoA costs. (a) Oqpanditures in aftor Jww 300 19620 the t date of Ww ftlema t ad the Le"I Agmay-StaU w,,jmwamta4O f1 xettw Qf Intent to MW laft Us t, tagother with t*tSmate tot Calitm-niaDivision of Melirvo Advance PlanaJA9 DowtimeLt, LAM F. ®. &= 2304,, Terodnal A Lao Angeles 54s Callforn.14 Upm receipt of these, we will sew �rou wples of the agreement fer sipting &M detailed tnstruatiork4 for submitting claim. AxW *wstiew reqwding ths estinat# will of courve be settled before sI&nIr4g the agreement. i if w can be of further attistame canoorning this, j e Flo not hesitate to eaetact *,° offl** bya&.11UM j son 0-3m. Very tr°Ay y s n i i j � 1 �o I, t P 1 NOTICE OF PUBLIJ HEARING TO BE HELD BY THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING CCMMISSION OV F a THE PROPOSED AMEKKENT TO, AND PRECISE PLAN OF HIGHWAY ALIGNMENT OF, THE MASTER PLAN OF ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS Pursuant to the Conservation and Planning Law, as amended and order of the Orange County Planning n ` . Commission, 'notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by said Commission on a, Precise Plan of Highway Alignment and a plan proposing to amend the Master Plan of Arterial Highways. Said plans are designated BOLSA AVENUE EXHIBIT C, between a point 330 feet west of Beach NoMevard and Hoover Street in the south Westminster area, and Amendment No. 63, which proposes certain changes and additions to the Master Plan of Arterial Highways. Said public hearing on the above prT sed plans will be held at • 3s00 p.m., Wednesday, July 1963 in the hearing and meeting room of the Orangge County Planning Commission, Engineering Building, " tt00 West Eighth Street, Room 168, Santa Ana, California, at which time and glace all persons either favoring or opposing said proposed plans will be heard. For further details regarding said proposed plans, all interested persons are invited to call at the office of the Orange County Planning Commission, Engineering Building Room 151, 400 West Eighth Street, Santa Ana, California, where said proposed plans are on file and . available for public inspection. Harry E. Bergh, Director and Secretary ORANGE COUNTY . .ANAING CCKKISSION With tbis in 4 x* ocar ., v:ul of Ua#ov " it is - 4u w ., var : . UAOZ Wbat, offoot at a ,. " bility the UAW* * tb the woblow at both --- all b . av * °col . �. . : U1x y. sure tbvt that orA iu vlovj. i . truly / / WAMD. � . ISM", Aast tom, 'State ` , g oe 0. T. gacor Sa _. it, Rarry r T . a* Stag. A COUNTY CLERK AND CLERK L. B.WALLACE,COUNTY CLERK OF THE P. O. BOX 838 PHONE KI 7.3311 SUPERIOR COURT, ORANGE COUNTY SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA December 5, 1958 co DEC �f Hu h ion®ea --fr J. L. Hendrickson, City Clerk CITY ch CLERK City of Huntington Beach P. 0. Box 190 ~` Huntington Beach, California Dear Mr. Hendrickson: I am enclosing for your information a copy of a letter submitted to the Board of Supervisors of Orange County on December 2, 1958, by the State Division of Highways regarding studies for the replacement of adopted Legislative Route 60 from the Los Angeles ® Orange County Line to Capistrano Beach. Very truly yours, L. B. WALLACE, County Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of orange County, California. By ,��'u-� aLLZ�� - Deputy Clerk JA Eno. The document you are searching for has not been imaged and cannot be viewed electronically. For information on how to locate this document for viewing, please contact or visit the City Clerk' s Office for assistance. 2000 Main Street 2nd Floor — City Hall Huntington Beach CA, 92648 (714) 536-5227 ra R N C 0. i 1rRwMdff ��..�..�.�_ To rai_d s•a r r a M4lO4 ,� ... i �dy 1 \\ •RW s�+nl A"—C*—& 0.i11rr � V E N T IT K A 3 w x L C S d- .,A.\\ f N (; E L TH B E R N w R D I N 0 $ART.Mu {AA \ .'3 .. •• •., \ i 1 T,ME • �� � V. +tR iw. WN—r i" -�r.t..a. ♦" - ,p.RRrrA Q - .9. G S. T•Upt-" — A Y T.b— ' AMA ♦/►A f ^^�-:� ._� >_ _ Mpr ,v/A,_ T•Rwrr- �-' -, trnrrA `-OL RI VBRSI DS *. �. fll 'f 1'#rm � V1 v.ce.t ` VWARTMW O/ MJKJC TIC= pVISW OT UNAIWAYS Ft its DISTRICT VII - - A'�o `�, — ;,_ � s A x Statute Miles 0 2 Lim �`�j o� �1TINGTpp� City of Huntington Beach CO Cali f omia coup c C o arch 16, 1901 0 r. George H, Jones RE: Division 4f Highways; 3700 eortivd. Parcel A1783- Unit l Newport Beach, California ORA-60-Huntington Beach. Dear Mr. Jones: We have enclosed a copy of our summons by the State of California covering the intent to condemn the above mentioned property for highway purposes. As mentioned in our letter of January 18, 19610 e are �.nterted in your proposal �c�r determia�3 the market value and severance damages in connaetion with, the proposed taking of this acreage, Please feel' free to call this office, the City Engineer, or the City Attorney if additional information is needed. Yours very truly, ly, w Doyle Miller City Administrator DM:cla Enclosure. ILI : City Attorney, Charles A. Bauer x M011M WM.yY STATE OF CALIF4R, M� SACRAMENTO 7 Interdepartmental CumuaaiM#4JcatJ0;a Mr. Robert B. Bradford, Chairman Date: July 14, 1961 and Members of the , California Highway Commission File No. VII-Ora-6o -var U. S. Highway L 101 Alternate From: Division of Highways Subgect: Under date of April 3, 1961, a report was submitted to the Commission commenting on recommendations of the Orange County Coastal Transportation Committee relative to interim improvement of Pacific Coast Highway (V. S. Highway i0l Alternate and State Route 60) in Orange.. County. That report discussed conditions on the existing facility and advised that a study was then under way covering possible over-all interim. improvement of this section of high- way pending ultimate development of the route as a freeway. the Commission was also advised that the improvements requested by the Committee from Orange County would be given considera- tion as a part of the over-all project and that a further report would be submitted upon completion of the study. As you will recall, the Orange County Coastal Transportation Committee as its general objective, proposed that the desirable standard of development of Route 60 through- out the County be on the basis" of a 4-lane, divided highway, and further submitted for the Commission's consideration eight specific recommendations for improvement of the route. The Division's findings, in general, concur with the Committee 's recommendations as a basis for planning; however, certain of the items of work are not considered critical at this time and should be deferred. The improvement of the over-all 33± mile segment of Route 60 in Orange County as a 4-lane, divided conventional facility with provision for left-turn channelization and traffic signals at major intersections and with a high-level bridge at Upper Newport Bay was found` to cost approximately $9,100,000, including $4,100,000 for roadway and structure work, V600,000 0,000 for traffic signals, $900,000 for rights of way, and Mr. Robert B. Bradford, and 2 July 14, 1961 Members of the Commission for the high-level bridge. These estimates, in general, are based upon providing an 84-foot standard typical section con- forming to the Orange County Master Plan of Highways, where sufficient rights of way exist or where additional rights of way can be obtained at reasonable cost. At other locations, a 'roadbed width ranging from 72 feet to 76 feet was used as the basis of the estimate. The eight specific recommendations of the Orange County Coastal Transportation_ Committee are quoted below together with the Division's fihdings with respect to each. To facilitate your review, a map of the geneiral area, Exhibit. "A" is attached along with Project maps Exhibits "B-1" through "B-3" on which the individual locations are identified by 'number corresponding to that used in the following discussion. 1. Seal Beach: "Provide left-turn pockets at the following intersections; a Main Street b Bay Boulevard a 5th Street di 12th Street Provide signalization at 5th 'and 12th Streets, " The 1. 0-mile portion of the existing facility between 600+ feet south of Bay Boulevard and 800+- feet north of 5th Street, encompassing the four inters'ecticins listed above, consists of a 4.0-foot traveled way with unpaved shoulders all within a minimum right of way Width of 100 feet. Preliminary studies indicate that the improvement of this portion within the existin lg right,, of way to a basic' 84-foot roadway with an -foot median would be in order. This work would cost an estimated $122,000. A detailed traffic study is now under way to determine whether the requested intersection signalitation is warranted at this time. It Is anticipated that this traffic study will be complete in about a month. 2. Sunset Beach: "Correct the traffic problems created by the limited visibility and turning movements at the curve in the vicinity of Anderson Street. " i s Mr. Robert B. Bradford, and - 3 July 14, 1961 Members of the Commission This portion of Route_ 60 consists of a 4-lane, undivided 40-foot traveled way with 4-foot improved shoulders either side. The sight distance restric- tion near Anderson Street, to which the County Committee refers, is minor and has not been an 6ccident problem. The condition is caused primarily by roadside improvements. Since the location is not critical, no change is proposed at this time, 3. Huntington Beach: "Provide a four-lane divided highway with left-tuna pockets at main intersections northerly of Highway 39 and a six-lane divided highway southerly of,Highway 39, including widening of the Santa Ana. River Bridge. In order to alleviate the problems created by the ,adopted freeway route southerly of Highway 39, the State Division of Highways is requested to delay the planning and construction of a freeway occuping the right of way of present coast highway in the vicinity of Huntington Beach and Newport Beach pending further study of the over-all route of the Coastal Freeway and the traffics information now being derived .under the tos Angeles Regional Transportation Study (LARTS)r Program." As covered in the report to the Commission dated April 3, 1961, a freeway routing conforming in general to the existing highway between 3000 feet westerly of Route 171 (State Sign Route 39) in Huntington Beach and Route 43 (State Sign Route 55) in Newport Beach was adopted on September 20, 1955. A freeway agreement was subsequently executed with Huntington Beach for the portion within that City. However, a revised inter- change design with Route 171 is now under consideration and studies are currently under way to determine the freeway location of the adjoining segment of Route 60 to the, north which may supersede the portion. of the present route adoption northerly of Route 171. There are no critical accident locations within these limits susceptible of correction by the installation of signals and channelization. In view of this and considering the freeway status of the southerly portion of Route 60 in Huntington Beach and the progress of the freeway studies under way to the north, no interim improvement in this area is proposed at this time. e Mr. Robert B. Bradf ord,, and 4 July 14., 1961 Members of the Commission 4. Kew2ort Beach: "Continuation of the 6-lanedivided highway from Huntington Beach to Newport Boulevard, including widening and realignment of the Santa Ana River Bridge; alleviation of the traffic hazards at the Arches (Newport Boulevard) interchange by implementing the ,construption of exist- ing plans for improvement of this area. " a) Huntington Beach to Newport Bou%evard: As previously mentioned, a freeway touting was adopted for this portion of Route 60 in 1955 along the general alignment of the existing highway. Freeway studies now under way through Newport Beach overlapping this section may super- sede this prior adoption. The existing facility within this area consists of a 4-lane., undivided highway with a 40-foot traveled way. Except for the Balboa Boulevard intersection, located about 1 1/2 mile north- of Newport Boulevard,, this segment is not critical from the accident and capacity standpoint, and it is proposed to defer interim improvement pending completion of the freeway studies. With respect to the Balboa Boulevard intersection, plans are now being pre- pared for correction of conditions at this location by the provision of, left-turn pocket lanes and the modification of signals. The project is estimated to cost $27,000. b) Newport Boulevard Interchange; Plans for the revision of the Newport Boulevard (Route 60/43 ) interchange were prepared in 1951 and rights of way have been acquired. The estimated cost to reconstruct this interchange on the basis of the 1951 plan is approximately $580,000. The present facility, however, has had a satisfactory accident record and it is felt that any structural revision should be deferred pending completion of the Route 60 freeway studies in this area. The present structure has a width of 64 feet between abutments which would permit development of existing Route 60 as a 4-lane, divided highway through the interchange without structural revision by prohibit- ing parking. Mr. Robert B. Bradford, and - 5 July 14, 1961 Members of the Commission c ) Newport Boulevard to Upper Newport Bay: Traffic conditions along this segment have been improved by recent signalization and channeliza- tion work and it is proposed to defer further interim construction in this area pending com- pletion of the freeway studies. d) tipper Newport Bay to South City Limit of Newport Beach: This section, which traverses the Corona Del Mar area of Newport Beach, was not specifically referred to in the Orange County Coastal Trans- portation Committee recommendations. The Division's studies indicate, however'. that traffic signals in this area are in need of modification, and it is proposed to proceed with..the 'prieparation of plans for improving the signals and providing a 4-lane, divided highway. this work 18 , estima'ted to cost a total of $65,000,9 'includirig $25,,000 for recur- facing and restriping the existing 74-foot pave- ment and $40,000 for signal modifications. 5. Up per Bay Bridge: "Replace the present bridge over Upper Newport Bay to eliminate the traffic hazards due to substandard alignment and width, and design the new bridge to provide for a minimum horizontal clearanceof 100 feet with A vertical clearance of not less than 40 feet. " As stated in the April 3. 1961, report to the Commission, the present structure over Upper Newport Bay, constructed in 1932, has angver-all length of about 694, feet and -a width between curbs of 40 feet striped for 4 lanes. It is a timber structure with a concrete deck, and has a horizontal clearance of 40. 5 fee't -over the channel and. a vertical clearance of 12.9 feet above mean high water i The main span of the bridge is removable under emergencies by floating a barge beneath the structure at low tide and using the high tide to lift and remove the span. The structural. condition bt the bridge may require its replacement in about 7 years. Mr. Robert B. Bradford, and - 6 July 14,,,. i961 Members of the Commission A study has been made covering the �replacement of the existing bridge with a high-level structure. In these studies, three possible alternates, referred to as Plans "A". "B",, and "C", were investigated. All three plans contemplate construction of a 4-lane bridge with a 12-foot median, 5-foot sidewalks, and an outside width of 80 feet 8 inches. The estimates are based on a structure providing a 100-foot horizontal clearance between fenders in center span and a vertical clearance of 40 feet. The exact clearance requirements, however, would be subject to determination by the U. S. Corps of Engineers. Plan "A" is based upon replacing the existing structure on the present alignment with anew bridge approxi- mately 975 feet in length. This plan involves the reconstruction of the existing highway from about 1100 feet north of Dover-Bayshore Drive to Bayside Drive utilizing an approach grade of, +2, 5 percent from the north to provide -a vehicular separation at DoVer-Bayshore Drive and a -6 ,percent grade to the south. As a part of the project, a frontage road would be provided on the inland side from Dover- Bayshoro Drive to about 1200 feet northerly to provide for local circulation. Plan "A" is about 0.6 mile in over-all length and is estimated to cost $4355 000, including $2;175,000 for rights of" way and $2,180,000 for construction. Plan "B," is based on constructing a new bridge parallel to and approximately 120 feet upstream from the present structure, measured between centerlines-. The new roadway alignment leaves the present highway at a point approximately 1400 feet,horth of Dover-Bayshore Drive and rejoins existing Route,.60 about 400 feet south of Bayside Drive. As in the case of Plan "A"., a +2. 5 percent grade is proposed for the northerly approach to providea vehicular separation at Dover-Bayshore . Drive; and a -6 percent grade on the southerly approach. The existing highway within the limits of the relocation, excluding the present bridge., would be utilized as a ftontage road. The new bridge under this proposal would be approximately 1009 feet in length. Plan "B" is about 0. 7 mile in length and - is estimated to cost approximately $1,810,000, including. $2,010,000 for rights of way and $1,800,000 for construction. Mr'. Robert B. Bradford, and - 7 July 14, 1961 Members of the Commission Plan "C" is based on constructing on the existing alignment a new bridge with a length of approximately 947 Peet. It proposes the reconstruction of the existing pavement between about 300 feet north of Dover-Bayshore Drive and Bayside Drive, utilizing a 6 percent grade on either approach. Bayshore Drive would be closed at the highway and a short section of frontage_ road would be constructed on the inland side toprovide connection to Dover Drive. Plan "Ctl' is about 0.4 mile in length and is estimated to cost approximately $3,64010001 including $1 .,800.,000 for rights of way and $1,840.,000. for construction. A review was also made of the dost .,to reconstruct the present highway and bridge on the existing alignment and grade to determine the amount of State participation in the cost of providing a high-level structure on a conventional highway basis. Using present day prices, it is estimated that recon- struction of the facility on the existing alignment and grade. would cost approximately $72'5.,000. This would leave an additional "amount of- from $2,915,000 to $3,6.30.,000 to be provided from other than State Highway Funds to finance a 'high-level bridge., depending upon which plan were selected. Preliminary studies, however, indicate that 'varia- tioh6 of the aforementioned plans may possibly be _utiliiod as a part of the future Route 60 freeway. It is therefore considered advisable to await the results of the freeway studies in this area before arriving at a decision relative to the high-level bridge improvement. As mentioned in the report of April 3, 1961, the freeway studies should be completed on or about the first of 1962. 6. Newport -Beach to Laguna Beach: "Correct the present hazards, inherent in the deficient standards of vertical and,:horizontal alignment in the vicinity of Crystal Cove and Emerald Bay. Preliminary studies indicate that within this area, critical accident locations exist, at Crystal Cove, at El Morro Trailer' Park about 1 mile north of Emerald Bay, and at the entrance to Emerald Bay. A detailed traffic study is now in progress to a Mrs, Robert B. Bradford and 8 - July 17, 1961 Members of the Commission determine the type of improvement required to correct conditions at the first two mentioned locations. The Division proposes _to proceed with the preparation of plans to provide a 4-lane, divided section with painted channelization at Emerald Bay as a part of the project for improving the route through� laguna Beach as discussed below. 7. Laguna Beach and South Ls.guna: "Improve the Pacific Coast Highway through the City of Laguna Beach and South Laguna to Salt Creek to a 4-lane standard, giving special consid- eration to the following: a) Provide left-turn pockets at all signalized and main intersections. b ) Confine all left-turn movements to signalized and main intersections where possible. c . Synchronize signals to expedite traffic flow. d` Realign bad curve at Forest. e Improve intersections at Cliff Drive, Astor Street, West Street, Seventh Avenue (South Coast Community Hospital ) and Vista Del Sol. " The existing facility through the City of Laguna Beach consists, for the most part, of a curbed 72-foot roadway, except through the downtown area from Mountain Road to Cliff Drive, which 3s 56 feet between curbs, and between Cliff Drive and the north city limit where the width is 52 feet. The portion between Bluebird Canyon Road .and Cliff Drive through downtown Laguna Beach, which includes the curve at Forest Hill, is heavily congested during peak hours. Three alternate plans for improving this -section have been investigated, And it is proposed to discuss these alternates with the City of Laguna Beach with the intent of reaching an agreement on the ,type of Improve- ment ta, be provided. With respect to the balance of the route within the City of .Laguna Beach, this portion is very restricted because of .steep terrain or existing developments on both sides of the highway. However, it ,can be improved with shoulder reconstruction to a 4-lane, divided section with striped channelization all within the existing 72®foot curbed width, for the most part. . It is proposed to proceed with the preparation of plans for improvement on this basis. This roadwork, estimated to cost $220,000, includes the improvement of the entrance to Emerald Bay. Mr.. Robert B. Bradford and - 9 July 14, 1961 Members of the Commission From the south city limit of Laguna ,Beach southerly through the community of South Laguna to appPoxi- mately 0.4 mile north of Vista Del Sol, operation on the present facility is hampered by heavy, traffic and left-turn conflict. It is proposed to proceed with the preparation of plans for improve- ment of this segment to a 4-lane, divided roadway with painted left-turn channelization all within the existing 74-foot, curbed section,. This unit is estimated to cost $210,000, including $185,000 for roadwork and $25,000 for signal installation. Southerly of the aforementioned portion to Salt Creek, the area is lightly developed and there are no particular problems from the accident or traffic capacity standpoint. It is therefore proposed to defer improvement of this segment Until the need develops. 