Minutes-PC 1971/01/07 (2)
, "~:
`
' ~ ~
~
~ ~ ~
~
_~.
~
_ , , I
1 ~~ ~-- - --------
- ' ~ ._ __ __ _ - ----------------
~ ~ . (~.,~
~ city xaii ! ~.
Anaheim, California
~.~.r:., • ~ Janusry 7, 1971 -
i
~
~ ,
' F S°:CIAL MEETIi7G OF THE ANAHEIM CiTY PLANNI?IG COMMISSION
j S?ECTA.L ?~.~~'Ti:.NG -- A s
prcisi meeting of the Anaheim City P1~naing Commission
{ held at the Anaheia HigT.i School Auditorium on January 7, f
-..,..-;-;) 197Y, was cailed to order by Cha3rman Herbst at 7:32 P.td., I
~ a euorum being preaent.
.,
~;'i~ ?_°.^sS~NT - CHAID:,+1AI~: Herhst.
:y~ - COMMISSIUi~~RS~ Alleed, Farano, ,suer, Raywood, Seymour,
Row~;and .
~ ASSENT
1" ?RESENT
.y
'.: a
.~
, r
`'~ ~§
~~,<
a"' ~
,~„ .
r:.Y.
G#~~ ~ ~ ~~~j
:+'; "S~
il
R`:
'.fie '~
- C02.?tISSIONER:',: NoaF~.
~aliforaia Division of Highways Representat~ves:
Wally Rothba.xt, Pro~ect Engineer
Lurr~ Nordholm, Assistant Project Engineer
Norm Darbe, Engiaeering Technician
verw~n Colsan, Aaeistant Highway Engineer
City of Anahaim Representa~ivea;
Development- S~rviFes Director Alan O:rsborn
Assistant Development Services Airector Ronald Th~:~oson
Public [varks Direct~r Thornton Piersall ~
Traffic Engineer Edward Granzow
Zoning Supervisor Charles Robarts
Asaistant Planner Jofin Grsichen
Plaaning Commission Secretarq Ann ICrebs ~
3-°fiCIFT~ ':~;,',IC HEAR?NG - INITZATED BY THE ANAHEIM CITX PL.~NNING COMMISSION,
P.OJTE ~J-nUNTINSTON 204 E~~ : Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Calif,ornia, to
BEACH rREE~TAY cor•.sid~r the proposed routes of the Rou~e 39-
Huntington Beach Freewa}~ to be loca~:~d in che
weat Anaheim area.
Ct:airman Herbst talle.. :he meeting ~to order, advising intereAted persons
t:sat the public hearing a~s an infaFinational meeting to gather infox~~ation
from varying sources regardiug the propoaed Route 39-Huatl,ngton Beach Free-~
'asy and introduced the representatives of the State Diviaion of Highways
ana the City of Aaaheim aad fe:ther advised that upon preaentatioa of the
Frooosals 3y the State Division af Highw,sys representatives and the City o£
pnaheim repreaentatives, a recesa would be held, at which time cards would
be »assed out for aueations to be preaented to the represencatives for
ans-cers after reconver~ing.
Tir. Tdally Rothbart, Project r,ngineer for the StatE Division of Highways,
?resented r,he State's proiect of the proposed Route 39-Huntington Beach
Fresway to the Commissioa and the general public, noting Shat atudiea for
the Route 39 development begaa a number of yeara ago; thax during the cours~
of ~their route location studies they had periodic meetings taith the stafis
of the various cities G+h•ich ~vould be affected by the proposed freeway routes;
and that during the past s~veral months there also was stationed a"freeway-
sobile" in selected areas where citizens could ask auestiont: about the £seetaay
and geometric nrints, thus gett?ng an idea of how their homes wo•±id be affect-
ed bv the var=ous routes.
ihe 4naneim 2lanni^g Comm?ssion~ *Sr. RotF~bart noted, invited the State
Divisio~ of Highwa~•s to oresent the routes ~f their study regarding alternate
~lans, ar.d as interested nersons came into the building an aerial mosaic
could have been seen tahica also depicted the alternate routes with details
of hoLeisg locxtioas; thaL thta was the first of a number of nublic hearings
rrhich c.ould ~e he13 by ~ariuus cities, aftPr rihich the State Division of
H'ghways ~aould also schedule t~:eir ~ublfc heF~ring, probably in ~arch~ when
lag~l ~ot'_ce~ aould be 3ub.lished in the ne~~~soaper and toidely publicized for
*_?~a pur~osa of allo~r±ng the af£ected and interested cities and rofessional
5567
-:: : ~
i::~ _ -
~ .
