Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - - Agenda - 5/5/2015AGENDA CITY OF COSTA MESA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL, AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY* MEETING *NOTE: ALL AGENCY AND AUTHORITY MEMBERSHIPS ARE REFLECTED IN THE TITLE "COUNCIL MEMBER." TUESDAY, MAY 5, 2015 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 77 FAIR DRIVE CLOSED SESSION - 5:00 P.M., [ REGULAR MEETING - 5:45 P.M. 7*N STEPHEN M. MENSINGER `+ E OP Mayor JAMES M. RIGHEIMER GARY MONAHAN Mayor Pro Ternj-4h Council Member SANDRA GENIS KATRINA FOLEY Council Member ► Council Member City Attorneys Chief Executive Officer Thomas Duarte A& Thomas R. Hatch Note regarding agenda -related writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council after distribution of the City Council agenda packet (GC §54957.5): Any related writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council after distribution of the City Council Agenda Packets will be made available for public inspection. Binders containing these agenda -related documents are located in the Council Chambers lobby. In addition, such writings and documents may be posted — whenever possible or as part of the agenda — on the city's website at www.costamesaca.gov Your attendance at this public meeting is valued and appreciated. If you have questions regarding the agenda, public comments or wish to obtain copies of documents please contact the City Clerk office at (714) 754-5225 or e-mail cityclerk .costamesaca.gov AGENDA — REGULAR MEETING — May 5, 2015 — PAGE 1 v.1, 04/29/15 WELCOME TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING PUBLIC COMMENTS — MATTER NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA: If you wish to address the City Council on a matter not on the agenda, please complete and submit a yellow speaker card to the City Clerk. Speaker cards may be submitted to the City Clerk during the Public Comment period for non -agenda items, up to 6:40 p.m. or prior to the last speaker, whichever is earlier. Any speakers on non -agenda items not heard prior to 6:40 p.m. will be allowed to speak at the end of the meeting. Members of the public shall only address the City Council one time at any given meeting for non -agenda items. Speakers may only complete one card per person. Each speaker is limited to three minutes. PUBLIC COMMENTS — MATTER LISTED ON THE AGENDA: If you wish to address the City Council on a matter listed on the agenda, please complete and submit a green speaker card to the City Clerk. Speaker cards must be submitted prior to the start of Public Comments on the item. Please identify which item on the agenda you would like to address. Each speaker is limited to three minutes. The speaker cards are located on the table at the entrance to the City Council Chamber. Please take notice that the order of scheduled agenda items may be modified by the Mayor or the City Council during the course of the meeting, so please stay alert. 1. Any written communications, photos, or other material for copying and distribution to the City Council that is 10 pages or less, must be submitted to the City Clerk NO LATER THAN 3:00 P.M. If the public wishes to submit written communication, photos, or other material for distribution to the City Council at the meeting AFTER 3:00 p.m., 10 copies will need to be provided for distribution. Please note that NO copies of written communication will be made AFTER 3:00 p.m. Any materials to be displayed on the overhead projector at the Council Meeting must be submitted to the City Clerk NO LATER THAN 15 MINUTES PRIOR TO THE START OF THE MEETING. 2. In accordance with Costa Mesa Municipal Code, Sec. 2-64 (1): No person in the audience shall engage in disorderly, disruptive, disturbing, delaying or boisterous conduct. 3. All cell phones and other electronic devices are to be turned off or set to vibrate. Members of the audience are requested to step outside the Council Chambers to conduct a phone conversation. 4. In accordance with City Council Policy 000-11, and among other requirements, any video submitted for display at a public meeting must have been previously reviewed by staff to verify appropriateness for general audiences. A copy of this policy is available at City Hall during normal office hours. 5. Free Wi-Fi is available in the Council Chamber during the meetings. Two networks are available: council1 and council2. The password for either network is: cmcouncil. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (714) 754-5225. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II]. AGENDA - REGULAR MEETING - May 5, 2015 - PAGE 2 v.1, 04/29/15 CLOSED SESSION — 5:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PUBLIC COMMENTS Members of the public are welcome to address the City Council only on those items on the Closed Session agenda. Each member of the public will be given three minutes to speak. 1. Conference with Thomas R. Hatch, Chief Executive Officer, and Labor Negotiator, Agency Negotiator regarding Employee Organization: Costa Mesa City Employee Association (CMCEA), pursuant to California Government Code Section 54957.6. 2. Conference with legal counsel regarding existing litigation: Costa Mesa City Employees Association (CMCEA) v. City of Costa Mesa, a municipal corporation, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2011 00475281, pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9(a). The City Council and Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency will recess to Conference Room 5A for Closed Session at the conclusion of public comments. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY — 5:45 P.M. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Mensinger MOMENT OF SOLEMN EXPRESSION [Per Council Policy 000-12, these presentations are made by community volunteers stating their own views. The City Council disclaims any intent to endorse or sponsor the views of any speaker.] Sayed Mostafa Qazwini, The Imam of the Islamic Educational Center of Orange County, Costa Mesa ROLL CALL CITY ATTORNEY CLOSED SESSION REPORT • COIN: Ex Parte Communications pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2-238 (b) AGENDA — REGULAR MEETING — May 5, 2015 — PAGE 3 v.1, 04/29/15 ANNOUNCEMENTS: There's always something happening in Costa Mesa! The Mayor will play a video clip of the "Costa Mesa Minute," featuring upcoming events and activities in the community. PRESENTATIONS: 1. Mayor's Award — AAA — Auto Club of Southern California 2. Jeff Arthur, Chair, Pension Oversight Committee PUBLIC COMMENTS — MATTER NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA: If you wish to address the City Council on a matter not on the agenda, please complete and submit a yellow speaker card to the City Clerk. Speaker cards must be submitted to the City Clerk during the Public Comment period for non -agenda items, up to 6:40 p.m. or prior to the last speaker, whichever is earlier. Any speakers on non -agenda items not heard prior to 6:40 p.m. will be allowed to speak at the end of the meeting. Members of the public shall only address the City Council one time at any given meeting for non -agenda items. Speakers may only complete one card per person. Each speaker is limited to three minutes. The three minute per speaker time limit may be extended for good cause by the Mayor or by a majority vote of City Council. Questions and comments made by public speakers may be addressed by the City Council during Council Comments or by the Chief Executive Officer during the CEO's Report. COUNCIL MEMBERS' REPORTS, COMMENTS, AND SUGGESTIONS 1. Mayor Mensinger 2. Council Member Foley 3. Council Member Genis 4. Council Member Monahan 5. Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer REPORT — CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (CEO) CONSENT CALENDAR: All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and will be acted upon in one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless members of the City Council, staff, or the public request specific items to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. AGENDA — REGULAR MEETING — May 5, 2015 — PAGE 4 v.1, 04/29/15 1. PROCEDURAL WAIVER: MOTION TO APPROVE THE READING BY TITLE ONLY OF ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS. SAID ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS THAT APPEAR ON THE PUBLIC AGENDA SHALL BE READ BY TITLE ONLY AND FURTHER READING WAIVED RECOMMENDATION: City Council adopt and approve Ordinances and Resolutions by reading title only, and further reading waived. 2. READING FOLDER a. Claims received by the City Clerk: Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club, as subrogee for Kristen Arthur, Carol Holland, Joseph Clyde Melancon and Lisa Makiko Yee RECOMMENDATION: City Council receive and file. 3. WARRANT RESOLUTION NO. 2535 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS, INCLUDING PAYROLL REGISTER NOS. 15-08 "A" FOR $277.01 AND 15-09 FOR $2,028,319.76; AND CITY OPERATING EXPENSES FOR $1,457,120.65; AND SPECIFYING THE FUNDS OUT OF WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID — Finance Department RECOMMENDATION: Approve Warrant Resolution No. 2535, to be read by the title only, and waive further reading. 4. 2014 — 2015 WESTSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKWAY CONCRETE REPAIR PROJECT — CITY PROJECT NO. 15-01 — Public Services Department/ Engineering Division RECOMMENDATION: 1. City Council adopt plans, specifications, and working details for the 2014- 2015 Westside Neighborhood Parkway Concrete Repair Project — City Project No. 15-01; and 2. City Council award a construction contract to Global Power Group, Inc., 10260 Woodside Avenue, Lakeside, California 92040 in the amount of $759,358.70; and 3. City Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Public Works Agreement. AGENDA — REGULAR MEETING — May 5, 2015 — PAGE 5 v.1, 04/29/15 5. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY MEETING APRIL 21, 2015 — Chief Executive Officer's Department/City Clerk's Office RECOMMENDATION: City Council approve the minutes. 6. EASTSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKWAY CONCRETE REPAIR PROJECT — CITY PROJECT NO. 15-02 — Public Services Department/Engineering Division RECOMMENDATION: 1. City Council adopt plans, specifications, and working details for the Eastside Neighborhood Parkway Concrete Repair Project — City Project No. 15-02; and 2. City Council award a construction contract to C.J. Concrete Construction, Inc., 10142 Shoemaker Avenue, Santa Fe Springs, California, 90670, in the amount of $727,200.00; and 3. Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Public Works Agreement. 7. 2014-2015 HALECREST NEIGHBORHOOD PARKWAY CONCRETE REPAIR PROJECT — CITY PROJECT NO. 15-03 — Public Services Department/ Engineering Division RECOMMENDATION: 1. City Council adopt plans, specifications, and working details for the 2014- 2015 Halecrest Neighborhood Parkway Concrete Repair Project, City Project No. 15-03; and 2. City Council reject the bid submitted by PUB Construction, Inc., 23441 Golden Springs Drive #104, Diamond Bar, CA 91765; and 3. City Council award a construction contract to C.J. Concrete Construction, Inc., 10142 Shoemaker Avenue, Santa Fe Springs, California, 90670; and 4. City Council authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Public Works Agreement. AGENDA — REGULAR MEETING — May 5, 2015 — PAGE 6 v.1, 04/29/15 8. INDUSTRIAL WAY WATER QUALITY AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS, CITY PROJECT NO. 14-08 — CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 — Public Services Department/Engineering Division RECOMMENDATION: City Council approve Change Order Number 2 in the amount of $397,952. 9. DISPOSAL OF CITY CO -OWNED PROPERTY ADJACENT TO CHARLE STREET, COUNTY ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 422-091-06 — Public Services Department/Engineering Division RECOMMENDATION: City Council Adopt Resolution No. 15-XX, to be read by the title only, and waive further reading, to proceed with the sale of the City co -owned property along Charle Street, County Assessor's Parcel No. 422-091-06. 10. SUNFLOWER AVENUE TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYNCHRONIZATION PROJECT — Public Services Department/Transportation Services Division RECOMMENDATION: 1. City Council award a Professional Services Agreement for the Design and Implementation of the Sunflower Avenue Traffic Signal Synchronization Project to Albert Grover and Associates, 211 E. Imperial Highway, Suite 208, Fullerton, California 92835, in the amount of $629,849 (Attachment 1); and 2. City Council authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Professional Services Agreement. 11. RENEW PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT/HOME CONTRACT STAFF — Development Services Department/Housing and Community Development Division RECOMMENDATION: City Council approve Amendment One (Attachment One) to exercise the first extension of four renewal options of the existing Professional Services Agreement with Mike Linares, Inc., for one-year in an amount not to exceed $85,000 for FY 2015-2016. AGENDA — REGULAR MEETING — May 5, 2015 — PAGE 7 v.1, 04/29/15 12. AWARD PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT TO FTOG, INC. FOR PURCHASING PERFORMANCE PLAN — Finance Department/Purchasing Division RECOMMENDATION: 1. City Council award a Professional Services Agreement to FTOG, Inc. for procurement consulting services for a six (6) month period in the amount not to exceed $50,600.00 commencing on the date of execution; and 2. City Council authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Professional Services Agreement. 13. 2014 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE GRANT (EMPG) ALLOCATION — Police Department/Office of Emergency Management RECOMMENDATION: 1. City Council authorize the Chief Executive Officer or his designee to execute the Agreement to Transfer Funds for the 2014 Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) Program; and 2. City Council adopt Resolution No. 15-XX, to be read by the title only, and waive further reading, that authorizes the Chief Executive Officer or his designee to accept the funds for the Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) Program, in an amount not to exceed $17,800.00 to purchase 14 replacement laptop computers and software dedicated to the Emergency Operations Center (EOC). 14. UPDATE OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES (CAL OES) DESIGNATION OF APPLICANT'S AGENT RESOLUTION — Police Department/Office of Emergency Management RECOMMENDATION: City Council adopt Resolution No. 15-XX, to be read by title only, and waive further reading, to update the State of California, California Emergency Management Agency (Cal OES) Designation of Applicant's Agent Resolution, under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988. ----------------------------------- END OF CONSENT CALENDAR ----------------------------------- AGENDA — REGULAR MEETING — May 5, 2015 — PAGE 8 v.1, 04/29/15 PUBLIC HEARINGS — 7:00 p.m. (Resolution No. 05-55): 1. 2015 — 2019 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND FISCAL YEAR 2015 — 2016 FUNDING PRIORITIES FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) AND HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM (HOME) — Development Services Department/ Housing and Community Development Division RECOMMENDATION: 1. City Council hold a Public Hearing regarding the 2015 — 2019 Consolidated Plan; and 2. City Council approve recommended allocation of $1,028,141 for the Fiscal Year 2015-2016 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Application; and 3. City Council approve recommended allocation of $327,658 for the Fiscal Year 2015-2016 HOME Investment Partnership Grant; and 4. City Council approve authorization of the following (Exhibit A): • City's Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to act as the official representative of the City in order to submit the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan and 2015- 2016 Annual Action Plan (Exhibit B) and all certifications and assurances contained therein; and • CEO to act in connection with the submission of the Annual Action Plan; and • CEO to approve minor changes and provide additional information as may be required. AGENDA — REGULAR MEETING — May 5, 2015 — PAGE 9 v.1, 04/29/15 2. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP-14-03, REZONE R-14-03, PLANNING APPLICATION PA-14-19, AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP VT-17779 FOR A 28-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 1239 VICTORIA STREET — Planning Division/Development Services Department RECOMMENDATION: 1. City Council approve Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and General Plan Amendment GP-14-03 by adoption of Resolution, to be read by title only, and waive further reading; and 2. City Council give first reading to the Ordinance approving Rezone R-14-03; and 3. City Council approve Planning Application PA-14-19 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map T-17779 by adoption of Resolution to be read by title only, and waive further reading, with the following: • Variances from open space, rear setback, and building height; and • Administrative adjustment from front building setback; and • Minor modification from distance between main units; and • Reduction in park impact fees OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: 1. BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA (BIA) REAUTHORIZATION AND RESOLUTION OF INTENTION AND REVIEW OF ANNUAL REPORT - Chief Executive Officer's Department RECOMMENDATION: 1. City Council receive and file the Business Improvement Area (BIA) annual report for Fiscal Year 2014 — 15 (Attachment 1); and 2. City Council receive and file audited financial report for Fiscal Year 2013 — 14 (Attachment 2); and 3. City Council approve Resolution No. 15-XX, to be read by the title only, and waive further reading,: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO LEVY AN ANNUAL ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 — 2016 FOR A BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA COVERING CERTAIN COSTA MESA HOTELS AND MOTELS AND SETTING THE TIME AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSAL (Attachment 3). AGENDA —REGULAR MEETING —May 5, 2015 — PAGE 10 v.1, 04/29/15 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR REPORT — CITY ATTORNEY ADJOURNMENT — To Regular Meeting — June 2, 2015, at 5:00 p.m. UPCOMING COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES, • Wednesday, May 6, 2015 from 6:00 p.m. — 7:30 p.m. — Neighborhood Meeting on Median Landscape Improvements, Council Chambers, 77 Fair Dr., Costa Mesa for more information please contact the Engineering Division at (714) 754-5323 • Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 5:00 p.m. — Study Session — FY 2015-16 — Proposed Operating and Capital Budget, Council Chambers, 77 Fair Dr., Costa Mesa • Thursday, May 14, 2015 from 5:30 p.m. — 9:00 p.m. — Mayor's Celebration: The Art of Leadership, Samueli Theater at Segerstrom Center for the Arts, 600 Town Center Drive, for more information, please visit www.artofleadershipcelebration.com • Thursday May 14, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. — Friends of the Costa Mesa Libraries present: Through the Eyes of ... Emily Meek, for more information, please visit www.friendscmlibraries.org • Friday, May 15, 2015 from 5:30 a.m. — 7:30 a.m. — Walk with the Mayor, Estancia High School Parking Lot, 2323 Placentia Avenue, Costa Mesa. • Tuesday, May 19, 2015 — City Council Meeting Cancelled • Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. — Community Meeting — FY 2015-16 Proposed Budget, Conference Room 1A, 77 Fair Dr., Costa Mesa • Monday, May 25, 2015 — Memorial Day — City Hall will be Closed • Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 5:00 p.m. — City Council Special Closed Session — Costa Mesa Firefighters Management Association (CMFMA) and Costa Mesa Firefighters Association (CMFA) — Council Chambers, 77 Fair Dr., Costa Mesa • Thursday, June 18, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. — Community Meeting for the Library Project - Neighborhood Community Center, 1845 Park Ave, Costa Mesa AGENDA —REGULAR MEETING —May 5, 2015 — PAGE 11 v.1, 04/29/15 PRESENTATIONS # 2 Costa Mesa Pension Oversight Committee Council Update May 5, 2015 Website: http://www.costamesaca.gov/index.aspx?page=1603 Accomplishments ➢ Feb `14 Council Presentation o Estimated Rates only; AVA assets; no Fire projections ➢ May "14. Able to produce 7 year projections o Rates &Dollars; MVA assets; including Fire ➢ Aug & Sept "14. Two recommendation letters oNegotiate 14% safety employee contributions o 7 year charts & new assumptions. Rising rates & costs ➢ Dec `14. 30 year payment amortizations o Projections include Fire. Able to do what -if analyses ➢ Feb `15. 14 years of General Fund actuals o Revenues and pension costs with projections Payments 45, 000, 000 40, 000, 000 35,000,000 30,000,000 25,000,000 20,000,000 15, 000, 000 10, 000, 000 51000,000 IC PIERS Total Payments and Unfunded Pension Amortization � i r4 N N 4 k6 OD 6 N N N N N N LM N N N '� LLB OO 6 CV v o v v a N N N N N Ln ~M M M 4* [t q* 4 %6 04 © CV � v o 0 o a v N N N N N N Balances 250,0OO,OUO 200,000,000 150,000,000 100,0001000 50,000,000 0 Sources: PERS Actuary & 2013 Valuations Normal Pmts Unfunded Pmts Unfunded Balance 20.0% City of Costa Mesa - PERS Contributions Percent of General Fund Revenue - Actual and Forecast 18.0% Sources: Costa Mesa Finance and PERS 2013 Valuations 16.0% 14.0% 12.0% 10.0% 8.0 % 6.0 % - ° 00- 01- 02- 03- 04- 05- 06- 07- 08- 09- 10- 11- 12- 13- 14- 15- 16- 17- 18- 19- 20- 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ■ % 8.6% 9.8% 9.4% 11.6 11.5 1 14.1 13.7 13.9 17.1 16.9 14.4 14.5 13.5 14.5 15.4 15.5 16.4 17.1 17.8 18.5 19.1 Revenue $180, 000, 000 $160, 000, 000 $140,000,000 $120, 000, 000 $100, 000, 000 $80,000,000 $60,000,000 $40,000, 000 oti a'a°` (:9 e City of Costa Mesa General Fund - Actuals and Forecast O$ ag ,y0 ,�'y y`l. y3 ,�a ,y4s ti� ti� ya ti0) 4V a�r e 11 tiff tiff ti4'' by NI tip' —Revenue � Pension Pension $27,000,000 $24,000,000 $21,000, 000 $18,000,000 $15,000,000 $12,000,000 $9,000,000 $6,000,000 What's Next.? ➢ Sustainable pensions — actuarial study oln simplified language for employees and residents oAdvocate for positive change — ACCOC &Sacramento ➢ PIERS Pre -payment opportunities ➢ Fire side -fund financing Questions ? Parking n Costa Mesa Single Family Housing BED ROOMS ONE TWO THREE FOUR COSTA MESA 4 4 4 4 SMALL LOT 3 3 4 4 LIVE/WORK 3 3 3 3 SANTA ANA 4 4 4 4 ANAHEIM 4 4 4 4 Multi -Family Housing BED ROOMS BACH ONE TWO THREE FOUR COSTA MESA 2 2.5 3 4 4 SANTA ANA 3 3 3 4 5 + 3 UNITS 3 3.75 3.75 5 6.25 ANAH EI M 1.25 2 2.25 3 3.5 — is �_ ,^^ � . ,..._ ' �', '7"' ^"` , • � � � : , r I �""'�r,.. � � •IIIlI+ °� ,a �m'i. - �.ar��.t :�'j_'n1r9""n�- � �--- �� x - ✓.- ^�- - - ����'#.� t f+ `r �yi��a A r ku, V t f ; ,, 5r + � x ;,�', r"Y�''r`'C�g���►'R'"��- _ _: �,. ;m._s..r fry¢.,. 6•.a�- _. 1, a •. i_ C Y 1 ice_....... ni Room m, 4/ ITLFLff �� III1111111111�' f���� f,��llll�lllllllflllll y r ,i r �, :+r.�., f �'jw :•C"' � '.L'e+i .3ia";^i.,�, 0 M- it � i -;� ow omwt ON, 46 Ilk r �I�r p"T, 0 Sam A )M ri ail AT, ' Z. er r. n•. 1 . �ryylJr�''' ., or ipVN r.!-o - . $•'. 7�!� !•' it AA y d D tk i I r rdill all 44, MEJ v I A 47 : -.-1 . p - -.' o 1 -, M"s �'�. ! \ � '�. � � i 1 .� ` ,. � 1 �. '� � `.F 4 <� ' ,�,� ,;:_ :.. 1, .. �. � ,, ''i .�` � _�''1 M'y 4.1� _�- 4 t � �l 1 � � '1 L ` _ Fi „� ��� w '4 Z� . � ; r _. y 1 t'. `4 ; �. may, ... i ,� r, _ .", .� . _ � `} - {.: •� • ._ � �_'` � -- � �_� � � � .. 3,. _ _i CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: May 5, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: CC-3 SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF WARRANT RESOLUTION DATE: April 27, 2015 FROM: Department of Finance FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Dunivent at 714-754-5243 RECOMMENDATION: City Council adopt Warrant Resolution No. 2535 to be read by title only and further reading waived. BACKGROUND: In accordance with Section 37202 of the California Government Code, the Director of Finance or their designated representative hereby certify to the accuracy of the following demands and to the availability of funds for payment thereof. FISCAL REVIEW: Funding Payroll No.15-08 "A" for $277.01; Payroll No. 15-09 for $2,028,319.76; and City operating expenses for $1,457,120.65. wiG oA� STEP EN DUNIVENT Interim Finance Director 1 Report ID: CCM2001V City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 1 CCM VOID CHECK LISTING Run Date Apr 16,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 1:19:49 PM C cle: Payment Ref Cancel Date Status Remit To Remit ID 0183646 04/16/2015 V Leila Jalili 0000004479 Line Description: 4115115 Vendor moved out of state and did not revied the check. Stale dated check. 0•, 222.00- i •i 2' 9, J'1- IIJJ+.l 00I yment Date Payment Amt 10/10/14 (222.00) TOTAL ($222.00) End of Report Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 1 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Apr 16,2015 Bank: COM1 Run Time 12:00:19 PM C cle: ACOMRAI Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 000903 04/17/15 P Apple One Employment Services 0000001055 1,008.80 Line Description: Temp Svs-Dev Svs 3/9-3113/15 Temp Svs-Cntrl Svs 319-3/13 000904 04/17/15 P Ariel Supply Inc 0000006035 1,244.71 Line Description: Toner Cartridges Toner Cartridge Toner Cartridges 000905 04/17/15 P FM Thomas Air Conditioning Inc 0000017151 5.071.50 Line Description: HVAC Maint-Mar 2015 000906 04/17/15 P Hub Auto Supply 0000002584 4,443.34 Line Description: Auto Parts -Feb 2015 Auto Parts -March 2015 000907 04/17/15 P Quick Crete Products Corp Inc 0000007039 4,233.60 Line Description: Plastic Liner Sales Tax (8.00%) Trash Can Lid 000908 04/17/15 P Versatile Information Products Inc 0000013255 1,425.00 Line Description: Software Installation Svs Travel TOTAL $17,426.95 End of Report Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 1 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Apr 16,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 1:41:12 PM C cle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To 0187759 04/17/15 P Costa Mesa Conference & Visitor Bureau Line Description: BIA Receipts for February 2015 0187760 04/17/15 P LINA _ Line Description: Premium for April 2015 Administrative Fee Mar 2015 0187761 04/17/15 P Lonerock Inc Line Description: Retentions Payable Proj #14-08 Water Qualtiy & Storm Drain Im 0187762 04/17/15 P Mesa Consolidated Water District Line Description_ 401 1/2 E 17th 3/12-1/1/15 1800 Newport 2/3-4/6115 234 112 E 17th 2/3-412/15 1648 1/2 Newport 2/2-411/15 2800 Bear 2126-3/30/15 3333 112 Bear 2/26-3130115 3333112 Bear 2/26-3130115 970 Arlington 2/26-3130115 970 Arlington 2/26-3/30/15 2501 Placentia 2126-3/30115 111 Fair 2/26-3130115 257 E17th 2/2-411/15 257 E 16th 212-411/15 134 112 E 19th 2/7-417/15 2141 Tustin 219-419115 1400 Sunflower 2/26-3/30115 2750 Fairview 2/26-3130115 2400 Fairview 2/26-3/30115 2621 112 Harbor 2/26-3/30/15 2229 Newport 2/26-3130/15 2600 Fairview 2126-3/30/15 3202 Harbor 2/26-3/30/15 3581 Harbor 2/26-3130115 Remit ID Payment Amt 0000010346 205,356.68 0000015623 19,676.83 0000016944 158,,63T60 0000003144 17,605.95 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 2 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Apr 16,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 1:41:12 PM C cle: MAW V Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt Line Description.: 360 Ogle 212-411/15 140 112 E 17th 213-4/2115 402 112 Broadway 2/4-4/6115 195 1/2 Broadway 2/3-416115 0187764 04/17/15 P Newport Mesa Unified School District 0000003339 72,625.52 Line Description: Developer Fees for March 2015 0187765 04/17/15 P Oxygen Funding Inc 0000021411 26,787.20 Line Description: Landscape & Turf Maim Feb2015 0187766 04/17/15 P PSOMAS 0000009433 15,913.75 Line Description: Initial Study/Mitigated Negad 0187767 04/17/15 P Preferred Benefit Insurance 0000017362 19,736.00 Line Description: VSP Premium for Apr 2015 Delta Dental Premium Apr 2015 0187768 04/17/15 P Southern California Edison Company 0000004088 102,778,44 Line Description: Park Maint 3/10-4/8115 Signals 3110A/8/15 St Ligths 3/2-3/31115 Nprt Fwy/Baker 311-411115 19th/Npt 3/1-411/15 Sunflower/Plaza 311 A/1/15 2293 Canyon 3/10-4/8/15 BCC 3A 0-7/8115 Vet Hall 3/10A15/15 1587 Sunflower 3/11-4/9/15 Median 3110A18/15 Baker/Royal Palm 311A/1/15 SD Fwy On/Off 311-4/1115 Joann Bike 3/1A/1/15 NCC 3/2-3/31115 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 3 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Apr 16,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 1:41:12 PM C cle: MAW[ V 'ayment Ref Date Status Remit To Line Description: 3192 Red Hills 3/114/6/15 0187769 04/17/15 P 1st Jon Inc Line Description: Porta Potty 4 FDC Trailer 0137770 04/17/15 P A & A Wiping Cloth Inc Line Description: Warehouse Stock 0187771 04/17/15 P AMEC Environment & Infrastructure Inc Line Description: Inspection Services 0187772 04/17/15 P AT & T Line Description: Smallwood Park 3/64/5/15 Estancia Park 3/3-4/2/15 IT Network Firewall 3/3-412/15 Outgoing Tmnk Line 3/4413/15 PD Emergency Line 3144/3115 Cable TV DSL Line 314413/15 City Internet Router 3/2015 DRC Alarm 3/44/3/15 Firewall Fire Sta#3 3/44/3115 Firewall Fire Sta#2 3/4413115 DID Trunk Line 3/44/3/15 Outgoing Trunk Line 3/4413/15 Broadband Modem 3/34/2115 RMATS Fire Sta#2 3/44/3/15 0187773 04/17/15 P Accountemps Line Description: Temp Budget 3/23-3/27115 Temp Svs Treasury 3/23-3/27/15 0187774 04/17/15 P Action Duct Cleaning Company Inc Line Description: FS #3 HVAC/Duct Cleanin Remit ID Payment Amt 0000018321 500.00 0000018633 1,406.16 0000021354 6,964.10 0000001107 2,536.83 0000006816 2,391.35 0000000894 2,500.00 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 4 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Apr 16,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 1:41:12 PM Cycle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Line Description: FS#4 HVAC/Duct Cleaning 0187775 04/17/15 P Adrian Noack Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt#2001767.002 0187776 04/17/15 P Alison Mack Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt#1028227.002 0187777 04/17/15 P Allied Affiliated Funding LP Line Description: Hard Drives 4 PD Vehicles 0187778 04/17/15 P Allstar Fire Equipment Inc Line Description: Boots-Cercielio/Purcell 0187779 04/17/15 P Alonzo H Parker III Line Description: Basketball Referee 3/26/15 0187780 04/17/15 P AmeriNational Community Services Inc Line Description: Reconveyance & Recording Fee 0187781 04/17/15 P Amtech Elevator Services Line Description: PD Elevator Duplicate Key 0187782 04/17/15 P Andrei Leontieff Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt#2001751.002 0187783 04/17/15 P Anthony Monteleone Line Description: Softball Umpire 3/26-412/15 Remit ID Payment Aunt 0000023416 100.00 0000023414 20-00 0000022349 759.40 0000000986 547.86 0000016232 34.50 0000010071 66.00 0000013616 60.00 0000023411 100.00 0000021339 208.00 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 5 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Apr 16,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 1:41:12 PM Cycle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 0187784 04/17/15 P Arrowhead 0000015023 60.85 Line Description: Bottle Water -CC Mmg Mar 15 0187785 04/17/15 P Arthur Thomas 0000023343 150.00 Line Description: Refund Citation #31272 0187786 04/17/15 P AutoZone 0000019364 129.54 Line Description: Supplies -Motor Oil 0187787 04/17/15 P Bee Busters Inc 0000007572 220.00 Line Description: Bee Removal Bee Removal 0187788 04/17/15 P Blue Sky Outfitters Inc 0000013653 856.27 Line Description: Bsktbl Summer Champ Shirts Bsktbl Fall Champ Shirts 0187789 04/17/15 P Bound Tree Medical LLC 0000011695 1,696.16 Line Description: Paramedic Supplies Paramedic Supplies Paramedic Supplies 0187790 04/17/15 P BrandU 0000022518 1,165.81 Line Description: Warehouse Stock 0187791 04/17115 P Brandy Odell 0000023420 75.00 Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt#2001775.002 0187792 04/17/15 P Brianne Dumain 0000023419 108.00 Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt#2001773.002 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 6 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Apr 16,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 1,41:12 PM C cle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 0187793 04/17/15 P CBE 0000015149 477.24 Line Description: Copier Maint 2/20115-2/19116 Copier Overage Fee2120-3/19/15 0187794 04/17/15 P CDW Government Inc 0000006402 1,261.45 Line Description: CA Waste Fee Sales Tax (8.00%) Hp Laptop Replacement 0187795 04/17/15 P California Building Standards Commission 0000020577 1,309.00 Line Description: Bidg Standard Fees Jan-Ma2015 0187796 04/17/15 P Candy Davis 0000023408 546,00 Line Description: Instructor Pymnt-Winter 15 0187797 04/17/15 P Cad Warren & Company 0000001578 3,250.00 Line Description: Liability Claims Adm Fee -Mar 0187798 04/17/15 P Carol Richards 0000023421 100.00 Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt#2001783.002 0187799 04/17/15 P Central Orange County Emergency 0000001629 65.00 Line Description: Vet Svs 3/12/15 0187800 04/17/15 P Cesare Ferrari 0000023415 30.00 Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt#2001764.002 0187801 04/17/15 P Chandlers Air Conditioning & 0000001640 84.00 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 7 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Apr 16,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 1:41:12 PM C cle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Line Description: Refrigeration Maint@NCC-Mar15 0187802 04/17/15 P Christina Coggins Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt#2001756.002 0187803 04/17/15 P Coast Sheet Metal Inc Line Description: Water Deflector 0187804 04/17/15 P Connell Chevrolet Line Description: Seal-#053 0187805 04/17/15 P Costa Mesa Lock & Key Line Description: Duplicate Keys-2nd FI CY Womens Restroom Lock 0187806 04/17/15 P Crop Production Services Inc Line Description: Chemicals 4 Lake/Parks 0187807 04/17/15 P Culver Newlin Inc Line Description: Delivery & Installation Wall Panels Tackboard Hutch L-Unit Desk Sales Tax (8.00%) 0187808 04/17/15 P Cynthia Tyssee Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt#2001766.002 0187809 04/17/15 P DF Polygraph Line Description: Polygraph Exam 3/18-19 Remit ID Payment Amt 0000023256 90.00 0000001703 59.40 0000001763 32.99 0000001817 216.00 0000020562 756.04 0000021554 2,765.88 0000000855 103.00 0000021328 1,250.00 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 8 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Apr 16,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 1:41:12 PM C cle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To 0187810 04/17/15 P Daniels Tire Service Line Description: Forklift Tires-#421 0187811 04/17/15 P Darren Peralta Line Description: Vehicle Damage Stlmnt-12/12/14 0187812 04/17/15 P Data Ticket Inc Line Description: Prkng Citation Process -Feb 15 0187813 04/17/15 P David Vu Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt#2001754.002 0187814 04/17/15 P Delta Dental Insurance Co Line Description: Dental HMO PermiumJul 14 0187815 04/17/15 P Department of Conservation Line Description: SMIP Fees Collected Jan-Marl5 - 0187816 04/17/15 P Discovery Benefits Line Description: Flexbl Spndg Admin Fee -Mar 15 0187817 04/17/15 P Dulux Painting Inc Line Description: Repair of Fire Admin Office Wa 0187818 04/17/15 P Entenmann Rovin Company Line Description: Name Bars Remit ID 0000001922 0000023402 0000010929 0000023413 0000001966 0000001530 PPPbI�YiKbYc? 