Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutIWA ENGINEERS - HOOVER GOTHARD EXTENSION - 1986-07-07Q CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK March 5, 1990 IWA Engineers 17390 Brookhurst Street Suite 100 Fountain Halley, CA 92708 CALIFORNIA 92648 The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at the regular meeting held Monday, March 5, 1990 approved Engineering Services Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach and IWA Engineers for the design of the Bothard/Hoover Street Extension. Enclosed is an executed copy of the agreement for your records. Connie Brockway City Clerk CB:bt Enc. ITelephons: 714.536-5227 ) REQUEST FQ,.I REDEVELOPMENT �. ENCY ACTION Date Honorable Mayor and City Council March 5, 1990 Submitted to: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator U.. Submitted by:AAg-T.ouis F. Sandoval, Director of Public Works APPROVED By CITY COUNCIL Prepared by: 3 � �. GOTHARD —HOOVER STREET EXTENSION 19�4 Subject: Consistent with Council Policy? Yea New Policy or Exception CITY Cel-ii Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: A qualified civil engineering firm is required for environmental process, permitting and to prepare street and structural improvement plans, specifications and cost estimates for the Gothard — Hoover Street Extension including the San Diego Freeway underpass modification. RECOMMENDATION: I. Approve the selection of IWA Engineers for the design of the Gothard/Hoover project. 2. Establish a design budget of $330,000.00 (this will include the consultant agreement of $308,435.00 and $21,565.00 for incidentals) 3. Authorize the Redevelopment Chairman and Agency Clerk to execute the attached Consultant Agreement with TWA Engineers for a fee not to exceed $330,000.00 ANALYSIS: The Gothard/Hoover Street connection is a stated goal for the Huntington Center Commercial District Redevelopment area as one of the regional traffic circulation improvements. The project will construct a roadway paralleling the Southern Pacific Railroad between McFadden Avenue and Bolsa Avenue. This will allow a direct connection from our commercial area to the Garden Grove Freeway, 2.5 miles to the north. This project will be constructed with the cooperation of the City of Westminster as the project is within that city; however, benefitting ours. Caltrans, Southern Pacific Railroad. Public Utilities Commission, Orange County Sanitation District and the Southern California Edison Company are other parties with interests in the project. A feasibility study was completed and a portion of the right of way as acquired in 1987. The roadway was added to the Arterial Highway Master Plan in 1990. Proposals to accomplish the Environmental Processing, the permit processing, design and construction documents were requested from five firms. Four proposals were received and each firm was interviewed by a committee of staff representing Redevelopment, Public Works, Community Development and the City of Westminster. IWA Engineers was selected by the committee as the firm to be recommended to the agency. P1011185 Request for City Council Action Gothard - Hoover Street Extension March 5, 1990 Page 2 The proposing firms and their fees are: IWA Engineers $308,435.00 NBS/Lowry Engineers and Planners 326,000.00 Willdan Associates 345,600.00 Centennial Civil Engineers 416,000.00 Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas, Inc. No response - (existing heavy workload.) FINDING SOURCE: Redevelopment Funds: Huntington Center Tax Allocation Bonds budgeted in Account No. E-TH-PC-914-6-39-00. There will be no City of Westminster participation in funding for this project. LT RN ACTION-: Deny approval of IWA Engineers and direct staff on how to proceed with the essential street extension improvement. ATLTACEWNTS: Consultant Agreement Vicinity Map PEC:LFS:AAF:dw 2335g/4 N�i fL\\'F•r•I Ir AVE • I y•I DIY �� / it Y II ��I<t I� Iti'/SAS T(R c�l. <� ca " E q M Z3� �M i5RI � „_ �T ti I'�M {j^ �!I 5��14 NSTER J I I s r I FIrGo- .'S l� Yy Pr%.�S �.� h11'ebh Slaern 2 F` o I As 1,An t .' ;; ... d, , I_ Srhj 71. 1 f: •9 • . ,.• y _ : 1 �Lallr f.IH �I. y,ti� N �r t 46 1Yetlminsler } W. 'd• Paik ry +—•_ r CHiNOO,c rAYC ' / ~ '_ �•r• j ,•a, I _ 1tallGf tf ] ' 1. - 1IIYh Scll,�� 4_—' J •' it a •'�• =.1 3�k -� '4 L , `I i ~ • _ •Crl ')�11� Ian; �I: - 30�- a + ( Sc1, =1(( 1� i�i I Lr� tr A /aR �! =I1 O, I I �` rorrr ll sr r 1 I - ( [6 N ' , I1 J �v-•PO,•LAR S �' I�AIARd I JVC r I J �' ' ;c I_-- .?�F�}(11jE76 �_`CUH - _ •ITRa.�rwfJ •i r •I l' 1'�' 1 1 I'westm(nsteij �� /thl t `1 •r-•-T--r---r'1-'',�� �_'` ' ( e fn o I r A( P F Yi c I f yJ `d W t `f�.,, ? _i, ion r ,_ = rYt, _,s.=• - Ia ROYAL OA xI O t / I OYGn `t'vti aVi'ESp•'M FIST t, N 1 33 I •) L;A S CCcr �C 'S w VIESTMINSrE .=f-`'� `.! G rc 11 1 O MEMORIAL PA K ��� o A - ffl�i ja cchY >� ' �, 1 ISM (Ctmetery) \ `• i s rN r A II .0 IIM II 'I s1A'il iio ! J„ -� }I ' O f y BOLSA AVE w,, ryr, �l IQ iIr )1uNIrINcbUN F.rA!n 1• \ �,■�� •�_. I �•„ i'l,.11 ,I�r�r�,i.�l.�-�,s_C,� Pa(1-' •�� -? 1,J• ,.=._�J I�SrhruS 4._' III(., j „_ -:-s _-= t-J • �� c„ 1(} , Y Pa k • Y .,. 1� o 7, III Dn II,. c1 I �� bpi, ■_ ��r5-, �e c•: �I, .., ; : ; (�. �,� � I ,I—` _ t�'; fi lk-coHN[Li r, '� _ i y.l •1 �t I '� 'c ' > ch �- II � N I r NT ■ • ,_ e,i= :=rf II �I II �,I�.11 ll3rlln1 II." i I N .Y� r MYCFADDEN _AVEzl• ` I(IppI': ftrI pN �01 C ` Av[' 14 7p VI,r'. „ Itlu ----- uP! lJ c tt.i, sr `5 i • r. _ 7U � PRr C,F irA��z r�R w'� ' . r, ,.. II I I . [ Ir • . . r. I I(.,_11Y„ }., .Z�,,CENTER AVE�-esch II, _ Cirrla Vitav 1I 1! -fir_ _: .--= - -- `- ' .._e❑ �1 21 Jtichr=rdUr)rkw 11' u -. I e, J I �i-1 .. 2 i I � r ..,.u„�•U la I.1. � R 'l ■ � r • jq :.�.v,.er_ _-'y_ n 1 -_ -_ "•J' ,/ _. •r _ _ -.,I I yet :i}�*��. b� ��'. �Y�i ItpyO�. II -ROYALS f� �I �'I� al� 4 - p ,� M ' Ts\u I `f.'�i~i.�:<• .ri ••a`C� I- LA PEDINGER AVE ._. ... AVE /7Cw L'T r7--� EnI S�meilze wt�'—___I...II �v 1113 C• - - I I full e i•ItLw , W �., [n —Z O •��r a Sah �,� 0�., m- I t • t C 1 . ••• } .��' 1 I� AVCI L--••,.— -'ir`= �=l .It:`-' c �a ,...,k � \t_F^511■S���t}.1S�C0 s �� -N- PROPOSED GOTHARD ST. EXTENSION FIGURE 1 GOTHARD ST. EXTENSION ld ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF AND IWA ENGINEERS FOR THE DESIGN OF THE GOTHARD/HOOVER BETWEEN THE HUNTINGTON BEACH STREET EXTENSION TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE PAGE(s) 1. WORK 5TATELT-ENT 1 2. QITY STAFF ASSISTANCE 2 3. TIME OF PERFORMANCE 2 4. COMPENSATION 2 5. EXTRA WORK 2 6. METHOD QF_PAYMENT 2, 3 &4 7. DISPOSITION OF PLANS. ESTIMATES,. -AND OTHER DQCUMENTS 4 8. INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS 5 9. WORKERS' COMPENSATION 5 10. INSURANCE 5 & 6 11. CERTIFICATES OF INSURA CE• ADDITI NAL INSURED 7 ENDORSEMENTS 12. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR 7 & 8 13. TERMINATION -OF -AGREEMENT 8 14. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBCQNTRACTIhG 8 15. COPYRIGHTS/PATENTS 8 16. CM -MELOYEES AND OFFICI LS 8 17. NOTICES 9 N9 ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AND IWA ENGINEERS FOR THE DESIGN OF THE GOTHARD/HOOVER STREET EXTENSION THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 6�� day of iy]ahr. 1990, by and between the REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a municipal corporation of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as "AGENCY," and IWA ENGINEERS, a California corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CONTRACTOR." WHEREAS, AGENCY desires to engage the services of an engineering design contractor to provide plans, specifications and cost estimates for the Gothard/Hoover Street Extension in the City of Huntington Beach; and CONTRACTOR has been selected to perform said services, NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by AGENCY and CONTRACTOR as follows: 1. WORK STATEMENT CONTRACTOR shall provide all services as described in the Request for Proposal, dated October 19, 1989 and CONTRACTOR S response dated November 17, 1989, and amendment dated January 10, 1990, (hereinafter collectively referred 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 Jerry R. Wood, who shall represent it and be its sole contact and agent in all consultations with AGENCY during the performance of this Agreement. -1- � L,J 2. CITY STAFF ASSISTANCE AGENCY shall assign a staff coordinator to work directly with CONTRACTOR in the performance of this Agreement. 3. IIME 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 this Agreement and all tasks specified in Exhibit "A" shall be completed no later than sixteen (16) months from the date of this Agreement. These times may be extended with the written permission of the AGENCY. The time for performance of the tasks identified in Exhibit "A" are generally to be as shown in the Scope of Services on the Work Program/Project Schedule. This schedule may be amended to benefit the PROJECT if mutually agreed by the AGENCY and CONTRACTOR. 4. CQMPENSATION In consideration of the performance of the engineering services described in Section 1 above, AGENCY agrees to pay CONTRACTOR a fee of Three Hundred Eight Thousand Four Hundred and Thirty -Five Dollars ($308,435.00). 5. 3E�LTRA_WORK In the event of authorization, in writing by the AGENCY, 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 AGENCY is obtained. 6. METHOD OF -PAYMENT A. CONTRACTOR shall be entitled to progress payments toward the fixed fee set forth in Section 4 herein in accordance -2- with the progress and payment schedules set forth in Exhibit A". B. Delivery of work product: A copy of every technical memo and report prepared by CONTRACTOR shall be submitted to the AGENCY to demonstrate progress toward completion of tasks. In the event AGENCY rejects or has comments on any such product, AGENCY shall identify specific requirements for satisfactory completion. Any such product which has not been formally accepted or rejected by AGENCY shall be deemed accepted. C. The CONTRACTOR shall submit to the AGENCY 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 provisions of this Agreement; and 5) For all payments include an estimate of the percentage of work completed. Upon submission of any such invoice, if AGENCY is satisfied that CONTRACTOR is making satisfactory progress toward completion of tasks in accordance with this Agreement, AGENCY shall promptly approve the invoice, in which event payment shall be made within thirty (30) days' of receipt of the invoice by AGENCY. Such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. If the AGENCY does not approve an invoice, AGENCY shall notify CONTRACTOR in writing of the reasons for non -approval, within seven (7) calendar days of receipt of the invoice, and the schedule of performance set forth in Exhibit -3- `.) "A" shall be suspended until the parties agree that past performance by CONTRACTOR is in, or has been brought into compliance, or until this Agreement is terminated pursuant to Section 12 hereof. D. Any billings for extra work or additional services authorized by the AGENCY shall be invoiced separately to the AGENCY. Such invoice shall contain all of the information required under paragraph 6C, and in addition shall list the hours expended and hourly rate charged for such time. Such invoices shall be approved by AGENCY if the work performed is in accordance with the extra work or additional services requested, and if AGENCY is satisfied that the statement of hours worked and costs incurred is accurate. Such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Any dispute between the parties concerning payment of such an invoice shall be treated as separate and apart from the ongoing performance of the remainder of this Agreement. f •• • • ,�; t M am !1#140906*1 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 AGENCY upon termination of this Agreement or upon PROJECT completion, whichever shall occur first. In the event this Agreement is terminated, said materials may be used by AGENCY in the completion of PROJECT or as it otherwise sees fit. Title to said materials shall pass to the AGENCY upon payment of fees determined to be earned by CONTRACTOR to the point of termination or completion of the PROJECT, whichever is applicable. CONTRACTOR shall be entitled to retain copies of all data prepared hereunder. -4- 8. INDEMNIFICATIN_AND HOLD_HARMLESS CONTRACTOR hereby agrees to indemnify and hold and save harmless AGENCY, its officers and employees from any and all liability, including any claim of liability and any and all losses or costs arising out of the negligent performance of this agreement by CONTRACTOR, its officers or employees. 9. WORNERE _ _ OMPEUSATION 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 AGENCY from and against all claims, demands, payments, suits, actions, proceedings and judgments of every nature and description, including attorney's fees and costs presented, brought or recovered against AGENCY, for or on account of any liability under any of said acts which may be incurred by reason of any work to be performed by CONTRACTOR under this Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall obtain and furnish evidence to AGENCY of maintenance of statutory workers' compensation insurance and employers' liability in an amount of not less than $100,000 bodily injury by accident, each occurrence, $100,000 bodily injury by disease, each employee, and $250,000 bodily injury by disease, policy limit. 10. INSURANCE In addition to the workers' ccmpensation insurance and CONTRACTOR'S covenant to indemnify AGENCY, CONTRACTOR shall obtain and furnish to AGENCY the following insurance policies covering the -5- V LJ PROJECT: A. GenerAl Liability Insurange. A policy of general public liability insurance, including motor vehicle coverage. Said policy shall indemnify CONTRACTOR, its officers, agents and employees, while acting within the scope of their duties, against any and all claims of arising out of or in connection with the PROJECT, and shall provide coverage in not less than the following amount: combined single limit bodily injury and property damage, including products/completed operations liability and blanket contractual liability, of $1,000,000 per occurrence. If coverage is provided under a form which includes a designated general aggregate limit, the aggregate limit must be no less than $1,000,000. Said policy shall name AGENCY, its officers, and employees as Additional Insureds, and shall specifically provide that any other insurance coverage which may be applicable to the PROJECT shall be deemed excess coverage and that CONTRACTOR'S insurance shall be primary. S. Professional Liability Insurance. CONTRACTOR shall acquire a professional liability insurance policy covering the work performed by it hereunder. Said policy shall provide coverage for CONTRACTOR'S professional liability in an amount not less than $500,000 per claim. A claims made policy shall be acceptable. -6- V LJ 11. CERTIFICATES OF INSURANCE: ADDITIONAL INSURED ENDORSEMENTS Prior to commencing performance of the work hereunder, CONTRACTOR shall furnish to AGENCY certificates of insurance subject to approval of the Agency Attorney evidencing the foregoing insurance coverages as required by Sections 9 and 10 herein; said certificates shall provide the name and policy number of each carrier and policy, and shall state that the policy is currently in force and shall promise to provide that such policies will not be cancelled or modified without thirty (30) days prior written notice to AGENCY. CONTRACTOR shall maintain the foregoing insurance coverages in force until the work under this Agreement is fully completed and accepted by AGENCY. The requirement for carrying the foregoing insurance coverages hall not derogate from the provisions for indemnification of AGENCY by CONTRACTOR under Section 8 of this Agreement. AGENCY or its representative shall at all times have the right to demand the original or a copy of all said policies of insurance. CONTRACTOR shall pay, in a prompt and timely manner, the premiums on all insurance hereinabove required. A separate copy of the additional insured endorsement to each of CONTRACTOR'S insurance policies, naming the AGENCY, its officers and employees as Additional Insureds shall be provided to the Agency Attorney for approval prior to any payment hereunder. 12. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR is, and shall be, acting at all times in the performance of this Agreement as an independent contractor. CONTRACTOR shall secure at its expense, and be responsible for any -7- and all payments of all taxes, social security, state disability insurance compensation, unemployment compensation and other payroll deductions for CONTRACTOR and its officers, agents and employees and all business licenses, if any, in connection with the services to be performed hereunder. 13. TERMINATION !�F AGREEMENT All work required hereunder shall be performed in a good and workmanlike manner. AGENCY may terminate CONTRACTORS services hereunder at any time with or without cause, and whether or not PROJECT is fully complete. Any termination of this Agreement by AGENCY shall be made in writing through the City Engineer, notice of which shall be delivered to CONTRACTOR as provided in Section 16 herein. 14. ASSIGNMENT AND E UBCONTRACTING 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 consent of AGENCY. 15. 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 CFR 1-9.1. 16. rITY EMPLnYEES AND OFFICIALS CONTRACTOR shall employ no AGENCY official nor any regular AGENCY employee in the work performed pursuant to this Agreement. No officer or employee of AGENCY shall have any financial interest in this Agreement in violation of Colifornia_Government Code Sections 1090 et seq. -8- 17. NOTICES Any notices or special instructions required 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 AGENCY'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 Postal Services, addressed as follows: TO AGENCY; TO CONTRACTOR: Mr. Pat Spencer Mr. Gil Purdy Director of Housing and Redevelopment IWA Engineers City of Huntington Beach 17390 Brookhurst Street 2000 Main Street Suite 100 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 18. ENTIRETY The foregoing, and Exhibit "A" attached hereto, set forth the entire Agreement between the parties. 19. COMPLIANCE WITH HBMs CHAPTER 3.03 This agreement has been procured pursuant to, and complies with the provisions of, Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 3.03, entitled "Professional Services." 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: IWA ENGINEERS W W,�-.Rzw-F• THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, A mun' 'pal corporation of t'of Cali ornia Chairman ATTEST: 404p� Agency Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ��- 42zi- Agency Attorney 30-go REVIEWED, INITIATED AND APPROVED: Director of Housing & Redevelopment -10- 1, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Proposal for Gothard-Hoover Street Extension Design Submitted by IN'VA ENGINEERS s NOVEMBER 1989 0 IWA ENGINEERS 17390 8rookhunt Street, Suite i00 Fountaln %blley, Callfornla 92708 (714) 968-1221 • FAX (714) 968-9286 January 10, 1990 Mr. Tony Folaron City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 Subject: Gothard/Hoover Street Extension Proposal Dear Mr. Folaron: The scope of work in our proposal has been modified to include the 8 traffic -related mitigation measures recommended in the staff report from the City of Westminster for street improvements on Hoover and on Garden Grove. Enclosed herewith is our revised fee to include this work. This effort was inadvertently left out when I first reviewed the scope of work due to some erroneous conclusions that I made when I reviewed the supplied information. I assumed that the project boundaries were to remain at Bolsa and that the traffic -related improvenent recommendations were going to be performed at a future date. I also assumed that some sort of funding arrangement between the two cities would have to be worked out for these 8 traffic -related improvements before they could be included. Please consider our proposal and project team with this additional scope of work included. If I can answer any questions concerning this I will be happy to. Very truly yours, IWA ENGINEERS r erry Wood, P.E. Encl. SECTION 5 FEE Table 2 lists the estimated for each task and subtask. The total represents a maximum not to be exceeded amount to be billed on an hourly basis per the enclosed rate schedule. TABLE 2 GOTHARD-HOOVER STREET EXTENSION FEE SUMMARY MSK M 1 - Preliminary Engineering and Processing 1. Existing Information $ 1275 2. Survey 6640 3. Aerial Mapping 5675 4. Geotechnical Evaluation 17250 5. Drainage Study 3050 6. Environmental Documentation 5426D 7. Preliminary Plans 21350 8. Processing and Approvals 12050 9. Meetings/Coordination 4785 SUBTOTAL $126335 2 - Plans, Specifications and Estimate 1. Plans $109250 2. Specifications 3600 3. Estimate 3360 4. Right-of-way 4600 5. Meetings G070 SUBTOTAL $126880 3 - Permits $13400 4 - Bidding $ 1600 5 - Construction Services $22200 Reimbursables Computer $ 2900 Reproduction 15120 SUBTOTAL $18020 TOTAL $308435 J1 IWA ENGINEERS 17390 Brookhurst Street, Suite 100 Fountain Valley, California 92708 (714) 968-1221 • FAX (714) 968-9286 November 17, 1989 Mr. Les Evans City Engineer City of Huntington 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach, Beach CA 92648 Subject: Proposal Gothard-Hoover Street Extension Dear Mr. Evans: Enclosed herewith for your review and consideration are four (4) copies of IWA Engineers' proposal for the referenced project. It is with some pleasure for me to finally see this project come closer to construction through the efforts of the City staff. We are, of course, very interested in designing this project for the City. Our project team includes exactly the same firms and per- sonnel who worked on the feasibility study and know the project very well. We and our project team are very well qualified for this assign- ment because of our experience with highway design and with Caltrans and the railroad company. In addition, you will find an extensive scope of work and project approach developed based on our understanding of the project, the City's RFP, the Westminster environmental action, and our previous experience with this project and similar projects. We also developed a detailed schedule which includes significant time to process the project through the many agencies which will be involved, as well as time for environmental work and processing. We hope our previous ex- perience with the project will enable us to process it through the railroad company as quickly as possible. We look forward to performing a major assignment for the City and to continuing to working with you on this project. Very truly yours, A ENGINEERS r uq­d-v ry 7wood, P.E. ce-President Encl. TABLE OF CONTENTS DESIGN OF GOTHARD-HOOVER STREET EXTENSION Section No. Description 1 Similar Projects 2 Project Description/Scope of Work 3 `I Personnel 4 Project Organization/Schedule S Fee 6 Insurance Exhibits Exhibit No. 1 - Organization Chart Exhibit No. 2 - Schedule Appendices Appendix A - Street and Highway Experience Appendix B - Caltrans Experience Appendix C - Insurance Coverage Appendix D - Rate Schedule SECTION 1 SIMILAR PROJECTS IWA Engineers is a 35 person civil engineering firm whose specialties include transporta- tion improvements. IVVA has extensive past experience with similar projects like the Gothard-Hoover Street extension, including street improvements, drainage improvements, railroad crossing, Caltrans coordination and experience and public and utility companies interface. Similar projects in the key areas are listed below: Street ImprovemenTs Appendix A contains a list of recent street improvement experience. Included in this ex- perience is drainage improvements. Recent similar projects include: Campus Drive `Ndening John Wayne Airport Costa Mesa The widening of Campus Drive is part of Orange County's John Wayne Airport Im- provement Program. The widening extends from MacArthur Blvd. to Bristol St. and involves four (4) public agencies: the County of Orange, Caltrans, the City of New- port Beach and the City of Irvine. The Campus Drive bridge over SR-73 freeway was widened by 20 feet and the existing four lane cross-section with median turn Iane was widened to six lanes with left turns allowed only at intersections. Addi- tional work included signal design, storm d:ain revision, parking lot reconstruction, right-of-way acquisition and maps, and utility relocation. The street is reclassified from a secondary highway to a modified major highway. The pro),ect involved ex- tensive coordination with the above named agencies and several utilities. Construc- tion cost was $4.0 million. Main St., Columbine Ave. and MacArthur BIvd. MacArthur Place Santa Ana As part of the first phase development of the 4.0 million square foot development of MacArthur Place in Santa Ana, the streets of Main St., Columbine Ave. and MacAr- thur Blvd. were improved and widened. Included in the street widening design were drainage, sewer, water and utility improvements. Extensive coordination with public agencies and utility companies was provided. Also an extensive on -site street im- provement system was designed. Construction cost $4.1 million. Towne Center Drive City of Cerritos Cerritos For the City of Cerritos, IWA prepared street improvement plans for Cerritos Towne Center, a 125-acre site in Cerritos. The project included new roads, storm drain facilities, water lines, sanitary sewer, parcel maps, grading, utility lines, local coordination with ' developer and local agencies, traffic signals, street lights and Iandscaping and irrigation. Construction cost $5.0 million. Railroad Improvements. IWA Engineers and Carl Schiermeyer have worked together before on coordinating and design.for railroad track or right-of-way improvements. Similar recent projects include the following: Grand Ave./AT&SF Railroad Crossing Santa Ana :? tesitpet�Ci of�SantaAna Carl Schiermeyer and IW repared a application and Iq�p pve the railroad crossing Grand Ave, in he.'t of Santa Ana. The on and preliminary design were processed through the PUC. I.5 Widenin SP Railroad Right -of -Way Santa Ana For the proposed widening of the I-5 freeway through the City of Santa Ana, Carl Schiermeyer coordinated with the SPRR to acquire their right-of-way next to the freeway in or er o acs i a e e wt ensng of the freeway. Norwalk/Amtrak Railroad Station IWA and Carl Schiermeyer prepared preliminary plans to construct a new Amtrak Station in the City of Norwalk. U.S. Naval Weapons Center, Seal Beach At the U.S. Naval Weapons Center at Seal Beach staff of IWA Engineers designed the realignment of 15,000 Iineal feet of railroad track plus six (6) road crossings with mast arms and automatic controls. Caltrans IWA Engineers is one of the leading firms in /!z County in working with and designing freeway improvements and coordinating with, trans. Appendix B contains a list of Caltrans projects that TWA has planned and designed. The staff has a close working relationship Mth the Caltrans staff in District 12. 