8. Dana Point: "Eliminate the sharp curve immediately westerly of the community of Dana Point and provide left-turn pockets at the following inter- sections: a La Plaza b Street of the Golden .Lantern c Street of the Blue Lantern" The present highway through this area is a ,4-lane, undivided facility with a width of from 54 feet to 56 feet. The horizontal alignment is adequate., and traffic conditions are not considered critical at this time. In connection with this, the curve men- tioned by the Committee has a 1000-foot radius and has not presented a serious accident problem. The three intersections mentioned by the Committee are notL considered critical either at this time. In view of the foregoing, it is proposed to defer improvement of this segment of the route until the need develops. In summary, the Division proposes to proceed with plans for improvement of the -existing highway at Balboa Boulevard in Newport Beach and through portions of Seal Beach, Corona Del Mar, Laguna Beach, and South Laguna, as previously discussed, and to consider interim improvement. of the remaining portions ,as traffic conditions warrant.. Mrs Robert B. Bradford and ® 10 July 14, 1961 Members of the. Commission With respect to the replacement of the.:present bridge at Upper Newport Bay with a high-level structure, it is believed' advisable -to defer a decision on the matter, pending the results of the freeway studies in the area. J C. WOMACK. ate Highway Engineer Attachments February 261 1962 Division ray.' Highways,r T' .j e of California Dent of Public Works ks Boy 2304 germinal An= Los Angeles 54,Calif. Re: T W—V.11v Ora-6 C-Hn tH 110.A1 8; w City of Meant in tcn. Beach .Attention: Nr Vack Ruben Senior Right of Way ,Agent Dear Sirs In answer to your letter dated January 29th to Mri poyle Miller in regard to the above entitled File, lease be advised that we reel that the documents shnuld be resubmitted for initialing Mrs very truly, t City Attorney J P.h CC : Doves Miller City Administrator � - F STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS S s. ELES1 SPRING ,CALJ LOS ANGELEB lY.CALI R. PNONKs MADISON 0.3030 DISTRICT VII MAILING ADDRESS BOX 2304. TERMINAL ANNEX LOS ANGELES 54. CALIFORNIA PLEASE REFER' April 19, 1962 r 17 GOOD AFTERNOON: You are attending a public hearing conducted by District VII of the California Division of Highways . This hearing is being held for the presentation and public discussion of studies for determining the freeway. routing of U. S. Highway 101 Alternate; . State Legislative Route 90, between 2.2 miles south of MacArthur Boulevard (Legislative Route 184) and Beach Boulevard (Legislative Route- 171_) . The Division of Highways invites your comments or suggestions concerning the freeway routing under study. The primary purpose of this hearing is a mutual exchange of information. and ideas between all interested persons and the Division of Highways . The hearing is being recorded by a certified court recorder so that after the hearing we may study in detail all data gathered here. The Division's engineers have spent many months studying various lines over which the new freeway could be routed. ' These possibilities have been reduced to what they consider the most suitable choices from the standpoint of traffic service, effect on the community, economic influence, construction costs and right of way costs. Should you desire further information with regard to this- project, please contact the District Engineer as follows: 1. Write or visit the District Office at the address noted above, or 2. Telephone the District Office, MA 0-3750. YS - N G R- E ]E. .W ._Al P 'L AN NA F ILA [ ILiJ DIVISION OF H16HWAYS DIVISION OF H16HWAYS DIVISION kIS ANNOUNCES START OF FREEWAY CONSULTS WITH LOCAL PLANNERS HOLDS PUBLIC HEARR INGS A11 ND ND MAID STATE HIGHWAY ENGINEER LOCATION STUDY AND ENGINEERS DURING DISPLAYS TO ACQUAINT THE PUBi�C REVIEWS ENGINEERING STUDY WITH THE STUDIES AND OBTAIN AND PUBLIC HEARING DATA ENGINEERING STUDY THEIR OPINIONS I _ CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS i STATE HIGHWAY ENGINEER 14i60AY COMMISSION CALIFORNIA NEGOTIATES FREEWAY AGREEMENT i MAKES RECOMMENDATION CORSIDERS RECOMMENDATION HIGHWAY COMMISSION WITH COUNTY OR CITY REGARDING TO CALIFORNIA A V A OS PUBLIC HEARING IF ACTS ON ROUTE ADOPTION ALTERATION OF. LOCAL ROADS HIGHWAY COMMISSION REQUESTED BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND STREETS CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS H1*6H AY COMMISSION RIGHTS OF WAY CONSTRUCTION PREPARES DETAILED PLANS BUDGETS FUNDS FOR PURCHASE COMMENCES COMMENCES RI6HTS OF WAY AND CONSTRUCTION CALIFORNIA DIVISION Of M16HWAYS DIST V PROPOSED ROUTE 60 FREE.WAY 2.2 MILES SOUTH OF MAC ARTHUR BLVD. (Rte. 184 TO BEACH BLVD. (Rte. ITI ) 'yE II' / ♦�P � ;mac ROE. tSa gAN .Mi. PALISADES R0. UPPER NEWPORT 90 A. • (I•> . ir at 22nd ST \ l � Sys o ` cc _ it a s a ' W W � '' �� W ►- Z fir.\`• ~SC ►fie �' \\ �'� a 19 t A ST.49 1 oc 71. 171A ST.lp ST AVE. cp PORT SAY �< -- RTE.6O �W� PACIFIC _ COAST PAC/ or/ C OCEAN NEWPORT BEACH `�..✓•� PROJ EC,T LIMITS . 2 - v LENGTH 'IND. 'SINGLE IN ONST. R/W TOTAL FAMILY MULT. FAMILIES -ALTERNATES MILES ST COST COST 'COM. _ DWELLINGS DWELLINGS AFFECTED mbinations of Basic Alternates GREEN-YELLOW- BROWN(9)-GREEN 8.1 2 6 7 49.3 45 294 18 384 GREEN-YELLOW- BROWN(7)-GREEN 8.1 20.5 24 45.1 45 288 18 378 GREEN-YELLOW- BROWN(8)-RED 7.4 22.2 2 .l 47.3 48 295 21 393 GREEN-BROWN(8)- 23. 57 26,0 YELLOW-GREEN 7.8 -27r2 21.3 $ 41 145 15 175 GREEN-BROWN 2S.S S/• (8)-RED 7.7 46 151 16 185 . 40p Subject to Change 1-19-62 . IN6Tpy 1t I Y o uln' fiZ'1 ton Beach cr : California ornia rr Q July 24, 196 Ur. George A. i-ia,l.t, District Engineer California State Highway Departmenr 120 South Spring Street Los Angeles 12, California Ile: Proposed Extension of the San Gabriel Freeway to Lay Blvd. in Seal Beach. I Dear Pir, Hill: The Huntington Beach City Council takes this opportunity to thank Mvk; still and his staff for, } their cooperation in working out: a satisfactory Lo- cation r thy: proposed coastal, freeway. In December,, 1959, the City Cr,�,xncil adopted reso- lution No. 1403 expressing this citys s opposition to a beachfront freeway precluding the orderly planning and development of harbors, marinas and beachfront recreational facilities with the highest: assessment potential in all of: Orange County. Since there has been no change in the official position of the City of H=tington Bleach, we again join with the City o:: Seal. Beach in opposing the extenaiotn of the San Gabriel Freeway to the racifis Coast Highway, The satisfactory location of the Coast- al Freeway within tbo Corporate limits of the Cities of Seal Beach and Huntlogton Beach is going to require the maxim= of flexibility in this area. M With this in mind we su Sgest that the entire layout:. r be planned and adopted s imultaioous Lye Sincerely, ' Robert X. Lambert, Mayor Mi City of 'Huntington Beach. City of Hunt' gri tom Beach California July 19, L96 State Highway Department Division 7 P.O. Box 2304 Los Angeles 34, California Gentlemen: At the July 16th meeting of the Hunm tington Beach City Council, the Adminis- trative Officer was instructed to request a complete and np-to-dot* report from the Stag highway Dep, srtment ra,arding freeway ti routwa proposed reut+es, time schedule fear the S*n Diego, tad., and T, terlinkiag Hunti:Agtou Poach freeway, which will ulti-- wa ly Raw through or close to the city 1xts, c It it felt that the most current infor- mation regarding this proposed construction, is urgently a ded ft the planning of this fast grow ng Comunity. We would appreciate your handling this matter as pr*nptly as poscsiblt, and at this time w rnt to express our willingness on the b*h-,It of the City and. our Gitiians Committee to cooperate in, moving the free'* planning; along as rii)tly as possible. Sincerely, Y Doyle Miller City Administrator DM:s,s SIN6Tpy City of Huntington Beach ` California April 19, 1062 I O District Engineer CAifornia State Highua r Dept. l , Calffornia Dear 11r, Hill. . cloarly. state the Offici. l Posiw tion of the City of 1-1=tinftrcn f ao , with of Highwayo prw6ose,,4. i nprov r:' leg7f- .- lati e route 60 from 'o"At, 2.2 Mil South of McArthur BOUle-Vard to Beach Boulevard,, a Vie ask permissiou to read the brief resolu- tion and have it included in the minute t of the public heatring. Very truly yours, Doyld Miller City AdImi strator I :6S I I i 1 T. - i�" /'�/ EDMU'ND G.BROWN �. �yy C� •M�F �� ,"-GOVERNOR .V �G4�4 ,L�L►•l4 __ __O GOVERNOR'S OFFICE SACRAMENTO July 18, 1962 Honorable Robert M. Lambert Mayor, City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach, California : My dear Mayor: Thank you for your telegram of July 17 , suggesting that the location of the Pacific Coast Freeway between Huntington Beach and Seal Beach be determined prior to the hearing on the San Gabriel Freeway ,Extension in Seal Beach. I have discussed this matter with Mr. Bradford, Chairman of the Highway Commission, and it is our feeling that it would be untimely and contrary to considerable public interest to cancel the San Gabriel Freeway Extension hearing which is now scheduled for next Tuesday-, July 24. I want to tell you, though, that no final decision on the San Gabriel route will be made at next Tuesday' s hearing. Also, Mr. Bradford will see that your point of view is made, a part of the record on the San Gabriel hearing and will give a copy of your telegram to other members of .the commission for their consideration. Your constructive interest in this difficult highway planning job is. deeply appreciated by me personally, and I hope it will continue until these knotty problems are resolved. I know, as you know, that they are of great importance to the people in the local area, as well as to those who are planning the total state highway system. Sincerely k zlrl�� EDMUND G. BROWN, Governor i D f P. o. box 1490 SACRAMENTO 7.CALIFORNIA July 18, 12 Mr. Robert M. Lambert, Mayor City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach, California. Dear Mr. Lambert: This will acknowledge receipt of your telegram about the Commission hearing on July 24, 1962, relative to the location of the San Gabriel River Freeway between Bay Boulevard and Route 158 (San Diego preeway) . As you probably know, the purpose of the hearing is to present to the Comission all of the factors which enter into the deteraination of the most suitable location of this portion of the Ban Gabriel River Freeway, A decision will not be made at this hearing. It will be most appropriate that you or ether representatives of your City appear and tell the Highway Cosmission .your views] that is what the Connission will be there for. Very truly yours, R0BBRT T. MARTIN , r Assistant secretary tvy F /4 OFFICE ADDRESS COMMITTEES 1623 WEST 17TH STREET AGRICULTURE SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA EDUCATION LABOR SACRAMENTO ADDRESS RULES STATE CAPITOL JOHN A. MURDY, JR. WATER RESOURCES ZONE 14 'THIRTY-FIFTH 'HIRTY-FIFTH SENATORIAL DISTRICT ORANGE COUNTY LOCAL ALLOCATIONS BOARD CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE September 15, 1961 Mr. Doyle Miller City Administrator Huntington Beach, Calif. Dear Mr. Miller: Thanks for your letter of September 8 which cer- tainly clarifies the position of the City of Huntington Beach in relation to the coast freeway. I note that there is to be a meeting with the folks interested in this freeway on September 27 at 7 A. M. at the Balboa Bay Club. I presume that Huntington Beach will be represented at that meeting. I have had a speaking engagement scheduled with the Kiwanis Club at 7: 15 that same morning, and as this has been a long-standing commitment I cannot re-schedule it . However, I hope to be at the freeway meeting before Mr. Telford finishes his talk. Very ,tltul,y yours, Join A. Murdy, Jr. Sen for 35th District hb ..AMA. OFFICE ADDRESS COMMITTEES 1623 WEST 17TH STREET AGRICULTURE SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA EDUCATION LABOR SACRAMENTO ADDRESS RULES STATE CAPITOL JOHN A. MURDYI JR. WATER RESOURCES ZONE 14 FINANCE THIRTY-FIFTH SENATORIAL DISTRICT ORANGE COUNTY LOCAL ALLOCATIONS BOARD CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE April 3,. 1961 Mr. Doyle Miller, City Administrator City Hall Huntington Beach, California Dear Doyle: Thanks for your letter of March 27th in which you have expressed concern about the activity of part of the Highway Department and about our presentation to them of some two or three weeks ago. Following that meeting Bruce Sumner, Dick Hanna and I again called on Mr. Womack and asked him what was being done in response to our presentation. We were told that the entire matter was being restudied by the Department with the hope they would have a report out to us by June lst. We tried diligently to impress Mr. Womack with the fact the report should be made some time in May, for we feel to postpone it to June will be so near the end of the session no activity could be instigated by Orange County legislators. When we left he promised he would do all within his power to see if the report could not be forthcoming some time in May. The Orange County legislators will be having their weekly meeting again next week and I will bring your letter to their attention at that time. Perhaps we can again call on Mr. Womack and urge him to give us a reply before this session adjourns. I was tremendously shocked and grieved to learn of the tragic death of Clifford Tripp. I thought he was doing a fine job and I am sure it will be difficult to get an immediate replacement. Sinc ly yours, J, A. MURDY, JR. JAM:g STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 0 S. STRE9 DIVISION OF 12 HIGHWAYS LOS AN SPRING GELES 12,CALIF. PHONE!MADISON 0-3030 DISTRICT VII MAILING ADDRESS BOX 2304. TERMINAL ANNEX LOS ANGELES 54, CALIFORNIA Feb 26, 1963 PLEASE REFER TO FILE No. Contract A-1783 City of Huntington Beach P 0 Box 190 H'urtington Beach, California Attn: Doyle Miller City Administrator Gentlemen: On November 27, 1961, the Division of 1,Tighways entered into a Right of Way Contract, No. A-1783, viith the City of Huntington Beach. Tn accordance with paragraph 5a of that contract, demand is hereby made for �10,000.00 due and payable July 1. 19620 plus interest on the total sum of $2OoOOO.00 at the stated rate of 5% per annum for 217 days in the amount of $594.52. The second and final payment of $100000.00 becomes due and payable on or before July 1, 1963, with interest at the rate of 5% per annum frors July 2, 1962 until paid. Vo-r,-,,r traly -Y-our3, N. S. CHRISTOPULOS Dist. Chief Accounting officer RDL/nmn E��HIINGrpy� © RAT City of Huntington Beach California AtTY January 23, 1963 Mr. D. W. Blankman Title Ynsurance and Trust Co. 800 N. Main Street Santa Ann, California Dear ':fir. Sly n: We have enclosed copies of a portion. of our file relating to this transfer of property be- tween the City of Huntington Beach and the State of Cal ibmie, which is now under lease to the Driftwood Xnn Corporation. As you probable know, there is a February lst deadline for this completion of all financial arrangements and the starting of construction. With this in mind, please let us Icnow if in any wary we can be of further help. Sincerely, Doyle Miller City Administrator is ss lost City of Huntington. Beach Cali f omia September 5, 1962 y California State Highway Dept. District No, 9 P.O. Box 2304 Los Angeles 54, California Re: RW - VII Ore, Hnt.B No. A1783 - City of Huntington. Beach In the fall of 1961, the City of Huntington Beach and the State of California completed an exchange of property at the junction of Highway 39 and Coast Highway 101, :. After appraisal of the two parcels it was mutually agreed that the value of the State property exceeded the value of the City property in the amount of $20,000 00 The contract between the City of Huntington Beach and the State of California recites, that tba City will pay the State of California $10,000.00, plus interest, on July lot, 1962, and $10,000.00, plus interest, on July lot, 1943. This amount has been included in the 1962-83 budget a and should be paid. Would you please forward,d, to the City of Ru4jington Beach, a statement for principle and interest now due. Sincerely, Doyle Miller, ,k City' Administrator 24:ss rw�� November 27, 1961 S . JaO. on i 1ih *1 Way Agent Califernij Division of Highways Box 2304, Taminai Aix Los AuSelon 54, California A8 --,Cjt-y� of RM-tingn aoh 7VIOH364 Dear M. Roubanz e bwm, a'ciosed a copy of the grant dead mn ioued in the away Agream�.t cave f� he a' .wm mad to. This deed h" b� Proporiy ouseuted by the Xmror,attested by the City Clark and notarized. d. Your aeoperation and help in thin matter, is greatly appreciated.. Doyle H*—Iler City Adinini Crater is i a1a�. x�r>in e Y .. P. O. BOX 1499 SACRAMENTO 7. CALIFORNIA April 2, 1963 City of Huntington Beach P. O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California Attention: Mayor Robert M. Lambert Dear Mayor Lambert: Thank you for your letter of March 28, 1963, ' signed by all of the members of your Council, further defining the City's position on the routing of the Coast Freeway. It will be brought to the attention of the members of the Highway Commission and made a part of the record of the public hearing held on March 14, 1963. Your assistance to the commission in select- ing the most satisfactory route is sincerely appreciated. Very truly yours, ROBERT T. MARTIN Assistant Secretary 4; A s�' State Highway Commission State of California On March 12, 1963, the Huntington Beach City Council sent Mr. Richard Deffebach, District Engineer of the California State Highway Department, a letter outlining the history and present position of the City with regard to the proposed Route 60 Freeway from Beach Boulevard in Huntington Beach to the Santa Ana river. The City Council desires to further define its position to the Highway Commission. On behalf of the best interests of the community as a whole, the City Council is opposed to the so-called "Green Line" route along . the present Highway 101 right of way. The City-Council urges the location of the Coastal Freeway in the general area designated as the "Red Line" route from Beach Boulevard in Huntington Beach to the Santa Ana river, with adjustments where necessary to avoid shopping centers which are currently in the planning stage. 8 INGrpN� City of Huntington ton Beach p ma`s°X California ' �CaUNTY � March 28, 1963 r, Robert B. Bradford, Chaim California State a Highway Commis s icon P.0. Box 1499 Sacramento 7, California Dear Sir: On March 12, 1963, the Huntington. Beach City Council sent Mr. Richard Deffebach, District Engineer of the California State HigImay Department, a letter outlining the history and present position of the City with re- a�rd to the proposed Route 60 Freeway from Beach Blvd n Huntington 1::ach to the Santa Ar-a river. The City Council desires to further define its, position to the, Highway Commis s ion. On behalf of the best interests tas of the community 4s a whole, the City Council is opposed to the so"called "Green Line" route along the present Highway 101 right of wary. The CityCouncil urges than location of the Coastal: Freeway the general area designated as the "Red Lino" route from Beach Boulevard in Huntington Beach to the Santa Ana river, with adjustments where necessary to avoid shopping centers which are currently in the planning stage. Very truly yours, ayor rt viac man Uisler ewart e o ' xaxl , r ` � • 1ar1 'Sx l 4 # R R M _ R: is i 49r .. �. aR i >< � r. .. �. �. - ♦. 4i - a: :; i a� 4� dN 1k • R f: q i s .mot. � k PFJ:as �' aR k bk i S 1G r.'.'$ i • 4a i.� # 'R ?a8� M k i' ,: %: # i 'Ak _ R i b:« M +► ,+. r+i • R ��- i ' � as �R as « �' R :� w •. i ' R R..-0 �:,� rr � ♦ s #. an �,. va ea,�� R aai w ;. � a .7 7 a i4�.i it. :.8► +1 k R,4 i6 +� N w r-k i ., iS^.• t' R ..', sw. a # k k: '�A R. y.. a 4t ai R as R ::, ii 4 s^ R •. � ! 'as Y • i. ..- • 4 .rp a 4 'R. r i M k;N. .5. a.... ::.1i'A :. fc, S. k R t. • • • `., +: . � ,. - ;, .,,. ,;,. i,.s {. ��,� 4 k k,a 16 �. • „:i ft'. !- t k.�.: M k&tM x+dk f a is��T t # a a.�. b,,ap. 2k •k i ", ♦ i 9k #.Y R y iota,its ar �� R t P. i i,k City of Huntington Beach California NTY Richard Def.febach -2- March 12, 1963 Since there has been no change in the official position of the City of Huntington Beach, we ask that the C1oastal Free- way be located in the area of the red line on the study map with particular consideration for the enhancement of arterial highway intersections, with adjustments where necessary to avoid shopping centers, and commardial enterprises vhich are currently in the planning stage. Since the difference in cost of the green, yellow, or red alternates is negligible, and the convenience to the travel- ing public will be roughly the same, we feel that the Coastal Freeway should be located in a position whach would be of greatest benefit to the community. Our City would be bene- fited most by a freeway following generally the red line, exercising such flexibilities as are presently available for the enhancement and development of commercial enterprise in its proximity. However, if the State Highway Engineer determines that the coastal, or green route, within the City of Huntington Beach, beat serves the freeway system, and so recommends to the Highway Commission, and if t4a Commission concurs in.sach a recommendation, further consideration moat be given the freeway agreement presently in force. This agreement was drawn up some seven years ago. In view of subsequent changes in bAnd use it must necessarily be modified to provide better service to this City. If, in the final decision, the pven line is adopted, it is requested that the Commission T6truct the Division of Highways, at that timeo to reopen this matter so that local interests can be reconsidered. Very truly yours, State of California California Administrative Code Title 21. Public Works Department of Public Works Architecture Highways Toll Bridge Authority E^� OF r tuM� yF r� r o s C��IPOR % Distributed by PRINTING DIVISION (DOCUMENTs SECTION) NORTH SEVENTH STREET AND RICHARDB BOIILEVAm SACRA ENTO 14, CALrromIA AAW, REVISION RECORD FOR REGISTER 61, No. 19 (September 30, 1961) TITLE 21. PUBLIC WORKS CHAPTER 1. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SUBCHAPTER 4. CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY COMMISSION This part of Register 61, No. 19, contains all the additions, amend- ments, and repeals affecting the above-entitled portion of the Cali- fornia Administrative Code which were filed with the Secretary of State from September 16, 1961, to and including September 30, 1961. It is important that the holders of the above-entitled portion of the code check the section numbers listed below as well as the page numbers when inserting this material in the code and removing the superseded material. In case of doubt rely upon the section numbers rather than the page numbers since the section numbers must run consecutively even though there may be an error in the paging. SECTION CHANGES Unless otherwise noted, the sections listed below are amended herein. Section 1451 added PAGE CHANGES REMOVE INSERT Old Pages Attached Pages ________ 147-148 Do Not Throw Away Superseded Material. Save it and place it in a separate file under the original heading (either the appropriate title or register heading). It will then always be possible to find the prior wording of any section by using the history notes provided. NoTE: This revision sheet is not a part of the code and should not be inserted therein. It is chiefly for filing purposes. If preserved with the removed pages, it will afford a ready reference to the sections affected by agency action. (Precedes page 147, Title 21) d.r � TITLE 21 CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY COMMISSION 147 (Register 61, No. 19---9-30-61) SUBCHAPTER 4. CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY COMMISSION 1451. Resolution Restating Procedure Relative to Adoption of Freeway Locations by the California Highway Commission. Resolved, by the California Highway Commission, that the fol- lowing procedure shall be followed in the adoption of freeway loca- tions in the State highway system: (1) When it is proposed to locate or relocate any portion of a state highway as a freeway, the State Highway Engineer, or his authorized representative, shall: (a) At the initiation of the studies necessary to determine the possible locations to be presented to the Commission for consideration, and from time to time thereafter, confer with the appropriate local governing bodies, and other agencies that may be affected thereby and with their technical and planning personnel, obtaining where available any master or general plan of the area; (b) Call to the attention of the appropriate local govern- ing body, in writing, the provisions of Section 75.5 of the Streets and Highways Code; (c) When sufficient information has been accumulated to permit intelligent discussion, publicize and hold such public meeting, or meetings, as may be reasonably necessary to ac- quaint interested individuals, officials and civic or other groups with the studies made and the information developed, and to obtain their views with respect thereto. In conducting any such meetings where major controversy appears probable, the State Highway Engineer may arrange for a Division of Highways employee, not employed in the District Office involved, to act as presiding officer. (2) The State Highway Engineer shall submit to the Commission a written report, covering the results of such conferences and meet- ings, the relationship between all proposed locations and any master or general plans of the affected local agency or agencies, any informa- tion submitted pursuant to Section 75.5 of the Streets and Highways Code, the studies made, and a recommendation as to the location of the freeway. (3) When authorized so to do by the Commission, the State High- way Engineer shall notify the appropriate local governing body, which notice shall be publicized, of the intention of the Commission to con- sider the location of the freeway. Such notification shall include a statement that the Commission or designated members thereof will hold a public hearing on the proposal, if requested to do so by the local lgdir slative bodvn thirty (30) days after the first regular meeting of such body following receipt of such written notification; provided, however, that if, prior to receipt of such notification from the Commission, the local legislative body or bodies shall have, by 148 PUBLIC WORDS TITLE 21 (Register 61, No. 19-9.30-61) resolution, declared that no public hearing by the Commission is neces- sary, then the notification by the State Highway Engineer shall advise such local body only of the intention of the Commission to consider the matter. (4) If any such legislative body requests such hearing, the Com- mission, or a designated member or members thereof, will hold a hear- ing, after public notice given in such manner as the Commission may determine, at which time and place all persons, and official bodies and other organizations interested in the matter, shall be afforded an oppor- tunity to be heard. The Commission may also, on its own motion, call a public meeting or hold such hearings as it may deem appropriate. (5) After the expiration of such period of thirty (30) days, if no hearing is requested, or after such meetings or hearings as the Commis- sion may hold, the Commission will adopt a location for the freeway between the limits under consideration. (6) The authorization referred to in numbered paragraph 3 of this resolution, to give public notice of the Commission's intention to hold a hearing, shall be by resolution of the Commission relating to each specific freeway location proposed to be considered. In all other respects, this resolution authorizes the State Highway Engineer, with- out further resolution or order of this Commission, to do such things and take such action as may appear to him to be necessary or proper to comply with the above specified procedure. (7) At any public meeting held by the State Highway Engineer, or his authorized representative, any material transmitted by an af- fected city or county pursuant to Section 75.5 of the Streets and High- ways Code shall be presented at the meeting by the person conducting the meeting or hearing, if so requested by the affected city or county, or shall be received in such manner as the affected city or county re- quests. (8) It is recognized that, in addition to the foregoing, the State Highway Engineer, through his representatives, may hold any addi- tional meetings or hearings required to qualify any highway project for the use of Federal funds pursuant to any Federal statute or rule or regulation promulgated thereunder. (9) The resolution of the Commission regarding the subject mat- ter hereof, adopted on February 18, 1955, is hereby rescinded. This resolution is hereby adopted by the California Highway Com- mission' at Sacramento, California, this 26th day of February, 1958. Noxz: Authority cited: Sections 11421 and 11422, Government Code. 8i8fory: 1. New section filed 9-19-61 as procedural; designated effective upon filing (Register 61, No. 19). O prinlfd iM CALIFORNIA STATE PRINTING OFFICE 78085 9-62 5M If? December 2, 1964 Honorable Board of Supervisors County of Orange Civic Center Santa Ana, California Gentlemen: We are sending you a copy of Resolution No. 2068 adopted by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at their regular adjourned meeting held Monday, November 30, 1964. This Resolution indicates the feeling of the Council in their support of the "Red Line Route" of Pacific Coast Freeway from Adams Street in Huntington Beach to 15th Street in Costa Mesa. I The Council urge that your Honorable Body add your support to this project by the passage of a similar Resolution. Your favorable consideration in this matter will be ap- preeiated by all members of the City Council of Huntington fBeach. Sincerely yours, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ:tr Enc: (1) Res. #2068 December 2, 1964 State of California Division of Highways 27182 Camino De La Estrella San Clemente, California Gentlemen: Enclosed herewith is a copy of Resolution No. 2068, supporting the Red Line Route of Pacific Coast Freeway from Adams Street, Huntington Beach to Fifteenth S;rreet, Costa Mesa, which was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at their regular adjournedemeeting held Monday, November 30, 1964. Sincerely yours, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ:tr Enc: (1) Res. #2068 December 2, 1964 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Newport Beach, California Gentlemen: Enclosed herewith is a copy of Resolution No. 2068, E supporting the Red Line Route of Pacific Coast Freeway from Adams Street, Huntington Beach to Fifteenth Street, Costa Mesa, which was passed and adopted by the City Council of the Citq of Huntington Beach at their regular adjourned meeting held Monday, November 30, 1964. Sincerely yours, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Paul C. Jones City Cleric PCJ:tr Enc: (1) Res. #2068 ���SINGTpy RA CITY OF -- - - ---- -- - - - -- --- - CALIFORNIA �CDUNTY januciry 20, 1.965 Honorable As"al-14main John Schmitz, Jr. State Capitol Building Sacramento, California vdlomrva Dear AsswAhymn Schmitz, Jr. : Enclosed herewith is a copy of Resolution No. 2103, protesting the signing of an agreement for the adopted coastal freeway route. This resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at the regular meeting held January 18, 1965, and Council directed a copy be forwarded to you. Sincerely yours, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ/sg Enc. : Res. #2103 ��NTINGTpN R CITY OF -- - --- -- - - --- - -- - - - - - --- -- - - - -- - -- - CALIFORNIA yc jog, NTY January 20, 1965 Honorable Assemblyman James E. Whetmore State Capitol Building Sacramento, California Dear Assemblyman Whetmore: Enclosed herewith is a copy of Resolution No. 2103, protesting the signing of an agreement for the adopted coastal frewway route. This resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the Cilry of Huntington Beach at the regular meeting held January 18, 1965, and Council directed a copy be forwarded to you. Sincerely yours, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ/sg Enc: Res. #2103 ��NTINGTpy � a+agrFae�9� J CITY OF -- a - -- - --- -- - - - -- - -- - CALIFORNIA �CNUNTY CP�� January 20, 1965 Honorable Assemblyman William E. Dannemeyer State Capitol Building Sacramento, California Dear Assemblyman Dannemeyer: Enclosed herewith is a copy of Resolution No. 2103, protesting the signing of an agreement for the adopted coastal freeway route. This resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at the regular meeting held January 18, 1965, and Council directed a copy be forwarded to YOU. Sincerely yours, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ/sg Enc: Res. #2103 INGTpN pp(1RAr of ? CITY OF _"_ -- ------ - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - ----- - - --- - -- - CALIFORNIA yc a 90 ° E� �CNUNTY GP�� January 20, 1965 Honorable Assemblyman Robert E. Badham State Capitol Building Sacramento, California Dear Assemblyman Badham: Enclosed herewith is a copy of Resolution No. 2103, protesting the signing of an agreement for the adopted coastal freeway route. This resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at the regular meeting held January 18, 1965, and Council directed a copy be forwarded to you. Sincerely yours, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ/sg Enc: Res. #2003 INGTpN RA CITY CITY OF �Cwa - -- y �o Q CALIFORNIA �CN"NTY GPI\ January 20, 1965 Honorable Governor Edmund G. Brown State Capitol Building Sacramento, California Dear Governor Brown: Enclosed herewith is a copy of Resolution No. 2103, protesting the signing of an agreement for the adopted coastal freeway route. This resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at the regular meeting held January 18, 1965, and Council directed a copy be forwarded to you. Sincerely yours, CITY OF WNTINGTON BEACH Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ/sg Enc: Res. #2103 INGRA TpN CZ CITY OF -r --- y F P OQ CALIFORNIA C �1809, �C®LINTY GPI C January 20, 1965 Honorable Mayor Paul J. Gruber 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California Dear Mayor Gruber: Enclosed herewith is a copy of Resolution No. 2103, protesting the signing of an agreement for the adopted coastal freeway route. This resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at the regular meeting held January 18, 1965, and Council directed a copy be forwarded to you. Sincerely yours, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ/sg Enc: Res. #2103 INGRA TpN E3 y CITY OF - Q ------ ----------- ------------ ---- o rr-r. _ y F -0 Q? CALIFORNIA yC e ?is7. oeP \�0 �CN"NTY GPI' (C (a PJanuary 20, 1965 y State of California Division of Highways Department of Public Works Sacramento, California Gentlemen; Enclosed herewith is a copy of Resolution No. 2103, protesting the signing of an agreement for the adopted coastal freeway route. This resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at the regular meeting held January 18, 1965, and Council directed a copy be forwarded to your office. Sincerely yours, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Paul C. ,Tones City Clerk PCJ/sg Enc.- Res. #2103 ,�GNTINGTpN L, ? CITY OF -- ti F P OQ CALIFORNIA C ?isb9 ��c NTY GPI, January 15, 1965 Honorable Representative Richard T. Hanna 1516 Longworth House Office Building Washington 25, D. C. Dear Representative Hanna: Enclosed herewith is a copy of Resolution No. 2099, relating to freeway routing, which was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at their regular meeting held Monday, January 4, 1965. Sincerely yours, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ/sg Enc: (1) Res . #2099 ,�UNSINGTpN of 2���RAT eo®�q� CITY OF - -- -a Q CALIFORNIA yc e ?'rso9 P• ��° �CopNTY January 15, 1965 Honorable Representative James B. Utt 103 Cannon House Office Building Washington 25, D. C. Dear Representative Utt: Enclosed herewith is a copy of Resolution No. 2099, relating to freeway routing, which was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at their regular meeting held Monday, January 4, 1965. Sincerely yours, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ/sg Enc: (1) Res . #2099 INGRA TpN C CITY OF �-- -- - ------ -- -- ---- --- - --------------- v �."�cTLES.'�. Q __ 3 �-Ir. Q CALIFORNIA yC e�?'isoeP• \�c0 COUNTY GPI' (C (a PJanuary 1.5, 1965 y Honorable Senator Thomas H. Kuchel Senate Office Building Washington 25, D. C. Dear Senator Kuchel : Enclosed herewith is a copy of Resolution No. 2099, relating to freeway routing, which was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at their regular meeting held Monday, January 4, 1965 . Sincerely yours, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ/sg Enc; (1) Res . #2099 INGRA Iph r CITY OF jKMa&4'&Vv twma -�-- -- -- ---- n � r --- ----- --------- ------------ CALIFORNIA yC e �=r909,° COUNTY CP�� (C (a PJanuary 15, 1965 y Honorable Senator John Schmitz, Jr. State Capitol Sacramento, California Dear Senator Schmitz, Jr. : Enclosed herewith is a copy of Resolution No. 2099, relating to freeway routing, which was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at their regular meeting held Monday, January 4, 1965. Sincerely yours, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ/sg Enc: (1) Res. #2099 INGTpN O��cPR�RA�Fa®cq� �_i��V • C�(��i��G���I V CITY OF . _ ------ -- --------- ---- -------- -- - --- v �� y F Q OQ CALI FORNI A C � 1909 �CNUNTY GP�� O PJanuary 15, 1965 y Honorable Assemblyman William E. Dannemeyer State Capitol Sacramento, California Dear Assemblyman Dannemeyer: Enclosed herewith is a copy of Resolution No. 2099, relating to freeway routing, which was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at their regular meeting held Monday, January 4, 1965. Sincerely yours, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ/sg Enc: (1) Res. #2099 INGRA TpN CITYOF-------- -------- - ----------- ------ Po O� CALIFORNIA C ?1909, �cp"NTY CP�� January 15, 1965 Honorable Assemblyman James E. Whetmore State Capitol Sacramento, California Dear Assemblyman Whetmore: Enclosed herewith is a copy of Resolution No. 2099, relating to freeway routing, which was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at their regular meeting held Monday, January 4, 1965. Sincerely yours, CITY OF WNTINGTON BEACH Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ/sg Enc: (1) Res . #2099 ING OE�,StPRATeO®F,9� /C_� CITY OF (t, __ --CALIFORNIA yC e ?'i9asP �� �CUUNTY GP�a January 15, 1965 Honorable Assemblyman Robert E. Badham State Capitol Sacramento, California Dear Assemblyman Badham: Enclosed herewith is a copy of Resolution No. 2099, relating to freeway routing, which was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at their regular meeting held Monday, January 4, 1965. Sincerely yours, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ/sg Enc: (1) Res . #2099 INGroN Q CITY OF -- - ------ -- --------- y -O Q ---- --- --- ---- --- - CALIFORNIA yc ® �'rsagP• ��° NTY January 15, 1965 Honorable Senator George Murphy Senate Office Building Washington 25, D. C. Dear Senator Murphy: Enclosed herewith is a copy of Resolution No. 2099, relating to freeway routing, which was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at their regular meeting held Monday, January 4, 1965 . Sincerely yours , CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ/sg Enc: (1) Res. #2099 INGrpN RAT�O e�q� • ��CITY OF -_----- y -o- Q CALIFORNIA 7469 469 JNTY GPI, O January 15, 1965 Honorable Governor Edmund G. Brown State Capitol Building Sacramento, California Dear Governor Brown: Enclosed herewith is a copy of Resolution No. 2099, relating to freeway routing, which was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at their regular meeting held Monday, January 4, 1965. Sincerely yours, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Paul C. Jones City Cleric PCJ/sg Enc: (1) Res. #2099 �GNTING RA CITY OF -- y CALIFORNIA yc � � 1909,P• �o �CDUNTY GP�� January 15, 1965 Honorable Board of Supervisors County of Orange Civic Center Santa Ana, California Gentlemen: Enclosed herewith is a copy of Resolution No. 2099, relating to freeway routing, which was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at their regular meeting held Monday, January 4, 1965 . Sincerely yours, CITY OF EMINGTON BEACH Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ/sg Enc: (1) Res . #2099 �GN(ING RA CITY OF JKWZA�twma 9 rci a 2 CALIFORNIA �y �e�"P•• oe COUNTY GPI' G January 15, 1965 Honorable Mayor Paul J. Gruber 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California Dear Mayor Gruber; Enclosed herewith is a copy of Resolution No. 2099, relating to freeway routing, which was passed and adopted by the Cityy Council of the City of Huntington Beach at t�aeir regular meeting held Monday, January 4, 1965. Sincerely yours, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ/sg Enc; (1) Res . #2099 i INGTpN RAT f CITY OF - - -_ ---- ---------- --- - CALIFORNIA yc 9 � 1909 P �C° COUNTY GP�� January 4, 1965 Honorable Governor Edmund G. Brown State Capitol Building Sacramento, California Dear Governor Brown: Enclosed herewith is a copy of Resolution No. 2092, protesting to the action of the State Highway Com- mission in adopting the "Green Line Route" for the Coastal Freeway, which was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at their regular meeting held Monday, December 21, 1964. Sincerely yours, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ:tr Enc: �1 I'VOa-'s J INGRA TpN L, CITY OF jKMn&4&VV tww4e -r - -- y CALIFORNIA yC e ?isa9P.��� COUNTY cP� January 4, 1965 Honorable Congressman Richard T. Hanna House Post Office Washington, D.C. Dear Congressman Hanna: Enclosed herewith is a copy of Resolution No. 2092, protesting to Governor Edmund G. Brown the action of the State Highway Commission in adopting the "Green Line Route" for the Coastal Freeway, which was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Hunt- ington Beach at their regular meeting held Monday, December 21, 1964. Sincerely yours, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ:tr Enc, (1) INGTpN o� RAT�Oe�q� L, CITY OF ? -T--- — o �e.^ 5�_ Q --—————— ———————— — ——————— ————— —————— CALIFORNIA yc /�1 .69P �o "NTY GP�� (C O PJanuary 4, 1965 y Honorable Assemblyman Robert E. Badham State Capitol Building Sacramento, California Dear Assemblyman Badham: Enclosed herewith is a copy of Resolution No. 2092, protesting to Governor Edmund G. Brown the action of the State Highway Comr�ssion in adopting the "Green Line Route" for the Coastal Freeway, which was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Hunt- ington Beach at their regular meeting held Monday, December 21, 1964. Sincerely yours, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ:tr Enc: (1) INGRAjii TpN U CITY OFff-A---- -------------- ---- -r--- - ca �rr �rr�Cc _• Q = CALIFORNIA CpUNTY GPI' January 4, 1965 Honorable Assemblyman James E. W'hetmore State Capitol Building Sacramento, California Dear Assemblyman Whetmore: Enclosed herewith is a copy of Resolution No. 2092, protesting to Governor Edmund G. Brown the action of the State Highway Commission in adopting the "Green Line Route" for the Coastal Freeway, which was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Hunt- ington Beach at their regular meeting held Monday, December 21, 1964. Sincerely yours, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ:tr Enc: (1) INGTpN O RpnRgTF CITY OF - -- �rzt� 0 2 ------------ -- - --- CALIFORNIA yc e r909,° �o �C®LINTY GP�� January 4, 1965 Honorable Senator John G. Schmitz State Capitol Building Sacramento, California Dear Senator Schmitz: Enclosed herewith is a copy of Resolution No. 2092, protesting to Governor Edmund G. Brown the action of the State Highway Commission in adopting the "Green Line Route" for the Coastal Freeway, which was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Hunt- ington Beach at their regular meeting held Monday, December 21, 1964. Sincerely yours, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ:tr Enc: (1) INGTpN RATFa®�n9� CITY OF - .