Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutIBI GROUP - 2000-02-22F CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL OF ITEM APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL/ REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DATE: 02-28-00 TO: IBI Group Name 18401 Von Karman Ave., Suite 110 Street Irvine, CA 92612 City, State, Zip ATTENTION: Alistair Baillie, Director DEPARTMENT: REGARDING: Rail Feasibility and A 1 i rmmcn+- C! -11A%7 4:�r 4-1ne TA7-4- n-,...-... County Cities Association See Attached Action Agenda Item F-3 Date of Approval 02-22-00 Enclosed For Your Records Is An Executed Copy Of The Above Referenced Agenda Item. Remarks: 4�,vr�.ei Connie Brockway City Clerk Attachments: Action Agenda Page X Agreement X Bonds CC: R. Beardsley Name T. Brohard Name Name Name C. Mendoza RCA Deed DPW X X Department RCA Agreement DPW X X Department RCA Agreement Department RCA Agreement Department RCA Agreement Risk Management Dept. Insurance X Other X Insurance X Insurance Insurance Insurance X Insurance Other Other Other Other G:Fol lowup/Letters/coverltr (Telephone: 714-536-5227 ) 7mtVNW21�A I RUB Mbrn Council/Agency Meeting Held: of '18 0 Deferred/Continued to: S Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied • City Clerk's Signature Council Meeting Date: February 22, 2000 Department ID Number: P1k = 0-r 17 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS r SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, CITY ADMINISTRATgt�, PREPARED BY' ROBERT F. BEARDSLEY, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORK SUBJECT: Execute a Professional Services Contract to Conduct the West Orange County Cities Association Rail Feasibility and Alignment Study Statement of Issue, Funding Source, Recommended Action, Alternative Action(s), Analysis, Environmental Status, Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: The Rail Feasibility and Alignment Study for the West Orange County Cities Association includes the following three phases: Phase I — Vision and Needs Assessment Phase II — Development and Preliminary Evaluation of Alternatives Phase III — Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives Should the City hire a professional transportation planning consulting firm to conduct this study, and should the City manage this contract on behalf of the West Orange County Cities Association? Funding Source: The $50,000 cost for Phases I and II of this study is being shared on a population basis among eight of the 10 cities in the West Orange County Cities Association. Funds are available within Administration's adopted Budget for the Huntington Beach share of the study. The Cities of Cypress, Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, La Palma, Los Alamitos, Stanton and Westminster have made financial commitments to the study. Recommended Action: Motion to approve the attached Professional Services Agreement with IBI Group for the Rail Feasibility and Alignment Study for the West Orange County Cities Association and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute this agreement. Alternative Action(s): Deny approval of the contract and direct staff accordingly. f--3 • REQUEST FOR ACTION • MEETING DATE: February 22, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PW 00-017 Analysis: In 1990, the citizens of Orange County approved Measure M, a 20 year plan to address traffic and growth issues through a balanced group of transportation projects. One key feature of Measure M was the designation of $340 million for a high technology rail system. At that time, the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Board approved an 87 mile county wide rail master plan, illustrating a long term vision of how rail would eventually serve all parts of the County. The plan also showed possible connections to rail systems in Los Angeles County. Following a series of studies, a 28-mile corridor between Fullerton and Irvine was chosen as the best route to start planning the overall system. Over the last several years, OCTA has conducted additional_ detailed studies of the backbone system, the Centerline Project. On December 13,. 1999, the OCTA Board approved the completion of an analysis of the Irvine/UCI to Costa Mesa segment as the primary candidate for the Centerline Minimum Operating Segment. The Board also directed its staff to work with the West Orange County cities on a study of rail extensions to connect the Centerline in Costa Mesa with rail facilities in Los Angeles County, including the Blue .Line in Long Beach and the Green Line in Norwalk. Last spring, the City drafted a Request for Proposals (RFP) for professional consulting services to conduct a Rail Feasibility and Alignment Study through western Orange County. The draft RFP was presented to the West Orange County Cities Association in June and was subsequently revised over the next two months to incorporate comments received from the cities. Following approval in September, the RFP was mailed to over 50 consulting firms throughout the western United States. The City received proposals from the following six consulting firms prior to the October 29, 1999 deadline: 1. Booz Allen, Los Angeles CA 2. HDR Engineering, Oakland CA 3. IBI Group, Irvine CA 4. Kimley Horn, Orange CA 5. Meyer Mohaddes, Los Angeles CA 6. Wilbur Smith, San Francisco CA The City developed a rating form and asked the participating cities to independently evaluate each proposal based upon the firm's understanding, identification of key issues, technical approach, clarity, qualifications and similar experience of the project manager and key staff. On December 7, 1999, a panel including representatives from Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Los Alamitos and Stanton interviewed the four highest rated firms. Following a presentation from each consulting team, the interview panel asked a series of eight questions. At the conclusion of the interviews, the panel members were equally divided between HDR Engineering and the IBI Group. It was decided that the Huntington Beach staff would check references given by the top two firms and report its findings back to the other participating cities. RCA WOCCA Rail 1131 Award 2 22 00 -2- 02/10/00 11:57 AM • REQUEST FOR ACTION • MEETING DATE: February 22, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PW 00-017 The City then developed a reference form to obtain input from other agencies regarding the performance of the two top firms on completed assignments of similar scope to the proposed Rail Feasibility and Alignment Study.. Questions were developed to gauge each firm's strengths, weaknesses and performance in the technical work product, meeting schedules, responsiveness, . communication, attitude and quality. Over the next several weeks, Huntington Beach staff interviewed each of the two top firm's references provided in their proposal. Based on references and extensive experience with the OCTA's Centerline Project, Huntington Beach staff recommended the IBI Group. On January 6, the participating West Orange County Cities Association met to discuss the results of the interview process and the reference checks for the top two firms. Following discussion, the cities unanimously agreed with the Huntington Beach recommendation to select the IBI Group for the Rail Feasibility and Alignment Study. At the conclusion of the January 6 meeting, the participating cities agreed to ask OCTA for financial assistance in the Rail Feasibility and Alignment Study. A letter signed by each of the Mayors from the participating cities was subsequently submitted. As indicated in the attached response dated February 3, 2000, OCTA supports the study and suggests that the cities: 1. Designate two or three elected officials and city managers as a steering committee to work with OCTA on this project. Three OCTA Board members would also serve on the committee. 2. Evaluate recently completed OCTA planning studies, especially the 1-405 Corridor study. 3. Complete Phase I, the Vision and Needs Assessment, and Phase II, Development and Preliminary Evaluation of Alternatives, with local funds. 4. Do NOT select a preferred alignment at this stage of planning. 5. If there is a consensus following Phases I and II, OCTA will consider funding and leading the equivalent of Phase .III ora more comprehensive Alternatives Analysis. Environmental Status: Not applicable as this is a preliminary feasibility and alignment study. If the study determines that rail is feasible, then detailed environmental review of various alternatives and the recommended alignment will be conducted. Attachment(s): RCA Author: Tom Brohard:jm Ext. 5523 RCA WOCCA Rail IBI Award 2 22 00 -3- 02/10/00 11:57 AM PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AND THE IBI GROUP FOR A RAIL FEASIBILITY AND ALIGNMENT STUDY FOR THE WEST ORANGE COUNTY CITIES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AND THE IBI GROUP FOR S, A RAIL FEASIBILITY AND ALIGNMENT STUDY FOR THE -WEST ORANGE COUNTY CITIES Table of Contents Work Statement and Designation of Coordinates....................................................2 CityStaff Assistance................................................................................................2 Time of Performance...............................................................................................3 Compensation............:.............................................................................................3 Priorities........................... ..............................................................4 ExtraWork...............................................................................................................4 Methodof Payment..................................................................................................4 Disposition of Plans, Estimates and Other Documents...........................................6 HoldHarmless..........................................................................................................6 Workers' Compensation Insurance...........................................................................7 General. Liability Insurance.......................................:...............................................7 Professional Liability Insurance..............................................................................8 Certificates of Insurance...................... ....................................................................9 Y Independent Contractor............................................................................................10 Terminationof Agreement.......................................................................................10 Assignment and Subcontracting...............................................................................10 Copyrights/Patents...................................................................................................10 City Employees and Officials..................................................................................11 Notices......................................................................................................................11 Immigration.............................................................................................................. I I Legal Services Subcontracting Prohibited...............................................................11 AttorneysFees.........................................................................................................12 Entirety.....................................................................................................................13 i • PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AND THE IBI GROUP FOR A RAIL FEASIBILITY AND ALIGNMENT STUDY -FOR THE WEST ORANGE COUNTY CITIES THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 22nd day of - February, 2000, by -and between the City of Huntington Beach, a municipal corporation of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as "CITY," and the 113I Group, a California general partnership, whose five (5) general partners are: (1) Neal A. Irwin of California Incorporated, a California corporation; (2) Beinhaker Planning and Development Services Inc., a California corporation; (3) Alistair Baillie Corporation, a California corporation; (4) Lavallee Consultants, Inc., a Washington corporation; and (5) Peter Zurawel .Consultants, Inc., a Colorado corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT." WHEREAS, CITY is one of ten Orange County cities who are members of the West Orange County Cities Association ("ASSOCIATION"); the nine other cities being: Buena Park; Cypress; Fountain Valley; Garden Grove; La Palma; Los Alamitos; Seal Beach; Stanton; and Westminster; WHEREAS, of the ten above -listed cities, two of them, the cities of Buena Park and Seal Beach, have decided not to participate in, or share in the funding of, this AGREEMENT; WHEREAS, by entering into this AGREEMENT, CITY is acting for itself and for the seven other participating cities (being Cypress, Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, La Palma, Los Alamitos, Stanton, and Westminster) who are members of the ASSOCIATION; WHEREAS, an eight -member Technical Advisory Committee ("TAC"), comprised of a person representing the CITY, Cypress, Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, La Palma, Los Wheeler/agree/ibi/2/ 14/00 0 r Alamitos, Stanton, and Westminster, will assist CITY in the fulfillment of the terms of this AGREEMENT; WHEREAS, CITY desires to engage the services of a consultant to provide professional transportation, planning, consulting services for a rail feasibility and alignment study for the eight above -described West Orange County participating cities. Pursuant to documentation on file in the office of the City Clerk of CITY, the provisions of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 3.03, relating to procurement of professional . service contracts have been complied with; and CONSULTANT has been selected to perform said services, NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by CITY and CONSULTANT as follows: 1. WORK STATEMENT AND DESIGNATION OF COORDINATORS CONSULTANT shall provide all services as described in the Request for Proposal ("RFP"), and CONSULTANT's Proposal dated October 29, 1999 (both of which are hereinafter collectively referred to as Exhibit "A"), which are attached hereto and incorporated into this AGREEMENT by this reference. These services shall sometimes hereinafter be referred to as the "PROJECT." CONSULTANT hereby designates Alistair Baillie, IBI Group Director, who shall represent it and be its sole contact and agent in all consultations with CITY during the performance of this AGREEMENT. CITY shall assign a staff coordinator to 'work directly with CONSULTANT in the performance of this AGREEMENT. 2. ROLE OF TAC TAC's sole role is to assist CITY in fulfilling the terms of this AGREEMENT. To the extent possible, CITY shall keep TAC informed as to the progress CONSULTANT is 2 Wheeler/agree/ibi/2/ 1 /00 making under this AGREEMENT, and shall solicit TAC's input on any issues which may arise during the course of the AGREEMENT. However, it shall not be necessary for CITY to first obtain TAC's approval or permission before CITY exercises any of the powers, duties or responsibilities granted to it under the AGREEMENT. 3. TIME OF PERFORMANCE Time is of the essence of this AGREEMENT. The services of CONSULTANT are to commence as soon as practicable after the execution of this AGREEMENT and all tasks specified in Exhibit "A" shall be completed no later than three (3) months from the date of this AGREEMENT. These times may be extended with the written permission of CITY. The time for performance of the tasks identified in Exhibit "A" are generally to be shown in the Scope of Services on the Work Program/Project Schedule. This schedule may be amended to benefit the PROJECT if mutually agreed by CITY and CONSULTANT. 4. COMPENSATION In consideration of the performance of the services described herein, CITY agrees to pay CONSULTANT a fee not to exceed Forty -Five Thousand, Seven Hundred and Seventy dollars ($45,770.00) for Phase I (Vision and Needs Assessment), and for Phase II (Development and Preliminary Evaluation of -Alternatives). If supplemental services are necessary for the completion of Phase I, or Phase II, or both, of the PROJECT, as agreed to by CITY and CONSULTANT, CITY shall pay CONSULTANT an additional fee for such supplemental services in a sum not to exceed Four Thousand Two Hundred and Thirty dollars ($4,230.00). If CITY authorizes optional services for Phase III (Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives), CITY agrees to pay CONSULTANT an additional fee not to exceed Fifty -Five Thousand Three Hundred and Eighty dollars ($55,380.00). The total compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT 3 Wheeler/agree/ibi/2/ 1 /00 • • under this AGREEMENT (for Phase I; Phase II; Supplemental Services under Phase I and/or Phase II; and optional Phase III) shall not .exceed the sum of One Hundred Five Thousand Three Hundred and Eighty dollars ($105,380.00). 5. PRIORITIES In the event there are any conflicts or inconsistencies between this AGREEMENT, the CITY's RFP, or the CONSULTANT's Proposal, the following.order of precedence shall govern:' 1).AGREEMENT,.2) the,CONSULTANT's Proposal, .and 3) the CITY's RFP. 6. EXTRA WORK In the event CITY requires additional services not included or described in Exhibit."A,"-or requires changes in. the. scope. of services described in Exhibit "A," CONSULTANT will .undertake such work only after receiving written authorization from CITY Additional compensation for such extra work shall be allowed only if the prior written approval of CITY is obtained. The amount of compensation for such additional services shall be the subject of further agreement of the parties. 7. METHOD OF PAYMENT A. CONSULTANT shall be entitled to progress payments toward the fixed fee set forth herein in accordance with the progress and payment schedules set forth in Exhibit "A." B. Delivery of work product: A copy of every memorandum, letter, report, calculation and other documentation prepared by CONSULTANT shall be submitted to CITY to demonstrate progress toward completion of tasks. In the event CITY rejects or has comments on any such product, CITY shall identify specific requirements for satisfactory completion. Any 4 Wheeler/agree/ibi/2/ 1 /00 such product which has not been formally accepted or rejected by CITY shall be deemed accepted. C. CONSULTANT shall submit to CITY an invoice for each progress payment due. Such invoice shall: 1) Reference this AGREEMENT; 2) Describe the services performed; 3) Show the total amount of the payment due; 4) Include a certification by a principal member of CONSULTANT's firm that the work has been performed in accordance with the provisions of this AGREEMENT; and 5) For all payments include an estimate of the percentage of work completed. Upon submission of any such invoice, if CITY is satisfied that CONSULTANT is making satisfactory progress toward completion of tasks in accordance with this AGREEMENT, CITY shall promptly approve the -invoice, in which event payment shall be made within forty- .._ five (45) days of receipt of the invoice by CITY. Such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. If CITY does not approve an invoice, CITY shall notify CONSULTANT in writing of the reasons for non -approval within ten (10) calendar days of receipt of the invoice, and the schedule of performance set forth in Exhibit "A" shall be suspended until the parties agree that past performance by CONSULTANT is in, or has been brought into compliance, or until this AGREEMENT is terminated as provided herein. D. Any billings for extra work or additional services authorized by CITY shall be invoiced separately to CITY. Such invoice shall contain all of the information required 5 Wheeler/agree/ibi/2/1/00 above, and in addition shall list the hours expended and hourly rate charged for such time. Such invoices shall be approved by CITY if the work performed is in accordance with the extra work or additional services requested, and if CITY is satisfied that the statement of hours worked and costs incurred is accurate. Such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Any dispute between the parties concerning payment of such an invoice shall be treated as separate and apart from the ongoing performance of the remainder of this AGREEMENT. 