Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDraft Trails Implementation Plan f r>.., ...�.• r40 ` il'�. it � � 1. .. a• �• 1 i 1 jr . ,' 4 4- 41huntiqgfi? -� a r h (DQLTV1V___ SUMAUIRY The Trails Implementation Plan is divided into two Sections: Bikeway and Equestraan Trails. The Plan sets forth specific recom- mendations and provides cost estimates for each tails plan. The Trails Implementation Plan is consistent with the recreational, goals of the California Coastal Act and will be reflected in the Local Coastal Program which will culminate in the adoption of the Coastal Element of the General Plan. Also, the Plan is consistent with the County of Orange Environmental Management Agency' s concept plans for providing Bicycle and Equestrian recreational trails within a proposed linear park connecting Huntington Central Park with the Bolsa Chica marshland. .� Bikeways The Trails Implementation Plan proposes to update the existing 68 mile Master Plan of Bikeways to approximately 134 miles. The primary reasons for the expansion of the City's bikeway system is to improve access to various school sites, especially the intermediate and high school levels, improve east/west bikeway flow, improve access to Huntington Central Park, improve beach access, and generally provide improved access to commercial activity centers throughout the City. The Plan proposes a number of recommendations to improve the present bikeway program. The recommendations are: 1. Adopt the Revised Master Plan of Bikeways as shown in Figure 2-7 . 2. Provide for an annual maintenance budget for the upkeep of the bikeway system. 3. Continue aupport of the Community Bicycle Safety Program. J 4. Direct Public Work.' s staff to evaluate and report to the Planning Commission those streets along the existing bikeway system that have a conflict between cyclist and parked automobiles. S. Direct Public Work 's staff to provide procedures for protecting bikeways that lie adjacent to construction sites. 6. Direct that a more limited Bike Crossing Sign program be insti- tuted throughout the City. Aft � Equestrians The equestrian plan reduces the number of miles of Trail under Phase I of the existing trails plan that was developed by the Equestrain Use Committee and adopted by the City Council in August 1975. The equestrian trails that are being proposed for elimination from the Plan lie east of Goldenwest Street, between Garfield Street and Slater Avenue and extend adjacent to G3thard Street and around the perimeter of Huntington Central Park south of Talbert Avenue. The Implementation Plan recognizes the importance of providing equestrian use as a recreational alternative for the residents of the community. The Plan focuses equestrian use west of Goldenwest Street within Phase III of Huntington Central Park and immediately south between Ellis Avenue and Garfield Avenue. The Plan also focuses on connecting the City's equestrian trails system with equestrian trails along the Edwards Street/38th Street bluffs (proposed County of orange lineal park) and eventually extending '' into the Bolsa Chica area. The equestrian plan provides for the following recommendation. Adopt a policy of preserving equestrian use in and around Huntington Central Park (Phase III) by: 1. Adoption of the Conceptual Cqueatrain Trails Plan (Figure 3.2) that provides for the establishment of a permanent trails system that links Huntington Central Park, Phase III with the Estate Development Land Uses south of Phase III, the Edwards Street/ 38th Street bluffs, and the Bolsa Chica marshlands. 2. Reiterate the City' s intent to include an Equestrian Center as an integral part of the Huntington Central Park, Phase III master planning effurt. Jogging Trails The section on Jogging ' .le that in currently part of the Recreational Trails Eli c and was included in the first draft of the Trails Implementatl Plan has been deleted from this revised Draft Plan. It is ger lly felt that the jogging trails would J be incorporated into ,&c sites as they are developed and adequate review and recommendp n are the responsibility of the Recreation and Parks Commission v i L, r f at1p ...._.._._.._ ..�.. .... �. .M.._ ..1._. .. .�._ ... Maw," i _,. .... .._, Nf �� i.-r-...._w.w...y...._..- �.......ti•...- w..... MiU •, ', 1{fTr 6116 LEGEND I .,... FIRST PHASE '�, /— !� RMHow% +�•�• SECOND PHASE CENTRAL PARK �.�`,� f ��.�. ....:.._. _..... _.._j• .o.fn aoLSA cHlc,A ECOLOGICAL PRESERVE + " PROPOSED TRAIL DELETION a i I � EQUESTRIAN TRAILS FLAN APPROVED AUGUST, 1975 huntingtan beach planning department COST SUMMARY FOR 'TRAILS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 1977 DOLLARS DIKEWAYS Phase I (Improvements) (within one year) S 66,725 Phase I (New Construction (within one year) 214, 212 TOTAL COST PHASE I $280, 937 Phase II (One to Five Years) $ 63, 780 Phase III (Five Years or Greater) 248, 679 ^► GRAND TOTAL COST $5 g 3, 3 g 6 EQUESTRIAN TRAILS Phaee I (1.81 miles) ^� Grading 1. 81 miles @ $1,454/mile $ 2, 632 Fencing 1.81 miles @ $31,069/mile 57,683 i l (wooden rail fencing) i Signing 7 signs @ $44/en (4 signs/mile) 308 { Total Cost $ 60, 623 Phase II Grading 7 miles @ $1, 452/mile $ 10,164 "? Fencing 2h miles @ $31, 869/mile 79, 673 (wooden rail fencing) 4k miles @ $16, 000/mile 72,000 (chain link Fencing) .� Signing 28 signs @ $44/ea (4 signs/mile) 11232 Total Cost $163,069 GRAND TOTAL COST $223,692 Annual Maintenance Cost J Bikeway Program $ 70,084 Equestrian Program 2,420 Total Cost $ 720-504 I J iv TAB4E OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction 1 1. 1 Intent 1 1.2 Goals and Objectives 2 1.3 Relation to Other County and State Plans 3 2.0 Dikeways 4 2.1 Definitions 4 2 .2 Existing Bikeway Program 5 2. 3 Existing Deficiencies 11 2.4 Bikeway Implementation Plan 15 2. 5 Implementing Funding Sources 20 2.6 Recommendations 21 3.0 Equestrian Trails 28 3.1 Existing Equestrian Studies 28 3.2 Temporary Equestrian Trails 32 3.3 Implementation 32 3A. Cost Analysis 34 L 5 Recommendation 36 ' J i J V 1 TABLE OF FIGURES 2.1 Existing Master Plan of Bikewayn 2. 2 Activity Centers 2.2A Support Facilities for Bikeways 2.3 Orange County Arterial Bikeway System 2.4 Bike Route Signs 2.5 Bicycle Accident Statistics ^+ 2 .6 Streets not Suitable for Bikeway Lanes 2.7 Revised Master Plan of Bikeways 2.8 Bikeway Implementation Plan 2.9 Bikeway Funde Received to Date 1 2.10 Bikeways Implementation Plan Cost Analysis 2.11 Bikeways Implementation Plan Funding Source Estimates 2.12 Bikeways Implementation Plan Maintenance Cost 3.1 Equestrian Trails Plan 3.2 Equestrian Trails Conceptual Plan 3. 3 Cost Analysis Lquestrian Trails Plan J '1 �� r1 1 _1 7 J J J 1 CQL VV 1 1. 0 . INTRODUCTION The Trails Implementation Plan provides the residents of the com- munity with 'h recreational and a transportation trails system. The trails that are identified in this study are categorized into two areas: bikeways (bicycle lanes and trails) and equestrian trails. In the past, a number of studies have been carried out for these types of trails, providing the impetus for their development. This trails study will consolidate into one document a recommended plan 3 for the implementation, expansion, and maintenance of a Citywide trails systerr. 1.1 Intent The City' s Trails are presently incorporated into the General Plan under the Recreational Trails Element. The intent of the Trails Implementation Plan is to remove the Recreational Trails Element from the General Plan document, and to redirect and give recognition to bicycle trails as a viable mode of transportation for the move- ment of people in and through the community. 1 � The General Plan Document, under. the Circulation Element and open Space and Conservation Element, presently includes adopted policies • with regard to City Trails. The Trails Implementation Study is viewed as an implementing tool of these trails policies. The removal of the Recreational Trails Element from the General Plan will provide the City with an increased range of flexibility for the planning and development of the City' s trails system. Also, 0 the separation will enable the City to be more responsive to now sources of funds as they become available for developmerit and main- tenance of community trails. 1. 2 Goals and Objectives w The following goals and objectives are identified to provide a broad statement of purpose and provide the necessary direction for the achievement of a Citywide trails system. 1.2. 1 Bikeways r1 Goal Provide bikeways that are safe and accessible to all residents of the community. Policies A 1. Provide bicycle lanes along arterial streets for transportation and recreational purposes that provide direct access to activity centers. 2. Provide bicycle trails that are separated f::om road- ►' ways where possible. 3. Provide an effective ,maintenance program for bicycle lanes and trails. 4. Provide bicycle lanes that are constructed to state design standards that maximize the safety of the cyclist. S. Continue to emphasize bicycle safety under the auspices of the City's bicycle education program. 1. 2.2 Equestrial Trails Goal Accommodate horses in Huntington Beach. 2 • Policies 1. Develop a comprehensive trails system that serves designated equestrian areas. 2. Connect the trails system with other open space areas. .1. 3 Relationship to other Planning Efforts 1.3. 1 Local Coastal Program The Trails Implementation Plan is consistent with the California Coastal Actes concept of increasing non-motor- ized access to public beaches and providing recreational uses within the Coastal Zone. The preparation of the City's Coastal Element of the General Plan will provide policies for development of non-motorized access to the public beach facilities. The adoption of the Coastal ,.� Element is not expected to occur until sometime in mid 1979. 1. 3.2 Bolsa Chica Regional Park Linking The County of Orange Environmental Management Agency (EMA) prepared a feasibility study for the development of a linear park along the Edwards Street/38th Street bluff connecting Huntington Central Park with the proposed prrchase of land by the State within the Bolas Chica Merahland. The feasibility study points out that the proposed park would offer excellent opportunities for equestrian trails and bicycle trails. Under the Trails ' J Implementation Plan both proposed bicycle trails and equestrian trails are supportive of the County' s feasi- bility study. 