~
I
~
i
i
~n
~~.:~ _
>_~:: ~„r c..» `._.,..~.~ .~: `~~3 ,
!
..a
~ i.:
1
iJ
~ ~. i
1
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMM7^oSIOD'l, January 7, 1971
5568
SPECIAL PUBLIC HEARING - atafFS, groups and indivi',~~.als an opportunity to
ROUTE 39-HUNTINGTON aubmit information and recommendations as to accept-
, BEACH FREEWAY able routea, as we~l as make their views known.
This would be part of the record, and additional
information could be eubmitted in writing to the
Division of Highways, 120 South Spriag Street, Los Angelea, up to thirty
days thereafter which would be included as part of the official record.
Then as a reault of these studies, meetings and hearinge~, information would
be develqped so that the State Highway Engineer and the Director of Public
Works could evaluate the alternate locations for this route and make their
individual recommendations to the California Highway Commission composed of
~, seven peraona appointed by the Gcvernor who were impounded to select the
route. The Commission then would adopt the route that was in the best
public intereat.
Ms. Rothbart further noted that the route aouth of Lampson Avenue had been
_ adopted in the l.atter pt.rt of 1968; that route studies north of the Pomona
~~~ Freewa;- were underway, ~-ith said extension to terminate at Foothill Freeway -
howevei, this latter phase of. the freeway route was one year behind schedule.
I_ A series ~f slides was ciien presented by Mr. Rot}tbart who explained the
routea by color, as :aell as their alternatives, noting where industries,
acbools, parks, sir~orts, etc. would be located, or affected.
Upon compleeion of the presentation of the alides, Mr. Rothbart noted that
the question many timea arose whether or not the freeway was needed, and he
would have to reply - yes - because it was a very important link in the
freeway aystem throughout Los Angeles and Orange County and was a vital
element in serving the future needs of this area; that the annual growth of
-~ traffic along Beach Boulevard (Route 39) was steadily increasing and had
~ reached a point where severe congestion was b~aing experienced now with
traffic ranging over 30,000 vehicles per day a~d eatimated traffic volumes
i for the year 1990 would in.dicate that traf~ic on Beach Boulevard (Route 39)
_~ would increase to 60,000 vehi:les per day - this would be ia addition to
.~ the freeway traffic, assuming, of course, that thia freeway would be built;
i that the freaway itself was estimated to carry over 100,000 vehicles per day;
that rheoe figures were based on new building uaes which generated consider-
~~ ~_~ ~ able traffic now, and extensive plans for future development along this
' rcute, both r2sidential, commercial~ and industr3al, was indicated. Another
" questiol alr,o asked was why couldn't the freeway be built over the existing
~ Beach Bon?evard, making that street a double-deck street. However, one of
• the basic reasons for not considering this was the fact f.hat the area en-
~ compasged Uy the existing street was not wide enough to build a ~r.eeway,
and it would be necessary to purchase all the commercial property on both
sides of Beach Boulevard. Fuxthermore, when freeways were built, they
• attempted rn retain rhe existing ma~or arterials to take care of local
*raffic - therefore, it would be impractical to build a freeway on Beach
Boulevard. Also, the ideal situat3on would be to build the freeGay and
maintain Beach Boulevard, and then, in summation, noted that it would cost
$10,000,OQ0 per mile, including purchasing right-of-way, for the freeway,
and to build it on pylons would cost twice as much~ Furthermore, it would
, be extremely difficult to provide local service with on and off-ramps as
: was present~y planned, even though it had bee. tried elsewhere in areas
that were not consi~ered desirable fnr residential or commercial uses.
~ Ir. diseussing the community impact effect of the fraeway, Mr. Rothbart
I noted that the; took into consideration the number of homes that would be
~ taken, the number of geople who would be uprooted, the number of businesses
that would be taken, the amount of city tax revenues that would be removed
fcom the rolls - all were of ma3or importance; and that a.ll of these figures
t were documented in detail on the chart in the booklet made ava:lable to the
general public.
