Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPARSONS BRINKERHOFF QUADE & DOUGLAS, INC - 1985-01-21 4 REQUESO FOR CITY C0UNC1 ACTS _,N' RH 85-29 Date March 28, 1986 Submitted to. Honorable Mayor and City Council Members S ibn;fitted by: Charles W. Thompscn, City Administrator(��t" n Prrioared by: Douglas N. LaBelle, Deputy City Administrates^/Rede Subject: 'rel me Robert J. Franz, Chief of Administrative Services LpLI, clrl DOWNTOWN PARKING FINANCE PROGRAM � '�`, G�U"CxZ Consistent with Council Policy? pQ Yes j ] New Policy or Exceptiow Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Sourre,Alternative Actions,Attachments;' :1 STATEMENT' OF ISSUE: Now that the PBQ & D Study has identified the extent and nature of parking demand within the Maim-Pier Project Area and the plans to implement Phase I and Phase II of this project area are well underway it is time to comme„ce a financial plan to ass the provision of adequate parking. There follows several recommended actions to commence this effort. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Approve in concept a lease between the city and Redevelopment Agency of the initial parking garage with project revenues and the general fund pledged to make lease payments; 2. Authorize staff to distribute a Request for Qualifications for a firm to design and build the first parking garage (this will expedite the structure and sale of an anticipated bond issue o finance this garage); 3. Authorize aff to distribute an RFQ to procure the services of an assessment engineer to determine the feasibility of the formation of an assessment distract to assist in the financing of construction, operation or maintenance of parking garages within the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area. ANALYSIS: Pursuant to a recent Council/Agency inquiry c*aff has been in communication with the city's Underwriter and Bond Counsel Firms to discuss the options for financing downtown parking garages. Through this process the above recommendations have been determined. 1. Lease Revenue Finance: The most advantageous structure for the financing of a dasntown parking garage is for the Redevelopment Agency to construct abet own the facility and lease it to the city for operation. The city will pledge to make lease payments to the Agency which it in turn pledges to matte debt service. These lease payments will. become a general fund obligation of the city. This st.°ucture is the f: most marketable and would result in the highest rating and lowest interest cost of those alternatives available (see summary of three financial structures t:ctached). P10M5 0 RIi 86-2J March 28, 1986 Page Two 2. The inv stigation of the appropriate financing structure also brought to light that it would to the city's/Agency's advantage to hire one firm to design as weir as construct die first garage. In order to take advantage of relief from proposed tax reform, bonds for the financing of the first garage must be sold by September 1, 1986. Selection of one firm to design and construct this facility will assist in meeting tids objective. 3. The PBQ & L Study identified the need for parking within the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area and tentatively identified locations for garages as well. This Study also indicated that project revenues will not be sufficient to fully meet debt service for the construction of a modern parking garage. Therefore it is necessary to look beyond the construction of the first garage for an overall financing plan for parking garages within the Main-Pier Project Area. -3 this end A is also recornmended that the services of an assessment engineer be procured. This assessment engineer would determine the amount of any assessment to be levied against property within the area of benefit for planned parking garages. Such an assessment could be based on the amou-it of the short fall. in project revenues, or a Dercentage share of this short fali; or strictly for maintenance and operational expenses. The assessment engineer can help determine which of these approaches is most viable by determining the likely assessment under each alternative. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Do not apprnv- the recommended actions. FUNDING SOURCE: Actions 1 and 2 incur no imme6late costs, assessment engineer fee to be a loan f unappropriated general fund balance to the Redevelopment Agency under the provisions of the standing Operative Agreement between the city and the Agency. The amount will be determined a: the time a contract is forwsrded for consideration. (Estimated annual obligated 'tease payment for first garage is $850-$910,000). ATTACHMENTS: 4 F a C W T/SV K:sa r 2230h z CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PROPOSED FINANCING STRUCTURES DOWNTOWN PARKING GARAGE MAIN-PIER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA March 1 As specific plans for the development of Main-Pier Phase I and Phase 11 develop, it becomes possible to accurately quantify the dernand for parking spaces to serve this new development. The Agency Members are aware that, its anticipated even in Phase I of Main-Pier, there will be a significant shortage of parking spaces. At a recent meeting, the Agency requested staff to investigate the size, placement, and financing options fo a parking structure. There follows a brief summary of three potential financing structures for this facility. 1. LEASE FINANCE: This is the most baukable of the three alternatives presented. Under this scenario the Redevelopment Agency owns the parking structure and leases it to the city. The city in term budgets annually lease payments to the Redevelopment Agency equal to debt service. These lease payments become a general fund obligation of the city. The city is reimbursed through revenues generated by the project, and if these are insufficient to cover debt service, the Redevelopment Agency may make transient )ccupancy tax, or tax increment payments to the city. PROS: - Well received by the tax exempt market. Probably A rated (with insurance AAA rating). - Lowest interest cost (approximately 7.5$). CONS: - Lease payments become general fund obligation. - Project revenues alone will be insufficient to meet debt service. 3. BENEFIT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT: This is the second most viable structure to finance a public parking garage. With this appropch a district is formed whici, would contain all properties to benefit from the provision of the garage. Each such property is assessed a dollar amount proportionate to the benefit which that property derives from the provision of the facility. Such assessments are paid on an annual basis and enjoy the same status as property taxes. Failure in payment can result in foreclosure on the property. Securities sold under a benefit assessment structure would be unrated but still would be considered of an `nvestmert grade." PROS: Debt service made through combination of project revenues and assessments (no general fund obligation). CONS; - Process to form assessment district may be time consuming. - Public protest may prevent formation of district. - Equity of assessment may be challenged. 15 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PROPOSED FINANCING STRUCTURES j DOWNTOWN PARKING GARAGE MAR.4-PIER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA March 1986 Page Two 3. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REVENUE- BOND: This is the least marketable of the three alternative types of securities discussed herein. Under this structure the Redevelopment Agency sells securities which become a binding obligation of .the Redevelopment Agency from "any available revenue source" Revenues be pba*ed to the payment of debt service may include tax increment, the parking garage revenues, revenues from the pier, leases; concessions, or any other revenue available to the Agency. However, the lack of one revenue source of sufficient size to meet debt service is reflected by the market in a higher interest rate cost. F PROS: - No general fund obligation. - Avoids assessment proceedings. CONS: - Higher interest rate cost. - May not result in a marketable security. - Would require a feasibility study for project in advance. 2203h !F `i fr 55. $ REQUER FOR CITY COUNC ACTION Date January 10, 1985 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: C. W. Thompson, City AdministratvX ��� Prepared by: James W. Pali.n, Director of Development S rvice, vhtc Paul r. Cook, Director of Public Works�� i ct`t� �L Subject: CONTRACT WITH CONSULTANT TO AS IN P EPARAA DOWNTOWN PARKING TRANSIT ALD r iNANCING Td Consistent with Cnuncse Policy? V1 Yes [ j New Policy or Exceptio Statement of !ssue, Recommendation,Analysis, Finding Source,Alternative Actions,At,achment5-- STATEMENT OF ISSUE: On October 29, 1984, at the direction of -the City Administrator, the Department of Development Serva.ces distributed a request for proposal for a consultant to assist in the preparation of a downtown Parking, Transit and Financing Study for the area contained within the Downtown Specific Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Approve tb-n attached contract for assistance with the preparation of the Downtown Parking, Transit and Financing Study. ANALYSIS: The Downtown Specific Plan, adopted in 1983, contained general recommendations in regard to parking structures within the downtown area. Although the Plan identified the need for parking structures, the location, size, capacity, phasing and financing mechanisms available to the City were not identified. Proposals for development within the downtown area are presently being reviewed by staff. Because each major project has a high volume of parking demand associated with it, it is necessary no only to pinpoint the location, phasing, size and cap,_city of future parking structures, but also to have a plan for the financing of such structures. The proposed study will accomplish these purposes. In this manner, developers within the downtown area will have a. mechanism to contribute funds for a parking structure for their mutual benefit. The Consultant's study will also provide a construction phasing program for tl:f, structures; identify the locations for pedestrian over/under passes; identify the location level of service associated with a transit center; and discuss the feasibility of implementing a tram or transit system within the downtown area. P10 415.1 d Proposals were submitted by the following firms: o Berryman & Stephenson, Inc. o Van Deli and Associates, Inc.. o Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. After review of the proposals by both Development Services and Public Works, staff recommends that the firm Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. be selected to perform the study. Only PBQ&D offered a complete study at a reasonable fee. At .his time, an additional task - Transit Center Site Analysis - was a d to the proposed scope of work by the City. Parsons Brinckerhoff submitted an addendum to their proposal to perform this task for a fee of $3,000, bringing the total proposed project budget to $27,900.00. Staff recommends that a;i agreement be entered into with Parsons Brinckerhoff_ Quade & Douglas to perform the necessary work. The agreement between the City and the consultant has been prepared by the City Attorney's office and is attached for your approval. pot: ithe Department of Development Services and Public Worka will be working closely with the consultant throughout the course of t?zis study. The Consultant will be performing specific tasks where technical expertise may be needed, The Consultant will have primary responsibility for identifying the f' nancing mechan?sms and for the performing the feasibility study for the tram or transit system to serve downtown. FUNDING SO17RCE: The source of funding for this agreement would be Community Development Block Grant monies budgeted for Downtown Planning Studies from the 1983-1984 grant. ALTZRNATIVE ACTION: Do not approve the attached contract. In this case, stc.`f will attempt to complete all necessary work for the Downtown Parking, Transit and 'Financing Study available expertise within the City. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Consultant Contract 2. Request for Qualifications and Proposal 3. Fiscal Impact Statement CWT:JWP:PEC:GO:jr. (1666d) a �. CITY OF ` I140T BEACH INTER DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION KJNTINGTON BEACH To CHARLES W. THOMPSON From ROBERT J. FRAN?, Chief City Administrator Administrative Services Subject APPROPRIATION FOR Date DECEMBER 6, 1984 PROCESSIONAL SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT PLAN F.I,S. #85-17 As required under the authority of 'tesolution 4832, a Fiscal Impact Statement has been prepared and submitted relative to the contract for professional services to assist the City in the preparation of a Downtown Parking, Transit and Firxancing Study for the area. Estimates are that an appropriation of $27,900 would be satisfactory for this project. An affirmative response by the City Council would require full funding from the CDBG Downtown Development Account #894829, thereby leaving a balance of $72,100 in the latter account for future use. i OBERT , Nam, Chief Administrati a Services DepaAm n t .F,JF:skd Attachments i 09281 FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT DOWNTOWN PARKING, TRANSIT AND PARKING STUDY 1. Budget Status The project will be funded through Community llevt�lopment Block Grant (CDBG) monies budgeted for Downtown Plar.ni;?g Studies from the 1983-84 budget. 2. Total Cost A. Direct: The total cost for the study is $27,900 with no anticipated future costs. B. Indirect: 1. Overhead - Personnel from both the Department of Development Services and Department of Public Works will assist the consultant throughout. the course of the study. Staff involvement is; est `mated to be 240 hours. 2. Grant Requirements - A nominal amount of staff time will be required for the reporting and accounting of the CDBG monies. 3 . Funding Source A. Funds CDBG Fund Account 894829 27,900 B. Revenue Source N/A C. Alternative Funding Sources City general funds or redevelopment funds could be used for this project. How,�ver, the CDBG monies has been set aside for projects of this nature. The general fund should be us-:d for projects which are not eligible for alternative funding. The Redevelopment Agency does not have funds for this proejct, however, they could borrow money from the City's general fund. t D. H' story CDBG funds are typically used to fund projects of this nature. T ii T t EQUES CAR CITY COUNCIL TION Date December 14, 198 (Witted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council 0 ,.'`� Submitted by: C. W. Thompson, City Administra _\�' 1�~ Prepared b James W. Palin, Director of Development�,�,5 ic.s p y' Paul E. Cook, Director of Public Works e crr CIL Subject: Contract with Consultant to Assist in the Preparari of-Boovrif Parking, Transit and Financing Study Consistent with Council Policy? D<1 Yes [ ] New Policy Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: ` STATE� OF ISSUE: On October 29, 1984, at the direction of the City Administrator, the Dept. of Development Services distributed a request for proposal for a consultant to assist in the preparation of a Downtown Parking, Transit and Financing Study for the exea contained within -E-le Downtown Specific Plan. } OEN�ATION Approve!'T attached contract for assistance with the preparation of the Downtown ParkLiL Transit and Financing Study. ANALYSIS: The DcwntOwn Specific Plan, adopted in 198_1, contained general recarmendations in regard to parking structures within the downtown area. Although the Plan identified the need for park:L g structures, the location, size, capacity phasing and financing mechanisms available to the City wyare not identified. s Proposals for development within the downtown area are presently being reviewed by staff. Because each major project has a high volume of parking demand associated with it, it is necessary not only to pinpoint the location, phasing, size and capacity of future parkins structures, but also to have a plan for the financing of such structures. The proposed sttTdy will accomplish these purposes. In this manner, developers within the downtown area will have a mechanim to contribute funds fbr a parking structure for their mutual banefit. The Consultant's study will also provide a construction phasing program for the structur, identify the locations for pedestrian aver/ender passes, identify the location and level of, service associated with a transit center; and discuss the feasibili'y of implementing a tram or transit system within the downtown area. Proposals were submitted by the fwllcwing firms: ° Besxyman & Stephenson, Inc. ° Van Dell and Associates, Inc. _ ° Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. s After review of the propos,�s by both DevelopTent Services and Public Works, staff recce- mends that the firm Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. be selected to perform the study. Only PBQ&D offered a complete study at a reasonable fee., At this time, an addi- tional task - Transit Center Site Analysis - was added to the proposed scope of Work by the City. Parsons Brinckerhoff submitted an addendum to heir proposal to perform this task for a fee of $3,000, bringing the total proposed project budget to $27,900.00. f; Staff recommends that an agree;eiit be entered :into with Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade & y �ugla, to perform the necessary work. The .agreement betweer, the City and the consultan' ha, been prepared by the City Attorney's office and is attached for your approval. .e PIo 4/84 Both the Dept. of Development Services and Public Works will be working closely with'the consultant throughout the course of this study. The Consultant will be performing specificItasks where technical expertise may be needed. The consult- ant will have primary responsibility for identifying the financing mechanisms and for the performing the feasibility study for the tram or transit system to serve downtown. FUMING SOURCE: The source of funding for this agreement would be Ccarmunity Devel�nt Blc k . Grant nanies budgeted for Davntown Planning Studies fran -the 1983-84 grant. AL`I.'ERNA= ACTION: Do no approve the attached contract. In this case, staff will attest to complete all nece)5sary work for the Downtown Parking, Transit and Financing Study with available expertise wit`iin the City. ATTACI VOWS: 1. Consultant Contract 2. Request for Qualifications and Proposal 3. Fiscal Iiipact Statement CWT:,7WP:PBC:GO:7y f f . 7 9:. a •„ 1 r S 4, Ft 1!{F C CONSULTANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AND PARSONS BRINCKFRHOFF QUADE & DOUGLAS, INC. FOR ANALYSIS OF PARKING, TRANSIT AND FINANCING NFtDS IN THE DOW.+TOWN REDEVELOPMENT AREA THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of , 19 , by and between the. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a municipal corporation of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as ^CITY," and PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF QUADE AND DOUGLAS, INC. , a California corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT." WHEREAS, CITY desires- to engage the services of an engineering consultant to prepare a study to determine the locations, sizes and phasing of parking structures within the Downtown area, to evaluate and recommend a transit system, its service area and a transit center site, and to evaluate the various financing mechanisms which are available to the CITY to finance these projects; and CONSULTANT has been selected to perform said services, NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by CITY and CONSULTANT as follows: 1. WORK STATEMENT CONSULTANT shall provide all engineering services as described in the Request for Proposal and Statement of Qualifications (hereinafter referred to as Exhibit "A.") , and .as 1. supplemented by the Proposal `o Provide Professional Services on Downtown Parking, Transit and Financing S'_udv and its addenda, Letter of November 29, 1984 and Table 1, Estimated Proj,pct Costs (hereinafter referred to as Exhibit "d") , which are respectively incorporated into this Agreement by this reference. Said services shall sometimes hereinafter be referred to as "PROJECT." CONSULTANT hereby designates Robert H. Bramen, who shall represent is and be its sole contact and agent in all consultations with CITY during the performance of this Agreement. 2. CITY STAFF F.SSISTANCE CITY shall assign a staff coordinator to work directly with CONSULTANT in 'connection with the work of this Agreement. 3. TIME OF PERFORMANCE Time is of the essence of this Agreement. The services of the CONSULTANT are to commence as soon as practicable after the execution of this Agreement and all tasks specified in Exhibits "A" and "B" shall be completed no later, than twelve (12) weeks frog date of this Agreement, with an additional thirty (30) days for all revisions. These times may f be extended with the written permission of the CITY. The time for performance of the tasks identified in Exhibits "A" and "B" Y 3 are generally to be as shown in the Scope of Services on the fl ti Work Program/Project Schedule. This schedule may be amended to benefit the program if mutually agreed by the CITY ind CONSULTANT. qW z. ! 8 4. COMPENSATION In consideration of the performance of the engineering services described in Section 1 above, CITY agrees to pay CONSULTANT a fee of twenty-seven thousand, nine-hundred dollars ($27,9G0.00) . 5. EXTRA WORK In the event of authorization, in writing by the CITY, of from the work as indicated in Exhibits "A" and "B", or for other written permission authorizing additional work not contemplated herein, additional compensation shall be allowed for such Extra Work, so long as the prior written approval of CITY is obtained. ' 6. METHOD OF PAYMENT A. CONSULTANT shall be entitled to progress payments toward the fixed fee in accordance with the progress and payment schedules set Forth in Exhibit "B" . B. Delivery of work product. 1) A copy of every technical memo and report prepared by CONSULTANT shall be submitted to the CITY to demonstrate progress toward completion of tasks. In the event CITY rejects or has comments on any such product, CITY shall identify specific requirements for satisfactory completion within seven (7) calendar days after II II . receipt of such product. Any such product which has not been formally accepted or rejected by CITY within seven (7). calendar days of submission for review by CONSULTANT shall be deemed accepted. C. The CONSULTANT shall submit for each progress payment due an invoice to the CITY. Such invoice shall:- 1) Reference this Agreement; 2) Describe the servi^es performed; 3) Show the total amount of the payment due; 4) Include a certification by a principal member of the CONSULTANT'S firm that the work has been performed in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement; and 5) For all payments include an estimate of the percentage of work completed. Upon submission of any such invoice, if CITY is satisfied that CONSULTANT is making appropriate progress toward completion of tasks in accordance with this Agreement, CITY shall promptly approve the invoice, in which event payment shall be made within thirty (30) days ' of receipt of the invoice by CITY. Such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. If the CITY does not approve an invoice, CITY shall notify CONSULTANT in writing of the reasons for • on-approval, within seven (7) calendar days of receipt of the invoice, and the s^.hedula of t � 4. MIZ-12111iiiiiii, VMS performance set for in Exhibit "B" shall be suspended until the parties agree that past performance by CONSULTANT is in, or has been brought into compliance, or until this Agreement is terminated pursuant to Section 14 :hereof. L. Any billings for additional services authorized by the CITY shall be invoiced separately to the CITY. Such invoice shall contain all of the information required under paragraph 5C, and in addition, shall list the hours expended and hourly rate charged for such time. Such invoices shall be approved by CITY if work performed is in accordance with that requested, and if CITY is satisfied that the statement of hours worked and costs incurred is accurate. Such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Any dispute between the parties concerning payment of such an invoice shall be -treated as separate and apart from the performance of the remainder of this Agreement. 7. PENALTY FOR LATE COMPLETION OF WORK It is agreed by the parties, hereto that in case the total work called for hereunder in all parts and requirements is not finished or completed on or before February 1985, damage will be sustained by CITY and that it is and will be impractical and extremely difficult to ascertain and determine the actual damage which CITY will sustain in the event of an by reason of such delay; and it is, therefore, agreed that CONSULTANT will pay to CITY the sum of one hundred dollars 5. ($100.00) per day for each and every working days' delay in finishing the work subsequent thereto, up to a limit of three thousand dollars ($3,000.00) ; and CONSULTANT agrees to, pay said damages herein provided for. CONSULTANT will be granted an extension of time, and will not be assessed with damage for any portion of the delay in ' completion of the work due to unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of CONSULTANT, including, but not restricted to, acts of God or of the public enemy, fire, floods, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, strikes, unsuitable weather, or delays of subcontractors, if any, dbe to such causes. CONSULTANT shall, from the beginning of any such delay, notify the Staff Coordinator of CITY in writing of the cause of the delay, and CITY shall extend the time for completing the work if, in its judgment, the findings of fact `.hereon justify the delay. Should CONSULTANT be delayed in the prosecution or completion of the work by necessity to perform Extra Work, as x. contemplated in Section 4 her.einabove, or by the act, neglect or default of CITY, including but not limited to 1) waiting for materials, if said materials are required by this Agreement to be furnished by CITY, or determined to be necessary during the 7 course of the work and requested in writing by the CONSULTANT; 4 5 or 2) if CITY'S reviews and approvals of work in progress or completed work task products are not completed on schedule; or Aft h z 6. ` Y 1`1 A. .sA 3) if coordination meetings are rescheduled for later dates; or. 4) if extra meetings, reviews o;: approvals are scheduled beyond those in the Work Program/Project Schedule, causing delays, in nowise caused by or resulting from default or collusion on the part of CONSULTANT, then in any such event the time herein fixed for the completion of the work shall be extended the number of days the CONSULTANT has thus been delayed. No claims for additional c^mpensation or damages for delays, irrespective of the cause thereof and including without limitation, the furnishing of material by CITY, or delays by other contractors or subcontractors, if any, or CITY will be allowed and said extension of time for the completion shall be the sole remedy of CONSULTANT. 8. DATA AND SERVICES TO BE FURNISHED BY CITY All existing data, City base maps, Downtown Specific Plan, previous traffic studies, a city-wide transportation model, and a map of all ennineering constraints witnin the Downtown area (currently being prepared by the Public Works f Department of CITY) shall be furnished to the CONSULTANT without I �{ charge by CITY. � 1 9. DISPOSITION OF PLANS, ESTIMATES AND OTHER DOCUMENTS CONSULTANT agrees that all original drawings, reports, both field and office notes, calculations, maps and { other documents, shall beturned over to CITY as appropriate and r requested by the CITY upon early termination of PROJECT or upon 3 i ;c X 3 7. S � ...idgti4Sd�iiY.s�'mbra9n3otfl�' 't�,. PROJECT completion, whichever shall occur first. Title to such drawings shall pass to the CITY upon payment of fees determined to be earned by CONSULTANT to the point of early termination. CONSULTANT shall be entitled tc retain copies of all data prepared hereunder . 10. INDEMNIFICATION, DEFENSE, HOLD HARMLESS CONSULTANT hereby agrees to defend, indemnify and ' gild harmless CITY, its officers, agents and employees, from and against any and all liability, damages, costs, losses, claims and expenses, however caused, resulting directly or indirectly from , or connected with CONSULTANT'S performance of this Agreement (including, tut not limited to such liability, costs damage, loss, claim, or expense arising from the death or injury to an agent or employee of CONSULTANT, subcontractor, if any, or of "CITY or damage to the property of CONSULTANT, subcontractor, if any, or of CITY or of any agent or employee of CONSULTANT, subcontractor, if any, or of CITY) , regardless of the passive or activ,2 negligence of CITY, except where: such liability, damages, i costs, losses, claims or expenses are caused solely by the negligent or wrongful acts of CITY or any of its agents �, r employees including negligent omissions or commissions of CITY, its agents or employees, in connection with the general supervision or direction of the work to be performed hereunder. J� 11. WORKERS' COMPENSATION CONSULTANT shall comply with all of the provisions cf the Workers ' Compensation Insurance and Safety Acts of the Statti of California, the applicable prcvisions of Division 4 and 5 of the California Labo_- Code and all amendments thereto; and all similar state or federal acts or laws applicable; and shall indemnify, def-and and hold harmless CIT`.L from and against all claims; demands, payments, suits, actions, proceedings and judgments of every nature and description, including attorney's fees and costs presented, brought or recovered against CITY, for or on account of any li^bility under any of said acts which may `I be incurred by reason of any 'work to be performed by CONSULTANT I under this Agreement. 