HomeMy WebLinkAboutRail Feasibility and Alignment Study for West Orange County � U3ay_aZ _
LEGEND
.+ 4 CQ�f�1014wrlLIN -
nwonun lul6 mimuua um f
pi wNalm HE
1 _
s� E_
,���yy
Stu
dy Area
s it•elil�'. 3' L�kPk11GBk$431t �a antB�
_ NI
PAS
�•� _ = The Center Lme Corridor Study Area
Of PC
sr Qkk80N$t ',�s. _ -ti•'' - �7 IINQOIHkV. � ,1 _
wkrmawra , _ R` ,a ununuunuuuuun Existing Rail Corridors
t. �
} - '• , � xui. nuunw u LA Blue Line
�.. BE A" If M li I f •� ;DO ii■riem: .m nan�gaum o ,
wuaw$t '- �.,,� -p_ ' ■ x.�,ut 1 Y nnoonm LA Green•Line
TO
77 - ,./ .ae: - t -- -� - - •z Center Line Laval Preferred Ali nrnenrt
JXX
$ $ 06 a p1bCRCCQ4$T ,-�■■IIYNIi G61p 1Ml �jn. 9
DOWN. »v:' � — - _ 000uaaas ouaao er,Line Pooterdial FgAure Extension
on
Itr� ' N■.� .. = j .:.. ■m !�'i! Cent ensi
i1�7�- -- _..�- f� e• _ .-_ _ � , , _ f ' ` r ! _ LEN BRT
i,: - - • -.. ......-•.' •.... o dkAOEIJ• 8L4L1'. ra, + r ,��-
L 11 ''" "•" '4
11 OC@NELM �d E�� n ,. _ l = j } r+ i BRT Lite
E,
J I Nam
4 , 0 1 2 M199
7.
`"Ig� 'r■■�i.• - fly'' :j� '' i !� I- �, + l„ _ �J
PACNIC OCEAN
aid i E . - :•:!: cow
_ T
+
■�i •n ! Otert1D Metfna BE64
hkTIM=lu -
rwm o ,• .. /SS • _ Ml6CBL1Rj� _ � s ! _
L ! o
_ ••_.- ; QUB#4.'. i t .- OV1JIAfNYIAY
MOM
• •-a -rig N�I(14 BY4
rr.Y 4`�
ALTERNATIVE B HV1 biP tWM.Mi
BRT on the EE RNV _
WOC Project Definition Study -
9
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-49
A RESOLUTION OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL
SUPPORTING THE WEST ORANGE COUNTY PROJECT
DEFINITION STUDY
WHEREAS, West Orange County possesses a broad variety of cultural, economic, and
recreational resources for Orange County residents and workers; and
The cities of Buena Park, Cypress, Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach,
La Palma,Los Alamitos, Seal Beach, Stanton and Westminster(hereinafter"Cities") comprise
the Cities of West Orange County; and
The Cities desire to use cultural, economic, and recreational resources to improve the
quality of life for Orange County residents and workers; and
Transportation and mobility improvements are key elements in maintaining and growing
the quality of life for Orange County residents and workers; and
The Cities desire to develop transportation solutions through consensus-building and
mutual support to improve and grow the quality of life in West Orange County; and
The Cities acknowledge the growing importance of providing alternatives to auto driving,
of improving air quality, managing traffic congestion, and continue economic development; and
Expanded public transportation is a key transportation element for improving the quality
of life in West Orange County; and
The Cities funded and completed a feasibility study of expanded transit projects and
services for West Orange County in June 2000 through the West Orange County Cities
Association; and
The feasibility study recommended transit corridors for further analysis through a more
detailed planning and engineering study; and
The Cities desire to expand the transit feasibility study efforts through a more detailed
planning and engineering study managed by the Orange County Transit Authority; and
The Cities desire to express their support for the detailed planning and engineering study
known as the West Orange County Project Definition Study,
NOW,THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby
pledge to:
1. Express support for continuing the feasibility study efforts through the West
Orange County Project Definition Study; and
01reso/west o c/7/31/01 1
Res. No. 2001-49
2. Participate actively in the study efforts through regular meetings of the Study's
Policy Advisory Committee, Steering Committee, and Technical Advisory Committee; and
3. Build support for the study's findings and recommendations by publicizing the
study as it progresses; and
4. Seek consensus for the Study's findings and recommendations for the betterment
of West Orange County.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a
regular meeting thereof lield on the 6th day of AUgust , 2001.
ATTEST: 94ayor
City Clerk APPROV AS TO FORM:
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: C* y/�ttoorney
j °V /J
ED APPROVED: ((
City Admin' rator f
Director of ublic Works
01 reso/\\est o c/7/10/01 2
Res. No. 2001-49
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss:
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of
the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said
City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council
of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was
passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the
members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6th
day of August, 2001 by the following vote:
AYES: Green, Boardman, Cook, Julien Houchen, Garofalo, Dettloff,
Bauer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the
City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach, California
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEA%,,A(�D
MEETING DATE: 8/6/01 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PW 01-108
Council/Agency Meeting Held: — IJ -c)1
Deferred/Continued to:
Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied Pc- Ci tlei-4,1 6ignature
Council Meeting Date: 8/6/01 Department ID Number: PW 01-108
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION o c
o �
SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS rCC---
SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator qI Cl) r-
PREPARED BY: Robert F. Beardsley, Director of Public Works c, _ mac.
All All, 02 oO/—',4 q C!1 c�
SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution Supporting West Orange County Transit Projec-Deftlition
Study
Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachments)
Statement of Issue: Should the City Council adopt a resolution supporting the West Orange
County Transit Project Definition Study?
Funding Source: Not Applicable.
Recommended Action: Motion to:
Adopt Resolution No.�00 i-`V supporting the West Orange County Transit Project
Definition Study and forward it to the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA.)
Alternative Action(s):
Do not adopt the resolution and advise staff on how to proceed.
Analysis: In June 2000, the West Orange County Cities Association completed a feasibility
study of transit needs in West Orange County. This study, managed by the City of
Huntington Beach and funded by nine of the ten West Orange County cities, identified
several corridors for more detailed planning and engineering efforts.
The Orange County Transportation Authority, OCTA, recognized the local interest in
improving transit service and the unmet transit needs, and budgeted $1 million for further
study. This effort will build upon the previous work and identify various transit improvements
ranging from additional bus service through bus rapid transit to light rail. The West Orange
County Project Definition Study has just begun and should be completed in September 2002.
RCA West OC Project Definition Study 08 06 011.doc 07/18/01 3:25 PM
*QUEST FOR COUNCIL ACl ,jN
MEETING DATE: 8/6/01 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PW 01-108
West Orange County is uniquely located between OCTA's Centerline Light Rail System
proposed for central Orange County and the.existing Blue Line and Green Line light rail
systems in Los Angeles County. Amtrak and Metrolink currently provide additional rail
service through the northern portion of West Orange County, and high-speed rail proposals
along the 405, 22 and 5 Freeways are beginning to be evaluated. The West Orange County
Project Definition Study will focus on transit connections to and between these systems.
At the West Orange County Cities Association Meeting on May 17, 2001, the cities discussed
the importance of building support for improved transit service from the ground up within their
communities as well as with OCTA. The City of La Palma provided a resolution adopted by
their City Council supporting improved transit service in West Orange County. Following
discussion, each city agreed to consider a similar resolution supporting the West Orange
County Project Definition Study and submit it to OCTA.
Public Works Commission: The Commission received a briefing on the West Orange
County Transit Project Definition Study at their April 18, 2001 meeting. There was general
consensus expressed for improving transit in West Orange County with the suggestion from
Chairman Gartland that public and elected officials be involved in the process so that it is not
just staff driven.
Environmental Status: Not Applicable.
Attachment(s):
City Clerk's
Page Number No. Description
1 Resolution No.RCA Author: BrohardJrn
RCA West OC Project Definition Study 08 06 011.doc 07/18/01 3:25 PM
s� u
n tu
i yy
RCAIZOUTING 1HEET
INITIATING DEPARTMENT: I Public Works
SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution Suppoectrting West Orange County Transit
. Prdj Definition Study
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 6, 2001
RCAATTAHMENS STATUS
Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable
Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached
Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Not Applicable
Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable)
(Signed in full by the City Attomey) Not Applicable
Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc.
(Approved as to form by City Attomey) Not Applicable
Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Not Applicable
Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Applicable
Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable
Staff Report (If applicable) Not Applicable
Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Not Applicable
Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Not Applicable
EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS
'REVIEWED RETURNED ` FORWARDED
Administrative Staff ( ) )
Assistant City Administrator (Initial) ( ) ( )
City Administrator (Initial)
City Clerk ( )
EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM.
CoL1 �AV, 'ZzA
7—)7-- coo NON
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH .a CA
• CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
Z660 JUL I I CI:
TO: Mayor Garofalo and City Council Members
FROM: Ralph Bauer, City Council Member
DATE: July 11, 2000
SUBJECT: "C" Item —July 17, 2000 City Council Meeting
Update of West Orange County Cities Association Rail Study
Phases I and II of the Rail Feasibility and Alignment Study undertaken by the`"
West Orange County Cities Association have been completed. The study
included a technical analysis of current and future transportation needs in wq. t
Orange County, an opinion survey of 40 local community leaders, and a.
preliminary evaluation of possible rail corridor alternatives.
Key findings of the leadership survey concluded that the transportation system in
West Orange County is inadequate, that it will get worse, and that rail is a good
idea. Several preliminary corridors were identified for further evaluation,
including Beach Blvd., Katella Ave., Warner Ave., Westminster Blvd., and the PE
ROW.
These findings were presented to the Orange County Transportation Authority
(OCTA) on July 10, 2000. Based on the results of this initial research, the OCTA
has budgeted an additional $1 million to more fully evaluate these preliminary
alternatives.
RB: ek
V
Pr' 'is Works Department
Light Rail Study Update
West Orange County
Cities Association _=
Rail Feasibility & -'
r
Alignment Study '-
Y `
; - ° With OCTA
WOCCA Members
• Buena Park • La Palma
• Cypress • Los Alamitos
• Fountain Valley • Stanton
• Garden Grove • Westminster
• Huntington Beach
July 17, 2000 Late Communication Item C-I a 1
ft
4t Wiest Gaon , ammutti , leaders x nclucfed:
g '?$$e ,
• l�rese`ntAtransportat�on systemic _
inadequate c it is C,00'tl idea
West Cauni transportation wili4get worse
• Beach�Bc►ulevarda major priority �
• Connectionslto=other aystems aky ,
• No major=dest notions 2dominated
• Should give priorityao
connections to central county
I PEIA
+� �►lon �®r he future `�,
,� • �nsv ev seats a a filled
§ 4 4
•jMakyye it affordable aft,K
..............
ndZbuildable
t
• Make �t straight and s�mpie 5tt
• Nioke"it�connect��� , �.��� _�*�,
• Make it easy t6liviewith-
• Make it attractive and competitive
PC 'ic Works Department
Light Rail Study Update
t
t . .:
FULLERTON
C RR...
PALMA'` PARK-
e - .
_ CYPRESS AH AN ElM
S i
tAMIT05 r �
d SEALBEACH>
WE INSTER
t ;
SANTA
ANA
W.FOUNTAIN g,.. €
r r € t VALLEY:
Ngrth rJ HUNTINGTON
WbCCA Siudy Artra4 W_�.' _ `�
Current Cente&I Study ANn, y
-------------
FULLERTON-
. JCERRIT
a PARK
„..
...... PALMA
' .CYPRESS - ANAHEIM
ca is
S ,, STANTON Q1
s - GARDEN GRO-AwVE
��
� SANTA
"FOUNTAIN
VALLEY
HUNWIGTON
•_. I � BEACH
WOCCA Study Area a M.-Ckk
Current Centerline Study Area d �• ^• - -... ;�,
... ,• °w: - COSTA-
MESA
July 17, 2000 Late Communication Item C-1 a 3
Pr' 'is Works Department
Light Rail Study Update
Eo• � fr7»hrr*
ant `^� firara '
Xl-
L�t4wngng2grs +' .
IM
4
k
Si
July 17, 2000 Late Communication Item C-1 a 4
REQUEST FOR ACTIO
I )
,Brohu r-d Ad h�oRks
MEETING DATE: December 6, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PW 99-129
Council/Agency Meeting Held:
T
rred/Continued to:
roved ❑ Co=itionally Approved ❑ Denied _
A3 Ci Clerk's Signature
Council Meeting Date: December 6, 1999 Department ID Number: PW 99-129
REQUEST FOR ACTION
SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL
SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator6P
PREPARED BY: ROBERT F. BEARDSLEY, Director of Public Works '
SUBJECT: APPROVE A MOTION SUPPORTING AN OCTA CENTERLINE
PROJECT
Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action,Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s)
Statement of Issue: The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) CenterLine
Project was proposed as a 28 mile rail transit corridor between the Fullerton Transportation
Center and the Irvine Transportation Center. The original route passes through seven
communities including the Cities of Fullerton, Anaheim, Garden Grove, Orange, Santa Ana,
Costa Mesa, and Irvine. Recently, OCTA staff recommended shortening the route to about
10 to 12 miles between Costa Mesa and Irvine. On December 13, 1999, the OCTA Board
of Directors is expected to make a final decision on whether to proceed with the CenterLine
Project. At this time staff requests direction from City Council regarding whether the City of
Huntington Beach should formally support, oppose, or take no action regarding this project.
