HomeMy WebLinkAboutC-2771 - Orange County South/Central Growth Management Area Traffic Analysis0 •
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 -8915
TO: FINANCE DIRECTOR
FROM: CITY CLERK
DATE: September 30, 1993
SUBJECT: 'Contract No. C -2
(714) 644 -3005
Description of Contract Amendment to Inter -City Traffic Study
Effective date of Contract June 1. 1991
Authorized by Minute Action, approved on October 28, 1991
Contract with
Address
Austin -Foust
Inc.
1450 N. Tustin Avenue. Suite 1
Santa Ana CA 92701
Amount of Contract (See Agreement)
"WW'ti, s
Wanda E. Raggio
City Clerk
WER:pm
Attachment
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
•
•
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
RECOMMENDATION
BY THE CITY
CITY OF NEWPORT f F
=1
CITY COUNCIL
October 28, 1991
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
ITEM NO. F -3(b)
Public Works Department /Traffic Engineering
INTER -CITY TRAFFIC STUDY AGREEMENT
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an amendment to the
INTER -CITY TRAFFIC STUDY AGREEMENT (C -2771) adding the Cities of
Santa Ana and Tustin as participants and revising the total cost
and cost shares.
DISCUSSION
The City Council approved an agreement between the Cities of
Newport Beach, Costa Mesa and Irvine and the consulting firm of
Austin -Foust Associates to conduct a short -term traffic study in
the area of John Wayne Airport. Several months ago the City of
Santa Ana requested to join the study due to similar concerns
over where development was occurring and its impacts on their
streets. Within the past month, the City of Tustin has also
requested to join the study.
Santa Ana has been participating in the study and paying their
share for several months and it was recently discovered that the
Agreement was never submitted to the various City Councils for
revision. Tustin staff has sat in on some recent meetings but
did not have their Council's approval to participate until a few
weeks ago.
• The revised agreement also calls for some additional work to
identify needed traffic improvements for a 7 -year period. The
earlier agreement and work performed previously was based upon a
5 -year time frame. The longer time frame is desirable due to the
slower rate of development in response to the economy and the
fact that the Congestion Management Program and the Growth
Management Plan both utilize a 7 -year planning horizon.
1
The supplemental work will cost the City of Newport Beach $3,750,
in addition to the $25,000 provided for in the original
agreement. Funds for this work are available in the current
• budget.
The timetable for the work covered in the revised agreement calls
for a report in January which will include a 7 -year
transportation improvement program identifying specific
intersection lane configurations, as well as identifying the
relative impacts at the intersections from development in each of
the cities. Costs for the improvements will be developed and a
formula will be determined to identify costs associated with
development.
Staff of the five cities have reviewed the proposed amendment to
the agreement and recommend its approval.
• Richard M. Edmonston
Traffic Engineer
RME:bb
WP:FIVECITY.CC
Attachment
•
2
C -277/
AMENDMENT TO INTER -CITY TRAFFIC STUDY CONTRACT AGREEMENT
THIS AMENDMENT, made and entered into this /S- day of
-T-C4 h\ e_. , 1991, by and between the CITY OF COSTA
MESA, the CITY OF IRVINE, the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, the CITY OF
SANTA ANA, the CITY OF TUSTIN, and AUSTIN -FOUST ASSOCIATES, INC.
RECITALS:
A. The Cities of Costa Mesa, Irvine, and Newport Beach have
entered into that certain "agreement for consultant
services ", dated December 13, 1989 (the "Agreement "), to
provide for a traffic analysis to facilitate cooperation
among the Cities in resolving common traffic issues.
B. Pursuant to the Agreement, the Cities of Costa Mesa, Irvine,
and Newport Beach approved a Scope of Work for a traffic
analysis and improvement needs study and retained the firm of
Austin -Foust Associates to conduct the study.
C. The Cities of Santa Ana and Tustin now desire to participate
in the Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
1. The Cities of Santa Ana and Tustin are added as parties to
the Agreement.
2. Paragraph I of the Agreement is amended by adding "Santa Ana
and Tustin" after "Newport Beach ".
3. Section II of the Agreement is amended by adding the
following:
"Consultant shall provide additional services as set forth in
the supplemental Proposal from the Consultant to the Cities,
dated October 21, 1991, a copy of which is attached hereto as
Exhibit B."
4. Section IV of the Agreement is amended by adding the
following:
"Additional work performed by Consultant as a direct result
of Santa Ana participating in the study shall be funded by
Santa Ana. It is estimated that the maximum cost of
additional work will not exceed $15,000.
1 of 4
Additional work performed by Consultant as a direct result
of Tustin participating in the study shall be funded by
Tustin. It is estimated that the maximum cost of the
additional work will not exceed $9000.
The Cities of Costa Mesa, Irvine, Newport Beach and Santa Ana
shall each fund one - fourth of the additional work described
in the Supplemental Proposal. It is estimated that the
maximum additional cost for each city is $3750."
5. Section X of the Agreement is amended to add Santa Ana and
Tustin to the list of Cities as follows:
CITY OF SANTA ANA
20 Civic Center
P. O. Box 1988
Santa Ana, CA 92702
CITY OF TUSTIN
15222 Del Amo Av
Tustin, CA 92680
6. Except as modified hereinabove, the terms and conditions of
the Agreement remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this
Amendment the date and year first above written.