3 '1 1 1 1 1 7 W 01 M 2.0 BIKEWAYS 2.1 Definitions .) The following definitions are presented to provide continuity of terms throughout this section of the study with regard to bikeways: Bicycle - A device upon which any person may ride. Propelled exclusively by human power through a belt, chain or gears and having either two or three wheels in tandem or tricycle position. CS Class I Bikeways - Dikeways which provide a completely separated right:-of-way designated for the exclusive use of bicycle and pedestrians with crossflows by motorists minimized. Class II Bikeways - Sikeways which provide a restricted right-of- way designated for the exclusive or semi-exclusive use of bicycles with through travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians prohibited, but with vehicle parking and crossflows by pedestrians and motorists permitted. Class III Bikeways - Bikeways which provide a right-of-way designation by signs or permanent markings and shared with pedestrians or motorists. Adft BuiGVV • Activity Centers - Inc•ludes Commercial, Recreational, and Educational facilities that generate trip ends from residential land use. f 2.2 Existing Bikeway Program The City of Huntington Beach has been actively pursuing a bikeway program since mid-1972. Initially the City provided approximately B-1/2 miles of Class I and II bikeways. This included the Clans I bikeway extending along the Santa Ana River. Since this initial � program, the City has increased ita bikeway program to include approximately 68 miles of Class I and Class II Bikeways Urigure 2-1) . The City' s bikeway program is one of the most extensive programs iri Orange County. 2. 2. 1 Route Selection Criteria Past route selection has been based on (1) an analysir of the directness of proposed bike routes to community activity centers, (2) an evaluation of the relationship a proposed bikeway has with traffic volumes, traffic speed and roadway widths, and (3) the interfacing � characteristics of the proposed bikeway to that of -the County's Arterial Bikeway System and the Dikeway Master Plans of adjacent cities. 2. 2.2 Activity Centers f Activity centers that serve to attract the cycling public have been identified in Figure 2-2. When the community uikeway system was initially planned, emphasis was placed on providing bikeways that served the educational activity centers - elementary schools, intermediate schools, high schools and Goldenwest College. Also, recreaticnal areas, such as the city and state beaches, community parks and Cent-al Park were identified as high-use activity centers needing bik-2ways. Ia recent years, the bicycle has become increauingly popular as a means of transportation to schools, commercial and recreational activity centers and for home-to-work commuter trips. The increasedinterest in cycling requires that bikeway planning continues to take into account tl.o relationship of bikeways to the activity centers. Continued emphasis must be placed on providing safe bikeways that allows direct access to these activity centers. p 2. 2. 3 bike Facilities When initially planning the bikeway system, consideration was given to providing routes to activity centers that had available along them rest areas, drinking fountains, • rest roams, bicycle repair chops and air pump facilities. (Figure 2. 211) 5 ♦ A, r .,� T♦ }. •,T,r S � ivy y� +� ,, Ns A1yu(1 . � 111. w�aC• Orr• � 4,ir "P � f i r, t� ♦,� � 1 4nlu� ; o, Y r,r t4 • t)� � y lfj r I T I yyR�'• � 11 w.1 �rr�i'% k,� � /1 '� ♦is"`, K* r'i 41511. tiY f e .1 I _ ytr � f k rr r S A, }� It i. t 1 r 1 ` 4b� 1 t�li fit r; r t «• 'MY�M i 1 � r aNIS � . ' k �'"' � ► �� �'a ' NIS `-- 141 t too cIIIM �.M �y �Sv �•,v am,4 JI ell a ti, N c,4 S h� r, • i i a � i � W I' �y M >f� a ti stir• •; �Y a 11{"jTTT k 6�w, • Per) 46A ♦i`` ♦�+ �rw��ru�rrr,rr r1 A o rwrrrrM�r1` db � a ti � t r ie. . Bicycle parking facilition have been provided at pt�liu •� facilities, Fuck as the community parks, city beach facil- ities, public library and the civic center. There is no requirement for private developers to provide bicycle parking facilities at new develu menttt, however, many developers or store owners reali7:- the need for bicycle parking facilities and provida them to the public. When planning new bicycle routes, the availability of the ancillary bike facilities are considered. 2.2.4 The Orange County Arterial bikeway System (ABS) The Orange County Arterial bikeway System (Figure 2-3) '1 identifies a network of bikeway routes that have county- wide significance. The system is perceived as forming the backbone bikeway system for Orange County. The Arterial. Bikeway System is financed by the County from the following revenue sources with no matching funds required by participating cities. 1 • Highway User Tax Fund - S.D.. 821 Funds • Dana Point Tidelands Funds • Harbors, Beaches, and . Revenue Sharing Funds Park District funds -� The following citywide bikeway routes are currently in- cluded on the Orange County Dikeway System Implementation Plan. Protect Number Street Name Bikeway Limits ? 3E Newland Street North City limits to Warner Avenue 16A Slater Avenue Wintersberg Channel to Edwards Street R Wintersberg Pacific: Coast Highway to Channel Slater Avenue 16B Slater Avenue Edwards Street to Newland Street 17A Pacific Coast Anderson Street to Warmer Highway Avenue J *17B Pacific Coast Warner Avenue to Beach Highway Boulevard *17C Pacific Coast Beach Boulevard to Santa Highway Ana River * Off-road trails (Class 1 Bikeway) AM�i a 6 v 10A an ' �• r• ` ''' A �. ; , 3B ", 7A , �, -* ;9C is 14A - .� 112A � � I 12C t 156 12 JP UC sic OF ta9end 178 ;, �, ! , 17C . . 17H 171 Existing 77-78 .....s-.r- 75-76 imams 8-79 .-..t Each project identified by a number which vorrcarnts an *#erali mute •�eeres*�+Msss 1165-77 and a letter which reflacts a specific project link. Figure 2-3 HUNnNGTON BE" GIFORNA L' ARTERI_ � �� J� �K E1J, �f SYSTEM IMPLEEN T� � T� ON PLAN 00004 Oro BIKE ROUTE o BIKE Q XIN6 Q BIKE ROUTE SIGNS 601 VV 2.2. 5 Adjacent Cities Bicycle Plans Initially when planning the City' s Dikeway system the � importance of connecting City bikeway routes with existing and proposed routes; of adjacent cities was recognized, The following arterial streets indicate existing and proposed bikeways of. -•djacent cities that presently connect or are planned to connect with Huntington Reach. *Garfield Avenue Ellis Avenue Newland Street *Bushard Street *Ward Street *Pacific Coast Highway *Edwards Street Slat-er Avenue Bolsa Chica Street *Heil Avenue 2.2.6 Traffic Considerations A major concerti when planning bikeway routes that share the same right-of-way as motor vehicles has been the existing and proposed traffic characteristics of the roadways. Traffic volumes, traffic speed and sufficient shoulder along the roadway are criteria that must be considered when selecting bikeways routes. The streets that are included on the City' s Master Plan of Bikeways were selected because of low traffic speeds and volumes and adequate right-of-way widths to provide the cyclist with a Itiglyer &,gyre of safety than ..f bikeways were not provided. 2.2. 7 Existing Bikeway Design Standards One of the unfortunate outgrowths of the bicycle boom of the late 60's and early 70' s had been tha lack of uniform design standards for bikeway development. The lack of uniformity had resulted in a proliferation of various bike- way design standards throughout the state . Like many cities, Huntington Beach had been caught up in this diver- sity of bikeway design standards. over the years, the State came to recognize the problem associated with the diversification of bikeway design standards and under. • the. California ttikeway Act (S.13. 244) , di rneted glue Veliartmerst or Transportation (Ca I trann) to establish minimum general design criteria for the development, planning and construction of bikeways, including the design speed of the facility, the space requirements of w the bicycle and bicyclist, minimum widtho, clearances, grade, and bikeway surface. In response to SB 299, Caltrans adopted, .in August, 1976, minimum general design criteria and mandatory ntin;mum safety design criteria to be applied to all bikeways throughout the State of California. All bikeways within the City are presently being upgraded to comply with these state guiCelines. *Existing bikeways that connect with adjacent cities. IMM I!► i 9 i vv 2. 2.8 Community Bicycle Safety Program In July, 1972, the City Council established the Community Bicycle Safety Program. The program wait conceived to combat the mounting bicycle safety problem that the City had begin. to experience with the increased popularity of the bicycle. The program is administered by the Police 1 Department under the auspices of the Bicycle Safety Unit. The primary goals of the program are to: (1) reduce the number of bicycle accidents, deaths and injuries occuring in the City, (2) educate the public - particularly local school children - with respect to bicycle safety and state •� and local laws pertaining to the safe operation of bikes and (3) attempt to aid in the prevention of bicycle thefts by promoting bicycle licensing and registration within the City. The Community Bicycle Program has touched approximately 129, 000 elementary, intermediate, high school and college students during the first four years of its existence. The instr.uction these students have received from the personnel of the Bicycle Safety Unit has heightened the students: awareness of the state and local laws governing bicyclist. While it is difficult to -� corrolate the bicycle educational program to reduced number of bicycle related accidents, it is believed that the education has at least provided the student with a higher level of knowledge and respect for bicycle safety. As more data becomes available concerning the cycling public, the Bicycle Safety Unit will be better able to -, measure the effectiveness of the Community bicycle Program. Figure 2-5 shows the number of accidents the City has experienced during the last four years. The Mijority of these accidents occurred at intersections or along streets not provided with bicycle lanes. Figure 2-5 - bicycle accident statistics for the period from January 1973 through December 1976. Total Ric�-�cle Year City P9pulatlon Accidents Al rYcle Fatal [ties 1973 143,000 110 0 1974 143,636 147 0 1975 146,400 106 0 1976 151,000 126 2 1977 157.AOQ / 1 10 • 2. 3 Exioting Deficiencies The establishment of a bikeway program that uses designated areas within the street right-of-way in a relatively new concept. The program has been underway within the City since early 1973. Since that time, a number of deficiencies have been identified that need to be addressed and corrected to assure the continuance of an ef- fective citywide bikeway program. 2. 3.1 Master Plan of Bicycle Trails The City'sa existing blaster Plan of Bicycle Tral.lss consists of approximately GS miles of Clans I and Clans II bikeways. All bikeways shown on the Master Plan have been built, with the exception of the Pacific Coast highway Trail between the City Pier and Bolsa China State Beach, the Garfield Avenue trails between Ward Strcet and the Santa Ana :liver. There is a present need to evaluate tho City'e :caster Plan of bicycle Trails adding new bikeways that improve residents access to the community activity centers. 