Funding Source: Not applicable.
Recommended Action: Motion to:
1.) Approve a motion supporting an OCTA CenterLine Project.
Alternative Action(s): Motion to direct staff to take an alternative course of action such
as:
1.) Direct staff to communicate opposition to the CenterLine Project to OCTA before
December 13, 1999.
2.) Receive and file this report and take no further action at this time.
Draft 3 -2- 11/29/99 4:25 PM
REQUEST FOR ACTION
MEETING DATE: December 6, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PW 99-129
Background: In 1990, voters approved Measure M, a one half percent state sales and
use tax, which became effective on April 1, 1991 and sunsets in 2011. The ballot indicated,
"The purpose of this measure is to improve the quality of life, relieve traffic congestion, and
improve air quality in Orange County by expanding the present Los Angeles to San Diego
commuter rail service throughout Orange County ..." The 1999 edition of OCTA's Long
Range Financial Plan identifies $340 million (in 1988 dollars) for rail transit during the 20
year life of Measure M.
Agencies in Orange County have considered a rail transit system for many years. Over the
last 25 years, a number of studies have addressed different alignments for an initial
segment of a rail transit system, as well as a countywide rail network. Most recently, OCTA
has completed a Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Environmental Impact Report
(DEIS/DEIR) for the Centerline Project, a 28 mile rail transit system in Central Orange
County. The Centerline would connect the Fullerton Transportation Center with the Irvine
Transportation Center, passing through the Cities of Anaheim, Garden Grove, Orange, and
Santa Ana as well as portions of Fullerton and Irvine.
At the City Council's November 15, 1999, meeting, a brief video prepared by OCTA
regarding their Centerline Project was shown. Following discussion, staff was directed to
review various aspects and documents associated with the project, as shown in
Attachment 1. Brief summaries are provided below, with additional information, available
for review in the Public Works Department.
OCTA's CenterLine DEIS/DEIR—This document was circulated for public review for 45
days starting on September 3, 1999. Huntington Beach staff reviewed this document and
advised OCTA on October 18 that the City had no comments at that time.
The DEIS/DEIR indicates that the purposes of the CenterLine are to:
♦ Implement transit services that provide priority treatment and separation from
automobiles and congested roadways.
♦ Provide a variety of transit services to accommodate competing demands in the
corridor.
♦ Implement adopted OCTA and SCAG long range transportation and air quality plans.
♦ Close the gap in connectivity between Orange County intermodal transportation centers
and activity centers.
♦ Provide transit services to meet the needs of growing population and employment in the
corridor and adjacent communities.
♦ Provide transit services that are integrated and compatible with land uses in the corridor
communities.
♦ Provide mobility improvements that balance cost effectiveness and environmental
constraints.
The DEIS/DEIR examined a No Build Alternative and three build alternatives, including one
elevated alternative and two street level alternatives. All of the alternatives evaluated
Draft 3.doc -3- 11/29/99 3:31 PM
REQUEST FOR ACTION
MEETING DATE: December 6, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PW 99-129
consider the same amount of future bus and Metrolink expansion as well as the same
regional road improvements. For the three build alternatives, bus service routes and
schedules would be reconfigured to operate as a feeder system for the Centerline Project.
The bus, Metrolink, and freeway/road improvements common to all alternatives including
the No Build Alternative are as follows:
1. An increase by 2015 of nearly 50% in weekday bus service hours including:
♦ Limited stop bus service from Fullerton Transportation Center to Irvine
Transportation Center.
♦ Peak period limited stop bus service on Harbor Boulevard south of Disneyland and
on Bristol Street.
♦ New all day local bus services in Anaheim Hills, Yorba Linda, Fullerton Hills, East
Orange, and Central Irvine.
♦ Increased frequency on local bus services throughout Orange County on almost all
routes.
♦ Increased frequency and extended coverage by express bus service along the 1-5, 1-
405, and SR-57 Freeway corridors.
♦ New and restructured commuter rail (Metrolink) feeder bus services.
2. An increased frequency of Metrolink commuter rail service equivalent to adding 1,000
seats per weekday.
3. Construction of all freeway, toll road, and arterial improvements already planned.
The Elevated Alternative connects the Fullerton and Irvine Transportation Centers, and
contains 26 aerial stations along the 28 mile route. The estimated cost of this alternative is
about $2 billion (1998 dollars) with no allowance for traffic mitigation, about $71 million per
mile. The estimated number of riders in 2020 is 75,300 people per day. Design options
include airport shuttle buses from the Main Street parking lot, and a moving sidewalk
connecting to John Wayne Airport.
Street Level Alternative 1 also connects the Fullerton and Irvine Transportation Centers
with 31 stations along the 27 mile route. The estimated cost of this alternative is $1.4 billion
which includes $66 million for traffic mitigation, about $52 million per mile. The estimated
number of riders in 2020 is 71,800 people per day. Design options include possible direct
connection of the CenterLine to John Wayne Airport.
Street.Level Alternative 2 connects the Fullerton Transportation Center to the UCI campus
with 30 stations along the 23 mile route. The estimated cost of this alternative is $1.4 billion
which includes $51 million for traffic mitigation, about $61 million per mile. The estimated
number of riders in 2020 is 62,800 people per day. This alternative includes a station at
John Wayne Airport.
Orange County Grand Jury Report— Earlier this year, the Orange County Grand Jury
prepared a report entitled "Orange County Transportation Authority and Light Rail
Planning." The Grand Jury studied the process for the CenterLine decision and "found it
wanting." Their report indicates that the CenterLine would carry less than 1% of the total
Draft 3.doc -4- 11/29/99 3:31 PM
REQUEST FOR ACTION
MEETING DATE: December 6, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PW 99-129
county ridership in 2020. The Grand Jury also examined the last 12 urban light rail systems
developed in the United States, and believes that the CenterLine will also experience the
following:
♦ Light rail will have a negligible impact on traffic congestion because it attracts few
automobile drivers from their cars.
♦ Demographic trends will make light rail much less effective than predicted.
♦ Light rail is expensive, with the most cost-effective federally funded systems requiring
subsidies of$5,000 or more per new rider, those drivers brought out of their cars.
♦ Light rail is inflexible once in place, whereas the OCTA's bus system routes are
adjusted three times per year.
♦ The cost and ridership forecasts will be erroneous and biased in favor of light rail.
♦ Development along light rail corridors is spurred by tax subsidies, not by light rail.
♦ Light rail will not improve commuter travel times, energy conservation, and safety.
The Grand Jury's report recommended that:
♦ The OCTA Directors be made aware of the national experience in light rail over the last
18 years as well as the documented inability to solve urban transit problems. It also
suggested that disinterested experts be invited to provide the historical perspective to
the Directors.
♦ The Directors instruct the OCTA staff to amend their outreach programs to include data
regarding the recent and ongoing national light rail experience.
♦ The OCTA establish measurable goals for light rail "build-no build" criteria as part of the
decision process, and that this be incorporated into the outreach programs.
OCTA's Response to the Grand Jury Report— On June 14, 1999, the OCTA Board of
Directors responded to the Grand Jury report. Their response indicates that the Board is
aware of other recent light rail systems and that OCTA is complying with the
recommendations of the Grand Jury. (This document was obtained from OCTA's web site.)
Drivers for ffighway Safety Comments on the DEIS/DE/R— OCTA has received many
comments on their DEIS/DEIR for the CenterLine project including a letter dated October
21, 1999, from the Drivers for Highway Safety. Their correspondence indicates that the
project would have a counterproductive effect on Orange County's predicted year 2020
traffic congestion, and that the project should be rejected in favor of the no-build
alternative.
Positions of Various Cities along the CenterLine— There are six cities along the
proposed CenterLine route including Fullerton, Garden Grove, Anaheim, Santa Ana, Costa
Mesa, and Irvine. The following briefly summarizes recent actions in some of the nearby
communities:
♦ Irvine —The City Council supports the CenterLine project and on October 12, 1999,
authorized the use of their Proposition 116 Advanced Rail Demonstration Project funds
($120 million) to enhance OCTA's CenterLine Project. The use of these funds by
OCTA is contingent upon construction of the Irvine segment of the CenterLine first (from
John Wayne Airport to the Irvine Transportation Center.)
Draft 3.doc -5- 11/29/99 3:31 PM
REQUEST FOR ACTION
MEETING DATE: December 6, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PW 99-129
♦ Costa Mesa — The City Council is scheduled to act on December 6, 1999. It appears
likely that Costa Mesa will support the CenterLine project.
♦ Orange— On November 23, 1999, the City Council supported the "no build" alternative.
Additionally, the City Council directed staff to communicate their opposition to the Costa
Mesa-Irvine segment to OCTA. The City Council also requested that OCTA ask the
voters of Orange County to amend Measure M to divert the $340 million now earmarked
exclusively for transit over to highway and freeway projects throughout the County.
♦ Santa Ana —At their November 15, 1999, City Council meeting, the City supported the
"no-build" alternative. The Council directed their staff to work with OCTA staff to develop
an alternative alignment (other than those already studied) that they could support.
They expressed concern about the lack of traffic mitigation along the Main Street,
Broadway, and Bristol Street alignments where existing traffic lanes would be taken
away to accommodate the light rail system. The City also suggested electric busses, a
monorail, or other technology.
♦ Anaheim — The City Council is scheduled to discuss their position on December 7.
Their staff indicates that this is a policy decision and did not speculate on the upcoming
action.
Presentation to West Orange County Cities Association — On November 18, Lisa Mills,
Executive Director of OCTA, presented an update of the CenterLine project to the West
Orange County Cities Association. She indicated that many comments had been received
on the DEIS/DEIR, with about two thirds focused on traffic impacts from the proposed
project. She advised that some of the cities along the route are asking for more mitigation,
and that a poll taken in September showed significant support for the CenterLine. The
project is planned to be phased over many years.
Given the recent actions by the Santa Ana and the Orange City Councils, Ms. Mills stated
that the segment between Costa Mesa and Irvine now shows the most promise for the first
phase of construction. Other factors supporting this possible choice include the support of
Irvine and major landowners, the likely support of Costa Mesa, the number of riders this
segment could attract, the financial contribution from Irvine, and the potential location of a
rail yard in Irvine. She added that this segment could be built with local money, and that the
funds spent then could be used as a match for future federal funding. She indicated that
OCTA would not force the CenterLine project on agencies that did not support it. She
believes that the OCTA Board will take action on December 13 as originally scheduled.
She also suggested that the recent action by the City of Santa Ana also provides "a golden
opportunity for the West Orange County Cities," primarily as this area is located between a
Costa Mesa terminus and the existing systems in Los Angeles County. She suggested that
the cities show their support for the CenterLine at the OCTA Board meetings and that the
cities proceed with the first two phases of the planned West Orange County Rail Feasibility
Study. She suggested that the third phase of this study, the refinement to a preferred
alternative, could be better handled by OCTA under a Major Investment Strategy (MIS.)
Draft 3.doc -6- 11/29/99 3:31 PM
REQUEST FOR ACTION
MEETING DATE: December 6, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PW 99-129
OCTA Staff-Revised Recommendation— On November 8, OCTA staff recommended
consideration of an alignment between Fullerton and Irvine as shown on Attachment 1.
However, following the Santa Ana City Council action, OCTA staff revised their
recommendation to the Board by deleting the portion of the project serving Santa Ana and
points north. The new 10 to 12-mile route would serve Costa Mesa and Irvine between the
Orange County Performing Arts Center and the Irvine Transportation Center, with a spur
connecting to U.C. Irvine. The cost of this segment is expected to be less than $1 billion.
Analysis: On November 15, the City Council requested that several issues be addressed
regarding the Centerline project as shown on Attachment 2. Most of these are included in
the previous portions of this report. In addition, the following information is provided:
1. Benefits — Other cities benefit through the integration of bus and rail transit services.
Feeder services are planned to provide connections to the Centerline. Improvements to
the County's transportation and transit systems benefit transportation services in
general. For example, not everyone drives the freeway system but if one or two of the
existing freeways were not available, then the remaining freeways and streets would be
negatively impacted.
2. Subsidy—The financial analysis assumed a 30% farebox recovery for the system,
similar to other systems. The incremental cost per new transit rider ranges from $11.68
to $21.25 for the three build alternatives, with the elevated system having the highest
cost.
3. Integration — The Centerline is one segment of an 87-mile master plan rail system in
Orange County (Attachment 3.) The network includes options to connect to the Blue
Line in Long Beach and the Green Line in Norwalk. Metrolink connections to Centerline
are planned in Fullerton, Anaheim, and Irvine. The Irvine Transportation Center is also
adjacent to the El Toro base.