12. INSURANCE In addition to the Workers' Compensation Insurance and CONSULTANT'S covenant to indemnify CITY, CONSULTANT shall a a: furnish to CITY and maintain in force until the completion of PROJECT a policy of general liability insurance in which CITY is named as an additional insured. The policy shall indemnify ' CITY, its officers and employees, while acting within the scope of their duties, against any and all claims arising out of or in connection with PROJECT. The policy shall provide coverage in not less than the following amounts: Combined single limit bodily injury or property damage of $300,000 per occurrence. CONSULTANT shall also provide $300,000 of errors and omissions 7 Y I insurance. Such policies of insurance shall specifically provide that any other insurance coverage which may be applicable to the loss shall be deemed excess coverage and CONSULTANT'S insurance shall be primary. A certificate of all such insurance policies required by this Agreement shall be delivered to the City Attorney prior to the commencement of any work and shall be approved by her in writing. No such insurance shall be cancelled or modified without thirty (30) days' prior written notice to CITY. 13. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR CONSULTANT is, and shall be, acting at all times in the performance of this Agreement as an independent, contractor. CONSULTANT shall secure at its expense- and be responsible for any and all payments of all taxes, social security, state disability insurance compensation, unemployment compensation and other payroll deductions for CONSULTANT and its officers, agents and employees and all business licenses, if any, in connection with the services to be performed hereunder. 14. TERMINATION OF CONTRACT All work shall be done in a good and workmanlike manner. CITY may terminate CONSULTANT'S services hereunder at any time with or without cause, and whether or not PROJECT is fully complete. Any termination and any special instructions hereunder from CITY shall be made in writing through the City Engineer and may be delivered in person to CONSULTANT or mailed .1� 10 ®r through the normal course of mail to its now-established business address. In the event this Agreement is terminated, all drawings, designs, specifications and appurtenant. data may be used by CITY in the completion of the PROJECT or as it otherwise sees fit. 15. ASSIGNIMENT AND SUSCON`PPJ%CTING This Agreement is a personal service contract and the supervisory work hereunder shall not be delegated by CONSULTANT to any other person or entity without the cons�:nt of CITY. 16. COPYRIGHTS/PATENTS CONSULTANT shall not apply for a patent or copyright on any item or material produced as a result of this Agreement as set forth in 41 CFR 1-9.1. 17. CITY EMPLOYEES CONSULTANT agrees that no regular employee of CITY shall be employed by its firm during the time this Agreement is in effect. 18. NOTICES Any notices required to be given in writing under this Agreement shall be given either by personal delivery to CONSULTANT'S agent as designated in Section 1 hereinabove or to K CITY°S Director of Development Services, as the situation shall warrant, or by enclosing the same in a sealed envelope, postage Y prepaid, and depositing the same in the United States Postal i Services addressed as follows: 11. IN 106 TO CITY: TO CONSULTANT: Mr. James Palin PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF QUADE & Director, Development Services DOUGLAS, INC. City of Huntington Beach Mr. Robert H. Bramen 2000 Main Street 2323 North Broadway, 'Suite 200 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Santa Ana, California 92706 19. ENTIRETY The foregoing, and W.ibits "A" and "B" attached hereto, set forth the entire Agreement between the parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by and through their authorized officers the day, month and year first above written. CONSULTANT: PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, QUADE & DOUGLAS, INC. , A muni-ipal corporation A California corporation Robert H. Bramen, Vice-President Mayor Secretary ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO F RM: City 'Clerk City /A orney REVIEWED D APPROVED: �ITIATED AND APPROVED: + 'ejal..- xzxa . City Admznis .rOa (�'r Director of Development Services 3 JN:mf 12/06/84 Ackl 0337L .! 12. 7 R"is �J C6 F HUNTINGTON BEACH 4 INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNnNGTON 8WH. To CHARL ;S W. THOMPSON From ROBERT J. FRANZ, Chief City Administrator Administrative Services Subject APPROPRIATION FOR Date DECEMBER 6, 1984 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES j ASSOCIATED WITH DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT PLAN F.I.S. #85-17 ! As required under the authority of Resolution 4832, a Fiscal Impact Statement has been prepared and submitted relative to the contract for professional services to assist the City in the preparation of a Downtown Parking, Transit and Financing Study for the area. Estimates are that an appropriation of$27,900 would be satisfactory for this project. An affirmative response by the City Council would require full funding from the :DBG Downtown Development Account #894829, thereby leaving a balance of $72,100 in the latter account for future use. OBERT N , Chief Administrati a Services Depar ment RJF:skd Attachments } 0928j ISCAI IMPACT STATEMENT 40 DOWNTOWN PARK1NG, TRANSIT AND PARKING STUDY I 1 . Budget S"dtGs The project will be funded through Community uevclopme-nt Block Grant (CDBG) monies budgeted for Downtown Planning Studies from the 1983-84 budget. 2. Total Cost A. Direct: The total cost for the study is $27 ,900 with no anticipated future costs, B. Indirect: 1. Overhead -Personnel from both the Department of Development Services and Department of Public Works will assist the consultant throughout the course of the study. Staff involvement is estimated to be 240 hours, 2. Grant Requirements A nominal amount of staff time will be required for the reporting and accounting of the CDBG monies. 3. Funding Source A. Funds CDBG Fund Account 894829 27,900 B. Revenue Source N/A C. Alternative Funding Sources City general funds or redevelopment funds could be used for this project. However, the CDBG monies has been set aside for projects of this nature. The general fund should be used for projects which are not eligible for alternative funding. The Redevelopment Agency does not have funds for this proejct, however, r they could borrow money from the City's general fund, n. History CDBG funds are typically used to fund projects of this nature. iV CITY OF HUNTI':GTON BEACH L'EPARTMENT OF' DEVELOPMENT SERVICES OCTOBER 1984 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS INSTRUCTIONS TO PARTICIPANTS SECTION I - GENERAL PURPOSE In November 1983, the City of Huntington Beach aJopted the Lowntown Specific Plan for the implementation of the Huntington Beach Coastal Element. The purpose of the Downtown Specific Plan is to encourage the revitalization of th' s important ai .a of the City. The Plan promotes a mix of commer-lal, residential and recreational uses which will be able to take advantage the area' s proximity to the ocean. The Specific Plan sets fc,,Lth development stanuards ar,-'. recommends publi: improvements for the City' s Downtown area. The Downtown area has been divi .-ed up into 11 districts as shown in Exhibit A. The Plan describes Lne various land uses and their intensity within each district. Duri..g tl•e preparation of the Plan, a tr,,ffLc study wa-- prE,. cec.' by .Greer o, Company. This study, "Proposed Circulation System ^or:. ..t Evian for Downtown Huntington Beach" contains at,ta pertaining to existing travel and parking cc.riditions ii the nrca , estimates of future traffic, an assignment of tr }. fic the existing street system and an identification of possiLl, c r r. -:ulatiL!�i sys ten, deficiencies . The City of Huntington Beach is accepting proposals for the preparation of a study to determine the location=, sizes ank: phasing of parking structures within the DowrtoHn area to evaluate and recommend a transit system and its service area which can best meet the needs of the Downtown at ultimate buildout, and to evaluate the various financing mechanLSmS V ich are available to the City to finance these projects. SECTION II - SCOPE OF SERVICES TASK ONE - PARKING STRUCTURES A. l.eview with the City of. Huntington Beach Development z Services and Public Works Departments the future traffic y antic°:pated in the Downtown area at the ultimate buildout of the Downtown Specific Plan. Current troposals for development shall also be examined where appropriate. t B. In conjunction with the City, the consultant shall determine the number ano size of parking structur s which will be required to serve the Downtown area at ultimate buildout. The consultant shall also prepare a flexible phasing plan 1 for the construction of these structures which will enable i x Lawa-w M a w the City to assess at what point in time a structure should be built in relationship to the specific development which is occurring within each of the 11 districts. C. The consultant and the City shall determine the locations for the various parking structures. Options may include structures within the downtown core area, on the ocean side of Pacific Coast Highway, or locations outside of the core" area . TASK TWO - ANALYSIS OF NON-VEHICULAR TRPr'FIC A. Prepare an anticipated transportation profile which describes the anticipated pedestrian and bicycle traffic . B. In conjunction with the City, prepare recommendations fuE the location/locations for pedestrian over/under passes within the Downtown area or adjacent to parking structures as warranted by vehicular and pedestrian traffic volumes . TASK THREE - FINANCING MECHANISMS A. The consultant shall prepare a report discussing and evaluating the various financing mechanisms available to the City for the purpose of financing the parking structureF . This report shall include, but shall not be limited to an evaluation of the following mechanisms: a - Creatioi of a Parking Authority - Participation by developers - Relaxation of on-site parking requirements in exchanSe for participation in t'ie structure ; - Lease acquisition; turn-Icey construction - Sharea use of parking facilities - Inclusion of commercial or office use within the ? structure In addition, the consultant shall report on the construction costs and any constraints for parking structures. TASK FOUR - TRAM SYSTEM! A. The consultant shall prepare a report and make recommendations to the City r.eciarding the ccst and feasibility of implementing a ransit system withir: the Downtown area. P9ssibilities may range from an open-air tram serving Main Street, to a shuttle system which may link to parking structures, residential areas, the Blufftop Park along Pacific Coast Highway or areas outside the boundaries of the Specific Plan. • This report shall also include a review of similar systems operating in the United States and Europe. Methods of financing a tram system shall also be included in this report. 1 (1303d) -2- S Li.I0N III - RESOURCES AVAILABLE The City of Huntington Beach will make the following resources available: existing data, City base maps, Downtown Specific Plan, previous traffic studies and a citywide transportation model. In addition, the Public Works Department is currently preparing a map of all engineering constraints within the Downtown area, such as water lines, utilities , oil lines, etc. City staff, representing both the Department of Development Services anr' Public Works, will work closely with the selected consultant tY,, .)ughout the course of the project. SL,','ION IV - PROPOSAL SUBMISSION PROCEDURES Proposals should be submitted to James W. Palin, Director of Development Services, City of Huntington Beach, P. O. Box 190, Huntington Beach, California 92648. Five copies must be submitted by 10:00 a.m. on November 9, 1984. Propbsals must include the following information: 1 . A description of the basic approach and scope of work that will be undertaken to accomplish the desired objectives as described in this Request for Proposal . All major work elements and tasks should be identified. The applicant should demonstrate an understanding of the inter-relationships among the different parts of the project. 2 . A description of the technical competence and experience of the firm or team of firms should be provided. If a team approach is selected by the consultant, the proposal should clearly state which firm will perform as the lead. A listing of similar projects in other communities shoula '. e provided. Identification and brief resumes of key staff members and the particular _personnel that will be assigi.ed to the project mist be included. 3 . A description of the method by which communication will be maintained with the City staff should be included. 4 . A summary of the time and cost for completing the work should be identified by major work elements and tasks, including an hourly rate for special meetings beyond the number anticipated in the contract The City of Huntington Beach anticipates the total contract amount to be approximately 125',000. 5 . A detailed schedule of completion of all work elements and tasks must be submitted. SECTION V - SELECTION PROCEDURE lie information contained in the proposal will be reviewed and evaluated by the City of Huntington Beach. A review committee will be formed to coordinate the evaluation. The evaluation will emrhasize the following items: Demonstrated understanding of the work to be done, 2. Creative and innovative approach to the task. 3. Methods £or determining the financia- feasibility of the parking structures and transit system. 4 . General competence and experience of the individuals who will perform the work. 5 . Demonstrated expertise and experience in similar projects. Sh._TION VI - OTHER INFORMATION Consultants interested in submitting a proposal are encouraged to attend a pre-proposal meeting on Monday, November 5, 19B4 at 10:00_ A.M. The meeting will be held in Room B-7 at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. (1303d) -q- LEGEND RESIDENTIAL - high Density ?MIXED. USE, - Office/ Residential/ Cornirrciai A11XED USE - Commercial/ Recreation COMTPCIAL - Visitor-Serving OPEN SPACE - Recreation �✓ `\ -��i?c�oaD �aaJoaJo ��� Q ►�. Jc❑ ❑nnnnnann❑ - o 1 ❑n0n0❑ ❑17nn11n❑nn 11lip, 11 K 1� 1 t INGTON BEACH :.4;IFO',N!P Proposed L lases t'NG DIVISION 1 E CITY OP HUNTINGTON P.Q. BOX 190 "ALIFORNIA 926»S DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVIC :S BUILDING DIVISION(714)536 5241 PLANNING DIVISION(714)536.52' cccober 29, 1984 Dc.r Sir: Tr City of Puntington Beach Department of Public Works an,] ' velopment Services is currently accepting proposals for i. fessional services to assist both departments in selecting i(--._ations for parking structures within the downtown area, : v5luating an selecting a transit system and identifying its ,• . vice area, ind evaluating the various financing mechanisms wh+,ch are available t4 the City to financt these projects. The :-elected c( . ultant or consultant team shoulc have expertise in both rdnshortati: n and finance. Ali duties wl ;ch will be required of the consultant are ou~ Linec in t)- attached "Request for Proposal and Statement of I;)L ...Lificntions. " Consultants shoulc submit their proposals on cr > efere I•riday, November 9, 1984.- All nroposa.ls sha _l be surm.it• cu t_ 4he Department of Development Services, Attention: Mr. Jame:, Palin, Li.rector of I . veloprr_.,t Sery .es. S:i,)ulcl }ou ha.,- any questions concerning the proposal instr -Iction or this project in general, please contact Ms. Florence We'-.: or G-. le C' 2rien at (714) 536-5271. S er• ly, Ja .,. Palin / Didactor of Development Services �! Fh �O: jr (1303d) y�f P, all Ell Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade&Douglas,Inc. Engineers•Architects•Planners November 29, 1984 l90 92 Ms. Gayle ©Brien Q� 150 ��'� City of Huntington Beach Department of Development Services t� P.O. Box 190 V\0111 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Gayle: Responsive to your request we are pleased to supply this revised proposal for assisting the City in identifying alternative sites for the downtown transit center. Transit Center Site Analysis In 1979 Parsons Brinckerhoff conducted a location study for a transit center in Huntington Beac1. A two center scheme was recommended; one in the downtown at PCH and Lake Street, and one in the Golden West/Huntington Center "area. The Golden West/Huntington Center Transportation Facility is scheduled to be implement- ed next year. The purpose of the proposed site evaluation for the downtown transit center is to reassess alternative sites for an off street facility taking into account changes which have oceured since the 1,979 study. The evaluation will focus on two or three candidate sites jointly selected by the Consultant and City staff. Evaluation cxx teria which will be used to assess the merits and constraints of the sites will compriseil�: Modal interchange potential Traffic impacts Impacts on transit operations Accessibility/service to downtown generators and beach Transfer efficiency Transit visibility ° Us-:r safety and security Expansion potential Po .',ble difference in construction cost $ Com�atibility with adjacent land uses * Joint development opportunities - Tax consequences - Property availability - Reinforcement of municipal goals - Environmental impacts - Expected support/opposition from community groups. 2323 North Broadway,Suite 200•Santa Ana Financial Center•Santa Ana.California 92706•714-973-4880 1 EXHIBIT y, • •...... .. P+$"- -iu,MVHYw. •u'S: .v."^r.:v iM, "+ "+ ;y,.ylgi . v..�r..; -• D Ms. Gayle O'Brien November ?9, 1984 Page 2 This is not intended to be an exhaustive analysis. It will build upon the 1979 Study and draw upon the expertise of the Consultants on similar transit center site location projects. The end product will be a Technical Memorandum which outlines the pros and cons of each candidate site, and a recommendation for the preferred location. The estimated cost to perform this additional task is $3,000. We trust that this revised proposal is responsive to your request for same. If you have any questions please let me know. Very truly yours, PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF QUADE & DOUGLAS, INC. Robert H. Bramen Vice President RHB:tk (1) Criteria which will be the consultants responsibility are shown with an asterisks. The remaining criteria will be the City's responsibility to evaluate. r. Table 1 ESTIMATED PRa7WT COSTS DOWN`L M HUNTIWTON BEACH PARKING, TRANSIT AND FIN.ANCING STUDY ESTIMATED ESTIMATED TASK LABOR EXPENSES I - Parking Structures I.A. Establish Existing Supply-Demand $3,000 •$50 1.15 Estimate Future Supply-Demand 2,000 - I.0 Identify Candidate Sites 2,750 50 I.D Finalize Locations and Staging 500 50 I.E Prepare Technical Memorandum 500 50 Subtotal Task I 8,750 iS0 II - Non-Vehicular Traffic II.A Establish Existing Conditions $800 $50 II.B Estimate Futur? Demands 1,600 50 Subtotal Task II $2,400 100 III - Tram System III.A Analyze Demand $2,400 •$50 IlI.B Prepare Tech Memo 500 50 Subtotal Task III $2,900 $100 IV - Financing Mechanisms W.A. Estimate Casts $1,050 - IV.B Review Funding Sources 2,000 50 IV.0 Analyze Financing Approaches 2,400 50 IV.D Evaluate Alternatives . 2,400 - IV.E Prepare Technical Memorandum 500 50 Subtotal Task W $8,350 $150 V. Transit Center Site Analysis $3,000 $ Vi. Prepare Final Report $1,500 $500 $26,900 $1,000 TEAL $27,900 ONION i ISSUE DATE(MMIDONY) ® ® 11/17/86 PRODUCER THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO R1GH7S UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER.THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. ALEXANDER & ALEXANDER INC. 1185 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS COMPANIES AFFORDING- --OVERAGE NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10036 COMPANY A 254 LETTER CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY COMPANY INSURED LETTER INS RANGE COMPANY PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF QUADS & DOUGLAS INC.COTTERNY "V.,LE ��pe ONE PENN PLAZA �Gy 250 WEST 34TH STREET COMPANY ® NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10119 LETTER �rV ,� COMPANY i' LETTERCy,t Y~ AMENDED o THIS IS TO..ERTIFY THAT POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUEDTO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT,i-ERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE.MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN,THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS.EXCLUSIONS,AND CONDI• TIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. CO POUCY.FGEC74 xiLCl fiPIRAT'ON LIABILITY LIMITS IN THOUSANDS LTR T�'PE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER GATE MWDDM'l .7A•E ,'AM,DO/Yv` E"CH AGGREGATE OCCL;RR:NCE GENERAL LIABILITY BODILY A X COMPREI{eNSIVE FORM CCP001704870 11/1/86 11/1/87 NJI uRv $ $ X PREMISESIOPERATIONS (INCLUDES TEXAS AUTO) (PROPERTY UNDERGROUND ;DAMAGE $ X EXPLOSION&COLLAPSE HAZARD x PRODUCTS/COMPLETED OPERATIONS fr j X CONTRACTUAL II J _L)MBINED $1,000 $1,000 { MDFPENOENT CONTRACTORS BROAD FORM P90PERTY DAMAGE i 1,000 X PERSONAL INJURY i PERSONAL INJURY $ H I AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY iapy A 1 ANY AUTO if BUA 001704874 11/1/86 11/1/87 $ ' ALL OWNED AUTOS iPRIV PASS I (EXCLUDES TEXAS AUTO) R%Rv ALL OWNED AUTOS(OTHEq RIV PASS N� r,IRED AUTOS PRpPEPty� VON OWNED AUTOS { DAMAGE $ GARAGE.ABILITY I ± B'3 PO COMBINED $ 1 000 I EXCESS WABILITY rl UMBRELLA"ORM Bi 6 PO i I !CO.NEO $ I$ OTHER THAN UMBRELLA'ORM WORKERS'COMPENSATION 5TA'utpgv Bj AND + WC 001704862 11/1/86 11/1/87 $ Tt EACH ACC10EN (DISEASE POLICY LIMIT} EMPLOYERS LIABILITY i ! $ 5on tDISEASE EACH EMPLOYEE) OTHER I I , I � I DESCRIPTION GF OPERATIONSILOCATIONSNEHICLES/SPECIAL ITEMS RE: HUNTINGTON BEACH PARKING AND TRANSIT STUDY PB JOB 3878. (SEE BACK) • r e CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EX- DEPT. OF DEVELOP."",ENT SERVICES PIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY WILLx AY"_%= MR. JAME5 PALIN DS.i2. DEVEL. SERV. MAIL DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERAJAmpkjQ, , {( y�ec �.;�+ � .y�tpptgRsiprPltCCR»C P.O. BOX 190 R9t9ALEYxtzR�tR>N4 t�tx HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 AUTHOR EPRESENTATIVE��— e- r � .,. �r _.r�� t-� �� r1 3rP� �F''.'xa r � 3'�'�F,� t='zi "�t+l= •v ''ems�s xk-r^�?:yG^r �,. ,x3�t,.�. r �'�.��M.�:�,,.:.- ���� J�i '-;?,`�•, '�' r .;.�i';..�u�a3 '�'L .1 a �r t�+'�9c'�`{ r ..-,iT ��,'.t � t'oµ�ite' ',,c��j i3&'F�31,LF"��; x xw � r��*' �,y >s n u,�„c- `za`�.* e' r,t';i"� ^'� Fit . ,�"��_ ? �a�s}�t a�`�r ��r`> ��+��� r�,�a�. V: •�. orc ISSUE DATE(MM+DD/YY) 12/3/85 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED,;S A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER.THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, ' EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. y: ALEXANJER & ALEXANDER OF NEW YORK, INC. --- - "-- --`---�`- Y. 1185 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS CON4PA NIES AFFORDING COVEIPAGE � —-- ----------- - ' ----- - ---_ _ NEW YORK, NY 10036 rCOMPANv LETTER CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY COMPANY LETTER TRANSPORTATION INSURANCE COMPD ANY N MPANY PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF QUADE & 71TER s DOUGLAS INC. ONE PENN PLAZA I. JAN PG 1 250 WEST 34TH STREET -- -- -- -- --`--- COMPANY NEW YORK, NY 10119 LF71ER E, INS & BENEFITS THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED, . NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT,TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY C014TRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY Tt BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN,THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS,EXCLUSIONS,AND CONDI- TIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. CCI w' I <<t raf IQ f Y ixP!uA'e.-;N LIABILITY LIMITS IN THOUSANDS l iR TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER UA HM iC'Yr CAT)HMFx.YY' EACH :Kc U PRE AGGREGATE GENERAL LIABILITY -_�---�-- -- _ --- -- --- BODILY h x COMPREHENSIVE FORM 4 I INJURY $ $ PREMISE&OPERATIONS I PROPERTY — A 1IJNDERGRO,IND CCP 001703103 11/1/85 I 11/1/86 DAMAGE EXPLOSION&COLLAPSE HAZARD I I'Rt1UUCTS'G0MPLETED OPERATIONS ONTFIA ` t;TUAL I 1 I !BI&PDru91J I$ f !NOf PENDFNT UONTRACTORS ! i I �1,000 1,000 i y1 BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE I I Fv PERSDNAL INJURY I I I PERSONAL INJURY $ I 1f 000 I OMOBILE LIABILITY_ BUA 001703107 11/1/85 11/1/86 l " a,r ' r--7 AIL A.TO$IPRtt, PASS) — S ?FNLC AUTOS((OTHER THAN �C (OTHER PASS _ 14jN DWNED A'JTOS ) •AMAGE $ ,AAAUf_i!Ats4 I ' Y ' I l41'3 i E EXCESS LIABILITY o r WEIREL,A'ORM ! ..._� _ .-.. RA p �' _ n A�t't0 i nel , �!ABI E !$ Er 'HAc I. BRELLA FI'J s DtJ L't, rx WORKERS COtAPENSATION B AND WCPP 1703099 11/1/85 11/1/86 $ 50C) AIH ACCOFrT— ` + EMPLOYERS'LIABILITY I _.------ ! r — r)i�� �F.-F�Li ITaF F) 500 P T L ti " $ 500 ' OTHER t—_._.._- _ _.__- , ,CR,.TION OF JPERATIONSILOCATIONSIV£Hi,;.FSI'SPECIAL.ITEMS RE: HUNTINGTON BEACH PARKING AND TRANSIT STUDY ,k PB JOB #3878 (SEE BACK) f RY-'.",7i s �I, w. 2; _ l�xc YA•°vR: rs6"si��:.0 Yoe>,+..,.. .1,:F�:+�cn,4'Y 4.t -,if �', � a�3��°"aa3:.aBM t r&L-^��`.�•^,: -� R''s._�� L�ttl .�„" �.�. CPC z 5 i,✓1 K`. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH � xxXcxXxxecxxxxaa�w3uKnt�cxs�r�clx�cacxwxx xxtn�ex�cocx�XXx,3CXrXixxXXXs> 5�a()c�t� �cxxY>4Y, Lx�€,� �WCL� DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES _ xx 3c -3t�1 x�SI�Cx�cR1�3ct�xx7�clx9t12t�c�txoaxoc�€ ' P.O. BOX 190 �* X x+x � xxx�r�ex c�xxa»coa�axxxx x MvAfxx*x mxxlNMx HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 =''AUTF RI _ P ENTA V. MR DAMES�'P^ALIN, DIRECTOR DEVELOPMENT i e. F •�r 7` �M` �i ,' - s ,xt"�}Ti fta?yT la t"T"`'..'�?r'y�ra'"' """;.' < z +„`"'"�l ~i ".�r-^" Isy fir,, Z� ' ,.+' L-#.• red"t 'Tx^iAa" y`k ,• .j w,'y .^^ -a y� .. \' a 'r Y�.i,Q CANCELLATION: DEC , SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE A BENEFITS THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY WILL MAIL 30 DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE NAMED CERTIFICATE HOLDER. to J 3 3 i i DUPLICATE ORIGINAL CONSULTANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AND PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF QUADE & DOUGLAS, IN'C. FOR ANALYSIS OF PARKING, TRANSIT AND FINANCING NEEDS IN THE DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT AREA THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of 19 by and between the CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a municipal c,jrporation of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as "CITY, " and PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF QUADE AND DOUGLAS, INC. , a New York Corporation authorized to do business in California, hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT." 'WHEREAS, CITY desires to engage the services of an engineering consultant to prepare a study to determine the locations, sizes and phasing of parking structures within the Downtown area, to evaluate and recommend a transit system, its service area and a transit center site, and to evaluate the various financing mechanisms which are available to the CITY to finance these projects; and CONSULTANT has been selected to perform said services, NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by CITY and CONSULTANT as follows: 1. WORK STATEMENT CONSULTANT shall provide all engineering services as described in the Request for Proposal and Statement of Qualificaticas (hereinafter referred to as Exhibit "A" ) , and as supplemented by the Proposal to Provide Professional Services on 1. Downtown Parking, Transit and Financing Study and its addenda, Letter of November 29, 1984 and Table 1, Estimated Project Costs (hereinafter referred to as Exhibit "B" ) , which are respective" incorporated into this Agreement by this reference. Said services shall sometimes hereinafter be referred to as "PROJECT." CONSULTANT hereby designates Robert H. Bramen, who shall represent it and be its sole contact and agent in all consultations with CITY during the performance of this Agreement. 2. CITY STAFI' ASSISTANCE CITY shall assign a staff coordinator to work directly with CONSULTANT in connection with the work of this Agreement, 3. TIME OF PERFORMANCE Time is of the essence of this Agreement. The services of the CONSULTANT are to commence as soon as practicable after the exe.:ution of this Agreement and all tasks specified in Exhibits "A" and "B" shall be completed no later than twelve (12) weeks from date of this Agreement, with an additional thirty (30) days for all revisions. These times may ' be extended with the written permission of the CITY. The time for performance of the tasks identified in Exhibits "A" and "B" are generally to be as shown in the Scope of Services on the Work Program/Project Schedule. This schedule may be amended to benefit the program if mutually agreed by the CITY and CONSULTANT. a 2. 4. COMPENSATION In consideration of the performance of the engineering services,• described in Section 1 above, CITY agrees to pay CONSULTANT a fee of twenty-seven thousand, nine-hundred dollars ($27, 900.00) . 5. EXTRA WORK In the event of authorization, in writing by the CITY, of changes from the work as indicated in Exhibits "A" and "B", or for other written permission authorizing additional work not contemplated herein, additional compensation shall be allowed for such Extra Work, so long as the prior written approval of CI`PY is obtained. 6. METHOD OF PAYMENT A. CONSULTANT shall be entitled to progress payments toward the fixed fee in accordance with the progress and payment schedules set forth in Exhibit "B" . B. Delivery of work product. 