Loading...
Minutes-PC 1971/02/02' - , ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ . ~I _. - . : ~. .., . . . , ' . . . . . . _~.,....e.n.. . . ~ ~ . _ ~ . ~ . . . r. . ~ ~ _ __ . . ~y \~~f ~ ~ City Hall Anaheia, Califoraia February 2, 1971 . 1! S~ECIEL I.E~TING OF THE ANAHEIM CITX PLANNING CUMMISSION SPECT_AL - A sgecial meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commiseion *SEETING held at the Anaheim High School Auditorium on February 2, 1971, caas called to order by Chairman Herbst at 7:40 P.M., ' a auorum 3eing present. _, ?RESE:IT - CAt!YRMAN: Herbst. - COM?22SSI0:9ERS: Allredy =arano, Gauery Ks.ywood. " ABSENT -- COMMISSIONERS: Rowland, Seymour. ,ti PRESENT - California Division of Highaays Representative: Wall~• Rothbart, Pro~ect Engineer City of Anaaeim Fepreseatatives: Public Wor~s Director T_hornton ?iersall j'i Assista~t Developnent Services Director Ronald Thompson Z•on{ag Suparv±sor Charles Roberts ~ssistant Planner John Graichen Plann•?ng Commission Secretary Ann Xrebs ~`ti PLEDGE 0'F - Comm3.~sstoner Farano led those present in a Pledge of 'f~ ALLE~IANCE Alleg~!ance ttl the ?lag. ~~ `~ SPECIAL PIIBLIC $FARING - CONTIVUED PUBL'IC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE ROUTE 39-HUNTINGTON ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMKISSION, 204 ~ast '~ BEAC~ FREEWAY Lincoln Aveaue, Anaheim, California, to consider the pro~osed routes of the Route 39--Huntington r:~+ Beac?: Fre~~ay to be located in the west Anaheim i area. ~ s'•; Sub~ect hearing ~oas continued from the meeting of .Tanuary 7, 1971, to allow time for .further ±~formation to be submitted. ~'i '<,~ ;:.~ ;,7 Chairman Herbst not~d that tre Division of Hig?~aays Project Engineer, : ??i. Wally &othbart, wculd ~r±ag evezyone up to date on~the actions of ` aeigli~b~oring. rities at their oublic hearings regarding the route 'adoption of the pronosed Route 3?-Huntingtor_ Beach Fr~.es:ay. - Mr. Rothbart noted tha't the cities of Fullertbn, La *!irada, Stanton, and Garden Grove had held publfc hearings before their Planai-ng Commissions, ~ La *S3.rada having reco.mmended the Orange-Blue-Orange Route; Stanton the ~~ Orange Route; Fullerton the Orange-Blue-Orange Route; but the City o~ Garden Grove Planning Commission had made several vague statements - i~ the city must have a freei~ay, then the Green Route was to be recommended, ~.ith special design featuzes; anothe* motion was to terminate the freeway at the Garden ~rove Free~.ay; another motion ~oas to ask other cities along t!:e route to sunport the motion that the free~aay be terminated at r.he Garden Grove Freeway; ai~other motion wa~ to have all cities reach an agreemant for oae route and to present a unified front. However, none of these cities has had this uresented at their C±ty Council meetings. .* Ess_stant Developmant Services Director Ronald Thompson reviesved for the Commissioa and interested persons a special traff~c analysis report re,auested by tha Commission at the last public hearing. (Copy on file) 3'~e gra~h prepared by staff on dispZay was then rev3ewed by Mr. Thompsoa ` c,ho noted that the north-south streets of Valley Viecv, Knott, Beach, _M_agnolia, Brookhurst, and Euclid Street caere within the freeway corridoz and h.ad the ~heoretical capacityy present average daily traffic (ADT), the estiaated 199~ ?DT ia=thout the ~ree~,~ay and the estimated 1990 ADT ~:.: ,,~ : 71-44A • ~ , .• . _ ..;,i . 4:. .__.... .. . . . . ' . . Oi 1 ! ~ i ;~. -, ~ - ~ .:~M1''~ ..'~"'•_ ~' . ~ , ~ . _ . _ _ ~ \_' ~~ ' . ' _ 1 f r ~ _ _.. . , ~ ~~ ; ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CONLMISSION, February 2, 1971 71-k4B ~' SPECIAL PUBLIC HEARING - uith the freeway depicted 3n various colors; ROUTE 39-HUNTINGTON that the iuture traffic forecasts b}- the State B~e-CE FREEWAY and the !^i.ty of Anaheim within the Route 39 . (Contiuued) Freeway ~;orridor were made using traffic data used by the Stai:e and LARTS, land use pro~ections, and traffic data submitted by the affected c2Cies . to arr~ve at the cpmput.arized ~igures - and these figures compile3 by t:;e State corresponded. very closely to the ~.ontin~sous traffic studies mad~ ~}r • the City of Anaheim Txaffic Enginear; that the F.ARTS study was a cont3n~- ing computerized ecudy w4th updated input infori~ation from the various affected cities; that the graph would indicate ~chat the existing street -. ,,,, .... aqsteb together with the fr:-eu•ay ~aould subatantially meet ox avcaed the ;~E demands -- hnwever, without the freeway the ~~kected cities n~ight be in ;r" `~ ' serious troub~le; and that studies by bottz +, e ytate ansi t'h~ City of Anahein indir_are thtt a measurable relicc wou~.c~ br. ~royided regardless of ~ :~ the fzeewr~y route a~iopted. Furthermore, st.E,':,a'lt;o felt that based unon the con~inuing increase of sutomobile traff:}r:,. :;:sc t3ould be the primary j mesne for transpor,tation foz• the foreseeable f'utu~~~ although it was also fel~ that the~4 ?oul~i be a~radual developmenL of ra~id transit which then kouj,~' mean a lev~l~!ng oif of the --umber o~ su*_a;nobiles; however, tliis was 2(i-30 qea::s away, but based on informatien on hand there was a ~ valid nead For the fr.