8. DISPOSITION OF PLANS ESTIMATES AND OTHER DOCUMENTS CONSULTANT agrees that all materials prepared hereunder, including all original drawings, designs, reports, both field and office notices, calculations, maps, memoranda, letters and other documents, shall be turned over to CITY upon termination of this AGREEMENT or upon PROJECT completion, whichever shall occur first. In the event this AGREEMENT is terminated, said materials may be used by CITY in the completion of the PROJECT or as it otherwise sees fit. Title to said materials shall pass to CITY upon payment of fees determined to be earned by CONSULTANT to the point of termination or completion of the PROJECT, .whichever is applicable. CONSULTANT shall be entitled to retain copies of all data prepared hereunder. 9. HOLD HARMLESS CONSULTANT shall protect, defend, indemnify and save and hold harmless CITY, its officers, officials, and employees, and agents from and against any and all liability, loss, damage, expenses, costs (including without limitation, costs and fees of litigation of every nature) arising out of or in connection with CONSULTANT's performance of this AGREEMENT or its _failure to comply with any of its obligations contained in this AGREEMENT by CONSULTANT, 6 Wheeler/agree/ibi/2/ 1 /00 0 • its officers, agents or employees except such loss or damage which was caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of CITY. 10. WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE Pursuant to California Labor Code Section 1861, CONSULTANT acknowledges awareness of Section 3700 et seq. of said Code, which requires every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation; CONSULTANT covenants that it will comply with such provisions prior to commencing performance of the work hereunder. CONSULTANT shall maintain workers' compensation insurance in an amount of not less than One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) bodily injury by accident, each occurrence, One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) bodily injury by disease, each employee, Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000) bodily injury by'disease, policy limit. CONSULTANT shall require all subcontractors to provide such workers' compensation, insurance for all of the subcontractors' employees.. CONSULTANT shall furnish to CITY a certificate of waiver of subrogation under the terms of the workers' compensation insurance and CONSULTANT shall similarly require all subcontractors to waive subrogation.- 11. GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE In addition to the workers' compensation insurance and CONSULTANT's covenant to indemnify CITY, CONSULTANT shall obtain and furnish to CITY, a policy of general public liability insurance, including motor vehicle coverage covering the PROJECT. Said policy shall indemnify CONSULTANT, its officers, agents and employees, while acting within the scope of their duties, against any and all claims arising out of or in connection with the PROJECT, and shall provide coverage in not less than the following amount: combined single limit bodily injury and property damage, including products/completed operations liability 7 Wheeler/agreehbi/2/ 1 /00 and blanket contractual liability, of $1,000,000 per occurrence. If coverage is provided under a form which includes a designated general aggregate limit, the aggregate limit must be no less than $1,000,000 for this PROJECT. Said policy shall name CITY, its agents, its officers, employees and volunteers as Additional Insureds, and shall specifically provide that any other insurance coverage .which may be applicable to the PROJECT shall be deemed excess coverage and that CONSULTANT's insurance shall be primary. Under no circumstances shall the above -mentioned insurance contain a self - insured retention, or a "deductible" or any other similar form of limitation on the required coverage. 12. PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY INSURANCE CONSULTANT shall furnish a professional liability insurance policy covering the work performed by it hereunder. Said policy shall provide coverage for CONSULTANT's professional liability in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence and in the aggregate. A claims -made policy shall be acceptable if the policy further provides that: A. The policy retroactive date coincides with or precedes the professional services contractor's start of work (including subsequent policies purchased as renewals or replacements). B. CONSULTANT will make every effort to maintain similar insurance during the required extended period of coverage following project completion, including the requirement of adding all additional insureds. C. If insurance is terminated for any reason, CONSULTANT agrees to purchase ari extended reporting provision of at least two (2) years to report 8 Wheeler/agreehbi/2/ 1 /00 claims arising from work performed in connection with this AGREEMENT. D. The reporting of circumstances or incidents that might give rise to future claims. 13. CERTIFICATES OF INSURANCE Prior to commencing performance of the work hereunder, CONSULTANT shall fumish.to CITY certificates of insurance subject to approval of the City Attorney of CITY evidencing the foregoing insurance coverages as required by this AGREEMENT; said certificates shall: A. provide the name and policy number of each carrier and policy; B. shall state that the policy is currently in force; and C. shall promise that such policies shall not be suspended, voided or canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days prior written notice; however, ten (10) days prior written notice in the event of cancellation for nonpayment of premium. CONSULTANT shall maintain the foregoing insurance coverages in force until the work under this AGREEMENT is fully completed and accepted by CITY. The requirement for carrying the foregoing insurance coverages shall not derogate from the provisions for indemnification of CITY by CONSULTANT under the AGREEMENT. CITY or its representative shall at all times have the right to demand the original or a copy of all said policies of insurance. CONSULTANT shall pay, in a prompt and timely manner, the premiums on all insurance hereinabove required. 9 Wheeler/agree/ibi/2/ 1 /00 14. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR CONSULTANT is, and shall be, acting at all times in the performance of this AGREEMENT as an independent contractor. CONSULTANT shall secure at its expense, and be responsible for any and all payment of all taxes, social security, state disability insurance compensation, unemployment compensation and other payroll deductionsfor CONSULTANT and its officers, agents and employees and all business licenses, if any, in connection with the services to be performed hereunder. 15. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT All work required hereunder shall be performed in a good and workmanlike manner. CITY may terminate CONSULTANT's services hereunder at anytime with or without cause, and whether or not PROJECT is fully complete. Any termination of this AGREEMENT by CITY shall be made in writing, notice of which shall be delivered to CONSULTANT as provided herein. 16. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBCONTRACTING This AGREEMENT is a personal service contract and the supervisory work hereunder shall not be delegated by CONSULTANT to any other person or entity, not identified as a member of the PROJECT team on Pages 8 and 9 of, and Exhibit 5 attached to, CONSULTANT's Proposal, without the consent of CITY. 17. COPYRIGHTS/PATENTS CITY shall own all rights to any patent or copyright on any work, item or material produced as a result of this AGREEMENT. 10 Wheeler/agree/ibi/2/ 1 /00 18. CITY EMPLOYEES AND OFFICIALS CONSULTANT shall employ no CITY official nor any regular CITY employee in the work performed pursuant to this AGREEMENT. No. officer or employee of CITY shall have any financial interest in this AGREEMENT in,violation of the applicable provisions of the California Government Code. 19. NOTICES Any notice or special instructions required to be given in writing under this AGREEMENT shall be given either by personal delivery to CONSULTANT's agent (as designated in Section 1 hereinabove) or to the City Administrator of CITY, as the situation shall warrant, or by enclosing the same in a sealed envelope, postage prepaid, and depositing the same in the United States Postal Service, addressed as follows: TO CITY: Mr. Ray Silver City Administrator City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 20. IMMIGRATION TO CONSULTANT: Mr. Alistair Baillie Director, IBI Group 18401 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 110 Irvine, CA 92612 CONSULTANT shall be responsible for full compliance with the immigration and naturalization laws of the United States and shall, in particular, comply with the provisions of the United States Code regarding employment verification. 21. LEGAL SERVICES SUBCONTRACTING PROHIBITED CONSULTANT and CITY agree that CITY is not liable for payment of any subcontractor work involving legal services, and that such legal services are expressly outside the scope of services contemplated hereunder. CONSULTANT understands that pursuant to 11 Wheeler/agree/ibi/2/ 1 /00 .Huntington Beach City Charter Section 309, the City Attorney is the exclusive legal counsel for CITY; and CITY shall not be liable for payment of any legal services expenses incurred by CONSULTANT. 22. ATTORNEY'S FEES In the event suit is brought by either party to enforce the terms and provisions of this AGREEMENT or to secure the performance hereof, each party shall bear its own attorney's fees and court costs. REST OF PAGE NOT USED 12 Wheeler/agree/ibi/2/3/00 23. ENTIRETY The foregoing, and Exhibit "A" attached hereto, set forth the entire AGREEMENT between the parties. IN WITNESS.WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this AGREEMENT to be executed by and through their authorized offices the day, month and year first above written. CONSULTANT: NEAL A. IN CALIFORNIA, INC. By: Neal A. Irwin Managing General Partner of IBI Group, a California general partnership AND ALISTAIR BAILLIE CORPORATION �' L� 1 Ls CITY: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a municipal corporation of the State of California Mayor ATTEST: j City Clerk x— By: APPROVED AS TO,FORM: Alistair Bartn General Partner of- IBI Group, a California general" partnership CitAttorne REVIEWED AND APPROVED: City Administrator 3-6o y Gc PA 0° TI ED AND AP OVED: Director of 4.6 rc v 13 Wheeler/agree/ibi/2/3/00 0 • CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH (On Behalf of the West Orange County Cities Association) REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL for Professional Transportation Planning Consulting Services for a Rail Feasibility and Alignment Study for West Orange Count/ Cities PROPOSAL SUBMITTALS: Responses to the Request for Proposal (RFP) are to be submitted to: Mr. Richard Amadril, Central Services Manager City of Huntington Beach City Hall 2000 Main Street P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 714/536-5221, Fax # 714/374-1571 no later than 5:00 P. M. on October 29, 1999. Twenty (20) copies of the proposal shall be submitted in a sealed envelope and marked: "Proposal for Consultant Services, Rail Feasibility and Alignment Study for West Orange County Cities". Proposals received after the specified time will not be accepted and will be returned unopened. Specific questions regarding the Scope of Work may be addressed to Mr. Richard Amadril in writing. Section INDEX Introduction Schedule of Events Project Background Scope of Work Proposal Requirements General Requirements Consultant Evaluation & Selection Process Page 2 2 2 3 6 9 11 RAILRFP.doc 09/21/992:17 PM • CITY* HUNTINGTON BEACH Rai Fmbky/West Orange County Cities REP Page 2 1. INTRODUCTION The City of Huntington Beach, for itself and on behalf of the West Orange County Cities Association ("Association"), is requesting proposals from qualified rail transportation planning firms for preparation of a Rail Feasibility and Alignment Study for the West Orange County Cities. I1. SCHEDULE OF EVENTS September 24, 1999 Issuance of Request for Proposals October 29, 1999 Proposals due at City Hall by 5:00 P.M. November 1999 Interviews (as required, dates to be determined) December 1999 Huntington Beach City Council Approval of Consultant Contract (estimated date) III. PROJECT BACKGROUND The West Orange County Cities Association is interested in ensuring that the urban rail planning effort in Orange County properly includes consideration of the transit needs of the West Orange County Cities (Cities). These 10 cities include: Buena -Park, Cypress, Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, La Palma, Los Alamitos, Seal Beach, Stanton and Westminster. The purpose of this study is not to reinvent earlier studies affecting West Orange County, but to develop the appropriate analysis for West Orange County city decision -makers to make informed decisions concerning the most appropriate rail alignment. The study will be used to form a basis for further rail development work in West Orange County. For this reason, the City of Huntington Beach and the Association are seeking rail transportation planning consulting services, aimed at helping the City of Huntington Beach and the Association develop: (1) a clear vision of the West Orange County area's rail transit needs; (2) a strategy for meeting those needs, and; (3) viable rail alignment alternatives, along with appropriate documentation and analysis, which could be used in future planning efforts with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). This rail planning effort should be coordinated with and take into consideration the existing and proposed transportation improvements for the region. The rail planning effort must also consider ridership, cost effectiveness, and political consensus. • CIIAF HUNTINGTON BEACH Rat Fmbbflity/West OmW Cmity Cites RFP Page 3 Urban rail planning in Orange County is currently defined by the 1991 Transit Master Plan, the 1993 Urban Rail Project Definition Study, and the 1997 Central Corridor Major Investment Study. These policy documents focus the initial stage of urban rail in the 28-mile corridor between Fullerton and Irvine. OCTA is finalizing conceptual layouts for light rail between Disneyland and John Wayne Airport. Future extensions include connections from the Centerline corridor to Los Angeles, to both the Blue Line in Long Beach and the Green Line in Norwalk. These extensions are currently unfunded and are not planned in much detail. The OCTA is also conducting a preliminary study of the transportation needs of the 1-405 corridor. IV. SCOPE OF WORK In general, the consultant shall conduct a rail transit feasibility and needs assessment for the West Orange County Cities. It is the intent of the Cities to complete Phases I and-11 within a four month period. A three -person Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) comprised of a person representing the City and two other cities within the Association, will direct the study. The remaining seven Cities will participate by contributing to, reviewing, and approving the key work products produced at each phase of the project. The word "City," as used in this Request for Proposal, shall mean the City of Huntington Beach. As part of the project the consultant will interview all participating cities within the Association on such key items as: goals, objectives, and criteria for assessing alternatives; transportation needs and deficiencies, potential community issues, and preferred alternatives. The scope of work should detail the number and timing of meetings proposed between the consultant and the TAC, as well as with each of the Cities. The scope of work includes three (3) phases. Phases I and II will be completed as part of this study. Phase III will be completed only upon the recommendation of the TAC, based on the findings of Phases I and 11. It should be noted, however, that the Fee Proposal to be submitted as part of the RFP should include the consultant's best estimate for all three (3) phases. The scope of work for the respective phases of the consultant's services shall include, but not be limited to, the following tasks as described below. The consultant may move key tasks among phases when detailing a proposed scope of work and methodology. However, all tasks should be addressed within the proposal. • CITY toHUNTINGTON BEACH Rail Feasbiil ty/West Orange County Cities RFP Page 4 Phase I: Vision and Needs Assessment As part of Phase I, the consultant shall: 1.1 Conduct a transportation needs assessment which evaluates the fit between the existing and programmed roadway and transit improvements (including transit centers) in the West Orange County Area, the 2020 population and employment projections, and existing and future land use and activity patterns planned for the area. Work Product: Technical Memorandum #1 1.2 Identify the location, nature, and magnitude -of- potential transportation deficiencies in the West Orange County area. Potential types of transportation deficiencies may include, but are not limited. to, a need for: a) additional inter -county commuter service, b) a -connection to the Centerline urban rail system, and c) inter or intra-city circulator systems serving visitors to the beach or employment centers. 1.3 Identify the types of deficiencies best served by rail verses other modes of, transportation. Work Product: Technical Memorandum #2 1.4 Define the types of rail services the Cities should consider, such as light rail, heavy rail, or commuter rail. 1.5 Define the major origins and destinations to be served. 