Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Public Hearing - Traffic Conditions on Cascade Lane - Sugar
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date: May 18, 1992 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator Prepared by: Louis F. Sandoval, Director, Public Works De artment APPROVED BY CITY COUNG- Subject: Cascade Lane Traffic Control Measures S- If C;,rY Consistent with Council Policy? [XX] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: On April 20, 1992, the City Council voted unanimously to install a temporary flexible barricade on Cascade Lane at the city limits with the City of Westminster. As a part of the motion voted by council, all-way STOP signs were to be installed at the intersection of Sugar Lane with McFadden Avenue. Research revealed that the intersection is wholly within the City of Westminster, thus the City of Huntington Beach has no jurisdiction over the intersection of Sugar Lane at McFadden Avenue. RECOMMENDATION• Install- the temporary flexible barricade system on Cascade Lane at the Huntington Beach/Westminster city limits. ANALYSIS: During the City Council meeting of April 20, 1992, staff was asked about methods of reducing the adverse impacts of 'Barricade A" (the barricade at the city limits with Westminster) on neighborhood access. Public Works staff had previously prepared traffic signal warrants for the intersection of Sugar Lane and McFadden Avenue, which warrants a traffic signal installation. All previous discussions of traffic control in the neighborhood had not included installation of all-way STOP signs at this intersection. Page 2 Cascade Lane Traffic Control Following direction from the City Council to install the temporary flexible barricade and all-way STOP signs, staff discovered that the intersection is wholly within the City of Westminster. Reference maps utilized by staff incorrectly depicted the boundaries of Huntington Beach, Westminster, and unincorporated Orange County (the Midway City area) in this area (please see attached Intersection Location Map). The City of Westminster has been formally notified of the City Council's April 20th decision to install a temporary barricade on Cascade Lane and install all-way STOP signs on McFadden Avenue at Sugar lane (please see attached letter dated May 7, 1992 to the City of Westminster). As the request to the City of Westminster is being processed, city staff could proceed with the installation of the temporary flexible barricade, installation of warning signs, no parking signs (at the barricade), installation of "Not a Thru Street" signs, and the removal of previously installed STOP signs and striping. This work could be accomplished immediately. All materials necessary for installation of the temporary barricade at the city limits have been obtained by the Public Works Department. Installation of the temporary barricade will limit access to the street system for Huntington Beach residents, but access is still possible via Sugar Lane at McFadden Avenue. FUNDING SOURCE: Funds for the installation of a temporary barricade and associated signing and warning devices are available in Account No. E-SF-PW-802-6-32-00. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Leave the current traffic control configuration in place (existing all-way STOPS a various locations in the neighborhood) until formal action is taken by the City of Westminster. ATTACHMENTS: May 7, 1992 letter from the City of Huntington Beach to the City of Westminster Intersection Location Map JDO ceecade.300 Page 3 Cascade Lane Traffic Control ATTACHMENTS: May 7, 1992 letter from the City of Huntington Beach to the City of Westminster Intersection Location Map JDO coecede.300 _ City of Huntington Beach �'yYy 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR City of Westminster May 7, 1992 8200 Westminster Boulevard Westminster, CA 92683 Attention: Dr. Jerry Kenny, City Administrator Subject: Cascade Lane/Temple Street Traffic Control Measures Dear Dr. Kenny: On April 20, 1992, the City Council revisited the issue of neighborhood traffic conditions on Cascade Lane and surrounding streets in Huntington Beach. As you are no doubt aware, the northern terminus of Cascade Lane is, in effect, the southern terminus of Temple Street in Westminster. After numerous public hearings, public testimony, and personal investigations by City Council members, the City Council voted unanimously to do the following: 1. Install a temporary barricade at the city limits of Huntington Beach and Westminster on Cascade Lane. The barricade would be installed for a ninety (90) day trial period and would be composed of flexible delineators (flexible plastic posts), which would allow emergency vehicles to traverse the barricade at will with no loss in response time. 2. Install all-way STOP signs at the intersection of Sugar Lane and McFadden Avenue. This STOP sign installation would significantly ease access for the Cascade Lane neighborhood to and from McFadden Avenue. Traffic signal warrant studies performed by Public Works Department staff indicate that a traffic signal is warranted at this intersection, and all-way STOP signs would be an interim installation until a traffic signal could be funded at this location. 3. Install a flashing beacon and advanced warning signs on McFadden Avenue to warn motorists of a STOP on McFadden Avenue at Sugar Lane. 4. Install "Not a Thru Street" signs on Sugar Lane for traffic entering the neighborhood from McFadden Avenue. 5. Inform the City of Westminster Public Works Department, via letter, of these impending actions and coordinate the installation of appropriate signage on Temple Street warning of "Not a Thru Street" and "No Parking Any Time - Fire Lane" at the barricade location. 6. Have Public Works Department staff investigate the possible coordination of the traffic signals on McFadden Avenue at Beach Boulevard and Gothard Street. Staff has concluded that coordination efforts are not possible at the present time due to traffic signal control equipment Telephone (714) 536-5202 Page 2 Cascade Lane Traffic Control Measures May 7, 1992 incompatibility. This problem may be overcome in the near future, however, as Growth Management Area funds (a derivative of Measure M funds) are made available to cities for this type of project. As staff was preparing the necessary plans to install the STOP signs and flashing beacon on McFadden Avenue, it was discovered that the intersection of Sugar Lane and McFadden Avenue lies within the City of Westminster. Thus, installation of this important all-way STOP cannot be accomplished at the direction of City of Huntington Beach, rather, the all-way STOP must be installed at the direction of the City of Westminster. The traffic signal warrant study performed by Public Works staff is submitted for City of Westminster review. The installation of the STOP signs on McFadden Avenue would be near the eastern base of the I-405 overcrossing. The City of Huntington Beach is proposing the installation of an overhead flashing beacon and warning sign at the western base of the overcrossing and installation of a second warning sign at the eastern end of the bridge structure. The City Traffic Engineer feels that this would be sufficient warning for eastbound motorists approaching the intersection. The debate over neighborhood traffic conditions in this area has been ongoing for approximately 20 months. In the spirit of cooperation and with the intent of improving traffic conditions for the neighborhood I respectfully request the City of Westminster to consider the installation of all-way STOP signs at the intersection of Sugar Lane and McFadden Avenue. I would further propose a meeting of City Administrators, Public Works Directors, City Engineers and Traffic Engineers at the intersection to review the feasibility of this installation. Sentiment in the neighborhood for installation of the barricade and STOP signs is quite strong at the moment. I would suggest a field meeting at your earliest convenience. I look forward to discussing this issue with you. Sincerely, Michael T. Uberuaga City Administrator cc: Louis F. Sandoval, Director, Public Works Department Don Vestal, Director, Public Works Department, City of Westminster Robert Eichblatt, City Engineer Marwan Youssef, City Engineer, City of Westminster James D. Otterson, Traffic Engineer attachments: Statement of Action of the City Council, April 20, 1992 meeting Traffic Signal Warrant Study, Sugar Lane at McFadden Avenue Jno cawaae.201 v � Z I v'n � 0 M i v . office of fhe Cour7 y �4ecorr.�e�. Orr�ie li�y, C4: fian Locafion : iPlaIn1e)o-t-5ec* p 1wcFQ,:1me17 .IvelwuE o� 9 Su ar 4 tier7ue ' REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date August 17, 1992 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrate Prepared by: 94 ouis F. Sandoval, Director, Public Works Department Subject: CASCADE LANE TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASUR�OVB�Dy �,pPR Y NGIL pyre D - Consistent with Council Policy? [X] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exction_: -__------- - T�,� ------------------------ Statement of Issue,Recommendation,Analysis,Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: At the May 18, 1992 City Council meeting the City Council voted to direct staff to install a temporary barricade on Cascade Lane at the City boundary with the City of Westminster and return with an update to the City Council in approximately 90 days. RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: Motion to: Approve allowing the temporary barricade to remain in place for an additional six months with findings for approval. ANALYSIS: On July 16, 1992, traffic counts were taken on Sugar Drive between McFadden Avenue and Rushmoor Lane, on Cascade Lane between Sugar Drive and Whitney Drive, and on Cascade Lane at the City boundary next to the barricade (see attached Traffic Volume Comparison). The previous traffic counts taken on Cascade Lane at the City boundary ranged from 2148 to 2870 vehicles in a 24 hour time period. The latest traffic counts (taken on July 16, 1992) showed 80 vehicles crossing the flexible barricade in a 24 hour time period. The previous traffic counts taken on Sugar Drive between McFadden Avenue and Rushmoor Lane ranged from 2724 to 3117 vehicles in a 24 hour time period. The latest traffic counts showed 1766 vehicles in a 24 hour time period. The previous traffic counts .taken on Cascade Lane between Shasta Lane and Whitney Drive ranged from 1800 to 2370 vehicles in a 24 hour time period. The latest traffic, counts showed 255 vehicles in a 24 hour time period. The cost of the original installation of the barricade, signs, and markings was $2101.56. Since the barricade was installed Traffic Maintenance has been called five times to repair the barricade due to vehicles driving over it for an approximate cost of $765. The City Attorney has analyzed the Cascade Lane situation and in order to comply with state law, the City Council must adopt the attached findings which describe the barricade as a traffic Page 2 Cascade Lane Traffic Conditions August 17, 1992 control device necessary to implement the fundamental goals and objectives of the Circulation Element of the General Plan. The attached findings show that Cascade Lane is not a regionally significant road. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: This project is a minor street modification and is categorically exempt pursuant.to §15301, Class 1 of CEQA. FUNDING SOURCE: Funds for the maintenance (or removal) of the temporary barricade and associated signing and warning devices are available in Account No. E-AA-PW-416-3-90-00 and E-AA-PW-416-3-04- 00. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Remove the temporary barricade from Cascade Lane with findings for removal. ATTACHMENTS: Findings for Approval or Removal of the Temporary Barricade System Traffic Volume Comparison Charts Vicinity Map City Attorney's Opinion Page 3 Cascade Lane Traffic Conditions August 17, 1992 Findings for Approval of the Continued Presence of a Temporary Barricade on Cascade Lane at the Huntington Beach/Westminster City Limits 1. Cascade Lane is not designated as an arterial street on the City of Huntington Beach Master Plan of Arterial Highways nor the city of Westminster Master Plan of Arterial Highways and therefore is not a regionally significant roadway. 2. Cascade Lane is not constructed and does not have dedicated right of way for arterial street standards. 3. Cascade Lane is a residential street, and prior to placement of the temporary barricade system, was inappropriately serving as a local collector street with the resultant traffic volumes and accident history. 4. Retention of the temporary barricade system will implement the Circulation Element of the current City of Huntington Beach General Plan which calls for the safe and efficient movement of people and goods on the City's street system. 1 Page 4 Cascade Lane Traffic Conditions August 17, 1992 Findings for Removal of the Temporary Barricade on Cascade Lane at the Huntington Beach/Westminster City Limits 1. The existing temporary barricade system impedes access between adjacent local neighborhoods in Huntington Beach and Westminster. 2. The existing temporary barricade system limits neighborhood access to a single arterial street for each neighborhood in the vicinity of the barricade system. 3. There is an existing demand for access through the neighborhood and until additional access routes (such as the Hoover-Gothard connection)are implemented, this demand will continue to exist. MTU:LFS:7DO:RMH:rmh RMH:CASBARR.RCA CASCADE LANE AREA - 24 HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME DATA DATE OF SURVEY STREET NAME BETWEEN TRAFFIC VOLUME ........ ........._...... . . ......... .... ....... ........ ........ .. ........ . ... _........ ... .... ..... ........ ......... ......... .... ......... .... ........ ......... ......... ........... _. .. ....... .._ .......-.._. . ... _ .. . ......... .. .... ......... ........ ........- ..._ ........ ........ ... ......... .._..... __........ ......... .... ........_._.. ...... _. . .. .......... ... .. SEPTEMBER 26,.1990 . CAS.CADE AT CITY BOUNDARY 2870 OCTOBER 3 , 1990: CASCADE AT CITY BOUNDARY 2626 JTJLY 23 199I CASCADE AT CITY; BOUNDARY 2148 DECEMBER 1`8, 1991 CASCAbE 2224 AT CITY BOUNDARY FEBRUARY 5 992 CASCADE AT CITY BOUNDARY 2M JULY 16, 1992 CASCADE AT;CITY BOUNDARY 80* OCTOBER 31, 1990 SUGAR MC FADDEN AND RUSHMOOR 3117 JULY 23, 1991 SUGAR MC FADDEN AND RUSHMOOR 2724 DECEMBER 18, 1991 SUGAR MC FADDEN AND RUSHMOOR 2763 FEBRUARY 5, 1992 SUGAR MC FADDEN AND RUSHMOOR 2979 JULY 16, 1992 SUGAR MC FADDEN AND RUSHMOOR 1766* ............. .... .......... .... .. . _......... ............................._.. ......... ......_._ ......... _.. ........ ......... ......... . ........ . - ... - ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... _. . _ .... ........ . _.. ........ ..... ........ ........ ... . . ........... - ......... ......... .. ...._. ........._......-. . ........ . ..... . .. .............. ............. .... ......... ............._. . ......... _ . _...... ......... _......_ ......... ... ...... .. ... ....._.. . .... ........ ............ ..... ......... ......... ..._...... ........ . . ........ ......... .._... .. _.. ......... ......._.. . - ........... ..._.._.. ......... .... ......... ........... . ...... ......... ......... ......... ......... .. ._.... ......... ... . _ . ............ JULY 23, 1991 CASCADE SHASTA AND`WHITNEY 1800 DECEMBER 17, 1991 CASCADE SHASTA AND WHITNEY 2370 FEBRUARY 5 1992' CASCADE SHASTA AND WHI`TNEY< 2023 JULY 16, 1992 CASCADE SHASTA AND WHITNEY; 255* * Indicates traffic counts taken after barricade installation RMK CASARFA.V 02 • • j�jjj�j�j��jj/, �jj����/i .■■■■_ .■■■■ .■■■■ .■■■■ ....LIZ • • �/�jjjjjj�j��j/�j/, �1 ► MENEM - j/j��jjjjj���j�jjjjj/j�� • ..................................... ..................................... e J COL GATE s r-RE E'T 7. 1 F HU TIN GT0N BEA H 1 WHITNEY w � � o . v cn U - EVEREST . No Sc.4[.E' ' i NA O ` Q O cn� _ z O EXISTING STOP SIGN INTERSECTIONS SUGAR i ONE WAY VICINITY MAP H ' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Lou Sandoval, Director of Public Works FROM: Gail Hutton, City Attorney DATE: August 11, 1992 SUBJECT: Addendum to .Cascade Lane Analysis As a clarification to our July 14, 1992, memorandum regarding Cascade Lane, please note that the memorandum does not address the continuation of an interim temporary barricade, but rather the installation of a permanent one. Gail Hutton City Attorney cc: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator Ray Silver, Assistant City Administrator Mike Adams, Director of Community Development Jim Otterson, Traffic Engineer I 1fl�� 4 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUWINGTON BEACH TO: Lou Sandoval, Director of Public Works FROM: Gail Hutton, City Attorney DATE: July 14, 1992 SUBJECT: Analysis of Cascade Lane Barricade Situation BACKGROUND Contrary to our earlier (December 10, 1990) attached analysis regarding the legality of barricading Cascade Lane, the 1991 appellate court opinion City of Poway v. City of San Diego 229 Cal.App. 3d 847, 280 Cal.Rptr. 368, in our opinion negatively impacts the City Councils ability to place a barricade on Cascade Lane. FACTS After receiving several complaints from residents on Cascade Lane regarding the high volume of traffic, the Public Works Department examined the problem and brought it to the City Council for action. Cascade is a street that continues from Huntington Beach into Westminster as Temple Street. It is used by cut-through motorists to avoid congestion on the nearby main arterials of Bolsa, McFadden, Beach and Goldenwest. The Huntington Beach Traffic Commission recommended the installation of a barricade at the city limits on Cascade. The Public Works Department recommended the installation of a series of stop signs to reduce both the speed and the volume of the traffic. After several public meetings on the issue, the Council adopted a plan that called for the installation of a temporary flexible barricade at the city limits on Cascade Lane. REVIEW OF APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES The State of California has preempted the entire field of traffic control, as provided in Vehicle Code Section 21: Except as otherwise expressly provided, the provisions of this code are applicable and uniform throughout the state and in all counties and municipalities therein, and no local authority shall enact or enforce any ordinance on the matters covered by this code unless expressly authorized therein. t • Lou Sandoval July 14, 1992 Page 2 Thus, the proper focus of legal opinion on this topic becomes Vehicle Code Section 21101(f) . It reads as follows: _ Section 21101. Regulation of highways. Local authorities, for those highways under their jurisdiction, may adopt rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution on the following matters: . (f) Prohibiting entry to. or exit from. or both, from any street by means of islands,. curbs, traffic barriers, or other roadway design features tL implement the circulation element of a general plan adopted pursuant to Article 6 (commencing with Section 65350) Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code. The rules and regulations authorized by this subdivision shall be consistent with the responsibility of local government to provide for the health and safety of its citizens. (Emphasis added) Section 21101(f) authorizes a city to act for a single reason, "to implement the circulation element of a general plan. " Recently, the courts have imposed an additional requirement. In the recent Poway case, cited above, the court ruled that even if a general plan amendment was correctly adopted according to law, Section 21101(f) "should not be interpreted to allow one municipality to close its portion of a regionally significant, safely designed and maintained roadway for reasons of self interest, to the detriment of those other members of the motoring public who seek to travel the entirety of that road. " (Poway, 280 Cal.Rptr. at 379. ) Therefore, in order to legally act pursuant to the authority granted by Section 21101(f) , the city's action must implement the circulation element of its general plan. However, even if the reason for the closure is to implement the circulation element, a Section 21101(f) action cannot be taken in regard to a regionally significant road. The Attorney General agrees with this analysis. (See California Attorney General Opinion No. 91-1105, issued April 14, 1992. ) Lou Sandoval July 14, 1992 Page 3 ISSUES Applying the above review to the facts, the- Cascade. Lane barricade presents two legal issues: 1) Was the barricade placed to implement the circulation element of the general plan? (Conclusion: Inescapably no. ) 2) Is Cascade a regionally significant roadway? (Conclusion: Probably not. ) DISCUSSION For the barricade on Cascade to be legal, it must somehow be rationalized as implementing the circulation element of the General Plan. Since the circulation element identifies Cascade as a street that is open to traffic, it is unlikely that a court would find that the barricade implements the circulation element of the General Plan. Therefore, we conclude that the barricade does not implement the circulation element, as required by Vehicle Code Section 21101(f) . It is much more difficult to predict how a court would rule on the second issue. In Poway, the court was faced with a road that had previously been designated as a federal and state highway, and was currently designated under both affected cities' circulation elements as a "major" street or arterial. Cascade is not so designated under Huntington Beach's circulation element. It is merely a local street. However, since it continues into another jurisdiction, it may possibly be a street of regional significance. Further, each of the court decisions we have reviewed invalidates a barricade scheme. We can only conclude that the appellate courts generally frown upon the placement of street barricades by local authorities. (See generally, Lafayette v. County of Contra Costa (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d 749, 154 Cal.Rptr. 374: barricade invalid as outside scope of city's police powers; Rumford v. Berkeley (1982) 31 Cal.3d 545, 645 P.2d 124, 183 Cal.Rptr. 73 : barriers invalid when effecting partial street closure, where only full street closure authorized by statute, and barriers also invalid as nonconforming to standards promulgated by State Dept. of Transportation; Chamberlin v. City of Palo Alto (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 181, 230 Cal.Rptr. 173 : trial court erred in sustaining demurrer to property owner's complaint alleging that city adopted traffic control plan with insufficient environmental review; Uhler v. City of Encinitas (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 795, 278 Cal.Rptr. 157: traffic barrier not a traffic control device that city was authorized to construct by statute. ) Lou Sandoval July 14, 1992 Page 4 Another important factor is that no environmental review was conducted prior to constructing the barricade. While it might be argued that this project is categorically exempt from CEQA as a minor alteration to an existing highway or street, pursuant to Huntington Beach City Council Resolution 4501, we think that some environmental evaluation is appropriate prior to a traffic diversion of this magnitude. CONCLUSION As discussed above, the barricade on Cascade was not placed in order to implement the circulation element of the General Plan. Therefore,. it is not a legal act that is authorized by Vehicle Code Section 21101(f) . RECOMMENDATION Remove the barricade and conduct environmental review. Prepare an appropriate General Plan amendment with a finding that Cascade is ngt a regionally significant street. Then, if warranted, replace the barricade. We will be pleased to meet with you -or answer any questions you might have. (Paul D'Alessandro, X-5615. ) 6F -)a Gail Hutton City Attorney cc: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator Ray Silver, Assistant City Administrator Mike Adams, Director of Community Development Jim Otterson, Traffic Engineer P.S. We have received a demand to remove the barricade from the law firm of Thomas Hood, Attorney Pete McAneny who is a resident on Whitney Lane. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH- INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To JIM OTTERSON From GAIL HUTTON TRAFFIC ENGINEER CITY ATTORNEY Subject RLS# 90-815 GATING OF CASCADE LANE Date DECEMBER 10, 1990 QUESTION: 1. What is the city's liability exposure if a permanent gate is installed blocking a city street? 2. Since the location of the gate will affect the City of Westminster, can the city take unilateral action? STATEMENT OF FACT: The Transportation Commission of the City of Huntington Beach is investigating closing off a street with a gate which is to be locked with an Knox Box. The "Knox Box" will allow the fire department access to the street. There are two recommended locations for the gate. One is Cascade Lane and the other is Sugar Lane. Either location may affect. traffic conditions in Westminster. ANALYSIS: Question 1 California Government Code §830.6 grants immunity to public agencies and their employee for design of public improvements which result in injury where such plans or designs have been approved in advance of the construction by the city council. The gating of a city street on city property falls within this design immunity.statute. Question 2 While the gating may affect traffic in Westminster there is currently no law putting a duty on a city to consider or confer with adjoining cities concerning traffic impactsA- ANSWE R: Question 1 The closing off a street by gating does not increase the city's liability. JIM OTTERSON December 10, 1990 Page 2 Question 2 The city may unilaterally make the decision to close off its street regardless of the possible increased traffic it may cause in an adjoining city,however, there is a new law which has not been implemented yet which will require county wide congestion management and inter—agency cooperation. GALL HUTTON CITY ATTORNEY GCH/AJF/jeg BEACH CITY OF HUNTINGTON BE MAYOR'S MEMO TO: Honorable City Council Members FROM: Jim Silva, Mayor APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL _ �o 19-u DATE: April 1, 1990 SUBJECT: March 2nd Council Decision Cascade Lane In light of a petition which is on file with the City Clerk as well as many individual letters, I respectfully request that Council reconsider it's decision of March 2nd to install, on a six month trial basis, barricades "C" (to be located just south of the intersection of Cascade & Shasta and before Sugar) and "D" (to be located on Whitney where it intersects with Cascade) . I would further request that if approved, this reconsideration occur as a Public Hearing at the regular City Council meeting on April 20th. JS:PD:pad xc: City Administrator City Clerk T . t C jY�C`EpK CkIl Of At�f•` NG�fl�BE� �� 'G H�xt' MEMORANDUM DATE: - March 30, 1992. TO.: Connie Brockway, City Clerk FROM: Janice Hansen, 15301 Shasta Lane, Huntington Beach RE: Petition to rescind Barricades C & D in the vicinity of Cascade. Lane Attached please find eight pages of signatures from residents of the tract which includes Cascade Lane. The petition reads as follows: We, as residents of Whitney Drive, Cascade Lane, Shasta Lane, Rushmoor .Lane, Everest Circle, Etna Circle, Cottonwood Circle, and Sugar Avenue, request that the Huntington Beach City Council rescind the decision made on March 2 , 1992 to erect Barricades C & D in our community. We request that this issue be placed on a Public Hearing .agenda and that written notification of Hearing dates be given to all residents . The 150 signatures gathered may be broken down as follows : 93 households represented 8 households declined 12 households were not at home 2 households were undecided 1 for rent 1 vacant In meeting with residents of Homeowners For a Safe Cascade on March 22 , 1992 , it was requested that Cascade homeowners be able to represent themselves orally before Council at the April 6 meeting. This request was honored by petitioners, therefore Cascade is not included on this petition. I respectfully submit this petition to you and request that it be included in the April 6 staff report packet to allow City Council to review it before the meeting. Thank- you for your assistance. cc: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator ' PETITION We, as residents of Whitney Drive, Cascade Lane, Shasta Lane, Rushmoor Lane, Everest Circle, Etna Circle, Cottonwood Circle, and Sugar Avenue, request that the Huntington Beach City Council rescind.the decision made on March 2, 1992 to erect Barricades C & D in our community. We request that this issue be placed on a Public Hearing agenda and that written notification of Hearing dates be given to all residents. Print Name Signature Address je . . /f . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. . -. . . . 74��/.Ve4� A 4 .�Qk 0,. lr YP . . G+:" rs`� of. 75OLD/3 c,J ov:S . .�d•�. . Al'a .. Gt . . . . . . . . . ,c�,c�W� �`��s. . . . . �'��� . .2.6�/��V Pa;cg?'G� ,.• �-1:f�ct��t 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . r�?,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ` `./. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 1 - . .•� , . �. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -�� . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . .77.77 . . . . . . . . . . . ` . . . . . . . . (0 • w�;;?� . . . . 3 . . . . . . .u .�E �_ GcJa . . .. . .. . . . f.s3/l . . . . . . . . . 1 !.. . . . . . . .. ... . . . PETITION We, as residents of Whitney Drive, Cascade Lane, Shasta Lane, Rushmoor Lane, Everest Circle, Etna Circle, Cottonwood Circle, and Sugar Avenue, request that the Huntington Beach City Council rescind the decision made on March 2, 1992 to erect Barricades C & D in our community. We request that this issue be placed on a Public Hearing agenda and that written notification of Hearing dates be given to all residents. Print Na a S' ture Address Zd � /Y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . y V"c. A-A e, , 7,1 y/ �,ti ?�'►:� -r.Ord . '. . . . . . . . . . . . . .v,.` . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . 19 Sc"z Ar%AG . .M. A-/I2 �.I . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . �1.`.�'.�. . . .V . .?�• . . . . . . . 76 `r , t-e e r-4 :7 2-- l� . 5�. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`. . . . ,v�vt�r. .�.e ,.. a- '14 74�o V, �VA1:?;.DGH. !�. . ..44 . G(14� q . 7 .7D� 5z . . . . . . . . . . . . .77.3 . ' . . . . . . .77.3 ��Q.� . .��. �� . . . . . . . /0. . . 1 �.Q Q . . . . . . . . . ��1. �l,:r. , Q)j�. . . . . . . . . . . . . FA A r I I�I O tv!V . . -J - . . . . . . . . . . . . . /.�r-f 2- .off 71q Z:A . z. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l s.3�.a. s492Tt. ? a PETITION We, as residents of Whitney Drive, Cascade Lane, Shasta Lane, Rushmoor Lane, Everest-Circle, Etna Circle, Cottonwood Circle, and Sugar Avenue, request that the Huntington Beach City Council rescind the decision made on March 2, 1992 to erect Barricades C.& D in our community. We request that this issue be placed on a Public Hearing agenda and that written notification of Hearing dates be given to all residents. Print Name Signature Address. _T r gz"-.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ��4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . r y, N . ?4Li i �> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .� . . � L- . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Z. v. L�r. . . . . . . . . . . .13�� RUS fern, d ?.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0. 4/ . . . . . . . .77. / / � LJ ` / . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ��. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . . . . . . . . . .X' . . . . . . . . . . . . . �. . . . . . . . . . . . . ./.s'3� -. � w -?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �. �. . . . . . rn .Nd . . . . : .. . . . . .� . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IL440eb A1*U&AV.41k . . . . . . . . . . . . �. . � � . . . � c Y X460. . . . . . . . . . . i PETITION We, as residents of Whitney Drive, Cascade Lane, Shasta Lane, Rushmoor Lane, Everest Circle, Etna Circle, Cottonwood Circle, and Sugar Avenue, request that the Huntington Beach City Council rescind the decision made on March 2, 1992 to erect Barricades C & D in our community. We request that this issue be placed on a Public Hearing agenda and that written notification of Hearing dates be given to all residents. Print Name Signature Address . �! y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C? u.to �: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �Qfr �1De�-� �u ./.h-. :" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . y. i?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .��'. . (. : : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M-W. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -. . ??z:�47. . . . . . . . . . . . . .� . 62� . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .-c...-. . Ali:' `y. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. 1. �8 �.✓.�!��. 9.z8 9 r J PETITION We, as residents of Whitney Drive, Cascade Lane, Shasta Lane, Rushmoor Lane, Everest Circle, Etna Circle, Cottonwood Circle, and Sugar Avenue, request that the Huntington Beach City Council rescind the decision made on March 2, 1992 to erect Barricades C & D in our community. We request that this issue be placed 3 0 on a Public Hearing agenda and that written notification of Hearing dates be given to all residents. Print Name Signature Address . . . . . .S4. . ...1 r . l . . . .. K.. .40.�:� !�. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �5 3. a . . . . . ":� St�t52- ��� . .� (�oN.� . . . . .153 �. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �'w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �`l�c��a�� lU, �cva-,c�� ���a.v ��• cv a�a�,�1` 1531�� `�a.s�$.a.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P14 - . .k/ 4--� � S . .l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .� . L1.;��,w� ���C N l- . . . . . . . . . . . C(mow 4, —a 1.�L--z e . . . . 1 SV z , S ' —��. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.-�6? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4�5 FY e.. . ./.! . . . . . . . . . 5 PETITION We, as residents of Whitney Drive, Cascade Lane, Shasta Lane, Rushmoor Lane, Everest Circle, Etna Circle, Cottonwood Circle, and Sugar Avenue, request that the Huntington Beach City Council rescind the decision made on March 2, 1992 to erect Barricades C & D in our community. We request that this issue be placed on a Public Hearing agenda and that written notification of Hearing dates be given to all residents. Print Name Signature Address MA AN t�a �`t �i.C/In/V� . - O -� /cj Z�/ /e v:r . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �e. . c. .. �`. .. . .. . . � . . . . ! . . . . . . . . . noG. . . . .. . . . . . �f�/'c,l;C}�1�� J ,�I�Nta?U�L . .�! /�?''�� �'��.�L�1 . ��`.�!� .���-e��5�!�IQa•e, ��?��" 76',Q w,�rxmy ,x - . ��?`. . . . � . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . � . . . . . . . . . . . .� . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .�. .2. . . . .�. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . � .( . . . . . . (. H . . . . . . . . . . . .15 SCE Es• `?`:J.°`r . . : �O`�?. . . . . - . . r•a.. / . 1 4-7� e—. ((� L. . . . . Cc�2 T OP LW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I �. . .,1— . . . . . . rl 1 c \ .��1 cszY t� ---Tr�"�C� . .� . . . . . . . .�s . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .r. . . .. ICE �coyj . .v . . �P PETITION We, as residents of Whitney Drive, Cascade Lane, Shasta Lane, Rushmoor Lane, Everest Circle, Etna Circle, Cottonwood Circle, and Sugar Avenue, request that the Huntington Beach City Council rescind the decision made on March 2, 1992 to erect Barricades C & D in our community. We request that this issue be placed on a Public Hearing agenda and that written notification of Hearing dates be given to all residents. Print Name Signature Address . . . . . . . (� . /. . . . Sal 2- S ff T��� -alu .� _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . La—tr or!`c �. . `.,�.-1 . . . . . . . . . . 5,cl 3 f e,, -5k v►10 o r '. . . . . . . . . .Y . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 1 S�. . .�.A oan.►�.i oc� . . AR6A2A. � eu^�. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..� �v�.(. .�1h%' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ?!. UDC,:�:F! . . . . . . . . . P. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7�0?l. . �✓. �?��-► j . . . . . aT . ... . .\ . .14"' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .�. . �N. . . . . . . . . .6`ll. . . ,vee?s�` . . `fieC�e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2,7.2 , s �y �. PETITION ; c We, as residents of Whitney Drive, Cascade Lane, Shasta Lane, Rushmoor Lane, Everest Circle, Etna Circle, Cottonwood Circle, and Sugar Avenue, request that the Huntington Beach City Council rescind the decision made on March 2, 1992 to erect Barricades C & D in our community. We request that this issue be placed on a Public Hearing agenda and that written notification of Hearing dates be given to all residents. Print Name Signature Address ID 4 5. OGv.2602 vp . . . . . . . . . . .7794 G///rly An. .Cos 901.6' I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date April6. 19912 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: ,,,,ppM��ichael T. Uberuaga, City AdministratorcVe4 Prepared by: fl ouis F. Sandoval, Director, Public Works Department Subject: Cascade Lane Traffic:Control Devices Consistent with Council Policy? [X ] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue,Recommendation,Analysis,Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments • alL� STATEMENT OF ISSUE: On March 2, 1992 Council directed staff to install a temporary barricade system in the Cascade Lane neighborhood and return to Council with options for the disposition of the existing all-way STOP signs at four intersections. RECOMMENDATION: Remove the existing all-way STOP sign installations at the intersection of Cascade Lane/Whitney Drive and Cascade Lane/Sugar Lane, Rushmoor Lane/Whitney Drive, and Rushmoor Lane/Sugar Lane. Allow the existing southbound STOP on Rushmoor Lane at Sugar Lane to remain in place, allow the existing STOP sign for northbound Shasta Lane at Whitney Drive to remain in place, and allow the STOP sign for northbound Rushmoor Lane at Whitney Drive to remain in place (please see Proposed STOP and Barricade Map). ANALYSIS: With the installation of barricades on Whitney Drive at Cascade Lane and Sugar Lane at Cascade Lane, traffic must follow an "S-shaped" route through the neighborhood (please see attached Existing STOP and Barricade Map). With the barricades in place the intersections of Cascade Lane/Whitney Drive and Cascade Lane/Sugar Lane cease to be intersections. The effect of the barricades is to make the intersections into sections of roadway without side streets, thus eliminating the need for right-of-way control. The original purpose of the STOP sign installations was to delay cut-through traffic enough that the neighborhood would no longer be used for a short-cut between Bolsa Avenue and McFadden Avenue. I � l Cascade Lane Page 2 When STOP signs are installed in an illogical place (such as a straight, uninterrupted portion of roadway) motorists quickly begin to ignore the STOP sign, which creates a very dangerous situation for another motorist or pedestrian. With the barricades in place, Cascade Lane becomes an uninterrupted street between the city limits and the intersection of Shasta Lane/Whitney Drive. Staff recommends that the intersections of Shasta Lane/Whitney Drive and Rushmoor Lane/Whitney Drive retain STOP signs for northbound traffic and the intersection of Rushmoor Drive/Sugar Lane retain a STOP sign for southbound traffic. At a Tee intersection with any appreciable traffic volumes, the stem of the Tee is controlled first, then all legs are controlled as a final step. This approach eliminates confusion for motorists approaching the intersection for either side of the top of the Tee. FUNDING SOURCE: Funds for the removal of the STOP signs are available in Account No. E-AA-PW-416-3-04-00. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Allow all existing STOP signs to remain in place. This would create potentially unreasonable STOP sign installations at several intersections. 2. Remove the STOP signs at the intersections of Cascade Lane/Whitney Drive and Cascade Lane/Sugar Lane, and allow the remaining existing STOP signs to remain in place. 3. Remove all STOP signs installed previously for neighborhood traffic control, with the exception of the STOP sign on Sugar Lane at McFadden Avenue. ATTACHMENTS: Existing STOP and Barricade Map Proposed STOP and Barricade Map Cascade.100 LFS:7Dev o z M ° �c m - y O ♦C A S C A DE�J-I I.IlCI_ILI_ULLI d � ♦`♦♦`♦♦♦ . C; � `♦♦♦♦♦`♦ � ``♦�I I i I I I.I I.I I! �.LI__ 7-Ci�PL E A rTl ♦♦ �♦ ♦��`� �♦�`� ♦�L1.1L1. ®.:_LIB ; , C7 - 1 I I.I 11111 I I.I I S H A S TA ♦♦ ♦♦`♦� - m �.I � .I.I I.I.I.I.I.I I_I.11_I:I I.I.I.I I.I I.I�;R U S H M 0.0 R .•♦♦ � ..� 1 1 : JJ COTTONWOOD _ ------------ ►loo b CASCAD.Ewi01- LLI c 0 �� Z o O ��wuuw S H AS TA ` ������ " _ m c4- R U S H M O OR c COTTONWOOD _ STATE OF CAUFORNIA County of Orange I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; 1 am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT, a newspaper of general cimulation, printed and published in the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California. and that attached Notice is a true and complete copy as was printed and published in the Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley issues of said newspaper to wit the issue(s)of: PUBLIC NOTICE Notice of Public Hearing On Traffic Conditions On Cascade Lane In the City of Huntington Beach Notice Is hereby given the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing on traffic condi. April 9, 1992 lions to proposed is prob ems lu.In the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center; 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, Califoi. nia,on the date and at the, time indicated below.to re- ceive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard rota- tive to this Issue. Date/Tlme:` Monday, April 20,1992,7:00 P.M. Request: The City Council will consider a request by citizens residing in the Cas- cade Lane neighborhood I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the to Install temporary bar- ricades on neighborhood streets for the purpose of foregoing is true and correct reducing- or eliminating through traffic. - All Interested Persons are April 9 1 SS 2 Invited to attend said hear- Executed an Ing and express opinions or submit.evidence for or at Costa Mesa, CialifornicL against the request as out-. O lined above. If there arej �1 any further questions,. please contact Jim Otter.I son, City Tiafic Engineer, at 536.5431. Signature Louis F. Sandoval, DI-1 rector, Public _Works Department Published Huntington Beach Independent April 9, 1992 042-474 PROOF OF PUBLICATION Zp, �3 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION April 20, 1992 Date Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator Prepared by: Louis F. Sandoval, Director, Public Works Department oe� Michael P. Dolder, Chief, Fire Department�—� (22 Ronald E. Lowenberg, Chief, Police Department. : Subject: UPDATE TO MARCH 3, 1992 MEETING REGARDING CASCADE LANE AREA TRAFFIC CONDITIONS . Consistent with Council Policy? [ X ] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE• At the March 2, 1992 City Council meeting staff was directed to install Barricades C & D and to return to Council on April 6, 1992 with the suggested disposition of all-way STOP signs installed at council's direction at the September 3, 1991 City Council meeting. On April 6, 1992 the City Council, based upon neighborhood input, voted to reconsider their March 2, 1992 decision to install barricades on Cascade Lane neighborhood streets and revisit the issue at the April 20, 1992 City Council meeting. RECOMMENDATION: Rescind the March 2, 1992 vote to install temporary barricades and leave the existing all-way STOP controls and striping in place. ANALYSIS: On March 2, 1992 Council directed staff to install a temporary barricade system in the Cascade Lane neighborhood and return to Council with options for the disposition of the existing all-way STOP signs at four intersections. On April 6, 1992 the City Council voted to reconsider their March 3, 1992 decision to install barricades on Cascade Lane neighborhood streets and revisit the issue at the April 20, 1992 City Council meeting. The data attached is a comparison of all data collected in this area as requested by the City Council. Traffic volumes and vehicle speeds have remained approximately equal for typical times of the year. Traffic Engineering has not received any complaints regarding intersection right-of:way assignment or of motorists traveling on the wrong side of the street after the STOP controls and street striping were installed. STOP controls and street striping were installed to mitigate these prior complaints and discourage through traffic in the neighborhood. As a result Cascade Lane Page 2 of STOP sign and striping placement, this type of errant motorist behavior has virtually disappeared, thus leaving existing controls in place is the recommended action. If the City Council's intent is to significantly reduce through traffic in the neighborhood, a barricade system would need to be considered. A review of the collected traffic volume data reveals a small reduction (approximately 100 vehicles per day) in through traffic at the Huntington Beach/Westminster boundary. The barricade installation options presented at the September 3, 1991 council meeting approach the problem from three different perspectives. i BARRICADE A: Install a temporary street closure at the city boundary between Huntington Beach and Westminster (Please see barricade vicinity map for barricade location A). This will eliminate access to Bolsa Avenue for Huntington Beach residents and eliminate access to McFadden Avenue for Westminster residents while significantly lowering traffic volumes on Cascade Lane. Emergency vehicle response times will likely be significantly increased if this street closure is installed. This option is represented as Question No. 6 on the Cascade Lane Neighborhood Traffic Conditions Questionnaire. BARRICADE B: Install a temporary street closure at the south end of Cascade Lane west of Shasta Lane (Please see barricade vicinity map for barricade location B). This will allow access to Bolsa Avenue and McFadden Avenue for Huntington Beach and Westminster residents and not increase emergency vehicle response times. Neighborhood through traffic will be transferred to Shasta Lane or Rushmoor Lane. This option is represented as Question No.. 7 on the Cascade Lane Neighborhood Traffic Conditions Questionnaire. BARRICADES C & D: Install a temporary street closure on Shasta Lane south of Cascade Lane AND on Whitney Drive at Cascade Lane (Please see barricade vicinity map for barricade locations C & D). This will allow access to Bolsa Avenue and McFadden Avenue for Huntington Beach and Westminster residents and minimally increase emergency vehicle response times. Neighborhood through traffic will be forced to use Cascade Lane, Shasta Lane, and Rushmoor Lane to travel through the neighborhood. This option is represented as Question No. 8 on the Cascade Lane Neighborhood Traffic Conditions Questionnaire. The Fire Chief-and Police Chief are concerned about impacts of temporary or permanent barricade installations on emergency vehicle response times and the availability of reliable emergency vehicle and patrol vehicle access routes. With these concerns in mind the Fire Department and Police Department are opposed to the installation of temporary or permanent.. barricades. If _the council should elect to install temporary barricades, the dual barricade installation (Barricades C & D) has the least impact on Fire Department and Police Department response times and provides the most reliable emergency and patrol vehicle access routing. Cascade Lane Page 3 If temporary barricades are installed on Whitney Drive at Cascade Lane (Barricade D) and Sugar Lane at Cascade Lane (Barricade C), traffic must follow an "S-shaped" route through the neighborhood (please see attached Existing STOP and Barricade Map). With the barricades in Place the intersections of Cascade Lane/Whitney Drive and Cascade Lane/Sugar Lane cease to be intersections. The effect of the barricades is to make the intersections into sections of roadway withou side streets, thus eliminating the need for right-of-way control. The original purpose of the STOP sign installations was to delay cut-through traffic enough that the neighborhood would no longer be used for a short-cut between Bolsa Avenue and McFagden Avenue. When STOP signs are installed in an illogical place (such as a straight, uninterrupted portion of roadway) motorists quickly begin to ignore the STOP sign, which creates a very dangerous situation for another motorist or pedestrian. With the barricades in place, Cascade Lane becomes an uninterrupted street between the city limits and the intersection of Shasta Lane/Whitney Drive. If temporary barricades C & D are installed, staff recommends that the intersections of Shasta. Lane/Whitney Drive and Rushmoor Lane/Whitney Drive retain STOP signs for northbound traffic and the intersection of Rushmoor Drive/Sugar Lane retain a STOP sign for southbound traffic. At a Tee intersection with any appreciable traffic volumes, the stem of the Tee is controlled first, then all legs are controlled as a final step. This approach eliminates confusion for motorists approaching the intersection for either side of the top of the Tee. Speed humps have been a suggested solution to the through traffic and speeding problem in the neighborhood. Speed humps have been installed in several cities state-wide. Several unresolved issues arising from these installation include potential tort liability to the cities (resulting from the speed hump installations), increased neighborhood noise levels, detrimental effects to emergency and patrol vehicle response times, and lost or-damaged equipment on emergency vehicles as a result of traveling over the speed humps at normal operating speeds. Staff does not recommend the installation of speed humps on city streets at this time. FUNDING SOURCE: Funds are available in Account Number E-SF-PW-802-6-32-00 ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1A. Install a temporary barricade. See attached "Neighborhood Traffic Conditions Questionnaire" and barricade vicinity map. If Barricade Installations C &D are chosen, remove the existing all-way STOP sign installations at the intersection of Cascade Lane/Whitney Drive and Cascade Lane/Sugar Lane, Rushmoor Lane/Whitney Drive, and Rushmoor Lane/Sugar Lane. Allow the existing southbound STOP on Rushmoor Lane at Sugar Lane to remain in place, allow the existing STOP sign for northbound Shasta Lane at Whitney Drive to remain in place, and allow the STOP sign for northbound Cascade Lane Page 4 Rushmoor Lane at Whitney Drive to remain in place (please see Proposed STOP and Barricade Map). 