~:~way at this 1.ime, In addiXion, the Cicy of Los Angeles.,, the State of California aad the Federal Government were making a preliminary atudy of rapid txansit in the center strip of the San Bernardino Freeway to det:ra~~ne the feasaSility of establishing this mode of trana;portation within ces•;sin freeway medians. Assistant Planner John Graichen also pointed out specific items of interest ; on the graph and noted that the pro~ections were not based on the average ~: daily traffic but at peak hours, and that ~}aif was iiow available to answer , questions. !f Mr. Thompson noted, in response to a queseion fron the audience, that the ~ State studied a two-•mZle corridor to determine which arteriala w,ould be M~ the moet overcrowded, and that the Orange Freeway when completed between Sunkist and Rio Vista Streets would zelieve the h~eavy traffic load:~ ar. ~~ State College and Harbor Boulevards. ` ,:; '^:~~ A question and answer period was then held with 5oth the City of Anaheim -~ and State .-epresEntative answering the question.s; <.I ~ 1. Wat a~~;?~tr_ freeway actuallyr needed even after the studies and g,raph ~ presetiied by staff - wach time a f•reeway we:~t in the people had been ' assured thst that would be the last one, and r~ince the State owned Beach z;, Bouleva~d, ain~e there were not that many bvsi.nesses of conseqsence along t. the street to warraat retaining tiem or being difficult to reloca.te, whg then wasn't this s*reet consi4ered for tl~~ frezway route since it would displace fe:rer homes,, s;hools, parks, et~, Mr. Rothb.art: The ~ta*e has never promised any ,freeway wauld be the _ ' last, since this freeway-express~way system had been adopted b;+ thF State Assembly ira 19:59, and the psoposed freeway wa~ a nar. af thYs syatem. Furthermore, the reason„Beach Boulevard wai; not c:~nsidered was because cities alot:g Beach Boulevard derived substsntial taxes from these businesses, which peop,e might not be aware of, at~d that when freeways were built the State attempted to maintain tb~ existing arterial highways to provide for loca3 trafric, wfiile the freewa•~ ~ would handle all through trr,iffic. - 2. Do you mean that the City did not <:are: abc~ut Che residents in t..e freeway routes aad the money the~ oay ~in taxea? During the rusr~ rours , it is faster to Cravel on thr~ loca?. st:eets rather than the freeway. Mr. Rothbart; ?f the freeaays caer_ n.t cnere one iaould find thesa SLLaf3CE streets would be completely engulfed with traffic since the freeways carry from 7200-8000 vehicles per hour. Furth~_rmore, tl~~ Orange Freeway on the east and the San Gabriel Freeway en the iaest ~ would ta?ce care of the traffic in the perimeter area of Liie corridor, and the Division of High•,~ays studies indicate that the Beach Freeway , ~oill be needed 3y 1990. ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ^ ~ _. . . ~ ~ ~ MZNUTES, CITY PLANNING CO"M:~:S$ION. February 2, 1971 71 44C . ~ SPEi:IAL PUBLIC HEARING - 3. Most of the area under consideration is only ROU'i: 39-HUN'!'INGTON aeven minutes from aa y free w a y n o w i n e x i s t e n c e. i B~ A C H F R E E W s~ Do you mean t~e Y~.ople are that lazy that they .~ (Continued) can't spend a litt:le more time to get to an existin~ freeway? .. I Mr. Rothbart: The City ef Anaheim gr~_w from yi city of 14,Op0 to 170,000 in twenty years t?zat is answer enosgh th~it better acceas is available I in and out of the are~. _ ~-. fi~Rheim was at a standstil3 for eight to ten years _d was not expand- ^~µ- ing, ~rowing, or anythi~s„ - th2 same situation is r~rue of Garden Grove - ~ by build+_.n.g mos~ ~:•eeivs~y; , the State is f~~rcing veople nos~ living in the ~~' ` f area to move f•artt,Cr o+,~c, ~nd wit"r, an:+ther freeway this <aill bring more smog - why can~* :uQ g~t rapid transit - that is whQt ~range C~unty needs '`~. more than anything - ii takes two hours tir~m Gxrden Grove to Lon Beach and one co~tld get tl~ier~ fsster by taking a}~uaj by x•ay of I,os !!ageles. ~ ~ - Mr, iCothbart: 7ke people voted down rapid ~:~ra:.t.iC at the last election. 