Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPARSONS, BRINCKERHOFF, QUADE & DOUGLAS, INC - 1986-09-02 r CI T NVDF Huri-ripjG oNj BEACH 2000 MAIN'STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF'THE CrrY CLERK October 17, 1986 James G. Douglas, Sr. Transportat -in Planner Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & D('uglas„ Inc, 2323 N. Broadway, Suite 200 Santa Aaa. CA 92706 En,losed is an executed copy of the Agreement for Gotha-d Street Er_ �nsion Traffic Study which was approved by the: City Council of the City of Huntington Beach on September 2, 1986. Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AM14:bt Enclosure CC: Drn Nob)e, Dept. cif Pf,bli Works Wayre, Lae, F?7ance 17.�t?AirRe,214.5�Cr5227} The MacDonald Group Ltd. { t - 10',00 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 4:400 Los Angeles,Cali.ornia 9W67 y V E D I t213)556,?915 September 29, 1986 UCT U 1 1966 HOUSING AND c^•.447fl N7FV C�7SL`JPMENT' Mr. Thomas Andrusky Redevelopment Project Manager City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street HLuitington Beach, CA 92648 RE, EXTENSION OF GOTHARD STREET BETWEEN MCFADDEN AVENUE TO BOLSA AVENUE TO ALIGN WITH HOOVER STREET Dear Mr. Andrusky. The MacDonald Group, Ltd is the owner/developer of Huntington Center located at 7777 Edinger Avenue in Huntington Leach. In reviewing the feasibility and traffic impact report on the Gothard-•Hoover Street extension, we feel that i4rovements to the traffic eircLilation system are important in that they will provide safer and more convenient egress and ingress for those individuals utilizing the Huntington Center and other retail and business establishments in the aree. Inasmuch as one of the main purposes of the Huntington Center Commercial District Redevelopment Pl,ojeat is to improve the traffic circulation in the area, The MacDonald Group, Ltd. supports action by the City of Huntington Beach to construct the Gothard Street realignment south of McFadden and the- extension through to Hoover. p , We would like to take this opportunity to thank the City of Huntington Beach for taking the steps necessary to improve traffic safety and circulation in our community. Sincerely, •�-r_ , Charles R. Beecher' `Vice President CRB:telCBL140 777 Cavan Associates, Ltd. September 8, 1986 Mr. Thomas Andrusky Redevelopment Project Manager CITY OF HUNTINGTON PEACH 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 RE: EXTENSION OF GOTHARD STREET BETWEEN McFADDEN AVENGE TO BOLSA AVENUE TO ALIGN WITH HOOVER STREET Dear Mr. Andrusky; We have reviewed the feasibility and traffic impact report on the Gothard-Roover Street extension. Cavan Associates is a property owner at One Pacific Plaza . We believe that improve- ments to the traffic circulation system are :important to safe and convenient access and egress for '-hose that come to the area to use the financial, retail, and other business services A main, purpose of the Huntington Center Commercial. District Redevelopment Project is to improve the traffic circulation. Cavan Cavan Associates supports action by the City of Huntington Beach to construct the Gothard Street realignment south of McFadden and the extension,through to Hoover. Cavan Associates would like to thank the City of Huntington Beach. for making positive steps to improve traffic safety and circulation in our community. Sincerely, CAV1,W ASSOCIATES, :Li'D. f,1 ( r r RA. Russell ° RAR/ks Ye h9 xrtw.t 'ReaIEl;wIttv"Onent/Devei+npmen47711 C'enter.Aire,,Suite 610,AuntinPtonSuA.,CaZomia 92647,(7t4)993.1212 b• a w ti RE ST FAR CITY COL iL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY .CTION RH 86-68 Date September 26, 1986 Submitted to` Honorable Mayor/Chairman and City Cou cil/Rdevelopment Agency m -rs Submitted by: Charles W, 'Ihornpson, City Administrator/Chief Executive Offi Prepared by; Douglas N. La Belle, Deputy City Ad mini stratorlRedeveiopmen Subject. COTHARD-HOOVER EXTENSION FEASIBILITY ANALYSTS AND ACTION PLAN TO PROCEED WITH IMPLEMENTA :ON Consistent with Council Policy? .Yes [ j Now Policy or Exception Statement of Issue,Recommendation,Analysis,Funding Source,AlternatiyaLA►otioiii,,A chments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: � .--- - �".�; Cx1 " We have received reports from our consultants .__ .icing the feasibility and traffic impact of constructing the Gothard-Hoover extensioxf. The reports show that the construction of the Gothard-Hoover connection is feasible. RECOMM END AT101•1: 1. Accept th• final feasibility report as prepared by I1 ^, Engineers and the draft traffic analysis as prepared by Parsons, Brinlceroff, wade, anc: Douglas, Inc. 2. Authorize staff to obtain appraisals and to negotiate the purchasN of the needed right-of-way between Center Drive and McFadden in the City of Huntington I .ech for consideration by the City Council/Agency. 3. Request the city of Westminster to consider the following actions;: (1) Authorize the ultimate extension of Gothard from McFadden to Bolsa to connect with Hoover; (2) Authorize a joint application to Orange County Transportation Planning 'to amend thy. C.ou ty Master Plan of Arterial Highways; and (3) Work with Huntington Beach to develop a joint finan,ing program for they remainlrig right-of-way acquisition aro project r..o"s ruction. ANALYSIS: The Huntington Beath City Council has approved a preci,e alignment for Gothard Strtet south of McFadden Avenue :hat would allow f-)r the ultimate connection of Gothard to Hoover Street in Westminster. On June 24, 1`ZIS the Mayor and CiTy Administrator appeared before th..y Westminster Council to ask the City Gounail to defer'atti in on a proposed parcel map that could impact the future Gothard-Hoover connectiot; to allow a feasibility report to be prepared. The final feasibility report, as prepared by'114A Engineers, indicateo that it is feasible to ­struct a four-lane arterial extension tinder 1-405. Staff has presented the Gothard,-Hoovt�r extension feasibility reports to'the City of Westminster fcr t'l,eir inforii,ation. R H 56-68 September 26, 1986 Page Two The estimated cost of constructing the 'Gothard-Hoover extension between McFadden and Bolsa is approximately $3.9 million and between Center Drive and McFadden the cost is estimated at $700,000 totaling $4.6 million. These figures include right-of-way acquisition costs. Currently the right-of-way is not developed and in order to maintain the right-of-way needed for the Gothard-Hoover extension the acquisition of the needed right-of-way would be appropriate at this titr+-. The Gothatd-Hoover extension is recommended in our Huntington Center Commercial District Redevelopment Project. These improvements wo�,id improve traffic flow on Goldenwest Street an :Beach boulevard. The project is supported by major property owners in the area. Also the concept of the Gothard-Hoover extension is supported by Coastline Community College and Orange County Transportation District. The City of Huntington Beach and the City of Westminster now have an opportunity to improve the transportation circulation system they share by moving ahead to implement the Gothard-Hoover extension. FUNDING SOURCE: Funds have been previously budgeted by tt;e Agency (FI' 86/87) in the Huntington Center Project Area for appraisals. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Do not authorize the above actions to arnplement tiuc� Zathard-Hoover extension. This action would remove an opportunity to Improve traffic circulation on Goldenwest .avenue aid Beach Boulevard in the vicinity of 1-405 at this time. ATTAC14MENTS 1. IWA Feasibility Sfivfy. 2. Draft Traffic Analysis - parson. Brinkerhoff, Quade, and Douglas, Inc. 3. Property Owner Letters c.1 oport. CWT/DLti)/TA:sar 011ar r � e` r s •` � s a •� MERCURY SAVINGS and loan assawtion EXECLMVE OFFICES 7812 Edinger Ave.,P.O.Box..J10 Huntington Beach,C111f.92647 TOefsx(7I4)$48.9606(Group 21&Iln September 9., 1986 Mr. Thomas Andrusky Redevelopment Project Manager City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Andrusky: u_ SUBJECT: EXTENSION OF GOTHARD STREET BETWEEN MC FADDEN AVENUE TO BOLA AVENUE, ` TO ALIGN 'WITH-HOOVER STREET. He have received the feasibility and traffic report on the Go that d-Hoove% Street extension. The Mercury Savings Corporate Office .and a savings branch is locates; on Edinger Avenue near Beach Boulevard. We believe that improvements to the traffic circulation system are important to safe and convenient access and ugrass for those that come to the area to conduct business. A. main purpose of the Hulitington Center Commercial District. Redevelopment Pro- ject is to improve the traffic circulation. Mercury Savings supports action by the City of Huntington Beach to con:ztr�;ct the Gothard Street realignment south. of McFadden andthe extension to Hoover. Mercury,Savings would like to thank the City of Huntington Beach for taking pos- itive steps to improve traffic safety and circulation in our community, Sincerely, William A. Shane President VAS/MT Telephone(714)842-9333 :'A, 4"f1p CITY OF HUNT:INGTON BEACH 2000.MAiN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK September 3, 1986 James G. Douglas, Sr. Transportation Planner Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas, Inc. 2323 N. Broadway, Suite 200 Santa Ana, CA 92706 The city Council of the City of Hunting'L"on Beach at the regular greeting held Tuesday, Sep9emb4r 2, 1986 approved an agreement between the City and your firm to provide engineering consultant services for a traffic impact Ludy of the proposed Gothard Street Extension in the City of 14untington Beach, Upon; approval of your insurance certificate by the City Attorney, a duly executed copy of the agreement will be forwarded to you. Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:bt Enclosure P (Tawphurts:71443"227) t6i, gig CITE' OF HUNTINGTON ®EACH "Pile, aty Attafewr REQUEST FOR LEGAL SERVICES Caasry ate mart rtwlc city/odwAsduratN WM�woM OaMrtw.mUq /Mf�nt YYd!By ._.._ O�r+ertrrtant ._,�....... Cit Clerk City Clerk IINSi'RUCTION& Fibs furA rtt in ZM Oty Attorneys Office as soon as po,7sible.Print or type,facts nisomsary for Qty Attorney.Out- !line briefly remmilm for the requmt.Attach all information and ex;iibits pertinent to the subject. l 'Typrof LagW Service Ror*bisscad: I Or,*n n a Ix l insurance l 1 Outer — �- f ! Re:vlu�nost ( 1 8orrls I C seitnct/1lgwrrant. I 1 Opinion _ All&.tabus must be attached.or thus requeki will ba ret>usned to yr !( ( L.t:trbm Attached Please approve insurance for Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas, Inc. , as to' fo;-m t i L i x I i t li!for C&Wrwo It wel for council ani��0�sirw9 wertpMean data Ssartun: REQUEVr FOR CITY COUNCV ACTION bate August 14 , 1986 ,,�1� Submitted to Honorable Mayor and City Council .__ G�� 1q Submitted by: Charles Thompson, City Adminis',raro Prepared by, Paul Cook, Director of Public Works 2" Subject- Traffic Impa--t Study for the Propose [Ki o - thard Extension Consiste,it with Council Policy? (XJ Yes i 1 New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Attu„.ative Actions,Attachments: 9) Statement of Issue: A contract between the city and Parsons, HrinKethoff, Quade and Douglas, Inc. has been prepared n conjunction with the traffic study for the Hoover Gothard connec ion. Recommendation: Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the attached consultant agreement with PBQ & D for a fee not to exceed $15,000,00. Analysis: On July 7, 1986, the City Council approved the selection of PBQ & D to prepare a traffic study for a Hoover - Gothard connection. At Council.'s direction, a contract for these services has been prepared and staff recoirmends approval of the document. Funding Source A loar. -rain the unappropriated general furl balance to the Redevelopment Ardency per the provisions of the standing operative agreement between the city ,and the: agency. Alternative Acrions t./A Attachments; Agreement CWT.P3C;t5 N1:1w` persons 2323 Worth Broadway ArinekKholf Suite 20v � Ya f� Ousde a Santa Ana Financial Center Dougifu„Mc. Santa Ana,CA 92706 714-873-48W Engineers Architects Planners July 8, 1986' Mr. Bruce Gilmer Traffic Engineer City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Subject: Gothard Street Extension Traffic Study Dear Mr. Gilmer: Responsive to your request, we are pleased to submit this proposal for a traffic impact study,af the proposed Gothard Street Extension. This letter outlines our proposed approach, scope of services, budget, and schedule. Responsive to the City's neeo for results by the early part of August, we have geared the approach and scope of services to provide results within the desired timefraine. At the same time, our proposed scope of services provides reasonable traffic projections for the potential Gothard Street Extension and ramp connections to the San Diego rceeway. Within the discussion of our proposed approach and scope of services, we have noted items to which we would devote additional effort if the project schedule permitted. We feel comfortable that our proposed approach will satisfactorily answer questions about the traffic impacts associated with the project; we have included a brief discussion of these additional items it order to inform City staff of the preferred approach if additional time was avisila le.. These Additional items would provide` greater accuracy in the traffic model, by facilitating more specif4c estimates of existing and future traffic generators, and more precise calibration of the model. to existing traffic volumes within the study area. PROPOSED SCOPE OFF SERVICE The proposed scope of services involves three primary tasks. The first task includes setting up, calibrating, and running the. traffic model The aacond task includes defining traffic network alternatives, analyzing the traffic impacts of the altern.- Lives, and making conclusions And recommendattDns aboakt the desirability of various alternatives. The third task involves preparation of,a report to document the work- performed in the model set-up and an>alylis tasks,. Each of these tasks is described in more detail.below. Model Se U A sib-area traffic Cnodel will be; prepared for use in the Gethard Street Extension Traffic'Study. This model will use the Huntington Beach Transportation Demand` A Cwatury o/ 4rnpfrsow►!np!'�realler��r .•o•�• Mr. Bruce Gilmer July 8,1936 Page 2 Model (HBTDM) as a base, but it will be extended to include portions of the City of Westminster and unincorporated portions of Orange County which will affect future traffic volumes in the study area. The sub-area model will be set up to run on an. IBM microcomputer, using the MINLTP traffic modeling software. The boundaries of the modeling area are excepted to coincide approximately with Edwards Street on the west, Westminster Avenue on the north, Newland Street on the east, and Heil Avenue on the south. Existur Conditicros. The .first si btask in the model set-up will involve testing the model with existing conditions. Existing land use inputs to the sub-area traffic model will Le obtained from several sources. Within the City of Huntingtc n Beach, base year land :use data can be obtained from the HBTDM data base, and updated to 1986 conditions using recent traffic impact studies and EIRs, as well as inputs from City staff. Land use data for the City of Westminster and the unincorporated areas will hive to be derived from one or more other source since these areas are not included with n the HBTDM data base. Although it is possible that City of Westminster and Orange County staff possess detailed land use information about these areas, it is considered unlikely,. Pos Bible sources of land use data include 1980 census data, recent traffic studies and EIAs, agency staff inf:ut, aerial photographs, and regional model (such. as OCTAM or M iITS) data. Land use data would be summarized in traffic analysis zones small enough to permit reasonable traffic impact estimates of the proposed Cothard Street extension and freeway ramps. The existing Land use data base is ot,e area where additional effort could be expended to ensure a greater degree of precision if the project schedule permitted. hand use inventory data could he collected if necessary, and more attention could be devoted to resolving any apparent discrepancies in the data obtained from the available sources.. The benef,,k of this additional work would be that a more precise calculation of existing trip generation in the study area could be performed, thus rendering f!reatE: confidence in the future estimates of trip generation• The ex:esting circulation network in the IIBTDI would be converted to microcomputer format, and expanded and updated as necessary to reflect existing conditions within the study area. it is anticipated that all arterials in the Huntington Beach and Westminster street master plans would be included in the traffic model, as well ar the San Diego Freeway and its ramp connections. Existing trip generation within the Study area will be calculated fur each traffic analysis zone.: It is anticipated that the trip'generation rates used in the RBTDai'i will be applied to the corresponding land uses within the study area. if necessm,y, dtiring the calibration phase of the existing traffic mxle , trip generation rates could be modified somewhat to better reflect existing traffic conditions. "Trip distribution percentages will be obtained from, the, HBTDM,, For the sake of simplicity, a fixed per(--.ntage of trips will be allocated from all r-nes to each external station and to the other internal zones. If the project schedule permitted, it would probably be desirable toobtain separate trip distribution percentages for (meb zone within thr study area. This would allow for A Cantory�of EnQNrtwarl,�tiq`�xeef l�enc tr L [Lfititld illAitt rca�s Mr. Bruce Gilmer July 8, 1586 Page 3 a more precise allocation of trips from each zone, and could provide more sensitivity to the vari&tions in street and freeway ramp volumes with and without the proposed project. Following the trip generation and distribution steps, project area traffic will be assigned to the circulation network, and existing through traffic volumes will be estimated. The existing model results will be calibrated to correspond as closely as possible with the existing average daily traffic volumes on the streets within the study area. If the project schedule permitted, it woilild be desirable to obtain, recent traffic counts or conduct new traffic counts for all of the streets and freeway ramps ,_in the study area. This additional data collection would make it possible to resolve the questions regarding inconsistencies in published traffic data, and improve the precision of the model's calibration. It is possible that a number of recent traffic counts have been conducted within the study area; those out'its which are readily available from the Cities of H!,,.nt ngton Beach and Westminster, the County of Orange and Caitratis will be obtained for use in the model calibration. Future Conditions.. Estimates of future traffic conditions witi bee based on projections for the Year 2005 or 2010. These conditions will be projected by updating the stab-area traffic model to include future land use projections for the project area, and est.)