4. Speed — OCTA staff is recommending an alternative that is 30% elevated, but the trains
will stop about every mile at various stations along the route. The opportunity to provide
high speeds is constrained by the frequency of the stations. Street level segments
would have traffic signal preemption where possible, somewhat increasing operating
speeds.
5. Views of other Cities — See above.
6. 405 Freeway Corridor—This corridor would be served between Irvine and Costa Mesa,
and by a possible extension through West Orange County.
7. Beach Boulevard —This could be a future alignment alternative, but it is not included in
the overall 87-mile rail master plan.
8. Tourism — Possible benefits to tourism have not been evaluated for the present project,
but would be if an alignment along Beach Boulevard were studied.
9. New Riders — Section 3.1.2 of the DEIS/DEIR indicates a shift from auto to transit under
each of the three build alternatives. OCTA surveys also indicate that 45% may use the
Centerline for a particular trip even if they have a car available to them. Other
information available is contrary to this position.
10.DEIS/DEIR —The executive summary and other opposing positions are attached.
11.Federal Support— OCTA has received a "recommended" rating for the Centerline
project from the Federal Transit Administration. Projects seeking federal funds must
Draft 3.doc -7- 11/29/99 3:31 PM
REQUEST FOR ACTION
MEETING DATE: December 6, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PW 99-129
receive a rating of"recommended" to be considered. OCTA indicates that FTA staff
have been very supportive of the Centerline project.
12.Grand Jury Report— See above.
13.Drivers for Highway Safety Position — See above.
The City of Huntington Beach is the lead agency on behalf of the West Orange County
Cities Association for the upcoming Rail Feasibility Study, Phase II. This effort will build
upon previous studies and will identify various rail transit opportunities through West
Orange County to link the CenterLine terminus in Costa Mesa with light rail systems in Los
Angeles County. Consultant interviews for the study are scheduled for December 7, with a
recommendation for consultant selection to be presented to the City Council in January.
The CenterLine Project, as now recommended by OCTA staff, does not directly impact the
City of Huntington Beach. By only recommending the 10 to 12-mile segment between
Costa Mesa and Irvine as the first minimal operating segment to be constructed, OCTA
staff has improved the possibility that rail transit may serve the Huntington Beach area in
the future. However, how this could be done and the various potential alignments have not
been studied or evaluated.
Staff supports a light rail system to serve the long term transportation needs of Orange
County residents and businesses. However, until a final route is selected by OCTA which
ties into either Metrolink or the Los Angeles Rail Transit System, staff cannot recommend a
CenterLine Project that does not serve the regional needs.
Environmental Status: DEIS/DEIR prepared by OCTA
Attachment(sl:
NumberCity Clerk's
Page
1. CenterLine—OCTA Staff Recommended Alignment— Nov. 8, 1999
2. CenterLine — Issues to be addressed November 15, 1999
3. Orange County Rail Master Plan
RCA Author: Tom Brohard:gc
Draft 3.doc -8- 11/29/99 3:33 PM
ATTACHMENT # 1.
STAFF RECOMMENDED ALIGNMENT
Merton CSU .
Coneys ~ (si' Fullerton
Fullerton
Funerton
rwdPwUbon
Center
at
South MrCw
Commecial ' A as.•�A, Downto-n
Mel AMheln
T`
- i
P,' j AMhern
Anhem C
y I a T Cent"
uan The
Pond
Change
Edison Tr CP-naa=n enter SRA r Alignment
rsr. sv - `Kb jj
AMAsin II CNCKI '.I O Station
Comemgn - St Joseph
Celle S T - Nospital ;'
j 5 _ i5
MainPlace
t -i Man �j Regional Transportation Center
Activity/Employment Center
>ar^=:rx+ UCI NospidV
TM Block � `
DCttn'scwey Bowes North
a - Scie Mtneum I ��AM .
_ 0 1 2 5 Miles
20l cortege
-T 3
Chic Cent.Do—t..n d„
Sama AM i a
4
rf. 1 A'I
.vA:rf-t Av -
C� ^J
.EP:D I Tustn
Wring Bale
Iryne A
South Coast
Busrtesl % •�
1 Pla7a/Meeo CanDbr e. �;;;EE C
EQ o
I i a� cE•� _ y1„ I-
� rS
B� sa o
Base
It
l—ne
i TlansDOMfen
,n Center
John n �t
Wayne ir.n EvSf'
AepoA
� Irvine
-:R•'ap i Medical • �-
='4 C�Mor
�Ucalforyd
`Y nla l spee+vn
x� at wile ,
1heCenterUne
ATTACHMENT #2
CENTER LINE —ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED
Ralph Bauer
11/15/99
1. Benefits to 6 cities. How do the other 27 cities of Orange County
benefit? Their taxes are paying for it. Are there guarantees for future
benefits?
2. Estimated subsidy per passenger on completion. Compare with
bus subsidy. Will a future disapproval of Measure M
detract ferm this and needed road projects?
R
3. Integration of system with other transportation venues —for example:
Blue Line, Green Line, Orange County Airport, LAX, Long Beach
Airport, Metrolink and proposed high speed rail systems.
4. Speed of rail system long term. Should system be at grade or
elevated?
5. Viewpoints of some cities directly effected or cities close by i.e.,
Santa Ana, Garden Grove, and Costa Mesa.
6. The "5" corridor is well taken care of. What about the "405"
corridor?
7. Movement up and down Beach Blvd. to connect Beach with Buena
Park and the Metrolink.
8. Benefits for tourism in beach cities.
9. How will it get people out of cars?
10. Review and critique of EIR.
11. Evaluation of likelihood of 50% federal support.
12. Grand Jury Report.
13. Drivers for Highway Safety Report.
RB:1p
ATTACHMENT #3
Transit
Plan an 81-Fife Urban Bart Network o
5anta F¢ Los Angeles CourAy _-__— ' m
sprin!%s i ora"pe Cu"nly \ sa ''
• • - \ lD
• _ .• 70 r--
Norwalk,,, • ;:. ;° /+ .
Fuilt
LAI
\ n„
now
wog-•,•\ W
Artesla = _ �.i,;,r;:• :._.. ,r
= • 9.•�BUena Anaheim �_
/ Park:. = Orange �
long % +, - �� c+ Ill
Beach
3 D
Garden _
_r...... ....... Grove - - `. 90
l
• Tustin
Santa. _
= Ana 1`
Huntington -� \
Beach \
Costa \
Mesa , •�,
Irvine
El Toro
ki
o O.C. Rail System - Mission. : . . %
A
Laguna VIe1q.
■muse Alternate Connections each EDCn
=1�■ L.A. Rail Transit `
Commuter Rall San Juan A
l
• Joint Commuter Rail/ 't Caplstrar►o
Urban Rail Station A
a A
RCA ROUTING SHEET
INITIATING Public Works Department
DEPARTMENT:
SUBJECT: APPROVE A MOTION SUPPORTING AN
OCTA CENTERLINE PROJECT
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 6, 1999
RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS
Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable
Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable
Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Not Applicable
Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable)
(Signed in full by the City Attorney) Not Applicable
Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc.
(Appoved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable
Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Not Applicable
Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Applicable
Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable
Staff Report (If applicable) Attached
Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Not Applicable
Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Not Applicable
EXPLANATION FOR MESSING ATTACHMENTS'
REVIEWED RETURNED FORWARDED
Administrative Staff ( ) ( )
Assistant City Administrator (Initial) ( ) ( )
City Administrator (Initial)
City Clerk ( )
EXPLANATION FOR:RETURN OF ITEM:
Only)(Below Space For City Clerk's Use
SOME BASIC OBJECTIVES OF LIGHT RAIL IN WESTERN ORANGE
COUNTY
RALPH BAUER
12/61/99
1. Gets people off of freeways. A route through western Orange County which
connects to the Blue Line or the Green Line relieves traffic on seven freeways
(405, 22, 605, 710, 110, 105) 91)
2. Regionalizes transportation including connection with airports, water ports, heavy
rail, and high-speed rail (future).
A route through western Orange County not only connects with the transportation
system of Los Angeles,but could also'connect with three airports (John Wayne,
Long Beach, LAX)the largest port in the Pacific Rim (LA-Long Beach) existing
Metrolink and the future High Speed Rail system.
3. Maximizes opportunities for federal financial support.
Since a western Orange County route connects to Los Angeles County,
congressional support would come from both the Orange County and the Los
Angeles County congressional delegation.
4. Maximizes cooperation of Orange County Cities. Irvine and Costa Mesa already
support the proposed Center Line. A western extension is likely to be supported
by the 10 cities of the West Orange County Cities Association. (Buena Park, La
Palma, Cypress, Los Alamitos, Stanton, Huntington Beach, Seal Beach, Fountain
Valley, Garden Grove, and Westminster). Further, a future Rail.Line down Beach
Blvd. connecting the current"5" and the futuristic"405"rail corridors would have
the additional benefit of moving millions of people between the entertainment
venues of Buena Park and the finest beaches on Orange County in Huntington
Beach. Beach Blvd. has 4 lanes along most of its route; thus taking the 2 center
lanes would still leave three lanes in either direction. Beach Blvd is a regional
highway (39) and is the longest busy surface street in Orange County.
LIGHT RAIL PRESENTATION FOR
HUNTINGTON BEACH COUNCIL MEMBER RALPLH BAUER
AT OCTA 11/22/99 9:00 AM PUBLIC HEARING
Good morning Chairman Wilson and Board Members.
I'm Ralph Bauer, City Council Member from the City of Huntington Beach. I'm here
today to represent the member cities of the West Orange County Cities Association, to
let you know that we are supportive of the concept of light rail in Orange County. We
believe that light rail is necessary to help handle the burgeoning growth in Orange
County projected for the next two decades.
As a group, we recognize that our surface streets will only handle so much traffic and
the freeways can only be widened until it reaches a point where further widening is no
longer cost effective. In West Orange County, and in my City of Huntington Beach, any
potential for new freeways disappeared years ago.
We urge you to continue in the next steps of the approval process for the Centerline
system. We in the western cities of Orange County would then like to be considered for
the next phase of development. We believe that first and foremost, for the success of
the system, the line should connect with similar systems in Los Angeles County— either
the Blue Line or the Green Line.
Activity centers exist in West Orange County that would benefit from a further extension
of the Centerline to the west—these include the beach, colleges, and business parks in
West Orange County, where thousands of workers commute to jobs every day.
We are so sure that West Orange County would benefit from light rail that we have
pooled our resources. We have allocated nearly $50,000 for the first phase of a study
of potential light rail routes that could serve the west end of the county and connect to
Centerline. Our target date for completion of the study is spring of 2000 and we plan to
come back to you for possible inclusion in future extensions of the light rail system.
Although the ten (10) cities of the West Orange County (Buena Park, La Palma,
Cypress, Los Alamitos, Stanton, Huntington Beach, Seal Beach, Fountain Valley,
Garden Grove, Westminster) have not yet formally agreed to the route of a western rail
extension, there are a number of attractive aspects to such a proposal:
1. Traffic on seven freeways is reduced (405, 22, 605, 710, 110, 91, 105).
2. Connection with three (3) airports is a possibility (LAX, Long Beach, Orange
County).
3. Connection with the largest port on the Pacific Rim is a possibility.
4. The regional nature of a system connecting Orange and Los Angeles Counties
would engender Congressional support from both counties, and thus, financial
support would be more certain.
5. A future north /south connection and along Beach Boulevard between the "5"
railway corridor and to western rail extension could move millions of people
between the entertainment venues of Buena Park and the finest beaches of
Southern California. Such a route would relieve traffic on the busiest long street
in Orange County.
6. There are ten (10) cities in West Orange County who are enthusiastic about
exploring a western extension to the Centerline project.
Thank you for your time. We appreciate the thoughtful consideration you will be giving
to your deliberations in the next few weeks.
Dec 05 99 10: 40p Chris E EMR, PE 714-544-3482 p. 1
1
PROPOSED 0 C Transportation Relief ?
11 How many blocks do you live from the OCTA proposed O C backbone
Fullerton to trine-UGHT RAIL? Statistical average distance that a
commuter will waik for connections is one-quarter mile= approx 4 to 5
California Docks.
2]WIII you be able to use such a proposed UGHT-RAIL?
3]W II the LIGHT RAIL serve for your transportation to vmrk?
41 Would you be able to utilize such a system for shopping?
51 How about bus connections?
51 Would you be served by its connection to O C Airport?
7] How would you get your luggage into the airport?
81 Could you take the UGHT RAIL to school/college?
9] What fare would you expect to pay?
101 What IF they charged more than that?
11] Did you know for the'Blue Une'of the LAID, it costs$34,13 per passenger
round trip? What is your reaction?
12] Were you aware that the'Blue Une'attracted few new passengers, as the riders r
of the adjacent bus routes were assimilated from the discontinued buses? _
13] WIII the proposed system take vehicles off the highways?
Remember, it can't carry trucks. c
14] IF, the system can't sense you; who will it serve?