1 Gomment by another man: The grow h of Anahei•,a; Garden Grov~, Fuller~on, y~ na3 ~,:her cities in Orange Co~;sty has been ph~:namenal but for ten years they ~ere stagnant, and ~s a resu~.t of freeF-aqs being built to thia area whic'.i permitt~ed products to move in and out of the county, this g:owth was realized; that he had seen the rapid tra.nsit issue m3ny r_imes on the balT.ot - however, it appeared that people ~LSt c.•ere not interest.~d enoLgn to get out the vote for a rapid transit syr~tem to eliminate the smog, and the only tine anyone comes ou; to protest a a~w freewaq is when it wo~ld affect th.eir ~omes either b,y having their home within ,~ the freeway co~sidor or where it would ue in such close proximity that "' ~ it will aff~ec't th~3m ad~versely, lhe Kipli:iEer Report indicates that of ' the 50-60 major citie, in the cowntry, Anaheim was the fastest growing :~ aity, an~? the City af Anaheim's pro~ections fox the next thirty-five (~ years are fF.r aheY~i of all the other citiea. ~' ~! ~. In regard ~n rapid transit, what conclusion has h~~.en arrived at - is ±t ~nly ava3.iable through the ballot? Will it be Stata funded through ind:Cvidua,l ~rouerty owners or through tha Rederal Government? I Mr. Ro+chbart: Tiiis fs the ~soblem •- there is no way to fund it. The ; Presilient initieted a 3 biilion dollar program for cities for public transFprtati~n, but the cities must vote through a bo::d issue, and the ~ lr.st ome wss in 3968, which went down in 3efeat. The na_or '~ 1 problem is how to fund it. ?i~ny people say let Che person zide the rapid .*-ransit„ + an& the, ~~1i31 ride the freeway, ;~,, 6. How can we get ~L~ds from the Fedpral Government? Mr. Rothbart: If the voters of, Orange Cuui.ty vote for bonding and plan, this t:,en will indicdte to the ~ederal Gove:ament the feeiinBs of the vctere,' Nowhere ha~ rapid transit been studied more than in California, but the voter`s nr_ver seem Ca vote for ic even after the Southern _ C~~{.fc~nia P,apid Transit grot:u~gave out intorn;ation regarding it. It is hoped that the n2w study oa the San Bernardino Freeway having rapid transit from E1. Monte to the 's.os .^.age2es do~ontow~ will convince people driv'_ng their oian automobiles and watching a bus going past them at ' 60 *2PH that ~his mif;ht be a bettcr way to travel. ~~I~ Comment by woman: Most of the paople object to the routes which rapid _'j~ transit cr buses have since they are only on ma~or streets and not near ; aay of the homes or shopuing areas - people don't mind walking two or ' three blocks, but ft would be almost imposs-?ble to pick up a bus on trte ;`.: _ freeway system. ' Mr. potfibazt: One of the things about rapid transit - one need not walk but drive a car and park at the station on the freeway. t Same ~oman: I have l~ved in Cleveland, Ohio, anc? I used ~o taalk from one bus line to another ~uhich wculd ba several blocks away, but with - rapid transit one wouid have to walk too far. R ~a3:t ICt„~..... ' ~ ~ a ~ ~ + ~,. -- _ .- , A : _ . . ~ ~ ~ ~1 MINUTES„ CITY PLANNING L'OMMIS°YaN, February 2, 1971 71-44D SPECIAL PUBLIC HEARING - Mr. Rothbert: I have walked on streets to go ROUTE 39-HUNTINGTON to the subway, ;ao I am familiar with public BEAGH FREEW6Y transportation tn the East. - ~-~~ ' (Continued) ' 7. Have plsns been made to provide parking on the new San Bernardino ' Freeway bus stops, aad will it cost t;em additional money? j , Mr. Rothbart: Thexe are parking areas, but I don't know whether there + w~ill be a fee for parking. ; ~ J, . ' 8. If this system works, will it be extended to o:her freetsays? ( y~[ . ~ - ~ ~. .~' ~,~ 2 Mr. Rothbart: On some free~vays there may not be sufficient room to i~,, provide this median for bus travel, but on the San Bernardino Freeway they are using the old railroad strip in the center divider. The Sant~ ~ ; ?na P=ee~aay could not ~sccommodate rapid transit because there is no more ' room i~ :l~c ~enter median, and he cou13 not anscver about other freeways without further study. ~ Chairman Herbst noted that Lhere could possibly be a Aiailar type of transportation as t~e aonorail system at Disneyland which could be developed on the Santa Ana Freeway. This would prove a point whether ~r not peonle will support a rapid transit system. Comment by woman: Housewives and low-income people could use thie system ~ if they could get from their homes ta a bus stop, but if they need a caz ~ to get there, then u•hy bo2her riding the bus when you can get on the freeway with your car? ~:~ ~ Chairman Herbst: It may take several yeare, but aomething must be done ~ aboe: the automobile •• otherwise it will kill all of us. ; :;~ -•~ Comment by woman: Even if only twenty persons rode the bus, tAta wou18 .'