1.6 Develop consensus among the TAC on the transportation goals, objectives, and criteria for assessing improvement alternatives for the area. Work Product: Technical Memorandum #3 1.7 Develop an area vision for a future transportation system for the area. 1.8 Identify potential community issues (e.g. political, business, residential, etc.) 1.9 Identify potential funding sources, resources, and constraints. Work Product: Preliminary Summary Report, Tasks 1.1 — 1.9 • CI&F HUNTINGTON BEACH Rail Feasblty/West Orange County Cities RFP Page 5 Phase II: Development and Preliminary Evaluation of Alternatives As part of Phase 11, the consultant shall: 2.1 Identify a range of rail options/alignments and preliminary ridership forecasts for serving the needs identified in Phase I. This should include identification of possible alignments at a conceptual level of detail. Possible alignments for consideration may include, but not be limited to: Pacific Coast Highway, 1-405, the Pacific Electric right-of-way, existing railway rights -of -way, Katella Avenue, and the Santa Ana River Corridor. 2.2 Conduct a preliminary screening of the alternatives to identify those alternatives which merit more detailed study. The screening methodology should relate to the goals, objectives, and criteria established during Phase I. The consultant is further expected to clarify if the proposed alignments involve street grade, elevated, or other type. The TAC will serve as the body in assisting to build local consensus regarding the proposed preliminary alternatives. Work Product: Preliminary Summary Report, Tasks 2.1 - 2.2 (OPTIONAL) Phase III: Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives Based on the results of Tasks 2.1 — 2.2, the TAC will recommend whether the study should proceed to Phase III and direct the consultant to complete further detailed evaluation of a short list of only the most viable rail alternatives. It should be noted that based on the results of Phase I & II, Phase III may be more fully defined. As part of Phase III, the consultant shall: 3.1 Conduct a more detailed evaluation of the most viable short-list of alternatives as recommended by the TAC. The evaluation shall provide sufficient information to allow the Cities to select a viable, preferred rail alternative. As appropriate, the evaluation shall fit with the common goals and objectives of the Cities (including any goals and objectives related to future land uses), be acceptable to the community, and fit with the OCTA's regional transportation plans. The evaluation shall also provide preliminary peak and off-peak patronage estimates for each short-listed alternative. 3.2 Prepare order -of -magnitude cost estimate for short list of alternatives. Work Product: Final Report, Phases I, 11, 111 • CITYQ HUNTINGTON BEACH Raff Feasbflity/West Orange Cotmty Cities RFP Page 6 V. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS Proposal Content & Format Guidelines Proposal Format and Content — Proposal should be typed and contain no more than 30 typed pages as described in VI, Content and Format. The -following order and content of proposal sections should be adhered to by each bidder. Cover Letter - A cover letter, not to exceed two pages in length, should summarize key elements of the bidder's proposal. The letter must be signed by an individual authorized to bind the bidder. The letter must stipulate that the proposed price will be valid for a period of at least 90 days. Indicate the address and telephone number of the bidder's office located nearest to Huntington Beach, California, and the office from which the project will be managed. 1. Background and Approach The Background and Approach section should describe your understanding of the Cities, the work to be done, and the objectives to be accomplished in -the management study. 2. Scope of Services A description of the work plan that will be undertaken shall be included in this section. It should explain the technical approach, methodology, and a summary of activities which will be performed to address the specific issues and work items identified in the RFP. It should also include a discussion of constraints, problems, and issues'that should be anticipated during the contract, and suggestions for approaches to resolving them. Key work products associated with each phase of the project are to be clearly identified. 3. Workplan Describe the sequential work tasks you plan to carry out in accomplishing this project within all phases. Indicate all key deliverables and their contents, the estimated number at hours assigned, and the primary person responsible for each task. • CII&F HUNTINGTON BEACH RaR Feaslbilny/West Orange Camly Gibes RFP Page 7 4. Project Organization and Staffing The purpose of this section is to describe the organization of the project team including subconsultants and key staff. A project manager and an alternate project manager shallbe named who shall be the primary contact and be responsible for coordinating all activities with TAC and/or the City. An organizational chart shall be submitted showing all key team members and illustrating the relationship between TAC, the project manager, key staff, and subconsultants. There also should be a brief description of the role and responsibilities of all key staff and subconsultants identified in the team organization. 5. Statement of Qualifications The information requested in this section should describe the qualifications of the firm, key staff and subconsultants in performing projects within the past five years that are similar in size and scope to demonstrate competence to perform these services. The projects listed should be those that key staff named for this project were responsible for performing services. Information shall include: • Names of key staff that participated on named projects and their specific responsibilities. • The client's name, contact person, address, and telephone number. • A brief description of type and extent of services provided. • Completion dates (estimated, if not yet completed). • Total cost of the project. There shall be included in the section brief resumes of key personnel who will provide these services demonstrating their, qualifications and experience. Resumes should highlight education, experience, licenses, relevant experience, and specific responsibilities for services described. 6. Project Schedule A project schedule shall be included which identifies the timetable for completion of tasks, activities and phases of the project which correlate with the scope of work for the project. There should be a brief discussion of any key assumptions used in preparing the timetable and identification of critical tasks and/or events that could impact the overall schedule. • CITY* HUNTINGTON BEACH Rail Feasibility/West Orange County Cities RFP Page 8 7. Other Information Include any other information you consider to be relevant to the proposal. 8. Study Budget & Fee Structure In preparing the budget for this project the consultant shall take into consideration the following: a. Compensation for services provided in completing Phase I, Vision and Needs Assessment, shall be based on a time and materials not -to - exceed basis. b. Compensation for Phase 11, Development and Preliminary Evaluation of Alternatives, shall be based on a time and materials, not -to -exceed basis. c. Compensation for Phase III, Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives, shall be based on a time and materials not -to -exceed basis. d. Project cost: Total of all 3 phases (Best estimate) e. A breakdown of labor hours by employee billing classification, along with the cost of non -labor and subconsultant services, shall be included as part of the study budget. The labor breakdown shall be compiled by project phases and be based on a listing of work tasks that correlates with the consultant's defined scope of work for the project proposal. This information will be used by the selection committee to evaluate the reasonableness of the study budget. f. The consultant shall state the number of hours allotted in the fee amount for Phases 1-II1 for attending meetings. Should the amount of hours expended during these phases exceed the amount included in the fee quote, the consultant may be authorized to invoice the city for the additional hours upon first notifying the city in writing that the budget limit for meetings has been reached. TAC shall then determine whether additional hours for meetings will be authorized. g. The consultant's standard billing rates for all classifications of staff likely to be involved in the project shall be included with the fee proposal along with the mark-up rate for any non -labor expenses and subconsultants. • CI'I&F HUNTINGTON BEACH Rai Feasibility/West Omnge County Cues RFP Page 9 9. Statement of Offer & Signature The Cover Letter shall be signed by an individual authorized to bind the consultant and shall contain a statement that the proposals are a firm offer for a 90-day period. VI. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS Content & Format The City requests that proposals submitted be organized and presented in a neat and logical format and are relevant to these services. Consultant's proposals shall be clear, accurate, and comprehensive. Excessive or irrelevant material will not be favorably received. Proposals shall contain no more than 30 typed pages using a 10 point minimum font size, including resumes of key people, but excluding Index/Table of Contents, tables,- charts, and graphic exhibits. The r purpose of these restrictions is to minimize the costs of proposal preparation and to ensure that the response to the RFP is fully relevant to the project. NOTE: The proposal shall include the following: • Transmittal/cover letter. • Page numbering. • Index/Table of Contents. • Team Organization (including an organizational chart.) • Approach to the Project. • Scope of Services. • Descriptions of similar projects by key staff to be used on this. assignment. • Brief resumes of key staff. • Project schedule. Insurance Requirements The consultant shall furnish with the proposal proof of the following minimum insurance coverage. These minimum levels of coverage are required to be maintained for the duration of the project: • CITY UOHUNTINGTON BEACH Rafl Feasiblty/West Orange Cann Cites RFP Page 10 e `! A. General Liability Coverage - $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. B. Professional Liability Coverage - $1,000,000 per occurrence (note: A "claims made" policy is acceptable). C. Workers' Compensation Coverage - State statutory limits. Deductibles, Self -Insurance Retentions, or Similar Forms of Coverage Limitations or Modifications, must be declared to and approved by the City of Huntington Beach. A sample certificate is included as Attachment A. The consultant is encouraged to contact its insurance carriers during the proposal preparation to ensure that the insurance requirements can be met if selected for negotiation of a contract agreement. Standard Form of Agreement The consultant will enter into an agreement with the City based upon the contents of the RFP and the consultant's proposal. The City's standard form of agreement is included as Attachment B. The consultant shall carefully review the agreement, especially in regards to the indemnity and insurance provisions, and include with the proposal a description of any exceptions requested to the standard contract. If there are. no exceptions, a statement to that effect shall be included in the proposal. Disclaimer This RFP does not commit the City to award a contract, or to pay any costs incurred in the preparation of the proposal. The City reserves the right to extend the due date for the proposal, to accept or reject any or all proposals received as a result of this request, to negotiate with any qualified consultant, or to cancel this RFP in part or in its entirety. The City may require the selected consultant to participate in negotiations and to submit such technical, fee, or other revisions of their proposals as may result from negotiations. • CI*F HUNTINGTON BEACH . Rail Feasibfiy/West Orange County Cities RFP Page 11 Assigned Representatives The consultant shall assign a responsible representative (project manager) and an alternate, who shall be identified in the proposal. The consultant's representative shall remain in responsible charge of the consultant's duties from the notice -to -proceed through project completion. If the consultant's primary representative should be unable to continue with the project, then the alternate representative identified in the proposal shall become the project manager. Any substitution of representatives or subconsultants identified in the proposal shall first be approved in writing by TAC. TAC reserves the right to review and approve/disapprove all key staff and subconsultant substitutions or removals, and may consider such changes not approved to be a breach of contract. VII. CONSULTANT EVALUATION & SELECTION PROCESS This consultant evaluation and selection process is based on Qualifications Based Selection (QBS) for professional services. Proposals will be reviewed by a selection committee comprised of the various Cities, and a determination will be made as to which firms (if any) will be interviewed. The selection committee will judge proposals on the following criteria: 1. Understanding of the project, including identification of critical elements and key issues. 2. Technical approach and work plan for the project, including innovative approaches. 3. Qualifications and experience of the project manager, other key individuals and subconsultants 4. Clarity of proposal 5.' Availability and commitment of the firm and the project manager to complete project in a timely manner. 6. Knowledge of and experience with similar projects. 7. Results of reference checks. 8. Reasonableness of cost ATTACHMENTS Attachment A ---Sample Insurance Certificate Attachment B--- Sample City Contract City of Huntington Beach (On Behalf of the West Orange County Cities Association) RAIL FEASIBILITY AND ALIGNMENT STUDY FOR WEST ORANGE COUNTY CITIES B �� October 29, 1999 a proposal submitted by IBI Group in association with LSA Associates, Inc. Sharon Greene and Associates Spinner LaMar and Associates i •. IBI GROUP October 28, 1999 City of Huntington Beach On Behalf of the West Orange County Cities Association City Hall 2000 Main Street, P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attention: Mr. Richard Amadril Central Services Manager RFP — Professional Transportation Planning Consulting Services for a Rail Feasibility and Alignment Study for West Orange County Cities Dear Mr. Amadril: IBI Group is pleased to submitthis proposal in response to your Request for Proposals `Rail Feasibility and Alignment Study for West:Orange County Cities'. We are especially delighted in submitting this proposal because we believe the IBI Group is ideally suited for helping the City of Huntington Beach,. on behalf of the West Orange County Cities Association, in the preparation of a new Rail Feasibility and Alignment Study. The IBI Group Team is unmatched in its ability to assess West Orange County's transit needs and to coordinate future Orange County Transportation Authority light rail (CenterLine) project efforts with West Orange County, as IBI Group is currently the lead consultant to the CenterLine project. IBI Group is a multidisciplinary firm with a tremendous depth of transportation engineering, planning and presentation abilities. We bring together a large knowledge -base of technical skills and the experience of consensus building among different member agencies. We are well known for our ability to work with various committees and agencies, on many different levels, to bring forward innovative and resourceful outcomes. We have selected the industry's best technical experts in their field to further round out our abilities. They are: LSA Associates — Environmental Planning Sharon Greene and Associates — Potential Funding Opportunities Spinner LaMar and Associates — Community Issues and Public Outreach 18401 Von Kannan Avenue, Suite 110, Irvine, California, 92612 (949) 833 S588, `FAX.- (949) 833-5511 IBI is a group of companies practicing professional consulting. - 2 - October 28,1999 We look forward with great enthusiasm for an opportunity to work with you and to present our qualifications in November. Please be aware that this proposal is being submitted by: IBI Group 18401 Von Karman Ave., ##110 Irvine, CA 92612 (949) 833-5588 (949) 833-5511 FAX The contact person for this RFP is: Alistair Baillie, Director (949) 833-5588 Abailhe@IBIGroup.com The contents of this proposal.shall remain valid for a period of not less than 90 days.from the date of this submittal. We look forward to the opportunity of assisting helping West Orange County Cities Association in this assignment. Yours very truly, IBI GROUP listair Baillie Director 18401 Von Kamian Avenue, Suite 110, Irvine, California, 92612 (949) 833 3588, FAX (949) 833-5511 IBI is a group of companies practicing professional consulting. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. BACKGROUND AND APPROACH.....................................................................................................1 Background..........................................................................................................................................1 Approach.............................................................................................................................................1 Needs......................................................................................................................................... ......1 2. SCOPE OF SERVICES........................................................................................................................ 3 PHASE1 — Vision and Needs Assessment......................................................................................... 3 Task 1.1 Existing and Future Conditions ............................................................................................ 3 Task1.2 Needs Assessment..............................................................................................................3 Task1.3 Technology Review............................................................................................................. 3 Task 1.4 Goals, Objectives, and Criteria............................................................................................4 Task 1.5 Transportation Vision...........................................................................................................4 Task1.6 Community Issues...............................................................................................................4 Task 1.7 Potential Funding Sources................................................................................................... 5 Milestone1 Report ......................................................:::......................................................................5 PHASE 2 — Development and Preliminary Evaluation of Alternatives ................................................ 5 Task 2.1 Alternatives Definition.......................................................................................................... 5 Task 2.2 Alternatives Screening......................................................................................................... 5 Milestone2 Report...............................................................................................................................6 PHASE 3 — Evaluation of Alternatives................................................................................................. 6 Task 3.1 Detailed Evaluation.............................................................................................................. 