-mates of growth in through traffic volumes. Estimates of land use modifications will be obtainer, from discussions with City statf, recent EIRs and traffic impact studies, and/or County projections of population acid employment growth within the study area. If the project schedule permitted, fairly detailed estimates of future land use could be prepared. A more specific ?and use projection: would provide greaten confidence in the long-term traffic projections. Vuture trip generation will be estimated by applying the trip generation rates to the estimates of'future land use. Through traffic growth will by estimated from OCTAM projections. The trip distribudoii percentages applied to the existing condition will also be applied to future conditions, and average daily 'traffic volumes will be assigned. Alternative connections of the potential Gothard Street extension and the San Diego Freeway ramp connections will b,: tested to determine their traffic Impacts. Level of service on arterial street Links and freeway ramps will be estimated from the traffic model outputs. The second task involves analysis of t"; tic impacts associated with passible alterna- tives for the Gothard Street extension freeway ramp connections. This phase of the study includes :l,efinition of alternatives, anaYysis of alternatives, and findings and recommendations, ,i2 Confuryat En�ir,�rlrtQ Cix��af/Qn� too YFARS Mr. Bruce Gilmer July 9, 1986 Page 4. The definition of alternatives will be closely coordinated with City staff, and to the extent necessary with the. consultant analyzing civil engineering options for the Gothard Street extension. The analysis of the traffic impacts will be based on the traffic model results. For each alternative, future traffic volumes and link level of service estimates will be prepared. From this analysis, conclusions about the traffic impacts associated with the alternatives will be obtained, and recommendations will be prepared. Report A draft report will be prepared to document the methodology, analysis, and findings of the study. The report will be submitted to the City of Huntington Beach for review and comment. Comments received will be incorpor-at.ed into a final report. SCHEDULE Based on the City's need for results of the traffic analysis by the second week in August, we will prepare a preliminary summary of the study's methodology, analysis, and findings by that tine (assuming that Notice to Proceed is provided immediately by the City). A draft report will be submitted by August 22. The final report will be prepared subsequent to the review andcomment period. ESTIKATED COST The estimated costs for the tasks outlined above is $15,000, This cost estimate does not include those tasks which would be desirable if more time was available; it the additional work is desired, the estimate:t cost is $20,000. The consultant will be avalable as necessary throughout the course of the project to attend meetings and public hearings relative to this study. CONCLUSION We are looking :forward to workin6 with the City of Huntingt•in Beach on this important project. Should you have any questions, or require clarification of the proposal, please call me at (714) 973-4880. Sincerely, PARSONS BRI!ICKERHOFF QUADE & DOUGLAS, INC. James G. DougIas Senior Transportation Planner JGDAP A Century o1 ln�lne�rirt�izo�eliancq MSS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO PJGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER.THIS CERTWIICAT1 DOES NOT AMEW. EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POUCIES BELOW. r .exander & Alexander of New York, Inc. 1185 avenue of he Americas COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE New York, N.Y. 1C036 cL_E=1ra.tY A Continental Casualty Company COMPANY B Transportation Insuranr�gACompany INSURED —�.LETTER W IA Parsons Brinckerhoff -,uaa2e & Doucias, .ncccmPAIIY One Penn. Plaza L tR New York, N.Y. 1--119 COMPANY D fF TS Lr'TTEP COMPANY LETTER THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT PxKDES OFINSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUEOTO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PEMOOtNO$CATED• NOTW<THSTANDtNG ANY REOUIREMENT I TEAM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WTT H RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS EXCLUSIONS.AND CONOI- TTONS OF SUCH POLIC'.ES. ar ,Y;uc� Ly ,�` LIABILITY-!WITS IN THOUSANDS JF't1SURnrdCE PCUCY NUMEER yI,T ,yLjpwn _ DA i NL4L(iti'!T x�„PttEI.CE I &GGPE.,ATE ' GENERAL.UAVJTY �IiCOtt� i ){ 'ttd.'{1C.Y is I t?RE1�SE5'CP=_�tiTp!S ��ccvERtY� i tfiQER?tlND DAMAGE S S Xr EXP_OSM I:.LL APSE 4AZ;P1i [ PROD--5C)W F*ED OPVIAT'ONS CCPOOI'.33lC3 11,11!8 5 11 j1 s 86 i utITA; t1A81&C PoOW "Q'$ 1,000 $ 1,000 . SRI=9ORM 3PMAGE I v;Pta w-u',&URY P=_RSONAL;NJURY S 1,000 AUTOMDSO F UAStLM 3U , A ANY AUTO BUA CC17CI1.''* 1I 1 8 v 1_ - 86 -;X 'S I Ads 7rrNID Z-. OS,PRn PASS aAAt 'AU OHNIDAUTOS( A-yt� '*'I S t�HiiE AUTOS ED As m r'?1 t I WN-OW"ED AUTOS 1 DAMAGE I SS EXCESS LiABILRY' LAMPELLA FORM 5,1,PO WOt9 STAMORYK£RS`COMPENSATION .+ Sl,000-EAOI A�ESTI a AND WC CC1 3^Gi6 I'111,%BJ .'i1 r1 `86 .A +� 0� EMPLOYERS'LIABILITY 'OSE:LSE1OI:t.I' " S ,OL"oa caCli MP_OYE,' OTHER rtl'Lessional 1,000 per clam r 1,000 Aggregate A iability AAE 8h:.3 C l.11 1/81 1, 1f86 DESCRIPTKW OF OPERATIONSA 3CATi6NSIVENtrLES'SPECIAL ITEMS REE: Alignment - Classification study- of Edwards St. SOB NUM$ER 2148 *Certificate Holder i$ included,as,�n ad_*tional^insured with reference to this project. City o�- Huntington Beach 1 . Pahl Cook SHOULD AM OF THE ABOVE DESCPIBED FOLIOS BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE PIRATI9b DATE THEREOF, TKE ISSUING COMPANY WILL L178i7I7TAS'TO Director of Public works MAIL. DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE K)LDER NANtiEi��lIE tan Beac:? I r earr -sT City of Huntington 2000 Main Street, Huntington, Ca 92648' ��a t ®�V tS^aLIE DA CE(AtlrUDLY'i Yr a/6/86 aanalcER THIS CERTFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF PWOlMMT)ON ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPO"THE CERTIFICATE HOMEFL TM CERTWCATE DOE'"OT,AMEND, EXTERD CP.ALTER THE COYEAAGE AFFORDED CY THE POSJpEf`Bf X. Alexander & Alexander of New York, Inc. 1185 Avenue of the Arrlericas COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE COMPANY A New York, N.Y. 10036 L��rrER Continental Ca, COMPANY INSURED LETTER Transl2ortation Parsons Brinckerhoff 0uade & Douglas, In�°'AER 'C One Penn Plaza New York, N.Y. 10119 SAY D COMPANY E LETTER THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT POLICIES OFINSURANCE LISTED 3ELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED"MED MOVE FOR THE POLICY PEF"W INC11CATED. " NOTWYITHSTAND)NG:ANY REOUIR£MENT,TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT'OR OTHER.DOCUMENT WITH:RESPECT TO WHICH THUS CERTIFICATE MAY BE IwSULD OR MAY PERTAIN,THE INSURAI+C£AFFORDED SY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUNECT TO ALL THE TERMS,EXCLUSIONS.AND CONW- TONS OF SUCH POUCIES. CO . �Cy FS�G'Nf pq,-Y Dy-.,.,� LIABILITY LIMITS N THOUSANDS LT TYPE OF tHSURAtdCE POLICY NUMBER WE Wco"'o W'F lIWdYm a:,GAEC,AT E GENERAL L1ABAJTY y�yLy WAPSEHENSNE Fit yV uuUitt' PRENtSESICKAAD06 t e PPOPENTY 3 $ R" CGP001703103 11/1/85 ll/l/86 tx.- ,C0W1,ETED 0..RATV0WS r,Eol,000 $ 11000 INCE,x�u,EaT �c�s 3F AD F"PI�WYfi'i DAIAAa { TK:,s�=CRY i 1 PERSONAL swuFY 1 ; _ AUTOMOBILE LIAStLITY j tdY?1ITD ) I '"- a$ +.tL,7Nn0 ALTOS PSN PAss 1 AU D"V+ED m."ti•(p 'a, } BUA 001703107 l l/l/85 11/l/86 P9 AMUEr� —I ItIRED,AUTOS ;PFCPE'iTY A"-OWNED)-fTOS i i DAMAGE Cam,. GARAM uJ4M TY lTI S PO COuNNED Sl 000 EXCESS LIAERUTY PO UmspaL;1 FORM i CDMSIN EC $ $ OTHER 71,M UATML A FORM Y WORKERS'COMPENSATION 7UTOg STA s i nnn EACH 1Ct IDEMTI AMn ' - ��- `0l-,F E.POLICY UMP, B EMPLOYESS'UABIUTY WC 001703099 11/1/85 i l/l/86 {{ g ;DLsI use E"EW DYEE7 OTHER a t DE,CRIPr,ON CtF oPEF;ATX r)sn.oCAT,orrsNe CLEStS'E-CtAL MEMS The City of Huntington Beach and its officers and Cemployees shall be additional insureds on the general and automobile liability insurance orf 'which this certificate is evidence for occurrencesarisinSL out of the insureds execution n SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE CESCRME-D POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EX- Pau`! Cook PIRATIOIJ DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY WILL ENDEAVOR TO Director Of Public Works ►AIL 30 DAYS wR)TTEH NoTrCE TO THE CERTWr—LTE KCDER NAMED TO THE LEFT,BUT FA t O MAIL SUCH NOTICE SKIALL WOSE.No OVI GATTO►t Da LIABILITY Ci`ty` of Huntington Beach OF ANY JPO EN THE COWANY,ITS AG 9 OR REPPESENTATIViS. 2t100 Main Street AtJTHOflVU � Huntington, CF. 92648 y 13.,r17r�� PAt)G:k•ER THIS CERTn A rE IS ISSUED AS> MATTER OF INFOi?S,iATION ONLY AND CONFERS G: RIGHTS UtIO i TEE CER;iftCATE HOLDER.THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND- EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVSRACE AFFORDED BY THE POLICICS BELOW ALE,C'LNDER h ALEXANDER lNC. 1185 AVENUE OF THE ia2iERTCAS CQIV1PAIIIIES AFFORDING COVERAGE NEW YCRK, NEW YORK 10036 254 _ R3:eak uPTn i SEd I:JS RANQ.E:.CJ,SrANY- PARSONS FRINCKERH.CFF ' ADF 5 DGUC=LAS I+C c ONE PENN PLAZA 250 WEST 34TF STREET NEW YCR! , 1 Mq Y�DRK 10I19 Ill{ k Tyf 6es �.'e^�::.. v�^•< •••axAr....�.}—.�.�,..�-....,--... vs<y �.«..,..-�,-,.�,,...,,,.- .y�^^^w�-+-r-�»m�.--^--r a;- ^�x^w,r^ kt7y5,k,iwCT#Ske:rk;:a.°th f'z.�..::++tF.4t'r" +afiF :CJF "" ,"+f t '.t wcs.Lt x At is. a .a,R! ^-Wl.r sr r-05CERT.'F;CA E MAY s� RE ISSUED 3Sih:I`•ER*A:k ?9.Cw`Ruc._ L• -14 ri,"E^ O i;SFZ�tz,r Y+£'i+e .. .. :: . St:,i. N="EF23d.� CX..���"itC:NS.AN, YItJPiS or. sl- H pzvr`E[� W THOUSANDS s . . GENERAL L'AS#L=ly .ems .r�.y r tom• _ ,,. _. .. ....,,_.._ _ ..__.-.....,�.. i Y, EXCESS L'AG:!J Y BfiORKFfA t 5G1Q.OTHER RE REc HUNTI.NCTON BEACH PARKLNG A14D TR.L";SIT STUTli PB J013 1378. (SEE BACK) u C•I'SY ir} HUN`tx 1�aT+ RACH LI ANV OF THE ABOVE Dr,ST;AiBEP POO-LIES BE CANCELL 63 BEFO F,,1H9 EX, ;'tC??Y ':ATE k"HEFSE F, TH I�E tS5UMG C •PAMI5'.'l.Vik,E. +71tK " PAT Ii T IR. T3E4Y u. $ER1 A.I DAVS WR371th NOTICE YO THE CCRTTMATE H�IAER yRIX �C7L1� lxy,"- R `L'S?:X3[KY.�C. .YPV _._ . .., HUNTINGTON BEACH,, CA 92648 ENGINEERING SE&VICLS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AND PARSONS, BRINCKERHOFF, QUADE & DOUGLAS, INC FOR G'OTHARD STREET EXTENSION TRAFFIC .STUDY THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this _sl rw� day of a-4 --, 198�—, by and between the CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a municipal corporation of the State of California, here- ,rnafter referred to as "CITY,e and PARSONS, BRINCKFRHOFF, QUADE, & DOV ALAS, a New York corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CONTRACTOR. ' WHERE,XS, CITY desires to gage the services of an engineer- ing consultant to provide a traffic impart study of the proposed Gothard Street Extension, in the City of Huntington Beach; and CONTRACTOR has been splectet to perform -a�d services, NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by CITY and CONTRACTOR as follows: 1. WORK STATEMENT CONTRACTOR shall provide all engineering services as described in the Request for Proposal and Statement of Qualifications (hereinafter reforred to as Exhibit "A"), which is attached hereto and incorporated into this Agreement by this reference. Said services shall sometimes hereinafter be referred to as "PROJECT'. CONTRACTOR hereby designates James G. Douglas, who shall represent it and be its .sole contact and agent in all consultations with CITY during the performance of this Agreement. 1, d 2 CITY STAFF ASSISTANCE CITY shall assign a staff coordinator to work directly With CONTRA 2OR in the prosecution of this Agreement. 3. TIME OF PERFORMANCE Time is of the essence of this Agreement. The services of the CONTRACTOR are to commence as soon as practicable after the execution of -.his Agreement and all tasks specified in Exhibit "A shall be completed no later than eight (8) weeks from the date of this Agreement. These times may be extended with the written permission of the CITY . The time for performance of the tasks identified in Exhibit "A" are general,`,,, to beas shown in the Scope of Services on the Work Program/ Project Schedule. This schedule may be amended to benefit the PROTECT if mutually agreed by the CITY and CONTRACTOR. 4. COMPENSATION In consideration of the performance of the engineering services described in Section 1 above, CITY agrees to pay CONTRACTOR a fee not to exceed fifteen thousand dollars ($1:5,000) . 5. EXTRA WORK In, the event of authorization, in writing by the CITY, of changes from the work described in Exhibit "A" , or for other written permission authorizing additional work not contemplated herein, additional compensation shall be allowed for such Extra Work, so Long as the prior written approval of CITY is obtained. 6. METHOD OF PAYMENT t A. CONTRACTOR shall be entitled to progress payments' toward the fixed fee set fort* in Section 4 hetein in accordance with the progress and payment schedules set forth in Exhibit A'" . B. Delivery of cork product: A copy of every techni- cal memo and report prepared by CONTRACTOR, shall be submitted to the CITY to demonstrate progress toward completion of tasks. in the event CITY rejects or has comments on any such product, CITY shall identify specific requirements for satisfactory comple- tion. Any such product which has not been formally accepted or rejected by CITY shall be deemed accepted. C. The CONTRACTOR shall submit to the 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 the CONTRACTOR'S firm that the work has been performed in accordance with the provi- sions of this Agreement; and 5) ?or all payments include an estimate of the percentage of work completed. Upon submission of any such invoice, if CITY is satisfied that CONTRACTOR 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 thirty (30) days' of receipt of the invoice by CITY. Such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. If the 3, CITY does not approve an invoice, CITY shall notify CONTRACTOR in writing of tl reasons for non-approval., within seven (7) 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 CONTRACTOR is ir, or has been hrought into compliance, or until this Agreement is terminated pursuant to Section 12 hereof. 1). Any billings for extra work u- additional services authorized by the CITY shall be invoiced separately to the CITY. Such invoice shall contain aa.l of the information required under paragraph 6C, and in addition shall list the hours expended, and hourly rate charged for such time. Su;.h invoices shall be approved by CITY it 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 unrea- sonably withheld. Any dispute between the parties concerning payment of such an invoice shall be treated as separate and apart from the ongoing perforizance of the remainder of this Agreement, 7. DISPOSITION OF PLANS, ESTIMATES AND OTHER DOCUMENTS CITY acknowledges that CONPRACTOR'S plans and specifications ,are instruments of professional service• nevertheless CONTRACTOR agrees that all materials prepared hereunder, including all original drawings, designs, reports, both field and office notes, calculations, maps and other documents shall be `turned over to CITY and shall become its �o property upon PROJECT completion or earlier "termination of this Agreement. In the event this Agreement is terminated, said materials may be used Yy CITY in completion of: the PROJECT; however, CITY agrees to hold harmless, indemnify and defend CONTRACTOR against all damages, claims and losses, including defense costs, arising out of CITY'S re-use of CONTRACTOR'S plans and spkcifications, except in the completion of the PROJECT in the case of termination hereof, without CONTRACTOR'S prior written authorization. 