0000023216 0000002130 Payment Amt 398.78 1,003.86 7,400.11 250.00 3,010.26 5,069.80 568.40 1,900.00 57.74 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 9 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Apr 16,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 1:41:12 PM Cycle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 0187819 04/17/15 P Enterprise FM Tmst 0000023151 4,284.03 Line Description: PD Monthly LeasesApr2015 0187820 04/17/15 P Ernie Gomez 0000023266 234.00 Line Description: Softball Umpire 3125-4/2115 0187821 04/17/15 P FTOG Inc 0000021401 1,192.50 Line Description: Interim Buyer 31304/10/15 0187822 04/17/15 P Falangetti & Weimortz 0000023410 29.13 Line Description: Rfnd Sbpn Dept #001-00266036 0187823 04/17/15 P Ferguson Enterprises Inc 0000007785 16055 Line Description: Sr Cntr Plumbing Supplies Gas Line Repair @ FS #3 Inner Core Draing Cable 0187824 04/17/15 P Firestone 0000011366 6,19320 Line Description: Tires-#961 Warehouse Stock Warehouse Stock Warehouse Stock 0187825 04/17/15 P Frazee Paint & Wallcovering 0000002271 35.08 Line Description: Paints 4 Jail 0187826 04/17/15 P Freddy Gomez 0000023418 100.00 Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt#2001772.002 0187827 04/17/15 P GIT Satellite LLC 0000019742 59.49 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 10 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Apr 16,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 1:41:12 PM Cycle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Line Description: Satellite Phone 2/20-3119/15 0187828 04/17/15 P Galls LLC Line Description: Supplies for CSI 0187829 04/17/15 P Gary Lilly Line Description: Fire Investigation 1 B 1211-5 Fire Investigation 2A 1113-7 0187830 04/17/15 P Government Finance Officers Association Line Description: GFOA newsletter 6/1115-5131116 0187831 04/17/15 P Government Staffing Services Inc Line Description: Temp Contt Mgnt 3/25-4/3/15 Tern Mgnt Anlyst3/23-4/3/15 Temp Engrng3/23-4/3/15 0187832 04/17/15 P Grainger. Line Description: Batteries 4 Irrigation Control Thermostat Guard-DRC 0187833 04/17/15 P Hanks Electrical Supplies Line Description: NCC Light Switches 0187834 04/17/15 P Harbor Radiator Line Description: Radiator Core for Generator Sales Tax (8.00%) 0187835 04/17/15 P Harold Reed Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt#2001761.002 Remit ID 0000002297 0000016366 DID➢PI�PYId:I:l ;Q�PPI�YAZ9irJ 0000002393 0000002445 0000002457 0000013575 Payment Amt 117.03 341.80 8,042.50 207.17 29.22 4,968.00 230.00 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 11 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Apr 16,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 1:41:12 PM Cycle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To 0187836 04/17/15 P Heather Schneider Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt#2001752.002 0187837 04/17/15 P Hercules Hardware LLC Line Description: Crease Cartridges 0187838 04/17/15 P Hillyard Inc Line Description: DRC Janitorial Supplies 0187839 04/17/15 P Interstate Batteries of California Coast Line Description: Batteries Credit 4 Core Returned Batteries Batteries Supplies Batteries 0187840 04/17/15 P Interwest Consulting Group Inc Line Description: Sr Bldg Inspctr Svs-Feb 15 0187841 04/17/15 P Irvine Pipe & Supply Inc Line Description: Plumbing Snake Cable Rplcmnt 0187842 04/17/15 P Irvine Printing Line Description: Banner Small Flag Tablethrow, Sales Tax (8.00%) Canopy Carry Bag Graphic Layout Remit ID Payment Amt 0000023412 68.00 0000023248 147.84 0000002534 129.84 0000002700 136.35 0000021505 11,551_00 0000002711 122.25 0000023281 2.814A8 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 12 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Apr 16,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 1:41:12 PM C cle: WWI Y Payment Ref Date Status Remit To 0187843 04/17/15 P Julie Ross Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt#2001782.002 0187844 04/17/15 P Justin Schlotterback Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt#2001771.002 0187845 04/17/15 P KME Fire Apparatus Line Description: Ball Valve Kits-#527 Coupling with Gasket-#520 0187846 04/17/15 P Kevin Vail Line Description: Basketball Referee 3/16115 0187847 04/17/15 P Keystone Uniforms OC Line Description: Uniform -McVey Uniform-Serrato Uniform-Mancillas Uniform -Lozano Unifonn-Pacheco Uniform -McCarthy Uniform -Diaz Uniform -Johnson Uniform -Guenther Uniform -Diaz Uniform -Diaz Uniform -Bates Uniform -Sepulveda Uniform -Ortiz Uniform-Soukhaseums Uniform-Escobedc Uniform -Everett Uniform Schmidt Uniform -Schmidt Remit ID Payment Amt 0000023422 20.00 0000023417 200.00 0000002849 549.23 0000023400 92.00 0000022280 12,630.35 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 13 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Apr 16,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 1:41:12 PM Cycle, Payment Ref Date 0S6)BbY�=�Fli�/iF7 0187851 04/17/15 0187852 04/17/15 0187853 04/17/15 Status Remit To Line Description: Uniform -Hermes Uniform-Hemandez Uniform -Bates Uniform -Saar Uniform -Moore Uniform -White Uniform-Benavides Uniform -McCarthy Uniform -Thomas Uniform -Naranjo Uniform-Ransdell Uniform -Guenther Uniform-Chawla Uniform -Busby Uniform- Uniform-Beckner Uniform -Manson Uniform-Bibler Uniform-Mancillas P Kim Heredia Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt#2001757.002 P Knorr Systems Inc Line Description: DRC Carbon Dioxide Refill P Larissa Cederquist Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2001776.002 P Lawrence P Shield Line Description: Softball Umpire 3/24-411115 P Leila Jalili Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2001458.002 Remit ID Payment Amt 0000014856 200.00 0000005036 327.04 0000023404 75.00 0000017089 - 234.00 0000004479 222.00 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 14 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Apr 16,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 1:41:12 PM C cle: 'ayment Ref Date Status Remit To Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2001458.002 0187854 04/17/15 P Leo Arnold Line Description: Background Investigation Srvcs Background Investigation Srvcs 0187855 04/17/15 P Lester L Sacks MD Inc Line Description: Type One Jail Facilities Svs 0187856 04/17/15 P LexisNexis Line Description: Online Legal Updates Feb 2015 0187857 04/17/15 P Linda Wescott Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2001760.002 0187858 04/17/15 P Lloyd Pest Control Line Description: Rodent Treatment-880 Junipero 0187859 04/17/15 P Loomis Line Description: Armored Car Services Mar 2015 0187860 04/17/15 P Los Angeles Times Line Description: Legal Notices for Planning Div 0187861 04/17/15 P Mar Vac Electronics Corporation Line Description: Radio Repair Parts 0187862 04/17/15 P Marc Kelly Line Description: Basketball Referee 3130115 Remit ID 0000022194 0000002946 0000010987 0000023395 0000002981 0000019082 0000003000 0000003049 0000021379 Payment Amt 2,000.00 2,750.00 153.00 148.62 200.00 904.47 329.38 26.78 92.00 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 15 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Apr 16,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 1:41:12 PM C cle: layment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID 0187863 04/17/15 P Maria Varessi 0000022552 Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2001769,002 0187864 04/17/15 P Matt Clark 0000007952 Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2001756,002 0187865 04/17/15 P McMaster Carr Supply Company 0000003118 Line Description: Fuel Hose - Shop Supplies Shop Supplies 0187866 04/17/15 P Melad & Associates 0000005068 Line Description: Building Plan Checking & Inspe 0187867 04/17/15 P Melanie Roth 0000022901 Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2001778.002 0187868 04/17/15 P Merit Specialties 0000003140 Line Description: Lion's Park Restroom Repairs 0187869 04/17/15 P Mesa Smog 0000020735 Line Description: Smog Inspection for Unit #741 Smog Inspection for Unit #746 0187870 04/17/15 P Michaela Del Signore 0000023396 Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2001768.002 0187871 04/17/15 P Mobile Home Specialists 0000015185 Line Description: SFHRG-1973 Newport#43, Motley Payment Amt 100.00 540.00 101.57 685.39 58.00 3,225.00 83.50 100.00 13,010.00 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 16 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Apr 16,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 1:41:12 PM Cycle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 0187872 04/17/15 P Norma Rodriguez 0000023392 250.00 Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2001750.002 0187873 04/17/15 P Nubia Echavarria 0000023397 20.00 Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2001765.002 0187874 04/17/15 P Octavio Maldonado 0000023405 100.00 Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2001784.002 0187875 04/17/15 P Office Max Incorporated 0000020710 3,441.32 Line Description: Office Supplies -Senior Center Office Supplies-Dev Svcs Admin Office Supplies-HR Office Supplies-PD Communicatn Office Supplies -Transportation Office Supplies-Rec Aquatics Office Supplies-PD Traffic Office Supplies-PD Records Office Supplies-Maint Svcs Office Supplies -Finance Admin Office Supplies -City Clerk Office Supplies -Bldg Safety Office Supplies -CEO 0187876 04/17/15 P Orange County Sheriffs Dept 0000003451 80.00 Line Description: Post Trng-Field Tung Offcr-JD 0187877 04/17/15 P Orange County Treasurer Tax Collector 0000003489 11,184.25 Line Description: ParkingCitatnProcessing 2/2015 0187878 04/17/15 P Orange County Treasurer Tax Collector 0000003489 1,252.00 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 17 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Apr 16,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 1:41:12 PM C cle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Line Description: Teletype Service -March 2015 0187879 04/17/15 P Orion Line Description: For Warehouse Floor Stock 0187880 04/17/15 P Petty Cash Fund No. 1 Line Description: CA HomicidelnvestigatrsConf-MG Natl League of Cities Cent-TH Commrcial/Class B DriversTests Tri-County Spring Workshop-RL Standard Fid Sobriety TestCH Reimbursements to Petty Cash Admission -Atlantis Pk,CA Scien Exps 4 Animal Care CuntAIR Commrcial/Class B DriversTests Exps for Shot Show in LV-JH Animal Care Conference -AR 0187881 04/17/15 P Philip C Price Line Description: Softball Umpire 3/27-4/3115 0187882 04/17/15 P Phone Supplements Inc Line Description: Wireless Headset for Finance 0187883 04/17/15 P Praxair Line Description: Industrial Acetylene 4 Fleet 0187884 04/17/15 P ProCare Work Injury Center Line Description: Industrial Medical Clinic Sery DOT Risk Drug Testing Industrial Medical Clinic Sery Remit ID 0000004136 0000001834 0000021846 0000003625 0000003672 0000022662 Payment Amt 2,420.82 2,466.51 156.00 231.14 17.68 205.00 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 18 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Apr 16,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 1:41:12 PM cle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To 0187885 04/17/15 P Quentin W McKenzie Line Description: Basketball Referee 416/15 0187886 04/17/15 P R & S Overhead Door of So Cal Inc Line Description: FS#3 Front Apparatus Dr Repair 0137887 04/17/15 P Rand Foster Line Description: Softball Umpire 3/23-4/1/15 0187888 04/17/15 P Red Wing Shoes Line Description: Safety Boots-S Folkes Safety Boots-V Hernandez Safety Boots-T Vo, H Sadamoto 0187889 04/17/15 P Retrofit Technology Inc Line Description: Police Dept- Cooling Tower Rep Police Dept. Cooling Tower Rep 0187890 04/17/15 P Rincon Truck Center Inc Line Description: Rubber Reducer Brake Parts for Unit #514 Seal for Unit #514 0187891 04/17/15 P Robert Dealba Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2001748-002 0187892 04/17/15 P Robert Newman Line Description: Basketball Referee 3130/15 Basketball Referee 416115 Remit ID Payment Amt 0000011175 92.00 0000022092 520.00 0000010791 156.00 0000003772 660.00 0000023230 12,193.00 0000013236 3,042.17 0000023393 73.00 0000018053 - 184.00 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 19 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Apr 16,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 1:41:12 PM C cle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 0187893 04/17/15 P Roberta Schiesel 0000023406 96.00 Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2001779.002 0187894 04/17/15 P Rockey Murata Landscape 0000021496 900.00 Line Description: FV Wetlands -Irrigation Repairs FVWetlands-MainlineRepairPnd F FVWetlands-MainlineRepairPnd D FV Wetlands-] rngam Assessmnt 0187895 04/17/15 P Rodell R Fick 0000002425 200.00 Line Description: Hearing Offer Svcs Code Enf - 0187896 04/17/15 P Rodrigo Martinez Garcia 0000023398 100.00 Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2001770.002 0187897 04/17/15 P Rose Rice 0000023374 45.00 Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2001762.002 0187898 04/17/15 P Sandy Waite 0000023110 58.00 Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2001763.002 0187899 04/17/15 P Santa Ana College 0000003752 294.40 Line Description: Spring 2015 Post Trng 0187900 04/17/15 P Santa Ana College 0000003752 1,996.40 Line Description: 3/2-919/15 PostTrng-3 Recruits 0187901 04/17/15 P Share Corp 0000022015 277.76 Line Description: Chemicals & Sanding Disc Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 20 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Apr 16,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 1:41:12 PM C cle: 'ayment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID 0187902 04/17/15 P Sharon Rodelius 0000018833 Line Description: 2015 CEO Leadership Award 0187903 04/17/15 P Sherri Sannes 0000023403 Line Description: Refund Citation K130104 0187904 04/17/15 P Soffa Electric Inc 0000021909 Line Description: Fng Svcs & Software Loading 0187905 04/17/15 P Sparkletts 0000015725 Line Description: Water Service for Civic Center Water Service for Finance 0187906 04/17/15 P Specialized Products Company 0000004116 Line Description: Phone Wire Fault Detection -Fool 0187907 04/17/15 P Spectrum Gas Products 0000012653 Line Description: Oxygen Cylinder Rental-FS#1 Oxygen Cylinder Rental-FS#2 Oxygen Cylinder Rental-FS#3 Oxygen Cylinder Rental-FS#4 Oxygen Cylinder Rental-FS#5 0187908 04/17/15 P Spoklnc 0000023059 Line Description: Emerg Response Paging System 0187909 04/17/15 P Sprint 0000015635 Line Description: Framed Relay & Managed Network Payment Aunt 250.00 23.00 642.00 136.28 796.34 257.40 CLWO] 62057 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 21 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Apr 16,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 1:41:12 PM C cle: layment Ref Date Status Remit To 0187910 04/17/15 P State of California Dept of Justice Line Description: Fingerprint Apps for Mar 2015 0187911 04/17/15 P Steve Clever Line Description: Softball Umpire 3/25-412115 0187912 04/17/15 P Stotz Equipment Line Description: Bunker Rake Sales Tax (8.00 % ) 0187913 04/17/15 P The Dumbell Man Fitness Equipment Line Description: Preventative Maint FS#3 0187914 04/17/15 P The Lighthouse Line Description: Shop Supplies 0187915 04/17/15 P The UPS Store#0247 Line Description: Shipping Fees 0187916 04/17/15 P Theodore Robins Ford Line Description: Motor Assembly & Filter Tire Sensor Kit for Unit#704 Screen Assembly for Unit#770 Filter Assembly Gasket for Un4#770 Sensor Assembly for Unif#770 0187917 04/17/15 P Theodore Robins Ford Line Description: Engine Repair for Unit#706 Body Repair/Paint Remit ID 0000001534 0000010800 0000023211 0000023166 0000002964 0000012655 0000004245 0000004245 Payment Amt 11,342.00 286.00 13,239.72 95.00 434.05 17.84 505.57 4,728.17 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 22 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Apr 16,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 1:41:12 PM C cW Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 0187918 04/17/15 P Thomas Irwin 0000023409 5,000.00 Line Description: Refund Permit#PS14-00867 0187919 04/17/15 P Tien Vares 0000023407 75.00 Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2001774.002 0187920 04/17/15 P Time Warner Cable 0000011202 2,394.75 Line Description: Equipment Fees 3129-4128/15 Internet Services 4117-5/16/15 Internet Services 4117-5116115 0187921 04/17/15 P Titan Tire Recycling Inc 0000023339 292.19 Line Description: Tire Recycle 4 Fleet Srvcs 0187922 04/17/15 P Todd Anglin Home for Children 0000022557 850.00 Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2001749.002 0187923 04/17/15 P TrucParCo 0000004319 105A5 Line Description: Air Brake Tubing Air Brake Tubing 0187924 04/17/15 P Turnout Maintenance Company LLC 0000020182 956.80 Line Description: Turnout Clean & Repairs-5 Empl Turnout Clean & Repairs Empl 0187925 04/17/15 P UC Regents 0000022660 550.00 Line Description: Subpoena Dep Rfnd 001-00268605 Subpoena Delp Rfnd 001-00268605 0187926 04/17/15 P US Bank 0000002228 4,524.84 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 23 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Apr 16,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 1:41:12 PM Cycle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Line Description: Payroll Deduction Check 1507 0187927 04/17/15 P Uline Line Description: Supplies for PD Property 0187928 04/17/15 P Verizon Wireless Line Description: PD Cell Phone Usage 2/16-3/15 0187929 04/17/15 P Verizon Wireless Line Description: Broadband Srvcs thm Feb 2015 0187930 04/17/15 P Vic Duong Line Description: Softball Umpire 3/24-3/30/15 0187931 04/17/15 P Virginia Aguilar Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2001759.002 0187932 04/17/15 P Vista Paint Corp Line Description: White & Yellow Traffic Paint 0187933 04/17/15 P Vulcan Materials Company Line Description: Asphalt for Patching Potholes Asphalt for Patching Potholes Asphalt for Patching Potholes Asphalt for Patching Potholes Asphalt for Patching Potholes 0187934 04/17/15 P Waterline Technologies Inc Line Description: Pool Chemicals for DRC Pool Chemicals for DRC Remit ID 0000010970 0000008717 0000008717 0000011215 0000023399 0000004430 0000007403 0000014520 Payment Amt 374.24 2,317.02 4,186.10 156.00 i6xH9 144.89 443.99 OMIX'f Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 24 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Apr 16,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 1:41:12 PM C cle: Payment Ref Date 0187935 04/17/15 0187936 04/17/15 0187937 04/17/15 0187939 04/17/15 Status Remit To P Waxie Sanitary Supply Line Description: For Warehouse Floor Stock For Warehouse Floor Stock For Warehouse Floor Stock P Wayne Ritchie Line Description: Softball Umpire 3/26/15 P West Coast Fence Co Line Description: Senior Center Trash Enclosure P Yinka Coker Oluyinka Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2001758.002 P Zoll Medical Corporation Line Description: Autopulse Battery Remit ID 0000004480 0000022963 0000021495 0000023394 Payment Amt 12,690.34 78.00 2,159.00 48.00 0000021290 668.25 TOTAL $888,572.90 End of Report Report ID: CCM20010 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 1 CCM OVERFLOW CHECK LISTING Run Date Apr 16,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 1:41:29 PM C cle: Payment Ref Date 0187763 04117115 [itByr-ili►11W Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt O Mesa Consolidated Water District 0000003144 0.00 Line Description: Overflow O Keystone Uniforms OC 0000022280 0.00 Line Description: Overflow TOTAL 0-On End of Report Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 1 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Apr 23,2015 Bank: COM1. Run Time 11:25:37 AM C cle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To 000909 04/24/15 P Apple One Employment Services Line Description: Temp Svs-Dev Svs3/23-3/27/15 Temp Svs-Dev Svs3/16-3/20/15 Temp Svs-Cntrl Svs3/16-3/20/15 Temp Svs-Cntrl Svs3/23-3/27/15 000910 04/24/15 P Ariel Supply Inc Line Description: Toner Cartridge Toner Cartridges 000911 04/24/15 P Ware Disposal Inc Line Description: City Refuse Svcs Apr 2015 City Refuse Svcs Mar 2015 0• 15= 55!,--45+ 858-00— a 5'20=>32.93+ 033 i = 342 8 D Remit ID Payment Amt 0000001055 2,172.36 0000006035 2,458.72 0000000255 8,889.90 TOTAL $13,520.98 End of Report Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 1 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Apr 23,2015 Bank: DDP1 Run Time 1:09:44 PM C cle: AnipnD 3ayment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 003715 04/24/15 P Costa Mesa Employees Association 0000006284 4,137.65 Line Description: Payroll Deduction Check 1509 003716 04/24/15 P Costa Mesa Executive Club 0000006286 200.00 Line Description: Payroll Deduction Check 1509 003717 04/24/15 P Costa Mesa Firefighters Association 0000001812 5,556.80 Line Description: Payroll Deduction Check 1509 003718 04/24/15 P Costa Mesa Police Association 0000001819 5,460.00 Line Description: Payroll Deduction Check 1509 003719 04/24/15 P Costa Mesa Police Management Assn 0000005082 200.00 Line Description: Payroll Deduction Check 1509 TOTAL $15,554.45 End of Report Report ID: CCM2001V City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 1 CCM VOID CHECK LISTING Run Date Apr 23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 3:01:17 PM Cycle: AWKI Y Payment Ref Cancel Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Date Payment Amt 0181573 04/22/2015 V Ricky Loya 0000022490 07/11/14 (156.00) Line Description: Stale dated check. Void and reissued on 4/24/15. 0181899 04/22/2015 V Ricky Loya 0000022490 07/25/14 (156.00) Line Description: Check returned by vendor. Stale dated check. Void and re -issued on 4124/15. 0182031 04/22/2015 V Ricky Loya 0000022490 08/01/14 (390.00) Line Description: Stale dated check. Void and re -issued on 4/24/15 0182371 04/22/2015 V Ricky Loya 0000022490 08/15/14 (156.00) Line Description: Check returned by vendor_ Stale dated check. Void and re -issued on 4/24/15. TOTAL ($858.00) End of Report Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 1 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Apr 23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 3:00:50 PM Cycle' Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID PaymentAmt 0187940 04/24/15 P Air Treatment Corporation 0000023154 38,279.52 Line Description: Cooling Tower & Valves 0187941 04/24/15 P Clean Street 0000001098 29,659.98 Line Description: Pressure Wash Sidewalk Street Sweeping Svs-Mar 15 Sweeping Sidewalk & Street 0187942 04/24/15 P Copp Contracting Inc 0000015151 18,029.64 Line Description: Retention on Proj #14-03 0187943 04/24/15 P Johnson Favaro LLP 0000023249 34,190.72 Line Description: Library & NCC Proj3/16-4/15/15 0187944 04/24/15 P Tilley Planning Group 0000021428 23,215.00 Line Description: PlanningConsultantSvcs Feb2015 0187945 04/24/15 P Orange County Treasurer Tax Collector 0000003489 37,654.24 Line Description: Radio Repairs CM Mar 2015 2ndQt2015 OCSD/Comm 800Mhz 0187946 04/24/15 P Southern California Edison Company 0000004088 31,571.09 Line Description: 199 Broadway 3/18-0/17115 782 Shalimar 3/11-4/9/15 360 Ogle 3/13-4114/15 350 Bristol 3112-4113115 401 Broadway 3118-4/17115 3191 Red Hill 3/12-4/13/15 Fac & Equip 2/26-3127/15 0187947 04/24/15 P Supenor Pavement Markings Inc 0000003955 28,973.06 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 2 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Apr 23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 3:00:50 PM Cycle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt Line Description: Street Stripping and Pavement 0187948 04/24/15 P West Coast Arborists Inc 0000004498 17,125.00 Line Description: Tree Maint Svcs 3116-3131/15 Tree Planting Prog3/16-3/31/15 0187949 04/24/15 P 1901 Newport LLC 0000002028 350.00 Line Description: Refund Permit #PS12-00126 0187950 04/24/15 P AAA Animal Hospital 0000021235 615.00 Line Description: CMPD Spay/Neuter Prog Supplies 4 Animal Control 0187951 04/24/15 P AAA Electric Motor Sales & Service Inc 0000019861 480.60 Line Description: Sr Cntr Door Air Curtain 0187952 04/24/15 P ARC Imaging Resources 0000021323 179.22 Line Description: Meet n Greet Poster 0187953 04/24/15 P ARCO Business Solutions 0000018562 257,13 Line Description: Fuel 4/1-4/15115 0187954 04/24/15 P AT & T 0000001107 186.87 Line Description: IT Computer Room 317-4/6/15 RMATS Fire Sta#1 3/7-416/15 Cool Line for PD 3/7-4/6/15 Firewall FireSta#1 3/10-4/9115 Wakeham Park 3/10-4/9115 TeWinkle Park 3/7-4/6115 0187955 04/24/15 P AT & T 0000001107 288.89 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 3 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Apr23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 3:00:50 PM C cle: payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt Line Description: Cool Line for PD 4/7-3/6/15 Cool Line for PD 4/7-516/15 0187956 04/24/15 P AT & T Mobility 0000001107 276.53 Line Description: Fire Cell Phone Usage3/12-4/11 0187957 04/24/15 P AY Nursery 0000001142 712.80 Line Description: Plants 4 Poann Bike Trail 0187958 04/24/15 P Aaron Thomas 0000005479 200.00 Line Description: 2014 Service Awards 5/7/15 0187959 04/24/15 P Accountemps 0000006816 2,334.60 Line Description: Temp Svs-Treasury 413/15 Temp Svs-Budget Spcl 413/15 0187960 04/24/15 P Action Awnings Inc 0000023450 350.00 Line Description: Refund PS08-00110 0187961 04/24/15 P Agromin OC ITC 0000021587 564.20 Line Description: Mulch 4 City Properties 0187962 04/24/15 P Alan Smith Pool Plastering Inc 0000020567 350.00 Line Description: Refund PS14-00545 0187963 04/24/15 P Albert Grover & Associates Inc 0000014065 4,128.00 Line Description: TSSP-Baker/Placentia-Feb 15 0187964 04/24/15 P Alma Figueroa 0000023443 200.00 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 4 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Apr 23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 3:00:50 PM C cle: MAW V Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt Line Description: NCC/Library Mtng Translation 0187965 04/24/15 P Amanda Koh 0000011261 75.00 Line Description: 2014 Service Awards 517/15 0187966 04/24/15 P Amtech Elevator Services 0000013616 2,610.34 Line Description: Elevator Maint 411-6/30/15 0187967 04/24/15 P Anaheim Regional Medical Center 0000021276 750.00 Line Descnption: Victim Physical -Case #15-00390 0187968 04/24/15 P Angela Margitan 0000023436 75.00 Line Description: 2014 Service Awards 517/15 0187969 04/24/15 P Anna Dolewski 0000010944 175.00 Line Descnption: 2014 Service Awards 5/7115 0187970 04/24/15 P Anthony Monteleone 0000021339 52.00 Line Description: Softball Umpire 419115 0187971 04/24/15 P AssetWorks Inc 0000020210 9,480.98 Line Description: FleetFocus FA Software Maint 0187972 04/24/15 P AutoZone 0000019364 86.39 Line Description: Freon 0187973 04/24/15 P B & H Photo Video Inc 0000006056 327.46 Line Description: CSI Supplies Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 5 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Apr23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 3:00:50 PM Cycle: 'ayment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 0187974 04/24/15 P Baltazar Mejia 0000023439 175.00 Line Description: 2014 Service Awards 5/7/15 0187975 04/24/15 P Bang Le 0000009383 75.00 Line Description: 2014 Service Awards 5/7/15 0187976 04/24/15 P Bank of America 0000007842 192.87 Line Description: Sbpn Compliance -Records 0187977 04/24/15 P Barron Audio Visual Services 0000021507 45000 Line Description: FP Mtng Audio Svs-Apr 15 0187978 04/24/15 P Bayco 0000023458 360.00 Line Description: Refund PS14-00807 0187979 04/24/15 P Beachwood Construction 0000023451 350.00 Line Description: Refund PS08-00119 0187980 04/24/15 P Brad Kelly 0000023453 350.00 Line Description: Refund PS12-00041 0187981 04/24/15 P Bradford Billington 0000023457 1,983.00 Line Description: Refund PS13-00611 Refund PS14-00707 0187982 04/24/15 P Brenda Green 0000021417 215.98 Line Description: Shredders Purchase Reimb 0187983 04/24/15 P Bruck Canonico 0000023449 350.00 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 6 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Apr 23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 3:00:50 PM C cle: WWI V Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Line Description: Refund PS08-00080 0187984 04/24/15 P Bryan Glass Line Description: Clothing Allowance 2014-15 0187985 04/24/15 P Burger Construction & Property Sys Line Description: Refund PS12-00070 0187986 04/24/15 P CNC Engineering Inc Line Description: Redhill Median Proj-Jan 15 0187987 04/24/15 P CSG Consultants Inc Line Description: Plan Check Svs-Feb 15 0187988 04/24/15 P California Forensic Phlebotomy Inc Line Description: Blood Test Svs-Mar 15 0187989 04/24/15 P Calumet Packaging LLC Line Description: Warehouse Stock 0187990 04/24/15 P Carlos Diaz Line Description: 2014 Service Awards 5/7115 0187991 04/24/15 P Chem Marie Inc Line Description: Laumdry Chemicals 4 Jail 0187992 04/24/15 P Cheryl Wills Line Description: Cell Phone Repair CA Fire Prey Offcr Assc Trng Remit ID Payment Arm 0000002342 500.00 0000023454 350.00 0000008798 1,970.00 0000001887 443.70 0000001500 6,348.00 0000022356 155.40 0000013277 75.00 0000006262 157.90 0000011794 422.40 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 7 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Apr 23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 3:00:50 PM C cle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To 0187993 04/24/15 P Chris Goldsworthy Line Description: 2014 Service Awards 517/15 0187994 04/24/15 P Coastline Development Inc Line Description: Refund PS14-00420 0187995 04/24/15 P Colleen O'Donoghue Line Description: 2014 Service Awards 517/15 0187996 04/24/15 P CompuCom Systems Line Description: Two Copies of Acrobat 0187997 04/24/15 P Connell Chevrolet Line Description: Refund PS06-00589 0187998 04/24/15 P Cooper Floors Inc Line Description: Sr Cntr Frame Planter Boxes 0187999 04/24/15 P CoreLogic Information Solutions Inc Line Description: RealQuest Svs-Mar 15 0188000 04/24/15 P Come Viera Line Description: 2014 Service Awards 5/7/15 0188001 04/24/15 P Cory Gulbranson Line Description: Refund PS12-00595 Remit ID 0000010249 0000009985 0000016258 0000004859 0000001763 0000022860 0000004774 0000019128 0000023456 Payment Amt 75,00 350.00 50.00 533.26 1,500.00 1,800.00 371.25 175.00 sbYixirl Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 8 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Apr 23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 3:00:50 PM C Cle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 0188002 04/24/15 P Costa Mesa Community Run 0000021583 1,340.00 Line Description: Happy Feet-50 Youth/17 Staff 0188003 04/24/15 P County of