~1 reduce the number of automobiles on the. freeway. 1 .i Mr. Thompson noted that Proposition "A" did pass in Orange County, and 1 five cents ner $100 of asaessed valuation of property was proposed to ' ~ be used for a study of rapid traneit, and this study will be started in ~ i the very near future. Approximatelv oae year ago the Anah,eim Planning ~ r, ' staff did a study on various forms of transportation, one of which went ! to public hearing, rnd that was the metroport. After looking at pome of the success~ul bu~ syatems, thoc~e cities where they were successful were different than Anaheim, namely Long Bea~h and Santa rionica~ where there a~t less cars per population, and the median age of the people was higher than in Anaheim - these plus other :actors were neaded for a _ success£ul mass transit system, and these are lacking in Anaheim, and it would appear if the City went to a bus system it would have to be heavily subsidized. The County of Orange is noca making a feasibility study on this. ,s Comment by man: Orange County made a study on mass transit, but Los Angeles defeated this - what good would it do? Many peopl~e commute to Los Angeles, and if Los Angeles defeats it, what good is :Ct to c~ntinue te study it? `.`+ 9. Has a route been adopted yet2 Chairman Herbst: This is the purpose of the public hearing - the .: Comm3saion will recommend a route at this hearing tonight, but from the '_ looks of ?t, the Orange Route has been favored b,y three cities already; however, the City Councils of these cities will have to make the final decision. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Z Commissioner Kaywocd asked whether the graph exhibited by staff would indicate the amount of traffic whether or not the freeway was adopted. +. , , . _. _ ~ ..x , ~_ .:JZ7~ n. .. . - . . ~ ~ !f. . .. ~ ._ '..:~ ti ~ ~ .4~. ..'~~ ... ~ . . .~.~- - _ _ L _5 ' ~ ~ ~ _~ . . ~ ,~ ,~ ti/ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 2, 1971 71-44E . SPECIAL PUBLIC HE'~RING - Mr. Thompson replied that both staff and the • ( ROIITE 39-HUNTINGION State indicated that the location of a freeway BEACH FREEW~Y would have the same basic e~fect in the ha~dling -~ '' (Continued) of through traffic which would alleviate the , ~ surface streets. •~ Questions vere asked when the City Council would consider this a~d would geople be notified. Chairma~ Herbst noted that those people who had been notified of the first public hearing shoL~ld receive a similar netice from i'~_ City Clerk's office when the public hearing before the Couacil would - be s:heduled. ~ .: _- . .~ _ .. A,; ... '~~. ,. 1 `, ; Another man indicated he had noC received a notice. ~l /~-u-~~ ~X~z-~ ~Sr. Thompson explained how peoule had been notified, noting that these notices wtre sent as a service and were not required by State law. However, only one notice had been sent out, and nane had been mailed to indicate the second public hearing befoze the Planning Commission because this was just a contiauation of the previous meeting. Furthermore, not all people within the corridor of the freeway werQ notified, particularly if their reaidence was not ~oithin 300 feet - and that over 1800 notices had been seat out as well as having had th~ hearing well publicized in the various Orange County newspapers. Another tooman asked why the Orange Route was being considered favorably when the cost factor was 2 millfoa dollars more, and more people were affected by this route. The Commission replied that it was a more direct route and affected all cities abou~ equally; furthermore, if it were developed with the Edison power easement, this would provide for additional space between the freeway right-of-way and the uomes to the west. ~:;~,.__ ---...__.__ _ __ ,- Commissioner Snyvood noted that the Orange-Blue Route would have oontinued ~che Pz•eewny rc,te northerly P.rom Lampson Street in Garden Grove. Was Garden Qrove's reeaoaing Yor ahoosing the Green Route just to get the freeway out of the City7 Regardless of which route is selected, the Anaheim Planning Commission should very strongly reccmmend that a transportation o~~rridor be provided for mass movement of traffio. A rapid transit sqstem, whether ou:ti, or whatever is technologioally Peasible in ten or fifteen years - with the sophistioeted planning teahniques availeble then - the transportation oorridor rlll be a neaessity. ._, _ ....P... .,,,..~.,,.... ~...._ - ----_ _ _ .__.,...,,--.,~..,~_ ... .,.