CITY OF TUSTIN
CITY MANAGER
ATTEST:
C
ty Clerk
APPROVED AS RM:
City Attor e
2 of 4
0 0
CITY OF SANTA ANA
r
Mayor
ATTEST: �'( +p'x�ti aS COf:iEf!t
TY Clerk v
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
i
CITY OF COSTA MESA
Mayor City Council Approvgeyd� On:
ATTEST: V 7 - i / / 3
7' ��� -
City C1 rk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
3 of 4
0
CITY OF IRVINE
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ty A
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ity Att rney
AUSTIN -FOUST ASSOCIATES INC.
President
bb 10 -22 -91
WP:A:INTRCITY.AGR
Attachment
4 of 4
is
FO.P�
i
ATTEST:
t C1�Y1
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS To YORM:
City Attorney
AUSTIN -FOQST ASSOCIATES, INC.
President
bb 10 -22 -91
WP:A:INTRCITY.AGR
Attachment
y..2. -I
4 of 4
• EXHIBIT B
Proposed Scope of Work
FIVE -CITY TRAFFIC STUDY
•
October 22, 1991
The following is a proposed scope of work for completing the Five -City traffic study. It
addresses the revisions to the original scope of work as discussed at the September Sth meeting of
the City Managers, and the directions given at the meeting with technical staff on October 8th.
OVERVIEW
The work carried out to date for the Five -City traffic study has included the development of
a traffic modeling capability (short -range and long- range), preparation of land use data, short -range
(1995) traffic forecasts, and identification of potential traffic improvements at selected intersection
locations in each of the five cities. A comprehensive interim report is available which documents the
results of this work.
The revised scope of work will continue to focus on the short - range, but will use a seven -year
time frame (1999) rather than the 1995 data that is currently the basis for the short -range analysis.
The land use data will be revised accordingly, and new traffic forecasts produced. These revised
forecasts will be used to update the short -range traffic improvements. Cost estimates will be
produced for the improvements and a nexus analysis carried out to allocate costs to the seven -year
land use forecasts.
The long -range analysis will produce ADT and peak hour traffic forecast data and examine
the short -range improvements within a longer range context The intent is to ensure that the short-
range improvements appear warranted in the long- range, and are consistent with current long -range
improvement plans and/or General Plan Circulation Elements.
The product of the study will be a seven -year transportation improvement program and
corresponding nexus findings. Improvements will be specified in terms of intersection lane
requirements, and the nexus information will equate improvement costs to land use growth in each
part of the analysis area.
Four -City Traffic Study 1 Austin -Foul[ Associate. Ina
11
WORK ITEMS
The work items that are proposed here can be summarized as follows:
1. Revised Short-Ranee Analysis
The interim report produced for the Five -City Traffic Analysis contains considerable
information with respect to short-range improvement needs. Questions regarding feasibility of some
of the projects will be resolved, and the program will be updated to reflect the seven -year time frame.
The steps that will be undertaken in this regard are as follows:
1. Prepare new land use database (1999)
2. Prepare new traffic forecasts
3. Revise improvement program
It is anticipated that item 3 will involve numerous iterations with respect to traffic model data,
and will require considerable input from the project team. The product will be a revised version of
the short-range improvement program.
2. Improvement Costs
In this work item, costs will be assembled for the improvements identified in work item I
above. These cost estimates will be prepared by each jurisdiction, and reviewed by AFA for
reasonableness.
3. Nexus Analysis
This step in the analysis will be a nexus evaluation of the improvement costs and land use
growth in the study area. The nexus procedure will relate the costs of the improvements at each
individual location to the growth in land use (existing to 1999). The result will be a set of costs per
tripend specified by individual areas within the overall study area.
In carrying out this analysis, a set of sub -areas will first be defined, and the growth in land
use in each sub -area will be estimated Various nexus formulations will then be analyzed, taking into
consideration participating development, existing fee programs, etc. While at this stage it is not
intended that the nexus results should be directly converted into a fee program. the results will
Four-0ty Traffic Study 2 Austin -Fact Assoaatm Irm
0
provide some general cost parameters for evaluating potential funding mechanisms.
4. Post -2010 Traffic Forecasts
The traffic model used in the Five -City study has a Post -2010 version that can be prepared
for use without a major work effort. This model will be used for identifying peak hour intersection
volumes in a similar manner to that carried out for 1999. The peak hour forecast data will be utilized
to prepare intersection capacity utilization (ICU) values for this long -range time period. A
preliminary set of lane configurations will be prepared for each intersection to show the type of
improvements that may be needed. These configurations will be preliminary in nature, and will not
be subject to a detailed feasibility and cost analysis.
5. Final Retort and Presentations
The results of the traffic analysis will be written into a final report, and up to five
presentations will be given to summarize the findings.
COST ESTIMATE
The traffic model area includes the City of Tustin, although the short -range version of the
model will need to be set up to process intersections in Tustin. Assuming availability of traffic count
and land use data, this is estimated to cost around $3,000. The additional cost for carrying out the
above five work items with an expanded study area that includes intersections in Tustin is $6,000.
Table 1 summarizes the estimated costs for the scope of work described here. It includes the
City of Tustin as a participant in this next phase of the study. Additional costs for each city can be
summarized as follows:
Total work effort cost
Less funds remaining
Net Additional Cost
Cost per City:
Tustin
Others
$49,000
$25,000
$24,000
$9,000
$3,750
Four-City Traffic Study 3 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc
1. COST SCHEDULE
Classification
Principal
Project Manager
Transportation Analyst
TechrucaVacrical
Direct Costs
11. COST BREAKDOWN BY TASK
1.