3. INDEMNIFICATION, DEFENSE, MOLD HARMLESS CONTRACTOR hereby agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless CITY, its officers and employees from and against any and all liability, damages, costs., losses, claims and expenses, however caused, arising from CONTRACTOR'S negligence or willful misconduct in the performance of this Agr.,ement. Any concurrent negligence or willful. misconduct of CITY, its officerz and employees shall in no way diminish CONTRACTOR' S obligations hereunder. 9. WORKERS' COMPENSATION CONTRACTOR shall comply with all of the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Insurance and Safety Acts of the State of California, the applicable provisions of Division 4 and 5 of the California Labor Code and all amendments thereto:. and all similar state or federal acts or laws applicable; and shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY from and against all claims, demands, payments, suits, actions, proceedings and judgments of every nature and description, including -attor ey's 5. fees and costs presented, brought or recovered against CITY, for or on account of atty liability under any of said acts which may be incurred by reason v,-f any work to be performed by C0VTRACTCR under this ,agreement. A. INSURANCE in additior to the Workers' Compensation Insurance and CONTRACTOR'S covenant to indemnify CITY, CONTRACTOR shall obtain and furn_sh to C?TY the following insurance policies covering the PROJECT; 9t.Ns„# �+�a�» �i►�nli4.1ilnSwkcce� iMclv�fn A. General Liability insurance. A policy ofAmotor vehicle tZ liability insurance, in a sum not less than $300,000. Said policy shall name CITY, its officers and employees as Additional Insureds, and shall specifically provide that any other insurance coverage which may be applic- cable to the PROJECT shall be deemed excess coverage and that CONTRACTOR'S insurance shall be primary. Certificates of Insurance for said policies shall be approved in writing by the City Attorney prior to the commence— ment of any work hereunder. All Certificates of Insurance (and the policies of insurance or endorsements thereon) shall provide that any such Certificates and policies shall not be cancelled or reduced in coverage or limits other than payments of claims without thirty (30) days` prior written notice to CITY 11. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR is, and shall be, acting at all times in the performance of this Agreement as apt independent contract:.or. 5. s CONTRACTOR shall secure at its expense, and be responsible for any and all payments of all taxes, social security, state disability insurance compensation, unemployment compensation and other payroll deductions for CONTRACTOP, and its officers, agents and employees and all business licenses, if any, in connection with the services to be performed hereunder. 12. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT All, work required hereunder shall be performed in ?cco_dance with the standards of the profession for similar professionals performing services in this area at this time. CITY may terminate CONTRACTOR'S services hereunder at any time with or without cause, and whether or not PROJECT is fully complete_ Any termination of this Agreement by CITY shall be made in writing through the City Engineer, notice of which shallbe delivered to CONTRACTOR as provided in Section 16 herein, 13. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBCONTRACTING This agreement is a personal service contract and the supervisory work hereunder shall not be delegated by CONTRACTOR to any other person or entity without the cordsent of CITY. 14. COPYRIGHTS/PATENTS CONTRACTOR shall not apply for a patent or copyright, on any item or material produced as a result of this Agreement, as set -forth in 41 CPR 1-9.1 15. CITY EMPLOYEES AND OFFICIATES CONTRACTOR shall employ no CITY official nor, any regular CITY employee in the work performed ,pursuant to this - 7. y � Agreement. No oificer or employee of CITY shall rave afiy -� s' financial interest in this Agreement in violation of California Government Code Sections 1090 et seq. 16. NOTICES Any notices or special instructions requirea to be given in writing under this Agreement shall be given either by personal delivery to CONTRACTOR'S agent 'as designated in Section 1 hereinabove) or to CITY'S Director of Public Works, as the situation shall warrant, or by enclosing the same in a sealed envelope,, postage prepaid, and depositing the same in the United States Posl--1 Services, addressed as follows: TO CITY. TO CONTRACTOR: Fir. Paul Cook Mr. James G. Douglas Director of Public Works Sr. Transportation Planner City of Huntington Beare Parsons, Br ;,nckerhoff, {wade 2000 gain Street & Douglas, Inc. Huntington Beach; CA 92648 2323 N. Froadway, Suite 20-0 Santa Ana, CA 92706 17. ENTIRETY Tie :foregoing, and Exhibit "A" attached hereto, set forth the entire .Agreement between the parties. (REST OF PAGE NOT USED) IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by and through their authorized officers the day, month and year first above written. CONTRACTOR: CiTY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a municipal corporation PARSONS, BRINCKE.RHOFF, QUADS & DOUGLAS, ;INC. �OL+V IV&--------— -4,1 ,-1 v. ��- �- L Robert Bramen, Vice Pres. Mayor ATTEST: Lee Fox, Asst. Vice Pres, �ot,�,� City Clerk 1 4 REVIEWED AND hPPROVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Admi istrato City Att -n ' INITIATED AND APPROVED: Director of Public Works 0347L 9,. P DRAFT GOTHARD STREET EXTENSION STUDY DRAFT REPORT Prepared for CITY OF HUNTING'TON BEACR Prepared by PARSONS BRINCEERHOFF QUADE DOUGLAS,INC. t 0 August 1986 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION 1 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 3 .Analysis of Overall Impacts 3 Analysis of Impacts in Specific Areas 10 CONCLUSIONS 13 APPENDIX A. TRAFFIC MODEL 14 LIST OF FIGURES Figure PAGE 1 Existing Arterial Street System 2 2 Existing Average T3aily Traffic (Thousands) 4 3 Existing Volume/Capacity Ratios(Model.Estimates) G 4 Existing Volume/Capacity Ratios with Gothard/Hoover Extension (Model Estimates) 7 5 Year 2010 Volume/Capacity Ratios(Model Estimb-es) 8- 6 Year 2010 Volume/Capacity Ratios with Gothard./hoover Extension (Model Estimates) 9 A-1 Existing :Model Volumes(Daily Traffic in Thousands) 19 A-2 Existing Model Volumes with Gothard/hoover Extension (Daily Traffic in Thousands) 19 A-3 Year 2010 Model Volumes(Daily Traffic in Thousands) 20 A-4 Year 2010 Model Volumes with Gothard/I-oover Extension (Daily Traffic in Thousands) 21 LIST OF TABLES Table PAGE A-1 Trip Generation hates 16 r- GOTHARD STREET EXTENSION STUDY INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study is to analyze the tr. ffic impacts associated with the proposed extension of Gothard Street from McFadden Avenue in Huntington Beach t: connect with Hoover Street at Bolsa Avenue in the City of Westminster. The existing arterial street system in the area is shown in Figure 1. At the present time, Beach Boulevard experiences significant peak pet iod congestion in this area, particularly between McFadden Avenue and Edinger Avenue through its interchange with the San Diego Freeway (I-405). Goldenwest Street also experiences peak period congestion, especially in the vicinity of Westminster Hall, the San Diego:Freeway interchange, and Goldenwest College. The idea of linking Gothard Street with Hoover Street has been suggested as a way to provide additional access across the freeway and to alleviate some of the congestion on Beach Boulevard and Goldenwest Street. In May, 1986, the Huntington Beach City Council adopted a. realignment of Gothard Street of the south side of McFadden Avenue in order to align Gothard Street with Hoover Street north of the San Diego Freeway. The extension's engineering feasib;lit and construction cost estimates are being considered in a separate study being prepared concurrently with this traffic impact study. This study is limited to a discussion of how much traffic would utilize the extension, and how it would impact traffic volumes on other streets. To analyze these traffic impacts, a microcomputer traffic model was devt loped to forecast"traffic volumes in the area bounded by Westminster Avenue on the north, Edwards Street on the west, Heil Avenue on the south, and Newland Street on the east. Details of the modelling procedure and traffic projections are presented in Appendix A The body of this report is devoted to analyzing the traffic projections. The first section discusses the general impact of the Gothard/Hoover extension on traffic �L- ttniM;ter Ave �m d� `90 Hazard Ave ti m a Westminster o Mail X Bolsa Ave McFaddfn Ave Golden West College Huntington Edinger Ave Center Heil Ave y � o GOTHARO STREET EXTENSION STUDY Figure ParsonsBtinck±eihofi EXISTING ARTERIAL .S°T�E, 3'' SYSTEM Quade lc Dougla&Inc volumes (existing and future) within the study area, and estimates the extensioals relative impact on congestion. The second section discusses specific issues that have been raised in regard to this project, including the traffic impact on individual streets and access to major gen•?rators. As noted above, the description of the modelling procedure and the numerical results of the traffic model assignments are presented in Appendix A. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYST: The traffic impact analysis considers two scenarios: first, the impact on existing traffic volumes and congestion if Gothard Street were to be extended in the very near future; and second, the impact of the extension on traffic volumes in the year 2010. K The analysis of long range conditions assumes implementation of the Super 'Street program on Beach Boulevard, and expansion of Goldenwest St eet to six travel tenes north of I-405; it alse includes future growth consistent with current development proposals and the county's long range socio-economic projections. Existing average daily traffic (ADT) volumes in the study area are shown in Figure 2. Existing traffic volumes on Beach Boulevard in the study area range from 61,000 near Westminster :Avenue to 81,000 in the short segment between 1-403 and Edinger Avenue. Existing volumes on Goidenwest Street range from 33,000 north of 1-405 to 46,000 south of the freeway. Gothard Street carries 14,000 to 17,000 vehicles per day, within the study area; Hoover Street carries 4,000 to 8,000 vehicles per day. Analysis of Overall Impacts This section analyzes the general traffic impacts associated with the proposed extension of Gothard Street to Hoover Street; the following section discusses the traffic impacts on specific streets, and access to large traffic generators in the study area. Not surprisingly, the main traffic impact of extending Gothard Street to Hoover Street would be to attract traffic away from the congested parallel artertals, providing relief to both Beach Boulevard and Go;ldenwest 'street, and a minor trattic reduction traffic on Edwards Street and Newland Street. The .impacts on east-west arterials would be minimal. #vcPadden :Avenue and Bolsa Avenue (the two perpendicular arterials at -3- atminster Ave 27 29 25 �' Go o Hazard Ave co�4p � T cry a ' Qy Westminster 0 Mail Boisa Ave 32 20 19 w fit!' CO V �0 McFadden A ve 19 21 1$ 16 Golden 12 West College N, Nhluntir jton 81 Edinger Ave ' Center 46 39 39 31 ~ ® Heil Ave vs 1s w 13 10 H w ' �a t �' GQTHARD STREET EXTENSION STUDY Figure Pi mms 8rfnckerhofT EXISTING AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC Q"Oe&Pouglaw,Inc^ (Thousands) Engv*ra e\thew Pf�mrs r- either end of the proposed extension) would experience minor changes in traffic volumes as a result of the extension. Volumes on other east-west streets are projected to be virtually the same with or without the extension. It is projected that the Gothard/Hoover extension would attract approximately 13,000 vehicles per day in the segment between Bolsa Avenue and :McFadden Avenue. This would relieve the parallel segment of Goldenwest Street by about 6,000 vehicles per day and the parallel segment of Beach Boulevard by about 4,000 per day. It would add approximately 4,000 to 7,000 vehicles per day to Hoover Street north of Bolsa Avenue, and to Gothard Street south of McFadden Avenue. Figures 3 through 6 show the project's relative impact on north-south congestion levels. These figures show the estimated ratio of daily traffic volsime to vehicle capacity on Beach Boulevard, Goldenwest Street, hoover Street, and Gothard Street. The volume/capacity ratios shown in the maps represent the traffic model's estimated traffic volumes as compared to the typical traffic capacity for comparable arterial street. Since the traffic model's volumes are estimates, and since the actual traffic capacity of a particular street depends upon a number of variables (including the number of turn lanes at intersections, the presence of on-street parking; the peak hour percentage of traffic, etc.), these volume«tcapacity ratios do not represent the actual peak hour traffic conditions on these arterials. These data are useful fr,r comparing the relative congestion levels with and .ithout the extension, and for comparing future congestion levels with the existing condition. Two general conclusions can be dra a from the analysts of volume/capacity ratios. First, the Gothard/Hoover extension would provide congestion relief W ')oth Beach Boulevard and Goldenwest Street, particularly near the interchanges with 1-405. Second, implementation of the Super Streets improvements on Beach Boulevard and the assumed; widening of Goldenwest Street north of 1-405 would significantly increase capacity on these two arterials. These improvements are projected to provide more congestion relief than the Gothard/Hoover extension; however, even with thr_zzc improvements in place, future congestion through the 1-405 interchanges is projected` to be severe. -5- Ct r7 VC off ! z Golden Wfs' sr 2. , ® Cl, rn o Gornard St Hoover St O ® ? C m ° k Beach Bfvd t/s < ca y O O 0 a v v 0zo C7 0 O 0 ' 0 : 4 = 0 Q v rJ coco rn , 10 N NO a a c N_ C mno u � 0 x a W PA18 4geeg vi x 14 S a O� O U is Isom.unplof) a$ �d Z 4R9in 1 � �` 40 t3 n Golden West St sr[iirlrlrlrlr��i,1,lrlrlr�r�r�r�rlrlrlr�i�=Il��illll m m Ez Gothard St �.,.....:. 14........... ........ Hoover St O C mEi 4Oct y ® a Z. C m Beech Blvd fill 3 N H a 1 m c D GO .. � o O --0 p % 0; 0 0 — O a� s a 0 F1, CO � Golden West St A p 0 Gothard St m ' 0 D s Hoover St p ,d m O zl'r g CL 0)CL m rri m 0 Beach Blvd 10 h M y C4 Q 4 p NZ 9 m Ib CL to y n a y ~o ?1 {j m m o a o -4 _ 0a Analysis of Impacts in.Specific Areas This section analyzes the impacts of the jothard/Hoover extension on specific streets and large traffic generators within the study area. Traffic projections are provided to give the reader an order-of-magnitude estimate of the likely traffic impact. These estimates should be taken as approximations; actual traffic conditions in the future could differ from these traffic volume estimates. The discussion of each specific issue area considers traffic conditions with and without the Gothard/Hoover extension, in the existing condition and in the year 2010. Beach Boulevard. In the existing condition, the Gothard/Hoover extension would reduce traffic on Beach Boulevard between Bolsa Avenue and McFadden Avenue by about 4,000 vehicles per day.. The traffic model.projects only modest traffr: decreases on other sections of Beach Boulevard (about 1,000 vehicles per day). The net result is a fairly modest reduction of congestion along Beach Boulevard. In the future condition, the Super Streets improvements would reduce the existing level of conger tion on C--ach Boulevard without the Gothard/Hoover extension, e�:,ppt through the Beach Boulevard/1-405 interchange. The extension would reduce traffic on Beach Boulevard by about 5,000 vehicles per day between Bolsa Avenue and McFadden Avenue, and by 2000 to 3,000 vehicles per day elsewhere in the study area. In the future condition, the Gothard/hoover extension would provide a modest reduction of congestion all along Beach Boulevard through the study area. Goldenwest Street. In the existing condition, the Gothard/Hoover extension would reduce traffic volumes on Goldenwest Street by 3,000 to 6,000 vehicles per day. This results in unproved traffic flow, particularly through the 1-405 interchange. In the future condition, the assumed expansion of Goldenwest Street to six lanes north of I-405 significantly reduces projected traffic congestion in. that area. The Gothard/Hoover extension would reduce traffic volumes on Goldenwest Street by 3,000 to 8,000 vehicles per day. This would particularly reduce congestion through the 1-405 interchange and would "improve trafl,s! flow between Bolsa avenue and Edinger. Avenue. -10- Hoover Street. In the existing condition, the Gothard/Hoover extension between Bolsa Avenue and McFadden Avenue is projected to carry 13,000 vehicles per day. North F Bolsa Avenue the extension would increase traffic volumes on Hoover Street by 4,000 to 7,000 vehicles per day. With the added traffic, the volume-on Hoover Street would be w 11 below the capacity of a four lane divided arterial. In the year 2010 the Gothard/Hoover extension i cted to carry 15,000 vehicles per day between Bolsa .venue and McFadden Avenue. The increased capacity on Beach Boulevard from the Super Streets improvements, combined with the assumed expansion of Goidenwest Street to six lanes north of 1-405, are largely responsible for the modest traffic increase projected for this street from the existing condition to the, year 2010. North of Bolsa Avenue, the extension is projected to add 6,000 to 9,000 vehicles per day to Hoover Street in the future condition. With this additional traffic, the volume on Hoover Street is projected to be well below the capacity of a four lane divided. arterial. Gothard Street. In the existing condition, the Gothard/Hoover extension is projected toadd 4,000 to 6,000 vehicles per day to Gothard Street south of McFadden avenue. With the additional traffic, the volume on Gothard Street is projected to be well below the capacity of a four lane divided arterial. In the future condition, the Gothard/Ifoover extension is projected to add 5,000 to 7,000 vehicles per day to Gothard Street south of 'McFadden Avenue. With the additional traffic, the volume on Gothard Street is projected to be well below the capacity of a four lane divided arterial. Bolsa Avenue. The Gothard/hoover extension is projected to have only a minor impact on Bolsa Avenue. In the existing and future conditions, traffic on Boise Avenue east of Hoover Street is projected to increase by 2,000 vehicles per day as a result of the extension. Otherwise, traffic projections for Bolsa Avenue would not be affected by the extension. McFadden Avenue. In the existing condition, the: Gothard/Hoover extension is projected to ;reduce traffic volumes on McFadden Avenue by 1,000 to 2,000 vehicles _11- per day between Goldenwest Street and Beach Boulevard. In the future condition, the extension is projected to reduce traffic on McFadden Avenue by 3,000 vehicles per day west of Gothard Street and by 1,000 vehicles per day east of Gothard Street. Edinger Avenue. Ghe Gothard/Hoover extension is projected to have minimal impact on traffic volumes utilizing Edinger Avenue. In the existing and future conditions, the extension would reduce traffic on Edinger Avenue by about 1,'U.0 vehicles per day in the vicinity of Gothard Street: Westminster Mall. For Westminster Mall, the primary benefit of the extension would be to reduce the level of traffic congestion on Goldenwest Street through the I-405 interchange and. Bolsa Avenue. This reduction in congestion would improve access to the mall for traffic corning from both the north and south. The extension would also provide an alternate route to Westminster Mall for some traffic originating south of I-405. Huntington. Center. The extension would improve access to Huntington Center through the modest reduction of congestion on Beach Boulevard, and by providing an alternate route for traffic from the nortl, to reach Huntington Center. Goldenwest College, The Cothard/Hoover extension would improve access from the north to Goldenwest College by reducing congestion on Goldenwest Street through the I-405 interchange, and by providing an alternate route to the college for traffic coming from the north. Redevelopment area at Bolsa Avenue/1loover Street in the City of Westminster. The extension would' improve access to the redevelopment area by reducing congestion on Goldenwest Street and Beach Toulevard, and by providing an additional access route for traffic originating south of I-405. Target Center (Beach Boulevard/Heil Avenue): The Gothard/lloo.,er extension would provide a minor improvement in access to this future shopping center for traffic coming from the north by Lhe modest reduction of congestion along Beach Boulevard . -12- CONCLUSIONS The conclusions of the traffic impact analysis are briefly summarized below: • The Gothard/Hoover extension would attract approximately 13,000 to 15,000 vehicles;er day between Bolsa Avenue and McFadden Avenue. a The extension would add 4,000 to 7,000 vehicles per day to Hoover Street north of Bolsa Avenue and to Gothard Street south of McFadden Avenue. • The extension would provide a modest reduction in congestion on Beach Boulevard through the study area. • The extension would provide a moderate reduction in traffic congestion on Goldenwest Street, especially in the vicinity of the 1-405 interchange. s The extension would have little impact on traffic volumes using east-west streets through the study area. -13_ APPENDIX A TRAFFIC MODEL This section presents a technical description of the computer traffic model which was used in the Gothard Street Extension S,ady. It describes how the model was set up and calibrated, and presents the traffic assignments which were the basis of the traffic impact analysis. As the reader reviews the model results, he should keep in mind that the purpose of this traffic model was to estimate the traffic- impact of the Gothard,/Hoover extension. Although ine model was calibrated as closely as possible to existing traffic conditions, the level of detail which was available for preparing the land use data, trip generation rates, and trip distribution factors, make this model (like most traffic models) difficult to calib-ate p,�ecisely for every segment of every street in the study area. The model's projected traffic volumes are presented in this section for the sake of completeness, but the emphasis of this analysis should be placed on the relative impacts of the project which are described in the main body oi' the report. The study area selected for the traffic model is bounded by Westminster Avenue on the north, Edwards Street on the west, Heil Avenue on the south, and 'Newland Street on the east. This area was divided into 27 zones for the purpose of traffic generation, distribution, and assignment. The zones on the south side of the San Dlego freeway correspond with the zone structure of the Huntington Beach Transportation Demand 'Model (HBTDA, although one additional zone was added along Cothard Street south of Edinger Avenue to better reflect the traffic assignment in that area. North of the San Diego Freeway, the study area was divided into zones approximately the same size as the zones south'of the freeway. Fxisting and future (year 2010) land use data was assembled for each zone within the study area. For the zones south of 1-405, the HBTDfA 1977 base year land use data was used as the base,and ul dated to existing conditions with data ;rovided by the City of t Huntington Beach, and by reviewing an aerial photograph of he area. For the zones north of I-405, the county's OCTANT model socio-economic datadata base was disaggre- gated into the zones used for this study with the assistance of the aerial photograph. The existing land use base for the study area was updated. to the year 2010 projections using the projected growth factors from the OCTAM model data base, and modified with information provided by the City of 'Huntington Beach to include more specific estimates of growth in such areas as Huntington Center, One Pacific Plaza, and the Target Center. The traffic model network includes all of the existing arterial streets within the study area, plus the San Diego Freeway and its interchanges with Westminster Avenue, Goldenwest Stre(.t, and Beach Boulevard. In the existing network, the arterial streets were coded with the existing number of.lanes. In the future network, Beach Boulevard was modified to reflect the adopted Super Streets improvements, and Gold'enwest Street was modified to include six travel lanes north of 1-405. In other respects, the, future network is the same as the existing network. The Gothard/Hoover extension was assumed as a four-lane facility between Bolsa Avenue and McFadden Avenue. Trip generation for the study area was calculated on the basis of the total number of daily vehicle trips in each zone. The trip generation rates applied to the model were based on the daily trip generation rates used in the HBTD1h and trip generation data from the ITT; Trip Generation manual (third edition). The daily generation rates applied to each of the thirteen land uses in the traffic model are shown in Table A-1. Trip distribution data were obtained from three sources: the trip table in the HBTDM was aggregated to show the directional distribution of traffic from the south part of this study area; the traffic distribution used in the One Pacific Plaza traffic impact study was:obtained, and the existing traffic counts on the streets and freeways leaving the study were obtained. It was assumed,by extrapoleting data from the HBTDit9, that approximately 25% of all trips generated would remain within the study area. The model distributed the trips using the 25% internal trip capture in combination with the assumed external trip distribution percentages. During the calibration of the model, the external distribution percentages were adjusted somewhat to better reflect -15- TABLE A-1 TRIP GENERATION RATES Land Use Daily Trip Generation Low Density Residential 10 trips per unit Medium Density Residential 8 trips per unit I3igh Density Residential 6 trips per unit Retail 60 trips per 1,000 sq. ft. Major Shopping Center 35 trips per 1,000 sq. ft. Office 18 trips per 1,000 sq. ft. Industrial 7 trips per 1,000 sq. ft. Parks. 6 trips per acre EIementary Schools 60 trips per acre High Schools 80 trips per acre College 1.7 trips per student Cernetary 5 trips per acre Public/Quasi-Public 10 trips per 1000 sq. ft. the existing traffic conditions within the study area. The final _ ternal distribution percentages used in the model are shown below: • 17% to the north-west via the San Diego Freeway. 6 21% to the south-east via the San Diego Freeway. • 12% to the north via arterial streets. 0 1.0% to the east via arterial streets. 0 2"0% to the south Oa arterial streets. • 20% to the west via arterial streets. The distribution of traffic to these external locations was not the same for i ach zone. During; the calibration of the model, friction factors were applied to the travel. patterns so that to a certain extent, ¢cternai trips from a zone would go to the external locations closest to that zone. The distribution procedure which' was used to calibrate the model-to the existing condition was applied to the year 2010 model, as Well. -16- Once the existing trip distribution data had been calibrated, through traffic (trips which pass through the study area without stopping) was added to the arterial streets and freeway. Through traffic was estimated by calculating the difference between existing traffic counts and the traffic generated in the project area. In the model of future conditions, through traffic was increased' to represent the relative growth projected by tb.� OGTAINI traffic model for the next 25 years. 'through traffic on the freeway and the north south arterials was increased by 2596 to reflect this long-term growth; through traffic on the east-west arterials was increased by 30%. The traffic assignment procedure which most closely replicated the existing traffic volumes in the study area was a. stochastic, capacity constrained assignment. This procedure loads 2096 of the traffic in the trip table onto the network, then recalculates speeds and assigns anot!i,-r 20% this procedure is followed until all: trips have been assigned to the network. In each 20% increment, the trips are spread out to a certain extent between the possible routes between an origin and destination, with the shortest route receiving the majori a of trips. In each subsequent 20% increment, travel times change to reflect the loar•.-- of traffic, so trips tend to distribute themselves between alternative routes even more in the latter incr?ments of the assignment process. The results of the traffic assignment procedure are shown in Figures A-I through A-d. Figures A-1 and A-2 show the model's estimate of existing traffic volumes without and with the Gothard/Hoover extension. Figures A-3 and A-4 show the model's projections of year 2010 traffic volumes without and with the Gothard/Eioover extension, j -17 t Atminster Ave s 3i 27 24 o.r Hazard Ave .. 8 1 1 0 We3tminsster p Mali Z Bolsa Ave 35 26 22 co McFadden Ave 18 22 19 18 Golden West Coitege Huntington N Center 84 Edinger Ave �.. 37 37 38 26 C Is ooto Heil Ave en 1'S 15 10 GOTHARD STREET EXTENSION STUDY Figure Parsons Brinckerhoff EXISTINv^ MODEL VOLUMES Q,.ae&Dougbts,ins (Daily Traffic in Thousands) Atminster Ave 32 2E _ 24' 6La to �a Hazard Ave s. S 1 1 .� v� Westminster o O Matt Z Balsa Ave 36 28 22 lucFadds n Ave 18 20 18 18 Golden West College 00. c4iuntington Edinger Ave C, Center 8s 31 36 38 26 Cn ti r. eo M Heil' Aver R 15 16 15 18 3 � �ju V CA GOTHARQ STREET EXTENSION STUDY Figure i EXISTING MODEL VOLUMES WITH e " Inc Dougl &4n Lunde&IMugla�x, GOTHA'RDIHOOVER EXTENSION A"2 (Daily Traffic In Thousands) Atminster Ave 39 32 29 +s'Q Hazard Ave icy v� 9 13 iN'estrtti star ° O. Mali Bolsa Aire 41 32 27 N Q3 McFadden Ave 22 29 G5 23 Golden West College Huntington Center Edinger Ave ,a y 104 39 47 49 34 00 Tell Ave CO) 19 20 21 20 aq v Oi GOTHARQ STREET EXTENSION STUDY Figure YEAR 2010 MODEL VOLUMES I"acgar�.s Brincl�rrhoPt '� �/!+ r,�aeae><, ,rn� (DafIY Traffic in Thousands) -20- pt Westminster Ave '�I> 3 32 28 r t. �06 Hazard Ave- "' 41. is y 9 13 p e r !� l Westminster Mall 2 i, Bolsa Ave .y 41 34 27 �+. 1+ Al McFadden Aire {�s f M�. 23 26 23 Golden Nest College ";la Huntl,,ngton tF; Edinger Ave ��, Center 1L'1 j3 39 48 48 341' t act. ao N Heil Ave 19 19 20 ai ' "k GDTHARD STREET EXTENSION STUDY Figure �rro P Year 2010 Model Volumes Parsak�.s Brinckarhoff � A W Wye&1o� Inm with Gothard/ doo�er Extension ErtgvAv".Archaftu ' mn¢m Gaily Traffic in Thousands) -21— r fir) /l , HL r y I STREET CALIFORNIA s _ J h FfIC `OF THE,pm cLIL-Ak 4,y4P ] U 70 7 4 J' i y�e -Doug 1 as, Sr. ;'r ' sportati'on Planner, ' t } = ;xrisons,u riricicer off, 'Ouade ,& ,DouQlas, Tnc. Broadvaav,bu i tee 29Q nta-Ana,"(A 9270b " ` 4 r, thclos-d is an executed• copy of 4he Agreemeirr, (fbr Gothard Street El:ens �on�Trarfic Scutly which was�approve �:b � tine City Counci�fi �� 1 of the Gity Huotinc�ton��ea�ch' on September.; 2 1"986. � r r � O r{3 Ali ci a Ni W,entworth rt C .ty'Clerk t A •bt ,C Don Noble; .,-Qept of Public Works a Wayne L'ee, Ntstnce r G„ Ix ij E °� th Fr iq J"o-P'�. `>_� P � �° � '^- * �L:- t1 t"j�7 '� -Y✓✓ �1 " ''� �1R� �9 (j' :^ .� c �� `b ♦l 11 i�lr �'' _ IL � Ct _ la C r r r � � ��� �(� ` t� � t n ��� lJ ra..J �^'�-5: % ,1 r n.=� T y��. - }� �tj� `� ► (Telephone 714.W 22) ��il'-"` - � ""d3�kPLINiw1YSiin`tlYSYiklld �SLLm'.`4k�o-9'i' Y _ ' ;f- \ J _ ,. .. .l by +s 11 41 The'.1' •.,' 06h�ld `0 o _ y O, 6oe 10100,Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 24M"' o - n Los Angeles,Cal i{Q3111a 7 � ,, a t.. F (213j 556-5913 l� �x< , .� :. E D 1 ' f OCT�O 1 1966 . U z p 646er 29,ti�,i 986 'U C^P.IMUNITP Jrt, LOF'MENf 41 o u \j1 ✓ L tJ Mr. ? owas Andr��iskyw� u Redev e1ppmedt Prn,�eet Cit :-t �Huntington Beach , _ J ,QFi® Plain dartrfrt. V \\' , , ,b Hunt ngtons,.Heac1*, CA 'vO2548. �f �tEs jON.,OF tQ'i %RD �S,,TREET"'�SEfibIFEN ?�CFADDEN AVENUE TO HChSA bENUE ;. ,TO'ALIGN WITH HOOVER EET ' ar Ill'. And 'uskys d „ The,McDonald.,Group, Ltd is the ownerldeveloper of Huntington Center located at 7777 Edinger�Aveniae in JFiuntir�gton Eeach.,, in review ng, he feasiba l ty,and, traff eL eL r pqp rt on 16 Gotliard-Hoover'St>,6et extension, tww feel that tld'the = raffio cireulatior ,systetu a e portant fi: tit 1 y ,. „v will pr(5v de safer 'and more convenient �gtress and ingress for .thbse irilividuals' . 11tiliting, a-�l fhe Huntington OpIter and other ret and 'h�sin'ess 'establ s enta- h-,the area, Inasmuch as`one gf the anain„purposes o:,the Huntington. Center Commercial `District. Redevelopmei+ '�^ojea� is..to xzaprove the traffic sirculation in the } rea9 e�MacDonald, Group' 1Ftd. supports met zora b 'thy;Cxt r; of Huntington Beata t0 onstrudta the C%third a'treet real �,'- en`� south of �'1c -xi ,and the 41 = "a r ��. „ We �ao>ald life to `hake`�h�s. opportunety'to ti�ank the Ci�tyf of�iun4�rng��n Bear, k,T� 'l```,�:�8 the sups taece�:�s�ry �o `improE�e�trax. �e �fety%;ano esrcula�i.on 1 'fof2 'b'/fLfiL4iA•.7i.'. • '.�,.� 4 Sincerely, y ti Charles dep�ia� c ' ` V3.cF? 5"'Sidl .� CR 3: / i.14Q` 1Z r �:„"a4.;l. 9c �.It _.,..,vr... i-��::���dVnY—L Galt,• ��y;• -..�urwyi'~m.�urm.iNlBfaCYN/4�:�:YeiW: f i rvtf ' i a v'c43 csr r ! u Gyro Ass4ikte a � 6,u f, _r Mrr',,lhoni. s, Andrusley Ae��� � lop�nexit Pr��Qct Manager y ° J Ci"�' l3 ' HIUN�'YTrIC78E ^EY�'r c• - / \� q'2 WZ 0 46in St,r.set ` 0-jHdU4 tingt®h':Beach, California 32E48 Y a RE,, EXTENSION; QE GOTEi. .RD STREET" BETWEEN M^FADDEDI AVENUYI" TO WITH EOLSA AVE�7Ji',. TOALIGN, WITHF%OOVER�STREET rr' - J,; w Dear � r RW� have reviewed the f'eas'ibility and tafic impact :repe�rt on. e �othaxd--Hower Stree.t�'' eitensioaim Cava_ f Associates is .a ° '< ra�prop`ertu.owmer at,One 4Pacific .Plaza. We believe .;that improve- ' m n s to the a Efic circ la.tion' system re , iyn oktant „ safe an d I' cdayenleht access axid eciress for ,those tj come to the��y� area to--, u- e "the fina�acia`l, retail',°nand other business services.