CITY OF LA HABRA HEIGHTS

 

MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE LA HABRA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL

 

JUNE 29, 2000

 

 

A special meeting of the La Habra Heights City Council was called to order by Mayor Powers at 7:10 p.m. on Thursday, June 29, 2000 at The Park Gymnasium, 1885 North Hacienda Boulevard, La Habra Heights.

 

Councilmembers present were: Mayor John Powers, Mayor Pro Tem Daniel, Councilmembers Engelhardt, Klein and Spothelfer. Also present were City Attorney Colantuono, City Manager Lindsey, City Engineer Milano, Deputy Engineer Gilbertson, Deputy City Clerk Coulter, Sheriff Lieutenant Gordy Johnson and Sheriff Deputy Russ Ferris.

 

PUBLIC HEARING

 

1.              PROPOSAL FOR THE REALIGNMENT OF HACIENDA BOULEVARD

 

Regarding a proposal by Los Angeles County Public Works to realign Hacienda Boulevard, City Manager Lindsey reported on the history of the Hacienda Boulevard realignment project noting the following scenario:

 

1974    Los Angeles County created initial plans to realign Hacienda Boulevard. This was before La Habra Heights became a City in 1978.

 

1984    The City Council voted to have the right-of-way width reduced to 80 feet. The 80-foot width was as narrow as allowed to receive State or Federal funding for road projects.

 

1985    The City Council, after numerous meetings and Public Hearings discussed consenting to have Hacienda Boulevard become part of the County Highway System.

 

1986    The City Council approved a realignment study of Hacienda Boulevard to be prepared by Willdan and Associates. The study was funded by Los Angeles County and was for four lanes. The intent was to still preserve the rural environment. As a result of the Willdan and Associates study, a survey was sent to residents and the City Council voted to reduce the right of way width to 80 feet. The City Manager noted that in the historical documents, all of the City Councils involved wanted the rural environment maintained.

 

1987    A special election was held having three measures. Measures “A” and “B” were concerned with reducing the width to 65 feet and would not allow for any State or Federal funding. These measures were defeated. Measure “C” asked if the width of Hacienda Boulevard should be 80 feet, which would allow for the possibility of State and Federal funding. Measure “C” passed.

 

1991    Los Angeles County created 6 alignment options, studying the effects of the proposed improvements on Hacienda Boulevard. All of the proposals were for 4-lanes.

 

1992    Los Angeles County forwarded a time-line for the project. From design to completion it spanned about 8 years. City Manager Lindsey stated that she did not think it would be significantly different at the present time.

 

            During the year there were discussions between Los Angeles County and La Habra Heights concerning lowering the speed limit on Hacienda Boulevard to 40 or 45 miles per hour. The County also designed 2 or 3 more very expensive designs that considered tunnels.

 

1994    Los Angeles County Public Works started applying for funding on La Habra Heights behalf. The application was to Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) for Federal funds. The application was denied. Discussions were also held on moving the water lines along Hacienda Boulevard that would be needed. The cost was estimated at a little over one million dollars and it would have to be decided who had prior rights to the water lines versus Hacienda Boulevard. La Habra Heights and the County met to look at various proposals. Discussions between the City Council and Public Works continued over the 6 designs for 4 lanes.

 

The City Manager noted that after Harbor Boulevard was completed the traffic on Hacienda Boulevard was considerably reduced.

 

1995    The City Council passed a resolution showing support for a 4-lane, scenic highway on an 80 foot right-of-way following the current alignment with a desire to designate Hacienda Boulevard as State route 39. Proposal “C” was created in 1995. This was for a 2- lane highway. The City Council favored a small portion of another proposal, “B-2”, that included realignment of the “dog leg” curve from Avocado Crest to the City Hall.

 

1998    The City of La Habra Heights began adding safety measures on and along Hacienda Boulevard to slow traffic.

 

1999    The County Public Works submitted an application to the MTA for funds for alternate “B-2”. This application was an accident; not what La Habra Heights had wanted. This was the same alternate submitted in the past and was defeated. The MTA granted $4.5 million in grant funds to improve Hacienda Boulevard from East Road to the Orange County boundary. The County will add approximately $3 million to the $4.5 million for the project.

 

City Manager Lindsey then provided a comparison of the nine alternatives, only “B-2“ and “C” being of importance. The City Manager went into detail on each difference between “B-2” and “C” proposals. This formed a 10^th alternative, “C-B-2”.

 

 

 

 

Los Angeles County Comments

 

Greg Kelly, Los Angeles County Public Works, introduced Bob Barrigan, Section Head for the design unit.

 

Greg Kelly explained that the City and the County obtained a $900,000 grant to do the preliminary engineering and environmental assessment in the late 1980’s. The County obtained approval from the State to proceed with the design and did several proposals.

 

In October of 1995 the City of La Habra Heights asked the County to make a presentation to the City Council and to the Community as to their findings. In May of 1996 the City Council asked the County to come back and answer questions from the City Council and the Public. The support seemed to be for the “C-B-2” proposal.