2.3.2 Hikeway Maintenance Program A problem presently .facing the City bikeway program is i the lack of defined maintenance program While funds have been acquired through the S.D. 021 Bicycle and Pedestrian Fund for refurbiolmient of the City Bikeways, no City monies have been set aside for Annual bikeway maintenance. To date, state and federal funds made available for ')ikeways have been limited to initial development. Once the bikeways are constructed, it in the responsibility of the City to maintain them, using general fund revenues;. Financial restraints have placed the bikeway maintenance program low on the Public Works Department priority list of services that need to be provided to the residents of Iiuntington i Beach. lop • 11 i A 2. 3.3 Bikeway Path Maintenance 1 Unimproved streets having a temporary Class; I bikeway adjacent to them present a special maintenance problem. In situations of this nature, there is placed along the unimproved portion of roadway a five foot wide, 2 inch IN asphalt/concrete (A/C) path. The path is temporary being replaced by a fully improved street section (in- cluding a Class II bikeway) when property is developed or when motor vehicle traffic volumee indicate a need for more improved right--of-way. The cost to the City for maintaining these temporary paths is considerably higher than those along fully improved streets, primarily because Public [forks Department crews ire used to maintain them instead of the City's street sweepers. If a main- tenance program was initiated by the Public Works Department the annual maintenance cost of the existing paths would be approximately $28, 000 for the first year and approximately $19,700 per year thereafter. The initial cost includes the purchase of a small vacuum sweeper and the hiring of an equipment operator. When planning bikeways, efforts should be made to place bikeways along arterial streets that are fully improved and not along arterial streets that would have large areas of unimproved right-of-way which would require the temporary paths; and the high maintenance cost associated with them. However, the plan should be flexible enough to permit the 5 foot paths if there exists a high demand for cyclists along unimproved arterials. 2. 3.4 Bii:e Crossing Signs The placement of bike crossing signs at every street that intersects bikeway routes has been expensive to implement and will be costly to maintain. While placement of these signs; allows a high degree of awareness on the part of the motorist of the possible presence of cyclists, it appears that the need for such an extravagant program may be over- stated. Stop signs located at local streets that cross or intersect the City' s arterial streets allows the motorist sufficient time to look for approaching cyclist as well as motorists. A more limited bike crossing signing program would be less expensive to implement while ample pnotection would be pruvicled to the cyclist and motorist. through the present stop signing program. For v✓) _00/I i 12 instance, a limited signing program can be instituted in cases where two arterial streets intersect or yield signs exist. Placement of such bike crossing signs would be appropriate in these cases to alert motorist to be, on the lookout for cyclist. Also, another problem has been identified with regard to the placement of bike crossing signs. These signs have been placed at various distances from the intersection. Signs are found placed at the immediate intersection on stop signs poles while others are set back so far from the intersection that their effectiveness is questionable. Such inconsistencies call attention to the need for development of more uniform City standards with regard to the placement of bike crossing signs. 2.3. 5 Automobile and Truck Parking Another problem that has been identified while making field surveys of the existing bikeways is the conflict between cyclist and parked automobiien and trucks. Parked vehicles in the bikeway force the cyclist to enter into the traffic lane, thus setting into motion a potentially dangerous situation between the cyclist and the moving traffic. It appears that some of the Class II � bikeways that presently exist have this parking conflict. Also, it has been found during field checks that an enforcement problem exists along bikeways that are pre- sently posted No Parking. o:, a number of occasions it has been observed that cars and trucks are varked within existing bikeways which are clearly marked Nu Parking. 2 .3. 6 Arterial Streets The Recreational Trails Phase I .study recommended placing bikeway lanes on secondary arterial streets because they are characterized as having lower speek limits and lower traffic volumes. In reviewing the existing arterial streets in the City, the following observations were made: j 1. The majority of accidents occurred on arterial streets that do not provide for bikeway lanes. 2. Secondary arterial streets are ideal for bike lanes as long as on-street parking is prohibited and center medians and left turn pockets are not painted. 3. Major and primary arterial streets that are limited to four traffic lane, and left turn pockets and are otherwise fully improved are adequate for bikeway lanes provided traffic v..lumes are not so 13 concentrated as to cause conflicts between motorist and cyclist. 4. Arterial streets that are provided with bikeway lanes experiencecl fewer bicycle/automobile accidents than streets not provided with bikeway lanes. Careful review of the City's existing arterial street system is needed to assura that bikeway routes are constructed that provide safety as well as direct access to activity centers throughout the community. In the past, safety considerations have been an important concern when planning bikeway lanes. while safety is .important, it must be recognized that if bikeway lanes are not provided along arterial streets which bring individuals to anti from activity centers in a direct manner, that these streets will be used by the cyclist whether a bikeway lane is provided or not. As stated above; most bicycle accidents occurred along arterial streets not having bicycle: lanes. The need to provide direct routes to activity centers;, even if it involves using primary and major arterial streets, its considerec' in this study. The placement of bikeway lanes along arterial streets heightens the cyclist and motorist conscious awareness of one another, thus placing both in a defensive posture. When reviewing the arterial streets for inclusion of bikeway lanes, equal weight has been given to providing safe bikeway lanes and bikeway lanes that provide direct access to City activity renters. 2. 3. 7 Ned Development New developments within the community have caused a problem with regard to City bikeway lanes. During the construction phase of now developments, portions of the bikeway lanes that extend adjacent to the project are continually obstructed with dirt and debris. Also, when street sections are dug-up to lay water, sewer, electrical or telephone lines, the bikeway lanes are destroyed and are not replaced. These occurrences place an additional expense upon the City. Procedures need to be established and enforced that will assure that during the construction phase of new development that the developer maintain the adjacent bikeways, keeping them free of dirt and debris. PlSo, it the bikeway is; destroyed by the developer, he should be required to replace the bikeway at his expense in accordance with appropriate design standards. J i J 14 2.4 Bikeway Implementation Plan The following section presents an implementation plan for existing and proposed bikeways throughout the City. The proposed routes provide for a continuous circulation plan using thoue streets that provide safe bikeway lanes that directly connect residential areas with activity centers. Route selection has been expanded to cover an analysis of all the arterial streets instead of thu incremental approach that has prevailed during pant planning efforts. Such an analysis is reflected in the recommei:ded phasing plan for implementing the bikeway program. The proposed plan provides a three-part phasing program that can be interpreted as: immediate needs, short-range needs (1 to 5 years) , and long-range needs (5 years or longer) . Besides identifying these arterial streets that should be designated ag bikeway routes, the study makes specific recommendations for those arterial streets that are iiot :suited for bikeway routes (Figure 2. 6) and provides the justifi ration for the reconunendation for not including thent on the bikeway plan. Lastly, the report provides possible sources of funds for implementing the recommended plan and the estimated cost for each phase of the program. 2. 4.1 Dikeway Route Selo:tion The C.ity' s arterial streets were reviewed to determine � which streets could accommodate bikeway lanes. In the review process the following questions were considered: 1. Is there a direct route or connection with designated .-activity centers? 2. Is there sufficient right-of-way within the street section to accommodate bicycle and automobile traffic? 3. Would there be conflicts between cyclist and street « parking? 4. Ar,2 there future plans for widening the: street? 5. Does the proposed bikeway provide a croso-town route or a linkage with a cross-town route? 6. What are the traffic volumes and Speed limit on the street? 7. Is the proposed bikeway compatible with existing or proposed bicycle routes of other adjacent cities? r At�ftk err 15 I i Figure 2-6 Arterial Streets Not Suitable for Dikewav Lan(-Ft Street Reasoner Bolsa Avenue 3/4 lanes of traffic to serve McDonnel Douglan & Westminster Mall does not 1 provide sufficient street width for bike lanes. Iiigh traffic volumes during teak hours. McFadden (Gothard - Beach) narrow bridge over freeway Edinger (Bolsa Chica - narrow roadway - flood control channel Springdale) fence on north, residential parking on south side of street. j Edinger (Goldenwest - 3 lane traffic to serve Goldenwest Newland) College and Huntington Center - narrow bridge over freeway and on/off ramps - high traffic volumes at peak hours. Indianapolis (Lak(: - Btaeh) narrow coact, on-street residential parking, high incidence of bike accidents. Goldenwest Street on-street parking for college and (Bolsa - Edinger) apartments, high traffic volume. Goldenwest Street narrow road, high speeds. (Talbert - Garfield) Beach Blvd. (north of 3 lanes traffic, freeway on/off Adams) ramps high traffic volume & speeds Brookhurst (north of 3 lanes traffic high volume. Atlanta) Pacific Coast Highway on street marking, high traffic speeds. AML iJ 16 � - •.ter in the street 8. Would the inclusion of a bike lane require major and expensive modifications to street facilities? 9. if is bike route is possible, is there a parallel street which offers a better route? The proposed revisions to the City' s Master Plan of Bike- ways (Figure 2••7) and the Summary of the Dikeway Imple- mentation plan (Figure 2--8) .reflects those routes along the arterial street system that would best conform to the above considerations. The C%-y' s arterial street system is used for bikeway routes because it provides the most Jirect access to the City 's activity centers and allows bikeway construction to take plane: in an economical manner. 