Orange 0000003473 1,366.24 Line Description: Refuse Disposal@CO-Mar 15 0188004 04/24/15 P Cristando House Inc 0000001872 897.00 Line Description: POST Training 0188005 04/24/15 P Crop Production Services Inc 0000020562 1,096.35 Line Description: Fertilizer TW Lake Colorant 0188006 04/24/15 P Culver Newlin Inc 0000021554 288.36 Line Description: Conference Chair - B. Sales Tax (8.00 % ) 0188007 04/24/15 P Curtis Hazell 0000022028 84.13 Line Description: Standardized Field Sobriety 0188008 04/24/15 P DBAC Inc 0000008370 350.00 Line Descnption: Refund PS11-00330 0188009 04/24/15 P Daniel Guth 0000011586 100.00 Line Description: 2014 Service Awards 5/7/15 0188010 04/24/15 P Daniel lnloes 0000023442 125.00 Line Description: 2015 APA Cent Reg -DI Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 9 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Apr 23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 3:00:50 PM C cle: layment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 0188011 04/24/15 P Daniel Koh 0000023446 500.00 Line Description: Refund PS08-00002 0188012 04/24/15 P David Hollister 0000021620 175.00 Line Description: 2014 Service Awards 5/7/15 0188013 04/24/15 P David Kearley 0000007969 75.00 Line Description: 2014 Service Awards 517115 0188014 04/24/15 P David Sevilla 0000021387 75.00 Line Description: 2014 Service Awards 5/7/15 0188015 04/24/15 P De Lage Landen Financial Svs 0000019172 1,118.58 Line Description: Canon Copiers Rntl-May 15 0188016 04/24/15 P Deborah Zimmerman 0000023438 100.00 Line Description: 2014 Service Awards 5/7115 0188017 04/24/15 P Derek Hembree 0000021319 50.00 Line Description: 2014 Service Awards 517115 0188018 04/24/15 P Dooley Enterprises Inc 0000002026 11,178.00 Line Description: Ammunition Sales Tax (8.00%) 0188019 04/24/15 P E Poly Star Inc 0000001123 10,255.90 Line Description: Warehouse Stock -Can Liner 0188020 04/24/15 P ETIC Environment Engineers 0000018817 500.00 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 10 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Apr23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 3:00:50 PM Cycle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Line Description: Refund PS06-00520 0188021 04/24/15 P Eduardo Avila Line Description: 2014 Service Awards 5/7/15 0188022 04/24/15 P Eliasar Maldonado Line Description: 2014 Service Awards 5/7115 0188023 04/24/15 P Emercon Construction Inc Line Description: Refund PS08-00050 0188024 04/24/15 P Entenmann Rovin Company Line Description: Badges Badge Refinishing Reirement Badges Retirement Badges 0188025 04/24/15 P Enterprise Rent A Car Line Description: Undercover Cars Undercover Cars Undercover Cars Undercover Cars Undercover Cars Undercover Cars Undercover Cars 0188026 04/24/15 P Erick Lund Line Description: 2014 Service Awards 5/7115 0188027 04/24/15 P Erika Smith Line Description: 2014 Service Awards 517115 Remit ID 0000012864 0000016255 0000023447 0000002130 0000002131 0000023434 0000014277 Payment Amt 6111111 50.00 350.00 1,356.56 6,57720 50.00 50.00 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 11 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Apr 23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 3:00:50 PM Cycle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To 0188028 04/24/15 P Ernesto A Munoz Line Description: 2014 Service Awards 517115 0188029 04/24/15 P Ernie Gomez Line Description: Softball Umpire 4/8-4/14/15 0188030 04/24/15 P Fariba Fazeli Line Description: 2014 Service Awards 51`7/15 0188031 04/24/15 P Fastenal Company Line Description: Warehouse Stock 0188032 04/24/15 P Fed Ex Corp Line Description: Ground Delivery 0188033 04/24/15 P File Keepers LLC Line Description: Records Destruction -Mar 15 0188034 04/24/15 P Firestone Line Description: Warehouse Stock -Tires 0188035 04/24/15 P Five Star Talent Line Description: 2015 Concerts @ Pk Deposit 0188036 04/24/15 P Flexcon Corporation Line Description: Plastic Storage Bin Parts Sales Tax (8.00%) Shipping Fee Remit ID Payment Arm 0000003261 100.00 0000023266 104.00 0000023437 75.00 0000011159 688.02 0000002190 37.75 0000022380 95.00 0000011366 102.44 0000021423 3,800.00 0000023162 8,901.96 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 12 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Apr 23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 3:00:50 PM Cycle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 0188037 04/24/15 P Gant Corum 0000015099 50.00 Line Description: 2014 Service Awards 5/7/15 0188038 04/24/15 P Gary Lilly 0000016366 50.00 Line Description: 2014 Service Awards 5/7/15 0188039 04/24/15 P Gary Mayeda 0000023445 500.00 Line Description: Refund PS07-00011 0188040 04/24/15 P General Data Company 0000023334 110.33 Line Description: Printer Repair 0188041 04/24/15 P George Rbrina 0000023448 350.00 Line Description: Refund PS08-00062 0188042 04/24/15 P Government Staffing Services Inc 0000022422 4,345.00 Line Description: Temp Proj Mgr 3/23A/3/15 0188043 04/24/15 P Grainger 0000002393 678.56 Line Description: Light Relay-FS 92 Pulley 4 PD Compressor label Tape 0188044 04/24/15 P Granicus Inc 0000015382 4,650.00 Line Description: Encoding Appliance 411-6/30/15 Web Streaming Svs 411-6/30115 0188045 04/24/15 P Hanks Electrical Supplies 0000002445 2,431.51 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 13 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Apr 23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 3:00:50 PM Cycle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Line Description: Security Lt @ FS #6 Light Bulbs 4 Jail Light Fixtures @ Tennis Cntr LED Dimmer-JCity Hall 3rd FL Light Timer 4 Sr Cntr LED Lights 4 FS #6 Exterior App Bay Exterior Lt@FS #6 Light Bulb 4 PD 0188046 04/24/15 P Hi Way Safety Inc Line Description: Traffic Sign Parts 0188047 04/24/15 P Hireright Inc Line Description: Background Check Applications 0188048 04/24/15 P House of Yogurt Line Description: Refund PS08-00122 0188049 04/24/15 P Hua Yang Line Description: 2014 Service Awards 5/7/15 0188050 04/24/15 P Huntington Beach Honda Line Description: Motorcycle Reapn-#632 Motorcycle Repair-#623 0188051 04/24/15 P International Code Council Inc Line Description: 2015 Mbrshp-#0143800 0188052 04/24/15 P Interstate Batteries of California Coast Line Description: Batteries Batteries Remit ID OPPI�PI�Yb9k! 0000021348 DIQ�I4�➢R_6Y5 0000009182 0000019158 0000011842 UPIlUb➢Ylrigiv Payment Amt 29722 107.25 350.00 75.00 1,746.43 Pznlraa 417.98 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 14 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Apr 23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 3:00:50 PM Cycle' Payment Ref Date Status Remit To 0188053 04/24/15 P Irma Moller Line Description: Refund PS12-00123 0188054 04/24/15 P Irvine Pipe & Supply Inc Line Description: PO Main C/W Repair Supplies Cr 4 Rtnd Item [voice #782781 PD Main C1W Repair Supplies 0188055 04/24/15 P Irvine Ranch Water District Line Description: 170 Del Mar 316-417/15 2603 Elden 3/5-4/8/15 261 Monte Vista 3/54/7/15 220 23rd 3/54/7/15 258 Brentwood 3/5417/15 0188056 04/24/15 P JD Lock & Key Line Description: Duplicate Keys 0188057 04/24/15 P Jays Designated Operator Services Line Descrption: Fuel Tank Repairs Designated Operator Svs-Mar15 Fuel Tank Service Annual Monitor CERT @ FS #3 0188058 04/24/15 P Jennifer Ruffalo Line Description: 2014 Service Awards 5/7115 0188059 04/24/15 P Jeremy Jimenez Line Description: Natl Reg of Emgncy Me Tech Remit ID Payment Amt 0000023455 175.00 0000002711 1,103.54 0000005112 701.67 0000005930 502.20 0000022328 3,136.25 0000021381 50.00 0000020048 110.00 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 15 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Apr 23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 3:00:50 PM Cycle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To 0188060 04/24/15 P Jerry Souza Line Description: 2014 Service Awards 5/7115 0188061 04/24/15 P Jian Liu Line Description: 2014 Service Awards 5/7/15 0188062 04/24/15 P John Glasgow Line Description: Paramedic License Re-Cert Reg-CE Solutions 12/9/14 0188063 04/24/15 P John Heunemann Line Description: 2014 Service Awards 5/7115 0188064 04/24/15 P John Lembeck Line Description: Refund PS06-00132 0188065 04/24/15 P Jon Doezie Line Description: 2014 Service Awards 5/7/15 0188066 04/24/15 P Jonathan Smith Line Descrption: 2014 Service Awards 5/7115 0188067 04/24/15 P Joshua Kuo Line Description: 2014 Service Awards 517115 0188068 04/24/15 P KME Fire Apparatus Line Description: Water Monitor Parts-#527 Gasket/Retaining Ring-#527 Remit ID 0000004109 ffUDD1118=1 i 111110I6I11-T-fb7 0000015992 0000011762 0000009385 0000023435 0000010901 0000002849 Payment Amt 100.00 50.00 M010141 50.00 350.00 75.00 50.00 75.00 416.23 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 16 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Apr 23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 3:00:50 PM C cle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 0188069 04/24/15 P Kelly Paper 0000014703 40775 Line Description: Paper Panting Paper 4 Council Chamber 0188070 04/24/15 P Kelly Shelton 0000021351 50.00 Line Description: 2014 Service Awards 51`I/15 0188071 04/24/15 P Kevin Vail 0000023400 92.00 Line Description: Basketball Referee 4120115 0188072 04/24/15 P Keystone Uniforms OC 0000022280 4,569.85 Line Description: Uniform -Horner Uniform-Guluzian Uniform-Chiguano Uniform-Alegado Uniform -Foster Uniform -Meng Uniform -Ramos Chaplain Jackets Uniform -Ramos Uniform-Alegado Uniform -Chavez Uniform-Bao Uniform-Kuo Uniform-Chiguano Uniform -Soto Uniform-Servin Uniform -Castillo 0188073 04/24/15 P Knorr Systems Inc 0000005036 639.56 Line Description: CO for DRC Pool CO2 for DRC Pool Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 17 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Apr 23 2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 3:00:50 PM Cycle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Arm 0188074 04/24/15 P LN Curtis & Sons 0000002983 5,129.92 Line Description: Multipod Leg Pulley Wheel Shipping Fee Tripod Sales Tax (8.00%) 0188075 04/24/15 P Lance Nakamoto 0000003280 175.00 Line Description: 2014 Service Awards 517115 0188076 04/24/15 P Lawrence P Shield 0000017089 130.00 Line Description: Softball Umpire 417-4/8/15 0188077 04/24/15 P Leo Arnold 0000022194 1,000.00 Line Description: Background Investigation Sores 0188078 04/24/15 P Lidian Estecoc 0000020283 50.00 Line Description: 2014 Service Awards 5/7115 0188079 04/24/15 P Lidian Estecoc 0000020283 57.18 Line Description: Public Records Act Trng 4/8-9 0188080 04/24/15 P Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 0000002960 55.00 Line Description: Post Retirement Webinar-LC 0188081 04/24/15 P Los Angeles Times 0000003000 599.57 Line Description: Legal Notices for City Clerk Ad 4 FP Citizens Advisory Comm 0188082 04/24/15 P Maria Duarte 0000023424 50.00 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 18 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Apr 23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 3:00:50 PM Cycle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Line Description: 2014 Service Awards 517/15 0188083 04/24/15 P Marian Stueve Line Description: 2014 Service Awards 517/15 0188084 04/24/15 P Marjorie Jacobs Line Description: Refund Permit #PS14-00641 0188085 04/24/15 P Mark M Manley Line Description: 2014 Service Awards 517/15 0188086 04/24/15 P Martha Rosales Line Description: 2014 Service Awards 5/7/l5 0188087 04/24/15 P Martin & Chapman Company Line Description: Paper 4 Minutes,Resolutions,Or 0188088 04/24/15 P Mary Wright Line Description: 2014 Service Awards 5/7115 0188089 04/24/15 P Matthew Andersen Line Description: 2014 Service Awards 517/15 0188090 04/24/15 P Matthew Pallo Line Description: 2014 Service Awards 517115 0188091 04/24/15 P McMurray & Stern Inc Line Description: Tab Expansion Pockets Remit ID Payment Amt 0000003509 50.00 0000023428 350.00 0000003047 100-00 0000014540 50.00 0000003065 196.84 0000022077 50-00 0000019955 50.00 0000002424 50.00 0000012514 254.50 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 19 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Apr 23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 3:00:50 PM Cycle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To 0188092 04/24/15 P Mear Construction Inc Line Description: Painting Svs at DRC 0188093 04/24/15 P Mel Lee Line Description: 2014 Service Awards 5/7115 0188094 04/24/15 P Melynda Shank Line Description: 2014 Service Awards 517/15 0188095 04/24/15 P Mesa Consolidated Water District Line Description: 3191 112 Airport 2/104/13/15 1595 1/2 Newport 2/114114/15 1741 Superior 2/114114/15 31871/2 Redhill 2/104/14/15 0188096 04/24/15 P Mesa Smog Line Description: Smog Inspection for Unit #085 Smog Inspection for Unit #600 Smog Inspection for Unit #745 0188097 04/24/15 P Metro Car Wash Line Description: Car Washes & Special Svcs-PD Car Washes & Special Svcs -City 0188098 04/24/15 P Michael D Manson Line Description: 2014 Service Awards 5/7115 0188099 04/24/15 P Midorl Gardens Inc Line Description: Landscaping Services Mar 2015 Bldg Mod-Harbor/Victoria Proj Remit ID 0000023064 0000010320 0000023425 0000003144 0000020735 0000003155 0000005311 0000017059 Payment Amt 1,495.00 75.00 50.00 1,455.30 125.25 1,277.25 100.00 2,776.38 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 20 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Apr 23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 3:00:50 PM Cycle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To 0188100 04/24/15 P Mobile Home Improvement Line Description: SFHRG-1684 Whittier#34-Larsen 0188101 04/24/15 P Motorola Line Description: Cell Pack Assembly 0188102 04/24/15 P Mouse Graphics Line Description: Copies-Bear/Yukon ImgatnPlns Copies-DRC Plant Palette Copies -Coolidge Plant Palette Copies -Harbor Monument Sign 0188103 04/24/15 P Municipal Code Corporation Line Description: Update & Hosting of Municipal 0188104 04/24/15 P National Safety Compliance Inc Line Description: Random Drug & Alcohol Testing 0188105 04/24/15 P Nic Faure Line Description: Refund Permit #ZA-15-003 0188106 04/24/15 P O Neil Storage Line Description: HR Record Storage -Mar 2015 0188107 04/24/15 P Occu Med Line Description: Pre -Employment Exam Evaluation 0188108 04/24/15 P Orange Coast Trailer Supply Inc Line Description: Propane Fuel for Unit #311 Propane Fuel for Unit #311 Remit ID 0000015213 0000003246 0000001170 0000003257 0000020714 0000022483 PDDUByEYtgb7 0000003388 111TIAIIIQIR_EY1 Payment Amt 7,960.00 459.58 85.48 158.56 549.42 111114116116P1 111OWN3 3,111.00 916.37 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 21 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Apr 23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 3:00:50 PM Cycle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt Line Description: Propane Fuel for Unit #189 Propane Fuel for Unit #340 Propane Fuel for Unit #311 Jack for Fleet Services Propane Fuel for Unit #340 Propane Fuel for Unit #189 0188109 04/24/15 P Orange County Humane Society 0000003442 6,250.00 Line Description: Kennel Fees for March 2015 0188110 04/24/15 P Orange County Treasurer Tax Collector 0000003489 1,734.23 Line Description: Printing Charges March 2015 0188111 04/24/15 P Pacific Coast Builders Inc 0000010372 350.00 Line Description: Refund Permit #PSO8-00105 0188112 04/24/15 P Pacific Typewriter & Communications Inc 0000003529 287.10 Line Description: Dept Typewriter Maint 2ndPymnt 0188113 04/24/15 p Par Flectrical Contractors Inc 0000012704 800.00 Line Description: Refund Permit #PS06-00415 0188114 04/24/15 P Paul Beckman 0000005998 100.00 Line Description: 2014 Service Awards 517115 0188115 04/24/15 P Paul Beckman 0000005998 500.00 Line Description: Clothing Allowance Reimb 14-15 0188116 04/24/15 P Philip C Price 0000021846 130.00 Line Description: Softball Umpire 4/10-4/17115 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 22 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Apr 23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 3:00:50 PM C cle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 0188117 04/24/15 P Phyllis Schiel 0000023427 75.00 Line Description: 2014 Service Awards 5/7/15 0188118 04/24/15 P Place Works Inc 0000023119 9,396.35 Line Description: Initial Study/Mitigated Neg De 0188119 04/24/15 P Polyline LLC 0000023441 256.96 Line Description: Blank DVDs 0188120 04/24/15 P Power Products Unlimited Inc 0000021904 771.04 Line Description: Batteries for Portable Radios 0188121 04/24/15 P Praxair 0000003672 2,059.15 Line Description: Plasma Machine Torch Sales Tax (8.00 % ) Welding Supplies 4 Fleet 0188122 04/24/15 P Quentin W McKenzie 0000011175 9200. Line Description: Basketball Referee 420/15 0188123 04/24/15 P RMRC LLC 0000021632 784.08 Line Description: Ball Caps for PD 0188124 04/24/15 P Rahat LLC 0000023429 500.00 Line Description: Refund Permit #PS12-00039 0188125 04/24/15 P Rand Foster 0000010791 130.00 Line Description: Softball Umpire 416-4/13/15 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 23 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Apr23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 3:00:50 PM C cle: 'ayment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 0188126 04/24/15 P Replacement Benefit Fund 0000001086 2,920.05 Line Description: 2015 Replacment Charge -Wiley 0188127 04/24/15 P Richard Chemey 0000023426 50.00 Line Description: 2014 Service Awards 5/7115 0188128 04/24/15 P Richard Vehis 0000023430 750.00 Line Description: Refund Permit#PS07-00510 0188129 04/24/15 P Ricky Loya 0000022490 2,236.00 Line Description: Softball Umpire 6119-6/26114 Softball Umpire 6119-6/26/14 Softball Umpire 6/5-6112/14 Softball Umpire 5122-5/29/14 Softball Umpire 518114 Softball Umpire 4/17-511/14 Softball Umpire 413114 Softball Umpire 3/6114 Softball Umpire 3128/14 Softball Umpire 4/12/15 Softball Umpire 3/29115 Softball Umpire 3/22/15 Softball Umpire 3/18115 Softball Umpire 3/15/15 Softball Umpire 3/8115 Softball Umpire Softball Umpire Softball Umpire 7115-7/24/14 Softball Umpire 7115-7/24/14 Softball Umpire 7/31-817114 Softball Umpire 7/31-817/14 0188130 04/24/15 P Rincon Truck Center Inc 0000013236 619.52 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 24 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Apr 23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 3:00:50 PM Cycle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Line Description: Brake Chamber for Unit #514 Hose Adaptor for Shop Stock Credit for Core Returns Air Springs for Unit #514 0188131 04/24/15 P Robert Leyva Construction Line Description: Refund Permit #PS12-00268 0188132 04/24/15 P Robert Sharpnack Line Description: 2014 Service Awards 5/7/15 0188133 04/24/15 P Roto Rooter Service & Plumbing Company Line Description: FS#1 Water Heater Leak Repair 0188134 04/24/15 P Sam Socher Line Description: Refund Permit #PS12-00074 0188135 04/24/15 P Sandra M Lozano Line Description: 2014 Service Awards 5/7115 0188136 04/24/15 P Sandra M Lozano Line Description: Exps 4 SoCal SunGard User Mtg 0188137 04/24/15 P Santa Margarita Ford Line Description: Engine Repair -Unit #771 0188138 04/24/15 P Scott Fazekas & Associates Inc Line Description: Building Plan Check & Inspectn Remit ID 0000020402 0000004004 t1111611D111EIGN RAIIUP-VAY1911 0000017494 :Q�RDb➢rL4Z! 0000022708 0000003961 Payment Amt 350.00 100.00 715.08 350.00 50.00 57.62 3,245A 8 3,195.98 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 25 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Apr 23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 3:00:50 PM Cycle: 41411<1 Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 0188139 04/24/15 P Scott Fenton 0000019995 50.00 Line Description: 2014 Service Awards 517/15 0188140 04/24/15 P Shoe City 0000023432 500.00 Line Description: Refund Permit #PS11-00207 0188141 04/24/15 P Skanska 0000000749 500.00 Line Description: Refund Permit#PS08-00099 0188142 04/24/15 P Skypark Investment Inc 0000023364 350.00 Line Description: Refund Permit #PS14-00286 0188143 04/24/15 P Southern California Edison Company 0000004695 1,278.00 Line Description: Gisler PK Lease 511/15-4/30/16 0188144 04/24/15 P Southern California Gas Company 0000004092 153.24 Line Description: CNG Fuel 3/1-4/1115 CNG Fuel 3/1-411115 0188145 04/24/15 P Sparkletts _ 0000015725 26.44 Line Description: Water Service for Fire 0188146 04/24/15 P Spectrum Gas Products 0000012653 71.95 Line Description: Hydrotesting-FS#4 0188147 04/24/15 P State of California Dept of Justice 0000001534 539.00 Line Description: Fingerprint Apps for Mar 2015 0188148 04/24/15 P Steve Clever 0000010800 104.00 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 26 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Apr23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 3:00:50 PM C cle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt Line Description: Softball Umpire 418-4/9115 0188149 04/24/15 P Steven M Polito 0000023337 297.53 Line Description: Subpoena Dep Rfnd 001-00267766 Subpoena Dep Rfnd 001-00267766 0188150 04/24/15 P Studio Development LLC 0000023433 500.00 Line Description: Refund Permit#PS08-00015 0188151 04/24/15 P Supply Technology Inc 0000012571 72.50 Line Description: Office Phone 4 Dev Srvcs 0188152 04/24/15 P Surfas Inc 0000023303 12,558.36 Line Description: Caster Set Reach -In Freezer - Reach -In Refrigerator Sales Tax (8.00%) Delivery Fee Sales Tax (8.00%) Reach -In Refrigerator Reach -In Freezer Work Table 0188153 04/24/15 P Tammy Sack 0000014478 50.00 Line Description: 2014 Service Awards 5/7/15 0188154 04/24/15 P Tandem Exhibits 0000023335 5,800.00 Line Description: Completion of City Promo Booth 0188155 04/24/15 P Target Specialty Products Inc 0000004218 996,39 Line Description: Lake Colorant 4 TeWinkle Lakes Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 27 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Apr23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 3:00:50 PM C cle: payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 0188156 04/24/15 P Terry Mullins 0000022570 85.00 Line Description: Sr Center Monthly Birthdays 0188157 04/24/15 P Tetras Construction 0000021800 700.00 Line Description: Refund Permit #PS11-00453 Refund Permit #PS14-00821 0188158 04/24/15 P The Awning Company Inc 0000023212 2,061.00 Line Description: Re-Cover/Refurbish Sunbrella A Shipping Fee Sales Tax (8.00 % ) 0188159 04/24/15 P The Home Depot Credit Services 0000002560 7,249.98 Line Description: Misc Purchases for Mar 2015 0188160 04/24/15 P Theodore Robins Ford 0000004245 1,064.48 Line Description: Suspension Parts for Unit#775 Gaskets & Seal for Unit#055 Wheel Cover for Unit#126 Motor for Unit#705 Bumper, Touch-up Paint-4502 0188161 04/24/15 P Theodore Robins Ford 0000004245 2,61721 Line Description: Body Repair/Paint for Unit#719 Body Painting for Unit#741 0188162 04/24/15 P Thomas Gardner 0000014967 50.00 Line Description: 2014 Service Awards 517/15 0188163 04/24/15 P Thomson Reuters 0000022223 246.44 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 28 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Apr23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 3:00:50 PM Cycle, AWKI Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Line Description: Clear Svcs Subscriptn Mar 2015 0188164 04/24/15 P Time Warner Cable Line Description: Internet Services 4/18-5117/15 Internet Services 4 Sr Center Internet Services 4/18-5/17/15 0188165 04/24/15 P Todd Williams Line Description: 2014 Service Awards 5/7115 0188166 04/24/15 P Tot Lot Pros Inc Line Description: Playground Slide Installation 0188167 04/24/15 P Traffic Development Services Inc Line Description: Construction Contract #13-10 Retentions Payable Proj 413-10 0188168 04/24/15 P Trendway Corporation Line Description: Sales Tax (8.00%) Senior Center Furniture 0188169 04/24/15 P US Identification Manual Line Description: Subscription Rnwl Thru Jun2016 0188170 04/24/15 P USI Inc Line Description: Plotter Paper 4 Posters/Bannrs 0188171 04/24/15 P Uline Line Description: Gloves for CS] Remit ID Payment Amt 0000011202 1,332.30 0000011564 100.00 0000004265 1,800.00 0000022311 8,478.75 0000023140 1,934.42 0000004374 89.92 0000005890 332.91 0000010970 826.07 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 29 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Apr23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 3:00:50 PM C cle: 'ayment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 0188172 04/24/15 P United States Treasury 0000007179 4,550.00 Line Description: FP Survey -Pacific Ave 3125115 Wetland Monitonng-1st Qtr FP Survey-3125/15 Misc Exp @ FP 0188173 04/24/15 P Urban Arena 0000011561 500.00 Line Description: Refund Permit #PS06-00413 0188174 04/24/15 P V & V Manufacturing Inc 0000009249 64.05 Line Description: Badge Refinishing 0188175 04/24/15 P V Corp Contracting Services 0000000639 350.00 Line Description: Refund Permit #PS12-00084 0188176 04/24/15 P Venzon Wireless 0000008717 3,364.49 Line Description: Broadband Srvcs 2/24-3123/15 0188177 04/24/15 P Vulcan Materials Company 0000007403 400.90 Line Description: Asphalt for Patching Potholes Asphalt for Patching Potholes Asphalt for Patching Potholes 0188178 04/24/15 P Walters Wholesale Electric Co 0000011706 47.97 Line Description: PD Ballast 4 Worriers Restroom 0188179 04/24/15 P Waxie Sanitary Supply 0000004480 2,729.61 Line Description: Supplies for Senior Center Supplies for Senior Center Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 30 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Apr 23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 3:00:50 PM C cle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 0188180 04/24/15 P Wayne Ritchie 0000022963 182.00 Line Description: Softball Umpire 4/74114/15 0188131 04/24/15 P Westates 0000004505 10.35 Line Description: Name Plate for PD Communicatns 0188182 04/24/15 P Western Oil Spreading Services Inc 0000014062 282.96 Line Description: Emulsion -Asphalt Glue 0188183 04/24/15 P Yellow Cab Cc 0000021749 382.00 Line Description: NIFT Transportation Svcs3/3-28 0188184 04/24/15 P Yolanda Macias 0000016958 50.00 Line Description: 2014 Service Awards 517115 0188185 04/24/15 P Zachary Hofentza 0000002548 175.00 Line Description: 2014 Service Awards 5/7/15 TOTAL $520,332.93 End of Report Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 1 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Apr 23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 3:01,48 PM C cle: Anav Payment Ref Date Status Remit To 0188186 04/24/15 P CaIPERS Long -Term Care Program Line Description: Payroll Deduction Check 1509 0188187 04/24/15 P Carrie Beatteay Line Description: Payroll Deduction Check 1509 0188188 04/24/15 P Community Health Charities Line Description: Payroll Deduction Check 1509 0188189 04/24/15 P State of California Line Description: Payroll Deduction Check 1509 0188190 04/24/15 P State of California Line Description: Payroll Deduction Check 1509 0188191 04/24/15 P State of California Line Description: Payroll Deduction Check 1509 0188192 04/24/15 P Tamra Williams Line Description: Payroll Deduction Check 1509 0188193 04/24/15 P Treasurer of Virginia Line Description: Payroll Deduction Check 1509 0188194 04/24/15 P United States Treasury Line Description: Payroll Deduction Check 1509 Remit ID 0000006287 0000023012 11D11bI6DSi1r&1 DPDPUPibYi: f6AI011116D11 BER bDPDPZ�Sl. [�➢UDI�DYb'Lfl 0000014648 Payment Amt 189.40 369.24 10-00 185.00 85.00 254.00 1,350.92 0000015556 85.38 TOTAL $2,792.44 End of Report CC-3 ADDITIONAL DOCS Payment Date Remittance to: Remittance Payment Explanation of payment Ref. ID: Amount 0188143 4/24/15 Southern California 4695 $1,278.00 What part of Gisler do we lease? Edison Company The annual lease payment to SCE for the use of 1.5 acres that make up the western % of Gisler Park. This has been in place for over 16 years. 0188152 4/24/15 Surfas Inc 23303 $12,558.36 Did we compare prices here? Yes. Finance went through a bid process and obtained three competitive bids. This price was for 4 units and commercial stainless steel tables. Commercial refrigerator and commercial freezer for Jack Hammett Sports Complex and TeWinkle Sports Complex city snack bars. 0188172 4/24/15 United States 7179 $4,550.00 What was this for? Fairview Park Treasury What did they do for us? The IRS has impounded Endemic's accounts and all payments are going to the IRS. The work that we paid for is for Fairview Park and includes the last quarterly monitoring ($2,000) and report ($2,000) for the Wetlands and Riparian Habitat Restoration Project, Phase II; two nest surveys at $150 Each (one for the north end of the park south of swan Drive and one for the south end of the park east and west of Pacific Avenue) for tree trimming and maintenance; and $250 for weed removal and disposal. 000907 4/17/15 Quick Crete 7039 $4,233.60 How many and where? Products Corp Inc Various locations throughout the City. New trash can liners and metal lids for decorative trash receptacles were purchased for several bus stops that were the source of numerous complaints from the public recently. These items are proprietary; they are made by Quick Crete to fit the product line of trash receptacles we use at bus stops. 20 lids @ $130 20 liners @ $66 0187912 4/17/15 Stotz Equipment 23211 $13,239.72 How many rakes? Why so expensive? The $13, 239.72 payment is for the purchase of a John Deere bunker and field rake machine. This specialty equipment is a motorized self-contained work horse that has all the features necessary to prepare baseball and softball fields for play. City staff typically complete over 1,400 ballfield preparations annually with the existing machine. WARRANT RESOLUTION NO. 2535 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS, INCLUDING PAYROLL REGISTER NOS. 15-08 "A" FOR $277.01 AND 15-09 FOR $2,028,319.76; AND CITY OPERATING EXPENSES FOR $1,457,120.65, AND SPECIFYING THE FUNDS OUT OF WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the attached claims and demands have been audited as required by law and that the same are hereby allowed in the amounts, and the payments made are hereby ratified. SECTION 2. That the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this warrant resolution and shall deliver a copy thereof to the City Treasurer/City Director of Finance, and shall retain a certified copy thereof in the City records in the Office of the City Clerk. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5ch day of May, 2015. ATTEST: BRENDA GREEN CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss CITY OF COSTA MESA STEP M. MENSINGER MAYOR I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is the original of Warrant Resolution No. 2535 and was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa at a regular meeting held on the 51h day of May, 2015, by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: FOLEY, GENIS, MONAHAN, RIGHEIMER, MENSINGER NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 6`h day of May, 2015. &'wA -4 ,&"`_ BRENDA GREEN, UITY CLERK Cl T Y COUNCIL A GENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: MAY 5, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: CC-4 SUBJECT: 2014-2015 WESTSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKWAY CONCRETE REPAIR PROJECT - CITY PROJECT NO. 15-01 DATE: APRIL 23, 2015 FROM: PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT / ENGINEERING DIVISION PRESENTATION BY: ERNESTO MUNOZ, PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT RECOMMENDATION: FARIBA FAZELI, CITY ENGINEER, (714) 754-5335 1. Adopt plans, specifications, and working details for the 2014-2015 Westside Neighborhood Parkway Concrete Repair Project - City Project No. 15-01. 2. Award a construction contract to Global Power Group, Inc., 10260 Woodside Avenue, Lakeside, CA, 92040 in the amount of $759,358.70. 3. Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Public Works Agreement. BACKGROUND: The 2014-2015 Street Maintenance Project consists of three distinct phases of work: Phase 1: Parkway and Concrete Repair Project — includes localized repair of damaged curb, gutter, sidewalk, cross -gutters, driveways, and new sidewalk construction. Phase 2: Street Rehabilitation Project — includes asphalt concrete mill and overlay of the roadway. Phase 3: Slurry Seal Project — includes application of a surface coating and sealing of the roadway. Concrete improvements located within the City's parkways and streets require ongoing repair and maintenance due to age, maturing trees, soil conditions, water intrusion, and traffic loads. This contract is part of the Parkway Improvement Phase of the work. The locations identified for repair are prioritized based on pedestrian and handicap traffic and the severity of the damage. The list of parkway improvement locations within the scope of work of this contract is included as Attachment 1". The scope of work under this contract consists of localized reconstruction of curb and gutter; cross gutter and spandrels; sidewalks; driveway/driveway approach; and other work needed to complete the project in accordance with the contract documents. 