` ' fain purpose of Ithe Huntinatan tenter Commercial Dis'trVctr% Aedeve1opinerit Project" is to i�rove the traffic circu�.ation,, ��avan JAssoeiates supports acti�'n by tie�City of Huritingi on�� Eeaeh x r to ? arz'sruct the �Gotha�gd 9ttree f realigrme� t south of N�eFadden an'd thi&,extenzzon tli rou, to ,Hoover` Y ci °,Cavanissaaate wou�.d li3c .to „fi3aanlc the City ,of FfuntngtQn a Beach --dr „t.a3 ing ,.positive steps o aaa�p�ove ` traffic sa ty r {y a circU atl(va" irf,. outr ommi nit � > Since�-� 7'��`u 1, A> CAV _ASSOClN]mF'S .LTD) ' :C`�V A t;p 4�11 s \ if RE�ca H F � U Y fi 4n, 5 D �T dt L) y $ /l Qc�c t►�, .711 Ceatter�1a��,'Sujt�6�AQ Hu 3,:�+ � eeadr,Calit'fa '92647,(7II4),893-I212 a Now ` ��� L� " N' A tit ACTION , .. RII 86-68 „ c D Seetember 26, i986 Honorable Ma - ' ��mii t�•,;" : Ho Mayor/Chairman and City t ouncll/Rdevelopment Agency m rs fitted by: Charles W jhompson, City Administrator/Chief Executive Office ,<•. r rs�d by: Do /Zl s N. La Belle, l3eputyrty Administrator/Redevelapmen GOTHARD-HOOVER EXTENSION PEASIBILIT- Y ANALYSIS AN0, ACTION PLAIN TO.PROCEED WITH IMPLEMEN t-ATION c l Consistent with council Policy? _ r � yes � ] Now Policy or Exception '1 U ` Statement tt Inue,Recommendation,Analysis,Funding SoOrc�,Alternate ,� ao�a�: =ST A TEME.N- O I-Sslb _. � � � -'",.=----- -z T G " <<We, haYe received reports from our, consult�int's regarding the feasibility and traffic intact 'of constructing ,;the Gothard-Hoover' extension. The '•rep 'ro ,show -that -the '1�6d truction of the Gothard-Hoover connections feasible. R.ECOMMEl`J "RATION: =1. Acrep't the final feasibility report as prepared by IWA Engineers and the draft traffic analysis as prepared by Parsons, Brinkeroff, Quade and Douglas, Inc. 2. Kthorie staff to obtain appraisals and trs negotiate the purchase of the needed ?. right-of=way between Center Drive and McFaddEn in the City of Huntington Beach 'for consideration by the City Council/Agency." 3. Request the city:of,Westminster to consider the folioving a*-" (I) Authorize-, the u�ltitnateextension of Gothard trom McFaddenf to Btalsa Ito connect with l.00ver (2) Authorize a joint application to Orange County Transportation Planning ` t, arnPnd the County,, Master,Plan of Arterial.-, Highways and (3),. Work with lrlutltin tali Leach , to develop a joint `financing program for the remaining r`ight,of'=way,acc;uisition and project construction.,, °The 'I untingtar��3eacn City _CToul 11 has aporo-v "d a precise alignsneo for CIIotha r Street south' of MCFa`cftien Avenue haf�� would ;c�ltow for` the ultimate' connection �f Gpthard �G Hbove,r Stroet In W_est►ni.nster Gri'��3unE: 2 ', 19$6. the Mayi�r`and Ci$y �,, 'F1 min st&torr,appeared eFore' the Westmh1ister—,"ouneil to .ask the City Cda:�nc�k to c "defer ac tion' aii' a propds-jcd parcel map that,could impact the future GotEiard-Hooter connection to alloy✓ a felsit9lity report to be prepa.red.' The final feasibility report; as ped' 3red by JWA Engineers,;indicates that,it is feasible to construct&,four-lanE ar�eria! ?yextension der .1-4 1 St ff has presented t�� Gothard=Hoover extension feasibility` t,5,aorts to the City of re,,1Qnster for their; info-mation. r ,- t - �` RH 96-69 i1 x September 26; 1996 Page Two f _ ` the estimated,cost o L(onstructing r'the, Cothcrd-Hoover extension between McFadden e: lr = and Bolsa is approxI i,Eitely-43.9 million and, between, Center Drive and McFadden the cost,is estimated at $a�00,0uo otaling $4.6,million. These figures` mAude right-of' ay ` . acquisition costs. Currbnt2,y the- right-of-way is not developed and in order to maintain u 'the right-of-way deeded JorAthe Gothard-Hoover a­-mnsion the acquisition*-f the needed ,right-car Tway would be a0ro0rlate at this time. _ The Gothard-I�ocver extension is recommended in our Huntington Center C tl ommercial District Redevelopment P'oject. . 'These improvements would improve traffic flow'an M- Gglcienwest Street and'Beach Boulevard. The project Is sup by "major ,property owners inz,,the area. Also th6;, concept, of the Gothard-Hoover extension is supported by Coastline�omrimunity>,�;Colleg's and Orange County Transportation District, The City"of a� Huntington Beacr� artq'Jttie C41�ste:i! of �4'estminster now have an'opQortunity to 1mprove the tginsportatiori .:circulation the,:y share by moving ahead to implement 'they', aGothard-Hoover'Pxtension. FUNDIP,*SOURCE: r und4 h&Ye been pie"ious y `budgeted by the. agency (FY 86/87) in the Huntington Center'k Pro e 8t"Area fora sisals; . j appraisals S1 ti "a ;<<A LTERNATIhE%ACTION: • _ LDca1 of authorise the above actions to implement- the -Gothard-Hoovear extensiorn. ,This' action ,would remove an„opporturnity to improve traffic circulation on `Goldenwest n Avenue and i3each'Boulevard im the vicinity of I-405 at this time. ATTACWENTS: 1. IWA Feasibiiity Study. fl. haft Traffic Analysis - Parsony Brinkerhoff�kNade, and Douglas, Inc. 3. l5p�op'erty Owner Letters of Sul�?ort.. t - - ,CWT/D 3/TAsar • tf AMEW I r! u, _`XE+CU nW.OFFICES 7812 Edinger Ave.,P.O.Box 1010 {� r Huntington ach,Calif.92647 Tele[� f 7n ' g-9606(Graup 11�,IM s t BepC besr 9 1986If \� ! 1 r. Ti1CSIQaS And ruslG,y Ftedav,®lopment\�Proect' Iarnager f �, City,,of`H, t ng►on Beach ,2I[30 Ma%n `street , Huntington Beach,-CA 92648 "Dears Mr. Andrusky; E= SUBJEdf::P LTM" NSICN bF GCiTHARD STREET BETWEEN ABC PADDEN,AVENUX- O BOLSA AVENUE, TG ALIGfd KITH HOOVER S`�'REFT. �e hdvd received the fee ibilzty a'"A traffic regart on the othard-Hoover S1.geet J a e�W.tion:' '£he Mercury Saving. Corporate Off icw'and �� savings branch�is lencited Q un nEdinger,_Avea'iuelt. ear Beach. Boulevard.,, ,fie believe that improvements to the` traff ic,,cixculatign—system are importaat`'to' safe and.'.,conveniernt aceess and e {gress for those that tome i" the area to condiEct business,,, n fF. A and xa: pu ose u .t1?e Hur. ington ,Center Commercial, District Re.deveZopraent Pr'o- ,, .jectVi to .izaprove the"'traffic circu2atiGn. Mercury Savings aupports,actio)n by I tl3e City' f Hunting ors-dseach to construct the Gothai:d Street realignment south F = of McFag4ean and Phe ew`- sicn to .Hoover. ° tiercnry Savings woul( likes-ico thank the City of Kuntin�ton Beach fear taking g�os r _ i iveli,steps,'.to,improveatrsffic safety and eireulatione in our `communaity. l\is A. Shaf t x F r i'sesldernt (, V }' r /!, Ty yh r , w ` t '�Tekphovne(7 4)8324333 .*e � ��i � 44 �c '�`! }y,k "?,��L�-3 dr y,YQ � ' t� !."` �h�k�•.„�5`�' CNT 0 UNT(',_'1NL3T W= q 2060,MAIN qUREET o CALIFORNIA 926,48 ' OFFICE OF THE"C MIT"CLERK 4 Septets er 3, 1986 J mes G. Dough;:' Sr. Transportatigra"Pl ;nnelr ) , Partons, BrinckerhOff, Quade & Douglas,, Inc. ur �' 23, 3 N. `Bros`w ' J Suite 260 .i _y,, Santa Ana, CAr92706 fj � :.A n The„City Council of the City of Hunt ,ngton. Beach at the regular meeting held"Tuesday, Sep, emb4r 2 1986 approved 'An agreement between the City and your �fi.rm7to provide engineering,consd-ItantLservices for ,a traffic impact study of, the ,proposed Gothard Street Extension in the tity''of luntington Beach. r Ui)on,Approval of your Insurance certificate by the City Atfdrney, 'a r duly exgcuted ,,copy of the agreement will be forwarded to you. . fc a M.v,,Wentwoir;h Ct°,ty, C1 ? v " ,, (n Encl osure s_ , L r , Y , Q S ! ti1 h o X C k` ( �-- 1 r v r �� ('%isp Mnd:794-63"227) �" � .'31 �i �, �� , - ✓�` - r K*It _ ,po,, "� s. eS4(4� l CITY OF HUNTINGTON 6EACH' olis City Allots" RE5UEST FOR LEGALSE61cts � � c��� ��w cis �a .Ask c39y/AA1NiA64'iPAtlf y utE!e1L s I�ti�d +1 Gow"rat �o®ps4semoia! 'w �sgonkaana Ct C�C�k 1City;.Cy'erk , o lINSTRUCTION&. aas W'dw d ty Mornay!s Of$ic*as soon as possible. Pring at typo forts nwaa�ry foe pity A3t9rnay. 4- !icw briaflv mown fw to rwmL Anadw all inforW an&to1:6)fubita t�ninsnv'tc411w subj"I. ° iTV06,Uko SlAim Bisv*Wvtsd: I :.warn k i Insurance g I r {1 S t Op@ibn Ir (` AJ1,,wwbiu must be mmcha�;m ttim requou vo ll be returned to you. c� t, { Plea a „approve'insr 'Vince for, Parsons, B-ri nckerhoff Quade &'Dougl as��I�nc.9 as to form' 1 ',ASAP" t. n it for f .. f If ik3R for CcunWl aid"drirsd ca tion daw $i'aRat4Y)2 c �.,•.' .fir et Mow ry D r f7 1f r August 14, 1986 1 r'?SubfwiltMtt J Honorable Mayor `and City Counca'. Mr ` =Slab 6d b 6arles Thompson; City`Adninis`:X r =by: = Aaul, Cook, Director of I�ub1ic Works ikafac °Lmpac Study for the ,proposed Hco�!- " thar..d Extensipn - C®rf ist�n v� �Cr�aancti P hcyP [Xl Ye [ l Now Poll' or Exception &atemiht df Issue',lRecommapdation,Analysisp Funding Sourc.'�,Alternative Actions,Attachniiints: �- j=Stat-bite of,. rt!.uet V �L- -r� � .contract betweenthe city.' and Parsons, Brinkerhoff r, naaa _end �iDouglas, ��,has been prepared .�n 'rohj unction with the traffic stuely --for the r` hover. Cothard connegtiori'. o" teconmendation' - i'Atzthorize lthe r°a.yor and the C�tv,Clerk to execute the attached consultant agreement with 4PBQ & D for a feeJ�rio-? to exceed $15,000.0b. ;V ,Analyses: ., On Daly= 7, 1986, the City,. Cotgnci1 approved the selection of PBQ & D_ to- prepare .a,traffis study for ,a I16over° - Gotha d connection. At Council°s QR directtion, a contx�,t for these services has 7a: en prepared and staff recommends approval of the document. , (�,,1+un'di'r� Solaro-e A" loan,, f'kq.p1 the,uhapprr�priated'.-general fund balance to the Redevelopment Agency pc�e-rthe pxo_=,risians of the standing operative agreement`-=between the, city and the. agency. `�.lternat:ive. Actiona. - r--J- JIv &P,ttachments. C 41L, `Agreement " fi n µ CWT:PEC:DRN 1 % 0323 Alarth Brandivay Plan BrInckeahaff Suite 2000 _ lJ�uode& Santa Ans Onanclat Cent4f- �� rEwNs OKV14%A Santa Ana,CA 92706 Enilneers Architects p 11 Planners - c Jul ,t. 1986 y ® Mr. Bruce Gilmer n5 Traffic Engineer -` Cxty e; HuntingtowBeaeh �> n . . Box190 � Hulatington Beach, California. 92645 Subjects Gothaid Street-Extensi.an Traffic ,Stud Dear mrE%daniery Responsive to your request, we are pleased to suomit this proposal for a traffic impact study. f the proposed Cothecd Street Ext3nslon. This letter outlinep: our proposed approach, scogp�of serv3aites budget,.,and schedule. Responsive-to:i,be Citv's need for c t�esul#s by fihe e�:ly part;Vf August, we navy geared the approach WO scope of services u to provide re4ults."within the.desired timeframe. At the same.time,'"our proposed scope :of services provides reasonable traffic projections for the potentiaXathard Strefet r Ekiension and ramp I conne6tions to°the San Diego Freeway. n Within the discussion of our ro osed a proaich and scope of services �__��have noted 4 , proposed p p. i 8 L . �. 4 it i; ns to which we :would-devote;additional effort if the project schedule ermitted. = ;We feel comfortable that our=jpcopesed approach wili satisfaetorky answer questions about the traffic impads associated with the prnjeet; we have included; a brief d.isdussion tyf these t do tional itaans in, order to inform City_ stqff of the preferred aQprca n h if %ddition6x=time was available. Thee, additional items:' would provide �gread?r accuracy in the traffic model, by facili,loin more specific; estimates of „ existing and future traffio generators, and more precise calibration<of the model to ,existing traffic Volumes,Hrithii the study area. - - 14 �P40 f,9S►ED SC`f1P OF S RVICES Tile„"prop.ms'ea scope ofu-services invo���s three r"Plary tasks° Thefirst task includes , setting Up, aLibrating, and, running the *raffic. rrlodeL The second tasX includes. � " r deP'h ng,>traffic network alternat Zes, anafyiing `the'traffic impacts of the alterna- I ti%#' and_snakie4 conclusions and recommendations=a6"l tIt,.the desirability of':;vsrious , alternatives; The third task involves preparation of a, report to'�3ocumci�t .the work �a ;ierformerl:an model set-up.and"afialysis tasks.' E&ch of these task& ask;described in `more dei.ail-wa;iow. Modil SO A saw-area traffic model will2e prepaz�ed for use in the Gothard Street Ext,?nsionr, U q�affid Study. This model W61 use t►ie `Huntington Beach -Transportation Demand � t /Ctrnl �.��► ems����►r®,�, ., _ _ .. _. ,. :E lip f, fir'_'. RM IBM YZAAR 1 ` 1Vlr: IirepP Gilmer July S, 1986 s,; age 2 � J Model (HBTDM) as�a-ba.'sdi�t,but it will be extended to include portions of the City of tVestminster and uni:�corpoi<;�ted poe^tions of Orange County which will affect future traffic volumes its the study a?.ea. The sub-arc. model will be set up to run on(,hn IBM m.lcroeomputer, using the MINUTP traffic modeling software:.-, The boundaries\af""the ° modeling area are;expeptad to coincide a6proximately with Edwards Street on. the West, Westminster 'k' ,enue on the north, Newland Street on the east, and Heil Avenue an the south., U10 Conditions. The first subtask in the model 'set-up will .involve testing the model with existzn_g conditions.,, Existing land use inputs'to the sub-area traffic model,, will be obtained from :several sources. Within the-.Oty'of Huntington Beach, base year kind use data can be' obtained from the HBTIIM data base, and updated to 1985 conditions"using recent 'traffic, impact studies and EI9s, as well as inputs from City „ staff. Land use data for the City-,,of Westminster and the unincorporated areas will hFve to be derivedfrom one or more other soir ces, since these areas are not included t f" within the HBTDM data base. Although it is possible that City of Westminster and Grange County staff possess detailed land ouse information aboui.'these-.'areas, i,,t is } , wbnsideredyunlikely. Possible sources of 1-and use data include 1980 eensu.data, recen t`= traffic studies and EIRs', agency staff input, aerial photographs,, and regional model . .` (sti'h as OCTANT oro MKS) ,data. Iian& use data would be summarized in traffic analysis Zones small enough to permit reas�nabl estimates of the' traffic impact eGti proposed Gothard Street extension end`xreer+�a ramps. E - to ensi..e a gr atersdegree of precision if the proje t s3chedlK'e permitted a Lfaiid us�a existing p .) f� rw A e � .. inventory data.pould be collected,if necessary, and-more attention could-be`devoted to resolving any apparent discrepancies in the date obtain d from the available sources. The benefit,of this -additional work would be-that,a more precise calculation of r_ existing trip generattow-i :tb,,e study area; 'could be performed, thus rendering greater confiden8e-,1n the future estirriates of-trip geiieration. _ l` �f The existing,circulation network in the HBTDM would be converted to m.,crocompuier formats and'expanded and iodated as necessary to reflect existing conditions within the study area. ,, :It is antic that alA, arterials in the Huntington Beach and Westminster street *_ 1 d i r ffi m e ee master o 1 in d in th a c 1 .�_. ; ` as a plans w u d be G u e e,t oriel, as well as the San Oseg�, peeway and its ramp-connactfons. J Existing,,trip generation, within the study_area,will'be calculated fur each traffic t+ analysis zone. It is anticipated that the trip generation rates used in the lIB'TDM will be applied to the corresponding land uses within Elie study area. if necessary-:>,during the callbrati6fi- phase of the, existing traffic nl.ddel, trip generation rates euld be modifiedisomewhe to better rLfleet exiting traffic coriditio�►s. Trap distribution percentages wiffl'b"e obtained;from the 1lB;rl;i�. 1�6r the"sake of simplicity, a�fizced percen tage of trips will be allocated from all zones to eaeb e-xtern&1' �,- station acid to the,other,ir.terndl,!"tiOnes._ �, , If the project_schedule l eimRie_d, it would probably be'-desirable to obtain, separate T trfp,`i�istribution percentages frir each cone within the study area. This would allow for A,Cent6ry of �•`x',:�" r _ ul too c VEAM1 21 �2� M Mr. Bruce 'Gilmer duly 82-1986 Page 3 a more precise allocation of trips from each zone, add could provide more sensitivity to the variations in`street and freeway ram,,, volumes with and withmut the pr& sed `project.° - Follow:i ag zi:the trip generation and distribution steps, project area traffic will be _ = : assigned to ,the circulation network, and existing throuwh traffic volumes will be estimated.a ''fh'e--existing model results will be calibratedI-q correspond as closely as posse;` tith the existing average daily traffic volumes Tarr, die streets within the study area. L' Qi r If the project schedule permitted, it would be desirable+to ®btain recent it% is counts or conduct anew traffic counts for all of'the streets and freeway rar�aps wi�hgn the,study area. r'fhis additional data iMol1sction would make it po sit:le to resolve the`questions ' regarda`ng inconsistencies i��pubL'shed traffic data, and. improve the precision-„'f the model's calibration... 