 

Bob Barrigan, section head for the County Design Unit, explained the “B-2” proposal for a 4-lane, 80-foot right-of-way with an 80 foot cut at Skyline Drive. It was a high-speed design at a cost of $25 million dollars. Based on input from the Community and the City Council, the County looked at proposal “C”. Proposal “C” was a lower design speed, smaller radii, width reduced to 58 feet, one lane in each direction, a bikeway and a 10-foot wide dual turn lane. The cost was $13 million dollars.

 

As a result of input from the City and the Community, the two alignments were combined. The “B-2” alignment was used from the Orange County line to just past West Road. This created the “C-B-2 “ with the “B-2” portion being 2 lanes rather than the original 4-lanes.

 

Greg Kelly noted that the County had applied accidentally for the “B-2” alignment instead of the approved “C-B-2” alignment. This was not a conspiracy to make a 4-lane road out of Hacienda Boulevard. There is a possibility, he reported, to apply for a design exception so the money can be used.

 

Bob Barrigan explained that the “C-B-2” does not meet the funding criteria needed.

 

Greg Kelly from Los Angeles County referred to question 29 from the 20-page question and answer hand out. He confirmed that the funds were not guaranteed for the remainder of the project. The funding would have to be applied for. It would not come automatically. That might be a way to keep the road a 2-lane road.

 

City Attorney Colantuono explained the following two choices:

 

1:         The Community can try to exploit the funding stream, realizing the pros and cons of doing so.

 

2.         Stick with the resources of the City.

 

City Manager Lindsey referred to the questions submitted from the Community. This was with answers. She also referred to an accident report from an 11-year Sheriff’s report for Hacienda Boulevard.

 

The City Council wished to hear public testimony before commenting.

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON MATTERS ON THE AGENDA

 

          The following residents spoke against the realignment and widening of Hacienda Boulevard:

 

               Sue Shoemaker, Hacienda Boulevard; Michael Lauder, Citrus Street; Ed Christmas, Angola; Chuck Millsap, Reposado Drive; David Maislen, Flowerfield; Martin Offenberger, Kashlan Rd; Roger and Karen Sours, Cypress Road; Greg Steffler, Green View Road; Roy Cummings, Canonita Drive; Susan Perilla, Leucadia Road; Leo Baroldi, Reposado Drive; Thomas Higgs, El Cajonita; Stanley Quade, Encanada Drive; Mike Cole, Dorothea Road; Jobie Townshend-Zeller, Canonita Drive; Eloise Phillips, Hacienda Boulevard; Bob Henderson, Bright Ave, Whittier; John Shubin, Dorothea; Don Phillips, Hacienda Boulevard; Roland vom Dorp, Reposado Drive; Tim Bradley, Nabal Road; Jo Wendland, Hacienda Boulevard; La Donna Guzman, Hacienda Boulevard; Roseann Casalicchio, Hacienda Boulevard; Teroski, Hacienda Boulevard; Alan Boege, Cypress Street; Clara Sanchez, Picaacho Road. Don Fite, Dorothea Road noted that everyone should keep an open mind.

 

The majority offering public testimony advised the City to try traffic calming methods on Hacienda Boulevard.

 

          As no one further wished to testify, Mayor Powers closed the Public Hearing.

 

CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS

 

            Councilmember Spothelfer felt there had been many comments and suggestions and she also wanted Hacienda Boulevard to stay the same as it is.

 

            Councilmember Engelhardt also agreed that it was good to leave the road as it is.

 

            Mayor Prop Tem Daniel stated that the City Council should draft a resolution that Hacienda Boulevard should stay as it is in perpetuity.

 

            Councilmember Klein noted that he needed time to study all of the documents received and all aspects of funding that might be required before any decisions are made. Any decisions made would be long-lasting and need to be made carefully.

 

Councilmember Spothelfer advised that everyone she had spoken with were against any change of Hacienda Boulevard.

 

The City Council discussed whether to move the Hacienda Boulevard decision to the July or August City Council meeting.

 

City Attorney Colantuono explained that there were two things that needed to be done to accomplish the resolution for keeping Hacienda Boulevard as it is in perpetuity. The first is for the City Manager to write a letter to say no to the funding. The second thing to do is probably a “General Plan” amendment and staff would need direction from the City Council.

 

City Manager Lindsey said that staff could bring back a time-line for the “General Plan’ amendment including the legal necessities.

 

Mayor Powers observed that even if it were decided to send the funding back, more traffic calming ideas will need to be considered.

 

The City Council continued to discuss whether to make a decision on the use of the funds at this meeting or wait until July after Councilmember Klein had time to consider all documents in the packet.

 

Mayor Pro Tem Daniel offered a motion to place the vote for or against the funding on the August City Council meeting.

 

Mayor Powers offered a friendly amendment to place the item on the July City Council meeting. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Engelhardt and approved as follows:

 

AYES: Daniel, Engelhardt, Klein, Powers and Spothelfer

NOES: None

ABSENT: None

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

            Mayor Powers adjourned the City Council meeting at 10:50 p.m.

 

 

ATTEST:

 

 

___________________________

CITY CLERK LINDSEY