1 ANALYSIS: The overall scope of the 2014-2015 Street Maintenance Project includes the removal and reconstruction of damaged pavement sections, milling and overlaying with new asphalt, and reconstruction of damaged parkway improvements over the project limits. Part of the work also includes the application of a slurry seal pavement coating, and the replacement of traffic markings, striping, and traffic control. The scope of this contract covers the reconstruction of damaged parkway improvements over the project limits in coordination with the Parkway and Concrete Repair phasing of the work. The contractor is required to complete all of the tasks necessary to perform the work as outlined in the contract documents. The City Clerk received and opened fourteen (14) bids for this project on February 17, 2015. Global Power Group, Inc. was the apparent low -bidder with a bid proposal of $759,358.70. The Engineer's estimate was $803,450.00; and the average of fourteen (14) bids received amounted to $1,019,834.88. An analysis of the bids indicates that this apparent low bidder submitted a proposal that is approximately five percent (5%) lower than the Engineer's estimate. The variance between the low bidder and the Engineer's estimate may be attributed to the highly competitive conditions prevalent in the construction industry at this time. The Bid Abstract is included as Attachment "2". The license and references of Global Power Group, Inc., were checked and staff has found them to be in good standing. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: The alternative to this Council action would be to reject all of the bids and rebid the project. If the bids are rejected, the City would need to cancel this project. Staff believes that re -advertising and rebidding the project will not result in lower bids. Canceling the project is not recommended because the identified locations are in immediate need of the proposed maintenance work. FISCAL REVIEW: Funding for this project has been budgeted with the use of Gas Tax funds and Capital Improvement Funds. LEGAL REVIEW: Global Power Group, Inc. has furnished approved as to form by the City Attorney. contract, a "Notice to Proceed" will be issued. CONCLUSION: the necessary bonds and insurance, which were After the award and subsequent execution of the The City has received bids for the 2014-2015 Westside Neighborhood Parkway Concrete Repair Project (Zone #1), City Project No. 15-01. Staff has evaluated all of the bids and recommends that the City Council adopt the plans, specifications, and working details for said project; award a contract to the apparent low bidder Global Power Group, Inc. in the amount of $759,358.70; and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Public Works Agreement. E ERNESTO MUNOZ Public Services Director ATTACHMENTS: "1" Parkway Locations Bid "2" Abstract DISTRIBUTION: Chief Executive Officer City Attorney City Clerk Staff File FARIBA FAZELI City Engineer ATTACHMENT 1 h CITY OF COSTA MESA N.T.S. Public Services/Engineering 2014-2015 PARKWAY CONCRETE REPAIR PROJECT (ZONE #1) LOCATION MAP PROPOSED PARKWAY IMPROVEMENTS ATTACHMENT CITY OF COSTA MESA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES 2014-2015 WESTSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKWAY CONCRETE REPAIR PROJECT (ZONE #1) CITY PROJECT NO. 15-01 BID OPENING RESULTS: FEBRUARY 17, 2015 Bidder city Total Base Bid 1. GLOBAL POWER GROUP, INC Lakeside $759,358.00 1. PUB CONSTRUCTION, INC Diamond Bar $778,690.00 2. CJ CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION Santa Fe Springs $783,227.50 3. CLS CONSTRUCTION Grand Terrace $845,670.00 4. BLACK ROCK CONSTRUCTION Brea $870,327.00 5. RUIZ CONCRETE & PAVING Long Beach $885,835.10 6. EBS Corona $1,030,840.00 7. UNIQUE PERFORMANCE CONSTRUCTION Anaheim $1,049, 640.00 8. S. PARKER ENGINEERING Costa Mesa $1,060,325.50 9. VIDO SAMARZICH Alta Loma $1,117,270.00 10. ALL AMERICAN ASPHALT Corona $1,169,169.00 11. A.M. CONCRETE, INC. Sylmar $1,214,500.00 12. HARDY & HARPER Corona $1,342,010.00 13. NOBEST, INC. Garden Grove $1,370,825.00 Average $1,019,834.79 Engineer's Estimate $803,450.00 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COSTA MESA CITY COUNCIL, AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING April 21, 2015 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by the Mayor Pro Tern at 5:02 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Costa Mesa City Hall, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, California. ROLL CALL Council Members Present: Mayor Mensinger (Arrived 5:10 p.m.), Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer, Council Member Foley (Arrived 5:06 p.m.), Council Member Genis, and Council Member Monahan Council Members Absent: None PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS — NONE CLOSED SESSION The City Council recessed into Closed Session at 5:04 p.m. to consider the following items: 1. Conference with legal counsel regarding existing litigation: City of Costa Mesa, et al v. Michael Cohen, et al, Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34- 2013-80001675, pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9(a). 2. Conference with legal counsel regarding existing litigation: City of Costa Mesa, a municipal corporation, et al., v. Civic Center Barrio Housing, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2014-00715552-CU-BC-CJC, pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9(a). 3. Conference with legal counsel regarding existing litigation: Myra Bailey v. City of Costa Mesa, a municipal corporation, et al, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2013-00676207, pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9(a). 4. Conference with legal counsel regarding existing litigation: Costa Mesa City Employees Association (CMCEA) v. City of Costa Mesa, a municipal corporation, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2011 00475281, pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9(a). The City Council reconvened at 5:56 p.m. Minutes — Regular Meeting — April 21, 2015 - Page 1 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by the Mayor at 5:56 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Costa Mesa City Hall, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, California. CALL TO ORDER (00:00:10) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (00:00:22) — Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer MOMENT OF SOLEMN EXPRESSION (00:00:49) Reverend Julie Elkins, First United Methodist Church of Costa Mesa ROLL CALL (00:02:52) Present: Council Member Foley, Council Member Genis, Council Member Monahan, Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer, Mayor Mensinger Absent: None Officials Present: Chief Executive Officer Thomas R. Hatch, City Attorney Thomas Duarte, Assistant Chief Executive Officer Rick Francis, Economic and Development Services Director Gary Armstrong, Public Services Director Ernesto Munoz, and City Clerk Brenda Green. CITY ATTORNEY CLOSED SESSION REPORT (00:03:04) — NONE • COIN: Ex Parte Communications pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2-238 (b) — None ANNOUNCEMENTS (00:03:13) "Costa Mesa Minute" was played featuring upcoming events and activities in the community. PRESENTATIONS (00:05:34) Karen McGlinn, CEO of the non-profit organization Share Our Selves (SOS), received the Mayor's Award. PUBLIC COMMENTS (00:15:12) Tom Pollitt, Costa Mesa, thanked Council on legal efforts regarding the Sober Living Homes; spoke in opposition to Smart Balance Assessment Tests in the schools; and spoke on Police negotiations. (00:16:01) Minutes — Regular Meeting — April 21, 2015 - Page 2 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED Ann Parker, Costa Mesa, spoke in opposition to the Sober Living Ordinance and on the problems pertaining to Sober Living Homes; spoke on Homeland Security and the influx of heroin. (00:18:44) Jay Humphrey, Costa Mesa, spoke on the Orange Coast College Development meeting on April 27, 2015 at 6:00 p.m.; spoke on the Orange County Fair traffic and noise issues meeting on April 28, 2014; and spoke on the Police Department staffing levels. (00:21:00) Chuck Perry, Costa Mesa, thanked Council for the Sober Living Ordinance; pleased with the Fire Department's response times; spoke in support of a development on Harbor; requested a bench at the Ralph's grocery store on 17t" St.; and spoke in opposition of converting the Community Center to a library. (00:23:56) Trudy Hall, Costa Mesa, spoke on the desalination plant, the costs; and the drought. (00:27:09) Scott Mahaffy, Costa Mesa, spoke on the sports field usage at Jack Hammet sports complex; and the Matt Leinert Foundation. (00:31:13) Jennifer Lopez, Costa Mesa, spoke on homeless children; and on Project Hope Alliance. (00:33:15) Tim DeBrincat, Costa Mesa, spoke on overgrown vegetation; and a safety hazard at a residence. (00:36:21) COUNCIL MEMBER' REPORTS, COMMENTS, AND SUGGESTIONS (00:38:28) Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer spoke on the Mercy House services and resignation from the Foundation in order to participate on affordable housing issues; spoke on the City prevailing in court on the Sober Living Ordinance; meeting in Sacramento with legislators on Group Homes legislation; spoke on the Library expansion; OC Innovate project; and CEO recognition by ACC-OC. (00:38:35) Mayor Mensinger spoke on CEO Hatch's recognition by ACC-OC; TourdeOC bike fundraiser; homeless issues at Wilson Park; Mayor's Celebration on May 14, 2015; Arbor Day and tree plantings; and requested an update from Water District on water restrictions; and drought tolerant planting. (00:45:36) Council Member Foley thanked Muriel Ullman for their efforts in helping a homeless woman; asked for donations for a young girl; spoke in support of the Project Hope Alliance; spoke in support of SoCo; spoke in support of Smart Balance Assessment Tests in Costa Mesa; invited the Community to Estancia and Costa Mesa High School Golf Tournament Fundraiser on June 22, 2015; and spoke on Police Department staffing levels; and crime levels in the City. (00:50:31) Minutes — Regular Meeting — April 21, 2015 - Page 3 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED Council Member Genis spoke on Police fees for Orange County Fair services and cost recovery; spoke on Communications Center staffing levels; spoke on contract labor concerns and open positions; spoke on the desalination project; supports MPT on affordable housing issues; spoke on the library project; the Spring Garden Show at South Coast Plaza; and remembering the 100 year anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. (00:58:18) Council Member Monahan requested Scott Mahaffy and Tim DeBrincot contact him; spoke on Fairview Developmental Center; April 29, 2015 Chamber of Commerce farewell lunch for Ed Fawcett; April 23, 2015 fundraiser for Kaiser Woodland School; Newport Harbor play; Attic Theater play; spoke in support of affordable housing; complimented Muriel Ullman and Staff for their efforts in dealing with the homeless; and the challenges on homeless issues. (01:08:25) REPORT — CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (CEO) (01:13:59) CEO Tom Hatch spoke on Emergency Operations Services and introduced a new employee Terre Duensing; spoke on bike trail grants the City has received; provided a Senior Center update; and Ernesto Munoz spoke on the Safe Routes to School Program. CONSENT CALENDAR (01:19:31) MOTION: Approve recommended actions for Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 through 8 except for Items 3, 6, and 7. MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Monahan/Council Member Foley The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Foley, Council Member Genis, Council Member Monahan, Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer, and Mayor Mensinger Nays: None Absent: None Motions carried: 5-0 1. PROCEDURAL WAIVER: MOTION TO APPROVE THE READING BY TITLE ONLY OF ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS. SAID ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS THAT APPEAR ON THE PUBLIC AGENDA SHALL BE READ BY TITLE ONLY AND FURTHER READING WAIVED ACTION: City Council waived reading in full of Ordinances and Resolutions and approved and adopted of same by reading title only Minutes — Regular Meeting — April 21, 2015 - Page 4 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED 2. READING FOLDER a. Claims received by the City Clerk: Abraam Guirguis ACTION: City Council received and filed. 4. FINAL MAP FOR TRACT NO. 17781 LOCATED AT 2026 PLACENTIA AVENUE, COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA ACTION: City Council approved the Final Map for Tract No. 17781 and authorized the signing of the map by the City Clerk and the City Engineer. 5. MINUTES (A) MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Monahan/Council Member Foley The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Genis, Council Member Monahan, Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer, and Mayor Mensinger Nays: None Absent: None Abstain: Council Member Foley (Not a Council Member at those meetings) Motion carried: 4-0-1 ACTION: City Council approved the minutes of the Special Meeting of the City Council of April 22, 2014; Minutes of the Special Study Session of April 29, 2014; Minutes of the Special Joint Study Session of the City Council and Planning Commission of June 10, 2014; and Minutes of the Regular City Council and Successor Agency Meeting of September 20, 2011; and April 15, 2014. (B) MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Monahan/Council Member Foley The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Foley, Council Member Genis, Council Member Monahan, Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer, and Mayor Mensinger Nays: None Absent: None Abstain: None Motion carried: 5-0 ACTION: City Council approved the minutes of the Regular City Council and Successor Agency Meeting of April 7, 2015; and Minutes of the Closed Session Meeting of the City Council of April 14, 2015. Minutes — Regular Meeting — April 21, 2015 - Page 5 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED 8. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH TRI PLANNING GROUP FOR INTERIM MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE REGARDING COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT EFFORTS ACTION: City Council provided authorization for the City CEO to enter into a Professional Services Agreement with the Tri Planning Group to provide interim management assistance regarding community improvement efforts in an amount not to exceed $100,000. ----------------------------------- END OF CONSENT CALENDAR ----------------------------------- PUBLIC HEARINGS — 7:00 p.m. (Resolution No. 05-55): (01:20:15) 1. APPEAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION PA-14-39 FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A CONVENIENCE STORE WITHOUT ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SALES AND WITH A VARIANCE FROM THE LANDSCAPED SETBACK REQUIREMENT LOCATED AT 2281 NEWPORT BOULEVARD (UNION 76) Principal Planner, Minoo Ashabi, provided staff report. (01:20:48) Council Member Monahan requested clarification on undue concentration. (01:24:25) Council Member Genis spoke on trash issues; and expressed concern with undue concentration. (01:26:34) Council Member Foley requested clarification on variance findings; and the trash enclosure and curb appeal. (01:28:50) Minoo Ashabi spoke on the variance findings. (01:29:22) Public Comments: Thad D. Solloway, Costa Mesa, spoke in opposition to the convenience store at the location; and traffic problems. (01:31:00) Council Member Genis requested that Staff work with the applicant on the location of the driveway approaches. (01:35:00) Minutes — Regular Meeting — April 21, 2015 - Page 6 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Monahan/Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Foley, Council Member Genis, Council Member Momahan, Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer and Mayor Mensinger Nays: None Absent: None Motion carried: 5-0 ACTION: 1. City Council upheld the Planning Commission's approval of the proposed convenience store, including a specific requirement for a Buyer's Notice related to the restriction on alcoholic beverage sales in the new convenience store. OLD BUSINESS: 1. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE 15-03 FOR CODE AMENDMENT CO-15- 01 RELATED TO SMALL LOT ORDINANCE (01:35:30) Public Comments: Ann Parker, Costa Mesa, requested clarification on small lots and front house facing alleyways. (01:36:34) Council Member Foley provided clarification and that it depends on the particular development. (01:37:32) Council Member Genis spoke on conflicts with Table 13-85A versus Table 13-42; and requested that the record reflect that this is not required to make small lot subdivisions more restrictive than for common interest developments, as currently is less restrictive. (01-37:55) Council Member Foley spoke in opposition of the project because it encourages high density, inadequate parking, and excludes efficient open space between buildings. (01:40:07) MOVED/SECOND: Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer/Council Member Monahan The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Monahan, Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer and Mayor Mensinger Nays: Council Member Foley and Council Member Genis Absent: None Motion carried: 3-2 Minutes — Regular Meeting — April 21, 2015 - Page 7 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED ACTION: City Council gave second reading, read by title only and further reading waived, and adopted Ordinance No. 15-03, amending Title 13, Chapter V, Article 2.5, Residential Small Lot Subdivision, of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. NEW BUSINESS: (01:41:05) 1. AUTHORIZATION OF CONSTRUCTION OF COMMUNITY MEETING ROOM AND OUTDOOR MEETING SPACE AND REMODEL EMPLOYEE LOUNGE AT CITY HALL CEO, Tom Hatch, spoke on the budgeting and funding for the project; and the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) space as a dedicated facility. (01:41:20) Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer spoke in opposition to the EOC being a dedicated facility for disasters only. (01:43:43) Video Production Coordinator, Dane Bora, and Principal Architect, Betsy Dougherty of Dougherty and Dougherty Architects, provided a presentation. (01:45:31) Council Member Monahan requested clarification on contracts to understand costs savings; and spoke in support of the project. (01:55:15) Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer spoke on savings with construction management costs; and the need for upgrades. (01:56:12) Council Member Foley complimented previous work done by Dougherty and Dougherty Architects; and supports a functional community space. (01:56:57) Public Comments: Beth Rafakes, Costa Mesa, expressed concern with delaying the Council Chambers upgrades. (01:58:33) CEO Hatch spoke on the budget and funding the project. (02:01:05) Betsy Dougherty spoke on access issues. (02:02:22) CEO Hatch spoke on limited employee impacts; and meetings in the new space. (02:03:12) Minutes — Regular Meeting — April 21, 2015 - Page 8 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Monahan/Council Member Foley The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Foley, Council Member Monahan, and Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer Nays: Council Member Genis and Mayor Mensinger Absent: None Motion carried: 3-2 ACTION: 1. City Council approved designating $992,000 to convert City Hall's former print shop into a community meeting room with broadcasting capabilities; and direct City staff to issue a Notice Inviting Bids (NIB) for the conversion of the former print shop into a community meeting room; and 2. City Council directed City staff to issue a Notice Inviting Bids (NIB) to remodel employee/community lounge; and 3. City Council authorized Request for Proposals (RFPs) for design, construction documents and bids for an outdoor meeting space on the south side of City Hall adjacent to the new community meeting room. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR (02:08:16) 3. WARRANT RESOLUTION NO. 2534 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS, INCLUDING PAYROLL REGISTER NO. 15-08 FOR $2,068,818.25; AND CITY OPERATING EXPENSES FOR $1,755,350.99; AND SPECIFYING THE FUNDS OUT OF WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID (02:08:30) Public Comments: Cindy B, Costa Mesa, requested clarification on Warrants. (02:08:49) MOVED/SECOND: Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer/Council Member Monahan The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Foley, Council Member Genis, Council Member Monahan, Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer and Mayor Mensinger Nays: None Absent: None Abstain: None Motion carried: 5-0 ACTION: Approved Warrant Resolution No. 2534, to be read by the title only, and waived further reading Minutes — Regular Meeting — April 21, 2015 - Page 9 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED 6. NOTICE OF INTENT FOR THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF FULLERTON AVENUE AT 155 FLOWER STREET (02:13:05) Public Comments: Ann Parker, Costa Mesa, requested clarification on the right-of-way and the possibility of a sidewalk. (02:13:21) Director of Public Services, Ernesto Munoz, explained the vacation is in line with the circulation element and will not preclude installation of a sidewalk. (02:14:33) MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Monahan/Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Foley, Council Member Genis, Council Member Monahan, Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer and Mayor Mensinger Nays: None Absent: None Abstain: None Motion carried: 5-0 ACTION: 1. City Council set the Public Hearing on June 2, 2015 for the vacation of a portion of Fullerton Avenue Right -Of -Way (ROW); and 2. City Council Adopted Resolution No. 15-12, to be read by title only, and waived further reading. 7. REQUEST FOR "RESIDENT ONLY" PARKING RESTRICTION ON WALLACE AVENUE BETWEEN VICTORIA STREET AND HAMILTON STREET (02:15:33) Public Comments: Jay Humphrey, Costa Mesa, spoke on the 1,000 ft. radius; and no parking requirements on streets for new residential developments. (02:15:46) Cindy B, Costa Mesa, agreed with Jay Humphrey's comments. (02:18:27) Susan Korr, Costa Mesa, spoke in support of the parking restrictions. (02:19:06) Miguel Martinez, Costa Mesa, spoke on the difficulty of finding parking; and supports parking restrictions. (02:20:58). Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer spoke on the process for a "Resident Only" parking restriction; spoke on the current Council approving developments with the strictest parking requirements; and that issues are due to old apartment projects approved years ago with little parking requirements. (02:22:41) Minutes — Regular Meeting —April 21, 2015 - Page 10 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED Mayor Mensinger spoke on old projects approved with not enough parking; and garages being used for storage instead of parking. (02:24:33) Council Member Genis spoke in support of the item; and the existing parking problems. (02:26:32) Council Member Foley spoke on the parking problems in that area; and supports the issue. (02:27:21) MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Monahan/Council Member Foley The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Foley, Council Member Genis, Council Member Monahan, Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer and Mayor Mensinger Nays: None Absent: None Abstain: None Motion carried: 5-0 ACTION: 1. City Council adopted Resolution No. 15-13, to be read by title only, and waived further reading, approving the implementation of a "Resident Only" parking restriction on Wallace Avenue, between Victoria Street and Hamilton Street; and 2. City Council authorized the Transportation Services Manager to extend the "Resident Only" parking restriction for a maximum 1,000 foot radius from the above limits, as needed. REPORT — CITY ATTORNEY — None (02:28:07) ADJOURNMENT — To the Regular Meeting, May 5, 2015, 5:00 p.m. The Mayor adjourned the meeting at 8:24 p.m. Minutes adopted on this 5T" day of May, 2015. Stephen M. Mensinger, Mayor ATTEST: Brenda Green, City Clerk Minutes — Regular Meeting — April 21, 2015 - Page 11 Cl T Y COUNCIL A GEVDA REPORT MEETING DATE: MAY 5, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: CC-6 SUBJECT: EASTSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKWAY CONCRETE REPAIR PROJECT - CITY PROJECT NO. 15-02 DATE: APRIL 23, 2015 FROM: PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION PRESENTATION BY: ERNESTO MUNOZ, PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FARIBA FAZELI, CITY ENGINEER, (714) 754-5335 RECOMMENDATION: Adopt plans, specifications, and working details for the Eastside Neighborhood Parkway Concrete Repair Project - City Project No. 15-02. 2. Award a construction contract to C.J. Concrete Construction, Inc., 10142 Shoemaker Avenue, Santa Fe Springs, California, 90670, in the amount of $737,200.00. 3. Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Public Works Agreement. BACKGROUND: The 2014-2015 Street Maintenance Project consists of three distinct phases of work: Phase 1: Parkway and Concrete Repair Project — includes localized repair of damaged curb, gutter, sidewalk, cross -gutters, driveways, and new sidewalk construction. Phase 2: Street Rehabilitation Project — includes asphalt concrete mill and overlay of the roadway. Phase 3: Slurry Seal Project — includes application of a surface coating and sealing of the roadway Concrete improvements located within the City's parkways and streets require ongoing repair and maintenance due to age, maturing trees, soil conditions, water intrusion, and traffic loads. The City's Parkway Concrete Repair Program is funded to repair as many of these damaged areas as possible, and eliminate the potential liability associated with aging parkways. The locations identified for repair are prioritized based on pedestrian and handicap traffic, and the severity of the damage. The locations of parkway improvements within the scope of work of this contract are shown in Attachment The scope of work for this contract consists of localized reconstruction of curb and gutters, driveway approaches, spandrels, cross gutters, wheelchair ramps, and sidewalks; clearing & grubbing; traffic control and all other work required to complete this project in accordance with the contract documents. ANALYSIS: The overall scope of the 2014-2015 Street Maintenance Project includes the removal and reconstruction of damaged pavement sections, milling and overlaying with new asphalt, and reconstruction of damaged parkway improvements over the project limits. Part of the work also includes the application of a slurry seal pavement coating, and the replacement of traffic markings, striping, and traffic control. The scope of this contract covers the reconstruction of damaged parkway improvements over the project limits in coordination with the Parkway and Concrete Repair phasing of the work. The contractor is required to complete all of the tasks necessary to perform the work as outlined in the contract documents. The City Clerk received and opened thirteen (13) bids for this project on February 17, 2015. C.J. Concrete Construction, Inc. was the apparent low -bidder with a bid proposal of $737,200 (Seven hundred thirty seven thousand and two hundred). The Engineer's estimate was $884,330; and the average of the thirteen (13) bids received amounted to $1,267,096.27. An analysis of the bids indicates that this apparent low bidder submitted a proposal that is approximately seventeen percent (17%) lower than the Engineer's estimate. The variance between the low bidder and the Engineer's estimate may be attributed to the highly competitive conditions prevalent in the construction industry at this time. The Bid Abstract is included as Attachment "2". The license and references of C.J. Concrete Construction, Inc., were checked and staff has found them to be in good standing. C.J. Concrete Construction, Inc., has successfully completed other City projects, including most recently the rehabilitation of Tustin Avenue (from 15t" Street to 17t" Street), the 2008-2009 Parkway Concrete Repair and New Sidewalk Construction Project, the 2010-2011 Parkway Concrete Repair and New Sidewalk Construction Project, and the 2012-2013 Parkway Concrete Repair and New Sidewalk Construction Project which focused on similar repairs in other areas of the City. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: The alternative to this Council action would be to reject all the bids. If all the bids are rejected, the City would need to readvertise or cancel the project. Staff believes that readvertising the project will not result in lower bids. FISCAL REVIEW: Funding for this project was appropriated in Fiscal Year 2014-2015 from Gas Tax and Capital Improvement funds. LEGAL REVIEW: C.J. Concrete Construction, Inc. has furnished the necessary bonds and insurance, which were approved as to form by the City Attorney's Office. After the award and subsequent execution of the contract, a "Notice to Proceed" will be issued. CONCLUSION: The advertisement and bid opening for the 2014-2015 Eastside Neighborhood Parkway Concrete Repair Project, City Project No. 15-02 has been completed. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the plans, specifications, and working details for this project; award the contract to the apparent low bidder C.J. Concrete Construction, Inc. in the amount of $737,200; and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Public Works Agreement. 2 ERNESTO MUNOZ FARIBA FAZELI Public Services Director City Engineer ATTACHMENTS: "1" Location of Streets "2" Bid Abstract DISTRIBUTION: Chief Executive Officer Assistant Chief Executive Officer City Attorney City Clerk Staff File 3 ATTACHMENT CITY OF COSTA MESA N.T.S. Public Services/Engineering m z SANTA ISABEL AV. m 11 GEORGEANNE 3 a PEACH PL. zo RE o LN. o WILSON ST. z v >gCHER EE DGLE LU NEWPN LN, r CT. w z CYNTHIA DAWNVIEW LN. yEq� J w v~i CT. o 0 3 m ¢ ¢ o 'NI w g w 23RD ST. 0 g gz z VIA MART ALBERT PL. J g w VISTA BAYA VISTA BA CECIL PL. VISTA BAYA COLLEEN PL. SIERRA HERINE JEANETTE VIRGINIA PL. PL. PL. MEADOW F w z LN. 0 22ND ST. � SA Z J d J a ¢ CAMELLIA LN. a Q � TULIP LN. z ROSE LN. F 0 z th o MERRILL PL. COTTAGE ¢ a it J J m > a a fn PL z a Q o m m a a w z N LILAC LN. a w z ``' PAULINE PL. w z 0 21 ST ST. HO N} g k SHERWOOD ST. w Z 0 m I BUOY ST. SHERWOOD --- 2014-2015 PARKWAY CONCRETE REPAIR PROJECT .(ZONE #3, ELDEN AVE) LOCATION MAP PROPOSED PARKWAY IMPROVEMENTS C\A) CITY OF COSTA MESA N.T.S. Public Services/Engineering SAN DIEGO FREEWAY ALLEY #126 IRAVERSE R. STURGEON DR. PIERPONT DR. MARQUME MANISfEE DR. RAND HA CIR. FAYETTE PAU IN AV. Cam• 0 m � Aq G BAKER ST. '9y 2014-2015 PARKWAY CONCRETE REPAIR PROJECT (ZONE #12) LOCATION MAP PROPOSED PARKWAY IMPROVEMENTS ATTACHMENT 2 CITY OF COSTA MESA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES 2014-2015 EASTSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKWAY CONCRETE REPAIR PROJECT (ZONE #3, #12) CITY PROJECT NO. 15-02 BID OPENING RESULTS: FEBRUARY 17, 2015 Bidder city Total Base Bid 1. CJ Concrete Construction 2. CLS Constructors 3. PUB Construction, Inc. Black Rock Construction 4. Ruiz Concrete & Paving 5. Black Rock Construction 6. EBS 7. S. Parker Engineering Hardy & Harper 8. Unique Performance Construction 9. All American Asphalt 10. Vido Samarzich 11. A.M. Concrete, Inc 12. Hardy & Harper 13. Nobest Santa Fe Springs Grand Terrace Diamond Bar Long Beach Brea Corona Costa Mesa Anaheim Long Beach Alta Loma Sylmar Santa Ana Westminster $737,200.00 $760,130.00 $4,634,590.00 $784,857.60 $808,575.00 $984,430.00 $1,020,010.60 $1,027,370.00 $1,067,067.00 $1,091,700.00 $1,105,725.00 $1,183, 500.00 $1,184,400.00 $1,267,096.27 Average Engineer's Estimate $879,770.00 C Cl T Y COUNCIL A GEVDA REPORT MEETING DATE: MAY 5, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: CC-7 SUBJECT: 2014-2015 HALECREST NEIGHBORHOOD PARKWAY CONCRETE REPAIR PROJECT- CITY PROJECT NO. 15-03 DATE: APRIL 23, 2015 FROM: PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT / ENGINEERING DIVISION PRESENTATION BY: ERNESTO MUNOZ, PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT RECOMMENDATION: FARIBA FAZELI, CITY ENGINEER, (714) 754-5335 1. Adopt plans, specifications, and working details for the 2014-2015 Halecrest Neighborhood Parkway Concrete Repair Project, City Project No. 15-03. 2. Reject the bid submitted by PUB Construction, Inc., 23441 Golden Springs Drive #104, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. 3. Award a construction contract to C.J. Concrete Construction, Inc., 10142 Shoemaker Avenue, Santa Fe Springs, California, 90670, in the amount of $1,118,607.50. 4. Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Public Works Agreement. BACKGROUND: The 2014-2015 Street Maintenance Project consists of three distinct phases of work: Phase 1: Parkway and Concrete Repair Project — includes localized repair of damaged curb, gutter, sidewalk, cross -gutters, driveways, and new sidewalk construction. Phase 2: Street Rehabilitation Project — includes asphalt concrete mill and overlay of the roadway. Phase 3: Slurry Seal Project — includes application of a surface coating and sealing of the roadway. Concrete improvements located within the City's parkways and streets require ongoing repair and maintenance due to age, maturing trees, soil conditions, water intrusion, and traffic loads. This contract is part of the Parkway Improvement Phase of the work. The locations identified for repair are prioritized based on pedestrian and handicap traffic, and the severity of the damage. The list of parkway improvement locations within the scope of work of this contract is included as Attachment The scope of work under this contract consists of localized reconstruction of curb and gutter, cross gutter and spandrels, sidewalks, driveway/driveway approach, and other work needed to complete the project in accordance with the contract documents. ANALYSIS: The overall scope of the 2014-2015 Street Maintenance Project includes the removal and reconstruction of damaged pavement sections, milling and overlaying with new asphalt, and reconstruction of damaged parkway improvements over the project limits. Part of the work also includes the application of a slurry seal pavement coating, and the replacement of traffic markings, striping, and traffic control. The scope of this contract covers the reconstruction of damaged parkway improvements over the project limits in coordination with the Parkway and Concrete Repair phasing of the work. The contractor is required to complete all of the tasks necessary to perform the work as outlined in the contract documents. The City Clerk received and opened thirteen (13) bids for this project on February 17, 2015. PUB Construction, Inc. was the apparent low -bidder with a bid proposal of $984,950.00; however, their bid did not comply with the City's directions, and Section 2-3.2 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, thus it was determined to be a non -responsive bid and is recommended to be rejected. C.J. Concrete Construction, Inc. was the second apparent low -bidder with a bid proposal of $1,118,607.50 and is recommended for acceptance. The Engineer's estimate was $1,350,950.00; and the average of the remaining twelve (12) bids received amounted to $1,535,672.08. An analysis of the bids indicates that this apparent low bidder submitted a proposal that is approximately seventeen percent (17%) lower than the Engineer's estimate. The variance between the low bidder and the Engineer's estimate may be attributed to the highly competitive conditions prevalent in the construction industry at this time. The Bid Abstract is included as Attachment "2". The license and references of C.J. Concrete Construction, Inc., were checked and staff has found them to be in good standing. C.J. Concrete Construction, Inc., has successfully completed other City projects, including most recently the rehabilitation of Tustin Avenue (from 15t" Street to 17t" Street), the 2008-2009 Parkway Concrete Repair and New Sidewalk Construction Project, the 2010-2011 Parkway Concrete Repair and New Sidewalk Construction Project, and the 2012-2013 Parkway Concrete Repair and New Sidewalk Construction Project which focused on similar repairs in other areas of the City. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: The alternative to this Council action would be to reject all of the bids and rebid the project. If the bids are rejected, the City would need to cancel this project. Staff believes that re -advertising and rebidding the project will not result in lower bids. Canceling the project is not recommended because the identified locations are in immediate need of the proposed maintenance work. FISCAL REVIEW: Funding for this project has been budgeted with the use of Gas Tax funds and Capital Improvement funds. LEGAL REVIEW: C.J. Concrete Construction, Inc. has furnished the necessary bonds and insurance, which were approved as to form by the City Attorney. After the award and subsequent execution of the contract, a "Notice to Proceed" will be issued. CONCLUSION: The City has received bids for the Halecrest Neighborhood Parkway Concrete Repair Project, City Project No. 15-03. Staff has evaluated all of the bids and recommends that the City Council adopt the plans, specifications, and working details for said project; reject the bid submitted by PUB Construction, Inc.; award a contract to the apparent low bidder C.J. Concrete Construction, Inc. in the amount of $1,118,607.50; and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Public Works Agreement. ERNESTO MUNOZ Public Services Director ATTACHMENTS: "1" Parkway Locations Bid "2" Abstract DISTRIBUTION: Chief Executive Officer City Attorney City Clerk Staff File FARIBA FAZELI City Engineer Attachment 1 ort CITY OF COSTA MESA N.T.S. Public Services/Engineering 2014-2015 PARKWAY CONCRETE REPAIR PROJECT (ZONE 015) LOCATION MAP PROPOSED PARKWAY IMPROVEMENTS [_ti_[o3:IuT:."M CITY OF COSTA MESA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES 2014-2015 HALECREST NEIGHBORHOOD PARKWAY CONCRETE REPAIR PROJECT (ZONE #15) CITY PROJECT NO. 15-03 BID OPENING RESULTS: FEBRUARY 17. 2015 Bidder city Total Base Bid 1. CJ Construction, INC Santa Fe Springs $1,118,607.50 2. CLS Constructors Grand Terrace $1,202,220.00 3. RuizConcrete & Paving Long Beach $1,225,127.50 4. Black Rock Construction Brea $1,241,690.00 5. EBS Genderal Engineering Corona $1,527,690.00 6. S. Parker Engineering Costa Mesa $1,585,381.00 7. Unique Performance Construction Anaheim $1,593,860.00 8. Vido Samarzich Alta Loma $1,623,410.00 9. A.M. Concrete, INC Westminster $1,724,065.00 10. All American Asphalt Corona $1, 744, 744.00 11. Nobest Westminster $1,909,650.00 12. Hardy & Harper Santa Ana $1,920,310.00 Average $1,499,676.82 Engineer's Estimate $1,350,950.00 a� Cl T Y COUNCIL A GEVDA REPORT MEETING DATE: MAY 5, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: CC-8 SUBJECT: INDUSTRIAL WAY WATER QUALITY AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS, CITY PROJECT NO. 14-08 - CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 DATE: APRIL 23, 2015 FROM: PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION PRESENTATION ERNESTO MUNOZ, PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR BY: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FARIBA FAZELI, CITY ENGINEER, (714) 754-5335 RECOMMENDATION: 1. Approve Change Order Number 2 in the amount of $397,952. BACKGROUND: The Industrial Way Water Quality and Storm Drain Improvements project consists of the construction of a detention/infiltration basin at Lions Park within the open space area adjacent to Anaheim Avenue, located between the Historical Society (HS) and the Downtown Recreation Center (DRC), and a parallel storm drain system on Anaheim Avenue between Plumer Street and 18th Street; and all other tasks necessary to perform and complete the work as required by the contract documents. On June 17, 2014, the City Council awarded a construction contract to Lonerock, Inc., 70 Domani, Irvine, CA 92618, in the amount of $2,553,940.00 for the construction of the Industrial Way Water Quality and Storm Drain Improvements project. ANALYSIS: To date, the contractor has completed the construction of the detention basin, the parallel storm drain system, and resurfaced Anaheim Avenue along with the impacted parking lot area. During construction of the detention basin, the contractor encountered a buried partially encased six inch water line which was not identified in the contract documents. This unanticipated "change in field conditions" required the contractor to perform substantial exploratory work to uncover the position and depth of the buried water line. This resulted in the issuance of Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $47,333.88. Pursuant to Council Policy No. 700-1, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) approval is required for contract change orders up to $50,000, or 5% of the original contract price, whichever is greater. Therefore, Change Order No. 1 was approved by the CEO on January 7, 2015 (Attachment 1). City Council Policy No. 700-1 also restricts the total Change Orders approved by the CEO to 10% of the original contract amount. Due to unforeseen conditions, the contractor is also submitting the following claims for extra work performed in the amount of $209,252: • Removal of underground abandoned electrical wiring and abandoned underground utilities • Removal of a buried swimming pool and building foundations from the old Boy's Club under the open space area • Additional asphalt concrete quantities for the parking lots • Additional concrete quantities to provide Handicap ramps and ADA path of travel In addition, the contract drawings required the contractor to restore the open space area, where the detention basin was installed, with grass cover (the original condition). However, due to grant requirements and the City's water conservation efforts, the contractorwill be directed to replace grass with drought tolerant plants and a drip irrigation system (approximately 25,200 square feet). The additional cost for this work is estimated at $188,700. The total additional cost, excluding Change Order No. 1, adds up to a total of $397,952 or 15.6% of the original contract. Therefore, Change Order No. 2 approval (Attachment 2) by the City Council is being requested in accordance with Council Policy No. 700-1. If approved, the total for Change Orders Nos. 1 and 2 will increase the original contract amount to $2,999,225.88 or 17.4% of the original contract price. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: No alternatives are being considered for this item. FISCAL REVIEW: The Engineering Division of the Public Services Department captured grant funding from the Measure M2 Environmental Cleanup Program (ECP), Tier 2 for this project. The grant will cover 60 percent of the total project cost up to $2.8 million. The City allocated its funding match from available Drainage Fee revenues and in -kind services performed by Engineering Division staff. City Council has recognized the grant and allocated $3,371,600 for this project in Fiscal Year 2013-2014. The original construction contract in the amount of $2,553,940 was approximately $817,660 under budget. Thus, sufficient funding is currently available for this project to cover both change orders and no additional appropriations are needed at this time. LEGAL REVIEW: There is no legal review required for this item. CONCLUSION: Unforeseen conditions during the construction of the Industrial Way Water Quality and Storm Drain Improvements project resulted in extra work beyond the original contract scope of work. In addition, in order to comply with the grant requirements for this project, and the City's water conservation measures, staff is requesting to replace the grass cover, as is called for in the original contract, within the open space area above the detention basin, with drought tolerant landscaping and a drip irrigation system. Per City Council Policy No. 700-1, on January 7, 2015, the CEO approved Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $47,333.88. However, additional funding for unanticipated extra work for this contract is required to complete this project. Therefore, staff is recommending that the City Council approve Change Order No. 2 in the amount of $397,952. ERNESTO MUNOZ Public Services Director ATTACHMENTS: 1 — Cha 2 — Cha DISTRIBUTION Order No. 1 Order No. 2 Chief Executive Officer Assistant CEO City Attorney City Clerk Staff FARIBA FAZELI City Engineer 3 ATTACHMENT 1 CITY OF COSTA MESA PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 001 SUPPL NO. REV. PROJECT Industrial Way Water Quality and Stormdrain Improvements SHEET 1 OF 1 FEDERAL NO.(S) CITY SPECIFICATION NO. 14-08 To Lonerock Inc. Contractor You are hereby directe&to make the herein described changes from the plans and specifications or do the following described work not included in the plans and specifications on this contract. NOTE: This change order is not effective until approved in accordance with Council Policy No. 700-1 Description of work to be done, estimate of quantities, and prices to be paid. Segregate between additional work at contract price, agreed price and force account. Unless otherwise stated, rates for rental of equipment cover only such time as equipment is actually used and no allowance will be made for idle time. Change Requested by: CONTRACTOR The last percentage shown is the net accumulated increase or decrease from the original quantity in the Bid Proposal. 1. BRIEF WORK DESCRIPTION Perform additional potholing for existing 6" water line. Encountered utility lines not shown per plan including some slurry - encased areas requiring additional potholing and identification. Load and dispose of concrete from 6" siphon trench. Itemized cost breakdowns for Labor, Material, and Equipment attached herein. Costs include all applicable markups as permitted in the Project Specifications. The net accumulated increase in total contract price from the original Bid Proposal is: $47,333.88 / $2,553,940.00 or 1.9%. The City will get reimbursed by Mesa Water District for this change order. COST INCREASE/DECREASE $ 47,333.88 By reason of this order the time of completion will be adjusted as follows: 0 calendar days Prepared by: B�pronswic . Date: 12/22/2014 Submitted by: l..� Date: 1Al2 3/1 Approval Recommended: Date: • 16 Approved: Date: We, the undersigned contractor, have given careful consideration to the change proposed and hereby agree, if this proposal is approved, that we will provide all equipment, furnish all materials, except as may otherwise be noted above, and perform all services necessary for the work above specified, and will accept as full payment therefor the prices shown above. Acc 3 (:::7 Contractor �_C) i') E' —PC c- By '` Title �S nt If the Contractor did not sign accept nce of this order, his attention is directed to the ° wgo�i�brig'Inal on file proceeding with the ordered work and filing a written protest within the time therein spe�fii offioe. ATTEST: DATED:3 _q_15 City Clerk, City of C to Mesa, County of Orange, California CITY OF COSTA MESA ATTACHMENT 2 PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 SUPPL NO. REV. PROJECT Industrial Way Water Quality and Storm Drain Improvements SHEET 1 OF 1 FEDERAL NO.(S) CITY SPECIFICATION NO. 14-08 To Lonerock Inc. Contractor You are hereby directed to make the herein described changes from the plans and specifications or do the following described work not included in the plans and specifications on this contract. NOTE: This change order is not effective until approved in accordance with Council Policy No. 700-1 Description of work to be done, estimate of quantities, and prices to be paid. Segregate between additional work at contract price, agreed price and force account. Unless otherwise stated, rates for rental of equipment cover only such time as equipment is actually used and no allowance will be made for idle time. Change Requested by: CONTRACTOR The last percentage shown is the net accumulated increase or decrease from the original quantity in the Bid Proposal. DESCRIPTION OF EXTRA WORK: Item A — Furnish and install drought tolerant landscaping and drip system in the open space where the detention basin was installed between Anaheim Avenue, the Historical Society Building, the Library Building and the Downtown Recreation Facility Building, in the amount of $188,700. Item B —Additional work items for unforeseen conditions and extra work beyond the original scope of the contract as follows: removal of swimming pool abandoned below grade, building foundation from the old "Boy's Club" building, unmarked and abandoned utilities to be removed from detention system, additional asphalt concrete quantities for the parking lot, new handicap ramps and ADA path of travel, in the amount of $209,252.00. The negotiated price for the above includes all mark-ups allowed by the contract documents. This change order was submitted to the City Council for approval in conformance with Council Policy 700 at the May 5, 2015 council meeting. COST INCREASEIDECREASE $ 397,952 By reason of this order the time of completion will be adjusted as follows: None Prepared by: Date: Submitted by: Date: Approval Recommended: Date: Approved: Date: We, the undersigned contractor, have given careful consideration to the change proposed and hereby agree, if this proposal is approved, that we will provide all equipment, furnish all materials, except as may otherwise be noted above, and perform all services necessary for the work above specified, and will accept as full payment therefor the prices shown above. Accepted, Date Contractor By Title t If the Contractor did not sign acceptance of this order, his attention is directed to the requirements of the specifications as o proceeding with the ordered work and filing a written protest within the time therein specified. Cl T Y COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: MAY 5, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: CC-9 SUBJECT: DISPOSAL OF CITY CO -OWNED PROPERTY ADJACENT TO CHARLE STREET, COUNTY ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 422-091-06 DATE: APRIL 23, 2015 FROM: PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION PRESENTATION BY: ERNESTO MUNOZ, PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FARIBA FAZELI, CITY ENGINEER (714) 754-5335 RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt a resolution to proceed with the sale of City co -owned property along Charle Street, County Assessor's Parcel No.422-091-06. BACKGROUND The City co -owns (50-50) a strip of land, 5 feet wide and 150 feet long along Charle Street (Attachment 1) with Red Mountain Retail Group (RMRG). RMRG has expressed a desire to acquire the City's interest in this small sliver parcel. In 1982, the City acquired this parcel of land in fee with the possible intent of a future street dedication. However, per the Master Plan of Highways, Charle Street is designated as a residential street with an ultimate width of 60 feet. Currently, Charle Street is 60' wide, hence there is no need for this additional sliver parcel. On March 23, 2015, a report was presented to the Planning Commission outlining the proposed disposal/sale as required by Government Code Section 65402. Subsequently, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC-15-15 (Attachment 2) finding that the proposed disposal/sale is consistent with the City's General Plan. ANALYSIS In October of 2014, the entire subject property was appraised with an overall land value of $11,400 (at $9.50 per square foot). Thus, $5,700 of the value is allocated to the City and $5,700 allocated to RMRG. A purchase offer to the City of $5,700 by RMRG will be formally presented to the City pending approval of the City Council. RMRG has agreed to pay for all closing costs including escrow, title report and documentation fees. This co -owned property has been reviewed by the Engineering and Transportation Services Divisions and determined to be of no practical City use. This sliver of land is no longer necessary for the Charle Street right-of-way improvements, and there are no public improvements currently constructed within the subject property. It has been concluded that it is in the best public interest to remove the City's ownership liability by the sale of this unusable sliver of property. Therefore, it is recommended that the City Council approve and adopt a resolution (Attachment 3) to proceed with the sale of the 50% portion of City co -owned property to RMRG for the appraised value of $5,700. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The City could retain this co -owned property and continue to be responsible for the maintenance and liability of being property co -owners. FISCAL REVIEW Once the percentage of ownership is sold it becomes fully taxable square footage, resulting in additional property taxes to the adjacent property owner to which the land will revert to. This will result in additional revenue to the City. LEGAL REVIEW Legal questions surrounding the City's ability to sell the co -owned property were addressed by the City Attorney's office in 2007. The City Attorney's office has re -reviewed the original analysis performed on the possible sale of the property, and has determined that the opinion is still valid today. In cases where government property has been declared surplus, the normal protocol for sale of surplus government property is to provide for an open (auction) or closed (sealed envelope) bidding process. This property has not been declared surplus, and thus may be sold directly if decided by the City Council. CONCLUSION Staff reviewed a request for the sale of City co -owned property adjacent to Charle Street, and recommends that the City Council approve and adopt a resolution to go forth with the sale of 50% of City co -owned property, County Assessor's Parcel No. 422-091-06. ERNESTO MUNOZ FARIBA FAZELI Public Services Director City Engineer ATTACHMENTS: 1 — Site Plan 2 — Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-15-15 3 — Resolution for the sale of City co -owned (50%) property DISTRIBUTION: Chief Executive Officer Assistant CEO Economic & Dev. Director/Deputy CEO City Attorney City Clerk 2 ATTACHMENT 1 �1ti N 2Qm4 O Wo Qd � W z���a W wo V) V) Q: V � 40' ti U h Z ZCL Q �c,Z >- V5 V ti 'r >- ;C�� 30' 30' �Z7, LkQQ CV O ss. i0' ------ 419 -� 8 BAY sTrtEEr� `R1 HARBDR (FAIRVIEW AVENUE) _o „5'0' 7$' 7s" >3: tB ` 69° 332' /?/,?7fi' Nf.RS' 49. fag' ,• 49 b o ° FAIRV/ EW h r/ f3 • � O si O O 1 A I o s y s OF 9 ss` r s t r>d • a ( r $ � r r a o poi AC. I 17 18 L, POR. LOT 20 PIC Q P a 16 A „ h m 8 � 968• rTt_27c' G5,27G 4., •• '+g �' 0 M CHARLE — ---q = CITY CO -OWNED PROPERTY J= .6, 3a' MARCH 19T8 �`- LOT LINE MAPLE — — M FAIRVIEW FAMRS M.M. 8-71 KNOWELL PLdCE TRACT NO. 10945 M. M. 476-15. 16 13 TRACT NO. 17435 M. M. 920-48, 49 PARCEL MAP P. M. 30-33 (ANAHEIM AVENUE) 9Ar srREEr N07 ATTACHMENT 2 RESOLUTION NO. PC-15-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA FINDING THAT THE CITY OF COSTA MESA'S DISPOSAL OF CO -OWNED REAL PROPERTY (AP No. 422-091- 06) IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY OF COSTA MESA 2000 GENERAL PLAN AND WILL SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND IS A PUBLIC BENEFIT. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, the Costa Mesa City Council adopted the City of Costa Mesa 2000 General Plan on January 22, 2002; and, WHEREAS, the Government Code of the State of California, Section 65402, provides in part that a local agency shall not acquire or lease real property nor abandon or dispose of any real property, nor construct a public building or structure in any county or city, until the location, purpose, and extent of such activity has been reported upon as to conformity with the adopted General Plan applicable thereto; and, WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa proposes to dispose real property co -owned by the City. In 1982, the City acquired fifty percent of County Assessor's Parcel No. 422-091-06 with the possible intent of a street dedication; and, WHEREAS, the co -owned real property being disposed of has been found by the Engineering and Transportation Services Division to be of no practical use for the City, and as such, the disposal of the property serves the public interest and is a public benefit since the property is no longer necessary for future Charle Street right-of-way improvements; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the disposal is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act under section 15312 (Class 12), Surplus Government Property Sales, because the portion of the real property to be disposed is not located on a parcel of land in an area of statewide, regional, or area wide concern; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is shown in Attachment 3 (City Engineer's memo dated February 26, 2015); and, WHEREAS, on March 23, 2015, the Costa Mesa Planning Commission reviewed the proposed disposal. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby find the proposed disposal of real property is in conformance with the City of Costa Mesa 2000 General Plan and serves the public interest and is a public benefit. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day Robert L. Dickson, Jr., Chair Costa Mesa Planning Commission STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) )ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, Claire Flynn, Secretary to the Planning Commission of the City of Costa Mesa, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 15-15 was passed and adopted at a meeting of the City of Costa Mesa Planning Commission held on March 23, 2015, by the following votes: AYES: Dickson, Mathews, McCarthy, Sesler, Andranian NOES: None ABSENT; None ABSTAIN: None Claire L. Flynn, Secretary Costa Mesa Planning Commission CITY OF COSTA MESA Department of Public Services / Engineering INTER OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Claire Flynn, Assistant Development Services Director FROM: Fariba Fazeli, City Engineer 4Y DATE: February 26, 2015 SUBJECT: Sale of co -owned City property with Red Mountain Retail Group (RMRG) adjacent to Charle Street The Engineering Division is processing a request from Red Mountain Retail Group (RMRG) to purchase a property that the City co -owns with them (See Attachment 1). The property is approximately 5 feet wide and 150 feet long with a total of 675 square foot area. (See Attachment 1). RMRG currently owns the lot adjacent to the above mentioned co -owned property, to the east (See Attachment 1). In 1982, the City acquired fifty percent of this parcel of land with the possible intent of a street dedication. However, per the Master Plan of Highways, this portion of Charle Street is designated as a Standard Collector with an ultimate width of 60 feet, hence, there is no need for this additional sliver of land. This City co -owned property has been reviewed by the Engineering and Transportation Services Divisions and determined to be of no practical use for the City. The City co - owned parcel is no longer necessary for the Charle Street right-of-way improvements, and there are no public improvements currently constructed within the subject property. Therefore, it is recommended the request to purchase this City co -owned property continue to be processed and forwarded to the City Council for approval. It is requested that the Planning Division provide a determination of consistency with the General Plan per Government code 65402 and present the sale of this City co -owned property to the Planning Commission meeting of March 23, 2015. Please submit a confirmation that this request has been received and scheduled. Thank you for your assistance on this project. Any information or assistance required for this project may be obtained from Brad Edwards, Engineering Technician, at extension 5066. Attachment 1: Exhibit of City co -owned Parcel c: Brad Edwards, Engineering Technician III 15 J N O W 419-18 HARBOR b___ BAY STREET ,h� h — (FAIRVIEW AVENUE) 419-19 In In LOT LINE Sa' 75' 75 75-• 28 • 6.f.552' i24276• If4.9� 49bf3' 446{f' 99,36' So' 49.36' s5� 9 i ,M �`, Ko FAQ/RV W ; N QD '�1' r I PAR. 1 to r i y < ` [ i11i.4 MAP WAS PREPAW FOR ORA*GE COUNTY ASS DEFT PURPONS air. THE ASSES- F F I SOR NO QUARANIEE AS TO ITs ACGEIRACY 96.s5° �` a u NOR A$StJ1AE$ ANY FOR OTHER USES. I �� " a, I ► v 27 v V I MOT 70 BE REPRODUCM ALL RIGIM RESERVEQ o I ! 12 13 w I 00"IGHT ORANGE COUNTY ASSESSOR 1993 n �' N M '" ^� '^ m a a v • s /.O/ AC. �a I r !h 17 1870••34 P. M.30-33 i m Il6 " 0 20 POR. ^ 3o ZS' POP.. LOT 20 POR. LOT /9 o PAR.2 I LOT f i ►3►' 0 " ' l6 M 26 A 18 co� 1) � 1 ss $ 10y 75, 28 ' G4.552 121.276 G5.276 4k6 B 4%C, 9' 49,36 So' 99, 3 6 , 073,722 ' G o' - CHARL E ° STREET 'o m° LOT LINE MAPLE p—— (ANAHE/M AVENUE) AVENUE M /(NOWEL L PL ACE BAY STREET YORKSH/RE STR—R- MARCH 1978 FAIRVIEW FARMS M M. 8- TI NOTE- ASSESSORS BLOCK 8 TRACT NO. 10945 M. M. 476-/5,/6 3 PARCEL NUMBERS = °CITY CO -OWNED PROPERTY PARCEL MAP Pm. jj30-33 SHOWN IN CIRCLES IW = RED MOUTAIN RETAIL GROUP OWNED PROPERTY 14 ASSESSORS MAP BOOK 422 PAGE 0 9 COUNTY OF ORANGE T 422- 0g W PAGE I OF 2 � Q H F- Q X ATTACHMENT 3 RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE SALE OF CO -OWNED REAL PROPETY ADJACENT TO CHARLE STREET, APN 422-091-06 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, the City owns a fifty percent (50%) interest in a sliver of real property measuring five feet by one -hundred -thirty feet (5' x 130') identified as Assessor's Parcel Number 422-091-06 ("Property"). See attached Exhibit "A" WHEREAS, the City acquired a partial interest in the Property with the intent of a possible future street dedication, but never acquired the complete portion. WHEREAS, upon review of the current and future needs of the City, the City Staff believes that the Property is not needed for pedestrian, bicycle, transportation, or public purposes. WHEREAS, the City staff has found and determined that the Property is of no practical use and as such, the disposal of the Property to the adjacent property owner and co-owner of the Property, Red Mountain Retail Group, will serve the public interest and benefit the neighborhood with new improvements. The property is no longer necessary for future Charle Street right-of-way improvements. WHEREAS, an appraisal of the Property acquired by City staff shows that the City is acquiring fair market value for the sale. WHEREAS, on March 23, 2015, pursuant to the requirements Government Code 65402, the Planning Commission considered the sale of the Property and determined that the sale of the Property is in conformity with the General Plan. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Recitals and definitions set forth above are incorporated herein as findings, determinations and definitions of this Council. Section 2. The City Council has reviewed and considered the location, nature, size, and purpose of the Property and all current and future needs of the City and finding that the sale of the Property serves the Public Interest and herein approves said sale. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5T" day of May, 2015. Stephen Mensinger Mayor ATTEST: BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: THOMAS DUARTE, City Attorney STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss CITY OF COSTA MESA ) I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 15-XX and was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa at a regular meeting held on the 5t" day of May, 2015, by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 6t" day of May, 2015. (SEAL) BRENDA GREEN, CITY CLERK 2 J CV O �l 40' 30• 1 30• Ss 60' s HARBOR L EXHIBIT A 419 -1 8 - BAY STREET h y 0 M (FAIRVIEW AVENG ° 'p N FAIRV E W C14 + Z i y a /.O/ AC, u ,i6 y N ►'FOR. LOT 20 s y 6 � I21. a7G ' CHARLE = CITY CO -OWNED PROPERTY MARCH 1978 r LOT L/NE MAPLE M s FAIRVIEW FOPS M.M. 8-71IfNOWELL PLACE TRACT NO. 10945 M. M. 476-15, 16 I TRACT NO. 1705 M. M. 920-48, 49 PARCEL MAP P. M. 30-ii Cl l Y COUNCIL A GENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: MAY 5, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: CC-1 U SUBJECT: SUNFLOWER AVENUE TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYNCHRONIZATION PROJECT DATE: APRIL 21, 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) 754-5343 RECOMMENDATION: 1. Award a Professional Services Agreement for the Design and Implementation of the Sunflower Avenue Traffic Signal Synchronization Project to Albert Grover and Associates, 211 E. Imperial Highway, Suite 208, Fullerton, CA 92835, in the amount of $629,849 (Attachment 1). 2. Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Professional Services Agreement. BACKGROUND: The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Measure M2 Program, half -cent sales tax for transportation improvements, included money for cooperative Traffic Signal Synchronization (TSS) projects spanning multiple jurisdictions within Orange County. OCTA issued a "call for projects" under the TSS Program soliciting projects for potential grant funding in August 2013. In January 2014, OCTA approved the City's grant funding request for the Sunflower Avenue TSS Project. The City was awarded $617,960 in grant funds for the engineering and implementation of traffic signal equipment and timing improvements for this corridor with a match share requirement of $154,490 resulting in a total project cost of $772,450. The Sunflower Avenue TSS Project will result in a comprehensive review of traffic signal coordination along the entire length of the corridor from Main Street to Hyland Avenue (Attachment 2). The City of Costa Mesa will administer this project and the City of Santa Ana will be a participating agency. A total of 14 intersections under jurisdiction of the City of Costa Mesa along the Sunflower Avenue Corridor will be improved and coordinated as part of this project. The City of Costa Mesa will have the final approval authority for implementation of any timing plans developed as part of this project. It also includes the preparation of detailed "before and after" studies to document efficiencies achieved with any proposed timing changes. Additionally, the project will replace outdated traffic signal controllers at all signalized intersections within Costa Mesa's jurisdiction and include the installation of upgraded traffic signal communication equipment. The value of the upgrades made to the City of Costa Mesa as a result of this project is estimated to be $503,400. The scope of work for the TSS Project generally includes: ❖ Development of optimized traffic signal synchronization timing plans; ❖ Installation of traffic signal upgrades; ❖ Communication upgrades; ❖ Implementation of timing plans; ❖ Conduct "before and after" studies; and ❖ Two years of signal timing maintenance. ANALYSIS: In January 2015, a Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued on the City's website. A total of six (6) firms responded to the RFP. The proposals were reviewed for the Sunflower Avenue Traffic Signal Synchronization Project for compliance with the City's RFP, and consultants were evaluated based on project understanding, depth of experience, technical expertise, and associated factors. Firms were then interviewed for further evaluation. After careful review of all proposals and interview responses, Albert Grover and Associates was selected to design and implement the project. They have successfully completed several projects of similar scope and size for several cities throughout Orange County, including Costa Mesa. Staff requests approval and execution of the Professional Services Agreement to Albert Grover and Associates. As discussed earlier, the total cost of the project is $772,450 and the amount requested for this contract is $629,849. The additional funds of $142,601 ($772,450 - $629,849) will be used for constructing a 3" conduit for fiber optic communication cable along Sunflower Avenue between Wimbledon Way and Fuchsia Street (approximately 1,750 ft.) and between Harbor Boulevard and Susan Street (approximately 1,800 ft.). This project will be advertised separately for construction later this year. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: One alternative would be not to approve the Professional Services Agreement and conduct the project using in-house resources. However, this alternative may result in significant delays as the expertise and amount of services required for the project exceed the available resources. This may also result in the loss of approximately $503,400 in grant funding for traffic signal equipment and timing upgrades within the City. FISCAL REVIEW: If approved, funding for this project is available from an OCTA Measure M2 grant in the amount of $617,960 towards the design and implementation of the Traffic Signal Synchronization Project along the Sunflower Avenue Corridor in the jurisdictions of Costa Mesa and Santa Ana. The OCTA grant requires a 20% match contribution by the City. The City will commit $109,314 in Air Quality Management District (AQMD) funds and approximately $45,176 in staff time to implement the project. City of Costa Mesa staff will maintain the traffic signal timing and equipment as part of routine maintenance. LEGAL REVIEW: The City Attorney's office has reviewed the attached Professional Services Agreement and has approved it as to form. CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that the City Council award the attached Professional Services Agreement to Albert Grover and Associates for the design and implementation of the Traffic Signal Synchronization on the Sunflower Avenue Corridor in the amount of $629,849 for the project. ERNESTO MUNOZ RAJA SETHURAMAN Public Services Director Transportation Services Manager ATTACHMENTS: 1. Professional Services Agreement 2. Sunflower Avenue Corridor DISTRIBUTION: Chief Executive Officer Assistant Chief Executive Officer City Attorney City Clerk Division Staff ATTACHMENT 1 CITY OF COSTA MESA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ALBERT GROVER & ASSOCIATES THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 6th day of May, 2015 ("Effective Date"), by and between the CITY OF COSTA MESA, a municipal corporation ("City"), and ALBERT GROVER & ASSOCIATES, a California corporation ("Consultant"). WITNESSETH: A. WHEREAS, City proposes to utilize the services of Consultant as an independent contractor to provide traffic signal engineering services, as more fully described herein; and B. WHEREAS, Consultant represents that it has that degree of specialized expertise contemplated within California Government Code Section 37103, and holds all necessary licenses to practice and perform the services herein contemplated; and C. WHEREAS, City and Consultant desire to contract for the specific services described in Exhibit "A" (the "Project") and desire to set forth their rights, duties and liabilities in connection with the services to be performed; and D. WHEREAS, no official or employee of City has a financial interest, within the provisions of Sections 1090-1092 of the California Government Code, in the subject matter of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions contained herein, the parties hereby agree as follows: 1.0. SERVICES PROVIDED BY CONSULTANT 1.1. Scope of Services. Consultant shall provide the professional services described in the City's Request for Proposal ("RFP"), attached hereto as Exhibit "A," and Consultant's Response to City's RFP (the "Response") attached hereto as Exhibit "B," both incorporated herein by this reference. 1.2. Professional Practices. All professional services to be provided by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall be provided by personnel experienced in their respective fields and in a manner consistent with the standards of care, diligence and skill ordinarily exercised by professional consultants in similar fields and circumstances in accordance with sound professional practices. Consultant also warrants that it is familiar with all laws that may affect its performance of this Agreement and shall advise City of any changes in any laws that may affect Consultant's performance of this Agreement. 1.3. Performance to Satisfaction of City. Consultant agrees to perform all the work to the complete satisfaction of the City and within the hereinafter specified. Evaluations of the work will be done by the City's Chief Executive Officer ("City CEO") or his or her designee. If the quality of work is not satisfactory, City in its discretion has the right to: (a) Meet with Consultant to review the quality of the work and resolve the matters of concern; (b) Require Consultant to repeat the work at no additional fee until it is satisfactory; and/or (c) Terminate the Agreement as hereinafter set forth. 1.4. Warran . Consultant warrants that it shall perform the services required by this Agreement in compliance with all applicable Federal and California employment laws, including, but not limited to, those laws related to minimum hours and wages; occupational health and safety; fair employment and employment practices; workers' compensation insurance and safety in employment; and all other Federal, State and local laws and ordinances applicable to the services required under this Agreement. Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless City from and against all claims, demands, payments, suits, actions, proceedings, and judgments of every nature and description including attorneys' fees and costs, presented, brought, or recovered against City for, or on account of any liability under any of the above -mentioned laws, which may be incurred by reason of Consultant's performance under this Agreement. 1.5. Non-discrimination. In performing this Agreement, Consultant shall not engage in, nor permit its agents to engage in, discrimination in employment of persons because of their race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, age, physical handicap, medical condition, marital status, sexual gender or sexual orientation, except as permitted pursuant to Section 12940 of the Government Code. 1.6. Non -Exclusive Agreement. Consultant acknowledges that City may enter into agreements with other consultants for services similar to the services that are subject to this Agreement or may have its own employees perform services similar to those services contemplated by this Agreement. 1.7. Delegation and Assignment. This is a personal service contract, and the duties set forth herein shall not be delegated or assigned to any person or entity without the prior written consent of City. Consultant may engage a subcontractor(s) as permitted by law and may employ other personnel to perform services contemplated by this Agreement at Consultant's sole cost and expense. 1.8. Confidentiality. Employees of Consultant in the course of their duties may have access to financial, accounting, statistical, and personnel data of private individuals and employees of City. Consultant covenants that all data, documents, discussion, or other information developed or received by Consultant or provided for performance of this Agreement are deemed confidential and shall not be disclosed by Consultant without written authorization by City. City shall grant such authorization if disclosure is required by law. All City data shall be returned to City upon the termination of this Agreement. Consultant's covenant under this Section shall survive the termination of this Agreement. 2.0. COMPENSATION AND BILLING 2.1. Compensation. Consultant shall be paid in accordance with the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit "C," attached hereto and made a part of this Agreement (the "Fee Schedule"). Consultant's total compensation shall not exceed Six Hundred Twenty -Nine Thousand, Eight Hundred Forty -Nine Dollars ($629,849.00). 2.2. Additional Services. Consultant shall not receive compensation for any services provided outside the scope of services specified in the Consultant's Proposal unless the City or 2 Albert Grover & Associates the Project Manager for this Project, prior to Consultant performing the additional services, approves such additional services in writing. It is specifically understood that oral requests and/or approvals of such additional services or additional compensation shall be barred and are unenforceable. 2.3. Method of Billing. Consultant may submit invoices to the City for approval on a progress basis, but no more often than two times a month. Said invoice shall be based on the total of all Consultant's services which have been completed to City's sole satisfaction. City shall pay Consultant's invoice within forty-five (45) days from the date City receives said invoice. Each invoice shall describe in detail, the services performed, the date of performance, and the associated time for completion. Any additional services approved and performed pursuant to this Agreement shall be designated as "Additional Services" and shall identify the number of the authorized change order, where applicable, on all invoices. 2.4. Records and Audits. Records of Consultant's services relating to this Agreement shall be maintained in accordance with generally recognized accounting principles and shall be made available to City or its Project Manager for inspection and/or audit at mutually convenient times for a period of three (3)•years from the Effective Date. 3.0. TIME OF PERFORMANCE 3.1. Commencement and Completion of Work. The professional services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall commence within five (5) days from the Effective Date of this Agreement. Said services shall be performed in strict compliance with the Project Schedule approved by City as set forth in Exhibit "D," attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. The Project Schedule may be amended by mutual agreement of the parties. Failure to commence work in a timely manner and/or diligently pursue work to completion may be grounds for termination of this Agreement. 3.2. Excusable Delays. Neither party shall be responsible for delays or lack of performance resulting from acts beyond the reasonable control of the party or parties. Such acts shall include, but not be limited to, acts of God, fire, strikes, material shortages, compliance with laws or regulations, riots, acts of war, or any other conditions beyond the reasonable control of a party. 4.0. TERM AND TERMINATION 4.1. Term. This Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and continue for a period of 60 months, ending on May 6, 2020, unless previously terminated as provided herein or as otherwise agreed to in writing by the parties. 4.2. Notice of Termination. The City reserves and has the right and privilege of canceling, suspending or abandoning the execution of all or any part of the work contemplated by this Agreement, with or without cause, at any time, by providing written notice to Consultant. The termination of this Agreement shall be deemed effective upon receipt of the notice of termination. In the event of such termination, Consultant shall immediately stop rendering services under this Agreement unless directed otherwise by the City. 4.3. Compensation. In the event of termination, City shall pay Consultant for reasonable costs incurred and professional services satisfactorily performed up to and including the date of City's written notice of termination. Compensation for work in progress shall be prorated based on the percentage of work completed as of the effective date of termination in 3 Albert Grover & Associates accordance with the fees set forth herein. In ascertaining the professional services actually rendered hereunder up to the effective date of termination of this Agreement, consideration shall be given to both completed work and work in progress, to complete and incomplete drawings, and to other documents pertaining to the services contemplated herein whether delivered to the City or in the possession of the Consultant. 4.4. Documents. In the event of termination of this Agreement, all documents prepared by Consultant in its performance of this Agreement including, but not limited to, finished or unfinished design, development and construction documents, data studies, drawings, maps and reports, shall be delivered to the City within ten (10) days of delivery of termination notice to Consultant, at no cost to City. Any use of uncompleted documents without specific written authorization from Consultant shall be at City's sole risk and without liability or legal expense to Consultant. 5.0. INSURANCE 5.1. Minimum Scope and Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall obtain, maintain, and keep in full force and effect during the life of this Agreement all of the following minimum scope of insurance coverages with an insurance company admitted to do business in California, rated "A," Class X, or better in the most recent Best's Key Insurance Rating Guide, and approved by City: (a) Commercial general liability, including premises -operations, products/completed operations, broad form property damage, blanket contractual liability, independent contractors, personal injury or bodily injury with a policy limit of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00), combined single limits, per occurrence. If such insurance contains a general aggregate limit, it shall apply separately to this Agreement or shall be twice the required occurrence limit. (b) Business automobile liability for owned vehicles, hired, and non -owned vehicles, with a policy limit of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00), combined single limits, per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage. (c) Workers' compensation insurance as required by the State of California. Consultant agrees to waive, and to obtain endorsements from its workers' compensation insurer waiving subrogation rights under its workers' compensation insurance policy against the City, its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers arising from work performed by Consultant for the City and to require each of its subcontractors, if any, to do likewise under their workers' compensation insurance policies. (d) Professional errors and omissions ("E&O") liability insurance with policy limits of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00), combined single limits, per occurrence and aggregate. Architects' and engineers' coverage shall be endorsed to include contractual liability. If the policy is written as a "claims made" policy, the retro date shall be prior to the start of the contract work. Consultant shall obtain and maintain, said E&O liability insurance during the life of this Agreement and for three years after completion of the work hereunder. 4 Albert Grover & Associates 5.2. Endorsements. The commercial general liability insurance policy and business automobile liability policy shall contain or be endorsed to contain the following provisions: (a) Additional insureds: "The City of Costa Mesa and its elected and appointed boards, officers, officials, agents, employees, and volunteers are additional insureds with respect to: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Consultant pursuant to its contract with the City; products and completed operations of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by the Consultant; automobiles owned, leased, hired, or borrowed by the Consultant." (b) Notice: "Said policy shall not terminate, be suspended, or voided, nor shall it be cancelled, nor the coverage or limits reduced, until thirty (30) days after written notice is given to City. (c) Other insurance: "The Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City of Costa Mesa, its officers, officials, agents, employees, and volunteers. Any other insurance maintained by the City of Costa Mesa shall be excess and not contributing with the insurance provided by this policy." (d) Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage provided to the City of Costa Mesa, its officers, officials, agents, employees, and volunteers. (e) The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. 5.3. Deductible or Self Insured Retention. If any of such policies provide for a deductible or self -insured retention to provide such coverage, the amount of such deductible or self -insured retention shall be approved in advance by City. No policy of insurance issued as to which the City is an additional insured shall contain a provision which requires that no insured except the named insured can satisfy any such deductible or self -insured retention. 5.4. Certificates of Insurance. Consultant shall provide to City certificates of insurance showing the insurance coverages and required endorsements described above, in a form and content approved by City, prior to performing any services under this Agreement. The certificates of insurance shall be attached hereto as Exhibit "E" and incorporated herein by this reference. 5.5. Non -limiting. Nothing in this Section shall be construed as limiting in any way, the indemnification provision contained in this Agreement, or the extent to which Consultant may be held responsible for payments of damages to persons or property. 6.0. GENERAL PROVISIONS 6.1. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to any matter referenced herein and supersedes any and all other prior writings and oral negotiations. This Agreement may be modified only in writing, and signed by the parties in interest at the time of such modification. The terms of this Agreement shall prevail Albert Grover & Associates over any inconsistent provision in any other contract document appurtenant hereto, including exhibits to this Agreement. 6.2. Representatives. The City CEO or his or her designee shall be the representative of City for purposes of this Agreement and may issue all consents, approvals, directives and agreements on behalf of the City, called for by this Agreement, except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement. Consultant shall designate a representative for purposes of this Agreement who shall be authorized to issue all consents, approvals, directives and agreements on behalf of Consultant called for by this Agreement, except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement. 6.3. Proiect Managers. City shall designate a Project Manager to work directly with Consultant in the performance of this Agreement. Consultant shall designate a Project Manager who shall represent it and be its agent in all consultations with City during the term of this Agreement. Consultant or its Project Manager shall attend and assist in all coordination meetings called by City. 6.4. Notices. Any notices, documents, correspondence or other communications concerning this Agreement or the work hereunder may be provided by personal delivery, facsimile or mail and shall be addressed as set forth below. Such communication shall be deemed served or delivered: a) at the time of delivery if such communication is sent by personal delivery; b) at the time of transmission if such communication is sent by facsimile; and c) 48 hours after deposit in the U.S. Mail as reflected by the official U.S. postmark if such communication is sent through regular United States mail. IF TO CONSULTANT: Albert Grover & Associates 211 E. Imperial Highway, Ste Fullerton, CA 92835 Tel: (714) 992-2990 Fax: (714) 992-2883 Attn: Chalap Sadam IF TO CITY: City of Costa Mesa 208 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Tel: (714) 754-5183 Fax: (714) 754-5166 Attn: Pritam Deshmukh 6.5. Drug -free Workplace Policy. Consultant shall provide a drug -free workplace by complying with all provisions set forth in City's Council Policy 100-5, attached hereto as Exhibit "F" and incorporated herein by reference. Consultant's failure to conform to the requirements set forth in Council Policy 100-5 shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement and shall be cause for immediate termination of this Agreement by City. 6.6. Attorneys' Fees. In the event that litigation is brought by any party in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the opposing party all costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred by the prevailing party in the exercise of any of its rights or remedies hereunder or the enforcement of any of the terms, conditions, or provisions hereof. 6.7. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed under the laws of the State of California without giving effect to that body of laws pertaining to conflict of laws. In the event of any legal action to enforce or interpret this Agreement, the parties hereto 6 Albert Grover & Associates / f j agree that the sole and exclusive venue shall be a court of competent jurisdiction located in Orange County, California. 6.8. Assionment. Consultant shall not voluntarily or by operation of law assign, transfer, sublet or encumber all or any part of Consultant's interest in this Agreement without City's prior written consent. Any attempted assignment, transfer, subletting or encumbrance shall be void and shall constitute a breach of this Agreement and cause for termination of this Agreement. Regardless of City's consent, no subletting or assignment shall release Consultant of Consultant's obligation to perform all other obligations to be performed by Consultant hereunder for the term of this Agreement. 6.9. Indemnification and Hold Harmless. Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, hold free and harmless the City, its elected officials, officers, agents and employees, at Consultant's sole expense, from and against any and all claims, actions, suits or other legal proceedings brought against the City, its elected officials, officers, agents and employees arising out of the performance of the Consultant, its employees, and/or authorized subcontractors, of the work undertaken pursuant to this Agreement. The defense obligation provided for hereunder shall apply without any advance showing of negligence or wrongdoing by the Consultant, its employees, and/or authorized subcontractors, but shall be required whenever any claim, action, complaint, or suit asserts as its basis the negligence, errors, omissions or misconduct of the Consultant, its employees, and/or authorized subcontractors, and/or whenever any claim, action, complaint or suit asserts liability against the City, its elected officials, officers, agents and employees based upon the work performed by the Consultant, its employees, and/or authorized subcontractors under this Agreement, whether or not the Consultant, its employees, and/or authorized subcontractors are specifically named or otherwise asserted to be liable. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Consultant shall not be liable for the defense or indemnification of the City for claims, actions, complaints or suits arising out of the sole active negligence or willful misconduct of the City. This provision shall supersede and replace all other indemnity provisions contained either in the City's specifications or Consultant's Proposal, which shall be of no force and effect. 6.10. Independent Contractor. Consultant is and shall be acting at all times as an independent contractor and not as an employee of City. Consultant shall have no power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability on behalf of City or otherwise act on behalf of City as an agent. Neither City nor any of its agents shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant's employees, except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not, at any time, or in any manner, represent that it or any of its or employees are in any manner agents or employees of City. Consultant shall secure, at its sole expense, and be responsible for any and all payment of Income Tax, Social Security, State Disability Insurance Compensation, Unemployment Compensation, and other payroll deductions for Consultant and its officers, agents, and employees, and all business licenses, if any are required, in connection with the services to be performed hereunder. Consultant shall indemnify and hold City harmless from any and all taxes, assessments, penalties, and interest asserted against City by reason of the independent contractor relationship created by this Agreement. Consultant further agrees to indemnify and hold City harmless from any failure of Consultant to comply with the applicable worker's compensation laws. City shall have the right to offset against the amount of any fees due to Consultant under this Agreement any amount due to City from Consultant as a result of Consultant's failure to promptly pay to City any reimbursement or indemnification arising under this paragraph. 6.11. PERS Eligibility Indemnification. In the event that Consultant or any employee, agent, or subcontractor of Consultant providing services under this Agreement claims or is 7 Albert Grover & Associates I determined by a court of competent jurisdiction or the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) to be eligible for enrollment in PERS as an employee of the City, Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City for the payment of any employee and/or employer contributions for PERS benefits on behalf of Consultant or its employees, agents, or subcontractors, as well as for the payment of any penalties and interest on such contributions, which would otherwise be the responsibility of City. Notwithstanding any other agency, state or federal policy, rule, regulation, law or ordinance to the contrary, Consultant and any of its employees, agents, and subcontractors providing service under this Agreement shall not qualify for or become entitled to, and hereby agree to waive any claims to, any compensation, benefit, or any incident of employment by City, including but not limited to eligibility to enroll in PERS as an employee of City and entitlement to any contribution to be paid by City for employer contribution and/or employee contributions for PERS benefits. 6.12. Cooperation. In the event any claim or action is brought against City relating to Consultant's performance or services rendered under this Agreement, Consultant shall render any reasonable assistance and cooperation which City might require. 6.13. Ownership of Documents. All findings, reports, documents, information and data including, but not limited to, computer tapes or discs, files and tapes furnished or prepared by Consultant or any of its subcontractors in the course of performance of this Agreement, shall be and remain the sole property of City. Consultant agrees that any such documents or information shall not be made available to any individual or organization without the prior consent of City. Any use of such documents for other projects not contemplated by this Agreement, and any use of incomplete documents, shall be at the sole risk of City and without liability or legal exposure to Consultant. City shall indemnify and hold harmless Consultant from all claims, damages, losses, and expenses, including attorneys' fees, arising out of or resulting from City's use of such documents for other projects not contemplated by this Agreement or use of incomplete documents furnished by Consultant. Consultant shall deliver to City any findings, reports, documents, information, data, in any form, including but not limited to, computer tapes, discs, files audio tapes or any other Project related items as requested by City or its authorized representative, at no additional cost to the City. 6.14. Public Records Act Disclosure. Consultant has been advised and is aware that this Agreement and all reports, documents, information and data, including, but not limited to, computer tapes, discs or files furnished or prepared by Consultant, or any of its subcontractors, pursuant to this Agreement and provided to City may be subject to public disclosure as required by the California Public Records Act (California Government Code Section 6250 et seq.). Exceptions to public disclosure may be those documents or information that qualify as trade secrets, as that term is defined in the California Government Code Section 6254.7, and of which Consultant informs City of such trade secret. The City will endeavor to maintain as confidential all information obtained by it that is designated as a trade secret. The City shall not, in any way, be liable or responsible for the disclosure of any trade secret including, without limitation, those records so marked if disclosure is deemed to be required by law or by order of the Court. 6.15. Conflict of Interest. Consultant and its officers, employees, associates and subconsultants, if any, will comply with all conflict of interest statutes of the State of California applicable to Consultant's services under this agreement, including, but not limited to, the Political Reform Act (Government Code Sections 81000, et seq.) and Government Code Section 1090. During the term of this Agreement, Consultant and its officers, employees, associates and subconsultants shall not, without the prior written approval of the City 8 Albert Grover & Associates Representative, perform work for another person or entity for whom Consultant is not currently performing work that would require Consultant or one of its officers, employees, associates or subconsultants to abstain from a decision under this Agreement pursuant to a conflict of interest statute. 6.16. Responsibility for Errors. Consultant shall be responsible for its work and results under this Agreement. Consultant, when requested, shall furnish clarification and/or explanation as may be required by the City's representative, regarding any services rendered under this Agreement at no additional cost to City. In the event that an error or omission attributable to Consultant occurs, then Consultant shall, at no cost to City, provide all necessary design drawings, estimates and other Consultant professional services necessary to rectify and correct the matter to the sole satisfaction of City and to participate in any meeting required with regard to the correction. 6.17. Prohibited Employment. Consultant will not employ any regular employee of City while this Agreement is in effect. 6.18. Order of Precedence. In the event of an inconsistency in this Agreement and any of the attached Exhibits, the terms set forth in this Agreement shall prevail. If, and to the extent this Agreement incorporates by reference any provision of any document, such provision shall be deemed a part of this Agreement. Nevertheless, if there is any conflict among the terms and conditions of this Agreement and those of any such provision or provisions so incorporated by reference, this Agreement shall govern over the document referenced. 6.19. Costs. Each party shall bear its own costs and fees incurred in the preparation and negotiation of this Agreement and in the performance of its obligations hereunder except as expressly provided herein. 6.20. No Third Party Beneficiary Rights. This Agreement is entered into for the sole benefit of City and Consultant and no other parties are intended to be direct or incidental beneficiaries of this Agreement and no third party shall have any right in, under or to this Agreement. 6.21. Headings. Paragraphs and subparagraph headings contained in this Agreement are included solely for convenience and are not intended to modify, explain or to be a full or accurate description of the content thereof and shall not in any way affect the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement. 6.22. Construction. The parties have participated jointly in the negotiation and drafting of this Agreement. In the event an ambiguity or question of intent or interpretation arises with respect to this Agreement, this Agreement shall be construed as if drafted jointly by the parties and in accordance with its fair meaning. There shall be no presumption or burden of proof favoring or disfavoring any party by virtue of the authorship of any of the provisions of this Agreement. 