1B. Install a temporary barricade per 1A and allow all existing STOP signs to remain in place. This would create potentially unreasonable STOP sign installations at several intersections. 1C. Install a temporary barricade per 1A and remove the STOP signs at the intersections of Cascade Lane/Whitney Drive and Cascade Lane/Sugar Lane, and allow the remaining existing STOP signs to remain in place. 1D. Install a temporary barricade per 1A and remove all STOP signs installed previously for neighborhood traffic control, with the exception of the STOP sign on Sugar Lane at McFadden Avenue. 2. Remove existing STOP controls and striping. See "Existing stop sign intersections" map. ATTACHMENTS: Map(s) City Attorney's Opinion Data Charts MTU:LFS:JDO:jdo jdo:cascade.120 Q F COL GATE 5 THE E T 4•. 0 HU TI NGTON SEA H - OFDJ WHITNEY ol o U EVEREST Nv ScR[.E i NA PROPOSED o BARRICADE LOCATION IK � � o 0 o . z 0 "EXISTING `STOP SIGN r.- INTERSECTIONS © U ALL WAY 0 su �AR ONE WAY • VICINITY - MAP z o - .a r CASCADE _I.Illiiii.li. o - o W CI nI I I I I I I LI I I I I L.ILi,I l.la.l.la l.l.l.l l.l.�S H A S TA-•` `����` Rmj _�LI I I I LI ILI I LI ILI:LI 1.11 LLI;:�.IJ R U S H M O O R •• --� 1.,j z � C _.._._....... . --{ COTTONWOOD _ o n r m o , o `C A S A DE I.I.I I.Il.I.111-I.I.!1.1.1.11 -Illilll-Lfl.11 SH AS TA R U S H M.0 0 . m �. C D --< COTT O'NWOOD _ _ r - r Z CASCADE LANE AREA - 24 HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME DATA Z DATE OF SURVEY STREET NAME BETWEEN TRAFFIC CHANGE PERCENT W VOLUME CHANGE SEPTEMBER 26, 1990 CASCADE AT CITY BOUNDARY 2870 X JULY 23 , 1991 CASCADE AT CITY BOUNDARY 2148 722 -25 OCTOBER 31, 1990 SUGAR MCFADDEN AND 3117 Q RUSHMOOR JULY 23 , 1991 SUGAR MCFADDEN AND 2724 - 393 -13 . RUSHMOOR OCTOBER 31, 1990 SUGAR RUSHMOOR AND 2480 SHASTA 358 -14 JULY 23 , 1991 SUGAR RUSHMOOR AND 2122 SHASTA j OCTOBER 31, 1990 RUSHMOOR SUGAR AND ETNA 623 + 292 +47 JULY 23 , 1991 RUSHMOOR SUGAR AND ETNA 915 CASCADE LANE AREA - PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME DATA DATE OF SURVEY STREET LOCATION VOLUME CHANGE CHANGE AM PM AM PM AM PM PEAK PEAK PEAK PEAK PEAK PEAK SEPT. 26, 1990 CASCADE CITY BOUNDARY 231 334 - 143 + 31 - 62$ + 9% JULY 23 , 1991 CASCADE CITY BOUNDARY 88 365 DATE OF SURVEY 85TH PERCENTILE 10 MPH PACE NOVEMBER 5, 1990 37 MPH 29 TO 38 MPH JULY 18 , 1991 33 MPH 24 TO 33 MPH CASCADE LANE RADAR SURVEY COMPARISON RMH:CASCADE. SUR ATTACHMENT NO. 2 ANALYSIS OF CASCADE LANE NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CONDITIONS SURVEY uestions 1. Do you now perceive.less traffic.on neighborhood streets in your area? 2. Do you now perceive slower traffic speeds on neighborhood streets in your area? 3. Should the recently installed white lines remain in place? 4. Should the recently installed double yellow street centerlines remain in place? S. Should the recently installed STOP signs remain in place? Leaving the STOP signs in place will allow access to and from Bolsa Avenue and McFadden Avenue for all residents of the neighborhood and will have no impact on emergency vehicle response times. .t 6. BARRICADE A: Would you prefer a street closure at the city boundary between Huntington Beach and Westminster(Please see reverse side for barricade location A)? This will eliminate access to Bolsa Avenue for Huntington Beach residents and eliminate access to McFadden Avenue for Westminster residents while significantly lowering traffic volumes on Cascade Lane. Emergency vehicle response times will likely be significantly increased if this street closure is installed. 7. BARRICADE B: Would you prefer a street closure at the south end of Cascade Lane west of Shasta Lane (Please see reverse side for barricade location B)? This will allow access to Bolsa Avenue and McFadden Avenue for Huntington Beach and Westminster residents and not increase emergency vehicle response times. Neighborhood through traffic will be transferred to Shasta Lane or Rushmoor Lane. 8. BARRICADES C &D: Would you prefer a street closure on Shasta Lane south of Cascade Lane AND on Whitney Drive at Cascade Lane (Please see reverse side for barricade locations C &D)? This will allow access to Bolsa Avenue and McFadden Avenue for Huntington Beach and Westminster residents and minimumally increase emergency vehicle response times. Neighborhood through traffic will be forced to use Cascade Lane, Shasta Lane, and Rushmoor Lane to travel through the neighborhood. QUESTION CASCADE LANE NEIGHBORHOOD ENTIRE NUMBER RESIDENCES ONLY WITHOUT CASCADE NEIGHBORHOOD YES NO. YES NO YES NO QUESTION 1 8 (28%) 21 (72%) 71 (69%) 32 (31%) 79 (60%) 53 (40%) QUESTION 2 11 (3 8%) 18 (62%) 94 (91%) 9 (9%) 105 (80%) 27 (20%) QUESTION 3 14 (48%) 15 (52%) 95 (93%) 7 (7%) 109 (83%) 22 (17%) QUESTION 4 17 (59%) 12 (41%) 96 (93%) 7 (7%) 113 (86%) 19 (14%) QUESTION 5 13 (48%)- 14 (52%) 99 (95%) 5 (5%) 112 (85%) 19 (15%) QUESTION 6 13 (50%) 13 (50%) 17 (17%) 86 (83%) 30 (23%) 99 (77%) QUESTION 7 18 (75%) 6 (25%) 5 (5%) 97 (95%) 23 (18%) 103 (82%) QUESTION 8 7 (30%) 16 (70%) 5 (5%) 97 (95%) 12 (10%) 113 (90%) One questionnaire per residence was distributed throughout the neighborhood. On Cascade Lane 5 out of 34 residences (14%) did not respond to this survey. In the neighborhood excluding Cascade Lane 21 out of 120 residences (18%) did not respond to this survey. For the entire neighborhood 26 out of 154(17%) of the residences did not respond to this survey. ATTACHMENT NO. 3 - CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH- INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To JIM OTTERSON From GAIL HUTTON TRAFFIC ENGINEER CITY ATTORNEY Subject RLS# 90-815 GATING OF CASCADE LANE Date DECEMBER 10, 1990 QUESTION: 'i 1. What is the city's liability exposure if a permanent gate is installed blocking a city street? 2. Since the location of the gate will affect the City of Westminster, can the city take unilateral action? [(Y(; It STATEMENT OF FACT: The Transportation Commission of the City of Huntington Beach is investigating closing off a street with a gate which is to be locked with an Knox Box. The "Knox Box" will allow the fire department access to the street. There are two recommended locations for the gate. One is Cascade Lane and the other is Sugar Lane. Either location may affect. traffic conditions in Westminster. ANALYSIS: Question 1 k�. f; California Government Code §830.6 grants immunity to public agencies and their }. employee for design of public improvements which result in injury where such plans or designs have been approved in advance of the.construction by the city council. The gating of a city street on city property falls within this design immunity statute. Question 2 While the gating may affect traffic in Westminster there is currently no law putting a duty on a city to consider or confer with adjoining cities concerning traffic impacts;.,.- ANSWER: f Question I The closing off a street by gating does not increase the city's liability. x A i i� JIM OTTERSON December 10, 1990 Page 2 Question 2 The city may unilaterally make the decision to close off its street regardless of the !< possible increased traffic it may cause in an adjoining city, however, there is a new law which has not been implemented yet which will require.county wide congestion management and inter-agency cooperation. t u GAIL HUTTON CITY ATTORNEY ,.s GCH/AJF/jeg s t� i'. i. v. Fi i< .f is S i April 14 , 1992 . / — DPW Members of the Huntington Beach City Council : At last! After 19 months of hearings , meetings , petitions , decisions and reversals , and approximately 1 , 425 , 000 vehicles through our nieghborhood, you now know what must be done . Allow me to refer to certain facts . ALMOST ALL RESIDENTS OF THE NIEGHBORHOOD ARE OPPOSED TO HAVING OVER 2000 CARS GO BY THEIR DOORS EACH DAY . This is supported by petitions dated September 14 , 1990 ( 107 signatures ) and .April 1 , 1992 ( 93 signatures ) . A 40 FOOT WIDE RESIDENTIAL STREET SHOULD NOT CARRY MORE THAN 80 CARS PER HOUR AT PEAK LOAD PERIODS. This statistic was given by the city traffic engineer to the group .now known as Homeowners for a Safe Cascade in 1990 . STOP SIGNS DID NOT REDUCE THE VOLUME OF TRAFFIC TO ACCEPTABLE LIMITS . A traffic count taken at the city limit (Cascade at Whitney) on October 31 , 1990 showed 2626 vehicles . On May 21 , 1991 stop signs were installed. On July 23 , 1991 the count was 2148 ; Golden West College was not in session at that time. On February 2 , 1992 the count was 2770 at the same location. Further, the majority of the vehicles do not stop at the stop signs as required by Vehicle Code Sections 587 and 22450 , and Municipal Code Section 10 . 04 . 140 . This includes residents and city vehicles . POUR MUNICIPAL AGENCIES HAVE VOTED TU PLACE TEMPORARY GATES OR BARRICADES AT THE CITY LIMITS ON A TRIAL. BASIS . These agencies are: Westminster and Huntington Beach Transportation Commissions , and Westminster and Huntington Beach City Councils . Opposition to such devices include the notion that they impede emergency vehicles . The fact is that such devices are in wide and acceptable use throughout the city and the county. In fact, a collapsible barricade was installed at the corner of Cascade and Shasta over a year ago. Gates with Knox Boxes are widely acceptable to public officials in this and other cities . THREATS AND INTIMIDATION. A small element within the nieghborhood has unfortunately chosen to use threats , insults , and intimidation against people who speak up in favor of a gate at the city limits . Some of these threats meet the legal definition of assault . Citizens have the right to protection from bodily harm and personal insults . See Civil Code Section 43 et seq. SUGAR AND McFADDEN WARRANTS A TRAFFIC LIGHT. A recent traffic count (March 1992 ) by the Traffic Engineering Dept. supports this statement. Both documentary and anecdotal evidence is available to support each of these facts . Please contact me if there are any questions . I strongly urge you to take the necessary action now by placing a traffic control gate at the city limit and installing a traffic light at Sugar and McFadden ,. Thank y?l for your consideration . fnl 1� m�D�b tahl y 7571 Whitney Drive ' Huntington Beach 92647 . 7- 4u� • RECJTCEIVERK cLE LF,.C:,CALIF[ 'AL C N April 10, 1992 Honorable Mayor and Members of Council, I would like to bring to your attention some information regarding Cascade Lane of which I have recently become aware. In speaking with Jim Otterson, I learned that if barricades C & D are installed his department is estimating a 600 car per day decrease at the city boundary. The total number of cars passing that point each day would be about 2,200 cars. Of course, if C & D are installed, cars would have to travel down Cascade, Shasta, Whitney, and Rushmoor to get to or from the boundary. I spoke with Mr. Otterson twice about these figures. He said he has hard data that would support his estimate and gave permission for me to quote him. This estimate is especially interesting when looking at the 24-hour traffic volume data compiled by the city and distributed at the March 2 Council meeting. 2,200 cars would be a decrease of 570 cars at the city boundary (per the latest data of February 1992). However, if Mr. Otterson's estimate is correct, the number of cars running the length of Cascade from Whitney to Shasta would increase by at least 177 cars with C & D. Of course, traffic on the other streets in the neighborhood would increase by as much as 2,034 cars per day. This information, coupled with the recommendation against barricades from the Department of Public Works and the Fire Chief, leave no grounds to support a decision for erecting barricades C & D. The argument that "C & D is just a 6 month trial" puts unnecessary risk upon the families of Shasta, Rushmoor and Whitney for the sake of an unsubstantiated experiment. There are options available to Council that would solve the problem on Cascade without shifting the problem to other streets. I encourage Council to consider the options that will not put more families in the path of traffic. Please do not risk my family's safety. Please do not erect barricades C & D. Sincerely, Paul Hansen 15301 Shasta Lane City Boundary Expected Decrease Current Flow = 2,770 cp 600 cpd � HU TINGTON BEA H Current Flow = i 579 cpd WHITNEY I r o � Q ., EVERES T _ o Expected - Increase 7 ; —� C-r- p 4 o' o O Expected Flow With C & D 2,200 cpd 4 {� cpd = cars per day L 4 S U G— • CASCADE LANE AREA - 24 HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME DATA DATE OF SURVEY STREET NAME BETWEEN TRAFFIC VOLUME SEPTEMBER 26, 1990 CASCADE AT CITY BOUNDARY 2870 OCTOBER 31, 1990 CASCADE AT CITY BOUNDARY 2626 JULY 23 1991 CASCADE AT CITY BOUNDARY 2148 DECEMBER 18, 1991 CASCADE AT CITY BOUNDARY 2224 Ri� tY 2; �992 Xs A � :� A L,TI' ' BOUNDAR Y Z770 .. a OCTOBER 31, 1990 SUGAR MC FADDEN AND RUSHMOOR 3117 JULY 23, 1991 SUGAR MC FADDEN AND RUSHMOOR 2724 DECEMBER 18, 1991 SUGAR MC FADDEN AND RUSHMOOR 2763 `FEBRUARY 5 1991 ] SUGAR MC FADDEN AND RUSHMOOR 2979 OCTOBER 31, 1990 SUGAR : RUSHMOOR AND SHASTA 2480 JULY. 23, 1991 SUGAR RUSHMOOR AND SHASTA 2122 - : BRi ARY s,1992; ;;SUGAR -RUSHMOOR AI D SHASTA .{ Z319 A `...:. `.. OCTOBER 31, 1990 RUSHMOOR SUGAR AND ETNA 623 JULY 23, 1991 RUSHMOOR SUGAR AND ETNA 915 DECEMBER 17, 1991 RUSHMOOR SUGAR AND ETNA 614 FEBRUARY 5, 1992 RUSHMOOR SUGAR AND ETNA 704 JULY 23, 1991 CASCADE SHASTA AND WHITNEY 1800 DECEMBER 17, 1991 CASCADE SHASTA AND W 4ITNEY 2370 F ,RI�AttY,3, . 992 CASCADE: SHASTA AND° NHITNEY:_ 20=3 JULY 23, 1991 SHASTA SUGAR AND WHITNEY 176 DECEMBER 17, 1991 SHASTA SUGAR AND WHITNEY 172 FEBRUARY 5, 1992 SHASTA SUGAR AND WHITNEY 166 DULY 23, 1991 WHITNEY CASCADE AND SHASTA 604 FEBRUARY 5, 1992 WHITNEY CASCADE AND SHASTA 579 1ULY 23, 1991 WHITNEY SHASTA AND RUSHMOOR 455 FEBRUARY 5, 1992 WHITNEY SHASTA AND RUSHMOOR 548' RMWCASA RFA Acc } 7 A ,%it 13, 1991 r' CITY 1iUNTi1/GTGF;e OF ^ CH,CALIF, Huntington Beach City Counctt �� �3 2000 Main Str � eet 8 2S AM f92 Huntington Beach, Cati6 . 92648 Dean Councit Members , Up untit now you have matnty deatt with ' Homeownen,6 For A Sabe CaAcade' and a Amatt but howdy gnoup that atwayA contended that there ways no trabbie pnobtem on Cascade even when the cities trabbie eount4 4howed anywhere brom 2 , 626 to 2 , 870 ears pen day uzing Cazc ade . Since the March 2nd meeting we now have another gnoup which hays, up untit thi,6 point, attowed thin zmatt gnoup to represent them. They were bazicatty apathetic, by thei4 own admizzion, but when they heard that ' Cl and ' D' had been approved, they zuddenty became very active . Now white thin zmatt gnoup kept tetting you that the STOP zignz were doing a wonderbut job and we no tonger had a trabbie pnobtem (atthough .statizticz prove them wrong ) , these peopte sat back eon6ident that zince they greatty outnumbered uz, they had nothing to wormy about. Now they admit that we do have a t4a66ic pnobtem and they don ' t want the trabbie we have endured bon years on thei4 streets . The city councit hays been move than generous to them by pohtponing what we have bought tong and hand bon and what ways p4omi,6ed us oven a month ago . We on Cascade have openty totd you brom the beginning that we beta the mort 6ait and equitabte answer to the trabbie pnobtem would be to inztatt a gate at the city timitz equipped with a ' Knox Box ' which att potice and bire vehic tez have a key to open. Abter att thi4 tz what our Trabbic Commizzion recommended etean back in December , 19901 We know that tome ob you wormy about the zabety ob peopte exiting bnom Sugars onto McFadden . However you know that at the present time thouzandz ob cams exit there every day. Ib Gate ' A ' (at the city timitz) were inztatted, onty a bew hundred cams would be uzing Sugar and eonzequentty it would be a much .saber ptaee to exit. Atzo, a tot tezz peopte would be making tebt-hand turns onto Sugar brom McFadden, which would make it much saber and eazier to exit east onto McFadden . CI Page 2 On Apr-it lot when my ne.ighbo4.6 houze caught on {-(.re , Captain Rini approached me az I waz ztand.ing with hour other neighbo4.6 and azked what waz being done about out t4a66.ic ptobtem. We tacked about many thingz but eventuatty ztatted tatking about a gate at the city t-imitz ( equipped with a ' Knox Box ' I which woutd be cto.6ed for a ninety day tr.iat pett.od and a6te4wa4d woutd be opened and ctozed az the t4a66.ic 6tow demanded. He 6aid he approved ob that ,idea! I wondered tb zomeone on the councit coutd contact him and tack with him concerning th.iz, 4ince the Fire Depa4tment4 apptovat .iz zometht.ng you have atwayz wanted. He wothz at the Mutdy Fite Station. Untezz of untit we are granted Gate ' A ' ( .i. e . Batt.icade ' A ' ) , 1 do expect you, the city councit, to Beep your word and -inztatt Gate,6 ' Cl and ' D. ' We, on Cascade and Sugar , de-6e4ve to have aabe ztteetz 6o4 out 6am.itie4 to Live on. A6te4 att, we pay out taxes and shop in out city just t.ike everyone et,se .in thi.6 tract. Why zhoutd we be treated d.i64e4entty than out neighbotz? In ezzence , out za6ety .iz .in your handz . Ptea,6e do not abandon ups ! yours Truty, Edith Gonzatez SCHOOL *- COL GAT E W E Till 1. S T JP "q HU TIN TO EA H WHITNEY w o � a V a`J EVEREST k V NA O � O s < W Ln � o 0 �i 3: 9� o GATE 'A► WOULD ~ CUT TRAFFIC ENTERI 0 6 EXITING OUR TRACT U ON SUGAR FROM 3, 000 PER AY TO BETWEEN 300 6 600 PER D SUGAR THIS WOULD BE WELL WITHIN TH 800 PER DAY MAXIMUM. N A v Fo_ CITY CLERI VED Cd�Y YiE�.'( — �i:!TY!3F Z. 13 817 AN 192 April 12, 1992 Honorable Mayor and Members of Council, At the April 7 City Council meeting you heard an excellent analogy that compared my neighborhood to a classroom. The classroom was said to have four rows of students. The teacher entered the room to find that all of the students in one row were sitting in broken desks. The question put before Council was, "Would the teacher give the students in the other three rows a vote when deciding whether the desks should be fixed?" Of course, the answer is no. Correcting a safety problem is not popularity contest. However, no teacher would break the legs of all the other desks in the interest of fairness. She may inconvenience the other students in solving the problem, but she would not compromise their safety. Barricades C & D compromise my safety and the safety of families throughout our tract. I do believe that Cascade residents need to be protected. However, I am not willing to put my family in peril for the six-month experiment of barricades C & D. Council has recognized that there is a problem on one street. What could be the motivation to spread it? Any barricades which will route the traffic onto streets which are currently unaffected just expands the problem, it doesn't solve it. I would gladly be inconvenienced in order to solve the problem, but I don't want to be forced to spend even one day in the path of danger. Please don't compromise my safety. Sincerely, ce Hansen 15301 Shasta Lane ..r f 40 I� e—A) t'rJ4 m y o P. T �. CA--N �"T" e- T 2 c A s C n �''1 1I A) 4 N D -T'h e_7 C-A-a `r 5 e. M e_ LAI V 6 -e.- o v S .5 / iv c.e. -F fI e-/ 7 4.4 v� so fA—S ; e Date/Time 5/15/98 9:18:19 AM City of Huntington Beach Page 1 Office of the City Clerk Records Ref Category Subject Entered Status Document Expires Box ID Label 580.50 4/19/93 Active 2000 Public Hearing-Traffic Conditions on Cascade Ln/Sugar Dr/Rushmoor Ln/ Shasta LnMhitney Dr&related material:temp barricade, etc re Cascade Ln-4-15-91 to 4- 19-93 Total Records Detailed: 1 Date/Time 5/15/98 9:32:48 AM City of Huntington Beach Page 1 Office of the City Clerk Records Ref Category Subject Entered Status Document Expires Box ID Label 350.30 2/7/94 Inactive 190 4134 Pub Hear- Holly-Seacliff Cost Reimbursement District 93- 1 Res. 6565-2/7/94 (Failed) Total Records Detailed: 1 3so. P4+ . ae�- RECEIVED %!TY CLERK COUNCIL MEMBER: HUNTIHGT(IN a_4.C19,CA LIF AS A RESIDENT OF DOWNTOWN HUNTIlQ&�WA&qq FOR 68 YEARS AND HAVING WORKED IN THE AREA FOR 52 YEARS I ASK YOU HOW YOU COULD POSSIBLY CONSIDER PUTTING A LIEN ON MY PROPERTY FOR $133,000 ? THIS PROPERTY I HAVE HAD FOR 25 YEARS AS MY RETIERMENT; NOW T CANT SELL IT OR BORROW MONEY ON IT AND AT MY AGE I DONT HAVE THE TIME LEFT TO REAP THESE SO CALLED BENEFITS THESE CHEVRON OIL COMPANY ATTORNEYS SAY THERE IS. HOW WOULD YOU LIKE THE CITY COUNCIL TO PUT A LIEN ON YOUR PROPERTY TO BENEFIT A MULTIBILLION DOLLAR COMPANY?I HAVE TO BORROW MONEY TO PAY THE TAXES ON THIS PROPERTY NOW. THIS WHOLE FIASCO WAS CHEVRONS DOING AND NOW THEY WANT TO LIEN THEIR NEI13ORS PROPERTY TO HELP THEM PAY FOR IT. I FOR ONE WOULD BE HAPPY IF IT WERE KEPT FOR OPEN SPACE. SPEC • E G ETSCH 612 LOTH STREET 536-9338 D - 1 )4/01/92 COMMENTS INDEX Page 2 dX CATEGORY SUB VOL PAGE . DATE KEYWORDS -- -------- --- ---- ----- -------- ------------------------------------------- 19 49 5 11/04/91 PUB COM - COM FROM "HOMEOWNERS FOR A SAFE CASCADE" 19 49 5 11/04/91 PUB COM-WITZEL FOR WM STANLEY-READ/PRES LETTER RE CASCADE LN URGING CURTAIL ESCESSIVE/UNSAFE TRAFFIC 19 49 6 11/04/91 PUB COM - SPATES/FAIRBANKS - OPPOS BARRIERS ON CASCADE LN - RQST STATUS ON HOOVER/GOTHARD CONNECTION 19 49 6 11/04/91 PUB COM - GONZALES - THANKED COUNCILMEMBERS KELLY/WINCHELL/MOULTON-PATTERSON FOR BARRIER CASCADE LN 19 49 6 11/04/91 PUB COM - GONZALES - TRAFFIC COMMISSION HAD RECOMMENDED THE BARRIER ON CASCADE LN 19 49 17 11/18/91 PUB COM - MOSES/BEAUMONT -. RQSTD BARRIER ON CASCADE LN 19 49 17 11/18/91 PUB COM - GONZALES - RQSTD BARRIER CASCADE LN - PHOTOS OF PERMANENT CLOSURES IN- HB/OTHER CITIES 19 49 17 11/18/91 PUB COM RESPONSE CASCADE LN - CITY ADMIN RQST DPW REPORT:PROS/CONS VITAL STAT TRAFFIC 3-4 MO V 9 MO 19 49 29 12/02/91 PUB COM- FAIRBANKS/FAIRBANKS- OPPOS BARRIER ON CASCADE LN- CONCERN DISASTER PREPARE/EFFECT ON SCHOOL 19 49 29 12/02/91 PUB COM- FAIRBANKS- CASCADE LN-EFFECT ON SCHOOL/SCHOOL BUSES WON'T USE MCFADDEN/SUGG HUMPS NOT BUMPS 19 49 29 12/02/91 PUB COM - GONZALES/HOMEOWNERS FOR SAFE CASCADE - RQST BARRIER ON CASCADE LN - # CARS LESSON SHASTA 19 49 57 12/16/91 PUB COM - GONZALES/HOMEOWNERS ' FOR SAFE CASCADE - THANKED MAYOR SILVA FOR VISIT 12/4 TO CASCADE LN 19 -49 57 12/16/91 PUB COM-GONZALES/FOR SAFE CASCADELN -INVITE COUNCILMEMBERS MACALLISTER/ROBITAILLE VISIT 4-7 WEEKDAYS 19 49 57 12/16/91 PUB COM - FAIRBANKS - AGAINST CASCADE LN CLOSURE CITING MANNER WHICH BUSES WOULD BE RESTRICTED )4/01/92 COMMENTS INDEX Page 1 IX CATEGORY SUB VOL PAGE DATE KEYWORDS -- -------- --- ---- ---- -------- ------------------------------------------- 19 47 146 04/15/91 PUB COM - REBER/KNOW.LES/MOSE'S/HANSEN/HLE/BEAUMONT/WIT ZEL/LANE - SUPP TEMPORARY BARRICADE CASCADE 19 47 146 04/15/91 PUB COM - COMMUNICATION FROM WESTMINSTER FIRE CHIEF RE CASCADE LN - KNOX BOX LOCK COULD BE USED 19 47 146 04/15/91 PUB COM- WALKER/PEREZ- OPPOS TEMPORARY BARRICADE CASCADE LN- EMERGENCY VEHICLE RESPONSE TIME LONGER 19 47 147 04/15/91 PUB COM-PIERCE-SUPP INSTALL TEMP BARRICADE CASCADE LN-DIST PHOTOS TO COUNCIL-KNOX BOX-90 DAY TRIAL 19 47 147 04/15/91 PUB COM - CHARLONNE - CITY OF WESTMINSTER SHOULD ACT ON CASCADE LN MATTER 19 47 147 04/15/91 PUB COM-PETTETT-OPPOS CASCADE LN BARRICADE/MEDICAL EMERGENCY ASSIST DELAY-SHOULD REDUCE SPEED 25 MPH 19 47 147 04/15/91 PUB COM - FAIRBANKS - PRES PETITION W/APPROVS 88 SIGNATURES OPPOS TEMPORARY BARRICADE CASCADE LN 19 47 147 04/15/91 PUB COM - FAIRBANKS - GOTHARD-HOOVER EXTENSION WOULD SOLVE TRAFFIC PROBLEM/CASCADE LN 19 47 147 04/15/91 PUB COM- GONZALES- SUPPORT TEMPORARY BARRICADE CASCADE LN/NOT SAME PROBLEM ON OTHER SIDE OF TRACT 19 47 147 04/15/91 PUB COM-STANLEY-DISTRIB PHOTOS-SUPP TEMP BARRICADE CASCADE LN-DISREGARD SPEED LIMIT/TRAFFIC VOLUME 19 47 204 05/20/91 PUB COM - MOSES - OPPOS STRIPED LNS ON CASCADE LN 19 48 41 07/01/91 PUB COM - MOSES - OPPOS PAINTED STRIPES ON CASCADE LN/DEVALUED HOME - PREFER BARRICADE W/LOCK BOX 19 48 65 07/15/91 PUB COM - FAIRBANKS - SUPPORT SIGNING/STRIPING-CASCADE LN - STRIPING/ADDT'L POLICE HELPED SITUATION 19 48 139 09/16/91 PUB COM - MOSES/BEAUMONT/HANSEN/BESSETTE/WITZEL - GAVE REASONS OPPOS 9/3/91 DECISION ON 19 48 139 09/16/91 PUB COM- GONZALES— INFORMAL PETITION OPPOS CASCADE LN DECISION- QUESTIONNAIRE BEFORE CAR COUNT:WRONG ►u may restrict your. search` using any of the options listed below. Some options •e incompatable: for example, when using keywords, you cannot use BOTH category ►d subject. Will you restrict your search by: +---------+ +-----+ Category. or Subject +---------+ +-----+ +----------+ +----------+ Single date 01/01/86 or range 12/16/91 +----------+ +----------+ Index? +----------------------+ KeyWord.( s ) cascade or +----------------------+ or +----------------------+ or +----------------------+ +-----.-----------------+- )ress + Next + to start the search, or +Finish+ to forget the whole thing ! + Page + + + )4/01/92 MINUTES INDEX Page 4 1X CATEGORY SUB VOL PAGE DATE KEYWORDS -- -------- --- ---- ---- -------- ------------------------------------------- •800.60 49 12 11/04/91 AGENDA ITEM RQSTD - STATUS REPORT RE: CASCADE LN & HOOVER/GOTHARD CONNECTION . 580 .10 49 12 11/04/91 AGENDA ITEM RQSTD - STATUS REPORT RE: CASCADE LN & HOOVER/GOTHARD CONNECTION 580 .50 49 12 11/04/91 AGENDA ITEM RQSTD - STATUS REPORT. RE: CASCADE LN & HOOVER/GOTHARD CONNECTION 580 .70 49 12 11/04/91 AGENDA ITEM RQSTD STATUS REPORT RE: CASCADE LN & HOOVER/GOTHARD CONNECTION 120 . 90 49 17 11/18/91 PUB COM RESPONSE CASCADE LN - CITY ADMIN RQST DPW REPORT: PROS/CONS VITAL STAT TRAFFIC 3-4 MO V 9 MO 580 . 70 49 46 12/02/91 CASCADE LN - TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES - FINAL REVIEW MARCH 1992 - APPRVD - 580 . 50 800 .60 49 46 12/02/91 CASCADE LN - TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES - FINAL REVIEW MARACH 1992 - APPRVD - 580 . 50 580 . 50 49 46 12/02/91 CASCADE LN - TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES - FINAL REVIEW MARCH 1992 APPRVD - 580 .50 )4/01/92 MINUTES INDEX Page 3 4X CATEGORY SUB VOL PAGE DATE KEYWORDS -- -------- --- ---- ---- -------- ------------------------------------------- 580 .60 47 204 05/20/91 DISCUSS : CASCADE LN - RE AMEND STRIPING RECOMMENDATION 800 .60 47 204 05/20/91 DISCUSS : CASCADE LN - RE AMEND STRIPING RECOMMENDATION 580 .10 47 204 05/20/91 DISCUSS : CASCADE LN - RE AMEND STRIPING RECOMMENDATION 580 .10 48 57 07/.01/91 CASCADE LN - INFO RQSTD 120 ..90 48 51 07/01/91 CASCADE LN - INFO RQSTD 800 . 60 48 119 09/06/91 PUB HEAR - CASCADE LN - TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES TO REMAIN IN PLACE - 9 MO REVIEW RQSTD - 580 . 50 580 .10 -48 119 09/06/91 PUB HEAR -CASCADE LN - TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES TO REMAIN IN PLACE - 9 MO REVIEW RQSTD - 580 . 50 580 . 70 48' 119 09/06/91 PUB HEAR - CASCADE LN - TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES TO REMAIN IN PLACE - 9 MO REVIEW RQSTD - 580 . 50 580 . 50 48 119 09/06/91 PUB HEAR - CASCADE LN - TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES TO REMAIN IN PLACE - 9 MO REVIEW RQSTD - 580 .150 800 .60 49 5 11/04/91 PUB COM - COMMUNICATION FROM "HOMEOWNERS FOR A SAFE CASCADE" 160 . 30 49 5 11/04/91 PUB COM - COMMUNICATION FROM "HOMEOWNERS FOR A SAFE CASCADE" 580 .50 49 5 11/04/91 PUB COM - COMMUNICATION FROM "HOMEOWNERS FOR A SAFE CASCADE" 580 .60 49 5 11/04/91 PUB COM - COMMUNICATION FROM "HOMEOWNERS FOR A SAFE CASCADE" 580 .70 49 5 11/04/91 PUB COM - COMMUNICATION FROM "HOMEOWNERS FOR A SAFE CASCADE" 800 . 20 49 12 11/04/91 AGENDA ITEM RQSTD - STATUS REPORT RE: CASCADE. LN & HOOVER/GOTHARD CONNECTION )4/01/92 MINUTES INDEX Page 2 IX CATEGORY SUB VOL PAGE DATE KEYWORDS -- -------- --- --- ---- -------- ------------------------------------------- 580 .40 47 197 05/13/91 CASCADE LN - SIGNAGE & OTHER ALTERNATIVES TO BE MITIGATED 580 . 50 47 197 05/13/91 CASCADE LN - SIGNAGE & OTHER .ALTERNATIVES TO BE MITIGATED 580 . 60 47 197 05/13/91 CASCADE LN - SIGNAGE & OTHER ALTERNATIVES TO BE MITIGATED 800 .60 47 197 05/13/91 CASCADE LN - SIGNAGE & .OTHER ALTERNATIVES TO BE MITIGATED 800 . 20 47 200 05/20/91 DISCUSS: CASCADE LN - AGENDA ADDITION� RE STRIPING 800 . 60 47 206 05/20/91 DISCUSS : CASCADE LN - AGENDA ADDITION RE STRIPING 510 . 50 47 200 05/20/91 DISCUSS: CASCADE LN - AGENDA ADDITION RE STRIPING 530 .10 47 200 05/20/91 DISCUSS : CASCADE LN - AGENDA ADDITION RE STRIPING . 540 .10 47 200 05/20/91 DISCUSS : CASCADE LN - AGENDA ADDITION RE STRIPING 540 .10 47 204 05/20/91 DISCUSS : CASCADE LN -RE AMEND STRIPING RECOMMENDATION 530 .10 47 204 05/20/91 DISCUSS: CASCADE LN - RE AMEND STRIPING RECOMMENDATION 510 . 50 47 204 05/20/91 DISCUSS: CASCADE LN - RE AMEND STRIPING RECOMMENDATION 510 . 40 47 204 05/20/91 DISCUSS : CASCADE LN - RE AMEND STRIPING RECOMMENDATION 580'. 40 47 204 05/20/91 DISCUSS : CASCADE LN - RE AMEND STRIPING RECOMMENDATION 580 . 50 47 204 05/20/91 DISCUSS : CASCADE LN - RE AMEND STRIPING RECOMMENDATION 14/01/92 MINUTES INDEX Page 1 IX CATEGORY SUB VOL PAGE DATE KEYWORDS -- -------- --- ---- ---- -------- ------------------------------------------- 800 .60 47 139 04/15/91 DISCUSS: INSTALLATION OF TEMPORARY BARRICADE- CASCADE LN @ CITY LIMITS' W/CITY OF WESTMINSTER- 800 .60 800 . 60 47 143 04/15/91 ITEM PERTAINING TO TEMPORARY BARRICADE ON CASCADE LN, CONT FOR FURTHER STUDY - 800 . 60 800 .60 47 143 04/15/91 INSTALLATION OF TEMPORARY BARRICADE/CASCADE LN CITY LIMITS W/CITY OF WESTMINSTER-CONT TO 5/13-800 .60 580 . 50 47 195 05/13/91 INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES ON CASCADE LN & SUGAR LN - APPRVD - 580 . 50 540 .10 47 195 05/13/91 INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES ON, CASCADE LN & SUGAR LN - APPRVD - 580 . 50 530.10 47 195 05/13/91 INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES ON CASCADE LN & SUGAR LN - APPRVD - 580 . 50 510 . 50 47 195 05/13/91 INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES ON CASCADE LN & SUGAR LN - APPRVD - 580 .50 510 .40 47 195 05/13/91 INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES ON CASCADE LN & SUGAR LN - APPRVD - 580 . 50 580.40 47 195 05/13/91 INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES ON CASCADE LN & SUGAR LN - APPRVD , - 580 . 50 800 .60 47 195 05/13/91 INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES ON CASCADE LN & SUGAR LN - APPRVD - 580 . 50 580 .60 47 195 05/13/91 INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES ON CASCADE LN & SUGAR LN - APPRVD - 580 . 50 540 .10 47 197 05/13/91 CASCADE LN - SIGNAGE & OTHER ALTERNATIVES TO BE MITIGATED 530 .10 47 197 05/13/91 CASCADE LN - SIGNAGE & OTHER ALTERNATIVES TO BE MITIGATED 510 . 50 47 197 05/13/91 CASCADE LN - SIGNAGE & OTHER ALTERNATIVES TO BE MITIGATED 510 . 40 47 197 05/13/91 CASCADE LN - SIGNAGE & OTHER ALTERNATIVES TO BE MITIGATED )u may restrict your search using any of the options listed below. Some options -e incompatable: for example, when using keywords , you cannot use BOTH category id subject. Will you restrict your search by: +---------+ ------- Category or Subject +---------+ +-----+ +----------+ +----------+ Single date 01/01/86 or range 12/16/91 +----------+ +----------+ Index? +----------------------+ KeyWord( s) cascade or +----------------------+ or -----------------------+ or +----------------------+ +----------------------+ ?ress + Next + to start the search, or +Finish+ to forget the whole thing! + Page + + + I Page 3 Cascade Lane L RECEIVED CLERK CITY CL Traffic Conditions • CITY OF August 17, 1992 HUNTINGTfk BEACH,CALIF. Findings for Approval AUG 17 6 is Pik 9z of the Continued Presence of a Temporary Barricade on Cascade Lane at the Huntington Beach/Westminster City Limits 1. Cascade Lane is not designated as an arterial street on the City of Huntington Beach Master Plan of Arterial Highways nor the city of Westminster Master Plan of Arterial Highways and therefore is not a regionally significant roadway. 2. Cascade Lane is not constructed and does not have dedicated right of way for arterial street standards. 3. Cascade Lane is a residential street, and prior to placement of the temporary barricade system, was inappropriately serving as a local collector street with the resultant traffic volumes and accident history. 4. Retention of the temporary barricade system will implement the Circulation Element of the current City of Huntington Beach General Plan which calls for the safe and efficient movement of people and goods on the City's street system. 5. Retention of the temporary barricade system is consistent with the City's responsibility to provide for the health and safety of its citizens. 6. The temporary barricade system is an official traffic control device that conforms with the current Standard Plans and Specifications published by the State of California Department of Transportation. CS Notice of Public Hearing On Traffic Conditions On Cascade Lane In the City of Huntington Beach Notice is hearby given the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing on traffic conditions relative to the barricade installation on Cascade Lane in the Council Chambers at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to this issue. - Date/Time: Monda , April 5, 1993 7:00 P.M. Request: The City Council will consider all information relative to the barricade installation on Cascade Lane which was installed for the purpose of reducing or eliminating through traffic on Cascade Lane. All Interested Persons are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the request as outlined above. If there are any further questions, please contact Jim Otterson, City Traffic Engineer, at 536-5523, or Bob Hidusky, Traffic Technician, at 536-5518. Louis F. Sandoval, Director, Public Works Department RYM:CA SM-M.MEM r(1 / -v :i �iR March 30 , 1993 Huntington Beach City Council . Dear Members : On April 5 , 1993 , we address together the subject of the traffic barrier on Cascade Lane. This barrier has been in place for the past six months; this letter is to ask you to make it permanent. TRAFFIC: What was once a throughway for almost 3 , 000 cars daily has been turned back into a neighborhood that can be enjoyed by its residents . Although approximately 15 plus vehicles each day (and night) drive across the temporary barrier , the current traffic load is much more acceptable . NEIGHBORS : I never knew I had so many! I have talked to more people in the neighborhood in the past six months than I had in the previous 20 years . ENJOYMENT: It is so nice to see people stro:l:li.ng through the neighborhood, enjoying an evening walk. Sometimes I see whole families . . .kids , grandkids , dogs , even cats ( ! ) walking together without fear of being run down by a vehicle cutting through the neighborhood. CRIME: Using the Neighborhood Watch Newsletter and the Community News section of the Orange County Register as sources , I have noticed only five breakins in this neighborhood since Cascade Lane was closed. This is not very scientific, but I am sure other data sources will show that there has been a reduction in such crimes . FINALITY: This closure has been debated since 1990 , almost three years ago. There is overwhelming support in the neighborhood to make the closure permanent. All the necessary studies have been made. All the necessary votes have been taken . Tonight, April 5 , 1993 , do it. 4 Ilk L, D - 'I William D. Stanley 7571 Whitney Drive Huntington Beach STATE OF CAUFORNIA County of Orange I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of Cafifomia, and that attached Notice is a true and PUBLIC NOTICE complete copy as was printed and published in Publicice of ring the Huntington Beach and Fountain Valleyn Traffic On issues of said newspaper to wit the issue Ca scas) of: Caeca e L de Lannee In the City of Huntington Beach Notice is hereby given the Huntington Beach City March. 18 1993 I hearing on traffic cond 1 tions relative to the bar-I ncade installation on Cas- I cads=Lane in the Council Chambers at the-Hunting-' ton :Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Hunting- ton Beach; California; on the date and at the time in- dicated below to receive and consider the state- ments of all persons who wish to be heard relative to this issue.- • DatefTime: Monday, April 5,1993,7:00 P.M. --Request:-The City Council Will consider"all information relative to the barricade in- stallation on Cascade Lane ; which was installed-for-the t purpose of reducing or f eliminating through traffic I on Cascade.Lane.'" All Interested Persons are I t declare under penalty of perjury, that the Invited to attend said hear- , p ty p r7 ryr ing and express opinions or submit evidence'for.or foregoing is true and correct against the request as out- line above. if there are any further questions; please March Z 9 3 contact Jim Otterson; City Executed on r 99 Traffic Engineer, at 536- ,��t 5523,or Bob Hidusky,Traf- at Costa Mesa, Cafifomla, fic Technician,at 536-5518. c'i Louis F.• Sandoval; Director; Public Works Department " Published Huntington Beach-Fountain :Valley_-in'= Signature dependent March 18,'1993: 033-144 PROOF OF PUBLICATION ► i Notice of CANCELLATION and RESCHEDULING Of the Public Hearing For Permanent Barricade Installation On Cascade Lane In the City of Huntington Beach And Negative Declaration No. 93-5 - NOTICE IS HEARBY GIVEN THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 5, 1993, FOR THE ABOVE MENTIONED SUBJECT HAS BEEN CANCELLED. The notice below indicates the new date, time, and location for the rescheduled public hearing. Notice of Public Hearing For Permanent Barricade Installation On Cascade Lane In the City of Huntington Beach And Negative Declaration No. 93-5 Notice is hearby given the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing on traffic conditions relative to the barricade installation on Cascade Lane in"the Council Chambers at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to this issue. Date/Time: Monday, April 19, 1993, 7:00 P.M. Request: The City Council will consider and act on all information relative to the barricade installation on Cascade Lane which was installed for the purpose of reducing or eliminating through traffic on Cascade Lane. Environmental Status: Negative Declaration No. 93-5 was prepared for the project and advertised for a 21 day public comment period which closed on March 3, 1993. Prior to action on the proposed barrier it is necessary for the City Council to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 93-5 during this hearing. Documents pertaining to said public hearing are on file in the City Clerks Office. All Interested Persons are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the request as outlined above. Written communication on the matter may also be sent to the City Clerk. If there are any further questions, please contact Jim Otterson, City Traffic Engineer, at 536-5523, or Bob Hidusky, Traffic Technician, at 536-5518. Louis F. Sandoval, Director, Public Works Department By: Connie Brockway, City Clerk 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach CA 92648 (714) 536-522907 xMRcnsPBHERNE1 ` OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY OF HUNTINGTON.BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET/P. O. BOX 190 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 Multifax Image Mate (714) 374-1557 ***PLEASE DELIVER THE FOLLOWING MATERIAL AS SOON AS POSSIBLE*** TO: FAX NO. 590A PHONE NO. FROM: NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER PAGE) DATE SENT: 193 TIME SENT: �:w2J5 A,1� OPERATOR'S NAME PLEASE NOTIFY OPERATOR IMMEDIATELY IF NOT RECEIVED PROPERLY (714) 536-5227 * * * * * * * COMMENTS: CHARGE FOR THIS MATERIAL: PLEASE REMIT TO THE ADDRESS ABOVE 1038K STATE OF CAI IFORNIA County of Orange I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the LL age of eighteen years, and not a party to or PUBLIC NOT)CEr; Request:The City Council will consider and act on all Notice of information"relative to the interested in the below entitled matter. I am a CANCELLATION and barricade installation, pnneipal clerk of the HUNTINGTON BEACH REsc blic H-RESCHEDULING of Cascade Lane which e11of the Public Hearing installed for the purpose of For Permanent reducingor eliminating INDEPENDENT, a newspaper of genera Barricade' e through traffic on Cascade circulation, printed and pubrished in the City of Installation On' Lane. Cascade Lane In Environmental Status: Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of the City of Negative Declaration No. Huntington Beach 93-5 was prepared for the California, and that attached Notice is a true and And Negative project and advertised for a complete copy as was printed and published in Declaration 21 day public comment�pe- . No.93-5 riod which closed on NOTICE IS HEREBY March 3,1993. Prior to ac- the Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley GIVEN THATNG THE PUB IC tion on the proposed bar- issues of said newspaper to wit the issue(s) of: FOR APRIL 5 1993, FOR rier.it is necessary for the THE ABOVE MENTIONED i"City Council to review.and. SUBJECT HAS BEEN CAN- act on Negative Declaration CELLED. The notice below No. 93-5 during this hear- indicates the new date, ing. Documents'; pertaining time and location for the to said public heang.•are ri rescheduled public hear- on file in the City Clerk's ing. Office. Notice of All Interested Persons,are Public Hearing For invited to attend said hear- Permanent Barricade ing and•express opinions Installation On or"submit-evidence for`=or Cascade Lane In lagainst the request as out- Ap r i 1 1, 8, 1$, 1993 the City of lined above. written corn- Huntington Beach munication on the matter And Negative may also be sent to the Declaration No.93-5 City.Clerk, if there are any Notice is hereby given further questions," please the Huntington Beach City contact.Jim Otterson, City Council will hold a public Traffic Engineer, at 536- hearing on traffic condi- 5523„or Bob,Hidusky„hTraf- tions relative to the bar- fic Technician,at'53Cr5518.. ricade 'installation on Cas- Louis"F..Sandoval,' Cade Lane in the Council Director, Public Works Chambers at the Hunting- Department ton Bach Civic Center, "By;Connie Brockway, 2000 Main Street, Hunting-. City Clerk,,2000 Main ton Beach, California, on Street, Huntington the date and at the time in. Beach, CA ,.92648' 1 declare, under penalty of perjury, that the dicated below to receive (714)536-5227. . . ,,,.t and consider the state- Published Huntington foregoing is true and correct. ments of all persons who Beach-Fountain Valley In- wish to be,heard relative to dependent April 1, 8, 15, this issue. 1993.- April r i 1 15 199 3 Date/Time: Monday, April, 041258 Executed on — 119,199 3 7700 P.M. at Costa MI a, Califomia. aG;Y 4 Signature PROOF OF PUBLICATION I ��1 �G f{edYl� lle SG�r�a�u-� CC� On Traffic Conditions On Cascade Lane In the City of Huntington Beach Notice is hearby given the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing o traffic conditions relative to the barricade installation on Cascade Lane in the Council Ch ers at the - -Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, Californi , on the date x..and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all sons who wish to be heard relative to this issue. - Date/Time: Monda j, April 5, 199311 7:00 P.M. WEW DATE: - Monday, jfPril /?� /993 ��ov �'•� ;iuest: The City Council will consider all-informs relative to the barricade installation on Cascade Lane which was installed for the purpos of reducing or eliminating traffic through on Cascade Lane. Negative Declaration No 93-5 (Environmental Status) will also be considere bV the"City Council at that time. All Interested Persons are invited to a tend said,hearing and press opinions or submit evidence for or against the request as outlined above. If there are y further questions, please contact Jim Otterson, City Traffic Engineer, at 536-5523, or b Hidusky, Traffic Technician, at 536-5519. nnLL p 4f C v N rt CJ�r� / Y �al'��e.�/ykw —� oel ,Voa4� 0. 01 ��L ®r" .Q NY, OIIILA CX ' 173 L ' 7735' 5�y6, 5 1711�2-- TELEPHONE: COXCO, ONTRACTORS LICENSE (714)639-1941 INC.. A 206707 Cox Bros. Construction Co. 01 Alvarez Avenue range,California 92668 AUGUST 17 ,1992 TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL AND TRAFFIC COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RE: CLOSURE OF CASCADE LANE , FASHION HOMES TRACT PER PREVIOUS MEETINGS AND TRAFFIC TESTS AND SOLUTIONS, ANYTHING YOU DO WILL MAKE SOME FOLKS HAPPY AND SOME FOLKS "MAD" . 0 , YOU MADE ME VERY HAPPY WHEN YOU PUT THE STOP SIGNS IN,DOUBLE STRIPED THE CENTERLIN=F THE STREETS AND STRIPED A PARKING LINE PARALLEL TO EACH CURB ON EACH SIDE OF THE STREET. HAVING BUILT NEARLY 20, 000 MILES OF STREETS ,OUR FIRST CON- CERN HAS ALWAYS BEEN, "TAKE CARE OF EXISTING TRAFFIC" .LEAVING "LEGALITY" TO OTHERS, I MUST BSERVE THAT THE CLOSING OF CASCADE STREET -VIOLATES THAT BASIC OF ROAD CONSTRUCTION. IN MY ATTENDANCE TO A COUPLE OF THE MEETINGS I OBSERVED: (1) SOLVING THE PROBLEM WITH GOTHARD STREET-HOOVER WOULD BE 5 YEARS AWAY IF THE $3 .5 MILLION REQUIRED EXISTED. (2) THE REVERSE,DOWN-GRADE EAST BOUND TRAFFIC TOWARDS BEACH BLVD.FROM THE FREEWAY OVERPASS ON MUFADDEN GIVES A SIGHT T.� FROM SUGAR STREET ENTRANCE TO McFADDEN OF LESS THAN 2 SECONDS . A SIGNAL AND CHANNELIZATION WOULD COST ABOUT $350, 000-COST SHARED BY HUNTINGTON BEACH:AND WESTMINSTER, FOR WHICH NEITHER. CITY HAS THE MONEY PLUS WESTMINSTER HAS NOTHING TO GAIN BY IT . (3) THE MOST SERIOUS PROBLEM IS IN THE EAST BOUND TRAFFIC FROM THE GOTHARD SIGNALS TO TRAVERSETHE REVERSE CURVE OF THE OVERPASS AND VERTICAL CURVE GRADE OF THE OVERPASS AFTER CHANNELING THE FOUR TRAFFIC LANES DOWN TO TWO LANES, LOSING TER SIDEWALKS ON ROTH SIDES OF M? FADDEN,LOSING THE BICYCLE TANES ON BOTH SIDES OF McFADDEN AS THEY TRAVEL EASTWARD FROM GOTHARD,LEAVING THE ABOVE "LESS THNN 2 SECONDS"FOR ONE TO ENTER McFADDEN FROM SUGAR- STREET, LEAVING THE PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC WITH NO SIDEWALKS OR BICYCLE LANES FOR THE 15 , 000 STUDENTS OF GOLDEN WEST COLLEGE OR THOSE PEDESTRIANS WHO .MAY SHOP AT HUNTINGTON BEACH MALL ($160 , 000, C00 REVENUE PER YEAR) . IN EARLY MEETINGS, I GAVE YOU A COPY OF THE PLANS OF THE FREEWAY SHOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF HALF OF THE OVERPASS, AND S HOWING THE EARTH ABUTMENT CONSTRUCTED THEN FOR THE OTHER HALF "OF THE FUTURE" AS IT IS, A "DEATH TRAP" EXISTS.THE OTHER HALF OF THE OVER- PASS IS ABOUT $5, 000, 000 AND 10 YEARS "DOWN THE ROAD" . WHAT EVER YOU DO ON CASCADE STREET, PLEASE PUT THE STOP SIGNS BACK AT SUGAR STREET AT RUSHMORE TO GIVE ME SOME DEGREE OF SAFETY FROM_ THE "E!nRMTTT.A ONR" FOLKS WHO "CHALLENGE THE REVERSE CURVE (ANOTHER ONE) COMING OFF OF McFADDEN ,WESTBOUND TO SUGAR STREET. (MOST OF THE UBZZERS_SQBSERVED THEM A GOOD PORTION OF THE TRACT OWNERS WERE THE QJY .S__NOT _OBgERVING THEM)__ ^ / "STOP SIGNS." —PLUS-.,'.=.ENFORGEMENT"—THE CHEAPES.T,.-AND_BEST WAY TO GO. V 1 VERY TRULY YOURS, xROD COX PETITION TO HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL"' Dear Council Members, As homeowners in the Tract i`nthe city of Huntington Beach, we want you to know that we are happy with the barricade you installed on Cascade Lane at the Westminster city limits. It has made the whole neighborhood- a safer place to live. This petition is asking you to please not remove the barricade! Thank you. NAME ADDRESS 1 �/ L,0,-4 ; ! _ �537Z S C.q.r 5 372- IV,,, ZZ all w v d a G�- f G jS3c�/ 514/-7am LA/ c- G '7 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION�2a �� /�,'d�s k�,-�Pw Date April 5, 1993 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: vMichael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator Piepared by: °"Louis F. Sandoval, Director, Public Works Department APPROVED BY CITY CUUNCI;. Subject: CASCADE LANE TRAFFIC CONTROL MEAS J-Z�-�CITYCLEF Consistent with Council Policy? [XI Yes [ ] New o 'cy or Exception Statement of Issue,Recommendation,Analysis,Funding Source,Alternative Actions,AttachmML STATEMENT OF ISSUE: At the August 17, 1992 City Council meeting the City Council voted to allow the temporary barricade to remain in place for approximately six months with findings for approval. RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: 1. Motion to: Approve Negative Declaration No. 93-5 finding that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. 