Another factor which was of prime consideration, Mr. Rothbart stated, was
effects from noise from a freeway which was proposed to be built, and it
` was a known fa~ct that those residentiai areas immeuiately adjacent to a
freeway would be nrimarily affected -~lso noises as ::ey affected schools
had to be taken into consideration, particularly ?;here a school wa:~ located
within 500 feet of a freeway. Thus, under a receutly-enacted law if the
~ ~
.~c
~•,
a
~
i
k -~
, y
f
~ ~,
.. . . . . _ . . . . . . % . i _ . ~
.
• '
.'~~ . . _. ~ ..
U ~~) --~)-- ---- ,`~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNINr COMMYSSION, January 7, 1971 '
5569
I SPECIAL PUBLIC HEA~RING - noise level in the schools reached 50 decibels,
ROUTE 39-HUNTINGTON the State Division of Highways woulci have to provide
BEACH FREEWAY
_. . ~ sir-conditioning, double-paning of windows, special
. ~ ceilings, etc. which would help to buffer noises
from the freeway. 7n addition, when going through ~
, a residential area they attempted to take advantage of the natursl terrain,
and on the Orange Route there would b~ a vcc:.~ wide buffer strip within the ~
Edison easem~~t on the west aide of the praposed route; that barriers could ~
be built, such as earth mounds or block walls or a combination of both - I
~ however, both re~~uired more right-of-way; that landscaping could also provide ;
; some of ti~f. barcier needed to re~,~ce noise; and that, in addizion, exhaust '
emissions '~rere s~gnificantly lower when the vehicle was in cruise condition, ;
~•~' while city street driving required more deceleration and acceleration as welZ i
as suto mode at traffic signals - all of these modes produced a greater amount ~
~ of exhaust emisaions. !
~.
Mr. Rothbart then discussed the diaplacement of people when property was
purchased for tl:e freeway right-of-way, noting that when the State purchased
these properties the right-of-way agent would obtain liats from realtors on
1 homes selling in this general area, making an independent appraisal, visiting
the property and taking into consideration in the appraisal all the improve-
ments in order that more compensatirin might be given and the replacement
costs would be based on cost of construction at the time the offer to purchase
was made; that sometimes because replacement could not be made with the offer
made, the State was empowered to pay up to $5,000 more to allow people to ~
obtain a comparable home, aad apartment rentais would be given a similar
compensatory basis; and that where Zoans had been made at t'ne time of pur-
chase, for instance at 5X interest with the high lending cost on homes
presently existing, interest rates up to 8X and 9X - the State would pay
=' the displaced property owner up ta $3,000 difference in interest rate oetween
•j the existing rate and the new rate es*_ablished to finance a replarement home.
1 Asaistant Planner John Grai~he:n prese~:.ted the City i~£ Anaheim Development
'_~ Services Depart~ent study of the proposed Route 39-x:untington Beach Freeway,
-.~ aotin~ tha+. ataff had been actively atudying the propoaed Huntington Beach
1 Freeway route for a conaiderable time; that not only were th.ey concer.ned
~,~ with evaluating the four different routes but with the following basic
•_, concerns: 1) whether or not the ftreeway was really needed in this area in
Anaheim; 2) were freeways the answer to the City's traffic problems, or were
thpy ~ust generators of mure smog and a,-a noise; 3) were there othe~
pr~etical alternative methods of moving people, such as mass transit; and
4) if the existing north-south freeway were needed in the westerly area of
Anaheim as proposed by the State Division of Highways, was the traditional
` freeway design a desirable alternative for the street.
After considera'~le research, the staff concluded~ Mr. Graichen noted, that
Southern Califarnia was committed to the sutomobile for transportation as a
result of past, present, and future density plans and programs, as vell ns
~ based upon the desires of the people living here - for instance= the recent
defeat of the State-wide propositioa to allow gas tax funds to be diverted
to areas of transportation other than freeways.