6 Task 3.2 Preliminary Cost Estimate.................................................................................................... 6 Milestone3 Report .........................................................................:..................................................... 6 3. WORKPLAN.........................................................................................................................................7 Workplan.............................................................................................................................................. 7 Summary............................................................................................................................................. 7 AgencyCoordination............................................................................................................................ 7 4. PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING....................................................................................8 ProjectOrganization............................................................................................................................ 8 ProjectDirector.................................................................................................................................... 8 ProjectManager.................................................................................................................................. 8 Planning......................................................... :..................................................................................... 8 Environmental......................................................................................................................................9 PublicOutreach................................................................................................................................... 9 DBEParticipation.................................................................................................................................9 5. STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS................................................................................................10 Profileof Firms...................................................................................................................................10 IBI Team Collaborative Experience................................................................................................... 10 IBI Team Experience with Public Agencies ............................................. ...............10 ........................... ContactList........................................................................................................................................'10 RelatedExperience.....................................................................................:.....................................10 Highlights of IBI Group Team............................................................................................................15 • • 6. PROJECT SCHEDULE......................................................................................................................16 ProjectSchedule................................................................................................................................16 MilestoneDelivery .......................................................................................................:.....................16 7. OTHER INFORMATION.....................................................................................................................17 IBI RFP Questions RFPAddendum #1............................................................................................................................17 8. BUDGET AND FEE STRUCTURE.....................................................................................................18 ProjectBudget...................................................................................................................................18 FeeStructure.....................................................................................................................................18 APPENDIX............................................................................................. .......19 ..................................... l 1. BACKROUND AND APPROACH In this chapter: • Background • Approach • Needs Background The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) CenterLine project is developing as the backbone regional transit system for Orange County. Development of the CenterLine project is currently focused on the central cities of Orange County with an initial operating segment to start somewhere between Fullerton and Irvine. Exhibit 1 shows the study area for the current phase of CenterLine. Once the initial system is in place, ,the next phase will be to extend.the system further. A potential option is to extend the system west to the cities of West Orange County. Exhibit 2 shows a map of the location. The Cities of West Orange County consists of Buena Park, Cypress, Fountain Valley,, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, La Palma, Los Alamitos, Seal Beach, Stanton and Westminster. The West Orange County Cities Association (WOCCA) is making a highly recommended and proactive step looking at feasibility and alignment options in West Orange County! Although the OCTA Board has not yet made,a decision, the CenterLine project is a reasonable solution for the need for transportation options and growing traffic congestion problem in Orange County. The Rail Feasibility and Alignment Study is,a significant step in looking at the potential opportunities of the CenterLine project and constraints that may exist in West Orange County for this mode of travel. The IBI Group Team is unmatched in our ability to help the City of Huntington Beach and WOCCA in examining rail feasibility, and alignments in West Orange County. We are currently the prime consultants working with.00TA,on the conceptual -.engineering and environmental study of the CenterLine project.-We.are intimately familiar with the results from the study because we are working directly with OCTA to develop the products. We have an outstanding working relationship with OCTA and are fully integrated with the processes required to work with their departments and consultative structure. We are also working directly with a number of central corridor cities such as Anaheim, Orange, Santa Ana, and Irvine to define the rail alternatives within their city. This experience allows the IBI Group Team to understand the opportunities, needs, issues and constraints from a city's perspective. We believe that this dual viewpoint allows the IBI Group Team to be uniquely qualified for this study. Approach The purpose of the study is to not reinvent earlier studies affecting West Orange County, but to assist West Orange County city decision makers in making informed decisions concerning CenterLine within their jurisdiction. ' A tremendous amount of study and CenterLine analyses have been completed over the years. Most of the new information has been developed in the last two years. The goal will be to make the best use out of previous work and to interpret how to best use new information in the context of West Orange County. Needs The purpose of this study and the needs of the West Orange County Cities are clear. The ideal consultant for WOCCA will have the following attributes: • Familiarity with the issues, needs and concerns of the cities in West Oranges County • Clear understanding and easy access to available information on CenterLine • Development of a CenterLine vision and strategy for West Orange County Cities • Assessment of transit needs in West Orange County • Clear understanding of benefits and constraints of rail Page 1 • Knowledgeable resource of technical information with hands-on experience • . Building consensus among the 10-member City Association • Interface with current CenterLine process • Working closely with Technical Advisory Committee, member cities, and OCTA The IBI Group Team is that consultant. Page 2 • Exhibit i • Current Centerline Study Area it krea n nk North • Exhibit 2 • Study Area —91 COroW10NWEALTH AV, _ nun nnnn.un ORA::GET�C 2'E AV. 6 � . BUIEN. -AV. I A A. PAIAM PAR r _ "UNGOLN AV. AK, E AA,_ BOs' ... .. ,...... s.._ BAIL PD. KATE,LA AV. y 3 °05' S y CHAPMAtJa 4 Jm _ - - WESTMI R BLVD P �pp _ O N w u - s� - o - EDINGER AV. It _ 1 r WRN AER AV. p, A� 405' !39 - - Y TALBERT AV. A'A RTHUR - - - - - - "ELLISAV. - 5~ � 2 z PACIFIC OCEAN TA T\l " North 0 1 2 Miles mmrtmmmmnm �i 2. SCOPE OF SERVICES In this chapter: • Phase 1 — Vision and Needs Assessment • Phase 2 — Development and Preliminary Evaluation of Alternatives • Phase 3 — Evaluation of Alternatives PHASE 1 — Vision and Needs Assessment The fist phase of the study is critical in terms of defining the opportunities and constraints that exist for the West Orange County Cities. Task 1.1 —Existing and Future Conditions Responsibility: IBI Group The ten -member association of Cities covers a large area in Orange County. -The purpose of this task is to gather and -review the vast -amount -of information available from each City: and OCTA. Information such as the existing facilities, planned and programmed roadway and transit improvements, geographical information system (GIS) data, 2020 population and employment will all be useful in developing an understanding of future conditions. We will work with the TAC to schedule a kick-off meeting with WOCCA to collect as much pertinent information from the cities as possible. This will not be the -.only opportunity to provide information but rather, an efficient means of introducing our efforts and consolidating the information retrieval. The goal is to develop a future 2020 base that can be used to develop and evaluate CenterLine. options in the West Orange County area. Deliverable: Technical memorandum summarizing the results of the data collection and a 2020 base condition. Task 1.2 — Needs Assessment Responsibility. IBI Group A transportation needs assessment will be conducted to identify transportation deficiencies in the West Orange County area. Potential transportation deficiencies may include a need for: a) additional inter -county commuter service, b) connection to an initial operating segment of the 'CenterLine system and c) inter/intra-city circulator systems. This task will use the information gathered in Task 1.1 and information available from the Orange County Transportation Authority Model (OCTAM) to analyze, on a zonal level, locations where there may be transit deficiencies in the West Orange County area. In particular, the types of deficiencies that may be addressed by rail versus other modes of transportation will be evaluated and qualitatively discussed. Deliverable: Technical memorandum summarizing the results of the needs assessment. Task 1.3 — Technology Review Responsibility. IBI Group A review of the available rail technologies will be conducted and a primer for the candidate technologies will be developed to help decision makers understand the differences. The range of rail alternatives can vary between heavy rail, such as Metrolink to automated people mover services such as those found in airports. It may be very likely that as in the CenterLine project, the three technologies that appear to be most relevant are monorail, automated guideway technology (AGT) and light rail. There are distinct differences and reasons why one technology may be preferred over another. The technology primer will detail the specific reasons. Deliverable: Technology primer identifying range of available rail technologies. Page 3 Task 1.4 — Goals, Objectives, Criteria Responsibility. IBI Group with assistance from LSA This task will establish the goals, objectives and . evaluation criteria for evaluating alternative alignments of CenterLine in West Orange County. A key point in this task will be to identify the major origins and destinations areas to be served. These are the opportunities that a rail system should capitalize on. Along' with this, concerns such as environmental, social and physical constraints will also be identified. The team will develop this task in conjunction with Task 1.5 and 1.6 to develop a well-rounded set of goals, objectives and criteria that embrace not only the vision of policy makers but will be sensitive to community needs and desires. The IBI Group Team will work closely with TAC.and member Cities to reach consensus on the goals, objectives and criteria for assessing the study alternatives. Meetings may be scheduled to discuss the individual concerns and needs of each city, if necessary. Deliverable: Technical -memorandum identifying goals, objectives and alternative evaluation criteria Task 1.5 — Transportation Vision Responsibility. 1131 The purpose of this task is two -fold. The first is to identify an ultimate CenterLine system in the West Orange County area. This step will build on previous work such as the.1991 Transit Master Plan to provide a future vision of a potential system. The second is to develop a set of vision statements to assist decision makers in determining what is the right decision when confronted with an alignment constraint. A clear vision statement will allow decision makers to determine if an obstacle may be dealt with bycompromise or amounts to a fatal flaw in the alignment. This task will be developed with input from Task 1.4 and 1.6. Deliverable: Technical memorandum presenting a potential CenterLine system and vision statement in West Orange County. Task 1.6 — Community Issues Responsibility. SLA with assistance from IBI Create a database of up to 200 community issue stakeholders in the 10 cities. Survey: Prepare and distribute a survey to approximately 100 community leaders, business interests, elected and appointed officials. Target audiences would include Chambers of Commerce, tourism industry representatives, City Council and commissioners, state and federal legislative offices, minority and ethnic audiences, educational institutions, and major employers. The survey would be designed to reveal perceptions about major community issues now and in 20 years, identification of key community leaders and organizations, the relative importance of transportation issues, and location of perceived transportation demand now and in 20 years. Interviews: Conduct telephone interviews with up to 20 individuals representing a cross section of cities and constituencies. These interviews, while covering similar topics as the surveys, are an important compliment to the surveys. They ensure that the input of top priority individuals and organizations is received, begin to build buy -in among key stakeholders and the discussion format allows more in-depth exploration of the rationale behind the opinions voiced. These interviews would reach the top tier of community leader Roundtables: Conduct a roundtable discussion group. The roundtable discussion group would consist of community representatives from each member city. These discussion groups would be useful in assessing reaction to alternative alignments and support for a rail system in general. Deliverable: Technical memorandum summarizing results. Page 4 Task 1.7 — Potential Funding Sources Responsibility: SGA with assistance from IBI The objective of this task is to provide a preliminary identification of potential funding sources available to the West Orange County Cities. This task will investigate the range of available funding sources and comment on the status and opportunities available to WOCCA. Of particular interest will be assessment , of the status _ of countywide financial resources available . through Measure M in light of both the drawdown of funds for construction of the initial phases of the Centerline project and the possible sunset of the Measure program. Of equal importance will be an assessment of opportunities for securing Federal Transit Administration Section 5309 discretionary funds for New Start fixed guideway projects as well as opportunities for cost sharing, joint development, and public -private funding. Deliverable: Technical memorandum identifying potential funding sources Phase 1 Milestone Report The Milestone 1 report will bring together the information developed in the seven tasks associated with Phase 1. The technical documents associated with each task will be included the appendix of the milestone report. An executive summary will be provided summarizing the results of the seven tasks. PHASE 2 — Development and Preliminary Evaluation of Alternatives The second phase of the project will identify a list of potential Centerline alternatives in West Orange County. The conclusion of the phase. will provide a short list of alternatives to be studied further in the optional phase 3 of this study. Task 2.1 — Alternatives Definition Responsibility. I B I This task will identify a range of possible rail options and alignments in the West Orange County area. The alignments will be identified on a conceptual level of detail. To the extent possible, a preliminary assessment of ridership potential will be developed for each alternative. This may or may not include actual assignments of OCTAM. It is possible to develop a reasonable forecast of ridership potential based on the intersection of the alignment with population and employment centers. Potential alignments that will be examined include Pacific Coast Highway, 1-405, the Pacific Electric right-of-way, existing railroad rights -of -way, Katella Avenue, and the Santa. Ana River corridor. Deliverable: Technical memorandum summarizing range of alternatives. Task 2.2 — Alternatives Screening Responsibility. IBI with assistance from LSA A preliminary screening will be conducted on the range of alternatives. Alternatives with fatal flaws will be removed from further study.. The goal is to develop a short list of reasonable alignments that can be studied in a future phase on a higher level of detail. The screening methodology will use the goals, objectives and criteria established in task 1.4 and Milestone 1. The screening of the alignment will also identify on a preliminary level, potential constraints that may force an alignment or section of alignment to have an elevation determination. IBI Group Team will work closely with the TAC to develop the short list of reasonable alternatives. Deliverable: Technical memorandum summarizing evaluation process and short-list of viable alternatives. Page 5 Phase 2 Milestone Report The Milestone 2 report will summarize the results of alternatives definition and initial screening. The technical documents associated with each task will be included in the appendix of the milestone report. The report will identify a short list of alternatives that may be studied in the optional Phase 3 of this project. PHASE 3 — Evaluation of Alternatives Responsibility. -IBI Phase 3 is an optional phase of work. Based on the results of Phase 1 and 2, the TAC may direct the additional work identified, in this phase, to be included in the overall rail feasibility and alignment study. The focus of this phase will be to further investigate the short-list of viable rail alternatives in West Orange County Task 3.1 — Detailed. Evaluation Responsibility. IBI with assistance from LSA and