15] Who will benefit from the proposed system? Z-
161 Are you prepared, if the'fare-box'doesret pay for operations;to pay for
subsidization? Even though you can't ride it? `
171 Will you be stranded if the union operators go on stri ke? C-)'
181 For those of you that are handicapped,will you have connections that serve k j �P'
your needs?
191 Do you realize that the OCTA Major Investment Study ranked Lest such
a proposed system,for solving O C circulation/gridlock er lief?
201 That'19]' being the case,what do you think of the waste of$4,000,000.
from your tax dollars on the MIS Study?
211 Were you aware that the proposed system will carry'less than one percent'of
dad ly O C trips?
221 Now you are looking at several million of your tax dollars, funding the current
FI)EDRAIL fallowon Study; is that expenditure OK with you?
231 WI11 the interruption of traffic caused by rail crossing signals/arms, be a
bother to you?
24] What if the UGHT RAIL is raised/placed on pylons in the air, how will that
affect your surroundings?
251 Would that'24]'be acceptable in your view.?
26] How does the fact that LIGHT-RAIL is FIXED-RAIL,which means that it can't be
rerouted in front of your house for your service; affect you?
27]What about collision accidents, would that upset your schedule?
28]WII the traversed streets by UGHi'-RAIL be safe for pedestrians and children?
291 With existing travel lanes'of the roadways being replaced by UGHT RAIL,what
will happen to displaced traffic?
30] If UGHT RAIL doesn't traffic through dense population areas,who will be riding?
31] How will emergency vehicles interact and respond to a string of UGHT-RAIL
cars? If the traffic signal Interruption technique system of UGHT-RAIL is in
force,what happens to the interruption system of emergency vehicles?
32]WII'four gates'intersection crossings be the hue and cry of citizens, like
the MTA BlueUne fix?
331 Some Cmmiipersons are responding re UGHT-RAIL carrying capacity, by
saying-"Oh,just add cars to the train".
How will longer trains interact with surface traffic?
34] What is the stopping distance for the train, re accident avoidance?
8—d—n -- - "Awe ■-1ma.1-911ula Pry 1
(.mil�- �•O�!' ? ; �
Dec 05 SS 10: 40p Chris E EMR, PE 714-544-3482 p. 2
1
35]WIII inclement weather affect steel wheel on rails? Stopping distance?
361 Is there a'dead-man'switch in the drivers controls,in case of driver failure?
371 What about'park&ride lots',will they be provided fort After all this system
Is sposed to get citizens out of their cars.
38] How will bicycles beaccomodated?
38] VNIII wheelchairs and motorized chairs be accomocated?
40]IMth travel lanes removed by placement of rail,how will transportation
be improved?
41]The costs mount, as solutions Increase to absolve problems;do you see
an end to the tax anchor around the taxpayers neck? Subsidies forever?
Chris E EMA, Pit CA Registered Transp Engr #42
Life Fellow - Institute of Transportation Engrs
1502 La Loma DR Santa Ana CA 92705-3061 Ph: 714-544-3487
E111416@aol.com
auna.v.pmn6..es_waa n-b.onik-C1414% P.-2
City of Huntington Beach Centerline Project
.w
u�
L
ORANGE COUNTY
TRANSPORTA TION
AUTHORITY
Centerline Project
Light Rail Transit System
ry=:
ONE,
CTA Centerline Project
~Approved in 1990 as part of Measure M
* Dedicated $340 million (1988 dollars)to
light rail
♦First proposed as 28 mile corridor
between Fullerton and Irvine
*Revised project is 10-12 miles between
Costa Mesa and Irvine
December 6, 1999 1 F — 1
City of Huntington Beach Centerline Project
West Orange County
Cities
* Rail Feasibility Study- Phase 2
(HB leads)
• Develop alternatives to connect Centerline to LA
Rail Transit System (LARTS)
• Obtain preliminary consensus
• Consultant interviews 12-7-99
• City Council action on consultant 1-17-00
• Study complete June 2000
CenterLine Project
_________
Considerations
* Does not directly impact City
*Requires connection from Costa Mesa to LA
Rail Transit System
*Support improves possibility of serving HB in
the future
*Study needed to develop alternatives to
connect
December 6, 1999 3 F 1
i
City of Huntington Beach Centerline Project
Centerline Project
raft EIR circulated September 1999
• Elevated alternative
• Two "at grade" alternatives
• No build alternative
* OCTA received variety of comments
• Grand jury found report "wanting"
• Drivers for Highway Safety claim rail will not ease
long-term traffic congestion problems
* OCTA staff developed revised recommended
alignment (Costa Mesa-Irvine)
Cities along Centerline
Council Positions
QtY_ Position
Irvine Supports
May contribute $120 million if built first
Costa Mesa Support likely
Santa Ana No build
Opposed to eliminating tralf c lanes for light rail
Orange No build
Ask voters to spend funds on roads instead
December 6, 1999 2 F - 1
City of Huntington Beach CenterLine Project
Recommendation
Huntington Beach
Support the OCTA light rail system to
help serve the long term transportation
needs of Orange County residents and
businesses as part of a regional transit
system ultimately connecting HB to
Metrolink and LARTS
December 6, 1999 4 - 1
L9 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH � -�//°��
HUNTINGTON BEACH �t'!f/V 1Y 8
CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
TO: Connie Brockway, City Clerk
FROM: Ralph Bauer, City Council Member .
DATE: November 12, 1999
SUBJECT: "C" Item: Report.by Intergovernmental Relations Committee
Status of OCTA CenterLine Project
The Intergovernmental Relations Committee has reviewed the current status of the
OCTA CenterLine Urban Rail Project. The 28-mile corridor extends from Fullerton to
Irvine. Currently the proposed schedule for OCTA approval is as follows:
November 22, 1999 OCTA Public Hearing
December 13, 1999 OCTA Board Approval of Alignment
1. The Committee requests that a short video be shown which more fully describes the
project for discussion purposes.
2. The project is estimated at$1.9 billion.
3. A number of other issues will be brought out.
4. It is requested that the City Administrator return to the City Council on December 6,
1999 with a possible recommendation.
11/14/1999 23:35 7145365233 CITY OF HB CITY ADM PAGE 01/01
CENTER LINE— ISStiES TO BE ADDRESSE
Ralph Bauer
I.I.115199
l. Benefits to b cities. How do the other 27 cities of Orange I County I_
benefit? Their taxes are paying for it. Are there guarant & s for future
benefits? a
J�
U>'
2. Estimated subsidy per passenger on completion. Comp with W '
subsidy of bus subsidy. Will a future disapproval of Me sure M t„Q
19U-:cJ�detract form this and needed road projects? °�
ir
oa�=wm
3. Integration of system with other transportation venues — lbr example: �CCW-W
ow-E&Z
Blue Line, Green Line, Orange County Airport, LAX, L g Beach >Q °0
Airport, Metrolink and proposed high speed rail systems., Wzo
I
4. Speed of rail system long term. Should systein be at gra a or
elevated?
5. Viewpoints of some cities directly effected or cities clos by i.e.,
Santa,Ara, Garden Grove, and Costa Mesa.
b. The "5" corridor is well taken care of. What about the 05"
corridor?
7. Movement up and down Beach Blvd. To connect Beach Tith Buena
Park and the Metrolink.
S. Benefits for tourism in beach cities.
i
9. How will it get.people out of cars?
10. Review and critique of EIR.
11. Evaluation of likelihood of 50% federal support. j
I2. Grand Jury Report.
13 Drivers for Highway Safety Report. �
RB:lp
I
\ V
V
• i� • _g J, � ,ems
U h'K HaC. 4 •�ad.c�
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BiACH 4•
HU"NGTON BEACH �'
CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION 8O ,
16 ,-
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members s
C.::': ,
Cj -y
FROM: Ral h auer,City Council Member
DATE: eptember 27, 199
SUBJECT: "H"Item for the September 7, 1999,City Council Meetings' �'
OCTA Representation
ISSUE:
As we are all aware,Huntington Beach has only indirect representation on the Orange County
Transportation Authority. I am not sure whether Huntington Beach has ever had or will ever
have direct representation.
With the new legislation being proposed in Sacramento to reduce the 2/3 majority vote for
Measure"M"fund approval to a simple majority vote, it would seem to be a propitious time for
Huntington Beach to approach OCTA to see how Huntington Beach might obtain direct
representation.
I can think of two ways this might occur.
1. Double the number of cities having direct representation. This would result in five
additional members to OCTA and increase direct city representation from five to ten.
The supervisor's membership would remain at four and the at-large and citizen
representatives would remain at one each.
2. Make membership from the cities rotational so that eventually each city is represented at
least once.
ACTION:
It is requested that the Mayor make contact with the Chairman of the OCTA to explore ways in
which Huntington Beach could attain direct representation.'
In closing, it should be mentioned that in any future election for sales tax funding for
transportation,Huntington Beach will be a strong factor since that city has more registered voters
than any city in Orange County.
RB:lp
xc: Connie Brockway
Ray Silver
Melanie Fallon I
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEAC'I
MEETING DATE: 9/20/99 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: 99-00
Council/Agency Meeting Held: 9Za a /99
Deferred/Continued to: C� ,eUi 66 m-�
Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied _
") —o � City Clerk's Signature
Council Meeting Date: 9/20/99 Department ID Number: 99-00
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ;
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS`
•� T
SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administratord7/y
PREPARED BY: CLAY MARTIN, DIRECTOR OF ORGANIZATIONAL EFECTIVENESS
SUBJECT: APPROVAL TO RELEASE A RFP TO CONDUCT A RAIL
FEASIBILITY AND ALIGNMENT STUDY FOR WEST ORANGE
COUNTY CITIES
Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s)
Statement of Issue:
Staff is requesting approval to release a Request for Proposals (RFP) to conduct a Rail
Feasibility and Alignment Study on behalf of the West Orange County Cities. This study is
needed in order to ensure that possible future extensions of the county-wide urban rail planning
effort properly include consideration of the urban rail transit needs of West Orange County.
Funding Source:
Funding for this study will be shared between Huntington Beach and the other participating
cities. The Huntington Beach share is estimated to be approximately $12,150 for the initial
phases of the study. An estimated additional $16,200 may be required to complete the final
study phase. The required funds are available in-the FY 1999/00 budget.
Recommended Action: Motion to:
1. Approve the release of the Request for Proposals (RFP) for.a Rail Feasibility and Alignment
Study for West Orange County Cities.
Rail RCA -2- 09/09/99 5:03 PM
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTIOE
MEETING DATE: 9/20/99 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: 99-00
Alternative Action(s):
1. Do not approve the release of the RFP by the City of Huntington Beach on behalf of the
West Orange County Cities Association.
Analysis:
Background
Since the inception of the Centerline project in the mid-1980's, the City of Huntington Beach,
as well as other surrounding West Orange County Cities, have expressed interest in extending
the proposed urban rail alignment to West Orange County cities. In December 1999, the
Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) will vote on whether or not to proceed with
the final engineering/design work for the existing Centerline Urban Rail Project — Fullerton to
Irvine. Regardless of the outcome of this vote, it is imperative that West Orange County cities
examine their rail transit needs and begin an evaluation of possible urban rail alignment
options in order to be better informed and positioned as the OCTA begins to consider Phase II
of the Centerline program.
Study Purpose
The purpose of the study is to develop the appropriate analysis which will allow West Orange
County decision makers to make informed decisions concerning the most appropriate rail
alignment. Specifically, the RFP is seeking rail transportation planning consulting services
which will assist the cities in developing:
1) a clear vision of the West Orange County area's urban rail transit needs;
2) a strategy for meeting those needs, and;
3) viable rail alignment alternatives, along with appropriate documentation, which could be
used in future planning efforts with the OCTA.
Proposed Study Scope of Work
The proposed scope of work includes three phases as summarized below. Phases I and II will
be completed as part of the initial study effort. Phase III is optional and will only be completed
upon the recommendation of the study's Technical Advisory Committee JAC). A TAC
comprised of three different City representatives (including Huntington Beach) will direct the
course of the study. The remaining cities will participate by contributing to, reviewing, and
approving the key work products produced at each phase of the project.
Phase I: Vision and Needs Assessment
1. Developing a vision and needs assessment for the West Orange County cities through a
series of interviews with each of the participating cities. Additionally, the consultant will
examine the fit between existing and programmed roadway/transit improvements in West
Rail RCA -3- 09/09/99 5:12 PM
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTIOP
MEETING DATE: 9/20/99 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: 99-00
Orange County, the 2020 population and employment projections, and existing/future land
use and activity patterns planned for the area.
2. Identifying the location, nature, and magnitude of potential transportation deficiencies within
the targeted region.
3. Defining the types of services which should be considered (i.e. light rail, heavy rail,
commuter rail)
Phase II: Development and Preliminary Evaluation of Alternatives
1. Identifying a range of rail options/alignments, as well as preliminary ridership forecasts for
serving the needs identified in Phase I.
2. Conducting a preliminary screening of alternatives to identify those which merit more
detailed study.
OPTIONAL Phase III: Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives
Based on the recommendation of the TAC, the study will proceed into Phase III.