2 k1.0' SECTION 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE OF WORK PROTECT DESCRIPTION IWA Engineers is very familiar with the project having prepared the original study for the connection of Gothard and Hoover underneath the SPRR overcrossing underneath the I-405 Freeway. The project is clearly shown on th-. improvement figure from IWA's report and consists of realigning Gothard St. in Huntington Beach near its intersection with Cen- ter Ave. and constricting it underneath the I-445 Freeway along the railroad right-of-way to connect with Hoover Ave. at its intersection vAth Bolsa Ave. in Westminster. The joint use of the new roadway and the railroad spur that parallels the new roadway will require the realignment of the railroad tracks and an at -grade crossing with the tracks. In order to fit the roadway underneath the freeway, the roadway will have to be elevated requiring an extensive system of retaining walls constructed underneath the freeway. The impact on the existing freeway bridge will have to be assessed. Construction of the project will involve numerous public and private agencies, including: o City of Huntington Beach o City of Westminster o Southern Pacific Railroad o Public Utilities Commission o Caltrans, . o County Sanitation Districts o Westminster School District o SCE o GTE Close coordination and cooperation with all these agencies and utility companies will be necessary to construct the project. OCSD has a easement that parallels the project the en- tire length between McFadden and Bolsa and their cooperation will be necessary. The key agencies will be the railroad company and PUC in order to realign the tracks and construct the crossing. The railroad company has not been enthusiastic about the project in the past and, if the railroad company does not cooperate, application for the crossing may have to be made directlyto the PUC. The realignment of Gothard will cross a major SCE trans- mission right-of-way and SCE's permission will be necessary. In addition there are telephone poles along the alignment from Bolsa to McFadden which are carrying power and telephone lines that will have to relocated as part of the improvements. Homes and a school border one side of the alignment and sound attenuation walls will be necessary to mitigated tha noise impacts associated with the project. In addition, the _ mitigation measures identified in the City of Westminster's Negative Declaration must be complied with. Drainage on the Westminster side will connect to some existing Caltrans drainage as cur- rently exists and will require close coordination and approval of Caltrans. On the Hun- tington Beach side the drainage for the new street will drain to McFadden which then con- tinues to the intersection with Vermont and into the housing track to the east which is lo- cated in Westminster. Hydrology studies will have to be prepared to determine the impact k on existing drainage facilities and determine if any drainage improvements will be neces- sary to obtain approval of the various agencies. A new traffic signal will be constructed at the intersection of realigned Gothard and McFadden (the existing traffic signal might be relocated or portions of it reused) and the traffic signal at Bolsa and Hoover modified. SCOPE OF WORK The scope of work for this assignment is broken into five tasks as follows: o Task 1- PreIiminary Engineering/Processing o Task 2 - Plans, Specifications and Estimate o Task - Permits o Task - Bidding o Task 5 - Construction The scope of work in each task follows. Jam- li ii]a En in ring./Prog ss ing Before proceeding with detailed design, enough preliminary engineering must be per- formed in order to finalize the design, determine 01 the impacts and process the project with all the various agencies and utility companies and obtain their approval for the preliminary design and the project. This task is divided into the following subtasks: 1. Existing Information Since IWA already is very familiar with this project, this subtask will require mini- mal effort and consist primarily of obtainin& existing as -built information from the existing agencies to supplement the information already on file with INVA. 2. Survev Ground control will be set for aerial mappping along the alignment for horizontal and vertical control. In addition, groundpfeatures that would affect the design or that cannot be determined from aerial mapping (such as underneath the freeway bridge) will be obtained. This would include the Caltrans drainage. Cross -sections will be obtained every 50 foot intervals. Thedigital cross -sections will be loaded irectly into IWA's computer facilities to be incorporated with the results of the aerial mapping. An encroachment permit will be required from Caltrans and the railroad company in order to obtain the survey and should be the first item of work. 3. Aerial Mappine A topographic map of the alignment using aerial mapping will be obtained. The contour interval will be 1 foot. The aerial mapping will be prepared using analytical triangulation for stereo compilation showing the 1 foot contour intervals, spot eleva- tions,.and all manmade features visible on the aerial photograpphs. The aerial map- ping will be obtained in a DXF file and loaded directly into INVA s in-house com- puters for making up base maps and editing. n V 4. Soils-nnd Geotechnical Evaluation The purpose of the geotechnical investigation will be to provide geotechnical input to design. 'Me scope of the investigation will consist of: o a field investigation o laboratory testing o engineering analyses o report preparation o consultation and meetings Because of vertical and Iateral restraints of the undercrossing, innovative design and construction techniques will be required. The stability of the existing overpass and -- approach erbankments cannot be adversely affected either during or after con- struction. Several key issues will have to be addressed during design: stability of the embankments during and after construction, constructability of the abutment retain- ing walls, effect of the grade increase on the existing bridge foundation, and the proposed retaining wall supporting the new street extension. Based on a preliminary review of the project, "soil nailing" may be considered for the abutment retaining walls. Soil nailin.o, is a relatively new construction technique that has several advantages over conventional retaining wall systems for this project. Soil nailing is a method of reinforcing in -situ soils using passive inclusions to retain excavations or stabilize slopes. The incIusions, or "nails", are usually placed in near -horizontal boreholes and grouted along their total length. As opposed to t tiebacks, the inclusions are not stressed. The outside facing of the structure, which ensures local stability between the reinforcement layers, usually consists of a thin layer of 4-to 6-inch-thick shot-crete with steel mesh reinforcing between the nails. Installation of the nails and the shot-creting of the face are performed from the top of the excavation down in successive 3- to 6-foot increments, Soil nailing and other methods of in -situ reinforcement of the excavation should be considered for the construction phase to alleviatethe need for soldier piles, which would be difficult to install for this project. Soil reinforcement methods may also be considered as part of the final retaining wall design. 1. The retaining wall supporting the street extension can be constructed using either reinforced earth, crib wall, or other system that requires minimum foundations and i minimum foundation preparation. Only relatively shallow borings will be drilled consisting of approximately 4 borings ' since deep borings have been drilled for the existing bridge. The shallow boring will `` be located at approximately 500- to 1,000-foot intervals to provide areal coverage of the entire street alignment. Selected samples will be tested in the laboratory to determine the soil conditions and develop the factors that will affect the design and R-values will be determined. The results of the field investigation and laboratory results will be used to make recommendations for the design of the structures, foun- dation types, lateral earth pressures, asphalt pavement thickness. A report outlining i� the findings of the geotechnical investigation will be prepared and copies provided. In addition to the design support services for the geotechnical investigation, con- struction supervision to monitor the construction can also be provided but are not included at this time. - 5. HrainaM Study A hydrology study will be prepared for the project. There are two distinct areas to be studied - north of the freeway and south of the freeway. North of the freeway the drainage will dischargeto a Caltrans concrete swale along the freeway and the drainage calculations will have to conform to Caltrans standards in order for them to accept the drainage. On the south side the drainage will flow in the street curbs to McFadden and then east into the housing tract to the east. The impact on exist- ing drainage facilities on both sides of the freeway will be evaluated and any recom- mendations for improvements will be made and incorporated into the design. 6. Environmental Although some preliminary environmental analysis was competed as part of the pre- vious feasibility study, construction of these improvements has not received CEQA clearance in either City or from Caltrans/FHWA. Based on a review of available materials and discussions with City and Caltrans staff, the following approach for the environmental document is recommended. The City of Huntington Beach will serve as Lead Agency for the preparation of a ocused Environmental Im cRegort. The City of Westminster will be a Respon- si a gency an wz also document for its a proval of the pproject. Caltrans and the Public Utilities Commission will most likely also serve as Respon- sible Agencies for this document. This EIR will serve Caltrans as only as CEQA document. It appears that federal environmental clearance for the underpass will necessitate only a Categorical Exclu- sion (CE). Caltrans will use the EIR analysis in repparing the CE, but no consultant involvement in the preparation of the federalyFHWA document is expected. If Caitrans/FHWA determines that a CE is not sufficient, these agencies will likely require an Environmental Assessment under federal guidelines. In this case, the environmental document would be prepared as an EIR/EA, meaning that it would be a combined state/federal document. (The additional cost of the combined docu- ment has not been included in this proposal). The main focus of the. EIR will be the analysis of noise impacts on adjacent residences, school and park. The City of Westminster has also indicated a need to conduct a noise analysis along Hoover from the I-405 Freeway northerly to the Gar- 1 ; __--aen Gr ve reeway. The concern is for additional traffic added to Hoover as a result of the extension of Gothard to Hoover. The EIR will include a review of cir- culation impacts based on existing studies (new traffic studies are not proposed). The EIR would also review potential impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, Iand acquisition/displacement, pedestrian/vehicular safety, security, and growth induce- ment. The existing noise environment will be described through a comprehensive noise measurement survey and computer modeling assessment of existing traffic and other noise sources. Noise measurements will be made at a representative number of sites in the project vicinity. These sites will be located at adjacent residential land uses and other noise sensitive land uses. Ten (10) measurement sites will be in- cluded as part of this noise survey from the I-405 freeway to the S.R. 22 Freeway. s . The measurement results will be used to validate the highway noise model as well as to determine the existing ambient noise levels. The results will be presented in terms of LEQ noise level. Based upon the noise measurements survey and the existing traffic data, the existing noise levels along the existing sections of the roadway will be determined. The traf- fic noise levels will be computed using the Highway Noise Model published by the Federal Highway Administration ("FHLVA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model", FHWA-RD-77-108, December, 1978). The FI=IWA Model uses traffic volume, vehicle mix, traffic distribution, truck percentages, vehicle speed and road- way geometry to com ute the noise levels. The noise levels will be determined- in terms of the CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level). CNEL is used by the Cities of Huntington each and Westminster. The noise levels will be presented in a tabular format. In addition, the specific noise levels at all residential, institutional and any other sensitive receptors will be identified in terms of a representative receptor analysis. Short term analysis impacts such as those associated with roadway construction will be described' based on the type of equipment used for the roadway construction. Hours of construction and the estimated construction duration will be presented. Control of construction noise through the application of the City noise ordinance ' will be discussed. The future noise levels exposure for the project under consideration will be developed and compared with respect to existing noise levels. The noise levels will be determined in terms of the Iocal CNEL criteria. These results will be presented in tabular format and the resultant noise levels at the representative receptors iden- tified. Based upon this analysis, the areas where mitigation is required to meet City noise standards will be determined. The environmental effects will be studied for land uses along Gothard/Hoover from McFadden to Route 22. Noise attenuation may be required in those sensitive areas where the local CNEL standards are aroached or exceeded. In this task, measures to reduce any poten- tial impacts will ppbe identified. Mitigation through the design and construction of a noise barrier (wall) is the most effective way of alleviating traffic noise impacts. The effect of a noise barrier is critically dependent on the geometry between the noise source and the receiver. A noise barrier effect occurs when the Iine-of-sight be- tween the source and the receiver is penetrated by the barrier. The greater the penetration, the greater the noise reduction. Areas will be identified for which a noise barrier would be required to comply with State criteria. Barrier locations, Iength and height requirements for such barriers will be identified based on prelimi- nary roadway design information. Where noise barriers cannot be constructed other methods to mitigate the noise to acceptable levels at the residential units will be recommended. 7. Preliminary Plans Using the results of the topographic mapping, drainage study, soils studies and the environmental studies (noise study), preliminary plans of the alignment will be prepared. These plans will be prepared at a scale of 1"=20'. This will require 7 plan and profile sheets. The detail required by the various agencies and public utility companies to approve the design will be shown on the improvement plans. This will include roadway, retaining walls and modifications to freeway underpass, railroad improvements, right-of-way and legal descriptions, sound walls (and other s sound attenuation devices or approaches), drains a improvements, utility modifica- tions, and trafficimprovements. These plans will be used to update the construction costs of the project and process the project to obtain the approval of the various 7 agencies and utility companies. Design calculations will be prepared for the retain- ing wall design, drainage design {hydrology and hydraulics, right-of-way calcula- tions, and noise calculations. Preliminary right-of-way drawings will be prepared to show existing rights -of -way and right-of-way modifications required as a result of the project. • After the preliminary plans are processed and approved by the two cities, they will be submitted to the other agencies and utility companies for processing, comments and approvals. Meetings will have already been held with all of the agencies previ- ously listed in order to receive their input and incorporate their comments and issues into the preliminary design. As previously indicated the critical agency is the railroad company. If they decide to not support the project,then application will have to be made directly to the PUC for approval of the railroad crossing. It is recommended that the final design for the project not proceed until letters are ob- tained from all the agencies with their approval and the conditions of their approval. During the preparation of the 1986 report prepared by IWA, officials of the S.P.R.R. were interviewed regarding the proposed crossing of the' new roadway. The railroad officials expressed their opposition at that time to the angle of the crossing. IWA also interviewed staff of the PUC who indicated no great concern _- about the crossing because of the low volume of train movements couple with the proposed high level of protection devices at the crossing. IWA team members have met again with S.P.R.R. officials recently to once again review the position of the railroad. The meeting took place on site and the railroad once again ex ressed its concern about the crossing but suggested that a design be submitted to ex for review. If the railroad continues to reject any crossing but agrade-separated crossing, the City has the option of filing a request directly with the PUC which can then issue an Order approving the crossing. The City would in any case have to make such a re- quest for a new crossing even if the railroad supported the crossing since only the PUC can approve railroad crossings. The approach with respect to the railroad company will involve submitting a set of the preliminary plans to the railroad for its preliminary approval. The railroad should be able to respond within 60 days. - If no satisfactory answer has been received within 90 days, IWA will prepare the technical submittal to the PUC for the City. Since the PUC process involves the submission of testimony under oath, the City may wish to secure specialized counsel to handle the actual filing, if the proceeding is adversarial. i • Based upon discussions with the PUC and knowledge of other actions, the City will have a strong case to secure a positive PUC Order irrespective of opposition from the railroad. However, opposition from the railroad would slow down the approval i_ process and increase the time required to approve and ultimately construct the project. The Environmental Document will also have to undergo the normal processing U through the two cities and the other public agencies. The processing of the prelimi- nary plans and the environmental document will occur simultaneously. E 9. Meetings and Coordination As previously indicated, meetings will be held with all the agencies and utility com- -- patues as the design progresses to incorporate their individual requirements into the design before the preliminary plans are finalized. This will include frequent meet- ings with the staffs of the two cities. The intent will be to be assured of approval from the agencies and utility companies when the preliminary plans are submitted for formal review and comment. In addition, public meetings are anticipated to be attended as a result of the environmental processing. PRROODUM o Review and obtain of existing information o Survey, aerial mapping and topographic maps o Soil and geotechnical report o Drainage Study o Environmental review and processing and document o Preliminary plans, including right-of-way documents o Processing and approvals of the various agencies and utility companies o Frequent meetings and ongoing coordination Task 2 - Plans, Specifications and 5timale _- After the preliminary plans have been processed and the approvals of all the public agencies and utility companies have been obtained, the final design will be performed. This task is divided into the following subtasks. .. 1, plans Table I lists the improvement plans estimated for this project. All the plans will be prepared using IWA's computer facilities and produced using AUTOCADD. A rough estimate of the number of sheets required for sound attenuation is included. This is for budgeting purposes only and may have to be modified after the noise study is completed and the extent and types of sound attenuation devices are deter- mined. ON , 0 The technical specifications for this project will be based on using the "Green Book" with special provisions provided for technical items not covered in the "Green r Book", standard specifications. The City of Huntington Beach will provide the boiler plate and bidding documents for the specifications. Some of the specifica- tions may be in Caltrans or railroad format for processing through those agencies. 3. Estimate At each milestone for submittal of the plans and specifications a construction cost estimate will be provided. 4. Right Right-of-way will be required from the railroad company in order to construct the project. In addition, modifications to existing easements may also be necessary to construct the project. This subtask consists of preparing the right-of-way documents for the additional right-of-way and/or easements required to construct the project. S. Meetings r- During this task, frequent meetings will be held with the two cities as well as the staffs of the other public agencies and utility companies to review the design. N'C•16 o Plans - See Table 1 o Specifications o Estimates o Right-of-way documents o Frequent Meetings Task 3 -_Permits Task 3 consists of processing the final plans and specifications through the various agencies in order to obtain the permits to construct the project. It is anticipated that encroachment permits will be required from Caltrans and the railroad company, with similar permits re- quired from the other agencies. Because of the large number of other agencies involved, it is anticipated that this task might take some time, since the proJ'ect cannot be constructed until all the various permits are obtained. In order to expedite this task, frequent meetings will be held during Task 2 to review the design as it progresses to minimize the review time and comments from the agencies and utility companies when the final design is submitted. Permits will be'required from: o S.P.R.R. o Caltrans o SCE o OCSD o Westminster o Westminster School District o PUC 9;• o Permits and permission to construct the project Juk 4-Xiddine During the bidding phase IWA will provide 40 sets of the necessary glans, specifications and estimates for construction of the project. During bidding IWA will be available to in- terpret the plans and specifications, the bids that are received and make a recommendation to the City on award. 4 k n As requested in the RFP, IWA will provide construction support services including the fol- lowing: a. Review of all shop drawings for compliance with plans and specifications. b. Review and make recommendations on change orders. C. Attend biweekly meetings at the job site during construction. d. Prepare and provide one acceptable set of reproducible "as -built" mylar drawings. 10 TABLE 1 .GOTHA.RD-HOOVER STREET EXTENSION ESTIMATED SHEET LIST Sheet No. ci i n 1 Title Sheet Notes, Maps, etc. 2 Typical Cross -Sections, Details 3 Plan and Profile 1" =20' 4 1"=20' Plan snd Profile11'=20' 5 Plan and Profile1"=20' 6 Plan and Prolate1"=20' 7 Plan and Profile1"=20' 8 Plan and Profile1"=20, 9 PIan and Profile 10 McFadden Intersection mprovements (1"=20) 11 12 Bolsa Intersection Improvements (1"=20') Drainage Plans @ Mc -Fadden 13 Drainage Plans 14 Drainage Profiles and Details 15 Railroad Crossing Improvement Plan and Details-- 15 Retaining Wall Plan and EIevations 17 Retaining Wall Plan and Elevations 18 Retaining Wall Plan and Elevations 19 Retaining Wall Details 20 Retaining Wall Details 21 Retaining Wall Details 22 Striping PIan 1"=40' (1"=40' 23 Striping Plan 24 Traffic Signal @ McFadden 25 Traffic Signal @ Bolsa 26 Traffic Control Plan 27 Landscape & Irrigation Plan and Details 28 Landscape & Iris ation Plan and Details 29 Street La kiting Pan 30 Electrical Plan 31 Miscellaneous Details 32 Miscellaneous Details SECTION 3 PERSONNEL Exhibit No. 1 shows the project organization and key personnel assembled for this project. The key personnel lists include the personnel who assisted in the preparation of the original feasibility study prepared by IWA and provide continuity and efficiency in the per- formance of this assignment. A short description of the key personnel follows: Principal-ln-Charge - Jerry R. Wood, P.E. - Mr. Wood, one of the Principals of IWA En- gineers, has 19 years of experience in civil engineering pro ects. Mr. Wood has managed numerous highway qnd Caltrans-related projects and has a thorough understanding of high- way and Caltrans standards and guidelines. He has extensive experience in preparation of PS&E, preparation of geometric plans, and construction for many highway and Caltrans freeway projects. Project Manager - Gil Purdy, P.E. - Mr. Purdy has over 30 years experience in engineering planning and design, as well as 10 years field experience in surveying and engineered con- struction. Mr. Purdy was Project Manager for the preliminary engineering for three freeway interchanges and two overpasses for The Irvine Company in the City of Irvine, in. the Alton/1-5 interchange, the Irvine Center Drive/I-405 interchange, the Alton- Barranca/SR 133 Freeway interchange, the Barranca/I-5 overpass, and the Irvine Center Drive/SR 133 Freeway overpass. As Project Manager for a 450 acre urban and regional commercial center for The Irvine Company, he was responsible for infrastructure planning and for preparation of plans and specifications. Project included major streets and freeway connections as well as major site grading and the water, sewer, storm drain, telephone, electric, and private communication facilities. Drainage Engineer - Zoltan Elek - Zoltan Elek has 25 years of experience in hydrology and hydraulics including drainage studies, storm drain pipelines, culverts and drainage facility desi&n. Mr. Elek has prepared design plans for drainage improvement facilities for numerous highway and development projects in Southern California including the cities of Irvine, Fullerton, Santa Barbara, Newport Beach and San Juan Capistrano, including Caltrans and freeway projects. He has prepared storm drain master plans for large developments throughout Southern California, including a Master Drainage Plan for a 5,000 acre Irvine Coast project including detention basins, erosion control facilities, and culverts for crossing Pacific Coast Highway and State Park area. The drainage plan was approved by Orange County EMA and Caltrans. Mr. Elek also recently completed the drainage design to Caltrans standards for the Campus Drive project at the John Wayne Airport, the SR-101 Freeway/El Rio on and offramps in Oxnard and the Rose Ave. of- (ramp improvements i Oxnard from the SR-101 Freeway. Mr. Elek is one of the Ieading hydrology engineers in Orange County. Traftie Engineer - Joe Foust, P.E. - Joe Foust is a traffic engineer with 20 years experience in the Orange County area. His principal areas of expertise include transportation system management, analysis of roadway/arterial highway alternatives, intersection and signal sys- tern design and capacity analysis, traffic management in residential areas, and microcom- puter applications for solution of traffic engineering problems. Structures Engineer - Wei Koo, S.E. - Mr. Koo has 12 years experience in providing struc- tural design and project management for highway projects, and specializes in bridges. He has worked with the staff of IWA Engineers for over 9 years. Mr.