SGA This task will conduct a more detailed evaluation of the short list of viable alternatives. The evaluation will provide sufficient information to allow the Cities to select a viable, preferred rail alternative. The evaluation -will take into account a number of factors including ridership potential, environmental concerns and a more refined evaluation of opportunities and constraints including funding and financing. Deliverable: Technical memorandum summarizing detailed evaluation of short list of viable alternatives. Task 3.2 — Preliminary Cost Estimate Responsibility. I B I A detailed preliminary estimate of capital costs will be developed for the short list of alternatives. The preliminary estimate will include details such as guideway, trackwork, site modifications, utility relocation, station, support facilities, systems, construction, right-of-way and vehicle costs. An order of magnitude cost for intersection and link level mitigation will be developed for each of the short list alternatives. Deliverable: Preliminary cost estimate for short list of viable alternatives. Phase 3 Milestone Report The Milestone 3 report is the culmination of the rail feasibility and alignment study. It takes the short-list of viable alternatives developed in Phase 2 and provides a more in-depth review of the alternatives. Although a higher level of engineering will be necessary in order to flesh -out the short-list of alternatives, Milestone 3 will provide the West Orange County Association of Cities with a preliminary level analysis that can be presented to OCTA for further consideration. This proactive move would put West Orange County in a good position as the next phase of the CenterLine project. Page 6 • 3. WORKPLAN. In this chapter: • Workplan Summary • Approach • Agency Coordination Workplan Summary ' The project work plan will consist of sequential work tasks outlined in Chapter 2, Scope of Services. Exhibit 3 summarizes the sequence of work task, product deliverables, primary person in charge and estimated hours for task completion. Agency Coordination Agency coordination will be a critical component in the success of this rail feasibility and alignment study. Close coordination with both the Technical Advisory Committee and member Cities is a requirement. The . IBI Team has .developed a detailed approach to agency coordination. Exhibit 4 graphically shows the process envisioned as each work task, phase and milestone is developed. Page 7 Exhibit 3 Project Workplan Task -F Deliverable Task Leader Task Hours PHASE 1. VISION AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT 1.1 Existing and Future Conditions Technical Memo Steve Schibuola, IBI 39 1.2 Needs Assessment Technical Memo Steve Schibuola, IBI 55 1.3 Technology Review Technical Memo Blair Smith, IBI 22 1.4 Goals, Objectives, Criteria Technical Memo Steve Schibuola, IBI 34 1.5 Transportation Vision Technical Memo Steve. Schibuola, IBI 33 1.6 ,Community Issues Technical Memo Jeanne Spinner LaMar, SLA 60 1.7 Potential Funding Sources Technical Memo Sharon Greene, SGA 14 Milestone 1 Report Steve Schibuola, IBI 69 PHASE 2. DEVELOPMENT/PRELIMINARY EVALUATION 2.1 Alternatives Definition Technical Memo David Chow, IBI 67 2.2 Alternatives Screening Technical Memo David Chow, IBI 66 Milestone 2 Report David Chow, IBI 59 PHASE 3. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES 3.1 Detailed Evaluation Technical Memo David Chow, IBI 270 3.2 Preliminary Cost Estimate Technical Memo Blair Smith, IBI 188 Milestone 3 Report David Chow, IBI 108 MEETINGS 58 TOTAL 1,142 • Exhibit 4 • Agency Coordination Flowchart Technical Advisory Committee ' 1 -Agency Review/Coordination • WOCCA Cities • OCTA • SCAG IBI Group Team O ^L QL. CL Technical Advisory Committee Approval 4. PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING In this chapter: • Project Organization • Profile of Team Members • DBE Participation Project Organization Exhibit 5 is an organizational .chart .showing the key project staff and relationship between the Technical Advisory Committee and IBI Group Team. The following is a detailed discussion of the key team members. Project Director Alistair Baillie will be the project director for the Rail Feasibility and Alignment Study for West Orange County Cities. The project director is responsible for top-level oversight and is available for consultation to help solve technical or managerial challenges that may arise. He provides guidance to the project manager, ensures that sufficient and appropriate IBI Group Team resources are being applied, and has final quality assurance responsibility. Alistair is currently project manager for the OCTA CenterLine project and will be an invaluable resource, able to provide a level of continuity between the current CenterLine project and this study. Alistair provides over 20 :years .of experience in transportation planning and engineering, with leadership skills to successfully manage very complex and multi -disciplinary projects. Project Manager The IBI Group Team will be led by Steve Schibuola, who brings proven project management expertise, a solid background in transportation planning and extensive knowledge of transit design and implementation. Steve has great familiarity with the transportation and transit issues throughout Orange County. He also has considerable working knowledge of the regional context within which the western'segment of CenterLine will operate; obtained in managing IBI Group assignments on the OCTA CenterLine, MIS study and the 1996 Pacific Electric Right -of -Way Utilization Study, a precursor to this study. In the Pacific Electric ROW Utilization Study, Steve worked directly with the Cities of Garden Grove, Stanton, Buena Park, Cypress and La Palma. He has managed several other transit feasibility, implementation and planning studies including the Proposition 116 Irvine Guideway Demonstration Project, Smart Shuttle Demonstrations in the Cities of Brea, Yorba Linda, Placentia, and South -Central Los Angeles, and is currently the Planning Team Leader for the OCTA CenterLine project. He also has extensive experience in the transit -land use connection, having co-authored a set of guidelines for transit -supportive land use planning and design. Planning David Chow, Planning Team Leader, will be in charge of Alternatives Definition and Screening. Mr. Chow will also act as an alternate project manager to assist Mr. Schibuola. David has played a major role in the development and screening of alternatives in the OCTA CenterLine project and the .Proposition 116 Irvine Guideway Demonstration Project. He has managed numerous studies that examined new rapid transit and LRT lines. This includes the evaluation of alignments and technologies for San Fernando Valley East-West Transit Corridor and Marina del Rey LCP Transit Studies. David is intimately familiar with the transportation issues in Orange County. He is also has a great deal of experience in travel demand forecasting and transit modeling. Sharon Greene, Potential Funding Sources, specializes in transportation and land use economics and financing. Sharon worked in this capacity in the previous Corridor MIS and brings extensive local, as well as state, national and international experience in financing major transit projects. Sharon has developed and implemented financing programs for rail systems, highways, toll roads, and freight corridors within the United States and abroad, and has been instrumental on many projects in securing public and/or private financing for planning, design and construction of public infrastructure. Her most recent work has focused on financing programs for the $2.4 billion Alameda Corridor Project in Los Angeles County. Under contract to the Alameda Corridor Page 8 Transportation Authority (ACTA), a joint venture of the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, the City of Los Angeles and the railroads, Ms. Greene is responsible for grants management and securing financing for major capital improvements in the Corridor. Previously, Sharon developed and implemented the financial plan for the $2 billion Metrolink regional commuter rail system. She served as the founding Executive Director of the Los Angeles -San Diego Rail Corridor Agency (LOSSAN), overseeing the funding and implementation of a phased capital improvement program to facilitate intercity and commuter rail passenger service development in the corridor. Environmentaf Rob McCann, Environmental Review, has been involved in developing Orange County's transportation system since 1981 and has become highly recognized in Orange County for his expertise in preparing Environmental Impact Reports/Environmental Impact Statements and in environmental and transportation planning. Rob's transportation project experience includes the Environmental Impact Report for the OCTA Katella Avenue Smart Street project, -which required extensive coordination with the .County of: Orange, OCTA and the six: cities traversed by Katella Avenue. He was also responsible for the Negative Declaration/Finding of No Significant Impact. for the Route 73/I-405 confluence improvements and is currently managing the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the highly controversial Route 710 extension project through South Pasadena. Rob participated in major regional planning studies such as the Multi -modal Transportation Study -and Santa Ana Transportation Corridor Study, and the Beach Boulevard and Katella Avenue Smart Street Projects. . Michael Amling, Social and Economic Impacts, is an environmental planner with extensive experience as manager of environmental studies for major Orange County transportation projects. Michael was the project planner for the Eastern Transportation EIR/EIS in northeastern Orange County, and the. Community Reuse, General Planning Consistency Technical Report and portions of the EIR for the MCAS El Toro Community Reuse Plan and EIR. Public Outreach/Agency Coordination Jeanne Spinner LaMar, Public Outreach, will be directly responsible conducting the community issues task. She has worked in transportation communications since 1976, .when she was the first Public Affairs Officer for the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission. Over the past 15 years, she has directed community and government relations programs in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. Her primary focus is on developing communications programs.and resolving = conflicts between public and private sector interests on controversial construction land use projects. DBE Participation The IBI Group is a proud supporter of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE). Our Team consists of the following DBE firms: • Sharon Greene and Associates • Spinner La Mar and Associates Detailed DBE information can be provided if necessary. Page 9 Exhibit S S Organizational Chart Technical Advisory Committee Project Director Project Management Alistair Boillie, IBI Steve Schibuolo, IBI David Chow, P.E., IBI PLANNING I ENVIRONMENTAL I PUBLIC OUTREACH • Blair Smith, IBI • Rob McCann, LSA • Jeanne Spinner LaMar, • Christina Overman, IBI • Mike Amling SLA • Sharon Greene, SGA • Lisa Gels, SLA • Rokhi Bosu, SGA IBI IBI Group LSA LSA Associates, Inc. SGA Sharon Greene and Associates """"""""""' SLA Spinner LaMar and Associates 5. STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS In this chapter: • Profiles of Each Firm • Contact Names • Related Experience • Highlights • References + A full range of planning and engineering capabilities is required to deal with the issues and challenges of this project. The IBI Group Team has been carefully selected to meet these needs, and brings together a group. of talented professionals with strong rail transit planning and engineering experience in North America. The Team, with over 100 employees in Orange County, brings an intimate knowledge of transportation and land use planning issues in Orange County and has worked extensively within the social, political and institutional fabric of the area. Team members have a proven ability to, develop innovative and creative solutions to. complex transportation problems. These capabilities and experiences will be important assets in carrying out this project. IBI Group will . be the prime consultant for this project, providing leadership for the entire engagement, with particularemphasis on its strengths in planning and consensus building. The skills of IBI Group will be complemented through specialized subconsultants with responsibilities in the following key areas: • LSA Associates, Inc. - Environmental Planning • Sharon Greene and Associates - Finance and Economic Analysis • Spinner LaMar — Public Outreach and Public Relations Together, the team has a tremendous amount of experience and knowledge for this project. All members of the team are currently working on the OCTA Centerline project. The. IBI Group is the prime consultant on that project. We are intimately familiar with the CenterLine project, the issues, the coordination efforts and have an excellent working relationship OCTA. We are also well aware of the history, requirements and unique aspects of western Orange County. All members of the team reside in Orange County. We are members of the community and are intimately aware of the intricacies and uniqueness of the area. We believe this is an ideal blend of expertise that will provide continuity, stimulate creative thinking and achieve the best solution for the Westside Cities of Orange County. Profiles of Firms IBI Group is a multi -disciplinary firm that provides a broad range of transportation consulting and related planning, architecture and engineering services. As prime consultant, the firm brings considerable experience in rapid transit, bus and rail operations, land use planning and transit oriented development, traffic engineering and a strong capability in managing large and complex studies. The "firm has carried out planning studies, economic and feasibility studies, and design/implementation projects for many rapid transit and commuter rail projects in Orange County and several other cities throughout North America and abroad. IBI Group's particular strength is the knowledge and experience of its staff regarding the intricate transportation and land use planning issues in Orange County. Formed in 1974, IBI Group is a partnership that employs some 400 persons in 15 offices across North America, Europe and the Middle East. The firm's financial condition is excellent and free of any conditions that would prevent IBI Group from undertaking this study. The Orange County office in Irvine was established in 1978 and has 20 employees. LSA Associates, Inc. is a diversified environmental, transportation and community planning consulting firm. The firm has prepared several hundred Environmental Impact Reports/ Page 10 Environmental Impact Statements (EIS/EIR) and is thoroughly familiar with the CEQA and NEPA processes. LSA's knowledge of environmental processes, augmented with a practical understanding of land use and environmental permitting, has contributed greatly to its record of success. LSA's people are recognized innovators in environmental impact assessment and have a reputation among clients and peers as being thorough, creative and objective. LSA is an employee -owned firm -with offices in Irvine, Point Richmond, Riverside, Rocklin, and Berkeley, California. Since it's founding in 1976, LSA has grown to a staff of over 100 employees with over 45 in the Irvine Office. Sharon Greene Associates (DBE) is a sole proprietorship and DBE that � specializes in transportation and land use economics and financing. A major. component of the firm's work is to assist transportation agencies in development and. implementation of financial strategies and programs to fund major capital investments while maintaining the economic viability of the existing systems.. The firm identifiesopportunities for public sector funding and financing, as well as opportunities for private sector and joint development participation. SGA will be responsible for economic and financial analysis for the study in a role that they also perform in the OCTA CenterLine project, Metrolink, and on many other major capital investment projects throughout the United States. Formed in 1980; the firm is located locally in Tustin and employs 5 persons. The financial health of the firm is sound and there are no conditions that would prevent it .from completing its assignments in this project. Spinner La Mar & Associates (DBE) is more than a conventional public relations firm; .they not only show strength in their ability to design and implement communication projects to reach various audiences, but also in theirknowledge of substantive issues and governmental processes to advise clients on short and .long term'strategy. Expertise in land use and transportation planning enables them to effectively communicate goals to community .leaders and project stakeholders. Founded in 1985, Spinner LaMar & Associates is a woman -owned and operated business with one office at 275 Centennial Way, Tustin, California. The firm is a sole -proprietorship certified as a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) by OCTA, and certified by the State of California's Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) as a DBE/SBE (number CT-021921). IBI Group Team Collaborative Experience The IBI Group Team has joined forces in various combinations over the years to successfully carry out many transit -related projects in the State of California and in other North American locations. The synergy that exists between members of our Team allows for effective communication in the group and the ability to undertake assignments in an efficient manner. Some history of the IBI Group Team working alliances is described below. The most recent and notable corroborative effort is the OCTA CenterLine project. All of the key members from that endeavor are present in this team. This includes IBI Group (Prime Consultant), LSA Associates (Environmental Planning), Sharon Greene and Associates (Finance and Economic Analysis), and Spinner LaMar & Associates (Public Outreach). The IBI Group Team is a tested and proven team and we are uniquely qualified to help the West Orange County Cities achieve the greatest success with Rail Feasibility and Alignment Study. Another notable venture is the Proposition 116 Irvine Guideway Demonstration Project. Most of the key members from that endeavor are present in this team. This includes IBI Group (Prime Consultant), LSA Associates (Environmental Planning), Sharon Greene and Associates (Finance and Economic Analysis), and Spinner LaMar & Associates (Public Outreach). Page 11 IBI Group Team Experience with Public Agencies As firms and as individuals, the IBI Group Team enjoys strong working relationships with various Cities throughout West Orange County and other public agencies, that may be involved in the project. These include: the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and their operator Orange County Transit District (OCTD); , the .County of .Orange; . Federal Transit Administration (FTA); Federal Highway Administration (FHWA); California Department of Transportation — District 12 (Caltrans); and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Contact List Alistair Baillie IBI Group 18401 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 