1. Conducting a detailed evaluation of the most viable short-list of alternatives as
recommended by the TAC. This evaluation shall provide sufficient information to allow the
participating cities to select a viable, preferred alternative which would be presented to
OCTA.
2. Preparing order-of-magnitude cost estimates for the short-list of alternatives.
Proposed Funding Plan
The West Orange County Cities Association is comprised of the following ten cities:
Buena Park, Cypress, Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, La Palm, Los
Alamitos, Seal Beach, Stanton, and Westminster. In July 1999, a letter was sent to each of
these cities requesting their funding participation in the study (Attachment 1). Of these, only
the City of Seal Beach has declined to participate. The remaining cities have either verbally
agreed to participate, are taking the matter to their individual city councils, or have sent letters
of support (Attachment 2) as shown below.
Rail RCA -4- 09/09/99 5:03 PM
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTIO
MEETING DATE: 9/20/99 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: 99-00
Table 1
STATUS OF FUNDING PARTICIPATION WITH WEST ORANGE COUNTY CITIES
City Status (as of 9/10/99)
Buena Park City Council Agenda 9/14/99
Cypress Letter Received
Fountain Valley Verbal Consent; Letter forthcoming
Garden Grove Letter Received
La Palma City Council Approved (9/7/99); Letter forthcoming
Los Alamitos Letter Received
Seal Beach Declined to Participate
Stanton Letter.Received
Westminster City Council Agenda (9/14/99)
As shown in Table 2, the estimated cost to complete Phases I and II of the study is $45,000.
Phase III is estimated to cost an additional $60,000, for a total study cost of$105,000. The
funding amount for each city was determined based on a per capita percentage from
population figures recorded in January 1994. As indicated earlier, these amounts are only
estimates and may change somewhat based on final consultant negotiations and selection.
Proposed Form of Agreement and Funding of Study
Attachment 3 is the proposed Sample Agreement between the City of Huntington Beach and
the selected consultant. As currently envisioned, the City will execute the final agreement with
the selected consultant on behalf of the other participating cities.
Environmental Status:
Not Applicable.
Rail RCA -5- 09/10/99 3:54 PM
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTI010
MEETING DATE: 9/20/99 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: 99-00
Table 2
ESTIMATED CITY SHARE/ BY PER CAPITA PERCENTAGE
Pop % Phase I & II Phase III Total
(1/97)
Buena Park 73,072 11 $ 4,950 $ 6,600 $ 11,550
Cypress 47,028 7 $ 3,150 $ 4,200 $ 7,350
Fountain 54,797 8 $ 3,600 $ 4,800 $ 8,400
Valley
Garden 152,041 22 $ 9,900 $ 13,200 $ 23,100
Grove
Huntington 188,518 27 $ 12,150 $ 16,200 $ 28,350
Beach
La Palma 15,761 2 $ 900 $ 1,200 $ 2,100
Los Alamitos 11,661 2 $ 900 $ 1,200 $ 2,100
Seal Beach 26,360 4 $ 1,800 $ 2,400 $ 4,200
Stanton 32,984 5 $ 2,250 $ 3,000 $ 5,250
Westminster 83,141 12 $ 5,400 $ 7,200 $ 12,600
Total 685,363 100 $ 45,000 $ 60,000 $ 105,000
Attachment(s):
City Clerk's
Page Number No. Description
1 Letter to West Orange County Cities Requesting Funding Amounts
2 Letters of Support from West Orange County Cities
3 Draft Sample Contract with the RFP (Exhibit A)
RCA Author: Kuhnke
Rail RCA -6- 09/09/99 5:03 PM
1' � ,
� .�
� � - � �._.
x
K- �•
.# � ._ �
�3� ��
. _ - -_° h
..x .e___ ...a_ v 4 :£ _ .: e xp
i
5 C --�7
J� City of Huntin ton Beach s5 �
- g
2000 MAIN STREET 1CALIFORNIA 92648 —
OFFICE OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR
July 27, 1999
Mr. Don Vestal
-
City Manager I
City of Westminster
8200 Westminster Avenue
Westminster, California 92683
Dear Don:
Subject: Final Draft-
Request for Proposal,Rail Feasibility and Alignment Study
As you know,the West Orange County Cities Association has been considering the possibility of
releasing a Request for Proposals (RFP)for consulting services to conduct a Rail Feasibility and
Alignment Study. The purpose of this study is to develop a clear vision of West Orange
County's rail needs, identify preliminary, but viable rail alignment alternatives, and to develop
the appropriate supportive materials to begin further discussions with OCTA as they begin to
consider Phase II of the Centerline Corridor.
To this end, the subcommittee cities of Buena Park,Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, as well as
Huntington Beach, met on July 1, 1999,to review the preliminary draft RFP presented at the last
West Orange County Cities Association meeting. Based on the comments received from these
cities, as well as written comments from the City of Cypress, a revised RFP has been prepared
and is included for your final approval.
The most significant changes to the RFP include the following:
1) The inclusion of a steering committee comprised of three cities to direct the consultant
through the various tasks and activities.
2) The scope of work was revised to include only Phase I (Vision and Needs Assessment)
and Phase II (Development and Preliminary Evaluation of Alternatives).
3) Phase III(Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives) is listed as an optional task,to be
completed only upon the direction of the Steering Committee.
4) The former Phase IV (Action Plan)was deleted in its entirety from the Scope of Work. It
was determined that the final action plan would be based on the findings of Phase III and
would be developed by the cities themselves depending upon each city's level of
continued interest.
Telephone (714) 536-5202
Page-2-
The estimated budget for the completion of all three phases is $105,000, with Phases I
and 11 costing$45,000 and Phase III totaling $60,000. Based on this budget,the
preliminary dollar amount for each of the ten cities is shown in Table A below. These
amounts were based on a per capita percentage from the West Orange County market
Trade Area Profile.
Table A
City Share/by Per Capita Percentage
Pop % Phase I& II Phase III Total
1/97
Buena Park 73,072 11 $ 4,950 $ 6,600 $ 11,550
Cypress 47,028 7 $ 3,150 $ 4,200 $ 7,350
Fountain 54,797 8 $ 3,600 $ 4,800 $ 8,400
Valle
Garden Grove 152,041 22 $ 9,900 $ 13,200 $ 23,100
Huntington 188,518 27 $ 12,150 $ 16,200 $ 28,350
Bch
La Palma 15,761 2 1 $ 900 $ 1,200 $ 2,100
Los Alamitos 11,661 2 $ 900 $ 1,200 $ 2,100
Seal Beach 26,360 4 $ 1,800 $ 2,400 $ 4,200
Stanton 32,984 5 $ 2,250 $ 3,000 $ 5,250
Westminster 83,141 12 $ 5,400 $ 7,200 $ 12,600
Total 685,363 100 $45,000 $ 60,000 $ 105,000
Thank you for your prompt review of this final RFP. I would appreciate if you could
contact me as soon as possible regarding your concurrence with its release. My goal is to
release it for bids the week of August 23. If you have any additional comments or
questions, please do not hesitate to call me.
Sincerely,
Ray Silver
City Administrator
RS/ek:pf
enclosure
:� � � � � � ;
,.
r -, '� �' �` "p its,;: �• �x�
x � �
C1 Of CYPRPSS
5275 Orange Avenue, Cypress, California 90630
PRO ESS
Mayor and City Council
(714)229-6699
Building&Safety August 30, 1999
229 6730 r
Business License D
229-6712
City Clerk
229 ager EsE P 2 1999
City 29 688 Mr. Ray Silver
Code Enforcement City Administrator
229-6726 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Engineering City of Huntington Beach ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
229 674,Finance 2000 Main Street
229.6713 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Maintenance
229_6760
Personnel 6681 Subject: Financial Participation in the West Orange County Cities Association
Planning 229-6720 (WOCCA) Urban Rail Study
Police Department
229-6600
Public Works
229-6740 Dear Mr. Silver:
Recreation&Parks
229-6780
Red 22e91-9 20 t On behalf of Cypress, I am pleased to see the WOCCA urban rail request for proposal
Risk Management
229-6 6
(RFp) move ahead. I understand that an estimate of Cypress's share of the consultant
8
Senior Center
cost is $7,300. I anticipate that Cypress's cost share will be finalized once formal
proposal are received and a consultant chosen. At this stage, I want to assure you of
Cypress's interest and participation in the urban rail study. In anticipation of this
joint cities effort, Cypress did budget funds for the urban rail study.
Please keep Richard Storey, Finance and Administrative Services Director, who will
be the Interim City Manager upon my departure, and Alice Angus, Community
Development Director, informed of the progress of this study. Richard and Alice will
ensure that Cypress's funding share is forwarded when required.
Sincerely,
Mark J. Ochenduszko
City Manager
as/nv
cc: Richard Storey, Finance and Administrative Services Director
Alice Angus, Community Development Director
Tim Keenan, Mayor
Anna L.Piercy,Mayor Pro Tem Frank S.McCoy, Council Member
Mike McGill, Council Member Lydia Sondhi,Council Member
OF LA pq
CITY'OF LA PALMA
City Council
7822 Walker Street•La Palma,California 90623-1771 Mayor Kenneth A.Blake
C'9�/FORN�P (714)523-7700•Fax:(714)523-2141 Mayor Pro Tern Alta E.Duke
Lauree Aragona
Brian O'Neal
Paul F.Walker
September 10, 1999
Mr. Ray Silver
City Administrator
City of Huntington Beach O 74 H V
PO Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 S E P 1 I
Dear Mr. Silver: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
RE: Rail Feasibility and Alignment Study
The City of La Palma City Council reviewed the Rail Feasibility and Alignment
Study Request For Proposals and considered financial participation in this Study
at its meeting of September 7, 1999. I am pleased to inform you that it was the
unanimous decision of the Council to. support this Study and participate
financially.
The estimated portion for Phases I and II of the Study for the City of La Palma is
$900.00. The City will initiate a request for funding and forward payment upon
receipt of an executed Agreement of the participating cities of the West Orange
County Cities Association.
Thank you for all of your work on this issue - all of the West Orange County
cities will benefit from your efforts. If you have any questions, please direct them
to Joan Hoesterey, Planner, (714) 523-7700, Extension 115.
Since ely,
/Kenneth Blake
Mayor
t:n �-
'A '
C1TT( Of YPR S
5275 Orange Avenue, Cypress, California 90630
PRO ESS
Mayor and City Council
(714)229-6699
Building&Safety
229-6730
Business 6712 22 August 11, 1999
City Clerk
229-6680
City Manager
229-6688 Mr. Ray Silver
Code Enforcement y
229-6726 City Administrator
Engineer 6f41 City of Huntington Beach
Fina 229 6713 2000 Main Street
Mai 229 ance
6760 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Personnel
229-6681
Planning
229-6720 Dear Ra
Police Department y•
229-6600
Public
2 Works
0 Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to review the final draft of the
Recreation 880Parks Request for Proposal for the Rail Feasibility and Alignment Study. Both my
Redeveloppment staff and I have reviewed the latest RFP and feel that it is well-written, and
229-6720
Risk Management the work to be completed will be beneficial to the cities in Northwest Orange
229-6686
Senior Center County.
229-2005
Thank you for taking the lead in this matter.
Sincerely,
Mark J. Ochenduszko
City Manager
MJO:ams
RECEIVE®
AUG 13 1999
CITY AMINISTRATION OFF CECH
Tim Keenan,Mayor
Anna L.Piercy,Mayor Pro-Tern Frank S.McCoy, Council Member
Mike McGill, Council Member Lydia Sondhi,Council Member
�rno
CITY OF GARDEN GROVE, CALIFORNIA
4 a.,
11222 ACACIA PARKWAY, P.O. BOX 3070, GARDEN GROVE, CALIFORNIA 92842
GARDEN GROVE
September 2, 1999
Mr. Ray Silver
City Manager
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 VIA FACSIMILE 536-5233
Dear Ray:
Subject: Final Draft-
Request for Proposal
Rail Feasibility and Alignment Study
The City of Garden Grove has reviewed the revised- scope of work to study rail and
concurs with:proceeding with iPhases I and 11,at this time.: Garden Grove.concurs with
releasing this,information and looks .forward to working with.the West Orange County
Cities Association;and the City,of Huntington Beach with:regards to thealignment study.
Should you have any comments or questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sin ,
L s Jo s
Pub i -orks Director
RECEIVED
SEP n 9 1999
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
ADMINISTRATION OFFICE
fr
CITY OF LOS ALAMITOS
Off' 'fit
v y
o ; August 24, 1999
i y
Jay.
AUG 2 0 1999
.]
Mayor.
Marilynn M.Poe CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
Council Members:
Ronald Bates
Arthur DeBolt
Alice B.Jempsa Mr. Ray Silver, City Manager
Charles E.Sylvia
City of Huntington Beach
City Manager:
Robert C.Dominguez 2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Re: Rail Feasibility and Alignment Study
Dear Mr. Silver:
At its meeting of August 23, 1999 the City Council of the City of Los
Alamitos approved the issuance of a Request for Proposal to conduct a rail
feasibility and alignment study at a cost of$2,100 to the City of Los Alamitos
with two caveats:
1. Before the release to the public or transmittal to OCTA, the
report must receive approval'of the Mayors in the West Orange
County Cities Association; and
2. Two alignments that must be reviewed as extensions of the
light rail system are Katella Avenue and the 405 and 22
freeway rights of way.