1) A copy of every technical memo and report prepared by CONSULTANT shall be submitted to the CITY to demi.nstrate progress toward completion of tasks. In the event CITY rejects or has comments on any such product, CITY shall identify specific requirements for satisfactory completion f 3. within seven (7) calendar days after receipt of such product. Any such product which has not been formally accepted or rejected by CITY within seven (7) calendar days of submission for review by CONSULTANT shall be deemed accepted. C. The CONSULTANT shall submit for each progress payment due an invoice to the CITY. Such invoice shall: 1) Reference this Agreement; 2) Describe the services performed; 3) Show the total amount of the payment due; 4) Include a certification by a principal member of the CONSULTANT'S firm that the work has been performed in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement; and 5) For all payments include an estimate of the percentage of work completed. Upon submission of any such invoice, if CITY is satisfied that CONSULTANT is making appropriate progress toward completion of tasks in ac—ordan^_e with this Agreement, CITY shall promptly approve the invoice, in which event payment shall be made within thirty (30) days' of receipt of the invoice by CITY. Such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. If the CITY does not approve an invoice, CITY shall notify CONSULTANT 4. INI!III in writing of the reasons for non-approval, within seven (7) calendar days of receipt of the invoice, and the schedule of performance set for in Exhibit "B" shall be suspended until the parties agree that past performance by CONSULTANT is in, or has been brought into compliance, or until this Agreement is terminated pursuant to Section 14 hereof. D. Any billings for additional services authorized by the CITY shall be invoiced separately to the CITY. Such invoice shall contain all of the information required under paragraph 6C, and in addition, shall list the hours expended and hourly rate charged for such time. Such invoices shall be approved by CITY if work performed is in accordance with that requested, and if CITY is satisfied that the statement of hours worked and costs incurred is accurate. Such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Any dispute between the parties concerning payment of such an invoice shall be treated as separate and apart from the performance of the remainder of this Agreement. 7. DATA AND SERVICES TO BE FURNISHED BY CITY All existing data, City base maps, Downtown Specific Plan, previous traffic studies, a city-,,.-de transportation model, and a map of all engineering constraints within the I Downtown area (currently being prepared by the Public Works 5. Department of CITY) shall be furnished to the CONSULTANT without charge by CITY. S. DISPOSITION OF PLANS, ESTIMATES AND OTHER DOCUMENTS CONSULTANT agrees that all original drawings, reports, both field and office notes, calculations, maps and other documents, shall be turned over to CITY as appropriate and requested by the CITY upon early termination of PROJECT or upon PROJECT completion, whichever shall occur first. Title to such drawings shall pass to the CITY upon payment of fees determined to be earned by CONSULTANT to the point of early termination. CONSULTANT shall be entitled to retain copies of all data prepared hereunder. 9. INDEMNIFICATION, DEFENSE, HOLD HARMLESS CONSULTANT hereby agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless CITY, its officers, agents and employees, from and against any and all liability, damages, costs, losses, claims and expenses, however caused, resulting directly or indirectly from or connected with CONSULTANT'S performance of this Agreement (including, but not limited to such liability, costs damage, loss, claim, or expense arising from the death or injury to an agent or employee of CONSULTANT, subcontractor, if any, or of CITY or damage to the property of CONSULTANT, subcontractor, if any, or of CITY or of any agent or employee of CONSULTANT, subcontractor, if any, or of CITY) , regardless of the passive or 6. active negligence of CITY, except where such liability, damages, costs, losses, claims or expenses are caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of CITY or any of its agents or employees including negligent omissions or commissions of CITY, its agents or employees, in connection with the general supervision or direction of the work to be performed hereunder. 10. WORKERS' COMPENSATION CONSULTANT shall comply with all of the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Insurance and Safety Acts of the State of California, the applicable provisions of Division 4 and 5 of the California Labor Code and all amendments thereto; and all similar state or federal acts or laws applicable; and shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY from and against all claims, demands, payments, suits, actions, proceedings and judgments of every nature and description, including attorney's fees and costs presented, brought or recovered against CITY, for or on account of any liability under any of said acts which may be incurred by reason of any work to be performed by CONSULTANT under this Agreement. 11. INSURANCE In addition to the Workers' Compensation Insurance and CONSULTANT'S covenant to indemnify CITY, CONSULTANT shall acquire and maintain in force, until the completion of PROJECT. &A and acceptance of all work by CITY, c 7. +�� liability insurance in which CITY is named as �B insured. Said policy shall indemnify CITY, its officers and employees, while acting within the scope of their duties, against any and all claims arising out of or in connection with PROJECT, and shall provide coverage in not less that the following amounts: Combined single limit bodily injury or property damage of $300, 000 per occurrence. Said policy of insurance shall specifically provide that any other insurance coverage which may be applicable to the PROJECT shall be deemed excess coverage and CONSULTANT'S insurance shall be primary. A certificate of insurance proving the current existence of said policy shall be delivered to the City Attorney prior to the commencement of any work hereunder. All insurance and evidence thereof shall be subject to approval by the City Attorney in writing. The certificate of insurance and the policy of insurance or endorsements thereof shall provide that any such policy shall not be cancelled or modified without thirty (30 n days' prior written notice to CITY. ` 12. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR CONSULTANT is, and shall be, acting at all times in the performance of this Agreement as an independent contractor. CONSULTANT shall secure at its expense, and be responsible for any and all payments of all taxes, social security, state 8. disability insurance compensation, unemployment compensation and other payroll deductions for CONSULTANT and its officers, agents and employees and all business licenses, if any, in connection with the services to be performed hereunder. 13. TERMINATION OF CONTRACT All work shall be done in a good and workmanlike manner. CITY may terminate CONSULTANT'S services hereunder at any time with or without cause, and whether or not PROJECT is fully complete. Any termination and any special instructions hereunder from CITY shall be made in writing through the City Engineer and may be delivered in person to CONSULTANT or mailed through the normal course of mail to its now-established business address. In the event this Agreement is terminated, all drawings, designs, specifications and appurtenant data may be used by CITY in the completion of the PROJECT or as it otherwise sees fit. 14. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBCONTRACTING This Agreement is a personal service contract and the supervisory work hereunder shall not be delegated by CONSULTANT to any other person or entity without the consent of CITY. 15. COPYRIGHTS/PATENTS CONSULTANT shall not apply for a patent or copyright on any item or material produced as a result of this Agreement, as set forth in 41 CFR 1-9.1. 9. 16. CITY EMPLOYEES CONSULTANT agrees that no regular employee of CITY shall be employed by its firm during the time this Agreement is in effect. 17. NOTICES Any notices required to be given in writing under this Agreement shall be given either by personal delivery to 0ONSULTANT'S agent as designated in Section 1 hereinabove or to CITY'S Director of Development Services, as the situation shall warrant, or by enclosing the same in a sealed envelope, postage prepaid, and depositing the same in the United States Postal Services addressed as follows: TO CITY: TO CONSULTANT: Mr. James Palin PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF QUADE & Director, Development Sery :es DOUGLAS, INC. City of Huntington Beach Mr. Robert H. Bramen 2000 Main Street 2323 North Broadway, Suite 200 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Santa Ana, California 92706 (REST OF PAGE NOT USED) i 10. 18. ENTIRETY The foregoing, and Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto, set forth the entire Agreement between the parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by and through their authorized officers the day, month and year first above written. CONSULTANT: PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, QUADE & DOUGLAS, INC. , A municipal corporation A New York Corporation �OL± ._- Robert H. Bramen, Vice-President Mayor ch e S neider, 5)Wj�Y�X Vice President ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk Cit A`E torn REVIE D APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: City Administr or ire for of Development Services jN:mf 1/10/85 0337L 11. s CITY OF HUUTI'­','1'0N BEAUi DEP,.PTMENT vI' DEVEi JI'MENT SERVICES OCTOBER 1984 REOULST FOR PROPOSALS INSTRUCTIONS TC PARTICIP ,NTS S!:�_TIGN I - GENERAL PURPOSE In November 1983, the City of Huntington Beach . :opted the Vowutown Specific Plan for the implementation of the Huntington Beach Coastal Element. The purpose of the Downtown Specific P7ar. is to encourage the revitalization of th' c mportant a: s of "lie City. The Plan promotes a mix of cor:1mcr .lai, residential and recreational Lses which wi.l.. be able to tare advant :ye . the area' s proximity to the ocean. The Specific Plan fiats fc, th cevc,1Dpment stanuards and recommends public improvements fc. Ci.tie' s Downtown area. The Downtown area has been divi ed up into 11 dirtricts as shown in Exhibit A. T)A4 Plan describeF c: various land uses and their intensity within eac.i: distr .ct. l:ur i.:g t) e prepar..�t ion of the Plan, a tr- if tic >6udy way prL. cec t,,\• Greer a Company. This stud} , "Proposec tion .,�stel ':or. t 1:- 1xn for Downtown Huntington Beach" CO.— L;LS c_-,a 11-rtn i n i ng tc, xist ing travel ano park i nc: c, ..c tons ii -,},e esti.;,atev cf future traffic, an a. si j.n etit of tr fic existing w'rcet s�,stem and as Lcenti.ficU: i(_n cf c;o- siLl cc , ~!latic . s}. tei:, deficiencies . The City -A Funtington Beach is ucceptiny ;:refusals for the preparation of a study to deteri, i.ne the locatioi. -, sizes in. phasing of parking structures within the L'ow, toi.n area to evaluate and recr.,rnnend a transit system and its service: ire.. which car. rest meet the needs of the Downtown at ultimate buildout, and to evaluate the vErious finanLiog mechancsms s- .ich are available to the City t.o finance these projects. SECTION II - SCCPE OF SERVICES TASK ONE' - PARKING S`i-.UCTURES P_ i.eview with the City of Huncington Beach Development. Services and Public Works Departments the f : _ure tcaff.ic anticipated in the Downtown area at the ultimate buildcut of the Downtown Specific Plan. Currenr. proposals for development shall also be ekawined where appropriate. B. In conjunction with the Cit} , the consultant shall determine the number anu size of parking structut s which will be required to serve the Downtown area at ultiirLenable The consultant shall also prepare a flexibli-:for the construction of these structures whiL=M(3 � 3c7) _1- E .w n . n the City to assess at what point in time a structui�- should be built in relationship to the specific development which is occurring within each of :he 11 districts. C. The consultant and the Cite shall determine the lor_dtio-s for the various parking St. 2tures. options may include structures within the downtown core area, on the ocean side of Pacific Coast Highway, or 'locations outside of the core area. TASK TWO - ANALYSIS OF NON-VEHICULAR TRAFFIC A. Prepare an anticipated transportation profile which describes the anticipated pedestrian and bicycle traffic. B. In conjunction with the City, prepare recommendations fvl the location/locations for pedestrian over/under passes within the Downtown area or adjacent to parking structures as warranted by vehicular and pedestrian traffic volumes. TASK THREE - FINANCING MECHANISMS A. ':he -:.:)r.sultant shall preparo a repor- .iiscu sing a, J eva'_uating the various financing mechanisms available to the City for the purpose of financing the parki::g stra :turL• Th,s re port hall include, but shall not be limiter_ to an evaluation o; the following mechanism�-: - Creatic- of a Parking uthority -- Participation by developers - Relaxation of on-site parking rec,uirements in axch;•.-,c,e for part:icication in tie structure - Lease acquisition; turn-key construction - Sharec use cf parking facilities - Incl.usir)n of commercial or office use within. _r:c structure In addition, the consultant shall report on the construc+-icn costs and any constraints for parking structures . TASK FOUR - TRAM SYSTEM A. The consultant shall prepare a report and make recommendations to the City regarding the cost and feasibility of implementing a transit system withir the Downtown area. Possibilities may range from an open.--air tram servinu Main Street, to a shuttle system whicl may link to parking .,tructures, residential areas, the Blufftop Park along Pacific Coast H`.ghway or areas outside the boundaries of the Specific Plan. This report shall also include a review of similar - stems operating in the United States and Europe. .Methods .,s financing a tram system shall also be included in this report. (1303d) -2- SECTION TII - RESOURCES AVAILABLE The City of Huntington Beach will make the following resources available: existing data, City base maps, Downtown Specific Plan, p� _vious tratfic stua.ies and a citywide transportation model. In addition, the Public Works Department is currently preparing a map of all engineering constraints within the Downtown area, such as water lines, utilities, oil lines, etc. City staff, representing both the Department of Development Services anr' Public Works, will work closely with the selected consultant tl,: :3u.,hout the course of the project. SL iION 1V - PROPOSAL SUBMISSION PROCEDURES Proposals should be submitted to James W. Palin, Director of Development Services, City of Huntington Beach, P. 0. Box 190, Huntington Beach, California 92648. Five copies must be submitted by 10:00 a.m. on November 9, 1984. Proposals must include the following information: 1 . description of the basic ;approach a ,d scope of t,, rk ti.-,t will be undertaken to accomi lish the desired ob jrrl Lives as described in this Request f:_,r Propo _. All n.aj(.,- work e.Lements and tasks should be- i.dentifted. The appl scant shouIG demonstrate an understanding of tLe inter-relationships among the different parts or tl.r• pru ect . 1 . description cf the techni+•al competence ai.6 ext)e' ienc of the firm or team of firms Zliould be provided. I f a tea-:. approach is Felected by the consultant, the -jroposal shi�u-, d ,:leanly stat_• which firm will perform as the lead. A Listing of similar projects :in other communities sh;,ulc `. e lrovided. Identifi.cation and brief resumes of key staft members and the particular personnel that will be assig . d to the project must be included. 3. A description of the method by which communication will 'Le maintained with the City staff should be included. 4 . A summary of the time and cost for completing the work should be identified by major work elements and tasks, including an hourly rate for special meetings beyond the number anticipated in the contract The City of Huntington Beach anticipates the total contract amount to be approximately N25,000. 5. A detailed schedule of completion of all work elements and tasks must be submitted. SECTION V - SELECTION PROCEDURE The information contained .in the proposal will be reviewed and evaluated by the City of Huntingtcn Beach. A review committee will be `_ormed to coordinate the evaluation. The evaluation will emphasize the following items: ( 1:03d) 3- Demonstrated understanding of the work to be done, 2. Creative and innovative approach to the task. 3, Methods for determining the financial feasibility of the parking structures and transit system. General competence and experience of the individuals who will perform the work. S , Demonstrated expertise and experience in similar projects. Sr _ fION VI - OTHER INFORMATION Consultants interested in submitting a proposal are encouraged to attend a pre-proposal meeting on Monday, November 5, 1984 at 10:00 A.M. The meeting will be held in Room B-7 at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. i I i i `ems t (1303d) -4- LEGEND _.,... ..�._....+.-__.. .._.. _.. _ _ �. ..___. .__ �____..�._..�,.__.._....r... ._. ._.. ____....._..._.�_._r_._... t ME, RESIDP" TIAL - High pensity F ?MIXED L)SF. - OffIce/ Res identia. Coy -.- :c al j MTXED USE - Commercial/ Recreation i COMMERCIAL Vi- Ltor-Servin,, 1 OPEN SPACF. - R.ec;•eation Ll D n � ❑�c��aa ❑oa�000000�� �� �-� � a�aoo ❑00000a _ - � =� _ ? /, q �^ti�� t I.�:ill f-•�.'S` `. � ,I t r. /.}f1//r Y �� '6jfio ��Fj, •�Y 1.h ''�f _ ""�g t vr'lv�a-Z2��'Y6. p ti"Ali P � G r [ � U C E • n ..JNTINGTON BEACH ;:4LJF0.',VN Proposed Land Uses ) • 4Ni-',NG DID ISM NI 7 CITY OF HUNTINGTON P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 926=1i DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVIC :5 BUILDING DIVISION(714)536.5241 PLANNING DIVISION(714)536.6'_, Cc sober 29, 1984 Deer Sir: Th City of Puntington Beach Departme, it of Public Works an velop :ent S.>rvices is currently accepting proposals for p- fessional services to assist both departments in selecting 1c..ations for parking structures within the downtown area, -valuating are selecting a transit system and ident). ying its Li'-Vice area, snd evaluating the various financing mechanisms which are available to the City to financf these projects. The select=_'d s( . ,ultant or consultant team shoulc' have expel: tise in bott, - c,:ir,spoxT-atiz.:n and finance. Ali cuti< s w. :ch will be ree,Lired ci the consultant zip. cu Li ci ;r: tl-'- attached ' Request for Proposal z,nd Statement of C): Consultants shoul-. submit their prci-os..l : an �_r L. fc:re .riday, November 9, 1984. All propo::-is sha be S.. !;:it t 0 t- Lhe Deparc.,;ent of DeveloF„r,ent Sert Ices, Atier.tic.n: Mr. game.: Palin, i - recto: of 1 _velopment Sery _es. S_luu.la Y:)u hi any questions concert:ing the proposz,i inst; .ictir.'n o this pro jest in general, please contact Ms. Flozence ;ale', or G__ '�.e O' �rien dt (714; 536-5271. _er�ly, Je"..:-. Palin Di.ector of Development Services FS. JO: jr (1303d) 1 Parsons Brinekerhoff Quade&Douglas,Inc. Engineers•Architects•Planners O�y B�P�GEC' November 29, 1984 Ms. Gayle O'Brien City of Huntington Beach KIN, �r Department of Development Services P.O. Box 190 V+0 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Gayle: Responsive to your request we are pleased to supply this revised proposal for assisting the City in identifying alternative sites for the downtown transit center, Transit Center Site Analysis In 1979 Parsons Brinekerhoff conducted a location study for a transit center in Huntington Beach. A two center scheme was recommended; one in the downtown at PCH and Lake Street, and one in the Golden West/Huntington Center area. The Golden West/Huntington Center Transportation Facility is scheduled to be implement- ed next year. The purpose of the proposed site evaluation for the downtown transit center is to reassess alternative sites for an off street facility taking into account changes which have occured since the 1979 study. The evaluation will focus on two or three candidate sites jointly selected by the Consultant and City staff. Evaluation c iteria which will be used to assess the merits and constraints of the sites will comprised): * Modal interchange potential * Traffic impacts Impacts on transit operations * Accessibility/service to downtown generators and beach Transfer efficiency * Transit visibility * User safety and security * Expansion potential Possible difference in construction cost Compatibility with adjacent land uses Joint development opportunities - Tax consequences - Property availability - Reinfor ment of municipal goals - Environmental impacts - Expected support/opposition from community groups. 2323 North Broadway,Suite 200•Santa Ana Financial Center.Santa Ana,Cali forr.ia 02706•714-973-4880 H►BIT...._....� � ►. D tMT, nHtff Ms. Gayle O'Brien November 29, 1984 Page 2 This is not intended to be an exhaustive analysis. It will build upon the 1979 Study and draw upon the expertise of the Consultants on similar transit center site location projects. The end product will be a Technical Memorandum which outlines the pros and cons of each candidate site, and a recommendation for the preferred location. The estimated cost to perform this additional task is $3,000. We trust that this revised proposal is responsive to your request for same. If you have any questions please let me know. Very truly yours, PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 9UADE & DOUGLAS, INC. Robert H. Brarnen Vice President RHBatk (1) Criteria which will be the consultants responsibility are shown with an asterisks. The remaining criteria will be the City's responsibility to evaluate. Table 1 ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS DOWNTOWN HUNTINGTON BEACH PARKING, TRANSIT AND FINANCING STUDY ESTIMTED ESTIMATED TASK LABOR EXPENSES I - Parking Structures I.A Establish Existing Supply-Demand $3,000 $50 I.B Estimate Future Supply-Demand 2,000 - I.0 Identify Candidate Sites 2,750 50 I.D Finalize Locations and Staging 500 50 I.E Prepare Technical Memorandum 500 50 Subtotal Task I $8,750 $150 II - Non-Vehicular Traffic II.A Establish Existing Conditions $800 $50 II.B Estimate Future Demands 1,600 50 Subtotal Task IT $2,400 $100 III - Tram System III.A Analyze Demand $2,400 $50 III.B Prepare Tech Memo 500 50 Subtotal Task III $2,900 $100 IV - Financing Mechanisms IV.A Estimate Casts $1,050 - IV.B Review Funding Sources 2,000 50 IV.0 Analyze Financing Approaches 2,400 50 IV.D Evaluate Alternatives 2,400 - IV.E Prepare Technical Memorandum 500 50 Subtotal Task IV $8,350 $150 V. Transit Center Site Analysis $3,000 $ VI. Prepare Final Report $1,500 $500 $26,900 $1,000 TOTAL $27,900 i 1. 4 ' TRANSMITTAL TO INSURE f e T9 Alexander & Alexander of New York Inc. an er1185 Avenue of the Americas New York. N. Y. 10030Sex Telephone 212 575-8000 ®ia de Submitted by To: John Srsich Continental Casualty Company 100 Church Street February 15, 1985 New York, NY '10007 _ Date THE ENCLOSED COMPLETES THE BINDER INSTRUCTIONS AS PREVIOUSLY ACKNOWLEDGED TO YOU. INSURED Department of Development Services ---G f 91n; ttJ t3 eac�a� PO BOX 190 fiontington Beach CA. 92648 TYPE OF INSURANCE Owners protective Liability Insurance EFFECTIVE DATE February 13, 1985 EXPIRATION DATE February 13, 1986 LOCATION INSTRUCTIONS: $300,000 Combined single limit for bodily injury & property damage. Job: Hun_Vington Beach Parking & Transit Study to be performed by Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. One Pena Plaza, New York, MY 10119 Contract price $27000. INSURANCE COMPANY CantinecttaLC.anralty C=any POLICY NO. ACCEPTED BY 71 .nl a-•' 'bra[`,' ��.'�„ s �. ?yy �� � "?�r' i�'��:'^�6_a=a�,� fN ��.;� ISSUE DATE(MMfDDNY) 2 27 85 PRODUCER THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS ALEXANDER & ALEXAND9Rd7OF _NE6J YORIqi INC EATEN OR AL RIGHTS UON THE TER THc COVERAGE AFFORDEDHIS BY THEIFICATE DOES NOT POLIC ES BELOW. AMEND, 1185 AVENUE OF THFoE90E°RICAS :ICES NEI! YORK, NY 10036 COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE MAP - - COMPANY i,6',TAI.ETfER C0;JTI L CASUALTY rn,,.PAN Y I J — .J� 9iuy ETTERNY B TRANSPORTATION INSURANCE COMPANY +.'JRED PARSONS B NCKERHOFF QUADE & DOUGLAS, NINPANY ONE PENN PLAZA LETTER — — 250 WEST 34th STREET COMPANY NEW YORK, NY 10119 LETTER COMPANY I LETTER F- THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED 70 THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWO HSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT,TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR f iiER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY �=r BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN,THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS,EXCLUSIONS,AND CONDI. TIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. ® COI TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY vAEIE:R ^,,� r s Ekr,pt p, LIABILITY LIMITS IN THOUSANDS ,nR ' RI ( �.a,I.r,.C'r 1' ed"ATjD EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE • GENERAL LIABILITY r BOD!4Y NJIJRY $1,000 $ 1,000 A I COMPREHLNSIVE FORM A \ 1 JREMIi YOP DiRGROUND DAMAGE $1,000 CCP 001701795 11/1/84 11/1/85 PROPERTY 000 $ 1,000 EXPL 7SION&COLLAPSE HAZARD �X °RODUCTS COMPLETED OPERATIONS X CONTRACTUAL HUNTINGTON BEACH IBt&PDED $ $ X INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS OEVELOPrllNI� SERVICES BROAD'ORM PROPERTY DAMAGE X IX PFRSONA,INJURY MAR _ lQul PERSONAL INJURY $1,000 s , . AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY X ! ANY AJ10 Hdrt1^gIJI 3uj J,,, u�a $1,000 »y ~1 A JYrNFD AUTOS IPRIV PASS) I lick". A A JWNEDAUTOS(OTHERTHAN BUA 001701799 11/1/84 1 $1,000 u PRIV PASS 1/1/85 { !i REt ALI'JS ( ' ;P�RT4' IJJ i i` I DAMAGE $1,000 RAGE iIABIUTY — BI 8 PD COMBINED P EXCESS LIABILITY j JMBRE:LA FORM COMBINED $ $ ~� O T H,❑THAN UMBRELLA FORM r'E3 f),•.'.; ��..�.� :-' ,n"*;7 t.,t- STATUTORY }- WORKERS'COMPENSATION11 $ 500 EACH ADDIDENT) B AND WC 001701791 11/1/84 � 11, �/85 EMPLOYERS'LIABILITY $ 500 (DISEASE-POLICY LIMIT) $ 500 IMSEASE E41 1 EMPLOYFE) ;OTHER DEE.CRIPTION OF OPERATIONSROCATIONSNEHICLES/SPECIAL ITEMS J HUNTINGTON BEACH PARKING AND TRANSIT STUDY. Replaces Certificate dated 2/12/85 {^`€; � 6 Q .,*'sY✓.�Ti Eta, }.'r��s3,�3,^",�� -,�''���'. 4 n:t,�,j'"'m"_.•'c___.,_.�y`u�r�ti�*•,:�i�S;����,,.,..3�s'.i".��"a<:s::T1aE'-��.;_-�...��w-1'�r�•aA•{� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EX- 2000 MAIN STREET PIRA�bN DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY WILL JE)GpfLYWAMM ._MAIL___ _DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 LE�xrxxaaacxxaacmxsc+ wxec�rx�x�Do�casx���»a�asoxaadrix�s ATTN: MR. JAINES PALIN & x'x�cDz otJ� Jc7Ta�r'Xucxosx�wG9F3x4�cr x9 'x�c x DIRECTOR, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ntnNDRIZE�rR sr-,TATI e John Srsich a.� °� ° , ��'S• i�r'-.. h,rY m; x.ar xa iR�a,�.. }T:' T�4h.���y a s •sl' ° '",in ,°ua z �{`^., ,tiC.w F�'v...: :s � � +,`n1:T1 "..,.� A�-i� i a*-Ls.•?�G nr�G'kk C,"'i� t 3" s'y 3.t1's.{..'";w..,3` ixi.,�^.;,Ci!fJ•-+^ '�n•+l:V,..,.,.,.� ��'�z.t-5 2 . / � } � \ / ■ w q §| 8vw . \ RV32 Ne18k JH§H ]# *1|§ A3HOly¥X1% CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 85-65 COUNCIL - ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION l" HUN,-GTON BEACH To Honorable Mayor and From Charles W. Thompson, City Council Members City Administrator Subiect PARSONS, BRINCKERHOFF, Date August 15, 1985 QUADE, AND DOUGLAS ANA4T�YSIS OF DOWNTOWN PARKING AND TRANSIT NEEDS Attached for the City Council/Redevelopment Agency raview is the final Downtown Parking, Transit and Financing Study, prepared by Parsons, Brinkerhoff, Quade, and Douglas for the Plain-Pier Redevelopment Project Area. The consultant's task was to analyze alternatives and make specific recommendations for implementing the parking and transit needs of the Downtown Specific Plan. The study consists of five Technical 1lemorandas covering the following topics: 1. Parking Facility Locations 2. von-Vehicular Traffic 3. Downtown Shuttle Bus 4. Downtown Transit Center Site 5. Parking Facilities Financing Strategies The various city departments have commented on these documents and staff will be prepared to review, in greater detail, the highlights of these documents at the Public Hearing on Monday, August 19, 1985. Resp y submitted, les V. Thom on, City Administrator 17 C W TJII A:lp Attachment I Downtown Parking., Transit and Financing Study Prepared for City of Huntington Beach Prepared by Parsons Brinokarhoff uade Douglas, Inc. i { August, 1985 DOWNTOWN PARKING, TitANSIT AND FINANCING STUDY Prepared for CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Prepared by PARSONS 3RINCKERH0Fv €jUADE be DOUGLAS, INC. August, 1985 r TABLE OF CONTENT'S PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 CHAPTER I - PARKING FACILITY LOCATIONS 14 Existing Conditions 14 Parking Demand Projections 18 Parking Facility Locations 22 CHAPTER II- NON-VEHICULAR TRAFFIC 32 rxisting Non-Vehicular Traffic 32 Projections of Future Non-Vehicular Traffic 34 Alternative Concepts 37 CHAPTER III- SHUTTLE ANALYSIS 40 Purpose 40 Review of Other Shuttle Systems 40 Need for a Shuttle 44 Shuttle Operations 45 CHAPTER IV - DOWNTOWN TRANSIT cENTLit SCCE LOCATION ANALYSIS 48 Evaluation of Candidate Locations 48 Analysis of Alternatives 50 CHAPTER V - PARKING FACILITIES FINANCING STRATEGIES ATEGIES 55 Cost Bstimates 55 Implementation Scenarios 57 Alternative Capital Funding P pproaches 57 Recommendations for Parking Program 63 Pacific Coast Highway Pedestrian Crossing 65 APPENDICES 67 7 b E } 1f: , LIST OF FIGURES PAGE I Parking Locations Reco,nmcnded Plan 3 2 Proposed Shared Parking Structrre Sitcti 4 3 Potent;n] Remote Parking Locations for Beach Users 7 4 Candidate Transit Center Locations 10 5 Alternative 'transit Center Location - Site #3 11 6 Alternative Transit Center Location -Site #4 12 7 Study Area Block Designations 15 8 Parking Locations Alternative Plan 25 9 Parking Locations Recommended Plan 26 10 Proposed Shared Parking Structure Site 28 11 Potential Remote Parking Locations for Beach Users 31 12 Pedestrian and Bicycle Accidents 33 13 Candidate Transit Center Locations 49 14 Alternative Transit Center Location - Site 93 51 15 Alternative Transit Center Location - Site #4 52 LIST OF TABLES 1 Summary of Parking Inventory 16 2 Peak Accumulation of Parked Vehicles Off-Peak Season 17 3 Proposed Land Uses in Downtown Specific Plan 19 4 Estimated Future Downtown Development Parking Demand Based on City Code Requirements 20 5 Estimated Future Downtown Development Parking Demand Reflecting 20% Mixed Use Reduction. 