~ ._ _._,_ . Comr~iseioner Allred noted that he used the freeways a great~deal in his work, and he would not know what to do if theze were no freeways; however, as to any pro~ected routes, he saw no reason to go farther west because the City of Anaheim should have the most direct route to get traffic moving out of the city, and he felt that the Orange-Bl.ue Route should be the one recommended to the City Council. Commissioner Gauer noted that he was in favor of the most direct route whether the Orange or the Orange=B`lue~Route. Chairman Herbst noted that the Orange-Blue Route seemed to disperse the displacement of people more evenly among the cities and provided the beat balance so that one city would not suffer more than the other. Howev,er, he would like to see the Commission make some specific recommendations such as proper screening provided in the form of dense landscaping to minimize tY~e effects on the homes nearby, and if any upgrading can be dcne by th~ cime the free;aay was to be built sround 1985, one of thE things cohich had to be considered r~as that all freeways were pro~ected on funds available; therefore, it c~~ould bP assumed tha2 this ioould be at least fifteen years away, ~:hich would give sufficient time for any updating or upgrading of techniaues depending upon the needs. Man in the audience: I would recommend that the Commission ir. adopting the route and metnod the freecoay goes so that the people who are being ~ disnlaced receive adequate notice, are sufficiently reimbursed, and that the freesaay be designed to accommodate s rapid transit system. *` .~t : .. _. .., ~ ~ , , ~ r ~~' ~ _ y ~ ------- ~ ( ~ ~ ~. ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 2, 1971 71-44F • SPECIAL PUBLIC HEARING •• Commissioner Farano inquired whether or not ROUTE 39-HUNTINGTON soecial consideration should be given to specific .j BEACH FREEWAY items discussed by the public and the Commission, i (Continued) and if the Commission adopted a route this even- • + ing, he would like staff to give the Commission ~ help in drafting strong eaough recommendations, such as the provision of I a rapid transit system as part of the freeway, adequate screening, adequate right-of-way to provide additional buffering, etc. Chairman Herbst noted that the motion by the Commission should be ae Co "-. ~- the route which should be aelected, and any special recommendationa r,a::y be ~ ::~. .,~: _ tied into this route: Mr. Thompson advised the Commission that the matter before the Commission '~~' was the route which should be recommended for adoption, since there would be another public hearing regarding the design. However, in the staff's ~ _ recommer.dations regarding the design it was felt the freeway ahould be below grade i£ at all oossible, and where it was not possible that it be at grade with berms and dense landscaping on said berms, and since it went 1 through residential areas, it be so designed that its effect could be minimized. Often in the past freeways were put through and the environ- mental factors were not taken into consideration. As to this particular facet of the freeway, th2 Planning Commiesion might want to make aure this was in the Commission's motion so that when the design hearing was held this will be available. A de~ressed freeway or an earthen berm freeway provided a much better environment than an above-grade without any land- scaping, and that the Commission might wish this to be in the motion in which they recommended the route to be adopted. Chairman Herbst inquired as to how long in the future the design hearing was and did the freeway route have to be adopted before the design hearing. ;; .~ Mr. Rothbart replied that the Commission's action at this hearing was only to the route to be selected, and after the route was adopted by ttie State, ~;~ then the design of the freetvay would be considered. '~ Chairman Herbst inquired whether recommending a center divider Eor rapid ._~ transit could not also be incTud`ed since this would indicate the City of '! Anaheim's thinking even prior to the design being considered for the freeway. Whereupon Mr. Rothbart replied that there would be no harm in !y iacluding this recommendation. ,; Mr. Thompson noted that the City of Santa Barbara had adopted a route for a freeway for some time, and the reason the £reewsy had not been ~'' constructed was because the design was not acceptable. Mr. Rothbart rioted that sev~ral other cities also held u~ completion of _ freeways because they had not accepted the design. Chairman Herbst noted that if the City had that control after adoption of the route, this woul;d be ddfferent. ,~. Commissioner Allred then inquired if that were so, why did staff recommend the specific deaign criteria in the ~e.poYt since he would like to see the freeway right-of-way at least 500 feet wide because so manv residences would be affected as