- -_ y -o• CALIFORNIA yC e �'isag9P <co COUNTY GP\\ O January 4, 1965 Mayor Paul J. Gruber 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California Dear Mayor Gruber: Enclosed herewith is a copy of Resolution No. 2092, protesting to Governor Edmund G. Brown the action of the State Highway Commission in adopting tte "Green Line Route" for the Coastal Frewway, which was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Hunt- ington Beach at their regular meeting held Monday, December 21, 1964. Sincerely yours, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ:tr Enc: (1) �s 7 Cal"t 1 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF 2 ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 3 December 8, 1964 4 On motion of Supervisor Baker, duly seconded and carried, the 5 following Resolution was adopted: 6 WHEREAS, the State Highway Commission has adopted a precise 7 alignment for the Route One Freeway in the Cities of Huntington Beach 8 and Newport Beach between Adams Street and Corona del Mar, and 9 WHEREAS, the City of Huntington Beach and the City of Newport 10� Beach have requested that the Highway Commission reopen hearings as 11 to the location of this proposed freeway, and 12 WHEREAS, the said cities have requested that the County of Orange 13 officially express its opinion regarding the location of the proposed 14 freeway, and J N� 15 ' WHEREAS, the County of Orange did officially express its opinion an 'zz o» ��w 16 has not varied from this position, and has published this opinion LL OzQ 8° 17 before the public in hearings before the Highway Commission. 18 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of 19r the County of Orange does hereby reaffirm and reiterate its opinion 20 as to the location of the Route One Freeway, as follows: 21 (1) The tremendous volumes of traffic which must be anticipated 22 in the coastal area of this community establishes the fact that a 23 freeway is the only practical solution to the traffic problem we 24 must face. 25 (2) Because of the extreme importance of the beach recreational 26 facilities to the community and to the State of California as a whole, 27 the existing Pacific Coast Highway must be maintained in the future 28 as a local access around which these facilities can continue to grow 29 and to serve the most important public need. 30 (3) If a freeway facility is to be constructed through the area, 311 it must not sever the recreational area from the community; therefore, 1 32' it should be located inland from the existing highway at a location MB:ho Resolution No. 64-1560 1 that will best suit the economical needs of the community. 2 31 AYES: SUPERVISORS DAVID L. BAKER, C. M. FEATHERLY, ALTON E. ALLEN, WM. HIRSTEIN 4 NOES: SUPERVISORS NONE 5 ABSENT: SUPERVISORS WILLIAM J. PHILLIPS 6 7 I, W. E. ST JOHN, County Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the Board 8 of Supervisors of Orange County, California, hereby certify that the 9 above and foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the 10 said Board at a regular meeting thereof held on the 8th day of 11 December, 1964, and passed by a unanimous vote of said Board members 12 present. 13 14 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this J N 15 8th day of December, 1964. > „•Z z ODD WUu oo 16 0 u 11 o OZi po 17 W. E. ST. JOHN 18 County Clerk and e,x'-'officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors o',Orange 19 County, California 20 21 By Deppty 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 •k DRAFT '* RESOLUTION REGARDING THE SIGNING OF AN AGREEMENT FOR THE ADOPTED COASTAL FREEWAY ROUTE. WHEREAS, THE STATE DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS AT THE PUBLIC HEARING HELD ON MARCH y IMF, 1963, STATED THAT THE PRINCIPAL FACTORS ON WHICH AN OVER-ALL EVALUATION OF THE Q I MERITS OF ANY PARTICULAR FREEWAY ROUTING IS BASED ARE AS FOLLOWS: I . THE BENEFITS TO BE DERIVED BY THE COMMUNITY THROUGH OR AROUND WHICH IT MAY 'PASS. 2. THE DEGREE TO WHICH THE ALTERNATE WILL FULFILL BOTH EXISTING AND FUTURE TRAFFIC DEMANDS OF THE AFFECTED AREA. 3. THE INITIAL COST OF THE PROJECT WHICH INCLUDES COST OF CONSTRUCTION AND RIGHTS OF WAY. WHEREAS, THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FREEWAY ALONG THE COASTAL ROUTE WOULD NEEDLESSLY DESTROY IRREPLACEABLE PRIME VIEW PROPERTY; WHEREAS, THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FREEWAY ALONG THE COASTAL ROUTE WOULD DO GREAT HARM TO THE RECREATIONAL AREAS OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH; WHEREAS, THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FREEWAY ALONG THE COASTAL ROUTE WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT THE HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AND ITS PLANNED EXPANSIONS WHEREAS, AT THE TIME OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING HELD MARCH 14, 1963, THE DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS FIGURES SHOWED THE INLAND ROUTE TO BE 4.6 MILLION DOLLARS MORE EXPENSIVE THAN THE COASTAL ROUTE;WHEREAS, THE REPORT PREPARED BY THE DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS ON DECEMBER 28, 1964, SHOWS THE COASTAL ROUTE TO BE 8.3 MILLION DOLLARS MORE EXPENSIVE THAN THE INLAND ROUTE, A DIFFERENCE OF 12.6 MILLION DOLLARS FROM THE ESTIMATES MADE AT THE TIME OF ROUTE ADOPTION; WHEREAS, THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HAS EMPLOYED THE FIRM OF DE LEUW, LATHER, NATIONALLY KNOWN TRAFFIC ENGINEERS, TO DEVELOP A FREEWAY LOCATION STUDY, AND THEIR REPORT, DATED DECEMBER, 1964, SHOWS THE COASTAL ROUTE TO BE 17.6 MILLION DOLLARS MORE EXPENSIVE THAN THE INLAND ROUTE, A DIFFERENCE OF 22.8 MILLION DOLLARS FROM THE ORIGINAL ESTIMATE OF THE STATE AT THE TIME OF ROUTE ADOPTION; PAGE 2. 1 WHEREAS, THE REPORT BY DE LEUW, CATHER SHOWED THE INLAND ROUTE TO BE 0.98 MILES SHORTER THAN THE COASTAL ROUTE; WHEREAS, THE REPORT BY DE LEUW, CATHER FURTHER SHOWED AN ANNUAL USER SAVINGS FOR THROUGH-TRAFFIC TO BE I .35 MILLION DOLLARS; WHEREAS, BOTH THE REPORT PREPARED BY THE STATE HIGHWAY ENGINEER AND THE FIRM OF DE LEUW, CATHER SHOWS THE TRAFFIC SERVICE AND USER BENEFIT TO BE BETTER ALONG THE INLAND ROUTE THAN THE COASTAL ROUTE; WHEREAS, THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FEELS THAT THE TRUE FACTUAL SITUATION OF THE COMPARISON BETWEEN THE INLAND AND THE COASTAL ROUTES WAS NEVER PROPERLY PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION AT THE TIME OF ROUTE ADOPTION _. _.... .....v.__._.. WHEREAS, THE COMMISSION DID NOT, IN FACT, CONSIDER THE PRINCIPAL FACTORS ON �. WHICH AN OVER-ALL EVALUATION WAS TO HAVE BEEN MADE WHEREAS, THE COMMISSION ON DECEMBER 16, 1964, AFTER RECEIVING NEW COST ESTIMATES AND NEW TRAFFIC RECOMMENDATIONS FAVORING THE INLAND ROUTE, REFUSED TO RE-OPEN THE MATTER FOR A PUBLIC HEARING BY A 4 TO 2 VOTE; WHEREAS, THE COMMISS'I-ON ON DECEMBER I.6, 1964, GAVE GREAT WEIGHT TO THE IMMINENCY OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED MARINA ALONG THE INLAND ROUTE AND THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH KNOWS THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS MARINA IS NOT IMMINENTk BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CAN NOT IN GOOD CONSCIENCE BE A PARTY TO A FREEWAY AGREEMENT THAT WOULD. . . . . . —C �u Zvi--mac-c� 3 vX. L.ta b 00 -tw' c T=✓r{ v7-L-i. co CC \ O cvv k L_'v 4 v V T v -��-C� �� I't►—1 wa,-c v +��.'S . -CaM MITTEE ON �. DISTRICT OFFICE: BANKING AND CURRENCY JOHN BEEKMAN RICHARD T. HANNA FIELD REPRESexrATIVE 34TH DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1695W.CRESCENT,T,SUITE 510 SUBCOMMITTEES: F CN DOMESTIC FINANCE (Congre0� of the aniteb CONSUMER AFFAIRS PHONE:776-6850 INTERNATIONAL FINANCE TO Pouoe of Repratntatibeg WASH A.BUTCHER SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON WILLIAM A.BTCHER ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT TOURISM AND TRAVEL w obillaton,3D. C 1516 HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING January 22, 1965 Huntington Beach City Council "��_ c/o Paul Jones, City Clerk City Hall -8y • Huntington Beach, California / Gentlemen: Please find enclosed a letter I 've written, in which I bring to the attention of the federal authorities the recent decision by California Highway Commission to locate the Coastal Freeway along the route of Highway 101. It is my hope that we can bring about a relocation of this freeway at this level. Sincerely yours, RICHARD T. HANNA United States Congressman 4rti COMMITTEE ON DISTRICT OFFICE: ,BANKING AND CURRENCY - � JOHN BEEKMAN 1 RICHARD T. HANNA FIELD REPRESENTATIVE 34TH DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1695 W.CRESCENT,SUITE 510 SUBCOMMITTEES: NIA DOMESTIC FINANCE ANA ONE:EIM.776-68CALIFO 0 CONSUMER AFFAIRS Congre�� of the ENO Ota�te� PHONE:776-6850 INTERNATIONAL FINANCE WASHINGTON OFFICE: oua;e of eproentatibeg WILLIAM A.BUTCHER ��yyyy.Ry }}yy F y11 ,1v ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT �URNA' TJ{glOW/ JIB• (,1 ♦ 1516 HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING January 21, 1965 John Connor, Secretary of Comerce Department of Commerce Washington 25, D.C. Dear 14r x. Secretary x ".,th'h* California state Highway Commission, it has been .reported, announced a decision to locate the long heralld ed Coast Freeway along the existing Highway 101 right-of-way from Seal Beach to Newport Vieach in orange County, California. This decision, if faxed, is extremely unpopular in nay district and iss wholly unacceptable to the people and the local municipal jurisdiction who would be affected. Sine* a large portion of the funds for this freeway are to be provided by the Federal Government, 3 think you should be appraised of the arguments in this case. and aak your advises and convent. The first and foremost argument is increased coat over a rout* which could be selected further inland. The route which was selected is longer, and entails the purchase of very valuable beachfront property. The construction cast of the longer route, and the greatly increased acquisition costs, will result in the unnecessary expenditure of millions of tax dollars. And wbatt, many, ask. dress the increased coat gur- chaze? The construction of this freeway along the coast would severely -limit public access to one of the most: beautiful and widely used bsaches in the United. States. In fact, .it; wound effectively sever a prosperous beach community from its bea h. Further- more, constructing a large controlled access freeway directly along as fire natural beach and recreation Join Connor. Socret*ry of Coamerce January 21, l 96S Page. a area is contradictory to the very esthetic values which President Johnson has omphas1zed in setting ti:e Standard* for the `°goat Society". It Woulu appear that When the grits of this case aro dully urr4orsto , *n inland rout* will be clearly seen as wxh superior to the coastal rotate. Thaadking you, I roaain Yours since:rely# United Staters Cm9r°essman CC s Gov. growl miyor shipl.ey, u.s. U.S. City council, c%4 Paul Jones, City Clerk Direc for r Office of Right-of-way and Location Federal Bighway1 inistration ene. xucilel Murphy 1 aR STATE OF CALIFORNIA—HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN, Governor DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS P.O. BOX 1499, SACRAMENTO January 21, 1965 City Council City of Huntington Beach P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: This will acknowledge receipt of a copy of Resolution No. 2103 protesting the signing of an agree- ment for the adopted coastal freeway route. This resolution which was adopted by your honorable body on January 18, 1965, was forwarded to this office by letter dated January 20, 1965, by Mr. Paul C. Jones, City Clerk. Sincerely, J. C. WOMACK State Highway Engineer oputy State ghwaay Eng AOAOT DISTRICT OFFICE COMMITTEES 329 S.MAGNOLIA AVENUE _ JUDICIARY ANAHEIM,CALIFO RNIA 92804 MILITARY AND VETERANS TEL.:TAYLOR 7.4910 AFFAIRS TRANSPORTATION AND LAW OFFICE COMMERCE 1105 E.COMM NW WATER SUITEO F FULLERTON,CALIFORNIA TEL.:TR OJAN 1.1046 SACRAMEN TO ADDRESS STATE CAPITOL \a''VII' I}Vl,.• J-I ZONE 14 WILLIAM E. DANNEMEYER MEMBER OF ASSEMBLY.SIXTY-NINTH DISTRICT January 25, 1965 The City Council City of Huntington Beach P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I have forwarded a copy of your resolution requesting the United States Government to investigate the freeway system of Southern California to each of the members of the Highway Commission, to the Governor, and to Mr. Telford, head of the Division of Highways, Los Angeles. Since your city is in the Assembly District of Mr. Whetmore, I think he should be the one to carry any resolution in our House which would be a step toward the objective which you desire. You-es very truly, WILLIAM E. DANN YER WED:eal cc: Hon. James Whetmore M �JTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPE_',,ASORS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA January 261, 1965 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, also sitting as the Governing Board of the Districts governed by the Board of Supervisors, was held January 26, 1965 at 9:30 A.M. The following named members being present: Wm. Hirstein, Chairman; C. M. Featherly, David L. Baker, William J. Phillips, Alton E. Allen and the Clerk. IN RE- RESOLUTION OF CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FREEWAY ROUTING On motion of Supervisor Baker, duly seconded and unan- imously carried, Resolution No . 2099 of .the City Council of the City' of Huntington Beach, dated January 4, 1965, requesting the United States Government to investigate the freeway routing system in. Southern California, is received and ordered filed. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, . � ss. County of Orange I, W. E. ST JOHN, County Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the .Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, hereby certify the foregoing to be a full, true and correct copy of the minute entry on record in this office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have :hereunto set my hand and seal this 26th day of January, 1965. W. E. ST JOHN County Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California F1019-2 C c + y EDMGODERNORG. OWN stat of C Ulff",Tta r r = =y GOVERNORS OFFICE SACRAMENTO C aR P March 9, 1965 The Honorable Donald D. Shipley Mayor, City of Huntington Beach P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California My dear Mayor: Thank you for your letter of January 14 about the freeway routes in Newport Beach and Huntington Beach. I am referring it to our highway people for their consideration. There may be some merit in running the highways near the beach in order to keep the beaches in the public domain and forever free from possible undesirable development, although I understand this is not the case in Newport Beach, where the adopted route runs inland of the down- town area. As to the eight million dollari difference in cost which you mentioned, I am advised that at the time of the route adoption the adopted route was a million dollars cheaper than the inland route. Had the inland route been adopted, the intervening two years would have no doubt seen property values raised along that route just as they apparently were along the adopted route. The State has no means to control the increase in land values that follows the adoption of a freeway route. I realize that the Highway Commission did not adopt the route recommended by the State Highway Engineer. I would hate to have the Commission be simply a rubber stamp for the engineers, and I know they are not. It is the Commis- sion's duty to carefully weigh all the pertinent factors, including, of course, relative costs. I understand the 40 The Honorable Donald D. Shipley -2- March 9, 1965 Commission has reviewed its original decision recently and reconfirmed it. These men do not treat these matters in a cavalier fashion; they are sincere, reasonable people whose interest is the good of our State. However, I respect your right to disagree with their decision. Sincerely EtMND G. BROWN, Governor CITY OF C ® STA MESA ® P fdvNNB0ip4Fp ® CALIFORNIA P. O. BOX 317 G V FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK April 28, 1965 �•,� " yv� aVs�k.Y �1P'� City of Huntington Beach Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Gentlemen: For your information enclosed is a copy of a telegram sent April 27, 1965, to Mr. Jack Cooper, Secretary, California Highway Commission, with carbon copies as listed. Very truly yours, C. K. Priest City Clerk CKP:ep R - Jack Cooper, Secretary Division of Highways State of California j Department of Public Works Sacramento, California cc: Governor Edmond G. Brown Robert B. Bradford,, California Highway Commission James A. Guthrie, California Highway Commission Abraham. Kofman, California Highway Commission Franklin S. Payne, California Highway Commission William S. Whitehurst, California Highway Commission Roger S. Woolley, California. Highway Commission Joseph C. Houghteling, California Highway Commission John Erreca, Administrative Officer, California Highway Commission Robert T. Martin, Assistant Secretary, California Highway Commission I, Robert M. Wilson, Mayor of the City of Costa Mesa, California, do hereby officially inform your august body that I have called a special meeting of the City Council for 8 a.m., April 29. On that date the City Council will take all actions necessary to declare to the Highway Commission of the State of California that if the matter of the Coastal Freeway Route adoption between Highway 39 and McArthur Boulevard is ever reopened by that body, then this City has but one course of action. We declare that the Highway Commission then, in that event, must concur ently reopen the route adoption hearings on the San Diego Freeway Route, the Newport Freeway Route, and the Corona del Mar Freeway Route in our City and show cause why the Highway ._Commission and the State of California should not compensate the City of Costa Mesa for monetary damages which I i would be sustained by this City. I i I ROBERT M. WILSON Mayor of the City of Costa Mesa 1 f January 19, 1966 California Highway Commission Public Works Building 1120 N Street Sacramento, California Gentlemen: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, at their regular meeting; held on January 17, 1966, adopt- ed the enclosed Resolution, No. 2300. oD The Council directed that a copy be forwarded to you, rand requests and urges your adoption of the red route as the location for Route 1; 240 Freeway between Beach Boulevard in Huntington Beach and the adopted Route 22 Freeway". Sincerely yours, PAUL C. JONES J City Clerk PCJ:Jh Enclosure r . I i I January 19, 1966 I Mr. David L. Baker, Chairman Northeasterly Orange County Coastal Projects Coordinating Committee 515 North Sycamore Santa Ana, California Dear Mr. Baker: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, at their regular meeting held January 17, 1966, Dadopted the enclosed Resolution. The City Council unanimously supported the recom- mendation of the Northeasterly Orange Coastal Projects Coordinating Committee and directed that a copy of Resolution No. 2300 be forwarded to the California Highway Commission urging adoption of the Red Alternate as the Location of Route 1, Sincerely ours PAUL C. JONES City Clerk PCJ:jh Enclosure E r ORANGE COUNTY CHAMBER 01' COMMERCE RESOLUTION TO: Executive Committee/Board of Directors i FROM: Highway and Transportation Committee SUBJECT: Pacific Coast Freewav WHEREAS, there is general agreement among all the cities involved in a new proposed routing for the Pacific Coast Freeway, and WHEREAS, said cities, including Seal Beach, Huntington Beach and Newport Beach, as well as the County of Orange, have so stated officially their endorsement of the new route, NOW THEREFORE, we, the Directors of the Orange )County Chamber of Commerce go on record as supporting the alternate route for the Pacific Coast Freeway as approved by all the cities involved. 9/8/65 Approved by the Board of Directors of the Orange County Chamber of Commerce September 14, 1965 I' i May 25, 1970 Board of Supervisors County of Orange P.O. Box 838 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Gentlemen: The City Council of Hunti each, at its regular meeting held Monday, M 8, 1. 