21 6 Estimation of Existing Weekend Daily Eton-Vehicular Volumes Crossing Pacific Coast Highway at 5th, Main and Lske 35 7 Estimation of ruiure Weekend Daily von-Vehicular Volumes Using an Undercrossina or Overcrossino at Main Street 36 8 Comp&rison of Shuttle Systems in Seven U.S. Communities 41 9 Transit Center Evaluation of Alternative Sites 54 10 Estimated Parking Facilities Costs 56 11 Estimated Parking hacility Staging Program Costs Scenario t -Surface Lots First, then Parking Structures 58 12 Estimated Parking FeciL ties Staging Program Costs Scenario 2 - Parking Structures Built from Outset 59 13 Evaluation of Alternative Capital Financing Techniques 61 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I'hr. purpose of the: Downtown Parking, Transit and Financing Study is to analyze alternatives and make specific recommendations for implementing the parking and transit elements of the Downtown Specific Pl,in. Toward this end a series of technical ` memorandum were prepared during Lire course of the study. These technical memorandum have been converted into c.rapters for this Final Report. Chapter 1 presents ;_�c:ommendaiions for parking facility locations; Chapter 11 outlines recommendations for grade separating pedestrian crossings of Pacific Coast Highway; the third Chapter discusses the need for shuttle bus ,services during the summer months; Chapter IV presents findings with respect to siting a downtown transit center; and the fifth Chapter provides recommendations for fieraacing proposed improvements. Key findings of each of these five Chapters are summarized in this Executive Summary. Chapter I: Parking Facility Locations 0 It is projected that a total of appr-oximately 12,300 parking spaces will be needed to serve the Downtown Specific Plan. Sixty one percent of these will be for residential uses; 1516 for hotels; 19% for retail; 3% for offices; and 2% for institutional and recreational uses. These spaces are in addition to the 1,850 spaces which will be available for beachgoers a" the City beach lots. ® The following criteria were used in developing a parking facility location plan:(1) Residential. All parking should be on site; with 85% of each units parking no more than 200 feet from the dwelling unit; and the remaining parking (for visitors) within 400 feet of each unit. it should be the responsibili',, of each developer to provide their own parking. Hotel. Except in the Downtown Core, and outside of the Core where valet parking is provided, all hotel guest parking should be on-site and no more than 200 feet walking distance from any room. Parking for ancillary facilities, employee parking and 50% of guest parking in the Core or outside of the Core where valet parking is provided may be off-site, including in snared facilities, but no more `han 600 feet from the parking generator. Commercial. Except along Main Street between Pacific Coast Highway and Orange Avenue, parking for general and convenience retail should be on-site and within 400 feet of the parking generator. (1)'rhese criteria are not currently part of the City's Code. -1- Parking for specialty retail, and for general and convenience retail along Main Street, can be off-site in a shared parking facility up to 600 feet from the generator. Restaurant. Parking for restaurants can be off-site in shared facilities up to 600 feet froin the generator. Office. Parking for offices can be off-site in shared facilities up to 800 feet from the gene-:_)r. 4D The Recommended Plana. A- illustrated in Figure 1, the Recommended Plan provides a good balance `)etween walking convenience and traffic accessibility, as well as reduces the visual impacts to residential land uses. The four public structures would be close to the Main Street axis, yet would .till be close to the periphery of the downtown Core. Vehicular traffic ingress and egress problems would be minimized by distributing the total office/commercial parkin; demand, and resultant traffic generation into relatively small structures oriented to different access routes. Minimizing land acquisition and assembly costs is another objective well met by the Recommended Plan. As shown in Figure 2 the two ;.public t structures west of Main Street would occur between the easterly edge of the north-south alley and approximately the edge of the westerly sidewalk of Fifth Street. Fifth Street which is eventu411y proposed to be closed in the Core, would be reduced by 10+ feet to provide for the parking structures and sidewalk. (4 typical two bay garage with 900 parkin; is 1.24-128 feet; whereas the present dimension between the alley and Fifth Street right-of-way is 115 feet). This would allow the property owners east of Fifth Street to continue using Fifth Street for access to their properties, as well as maintain alley access for the properties west of the alley after the parking structures are built. The two public structures east of Main Street would be positioned in the north-west and south—.vest corners of 31ock "G". To maintain a "view corridor" along Second Street, the structures will have to be shorter than the Fifth Street garages and an additional level provided; or the structures would have to be rotated 90 degrees (to be similar to what is proposed on Fifth Street). ?11 four structures would have retail space on the ground floor, facing the pudic streets, The retail space would have an average depth of approximately 60 feet, so that the ground floor could also accommodate parking and ?! vehicular ramping to-and-from the upper levels. Ther would be about 14,000 square feet of retail in the garage fronting on Orange Avenue and in the garage fronting on Walnut Avenue, and approximately 18,000 square feet of retail space in each of the two garages fr onting on Fifth Street. The two parking structures on the west will have three-levels and the two t on the east four ievels, with each garage containing, approximately 300 spaces. With an approximate story height of nine to ten feet and an uncovered upper floor, the structures would be the height of a regular one- and-a-half story to two story building, thus reducing visual impacts. The two public_ structures proposed cn the two sides of the pier and .youth of Pacific Coast highway would be two-level parking structures occurring under the "Seaport Village", and would serve most of parking demand of the _2_ {1 Ld CJ=�C�C `J _J LL J E F�dil(C EILI C 61��� �j�C�CIC�C�Gi � �C__C l j LC� Flu C CJ C� 1575R�C LLI C I i L��:�C�)LJ1 J' 3 R •I I `) 2025R i U ( r�L� II i136C I 4 5 0R 1` - —� i 5 -� 8a -l g8 23 Rs J378ii L g60C1 4 2�7 5 - I- 40H ------ -_/f 1 �,.z. ' r 225R 500C 500C OU OOOC Parking Serving Oftke/Commerchl ODOR Private)Varking Serving Residential QOOH Private Parking Serving Hotel Beach Parking Lot .;{.Public Perking Stricture HUNTINGTON BEACH PARKING, TRANSIT, AND FINANCING STUDY Figure M,F 1Eand"'Ke9lk-r, Parsmu Unmi,orhaf( Parking Locations � QU.0a C D.V41...4 C. 3 sn�nery ua:l�.�=.P.n. RECOMMENDED PLAN > D o mmo Engineers-Architects• Planners p \ \ 2323 N Broadway,Sw:e'l00•Santa Ana B iIU�`�LSU�tS t�L�®!1 California 927g6(7M)973 Q880 \\ WL+eO FBI-QFL-`oA...rirlil A T- - - -- ( - I _� ► I I- t` l mili"71 - - - -� 1 Fl-MK,. Pt'ThIL aN bEOJNO��aC PROPOSED SHABED RAM G STRUCTUAE SITES Wure 2 vwli," Costs for constructing a 25-foot wide overcrossing are estimated at Aft $800,000 in 1985 dollars, whereas costs for an undercrossing of 45 feet are estimated to be $3.6 million if such an extraordinary width is actually needed. The retail space with an underpass would generate lease revenue, however, which would help repay some of the added capital costs. ® An underpass leading directly from Main Street on to the pier would be usea ,-more than an overpass, where people would have to climb one or two sets of stairs to reach t?,.e pier or beach. Chapter IU: Downtown Shuttle Bus a Two shuttle services are recommended for downtown Huntington Beach. The first would transport people from remote parking areas to downtown. As the downtown area develops, vacant lot and residential curbside parking areas, which presently provide a large supply of beach parking, are projected to be increasingly devoted to new developments and parlung areas to serve the new development. As a result, parking areas which are presently devoted to beach users in the summertime will become increas- ingly scarce, particularly on peak summer days. Existing surface parking lots in the Civic Center area could be utilized to accommodate overflow beach parking. The shuttle system would move beachgoers between these remote parking lots and the beach. 0 A second shuttle could be provided to serve access to the downtown shops and restau^ants for people who are already at the beach, as well as serve people who are staying at hotels along PCH. The availability of a convenient shuttle service along Pacific Coast Highway would enable beachgoers to leave their cars parked in the beach parking lot while they visit downtown for lunch, shopping, etc. a The remote parking shuttle would only be needed on weekends during the summer. Sufficient -)ar?ing will exist in the downtown and at the City's beach lots to serve weekday parking demands. As indicatee? in Figure 3, the potential repotc. parking lots are located in the Huntington Beach Civic Center area. To connect these lots with the beach area in the most efficient fashion, the route proposed for the remote shuttle service woad utilize lake Street. This route has a round trip mileage of about 3 mil.es, and assuming an average travel speed of 15 miles per hour, a round trip would tole approximately 15 minutes ircluding dine to load and unload passengers. a Three types of vehicle technologies were considered for the remote lot shuttle: open-air trams, conventional buses, and rail trolleys. For safety and cost reasons conventional buses are recommended. These could either be OCTD I.s-ses or Huntington Beacn School District school buses, both of which would be available during summer weekends for this seasonal e -S— "Seaport Village". The balance of parking for Seaport Village would be on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway. All n•f the parking facilities designated as private in Figure 1 are approximate locations for either parking structures provided below or alongside and in conjunction with the residential or hotel 'buildings, or they could be surface luts. Certainly in the case of blocks in the downtown Core, which are proposed to have high density development, surface lots would not be feasible. But some of the other blocks with residential uses could have, at least part of, their parking provided in surface lots. This will depend on the type and design of the residential units.. Beach Seasonal Parking Plan. The proposed development for downtown Huntington Beach will not only require parking for the new land uses, but will result in the loss of many existing parking lots and vacant dirt lots which are currently used for parking by beachgoers during the peak season, (74any of the dirt lots being used by beachgoers are not legal parking lots). Of the existing seasonal parking lots that are mainly used by beach goers, about 1,350 spaces will be left for their use. These space are located south-east of the pier along Pacific Coast highway. Because of the seasonal nature of the parking demand generated by beachgoers, however, costs of providing parking structures that will only be used, at most, four months out of the year is not justifiable. This is when a seasonal shuttle bus or train service could be instrumental in connecting, existing remote parking lots to the beach area. Even though the remote parking program may not be needed for some years to come (i.e. existing surface lots within the downtown can continue to be used until they are actually built upon), in order to have a successful and permanent remote parking program in the future appropriate steps need to be taken by the City now to assure the permanent availability of the remote parking sites. Another parking supply source that can be utilized to meet the beach- seasonal demand during the weekends is the approximately 440 spaces that have been allocated to future office employees in the public parking structures. The remainder of the beach parking demand is expected to be met by parking provided by private entrepreneurs who would want to snake an interim use of their vacant lots, as well as by the parking lots in the State Beaches of Huntington and Bolsa Chica along Pacific Coast Highway. Chapter 11: Non-Vehicular Traffic ® At build out of the Downtown Specific Plan close to 58,000 pedestrian and bicycle trips per day on weekends are expected to be made across Pacific Coast Highway In the downtown, Core. Of these a little under half, or 25,900, it is estimated would use an overernssing or undercrossing at :Main Street and PCH if it were built. -5_ * Costs for constructing a 25-foot wide overcrossing are estimated at $800,000 in 1985 dollars, whereas costs for an undercrossing of 45 feet are estimated to be $3.6 million if such an extraordinary width is actually needed. The retail spa^e with an underpass would generate lease revenue, however, which would help repay some of the added capital costs. An underpass leading directly from Alain Street on to the pier would be used more than an overpass, where people would have to climb one or tivio sets of stairs to reach the pier or beach. Chapter M: Downtown Shuttle Bus a Two shuttle services are reeommeiided for downtown Huntington Beach. The first would transport aeople from remote parking areas .o downtown. As the downtown area develops, vacant lot and residential curbside parking areas, which presenLly provide a large supply of beach parking, are projected to be increasingly devoted to new developments and parking areas to serve the new development. As a result, parking areas which are presently devoted to beach users in the summertime will become increas- ingly scarce, particularly on peak summer days. Existing surface parking lots in the Civic Center area could be utilized to L:ccorninodate overflow beach parking. The shuttle system would move beachgoers between these remote parking lots and the teach. ® A. second shuttle could be provided to serve access to the downtown shops and restaurants for people who are already at the beach, as well as serve people who are staying at hotels along PCH. The availability of a convenient shuttle service along Pacific Coast Highway would enable beaehgoers to leave their cars parked in the beach parking lot while they visit downtown for lunch, shopping, etc. a The remote parking shuttle would only be needed on weekends during the summer. Suffic ent parking will exist in the downtown ano at the City's beach lots to serve weekday parking demands. As indicated in figure 3, the potential remote parking lots are located in the Huntington Beach Civic Center area. To connect these lots with the beach area in the most efficient fashion, the route proposed for the remote shuttle service would utilize Lake Street. This route has a round trip mileage of about 3 miles, and assuming an average travel speed )f 15 miles per hour, a round trip would take approximately 15 minutes including time to load and unload passengers. 0 Three types of vehicle technologies were considered for the remote lot shuttle: open-air trams, conventional buses, and rail trolleys. For safety and cost reasons conventional bases are recommended. These could either be OCTD buses or Huntington Beach School District school buses, both of which would be available during summer weekends for this seasonal _g_ WESTMINS7�R �y HIGI SCHOOL ' k GOLDEN WEST COLLEGE/4500 HUNTINGTON CENTER/3900 EDINCER AVE WARNER AVE OCEAN VIEW HIGH SCHOOL/SBO II—fl FOUNTAIN VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL/1075 HUNTINGTON CENTRAL n ,9 PARKl430 I ' TALBGR'i AVE CST C ALONG BEACH BLVD ' CO U�1 PCH/EDINGER S8/700 NB/700 y � y�c 3 arP��� U)$ Z GARFIELD AVE SOLSA CHIC4 STATE pp� W OEACH12500 W.14I- F. VV® O SEA Cl OF ICE ih IRK m ® ®/275 z ® YORKTOWN AVE. m BOWLING ALLEY/175 HUNTINGTON BEACH HIGH SCHOOL/020 CENTER/ 5 NEWLAND SHOPPING m � 29O CENTER/9SU CHURCH 335 C3 ml �� rt ADAMS AVE / SMITH/ "i OWYER ,q / 'pppppp��SCHOOLS/ oa W �%`420 p EOISON HIGH ��`I� SCHOOL1350 STUDY AREA ATLANTA DR Q C 4 1U1" HUNTINGTON CITY GE�/18 5,r y t Pacific Ocean I®` � HUNTINGTON STATE BEACH/2500 K /r i I. 4 TIM uyl4UlSUra� HUNTINGTON BEACH PARKING.TRANSIT AND FINANCING STUDY FIGURE NO. MT POTENTIAL. REMOTE PARKING Y Parsons Brinckerhoff LOCATIONS FOR BEACH USERS 3 Quade&Douglas,Inc. M RECOMMENDED SITES ILO/ REMOTE LOT SHUTTLE ROUTE Engineers-Architects-FUU aGI9. ►��'fI PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY SHUTTLE ROUTE rl service. If OCTD were to provide the service, the costs for the added service hours would need to be incorporated into the District's annual budget. It is estimated, howover, that the system could break even with a parking charge of approximately $t.50 to $1.75 per vehicle and free shuttle ride if 7096 of the projected usrrge were realized. These costs include the cost of the shuttle services as well as security personnel at the lots, plus advertising and signing. 0 it is ii7,portant to note, however, that the need for remote parking will not be necessary for some time. Nonetheless the eventual success of the remote parkin;/shuttle system will depend to a large extent on an effective public information/marketing program which makes beacligoers aware of the saturated parking co editions expected at the beech and of the L avaLiau«uty of the remote parking/shuttle bus option. This program should includa media announcements as well as signing on major beach routes such as Beach Boulevard on weekends. ® In addition to the remote parking shuttle consideration should be given to a summer shuttle along PCH. The primary reasons for providing shuttle service along Pacific Coast Highway would be to increase the convenience for beach users to travel to the downtown area without using their cars for shopping and lunch trips, and for hotel guests along PCH to access the beach and downtown restaurants and shops. The PCH shuttle would also help spread the use of the beaches along the coast by enabling beachgoers to park in any oi' the State, City or other lots and use the shuttle to reach their destination. 0 A total of four buses would be required to operate this service with a 15- -ninute headway. A total fleet of five buses modified to have a "beach theme" would be required for this service, including one spare. It is estimated that these modified buses would cost approximately $50,000 each in 1.985 dollars, so the capital cost for the shuttle fleet would be approximately $250,000. If this service were to be operated daily from Memorial Day weekend through the weekend after Labor Day, the annual operating cost would be approximately $113,O00, exclusive of debt service or lease payments for acquisition of the buses. It is estimated that the shuttle would attrp_:•t an average of 1,650 daily boardings with a $0.25 fare, and 2,475 passengers without a fare. The farebox revenue with the $0.25 fare could cover approximately 40% of the shuttle's operating cost. The annual operating deficit would be approxi- :nately $68,000 if a $0.25 fare is imposed and around $113,000 if it is free. This would be in addition to any debt service or lease payments for the '. buses estimated at another $25-50,000 per year. . 9 Tht- PCH shuttle, if it is judged by the downtown businesses to be worth it could be subsidized by the downtown business interests and hotel owners along PCH who benefit from the system. Chapter IV: Downtown Transit Center Site j 9 Caltrans is planning to convert th..e existing parking lanes on PCH to ;roving traffic lanes. Implementation of this plan will eliminate the -8- 1 existing OCTD layover area located between Lake Street and Huntington Avenue. The purpose of the proposed downtown transit center is to replace the current on-street layover/passenger facility on PCH and provide a facility where the existing OCTD routes can come together to benefit passenger service and improve operational efficiency. The evaluation focused on five general locations illustrated in Figure 4, which were jointly selected by the Consultant, City staff and OCTD. The transit center would comprise 12-14 bus bays plus waiting area(s) for bus passengers protected from the wind driven rain and shaded from the summer sun, as well as a travel agency and other transportation related retail, taxi services, and a helipad. ® After an initial analysis, a site located near Lake and Walnut (represented by Site 3), or along and on the beac'nside of Pacific Coast Highway (Site 4) were jointly selected by the Consultant, OCTD, and City staff as the most viable alternatives. Subsequently these two general locations were analyzed in more depth taking into considet-ation the design features of alternative layouts for each location. (See Figures 5 and 6). A transit center in the vicinity of Lake Street and Walnut Avenue would be constructed in conjunction with a parking structure. Twelve shallow saw- toothed bus berths would be provided focused on a passenger waiting island with direct escalator and stair access to an upper level crossing of PCH, it is envisioned that the garage and upper level connection would dually serve a hotel/commercial development. Site 4 is the present OCTD principal bus layover/passenger waiting area serving the City Beach. With this scheme the existing bus stopping area would become an automobile travel lane so that the bus stop/passenger waiting area would have to be reconstructed 10 to 12 feet closer to the beach. This would result in the loss of some landscaping along the embankment at the street side of the parking lot. To offset the visual impact of the reduced landscaping, tree wells housing palms and other vegetation are proposed at selected locations along the last parking bay. Approximately 14 parking spaces would be lost to :Hake way for tree wells. ® Either of these general locations would make a good transit center IocM on. Using a site on Lake Street for the transit center would be ,pore favorable as far as traffic and transit operation impacts are concerned. It would also be more convenient for passengers transferring between routes and for passengers destined to downtown. Site 4 has the Advantage of having direct acre is to the beach, which is the destination of tie majority of transit passengers today, at least during the summer. This group of beachgoers, nostly youngsters, comp ,e a large part of the current jay- walkers of Pacific Coast Highway. Even with the proposed pedestrian overcrossing including stairs and escalators with the Lake Street site, many of the teenage bus riders wouIC ztill likely cross PCH at-grade. This would not be a problem with Site 4 where the bus stops would be on the beach side of PCH. Since implementation of the transit center at Site 4 could be independent of any development project it could be done when PCH is improved without significant impact to the surrounding environment and without the need of coordinating it with other deveiupments. It would also be much less costly to construct as well as maintain and operate compared to thi; Lake Street site; and it would not take away a developable building n , I 29 a a 16 I f� Sa O A(,GEjj � A °`�� •�• • yG 25 25 .. •�. 76 ° c~n 29 M .� 37 • 25 • L� 80 � �� �•• 29 OLIVE AVE of . [� w 25 ,��•• X 29 '�•. X G 0 :1 1% FZ— WALNUT AVE WALNUT AVE 37 ' U 25 37 29 25 21 �. ® • ' , .��...�.�- . r•eere-.. ............ e •..,.n...,nn.n• ,mm e••or.es ���� oseemo..m..eesomme oo sa.,.a..a.e.�m.s............ ................................ PACIFIC COA5T F#i(.I;HWAV (OCEAN AVE. 1 �} j �___ i I OCEAN _ P AC1FIG O0°•• Route 1 Long Beach/San Clemente •..... Rov'= 25 Fullerton Figure---— Route 29 Brea Route 39 Ln 1labrn CANDIDATE TRANSIT CENTER Ltd IONS -- Route 76 Irvine >—Route ao Santa Ana t 5C).t_E DTI C in ca Parking Structure Above Transit &Escalator 1 ,- Center S talrS n P �t iy c Note: This general layout could apply to any of the four quadrants at this intersection. 1 (Oceart Avenue) Pacific Coast Highway Pedestrian f Overcrossing to Beach Figure 5 ALTERNATIVE TRANSIT CENTER LOCATION-SITE -7,LL3 7 . • -11- o SAr' m c Add bus turnouts and relocate Pacific, Coast Highway ( Ocean Avenue ) sidewalk,railing,etc. ac' 47 e-'---- --• w m LJ '1S'sV'•. _ >i� C-•s C=7 't=-7 !`'� r�-r Q �--� ac..-•...., ( ' r 1 (il. �.. �(i�f r i(•�i) i I �. i .. ti i�1(i ?Ili{ t.... .., .�1: ii fil^i .i1t�!I I-+ C_7 Existing City Lot Imo- '_11 Remove 1.4 parking spaces and add tree wells to offset loss of Landscaping. Remainder of parking lot remains unchsnfnd. Figure& ALTERNATIVE TRANSIT CENTER LOCATION-04 site. However, as downtown is redeveloped there will be a significant shift in the destination pattern of bus passengers with an increased percentage of passengers oriented to the downtown Core. Since the beach demand is so seasonal, there is logic to locating the transit center on the inland side of PCH in the long-term. The recommendation, therefore, is to construct an interim transit center at Site 4, until a co-developer is ready to build a combined parking garage/permanent transit center in the vicinity of Lake Street and Walnut Avenue. Chapter V: Parking Facilities Financing Strategies A Two scenarios have been analyzed for staging implementation of the parking plan. One scenario involves, acquiring all four parking structures sites early on and building surface parking as an interim use until each garages is needed. The second scenario would be to acquire land and build each garage as needed. Asst ming a six percent per year escalation of land values over the next five years, and 10 percent per year thereafter, it is estimated that the first approach (Scenario 1) would be less costly by some $1.4 million. This approach is therefore recommender;. ® In terms of funding the proposed parking improve,t,ents, it is recommendc(l that a combination of user fees (50-55`.G); plus in-lieu of paring pay nents (45-50%) be used. For Long-term financing revenue bonds are proposed. It is recommended that the City's General Fund be used for interim financing. These borrowed funds would be paid !;ack to the General Fund account as development occurs. ® Funding for the PCH pedestrian overcrossing(s) should be the responsibility of the downtown developers who would most benefit from it (i.e., devel- opers of the downtown retail, hotels and Seaport Village). Payment for the overcrossing(s) could be in the form of an up-front development fee or as a special assessment spread out over time. * Funding of the permanent transit center should be the responsibility of the transit carriers using the facility. The interim facility along PCH should s be the responsibility of OCTD and/or Caltrans to implement. i t -13- CHAPTER II PARKING FACILITY LOCATIONS 'Phis Chapter includes documentation of a parking space inventory and peak period utilize;tion survey; projections of parking demand based on future land use; recommendations about parking facility locations; and tl,e possi;)ility of a shuttle system for beach usors. Figure 7 illustrates the Downtown Huntington Beach Specific Plan area. The Study Area has been subdivided into superblocks which were used as the basic unit of analysis. This consolidation of blocks, which is proposed by the City, is intended to better serve the mixed use, larger scale development desired for downtown. EXISTING CONDITIONS A. detailed parking space inventory was conducted in mid-February, 1985 to obtain information concerning the location, capacity and characteristics of all the parking facilities within the Study Area. Both on- and off-street (public and private) parking spaces were included in the field survey. Since many of the vacant dirt lots are used for parking by beachgoers during the seasonal peak, their capacity was determined using aerial photographs and dividing the lot area by a factor of 500 square feet per vehicle. Many of the dirt lots which are used for parking are not legal according to City ordinances. However, since they are used nonetheless these lots are included in the inventory. The dirt lots are ofton the first locations to fill-up since there is no clwrge for parking. Off-street residential parking, and passenger and commercial loading zones were excluded from the survey. The results of this inventory are summarized in Table 1. Spaces with time limits of two hours or less are designated as short-term. The current parking supply of the entire Study Area is 7,929 spaces. Of this total, 4,204 spaces, or 53.6, .are located in off-street parking facilities; 1,903 spaces, or 24%, are located at curbs; with the remaining 1,822 spaces, or 23%, located in dirt lots. About 6896 of the off-street spaces are in public lots; 32% are in private facilities. Since timing of this study would not permit observations during the peak season, an off-freak season maximum parking accumulation survey was conducted to establish existing parkin; utilization at least for that time of year. Although parking demand during the off-season is not comparable to the summer peak demand in downtown liuntington Beach, information about the existing demand is useful for providing a realistic parking structure implementation phasing plan. The accumulation survey was performed on Wednesday and Thursday, February 13-14, 1985, between 12:00 noon and 2:00 P.M., in the core area, to capture the peal: accumulation of retail parkers. Parked vehicles in the remaining areas, which are mainly used for parking by beach- goers, were counted between 12:00 noon and 4:00 P.M., since due to the unusually warm weather, during the week when the surveys were conducted, a large number of people were using the parking facilities during that time period. Table 2 summarizes the comparison of parked vehicles to the number of parking spaces by block and by type of space, represented by the percent of spaces occupied by parked vehicles. None of the dirt lots were used for parking during the survey, but -14- �� ., �_„ ... w _..; .,' ,.._4+, '�u-•w•y�y'.;vim. A '!NY :'. t?3'S",Sa :'f-:.h1 :.a'4iu" ems�"!Ysfi'n^ C 1 a F1 C0 c1❑ 1 .10 1010a10M10M10 0 10M10CjE- E o �� ; �. 