~- Staff also discussed, Mr. Graichen continued, the increased proble• of sir
' pollution and possible alternative of mass transit serving the Sou_'~rn
~alifornia region. It wss staff's opinion that by the time the land uy~
' densities could be s:Tgnificantly increase~t to the point•where mass transit
would become 2conomically feasitale, an expected technological br~akthrough
~ in the development of the pollution-free sutomobile could be made with
the reaultant continued dependence upon the automobile as a primary means
's of transit in the Southern California region.
As a result of this conclusion, the staff praceeded with preparing a report
analyzing the four proposed xoutes ss preaented by the State Tiivision of
Highways. However, the staff felt that the Craditional design of freeways
in Ca3ifornia no longer was appropriate for the area - however, he did would
`` discuss this aspect in detail later.
Mr. Graichen then reviewed the summary report (on file in the Development
Services Do_partment).
5.. ',.
~
~
,. _ _._
~ ~
11.~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 7, 1971 ~
5570
SPECIAL PUBLIC HEARING
ROUTE 39-HUNTINGTON
BEACH FREEWAY
sentatives of the State
ment Services Departmen
- Chairman Herbst noted that this was a conclusion
of presentation of the proposals and declared a
fifteen minute recesa, noting for interested persons
that cards would be passed out for questione which
they would like to have answered by either repre-
Division of Highways or the City of Anaheim Develop-
t.
~
~ The meeting recessed at 8:35 P.M.
i
~ 1. Why wasn't the Red Route mentioned?
Answer: To the best that I can explain, I preaented alI the routes -
however, the City of Anaheim staff only made a recommendation on two of
the routes and did n4~+,t recommend the Red Route.
2. What portion of the federal money would be involved?
Answer: Part of the money is federal - even on a federal primary route
approximately 50X would be paid by the U. S. Government, and usually a
portion of that money is turned over to the cities and counties through
which the freeway is proposed, or planned, or developed.
'1 3. How will the traffic volume affect a home one block away from the freeway?
,;i Answer: If the home is 500 to 600 feet from the freeway, the noises
`:~ would etfect it, and some depreciation of value would be experienced,
~1 but how much I cannot tell.
.,~
<< 4. How did Orange County vote on Proposition Y8?
,yi Answer: I don't know.
~~ 5. How would someone obtain a map which would indicate the homes that will
be affec.ted,;by:constru~tion of the freeway?
~'~i Answer: These~maps aie in onr Los Angeles office at 120 South Spring
`' Street. We will be glad to show you all our geometric plans on the
•;
homes that will be affected by the various routes.
,,,\
_ 6. Comment by one person that he was in favor of the Blue Route.
7. Comment by another person against the Orange-Blue Route north of
La Palma Avenue and Magnolia Street.
- 8. Whom can zse contact regarding questions?
Answer: T.he person closest to the freeway is myself, and I can be
reached at 120 South Spring Street, Los Angeles.
9. At what time can one expect a decision on which route would be selected
and when would aaa_uisition of the properties begin?
Answer: The route wouZd be adogted in the latter pare of 1972 or eariy
';~I Y973, and the property would be acquired approximately seven to ten
years after the ~oute had been adopted, or in 1979 to 1980.
: 10. Ano~her comment from someone who would like to see the Red Route adopted.
11. Does one have to pay income tax on the urofit of the home which the
State would purchase for construction of the freeway?
`~ Answer: A tax will have to be paid if you do not purchase another home
at the price you received from the State, or more.
~.
12. Caa one purchase another ho~me under the GI Bill if the freeway took the
home?
~ j Answer: To my knowledge, you can purchase another home, and the GI loan
~ I probably would have to be renegotiated.
~
,- ,,;,.._ , Chairman Herbst reconvened the meeting at 8:45 P.M., all Commissioners being
`"~ ~, present.
,
Chairman Herbat asked for a showing of hands of persons living within the
various routes proposed an3 for those present from other cities. (Those in
~ the Orange and Red Route a
reas predominated attendance at the hearing.)
The following questions submitted by interested persons were answered by
Mr. Rothbart:
,
~ j
~*,:_ -
~_ - . ._..,.._~ . ~ , .. ' , h .. r.
. . . . ~ ~ .. ~:~'~ .x z . ~ ~ Y -. . 3
.. . . ~ . _ ~ ~ . . .
- ~ -~' ~
/
~ +
1
~
_
~
---- _~..-------.._---
-
~ ~ ~ ' '
~ ~ ,~ 4
j
1
..