- Koo is an expert in bridge design standards for Southern California (including Caltrans requirements) and 11 enjoys an ongoing working relationship with the Caltrans structural department in Sacramento. He has designed numerous bridges througghout Southern California, including freeway projects. He designed the Campus Drive Overcrossing widening on SR-73 in Newport Beach, a 22-mile long highway drainage structure, including reinforced box cul- verts and hydraulic drop structures ran�ing from 40 to 60 feet, the 35-foot high retaining wall used to construct the Universal City/SR-101 Freeway in Universal City, the Wagon Wheel Undercrossing widening on the SR-101 Freeway in Oxnard, and a new bridge on Imperial Highway in Orange County. Soils Engineer - Alan Yourman, P.E. - Mr. Yourman has over 10 years of practical experience in all aspects of geotechnical engineering including site selection, site investiga- tion, engineering analysis, construction observation and testing, and project management. Representative experience include the Cerritos overcrossing in Cerritos, CA, evaluation of embankments on existing underground facilities; Yale overcrossing in Irvine, CA, evalua- tion of embankments on existing underground facilities; Day Creek Bridges in San Bernar- dino County, CA, a geotechnical investigation for nine crossings/bridges over a storm drain channel; North access road, Vandenberg Air Force Base, a geotechnical investigation of new access road to the SLC-6. Environmental Planner - Dwayne Mears, AICP - Dwayne Mears has 10 years of private and public planning experience, with an extensive background in environmental For and processing. Mr. Mears has completed numerous environmental documents for road- way projects, including the previous environmental analysis for the Gothard-Hoover Street Over/Undercrossing Feasibility Study. His experience also includes the I-405 Freeway Corridor Improvements EA; Euclid Avenue Widening EIR/EA; SR-101 Universal Center Drive Interchange EIR/EA; SR-91 Shoemaker Avenue Overpass and Interchange EIR/EA; Bloomfield Avenue and 183rd Street Widening Initial Study; Superstreets Demonstration Project EA. Noise Analysis - Paul Dunholter, P.E. - Mr. Dunholter is Principal of Mestre-Greve Associates and has extensive experience in conducting noise studies for road and freeway improvement projects. Mr. Dunholter completed the previous noise analysis for the Gothard Street extension feasibility study. Surveyor - Rusty Francis, L.S. - Rusty Francis is a Certified Chief of Parties and an L.S.I.T. in California. He has well over 20 years of experience in all aspects of surveying for design and construction projects. He is expert at using computers for boundary calculations, set- ting coordinates, etc. Mr. Francis is expert in boundary and aerial -topographic surveys and in providing survey information for the design of highway improvement projects. Caltrans Coordinator - Marie Marston, P.E. - Ms. Marston has 9 years experience in plan- ning, design and construction of freeway and highway improvements, grading, hydrology, geometrics, and storm drains. Ms. Marston worked for Caltrans in a number of different departments before joining IWA Engineers, giving her a complete and thorough knowledge of Caltrans standards, in n procedures. With IWA Engineers, Ms. Marston has been Project Manager Engineer on numerous freeway projects in Southern California, in- cluding the Universal City/101 Freeway interchange in Hollywood, Costa Mesa/I-405 Freeway Access Study, Irvine/I-405 Freeway Access Study, Campus Drive Widening Project in Orange County, and numerous other Caltrans projects in Southern California. Railroad Co. Coordinator - Carl Schiermeyer - Carl Schiermeyer is Principal of Schiermeyer Consulting Services, specializing in railroad and mass transit issues. His ex- perience has included extensive dealings with the Sante Fe and Southern Pacific Railroads. Mr. Schiermeyer has also served as Chief of Staff to the Assembly Transportation Com- mittee and was the Director of Government and Community Affairs for the American High 12 Speed Rail Corporation, the private venture proposing to build a Bullet Train between Los Angeles and San Diego. He was also Senior Deputy to Los Angeles Supervisor Yvonne Burke, advising the Supervisor on transportation and land use issues and conducting special research on the question of light rail development in Los Angeles County. OCSD Coordinator - Mark Esquer - Mr. Esquer has 6 years experience in design of high- s , way and freeway improvements, storm drains, and water and sanitary sewer systems. Mr. Esquer was project engineer for the Del Obispo Street Widening Project in San Juan • Capistrano, which included widening the existing street, coordination of utility relocations, and construction of a retaining wall. He was project engineer for the Rose Avenue/101 Freeway interchange improvements project in Oxnard, California which included the design of new freeway ramps, drainage facilities and utilities relocation. He was also responsible for the design of the Santa Clara Avenuel101 Freeway interchange improve- -- ments in Oxnard, California which included modification of the existing ramp system, ad- jacent street widening, and agency coordination. Mr. Esquer has a working relationship with OCSD staff and has designed projects for that District in the past. Quality Control Manager - Doug Incledon, P.E. - Doug Incledon, Principal of IWA En- gineers, has over 28 years experience in freeway and highway design. Mr. Incledon has ex- tensive Caltrans related experience and has managed large and complex multidisciplinary projects. He fully understands all Caltrans procedures and guidelines and maintains a working relationship with Caltrans staff. Landscape Architect - Peter Miles - Peter Miles is a registered landscape architect with over 15 years of landscape experience. He has designed landscape improvements for street t improvements and other facilities throughout Southern California and has provided landscape architectural support for IWA highway projects in the past. Ix 13 IWA ENGINEERS PROJECT ORGANIZATION GOTHARD - HOOVER STREET EXTENSION Roadway Design R/lf, Legala Drainage Traffic Engineer S. Runk, P.E z Elek J. Foust, P.E. 6 R Westwood II D. Beodor Quality Control Crditrans 000rdination D. Incledon, P.E. M. Marston, P.E. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY OF WESTMINSTER CALTRANS S.P.R.R./PUC OCSD SCE PRINCIPAL —IN— CHARGE J. Wood, P.E. PROJECT MANAGER G. Purdy,. P.E. Structures Soils Environmental W. Koo, S.E 2 A. Yourmon, P.E. D. Mears, A/CP 3 L Greer P. Danholter Railroad Co. J Landscape k Coordination OCSD Coordination Irrigation C. Schiermeyer M. Esquer P. Miles, L.A. Survey/Aerial R. Francis, LS. Pictorial Sciences Project Team Members 1. IWA Engineers -2-W K41o_k Associates I The Planning Center 4. Hording-Lowson Associates 5. Pictorial Sciences 6. Austin —Foust Associates ME IN SECTION 4 PROJECT ORGANIZATION/SCHEDULE PROJECT ORGANIZATION Exhibit No. 1 showed the project team members assembled for this assignment. A short description of the other project team members follows: IV. Koo & Associates W. Koo and Associates is a structural engineering firm specializing in engineering and design of bridge and grade separation projects. The staff of W. Koo and Associates have _ working knowledge of Caltrans bridge design criteria as well as AASHTO and AREA. They also have in-depth experience in seismic analysis in accordance with the Caltrans criteria, augmented by working knowledge of ATC-067 and state-of-the-art computer modeling. The firm is also equipped with the latest CADD hardware. The Planning Center The Planning Center is a private consulting firm providing multidisciplinary planning serv- ices to both governmental agencies and the private sector. Since its founding in 1975, the firm has provided top quality services in the areas of environmental planning, urban design, community plans, general plans, site planning and grading design, and landscape architec- ture. The Planning Center employs approximately 85 professional planners, designers and other specialists in its offices in Newport Beach, Sacramento,•Phoenix and Tucson. The technical staff include environmental planners and analysts, biolo;ists, cultural resource experts, ar- chitects, economists, Iandscape architects, grading designers and engineering specialists, € citizen participation specialists, and other technical specialists. l The Planning Center has completed numerous studies for roadway and freeway improve-ments. The firm previously completed the environmental analysis for the Gothard-Hoover Extension Feasibility Study. The firms most current assignment is the Environmental As- sessment for the I405 Freeway Widening and Access Improvements project in Costa Mesa. This project includes 3.5 mules of freeway widening and 15 access improvements, including braided ramp configurations. Harding -Lawson Associates Harding Lawson Associates is a 30 year old firm specializing in geotechnical engineering. F= This investigation will be performed from their Orange County office, which includes a complete soils laboratory and over 100 employees. The firm has provided geotechnical services for IWA for highway structures in the past, including Caltrans projects. Austin -Foust Associates Austin -Foust Associates is a 15-person firm that specializes in transportation planning and traffic engineering. The firm has designed traffic signals and highway striping and provided traffic engineering for most of the cities in Southern California. I 14 INVA Engineers will be the single point of contact for the City and will manage the project team. Gil Purdy will be the individual who will be the single point of contact for the City for all information. His responsibilities will include close coordination with the City, all the other a&encies and utility companies involved in the project and managing the key person- nel. His duties will also continue into the bidding phase and attendance at the biweekly construction meetings. Jerry Wood, as principal -in -charge, will make sure the resources of IWA and the other project team members are applied to the project to keep it on schedule and review the Pinvolved ect as it progresses. In addition, Doug Incledon, on of the principals of IWA, will also with the project, in review of the design that is produced and quality control check for all the products. U1 JESCUEDULE Exhibit No. 2 showk-the schedule that has been prepared for this project. The key items in the schedule is the review and processing through the various public agencies and utility companies, with the critical agency being the railroad company and the processing of the : environmental document. Processing through that railroad company canbe time- consuming at best and, as previously discussed, if they decide to take an adversarial role on the crossing, could extend the time it takes to complete the assignment. The schedule shows frequent meetings, at least monthly, with the City during which time processing with other agencies and utility companies will be discussed and updated. 15 IWA ENGINEERS PROJECT SCHEDULE GOTHARD - HOOVER STREET EXTENSION I. PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING -- Collect Existing Information — Survey — Aerial Mapping -- Soils — Drainage Study — Environmental Document — Preliminary Plans —Calculations —Cost Estimates -- R/W Information — Processing/Approvals —City of Huntington Beach —City of Westminster —R.R./PUC —Caltrans —OCSD --SCE —Meetings , II. FINAL ENGINEERING — Plans — Specifications — Estimate — Meetings -- R/W Plans, Legals, Easements I1I. PROCESSING/PERMITS -- City of Huntington Beach -- City of Westminster -- R.R. — Caltrans — OCSD — SCE VI. RIDDING V. CONSTRUCTION G Survey could be impacted by time required to obtain access permit / ,J*�Jv/��/ � � U a 0 E I # l I r.I Estimated Construction I Completion) April —May 1992 1 1 1 1 1 �, C' C' 1 SECTION S FEE Table 2 lists the estimated fees for each task and subtask. The total represents a maximum not to be exceeded amount to be billed on an hourly basis per the enclosed rate schedule. TABLE 2 GOTHARD-HOOVER STREET EXTENSION FEE SUMMARY TASK Ei 1- Preliminary Engineering and Processing 1. Existing Information $1275 2. Survey 3. Aerial Mapping 2725 5675 4. GeotechnicaI Evaluation 17250 5. Drainage Study 3050 6. Environmental Documentation 54260 7. Preliminary Plans 17850 8. Processin and Approvals 12050 9. Mee tingsMoordination AM SUBTOTAL 2- Plans, Specifications and Estimate 1. Plans 2. Specifications 3. Estimate 4. Right-of-way 5. Meetings SUBTOTAL 3. Permits 4- Bidding 5- Construction Services Reimbursables Computer Reproduction SUBTOTAL TOTAL $118920 $93250 3600 3360 4600 M $110880 $13400 $1600 $20700 $2900 14620 11752o $293020 16 SECTION 6 INSURANCE IWA has provided the insurance for the City before and can provide the insurance coverage listed in the RFP. A certificate of insurance listing the coverages carried by IWA is included in Appendix C. 17 APPENDIX A STREET AND HIGMVAY EXPERIENCE rl 1. k.,J RVA ENGINEERS STREET AND 111GInVAY EXTERIENCE IWA Engineers has extensive experience in street and highway design and reconstruction. Examples of recent projects include the following. Campus Drive Widening John Wayne Airport Costa Mesa, California The widening of Campus Drive is part of Orange Couniy's John Wayne Airport Improve- ment Program. The widening extends from MacArthur Boulevard to Bristol Street and in.' volves four agencies: the County of Orange, Caltrans, the City of Newport Beach, and the City of Irvine. The Campus Drive bridge over SR 73 will be widened 20 feet and the exist- ing four lane cross-section with median turn lane will be widened to six lanes with left turns allowed only at intersections. Additional work includes signal design, storm drain revision, parking lot reconstruction, and utility relocation. The street is reclassified -from a secon- dsry highway to a modified major highway. The project involves extensive coordination with the above named agencies and several utilities. Construction Cost • $4.0 million. Main St., Columbine Ave., MacArthur BIvd. MacArthur Place City of Santa Ana Santa Ana, California As part of the first phase development of the 4.0 million square foot development of MacArthur Place in Santa Ana, the streets of Main Street, Columbine Avenue and MacAr- thur Boulevard have to be improved and widened. Included in the street widening design were drainage, sewer, water, and utility improvements. Extensive coordination with public agencies and utility companies was provided. An extensive on -site street improvement sys- tem was designed. Estimated construction cost - $4.1 million. Del Obispo Street T- City of San Juan Capistrano San Juan Capistrano, California $ ; IWA Engineers is preparing plans and specifications for improvements and widening to DelObispo Street for the City of San Juan Capistrano. The project includes obtaining soil borings for the design of retaining wall, street widening, traffic signal improvements, drainage improvements and local agency coordination. • Dwiggins Street, et. al. East Los Angeles Los Angeles County Dept. of Public Works Los Angeles, California i < For the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, IWA Engineers designed widened streets in east Los Angeles in a foothill area for Dwiggins Street and other adjoin- `' ing streets. The design included widening the existing streets, right-of-way and retaining wall. Estimated construction cost - $1.5 million. kld tiJ Euclid Avenue City of Upland Upland, California IWA Engineers is preparing environmental documentation and plans and specifications for roadwayimprovements to the southbound lane of Euclid Avenue for the City of Upland. The project includes street widening, storm drain improvements, driveway modifications, relandscaping, pavement removal and replacement with overlay, traffic control and traffic Striping. Universal City/101 Freeway Interchange MCA Development Company Universal City, California INVA Engineers is providing design and construction management for new oil and offramps from the 101 Freeway to Universal City, including grading, extensive retaining walls, street lightin ,storm drains, ramps structural section and other improvements. Construction cost -5.5 million. Towne Center Drive City of Cerritos Cerritos, California For the City of Cerritos, IWA Engineers is preparing street improvement plans for Cerritos Towne Center, a 125-acre site in Cerritos. The project includes new roads, storm drain facilities, waterlines, sanitary sewer, parcel'maps, grading, utility lines, local coordination with developer and local a�eneies, traffic signal, streetlights, and landscaping and irrigation. Construction cost - $5,0 million. Universal Center Drive Universal Studios Universal City, California IWA Engineers prepared plans and specifications for construction of Universal Center Drive for Universal Studios. Project included extensive grading, street widening, new struc- tural section, special streetlights, landscaping and irrigation, storm improvements and water relocation. Coral Drive MCA Development Company Universal City, California INVA Engineers prepared plans and specifications for the construction of Coral Drive for MCA DevelopmentCompany, Universal City. Pro ect included rough grading, street design and construction, retaining wall, utilities, street lights, and storm drainage facilities. 183rd Street City of Cerritos 4_ Cerritos, California .s IWA Engineers prepared an EIR, traffic impact analysis and plans and specifications for F street improvements to 183rd Street for the City of Cerritos.' Included in the project were street widening, asphalt overlay and new structural section, undergrounding utilities, storm drain improvements, sanitary sewer, traffic signals, landscaping of street medians and parkways and gas, telephone and electric and special streetlights. Bloomfield Avenue City of Cerritos Cerritos, California IWA Engineers prepared an EIR, traffic impact analysis and plans and specifications for street improvements to Bloomfield Avenue for the City of Cerritos. Included in the project were street improvements, sanitary and storm drain sewers, domestic and reclaimed water- lines, street appurtenances such as traffic signals and streetlights, utilities coordination, landscaping and water features. Shoemaker Avenue City of Cerritos Cerritos, California IWA Engineers prepared an EIR, traffic impact analysis and plans and specifications for street improvements to Shoemaker Avenue for the City of Cerritos. Included in the project were street improvements, sanitary and storm drain sewers, domestic and reclaimed water- lines, street appurtenances such as traffic signals and streetlights, utilities coordination, landscaping and water features. Wagon Wheel Road Oxnard, California IWA Engineers prepared plans, specifications and estimates for the improvement to Wagon Wheel Road in Oxnard. Included in the project was an extensive hydrology study, storm drain, street widening, and traffic signal. t3 i,J �Iop I VA ENGINEERS CALTRANS EXPERIENCE INVA ENGINEERS' specific experience with Caltrans projects is summarized below: Universal City. IWA Engineers prepared the environmental documentation, project report, geometric plan and design for a new interchan a to serve Universal City from the northbound 101 Freeway. They do not completely conform to Caltrans standards and the unusual design features were successfully negotiated with Caltrans and FHNVA. All the services required for the project, from conceptual approval through construction administration, were provided including right-of-way processing and planning. IWA Engineers is one of the first consultant firms to provide com- plete construction administration of a freeway interchange. The project included the new Universal City overcrossing (already built). Modifications to interchanges on either side of this new interchange were required. Work on this project also included designof facilities for the City of Los Angeles and close coordination with the City including negotiating a new freeway agreement. Estimated total construction cost - $6 million. Completed in 1987. City casta Mean. INVA Engineers was retained by the City of Costa Mesa to prepare a corridor study of the 1405 freeway in Costa Mesa. The study covers approximately four miles of the I405 plus parts of the 73 and the 55 freeways. Included in the study was the analysis of about 15 interchanges and ramp alterna- tives for modifications, bridge modification, preparation of geometric plans using the computer facilities, emzronmental document and traffic studies. Also included was the preparation of a project study report and negotiation with Caltrans and FHWA.. Total estimated construction cost - $65 million. City of Santa Ana. TWA Engineers is planning and preparing PS&E for off -ramp mod ca- -- tions in Santa Ana to the southbound MacArthur Blvd. and the northbound Dyer Rd. off - ramps from S.R: 55 Freeway. This work is being accomplished as part of a mitigation from an adjacent development. Included in the scope of work is preparation of geometric plans, PSR,. Project Reports, Environmental Documentation and preparation of PS&E. Estimated construction cost $1.5 million. r- City _o_f_ Cerritos. For the City of Cerritos, INVA Engineers assisted with the final design for a new ramp system and overcrossing for Shoemaker Avenue. For eastbound traffic on the 91 Freeway, Jerry Wood headed up the team that '. prepared and obtained approval of the environmental documentation, traffic studies, -- right-of-way planning and processing, and the project report and geometric plan Total estimated construction cost - $8 million. s 91 _Freeway. For the Orange County Transportation Commission, INVA Engineers is preparing alternatives to add either an HOV lane or a general purpose lane for 16 miles of freeway between the I-605 Freeway and the 55 Freeway. The project t. includes geometric plans and the preparation of a project study report. The entire length of freeway being studied was input into the in-house computer system for I preparation of base maCost estimates were also prepared with total construction t= cost in the range of $2A million. Cmus DrivoISR 73 Brift Im r v m nt . TWA Engineers, as part of the design of the Campus Drive widening project for the improvements to the John Wayne Airport in Orange County, is designin;the widening of the Campus Drive bridge over the SR 73 freeway to add additional lanes plus roadway improvements on either side. Total estimated construction cost S6.5 million. City- of Fontann. 1WA Engineers is providing full services through a local assess- ment district for the City of Fontana for modifications to the Sierra Ave./I-10 Freeway Interchange and for the construction of a new interchange at Alder Ave. and the I-10 Freeway. Scope of work includes preparation of project study report, conceptual geometrics, traffic studies, project reports, environmental documentation, preparation of fact sheet, and preparation of PS&E. Estimated construction cost $25 million. City Qf Oxnard. fWA Engineers is providinf, full services for the City of Oxnard, working through a cityty local assessment district, for Phase 1 freeway improvements at the Highway 1/141 Freeway interchange in Oxnard. The project consists of widening an existing undercrossing (structure modification) and extension of some existing on- and off -ramps that serve the northbound 101 Freeway. This project is partof a proposed 4,000,000 sq ft development proposed for the City. of Oxnard of retail and commercial type development. IWA Engineers is also assisting the City (and the developer) in negotiating with Caltrans for the ultimate improvement of the Highway 1/101 interchange, a particularly difficult project. Total estimated con- struction cost for Phase 1 is $2.5 million. Included in the assignment was the preparation of project study reports, environmental, geometric plans, project reports, right-of-way planning and processing, and PS&E. City gr Oxnard. IWA Engineers was retained by a Iocal assessment district of local . - developers to prepare conceptual geometric plans; final geometric plans;project report; environmental document; plans, specifications and estimate for modifications to the Rose Ave. 101 Interchange. The project included obtaining Caltrans approval for the ramp modifications. Estimated construction cost $0.5 million. ityQf Huntington Beach. IWA Engineers was retained by the City of Huntington Beach to analyze and prepare conceptual geometric plans to modify the southbound I-405/Center Avenue interchange in the City of Huntington Beach. Caltrans i approvaI for the project was obtained. Included n the assignment was the prepara- tion of project studyreport, fact sheet, project reports and PS&E. Estimated con- struction cost $0.5 million. City of Ventura. IWA Engineers is analyzing the existing Kimball Rd./S.R. 126 Freeway interchange for the City of Ventura. The existing interchange has hook on and off -ramps that can no longer accommodate the traffic volumes and do not meet current Caltrans stan- dards. Also the existing bridge is not wide enough and needs to be widened and/or replaced. IWA Engineers is preparing detailed geometric plans for alternative interchange configurations and conceptual bridge plans and an up-to-date traffic study with construc- tion cost estimates leading to a PSR and City and Caltrans approval. Estimated construc- tion cost $4.5 million. Route 30 Freewv. IWA Engineers was part of the project team studying the exten- sion of the Route 30 Freeway through the County of San Bernardino for 26 miles into the City of San Bernardino to connect to existing freeways. Tasks performed by IWA Engineers included drainage (hydrology and hydraulics), grade separation struc- tures and geometrics. QCTD Uansitway Study. IWA Engineers prepared geometric plans, quantities and construction cost estimates for adding a transitway to the following freeways:.SR57, SR22, I-5, . SR55, and IA05 - in Orange County, California. Also included to the project was the redesign of a portion of I-5, working in the Caltrans District 7 office, and close coordination with Caltrans staff. Santa Clara Avenue/101 Freeway - Oxnard. Next to the Rose Avenue/101 Inter- change is located the Santa Clara Avenue/101 interchange for which IWA Engineers is also providing full services for the City of Oxnard, working with MIC for improvements to the Santa Clara Avenue/101 Freeway. Included in the assign- ment is the pp�reparation of a project study report, right-of-way planning and process- ing and PS&E for interchange improvements. CitY_oUryine. IN' A Engineers prepared geometric plans for interchange improve- ments to IA05 for the City of Irvine for five (5)consecutive interchanges. Included in the plans were various alternatives including traffic and forecast analysis. Estimates construction cost - $50 million. City or Costa Mesa. IWA Engineers is providing preliminary plarming and design for the relocation of the northbound Harbor Boulevard onramp to the intersection of South Coast Drive and Hyland Avenue next to the freeway. Included in this assignment was preparation of geometric plan,project report, right-of-way planning } and processing, and PS&E. Estimated construction cost - $1.0 mi ion. Mulholland Drivc1101 Freewiy nntgrcha=. For this interchange modifications, IWA Engineers prepared geometric plan and construction cost estimates and provided traffic forecast analysis impacts. Included in the assignment was analysis of right-of-way impacts. Estimated construction cost $30.0 million. John Wayne _Airport. The County of Orange is planning to improve the John Wayne Airport and build a new terminal. The airport is bounded on three sides by freeways. Traffic access and egress to the facility is of critical importance and can- not be accommodated by the local surface streets. The County asked Jerry Wood to lay out a conceptual ramp system and obtain a letter from Caltrans indicating. their I- approval, of the concept. This was accomplished. The new ramp system was incor- porated into the EIR for the project and was not an issue during the public review (" period. Total estimated project cost - $30 mill;.on. U City_ofMquntain View. The City of Mountain View needed assistance with Caltrans r - to obtain approval for two modified interchanges. Jerry Wood served as Project Manager for these projects and successfully negotiated with Caltrans to have the existing interchanges modified to serve the City's requirements. City f Walnut r k. The City of Walnut Creek extended a main road, South • Broadway, to alleviate future traffic problems. Jerry Wood served as Project Manager for the design of this project which included modifications to a ramp sys- tem at the end of the new roadway. Negotiations were made with Caltrans to PP obtain their approval and evaluate alternatives. t� The Irvine Company. IWA En ineers was retained to analyze and prepare concep- tual geometric plans for westbound on- and off -ramps from I405 to Harvard Avenue by the Irvine Company. The analysis included impacts of the proposed ramps on the interchanges either side of Harvard Avenue and recommendations for i. modifications to those interchanges to accommodate the new Harvard Avenue ramps. Precise geometric plans were prepared for the alternative interchanges and the widening of Harvard Avenue. UnIvgrsa__City. Staff of IWA Engineers prepared PS&E for the improvements to the northbound Lankershim Boulevard off-mnp from U.S. 101. The off ramp was _ widened, drainage facilities were modified and a retaining wall added. L l— Santa Monica Boulevard f 1-405. IWA Engineers was retained to prepare a feasibility study to improve the northbound Santa Monica Boulevard off -ramp and the south - bound Santa Monica on -ramp at I-405 in West Los Angeles for Bren Investment Properties. The feasibility study was completed and the recommended solution was a braided on- and' off -ramp system for the northbound Santa Monica Boulevard off - ramp and ramp widening and an auxiliary lane for the Santa Monica Boulevard on -ramp. 