Very truly yours,
3191 Katella Avenue
Los Alamitos,CA
90720-5600
Telephone: Darleen Cordova
(562)431-3538
City Clerk
FAX(562)493-1255
www.ci.Los-Alamitos.CA.LIS cc: Mike Kim
® RECYCLABLE
PW-26-1999 13:35 CITY OF STANTON 714 990 1443 P.01r01
r
—�l
7800 Katella Avenue
Stanton, California 90680 • (714) 379-9222
August 26, 1999
Mr. Ray Silver,City Administrator
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Re: West Orange County Cities Association Rail Feasibility and Alignment Study
Dear Ray:
The Stanton City Council,at their regular meeting of August 24, 1999 approved participation in
the WOOCA Rail Feasibility and Alignment Study,and appropriated$5,250 for Stanton's fair
share of the cost.
Stanton approves of the release of the Request for Proposals. Please invoice us for$5,250 said
we will make timely payment.
Sincerely,
Terry atz
City Manager
TOTAL P.01
�. Y�-��� -a x„ `� ,� ems.
P
�a k � � '
�. a
� �
4_ _,.
SAMPLE
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AND
FOR RAIL FEASIBILITY AND ALIGNMENT STUDY
FOR THE WEST ORANGE COUNTY CITIES
Table of Contents
1 Work Statement ......................................................................................................:1
2 City Staff Assistance................................................................................................2
3 Time of Performance ...............................................................................................2
4 Compensation ..........................................................................................................2
5 Priorities........................................................................................2
6 Extra Work...............................................................................................................2
7 Method of Payment..................................................................................................3
8 Disposition of Plans, Estimates and Other Documents ...........................................4
9 Hold Harmless .........................................................................................................5
10 Workers' Compensation Insurance ..........................................................................5
11 General Liability Insurance......................................................................................6
12 Professional Liability Insurance..............................................................................6
13 Certificates of Insurance..........................................................................................7
14 Independent Contractor............................................................................................8
15 Termination of Agreement.......................................................................................8
16 Assignment and Subcontracting ..............................................................................9
17 Copyrights/Patents...................................................................................................9
18 City Employees and Officials..................................................................................9
19 Notices .....................................................................................................................9
20 Immigration..............................................................................................................10
21 Legal Services Subcontracting Prohibited...............................................................10
22 Attorney's Fees.........................................................................................................10
23 Entirety.....................................................................................................................II
1
SAMPLE
wheeler/rail feas/09/02/99
�F
SAMPLE
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AND
FOR
A RAIL FEASIBILITY AND ALIGNMENT STUDY
FOR THE WEST ORANGE COUNTY CITIES
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of
1999, by and between the City of Huntington Beach, a municipal corporation of the State of
California, hereinafter referred to as "CITY," and ,
a corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT."
WHEREAS, CITY is one of ten Orange County cities who are members of the West
Orange County Cities Association ("ASSOCIATION"); the nine other cities being: Buena Park;
Cypress; Fountain Valley; Garden Grove; La Palma; Los Alamitos; Seal Beach; Stanton; and
Westminster;
WHEREAS, by entering into this AGREEMENT, CITY is acting for itself and for the
nine other cities who are members of the ASSOCIATION;
WHEREAS, a three-person Technical Advisory Committee ("TAC"), comprised of a
person representing CITY and two other member cities of the ASSOCIATION, will assist CITY
in the fulfillment of the terms of this AGREEMENT;
WHEREAS, CITY desires to engage the services of a consultant to provide professional
transportation, planning, consulting services for a rail feasibility and alignment study for the
West Orange County Cities;
2
SAMPLE
wheeler/rai feas/09/02/99
44�;,4 i-
6
Pursuant to documentation on file in the office of the City Clerk of CITY, the provisions
of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 3.03, relating to procurement of professional
service contracts have been complied with; and
CONSULTANT has been selected to perform said services,
NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by CITY and CONSULTANT as follows:
1. WORK STATEMENT
CONSULTANT shall provide all services as described in the Request for
Proposal ("RFP"), and CONSULTANT's Proposal dated (both of which are
hereinafter referred to as Exhibit "A"), which are attached hereto and incorporated into this
AGREEMENT by this reference. These services shall sometimes hereinafter be referred to as
the "PROJECT."
CONSULTANT hereby designates who shall represent it and be its
sole contact and agent in all consultations with CITY during the performance of this
AGREEMENT.
2. TAC STAFF ASSISTANCE
TAC shall assign a staff coordinator to work directly with CONSULTANT in the
performance of this AGREEMENT.
3. TIME OF PERFORMANCE
Time is of the essence of this AGREEMENT. The services of CONSULTANT
are to commence as soon as practicable after the execution of this AGREEMENT and all tasks
specified in Exhibit "A" shall be completed no later than from the date of this
AGREEMENT. These times may be extended with the written permission of TAC. The time
for performance of the tasks identified in Exhibit "A" are generally to be shown in the Scope of
3
SAMPLE
wheeler/rai fe as/09/02/99
q�
Services on the Work Program/Project Schedule. This schedule may be amended to benefit the
PROJECT if mutually agreed by TAC and CONSULTANT.
4. COMPENSATION
In consideration of the performance of the services described herein, CITY agrees
to pay CONSULTANT a fee not to exceed dollars ($ for Phase I (Vision
and Needs Assessment), and for Phase 11 (Development and Preliminary Evaluation of
Alternatives). If TAC authorizes optional services for Phase III (Detailed Evaluation of
Alternatives), the CITY agrees to pay CONSULTANT an additional fee not to exceed
dollars
5. PRIORITIES
In the event there are any conflicts or inconsistencies between this
AGREEMENT, the CITY's RFP, or the CONSULTANT's Proposal, the following order of
precedence shall govern: 1) AGREEMENT, 2) the CONSULTANT'S Proposal, and 3) the
CITY's RFP.
6. EXTRA WORK
In the event TAC requires additional services not included in Exhibit "A," or
changes in the scope of services described in Exhibit "A," CONSULTANT will undertake such
work only after receiving written authorization from TAC. Additional compensation for such
extra work shall be allowed only if the prior written approval of TAC is obtained.
7. METHOD OF PAYMENT
A. CONSULTANT shall be entitled to progress payments toward the fixed
fee set forth herein in accordance with the progress and payment schedules set forth in
Exhibit "A."
4
SAMPLE
wheeler/rai fe as/09/02/99
B. Delivery of work product: A copy of every memorandum, letter, report,
calculation and other documentation prepared by CONSULTANT shall be submitted to CITY to
demonstrate progress toward completion of tasks. In the event TAC rejects or has comments on
any such product, CITY shall identify specific requirements for satisfactory completion. Any
such product which has not been formally accepted or rejected by CITY shall be deemed
accepted.
C. CONSULTANT shall submit to CITY an invoice for each progress
payment due. Such invoice shall:
1) Reference this AGREEMENT;
2) Describe the services performed;
3) Show the total amount of the payment due;
4) Include a certification by a principal member of CONSULTANT's
firm that the work has been performed in accordance with the
provisions of this AGREEMENT; and
5) For all payments include an estimate of the percentage of work
completed.
Upon submission of any such invoice, if TAC is satisfied that CONSULTANT is
making satisfactory progress toward completion of tasks in accordance with this AGREEMENT,
TAC shall promptly approve the invoice, in which event payment shall be made within forty-five
(45) days of receipt of the invoice by CITY. Such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.
If CITY does not approve an invoice, CITY shall notify CONSULTANT in writing of the
reasons for non-approval within ten (10) calendar days of receipt of the invoice, and the schedule
of performance set forth in Exhibit "A" shall be suspended until the parties agree that past
5
SAMPLE
wheeler/ra i feas/09/02/99
performance by CONSULTANT is in, or has been brought into compliance, or until this
AGREEMENT is terminated as provided herein.
D. Any billings for extra work or additional services authorized by TAC shall
be invoiced separately to CITY. Such invoice shall contain all of the information required
above, and in addition shall list the hours expended and hourly rate charged.for such time. Such
invoices shall be approved by TAC if the work performed is in accordance with the extra work
or additional services requested, and if CITY is satisfied that the statement of hours worked and
costs incurred is accurate. Such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Any dispute
between the parties concerning payment of such an invoice shall be treated as separate and apart
from the ongoing performance of the remainder of this AGREEMENT.
8. DISPOSITION OF PLANS, ESTIMATES AND OTHER DOCUMENTS
CONSULTANT agrees that all materials prepared hereunder, including all
original drawings, designs, reports, both field and office notices, calculations, maps, memoranda,
letters and other documents, shall be turned over to CITY upon termination of this
AGREEMENT or upon PROJECT completion, whichever shall occur first. In the event this
AGREEMENT is terminated, said materials may be used by CITY in the completion of the
PROJECT or as it otherwise sees fit. Title to said materials shall pass to CITY upon payment of
fees determined to be earned by CONSULTANT to the point of termination or completion of the
PROJECT, whichever is applicable. CONSULTANT shall be entitled to retain copies of all data
prepared hereunder.
9. HOLD HARMLESS
CONSULTANT shall protect, defend, indemnify and save and hold harmless
CITY, its officers, officials, and employees, and agents from and against any and all liability, loss,
6
SAMPLE
wheeler/ra i fe as/09/02/99
damage, expenses, costs (including without limitation, costs and fees of litigation of every nature)
arising out of or in connection with CONSULTANT's performance of this AGREEMENT or its
failure to comply with any of its obligations contained in this AGREEMENT by CONSULTANT,
its officers, agents or employees except such loss or damage which was caused by the sole
negligence or willful misconduct of CITY.
10. WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE
Pursuant to California Labor Code Section 1861, CONSULTANT acknowledges
awareness of Section 3700 et seq. of said Code, which requires every employer to be insured
against liability for workers' compensation; CONSULTANT covenants that it will comply with
such provisions prior to commencing performance of the work hereunder.
CONSULTANT shall maintain workers' compensation insurance in an amount of
not less than One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000)bodily-injury by accident, each
occurrence, One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000).bodily injury by disease, each employee,
Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000)bodily injury by disease, policy limit.
CONSULTANT shall require all subcontractors to provide such workers'
compensation insurance for all of the subcontractors' employees. CONSULTANT shall furnish
to CITY a certificate of waiver of subrogation under the terms of the workers' compensation
insurance and CONSULTANT shall similarly require all subcontractors to waive subrogation.
11. GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE
In addition to the workers' compensation insurance and CONSULTANT's
covenant to indemnify CITY, CONSULTANT shall obtain and furnish to CITY, a policy of
general public liability insurance, including motor vehicle coverage covering the PROJECT.
Said policy shall indemnify CONSULTANT, its officers, agents and employees, while acting
7
SAMPLE
wheeler/rai feas/09/02/99
DA?4044otr
within the scope of their duties, against any and all claims arising out of or in connection with
the PROJECT, and shall provide coverage in not less than the following amount: combined
single limit bodily injury and property damage, including products/completed operations liability
and blanket contractual,liability,.of.$1,000,000 per occurrence. If coverage_is.provided under a
form which includes a designated.general aggregate limit, the aggregate.limit must be no less
than $1,000,000 for this PROJECT. Said policy shall name CITY, its agents, its officers,
employees and volunteers-as Additional-Insureds, and shall specifically.provide.that any other
insurance coverage which may be applicable to the PROJECT shall be deemed excess coverage
and that CONSULTANT's insurance shall be primary.
Under no circumstances shall the above-mentioned insurance contain a self-
insured retention, or a"deductible"or any other similar form of limitation on the required
coverage.
12. PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY INSURANCE
CONSULTANT shall furnish a professional liability insurance policy covering
the work performed by it hereunder. Said policy shall provide coverage for CONSULTANT's
professional liability in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence and in the aggregate.
A claims-made policy shall be acceptable if the policy further provides that:
A. The policy retroactive date coincides with or precedes the professional
services contractor's start of work (including subsequent policies
purchased as renewals or replacements).
B. CONSULTANT will make every effort to maintain similar insurance
during the required extended period of coverage following project
completion, including the requirement of adding all additional insureds.
8
SAMPLE
wheeler/ra ife as/09/02/99
�?404
C. If insurance is terminated for any reason, CONSULTANT agrees to
purchase an extended reporting provision of at least two (2) years to report
claims arising from work performed in connection with this
AGREEMENT.
D. The reporting of circumstances or incidents that might give rise to future
claims.
13. CERTIFICATES OF INSURANCE
Prior to commencing performance of the work hereunder, CONSULTANT shall
furnish to CITY certificates of insurance subject to approval of the City Attorney of CITY
evidencing the foregoing insurance coverages as required by this AGREEMENT; said
certificates shall:
A. provide the name and policy number of each carrier and policy;
B. shall state that the policy is currently in force; and
C. shall promise that such policies shall not be suspended, voided or canceled
by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty(30)
days prior written notice; however, ten (10) days prior written notice in the
event of cancellation for nonpayment of premium.