70, appointed Councilman Jack Green to serve r s tive of the City on the Ocean and Shore a De op ent Committee. Enclosed is &icflpy o he ' S atement of the Action of City Council" r ou n ation. I Sincerely yo r , PAUL C. JONES I City Clerk By ss stant City Clerk PCJ:BD:aw Enc. r June 2, 1970 The Honorable John V. Briggs Ca.liio-rnia State Assembly State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Mr. Badham: The City Council of nti ,to each, at its regular meeting held londa , June 1 1970 adopted Resolution No. 3178 opposing _ s embl ill No. 1701 which deletes a portion of Rp4itp y within the corporate limits of th y of tington Beach. We are encl s 'ng a c py of said resolution and urge your support o ing Assembly Bill No. 1701. Sincerely, Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ- aw: pa Enclosure June 2, 1970 The Honorable Robert E. Ba.dham California State Assembly State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Mr. Badham: The City Council of H Beach, at its re-ular meetin held Morlay, J 1 adopted Resolution No. 3178 opposin� A embly B' 11 No. 1701 which deletes a portion of Route reevi y within the corporate limits of thtin t o i ;ton Beach. We are enclo a c y of said resolution and urge your supportopp s ng Assembly Bill No. 1701. Sincerely, Paul C . Jones City Clerk PCJ: aw: pa Enclosure ti June 2, 1970 The Honorable Kenneth Cory California State Assembly Y YO State Capitol Sacramento, CA 0,5814 Dear Mr. Cory: Cory California The City Council o anti g on Beach, at its regular meeting held Mond, 1970 adopted Resolution y No. 3178 oppo -L:n:g7As Bill No. 1701 which deletes a portion of ate Freeway within the corporate limits of t e City 0 Huntington Beach. We are enclo opy of said resolution and urge posing your support i posing Assembly Bill No. 1701. Sincerely, Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ: aw: pa, enclosure ` M + c June 2, 1970 The Honorable Robert H. Burke California. State Assembly State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Mr. Burke: The City Council of nti on each, at its regular meeting held Nonda , June 1970 adopted Resolution No. 3178 opposing A mbI ill No. 1701 which deletes a portion of 1 Free , .y within the corporate limits of th y o Huntington Beach. We are enclo ng a py of said resolution and urge your support inry Assembly Bill No. 1701. Sincerely, Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ: aw: pa Enclosure June 2, 1970 The Honorable John F. Foran Chairman, Assembly Transportaclon CoN - tee State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Mr, Fora.no The City Council of _ n, t each, at its rE,7ular meetin; held Monday , June 1 70 adopted Resolution No. 3178 opposin- s embl mill No. 1701 which deletes a. portion of Roue re within the corpora-cc limits of the o H ington Beach. We are encl sing a c py of said resolution and ur;e your suppor °n op o ing Assembly :Sill No. 1701. Sincerely, Paul C . Jones City Clerk PCJ: a.w: pa Enclosure June 5, 1970 Board of Supervisors County of Orange P.O. Box 838 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Gentlemen: The City Council of Hunt 0 ach, at its regular meeting held Monday, June 0. adopted Resolution No. 3178 opposing Ass No. 1701 which deletes a portion of Route a hin the corporate limits of the City Hunt n ton Beach. Enclosed herewith of said resolution, to- gether with a t em Action of the City Council. lie urge your s �ppoltt n opposing Assembly Bill No. 1701. r Sincerely yo Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ:aW Enc. June 5, 1970 Supervisor David L. Baker Second Supervisorial District P.O. Box 838 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Dear Supervisor Baker: The City Council of Huntin ach, at its regular meeting held Monday, Jun , 1 , adopted Resolution No. 3178 opposing Assemb o. 1701 which deletes a portion of Route 1 F w thin the corporate limits of the City o t' Beach. Enclosed herewith, a co y of said resolution, to- gether with a "Scat m nt Action of the City Council." We urge your s t 'n o osing Assembly Bill No. 1701. Sincerely yo s, Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ:aw Enc. June 5, 1970 Supervisor Alton E. Allen Fifth Supervisorial District P.O. Box 838 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Dear Bupervisor Allen: The City Council of Huntin ach, at its regular meeting held Monday, Jun , 1 , adopted Resolution No. 3178 opposing Assemb o. 1701 which deletes a portion of Route 1 Freew thin the corporate limits of the City o t Beach. Enclosed herewith, i a co of said resolution, to- gether with a "Stet nt f Action of the City Council.? We urge your s rt n o osing Assembly Bill No. 1701. Sincerely yo s, Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ:aw Enc. April 23� 1971 The Honorable John- T. Knox California State Assembly Transportation Committee Assembly Post Office Sacramento, CA 95814 Bear Assemblyman Knox: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, at its regular meeting held Monday, April 19, 1.971; adopted Resolution fio. 3318 urging the Senate end - Assembly Committees to vote against the proposed charter amendment of the City of Newport Beach re- lating to freeway route elections . A certified copy of Resolution No. 3318 is enclosed. We urge your support in opposing this legislation. Sincerely yours, Paul C . Jones City Clem. PCJ: pm Enclosure April 23, 1971 The Honorable Robert H. Burke California State Assembly Assembly Post Office Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Assemblyman Burke: The City Council of the City of Huntin,gton Beach, at its regular meeting held Monday, April 19, 1971, adopted Resolution No. 3318 urging the Senate and . Assembly Committees to vote against the proposed charter amendment of the City of Newport Beach re- lating to freeway route elections . A certified copy of Resolution No . 3318 is enclosed . We urge your support in oppos-ing this legislation . Sincerely yours , Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ: pm Enclosure I April 22, 1971 The Honorable Milton Marks Calif6r' nia State Senate Transportation Committee Senate' .Post Office Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Senator Marks: ' The Cit I y Council of the City of Huntington Beach, at its regular meeting held Monday, April 199 1971.0 adopted Resolution No. 3318 urging the Senate and Assembly Committees to vote against the proposed. charter amendment of the City of Newport Beach re- to freeway route elections . A certified copy of Resolution No. 3318 is enclosed. We urge your support in opposing this legislation.' Sincerely yours, Paul-C. Jones 'r City Clerk PCJ: Pm Enclosure a RESOLUTION N6o 3318 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH URGING THE APPROPRIATE COMMITTEES OF THE ASSEMBLY AND THE SENATE OF THE STATE LEGIS- LATURE TO VOTE AGAINST THE PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RELATING TO -FREEWAY ROUTE ELECTIONS AND STATE REASONS THEREFOR WHEREAS , the charter amendment .of the City of Newport Beach provides generally that the city shall not enter into any agreement with the State of California or any other governmental agency allowing the construction of a freeway or to provide for the closing of any streets or providing for access to any freeway unless and until said agreements are approved by a majority of the city° s electors voting at a general or special election; and Said charter amendment as approved will have serious statewide implications and if established as a precedent for other charter cities , will seriously impair the continued improve- ment of the statewide systems in the State of California; and Said charter amendment , if approved and becomes a precedent, will create a right in charter cities to establish freeway loca- tions which is not equally enjoyed by general law cities and thus discriminate against said general .law cities ; and Said charter amendment removes the freeway location process from the Highway Commission contrary to. Article IV, Section 26 of the California Constitution and preempts the constitutional power of the State of California with respect to freeway locations ; and The initiative process followed in adopting the aforementioned charter amendment is limited to legislative matters and thus should not to r govern an administrative decision such as the selection of freeway routes ; and The approval of said charter amendment will encourage other charter cities to follow a similar process and will establish a precedent which -could ultimately result in the complete collapse of the California highway and freeway system so essential to the movement of vehicles and people resulting in a damaging blow to the entire transportation industry and the economy of the State of California. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach urges the appropriate committees of the Assembly and the Senate of the State Legislature to vote in opposition to- the charter amendment -initiated by the City of Newport Beach . BE IT FURTHER RFSOLVED that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the chairman and each member of the appropriate committees charged with consideration of t1ae legislation affecting said charter amendment . : PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Cite Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof' held on the 19th (Jay of Ap-rl1, 1971 . May or r , �;. .' Clerk -� APPROVED AS `11) FORM City Attof y 2 . r . ._. _ .. ......_ -_ -:x+.'o. j„ V . ��y�,°•.. .'. Vic` o _ .nw' ._ -- -xA 7cc- — ._. ,_- -, .-.-_ r _ • Res. No. 3318 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss : CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I , PAUL C. JONES, the duly elected , qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach , and ex- officio Clerk of the City Council of said City,' do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all. the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of April 19�, by the following vote: AYES : -Councilmen: Bartlett , Gibbs , Matney, McCracken NOES: Councilmen: j None ABSENT: Councilmen: Shipley, Green, Coen City Clerk a ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City-. of Huntington Beach , California tHE FOREGOIN�JNST,RUM,ENT IS A- CORREC1 COPY OF THE.GWr.-INAL riN; FILE.IN THIS `:7FICI ATTEST----A om . . `= r -' .19... ./._._..._"-• � �-_--.yp�....__..... :�.__....... ......................... t........ ..... . city t�iQ7ck iu$Yd ��i'"ASa.z t`Y�t:A.i Wf the City cot 0c), Df the of H t n El ;h cal., E. M a 2.y z' ;� u` �+`y v:S:.t :+•'"•-c,r;,.. tau r3`-`'.-'X?".'•;':•%.r�','`.rr:.«. "".-".c"a-'77-.?;.r„^"r+r7'^�:-�..`r.'.....,'--..rv.-.�,v,�.r,-F.y--}.-7 • ri � - p Ott �► r � ► +b i ► � I i � {IAM- IF ,e ' ` o .. OF qq may, ' c d RESOLUTION NO. 3187 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH OPPOSING ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 1701 WHEREAS, the City of Huntington Beach has a Master Plan of Streets and Highways whose ultimate capacity is based on ' the existence of a system of State Freeways and Expressways , ' and z The City of Huntington Beach did, in 1958, enter into a i freeway agreement with the State of California for a portion of the Route 1 freeway from Atlanta Avenue to the Santa Ana River, and { In the ensuing twelve years, all the beach oriented planning has been based on the eventual construction of the Route 1 'freeway, and # Assembly Bill 1701 would delete, without study or evi- dence, this vital part of the Route 1 freeway , NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council .of r the City of, Huntington Beach opposes any legislative deletion from the present legislative route description of. the Route 1 , freeway and directs the. Director of Public Works to represent the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach in Sacramento in .opposition to Assembly Bill 1701, and ¢ BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of. this resolution be transmitted to Senators Schmitz and Whetmore, Assemblymen Badham, a Briggs , Burke and Cory. and to. all members of the Senate and Assembly Transportation Committees . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held' on the 6th F , { day of July , 1970. MAYOR PRO-TEMPORE ATTEST: City Gj%4,k APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attonffiey 4 2 . 4 I I Res. No. 3187 :w. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) s s : . ;. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, PAUL C. JONES, the duly elected, qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of. ffuntington Beach, and ex- officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more. than a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6th day of July 1912 , by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Green, Bartlett, McCracken, Gibbs , Matney, Coen NOES:. Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: Shipley City Clerk a x-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach , California J 4`' Y•� V OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 1 fl' October 7 , 1975 California Highway Commission P.O. Box 1139 Sacramento, California 95805 .Subject : Pacific Coast Freeway in Orange County Gentlemen: Reference is made to the anticipated rescinding of the adopted Pacific Coast Freeway and disposal of State acquired property associated with the freeway. The City of Huntington Beach has no objection to rescinding the adopted freeway route . This appears to be a legal requirement made necessary, with the prev- ious deletion of the freeway from the State Freeway and Express- way System. Some of the properties acquired and still owned by the State are in critical and sensitive locations . in Orange County. Existing or proposed highways in those vicinities provide ser- vice for substantial volumes of existing or projected traffic . The, proximity of the properties .to the beach deserve much thought and consideration of the existing potential recreational demands . We believe that the properties adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway from Beach Boulevard to the Santa Ana River should not be made available for disposal until all interested agencies and dist- ricts have evaluated the public benefit and developed a plan. We appreciate this opportunity to have expressed our thoughts on this matter. Cal Trans staff has cooperated in the past with local agencies regarding the disposition of the State owned par- cels . We appreciate that cooperatiOn. and hope it will continue so that the public benefit is considered before properties are sold. S_IsKerely, zrm6a Brandel Gibbs Mayor NBG: cb i 'l .t s I 6 LOn0asler Fry 2f) 2 p/ar ♦� (Etistinp Rll.59) ♦♦ 26 (N..R1e.59)7> B 6 ♦♦♦♦ ♦ Y � ♦ 1 teat rY. • ' • ..I F T`ppa 6 ♦ Qou rY. ` F 269 u 1 Senlp 151 ry Po ♦ Is � ISBN FwY Rou w♦ 1 2 �q 55r 2 61 R.O.)9 152 ♦� 269 les Crest FwY FO d l I♦ • i PnOt 9 y°II. Fr Si.. V01IlY FwY a nYd./r Snl\; 66F♦-♦� j� 9 9 i ISB ♦ 26 ��• 101 • 9 e• / V•n\ur° 4 IS3 ° tW�i..o�. ° FaY. 2 61 101 2 g ' •�..• ..: 65 p o\\.Ouoa 153 101 101 2 ' 60 /Ventura FwY. i ` 61 Foorhill y a _ 161 2b FrY. 9 0� 205 0 16B : 2! 190 o w c �1�1 • 162 Y Son &rn°.oinn a Ce°sl s.a 101 Pocll rc Spnto Monica c4�4 FrY. 6 2 Pomona Fr. I)p � � i 160 li 11 � J )1 J 221 9.$IOVSOn :::i .IS 101 2)I 0 1 a 19 vz 16. 1311 Clnl ry 165 LL R 16){,166, ° ! Y3 — _• 4 I)! ..I)b 101 G, I v• ..0 ISoC 0 Q, Ia 101 LL I)6 i IB I CALIFORNIA FREEWAY AND 6w RivlrSidtDFry F.J. alj 6 a Fr � I)5 Rlv<Is\da II 159 111 174 19 5 \ 9 163 2)0� W. I)9 Garden Grove EXPRESSWAY SYSTEM , 6)Slatld.FwY pl o Fry22 :c 2 .-I )J p 1n i{ 2 L •Ise `' 1 ( DISTRICT VI I ) - s . 3p ss55 IBw� O, -f--9 Q es i pwY. C 4 Os\ ❑ Legislative Routes z 01 Sign Routes I Existing State Highways •L. / wl ==Os New Stale Highways � STATUTE MILES 2 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 f :* RESOLUTION RESTATING PROCEDURE RELATIVE TO ADOPTION OF FREEWAY LOCATIONS BY THE CALIFORNIA- HIGHWAY COMMISSION RESOLVED, by the California Highway .Commission, that the following procedure shall be followed in the adoption of freeway locations in the State highway system: 1. When it is proposed to locate or relocate any portion of a State highway as a freeway, the State Highway Engineer, or his authorized representative, shall: (a). At the initiation of the studies necessary to determine the possible locations to be presented to the Commission for consideration, and from time to time thereafter, confer with the appropriate local governing bodies, and other agencies that may be affected thereby and with their technical and planning personnel, obtaining where available any master or general plan of the area; (b) Call to the attention of the appropriate local governing body, in writing, the provisions of Section 75.5 of the Streets and Highways Code; (c) When sufficient information has been accumulated to permit intelligent discussion, publicize and hold such public meeting, or. meetings, as may be reasonably necessary to acquaint interested individuals, officials and civic or other groups with the studies made and the information developed, and to obtain their views with respect thereto. ° In conducting any such meetings where major controversy appears probable, the. State Highway Engineer may arrange for a Division of Highways Employee, not employed in the District Office involved, to act as presiding officer. 2. The State Highway Engineer shall submit to the Commis- sion a written report, covering the results of such conferences and meetings, the relationship between all ,proposed locations and any- .master or general plans of the affected local agency or. agencies, any information submitted pursuant to Section 75.5 of the Streets and Highways Code, the studies made, and a recommendation as .to the location of the freeway. 3. When authorized so to do by the Commission, the State Highway Engineer shall notify the appropriate local governing body, . which notice shall be publicized, of the intention of the Commission to consider the location of the freeway. Such notification shall include a statement that the Commission or designated members thereof will hold a public hearing on the proposal, if requested to do so by the local legislative body within thirty (30) days after the first regular meeting of such body following receipt of such written notification; provided,. however, that if, prior to receipt • 1 2 of such notification from the Commission, the local legislative body or bodies shall have, by resolution, declared that no public hearing by the Commission is necessary, then the notification by the State Highway Engineer shall advise such local body only of the intention of the Commission to consider the matter. 4. If any such legislative body requests such hearing, the Commission, or a designated member or members thereof, will hold a hearing, after public notice given in such manner as the Commission may determine, at which time and place all persons, and official bodies and other organizations interested in the matter, shall be afforded an opportunity to be heard. The Commission may also, on its own motion, call a public meeting or hold such hearings as it may deem appropriate. 5. After the expiration of such period of thirty (30) days, if no hearing is requested, or after such meetings or hear- ings as .the Commission may hold, the Commission will adopt a location for the freeway between the limits under consideration. . 6. The authorization referred to in numbered paragraph 3 of this resolution, to give public notice of the Commission's intention to hold a hearing, shall be_ by resolution of the Commis- sion relating to each specific freeway location proposed to be considered. In all other respects, this resolution authorizes the State Highway Engineer, without further resolution or order of this Commission, to do such things and take such action as may appear to him to be necessary or proper to comply with the -above specified procedure. 7. At any public meetings held by the State Highway Engineer, or his authorized representative, any material trans- mitted by an affected city or county pursuant to Section 75.5 of the Streets and Highways Code shall be presented .at the meeting by the person conducting the meeting or hearing, if so requested by ' the affected city or county, or shall be received in such manner as the affected city or county requests. 8. It is recognized that, in addition to the foregoing, the State Highway Engineer, through his representatives, may hold any additional meetings or hearings required to qualify any highway project for the use of Federal funds pursuant to any Federal statute or rule or regulation promulgated thereunder. 9. The resolution of the Commission regarding the subject matter hereof, adopted on February 18, 1955, is hereby rescinded. This resolution is hereby adopted by the .Cali.fornia Highway Commission at Sacramento, California, this 26th day of February, 1958. PROPOSED ROUTE 60 FREEWAY 2.2 MILES SOUTH OF MAC ARTH_U R BLVD. (Rte. 184) , TO BEACH BLVD. (Rte. 171 ) v / / rw- a q P II 0P p1EG 0 PALISADES � � R D. �'f• . •► ,, ROE. 158 SAN T W q c a UPPER �( s 9� F , NEWPORT BAY co •CP P�� Aa to a /.r:���•f � J ►.' ��• m t m Q .l GP Gsy yG'P !gyp 22 n d ST. \ \ ! m < O Q fnco LZAJ ! Fy Z 19 ST th . 17th ST 1 1� •c�,P s� � �rl 'P� P `'�' o 5th AVE. 49 el 15th ST. ( ` .1 Fgcy \`' �� S 3 +�",1'�1`�.1 r/ '���• • W HWY. 9 N W P OR BAY , F RTE.60 PACIFIC �• COAST ,.-.- C•�( �'1•�r �'9 0 ' 10 NEWPORT BEACH PAC/ F/ C O C£AN f PROJECT LIMITS ;_ . � . SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC DATA Page 1 —Z`OS S _T M L flN LENGTH IND. SINGLE I-N CONST .R/W TOTAL & FAMILY MULT, FAMILIES ALTERNATES M� I�ES COST COST COST COM, DWELLINGSD� LLT�TG AFFECTED es -South of MacArthur Blvd. to Jamboree Rd. )UNIT I (2.2 Mil GREEN 3.3 8,.0� 5.4 13.4 0 6 0 6 GREEN-BLUE-GREEN 3. 5 8`0 > 5.2 13.2 0 2 0 2 Green Alternate Provides $63 Million User Benefits. Green-Blue-Green Alternate�provide80$8 Mi].lion less User Benefits. UNIT II (Jamboree Rd. to teach Bl a. ) GREEN-RED 7.3 23.3 `23.2;r._-'746.5 69 98 18 2 GREEN-YELLOW-GREEN 7. 5 21. 1 2� .8 ' 45,,g� 45 29 18 �� 54 GREEN 8 27.8 24.6 �2 4 _ 43 144 2.5 ; GREEN-DOTTED GREEN- GREEN 8. 1 2) *(+1.6) *(+2.8 } �" *(+21) *(-4) (+131 GREEN-DASHED GREEN - GREEN(Viaduct) 8. 1 (+6:,1�) -1.8) (+4. ) *(+9)= *(-3.1) *(-1) (-2 } i dnGREEN-DASHED GREEN- * ) *GREEN(Wall) 8. 1 -W(+5. 1} �� (-1.8) (+3. 3, (+9) ) #( Figures represent differences as compared to GREEN ALTERNATE) # ( Figure represents 20 year lease value of parking area developed) User Benefits on above Alternates are considered equal and- approximately $112 Million except .for the Green-Red combination which provides $7 Million less User Benefits Subject to Change 1-1 g-62 2 _ LENGTH IND. SINGLE IN CONST. R/W TOTAL & FAMILY MULT. FAMILIES -ALTERNATES MILES COST COST COST 'COM. DWELLINGS DWELLINGS AFFECTED � Combinations of Basic Alternates GREEN-YELLOW- BROWN(g)—GREEN 8.125.6 23.7 49.3 45 294 18 384 ® .il a151 GREEN-YELLOW- BROWN(7)—GREEN 8.1 �5 2? .6 45.1 45 288 18 378 GREEN-YELLOW- ° n 48 295 21BROWN(8)-RED 7.4 22.2 393 GREEN-BROWN(8)- z3 5 2`S"0 YELLOW-GREEN 7.8 - -r2- -=w-. .� ' 4& 5 41 145 15 175 e: g ag GREEN-BROWN ZS.y4 ZS f a_ Y� 3/ Z, ' (8)—RED 7,7 T- akr•3— -�:�` °= .-red 46 151 16 185 v t2l' "NIN1 N ' 2:�?�.. Subject to Change 1-19-62 3 - .SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC DATA Combining Unitw AT. and II Cost in Millions Length Single in Constr. RIW ' Total Ind, Family Nult, Families Basic Alternates Iles Cost Cost Cost Com. Dwelling Houses Affected Green 1 35.8 30.0 65.8 43 150 15 180 Green-Yellow-Green 0, 9.1 30.2 59.3 45 300 18 390 Green-Yellow-Brown(7)-Green I104 28.5 30.0 58.5 45 294 18 384 Green-Yellow-Brown(8)-Red 10.7 3 2 30.5 60.7 48 301 21 -2999 (Above al teri atoms---p'�ivide $175 Killion User Benefits) ' Green-Red lo.6 31.3 2806 59 69 104 18 188 33.E 31. G ;, Green-Brown(8)-Red 11.0 ' . -32-.-8 � 46 157 16 191 Green-Brown(8)-Yellow-Green Yl'.l .3 -.4 46 `t $1.9 41 151 15 181 Green-Yellow-Brown g -Green �1.4 3 .6 2 .1 b- 't 00 1 0 ( ) � „3 9 3 $ 39 /� Q Alternate. Green-Red provides 5 Mill on is Benefits than those p $ above. Alterna a Green-Brown(8)-Red provides $ iIlion less Benefits than those above. Alternate Green-Brown(8)-Yellow-Green provides $7 Million less Benefits than those above. Alternate Green-Yellow-Brown(9)-Green provides $5 Million less Benefits than those above. Subject to Change 1-19-62 PROPOSED ROUTE 60 FREEWAY 2.2 MILES SOUTH OF MAC ARTHUR BLVD. (Rte. 184) TO BEACH BLVD. (Rte. 171 ) w n �P �Qc X00 0 PALISADES RD. �� p1E�� � � 'fG RITE. 15 8 4i e S�N �' 9 j� 9 I1 41 PL > UPPER m a N EWPO R BAYui O` PJ� Ap to Gp� pGsy yGQ ��p 22 n d ST. \ t C� IV S� F- H Z > �• Q � O • '�o � Z a 1 �' O w ~ �'Z Z 19th ST. a: to tp �( q 17th ST 1 \ 5th AVE HWY. � . RTE.60 PACIF C �L COAST f� �'�.�. 6�-J� Ji f NEWPORT BEACH PAC/ F/ C O C E A N f PROJECT LIMITS LINES PRESENTED AT PUBLIC HEARING Page 1 SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC DATA COSTS IN MILLIONS LENGTH IND. SINGLE IN COSTT. R/W TOTAL. . & FAMILY MULT. FAMILIES BASIC ALTERNATES - UNIT I MILES COST COST COST COM. DWELL. DWELL. AFFECTED (2.2 Miles So'. of MacArthur ' Blvd. to Bayside. Drive) GREEN 4.0 9.6 . 