2. Motion to: Leave the existing barricade across Cascade Lane at the City boundary with the City of Westminster in place as a permanent installation. ANALYSIS: On July 16, 1992, traffic counts were taken on Sugar Drive between McFadden Avenue and Rushmoor Lane, on Cascade Lane between Sugar Drive and Whitney Drive, and on Cascade Lane at the City boundary next to the barricade(see attached Traffic Volume Comparison). The previous traffic counts taken on Cascade Lane at the City boundary ranged from 2148 to 2870 vehicles in a 24 hour time period. The latest traffic counts (taken on July 16, 1992 and February 9, 1993) showed 80 vehicles and 70 vehicles, respectively, crossing the flexible barricade in a 24 hour time period. The previous traffic counts taken on Sugar Drive between McFadden Avenue and Rushmoor Lane ranged from 2724 to 3117 vehicles in a 24 hour time period. The latest traffic counts, as described above, showed 1766 vehicles and 1636 vehicles, respectively,in a 24 hour time period. The previous traffic counts taken on Cascade Lane between Shasta Lane and Whitney Drive ranged from 1800 to 2370 vehicles in a 24 hour time period. The latest traffic counts, as described above, showed 255 vehicles and 161 vehicles, respectively,in a 24 hour time period. The cost of the original installation of the barricade, signs, and markings was $2101.56. In the past seven month time period the cost of barricade maintenance has been $2,426.52. The total 3 � O T cost of maintenance and installation of the barricade (to date) has been $4,528.08. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Community Development advertised draft Negative Declaration No. 93-5 for twenty-one (21) days, and all written comments received have been attached to the negative declaration. The staff, in its initial study of the project, recommends that a negative declaration be issued. Prior to any action on the Cascade Lane barricade, it is necessary for the City Council to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 93-5. FUNDING SOURCE: Funds for the maintenance (or removal) of the temporary barricade and associated signing and warning devices are available in Account No. E-AA-PW-416-3-90-00 and E-AA-PW-416-3-04- 00. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Install a permanent metal gate/barricade across Cascade Lane at the City limits with the associated traffic signs and markings. This will likely increase emergency vehicle response times to locations on either side of the barricade. Maintenance costs will likely be eliminated and no unauthorized traffic will be able to.transit the barricade. 2. Remove the temporary barricade from Cascade Lane with findings for removal. ATTACH TENTS: Environmental Assessment Form No. 93-5 Vicinity Map Twenty-four Hour Traffic Volume Comparison Inter-Department Communication Regarding RLS 93-134 (Enforcement of Barricade) MTU:LFS:JDO:RMH:rmh RMH:CASBARRI.RCA CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH �u INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION Mu�TwGTOv BECM RECEIVE ® TRAFFIC ENGINEERING TO: - Jim Otterson MAR - 91993 Traffic Engineer HUNI'INGTON BEACH, CA FROM: Julie Osugi Assistant Manner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM NO. 93-5 DATE: February 4 , 1993 Applicant : City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department Request: Installation of a permanent barrier across Cascade Lane at the City limits (and associated "No Parking"/Not a through street" signage) ; the proposed barrier will be located within the existing street rig.ht-of-way and will replace a temporary barrier. The proposed barrier will prohibit automobile through access to Temple Street in Westminster. However, pedestrian and bicycle-through a-ccess shall be maintained Location: Cascade Lane at City. Limits Background The Environmental Assessment Committee has reviewed the environmental assessment form noted above and has determined that a negative declaration may be filed for the project. In view of this, a draft negative declaration was prepared and published in the Huntington Beach Independent for a twenty-one (21) day public review period commencing Thursday, February 11, 1993 and ending Wednesday, March 3 , 1993 . If any comments regarding the draft negative declaration are- received, you will be notified immediately. Recommendation The Environmental Assessment Committee recommends that the City Council approve Negative Declaration No. 93-5 finding that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment . JO: lp (5780d) LEGAL ADVERTISEMENT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Notice is hereby given by the Department of Community Development, Planning Divis-ion_ of the City of Huntington Beach that the following Draft Negative Declaration request has been prepared and- will be submitted to the City of Huntington Beach City Council for their consideration. The Draft Negative Declaration will be available for public review and comment for twenty-one (21) days commencing. Thursday, February 11, 1993 . Draft Negative Declaration No.. 93-5 analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with installation of a permanent barrier across Cascade Lane at the City. of Huntington Beach Boundary (and associated "No Parking"/Not a through street" sign-age) ; the proposed barrier will be located within the existing street right-of-way and will rep-lace a temporary barrier. The proposed. barrier will prohibit automobile through access to Temp-le Street in Westminster. However, pedestrian and bicycle through access shall be maintained. A copy of the request is on file with the Department of Community Development, City of Huntington Beach, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. Any person wishing to comment on the request may do so in writing within twenty-one (21) days of this notice by providing written comments to the Department of Community _ Development, Planning Division, P.O. Box 190, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 . (5782d) ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 93-5 1. Name of Proponent: City of Huntington Beach Public Works Address: 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Phone Number: (714) 536-5431 2. Date Checklist Submitted for Review: February 3, 1993 3. Concurrent Entitlement(s): N/A 4. Proiect Location: Cascade Lane at the City lima-ts (Please refer to Attachment 1). S. Proiect Description: Installation of a permanent barrier across Cascade Lane at the City limits. (and associated "No Parking"/Not a through street" signage) the proposed barrier will be located within the existing street right-of-way and will replace a temporary barrier. The proposed barrier will prohibit automobile through access to Temple Street in Westminster. However, pedestrian and bicycle through access shall- be maintained'. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of answers are included after each subsection.)- Y I Maybe I. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures? _ _ X b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? _ X Yes Maybe C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? _ — X A. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? _ _ X e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? _ X f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? _ _ X g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? _ _ X Discussion (a—g): The project consists of installation of a barrier across an existing internal collector street and does not involve any soil moving compaction or overcovering activities; changes in topography; or activities which will result in any wind or water erosion impacts. The project is not located in the vicinity of any fresh or marine waters and does not drain directly into any natural bodies of water and will not expose people/property to geologic hazards. No significant adverse earth impacts are anticipated. 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? — X _ b. The creation of objectionable odors? _ _ X C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? _ _ X Discussion (a—c): While the redirecting of vehicle trips will result in localized air—quality benefits for the residential tract, it is estimated that closure of through access of Cascade Lane will result in a- 1-2 mile increase in trip length for the redirected trips. Installation of the permanent barrier will not generate any increase in the number of trips, but will result in the distribution of approximately 1,130 trips per day onto surrounding arterials (based upon traffic counts conducted by the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department; please refer to 13 (a—d) on page 5 for discussion on traffic circulation impacts). However, the surrounding streets which will accommodate the additional trips are arterials which by design allow for higher speed travel than a residential street. Since mobile emissions are highly speed dependent, any increase in vehicle speed with no corresponding increase in motor vehicle trips will reduce emissions in the project vicinity. Reductions in mobile emissions resulting from the higher traveling speed of re—distributed trips is anticipated to offset air emissions resulting from the increase in trip length. No significant adverse air quality impacts are anticipated. 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of,water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? _ _ X b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? _ X _ C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? _ _ X d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? _ _ X e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? _ _ X Environmental Checklist —2— (1802D) Yes Maybe f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? _ _ X g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? — _ X h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? _ r X i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? _ X Discussion (a—i): The proposed permanent barrier will be installed within the existing street right—of—way and is not located within the floodplain. The barrier will not involve any changes in topography or involve any structure which will alter existing drainage patterns. The subject site is currently completely paved, installation of the barrier will not impact groundwater quantity or quality. The barrier does not include any landscaping or other materials which require water use. No significant adverse earth impacts are anticipated. 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any. species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? _ _ X b. Reduction of the numbers of any mature, unique, rare or endangered species of plants? _ _ X C. Introduction of new species of pl-ants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? _ _ X d. Reduction in acreage of an agricultural crop? _ _ X Discussion: The proposed project site is a residential street and is completely paved. Installation of the permanent street barrier will not result in the removal any plant materials. No rare, unique, endangered plant species, mature trees or argricultural crop will be effected. S. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? _ _ X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? _ _ X C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? _ X d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? _ _ X Discussion (a—d):. The project site is completely paved and does not support any wildlife. Installation of the permanent street barrier will not alter any animal migration patterns, introduce new species into the area, or deteriorate any animal habitate. 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? _ _ X Environmental Checklist —3— (1802D) 1 Yes Maybe �2 b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? _ X Discussion (a—b): The proposed street barrier will alter the distribution trips which previously utilized Cascade Lane for through access. The closure of the street to through vehicle access will redistribute vehicles and vehicle associated noise onto surrounding arterial streets. (Trips are anticipated to be redistributed onto Goldenwest Street and Beach Boulevard which are the nearest alternate north—south routes). The additional trips may result in an incremental increase in noise on those arterials; however due to the existing noise levels generated by those arterials, the project's contribution is anticipated to be negligible. The project will also generate some short—term noise impacts during construction. However, the Department of Public Works has indicated that construction activities will take a maximum of 1-2 days and- will be conducted during the hours of 8:00 A.M. — 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, in compliance with the City of Huntington Beach noise ordinance. No significant noise impacts are anticipated. 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? _ _ X Discussion: The project does not involve the relocation of existing street lighting or installation of new lighting. A. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? X Discussion: The City of Huntington Beach has found that Cascade Lane, a residential- street, was inappropriately serving as a local collector street with the associated traffic volumes, speeds and accident history. The project proposes installation of a permanent barrier structure across a residential street to reduce traffic speeds and volumes on Cascade to residential street levels. However, the permanent barrier will not alter the existing street configuration (i.e. install, a cul—de—sac, etc.).. .Should future arterial improvements (such as a Gothard—Hoover connection) be installed which eliminate the cut-through traffic problem in the area, the barrier could be removed and through- access would be re—established. ?. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? ._ _ X b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? _ _ X Discussion (a—b): The project will not result in any situation which will increase the rate of use of any natural or energy resources. 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? _ _ X b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? _ _ X Discussion: The proposed permanent barrier will maintain emergency vehicle access via fire gates or other means acceptable to the Fire and Police Departments. No significant emergency access impacts are anticipated. Environmental Checklist —4— (1802D) Yes Maybe No 11 . Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? - X Discussion: The proposed permanent barrier is to be located in an already developed area and will not effect population growth in the area. 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? _ _ X Discussion: The project area is already developed. Installation of the permanent street barrier will not effect existing housing opportunities or create demand for additional housing. 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? _ _ X b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new off—site parking? — _ X C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? _ _ X d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement .of people and/or goods? - _ X Discussion (a—d): Installation and operation of the proposed barricade will not generate additional vehicle trips. However, the barrier will prohibit vehicle through access between Cascade lane and Temple Street and redistribute vehicle trips, which previously cut through the tract via Sugar/Shasta/Cascade/Temple, to travel between McFadden and Bolsa Avenue. The closest alternate north—south connection between McFadden and Solsa Avenues are Goldenwest Street and Beach Boulevard. Both have been designated as arterials and have been designed to accommodate high volumes of higher speed traffic than the residential street route identified above. The Department of Public Works, Traffic Division conducted traffic counts in the project vicinity between September 1990 and October 1992. The counts were taken for 24—hour periods on random dates during that period. Counts were taken without a barrier and after installation of a temporary barrier at the subject site. The traffic counts indicated that prior to barrier installation an average of approximately 2,896 vehicles per 24—hour period traveled on Sugar Drive between McFadden Avenue and Rushmoor Lane (the only access from McFadden to the Cascade Lane—Temple Street connection; please see attachment 1). After installation of the temporary barrier, traffic counts were reduced to 1,766 vehicles per 24—hour period (a reduction of approximately 39%) Similar traffic counts taken for the segment of Temple Street between Lehigh and Bolsa Avenue (the only access from Bolsa Avenue to the Cascade Lane — Temple Street connection) to the north indicate a reduction of approximately 29% with the barrier. Based upon the above counts, it is estimated that a total of approximately 1,130 trips will be redistributed on to Goldenwest Street and Beach Boulevard. Redistribution of approximately 1,130 trips on to Beach Boulevard and Goldenwest Street did not have a significant impact on service levels along these arterials during operation of the temporary barrier and is not anticipated to impact service levels with operation of a permanent structure. The proposed permanent barrier will maintain pedestrian and bicycle through access. In addition, the presence of the barrier reduces volumes and speeds of traffic on the residential streets in the area and provides a safer environment for pedestrians and bicyclists. Environmental Checklist —5— (1802D) Yes Mavbe N4 Installation of the barrier will be marked with no parking signs and will eliminate some on—street parking (approximately two spaces). However, the project site is located within a single family residential area which does not appear to be dependent on on—street parking to meet its parking needs. Therefore, loss of approximately two parking spaces is not considered significant. No significant adverse traffic/circulation impacts are anticipated. e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? _ _ X Discussion: The project does not involve any activities which will impact waterborne, rail or air traffic. f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? _ _ X 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? _ _ X Discussion: The project may effect emergency response time to the area. For discussion on the emergency access impacts, please refer to the discussion under item 10b on page �. However, the project will not require any additional manpower of facilities to serve the area. No significant fire protection impacts are anticipated. b. Police protection? _ _ X Discussion: The project may result in emergency access impacts to the area. For discussion on the emergency access impacts, please refer to the discussion under item 10b on page S. However, the project will not result in the need for any additional police manpower or facilities to serve the surrounding area. C. Schools? X Discussion: The project will not effect school' services in the area. d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X Discussion: The project will not require any recreational facilities. e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X _ Discussion: The permanent barrier wil'1 be installed and maintained by the City. However, no new manpower or facilities will be required as a result of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated. f. Other governmental services? _ _ X Discussion: No other governmental services will be required. 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? _ X b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing source of energy, or require the development of sources of energy? _ X Discussion (a-b): See 9a: Environmental Checklist -6- (18020) Yes Maybe No ',5. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communication systems? C. Water? — — X d. Sewer or septic tanks? — — X e. Storm water drainage? -. — X f. Solid waste and disposal? _. — X Discussion (a-f): The proposed project will not result in the need for any, additional utility systems or facilities. 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? _ — X b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? _ — X 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? — — X Discussion: The project site does not provide any scenic vista or view opportunities. The installation of the permanent barrier is not anticipated to create an aesthetically offensive site and may result in some aesthetic benefits to the neighborhood due to the reduction of traffic and- associated noise and congestion impacts on Cascade Lane and adjoining residential streets. 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? — — X Discussion: The proposed project will not impact any existing or proposed recreational facilities. 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? — ____ X b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? — _ X C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? — X Environmental Checklist -7- (1802D) yes No d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? _ _ X Discussion (a—d): The project site is presently developed and is not in the vicinity of any known archaeological, historical or other cultural resources. No significant adverse impacts are anticipated. 2). Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, sub— stantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? _, _ X b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short—term, to the disadvantage of long—tern, environmental goals? (A short—term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long—term impacts will endure well into the future.) _ _ X C. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively consid— erable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) _. _ X d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects- on human beings, either directly or indirectly? _ X DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there _ will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. . I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL _ IMPACT REPORT is required. Date Signa re Revised: March, 1990 Qr: City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department Environmental Checklist —B— (1802D) < f 3 � z o woo »Do � e of s. o = .et:Os• < i '00 pli V 1.DuN: i -10"loll 4 I D�NGft Wit W.RNF[ sl.,it WWI Ri lll,s G.t.NiD ? _ /1'O[KlOwN DAMI Y '11 1�••�1 1 t ice- , /-.-...,. till",io.,it,.o.l , I I �.. VICINITY MAP HUNTINGTON BE4CH PLANNING DNISION 1 1 l $Olala ��/E LE NIGH I I _=q R*�d'1?(o Cr as c;ac CdraaiL C -- t cc — - - �. a5as/go CM rrrt y ~ ? CITY - �1 IOF 1 1 W 5 TMIN T 5 E _ - - _I !HUNT NGTON 1 sEAGHj I ! WHIrwSy DR. — MARMAr wf iiL G, 1 t t OC+v rA r 1 ROCrcvCtt AK R I aAR..,N wt 1 Cy o 8o v Q . O — _ _ • i I v tz O y ., v FMTj 1, Ij A I S C `^ ccL_ SVGAR n -_ E5-r►y+ Nsf TEA Fd p 1 Ct \ �q� x CASt.ADE L1wE PARRI(APE CrrY 5C%)t4pA^-y \\ BARRIC�.p>~ SITE PRE-/Pc�sr- Q RRIL�> TTk . IC_ &X>4 S (PEP, Z4-kXA PERIOD huntington beach planning division RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 93-5 I . INTRODUCTION This document serves as the- Response to Comments on the Draft Negative Declaration No . 93-5 . This document contains all information available in the public record related to the Draft Negative Declaration as of March 4 , 1993 and responds to comments in accordance with Section 15088 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines . This document contains five sections . In addition to this Introduction, these sections are Public Participation and Review, Responses to Comments Errata to the Draft Negative Declaration, ' and Appendix A. The Public Participation section outlines the methods the City of Huntington Beach has used to provide public review and solicit input on the Draft Negative Declaration. The Response to Comments section contains written comments received from agencies, groups, organizations, and individuals as of March 4 , 1993 and the individual responses to each comment. The Errata to the Draft Negative Declaration is provided to show corrections of errors and- inconsistencies in-. the Draft Negative Declaration. It is the intent of the City of Huntington Beach-_to=-include this document in the official public record related to the Draft Negative Declaration. Based on the information contained in the public record the decision makers will be provided with an accurate and complete record of all information related to the environmental consequences of the project. II . PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND REVIEW The City of Huntington Beach notified all responsible and interested agencies and interested groups, organizations, and individuals that a Draft Negative Declaration had been prepared for the proposed project. The City also used several methods to solicit input during the review period for the preparation of the Draft Negative Declaration. The following is a list of actions taken during the preparation, distribution, and review of the Draft Negative Declaration. 1. An official twenty-one (21) day public review period for the Draft Negative Declaration was established by the City. It began on Thursday, February 11, 1993 and ended on Wednesday, March 3, 1993 . Public comment letters were accepted by the City of Huntington Beach through March 4 , 1993 . 2 . Notice of the Draft Negative Declaration was published in the Huntington Beach Independent on February 11, 1993 . Upon request, copies of the document were distributed to interested agencies , groups, organizations , and individuals . 3 . A copy of the distribution list and the Draft Negative Declaration is available for review and inspection at the City of Huntington Beach, Planning Department, 200.0 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648 . III . RESPONSE TO COMMENTS The Draft Negative Declaration No. 93-5 was distributed to responsible agencies, interested groups , organizations, and . individuals . The report was made available for public review and comment for a period of twenty-one (21)- days. The public review period for the Draft Negative Declaration estab-lis.hed by the City commenced -on February 11, 1993 and expired on March 3, 1993 . The City of Huntington Beach accepted comment letters through March 4 , 1993 . Copies of all written comments received- as of March 4 , 1993 are contained in Appendix A of this document . All comments have been numbered and -are listed on the following pages. All comments from letters received have been retyped verbatim in a comment-response format for clarity. Responses to- Comments for each comment which raised an environmental issue -are.-contained in this document. -_ Several comments do- not address the completeness- or adequacy o-f the Draft Negative Declaration, do not raise significant environmental issues, or request additional information. A substantive response to such comments is not appropriate within the context of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) . Such comments- are responded to with a _"comment noted" reference. This indicates that the comment will be forwarded to all appropriate decision makers for their review and consideration. Negative Declaration HBEB-1• comment : The City of Huntington Beach Environmental Review Board has received and reviewed the above referenced consisting of placement of a permanent traffic barrier and associated signage across Cascade Lane at the Huntington Beach/Westminster city boundary. The purpose of the proposed project is to prohibit automobile traffic through access to Temple Street in Westminster, thereby reducing the volume of, traffic on residential streets . Response: Comment states project description for project identification purposes and does not require any substantive response. HBEB-2• Comment Upon reviewing the Environmental Assessment and visiting the proj-ect site, the review committee believes that the major issues relative to the project include land use, air emissions, noise, transportation, traffic volumes and emergency access. The Environmental Assessment provides adequate discussion of these issues, including a thorough analysis of vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle and emergency vehicle impacts . Response-: Comment acknowledged and will be forwarded to decision makers for consideration prior to action on the proj.ect. HBEB-3 • Comment The Environmental Board concurs that a Negative Declaration is the appropriate level of review for the project and finds that Environmental Assessment No. 93-5 adequately evaluates the potential environmental impacts . Response: Please refer to HBEB-2 response above. jNegative Declaration No. 93-5 _�_ •�� HBEB-4 : Comment • If you have any questions or concerns regarding our comments, please contact Thomas Ryan, Chairperson, Environmental Assessment No . 93-5 Review Committee. Response• Please refer to HBEB-2 response above. CW-1: Comment • The City of Westminster has reviewed the subject Negative Declaration and hereby lists our concerns as follows : Response• Comment acknowledg.ed and will be forwarded to decision makers for consideration prior to action on the project . Please refer to CW-2 through CW-5 response below. CW-2 Comment• _ Section 13 .d. The answer to this question should be "Yes" . The street closure will definitely affect the City of Westminster residents and will force them to take a longer route to get to McFadden Ave. Response• The "No" response to item #13d on page 5 of the initial- study has been amended to a "Yes" . The discussion explains that the proposed permanent barrier will result in a change in circulation patterns and may require residents to travel an additional distance to the closest alternate routes of Goldenwest Street and Beach Boulevard. This applies to both Westminster and Huntington Beach residents in the project vicinity and will result in additional travel distance of 2 miles at worse case which is not considered significant . The discussion under #13d has been revised to reflect the above information please refer to CW-2 Response of the Errata . QW-3 : Comment • Last Paragraph on• Page 5 . The fact that access for emergency vehicles will be ,provided should be mentioned. Negative Declaration No. 93-5 _e_ f9A71AN Response: Discussion of emergency access impacts has been addressed under #10b (impacts to emergency response) on page 4 of the initial study. The section explains that the proposed permanent barrier will maintain emergency vehicle access . The discussion under #13d has been revised to- reference such. Please refer to CW-2 Response of the Errata . CW-4 : Comment: Sections 10 .b, 14 . a, and 14 . b The Westminster Fire Department feels a permanent closure will have an impact on emergency vehicle response time due to the additional time it will take vehicles to stop, unlock, and open the gate and proceed across the city boundaries . The answer to these questions should be "Yes" or "Maybe" and the additional time for emergency response across the barrier should be quantified. Response: The projected increase in emergency response time has been estimated and will be included in the discussion under item 10b on page 4 of the initial study checklist . Discussions under items 14a and 14b refer to the 10b for analysis of emergency response impacts . Please refer to CW-4 Response of the Errata . CWW-S: - Comment : If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact our City Engineer, Marwan Youssef, on extension 219 . Response: Comment acknowledged and will be forwarded to decision makers for consideration prior to action on the project. Negative Declaration No. 93-5 cn'71AN IV. ERRATA TO DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following changes to the Draft Negative Declaration and Initial Study Checklist are as noted below. The changes to the Draft Negative Declaration as they relate to issues contained within this errata sheet do not affect the overall conclusions of the environmental document . The changes are identified by the comment reference. CW-2 Response: The response for #13d on page 5 of the initial study checklist has been amended to a "yes" . The discussion under that issue has been revised to specify that impacts discussed- refer to City of Westminster residences as we'll as City of Huntington Beach residents in the project area. The discussion has been amended to read as follows : Discussion (a-d) : Installation and operation of the proposed barricade will not generate additional vehicle trips. However, the barrier will prohibit vehicle through access between Cascade Lane and Temple Street and redistribute vehicle trips which previously cut through the tract via Sugar/Shasta/ Cascade/Temple to travel between McFadden and Bolsa Avenue. Westminster and Huntington Beach residents in the_.project. vicinity will need to. travel an additional 2 miles to--reach destinations on the other side of the barrier. Trips a-re anticipated to be redistributed on to Goldenwes_t Street and Beach Boulevard, the closest alternate north-south connection between McFadden and Bolsa Avenues . Both have been designated as arterials and have been designed to accommodate high volumes of higher speed traffic than the residential street route identified above. The Department of Public Works, Traffic Division conducted traffic counts in the project vicinity between September 1990 and October 1992 . The counts were taken for 24-hour periods on random dates during that period. Counts were taken without a barrier and after installation of a temporary barrier at the subject site for Westminster and Huntington Beach residential streets in the project vicinity. The traffic counts indicated that prior to barrier installation an average of approximately 2, 896 vehicles per 24-hour period traveled on Sugar Drive between McFadden Avenue and Rushmoor Lane (the only access from McFadden to the Cascade Lane-Temple Street connection; please see attachment 1) . After installation of the temporary barrier, traffic counts were reduced to 1•, 766 vehicles per 24-hour period (a 'reduction of approximately 39%) Similar traffic counts taken for the Negative Declaration Nn_ QI-R c segment of Temple Street between Lehigh and Bolsa Avenue (the only access from Bolsa Avenue to the Cascade Lane - Temple Street connection) to the north indicate a reduction of approximately 29% with the barrier . Based upon the above counts, it is estimated that a total of approximately 1, 130 trips will be redistributed on to Goldenwest Street and Beach Boulevard. Redistribution of approximately 1, 130 trips on to Beach Boulevard and Goldenwest Street did not have a significant impact on service levels along these arterials during operation of the temporary barrier and is not anticipated to impact service levels with operation of a permanent structure. The proposed permanent barrier will maintain pedestrian and bicycle through access . In addition, the presence of the barrier reduces volumes and speeds of traffic on the residential streets in the area. and provides a safer environment for pedestrians and bicyclists. For discussion of impacts to- emergency response access, please refer to 10b on- page 4 . Installation of the barrier will be marked- with no parking signs and will eliminate some on-street parking (approximately two spaces) . However, the project site is located within a single family residential area which does not appear to be dependent on on-street parking to meet its parking needs. Therefore, loss of approximately two parking spaces is not considered significant . No significant adverse traffic/circulation impacts are anticipated. -_ CW-4 Response The response to 10b on page 4 of the initial study has been amended to a "maybe" . The discussion under that issue has been revised to quantify projected increases in emergency response time. The discussion has been amended to read- as follows : Discussion: The proposed permanent barrier will maintain emergency vehicle access via fire gates or other means acceptable to the Fire and Police Departments . The presence of the barrier may increase emergency response time depending upon the type of barrier proposed. Utilization of a flexible barrier will allow emergency vehicles to drive over flexible pylons and will not impact response time. Implementation of a gate type barrier will increase response time by approximately 1 minute to open the gate. This will increase emergency response time in the area to approximately six minutes which will exceed the City of Huntington Beach emergency response . goals of five minutes . However, the Fire Department has indicated that such an increase is not acceptable. Therefore the locked gate system is not anticipated to be an acceptable option unless other design measures will be implemented to adequately offset increases in emergency response time. No significant emergency access impacts are anticipated. Negative Declaration ., - - %- Environmental Board T CITY C- LNTINGTOiJ EE_`.CH 1:1A(11 fij$l O,l,-e BOX 190 Hi;!-.-, nq%;n -each, J N1 E N1 0 R A N D U IM DATE: February 24, 1993 TO: Julie Osugi _ Assistant Planner - FROM: City of Huntington Beach - Environmental Board SUBJECT: Environmental. Assessment No. 93-5; Installation of a Permanent Barrier on Cascade Lane A review committee of the City of Huntington Beach Environmental Board has received and reviewed the above referenced project consisting of placement of apermanent traffic barrier and HBEB-1 associated signage across Cascade Lane at the Huntington Beach/Westminster city boundary. The purpose of the proposed project.is to prohibit automobile.traffic..through access to Temple Street . in Westminster, thereby reducing the volume of traffic on residential streets_ Upon reviewing the Environmental Assessment- and visiting the project site, the review committee believes that the major issues relative to the project include land use, air emissions, noise, transportation, traffic volumes and emergency access. The Environmental Assessment .HBEB-2 provides adequate discussion of these issues, including a thorough analysis of vehicular, . pedestrian, bicycle and emergency vehicle impacts. The Environmental Board concurs that a Negative Declaration is the appropriate level of review HBEB-3° for the project and finds that Environmental Assessment No. 93-5 adequately evaluates the potential environmental impacts. If there are any questions concerning these comments, please contact Thomas Ryan,�.HBEB-4 Chairperson, Environmental Assessment No.. 93-5 Review Committee. CIVIC CENTER 8200 WES71-MNS1 ER BOULEVARD WESTMI NSTER. CALIFORIJIA 926E3 714 CODE 898.331 1 February 25, 1.993, City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ATT: Julie Osugi, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: Draft Negative Declaration No. 93-5 (Proposed Permanent Barrier on Cascade Lane at City of Huntington Beach Limits) Dear Ms. Osugi: - - The City of Westminster has reviewed the subject Negative Declaration and. hereby CW-1 lists our concerns as follows: I- 1 Section 13.d The answer to this question should be "Yes". The street closure will definitely affect the City of Westminster residents and will force CW-2 them to take a longer route to get to McFadden Avenue. 2. Last Paragraph on Page 5 The fact that access for emergency vehicles will be provided should be mentioned. CW-3 3. Sections 10.b. 14.a. and 14.b The Westminster Fire Department feels a permanent closure will have an impact on emergency vehicle-response time . due to the additional time it will take vehicles to stop., unlock, and open the CW-4 gate and proceed across the city boundaries. The answer to these questions should be "Yes" or "Maybe" and the additional time for emergency response across the barrier should be quantified. Julie Osugi Draft Negative Declaration 93-5 Page Two If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to Cw-5 contact our City Engineer, Marwan Youssef, on extension 219. Sincerely, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Q<. Don Vestal Deputy City Manager/ Public Works Director DV/vas enclosures -_ e COL GATE 5 TRE'E 7T till IL HU TING TON. BEAC H WHITNEY o . Q . EVERES i U NA • :O Q O O . . z . o GS EXt TIN TOP SIGN S INTERSECTIONS U ; � 1 SUGAR ONE WAY inn-mirry nAAD CASCADE LANE AREA - 24 HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME DATA DATE OF SURVEY STREET NAME BETWEEN TRAFFIC VOLUME SEPTEIvIBER 26 i990 CASCADE AT CITY BOUNDARY : 2870 OCTOBER 31, 1990 CASCADE . AT CITY BOUNDARY 2626 JULY 23, 1991 CASCADE AT CITY BOUNDARY> 2148 .. , BOUNDARY DECEMBER18 99I . 2224 FEBRUARY 5, 1992 ;CASCADE AT CITY BOUNDARY 2770 .. JULY i6, 1992 CASCADE AT:CITY BOUNDARY 80* FEBRUARY 9, 1993 CASCADE AT'CITY BOUNDARY 70* OCTOBER 31, 1990 SUGAR MC FADDEN AND RUSHMOOR 3117 JULY 23, 1991 SUGAR MC.FADDEN AND RUSHMOOR 2724 DECEMBER 18, 1991 SUGAR MC FADDEN AND RUSHMOOR--- -2763 FEBRUARY 5, 1992 SUGAR MC FADDEN AND RUSHMOOR 2979 JULY 16, 1992 SUGAR MC FADDEN AND RUSHMOOR 1766* FEBRUARY 9, 1993 SUGAR MC FADDEN AND RUSHMOOR 1636* OCTOBER 3i, 1990 SUGAR RUSHMOOR AND SHASTA 2480 JULY 23,>1991 SUGAR RUSHMOOR AND SHASTA 2122 .. FEBRUARY 5, 1992 SUGAR RUSHMOOR AND SHASTA 2369 OCTOBER 31, 1990 RUSHMOOR SUGAR AND ETNA 623 JULY 23, 1991 RUSHMOOR SUGAR AND ETNA 915 DECEMBER 17, 1991 RUSHMOOR SUGAR AND ETNA 614 FEBRUARY 5, 1992 RUSHMOOR SUGAR AND ETNA 704 JULY 21 1991 CASCADE'; SHASTA AND WHITNEY_ 1800 DECEMBER 1 7; 1991- CASCADE; SHASTA AND WHITNEY 23.70 FEBRUARY 5, 1992 CASCADE SHASTA AND WHITNEY 2023. JULY 16, 1992 CASCADE SHASTA"AND WHITNEY 255* FEBRUARY 9, ;1993 CASCADE; SHASTA,AND WHITNEY 161 JULY 23, 1991 SHASTA SUGAR AND WHITNEY 176 DECEMBER 17, 1991 SHASTA SUGAR AND WHITNEY 172 FEBRUARY 5, 1992 SHASTA SUGAR AND WHITNEY 166 JULY 23,;1991 WHITNEY: CASCADE AND SHASTA 604 FEBRUARY.5, 1992 WHITNEY CASCADE AND.SHASTA 579 JULY 23, 1991 WHITNEY SHASTA AND RUSHMOOR 455 FEBRUARY 5, 1992 WHITNEY SHASTA AND RUSHMOOR 548 OCTOBER 3, 1990 TEMPLE BOLSA AND LEHIGH; 4173# JULY 23, 1991 TEMPLE BOLSA AND LEHIGH; ....— A 65.8. # AUGUST 10, 1992 TEMPLE BOLSA A:ND LEHIGH: 2639# * , N 29.13#19 TEMPLEOCTOBER26 D * Indicates traffic counts taken after barricade installation. # Indicates traffic counts taken in the City. of Westminster. RURCnLAMAN04 i RECEIVED CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH TRAFFIC ENGINEERING INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION MAR 16 1993 HUNTINGTON BEACH - - HUNTINGTON: BEACH, CA TO: JIM OTTERSON, Traffic Engineer FROM: ART FOLGER, City Attorney DATE: March 16, 1993 SUBJECT: RLS 93-134 Cascade Lane BACKGROUND The Department of Public Works has installed a temporary flexible barricade on Cascade Lane; at the Huntington Beach/Westminster city limits. If the City Council approves the changing of the barricade's status from temporary to permanent, Public Works would like to have drafted on ordinance making it an infraction to drive over the barricade. The desired fine is $500. QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the city, has been granted the power by the state to enact an ordinance related- to this matter and prescribe a fine for violation of such. ANSWER No. As the State of California has preempted the entire field of traffic control, and has not granted local agencies the power to enact ordinances regarding the failure to obey traffic control devices or the imposition of a penalty for the violation of such. ANALYSIS The California Vehicle Code Section 21 states that the provisions of the code are to be applicable and uniform throughout the state and in all municipalities, and that "no local authority shall enact or enforce any. ordinance on the matters covered by this code unless expressly authorized therein." The Vehicle Code, by way of Section 21461, makes it unlawful for the driver of a vehicle to fail to obey any traffic control device. A "traffic control device" has been defined by the courts to include traffic barriers. Rumford v. City of Berkeley (1982) 183 Cal.Rptr. 73, 78-79. Therefore, this section would apply to the activity the city is trying to deter. As the code does not grant local authorities to legislate in this area, the city must rely on this statute for enforcement purposes. The Vehicle Code also states that the violation of the above section is an infraction and punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100). The code does not permit local authorities to preempt this statute and provide for a higher monetary penalty. Therefore, the city must seek enforcement under state statutes. . FOLG Deputy City Attorn y AJF:SN:k a CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY C(TY CLERK August 26, 1992 Claudia Spates 7631 Whitney Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Dear Mrs. Spates, Your letter to the Mayor and City Council was received today and forwarded to the Council and appropriate Department Heads. Sincerely, Connie Brockway, CMC City Clerk CB:mj 0019Z (Telephone:714-536.5227) 7631 Whitney Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92647 August 22, 1992 9 Mayor Silva and Councilmembers CITY OF HUNTINGTON. BEACH City Hall 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mayor Silva and Councilmembers, This letter is regarding the City Council meeting of August 17, 1992. As a taxpayer and homeowner I am aghast and incensed that the staff report to Councilmembers, from which Councilmember Don MacAllister- garnered and related the statement that Cascade has only been open for the last six years, is blatantly incorrect and by the openly antagonistic feeling coming from the Council when 'some in the audience said the six years was not correct. The attitude of the Council as a whole is one that can only foster distrust among the citizenry of Huntington Beach. Taking even the most idealistic approach, one would assume the City Council would want correct information and would at least query your staff as to correctness or accuracy of any disputed points. I can only surmise that there must- be a fairly large self-serving agenda hidden under this veil of arrogance and indifference to embrace the means to justify the end. I would expect the Council be enlightened as to the number of years (fact--not conjecture) that Cascade/Temple has been open as a functional street in our neighborhood, regardless of whether this was factored into your decision to separate the neighborhood with a barricade for another six months or not. , Remember November Claudia Spates zar f / D REQUEST FOR CITY - COUNCIL ACTION Date September 8, 1992 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor Jim Silva and 111Iembers of th APPROVED BY CITY COUNCI ity Council Submitted by: Gail Hutton, City Attorney 9���Cf� _19— Prepared by: Oail Hutton, City Attorney __ I Y Y CLI'R'*' Subject: Adoption of Resolution Concerning Cascade Lary Consistent with Council Policy?. Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception ) "/ Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments a STATF21ENT OF ISSUE Pursuant to California Vehicle Code Section 21101, a resolution confirming the City Council ' s minute order of August 17 , 1992 , regarding Cascade Lane, needs to be adopted. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached resolution. ANALYSIS The attached resolution formalizes and confirms the City Council' s minute action of August 17, 1992, concerning Cascade Lane. It provides a formal resolution regarding the action, as required by California Vehicle Code Section 21101. FUNDING SOURCE Not applicable. ALTERNATIVE ACTION Do not adopt the attached resolution. Attachment: Resolution U RESOLUTION NO. 6425 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AUTHORIZING THE PLACEMENT OF A TEMPORARY BARRICADE ON CASCADE LANE AT THE HUNTINGTON BEACH/WESTMINSTER CITY LIMITS WHEREAS, on April 20 , 1992 , the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach authorized the placement of a traffic barricade at the city limits on Cascade Lane; and On August 17, 1992 , the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach conducted a noticed public hearing and review of traffic con- ditions on Cascade Lane in the City of Huntington Beach; and Pursuant to said noticed hearing and review, the City Council finds as follows: a. Cascade Lane is not designated as a major arterial street on the City of Huntington Beach Master Plan of Arterial Highways nor the City of Westminster Master Plan of Arterial Highways and therefore is not a regionally significant roadway. b. Cascade Lane is not constructed and does not have dedicated right of way for arterial street standards. C. Cascade Lane is a residential street, and prior to placement of the temporary barricade system, was inappropriately serving as a local collector street with the resultant traffic volumes .and accident history. d. Retention of the temporary barricade system will implement the Circulation Element of the current City of Huntington Beach General Plan which calls for the safe and efficient movement of people and goods on the City' s street system. e. Retention of the temporary barricade system is consistent with the City' s responsibility to provide for the 8/26/92 :PDA -1- health and safety of its citizens. f. The temporary barricade system is an official traffic control device that conforms with the current Standard Plans and Specifications published by the State of California Department of Transportation. g. The temporary barricade project is a minor street modification and is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1 of CEQA. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby resolve as follows: 1. The temporary barricade on Cascade Lane shall be kept in place for an additional six months, until the second regular City Council meeting of February 1993, at which time the City Council shall again review the traffic conditions on Cascade Lane. 2. A further analysis of the environmental impact of the barricade project shall be prepared by the Department of Community Development for presentation at the review referred to herein. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 8th day of September 1992. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: • City Clerk City Attorney P� y-ab-pi $-2G-�i REVIEWED AND APPROVED: NITIATED APPROVED: City Administrator irecto of Public Works 8/26/92 :PDA -2- ` 6425 Res, No. 6425 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE 3 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 8th day of September 19 92 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Robitaille, Moulton-Patterson, Winchell, Silva, Green, MacAllister, Kelly NOES: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: Councilmembers: None City Verw and ex-officitr Cler'k-- of the 'City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California i S, r t . . STATE OF CALiFORNiA . c�9r►�,rt1 County of Orange �: 1 am a Citizen of the United States and a ?/12— resident of the County aforesaid; i am over the age of eighteen years, and not.a party to or , interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California,and that attached Notice is a true and PUBLIC NOTICE i complete copy as was printed and published in Net�ce`of `Public'- Hearing the Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley On`Trafflc issues of said newspaper to wit the issue(s) of: Conditions On Cascade Lane In the City of Huntington Beach. Notice Is hereby given the'Huntington`Beach City. Council will hold a public) July- 23, 1992 hearing on traffic condi- 1lions relative to the bar- ricade installation on Cas= cads Lane_ in the Council :Chambers'at:the Hunting- ton Beach =Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Hunting- ton Beach,rCalifornia; on ;the.date and attthe time;in-; dicated below to receive and. consider the. state: wments of 611-persons who wish to-.be'heard.relative to ithisassue. Date[TimeAllonday,August 17,_1992;7:00 P.M. , . Request: The City Council will 6.eOnsider'all information relative to the barricade in-, stallation-on Cascade Lane which was:installed for the, purpose-.of re'dbcing or, eliminating through traffic on Cascade Lane., All Interested I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the Persons are invited to attend°said hear] ing and:-:express 9 Inlons foregoing is true and correct or submit evidence for, qrr against the request as out= lined above. If there are any further,questions: Executed on July 23 199- son, City Traffic O on, eer; at Costa Me Calif mi at'536.5431, or Bob Him dusky, Traffic Technician; at 536-5518. Louis. F. Sandoval, Die rector, •Public,Works Sign Department ature Dated:July 17,1992. Eonnte_Brpckway,City Clerk Published Huntington Beach, Independent July 23,1992 074.920 PROOF OF PUBLICATION Notice of Public Hearing On Traffic Conditions On Cascade Lane In the City of Huntington Beach Notice is hearby given the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing on traffic conditions relative to the barricade installation on Cascade Lane in the Council Chambers at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated-below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to this issue. Date/Time: Monday, August 17, 1992, 7:00 P.M. Request: The City Council will consider all information relative to the barricade installation on Cascade Lane which was installed for the purpose of reducing or eliminating through traffic on Cascade Lane. All Interested Persons are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions.or submit evidence for or against the request as outlined above. If there are any further questions, please contact Jim Otterson., City. Traffic Engineer, at 536-5431, or Bob Hidusky, Traffic Technician, at 536- 5518. Louis F. Sandoval, Director, Public Works Department C onn It, "Broc.lcwti7'� CI''( G,CK AUI:Pust 11 , 1992 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members : Thank you so much for the temporary barricade , "A" . We have had a wonderful summer and much of it due to your decision. We spent one afternoon watching the kids from Whitney and Shasta meet in the middle for a giant water fight----on a quiet street. Thank you! It has come to our attention that the City Attorney' s office has notified you that certain actions must be taken by council to insure the barricade remains in place . We believe that council will find that Cascade Lane is not a significantly regional street. And secondly, by leaving the barricade in place, the city' s circulation element of the general plan will be maintained. Thank you and your staff once again for your help in dealing with this issue. Sincere , ____ .__... V �, ,_ -a Kenneth R. and Mary P. Ostrowski 15292 Shasta Lane Huntington Bch, CA 92647 C-4 Z, 852 CITY OF POWAY v" CITY OF SAN DIEGO ' 229 Cal.App.3d 847; 280 Cal.Rptr. 368 (Apr. 1991] such authority upon city government. This matter is before us on an appeal by the City of San Diego et al. (San Diego) of the trial court's order granting a petition for writ of mandate (Code Civ. Proc., §. 1085) and denying San Diego's motion for new trial. The petition was brought by the City of Poway (Poway), which successfully argued to the trial court that San Diego had no discretion under section 21101, subdivision (f) or any other statutory enactment to keep a portion of Pomerado Road, lying with- in the city limits of San Diego and adjoining Poway's border, closed to all traffic after that portion was reconstructed and improved. We affirm the decision issuing the writ and conclude the motion for new trial was properly denied. The trial court correctly applied section 21101, subdivision (f) and the rules relating to general plan amendments that are effectively incorpo- rated into that section. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND To analyze the issues raised by the petition for writ of mandate, we must discuss some of the history of Pomerado Road (the road) and the intricacies of the land use planning decisions that have been made about it. Since 1908, the road has connected Poway, Ramona, and other areas of northeast San Diego County with San Diego proper. It was designated as part of the state highway system in the 1930's and as part of the federal highway system in the 1950's, although neither of these designations is currently in effect. It is now a city surface street which traverses the Scripps Miramar Ranch com- munity within San Diego's jurisdiction, beginning at its intersection with Interstate 15, continuing northeasterly into Poway's jurisdiction after inter- secting with Poway Road. This road has been accorded various designations in various planning documents. San Diego's "Progress Guide and General Plan" (general plan) and map designate it as an open "major street."=The County of San Diego's following matters: . . . (f) (0 Prohibiting entry to, or exit from, or both, from [sic] any street by means of islands, curbs, traffic barriers, or other roadway"design features to imple- ment the circulation element of a general plan adopted pursuant to article VI (commencing with§ 65350)of chapter 3 of division 1 of title 7 of the Government Cede.The rules and reg- ulations authorized by this subdivision shall be consistent with the responsibility of local gov- ernment to provide for the health and safety of its citizens." 'The format of San Diego's general plan consists of a booklet entitled"Progress Guide and General Plan," together with a map depicting such elements of the plan as residential and commercial areas, parks, public works,and transportation facilities such as streets and high- ways. (Gov. Code. § 65300.) Pursuant to Government Code section 65302, subdivision (b). one of the elements to be included in the general plan is a circulation element "consisting of the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares" transportation routes,terminals,and other local public utilities and facilities,all correlated with the land use CITY OF POWAY V. CITY OF SAN DiFGo 853 229 Cal.App.3d 847: 280 Ca1,Rptr. 368 [Apr. 1991) general plan_m_ap_designates the road as "major." In Poway's general plan, it is designated a "major arterial." The parties started down the path leading to this dispute in 1987, when San Diego initiated proceedings to annex a tract of land known as the "County Island," lying between Spring Canyon Road and the City of Po- way, now a portion of the Scripps Miramar Ranch community. This annex- ation brought part of the road, known as the Pomerado Road Grade, under San Diego's jurisdiction. Because this portion of the road did not conform to San Diego design standards, San Diego required the developer working in the area to upgrade the road (in several phases) into a four-lane major road connecting to a section of the road previously widened and improved by Poway, The first steps necessary to close the substandard portion of the road (about one and one-half miles) for construction' were taken in 1987 when the Scripps Miramar Ranch Community Plan (specifically, its transporta- tion element) was amended by resolution number R-268716 adopted by San Diego's city council. Pursuant to normal planning procedure, the resolution contemplated that an amendment of San Diego's general plan would be made to implement it. The resolution provided that the road would be closed until another route known as alternative 8A (or the Scripps North Parkway) was constructed, connecting the road with Interstate 15 at the Mercy Road interchange. According to San Diego's city planners, both the reconstruction of the road and.the.construction of alternative 8A were to be completed around the same time. However, although.the current phase of element of the plan." Mid,) In San Diego's general plan, the circulation element is called a 'transportation element." San Diego's general plan is amended from time to time(Gov. Code, § 65350 et seq.): how- ever, not all amendments are immediately incorporated into the booklet and map format be- cause of the expenses involved in updating the materials. This general plan is implemented Pursuant to Government Code section 65450 et seq. by specific plans for the various commu- nities in the greater San Diego area. One such specific plan is the Scripps Miramar Ranch Community Plan. The statutory scheme contemplates that the specific plan shall implement :utd he consistent with the general plan of the area. (Gov. Code, §§ 65301, suhd. (b). 65450. r,5452, 65454.) At oral argument, counsel for San Diego drew a distinction between specific plane (Go%. Cade, § 65450 et seq.)and community plans. In their legal analysis of the communit% plan. the panics have cited as applicable authority the Government Code sections pertaining to 'pecilic plans. For our purposes,we may treat the community plan as a type of specific plan. 'The closure of the road was accomplished pursuant to section 21367. which permits local authorities or the Department of Transportation to restrict and regulate traffic on a highway under construction in order to protect the safety of workers or motorisis or where the \%ork kkould interfere with the flow of traffic. Note that the terms"high��ay" and "street" (§§ 360, sr0)in the Vehicle Code may he treated as synonymous for purposes of analysts of this t\pc "I isue. (Rumfor(l v.City oJ'Rerkch;v(1982)31 Ca1.3d 545, 550, fn. 5JI83 6d.Rptr. 73, to45 P.2d 1241.) 854 CITY OF POWAY 1. CITY OF SAN DIEGO 229 Cal.App.3d 847; 280 Cal.Rptr. 368 (Apr. 19911 reconstruction of the road has been completed, construction of alternative 8A will take at least two more years. The next step in the city planning process to effectuate resolution No. R-268716, closing the road, was to amend San Diego's general plan to include it. Toward that end, San Diego's city council passed resolution No. R-269983 on December 8, 1987. This was an omnibus provision incor- porating numerous (i.e., 32) specific community plan amendments into San Diego's general plan.' Two maps attached to resolution No. R-269983 showed the road, one designating it as an open major street. The environmental effects of the road closure were studied in an environ- mental impact report which was made available for public review in August 1999. San Diego adopted the report's findings and issued a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" to justify the closure of the road until the alter- native route, alternative 8A, was opened. The road was actually closed for reconstruction in November 1988. At that time, the average daily traffic on that section of the road at the Poway city limit was over 5,000 vehicles per day. As reconstructed, the road currently has an estimated capacity of 15,000 vehicles per day.` Traffic studies project that 34,000 vehicles per day will travel the road by the year 2010.E Due to the closure of the road, traffic volumes on Poway Road between Pomerado Road and Interstate 15 have increased by more than 5,000 vehicles a day, leading to frequent gridlock conditions. At the hearing on the petition for writ of mandate, San Diego produced evidence showing that the former County Island is currently in various stages of development and that when homes built in the area are occupied, congestion on the reopened road would be worse than before the road was closed, if the planned alternative 8A were not also opened to accommodate some of the traffic. As the reconstruction of the road progressed during the spring of 1990, San Diego's city council obtained advice from its city attorney's office that when reconstruction was complete, San Diego would no longer have any authority under the provisions of section 21367 to keep the road closed. Poway formally requested in October 1990 that the road be reopened upon 'As we will later explain, the text of resolution No. R•261)1)83, the general plan amend- ment,disappeared from view and was not found until the time of the motion for new trial on the petition for writ of mandate. 5It should he noted that only a one and one-half-mile portion of the road has been recon- structed and enlarged;part of the remaining stretch within San Diego's jurisdiction remain-a two-lane roadway. ,,This fact is shown in a San Diego Association of Governments(SANDAG) study,cited in Poway's city engineer's declaration in support of the petition for writ of mandate. CITY OF POWAY Y. CITY OF SAN DIEGO 855 229 Cal.App.3d 847; 280 Cal.Rpir. 368 (Apr. 1991] the completion of reconstruction. San Diego's city council initially agreed to reopen the road, but reversed itself and voted on November 5, 1990, to keep the road closed. Further environmental review was planned for the eventual reopening of the road when alternative 8A was completed. One week after the City Council's action, Poway filed its petition for writ of mandate, alleging San Diego had a mandatory duty to reopen the road on completion of construction. No alternative writ or temporary restraining order was sought. San Diego answered the petition, asserting various de- fenses such as laches, bar of the statute of limitations (Gov. Code, § 65009), and authority to take the actions complained of under its police power. II claimed authority under the provisions of section 21101. subdivision (0, to prohibit entry to the road in order to implement the transportation element of its general plan. It also contended its general plan showing the road and alternative 8A as open should be interpreted as a depiction of the future goals to be met in its transportation element. At a hearing held December 20, 1990, the trial court took judicial notice of the various public enactments and the general plan and its map.' After hearing argument, the court found none of the affirtnative defenses had merit, granted the petition, and issued the writ commanding that the road be opened without further delay. The court's decision and order recited that state law had preempted the field of traffic control and ruled that section 21101 did not empower San Diego to maintain the closure of the road because continued closure did not implement any element of San Diego's general plan. Specifically, the court found the road had regional significance and was designated an open major street in the-general plan; amendment of the Scripps Miramar Ranch community plan (by resolution No. R-268716) did not constitute an amendment of San Diego's general plan, as required for section 21101, subdivision (0 to apply,' Shortly after the hearing, San Diego sought a stay or modification of the writ to delay its effective date; a short stay was granted. San Diego then moved for new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence: resolution No. R-269983, which provided that the general plan was amended to incor- porate the provisions of resolution No. R-268716, which had amended the 'Pursuant to Evidence Code section 459,subdivision(a), this court takes judicial notice of all items judicially noticed below, including resolution No. R-26QQ93, the "neMy discov- ered"evidence presented in connection with the motion for new trial. In addition,we granted San Diego's request on appeal that we take notice of the fact of San Diego's geographic size and diversity.(Evid.Code, § 453,subd.(b).) "As noted above(see fn. 4,ante), no evidence was presented at the time of the hearing on the petition about the existence of resolution No. R-269983,which amended the general plan, because it was not rediscovered until after the original hearing date. See our discussion of the motion for new trial,post. 856 CITY OF POWAY v CITY OF SAV Dlt:co 229 Cal.App.3d 847; 280 Cal.Rptr. 368 (Apr. 19911 transportation element of the Scripps Miramar Ranch community plan and closed the road until alternative 8A was completed. San Diego explained that it had not discovered the existence of resolution No. R-269983 during its preparations for the hearing on the petition, which had included a com- puter word search of city planning files and contacts with knowledgeable city employees. The copy of the general plan booklet available to the public does not show any amendment designating the road as closed. Pending the hearing, San Diego appealed the order granting the petition, and this court ordered an expedited briefing schedule. At the hearing on the motion for new trial, the court found San Diego had made an inadequate showing of reasonable diligence in producing the newly discovered evidence; in any case, the court found, the evidence was not material. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 657, subd. 4, 1092, 1110.) In discussing the probative value of the newly presented evidence, the court noted that even if it were considered, it did not justify a different result, since the "purported amendment" (i.e., resolution No. R-269983) was not validly enacted. Specifically, the court stated: "(T]he resolution was never incorporated into the public version of the general plan . . . the Government Code . . envisions that the plan is going to be made available for public inspection and use, and not some version of the plan which contains some of the elements of the plan and doesn't contain other purported elements of the plan." The trial court further noted that the map attached to the omnibus resolution showed the road to-be an open-major-road connecting the two cities, which was inconsistent with the text o the same resolution that closed the road. The court adhered to its original rationale for granting the petition for writ of mandate (there was no effective .amendment to the general plan) and did not reach the issue of whether section 21101, subdivi- sion (f) forbade any such amendment to the general plan to close such a roadway. The motion for new trial was denied. Poway then requested that the trial court relieve it of the automatic stay provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 1110, subdivision (b). The request was denied; the�roadr remains closed today. DISCUSSION Our consideration of whether section 21101, subdivision (f) accords San Diego the discretion to maintain the closure of the road must address both a narrow and a broad issue. First, the narrow question is whether this partic- ular set of enactments met the requirements of the section that rules and regulations be duly adopted "to implement the circulation element of a w N , t N V �I" N' y 1� 7 w t)O0p uA00 a B07 SA Av( a s ARGOSY pg�+ LlaoO 0370 9500 ••� ytr. rvE I . v5rn N 0000 "400 1]70 0000 t9o00 Xymn 77 7 n,,,,r,!"G Avr 700 4 woo� � 7370� FK=� e00o 6000 wF,t A,E b t7000 17000 17600 7.000 7a M 20W" j?Mc M'AA l l.,AI, x 9vm esoo eao • 9300 ecoo � t At 0 AVE 3700\ 7At SEp7 AVE Y �R oll LE4EtlD ..00 Q SCALC,'SO)w.r IR*frK * A n -EllrS Avf rQ' h ).-Oua nE ni00 R v m i 000 '��(�.��.. X100 Goo• A e90f•A e900 DXUXIL, Se00 GA9rt(;r, AVE 59000 70000 A p 4000 4e00 40M e00 rOgr TOWN AVE 40000 Q Spy �Qf R 50000 60000 � ggeeoo �KYY, 27 °g 7.rco r.mc A:,A ws AVE 70000 rc 8 7 # $ Q Q 9� 1 V�V � $$s ro a QQ wA,rAr ,s AVE 7,00 ° 00 �d yti ArcANrA Alf 4& `ed QQx pppp Qu A • _,j b, e700 t 000 t MAW&FOIr AVE CITY OF ►`` I Q" SAA'LDaG Avf `� . HUNTINGTON BEACH TRAFFIC FLOW MAP •` 8�f�0,ff. Figure 3-1 51 RECE►YEO1 CITY CLERK A%Tf August 10, 1992 lt;; CITY Y OF HUNT IN"' BE;CH. CALIF. AUG. �� �� 53 411 The Honorable City Council Members of the City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Calif. 92648 Dear Council Members, I want to thank you for your decision to erect a barricade at the end of Cascade Lane. It is wonderful to once again live on a safe street. Unfortunately a few of our neighbors who have never experienced a heavy traffic flow on their residential streets are unhappy by the extra two or three minutes they are inconvenienced by not having access to Temple/Bolsa. We are all inconvenienced, but safety should always supercede convenience! It has come to my attention that one neighbor has even gone so far as to compare the closure of Cascade Lane with Pomerado Road in San Diego County (City of Poway v. City of San Diego) . I have attached a copy of the 'Factual and Procedural Background' for your convenience. It seems unreasonable to compare our small residential street with a highway which was, until recently, a federal and state highway. On the map of San Diego's "General Plan" it is listed as a "ma or street" and a "major arterial. " The last page of this packet shows the most recent "Traffic Flow Map" of the city of Huntington Beach. You will notice on the map that 'Cascade Lane' is not even shown since it is not considered to be a "major street. " In fact, the first six years that this street existed, it was a dead-end street just like it is today. It was never built to be a major thoroughfare and is not equipped to handle heavy traffic. The way the street curves makes it especially dangerous in heavy traffic. With between two and three thousand care speeding down Cascade every day, the lives of the children on this street were constantly endangered as well as the lives of their parents . Once again, as a parent and as a homeowner, I am asking you to allow us to keep our safe street. With Golden West College starting its 'Fall Semester' on August 17th the traffic volume would skyrocket immediately. Our safety is in your hands. Please put 'safety first. ' Thank you. Yours Truly, Edith Gonzales T tIECEwco August 1 0 , 1992 . NUNTt= , CI y� OF p, 't IF. To all Council Members , City of Huntington Be 15, a fZ 10 On August 17 , 1992 , the City Council will evaluate the flexible barricade on Cascade Lane . The following are my comments on the situation. First and foremost, the safety, tranquitity, and enjoyment of the neighborhood has been restored to what a residential area should be. People walk, talk, visit, some for the very first time; kids can safely play; whole families are strolling. . . . .Dads , Moms , kids , grandkids , even cats . . . . . just like people are supposed to do. Secondly, I am now more apt to watch out for my neighbor and his or her property, because now I have talked to people . Quite possibly this may reduce crime . Thirdly, I now am more apt to shop in Huntington Beach instead of driving north of Bolsa . This may be useful to the merchants of our city. Lastly, citizens are even thanking Council Members . . . .almost unheard of these days . So, thank you. thank you thank you. Rumor has it that a legal challenge has been raised to the closure. The City is empowered by Vehicle Code Section 21101 to implement the circulation element of the General Plan. The current General Plan does not show any street in this tract and thus these streets are exempt from use as significant roads . Further, City Ordinance Chapter 10 . 32 , "Movement of Overloads" , provides for the regulation and limitation of overloads as defined in Section 10 . 32 . 030 (e) , to wit, a vehicle or combination of vehicles exceeding the limitations set forth in Division 15 of the California Vehicle Code relating to height, width; length, size or weight . Surely a constant procession of vehicles passing along a residential street hour after hour, day after day, subjects that street (and its citizens ) to an overload, thus exposing the street and its citizens to"damage or injury" and does not "promote the general health, welfare and safety" of those citizens . Section 10 . 32 .010 . In closing, may I say that the transformation of this neighborhood has been truly remarkable . Even exiting onto McFadden is not as difficult as I had predicted. Why anyone would invite 3000 cars each day back on our streets is beyond understanding. Now, what can you do about the helicopters? Since ely I W lliam D. Stanley 7571 Whitney Drive ►-.DPW RECEIVED 'CITY CLERK CITY OF HUNTING T ON ;}CACTI.CALIF. Ad; AUD 9 I It 53 AM `92 J July 30, 1992 Mayor Silva Huntington Beach City Council 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mayor Silva and City Council Members: On August 17th you will be reviewing the barricade system at the boundary north of Cascade Lane. My husband and I have been residents of Cascade since 1964. We have seen the street traffic . increase each year until it became unbearable and we felt something had to be done to return us to a housing tract not a thoroughfare. So, we with others of our tract came to you for help. After all of your efforts to find a solution to our problem the barricade system at A proved to be the best. The stop signs didn't help, the lines didn't help, the other barricade suggestions were objected to, but, the barricade at A helped! We now have been restored to a happy, quiet, safe home atmosphere. Our children are playing in their front yards without fears of cars and we can cross the street to talk to our neighbors. We even had a 4th of July block party. This is the way a neighborhood should be and I thank you for giving it back to us. I know some people are complaining about the inconvenience of the barricade, but I feel that is just selfishness when weighed against our health and safety. Also, I know you voted for the barricade thinking a stop sign at McFadden was possible. I've spoken to several people in our neighborhood and none of us are having trouble exiting on McFadden. There may be an occasional wait but we can exit without endangering our lives. Actually the traffic seems lighter. All in all I hope you vote to keep the barricade in place. I'm sure the traffic count will confirm the decrease in traffic volume. Thank you again for your help in the past and in the future and for giving us back a safe neighborhood in which to live. Patricia Witzel 15292 Cascade Lane Q Huntington Beach, CA 92647 v" e 10 . 32 . 010--�0 . 32 . 020 Chapter 10 .32 MOVEMENT OF OVERLOADS Sections: 10 .32 .010 Purpose--Application . 10 .32.020 Governmental agencies . 10 .32 .030 Definitions . 10 .32 .040 Permit required . 10 .32 .050 Permit--Movement compliance . 10 .32.060 Permit--Types and their fees . 10 .32 .070 Permit--Application . 10.32 .080 Permit--Application--Contents . 10 .32 .090 Permit--Application--Processing. 10 .32 .100 Permit--Contents . 10 .32 .110 Permit--Issuance . 10 .32.120 Permit--Carried in vehicle or on operator . 10 .32. 130 Utility property displacement . 10 .32 .140 Time and route determined . 10 .32 . 150 Escort--Required when . 10.32 . 160 Escort--Deposit for costs . 10 .32 .170 Escort--Assigned by director . 10.32 . 180 Parking overload vehicles . 10 . 32 . 190 Moving at night . 10.32. 200 Public liability insurance . 10 .32 .210 Repealed, Ordinance No. 2682 , 5 Aug 1976 10 .32. 220 Damage--Report . 10 .32 . 230 Damage--Responsibility . 10 . 32 . 010 Purpose--Application . The purpose of this chap- ter is to regulate and limit the use of certain public streets and public property within the city by any vehicle defined in this chapter as an overload, in order to prevent damage to street foundations, surfaces or structures, to protect bridges and other public or private property and life from damage or injury resulting from the moving, or having upon a public street an overload, and to promote the general health , welfare and safety of the citizens of this city. (Ord. 1392, 20 Mar 68 ) 10 .32 .020 Governmental agencies . The provisions of this chapter shall apply to the United States , this state, counties , municipal corporations , school districts and to all other gov- ernmental bodies , agencies or instrumentalities; provided , how- ever , that if any such governmental agency shall file with the 290 10 . 32 .030--10 . 32 . 040 director of public works an agreement in writing to pay alldamages, costs or expenses which may be suffered or incurred by this city as a result of the movement of any overload by such agency, then such agency need not pay any permit fee or post any deposit or policy of liability insurance required by this chapter . This exemption shall not apply to any private con- tractor engaged by any governmental agency, nor to any equip- ment or vehicle not operated by any employee of the govern- mental agency moving the overload under the supervision and control of an officer thereof . (Ord . 1392, 20 Mar 68 ) 10 .32 .030 Definitions . The following words and phrases shall have the meanings hereinafter set forth, and if any word or phrase is not hereinafter defined, it shall have the meaning set forth in the California Vehicle Code, provided that if any such word or phrase is not defined in said Vehicle Code, it shall have the meaning attributed to it in ordinary usage : (a ) "City" means the city of Huntington Beach, California . (b) "Department" means the department of public works of the city. (c ) "Di.rector" means the director of the department of public works of this city or his authorized representative . (d ) "Gross weight" means the combined weight of a vehicle and its load. (e ) "Overload" means and includes any vehicle or combina- tion of vehicles exceeding the limitations set forth in Division 15 of the California Vehicle Code relating to height , width, length, size or weight of a vehicle or load. (f) "Person" means any person, firm, individual ; corpora- tion, partnership, trust or other organization , and shall in- clude an owner , lessee, agent or employee of any person , firm, individual , corporation, partnership, trust or other organiza- tion . (Ord. 2881 , 31 Dec 86 ; Ord. 2082, 8/76 ; Ord. 1392 , 3/68) 10 .32 .040 Permit required. It is unlawful for any person to move, permit or cause to be moved, any overload upon any public street or place in the city, without first obtaining a permit therefor from the director as required by this chapter . (Ord. . 1392, 20 Mar 68 ) 291 4. Aan,,j"I cr CtERIK C QF- August 10, 1992 T-I rj C', Ty j r 4-H' 53 Mayor Jim Silva and Councilmembers of the City of Huntington Beach We are writing to you to express our views on the flexible barricades on CascadO-Lane at the City boundary with Westminster. We are definitely in favor of the closure. We can now really enjoy our- neighborhood. Traffic is light with very few cars going to fast. We can exit and enter our driveways in a safe manner. Our neighbors with small children or grandchildren can feel secure because our street is now quiet and safe., Entering or exiting Fashion Homes at Sugar and McFadden is also now a lot easier and safer because of the small amount of cars using that intersection. We appreciate your past support and hope that you will continue to support the closure at the City limits. Sincerely, The Lane Family.- Y"".,"rn- I 2 o4 PETITION TO HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL Dear Council Members, As homeowners and residents of Cascade Lane and Sugar Drive we are petitioning you to please keep a barricade at the es m ns er city limits where Cascade and Colgate meet. We finally . feel safe when we enter and exit our driveways and allow our children to play in their own front yards . We do not feel that the barricade has been in place long enough for people to change their habits because we still have people trying to use our streets as a shortcut and every day there are those who drive over the barricade. Please do not allow our residential streets to once again become thoroughfaresl Thank you. N ADDRESS �C 6� i r Cw Mnl A J/ 44ov &A 9-9- G V7 ell iS3 221 5/ � 1531 1- N,fi 4 %2G4 6-7 IS'-3a I c�9sc � w 7 7� r 1 D 'J11V3'HJV3E NOIO IAAH A0 Ali:i 43*H33N � 61 ` PETITION TO HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL Dear Council Members, As homeowners and residents of Cascade Lane and Sugar Drive we are petitioning you to please keep a barricade at the Westminster city limits where Cascade and Colgate meet. We finally feel safe when we enter and exit our driveways and allow our children to play in their own front yards . We do not feel that the barricade has been in place long enough for people to change their habits because we still have people trying to use our streets as a shortcut and every day there are those who drive over the barricade. Please do not allow our residential streets to once again become thoroughfares ! Thank you. NAME ADDRESS zz�— z z 1-52- l C s I-o 5:-;� L I q7 6 7 15d- 1 Cm C G V 7 is o 1 r/ -71 /OC 'O / &If"L r��� �s 9z C,15CA Z;>& LAz 1113 el';:� Vus flu '.�Il'G7';33V�1' NC,1�Nl1Nf1N :1� A11:1 N2#313 3H a3Ri3331! PETITION TO HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL Dear Council Members, As homeowners and residents of Cascade Lane and Sugar Drive we are petitioning you to please keep a barricade at the Westminster city limits where Cascade and Colgate meet. We finally feel safe when we enter and exit our driveways and allow our children to play in their own front yards. We do not feel that the barricade has been in place long enough for people to change their habits because we still have people trying to use our streets as a shortcut and every day there are those who drive over the barricade. Please do not allow our residential streets to once again become thoroughfares ! ,1 Thank you. NAME ADDRESS 2--Y-z-,m-�YL y-K —�P I sVZ2 ' 916� zz & 7 —V'? a_ 1 sY3 9�6 V7 J A 1AA 6 �-)l awA q-T&/-/ Ah , 4 311�r3'H37s2 14y19NIiNnH jp Alt:! ya313 ,lli3 03AID3H PETITION TO HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL Dear Council Members, As homeowners and residents of Cascade Lane and Sugar Drive we are petitioning you to please keep a barricade at the Westminster city limits where Cascade and Colgate meet. We finally feel safe when we enter and exit our driveways and allow our children to play in their own front yards . We do not feel that the barricade has been in place long enough for people to change their habits because we still have people trying to use our streets as a shortcut and every day there are those who drive over the barricade. Please do not allow our residential streets to once again become thoroughfares ! Thank you. NAME ADDRESS � 6 W" �r J� Z6. WV it 0I 115nv .,jnra,Ho,,rasj Hui.gwimnH 30 AliJ NU313 Ali3 OM333N MCI PETITION 7��,PlP S faT -4 C HUNTINGTON BEACH & WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCILS N c Dear Council Members, L T We, as homeowners oftlemple Streetl, want to thank the Huntington Beach City Council for erecting a barricade where Cascade and Colgate meet. Since the flexible barricade was installed we have enjoyed a much safer way of life. We no longer 'take our life into our hands ' every time we back out of our driveways . Our children once again feel safe riding their bikes and playing on their own front lawns . This petition is asking you to please not allow the barricade to be removed! Thank you. NAME ADDRESS Lon v� �ar,422 'All Go L� A = � — �-1"/1��. T1,��Qn�,�L_i� i 5 os� 'I2/►'�P1� �f• LyP�37�i�-� r�Sl2/�_� a (5OS �- rnP�. ST, wK sTiti,r�sTE-✓l, 1 � s n - �! ' • � h�u��G� I I 1� -T�(�f'l., S�. W�w�ih�er cal r ti 1 C Z GIs —4 PETITION = a Q =+ .. ��C". HUNTINGTON BEACH & WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCILS x Dear Council Members, We, as homeowners of Temple Street, want to thank the Hun$%ngton Beach City Council for erecting a barricade where Cascade and Colgate meet. Since the flexible barricade was installed we have enjoyed a much safer way of life. We no longer 'take our life into our hands ' every time we back out of our driveways . Our children once again feel safe riding their bikes and playing on their own front lawns . This petition is asking you to please not allow the barricade to be removed! Thank you. NAME ADDRESS oe Si 3Py T�.�r�v/r S� Gy�s�ti,„✓�fsa_ C�Z- 22-G l/v ! '/`l LE S r W C-S rm R CA ?-4-8 3 PETITION TO HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL 31 t�na,FeS Dear Council Members, .� As homeowners in the Fashion Homes Tract in the city of Huntington Beach, we wan you to -know t a we are happy with the barricade you installed on Cascade Lane at the Westminster cites rn limits . It has made the whole neighborhood a safer place to 1 e.- .- o This petition is asking you to please not remove the barricade z a Thank you. n. NAME ADDRESS 2Ct.z �G 17 �T Z� 12 2f,&&, 7 U? :7 !A 041V'46 -7 ZQ JW Fey - gxf 9264-7 ZLL'07 Chi t r� ?5�v w7 PETITION TO HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL Dear Council Members, As homeowners in the Fashion Homes Tract in the city of Huntington Beach, we want you to know that we are happy with the3, barricade you installed on Cascade Lane at the Westminster city limits . It has made the whole neighborhood a safer place to live,. This petition is asking you to please not remove the barricade! -< Thank you. �. v O r . m x � NAME ADDRESS :T P. A2f .. r 3 S Vs�( /`coo2 GdJN 26. 7 Z& I5 926 X e-5 2 J:�0/ AP ��7 From' : PHONE No. Au . 10 1992 8:48PM P01 17 Post-It"brand limo No.of Pager: 70dAy;6DulU Fax Transmittal Memo 7672 From / � `~ To ( ,nl5any �~ Tirf,r �', Az �A�� i�+t ._}.��° C l4GPlinn Dap1.L:liint}U I LUCRIiUn Fax# Telophone d, FaxTOIHp!ivi.4 Nei �� \ t , T Urioir+Al Pncuoy n [al Rwn call 10(p!OkUP Cnmrr,nM1tF t�t �ti I1apnnitiUll, � . \1 I�. �, ,� �� 1;R 1 �\ �_7"tiV_/k ��� �••V`� V4'►�Lti""lj 1"_Sf_�, 1.7.. t. �,:t CALIFORNIA COURT CASES HAVE DETERMINED CITY INSTALLATION OF BARRICADES ON REGIONALLY SIGNIFICANT STREETS TO BE IMPROPER!! fit"Ll �.'ORR CT THE INJUSTICE IMPOSED UPON US BY THE CITY COUNCIL s ATTEND AN ORGANIZING MEETING TO OPPOSE CONTINUATION OF THE TEMPORARY BARRICADES ON TUVRSDAY, AUGUST 13 7:00 P.M. AT 7631 WHITNEY DRIVE • ATTEND THE AUGUST 17 CITY COUNCIL MEETING — OUR ONLY OTHER RECOURSE MAY BE LEGAL ACTION LNIX- AXY,P3AC M. 7 19 . .............m. 4 Tz� •�,qW a is '• .1.9 '•k>;,.y:: �...•.' rs.., 3llY�`l9�1� N01;1Nt1NnH �G A1.I7 UU3:13 AW ©3A1303Lj 08710-92 09: 03PM P 0 1 -ppesAJ- H HOMEOWNERS FOR A SAFE CASCADE C Page 1 of 3 SEPTEMBER 16, 1991 '1 I"wd)e' -`3 S1 DEAR MAYOR GREEN, WE ON CASCADE WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT WE ARE VERY UPSET WITH YOUR LACK OF CONCERN FOR OUR HEALTH AND SAFETY AND WE WILL NOT BE PUT OFF FOR NINE MORE MONTHS. OUR TRAFFIC PROBLEM WAS BROUGHT TO THE CITIES ATTENTION A YEAR AGO -AND WE HAVE DONE EVERYTHING THE CITY- ASKED US TO DO AND WE STILL HAVE .OVER 2,000 CARS A DAY DRIVING DOWN OUR STREET AND YOU DON'T SEEM TO REALLY CARE! THE DECISION YOU MADE ON SEPTEMBER 3rd AFFECTS US AND OUR FAMILIES EVERY SINGLE DAY OF OUR LIVES. WE ON CASCADE LANE WILL DO EVERYTHING IN OUR POWER TO OVERTURN YOUR UNFAIR DECISION BECAUSE IT WAS BASED ON 'POPULAR VOTE' AND NOT ON HEALTH AND SAFETY! ! NOTE : SOME HOUSEHOLDS HAVE MORE THAN ONE SIGNATURE. OF THE 34 HOMES PETITIONED 28 SIGNED, 1 WASN' T HOME AND 5 DON ' T CARE. - NAME ADDRESS ,c 15441 Ouca& ,. . . Cu s 0Je Zf �� S' �Z -)j H S HOMEOWNERS FOR A SAFE CASCADE C Page 2 of 3 NAME ADDRESS z� �7 1 5 Z-t 0-6 17 t&o(. 152�j cq.5.cce Lqle_ dA,64J .. J, V7 d q mac.. -LDi�k . Q24 6-7 7,zy 7 Ulld//' ad HB _ k ,8 � 526V'-� H S HOMEOWNERS FOR A SAFE CASCADE C Page 3 of 3 NAME ADDRESS Z,W-1 W�. �17 T)U/ cS 3 c� 643 ) - c� L� Lam• _K_ � (71 645C-AD6=- L Av f5-3-7 Cas ca de 49 �Z � �As J. 6 asp L20 (fl c /--)f LJ g��y� H HOMEOWNERS FOR A SAFE CASCADE C Page 1 of 3 SEPTEMBER 16, 1991 DEAR MAYOR GREEN, WE ON CASCADE WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT WE ARE VERY UPSET WITH YOUR LACK OF CONCERN FOR OUR HEALTH AND SAFETY AND WE WILL NOT BE PUT OFF FOR NINE MORE MONTHS. OUR TRAFFIC PROBLEM WAS BROUGHT TO THE CITIES ATTENTION A YEAR AGO AND WE HAVE DONE EVERYTHING THE CITY ASKED US TO DO AND WE STILL HAVE OVER 2,000 CARS A DAY DRIVING DOWN OUR STREET AND YOU DON'T SEEM TO REALLY CARE! THE DECISION YOU MADE ON SEPTEMBER 3rd AFFECTS US AND OUR FAMILIES EVERY SINGLE DAY OF OUR LIVES. WE ON CASCADE LANE WILL DO EVERYTHING IN OUR POWER TO OVERTURN YOUR UNFAIR DECISION BECAUSE IT WAS BASED ON 'POPULAR VOTE' AND NOT ON HEALTH AND SAFETY! ! NOTE : SOME HOUSEHOLDS HAVE MORE THAN ONE SIGNATURE. OF THE 34 HOMES PETITIONED 2B SIGNED, 1 WASN' T HOME AND 5 DON ' T CARE. - NAME ADDRESS ,�..... . -yam r_"�.��,.�P ►. Al AS Tz_e PIZ mac. •�/ � �� H S HOMEOWNERS FOR A SAFE CASCADE C Page 2 of 3 NAME ADDRESS jz� 7 (Sz-7l C. q6t&61k 5? sc_ccd e Lai r l / L v l000l Gq7 I&Mi OryV6 d f 12:4 4 'l 7.Y9 7 Q4e�d(,Z4, J H S HOMEOWNERS FOR A SAFE CASCADE C Page 3 of 3 NAME ADDRESS �-- Ls C A 1 f OUP, A�J Is3� i �►-5��.��. c„ �a��7 -72 r - � Ali israoO6 e,4t,-Os %f3U (f oz IL H HOMEOWNERS FOR A SAFE CASCADE S C Page 1 of 3 SEPTEMBER 16, 1991 DEAR MAYOR GREEN, WE ON CASCADE WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT WE ARE VERY UPSET WITH YOUR LACK OF CONCERN FOR OUR HEALTH AND SAFETY AND WE WILL NOT BE PUT OFF FOR NINE MORE MONTHS. OUR TRAFFIC PROBLEM WAS BROUGHT TO THE CITIES ATTENTION A YEAR AGO AND WE HAVE DONE EVERYTHING THE CITY ASKED US TO DO AND WE STILL HAVE OVER 2,000 CARS A DAY DRIVING DOWN OUR STREET AND YOU DON'T SEEM TO REALLY CARE! THE DECISION YOU MADE ON SEPTEMBER 3rd AFFECTS US AND OUR FAMILIES EVERY SINGLE DAY OF. OUR LIVES. WE ON CASCADE LANE WILL DO EVERYTHING IN OUR POWER TO OVERTURN YOUR UNFAIR DECISION BECAUSE IT WAS BASED ON 'POPULAR VOTE' AND NOT ON HEALTH AND SAFETY! ! NOTE : SOME HOUSEHOLDS HAVE MORE THAN ONE SIGNATURE. OF THE 34 HOMES PETITIONED 28 SIGNED, 1 WASN' T HOME AND 5 DON'T CARE. - NAME ADDRESS o vw �.. l y`( �`.as-Q.�lyt /J• .� n Z-to �-���c���..�. �hr�,,c�k-en I��i�i I Caoc��e �► �-I . �. �2��- I` &1 2 h H HOMEOWNERS FOR A SAFE CASCADE S C Page 2 of 3 NAME ADDRESS • .i. /5� / 7,2�V (S z—i ( oAe 9, D c3--? 6 d. 9?9,8�L 162422 WA 9o7re,(�17 zy i r, ,5 e, 6,s(-ao� In . q&4q 7 G• r ..r � , ?,may 7 H S HOMEOWNERS FOR A SAFE CASCADE C Page 3 of 3 NAME ADDRESS 2Ae. 4 �17 Y" C._6� �Ci n , / G✓' ccL�� L 7-1 /0 41INZ 6:a �k �Lc_.l�`(.6.,�.�..��. �.L 1 'c,f/L:Il:/l.l) ��� Cv l l..•'(J�N�� 9�c �i�,E _ �-c. . / � S/ / / /I ail//;-�2�u.-� I i�����%� �>`� �:,�- �Gl/J�l�o c�i ✓:='lG•��� j-7 G176, H S HOMEOWNERS FOR A SAFE CASCADE C Page 1 of 3 SEPTEMBER 16, 1991 DEAR MAYOR GREEN, WE ON CASCADE WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT WE ARE VERY UPSET WITH YOUR LACK OF CONCERN FOR OUR HEALTH AND SAFETY AND WE WILL NOT BE PUT OFF FOR NINE MORE MONTHS. OUR TRAFFIC PROBLEM WAS BROUGHT TO THE CITIES ATTENTION A YEAR AGO AND WE HAVE DONE EVERYTHING THE CITY ASKED US TO DO AND WE STILL HAVE OVER 2,000 CARS A DAY DRIVING DOWN OUR STREET AND YOU DON'T SEEM TO REALLY CARE! THE DECISION YOU MADE ON SEPTEMBER 3rd AFFECTS US AND OUR FAMILIES EVERY SINGLE DAY OF OUR LIVES. WE ON CASCADE LANE WILL DO EVERYTHING IN OUR POWER TO OVERTURN YOUR UNFAIR DECISION BECAUSE IT WAS BASED ON 'POPULAR VOTE' AND NOT ON HEALTH AND SAFETY! ! NOTE: SOME HOUSEHOLDS HAVE MORE THAN ONE SIGNATURE. OF THE 34 HOMES PETITIONED 28 SIGNED, 1 WASN' T HOME AND 5 DON'T CARE. - NAME ADDRESS b �IV 154 cw14- cQ ► ''l c. (GPI L I H S HOMEOWNERS FOR A SAFE CASCADE C Page 2 of 3 NAME ADDRESS 7 Ll n 5 2 c-Cd e Lam f d. t6;2-5Q c-646c�, Z-Al 61 Lq 9 .4 l ,4j�R C q :z s HOMEOWNERS FOR A SAFE CASCADE c Page 3 of 3 NAME ADDRESS '.�Izzalol'l ,kq -A 41 . r H HOMEOWNERS FOR A SAFE CASCADE S C Page 1 of 3 SEPTEMBER 16, .1991 . DEAR MAYOR GREEN, WE ON CASCADE WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT WE ARE VERY UPSET WITH YOUR LACK OF CONCERN FOR OUR HEALTH AND SAFETY AND WE WILL NOT BE PUT OFF FOR NINE MORE MONTHS. OUR TRAFFIC PROBLEM WAS BROUGHT TO THE CITIES ATTENTION A YEAR AGO AND WE HAVE DONE EVERYTHING THE. CITY ASKED US TO DO AND WE STILL HAVE OVER 2,000 CARS A DAY DRIVING DOWN OUR STREET AND YOU .DON'T SEEM TO REALLY CARE! THE DECISION YOU MADE ON SEPTEMBER 3rd AFFECTS US AND OUR FAMILIES EVERY SINGLE DAY OF OUR LIVES. WE ON CASCADE LANE WILL DO EVERYTHING IN OUR POWER TO OVERTURN YOUR UNFAIR DECISION BECAUSE IT WAS BASED ON 'POPULAR VOTE' AND NOT ON HEALTH AND SAFETY! ! NOTE: SOME HOUSEHOLDS HAVE MORE THAN ONE SIGNATURE. OF THE 34 HOMES PETITIONED 28 SIGNED, 1 WASN' T HOME AND S DON ' T CARE. - NAME ADDRESS rM 1 r ' H HOMEOWNERS FOR A SAFE CASCADE S C Page 2 of 3 NAME ADDRESS 7 Ll r ' CZ 162 C&5�Z� Z-41 # 9RC,417 94 l0415'C 4 b c~411 . r17 lhq&,,q 7 4 /` r''ILI . ✓ ` %`. � 9? VV 1--1 S HOMEOWNERS FOR A SAFE CASCADE C Page 3 of 3 NAME ADDRESS i 47L� 611. L� Gc.z« 5 /.112 s c one- L A.J -71 i sdgao& LI3U r v LA� H HOMEOWNERS FOR A SAFE CASCADE S C Page 1 of 3 SEPTEMBER 16, 1991 DEAR MAYOR GREEN, WE ON CASCADE WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT WE ARE VERY UPSET WITH YOUR LACK OF CONCERN FOR OUR HEALTH AND SAFETY AND WE WILL NOT BE PUT OFF FOR NINE MORE MONTHS. OUR TRAFFIC PROBLEM WAS BROUGHT TO THE CITIES ATTENTION A YEAR AGO AND WE HAVE DONE EVERYTHING THE CITY ASKED US TO DO AND WE STILL HAVE OVER 2,000 CARS A DAY DRIVING DOWN OUR STREET AND YOU DON'T SEEM TO REALLY CARE! THE DECISION YOU MADE ON SEPTEMBER 3rd AFFECTS US AND OUR FAMILIES EVERY SINGLE DAY OF OUR LIVES. WE ON CASCADE LANE WILL DO EVERYTHING IN OUR POWER TO OVERTURN YOUR UNFAIR DECISION BECAUSE IT WAS BASED ON 'POPULAR VOTE' AND NOT ON HEALTH AND SAFETY! ! NOTE: SOME HOUSEHOLDS HAVE MORE THAN ONE SIGNATURE. OF THE 34 HOMES PETITIONED 28 SIGNED, 1 WASN' T HOME AND 5 DON' T CARE. . NAME ADDRESS �..�. 1 "�y�/ r'of a.�t�•c ,u. .� "Z. (o C A / cod r 4441 27 :j (a s•r -06- //-//z f H HOMEOWNERS FOR A SAFE CASCADE S C Page 2 of 3 NAME ADDRESS Ll 41. �n qZZ�q 7 9? 6(� 161 133it J ,� 6>C ale He) 61117 H S HOMEOWNERS FOR A SAFE CASCADE C Page 3 of 3 NAME ADDRESS 2, L r�., � %%-�-�-�- S� �c:,- �-�:tee,�=.C.� `• _ .� i-�'r?� Y. n H S HOMEOWNERS FOR A SAFE CASCADE C Page 1 of 3 SEPTEMBER 16, 1991 DEAR MAYOR GREEN, WE ON CASCADE WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT WE ARE VERY UPSET WITH YOUR LACK OF CONCERN FOR OUR HEALTH AND SAFETY AND WE WILL NOT BE PUT OFF FOR NINE MORE MONTHS. OUR TRAFFIC PROBLEM WAS BROUGHT TO THE CITIES ATTENTION A YEAR AGO AND WE HAVE DONE EVERYTHING THE CITY ASKED US TO DO AND WE STILL HAVE OVER 2,000 CARS A DAY DRIVING DOWN OUR STREET AND YOU DON'T SEEM TO REALLY CARE! THE DECISION YOU MADE ON SEPTEMBER 3rd AFFECTS US AND OUR FAMILIES EVERY SINGLE DAY OF OUR LIVES.. WE ON CASCADE LANE WILL DO EVERYTHING IN OUR POWER TO OVERTURN YOUR UNFAIR DECISION BECAUSE IT WAS BASED ON 'POPULAR VOTE' AND NOT ON HEALTH AND SAFETY! ! NOTE:- SOME HOUSEHOLDS HAVE MORE THAN ONE SIGNATURE. OF THE 34 HOMES PETITIONED 28 SIGNED, 1 WASN' T HOME AND 5 DON ' T CARE. - NAME ADDRESS n Al �V --, H HOMEOWNERS FOR A SAFE CASCADE S C Page 2 of 3 NAME ADDRESS Gz� � 7 (5Z`1 s a 4Z, Z2 n n cc l c Lime. �26Y y � Oxi L 1 �, .. : 2 ;��E.. >.�y ( s��acue H �� _ 6� 5,?6, v 14/ H S HOMEOWNERS FOR A SAFE CASCADE c Page 3 of 3 NAME ADDRESS 1V �h-- �7 1 n y � isA � '7 ZL /J, `� '%Y7�✓^�, C SGi L� 4 K L�66 41 7 .t;� '/S 37 1 (..�►-5 c a o�c., Cr. `�a 1.�7 �' A 04 :Pres4.4ed -n CP3,1 k l` We , the undersigned, believe that the use of the term �r1�1nc` "Surf City", is meaningless without banning "the blackball" that prohibits hard board surfing on city beaches within Huntington Beach dur=ing peak summer surfing -months. We p move against the city '._s use of the term "Surf City" unless i rQf - _ Huntington Beach allows hard board surfing on all city beaches , all day, three hundred. sixty five (36.5) days a year.- Furthermore , we believe that.'the city should use it_'s auspices S� to influence this' exTact policy on all state beaches within the- city limits. . 00, Name Address S ignature 0. 1• _lt�C�- , `,i'llfMfiy'� �'�•�•-1 ^i n c o��� 9 U4 b CA 9 3- ,4a. 4-y--7/U Cl I-:rl'* -Y *Oc g 5. 5 i I r . GAY6 t 2q A j 1T_ 5 ; CA) �z(O3U- 6. JoU ✓���� .13?S` 5fi)r �j ZE • Alt ` 9. Kai d w, 1 u 4 1, N�G�. c^ V \ 13. j �1G���1�� o -,c OU 15,. ne 16. 17• �. , Kee, JQ P.o . (�oX �3Z N-, 9 rS .1 .6.�: . 19. 20. 21. We , the un�zersigned , believe thp.t th'e use of the term "Surf City", is me,-ningless without b^nning "the b1-ckbe-11" th%-t prohibit: harrbo,--rd surfing on city beaches within Huntington Berch during peak summer surfing months . We move against the city 's use of the term "Surf City", unless Huntington Be_-ch allows hard boer(I surfing on all city beaches , all OPy , three hundred sixty five (365) deys a year. Furthermore , we believe that the city should use it 's auspices to influence this exact policy on all state beaches within the city limits . Name Address Signature /NQ6j 2. S�,awn �► S . M.Ke /-7 cF r f a k 4. (9avioi 61�5 �fzrn bi�u- Dy� A/,' Y<5 6. Air , a T2e � L-V Nt _ b c 6 12. L 2 Z r� 'T . 