110 Irvine, CA 92612 (714) 833-5588 (714) 833-5511 fax Rob McCann LSA Associates, Inc. 1 Park Plaza, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92614 (949) 553-0666 (949) 553-8076 fax Related Experience Sharon Greene Sharon Greene & Associates 275 Centennial Way, Suite 104 Tustin, CA 92680 (714) 669-9222 (714) 669-9359 fax Jeanne Spinner LaMar Spinner LaMar & Associates 275 Centennial Way, Suite 201 Tustin, CA 92620 - (714) 730-7147 (714) 730-1716 fax Orange County. Transportation Authority :(OCTA) Centerline Detailed. Conceptual Engineering and Environmental Study IBI Group is the Prime Consultant on this. $4.25 Million effort that represents OCTA's first step in the Preliminary Engineering phase of its urban rail project. A project of this scope is the first of its kind in the history of Orange County. Coordinating the efforts of a 10-firm team, IBI Group has developed a detailed milestone process to handle a very aggressive schedule within a challenging timeframe. The goal is to identify final route alignment, station planning, technology selection, conceptual engineering and the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report/Draft Environmental Impact Statement for a 28-mile urban rail system by the end of 1999. IBI is proud to highlight that all delivered milestones have been completed on -time, under -budget, with considerably more comprehensive detail than required. Team Members: IBI Group, LSA, SGA, SLA Client: Orange County Transportation Authority Contact: Mr. Dave Elbaum, Director of Planning and Development Address: 550 S. Main Street Orange, CA 92863 Phone: (714) 560-5745 Contract Amount: $4,250,000 Completion Date: December 1999 (est.) Page 12 0 • Proposition 116 Irvine Guideway demonstration Project Detailed Conceptual Engineering and Environmental Study IBI Group is the Prime Consultant on this $2.5 Million project to help the City of Irvine study, design and implement a people mover system in the Irvine Business Complex (IBC). The Irvine people mover system is an important part of:the City's:long-range transportation plan and the regional multi -modal transportation plan. As prime consultant, IBI heads an 8-firm team to identify transit corridors within _ thL . IBC, station area, planning, technology selection, conceptual engineering, financial plan and the, preparation of a Draft Environmental. Impact Report/Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Team Members: IBI Group, SGA,.SLA Client: City of Irvine Contact: Mr. Marty Bryant; Project Development Administrator Address: One Civic Plaza Irvine, CA 92623-9575 Phone: (949) 724-7340 Contract amount: $2,500,000 Completion Date: November 1999 City.of Anaheim, CenterLine Station Area Planning Analysis This project involved working with City planning staff and property owners adjacent to potential CenterLine stations to flesh -out each station, including architectural treatments, linkages to nearby (existing) developments, and, thoughts on how planned development may be reoriented to take advantage of the LRT (or the other way around). Products include context plans, sketch plans and cross -sections, architectural renderings and photo realistic simulations. If the station area is "stable" (i.e. no current plans for redevelopment), this has also included a market assessment and opportunities/constraints analysis for redevelopment, and transit -oriented development potential. Team. Member: IBI Group Client: City of Anaheim Contact: Mr. John Lower, Traffic Engineer Address: 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Anaheim, CA 92805 Phone: (714) 765-5038 Contract Amount: $98,000 Completion Date: October 1999 City of Orange, CenterLine Station Area Planning Analysis The CenterLine Station Area Planning Analysis for the City of Orange focused on two areas, a corridor analysis. and station configuration comparisons. The corridor analysis evaluated the land use impacts of an at -grade system along Chapman and Main Street; examining the potential need for widening and additional right-of-way requirements. The station configuration analysis provided an evaluation of three possible station/alignment alternatives at the Main Street and La Veta intersection. The analysis examined both aerial and at -grade station configurations. Conceptual design drawings for the station were developed. Team Member: IBI Group Client: City of Orange Contact: Mr. Hamid Bahadori, Traffic Engineer Address: 300 E. Chapman Avenue Orange Civic Center Orange, CA 92866 Phone: (714) 744-5534 Contract Amount: $22,0000 . Completion Date: October 1999 Page 13 City of Santa Ana, CenterLine Land Use Planning and Traffic Analysis The CenterLine Land Use Planning and Traffic Analysis provided a detailed evaluation of station area planning, developed a transit supportive development implementation plan and conducted a detailed traffic analysis of the CenterLine project for the City of Santa Ana. The station area planning investigated opportunities along South Main Street to create- transit supportive land use and redevelopment options. The work task included developing a transit supportive implementation plan to guide :and shape development opportunities as they arise to capitalize on the CenterLine. project. A detailed traffic analysis was also conducted to analyze the impacts of an at -grade system on existing roadways. Analysis included detailed level -of -service investigations, neighborhood protection schemes, traffic couplet and cul-de-sac investigations and development of mitigation options. Team Member: IBI Group Client: City of Santa Ana Contact: Ms. Joyce Amerson, Transportation Manager Address: 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 Phone: (714) 647-5655 Contract Amount: $64,000 Completion Date: October 1999 OCTA Pacific Electric Right -of -Way Utilization Study This study, conducted for the Orange County Transportation Authority, examined utilization options for the Pacific Electric Right -of -Way (PE ROW), a 12-mile long, 100' corridor paralleling I- 5 in northwestern Orange County. With the goal of preserving the:PE ROW for reuse as a transit corridor in the long run, the study developed a set of principles against which OCTA will evaluate proposals for interim uses of the ROW. The principles stress use of the land for activities that generate revenue, provide public amenities or foster long-term transit demand, while being compatible with abutting residential areas and preserving flexibility for future transit facilities. Working closely with the PE ROW Task Force consisting of the Cities of Santa Ana, Garden Grove, Anaheim, Stanton, Buena Park, La Palma and Cypress, IBI Group reviewed city plans, prior transportation plans studies, and the Measure M Growth Management and Traffic Improvement Plan; consulted extensively with city and public agency planning, redevelopment and transportation staff; undertook a significant public and elected official outreach program to reach officials, residents and businesses along the PE ROW, including direct mail surveys, media relations, and two public Open Houses, an elected officials workshop and a registered voters poll; prepared detailed technical analyses on travel patterns and environmental issues near the PE ROW; and developed an implementation plan covering aesthetics, development of lands in the PE ROW, and potential transportation uses of the corridor before a transit facility is built. The refined principles and implementation .plan were adopted at a November 1996 OCTA Board meeting. Team Member: IBI Group Client: OCTA Contact: Ms. Ellen Burton, Senior Project Manager Address: Orange County Transportation Authority 550 S. Main Street Orange, CA 92613 Phone: (714) 560-5741 Contract Amount: $85,000 Completion Date: February 1997 Community Outreach and Public Participation for OCTA CenterLine Rail Project. The OCTA was conducting a Draft Environmental Impact Report and Statement on planning for a 28-mile long, urban rail system through six cities in the heart of Orange County. The scope of Page 14 work involves design and executing the project's public participation program including oversight of numerous independent consultants performing specific components of the program. Primarily responsible for program strategy and scheduling, three public hearings in compliance with CEQA/NEPA requirements, 12 community -based workshops, specialized programs targeted to Spanish-speaking and Asian populations.and direct mail to over 100,OOO:targeted.recipients. . Team Member: SLA Client: OCTA Contact: Ms. Robin Leftwich,. Manger Public Communications Address: Orange.County Transportation Authority 550 S. Main Street Orange, CA 92613 Phone: (714) 560-5578 Contract Amount: $200,000 in various contracts Completion Date: December 1999 Highlights of IBI Group Team • Familiarity with Corridor Investment Studies • Demonstrated Knowledge and Experience with Rail Technologies • Extensive Experience with. Ridership Projections • Planning and Engineering Expertise in Alternatives Development • Reliable System Capital and Operating Cost Estimates • Related Project Experience • Familiarity with Institutional Arrangements • Consensus Building Skills • Solid Understanding of Local Planning Issues • Previous Experience with Other.Corridor Cities Page 15 • 6. PROJECT SCHEDULE In this chapter: • Project Schedule • Milestone Delivery Project Schedule A proposed project schedule is pr6sente&in Exhibit 6. As can be seen in the,schedule, Phase-1 and 2 is intended to be completed in a two -month period. The optional Phase 3 may. be completed within a one -month period. Milestone Delivery Exhibit 6 also indicates when the Milestone Products are completed. Page 16 EXHIBIT 6 WORK PLAN AND SCHEDULE Elapsed Time 0©®0©DOOOmm®®m®m' Technology Review 1.4 Goals, Objectives, Cdteria 1.5 Transportation Vision 1.7 Potential Funding Sources 'PHASE 2. DEVELOPMENT/PRELIMINARY EVALUATION PHASE 3. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES 3.2 Preliminary Cost Estimate MILESTONE1.3 C:IwindowslTEMP1 jHuntington Beach 1027.xlsAdget 0 0 7. OTHER INFORMATION In this chapter: • Copy of IBI Questions • RFP Addendum #1 Copy of IBI Group Questions IBI Group formally submitted sofne questions- concerning the RFP on October 15, 1999 for consideration. A copy of the letter is provided in Exhibit 7. RFP Addendum #1 IBI Group received RFP Addendum #1 from the City of Huntington Beach on. October 13, 1999. The addendum identified the budget target for the Rail Feasibility•and Alignment Study. -Exhibit 8 is a copy of the addendum. Page 17 • EXHIBIT 7 • IBI GROUP October 15, 1999 Mr. Richard Amadril Central Services Manager City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Amadril: Questions on Rail Feasibility and Alignment Study for West Orange County Cities RFP Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your request for proposal. IBI Group is looking forward to.providing you with an outstanding proposal. To do so, we would like to formally submit the following questions for your consideration: • Does the 30 page limit refer to 30 double -sided pages? • Is it correct to assume that chapter dividers, insurance certificates, required forms, etc. are not included in the page limit? • Are appendices included within the 30 page limit? • Is there a DBE participation goal? We are anxious to receive direction from you because this will affect the overall structure of our proposal. Please feel free to call, fax or email me (dchow ,ibi roup.com) with the answers. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, IBI GROUP I_za- David Chow, P.E. Senior Associate C.IUSERSIPROPOSALSWUNTINGTON BEACH QUESTIONS.000 18401 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 110, Irvine, California, 92612 (949) 833-5588, FAX (949) 833-5511 1131 is a group of companies practicing professional consulting. EXHIBIT 8 CITY OF HUNTINGTO&EACH r 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach California 92648 Huntington Beach CENTRAL SERVICE DIVISION October 13, 1999 Firm: IBI Group SUBJECT: ADDENDUM TO RAIL FEASIBILITY AND ALIGNMENT STUDY FOR WEST ORANGE COUNTY CITIES Based on the considerable interest we have encountered with respect to the above - mentioned RFP,.we have determined that someadditional information may be useful to all firms interested in responding to this bid. 1. In response to your questions regarding budget, the estimated dollar amount for completion of Phases I and II is approximately $45,000 — to be jointly funded by all participating cities. Should the study proceed into Phase III, the total budgeted amount may increase to approximately $100,000. 2. Due to the preliminary and conceptual nature of this study, the identification of environmental issues are not a significant element of the scope of work. It is anticipated that Phase I and II would only include a brief listing of what might be required in terms of environmental work should a specific alignment be selected. The Phase III effort would expand on this listing in somewhat more detail by providing further direction or further definition of the critical issues which would need to be resolved in order to move the project forward in subsequent studies. Thanks for your interest in this study. We look forward to receiving your proposal. l M-r rd Amadril, Central Services Mana er cc Ray Silver, City Administrator addendum.doc 10/13/999:32 AM 0 • 8. BUDGET AND FEE STRUCTURE In this chapter: • Project Budget • Fee Structure Project Budget The Phase 1 and Phase 2 budget consist.of a total of 600 task -hours with 8 hours devoted to meetings. The budget for Phase 1 and 2 is proposed at $45,770. Phase 3 consists of 706 task hours with 32 hours devoted to meetings. The budget for Phase.3 is $55,380. ; The total budget for the study is proposed at $101,150. Exhibit 9 provides a complete project task -level detail of budget by person, firm and task hours. Fee Structure The following fee structure is this proposal. Staff Alistair Baillie, IBI Steve Schibuola, IBI David Chow, P.E., IBI Blair Smith, IBI Christina Overman, IBI Support, IBI Rob McCann, LSA, Mike Amling, LSA Support, LSA Sharon Greene, SGA Rakhi Bashu, SGA Support, SGA Jeanne Spinner La Mar, SLA Lisa Gels, SLA Support, SLA in place should additional efforts be.required.'beyond the scope of Project Director Project Manager Assistant Project Manager Senior Planner Planner Environmental Task Leader Environmental Task Manager Funding Task Leader Senior Associate Public Outreach Task Leader Coordinator Hourly Rate $150 $110 $100 $85 $70 $60 $150 $90 $65 $150 $110 $60 $125 $75 $45 Page 18 EXHIBIT 9 PERSON HOUR ALLOCATION AND BUDGET IBI Group LSA Associates Sharon Greene & Associates Spinner -La Mar & Associate Task Hours Task Costs Baillie I Schibuoia I Chow Smith Overman I Support McCann I Amling I Support Greene Bashu Support La Mar Gels Support Hourly Rate $150 1 $110 $100 $85 $70 $60 $150 1 $90 1 $65 $150 $110 $60 $125 $75 $45 1. PHASE 1 - VISION AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT 1.1 Existing and Future Conditions 1 2 4 8 24 39 $3,130 1.2 Needs Assessment 1 2 4 32 16 55 $4,610 1.3 Technol2gy Review 1 1 4 16 22 $2,niM 1A Goals, Objectives, Criteria 1 2 4 8 3 8 8 34 $3, 1.5 Transportation Vision 1 4 4 8 16 33 $2,7 1.6 Community Issues 2 16 32 10 60 $5,070 1.7 Potential Funding Sources 2 4 8 . 14 $1,700 Milestone 1 Report 1 4 8 24 16 16 69 $5.510 Meetings 4 4 8 $1,040 2. PHASE 2 - DEVELOPMENT/PREL. EVALUATION 2.1 Alternatives Definition 1 2 8 24 32 67 $5,450 2.2 Alternatives Screening 1 2 8 8 3 20 24 66 $5,660 Milestone 2 Report 1 2 8 16 16 16 59 $4,610 Meetings 4 4 8 $1,040 Subtotal Hours 17 33 52 144 120 32 6 28 32 4 8 16 32 10 SUBTOTAL FEES $2.550 $3,630 $5,200 $12,240 $8,400 $1,920 $900 $2,520 $2,080 $600 $880 $2,000 $2,400 $450 534 $45,770 3. PHASE 3 - EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES 3.1 Detailed Evaluation 4 24 40 80 40 2 20 44 8 8 270 $23.880 3.2 Preliminary Cost Estimate 4 24 40 80 40 188 $16.840 Milestone 3 Report 4 8 32 32 16 16 108, $9.480 Meetings. 16 16 2 8 42 $5,180 Subtotal Hours 28 72 112 192 96 1 16 4 28 44 8 8 SUBTOTAL FEES $4,200 $7.920 $11,200 $16.320 $6.720 $960 $600 $2.520 $2.860 $1,200 $880 608 SUBTOTAL COSTS Total Hours 45 105 164 I 336 216 48 101 56 1 76 12 161 1 16 —327 10 1.142 Total Fees $6,750 $11,550 $16,400 $28.560 $15,120 1 $2.880 1 $1,5001 $5.0401 $4.9401 $1.8001 $1.760 00 $2,0 $2.400 $450 101,150 Total Costs STUDY TOTAL $6,750 $11.550 $16,400 $28.560 $15.120 $2,880 $1.500 $5.040 $4,940 $1.800 $1.760 $2,000 $2,400 $450 $101,150 • • APPENDIX In the Appendix: • Resumes of Key Staff • Certificates of Insurance • Comments to Standard Agreement Page 19 ALISTAIR WILLIAM BAILLIE Director-IBI Group; Director-InterBase Incorporated President -Alistair Baillie Corporation Education B.A.Sc. Civil Engineering, University of Waterloo, 1971 Professional Affiliations Urban Land Institute American Public Transit Association Professional Registrations Professional Engineers Ontario Relevant Experience • OCTA Centerline Conceptual -Engineering -and Environmental Study. Mr. Baillie is currently the Director in charge of this conceptual engineering and environmental study. As project manager, he is in charge of all phases of this rail study from technology selection, route alignment and transit planning to conceptual engineering and environmental analysis. • Proposition 116 Irvine, Guideway-, Demonstration Project. Mr.- Baillie is currently the'Director in charge of overseeing this project. His duty is to -ensure that a high quality study is produced in a timely fashion. The focus of the study is to develop:a conceptual, engineering plan, environmentally clear and initiate DBOM procurement of an automated fixed guideway project in the Irvine Business Complex. Key connections for the system include potential interface with John Wayne Airport and the Corridor Urban Rail. • OCTA MIS Study, California: Mr. Baillie was team leader for the Alternatives Definition and Analysis component of the Urban Rail MIS Study. This..included preparation of the Mobility Problem and Purpose and Need Statement, defining . the System Planning Issues, identification and screening the.Conceptual Alternatives;, and the completion of the final set of Major Investment Strategies. Mr. Baillie also assisted in the public outreach component of this study. IBI Group was subconsultant to Parsons Brinckerhoff for this study. • OCTA Orangethorpe Rail/Highway Corridor Study, California: Project Director for a study which evaluated 15 grade crossings along the Orangethorpe Avenue through the Cities of Fullerton, Anaheim, Placentia and .Yorba Linda. The study made recommendations for each crossing in light of projected increase in rail and automobile traffic. The study also included extensive public outreach. • OCTA Anaheim Intermodal Transportation Center, California: Project Director for a study which examined the feasibility of an Intermodal Transportation Center (ITC) adjacent to the Metrolink Station in Anaheim. • OCTA Bus System Improvement Project, California: Project Director for the Orange County Bus System Improvement Project. This study involved conducting a major evaluation of the bus system and determinating of a restructuring of the routes. The study involved an extensive public outreach program. • City of Irvine Master Plan of Transit Systems, California: Project Director responsible for an assessment of potential commuter rail, urban rail, people mover, bus and bicycle modes for the City and the selection of a preferred transit system for incorporation into the circulation element of the General Plan. The study included extensive public outreach. • City of Santa Ana Fixed Guideway Study, California: Project Director for a study that compared the Bristol versus Main Street fixed guideway alignments in Santa Ana and took into account engineering "fit', land use development potential around stations and environmental impacts. • Mid Cities Transit Study, Los Angeles, California: Mr. Baillie is currently Project Director for the Mid Cities Transit Study in the City of Los Angeles. The study involves determining how best to restructure and improve the transit services for a 50 square mile area with a population of over 900,000. This study also includes a major public outreach program. Page 20 STEVE SCHIBUOLA Senior Associate/Transportation Planner, IBI Group Education M.A.Sc. Transportation - University of Toronto, Department of Civil Engineering, Toronto, 1988 B.A.Sc. Honours, Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, Faculty of Applied Science; Toronto, 1986 ' Professional Registrations Professional Engineers of Ontario Relevant Experience • The Corridor" Major Investment Study - Orange County California: Mr. Schibuola was IBI Group's Project Manager for this study that examined options formajor investments into the transportation infrastructure of "The Corridor". Mr. Schibuola. managed IBI Group's tasks in the project, which included a lead role in defining the problem and developing a Mobility Problem and Purpose and Need Statement, analysing a variety of system issues, and identifying MIS alternatives modes and alignments. • OCTA Pacific Electric Right -of -Way Utilization Study, California:: Mr. Schibuola was Project Manager.for this study that examined utilization options for the Pacific Electric- Right -of -Way (PE ROW), a 12-mile long, .100'. corridor paralleling I-5 in northwestern Orange County. Working with the Cities of Santa Ana, Garden Grove, Stanton,. Anaheim, Buena Park, Cypress and La Palma with the goal of preserving the PE ROW for reuse as a transit corridor in the long run, the study developed a set of principles against which OCTA will evaluate proposals for interim uses of the ROW. • OCTA Orangethorpe Rail/Highway Corridor Study, California: Mr. Schibuola was Project Manager for. this study that developed conceptual plans and a priority implementation plan for improvements to some 15 at -grade crossings along a very busy freight and passenger/commuter rail corridor passing through the cities of Fullerton ;• Anaheim, Placentia and Yorba Linda. • South -Central Los Angeles Smart Shuttle Demonstration: Mr. Schibuola is the Project Manager for the demonstration of Smart Shuttles in South -Central Los Angeles. He has direct responsibility for all aspects of Smart Shuttle service planning, performance monitoring and technology integration. • LADOT Mid -Cities Transit Restructuring Study: Mr. Schibuola was Project Manager for IBI Group's restructuring study of bus transit services in the Mid -Cities region of Los Angeles County; a 50 square -mile area home to over 900,000 people and having the highest level of transit dependence and use in the County. The study reviewed about 65 existing local and regional routes for both the MTA and LADOT systems and make recommendations regarding improvements in operational effectiveness, cost efficiency and service equity. • North Orange County Smart Shuttle Management and Administration: Mr. Schibuola was Project Manager for this assignment for the Cities of Brea, Placentia and Yorba Linda to manage the 12-month demonstration of Smart Shuttle service in north Orange County. This involves all aspects of day-to-day service management including liaison with the service provider and with the three cities, contract administration, monthly system performance/cost reviews, invoice approval, and service plan adjustments to better meet customer needs and improve cost-effectiveness. • City of Irvine Transit Service Policy & Standards Development Study, California: Mr. Schibuola was Project Manager for this study that explored the existing and future needs of the city's transit -dependent population versus the level of transit service available to them from the city's TRIPS service, OCTA's fixed -route and ACCESS service and other private and public -sector providers. Page 21 DAVID CHOW, P.E. Senior Associate, IBI Group Education Bachelor of Science, Civil Engineering, University of California, Irvine Professional Registration Licensed Professional Engineer (Civil) California, #C59428 Professional Affiliations Institute of Transportation Engineers American Society of Civil Engineers American Planning Association American Society of Military Engineers . Chi Epsilon, Civil Engineering Honor Society Relevant Experience • Proposition 116 Irvine Guideway. Demonstration Project. Mr. Chow is currently an assistant project manager in charge of overseeing the project development,- draft environmental impact report,.%conceptual engineering: and:: development of DBOM documents. Highlights of his involvement include managing travel demand forecasting, technology selection, route alignment, identification of station locations, environmental technical studies, financial plan, systems oversight and DBOM document development. • OCTA CenterLine Conceptual Engineering and Environmental Study. Mr. Chow is currently a task leader in charge of developing and screening the various rail alternatives of the Urban Transit Corridor. Key points of this task include developing alternative rail alignments to connect activity centers, analyzing and -mitigating traffic impacts and minimizing cost. • SCAG Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) On -call Consulting Services. Mr. Chow provided on -call technical assist in the development of the SCAG RTP. Among other things, he helped prioritize proposed grade separations in the San Gabriel Valley based on the available funding identified in the RTP. • Alameda Corridor Project. Mr. Chow was a key project engineer in the development of the conceptual plans for the grade separations along the Alameda Corridor. His responsibilities included development of the travel demand forecast, truck modeling, .conceptual geometric layouts for the grade separations and flyovers, and traffic impact analysis of study locations. • Del Amo Grade Separation Project. Mr. Chow was the project manager in charge of the travel demand forecasts and conceptual geometric layout of the grade separation. • Wilshire CPU Transportation Improvement and Mitigation Plan (TIMP). Mr. Chow was the project manager in charge of developing the travel demand forecast and initiating the TIMP process. • San Fernando Valley East-West Corridor Project. Mr. Chow assisted in the analysis of various alternatives to the proposed transit corridor. • El Segundo Green Line Circulator Study. Mr. Chow examined how bus -rail interfaces would need to be restructured in order to best service travel demand with the operation of the Green Line. • Westside Cities Shuttle Program Study. Mr. Chow surveyed and analyzed the performance of shuttle service providers in the Westside Cities. • Marina del Rey LCP Traffic and Transit Study. Mr. Chow analyzed the potential benefits of a shuttle bus system and light rail system as they relate to circulation and access in Marina del Rey. • City of Santa Ana On -call Urban Rail Consultant Services. Mr. Chow assisted in the management of the traffic component of this on -call services contract. The contract provided by OCTA allowed .to City to further investigate City enhancements to the Urban Rail alignment alternatives. Page 22 MICHAEL W. AMLING Project Manager, LSA Associates, Inc. Education California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. Bachelor of Science in Urban and Regional Planning, June 1991. Professional Affiliations/Registrations American Planning Association Association of Environmental Professionals, Chapter Director, Orange County.Chapter - 1997 Habitat for Humanity, Orange County Chapter - Site Development Committee, Project Manager (1992-1995) Orange Cares Committee - City of Orange, City Council appointed member. (1992-1994) Relevant Experience • As LSA's project manager for. the Orange County. CenterLine -DEIS/DEIR, Mr. Amling' responsibility is to evaluate the potential impacts associated with.the implementation of this 28 mile light rail system and to coordinate the environmental analysis team and their overall activities. Key environmental issues have been identified in the DEIS/DEIR related to traffic, noise, vibration, aesthetics-, displacements, and community impacts. • Environmental Planner for the Eastern Transportation Corridor EIR/EIS, a 23-mile transportation corridor in northeastern Orange County. Project• responsibilities. included coordination of document preparationand technical analysis for various sections of the EIR and Final EIR/EIS, including Responses to Comments. Additional Eastern Transportation Corridor experience includes the coordination and field supervision of the Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP). These activities included field verification of marked Environmental Sensitive Areas (ESAs), coordination of clearing and grubbing activities to avoid the ESAs, and the subsequent preparation of,the compliance reportsrequired by the MMP. • Project Environmental Planner for the Metropolitan' Water District's Inland Feeder Pipeline EIR and subsequent Addenda to that EIR while with the firm of P&D Consultants. Project Environmental Planner for administering the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Inland Feeder Pipeline project. Project responsibilities while with P&D Consultants included assistance to the Senior Project Manager; coordination with the Metropolitan Water District; coordination of production of the entire EIR and subsequent Addenda; and the analysis and preparation of the land use, recreation, aesthetics, light and glare sections of the Draft EIR, Responses to Comments and Final EIR. • Project Urban Planner responsible for the interjurisdictional , land use analysis and consistency findings used for the Community Reuse Plan, General. Plan Consistency Technical Report, and portions of the EIR for the MCAS El Toro Community Reuse Plan and EIR. Additional responsibilities included coordination with the client, consulting team, surrounding jurisdictions and land owners; scheduling and supervision of the overall production of the EIR and General Plan Consistency Technical Report; preparation of status reports; and the preparation and presentation of the various sections of the EIR. Project Urban Planner, coordinating and preparing the site inventory survey and existing setting analysis for the AFRC Los Alamitos Base Master Plan, California National Guard. The Base Master Plan identifies the most efficient and cost-effective ways of using the existing base amenities and for identifying future development areas on the site. Project responsibilities include coordination with the client and the consulting team; scheduling and supervising the site survey teams; preparing status reports; and preparing and presenting the existing setting technical analyses. Primary Author/Project Manager for the Bixby Ridge Specific Plan EIR. Under contract to the City of Signal Hill, this EIR is currently being prepared for a 264 residential unit Specific Plan at the base of the hilltop area in the City of Signal Hill. Potential issues in this environmental document include oil well abandonment, visual. line of sight impacts, hazardous soil remediation, and potential land use conflicts with an existing fuel storage terminal. Page 24 Jeanne Spinner LaMar Principal, Spinner LaMar & Associates Education B.A. cum laude, Public Affairs/Urban Planning, Princeton University M.A., Urban Studies, Occidental College Coro Foundation Fellow Postgraduate certificate in environmental management through the federal EPA -training program at the University of Southern California (USC) Professional Affiliations Orange County. Arthritis Foundation, member of the Board of Directors Commercial Industrial Development Association, past member of the Board of Directors Coro Foundation of Orange County, Co -Chair Irvine Guild of Children's Hospital of Orange County, Vice President Relevant Experience Community Outreach and Public Participation • Major Investment Studies (MIS) Designed and implemented the Public Involvement Program for two Major Investment Studies : executed. consistent with ISTEA'guidelines. One of these was featured at an APTA conference as a model for public participation. • Beyond Roads: Developed and directed a one -day business and government leaders' forum to assess long term transit options -for Orange County and assess participant reaction to OCTA's Transit Master Plan. • Disney Development: Developed the initial community relations strategy that resulted in broad support for addition of a new amusement park area now known as Disney Resort. Government/Legislative Affairs • Times Mirror Cable Television, Irvine: As Assistant Vice President for 'Corporate Affairs, directed the company's government, media and community relations efforts in sixteen states. • Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley: As Policy Analyst, served as liaison to community groups and organizations on several significant Specific Plans with significant community impacts. • Los Angeles County Transportation Commission As the first Public Affairs Officer for what is now MTA, responsibilities included all media and community relations and provided staff support to a 55 member Citizens Advisory Committee. Relevant projects include the launch of the Century Freeway construction program, community outreach on what became known as the RedLine Transit system, and introduction of the region's first rideshare marketing program. Facilitation • Transportation Corridor Agencies conducted a series of workshops for public works directors and policy board members on how to best integrate signs for toll roads into local community design and zoning standards. Workshops resulted in overcoming significant local opposition to signs, achieving consensus on a new logo and prototype sign designs and significant increase in the number of signs in place. • Showcase ITS Conducted a series of workshops throughout a multi -county region to gain input from local transportation interested parties and business leaders on key design features of Intelligent Transportation system proposal. Needs Assessment • TravelTip User Assessment: Conducted outreach to major employers and trip generators. This included writing fact sheets, preparing presentations, designing questionnaires, conducting focus groups, and writing final reports documenting the results thereof. Page 27 Lisa Gels Account Executive, Spinner LaMar & Associates Education B. A. Business Administration, University of Kentucky. Professional Affiliations National Multiple Sclerosis Society (local chapter),.past Public Affairs Director and Special Event Manager Relevant Experience • OCTA Corridor Major Investment Study (MIS) and OCTA TravelTip.Project: Ms. Gels served as Opinion Leader Outreach Manager for both projects. In this role, Ms. Gels helped identify local business leaders in -Santa Ana and.major employers with interestsin Central Orange County, scheduled meetings,. -wrote. reports and conducted follow-up .interviews to assess participant reaction. In the (MIS). project, Ms Gels worked directly•with Santa Ana;and Tustin city staff to identify community groups and civic leaders and devise strategies to involve and inform these audiences.. She . has conducted similar leader identification efforts for other clients in Orange, Santa Ana, La Habra and Irvine. • OCTA Commuter Rail. Implementation Project: Conducted community interviews..to assess local reaction to rail construction projects in Tustin and Orange. • OCTA Beyond Roads: Project Planner for the Beyond Roads forum, a one -day meeting involving 85 community leaders with a strong interest in Orange County transportation issues. She was responsible for speaker scheduling, event planning, logistics and coordination for this innovative community event. • Irvine Yes: Ms. Gels served as Business Outreach Coordinator for "Irvine Yes," the successful campaign to get voter approval for a view Village in Irvine. Her success in this capacity led to subsequent employment as a Community Issues Manager at The Irvine Company. • United States Senator Huddleston: Before coming to Orange County, Ms. Gels worked in Washington, D.C., as an aide to Senator Huddleston for two years. • Century 21 Real Estate Corporation: Government Relations Officer Page 28 • 40 Certificates of Insurance Page 29 FEE-29-2000 14:10 IBI GROUP 949 833 5511 P.02/02 B lxol'!-iUR�V�t'stNt11IV5o.►1�H �Iwl`ivICE Irvv.7s7 sass • e3-es-e'e aa_irr >.ez St. An f"s V44c - To 1.; (905) 727b 1t0 1- HE 2 C CKzr0 fights AW . UrA 26 Fas: 490% 127.5:13 Gcuwa OF CONAVANIeS Acrora. QnleNO w+ots; 1 am 361.9 IN y�r msurance Prufpsslonals L4G 3w1 E,na�r y��+,lae snot.ton� This h to cerrifyy to: City or Murpon lkwt} -Tt3 soon Main SCMt. P.O. BOA 490 'Z— Z2— Ov Huaringtan Bach, CA 9WS This is W certify that on the date bdr w the follo+wina daseribed Imurarne delicies are to full fame and effect. NAMED lNi50=: ADDRESS OF INSURED: DESCRIPTION OF OPMtATIONS rO wrrrrlr Tt)tC f+CYt rratl+nTR 1IDb MVI W GROV? 2M RkbMotsd t&= W.. 5" Ploor Tartmtu, ON MSv IV6 Q.il F.aohil7.o/Si►ra Ahead rrumm r,rlwe VTR Class Dckrl alcn of Cowamige Llmiu of I.ustbluty Company FOXY No. Expiry Date errrr�ddtry Liability Cwmereial Gerwal Liab liry ROyallSua Alliance 6038506 0310,101 F.acu Ocetun Ce USS1,000,000. rrcnerat Aggeepw USS1.000.000. Produets-Completed OWixions USS1.M.00A Nen,Owrw4AutamaWla t)531.000.000.. APPROVED A GAIL HUTTO 3 TO FORM:'- , City Attorney Personal attd By: _ Flury Le c Omer NJA ptOre: 1-he City orliaAtspsm moo, are AG"a as aamoonu r mew our omy wan respm W um umnxy arusing out er 1- -Operations of toe Prae+ed YAW ed. r The Iruvruve afforded is sebjew w :ace tarns, cwr4irion4 and eaelrait" of tbo applivabla policy. Thin Cortifia+to 11 imuW- L+ a malkr of information Daly and coaS m no rights an the holder and iMp W no liability 60 the Insures nor OA Pro-form insura ce Services be. Tbc Imam will coddtvwr to the mail to the tW*r of this Canlfmw thing (30) ders rolioa of cancellX10t1 Of Qe above-=ed posit lei. tau WuaWf Ito respon3i0169)r lips 44ure 10 do ao. Pebsv 29,2000 1lA"011l►,t QWJVANCH M,RVICZS INC: .............. .................. ... .............. ........... I Auehp sed Represesllatae pttices Across Canada And the U11HOd States 82-29-09 16:10 Rj?Cjc1VZD FROMl:985 727 5053 P-02 re-d VZ9996S9TipbQ2 0N1,iLNA000V 01NOV01 dAOkrO IffI 97:97 ®6-63-30 TOTAL P.02 FEB-07-2000 12:00 IBI GROUP — --- 949 833 5511 P.03/04 FR091r PRO PORN INSURANCE to FAX No.:: 905727SOS�3vr����r�p 04 2-09 93-1211 P.O. 17RAIT RA'I W1TE OF I �AVfLMS:�'C$ 51 Andrews vdLW Tri : 1906) 727-SM 2 Orenaro Neghtt 8nro.. Unit26 Aurore.cotarlp Fax: ISM 7v-w Vmtn.ia00X14mc ORWPOF001APA+was t.aG 3w, t;•ma+i: ptoraln@dtsn it.com voerr Jnsararrce Proleasronels ct,�Slc �l,&IJlL�' This is tV crnify to: C th of I3trM9upm 8aoch :r 3 Coo , } !d I %10 Main $ias, P.O. soar 190 EordumSaco, CA 9WQ A �p, 2— ZZ— O'o TMLs is to c4r* that on thw date below tht f011o%.AR de3criw igWrttbca polioiet IM in Nit fw= and effra:i. NiAMW I NSUits,IrD. Fat OROQP . AElD3txt.SS OF INS11 M ;!.80 Rithowd Strait a., stet Floor I'ttronto, ON 1,0v Iva DESCR11p11'ION OF OPERATIONS TO W19Cli TJJM CIMTY 'ICATEA.