8.9 18.5 0 6 0 6 9.1 8.9 18.0 0 6 0 6. GREEN-BLUE-GREEN 4.2 9.6 8.7 18.3 _ 0 2 0 2 9.1 8.1 1708 0 2 0 2 . BASIC ALTERNATES - UNIT II �Bayside Dr. to Beach Blvd. ). RED 6.6 . . 21.7 19.7 41.4 69 98 18 182 ' 21.3 22.8 44.1 69 98 18 182 YELLOW 6.8 19.8; 21.5 41.3 45 298 18 - 388 20.3 28.o 48.3 45 428 18 518 . GREEN 7�4 26.1 21.1 47.2. 43 144. 15 174 26.0 25.5 51.5 43 144 15. 174 VARIATIONS OF GREEN ALTERNATE (Figures represent differences as compared to BASIC GREEN ALTERNATE) GREEN,-DOTTED GREEN-GREEN 7.4' +1.3 +1.6 +2.9 +47, +21 -4 +13 +1.8. +1.3 +3.1 +47 +21. -4 +13 GREEN-DASHED GREEN-GREEN . 7.4 +4.6 -1.4 +3.2 + 9. -31 -1 -29 (Viaduct) +4.9 -1.0 +3.9 + 9 -31_ -1 -29 GREEN-DASHED GREEK-GREEN 7.4 - . +3.6 -1 .3 +2.3 + 9 -31 - -1 49 (Wall). +3.7 -1.0 +2..7 + 9 -31 -1 -29 NOTE:, to Division point between Unit I and Unit II has been relocated since the' . public hearing. Comparisons of IndkVidual units cannot be made between this data.. sheet and the data sweet presented. at the public hearing- 20 The figures in black are tvpdated costs.: : 12/21/62 ; ` LINES PRESENTED AT PUBLIC HEARING Page 2 LENGTH IND. SINGLE COMBINATIONS OF BASIC I IN. CONST. R/W TOTAL & FAMILY MULT. FAMILIES ALTERNATES - UNIT II MILES COST COST COST COM. DWELL. DWELL. AFFECTED Yellow-Brown(9)-Green 7.4 24.2 20.4 44.6 45 298 18 338 2406 , 24.1 48.9 45 298 18 388 Yellow-Brown(7)-Green 7.4 19.3 . 21.3 40.6 45 292 18 382 1g.6 24.9 44.5 45 292 18 382 Yellow-Brown(8)-Red 6.7 20.8 21.8 42.6 48 299 21 397. 21.0 25.3 46.3 48 299 21 397 Green-Brown(8)-Yellow 7.1 21..9 21.5 43 A 41 145 15 175 21.8 27.4 49.2 41 275 15 305 Green-Brown(8)-Red 7.0 23.8 21.9 45.7 46 151 16 185 23.3 25.2 48.5 46 151 16 185 Yellow-Brown(10)-Green 7.4 26 '3 19©7 46.0 25 238 23 328 26.5 24.2 50.7 25 238 23 328 HIGHWAY USER BENEFIT DATA The user benefits of the following line combinations are considered equal: The Green Line (and its variations) The Yellow-Green Line The Yellow=Brown(10)-Green Line The Yellow-Brown(8)-Red Line The Yellow-Brown(7)-Green Line Using the above as a basis of comparison,- the user benefits provided by the: Blue Line is $8 million less The Yellow-Brown 9)-Green is $5 -million less The Green-Brown()-Yellow is 37 million less The Red Line is million less The Green-Brown(.33-Red is $9 million less NOTE: 1. Division point between Unit I and 'Unit II has been relocated since the public hearing. Comparisons of individual units cen ct be made between this data sheet and the data sheet presented at the public hearing. 12/21/62 2. The figures in black are updated costs. LINES STUDIED SUBSEQUENT TO PUBLIC HEARING Page 3 SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC DATA COSTSN MILLIONS LENGTH IND. SINGLE IN CONST. R/W TOTAL do FAMILY MULT. FAMILIES BASIC ALTERNATES - UNIT II MILES COST COST COST COM. DWELL. DWELL. AFFECTED (Rayside Dr. to Beach BNU. ) Orange-Yellow 6.9 21.4 26.8 48.2 86 311 22 435 Orange-Red 6.5 21.6 24.5 46.1 96 209 28 362 Orange-Brown(7)-Green 7.5 20.5 23.6 44.1 90 180 22 304 Wide Dashed Orange-Yellow 7.0 20.3 26.3 46.6 95 216 38 373 Wide Dashed Orange-Red 6.5 21.0 23.9 44.9 102 114 44 300 Wide Dashed Orange-Dashed Red 6.5 21.7 23.2 44.9 103 117 43 301 Wide Dashed Orange-Brown(7)-Green 7.6 19.7 23.1 42.8 96 85 38 242 Red-Dashed Red 6.6 21.9 22.2 44.1 70 101 17 183 Green (Revised) 7.4 20.8 24.5 45.3 49 150 .18 189_ Green-Dashed Green-Green(Revised) (Viaduct) 7.4 25.2 24.3 49.5 67 ill 16 150 Green-Dashed Green-Green(Revised) (Wall) 7.4 24.1 24.2 - 48.3 67 ill 16 150 Green-Dotted Green-Green(Revised) 7..4 22.0 26.7 48.7 105 163 13 192 HIGHWAY USER BENEFIT DATA The user benefit of the Revised Green Line and its variations are equal to the original Green Line.- Using the Green Line as a basis of comparison, the user benefits provided. by: The Orange-Yellow-Green, Orange-Brown(7)-Green, Wide Dashed Orange-Yellow-Green.,-and Wide Dashed Orange-Brown(7)-Green are $3 million less. The Orange-Red, Wide Dashed Orange-Red, Wide Dashed Orange-Dashed Red, and• Red- 12/21/62 Dashed Red are $7 million less. FACTS RELATIVE TO THE LOCATION OF SAN GABRIEL RIVER FREEWAY INGE AND LOS AN ELES COUNTI BETWEEN BAY BOULEVARD AND SAND GO FREEWAY OUTE 158) For several years the Division of Highways has been conducting location studies for the southerly extension of the San Gabriel River Freeway from Garden Grove Boulevard to Pacific Coast Highway in Orange County. The California Highway Commission has called today 's hearing to afford the affected agencies, local governing bodies, civic organizations and interested citizens the opportunity to present constructive facts regarding the proposal and to review information developed by the Division of Highways. The Commission will consider all information. presented at this hearing before adopting a route for the freeway. The principal factors on, which an overall evaluation of the merits of any particular freeway rotating is ?cased includes a coordinated consideration of: 1 . The degree to which the alternate will fulfill both existing and future traffic demands of the affected area. 2. The initial cost of the project, which includes costs of construction and rights of way. 3. The benefits to be derived by the community through or around which it may pass. A nationally accepted method of estimating the benefits to traffic expected to use the facility is based on the monetary value of both the savings in ti-,ne and cost of vehicle operation. 4 2 _ Construction and right of way costs are determined by engineering methods. The attached Summary of Comparative Data provides cost and right of way data for the two major alternates being considered. The community benefits attributable to the alternates are based on existing as well as expected future development. The Division of Highways has gathered information relative to this factor through meeting and conferring with local officials and their staffs,- reviewing master plans with regard to planned future developments, and holding a public hearing in the affected area. When completed, this freeway will serve as a link between the various cities in Los Angeles and Orange Counties and function as an important part of the California Freeway and Expressway System, an, integrated system of access-controlled facilities established by the State Legislature pursuant to Senate Bill 480. In addition, this freeway will serve as an extension of the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways which was established by the Congress of the United States. It has been estimated that this freeway will afford the, motoring public the opportunity to save approximately $11,000,000 in reduced travel time and vehicle operating costs over a period of twenty years. On August 31, 1961 the Division of Highways held a public hearing in the City of Seal Beach to discuss and present its findings re-lative to the route represented by the Blue Line on the attached map. As a result of suggestions made at the hearing the Division investigated variations of the basic routing in the 3 - interest of minimizing possible disruption to the residential senior citizens community known as Leisure World now under develop- ment between the extension of Westminster Avenue and Garden Grove Boulevard. Conferences were held with the affected governmental agencies and also representatives of Leisure World development. In March, 1962 the State Highway Engineer, having considered all information to date, recommended the California Highway Commission consider the Blue-Green route for adoption. The State Legislature by statute has delegated to the Commission the authority and responsibility for determining the location of State highways. After the Commission has studied the transcript of the hearing, they will adopt the route that in their opinion is in the best public interest. SUMMARY. OF COMPARATIVE DATA. FOR PROPOSED ROUTE 170 (SAN GABRIEL RIVER) FREEWAY Cost in Millions of Dollars Alternate Construction R W Total Blue+ Undeveloped 5.2 2.6* 7.8 Developed 5.2 7.3 12.5 Blue-Green++ Undeveloped 4.8 2.1 6.9 Developed 4.8 6.9 11.7 + Routing presented at Public Hearing on. August 31, 1961 ++ Routing recommended by State Highway Engineer * Based upon reappraisal of rights of way costs since previous Public Hearing Rights- of way costs considered on two bases for that portion within the . :,.Leisure World. development: �1 Undeveloped land at time of purchase 23 - Developed land at time of purchase SPRING ST. 605 CERRITOS AVE. c > ..I 35 > Q Ial m 405 �•'PpG Q ��ATELLA AVE. LOS . ALAMI TOS 0 3 STEARNS ' ! O /s F=- iI '� w 9 '' ST=, I:i V k ORANGEWOOD A E. o U. J w •���F ' ^O I W �L,9 �.,' I LOS m w }" IALAMITOS ATHERTON > ST. `ocq,o 0 I AIR. i STATION o Zil •� oo� qo J , ANAHEIM a Z I D. a zco VA I ► r, p fA I i 0 O x HOSPITAL � , J W cW, GARD' EN �,•� GROVE BLVD. LT 22 SWEIRKIIIIIIA '� - - 101 I EXISTIN� ROUTE di �179 4th ST. W m ! SEAL N BEACH LN c) a H U S G.: NAVAL V N :.,- '...`'.'':'•`"ram` �` �'. __ 01 WESTMIN T ER BLVD. Orony 2nd ••' ' `•'` \9��G 'AO \C� p0,::;. °f � e -- ST G� O NITION �;: AMMU °f j X yG° G°�n AND NET g04�VTo � �`•'' ' . City of �\ ,�. CF S� '�' 2 �o�� ; DEPOT ;r: BOLSA AVE. I / SEAL LEGEND BEACH �- � ' \ __? ROUTE RECOMMENDED PACIFIC OCEAN \ \ BY STATE HIGHWAY ENGINEER ALTERNATE ROUTE FACTS RELATIVE TO THE LOCATION OF THE PACIFIC COAST FREEWAY (LEGISLATIVE ROUTE, 60) , IN ORANGE COUNTY BETWEEN 2.2 MILES SOUTH OF MACARTHUR BOULEVARD AND BEACH BOULEVARD In November of 1958, the Division of Highways commenced study of possible .routings for the location of the Pacific Coast Freeway between 2.2 miles south of MacArthur Boulevard (Route 184) and Beach Boulevard (Route 171) . At that time, affected govern- mental agencies were informed of the commencement of these studies. At various times the Division of Highways has met with representatives of these agencies and members of their technical staffs to discuss the studies then in progress and to obtain their suggestions. The Division of Highways takes this opportunity to acquaint you with the various routes investigated and to afford you the opportunity to present constructive facts concerning them. The purpose of this hearing and these studies is to develop information upon which the State Highway Engineer will base his route recommendation to the California Highway Commission. The State legislature by statute has delegated to the California Highway Commission the authority and the responsibility for determining the location of State highways. In arriving at its decision the California Highway Commission considers all data ` J 2 - presented by the affected agencies, local governing bodies- and =the State Highway Engineer along with all other information perti- nent to this project prior to adopting a route for the freeway. The routes presented to you today are not intended to represent precise freeway alignments but should be interpreted as being indicative of a general freeway route which could be developed in any one of the areas of study. Preliminary plans have been prepared only in sufficient detail as to allow proper evaluation of the economic factors involved -and to determine the feasibility of each location from a construction standpoint. We will, therefore, be unable to answer inquiries pertaining to individual pieces of .property at this meeting today. However, should you so desire, please mail such inquiries to: Division of Highways, Route Planning Department, 120 South Spring Street, Los Angeles, California. Please include a legal description for the property in question. The principal factors on which an overall evaluation of the merits of any particular freeway routing is based includes a coordinated consideration of: 1. The degree to which the alternate will fulfill both existing and future traffic demands of the affected , area. 2. The initial cost of the project, which includes costs of construction and rights of way. 3. The benefits to be derived by the community through or around which it may pass. A nationally accepted method of estimating the benefits to traffic expected to use the facility is based on the monetary value of both the savings in time and cost of vehicle operation. - 3 - Construction and right of way costs are determined by engineering methods . The community benefits attributable to the various alter- nates must be based on existing, as well as expected future development. It is obviously difficult to place a numerical value on this factor. The comments received at this meeting and incor- porated into the record will be very useful in assisting the State Highway Engineer in evaluating community benefits prior to making his recommendation to the California Highway Commission. When completed, this freeway will serve as a link between the various cities in Los Angeles and Orange Counties and function as an important part of the California Freeway and Expressway System, an integrated system of access-controlled facilities established by the State Legislature pursuant to Senate Bill 480. 'This freeway when completed will afford the motoring public the opportunity to realize benefits due to greater safety, reduced travel time and reduced vehible operating costs. Attached for your information is a small scale map similar to the aerial photograph on display at this- meeting. The various alternate freeway locations are shown in . color to allow ready reference to the attached Summary of Comparative Data. PROP ® SEQ ROUTE 60 FREEWAY 2.2 MILES SOUTH OF MAC ARTHUR BLVD. (Rte. l84) TO BEACH BLVD. (Rte. 171) I I d b. PA RD. �yp9 j UPPER RTE. 158 S Al �L d a NEWPORT PAY p �{ ! \ n m0� or Ap0� \\ P B!`o 2 2 n d ST. w u to�� pG yG � z ►_ a �� w 'yqp `S'!• �o ,o a vai � Z if ��. o ti OFF Z 19 t h ST. dtt p POP PJF,• \\ a�G a ITth ST. � \l 5th AVE HWY. ui F 10 Ox- 0 0•• �. 0AY fk 0P COAST C't•� Q �p a RTE.60 PACIFIC 10 JL.f J._ e �. NEWPORT BEACH PA C1 F1 C 0 C E A N PROJECT LIMITS Page 5 SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC DATA COSTS IN MILLIONS LENGTH IND. SINGLE IN CONTT. R/W TOTAL & FAMILY MULT. FAMILIES T BASIC ALTERNATES - UNIT I MILES COST COST COS COM. DWELL. DWELL. AFFECTED 2.2 Mi. So. of MacArthur Blvd. to Jamboree Rd. ) GREEN 3.3 8.0 5.4 13.4 0 6 0 6 GREEN-BLUE-GREEN 3.5 8.o 5.2 13.2 . 0 2 0 2 BASIC ALTERNATES - UNIT II (Jamboree Rd. to Beach Blvd. ) GREEN-RED 7.3 23.3 23.2 46.5 69 98 18 182 GREEN-YELLOW-GREEN 7.5 21.4 25.0 46:4 45 298 18 388 GREEN 8.1 27.8 . 24.6 52.4 43 144 15 174 VARIATIONS OF GREEN ALTERNATE GREEN-DOTTED GREEN-GREEN 8.1 *+1.2 *+1.6 *+2.8 _ *+47 *+21 *-4 *+13 . GREEN-DASHED GREEN-GREEN 8.1 *+3.2 *-1.3 *+1.9 *+ 9 *-31 *-1 *-29 (Viaduct) GREEN-DASHED GREEN-GREEN -8.1 *+2.3 *T1.2 *+l.1 *+ 9 *-31 *.-1 *-29 (Wall) *Figures represent differences as compared to BASIC GREEN ALTERNATE., Total Project Cost is equal to -combined cost of alternates in Unit I plus alternates in Unit II. 4/19/62 Page 6 LENGTH IND. SINGLE COMBINATIONS OF BASIC IN CONST. R/W TOTAL & FAMILY MULT. FAMILIES ALTERNATES - UNIT II MILES COST COST COST COM. DWELL. DWELL. AFFECTED GREEN-YELLOW-BROWN(9)-GREEN 8.1 25.8 23.9 49.7 45 298 18 388 GREEN-YELLOW-BROWN(7)-GREEN 8.1 20.8- 24.8 45.6 45 292 18 382 GREEN-YELLOW-BROWN(8)-RED 7.4 22.5 25.3 47.8 48 299 21 397 GREEN-BROWN(8)-YELLOW-GREEN 7.8 23.5 25.0 48.5 41 145 15 175 GREEN-BROWN(8)-RED 7.7 25.4 25.4 50.8 46 151 16 185 GREEN-YELLOW-BROWN(10)-GREEN 8.1 28.8 23. 2 52.0 25 238 23 328 HIGHWAY USER BENEFIT DATA The user benefits of the following line combinations are considered equal: The Green Line (and its variations) The Green-Yellow-Green Line The Green-Yellow-Brown 10)-Green Line The Green-Yellow-Brown(8)-Red Line Using the above as a basis ,of comparison, the user benefits provided by the: Blue Line is $8 million less The Green-Yellow-Brown Line #9-Green is $5 million less The Green-Brown Line. #8-Yellow is $7 million less The Green-Red Line is 7 million less The Green-Brown Line #8-Red is $9 million less 4/19/62. �41e�enme fn ` THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH MAP ON FILE WITH CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA—TRANSPORTATION AGENCY RONALD REAGAN, Governor DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS DISTRICT 7, P.O. BOX 2364, LOS ANGELES 90054 e February 5, 1971 07-Ora-39 Ro.0/7.4 Route 1 Freeway to Lampson Avenue 07207 - 036511 Mr. Paul C. Jones City Clerk City of Huntington Beach P. 0, Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Sir: This is to acknowledge receipt of Resolution No. 3262 of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, requesting the Division of Highways to place a higher priority on construction of the Route 39 freeway between the Coast Highway (Route 1) and the Garden Grove Freeway (Route 22),, In the 1970 approved planning program, this section of the Route 39 freeway is planned for construction after the 1978-79 fiscal year. However, the Division's planning program is continually reviewed and is updated annually to reflect any changes in traffic or safety aspects, financing conditions and relative priorities which could affect project scheduling. In line with this, you may be assured that the contents of Resolution No. 3262 will be carefully considered during the preparation of future planning programs. Very truly yours, i . A A N Distr' Engineer ONLY COPIES To, Comm' . ,. ;� .aa: -LLs• - .� orb lurlitminiArr CIVIC CENTER 8200 WESTMINSTER AVENUE WESTMINSTER, CALIFORNIA 92683 714 CODE 893-4511 February 3, 1971 City Council City of Huntington Beach 520 Pecan Huntington Beach, California 92648 Gentlemen: We are enclosing a copy of Resolution No. 1284 , reaffirming the city' s approval of the Orange Alignment for the Route 39 Freeway, which was adopted by the City Council at its regular meeting of January 26 , 1971. Sincerely yours , CITY OF WESTMINSTER Katharine C. Harper City Clerk . KCH:o Enclosure 1 o RESOLUTION NO. 1284 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WESTMINSTER REAFFIRMING THE CITY'S APPROVAL OF THE ORANGE ALIGNMENT FOR THE ROUTE 39 FREEWAY r WHEREAS, the City Council of the City .of Westminster has on several occasions, since July, 1967, and after extensive hearings by the State Division of Highways in 1967 and 1968, taken the position that the most desirable align- ment for the Route 39 Freeway was that route known as the Orange Route. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Westminster, that this City Council unanimously reaffirms its position and the position of previous City Councils, that the route adopted by the Cali- fornia State Highway Commission is the most desirable alignment for this freeway segment. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 26th day of January , 1971, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: ANTHONY, FRY, JARRETT, NEUGEBAUER, MC WHINNEY NOES: COUNCILMEN: NONE ABSENT:.. COUNCILMEN: NONE > Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF ORANGE )SS I, KATHARINE C. HARPER, City Clerk of the City of Westminster certify that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Westminster held on the 26th day of January, 1971. Ci y Clerk of the City of Westminster . I J9 7 7-D February 2, 1971 1� Department of Public Works Division of Highways P.O. Box 1499 Sacramento, California (� Dear Sir: The City Council of Huntington Beach; at its regular D meetin held Monday, February 1, 1971 adopted Resolution No. 32920 requesting the State Division of Highways, District VII, to place a high priority on construction of the Route 39 Freeway. Enclosed is a certified copy of said resolution. We urge your cooperation in the placing of a higher priority on construction of said freeway route . Sincerely yours., Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ:aw pm Enclosure February 2, 1971 John A. Legarra, Chief of Division State Highway Engineer Division of Highways P.O. Box 1499 Sacramento, California Dear Mr. Legarra; ❑ The City Council of Huntington Beach, at its regular meetingg held Monday, February 1.n 1971 adopted Resolution No. .32b2, requesting the State Division of Highways, District VII, to place a high priority on construction of the Route 39 Freeway. Enclosed is a certified copy of said Resolution. We urge your cooperation in the placing of a higher priority on construction of said freeway route . Sincerely yours, Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ:aw: pm Enclosure February 20 1971 Honorable Mayor and City Council ,City of Fountain Valley 10200 Slater Avenue Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Attention: Mary E. Cole., City Clerk Gentlemen-, The City Council of Huntington Beach, at its regular meet- ing held Monday, February ls 1971 adopted Resolution No. 3262, requesting the State Division of Highways,, District VIIO to place a high priority on construction of the Route 39 Freeway. Enclosed is a certified copy of said resolution and we urge your support in requesting a higher priority for this project. Sincerely yours, Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ:aw: pm Enclosure February 2; 1971 1-0 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Garden Grove 11391 Acacgd Street Garden Grove, CA 92640 'Attention: Ruby K. Silva City Clerk Gentlemen: ❑ The City Council of Huntington Beach, at its regular meeting held Monday, February 1, 1971 adopted Resolution Aso. 3262, requesting the State Division of Highways, District VII, to place a high priority on construction of the Route 39 Freeway. Enclosed is a certified copy of said resolution and we urge your support in requesting a higher priority for this project. Sincerely yours, Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ:aw: pm Enclosure February 2, 1971 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Westminster 8140 Westminster Avenue Westminster, CA 92683 Attention: Katharine Harper, City Clerk Gentlement ❑ The City Council of Huntington Beach, at its regular. meetin, t::held Monday, February 1, 1971 adopted Resolution No. 32 2, requesting the State Division of Highways$ District VII, to place a high priority on construction of the Route 39 Freeway. Enclosed is a certified copy of said resolution and we urge your support in requ4 ing a higher priority for this project. Sincerely yours, Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJtaw; pm Enclosure February 2, 1971 Mr. Haig Ayanian, District' Engineer Division of Highways District 7, P.O. Box 2304 . Los- Angeles,, CA 90054 Dear, Mr. Ayanian: The City Council of Huntington Beach, at its regular meetin held Monday, February 1$ 1971 adopted Resolution No. 3292 requesting the State Division of Highwaytj ❑ District, VII, to place a high priority on construction of the Route 39 Freeway. Enclosed is a certified copy of said Resolution. We urge your cooperation in the placing of a higher priori'-ty , on construction of said freeway route. Sincerely yours, Paul,C, Jones* City Clerk PCJ:aw-, pm Enclosure �41e�enme fn ` THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH MAP ON FILE WITH CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO . 3262 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL, OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUESTING THE STATE DI- VISION OF HIGHWAYS, DISTRICT. VII , . TO PLACE A HIGH PRIORITY ON CONSTRUCTION OF THE ROUTE 39 FREEWAY WHEREAS , the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach understands the importance of the Route 39 Freeway to the process of orderly growth and development ; and This Council also recognizes the importance of Route 39 to a total traffic circulation system, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does resolve as follows : 1 . That it supports placing Route 39 Freeway on a higher priority ; 2 . That it urges proceeding with early design, freeway agreements , right of way acquisition and construction of the Route 39 Freeway ; 3. That the immediate limits of this project should be from the Pacific Coast Highway to the Garden Grove Freeway; and 4 . That this city will work in cooperation with the State Division of Highways to impl"ement development of the Route 39 Freeway by finalizing street .alignments , highway classifications , interchange configurations and projected traffic counts . It is further resolved that the City Clerk is directed to send copies of this resolution to the State Division of Highways ,. the State Engineer, District Engineer, the County of Orange , and the cities. of Fountain Valley, Garden Grove and Westminster, California. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Hunting- ton Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the Ist day , of 1 . . February, 1971. Mayor ATTEST : City erk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Ci Fy Attorne /� r 2 . Res. No. STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) 1 , PAUL C. JONES, the duly elected, qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex- officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing. resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the lst day of February 19 71 by the following vote : AYES: Councilmen: McCracken, Bartlett, Coen, Green, Shipley NOES: Councilmen: Matney ABSENT: Councilmen: Gibbs City Clerk and -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California E P OFFICE ' s� al �lIz(".4 aY L &N l BALL C. '{e� — [[ -- ---- .� 1A Uzi$ :: � g ;. INGTpN� RA CITY OF ---- ---------- -------- --------- CALIFORNIA 1909,P �O NTY GP�� • June 5, 1968 California Highway Commission P.O. Box 1079 Sacramento, California 95805 Attention: Mr. Robert Martin, Secretary Subject: Route 39 Freeway from Route 1 Freeway northerly.to Lampson Avenue in the City of Garden Grove Gentlemen: Transmitted herewith is Resolution No. 2770 passed and adopted by the Huntington Beach City Council at their regular meeting held June 3, 1968, requesting the California Highway Commission to hold a public hearing in the City of Huntington Beach on subject freeway route. Yours very truly, Paul C. Jones CityClerk PCJ:bwo enc. q STATE OF CALIFORNIA—TRANSPORTATION AGENCY RONALD REAGAN, Governor DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY COMMISSION -� P.O. BOX 1079,SACRAMENTO 95805 June 11 , 1968 Mr. Paul C . Jones City Clerk City of Huntington Beach P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Dear Mr. Jones : This will acknowledge receipt of your letter sending a copy of your Council ' s Resolution No . 2770 requesting the Commission to hold a public hearing on the location of Route 39 . By now you no doubt have received notice that the Commission has scheduled a hearing on this, freeway on July 26 at 10 : 00 A.M. in the Huntington Beach High School Auditorium. Sincerely, �s ROBERT T. MARTIN Assistant Secretary CITY OF FOU NTAI N VALLEY CALIFORNIA 92708 CITY HALL (714) 962-2424 July 5, 1968 City Council City of Huntington Beach Sixth and Magnolia Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: For your information, I am enclosing a copy of Resolution No. 5006 adopted by the Fountain Valley City Council on July 2, 1968, urging the State Highway Commission to approve the Red Route for the location of the Route 39 Freeway. Very truly yours, CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY Mary E. Cole City Clerk Encl. 1 INFORMATION ONLY COPIES TO COUNCIL,_______________ �. RESOLUTION NO. 500:6 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY URGING THE STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION TO APPROVE THE RED ROUTE FOR THE LOCATION OF THE ROUTE 39 FREEWAY WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Fountain Valley, after due deliberation, has determined that the Orange Route conflicts with the interests of the majority of the cities through which it runs, and WHEREAS, the majority of the cities includes the Cities of Fountain Valley, Huntington Beach, Garden Grove, and Cypress, and represents approxi- mately 260,000 persons out of the 398,000 people residing within cities through which this freeway runs. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Fountain Valley does hereby urge and request the State Highway Commission to approve the route supported by the majority of cities and, in fact, representing the interests of the greatest number of people in the area. Inasmuch as the majority of cities involved support the Red Route, it is requested that the State Highway Commission approve this route and proceed as rapidly as possible in the construction of a freeway along the Red Route. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Fountain Valley at its regular meeting held on the 2nd day of July 1968. 1qAYOR OF THE CITY OF FOUNTAIN AL A ST: City Cle STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY) I, MARY E. COLE, City Clerk of the City of Fountain Valley, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced to the Council at its Regular Meeting held on the 2nd day of July 1968, and was at said meeting regularly passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Courreges, Fregeau, Schwerdtfeger, Harper, Just NAYES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None C' Clerk LNFP01RMATI�0NONLy ES T0NCIL,.__...__r.._--- CITY OY CTARD E N GR,OV E CALIYORNIA City Hall 11391 Acacia Street JEfferson 7-4200 COUNCILCITY January 15, 1963 GEORGEB. HONOLD. MAYOR KATHRYN L. BARR, VICE-MAYOR JOHN R. DEAN LEON KNOELLER RICHARD J. RAINWATERS Mr. Paul C. Jones, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach P. O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California Dear Mr. Jones: This will acknowledge receipt of Resolution No. 1710 of the City of Huntington Beach concerning joint study of the proposed Huntington Beach Freeway route. The Garden Grove City Council in regular session December 26, 1962, considered request of the City of La Mirada as contained in their Resolution No. 62-263 and did by minute action indicate approval of and a desire to cooperate and participate in a joint study of the pro- posed-�Huntington Beach Freeway route. Thank you for calling the matter to our attention and you may expect representation from Garden Grove when a meeting is scheduled. Very truly yours, CITY OF GARDEN GROVE CITY CLERK GW:rs l� �yv f OFFICE OF _ _ LEHIGH 9-7298 CITY CLERK TWINOAKS 3-8104 City Council City of Huntington Beach Fifth and Orange Huntington Beach, California Attention: Paul C. Jones, City Clerk Re : Resolution No. 377 _ City of Stanton Gentlemen: Your letter of January 11 and Resolution No. 1710 solicit- ing cooperation in a joint study of the proposed Hunting- ton Beach Freeway route was presented to our City Council at a regular meeting held January 14, 1963. I am enclosing a copy of Resolution No. 377 entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STANTON URGING THE STUDY OF A SPECIFIC ROUTE LOCATION OF THE HUNT- INGTON BEACH FREEWAY IN LOS ANGELES AND ORANGE COUNTIES,TQ adopted January 14, 1963, For your further information Mayor McCarthy appointed City Administrator, Stanley J. Lavery and Planning Director, Bruce Dalton to serve as Stanton' s representatives to dis- cuss various routes for the proposed Huntington Beach Free- way, Very... truly yours, Mina Wilson City Clerk MW:it Enc. �41e�enme fn ` THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH MAP ON FILE WITH CITY CLERK or 1 RESOLUTION NO. _a77 2 A RES:)LUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STANTON URGING .THE STUDY OF A SPECIFIC ROUTE LOCATION OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH FREEWAY IN LOS ANGELES AND ORANGE 3 COUNTIES. 4 5 WHEREAS, the Huntington Beach Freeway, now in the planning stage, 6 will be traversing communities in both Orange and Los Angeles County; and 7 WHEREAS, the location of this freeway route will be of extreme 8 importance to the people of this area and 9 WHEREAS, cities affected by freeway location may present factual 10 data at public hearings to be held by the State Division of Highways as 11 to the most desirable routes; 12 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of 13- Stanton that this City wishes to co-operate with the cities along the 14 proposed Huntington Beach Freeway route to the extent of studying and 15 selecting a route or routes which will be mutually beneficial to all 16 concerned. 17 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that copies of this resolution be 18 sent to the City Councils of the cities of La Mirada, Westminster, 19 Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Cypress, Buena Park, Fullerton, Whittier 20 and La Habra. 21 ADUPTED, SIGNED and APPROVED this 14th day of January., 1963. 22 ZsZ Richard F. ftCarthy 23 Mayor. 24 ATTEST: 25 ZsZ Mina Wilson City Clerk 26 1, MINA WILSON, City Clerk of the City of Stanton, California, 27 do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted at a regular 28 meeting of the City Council of the City of Stanton held on the 14th day of 29 January, 1963, by the following vote, to-wit, 30 31 AYES. Councilmen Antich, Booth, Johnson, McBratnev. M&Garthv 32 1 SIC+ES ±✓ounci linen £bane 2 ABSENT: Councilmen Done 3 /s/ Mina Wilson 4 City Clerk 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 i [iia 1 NY, c;j file iibEJ C.ffice. CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF STANTON, :`OUN Se i. P,-OF ORANGE, ,TE OF CALIF ORNIA -20 f BY 21 City Clerk 22 i 23 24 25 26 2711 28 29 30 31 32 20 t City of La Mirada 1'4�. ¢tAl. 15004 LuITWIELER AVENUE m. LA MIRADA. CALIFORNIAyF LAWRENCE 1-3232 JAMES T. JENKINS, MAYOR CHAPMAN L. BONE RICHARD L. DANSON, VICE MAYOR CITY ADMINISTRATOR RO R. PEDERSON JACK L. CLIFFORD, COUNCILMAN ASSISTANTT ADMINISTRATOR JEROME J. RESNICK, COUNCILMAN ALEXANDER GOOGOOIAN ESTELLE TROUP, COUNCILMAN CITY ATTORNEY December 17, 1962 Mr. Doyle Miller City Administrator City of Huntington Beach P. O, Box 190 Huntington Beach, Calif. Ree Resolution Noe 62-263 �rl City of La Mirada Dear Mr, lere The La Mirada City Council passed the enclosed resolution soliciting your cooperation in a _joint study of the pro- posed Huntington Beach Freeway route. The Planning Direc- tors of our cities have held joint informal meetings on this matter. I would like to suggest that we establish a Huntington Beach Freeway Association composed of the Planning Direc- tors of the cities involved. This group would work out one or two routes acceptable to their respective city Councils. Since time is of the essence, may we please have your thoughts on the subject at your earliest convenience. Very,truly yours, Chap n L. Bone City Administrator rv/dl enc. n CERTIFICATION (COPY) STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss CITY OF LA MIRADA ) I, ANNA J. MARTIN, City Clerk of the City of La Mirada, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a full, true, and correct copy of Rpgnlni-inn Nn_F,2_2F, adopted by the City Council of the City of La Mirada on December 11,E_ 1962 DATED: December 17, 1962. Anna Martin, City Clerk �fl SEAL City La Mirada RESOLUTION NO. 62-263 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MIRADA URGING THE STUDY OF A SPECIFIC ROUTE LOCATION OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH FREEWAY IN LOS ANGELES AND ORANGE COUNTIES. WHEREAS, the Huntington Beach Freeway, now in the planning stage, will be traversing communities in both Orange and Los Angeles County, and WHEREAS, the location of this freeway route will be of extreme importance to the people of this area, and WHEREAS, cities affected by freeway location may present factual data at Public Hearings to be held by the State Division of Highways as to the most desirable routes. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of La Mirada that this City wishes to cooperate and enlists the cooperation of cities along the proposed Huntington Beach Freeway route to the extent of studying and selecting a route or routes which will be mutually beneficial to all concerned. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that copies of this Resolution be sent to the City Councils of the cities of Huntington Beach, Westminister, Garden Grove, Stanton, Cypress, Buena Park, Fullerton, Whittier and La Habra along with a request that these cities join with the City of La Mirada in a joint study of the proposed freeway route. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this llth day of December, 1962 . 1 J ayor ATTEST: y Clerk January 11 , 1963 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Westminster 14381 Olive Street Westminster, California Attention: Mrs, Katharine C. Harper City Clerk Re: Resolution No. 1710 City of Hiintington Beach Gentlemen-. The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach adopted the enclosed resolution soliciting your cooperation in a joint study of the proposed Huntington Beach Freeway route. This is 'a matter of vital concern to the City of Huntington Beach and, we believe to all cities in the area bisected by pro- posed routes . Following a suggestion made by the City ofLaMirada, the City of Huntington Beach has indicated- that they believe a Huntington Beach Freeway Association formed to study various proposed routes would be of mutual benefit to all of us. Your Honorable Body, ' therefore, is requested tot.1give this matter considerations and we would be pleased to be informed of your ideas on the subject. Very truly yours, Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ:bw enc. C oPY January 11 , 1963 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Stanton 7800 Katella Street Stanton, California Attention: Mrs. Mina Wilsin City Clerk Re: Resolution No. 1710 City of Huntington Beach Gentlemen: The City Council of the City of Hi.intington Beach adopted the enclosed resolution soliciting your cooperation in a joint study of the proposed Huntington Beach Freeway route. This is a matter of vital concern to the City of Huntington Beach and, we believe to all cities in the area bisected by pro- posed routes. Following a suggestion made by the City of LaMirada he City of Huntington Beach has indicated that they believe a Huntington Beach Freeway Association formed to study various proposed routes would be of mutual benefit to all of us. Your Honorable Body, therefore, is requested to give this matter consideration, and we would be pleased to be informed of your ideas on the subject. Very truly yours, Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ:bw enc. COPY January 11 , 1963 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Cypress P.O. Box 11 Cypress, California Attention: Mrs, Ferne S, Phillips City Clerk Re: Resolution No. 1710 City of Huntington Beach Gentlemen: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach adopted the enclosed resolution soliciting your cooperation in a joint study of the proposed Huntington Beach Freeway route. This is a matter of vital concern to the City of Huntington Beach and, we believe to all cities in the areas bisected by pro- posed routes. Following a suggestion made by the City of LaMirada, the City of Huntington Beach has indicated that they believe a Huntington Beach Freeway Association formed to study various proposed routes would be of mutual benefit to all of us. Your Honorable Body, therefore, is requested to give this matter consideration,, and we would be pleased to be informed of your ideas on the subject. Very truly yours, Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ:bw enc. P January 11 , 1963 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Buena Park 6650 Grand Avenue Buena Park, California Attention: Mrs. Marguerite G. Courson City Clerk Re: Resolution No. 1710 City of Huntington Beach Gentlemen: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach adopted the enclosed resolution soliciting your cooperation in a joint study of the proposed Huntington Beach Freeway route. This is a matter of vital concern to the City of Hutttington Beach and, we believe to all cities in the area bisected by pro- posed routes. Following a suggestion made by the City of LaMirada, the City of Huntington Beach has indicated that they believe a Huntington Beach Freeway Association formed to study various proposed routes would be of mutual benefit to all of us. Your Honorable Body, ' therefore, is requested to give this matter consideration, and we would be pleased to be -informed of your ideas on the subject. Very truly yours, Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ:bw enc. C [PY January 11 , 1963 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of LaMirada 15004 Luitwieler Avenue LaMirada, California Attention: Mrs. Anna J. Martin City Clerk Re: Resolution No. 1710 City of Huntington Beach Gentlemen: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach adopted the enclosed resolution soliciting your cooperation in a joint study of the proposed Huntington Beach Freeway route. This is a matter of vital concern to the City of Huntington Beach and, we believe to all cities in the area bisected by pro- posed routes. Following a suggestion made by your Resolution No. 62-263, the City of Huntington Beach has indicated that they believe a Huntington Beach Freeway Association formed to study various proposed routes would be of mutual bebefit to all of us . Your Honorable Body, therefore, is requested to give this matter consideration, and we would be pleased to be informed of your ideas on the subject. Very truly yours, Paul C, Jones City Clerk PCJ:bw enc. (C O [PY i F January 11, 1963 Honorable Mayor and Gtty Council City of Carden Grove 11391 Aeacia' Street Carden Grove, California Attention: Mrs. Gwen Wiesner City Clerk Re: Resolution No. 1710 City of Huntington Beach Gentlemen: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach adopted the enclosed resolution soliciting your cooperation in a joint study of the proposed Huntington Beach Freeway route. This is a matter of vital concern to the City of Huntington Beach and, we believe to all cities in the area bisected by pro- posed routes. Following a suggestion made by the City of LaMirada, the City of Huntington Beach has indicated that they believe a Huntington Beach Freeway Association formed to study various proposed routes would be of mutual benefit to all of us.. Your Honorable Bodyt ' therefore, is requested to give this matter consideration, and we would be pleased to be informed of your ideas on the subject. Very truly yours , Paul C. Jones City Clerk . PCJ:bw enc. C O [PY January 11, 1963 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of La Habra 201 East'Erna La Habra, California Attention: Mrs. Donna Holmes City Clerk Re-, Resolution No. 1710 City of Huntington Beach Gentlemen: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach adopted the enclosed resolution soliciting your cooperation in a joint study of the proposed Huntington Beach Freeway route. This is 6 matter of vital concern to the City of Huntington Beach and, we believe to all cities in the area bisected by pro- posed routes. I Following a suggestion made by the City of LaMirada, the City of Huntington Beach has indicated that they believe a Huntington Bea&h Freeway Association formed to study various proposed routes would be of mutual benefit to all of us . Your Honorable Body, * therefore, is requested to give this matter consideration, and we would be pleased to be informed of your ideas on the subject. Very truly yoqrs, Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ:bw enc. C ' O PY January 11, 1963 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Whittier 333 East Penn Street 'Whittier, California Attention: Mr. Frank R. Limber City Clerk Re: Resolution No. 1710 City of Huntington Beach Gentlemen: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach adopted the enclosed resolution soliciting your cooperation in a joint study of the proposed Huntington Beach Freeway route. This is a matter of vital concern to the City of Huntington Beach and, we believe to all cities in the area bisected by pro- posed routes. Following a suggestion made by the City of LaMirada, the City of Huntington Beach has indicated that they believe a Huntington Beach Freeway Association formed to study various proposed routes would be of mutual benefit to all of us. Your Honorable Body, ' therefore, is requested to give this matter consideration, and we would be pleased to be informed of your ideas on the subject. Very truly yours, Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ:bw enc. (D [PY January 11, 1963 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Fullerton 237 W. Commonwealth Fullerton, California Attention: Mrs. Virginia Fitzsimmons City Clerk Re: Resolution No. 1710 City of Huntington Beach Gentlemen: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach adopted the enclosed resolution soliciting your cooperation in a joint study of the proposed Huntington Beach Freeway route. This is A matter of vital concern to the City of Huntington Beach and, we believe to all citits in the area bisected by pro- posed routes . Following a suggestion made by the City of LaMirada, the' City of Huntington Beach has