'J I 1 0] � _ {_•. � .. , . ' . l,.. � a + .. •, Y fir. _. ' r i:.... � w.....,.� �..•sM.,w �_...,� � ?wy.l r-.....* Iv..r•�, �•N,7+Y' �......* ... �.-'� r� r - E .l i'fv}`N.�-!7�.i.•e.. p� �7s,:4�'l '� .��?-rti' 7WON Pnowun C] 11. cr-wov.I 1 FroSIiT an cc Apo? tic q 1? A a ri-enu AvrtrlLI, Sui te :rag ta Nes.n. Ch ?:'f_,26 NSUREO -1WA E:T19 i nrprs !7')TO iTral);.tllargf. St., i#100 r-'eutite i n Va 1 l eLl GA 92700 THIS CFnTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIOIITS UI'OII TIIE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTErm OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE COMrhNV Q LETTER (1 tC ma Rs 17Ji1 COMPANY e LETTER COMPANY G. LETTER COMPANY 0 LETTER Mokorlzts InA C ompan COMPANY LETTER Desinn PT'[1fipssfonals Ins_ Co .111S IS TO CERTIFY THAT POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE SEEN IRCIJED TO TIfE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. •- IIOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM CR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT On OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY HE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS, AND CONOt- TIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. W FTR TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER xy 1111tar4 TODAIF (L4AtVM 1'OLIC'I EX1t lot DAIS PA'A'W" ALL LIMITS IN THOUSANDS l = OENERAL LIABILITY COI.WERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY d AM5 uADE ©DCLURR(RCE 0` -03 & CONTRkaORS PROTECTIVE ZC802 h359© a/31 /89 5/31 /90 GERERALAGGREGATE $ PROOIXTS COMPIOPS AGGAEGArE PERSONAE r, ADVERUSING 9MRY [ACH BCDJMNCE $ FIRE DAMAGE OM ONE IM) $ MEDICAL [XKWA IARY ONE PERSON" $ YAUTOLIABILtTr ZC130263398 5/31/89 5/31/90 aL $ , Ali OYINED AUT _ MY .nr prof .ssional liability average the „ ,, r SCE[oulfDAU�o aregate limit is the tots insuran •e• avail-- "�'3 $ V IRREDAUrOS ,jtjlp f-or 311 covered claims prespnte wit#Tin ;` $ N0t.11NNEDAUTPie pulft'l period. The limit will b . reduced WrA" &WCEWRIT( U patimpmr. OF indemnity an I exper[se PPMIRTY $ !• EXCESS LIABILITY EACH AREGATE $ occvRRe,�cE $C'�(I e I OTHER THAN UMBRELtA r(xim j WORKERS' COMPENSATION j] AND t T EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY _ OTHER a F' R QTTI :�iL: i F1Plrll LIATIII.I IY it CW14354005 L442521 9/01 /89 9/01 /90ISTATTJTORY $ 1000 NAM ACCO(I T $ 1000 MI$1ASE-RX0LM1) $ 1000 auAu EAOI "none 5/31 /8y 5/31 /`i0 DESC9rPTtON OF OPERATIONSILOCATIONSIVEHICLESIRESTRICTIONSISPECtAL ITEMS 4� I D11 COPFUIRAT ION +J1IMEf 1 " I AL DEVELOP IiENS D 1 1%1 i,1 z-4 rAC i C ii r COAST HWY t.t�tti[� 4'KA( ti CA 90904 •[ I N: r..E001 E $1000 EACH CLAIM FIND AGGREGATE SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EX- PIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY WILL ENDEAVOR TO 1AML I 0 DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT, BUT FAILURE TO MAIL SUCH NOTICE SHALL IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY OF ANY KING UPON THE C04PANY, ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES. 214AO I Fi r1E PCKYWt I1LE DJ`.WRANCE AGENCY A J c r�.r•� terra r IWA ENGINEERS RATE SCHEDULE Professional Services Principal Project Manager Senior Engineer Engineer/Senior Designer Junior Engineer/Designer Drafter Technician/Word Processor survey services Two -Man Survey Crew Three -Man Survey Crew Reimbursable Expenses Reproduction Consultant Services Automobile Transportation Commercial Travel & Subsistence Agency Fees (Plan Check, Permits, etc) outside Computer Services Hourly Rate 90 75 70 55 45 30 30 120 145 Cost `cost + 10% 0.25/mile Cost Cost + 20% Cost + 10% (Rates subject to revision after 1/1/90) ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AND IWA ENGINEERS THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this _Cq day of July, 1986, by and between the CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a municipal corporation of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as "CITY," and IWA ENGINEERS, a California corporation, hereinafter referred to as 'CONTRACTOR." WHEREAS, CITY desires to engage the services of an engineer- ing consultant to develop feasibility studies, cost data, environmental and traffic information to determine the desirability of extending Gothard Street north of McFadden, in the City of Huntington Beach; and CONTRACTOR has been selected to perform said 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 referred 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 Jerry R. Wood, who shall represent it and be its sole contact and agent in all consulta- tions with CITY during the performance of this Agreement. 1. 1454L 2. CITY STAFF ASSISTANCE CITY shall assign a staff coordinator to work directly with CONTRACTOR 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 this Agreement and all tasks specified in Exhibit *A" shall be completed no later than forty six (46) days from the date of this Agreement, with an additional forall revisions. These times may be extended with the written permission of the CITY. The time for performance of the tasks identified in Exhibit 'A* are generally to be as shown in the Scope of Services on the Work Program/Project Schedule. This schedule may be amended to benefit the PROJECT if mutually agreed by 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 of thirty three thousand three hundred ninety dollars ($33,390). 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 A. CONTRACTOR shall be entitled to progress payments toward the fixed fee set forth in Section 4 herein in accordance with the progress and payment schedules set forth in Exhibit A'. 2. 1454L B. Delivery of work 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) For 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 CITY does not approve an invoice, CITY shall notify CONTRACTOR in writing of the 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 in, or has been brought into compliance, or until this Agreement is terminated pursuant to Section 12 hereof. 3. 1454L D. Any billings for extra work or additional services authorized by the CITY shall be invoiced separately to the CITY. Such invoice shall contain all of the information required under paragraph 6C, and in addition shall list the hours expended and hourly rate charged for such time. Such invoices shall be approved by CITY if the work performed is in accordance with the extra work or additional services requested, and if CITY is satisfied that the statement of hours worked and costs incurred is accurate. Such approval shall not be unrea- sonably withheld. Any dispute between the parties concerning payment of such an invoice shall be treated as separate and apart from the ongoing performance of the remainder of this Agreement. 7. DISPOSITION OF PLANSr ESTIMATES AND OTHER DOCUMENTS CITY acknowledges that CONTRACTOR'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 property upon PROJECT completion or earlier termination of this Agreement. In the event this Agreement is terminated, said materials may be used by 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 specifications, except in the completion of the PROJECT in the case of termination hereof, without CONTRACTOR'S prior written authorization. S. INDEMNIFICATION, DEFENSE, HOLD 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, 4. 1454L however caused, arising from CONTRACTOR'S negligence or willful misconduct in the performance of this Agreement. Any concurrent negligence or willful misconduct of CITY, its officers 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 attorney's fees and costs presented, brought or recovered against CITY, for or on account of any liability under any of said acts which may be incurred by reason of any work tc be performed by CONTRACTOR under this Agreement. 10. INSURANCE In addition to the Workers' Compensation Insurance and CONTRACTOR'S covenant to indemnify CITY, CONTRACTOR shall obtain and furnish to CITY the following insurance policies covering the PROJECT: A. General Liability Insurance. A policy of general public liability insurance, including motor vehicle coverage in the sum of $1,000,000 C.S.L. Said policy shall name CITY, its officers and employees as Additional Insureds, and shall specifically provide that any other insurance coverage which may be applicable to the PROJECT shall be deemed excess coverage and that CONTRACTOR'S insurance shall be primary. 5. 1454L B. Professional Liabil.ityInssrance. CONTRACTOR shall acquire a professional liability insurance policy covering the work performed by it hereunder in the sum of $110001000. 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 thereof) 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 an independent contractor. 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 CONTRACTOR 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 accordance 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 shall be delivered to CONTRACTOR as provided in section 16 herein. 13. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBCONTRACTING This Agreement is a personal service contract and the 6. 1454L supervisory work hereunder shall not be delegated by CONTRACTOR to any other person or entity without the consent 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 CFR 1-9.1. 15. CITY EMPLOYEES AND OFFICIALS CONTRACTOR shall employ no CITY official nor any regular CITY employee in the work performed pursuant to this Agreement. No officer or employee of CITY shall have any financial interest in this Agreement in violation of California Government Code Sections 1090 et seq. 16. NOTICES Any notices or special instructions required 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 Postal Services, addressed as follows: TO CITY: Mr. Paul Cook Director of Public Works City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92646 7. TO CONTRACTOR: Mr. Jerry R. Wood Vice President IWA ENGINEERS 10221 Slater Ave., Suite 219 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 1454L �W) 17. ENTIRETY The foregoing, and Exhibit *A" attached hereto, set forth the entire Agreement between the parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by and through their authorized officers the day, month and year first above written. CONTRACTOR: IWA ENGINEERS tftd- rry Y ftod, Vice President D Llewellyn D. Incledon, President REVIEWED APPROVED: 0-1 City Administrator B. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, A municipal corporation of the State of California Mayor ATTEST: �11 Z /I City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney INITIATED AND APPROVED: Director of Public Works 1454L �10) Exhibit A SECTION 1 UNDERSTANDING OF PROJECT AND SCOPE OF WORK As stated in the City's RFP dated June 16, 1986 the City of Huntington Beach is proposing a Hoover-Gothard connection between McFadden Avenue in Huntington Beach and Balsa Avenue in Westminster. Accord- ingly, the City of Huntington Beach City Council has approved a precise alignment for Gothard south of McFadden that would align with the proposed extension of Gothard, north of McFadden to Balsa at Hoover. The City has been in touch with the City of Westminster, Caltrans, the Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Southern California Edison, the Orange County Transportation Commission, County Environmental Manage- ment Agency and adjacent property owners. On June 24 the Westminster City Council elected to defer approval of a parcel map that would affect the proposed extension of Gothard for 60 days during which time the City of Huntington Beach will have prepared a feasibility study, cost data, environmental and traffic information to determine the desirability and feasibility of the proposed extension. The purpose of this proposal is to prepare the feasibility study as described above. The City has had studies of the proposed extension of Gothard prepared by Donald Frischer and Associates. This study ex- amined two undercrossing options of a two-lane connector and a five -lane connector that would require the elimination of the SPRR tracks. Their conclusion is that the two lane option would not adequately serve the traf- fic demands and elimination of the tracks is not feasible. They also ex- amined a possible interchange at Gothard which was rejected by Caltrans who thought that an interchange might be possible to McFadden. The conclusion of Frischer's study was that if Gothard was to be extended then it would have to cross over the freeway which Caltrans indicates they will support. Frischer plans for the possible extension of Gothard under the I-405 freeway showed the SPRR extending straight under the freeway to Balsa. In reality the SPRR tracks curve as they approach Balsa which may provide an opportunity to line up the Gothard extension with Hoover without change to the railroad tracks. The extension of Gothard also has the support of OCTC and OCEINIA but will require amendment of the County Arterial Road blaster Plan, which is not expected to be a problem. This project is particularly complicated because of the number of outside agencies that must review any extension of Gothard with the SPRR being particularly important. Quick preparation of a preliminary plan for the project and starting discussions with the agencies as soon as possible to obtain their concurrence are critical to the successful completion of the project. E k.i Exhibit A The basic scope of work required is summarized as follows and is as described in the City's RFP: 1. Prepare a feasibility study of 1) an overcrossing and 2) utiliz- ing the existing railroad undercrossing and associated costs. 2. Prepare environmental documents assessing the potential en- vironmental impacts and mitigations of same for the project options. 3. Attend meetings in the next six weeks required to receive the input of the various agencies involved in the project and hearings with Huntington Beach and Westminster. The Environmental Assessment will be one component of the feasibility study, providing the City of Huntington Beach and the City of Westminster plus the other agencies important information concerning any critical environmental constraints associated with the project. The focus of this analysis will be on the identification of any significant environmental impacts on the school, residences or parks that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level. One example of this type of "fatal flaw" assessment would be to determine if resulting noise levels at the school would exceed the State standard for schools with and without sound walls. Any environmental processing required by the California Environmental Quality Act would be conducted at a later date under a separate contract. The methodology to complete the project within the time frame is discussed In the next section in more detail. 3 �J Exhibit A SECTION 2 METHODOLOGY The methodology to be used for the project is summarized below in six tasks: o Task 1 - Collect and Analyze Existing Data o Task 2 - Initiate Project and Detailed Review of Data o Task 3 - Conceptual Plan o Task 4 - Environmental Document o Task 5 - Meetings o Task 6 - Feasibility Study and Final Meetings Each of these tasks is described separately below. Task 1 - Collect and Analyze Existing Data Under Task i an initial meeting will be held with the staff of the City of Huntington Beach to be briefed on the up-to-date status of the project and to collect all the previous studies and data that have been developed for the project. Also at this time these existing data will be reviewed and analyzed with the City staff to determine if any of it still is useful and should be used in the analysis and preparation of the feasibility study. Included in this task be collection of other existing data such as as-builts from the two cities, Caltrans, the SPRR, SCE and other information that is available. A copy of the parcel map that the City of Westminster will be reconsidering in 60 days will also be obtained and analyzed. Other information that will be obtained will include existing rights -of -way, utilities, drainage and topography. It is assumed in the preparation of the feasibility study that the City has existing topography of the alignment or aerial mapping that can be used as base maps for this study. Finally, the traffic forecasts to be provided by the City will be obtained. Included in obtaining existing information will be a full understanding of all the contacts and meetings that the City has had with these other agencies. All memos and letters should be provided to IWA so we can fully understand the positions and attitudes of the other agencies involved In the project. The City will provide the names of the staffs of the other agencies that they have been in contact with. The product of this task will be a list of all the existing information and data and a memo that will summarize IWA's understanding of this information and the work and contacts that have been made to date. 4 . k Exhibit A Task 2 - Initlate Project and Detailed Review of Data Under Task 2, the project will be initiated and a detailed review of the data that has been collected will be performed. An important subtask will be the initial contact with all the other agencies that will be involved in this project as listed below: o City of Westminster o Caltrans o SPRR o SCE o• OCTC o CCEMA - Transportation The purpose of these initial meetings will be to inform these other agencies that the study is underway, make sure they understand the schedule and the purpose of the study, and obtain their initial input based on a very general understanding of the concept to be analyzed. During these meetings design criteria and an understanding of their procedures and requirements will be obtained from the staffs of these agencies that could affect the design of the project. Memos on all these meetings will be immediately prepared and sent to the City for review and comment. The City will be informed of all these meetings in advance to permit City staff to attend if desired. Based on the existing information obtained, relevant engineering data will be assembled. This will include the base maps provided by the City and as-builts, suitably organized, obtained from Caltrans, primarily. This task will also Include an analysis of the traffic forecasts provided by the City. Included in this task will be a subtask to establish in a general sense the environmental setting for the project. This will include the following: o Existing land use inventory o Inventory of Existing Plans o Noise Sensitive Areas o Existing Air Quality o Public Service Survey The primary products from this tasks will be memos on the meetings with the various other agencies that will impact the project, a memo on analysis of the existing information collected and the development of the environmental setting. y� k..1 Exhibit A Task 3 - Conceptual Plan Task 3 is primarily the engineering task and the most important task to determine the technical and economic feasibility of the project. As described in the RFP, this task is the preparation of a preliminary plan and design of the overcrossing and the alignment and structures necessary to use the existing undercrossing with the railroad tracks still in service. Since the freeway is elevated through this stretch to go over the SPRR, the Gothard overcrossing option will be elevated over the freeway and well over the railroad. Since the distance from McFadden to the freeway is only about 500 feet the grade of the Gothard St. overcrossing through this section of the alignment will be in the range of 12 to 13 percent and will be very much like the State College Drive overcrossing of I-5 near the Doubletree Hotel in Orange. For the undercrossing option it is assumed that the railroad tracks might be moved to one side of the center of the columns underneath the I-405 overcrossing or between the column and abutment with the construction of the appropriate retaining wall. For this option, the existing seismic design of the I-405 overcrossing will be analyzed to determine what improvements might be necessary to have the bridge brought up to current seismic standards, if necessary, as the result of placing the 4- lane arterial and structures underneath the I-405 bridge. The preliminary plan and profile for both options will be prepared for the entire alignment of Gothard in Huntington Beach south of McFadden to Bolsa, including enough of Hoover to see how the realignment will match up. Since the SPRR alignment as it nears Bolsa veers to the east away from Hoover it may be possible to move these curves closer to the freeway so that as the overcrossing option clears the freeway and the grade of Gothard is returning to ground level it can be on the west side of the railroad tracks and be very close or exactly line up with Hoover at Bolsa. This will have to be coordinated with SPRR. For the other option, an at - grade railroad crossing may be necessary. The preliminary plan will be prepared at a scale of 1"=50' with a profile at 1"=5' shown on the same sheets. At that scale two sheets for each option at 24x36" will be required which will show the details of the alignment Including the information listed below. A separate bridge general plan will be prepared that shows the general bridge details required by Caltrans so that they can carefully evaluate and approve of the overcrossing. Geotechnical information that has been used previously by Caltrans for the freeway railroad overcrossing will be relied upon for the Gothard overcrossing preliminary design. The following will also be evaluated and shown on the plans as needed: o Existing streets o . Existing and proposed rights -of -way o Existing and proposed utilities o Drainage facilities o Design aesthetic treatments o Construction staging 6 Exhibit A An important element in the design of the overcrossing option will be to reduce the impact of the bridge on the adjoining homes since the bridge will be about 50 feet above the ground. Therefore, any aesthetic treatments that might reduce the impact of this structure will be evaluated and placed on the plans or included in a discussion in the feasibility study. It is important for the design team to be sensitive to the adjacent property owners and reduce the impacts of the project to the greatest extent possible. An engineer's estimate of the probable construction cost for the project will be prepared for all the elements of the project, including such items as lighting, traffic signals, sound walls, street improvements, railroad track realignment and any other features of the project. The cost estimate will be comprehensive of the entire project and include those items that are predicted to be necessary to mitigate the impacts of the project. Included in the costs will be the estimated costs as determined by the City of the acquisition of any additional right-of-way. The product of this task will be the plan and profile of the road alignment for each option, and the general bridle plan for the overcrossing option and an engineer's estimate of the probable construction cost for each option. The plan and profile sheets will be included in their full sizes in pockets in the back of the feasibility study. Reductions of these plans will be included in the feasibility study for easier review. Task 4 - Environmental Document After the roadway and bridge horizontal and vertical alignments are set and its proximity to the adjacent sensitive land uses is established, the environmental document in the form of an environmental assessment will be prepared. Traffic volumes provided by the City will be used to calculate future noise and air pollution increases through this right-of-way for each option. Although the new route may create a regional air quality benefit, this analysis will be limited to potential pollutant concentrations through the rights -of -way. If the project would create any significant impact or cause any standards to be exceeded, mitigation measures will be proposed. Special attention will be paid to the adjacent residences, the school and parks. The environmental analysis will also consider security, safety and light/glare issues that would affect the adjacent property owners. The environmental document and analysis will be incorporated as a section or chapter of the feasibility study. The product of this task will be an environmental document that will identify those items likely to be imparted by the project's options and mitigation measures will be proposed. Given the time frame for the study a final environmental assessment cannot be processed. However, the environmental document prepared would form the basis of the final environmental document if the project proves to be feasible and acceptable to the two cities and the other agencies. 