3 H�m '� r 4cjo�c�=C�iCjL� �=CC �afa cCL� � ] KoF . f --�L ---- --„ - - -- --y-- -- - - -- ----i----�--- -- --- - --- -- -- ------- - - l i HUNTINGTON BEACH PARKING, TRANSIT, AND FINANCING STUDY Figure Pamm Ocln.kuha([' p Qwdc&Dougiu..Inc. Study Area Block Designations • Enpnnn-h,c`.i[acti•Ploiuicn E]ISn 6an.a'.SnH:30a•¢naw.i Ga�v�.,•rtxev.n�n•wp t p. r TABLE 1 DOWNTOWN HUNTINGTON BEACH SUMMARY OF PARKING INVENTORY OFF-STREET CURB TOTAL Public -Private Public do Dirt Curb Block Unmetered Metered Private Unmetered Metered Subtotal Long- Short Long- S.,l.btotal Long- Short- Long- Short- Term Term Term Term Term Term Term A - - - 77 77 - 88 1t - - 99 176 B - - - 99 99 189 114 32 - - 146 434 C - 71 - 73 144 - 38 - - 46 84 228 D - - - 34 84 - 10 20 - 14 44 128 E - - - 64 64 - 31 - - 55 86 150 F - - - 95 95 - - 2 - 43 45 140 G(1) - - - 13 13 - 34 - 30 84 148 161 H(1) 198(2) - - - 198 - - - 21 - 21 219 I - - - - - 34 - - - 34 34 J(1) 282(2) - - 397 679 - - - 79 - 79 758 K - - 80 80 - - - 42 - 42 1.22 L(1) - - - 66 66 79 - - 7 79 86 231 M 11 6 - 105 122 - 5 4 - 47 56 178 N(1) - - - 41 41 44 98 - 9 - 107 192 0(1) - - - 10 t0 189 70 - 13 - 83 282 P(l) - - - 25 25 147 97 - 15 - 112 284 R(1) _ _ _ 7 7 371 106 _ 14 _ 120 498 26 26 294 95 20 115 435 S(l) - - - - - 509 92 - 14 - 106 615 T(1) - - - - - - - - 170 - 170 170 UW 313(2) - 239 77 629 - - - 34 - 34 663 V(l) 1,745 - - - 1,745 - - - 86 - 36 1,831 Total No. of Spaces 2,549 77 239 1,339 4,204 1,822 912 69 554 368 1,903 7,929 Percent of Total 32% 1% 3% 17% 53% 23% 12% 1% 7% 5% 24% 100% Used by beachgoers for parking today. (2)Seasonal parking lot. TABLE 2 DOWNTOWN HUNTINGTON BEACH PEAK ACCUMULATION OF PARKED VEHICLES OFF-PEAK SEASON OFF-STREET PUBLIC OFF-STREET PRIVATE CURB TOTAL Block Accumulation Occupancy Accumulation Occupancy Accumulation Occupancy Accumulation Occupancy A - - 11 14% 22 22% 33 19% B - - 29 29% 56 38% 85 20% C 50 70% 40 55,16 36 4396 126 55%' D - - 33 39% 28 52% 61 48% E - - 40 67% 61 71% 101 67% F - - 62 65% 37 82% 99 71% G - - 3 23% 51 34% 54 34% H - - - - 14 67% 14 6% ' J - - 146 37% 1 1% 147 19% K - - 41 51% 4 1090 45 3T•6 L - - 53 80% 74 86"% 127 55% M 17 100% 62 59'% 52 93% 131 74% N - - 13 32% 53 5096 66 34% 0 10% 39 47% 40 14% P - - 9 36% 48 43% 57 20% Q - - 1 14% 30 25% 31 6% R - - 14 5496 20 17% 34 8% S - - - - 18 17;'S 18 3% T - - - - 99 58% 99 58'% U 139 25% 67 871Y0 21 62% 227 34% V 289 17% - - 32 37% 321 18% Total 495 17% 625 47% 796 42% 1,916 24% Source: Based upon field observations recorded on February 13 and 14, 1985 ;;r ' their capacities were included in the calculation of the total occupancy percentages. During the period of highest parking accumulation, 1,916 vehicles were parked in downtown Huntington Beach occupying 2496 of the overall parking spaces. Although this supports that overall there is a large parking surplus for the off-peak season, a close examination of Table 2 indicates the existence of very high occupancy rates at some of the blocks, such as Blocks "L" and "'W'. It should be also noted that parking facilities should not be expected to attain ;001k occupancy. Off-street parking facilities are considered effectively full at 85% of actual capacity and curb-side parking at 90%. This accounts for vehicles maneuvering into and out of spaces, vehicles circulating in search of an empty space, some vehicles taking more than one stall, parkers unawareness of where all the vacant spaces are, et2. PARKING DEMAND PROJECTIONS Because of its beachside location, the parking situation in downtown Huntington Beach differs significantly between peak and off-peak seasons. Therefore the sources of demand for parking in downtown Huntington Beach were divided into two groups to facilitate the forecasting task. The first group consists of the proposed developments throughout the Study Area which would replace most of the existing buildings if implemented. The second group is mainly the beach users who create a relatively large but only a seasonal demand. This section briefly describes the steps followed in estimating future parking demand in downtown Huntington Beach for each of these groups separately. Downtowr. D^velopment Demand Projections of future parking demand for downtown development are based on anticipated land use changes and specific development projects identified by the City. Two sets of parking demand estimates were developed. The first set is based on the City's zoning code of parking requirements, except for the proposed "Seaport Village" which will require significantly more spaces than typical commercial uses. A second set of parking demand projections were developed based on the more realistic assumption that parking facilities are more efficiently utilized when a group of different land uses share a parking facility. With the exception of residential and hotel uses which need to have their separate parking supply throughout the day, to develop the alternative forecast the City code requirements were reduced by 20% to reflect this mixed use in the core area and other economics of scale which occur in a downtown. Based upon the assumed Specific Plan land uses shown in Table 3, Tables 4, and 5 show the parking demand projections, by block and by hand use. As can be seen, since close to 75% of the proposed parking will serve residential and hotel demands, a reduction cf only about 400 spaces in the downtown core is proposed. Beach Seasonal Demand Two different approaches were used to estimate parking generated by beachgoers. First, regardless of the anticipated land use changes in the Study Area, and assuming that the existing number of 50,000 daily beach users is the effective capacity of the City beach(l), and based on an 85% automobile mode split(2), a vehicle occupancy rate of 3.5(3), ainc a peak parking accumulation factor of 50 percent of daily vehicles, the peak weikend parking demand is estimated to be about 6,050 spaces. -13- w ,.. 5 .mow h, ,, , yM ' .4 .011 TABLE. 3 PROPOSED LAND USES IN DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN(1) 1, Residential Commercial Restaurant Office Institutional (Dwelling) hotel (000 (000 (000 (000 Recreational Block(2) Units) (Rooms) Sq. Ft.) _ q. Ft.) . Sq. Ft.) Sq. Ft.) (Acres) A 100 - - - - 11 - (Existing) B 275 - 71 - 45 - - C 28 - 19 - 50 - - D 27 - 19 - - - - E 27 - 19 - 50 - - F 27 - 19 - - - - G 150 - - - - - - 1I 700 - - - - - 1 900 - - - - - - J - 400 10 8 - - 13 IC - 400 - - - - - L - 600 20 16 - - - M 200 250 30 - 25 - - N 150 - 10 - - - - O 100 - - - - - - P 150 - - - - - - Q 150 - 10 - - - - R 150 - 10 - - - S 100 - 20 - - - T 1.00 - - - - - ('Existing) U - - 75 32 - 50 - Total 3,334 1,650 332 56 170 61 18 (1)The proposed land uses are based upon an estimate of the likely development to occur by "build out" of the Specific Plan. (2)See Figure 7 for block designations. -19- TABLE 4 DOWNTOWN HUNTINGTON BEACH ESTIMATED FUTURE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT PARKING DEMAND(l) Based On Caty Code Requirements Block Residential Hotel Commercial Restaurant Office Institutional Recreational Total A 225 - - - - 22 - 247 B 619 - 355 - 149 - - 1,123 C 63 - 95 - 165 - - 323 D 61 - 95 - - - - 156 E 61 - 95 - 165 - - 321 F 61 - 95 - - - - 231 G 338 - - - - - - 338 H 1,575 - - - - - - 1,575 1 2,025 - - - - - - 2,025 440 50 80 - - 40 610 f< - 440 - - - - - 440 L - 660 100 160 - - - 920 M 450 275 150 - 83 - - 958 N 338 - 50 - - - - 383 O 225 - - - - - - 225 i' 338 - - - - - 333 (� 338 - 50 - - - - 388 2 338 - 50 - - - - 388 S 225 - 100 - - - - 325 T 225 - - - - - - 225 U - - 750(2) 320(2) - 200 - 1,270 v - - - - - - - Total 7,502 1,815 2,035 560 561 222 40 12,735 Percent of Total 59% 14% 16% 4% 5% 2% - 100% __ (1)Exstimated demand .'+own is exclusive of beach parking demand. Reflects a higher demand than required by City Code to reflect the unique nature of the proposed development. ; tr TABLE 5 DOWNTOWN HUNTINGTON BEACH ESTIMATED FUTURE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT PARKING DEXANDW Reflecting 29% Mixed Use Reduction Block Residential hotel Commercial Restaurant Office Institutional Recreational Total A 225 - - - - 17 - 242 B 619 - 285 -- 117 - - 1,021 C 63 - 75 - 130 - - 268 D 61 - 75 - - - - 136 E 61 - 75 - 130 - - 266 F 61 - 75 - - - - 136 G 338 - - - - - - 338 H 1,575 - - - - - - 1,575 I 2,025 - - - - - - 2,025 J - 440 40 64 - - 32 576 IC - 440 - - - - - 440 L - 660 80 128 - - - 868 M 450 275 120 - 65 - - N 338 - 40 - - - - 36 O 225 - - - - - - 225 P 338 - - - - - - 338 Q 338 - 50 - - - - 388 R 338 - 50 - - - - 388 S 225 - 100 - - - - 325 T 225 - - - - - - 225 U - - 750(2) 320(2) - 20(' - 1,270 V - - - - - - - Total 7,502 1,815 1,815 53'2 442 217 32 12,335 Percent A of Total 61% 15% 15% 4% 3% 2% - 100% 1� These numbers reflect 20% reduction from the City code requirements due to expected mixed use of parking spaces in the core area, with the exception of residential and hotel parking. Also, the estimated demand shown is exclusive of beach parking demand. (2) Reflects a higher demand than required by the City Code to reflect the unique nature of proposed development. -21- The existing parking supply was used as a second method of determining future beach demand, since according to a survey conducted by the City, 97% of all parking spaces in the Study Area are occupied most of the day during the peal: season. (Curb parking by beachgoers also occurs in the residential area north-west of downtown, but this practice will likely continue after the land use changes occur in the downtown area, unless some form of control measures are introduced). This method results in a peak parking demand estimate of about 5,900 spaces for beach-goers, when it is assumed that 97% of the overall downtown parking supply available for beachgoers (i.e., �:xcluding private and short-term spaces) is occupied by beachgoers at its peak. The average of the results c-f the two methods used, or about 6,000 spaces is considered to be a reasonable estimate of the future parking demand for the users of the City's beach on peak weekends (i.e., Memorial Day, Fourth of July, and Labor Day weekends). Based on counts conducted by the City and State, beach attendance and parking demands on typical weekends is about two-thirds of the peak weekend demand. This indicates a demand by beachgoers for around 4,000 spaces on a typical weekend. On 6-9 days out of the year (i.e., the peak weekends of Memorial Day, Fourth of July, and Labor Day if there is good weather) the demand will be for 6,000 spaces. PARKING FACILITY LOCATIONS In order to meet the projected parking demand of proposed Downtown development as well as the estimated parking demand of beachgoers, several alternative solutions were developed. Candidate sites for major new parking facilities have been identified and discussed with City staff. This section describes the methodology used to identify alternative sites, the criteria used to evaluate the sites, and the recornmended plan resulting from the analysis. Methodology The general concept for the future build-out of downtown Huntington Beach, as envisioned by City staff, was used as the basis of the analysis. Downtown Huntington Beach is expected to become a major activity center in the region, providing a variety of shopping, dining and recreational opportunities to visitors, as well as the residents of the immediate neighborhoods. The majority of the customers and visitors are anticipated to visit multip'.e destinations for different purposes, all of which will be provided within �,onvenient walking distance in the downtown Core. The proposed development includes a "Seaport Village" type development on the beach site of Pacific Coast Highway. The degree of convenience that people tend to associate with walking distances between parking and their destination depends largely on the attractiveness of their destinations. In other words, the more attractive their destination(s), the longer the 1 Source: City staff. (2) The remaining 15% includes about 3% transit and 1296 walking and bicycling. (3) Source: Coastal Access Analysis in California: An Assessment of Recreation Transportation Analysis in Coastal Planning; Jaynes E. Burke; Research Report U CB-ITS-RR-81-11. -22- distance they are willing to walk from their place of parking (e.g., Laguna Beach, Westwood Village, downtown La Jolla, etc.). Based on the above-mentioned concept of downtown Huntington Beacn, the degree of tolerance for walking from parking to retail/commercial destinations is expected to be quite high, at least in the downtown Core. For residential, hotel, and gen+;ral comma-vial uses parking is recommended to be on--site. For restaurant uses, speciality retail, general retail along Main Street, and office uses it is proposed that some parking be permitted off-site in "shared" facilities. These shared facilities would be parking structures or lots available to the general public, built to serve a number of different users in the immediate area. With the above in mind, the following general rameters were used for locating parking within t ie Downtown Specific Plan Area:(Ir e Residential. All parking should be on site; with 85% of each units parking no more than 200 feet from the dwelling unit; and the remaining parking (for visitors) within 400 feet of each unit. It should be the responsibility of each developer to provide their own parking. ® Hotel. All hotel guest parking shall be .on-site and no more than 200 feet walking distance from any room. Parking for ancillary facilities, and employee poking in the downtown Core(2), may be off-site, including in shared facilities, but no more than 600 feet from the parking generator. ® Commercial. Except along Main Street between Pacific Coast Highway and Orange Avenue, parking for general and convenience retail should be on-site and within 400 feet of the parking generator. Parking for specialty retail in the downtown Core, and for general and convenience retail along ,Main Street between PCH and Orange Avenue, can be off-site in a shared parking facility up to 600 feet from the generator. Restaurant. Parking for restaurants can be off-site in shared facilities up to 600 feet froin the generator. ® Office. Parking for offices can be off-site in shared facilities up to 800 feet f rom the generator. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES Several alter,iative plans were developed and different candidate parking structure locations wet-e identified based on the above mentioned parameters. The major differences between the alternatives is in the downtown Core where shared public parking structures can be provided in a variety of ways. The main factors wl-ach were considered in locating candidate parking structure sites are: (I)These criteria are not currently part of the City's Code. (2)Boundaries of the downtown Core are PCH, South Street, Orange Avenue, and Lake Street. -23- a Walking convenience fro,n parking Lo dutitifiation. 0 Intercepting downtown-bound 1whicular traffic before entering the core area. 9 Minimizing traffic impacts. 0 Miiumizing impacts on adjacent usesheighix rhood disruption. 0 Minimizing land acquisition/asse.nbly costs. 0 Efficiency of parking structures based on parcel configuration. B Parker safety and security. After detailed analyses of a number of alternatives, two were selected as the .post viable ones. These alternatives are presented below. The first Alternative Plan is depicted in Figure 8. Lake Street, Atlanta Avenue, Pacific; toast Highway, Walnut Avenue and Sixth Street will be the main access routes to the downtown Core in the future. Thus the shared public structures which would mainly serve office and commercial uses are shown positioned at the periphery of the core at gateways in such a way as to intercept in-coining traffic. The location and capacity of each proposed parking facility is shown in Figure 8. The total number of spaces required for each block is provided on the same block (on-site), except for Blocks "ll", "F", "L" and "M", — the demand for which is served on-site and/or by the four public structures proposed in Blocks "C", "E" and "G".(l) These parking structures would be shared facilities mainly serving office and commercial uses. They would be 3-4 levels, about 20-30 feet !ugh, standard two-bay staggered floor or sloped floor garages with about 300 parking spaces each. Although the four public parking structures would be most suitably positioned at the extreme ends of the core area for capturing in-coming traffic, most of the parking demand they would serve originates from the commercial lard uses along Main Street. The distance of these structures from Main Street (over 400 feet for the Sixth Street structures and close to 800 feet for the Lake Street structures) would likely be viewed as excessive by many parkers. Also, having these structures facing Sixth Street and Lake Street could create visual problems for residents across the street from these structures. With the exception of the location of these public structures the Alternative Plan is similar to the Recommended Plan which is described in the next section. RECOMMENDED PLAN The Recommended Plan, as illustrated in Figure u, provides a Brood balance between walking convenience and traffic accessibility, as well as reduces the visual impacts to residential land uses. The four public structures mentioned above (located in Blocks "C", "E" and "G") would be one-half to a full block closer to the Main Street axis, yet l'Block designations are shown in Figure 7.. -2 4.. �x / I r. � � u N� 1_ L4 M uElCO0-CU`!l_�� �1 i��C�C,,`:1 619Ri _ � 1{r '` E �f yt'�� r�ljI 2025R C 1 C ��C�L�''L_I C1 CJ L,J I J_U C I�f C�{:::300 a 3BL�'' it a 1 i ; %;323 a'i1 O �< it f iL� �;Cl {J'C� IIC�`C..�C'`C. IICI� i fl�!Ji :r:F[1R :�i C 136C [� ------------ --- -=-- ----- - spli IM S8SSi33SR� -2d5R - 78F� 96 440H -�_v i / 1250 - -=ra 225R 500C i 500C. 600 ,� .-----" `=- �� OOOC Parking Serving Office/Commercial ��' DOOR Private Parking Serving Residential OOOH Private Parking Serving Hotel jx Beach Parking Lot Public Parking Structure II �Xi HUNTINGTON BEACH PARKING, T RANS!T, AND FINANCING STUDY Figure I �r Parkinc� Locations Parsons❑rinckcrho[C Qumlc G llauglns,Inc. I nrinrcrs ,4clutectr PLwwn ALTERNATIVE PLAN ,::rs-uwtnn-.nee i� C�[f] 'L u CJ C{J CJJ C C 6 3-0 a �R-6���: \R � /'• 2025 RCam 1575 f— 6 0 136C4111 R - E �d�---- -- --------C----------- F7 440H 450 R 440H 5000600- /-- OOOC Parking Serving Offk:a/Commercial 000'R Private Parking Serving Residential OOOH Private Parking Serving Hotel Beach Parking Lot :Public Parking Structure lI `55 HUNTINGTON BEACH PARKING, TRANSIT, AND FINANCING STUDY Figure Parsons Drinckcrlsolf Parking Locations Quadc S Douglas,anc. Fnnaeu,.Arrhtrcu-� ,�, RECOMMENDED PLAN J]t]H 01o.a.ar.$�„e.70p y,xahu Cwnna Y1:Jtiru4t] e8a would still he close to the periphery of the downtown Core. The visual problems mentioned earlier would be eliminated by positioning the two structures on the west side of Main Street between other land usos, and locating the two easterly structures on two different sides of Block "(;". Vehicular traffic ingress and egress problems would be Miniulized by distributi:rr the total office/commercial parking demand, and resultant traffic generntlon into relatively small structures oriented to different -access routes. Minimizing land acquisition and assembly costs is another objective well (net by the Recommended Plan. As shown in Figure 10 the two public structures west of Main Street would occur between the easterly edge of the north-south alley and approxi- mately the edge of the westerly sidewalk of Fifth Street. Fifth Street which is eventually proposed to be closed in the Core, would be reduced by 10+ feet to provide for the parking structures and sidewalk. (A typical two bay, garage with 900 parking is 124-128 feet wide; whereas the present dimension between the alley and Fifth Street right-of-way is 115 feet). This would allow the property owners east of Fifth Street to continue using Fifth Street for access to their properties, as well as maintain alley access for the properties west of the alley after the parking strrrctur��, are built. The two public structures east of %lain Street would be positioned in the north-west and south-west corners of Block 1101. To maintain a "view corridor" along Second Street, the structures will have to be shorter than the Fifth Street garages and an additional level provided; or the structures would have to be rotated 90 degrees (to be similar to what is proposed on Fifth Street). All four structures would have retail space on the .-round floor facing the public streets. The retail space would have an average depth of approximately 60 feet, so that the ground floor could also accommodate parking and vehicular ramping to-and-from the upper levels. There would be about 14,000 square feet of retail in the garage fronting on Orange Avenue and in the garage fronting on Walnut Avenue, and approximately 18,000 square feet of retail space in each of the two garages fronting on Fifth Street. As explained in the previous section the two parking structures on the west will have three-levels and the two on the east four levels, with each garage containing, approximately 300 spaces. With an approximate story height of nine to ten feet and an uncovered upper floor, the structures would be the height of a regular one-and-a- half story to two story building, thus reducing visual impacts. These four public facilities will not only provide the parking for all land uses of Blocks "C", "D", "E" and "F", but they also will serve some of the parking demand of Block "N' (266 spaces) and Block "L" (186 spaces). The two public structures proposed on the two sides of the pier and south of Pacific Coast Highway would be two-level parking structures occurring under the "Seaport Village", and would be large enough to meet the entire parking demand of the "Seaport Village" (1,270 spaces)(1). The public parking facility in Block "J" could be a surface lot serving the commercial recreation facilities. The small public parking west of B;'Nck "A" is a small surface lot that will serve the public library. 1) The estimated demand for approximately 1,270 spaces is not rased upon the City Of Fiuntingt.on Beach parking code. Experience at other similar Seaport Village f developments suggest that parking space demands will likely he greater than would be provided for using the City's code. t -27- Engineers •Architects • Planners D o�f1f'������� (� ��j 2323N.Broadway.Suite 2W•Sama:,ra }SL.4t1 rU j t u California 92706•(71•1)973.4880 � \ f \ s T— n I r`l t� 1 � I ij _.z-� '. I ( r hL�%'I�K• «'i'AI�O'7 pED JNJ FL6CfL, PROPOSED SHARED PARKING STRUCTURE SITES Figure 10 All of the parking designated as private in Figure 9 could be provided either in parking structures (below or alongside and in conjunction with the residential or hotel buildings), or they could be in surface lots. Certainly in the case of blocks such as "M" and %", which are proposed to have high density development, surface lots would not be feasible. But some of the other blocks with residential uses could have, at least part of, their parking provided in surface lots. This will depend on the type and design of the residential units. In the case of Blocks "N", "Q", I'll", and "S" provisions could be made for the commercial public parking within the private facilities of the corresponding block. Although most of the existing curb parking spaces will be eliminated in the future along PCII and other principal traffic arteries in the Study Area to achieve higher levels of service for the movernent of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, the remaining curl) spaces can be utilized to supplement the supply of the recommended parking facilities: In order for the proposed facilities to be successful, particularly during pet.l< seasons, different levels and types of parking control strategies will need to be impemented. These include time restrictions, validation programs, and access control strategies such as card-key gates and/or manned facilities. BEACH SEASONAL PARKING PLAN The proposed development for downtown Huntington Beach wilt not only require parking for the new Mend uses, but will result in the loss of inany existing parking lots and vacant dirt lots which are currently used for parking by beachgoers during the peak season. (Many of the dirt lots being used by beachgoers are not legal parking lots). Of the existing seasonal parking lots that are mainly used by beach-goers, about 1,850 spaces will be left for their use. These space are located south-east of the pier along Pacific Coast Highway. In addition to these existing lots the Downtown Specific Plan allows for parking to be constructed along the ocean side of PCH. This parking cannot be visible from the highway. With the drop in elevation from PCH to the beach it appears that it would be possible to construct two level parking structures north of the pier. Because of the seasonal nature of the parking demand generated by beachgoers, however, costs of providing parking structures that will only be used, at most, four months out of the year is not justifiable. For the same reasons, adding to the size of the proposal shared use garage in the downtown Core to serve the highly seasonal, and largely weekend beach demand is not practical. This is when a seasonal shuttle bus or tram service could be instrumental in connecting existing remote parking lots to the beach area. 5 Figure 11 depicts several potential existing parking lots, located within a large radius of the downtown, which might be considered for use as remote lots in conjunction with a shuttle service to meet beachgoers parking demands. Considering the failure of a = shuttle system which was implemented a few years ago, for the same purpose using the parking facilities of the Golden West College suggests that sites within a much smaller radius should be considered. In consultation with City staff, a closely situated group of existing parking and vacant lots were identified that present a viable alternative to building new parking facilities to serve a portion of the highly seasonal beach demand. As illustrated in Figure 11, all of these lots tire located near the Civic Center and consist of the following;: ® Civic Center 290 spaces ® Huntington Beach high School 626 spaces ® Sea Cliff Offiee Park 275 spaces TO' 1,185 Even though the remote parking program may not be needed for some years to come (i.e. existing surface lots within the downtown can continue to be used until they are actually built upon), in order to have a successful and permanent remote parking program in the future appropriate steps need to be taken by the City now to assure the permanent availability of the remote parking sites. Another parking supply source that can be utilized to meet the beach-seasonal demand during the weekends is the approximately 440 spaces that have been allocated to future office employees in the public parking structures. The remainder of the beach parking demand is expected to be met by parking provided by private entrepreneurs who would want to make an interim use of their vacant lots, as well as by the parking lots in the State Beaches of Huntington and Bolsa Chica along Pacific Coast Highway. The above-mentioned remote parldng locations suggest a shuttle route along Lake Street, as well as along Pacific Coast Highway which would connect all the remote parking lots to the City's Beach and to the downtown commercial core. The shuttle system is addressed in more detail in Chapter III. -30- WESTMINSTER HIGH SCHOOL/321 GOLDEN WEST COLLEGE/4600 HUNTINGTON CENTER/3000 EDINGER AVE WARNER AVE OCEAN VIEW ❑ HIGH SCHOOL/SBO FOUNTAIN VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL/1075 A HUNTINGTON CENTRAL El ,9 PARK/430 TALBERT AVE 1 ✓C ALONG BEACH BLVD 00 y PCHIEDINGER S8/700 NB/700 TIP 'I w Z GARFIELD AVE BOLSA CNICA STATE w BEACH/2500 O SEA CLIFF N U, OFFICE PARK 0: R� YORKTOWN AVE. Y ® J BOWLING ALLEY/175 / HUNTINGTON BE CHIN CIVIC m O HIGH SCHOOL152C .a CENTER/ a / ® GENTER1 SHOPPING } .�. 