2. 4.2 Phase I - Improvement Program As pointed out under the deficiency section of this study, an annual .improvement program for the City's existing bikeways is the most immediate need confronting the City's bikeway program. Phase I of the Trails Implementation Plan recommends the establishment of an improvement program for the City's existing bikeways. Such an improvement prograr► would consist of the repainting and resigning of bikeways in accordance with state bikeway design standards. Also, such an improvement program would be implemented prior to the construction of any new bikeways beyond those recommended for construction usider Phase I . The City has available $65,000 for the Phase I Improvement Program. The monies for the improvement program have been made available through the 1976-77 and 1977-78 S.B.821 Funding Program for bicycle and Fedestrian way development that is administered by the Southern California Associa- tion of Govornments (SCAG) . 2. 4. 2. 1 Phase I New Bikeway Construction In addition to the establishment of an effective annual Improvement program, Phase I reconunends limited develop- ment of new bikeways to service the areas around Marines High School and Edison Nigh School. Both high schools draw from wide areas of the community, and experience high � bicycle usage to and from the high schools. It is believed that providing Class I and Class II bikeways on and next to the arterial streets that provide access to the high schools, will aid ir heightening the motorist awareness of the cycling student and provide the cyclist with a higher degree of safety than is presently provided. The Phase I new bikeway construction will consist of approximately 12 miles of new bikeways. ! 17 .t I ter I ,I� ff � n Y f S 140 f # M.L t� • 4� -f • i� � • It i >* `41P ••• • • y1 � offlo•oal•,tilw WAX f `�►t a1wIM�•�+� f l h _ I Q}. !� al C Z d C►. - ` ca g LU 1 I MCFadden Avenge Graham :o r3athard 3.90 4449 SunsRt FT 2 I Edinger :7enue i�nntery Cc A.-uatic Park =-7`- 1978 17ZB �. 3 I Heil Avenue . Saybrook to C-oUa 19 6389 4 1 GaLriiold Avenue Edwards to ward 6.0 "5e ry 5 I [Yorktown Avenue Wldenwest to Delaware 1.33 1978 3586 6 I Yorktown Avenue Magnolia to Bushard 1.00 1048 7 I Atlanta Avenue Bushard to Santa ver Ana 1605 1.5 B I Hamilton Avenue Magnolia to aushard 1.00 � 1238 9 1 Banning Avenue Magnolia to Bushard 1.00 Ip96 10 1 Warder Avenue PCH to AlgongUn 2- 1838 11 I Bushard Street Garfield to Brookhurst 6.5 7954 a } Santa A-xa -5 1973 396 12 I Brookhurs� street Huahard to River Trail 13 I Magnolia Street rgx.Iicld to Yorktown 1-00 I 979 14 I i:aanolia Struct Hamilton to :;-H 1.7r 1414 15 I Magnolia 5ti t At1a►nta "_b Edi r,a H.S. .75 * 1000 16 1 W.Fland street Yorktown to PCH 6-00 0 # 6WI 17 I Lake Street Yorktown to P(;8 3.50 Me 4 18 I 17th Street Yorktown to PCH 2-70 # 3092 1s I E&ards Street Bolan to Garfield 8.00 � � 8i19 20 I Grab= Street Yxraddsn to Rail 2-00 Y 21 Street Hefl teaaa Drive NLP °c north Citg Units to l,pp of t aMing&ae street aoyalist Dar. 3.35 316486 26 I Fwilton Avenue YAgMU& �Te"Iand 1.0 2 238 27 I Acladaon Avwum Graham to Bolsa Chic& 1'O" 11200 28 I Bola& Chits Street McFadden to Edinger 1.00 1,027 Ty 29 1 Edinger Avenue Dols& Chica to Monterey 1.20 I-D72 11161 30 I Newland Street Yorkt mm to Garfield i 1-00 1,062 31 I Pacific Coast Higlway Solna Chica State Beach3.s0 � � ].St3.G00 Catty Funds to City PierPT 32 I Indianapolis Avenge Hcwlarai to Rftnt Ana River 3.62 +,316 Sd Bel wads 32A I Marina Park Tcail Graham to Marina High School .25 g77 3,038 33 II Warner Avenue Goldenveet to Gothard .30 ° 0-79 641 34 II City park drive Edwards to Central Pa--k .25 597 35 II Yorkteam Avenue Delaware to Beach .So ry 19� 603 36 II Garfield Avenue hard to Santa Ana River 'SO 606 37 11 slater Avenue Graham to Newland 6.00 FY 6,552 39 II Atlanta Avenue Beach to Bnshard 3.00 3,294 39 11 8olsa Chic& Street North limits to 2.85 � 2.760 McF40 II Goldemnat Street forma Dr. to Rio Vista 2.001 -2•132 t 41 11 GDUWMW* t street Garfield to PCR 3.00 3.1.31 42 22 Got."and Street Ha±l to Warner .00 � 1,036 43 II Newland strain Garfield tc 8dinger .00 ith#i r 44 IT.. Talbert Avemn 6b2der vest to Muland .09 - Ycadctua to POOMO -iY - - - r Q North City liana to � 25 I lsr strait Royalist Dr. 3.33 � � I�'t� of � 26 F Raoilt on aver d s Magnolia to MWIW 1.00 1 23 27 I XbF* dan Avenue Graham to Bolua Chico 1.00 � ?•� 28 I 8028a MIC& Street McFadden to Edinger 1.00 1,02. 29 1 EdiltW Avenue Bolsa Chic& to Monterey 1.29 1979FT l.l;r]: 30 I 1WW1arA Street Yorktown to Garfield ?.W 1^2 31 1 Pacific Coast Highway olsa Ca State Beach to City Pier 3.50 150.00'0 County Funds an 32 Indiapo lis J4venws New to Santa Ana rV 16-70 hive 3.62 4,316 88 821 lWnda M m 32A I axi park ?rail Gral-Am to tsarina Hiqh School .25 977 3.Oi36 33 II VUD*r Avenue Goldeawest to Gothatd .38 - i 0-79 641 34 II City Park Drive Wwards to Central Park .25 ! 597 35 IZ Yorkt:wn Avenue Delaware to teach .50 l 603 36 IZ Garfield Avenue Word to Santa Ana River .50 37 IT Slater Avenue Graham to Howland 6.t� 38 II Atlanta Avenue Beach to H+sharrd �•_•—.�.' 3.t30 � � 3,194 39 11 8018a Chic& street North City limits to 2.85 ftradden :.7so 40 II Galddvest Street XOXMA bar. tc Rio Vista Dz -2.00 ?.L ji 41 11 Gayest Street Garfield to Pm3.00 B+ 42 II **biwa'str%..L- HOil to Warie 1.00r 1, - 43 it NW=.anl atzlet Carnald to Edinvi r .pp LU Uto 1 9 w m # W g us • 48 IIi tlaati AVWUR Lake to Beach -t)b } 1100 49 III Gothard Street Edinger to !fell 1.00 1,027 5o III Mthard Street Warner to E1112 3.00 3,545 51 111 Palm Avenue Goldenwast to 36tn St. 3.25 22,500 52 III 'dintersburg Chmuiel, i Slater0to Pacific 1.25 22,500 Coastii Ed�cds Street Talbert to Pacific 53 Z 4.25 76,500 � Coast Bighway 54 I1I Bolas Ch3cs Street arnar to mcitic 4.00 72,0M Coast Hirhwmy 55 III Ellis Avenue Edwards to Gathard 2.00 35,1D00 , ' 56 111 Abandm portion of Ellis to Garfield .50 3,00(1 The Phase I new construction also includes a half mile section of Newland Street and the Pacific Coast highway Hikeway that will be financed with county and state funds. Construction cost for Phase I New Construction is esti- mated to be $2110174 . New construction under Phase I cnnsists of the following bikeways: { Route Number s 25 Sptingdale Strict North City limits to Royalist Drive 26 Hamilton Avenue. Magnolia to Newland 27 McFadden Avenue Graham to Bolsa Chica 29 Bolsa Chica McFadden to Edinger 29 Edinger Avenue Bolsa Chica to Monterey 30 Newland Street Yorktown to Garfield 31 Pacific Coast City Pier to Bolsa Chica Highway State Beach 2.4.3 Phase 11 (1 to 5 years) Phase 11 of the bikeway implementation plan is directed toward improving the bikeway circulation pattern by: (1.) increasing east-west bikeway circulation flow, (2) ' including bikeways on the City's bikeway plan that are = presently on the ©range County Bikeway Master Plant (3) providing a Class I bikeway parallel to Pacific Coast Highway that will extend from Warner Avenue to the Santa Ana Rivert (4) improving access to activity centers throughcut the City, and (3) providing bikeways to service Oceanview High School. Phase It recommends the construction of the following new bikeways. These bikeways are recommended for development concurrently with planned street improvements over the next five years. The total estimated cost to construct Phase Ill excluding purchase of right-of-way .j is $63,780 . The purchase of right-of-way is looked upon as a function of street, improvements and not as part of bikeway improvements. New construction under Phase 11 consists of approximately J 30 miles of bikeway and are as follows: J le East West Bikeways Route Number 33 Warner Avenue GolGanwest to Gothard 34 City Park Drive Edwards t., Central Park 35 Yorktown Avenue Delaware to Beach 36 Garfield Avenue Ward to Santa Ana River 37 Slater Avenue Graham to Newland 38 Atlanta Avenue Beach to Bushard 44 -,Inlbert tvanun Goldenwest to Newland 46 tfarailton Avenue Bushaitl to Santa Ana River North South Bikeways Route Number 39 Bolsa Chica Street North City limits to McPadden 40 Goldenweat Street Norma Drive to Rio Vista Drive 41 Goldenwest Street Garfield to Pacific Coast Highway 42 Guthard Street Heil to Warner 43 Newland Garfield to Edinger 45 Lake Street. Yorktown to Pacific Coast Highway 2.4. 4 Phase II I (5 fears or more) Phase III of the Bikeway Implementation Plan proposes bikeways along City streets that need to be built to their ultimate Light-of-way widths, but are not scheduled for construction for a period greater than five yearn. The primary purpose of Phase III is to identify long range bikeway needs. it also provides improved circulation pattern and ties fragmented . bikeways together. Phase III recommends the construction of the following new bikeways. These bikeways are recommended for development conc,irrently with planned street improvements. The total estimated cost to construct Phase ITI, excluding pu: chase of right- cf-way is $248, 679. Such cost does not include right-of-way cost which are looked upon as a function of the roadway r cost and not the bikeway. Now construction under Phase II would consist of ap- proximately 23 miles and includes the following bikeways. • 19 • • 2JVV 1 Roue Route Nimiber Name Street Segments 47 ifoil Avenue Gothard to San Diego Freeway 46 Atlanta Avenue Lake to Beach Boulevard 49 Gothard Street Edinger to Heil. 50 Gothard Street Warner to Ellis 51 Palm Street Goldenwest to 36th Street 52 wintersburg Slater to Pacific Coast Hwy. Channel 53 Edwards Street Talbert to Pacific Coast Hwy. 54 Bolsa Chica Wi.rner to Pacific Coast Hwy. Street 55 Ellis Avenue Edwards to Gothard 56 Abandon portion Elliq to Garfield of Gothard 2.5 Implementing Funding Sources As bicycle programs have gained in popularity with the citizons throughout the nation, state and federal funding sources have become available for the initial construction of bikeways: The following discussion will briefly address those funding sources that the City of Huntington Beach has used in the past to develop its present program. Also discussed are the funding sources that are expected to be available to implement the recommendations in- cluded in this study. 2.5. 1 Land and Water Conservation Grant Tice Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 provides a 50-50 federal matching grant program. The City of Huntington beach applied for a grant for Development of J trails that included bicycle trails, equestrian trails and jogging trails. The City received approximately . $66,600 from the grant Program, the bulk of which was spent to develop a portion of the existing City bike- ways. J 20 2. 5. 