>PPLIES: d ell GcyJWest Orates aowuy wiles W Clans buciae 4v% of Cove atte > WA4 of l.iebwq Cara wy pwlisyr No. wry hate II aualddlrt Liabuiry Caaamerai„ l General Wbiltey 3'lte Hartford Camda 10 MLT 0101l00 000t831 Each Ckourecttaa USSi.M.I1d0. Geltt.�al Ag�rt:$a1e USSI.ODD.CW. Pt!odrtcts-Completed OPioas vssi,000.tloo. Al PROVED AST FORM :I W IL 1UT ON, "Ii.ty Attor rNowow4cdAatomobile B3 _ ,-+-, i-,.A+4-r)-rnp Ptrsorarl *Ad Adva tidiag CgjurY VSSt,000,000. �; . r lAvaSd Cftr N/A NOTE: ThC City of HttMUSIOn 13Mh a c atlaod as aalit OW kwcd but tml7 wia reVcc, to the iiobilnY aristeg our or she aperatkm or tie Names Lmn W. NoWte: 71v ifouranw aftbr" is Sub$= 10 'he tornn5, e0tt4it100e and tmtusioaa of the appticabic policy, This Certtfiaau it: im"d qe a ntsuer of inborn acu o* w d cmltrs no righ s on ttte !solder and Wpm& no liability on the I== tar on Pro -Form InSvrarxe Service.: lne. The Iravrer will are4 to sbe holder of tiff .i Cesti►J= 30 do% Mice tR cMWIadOA of QW9 pglieiw. 1PR0 FOiRM VOURANC4 S"V ICES INC. I;sb�,sa,r s_ tone Pro -Form lrlAve^u' lt .71 �...:.::---�........ Taanc serviGrlc Awharizcd RepreY "ive pfffices Across Gsnada and the Uniteri States 92-02,09 15,15 RECEIVED FROM:S8572T5653 P-84 29 d vzGe96S9T'b=OI ONIINA000tt' 01NOW01 dnouv lei ZOrST g8_Z9—Z9 STATE compeNswriolu 1NWURAN0r_ FUND - FEBRUAkY 11, r G C./l.,�yt I VL1v) L I 0 Z_Z-L-00 P.O. SOX 420807, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94142-0807 CERTIFICATE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE 2000 POLICY NUMBER: 053 9588 -99 CERTIFICATE EXPIRES: B-1-00 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RISK MMACEMENT/ATTENTION: ELA.'! NE KURNKE 2000 MAIN STREET HUNTINCTON BEACH, CA 92646 L This is to certify that we have issued a valid Workers' Compensation Insurance policy in a form Approved by the California insurance Commissioner to the employer named below for the policy period indicated. This policy is not subjwt to cancellation by the Fund except upon IN days' advance written notice to the employer. We will also give you A days' advance notice should this policy be cancelled prior to Its normal expiration. This certificate of insurance is not an insurance policy and does not amend, extend or alter the coverage afforded by the policies listed herein. Notwithstanding any requirement, term, or condition of any contract or other document with respect to which this Certificate of insurance may be issued or may pertain, the insurance afforded by the policies described herein is subject to all the terms, 4xclusions and conditions of such policies. AUTHORIZED REPRC�-NTATIV15= 00,��se'T (TVf.+T�+�►�4 PRESIDENT WLOYER'S i.t miry t1XIT INCLUDING DEFEWSL COSTS; $1,000.000 PLR OCCURRENCE. ENDORSEMENT #2065 ENTITLED CERTFICATE HOiLDEI:S' NOT1'Cz EF?70'".i:W, 08/01/99 IS ATTACHED TO AND VOiWS A PART OF TFTE POLICY. APPROVED AS TO FORM: GAIL HUTTON, City Attorney By: sues EMPLOYER r V/ ✓ BEINHAKER PLANNING 6 DEVE1.OPIMiNT SERVICES INC/NEIL A IRWIN OF CALIFORNIA 1?;C/T,AVA1,Lr_E CONSULTANTS INC/ALISTAIR BAILLIF CORPORATION AND ?(,',TER ZURAWEL CONSULTANTS INC DBA: IBI GROUP c` 18401 VON ii;OMAN # 110 IRVINE CA 92612 Z00/Z0o'a OTPE# lnmi arao0 Russ 689C 899 6TL 89:9T OOOT,,TT'EZ? £0'd %L6 0 VZOB96SSTV is ZF:80 6661-OZ-100 FROM: PRO FORM INSURii4CE FRX NO.: 9257273e5S. 10-20-49 09:51a P.o6 PRO-FORM INSURANCE SI.::RVICES INC. A MEMBER OF si Anartms Y 9yyu 7c I.: ( i06) 7274 30 J� 1� "" - 2orrurawe+ghlsBw0.unit 26 Fax: (X5) 7274 53 ^pp Q aurora.Oofario waas:1800361490 �) tiJ1i�� Od GROUP OF COMPANIES Lcp 3W3 E-mwf: omform$ : me(.00m Z ZZ YourInsurance Professionals CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE APPROVED AS TO FORld: GAIL HUTTON, City Attorney Tt): City of HuntingtAn Beach By 2000 Main Street, P.O. Box 190 11a I ora Huntington Beach CA 92648 SSG Cot N t D TH'lS IS TO CERTIFY THAT u :3urance has been effected as shown below: INSURED: IBI Group, and othct insureds who may be identified in the policy INSURER: Security Insurance Company of Hartford POLICY NO.: 646104 POLICY MIRY: April 30, 2000 12:01 A.M. Local Standard Time COVM%CE: E GINEI —S PROFFSSIONAJJAB1L1TY LNSURANCE LLN11T OF LIABILITY: US1,000,000. each claim and in the aggregate annually US$1,000,000. This certificate is valid at the date of issuance. This certificate is issued For infaml:ation only, and confers no rights on any holder and imposes no liab ility upon the insurer, which assumes no re_imnsibility whatsoever in furnishing this certificate. The policy contains all the term! and conditions of coverage. The policy is not limited to claims by or in connection with the above -noted cxt ifieate-holder. The Limit of Liability may be inclusive of damages and claims expenses; the aggregate liar iit is the maximum available for all covered claims. Dated: October 20, 1999 PRO-FORM INSURANCE SERVICES INC. trillt'?' Authorized Representative Cziliver Insurance Brokers • I.G. Insurance Brokers • Keard Insurance Brokers - Pro -Form Insurance Services Inc. Knox Vicars McLean 19-29-99 09:54 RECEIVED FROH:9057275053 P.06 b7As�gF,gqTb=rTT nfgT TN0r%n )W nTnfnxnT .inner, Tv, in TT cr_ n7 _ nT FEB-07-2000 11:59 IBI GROUP PRODUCER Dealey, Renton & AssociAss P. 0. sox 12675 Oakland, CA 94604-2675 510 465-3090 l00.10 7-0 LSA Associates, inc. One Park Plaza, Suite 500-,-tZ^O� Irvine , CA 92614 nntrceee-lum 949 833 5511 P.02iO4 THIS CERTIFICATE WELUVED AS A MATTER OF INFUAIVIAIILIN ONLY AND CONF 0 RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE I 4IOLDER. THIS CE ICATE .DOES NOT AMENC, BXTSND OR ALTER THE COVENAISE AFFORDED BY TI1W POLICIES BELOW. INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE Ir;sN uaaaA:Hart?ord-Ins. Co of INSUFIF.�18tHi�i rt1'orc� $j,re l'Tr18 co. _ INSURER CGAmericaln XotorNsE—m Ins : Co . ilasuAr:Ra;LLifib®rmens Mu'uaC sualty. Co. THt POLICIE6 OF INSURANCE WED BELOW WAVE BEEN ISSLICO TO THE INSUWD NAMED AaOVE FOR THE MLIOY PEN10D IN010AT60. N0TWFTH81Amr)1NG ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONAkaCT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH TIME OERTIRCATR MAY SE ISSUED OR MAY MATAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDI=0 BY THE POLICIES OESCAISED HEAF.IN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS ANI) CONDITIONS OF SVCM POLICIES, ACCWECATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN R9DUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. N rYpEOFI SUN RANCfi I POLJGVNUMBEA I E �BL�ECA E � I?ATON V L1MiT5 ~ �� • - PoRM30 A IGENERAL LIABILITY 57CCSQA1263 0/99 09/30/00 $1,00,000 ODMKKCIALCENIIMk,1,IAV41TY LBAOHOCCuprtrNOE DAMA�IM:IAn�O vun�ItO} 6 Q, 000, CI. AIMS MAOa OCCUR EXP ( ny o_e perEen) i — 10,000 PERSONAL b 40V INJURY I aj 0 0 0 � Q� _ i i3CNEaALAOOFur.A75 Isa,OOO.,r000_ _ DENLAaGFIEQATgLIMITAPPLIESPIik FR2000T5.00MP1OPAOG j2 000, 000 X POLI ^� FRO. LaC 0 Deduct B AUTOMOeILeLABIur► 57WNIF1488 09/30/99 09 30/00 COMBINeosINpLEL�MIT 51.,000,000 }C ANYAVTO (Eaaecitldlly ALL OWN50 AUTOS I 0001LY WJVRY SCM20VL@D AUTOg 1 perppn) P`_ X HIPEOAVTOS APPROVED AST FORM: 1..�...— I EIJGII,1'INJUAYIPcrAecrtstmll s X NON•OWNBOAu'I'Ls GAIL HUTTON, city Attor _ ear , 71 By, FROPERTY DAMACC IPco xeeldOhl) 8 CARA6E LIABILITT ANY AUTO �+� cock bS e� AUTO ONLY. BA ACCIO NT S _T �G s AC :, ONLYN , 3 •Y•ps ,OTm AGO RFl 6XGE6SLIaBILI EACHOCCURRkNCC! $ _ OCouA CLAIMS MAce AGgLMEGATF OROUCYIeLE rj g , RETENTION S 3 C W0IRKSPSCOMPBN811TIONAND 7CW23598308 09 30/99 09/30/00 I3C wesrlAMr - o EMPLOYEAIS'LIABILITY F,I..EACMACCIOENI ti91,Qd0.000 s .L.DIsEA6E•@AeMMWYE, s ► 00 E. I A E-POLICY LIMI sl 000 000 D OTHER Prof esSional QL000193 09230/99 09/30/02 $1, 000, 000 per clain Liability $1,000,000 annl aggr. 25 000 Deductible OPWAdPTION OF OPERATIONSILOCAT10NWVEMICLESM=LU610NS ADDED BY ENDORSENaiNTf6PECIALPROVISIOrig RE: IDI/Huntington Beach Project City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Stlreet Huntington Beach, CA 9264E ACOFID 25-S (7/97)1 n'F i &Mn C517 BHWLOAWORTHSAGWCOCO MCDPWOESBROANCE:LI.EDBERMTHREOPWaTION DATETHEAL'tC>',YHGIUUINGINBURERWILLZSCiWlXliMAIL3-a. DAYSN'AMN NOTICE70THECERTIAICATEMOLDERNAMEDTOYFELEFTJQCCA96b#1R711? 3"MP79 OUWX FER-02-2000 16,19 510 452 2193 JLK ® ACORD CORPORATION 1904 TOTAL P.01 P. 01 1 FEB-09-2000 11:14 ,aco rn CERTI IBI GROUP E OF LIABILITY INSU 949 833 5511 P.02/04 CltIC TT DAIe(rnarvw•I PltsN 1 02/0�00 P O{iCLR n10 I+41� I Ir1VM I c ■i wurvrr .+...� m... • —._ —. .... —. _.. ...—. _ v$J,iey insurance Service, Inc. C G D ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE Veil l v i su6a246 � �� 1 d HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMPNO, xxTEND OR Lice861 South Oak park Road 1? � 1 ALTER THE COVEii E AFFOROVO BY THE POLICIES BELOW. Covina CA 91723 AebW &I 7-0 , INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGS Phone: 626-966-3664 F$x:626=966-3893 2--Z2-001 __ _ INSURED iMURSRA KetEper National =>1SurSACO CO. ,• NS ;R b s��inner LaMar 6 Ass ciatea d+su�ERc: 275 eaLennxal way 201 INSURER - - Tustin CA 92700 _« 1.- %.wV VJVMVGV THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED 6ELOW HAVE SEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ASOv5 FOR THE POLCY PERIOD INDICATED NOT-MMSTANOINO ANY ReONIREtd$NT. TERM OR CONOITION OR ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT NTH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY M ISUXO OR MAY PERTAIN. TIME INSURANCE AFFORDED aV TWE POUC429 0980PIND HSRCIN 18 SURIICT TO ALL THE TERMS. SXCUUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH PNICIES AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAIO CLAIMS. Fp L t TYpE OF INSURANCE I POLICY NUMBE0. pq 11M DA Y • DN LIMIT$ a-a,NlRr� unDIVTv I I � EACH OCCURRENCE E 1 000 000 A! K COMMERCW.OENERALLIASILIT'Y ! 7ASS89156-02 I 06/23/99 I 06/23/00 FIREflaMI►aecarrol+o(Irey- s 1 0 • � CLAIMS NAOE 'it OCCUR I � MID VP (Am 0M P&MM) 10,000 I ; P@R6�IWURY - 31 000 1 00 - 0ENERALAGGRE"TE I S 2 , 000 000 16EN'L AOORBOATE LIMIT,ZLIES PER I ` DROOUGTS • GOMP(OP AGG 1 s 1, 000 , 000 POLICY 1 I PR T ! LOG I I AUTONOSq.E UABILIYY COMBINED SINGLF. LIMIT 3 ! ANY AUTO I i !Es Aaad"I ALL OWNED AUTOS i I 19001LY IWURY i 8CHOL!"DAUTOS ` 19po.? r9vn) ' T HIRED AVTO$ I . BODILY INJURY S NOµOWNEOAUTOS I I (P&=derd) . ,... _..._...__... PROPERTYOwAGe i i (Per aa&denq GARAGE LABILITY 1 AUTO ONLY - eA ACCIONT I S ANY AUTO I-- OTHER TtvW 9A ace i S AUTO ONLY. A013 EKOENUARILITT ? GAIL HUTTON, City Attorney �._.i EACHOCCYRRINCS I cccuR c1A1MSMADE 1 By: AGGREGATE s DEDucME RETENTION E GCool,, rj�E wOR>tERS 00aPENgAT10N ANo ! r L ER I EMPLOY9RV LIASILITY I I � ` . � E.L. EACH ACCIDENT __ 9 ! E L. OISSEEASE — EA EMPLOY ~ S 8 L.DISEASE . POLICY LIMJT S. O NER I 1N6 ! 0"CAWI ON OC OPGRAT10Ns&acAromSJ%'0d0LVAd1= IJSIONS ADDED 8Y ENDOR110MENTI$PECIAL PROVISI RE; Rail reasibility and Alignment study for Vest Orange County Cities. Certifleare holde— is included a$ an additional insured as their interest may eppeax • Caneellati0rs notice will be 10 bays ;Car non-paylsear — I i I nuurr,vr��nrauri�ul lNiYRER 1.ET'fF,lih �! COHB001 City of Huntington beach Attnr Elaine Kuhnke 2000 mans street untiAgton Bea" CA 92648 A OR0 Z&V (7197) FEB-07-2000 14119 GANGELLATIQN SHOULD ANY OF TH8 ABOVE OESCWBED POLICIES SR CANCELLED 9EFORe THE EXPIRATI01 DATE THEREOF, THE IUUSJGtN$URER>♦dJwMIMMMAR 30 DAY9WRiTTEN NOTICE TO THO CERTIFICATE MOLDER NAMEO TO THE LEFT, 626 966 2593 97* P. 01 FEB-09-2000 14:50 IBI GROUP E; FiJN17 IjNWCkR • IMATE PRO, BOX 420807, SAN FRANCISOO, CA 941424a0r a Maerwa.trdN AN ip La lft ^ FUND i ownpiOATE OF WORKMI COMPENSATION 111SURAMM 949 833 5511 P.02r02 ► D.31W P.1/1 e1-I cLt1� ��tifi t' IF P'BMOUART 9r ZWQ woucyNumimiq: 3222112 - 99 a nfiCaTd mclogla., 91 1-90 r GM OP > YaTO SUCH Nff OP OU"UG i SAFEW RX3X KANAOiINOT DIVISIOM HIMII1GTOii BRACH CA ON40 100: BAIL FRASIBYLITT i L ALiBItll8ltT STUDY FOR WOOT OURae cum" CIT195 This to to certify that we have Issued a vend Workers' C,cmpenw1cri insurance pvfiey In a form approved Ay the C,alilornia insurance CammL0sioner to trio employer named below f for the polley perlcd rndlcatasl. This pOfipy Is not subject to cart collation by the Fund except uponir Jaye' advance w►ftn notice to the employer: we VAR also at" YOURN N days' advanca nooee should fhls.polley be eanoelled prior to Ire normal spiratlon. Yhta eartftsio of insurance is not an $nsarance policy And doss not amem, extend or afar tlts savenmge w1wded by trio peudes IWO herein. Natwlthetending any requirement, ton% or oondltion of any oontmo or other document with respect to which th!$ cardficate of insurance may 4c issued or may pertain, the Insurance afforded by the policies dssa t ed herein Is suAject to an the terms, entwO n9 pnd condfians of such policies. , wuTMOrr11tEQ REFRES NT0.TIV� PRhatGfeP{rt 901A @R'S LIA32LIV LIXIT 131MADI80 DEFI CO.M; 41, IbD4r 1W Plat OCCUftRR.IICB. VITIGRetmT #2M =TIT= CLSfYPx017C E LGRR8' == i:Frmuv6 22/69/99 IS A77ACM TO AND PMW A r PART OF THIS POLICY, I APPROVED AS TO FORM: GAIL HUTTON, City Attorney I By: Y r COuus� 6MPLOYM r MINE SPINIIiBEt LA NAR AND STEM � LA LIAR DBA. SP17M LA SAO L ASM=ATSS 275 CI NT2MAL WAY S78 261 1 . TUSTIN CA.92760 I L- I FEB-09-2000 14:46 71.4 Mt 7t F, 0 BrxF Ime PRE COP"iI 0 a,) TOTAL P.02 FEB-09-2000 16:46 OCTA CEO OFFICE 714 560 5796 P.02/03 OCTA SOARDOFDlRECTORS February 3, 2000 Launinn Cady Chair MiChaal Ward Dave Garofalo vice-Onair Mayor SarahL. cart City of Huntington Beach PireOtPr P.O. Box 190 rynrhia a. roar Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Drroctrs Tom Daly Director Dear. Mayor Garofalo: tim Keenan Director Thank you for the letter of January 18, 2000, requesting that the Orange Miguel Poo County Transportation Authority (OCTA) contribute funding for the West Director Orange County Rail Feasibility and Alignment Study. OCTA Is very supportive rame5W.Silva of the study and applauds the vision and cooperation embodied In this joint Director effort. We have found it critical that cities considering light rail take a leadership Todd Speer role in determining community issues, planning the appropriate transit orro"or solutions, and making a commitment to support implementation. Thomas W. Wilson Director i have discussed your request with Chief Executive Officer Lisa Mills, and Susan Director would like to recommend the following prior to presenting this item to the full Mur*mcmanus OCTA Board: Governor's rx-OHrcloMamber • The cities should designate two or three elected officials and city managers Arthur C Brown Alternate as a steering committee to work with OCTA on this project. I will also appoint three OCTA Board members to serve on the committee. CnariCSV. Smith Alternate Gregory? Wrnrerbottam * The cities should evaluate recently completed OCTA planning studies, Alternate especially the 1-405 Corridor study completed in 1999. This may reduce the cost of Phase I data collection and alternatives analysis. I believe the cities should complete Phase I and II with local funds. This will generate issues and solutions acceptable to your communities and will demonstrate your leadership at this stage of planning. Only you can decide if light rail fits into city long-range plans. OCTA will, of course, participate and help where needed. With eight participants the cost will be negligible, • We recommend that the cities NOT select a preferred alignment at this stage of planning. Our experience Is that selecting an alignment too early can unnecessarily limit options and strategies. Orange County Transponaridn Authority $50 South Main Street / P.O. Box 14184 / Orange /CallromrR .92863-1584 / (714) 560-OCTA (MZ) FEB-09-2000 16:46 OCTA CEO OFFICE 714 560 5796 P.03f03 Mayor Dave Garofalo February 3, 2000 Page 2 • If there is a consensus following Phases I and II, 1 will recommend that OCTA fund and lead the equivalent of Phase III or a more comprehensive Alternatives Analysis. An Alternatives Analysis is a corridor -based multi - modal evaluation of alternatives that is required by the federal government if their financial participation is planned. Perhaps the next step would be to create a steering committee to discuss these ideas. Please contact me directly with your thoughts on this proposal. OCTA looks forward to working with the cities on this project. If you have any questions, please call me at (714) 593-4403 or Lisa Mills at (714) 560-5584. Sincerely, Laurann Cook Chairman OCTA Board LC:de C. OCTA Board of Directors TOTAL P.03 City of Huntington Beach *.- Wail Feasibility & Alignment Study West Orange County Cities Association Rail Feasibility and Alignment5tudy -------- OCTA Centerline Project --- 4 Measure M — 1990 ($340M for rail) 4 Centerline 28 mile backbone system 4OCTA Board action in 12/99 • Finish Draft Environmental Impact Statement on 28-mile system * Complete analysis on Costa Mesa to Irvine as candidate segment - Work with West OC cities on a study to connect with rail in LA - July 2000 --- approval for preliminary engineering NO zz . Y cn February 22, 2000 1 F - 3 /— 11:9- /--z/ 4f �Iln � &IIA-1 Z�) City of Huntington Beach •Rail Feasibility & Alignment Study WOCCA STUDrAREA Ri�' r \ti I 1 T�ac.. • t / 1 ..... 1.1 6r pp 3 Consultant Selection __------- Process Drafted Request for Proposals & reviewed with West OC Cities Association (WOCCA) -Mailed to over 50 firms in Western US 4Received & reviewed 6 proposals 4WOCCA panel interviewed top 4 firms 41-113 staff checked references of top 2 firms 4WOCCA concurred with award to IBI Group 4 February 22, 2000 2 F v 3 City of Huntington Beach• '*Rail Feasibility & Alignment Study 00 Scope of Work Phase I Vision & Needs Assessment . 4Document existing & (estimated) 2020 - conditions -Identify transportation deficiencies -+Review available technology ->Develop goals, objectives & evaluation criteria -Identify community issues —surveys, interviews -+Identify funding opportunities 5 -. Scope of Work Phase 2 Development & Preliminary Evaluation of Alternatives 4Define alternative alignments & potential riders -+Develop short list of viable alternatives 4Gain consensus among West OC cities for the short list 6 February 22, 2000 3 ' 3 City 9 of Huntington Beach* *Rail Feasibility & Alignment Study F Scope of Work Phase 3 a? Optional Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives 4Conduct detailed study of each viable alternative ->Develop preliminary cost estimates ->Select a preferred alternative Oversight of Study 4Steering Committee • 3 West OC Cities members • 3 OCTA Board members 4Technical Advisiory Committee • 8 West OC cities representatives • OCTA representatives 4Consultant managed by Huntington Beach s February 22, 2000 4 F - 3 -� City of Huntington Beach* Rail Feasibility & Alignment Study Funding & Schedule -- of study . -� Phase I (Vision & Needs Assessment) & Phase 2 (Development & Preliminary Evaluation of Alternatives) • $50,000 shared among West OC Cities • To be completed in 3 months -� Phase 3 (Detailed Analysis of Alternatives) • $65,000+ to be funded by OCTA • Concurrent with CenterLine engineering in Costa Mesa -Irvine West Orange County Cities Association Rail Feasibility and Alignment Study February 22, 2000 5 F — 3