well as schools. Public Works Director Thornton Piersall advised the Commission that it would be satisfactory to incorporate such conceptual thinking in their ~; . recommendation to the City Council because prior to the actual hearings with the cities on the design, there woLld be considerable work involved, ',, and if this were recommended by one or more cities, this would be a valid thing to incorporate in the Commission's recommendation. Commissioner Allred then stated the Commission should go all the way to ~ include the staff's recommendations since it was also the thinking of the ` Commission that these design features be incorporated into any future freeway at the selected route in this corridor, and that he would prefer to have the freeway beloia grade and fully landscaped. i: - 9 ._.~L.. -. , ~ ~ . - . r~ ... r.. r . , . ... _ _,_. _ w- <<''.,'• 'S. - . . . =~k._~~,~.. ~ . _ ~ ~ .,,7 , + I ..--- ~ v ~ ~,.~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 2, 1971 71-44G SPECIAL PUBLIC HEARIVG - Commissioner Farar.o was of the opinion that the ~ ROUTE 39-HUNTINGTON resolutior. be strongly worded so that the design BEACH PREEWAY would incorporate all the design features which ;"' (Continue3) the Commission deemed necessarv to have an ~ acceptable right-of-way for a freeway through i the city. 1 Commissioner Herbst noted that some of the design criteria proposed might not be possible because of the water table problem. Commissioner Farano indicated that one of the questions that kept burning in his mind was that this was only 1971, and the Commission was supposed to vote on a freeway that would not be started until 1985 - since he did not have extrasensory ~erceotion to see in the future - there were various degrees of need: 1) it would be nice to have it, 2) it is handy, and 3) it would make things a lot easier. This was the position the Commission found themselves i. - hoU~ will the city really find themselves in 1990 - it looked like a hands-in-the-air desperation. This was fifteen years from now -- if it were only three or five years from now he could say "let's get on with it fo; public transportation", but fifteen to twenty ~ years from now it coas difficult for him to decide. For instance, the ~ Newport Freeway was constructed with only two lanes each way - now, five ~ years later, additional lanes were needed - if the State was that far off, ~ then tbere ~vould be a great deal of concrete laid in the state. Mr. Rothbart replied that he did not feel anyone knew for sure what was = ~ needed. i ! Commissioner Farano then asked why not wait until the cities get choked ~ with traffic because by the time the first shovel of dirt is ha~zdled nn this freeway, it wfll already be obsolete. _M.r. Rot~hbart replied that only a given amount of money was available for the New~port Freeway; however, it was designed as a six-lane freeway. Commissioaer Farano inquired whether the Stata's studies werA based on population explosion, zoning, etc. - had the State t~ken into consideration ~ the possibility of a reduction in building. t Mr. Thompson replied that although Anaheim's building permit dollar fell ~ somewhat last year, it was the second bei~t ever by $20,000,000. Mr. Rothbart replied that all the items mentioned had been taken into ! consideration. , Commissioner Farano noted that in the moving industry, which he was in, there a~peared to be a balance of move~ins with move-outs, and all over Southern California there taas ~uperimposed the manner in which properties were zoned, the way it might develop and the possible changes - were all these factors taken into consideration. Mr. Thomoson noted that all these factors were submitted for the computer- ized renort, and nerhaps map have been a little conservative in comniling t~eir figu; ~s. Commissioner Farano inquired as to the iength of time these five alterna- tives had been proposed. Mr. Rothbart replied that the five alternatives were from sixty prepared and ~oere available fnr the past five years. Commissioner Kaywood inauired whether anyone in his wildest dreams would have thought the growth would have been this ten years ago. ~fan in the audience: The Commission and State will be laying the ground- mork at this meeting that their childsen will have to live with tomorrow. Chairmaa Herbst noted that one of the things he saw was the only mode of transportation in Orange County would be the sutomobile, and Orange Cou~ty never had any public transportation except the "red cars" in i r RK ~ .._ . ~ . . - . . . . >>. ~ _ ~rf.,,,t.~ l ..... . . . . ~ - . . • 5 . .. . . l' - ~ ~y ~-._ i ~ ~ + • . ' - . -.--..~_.~1~____ ~ ~ ---- -. _. _ _ --- ' ~ ?