2 Revenue Sharing The State and Local Fiscal Asaintanee Act of 1972 (commonly called revenue sharing) provides funds based on a formula allocation, from the federal government to local governmental jariudictions. Subject to broad guidelines, including use for parks and recreation pur- poses, the Orange County Board of Supervisors, as governing body, may allocate county revenue shurina fluids at its discretio•i, based on analysis of competing demands for the limited funds. By Resolution No. 73-272 , and Minute order of December 17, 1974, the Doard approved revenue sharing funds for bikeway development. (Revenue sharing has not been allocated as a funding source for bikeways since 1974--75) . The City of Huntington Beach had received from the County approximately $17,000 from the Revenue Sharing Program for the development of bikeways. 2.5. 3 .State Bicycle Lane Account Money available to cities and counties throughout the State, under the bicycle lane account is derrived from a portion of. the State Gas Tax. Approximately $30,000 is diverted monthly from the gas tax into the bicycle lane account. The City has received to date approximately $6,500 from the bicycle lane account. 2.5.4 *Orange County Arterial Bikeway System (ABS) The Orange County Arterial Bikeway System (ABS) is a network of bikeway routeR of countywide significance. The program derives its funds from a number of nources. i * 1'rfor to the 4ntahlIithinent col' Iht- Alt:,', tar• C(iunt.y MI)onmor•irl a 50-50 matching program under the auspices of the Countywide Cooperative Dikeway Program. Huntington Beach received 30,000 under this program. • 21 • • The following is a summary of ABS funding sources for fiscal year 1976-77. FUNDING SOURCES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1976-77 ASS PROGRAM Funding Source Amount Highway User Tax Fund $ 384, 500 Dana Point Tidelands Fund 131, 800 Revenue Sharing Funds 275, 600 SB 021 -- County Transportation Funds 100000 Harbors, neaclies and Parks District funds 1.,615,460 Total estimated program cost $2,416,860 The City of Huntington Beach has received to date approximately $30,000 from the *ABS program. The fiscal year 1976-77 ABS program designates approximately $ 192,000 from the program for the development of the connecting link of the Pacific Coast Highway bike trail between the City pier and the Bolsa Chica State. Once completed the off-street Pacific Coast Highway Hike Trail will extend from Warner Avenue to the Santa Ana River. 2 .5.5 SB 821 Funds State Senate Bill 821 was asdented in 1973. The bill amended the Transportation Development Act (Senate Bill 325) to allow for one quarter of one percent of the sales tax on gasoline be made available to the cities and counties annually for the exclusive use of bicycle - and pedestrians facilities. The City has received SB 821 allocations for the following projectss Fiscal Year 1974--75 - $25, 362. 00 - PCH Hike Trail Brookhurst to Beach J J *Thin figure includes funds received under the countywide cooperative biltaway programs. 22 BQGVIV--. Fiscal Year 1975-76 - ;23,516. .;0 - Springdale and Indianapolis Bikeways Fiscal Year 1976-77 - $35,8U0. 00 - improvement of Existing Bikeways ,Dotal SB 821 funds received by the City to date has been approximately $84,778. 00. Annual allocations are expected to continue for the foreseeable future anO will allow the City to implement many of the recommended bikeways within this study. 2.5. 6 Funding lmplicationu Review of the funding sources (Figure 2-9) indicates the City has been successful to date in capturing a significant amount of Bikeway fund, from the County and State, while having to spend only a minimal amount of city revenues. Of the $536,516 received by the City for bikeway construction , $235,100 has been spent to date with the remaining $301,416 designated for development of various bikeways during Fiscal Years 1976-77 and 1977-78. $202,000 of the remaining $301,416 is designated for the final connecting link of the Pacific Coast Highway bikeway between Beach Boulevard and Holsa Chica State Deach. The funds that are received from the County and State Agencies are primarily for the develop- ment of new bikeways in accordance with State mandated guidelines . The responsibility for insuring maintenance of existing and future bikeways lies with the City. For the first three years of the City' s bikeway program little if any mainten- ance took place. In August 1976 the State of California adopted uniform design standards for bikeways. The City applied to SCAG for SB 821 funds to refurbirh the City' s bikeways to meet the State mandated guidelines. The refurbishment program began during the summer of 1977. Once the refurbishment program .is completed the City will be responsible for future maintenance. In order to protect the initial investment in the City's bikeway program, there is a need to establish an annual maintenance program for the bikeways. It should also be pointed out that under the Land and Wate_ Conservation Grant, that the City received for bikeway development, it was a condition of the grant that the City provide: adequate maintenance of those bikeways that were constructed with the grant money. Figure 2-12 shows maintenance cost for the proposed bikeway implementa- tion plan. The Public Works Department has estimated that an annual amount required to insure adequate maintenance Of the City' s existing bikeways would be approximately $1, 027 per mile for bikeways located on improved roadways 23 Figure 2-9 FUNDS RECEIVED TO DATE FOR DEVELOPMENT Op BIKEU?AY PROGRAM Bikeway Sources of Fsndin31 FY 1973-74 FY 1974-75 FY 1975-76 FY 1970-77 Land & Water Conner- $ 64,500'°* vation Revenue Sharing NA $ 17,600** NA - Bicycle Lane 61500** Account ® Arterial Bikeway _ s* System* 33, OQ0 $192 ,000 SB 121 Funds NA 25,362** S 23, 616 35,800 Park & Recreation 64,500** 17, 000** Account - SS 283 Funds _ _ - 50,000 Gds Tax Funds 2,738** 4,S00** - TOTAL CosT 5135,500 S 95,100 S 28,116 $277,800 Total Spent to Date $235,100 Total Presently A a.4 1a51e 301 ,416 s TOT.NL $536,516 * Includes Funds under the Countywide Cooperative Bikeway Financing Program ** Money Spent to Gate N Figure 2-10 BIKEWAYS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN COST ANALYSTS 1977 DOLLARS Phase I (Improvements) (within one year) $ 66,725 Phase I (New Construction) (within one year) 214,212 " TOTAL COST PHASE I 280,937 Phase II (One to Five Yearn) $ 63',780 Phase III (Five Years or Greater) $ 248,679 TOTAL IMPLEMENTATION COST $ 593,396 Figure 2-11 BIKEWAYS IMPLEMENTATION FLAN FUNDING SOURCE ESTIMATTIS FY 1977-78 FY 1978-79 PY 1979 -80 FY 1980-81 County Arterial Bikeway System - - State Bicycle Lane 10,000 100,000 10,000 10,000 i Account SB 821 35,800 35,800 35,800 35,800 TOTAL 45p&G3 95 8 0 45, 800 450,900 * $152,000 i.Fj from the County Arterial.. Si%eway Fund for construction of the Pacific Coast Highway Class 1 Bikeway. A92b� 25 lop • Figure 2-12 BIKEWAY IMPLEMENTATION pLAU MAINTENA'SCE COST 8IKEWAYS ON IMPROVED ROADWAYF Miles Cost Per Mile cost Phase 1 76.30 $1,027 $ 78, 360 "1 28.48 1r027 29,249 Phase Ii Phase III 9.25 1, 027 9, 500 Tota',. Coat$117,109 OFF-ROAD BIKEWAYS Miles Cost Per Milt: Cost ' Phase T. 4.50 $1,281 Phase II 1. 75 1,281 2, 242 Phase III 13 . 25 11 281 y lfi_697 Toi.al Cost $ 23,699 Total Miles 133 .53 * Total Maintenance Cost 140, 808 * $140, 908 would represent two year maintenance cost. Bikeways would be repainted a minimum of every other year. J 26 ... ... .... ___._. ....._..... ........... . .... .. •Y.r14. .A7d lY:..r:C..riiM M•�' _-..ram.........-......... ..u .... ,. .. .. t� • LDQCVV ow - - -- - and $1, 281 per mile for bikeways that are located off the roadways. Total coat if bikeways were reconstructed each year would be $140,168. Howover, this cost, would be spread over at least a two year period (possibly a three year period) since not all bikeways need repainting and resigning annually. Future funding sources for initial development of bikeways are shown in Figure 2-11. The balk of the funds will comic from SB 921 funds. All City bikeways under the County Arterial Bikeway Program will be funded during 1976-1977 and built except for the Wintersbere bikeway , located between Graham Street and Pacific Coast Highway. Funding for this bikeway is not shown because of the uncertainty of Balsa Chica Preserve. When the Wi.nte.rsberg bikeway in funded, the City will receive approximately $40,000 for construction. 2. 6 Recommendations The 68 miles of existing bikeways in Huntington Beach ie one of the most extensive systems in Orange County. implementation of the revised Master Plan of Bikeways as proposed in this study would increase the bikeway system to 133.33 miles. The establishment of the bikeway program throughout the City has increased the motorist awareness of the cyclist and has established boundaries in which the cyclist, especially the young cyclist, can maneuver with a reasonable degree of confidence that he will riot have a conflict with an automobile. The following recommendations will enable the City to continue to carry out an effective bikeway program that will provide the residents of Huntington !beach with an adequate bikeway system. 1. Adopt the Revised Master Plan of Bikeways as shown in Figure 2-7: 2. Provide for an annual maintenance budget for the upkeep of the bikeway system. 3. Continue support of the Community Bicycle Surety Program. 4. Direct Public work's staff to evaluate and report to the Plan- ning Commission those atreetE, along the existing bikeway system that have a conflict between cyclist and parked automobiles. 5. Direct Publics Work' s staff to provide procedures for protecting bikeways that lie adjacent to construction sites. 6. Direct that a more limited '3ike Crossing Sign program be insti- tuted throughout the City. 27 1 l 7 J �J .J �J 'J 3.o EQUESTRIAN TRAILS 3.1 Existing Equestrian Studies 3.1. 1 Recreational Trails Element, Phase I The Recreational Trails Element, Phase 1, as adopted by the Huntington Beach City Council in October, 1973, did not set forth a specific plan for equestrian trails to be im- plemented over time. It was determined that additional direction on equestrian uses in the City was needed before any specific planning could occur; and it was recommended that actual expenditure Of funds be delayed until further ,.� study could be conducted. Specifically, the Trails Element recommended that: 1. A study be done to present specific alternatives for the accommodation of equestrian uses in the City, both on an interim and long-range basis. From this study the City Council could formulate a definitive policy for Staff to use in providing equestrian trails in the City. 2. set aside $7,000 from the Phase I Land and water Con- servation for equestrian trails. The output of the study would include a recommendation on how this money j� should be spent. � J 28 A [DQaV11 ' ' Based on the recommendations of the Recreational Trails Element, Phase I , the Equestrian Use Study was prepared in May, 1974. 