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Januarq 7, 1971 5571 ~
'
• SPE CIAL PUBLIC HEARING - 13. What kind of compensation, if any, will be
ROUTE 39-HUNTINGTON made to residents having to live adjacent to
..._ BEACH FREEWAY the freewap, particularly where the properts
. line was ad~acent to the freeway property? i
! Answer: The State Division of ftighways is ~
'' ; suthorized to purchase or acquire only the ~
property necessary to build Che freeway - presently this was approxi- ~
i mately 300 feet - therefore, at the present time no compensation would ~
j be paid. ~
i 7
.
;~,
`""" 14. Where does money come from for the building of the freeway?
'~
~ " AASwer: Mone comes from the p y purchasing
x sid b motorists in
their asoline for their sutomobiles
8 - particularly in the State of
;~
i California the majority of the cost ia paid in this manner.
~ ,
` 15. I own a business in the path of the Red Route, and I would hate to lose ~
. - my means to earn a living. What happens to my business?
Answer: We would purchase your business if it is in the freeway area. ~ y
~ We would also pay your moving expenses, and you could start your business ~ y
~ - in another area. Furthermore, we have experienced appraisers to visit
~.
~
your place of business and determine the value and worth of the property ~
~
and business. ,
~ 7
~
~'
16.
Will the Orange Route take out all the land between the Santa Ana
'~
~ Freeway and the Riverside Freeway as indicated on the Anaheim map?
AaAwer: Both the Orange and Orange-Blue Routea would take up consider- ~
~ able propertq, although it might not take all the property indicated on
t the route map - however, some of the property was presently owned by the ~
t state. ~
r
I i 17. Four yeara ago at a meeting held in the area it was stated no alternate
~
`
~ ~ route west of Knott Street would be considered, and now we have the
~ ; Green Route. We who attended this meeting as a result of this atate-
ment have invested money and extra upkeep and landscaping, and this
'~ would not hsve been done if we had known the Green Route was being
:;~ conaidered.
i -.:+ Answer: Since thie ia one of the alternatives, Z cannot say what will
k ;
~ happen.
~ 18. Isn't it true that the Orange Route is favored and is already adopted
' ~ and theae meetinga are juat "snow ~oba"?
: Answer: My anawer ia an emphatic "no".
, 19. Why isn't the Ed~son easemeat incorporated in the freeway plans - the
lines could be put underground.
. Answer: According to the Edison Company, these line~ cannot be placed
~ underground because they generate considerable heat :snd are very hot.
Therefore. nothiag could be built there becauae the line would have to
~
'
remain overhead, and no freeway aould be built in that easement.
C
20. If the Orange Route i.s Belected~ this would take La Reina Street, the
only accesa from eeveral cul-de-eac atreets between Lincoln and
. Crzscent Avenuea~ How would the State resolve this access problem?
Answer: The money had not been budgeted for this freeway, and none
;~ of the routea has been adopted, and acquisition would not begin until
' ~ 1978 or 1979 - however, we would never leave cul-de-sac streets without
;`- any accese to and from said street. Therefore, these home~ would have
to be purchased or alternative methods worked out, such as extending
,~
~. the atreet eaeterly.
~' 21. If a person had rental investment property in the path of a freeway,
will he receive the eame compensmtion as the average homeowner?
Answer: I don't know if he would rec2ive the same compensation, but
we c~ould purchase the property in the same manner, and whetkeer or not
compsnsation would be given for loss of income, this is something I
~
t
cannot answer.
'_ 22. I am 64 years old. Will this route be decided in five years, more or
' less?
1~
1 Answer: The route will be adopted in approximately two years, but it
. ~e ,
~ will not be built for approxiuiately ten years.
'
'~ '
t
._
-,_ _ .
~ - - ~, _ _ ;~s._ -~,,
~
_ ' ~ ,
;~, : .
.. - ~
. i
~
~
i
,
' .,,, .
;~
~: . •,.
'~,~
`
1
~
i
_ -------------__
C~ ~ ~ 4~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 7, i971 5572
SPECIAL PUBLIC HEARING - 23. Is full consideration given to improvements
ROUTE 39-HUNTINGTON to a home, auch as patios, pools, special
BEACH FREEWAY carpeting, drapes, block walls, sprinkler
system, sir-coaditioning, etc., siace other
comparative homea have sacrificed for less
than their fair value?