1t`is pOssihle that a number of recent traffic counts nave been ' conducted within the. study area; those, counts which are readily available from the _ Cities"of-Huntington Reach,;and `T+Vestmii;ster, the County of Orange sad Caltrans wits. be obtained"for use in the model calibration. ;P Future-Conditions. Estima i! s of future'traffic conditions will be based on proj'ccYions foi the Year 2005 or 2010. These conditions will be projFeted by updating the sub-area traffic model to include future land use projections forhe project area, and estimates of growth in through, traffic,.Volumes. Estimates of"land use modificatims will he obtained from discussions with City staff, „�uecent_EIRs and traffic impact_srudi6,' and/or Count °y projections of population and employment growth,;iqithin,the,study"area, If,th.e Project schedule permitted, fairly detailed estimates of future land use could he prepared. A more specific,,land use projection would provide greater confidence in flee ti " long-term traffic projections. ( V ' fit �, 4= future .trap ,generation willl be estimated by applying the trip generation rates to the, eatim,%tes of future'land' use. "Through traffic growth will be estimated ':from. OCTAM projecticns, The trip drsita°abution percentages applied`to the existing condition wild pg 'e conditions, and- average daily traffic. volumes° will be r� ry assigned. q also be a lt�.d to futwr g pi?ternative eonnectfcins cif the potential C�othard Street'�extension oAd`the San �*ego r ]freeway °amg� coni�ectior�s will be tested toydetermine their Lraffic impacts. Level o� .- e,Mce on arterial street links and freeway;ramps will be estimated from the traff!,c mo3el outputs. The second tasks invo;'ves analysis of'fnaffi< im pacts associated with,possibl aMsrna- Lives for the Gothard Street extension and; freeway ramp connections. Thf,a;phase of the study incicac3es definition. of alternatives, analysis_cf alterrativPs, and findings and -rea6m endations. ;r �Jno®ryin I Exceftence D _ w url � 01 It YARS Mr. Bruce Gilmer ry 41y,$s 198 ' Page 4 TN definition of alternatives will be,closely coordinated with Cityi; F ,ans to the G extent-,necessary with the consultant analyzing civil t'ngineerVi �ran� for the Gethard Street extension. The analysis of the traffic impfcts vAU �'e base on the traffic nmodel;�res0ts. For each alternative,luture traffic volumes link- vel of j) service tWhates will be prepared. From this analysis,°conclusions ablaut the traffic impaet"ssoeiated with the alternatives will he obtained, and recommendations will be prepared. _ r n '} AXdraft report w,It he prepared to document the r' ethodology,analysis, Bred findings edf th1,astu The,report�wfi, be submitted to the City of,Huntington Beach for review and comment.' vomments received will be or into a final report, r _ f j., SCHEDULE Based,on, the City's need for result" of the traffic analysis by the second week in August, we will prepare,a preliminary sumrpary of the"study's rnethodologyi, analysis, _ *'end findings by.that time (assuming that idotice to 1?ro�red is provided imrrrediately by the'City). A draft rep11i�t will be submitted by August: 22. „ The final report=Zvil1' be prepared subsequent to the review and comment parr%d. ESTIMATED.COST r% The estimated casts fo'r the tasks outlined gbv $1 ,000. This estirr.,ate doesr not 'ificlude thosd�,tasks which would be desirable if more time was avaiL,461eq if the,; _ adcritiortaI work 3s desired,_ the estimated `'cost is $2D,A(t0._ The consultant %vill be- available as necessary„throughout the c0°se of the pro ject, to attend, meethigs a.*rd n pubilic hearidgs relative to this study. f CONCLUSION ^f We are:lookiat forward to working ,with the City of 1�1untirgton,. Beach qn this imporfiant =ct,- Shouid you ha��re asiy questions; ®r require elarrfrc .tion oa the rop 1, p call me at (714):973-4 Oil „ ," _ r n Slneerely,p,„ J k'ARIO TS Bl �'CK RI$C FF QiTADE & DC 't3GLAS, INC. James :rl3ouglas n Se 10 Transportiitior�'lan er` A Conteiry c,�. Enginoeing ®e I, (1 i 2 I M ISSM'AB A MATTER OF 19 FORIMITION MNLY'AND CONFEP6 s Ui U Tt4E CF.PITIFICJITIE!KOLDEFI.T TIFFI:AT�' OT AMEND CR ALTM THE CO � SICTHj 21OR. exan der 9Y Alexander of New York, InC .1185 avenue of the America:✓;, COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE J N'ew York, N.Y. 10036 - , COMPANY LETTER Continental Casualty Company_ ANY Transportation Insurang Company t INSURED R Parsons:D:Brinckerhoff c+wade & Douglas, Inc Y One,.Penn Plaza LETTER ! !) New York, N.Y. 10119 COMPANYLETTER _ ij COdAPt�1Y E. II LETTER e � THIS)!a'TO MT, THAT POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE SEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT,TERM OK-CONDMON OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CEIRTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN,THEANSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES OESCRIRED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO 0'?THE TEPMS,.EXCLUSHM.AND CONM TOM OF SUCH POLICIES. CO _ c POLICY EFECTM �Q ICY,c9PRAT�I LIABILITY U?ATTa IN THOUSANDS TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER L OAiF iIRbUDt)IYY) RATE MIA(I M'YI c H ��•.`_• OCCUPRENCE --AGGREGATE GENERAL LIABILITY BC4!!.Y X-_ REgNSKr.�M 1KIURY $ $ PRDKSES6VPERATIONS PROPERTY i UNDEt RO COLLAPSE HAZARD DAMAGE $ A- CCP001703103*j 11/1/85 ll/l/86 mUCTSr'COMnum OPERATIONS, E CONTRACTUAL a ewe En I$ 0 00 $ 1,0 00J INDEPENDENT CONTRArOPS �� BROAD FJRM PROPERTY DAMAGE PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL iNJUgY-` $;:,000 ILE LABILITY May ANY All O BUA 0017021.07* 11/1/85 ll/l/86 $ ALL OWNED ADTM(PR!Y.PASS.) MpP r �` ALL OWNED AUTOS`OThER THAN AR ACMDM PAN.PASS. ,\ HIRED AUTOS NON-0WNED;;AlJTQS iI �ROVy'4 AS T F'UBX;, PROPEPr1 L DAMAGE $ GARAGE LIABILITY C 1. E!16PD $1,000 j r. �^a+�rrED EX G .*r LIABILITY URBRELLA FORM �'dl $ !$ OTHER THAN UMBMLLA FORM COMBINED STATUTORY +.. WORKE 'COMPENSATION 000 (EACH ACCIDENT) ..-•• g' FJSAND WC 001703099 lip_""' J.1/1/86 ,µ '600(DISEASE LCY UMM I EIII LOYERS'LIABILITY(> r I $ 1D15EA:E-FXH E'`iPLOYEr OTHER l rofessional 1,000 per claim A Liability X%�E 823 27 70 11/1/85 �= 11/1/86 1,000 Aggregate DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONVLOCATIQNSIVEHICLES/SPECIAL ITEMS RE: AlAgnmPnt Classification study, of Edwards St.` JOB NUMBER: 2148 *Certificate Holde is included s n 'ad itio a ? i cured with reference -to this projE`ct. r e City at Huntington Mr. Paul Cook SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCEIJM BEFORE THE EX- PIRAT196 DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY WILL THOEX10OR-T Director of Public Works MAIL DAYS WRITTEN"TICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NIAME9-74'i+E City of Huntington Beach t�r-e�t TerlioRles 2000° Main Street', Huntington, Ca 92648 AUTHCT�aI� �Ep E e µ DATE MMKOM. IaI fi ` 8/6/86 Tft Cfft>eT*VATE HL.ES UED AS A MATtER OF MWWTM ONLY AND NO ROM UPON THE CERTI'FMTE HOL OM 11#8 CERTNVIAT3 iT n NO-PAMEND � NB'OR ALT&.3 703E AdIQ', {<Y THE lK iE1OCM f Alexander & A� xander;aif t�e4 Fork, Inc. n Y i . i'„ �� 00"MPANIES AFFORDING tdVERAGIZ r,;/a 1545 Avenue of the Americas COMPANY � New Y��m N.Y< 10036 LETTER 1, Cod t. COMPANY INSUREDLEMR franspor Parsons 8;rinckerhoff Qoade & Douglas, In copprR Y ),'dhe Penn Plaza New York, '1a:`Y. l0i 19 COMPANY„ ® _ LETTER COMPANY LETTER - a � 7kI'S Is TO CERTFY THAT 1?MICIE9 OF INSURANM LISTED BELOW"AVE BEEN ISSUED TO rAE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERM WDICATED. NJTWRhSTAI`il WQL ANY REOUVIIEMENT,TEiRM OR CONUITM 07-ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WiTH ROPECT TO WHICH THIS CERWICATE MAY 13E ISSUED ON MAY PERTAM,"THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN 13 SUBJECT TO ALL THE TMM,EXCLUSIONS,AND CONQI- TiQNS OF StICH POLttaES. Cf? TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER FDUCY FffECiiVf Phi&`EkPIurm qi,,b—,Y(.mrrs @9 TH&jSANDS L DATE(ABWDD" GATE(AQPA(WfM n AGGREGATE OCCURRENCE �iTENERAL LIABIEI9" ' BODILY CDtIiPRE 0ME FORM INJURY $, $ PREA�ATIONS PROPERTY � � UNDERC-ROUNO DAMAGE -. E)cP9.OSiON a COLLAPSE HAZWD CCP001703103 11/1/85 1 l/1/86 PRODUCTSICOMPLETED OPEI`I TION$ I CONTAACTIM COMBiNSo '�1,000 1 ,000, INDEPENDW CONTRACTORS BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE PERSONAL INXRY PERSONAL INJURY $ 1',000' AUTOR6SILE LIABILITY _�' ° r A o sm ANY 160 >l IpE({.PI{S o $ ALL OWNED AUTOS(PRiV..PASS.). :c;8Q9Y" ,•c ALL OPINED AUTOS(OTH RPASS THA ) g_= 00170107, 11/1/85 l 1/l/86 $PRIV _� . HIRED AUTOS s ," PROPERTY NO OWNS" _ DAMAGE $ z >: GARAGE LIABILITY Par3PO COMBINED $1 000 EXCESS LIABILITY _. &S§ELLA_FORRt '� �`� J CCOiMBIN' $ $ DTHER 7NSN,UMBnE�LLA FORM ;I� - - STATUTORY WORKM'COMPENSATION (EACH ACCIDENT) j r APiD / Jl $ (Dl.°^EASE P+" !"f Lima)8 " EMPLOYERS'LIABILITY WC 00? 03099 11/1/85 86 $ noo (DISEASE-EACH EMPLOYEE') _ DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONSILOCATIONSMEHICLESISPECLAL ITEms The City of Huntington Beach and its officers and emplag+ees shall be additionai on the general and automobile liability insurance „ of "h>`this certifieate„is eidiadence for crcrrurreoce's arising out of the ins►�red's execution yti os»t m MOULD ARY OF THE A30VE OESCRXID POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE M Paul Cook PIRATt DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY WILL ENDEAVOR TO ; -Director of Public Works " tWL �U DAYS WRITTEN NOTICIE TO THE CE5ITIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE G LEFT, FAILURE TO M L SMH NOT=SHALL IMIKISE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY City of ,F unti ngton Beach t' -OF ANY KI§Elft THE COMPANY,ITS AqM OR REpRE:3ENYATiVES. 2000 Main,_St�r6Ot AUTHORI ,REPR W:AT� , Nunt n ton,,,CA 92648 : A•o o•e e••o• m M. 0 Y a• s b )SSIJl�DATE(MM(DD/YY) PRODD ER THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A P,471TTE4 OF INFORMATION ONLY AND Ct3NFE4., NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER.THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND-, ` EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. 'ALEXANDER & ALEXANDER INC. , 1185 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS rk COMPANIES AF iORDING COVERAGE NEW YORK, NEW YOR's 10036 COMPANY LETTER t�ONTIr A ALTY " OMPANY 254. COMPANY INSURED LETTER rB SPORTAI't.1C N INSURANCE COMPANY PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF QUADE & DOUGLAS,.INC.COMPRNY ONE FENN PLAZA —;_;_�� c, �p�' — 250 WEST 34TH STREET COMPANY ® NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10119 ,, LETTER ``r�O���3'�� � INN 000MPANYY��`�,�e�` tE>j Q �� LETTER 'THIS IS TO'CERTIF!Y THAT POLICIES OFINSURAWa.c LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMEib ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT,TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICiI THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE,I$SUED OR MAY PERTAIN,THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HeEIN IS SUSJECT70 ALL THE TERMS,EXCLUSIONS,AND CONDI i IONS OF SUCH POLICIESJ: CO POLICY EFFECTTYE POLICY EXPIRATION LIABILITY LIMITS IN THOUSANDS TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER LTR 6) DATE(MMIDONY) DATE(MMIDDIYYI EACH AGGREGATE OCCURRENCE GENERAL LIABILITY BODILY A X COMPREHENSIVE FORM CCPO01704870' 11/1/86 11/1/87 INJURY $ $ X PREMISESIOPERATIONS C� " (INCLUDES TEXAS AUTO) PROPERTY UNDERGROUND DAMAGE $ X EXPLOSION&COLLAPSE HAZARD X Ij,,W GTSICOMPLETEO OPERATIONS -x CONTRACTUAL pl,&PD y p CCMBINEO y 1,006 1,`000 J X INDEPENDENT CONTRAQR$ BROAD FORMPROPERTY bAMAGE ; �^ X Z;OOO X PERSONAL INJURY " PERSONAL INJURY, $ r AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY ) BODILYRm +' A X ANY AUTO 11" BUA 001704874 11/1/86 11/1/87 (PER PERWi) ALL OWNED AUTOS(PRIV.PASS.) (FXCLUDES TEXAS AUTO) ALL OWNED AUTOS(PRIV P THAN) IOR ,, (PER ACCIDEND $ HIRED AUTOS PROPERW NON-OWNED AUTOS DAMAGE $ GARAGE LIA3ILITY '91&PD aoMel"e° $ 1.000 EXCESS LIABILITY UMBRELLA FORM r &BPD I COMBINED OTHER THAN UMBI�LLA FORM -71 WORKERS'COMP,NSATION r STATUTORY B AND ,, ; WC 001704862 11/'1/86 ll/l/87 $ r (EACH ACCIDENT) EMPLOYERS'LIABILITY $ rno (DISEASE-POLICY LIMN _ r SEASE•EACH EMPLOYEE) �r n DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS/LOCATIONSIVEHICLES/SPECIAL ITEMS -,RE: HUNTINGTONT BEACH PARKING AND TRANSIT STUDY PB JOB 3878. (SEE BACK)." . CITY OF SIUNTINGTON BEACH SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POL!6IES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EX- DEPT ) OFpDEVELOPMENT SERVICES PIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY. WILLX%pgAXW IVIAIL DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERM MR, JAMS" PALIN DI R. DEVEL. SERV. ' ,4:MVkjDA4M # €� ��t�l Et�l6tl P.O. BOX 190 x�1k > s x AUTHOR 'E PRESENTATIVE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 .M`q EN IN G EERIIaG SERVICES... AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE. CITY OF HUNTINGTON-BEACH AND ° PARSONS, ERINCKEAHOFF, QUADEo'& DgUGLAS,� INCH FOR GOTHARD ,S°TREET EXTENSION TRAFFIC STUDY THIS.;AGREEMENT, made and entered into da; of y �,. 39 , . by and between the CITY OF HUNTINf'10N I =BEACH, a municipal corporation of the State of California, here ina,ftek referred , n as, *CITY,". and PARSONS,, RRINCKERHOFF,- QUADE, & DOUGLAS,,�a New York,, corporation, ,hereinaft---r referred' to as TTHERtAS, CIIKY desires 'o c-r age the service's of an erig neer- ing consultant to provide a, traffic impact study of the �propose;d Gotha d° Street Extension, =in thq '`City of Huntington Beach; and n u CONTRACTOR ha`s been selected, to perform said services, > �=W, THEREFORE`, tit,. is agreed by' `CITY and CONTRACTOR as,, f o1 iows r 1. WORK STATEMENT t ff �, CONTRACTOR shall provide all 'enaineeringk nyices as descrabed> ia� tie, Request for Proposal and, Statement of ~`' ual fic.ations (hereinafter referred to ,-.as A ) which as Exhibit " `i e attached�he&too, and incorporated into this Agreement by t-h s refer`ence, Said Qervices' shall sogf4_imes- he re`i nafter be referred tb. as P,pOJEC: " CONTRACTOR hereby designates James G. Douglass, who a , sha11 represent it arid_ be its' sole contact „and agent in al-I consultations with` CIT)X during the performance cf this Agreement. = P, l F�� a _ i t k: O 2. , CgTY SjAFF ASSISTANCE 1J 4 1 assign a staff- coordinator to work direct CITY ,shall e < wit :CONTRACTOR in the pros,4cution of this Agreement, TIME OF r'SRFORMANCR' �_ T-me is of the essence of this 4reemPf'�t." O'The services t7 of the, CONTRACTOR are to commence as; soon as practicable after the execution 3of this Agreement and all tasks specif.iQcd in ' r Exhibit "A' shall)be compyeted �no later than eight (8) oweeks from tYe date of ,thi's Agreement. These' times a1 be extended f•.. with the written permission of the n` ;TY. The, time for performance otrthe tasks identified in Exhibit °A" are generally to be as ,�shown i, the Scope of Services on the Work Program/ 'PrQ 'ect Sichedulel `This schedule may be amended to benefit '_the: f U - PROJECZ, if mutually agreed -by,._the CITY and CONTR--,�CTCR. - 4. COMPENSATION I con,sidnration of the performance of the engineering servicesdllscrib,„i in Section„l above- CITY''agrees to pay, CONTRACTOR a fee not to eAceed fifteen thousand dollars } , ( 15,000y 5.. EXTRA WORK In the event of authorization, in �._writi:ng by the CITY, of changes from the word described in Exhibit "A" , or for other :, written,.permiss on' authorizing, additi_,gnal; work not contemplated fi• 9 her:ein;, additional compensation shall be allowed fo'r<,such Extra ° Work, so Tong •'as the prior .wri�t.ten approval caf CITY s obtained.' 6. METHOD;_OF PAYMENT 1 A. CONTRA,GTOR shall b entitled to progress' payments toward theofixed fee set forth in Section 4 herein in accordance , o . �` with the PrG' 'es and,;payan nt schedul,3s„ set �-forth in Exhibit. =Sr Deti_very of work, product: X copy of every techni-cal memo and report prepared by CONTRA TOR shall be `submitted to the CITY�to demonst t "progress toward completion of�tasks�' `sn 0 � the event CZ TX rejects or-has comments'`on any such product, CITY' shall ider+tify sped f -c requirements,> for satisfactory comple fP, n �� #on; " ,Any such product which 'has not been formally agcepted ,` 5 r, rejec4.ed by ;:CITY shall' be- deemed accepted. 7 C. The CONTRA TQ4 shaFX11 ;anmit to the>CITY an invoa;��) J for .ea p ogress payment due Such invoice -shall: t} 1) Reference this Agreements 2) 4 Describe: the services pdrforn'.