6.23. Amendments. Only a writing executed by the parties hereto or their respective successors and assigns may amend this Agreement. 6.24. Waiver. The delay or failure of either party at any time to require performance or compliance by the other of any of its obligations or agreements shall in no way be deemed a waiver of those rights to require such performance or compliance. No waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be effective unless in writing and signed by a duly authorized 9 Albert Grover & Associates yy }} 1/ representative of the party against whom enforcement of a waiver is sought. The waiver of any right or remedy in respect to any occurrence or event shall not be deemed a waiver of any right or remedy in respect to any other occurrence or event, nor shall any waiver constitute a continuing waiver. 6.25. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unenforceable in any circumstance, such determination shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining terms and provisions hereof or of the offending provision in any other circumstance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the value of this Agreement, based upon the substantial benefit of the bargain for any party, is materially impaired, which determination made by the presiding court or arbitrator of competent jurisdiction shall be binding, then both parties agree to substitute such provision(s) through good faith negotiations. 6.26. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original. All counterparts shall be construed together and shall constitute one agreement. 6.27. Corporate Authority. The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties hereto warrant that they are duly authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of said parties and that by doing so the parties hereto are formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by and through their respective authorized officers, as of the date first above written. CITY OF COSTA MESA, A municipal corporation Mayor CONSULTANT Signature cKkukp Name and Title 33 - 0 5 7 y- 5S SS Social Security or Taxpayer ID Number Date: Date. L6 10 Albert Grover & Associates ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _ Date: City Attorney APPROVED AS TO INSURANCE: Risk Management APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: P 1 am Deshmukh, Project Manager DEPARTMENTALAPPROVAL Ernesto Munoz, Public Services Director Date: Date: 11-22 Date: 11 Albert Grover & Associates � Q-to" EXHIBIT A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS CITY OF COSTA MESA CALIFORNIA 92628-1200 PO. Box 1200 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES MANAGER January 5, 2015 SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR SUNFLOWER AVENUE TRAFFIC SIGNAL COORDINATION PROJECT Dear Consultant: The City of Costa Mesa is requesting proposals from Traffic Engineering Services Consultants (Consultant) to develop traffic signal infrastructure and timing improvements for the Sunflower Avenue Corridor. The scope of work is described in detail in the attached Request for Proposals (RFP). Tentative Schedule of Events from Issuance of the RFP to Award of Contract: RFP Distributed January 5, 2015 Proposals Due February 6, 2015 Consultant Interviews (if needed) Week of February 23, 2015 Consultant Selection March 6, 2015 City Council Authorization April 7, 2015 City Point of Contact: The primary contact regarding this RFP is Pritam Deshmukh, Associate Civil Engineer, at (714) 754- 5183. Proposals and all written inquiries related to this RFP are to be submitted to: Pritam Deshmukh, Associate Civil Engineer "Transportation Services Division City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Proposal Submittal and Closing Date: The consultants must provide their fee proposals in a separate sealed envelope. All proposals must be delivered to the above address, and will become part of the official files of the City and cannot be returned. The City of Costa Mesa's professional services standard agreement and sample certificate of insurance are included as Exhibit C & D. Should your firm be interested, please submit to the City of Costa Mesa, Transportation Services Division, 4th Floor, City Hall, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92626. 77 FAIR DRIVE f`l PHONE: (714) 754-5343 • TDD: (714) 754-5244 • www.costamesaca.gov I f Four (4) copies of each Consultant's proposal must be received by the City of Costa Mesa no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, February 6, 2015. Proposals nol received by the indicated time and date will not be accepted. No faxed copies or postmarks will be accepted in lieu of actual delivery. Sincerely, RAJA SETHURAMAN, Manager Transportation Services c Ernesto Munoz, Public Services Director Pritam Deshmukh, Associate Civil Engineer TABLE OF CONTENTS I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. INTRODUCTION B. GENERAL SCOPE OF WORK C. GENERAL WORK PROGRAM D. PRESENTATION TO STAKEHOLDERS E. CONTENT OF PROPOSAL F. FEE SCHEDULE G. PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA H. RIGHT TO REJECT ALL PROPOSALS IL SUNFLOWER AVENUE CORRIDOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL COORDINATION PROJECT A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION B. PROPOSED TIMING IMPLEMENTATION C. CONTRACT CHANGES D. GENERAL FEE SCHEDULE FORMAT SUNFLOWER AVENUE CORRIDOR - EXHIBIT A-1 TO A-2 PS&E REQUIREMENTS - EXHIBIT B PROFESSIONAL SERVICES STANDARD AGREEMENT - EXHIBIT C SAMPLE CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE - EXHIBIT D iii �I:1, I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. INTRODUCTION The City of Costa Mesa is requesting proposals to develop traffic signal infrastructure and coordination improvements for the Sunflower Avenue Corridor from Main Street to Hyland Avenue, with 14 signals within the City of Costa Mesa. A project location map for this corridor is included in Exhibit A-1. The proposed traffic signal infrastructure and coordination improvements for the project corridor are funded in part by Orange County Transportation Authority's (OCTA) Project P grant funds. B. GENERAL SCOPE OF WORK The general project scope of work includes: ❖ Assessment of traffic signals and arterial network conditions including signal phasing, traffic and pedestrian volumes, vehicle speeds, roadway capacity, and operational efficiency. ❖ Providing a concise Design Report Memorandum for suggested ITS elements such as CCTVs, signal systems, communication network, etc; functionality of the interconnect system; and other relevant information. ❖ Modeling of arterial and intersection capacity/progression and joint preparation of signal analysis and coordination timing plans for all intersections along the corridor and submitting them to the City for review and approval. ❖ Implementation and fine-tuning of signal coordination plans including compilation of Before/After Studies documenting project improvements, and annual assessment for two (2) years. ❖ Development of Project record drawings for the purchase and installation of necessary traffic signal controllers, controller cabinets, traffic signal improvements, communication equipment, and Closed Circuit Television Cameras (CCTV) and Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) equipment and elements. ❖ Work to be performed includes all necessary work for traffic signals within the City, including integration in the City of Costa Mesa's Traffic Management Center (TMC) and MIST System. The preliminary equipment listing for the intersections along the project corridor is included as Exhibit A-2. C. GENERAL WORK PROGRAM Signal timing along the project corridor requires updating to meet current traffic demands and patterns. The goals of the project are to update timing, and integrate the traffic signals, communication, and ITS components optimally at the City's TMC. Existing field conditions and signal timing plans for intersection and corridor operations shall be evaluated and conditions documented. The consultant shall model, analyze, and optimize iv I individual intersection conditions and submit for review by the City prior to analysis of arterial coordination studies. The Consultant shall use Synchro 8 for the analysis. The intersection and arterial signal analysis and optimization approach and all software programs to be utilized by the Consultant shall be described in detail in the proposal. New timings shall be developed, implemented, tested, and refined to optimize signal coordination and vehicle progression. A minimum of five (5) separate timing plans per intersection shall be prepared covering the A.M., P.M. peak periods, midday, night, and weekend. Full scale "draft" Time -Space Diagrams (500' per inch horizontal/50 second per inch vertical) shall be prepared for each timing pattern and presented to City staff for review, with final diagrams prepared documenting final coordination timings. The timing study shall account for the netwdrk-wide coordination system and respective impact/benefits to cross street progression. Network traffic flow shall not be compromised. Timing plans shall be submitted in a format that allows them to be uploaded to the City's Synchro 8 and MIST programs. The professional services scope of work is intended as a "Turnkey" project. All tasks shall be coordinated to effectively develop interrelated project elements, and tasks shall not be advanced until preliminary requirements are addressed and clear direction established. The consultant shall have total responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of all work and services required for this project. Quality Control shall be consistently and thoroughly applied throughout project development. Assigned QA/QC staff shall be technically well qualified to conduct the appropriate level of oversight, and demonstrate a concerted commitment to provide a high quality product. Project development meetings shall be held biweekly with concise written records prepared on all meetings and activities. The consultant will be responsible for all coordination with participating agencies, preparing meeting agendas, minutes, and presentation materials. A project schedule shall be prepared itemizing all activities and subtasks to support project milestones. The schedule shall be in the form of a bar chart and show deliverables and other relevant data needed for the control of work. A copy of the schedule and monthly updates shall be furnished to the City Project Manager. The proposed scope of work is based on a Measure M2 Program P grant award received from OCTA. The consultant shall retain detailed accounting records to fully meet OCTA accounting and audit oversight. Consultants proposing on this project shall clearly demonstrate the ability and commitment to accelerate project completion with promptness and efficiency. Accordingly, the consultant shall commit all necessary resources to achieve expeditious completion. Firms considering proposal submittals are requested to have in-house technical expertise to fully and professionally address and facilitate all aspects of the project. The selected consulting firm shall maintain the same project manager throughout the duration of the project, as specified in the proposal and approved by the City. The description of work defines the general project requirements. Associated tasks and provisions not specifically defined herein are requested to be fully addressed in the proposal. The tasks and fee shall reflect the mandatory combined elements for the overall project, route assessment, signal coordination, before and after studies, and address the equipment identified needs. All tasks shall be undertaken and completed within the proposed "Not to Exceed" contract fee. r v� D. PRESENTATION TO STAKEHOLDERS The consultant will be required to present the results of the study at a City Council Study Session and at the ITS Roundtable meetings at OCTA. E. CONTENT OF PROPOSAL It is requested that the following be submitted with your proposal: ➢ A narrative understanding of the project, any suggestions you might have to expedite the project or special concerns that the City should be informed about. Identify all tasks necessary to meet the intended project objective and achieve project completion within the proposal timeframes. ➢ Production of Plans, Specifications and Estimate shall conform to the details listed in Exhibit B, where the consultant proposes to produce plans. The approach should specifically address the manner in which the consultant plans to accomplish the work. Sub -consultants and teams shall be listed on the proposal. ➢ A detailed schedule indicating stages of work, sub -tasks and timeframes. ➢ An organization chart and staffing plan identifying personnel who will perform work for each specific corridor, a brief resume on each individual (one page max per person), and recent projects they have worked on of similar type. Identify the project manager with a detailed resume and the individual authorized to negotiate the contract on behalf of the consulting firm for this project. ➢ A listing of similar improvement projects that your firm has completed within the last five years. Information should include a description of work, year completed, cost, and agency/client name along with the agency contact person. ➢ The City may develop a short list and schedule interviews or make an award based on proposals alone. ➢ Commitment to comply with Professional Services Agreement requirements for the City of Costa Mesa and Insurance requirements, attached as Exhibits C and D. ➢ Submittal of Four (4) duplicate proposals is requested. ➢ The proposal may not be longer than 20 pages, excluding the attached resume pages. F. FEE SCHEDULE The professional services contract fee is to be submitted in a separate envelope. The fee schedule should show the hourly cost of personnel per task under each phase, with a total not -to -exceed amount for the project. The consultant's cost proposal for the prime and sub -consultants should contain a breakdown of all cost components including labor base rate, other direct costs, overhead, and fees in compliance with the described scope, the attached General Specifications, and include all associated work required to achieve the project objective. It is requested that the fee, including meetings, reproduction, materials, and associated project expenses be itemized per the following General Fee Schedule format, though additional support details may be included. G. PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA Proposals will be evaluated on the basis of the response to all provisions of this RFP. The maximum score is 100 total possible points. The following criteria will be used for evaluation and comparison of proposals submitted. ➢ Firm Qualifications (technical expertise, staff qualifications, etc.) 25 points ➢ Management Approach (methodology, quality control, etc.) 25 points ➢ Work Plan (delivery schedule, local knowledge, etc.) 25 points ➢ Overall Presentation (similar project experience, RFP compliance, etc.) 25 points H. RIGHT TO REJECT OR SPLIT ALL PROPOSALS The City of Costa Mesa reserves the right to reject any or all proposals submitted, and no representation is made hereby that any contract will be awarded pursuant to this request for proposal, or otherwise. All costs incurred in the preparation of the proposal, in the submission of additional information, and/or in any other aspect of a proposal prior to the award of a written contract will be borne by respondent. The City will provide only the staff assistance and documentation specifically referred to herein and will not be responsible for any other cost or obligation of any kind that may be incurred by a respondent. All proposals submitted to the City of Costa Mesa in response to this request for proposals shall become the property of the City. Parts of the project may be awarded separately to different consultants, dependent upon budgetary and time constraints. The City of Costa Mesa's professional services standard agreement and sample certificate of insurance are included as Exhibits C and D. Should your firm be interested in submitting a proposal for this project, please forward to the City of Costa Mesa, Transportation Services Division, 4th Floor City Hall, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92626, on or before 5:00 p.m., February 6, 2015. No Faxed Copies; Postmarks will not be accepted in lieu of actual delivery. vii II. SUNFLOWER AVENUE CORRIDOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL COORDINATION PROJECT A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Sunflower Avenue Corridor Traffic Signal Coordination Project will coordinate traffic signal timing and provide necessary upgrades to traffic signal infrastructure including necessary integration and technical improvements to monitor these signals in the City's Traffic Management system. This corridor includes 14 signals between Main Street and Hyland Avenue and runs approximately 3.3 miles within the City of Costa Mesa. This corridor carries an average daily traffic volume of up to 26,000 vehicles. Sunflower Avenue is an east -west corridor that serves office, residential, and commercial (South Coast Plaza) uses between Main Street and Harbor Boulevard. B. PROPOSED TIMING IMPLEMENTATION A minimum of three (3) separate "post timing implementation" field studies shall be conducted for each timing plan to incrementally optimize progression by refining cycle lengths, offsets, phase sequences, and split parameters in close consultation with City staff. A final report will be prepared summarizing "before" and "after" conditions identifying signal coordination benefits derived in corridor vehicle progression, including reduction in stops, delays, fuel consumption, exhaust emissions, and improvement in individual intersection operations. The manual input of all new coordination timings and any adjustments recommended by the consultant shall be made by the consultant in Costa Mesa with direct supervision by City staff. C. CONTRACT CHANGES Any change in the scope of work resulting in a contract increase or decrease in fee shall be approved by the City in writing prior to commencement of any change in work. No fee adjustment will be allowed unless said prior approval is authorized exclusively in writing by the City, without exception. viii D. GENERAL FEE SCHEDULE FORMAT The format shows the general fee schedule format, though additional support details maybe included: General Fee Schedule Part 1-- Signal Coordination, Develop and Implement timing, Before and After Studies, Reports and documents for OCTA reporting Part 2--System Improvements, Procure and Install Equipment Part 3-- Preparation of Record drawings, or Project Plans, Specifications and Estimate or Procurement documents Part 4-- Preparation of Plans, Specifications and Estimate for TMC Improvements Part 5-- 2 Years follow-up Maintenance Per Year $ CUMULATIVE NOT -TO -EXCEED FEE: Additive Work Scone S Lump Sum $ Lump Sum $ Lump Sum $ Lump Sum $ Sub -Total $ Traffic Counts at Intersections Per Intersection $ Total $ Install 3" Conduit Per Lineal Foot $ Total $ Additive work shall be included exclusively at the discretion of the City contingent on bid results. Please include an estimated work breakdown structure for the project and personnel rate sheet. The evaluation recognizes that costs may vary based upon project approach so work breakdown structure information should support fee submissions. All originals of plans, field notes, data and calculations, correspondence, reports, electronic files, etc., will be turned over to the City upon completion of work. Ten percent (10016) of the total contract fee will be withheld until final project documents are submitted to the City. ix 4 \V r 1S Ulayy Q rn O 1S S�a�olj 1Q e>fak k"a; " 4 �ftIl ,> aA`{ ,a u] I ., T 1S 101sl/g v JQFMW4� Q IS was � Q r r C I� A 1SUlwd isersyanj we�i 15 ^wMj SUMS Ph18 irxJwH I r 1 i i V P+1II1 H EXHIBIT A-2 SUNFLOWER AVENUE TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYNCHRONIZATION PROJECT The following list of work shall be accomplished for the project. The consultant will develop a set of plans, specifications and estimate for the following work (Items 1 — 17 below) to be managed and accomplished with consultant forces and with the use of subcontractors. Additionally, the consultant will develop a set of plans, specifications and estimate for the construction of 3' conduit (details provided in Item #15) to be accomplished through competitive bid process. Changes to the work and approach may be proposed based on traffic signal coordination studies and consultant's level of expertise. All work proposed shall be compatible with the City's current Traffic Management System and result in the following outcome at each signal. Costa Mesa Project Improvement List 1. Sunflower Avenue at Main Street No Equipment 2. Sunflower Avenue at Anton Boulevard No Equipment 3. Sunflower Avenue at Flower Street/Sakioka Drive ASC/3 controller, fiber switch, D-Panel, 6(E) pullbox, splice enclosure, fiber distribution unit, Fiber Optic Cable, drop cable, and pedestrian signal upgrades 4. Sunflower Avenue at Avenue of Arts ASC/3 controller, fiber switch, D-Panel, 6(E) pullbox, splice enclosure, fiber distribution unit, Fiber Optic Cable, drop cable, CCTV system, and pedestrian signal upgrades 5. Sunflower Avenue at Park Center ASC/3 controller, fiber switch, D-Panel, 6(E) pullbox, splice enclosure, fiber distribution unit, Fiber Optic Cable, drop cable, and pedestrian signal upgrades 6. Sunflower Avenue at Bristol Street Install Fiber Optic Cable, and pedestrian signal upgrades 7. Sunflower Avenue at Plaza Drive ASC/3 controller, fiber switch, D-Panel, 6(E) pullbox, splice enclosure, fiber distribution unit, Fiber Optic Cable, drop cable, and pedestrian signal upgrades 8. Sunflower Avenue at Bear Street ASC/3 controller, fiber switch, D-Panel, 6(E) pullbox, splice enclosure, fiber distribution unit, Fiber Optic Cable, drop cable, managed ethernet switch, CCTV system, and pedestrian signal upgrades 9. Sunflower Avenue at Fuchsia Street/Raitt Street ASC/3 controller, fiber switch, D-Panel, 6(E) pullbox, splice enclosure, fiber distribution unit, drop cable, Fiber Optic Cable, Type P cabinet, and Uninterruptible Power Supply unit 10. Sunflower Avenue at Wimbledon Way ASC/3 controller, fiber switch, D-Panel, 6(E) pullbox, splice enclosure, fiber distribution unit, drop cable, Fiber Optic Cable, Type P cabinet, and Uninterruptible Power Supply unit 11. Sunflower Avenue at Fairview Road Install Fiber Optic Cable 12. Sunflower Avenue at Susan Street ASC/3 controller, fiber switch, D-Panel, 6(E) pullbox, splice enclosure, fiber distribution unit, Fiber Optic Cable, drop cable, and CCTV camera engaging 13. Sunflower Avenue at Harbor Boulevard Install fiber switch, D-Panel, 6(E) pullbox, splice enclosure, fiber distribution unit, Fiber Optic Cable, and Wireless antenna 14. Sunflower Avenue at Hvland Avenue ASC/3 controller, Wireless antenna, and D-Panel 15. PS&E for 3" conduit — PS&E for a 3" conduit along Sunflower Avenue between Wimbledon Way and Fuschia Street (approximately 1,750 ft) and between Harbor Boulevard and Susan Street (approximately 1,800 ft) 16. Central System Improvements — Central System integration and configuration of 13 intersections into the MIST system with graphics. Develop plans, specifications and estimates for relocating the Traffic Management Center (TMC). 17. SMFO Installation - Replace the existing TWP copper cable with 24-strand SMFO in existing conduits. Total distance, including slack, is approximately 16,000 feet. EXHIBIT B PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS & ESTIMATE_ REQUIREMENTS This phase includes the preparation of final plans and specifications necessary to construct the project. This task includes, but is not limited to the following: Engineering (PS&E), System Improvement (Procurement, Installation and Integration) The project also has a number of improvements that include traffic signals upgrade, traffic surveillance system, communication system, Traffic Management Center hardware/software upgrades, and other traffic signal synchronization related. ❖ The construction of a 3" conduit along Sunflower Avenue between Wimbledon Way and Fuchsia Street and between Susan Street and Harbor Boulevard will require a proper licensed and bonded contractor to follow the City's bid and award process. This will require Plans, Specifications and Estimate packages to be prepared by the consultant under the Engineering (PS&E) task. ❖ All other improvements including hardware/software upgrades that can be completed under professional engineering services will be done by the consultant or its subcontractor under System Improvement (procure, install and integrate) task. Engineering (PS&E) The Consultant shall perform all necessary data collection and field review to prepare plans, specifications and estimates for the listed improvements. PS&E for improvement shall conform to City of Costa Mesa's standards and procedures. From the list of improvements identified in Exhibit A-2, the following specific improvements will require PS&E: 1. Conduit/pullbox and interconnect/fiber optic installation 2. CCTV installation/replacement 3. Cabinet/Service upgrade/replacement 4. Pedestrian equipment upgrade 5. TMC Improvements 6. All other related improvements on the application but not listed under the consultant procurement and implementation. The Consultant shall perform all necessary data collection and field review to prepare plans, specifications and estimates and bid package for construction of a new 3" interconnect conduit. PS&E and bid package for this task shall conform to City of Costa Mesa's standards and procedures for bid and award. System Procurement and Integration The Consultant under the engineering services shall be responsible for the procurement, installation, and integration of the improvements listed below. All controllers, communication equipment, system hardware, and firmware shall have a 3-year license/maintenance/guarantee on firmware/software patches, fixes, updates, or upgrades. Traffic Signal Equipment and Internet Protocol (IP) Communication Equipment The Consultant shall procure, install, and integrate all traffic signal equipment (ASO controllers, cabinet replacements, electrical service upgrade, etc.) and IP communication equipment (Ethernet and fiber optic switches, fiber optic cable, fiber distribution units, etc.) as shown in the Exhibit A-2. TMC The Consultant will work with City staff to determine the Traffic Signal System, Video Management and Display Systems, and related improvement needs. Consultant shall prepare PS&E, and procure and implement the system. Additionally, the Consultant shall prepare PS&E for TMC Improvements including construction of a climate -controlled area and preparing a layout showing all the equipment in this area. EXHIBIT C PROFESSIONAL STANDARD SERVICES AGREEMENT iii This Agreement template is for informational purposes only and is intended for use as an example to vendors showing the City's requirements. When making a request, please submit only the Rer uest orin above and s=orling documents. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of , 2007 ("Effective Date"), by and between the CITY OF COSTA MESA, a municipal corporation ("City"), and , a California corporation ("Consultant"). WITNESSETH: A. WHEREAS, City proposes to have Consultant perform as described herein below; and B. WHEREAS, Consultant represents that it has that degree of specialized expertise contemplated within California Government Code, Section 37103, and holds all necessary licenses to practice and perform the services herein contemplated; and C. WHEREAS, City and Consultant desire to contract for specific services in connection with the project described below (the "Project") and desire to set forth their rights, duties and liabilities in connection with the services to be performed; and D. WHEREAS, no official or employee of City has a financial interest, within the provisions of California Government Code, Sections 1090-1092, in the subject matter of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions contained herein, the parties hereby agree as follows: 1.0. SERVICES PROVIDED BY CONSULTANT 1.1. Scope of Services. Consultant shall provide the professional services described in the City's Request for Proposal ("RFP") attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference and Consultant's Response to City's RFP (the "Response"). A copy of said Response is attached hereto as Exhibit `B" and incorporated herein by this reference. 1.2. Professional Practices. All professional services to be provided by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall be provided by personnel experienced in their respective fields and in a manner consistent with the standards of care, diligence and skill ordinarily exercised by professional consultants in similar fields and circumstances in accordance with sound professional practices. Consultant also warrants that it is familiar with all laws that may affect its performance of this Agreement and shall advise City of any changes in any laws that may affect Consultant's performance of this Agreement. 1.3. Waffanly. Consultant warrants that it shall perform the services required by this no Agreement in compliance with all applicable Federal and California employment laws including, but not limited to, those laws related to minimum hours and wages; occupational health and safety; fair employment and employment practices; workers' compensation insurance and safety in employment; and all other Federal, State and local laws and ordinances applicable to the services required under this Agreement. Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless City from and against all claims, demands, payments, suits, actions, proceedings, and judgments of every nature and description including attorneys' fees and costs, presented, brought, or recovered against City for, or on account of any liability under any of the above -mentioned laws, which may be incurred by reason of Consultant's performance under this Agreement. 1.4. Non-discrimination. In performing this Agreement, Consultant shall not engage in, nor permit its agents to engage in, discrimination in employment of persons because of their race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, age, physical handicap, medical condition, marital status, sexual gender or sexual orientation, except as permitted pursuant to Section 12940 of the Government Code. Violation of this provision may result in the imposition of penalties referred to in Labor Code, Section 1735. 1.5 Non -Exclusive Agreement. Consultant acknowledges that City may enter into agreements with other consultants for services similar to the services that are subject to this Agreement or may have its own employees perform services similar to those services contemplated by this Agreement. 1.6. Delegation and Assignment. This is a personal service contract, and the duties set forth herein shall not be delegated or assigned to any person or entity without the prior written consent of City. Consultant may engage a subcontractor(s) as permitted by law and may employ other personnel to perform services contemplated by this Agreement at Consultant's sole cost and expense. 2.0. COMPENSATION AND BILLING 2.1. Compensation. Consultant shall be paid in accordance with the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit "C," attached hereto and made a part of this Agreement (the "Fee Schedule"). Consultant's compensation shall in no case exceed Dollars ($ .00). 2.2. Additional Services. Consultant shall not receive compensation for any services provided outside the scope of services specified in the Response unless the City or the Project Manager for this Project, prior to Consultant performing the additional services, approves such additional services in writing. It is specifically understood that oral requests and/or approvals of such additional services or additional compensation shall be barred and are unenforceable. 2.3. Method of Billing. Consultant may submit invoices to City's Project Manager for approval on a progress basis, but no more often than monthly. Said invoice shall be based on the total of all Consultant's services which have been completed to City's sole satisfaction. City shall pay Consultant's invoice within forty-five (45) days from the date City receives said invoice. Each invoice shall describe in detail, the services performed and the associated time for completion. Any additional services approved and performed pursuant to this Agreement shall be designated as "Additional Services" and shall identify the number of the authorized change order, where applicable, on all invoices. 