Answer: All these improvements will be taken inte consideration when
the apprai~sers check the properties.
24. If one plans to aell his home within the next few years, must oae
notify the prospective buyer?
Anawer: You should or the real estate agent should, but let youz
conscieace be your guide.
25. After a route has been selected, when will the State start to acquire
the pYOperties?
Answer: You could figure on living in these homes for seven to ten
years - it will be that long before the State starts acquiring these
houses. '
26. If a lsrge area of an existing park ad3acent to a school is xaken,
would they remove the extra homes to compensate for the acreage lost
in order to make the nark as large and useful as it was before?
Answer: Additional land, which may be homes, will be allocated for
the park area.
27. If the proposed route cuts off complete access to streets, school,
etc., what will happen, what will be done, aad how will this affect
property values?
Answer: We must purchase the homes because one of the requiremgnts
when building a freeway is to leave the access open to homes, or if
this is impossible, purchase the homes which will have their access
cut off.
28. Under FHA 235 one-half of the total installment on my home is paid.
Wauld I be eatitled to the same right if my home were affected by the
freeway and the home was purchased by the State?
Answer: Yes.
29. What about the few homes that will be left on Aurora Street?
Answer: I would be glad to discuss thia with yau after the public
hearing where I can indicate the location on the mosaic.
30. If some homes on a cul-de-sac are taken for freeway property, what
will happen to the remaining homes on the cul-de-sac since there would
be no access?
Answer: This was answered before.
~ssistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson noted that if there
were any interested persons seeking information on the freeway, they could
contact the Traffic Engineer or the Developmeut Services Department of the
City of pnaheim who would be glad to discuss their problems, and route maps
were also on display at City Hall whe-e these properties could be evaluated.
Chairman Herbst asked if there were any questions from interested persons
~.ho might like to present them verbally.
A gentleman: If the free~aay takes La Reina Street, how will the Bruce Avenue
people get out? This is the second street north of Lincoln Avenue.
Answer: We would have to punch that street easterly.
Gentleman: But there is a church to the east.
Answer: Then we would have to purchase these homes.
Lady: Why haven't the representatives of th~; City of Anaheim stated
publicly that they are in favor of the Green Route?
Mr. Graichen: The C±ty staff evaluated all the routes for consideration
by the ?lanning Commission and City Council, and we do not, as staff
members, give our opinion or preferences - this is something the Planaing
Commission considers in their recommendation to the City Council, and the
City Council, in turn, makes their preferences known to the State. However,
~b
3
~ t ~..
~. ~ ;~ . : .. . r ~ .
U
;
~~
MINUTES, :,ITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 7, 1971
~
,
'~~
5573
SPECIAL PUBLIC HEARING - we did indicate that the Green Route would be better
ROUTE 39--HUNTINGTON for community effects, aad the Orange-Blue-Orange
BEACH FREEWAY Route was better from a traffic standpoint.
~`~
;
~
1
i
Chairman Herbst: The staff does not make the
decision - they only present all the facts for the Cemmission to determine
' what their recommendation will be to the City Council since the City Council
~ is the body making the final decisian as it pertains to the route preferred
when making their recommendation to the State. Meanwhile the City Council
will also hold a public hearing, and you will be aotified in the same manner
as you tvere for the Planning Commission public hearing - therefore, a13
staff could do was evaluate the routes and the public hearin~; is held au
that the City can determine the prefereaces of the general public.
Lady: The Orange Route takes aome of the educational-recreational areas
from the Maxwell Park ad~acent to the Maxwell School, a branch library,
and would cut through the center of a besutiful, as well as new, residential
I area on either side of the proposed Orange Route; and that she felt the free-
way would be very detrimental to t'he entire area, both from an environmental,
school, and recreational standnoint,
Gentleaan: On the Or~nge Route at Magnolia Avenue and the Riverside Freeway, ?
