The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPacific Coast Widening & Re-striping Golden West Street to B r- Council/Agency Meeting Held: 60 Deferred/Continued to: ❑ Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied 6 City Clerk's Signature Council Meeting Date:. June 19, 1995 Department ID Number: PW 95-047 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA, City Administra PREPARED BY: 'TES M. JONES II, Director of Public Worl SUBJECT: Pacific Coast Highway Restriping Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action,Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachments) Statement of Issue: The Orange County Transportation Authority has proposed to withhold from the City of Huntington Beach $1.2 million in Measure M/Local Turnback funds until Pacific Coast Highway, between Beach Boulevard and Golden West Street, has been re-striped from four to six travel lanes. Funding Source: A potential loss to the City of $945,000 - to $1.2 million in Measure M/Local Turn-back Funds over the next five years. Recommended Action: Enter a cooperative agreement with the Orange County Transportation Authority in accordance with the conditions set forth in their letter, dated April 21, 1995, except that the amount to be withheld shall be the original amount of the grant, $945,000-not $1.2 million which includes interest. Alternative Action(s): Oppose the proposal of OCTA to withhold funds by seeking legal action. mEQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACT iON MEETING DATE: June 19, 1995 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PW 95-047 Analysis: ISSUE On April 11, 1995, Mayor Leipzig and City staff met with Supervisor Silva, OCTA staff and the Caltrans District 12 director and his staff to discuss OCTA's proposal to "hold $1.2 million of Measure M local Turnback Funds due to the City of Huntington Beach in reserve until Pacific Coast Highway is restriped to six lanes or the year 2000". BACKGROUND In February of 1986, the City of Huntington Beach requested, and on June 6th of that year, the OCTA Board approved a grant of $945,000 to widen/restripe Pacific Coast Highway from Beach Blvd. to Goldenwest St. The project involved narrowing the median island and removing on-street parking so that PCH could be restriped from four to six lanes. On July 9th of that same year, the California Coastal Commission approved the project under the condition that all on-street parking be replaced on a one-for one basis. On October 16, 1989, the City Council approved a call for bids for the construction project. The RCA acknowledged ..... "conditions of the project's EIR and the City's Coastal Plan require replacement of any parking taken off the highway. The proposed parking facility along the beach oil service road between Ninth Street and Goldenwest Street and the proposed parking structure north of the Pier are possible future sites for the replacement parking. As replacement spaces are found, equivalent number of spaces will be taken off the highway. The additional travel lanes will be added as parking is removed". On August 6, 1990, the City Council awarded the construction contract. During August, 1990, the City received a check for the project from OCTA, in the amount of $946,000. On October 7, 1991, the notice of completion for the construction project was approved. On February 3, 1992, OCTA sent a letter to the City, stating that, if on-street parking and bikelanes were to exist within project limits rather than the additional driving lanes, OCTA would ask for a return of the $946,000 grant. The letter stated that the grant was awarded for the project, "based upon its merits as an essential transportation improvement". Since that time, several meetings have been held and many letters have been exchanged between the agencies involved in this issue. 0012635.01 -2- 06/13/95 5:04 PM *QUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTivN MEETING DATE: June 19, 1995 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PW 95-047 OCTA'S CURRENT POSITION In OCTA's letter, dated April 21, 1995 to our City Administrator (copy attached) which confirmed the results of the meeting of April 11, $1.2 million ($946,000 grant with interest) in Measure M/Turnback Funds will be withheld from the City over a period of 4 to 5 years and held, without interest, in a reserve fund until July 1, 2000. If PCH is not restriped by July 1, 2000, the funds will be dispersed to other Measure M Programs. Before January 1, 1996, the City is to submit a parking replacement plan to the California Coastal Commission demonstrating a good faith effort. CITY STAFF POSITION A. The City in 1986, in requesting the grant from OCTA thus committed the City to completion of the project. If the project goal was not met, the project is not complete, and the funds should probably be returned (see legal opinion dated February 6, 1992, attached). It should, however, be noted that no Cooperative Agreement exists between the City and OCTA. B. Is Widening From Four Lanes to Six Lanes Needed? It is understood that the City, County and State agreed that such a project was needed as early as 1965. Technical staffs of the City, County and the State still agree, using accepted traffic modeling practices, that the project is badly needed. It is so badly needed that it is identified within the County-wide and State "Congestion Management Programs". If the widening does not occur in the near future, the City is even in danger of losing Measure M and "Proposition 111" Gas Tax Allocations. Some people have said, "Why widen a highway when it is only congested five days a year?". This is a gross understatement of the problem. The problem regularly exists all summer long and on every warm weekend. At the recent Mayor's Business Forum, one businessman was heard saying, "It took me 45 minutes to get from Beach Blvd. to Main St." That is not an uncommon account. The City and its downtown businesses truly want to promote "Surf City", and as a result, it is essential to encourage easy access to the beach parking lots, the Main Promenade Parking Structure, the Pier, the future plaza and ultimately the downtown businesses. Even with the "village concept", the downtown businesses must survive. Without an effective transportation network, the likelihood diminishes. C. What will the Loss of $1.2 Million in Measure M Funds Mean to the City? The City normally receives approximately $1.4 million per year in Measure M/Local Turnback Funds. These funds are to be used for the same purposes as the Gas Tax -- street construction and maintenance. With the County bankruptcy, the City now stands 0012635.01 -3- 06/13/95 5:04 