Anaheim Will Consider Plan to Widen 33 Intersections

The Anaheim City Council on Tuesday will consider a massive, 20-year project to widen the 33 most congested intersections in the city, a move city engineers say is necessary to prevent gridlock, improve safety and reduce pollution from drivers idling in stalled traffic.

Approval of the the $87-million project would make Anaheim the first city in Orange County to embark on such an ambitious undertaking.

Although the Chamber of Commerce supports the plan, it is likely to draw fire from many of the residents who own property included in the improvement areas.

Owners of many of the 600 parcels required to complete the project would lose parking lots, businesses and homes. About 350 people living in houses and apartments would be forced to move, according to city estimates. The City Council on Tuesday may face a contentious audience.

Peter Mitchell certainly will be there.

‘Going to Raise Cain’

“I’m sure as heck going to raise Cain,” fumed Mitchell, who manages his father’s restaurant, Billy Mitchell’s Coffee Shop at 927 S. Euclid St. “We’ve operated this establishment for 14 years. . . . This is ridiculous. We’ll do everything in our power to stop it.”

Nearly all of the targeted intersections already carry more traffic than they were originally designed to accommodate, and only a handful would meet city design requirements for streets if they were built today, said Devora Fank, associate traffic engineer.

“It is a long-term plan, one of the most cost-effective ways to relieve congestion,” she said. “The alternative is massive construction with costly overpasses and underpasses.”

Under the plan, widened intersections would have three through-lanes, a separate right-turn lane and two left-turn lanes, a 300-foot “acceleration lane” for cars that have turned right and a bus bay for each approach.

In most cases, the city would require a 12-foot slice of land on each side of the street. Under the plan, the city could acquire that land in several ways. It could take the strip by eminent domain and pay market value, or it could pay the cost of moving buildings away from construction. Or an owner who wanted to significantly develop the property might be required to dedicate the strip to the city in return.

At the first public hearing on the plan, in November, opponents packed the City Council chamber. Included among the arguments against it were:

* The city should not require land to be “dedicated” as a condition of approval for development on the property. Rather, property owners should be reimbursed for their land.

* Loss of parking space and other land will hurt businesses at the intersections.

* Upgraded intersections and improved traffic flow will only draw more traffic.

* The scope of the project is too large and unnecessary. Other remedies are available. “This is too extreme,” one owner complained before the City Council last month. “You don’t build a church just for Easter Sunday.”

The City Council already has designated nine intersections for widening. On Tuesday, the council will consider adding 24 more. The other--and most controversial--issue before the council involves whether the city should simply buy all the land.

Narrowly Approved

In a 4-3 vote last spring, the city Planning Commission narrowly approved the project, but only if all right of way was purchased. The estimated cost of buying it all would be $56 million, even before already fixed construction costs of about $31 million are added.

Gary Johnson, city engineer, argued in a staff report against that approach. “The excessive cost of acquiring all of the right of way would delay this program and may render it unachievable,” he wrote.

Johnson and his staff would like as much of the land as possible dedicated to the city. That could cut the project’s cost by “as much as 50%,” he said.

For land not already dedicated when an intersection is to be widened, “property owners would be fully compensated for right of way and other ancillary costs,” Johnson said.

“(We want to) emphasize that this is long-term,” Fank said. “People think we’re doing this tomorrow. We’ll work with property owners. We’re not a big condemnation company.”

Problems With Notification

But there have also been problems in notifying people in the project’s path.

Howard Sachar, owner of the 40-unit Kent and Ming apartments at Ball Road and Euclid Street, said: “Nobody knows it’s going on. It’s absolutely incredible.” Last week, he said, he and his wife walked around their area to rally support in opposing the project, which would cost him four of his apartment units.

John Haretakis, owner of a Spire’s Restaurant near Sachar, said he was unaware of the plan. His restaurant, according to an environmental impact report prepared for the city, would have to be destroyed or moved to make room for the project.

“If they want to widen more than 10 feet, I’ll lose my restaurant,” he said. “I don’t remember receiving anything. Hmmm. Well, It’s bye-bye, then.”

City officials say they mailed letters to all property owners affected by the project and invited them to an open house last fall. In addition, advertisements were placed in a local newspaper, and notices were mailed to 700 people before public hearings for the Planning Commission and the City Council, Fank said.

“We’ve tried to give people notice,” she said, adding that part of the problem may be attributed to absentee landlords and a city mailing list based on maps more than a year old. “Property could have changed hands in the meantime,” Fank said.

Money, of course, is another hurdle. Crucial to the project’s success will be a $30-million bond measure on the November ballot that would help pay for construction and land purchases. But it would require approval of two-thirds of the city voters who come to the polls, a difficult task for any measure.

Developer fees from construction near nine intersections in the Anaheim Stadium area should bring another $10 million, Fank estimated. Some $3.5 million would come from the city’s redevelopment agency for six intersections in the downtown area. The state may contribute another couple million dollars for work at two intersections on Imperial Highway, a state road, Fank said.

ANAHEIM INTERSECTIONS TARGETED FOR WIDENING 1. Kraemer Blvd. and La Palma Ave. 2. Beach Blvd. and Lincoln Ave. 3. Brookhurst St. and La Palma Ave. 4. Harbor Blvd. and Katella Ave. 5. Euclid St. and La Palma Ave. 6. Ball Rd. and State College Blvd. 7. Lincoln Ave. and Magnolia Ave. 8. Anaheim Blvd. and Ball Rd. 9. Lincoln Ave. and State College Blvd. 10. Orangewood Ave. and State College Blvd. 11. La Palma Ave. and Tustin Ave. 12. Imperial Highway and La Palma Ave. 13. Ball Rd. and Euclid St. 14. La Palma Ave. and State College Blvd. 15. Haster St. and Katella Ave. 16. Ball Road and Beach Blvd. 17. Lakeview Ave. and La Palma Ave. 18. Ball Rd. and Harbor Blvd. 19. Euclid St. and Lincoln Ave. 20. Ball Rd. and Brookhurst St. 21. Brookhurst St. and Katella Ave. 22. Kraemer Blvd. and Orangethorpe Ave. 23. La Palma Ave. and Magnolia Ave. 24. Imperial Highway and Orangethorpe Ave. 25. Harbor Blvd. and La Palma Ave. 26. Katella Ave. and State College Blvd. 27. Convention Way and Harbor Blvd. 28. Convention Way and Haster St. 29. Anaheim Blvd. and Cerritos Ave. 30. Ball Rd. and Lewis St. 31. Cerritos Ave. and State College Blvd. 32. Howell Ave. and Katella Ave. 33. Katella Ave. and Lewis St.