~I:~UTES, CITY PLANNINs CO?+IMISSION, February 2, 1971 71-44Fi . SPECIAL PUBLIC HEP_P.Z„~ - L°20-30 u-h?ch could be taken to diFferent cities ROUTE 39-HU~TIN~TO:I . , and t'~ere stiil is some of the right-of-way BEACH FREEWP_Y aro d . • un - some had apartmezts built on the right- <Cont±aued) of••;~ ay. ~ . Camm~!ss=oaer Farano indicated he felt that the freeway n~as needed but it s:~ould b . , I e sooaer than fifteen years from now, ar_3 if ~eoale dfd not ~aant public transoortation the^ the freet: , ay uould be needed. ~ j Cna~rman Herbst noted that by the t'_me the freeway a•as built, modern technology mi ht ha d ~"'-`'_ g ve a vanced ~ahere an eagine aight be nut out that would '~ have lass ~allutants, but until that time th i , e gublic was faced with a one-aan buggq, ; ' ~ ; Cammissioner Farano noted that the history of this country was that no one uanted to do anythia until i* + g _ u as needed desperately. - Woman in the audience: IP the P.lanning Commission adopted a ro t S u e and the tate di3 r,ot ~lan to build tre freeway until 1985, if rapid tra i . ns t were estebZished by that time, would the freeway still be 1 constructed? - ~ '.'r. Poth9art replied ia the affirmative, aoting that the freekay was not scheduled to be ~ con~tructed unCil some time in the 1980s. ~• *fan in the audience: The tachnology and develo?ment of engineers recently l:ad produced an i eng ne wh=ch ran oa pro~ane gas, a~d by 1972 this engine will be in the sutomobiles and would be effect~ ve on the smop, emission. As a matter of fact, t~ere would be relativeig ~o emission of ~ smog; therefore, technologv has been reached where ~th;s proble h m as been resolved. ~- '.~ ~ :;, Another man in the aud_er.ce: Perhaps the teehnology to effectively eli~?~ate th , e smog emission from combustior.~engines has been reached; hoceever the eco ~ ;~ , nomy of installation in all eng'_nes wss not. s~~ Commissioner pllred recuested that the Commiss'_o~ d'_scuss what their motion in the resoluti r on to the Ci±}~ Council should contain. i :~ ~ _ Commissioner Farano re.~uested assistance from staff as to the wo rding. ' ; Commissioner Kaywood iaeuired ~hether or not it r.ould be ~ r premature to make recommendatians as to t~e design of the freeway, ~~~ ` Mr. Thom?son advised the Commission that since staff knew what the Commiss:on k ':';,;~ as concerned about •- a way to provide rapid transit caithin the free~uay median; that desi n nref g erence as to depressed and landscaped freeways; increased r3ght-of-way in orde t ;,I r o incorporate the aforementioned - if the Commission kazted to adopt a ro t h • u e t is evenfng, staff svould prenare a reso'lution in rough draft to be oresented to th C f e ommission at the next Plann3ng Commission meeting on February 8, 1971 which th C ~ ~ , e ommission could then review and make revisions. Then, in response to rommissi ~ ~ on questioning, stated that staff would fiad time to oreparP this resolution in order that the Comm3 i _ ss on could take official action on the recommendations as to design. Chairiaan Herbst noted that there was considerable concern at the last public hear=ng regarding elimination f ~ 'i o access for some homes, and perhaps that should be aart of the motion so that the res~?dents a 6 , ere protected in some form or another. ~ , ~ *' : Vaa i^ the audience: About a year ago in the Los Angeles Times, Orange ounty Section wh ld ~- , en r. Volne was apuointed, he made the statement *_hat any tima a freeway took a person's home it • ; c. ould be replaced by a suitable ?~ome by the State, and since his home o ,': was a cust mized home, Ghat would he be able Co do =n such a situation? _!r. ~othbart replied that s=nce this *.aas a part of the State of California i~ lam, the home ~.ould ?~ave to be replaced - what was being discussed was ~ c.here an area i~as economi~ally depressed when the State took his home, the State *.~~ould have to build a home or move a home to a site and give it to - the man. Secor.dly, if the amount given for the home at the time of appraisal R` .iHc . ~ .: ~ ~ ~ ~ ,. _ . _ _ _. . ~ . . - r, r„ ~ ~ . . - _ -. 4 SL ~ ~ . . ~ ~ . _ ~ ~ . . . ` . . ~ .-' f ~~-~ (~ , ) MINUTES, CITY PLANNING C'..r?ISSION, Fe'~tuar~ 2, 1971 71-44I • SPECIAL PUBLIC HEARING - would not bu=1d a co~parable home, the State *nas P.OUTE 39-HUNTINGTON empo~aered to give an additional $5,000 to compen- BBACH FEEEWAY ._ sate for this, and in a most recent law it (Continued) orovides for reimbursement of up to $15,000 wnich ~ may go for interest 3n addition to the value of the home. P_.