Sbort -range Analysis
2
Impwement Costa
3.
tans Analysis
4.
Post -2010 Traffic Forecasts
S.
Fund Report and Presentations
Four -City Traffic Study
Table 1
COST ESTIMATE
Rate
Hours
Cost
$100
100
$10,000
70
210
14,700
55
700
11,000
35
300
10,500
0
2 W0
TOTAL 549,000
$22,000
3,000
5,000
9,000
10,
TOTAL 549,000
Austin -Foust Associates, Inc
•
TO: CITY COUNCIL
i
f
0
August 26, 1991
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
ITEM NO. F -3(a)
FROM: Public Works - Traffic Engineering
SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO INTER -CITY TR]
MITIGATION MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANI
Approve AMENDMENT TO INTER -CITY TRAFFIC IMPACTS MITIGATION
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING to include the City of Santa Ana in
the AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES, originally signed
12- 13 -89, between the Cities of Costa Mesa, Irvine and Newport
Beach and Austin -Foust Associates, Inc.
This MOU approves a Scope of Work for a traffic analysis and
improvement needs study by Austin -Foust Associates to resolve
common traffic issues.
Additional work performed by Consultant as a direct result of
Santa Ana participating in the study shall be funded by Santa
Ana. It is estimated that the maximum cost of additional work
will not exceed $15,000.
Attached is the AMENDMENT TO INTER -CITY TRAFFIC IMPACTS
MITIGATION MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING that includes the City of
Santa Ana to be signed by all concerned parties.
• W i-
Richard M. Edmonston
Traffic Engineer
RME:JEB:bb
WP:4CITYMOU.CC
Attachment
P-P)
AMENDMENT TO INTER-CITY TRAFFIC IMPACTS MITIGATION
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
AMENDMENT, made and entered into this day of
THIS 1991, by and between the CITY OF COSTA
MFF the CITY OF IRVINE, the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, the CITY OF
,.+NTA ANA, and AUSTIN -FOUST ASSOCIATES, INC.
RECITALS•
A. The Cities of Costa Mesa, Irvine, and Newport Beach have
entered into that certain "Inter -City Traffic Impacts
Mitigation Memorandum of Understanding ", dated December 13,
1989 (the "MOU"), to provide for cooperation among the Cities
in resolving common traffic issues.
B. Pursuant to the MOU, the Cities of Costa Mesa, Irvine, and
Newport Beach approved a Scope of Work for a traffic analysis
and improvement needs study and retained the firm of Austin -
Foust Associates to conduct the study.
C. The City of Santa Ana now desires to participate in the MOU.
` NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
0
1. The City of Santa Ana is added as a party to the MOU.
2. Paragraph I of the MOU is amended by adding "and Santa Ana"
after "Newport Beach ".
3. Section IV of the MOU is amended by adding the following:
"Costa Mesa, Irvine, and Newport Beach shall each fund one -
third of the cost of the study performed by Austin -Foust
Associates, as described in the Scope of Work approved by
those three Cities.
Additional work performed by Consultant as a direct result of
Santa Ana participating in the study shall be funded by Santa
Ana. It is estimated that the maximum cost of additional
work will not exceed $15,000.
4. Section X of the MOU is amended to add Santa Ana to the list
of Cities as follows:
CITY OF SANTA ANA
20 Civic Center
P. O. Box 1988
Santa Ana, CA 92702
1 of 3
9 0
5. Except as modified hereinabove, the terms and conditions of
the MOU remain in full force and effect.
. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this
Amendment the date and year first above written.
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
• City Attorney
•
i q
CITY OF COSTA MESA
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ty Attorney
2 of 3
I
11
CITY OF IRVINE
• Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ty Attorney
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
• Mayor
•
lj
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
AUSTIN -FOUST ASSOCIATES. INC.
President
bb
WP:A:INTRCITY.MOU
3 of 3
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 -8915
TO: FINANCE DIRECTOR
FROM: CITY CLERK
(714) 644 -3005
DATE: January 4, 1990
SUBJECT: Contract No. C -2771
Description of Contract Consultant Services for Proposed
Orange County South Central Proposed Growth Management Area
Traffic Analysis
Effective date of Contract December 13 1989
Authorized by Minute Action, approved on August 28 1989
Contract with Austin -Foust Associates, Inc.
Address 1450 N. Tustin Avenue Suite 108
Santa Ana CA 92701
Amount of Contract (See Agreement)
ee &e't
Wanda E. Raggio
City Clerk
WER:pm
Attachment
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
I
•
. 0
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
August 28, 1989
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT: TRAFFIC STUDY C ?-771
0
City Council
Agenda Item No. F -3 (b)
0Y — -ITY "'OUNCIL
CITY J! '-: JF017 HA
AUG 2 8 1989
APPRO ED_. _.._.
During the Study Session of August 14th the City
Council reviewed the scope of work for the proposed Orange
• County South Central proposed growth management area traffic
analysis. This traffic study is estimated to-cost $75,000 and
is to be shared equally by the cities of Costa Mesa, Irvine,
and Newport Beach. It is anticipated that Costa Mesa will act
on this proposal on August 21st, and that Irvine will act on it
on August 29th.
•
ROBERT D. WYNN
(V
•
•
0
0
Proposal
ORANGE COUNTY SOUTH/CENTRAL
PROPOSED GROWTH MANAGEMENT
AREA TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
Prepared for:
City of Costa Mesa
City of Irvine
City of Newport Beach
Prepared by:
Austin -Foust Associates, Inc.