3.1.2 Equestrian Use Study The purpose of the Equestrian Use Study wa■ to identify viable equestrian use alternatives in an effort to generate discussion and to facilitate development of a comprehensive statement of City policy regarding equestrian use. In this pursuit, the study identified the assets and liabilities of equestrian use, presented and evaluated five alternative mquestrian use concepts, discussed factors involved in designing and developing a trails system, and presented Planning Department recommendations. Ranging from complete exclusion of all equestrian uses to large-scale expansion of existing horse areas, the long- range equestrian use concepts outlined by the study cover i a variety of possible policy choices available to City decision makerss Alternative A: Exclusion - Phase out existing equestrian uses; provi3e no tra is other than regional river path; enforce restrictions against horses on public rights-of-Way. i Alternative Bs Confinement - Confine equestrian uses to City-owns`Eity-owne`J stables at Central park and suitable trails in park; encourage development of river equestrian center to serve river trail system. Alternative C: Tolerance - Permit existing uses to continue; estab s temporary tra is; (assume that equestrian uses will eventually be replaced by market demand) . Alternative D: Consolidation - Designate "equestrian areas"I where commercial stables will be permitted; prohibit horses on residential lots; develop a trails system to serve equestrian areas and connect with regional systems. Alternative Es Expansion - Designate areas where commercial arid- private stables Eire permissible; develop a comprehensive trails system that serves such areas, connects theca with r other open spaces, and links them with regional systems. The Equestrian Use Study also sets forth three short-range trail proposals which addressed current needs and maintained flexibility for future actions. i 29 • 4 1) Alternative Trail 1 - A 3-mile trail through the eolsa Chica and Along the Wintersburg Channel. 2) Alternative Trail 2 - A 1.5-mi1e trail through Hunt4DOW Contra, parx an city-owned acreage adjacent to it. 3) Alternative Trail 3 - A trail linking the major con• mercial stables in the central section of the City, �^ ranging in length from 1.75 to 2.5 miles depending on the location of the crossing on Goldenwest etrset. Recommendations by the Planning Department Staff set forth in the Equestrian Use study were as followss . 1 1) A signalized horse crossing should be installed as soon as possible at Ernest and Goldenwest to alleviate a safety hazard due to horses crossing in this location instead of at Garfield, the designated horse crossing. !•� 2) Immediate consideration should be given to establishing a Central Park trail and an equestrian facility in Phase III of Central Park. 3) The specific path and the desirable nature and location of an equestrian center should be determined by a special committee appointed by the City Council. This committee should include a member of the Council., a Planning Commissioner, a Recreation and Parke Com- missioner, e.nd a representative of equestrian interests in the community. Its proposals to be reported back to the City Council -- should include an acceptable route for the Central Park trail, a recommendation on the equestrian facility, and a suggested long-range use concept to direct future land use planning in the City. The City Council reviewed the Equestrian Use Study and accompanying Planning Department recomendations in June, . � 1974, and took the following actions: 1) Directed the Staff to pursue a combination of the long- range equestrian use concepts D and E, and as a short- range objective, Alternative Trail 2. 7 2) Approved the location of a signalized horse crossing at Ernest and Goldenwest Streets. 3) Directed that a special study committee be formed. The make-up of the committee was authorized as outlined previously. 4 i 30 3. 1. 3 Equestrian Use Committee The Equestrian Use Committee, appointed by the City Council in June, 1974, was made tip of four memberso Henry Duke (City Council) , Robert Bazil (Planning Commission) , Lee Kosteller (Recreation and Parks Commission) , and Hill Williams (local stable owner) . Upon its formation# the Committee was directed by the Council to prepare recommend- ations regarding% 1) an acceptable route for a Central Park riding trails 2) appropriate action on an equestrian center, and 3) a long range equestrian use concept to guide future land use and trails planning. After considerable study and deliberation, the committee prepared a met of recommendations and accompanying trails plan which were adopted by the City Council in August, 1975. The actions recommended by the Equestrian Use committee are as follows: 1. A signalized horse crossing at Ernest and Goldenweet. 2. A preliminary trails plan (Figure 3-1) , adopted by the Council as an amendment to the City's Trails Element. This trails plan is divided into two phases. Phase I would be implemented to serve the need of today's riders. It would utilize the railroad right-of-way, publicly owned property and/or designated open space areas. Phase 11 represents a longer range program which would be implemented as development occurs in the Bolea Chica, the State Wildlife Refuge, the proposed Edwards realign- • ment, and the Estate Development area. 3. Raughly graded %questrian trails constructed at minimal cost. Fences or other amenities would not be added until financing permits. i 4. Privately owned equestrian stables to be encouraged by the City in designated open space or estate development areas. The City need not become financially involved in an Equestrian Canter. S. Continued effort to seek potential equestrian trail routes to link with the Santa Ana River trail and/or a beach-related trail system. Adak 31 • D VV ui2 '"� The functions of the Equestrian Use Committem (disbaned in November, 1975) are being carried out by the Planning Commission (with staff support from the Planning Depart- ment) . 3.2 Temporary Equestrain Trails 01 The State Department of Parks and Recreation had indicated to the City staff that the City would loose the remaining portion of the ' Land and Water Conservation Grant ($71500) it received a few years ago unless equestrian or pedestrian trails wore constructed. The funding under the Land and Water Conservation Grant is a 50/50 matching arrangement. The Public Works Department with the con- currence of the Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council has designed a temporary equestrian trail in the Phase III area of ! Central Park. The design and eventual construction of the temporary trails will be funded with the $7,500 from the Land and Water Conservation Grant and a matching amount from the parka acquisition and development fund. The trail will be approximately 1. 8 miles in length and will cost an estimated $15#000 to develop. s This temporary trail system is seen as the forerunner of a permanent equestrian trail system which is envisioned as being master planned in conjunction with the other recreational uses to be located in Central. Park. 3. 3 Inplementation 3. 3.1 Trails System The Equestrian trails system that is recommended in this report (Figure 3-2) provides a more limited trails } system than the plan adopted by the City Council in August 1975 (Figure 3-1) . The revised plan eliminates all equestrian trails on the east side of Golenwest Street. ' ] The plan emphasizes trail development within Huntington Central Park Phase III and the estate development properties west of Goldenwest Street and north of Garfield Avenue with cannnrting trnilx to the Edward Street/ 3801 Street bluffs (Orange County llnual park conaepL) that. will tie into the Holsa Chica marshlands. The primary �.) reasons for eliminating the equestrian trails on the east side of Goldenwest Street are to: 1. Reduce the possible traffic conflicts between equestrians and motor vehicles moving along Goldenwest Street and Gothard Street. 2. Eliminate the possible noise conflicts between the public shooting range, police helicopter, and rail- road with equestri riders. r i � 32 ...,..... . �_......_ w r I wow w. 1 LEGEM ME16 FM d1ri0 SICO Don lrt1AiE odowiWow kN rill l� . ti Figure 3-1 EQMTRM TRMS PLAN i APPROVED AUGUST, 1975 huntingtan beach planning department i 33 '1 r1 \ ,r+ i i am i r1 7 _. .:� EU FMLI wwm CENTRAL PARK EM FW)PO a LINEAR PARK MU ONCA MAN4 MUM FI ASE * TRAIL SYSTEM \ :� -�-- PHASE It TRAM SYSTEM \ .J \ Figure 3-2 J EOtJESTRIAN TRAILS CONCEPTUAL, PLAN huntington beach planning department 34 • 1 • � 3. Reduce the cost of trail development. 4. Eliminate conflicts between equestrians and existing land uses along Gothard Street between Ellis Avenue and Slater Avenue. The equestrian trails plan is presented as a conceptual plan. Once spcific land use plans are developed for Huntington Central Park, Phase III, the County lineal park and the Balsa Chico marshlands precise trail align- ments can be prepared. The importance of adopting the conceptual trails plan is that it reflects the City's intent to have equestrian trails developed within and around Huntington Central Park, Phase III as a permanent recreational use. 3. 3.2 Equestrian Center The Trails Implementation Plan recommends the development of an Equestrian Center located on publicly owned property within Huntington Central Park, Phase fir. The center is envisioned as containing boarding stables for privately owned horses, a riding arena with matting and lighting. Also the center would include other supporting facilities such as wash racks;, paddocks, tack sheds and exercise rings. The Equestrian Center would also include adequate equestrian trailer parking facilities for residents and visitors who want to use the permanent trail system. It is not the purpose of this report to specify the exact i location, size, and type of facilities to be included in the Equestrian Center. The primary purpose of this Section of the Trails Implementation plan is to recommend that an equestrian center be designated as a permanent recreational use within Huntington Central Park, Phase III. � The Equestrian Center and trails system would be siippor�ive of each other. 3.4 Cost Analysis A cost analysis of the Equestrian Trails Plan is provided in Figure 3-3. The total project will cost approximately $223,692 initially and about $2,420 per year in maintenance. Approximately 2/3 of this cost will be shared between City, County, and State. Several sources of funding for equestrial trails in the City are possible: AN& 35 Figure 3-3 COST ANALYSIS EQUEbTRIAN TRAILS FLAX 1977 DOLLARS PHASE I (1.81 miles) Grading 1.01 miles @ $1,454/mile $ 2, 632 Fencing 1.81 miles @ $31,869/mile 57 ,683 (wooden rail fencing) Signing 7 signs @ $44/ea (4 signs/mile) 308 Total Cost $ 60,623 PHASE II Grading 7 miles @ $1;452/mile $ 10,164 Fencing A miles @ $31,869/mile 79,673 (wooden rail fencing) 4h miles @ $16000/mile 72,000 (chain link fencing) Signing 28 signs @ $44/ea (4 sign- /mile) 1,232 Total Cost $163,069* GRAND TOTAL COST $223,692 *Phase II cost would be shared by the County, State, and City. I I�I I 36 • I I 1 � I 1. band and Water Conservation Funds ($7 ,000 from these funds is already reserved for equestrian trails) 2. Horse licensing 3. Revenue Sharing monies 4. Recreation and Parks budget to 5. Park fees 6. Park tax 7. bond funds from the State Beach, Park Recreation and Historical Facilities Bond Act of 1974. r B. County of Orange and State funding sources. 