1r L) a - & � L :58h Z M r D�,..,QY 7i /�- g. /d p�6 Ye 6 14. i531 16. 17 . 120 r vim' �1 SGy► C,�_ � , Ace Are �� We , the un�'ersigned , believe that the use of the term "Surf City ", is me,-ningless without b=nning "the bl-ckba jl" th,-t prohibits hardbo,rd surfing on city beaches within Huntington Berch during pe?k summer surfing months . We move Pgainst the city 's use of the term "Surf City", unless Huntington Be-ch allows h^rd boprd surfing on all city beaches , all da.y, three hundred sixty five (365) days a year. Furthermore , we believe that the city should use it 's auspices to influence this exact policy on all state beaches within the city limits . Name Address Sin:�_ture 1. 11 2. Kel lei 6,4-BR o Sd' wy 4. ` - 6. 7- MofFy rlOsCK, 8. 7A`) I,050r> nn_��- 1(3. 9.10. ,.¢. 12. , u�vir 1 tQ i 3 b`r 1 �1►� _ P c.1r. �� 13 14. � � a �I�l deter ��.G(f4uA/Z_G✓�U. �jOG V ;77 15. 16. JG vd✓4 17•i� nnet` +tom is•Af r►L +j A%&i�JS19 . - -21. 1/ ,, f� 1 UV 1Ni @ Ct �(f t{ 1 1 > We , the un0ersignee , believe that the use of the term "Surf City", is me,ningless without b nning ".the blackbajl " th=t prohibits hardbo-rd surfing on city beaches within Huntington Be-ch during peak summer surfing months . . We move against the city 's use of the term "Surf City", unless Huntin;ton Be-ch allows h^rd board surfing on all city beaches , all ('ay, three hundred sixty five (365) dzys a yea.r. Furthermore , we believe that the city should use it 's auspices to influence this exact policy on all state beaches within the city I .Lmits .0 Name Address Signor ure 2. d htj P. Dfi i sCo/I 5CGS'OU,,(/wx 11i B. _ �QWX_/ 4• 0a / /WChGrs4G� #� C> pNj 6. � � . . _ 8. 14k)j ri 10. 11. r 13 o V tom. s--r CI • (,4 12. c 13 .15. // S 7s✓ ?L 61-' 7 16. ► �n r� I�oGw�er �v� Coro-(- '� IPjae 4cT7YZ) 18. GAR oa ch t 19. CI0�Q$ 20. 21. We , the un,4ersignec4 , believe thr t the use of the term "Surf City", is me,ningle s s without t;.nning "the bl?ckba jl" th,t prohibits- har('borrd surfing on- city beaches within Huntington Beech during peak summer surfing months . - We move ag=inst .the city 's use of the term "Surf City", unless Huntington Beech allows h^rd bo?rd surfing on all city beaches , all Opy, three hundred sixty five (365) days a year. Furthermore , we believe that the city should use it 's auspices to influence this exact policy on all state beaches within the city limits . Name Address_ qSj a Lure ,i2. A3S ro 19 5• Bea,4 lti11V,nnis --- 0br �n-f- �}- 9 t 6. . °S'z fe d ble �z6y6 F 7• Glnallv�a - —�- � E" sr ���T R��tc . 9aV,Y& 8. .� ,� � \ 9. Curt JoAhSor, 10. 120 r 13 . Oki S so f A ft. K__ Z(o qff �- 15 l� ST, 16. t t P�-. ._..1- PCs / ' -e5 TZ&27 C,a caps -q26 Z � �i�OZ1 � r 2�S /��Sbg-- 20. 21. r We , the un('ersi ned , believe thet the use of the term "Surf City", is me,ningless without benning "the ble-cicball " the t prohibits ha-rdbo,rd surfing on city beaches within Huntington Ber,ch during peak summer surfing months . We move ,-? inst the city 's use of the term "Surf City", unless Huntington Beech Mows h?rd boprd surfing on all city 'beaches , all dey , three hundred sixty five -065) dr�ys a year. Furthermore , we believe that the city should use it 's P.uspices to influence this exac.t _policy on all state beaches within the city limits . Name A44iress Si Mute [IDU 2. `V4t1J L- 3• OAA 1, �U�vJC�1a to l S e/-�bLA �n 7• Sri ly �I26 �l l��r ` �. l �eoa, (` „ S - � Q, � I. �OFF 9oZlo 9. Co M n� ��� lts�' � •13 Q26� sib 11. 3- RAWN Ogg--LL=.PS — f ZIPS Mciu/ Z0rf I*12. �fdiy q,C�1 f 9L6¢� 13.� 14. 15. 16. -DWI AJAlrCxtea'���� ��l►� �-v CSCA/\, .�A9Z&q� 18. Z,AwAL 19. 20. 21. ►ti sale , the undersigned , believe thp:t the use of the term "'Surf City", is meaningless without binning "the blackball" the t prohibits harrbo,rd surfing on city beaches within Huntington Be~ch during peak summer surfing months . We move P g?inst the city 's use of the term "Surf City", unless Huntington Be-•ch allows h^rd board surfing on all city beaches , all Oey, three hundred sixty five (365) d.•ys a year. Furthermore , we believe that the city should use it 's auspices to influence this exact policy on all state beaches within the city limits . Name Address Suture dl� -Ls u 3 • LIt )aE �1N6 ` 3 4. fn YgOlamd 6 C' -4,0 et 9z�a s 4 A, 7 qV PAI`9 -tt< e7 p Lz z a y A yls,U-&-_f I_�t M� 124 12 r's�IQ V. CA '2 YD 13.14. 64 16. DA1Pip GAIC(.oS _ l / �{( TiB C;XCLC-JoZ ILI. B- C.4 18. �4 San R-kyy e",e (lo 20 pa� v U z1. We , the un�lersi,gned , believe th2t the use of the term "Surf City", is me,ningless without b-nning "the blackball " th,t prohibits hardbo,rd surfing on city beaches within Huntington Beech during pe?k summer surfing months . We move against the city 's use of the term "Surf City", unless Huntington Beech allows herd boars? surfing on all city beaches , all clay, three hundred sixty five ( 365) days a year. Furthermore , we believe that the city should use it 's auspices to influence this exact policy on all state beaches within the city limits . Name Address Si ature 4To RCA H - 6, qA46 2. J 04N! ltire j r A I 4 1- fl.-D- 1a60 4. Gb 5. 8r(a nGr ,, 47. +iVMDM 4 8. tilbb mcG�� Riv�2 1 L+j 9. b 1•. -r/-Y-2)91M oZ� 12-To fir' $y � � r1 �.t� • 14.�. 13• eve 1,6?1-I-� 14. 30 DOD s � 15 ��L I a(Oq( 1F4tt&i\�j 16. MAQQM RR-P-MAAU0 17• ��-y ��c� t8o� Y��l� � �-Sz- . 3 1 e_ L4 a M S 6 18."R9 AuSA4ti 1 L, 19 !9T41 20. :.e�ovslkon�ccz_ &-L-Pj?4&M N 457- 7- 21. s We , the unr'ersi:gned , believe that the use of the term "Surf City", is meaningless without binning "the blackball" the t prohibits hardbo:rd surfing on city beaches within Huntington Be,-ch during peat/ summer surfing months . We move against the city 's use of the term "Surf City", unless Huntington Be-ch allows h^rd boerd surfing on all city beaches , all (ley, three hundred sixty five (365) de:ys a year. Furthermore , we believe that the city should use it 's auspices to influence this exact policy on all state beaches within the city limits . Name Address_ Si Pfl Lture z 3• � _ N(iTOAJ 0 �� t NG LE1 .I 5• - 6. 7• 8. 9• 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. - 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 07 Piersid a Lease Termnatl�nsubject, �or'GAIL HUTTON, Agency Counsel STATEMENT FOR CHAIRMAN OF REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PRIOR TO CLOSED SESSION DATE: October 7, 1991 1. THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY WILL RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 54956.9(a) TO CONFER WITH ITS ATTORNEY REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION WHICH HAS BEEN INITIATED FORMALLY AND TO WHICH THE AGENCY IS A PARTY. (CHECK ONE) The title of the litigation is Orange County Superior Court Case No. or Identification of such litigation would jeopardize the Agency's ability to effect service or process upon one or more unserved parties; or Identification of such litigation would jeopardize the Agency's ability to conclude existing settlement negotiations to its advantage. .2. X THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY WILL RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION TO CONFER WITH ITS ATTORNEY REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION: x 54956.9(b)(1) (There is a significant exposure to litigation.) 54956.9(b)(2) (The session is to decide whether a closed session is authorized.) 54956.9(c) (Council has decided to initiate or is deciding whether to initiate litigation. ) 3. THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY WILL RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 TO GIVE INSTRUCTIONS TO THE AGENCY'S NEGOTIATOR REGARDING NEGOTIATIONS WITH CONCERNING THE PURCHASE/SALE/EXCHANGE/LEASE OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1/15/88/1212L /a e Fo Subject: Driftwood v. City Jones v. City;• GAIL HUTTON, City attorney Performance v. City STATEMENT FOR MAYOR PRIOR TO CLOSED SESSION DATE: October 7 , 1991 1. X THE CITY COUNCIL WILL RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION PURSUANT TO' GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(a) TO CONFER WITH ITS ATTORNEY REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION WHICH HAS BEEN INITIATED FORMALLY AND TO WHICH THE CITY IS A PARTY. (CHECK ONE) X The title of the litigation is Driftwood v. City; Jones v. City; Performance v .City , Orange County Superior Court Case No. 6233p0663 or XH69H Identification of such litigation would jeopardize the City' s ability to effect service of process upon one or more unserved parties; or Identification of such litigation would jeopardize the City' s ability to conclude existing settlement negotiations to its advantage. 2. THE CITY COUNCIL WILL RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION TO CONFER WITH ITS CITY ATTORNEY REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION: 54956.9(b) (1) (There is a significant. exposure to litigation. ) 54956.9(b) (2) (The session is to decide whether a closed session is authorized. ) 54956.9(c) (Council has decided to initiate or is deciding whether to initiate litigation. ) 3. THE CITY COUNCIL WILL. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 TO GIVE INSTRUCTIONS TO THE CITY'S NEGOTIATOR REGARDING NEGOTIATIONS WITH CONCERNING THE PURCHASE/SALE/EXCHANGE/LEASE OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4. THE CITY COUNCIL WILL RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION TO MEET WITH ITS DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVES REGARDING LABOR RELATIONS MATTERS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.6. 5. THE CITY COUNCIL WILL RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION TO CONSIDER PERSONNEL MATTERS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957. 6. THE CITY COUNCIL WILL RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54056.7 TO MEET WITH AN APPLICANT FOR A CITY LICENSE AND THE APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY. 7. THE CITY COUNCIL WILL RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957 TO MEET WITH THE CHIEF OF POLICE REGARDING MATTERS OF PUBLIC SECURITY. 1/15/88-1545L • i� a �o Subject: Huntington BPar.h trc _ Settles Gail riUTTON, City attorney CI`ZC STATEMENT FOR MAYOR PRIOR TO CLOSED SESSION DATE: October 7 , 1991 1. X THE CITY COUNCIL WILL RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION PURSUANT TO* GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(a) TO CONFER WITH ITS ATTORNEY REGARDING PENDING- LITIGATION WHICH HAS BEEN INITIATED FORMALLY AND TO WHICH THE CITY IS A PARTY. (CHECK ONE) X The title of the litigation is Huntington Beach vs . Settles , Orange County Superior Court Case No. 57 45 97 ; or Identification of such litigation would jeopardize the City's ability to effect service of process upon one or more unserved parties; or Identification of such litigation would jeopardize the City's ability to conclude existing settlement negotiations to its advantage. 2. THE CITY COUNCIL WILL RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION TO CONFER WITS ITS CITY ATTORNEY REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION: 54956.9(b) (1) (There is a significant. exposure to litigation. ) 54956.9(b) (2) (The session is to decide whether a closed session is authorized. ) 54956.9(c) (Council has decided to initiate or is deciding whether to initiate litigation. ) 3. THE CITY COUNCIL WILL RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 TO GIVE INSTRUCTIONS TO THE CITY'S NEGOTIATOR REGARDING NEGOTIATIONS WITS CONCERNING THE PURCHASE/SALE/EXCHANGE/LEASE OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4. THE CITY COUNCIL WILL RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION TO MEET WITH ITS DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVES REGARDING LABOR RELATIONS MATTERS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.6, 5. THE CITY COUNCIL WILL RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION TO CONSIDER PERSONNEL MATTERS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION S4957. 6. THE CITY COUNCIL WILL RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54056.7 TO MEET WITH AN APPLICANT FOR A CITY LICENSE AND THE APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY. 7. THE CITY COUNCIL WILL RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957 TO MEET WITH THE CHIEF OF POLICE REGARDING MATTERS OF PUBLIC SECURITY. 1/15/86-1545L r ' !'►t y �Ao, 40 eptember 16, 1991 HOMEScouncil Agenda Item D-1 Honorable Peter Green, Mayor City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mayor Green: We respectfully request that the Council consider and approve the following substitute condition in place of Tracts 14007, 14009 and 14010 map conditions #5: In order to provide affordable housing, the applicant shall provide 29 residential units for families of moderate income. The applicant shall submit a specific proposal identifying housing type, location and implementation strategies which shall be approved by the Director of Community Development as to content and thoroughness prior to issuance of the first building permit for the tract. This condition may be satisfied by one of the following: 1. By constructing the units onsite. 2. By constructing the units offsite within the City of Huntington Beach. 3. By providing the units as part of an overall Holly Seacliff Affordable Housing Program, for the area covered by Development Agreement No. 90-1, approved by the City Council. The program dated August 1 1991 shall serve as the Holly Seacliff Affordable Housing Program) until formally acted upon by Council. In the event the Council does not formally act to approve the program by December 1, 1991, building permits will not be withheld if the applicant is working in good faith with the City on such a program. Thank you for your consideration. Sincere , William D. Holman 2120 Main St., No. 260, Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2499 (714) 960-4351 FAX (714) 969-3659 f cc: Members of the City Council Michael Uberuaga, City Administrator Connie Brockway, City Clerk Mike Adams, Community Development Director Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director Glenn Cardoso, Urban West Communities �I�j,h 0 A,J ��(1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH , Y-o MAYOR'S MEMO TO: City Council Members FROM: Peter Green, Mayor SUBJECT:AFFORDABLE HOUSING DATE September 16, 1991 COMMITTEE I am appointing Grace Winchell and Don MacAllister as Council representatives to the Affordable Housing Committee. PG:paj xc: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator s 109• CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ON MAYOR'S MEMO TO: City Council Members FROM: Peter Green, Mayor SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT TO THE COUNCIL/ DATE September 16, 1991 REDEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Since Redevelopment is a complex issue that I don't believe any of us fully understands, it is my feeling that the Council/Redevelopment Committee should be comprised of more experienced Councilmembers. With that criterion in mind, I would like to suggest that the past Mayor, Mayor Pro Tempore, and the present Mayor make—up the body of the __-- committee. The members would be Councilman Jack Kelly (Mayor, 1987), Mayor Pro Tempore Jim Silva, and myself. The Redevelopment Committee would be a standing committee of the Council, with membership changing automatically in December after the Mayor is seated. I appreciate your comments. PG:paj xc: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator September 13, 1991 Kirk Kirkland, Chairman Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach -2100 Main St. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 The Honorable Mayor Peter Green City of Huntington Beach 2100 Main St._ _Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Mayor. : — i am submitting to you the following names from the Planning Commission to serve on the Housing Affordability Committee: Shirley Dettloff, Ken. Bourginon. Both Ken and Shirley have indicated that a 7 : 00 AM meeting on Monday would be the most favorable time for them. I hope that' you can accomodate them. Sincer y yours, Kir irkland, Chairman, . Planning Commission HES CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK June 12, 1992 Mr. Bernard Glass 7651 Whitney Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92647-3033 Dear Mr. Glass: I am writing to you regarding your letter to Mayor Silva dated June 1, 1992 and to which the City Attorney responded by a letter dated June 5, 1992. I would like to inform you that the staff of the City Clerk's Office is available to assist you in locating any records you may require. There are certain records of which we have duplicates such as Council minutes .relative to the Cascade Lane subject for which there would be no charge. Please call should you have any questions, 536..5227. Sincerely yours, Connie Brockway, CMC City Clerk CB:me 1125K (Telephone:714536-5227) 1 t: OFFICE OF 'ING CITY ATTORNEY ry ``roe P.O.BOX 2740 �ArNTr�� 2000 MAIN STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA 92647 GAIL HUTTON TELEPHONE City Attorney (714)636-&%S FAX 714 374-1690 June 5, 1992 Mr. Bernard Glass 7651 Whitney Drive Huntington Beach, California 92647-3033 Re: Public Records Act Request Dear Mr . Glass: Thank you for your letter to Mayor Jim Silva dated June 1, 1992, regarding Public Records concerning Cascade Lane. A copy of your letter was referred to me by City Clerk Connie Brockway. The City' s public records are open to the public for inspection and copying pursuant to California Government Code Section 6250 et seq. The specific public records identified in your letter are primarily kept by the City Clerk. This includes all staff reports presented to the City Council, and videotapes of the City Council meetings . The current charge for documents is 25 cents per printed page side. Videotapes of City Council meetings are available for 25 dollars each. Planning Commission staff reports, and videotapes of Planning Commission meetings, are kept by the Department of Community Development. The same charges apply. Transportation Commission staff reports, and audiotapes of Transportation Commission meetings, are kept by the Public Works Department. Again, copies are available to the public for a nominal fee. I have been informed that videotapes of the City Council and Planning Commission meetings are available at the Central Library for check out. This may be a less costly alternative to purchasing copies-of-- the--video tapes from the City. r i Mr. Bernard Glass June 5, 1992 Page 2 As an additional cost-saving device, I suggest that you contact the individual City departments listed above to review the records prior to purchasing your copies. You may save a significant amount of money by avoiding some unnecessary duplication costs . If I can be of further assistance, please contact me at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, /(:_:��_ 911z�� Gail Hutton City Attorney cc: Mayor Jim Silva and members of the City Council Michael Uberuaga, City Administrator Mike Adams, Director of Community Development Connie Brockway, City Clerk Michael Dolder, Fire Chief Ronald Lowenberg, Chief of Police Lou Sandoval, Director of Public Works CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To Gail Hutton, City Attorney From Connie Brockway, City Clerk C.D Subject COMMUNICATION FROM BERNARD R. Date June 3, 1992 GLASS - FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST - CASCADE LANE The attached communication was received in the City Clerk's Office today and I have distributed, it to the City Council as requested by Mr. Glass. I have also distributed the communication to the Department Heads below. I am compiling the records requested of the Clerk's Office. CB:bt CC: Mayor & City Councilmembers Mike Uberuaga, City Administrator Lou Sandoval , Director of Public Works Mike Dolder, Fire Chief Mike Adams, Director of Community Development Ron Lowenberg, Police Chief " f RECEIVED CITY-CLERK C"TY OF NUNTINGTON oc%CN.CALIF. �u 13 June 1, 1992 Mr. Jim Silva, Mayor City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 and All Council Members re: Freedom of Information Act Request Dear Sirs/Madams: Under the provisions of the California Public Records Act, I am requesting access to all records in the City's possession regarding the closure of Cascade Lane. Said requests include but are not limited to all staff reports from the Fire Department; the Police Department; the Traffic Commissioner; the Department of Public Works; any and all environmental impact reports submitted on that issue, and transcripts of all City Council and Planning Commission meetings, and. Traffic Commission meetings wherein the closure of Cascade Lane was on the agenda. I am requesting this information based upon the recent construction of temporary barricades at the end of Cascade Lane, thereby closing off the street, between Huntington Beach and Westminster. Said information will be utilized to allow proper discovery with regards to anticipated litigation on the closure of the street. As you know the Act permits you to reduce or waive fees when the release of this information is considered as primarily benefitting the public. I believe this request fits that category and I therefore ask that you waive any fees. If all or any part of this request is denied, please cite the specific exemRtions which you think justify your refusal to release the information, and inform me of the appeal procedures available to me under the law. . , r . Mr. Jim Silva, Mayor June 1, 1992 Page Two I would appreciate your handling this request as quickly as possible, and I look forward to hearing from you within 10 days as the law stipulates. Sincerely, RPM:ca SILVA.6 Bernard R.Glass 7651 Whitney Drive Huntington Bch. ,CA 92647-3033 Hm: (714) 892-4270 Wk: (310) 532-8951 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION t HUNTINGTON BEACH 1 V� To Gail Hutton, City Attorney From Connie Brockway, City Clerk C_$ Subject COMMUNICATION FROM BERNARD .R. Date June 3, 1992 GLASS - FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST - CASCADE LANE The attached communication was received in the City Clerk's Office today and I have distributed it to the City Council as requested by Mr. Glass. I have also distributed the communication to the Department Heads below. I am compiling the records requested of the Clerk's Office. CB:bt CC: Mayor & City Councilmembers Mike Uberuaga, City Administrator Lou Sandoval, Director of Public Works Mike Dolder, Fire Chief t-Mike Adams, Director of Community Development Ron Lowenberg, Police Chief C�Y Yl�i �fi� 1b's 5 Lyl SS i Ni RECENE6 CITY CLERK HUH i►;c'��;Y O CH.C-t_lf. �UH 13 Q '�2 June 1, 1992 Mr. Jim Silva, Mayor City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 and All Council Members re: Freedom of Information Act Request Dear Sirs/Madams: Under the provisions of the California Public Records Act, I am requesting access to all records in the City's possession regarding the closure of Cascade Lane. Said requests include but are not limited to all staff reports from the Fire Department; the Police Department; the Traffic Commissioner; the Department of Public Works; any and all environmental impact reports submitted on that issue, and transcripts of all City Council and Planning Commission meetings, and Traffic Commission meetings wherein the closure of Cascade Lane was on the agenda. I am requesting this information based upon the recent construction of temporary barricades at the end of Cascade Lane, thereby closing off the street, between Huntington Beach and Westminster. Said information will be utilized to allow proper discovery with regards to anticipated litigation on the closure of the street. As you know the Act permits you to reduce or waive fees when the release of this information is considered as primarily benefitting the public. I believe this request fits that category and I therefore ask that you waive any fees. If all or any part of this request is denied, please cite the specific exemptions which you think justify your refusal to release the information, and inform me of the appeal procedures available to me under the law. Mr. Jim Silva, Mayor June 1, 1992 Page Two I would appreciate your handling this request as quickly as possible, and I look forward to hearing from you within 10 days as the law stipulates. Sincerely, RPM:ca SILVA.6 Bernard R.Glass 7651 Whitney Drive Huntington Bch. ,CA 92647-3033 Hm: (714) 892-4270 Wk: (310) 532-8951 y RECEIVED CITY CLERX C: TY GF HUNTINST^` ='C`+.CALIF. April 10 , 1992 APR 13 $ 17 LIM 192 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members : Thank you for the time and consideration in your decision to put barricades C & D back to a public hearing item. This gives us all a chance to re-evaluate and consider our options . It allows us , the residents , to voice our opinions . It allows you to further investigate the consequences of C & D. Please take into consideration that 2 , 200 cars is a low estimate of the results that C & D would produce . This number was provided to us by Jim Otterson' s office and it ' s still too many! Solve Cascade' s problem ---please don' t expand it ! I hope for all of our sakes , Cascade ' s and the rest of us , that you recind C & D. Although barricade A isn' t the ideal , it does give the t y\righ and��fair�'result . Sharing a hazard isn' t' right and it isn't "fair`. Please make the\right° choice . Thank you for your time , once again, and your attention to our situation. ySincerely;&"r , &-S—f ,„ O rL Mary V. Ostrowski 15292 Shasta Lane Huntington Bch. , CA 92647 C� 2 RECEIVED , CITY CLERK 7- C=TY OF HUNTtNGT(%ti Rc.'.Cti,CALiF. �PR 1 10 22i C�o 3° � rAzt >- , d U" 0141, t {� �C4 • � U xk - 1 , v s &-A- 0, d � -Ql/ e C2 , .w 7631 Whitney Drive Huntington Beach, Ca 92647 ,O 33 _ April 9, 1992 �t Mayor James Silva j City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Dear Mayor Silva and Members of the City Council, I am deeply concerned with the manner in which the Cascade traffic situation is being handled by the Council! Specifically, I am concerned with the attempt that was made at the April 6 Council meeting to have one of the presenters of the petition for public hearing select individuals to speak before the Council. This was as obvious an attempt to restrict free speech and impeach upon the rights of residents as I have ever seen. Although perhaps well intended and an attempt to save time, this actions was completely out of line and against the basic tenants of our democratic system! I am equally concerned about the apparent disregard the Council has for the basic safety of all residents of this tract. Any action which will leave this housing area with only one means of ingress and egress blatantly disregards our basic safety. Without two methods of entering and exiting this area, you will force all traffic to use McFadden and Sugar which is, at best, an unsafe intersection. Years ago this was the only exit and, although there was considerably less traffic at that time, it was still difficult and unsafe to use that intersection. Perhaps you should review the accident report from the traffic accident that occurred there on Friday, April 3. Perhaps, if you could have seen the congestion caused by people attempting to see a traffic accident on the San Diego Freeway on Saturday, March 28, you would better understand the situation. To elaborate, there was an accident on the San Diego Freeway at approximately 3:00 P.M. Traffic stopped all over McFadden so people could walk to the Freeway overpass to view the incident. Cars were parked all along McFadden and down Sugar and it was impossible to safely enter or exit the tract. Admittedly, people do strange things but this was a situation out of control. Have you really considered all alternatives? The City of Westminster installed speed bumps on Vermont to solve a problem similar to that on Cascade. They work, the residents are satisfied. Huntington Beach disagrees saying that there is potential liability and that the speed bumps can cause damage to emergency equipment. Does Westminster procure their equipment from different sources (since there are only three manufactures of fire trucks in the U.S. ) and is the basic liability any different across the city line? If liability is a major concern, consider how deep your pockets will have to be with the increased number of traffic w accidents that you will potentially be causing at the McFadden- Sugar intersection. The basic problem can be simply summarized as a situation where rights have gone wild. Cascade residents believe they have certain rights but so do we others who live in this tract and oppose the installation of Barricade A which endangers our safety. The presenters of the recent petition showed little interest in the situation until they suddenly realized that they may have to share some of the load of your compromise solution. They now claim that they have rights. What about the vast majority of residents who responded to your survey and stated that they did not favor barricades? Apparently we do not have rights. Since this has now reached a new level of assinity, perhaps you should consider a barricade at McFadden and Sugar as an alternative. We could then be perhaps the only Huntington Beach tract that could not exit its area through Huntington Beach - we would have to exit through Westminster. Installation of a stop light at McFadden and Sugar would be an absolute disaster! You do not need to study the situation for long to realize that the speed of vehicles going over the freeway overpass far exceeds the ability to safely stop at a traffic light. This again raises the liability issue. Review the situation carefully. You will have to acknowledge that there were misrepresented petitions; there was a open and fair public survey which overwhelmingly stated that the majority of residents do no want any barricade; you have had a staff report stating that the currently installed stop signs are working and that they recommend that the signs be left in place; you fire chief has stated that he does not favor barricades; you have been presented with statistical data which showed how barricades would slow emergency vehicle response time - and the list goes on. Bring this issue to a quick and equitable closure. The situation has openly divided the neighborhood into two camps. Friends are not longer friends, it is no longer considered safe to even go walking around the neighborhood, I have personally received hate mail because I oppose the Cascade desires. You are faced with a difficult solution with only one seeming compromise - Barricades C&D. Regardless of your decision, this issue will drag on before the City Council for many more years since one or the other camps involved in the situation will undoubtedly be before you at each meeting regardless of how you decide the issue. Lastly, can we really expect a decision at the April 20 meeting as you have stated? How can you, as a group, absorb the information that will be presented and analyze the facts to reach an on-the- spot decision? What will be the City staff' s input or position? What I am really asking is how much longer does this have to go on? N I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this issue with any of you. I may be reached at (310) 640-1050 during my normal office hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m or at 897-6617 in the evenings. Respectfully, Fre er ck - pates RECEIVED CITY CLERK CITY OF HUkiltt,7 4 c=;^N,C'ALIF.' 7631 Whitney Drive APR 1J 10 33 AN Huntington Beach, CA 92647 G April 9, 1992 7 - Mayor Silva and Councilmembers CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH City Hall 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: APRIL 20, 1992 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE INSTALLATION OF TEMPORARY BARRICADES ON NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS Dear Mayor Silva and Councilmembers, The attached article pertaining to "When Rights Run Wild" appears to have direct application to the various views concerning the Cascade issue and may enlighten you in the process of reaching an equitable solution. Originally, the Cascade issue was up for re-evaluation in June but -due to the pressure exerted by some residents on Cascade, the date for reconsideration was moved up to March and now April. The City of Westminster solved a similar traffic problem to ours in a large tract with four exit/entrances on Vermont Street by installing well marked wide speed bumps, and to my knowledge the residents are not unhappy with their City' s permanent solution. This was a shortcut from McFadden and Gothard to three-quarters of the way north on Goldenwest Street towards Bolsa Avenue. The stop signs and white lines installed last May have regulated the behavior of the traffic throughout the neighborhood and cut the volume somewhat. There have been no complaints to my knowledge from our Westminster neighbors in regard to the stop sign installed at Temple/Colgate or the white lines directing traffic to stay within the lanes in either direction. The only other option available to us to cut volume further is barricades and hopefully- with the two temporary interior barricades, if installed, we should see results similar to those on Vermont Street in Westminster. My question is what reduction in volume of traffic are we aiming for and who is in charge of determining the resolution? Suppose the two interior barricades rid us of cut through traffic, yet the volume of traffic is still not satisfactory to some residents and we end up in a futile search for Utopia. On the issue of children's safety, most neighbors on our street use to repeatedly caution their school age children on their way to Land School to cross Cascade at a point where the children and C oncoming traffic could be seen. Back then our preschoolers were in their backyards or houses and not out front without adult supervision until they were reasonably ready and responsible. In years past we took a lot of aggrevations ( speedsters, suspect drug problems, the attempted nabbing of a child from the school grounds, etc. ) in stride and educated our children to the dangers. I 've written two previous letters against being left with one exit/entrance to the tract, thus I won't reiterate. Sincerely, Claudia Spa es Back Talk Men RIGHTS Run Wild If people pursue their "inalienable rights" at any cost, generally it's the rest of us who pay the price. BY SUSAN JACOBY JIM starting to cover my off some of life's disap `=_-- 'r girls,now have a chance ears whenever I hear pointments to simple ;r` "" to play on Little League another dissatisfied bad luck. _ baseball teams. There's American belliger- While researching an no reason why 10-year- ently demanding some new "right." article on new treat- old girls and boys can't A friend of mine is being relentlessly ments for infertility, I in- hit, run, throw and have pursued—and threatened with a law- terviewed a woman who fun on the same team. suit—by the woman who gave her up for was planning to sue her But then there's the girl adoption 35 years ago and now insists insurance company be- who's fighting for the she has a grandmother's right to know cause it refused to pay right to play on a junior- her grandchildren. for any more attempts at high football team. To When my neighborhood librarian test-tube fertilization (at $20,000 a me, it seems obvious that contact tries to get a homeless man, who reeks try). She'd already been reimbursed for sports for adolescents are entirely dif- of alcohol and snores loudly, to leave, more than $100,000 of treatments, ferent from noncontact sports for kids. he snarls, "I have as much right to be and her doctor said she was a poor can- It's senseless to talk about this girl's here as anyone else." didate for further attempts to conceive. rights when the real issue should be The evening news features an end- I asked this woman why she didn't safety and fun. less procession of the rights-ob- consider adopting a child—she was al- The worst thing about rights inflation sensed—convicted child abusers who ready 40 years old—instead of filing a is that it encourages people to make want more babies; drunk drivers out- lawsuit. "It's my fundamental human competing claims instead of seeking raged by Breathalyzer tests at road- right to have a baby," she declared. solutions for problems.The continuing blocks; lawyers fighting for the "free- "The insurance company, by refusing battle between smokers and nonsmok- dom" of the mentally ill to refuse to pay, is taking that away from me." ers offers a perfect example. treatment and live in the street. And This is a perfect example of rights in- I recently watched a couple threaten let's not forget the right to live and the flation. It is, of course, a fundamental to sue a restaurant owner because he right to die—with everyone trying to en- human right to try to have a baby with- had mistakenly filed their reservation force his or her definition of exactly out interference from the state. That's in his smoking section. The no-smok- when those rights begin and end. why we're so horrified at the Chinese ing section was already full, so he of- Enough! This isn't what our forefa- government's policy of forcing women fered the couple a choice:a table in the thers had in mind when they enshrined to have abortions in orderto limit popu- small smoking area or an hour's wait the concept of individual rights in the lation growth. (with dinner on the house in either Constitution and Declaration of Inde- But the right to try to conceive—to case). The enraged couple wasn't pendence. In the latter document, pursue the happiness of parenthood— about to accept what I considered a the Founding Fathers asserted that all doesn't mean society owes every wom- sensible solution;the husband insisted Americans are endowed with the rights an a baby. I understand the pain of be- that all smoking should be banned for to ''Life, Liberty and.the Pursuit ing physically unable to have a child, the night. "But what about the rights of of Happiness." but I don't think the rest of us are the people in the smoking section?" But too many Americans have twist- obliged to provide unlimited financial the owner asked plaintively. ed the sensible right to pursue happi- support for what may prove to be an im- Forget about anyone else's rights. ness into the delusion that we are enti- possible dream. These people had booked a no-smoking tled to a guarantee of happiness. If we Where do this woman's rights end? table, and they had a right to one. don't get exactly what we want, we When her insurance company has There was no room in their world for an assume that someone else must be vio- spent $200,000? When other policy- honest mistake—just as there is no lating our rights. holders have watched their premiums place in the mental world of many Many people blame this "rights in- skyrocket to cover the cost of her high- Americans for any kind of bad luck. flation"on lawyers because they stand tech attempts to conceive? It's time for us to grow up and stop Er to collect fat fees whenever anyone Regardless of the issue, there is no taking a conspiracy view of every disap- o takes a new injustice to court. But I room for compromise, common sense pointment. We all have the right to suspect the lawyers are only respond- and courtesy when people pursue what dream, but none of us is entitled to a Q ing to our unrealistic expectations.As a they consider their rights at any cost. guarantee that all of our dreams will o people, we're no longer willing to write I am thrilled,for instance,that young come true. m 162 WOMAN'S DAY 3/10/92 17 E C E FV E 4A —P 7 f.y clt� 1— b n -T OFI Al IF W kJ 11b I I I is � L-Yk�'Y-1 U L-11 --t-4-4 IS _C .,,j.4— ol 6 -T ll' jtlj WW 21A, Al F L-L—L At-�!PA 6r-�- 4- - --------------------- fin 12, LI10 z z "l-L)'OUS/--'L--) 7Z ki-S 42CA- -i A22 96 - C,v�r z r a r c- /r� ,e�__IDdInS (I,, d �- r- 14--,L,7JO /D/OZ/2 xj 0 7 lq11 j s i 0- U-S e? 6-o,i 0 A I 1 ' RECEIVED CITY CLERK C{T� OF HUNTI• L, om 9Ekf.4 1 l . -91 - 1 . 1 G�� ff 'y ;JC Z. G bG"�S • �3 L - /-S Eyc Jam. /-7 rZ- Tv _ w---? - - -- - -- --- 6�u-L---3- - - `T u s- '`J-- A ct FI;U(7A-C__. -- - - - --=tom CDv2- -= S , i_AJ !L - -- - - ---A---------- o- - - LJL-pC��.� d-�-T' :r_ _ ti /2�_- - --C4 r /-/Y+S - 70 LZ Us -fit/ - - - i7LV -n xi v ► _ Cki t. �?�v C�� P , i r_r t2.� Ci�c � s A-)COAJV&�-A) t &-A-) 4 O-F c( tA • � x • y.y zy F So April 15 1992 c z City Council Members $ City Clerk, City hall 2000 Main Street ® ;a rn Huntington Beach, CA 92648 -n;0Q r Dear Friends, N I own the home on 15421 Cascade, Huntington Beach, and have followed the concerns and actions of neighbors and the cities involved. It is unthinkable to me that the problem should continue to burden us for the next generation or two, or even the next century. Yet the only way it can possibly be solved is to make the connection between Hoover and Gothard Streets. I 'm sure this is expensive and you can think of many reasons not to do it, but the problem will not disappear by band aid techniques. While the steps that have been taken seem artificial, they appear to have helped a little. We are certainly opposed to closing off access to the street so that we would not have an option to enter or exit our tract from both McFadden and Bolsa streets. If the council decides that the only way to temporarily resolve the problem (I emphasize temporarily) i-s to barricade, then let -it be a gate so local residents may have an opener and combination. Thanks for your service and attention to the problem. rn nch cade Ln. ;- Huntington Beach, CA 92647 C11TV C CITY CC �.. . . s8o,5� Ceti yEr VL 01 �.�y flF �a��F•t> HVUSItd�1�N BCkC�' . u �aR MEMORANDUM L/ DATE: March 30, 1992 TO: Connie Brockway, City Clerk FROM: Janice Hansen, 15301 Shasta Lane , Huntington Beach RE: Petition to rescind Barricades C & D in the vicinity of Cascade Lane Attached please find eight pages of signatures from residents of the tract which includes Cascade Lane . The petition reads as follows: We, as residents of Whitney Drive, Cascade Lane, Shasta Lane, Rushmoor Lane, Everest Circle, Etna Circle, Cottonwood Circle, and Sugar Avenue , request that the Huntington Beach City Council rescind the decision made on March 2 , 1992 to erect Barricades C & D in our community. We request that this issue be placed on a Public Hearing agenda and that written notification of Hearing dates be given to all residents . The 150 signatures gathered may be broken down as follows : 93 households represented 8 households declined 12 households were not at home 2 households were undecided 1 for rent 1 vacant In meeting with residents of Homeowners For a Safe Cascade on March 22 , 1992 , it was requested that Cascade homeowners be able to represent themselves orally before Council at the April 6 meeting. This request was honored by petitioners , therefore Cascade is not included on this petition. I respectfully submit this petition to you and request that it be included in the April 6 staff report packet to allow City Council to review it before the meeting . Thank you for your assistance . cc : Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator PETITION We, as residents of Whitney Drive, Cascade Lane, Shasta Lane, Rushmoor Lane, Everest Circle, Etna Circle, Cottonwood Circle, and Sugar Avenue, request that the Huntington Beach City Council rescind the decision made on March 2, 1992 to erect Barricades C & D in our community. We request that this issue be placed on a Public Hearing agenda and that written notification of Hearing dates be given to all residents. Print Name Signature Address 44-7*— 50� . . . . . .l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . r1Gf'� Ce77 D!Q, . . . . . . . .. . . •� \ • N w 0-a� uR . 1�✓41.:'.�u..r:`'. ./ . �.T��y 1�'Y4 . .�r^:`�!�'�-.�����: ���ol. . �!J. �i7 c-J or�� . � . .�<•Kam. . ot 7711 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . �?�. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �.` `.� . . . . . . . . . . . . s3�� S�AsTA �': �3 . . . . . . 9Z. T . . . 1 PETITION We, as residents of Whitney Drive, Cascade Lane, Shasta Lane, Rushmoor Lane, Everest Circle, Etna Circle, Cottonwood Circle, and Sugar Avenue, request that the Huntington Beach City Council rescind the decision made on March 2, 1992 to erect Barricades C & D in our community. We request that this issue be placed on a Public Hearing agenda and that written notification of Hearing dates be given to all residents. Print Na a S' ture Address 11��R � �/SOS :z �1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 'C�.. /��.FA-kl-p�L� -'Wlf pe Vnc . . . . . . . . . ` . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -SL'-Z /-)n A& iv) A-. '?e :``� . . . . . . . . . . . . I.- .7to• �/� .�E-? A n f`n A e,n 7 . . . . . �' 7. . . . . . . 76 Y , wa. . r no P2— v« s�. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .� �... . ../... . . . . . .6 . .� . . . _ . JPr .�} . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Y )4 Lis � ; -us. . . . . . . . . . . . ��JA . .d4A�.-.E� . . . . . . . /. . 1 QQ . . . . . . . . .?�1. 1 . �C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .� �h.. . .V�� 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . ! . a PETITION We, as residents of Whitney Drive, Cascade Lane, Shasta Lane, Rushmoor Lane, Everest Circle, Etna Circle, Cottonwood Circle, and Sugar Avenue, request that the Huntington Beach City Council rescind the decision made on March 2, 1992 to erect Barricades C & D in our community. We request that this issue be placed on a Public Hearing agenda and that written notification of Hearing dates be given to all residents. Print Name Signature Address . r�.. . . . . . . . . . . . k . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ��4'1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-.J)7 1 y14 _ N . ?A LT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .i. .. . . . � r. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �jv . . . . � C � . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �sM 6{2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . � . �?,�. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77 /,q l . . . . . . .r. . . . . . . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -�/ h � �� TIJ /5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 � .� `7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �. �9 ,lil ��.. �!1 .('.�:` . . . . . . . . . . . . �: lam/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Wei. E 'z/c. . . . . . . . . . . . . �. . r / . . . . . . . . . . . LC . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.qr� Y 44. . . . . . . . . . . . . c3 3 7 i PETITION P We, as residents of Whitney Drive, Cascade Lane, Shasta Lane, Rushmoor Lane, Everest Circle, Etna Circle, Cottonwood Circle, and Sugar Avenue, request that the Huntington Beach City Council rescind the decision made on March 2, 1992 to erect Barricades C & D in our community. We request that this issue be placed on a Public Hearing agenda and that written notification of Hearing dates be given to all residents. IV\ Print Name Signature Address . . . . . . . . ,. . . . . . . . . S/y,G'STti' L�i./ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .�. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . � ( . . . . .` V . , l l .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . C�a . . .�.�. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .� . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WIIV,vU-,� . . . . . . Qr2c� c r 7� . -4j!! VP/1 i�� i � . . . . 9u� . J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .i►�.. . . . . q, � . . . . . �- . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 PETITION We, as residents of Whitney Drive, Cascade Lane, Shasta Lane, Rushmoor Lane, Everest Circle, Etna Circle, Cottonwood Circle, and Sugar Avenue, request that the Huntington Beach City Council rescind the decision made on March 2, 1992 to erect Barricades C & D in our community. We request that this issue be placed on a Public Hearing agenda and that written notification of Hearing dates be given to all residents. Print Nam/e� Signature Address , ) . �►�-`.� . C�.s�?�.T).�s 1.=. � . .�✓�: . . (./s UL.c� � . . . . !�/.�. .` -sue-. . ALE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �s3y� .!Q�S . SIVA Cdf� lc5rTf N r- Co4(f MfjA/ = DO V G J� -PAO.]�)Jg-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,, EaAao' / 5 3(o a- tea, 0._ ►., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444 . . . . . . . . . . .I . �. �/, �/ . . . . . �5. �� . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . &4a, hc� . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .� . . . /. . .�. . . . . . . . ./.�:�:�-! l �.s� oo�� cry . ��:r . . . . . . . /. S .`Of . 4AJ 5 p PETITION We, as residents of Whitney Drive, Cascade Lane, Shasta Lane, Rushmoor Lane, Everest Circle, Etna Circle, Cottonwood Circle, and Sugar Avenue, request that the Huntington Beach City Council rescind the decision made on March 2, 1992 to erect Barricades C & D in our community. We request that this issue be placed on a Public Hearing agenda and that written notification of Hearing dates be given to all residents. Print Name Signature Address U d4 4 I-r"eyq A % 4 ANt�o 4- 2UAIVV,<� . . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . �e. . !C . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ -76¢a. Gv�ffi Thy .� : . . . . . %fz Z8T . . .�. . . -7 . vim - �J� . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . QA PP . . . ram'. . .. . . . . . . . . . . .fi . .�c w S. . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 'S.67/ Ca fi�,v�6 C/� . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ` . �-- ./.Sz`??:. . . . . . . . . . . . �� `/.