1450 N. Tustin Avenue, Suite 108
Santa Ana, California 92701
August 8, 1989
0
Proposal
ORANGE COUNTY SOUTWCENTRAL
PROPOSED GROWTH MANAGEMENT
• AREA TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
The following is a proposed scope of services for carrying out a traffic analysis for the
South/Central Business area in Orange County.
OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE
Traffic improvement needs in the South/Central business areas of Orange County have been
addressed in the past by The Inter -City Liaison Committee (ICLC). Comprising portions of Costa
Mesa, Irvine, and Newport Beach (see Figure 1) the ICLC area included many highway system
elements whose functions extend beyond single jurisdictional boundaries. The ICLC activities were
a cooperative effort to identify needed improvements and provide a mechanism for implementing
those improvements.
• With the potential advent of the county growth management plan (GMP), there is an
opportunity to update the ICLC program and incorporate it into one of the county's growth
management areas. Accordingly, the objectives of this study are to update the data base and make
a detailed traffic analysis of this area; to identify traffic improvement needs and potential financial
responsibilities; and then to incorporate the results into a phasing and monitoring program under
the GMP format.
It is proposed that the scope of the study would comprise three parts as follows:
1. Traffic Analysis This part of the work would analyze short -range and long -range traffic
needs in the ICLC area. Of primary importance would be short -range (five years) and the
accompanying traffic improvements required for this time frame. Buildout traffic needs would
also be considered (all three cities have recently adopted or will soon adopt general plan
circulation element updates) to ensure consistency between the short term and longer range
programs.
1
•
•
•
2. Improvement Proms This part of the work would involve identifying the necessary
improvements, and determining funding responsibilities and financing sources. The purpose
would be to enable improvements to be funded and implemented in a timely manner to
maintain adequate levels of service. Improvements within the rive -year time frame would be
identified, cost estimates prepared, and special traffic share analyses would be carried out to
show how the funding responsibilities (including regional) could be apportioned throughout
the analysis area. If desired, different benefit areas could be delineated, each with different
responsibilities depending on their derived cost shares. Alternatively, a single benefit area
could be used. The result would be a phasing program outlining the needed improvements
and the financing responsibilities of the participants.
3. Growth Management Plan The final task would involve incorporating the work from the
previous two tasks into GMP format. While the arterial analysis would be carried out using
the GMP guidelines, the intent on this task would be to formally define a growth management
area and establish the data base and procedures to achieve the objectives of the county's
GMP.
METHODOLOGY
An important component of the work effort will be the selection of a suitable data base for
the traffic analysis. For buildout conditions, it is suggested that the Orange County Metro Business
Area (OCMBA) traffic model be utilized. This is a sub -area model prepared by the City of Santa
Ana and coordinated with a technical advisory group comprising the Cities of Irvine and Costa
Mesa, and the County of Orange. It's area includes most of the study area (see Figure 2) and
the model has the ability to forecast peak hour traffic data for the year 2010 (buildout of the cities
General Plans). Some expansion of the model area would be needed to include the portion of
Newport Beach south of the airport, but no new model development effort would be required.
For this analysis, a five year version of the model would be prepared. (There is currently a
1988 version of the model). To provide a land use data base, each of the cities would prepare five -
year land use forecasts for input to the model. If desired, AFA could assist this process by
preparing an initial set of five -year data by interpolating between existing and buildout. Each of
the cities could then make refinements as appropriate, based on project applications and approvals,
3
F
Z
CD
cc
0
CL
m
0
4
N W
tp
O
V)
Q)
ro ro
a) PC
C:
0
4.)
0 x
14
U)
V) 0
.3 0
u y u w
0
■
T
49
O
0
and local knowledge as to how development will occur in each part of the respective cities.
• The traffic model data would be used to analyze short-range and long -range traffic
improvements. The analysis would be carried out in a manner that is consistent with the counties
growth management plan guidelines. Evaluation criteria would be established accordingly, and used
to identify the type of transportation improvements needed to maintain acceptable levels of service.
For the financing part of the study, use would be made of AFA's special traffic share analysis
methodology. This has been used in various areas for determining infrastructure traffic shares, and
provides a basis for deriving equatable cost shares for traffic improvements.
COST ESTIMATE & TIME SCHEDULE
A general cost estimate is given below according to the three work phase described here:
• 1. Traffic Analysis $40,000
2. Improvement Program $15,000
3. Phasing/GMP Program $20,000
TOTAL $75,000
C]
A suggested time schedule for the analysis is as follows:
1. Traffic Analysis 5 months
2. Improvement Program 2 months
3. Phasing/GMP Program 3 months
Some overlap of each phase could occur, so that the overall study could be carried out over
a six to eight month time frame.
3
AGREEMENT FOR
CONSULTANT SERVICES
0
27Y
�EEMENT, made and entered into this day of
, 198 ?, by and between the CITIES OF COSTA
MESA, IRVINE and NEWPORT BEACH, hereinafter referred to as
"Cities ", and AUSTIN -FOUST ASSOCIATES, INC., hereinafter
referred to as "Consultant ".
RECITALS
The Cities are desirous of obtaining a traffic analysis
related to the south /central business area in Orange County
in order to implement the cooperative effort undertaken by
the Cities with respect to the resolution of common traffic
issues.