will they widen that entrance as far as Gilbert since I feel this is already ~
a poor design for the extension of the Riverside Freeway to the west? ~
Mr. Rothbart: There are ao plans for widening the Riverside Freeway, but
there are plans to widen the Santa Ana Freeway. ~
~
;
Lady: For over a year I have been making a survey regarding Orange County
freeways. I have worked as a mailcarrier all over at Orange County. After the~
- freeway goes through, I will probably be affected by what will happen to ~
! these neople - however, very little consideration is given others who are
j left with ungodly fumes, traffic noises, etc. - these people will have ~
1 horrible homes. If ;~e can make a little mistake on a very new freeway, the
`~ Artesia Freeway, the noiae level is quite impossible, and this concerns me
...~ very much since I am concerned about ouz environment and our people. As a
:'j substitute teacher in faur districts and in one of the schools in the Buena
" Park School District ~rhere they recently found it necessary to install
r_f special aquipment to reduce noises - therefore~ I think the recommendations
~ of the City of Ana3~eim staff should be given most careful consideration
!' to all faceta - it will be very necessary for us to think about things
, in the future - our cities, etc., b~cause if we don't, we will not have
,~ very much le°t. Therefore, the rerc•mmendations by staff as to a depressed
°reeway, landscaped parks, and a widt: freeway area should all be given
careful consideration in order that the adjoining residents will be less
affected. I was also very concerned about what I sa~;~ in Buena Park after
seeing one sZide which showed a cut on a hill where instead of the freeway
going around it, it was routed through there, and the State stated all
they would do was plant a little something there.
Gentlemsa: Since I am the seventh house fram La Reina Street and someone
said La Reina Street would be closed, there are many homes in this area that
would be affected.
.- rlr. Rot~bart: If we could exten~d Yale Avenue to the east, this would
resolve this problem. Hocaever, if this could not be done, then we would
have to purchase all these properties.
:~ Gentlzman: If La Reina Street is closed, the State could take one tier of
houses from either the westerly or the easterly end, giving the remt~ining
homes access to Crescent Avenue by constructing a new street.
~ Gentleman: When will the route be adopted?
,, Answer: The exact time would depend upon the amouat of opposition that was
presented at the State's public hearing, but it woald be somewhere later in
1972 or 1973.
, Gentleman: If the straight Urange Route were adopted, how will the Standard
oil wells be iffected?
Aaswer: We would have to nurchase a portion of these wells.
`~ Gentleman: But it would be very exnensive to relocate the wells.
~ Answer: That is so. The cost is very high according to Standard Oil
Corporati~~n.
1.1
~ .'I
3
L-•.
~~_ _ ~.. .. .. ,3 ' . . ~ ` ' _
. . . - ~ . . ~ ` ~ : ~.a{v ~h ..4. -, ' ~t' . . . .
l~C
'
~J
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION, January 7, 1°?1
~
5574
SPECIAL PUBLZC HEARING - Gentleman: If the Orange Route is adopted, will
ROUTE 39-HUNTINGTON Magnolia Avenue be closed?
BEACH FREEWAY Answer: No, it will be kept open, and there will
be a road routed under or over the freeway to gain
access from either east or west.
Gentleman: After the State's public hearings, when may we expect these
homes to be purchased?
Answer: In aeven to ten years.
~ " Gentleman: My home between Cerritos Avenue and Ball Road, westerly of
J;•',, Knott Street would be affected. Would the State purchase all properties
where no access is available, especially where several blocks might be
~ closed?
~i'/ Answer: It is inconceivable that we would have several blocks which
would be
affected, but we could not leave homes without access. Therefore, we would
have to purchase them.
Gentleman: The City proposed that if the freeway were considered to go
~ through Anaheim, perhaps the freeway right-of-way could be widened, and
- since the State wao only permitted to purchase a 300-foot width, would it
be proper for the City to look forward to seeking rule legislation to
urovide a greater width for the freeway so this could be included in the
purchase of the wider right-of-way?
Mr. Rothbart: The City staff felt that a greater area between the freeway
right-of-way and the homes was desirable. However, siace we presently
could only purchase properties for the freeway itself, the homes ad~acent
to the freeway would be affected.
~ 6entleman: If the cities really wanted this, then they should start
; legislation to provide thi~ £or the Department of Highways staff.