PM *QUESFOR COUNCIL ACTT N T v MEETING DATE: June 19, 1995 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PW 95-047 to lose approximately $672,000 in Gas Tax and Measure M (after the return of 80% of the loss). The OCTA proposal would reduce our Measure M quarterly revenue by 20% over a 4 to 5 year period. This would mean approximately $280,000 per year. That is equivalent to more than our annual budget for the residential Slurry Seal Program. Obviously, there are several deserving highway projects that City staff has been pursuing. They include the Hoover/Gothard Extension ($6.5 to $8.5 million); Yorktown Widening, between Delaware and Beach ($900,000); Ellis Widening, east of Beach ($400,000); Garfield Widening, Huntington to Beach ($850,000); Heil Widening, west of Beach ($800,000); the widenings of the McFadden and Newland Bridges over the 1-405 ($1.5 million, each); Ward Widening, south of Garfield ($500,000); in addition to 36 traffic signal projects ($3 million). A $1.2 million loss over a 4 to 5 year period would further delay this under-funded program. From a highway maintenance standpoint, staff recently submitted grant applications for eight badly needed Arterial Highway Rehabilitation Projects totaling over $6 million. None of them have received funds. Damaged residential sidewalk and curb caused by tree roots amount to more than a $20 million need. Many petitions are on file. Our downtown alleys are all in need of replacement, amounting to a $27 million problem. Our residential Slurry Seal Program is currently on a 16 year cycle. In order to catch up to and keep up with the need, we should be on a 5 to 7 year cycle. We had intended for Fiscal Year 95/96 to double the budget for this program, at the expense of other programs. If however, $280,000 is withheld by OCTA, we will be forced to abandon that plan. D. How Could We Replace the On-Street Parking on PCH? Many of our options have been eliminated. The $11.5 million "north of the Pier" parking structure (additional 400 spaces) project has been abandoned as not being cost-effective. The 246 space "bluff- bottom" parking lot was not approved. Other possible ideas were identified in a memo from our City Administrator to Council, dated August 5, 1994, which includes: 1. Staff identified eight separate vacant sites along PCH, ranging in value from $800,000 to $7.2 million which could provide as many as 276 parking stalls. 2. The TLC lot, north of the Pier could be reconfigured as part of the Pier Plaza Project tocreate 179 additional stalls. This would have little effect upon the cost of the Pier Plaza Project. 3. The South Beach Lots could be resurfaced and restriped at a cost-of$150,000 to create an additional 80 spaces. 4. A 5-level parking structure could be constructed on the "Terry Buick" lot at a cost of$3 million, creating 221 additional spaces. 0012635.01 -4- 06/13/95 5:04 PM *QUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: June 19, 1995 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PW 95-047 Since that memo, staff has come forward with additional proposals such as: 1. Add curb parking along Beach Blvd. between Atlanta and PCH, and angle parking along the frontage road that runs along the east side of Beach, south of Atlanta. This would create 317 stalls at a cost to stripe of$10,000. Coastal staff might allow for removal of 50 stalls along PCH, if this idea were pursued. 2. There is a large parcel owned by Shell Oil at the northwest corner of Goldenwest and PCH. It has oil pumping operations; however, it is mostly vacant. Perhaps the City could negotiate a lease for joint usage with Shell for parking. Parking fees could pay the lease. Some of those ideas are expensive, and some are not. The inexpensive ideas identify 309 spaces. The target number of parking stalls is approximately 486. If the City accepts the OCTA proposal, more options would then be available for exploration. Staff would propose to resume discussions with Coastal Commission staff to discuss, such things as a partial waiver. For instance, during an average year, there are very few days that the beach parking lots and Main Promenade are completely full. On those few days a year, it may be possible for the City to operate a shuttle service from inland parking lots, such as City Hall or the schools (empty during the summer), to the beach. Other coastal communities, such as Hermosa Beach, have had such plans approved by the Coastal Commission. CONCLUSION The City Council must make a decision of whether to proceed with an action plan for either securing replacement for PCH on-street parking and possibly a partial waiver from the Coastal Commission. If so, the City would then enter into an agreement with OCTA similar to the proposal made by OCTA staff. If the action plan is successful, PCH would eventually be widened to 6 lanes and OCTA will return the $1.2 million. It should be noted that the City has a $750,000 Prop. 116 Grant (for Commuter Bicycle Facilities) that would establish the 6 lanes in addition to commuter bicycle lanes. The grant will expire on July 1, 2000. If the Council chooses not to pursue the parking replacement action plan, OCTA could demand the $1.2 million immediately. This could result in litigation between the two agencies. We already have a legal opinion (copy attached) inferring that the City would probably lose such litigation. Last year, the Council resolved to "defer" the widening to six lanes. If the Council were to take action to "cancel" the widening, it would place the City out of compliance with the County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. The City would then be in danger of losing all Measure M and County Arterial Highway Financing Program funding. Eventually, it could result in the loss of the Prop. 111 portion of our Gas Tax Funding. 0012635.01 -5- 06/13/95 5:04 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTivN MEETING DATE: June 19, 1995 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PW 95-047 If the Council refuses to pursue the action plan for parking replacement, it is even possible that regulatory agencies may consider this action as a means of preventing a portion of the Master Plan of Arterial. Highways from being developed. The City would again be in some danger of losing funding. If the Council were to authorize proceeding with the parking replacement action plan, an inexpensive solution appears to be achievable through some rather minor construction projects in combination with extensive negotiations with Coastal Commission staff. Environmental Status: Not Applicable. Attachment(s): Page City Clerk's - .................... ..... ............... ................. ................. ... ............... ................ ... ................................. .. ............ 1. Letter, dated April 21, 1995, from Dave Elbaum, Director of Planning and Development, OCTA, to Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator 2. Memo dated February 6, 1992, from Gail Hutton, City Attorney, to the May and City Council 0012635.01 -6- 06/13/95 5:04 PM OCTA 30ARD OF DIRECTORS Charles V.S" April 21, 1995 Ouirrnan William G.Steiner OIC Cnairman Michael Uberuaga Marian Sewson City Manager Dirvaor City of Huntington Beach �""''��Director 2000 Main Street Laurann cook P.O. Box 190 Director Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Ton,Day. DNeC7or Dear Mike, JamesH.Flora °necof The purpose of this letter is to summarize our meeting of April 11, 1995 James spa regarding the restriping of Pacific Coast Highwav{PCH). Direvor RogerR StantonIt appears that the City has made considerable progress in adopting a Specific Director Bob wahlsnom Plan for the Downtown Area which reduces the future buildout. Hopefully this Director will allow you to develop a long-range parking program which accommodates Thomas W.WYtson both commercial requirements and the spaces needed to free up PCH. It is arwor clear that removal of PCH parking will not occur in the near future, but you Brent Felker indicated a commitment to pursuing options to do so as soon as possible. Govemor's Ex-0trrao Member Arthur Brown In preparation for the next meeting of the elected officials, OCTA staff is AAemate prepared to make the following recommendations. Some of these items expand GawiH.Vasquez on issues discussed in the meeting. Please review this and let me know your Memale reaction prior to the next meeting so that we can prepare summaries of any Gregory T Winierboaom disputes for the committee: Ademale • The OCTA will withhold 20% of Measure M turnback funds due to the city beginning July 1, 1995. The withhold will occur each quarter until $1.2 million has been withheld. Interest earned on withheld funds will be allocated to the Orange County Unified Transportation Trust (OCUTT) fund and will not be allocated to the City of Huntington Beach. • Withheld funds will be allocated to the City, and all future withholding stopped, provided the Pacific Coast Highway between Beach Boulevard and Golden West Street is restriped to six lanes and open to traffic no later than July 1, 2000. If the City fails to restripe and allow six lanes of traffic by July 1, 2000, and this agreement is not amended by mutual consent, the withheld funds will be allocated to the OCUTT fund and will not be available for the City. I Orange County Transportation Authority 550 South Main Street r P.O.Box 14184/Oranoe/California 92613.I MJ:'17141560.00TA 162R21 -�� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION NLU MMVION 11LACH TO: HON. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: GAIL HUTTON, City Attorney DATE: February 6, 1992 SUBJECT: What consequences would result from City Council allowing parking or a bike lane in the Pacific Coast Highway widening project between Beach and Goldenwest. Both the California Department of Transportation (Cal Trans) and the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) desire to widen Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) to three lanes between Beach Boulevard and Goldenwest Street to alleviate traffic . As part of this project the parallel parking along PCH will be removed. The California Coastal Commission has approved this Cal Trans project with a condition that any parking removed will have to be replaced on a one for one basis. HISTORY OF PROJECT: July 9, 1986 The California Coastal Commission approved the Cal Trans project to widen PCH with the condition that there be a one for one replacement of parking lost on PCH. August 19 , 1986 A tentative agreement was reached with •the "Orange *County Transportation Commission _ (OCTC) Whereby the Commission would fund the majority of the work to be performed by Huntington Beach in the plan to improve PCH between Beach Boulevard and Goldenwest Street . October 16 , 1989 The City 'Council approved the plan to widen PCH, remove the on-street parking and build a parking lot to replace the parking lost on PCH. The funding source listed on the Request for Council Action is $870, 000 to be supplied by a grant from OCTC. October 23 . 1989 The City entered into a contract with the Cal Trans to widen PCH according to plans and specifications which included the removal of parking on PCH. June 25 , 1991 A letter was received from OCTC increasing their participation in the project from $870, 000 to $945, 000 . Michael Uberuaga April 21, 1995 Page 2 • The City agrees to prepare and submit a plan to the California Coastal Commission demonstrating a good faith effort to find replacement parking for the PCH spaces. The plan may not result in one-for-one replacement, and may require a waiver of that requirement by the Commission. The City will submit the first request no later than January 1, 1996 and each year thereafter if it is not approved. • The City and OCTA will each approve a written agreement with the above terms. I hope that the above terms generally captured the issues discussed at our meeting. Please call me with any comments. I will take the lead on scheduling the next meeting of the PCH committee in early May unless I hear from you. Thank you for your cooperation on this project. Sincerely, Dave Elbaum, Director Planning and Development c: Brent Felker, Caltrans Dist. 12 RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Public Works Department SUBJECT: Pacific Coast Highway Restri ing COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 19, 1995 RCA ATTACHMENTS -STATUS _. _ .. ... - ... .... ... ..... Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Not Applicable Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) (Signed in full by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Appoved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable Staff Report (If applicable) Attached Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Not Applicable Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Not Applicable . EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS .. REVIEWED RETURNED FORWARDED Administrative Staff Assistant City Administrator Initial City Administrator Initial [City Clerk _. ._ ...._... _. _. _. . EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF. ITEM Only)(Below Space For City Clerk's Use hq Page Two Re: Bike Lane, Parking August . 1991 Check received from the OCTC for $945, 000 . February 3 . 