�d f 3) _,how the total amount of- 4' payment due; y4 �• _ r �J A) Include a caertif icatio .r%a. tinc 1 pal' member y of the'- CONTRACTORS firm th't the, work has 9T, been "performed' in accordanceVY:ith the prow _ s-ions of this Agreement; /d ,o vFor all, payments" include an estimate of thr .,percent:Age`of Tgork comnlet6d. - Upon submission,.'of 'any such invoice, �if CITY i.s frsatisfied thu vat CONTRACTOR is,making satisfectory ,,progress-%toward 121 complet on ,if tasks, in accordanc?with this Agreement, CITY shall pr raptly approve" the i,nvoice,` in-which event Payment stall d �Y - ° be made with h thirty v(30)� days k°of=' receipt--���f�the invoie:e by CIT�t: Such appiroval -,shall,'" not be unfkeaSonak�lt� w ='cfiheld. GZf the n 7 V f/ ter, 9w­ ­ 3. ,A ,;... fi ,,, r ,t':-�+nhcit.ak'tFi`u wA: g+�iwnt+kNre16Yt1it�i7l� js 9 • is _ � � E CITY does not approve an invoice, CITY shall ;notify CONTRACTOR in writinc-l_af the rea�.oris for na'n-approval, within seven" (_7) calendar Oays lbk� receipt, of the invoice, and the sched13 7-.e of performance set forth in Exhibit "A" shall be suspended ' ntil the pailies. agree th�t past performance by CONTRACTOR is iri, or ha l�been ,sought nto compl1 nce, or until this Agreement iso terminated pursuant to Section 12 hereof, it ` D,1 Any billings-for extra Work of additional services ,authorized by the :IVY shall .bLr a-,.y, �r s arat iy, t'� 'fthe _ o` CITY, Such invoice shall, contain all of the informa6i6n rbquired„ undeF paragraph 6C,' _an'd in addition, shay °ist the ti• hours expendd and hourly rate ,changed for such time Such invoices 'shall be, approved by C��Y if the Vi6rk performed is in accordance with the extra work or additional services requested, Y. and, if; CITY is ,,satisfied that the staeti ment- of hours worked,and; costs incurred is. accurate. Such approval shall not be unrea-_ sonably withheld. �, Any disputE betwe ~n `the parties wing fjr payment of­su.ch y'an `invoice shall be treated as separate 4a:n`` apart fr6 the ongoing performance of the remainder of this ice, � v. Agreement(! T. "D:ISPO§ITTON Or PLANS, ESTIMATES AND OTHER DOCUMENT'S CITY ack'nowledges �that 'CONTRACTOR"S plans and F> �s = ,specifications 'are instruments; of professional service; ; n�ver_-theless CONTRACTOR agrees that all materials prepared her6c nd"r'i' including all orl4lr►'al drai7ings, designs., reports, both field`sand office notes, calculations, maps and other t documents shall be W ned over to CITY and shall become its 4. MINN, ,, r 41 ''•�` �: r o ert 3 �t ilk'PROJECT cam let orb or earlier termination of this p,� c' y L?, p emea�t a 1n the event this .Agreement is' ter,minated', said materials stay be �}ased by CITY in completion of,', the PROJECT,; however, CITY agrees `�s hold harmless; indemnify and defend = CONTRACTOR against all damages, claims and losses, including defense costs, arising out of CITY :.S re-use 'sf CObTRACTOR'S n plans ,;and spedif-I ations, except ire the compla`�i-on� of the r U - P.RO,r dl in the case of termination hereof', wi ;ut CONTRACTOR'S Co y prioV written authorizatipn. I) "INDEMNIOICATI.ON, DEFEN,S ; I�nLD-HARMLESS 4 ..®. qa CONTRACTOR hereby agrees' to, defend y indemnify and, hold harmless CITY, its officers and employees fr6m and against any and all liability, damages; costs, ,losses, claims and expenses, �J however" causod, arising from CONTRACTOR'S negligence or wvYlful misconduct in tl- a performance of. this Agreement. Any concurrent 6'e504(,,;lce`or willful` misconduct of CITY, its officers and Ii employees 'shall in no way diminish CONTRACTOR' ( pIi gat ions �r -hereunder . w 90 `,--WORKERS CONDENSATION CONTRACTOR shall comply with all of ;the provisions of. ' tale Workers' CompensaUc's� Insurance and 8afe�-Fy Acts of the"State of California, the applicable provisions of DivisionA and 5 of the ,Califor.nia Labort.Code and all amendments thereto; and all Sltil'a,r state or 'federal acts or laws applicable', and sha.l l indemnify, defend and ,hold harmless CI.CY from and againstaall 3aims-,b demands, payments, Suits actions, proceedings and . gments of every .nature ,and descriptions, including attorneys 5. 4 , ' il -. i"niVx+.M.•"a#._ M(. ..: ., ,.i. -:. _ _ WiM1"IW;i[AJi9YY 4� fees and costs presented,, brought or recovered against CITY, for i ,or on account T7 any liability under any of said "acts which may ,be inctitredj b�y r.eason of any work to be performed by CONTRACTOR under this Agreement. iO. INSURANCE:' � .-`9 Ins-addition to the Workers' Compensation Insurance and CONTRACTOR'S covenant to indemnify CITY, CONTRACTOR shall obtain and furnish to CITYthe following insurance policies covering v the PROJECT: A. General Liability Insurance. , A policy of motor vehicle r liability. insurance, in a sum not less thar,,,$300,000. ° Said policy shall name . CITY, its officers and '.employees as Add t onaT Irsureds`C"nd shall specifically provide that 'any `other ins ance- coverage which May be applic- U cable to the, PROJ'EC'I;, shall be deemed excess coverage �t �nrdthat CONTRACTOR°<S insurance shall be primary. Certif, c tes of Insurance for said policies shall be," approved in writing by the City Attorney prior to-the commence- ment went of and work hereunder. All Certificates 'of Insurance (and v the poI cij' of' insurance or,endorsements thereof) shall provide that arty sue�h Certificates Wand policies shall not be cancelled or reduced" in coverage a limits other than payments,;,of claims without thirty (30) days' prior written not,.i-ce to CITY. ` ' 11: INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR is, and shall be, acting C all times in the performance of this .-Agreement as an independent contractor.' 6 xkr . y 6 V j CONT/RACTOR shall secure at its „expense,, and be rssponzible for G �! J any and all payzrients of 71 taxes, social=security, slate dsabilaty insurance compensation, unemploynnent compensation and other .payroll deductions for CONTRACTOR and its officers-, agente, and: employees and alltsiness licenses, if any, in connection !1 with the' services to be 'performed hereunder. j . 12`... TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT All work required hereunder shall be performed in accor'dancs with the standards of the prof'essin for similar, ,prv-�,,;.ssionals performing services in this area; at this time. CITY may terminate CONTRACTOR'S services hereunder at any time <31 wi�i, or. without 'cadse::, and whether or not PROJECT ,is fully ""complete,-` Any t„ermination ,of this Agreement by CITY shall be « ° made. in writing throu4�h the r1ty Engineer, notice of which ' shall,Pe delivered to CONTRACTOR as provided,l in Section 1.6. herein 1V3 m `J ASSIGNMENIi AND SUBCONTRACTING ` r. ~' phis Agreement is' a per service contract ,and the " supervisory workji6reunder shall not be delegated by CONTRACTOR to any other person or entity without the consent 'of CITY. COPYRIGHTS/PATENTS) e CONTRACTOR shall not apply for a patent or, copyright on any 'item or `mate.rial produced as a result of this Agreement, as set ft,eth ,,in 41. CFI 1-9.1. r y;r, J 15 � IT'Y EMPLOYEE$' ,NA OFFICIALS, = CONTRACTOR shall employ no CITY official nor any regular CITY employee in thei'wo'r�, performed., ,pursuant to this 7. A , n t : greem nt.� �No officer`„ or employe of� CITX'oshall have ,. .. 1 r" financial Kin�terest in this `Iax:'I,ement in violatian of Ca,la.fcrnIa Government Pdde"Sections 1090r0et ,seq. - 16ri NdTI vES Any notices. or special instructions required; to be, gived`in writing°Junder /this Agreement shall be given either -lb ► ,><< ,, u persanal . deivery to CONTRACTOR'S went; 'ls designated in 1 - . 7/ Section ] herein bone? or to CITY S Dirbctcr of Public�w rws, ,:,as a ,f t o situati-on '`sna)ll warrant, or by enclos�.x g thesame in, a. ,. s�eal4` envelope, ,postagelrprepaidr and depositing,,,,the `same in the United `Se'ates Postal Sere-ices,, addresssdJas follows; s ToCITZa TO CO ; Mr. Paul Cook,,' Mr. James G: Dou, las Di'recto,r of Public Works; ! Sr. Transportation Planner , City of Huntington .Hea'ch Parsons, Brintcke:rhekif, 'QU de ' 2000 Main Street ; , & i�ouglas-, Inc. � . Huntington Beach, , CA 92648 2323 N. "Broad`way, Suite 200, � Santa And,, „CA� 927Q6 17� ; ENTIRETY �� ., The foregoin:g,�,;and Exhr_,bi't "AA attached:hereto, set forth the enti�:e Agreement- between thy; panties.'` (REST Or RAGE NOT USED') I ;Y o Q c v , tY a 1c + r s > ? !q a 'r.}, a 's .� 9._ 'l t K, 0,0 n YID WITNESS 'WUHRDOF`a tk�� parts es la�eto `i avc caused this" 1J o n f A�re�nzi t to �� exec�utecl' by . id` ck , ough their author ized ofkice,x " thy d� , month '-tcna .year fir; above written' �a �I. CONTR73C.�O1 . � „ r Q "' _ ��C3TY dF HUNTINGTON BEAGH, p �;' a municipa`� aorpo atii on i:dcl PARSONS;,,� lFT aka RHOFF ` r ° QUADE DOUGLAS. INC. c R �Dr,wfien=, V1e Pros e° Mayor ATTEST Ise Fox, -A3st. Vi Be res. �n�t`� City Clerk REVIEWED',AND ;,APPROVED APPROVED AS TO FORM: City 'Ado i istrato ' — G> City Att n/L- U y: 1NITIATED AND °APPRQVED. ( 0 oDirector, off,,Public Works II 1 - �j - U347L A) ., o a 44, x~, .n G r q •1 (5` ° 5DR, l lily / GbT? HA 3ID.STREET EXTRISION STUDY 0 n , t s r a a E DRAPT REPORT; G x Q r Q - a- .R U � ., ✓ll C LI t n Prepared for �, n - CITY OFHUi�nNGIbN BEACH � = Prepared by FARS�1NS DRINCKERROFF QUAD E &.DO#GLASA WC-) o- " OF 0 1 - 1; a C. Aug4# 1986 , I"wig '101,0011111, lien - _ , TABLE OF C99TENTS'r: - y n c Q J ' PAGE XrdTl,01DUCTIO g 4Tl~i'PP IC+ PACTAIY '` _ 1 3 9 o r V Ajaalysis of Over ll'Impucts An�1ysis_of Impadts in 0pecific NroaS r 10 11.1 rU Gt�l�l `�Il�s!f3NS 13 APPENDIX A. TRAJ;FEIC' ODEL, 14 t Jlels?x OF FIGURES , J. Ei ure PAGE . Existirq ArterialStreet.,Systcm 2 r x tang v age Daily Traffic ('Thousands) o 4 g a 3 Exast-Ing Volpine/Lkrecity'R'.atiok(Model Estimates) 6 4� C Existing`Volume/Q�pacity 1 os with Gotha' d/Hoover o kktehsaon.(Niodel Estlmates) °,; - r � ' '7 r 05 dear 2�10 Volume/Capack Ratios (Model Estlmat�s) J � 8 r to 6 Xear,1010 Volume/Ctipacity Ratios With_Gothard/Hoover J Extension(.1V<zadel Estimates) Existing,Model Volumes (Daily Traffic in Thousands) A 2 <J ari,tWij loddl-Volumes with Gothard/hoover Extension t� _ (Daily TeaVie in'Thousands) _ �g A=3 Year 2'010,.Model Volumes(Daily Traffic in Thousands) ; ^'' 0 A-4 'Year 2�410 'del Volumes with'Gotham!/Hooper Exton ion (?)aly�`Tra#fie in Thousands) , - 21 a f; c yt LIST OF T LE3 Table o � °ACa°E r A l 'Trip 0e-neratian�Rates 16 c 4 .: .... ! f GOTHARD STREET EXTENSION STUDY J INTRODDCTiiAlel- 1 The purpose of;, this study is to analyze the traffic impacts associated with the- proposed extension of,Gothard Street from McFadden Avenue in Huntington Beach.to r , , c'Uine4t vtith Hoover Street at Bolsa Avenue it. the City of Westminster. The existing arteriai street system in the area is shown in Figure 1. At the present_ time, Reach Boulevard experiences, significant peak period congestion in this area, particularly }�? between McFadden ,Avenue and Edk-% venue through its interchange with the .San 14ego,Freeway (I-405). Goldenwest Street also experiences peak period congestion, especially in the vicinity of Westminster Mall, the San Diego Freeway irate change, and Goldenwest College., The idea of linking Gothard Street with Hoover Street has been S uggested as a way to provide additional access across the freeway, and to alleviate � some of the congestion on Beach Boulevard and Goldenwest Strut.' In May, 19.86,,,,the , L Huntington Beach. City Council adopted a realignment of Gothard.'Street of the south side of McFadden Avenue in order to align Gothard Street with Hoover'Street north of the San Diep Frepoiay.61 ' The °extension's -engineering feasibility and construction cost estimates are being considered in a separate study being prepared concurrently with thiS traffic impact study. This study is limited to a discussion of hoer much traffic would utilize the extension, and how it would impact traffic volumes,on other streets. To' analyze these traffic impacts, a microcomputer traffic model was developed to " forecast traffic\volumes,in the area bounded by Westminster Avenue con the north, "Edwards Street on the west, veil Avenue on the south, and Newland f°treet on the east. Details of "�_1116 -modelling procedure and traffic 'projections are 'presented in Appendix i4 , 41 The body of this report As devoted to analyzing`the traffic projections. The first sectigc discusses the general impact of the Gothard/Hoover extension on traffic o l) , ;r �r Ile►ve'�$1t13inster Aarq �f Hazard AVG Wdstminst.er mail Bo®sa Ave r McFadden A'VG f; Paaden '�V'We3t Coiiegp U Huntington t, CenterEdinger,Aare 7 c Iw �w e4 �;,= se „ M1 d 04` r GOTHAR® STREET EXTENSION STUDY Figure I&rsonsBrinckerhoff EXISTING ARTEiRIAL STREET SYSTEM Q:ade&Douglas,Inc. Engineers•Architects•Planners .2- c, volumes (existing and future) within the study area, and estimates the extension's relative impact on congestion. The second section discusses specific issues that have been raised in regard to this project, including the traffic impact on indav uai streets and access to major generators. As noted above, the description'of the modelling procedure and the numerical results of the traffic model assignments are presented in Appendix A. t: - r AFFIG IMPACT-,ANALYSIS The traffic impact analysis considers two scenarios: first, the'impact on existing traffic valumesc ano^congestion if 0-611-bard Street were to be extended in the very near future; and second, theAmpact of the extension on traffic volumes'in,the year 2010. The analysis of long range enhditions assumes implementation of the Super Street program on Beach Boulevard, and expansion of Goldenwest Street to six travel lanes;, north,,.of 17405; it also includes future growth consistent wriith current development r j proposals and the county's'long range socio-economic projections. Existing average daily, traffic (ADT) volumes in the study area are shown in Figure 2. Existing traffic volumes on Beach Boulevard in"l;,�e study area range from 61,000 near 17estminster Avenue to 81,000 :n the short segment between 1-405 and Edinger ' Avenue. Exist.7ng volumes on'Goldenwest Street range from 33,000 north of I-405 to 46,600 south of the°freeway. Gotnard Street carries 14,000 to 17,000 vehicles per day within the study area; Hoover Street carries 4,000 to 8,OD0 vehicles per day. {` it Amgal$ s of Overall Imepacts This section' analyzes the general traffic impacts;,associat d with the prop&ed extension of Gothard Street to Hoover Street; the fall' (section discusses the traffic impacts on specific streets, and`Qcse 8 to large traffic generators in the study area. ) Not surprisingly, the main traffic impact of"extending Gothard Street to Hoover Street would,be to attract traffic away'from the congested parallel arterials, providing relief to both Beach Boulevard and Goldeal est Skeet, and a minor 4:1:tffic reduction traffic . on Edwards Street and Ne${uland �5treet. The impacts on east-west arterials' would be 7 t J minimal. .McFadden Avenue afid,. Balsa Avenue (the two per arterials at -3- /� r Waster Ave r 1) \ M� 5 29 e c r_ Hazard Ave rf. 1N"��t r►ai�o s�.�o� s3 T :, Balsa Awe :} 32 19 ' Q I , McFadden Ave 1,5 Golden �Z 12 r west' J ` NNuntingt®n s Ed 9rager AvA conti4 1 4 6 39 31 s Holt Ave, 0. .10 - - a STRE'RT EXTENSION STUDY Figure Nxwns Brinckerhoff EXISTING AVERAGE ,SAILY TRAFFIC "dp&Douglas,Inc. Eirneers•Architects•Flames (Thqusands) -4 r ' c; D +`s 'either end of the proposed extension) would experience minor changes in traffic volumes as a result.of the:extension.'Volumes on other east-west,streets are projected f v to be virtually the same with or without the extension.,, It is projected that the Gothard/Hoover extension would attract approximately 13,000 vehicles pe _,day'in the segment between Folsa Avenue and McFadden Avenue. This would;relieve the parallel segment of Goidenwest Street by about 6,000 vehicles per davand th ;;parallel segment of Beach Boulevard by about 4,000 per day. It would add approximately,4,o®0 to 7,000 vehicles per day to Hoover Street north of Bolsa Avenue, and to Gothard Street south of McFadden Avenue. t.t ; Figures 3 through 6. show-the project's relative impact On nor' --south congestion levels. These figures show. the estimated ratio of daily traffic =volume to vehicle {� capacity on Beach Boulevard, Goldenwest Street, Hoover Street, and Gathard S'ireet. The volume/capacity ratios shownVin the maps represent the traffic`model's estimated J traffic volumes'as compared to'the typical traffic capacity for a comparable arterial :r� } street. Since the'traffic madel's volumes are` estimates, and since the actual traffic, capacity of a particular street depends upon a number of variables (including the number of turn lanes at'.intersL6ctions, the presence of on�treet parking, the peak hour percentage of traffic, etc.), ,these volume/capacity ratios do not represent the actual peak hour traffic',conditions`'on these arterials. These data are'usefvl for comparing the relative congestion levels with and without the extension, and for comparing future,congestion levels with the existing condition. Two general conc�usions can be drawn from the analysis of volume/capacity ratios. First, tl?e'Gothard/Hoover extension would provide congestion relief to both Beach Boulevard. and >Goldenwest Street, particularly near the lrii6rch6nges with I-405. Second, implementation of the Super Streets improvements on Beach Boulevard and the assumed widening of Goldenwest Street north of I--405, would significantly increo.ate capacity on these two arterials. These improvements are projected to provide more congestion"rellef than the "Go6ard/Hoover extension; however, even with` these improvements in place, future congestion through the I-405 interchanges is projected to be"severe. t: C4 Co % % T' F- u TIE- 10 to 41 .9 WOWS c, F. X Lo - F ,�J a r.r o .�� : st ��'�'s°�'9�E'`O` I6l�II1lilid�l ��1lIllI �II a • . k tl'2 G®thox er9 Beech Blvd Ca •lt• �cc 8� to CL CD >, ;r --9p p _ 00 4 R a •-► O 1 f t 1 y i .. d - 8 1 1 1 r ti _ r. x f ^ ^ �J $ „ „cc r 4 tu to �@1 Xio Ift �e UUAA Il 111 ib e�,���,�oi�l`p ��l'1�1'9�1` 1-1 I'll IlIlisp _ *�� :• - - _ 4 - r � 4 , . _ _ J _ i 5 WE ((( r( k e G' to ,� F <, ,* 5 Go;den West St, �► ; 1 1 ii1�4i .. lt1 [ � � � I19i�9.6l� 1 1 1 6 1 1 I-III; • 11 `I 1 � l711 ! 1 G) C 4 g G®thard SS r; . Illlillllllil 4 r �l Hoover St � U -M Beach Blvd � fu , PIN 0 cc .. CD bo j - � - A •O10a % ® -� t _ w r �e to 0 IM J CL lift ® y J WOE. so +ice 1 < 5 J/j - • k ..s.ti....... ......o..• 0 so 1 E i i 1 i 1 1 i 1 �► C4 "c} :� s � iic oeiaos a� ,� r• a -� � 'e'�'.o'_ 111�I1i11 101!116i1r1il .. .B A 6 I 1�1�1•IOe�l�iB eEoOe��s�e' ... . . .... ..._..., As Isom 049 , dt Cis r �. Je.L Law.lsiH•e� .rtl(...m.+ai:f...,vaer - i r — 5 3 lk r Jf is is of Iryhpac in S2ecifie Areas 1 This section analyzes the impacts Hof the dothard/hoover ext�nsaon on specific street4g l and large traffic. diierat€srs within the stud area. Traffic rojections are rod ded to g g y p:. p give the reader an-ord�; -reiagnitu3e estimate of the ely traffic impact. T:iese estimates should,be taken- as approximations; actual t�,.Xlc conditions in the ,future could differ from these traf fie alume estimates. 1t The discussion of each specific issue area considers traffic conditions with and without the Gothard/Hoover extension, in'the existing condition and in the year 2010. l Beach Boulevard. In the existing,condition, the Got j#rd/Hoover extension would reduce traffic on Beach Boulevard between Bolsa Avenue and McFadden Avenue by about ,000 vehicles por day. The traffic`naodep projects only modest,traffic decreases '~ on other sections of Beach Boulevard (about 1,000 vehicles per day). The nog,result is I� a fa`rly modest reduction of con estion along Beach Boulevard. g g In the future condition, the Super Streets improvemenis would reduce the existing ^ level of.congestion on Beach Boulevard without the Gothafd/Hoover,exttension, except_'' through the Beach Boulevard/1=405 interchange.."The extersion would reduce traffic on "Beach Boulevard by abou�� 5,000:Ivehicles per day between Bolsa Avenue and. AIcFadden� Avenue, and by�2,000 t(i 3,000 vehicles per day elsewhere in .he ;study urea.?, In.the future condition, the Gothard/Hoover extension;would provide a`modest reduction,o f� " congestion all along Beach Boulevard thi:_ ugh the study areaJ� v a 1 f , Goldenwest Street. In the existing condition, the Gothard/Hoover extension 'would reduce traffic volumes*on Goldenwest Street by 3,000-to 6,000 vehicles-per day.' This results-.in i\proved traffic flow, particularly through the 1-405 interchange. In the futup� condition, the assumed expansion of Goldenwest Street to six lanes north of I--405 significantly reduces projected traffic congestion in that area. The " Gotherd/Hoov(c r extension would reduce traffic volumes on, Goldenwest Street by 3,600 to 8,000 vehicles per day. This'would particularly reduce congestion through the I-405 interchange and would improve traffic flow between Bolsa Avenue and Edinger' = Avenue. /I = -10- Raw �) �'Yi,r�,�> d .- it � ,., .o f• _ ;r -� a. L ` o c! r Hoover Street. ,,In the, existing condition,,the Gott and/Hoover extension between Bolsu Avenue>and McFadden Avenue is projected-to,carry 13;GOO vehicles'per day. ,North of ° 4 Bolsa Avlmug sth6?extension would increase itrafft volumes on Hoover street by 4,000_, l z to 7,000 vehicles per day. With the adder]L Eiffic, the volume-on Hue,,,rer Street would fie 'Well below the capacity of a four lane divided,arterial. ; 16-the year 2011.0 the Gothard/Hoover extension is projocted�to curry ,15,000 vehicles' per day between B6186 Avenue a d McFadden Avenue. The increased capacity on Beach boulevard from the Super Streets imp ovement's, combined with.the assumed ;expansion of V GoldeniWest'Street.to six lanes north of I-405 are largel,�respons tale for,: the modest;4raffic increase projected'far,thij str4e from the existing condition to the yeas 2010. North of Bolsa Avenue, the extension is,projected to add 6,000 .to 9,000 vehi les per 1�"n rr day to Hoover Street it.the future condition. -With this additional traffic, the volume on Hoover Street is projected to be`well below the capacity of a four lane divided r; Uotharel Street. In We existing condition, the"GathardlHq-ove1 Fxtenz.ion is projected 1 to add 4006 to 6,000 vehicles per day to Gothard Street south, of McFaddera"Ave nue. With tile,�additignal traffic, the volume on`=Gothard Street is`pro7ect2d'jo be well below the capacity of a faur lane divided arterial.,. Inth caI'7Vothard/ overexe�sii i oected� , i H to, add 5,000 to 7,000 vehicles gpelr day te- Gothard Street south of McFadden Avenue,. *ith the additional tAffic,,the volume on Gothard Street is projected to be well below the r capacity of-a four lane divided�arterial. 134,14i Avetitie. The Gothard/Hirver extension is projected to have only e minor impact on Bolsa Avenue. In the existing,and f//uture conditions, traffic on Bolsa Avenue east,10f, 61 Ho�ver,$treet is projected 'ta increa e by, 2,OUta, Vehicles per day as a result f the ,,extension. Gthervris , traffic'proetions for Balsa,Avenue would h be affeked by. o the�xtenslon. McFadden Avenue.' %n ,the exisdiig con ii�tion, the' Gothard/Iiootper extension is projected to reduce ti-affie volumes onIMcFadden Avenue by 1,000 to,2,000` vehicles r� \\ `per day between Goldenwest street and Beach Boulevard. In the future condition, the extens on'Jis'projected.to reduce traffic on Mq''isdden Avenue by :0tt0 vehicles per day west of.Gothard Street and/y 1,000 vehicles pet day= east of Gothard Street. , Edinger Avenue. The. Gothard/Hoover ea ionsion is projeet-bd to have minimal impact on 6affic volumes,utilizing Edinger Avenue. In the existing and future conditions, the extortsion would re duce (traffic on Edinger Avenue by q out 1,000 vehicles per day in the i,Acinity of9Gothar,,d Street.,, Westminster Mall. For Westminster Mall, the primary benefit of the extension 'ywould beCt6tpaduce the level of traffic congestion on G,oldenwest, Street through the I-405 irate phdhga and Bo1ga Avenue. This reduction in congestion:would improve access to the mall.for'traffid coming from bath'the<S yr th and south. "The extension would also -rovide an alternate route to Westminster Mall for some traffic originating loath of t I-405, Huntington Center: The extension mould improves access to Huntington Center through the modest reductioon of congestion won Beach,Boulevard, and b.p providin an alternate route for traffic from the north to reach Huntington Center. Goldenwest,College. 'The Go°hardJlioover extension would improve access from -the.,, north to (3olde' nwest College by reducing congestion on Goldenwest Street through the i 'in,O.rchange, and ''by providing an 'alternate route to the college for traffic coming fro,it-the north ,;.- Redevelopment area at Bolsa Avenue/Hoover Street in`the City of Westminster. TII'e ex£ensiom would improve access to thereglopment area by reducing congestion on - Goldenwest Street and Beach Boulevard, and by providing an`additional access route for traffic originating south of I-405. _ 'Target Center (Beach Boulevard/Heil Avenue). The GOI and/Hoover extension would 1 provide a minor improvement in access to this future, shopping center for traffic - corning froth the north by the modest reduction of congestion thong Beach Boulevard ' c �1 41 :u N ppyqPP U ON n � The mnel-d6ldiks of the traffic impact an;' sis e. %or £ly sun arized below: i! ® T"e• Gothar�jllgover extension would attract approximately 13000 to, f 15,000 :nicle p'er daV,between Bolse t�vea%e and l leFedcien Avenue, Y 3 'the extension 'would add, 4,000 to 7#000 vehicles per, day,to Hoover.,�,t-6 t i north of Bolse, ,venue and to d'thard Street south o£ McFadden Avettrx yS t, ,4 �� ,in congestion on Be�e�� :. .� • The extension would provide a modest �eduction.,i Boulevard thr_ougN the study area. m The extension;would�providOa moderate reduction in traffic congesti ai�,pn Goldenwest Street, dspeeially in the vicinity of the 140,5 iiitei°change: The,extension Would have.little impuet on traffic volumes using east-west „ streets through the study arch.PI , � 0 J -13 r-, i b _ 4 o'! /.� r. xa, � r vi APPIONDIX A_ r , YRAFFIC MCAP ; -,; Thin section:presents a techriida'l' description of the computer traffic model which was` used Jo the Got hard Street`Extgihsion Study. It describes how the model was set up afid caiibratecl;' and prwntsthe, traffic assignments which were the basis of the traffic q w 'impact,analysis.. As the reader reviews t1'ie,modal results, he should keep In mind that the purpose of this traffic model,, was to estimate the traffic impact of the Gothard/hoover extension. Although the model was c� brated as-closely.as pps0-ble_to existing traffic conditions, the level of detail,wihich was available for preparing the land use data, trip generation rates, and trip distmibution factors, 'make this model (like most traffic ,> models) difficult to calibrate precisely for every segment of every,street in the study areal- ^The model's projected traffic volumes are presented in this suction for the sake ` of cgmplete"tress, but the emphasis of this analysis should be placed on We relative impacts of the"prefect which are described in the main body of the repot. The study area selectee'for the traffic model is bounded by Westminster Avenue on e=south and Newland Street the north, Edwards,Street on the west, Heil Avenue o. , y% on the east. This area was divided into 27 zones for the purpose of traffic: generation, distribution, and assignment. The zones on the south`"side of the San Diego Freeway c®rrespnnci with the zone structure of the Huntington Beach Transportation Derriand Model.QiTDM), although tional zone was added alone Gothard Street of oneaddi Edinger A4,,�.iue to better reflect the traffic assignment in that area.: North of the San " t Diego°Freeyvay, the study area was,divided into zones approximately the same size as the zoneq south of the freeway: "laxisting and future (year 2010) land use data was assembled for each zone within the study area. For the zones south of I-405, the HBTDM 1977 base year land rise data was 1 used as the base,rand updated to existing conditions with data provided by the City of Huntingtor_.Beach, and by reviewing an aerial photograph of the area. For the zones u J it K) r north of I'-40, 5s the county's OCTAM model socio-eco.nomic data base was disaggre- gated into the zones used for this study with the assistance of the aerial photograph. The existing land use tease for the study°area was updated,to the year 2010 projections l: lasing the projected growth faetors from the, OCTAM model data base,'and modified ; c with information provided by,the City of Huntington Beach to include more specific estimates of growth.in such areas as Huntington Center, One `pacific Plaza, and the Target Center. a, The traffic model network includes all of the existing arterial streets within the-study area, plus the San Di4 p Freeway and :its interchanges 1Cth Westm-inster Avenue, Goldenwest=Streeta-and Beach 'Boulevard. In the existing network;the arterial streets were.L,oded with the existing number of.lanes. In the futures network, Beach Boulevard was modified'to reflect the adopted Super Streets improvements, and Goldenwest Street vas'modified tIc nclude six travel lanes north of 1-405. In other respects, the, future network is the same as the existing network. ,'The Gothard/Hoover extension was assumed as a`four-lane facility between.Bolsa Avenue and McFadden Avenue., Trip'generation for the study'area was calculated on the basis of the total'number,',of daily.vehicle trips in each o _,�; The trip generation rates applied to the model were based on the daily''trip generation rates used in the HBTDW.L And trip generation data from the I'TE Trip Generation manual (third edition). The daily generation rates applied to each of the thirteen land uses in the traffic model are shown in Table A-1. Trip distribution data were obtained from three sources: the-'trip table in the HBTDM was ageTegated to show the directional distribution of traffic from the south part of this study area; the- traffic distribution used in the One Pacific Plaza traffic impact study was obtained; and the existing traffic counts on the streets and freeways heaving the study were ob%ineda It was assumed, by extrapolating,data from-the HBTDM, that approximately 25% of all trips generated would remain within the 'study area. The model distributed'the trips using the 25% internal trip capture in combination with the c� assumed external trip distribution percentages. During the calibration of the model, the external distribution percentages ,were adjusted somewhat to better reflect -15- 777 h ,y `dN TABLE A-1 TRIP GENEZ�&TMN RATES Bend Use _ `Mai . Trip Generation Low Density Residential 10 trips per unit: DAedium Density Residential is trips per unii3 High Density Resid-iptial 6 trips per unit Retail' 60 trips per 1,000•sq. ft., Major Shopping Center 35 trips per 1,000 sq. ft. Office 18 trips peT 1,000 sq. ft. Industrial 7 drips per 1,000 sq. ft., a Parks 7 6 trips per acre Elementary-Schools 60 trips per acre gligh,Sahools: �� 80 trips per acre U� c. College 1.7 trips per student Centetary. 5 trips Frer acre Public/Quasi-Public " 10 trips per 1000 sq. ft. the, existing'traffie eondations�within the study area. The final external distribution' percentages used.in the model are shown below e 17% to the north--west via the San Diego Freeway. e 21,% t� the south-east via the San Diego Freeway. a 12% to the north,via arterial streets'.- 0 10% to the east via arterial streets. 0 20% to the south via arterial streets. 4 20% to the west,via arterial streets. The distributia� of traffic 'to these external locations was not thi same for each gone.`: During the calibration of the modal, friction fa ctor§ were applied to thee travel patterns so' that to a certain extent ,,,external trips from a zone-`wouiiD go to the. external locations closest to, that zone. The distribution procedure which was used to ' calibrate the model to the existing condition was applied-to the year 2010 model as = well. �•r' -16- r _ r Q i Once the existing trip distribution data had been calibrated, through traffic (trips which pass through the study area without stopping) was added tc.=the arterial streets and freeway. Through traffic was estimated by' calculating the difference between existing traffic counts and the traffic generated in the project area. In the model of future'conditions, through, traffic was increased to represent the relative growth projected byAhe OCTANT traffic model for the next 25 years. Through traffic on the freeway Sand the north south arterials was increased by 25% to reflect;this long-termU ` << o growth;through ti=affic on the�east-west arterials was increased by 30%. Thee traffic assignment 'procedure which most closely replicated the existing traffic volumes in the study area was a stochastic, capacity,-'constrained assignment. This 4 procedure loads 20% of the traffic in the trip table onto the network, then ` — recalculates:speeds and assigns another 20%; this procedure is followed;until all trips kv ihave been assigned to the Network. In each 20% increment, the trips are spread out to >�\ a certain extent between the possible routes between an origin and destination, with the shortest rouge receiving the majority of trips. In each subsequent 2.0% increment, travel times change to reflect the loading of traffic, so trips tend to distribute themselves between P2Ndrnative routes 'even more in the latter increments of the Psgnment process, The results of the traffic as1l gnment procedure are shown in Figures.A-1 through A-4. Figures A-1 and A�2 show the model's estinyate of existing traffic volumes without and with the`Gothard/Hooverextension. Figures A-3 and A-4 show the model's projections of year 2010 traffic volumes without and with the Gothard/Hoover extension. r a \1 -17- r— - - 8 .tminster Aire _. 1. 24 '�1 �o Hazard Awi, _ 60 - ��� �' rt Westminster Bo6Sa Ave 35 26 2 40 McF8dd®,!p Ave $ 22 18 Golden \ 'West College f Huntington Center Edistger Ave 84 3`y. 3 f, F �> Moll Ave Ca 1 15at15 14 �l GOTHARP iTREET EXTENSION STUDY Figure EXISTING !MODEL VOLUMES Parsofts Bninckerho y e�ae&A ,�c.E (Daily Traffic is Thous4ndS . ���•Architects•Planners -i$- c rr �� J c� r L �VF wtminater Ave 2 26 2 f* i% HiizsAf A" mall X Boisa Ave 3%$ 22') McFadden Ave 2018 Y West College 4 o f.Huintington E�'in�c C4 Cnntec- Ave 83 t . rl ,31 36 33 26 a f � e� • II N Heil A vt (A 16 15 - 1� Q- GOTIHARD STREET EXTENSION S EIDY Figure � Ll l li iL�J1L1l�aLe Ll!!® EXiSTING. ,MODEL MiUMES iWl Persons Douglas,I fi' G O 7�HA RDIHOO VER EXTENSION �� AmAe Quadet�c Douglas,Iris. Enginc> rs �; -Ptanne (Daily 'Trnffr c 1n Thousands) Westminster Ave '0. 39 32. 29 sy �sffiQ �4f Hazard Ave vim 0 weatminster, A �da:19 Balsa Ave 4-`1 3� 2�. �feFaa�daas-A ve 22 25 g Golder Vi est - Coilege Huntingtont' 3 Centee go�ggar Aare "�' 104 49 to Well Ava 19 20 21 it GOTHARD S�fR&Ei EXTENSION STUDY Figure '�tIQD YEAR 20 /0 MODEL VOLUMES P'wsow brhmakerhoff QuMa&Douglas,Inc. Enginea'a.•Azchitea is•Planners (D a f y T r a f f l P' inTOF®t1 aB1 S) f I f2 1, , -20a , Westminster Ave r 3 32 Hazard Ave V 91 13 Weatministor r mail B®isa Ave . ,i 1 3 .2T to AfcFaddsrn,,Ave 23, 2 a f-f��li$e�9i ewes Puntington 11 �: 0 t®r Edinger�A vs. �' � 101 Hell Ave, 19 20 m„ ens ILIA C OTHARD STREET EXTENSION STUDY Ra ure mftdh�a air ye Pera�©ns BHnekernofE ,;with GoithardlRbcver:Extension �® a�uade&I3bugla€,Ine. 11 Engiaeera h; PlannersGaily Traffic in Thousands). G -21 I I r