~:~ Mr. Rothbart: Yea. Although the freeway route had been adopted south of
.i Lampson Avenue, purchase of the right-of-way had not been budgeted, but
.:1 due to some hardship cases, we were purchasing some homea that were in
?~ the freeway route. Furthermore, we were also permitted to purchase right-
;! of-way where large detrelopera planned to build, and the State thus would
~,, ~-;j be preventing having to purchase these properties at a higher price by
:':~ purchasing them now prior to the time these properties were developed.
_ .~
Commissioner Rowland noted that it was tsia opinion after hearing the State
r~ and the City's presentations, as well as aIl the questions and answers
_ :;~ which gave a fairly good cross-section of feelings and attitudes of the people
living in the area regarding these routea, the City should consider another
''~~ public hearing to further air these probleme after ataff and the Conmission
had a chance to digest this informatian. Therefore, he would recommend that
. the public hearing on the Route 39-Huntington Beach Freeway be continued
four weeke or until auch time as it takea the ataff to prepare these answers.
Mr. Thompaon noted that the staff could have the minutes prepared in time
for a four-week continuance.
Commiasioner Farano noted that most of the questions by interested persons
dealt with need for the freeway, but he did not feel the City should proceed
with that presumption in mind; that the State had made studies, and he had
been involved in theae studies, and there is still some doubt in his mind
that the £reeway was needed in this location, althouEh he was not stating
that it was or was not; that he would like to have made available for the
Commission at the next hearing, or prior to that time, information so that
the Commisaion could prepare some questions of the criteria which the State
~:' used in determining the general location of the freeway; that he had seen
-- the criteria for routes - however, he wanted aomething about where the free-
way is to be located from the standpoint of traffic studies, more particu-
larly specific traffic studies, etc. Looking at the maps of the freeway
locations in Anaheim, it seemed to him that these £reeways were almost equi-
diatant from each other, and if this represented the kind of planning or was
'~ part of the criteria, then the Commission ahould talY. about it, but the
Commission wanted to see routes with traffi,c patterns and counts, how the
City would stand to benefit by the proposed freeway, and why the freeways
were proposed to be locatad in thesa areas, not only the Orange Route,
* but any other route, and ~ahen the Commission was to consider this again,
~. he wanted thia to be taken into consideration in the hearing.
' ~
;
.i
Y
~a ~
~ t t r~` -
, ~ { 1 . . ~ ~ .. . .
+ f I
y
+ , '
"` ~~''' ~i . ~'' -.; _ .
~ - ---•_
-
~ A1 ___
_
r ~~
~ . ~ (-;~1 ~ ~
~
,..1~
.. ~ ~ . . . . .
. .
~ .
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 7, Z971 5575
SPECIAL PUBLIC HEARING - Commissioner Rowland inquired whether four weeks
ROUTE 39--HUNTINGTON was sufficient, and after discussion with staff,
} r-
` BEACH FREEWAY Mr. Thompaon stated that four weeks would be
"
~'~` ~
i:~ . sufficient.
_
~~
Commissioner Rowland then indicated the meeting would be continued to
?.~' February 2, 1971, at 7:30 P.M., in the Anaheim Union High School Auditorium.
~ ~
' '
~ Commiasioner Gauer seconded the motion.
~:. -.,_s: ;_,~: Comm±ssioner Farano asked that the statistical data being assembled should
be written in a language a layman could understand, and he wanted it in
_:',,~,, safficient time so that he could analyze it carefully.
;
~
~
:.~
.
~'.;
' .
y
_
,
..
4
fi ~
~:
ADJOURNMENT - Commisaioner Rowland offered a motion to ad~ourn the
:
~ ~:
" meeting. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion.
~
' '
.
~C : '
~ MOTION CARRIED.
~
j
C' { ~H
;.:~~~~-...~,;~
r~.-.
'
~
.
:' :~k The meeting ad~ourned at 9:40 P.M.
, , ._ . .'~.1~ . .
'-.? Reapectfully submitted,
- .r
a~ .
~
~.;,, ANN RREBS, Secretary
~;';-;:',. Anaheim City Planning Commission
~.
z
,;,y,
~' ~ ~e:.r . .. ~
~ ,. : ~ ... ._: ~..~.~~ ' ~, .:. '
_ - : ~ ~
~
~~..:
. ~ " '. Y:: r=~~~-
~ 'S '
E
,
,.._t_ w .
i
~
;
- f ~ . -_-___
~
_ _~