1992 A letter was received from the OCTC stating that if on-street parking or bike lanes were installed, they would request the return of the $945,000 with interest . ANALYSIS: If the Council were to change the October i6, 1989 plan to allow either parking or a bicycle lane on Pacific Coast Highway the City would be required to renegotiate the contract with Cal Trans as it would be a change in the specifications agreed to in the contract . In addition to that, the City would have to return to OCTC, the sum of $945, 000 plus interest from August, 1991. CONCLUSION: From the financial point of view, it appears to be infeasible to make any change to the plan adopted by the Council . If the City Council insists on bike lanes on PCH, OCTC will require a refund of the grant previously received. GAIL HUTTON City Attorney GCH:AJF:k ' cc: Mike Uberuaga' '' Lou Sandoval lJ. E4' CITY OF HUNTINGTON . BEACH ep CTr'Y COUNCIL COMMUNICATION HU11nNGT0N BEACH TO: City Council Members FROM: Vic Leipzig, Mayor (�• . DATE: June 19, 1995 SUBJECT: OCTA On Wednesday, June 14, 1995, Mike Uberuaga, Bob Eichblatt, and I attended a meeting in Santa Ana with OCTA regarding the re-striping of PCH. Representing OCTA were two members of its Board of Directors, Jim Silva and Chuck Smith, as well as its Executive Director, Stan Oftelie and staff member Dave Elbaum. OCTA staff made clear that they intend to recommend at their July 10, 1995, Board of Directors meeting, that Measure M funds be withheld from Huntington Beach because Huntington Beach has not completed the highway widening project. Mike Uberuaga and I protested that it was beyond the city's power to complete the widening due to the fact that required replacement parking was unavailable. OCTA's response was that fund withholding would create additional incentive for Huntington Beach to solve the problem. I believe that the city has only two options: 1) negotiate with OCTA to develop a fund withholding program that is as favorable to us as possible, 2) take OCTA to court once they begin the withholding. If we negotiate, there are at least three points that we need to address. I believe that OCTA is willing to be flexible on the following points: 1. The total amount to be withheld. a. OCTA granted the city about $950,000 for the project back in 1990. The initial OCTA staff proposal is to withhold about 1.2 million dollars, an amount that represents the original grant plus interest. T OCTA Jung: 19, 1995 Page -2- 2. The time frame over which the funds will be withheld. a. The initial OCTA staff proposal is to withhold Measure M funds over a period of 5 years. Mike Uberuaga counter-proposed with 7 years. 3. The ability of the city to recover the funds at such time as PCH is re-striped to 6 lanes. a. The initial OCTA staff proposal is to deposit the withheld funds into an impound account. If Huntington Beach completes the project, the impounded funds will be returned to us, but only for the first five years. At that point, the funds would revert permanently back to OCTA. OCTA staff indicated a willingness to consider an annual review mechanism instead of an automatic reversion. VL:paj xc: Mike Uberuaga, City Administrator Flay Silver; Assistant City Administrator Les Jones, Director or Public Works Bob Eichblatt, City Engineer ►/ ,°/ �- DPI-�C`:d�� • REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION October 4, 1993 Date Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator �� — 19 f•- Prepared by: O��60—uis F. Sandoval, Director of Public Works c CL EA Subject: PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY WIDENING, GOLDEN WEST STREET TO BEACH BOULEVARD � I�y � S 3 Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception i X Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: The City Council recently indicated the desire to either cancel or defer the increase from four to six driving lanes on Pacific Coast Highway, between Golden West Street and Beach Boulevard. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Either Alternative: IA. Approve attached Resolution No. 6531, deferring the increase from four to six driving lanes on Pacific Coast Highway, between Golden West Street and Beach Boulevard; and 1B. Defer action on how to proceed with the State Proposition 116 Bike Trail Grant. or; 2A. App ched Resolution No. 6530 c IMFease rom four to six driving lanes on Paci is igh een Golden West Street and Beach Boulevard; and uthorize the rejection of the State Proposition 116 Commuter Bike nt ANALYSIS: Attached is the August 16, 1993 Request for Council Action which fully discusses the history of and issues relating to the Pacific Coast Highway Widening Project. At their August 16th Council Meeting, City Council discussed the necessity for the project. As a result of the discussion, a Council Committee later met with staff to decide on how to proceed with the direction of the widening. 3 . PI O 5/85 Request for Council Action Pacific Coast Highway Widening October 4, 1993 Page 2 The consensus of the meeting is that the Council committee prefers to either cancel or defer implementation of the increased number of travel lanes. A complicating factor is that, in order to add the two driving lanes, 486 parking spaces along Pacific Coast Highway must be replaced. After further review, it has been concluded that the overflow parking lot on Beach Boulevard at Pacific Coast Highway cannot be considered as replacement parking for this project. Use of that lot is restricted by the Waterfront Development Agreement. Once the bluff bottom parking lot and South Beach Improvements are in place, 327 new spaces would be created. The City would still be short by 59 parking spaces to achieve the necessary replacement. Until all 486 spaces are replaced, it isn't possible to move ahead with the additional driving lanes on Pacific Coast Highway. The impacts of the recommended actions have been discussed previously with City Council and are attached for Council's review. FUNDING SOURCE: OCTC OCCUT funds, amounting to $945,000 were spent to narrow the median islands in preparation for the addition of driving lanes. The City has also received a $750,000 Proposition 116 grant to further narrow the medians for commuter bike lanes. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Direct staff to continue the search for replacement parking and continue with the project. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Two Resolutions 2. August 16th RCA LFS:REE:lb 3473g/2 & 3 RESOLUTION NO. 6531 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INCREASING THE NUMBER OF LANES ON PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY FROM THE CURRENT FOUR TO SIX Whereas, the city has been discussing with Caltrans the feasibility of the city widening Pacific Coast Highway from Golden West Street and Beach Blvd; and The city did receive a grant from the State of California for commuter bike lanes in the sum of$750,000; and The City Council has determined that the there is not sufficient evidence at this time that traffic volume is great enough to justify the project nor is there sufficient parking to replace the parking lost by changing to six lanes, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach hereby determines that it will defer any widening of Pacific Coast Highway until a later time when it is shown that the traffic warrants the project and when sufficient parking to replace the lost parking can be supplied. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held 4th day of nrt-nr,Pr , 1993 Mayor TTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk _az City Attorney k� 3 REVIE ROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: ity Administrator i Director of Public Works 6/resolut/widen/09/22/93 Res. No. 6531 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the a h day of October 19 93 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Robitaille, Balled Mn fl on-Rattersanf wiwc ei i + Gilva' Snllivan, Lein7ig NOES: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: Councilmembers: None s Git y er an ex-o ,c er of the City Council of the' City of Huntington Beach, California 5/1 / PiA REOUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION / Date August 16, 1993 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator Prepared by: 111&i s F. Sandoval, Director of Public Works Subject: PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY WIDENING/BICYCLE LANES, GOLDEN WEST TO BEACH BOULEVARD Consistent with Council Policy? [X] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions, Attachments: CFezD STATEMENT OF ISSUE: ao4>y' ;& AsT+`.."� ��✓ A G 1a..w�✓. The City Council has requested that staff make a presentation discussing issues relating to the widening of Pacific Coast Highway from four to six lanes, between Golden West Street and Beach Boulevard and the addition of bicycle lanes. RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: Discussion item ANALYSIS: At their meeting of July 8, 1993, the California Transportation Commission awarded a Proposition 116 grant of $750,000 to the City of Huntington Beach for commuter bicycle lanes on Pacific Coast Highway, between Golden West Street and Beach Boulevard. A should be noted that the Proposition 116 grant would be contingent upon the addition of two driving lanes and removal of parking along this reach of arterial highway. That would result in the city being required by the California Coastal Commission to supply over 500 new parking stalls to replace those lost on PCH. The City is already under a mandate from Caltrans and the Orange County Transportation Authority to add the two driving lanes or return a $948,000 OCTA Grant which funded a previous widening project. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Environmental Impact Report certified by the California Coastal Commission in 1986. FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Not applicable .ATTACHMENTS: ?roposed typical highway section after widening to six lanes with bike lanes. Legal Opinion �� f PIO 5/85 EXISTING STREET WIDTH 84' -EXISTING CURB . � 5 Y Q wLLJ . Q J Ld J Q U) W W Y_ Y m , m 2' 2' y EXISTING LANDSCAPED MEDIAN ISLAND, TRIMMED - TO 8' * OPTIONAL CONFIGURATION WIDE WITH A 2' PAVED BUFFER AREA EACH SIDE (RESUL TS IN 10' WIDE LEFT TURN LANE) CITY. OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPT.' CONCEPTUAL CHANNELIZATION PLAN S.R. 1 -.P.M., 23.74/25.89 PCH, BEACH BL VD. TO GOLDEN WEST-5T APRIL 20, 1992_ CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH •� INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: HON. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: GAIL HUTTON, City Attorney DATE: February 6, 1992 SUBJECT: What consequences would result from .City Council allowing parking or a bike lane in the Pacific Coast Highway widening project between Beach and Goldenwest. Both the California .Department of Transportation (Cal Trans) and the Orange County -Transportation Authority (OCTA) desire to . widen Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) to three lanes between Beach Boulevard and Goldenwest Street to alleviate traffic. As part of this project the parallel parking along PCH will be removed. .The California Coastal Commission has approved this Cal Trans project with a condition that any parking removed will have to be replaced on a one . for one basis. HISTORY OF PROJECT: July 9 . 1986 The California Coastal Commission approved the Cal Trans project to widen PCH with the. condition that there be a one for one replacement of parking lost on PCH. August 19 , 1986 A tentative agreement was reached with the Orange County Transportation Commission (OCTC) whereby the Commission would fund the majority of the work to be performed by Huntington Beach in the plan to improve PCH between Beach Boulevard and Goldenwest Street. October 16 , 1989 The City Council approved- the plan to widen PCH, remove the on-street parking and build a parking lot to replace the parking lost on PCH. The funding source listed on the Request for Council- Action is $870, 000 to be. supplied by a grant from OCTC. October 23 , 1989 The City entered into a contract with the Cal Trans to widen PCH according to plans and specifications which included the removal of parking on PCH. . June 25, 1991 A letter was received from OCTC increasing their participation in the project from $870,000- to $945,000 . Page Two Re: Bike Lane, Parking August, 1991 Check received from the OCTC for $945, 000 . February 3 . 