The Cities and the Consultant therefore agree as
follows:
II
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Consultant shall provide the services set forth in the
Proposal from the Consultant to the Cities dated August 8,
1989, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A ".
III
PERFORMANCE BY PERSONNEL
The Consultant may associate with or employ associates
in the performance of its services under this Agreement, but
at all times shall be responsible for their services.
IV
COMPENSATION
Compensation to Consultant for services designated in
Section II - Scope of Services shall be in accordance with
Consultant's hourly rates as they are currently established;
provided the total compensation for such services shall not
exceed the estimates set forth in Consultant's Proposal.
2/077/099999 - 0077/15 10/18/89
V
METHOD OF PAYMENT
Consultant shall submit monthly invoices based on total
services which have been satisfactorily completed and
specifying a percentage of projected completion for approval
by Cities. The invoice shall allocate the cost of such
services equally among the Cities.
Each City will pay monthly progress payments based on
approved invoices in accordance with the provisions of
Section IV - Compensation.
VI
INTERESTS OF CONSULTANT
The Consultant covenants that it presently has no
interest and shall not acquire any interest, direct or
indirect, which would conflict in any manner or degree with
the performance of the services contemplated by this
Agreement. No person having such interest shall be employed
by or associated with the Consultant.
VII
FINDINGS CONFIDENTIAL, OWNERSHIP,
REPORTS, INFORMATION, ETC.
All reports, information, data and exhibits prepared or
assembled by Consultant in connection with the performance of
its services pursuant to this Agreement are confidential and
the Consultant agrees that they shall not be made available
to any individual or organization without the prior consent
of the Cities.
VIII
ADMINISTRATION OF CONTRACT
This Contract shall be administered
Newport Beach on behalf of the Cities. The
Beach shall designate one individual to meet
and coordinate the Consultant's activities
this Agreement.
-2-
by the City of
City of Newport
with Consultant
with respect to
Ix
CONTRACT TERMINATION
Any other provision herein to the contrary
notwithstanding, and in addition to other methods of
termination provided for herein or available under the laws
of the State of California, it is agreed that this Agreement
shall terminate as to all parties ten (10) days after written
notice of termination is given by any City or by Consultant
to all other parties to this Agreement.
X
NOTICES
Any notices required to be given hereunder shall be in
writing with copies as directed herein and shall be
personally served or given by mail. Any notice given by mail
shall be deemed given when deposited in the United States
mail, certified and postage prepaid, addressed to the party
to be served as follows:
To Cities:
To Consultant:
CITY OF COSTA MESA
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
CITY OF IRVINE
One Civic Center Plaza
P. O. Box 19575
Irvine, CA 92713
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
3300 Newport Boulevard
P. O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
AUSTIN -FOUST ASSOCIATES, INC.
1450 N. Tustin Avenue
Suite 108
Santa Ana, CA 92701
XI
ATTORNEYS' FEES
In the event that either party hereto fails to comply
with any of the terms of this Agreement to be complied with
on its part and the other party commences legal proceedings
to enforce any of the terms of this Agreement or to terminate
-3-
0
to enforce any of the terms of this Agreement or to terminate
this Agreement, the prevailing party in any suit shall
receive from the other a reasonable sum as attorneys' fees
and costs as may be established by the court or jury.
XII
ASSIGNMENT; SUBCONTRACTS
The Consultant shall not subcontract, assign or
otherwise transfer its rights and obligations under this
Agreement without the prior written consent of the Cities.
Any such subcontract or assignment without such consent shall
be void and shall, at the option of the Cities, terminate
this Agreement. Cities may employ additional consultants as
they deem necessary to work with Consultant any time during
the term of this Contract.
XIII
EXTENT OF AGREEMENT
This Agreement represents the entire integrated
agreement between the Cities and the Consultant and
supersedes all prior negotiations, representations or
agreements, either written or oral. This Agreement may be
amended only by written instrument signed by the Cities and
the Consultant.
AUSTIN -FOUST ASSOCIA,TEESS,,` INC.
By:
Its:
�n fiGCf.af
CITY OF COSTA MESA
B
Mayor of the of Costa Mesa
[Signatures continued on next page.]
ATTEST:
C ty Clerk,
City of Costa Mesa
AP OVED AS TO ORM•
City Attorney,
City of Costa Mesa&
TTEST
y' y CC
City Irvine
City ttornk!y,
City f Irvine
CITY OF Ii(VINE
By:
CITY O NEWPORT BE
By:
Mayor of t City of
Newport Beach
ATTE
City Clerk,
City �qf Newport Beach
TO FORM:
ty Attorney,
ty of Newport Beach
-5-
rvine
0
Proposal
ORANGE COUNTY SOUTWCENTRAL
PROPOSED GROWTH MANAGEMENT
AREA TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
Prepared for:
City of Costa Mesa
City of Irvine
City of Newport Beach
Prepared by-.
Austin -Foust Associates, Inc
1450 N. Tustin Avenue, Suite 108
Santa Ana, California 92701
August 8, 1989
P_ronosal
ORANGE COUNTY SOUTH/CENTRAL
PROPOSED GROWTH MANAGEMENT
AREA TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
The following is a proposed scope of services for carrying out a traffic analysis for the
South/Central Business area in Orange County.
OBiECTPYES AND SCOPE
Traffic improvement needs in the South/Central business areas of Orange County have been
addressed in the past by The Inter -City Liaison Committee (ICLC). Comprising portions of Costa
Mesa, Irvine, and Newport Beach (see Figure 1) the ICLC area included many highway system
elements whose functions extend beyond single jurisdictional boundaries. The ICLC activities were
a cooperative effort to identify needed improvements and provide a mechanism for implementing
those improvements.
With the potential advent of the county growth management plan (GMP), there is an
opportunity to update the ICLC program and incorporate it into one of the county's growth
management areas. Accordingly, the objectives of this study are to update the data base and make
a detailed traffic analysis of this area; to identify traffic improvement needs and potential financial
responsibilities; and then to incorporate the results into a phasing and monitoring program under
the GMP format.
It is proposed that the scope of the study would comprise three parts as follows:
1. Traffic Analysis This part of the work would analyze short -range and long -range traffic
needs in the ICLC area. Of primary importance would be short -range (five years) and the
accompanying traffic improvements required for this time frame. Buildout traffic needs would
also be considered (all three cities have recently adopted or will soon adopt general plan
circulation element updates) to ensure consistency between the short term and longer range
programs.
1
Z
a
a
0
z
0
m
a a
w w
� a
rn a
w �
0
E
N
U
.1
U
H
v
2
h
s
v
O
w
M
i
O
r
Z
h
M
2. Improvement Proms 'Ibis part of the work would involve identifying the necessary
improvements, and determining funding responsibilities and financing sources. The purpose
would be to enable improvements to be funded and implemented in a timely manner to
maintain adequate levels of service. Improvements within the five -year time frame would be
identified, cost estimates prepared, and special traffic share analyses would be carried out to
show how the funding responsibilities (including regional) could be apportioned throughout
the analysis area. If desired, different benefit areas could be delineated, each with different
responsibilities depending on their derived cost shares. Alternatively, a single benefit area
could be used The result would be a phasing program outlining the needed improvements
and the financing responsibilities of the participants.
3. Growth Management Plan The final task would involve incorporating the work from the
previous two tasks into GMP format. While the arterial analysis would be carried out using
the GMP guidelines, the intent on this task would be to formally define a growth management
area and establish the data base and procedures to achieve the objectives of the county's
GMP.
METHODOLOGY
An important component of the work effort will be the selection of a suitable data base for
the traffic analysis. For buildout conditions, it is suggested that the Orange County Metro Business
Area (OCMBA) traffic model be utilized. This is a sub -area model prepared by the City of Santa
Ana and coordinated with a technical advisory group comprising the Cities of Irvine and Costa
Mesa, and the County of Orange. It's area includes most of the study area (see Figure 2) and
the model has the ability to forecast peak hour traffic data for the year 2010 (buildout of the cities
General Plans). Some expansion of the model area would be needed to include the portion of
Newport Beach south of the airport, but no new model development effort would be required.
For this analysis, a five year version of the model would be prepared. (There is currently a
1988 version of the model). To provide a land use data base, each of the cities would prepare five -
year land use forecasts for input to the model. If desired, AFA could assist this process by
preparing an initial set of five -year data by interpolating between existing and buildout. Each of
the cities could then make refinements as appropriate, based on project applications and approvals,
3
Emil
cc
0
CL
x
:R
W
O
U)
F4
}4 C 0
:3 rq
0 U)
Lo G1 C
i U1
O x w
ra 41
G u w
O:C $4
tn 0
-H U 0.
w .1 0
U 7 U 14
IL
1
14
•
0
r
and local knowledge as to how development will occur in each part of the respective cities.
The traffic model data would be used to analyze short-range and long -range traffic
improvements. The analysis would be carried out in a manner that is consistent with the counties
growth management plan guidelines. Evaluation criteria would be established accordingly, and used
to identify the type of transportation improvements needed to maintain acceptable levels of service.
For the financing part of the study, use would be made of AFA's special traffic share analysis
methodology. This has been used in various areas for determining infrastructure traffic shares, and
provides a basis for deriving equitable cost shares for traffic improvements.
COST ESTIMATE & TIME SCHEDULE
A general cost estimate is given below according to the three work phase described here:
1. Traffic Analysis $40,000
2. Improvement Program $15,000
3. Phasing/GMP Program $20,000
TOTAL $75,000
A suggested time schedule for the analysis is as follows:
1. Traffic Analysis 5 months
2. Improvement Program 2 months
3. Phasing/GMP Program 3 months
Some overlap of each phase could occur, so that the overall study could be carried out over
a six to eight month time frame.
J
• •
Cty Clergy
City of Irvine. One Civzc Center Plaza, PO. Box 19575: Irvine, CaGfornla 92713 (714) 724 -6000
January 2, 1990
Mrs. Wanda Raggio, City Clerk
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Dear Mrs. Raggio:
k \��O
N�eoa
Re: Consultant Contract
for Traffic Study for
Costa Mesa /Newport
Beach and Irvine
We are pleased to enclose one fully signed duplicate original
of the above contract with the cities referenced and Austin
Faust and Associates.
Thank you for your assistance in getting this matter finalized.
Sincerely,
NANCY C. LACEY, CMC
City Clerk
/wr
Encl.
• •
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
December 14, 1989
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 -8915
City Clerk Nancy Lacey
City of Irvine
P.O. Box 19575
Irvine, CA 92713
(714) 644 -3005
Re: Traffic Study for Costa Mesa /Irvine /Newport Beach
Dear Ms. Nancy Lacey:
Enclosed are three duplicate agreements with original signatures
of the Mayors of the cities of Costa Mesa, Irvine, and Newport
Beach.
Upon obtaining the signature of Austin -Foust Associates, please
return one fully executed copy to this office for our files.
Sincerely,
Lf/ `ev
Wanda E. Raggio�
City Clerk
WER:pm
Enclosures
cc: Eileen P. Phinney, City Clerk, Costa Mesa
Austin -Foust Associates
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
G' - 2 7:5L
C 7 71
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
May 22, 1989
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
City Council Agenda
Item No. F -3(d)
E,V Y Ti AUNCiL
CITY .iiJJFOnT 2_ii :
M AY 2 2 1989
_APPROVED _.
.27..z
On Tuesday, May 9, the mayors and city managers from
Costa Mesa, Irvine, and Newport Beach met to discuss the impacts
one city's development may have upon the other cities. It was
conceded that each city had the right, governed by law, to de-
termine land -use issues within their respective cities. However,
those present agreed that impacts in any city caused by develop-
ment in a neighboring city should be mitigated. It was sug-
gested that the City of Newport Beach prepare a Memorandum of
Understanding to provide for certain conditions impacting Costa
Mesa, Irvine, and Newport Beach.
Attached is a copy of the Memorandum of Under-
standing. It basically provides for the following:
1. Each city will recognize the traffic
service standards of the other cities.
2. Each city will determine the impact
on the other-cities of a particular
development and mitigate any adverse
impacts caused by said development
to the standards of each city.
3. A Scope of Work for an independent
traffic study will be prepared and
submitted to each of the cities
within 30 days of the approval of
the MOU. This traffic study will
assume General Plan build -out and
traffic improvements needed to
accommodate said build -out. This
study will be used to determine
the extent of mitigation required
on the circular systems within the
three cities.
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
May 22, 1989
Page 2
4. The study referenced above shall be
funded equally by the three cities
and the contract for.the study
awarded within 45 days of the com-
mencement of the 1989 -90 Fiscal Year.
5. Santa Ana may be contacted to determine
their interest in participating in
this effort with the understanding that
their inclusion shall not delay the
process.
This Memorandum of Understanding was distributed.to
the city managers of Costa Mesa and Irvine on Friday, M'ay 12,
Scheduling did not permit a meeting prior to my deadline in pre-
paring the Council Agenda for May 22. Therefore, the MOU is
being placed on.the agenda with the understanding that after the
other cities review it, there.may be modifications and changes.
If so, these can be reviewed.verbally.with the City Council on
May 22.
RLW:ets
Attachment
2
%4.',
ROBERT L. WYNN
ICI
0 0
October 26, 1989
Ms. Eileen P. Phinney
City Clerk
City of Costa Mesa
P.O. Box 1200
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Dear Ms. Phinney:
30< .,27:3 141) 72,' -8000
Re: Traffic Study for Costa
Mesa /Irvine /Newport
Beach
Your letter of September 18, 1989, transmitted an executed
agreement for the above referenced project which was signed
by the cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach.
Upon review by the City Attorney, we were advised that
the agreement had been revised.
Enclosed is the revised document which has been signed
by the Mayor, City Attorney, and City Clerk of the City
of Irvine.
Please have all three duplicate originals signed by the
City of Costa Mesa. Forward all documents to City of Newport
Beach for signature. Upon return to this office, we will
obtain the signature of Austin Foust Associates and provide
a fully executed copy of the document for all involved.
Thank you for your assistance
please call this office.
Sincerely,
AN� LACEY, C
City Clerk
Should you need more information,
/wr
Encl.
cc: Wanda Riggio, City Clerk, Newport Beach ✓
Austin Foust Associates
Paul Brady, Jr., City Manager
O� . f,W Pow
} CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
� n
U _- s
c9� Foa P May 23, 1989
Mavor
Donald A. Strauss
Mayor Pro Tern
Ruthelyn Plummer
Council Members
John C. Cox, Jr.
Evelyn R. Hart
Phil Sansone
Clarence J. Turner
Jean H. Watt
Mayor Peter Buffa
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92628 -1200
Dear Peter:
On Monday, May 22nd the Newport Beach City Council
unanimously approved of the Inter -City Traffic Impacts
Mitigation Memorandum of Understanding. A copy of
this MOU is attached hereto. It is my understanding
that the Costa Mesa City Council will consider this
MOU at your next Council meeting.
It is hoped that your City Council will recognize the
importance of this Memorandum of Understanding and
authorize you to execute it. I believe the MOU provides
a basis for developing an equitable procedure for each
city to mitigate the impacts of development on its
neighboring city. If your City Council will approve
the attached, the excellent cooperation achieved to
date to develop this MOU can continue to the benefit
of the three cities involved. Thank you for your cooper-
ation in the past.
Enc.
Sincerel ,
Dona Strauss
Ma or
City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard • P.O. Box 1768 • Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915
(714) 644 -3004
0 0
CITY OF COSTA MESA
CALIFORNIA 92628 -1200 P. 0. BOX 1200
FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
December 5, 1989
City Clerk Wanda Raggio
Newport Beach City Hall
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
REEF �D
Ole 6 ��
OF
WAIN
Reference: Traffic Study for Costa Mesa /Irvine /Newport Beach/
Austin -Foust Associates
Dear Ms. Raggio:
Enclosed are three duplicate agreements with original
signatures of the Mayors of the cities of Costa Mesa and
Irvine for the traffic study to be performed by Austin -Foust
Associates.
Please have the agreement approved by your City Council
and upon execution by the Mayor, forward three duplicate
original agreements to City Clerk Nancy Lacey, Post Office Box
19575, Irvine, California 92713.
City Clerk Nancy Lacey will obtain the signatures of
Austin -Foust Associates and provide a fully executed copy of
the agreements to the parties involved.
Very truly yours,
EILEEN P. PHINNEY
City Clerk
EPP /jmt
Enclosures (3)
cc: Nancy Lacey, City Clerk, Irvine
Austin -Foust Associates
77 FAIR DRIVE (714) 754 -5223
0
0
D
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
n
cq<iFOaN`P May 23, 1989
Mavor
Donald A. Strauss
Mayor Pro Tem
Rurhelyn Plummer
Council Members
John C. Cox, Jr. Mayor Larry Agran
Evelyn R. Hart City of Irvine
Phil Sansone One Civic Center Plaza
Clarence J. Turner Irvine, CA 92714
Jean H. Watt
Dear Larry:
On Monday, May 22nd the Newport Beach City Council
unanimously approved of the Inter -City Traffic Impacts
Mitigation Memorandum of Understanding. A copy of
this MOU is attached hereto. It is my understanding
that the Irvine City Council will consider this MOU
at your next regular Council meeting scheduled for
June 13th.
It is hoped that your City Council will recognize the
importance of this Memorandum of Understanding and
authorize you to execute it. I believe the MOU provides
a basis for developing an equitable procedure for each
city to mitigate the impacts of development on its
neighboring city. If your City Council will approve
the attached, the excellent cooperation achieved to
date to develop this MOU can continue to the benefit
of the three cities involved. Thank you for your cooper-
ation in the past.
Sincerel
Donal Strauss
MUO
Enc.
City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard • P.O. Box 1768 • Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915
(714) 644 -3004
DRJ #2 May 18, 1989
INTER -CITY TRAFFIC IMPACTS MITIGATION
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, made and entered into
F
this day of 1989, by and between the CITY OF
COSTA MESA, the CITY OF IRVINE, and the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH is
based upon the following:
INTRODUCTION
A. The cities of Costa Mesa, Irvine, and Newport Beach
have in common certain city boundary lines.
B. Land use and circulation system decisions of each
city have the potential to adversely impact the quality of life
enjoyed by those that live and work in the other jurisdictions.
C. This potential impact can be readily identified in
the environmental impact report process and traffic studies
required as a condition of development.
D. Cooperation among the cities will help each juris-
diction achieve their respective goals and objectives.
E. Each city has adopted traffic service level standards
and programs designed to ensure compatibility between land use
decisions and transportation and circulation facility improvements.
F. Each city recognizes the fairness and equity in
mitigating traffic problems in one city caused by development in
the other cities.
G. From time to time, it may be desirable to extend
this Memorandum of Understanding to include other jurisdictions.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:
1. The cities of Costa Mesa, Irvine,and Newport Beach
do hereby recognize the traffic service level standards and
programs adopted by each of the other cities.
2. It is the intent that each party, in the evaluation
of land use development proposals, determine the potential im-
pacts on the other parties to this agreement and impose conditions
on each project so as to mitigate to the January 1, 1989 adopted
standards of the other cities the traffic impacts caused by
land -use development.
3. To more fully define and quantify paragraph two
above, the traffic engineers and city managers of each party
are hereby authorized to prepare a Scope of Work for an in-
dependent traffic and land use study considering (1) ultimate
General Plan land -use densities of each city; (2) traffic
generating characteristics of the land uses; and (3) circula-
tion improvements required to be compatible with these land
uses; and (4) other criteria deemed necessary and appropriate.
This study will serve as the basis for a more definitive and
precise plan to mitigate the impacts of development, and to
determine the circulation system improvements necessary to
maintain adopted levels of service in each jurisdiction.
4. Because developments are on -going and occurring
on a regular basis, time is considered to be of the essence
and the Scope of Work defined in Paragraph 3 above shall,
therefore, be submitted along with an estimated cost to the
City Councils of the parties to this agreement within thirty (30)
days of the approval of this Memorandum of Understanding. Each
City Council shall have the right to review and pass final judg-
ment on the Scope of Work to be performed. Final approval shall
not unreasonably be withheld.
5. The parties to this agreement shall fund the study
on an equal basis and each city will fund one -third of the cost
of the study (unless paragraph 7 below is implemented) in their
1989 -90 Fiscal Year Budget.
6. Every effort will be made to commission this study
within sixty (60) days of the commencement of the 1969 -90 Fiscal
Year Budget.
7. The City of Santa Ana may be contacted to determine
their interest in participating in this Memorandum of under-
standing with the understanding and condition that their in-
clusion shall not delay the process and intent expressed herein.
The parties acknowledge that the success of this cooperative
effort depends in part upon the prompt submittal of land use
and circulation system data to the consultant to permit the
consultant to finish the transportation study in a timely
manner.
8. This agreement shall be binding on each of the
parties notwithstanding any change in the composition, structure,
or membership of the legislative body of any party.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this
agreement to be executed and attested by their duly executed
officers, and to have their official seals affixed hereto, as
of the date first stated above.
DATED:
ATTEST:
By:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
City Attorney
1989 CITY OF COSTA MESA
By:
Mayor
DATED: , 1989 CITY OF IRVINE
ATTEST:
By:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
City Attorney
DATED: ((4. Z3 , 1989
ATTEST:
By:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: G�
City Attorney
By:
Mayor
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
By:
Mayor
DRAFT No. 2 May 18, 1989