200 CENTER/950 CHURCH/335 y� ADAMS AVE SMITER H/ aulU `ww%5CH OLS/ X w 420 e� W EDISON HIGH ```�'I'•`�� �_ SCHOOL/350 STUDY AREA j ATLANTA OR /r HUNTINGTON CITY BEACH/IB o � "Jacific Ocean HUNTINGTON STATE BEACH/2500 TT�my�7yrofp�v HUNTINGTON BEACH PARKING,TRANSIT AND FINANCING STUDY FIGURE NO. POTENTIAL REMOTE PARKING Parsons Srinakerhoff LOCATIONS FOR BEACH USERS Quade&Douglas,Inc. ®RECOMMENDED SITES 1111 REMOTE LOT SHUTTLE ROUTE En&eers-ArCh11./ICG4'plR17 em 6`18?A-'g PACIFIC COAST HIG:iWAY SHUTTLE ROUTE. CHAPTER A NON-VEWCULAR TRAFFIC This chapter presents estimates of existing non-vehicular traffic (both pedestrian and bicycle) volumes and accident data; projections of future non-vehicular traffic volumes based upon future public parking structure locations and land use changes; analysis of grade separation alternatives; and recommendations for grade separations. The focus of the analysis is generally on the non-vehicular traffic which crosses Pacific Coast Highway, particularly within the downtown Core. Large volumes of pedestrians and bicyclists crossing PCH in the peak season conflict with its high vehicular volumes, often creating long delays for all types of traffic and sometimes resulting in accidents. Increasing pedestrian and bicyclist safety and improving vehicular flow on Pacific Coast Highway are the main goals of this analysis, along with providing better access to the pier, the beach and the future Seaport Village. EXISTING NON-VEHICULAR TRAFFIC Since this study was prepared in the off-peak season, conducting new counts of pedestrian and bicycle movements at the tune of the study was not considered to be useful. Available infor ation which was provided by the City was limited to pedestrian counts at two intersections plus accident data for the entire Study Area. Accident Data The California Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) reports were the ;vain source of historical accident data. Figure 12 depicts all the traffic accidents involving pedestrians or bicycles in the Study Area, which occurred from January 1982 through September 1984. During this time period (approximately three years) 16 traffic accidents involving bicycles, and 12 accidents involving pedestrians took place in the Study Area., resulting in 27 injuries and one fatality. The majority of these accidents happened in the Pacific Coast Highway corridor between 14th Street and Main Street. Pedestrian and Bicycle Volumes In the absence of any empirical data for bicycle volumes in the Study Area, or pedestrian volumes at Main Street and PCH, the pedestrian counts at Lake Street and Golden West Street crossing Coast Highway in conjunction with City staff estimates and professional judgment were used to estimate the magnitude of current pedestrian and bicycle volumes crossing PCH. According to a pedestrian count conducted at the intersection of .Lake Street and Pacific toast. Highway between 11:00 A.M. and 1:00 P.M. on the weekday of June 30, 1582, approximately 600 pedestrians cross PCH on an hourly basis. Assuming this number to be close to the daily peak hour figure, and a peak hour factor of 10%, about 6,000 pedestrian trips are estimated to cross PCH at this location on a typical summer weekday. Adding 10% for bicyclists and another 15% for the additio:,al people estimated to cross Pacific Coast Highway on weekends, results in an estimated 7,600 -3 2- .. «...: u ,:Y_l�'+.:KY ae;Yk"k„ .nR.a�.., x,w•.i ., y:. {. y_,..� .. w.�'+. 01 MaJ=ClJ.mol DO OJ 01 GJ:CO:GJ G�1 C4J CaJ ti GJ CJ cJ C�JJ CJ CJ o���c c��ca Dd C'J ryJ 1001M G JDIC'+ CJCaJL CJrJ0]CJ � C Cl���! i; \l'i' �� ���•� � J ��CJCJCrJmm0JMLJ0101C►DMG00111--l"i 15M R I juC� [J.-_�J 0]C�J�C�JIC��C�J;G�iC_�I► �:� �� s PEDESTRIAN FATAL ACCIDENT * PEDESTRIAN INJURY ACCIDENT e BICYCLE INJURY ACCIDENT '(Wf HUNTINGTON BEACH PARKING, TRANSIT, AND FINANCING STUDY Figure J�!�!Ili�rli'•• =�f��F�!fut Pedestrian and Epicycle Accidents 1 1 /1 /82 - 9/30/84 1113 pedestrian and bicyclist trips that cross Pacific Coast Highway at Lake Street on a typical.summer weekend day. Because of its proximity to the pier, the intersection of Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway is esthnHted to currently have 1.5% higher non-vehicular traffic volumes than bake Street, which means that on an average summer Saturday or Sunday approxi- mately 8,700 pedestrian and bicycle trips cross PCH at Main Street. Considering a somewhat lower number of non-vehicular crossings at Fifth Street, (the only other intersection where crosswalks are provided between Sixth and Lake Street) of around 7,500 trips per day results in a total estimate of approximately 24,000 pedestrian and bicyclist trips that cross Pacific Gonst highway on a typical summer weekend day in the downtown Core. The same assumptions, as used for hake Street, were used for another pedestrian count conducted at the intersection of Golden West Street and PCd on a summer weekday in 1982. Based on the peak hour non-vehicular traffic count of 210, it is estimated that approximately 2,650 pedestrian and bicyclist trips cross Pacific Coast Highway on an average sumrrar weekend day at Golden West Street. To verify these estimates an alternative estimation technique was used. With this alternative approach, the total number of daily beachgoers and the number of parking spaces used by there were used to estimate the number of non-vehicular crossings of Pacific Coast Highway. With this method a total of approximately 16,000 peak season weekend pedestrian and bicycle trips per day are estimated to currently cross Coast Highway at the crosswalks of the six intersections located west of Sixth Street (i.e. Golden West, Seventeenth, Fourteenth, Eleventh, Ninth and Eight). Assuming an equal distribution of the total crossings, about 2,650 crossings are estimated for each intersection. This number is consistent with the result at Golden 'Vest Street using the previous technique. With regard to the four locations with crosswalks east of the downtown Core, a total of approximately 12,000 non-vehicular crossings per weekend day are estimated. Finally, for the downtown Core section of Pacific Coast Highway (Sixth Street to Lake Street), it is estimated that there are about 21,400 daily non-vehicular crossings. Since this section of PCH has the highest concentration of non-vehicular crossings per intersection of all three sections, the analysis in this technical memorandum is focused on this section. Table 6 summarizes the calculations and the corresponding assump- tions for the downtown Core. As is indicated it is estimated that more than 65% (14,000) of the daily crossings are made by beachgoers who park in the downtown Core. The total number of non-vehicular crossings resulting from this estimating method is around 21,400 trips per day which, generally confirms the results of the first estimation approach. PROJECTIONS OF FUTURE NON-VEHICULAR TRAFFIC Methodology and Results Similar to the second technique used for estimating the existing number of crossings of PCH, different market segments were identified (shown in Table 7) to forecast the future number of pedestrian and bicycle trips expected to be made across Coast Highway in the three sections of the Study Area. Using this method a total of approximately 7,000 non-vehicular trips are estimated to be made across PCH in the future west of Sixth Street, and about 12,000 east of Lake Street. The number of x F Y ••3 4- TABLE 6 AM CITY OF HUNTING'rON BEACH ESTIMATION OF EXISTING WEEKEND DAILY NON-VEHICULAR VOLUMES CROSSING PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AT STH, MAIN AND LAKE & Beach goers parking in downtown core area: Sao Spaces used by beach goers in downtown core area 2,000 Vehicles (assuming 2.5 parking turnover) 7,000 Round trips (assu n ing 3.5 vehicle occupancy rate) 14,000 One-way Crossings (assuming 100% at study intersections) a Feach goers using downtown commercial facilities to shop, eat lunch, etc: 33,000 Daily beach goers 4,950 hound trips (assuming 15% cross PCH) 4,950 One-way crossings (assuming 50% at study intersections) a Beach goers using OCTD transit services:(1) 33,000 Daily beach goers 1,055 Hound trips (assuming 3.2% transit mode split) 105 One-way crossings (assuming 10% at study intersections) 0 Residents/hotel guests walking/bicycling to the beach: 33,000 Daily beach goers 3,895 Hound trips (assuming 11.8% walking and bicycling) 2,335 One-way crossings (assuming 30% at study intersections) Estimated Daily Total 21,390 Estimated Peak Hour Total 2,140 1 The principal OCTD stop is on the beach side of PCH, south of Lake Street. T -35- TABLE 7 ESTIMATION OF FUTURE WEEKEND DAILY NON-VEHICULAR VOLUMES USING AN UNDERCROSSING OR OVERCROSSING AT MAIN STREET ® Downtown/Seaport Village customers/visitors crossing PCH: 390,000 Square feet commercial land use 48,000 Square feet restaurant land use 6,825 Vehicle round trips for commercial (assuming 17.5 vehicle round trips per thousand square feet) 1,680 Vehicle round trips for restaurant (assuming 35 vehicle round trips per thousand square feet) 21,265 Person round trips (assuming 2.5 vehicle occupancy rate) 5,315 Person round trips across PCH (assuming 25% of total) 9,570 One-way crossings (assuming 90% will use grade sep^.ration) ® Residents/hotel guests walking/bicycling to the beach and Seaport Viliage: 3,945 Dwelling units in study area and east of downtown 9,865 Residents (assuming 2.5 persons/D.U.) 4,930 Beach goers (assuming 50% of total) 1,190 Dwelling units west of downtown 3,570 Residents (assuming 3 persons/D.U.) 1,785 Beach goers (assuming 50% of total) 1,650 Hotel rooms 4,125 Guests (assuming 2.5 persons/room) 3,300 Beach goers (assuming 80`;6 of total) 10,015 Total of round trips made by residents/guests 6,010 One-way crossings (assuming 3096 will use grade separation) Beach goers using OCTD transit services: 33,000 Daily beach goers 1,055 hound trips (assuming 3.2% transit mode split) 1,480 One-way crossings (assuming 70% will use grade separation) ® Beach goers using office building spaces in public parldng structures in downtown core: 440 Spaces used by beach goers ` 1,100 Vehicles (assuming 2.5 parldng turnover) 3,850 Round trips (assuming 3.5 , ',cic occupancy) 3,850 One-way crossings (assuming 50% will use grade separation) * Beach goers using downtown commercial facilities: 33,000 Daily beach goers 4,950 hound trips (assuming 15% will cross PCH) 4,950 One-way crossings (assuming 50% will use grade separation) Estimated Daily Total 25,860 Estimated Peak Hour Total 2,585 is z -3 6- crossings west of Sixth Street in the .future is expected to be half of what it is today mainly because of the assumption that beachgoers will be prohibited from curb parking in the residential area west of the downtown Core. Using this methodology a total of approximately 35,500 daily non-vehicular trips are estimated to be made across PCH using the crosswalks of Sixth, Main and Lake. Of this total about 50% (17,000) are expected to be made at Main Street. The introduction of a pedestrian grade separation at Main Street is estimated to attract some of the crossings that otherwise would be made at other intersections, increasing the total daily pedestrian and bicycle crossings at Main Street to approximately 25,900. 'file attraction of pedestrian crossings from other intersections to Nlain Street will mainly happen due to the convenience and safety provided by the grade separation. The shops and other amenities are also likely to attract people who would be willing to use the grade separation facility as part of their shopping and recreational experience in downtown Huntington Beach. An estimate of future non-vehicular traffic volumes crossing PCH at the proposed Main Street grade separation is summarized in Table 7. It is estimated that a total of about 25,900 pedestrian and bicycle crossings of Coast Highway will be made on an average weekend day using the grade separation at Main Street. About 15 percent (3,850) of these crossings it is estimated will be made by beachgoers using the office building spaces which will be vacant on weekends in the future public parking facilities in the downtown Core. Approximately 37 percent (9,570) of the trips using the under or overcrossing will consist of Downtown or Seaport Village customers or visitors traveling between these two attractions. Another large user group of a grade separation facility, would be bicyclists. It is estimated that nearby residents and hotel guests would make around 6,000 trips via the Main Street grade separation when walking and bicycling to the beach ?.id Seaport Village on a typical weekend day. Comparison to Other Locations In order to help conceptualize the volume of pedestrian and bicycle trips forecast to use the under or overcrossing, daily volumes at several other well known locations with high pedestrian traffic were reviewed. The Seaport Village in San Diego, with approxi- mately 110,000 square feet of commercial space (mainly restaurants), is estimated to attract around 24,000 daily one-way pedestrian trips on a typical summer weekend. The Santa Monica pier has about 60,000 square feet of leaseable area and three million annual visitors. This results in about 40,000 daily one-way pedestrian crossings on a typical weekend day during the summer. Finally, Disneyland with over ten million visitors per year is estimated to generate about 150,000 daily one-way pedestrian trips through the entrance/exits on a typical sumnier weekend day. ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTS Two different concepts for grade separating non-vehicular traffic from vehicle traffic are being considered for Main Street at PCH. The first one is an overcrossing which can range from a totally separate and simple structure to a wide bridge connecting upper levels of buildings on the two sides of Pacific Coast Highway. The second concept is an undercrossing which is considerably more expensive, but less visually disruptive, and more consistent with existing grade differences on the two sides of PCH. To avoid the negative experience associated with most narrow undererossings, the proposed Main Street undercrossing would be lined with small shops and would include a high level of illumination plus other public amenities, such as benches, -37- special paving and landscaping. These features would help provide not only a safe means of crossing PCH, but an environment that encourages people to think of the undercrossing as a natural continuation of the Main Street shopping experience. The capacity of the facility needed for accommodating the estimated future non- vehicular flows, at Level of Service "B", is about 14 feet for an overcrossing and about 20 feet for an undercrossing(1). These are based on a daily pedestrian volume of about 25,900 trips per day and a peak hour factor of 10%. An undercrossing would need to be six feet wider than an overcrossing with the same capacity because of the display window;' of the shops. People standing in front of these windows would impede the pedestrian traffic flow, thereby reducing the effective width of the crossing. Approximately 10% of the pedestrians would be bicyclists who would be walking their bicycles instead of riding them. An additional 10 to 12 feet of width should be provided if riding bicycles is permitted. To achieve the desired ambiance, it is recommended that a pedestrianway of 25 feet be provided with the overcrossing, and a 40-45 foot pedestrianway (plus shops) be provided with the undercrossing. Costs and Benefits According to the Proposed Circulation Concept Plan for Downtown Huntington Beach, prepared by Greer and Company, with build-out of the Downtown, Pacific Coast Highway will be carrying about 50,000 to 62,000 vehicles per day in the Study Area. This is an approximate doubling of vehicles per day compared to the existing volumes. The significant increases in non-vehicular volumes projected in the future combined with the additional motorist traffic Nill lead to increased conflicts between vehicular and non-vehicular traffic. Provision of a pedestrian grade separation facility at the intersection of -Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway could result in at least 2-3 less pedestrian and bicyclist involved accidents per year based upon recent accident history. Also eliminating the traffic signal at :Main Street and reducing existing non- vehicular traffic across PCH ir. the downtown Core would significantly reduce delays to motorist;. The amount of future motorist time savings due to these improvements would be approximately 28,000 vehicle hours per year. This estimate is based on the assumptions that the traffic signal located at the intersection of PCH and =if.th Street will be relocated to Sixth Street, that approximately 56,000 daily vehicle trips will be made on PCH between Sixth Street and Lake Street, and that the average daily speed between these two intersections will increase from 28 to 32 miles per hour due to the improvements. The costs of two cases, minimum and "desired" were estimateO for both concepts of grade separation. A minimum standard concrete overcrossing with a width of ten feet would cost about $250,000. An undercrossing meeting the minimum requirements of Caltrans, which would be a 14 foot-wide tunnel, would cost considerably more than an overcrossing. Costs for a 25 foot-wide overcrossing are estimated to approximate $800,000; whereas, a shop-lined undercrossing, the most expensive approach with a 45 foot pedestrian way, is estimated to cost approximately $3.6 million in 1985 dollars. Retail space underneath the highway would generate lease revenue and repay a portion of the construction costs. Various combinations of arrangements would need to be explored before final decisions are made as to the costs and benefits of having shops on one side only, on both sides, or simply using the (1) See the Appendix for Level of Service definitions. Source: Transportation Research Circular, Interim Materials on Highway Capa- city, Number 212, January 1980. -38- sides for directional and informational displays. This latter approach could be a viable method and would be considerably less expensive. An underpass leading directly from Main Street onto the pier would be used far more than an overpass where people would have to climb one or several sets of stairs to cross the highway. Because of the grade differences, beachgoers would also benefit from an undercrossing compared to an overcrossing. An underpass could also provide the means for a train to run from the Town Square onto the pier, as well as, providing an emergency vehicle connection. Care would need to be exercised, however, in the design of an undercrossing. It should be constructed in a straight line so as to allow clear visibility from one end to the other and should not be a long, narrow, tunnel-like configuration. The distance to be covered from the north side of Pacific Coast Highway to the south side is not . great and an opening could be provided for sunlight at the median. Because of the more direction connection with the pier and beach, and/or for other reasons the city may elect to build an underpass. In addition, depending upon the location selected for the proposed downtown transit center, consideration should be given to also constructing a pedestrian overcrossing or undercrossing at Lake Street and PCH. Recommended Crosswalks and Bike Routes Crosswalks for pedestrians and bicycles across PCH should be provided at signalized intersections in the Study Area. Based on the proposed block consolidation plan for A future development, traffic signals should only be provided at the intersections of Pacific Coast Highway and the cross streets located in between the super blocks, if sufficient traffic volumes warrant them. Pedestrian crossings of PCH should be discouraged at non-signalized intersections and at mid-blocks by physical median barri ers. Bike routes should be provided only along main traffic routes which lead to the proposed Main Street grade separation and signalized intersections at PCH. This would encourage bicyclist`: to cross Coast Highway using the grade separation and crosswalks at the signalized intersections. The following streets are recommended for bike routes: Golder: West, Seventeenth, Sixth and Lake. -39- CHAPTER III SHUTTLE ANALYSIS This Chapter presents a discussion of the purposes of a shuttle; descriptions of several other shuttle systems in the United States; analysis of the need for shuttle services in downtown Iuntington Beach; and analysis of shuttle operations, cost, and patronage. PURPOSE Operation of a shuttle system in downtown Huntington Bea-ci would have a two-fold purpose. First, it could transport people from remote parking areas to downtown Huntington Beach. As the downtown area develops, vacant lot and residential curbside parking areas, which presently provide a large supply of beach parking, are projecteJ to be increasingly devoted to new developments and parking areas to serve the new development. As a result, panting areas which are presently devoted to beach users in the summertime will become increasingly scarce, particularly on peak summer days. As noted in Technical Memorandum No. 1, existing surface parking lots within 1-1/2 miles of the beach could be utilized to accommodate overflow beach parking. A shuttle systein would move beachgoers between these parking lots and the beach. The second purpose of a downtown shuttle would be to improve access to the doWnLOwn shops and restaurants for people who are at the beach, as well as serve people who are staying at hotels along PCH. The availability of a convenient shuttle service along Pacific Coast Highway would enable beachgoers to leave their cars parked in the beach parking lot while they visit downtown for lunch, shopping, etc. REVIEW OF OTHER SHUTTLE SYSTEMS This section reviews the operation of several shuttle systems currently operating or planned elsewhere in the United States. These systems were reviewed in order to establish the conditions under which other successful shuttle systems operate, the types of vehicle technologies which have been applied to these conditions, the types of service operated, fare structure, ridership, and cost. Four shuttle systems which presently operate in beach communities were reviewed, although only t,vo of these primarily serve beach users. Additionally, three other shuttles in Los Angeles, San Diego and Orange Counties were reviewed for operations and cost data. A brief summary of each shuttle service is presented below, followed by a summary table (Table 8) of all seven services. The section concludes with a brief discussion of how this information can be applied to a shuttle system for downtown Huntington Beach. Laguna Beach Laguna Beach operates a shuttle during their summer festivals. 'rhe shuttle routes serve the three festivals, Pacific Coast Highway, and remote parking adjacent to n Laguna Canyon Road. The City operates a 15-passenger van from the remote festival parking area on Laguna Canyon Road to the Irvine Bowl, and two minibuses are operated along Pacific Coast Highway. During peak times, the "village trolley" - a -40 TABLE 8 COMPARISON OF SHUTTLE SYSTEMS IN SEVEN B.S.COMMUNITIES i Island Beach Laguna Beach Westwood V illage Santa Ana Capitol Beach Bus Shuttle Long Beach Festival Shuttle Shuttle Downtown Shuttle Shuttle Island Beach State Downtown Tram System Laguna Beach,CA. Los Angeles,CA Santa Ana,CA. Capitols,CA. Park,New Jersey Long Beach,CA. Route 3 Loops 1.9 ml Loop 5.6 mi Loop 1 mi Loop 12 mile one way i 1 mile one way I mi,1.5 mi,3 mi ; Number of Vehicles 3 or 4 3 6-Peak Hr 2 N/A 2 4-Non Peak Frequency of Buses 15-20 minutes 8 minutes 10 minute-Peak 15 minutes 30 minutes 20 minutes 12 minute-Non Peak Hours of Operation 10.00 A.M.-1,00 A.M.Daily 6:30 P.M.-1:30 A.M.Friday 10:00 A.M.-3:30 P.N. 9:30 A.M.-6:30 P.M.Daily 9:00 A.M.-6:00 P.N. 10:00 A.M.-5:00 P.N. 11:00 A.ml.-1:30 A.M. 11:30-1:30 Peak Hours i Weekends j Monday-Saturday Saturday Monday-Friday 12:30 P.M.-5:30 P.M. Sunday Time of Year 7 Weeks Year Round Program lasted from February I April 17-May 30 Weekends June 30-September 3 Year Round July and August through September 1984. i May 31-September 12 Daily p Finding Sources Part of LBMTL's Totai Budget 100%City of Los Angeles 75%OCTD First 5 years of operation Department of Environmental:, 100%Long Beach Transit I ` 25%City of Santa Ana 50%State TDA Demo Project Protection and New Jersey (City of Long Beach) (2596 included farebox) 50 5 City of Capitols Transit Currently,100%City of Capitols Ridership 1984-122,764/7 week period 51,000/FY 84 70/Day 55,000/1981 16,650/1983 1,300iDay 7,760/1934• ("Bad weather) Operator Laguna Beach Municipal Southern Californ;a R ,,id Orange County Transit Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit New Jersey Transit Long Beach Trensit Transit Lines Transit District District District Contracts out to I United Checkered Cab Operating Costs N/A $46/bus hour(Friday) $46/bus hour 532/bus hour(1982 costs) I$27,000 for 14 ! i70,000/year $7.58/bus mile Operating Days 1984 1 $45/bus hour $8.16/bus mile(Saturday) j I Fares 50c/ride 25t 25c Free I$1.00 Free $1.50 all day Vehicie'rype 1 Dodge van-14 passenger 3 distinctively colored 20 passenger vans or 1 2-40 passenger bus with painted Commuter Buses(used ( Tractor pulling open type tea: 2 mini-buses-25 passenger 30 feet buses distinctively painted large theme because of long distance) 35 passenger buses dependent on need z modified minibus - is also operated along Pacific Coast Highway. The service is mainly used by visitors of the suminer art festival. The service operates for seven weep in July and August from 10:00 a.,n. to 1:00 a.m. daily. The service's success is primarily duc to the lack of parking spaces in Laguna Beach. 'rhe system is part of the Laguna Beach Municipal 'Transit Lines system, and is funded by LBIVITL revenues. Westwood Village The Southern California Rapid Transit District operates the Westwood Village shuttle, which allows people to park at the Federal building parking lot for free, and pay twenty-five cents to ride a shuttle bus about 1/2 mile to the theaters, shops, and restaurants in Nestwood Village. The system was established in 1975 as one way of reducing weekend traffic congestion in Westwood Village. SCRTD operates 35-passenger buses every 8 minutes on the 1.9-mile loop. The service is provided on Friday evening, and Saturday afternoon and eve►ung. Santa Ana While different from the other shuttles described herein which are primarily recrea- tion trip oriented, the Santa Ana shuttle was a work and shopper trip oriented shuttle. 4vith the revitalization of downtown Santa Ana, interest was sparked in establishing a downtown shuttle service. The focus of the shuttle was to stimulate commercial activity in the downtown area. In February, 1984, a shuttle service was initiated, operating every 10-1.2 minutes on a 5.6-mile loop fro;n 10:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. The service was discontinued in September, 1984. The main reason for the lack of success was that parking is plentiful and cheap within the area served. In an effort to attract additional ridership, the route was changed several times during the eight-month period, and service was offered for free, but these changes were not successful in attracting the required ridership to justify continuation. Capitola The City of Capitola, near Santa Cruz, California, currently operates a beach shuttle. The service allows visitors to park near Route 1 for free, and ride a shuttle bus about 1/2 mile to Capitola Beach and Village. The purpose of the service is to help alleviate the congestion and parking problems near the beach and in the village. Beach users are encouraged to use the remote lot; for shoppers, two-hour parking is available in the village. Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District operates 40-passenger buses every 15 minutes along the route. One reason for the success of the service is that there is one primary entrance point to the beach for visitors, at Highway 1 and Bay Avenue. Near this exit the City has freeway signing informing visitors of the shuttle, and the parking facility is adjacent to the exit. f Island Beach State Park Island Beach State Park is a state beach in New Jersey. The beach is located on an island separated from the mainland by Barnget Bay. Parking at Island Beach is limited -4 2- and around 10:00 a.m. on weekends the parking lots are filled and automobiles cannot enter the park. The entrance to the beach is via a four-lane highway, which crosses the bay on a drawbridge. This highway becomes very congested due to the parking problem and operation of the drawbridge every 30 minutes.. The parking lot is located near one of the main freeway exits, and freeway signing is used to advertise the shuttle service. New Jersey Transit operates commuter buses on weekends every 30 minutes over the 12-mile one-way route between the beach and the remote parking area. Long Beach The City of Long Beach operates a downtown tram from Long Beach Plaza to Shoreline Village. The one-mile one-way route uses the downtown transit mall, and connects with the transit c^nter on Third Street. The service operates every 20 minutes from 10:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. six days per week, and from 12:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.rn. on Sunday. San Diego A private company, the Molley Trolley Corporation operates a shuttle bus service in the San Diego area. The buses travel in a figure eight starting at Seaport Village and going to Balboa Park at one end and Shelter Island at the other end, meeting at Seaport Village every hour. The trolley is used by both tourists and people who live in the immediate area of service. The route covers areas highly attractive to tourist visiting: Seaport Village, the uaslamp District, Balboa Park, Shelter Island, and the San Diego Zoo. The shuttle does riot operate as a park-n-ride with remote parking, however, it does provide transit for tourists in the area wishing to visit various attractions. This system has been successful for several reasons: the low fare ($0.25/per ride), the numerous attractions which exist along it's route in San Diego, and the novelty of riding a trolley looking bus. Analysis Review of the two beach shuttles in Capitola and Island Eeach indicate that their success rests largely upon the constrained parking conditions at the beaches. Simi- larly, the Laguna Beach and Westwood Village shuttles have been successful as a way of avoiding the traffic congestion and lack of parking in the areas of main attraction. Tile Santa Ana shuttle failed primarily because parking was too convenient and inexpensive. The Long Beach tram does not serve remote parking areas, but it is a free service, and it offers a convenient transfer for people riding transit into downtown Long Beach. The primary lesson from this research that can be applied to downtown Huntington Beach is that a shuttle system will be utilized if the parking supply is constrained at the destination location, or if people can avoid severe congestion by using the remote parking. Thus, in downtown Huntington Beach a remote parking shuttle should be implemented when the coin nercial plus beachgoing parking demand begins to exceed the downtown parking capacity. Additionally, a shuttle along the Pacific Coast Highway will not be needed until parking crnditions in downtown require alternatives to beach users driving downtown and then returning to ,l the beach. -43- NEED FOR A SHUTTLE The analysis of the need for a downtown Huntington Beach shuttle is presented in two parts. The first addresses the need for a r,. to parking shuttle to serve beachgoers on 12 typical weekend, and a typical weekday. The second addresses the need for Shuttle service along Pacific Coast Highway. (The calculations performed for all the analyses are included in the Appendix.) Demote Parking Shuttle Typical Summer Weekend. Data fro:n the City of Huntington Beach Community Services I)epart,nent tF(Tc3te that approximately 33,000 people visit the City beach on a typical weekend day. It is estimated that 85% of the beachgoers arrive in vehicles which will need to be parked, and the average vehicle occupancy is estimated to be 3.5 persons per vehicle. (These assumptions are based on data provided by the Community Services Department.) It has been estimated that each parking space in the beach parking lot serves an average of three parkers per day; other parking lots near the beach are assumed to have a turnover of 2.5 vehicles per day; and the turnover in re,note lots is assumed to be 1.5 vehicles per day. It is f -ther assumed that the maximum accumulation of parkers will be equivalent to 50% of the daily parkers. Since the tot-A beachgoing population on a typical weekend day is 33,000, about 28,000 people will arrive at the Huntington City Beach in vehic)es. Over the course of an entire day. approximately 8,000 vehicles will come to the beach. At maximum accuncilation 4,000 vehicles will need to be parked. The 1,850 spaces in the beach parking lots will accommodate a good portion of these. Also, the 440 spaces serving offices near the beach will be available on weekends to serve beachgoer& This leaves approximately 1,700 vehicles which will not be accommodated in the beach lot jr the office parking area. It is estimated that approximately 20 percent of the remaining 2,600 off-street and curbside public parking spaces downtown, or around 520 spaces, will be available for beacligoers on a typical weekend. This leaves an unmet demand for approximately 1,180 space,. It is proposed that this demand be served by remote parking in and around the Civic Center/Huntington Beach High School area with a shuttle bus connecting the remote parking to the beach. Figure 11 in Chapter I shows the location of all of the remote parking sites which were considered along with the specific remote parking sites and shuttle bus route which is being recommended. Typical Summer Weekday. On an average summer weekday, approximately 22,000 people visit the Huntington City Beach. Following the assumptions listed above, this means that almost 18,700 people arrive at the beach in about 5,350 vehicles on an average sum.ner weekday. At the peak accumulation of beach parking, 50% of these vehicles will need to be accommodated. Providing that they are not used by non-beach parkers, the 1,850 space beach parking lots will serve the bulk of the beach parking `S demand with the balat:_e on weekda-Is served by parking expected to be available at curbside and in the proposed public parking structures in downtown. (See Appendix Table I11-2). Therefore, there will he no need for remote parking and shuttle service on summer weekdays. While the need for ;emote parking will not be necessary for some time the eventual success of the remote parking/shuttle system will depend to a large extent on an effective public information/marketing program which makes beachgoers aware of the saturated parking conditions expected at the beach and of the availability of the -44- remote parking/shuttle bus option. This program should include ,nedia. announcements as well as signing on major beach routes such as Beach Boulevard on weekends. Shuttle Service Along Pacific Coast Highway The primary reasons for providing shuttle service along Pacific Coast Highway would be (1) to increase the convenience for beach users to travel to the downtown area without using their cars; and (2) to serve shopping, restaurant, and beach trips by guests at the hotels along PCH. ourf) currently operates a bus route along Pacific Coast highway, but this route has a half-hour headway, which is not convenient for people traveling downtown on shopping or lunch trips. Since most reach users do not include separate shopping or lunch trips as part of their trip to the beach, such trips are not anticipated to generate high demand for a shuttle to downtown. However, since parking is expected to be limited in the beach lots and the downtown area, a convenient shuttle service could attract beach users and hotel guests who do not wish to move their cars for short trips. On the basis of demand, this service does not appear to be needed. However, in the interest of increasing patronage of downtown shops and restaurants, it may be desirable to operate such a service when beach and downtown parking demands consistently reach the available capacity. The PCH shuttle could also help spread the use of the beaches along the coast by enabling beachgoers to park in any of the State, City or other lots and use the shuttle to reach their destination. Since such a service along Pacific Coast Highway would primarily benefit the commercial and restaurant developments in downtown Huntington Beach and hotels along PCH, the City may consider having the downtown businesses and hotel owners set up and fund this service. SHuTPLE OPERATIONS Presentation of the analysis of remote parking shuttle operations is divided into three parts. First, a discussion of the routes and vehicle types is presented. Second, the operating requirements for weekend service are discussed. Lastly, the requirements for shuttle service along Pacific Coast Highway are presented. Shuttle Routes and Technology As indicated in Figure 11 in Chapter 1, the potential remote parking lots are located in the Huntington Beach Civic Center area. To connect these lots with the beach area in the most efficient fashion, the route proposed for the remote shuttle service would utilize Lake Street. This route has a round trip mileage of about 3 miles, and assuming an average travel speed of 15 miles par hour, a round trip would take approximately 15 minutes including time to load and unload passengers. Three types of vehicle technologies were considered for the remote parking shuttle. First is the small, open-air vehicle which is typically associated with a "tram". This is the type of shuttle vehicle which is operated in downtown Long, Beach. The primary advantages associated with this type of vehicle are: they would be ,nore compatible with a beach environment than standard buses, and would provide a "novelty" type of riding experience for the passenger; if additional capacity is required, trailers can be added; the capital cost is relatively low compared to standard size buses or a rail installation; passenger access and egress is relatively convenient, although this may be more difficult for those carrying substantial amounts of beach equipment; routings can be quite flexible, if the vehicles are able to operate on city streets; implementation, of the system can be phased, adding vehicles as demand increases. The main disadvan- x tage associated with this technology is the safety factor. Serious liability problems could be created for the City and/or operator by the fact that passengers could get on and off the vehicle at undesignated points, and these vehicles are unsafe if involved in a collision. Also, when trailers are added for additional capacity, the tram becomes more difficult to •naneuver in traffic. For these reAsons open trams are not generally permitted to operate on city streets, and would require a separate right-of-way. Conventional buses have the advantage of being available in various sizes. They can be built or decorated to create a more "fun" atmosphere than a standard transit coach, if desired; since they are completely enclosed, they are much safer than open-air vehicles; routing can be flexible, and implementation can be phased as demand warrants. One of the main advantages associated with buses is that a significant capital investment may be avoided by using school buses or transit buses which are already available. The main disadvantages associated with buses are that they do not create a unique riding experience unless modified, and access and egress are not as easy as with open-air vehicles. Since the Pacific Electric Railroad right-of-way adjacent to Lake Street could be converted to use for a trolley system, the 2'ternative of a rail trolley shuttle was considered. The primary advantage of a rail trolley is the high passenger capacity that can be achieved with a lower operating cost than a bus system. The disadvantage of such a system is the extremely high capital investment which would be required to i,egin operation of such a system. Because the remote parking shuttle would be operated on Su17 :ner weekends only, a rail trolley system is not justified for this application. Since the remote shuttle service will be operated only on surnmer weekends, it is recommended that existing transit vehicles be utilized to provide the service. Several options are available. The City of Huntington Beach could use school buses, which are not in-use on weekends, and they can operate the shuttle service themselves. Alternatively, the City could contract with OCTD or a private shuttle operator to operate this service. Since OCTD's peak demand times occur during the week, vehicles in their regular bus fleet would be readily available for weekend or holiday service. OCTD has an available supply of vehicles, drivers, and servicing facilities, and would be able to adopt to the uncertain and fluctuating needs of peak beach conditions. The costs for the added service hours, however, would need to be incorporated into the District's annual budget. The route of a potential Pacific Coast Highway Shuttle is also shown in Figure It. It could operate between Bolsa Chica State Beach and Huntington State Beach with routing off of PCH to serve the hotels south of downtown. A shuttle bus operating along Pacific Coast Highway fro-n Bolsa Chica State Beach to Huntington State Beach would have a round trip mileage of 12.5 miles. Assuming an average operating speed of 15 miles per hour, a round trip would take 50 minutes. For the Pacific Cost Highway shuttle, a "fun" riding experience would add to the attractiveness of the shuttle. A fully enclosed minibus, modified to portray a "beach" theme, would probably be the safest and most cffective technology to serve this route. Consideration should be given to using the oil access road on the beach side of PCH, north of the pier. This would allow the shuttle to operate free of PCH congestion and enable passengers traveling northbound to alight without having to cross PCH. (The oil access road does not continue south of the pier). } -46- Summer Weekend Operation If the 1,185 remote parking spaces average it turnover of 1.5 vehicles per day on a peak weekend day, the shuttle between the remote parking and the beach would carry approximately 6,220 round trips during the day. Assuming that 15% of these would be carried in the dominant direction during the peak hour, five standard buses would have to be operated during the peak hours of the day. Two buses would be operated during off-peak hours. Assuming a cost of $50.00 per bus hour, this service would cost about $1,700 per day; if it were operated 35 days a year, the annual operating cost would be about $60,000. In order to cover the daily operating cost, maintenance and staffing of the remote lots for security purposes, plus advertising and signing, a daily parking fee of approximately $1.50 to $1.75 would need to be charged. This would allow for a break even operation at 70')b occupancy of the lot. Pacific Coast Highway Shuttle A total of four buses :would be required to operate this service with a 15 minute headway. During peak hours of the day for beach users, from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., 15 minutes is the maximum headway recommend for effective shuttle operations along Pacific Corist Highway. From 9:00 a.m, to 10:00 a.m., and again from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., 20-minute headways would be appropriate. A total fleet of five buses would be required for this service, including one spare. It is estimated that these modified buses would cost approximately $50,000 each in 1985 dollars, .so the capital cost for the shuttle fleet would be approximately $250,000. This shuttle, like the shuttle in downtown Long Beach, could probably be operated with nonunion personnel. In this case, an operating cost of $30.00 per bus hour of operation can be assumed. If this service were to be operated daily from Memorial Day weekend through the weekend after Labor Day, the annual operating cost would be approxi- mately $113,000, exclusive of debt service or lease payments for acquisition of the buses. The patronage data from the Long Beach Downtown tra;n, which is free, indicate that approximately 75 passengers board that shuttle per vehicle hour of operation. A similar level of utilization could be expected for a shuttle along PCH if no fare were imposed. If the Huntington Beach PCH shuttle charged a twenty-five cent fare per passenger, a somewhat lower boarding figure should be assumed. Assuming a $0.25 fare it is estimated that fifty passengers would board this service per vehicle 1-.our of operation. The shuttle would therefore attract an average of 1,650 daily boardings with a $0.25 fare, and 2,475 passengers without a fare. The farebox revenue with the $0.25 fare could cover approximately 40% of the shuttle's operating cost. The annual operating deficit would be approximately $68,000 if a fare is imposed and around $113,000 if it is free. This would be in addition to any debt service or lease payments for the buses estimated at another $25-50,000 per year. The PCH shuttle, if it is judged by the downtown businesses and hotel owners along PCH to be worth it, could < be subsidized by the business interests who benefit from the system. -47- CHAPTER IV DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CENTER SITE LOCATION ANALYSIS This chapter presents: M a discussion of the purpose of this study; (2) a brief description of the Huntington Beach Transportation Center Location Study conducted by Parsons Brinckerhoff in 1979; (3) an evaluation of candidate sites; and (4) an analysis of the pros, cons, and design features of alternative sites. PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND The California Department of Transportation is planning to convert the existing parking lanes on PCH to moving traffic lanes. Implementation of this plan will eliminate the existing OCTD layover area located between Lake Street and Huntington Avenue. The purpose of the proposed downtown transit center is to replace the current on-street layover/passenger facility on PCH and provide a facility where the existing OCTD routes can come together to benefit passenger service and improve operational efficiency. It is also desired that connecting service to-and-from John Wayne Airport be provided at the transit center. In 1979 Parsons Brinckerhoff conducted a location study for a transit center in Huntington Beach. A two-center scheme was recommended; one in the downtown at Pacific Coast Highway and Lake Street, And one in the Golden West/Huntington. Center area. The Golden West/Huntington Center Transportation Facility is scheduled to be implemented next year. The purpose of the current transit center location analysis is to reassess alternative sites in the downtown area for an off-street facility taking into account changes which have occurred since the 1979 study. The evaluation focuses on the five general locations illustrated in Figure 13, which were jointly selected by the Consultant, City staff and OCTD. The transit center in Downtown Huntington Beach would mainly be used to serve the terminal/layover activities of OCTD bus lines operating in the area, as a terminal for a private carrier serving John Wayne Airport, and as a focal point for downtown and beach-related transit travel. Other functions could also be provided by the transit center, such as a terminal for the proposed remote parking shuttle, a transfer point between OCTll lines, and a focal point for transit travel related to local residential/commercial activities. The transit center would comprise 12-14 bus bays plus waiting area(s) for bus passengers protected from wind driven rain and shaded fro.n the summer sun, as well as a travel agency and other transportation related retail, taxi services, and a helipad. A small amount of parking for employees and visitors, on the order of 20 to 25 spaces would also need to be provided. EVALUATION OF CANDIDATE LOCATIONS The following criteria were used to assess the merits and constraints of the five candidate locations depicted in Figure 13: Accessibility to beach User safety and security Compatibility with adjacent land uses -48- 37 ✓i/ 29 ..;. 80 IT "l ,••° o a GE I AVE �°'' '�•• ��, 25 Fn A29 76W (n N9ui3O ;! OLIVE AVE •. �. '• 37 '•' :! 25 ••. A X 29 �. s z a U e! ���•. a w •! ,. u ti cn WALNUT AVE •: WALNUT AVE ;! ': 37 25 3 37 29 25 r—T-- ::! 1 . .. :I ..r- ... • • .....s....s.o.s.••• .... ...� . .......•a.....e. ..-.. .e.....00as.a...........s..•aove.•...e...s.e.so.. .............................. • PACIFIC COAST Hl�= OCEAN AVE. 1 /� j I OC ••••• Route I Long Beach/San Clemente •• Route 25 Pullerton Figure 13 —-— Route 29 Brea Route 37 La Habra-- CANDIDATE TRANSIT CENTER LOC IONS — Route 76 Irvine Route 8U Snnln Ann R� Traffic impacts Impacts on transit operations Lase of implementation Capital. and operating costs Accessibility to downtown commercial core Joint development opportunities Transfer convenience Visual impacts Transit visibility Expansion potential Based on these criteria the two sites located near the intersection of Walnut Avenue and Third Street (Sites number 1 and 2), as well as the site on the west side of Lake Street at Walnut Avenue (Site No. 5) were dropped from further consideration in the initial phase of the analysis. Sites 1 and 2 would be less convenient for beachgoers than the other sites, and would encourage beachgoers in bathing suits, etc., to pass through the proposed hotel and commercial complex when traveling to-and-from the beach. Also, the intensity of development on the blocks of these two sites leaves very little space for a transit center, not even considering extra space for potential expansion. The proposed consolidation of existing blocks and closure of many streets in the downtown core, combined with traffic generated by additional development, will place greater emphasis on the remaining streets such as Walnut Avenue and Third Street for serving vehicular traffic. Rerouting OCTI) bus lines on these secondary streets would have a significant adverse impact on traffic flow, as well as on transit operations. Finally, the possible joint development of the transit center with a parking structure on these sites, the construction of which will in turn be dependent on other developments, could impede implementation of the transit center project. Site 5, which would be formed between the old and new right-of-way of Walnut Avenue once Walnut is realigned, has a number of locational :merits. However, because of a major sewer line which runs under the existing street which would be too costly to relocate, the parcel at approximately 0.6 acres would be too small for a transit center. Approximately 1.5 acres are needed for the proposed center. The other quadrants of the Lake/Walnut intersections are still valid sites for a transit center. These locations are represented by location 3 in the analysis. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE SITES After the initial analysis and several ;meetings with City and OCTD staff, the general locations of Lake and Walnut (represented by Site 3), and along and on the beachside of Pacific Coast Highway (Site 4) were jointly selected by the Consultant, OCTD, and City staff as the most viable alternatives. Subsequently these two locations were analyzed in more depth taking into consideration the design features of alternative layouts for each sita. (See Figures 14 and 15). A transit center in the vicinity of Lake Street and Walnut Avenue would be constructed in conjunction with a parking structure above it. Twelve shallow saw-toothed bus berths would be provided focused on a passenger waiting island with direct escalator and stair access to an upper level crossing at PCH. It is envisioned that the garage and upper level connection would # dually serve a hotel/com•nercial development. The plan shown in Figure 14 would apply to a transit center in either tine northwest or northeast quadrant of the intersection as well. 4Y -50- evOle l a II a 4 - U) (D �( Parking Structure ( At�ove Transit &Escalator ` Center S taws Note:This general layout could apply to any of the four quadrants at this i intersection. I (Ocea�nA enue) Pacific Coast Highway Pedestrian Overcrossing to Beach Figure 14 ALTERNATIVE TRANSIT CENTER LOCATION-SITE -51- I � o Spo — i Add bus turnouts and relocate j N Pacific Coast Highway ( Ocean Avenue ) sidewalk,railing,e[c c o x —_ I c C= Rusting City Lot I Rea:ove 14 parking spaces and add ' tree wells to offset loos of landscaping. Remainder of parking lot remains unchanged. Figure 15 a ALTERNATIVE TRANSIT CENTER LOCA i ION-#4 Site 4 is the present UC;TD principal bus layover/passenger waiting area serving the Gity Beach. With this scheme the existing bus stopping area would becorne an automobile travel lane so that the bus stop/passenger waiting area would have to be reconstructed lQ to iZ feet closer to the bench. This would result in the loss of some landsenping; along the embankment tit the street side of the prtrking lot. To offset the visual irnpcict of the reduced landscaping;, tree wells housing; palms rind other, vegetation are proposed at selected locations along the last parking bity. Approxi- mately 14 parking spaces would be lost to snake way for tree wells. 'fable 9 summarizes the relative merits and constraints of these two transit center locations. As can be seen, either of these would make a good transit center site. Using Site 3, on Lake Street for the transit center would be more favorable as far as traffic and transit operation impacts are concerned. it would also be more convenient for passengers transferring between routes, and for passengers destined to downtown. Site 4 has the advantage of having direct access to the beach, which is the destination of the majority of transit passengers today, at least during the summer months. This group of beachgoers, mostly youngsters, comprise a large part of the current jay- walkers of Pacific Coast Highway. Even with the proposed pedestrian overcrossing including stairs and escalators with the Lake Street site, many of the teenage bus riders would still likely cross PCH at-grade. This would not be a problem with Site 4 where the bus stops would be on the beach side of PCH. Since implementation of the transit center at Site 4 could be independent of any development project it could be done when PCH is improved without significant iinpact to the surrounding environ,nent and without the need of coordinating it with other developments. It would also be much less costly to construct as well its maintain and operate compared to the hake Street si Le; and it would riot take away a developable building site. As downtown is redeveloped there will be a significant shift in the destination pattern of bus passengers with an increased percentage of passengers oriented to the downtown Core. Since the beach demand is so seasonal, there is logic to locating the transit center on the inland side of PCH in the long term, where it can better serve downtown destined riders. The recommendation is to construct an interim transit center at Site 4, until a co-developer is ready to build a combined parldng garage/ permanent transit center in the vicinity of Lake Street and Walnut Avenue. -53- TABLE 9 DOWNTOWN HUN'TINGTON BEACH TRANSIT CENTER EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE SITES Site 3 Site 4 Criterion bike and Wrl.iut [Ptacliside of PM[ Accessibility to (leach - About 500 feel away froin ++ Direct beach access. heach with benchgorrs having to cross PCH at grade or use overcrossing. User safety and - Majority of users(beacligoers) + No safety problems security will likely cross PCH at anticipated. grade even if overcrossing is provided. Compatibility with + Could be arranged with + Adjacent parking lot has to adjacent land use future development. be modified,but transit center is compatible with adjacent beach parking lot. Traffic impacts + Will eliminate some bus o Insignificant change to traf from PCH and existing volumes. llunu.,gton Avenue. - Some traffic friction with autos on PCH. Impacts on transit ++ Will eliminate need for loop o No significant change to operations using PCH and Huntington existing operations. Avenue at significant bus run time savings. iiase of implementation — Difficulty of coordinating +I- Independent of other liming with the construe- projects. tion of parking structure and ether developments. Capital and operating - At least twice the cost ++ At most half the cost of costs of Site 4. Site 3. Accessiblity to + Visitors have to cross Lake — Visitors have to cross PCH commercial core Street,but directly adjacent and walk about 500 feet to core. more. Joint development ++• Recommended with future o None. But does not take opportunities parking structure. away developable land. Transfer Convenience + Relatively convenient due - Relatively inconvenient to compact layout. because of linear deign. Visual impact o Insignificant. — Significuntly adverse. Transit visibility o Relatively less visible. + Relatively more visible. Expansion potential - Very limited. + Could be expanded in a linear fits hi on. ++=very positive attribute += positive attribute o= neutral -= negative attribute —= very negative attribute -5 4- ... CHAPTER V PARKING FACILITIES FINANCING STRATEGIES s This Chapter analyzes the financial implications of installing four shared parking structures in downtown Huntington Beach, and a pedestrian overpass or underpass at Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway. The majority of the chapter addresses the parking structures. Financing of the pedestrian grade separation facility is taken up in the final section. l,ach of the four garages proposed for construction within the core area of downtown Huntington (Beach will contain approximately 300 parking spaces. These spaces will be allocated to short-term use (two hours or less) and long-term use (more than two hours), according to parking needs determined in Chapter 1. Costs associated with the construction and operation of the new facilities will include land acquisition, construction, installation of operating hardware such as gates, signs, and parking meters, and from daily maintenance, utility costs, and enforcement personnel salaries. Potential revenue to be derived from operation of the garages can include meter proceeds, monthly permit sales, and rental from retail space to be constructed along the street frontage at ground level of each garage. it is expected that revenue frorn monthly permit saps and retail space leasing will tend to remain fairly constant throughout the year, although increasing over time to a relatively stable plateau when demand for space roughly equals supply. Short-term parking space revenue is expected to be more seasonal in nature, peaking during the summer months with the peal: use periods for restaurants, small retail establishments and beach use. Weekend and evening use of the short-term garage space is also expected to be somewhat greater than that of weekdays. COST ESTIMATES lstimated construction costs, listed in Table 10, are itemized for garages built on the two larger and two smaller lots identified in Figure 10 in Chapter 1. Yearly operating cost estimates are based on average figures for garages as identified in a 1932 nationwide study, updated to 1985 prices. Because the garages could be operated with long-and short-term meters and monthly permits, personnel costs would be minimal, reflecting rounds made by enforcement personnel to chock meters and permit3. Yearly operating costs are estimated to be approximately $42,000 per year for each 300-space garage, or $14,000 for each surface lot. Construction of each facility would cost approximately $7,045 per space, including tilt costs for design, engineering, construction, and retail space (unfinished). This reflects a fairly standard garage,--not "bare bones" yet not "deluxe". Total costs including land acquisition and meters would range between $2.8 million and $3.0 million (in 1985 dollars) depending on the size of the parcel required. Surface lot construction is estimated at $1,000 per space plus meter costs at approximately $250 per meter. -55- TA13LE 10 ESTIMATED PARKING FACILITIES COSTS Assumptions E Land Acquisition(1) $600,000 to $ 750,000 per site Garage Construction: 6,000 /parking space : 25 /square feet retail space (unfinish,ryd) Lot Construction: $ 1.,000 /space Parking Meters: $ 250 cacti Operations: $ 140 /space/year(2) j r Total Cost Per Garage(3): $ 2.8 million to $ 3.0 million t ($9,300 to $10,000 per space) Annual Operating Costs: $ 42,000 !year (1) Does not include relocation costs. (2) includes maintenance, utilities, and enforcement. f (3) 300-space garage, in 11.935 dollars. z -5 6- IMPLEMENTATION SCENA171OS Two typical srenarios for implementing the four parking structures have been developed to assess the financial costs of constructing these new facilities over a 15- year planning horizon. Both scenarios call for staged construction at roughly five-year increments, but differ in the type of facility built during the early years of the constru.ction program. Under the first scenario, all of the land needed for the four future parking garages would be purchased during the first five years of the program, but surface parking lots rather t f-.m garages would be constructed kintil the fifth through the ninth years. At that time, two of the garages would be constructed, followed by two more in the 11 t-, 15 year time frame. In this way, land is secured in advance of development which can be expected to cruse rapid escalation of land values. The surface lots would then be fitted with parking meters to produce some parking revenue, which car then be applied to future garage operating cost,;. The meters themselves can also be removed at time of garage construction and reinstalled in the new garages. Under, the second scenario, land would be acquired only as each garage was developed, with one garage constructed during the first five years of tile program, followed by another garage during the sixth through the tenth year and by the two ;emaining garages during the last five-year period. Land would he purchased as required at future escalated prices, but there would be no need to build interim parking lots prior to garage construction. Parking development in Scenario 2, when each f•icility is constructed when needed rather than first constructing parking lots as interim facilities, would be significantly more expensive than Scenario 1, in w:iich surface lots are built 5efore the garages are constructed (see Tables It and 12). The total difference in cost, escalated at four percent per year for construction costs; and six percent per vear for the first 5 years, ten percent per year thereafter for land costs, is close to 1.4 m; 'ion. Total costs would be similar if land costs never escalated at more than six percent. The ?rimary advantage of the first scenario is that Land would be acquired early in the process, thus reducing the chance that desirable pui eels of land for the new garages would be purchased and developed before the garage is needed and thus requiring another potentially less suitable location to be fou-ad for the facility. It is therefore recommended that Scenario 1 be the preferred implementation strategy. ALYT'ERNAiWE CAPITAL FUNDING APPROACHES Current City Policy a,.d Procedures F The City of Huntington Bench currently divides ;esponsibility for parking manage vent and pls:ining between severed City departments. The Community Services Depart nen_ provides and maintains the 1,440 parking meters located near beach recreation ar:,as and the 2,400 space parking facility utilized primarily by beach visitors. The Public Works Department may provide engineering design services in conjunction with new parking facilities and associated circulation modifications, as well as providing maintenance and signing for parking areas. A Parking Authority, established in 1967, retains the authority to issue bonds for the acquisition and development of parking lots and garages within the City. The City h s also recently Pstablished a Redevelopment Agency authorized to use tax increment financing (TII') for the development of public -57- Y_.