7 1,Exhibit A Task 5 - Meetings Task 5 includes additional meetings with the two cities and the staffs of the other agencies during and after completion of the preliminary plans and the environmental document. The purpose of these meetings will be to review the details of the project's options both on the design and the environmental issues and to obtain the input of these agencies into the design. This input might require modification to the plans that will be done immediately and submitted to the agencies for additional comment. Meetings would be held as often as necessary because of the time constraint imposed on completion of the project and to keep the "pressure" on these other agencies to respond quickly. With these types of projects we have found that in order to complete the project on schedule and get the timely input of these other agencies that "face-to-face" meetings are required. In the case of the SPRR it may be necessary to go to San Francisco to meet with that railroad staff or go to Sacramento to meet with Caltrans bridge designers in order to get that agency to respond quickly and convincingly. This is unknown at this time and will be assessed early in the project. Airline ticket costs are not included in the fee (or other travel costs) and the need for this will be reviewed with the City before any travel costs are incurred. Because of the time frame for completion of the study and the complexity of the project, most of these meetings will be attended by Jerry Wood, the project manager or Carl Schiermeyer or Dwayne Mears. This is important since answers must be developed quickly and adding any layers between the senior professionals assigned to the project and the staffs of the outside agencies might cause unnecessary or unwanted delays. This might cost a few dollars more but we feel that it is very important to have the right people at this meetings to make them the most productive possible. Memos of all the meetings will be immediately prepared and sent to the City for review and comment. As indicated previously, the City will be informed in advance of all meetings in case the staff wants to attend. The product of all these meetings will hopefully be letters from the various agencies giving their general approval to the concept. Firm approval may not be necessarily given because of the time frame available for the study and the level of detail; therefore, the agencies may qualify their approvals.of the concept. However, the goal will be to obtain the conceptual approval of these agencies in writing to be incorporated in the appendices of the feasibility study. Task 6 - Feasibility Study Report The final task will be the preparation of the feasibility study report which will include the following: o A summary and evaluation of all previous data o Traffic forecasts provided by the City o Development and evaluation of preliminary plans for each option o Section with the environmental document o Summary of meetings and results of the meetings 8 Exhibit A o Summary of the position of the various agencies o Summary of the entire study and recommendations The pros and cons of each option will be evaluated and discussed and a recommendation of which option to pursue Kill be made. Included in this task will be final meetings with the two cities plus the five formal meetings listed in the RFP. The product of this task will be the final product which will be 15 copies of the feasibility study with all the information generated for the project. 9 �.� Exhibit A SECTION 3 QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE PROJECT TEAM IWA Engineers (IWA) will lead an experienced team that will complete the project on schedule and is comprised of IWA's in-house staff and personnel from the other firms shown on the next page in the organizational chart. All of the team members shown in the organizational chart are currently working together on projects and have completed previous projects together. The staff are all experienced in the design of highways, bridges, traffic engineering and the preparation of environmental documents. The staff is also experienced in working with outside agencies and obtaining their approval. IWA demonstrates the full capability to perform the entire scope of the project and to meet all of the management and technical issues discussed in the RFP within the schedule established by the City. IWA Engineers IWA provides comprehensive civil engineering and planning services with experienced professionals and support staff. The staff of IWA Engineers numbers 21, including 9 engineers, and has the staff size and availability to complete this important assignment on schedule. Included in the services provided by IWA are highway and bridge design, and the coordination and preparation of environmental documents for our projects. The principals and staff have designed and constructed various highway and bridge projects throughout the Southern California area. The principals are involved in each and every project performed by IWA. IWA uses computer driven plotters and personal computers for both working as well as preliminary drawings. The in-house computer hardware is listed below: Alpha -Micro 100OX 6 Alpha -Micro Terminals (AM62) 1 Qume Graphics Terminal Alpha -Micro AN1306 Printer 1043 Calcomp Platter 9100 Calcomp Digitizer 6 Personal Computers connected to main computer IWA has worked on and managed numerous projects requiring a multi- disciplinary team approach. 10 FEASIBILITY. STUDY EXTENSION OF GOTHARD STREET, NORTH OF McFADDEN AVENUE TO ALIGN WITH HOOVER STREET AT BOLSA' AVENUE STRUCTURES & BRIDGE W. KOO, S.E. ORGANIZATIONAL CHART CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PROJECT MANAGER I J. WOOD, P.E. I HIGHWAY DESIGN & CALTRANS COORDINATION U. STANEART, P.E. I D. MILLER I RAILROAD PLANING, COORDINATION AND DESIGN C. SCHIERMEYER ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT D. MEARS, A.I.C.P. I J.OSERG I C �• Exhibit A A partial list of similar projects completed by IWA staff in the last few years is shown below: Freeway Design o Universal/ Freeway Interchange and overcrossing o Shoemaker/Freeway Interchange and overcrossing o John Wayne Airport Freeway Access Study o Costa biesa►I-405 Freeway Access Study and Environment Document o Foothill Ave.11-210 Freeway off -ramp and overcrossing o Harvard Ave.11-405 interchange and overcrossing 0 Stierlin Ave. A01 Freeway interchange and overcrossing Improvements o Rengstorff Ave./101 Freeway interchange and overcross- ing improvements Highway Design 0 163rd, Bloomfield, Shoemaker street improvements, Cerritos 0 Arbor Vitae street improvements, Inglewood o Euclid Ave. street improvements, Upland 0 Coral Dr. street 'improvements, Universal City 0 Universal Center Dr., Universal City 0 Lakeside Plaza Dr., Universal City 0 Cahuenga Blvd. East street improvements, Universal City o Stearns Ave. street improvements, Long Beach, CA. Environmental Documents o Arbor Vitae Street Improvements EIR►EA o Cerritos Towne Center and Shoemaker Ave. Interchange EIR o Oxnard Towne Center Freeway Improvements EAIIS o Universal City/101 Interchange EA/IS o Saddleback Valley Community Church IS o Irwindale Resource Recovery Facility EIR o Costa Mesall-405 Freeway Access EA/IS o Euclid Ave. street improvements EAIIS As seen from the above list, IWA not only has the environmental planning and documentation experience for various projects but also has planned and designed a variety of highway Improvements. Some of the projects listed above included realignment studies and property acquisition. Jerry Wood who Is our nominated project manager for this study managed all the designs, documents and studies listed above. Some of the projects listed above are very similar to the Gothard project. For example, the John' Wayne Airport freeway access study was completed for OCEMA in 2 creeks and conceptual approval of Caltrans was obtained the following week. The Universal City 101 Interchange project is one of the first projects Caltrans has permitted an outside agency or consultant to perform the construction administration. Also, IWA was invited to attend two Caltrans workshops for their senior project development 11 1 Exhibit: A personnel to provide the consultant's perspective on Caltrans and Caltrans new procedures on contracting out to consultants. IWA maintains very close working relationships with Sid Elicks group in District 7 and is working .with Mr. Elicks staff on other projects on a weekly basis. Dave Miller of our staff is working in the District 7 offices with Mr. Elicks staff on the redesign of a portion of I-5 currently. This gives us immediate and daily access to Mr. Elicks group and the rest of Caltrans staff. This staff member will be located in District 7 offices throughout the duration of the City's project and should prove to be very helpful in expediting the City's project through Caltrans. The Planning Center The Planning Center has completed numerous environmental documents for projects located throughout Southern California. Especially important to this project is The Planning Center's experience with other road Improvement projects. The Planning Center recently completed processing an EA/IS for the construction of the Universal City1101 Freeway interchange at Universal City. Currently, The Planning Center is preparing an EAIIS for approximately 20 freeway improvements along I-405 In Costa Aiesa and for the modification of Euclid Ave. in the City of Upland. These last three projects are sub -contracts from IWA Engineers. Additional similar projects for The Planning Center include the following: o Monroe Street Grade Separation EA o Laguna Beach Fire Access Rd. EIR o Taft/Serrano Rd. Improvem-ants Alternatives EA Carl Schlermeyer The other very key team member is Carl Schlermeyer, who is a private consultant with extensive contacts with the SPRR. Ile feel he is particularly important to the successful and timely completion of this project. Mr. Schlermeyer's experience is summarized with the additional stuff assigned to the project. KEY STAFF MEMBERS Full resumes of the key staff members are contained in the appendices. IWA Engineers Jerry R. Wood, P.E. Is one of the principals of IWA Engineers and will serve as Project Manager. Air. Wood has 16 years experience in the planning and design of infrastructure improvements. As previously indicated bir. Rood managed all the highway planning and design projects and environmental projects listed for IWA Engineers. Mr. Wood is presently managing the planning and design of the internal road system for the 125-acre Cerritos Towne Center which includes extensive contact and coordination with outside agencies. Mr. Wood maintains frequent contact with the Caltrans, District 7 office and is working with Sid Elicks' group on numerous other projects. 12 Exhibit A Alarie Staneart, P.E. will serve as project engineer and coordinator with Caltrans. She previously worked with Caltrans for two and one-half years and is very familiar with their standards and has worked on numerous other freeway projects while she has been at IWA Engineers. These include the OCTD study to add a transitway to SR-57, I-5, SR-55 and I-405; the Harvard Ave. /I-405 interchange study; the Santa Monica Blvd. /1-405 interchange improvement study; the Costa Mesa/I-405 Freeway Access Study; and the Foothill Ave. /I-210 Freeway off -ramp and overcrossing geometric plan. Wei Koo, S.E. will serve as structural engineer for the project. Air. Koo is a registered structural engineer who specializes in the design of bridges with 12 years of experience in this field. He has designed numerous bridges and grade separation structures which adhere to AASHTO and Caltrans standards including the Baseline Road Bridge widening projects in La Verne. An important assignment he recently completed was the design of two railroad bridges for the Los Angeles to Long Beach Light Rail line being proposed by LACTC. Mr. Koo is very familiar with the railroad requirements for grade separations. Other projects include the Sheep Hills Rd. Bridge over Aliso Creek, MC-5 Grade Separation Projects, Aliso Creek Rd. Bridge, Moulton Parkway Bridge, and Baseline Rd. Bridge. Dave Miller is a senior designer with over 16 years experience in highway and freeway design. Projects he has designed include the Universal City/101 Freeway interchange, the redesign of I-5 in Santa Ana In connection with the proposed OCTD transitway, Coral Dr., Lakeside Plaza Dr. and Universal Center Dr. Air. Miller is very familiar with Caltrans standards. Carl Schiermeyer Carl Schiermeyer will play a key role in the successful completion of this project on schedule, Mr. Schiermeyer will provide the coordination and planning with the SPRR. Air. Schiermeyer has over 13 years experience in guiding projects through the public agency approval process. As a project manager, he coordinated the Planning Commission and City Council review of numerous environmental and planning studies in Los Angeles County, Irvine, Oxnard, Monrovia, Fresno, Santa Barbara and Walnut Creek. As Director of Government Offices for American High Speed Rail Mr. Schiermeyer coordinated the permit applications to the California Public Utilities Commission and acted as liaison with the affected railroads. Mr. Schiermeyer acted as the project manager for start-up of the multi - modal center in the City of Santa Ana and coordinated extensively with the SPRR. Ile assisted the firm of PBQ&D with coordinating the transitway project they are designing for OCTD in dealing with the SPRR right -of -bray along I-5 in Santa Ana. His current assignment is assisting the City of Fresno with the initiation of a multi -modal rail and bus station in that City. ' ' Mr. Schiermeyer has an excellent understanding of the railroad companies, how they operate, their design requirements, and, most importantly, who to deal with and talk with concerning the Gothard extension project for the City of Huntington Beach. 13 Exhibit A The Planning Center Dwane Alears AICP is a senior environmental planner and will serve as environmental project manager for this assignment. Mr. Mears has managed numerous environmental reports, including several for similar road improvement projects working with IWA Engineers. Mr. Mears is currently managing the preparation of an EA for the I-405 Corridor Access Study for the City of Costa Mesa. His other roadway assignments Include the Tapo Canyon Road and Madera interchange projects in Simi Valley, the Arbor Vitae Street widening project in Inglewood and the Highway 101 interchange at Universal Center Drive. Julie Oberg is an environmental planner with six years of professional planning experience. Her experience includes environmental processing for local, State and Federal agencies, including Caltrans and the FHWA. She also brings to the team experience in historic preservation, and redevelopment planning. Her roadway environmental experience includes the Yale Avenuell-405 overcrossing, SR-1331Spectrum Access Study and the Alton Parkway extension project. 14 r t a �1 Exhibit A SECTION 4 SCHEDULE The schedule as proposed in the RFP is to begin work July 8, 1986 and complete it by August 22, 1986; late completion will render useless. The following schedule is proposed by task: Task 1 - Complete by July 14 Task 2 - Complete by July 18 Task 3 - Complete by August 1 Task 4 - Complete by August 8 Task 5 - Complete by August 15 Task 6 - Complete by August 22 It is unsure at this time when the five firm meetings will be held. However, it is assumed that during the two weeks prior to August 22, these meetings would occur. We have the staff to meet this schedule and are committed to meeting It. 15 Exhibit A SECTION 5 FEE The fee for this project is summarized below and will be billed on a time and material basis with the total show as a maximum not to be exceeded amount: Task 1 $1,275 Task 2 1,835 Task 3 16,315 Task 4 6,650 Task 5 5,240 Task 6 2,,..2,075 Total $33,390 16 k,) Exhibit A SECTION 6 INSURANCE Following this page is a certificate of insurance requested in the RFP. 17 L L I I L L I ' L L L L L L L �Oi Final Report Feasibility Study Extension of Gothard Street Between McFadden Ave. to Bofsa Ave. to Align With Hoover St. Prepared for: City of Huntington Beach Prepared by: IWA Engineers In Association with: The Planning Center August 22, 1986 Ir. k" lw L I" V w V im w W MA FEASIBILITY STUDY EXTENSION OF GOTHARD STREET BETWEEN MCFADDEN AVE. TO BOLSA AVE. TO ALIGN WITIi HOOVER ST. Prepared for: City of Huntington Beach Prepared by: IWA Engineers In Association witli: The Planning Center r. LM Im Am August, 19BG L 6, TABLE OF CONTENTS gale �.. SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION 1 SECTION 2. BACKGROUND 5 SECTION 3. FEASIBILITY 7 General 7 ir. Alternative 1 8 SECTION 4. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS L Noise 17 Aesthetics 24 Land Acquisition I Displacement 24 +�+ Pedestrian/Bicycle/Motorcycle Safety 24 Shade/Shadow 27 Security 27 SECTION 5. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 28 1W APPENDIX A. OVERCROSSING ALTERNATIVE 29 APPENDIX B . ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF 34 �+ OVERPASS ALTERNATIVE APPENDIX C. CORRESPONDENCE 38 Lr 6A ['r 6 1W 64 LIST OF FIGURES Description Page Figure 1 Project Location 2 Figure 2 Project Concept 3 Figure 3 Property Ownership Map 6 Figure 4 Alternative 1 Plan & Profile Undercrossing 9 Figure 5 Minimum Railroad Company Requirements 10 Figure 6 Property to be Acquired Alternative 1 15 Figure 7 Noise Analysis Locations 19 Figure 8 Alternative 1 Undercrossing 25 Figure 9 Location of Section Views 26 Figure 10 Alternative 2 Plan & Profile Overcrossing 30 + Figure 11 Property to be Acquired Alternative 2 33 Figure 12 Alternative 2 Overcrossing 35 Figure 13 Alternative 2 Shadow Pattern 36 L w. 6d I I k..) �' 6A LIST OF TABLES Description Pa e LO Table 1 Alternative 1 Estimated Project Cost 16 Table 2 Results of Noise Measurement Survey 18 Table 3 Distance to Noise Contours for Existing 20 Conditions Table 4 CNEL Noise Levels at Representative 21 Receptor Locations Table 5 Alternative 2 Estimated Project Cost 32 Table 6 CNEL Noise Levels at Representative 37 Receptor Locations is Y.; W iv 6d �r. r. W 64 k.1) r ba SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 60 As shown in Figure 1, the project to be studied in this feasibility study is proposed to be located in the cities of Huntington Beach and Westminster between McFadden Ave. on the south and Bolsa Ave. on the north. Gothard St., which is the subject of this feasibility study, runs in a north to south direction through the City of Huntington Beach and intersects McFadden Ave. where it presently terminates. The City of Huntington Beach is proposing to realign Gothard St. to the east as shown in Figure 2. Based on this realign- ment, which has been approved by the City Council of Huntington Beach, the LW City of Huntington Beach is proposing to analyze extending Gothard St. to the north along the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way to connect to Hoover St. at Bolsa Ave. in the City of Westminster. a Parcel Map $6-277 has been filed with the City of Westminster to subdivide the SPRR property between the I-405 Freeway and McFadden Ave. which would probably result In making the Gothard St. extension infeasible. In .Tune of 1986, the City Council of Huntington Beach requested the City Coun- cil of Westminster to defer action on Parcel hiap 86-277 for 30 to 60 days so that the City of Huntington Beach could assist the City of Westminster in W+ determining the merits of the extension of Gothard St. by providing needed traffic engineering and environmental studies regarding the extension of Gothard St. through to Hoover St. The City Council of Westminster agreed to defer action on the parcel map for 60 days. The purpose of this study, which is to be completed by August 22, 1986, is to prepare a feasibility study on the extension of Gothard St. from McFadden Ave. to align with Hoover St. at Bolsa Ave. The feasibility study will present alternatives for the alignment and include construction cost data (including right-of-way costs), feasibility analysis, engineering drawings, and 1W environmental and traffic information to determine the desirability and feasibility of the proposed extension. Included In the scope are necessary meetings and coordination with outside agencies such as SPRR and Caltrans to W review the concepts with them and receive their input. The extension of Gothard St. to Bolsa Ave. would require amending the Official Street and Highway Map of the City of Westminster and the County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) to show the extension. There are no special County requirements to place a roadway on the hIPAH and adding the extension should be straight -forward. The scope of the project is as described below: 1. Prepare a feasibility study of 1) an overcrossing over I-405 and 2) an undercrossing utilizing the existing railroad undercrossing of I-405. W W L 0 t 4 r M%ju i LOCATION ram' i" FIGURE 1 GOTHARD ST. EXTENSION FEASIBILITY STUDY PROJECT LOCATION 2 "s%-I IPA ` ; y,i li'�Ilarrr I� I II `i < `'�j1'J STM*IIt��SvTr�CR <�,L 8 I•r, 31 IMINE 35 �JI iil IBM n�r-,_I 11! ...e.,,l7r'Nti7.411�►71�E^^ �_ R I r s.a,,,= ! • ��8=��1(�zTH 1NJ s t- _ I J Flre' l P/rM_ j. Webber -= �I(--� �1 ■ y lYarner 171 �( � Slatlon -'- ` 1 ti = �-dIz , Schl�l.e III NOMEIICvva �f I j S - �•• J��LJlS1Jl=J ` 33-LMaIN-JI r,j�L_RI .�1 tiI ra_mo_n_t��ch_ Jj(�r=- 0, ti b d�. T I (��, V II�4Tfall�f Lt N.11 Westmmater II jIJIJ� CHWOOK-]� AVE - _\ IGgh Sch4-, .Jl_ .I LL _.--���-Q Paik l_-r-Il-__ I �/ • S !� `i r Sch I �f� 1 forty sr POPLAR _y It. �.. HA ZA RO' �i VC - - 1 S MG?7t i RA C 'll t.�tr■ ^�� hi], is 11 !� We51r1+t Astopy i - 3 ` ` — ! e m of I a l p i k�C_ 1 ty . _ (n 1 1 pd• ' �19 I AfA f5 N 2� A L,A ,S F i0.•C�I C •S W WESTMINSTE 4 ��lY`1 a C k{dlaa F;11Nan% f • 4u1 hl•' f_+ �'G �� w �i l > MEMORIAL PA K �I :1 + 5 fN ro v t S,h 21� ,•_ t� "f . J. r, IM 0 (Cemetery) �`I: 2�illto O'er Z r1 y BOLSA AVE i=,irE�_ 11 _ ■a I �� +11 ,�!I '. ; '�._-..._��. +r-"1 Ir IIII pp 77 HI 117710 F.(( !H .l '� fa�.�'��{' r h : ,,.,•Ir' �- mob' } � 1� II r! ' n n •=,'i� o Y�r311er"1� l �� slrt _. ' ■ "" I TraTe y Iz ,--_2__•� _ �1Schrog ;I o �I c CORNELL ( [�:DR - . W chi, 4 _� ._� _ ?•1 �' I •1 r ' i i l'I SM!leII py ' Air=`� -.� � `� �----�' " � �' r �� �,_ „ : � • � � ��� �; ;, AIL ���I! 1'lr'I rill, h OI=�i �i lI(ifyln�4vIQM11 . ■ I` I'' ,ST'\r ' f r. I t .\ '/ II �� _ _-1C=MCFADDEN AVE 11 1111 II' ?paflll•,, N— --- — ~` ' _aa` lip = u'' z11 �� _�__�� a „-� �5, li AVE ;! f — 7; iu j i_ =gam 1-� ►`%J ` • : j 0 �PRI CILA.r�= R OI�r -JI �i If �! I Cyr •' "••� 1 J ' , 3 1''schl 1� r.. ~`- 1„ h' r■ _ I'tl CEN � R AVE Circle !�� -� I I•• Cire View �. J I ZI( ti17I}77fT! R'� Y Y M t-_.j-a �_'-_'____ _ _ t ❑_ _ a _ 5==__: tL WI1 IC�erlleEDINGER AVE ml� �— II .T ■ e ---- . r AVE-._ _ __ .NI }. ■1• • t • li i •'��,Swv L ;a I �° tt i l� gm rtze 10j{r Ott•. . i( 1 �'— -rO_- 1� 11r�� p ! _ �13,�_�t-.,11 ■■ ��ri}r"� ro■ � 'S i M r r _— z '� t! 1�__ -� �pp(t�' 3—crh3'i -�- - ___(i" �p�I!� I- _J �•ll� 'ii�.:a',�,-Y��mo. te,ttt.:. --'t'; -_�-.'�.�,`W 'QJZ- `LirI' '; r'III' , ��,� !, wt.S��t=o.i1 t.:W3 —az_ l �•�'• . 133 V Coll S,.h 0 W �e�-Nt �Cof LJ s— SL11 _itVERiE7 l � �..._--__�•__ - N- PROPOSED GOTHARD ST. EXTENSION FIGURE 2 GOTHARD ST. EXTENSION FEASIBILITY STUDY PROJECT CONCEPT 2. Prepare environmental documents assessing the potential environmental impacts and mitigations of some of the project alter- natives. Ir+ 3. Attend meetings required to receive the input of the various agencies involved in the project and hearings with Huntington Beach and Westminster. The environmental review will be one component of the feasibility study, providing the City of Huntington Beach and the City of Westminster plus the r.+ other agencies important information concerning any critical environmental constraints associated with the project. The focus of this environmental analysis will be on the identification of any significant environmental impacts on the school, residences or parks that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level. One example of this type of "fatal flaw" assessment would be to deter- mine if resulting noise levels at the school or residences would exceed accepted standards. �a b" iw 1. I. Any environmental processing required by the California Environmental Quality Act would be conducted at a later date. 4 6 Ud SECTION 2 W BACKGROUND There have been previous studies of the proposed extension of Gothard St. Donald Frischer & Assoc. concluded that a four -lane arterial highway was necessary and that the feasible alternative was to have the railroad line aban- don their tracks under the I-405 overcrossing and construct a four lane ar- terial highway. Presently, the SPRR Co. has no plans to abandon this track as it is used to make deliveries to lumber companies, primarily in Huntington Beach. Mostly the track is used once a day between the hours of 5 Phi. and W 8 PM. Therefore, abandoning the RR right-of-way does not appear to be a near -term possibility. ia Previous traffic studies by PBQ&D for the Huntington Center Commercial Dis- trict Development show that Gothard St. presently has a daily traffic volume (ADT) of about 16,500 vehicles at McFadden Ave. and that the ADT for Gothard St. is expected to increase by 2,300 vehicles to 18,800 vehicles per 626 day based on the future growth in the area. The PBQ&D report further states that if Gothard St. were extended to Bolsa Ave. an additional 5,000 to 7,500 vehicles per day would use the highway, increasing the ADT for iw Gothard St. to approximately 23,800 to 26,300 vehicles per day. The maxi- mum capacity of a four lane arterial is 30,000 vehicles per day. Therefore, the extension of Gothard St. must be, as a minimum, two lanes in each direc- W tion with left turn pockets at McFadden Ave. and Bolsa Ave. Figure 3 shows the existing property ownership along the SPRR right-of-way. Presently, the SPRR and SCE rights -of -way between I-405 and Bolsa Ave. are iw used by a nursery to store plant materials. Parcel No. 1, shown on Figure 3, is presently vacant and is the parcel presently being considered by the City of Westminster for rezoning. The SPRR currently has a basic 30 foot right-of-way for the railroad tracks and then approximately another 100 feet to the west, which varies to some extent. SCE has a right-of-way for their power lines further to the west �.. bordering the SPRR right-of-way. The County Sanitation District of Orange County has a: 30 foot easement that jb. parallels the SPRR right-of-way to the east for a 69-inch sanitary sewer that runs the entire length between McFadden Ave. and Bolsa Ave. 4" 4" 5 161 NOT TO SCALE EXIST. GOTH.4.QD ST. tu IN ilES/DENCES 1 h�OYE�P ST. IL "�-COUivTY 54N.0/5Tf?/CT r _ fb5 ES/DEICES , O �, � V C/Ty OF C/TY OFWWI -4 RE5/L1f�e/Cf3 Q GOTf/iAi�t?ST. /yUNT/NGTDN BEACH I WESTMINSTER V COUNTY SAN T DISTi�/CT O O lu -1 m - 2 m A O N Z M j M m m N X W M � v N � � o > z ASSESSORS PARCEL NO ASSESSES NAME . D /9P - 3!/ - 33 S.P. �.R. a /42 -.42/•/ S.C.E. 4O /¢2 - 022 // SO. PACI IC 7*i4ANSPORTA7'/ON CO. . 0 /42-022-/0 COUNTY SAN/Ti1T/OAS/ D/ST. Oj ORANGE COUA/TY © /4? -022- 2 WZ'S7-M1NSTER -ICflOOL D/SJ~ ( AAS///O,V gOMES, INC. ® 1 /d2 -27/-5 ATAN/C HOF;rA"N,, ✓R. rr+ ibis GENERAL Jbw Im 6d i" �,Wo SECTION 3 FEASIBILITY As previously stated, the purpose of this feasibility study is to completely analyze the feasibility of either constructing a four lane arterial underneath the 1-405 bridge sharing the railroad right-of-way and tracks with the SPRR or constructing a bridge over the I-405 and sharing the railroad right-of- way. Under either alternative the railroad right-of-way not needed by the railroad company for the railroad tracks would be purchased for the extension of Gothard St. at fair market value. Under either alternative, the railroad property presently being considered by the City of Westminster for rezoning would be purchased for the extension of Gothard St. It is important to understand the railroad's attitude about the extension of Gothard St. Their representatives have made it clear that they are opposed The to sharing the undercrossing with a City street. Their feeling is that the undercrossing was constructed for railroad purposes and should remain that way. Furthermore, the railroad is opposed to a diagonal roadway crossing of L its tracks which would be required in the undercrossing alternative. While the railroad states that it requires only a minimum right-of-way of 28 feet (10 feet on either side of track center as well as an 8 foot access road), it is of- ficially reluctant at this stage of the feasibility analysis to concede the pos- 61 sibility of constructing a roadway on the remaining portion of its right-of- way. On the issue of a diagonal roadway crossing, the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) does not appear as concerned about the diagonal roadway crossing as does the railroad. The PUC is the state agency which must approve all at- L grade crossings. Caltrans is not a major factor in this study since this study does not address any additional ramps to the I-405. If ramps are feasible from the Gothard St. kw extension, which has been explored by others and rejected by Caltrans, they should be included in another study. Caltrans' only concern will be with the structural integrity of the I-405 overerossing through which the SPRR tracks 61 pass and what impact, if any, the proposed extension of Gothard St. has on the structure or within their right-of-way. The Southern California Edison Company (SCE) has also been contacted as a �-+ part of this study. The proposed extension of Gothard St. north of McFadden Ave. will have no impact on the SCE transmission line right-of-way, although it could affect the distribution pole line along the east side of the y„ SPRR right-of-way. Southerly of McFadden Ave., the City of Huntington Beach has adopted a precise alignment for Gothard St. which will require the purchase of a substantial portion of SCE transmission line right-of-way. SCE Is concerned about the extent of this required purchase and the diagonal crossing of their right-of-way. Their staff has suggested locating Gothard St. next to and parallel to the SPRR tracks between McFadden Ave. and Center Dr. J� 1W a� r Under either the undercrossing or overcrossing alternative, a nursery lessee in the SCE right-of-way southerly of McFadden Ave. will be substantially impacted as will a nursery operation lying between the I-405 and Bolsa Ave. who leases land from both SPRR and SCE. The nursery operator north of 1-405 will lose most of the land currently leased from the SPRR and will have to be given enough time to sell off his stock before construction can begin in this area. The City of Huntington Beach survey crew surveyed the area of the proposed extension and the base maps prepared for the presentation of the alternatives use their survey notes for its preparation. �r ALTERNATIVE 1 Alternative 1 proposes that the extension be constructed underneath the I-405 overcrossing and the proposed roadway share the right-of-way with the SPRR tracks. Figure 4 shows a plan, profile and sections for this alternative. Before describing this alternative in detail, it is important to understand some of the railroad company's design concerns with this alternative and their design criteria. Figure 5 shows the minimum clearance requirements for the railroad tracks and clearance to adjoining structures. As shown in Figure 5, the railroad company requires a minimum clearance of 10 feet from the center- line of the tracks on both sides to any structure. In addition, they require I�rr another contiguous 8 feet on either side for their own access road so that they can park vehicles off the tracks while performing maintenance. There- fore, their minimum clear right-of-way is 28 feet for the tracks, which should y, include their own access road. Another design criteria that the railroad company considers important is the length of an at -grade railroad crossing and a strong desire that the tracks cross any road as perpendicularly as possible. Figure 4 shows the railroad tracks crossing the road at a relatively shallow angle. With respect to the proposed crossing, the reason stated by the railroad company is that they do �., not want the tracks to cross any road because of their concern about bicycle tires getting caught between the tracks or motorcycle tires slipping on wet metal tracks if the motorcycle tires are on the tracks for too long. Also, if the tracks cross a road at a very shallow angle then the length of the cross- ing becomes very long which will require a long advance notice for oncoming trains and a slightly longer delay for the cars at this crossing. Finally, the E railroad company was concerned about cars going around any gates given the long time delay caused by such a long railroad at -grade crossing. For the proposed grade crossing, the railroad indicated its strong preference to grade separate the railroad and the road by building a bridge over the tracks. However, in reviewing this proposal, the PUC has indicated that it has no major concerns with an at -grade crossing in the proposed configura- tion. Nonetheless, the railroad concerns were strongly addressed in the design of the railroad crossing for Alternative 1 which was designed to provide the maximum angle possible and minimize the length of the grade crossing. Also, a median is proposed to be constructed at the grade crossing �., so cars cannot drive around the gates. For this grade crossing, it is impor- tant to note in Figure 4 that grade crossings already exist at Bolsa Ave. and 6 8 6 i 6A c MA Cr IN /600 M/,v T4NC TE4C,r //'M/N FD.P Nor.-2a� CzZllE0 T. . Zh4flr DF E-reAy4T/D/1 lo�,P /el/E,P loccor f/6S h//T/10U7 SlJO.P/NC 66 ,rDAO �,S'E� morer 3o l f r EpGE of EXC/IYgT/DN iO,P r` �,6 ,MfN L � .� J ��\ Ole,r FdvT,cYGS• eve SNDP,-IAC•SEe /are A117y Af41A1rE1cG4A/ce ,POQo /v0 -,W11 121i(wAv,E Pa447 bw MINIMUM SECTION AWAY FROM SLOPES am FIGURE 5 GOTHARD ST. EXTENSION FEASIBILITY STUDY MINIMUM R.R. CO. REQUIREMENTS W 10 16W +w+ at McFadden Ave. Therefore, the addition of another grade crossing in- between these two streets will not result in much, if any, change in railroad operation since these two crossings already are stopping traffic on Bolsa Ave. 6. and McFadden Ave. and would effectively have to be operated in "sync" with a Gothard St. crossing between these two streets. im Rubber crossing material is also recommended as part of this initial construc- tion. Another criterion that the railroad company specifies relates to the location 6o of their gates. Their criterion is to locate their gate arms on the outside of streets with specific distances from the street curb. As will be discussed, because of the limited right-of-way available and other constraints, the gates for these crossings are proposed to be located in the median island which is not a precedent but is not where the railroad company would prefer or nor- mally install them. A warning light will be installed on the outside lanes of both the northbound and southbound lanes. In addition, as a result of 6w preliminary review by the PUC, .a cantilevered warning light structure is also Included. 6 A Finally, the railroad company has a minimum spiral curve radius requirement of 574 feet for their tracks. In all cases this minimum requirement has been met for both alternatives. Section B-B in Figure 4 shows the existing and proposed conditions under- neath the I-405 overcrossing. The location of the section is shown in the plan view on Figure 4. As shown in Section B-B, there is only 46 feet .. clear underneath the I-405 overcrossing between the existing bridge columns. The railroad tracks are presently located in the center between the columns. As shown in Figure 4, it is proposed to relocate the railroad tracks to the east, provide the proper clearance to any existing and proposed structures, and construct two northbound lanes. Because of the lateral clearances underneath the bridge, the curb -to -curb width of the road is 22 feet, which Is adequate. However, examination of Section B-B shows that there is not �+ sufficient lateral distance to locate the access road that the railroad company requires immediately next to the tracks. The access road would be con- structed between the eastern set of bridge columns and into the bridge abut- ment using retaining walls. Figure 4 also shows that the two southbound lanes would be located between the bridge columns and the existing bridge abutment by constructing retaining walls. To minimize costs and impacts on the I-405 bridge abutment, the curb -to -curb width of the southbound lanes would also be 22 feet. An important design feature shown in Section B-B is the location of the W railroad access road. Between McFadden Ave. and I-405, the railroad has sufficient existing right-of-way for the access road without acquiring any additional right-of-way except for the very rear corner of the adjoining property (Parcel 8 in Figure 3). Underneath the I-405 bridge, an easement for the access road will have to obtained for the railroad company from Caltrans. The railroad company will probably object to this as they prefer to have the access road on their own property. However, since providing the access road is a strong requirement, it is felt that the approval can be obtained for this since the right-of-way is from Caltrans and there is no AW 11 �wr LW i `.% w other use for this area. The access road would be in an exclusive easement to the railroad company. � The access road would continue along the eastern side of the realigned rail- road tracks until it reaches the railroad crossing where it would end and then begin on the other side of the tracks on the west side. Figure 4 shows that the access road between the I-405 and the proposed crossing would be located In the Sanitation District 30 foot easement. For this stretch of the access road it is proposed that the City purchase the property, Parcel 7 shown in Figure 3, which would include the sanitary sewer easement and grant the w railroad the right to use the entire easement area for their access road or donate the property to the railroad company so that they can control the easement and the access road would be on their property. In either case, the access road could be constructed and could be provided to the railroad bw company in a public easement or on their own property. The access road on the west side of the street north of the proposed crossing would be on rail- road property and presents no problem. to In summary, the access road . required by the railroad company can be provided the entire length of the tracks between McFadden Ave. and Bolsa W Ave. However, the property ownership of the access road may not be the railroad's the entire length or they may have to share an easement with the Sanitation District. This will have to be worked out with the railroad com- pany but since the access road is provided, the intent of their requirement is �+ met and no reasonable grounds for their refusal other than their preference to own the property on which the access road is located can be developed and it should be possible to convince the PUC that this is acceptable if the rail- road company objects. The access road will be required along the entire length of Parcel 7 shown in Figure 3. At the north end of Parcel 7, two homeowners have extended their r backyards into the Sanitation District easement. The extension of Gothard St. underneath the I-405 bridge will require that these homeowners move their yards and any facilities out of the Sanitation District easement. The access road and the railroad crossing are designed so that the access road avoids the Westminster school district property (Parcel 6 in Figure 6) . w This is clearly shown in Figure 4. The alignment and curve radii of the relocated railroad tracks shown in Figure 4 meet the minimum requirements established by the railroad company. Therefore, the alignment of the relocated tracks should not be objected to by SPRR. 6W The grade crossing shown in Figure 4 is the minimum in length possible for the conditions shown in Figure 4. The gates, as discussed previously, are located in the median because of inadequate distances on the east side of the w railroad tracks. The location of the gates will have to be negotiated with the railroad company as However, it is not and it is felt that r.� the PUC, if recess they normally locate them along the outside of the road. without precedent to locate the gates in the road median this can be negotiated with the railroad company or with ary. The railroad crossing is approximately 350 feet 12 160 i Iw long, and considering the location of the crossings at Bolsa Ave. and McFadden Ave., does not present a severe problem even though the angle of the track crossing is much shallower than preferred by the railroad company. 6" The railroad company will nonetheless probably object to the railroad crossing shown in Figure 4. They would prefer to grade separate this crossing by having the road built over the railroad. A grade separation structure would 11W shift the railroad crossing approximately 300 feet to the north. This is necessary to provide reasonable grades to the bridge. Moving the crossing F this far north would result in the access road Intruding approximately W 150 feet longitudinally onto the school property which is undesirable. The grade separation structure would add significant cost to this alternative as subsequently shown. 6" As shown in Section B-B retaining walls will have to be constructed in the abutments of the I-405 bridge for the southbound traffic lanes and the rail- road access road. These walls would be a tie -back system which would not 4W interfere with the structure. Caltrans bridge department in Sacramento was contacted about this design and the structural integrity of the bridge during an earthquake. This last point Is important since the bridge was constructed about 25 years ago and seismic design standards have changed since then. However, the Caltrans office of structures design stated that the bridge does not require earthquake retrofitting in accordance with current guidelines. The structure is a continuous • structure which may suffer damage at the 6+ abutments, but should not collapse in a major earthquake. Therefore, to construct the road underneath the bridge and realign the railroad tracks will require no modification to the Caltrans bridge. The design of the retaining W walls will have to be approved by the Caltrans office of structures design but this is not expected to be a problem and is a design detail. As shown in Figure 4, the Gothard St. extension aligns very well %-ith the centerline of the proposed Gothard St. at the intersection with McFadden Ave. However, at Hoover St., the centerlines do not align and approximately 600 feet of Hoover St. will have to be reconstructed and shifted to the west ,i,.r to align with the proposed Gothard St. extension. This will require the pur- chase of additional right-of-way from SPRR. Figure 4 shows that left turn pockets are provided at McFadden Ave. and at Bolsa Ave. These are neces- sary given the total daily traffic expected for this street in the future. The ''� median would be eliminated at the two intersections to provide for the left turn pockets and the street widened a few feet. AW The street vertical and horizontal alignments and curves shown in Figure 4 are designed for a speed of 50 l%TH. However, the street would probably be posted for 40 MPH. The road widths for the northbound and southbound lanes shown in Figure 4 are 22 feet curb -to -curb because of the restrictions underneath the I-405 bridge as previously discussed. Upon further analysis and during final design, it may be possible to transition out from underneath the I-405 bridge and provide wider lanes. The design shown in Figure 4 does not accommodate a sidewalk for pedestrians or a separate bike lane because of the lateral clearances under- neath the I-405 bridge. It might be possible to construct a sidewalk for w. 13 W pedestrians and bicycles west of the southbound lanes if it is possible to con- struct that far into the I-405 bridge abutment. This cannot be determined until a detailed design is prepared. Figure 6 shows the right-of-way and property recommended to be acquired for Alternative 1. Based on an analysis by the City's real estate department, the purchase price of this property is estimated at $5.501sq.ft. for the +�• property south of I-405 and $3.501sq. ft. for the property north of I-405. For Parcel 7 the purchase price has been estimated at $11sq. ft. as that par- cel does not pay any taxes. The total estimated right-of-way cost for Alter- native 1 is $829,000. Table 1 is the estimated project cost for Alternative 1 and includes right-of- way cost, construction cost (as itemized), engineering and administration and �' contingencies. The total estimated project cost is $3, 847, 000. If a grade separation structure would be necessary at the proposed grade crossing, the project cost would increase to approximately $6, 347, 000. W W W %W w. LO A0 am 6W W 14 W EX/S T. GOT/i 41CO 5T RES/DENCES / Zj m W U' M'OMSED GOTf/i4RDST. D r m w a -1 m � �-G'O!/NTY NOT TO SCALE if ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. ASSESSES NAME /0 /42-3//-33 S.PR.R. ® /42 - 022 TRANSPORTAT/ON Co O5 /42 -022 -/O COUNTY 5AN/7,47'/0N O/ST. OF ORANGE COUNTY © /42 2 kYESTiyJiNSTER sch'ooL oisr. O7 /4? -/¢ FA Sf//ON h/OMES, INC ® /42 -27/-5 FRANfC f/OFF,YIAN, dR. 1 %/ w. 4. TABLE 1. GOTHARD ST. EXTENSION, ALTERNATIVE 1 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST Item Cost 1. RIGHT-OF-WAY $829,000 SUBTOTAL $829,000 2. CONSTRUCTION 66 Demolition, clear & grub $5,000 Relocate 17 power poles 85,000 510 ft. 24" RCP pipe 15,000 4 catch basins 7,000 9788 ft. of 8" PCC curb & gutter 68,000 Striping 1,000 Slope planting/Irrigation 14,000 +w 2166 ft. RR R1W chain link fence 19,000 1410 S.A. concrete sound wall 127,000 Residential Noise Mitigation 100,000 3500 SF structural deck 157,000 11,135 sq. ft. retaining wall 501,000 Hoover St. realignment 65,000 N11sc. drainage 20,000 280 ft. of railroad crossing 150,000 2 RR gates and cantilevered lights 250,000 17 streetlights 43,000 r. PCC median 430000 Asphalt paving & base 284,000 Access road for RR 4,000 2245 ft. of relocated track 280,000 2 traffic signals 200,000 Fill 32,000 Miscellaneous 100,000 r- SUBTOTAL $2,470,000 3. ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRAT10N $310,000 4. CONTINGENCIES $250,000 r. TOTAL $3,959,000 60 W I" 16 W b. SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF UNDERPASS ALTERNATIVE The following is a brief review of the key environmental issues raised by the proposed Gothard Street extension. It is not intended to be as comprehen- sive or as detailed as may be required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Rather, this review serves to quickly identify any adverse en- vironmental impacts which might render the project unacceptable. This sec- tion describes the impacts of the underpass alternative; the overpass alterna- tive is reviewed in the appendix. NOISE 64 An important part of a noise analysis is the identification of noise -sensitive land uses that may be impacted by the proposed project. In the case of Gothard Street extension project, there are existing and proposed residential land uses located along the extension site, both to the north and south of the freeway. These include single-family homes and a school backing up to the extension site north of the freeway on the east side. South of the freeway are both single-family and multi -family homes as well as a park. The single- family homes and the park are on the west boundary of the project north of McFadden Avenue. The multi -family homes are on the east boundary of the development south of McFadden Avenue. The Noise Elements of the General Plan of the Cities of Huntington Beach and Westminster have established guidelines for acceptable community noise levels lr. which are based on the CNEL rating scale. For residential uses, the noise levels in exterior living areas (rear yards, patios and. balconies) cannot exceed 65 dB CNEL. The interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed 45 dB CNEL in any habitable room. While there are no specific noise standards for schools, a common design goal for school class- rooms is 45 dB CNEL. LA ExistinLr Noise Environment The existing noise environment was determined through a comprehensive noise measurement survey and computer modeling effort. A noise survey of five locations in the vicinity of the project site was utilized in describing the ex- isting noise setting. The existing noise levels were determined within the project boundaries at noise -sensitive land uses that may be affected by the 60 proposed project. The existing environment was modeled in order to establish a baseline noise level to which the proposed project can be compared. 4" A noise measurement survey was conducted on August 11, 1986 at five loca- tions in the vicinity of the project. The noise measurements were conducted between the hours of 3 PM and 5 PM to depict peak hour traffic conditions. The noise measurements were designed to determine ambient noise levels and to validate the FHWA Highway Noise hlodel. The measurement locations were selected to depict the noise environment at residential land uses adjacent to the roadway. The measure locations are shown in Figure 7. Sites A and C 17 6 V Q �W) `W measured the outdoor noise levels at the single-family residences north of the freeway. Site B measured the noise levels at Land Elementary School. Site 4 determined the noise levels for the single-family homes and the park south of 6. the freeway. Site 5 monitored the noise levels at the multi -family residential homes southeast of the project. 6d The results of the noise measurement survey are shown in Table 2. The quantities measured were the Equivalent Noise Level (LEQ) and the Percent Noise Levels (L%). Percent Noise Levels are another method of characterizing ambient noise where, for example, L90 is the noise level exceeded 90 percent &d of the time, L50 is the level exceeded 50 percent, and L10 is the Ievel exceeded 10 percent of the time. L90 represents the background or minimum noise level, L50 represents the average noise level, and L10 the peak or Intrusive noise levels. The results in Table 2 represent existing noise levels as a result of traffic on the San Diego Freeway and the existing adjacent roadways. TABLE 2. RESULTS OF NOISE MEASUREMENT SURVEY �+ Principal Site Land Use LEQ L10 L50 L90 Noise Source v A Single -Family Residential 60.8 62 59 56 Traffic on I-405 and Bolsa B Land Elementary School 57.2 58 56 55 Traffic on I-405 C Single -Family Residential 65.7 67 65 63 Traffic on I-405 D Single -Family Residential 56.9 68 64 64 Traffic on I-405 E Multi -Family Residential 64.91 66 60 55 Railroad and Traffic on McFadden iw 6. 1 Denotes measurements including train passby. Without train noise included, the LEQ noise level would be 61.0. The existing traffic noise levels in the vicinity of the project were also estab- lished in terms of the CNEL indices by modeling the roadways for the current traffic and speed characteristics. The existing noise environment was modeled in order to establish a baseline noise level in which to compare with the proposed project. Table 3 describes the distances to the 60, 65, and 70 CNEL contours for the modeled roadways. These represent the distance from W the centerline of the road to the contour value shown. Note that these tables do not include the mitigating effect of the existing noise barriers for the residential land uses along these roadways. The noise levels from this track ►" were developed from the Wyle Train model and are presented in Table 3. k" i" 18 1W #1 6R/IVII, Aw 1 11 qiio 1' 375' 'a q1 ot K AI BY.. Mo: F �0- ARM 4 Ir N IN zg 1 Wn, w 5. NNING 'LATER C RT 19 4 i&4 /W/W 11:1 6 TABLE 3. DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOURS FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS 6" Distance to CNEL Contour From -Roadway Centerline (feet) Roadway Segment 60 CNEL 65 CNEL 70 CNEL Gothard Street South of McFadden 195 90 42 Bolsa Avenue 222 103 48 McFadden Avenue 229 106 49 �+ San Diego Freeway 1947 904 ' 419 Southern Pacific 30 9 - LPotential Noise Impacts Representative noise sensitive receptors have also been identified in the vicinity of the project site, and will be used to assess the potential noise im- L pacts. Sensitive receptors are considered residential or other noise sensitive land uses that may be affected by the proposed project. The noise sensitive receptors include existing residential land uses that may be affected by the L proposed project. The noise sensitive receptors include existing residential land uses that may be affected by the proposed project. The noise sensitive receptors include existing residential land uses both north and south of the San Diego Freeway and the Land Elementary School. The representative noise sensitive receptors are depicted in Figure 7. These are the same locations identified in the noise measurement survey. W Table 4 indicates the CNEL noise levels for each of these representative loca- tions along Gothard Street. The exterior noise level exposure at each of these locations was determined for future traffic conditions without the exten- sion of Gothard Street and for the project alternative. These values represent the noise levels at the rear yard of these homes and include the effects of any existing sound barriers. In addition, the exterior W noise levels were computed assuming the construction of an 8-foot high wall along the east boundary of the project as is specified in the plans. The interior noise levels represent second story exposure and were projected for both windows closed and windows open. Windows closed would be typical of winter conditions while windows open would be typical of summer conditions. The interior noise assessment criterion is in terms of windows closed. W 6W 20 6d Ir. TABLE 4. CNEL NOISE LEVELS AT REPRESENTATIVE RECEPTOR LOCATIONS 1990 CNEL Noise Levels Alternative 1 Site Location WO Project (Underpass) A Single -Family Residential Exterior (w/existing walls) 57.0 64.3 Exterior (wlproposed 8' walls) -- 62.0 Interior (windows open) 45.0 55.4 Interior (windows closed) 37.0 47.4 +� B Land Elementary School Exterior (no existing mitigation) 58.0 64.9 Exterior (wlproposed 8' walls) -- 60.1 Interior (windows open) 46.0 48.11 Interior (windows closed) 38.0 40.11 C Single -Family Residential Exterior (no existing mitigation) 65.0 69.0 Exterior (wlproposed 8' walls) -- 65.0 Interior (windows open) 53.0 57.0 Interior (windows closed) 45.0 49.0 D Single -Family Residential Exterior (wlexisting walls) 57.0 62.5 Interior (windows open) 45.0 50.5 Interior (windows closed) 37.0 42.5 E Multi -Family Residential Exterior (wlexisting walls) 60.0 64.5 Interior (windows open) 48.0 54.5 Interior (windows closed) 38.0 44.5 Denotes classroom interior noise Ivels include effects of proposed 8' sound wall. CNEL noise levels were determined for the noise from Gothard Street, the San Diego Freeway and adjacent arterials combined. The results of the analysis show that, without mitigation, future noise levels at noise sensitive land uses are greater than the Cities' 65 CNEL standard for some homes. Each of these locations are discussed in detail in the following paragraphs. Location A depicts the noise levels for the existing two-story single- family homes at the northeast boundary of the project site. These r,. homes are protected by a 5 to 6-foot high property line wall adjacent to the project corridor. This existing wall is adequate in reducing the future noise levels to below the 65 dB CNEL criterion. The proposed 8-foot wall provides even greater noise reduction. It is estimated that 21 iW &M L the second story interior noise levels would be slightly higher than the 45 dB CNEL standard. 6 Location B depicts the noise levels at the Land Elementary School south of the freeway on the east boundary of the project. The classroom buildings are located greater than 200 feet from the roadway centerline. 6 The proposed 8-foot wall more than adequately reduces the classroom Interior noise levels to less than 45 dB CNEL. With this wall, the out- door school yard areas will also be less than 65 dB CNEL. Location C represents the noise levels for a similar two-story single- family residential area as Location A, except this location represents the homes closer to the freeway. At the freeway, the existing noise levels r.. are the same or exceed the 65 dB CNEL criterion. The proposed 8-foot sound wall will reduce the outdoor noise levels to the without project levels. This is achieved because this wall reduces the noise exposure from both Gothard and the freeway. The second story interior noise levels with windows closed are estimated to be above the 45 dB CNEL standard for both with and without the project. kw Location D depicts the noise levels for the existing two-story single- family homes south of the freeway on the west boundary of the project site. These homes are protected by a 5 to 6-foot high property line wall adjacent to the yard area. These homes are set further back from the extension site. This existing wall is adequate in reducing the future noise levels to below the 65 dB CNEL criterion. It is estimated that the second story interior noise levels with windows closed would be less than the 45 dB CNEL standard. Li Location E represents the noise levels for the existing multi -family homes that are located south of McFadden Avenue on the east boundary of the project site. These are two-story units with the outdoor use areas not facing the project site. The exterior noise levels are 1W projected to be below the 65 dB CNEL criterion. The second story Interior noise levels with windows closed are estimated to be just below the 45 dB CNEL criterion. +� Table 4 also shows the increase or decrease in the noise as a result of the project. The results show that there will be some increase in the noise levels due to the project. These increases range from 0 to 7 dBA. Generally, it W takes a 1 to 3 dBA increase in the community noise level to be distinguished by the human ear and thereby be considered significant. Thus, the project i does result in some noticeable increases in the noise environment. However, with mitigation, the noise levels can be reduced to below the Cities' exterior and interior noise level standards. Mtlgatfon Measures There are various strategies available to mitigate noise impacts from roadway noise sources. The most common measures include: (1) reducing the noise emission levels from the noise source; (2) blocking the noise transmission paths with a noise barrier; and (3) shielding the receiver from noise by increasing the noise reduction characteristics of the building. All of these potential measures will be discussed in the following paragraphs. 22 60 L f L Noise Source Reduction it The only means a local agency has in controlling the noise levels from motor vehicles are by controlling the vehicle speeds and truck traffic. The City 6" should investigate methods of controlling vehicle speeds along Gothard Street. Noise Barrier Design lliitigation through the design and construction of a noise barrier is the most common way of alleviating traffic noise impacts. The effect of a noise barrier Is critically dependent on the geometry between the noise source and the receiver. A noise barrier effect occurs when the line -of -sight between the source and receiver is penetrated by the barrier. The greater the penetra- tion the greater the noise reduction. A barrier which does not break the 6 line -of -sight is not an effective barrier, while one which just interrupts the line -of -sight achieves a 5 dBA reduction in noise. Indoor/Outdoor Building Noise Reduction Traffic noise impacts in the interior living spaces of the homes and school classrooms adjacent to Gothard Street are also impacted by the proposed project. Increasing the indoor/outdoor noise reduction characteristics of the residential buildings provides the best means of minimizing the potential Impacts on interior noise levels. The following measures are discussed in terms of their benefit in reducing the traffic noise impacts on the homes adjacent to Gothard Street. The noise reduction estimates are general estimates of the increase in building attenua- tion that would be achieved. Each building has unique noise reduction characteristics and the actual attenuation would need to be calculated specific to each building before any of these measures are instigated. Mechanical Ventilation. Providing homes with mechanical ventilation would allow windows to be closed and still supply fresh air and circula- tion to the rooms. In order to assume that windows can remain closed to achieve greater attenuation, adequate ventilation with windows closed must be provided. Improved Noise Rated Windows. Increasing the noise reduction charac- teristics of the windows that face the noise sources would increase the overall noise reduction of the buildings. The types of windows that are available include thicker glazing, double pane, and laminated glass. Most of the homes adjacent to Gothard Street have windows with an STC rating of 22 or less. Providing these homes with windows with STC ratings of greater than 30 would increase the building noise reduction by an estimated 3 to 6 dBA. This would reduce the projected interior noise levels with windows closed to below the 45 CNEL criterion. Building Insulation. Providing Insulation of the walls and ceilings would also increase the noise attenuation of the buildings. However, the noise reduction would not be realized unless the windows are also 61 upgraded. If the walls and ceiling were insulated along with the 23 J.i upgrading of the windows, the indoorloutdoor noise reduction of the building could increase another 2 dBA. Buildings with wood siding are good candidates for wall insulation because they do not have as high of Wnoise reduction characteristics as stucco walls have. AESTHETICS The proposed underpass alternative converts the existing railroad right-of- way to a four -lane public road. This right-of-way currently contains the � railroad tracks, a nursery, and unimproved vacant land. Since little of aes- thetic value is present in the right-of-way and the roadway would be at or near grade, this alternative is expected to have a minimal impact on views from surrounding areas. r" Figure 8 provides two section views showing the relationship of the roadway to the existing residences. The section taken at location Y-Y shows that the top of road structure would be a maximum of only 7.5 feet above grade. Any existing views from the backyards of the adjacent residences would not be significantly affected by the road. Figure 9 shows the location of these sec- tion views. The 8-foot block wall proposed to run the length of the Gothard extension would eliminate any loss of privacy caused by the new road placed adjacent to irr the residences. LAND ACQUISITIONS/DISPLACEiIENT This alternative does not require the displacement of any dwelling units or school land (see Figure 6). It has a relatively minor impact on two businesses. A small triangle of Lot 8 would be acquired as part of the project. This lot is owned by Hoffman Enterprises and is used for boat and RV storage. The loss of the corner would have a negligible impact on the boat and RV storage operation. W As shown in Figure 6, a major portion of the Southern Pacific right-of-way (Lot 2) would be acquired... This acquisition would not impact Southern Pacific operations, but would displace a portion of the nursery which cur- rently leases the right-of-way. The acquisition of Lot 7 would reduce the backyard space of two residences. ]r, However, this land is owned by the County Sanitation District, and these residences have simply extended their backyards over the District's right-of- way. w PEDESTRIAN IBICYCLE MOTOR CYCLE SAFETY The current concept for this alternative does not provide enough space for safe pedestrian use of the road. Although more detailed design work may identify the means to provide a pedestrian/bike path, the current design would require signs on Gothard at McFadden and Bolsa indicating that pedestrians are not permitted on the rcad. I IF 24 W ha �4.0- �"' The alignment of the Gothard St. extension with Hoover St. as shown in Figure 10 is the same as for Alternative 1. Figure 11 shows the right-of-way and property recommended to be acquired for Alternative 2. The purchase price per square foot is the same as for Alternative 2. The total estimated right-of-way cost for Alternative 2 is $800, 000 which is approximately the same amount as for Alternative 1. Table 5 is the estimated project cost for Alternative 2 and includes right-of- way cost, construction cost (as Itemized), engineering and administration and contingencies. The total estimated project cost is $10,909,000. �.. TABLE 5. GOTHARD ST. EXTENSION, ALTERNATIVE 2 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST Item Cost 1. RIGHT-OF-WAY $800,000 SUBTOTAL $800, 000 6. iW W i" 6W 6.0 6.4 am 6W 2. CONSTRUCTION Demolition, clear & grub $5,000 Relocate 17 power poles B5,000 Striping 10000 Slope plantinglirrigation 22,000 2166 ft. RR 6' chain link fence 20,000 1200 ft. other 6' chain link fence 11,000 40000 sq.ft. retaining wall 19200,000 102,000 sq.ft. bridge 6,120,000 Fill 3880000 Hoover St. alignment 65,000 Misc. drainage imp. 250000 17 streetlights 43,000 Asphalt paving and base 54,000 8" PCC curb & gutter 21,000 1450 ft. of relocated RR tracks 1090000 2 traffic signals 200,000 SUBTOTAL $8, 368, 000 3. ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION $829,000 4. CONTINGENCIES $912,000 TOTAL $10,909,000 32 IL EX/S 7." GOMARD .5 r RES/DENG'ES - w � w PJ{Qf i'JSED 6QTfi'r4XOST. �-COUNTY SAN. 'fl D/STiQ/CT O O M O m "M'� m a r v M cD_n z O N n M r' m q m -i -< m i < A X "+ ro p -q C m Z C -. v cn 70 -< o z NOT TO SCALE � _ Q -- -t-71 � � 7 ES/DE�t/CES t C/Ty OF //U//T/NGTON .�EACf/ .4 SSESSORS PARCEL NO. COUNTY SAN. O/S TR/CT �J Cl T Y OF DYES TM//VSTER ASSESSES /V,4".5 t � L iRES/G�E'NCEs !� /42-3//-33 S.R.R. 3O /42 -42/-/ 6-C.E. ® /42 - 022 -// SO. AAC/F/C TRANSPORTAT/ON CO. 5O /42 -022 -/O L'OUNTY SAM17..4T/O,t/ D/ST. OF ORANGE COUit/TY © /42 - O?Z - 2 G ,6-57- !/it/S7'ER SCIIaOL O/ST. INC ARANK 110FFd4AN, ./R. w w w ilw 6 APPENDIX B ih. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF OVERPASS ALTERNATIVE he Lo w w w 6A w w w 61 w 9441 r.+ 6 NOISE APPENDIX B ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF OVERPASS ALTERNATIVE The information provided for the underpass alternative is generally applicable to the overpass alternative. For comparative purposes Table 6 shows the noise levels for both alternatives. Only Location C shows a difference between the two alternatives. At this location the overpass structure acts as a shield from freeway noise, resulting in lower noise levels compared to the +w underpass alternative. AESTHETICS The proposed overpass alternative would convert the existing railroad right- of-way and its present uses to a four -lane elevated roadway. Although the site has little aesthetic value, it is currently open space. This alternative would place a major structure very near to adjacent residences and the exist- ing park. As shown in Figure 12, residents located at Section X-X would view a retaining wall 50 feet high from their backyards. Residents located at Section Y-Y would view the structure overhead but at least could see through the structure. LA The aesthetic impacts would be significant to these residents, the residents located adjacent to the park and the users of the park. SHADE! SHADOW iW Figure 12 shows the shadow cast by the overpass on December 21st at 4:00 Phi. The winter solstice is normally considered the worst case condition 64 where shadows are the longest and the need for sunshine the greatest. Figure 13 shows the shadow pattern for the winter solstice in plan view for both 8:00 AM and 4:00 Phi. 6" The shadows cast by the overpass would significantly impact the adjacent residents, park and nursery. 60 LAND ACQUISITION IDISPLACENIENT Land acquisition and displacement is required by this alternative. The only use impacted by this alternative is the nursery which leases part of the � Southern Pacific right-of-way. Specific areas not actually taken by road could be leased back to the nursery for continued use. fto PEDESTRIAN IBICYCLEIMOTORCYCLE SAFETY The overpass alternative would eliminate the bicycle/motorcycle safety con- MW cerns raised by the at -grade crossing. The current design does not provide for pedestrian access except for emergency access along the raised median. Pedestrian access along Gothard could be provided but at significant addi- tional cost. 34 w -RD STREET �~ SHA00 �w..oAsr �r 4:00 'AWING WALL- 50' �.M,`WINrER �O�sT -- rC� EXISTING PROPOSED WALL PROPOSED FENCE S.PRR. RESIDENTIAL i 60' 30' 60' EXTENT OF SHADE SECTION- X-X ALTERNATIVE 2 IAM STREET OVERCROSSING •' 1 FIGURE 12 '• sH`Dow ors r Ar 4:00 rER�sOLsr`e EXISTING WALL PROPOSED SPAR. ~ 1 MMENTIAL �7• dt 11� an+ '10' +eg' ',�[1' �Y7Cu7 A� CNIRF TABLE 6. CNEL NOISE LEVELS AT REPRESENTATIVE RECEPTOR LOCATIONS 1990 CNEL Noise Levels I Alternative 1 Alternative 2 L Site Location WO Project (Underpass) ___(Overpass)_ A Single -Family Residential Exterior (w/existing walls) 57.0 64.3 64.3 Exterior (w/proposed 8' walls) -- 62.0 62.0 Interior (windows open) 45.0 55.4 55.4 Interior (windows closed) 37.0 47.4 47.4 1 B Land Elementary School Exterior (no existing mitigation) 58.0 64.9 64.9 Exterior (w/proposed 8' walls) -- 60.1 60.1 Interior (windows open) 46.0 48.11 48.11 Interior (windows closed) 38.0 40.11 40.11 C Single -Family Residential Exterior (no existing mitigation) 65.0 69.0 67.6 Exterior (w/proposed 8' walls) -- 65.0 64.22 Interior (windows open) 53.0 57.0 55.6 Interior (windows closed) 45.0 49.0 47.6 D Single -Family Residential Exterior (w/existing walls) 57.0 62.5 62.5 Interior (windows open) 45.0 50.5 50.5 LInterior (windows closed) 37.0 42.5 42.5 E Multi -Family Residential Exterior (w/existing walls) 60.0 64.5 64.5 Interior (windows open) 48.0 54.5 54.5 Interior (windows closed) 38.0 44.5 44.5 L 1 Denotes classroom interior noise levels include effects of proposed 8' sound wall. 2 Assumes a 3.1/2 foot barrier located along overpass. i� bo L. 37 6 tRF hr ibd IMa W i, APPENDIX C CORRESPONDENCE ■IT am L 6w 1 L L L 6 4 i. Coast Community Colleges BOARD OF TRUSTEES Sherry L. Baum Walter G_ Howa+d Conrad Nordquict Nancy A. Pollard Armando R. Ruiz Marc L. Heffner. Student Tructee CHANCELLOR David A. Brownell District Administration: 1370 Adams Avenue, Costa Mesa. Calitomia 92626 W 64 August 4, 1986 • r� a. y M I V E D AUG 0 5 1986 r4@USING AND C?"UrITV f':VrLOtMEkT Thanas Andrusky 6J Revelopment Project Manager City of Huntington Mach P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Realigrrnent of Gothard Street im Dear Mr. Andrusky: We have well over 1000 students attending Golden West College that reside in Westminster and Garden Grove, and this proposed realignment of Gothard L Street, to feed directly into Hoover Street in Whstaninster, would improve access into and out of the college for them as well as for staff and faculty. L It would also appear to improve Gothard's function as an arterial street without seriously impacting any residential areas. Accordingly, we endorse enthusiastically the realigrrlent as proposed by the redevelopment agency. LCordially yours, J. Eugene F. Harris Director, Physical Facilities Planning L EFH:ck cc: Fred Garcia L, Dave Brownell Fred Nens 6 ORANGE COAST COLLEGE • GOLDEN WEST COLLEGE -COASTLINE COMMUNITY COLLEGE KOCE•TV (SO) PBS ch"e" r (714) &V-SM Ea"on Swvx" P14 an-&-m DOS Sarrlc« (714) am -Saes tt.rrr" Aewa (714) 432•5743 r'a~ PAMW� (714) ax -sm Fvclrrq 17141 &W-SrN t Cow~" Altaus pta) 4W-u Y A o"M Dw afto d Plq &M-sm O.nur Carr p1q A2-6e�3 Iw Ord d UAW" (714) 4=-Sw J Ft+rs+ral FrMdd Pk101 9 (714) 4324700 i" 61 b" �1 wlti. •r{•. Southem Callfom/a Edison Company 7333 DOLSA AVENUE WESTMINSTER. CAUFORNIA 92583 M. D. MARTIN TELEPHONE MANAGER. HUNTINGTON BEACH (7141 OSS-0255 July 29, I986 64 Mr. C. H. Schiermeyer IWA Engineers 38 Windjammer Court 61 Long Beach, CA 90803 SUBJECT: Hoover-Gothard Extension 16" Dear Mr. Schiermeyer: As a result of our meeting on July 10, 1986, we have 16+ made a preliminary study of the City of Huntington Beach's proposal to realign Gothard and extend it into the City of Westminster. Referring to the map that you provided me, we 6M do have several concerns which I would like to address. The angle in which the road alignment crosses our transmission right-of-way, eliminates approximately 1/2 of the total area between existing towers, and severely limits the SCE Co. to provide and increase future electrical energy service (The area is shown on the attached map as cross i.I hatched in the color of green). We would prefer that the proposed road alignment, if it indeed must cross our existing right-of-way, cross at an angle closer to 90 degrees as to not impact our future needs. In addition, should the proposed alignment become a reality, this could eliminate the possibility of relocating the existing tower line to clear up the area in the Huntington Center as proposed in a future redevelopment project. Also, this alignment would displace one of our tenants who is leasing a portion of our right-of-way for his business. We would like to propose the following for your consideration: If Hoover is extended from the City of Westminster into the City of Huntington Beach in a straight alignment along the railroad right-of-way from Bolsa Ave. to Center, it �. would eliminate several problems as we see them. (The area is shown on the attached map as cross -hatched in red). 6 rUd C.W. Schiermeyer Page 2 1. Removes the restrictions for any future electrical energy needs. 2. Eliminates the need to disrupt our tenants' business. 3. Straightens out the road alignment and eliminates two back-to-back curves which could possibly 6A create a problem for vehicles travelling at speeds above the posted speed limit. 4. This leaves the entire existing right-of-way clear �+ so that feasibility studies could begin should the City of Huntington Beach wish to proceed with the Huntington Center Redevelopment project in regards to relocating the existing tower line. 5. A straighter alignment would give more area to begin and complete the grade change to either go over or under the San Diego Fwy. 6. Existing Gothard could be left intact. There is also a distribution pole line along the railroad right-of-way that cculd be affected in either proposal that might require either relocation or need to be placed underground. Cost estimates are unknown at this time. I would be glad to meet with you to discuss these items and answer any questions at your earliest convenience. ho kIDM/kam La cc: Tom Andrusky 60 i�. i" Sincerely, 6d 64 A" ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT OISTRICT June 24, 1986 Mr. Thomas Andrusky Redevelopment Project :tanager City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 6+ Dear Tom: The Orange County Transit District supports the proposed extension v, of Cothard/Hoover Street in the Huntington Center area. This exten- sion will relieve chronic and worsening traffic congestion on both Beach Boulevard and Coldenwest Street and will enhance circulation and transit access opportunities to the site of OCTD's Coldenwest Transportation Center. Huntington Center is currently served by six local fixed -route services as well as a peak period express operation which links this area with downtown Los Angeles. Combined, these services provide over 300 weekday bus trips and generate over 110,000 passengers annually. Transit service and usage levels are expected to increase as land use development matures. However, traffic circulation improvements are needed to keep pace with continuing development and to retain the area's potential as a major transportation center. Sincerely, , •, S—rian Pearson Director of Development BP:AEA i b. 11222 ACACIA PARKWAY . P.O. BOX 9005 • GARDEN GROVE. CALIFORNIA 92642 • PHONE (714) 971-6200 fim 4r,Lq*4 fS « 0 �. l Ud &a O Jd City of Huntington Beach 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 im FIRE DEPARTMENT i" August 19, 1986 am Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 w Re: GOTHARD/HOOVER STREET Public Safety in both the City of Huntington Beach and Westminster could be significantly r.� Improved by completing a connecting roadway link between the two cities along a Gothard/Hoover alignment. Currently, Beach Boulevard and Goldenwest Street are major arterial connections between the two cities. These two corridors are frequently jammed with traffic and create a delayed response and a traffic hazard. Frequently, emergency vehicles must travel against traffic on these median divided highways. This Is particularly true at the key intersections of Beach and Edinger and Goldenwest and Bolsa. The proposed connection will provide an excellent intercity intertie. One fire station in Westminster and two in Huntington Beach are keyed to Gothard and Hoover and this avenue would function as primary emergency response corridors for emergencies both above and below the freeway. Also, public access would improve and would eliminate some of the numerous traffic accidents, deaths, and injuries we are called to respond to on Beach Boulevard and Goldenwest Street. Sinr,.rwly_ im iM 60 6 PHUPUSED S.P.R.R. r w EXISTING GRADE EXISTINU FENCE PROPOSED WALL 1 GOTHARD STREET ' 60' 20' 30' 30' 1 I SECTION X-X ALTERNATIVE 1 UNDERCROSSENG FIGURE 8 EXISTING WALL PROPOSED S.P.R.R. PROPOSED R.R. ACCESS ROAD P EXISTING GRADE GOTHARD STREET - i 60' _ , 1 25' 1 10' 1 15' 1 3n' Emergency pedestrian access, where a vehicle becomes disabled on Gothard, has been provided by the raised median. The driver of a disabled car could walk along the raised median out of the traffic lanes to McFadden or Bolsa. Southern Pacific Railroad Company has raised concerns regarding the safety of at -grade crossings where the road and railroad tracks cross at a shallow I angle. Because of the angle, it is possible that bicycle tires might get caught in the depression along the tracks. There is also the concern that the shallow angle may cause motorcycle tires to slip when the rails are wet. 6W Certainly, a 90-degree angle is preferred wherever possible to avoid the problems with bicycle and motorcycle tires. The design of the at -grade crossing has been modified to accommodate the greatest angle possible given �+ the constraints of the available right-of-way. In addition, the Public Utilities Commission has recommended that a rubber crossing surface be provided. This type of surface will greatly reduce the possibility of bicycle and pedestrian traffic slipping into the small openings between street pavement and rail. SHADEISHADOW w.+ Since this alternative would place the road at or near existing grade, no shade/shadow impacts would occur outside the acquired right-of-way. SECURITY The project includes construction of an 8-foot block wall along the length of the alignment. Since some segments of the alignment do not have walls and those that are present are only 6 feet in height, the construction of a con- tinuous 8-foot wall should improve security at the residences, school, park, and businesses over existing conditions. k" M w. 60 64 4W 27 W r 4 ` . 6I 66 SECTION 5 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Findings I. Per the communication from Golden West College and the Fire Chief of the City of Huntington Beach, the extension of Gothard Street and its connection to Hoover Street at Bolsa Avenue would improve public access and the movement of public safety vehicles. 2. The railroad requires a 20-foot unobstructed right-of-way for its tracks 6W and an additional 8 feet for an access road. 3.. With appropriate retaining wails underneath the I-405 overcrossing, 6, both a roadway and railroad operation can be accommodated. 4. The construction of a four -lane arterial extension underneath the I-405 railroad overcrossing with minimum 11-foot travel lanes is feasible, at a 6+ total cost of $30959,000. 5. The extension of Gothard Street between McFadden and Bolsa Avenue will occur exclusively on land owned by the Southern Pacific Transpor- tation Company, with the exception that a required 8-foot, unimproved access road may require the purchase of 1,000 square feet of land from a private business at McFadden and Bolsa as well as the purchase or lease of some vacant land from the County Sanitation District of Orange County or its purchase from the underlying fee owner. 6. The project will require an at -grade crossing with the railroad. After review of the proposed design, the staff at the PUC has initially con- cluded that "there are no insurmountable problems" to the approval of this crossing. 7. A roadway over the I-405 freeway connecting Gothard Street to Hoover Street can be built but the environmental impacts are considered sig- nificant and the roadway construction costs are substantially higher than those proposed for the undercrossing alternative. 6* Recommendations A. Select the' undercrossing alternative as the most feasible alternative. 6. B. Adopt residential noise mitigation and general noise attenuation strategies specified in this study as an integral part of future Gothard Street design studies. k. 28 �.Wl w 6 Iw 6w w w r�r 60 w kuw w 6 w Im APPENDIX A OVERCROSSING ALTERNATIVE im Y . LJ b" 60 APPENDIX A OVERCROSSING ALTERNATIVE Ir.