�. . . . . L. . . . ��ti?-e- . . . . .�S3 7/ �l�s/ce fry 60 ram. . . . . ( . . l53`�� C� - rt a d CO' . (t Y l . . . . . . . . . .`�' N.' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . •l 4 l` . . . . g'rAv . . . . . .ESL .. . . . . . . . . . ./. . . . .! cL*r. a Kits) �� I .V 1 PETITION We, as residents of Whitney Drive, Cascade Lane, Shasta Lane, Rushmoor Lane, Everest Circle, Etna Circle, Cottonwood Circle, and Sugar Avenue, request that the Huntington Beach City Council rescind the decision made on March 2, 1992 to erect Barricades C & D in our community. We request that this issue be placed on a Public Hearing agenda and that written notification of Hearing dates be given to all residents. Print Name ,_ Signature Address .6*�l . .� .,�. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �i. . �t� . � . . . . . . . . . � . � . . . . . . . . . Sal 2-1 5 ff� �"�1 0�: . -? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L,Gi--J' `/` 5 cl 3 f I ayn�►, a-rc�a- �,y� 1� �► � .n.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '"`'`NV. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . � -?: .00ACW\.A L-LU3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cy. �. . . . . . . U�..l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . t`�� : . . . . . . . . . 4 e/All . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77.E I . &A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .) �w. .4��'.J . . . . . . . . 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . U . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 . �✓. �?�w . . . . ,9Nuo,� . . . . . ?6`11. ,Eveees�- . . . . . . . . . . ... 9/ _ vices e1 e . . . . au: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `. . .. . . . . . . U cot- Y • ' PETITION 1 C D i We, as residents of Whitney Drive, Cascade Lane, Shasta Lane, Rushmoor Lane, Everest Circle, Etna Circle, Cottonwood Circle, and Sugar Avenue, request that the Huntington Beach City Council rescind the decision made on March 2, 1992 to erect Barricades C & D in our community. We request that this issue be placed on a Public Hearing agenda and that written notification of Hearing dates be given to all residents. Print Name Signature Address �S� �. . o�,4,� . . . . . . . . . . . . ��. . .77at w//Jrlyi5y #474. .�. -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . REQUEST FOR C3 —COUNCIL ACTION a low. March 2, 1992 Date Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Admin' / Z Prepared by: Louis F. Sandoval, Director, Public Works Department Subject: UPDATE TO SEPTEMBER 3, 1991 MEETING REGARDING CASCADE LANE AREA TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Consistent with Council Policy? [ X ] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: / J STATEMENT OF ISSUE: On September 3, 1991, the City Council requested that Public Works Staff monitor traffic conditions resulting from placement of STOP controls at several intersections within the Cascade Lane area. RECOMMENDATION: Leave the existing all-way STOP controls and striping in place. ANALYSIS The data attached is a comparison of all data collected in this area as requested by the City Council. Traffic volumes and vehicle speeds have remained approximately equal for typical times of the year. Traffic Engineering has not received any complaints regarding intersection right-of-way assignment or of motorists traveling on the wrong side of the street after the STOP controls and street striping were installed. STOP controls and street striping were installed to mitigate these prior complaints and discourage through traffic in the neighborhood. As a result of STOP sign and striping placement, this type of errant motorist behavior has virtually disappeared, thus leaving existing controls in place is the recommended action. If the City Council's intent is to significantly reduce through traffic in the neighborhood, a barricade system would need to be considered. A review of the collected traffic volume data reveals a small reduction (approximately 100 vehicles per day) in through traffic at the Huntington Beach/Westminster boundary. The barricade installation options presented at the September 3, 1991 council meeting approach the problem from three different perspectives. BARRICADE A: Install a street closure at the city boundary between Huntington Beach and Westminster (Please see barricade vicinity map for barricade location A). This will eliminate access to Bolsa Avenue for Huntington Beach residents and eliminate access to McFadden Avenue for Westminster residents while significantly lowering traffic / , volumes on Cascade Lane. Emergency vehicle response times will likely be significantly increased if this street closure is installed. This option is represented as Question No. 6 on the Cascade Lane Neighborhood Traffic Conditions Questionnaire. BARRICADE B: Install a street closure at the south end of Cascade Lane west of Shasta Lane (Please see barricade vicinity map for barricade location B). This will allow access to Bolsa Avenue and McFadden Avenue for Huntington Beach and Westminster residents and not increase emergency vehicle response times. Neighborhood through traffic will be transferred to Shasta Lane or Rushmoor Lane. This option is represented as Question No. 7 on the Cascade Lane Neighborhood Traffic Conditions Questionnaire. BARRICADES C & D: Install a street closure on Shasta Lane south of Cascade Lane AND on Whitney Drive at Cascade Lane(Please see barricade vicinity map for barricade locations C & D). This will allow access to Bolsa Avenue and McFadden Avenue for Huntington Beach and Westminster residents and minimumly increase emergency vehicle response times. Neighborhood through traffic will be forced to use Cascade Lane, Shasta Lane, and Rushmoor Lane to travel through the neighborhood. This option is represented as Question No. 8 on the Cascade Lane Neighborhood Traffic Conditions Questionnaire. The Fire Chief and Police Chief are concerned about impacts of barricade installations on emergency vehicle response times and the availability of reliable access routes. Of the barricade alternatives presented, the dual barricade installation (Barricades C & D) has the least impact on Fire Department and Police Department response times and provides the most reliable access routing. FUNDING SOURCE: Funds are available in Account Number E-AA-PW-416-3-04-00 if changes or additions to the existing traffic controls are required. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Install a temporary barricade. See attached "Neighborhood traffic conditions questionnaire" and barricade vicinity map. 2. Remove existing STOP controls and striping. See "Existing stop sign intersections" map. ATTACHMENTS: Map(s) City Attorney's Opinion Data Charts MTU:LFS:RMH:rmh RMH:CASCAD.CC GULULN uUUGI l.11l� _ ...-. .1 .. -- U LIV BRCtY 6400 ,;1i• (I 8 J.... Z )1 -HAZARD AV GARDEn::ir.'� �MONTICE `0� IR MIAMI- """" '"''""""-^'rn" .� ••�- F aDEAIr HAZARD AV __H_AZARD_V AV I K �"�? 8000 HAZ RD IR `8400 L� ..,. ; '••" NOUSTRY --- _.� _ 500 AV o z „a 8900 ;;;•;.- In 70 •; J REVERE DR .DD•• 'W)L 'RR— o-s -'.. 7- :.�j* ' Qi YLE-\YY N TR6PIC� TZ z� �`�� S�ANTEF I: ice\ �� �: N - 1� It) J STORM ^ '. O BIRD AV J O WILIIAMSBURG O E AV q! ROOSEVE T o O u "{`' ••a.J... I- _ •'� .. I ~ 1 NDORA PZ' W K =Z n GULINO w i..:.--. '-' '=�;.'/'• i\• y'':: F I v' AV 2 VIE rz ~SABRE LN dr '��'�_ / a GAP,Y •`,WESTM/NSTERx / ~ v' z I x z1-=3Y RBOROUGH '� T d CIR 1 O -.-. N PRESIDENTIAL O LANOERS w w In _ Sj I -I--' /y d Y F- 4 ANYAN CIR m SPNCLAIR A IKIN F 1 :Flr Y I r\- 1'•� WY 1 I N DA I< Z Ow } 5 HAUCER CIR R CIII WELL ' AV = MEMbR/AL I /< . .�]. MA ISON Cr AVia O �S)IAI AtONY ', \'\.' , \ - •`�-PARK_�, /� \ 1 Ln LL Z = IIAAIPI N ADISON Y CIR Y W F 'J( • li O O_ I }jNj m I AV Z W .J OR1 WESTMIN TER MXLL h_ J �Q = FENWICK LN _ CE_METER_Y �' \''�: do ¢ I ¢ gH WH 7 Av YERM > K �! Cfl rn w to REESE o COLCI!ES7ER w wy n S , I ;SC Q O T ..� x�C\-`,\... d ASHI TON > = AV WY I a4p�I 12A 4 S WASH NG\ O MANNING a'O ¢ �' PZ1. I TONVQIu �C,. F Z �ENI.DL +IAIIC+yLO A J.L a GItL Vit. G9U0 VI •\�: ¢ rQy 1-I a 11 ,1`-�J' �u UO�J. 7500 LLIiIGH ?� 0 r , i J-- ~ wnl lIN, r R)(n 1 .Q C O 1c :;• ONZAGA O •F q y/1i1)W D IR I JUOx Cn r_ /G�\ �1� E-/Y,�, PI_ U N d 1� .i,P, •1: ,{' G .71 1#H T �B•T FW -F•� N (w aLN LN.+LEx Dt i DR �' ^1- /'c 3� r_�Z w Q FO w GABLES n 1 RUTGE� l%•zv'•:I n D- PINE HAZELW OD CIR O I w Iµy� 60[SA- O u+,Z 2 Z "- 1 )_ �•` ) Y O y O Z MAGNOLIA SC WCOLI d YALE CIR OXFOR wJJ z �JDR ,, AV a W DUOJESNE^7 l ,` J t.I PL CITADEL ST U O W 0 �+ CC LI J F- AYJIF-RR NCORD .�1 CIR TUIC WOOD CI 3 Q IRA AV � r�Cl VARD AR a CIR CA•A R Y-W ¢ F ........Y • CIR �L �.F..�.> �tWD�CtiV OL�C' z o '- HMO SE AV Z I-.WELLESLE �w � Z a w CC GA7E1- w AV L��---7 ASPEN- DR ROMF (3 CIR CU BE AND D ? W P, Jy R' ARL MAUREEN WD AV ~ LW i ~ __BISHOP 3 Z z >- tf WHITNEY OR "� = NAY BI H V OR GUMw J u' AN AV T o a CA O �_� g REASE- CORONET UTGEr RS CIR SOREN�O CIR D, ES Nam. W Q aIF� JUD �� _ << m cIR N 1vD CIR } BISH AV a 3ROWN CIR HA L I FAX z DR I B SWICK J o d 1T I�' 7J, sti l �:; LEDON AV , I t-MYRTLE-o LIDO AV j J MARGATE x OTRAC AYS P 1 c l .� CIR ROCK- t- CIR OIYU I� N r O PAC Fr AV 0 CIR— :'`:pR:' w COL-BY:'-. C9 q p ETNnQ WELL .... w VIL O PEPPER ¢ x D i' w CNELSEA ITA EL Ok MELB URNS_Q =. nv = N EME ::CIR `(.' �G 'a COBBLE _ O D CIR 0 wD CI ' o ; RATHBUR w E� AV z CIR'— ' [ (LJ DIC ENS a Y z w :CrRfER: o i ¢ AV .qp o STONE OR d� !- TORCH- J ~ '', a -- m a> a¢z O o O F Z ;n = a CIR o u x O uC of 3 PARK' z >' ROCKM AY^ J o C,�, z o ¢'a AV O I WD CIR TH F �+ Q DALTON' J Mc FADDE N g_�_o V';::: '�� Su AR o 8000 0 8900- v Ad00 RED COACH > z0 J AV Z:' 84W BERMUDA M Y u'pINEHUAS LL y(y.l 6`-) 1 W:L •'y�;Z 7000 a y I PARK 6 QPETERS AV Q N ARMS4� GLEN LLN u J 4-2 >;rc,�G _ .;,t.J yA 5 RIDE ¢ r-'O EDGEMONT BE AIR 11'• EwGLES J �, Z DUNN n(a- �-J <_ _.w; (L -J »N In Z t.. z -"/ Q p CIR-# •;-f�< o� .IGH1 D y,#.I- ttESTNUT DR� w rt \�;( i)Q>Z N O] FLIGHT J �V CI CIR Tw = pEBDIE O ENRIJGE° • ANT�ItA CIR w00D•ti Z-- SKY I W ) o' BI�E_ O w w _ F ,L Y" r1 c- Q FARM NCR DELRAY S _ BEACH o aUNN T > SNOP a �p�-LNJ • Z ;"' J -' a ST. ANDREWS AV BIwCK =ST NERIDGE W }NE CIR r SIDE J a SU 3 7 'DR ®® 5� �;J WORTHY�' DR a ` x ;u IDCIR 1� HEATH - cIRAv z PQPI Q STARSM INE �¢ F- O DOWt, oR to �N B RW•p 10 ' IIOI"' '1,_ w w yx� .I PALOS Y UDITH ¢ N F '- (a - = CENSEF 2 INN AY '._.1•` .� .9 LL J Z 0 m <Y ,�..... LO N V TalRIJ J CIR DR E R z J JZ MOONBEAM DR 1' T •..:OC. w W a PK: o$ D t F- SlIGO CIR CIR J w aJ SH NON R �� L I RAM to OR HID - �" —, f�N��g ARILS Pl UGHES DR EIIR o c RK w HERFO}�6 ®�� ■ o RIDE AV Eu .z> F Av CLARE x OR o Y HUNTINGTON> r a�``�:'; C'9 �o > ` 'D + w C a d tn� OPA �• 7 _ BgEELAND w DR d 9p z W J,� J caocKET7 J �+ C,, ID LONGfORD DR. "CA♦�LOW v GOLDEN WES1 = I x x OF F CENTER J+< _ ',V < w LA MI EDAWAV F MARBL d u�l Z i w CIR qDR Q COLLEGE O .a\t,,y. C o > u § Av > _ oJ: IIVERICJBMWP / OBERAV m CI cla NJ U` FU MAN• CO ¢I 1 pV 8400 ¢ d PARL LJ Dd � - y ' 740 ...� AV v 7500 z 7900 8500 i 86 NG0 m A N D a 1 00 0 �i1 �' + SEE A i1 oko r. ? i :.� LORGE Z �1 cD SSq�:. FV Av =O¢¢ PJ Ioi A� z :'.WINTERGREEN Z,V v "fRl E �L'h[ 'ti> tiIL,w ALDRICH _ N G ZO Y -J dd Y f0/NGfR-1 1 g5HW00D LN e / I-IAIt� lJ 3 J 0 J z CIR - J PLAZA 2 DOGWOOD LN J ax TA CL J °� = w a' p DR 1'- ,, 7 IIEDW000 LN J R701 C �' Z a" �� �G GZ rrn z �N CAl 61U CIR w Z W m B L O to wV(L A R q CUfTONWD LN TARK T OiQ�'9 �, W3 �� '� c) MINT V vrsra I- "' Q r O 5 OLIVEW0OD LN L_B,y�/s/ OP 1- �• Uf Hur �y v/Fw 1 c NYANZAI- ST NEWOOD D MURDY CIR J z AMAZON �:•I W LA PAZ DR In •,•�0 w� �C� .� z �I- iA.o PC W. z T vr: a o _-__s � Tals� o z -' LE a I CIR BOUQU T ` t9 ;rP4Rl( In HOLT .�r..� v LL�0.�. k z z s W Z .>,t PIL S R aw J z z O YI NONE � ...... ........ a ST \'' \� ---} UNIVER$ =ASV x MYRTLE OR g 3w,-ram AFA GH J J JCIR s W p a S r J'J�d`nU Ti - ED m w COMET .I EROOT-CIR U r RIN 0 z =� AUBURN o D` LIOHT~# 0 ¢ _rl_ LN= L1 MACDONALD ST, ` F,�.�- t0 SOT :BANE CIR (� - OX GLOVE' p � = cla of EDGEMONT 1��LOYOLA gDRz t� a J ROAD ~�JUIIET LOW I <�r C. l}PTUNE < DAFFODILS W GowN c J VALEN-z w w d L07 , U o N COLUMBINE �' " '? NANCY d DR J GLENCOE AV a 3 , 405 tiG�,,,x I KY W CIA REO r- o B OR , J ,_ ,., p o tr TINE DR __ . < ¢ S"py_•1 s `�cIN n IAMLE °° — — >< >J ALHAMBRADR ¢ OR YR I rn '`' CR oAK xW CHELE GRID EWATER o F- SUNLIGHT DR ¢ROAD A HAMBRA J b RY PL o Z 3 CC to ¢ z JY o BUTTERCUP SHHENL�AV GROVE ag CIR I- 7000 C DRY �) r rrl _�w L'J W LLJ <850 / o cJ = a W3 D HEIL x AV 40 7500 r-� 7 F c� HEIL A� ac J > EIL - AV z z A BOTT OR Z < ONNIE LENIS � J DANUBE OR 2 m m = Q 1-70 OY CIR MR ' V Z 1 QL� �O Z W D: Z e Z LOISjCIRHAS__TINI o ";R Qiq IA:DR �-~ �To o SEI E DR o . v O = Z N�� WI-, I HOP DRMASON z x MARS DR �, : v �1y CI o DE VI 'EN a W vERLENE MADoO J m o R` DONALO CIR WAGERS CIR c: 1 AR N L aR z DON DR Ir ��..� Q BRUSH 3 DR W KEBER F-c RINE:CIR rD z a J W y \ , Z. I: �P� RllTHz r J ~ F DR aZ ' J= CouNT J w �/ �� �� W B.RYANT pR JU Y CIR ROYER C:R a'C� 'O PC(NS z = �, F0 I PAULA r w s J �Cf` .A nD W L_r IL+ Z HJ O w rip �,('I'm CI 1•?Y�� C< L '1 AL.IAD nD DAovcD rl 'cam. 9�ity A ANALYSIS OF CASCADE LANE NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CONDITIONS SURVEY estions 1. Do you now perceive less traffic on neighborhood streets in your area? 2. Do you now perceive slower traffic speeds on neighborhood streets in your area? 3. Should the recently installed white lines remain in place? 4. Should the recently installed double yellow street centerlines remain in place? 5. Should the recently installed STOP signs remain in place? Leaving the STOP signs in place will allow access to and from Bolsa Avenue and McFadden Avenue for all residents of the neighborhood and will have no impact on emergency vehicle response times. 6. BARRICADE A: Would you prefer a street closure at the city boundary between Huntington Beach and Westminster(Please see reverse side for barricade location A)? This will eliminate access to Bolsa Avenue for Huntington Beach residents and eliminate access to McFadden Avenue for Westminster residents while significantly lowering traffic volumes on Cascade Lane. Emergency vehicle response times will likely be significantly increased if this street closure is installed. 7. BARRICADE B: Would you prefer a street closure at the south end of Cascade Lane west of Shasta Lane (Please see reverse side for barricade location B)? This will allow access to Bolsa Avenue and McFadden Avenue for Huntington Beach and Westminster residents and not increase emergency vehicle response times. Neighborhood through traffic will be transferred to Shasta Lane or Rushmoor Lane. 8. BARRICADES C & D: Would you prefer a street closure on Shasta Lane south of Cascade Lane AND on Whitney Drive at Cascade Lane (Please see reverse side for barricade locations C & D)? This will allow access to Bolsa Avenue and McFadden Avenue for Huntington Beach and Westminster residents and minimumally increase emergency vehicle response times. Neighborhood through traffic will be forced to use Cascade Lane, Shasta Lane, and Rushmoor Lane to travel through the neighborhood. QUESTION CASCADE LANE NEIGHBORHOOD ENTIRE NUMBER RESIDENCES ONLY WITHOUT CASCADE NEIGHBORHOOD YES NO YES NO YES NO QUESTION 1 8 (28%) 21 (72%) 71 (69%) 32 (31%) 79 (60%) 53 (40%) QUESTION 2 11 (38%) 18 (62%) 94 (91%) 9 (9%) 105 (80%) 27 (20%) QUESTION 3 14 (48%) 15 (52%) 95 (93%) 7 (7%) 109 (83%) 22 (17%) QUESTION 4 17 (59%) 12 (41%) 96 (93%) 7 (7%) 113 (86%) 19 (14%) QUESTION 5 13 (48%) 14 (52%) 99 (95%) 5 (5%) 112 (85%) 19 (15%) QUESTION 6 13 (50%) 13 (50%) 17 (17%) 86 (83%) 30 (23%) 99 (77%) QUESTION 7 18 (75%) 6 (25%) 5 (5%) 97 (95%) 23 (18%) tO3 (82%)QUESTION 8 7 (30%) 16 (70%) 5 (5%) 97 (95%) 12 (10%) 3:( 0%) One questionnaire per residence was distributed throughout the neighborhood. On Cascade Lane 5 out of 34 residences (14%) did not respond to this survey. In the neighborhood excluding Cascade Lane 21 out of 120 residences (18%)did not respond to this survey. For the entire neighborhood 26 out of 154(17%) of the residences did not respond to this survey. COL GAT E HU TI NGTON EA H Q Q WHITNEY E7w � - o V < EVEREST U NA O a o V) _ d U) 0 o - 3 O o 0 U EXISTING STOP SIGN INTERSECTIONS Q SUGAR ONE WAY n ALL WAY O . �IIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Pr000sed Barrier Location "All lmp V) 0 c `. N N I � NNNI t� WhiLn.ey Dr.. N N ' ! in ;=5271 o I r.N 15282 15271 15282 1c��S� 15292/\ m I 0 rn N 1529' 1S292 qc�� �VER:--- CR. ' O N 5372 Proposed Barrier �pL <�� . i_5371 :a Location "D" ��,� �`� :�L � %-� 15382 ' S3"oI, ��` � 15392 ,1 3 91� 1Sy02 115401 N 15412TS411 153221-I S421 ,��,� Proposed Barrier �1)A III[ I ' Location "c'' ! 1_5431 BARRICADE MAP C Sugar Ln . Proposed Barrier \ Location "B" � ' _=cFadden Ave . CASCADE LANE AREA - 24 HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME DATA DATE OF SURVEY STREET NAME BETWEEN TRAFFIC VOLUME SEPTEMBER 26, 1990 CASCADE AT;CITY::BOUNDARY . 2870 .: OCTOBER 3I, . CASCADE AT.CITY BOUNDARY 2626 .... JUL 23 19-9 . . ..:..,. CASCADE .AT CITY BOUNDARY Y 2148. .:>.: ... - DEGEMBER 1.8, 1991 - CASCADE AT CITY BOUNDARY 2224 .... .: FEBRUARY 2 i992 CASCADE AT CIT.... . NDARY 2770 OCTOBER 31, 1990 SUGAR MC FADDEN AND RUSHMOOR 3117 JULY 23, 1991 SUGAR MC FADDEN AND RUSHMOOR 2724 DECEMBER 18, 1991 SUGAR MC FADDEN AND RUSHMOOR 2763 FEBRUARY 5, 1991 SUGAR MC FADDEN AND RUSHMOOR 2979 OCTOBER 31, 1-XXX990 .:: SUGAR RUA. . .. . AND SHASTA . 2480 JULY 23; 1991 SUGAR RUSHMOOR AND:SHASTA 2122 .... ........ ........ FEBRUARY 5 1. 92> ; SUGAR RUSHMOOR AND SHASTA 2369 OCTOBER 31, 1990 RUSHMOOR SUGAR AND ETNA 623 JULY 23, 1991 RUSHMOOR SUGAR AND ETNA 915 DECEMBER 17, 1991 RUSHMOOR SUGAR AND ETNA 614 FEBRUARY 5, 1992 RUSHMOOR SUGAR AND ETNA 704 JULY 23; 199I CASCADE SHASTAAND`WHITNEY . 1800 .:; ... .... .. ........ .. ...:... . ..._..... . ...::.. _........... ...... .. % DECEMBER 17 199.1 CASCADE SHASTA AND WHITNEY 2370' .. . -.- . -.... ; FEBRUARY 5 i992' : CASCADE SHASTA AND WHITNEY 2023 JULY 23, 1991 SHASTA SUGAR AND WHITNEY 176 DECEMBER 17, 1991 SHASTA SUGAR AND WHITNEY 172 FEBRUARY 5, 1992 SHASTA SUGAR AND WHITNEY 166 JULY 23, 1991 WHITNEY CASCADE AND SHASTA 604 FEBRUARY 5 i992 WHITNEY CASCADE AND SHASTA . 579 JULY 23, 1991 WHITNEY SHASTA AND RUSHMOOR 455 FEBRUARY 5, 1992 WHITNEY SHASTA AND RUSHMOOR 548 RMH:CASARPA.ACC I CASCADE LANE RADAR SURVEY COMPARISON DATE OF SURVEY 85TH PERCENTILE 10 MPH PACE .NOVEMBER 5, 1990 37 MPH 29 TO 38 MPH DULY 18, 1991 33 MPH 24 TO 33 MPH FEBRUARY 5, 1992 35 MPH 27 TO 36 MPH RMH:CASRAD.SUR CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH.- INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH - To JIM OTTERSON From GAIL HUTTON TRAF)=IC ENGINEER CITY ATTORNEY s Subject RLS# 90-815 GATING OF CASCADE LANE Date DECEM 3ER 10, 1990 QUESTION: 1. What is the city's liability exposure if a permanent gate is installed blocking a city street? 2. Since the location of the gate will affect the City of Westminster, can the city take unilateral action? STATEMENT OF FACT: The Transportation Commission of the City of Huntington Beach is investigating closing off a street with a gate which is to be locked with an Knox Box. The "Knox Box" will allow the fire department access to the street. There are two recommended locations for ,A the gate. One is Cascade Lane and the other is Sugar Lane. Either location may affect traffic conditions in Westminster. ANALYSIS: Question 1 ' California Government Code §830.6 grants immunity to public agencies and their employee for design of public improvements which result in injury where such plans or designs have been approved in advance of the construction by the city council. The gating of a city street on city property falls within this design immunity statute. } -Question 2 While the gating may affect traffic in Westminster there is currently no law putting a duty on a city to consider or confer with adjoining cities concerning traffic impacts. ANSWER: t= Question I The closing off a street by gating does not increase the city's liability. c 5i JIM OTTERSON December 10, 1990 Page 2 Question 2 The city may unilaterally make the decision to close off its street regardless of the possible increased traffic it may cause in an adjoining city, however, there is a new law �T which has not been implemented yet which will require county wide congestion management and inter-agency cooperation. GAIL HUTTON CITY ATTORNEY GCH/AJF/jeg i . lti f: 'J t' t. 3 5 [[Y K C� `lf{i t S� SFcF: i, 4 �I i' RECEIVED CITY CLERK CITY OF 7631 Whitney Drive HUNTINCTON SFACH,CALIF. Huntington Beach, Ca 92647 - February 21, 1992 FEB 25 16 `92 City Clerk City Hall, 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Subject: Letter for the City Council Please distribute the enclose letter to Mayor Silva and the members of the City Council so that it may be read into the record prior to the March 2, 1992 City Council meeting. Thank you for your cooperation. Fr ck pates 1 f RECEIVED I— U6eAL`7 v CITY CLERK CITY OF 7631 Whitney Drive NUNTINIGTPN.BEEACH,CALIF. Huntington Beach, Ca 92647 February 21, 1992 FED L, C lbi 192 Members of the City Council City Hall, 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Subject: Proposed Action for the Closure of Cascade Dear Mayor Silva and Members of the City Council, The purpose of this letter is to again express my concerns regarding subject street closure and the potential safety hazards that a barrier at the Huntington Beach-Westminster boundary will pose to residents of this tract. I have written to you and spoke before the Council on several occasions. The area poll, which was very objectively conducted by Lou Saldovol and his staff, clearly indicated that the overwhelming majority of residents within the affected tract do not favor a barrier. Since the poll was conducted and the stop signs and street lines installed in May, resident opinion has not changed. The installation of a barrier at the proposed location will leave residents of the affected area with only .one method of egress - the intersection of Sugar and McFadden. If you are at all familiar with this intersection, you must acknowledge that it is unsafe under even the best of circumstances. McFadden run East-West across Beach Blvd. to Golden West and passes over the 405 Freeway just West of Sugar Lane. Traffic travelling East on McFadden towards Beach Blvd. are coming down the Freeway overpass at the intersection of Sugar Lane. Traffic travelling West on McFadden is attempting to gain speed to go over the Freeway overpass. In addition, McFadden narrows from four lane divided to two lane divided on just each side of the Sugar Lane intersection and then rewidens. People do not recognize this and often attempt to pass two abreast in a two lane roadway. The fact that there have not been more accidents at this intersection is a pure miracle. The increased traffic flow that forcing this as our only method of egress will, undoubtedly, take care of that fact. While watching the February 18 Council meeting, a representative desiring the closure presented you with statistics concerning traffic volume on Cascade. If you carefully study the figure she presented, you will see that traffic decreased during the period of stop sign and lane painting from her original starting point. As a matter of fact, the decrease was in excess of 10% for the total period she referenced. The City' s survey proposed an alternative that may represent your only solution which both pacifies Cascade residents and leave all residents with the current and much needed two exits from the housing tract. This is the alternative to install a barrier at the �d intersection of Cascade and Sugar and another barrier at the intersection of Cascade and Whitney Drive. This will, of course, be a major inconvenience for many of the residents but maximizes safe egress. It will also curb cut through traffic in that it will make it so inconvenient for cut throughs that they will quickly learn to avoid this area. It undoubtedly will not satisfy the three individuals who constantly confront you with the same trite information at you Council meetings. Lets face it, ladies and gentlemen. This has been going on for well over two years. As I understand the situation: 1. ) the overwhelming majority of residents do not favor any barricade, 2. ) the City Is firechief does not favor a barricade, 3. ) the Public Works Director does not appear to favor a barricade, 4. ) your staff has presented alternatives. Your time is being infringed upon by a very vocal and not always completely open minority who are not going to stop until they get the cul-de-sac they think they deserve at the expense of all other area residents. In making your decision, do not fail to consider that: a. ) you were, at one time, presented with a misrepresented petition which was altered after the obtainment of signatures and later invalidated, b. ) you were presented with a valid petition which reflected the actual voice of the people, and c. ) you have the survey results which clearly state residents' desires. You have also been assaulted with accidents statistics for accidents in this housing tract which you must say simply did not happen in that there is no police report or record. To force the traffic pattern from Cascade to Rushmore, Shasta and Whitney is not a viable alternative - that is unless you are prepared to listen to residents of those streets at every meeting for the next several years. One last concern. As I remember the original, intent, any barrier that was installed was to be temporary in nature. I believe that this fact has been lost in the rhetoric. A couple of months of inconvenience with the double barrier concept outlined above should certainly restore peace within this housing tract. Good luck in making your decision and please remember that more than just the "vocal three" will be affected by your decisions. You were elected to represent all the people and we have told you our desires. If you have any questions, please contact me at (714)897-6617(home) or (310)640-1050 (office) . Respe ly, Fre e k R. pates RECEIVED CITY CLERK CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIF. FEB 25 f 115 AN T 7631 Whitney Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92647 February 21, 1992 Connie Brockway, City Clerk CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH City Hall 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Please distribute copies of my letter to Mayor Silva and the Councilmembers prior to the March meeting which will. review traffic control measures in place on Cascade Lane. Thank you. l I • //9 Yle�e eooe� RECEIVE[) I_ U��62va'o CITY CLERK HUNTI�jr, CITY OF ..",CALIF. 7631 Whitney Drive rEB L �� I5 ►�� Huntington Beach,- CA 92647 February 21, 1992 Mayor Silva and Councilmembers CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH City Hall 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: ' MARCH CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES INSTALLED MAY 21, 1991 ON CASCADE LANE, SUGAR LANE AND OTHER INTERSECTIONS WITHIN TRACT • Dear Mayor Silva and Councilmembers, I appreciate the non-detrimental traffic control measures installed in our tract and our neighboring tract in Westminster in May 1991 and the retention of two exit/entrances to the tract. Most individuals are obeying the stop signs and the signs have slowed traffic overall; however, there are some that have a heavy right foot between stop signs. A few of the remaining original homeowners have related that when the houses in this tract were built ( 1962-1963) , it was very stressful with the long line leaving the tract on Sugar to McFadden, the only exit back then. Today, there are more vehicles per household and many people use a multitude of services that bring vehicles to their residences (gardners, bottled water deliveries, pool cleaners, medical supply deliveries, etc. ) thus, the tract today is more burdened with traffic than back then. The exit on McFadden via Sugar is on a slope/hill and leaves room for one car to turn left and go down a slope toward Beach Boulevard and another .to turn right and climb up to the overpass over the 405. There is about 100' visibility of oncoming traffic from Sugar to the top of the overpass. When two vehicles are side by side trying to exit onto McFadden, depending on the size of the vehicle next to you, you may not be able to see. Exiting is slow as McFadden has a lot of traffic. Another concern is when there are long lines some people get impatient and take risks that not only endanger their lives but others. Years ago there were long lines of cars exiting left onto Bolsa, some people got impatient and decided to double up to turn left from the understood right turn lane, so one never knew if the car next to them was turning left or right. As you are aware, those who demand the closure have engaged in a certain amount of shenanigan to make you believe that the entire tract desires a barricade. The survey your staff conducted clearly indicates that the residents do not want any closure. Those who r have been so vocal and willing to deceive (to wit: the altered petition) lack the vision and objectivity to be able to conceive what it would be like with only one exit. In conclusion, I think leaving Temple/Cascade open helps both tracts with the burden of traffic that each receives and hopefully the controlls put in place last year in May will remain. Sincerely, l Claudia Spa s S7o ..57-0 -rC) C16�KL,,J CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH. TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AGENDrA M A A A A December 11, 1990 7:00 P.M. Roll Call : Cohoon, Hardy, Horton, Lo Verde, Roth, Rowe Approval of Minutes: November 13, 1990 meeting minutes Old business: Discussion of a citizen request to install a gate or a cul-de-sac on Cascade Lane at the City limits. Presentation of information gathered by staff and the results of further investigations and City Attorney opinions. Staff recommendation: without input from the City . of Westminster Transportation Commission, staff would recommend installation of a temporary barricade on Cascade Lane at the City Limits, with the provision to reinvestigate the traffic conditions in six months (July, 1991 Transportation Commission meeting, preferably a joint meeting with the City of Westminster) . Public comments regarding the request to install a gate or cul-de-sac on Cascade Lane at the City Limits. Discussion of City Cash Contract No. 595, Warner Avenue raised medians and potential legal action against the City as a result of the median installation. Discussion of widening of Pacific Coast Highway (City Cash Contract 'No. 705) Status report on Main Street/Delaware Street traffic signal installation. New Business: No new business Oral Communications: Staff Items: Edinger Avenue west of Springdale Street investigation. Lyndon Street traffic conditions and recent modifications to enhance Police enforcement ability. Page 1 Page 7 - Council/Agency Agenda. 4/15/91 (7) F. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS F-1. v (City Council) INSTALLATION OF A TEMPORARY BARRICADE ON CASCADE LANE AT THE CITY LIMITS WITH THE CITY OF WESTMINSTER 800 . 60 Communication from Director of Public Works regarding a Transportation Commission investigation of Cascade Lane (Huntington Beach) Temple Street (Westminster) traffic conditions . (Petition listing 24 signatures of residents requesting closure received 4/l/91) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the Transportation Commission recommendation that a temporary barricade be 'Tplaced at the subject location on a three month trial basis . This barricade will be equipped with a "Knox Box" device that will allow it to be opened in the case of .an emergency. Pedestrian ingress%egress will not be restricted. F-2. (City Council/Redevelop Agency) TRANSFER OF CITY PROPERTY (PIER SIDE RESTAURANTS LEASE SITE) TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND FIRST AMENDED PIER�SIDE LEASE BETWEEN AGENCY AND STANLEY M. BLOOM FOR PIERSIDE RESTAURANTS PROJECT - MAIN-PIER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA Communication from the Economic Development Director regarding the transfer of city property (Pierside Restaurants Lease Site) to the Redevelopment Agency and First Amended Pierside Lease between the Agency and Stanley M. Bloom. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1 . Defer all actions relating to the Agreement for the Purchase and Sale of Property for the Pierside Restaurants project . 2 . Consider for appropriate action the City Attorney' s legal opinion dated April 3 , 1991, outlining the related legal issues pertinent to the proposed transfer of the Pierside property. 3 . Consider Mayor Green ' s memo dated April 5, 1991, and discuss with Council to consider whether or not to authorize staff to seek an additional legal opinion. 4 . Direct staff to proceed, as appropriate, with Schedules A, B, or C as attached to the RCA dated 4/15/91 . 2 (7) (4/15/91) AGENDA CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH MONDAY, MAY 13, 1991 Adjourned Regular Meeting 6 : 00 P.M. - Council Chamber CALL ADJOURNED REGULAR CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING TO ORDER ROLL CALL: MacAllister, Winchell, Silva, Green, Kelly, Robitaille, Moulton-Patterson PUBLIC COMMENTS (Complete the attached Pink Form and give to the Sergeant-at-Arms who is located near the Speaker ' s Lectern) (3 minutes per person, time may not be donated to others - No action can be taken by Council/Agency on this date, unless agendized) . This is the time to address Council regarding items of interest or on agenda items OTHER than Public hearings . 1. (City Council) INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES ON CASCADE LANE AND SUGAR LANE Communication from the Public works Director regarding a recommendation by the Transportation Commission that a CONT. temporary barricade be installed on Cascade Lane at the City FROM Limits . 4/15/91 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Install all-way STOP signs at the following locations for a ninety (90) day trial period: 1. Cascade/Whitney 2 . Whitney/Rushmore 3 . Cascade/Shasta 4 . Sugar/Rushmore 5 . City of Westminster to install a stop sign at Colgate/ Temple. Should the STOP sign installations prove ineffective, a barricade installation shall/should be considered . CASCADE LANE AREA - 24 HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME DATA DATE OF SURVEY STREET NAME BETWEEN TRAFFIC VOLUME SEPTEMBER 26, 1990 CASCADE AT CITY BOUNDARY 2870 OCTOBER 31, 1990 - CASCADE ... ::AT CITY::BOUNDARY 2626 DULY 23;`1991 `CASCADE AT .CITY BOUNDARY 2148 DECEMBER 18, 1991 CASCADE:: AT. CITY.BOUNDARY 2224 FEBRUARY 2, 1992 CASCADE.:: rAT CITY.BOUNDARY 2770 OCTOBER 31, 1990 SUGAR MC FADDEN AND RUSHMOOR 3117 JULY 23, 1991 SUGAR MC FADDEN AND RUSHMOOR 2724 DECEMBER 18, 1991 SUGAR MC FADDEN AND RUSHMOOR 2763 FEBRUARY 5, 1991 SUGAR MC FADDEN AND RUSHMOOR 2979 OCTOBER 31, 1990 SUGAR RUSHMOOR AND SHASTA 2480 JULY 23, 1991 SUGAR RUSHMOOR AND SHASTA . 2122 FEBRUARY 5, 1992 SUGAR RUSHMOOR AND SHASTA 2369 OCTOBER 31, 1990 RUSHMOOR SUGAR AND ETNA 623 JULY 23, 1991 RUSHMOOR SUGAR AND ETNA 915 DECEMBER 17, 1991 RUSHMOOR SUGAR AND ETNA 614 FEBRUARY 5, 1992 RUSHMOOR SUGAR AND ETNA 704 JULY 23, .1991 CASCADE.. .. . SHASTA AND WH WEY 1800 DECEMBER 17, 1991 CASCADE: SHASTA AND WHITNEY 2370 FEBRUARY 5, 1992 CASCADE SHASTA AND WHITNEY 2023 JULY 23, 1991 SHASTA SUGAR AND WHITNEY 176 DECEMBER 17, 1991 SHASTA SUGAR AND WHITNEY 172 FEBRUARY 5, 1992 SHASTA SUGAR AND WHITNEY 166 JULY 23, 1991 WHITNEY CASCADE AND SHASTA 604 FEBRUARY 5, 1992 WHITNEY CASCADE AND SHASTA 579 JULY 23, 1991 WHITNEY SHASTA AND RUSHMOOR 455 FEBRUARY 5, 1992 WHITNEY SHASTA AND RUSHMOOR 548 RW:cwsAPYwaoc f� CASCADE LANE RADAR SURVEY COMPARISON DATE OF SURVEY 85TH PERCENTILE 10 MPH PACE NOVEMBER 51 1990 37 MPH 29 TO 38 MPH DULY 18, 1991 33 MPH 24 TO 33 MPH FEBRUARY 5, 1992 35 MPH 27 TO 36 MPH RMH:CASRAD.SUR . REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCEL ACTION ' March 2, 1992 Date ibmitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Micbael T. Uberuaga, City A Prepared by: Louis F. Sandoval, Director, Public Works Department Subject: UPDATE TO SEPTEMBER 3, 1991 MEETING REGARDING CASCADE LANE AREA TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Consistent with Council Policy? [ X ] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: On September 3, 1991, the City Council requested that Public Works Staff monitor traffic conditions resulting from placement of STOP controls at several intersections within the Cascade Lane area. RECOMMENDATION: Leave.the existing all-way STOP controls and striping in place. ANALYSIS: The data attached is a comparison of all data collected in this area as requested by the City Council. Traffic volumes and vehicle speeds have remained approximately equal for typical times of the year. Traffic Engineering has not received any complaints regarding intersection right-of-way assignment or of motorists traveling on the wrong side of the street after the STOP controls and street striping were installed. STOP controls and street striping were installed to mitigate these prior complaints and discourage through traffic in the neighborhood. As a result of STOP sign and striping placement, this type of errant- motorist behavior has virtually disappeared, thus leaving existing controls in place is the recommended action. If the City Council's intent is to significantly reduce through traffic in the neighborhood, a barricade system would need to be considered. A review of the collected traffic volume data reveals a small reduction (approximately 100 vehicles per day) in through traffic at the Huntington Beach/Westminster boundary. The barricade installation options presented at the September 3, 1991 council meeting approach the problem from three different perspectives. BARRICADE A: Install a street closure at the city boundary between Huntington Beach and Westminster (Please see barricade vicinity map for barricade location A). This will eliminate access to Bolsa Avenue for Huntington Beach residents and eliminate access \ to McFadden Avenue for Westminster residents while significantly lowering traffic REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION December 2, 1991 t Date Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City AdministratorR9 � APP$OVED BY CITY COUNCIL Prepared by: O pLouis F. Sandoval, Director of Public Works GG � Subject: CASCADE LANE-TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES CI CLE Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception X Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: City Council has asked for a status report and a recommendation for a final review prior to the June, 1992, date originally adopted. RECOMMENDATION• Direct staff to return for final review of the Cascade Lane traffic control measures at the first Council meeting in March, 1992. ANALYSIS: Staff is continuing to observe traffic conditions on Sugar, Cascade, Colgate and Temple. Conditions remain virtually the same as reported at the September City Council public hearing. City staff will be available for a brief status report and to answer questions from the Council. It is the position of staff that sufficient traffic information may be gathered for a final review by March rather than June. The City Council also requested an update on the schedule for the Gothard/Hoover Extension project. Jerry Wood of IWA Engineers reported the status of this project at the City Council meeting of October 7, (copy of RCA attached). Plans and the draft PUC application were then submitted to the City of Westminster for comment in mid-October. The Westminster City staff responded on November 18 and suggested an alternative design which IWA and our City staff is reviewing. It appears that this alternative design has sufficient merit to justify inclusion in the Environmental Impact Report. IWA has, therefore, been directed to make this inclusion. The current cost estimate for Gothard/Hoover is $10 million. Potential funding sources have thusfar not been secured; however, applications for Measure M funding for a portion of the project will be submitted to OCTA on March 27, 1992. If total funding can be secured and work progresses on schedule, construction of this project could begin in fiscal year 94/95 at the earliest. Staff will be available for questions on this item also. U PI O 5/85 t Cascade Lane -Traffic Control Measures December 2, 1991 Page 2 FUNDING SOURCE: N/A ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Stay with the current date of June, 1992, for final review of the Cascade Lane traffic control measures. ATTACHMENTS: October 25, 1991 letter from "Homeowners for a Safe Cascade." November 4, 1991 memo from the City Traffic Engineer responding to the letter. September 3, 1991 Council RCA - Cascade Lane October 7, 1991 Gothard/Hoover Extension update. MTU:LFS:REE:dw 3125g/7 October 25 , 1991 Huntington Beach City Council 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Calif . 82648 Dear Council Members , We, as 'Homeowners For A Safe Cascade, ' who are for a barricade system feel waiting nine more months for a review of the high volume traffic our street suffers is counter-productive to our problem. We want action nowt We do not appreciate our health and safety problem being put off again and again when in fact two of the barricade systems already proposed do not stand in the way of health and safety for our Westminster or Huntington Beach neighbors as quoted in 'The Neighborhood .Traffic Conditions Questionnaire ' ( see attachment) , sent to all residents in our tract on August 5, 1991 by Huntington Beach Public Works Department. We deserve a more improved and community use of our property. We ask that you review the attached material and rectify our problem. Thank you. Yours Truly, Homeowners For A Safe Cascade Cam ment Aff-MO11t1.1\DUM TO: Louis F. Sandoval, Director, Public Works Department FROM: Jim Otterson, Traffic Enginee SUBJECT: Cascade Lane Traffic Co ons DATE: November 4, 1991 I have reviewed the October 25, 1991 letter from the Homeowners for a Safe Cascade citizen's group. In light of the references to barricading Cascade Lane and other streets (as presented in the Cascade Lane Traffic Concerns Questionnaire), I believe the following clarifications are in order: Barricade B would divert traffic to other streets (most likely Shasta Lane) in the neighborhood that currently have lower traffic volumes than Cascade Lane. This in effect ,"transfers the ;problem" to another street. Barricades C & D would force all neighborhood through traffic to use Cascade Lane, Shasta Lane, Whitney Drive, and Rushmoor Lane. This would have the effect of making/,virtually ally' ;"streets in the neighborhood endure the traffic situation- that Cascade Lane residents are complaining about. It is likely that this option would create such a circuitous route that most through traffic would not want to use the "Cascade Lane cut-through". Chief Dolder had his department drive a ladder truck through this proposed street configuration and the ladder truck was able to travel the route without difficulty. It is my opinion that ,the nine month trial period should be adhered to; and that 0 o special consideration be given to the "pro barricade" contingency at this time. The City Council is scheduled to review traffic conditions at the June 1, 1992 meeting. During the period leading to the June 1, 1992 meeting Traffic Engineering staff will conduct_traffic volume-counts and radar speed surveys during these time periods: 1. Before the Thanksgiving holidays 2. Between Thanksgiving and Christmas/New Years holidays 3. The month of February, 1992 4. The months of April and May, 1992 Traffic Engineering staff will also compile the appropriate accident and citation statistics (if available) for the June 1, 1992 council meeting. cc: Robert Eichblatt, City Engineer Michael Dolder, Chief, Fire Department Attachments: Vicinity Map showing barricade locations Analysis and Summary of Cascade Lane Neighborhood Traffic Conditions Survey Cascade Lane Traffic Volumes Summary Sheet Cascade Lane Radar Speed Survey"Summary Sheet e REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date September 3, 1991 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator N � Prepared by: Louis F. Sandoval, Director of Public Worksco .� Subject: m INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURERS ON CASCADE LANES AND SUGAR DRIVE • r_ Consistent with Council Policy? [ Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Staff has completed its investigation of Cascade Lane traffic conditions and has made a recommendation that STOP signs, white edgelines, and yellow centerline stripes installed in May,-1991 remain in place. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize staff to leave in place all traffic control measures previously installed on . Cascade Lane, Sugar Drive, Rushmoor Lane, Shasta Lane, and Whitney Drive. This would include STOP signs, 4" white edgelines, and double-yellow centerline stripes. Staff also recommends the minor relocation of a STOP sign on southbound Cascade Lane at Shasta Lane, which will lessen the adverse impact on the adjacent homeowner. ANALYSIS: On May 13, 1991, staff was directed to install double yellow centerline stripes and white edgeline stripes on Cascade Lane and Sugar Drive, as well as all—way STOP signs at the following intersections (Please see attached vicinity map): 1. Cascade Lane/Whitney Drive 2. Cascade Lane/Shasta Lane 3. Sugar Drive/Rushmoor Lane 4. Whitney Drive/Rushmoor Lane An all—way STOP sign was also installed at the intersection of Colgate Avenue and Temple Street. Temple Street is the northerly extension of Cascade Lane within the City of Westminster. The City of Westminster also installed similar striping treatment on Temple Street. These STOP signs and stripes were installed May 21, 1991. Traffic Volumes Staff has compiled traffic volume data at four locations in the neighborhood in September and October, 1990, and also on July 23, 1991, following installation of the STOP signs (please see Attachment No. 1). The comparison of before and after traffic volumes reveals an approximate 25% reduction in traffic volumes on Cascade Lane at the City limits. Other street segments show a reduction in traffic volumes, with one exception. Rushmoor Lane between Sugar Drive and Etna Circle appears to be experiencing a 47% increase in traffic volumes. It should be noted that Golden West College was not in regular session when the latest traffic counts were taken. PIO 5/85 RCA - Inst. of Traffic Control on Cascade Ln. and Sugar Dr. September 3, 1991 Page 2 Traffic Speeds Staff performed radar speed surveys on Cascade Lane between Whitney Drive and Shasta Lane on November 5, 1990, and July 18, 1991 (please see Attachment No. 2). The 85th percentile speeds (that is, 85% of the traffic was traveling at or below this speed) were 37 mph and 33 mph. Both speeds are within.the expected ranges on a residential collector street in Huntington Beach. Neighborhood Traffic Conditions Questionnaire Staff complied and distributed a questionnaire to the effected neighborhood residents (please see Attachment No. 3). One questionnaire per residence was distributed. Approximately 83% of the neighborhood responded to the questionnaire. It appears that the neighborhood, as a whole, is favor of the STOP signs remaining in place (Question 5, 85% for, 15% against). Cascade Lane residents appear to be split on the issue (48% for, 52% against). A large majority of Cascade Lane residents would like a barricade installation on Cascade Lane at Shasta Lane (Question 7, 75% for 25% against), while the majority of the entire neighborhood is not in favor of a barricade installation on Cascade Lane (18% for, 82% against). It is staff's opinion that the STOP sign and striping installations are working reasonably well and should remain in place, rather than the installation of any type of barricade. The current installation has a negligible effect of emergency vehicle response time. City of Westminster's Actions on Temple Avenue The City of Westminster City Council met on August 13, 1991, to review the results of an all-way STOP sign and striping installation on Temple Avenue. The City of Westminster Transportation Commission recommended that the all-way STOP sign and street striping installation on Temple Avenue remain in place, to be further reviewed in nine months. The City Council approved the Transportation Commission's recommendation. FUNDING SOURCE- Funds for necessary STOP sign relocations or barricade installations are available in Account Number E-AA-PW-416-3-04-00. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: 1. Install a temporary barricade (for a ninety day trial period) on Cascade Lane at Shasta Lane. 2. Install a temporary barricade (for a-ninety day trial period) on Cascade Lane at the City limits with the City of Westminster. V R:CA — Inst. of Traffic Control on Cascade Ln. and Sugar Dr. September 3, 1991 Page 3 3. Install two temporary barricades (for a ninety day trial period) on Shasta Lane south of Cascade Lane for on Whitney Drive at Cascade Lane. 4. Remove the STOP sign installations and striping installed on May 30, 1991, and return to the previous traffic control arrangement. 5. Direct staff to investigate additional alternatives. ATTACFIMENTS• Vicinity Map Attachment No. 1 — Traffic Volumes Attachment No. 2 — Traffic Speeds Attachment No. 3 — Neighborhood Traffic Concerns Questionnaire Results MTU:LFS:JDO:dw 3029g/12-14 3 . Q I J F COLGATE s 7 RE'E 7 16 An HU TI NGTON EA H I - OnD O WHITNEY w o Q v cn EVEREST No ScRcE ' i NA - PROPOSED o BARRICADE < 0 CATION C1 _ LOCATION a o . . O � z . O EXISTING STOP SIGN INTERSECTIONS ALL WAY 0 O SUGAR ONE WAY • VICINITY MAP F Co GATE 57T'R6 EF 7 iL 0 HU TINGTON dEA � C7 0 WHITNEY o a U Cn U EVEREST No Scs�cE ' i NA PROPOSED o BARRICADE < ° LOCATION C7 V) T Q 0 cr- o . 