- d TABLE 11 ESTIMATED PARKING FACILITY STAGING PROGRAM COSTS(1) Scenario 1 -Surface Lots First, Then Parking Structures Annual Construction(2) Total Capital Operating Year Costs Land Costs Costs Costs 1 - - - - 2 - - - 3 $ 540,800 $3,033,700 $ 3,574,500 $ 15,100 4 - - - 5 - - - 6 - - - - 7 - - - 8 - - - - 9 $6,O16,300 - $ 6,016,300 $119,300 - 11 - - - - 12 - - - 13 $7,038,200 - $ 7,038,200 ti,279,700 lr - - - - h 15 TOTAL $16,629,000 (1) Figures reflect inflation at four percent per year for construction; and six percent per year for first five years, 10 percent per year thereafter for land. (2) Assumes four surface lots built in year 3; two lots replaced by structures in year 9; and the remaining two lots replaced by structures in ye`r 13. It should be noted that this staging is approximate and could be accelerated if development occurs at a more rapid rate than assumed. -58- i TABLE 12 ESTIMATED PARKING FACILITY STAGING PROGRAM COSTS(1) Scenario 2 - Parking St;uctures Built From Outset Construction(2) Total Capital Operating Year Costs Land Costs Costs Costs 1 - - - - 2 - - - - 3 $2,286,000 $ 758,400 $ 3,044,400 $45,400 4 - - - - 5 - - - - 6 - - - 7 - - - - 8 - - - - 9 $3,008,100 $1,247,700 $ 4,255,800 $119,300 10 - - - - 11 - - - - 12 - - - - 13 $7,038,200 $3,653,400 $10,691,600 $279,700 14 - - - - 15 - - - TOTAL $17,991,800 (1) Figures reflect ii.flation at four percent per year for construction; and six percent per year for first five years, 10 percent per year thereafter for land. (2) Assumes one structure built-in year 3; second structure built in year 9; and third and fourth structures built in Year U. It should be noted that this staging is approximate and could be accelerated if development occurs at a more rapid rate than assumed. -59- projects within the redevelopment area. Parking may be included as a potential use for these funds at some future time. City parking emphasis in recent years has been on the ,maintenance of existing facilities as opposed to construction or expansion of ntw facilities. The 1984-85 Capital Improvements budget calls fur a minimal expenditure of $50,000 for capital improvements to parking facilities :.hrougli 1989. Within the Community Services Division, a small budget increase is proposed for parking meter maintenance only. The C,ublic Works Department has an approved budget of $23 million through 1989 for street improvement projects, but does not include funding for any parking-related projects. Alternative Funding Approaches A number of potential funding sources are available for City use in finap•2ing recom- mended new projects, s'+hough the reliability of each may vary over time. Factors affecting funding availability include pre-emptive use for other approved projects, loss of funds from various federal programs, variability in revenues used to offset costs, and changes in priorities as identified by the City itself. Table 13 lists potential funding sources identified as at least potentially usable for parking facility and land acquisition financing evtiivated against five :measures,-- revenue potential, fiscal impact, equity, administrative/legal requirements, and imple- mentation feasibility. Potential financing techniques analyzed include: ® In-lieu parking fees ® Retail space leasing ® General Fund/Capital Improvement Fund a Federal assistance programs ® T)ix increment financing ® Parking assessment district ® User fee revenue bonds In-Lieu Fees. Except in those ir., tances where the Specific Plan requi!^es the developer to provide on-site parking, in-lieu parking fees can be used in conjunction with existing zoning requirements, either as a mandatory means of meeting the projects entire parking requirements or as an option to providing all of the develop.nents parking on- site. Under the in-lieu provision, if the developer chooses not to provide on-site parking at levels meeting City code, or is required to participate in a shared facility, then an "in-lieu" fee is paid to the City for the City to supply off-site parking in garages or lots. The in-lieu fee can be calculated to include annual operating costs over a certain number of years, or regular additional paymerts can be required, or the developer is required to only pay for capital construction costs rather than for all on- Lroin, costs that would otherwise be incurred. User fees are typically used to cover pie annual operating costs with the latter method. With this program all new developers of retail and office space in the downtown Core would be required to contribute sole.!; to the shared parking facilities, with no on-site parking allowed. With the in-lieu program, the City would provide surface parking through allocations from the general fund, while accumulating in-lieu payments from developers as projects were approved. After sufficient funding was accumulated for a single structure, that structure would be constructed. In lieu fees would continue to be accumulated until a second structure could be implemente l; this process would continue until downtown redevelopment was essentially complete. -50- . .• .. mid.. y N+ TABLE 13 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE CAPITAL FINANCING TECHNI: UES Measure Revenue Fiscal _ Administrative/ Implementation Techni Potential_ Impact(2) E�;aity_ Legal Requirements(4) Feasibility(a) t In-Lieu Fees Moderate None Moderate Moderate Moderate to Good Retail Space Leasing(6) Poor None High Low Higt (genera' l'und/CIF Fund Excellent Significant Low Moderate Lc w Tax Increment Fund Limited :Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Assessmtint District Moderate None Moderate High Low User Fee Revenue Bonds wood None High Moderate Fligh Total funds avata:ole in funding source. (2)1mpact on o_her City capital improve.nent projects. (3)Degree to which those who benefit from the garages would constribute directly. (4),inount of effort required to administer on an on-going basis. Likely acceptability of using this financing method. tl'�Applied directly to capital needs. For use in debt financing, see "Facility Revenue Bonds." Retail Space Lease Revenue. The four parking structures recommended in the parking program each provide for the incorporation of retail space on the ground level. The rental of this retail space will provide a relatively stable income to the City that also can be applied to debt service. Although the incorporation of retail space into garage design in itself adds tc construction costs and reduces parking space availability, these costs are normally recouped rather quickly, leaving excess revenue to be applied to the amortization of capital costs. Although it will not affect the small amount of retail proposed here, it should be noted that the federal tax code requires that not more than 25 percent of the debt service for any tax exempt financing be provided by a private user. General Fund. General fund or capital improvement funds can also provide an excellent source of funding, but are commonly reserved for many other capital and operating needG, reducing the availability for large capital projects such as major parking facilities. General fund mechanisms, by their nature, also affect every population group rather than just those benefittir,.; from use of the parking facilities. As such, general funds can be considered for some portion of the overall financing scheme, but should be coupled with mechanisms such as user fees that target the specific user groups, The general fund may also be used as an interim financing measure, to be paid back through one of the other permanent funding mechanisms. Federal Funds. The City of Huntington Beach currently receives funds from the federal government through the Community Develop;::ent Block Grant (CDBG) program and federal revenue sharing, though continuation of both programs is now in doubt. Funds from both programs can be applied to a wide variety of City projects, so that parking could be expected to obtain only a small percentage of the total funds available. Although parking would be an appropriate use for both programs current indications are that these and other similar federal programs are likely to be eliminated, or at least significantly reduced in the near future. Tax Increment Fund. The Redevelopment Agency has the authority to establish a property tax increment fund to recycle property tax revenue obtained over the pi-esent baseline level into public benefit projects. Although this source has been used successfully in other cities to finance parking facilities through revenue b.mds, it is expected that in Huntington Beach the fund could be easily over-committed with projects in the future, as well -is under-funded in the next several years until development begins to gain momentun in the downtown area. In light of the newness of the fund and its potential for over-allocation, tax increment financing is rot seen as a major source of capital financing for the parking facilities, at least in the early years. Assessment District. _4, parking assessment district could be used to allocate benefit from the provision of new parking facilities to each property owner within the surrounding assessment district. As with user fees, this method directly taps the major recipients of the public good derived from the; facilities, but does not acknowledge that some benefit is accorded to the entire population as well, If implemented early in the park:ag facility planning horizon, there would also be insufficient developed property to support an assessment district capable of funding parking facilities. Also since the downtown core is expected to be totally redeveloped, an assessment district for parking is not appropriate at this time. User Fee Revenue Bonds. User fees could be expected to generate a substantial revenue surplus after covering operating expenses, and therefore would be a v-luable -52- source of capital financing as well, when used to support revenue bonds. Fees would be gener».ted by short-terin parking in the garage metered spaces and by the sale of munthly parking permits. Revenue would be expected to fluctuate over time, particularly on a yearly basis with increased suminer visitation. Typically, some lag in Parking occupancy levels could also be expected when facilities are new, increasing as snore monthly perinits are sold and parkers become familiar with the Over tune, however, user fees could be fairly accurately estimated over a short planning horizon. Revenue expected from users is a product of the fees charged, the number of hours per day the facility is open, the number of days per yea;• the facility is operated, and the level of use the facility receives. Parking meters could be considered for use in place of attending the Facility in order to allow longer hours of operation at lower cost than would be incurred by attended facilities on a full-time basis. Approximately 40 percent of the spaces in each garage would be leased to downtown workers on a nontlily basis, as identified as needed in the p­-king demand estimates presented in Chapter I (1). In order to provide additional fle,, bility for weekend use, long-term (10- hour) parking meters could be included with a portion of the permit parking spaces. These meters would thee_ be available to weekend shoppers or beachgoers when most of the spaces are vAcated by office workers. Based oil year-round use on both weekends and weekdays, it is estimated than each garage 4ould produce approximately $2!5,000 per year from meters and monthly permits.t2j Additional revenue would be ;;encrated from leasing of retail space on the ground level of each garage; when fully operational it is expected that approximately $50,000 per year would accrue from each garage. Thus, total revenue per year would be approximately $265,000 per garage. The City has the ability, through the Parking Authority, to issue parking facility revenue bonds for the construction of new facilities. Little fiscal impact to the City would be felt becau-,e the facilities themselves generate the revenue to back the bonds, and the administrative structure is already in place to administer the bonding program. At the assumed parking fee rates and utilisation rates just discussed, parking revenue would be significantll greater than operating costs. The surplus revenue, anticipated to be $223,000 per year per garage (in 1985 dollars), could then be applied to debt retirement. Using this entire surplus for debt service, approximately $1.6 „niilion in capital cost cowl i be covered, an amount equal to around 55 percent of the total estimated capital cost of one facility (1985 dollars). x RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PARKING PROGRAM f;ae foregoing assessment of alternative capital funding sources/mechanisms indicates that the following order of priority or desirability should apply: I 1 If tax exempt bonds are used, the tax code requires that these spaces be available to the "general public" such that no more th&n. 10 percent can be reE.,ryed for any private user. t (2) Based upon 120 monthly barkers at $21. per month; plus $2 meter revenue per Alm remaining space (180) per day on weekdays; and an average of $3 per space per dayon weekends for all 300 spaces). -63- ® In-lieu fees; ® Tax increment fund; a Revenue bonds-backed by parking charges and retail space lease revenue; and 6 Other general fund resource~. In-lieu fees assessed on developers for parking not provided on-site offer the best opportunity for obtaining capital finding for all or a significant portion of the recommended downtown shared parking program. Such fees would constitute "developer fees" for parking, and thus would equitably link the need for new parking generated by downtown redevelopment with its solution (new parking facilities). The fees would, at a minimum, reflect the actual land and construction costs of the facilities, and could also be structured to include future operation and maintenance costs in capitalized form. Based on a capital cost of $6,000 per space and land cost of $2,000 per space, a basic in-lieu fee would equal approximately $8,000 per space constructed (all costs in 1985 dollars). Ten years of operating and maintenance expenses would run to $1,500 p(.r space; a total fee including this reimbursement for operating expenses would therefore equal between $9,500 and $10,000. As described earlier, the program could be structured whereby all new retail and office development would utilize shared public parking facilities, and all retail/office developers would contribute in-lieu fees toward that program. In this event, Vie City would be required to provide, at a minimum, surface lot parking at $1,250 per space for initial needs (including meters) until sufficient revenue had been accumulated from in-lieu fees to support construction of a full structure (i.e., 300 spaces). This approach would have the advantage of most directly linking the construction of new structures with actual demand. It would have the drawback of limiting the incentive value of new parking as a means of attracting developers. To accom.nodate garage construction later in the staging program, the Redevelopment Agcncy tax increment fund could also be tapped as a partial source to supplement in- lieu fees. The need for garage facilities, particularly after the first garage is constructed, will be determined largely by the rate of new construction. As the revenue channelled into it tax incrernent fund will also be limited to the rate of development, revenue availa')ility from this fund will be reasonably linked with parking need. It is understood that there will be nume .)us competing uses for the proceeds from the tax increment fund, just as there is tremendous co:npetition for general fund resources. The relative need for downtown parking versus other capital improvements will require continuous evaluation as redevelopment occurs. A significant alternative or supplement to the use of in-lieu fees as the primary funding mechanism for the shared parking structures would be user fee-backed revenue bonds. As described above, it is estimated that sufficient parking and retail space rental revenue could be generated from a modest program of parking charges (e.g., 30w/metered space/hour and $25/month per permit space) to support debt equal to rpproximately 55 percent of the estimated total capital cost of the structures ($1.6 in,11ion per structure). The remaining 45 percent of the cost could come from one or more of the sources discussed above,--principally in-lieu fees, in the early years, but possibly also including support from the tax-increment fund in later years. -6 4- 4 General funds and revenue sharing funds should be considered lower priority sources due to the demand for such ;ponies for the gamut of City needs. If needed, however, general fund revenue could be pledged as backing to revenue bonds in order to minimize interest costs, and/or to provide initial financing as an aid to "start" the redevelopment process. As shown in Table U up to $3.6 million in general fund resources might be required to acquire land and build surface lots. 'Later redevelop- ment activity would generate funding using the other mechanisms discussed here, allowing relief from further use of the general fund for later parking improvements, and allowing repayment of the initial outlay. Revenue bond financing with a pledge of the City's General Fund if required, would be a preferable approach. Summary of Parking Financial Recommendations In summary, the recommended approach to funding parking improvements involves a combination of user fees (50-55%) plus in-lieu of parking payments (45-.50`Yo) by developers of office and retail space in the downtown Core. The in-lieu fee (at 45- 50',16 of the capital and :operating costs) would be approximately $4,500 - $5,000 per space in 1985 dollars. The actual fee imposed would have to be escalated to reflect costs of construction at the time the facility being contributed to is expected to be built. P:ecause of the compactness of downtown, it is recommended that a standard in- lieu fee be charged all participants of a shared facility regardless of the type of land use or distance from the garage. (The land use/parking generation equity issue is already taking care of by the different parking ratios in the City's Code). The in-lieu fee could be reduced or eliminated entirely over time, if the City elects to use some of the tax increment revenue generated by new development for funding parking structures. The pat-icing structures will need to be constructed using debt financing, at least for the 50-55% to be funded through user fees. For long-term debt financing, parking facility revenue bonds pre proposed. It is recommended that the City's General Fund be used for interim financing. These borrowed funds would be paid back to the General Fund account as development occurs. There are four garages in the downtown Core, each around 300 spaces, proposed to be r built using the above funding arrangement. In addition the ^,ity may elect to participate in financing of parking for the proposed Seaport Village development. The four Core garages will serve parking needs of retail and office development planned in Blocks C, D) E, F, G, L and M. As stated in Chapter 1, staging of the proposed garages should begin with acquisition of the site; fo^ the four parking structure between PCH and Orange Avenue. As needed each of the four sites should be paved for surface parking; and one by one the garages should be constructed as realization of the fi Specific Plan takes place. The sequence of garage construction will depend upon the order in whici2 redevelopment takes place. Right now, with much of the development interest focused on Seaport Village and Block M it would appear appropriate to begin implementation of the parki€zg plan with a facility in the vicinity of Third and Walnut. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY PEDESTRIAN CROSSING An initial review of the proposed pedestrian grade-separation with Pacific Coast Highway at Main Street has resulted in order-of-magnitude cost estimates of $790,000 x for the overcrossino and $3.6 million for the undercrossing. The significantly larger cost for the undercrossing is the combined result of the structural needs for supporting -65- Coast highway, the inclusion of retail space on both sides of the corridor, and the need to construct a temporary by-pass road during construction. The primary beneficiaries of the grade-separation will !.)e downtown businesses and hotels, and the developer of the Seaport Village facility on the ocean side of the highway. While there would be some benefit to Coast Highway traffic flow due to the climirvAtion of pedestrian traffic at that point, other downtown intersections would not I e affected, thus limiting the overall increase in vehicular operating speed to around 4 i n ph. tour sourcr:s of funding cart be considered which relate to the beneficiaries just discussed. Thcse are: * Main Street businesses (development fee or special assessment); ® Seaport Village developer; ® City general fund or tax increment fund; and ® highway funds The most likely sources of funding are the first three of those cited in this list. Highway funding for the grade-separation is an unlikely event due to: (1) the limited benefit to traffic flow it would offer, and (2) the likely perception that downtown hotels, shops and the new Seaport Village development would be the primary pedestrian traffic generators and therefore the most -,,ppropriate (equitable) sources of funding. Current Caltrans policy regarding construction of such project-specific improvements to the state highway system would make it difficult even to bring the project up for consideration. In lieu of the ability of the downtown retail, hotel and Seaport Village developers to support the entire cost of the grade-separation project, the City would be required to meet any shortfall with funds from the capital improvement budget, possibly offset or repaid with proceeds from the tax increment fund. In view of the competition for funds from both of these sources, the relative priority of this project in tyre context of the other competing needs will require close examination and assessment. i 4 i{I 1 s f F -6 6- i APPENDICES Y k 1 t ;i Y. i; Appendix Table A LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS Level of Service Traffic Flow Quality A Low volumes, high sp. 9s; speec riot restricted by other vehicles; all signal cycles clear with ,.:, vehicles waiting through more thcr, one signal eye]P. B Operating speeds beginning to be affected by other traffic; between one and ten percent of the signal cycles have one or more vehicles which wait through more than one signal cycle during peak traffic periods. C Operating speeds and maneuverability closely controlled by other traffic; between 11 and 30 percent of the signal cycles have one or more vehicles which wait through more than one signal cycle during peak traffic periods; recommended ideal design standard. D Tolerable operating speeds; 31 to 70 percent of the signal cycles have one or more vehicles which wait through more than one signal cycle during peak traffic periods; often used as design standard in urban areas. E Capacity; the maximum traffic volume an intersection can accom- modate; restricted speeds; 71 to 100 percent of the signal cycles have one or more vehicles which wait through more than one signal cycle during peak traffic periods. Long Queues of traffic; unstable flow; stoppages of long duration; traffic volume and traffic speed can drop to zero; traffic volume will be less than the volume which occurs at Level of Service E. Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Highway Research Board Special Report 87, National Academy of Sciences, Washington D.C., 1965, page 320. a j Y 51 t -67- TABLE 111-1 AVERAGE SUMMER WEEKEND DAY NEED FOR REMOTE PARKING 33,000 Beach users 28,000 Vehicle occupants daily assuming 85% arrive in vehicles 8,000 Daily vehicles assuming 3.5 persons per vehicle 4,000 Peak period parking requirement assuming peak accumulation = 501,16 of daily vehicles 1,850 Parking spaces available in beach lots 440 Parkin; spaces available at office uses 525 Spaces available at curbside and in the downtown public parking structures (20% of 2,625 spaces) 1,185 Parking spaces needed at remote lots s s rz g 4 -63- s TABLE III-2 AVERAGE SUMMER WEEKDAY HEAGH PARKING DEMAND 22,000 Beach users 18,700 Vehicle occupants daily assuming 85% arrive in vehicles 5,350 Daily vehicles assuming 3.5 persons per vehicle 2,675 Peak period parking requirement assuming peak accumulation = 50% of daily vehicles 1,850 Parking spaces available in beach lots 825 Spaces needed at curbside and in the downtown public parking structures (= 30% of 2,625 spaces) -69_ TABLE IU 33 REMOTE PARKING SHUTTLE SUMMER WEEKEND OPERATION 1,185 Remote parking spaces 1,780 Vehicles parking in remote lots assuming 1.5 vehicles per space per day 6,220 People riding shuttle to and from beach assuming 3.5 persons per vehicle 933 People ride one way in peak hour assuming 15% ride one way in peak hour 18 Bus trips required in peak hour assuming standard bus capacity of 53 passengers 5 Buses required in peak hours assuming 4 round trips per bus per hour Assume peak hours of 9-11 a.m, and 3:30 - 5 30 p.m. Assume operating hours of 8:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m. Assume 2 buses operated in off-peak hours 35 Bus-hours of operation per day $ 1,700 Cost per day of operation (at $50 per bus hour) $ 59,500 Annurl operating cost of sunmer weekend service (35 days) $ t.50 Cost per parked auto required Lu cover operating cost including parking lot operations and maintenance assuming 70% occupancy of lot at maximum accumulation i } i >s -70- } a TABLE 111-4 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY (PCH) SHUTTLE OPERATIONS 12.5 Round trip miles 50 Minutes per round trip assuming 15 mph average operating speed 4 Buses required assuming 15 minute headway 10:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. 3 Buses required assuming 20 minute headway 9:00 - 10:00 a.m, and 4:00 - 6:00 p.m. 5 Total buses in fleet (including 1 spare) $ 250,000 Capital Cost assuming $50,000 per bus 114 Days of Operation assuming operation from Memorial Day weekend through weekend after Labor Day 33 Bus-hours of operation per day 990 Daily operating cost assuming $30 per bus hour (non-union operators) $ 112,860 Annual operating cost 1 ,650 Daily boardings assuming 50 passe gers per bus hour $ 400 Potential daily farebox revenue at $.25 per boarding 40% Operating cost recovery from farebox $ 67.700 Annual operating deficit -71-