1992 A letter was received from the .00TC stating that if on-street parking or bike lanes were installed,. they would request the return of the $945, 000 with interest . ANALYSIS: If the Council were to change the October 16, 1989 plan to allow either parking or a bicycle lane on Pacific Coast Highway the City would be required to renegotiate .the contract with. Cal Trans as it would be a change in the specifications agreed "to in the contract. In addition to- that, the City would have to return to OCTC, the sum of $945, 000 plus interest from August, 1991. CONCLUSION: From the financial point of view, it appears to be infeasible to make any change to the plan adopted by the Council.. If the-.City Council insists on bike lanes on PCH, OCTC will require a refund of the grant previously received. GAIL HUTTON . City Attorney GCH:AJF:k . , cc: Mike Uberuaga Lou Sandoval AUGUST, 1993 PCH WIDENING/BIKELANES STATUS REPORT HISTORY • PCH, State Highway 1, is not a City street; it is under Caltrans authority. • Any decision to widen, add driving lanes, add bikelanes, etc., are the ultimate decision of Caltrans. • However, history proves that cities requests do have an effect on Caltrans decisions. • In the mid-60s, the State, the County, and the cities of Newport Beach and Huntington Beach recognized a traffic congestion problem on PCH and began the planning for a congestion relief project running between Golden West on the north and MacArthur on the south. • The environmental Impact Report for this multi-phased project was certified by the California Coastal Commission in late 1986. • All phases of PCH in Newport Beach are complete. • The phase between Golden West Street and Beach Boulevard was completed in the Fall of 1991. • It was totally funded by a $945,000 OCTC grant. • The project consisted of narrowing the -median islands and making traffic signal . improvements in order to add one additional driving lane in each direction. • The final phase, between Beach Boulevard and Brookhurst Street, is nearing completion. TRAFFIC CONGESTION • The need to add lanes on PCH, between Golden West Street and Beach Boulevard was reconfirmed in 1982 by the PBQ&D Computer Traffic Model and again in early 1992 by the City's HOCTAM Model. • r • Recent developments, such as the Waterfront Hilton, California Resorts, Abdelmuti and Courtrup Developments in addition to the reopening of the Pier only reemphasizes the need. PARKING/BIKELANES • A-condition placed upon the widening project by the Coastal Commission was that any parking removed by the widening was to be replaced-stall for stall. • Because of that requirement, last year Staff proposed to develop a parking lot along the oil service road that runs along the toe of the coastal bluff from 1 ith Street to Golden West Street. • This lot, as identified in the approved local coastal plan, would have had approximately 470 stalls. The Planning Commission denied the development of.the lot for two reasons: 1 . A large group of commuter bicyclists opposed the addition of the PCH driving lanes which would have put cars adjacent to the curb, leaving no room for bikes. 2. -Condo owners across PCH didn't want the intrusion of additional visitors to that beach or an obstruction of view. • At that same time.a Council Committee and City staff were negotiating with Caltrans to create a new lane configuration Which would allow for not only 6 lanes of traffic but also two bike lanes. • Early this Spring, the negotiations were completed, and a new configuration was agreed upon by Caltrans (see the attached graphic). • In July, the City received a $750,000 Prop 116 Grant for commuter bikelanes along this reach of PCH. The project would further narrow the median islands. • It must be pointed out that, our City Attorney found, in a memo dated February 6, 1992, that if the two driving lanes were not added by the City, OCTA will require a refund of the original $945,000 grant. • The two objections to the Bluff Bottom Parking Lot have now been resolved, as fol lows: 1. A way and a funding source has been found to create commuter bikelanes on PCH in addition to the 6 driving lanes. 2. The parking lot has been reduced in scope to make it less intrusive to the neighborhood. • There are currently 486 parking stalls on PCH which would necessitate replacement. The down-scoped Bluff Bottom Lot will create 264 stalls. • The overflow lot on the inland side at Beach Boulevard is capable of producing approximately 330 stalls. This lot is not yet shown on the approved local coastal plan. • The South Beach Master Plan and "North of the Pier Parking Lot" improvements will produce 63 new stalls. • Staff has completed a comprehensive Parking Replacement Study (enclosed). A combination of all of these new sources more than replaces the lost PCH stalls. • Once the medians are narrowed and the Bluff Bottom Lot is built, it will be feasible to remove PCH.parking, add two driving lanes and the commuter bikelanes. • This could all be accomplished within one year and would prevent the City from possibly receiving a $945,000 bi11.from OCTA. LOT ACCESS • The City Council has asked whether deceleration lanes are necessary at the lot entrance. • Last year, the Traffic Engineering staff created a computer model assuming 470 stalls, analyzing this issue. - • The lot would have only one entrance - at Golden West. • The entrance access would be split in three directions - eastbound PCH/right-turn, westbound PCH left turn and southbound Golden West. • The model proved that, even with a 470 space lot, a deceleration lane is un- necessary. PCHSTATU to Q SIDEWALK mNk: BIKELANE N j c c , oV` O CD `ZA OY � MEDIAN ISLAND cn Z=1XXI - " k3�ytta:� i FD7 .............i..... BIKELANE SIDEWALK �lliNgiME , NUNN 2 ��" � ii� � q• ��'� ;',� �`^ ,� .x£�3 MEW, �.'�?`•x "a' ', ..;:ems'..��•. •J� f i BEACH BLVD. 0 0 PARKING TOTAL P SP S=330 r TOTAL NEW SP S 30 N H N Z tr/1 r f f fr/1 y ~ r i C3 Z N H r BLUFF BELOW PARKING LOT PIER PLAZA TOTAL PROPOSED SPACES=264 I TOTAL PROPOSED SPACES-63 SOUTH BEACH TOTAL NEW SPACES=264 TOTAL NEW SPACES-3 TOTAL PROPOSED SPACES-1863 TOTAL NEW SPACES=60 PARKING SUMMARY 8 - PCH STALLS - 486 �Nd ® ,; - BLUFF BOTTOM - <264> � PIER PLAZA - <3> Cam}' CITY OF I-IINTINGTON BEACH ® - SO. BEACH - <60> DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ® - BEACH BLVD. - <330>OVERFLOW PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY PARKING REPLACEMENT STUDY 171 UNALLOCATED SPACES AUGUST, 1993 REQUEST FOR CITY .COUNCIL ACTION Date August 16, 1993 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator Prepared bye Ff-oui s F. Sandoval, Director of Public Works Subject: PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY WIDENINGBICYCLE LANES, GOLDEN WEST TO BEACH BOULEVARD Consistent with Council Policy? [x] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions, Attachments: QsrD STATEMENT OF ISSUE: The City Council has requested that staff make a presentation discussing issues relating to the widening of Pacific Coast Highway from four to six lanes, between Golden West Street and Beach Boulevard and the addition of bicycle lanes. RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: Discussion item ANALYSIS: At their meeting of July 8, 1993, the California Transportation Commission awarded a Proposition 116 grant of $750,000 to the City of Huntington Beach for commuter bicycle lanes on Pacific Coast Highway, between Golden West Street and Beach Boulevard. It should be noted that the Proposition 116 grant would be contingent upon the addition of two driving lanes and removal of parking along this reach of arterial highway. That would result in the city being required by the California Coastal Commission to supply over 500 new parking stalls to replace those lost on PCH. The City is already under a mandate from Caltrans and the Orange County Transportation Authority to add the two driving lanes or return a $948,000 OCTA Grant which funded a previous widening project. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Environmental Impact Report certified by the California Coastal Commission in 1986. FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Not applicable . ATTACHMENTS: Proposed typical highway section after widening to six lanes with bike lanes. Legal Opinion i • r i EXI S TING S TREE T WI D TH 84' EXISTING CURB w3- Z // /D /Q !2� w` Q Q .J _J V) w w N Y_coY_ m 2' 2' EXISTING LANDSCAPED MEDIAN ISLAND, TRIMMED ' TO S' # OPTIONAL CONFIGURATION WIDE WITH A 2' PAVED BUFFER AREA EACH SIDE (RESUL TS IN 10' WIDE LEFT TURN LANE) . 1''l�DiFFa 2 �Ub 9.3 CI TY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH P PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. CONCEPTUAL CHANNELIZA Tt vrJ PLAN S R. 1 P.M.. 23.74125.89 PCH, BEACH BL VD. - TO GOLDEN- WEST-ST. • -�4"fe CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HlRMNCTON BEACH TO: HON. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: GAIL HUTTON, City Attorney DATE: February 6, 1992 SUBJECT: What consequences would result from City Council allowing parking or a bike lane in the Pacific Coast Highway widening project between Beach and Goldenwest. Both the Calif ornia .Department of Transportation (Cal Trans) and the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) desire to widen Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) to three lanes between Beach Boulevard and Goldenwest Street to alleviate traffic. As part of- this project the parallel parking along PCH will. be removed. The California Coastal Commission has approved this Cal Trans project with a condition that any parking removed will have to be replaced on a one . for one basis. HISTORY OF PROJECT: July 9. 1986 The California Coastal Commission approved the Cal Trans project to widen PCH with the. condition that there be a one for one replacement of parking lost on PCH. August 19 , 1986 A tentative agreement was reached with the Orange County Transportation Commission (OCTC) whereby the Commission would fund the majority of the work to be performed by Huntington Beach in the plan to improve PCH between Beach Boulevard and Goldenwest Street. October 16 , 1989 The City Council approved the plan to widen PCH, remove the on-street parking and build a parking lot to replace the parking lost on PCH. The funding source listed on the Request for Council' Action is $870,000 to be supplied by a grant from OCTC. October 23 , 19899 The City entered into a contract with' the Cal Trans to widen PCH according to plans and specifications which included the removal of parking on PCH. ,Tune 25. 1991 A letter was received from OCTC increasing their participation in the project from $870, 000 to $945,000. Page Two Re : Bike Lane, Parking August . 1991 Check received from the OCTC for $945, 000 . February 3. 1992 A letter was received from the OCTC stating that if on-street parking or bike lanes were installed, they would request the return of the $945, 000 with interest. ANALYSIS: If the Council were to change the October 16, 1989 plan to allow either parking or a bicycle lane on Pacific Coast Highway the City would be required to renegotiate the contract with. Cal Trans as it would be a change in the specifications agreed to in the contract. In addition to that, the City would have to return to OCTC, the sum of $945,000 plus interest from August, 1991.. CONCLUSION: From the financial point of view, it appears to be infeasible to make any change to the plan adopted by the Council. If the, City Council insists on bike lanes on PCH, OCTC will require a refund of the grant previously received. GAIL HUTTON - City. Attorney GCH:AJF:k . cc: Mike Uberuaga Lou Sandoval AUGUST, 1993 PCH WIDENING/BIKELANES STATUS REPORT HISTORY • PCH, State Highway 1, is not a City street; it is under Caltrans authority. • Any decision to widen, add driving lanes, add bikelanes, etc., are the ultimate decision of Caltrans. • However, history proves that cities requests do have an effect on Caltrans decisions. • In the mid-60s, the State, the County, and the cities of Newport Beach and Huntington Beach recognized a traffic congestion problem on PCH and began the planning for a congestion relief project running between Golden West on the north and MacArthur on the south. • The environmental Impact Report for this multi-phased project was certified by the California Coastal Commission in late 1986. • All phases.of PCH in Newport Beach are complete. • The phase between Golden West Street and-Beach-Boulevard was completed in the Fall of 1991. • It was totally funded by a $945,000 OCTC grant. • The project consisted of narrowing the median islands and making traffic signal . improvements in order to add one additional driving lane in each direction. • The final phase, between Beach Boulevard and Brookhurst Street, is nearing completion. TRAFFIC CONGESTION • The need to add lanes on PCH, between Golden West Street and Beach Boulevard was reconfirmed in 1982 by the PBQ&D Computer.Traffic Model and again iri early 1992 by the City's HOCTAM Model. • Recent developments, such as the Waterfront.Hilton, California Resorts, Abdelmuti and Courtrup Developments in addition to the reopening of the Pier only reemphasizes the need. PARKING/BIKELANES • A condition placed upon the widening project by the Coastal Commission was that any parking removed by the widening was to be replaced-stall for stall. • Because of that requirement, last year Staff proposed to develop a parking lot along the oil service road that runs along the toe of the coastal bluff from 11th Street to Golden West Street. • This lot, as identified in the approved local coastal plan, would have had approximately 470 stalls. • The Planning Commission denied the development of the lot for two reasons: 1. A large group of commuter bicyclists opposed the addition of the PCH driving lanes which would have put cars adjacent to the curb, leaving no room for bikes. 2. 