CONSULTANT shall maintain the foregoing insurance coverages in force until
the work under this AGREEMENT is fully completed and accepted by CITY.
The requirement for carrying the foregoing insurance coverages shall not derogate
from the provisions for indemnification of CITY by CONSULTANT under the AGREEMENT.
CITY or its representative shall at all times have the right to demand the original or a copy of all
9
SAMPLE
wheeler/rai fear/09/02/99
said policies of insurance. CONSULTANT shall pay, in a prompt and timely manner, the
premiums on all insurance hereinabove required.
14. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
CONSULTANT is, and shall be, acting at all times in the performance of this
AGREEMENT as an independent contractor. CONSULTANT shall secure at its expense, and
be responsible for any and all payment of all taxes, social security, state disability insurance
compensation, unemployment compensation and other payroll deductions for CONSULTANT
and its officers, agents and employees and all business licenses, if any, in connection with the
services to be performed hereunder.
15. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT
All work required hereunder shall be performed in a good and workmanlike
manner. CITY may terminate CONSULTANT's services hereunder at 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, notice of which shall be delivered to CONSULTANT as
provided herein.
16. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBCONTRACTING
This AGREEMENT is a personal service contract and the supervisory work
hereunder shall not be delegated by CONSULTANT to any other person or entity without the
consent of CITY.
17. COPYRIGHTS/PATENTS
CITY shall own all rights to any patent or copyright on any work, item or material
produced as a result of this AGREEMENT.
10
SAMPLE
wheeler/ra i feas/09/02/99
0
18. CITY EMPLOYEES AND OFFICIALS
CONSULTANT shall employ no CITY official nor any regular CITY employee
in the work performed pursuant to this AGREEMENT. No officer or employee of CITY shall
have any financial interest in this AGREEMENT in violation of the applicable provisions of the
California Government Code.
19. NOTICES
Any notice or special instructions required to be given in writing under this
AGREEMENT shall be given either by personal delivery to CONSULTANT's agent (as
designated in Section 1 hereinabove) or to the City.Administrator of CITY, as the situation shall
warrant, or by enclosing the same in a sealed envelope,postage prepaid, and depositing the same
in the United States Postal Service, addressed as follows:
TO CITY: TO CONSULTANT:
Mr. Ray Silver
City Administrator
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach,-CA 92648
20. IMMIGRATION
CONSULTANT shall be responsible for full compliance with the immigration
and naturalization laws of the United States and shall, in particular, comply with the provisions
of the United States Code regarding employment verification.
21. LEGAL SERVICES SUBCONTRACTING PROHIBITED
CONSULTANT and CITY agree that CITY is not liable for payment of any
subcontractor work involving legal services, and that such legal services are expressly outside
the scope of services contemplated hereunder. CONSULTANT understands that pursuant to
11
SAMPLE
wheeler/rai feas/09/02/99
r
Huntington Beach City Charter Section 309, the City Attorney is the exclusive legal counsel for
CITY; and CITY shall not be liable for payment of any legal services expenses incurred by
CONSULTANT.
22. ATTORNEY'S FEES
In the event suit is brought by either party to enforce the terms and provisions of
this AGREEMENT or to secure the performance hereof, each party shall bear its own attorney's
fees and court costs.
SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE
12
SAMPLE
wheeler/ra i fe as/09/02/99
. o
23. ENTIRETY 44P
The foregoing, and Exhibit "A" attached hereto, set forth the entire
AGREEMENT between the parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this AGREEMENT to be
executed by and through their authorized offices the day, month and year first above written.
CONSULTANT CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a
municipal corporation of the State of
California
By:
print name
ITS: (circle one)Chairman/President/Vice President
Mayor
AND
ATTEST:
By:
print name City Clerk
ITS: (circle one)Secretary/Chief Financial Officer/Asst.
Secretary—Treasurer APPROVED AS TO FORM:
REVIEWED AND APPROVED:
City Attorney
City Administrator INITIATED AND APPROVED:
Director of
13
SAMPLE
wheeler/rai feas/09/02/99
E
k x
o �
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
(On Behalf of the West County Cities Association)
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
for
Professional Transportation Planning Consulting Services for a
Rail Feasibility and Alignment Study for West Orange County Cities
PROPOSAL SUBMITTALS: Responses to the Request for Proposal (RFP) are to be
submitted to:
Ms. Elaine Kuhnke, Administration
City of Huntington Beach
City Hall
2000 Main Street
P.O. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
no later than 5:00 P. M. on October 29, 1999. Twenty (20) copies of the proposal
shall be submitted in a sealed envelope and marked: "Proposal for Consultant Services,
Rail Feasibility and Alignment Study for West Orange County Cities". Additionally, ten
(10) copies of the consultant's fee proposal shall be submitted in a separate, sealed
envelope and marked "Fee Proposal for Rail Feasibility and Alignment Study for West
Orange County Cities." Proposals received after the specified time will not be
accepted and will be returned unopened. Questions regarding this request may be
addressed to Elaine Kuhnke at 714/374-5307.
INDEX
Section Page
I. Introduction 2
II. Schedule of Events 2
III. Project Background 2
IV. Scope of Work 3
V. Fee Proposal Requirements 6
VI. Proposal Requirements 7
VII. General Requirements 10
IX. Consultant Evaluation & Selection Process 11
CITY Or HUNTINGTON BEACH
Rail FeasibUily/W Orange County Cues RFP
0 ,199
Page 2
�e4
I. INTRODUCTION 4 ?
The City of Huntington Beach, for itself and on behalf of the West Orange County Cities
Association ("Association"), is requesting proposals from qualified rail transportation
planning firms for preparation of a Rail Feasibility and Alignment Study for the West
Orange County Cities.
II. SCHEDULE OF EVENTS
9/24/99 Issuance of Request for Proposals
10/29/99 Proposals due at City Hall by 5:00 P.M.
11/99 Interviews (as required, dates to be determined)
12/99 Huntington Beach City Council Approval of Consultant Contract
(estimated date)
III. PROJECT BACKGROUND
The West Orange County Cities Association is interested in ensuring that the urban rail
planning effort in Orange County properly includes consideration of the transit needs of
the West Orange County Cities (Cities). These 10 cities include: Buena Park, Cypress,
Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, La Palma, Los Alamitos, Seal
Beach, Stanton and Westminster. The purpose of this study is not to reinvent earlier
studies affecting West Orange County, but to develop the appropriate analysis for West
Orange County city decision-makers to make informed decisions concerning the most
appropriate rail alignment. The study will be used to form a basis for further rail
development work in West Orange County. For this reason, the City of Huntington
Beach and the Association are seeking rail transportation planning consulting services,
aimed at helping the City of Huntington Beach and the Association develop:
(1) a clear vision of the West Orange County area's rail transit needs;
(2) a strategy for meeting those needs, and;
(3) viable rail alignment alternatives, along with appropriate documentation and
analysis, which could be used in future planning efforts with the Orange
County Transportation Authority (OCTA).
This rail planning effort should be coordinated with and take into consideration the
existing and proposed transportation improvements for the region. The rail planning
effort must also consider ridership, cost effectiveness, and political consensus.
. o
CITY t,r HUNTINGTON Bk
Rail Feasib' ' /West e Cities
bty Orange CowuY
,199
Page 3
Urban rail planning in Orange County is currently defined by the 1991 Transit Master
Plan, the 1993 Urban Rail Project Definition Study, and the 1997 Central Corridor Major
Investment Study. These policy documents focus the initial stage of urban rail in the
28-mile corridor between Fullerton and Irvine. OCTA is finalizing conceptual layouts for
light rail between Disneyland and John Wayne Airport. Future extensions include
connections from the Centerline corridor to Los Angeles, to both the Blue Line in Long
Beach and the Green Line in Norwalk. These extensions are currently unfunded and
are not planned in much detail. The OCTA is also conducting a preliminary study of
the transportation needs of'the 1-405 corridor.
IV. SCOPE OF WORK
In general, the consultant shall conduct a rail transit.feasibility and needs assessment
for the West Orange County Cities. It is the intent of the Cities to complete Phases I
and II within a four month period. A three-person Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
comprised of a person representing the City and two other cities within the Association,
will direct the study. The remaining seven Cities will: participate by contributing to,
reviewing, and approving the key work products produced at each phase of the project.
The word "City," as used in this Request for Proposal, shall mean the City of Huntington
Beach.
As part of the project the consultant will interview all participating cities within the
Association on such key items as: goals, objectives, and criteria for assessing
alternatives; transportation needs and deficiencies, potential community issues, and
preferred alternatives. The scope of work should detail the number and timing of
meetings proposed between the consultant and the TAC, as well as with each of the
Cities.
The scope of work includes three (3) phases. Phases.l and II will be completed as part
of this study. Phase III will be completed only upon the recommendation of the TAC,
based on the findings of Phases I and II. It should be noted, however, that the Fee
Proposal to be submitted as part of the RFP should include the consultant's best
estimate for all three (3) phases.
The scope of work for the respective phases of the consultant's services shall include,
but not be limited to, the following tasks as described below. The consultant may move
key tasks among phases when detailing a proposed scope of work and methodology.
However, all tasks should be addressed within the proposal.
I"
CITY Or HUNTINGTON BEACH
Rail FeasibUy/Weg Orange RFP
Phase I: Vision and Needs Assessment
As part of Phase I, the consultant shall:
1.1 Conduct a transportation needs assessment which evaluates the fit
between the existing and programmed roadway and transit improvements
(including transit centers) in the West Orange County Area, the 2020
population and employment projections, and existing and future land use
and activity patterns planned for the area.
Work Product: Technical Memorandum #1
1.2 Identify the location, nature, and magnitude of potential transportation
deficiencies in the West Orange County area. Potential types of
transportation deficiencies may include, but are not limited to, a need for:
a) additional inter-county commuter service, b) a connection to the
Centerline urban rail system, and c) inter or intra-city circulator systems
serving visitors to the beach or employment centers.
1.3 identify the types of deficiencies best served by rail verses other modes of
transportation.
Work Product: Technical Memorandum #2
1.4 Define the types of rail services the Cities should consider, such as light
rail, heavy rail, or commuter rail.
1.5 Define the major origins and destinations to be served.
1.6 Develop consensus among the TAC on the transportation goals,
objectives, and criteria for assessing improvement alternatives for the
area.
Work Product: Technical Memorandum #3
1.7 Develop an area vision for a future transportation system for the area.
1.8 Identify potential community issues (e.g. political, business, residential,
etc.)
CITY ur' HUNTINGTON BEACH
Rail Feasibility/West Orange C Cities RFP
1.9 Identify potential funding sources, resources, and constraints.
Work Product: Preliminary Summary Report, Tasks 1.1 — 1.9
Phase II: Development and Preliminary Evaluation of Alternatives
As part of Phase II, the consultant shall:
2.1 Identify a range of rail options/alignments and preliminary ridership
forecasts for serving the needs identified in Phase I. This should include
identification of possible alignments at a conceptual level of detail.
Possible alignments for consideration may include, but not be limited to:
Pacific Coast Highway, 1-405" the Pacific Electric right-of-way, existing
railway rights-of-way, Katella Avenue, and the Santa Ana River Corridor.
2.2 Conduct a preliminary screening of the alternatives to identify those
alternatives which merit more detailed study. The screening methodology
should relate to the goals, objectives, and criteria established during
Phase I. The consultant is further expected to clarify if the proposed
alignments involve street grade, elevated, or other type. The TAC will
serve as the body in assisting to build local consensus regarding the
proposed preliminary alternatives.
Work Product: Preliminary Summary Report, Tasks 2.1 - 2.2
(OPTIONAL) Phase III: Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives
Based on the results of Tasks 2.1 — 2.2, the TAC will recommend whether the study
should proceed to Phase III and direct the consultant to complete further detailed
evaluation of a short list of only the most viable rail alternatives. It should be noted that
based on the results of Phase I & II, Phase III may be more fully defined.
As part of Phase III, the consultant shall:
3.1 Conduct a more detailed evaluation of the most viable short-list of
alternatives as recommended by the TAC. The evaluation shall provide
sufficient information to allow the Cities to select a viable, preferred rail
alternative. As appropriate, the evaluation shall fit with the goals and
objectives of the Cities (including any goals and objectives related to
future land uses), be acceptable to the community, and fit with the
OCTA's regional transportation plans. The evaluation shall also provide
CITY ue HUNTINGTON BEACH
Rail Feasibk/West Orange Cotes "es RFP
preliminary peak and off-peak patronage estimates for each short-listed
alternative.
3.2 Prepare order-of-magnitude cost estimate for short list of alternatives.
Work Product: Final Report, Phases I, II, III
V. FEE PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
In preparing the fee proposal for this project the consultant shall take into consideration
the following:
1. Compensation for services provided in completing Phase 1, Vision and
Needs Assessment, shall be based on a time and materials not-to-exceed
basis.