+ For purposes of reviewing all technically feasible alternatives, the consultants examined the requirements of an overcrossing of the I-405 freeway, as well as its associated environmental impacts. Alternative 2 proposes that the extension be constructed over I-405. Figure 10 shows the plan, profile and sections for this alternative. As shown in the profile in Figure 10, the Gothard St. extension would also bridge over McFadden Ave. An analysis of beginning the overcrossing alternative north of McFadden Avenue showed that the longitudinal grade of the bridge required to clear the I-405 would be in excess of 17%, which would be exces- sive for this type of road. Therefore, as shown in Figure 10, the grade of Gothard St. would begin to increase south of McFadden Ave. Figure 10 shows the bridge would begin south cf McFadden Ave. and continue north of the I-405 freeway for approximately 1000 feet, beyond the location where the bw railroad would shift to the west side of its right-of-way. Between McFad- den Ave. and I-405, the bridge could continue as shown in Figure 10 or fill could be brought in and retaining wall (a tie -back type wall system would be NW proposed with a minimum foundation requirement) constructed. The cost of these two options is approximately the same. Therefore, it Is recommended that the bridge be continued from McFadden Ave. over the I-405. Because W the bridge Is continuing to go up between McFadden Ave. and I-405, it would still be possible to construct a storage facility or some other similar facility underneath the proposed bridge if that were acceptable to the City of Westminster. It should also be noted that the Gothard St. grade does not begin to increase until it is just beyond the SCE power lines and therefore there Is no conflict with the SCE power lines. However, as shown in Figure 10, a portion of the retaining wall and the fill slope for the bridge approach intrudes into the SCE right-of-way. Normally, SCE does not prefer longitudinal encroachments. � The retaining wall and slope on the west side of the proposed Gothard St. has been designed to minimize any longitudinal encroachment into the SCE right-of-way but this will need to be reviewed by SCE to determine their objections, if any. Figure 10 shows that the existing Gothard St. would be reconfigured to inter- sect with the new alignment of Gothard Street approximately midway between McFadden Avenue and Center Street. This is necessary because this alter- native does not have an intersection between McFadden Ave. and the proposed alignment of Gothard St. Therefore, traffic using the Gothard St. extension for this alternative cannot access McFadden Ave. unless the exist- Ing Gothard St./McFadden Ave. Intersection is preserved. As shown in Figure 10, the proposed intersection of the existing Gothard St. and the realigned Gothard St. is at the existing ground elevation and is far enough from adjacent -intersections so as not to interfere with them. Given the future traffic volumes on Gothard St., it is assumed that a traffic signal will be necessary at this proposed Intersection. This should be further studied at a later date by a traffic engineering firm. 6W 29 6 The alignment of Gothard St. north of McFadden Ave. is farther to the west than shown for Alternative 1. Because it is approximately 240 feet across the I-405 freeway, columns will have to be located in the median in-between the northbound and southbound freeway traffic lanes as shown on Figure 10. Various alignments of the Gothard St. extension were analyzed and examined and sections taken to determine the location of these columns and their foun- dations. To improve the feasibility of this alternative it was decided to locate the foundation at least 20 feet from the existing railroad tracks and to avoid putting the column through the I-405 bridge concrete abutment area. With these constraints, the alignment shown in Figure 10 resulted. The column for the southbound lanes is located along the freeway in the freeway median. The column for the northbound lanes is located in the slope of the I-405 bridge abutment. Therefore, neither column intrudes into the critical railroad right-of-way area or in the area of the concrete abutment of the I-405 bridge. Section B-B in Figure 10 shows the relationship of the proposed overcrossing to I-405, the I-405 bridge and the railroad. 6 Caltrans is planning to construct a carpool lane in the center of I-405 begin- ning in 1987. The location of these columns and their impact on these carpool lanes was analyzed and assessed. Caltrans was contacted and a copy of the proposed carpool lanes in this stretch of the freeway was obtained. Caltrans is planning on constructing a bridge in between the existing air gap of the I-405 overcrossing for the carpool lanes. Therefore, the future column for the Gothard St. overpass structure (northbound lanes) will have to be con- structed through this new bridge. If this alternative is to be considered further, Caltrans needs to be contacted and coordinated with respect to the LJ location of the columns for the Gothard St. overpass. With respect to the carpool lanes, Caltrans has indicated that they do not feel that there is any problem In accommodating these future columns. Caltrans is already faced with this same problem 'for every bridge over 1-405 and has designed the car- pool lane to be compatible with columns in the middle of the freeway. Since the carpool lane Mll already be constructed prior to the construction of the proposed overcrossing, there will be disruption to traffic during construction �., of the columns in particular. The carpool lanes will have to be closed during construction of the columns for the proposed overcrossing. There- fore, Caltrans might condition construction of the columns to occur at night to minimize the traffic impacts of closing the carpool lanes. This would add slightly to the cost of this alternative. Once the columns are constructed and the false work is in place for the overcrossing, there will be no further Impact to traffic on 1-405 except for when the falsework would be removed, �•• which will be at night. North of I-405, a grade separation is accomplished with the railroad tracks as shown in Figure 10. The bridge is sufficiently high at this point to easily provide the vertical clearance required by the railroad company. The realigned tracks shown in Figure 10 conform to the curvature requirements of the railroad company. Since there is no at -grade crossing for this option and �- there is no impact or use of the existing ra.ilroadl1-405 undercrossing, the railroad company representatives have indicated that they would not object to this alternative and in fact would probably support it. For this alternative 6" there will be no impact on the railroad company or the tracks except for the track realignment. 31 6.4 #r A Mffr PFODVCFA v R. D. Crowell Insurance AgencIj 3t51 Airwaq Avenue, Suite B3 Casts Mesa# CA 92626 WSVRED ISSUE DATE (►.f%DXYY) •� 2/08/90 TH19 CP.,AT:F1CkTC M 33SU£D Nho MATTER OF INVORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO R.GH T S UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTFY 7 CF. ALTER TN.L COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POUCTES BELOW. COMPMJY tmER COMPANY n LETTER COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE COAtPA14Y C► IWA Engineers LETTER 17390 Brackhurst St., #100 COUPATIY Q Fountain Valley CA 92708 ` LtITER American Motorists Ins Com an I COMPi.PIY ' LE1rE1 E D jjjSL>, PpfPtstanals Inc. Ce. TRIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT POUCMS OF INSURANCE LISTEv BELOW HA% �-KH ISSIIFTF Tt1 THE IIIZUR 6q IIALlCD AODVt pCIR TYit rA1L11 Y PERIG>7 INDICATED, N�1�jWITtlSTANnINIII ANY R60UMELIENI, TERA101% ?. mu, t nnv GF ANY C6?3TKkC.7 GR OTNCR [KICUMEN7 W17H RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CER7I€IGATE MAY Bc f NUIED CA MAY PERTAW,79E INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE PGLIOES DGSCnWED HEREIN IS SUDIECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS, AND CONDI- TIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. TYPE CF INSURANCE A WNFRAL LIASIL.ITY CMY ERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY Dore, R'S I MkTRL''►CPS P,Z,'.'ECM POLICY NUMBER ALL LIMITS IN THOUSANDS GENERALJ4LUGATE PRpDAICTS.CW_PWS AXREGATE PERSON& A RTtSlr15 RJLRY Eh0{ OCD %q1.a FIRE WwAGE (AKY CY[ NMI MEDICAL EXPENSS (ANY D%F PERSON) B AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY AZC80263598 5/31 /89 5/31 /90 CSi A><'Y AUTO ALL ONNEGAUT%Far professional liabilit coverage, -the MY RAW SCFEDULEDAUTWggregate limit is the tat 1 insura ce avail mm X EI'REDAUT(S able for all covered claiHA presentd within X h0Y-0YIf.'.0AMthe poli q period. The Iit will be reduce VVF1 ARASE'IRB1.Ln% a me is of indemnit ez ensI EXCESS LIASILITY AZC U0263598 30LXYETFECINE POLXYE,14aT10, DATE Ilsu+OM DATE ww'Myn w —� 5/31/89 5/31/9C RESPECT TO -WORK qERFORMEDIBY THE D INSURED, THE CET HOLDER IS D ADDITIONAL INSURED. $ y P V y p I=r Is MR THAN UMBTtLLA F01W D I WOAKERS' COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY OTHER *PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY 9/01/89 AS TO GAIL :u i TOIT t)ESCRVPTION OF OPERATTONSILOCAT*NSfyEHr-LESIRESTRICTIONSIS?' L� RE: GOTHARD/HOOVER EXTENSION By **EXCEPT IF CANCELLED FOR NON —PAY, f10P ? (Al PRIM) ENDORSEMENT ATTACHED CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ATTN: PAT SPENCER 2000 MAIN STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 EACM I AdCtRE3<<TE OCCuRPE?vCE 9 / 01 / 90 STATUTORY $ 1000 oxm xrmr, $ i000 G ELl-►JLCY Lanz d n.TIAC'7 iIF�.IInil $1000 EACH CLAIM AND AGGREGATE LL BE GIVEN SHOUL-J ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EX. PiRA110N DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY WILL XftX-M MAIL*3Q DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAKED TO THE LEFT, i114RJfA�iilQ(DQ(M1A1U6k4PXNRi�9�CRIk9F,K4�¢RXlPXA4►rIF��R�Jlh4�CX FEE E37 '9G 13 :34 R. F1. CF,OWELL Irb. KzLI Y y . IN4) 9 r.,Y J IWA ENGINEERS ADDITIONAL INSURED (State or Political Subdivion) (Primary) Who is an insured is amended to include any state or political subdivision shown below, its officers and employees with respect to general liability' only, but only as respects work done by, for or on behalf of the named insured. Any other insurance maintained by the additional insured named below shall be considered excess and non-contributing with the insurance provided by this policy Additional Insured: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ATTN: PAT SPENCER 2000 MAIN STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 Job: GOTHARD/HOOVER STREET EXTENSION THIS ENDORSEMENT BECOMES PART OF POLICY NO. AZC80263598 EFFECTIVE 02/07/90 ISSUED BY FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMANY Countersignature: &A;-ruo Producer:R.D. Crowell Insurance 3151 Airway, B-3 Costa Mesa, Ca 92626 4- 40 Agency AS 10 mkt!-ol • I PRODUCER R. D. CROWELL INSURANCE AGENCY .3151 Airway Avenue 133 Costa Mesa!California 92626 (714) 557.5234 INSJRE7 ICJA ENGINEERS INC. 10221 Slater Avenue, #219 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 _ — ---V7 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ESSUEQ AA A MA NO R13 {TS UPON THE CERTIF Mrr- EXTEND OR ALTER THE COYEFI ISSUE DATE (A!.'.L"JC" Sept. 23, 1986 RMATIOY ONLY AND CONFERS 04 ZRTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, BY HE POLICIES BELOW. COMPANIES AFFORDWG COVERAGE LETTER COMPANY A American Motorists Insurance Company COMPANY LETTER LETTER COMPANY Cs 1 S TO FOR�"�OT�OY LETTER COMPANY p Ix w zi"t LL 0 j xt� G� Eguts LOTTRS�Y E By " THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD IND,CATED. j NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT. TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY 1 TE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN. THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN Ls SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS. EXCLUSIONS. AND CONDI- IONS OF SUCH POLICIES. co .'A TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER PTR�C�'ETFECTTt-E CATi (V%t�)UYY) Fed V E)PRxT04 DATE 0A)AD(1Wj ALL LIMITS IN THOUSANDS r GENERAL LIABILITY CIDMMERCIAL GENERAL LIA9;UTY QJIIVS WE ❑X.CURRBCE ( l R S L W.'R?L M PRnCTNI UNIRAL AG,FESATE $ PR=XTS C0VP )PS AG;RI ;ATE $ PERSNAL 8 A tRTLS-NG IAA,RY $ EACH pr t JIiR s E $ ARE OWAGE (&ky W FIRE. IMV-CAL EFBEkSE ONY U%E PEVSO%. S" AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY k'V AU13 CS $ ALL C►. ;EOAUTOS WDLY SCHEDULED AUTOS PER PERSON.- S &X'Lr `(PE4 $ HIREC AUTp$ tV 1ti-O NID AUTOS �RGMR'Y G ar)E LIAKITY EXCESS LIABILITY octu� ALOW3A-F $ $ "IF, TRX11 UNERELLA FORM -� —_- _- �� STATU70RY - A WORKERS'COMPENSATTON AND EMPLOYERS•L%BILITY _ _ _ 3CW 143540-02 9/I/86 9/1/87 $ , r (EA6-m ACr'CENTI IL�ASELIMIT)$ S1,000, , , IDISEASE-EA.'EACI .y EwPLCrEEI OTHER DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS/ LOCATIONS !VEHICLES/RESTRICTIONS/SPE:CIAL ITEMS "Additional Insured endorsement to follow," CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Attn: Insurance & Benefits Office 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92649 SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE Ek PIRATION DATE THEREOF. THE ISSUING COMPANY WILLXX7CK-XXp MAIL 330 DAYS yWRrrTaENNyNOTICE TO THE: CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT.MP IThORIZE7 REPRESEM Barbara Landis # C CIE PFODLICER R. D. CROWED INSURANCE AGENCY 3151 Airway Avenue 63 Costa Mesa, California 92626 - (714) 557.5234 INSURED Ii7A ENGINEERS 10221 Slater Ave., #219 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 ' 155UE i)AlE jfdw,UDf'r`#) ;NZ23L-01� - June 24, 1986 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS t. PON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE LETTERNY A Design Professionals Insurance Compa COMPANY LETTER B American Motorists Insurance Company COMPANY LETTER C+ COMPANY D LETTER COMPANY E LETTER THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUEUTO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIODINDICATED- - NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT. TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OF OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY IIE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIB=D HEREIN IS SUTfSECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS, AND CONDI- TIONS CF SUCH POLICIES. i CO • i TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMElER F:X ICY EFFEnWE Cie'E POLICY Ex AA'I F, LIABILITY LIMITS IN THOUSANDS EACH OCCUPPE`,CE AGGREGATE TR i iMk0D'YY1 OVE (MM M-M GENERAL LIABILITY B004Y X COMPREHENSNE FORK INJURY X PALMSES.MRATIOIS X LO'LEG&L COLLAPSE DAMAGE $ $ 3 HALM X PWCIILTV.&1PLETED OPERATIONS .. A X CO a R4C%AL PL 619734-01 5/31/86 5/31/87 B,B $ 1,0001 $ 1, 000, ED 1 X WDEP_N2ENT CONTRACTORS j K BFrAD FORM PROPERTY L'M1AGE I[ ?[ PEFS:CW4 INJURY PERSONAL INJURY $ Incl. 4 AUTOMOBILE LIABILrTY amen ANY AUTO >t.Lssr F'+ q %`-FSOh1 $ ALL OIINED AUTOS (PAN. PASS) ALL C'�.'AED AUTOS (H THAS'11 FO=g •tto p my WAY P`4 ,r $ I�5 4 A ' HiA:J �UTos OtY ° .fie N04-0V.%ED AUTOS A�4L ,�Oi City Ate' DAMAGETM $ ! GARVi! LIASLITY ��i ,a�, DY : pe4 PO COMED $ EXCESS LIABILITY UK!EkcLLA FORM 81 a PD COMB.kED �W $ OTHER THAN UMBRELLA FORM STATUTORY i3 WORKERS' AORPENSATrON 3CW 143540-01 9/l/85 9/l/86 $1 000 FEALFr ACCICEtiT) EMPLOYERS' LIABILfTY $1 OQO PsEASE-P%CY IIMlI $1 000 D:SEAS�`-EACHEVPLOYEEI O"HER A Professional PL 619734-01 5/31/86 5/32/87 $1,000, each claim Liability and in the aggregate ;Fj0!;1PjPfo ess Ona� °�a�i0 ity' coverages, the aggregate limit is the total insurance available for claims presented within the policy period for all operations of the insured." RE: RIP Feasibility study extension of Gothard Ave. No. of McFadden to align With Hoover at CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Attn: Les Evans 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE CESCRIBED POLICIES BE-tANCESLED CEFO E THE Ex PIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY WILL XlF1:lfE,1t0MX2 MAIL 3 0 DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT. t9CZR7G{�8Z3pEXXSXa�]CS�TfG]COElE7C�E]C8Xg9CX]hX]I7C][�:[XXX ARklrX?t7Ef:1."RA7t _- _ - XlF[xTEIt'IOt�Ir7CXR�C _ x7_txltx�txx AUTHORIZED RZ_PRESEIJTATI Barbara Landis 1..4-- .j... X. K. �_� , Submitted to: Sibmitted by: Prepared by: Subject: REOUFIT FOR CITY COUN !L/ - REDEVEL'dPMENT AGENCY A&ION RH s6-6s Date Seotember 26. 1986 Honorable Mayor/Chairman and City Council/Rdevelopmen Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator/Chief Executive Douglas N. La Belle, Deputy City Administrator/Redevelops GOTHARD-HOOVER EXTENSION FEASIBILITY ANALY; PLAN TO PROCEED WITH IMPLEMENTATION Consistent with Council Policy? K Yes [ j Neon, Policy or Exception )h Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative) Actkmi,•Attachments: �! STATEMENT OF ISSUE: We have received reports from our consultants regarding the feasibility and traffic impact of constructing the Gothard-Hoover extension. The reports shove that the construction of the Gothard-Hoover connection is feasible. RECOWMENDATION: 1. Accept the final feasibility report as prepared by IWA Engineers and the draft traffic analysis as prepared by Parsons, Brinkeroff, Quade, and Douglas, Inc. 2. Authorize staff to obtain appraisals and to negotiate the purchase of the needed right-of-way between Center Drive and 1.icFadden in the City of Huntington Beach 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 the County Master Plan of Arterial Highways; and (3) u ork with Huntington Beach to develop a joint financing program for the remaining right-of-way acquisition and project construction. ANALYSIS: The Huntington Beach City Council has approved a precise alignment for Gothard Street south of McFadden Avenue that would allow for the ultimate connection of Gothard to Hoover Street in Westminster. On June , 24, 1986 the Mayor ana City Administrator appeared before the Westminster Council to ask the City Council to defer action on a proposed parcel map that could impact the future Gothard-Hoover connection to allow a feasibility report to be prepared. The final feasibility report, as prepared by lu'A Engineers, indicates that it is feasible to construct a four -lane arterial extension under 1-40�. Staff has presented the Gothard-Hoover extension feasibility reports to the City of V estminster for their information. QI-2 PIO 4184 R H 86-68 September 26, 1996 Page Two The estimated cost of constructing the Gothard-Hoover extension between McFadden and bolsa is approximately S3.9 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 time.. The Gothard-Hoover extension is recommended in our Huntington Center Commercial District Redevelopment Project. These improvements would improve traffic flow on Goldenwest Street and 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 the Agency (FY 96/97) in the Huntington Center Project Area for appraisals. ALTERNATIVE AC T ION: Do not authorize the above actions to implement the Gothard-Hoover extension. This action would remove an opportunity to improve traffic circulation on Goldenv.est Avenue and Beach Boulevard in the vicinity of I-405 at this time. ATTACHMENTS: 1. IWA Feasibility- Study. 2. Draft Traffic Analysis - Parson, Brinkerhoff, Quade, and Douglas, Inc. 3. Property Owner Letters of Support. CU"TIDLBITA:sar 0115r Mw t' • ♦ VEr � � MERCURY SAVINGS a�djDm=ociatio,, EXECUTIVE OFFICES 7912 Edinger Ave., P.O. Box 1010 R-antington Beach, Calif. 92647 746fix (714) M-4606 (Group It i IM September 9, 1986 Mr. Thomas Andrusky Redevelopment Project Manager City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Andrusky: SUBJECT: EXTLKSION OF GOTHARD STREET BETWEEDd MC FADDEN AVENUE TO BOLSA AVLNTE, TO ALIGN WITH HOOVER STREET. We have received the feasibility and traffic report on the Gothard-Hoover Street extension. The Mercury Savings Corporate Office and a savings branch is located on Edinger Avenue near Beach Boulevard. We believe that improvements to the traffic circulation system are important to safe and convenient access and egress for those that come to the area to conduct business. A main purpose of the Huntington Center Commercial District Redevelopment Pro- ject is to improve the -traffic circulation. Mercury Savings supports action by the City of Huntington Beach to construct the Gothard Street realignment south of McFadden and the 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 WAS IMT Telephone (714) 842-9333 The MacDonald Group Ltd, 10100 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 2400 Los Angeles. California 90067 (213) 556-3915 '" `y E September 29, 1986 OCT U 1 1986 "DUSINC AND f-!-A*AUtil7Y [_7LL01-V NT Mr. Thomas Andrusky Redevelopment Project Manager City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: ECTENSIOH OF GOTHARD STREET BETWEEN MCFADDEN AVENUE TO BGLSA AVENUE TO ALIGN WITH HOOVER STREET Dear Mr . Andrusky : The MacDonald Group, Ltd. is the curner/developer of Huntington Center located at 7777 Edinger Avenue in Huntington Beach. In reviewing the feasibility and traffic impact report on the Gothard-Hoover Street extension, we feel that Improvements to the traffic circulation 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 area. Inasmuch as one of the gain purposes of the Huntington Center CoMercial District Redevelopment Project 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 realigment south of McFadden and the extension through to Hoover. 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 co=unity. Sincerely, Charles E. Beecher Vice President CPZ: tc/CBL140 Cavan Associates, Ltd. September 8, 1986 Mr. Thomas Andrusky Redevelopment Project Manager CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Fw: EXTENSION OF GOTHARD STREET BETWEEN MCFADDEN AVENUE TO BOLSA AVENUE TO ALIGN WITH HOOVER STREET Dear Mr. Andrusky: We have reviewed the feasibility and traffic impact report on the Gothard-Hoover 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 those that come to the area to use the financial, retail, and other business services. A main purpose of the Huntington Center Comnercial District Redevelopment Project is to improve the traffic circulation. 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 taking positive steps to improve traffic safety and circulation in our community. - Sincerely,. CAVAN ASSOCIATES, LTD. er 9 A. ussell RAR/ka Raal Estate lavenmenc'Dnrclopment, 771 J Center Ave., Suite 610, Huntmgm Bescb, California 926t7, (714) $93-1212 777 • �� Win. �•'���- ``e%. _ -' .•-, . . REQUELJ FOR CITY COUNCL ACTION tiv Date July 11, 1986G V Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrat Prepared by: Paul E. Cook, Director of Public Worl� �G Subject: Feasibility Study for the ?roposed Hoofer 7,�q>Kard Extension Consistent with Council Policy? [ Xj Yes [ ] New Policy or Exceptiolu/ Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: ky Statement of Issue: A contract between the City and IWA Engineers has been prepared in conjunction with this feasibility study -for the Hoover - Gothard connection. Recommendation: Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the attached consultant agreement with IWA for a fee not to exceed $33,390.00. Analysis On July 7, 1986, the City Council approved the selection of IWA Engineers to prepare a feasibility study and develop cost data for the construction of a Hoover - Gothard connection. At Council's direction, a contract for these services has been prepared and staff recommends approval of the document. Funding Source: A loan from the unappropriated general fund balance to the Redevelopment Agency per the provisions of the standing operative agreement between the City and the agency. Alternative Actions: N/A Attachments: Agreement CiyT:PEC:DRN:lw P10 4184 4 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER -DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION To CHARLES IV. THOMPSON From City Administrator Subject APPROPRIATION FOR CITY LOAN Date TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR Ii00VER-GOTIIARD STUDY F.I.S. 8 6-31 ROBERT J. FRANZ, Chief Administrative Services JULY 15, 1986 As requested under the authority of Resolution 4832, a Fiscal Impact Report has been prepared and submitted relative to the proposed loan by the City to the Redevelopment Agency for purposes of funding the Feasibility Study for the proposed Iloover-Gothard Extension. Anticipations by the requesting entity are that an appropriation of $45,000 would be adequate for this project. An affirmative response by the City Council will reduce the balance of the City's unaudited, unappropriated General Fund to $1,883,328. KOBE'RT J. FR Administrative RJF-.skd s DepartmgAt 2648j O/7 REQUE&. FOR CITY COUNCIL.- ACTION Date �vtit� Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council //�� ' V'Y y y Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator(? Prepared by: Paul E. Cook, Director of Public WorksT� Subject: Feasibility Study for the Proposed Hoover-Gothard xr Consistent with Council Policy? VI Yes I ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: I Statement of Issue: The City of Westminster has delayed action on a proposed development in the path of a Hoover-Gothard extension for 60 days Recommendation: L Approve the selection of IWA Engineers to prepare a feasibility study and develop cost data for the construction of a Hoover-Gothard connection and direct staff to prepare a contract with this firm. 2. Approve the selection of Parsons, Brinkerhoff, Quade and Douglas to analyze the traffic impacts of a Hoover-Gothard connection and direct staff to prepare a contract with this firm. 3. Establish a budget of $45,000.00 for the total cost of the two contracts. Analysis: The Huntington Beach City Council has approved a precise alignment for Gothard Street south of Mc Fadden Avenue that would allow a ultimate connection of Gothard to Hoover Street in Westminster. On June 24, 1986 the Mayor and City Administrator appeared before the Westminster City Council asking the Council to defer action on a proposed development which would lie in the path of a future Gothard/Hoover connection. The Westminster City Council agreed to postpone action for 60 days to allow the City of Huntington Beach to prepare a feasibility study. Accordingly, City staff requested proposals from engineering firms to develop the necessary information. The firms most qualified to perform the studies, which could also meet the very short time frame were IWA Engineers and PBO & D. The feasibility study will include alternative preliminary designs reflecting the constraints of the railroad, freeway and Edison Company facilities. Designs will include cost information and environmental assessment. CALTRANS, SCE and the Southern Pacific Transportation Company will be consulted on the feasibility of the alternative plans. The traffic analysis will utilize computer modeling to compare circulation patterns and traffic volumes an Beach Boulevard, Goldenwest Street, Bolsa Avenue, Mc Fadden Avenue Hoover, Gothard and other local streets with and without the connection. Impacts on the Westminster Mall and Huntington Center will also be analyzed. f P10 4184 Feasibility Study for the Proposed Hoover-Gothard Extension July 1, 1986 Page 2 Funding Source: A loan of unappropriated general fund balance to the Redevelopment Agency under the provisions of the standing operative agreement between the City aid the agency. For this study the amount will $45,000.00. Alternative Action: 1. Select other firms to perform the studies. 2. Do not prepare a feasibility study. Attachments: F.I.S. CWT:PEC:LGE:dw 1047g • J� CITY OF HUNTINGTON E I Y E INTER -DEPARTMENT COMMUNICA D Hu"%OcroN KACH 'JUL a CITY OF HUMFA CHARLES F. THOMPSON From ROBER�ft City Administrator Administrative dery p Subject APPROPRIATION FOR CITY LOAN TO Date duly 1, 1986 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR HOOVER-GOTHARD STUDY F.I.S. 86-31 As requested under the authority of Resolution 4832, a Fiscal Impact Report has been prepared and submitted relative to the proposed loan by the City to the Redevelopment Agency for purposes of funding the Feasibility Study for the proposed hoover-Gothard Extension. Antici- pations by the requesting entity are that an appropriation of $45,000 would be adequate for this project. An affirmative response by the City Council will reduce the balance of the City's unaudited, unappropriated General Fund to $1,883,328. RJF :md L U 0 0 FISCAL DIPACr STATIIMENr Hoover-Gothard SLud 1. Budget Status This proposal is urbudgeted becai ,e it was unanticipated at the time the budget was prepared. 2. Total Costs a. Direct: $45,000.00 as one -tire expenditure from the General F=4. b. Indirect: Loss of earnings on these funds. 3. Flinn ng Source a. Funds: General funds on depa3it in Account #A 301 (fund balance) for transfer into Account 815390. b . Revenue Sources: General Fu.-xis . c . Alternative Funding Sources: Gas Tax 210 7.5 Funds d. History: General funds have normally been used for this purpose in the past. They are to be authorized in the foam of a loan to the Development Agency. iewl: Map on File with City Clerk