'Condo owners across PCH didn't want the intrusion of additional visitors to that beach or an obstruction of view. • At that same time a Council Committee and City staff were negotiating with Caltrans to create_ a new lane configuration which would allow for not only 6 lanes of traffic but also two bike lanes. • Early this Spring, the negotiations were completed, and a new configuration was agreed upon by.Caltrans (see the attached graphic). • In July, the City received a $750,000 Prop 116 Grant for commuter bikelanes along this reach of PCH. The project would further narrow the median islands. • It must be pointed out that, our City Attorney found, in a memo dated February 6, 1992, that if the two driving lanes were not added by the City, OCTA will require a refund of the original $945,000 grant. • The two objections to the Bluff Bottom Parking Lot have now been resolved, as follows: 1. A way and a funding source has been found to create commuter bikelanes on PCH in addition to the 6 driving lanes. 2. The parking lot has been reduced in scope to make it less intrusive to the neighborhood. • There are currently 486 parking stalls on PCH which would necessitate replacement. • The down-scoped Bluff Bottom Lot will create 264 stalls. • The overflow lot on the inland side at Beach Boulevard is capable of producing approximately 330 stalls. This lot is not yet shown on the approved local coastal plan. • The South Beach Master Plan and "North of the Pier Parking Lot" improvements will produce 63 new stalls. • Staff has completed a comprehensive Parking Replacement Study (enclosed). • A combination of all of these new sources more than replaces the lost PCH stalls. • Once the medians are narrowed and the Bluff Bottom Lot is built, it will be feasible to remove PCH.parking, add two driving lanes and the commuter bikelanes. • This could all be accomplished within one year and would prevent the City from possibly receiving a $945,000 bill.from OCTA. LOT ACCESS • The City Council has asked whether deceleration lanes are necessary at the lot entrance. • Last year, the Traffic Engineering staff created a computer model assuming 470 stalls, analyzing this issue. • The lot would have only one entrance - at Golden West. The entrance access would be split in three directions - eastbound PCH/right-turn, westbound PCH left turn and southbound Golden West. • The model proved that, even with a 470 space lot, a deceleration lane is un- necessary. PCHSTATU - -x - -..,,<,'£:•An J.-- --:i.r -.:f ..A./. .l.�,G.c`..k. !f'y.' N:f".,�F {..'Y a! �- � 4 '.a'..c,.,:•�C...4v :til..., :/f:.l,/ f-/°: ..r lY:: 9f sj. 5 taa6f f�:.✓,, /f f��C s�- iS,.f,<f,�-fir.hw.yay.,r .f.: 9 .a:y n:,.as s-,! rrr n r �t fy yflsi�.�l £ .v NOWN . l V tJ%J a � 1 11 1 I �V Gl V. Chan ne ization. Plan a y A Mg f Rl, 84 i e ' �r��G4aJlff Fy-:a �,�a.l�a£•Fbyri ,f'. 16' . 10' 1.0' 12' 10' 10' 16' `� �F•'F fin. 81 � v, 5 -. 5 c s H6 ay�'r�1 Fa.�'kx sfc t ✓a �Hx f: • ��y It '' p £ ,.• W �`w, W _I Y .J Z Z J vya�r g � < z ;�j7" y w Y s (A m W m U) z« r r££ t•W. ...� Yf�'a.'�''�aG ...... i -r ... - - -,..: C - £4" �•1.7"i 4ri<� ..h�/ ✓ S..y:r../•f....T�-..: C-<r.il�-.<:� .1:. yyt<;a - / y s v y f -- f ' j'. w .'F?,.-�"��,fray a by F..i r ¢f't�f �R..• f 0 _ �• sf� a..�..c,.,s,.,`Z 73:f''e<•e- ,�- �-.�FS•f,'f;•s.Ya t Hb. 3-s:-: c -. a r't �' -<'4 . 4 :✓ftf -.2�t � �- :.c l r' <s.. y;�.<.a,'. - - -k. a ..;.>� � -i sF .• r., •.:s`s >f� atf��yyFas.h,`.:. uu£.. �.�fz -;fs!-ah 9,fc,,ay,. „'Y Ji-f. r,r,. -v. .,:rr, '_ z: : „43�. A-x' f.: h...<R..r�«: -ra i+",':" y.<:a. ?..:.' 's�sf.- ,.- ' '.>s�.. .'1.-::✓'.a :lsyA= may:�ib<s'c ��?r�rs.'tC-r-. s.: ,.,>s.;v f:4: N yf- s f s.r ,79 . f. <',�'.- .se' <.E;6<, x.[arY•c- y'.�?,+per?-a£. ,{>.��-'1,��r. i'- £'.�r..>.rr�'>�:s. Hsssssir '�v,sue.. s7. '•k:. fs Sf-:. ,Y-<.^ :;c<};:. ! >-�9<e :<t'G,.,.,.^f .::,< .':4- a.Yh•;,' Y4H.t),r -X^r £'S f.- S .s- n: n•- sl a z<.o ,..F,H---1.eT's..y „�w..c ,.lF'�y� '� `it, 'i'dJ'9 ,! '•'+l /� >s '1 -i/G:.,ts a--<•,w. :.s-; !:6 ��.<t'x. ,ax r .. z,,..of.aTy a rx-ya.H?<;,?3..', 'l3 alsk:�- 3Y e°:./ z,:sSs,ry .s s` N s:�.n:.L��., �h>•r .✓;`-> -c. T `_^ .e'.x" ,m,"<.n.�r.4z'f „y s.. ¢a9..:.:°' fA z.,..sk.G .,y,,.;: a: ,. --. -.. >.a., k•- .: ., �.. ;'�:.- f.<cs „.sy:.. - >k' 9 a.,n.; '.Z�'��a ems•' -. J, -a.� ;.r.s>"✓^r<,>.s, --}•Y?":.ss:r < -.r.yss.<a-<�>/-a. ".,,�,.. 3 ...".,x.f�-x'.-�;{�y s'c <,Ca.><� .ya.<.!„1 - -.�::Y,Ei;sk'.,�s. --l. : £'X:N ta. 4Y r FS.a;4��£•f<•rr;F//G .c:Yx'N-�vL ..Y af� rr'fr 9yy�.. A.;Z -' fb•,: 6?,,.s'- <. ,-.� la KKcc ..jj(( .nf . H•'.Pl.X ,,. >�7j F:-Y<c .4f.f-z.� 6 Y fY-.-:"-3.'9:. zHH ra,.i,..Y t .ty -�.A''f¢.<'vt>$AOT.'Sv.(."S�r:. 4r Y. .•:. .. £.rLPoC l..� ,f�.'' w as.f!...a. �:.: aY JF.f.F'.�. ..�{"t £ 4 :�.v t,.•.,<,;H k'--..,, ._,�. ,-s�•l.e� 9!z-. / �:«.< x-.-.Y-.a.. r ;.,2J4. - c/s- <p..f�e.-f ...y 3:0"<la<9..z-�1:1<.'��„sr. ,,`." o; „�1 aly :,n, s, i<-,.ka .ez::>;: f Hs,-.y; y -.--.sa.•;;'. 4--:-.r;:, - r;.,t-:. rF+'-�s. e w.Y- �,•3 .J�,ah'y r �yf,'. �Ly, W ssv/ r srn�,S`k�' r r-.. ✓Y,4 d:. ..,,a 4� 'r.,a s^wya.g` �- - -rr.',+�•,d. -4'F•l":. rf£ H / f-' -Y• r -:.,..rr. r. -.: ' 4•cic:is.. .- @.Y -)):v.?. -.h- ra r,>.,. ..Y.<.oYF "f..., A'ft:"F:<::,<'N$-a,'! %� t•w,a£Y_trr A.£'^.,�) l >f _ / --- ,, �r -- r.`•. -J h`/v.,! „r' s _ y 9 a' .3 _ i Y yx s l ,, t ,c 1 I�_e c 1�� Y .y ? c .. ab. VA000NG TOTAL m 3m w TOTAL NEV mL`�3 TOTAL wor.gP AVAC w.26 i wu PLAZA mfALEn I zoom eEAa VACES-tN - - TOTAL NEW SPACES-N TOTAL AL 141 DACES-3 TOTAL pNOPQ40 SPACES-1167 TOTAL.�.soAeEs-w PARKING SUMMARY 8 — PCH STALLS — 486 ® BLUFF BOTTOM — <264> . J ``� � r �� PIER PLAZA — <3>. ��1c4a ® — CITY OF WUNTINGTON BEG SO. BEACH <60> DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC vVCR<� ® - BEACH eLvo. . - <330> OVERFLOW. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY OVERFLOW, PARKING REPLACEMENT STUDY 171 UNALLOCATED SPACES AUGUST, 1993 RESOLUTION NO. 3d A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DIRECTING STAFF TO CEASE EFFORT TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF LANES ON PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY FROM THE CURRENT FOUR TO SIX Whereas;the city has been discussing with Caltrans the feasibility of the city widening Pacific Coast Highway from Golden West Street and Beach Boulevard; and The city did receive a grant from the State of California for commuter bike lanes in the.sum of $750,000; and The City Council has determined that the there is not sufficient evidence at this time that traffic volume is great enough to justify the project nor is there sufficient parking to replace the parking lost by changing to six lanes, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach hereby determines that the city will cease all efforts to continue with this project. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held day of 1993 Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney —2�13 R IEWED D OVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: AtfAdministraior f•✓ Director of Public Works 6/resolut/widen/09/22/93