^.other maa in the aud_ence noted that he '~ad a Vp loan at 4X on his home, and if he lost the home =o the freeGay, could he apnly to the State Division of Highu ays for a letter to Ue submitted to the VA so that he _ N_ w, r.ould still :~ave the 4X interest on his VA loan exter.ded? '~ `' '_~r. 3othbart renlied that uoon adootion of a€reeway route both at t'he , hearing ton{ght a:d at a subseauent aublic hearing by the State H±ghway Commission and after the dasign ~,as approved, then the State ~vould Start to purchase prooerty tzree yea7rs prior to building of the freeway, and he eTOUld suggest tha~ aaswe:~ to very detailed problems as was ~ust presented ~e obtainad fzom t!~e State Division of Highways Public Informa- tion Office in Los Angeles since there would be ~tuch more definitive information available thaa he could give. 1~ s 1 ~ i Commissioner Allred o£~ered ~esolution No. ?C71-12 and r~oved for its passage an3 adoptioa to adop*_ and recommend adoption to the City Council of tha Orange-Blue ?oute for the proposed Route 39-Huntington Beach Freeway, on the bas?s t'~at the traffic service evaluation of said route t~•ould provide Anaheim with the most efficient local traffic service since ~ it uould most closelv meet all State-desired criteria in terms of align- ments and interchanges and caould most closely parallel and best relieve ; ir_creasing traffic volumes on Brookhurst Street, ~Iagnolia Avenue and ~ ~ , Beach Boulevard - the thzee most heavily traveled axterials in west A~a4eim; that it would be located closer to the center of Anaheim's po?ulation, thereby providing Anaheim citizens more d±rect access to a north-south freecvay; that design of the freeway should be given the utmost consideration - therefore, the Coamission recommends that the State Highway Commission aceuire sufficient right--of-wav in order that the freeway could be constructed'below-grade or that landscaaing and berming may be installed, thereby providing sufficient 3istance betwee~ the noises • aad odors from the freeway traffic and the resi3ential uses; that Lhe ~ State Highway Commission provide adequate space su£ficient in size for ~ future rapid transit system; that the State Highway Commission construct i the freeiray below-grade or a denressed freeway - however, should conditions exist that t•~ould render it imposs±ble to construct a fully below-grade ~ facility, either a nart'_ally de~ressed route combined with landscaped ' earth ber~iag on both sides or an at-grade freeway with fully landscaped earth 3erms in order to miaim'_ze the noise and detx~mental effects to the ad;acent residential areas; that the State p:ovide mon~es to schools and li~raries adjacent to the adopted route which ma~ be used to adequately bu£fer the buildings from :~oises from the free.~ay, and that additional dense landscaping be provided along the freeway right-of- ¢ ad a ~~~ ~ ~9_ said schools and libraries to further buffer the noises;~Fii~e-L~'ity -~ should exercise its prerogative by reQuiring the design to be acceptable ~ prior to executing any freeway agreements on the route in order that the ~reeway cuill create the least possible disruptive effects on the community; ' and that the City Council give consideration to the feasib?lity of acquir- ~~ ing from Lhe State large remnant parcels or groups of narcels which may be ~ comb~ned to form small neighborhood parks, uarticularly at on and off-ramps .~ , said ~arcels to be a minimum of five acres or o: sufficient size since the " City could eliminate many possible eyesores, thereby creating for the citizens of adjacent residential areas an additional r_oise and visual buffer zone, and at the same time expand the City park land system. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was oassed by the following vote: AYr,S: COM*SISSI~NERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer,~ Herbst, Kaywood. :10ES : COM~SISSIONERS : None . ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland, Seymour. _ ~ ' --F;.> ~ ~n ,~; I 1 .. .. ' - ':.~ I . . I .. _ . . - . . ~1^{ ;, ~Brx~ ~. a . :'~-- ~ ~:: ---~.~_..__.~~ j1 ~ . • ' _ . .+ .. ~ r ,-~ ' ~ ~~~ : . ~. . . . . . . .~ ~ . . ~ . . . , ~ _ -- _ ~ . . ~J . \_ . u MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COKMISSION, Februarq 2, 1971 71-44J S AD.TOURNMENT - There beimg no further business to discuss, Commiasioner Allred offered a moti on to adjourn ,,,..,,~.-;`: the meeting. Commissioner Farano se^,onded the r~ ` ' motioa. AfOTION CA~tRIED. The meeting ad~ourned at 9:12 P.*i. Respettfully submitted, ,:, ~~i~-1~ ~~,~Z,F.G~/ ANlJ YP.EBS, Secretarq Anaheim City ?lanning Cammission - - i;.,_,~~.~,,,,, ,.::~~.:_ ~ ~ '~ . , ....,_...._t_ _. __.:_.. . . . i ~ _ ~ ~ r 4 .3i ' ~ F lr~,~.,_ .r ,^~* ~ ~4..i, . , ~ _4. .. .