0 EXISTING STOP SIGN INTERSECTIONS .01 ALL WAY 0 0 suGAR � t ONE WAY • VICINITY MAP DATE OF SURVEY 85TH- PERCENTILE 10 MPH PACE NOVEMBER 5, 1990 37 MPH 29 TO 38 MPH JULY 18 , 1991 33 MPH 24 TO 33 MPH CASCADE LANE RADAR SURVEY COMPARISON RMH: CASCADE. SUR ANALYSIS OF CASCADE LANE NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CONDITIONS SURVEY uesti ns i 1. Do you now perceive less traffic on neighborhood streets in your area? . 2. Do you now perceive slower traffic speeds on neighborhood streets in your area? 3. Should the recently installed white lines remain in place? 4. Should the recently installed double yellow street centerlines remain in place? 5. Should the recently installed STOP signs remain in place? Leaving the STOP signs in place will allow access to and from Bolsa Avenue and McFadden Avenue for all residents of the neighborhood and will have no impact on emergency vehicle response times. 6. BARRICADE A: Would you prefer a street closure at the city boundary between Huntington Beach and Westminster(Please see reverse side for barricade location A)? This will eliminate access to Bolsa Avenue for Huntington Beach residents and eliminate access to McFadden Avenue for Westminster residents while significantly lowering traffic volumes-on Cascade Lane. Emergency vehicle response times will likely be significantly increased if this street closure is installed. 7. BARRICADE B: Would you prefer a street closure at the south end of Cascade Lane west of Shasta Lane (Please see reverse side for barricade location B)? This will allow access to Bolsa Avenue and McFadden Avenue for Huntington Beach and Westminster residents and not increase emergency vehicle response times. Neighborhood through traffic will be transferred to Shasta Lane or Rushmoor Lane. 8. BARRICADES C &D: Would you prefer a street closure on Shasta Lane south of Cascade Lane AND on Whitney Drive at Cascade Lane (Please see reverse side for barricade locations C & D)? This will allow access to Bolsa Avenue and McFadden Avenue for Huntington Beach and Westminster residents and minimumally increase emergency vehicle response times. Neighborhood through traffic will be forced to use Cascade Lane, Shasta Lane, and Rushmoor Lane to travel through the neighborhood. QUESTION CASCADE LANE NEIGHBORHOOD ENTIRE NUMBER RESIDENCES ONLY WITHOUT CASCADE NEIGHBORHOOD YES NO YES NO YES NO QUESTION 1 8 (28%) 21 .(72%) 71 (69%) 32 (31%) 79-(60%) 53 (40%) QUESTION 2 11 (38%) 18 (62%) 94 (91%) 9 (9%) 105 (80%) 27 (20%) QUESTION 3' 14 (48%) 15 (52%) 95 (93%) 7 (7%) 109 (83%) 22 (17%) QUESTION 4 17 (59%) 12 (41%) 96 (93%) 7 (7%) 113 (86%) 19 (14%) QUESTION 5 13 (48%) 14 (52%) 99 (95%) 5 (5%) 112 (85%) 19 (15 Y) . QUESTION 6 13 (50%) 13 (50%) 17 (17%) 86 (83%) 30 (23%) 99 (77%) QUESTION 7 18 (75%) 6 (25%) 5 (5%) 97 (95%) 23 (18%) 103 (82%) QUESTION 8 7 (30%) 16 (70%) 5 (5%) 97 (95 9) 12 (l0%) =(909.) One questionnaire per residence was distributed throughout the neighborhood. On Cascade Lane 5 out of 34 residences (14%) did not respond to this survey. In the neighborhood excluding Cascade Lane 21 out of 120 residences (18%) did not respond to this survey. For the entire neighborhood 26 out of 154(17`Y) .of the residences did not respond to this survey. • REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date October 7. 1991 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by:Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator �. Prepared by: " Louis F. Sandoval, Director of Public Works Subject: GOTHARD/HOOVER EXTENSION UPDATE Consistent with Council Policy? [XI Yes [ J New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: At the Council meeting of September 16th, staff was asked to report on the status of the Hoover/Gothard Extention Project. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File. ANALYSIS: This is in response to Councilman Silva's question at the September 16th Council meeting. The State Public Utilities Commission application, 60% complete construction drawings and the Environmental Impact Report (second screen check draft) have all been submitted by IWA Engineers, our design consultant, for City review. Estimated return date to IWA is the week of September 23rd. TWA plans to incorporate our proposed changes and submit the documents to the City of Westminster for their comments. After their review, formal submittal to the PUC is expected at the end of October. The PUC application is necessary due to the proposed crossing of the Southern Pacific rail line by the new connector. Since the crossing must be at an acute angle, the Commission staff will be opposing Commission approval. If the Commission denies the application, it appears that our only remaining option would be to negotiate with S.P. to buy the railroad right-of-way. During public comments at the September 16th Council meeting, a resident of Cascade Lane said that the City of Westminster is opposed to the Gothard/Hoover Project. Thus faghovmver, the Westminster City Council is on record supporting the project. 0" IWA will make a brief presentation to the Council and be available for questions. 1 FUNDING SOURCE: Y The design and EIR are currently funded by the Huntington Center Redevelopment Ares ^ L-0 ' \ PIO 5/85 Request for City Council Action Gothard/Hoover Extension Update October 7, 1991 Page 2 ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Cancel or delay the project. ATTACFIWNTS• None LFS:REE:lb 3045g/10 & 11 i, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK September 19, 1991 Frederick ,R.Spates . 7631 Whitney Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Dear Mr. Spates: Your letter dated September 17, 1991, regarding- Cascade Lane was received.today. Copies have been forwarded to the following: Members of the City. Council City. Administrator Department of Public Works Director Traffic Engineer - Public Works Police Chief Fire Chief Sincerely, onnie Brockway, CMC City Clerk CB:pm (Telephone:714-536-52n) 7 coo-(A-C l c art-CIP FREDERICK R. SPATES 7631 Whitney Drive (714) 897-6617 Office (213)640-1050 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92647 September 17, 1991 City Clerk, City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Ca Enclosed is a letter to members of the City Council concerning the closure of Cascade Lane within the city limits. Request that you distribute this to all members of the City Council so that it may become part of the record. Respectfully, e ric Sp tes 0 00„>oh J, FREDERICK R. SPATES 7631 Whitney Drive (714) 897-6617 Office (213)640-1050 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92647 September 17, 1991 Mayor Peter Green and Members of the City Council 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Ca. Re: September 3, 1991 Council Decision on the Closure of Cascade Lane and Discussions Before the September 16, 1991 council Meeting Dear Mayor Green and Councilmembers, First, let me compliment your Public Works staff on the objectivity and depth they went to in surveying the traffic situation affecting Cascade Lane, Shasta, Rushmore, and Whitney Drive within the City of Huntington Beach. They made every effort to portray residents' views fairly and openly and like the majority of residents within this housing tract, I do not favor a barrier. The survey results sent a clear voice of the people message to you and you, as a governing body, responded accordingly. After watching the proceedings of the September 16 Council meeting, it appears that we have a situation of ever-ascending asininity. The vocal few who appeared before you at the September 16 meeting DO NOT represent the view of the majority of homeowners! ! Their claims of violence, accidents, etc. are largely exaggerated as may be verified by simply researching the Police Department's blotter of calls and reported incidents of the nature they describe in this tract. Reports do not bear out their claims. One possibility not fully utilized to date is increased traffic control by the Police Department, especially during the alleged high volume times WITH STRICT ENFORCEMENT! ! Expensive perhaps but nonetheless a revenue producer for the City. Installing barrier option A is a definite safety hazard to all residents. Installing barrier option B simply shifts the problem to Shasta, Rushmore, and Whitney. You have attracted a second gadfly to Council meetings. Heretofore, you had George berating you weekly on some issue. Now you appear to have - the "HSC" coalition of five people who by no means represent the views of the majority of homeowners and taxpayers within the tract. Do you wish to add a third - those opposed to any barrier action? My major concern in writing this letter is to receive assurance that the Huntington Beach City Council takes no unilateral action without fairly and openly again considering the views of all residence. The "HSC" group claims GoldenWest was not in session at the time of the last traffic counts. Mayor Green, you of all people should realize that GoldenWest holds summer sessions. The Land daycare center operates year-round. Traffic if anything has decreased since the installation of the signs and lines. This situation will continue in increasing or decreasing concentric circles (whichever view you desire to take) . Increasing circles will only lead to increased animosity among tract residents making this a less desirable area in which to live. Decreasing circles will lead to barriers on all accesses to the tract. Hitler tried this with the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto - it didn't work there either. This situation appears to have only one resolution which will be acceptable to all residents. That is an expeditious joint decision with the City of Westminster on the connecting of Gothard and Hoover. This will not eliminate all daycare traffic - in fact, since Land School is currently scheduled to reopen as a school in the 1992-93 school year, it may increase traffic to include school buses. I urge you to take prompt action to see the Gothard-Hoover project to completion. If members of the Council intend to meet with the "HSC" coalition to further discuss these issues, I respectfully request equal time to present opposing views. I may be reached at the address and telephone numbers listed above, and I am willing to meet with any or all of you at a mutually agreeable time. Respectfully, erick R. ate i 49NESTF�CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date September 3, 1991 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator Prepared by: Louis F. Sandoval, Director of Public Works c ;,� r^ Subject: INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURERS ON CASCADE LW"' AND SUGAR DRIVE ra f Consistent with Council Policy? [x] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception LXC --- Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Staff has completed its investigation of Cascade Lane traffic conditions and has made a recommendation that STOP signs, white edgelines, and yellow centerline stripes installed in May, 1991 remain in place. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize staff to leave in place all traffic control measures previously installed on Cascade Lane, Sugar Drive, Rushmoor Lane, Shasta Lane, and Whitney Drive. This would include STOP signs, 4" white edgelines, and double yellow centerline stripes. Staff also recommends the minor relocation of a STOP sign on southbound Cascade Lane at Shasta Lane, which will lessen the adverse impact on the adjacent homeowner. ANALYSIS: On May 13, 1991, staff was directed to install double yellow centerline stripes and white edgeline stripes on Cascade Lane and Sugar Drive, as well as all-way STOP signs at the following intersections (Please see attached vicinity map): 1. Cascade Lane/Whitney Drive 2. Cascade Lane/Shasta Lane 3. Sugar Drive/Rushmoor Lane 4. Whitney Drive/Rushmoor Lane An all-way STOP sign was also installed at the intersection of Colgate Avenue and Temple Street. Temple Street is the northerly extension of Cascade Lane within the City of Westminster. The City of Westminster also installed similar striping treatment on Temple Street. These STOP signs and stripes were installed May 21, 1991. Traffic Volumes Staff has compiled traffic volume data at four locations in the neighborhood in September and October, 1990, and also on July 23, 1991, following installation of the STOP signs (please see Attachment No. 1). The comparison of before and after traffic volumes reveals an approximate 25% reduction in traffic volumes on Cascade Lane at the City limits. Other street segments show a reduction in traffic volumes, with one exception. Rushmoor Lane between Sugar Drive and Etna Circle appears to be experiencing a 47% increase in traffic volumes. It should be noted that Golden West College was not in regular session when the latest traffic counts were taken. PIO 5/85 RCA — Inst. of Traffic Control on Cascade Ln. and Sugar Dr. September 3, 1991 Page 2 Traffic Speeds Staff performed radar speed surveys on Cascade Lane between Whitney Drive and Shasta Lane on November 5, 1990, and July 18, 1991 (please see Attachment No. 2). The 85th percentile speeds (that is, 85% of the traffic was traveling at or below this speed) were 37 mph and 33 mph. Both speeds are within the expected ranges on a residential collector street in Huntington Beach. Neighborhood Traffic Conditions Questionnaire Staff complied and distributed a questionnaire to the effected neighborhood residents (please see Attachment No. 3). One questionnaire per residence was distributed. Approximately 83% of the neighborhood responded to the questionnaire. It appears that the neighborhood, as a whole, is favor of the STOP signs remaining in place (Question 5, 85% for, 15% against). Cascade Lane residents appear to be split on the issue (48% for, 52% against). A large majority of Cascade Lane residents would like a barricade installation on Cascade-Lane at Shasta Lane (Question 7, 75% for 25% against), while the majority of the entire neighborhood is not in favor of a barricade installation on Cascade Lane (18% for, 82% against). It is staff's opinion that the STOP sign and striping installations are working reasonably well and should remain in place, rather than the installation of any type of barricade. The current installation has a negligible effect of emergency vehicle response time. City of Westminster's Actions on Temple Avenue The City of Westminster City Council met on August 13, 1991, to review the results of an all—way STOP sign and striping installation on Temple Avenue. The City of Westminster Transportation Commission recommended that the all—way STOP sign and street striping installation on Temple Avenue remain in place, to be further reviewed in nine months. The City Council approved the Transportation Commission's recommendation. FUNDING SOURCE: Funds for necessary STOP sign relocations or barricade installations are available in Account Number E—AA—PW-416-3-04-00. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: 1. Install a temporary barricade (for a ninety day trial period) on Cascade Lane at Shasta Lane. 2. Install a temporary barricade (for a ninety day trial period) on Cascade Lane at the City limits with the City of Westminster. RCA - Inst. of Traffic Control on Cascade Ln. and Sugar Dr. September 3, 1991 Page 3 3. Install two temporary barricades (for a ninety day trial period) on Shasta Lane south of Cascade Lane for on Whitney Drive at Cascade Lane. 4. Remove the STOP sign installations and striping installed on May 30, 1991, and return to the previous traffic control arrangement. 5. Direct staff to investigate additional alternatives. ATTACHMENTS: Vicinity Map v Attachment No. 1 - Traffic Volumes Attachment No. 2 - Traffic Speeds Attachment No. 3 - Neighborhood Traffic Concerns Questionnaire Results MTU:LFS:JDO:dw 3029g/12-14 - T . ■ 0 z CASCADE LANE AREA - 24 HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME DATA . F- z DATE OF SURVEY STREET NAME BETWEEN TRAFFIC CHANGE PERCENT W VOLUME CHANGE SEPTEMBER 26, 1990 CASCADE AT CITY BOUNDARY 2870 - 722 -25 JULY 23 , 1991 CASCADE AT CITY BOUNDARY 2148 ' OCTOBER 31, 1990 SUGAR MCFADDEN AND 3117 Q RUSHMOOR - 393 -13 Q JULY 23 , 1991 . SUGAR MCFADDEN AND 2724 RUSHMOOR . r OCTOBER .31, 1990 SUGAR RUSHMOOR AND 2480 SHASTA 358 -14 JULY 23 , 1991 SUGAR RUSHMOOR AND 2122 SHASTA OCTOBER 31, 1990 RUSHMOOR SUGAR AND ETNA 623 292 +47 JULY 23., 1991 RUSHMOOR SUGAR AND ETNA 915 CASCADE LANE AREA - PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME DATA DATE OF SURVEY STREET LOCATION VOLUME CHANGE $ CHANGE ` AM PM AM PM AM PM PEAK PEAK PEAK PEAK PEAK PEAK E. 26, 1990 CASCADE CITY BOUNDARY 231 334 - 143 + 31 - 62% + 9% 23 , 1991 CASCADE CITY BOUNDARY 88 365 'k ANALYSIS OF CASCADE LANE NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CONDITIONS SURVEY uestions 1. Do you now perceive less traffic on neighborhood streets in your area? 2. Do you now perceive slower traffic speeds on'neighborhood streets in your area? 3. Should the recently installed white lines remain in place? 4. Should the recently installed double yellow street centerlines remain in place? 5. Should the recently installed STOP signs remain in place? Leaving the STOP signs in place will allow access to and from Bolsa Avenue and McFadden Avenue for all residents of the neighborhood and will have no impact on emergency vehicle response times. 6. BARRICADE A: Would you"prefer a street closure at&-city boundary between Huntington Beach and Westminster(Please see reverse side for barricade location A)? This will eliminate access to Bolsa Avenue for Huntington Beach residents and eliminate access to McFadden Avenue for Westminster residents while significantly lowering traffic volumes on Cascafle'Lane. Emergency vehicle response times will likely be significantly increased if this street closure is installed. 7. BARRICADE B: Would you prefer a street closure at the south end of Cascade Lane west of Shasta Lane (Please see reverse side for barricade location B)? This will allow access to Bolsa Avenue and McFadden Avenue for Huntington Beach and Westminster residents and not increase emergency vehicle response times. Neighborhood through traffic will be transferred to Shasta Lane or Rushmoor Lane. 8. BARRICADES C & D: Would you prefer a street closure on Shasta Lane south of Cascade Lane AND on Whitney Drive at Cascade Lane (Please see reverse side for barricade locations C &D)? This will allow access to Bolsa Avenue and McFadden Avenue for Huntington Beach and Westminster residents and minimumally increase emergency vehicle response times. Neighborhood through traffic will be forced to use Cascade Lane, Shasta Lane, and Rushmoor Lane to travel through the neighborhood. QUESTION CASCADE LANE- NEIGHBORHOOD ENTIRE NUMBER RESIDENCES ONLY WITHOUT CASCADE NEIGHBORHOOD YES NO YES NO YES NO QUESTION 1 8 (28%) 21 (72%) 71 (69%) 32 (31%) 79 (60%) 53 (40%) QUESTION 2 11 (3 8%) 18 (62%) a 94 (91%) 9 (9%) 105 (80%) 27 (20%) QUESTION.3 14 (48%) 15 (52%) 95 (93%) 7 (7%) 109 (83%) 22 (17%) QUESTION 4 17 (59%) 12'(41%) 96 (93%) 7 -(7%) 113 (86%) 19 (14%) QUESTION 5 13 (48%) 14 (52%) 99 (95%) 5 (5%) 112 (85%) 19 (15%) QUESTION 6 13 (50%) 13 (50%) 17 (17%) 86 (83%) 30 (23%) 99 (77%) QUESTION 7 18 (75%) 6 (25%) 5 (5%) 97 (95%) 23 (18%) 103 (82%) QUESTION 8 7 (30%) 16 (70%) 5 (5%) 97 (95%) 12 (10%) 113 (90%) One questionnaire per residence was distributed throughout the neighborhood. On Cascade Lane 5 out of 34 residences (14%) did not respond to this survey. In the neighborhood excluding Cascade Lane 21 out of 120 residences (18%) did not respond to this survey. For the entire neighborhood 26 out of 154(17%) of the residences did not respond to this survey. ATTACHMENT NO. 3 0 CIA- STATE OF CAUFORNIA County of Orange I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT, a newspaper of general dreulation, printed and published in the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of Califomia, and that attached Notice is a true and complete copy as was printed and published in PUBLIC NOTICE the Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley I NOTICE OF issues of said newspaper to wit the issue(s) of: PUBLIC HEARING ON TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ON CASCADE LANE IN THE CITY OF August 1 , 1 9 9 1 HUNTINGTON BEACH Notice Is hereby given the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a'public hearing on traffic condi- tions and proposed solu- tions to traffic problems In the to Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic, 2000 fdaIn Street, Hunting- ton Beach, California, on the date and at the time In- dicated below to receive, and consider the state-' ments of all persons who wish to be heard relative to this Issue. DateMme: Tuesday, Sep- tember 3,1991,7:00 P.M. Request:The City Council !will consider a request.by; citizens residing on Cas-' cads Lane to Install bar-' ':rlcades on Cascade Lane; for the purpose of reducing• or eliminating,through traf-, I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the ific on Cascade Lane. All Interested Persons are foregoing Is true and correct. ;Invited to attend said hear- :Ing an express opinlons or; submit evidence for or: 1st August against the request as out Executed on ' 1 gg 1 ;lined above. If there are; any further questions, at Costa Mesa, California please contact Jim Otter-' son, City Traffic Engineer, at 3 r Louts F.Sandoval Di. rector,ctor, P Public Works �--v Department Signature By:Connie Brockway, City Clerk, City of Hun. tington Beach Published Huntington Beach Independent August 1,1991 081.427 0 PROOF OF PUBLICATION Notice of Public Hearing On Traffic Conditions On Cascade Lane In the City of Huntington Beach Notice is hearby given the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing on traffic conditions and proposed solutions to traffic problems in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to this issue. Ti.ue[ dyo )J /9 9/ 7: o o Date/Time: Request. The City Council will consider a request by citizens residing on Cascade Lane to install barricades on Cascade Lane for the purpose of reducing or eliminating through traffic on Cascade Lane. All Interested Persons are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the request as outlined above. If there are any further questions, please contact Jim Otterson, City. Traffic Engineer, at 536-5431. Louis F. Sandoval, Director, Public Works Department By: Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 536-5227 l � STATE OF CAUFORNIA County of Orange I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of Cafifomia, and that attached Notice is a true and complete copy as was printed and published in i�PUBLIC NOTICE the Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley ' NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING issues of said newspaper to wit the issue(s)of: ON TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ON CASCADE LANE IN THE CITY OF August 1 , 1 9 9 1 HUNTINGTON BEACH Notice Is hereby given the Huntington.Beach City Council will hold a public hearing on traffic condi- tions-and proposed solu- tions to traffic problems in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic, 2000 Main Street, Hunting- ton Beach, California, on the date and at the time in- dicated below to receive and consider the state- ments of all persons who wish to be heard relative to this issue. DateMme: Tuesday, Sep- tember 3,1991,7:00 P.M. - Request:The City Council will consider a request by icitizens residing on Cas- cade Lane to install bar-. Iricades on Cascade Lane ;for the purpose of reducingi or eliminating-through traf-, fic on-Cascade Lane. I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the All Interested Persons are; invited to attend said hear- foregoing is true and correct- ling an express opinions or! submit evidence for or' against the request as out-! A u u S t. 1 .lined above. ,If there are! Executed on g ' 199� any further questions,: please contact Jim'Otter at Costa Mesa, California son, City Traffic Engineer,. at 536-5431. = , Louis F.Sando`val,.Dl-j rector, P Ilc Works;. DepartmegY;- By:Connie".Brockway, l Signature City Clerk,141ty of Hun-! tington Beach Published Huntington t Beach Independent August 1,1991 -- 081-427 1 PROOF OF PUBLICATION Notice of Public Hearing On Traffic Conditions On Cascade Lane In the City of Huntington Beach Notice is hearby given the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing on traffic conditions and proposed solutions to traffic problems in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to this issue. T...c a.ac 4yo )`3i /9 9/ 7 Date/Time:s,ea -., 991,7.0 P.M- Request: The City Council will consider a request by citizens residing on Cascade Lane to install barricades on Cascade Lane for the purpose of reducing or eliminating through traffic on Cascade Lane. All Interested Persons are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the request as outlined above. If there are any further questions, please contact Jim Otterson, City Traffic Engineer, at 536-5431. Louis F. Sandoval, Director, Public Works Department By: Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach _ 536-5227 Pagq ,3 , - Council/Agency Agenda - 9/3/91 (3) PUBLIC CIDWENTS James Reid - protested bid award E-5. Dr. Marian Carmichael , Friends of the Library President - in support of F-3. . -Wade Hawley, Adult Library Literacy Service President - in support of F-3. .sue George Arnold - re: Pierside Village Closed Session; removal of pilings on beach. -Kim Munro, Friends of Children' s Library Purchasing Agent, re: need for library parking;. traffic control at Edwards and Varsity. Chris -Gerrity re: -F-1 . Requested 4-way stop. Erin O'Neill-Hodge re: F-1 . Requested 4-2ay stop with flashing r-ed light. William Hodge re: F-1 . Requested stop sign. risti n Wallingford, Ewanna Amondson, Bill Vinnicombg, and Doug Harmon re: F-1; opposed to flashing yellow light but in support of a traffic control device. Bruce Spencer, Chairman of the firemen's negotiating team; Lee Caldwell , Chris Gruber, Stgvg -Christen, and James Lacy re: contract for firemen. Lana Campbell , Huntington -Beach Playhouse Vice-President, re: thanked Council for library expansion and urged their support for. F-3. D-1. (City Council) PUBLIC HEARING - TRMTXC CONDITIONS ON CASCADE LANE 580.10 Public hearing for the purpose of considering traffic conditions and proposed solutions to traffic problems on Cascade Lane. R.ECOMMUNDED ACTION: Authorize staff to leave in place all traffic control measures previously installed on Cascade Lane, Sugar Drive, Rushmoor Lane, Shasta Lane and Whitney Drive. This would include STOP signs, 4" white edgelines and double yellow centerline stripes. Staff also recommends the minor relocation of a STOP sign on _, :q southbound Cascade Lane at Shasta Lane, which will lessen the adverse impact o�}� the adjacent homeowner. f vieA) in 9~..rMs. �P^o✓r_cr -3 �w•x //�/Ye1/y,//?ocihb�-�a ►.so�-, r�o) - _ /rcG'T�Ttr, /�4dG 7� �J•�s�7vG po/icing .c.r� - - -. E. CONSENT CALENDAR E-1. (DELETED) (9/3/91) (3) M CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To From Connie Brockway Pat Dapkus Subject City Clerk Date Management Assistant Cascade Lane June 10, 1991' Connie, attached are several pieces of correspondence which relate to the discussion about Cascade Lane. One item, in particular is a petition which came to Council some time back. Would you include this material in your file on this item so that it can be considered when the item comes back before Council. Thank you. cc: Michael T. Uberuaga Ray Silver i• '011.30 3AUUD 111100G 0MUM J0 Alto {36 4N InL.W. Pettett 9 15052 Anita Circle Westminster , CA 92683 ( 714 ) 898-9835 3 May 91 To : Members of Huntington Beach City Council Re : Proposed Closure of Cascade Lane at Westminster/Huntington Beach Boundary Councilmembers : This past week, myself and some of my neighbors circulated a petition to poll the Westminster side of the tract on the proposed Cascade Lane closing. We gathered 120 signatures of residents of different households ( including several on Temple Street ) who wish to keep our neighborhood open to access from both Bolsa and McFadden . (Presumably due to the weather , many weren ' t home ; however , the majority was polled . ) Please add the names on this petition to the 85 signatures of residents of the Huntington Beach side of the tract , polled last January, who also wish that Cascade Lane remains open. THIS BRINGS THE TOTAL TO 205 OF MY NEIGHBORS WHO ARE OPPOSED TO DIVIDING THE NEIGHBORHOOD. Barricading the street would create more problems than it would solve ; ask the Huntington Beach Fire Department . Stop signs , speed traps , or traffic 'humps ' are better solutions . In considering the Council ' s response to the request for street closure , we hope you consider the wishes of the majority and not of the few. Sincerely, L.r.ePetett cc : Members of the City Council of Westminst M 2 f� E C D MAY 1991 CITY OF HUNTI.NGTON BEACH AQi'IMISTRATIVE OFFICE Page of ___ l� PETITION We the undersigned homeowners/residents living in the Westminster housing tract immediately adjacent to and directly affected by the proposed closure of Cascade Lane at the Huntington Beach city boundary OPPOSE such closure by affixing our legal signatures below: PLEASE NOTE: ONE SIGNATURE PER HOUSEHOLD Print Name Signature Address -------------------------------- -=--- -------------------- �l�i�����e'i�?_-- - -- -- mil_ =�✓t,�S�Es-ra.�n� / O WA�c 6e- VA 76 J c ---��cL ►,s--------- ----------------�, `=' ------ ------------------------ - ----- --- ------- ------------ - --------------------------------- ------- ------------------ 773/I --- --- - -- - Page 2 of PETITION We the undersigned homeowners/residents living in the Westminster housing tract immediately adjacent to and directly affected by the proposed closure of Cascade Lane at the Huntington Beach city boundary OPPOSE such closure by affixing our legal signatures below: PLEASE NOTE: ONE SIGNATURE PER HOUSEHOLD Print Name Signature Address ------------------------------------------------------------------- _ oS I-J 1 Z ----- ---° s ky °- ------ --=------------�1-/--/---- ------- 7 7 LOB- T_ *T'4 Cin 60 -S�--------- - - --� cE - Keay-`f 4 .�G�wn(� 79 5 Cam ! v- e v�2 �/qs/�'' ------------------------ --------- - - ---- �� 1�. w 9f a -------------- `710 COLQ�a 4�— t�, --------- II I I—�Srn���.s>� r --- !-------- — ------J �? 9 2s ---- =-T- -, 2. 5' Page 3_ of PETITION We the undersigned homeowners/residents living in the Westminster housing tract immediately adjacent to and directly affected by the proposed closure of Cascade Lane at the Huntington Beach city boundary OPPOSE such closure by affixing our legal signatures below: PLEASE NOTE: ONE SIGNATURE PER HOUSEHOLD Print Name Signature Address ------------------------------------------=------7-�------/----------- ___-------. -_--_-_r JUL------- 772 • -- --------------- --7 y _ Z�} CL (N Cif, S� �G%LS ai✓--/--=== --------- ��^� ------------7�'i/ Za --- - /�-� !�'�=-��21Fi«STi✓�lF.� 1����,%11G��,C_/J_:i> ,i1L, C Sc TT f} O(��n_i,� �c�-r-['V cz-. cue-ESL 07h82 �c��.J—srtr•� 2 / , h �71 --- ---------------h--'- V� Page _ of G_ PETITION We the undersigned homeowners/residents living in the Westminster housing tract immediately adjacent to and directly affected by the proposed closure of Cascade Lane at the Huntington Beach city boundary OPPOSE such closure by affixing our legal signatures below: PLEASE NOTE: ONE SIGNATURE PER HOUSEHOLD Print Name Signature Address ------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - - - - - - ------------------ ovr --1 SoYL An, LLr-------- -- _ _- - ---- -- --------- �-1)6 _ ___ _ __ _______ _ __ _____ ______-_____ --- --- --------------------------- -���-�r.��-��---------- ---- ---��1_-�-d1��--,�-fit-- u /,,l/J��✓ ------------ Lisa G ------ -- -- �---------R---- .��-----------------V � Wit -- ---- _--- N E�so,� s�Ac�t C j �� syiw viv �? ------------------ -- - ----------------------- 41- -<O�------ ------ --� 4 -----��.1_2Z-- �l��r.��s sr �A R��� �o ✓i 1� - ---ZL -L - - --------- ---- -- — — -- ----- ------------------------------------------------------------ • Page S_ of PETITION . We the undersigned homeowners/residents living in the Westminster housing tract immediately adjacent to and directly affected by the proposed closure of Cascade Lane at the Huntington Beach city boundary OPPOSE such closure by affixing our legal signatures below: PLEASE NOTE: ONE SIGNATURE PER HOUSEHOLD Print Name Signature Address ------------------------------------------------------------------- P � 7 _��> C - ------------�- - '---� - ----7 c-- _ l C Z Z----2 0-Z- �z 1,Z--/: E ST c�sc, ------ -- �z 77� oll,���--------���� _ - - - -- - ------- `T -------- z _1 s EL_S i __� ----1---' -------7-53L1e-,1i ZeL 1�L 4 ti!� Guc ------�7 3/ �FiG�I1° 5� ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- Page A Of PETITION We the undersigned homeowners/residents living in the Westminster housing tract immediately adjacent to and directly affected by the proposed closure of Cascade Lane at the Huntington Beach city boundary OPPOSE such closure by affixing our legal signatures below: PLEASE NOTE: ONE SIGNATURE PER HOUSEHOLD Print Name Sig ature Address ------------------------ ---- ----------=------------------------ I It-If A ------------------------------------------------------------------- � -.------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- . .,F J. MA HUNTINGTONMBEACH CITY COUItiC!L OFFIGE-- _4 X_ _mv du u" - r Nhal. lit 71 . Ala Ate�e t b Z�4-4.z-, _4 *- --Zn--A atr .:alo A h. — - - - - - _- --- {r C-7) 7631 Whitney Drive Huntington Beach, Ca 92647 ` J April 29, 1991 ���� 1Qy = Members of . the City Council City of Huntington Beach City Hall, 200 Main Street CITY of HUNTINGTOP ` -"°::•-� Huntington Beach, Ca CITY COUNCIL OFF1� Dear Members of the City Council, I am writing to ask that you carefully consider all facts in the upcoming decision concerning the closure of Cascade Lane. In your last meeting, your agenda mentioned the petition from 24 residents requesting closure. You failed to even mention and you must consider that in a separate petition, EIGHTY-EIGHT HOUSEHOLDS stated that they were against closure! ! ! The City Fire Chief has spoken against closure. Accident statistics from the police department do not support the number and frequencies of accidents that those petitioning for closure claim. The voice of the people says don't close off a vital safety exit from our residences. I have previously provided Councilman Kelly with data on possible consequences to this residential area in the event of a toxic spill on the adjacent San Diego Freeway. This data produced from a transportation analysis model developed by Vanderbilt University and accepted as valid by the U.S. Department of Transportation and the California Highway Patrol shows that the westerly egress off Temple would be life saving in the event of a necessary evacuation. This country is founded on the principle of majority rule. Petitions provided to you (and I feel largely ignored by the Traffic Commission) clearly state that the majority of residents do not favor closure! ! The City of Westminster was willing to listen to its residents and those affected when this matter was brought before them. We understand they are now also willing to consider speed bumps on Temple Avenue as a solution. Why is the City of Huntington Beach so far behind in its thinking??? You were elected by us and should be responsive to us. Don't allow the personal desires of a few to dictate unsafe conditions to the majority of residents in this tract. A single exit via Sugar onto McFadden is unsafe! It will cause unnecessary congestion within the tract since this is an extremely difficult egress to safely make. You have not considered any or all other alternatives. When you vote, be sure you have exhausted all alternatives. Let you conscience be aware that you are deciding the safety of all residence - that a vote r o r pu s our lives in jeopardy! ! ck cy for: Councilmembers, Winchell, Kelly, MacAlli r, oulton- Patterson, and Robitaille 1 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date May 13, 1991 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administra _. Prepared by: GwLouis F. Sandoval, Director of Public Works (dP— =i Subject: ; Installation of Traffic Control Measures on Cascade Lane and Sugar Lane Consistent with Council Policy? [ Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: The Transportation Commission has completed its investigation of Cascade Lane traffic conditions and has made a recommendation that a temporary barricade be installed on Cascade Lane at the City limits. On April 15, 1991, staff was directed by the City Council to study the issue with respect to emergency vehicle access and potential optional courses of action. A 5_/ 13 RECOMMENDATION: �S5 ATV'A%&(e ��Y." v�� Install all—waySTOP signs at four locations within the neighborhood for a ninety 90 da g g Y � ) Y trial period. Should the STOP sign installations prove ineffective, a barricade installation skaWshould be considered. ANALYSIS: On April 25, 1991, the Mayor, City Administrator, Director of Public Works, City Engineer, and the Traffic Engineer of Huntington Beach met with the Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, City Manager, Director of Public Works, Civil Engineering Associate, and Chairman of the Transportation Commission of Westminster. This meeting was called to discuss options previously developed by the staff of both cities. As the result of the meeting, the proposed plan of action would now be as follows: 1. Install all—way STOP signs for a 90 day trail period at the intersection of: A. Colgate/ Temple B. Cascade/Whitney C. Whitney/Rushmore D. Cascade/Shasta E. Sugar/Rushmore These STOP sign installations will result in through traffic passing through four STOP sign—controlled intersections on any route through the neighborhood. Additionally, a STOP sign to control northbound traffic shall be placed on Shasta at Whitney. In an effort to slow traffic speeds on Temple, Colgate, Cascade, and Sugar, 4" white edgelines shall be painted on each side of the yellow centerline stripe to provide 10' wide lanes through the neighborhood. PI O 5/85 2. If the STOP sign installations are ineffective, and the City Council(s) approve the installation, a temporary barricade will be installed on Cascade Lane at the Huntington Beach city limits for a 90 day trial period. The respective city staffs will poll the residents of the neighborhoods after the barricade has been in place for 60 days. The results of the poll will be presented to the City Councils. If the barricade installation is unacceptable to the Council, it will be removed. If the barricade is functi6ning as intended and not causing other traffic problems, a recommendation to install a permanent barricade would be made at that time. A review of the previous calendar year's emergency service vehicle requests revealed that fire and paramedic vehicles from both cities transited the City limit line an average of seven (7) times per month. FUNDING SOURCE: Funds are available in Account Number E-AA=PW-416-3-04-00. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: 1. Install a temporary barricade on Sugar Drive at McFadden Avenue. 2. Do not install STOP signs on Cascade Lane, Shasta Lane, Whitney Drive, Rushmore Lane, or Sugar Drive. 3. Do not approve any barricade installation. ATTACHMENTS: Vicinity Map City Attorney's Opinion MTU:LFS:JDO:dw 2929g/14&15 Hap ry ! Proposed STOP sign installation w p 8 Proposed -Barricade installation- -- WASHINGTON No seACE WESTM/NSFER MEMORIAL PARK Q W m LI Ba-SA LEHIGH 10;� 1 saouF�c /sa `�Pl rERRACE Q Z i H v APTS. � GONZAGA lL CASrE cn Nn ! JOHN LAND HARK Q vDUOUESNE 'PINE x a CITADEL A(IDMY 14An4C4 N TRAILER AW K ; 3 JOHN LAND (L J'LC"AVFY OF ORAAE� SCHOOL w w v to I COLLATE m COLLATE CIFY CF WESM/N/STE-R BISHOP HUNT/NGFGYV WHITNEY I HARHAY CF STOP OR NORTHBOUND TRAFFIC ONL COUNTY EVEREST ORAA E" , LEDON � LEDON I ' C04 beY � ET3. IV ; St F Q ROCKWELL I o ROCKWELL_ C'ys o w ' V v Q4RWIN o kwT jK- �- Fp,DDE 1 S I 1 1 ' DRIFTNGOD TRAILER PARK 4,9 "VR'LD K 76 O I CENTER Pae� I Ly . 776 CITY . OF. HUNTINGTON BEACH. INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To JIM OTTERSON From GAIL HUTTON TRAF17IC ENGINEER CITY ATTORNEY Subject RLS# 90415 GATING OF CASCADE LANE Date DECEMBER 10, 1990 QUESTION. 1. What is the city Is liability exposure if a permanent gate is installed blocking a city street? 2. Since the location of the gate will affect the City of Westminster, can the city take unilateral action? STATEMENT OF FACT: The Transportation Commission of the City of Huntington Beach is investigating closing off a street with a gate which is to be locked with an Knox Box. The "Knox Box" will allow the fire department access to the street. There are two recommended locations for l the gate. One is Cascade Lane and the other is Sugar Lane. Either location may affect traffic conditions in Westminster. ANALYSIS: Question 1 California Government Code §830.6 grants immunity to public agencies and their employee for design of public improvements which result in injury where such plans or designs have been approved in advance of the construction by the city council. The gating of a city street on city property falls within this design immunity statute. L z Question 2 While the gating may affect traffic in Westminster there is currently no law putting a duty on a city to consider or confer with adjoining cities concerning traffic impacts. ANSWER: Question 1 The closing off a street by gating does not increase the city's liability. JIM OTTERSON December 10, 1990 Page 2 Question 2 The city may unilaterally make the decision to close off its street regardless of the possible increased traffic it may cause in an adjoining city, however, there is a new law which has not been implemented yet which will require county wide congestion management and inter—agency cooperation. •_ 6Z� �k GAIL HUTTON s CITY ATTORNEY GCH/AJF/jeg }E I . k r. c r' i' ti �r 'rs i+ s { r.: REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION �C>0` �a / Date April 15, 1991 - Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City,Council Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator L� r Prepared by: Louis F. Sandoval, Director of Public Works r Subject: Installation of a Temporary Barricade on Cascade Lane at the City Limits with the City of Westminster A Consistent with Council Policy? [ Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Ji Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: The Transportation Commission has completed its investigation of Cascade Lane (Huntington Beach)/Temple Street (Westminster) traffic conditions. RECOMMENDATION: The Transportation Commission recommends that a temporary barricade be placed at the subject location on a three month trial basis. This barricade will be equipped with a "Knox Box" device that will allow it to be opened in the case of an emergency. Pedestrian ingress/egress will not be restricted. ANALYSIS: At the October 10, 1991 meeting of the Transportation Commission a citizens group requested that the City control cut—through vehicle traffic as well as the speed of this traffic in their residential neighborhood. This could be accomplished by the above—described barricade. A study conducted by the City of Westminster revealed that 42% of the vehicles using Sugar Avenue, Cascade Lane, Colgate Avenue, and Temple Street are using these residential roadways as a cut—through. Motorists using the above—mentioned residential roadways are attempting to avoid the traffic on Bolsa Avenue, McFadden Avenue, Golden West Street, and Beach Boulevard, consequently disrupting the residential harmony of this community. Average daily traffic on Cascade Lane at the City limits is approximately 3,000 vehicles per day. This issue has been discussed at the Transportation Commission meetings from October 1990 through March 1991 with many residents speaking for and against the proposed barricade. The Westminster Traffic Commission, at its meeting on March 5, 1991, voted to recommend this three month trial closure. The Westminster City Council at its meeting on March 12, 1991, voted against the trial closure. The City of Huntington Beach Transportation Commission at its meeting on March 12, 1991, voted unanimously to recommend the trial closure. P10 5/85 Page 2 RCA Dated April 1, 1991 Temporary Barricade on Cascade Lane FUNDING SOURCE: Funds are available in Account Number E-AA-PW-416-3-04-00 ALTERNATIVE ACTION: 1. Install a temporary barricade on Sugar Drive at McFadden Avenue. 2. Do not approve any temporary barricade. ATTACHMENTS: Maps City Attorney Opinion Traffic Counts Map MTU:LFS:JDO:RMH:eh 2889g r Vi C iw , ♦rY A409 P �'GOLOEN-NUGGET Cfh :L.'� :W o J r - U ' v Sty!=; Iv�• CIR' •ERLING WYis.^1 ___ _u ' ''HAZARD QV GAROEk::;;■ �MONTICE 0 IR MIAMI' 2Y H ZARD AV HAZARD — AV PK ' 'S mac• 8000 HAZ RD IR 8400 p 1�? 7000 --- 7400g SOOLJ u t,, SANT -'� �-7i ... I- E AV EP 1: i •\.��'/?C' Ln y cn v :1 u' ql• Cr K i. '\ ROOSEVE 7 - BIRO \ > : •Lt .\ LJ z \ ;ARY pULIN0 c•.:.`.'•' --.4- CIR ,` WESM—'-/N—S—TERA - =—�; :'Yi' Xi'�.�•..i':'.:' r zp _ LANDea<IN S p i Cn PRESIDENTIAL O cm S0IYELL AV = /}Y MEMbR/AL I ! AMA ISON Dn =1 °O�Y \\ i l -PARK c •.WES;MINSTER A4 LL x 1i-, r W. -F X \.�:J. � En � � LL z m A6 DR j xxxlx f, J �Q _ FENWICK LN CEMETERY �'��' to o au' ! S. B o —— in a REESE < T.. I X \ .:�.: <WASHI TON 3 :IC AV Lw WY - 6900 - '' z o w< O c 7500 LEHIGH PL. O lJ vi ...: O-z c ¢ In .;... S�. -e DR 0 u Nu` 9i t�P�Q �p n .<. :' OHZACA O r°Q`G ' ItSA�Tj W 850,0 u n �1.0 m �:''.r trvl PI• v In d 2' �'' 1•. GOUx IR 11�� :3 wz2 z ^RUTGER :�Z �i.z�J;.:i "' C O' Y t c . kHl7k•6 ,1 CIR OXFOR FJ u `-DR ' N V a w j OUOUE{NE�1 a PINE LO HAZELWOOD CIR Ct _. PL CITADEL ST Y O H O VARD PA �CIR CA�i R Y� w ...... --' J1AY(1J RR - . L, Nrnan: I clR V TUCIPIYUDU CI 0 ' _ q r CIR I 2 tx oL o�.....� I ok w u CU BE ANDO Z•,rl,WELLESLEY, CG GA7EiL AV J > TL71D�CC4' U ROMF CIR z O SP CIR SOREN�0 CIR D. ES N CIR Y CARLTON �O� 1'1HITNEY DR ��—x MT AYR1 BI H $ V�FUGUEMw w0 AY O w < < 1. JUD T A c w '� CIR R EASE• -� CIR ItALIFAX z DR I B SWICK 0 -1 0 a ST• )E A G ,t•' .LEDON FtYRTLEr'YD CIR U V a I S E` AV 1 LIDO DR MELBOURNE u � ::DR i �Tp\ uY i � ^ SI � `rl9 ti� ETNn ROCK• 1 y I� v~j y p CIR p Wp I`C1 N r COL.BY:=_ 9 O o WELL DEVIL C z W c < _' :•`:`•;` Li o N EIAE ::CIR `rC' (y o IR 1:1000BBIE I Lu • I'EPPE4 <> cz Q �_ ;.GRf£R: 0 0 a AV 90 a u o�O CIR wD CI o v x p <u o CPARK•: o c >. S ... ( r Wo ARWIN- STONE DR �� 8 m - ROCKM t.Y^ o ( ~ kORCIR ¢ nnc FAooEN o v;;; ;� _ t s., Z ° s< AV I o Z s'00 o�OAIH >—zn 7000`" F Su nv a u QnAA : m8500 LN lNf,. CR- K ��' ,G - ,:�: <' y PAR,: z- PETERS:z )R < us < <= IGH1 D 'i:- a Y4 IS RIDE <cc }-1 h o yo r t . On Z>:;: CHESTNUT OR w ,--J >O N I--'� { �+ z EDCEHOH CIR H WOOn•1J L � SKY I W O' gt-UE- Y O w O w fJy��Y+iQD�u m FLIGHT J AV= cl RD. = SIDE �� SUNNEI > SHOP < ��� y':� O Q T N CIR 3 STARSHINE 3¢ SU DR i�11EE ®® 't, 1_'� •D -LM'U ~ Gi, .-.IC DR 1- o H 5 ZO y P rlSwN aN 8 vw.o S" ' IID(IDA) WORTHY N pR 3 � RR EATH .? J - ...I'L HOONSEAM OR IQ CENTER r e INN AV`• •.'_..1. w w ;x;.,.0 11 CIR L.I <-J SH NON�R istc 7 ';. 90 LL "� Z 0! DR EIIR O C RK j J nCriEOrtU D —�® x- -- T^mc \: ;. �k`�C�L�I RAM O`;z G PK�� GLARE a,��, a O RIDE i j •-'-'-EAF:?fC�il •»'CANE x OR O Y ill ¢ ) �' ''�-!';�:- C/ ° ,RD DR _u AUW U BPEELAND-J DR < HUNTINGTON �( ```` ` 9 ` S;AV " ~ GOLDEN kcSl �;;•:��C �O , ; . A J: 3 OR � - Q z COLLEGE I- I CENIER 1.• ` .` O < x i �C CROCr,ETT .u•LIIYE CK w J J a -J 8 L° _ o u x1 x" v W us A I `J. CIR . o_ �;;� C+j u LA +~tea 1 C q W U °' Grp ��/'� B MW P C C o OBERLI o CIR d . : •. a I .:yj• -Y. 1i DG•IA+:�.v: I C� AY m IrY�.7 Ef .74000OYc 1` A N D. 7' .. .§ FU MAN AV 8400 AV c L' 2 7500 !DQf R I Jtid Et `,�o, f y'r. z ¢4¢ I SEE 1900 � =t� Bsoo r e z J 7 ZaW'' 1 �t LORGE z cD 1 sq � VO E: c v '-J LD z EDINGER ALDRICH - y ti ;'�!�/ A' ESTA� -�2 n: J O CIR z PLAZA I ASHWOOD LN Q F v W -1 w J z J 2 DOGWOOD LN `40 �� m x c tr: O r of 7 IIEDWOOD LN J Z O,� / t J u CIRLD o } m B IL O DR w uj LGA OR -J y�( z < � 4 CUf70NW0 LN TARK 7 09�q \I` ` w 3= z LEr NYANZAI— ST NEWOOD DR MURDY CIR z < AMAZON .•:.1 La PAZ DR t/) `/, J _ 2 5 OLIVEWDOD LN -> OP o P �l�Jt,S' ° I CIR8000L''T FS cD HOl7 Z p 1 IYELH as R J z z�'It ` YI YIONE :::;:::::::, r - u Do J f l^l� AFA fiR .,, GH W �CIR ¢ f• w < ST 3 xd-' AUBURN OR LI OHT o < : = LPJ= AIACDONALO IIN J NZ Z !'1 < -i f. ST s EDGEMONT o I-JLOYOLA0.DR.J tIR z z < O O >- rh SGA �F z � YALEN- .Q R 6 D( z JULIET LOW GLENCOE AV J O o �` �} " / ° ujL IAL(CE m o TINE DR .- « J NANCY Q DR�Da� U 3 o OAK F> Z ><X HELE GRID EWA7ER o F SUNI_IGH7 OR ^a R AO ALHAh(BRAx > -J ALHAfJIBRADR — �� D Y R8 'L 4V GROVE <5 CIR HEIL r-1 7SO06 J AV C 7d0 7$00 OR� J 3 J Q o RY x A BOTT OR z a ONNIE LENIS _a ' ,rre-� 7 �_ '�J J O FEIL 8C. 50CA%/ J CIR -I J DANUBE OR S m w C/ = W IJ BISHOP ORMASON �- (" ~ MARS OR z SEI IE DR pQ<'P Ufia z LIJ tL i �_ Z L015I ,- vERLENE z z r D 2 i J CIR MADDO m p fn C'i•' 0 2 U� c `� a CORP,INE.CIR� DON DR -J Z r z I— r -J 1- - z u' \aL '9 Q BRUSH 3 " DONALO CIF 4P RUTH J DR < J z w J Z \ x IOR u PAUL�. r rz w .!, t LL! QQ —� y FD �� DR w nJ "' COUNT J /( e Q I Y CIR 'n' CIR " Cr J ic o SATURN OR CIR ir w ck: �C/9 ICY ES R� B.RYANT OR Jl CARLA n Q z DR m LAMAR 'ANQQ CIR - LAMBERT c� `-' HUNTINGTON BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT 0 325 AVF- ; 0 LPrJ 01, J 7-1 CL .6c 00 F PlPo PO S E'D S�RR i c l D.6 L oes/9-7'/OAJ COLGATE:::.A VE. CITY OF WESTMINSTER 15241 v N m o ry n T--, ,--- `n 11Jin viLn an vi �o �c .o 0n �o >r r n r r 15261 WHITNEY �R• Q H.ARHAY AVE i 1527 �• in .in 15272 ^ r n ^ n 1528 15271 15282 61 15292 lszez 9ti.1Sy 'p(/ co n 1529 15292 ih�g1 S 1hti,Oti 1htig1 ley Lo h ^ 1001 5317 9y 'SQ yh� yti hhoy E VE R E S T C R. �titi yh�yy �O,p ry a N M L E D0114 WAY ��ti yh�ry y � � n � � � • • hA '9 .Sh/•.y� by yh ti •�� o � N yh ^r5y OF yh �yti �yh/ Y yh�° yh �ql n 1 yh h�6y h��L �yhh� �h15351 ? NA 1 y 1y Sh hh y < 1ST C R15361 . �bti yh�h�0y yh yh�9ti ��? 