2. Compensation for Phase II, Development and Preliminary Evaluation of
Alternatives, shall be based on a.-time and materials not-to-exceed basis.
3. Compensation for Phase III, Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives, shall be
based on a time and materials not-to-exceed basis.
4. A work plan together with a breakdown of labor hours by employee billing
classification together with the cost of non-labor and subconsultant
services shall be included with the fee proposal. The labor breakdown
shall be compiled by project phases and be based on a listing of work
tasks that correlates with the consultant's defined scope of work for the
project proposal. This information will be used by City staff to evaluate
the reasonableness of the fee proposal and will be used in negotiating the
final fee amounts for the contract agreement.
5. The consultant shall state in the Fee Proposal the number of hours
allotted in the fee amount for Phases 1-III for attending meetings. Should
the amount of hours expended during these phases exceed the amount
included in the fee quote, the consultant may be authorized to invoice the
city for the additional hours upon first notifying the city that the budget limit
for meetings has been reached. TAC shall then determine whether
additional hours for meetings will be authorized.
6. The consultant's standard billing rates for all classifications of staff likely to
be involved in the project shall be included with the fee proposal along
with the mark-up rate for any non-labor expenses and subconsultants.
1
CITY ur' HUNTINGTON EACH
Rail Feasibility/West Orange
e`� _
VI. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
Although no specific format is required by the City, this section is intended to provide
guidelines to the consultant regarding features which the City will look for and expect to
be included in the proposal.
1. Content & Format
The City requests that proposals submitted be organized and presented in
a neat and logical format and are relevant to these services. Consultant's
proposals shall be clear, accurate, and comprehensive. Excessive or
irrelevant material will not be favorably received.
Proposals shall contain no more than 30 typed pages using a 10 point
minimum font size, including transmittal/offer letter and resumes of key
people, but excluding Index/Table of Contents, tables, charts, and graphic
exhibits. The purpose of these restrictions is to minimize the costs of
proposal preparation and to ensure that the response to the RFP is fully
relevant to the project. The separately submitted Fee Proposal should
contain only enough pages to clearly respond with the information that is
requested in the RFP.
The proposal shall include the following:
• Transmittal/offer letter.
• Page numbering.
• Index/Table of Contents.
• Team Organization including an organizational chart.
• Approach to the Project.
• Scope of Services.
• Descriptions of similar projects by key staff to be used on this
assignment.
• Brief resumes of key staff.
• Project schedule.
2. Scope of Services
A description of the work plan that will be undertaken shall be included in
this section. It should explain the technical approach, methodology, and
specific tasks and activities that will be performed to address the specific
issues and work items identified in the RFP. It should also include a
CITY oe HUNTINGTON BE
440tp
Rail Feasibilhy/West Orange County Cities RFP
,199
Page 8
discussion of constraints, problems, and issues that should be anticipated
during the contract, and suggestions for approaches to resolving them.
Key work products associated with each phase of the project are to be
clearly identified.
3. Statement of.Qualifications
The information requested in this section should describe the
qualifications of the firm, key staff and subconsultants in performing
projects within the past five years that -are similar in size and scope to
demonstrate competence to perform these services. The projects listed
should be those that key staff named for this project were responsible for
performing services. Information shall include:
• Names of key staff that participated on named projects and their
specific responsibilities.
• The client's name, contact person, address, and telephone number.
• A brief description of type and extent of services provided.
• Completion dates (estimated, if not yet completed).
• Total cost of the project.
There shall be included in the section brief resumes of key personnel who
will provide these services demonstrating their qualifications and
experience. Resumes should highlight education, experience, licenses,
relevant experience, and specific responsibilities for services described.
4. Project Team
The purpose of this section is to describe the organization of the project
team including subconsultants and key staff. A project manager and an
alternate project manager shall be named who shall be the primary
contact and be responsible for coordinating all activities with TAC and/or
the City. An organizational chart shall be submitted showing all key team
members and illustrating the relationship between TAC, the project
manager, key staff, and subconsultants. There also should be a brief
description of the role and responsibilities of all key staff and
subconsultants identified in the team organization.
CITY OF HUNTINGTON H
Rail Feasibility/West Orange County Citi
'199
Page 9
5. Project Schedule
A project schedule shall be included which identifies in graphical format
the timetable for completion of tasks, activities and phases of the project
which correlate with the scope of work for the.project. There should be a
brief discussion of any key assumptions used in preparing the timetable
and identification of critical tasks and/or events that could impact the
overall schedule.
6. Fee Proposal
A Fee Proposal shall be submitted in a separate, sealed envelope and
marked as "Fee Proposal" along with the name of the project. The
information and detail included in the fee proposal shall conform to the
provisions of Section V, Fee Proposal Requirements, of this RFP.
A work program together with a breakdown of labor hours by employee
billing classification together.with-the cost of non-labor and subconsultant
services shall be included-with the fee proposal. The labor breakdown
shall be compiled based on a listing of work tasks that correlates with the
consultant's defined scope of work for the project proposal. This
information will be used by the City staff to evaluate the reasonableness
of the fee proposal and may be used in negotiating the final fee amounts
for the contract agreement.
The Fee Proposal of the three top ranked consultants will be opened at
the conclusion of the consultant evaluation and selection process. Fees
will not be used to determine the ranking of the consultants. The Fee
Proposals of those consultants not ranked in the top three will be returned
to them unopened upon award of a contract to the selected consultant.
The City will negotiate the final fee with the top ranked consultant.
Reimbursable expenses shall not be allowed unless negotiated prior to a
contract.
7. Statement of Offer & Signature
The Proposal and separate Fee Proposal shall each be signed by an
individual authorized to bind the consultant and both shall contain a
statement that the proposals are a firm offer for a 90-day period.
CITY uF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Rail Feasibiliry/WestOmnge CM
+ es RFP
VII. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Insurance Requirements
The consultant shall furnish with the proposal proof of the following
minimum insurance coverage. These minimum levels of coverage are
required to be maintained for the duration of the project:
A. General Liability Coverage - $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury
and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other
form with a general limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall
apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall
be twice the required occurrence limit.
B. Professional Liability Coverage - $1,000,000 per occurrence (note: A
"claims made" policy is acceptable).
C. Workers' Compensation Coverage - State statutory limits.
Deductibles, Self-Insurance Retentions, or . Similar Forms of Coverage
Limitations or Modifications,.must be declared--to and approved by the City of
Huntington Beach.
A sample certificate is included as Attachment A.
The consultant is encouraged to contact its insurance carriers during
the proposal preparation to ensure that the insurance requirements can
be met if selected for negotiation of a contract agreement.
2. Standard Form of Agreement
The consultant will enter into an agreement with the City based upon the
contents of the RFP and the consultant's proposal. The City's standard form
of agreement is included as Attachment B. The consultant shall carefully
review the agreement, especially in regards to the indemnity and
insurance provisions, and include with the proposal a description of
any exceptions requested to the standard contract. If there are no
exceptions, a statement to that effect shall be included in the proposal.
3. Disclaimer
This RFP does not commit the City to award a contract, or to pay any costs
incurred in the preparation of the proposal. The City reserves the right to
CITY uF HUIg mi/�N ``�• EA, CH
Rail Feasib' ' /West e_
Page 1i
extend the due date for the proposal, to accept or reject any or all proposals
received as a result of this request, to negotiate with any qualified consultant,
or to cancel this RFP in part or in its entirety. The City may require the
selected consultant to participate in negotiations and to submit such
technical, fee, or other -revisions of their proposals as may result from
negotiations.
4. Assigned Representatives
TAC will assign a responsible representative to administer the contract, and
to assist the consultant in obtaining information. The consultant also shall
assign a responsible representative (project manager) and an alternate, who
shall be identified in the proposal. The consultant's representative shall
remain in responsible charge of the consultant's duties from the notice-to-
proceed through project completion. If the consultant's primary
representative should be unable to continue with the project, then the
.alternate representative identified in the proposal shall become the project
manager. Any substitution of representatives or subconsultants identified in
the proposal shall first be approved in writing by TAC. TAC reserves the right
to review and approve/disapprove all key staff and subconsultant
substitutions or removals, and may consider such changes not approved to
be a breach of contract.
VIII. CONSULTANT EVALUATION & SELECTION PROCESS
This consultant evaluation and selection process is based on Qualifications Based
Selection (QBS) for professional services. The following criteria will be used in
evaluating the proposals using a point value system totaling 100 points based on the
weighting indicated below.
1. Grasp of the project requirements including identification of critical elements
and key issues. (10 points)
2. Technical approach and work plan for the project, including innovative
approaches. (25 points)
3. Qualifications and experience of the project manager, other key individuals,
and subconsultants. (30 points)
4. Results of reference checks. (15 points) Reference checks will only be
conducted for a short list of firms or the top rated firm.
CITY ur HUNTINGTON BEACH
Rail Fmsibifity/West Orange County a, RFP .
Pag
5. Clarity of proposal. (10 points)
6. Availability and commitment by the firm and the Project Manager (10 points)
7. Compliance with proposal requirements including the 30 page limitation.
(pass/fail)
The City may elect to interview a short list of qualified firms or to interview only the top
rated firm based on the proposals submitted for the project.
The City staff will negotiate a contract with the best qualified firm for the desired
consulting services at compensation which the City staff determines is fair and
reasonable to it and the Association. Should the City staff be unable to negotiate a
satisfactory contract with the firm considered to be the most qualified, negotiations with
that firm shall be formally terminated. Negotiations will then be undertaken with the
next most qualified firm. Failing accord with the second most qualified firm, the City
staff will terminate negotiations and continue the negotiation process with the next most
qualified firms in order of their evaluation ranking until an agreement is reached and a
firm is selected and an agreement is executed.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A---Sample Insurance Certificate
Attachment B---Sample City Contract
Certificate of Insurance
Agency Name and Address: THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUES AS A MATT TION
ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON RTIFICATE
HOLDER THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR
ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED THE POLICIES LISTED BELOW.
Insured's Name and Address: Companies Affording Coverage
COVERAGES: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD
INDICATED. NOTWTIHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT,TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACTOR OTHER DOCUMENT WrrH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY
BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN,THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS.EXCLUSIONS,AND CONDITIONS OF
SUCH POLICES.
h.::... .:...
::.:.......:::: :::::._..•::::.....:::::..::•,:.'.�`...............:...:::::.:::::..................�`.::::::.:::.::.:....#_ICY..:.:::.:.::::,::.P..E J L fE..
•:i::vi;p}.�}:C::v:;::n•}w....u........:........`•::..•v;:.<.:.v.i•::::::.:::i::.:.v.u,...
....., ....:.:v:}::±::'y:?i•i 'OP yiyr`:v::v:.i:i•+•+{:is:.
:j<j::i::i::::ti:i:::i
GENERAL LIABILITY General Aggregate $
[ ] Comml.Gen.Liability Products-Com/Ops Agg. $
[ ] Claims Made ® Personal&Adv. Injury $
[ ] Occurrence Each Occurrence $
[ ] Owner's&Contractors
Fire Damage(any one fire) $
Protective
[ ] Contractual Liability Other
$
'AUTO LIABILITY Combined Single Limit $
[ ] Any Automobile
[ ] All owned autos Bodily Injury(per person)
[ ] Scheduled autos 5
[ ] Hired autos t[ BodilyInjury(per accident] Non-owned autos ry
$
[ ] Garage liability
[ ] Property Damage
$
EXCESS LIABILITY .
[ ] Umbrella Form Each Occurrence
[ ] Other than Umbrella Form Aggregate
WORKERS' Statutory Limits:
COMPENSATION Each Accident $
AND EMPLOYERS' Disease-Policy Limit $
LIABILITY Disease-Each Employee $
OTHER:
Description of Operations/LocationsNehicles/Restrictions/Special Items:
Certificate Holder. CANCELLATION:
SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICES BE CANCELED BEFORE THE
EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF,THE ISSUING COMPANY WILL MAIL 30 DAYS WRITTEN
NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT.
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE Date
DOC.#24880
ATTACHED TO AND FORMING PART OF CERTIFICATE OF INS - ' -EIA
NO.
COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY SECTION POLICY NO.
It is hereby understood and agreed the City of Huntington Beach, its agents, officers, and employees , .
are added as an additional insured under this policy but only insofar as their.legal liability arises out of
the operations of the Named Insured.
DATED:
Authorized Representative
A
RCA ROUTING SHEET
INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Administration
SUBJECT: Approval to Release Rail RFP
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 20, 1999
RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS
Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable
Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable
Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Not Applicable
Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable)
(Signed in full by the City Attorney) Attached
Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc.
(Approved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable
Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Not Applicable
Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Applicable
Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable
Staff Report (If applicable) Not Applicable
Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Not Applicable
Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Not Applicable
EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS
REVfEWED RETURNED FOR ..
. ..__ .........
Administrative Staff ( ) ( )
Assistant City Administrator (Initial) ( ) ( )
City Administrator (Initial) ( ) ( )
City Clerk ( )
EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM
Only)(Below Space For City Clerk's Use
RCA Author: