HomeMy WebLinkAbout13 - CC-14 - Cooperative Agreement for Harbor Blvd Tr - 2/17/2015CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 17, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: CC -14
SUBJECT: COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR THE HARBOR BOULEVARD TRAFFIC SIGNAL
SYNCHRONIZATION PROJECT
DATE: FEBRUARY 5, 2015
FROM: PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT — TRANSPORTATION SERVICES DIVISION
PRESENTATION BY: ERNESTO MUNOZ, PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RAJA SETHURAMAN, TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
MANAGER, 714-754-5032
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Approve the Cooperative Agreement between the City of Costa Mesa and the City of Santa Ana for
the Harbor Boulevard Traffic Signal Synchronization (TSS) Project (Attachment 1).
2. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the above agreement.
BACKGROUND:
The Orange County Transportation Authority's Measure M Program (M2) half -cent sales tax for transportation
improvements included money for cooperative traffic signal synchronization across City borders within Orange
County. While the City of Costa Mesa maintains a high level of coordination within the City, the Harbor
Boulevard TSS project is an inter -jurisdictional effort which includes the City of Garden Grove, City of Fountain
Valley, City of Santa Ana, and Caltrans. The City of Santa Ana will administer this TSS project.
A total of 46 intersections on Harbor Boulevard in the City of Garden Grove, City of Fountain Valley, City of
Santa Ana, and the City of Costa Mesa will be coordinated with this project.
The scope of work for the TSS project includes:
Development of Optimized Traffic Signal Synchronization Timing Plans
Installation of Traffic Signal Upgrades
Communication Upgrades
Implementation of Traffic Signal Timing Plans
Conduct Before and After Studies
Two Years of Traffic Signal Timing Maintenance
In October 2013, the City of Santa Ana applied for Measure M2 grant funding for engineering and
implementation of the improvements on Harbor Boulevard in Garden Grove, Fountain Valley, Santa Ana, and
Costa Mesa. The City of Santa Ana was awarded $1,852,080 in grant funds for the engineering,
implementation, and two-year monitoring of the Harbor Boulevard Corridor with a match share requirement of
$463,020 resulting in a total project cost of $2,315,100. The project is split between the Cities of Garden Grove,
Fountain Valley, Costa Mesa, and Santa Ana in proportional amounts per the number of signals in each
jurisdiction, and the associated match share is detailed in the cooperative agreement.
ANALYSIS -
The Harbor Boulevard TSS Project will result in a comprehensive review of traffic signal coordination spanning
the Cities of Garden Grove, Fountain Valley, Costa Mesa, and Santa Ana. The City of Costa Mesa will have
the final approval authority for implementation of any timing plans developed as part of this project within the
City's jurisdiction.
The project will result in replacement of outdated traffic signal cabinets at nine (9) intersections and the
installation of Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) cameras at (ten) 10 intersections along Harbor Boulevard, in
addition to signal communication upgrades. The project will also result in the installation of Emergency Vehicle
Preemption (EVP) equipment at 18 locations along Harbor Boulevard. The estimated value of the upgrades in
the City of Costa Mesa for the Harbor Boulevard TSS project is $1,099,025. The TSS project includes the
preparation of detailed before and after studies to document efficiencies achieved with any proposed timing
changes. The City of Santa Ana has successfully administered similar TSS projects and will be the agency in
charge of this project.
The attached Cooperative Agreement defines the terms and conditions for each of the TSS project agencies.
The City of Santa Ana will administer, monitor, and audit the TSS project. The Cities of Garden Grove, Fountain
Valley, Costa Mesa, and Santa Ana will provide a match share of the project cost for the improvements and
will implement the timing plans in their jurisdiction for the Harbor Boulevard TSS Project.
Staff recommends execution of the Cooperative Agreement to enable the implementation of the TSS project
along Harbor Boulevard in Costa Mesa.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:
One alternative would be not to approve the Cooperative Agreement. However, this alternative would result in
the elimination of Costa Mesa's intersections for consideration of traffic signal synchronization improvements.
This would result in the loss of approximately $1,099,025 in traffic signal equipment and upgrades within the
City.
FISCAL REVIEW:
If approved, funding for the Harbor Boulevard TSS project is available from the Orange County Transportation
Authority's (OCTA) Measure M2 grant of $1,852,080 towards the design, implementation, and two-year
monitoring of the Traffic Signal Synchronization project along the Harbor Boulevard Corridor in the jurisdictions
of Garden Grove, Fountain Valley, Santa Ana, and Costa Mesa. The OCTA grant requires a 20% match of
$229,405 by the City. The City appropriated $179,594 in Air Quality Management District (AQMD) funds in the
Fiscal Year 2014-15 Budget for this project. The remaining will be covered by staff time. It is estimated that the
Cities of Garden Grove, Santa Ana, and Fountain Valley will contribute approximately $74,446, $91,028, and
$5,640 respectively towards the project.
The City of Costa Mesa staff will maintain the traffic signal timing and equipment as part of routine maintenance
for the intersections within the City's jurisdiction.
LEGAL REVIEW:
The City Attorney's office has reviewed the attached Cooperative Agreement and has approved it as to form.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached Cooperative Agreement between the City of
Costa Mesa and the City of Santa Ana for the implementation of the Traffic Signal Synchronization Project on
the Harbor Boulevard Corridor. Staff also requests the City Council's authorization for the Mayor and City Clerk
to execute the agreement.
ERNESTO MUNOZ
Public Services Director
ATTACHMENT:
RAJA SETHURAMAN
Transportation Services Manager
Cooperative Agreement for Harbor Boulevard
DISTRIBUTION: Chief Executive Officer
Assistant Chief Executive Officer
Economic and Development Services Director/Deputy CEO
City Attorney
City Clerk Division
Staff
File
ATTACHMENT 1
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITIES
OF SANTA ANA, GARDEN GROVE, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, AND
COSTA MESA FOR THE HARBOR BOULEVARD CORRIDOR
TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYNCHRONIZATION PROJECT
This Cooperative Agreement ("Agreement") is made and entered into this _ day of
2015, by and between the CITY OF SANTA ANA, a charter city ("SANTA
ANA"), the CITY OF GARDEN GROVE, a municipal corporation ("GARDEN GROVE"), the CITY
OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY, a municipal corporation ("FOUNTAIN VALLEY"), and the CITY OF
COSTA MESA, a municipal corporation ("COSTA MESA").
RECITALS:
A. Santa Ana, with cooperation from Garden Grove, Fountain Valley and Costa Mesa,
applied for a grant from the Orange County Transportation Authority ("OCTA") Measure
M2 Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Program ("RTSSP"), aimed to coordinate
traffic signals across multiple jurisdictions to enhance countywide traffic flow and reduce
congestion.
B. The Harbor Boulevard Corridor Traffic Signal Synchronization Project was selected by
OCTA as one of the RTSSP Projects to be funded in OCTA Fiscal Year 2014-2015. The
project will include timing implementation and improvements at traffic signals along
Harbor Boulevard, from Chapman Avenue in Garden Grove to Newport Boulevard in
Costa Mesa, as listed in the Project Application attached hereto as Exhibit B and
incorporated herein by this reference.
C. The total budget for the project is $2,315,100. 80% ($1,852,080) is funded by the OCTA
Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Program and 20% ($463,020) is local agencies
matching funds. The breakdown is shown in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference.
D. Santa Ana, Garden Grove, Fountain Valley and Costa Mesa agree to provide twenty
percent (20%) matching funds for the total project cost. Matching funds can be a
combination of cash and in-kind match as defined by the RTSSP grant.
E. OCTA and Santa Ana have entered into a Master Funding Agreement "Cooperative
Agreement No. C-1-2783" defining the terms and conditions for approved Measure M2
projects that will be implemented by Santa Ana.
F. Santa Ana agrees to serve as the lead agency to oversee the design and
implementation of the project.
G. Santa Ana, Garden Grove, Fountain Valley and Costa Mesa desire to enter into this
Cooperative Agreement to demonstrate their commitment to implement the project and
improve inter jurisdiction traffic signal synchronization on Harbor Boulevard.
H. This cooperative agreement defines the specific terms, conditions and funding
responsibilities between Santa Ana, Garden Grove, Fountain Valley and Costa Mesa for
the implementation of the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually understood and agreed by and between SANTA ANA,
GARDEN GROVE, FOUNTAIN VALLEY and COSTA MESA as follows:
SCOPE:
This Agreement specifies the roles and responsibilities of the cities as they pertain to the
subjects and projects addressed herein. The project is specifically detailed in the Project
Application attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference. All of the
cities agree that each will cooperate and coordinate with the other in all activities covered by this
Agreement and any other supplemental agreements that may be required to facilitate purposes
thereof.
II. MUTUAL RESPONSIBILITIES:
Santa Ana, Garden Grove, Fountain Valley and Costa Mesa mutually agree to:
a. Designate a lead staff to act as the liaison for the project. The liaison and any other
project personnel, if necessary, will attend and participate in all related project meetings.
b. Participate, cooperate and coordinate with contractors, consultants, vendors and staff in
good faith using reasonable efforts to resolve any unforeseen issues and disputes
arising out of the project to the extent practicable with respect to the performance of the
project.
c. Maintain project related traffic signals and telecommunications equipment with high
priority during the project, and be responsible for repair of their own signal control
systems in each of their respective jurisdictions.
d. Provide on-site support for signal control systems, timing plans, detection systems and
related equipment during construction, installation and integration, and be available to
change or make adjustments to timing plans when necessitated by the project.
e. Document in-kind match or dollar match funding as identified in the project application,
and provide verification of such expenditures as part of any review or audit process,
which may include payroll records, contracts and purchase orders.
f. Monitor and operate the project traffic signals and improvements within its jurisdiction for
a period of two (2) years following the completion of the Primary Implementation Phase
of the project, as required by the program funding.
g. Coordinate the inclusion of other improvements and in-kind services, where necessary,
that the owning agency requires for the implementation of the project, but are not
included in the project application. The owning agency shall be responsible for the
inclusion of such elements within reason and at its own costs.
h. Unused project funds for improvements from one City can be used by another City (with
matching fund responsibility) upon mutual consent of the involved parties.
2
III. RESPONSIBILITIES OF SANTA ANA:
Santa Ana agrees to the following responsibilities:
a. Santa Ana shall serve as lead agency for design, construction and construction
management of the project, and shall provide oversight by establishing milestones and
overseeing the project development to ensure that all standards and requirements set
forth by the agreement is adhered to.
b. Santa Ana shall be responsible for completing the project in accordance with the funding
guidelines and any and all other OCTA requirements related to these funding programs.
Santa Ana shall maintain coordination with all participating agencies throughout the
duration of the project.
c. Santa Ana shall provide staff, consultants, and contractors deemed necessary and
appropriate to manage, administer, coordinate, and oversee timing implementation,
engineering design, bid and award, and construction management of the project.
d. Santa Ana shall coordinate the work effort of this Project, provide the day to day
management of the consultant and manage all consultant administration and
contracting. Santa Ana shall review the consultant's invoices and pay them accordingly
after ensuring that the work has been adequately performed by the consultant.
e. Santa Ana shall provide its share of matching fund as shown in Exhibit A attached
hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. The final amount may vary and will be
based on the 20% of actual cost of implementing all timing, improvements and
maintenance, as identified in the project application.
f. Upon issuance of a Notice to Proceed to the Consultant, Santa Ana can issue invoices
to Garden Grove, Fountain Valley and Costa Mesa for up to 80% of the cash match
amount identified in Exhibit A. The remaining cash match amount will be invoiced after
completion of the Primary Implementation Phase of the project.
g. Santa Ana shall comply with all of the terms and conditions of the Cooperative
Agreement with OCTA, including the Project Reporting and Audit Requirements
contained therein.
IV. RESPONSIBILITIES OF GARDEN GROVE:
Garden Grove agrees to the following responsibilities:
a. Garden Grove shall provide its share of matching funds as shown in Exhibit A. The final
amount may vary and will be based on the 20% of actual cost of implementing all timing,
improvements and maintenance, as identified in the project application.
b. Garden Grove shall provide Construction Inspection on all improvements within its
jurisdiction. Costs of such inspection services shall be part of the in-kind labor services
provided within the matching fund. No additional compensation from the project is
provided for providing inspection services.
c. Garden Grove shall waive all costs and fees related to any and all permits, if such
permits are required to perform any project related work within its jurisdiction.
V. RESPONSIBILITIES OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY:
Fountain Valley agrees to the following responsibilities:
a. Fountain Valley shall provide its share of matching funds as shown in Exhibit A. The
final amount may vary and will be based on the 20% of actual cost of implementing all
timing, improvements and maintenance, as identified in the project application.
b. If necessary, Fountain Valley shall provide Construction Inspection on all improvements
within its jurisdiction. Costs of such inspection services shall be part of the in-kind labor
services provided within the matching fund. No additional compensation from the project
is provided for providing inspection services.
c. Fountain Valley shall waive all costs and fees related to any and all permits, if such
permits are required to perform any project related work within its jurisdiction.
VI. RESPONSIBILITIES OF COSTA MESA:
Costa Mesa agrees to the following responsibilities:
a. Costa Mesa shall provide its share of matching funds as shown in Exhibit A. The final
amount may vary and will be based on the 20% of actual cost of implementing all timing,
improvements and maintenance, as identified in the project application.
b. Costa Mesa shall provide Construction Inspection on all improvements within its
jurisdiction. Costs of such inspection services shall be part of the in-kind labor services
provided within the matching fund. No additional compensation from the project is
provided for providing inspection services.
c. Costa Mesa shall waive all costs and fees related to any and all permits, if such permits
are required to perform any project related work within its jurisdiction.
VII. COMPLETE AGREEMENT:
a. This Agreement, including any attachments incorporated herein and made applicable by
reference, constitutes the complete and exclusive statement of the terms and conditions
of this Agreement between SANTA ANA, GARDEN GROVE, FOUNTAIN VALLEY and
COSTA MESA and it supersedes all prior representations, understandings and
communications between the parties. The invalidity in whole or in part of any term or
condition of this Agreement shall not affect the validity of other term(s) or conditions(s) of
this Agreement. The above referenced Recitals are true and correct and are
incorporated by reference herein.
b. Any modification of this Agreement shall only be by amendment upon written mutual
consent of all cities. All modifications, amendments, changes and revisions of this
Agreement in whole or in part, and from time to time, shall be binding upon the cities so
long as the same shall be in writing and executed by each agency.
4
c. A party's failure to insist on any instance(s) of any other party's performance of any
term(s) or condition(s) of this Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver of the non -
enforcing party's right to such performance or to future performance of such term(s) or
condition(s), and the nonperforming party's obligation in respect thereto shall continue in
full force and effect. Changes to any portion of this Agreement shall not be binding upon
either party except when specifically confirmed in writing by way of a written amendment
to this Agreement between the parties and issued in accordance with the provisions of
this Agreement.
VIII. INSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION:
a. Each city shall jointly and severally indemnify, defend and hold harmless every other
city, it's officers, directors, employees and agents from and against any and all claims for
any loss or damages, bodily injuries, damage to, or loss of property caused by the
negligent acts, omissions or willful misconduct by that city, its officers, directors,
employees or agents in connection with or arising out of the performance of this
Agreement.
b. Each city shall maintain adequate levels of insurance, or self-insurance to assure full
indemnification of every other city.
IX. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS:
a. Term of Agreement: This Agreement shall continue in full force and effect until
December 31, 2018. This Agreement may be extended at the mutual consent of all
parties in writing.
b. SANTA ANA, GARDEN GROVE, FOUNTAIN VALLEY and COSTA MESA hereto affirm
that they are authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of said parties and that, by
so executing this agreement, the parties hereto are formally bound to the provisions of
this Agreement.
c. Severability: If any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement is held to be
invalid, void or otherwise unenforceable, to any extent, by any court of competent
jurisdiction, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby, and each
term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement shall be valid and enforceable
to the fullest extent permitted by law.
d. Counterparts of Agreement: This Agreement may be executed and delivered in any
number of counterparts, each of which, when executed and delivered shall be deemed
an original and all of which together shall constitute the same agreement. Facsimile and
electronic signatures will be permitted.
e. In the event that the project costs exceed the estimates submitted in the Project
Application as prepared, all parties agree to meet and determine project revisions to
meet the budget, or a revised funding proposal by the cities that shall be documented
and submitted in writing as a revision to the Agreement.
5
The parties shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, statutes,
ordinances and regulations of any governmental agency having jurisdiction over the
project.
g. Force Majeure: Any party shall be excused from performing its obligations under this
Agreement during the time and to the extent that it is prevented from performing by an
unforeseeable cause beyond its control, including, but not limited to: any incidence of
fire, flood; acts of God; commandeering of material, products, plants or facilities by the
federal, state or local government; national fuel shortage; or, a material act or omission
by the other party; when satisfactory evidence of such cause is presented to the other
parties, and provided further that such nonperformance is unforeseeable, beyond the
control and is not due to the fault or negligence of the party not performing.
h. Assignment: Neither this Agreement, nor any of the parties' rights, obligations, or duties
hereunder may be assigned in whole or in part by any party without the prior written
consent of all the other parties in their sole and absolute discretion. Any such attempt of
assignment shall be deemed void and of no force and effect. Consent to one
assignment shall not be deemed consent to any subsequent assignment, nor the waiver
of any right to, consent to such subsequent assignment.
i. Obligations To Comply with Law: Nothing herein shall be deemed nor construed to
authorize or require any party to issue bonds, notes or other evidences of indebtedness
under the terms, in amounts, or for purposes other than as authorized by local, state or
federal law.
j. Governing Law: The laws of the State of California and applicable local and federal laws,
regulations and guidelines shall govern this Agreement.
k. Litigation fees: Should litigation arise out of this Agreement for the performance thereof,
the court shall award costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, to the prevailing
party.
I. Notices: Any notices, requests, or demands made between the parties pursuant to this
Agreement are to be directed as follows:
City of Santa Ana
Public Works Agency
20 Civic Center Plaza, M-43
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Vinh Nguyen
Sr. Civil Engineer
(714) 647-5612
(714) 647-5616 Fax
City of Garden Grove
Public Works Department
11222 Acacia Parkway
Garden Grove, CA 92842
Tony Aquino
Acting City Engineer
11
La
(714) 741-5193
(714) 741-5578 Fax
City of Fountain Valley
Public Works
10200 Slater Avenue
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
Temo Galvez
Deputy City Engineer
(714) 593-4517
(714) 593-4554 Fax
City of Costa Mesa
Transportation Services
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92628
Pritam Deshmukh
Associate Civil Engineer
(714) 754-5183
(714) 754-5028 Fax
X. DELAGATED AUTHORITY:
The actions required to be taken by the cities in the implementation of this Agreement are
delegated to its City Manager or equivalent designee.
[SIGNATURES ON SUBSEQUENT PAGES]
7
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the date and year
first above written:
CITY OF SANTA ANA:
DAVID CAVAZOS
City Manager
ATTEST:
MARIA D. HUIZAR
Clerk of the Council
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
SONIAR. VALHO
City Att nP 1 1 n
BF
]I.`
Ryan
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:
FRED MOUSAVIPOUR
Executive Director - PWA
NJ
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the date and year
first above written:
CITY OF GARDEN GROVE:
City Manager
ATTEST:
KATHLEEN BAILOR
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
THOMAS F. NIXON
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the date and year
first above written:
CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY:
MICHAEL VO
Mayor
ATTEST:
SYLVIA VERMUDEZ
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ALAN R. BURNS
City Attorney
10
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the date and year
first above written:
CITY OF COSTA MESA:
STEPHEN M. MENSINGER
Mayor
ATTEST:
BRENDA GREEN
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TOM DUARTE
City Attorney
11
(13
EXHIBIT A
Harbor Blvd Corridor TSSP
Project Funds Breakdown
Agency Project Funds by
Agency*
92 Grant
(800%)
Local Match (20%) f
Total Match**
Match Type
Cash In-kind
1
Garden Grove
$437,575 $350,060
$87,515
$75,446
$12,069
2
Santa Ana
$702,300
i
$28,200
$561,840
$140,460
$91,028 ''
$49,432
3 Fountain Valley
$22,560
$5,640
$5,640
$0
4
Costa Mesa
$1,147,025
$917,6201
$229,405
$179,594
$49,811
Total
$2,315,100
$1,852,080
$463,020
$351,708
$111,312
*: Unused project funds from one Agency can be transferred to another Agency with mutual consent.
**: Total match amount may vary; the final match amount will be based on the actual project
implementation costs, to be determined at completion of the Primary Implementation Phase of the project,
12
EXHIBIT B
PROJECT APPLICATION
(Attached)
13
(DG
CITY OF SANTA ANA
FY 2014 Call for Projects
Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Program
Project P
Harbor Boulevard Corridor
Traffic Signal Synchronization Project
Supplemental Application Documentation
Revised Jan 6, 2014
Submitted by:
City of Santa Ana
With the cooperation of the following Agencies:
City of Garden Grove
Caltrans D12
City of Fountain Valley
City of Costa Mesa
Contact:
Vinh Nguyen
714-647-5612
vn uguyenksanta-ana.org
R,
Figure l: Signalized intersection and
Proposed Project limits
d. Signalized intersections that are part of the project: see Table 1
2
U
Section 1: Key Technical
Information
C�dpir�el� 0.w ,
- - arden-
Garden-
NORTH
a. The network of Harbor Boulevard is
Grove
Grove
being proposed for traffic signal
synchronization. According to Figure 1, the
�r
project limits are from Chapman Ave in the
City of Garden Grove to Newport Blvd in the
,._
nter-
City of Costa Mesa, which will have inter-
agency
a enc coordination among five jurisdictions.Sa
b. Designation of the corridor to
Fountain
Valley
/�!
synchronize:
4-4—Priority
® Priority Corridor ❑ Signal
4
LEGEND
'
i
Synchronization Network Corridor
�u1 ur 81vd
a
s -
_
Harbor Blvd Corridor
❑Master Plan of Arterial Highways Corridor
0 City of Garden Grove
0 Caltrans
�►�-
C. Project start date: May 1, 2015
• City of Santa Ana
• City of Fountain Valley
Pro ect end date: May 1, 2018
• City of Costa Mesa
All agencies commit to operate signal
synchronization beyond the three year grant
period for:
,ne o o St
®0 years ❑ 1 year 02 years
3 y
!
❑ 3 years ❑ Other
Figure l: Signalized intersection and
Proposed Project limits
d. Signalized intersections that are part of the project: see Table 1
2
U
Table 1: Project Traffic Signals for the Harbor Boulevard
i nal Synchronization Project
Intersection Name
Jurisdiction
1.
Chapman Ave @ Harbor Blvd
Garden Grove
2. Resort Way/ Tar et Ctr @ Harbor Blvd
3. Twintree Ave @ Harbor Blvd
4. Lam son Ave @ Harbor Blvd
5. Water Park @ Harbor Blvd
6. Palm St @ Harbor Blvd
7.
Garden Grove Blvd a Harbor Blvd
S. Harbor PI Harbor Blvd
9.
SR-22 WB Ramp/ Banner St @ Harbor Blvd
Caltrans
10.
Trask Ave @ Harbor Blvd
Garden Grove
11. Cardinal St Harbor Blvd
12.
Westminster Ave Harbor Blvd
Santa Ana
13. Hazard Ave Harbor Blvd
14. 5th St @ Harbor Blvd
15. 1st St @ Harbor Blvd
16. McFadden Ave 4 Harbor Blvd
17.
Kent Ave @ Harbor Blvd
18.
Lilac Ave @ Harbor Blvd
Fountain
19.
Edinger Ave & Harbor Blvd
Valley
20.
Heil Ave Harbor Blvd
21.
Warner Ave @ Harbor Blvd
Santa Ana
22. Se erstrom Ave a Harbor Blvd
23. Garry Ave Harbor Blvd
24. MacArthur Blvd & Harbor Blvd
25. Scenic Ave @ Harbor Blvd
26.
Sunflower Ave P. Harbor Blvd
Costa Mesa
27. Law Court a Harbor Blvd
28. South Coast Dr @ Harbor Blvd
29.
I-405 NB Rarng @ Harbor Blvd
Caltrans
30. I-405 SB Ramp P, Harbor Blvd
31.
Gilser Ave @ Harbor Blvd
32. Date PI @ Harbor Blvd
33. Nutmeg PI @ Harbor Blvd
34. Baker St @ Harbor Blvd
35.
Adams Ave @ Harbor Blvd
Costa Mesa
36. Mesa Verde/ Peterson PI @ Harbor Blvd
37. Merrimac Wy @ Harbor Blvd
38. Fair Dr P. Harbor Blvd
39.
Harbor Ctr 2 Harbor Blvd
40.
Wilson St @ Harbor Blvd
41.
Victoria St @ Harbor Blvd
42. Hamilton St & Harbor Blvd
43. Bay St g. Harbor Blvd
44. 19th St @ Harbor Blvd
45. Newport Blvd @ Harbor Blvd
46.
Wilson St @ Center W
e. Traffic Forum members:
Garden Grove
California Department of Transportation
Santa Ana
Fountain Valley
Costa Mesa
Section 2: Lead Agency
® City of City of Santa Ana will be the lead agency
❑ OCTA agency is requested to be the lead
❑ County of Orange will be the lead agency
Section 3: Resolutions of Support
Resolutions of support from Traffic Forum members are provided on Appendix A.
4
Section 4: Preliminary Plans for the Proposed Project
1. Primary Implementation
a. Project Administration
The multi jurisdiction project of Harbor Boulevard will be led by City of Santa
Ana. Project Administration services will include but not limited to
administration, engineering, design, coordination, presentation and other related
responsibilities to ensure the timely implementation of the project.
b. Developing and implementing optimized signal synchronization timing
In accordance with the Traffic Signal Synchronization Master Plan, the proposed
synchronization of Harbor Boulevard will involve the Traffic Forum members to
design and implement signal timing synchronization across jurisdictional boundaries
to mitigate traffic and improve volume throughput along the corridor. Coordination
parameters for peak traffic periods will be dependent upon existing field conditions,
traffic patterns and maintaining cross -coordination. Timing plans for Caltrans
intersections will be prepared and provided to Caltrans for implementation.
The project will take into account of Harbor Blvd timing at Hotel Way in the City of
Anaheim. Effort will be provided, to the extent feasible, to maintain cross jurisdiction
synchronization on Harbor Blvd into the City of Anaheim.
c. Producing a Before and After Study for the project
The Before and After Study for Harbor Boulevard will be conducted as defined by
Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Program guidelines. The studies will collect
empirical data before and after the Primary Implementation. With proposed
installations of Bluetooth monitoring stations at selected major intersections, accurate,
real-time travel time will be measured along with staff test drives. The data will then
be compared for the effectiveness and differences in the performance of the new traffic
synchronization.
d. Engineering Design of Signal Improvements for the Project
The City of Santa Ana will be performing the engineering design in-house for all
signal improvements within its City limits. City staff will field verify and design
the upgraded infrastructure along with new equipment to implement and maintain
the new traffic synchronization. For improvements in City of Garden Grove,
Fountain Valley, Costa Mesa and Caltrans where and if engineering design is
5
needed, the agency's staff will provide existing/as-built information and assist the
project consultant to prepare the plans.
e. Proposed Signal Improvements
Garden Grove
The City is proposing to upgrade existing detection to Video Detection, replace
pedestrian heads with countdown types, upgrades and install Emergency Vehicle
Preemption at eight intersections. In addition, the City will upgrade the traffic
signal cabinet at Cardinal St.
Caltrans
No proposed improvements.
City of Santa Ana
All of the traffic signals along Harbor Blvd within the City are proposed to have
Ethernet communications, which will enable various locations to have Bluetooth
travel time measuring systems and digital closed-circuit television camera systems
for real-time monitoring, evaluation and fine tuning of the new synchronization
plans. Approximately 3,200 feet of new conduit and 9,500 feet of new fiber optic
cable will be installed. Four locations are being designed to have System Detection
upgrades. In addition, the City is proposing to replace pedestrian heads with
countdown types at four intersections. The City is also proposing upgrades to the
Video Management System and Central System at the Traffic Management Center
(TMC). The TMC improvements include upgrade of video display software and
associated workstation/hardware, additional CCTV licensing, upgrade of display
from analog to digital monitors. These TMC improvements will enhance the ability
of the City to monitor and maintain traffic synchronization on the corridors.
Fountain Valley
No proposed improvements.
6 0
Costa Mesa
The City is proposing the installation of interconnect conduit with fiber optic cable
along with Ethernet Communication equipment and CCTV camera system at
various locations. The City is also proposing traffic signal cabinet & foundation
upgrades at nine intersections. In addition, the City is proposing installation of
Uninterruptible Power Source, Emergency Vehicle Preemption and replace
pedestrian heads with countdown types at several locations. The City is also
proposing upgrades to the existing Traffic Management Center.
2. Ongoing Maintenance and Operation
Ongoing maintenance and operation period will start after signal timing is
implemented and last for a period of two years. It will consist both of (1) monitoring
and improving optimized signal timing and (2) communications and detection support.
Ongoing Maintenance will not be provided for Caltrans intersections.
Descriptions of both are provided below:
a. Monitoring and improving optimized signal timing
After the Primary Implementation of the new coordination parameters, the corridor
will monitored and fine tuned monthly or as needed for the duration of two years.
Improvements to the signal synchronization will be made according to the test
drives and changing field conditions.
b. Communications and detection support
The communication and detection systems will be monitored and repaired as
necessary to maintain efficient corridor synchronization throughout the project
schedule.
c. Final report
After the three year grant period, a final report for the project will be developed
and will include before and after studies, updates of the results from the ongoing
maintenance and operations phase and will establish completion of all CTFP
Guideline requirements.
7
Section 5: Total Proposed Project Cost by Task
Primary Implementation
The Primary Implementation will include the following elements.
Table 2. Estimated Cost of Proposed Signal Improvements for Harbor Boulevard by Agency Total Match
Cash In -Kind
a. Project Administration $86,000 $1,200 $16,000
b. Developing and Implementing Optimized Signal Synchronization Timing $178,000 $15,200 $20,400
c. Producing a Before and After Study for the proposed project $46,000 $9,200 $0
Total I -Project Admin, Develo in m lement Timing, Final Report, and Engineering Desi $310,000 1 $25,600 $36,400
e. Proposed Si al System Improvements
Description of
Unit
Material,
Match
Cash
In -Kind
Agency
Harbor @
Work at This
Price *
Unit
Design
Tax, &
Total
Location
Labor
Video Detection
Garden Grove
Chapman Ave
Upgrade, EVP, Ped
$29,500
1
$1,000
$29,500
$30,500
$6,100
$0
Upgrade
Resort
Video Detection
Garden Grove
Way/Target
Upgrade, EVP, Ped
$29,000
1
$1,000
$29,000
$30,000
$6,000
$0
Ctr
Upgrade
Garden Grove
Twintree Ave
Video Detection
Garden Grove
Lampson Ave
Upgrade, EVP, Ped
$33,700
1
$1,000
$33,700
$34,700
$6,940
$0
Upgrade
Garden Grove
Water Park
Video Detection
Garden Grove
Palm St
Upgrade, EVP, Ped
$29,000
1
$1,000
$29,000
$30,000
$6,000
$0
Upgrade
Garden Grove
Video Detection
Garden Grove
Blvd
Upgrade, EVP, Ped
$33,700
1
$1,000
$33,700
$34,700
$6,940
$0
Upgrade
Video Detection
Garden Grove
Harbor PI
Upgrade, EVP, Ped
$32,000
1
$1,000
$32,000
$33,000
$6,600
$0
Upgrade
Caltrans
SR -22 WB Off
Ram
Video Detection
Garden Grove
Trask Ave
Upgrade, EVP, Ped
$29,000
1
$1,000
$29,000
$30,000
$6,000
$0
Upgrade
Video Detection
Garden Grove
Cardinal St
Upgrade, EVP, Ped
$46,400
1
$1,000
$46,400
$47,400
$9,480
$0
Upgrade, Cabinet
Upgrade
System Detection,
Garden Grove/
Westminster
CCTV Camera
$20,000
1
$2,000
$20,000
$22,000
2400
$2,000
Santa Ana
Ave
System, Bluetooth
Travel Time
Install Fiber in
Existing Conduit,
System Detection,
Santa Ana
Hazard Ave
Ethernet
$14,200
1
$3,000
$14,200
$17,200
$440
$3,000
Communication,
Bluetooth Travel
Time, Ped Upgrade
Install Conduit &
Fiber, Ethernet
Costa Mesa
Law Court
Communication,
$41,500
1
$1,700
$41,500
$43,200
$8,640
$0
Cabinet Upgrade,
Battery Backup,
EVP
Install Conduit &
Costa Mesa
South Coast Dr
Fiber, CCTV
824,800
1
$1,100
$24,800
$25,900
$5,180
$0
Camera System,
EVP, Ped Upgrade
Caltrans
I-405 NB Off
Controller Upgrade,
Ram
GPS Unit
Caltrans
I -40R5 �B Off
Controller Upgrade
Install Conduit &
Costa Mesa
Gisler Ave
Fiber, CCTV
823,600
1
$1,000
$23,600
$24,600
$4,920
$0
Camera System,
EVP, Ped Upgrade
Costa Mesa
Date PI
CCTV Camera
$16,500
1
$700
$16,500
$17,200
$3,440
$0
System, EVP
Install Conduit &
Costa Mesa
Nutmeg PI
Fiber, EVP, Ped
$11,600
1
$500
$11,600
$12,100
$2,420
$0
U ade
Install Conduit &
Fiber, CCTV
Costa Mesa
Baker St
Camera System,
861,300
1
$2,500
$61,300
$63,800
$12,760
$0
Cabinet Upgrade,
Battery Backup,
EVP, Ped Upgrade
Costa Mesa
Adams Ave
Install Conduit &
$8,000
1
$400
$8,000
$8,400
$1,680
$0
Fiber, EVP
Mesa
Costa Mesa
Verde/Peterson
EVP, Ped Upgrade
$9,300
1
$400
$9,300
$9,700
$1,940
$0
P1
Cabinet Upgrade,
Costa Mesa
Merimac Wy
Battery Backup,
$45,800
1
$1,900
$45,800
$47,700
$9,540
$0
EVP Ped U ade
Install Conduit &
Fiber, CCTV
Costa Mesa
Fair Dr
Camera System,
$60,100
1
$2,500
$60,100
$62,600
$12,520
$0
Cabinet Upgrade,
Battery Backup,
EVP, Ped U ade
Costa Mesa
Harbor Ctr
EVP, Ped Upgrade
$8,100
1
$400
$8,100
$8,500
$1,700
$0
CCTV Camera
Costa Mesa
Wilson St
System, Cabinet
$419300
1
$1,700
$41,300
$43,000
$8,600
$0
Upgrade, EVP, Ped
Upgrade
CCTV Camera
et
Costa Mesa
Victoria St
System, Cabinet
$41,300
1
$1,700
$41,300
$43,000
$8,600
$0
Upgrade, EVP, Ped
EVP, Ped Upgrade
Upgrade
Install Conduit &
Costa Mesa
Hamilton St
Fiber, Ethernet
$48,300
1
$29000
$48,300
$50,300
$10,060
$0
Communication,
EVP, Ped Upgrade
Install Conduit &
Fiber, CCTV
Costa Mesa
Bay St
Camera System,
$87,600
1
$3,600
$87,600
$91,200
$18,240
$0
Ethern
10
et
Communication,
EVP, Ped Upgrade
*: Details of improvement and cost are listed in the Appendix B
11
Install Conduit &
Fiber, CCTV
Camera System,
Costa Mesa
19th St
Ethernet
Communication,
$74,300
1
$3,100
$74,300
$77,400
$15,480
$0
Cabinet Upgrade,
Battery Backup,
EVP Ped UpZade
Costa Mesa
Newport Blvd
Costa Mesa
Wilson St & I
Ethernet
Communication,
$8,000
1
$1,400
$8,000
$9,400
$1,880
$0
Center Way
Controller U ade
Ethernet
Costa Mesa
TMC
Communication,
$58,000
1
$1,400
$58,000
$59,400
$11,880
$0
TMC Upgrade
Subtotal: Estimated cost of "Proposed Signal System Improvements" (total
$65,900
$1,468,800
$1,534,700
$280,340
$26,600
combined)
g. Contingency (up to 10% of the estimated costs of "Proposed Signal System
$146,880
$29,376
$0
improvements")
h. Construction management (un to 15% of the estimated costs of "Proposed
$220,320
$0
$44,064
Signal System Improvements" for support and inspection costs)
Total 2- Signal System Improvements, Construction Support/Inspection,
$1,901,900
$309,716
$70,664
and Contingency Casts
Totals 1+2
$2,211,900
$442 380
*: Details of improvement and cost are listed in the Appendix B
11
Ongoing Maintenance and Operation
a. Monitoring and improving optimized signal timing
Estimated Cost: $72,240
b. Communications and detection support
Estimated Cost: $30,960
Table 3: Estimated Cost of Proposed Ongoing Maintenance and Operation
of Work
Description
Unit Price
Cost
-Description
Monitoring and
improving
Drive monthly and improve timing parameters along
$70 per signal
optimized signal
43(*) signals for 24 months after signal timing is
per month
$72,240
timing
implemented
Communications
Monitor, maintain and repair communication and
$30 per signal
Maintenance and O eration
$103,200
and detection
detection along 43(*) signals for 24 months after signal
per month
$30,960
support
timing is implemented
Project team will develop a final report for the project.
Project final report
This report will be completed after the three year grant
Negligible
Negligible
period.
Proposed Ongoing
(*): Ongoing Maintenance and Operation will not be provided for three (3) Caltrans intersections.
Total Project Cost Including Primary Implementation and Ongoing Maintenance and
Operation for Three Year Grant Period
Total Estimated Cost: $2,315 100 (Table 2 + Table 3 = $2,211,900 + $1031200)
Comments (if any):
12
Maintenance and O eration
$103,200
Section 6: Project Schedule by Task for the 3 Year Grant Period
Project start date: MU 1, 2015
Project end date: May 1, 2018
Primary Implementation
Task
Starting Date
Ending Date
a. Project Administration
May 1, 2015
May 1, 2018
b. Developing and implementing
optimized signal synchronization
May 1, 2015
May 1, 2016
timing
c. Producing a Before and After Study
May 1, 2015
June 1, 2016
d. Engineering design of Signal System
Improvements
May 1, 2015
Sept 30, 2015
e. Proposed Signal Improvements,
Construction Support/ Inspection and
Sept 30, 2015
May 31, 2016
Contingency Costs
f. Contingency
Sept 30, 2015
May 31, 2016
g. Construction Management
May 30, 2015
May 31, 2016
Ongoing Maintenance and Operation
Task
Starting Date
Ending Date
a. Monitoring and improving optimized
signal timing
June 1, 2016
May 1, 2018
b. Communications and detection support
June 1, 2016
May 1, 2018
C. Producing a Final Report
April 1, 2017
May 1, 2018
13
3
Section 7: Matching Funds
$1,769,520
Phase Match Amount
$442,380
In-kind match amount
$107,064
Cash match amount
$335,316
Total Phase Cost
$2,211,900
$49,432
$140,460
Fountain Valle
$5,640
$0
$5,640
Costa Mesa
$179,594
$49,811
$229,405
Caltrans
$0
$0
$0
TOTAL
$351,708
$111,312
$463,020
Total Match Ratio (to total project cost) $463,020 / $2,315,100 = 20%
AGENCY TOTAL MATCH SUMMARY
Agency Cash In -Kind Total Match
Garden Grove $75,446 $12,069 $87Z515
Note: No improvements are proposed for Caltrans locations; only timing plans will be prepared and given
to Caltrans for implementation. Cost for timing is included in Cities of Garden Grove & Costa Mesa.
14
Table 2 (Implementation): M2 Funds Requested
$1,769,520
Phase Match Amount
$442,380
In-kind match amount
$107,064
Cash match amount
$335,316
Total Phase Cost
$2,211,900
Table 3 (Ongoing Activities): M2 Funds Requested
$82,560
Phase Match Amount
$20,640
In-kind match amount
$4,248
Cash match amount
$16,392
Total Phase Cost
$103,200
Project Total: M2 Funds Requested
$1,852,080
Total Match Amount (min 20%)
$463,020
In-kind match amount (max 20%)
$111,312
Cash match amount
$351, 708
Total Project Cost
$2,315,100
Santa Ana
$91,028
$49,432
$140,460
Fountain Valle
$5,640
$0
$5,640
Costa Mesa
$179,594
$49,811
$229,405
Caltrans
$0
$0
$0
TOTAL
$351,708
$111,312
$463,020
MATCH BREAKDOWN (CASH VS IN-KIND SERVICES)
A. Cash Match
Source
Amount of Cash Contribution
Garden Grove
M2 Fairshare
Agency
Funding
M2 Fairshare
$91,028
Fountain Valle
M2 Fairshare
$5,640
Costa Mesa
A MD
$179,594
Caltrans
$95.00
$0
TOTAL
$351,708
30.00
$75.00
$2,250
Electrician
Garden
Traffic Signal
Implementation/Constr. Engrng
40.00
$50.00
$2,000
Grove
Electrician
B. In -Kind Services
i. Specific Im rovements (List items and Cosh:
Construction
Constr. Engrng
34.95
$115.00
$4,019
Inspector
ii. ,Sta rn Commitment:
Sub Total for Garden Grove
$12,069
Sr. Civil Engineer
Admin/Review
32.00
$233.00
$7,456
Assistant Engineer II
Design/Implement/Constr
70.00
$213.00
$14,910
Traffic
Santa
Assistant
Design/Implement/Constr
70.00
$213.00
$14,910
Ana
O er Engineer
En
Construction
Constr Engrng
40.00
$187.00
$7,480
Inspector
Engineering Interns
Design/I Eri a nent/Constr
114.04
$41.00
$4,776
$49,432
Subtotal for Santa Ana
Transportation
Oversight
36.00
$200.00
$72,000
Services Manager
Costa
Associate Engineer
Project Manager
120.00
$150.00
$18,500
Mesa
Assistant Engineer
Signal Timing
95.00
$140.00
$13,300
Engineering Tech
Technical Field Support
94.26
$120.00
$11,311
Subtotal for Costa Mesa
$49,811
TOTAL IN-KIND MATCH
$111,312
*: Estimate, subject to change
15
Agency
Source
Amount of Cash Contribution
Garden Grove
M2 Fairshare
$75,446
Santa Ana
M2 Fairshare
$91,028
Fountain Valle
M2 Fairshare
$5,640
Costa Mesa
A MD
$179,594
Caltrans
$95.00
$0
TOTAL
$351,708
Agency
Improvement Date of Expenditure
Construction _
No. of
TOTAL $0.00
No. of
Fully Burdened
Agency
Staff Position
Type of Service to Pro'ect
Hours*
Hr Rate*
Total*
Associate Engineer
Design/Implementation/Review
40.00
$95.00
$3,800
Sr. Traffic Signal
Implementation/Constr. Engrng
30.00
$75.00
$2,250
Electrician
Garden
Traffic Signal
Implementation/Constr. Engrng
40.00
$50.00
$2,000
Grove
Electrician
Construction
Constr. Engrng
34.95
$115.00
$4,019
Inspector
Sub Total for Garden Grove
$12,069
Sr. Civil Engineer
Admin/Review
32.00
$233.00
$7,456
Assistant Engineer II
Design/Implement/Constr
70.00
$213.00
$14,910
Traffic
Santa
Assistant
Design/Implement/Constr
70.00
$213.00
$14,910
Ana
O er Engineer
En
Construction
Constr Engrng
40.00
$187.00
$7,480
Inspector
Engineering Interns
Design/I Eri a nent/Constr
114.04
$41.00
$4,776
$49,432
Subtotal for Santa Ana
Transportation
Oversight
36.00
$200.00
$72,000
Services Manager
Costa
Associate Engineer
Project Manager
120.00
$150.00
$18,500
Mesa
Assistant Engineer
Signal Timing
95.00
$140.00
$13,300
Engineering Tech
Technical Field Support
94.26
$120.00
$11,311
Subtotal for Costa Mesa
$49,811
TOTAL IN-KIND MATCH
$111,312
Fsection 8: Environmental clearances and other permits
"A categorical exemption will be obtained for this project upon project award."
Section 9: Calculations used to Develop Selection Criteria Inputs:
1. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT):
Segment
Current Average
Daily Traffic
Distance (mi)
VMT
=ADT*D
Chapman Ave to Lam son Ave
28,000
0.5
14000
Lam son Ave to Garden Grove Blvd
33,000
0.66
21780
Garden Grove Blvd to Trask Ave
39,000
0.5
19500
Trask Ave to Westminster Ave
53,000
0.5
26500
Westminster Ave to Hazard Ave
48,000
0.5
24000
Hazard Ave to 1st St
48,000
0.5
24000
1st St to McFadden Ave
45,000
0.48
21600
McFadden Ave to Edinger Ave
45,000
0.75
33750
Edinger Ave to Heil Ave
42,000
0.25
10500
Heil Ave to Warner Ave
42,000
0.71
29820
Warner Ave to Se erstrom Ave
42,000
Blvd
0.36
0.55
15120
Total Project VMT
449,010
Se erstrom Ave to MacArthur Blvd
42,000
0.46
19320
MacArthur Blvd to Sunflower Ave
44,000
0.44
19360
Sunflower Ave to South Coast Dr
44,000
0.28
12320
South Coast Dr to Gilser Ave
59,000
0.32
18880
Gilser Ave to Baker St
59,000
0.48
28320
Baker St to Village W
62,000
0.17
10540
Village W to Adams Ave
55,000
0.3
16500
Adams Ave to Fair Dr
43,000
0.7
30100
Fair Dr to Wilson St
40,000
0.5
20000
Wilson St to Victoria St
39,000
0.25
9750
Victoria St to Ba St
34,000
0.25
8500
Ba St to Newport
Source of ADT are from OCTA 2012 Traffic Flow map
16
Blvd
27,000
0.55
14850
Total Project VMT
449,010
Calculation and Estimated Points
Criteria Estimated Points
1. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) (20 Points)
-
VMT=449,010 (See Above Table)
20
2. Cost Benefit Ratio: (15 Points)
Calculation for Total Project Cost/ VMT= 2,330,450 /449,010= 5.2
13
3. Project Characteristics: (10 Points)
Signal Coordination,• Communications and detection support, New or
u aded communications stems and detection,• Intersection/field
10
system modernization and replacement, New Protective/Permissive
period
0
si als TMC U odes
Project Scale: (10 points)
a. Number of signals = 46
4. Transportation Significance: (10 Points)
b. Number of signals beim synchronization/ Total number of
4
Priority Corridor
10
7. Number of Jurisdictions: (20 Points)
5. Maintenance of Effort: (5 Points)
5 jurisdictions
20
8.
0 years be o�year grant
Project start date: May 1, 2015
5
9.
Funding Match: (5 Points)
$466,090 / $2,330,450 = 20%
0
Total Points
82
Section 10: Include any additional information or documentation deemed
relevant by the applicant
Project Summary
® All guidelines were met for this project
❑ Not all qualifications were met, provide an explanation below of why
the guidelines were not met for this project.
17
period
0
6.
Project Scale: (10 points)
a. Number of signals = 46
b. Number of signals beim synchronization/ Total number of
4
corridor signals= 46/ 97= 47%
7. Number of Jurisdictions: (20 Points)
5 jurisdictions
20
8.
Current Project Readiness: (5 Points)
Project start date: May 1, 2015
5
9.
Funding Match: (5 Points)
$466,090 / $2,330,450 = 20%
0
Total Points
82
APPENDIX B
Improvements Detail Costs
i
i
19 (��
w
0
0
0
0
u
0
J
m
x
O
de
a
x
a
a
7
0 0
z
2
Q
C
a
f
0
0
pp
a
N
N
O
'<
o �O
to o
O
+A
a
ld 10
O
O
o.~
O
N
N
m
-i
G—
M N
14 N
N N
S
N
N
r
u
u
L
O
00
00
O O
M
lD
00
N
CO
V
U
N
Ln
a
ui
Gi
O
.0cAW
urn'-i.mnN�
�2
N •i
N
N N
N
M
M
m
ih
cJ
L
yw
.o
A o
r'vav
O
o
D
o
rl oIn
o
D
m
a
o m
M
o
O
N
N M
D
O
c
N
H
lO
N
m
lD
N IA
N
lND
1A Im
NN
N N
N
H
,V
r
ZO
N
o
N O
N
O w
N ON
N
n {A
C
O p
0
p
oa
v1Oi uNiC'j lNA_
°Nl
oo
lOD
co
a
>
o U
W V
p
0
O ^
VI
N D\
n
n
u1
IN
N
ID
M
N
`~
n N
N m
N oNLn
0
W
jR�
m
W Q
O
d
iA
Vl
N V1
uD
VI
°'
m
O
O
+ O
O
c+
oO
C
O
00
CCO
M 01 °l
N
V
H
lD
N
�-/
IA
o
U
10 O
OD
a
O l�D d'
7
N °Ol
N n
rypj
O
M
N
N
N
ut
w
A
F7
F7
F7
C
p
''
�A
c 'A
m
a vl
° c
O
E
E
c
u°
Y
c E
w
LAo
`
w
c
we
w
° c
u o°
E
071
¢
c
'O
c
N m
m a
N
4
ow E
N w
O
Eu
i c
c
a
w
m
«
c
a
D.
vl
to
c
'p
o
m
'o
m
6
c
O
O
w
Z'w
Co'J O
L
d
d
E
IO w
C O.
O 0
Ch 14
N
w ctiaAa�
L
u
0
C
a
O
.0cAW
urn'-i.mnN�
I� D1
Vl V)
.IA
m
ih
yN
C
L
yw
.o
A o
r'vav
O
o
D
o
rl oIn
N
W N
N
N
F
N
IA
Vb
C
V
O
ry
W
O
D
O W
ZO
N
o
N O
N
O w
N ON
N
n {A
in
W
L
N
a
>
o U
LnO
M
p
0
N
0
N
U
u^i
N
n O
n
a n
N
a-1
m
W Q
O
d
Vl
uD
>
°'
m
(D Q
C
0
C y
w
oo u
u_
u
w
O
r
a
N N
m
a vl
�
1:01111111111:111110
912
-9k2|ki
•
,�
kl
l���
°
!
.
§
§!■
!
,
■|
§�`"!§
�
■
�
]
:
�
•
,�
§
l���
°
!
.
§
§!■
!
,
■|
§�`"!§
�
■
�
�
#■, ■
!;! !
,
||||
�!■s..,
|
||
|
;
|
G3
|°
r-
90
||3
|
.
,
.
R .
|
|ON
�!f|
•-�
7
;
)
�|§
�
��
■
!.
!
|f
|]0
r-
90
§!
��
|||
|
|
|
|!
§,,,�
! "
|
!
� G
.|
§ §,
|
.
;�
§�A!!
}
/§|§�
!!
�--
�
!
' ||�§!
}
} �
!
�
|�!.
!!
,��
!�!{�\�!
°|!!�!
!
�
,!
!!
!!
}:
Q�
eiEll
j
R a
RR
R
g
3
a
R R
R
aaR
a
RRs
a
a
a a
a
sasHas
a
a
a
e
a9RASSRR
a
S
�F.y_54q
Ey
X56
11111
111111111111
Q�
j
R a
RR
R
g
3
a
R R
R
aaR
a
RRs
a
a
a a
a
sasHas
a
a
a
e
a9RASSRR
a
S
�F.y_54q
Ey
X56