15372 15371 37 RO C KW E.L L L y/h�°y . 0 ��h r 15382 15381 J 3g Lu AVE y ^� `' y yyl yhA Y J 15392 15391 hS9 U �9y O h y tih°tiy y'oy 15402 15401 12- ,41 Q °y >Q 15412 15411 ati > U ,o � OARWIN AVE — 15322 15421 � 9ti 3 h LL i O n Q — 1�h1h �? Q 15432 15431 °h 2 U (f) 15452 15451 = h F °h U 00- �� ; Q _ c/) h � n 'o w ' • E j J� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION ; HUNTINGTON BEACH To JIM OTTERSON From GAIL HUTTON TRAFFIC ENGINEER CITY ATTORNEY Subject RLS# 90-815 GATING OF CASCADE LANE Date DECEM 3ER 10 1990 ,t 4 UESTION: I. What is the city's liability exposure if a permanent gate is installed blocking a city street? 2. Since the location of the gate will affect the City of Westminster, can the city take unilateral action? ETT: C a STATEMENT OF FACT: 31 The Transportation Commission of the City of Huntington Beach is investigating closing off a street with a gate which is to be locked with an Knox Box. The "Knox Box" will allow the fire department access to the street. There are two recommended locations for the gate. One is Cascade Lane and the other is Sugar Lane. Either location may affect traffic conditions in Westminster. ij ANALYSIS: ;1 Question 1 California Government Code §830.6 grants immunity to public agencies and their employee for design of public improvements which result in injury where such plans or designs have been approved in advance of the construction by the city council. The gating of a city street on city property falls within this design immunity statute. .,7 Question 2 �I While the gating may affect traffic in Westminster there is currently no law putting a x duty on a city to consider or confer with adjoining cities concerning traffic impacts. ANSWER: Question 1 The closing off a street by gating does not increase the city's liability. = • JIM OTTERSON } December 10, 1990 Page 2 Question 2 The city may unilaterally make the decision to close off its street regardless of the possible increased traffic it may cause in an adjoining city, however, there is a new law which has not been implemented yet which will require county wide congestion management and inter—agency cooperation. GAIL HUTTON CITY ATTORNEY GCH/AJF/jeg 4 4 / 3 • t HUNTINGT❑N BEACH - PUBLIC WORKS DEPT, TRAF-F-IC ENGINEERING - W COUNT DATE WEDNESDAY 9/26/90 W , 5 z a WESTMINSTER HUNTINGT❑N C ❑ LGATC BEACH COUNTER S s 0 z Mm OJm cc WHITNEY DR , W V v L'J W Q 0- n U � � Q � Q U p Q V / P V / �• 111�' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH , INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO Honorable Mayor and FROM Michael P. Dolder City Council Fire Chief VIA Michael Uberuaga, C.A.O. SUBJECT TEMPORARY BARRICADE DATE March 26, 1991 CASCADE LANE AT CITY LIMITS Initially, the temporary barricading of Cascade Lane at the City Limits was communicated to the Fire Department in November of 1990 . The Fire Department voiced no objection to this proposal . However, subsequent analyses of the written proposals on the RCA involving Cascade Lane and the effects of the proposed solutions raise some significant issues which adversely impact the delivery of emergency services to this area. The Fire Department, therefore, OPPOSES the closure of Cascade Lane based on the following: SECURITY GATES Many individual residential developments are granted approval for restricted access . However, NONE of these devices have been allowed to restrict access to a dedicated public right-of-way. The proposed barricade on Cascade Lane would restrict and delay access to a large emergency response area. Under existing joint powers response agreements, the closest Fire Department units respond to emergencies, irrespective of City boundary lines . Huntington Beach units routinely provide emergency medical and fire suppression services to the Cascade Lane district and the surrounding areas, with Westminster units providing reciprocal services . RESPONSE STANDARDS The City' s Growth Management Committee and the adopted 1991 Goals and Objectives, Action Plan Number 1-10 (Attachment #1) specify standards for fire suppression and medical aid responses ( i.e. , response of . the first unit in 5 minutes or less at least 80% of .the time) . Locked barriers across primary response routes will adversely impact our ability to meet these adopted standards .. Illegally parked vehicles and malicious incapacitation of such barriers could effect an extremely prolonged response time, with potentially disastrous consequences to the public, and liabilities for the City. PRECEDENT Permitting the barricading of a dedicated public right- of-way establishes an undesirable _ precedent for .the solution of traffic complaints . This action opens the door for additional emplacements, each of which would have similar unacceptable impacts. ACCESS ROUTES The access routes to Cascade Lane and the surrounding areas are severely restricted by geography, fire station locations, and the 405 freeway right-of-way. The restriction of the single direct access route to a large service area severely impacts response capabilities . The traffic problems on Cascade Lane will not be properly resolved until the connection of Gothard Street to Hoover Street is completed. Although the present situation is unacceptable to the citizens on Cascade Lane, the delays to emergency responses created by the proposed barricade results in service levels which are unacceptable from a public safety perspective. MPD:dg Attachment cc: Mike Adams, Community Development Director Louis Sandoval, Director of Public Works Jim Vincent, Fire Marshal Battalion Chiefs Dennis Groat, Deputy Fire Marshal Fire Stations Fire Prevention barrier.mem GOALS & OBJECTIVES ACTION PLAN Action Plan Number: 1-10 GOAL STATEMENT: MAINTAIN SAFE COMMUNITY OBJECTIVE: Provide fire coverage for the community in accordance with the following:A)Arrival of first engine company fort fue/rescue and medical aid within 5 min. -80%of the time and in all cases within 10 min.;B)Arrival of first ladder company within 10 minutes 98%of the time and in all cases within 15 minutes;C)Arrival of first paramedic unit within 5 minutes 80%of the time and in all cases within 10 min. LEAD DEPARTMENT: FIRE DEPARTMENT IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM MAJOR TASKS REQUIRED RESOURCE ALLOCATION START/COMPLETION (Personnel,Operating & Capital) DATES 1. Maintain the current Emergency Response Personnel: $8,000,000-existing staff On-going activity. Control System. Operating: $600,000 in existing budgets Capital: $200,000 2. Improve emergency response routes and Personnel &Operating:None On-going activity. Traffic Control System(OPTICOM). Capital: $80,000 per year. ($12,000 per OPTICOM installation) 3. Improve emergency response coverage and Personnel: $1,000,000 To occur in conjunction with response times by providing for a new Operating: $50,000 development of either Bolsa Springdale Fire Station,engine company, Capital: $3,150,000 chica or Holly/Seacliff area, truck company and paramedic unit. (for land, station and equipment) �a H I 4. Relocate fire company to new Graham Fire" Personnel&Operating:None . To occur with the completion H y Station. Capital: $1,200,000 of the Springdale Fire Sta- (constriction only,land already acquired) tion. r H i� � NAME ADDRESS /I 154� I C I /Sys ) z� p /r3 9.19- i mac, I5a51 co5jcn,,5op- L_6z. dv /A/ � 1 NAME ADDRESS to o , 69 :w ep Petition for the non-closure of Colgate and Cascade streets NAME ADDRESS CITY L 3e < <. 'a T�J2 tart S �G - -------------------------------------------------- --- r3 --------- --------------------`' ----- �=--_---------- I----- "A fsA lea'__- ir1C 7 r -----1 C� z x�U�ek 0P, T Mi 57-erI �LL -- -- -- - -----n------- ------- -��/ - -i----- ------ ----------------------------- - --'----!-`-- vl� --/ --�� 77 -- - -- - -- — ---, - - -- ---- --------------- c� --« _ ass ----------------------------------------- A =---------------------------------- r Petition for the non-closure of Colgate and Cascade streets NAME ADDRESS CITY -----� T'�--'- _ ~; -- -------_--'� COO stv ------ ------------? 2--C' _ -- - ------- -------------------------------------- A 1 4� �t f -- - --� j -------/---- ------------------- - _ ------------------------------------ °"-------------------------- -_f-c--�1-- "-L---'`---- Petition for the non-closure of Colgate and Cascade streets NAME ADDRESS CITY L� -------------7 7 -_L C o �-�-` -^S-�^ --- ---------------- ------2� -- -------------- ------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------j----------- ---------------------------x-------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- !, ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------=------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- - -------- --------------------------------------------------- -: ----------------------------------------------------------------- Petition for the non-closure of Colgate and Cascade streets NAME ADDRESS CITY ------------- _ F -------- - ---------7 -- --- --- -- . ------------.----------------------------------------------------- 'i:..:.. ------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------- .. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- .. ----------------------------------------------------------------- w ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- .�. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ••. �S'd2/ ( �/C r►�rS ?gQ; X41,8-9 /S"at// `' NQc �S;�VA ?f7 / � ? -7� 0 -7,7611 L, 4-2 15y171 �� k44211 L.W. Pettett 15052 Anita Circle Westminster , CA 92683 ( 714 ) 898-9835 3 May 91 To : Members of Huntingtop Beach City Council Re : Proposed Closure of Cascade Lane at Westminster/Huntington Beach Boundary Councilmembers This past week , myself and some of my neighbors circulated a petition to poll the Westminster side of the tract on the proposed Cascade Lane closing . We gathered 120 signatures " of residents of different households ( including several on ' Temple Street ) who wish to keep our neighborhood open to access from both Bolsa and McFadden . (Presumably due to the weather , many weren ' t home ; however , the majority was polled . ) Please add the names on this petition to the 85 signatures of residents of the Huntington Beach side of the tract , polled last January , who also wish that Cascade Lane remains open . THIS BRINGS THE TOTAL TO 205 OF MY NEIGHBORS WHO ARE OPPOSED TO DIVIDING THE NEIGHBORHOOD. Barricading the street would create more problems than it would solve ; ask the Huntington Beach Fire Department . Stop signs , speed traps , or traffic '-humps ' are better solutions . In considering the Council ' s response to the request for street closure , we hope you consider the wishes of the majority and not of the few. Sincerely , L.W. Pe tett cc : Members of the City Council of Westminster 1 Page of y_ PETITION We the undersigned homeowners/residents living in the Westminster housing tract immediately adjacent to and directly affected by the proposed closure of Cascade Lane at the Huntington Beach city boundary OPPOSE such closure by affixing our legal signatures below: PLEASE NOTE: ONE SIGNATURE PER HOUSEHOLD Print Name Signature Address -------------------------------- ---- -------------------- � ��'_►1E�i�-- -- - -- ��cz�l_r'���-�ikv_t,J�Eyrlw� WA UICI ----- = ---Qp. --- - - - ------_� LZl_ 1y _ �l ------45�- -,�--- -- — --770/-0.0A/"IMIA, ---------------------------------- ------ --------------------- -. G_n 77V_(fer7 f/ Ck �lq c ---- -- - -- ---�c� c9�_ Page 2 of �— PETITION We the undersigned homeowners/residents living in the Westminster housing tract immediately adjacent to and directly affected by the proposed closure of Cascade Lane at the. Huntington Beach city boundary .OPPOSE such closure by affixing our legal signatures below: PLEASE NOTE: ONE SIGNATURE PER HOUSEHOLD . Print Name Signature Address -------------------------------------------------------------------- r /5_ _— l�10.O,h�------ — ="�— ----------7.71-1 ----- -77 - '-- 1------ - - '_-----------7'I�_ vas roc . r.. — �Y7 / ol-- .la 21) 2 --- - ���--------- --- ---------------�- Ff= ---71 Co ------------------------ ------ ---- -- �rT Are Ld-------- ------ - 7---+_ �,G:r� 6- _� l�lZ 7C P sta_L� SrM� ���e �l Page 0 f PETITION ' We the undersigned homeowners/residents living in the Westminster housing tract immediately adjacent to and directly affected by the proposed closure of Cascade Lane at the. Huntington Beach city boundary OPPOSE such closure by affixing our legal signatures below: PLEASE NOTE: ONE SIGNATURE PER HOUSEHOLD .Y Print Name Signature ' Address it f~lrrrrr rrrrrrrrrrrrrr---V--`r;��rr.-jrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr;rrr rrr rrrr - --1--�-----.� =------- -- ---r T -------Z------ ----^--�-- —A,----- ----- --- -- ---- --{ ---- ----- -------721 -_ .3 --------�____—`J -7 I/ 1._ _mil w R ZI 7,1 14 f i Cc� , ------Z�=S—=— T------ 5711 _sc oTT__�} — ���n c.� _ �c--rC"—�.--C�de L--7b��-2__D`�J',__s_�'_`" ., Page '—�-- Of �— PETITION We the undersigned homeowners/residents living in the Westminster housing tract immediately adjacent to and directly affected by the proposed closure of Cascade Lane at the. Huntington Beach city boundary OPPOSE such closure by affixing our legal signatures below: PLEASE NOTE: ONE SIGNATURE PER HOUSEHOLD Print Name - - Signature - - Address ------------------------------------ ------=------------------------ ----------- --- le- ------ --- ---------s-�---_-n�� - --- S o � � So n� '� - -- -oar------ ---- -- ----------- -A--f�-LL-,------- -T(O -- --- � ------------------------7�? 76 ea - - - ���� --- -- -----------------�7�� - , JC _Gar -11_ � ----- ---- ------- `-'r�=S1-=j gStiJc--�---- �. ------ -------------------------�_fT------ 7 y -- .- - -----Lisa - e= 1.5fD ------)S oG I S P-IiCa�f_.St---- Y6 HN f AJA --- __.��� IL AR W6 o ✓i , _ ------ -� - -------� - Q� - --- Page S_ of C° PETITION We the undersigned homeowners/residents living in the Westminster housing tract immediately adjacent to and dicectiy affected by the proposed closure of Cascade Lane at the Huntington Beach city boundary OPPOSE such closure by affixing our legal signatures below: PLEASE NOTE: ONE SIGNATURE PER HOUSEHOLD Print Name Signature Address ------------------------------------------=------------------------ �j' ��UcS rna,-�Sfi 2 de 1 . z It -010 ---------Ila �► -----��s.�i_ .fit _pr.-- AO A { -----A&4a1 -:Wz ma---?-6--- A1 Dvc — — 3/ .-F �G L� 1e/ES1 fA A ;&e .�b ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------=------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------- Pa ge o f PETITION We the undersigned homeowners/residents living in the Westminster housing tract immediately adjacent to and directly affected by the proposed closure .of Cascade Lane at the Huntington Beach city boundary OPPOSE such closure by affixing our legal signatures below: PLEASE NOTE: ONE SIGNATURE PER HOUSEHOLD Print Name Sig ature Address ',. ----------------------- ---- ----------------------------------- - - x lvmya4A�5 61 A I I I A IA. J -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- .J, fe CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH F60 o INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH - To Mayor & City Council From Louis F. Sandoval, Public Works Directo Via Michael T. Uberuaga, C Michael P. Dolder, Fire Chief Subject REVISED ALTERNATIVES TO Date April 15, 1991 INSTALLING TEMPORARY BARRICADES Considering the Transportation Commission's recommendation to install a temporary barricade on Cascade Lane and the Fire Department's opposition to closing a public street, three (3) alternatives exist for City Council consideration: 1. By motion, direct staff to install a temporary barricade on Cascade Lane for a three (3) month trial period. 2. By motion, do not approve a temporary barricade and continue operating Cascade Lane as an open public street. 3. By motion, direct staff to further analyze the public safety and policy impacts of the proposed street closure and provide a consolidated report to Council within sixty (60) days. LFS/MPD:cgs 1222f PageNO Of PETITION :- ` = We the undersigned homeowners/residents living in tlie.area containing Cascade Lane., Shasta Lane, Rushmoor Lane,- Whitney Drive, Everest Circle, Etna Circle : ..;:C and Suar Drive -do hereby request the City of Huntington _ " Beach -, a nM at the Boundary with the City of Westmins- �t ter (Colgate Avenue) We request this action by affixing our legal. signatures PLEASE NOTE: ONE SIGNATURE PER HOUSEHOLD r Pr injiName Signature Address / r y 2"11, JUAP PM'"UA �- ue-.CJ 2z eL IL t c '719;65, _709 A- .IF S i ✓ �Z11417L f� Z 5 z z-5,1',f, 421ZA LAO 9264 7 kA -7731 LJ P v e;, //U 9-2lr�i Dj -vne Rvah fla�y� A P kl a a // ,B %� 6`-/ 2703g f,. Page Of_ y - _ PETITION We the undersigned homeowners/residents living in the area containing Cascade Lane, Shasta Lane, Rushmoor Lane, Whitney Drive, Everest Circle, Etna Circle Cottonwood Circle, and .Sugar Drive do hereby request the City of'Runtington Beach_ at the Boundary with the City of Westmins- <ter�(Colgate `Avenue) We reque'st''£his .action'�y affixing our legal signatures �.. -below:_ - -- --- - PLEASE NOTE: ONE SIGNATURE PER HOUSEHOLD ::Print Name i nature Address �,4� L� IS4 9 C 0-tTJ� wJ' � cP_ STOP /537 1 bo/o"f Z. I"` A P41- IT 1 -5-391 Avs�jajo�- LIV IZ AZLI: 1 G.� /`S°-3 7/ A a 4ihwd &,oCj=:::42 Li o-f J Zvi ho OF f 6 TT If&filyrce 'A I-LetY b 2703g Page Of 1 PETITION We the undersigned homeowners/residents living in the area containing Cascade Lane, Shasta Lane, Rushmoor Lane, Whitney Drive, Everest Circle; Etna Circle Cottonwood Circle, and Sugar Drive do hereby request the City of Huntington Beach TR etas a - an at the Boundary with the City of Westmins- tet :(Colgate'Avenue) . We request this action by affixing our legal signatures below: - ---- - - PLEASE NOTE: ONE SIGNATURE PER HOUSEHOLD Print Name Signature Addresg IZI 99 k l53i z StdAS LAti�c M F v IL `c `.Y►1�t� �' /�.1�c�i 5 3�%�. S t},�s ��i/ wc,o 1,tA 10i u AZ& /S _- z F- 6Auh 0 r�o S� sf/;t CA r&Vz—Z Ai 6-�- 21alm�" A Ztrs•v j� ru 1071 l-�hr�w�t�- �P�. l-� rc A64 � /.�� /n. •�T`o�J 77i/ o �Lz?` /4iv f-lion,y �u,�.c,,,�,b /�i 9/ .�c.r�C,w.:n. ��•' 91 Gs�� . 2703g Page * PETITION - We .the undersigned homeowners/residents living in the area containing' Cascade . Lane, Shasta Lane, Rushmooi Lane, Whitney Drive, Everest Circle, Etna Circle Cottonwood Circle., and Sugar Drive_do_hereby request the City of Huntington Beach � s}e�at the Boundary with the .City of Westmins- r ..... ter (Colgate `Avenue) We request this action by affixing gur legal signatures St `below: = --- - - PLEASE NOTE: ONE SIGNATURE PER HOUSEHOLD print!Name Signa Address -7kz !z �Opepaoc�" s ism ra4 Win . �, V o-S 0,1)0 V'Tyl� aL&Q1 I � ')- � Z�m u l.F ss '3 teas E S• i� • e 2703g �n PETITION We the undersigned homeowners of Cascade Lane and surrounding Huntington Beach x streets hereby propose to cul-de-sac Cascade lane at the Westminster border Colgate St. Name Address Phone 16 is 3 / G DO p u J �( -5 Cad e 5 O 767 8' a L.cJ p'q�' 7oob -,-L QA e, �Y3 ygZ117 17 7-74 D ► -i- t� Go ���� s / �a � l asc �E �nJ , � 93 �53OL / - / $ `off 4• ----- �J"o��� (_�!/✓� 11�/�? _ (53�Z cQ c Jk, LV,• PETITION - We the undersigned homeowners of Cascade Lane and surrounding Huntington Beach streets hereby propose to cul-de-sac Cascade lane at the Westminster border at. Colgate St. Name Address Phone # Y- `13z0 i i I Je PETITION We the undersigned homeowners of Cascade Lane and surrounding Huntington Beach streets hereby propose to cul-de-sac Cascade lane at the Westminster border at Colgate St. Name Address Phone # jr- T PETITION ' We the undersigned homeowners of Cascade Ln. and surrounding Huntington Beach streets do hereby propose that action be taken to better control the amount of high speed traffic going thru our tract. N me Address Phone-# ��� � Qst C� �C77 PETITION ' 7 We the undersigned homeowners of Cascade Ln. and surrounding Huntington Beach streets do hereby propose that action be taken to better control the amount of high speed traffic going thru our tract. Name Address Phone # A&71� / JG/ J W 77 - 2 a- g - 3 - to P)QAA*��- 7 7,zV;, � 77// 7 r 20 1A ftd v /) Mr 0 Q /P11 �Mhj v -1)J)*, V. L"u- V1 i14 7qLld PETITION ' We the undersigned homeowners of Cascade Ln. and surrounding Huntington Beach streets do hereby propose that action be taken to better control .the amount of high speed traffic going thru our tract. Name Address Phone # J, 6 74' J ,� /(��j PETITION \ We the undersigned homeowners of Cascade Ln. and surrounding Huntington Beach streets do hereby propose that action be taken to better control the amount of high speed traffic going thru our tract. Name tddress Phone # .c� -7T3� 5� lS'�Fd'z co A) w ,p elf. 14L zb 7 Zm_,�,P 5ZI Ito Y (� EJIE/! i 47>xl� 43 Lj t49 '7 Uo- PETITION We the undersigned homeowners of Cascade Ln. and surrounding Huntington Beach streets do hereby propose that action be taken to better control the amount of 'high speed traffic going thru our tract. Name Address Phone # 3 • - 57- !�Sa !�Xa S:/Q � h 2&La&eA1 . r 3 ; r r fi- Z o N � • /3 s ai S X e7 -322 3 lJr-51IR / 5 - 1 15 4(5z- CO 0440 1 SLI51 ��"� qqS_ /4 2-5 fig• y: . .V 'PETITION • We the undersigned homeowners of Cascade Ln. and surrounding Huntington Beach streets do hereby propose that action be taken to better control the amount of high speed traffic going thru our tract. Name Address Phone # I�ZTAU- 71L,26C UJ 'z�') 7Q,� 'S v W4&A 0 �&M A e, t./ -8- 99 Lvt. 1 5 3 z 29Z-3 3S6 -03 17 . 4 LL� V I e 4 PETITION ' We the undersigned homeowners of Cascade Ln. and surrounding Huntington-Beach streets do hereby propose that action be taken to better control the amount of high speed traffic going thru our tract. Name Address Phone �l , CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To Mayor & City Council ���—�� From Michael P. Dolder via: Michael T. Uberuaga, CAO Fire Chief Subject SPECIAL FOLLOW UP TO ITEM F-1 Date April 10, 1991 REGARDING TEMPORARY BARRICADE ON CASCADE LANE The Transportation Commission at their April 9, 1991 meeting considered additional Fire Department information regarding the emergency response impacts of the temporary closure of Cascade Lane. Additional follow up information on Item F-1 will be distributed to the City Council late Thursday, April loth or early Friday, April 1 lth. If you have have any questions following the receipt of this information please call, Mike Dolder at 536-5401 or at home 969-9643. MD/sr 1211f 6 A �= F Gr March 26, 1991 DD i 1 The Honorable Peter Green CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COU���_! OFFIG- Mayor of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Calif. 92648 Re: The Closure of Cascade Lane Dear Sir: We, the undersigned, who reside in Huntington Beach on Cascade Lane agree with the Transportation Committees of Huntington Beach and Westminster that Cascade Lane should be closed. According to their count, we have an average of over 2,800 cars driving down our street in any twenty-four hour period. This is very unsafe for us and our children! The last five years has brought an immense increase of cars cutting through our neighborhood. We realize that some of our neighbors who live in our tract oppose the closure but they do not live with the problem, we dol If for some reason you oppose the closure of Cascade Lane at the City of Westminsters border, we would then plead with you to close Cascade Lane on the south end where it curves into Sugar Drive. Please consider the safety and well being of the residents of Cascade Lane and their children before deciding your vote. We look forward to seeing you at the April let meeting. Very Truly Yours, Residents of Cascade Lane (See Attachment) cc: The Honorable Jim Silva, Mayor pro tem The Honorable Linda M. Patterson, City Council The Honorable Grace Winchell, City Council The Honorable Don MacAllister, City Council The Honorable Earle Robitaille, City Council The Honorable Jack Kelley, City Council l �7 776A� A� r 17 4ke, f i had- t 6�� n 1-VP2� ,�cz.elz n . j3 CITY OF WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL MINUTES . { 3/12/91 COMMISSION AND COMMITTEE ITEMS Traffic Commission T.C. 91-102 The City Council received- for consideration T. C. 91-102, a proposal for the temporary closure of Cascade Lane at the City Limits with a recommendation from the Traffic Commission that the City Council approve the recommendation of the Traffic Commission that Huntington Beach temporarily close Cascade Lane for a ninety day period; that both Westminster and Huntington Beach review impacts of closure during this period; that Westminster review closure five days and eighty days after barricades are installed. Mr. Vestal stated that this particular application came before the Traffic Commission because of the actions taken by the City of Huntington Beach which were initiated by a citizen's petition requesting that traffic problems in the vicinity be alleviated; that as a result of this request the Huntington Beach Transportation Commission had held several public hearings last fall regarding traffics proble-ins with speed, volume of traffic and cut-through traffic along Cascade which becomes Temple Street within the City of Westminster; that an invitation had been issued by the Huntington Beach Transportation Commission to Westminster's Traffic Commission Chairman to attend one of their public hearings to consider a six month temporary closure of Cascade at Huntington Beach's City boundary which would then leave the residents within the City of Huntington Beach with one exit out of their tract to McFadden and leave the City of Westminster residents one exit at Temple and Bolsa; and that a member of staff had attended this meeting as the Traffic Commission had indicated that it would be inappropriate to provide input without holding a public hearing and garnering input from Westminster residents who had not been notified of of the Huntington Beach hearings. He advised that the Traffic Commission held a public hearing on January 9, 1991, with testimony being received from approximately 20 residents of Westminster and Huntington Beach with the testimony being evenly divided in favor and against the closure; that the Traffic Commission had directed that staff provide input on the speeds along Temple, including vehicle count survey to compare with the counts developed by Huntington Beach, the possibility of installing a signal at Bolsa and Temple, and the-possibility of providing another exit from the tract to Bolsa via either the existing school district/railroad/utility right of way or through the cul-de-sac at Lehigh prior to the next public hearing on March 5, 1991. Mr. Vestal reviewed the results of the traffic survey (approximately 4,200 vehicles per day) which had been taken opposite Land School compared to Huntington Beach's count (approximately 2,800 per day); noted that a traffic signal for Bolsa and Temple had already been scheduled on the traffic signal-priority list as the location met traffic warrants; that it would be too costly to provide another exit as suggested; and advised that at its public hearing on March 5, 1991, the Traffic Commission received the information from staff as requested and again received testimony from approximately 20 resident of both cities with their testimony being evenly divided. He stated that at the conclusion of the second public hearing, the Traffic Commission voted 4-1 to recommend to the City Council that a recommendation be transmitted to the City of Huntington Beach to try a three-month temporary closure with an evaluation by both cities to be initiated five days after the closure and 80 days after the closure to be followed by a report back to the Commission 91-3-12-4 f for consideration of whether or not the closure should be extended or the barricades removed. Mr. Vestal responded to Council's questions pertaining to the effect the Hoover/Gothard connection would have on traffic in this area; the impact of cut-through traffic on Temple Street; if the closure were approved, the inconvenience and additional vehicular miles to exit the tract; how the closure would affect emergency service to the area, noting that a temporary gate with a Knox box would be installed for emergency access; and that the children from Huntington Beach would have to walk through the tract to Land School as this would be the pick-up point for transporting students to other schools. He indicated that the recommendation received by the Council this evening was from the Traffic Commission and that staff's recommendation had been to deny the temporary closure of Cascade Lane at the City limit. Mr. Vestal responded to further questioning from the Council concerning when the Huntington Beach Transportation Commission's recommendation for closure would be received by the Huntington Beach City Council; that after receiving further information from the staff and testimony at its public hearing on March 5, 1991, the Traffic Commission had arrived at its decision and submitted its recommendation to the Council; and that the Hoover/Gothard connection would help to mitigate the out through traffic as it would provide an alternate route to avoid the congestion at the major intersections. He advised that in accordance with staff recommendations, speed limit signs and "No Heavy Trucks Allowed" signs had been installed in the area and that traffic enforcement had been increased in this area; that the Traffic Commission had discussed the installation of speed bumps but no recommendation had been made; that Huntington Beach's staff was strongly opposed to speed bumps; that there had been a significant reduction in speed on Vermont Street where speed bumps had been installed; and that Huntington Beach does not need Westminster City Council's approval to close Cascade to their City limits but this issue had been brought to the Traffic Commission's attention in an attempt to resolve a problem which involved streets in both cities. Motion Councilman Schweisinger moved to defer T.C. 91-102 to the next City Council meeting. There being no second, the maker withdrew the motion. Motion Councilman. Schweisinger moved to deny the proposed temporary closure of Cascade Lane at the City limits; seconded by Councilman Fry. Brenda Hole Brenda Hole, 15071 Temple, stated that in the past seven years the traffic on Temple had increased tremendously with this street being used as a short cut by drivers who were attempting to avoid congestion on Beach Boulevard and Goldenwest Street; that the signs prohibiting trucks had help to alleviate some of the traffic; that Temple Street was wider than Cascade Lane which encouraged speeding; that accidents were increasing in the area; that the Police Department diverted traffic through the tract when accidents occur on Beach Boulevard and Goldenwest Street and this provides further knowledge of the area to drivers who are seeking a short cut; that the Hoover/Gothard connection would alleviate traffic problems in this area; that it was not safe for children to play or ride their bikes in front of their homes because of the speeding vehicles; and that many residents had expressed opposition to the closure because of 91-3-12-5 the lack of access to both Bolsa and McFadden; and that the closure would provide a safety factor for the residents of the area. In response to Councilman Schweisinger's-question, Mrs. Hole stated that she would agree to the installation of speed bumps in the area, but that in the past when speed bumps had been requested, the City had denied the request. Bill Pettit Bill Pettit, 15052 Anita, questioned what the response time of police and fire personnel would be if the closure were approved; advised that he had spoken to members of the Huntington Beach Fire Department who were aghast at the recommendation for closure; noted that this tract was serviced by the Murdy Fire Station but that jurisdiction overlapped in this area; distributed information to the City Council concerning the number and types of call which had been received on the Huntington Beach 911 line for the period January 1 through March 10, 1991; indicated that the traffic count had not been a concern to him as there were between 400 to 450 homes in the tract with each home having approximately three vehicles which would generate approximately 3,000 trips per day for residents in the area; that the majority of the residents he had spoken to in Huntington Beach were opposed to the closure; that a poll of the homeowners in the Westminster portion of the tract should be taken to ascertain their opinion of the closure; and that a member of the Huntington Beach Fire Department had written the Chief indicating that it would take three times longer to respond to a call if the street were blocked off, including neighbors and commercial areas to the north. He responded to Councilman Schweisinger's questions concerning speed and cut through traffic. Mr. Vestal responded to Councilman Fry's question concerning the speed limit for a residential street, which was 25 miles per hour but that speed surveys throughout the City proved that 32 miles per hour was not an uncommon 85 percentile speed on residential streets that act as a collector. Ernest Havner Ernest Havner, 7912 Colgate Avenue, stated that traffic has increased over the years due to increase in population; questioned the response time of emergency personnel if they had to stop to open the Knox box; supported the installation of speed bumps, which if properly installed would not cause damage to vehicles; that closure of the street would add to existing vehicular pollution; and that most of the cut through traffic occurs in the morning and afternoon. Mr. Vestal responded to questions concerning the dates the traffic count surveys were taken. Tom Fairbanks Tom Fairbanks, 15302 Shasta, Huntington Beach, stated that the petition which had been circulated in the area had two different headings which were misleading; that 32 persons had signed the petition for the cul-de- sac and 75 people had signed the petition requesting better traffic control; stated that he had discussed this matter with the City Engineer of Huntington Beach and had questioned the wording of the petition; indicated that he had circulated a petition opposing the closure and had obtained 85 signatures; pointed out that Huntington Beach had not taken any action to deter traffic; commented on the traffic design which had been installed on Shasta; and provided the City Council with a copy of the petition. 91-3-12-6 Mr. Fairbanks responded to Council's questions concerning when the Huntington Beach Transportation received the petition; when the Commission arrived at its. decision; and that Huntington Beach's staff had indicated this was the most expeditious and cost effective method to resolve the problem and that they were opposed to speed bumps. Bob Fanival Bob Fanival, Rushmore Lane, Huntingon Beach, supported the installation of speed bumps on Temple as it would deter drivers from speeding without affecting the access of the residents in the tract to Bolsa Avenue. Don Pearce Don Pearce, 15452 Shasta, described accidents and the resultant property damage caused by speeding vehicles, noting that some of the accidents had been hit and run with the homeowner then having to pay for the damage to the property; indicated that Huntington Beach had expressed their concern about the liability factor if speed bumps were installed; requested that the Fire Department be contacted to ascertain if emergency services response time would be affected:by the.closure; noted that speed bumps would not deter cut-through traffic; and related that the cities should discuss the traffic problems in this area to ascertain what measures should be taken to alleviate the problems. Kurt Bayliss Kurt Bayliss, 15342 Cascade Lane, Huntington Beach, advised of the difficulties encountered when a motorist tried to enter or exit the tract on McFadden; pointed out that the closure would contribute to the graffiti problem on Colgate; and that the City of Huntington Beach needed to be convinced that speed bumps and additional signage would contribute to the reduction of speeding vehicles in the area. Gloria Perkier Gloria Perkins, 15212 Clemson, pointed out that after the first few weeks, parents stopped driving their children to school and the children walked to school or to their bus stop; agreed that there had been numerous accidents on Temple/Cascade causing property damage; and that the residents on Temple/Cascade would benefit from the closure but the Council's decision should be based on what was best for all of the residents of the area. Bernie Glasso Bernie Glasso, Whitney Drive, Huntington Beach, stated the Council need to consider some environmental issues if the closure were approved, including the vehicular pollution which would be created since residents would have to drive additional mileage to enter and exit the tract. Ken Ostroski Ken Ostroski, Shasta Lane, Huntington Beach, stated that this issue had created dissension between neighbors; that he had not seen increased traffic enforcement in the area; and that the installation of stop signs as well as the installation of speed bumps might be the solution to the traffic problems in the area while allowing the streets to remain open. Judy Moses Judy Moses, 15412 Cascade, advised the Council of the extremely dangerous traffic situations that residents of Temple/Cascade face daily; noted that the traffic count on Cascade was 180 vehicles per hour which was above the norm; that Council should also consider the noise factor that would be created if speed bumps were installed; that Huntington Beach had installed stop signs and had striped Cascade in an effort to mitigate the traffic problems, but that these measures could not control the volume of 91-3-12-7 traffic in the area; and that the streets needed to be closed so that the cities could discuss the issues involved and arrive at a solution to the traffic problems in the area. Dwayne Graham Dwayne Graham, 7832 Colgate, expressed his concerns about the response time of safety personnel if the closure were approved; indicated that it was obvious that the Hoover/Gothard connection was needed; suggested locations where stop signs could be installed on Temple/Cascade which would slow traffic, noting that driver's might cease to drive through the area if they were inconvenienced; and stated he was interested in safety but did not feel the streets should be closed. Bill Stanley Bill Stanley, described an accident which had occurred recently in front of his residence; noted that after extensive studies both cities' commissions had voted in favor of the closure; -commented on the animosity which had devaloped between neighbors over this issue; recognized that environmental problems would be' created by the closure; related that as a matter of-- courtesy the Huntington Beach Transportation Commission had notified our City of its decision, requesting mutual cooperation on this matter; and that the two cities needed to work together to resolve the traffic problems in this area. Mayor Smith requested the members of the audience who were in favor of the closure to stand; then requested the members of the audience who were opposed to the closure to stand; and commented that it appeared that the majority of the audience was not in favor of the closure. Councilwoman Gillespie then asked if the members of the audience who were in favor of the closure would agree to the utilization of speed bumps as an alternate method of traffic control and approximately six people indicated that they would agree to this alternative solution. Councilman Fry suggested that residents of the area reduce their driving speed, which would force other drivers to follow suit. Mayor Smith advised that representatives of the City Councils of Huntington .Beach and .Westminster along with staff members had been meeting over the past several years to discuss problems of mutual interest; and that the closure of the cities' boundaries had never been discussed at these meetings. He then requested the following amendments to the motion on the floor: (1) That this matter be referred back to the Traffic Commission for investigation about the placement of speed bumps along Temple Street; (2) that a survey be sent to the residents of the tract requesting their input on the installation of speed bumps; and (3) to officially convey the City Council's recommendation to the Huntington Beach City Council with a recommendation that the City of Huntington Beach consider the installation of speed bumps on Cascade Lane. Amendment The maker of the motion and the second agreed to amend the motion as requested. Councilman Fry stated that he would like the Police Department to increase traffic enforcement in the area; and Councilman Schweisinger indicated 91-3-12-8 that he was opposed to the closure but if alternate methods of traffic control were not successful; he would approve the closure of Temple. Vote The City Council unanimously approved the motion to deny the temporary closure of Cascade at the City Limit and the following amendments to the motion: 1). Refer this matter back to the Traffic Commission to investigate the placement of speed bumps along Temple Street; 2) that a survey be sent to the residents of the tract requesting their input on the installation of speed bumps; and 3) to officially convey the City Council's recommendation to the Huntington Beach City Council with a recommendation that the City of Huntington Beach consider the installation of speed bumps on Cascade Lane. Councilman Schweisinger asked how many people in the audience were in favor of the Hoover/Gothard connection, and by show of hands, the majority of the audience indicated that they were in favor of the connection. T.C. 88-106 The City Council received for consideration T. C. 88-106, a Public Utility Commission Application for the Hoover/Gothard Connection with a recommendation from the Traffic Commission that the City Council approve the recommendation of the Traffic Commission that the submittal of the Public Utility Commission (P.U.C.) application be approved for the Hoover/Gothard Street extension and that the City of Huntington Beach pay all costs related to such application. Mr. Vestal related that after holding a public hearing in 1989, the City Council had approved the addition of the Hoover/Gothard connection between Bolsa and McFadden Avenue to the City's and County's Master Plan of Streets and Highways with the understanding that no implementation would be made tntil engineering studies were satisfactory and that safety problems were :addressed; that the City of Huntington Beach had hired a consultant to address these issues; that Huntinging Beach was developing an Environmental Impact Report; that the next stage was to file an application with the Public Utilities Commission for the new railroad crossing; described the realignment and design of the rubberized railroad crossing; and that at its public hearing the Traffic Commission had unanimously approved the recommendation submitted to the Council. Motion Mayor Pro Tem Neugebauer moved to approve as recommended; seconded by Councilman Fry and unanimously carried. T.C. 77-135 The City Council received for consideration T. C. 77-135, a request for additional crosswalk near Westmont School, with recommendation from the Traffic Commission that the City Council approve the Traffic Commission's recommendation that the request to install an additional crosswalk on Heil Avenue near_Westmont School be denied. Motion Mayor Pro Tem Neugebauer moved to approve as recommended with the stipulations .that the existing crosswalk be repainted, that new school crossing pavement markers be installed, and that school crossing signs be added; seconded by Councilwoman Gillespie and unanimously carried. T.C. 76-187 The City Council received for consideration T. C. 76-187, a request for a stop sign at University/Shrewsbury with a recommendation from the 91-3-12-9 v ' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To Mayor & City Council From Michael P. Dolder Via: Michael T. Uberuaga, CAO Fire Chief Subject ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING Date April 11, 1991 THE TEMPORARY BARRICADE ON CASCADE LANE AT THE CITY LIMITS Recoinrnendation The Transportation Commission continues to recommend the placement of a temporary barricade while the Fire Department opposes the installation of public street barricades. backgro The Fire Department presented additional information opposing the temporary barricade on Cascade Lane to the Transportation Commission at their April 9, 1991 meeting. The information presented raised concerns that emergency access and egress issues for both residents and enlerg.ency vehicles inay not have been presented when the Commission's recommendations was made to barricade Cascade Lane. The Transportation Commission considered the additional information and has not changed its recommendation to install a temporary barricade. The Fire Department's opposition to barricades on Cascade Lane and A formration presented to the Cormission include Lhe following: Emergency response times are based on the time it takes to receive emergency notifications and to dispatch emergency vehicles; street widths; median barriers; through access routes; traffic volurnes; traffic signal controllers; size of emergency vehicles and time of day. Changing any of these parameters affects the response time of emergency vehicles and the outcome of a given emergency. "In the case of fire and medical emergencies, response time is cr it;cai since the situations are continually getting worse until ernerdency unit:; -arrive on scene. Blocking access routes increases response time and significantly increases the risk to the community. What does the Cascade Lane street closure/barricade mean to the i cighUGr hood and community? 1. The Fire Department would not use Temple/Colgate/Cascade as a primary response route. Although the barricade would be accessible with a key, access would not be reliable since unauthorized locks could be added. Also, cars could park in front of the barricade and block access. Additional questions are raised as to who is responsible to relock the gate, when should this be done, and what's the liability if the gate is left open? 2. The neighborhood and citizens in the area would lose their second emergency exit. New developments are required- to provide at least two (2) access and egress points, second exits should not be eliminated from existing developments. When evacuations are required, as would be the case during hazardous materials spills, residents need to have the ability to evacuate up wind from the cloud. I ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING April 11, 1991 T_-IE TEMPORARY BARRICADE ON Page Two CASCADE LANE AT THE CITY LIMITS 3. The City of Huntington Beach and Westminter's times for automatic response of fire units would be increased. Since the City operates under automatic response of the closest fire units, engines from Huntington Beach or Westminster would respond to the affected area. Examples of the response time increases to Colgate and Cascade, excluding time of day and traffic impacts, are as follows: From McFadden)Gothard via Beach Boulevard 1.7 minutes to 2.4 minutes From McFadden/Gothard via Golden West 1.9 minutes to 2.6 minutes From Hoover/Bolsa via Beach Boulevard 1.7 minutes to 2.4 minutes From Hoover/Bolsa via Golden West 2.6 minutes to 3.6 minutes These response time increases result in lost emergency work times ranging from twenty-four (24) minutes to fifty (50) minutes. 4. The City Council's policy to have the first fire engine or rnedic unit arrive at an emergency within five (5) minutes, eighty percent (80%) of the time would not be met. The impact of the barricade not only affects citizens on Cascade and Colgate, but also the neighborhood and area in general. 5. Barricading a public street would set precedence for other street closures. Additional street closures would compound the effects on response times of public safety units. Although the Transportation Commission has considered other street Closures over the last ten (10) years none have been recommended until now. Based on these public safety issues, the Fire Department OPPOSES the installation of the temporary barricade on Cascade Lane. MPD/sr cc: Lou Sandoval, Public Works Director Jim Vincent, Fire Marshal Dennis Groat, Deputy Fire Marshal 1214f CASCADE LANE AREA - 24 HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME DATA DATE OF SURVEY STREET NAME BETWEEN TRAFFIC CHANGE PERCENT VOLUME CHANGE SEPTEMBER 26, 1990 CASCADE AT CITY BOUNDARY 2870 - 722 -25 JULY 23 , 1991 CASCADE AT CITY BOUNDARY 2148 OCTOBER 31, 1990 SUGAR MCFADDEN AND 3117 RUSHMOOR - 393 -13 JULY 23 , 1991 SUGAR MCFADDEN AND 2724 RUSHMOOR OCTOBER 31, 1990 SUGAR RUSHMOOR AND 2480 SHASTA 358 -14 JULY 23 , 1991 SUGAR RUSHMOOR AND 2122 SHASTA OCTOBER 31, 1990 RUSHMOOR SUGAR AND ETNA 623 +JULY 23 , . 1991 RUSHMOOR SUGAR AND ETNA 915 292 +47 CASCADE LANE AREA - PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME DATA DATE OF SURVEY STREET LOCATION VOLUME CHANGE CHANGE AM PM AM PM AM PM PEAK PEAK PEAK PEAK PEAK PEAK SEPT. 26, 1990 CASCADE CITY BOUNDARY 231 334 143 + 31 - 62% + 9% JULY 23 , 1991 CASCADE CITY BOUNDARY 88 1 365 DATE OF SURVEY 85TH PERCENTILE 10 MPH PACE NOVEMBER 51 1990 37 MPH 29 TO 38 MPH JULY 18 , 1991 33 MPH 24 TO 33 MPH CASCADE LANE RADAR SURVEY COMPARISON RMH:CASCADE. SUR ATTACHMENT NO. 2