3.5 Recommendation to Adoption of the following recommendations will provide for develop- ment of an Equestrian Center and Trails System that will be an integral part of the master planning effort for establishment of recreational type uses within Huntington Central Park. 1. Adopt the Conceptual Equestrian Trails Plan (Figure 3-2) that provides for the establishment of a permanent trails system that links Huntington Central Park, Phase 111, with the Estate Development Land Uses south of Phase ill, the Edwards Street/ 38th Street bluffs and the Bolsa Chic& marshlands. 2. Reiterate the City's intent to include an Equestrian Centex as an integral part of the Huntington Central Park, Phase TIT master planning effort. • i � 37 • 'sP '1 CITY OF HUPMNOTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL Roneld R.Petdmn.Meyot Ron Shwknwn,Mayor Pro Tent Ted W.Bartlett Nairw affl A ORrbs Alvin M.Coen Rlclw►d W.Siebert Hsrtiett M.WMdw Floyd 0.Wsfto,City Adminiannor PLANNING COMISMON Roper D.Slate.,ChairnMn Frint Shea.Vkw*wkmn Ruth Finley Frank V.Hoffmon Choda T.Gibson am"D.NweNwn JOlnr Stwo Edwwd D.Selith,SemOry .� PLANNING DBPARTWNT f ARtICIPATINO STAFF Edward D.Smith . . PMnnhv Donator Monk.l kwkm . . Anfstem PlenMn1 Dlreaoor Rk wrd Ownerd . . . . . . ASOMM t Pbmwr Emilb Jnl~ . . . . . . Anodaw Pbnnw (fill Holman . . . Pinv*4 Aide Geor+Pe FisnMs . Piminr Draftsmen •gyp Hannan . Plank"Drefunw Juno Align . . . . Administrative S wawy Oitela Campepn • • Swebry Sueen Plena . . . seaetaryTt►f s/4eprrd tbtar �.4:.� J� .'1 .1.11 . ......r • _ . .. w.......:M.'- .Y.�.. .....l.l.11...1'.}�i .�,Q��.,y..�{S Y. �:n.. . ti�+►:. ./-.i..ir. .r�\ ... ....1..... Y., wV.....Ii .. kYlit_1la^i/F ADDENDUM Pen and Ink Changes 1. Change Figure 2-70 Route Number: 51, Route Name: Gothard Street, Street Segment; Garfield Avenue to Yorktown Avenue to mead Route Number 57. 2. Add to Figure 2-8 : Route Number: 57 Phase: lix Route Name: Gothard Street Streit Segment: Garfield Avenue to Yorktown Avenue Mileage of bikeways: .50 Trail Construction: 9,Oa0 3. Incorporate the attached maintenance impact statements for bikeways and equestrian trails as p&rt of the Trails Implementation Plan. i i A gum ■ Portion of 2. 5. 6, page 27 (insert as first paragraph) Adoption of the Trails Implementation Plan will have a direct effect upon they personnel, material and equipment needs of the Public Works Department. The effect will bo related primarily to maintenance cost that the City would incur under each phase of the Bikeway Section of the Trails Implementation plan. Maintenance cost shown in Figure 2-12 would be divided between labor, -material and equipment cost. Labor would take an estimated 43 percent of the projected maintenance cost while material and equipment would take 38 percent and 19 percent respectively. The following represents a breakdown of projected public works maintenance cost incurred under each phase of the bikeway plan. Phase I Labor Cost (increase in Public Works Department $ 36,174 personnel of 2 employees) Material Cost 31,968 Equipment Cost .15,983 Total Maintenance Cost Phase I $ 84,125 Phase II Labor Cost Uncrease in Public Works Department $ 13,542 personnel of .68 employees) Material Cost 11,967 Equipment Cost . 5,988 Total Maintenance Cost Phase Ii $ 31,496 Phase III Tabor Cost (increase in Public Works Department $ 14,833 personnel of .58 employees) Material Coat 9,513 Equipment Cost 4,786 Total Maintenance Cost phase III $ 23,192 • Replace existing 3.4 , page 35, with this page. 3.4 Cost Analysis A cost analysis of the Equestrian Trails Plan is provided in Figure 3-3. she total project development cost is estimated to be $223, 692. Approximately two-thirds of this cost could be ah3red be- tween City, County, and State. The implementation of the proposed Equestrian Trails will affect Public Works Department personnel, Material funding and equipment or rentals. The Public Works Department estimates that it will cost fifty percent of construction cost per year to regrade, dress trails and remove debris dumpi.ngs. Fence repiacwnent and repairs are estimated to cost ten percent of construction cost per year, while replacement of signs that are knocked down, stolen or deteriorated are estimated to cost twenty-five percent of the construction cost per year. Phase I of the: Equestrian Traila Plan will cost an- estimated $60#623 to develop. Vublic Works Department estimates that maintenance of the Phase I equestrian trail will cost an estimated $7,161. This amount includes an increase of .17 Public Works employees. Phase II of the Equestrian Trails Plan will cost an estimated $163#069 to develop. Public Works Department estimates that maintenace of the Phase II equestrial trails will cost an estimated $20#657. The cost may be shared between City, County, and State. This eaaount includes an increase of one Public works employee. Several sources of funding for equestrians trails in the City are possible. i 1. Land and Water Conservation Funds 47000 from these funds is already reserved for equestrian trails) 2 ' Horse lice nin H r e n g 3. Revenue Sharing monies 4. Recreation and Parke budget S. 'Park fees 6. Park tax 7. Bond funds from the State Beach, Park Recreation and Histcrical Facilities Bond Act of 1974. A. County of Orange and State funding sources 4 !m r Affidavit of Publication ,3 � States of CAINnta County of Ora,W : aw of ft,tael wtaaa ldeach Gea ve ftmul rir, bein= duly sworn on oath, says: 'thst he is a, ddaen d the UnIted States, over the aye of twenty-one years. 'That be Is iba printer sad publidw of the HuntbWton Beach Nuts, a weeW newspaper of Kanreal circulation printed and pub- 1lsb,W in Huntftusms Beach, Caitfornia svA circulated In the sa62 , Casnty of Orange and elsewlmm and pubUshed for the 41mmirastion tNu of focal sail athrr news of a generd daarae tr,anti has a bores Skit � 4 sulmalpticia list of p our a sub a bem and said paper has be+sn a0mblidwd printed and publi0ed In tba, State of CAUfornis, and Clstwty at Ora der, for at last ene year treat before the pabUcation + ' of tba first insertion of this notice; and the raid newspaper Is not bavoted to the intertst of, or publshed for the entm4ainment of Any - r' particular class, professloi4 Uimle, calling. race or denomination, or arW nw nbvr thereof: The Ruottnottcnn Beach New was adludleated a legal newspaper o f Smeral ctmiatioa by Judits G. K.Scowl In the Superior Court of Ormw Caantnty,041fornia Auattst yfth,ISV by order No.A-WL Tut *a TF�art g rV T MILK W- 1011 BLAN r of wbkb dine atnaxed is a printed copy, was published In ,said rem- ''i paper at kart SlLlg a ue sot seciag fr+oau ttte .29 th...._day of Juno 1CA and esdtrag on the 19th day of lA u ga I y 4 � 1820- bothd.�s irnelwtt+e, grad as often daring said period and tlwrs of publicatiaa as said piper was reaularbr lasu4 and In the 1 t In a tlotift was pubUdieed�tber an tin row, md tollmO p p dates, to -wit: uw, Jan_ 190 297a rAlubllsbft Subm4bed and swore to before no this 20th day of J�Inuar}L, is?8 �r�+SiiLr � Notary Public Oramne County, California iw.-.rwww�rw.w�............... ' THOMAS D. WYLLIB ormoge roar", t M, Commis.ien Expires --- ....September it. 1178 1 w !# of �odd� e& c Cm" of S at 1 c t Iffidavitof Pabheatkn CA GEORGE FARQUNAR "Us W Mum Bach Non FlMd Cwk ' � 1 i i Chht f - • CITY OF HunTm GTOn BEA( H DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES P.u, BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 5=6.5271 U J A N 10 1976 TO: Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator CITY OF HUNTiNGTON BEACH Edward D. Selich, Planning Director DATL: February 6, 1978 ADMINISTRATIVE OFRCE SUBJECT: Trails Implementation Plan and Negative Declaration 77-13� STATEMENT OF ISSUE: The Planning Commission held a public hearing for the Trails Issple- mentation Plan and Negative Declaration 77-135 at the regular meeting of December 20, 1977. The Trails Plan and Negative Declaration were adopted by the Planning Commission and are recommended for adoption to the City Council by the Planning Commission. RECOMMENDATION: i The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that the City Council adopt Negative Declaration 77-135 and the Trails Implementation Plan in accordance with the attached resolution. ANALYSIS: The Trails Implementation plan provides for the establishment and maintenance of bicycle and equestrian trails and will give the resi- dents of the community an improved and expanded recreational and transportation trails system. The City's trails are presently in- { corporated into the General Plan under the Recreational Trails E•lemcnt. Adoption of the Trails Implementation Plan will remove the Reareation,il Trails Element from the General Plan. Goals and policies for trail development are currently included in the Circulation and Open Space j and Conservation Elements of the General Plan and provide the neces- sary direction for adoption of the Trails Implementation Plan. FUNDING SOURCE: Funding sources for the Bicycle and Equestrian Trails are presented in the report document. Basically, funds are derived from various i State, County and local funding sources. Respectfully submitted, Attactumts (1) City Council Resolution �.. (2) Planning Comoi.ssion Resolution 1208 (3) Let-ter fr�} from on m Orville R. Hans r , l;:�ward d. fie lich (4) Planning �t Yespa:ses too Director Aminoil USA Concerns � LDS:RB s gc 1 � • RESOLUTION NO. 1206 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIO" OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RECOMMENDINC ADOPTION OF THE TRAILS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND DELETION OF THE RECREATIONAL TRAILS ELEMENT FROM THE GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach desires to provide an imple .enting program for the establish- ment and maintenance of bicycle trails and equestrian trails within the City of Huntington Beach, and WHEREAS , the General Plan's Circulation Element provides direction for development of non-motorized transportation facilities within the City of Huntington Beach, and WHEREAS, the Genera? Plan's Open Space and Conservation Element provides direction for development of recreational uses within open space areas, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach is adopting said Trails Implementation Plan in order to promote the health, welfare and convenience of the general public, and WHEREAS, v public hearing on adoption of said Trails Imple- mentation Plan was held by the Planning Commission on December 20, 1977. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach hereby adopts said Trails Implementation Plan and deletes the Recreational Trails Element from the General plan. BE IT FURTHER nr.sOLVED, that said Trails Implementation Plan is recommended for adoption by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach as implementing the General Plan's Circulation Element Policy concerning non-motorized transportation facilities and the General Plan's Open Space and Conservation Element policy concerning rec- reational uses in open spade areas and delete the Recreational Trails Element from the General Plan. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California, on the 20th day of December, 1977, by the following roll call vote: � AYES: Stern, Finley, Slates, Shea, Roffman, Newman NOES: 'None ABSENT: Gibson ABSTAIN: None 41 ATTEST: Eduard D. Selich Roger Slates Secretary Chairman i • Amir.,,.,USA,inc. p0 COX 191 Nun:,ngtrn©oath,Cahh:rma 92646 (71.11516-6521 r(2131 1-.92-5501 AMINOL USA HU1MNDTCW BEAM 22 December 1977 F' MING DEFT. DEC 2 s 14;I Nx. inch Barnard City of Huntington Beach P. 0. gas 190 Department of Planning & Eavironmental Resources. H BM N CA MM P.O. Box 190 Huntington leach, CA 92646 Dear Mr. Barnard: M: Trails Uplewntation Plan. : I have been out of town for three creeks on business sad just now had opportunity to address your rocWst for review and convent on the trails and Implementation Plan. Obviously we would Haves sons ongoing concerns about the plan & program but let me outline a few that are pertinent now. I I. Is she cost justified by potential use1. 1 II. County Ordinsuce raquires oil well footing for public protection. Our forth & South Bolas lessen comply � because of perLaete,r fencing and 24 hr, supervision. Unfenced bike trails would preclude our meetimg these regoirements. With 120 wells active on this property sns4 wall fencino ostimsted between 03-4000por wall, a «' conservative estimated cost would be 040,000 fur openers. III. Penced bike trails bi-setting the property would greatly hamper operations end access. Operations and Maintenance costa would rise 5-1C% for repair and rsplacsmnt of fences. The question of course is who will assume the cost at footing to say -uotbi,g of the personal liability involved with' Curious bike :riders wlna stray from the outlined pstlrraya. No Saw will rotor bikes be controlled? V. Now will ttu: trails crone P.C.B.? VIe Why not fence the warner Flood Control on the Dolsa Chive side and use the flood control dike for a trail way to P.C.H. r �..�"�..M./[�� YiKK.:iMtw Ln.+,r.wu,.N•'. r..+fr.Cl......Mf...... 41:4'._.. .... '1r• ♦h• .....-.. ..+,.......+w,J .. Iti.�r.i..,`qti .....:N,:.wR`Ai i�...1'.�� F 1� . fir. Rich Barnard .2_ 22 Dec. 1977 VII. Will the trails be restricted to bicycles only? VIII. Nov can you put bike trails on private property? IX. Who pays additional cost? X. Is the plan predicated on City annexation or County Control? X2. Who will police the trails, particularly at right. These are just a few of ssny conesras we would have. Tbank you for giving us the opportunity to consent. If ve can assist in stave way to resolve these problem areas. Please lot M know. ' Sincerely, le art Codmunity and gaviroamatal Affairs. MJU ad F f". I;• j : .r....+yrr..+...w..a..w_s•w..•...ray......-.•...•...L:.'...r:=•...:'s..,;,:r..... .. __....._��-.---......».•w.�.,...�.....,...-� Ct�. �hlts iilrt�"�+.��� • J• CITY OF HUNTINOTON REACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNi1NGTOM NA(H To Floyd G. Belsito From Edward D. Selich City Administrator Planning Director Subject AMINOIL LETTER REGARDING Date February 6, 1978 TRAILS IMPLE14ENTATION PLAN The following is a series of Planning Department replies to a letter received from Orville R. Hanson, representing the Aminoil USA which presently operates 120 wells within a portion of the Bolas Ch:.ca Mesa. The Amincil letter (attached) indicates concerns that Aninoil has regarding the Trails Implementation Plan. I. Is the cost justified by potential use? Reply: Yes, cost projections are justified by potential use. Each year thousands of bicycles travel along existing City bikeways. While the bicycle boom began as a recreational type activity it has, over the years, gained acceptance as an alternative mode of transportation. The bicycle has become a viable alternative to the motor vehicle for Raining access to City and State beaches, to all levels of school facilities, and various commercial and residential land uses. Ii. county Ordinance requires oil well fencing for public protection. Our North and South Bolsa Leases comply because of perimeter fencing and 24 hour supervision. [Unfenced bike trails would pre- clude our meeting these requirements. with 120 wells active ,on this property and well fencing estimated between $3-4000 per well, a conservative estimated cost would be $40,000 for openers. Reply: The bikeways that are shown extending into or adjacent to Amincil properties indicate the City's intent to provide bicycle access to Bolsa Chica State Beach facilities at some future date. It is important to keep in mind that the pro- posed bikeways are long tdrm (5 years or longer) and would be built in conjunction with either roadway development, linear park development, or housing development whichever taker place within the area. Bikeway development would be , secondary to a primary project. Therefore the question of fencing around the oil wells is unlikely to arise without other development pressures being present to require such fencing. III. Fenced bike trails bisecting the property would greatly hamper operations and access. Operations and Maintenance costs would rise 5-101 for repair and replacement of fences. The question of course is who will assume the coat of fencing to say nothing of the personal liability involved with curious bike riders who stray from- the outlined pathways. Page Z Reply: There are no current plans to fence bikeways. Here again bikeway development in the area of Aminoil wells is long term and will most likely take place in conjunction with another type of development (park, roadway or housing develop- ment) . IV. How will motor bikes be controlled? Reply: This has been somewhat of a problem on other bikeways, such as the Santa Ana River Trail. The primary responsibility will rest with the Police Department. It should be noted that bike riders would probably act as a watch and would notify authorities of motorcycles using the trail. V. Hoar will the trails cross P.C.H.? Reply: Bicycles will cross Pacific Coast Highway at controlled intersections. VI. Why not fence the Warner Flood Control on tb..e Bolsa Chica side and use the flood control dike for a trail way to P.C.H.? Reply: No precise alignments have been decided upon for the bikeway extending across or adjacent to A^inoil oil wells. The use of flood control channel right-of-ways is certainly a possible alternative. VII. Will the trails be restricted to bicycles only? Reply: The current thinking is to restrict the bikeways to only bicycles, however, other trail systems such an the Santa Ana River trails allow bicycles, pedestrians and joggers. VIII. Hoer can you put bike trails on private property? Reply: The proposed bikeways will be developed in conjunction with roadway development or other development activity. Rikeways will be built on property dedicated to the City at the time development occurs. If the County or State purchase properties within the Solsa Chica general area agreement way be reached concerning development of bikeways can the property. IX. Who pays additional cost: Reply: Development cost will come from various State and County bicycle funding sources that are available to local communities as outlined in the Trails Implementation Plan. Maintenance cost will come from Public Works accounts and possibly Park and Recreation funding. R. Is the plan predicated on City annexation or County control? Page 3 Reply: The Trails Implementation Ilan was not predicated on a specific governmental agency controlling the Boleas Chica area. The bikeways that lie adjacent to or extend through the Bolsa Chica area indicate the City's desire to provide non-motorized access to (1) possible vista points within Bolsa Chica and (2) to ,provide access to the Bolsa Chica State Beach and Class I bikeway that extends along the beach between the Santa Ana River and Warner Avenue. Also the Balsa Chica Mesa lies within the Huntington Beach sphere of influence whica allows the City to provide planning alternatives for the area. Also the County provides plans for extending bikeways into the Bolsa Chica area adjacent to the Wintersburg Flood Control Channel. Xr. Who will police the trails, particularly at night? Reply: The Huntington Beach Police Department would be responsible for policing the bikeways located within the City. The bikeways lying within the County jurisdiction would be patrolled by the Orange County Sheriff Department. The City may contract its services to patrol county bikeways. What happens within and around the Solea Chica area will determine whether the bikeways would be open or closed during evening hours. EDSiRB:ja i *rbltoh�,y jig WrIC` Oi PWIC NUUNG Trails hlgntation t+lan f� WrIC4 IS RUM GIVO that a public, hearing rill be bald by tbs City Council of the City of Vwtlngton leach, in the Council Cher of tbs Curie Cantor, 1Wtl4to4 jambs at the hoer of .UM...,. r.M. , or M Soon tbareafter as poosiblo, on _ *01ay the Gth d y of yebrUarr , 1,9,70 0 fat the pWr"e of cdlm idecing A3nption of the Trails Implementation Plan that pravides direction for the development and maintenance of bikeways and eTues=Tian trails within the City of t1=ting'ton Beach. The plan is an implementing tool of the adopted goals and policies of the Circulation and Open Space aM Conservation !.laments or the City's General Plan. The City Cowmil will also be considering the granting of Negative Declaration No. 77-135 which is a finding that the proposed trails plan will not have a significant adterse effect upon the environment. ♦11 interested parsano are invited to attend said heart" and express their opirians for or Against said n,,-..i t Plan 1Wt1 r iafoeamUom my be obtained from the Office of tbs City c larch. DAM- 1/11/78 CITY Of• MWIMt.'M UACH by: Alicia 1 a vdatwrth NWICC TO CLERK TO SCHEDUIX PUBLIC HEARING ITEM TRAILS IMPLEMENTATION PAN TO: CITY C1.RRK'S OFFICE DATE: January 5, 1978 FROM: Richard Barnard PLEASE SCHEDULE A pUELIC HEARING USING THE ATTACHED LEGAL NOTICE FOR THE Gth DAY OF February 197 AP's are attached AP's will follow <N:oDA9 Initiated by: Planning Commission XX Planning Department. Petition * Appeal Otlier Adoption of Environmental Status (x) X YES NO Refer to Richard Barnard planning Department - Extension # 5279 for additional information fVU * If appeal, please transmit exact wording; to he required in the legal . •