indicated that they believe a Huntington Beach Freeway Association formed to study various proposed routes would be of mutual benefit to all of us . Your Honorable Body, ' therefore, is requested to give this matter consideration, and we would be pleased to be informed ofmyour ideas on the subject. .Very truly yours, Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ.,bv7 enc, OXbow 8-2551 • WHITTIER r 3 y WHITTIER CIVIC CENTER k ~ 333 EAST PENN STREET • WHITTIER, CALIFORNIA File #212 January 22, 1963 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California Attention: Mr. Paul C. Jones City Clerk Re: Resolution No. 1710 City of Huntington Beach Gentlemen: At a recent study session of the Whittier City Council, Mr. R. F. Woehrmann, Assistant to the City Manager, and myself were authorized to represent the City of Whittier in a joint study of the proposed Huntington Beach freeway routes. I would appreciate receiving notice of the next meeting of this study committee with respect to the proposed freeway. The City Council, in authorizing this representation, expressed a desire to be informed of the reactions and proposals of the surrounding cities to any proposed route the State Highway Department may submit. Thank you for advising us of the formation of this study committee and including us in the joint study. Sincerely, _ ' es Du I Planning Director JDB:bj cc: K. B. Douglass City Manager ' h CITY Off' CALIF®R,�iT'IA City Hall 11391 Acacia Street . Area Code 714- 537-4200 May 10, 196.8 Mr. Gordon Luce, Chairman 'California Highway Commission Public Works Building 1120 "N" Street Sacramento, California 95814 Dear Mr. Luce: Mr. Samuel B. Nelson, in his letter dated April 25, 1968, has solicited the opinion of the City Council regarding the possibility of the adoption of the northerly segment being prejudiced by the adoption of a route for the south segment of the Route 39 Freeway. There is a distinct possibility of prejudicial attitudes developing if the southerly segment (south of Lampson Avenue) is adopted prior to the northerly segments. At the present time, there are two control points from which the next segment to the north could connect, i.e. the Orange and the Red lines at Lampson Avenue. If one of these control points is eliminated through the adoption of a route for the south segment, the next segment would have a definite point of beginning. The importance of this loss of flexibility cannot be fully determined until studies on the next segment of the alignment have been completed. The presence of various crossovers, however, would tend to minimize the loss of one of the. control points. If the Orange line is adopted to Lampson Avenue, the continuation of this line north would result in maximum impact upon the City of Garden Grove. A crossover to the west (north of Lampson) would have less impact. In summary, the City feels that the adoption of a route for the segment south of Lampson Avenue would be prejudicial to the selection of the next segment. This response to Mr. Nelson's inquiry is obvious from our point of view since Garden Grove is unfortunately in the awkward position of having the present study lines terminate at a mid point (north-south) within our'jurisdiction. As indicated, however, in our accompanying position resolution, we recommend that an early solution be forthcoming. Very truly yours, CITY OF GARDEN GROVE INFORMATION ONLY COPIES TO COUNCIL......_,._..._. ��—�-��� RB:rs Reece Ballard, Mayor Encl. bcc: City of Huntington Beach � 3v RESOLUTION NO. 3507-68 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GARDEN GROVE OPPOSING THE STATE HIGHWAY ENGINEER'S RECOMMENDATION FOR THE ROUTE 39 FREEWAY ALIGNMENT AND REQUESTING THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY COMMISSION TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING IN ORANGE COUNTY. WHEREAS, the State Highway Engineer, in his report dated April 5, 1968, has recommended the Orange Line for route adoption consideration; and WHEREAS, Garden Grovels City Council, Planning Commission, Unified School District, and Chamber of Commerce have previously urged adoption of the Red Line, northerly of Westminster Avenue; and WHEREAS, these agencies have not changed their positions on this matter; and WHEREAS, the City Council is of the opinion that the State Highway Engineer' s report does not reflect the total impact of the Orange Line upon the economic and sociological values of the community; and WHEREAS, that while the City Council is vitally concerned with the northerly projection of the freeway from its recommended terminus near Lampson Avenue and Josephine Street in the City of Garden Grove, the City Council is more immediately concerned with resolving the basic issue of the route recommended by the State Highway Engineer; and WHEREAS, following submittal of the State Highway Engineer's report, the City Council has ordered, in conjunction with the Garden Grove Unified School District, an extensive study to develop in more detail the impact of said recommen- dations upon the community and the school district; and WHEREAS, on the other hand, early route adoption would be beneficial to community.,planning and development. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: That the City Council of the City of Garden Grove hereby urges the California Highway Commission to proceed with the consideration of the State Highway Engineer's Report. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council is completely negative on, and strongly opposed to, the Orange Line alignment for the Route 39 Freeway. INFORMATION ONI Y COPIES TO COUNCIL...— BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby requests the California Highway Commission to hold its own public hearing in Orange County at an early date. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GARDEN GROVE this 7th day of May, 1968, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEN: BARR, DEAN, LAKE, SCHMIT, BALLARD NOES: COUNCILMEN: NONE ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: NONE REECE BALIARD MAYOR OF THE CITY OF GARDEN GROVE ATTEST: ISI Gwen Wiesner CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF GARDEN GROVE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS: CITY OF GARDEN GROVE ) I, GWEN WIESNER, City Clerk of Garden Grove, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of Garden Grove held May 7, 1968. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Garden Grove this 7th day of May, 1968. YSI Gwen Wiesnzer CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF GARDEN GROVE -2- �41e�enme fn ` THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH MAP ON FILE WITH CITY CLERK % C - A L i P O R N I A 9 0 6 2 0 6650 BEACH BOULEVARD . TEL= (AREA CODE 714 ) 521 -9900 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK MARGUERITE G. COURSON May 10, 1968 City Council City of Huntington Beach Civic Center Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: I am enclosing a copy of Resolution No. 3408 adopted a . by the Buena Park City Council on April 23, 1968, urging the State Highway Commission to immediately take steps to adopt the Orange line route between Route l' (Pacific Coast) Freeway and Lampson Avenue for the proposed Route 39 Freeway. Very truly yours, CITY OF BUENA PARK Margufe ite G. Courson City' lerk MGC:cb Enclosure INFORMATION ONLY COPIES TO COUNCIL-^'' `A, ::- ♦i 0 x RESOLUTION NO. 3408 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OFIBUENA PARK URGING THE STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION TO IMMEDIATELY TAKE STEPS TO ADOPT THE ORANGE LINE ROUTE BETWEEN ROUTE 1 (PACIFIC COAST) 'FREEWAY AND LAMPSON AVENUE FOR THE PRO- POSED ROUTE 39 FREEWAY. WHEREAS, public hearings for that portion of the Huntington Beach (north- south) Freeway between.Coast Highway and Lampson Avenue have been conducted by the State Division of Highways; and WHEREAS, the State Highway Engineer has recommended for route adoption that route known as the "Orange Line Route" and has recommended that the Commission declare its intention to consider the adoption of that route and its designation as a freeway and to give appropriate notice; and WHEREAS, the City of Buena Park has consistently urged the adoption of that freeway alignment along the Southern California Edison Company's trans- mission line, easterly of Dale Street, which is substantially the Orange Line Route; and WHEREAS, the City of Buena Park is vitally concerned with the location and route of such proposed freeway; and WHEREAS, the determination of the proper location of the Freeway between the Coast Highway and Lampson Avenue may well be affected by the proper loca-. tion and route of the Freeway in the second portion between Lampson Avenue north of the Pomona Freeway, that portion being the portion within which the City of Buena Park is situated; and WHEREAS, the interest of orderly planning within the various cities affected by this Freeway dictates that a decision be made immediately; and WHEREAS, public hearings have been held over a long period of time con- cerning the proposed location of the Freeway between Pacific Coast Highway and Lampson Avenue and an opportunity has been given to all parties to state their position; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BUENA PARK DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, ORDER AND DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION ..1: That the State Highway Commission be urged to immediately . declare its intention to adopt the Orange Line Route of the Huntington Beach-(north- south) Freeway between Coast Highway and Lampson Avenue and to proceed at once to the adoption of that route. SECTION 2: That the City of Buena Park does restate its position in favor of that freeway alignment on the easterly side of the City of Buena Park which would be located immediately adjacent to the Southern California Edison Company's transmission line right of way, easterly of Dale Street. SECTION 3: That the City of Buena Park does oppose any proposed freeway route located over the westerly or center portions of the City of Buena Park. SECTION 4: That a copy of this resolution be sent to the State Highway Com- mission; Division of Highways; Orange County Board of Supervisors; Orange County Road Commissioner; the Cities of Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, Westminster, Garden Grove, Stanton, Anaheim, Cypress, and La Habra; and the Buena Park Chamber of Commerce. PA.SSED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of April, 1968, by the following called vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEN: Bousman, Fonte, Thompson, Wing and Davis NOES: 0 COUNCILMEN: None A.BSENT: 0 COUNCILMEN: None ATTEST: �$SE M. DAVIS MARGUERITE G. COURSON MAYOR OF T .LJ.E..B.UENA PARK CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF BUENA PARK INFORMATION ONLY COPIES T0. COUNCIL.:5__=g_-G. I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the city council of the City of Buena Park, held this 23rd day of April, 1968. MARGUERITE G. COURSON CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF BUENA PARK -2- 6 a May 5, 1971 Planning Commission County of ©range 400 West 8th Street Santa Ana, CA 92701 Gentlemen: The City Council of Huntington Beach, st�° its regular meeting held Monday�, May 3, 1971., adopted Resolution No. 3320 re- questing the State Division of Highways to establish a scenic highway corridor and to initiate a- scenic highway corridor survey and highway facility study along, that portion of the Pacific- Coast. Freeway, Route 1, between naheim Bap and the Santa Ana River, Enclosed is a,tertified copy of Resolution No, 3320 for your information. Sincerely yours, Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJfaw Enc. May 59 1971 I Beard of Supervisors County of Orange P.O. Box 687 Santa Ana, CA -92702 Gentlemen: The City Council oZ Huntington Beach, at its regular meeting held Monday, May 3, 1971 adopted Resolution No. 3320 rep- questing the State Division of Highways .ta establish a scenic highway corridor and to .intiate a scenic highway corridor survey and highway facility study along that portion of the lPaci€id °Coast Freeway, Route 1, between Anaheim Bay- and the Santa Ana River. Enclosed is a ,certified copy of Resolution: No. 3320 for your information. Sincerely yours, Paul C. ,Jones City Clerk PC,J:aw Enc. May 5, 1971 Department of ..Public Works Division of Highways District 7, P 4* Box 2304 Los Angeles, CA 90054 Gentlemen: The City Council of Huntington Beach, at its. regular meeting ^ held -Monday, May 3, 1971, adopted Resolution No. 3320 re- questing the State Division of Highways to- establish a scenic highway corridor and to initiate a scenic highway corridor -su&ley And highway facility study' along that portion of the Pacific Coast Freeway, Route 1, between Anaheim Bay and the Santa Ana River. Enclosed is a certified copy of Resolution 3320 for your. T\/7ibformation: Sincerely youa, Paul C. .hones City Clerk Pc3: +* cc April 5, 1973 i I Honorable Mayor and City Council City of San Juan Capistrano 32444 Paseo Adelanto San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Attention: City Clerk Gentlemen: i The City Council of Huntington Beach, at its regular meeting held Monday, April 2, 1973, adopted Resolution No. 3665, requesting the State Department of Public Works, the Division of Highways, the County of Orange and affected local agencies, to participate in a Route 1 Corridor Transportation Study and declaring the intent of the City of Huntington Beach to participate in such a study. I Enclosed is a copy of Resolution No. 36.63 for your information. Sincerely yours, I Ernestina Di Fabio Acting City Clerk ED:p Encl. April 5, 1973 League of California Cities 1008 "001 Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Gentlemen: The City Council of Huntington Beach, at its regular meeting held Monday, April 2, 1973, adopted Resolution No. 3665, requesting the State Department of Public Works, the Division of Highways, the County cf grange and affected local agencies, to participate in a Route 1 Corridor Transportation Study and declaring the intent of the City of Huntington Beach to participate in such a study. Enclosed is a copy of Resolution No. 3665 for your information. Sincerely yours, Ernestina Di Fabio Acting City Clerk ED:p Encl. April 5, 1973 I Orange County League of Cities 282 Cajon Street Laguna Beach, CA 92651 Attention: Mr. Winston Updegraff Dear Sir: The City Council of Huntington Beach, at its regaAar meeting held Monday, April 2, 1973, adopted Resolution No. 3665, requesting the State Department of Public Works, the Division of Highways, the DCounty of Orange and affected local agencies, to participate in a f Route 1 Corridor Transportation Study and declaring the intent of the City of Huntington Beach to participate in such a study. Enclosed is a copy of Resolution No. 3665 for your information. Sincerely yours, Ernestina Di Fabio Acting City Clerk ED:p Encl. April 5, 1973 i i Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Laguna Beach 505 Forest Laguna Beach, CA 92651 Attention: City Clerk Gentlemen: The City Council of Huntington Beach, at its regular meeting held Monday, April 2, 1973, adopted Resolution No. 3655, requesting the State Department of Public Works, the Division of Highways, the D County of Orange and affected local agencies, to participate in a Route 1 Corridor Transportation Study and declaring the intent of the City of Huntington Beach to participate in such a study. Enclosed is a copy of Resolution No. 3655 for your information. Sincerely yours, Ernestina Di Fabio Acting City Clerk ED:p Encl. 4 April 5, 1973 i I Honorable Mayor and City Council City of San Clemente P. O. Box 368 San Clemente, CA 92672 i Attention: City Clerk Gentlemen: The City Council of Huntington Beach, at its regular meeting held Monday, April 2, 1973, adopted Resolution No. 3665, requesting the State Department of Public Works, the Division of Highways, the D County of Orange =nd affected local agencies, to participate in a Route 1 Corridor Transportation Study and declaring the intent of the City of Huntington Beach to participate in such a study. Enclosed is a copy of Resolution No. 3665 for your infomttion. Sincerely yours, Ernestina Di Fabio Acting City Clerk ED:p Encl. �I April 5, 1973 i i Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Attention: City Clerk i Gentlemen: The City Council of Huntington Beach, at its regular meeting held Monday, April 2, 1973, adopted Resolution No. 3665, requesting the State Department of Public Works, the Division of Highways, the County of Orange and affected local agencies, to participate in a Route 1 Corridor Transportation Study and declaring the intent of the City of Huntington Beach to participate in such a study. Enclosed is a copy of Resolution No. 3665 for your information. Sincerely yours, Ernestina Di Fabio Acting City Clerk ED:p Encl. i I f April 5, 1973 i Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Costa Mesa P. 0. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Attention: City Clerk The City Council of Huntington Beach, at its regular meting held Monday, April 2, 1973, adopted Resolution No. 3665, . requesting the State Department of Public Works, the Division of highways, the County of Orange and affected local agencies, to participate in a Route 1 Corridor Transportation Study and declaring the intent of the City of Huntington Beach to participate in such a study. Enclosed is a copy of Resolution No. 3655 for your information. Sincerely yours, Ernestina Di Fabio Acting City Clerk ED:p Encl. April 5, 1973 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Seal Beach P. 0. Box 2625 Seal Beach, CA 90740 Attention: City Clerk Gentlemen: ` The "City Council of Huntington Beach, at its regular meeting held Monday, April 2, 1973, adopted Resolution No. 3665, requesting the State Department of Public Works, the Division of Highways, the County of Orange and affected local agencies, to participate in a D Route 1 Corridor Transportation Study And declaring the intent of the City of Huntington Beach to participate in such a study. Enclosed is a copy of Resolution No. 3655 for your information. Sincerely yours, Ernestina Di Fabio Acting City Clerk ED:p Encl. April 5, 1973 Board of Supervisors County of Orange P. O. Box 687 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Gentlemen: The City Council of Huntington Beach, at its regular meeting held Monday, April 2, 1973, adopted Resolution No. 3665, requesting the State Department of Public Works, the Division of Highways, the County of Orange and affected local agencies, to participate in D a Route 1 Corridor Transportation Study and declaring the intent of the City of Huntington Beach to participate in such a study. Enclosed is a copy of Resolution No. 3655 for your information. Sincerely yours, Ernestina Di Fabio Acting City Clerk ED:p Encl. April 5, 1973 State Division of Highways State of California District 7 Box 2304 Terminal Annex Los Angeles, CA Dear Sir: The City Council of Huntington Beach, at its regular meeting held Monday, April 2, 1973, adopted Resolution No. 3665, requesting the State Department of Public Works, the Division of Highways, the DCounty of orange and affected local agencies, to participate in a Route 1 Corridor Transportation Study and declaring the intent of the City of Huntington Beach to participate in such a study. Enclosed is a copy of Resolution No. 3665 for your information. Sincerely yours, Ernestina Di F'abio Acting City Clerk EDtp Encl. ►. April 3, 1973 State Deparimmt of Public.Worko State of California 1120 "N" Street Sacramento, CA . 9559.E Desire Sir The City Council of Huntington Beachn at Ito regular.meeting hold Nondaya April 29 1973n adopted RGenlutioan 3665a requGsting the State Departmsnt of Public Worko a t':ne Divtsion of Highwayo 9 the- county of Orange and affected local agencieefl to participate in a route l Corridor Tvanoport ation Study and declaring the intent Dof the City of Huntington Beach to participate in such a study. Enclocedt irs a copy o£•R000lution No. 3665 for your infonmtion.. Sincerely youTo 0 Erneetina Di Fabio Acting City Clark EDop Encl. cif q INFORMATION ONLY COPIES TO COUNCIL,-:EA.2._7._./ RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS li 2 OF OILS NGEE COUNTY , CALIFORNIA. 3 May 18 , 1971 41 On motion of Supervisor Caspers , duly seconded and carried, the 51 following Resolution was adopted: By, uon Be-ch has re- 6 Wn Et'.0) LL City 7 quested the support of the Board of Supervisors for an adopted resolution 8 requesting the State Division of High-i-;ays to establish a scenic highway 9 corridor and to initiate a scenic highway corridor and facility study 10 along that portion -of the Pacific Coast Freeway, Route 1, .that lies 11 between Anaheim Bay and the Santa Ana River; and 12 WHEREAS, this same resolution has been supported by the Planning 13 Comimission of the City of Huntington Beach; and cz� 14 WHEREAS, this Board is in favor of the establistm)ent of Lhe afore- _j Lj 15 said scenic highway corridor and the necessary studies involved.ono W U L' Ll .L.- FORE, BE 13' RESCIVED LhaL tlae 'oa--- of Supervis of NOW, THEREZ:. ' J.sor 0 Z 0 17 0,range County does hereby register .its support for Resolution No. 3320 of L3 18 the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, and of Resolution No. 19 1.071 of the Planning Commission of the City of Hunt-ington Beach. 201 AYES : SUPERVISORS RONALD W. - CASPERS, DAVID L. BAKER, WILL14A).M J. PHILLIPS, RALPH B. CLARK, AND R. W. BATTIN 21 NOES : SUPERVISORS NONE 22 ABSENT: SUPERVISORS NONE, 2 24 STATE OF CAL IFOIRNIA ss . 25 COUNTY OF ORANGE _26- - I '!%IV7 E. JOHNS- -County -Cl-erk—and ex-offic�To Clerk of the - - - 7" " Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, hereby certify that 27 the above and foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the said Board at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18th day of 28 19_1L, and passed by a unanimous vote of said Saard . 29 IN WITNESS W-HEREOF, I have hereunto set my liza'd zhd seal this 30 18th day of May 19 71' . W. E. ST JOHN 31 County Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of 32 Resolution No. 71-519 Orange County, California Support City of Huntington lBeach Res . re Scenic Hwy. PC :kl, -Corridor By -----I)eputy �41e�enme fn ` THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH MAP ON FILE WITH CITY CLERK