2.4. Records and Audits. Records of Consultant's services relating to this Agreement shall be maintained in accordance with generally recognized accounting principles and shall be made available to City or its Project Manager for inspection and/or audit at mutually convenient times for a period of three (3) years from the Effective Date. 3.0. TIME OF PERFORMANCE 3.1. Commencement and Completion of Work. The professional services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall commence within five (5) days from the Effective Date of this Agreement. Said services shall be performed in strict compliance with the Project Schedule approved by City as set forth in Exhibit "D," attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. The Project Schedule may be amended by mutual agreement of the parties. Failure to commence work in a timely manner and/or diligently pursue work to completion may be grounds for termination of this Agreement. 3.2. Excusable Delays. Neither party shall be responsible for delays or lack of performance resulting from acts beyond the reasonable control of the party or parties. Such acts shall include, but not be limited to, acts of God, fire, strikes, material shortages, compliance with laws or regulations, riots, acts of war, or any other conditions beyond the reasonable control of a party. 4.0. TERM AND TERMINATION 4.1. Term. This Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and continue for a period of (X) year, ending on , unless previously terminated as provided herein or as otherwise agreed to in writing by the parties. 4.2. Notice of Termination. The City reserves and has the right and privilege of canceling, suspending or abandoning the execution of all or any part of the work contemplated by this Agreement, with or without cause, at any time, by providing written notice to Consultant. The termination of this Agreement shall be deemed effective upon receipt of the notice of termination. In the event of such termination, Consultant shall immediately stop rendering services under this Agreement unless directed otherwise by the City. 4.3. Compensation. In the event of termination, City shall pay Consultant for reasonable costs incurred and professional services satisfactorily performed up to and including the date of City's written notice of termination. Compensation for work in progress shall be prorated as to the percentage of work completed as of the effective date of termination in accordance with the fees set forth herein. In ascertaining the professional services actually rendered hereunder up to the effective date of termination of this Agreement, consideration shall be given to both completed work and work in progress, to complete and incomplete drawings, and to other documents pertaining to the services contemplated herein whether delivered to the City or in the possession of the Consultant. 4.4 Documents. In the event of termination of this Agreement, all documents prepared by Consultant in its performance of this Agreement including, but not limited to, finished or unfinished design, development and construction documents, data studies, drawings, maps and reports, shall be delivered to the City within ten (10) days of delivery of termination notice to Consultant, at no cost to City. Any use of uncompleted documents without specific written authorization from Consultant shall be at City's sole risk and without liability or legal expense to Consultant. 5.0. INSURANCE 5.1. Minimum Scope and Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall obtain and maintain during the life of this Agreement all of the following insurance coverages: (a) Comprehensive general liability, including premises -operations, products/completed operations, broad form property damage, blanket contractual liability, independent contractors, personal injury with a policy limit of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00), combined single limits, per occurrence and aggregate. (b) Automobile liability for owned vehicles, hired, and non -owned vehicles, with a policy limit of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00), combined single limits, per occurrence and aggregate. (c) Workers' compensation insurance as required by the State of California. (d) Professional errors and omissions ("E&O") liability insurance with policy limits of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00), combined single limits, per occurrence and aggregate. Consultant shall obtain and maintain, said E&O liability insurance during the life of this Agreement and for three years after completion of the work hereunder. 5.2. Endorsements. The comprehensive general liability insurance policy shall contain or be endorsed to contain the following provisions: (a) Additional insureds: "The City of Costa Mesa and its elected and appointed boards, officers, agents, and employees are additional insureds with respect to this subject project and contract with City." (b) Notice: "Said policy shall not terminate, nor shall it be cancelled, nor the coverage reduced, until thirty (30) days after written notice is given to City." (c) Other insurance: "Any other insurance maintained by the City of Costa Mesa shall be excess and not contributing with the insurance provided by this policy." 5.3. Certificates of Insurance: Consultant shall provide to City certificates of insurance showing the insurance coverages and required endorsements described above, in a form and content approved by City, prior to performing any services under this Agreement. 5.4. Non -limiting: Nothing in this Section shall be construed as limiting in any way, the indemnification provision contained in this Agreement, or the extent to which Consultant may be held responsible for payments of damages to persons or property. 6.0. GENERAL PROVISIONS 6.1. Entire Agreement: This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties with respect to any matter referenced herein and supersedes any and all other prior writings and oral negotiations. This Agreement may be modified only in writing, and signed by the parties in interest at the time of such modification. The terms of this Agreement shall prevail over any inconsistent provision in any other contract document appurtenant hereto, including exhibits to this Agreement. 6.2. Representatives. The City Manager or his designee shall be the representative of City for purposes of this Agreement and may issue all consents, approvals, directives and agreements on behalf of the City, called for by this Agreement, except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement. Consultant shall designate a representative for purposes of this Agreement who shall be authorized to issue all consents, approvals, directives and agreements on behalf of Consultant called for by this Agreement, except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement. 6.3. Project Managers. City shall designate a Project Manager to work directly with Consultant in the performance of this Agreement. Consultant shall designate a Project Manager who shall represent it and be its agent in all consultations with City during the term of this Agreement. Consultant or its Project Manager shall attend and assist in all coordination meetings called by City. 6.4. Notices: Any notices, documents, correspondence or other communications concerning this Agreement or the work hereunder may be provided by personal delivery, facsimile or mail and shall be addressed as set forth below. Such communication shall be deemed served or delivered: a) at the time of delivery if such communication is sent by personal delivery; b) at the time of transmission if such communication is sent by facsimile; and c) 48 hours after deposit in the U.S. Mail as reflected by the official U.S. postmark if such communication is sent through regular United States mail. IF TO CONSULTANT: IF TO CITY: City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Tel: Tel: 714-754- Fax: Fax: 714-754- Attn: Attn: 6.5. Drug -free Workplace Policy. Consultant shall provide a drug -free workplace by complying with all provisions set forth in City's Council Policy 100-5, attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and incorporated herein by reference. Consultant's failure to conform to the requirements set forth in Council Policy 100-5 shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement and shall be cause for immediate termination of this Agreement by City. 6.6. Attorneys' Fees: In the event that litigation is brought by any party in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the opposing party all costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred by the prevailing party in the exercise of any of its rights or remedies hereunder or the enforcement of any of the terms, conditions, or provisions hereof. 6.7. Governing Law: This Agreement shall be governed by and construed under the laws of the State of California without giving effect to that body of laws pertaining to conflict of laws. In the event of any legal action to enforce or interpret this Agreement, the parties hereto agree that the sole and exclusive venue shall be a court of competent jurisdiction located in Orange County, California. 6.8. Assignment: Consultant shall not voluntarily or by operation of law assign, transfer, sublet or encumber all or any part of Consultant's interest in this Agreement without City's prior written consent. Any attempted assignment, transfer, subletting or encumbrance shall be void and shall constitute a breach of this Agreement and cause for termination of this Agreement. Regardless of City's consent, no subletting or assignment shall release Consultant of Consultant's obligation to perform all other obligations to be performed by Consultant hereunder for the term of this Agreement. 6.9. Indemnification and Hold Harmless: Consultant shall protect, defend, indemnify and hold harmless City and its elected and appointed officials, officers, and employees from any and all claims, liabilities, expenses, including attorney fees, damage to property or injuries to or death of any person or persons or damages of any nature including, but not by way of limitation, all civil claims or workers' compensation claims arising out of or in any way connected with the intentional or negligent acts, error or omissions of Consultant, its employees, agents or subcontractors in the performance of this Agreement. 6.10. Independent Contractor: Consultant is and shall be acting at all times as an independent contractor and not as an employee of City. Consultant shall secure, at his expense, and be responsible for any and all payment of Income Tax, Social Security, State Disability Insurance Compensation, Unemployment Compensation, and other payroll deductions for Consultant and its officers, agents, and employees, and all business licenses, if any are required, in connection with the services to be performed hereunder. 6.11. Ownership of Documents: All findings, reports, documents, information and data including, but not limited to, computer tapes or discs, files and tapes furnished or prepared by Consultant or any of its subcontractors in the course of performance of this Agreement, shall be and remain the sole property of City. Consultant agrees that any such documents or information shall not be made available to any individual or organization without the prior consent of City. Any use of such documents for other projects not contemplated by this Agreement, and any use of incomplete documents, shall be at the sole risk of City and without liability or legal exposure to Consultant. City shall indemnify and hold harmless Consultant from all claims, damages, losses, and expenses, including attorneys' fees, arising out of or resulting from City's use of such documents for other projects not contemplated by this Agreement or use of incomplete documents furnished by Consultant. Consultant shall deliver to City any findings, reports, documents, information, data, in any form, including but not limited to, computer tapes, discs, files audio tapes or any other Project related items as requested by City or its authorized representative, at no additional cost to the City. 6.12. Public Records Act Disclosure: Consultant has been advised and is aware that all reports, documents, information and data including, but not limited to, computer tapes, discs or files furnished or prepared by Consultant, or any of its subcontractors, and provided to City may be subject to public disclosure as required by the California Public Records Act (California Government Code Section 6250 et. seq.). Exceptions to public disclosure may be those documents or information that qualify as trade secrets, as that term is defined in the California Government Code Section 6254.7, and of which Consultant informs City of such trade secret. The City will endeavor to maintain as confidential all information obtained by it that is designated as a trade secret. The City shall not, in any way, be liable or responsible for the disclosure of any trade secret including, without limitation, those records so marked if disclosure is deemed to be required by law or by order of the Court. 6.13. Responsibility for Errors. Consultant shall be responsible for its work and results under this Agreement. Consultant, when requested, shall furnish clarification and/or explanation as may be required by the City's representative, regarding any services rendered under this Agreement at no additional cost to City. In the event that an error or omission attributable to Consultant occurs, then Consultant shall, at no cost to City, provide all necessary design drawings, estimates and other Consultant professional services necessary to rectify and correct the matter to the sole satisfaction of City and to participate in any meeting required with regard to the correction. 6.14. Prohibited Employment: Consultant will not employ any regular employee of City while this Agreement is in effect. 6.15. Order of Precedence: In the event of an inconsistency in this Agreement and any of the attached Exhibits, the terms set forth in this Agreement shall prevail.. If, and to the extent this Agreement incorporates by reference any provision of the RFP or the Response, such provision shall be deemed a part of this Agreement. Nevertheless, if there is any conflict among the terms and conditions of this Agreement and those of any such provision or provisions so incorporated by reference, this Agreement shall govern over both the Response and the RFP and the Response shall govern over the RFP. 6.16. Costs: Each party shall bear its own costs and fees incurred in the preparation and negotiation of this Agreement and in the performance of its obligations hereunder except as expressly provided herein. 6.17. No Third Partv BeneficiarRights: This Agreement is entered into for the sole benefit of City and Consultant and no other parties are intended to be direct or incidental beneficiaries of this Agreement and no third party shall have any right in, under or to this Agreement. 6.18. Headings: Paragraphs and subparagraph headings contained in this Agreement are included solely for convenience and are not intended to modify, explain or to be a full or accurate description of the content thereof and shall not in any way affect the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement. 6.19. Construction: The parties have participated jointly in the negotiation and drafting of this Agreement. In the event an ambiguity or question of intent or interpretation arises with respect to D3� this Agreement, this Agreement shall be construed as if drafted jointly by the parties and in accordance with its fair meaning. There shall be no presumption or burden of proof favoring or disfavoring any party by virtue of the authorship of any of the provisions of this Agreement. 6.20. Amendments: Only a writing executed by the parties hereto or their respective successors and assigns may amend this Agreement. 6.21. Waiver: The delay or failure of either party at any time to require performance or compliance by the other of any of its obligations or agreements shall in no way be deemed a waiver of those rights to require such performance or compliance. No waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be effective unless in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of the party against whom enforcement of a waiver is sought. The waiver of any right or remedy in respect to any occurrence or event shall not be deemed a waiver of any right or remedy in respect to any other occurrence or event, nor shall any waiver constitute a continuing waiver. 6.22. Severability: If any provision of this Agreement is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unenforceable in any circumstance, such determination shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining terms and provisions hereof or of the offending provision in any other circumstance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the value of this Agreement, based upon the substantial benefit of the bargain for any party is materially impaired, which determination as made by the presiding court or arbitrator of competent jurisdiction shall be binding, then both parties agree to substitute such provision(s) through good faith negotiations. 6.23. Counterparts: This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original. All counterparts shall be construed together and shall constitute one agreement. 6.24. Corporate Authority: The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties hereto warrant that they are duly authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of said parties and that by doing so, the parties hereto are formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by and through their respective authorized officers, as of the date first above written. CITY OF COSTA MESA, A municipal corporation Date: Mayor of the City of Costa Mesa CONSULTANT Date: Signature Name and Title Social Security or Taxpayer ID Number ATTEST: City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa APPROVED AS TO FORM: Date: City Attorney APPROVED AS TO INSURANCE: Date: Risk Management APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Date: Project Manager SUBJECT POLICY EFFECTIVE PAGE NUMBER DATE DRUG -FREE WORKPLACE 100-5 8-8-89 1 of 3 BACKGROUND Under the Federal Drug -Free Workplace Act of 1988, passed as part of omnibus drug legislation enacted November 18, 1988, contractors and grantees of Federal funds must certify that they will provide drug -free workplaces. At the present time, the City of Costa Mesa, as a sub -grantee of Federal funds under a variety of programs, is required to abide by this Act. The City Council has expressed its support of the national effort to eradicate drug abuse through the creation of a Substance Abuse Committee, institution of a City-wide D.A.R.E. program in all local schools and other activities in support of a drug -free community. This policy is intended to extend that effort to contractors and grantees of the City of Costa Mesa in the elimination of dangerous drugs in the workplace. PURPOSE It is the purpose of this Policy to: 1. Clearly state the City of Costa Mesa's commitment to a drug -free society. 2. Set forth guidelines to ensure that public, private, and nonprofit organizations receiving funds from the City of Costa Mesa share the commitment to a drug -free workplace. POLICY The City Manager, under direction by the City Council, shall take the necessary steps to see that the following provisions are included in all contracts and agreements entered into by the City of Costa Mesa involving the disbursement of funds. 1. Contractor or Sub -grantee hereby certifies that it will provide a drug -free workplace by: a. Publishing a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in Contractor's and/or sub - grantee's workplace, specifically the job site or location included in this contract, and specifying the actions that will be taken against the employees for violation of such prohibition; SUBJECT POLICY EFFECTIVE PAGE NUMBER DATE DRUG -FREE WORKPLACE 100-5 8-8-89 2 of 3 b. Establishing a Drug -Free Awareness Program to inform employees about: 1. The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace; 2. Contractor's and/or sub -grantee's policy of maintaining a drug -free workplace; 3. Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation and employee assistance programs; and 4. The penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations occurring in the workplace; c. Making it a requirement that each employee to be engaged in the performance of the contract be given a copy of the statement required by subparagraph A; d. Notifying the employee in the statement required by subparagraph 1 A that, as a condition of employment under the contract, the employee will: 1. Abide by the terms of the statement; and 2. Notify the employer of any criminal drug statute conviction for a violation occurring in the workplace no later than five (5) days after such conviction; e. Notifying the City of Costa Mesa within ten (10) days after receiving notice under subparagraph 1 D 2 from an employee or otherwise receiving the actual notice of such conviction; f. Taking one of the following actions within thirty (30) days of receiving notice under subparagraph 1 D 2 with respect to an employee who is so convicted: 1. Taking appropriate personnel action against such an employee, up to and including termination; or 2. Requiring such employee to participate satisfactorily in a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation program approved for such purposes by a Federal, State, or local health agency, law enforcement, or other appropriate agency; SUBJECT POLICY EFFECTIVE PAGE NUMBER DATE DRUG -FREE WORKPLACE 100-5 8-8-89 3 of 3 g. Making a good faith effort to maintain a drug -free workplace through implementation of subparagraphs 1 A through 1 F, inclusive. 2. Contractor and/or sub -grantee shall be deemed to be in violation of this Policy if the City of Costa Mesa determines that: Contractor and/or sub -grantee has made a false certification under paragraph 1 above; b. Contractor and/or sub -grantee has violated the certification by failing to carry out the requirements of subparagraphs 1 A through 1 G above; C. Such number of employees of Contractor and/or sub -grantee have been convicted of violations of criminal drug statutes for violations occurring in the workplace as to indicate that the contractor and/or sub -grantee has failed to make a good faith effort to provide a drug - free workplace. Should any contractor and/or sub -grantee be deemed to be in violation of this Policy pursuant to the provisions of 2 A, B, and C, a suspension, termination or debarment proceeding subject to applicable Federal, State, and local laws shall be conducted. Upon issuance of any final decision under this section requiring debarment of a contractor and/or sub -grantee, the contractor and/or sub -grantee shall be ineligible for award of any contract, agreement or grant from the City of Costa Mesa for a period specified in the decision, not to exceed five (5) years. Upon issuance of any final decision recommending against debarment of the contractor and/or sub -grantee, the contractor and/or sub -grantee shall be eligible for compensation as provided by law. EXHIBIT D SAMPLE CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE iv (� ACORP. CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE DAM MMWM PRODUCER THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE -DOES NOT AMEND, E)[1END OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES SELOW. INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE INSURED �%A, INSURER &.*-Travel ggs IndMpity Co. of Connecticut INSURER B: Traygjerg; 12roperty CasualtyCo of Ameri INSURER c: Liberty-r Ce VAderwriters, Inc. INSURER D:Travelers Casualt y I4g_..Cq, gf .America INSURER E: COVERAGES rHE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE BRMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. I SR TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER POLICY LIMITS A, GENERAL LIABILITY 8/15/2009 8/15/2010 EAcHaccuRRENc6 $1 000 0 FIRE DAMAGE jAg one his i COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CLAIMS MADE ® OCCUR MED EXP JAW One ;10 PERSONAL A ADV INJURY $O GENERAL AGGREGATE $ GEN'LAGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: PRODUCTS -COMPIOPAGG $0 POLICY MX. P LOG AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY ANY AUTO 6 / 15 / 2 0 0 9 8 / 15 / 2 010 COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT (Ea accldent) $1, 0 0 0, 0 0 0 BODILY INJURY (Per Pelson) s ALL OWNED AUTOS SCHEDULED AUTOS BODILY INJURY (Per ecddent) $ HIRED AUTOS NON -OWNED AUTOS PROPERTY DAMAGE (Peraoddent) $ GARAGE LIABILITY AUTO ONLY -EA ACCIDENT $ OTHER THAN EA ACC $ ANY AUTO f AUTO ONLY: AGG EXCESS LIABILITY OCCUR 0 CLAIMS MADE EACH OCCURRENCE $ $ AGGREGATE 3 $ DEDUCTIBLE ON D WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY 9/1/2009 9/1/2010 3C E.L. EACH ACCIDENT $1 0 0 0 0 0 0 E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE1 III 0 0 0 E L DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT S C OTHER ;Professional Liability 3/25/2010 3/25/2011 $1,000,000 per claim $2,000,000 annual aggr DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONSA.GCATIONSNEHICLESMXCLUSIONS ADDED BY ENDOM M 191SPECML PROVISIONS MAR 2 4 2010 (RISK MGMTe 11 d i►r_sz-1 City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Dr. Costa Mesa CA 92626 iD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED E THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING INSURER MAIL 30 DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER TO THE LEFT. AUTHORIZED (7I97) POLICY NUMBER: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LJABUM THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. CG 2010 11 85 Copyright. Inmranoe Services Once, Inc.. 1964 Page 1 of 1 0 POLICY NUMBER: __ COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY ECG 24 514 05 00 THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ TT CAREFULLY. PRIMARY AND NONCONTRIBUTORY PROVISION YOUR OPERATIONS This endorsement modifies insurance provided under thefoilaMng: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART Paragraph 4., Other Insurance of Condltlons (Section IV) Is amended by the addition of the following: V Insurance similar to this insurance Is held by a person or organization that is: a. An owner of real or personal property on which you are performing operations; or b. A contractor on whose behalf you are performing operations, this insurance Is primary to that other insurances and that other insurance shell not contribute to amounts payable under this Insurance, for lablky arising out of your ongoing operations performed for that person or organization under a written contract. However, this does not apply to any person or organization: a. From whom you did not receive a specific written request that this Insurance be primary Insurance, or If you did not recelve that request prior to the date that your operations for that person or organization commenced; or b. For whom a certificate of insurance evidencing. that request Is not on file with, or received by, us prior to slaty days after the end of the policy period for this insurance. ECG 24 514 05 00 Copyright, Everest Reinsurance Company 2000 Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc: used with its permission Copyright, Insurance Servtces Office, Inc., 1997 Page 1 of 1 */:11-3ki-7 CONSULTANT'S PROPOSAL IVv oft ID przwt PROFESSIONAL i M y►�' a 1SUNFLOWER AVENUE TMFHC SJW. COORDINATION EA plobloir— 111W 4wwrT p A►IF J • ��aRRii@ alb 4G �9ya ALBERT f"RO'VER & �,�J,�+�,SSOCIATES April 20, 2015 Mr. Pritam Deshmukh, Associate Civil Engineer Transportation Services Division, Fourth Floor City Hall 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, California 92628 RE: Sunflower Avenue Traffic Signal Coordination Dear Mr. Deshmukh: Albert Grover & Associates (AGA) is pleased to respond to the City of Costa Mesa's Request for Proposal (RFP) dated January 5, 2015, to provide professional Turn -Key services for design, equipment purchase and installation, construction management, system integration, and ongoing monitoring/maintenance to improve coordination signal timing on the Sunflower Avenue Corridor. Enclosed please find four copies of our Technical Proposal detailing our proposed project approach, work plan, and project schedule; identification of our project team and descriptions of their relevant experience; and listing details of the Project Team's experience in conducting similar projects for various governmental agencies throughout Southern California, including appropriate references and contact persons. As requested in the RFP, our Fee Proposal has been submitted under separate cover. There are several key factors that we feel make AGA, in general, and Mr. Chalap Sadam, our designated Project Manager, in particular, especially qualified to provide the required services and more. These factors include the following: ♦ Our Team's expertise in all phases of turnkey Traffic Management Center/ITS improvement traffic signal coordination projects, including planning, design, construction, operation and maintenance, will greatly assist us in helping to achieve project goals. Per our references, no other consulting traffic and transportation engineering firm in Southern California is nearly as experienced as AGA in two key areas: development, implementation and fine-tuning of coordination timing plans, and ongoing operation of various traffic signal control systems. Our experience in all components of signal timing enables us to develop optimized coordination plans for real world traffic conditions. ♦ AGA staff have successfully completed many multijurisdictional traffic signal coordination projects involving a multitude of different hardware and software systems. While the City of Santa Ana is not formally included as part of the project, we understand the importance of working with them at shared intersections to maximize project benefits. Our extensive experience in achieving consensus among various Cities, Counties and Caltrans with different systems and, quite often, different engineering and political concerns, is a definite asset that will help us achieve project objectives, as was the case in AGA's development of a large scale multijurisdictional traffic signal coordination project for 260 signals in Orange County's GMA-6, and also for 650 signals involving 17 jurisdictions throughout the San Bernardino Valley for SANBAG. ♦ Our Team is especially experienced in the turnkey design/construction of Traffic Management Centers (TMCs). We recently completed the design/construction of the Buena Park TMC as part of the Citywide ITS Project that we conducted for the City, a project conducted by the Crosstown/CompView/AGA Team that included close coordination with Caltrans District 12 staff. It is important to note that the Buena Park Citywide ITS Project was awarded "Project of the Year" by the Orange County Traffic Engineers Council (OCTEC). Other TMCs designed and/or built by our Team members include the Cities of Garden Grove, Los Angeles, San Marcos, and San Diego; DOTs in the States of Nevada, Idaho, and Washington; and Caltrans. ♦ AGA staff have timed thousands of signals in Orange County alone over the past twenty years, including Citywide and/or multi -corridor coordination timing projects for La Habra, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Santa Ana, Brea, Buena Park, Huntington Beach, Lake Forest, and Costa Mesa. Additionally, for OCTA, we conducted the Traffic Signal Coordination Forum Project, involving all Orange County cities; developed the Orange County Traffic Signal Coordination Program, the road map for _ TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING ENGINEERS 211 E. Imperial Hwy., Suite 208, Fullerton, CA 92835 (714) 992-2990 FAX (714) 992-2883 E-Mail: age@albertgtnver.com Mr. Pritam Deshmukh April 20, 2015 Page 2 County -wide signal coordination; conducted the Euclid Street Traffic Signal Synchronization Demonstration Project, OCTA's first multijurisdictional signal coordination project; and completed six additional corridor projects led by OCTA. It is important to note that all these corridor projects were all conducted as turn -key projects, with AGA responsible for all components of the projects. In addition, AGA completed nine additional Project P funded projects led by the cities. Furthermore, as part of OCTA's Consultant Team for the Traffic Signal Synchronization Project (previously referred to as the BRT Project), AGA developed and implemented signal synchronization plans for the Harbor Boulevard, State College Boulevard, and Bristol Street Comdors. It is important to note that Mr. Sadam served as Project Manager for the vast majority of the above listed projects, including design and overseeing installation of fiberoptic communications and upgrades on Harbor Boulevard in Costa Mesa. ♦ AGA staff have designed and installed various ITS elements including CCTV, fiberoptic communication systems, wireless interconnect systems, and serial or Ethernet based systems, as well as upgraded central systems including Siemens ACTRA/TACTICS, Econolite Aries and Centracs, McCain QuicNetPro, Intelight MaxView, and Caltrans systems. We also have provided support services for Telvant MIST and Multisonics VMS systems, and we provide complete design/build services, design/manage services or design/bid services as appropriate. ♦ AGA's methodology for developing optimum coordination timing involves far more than simply plugging traffic count data into off -the -shelf signal timing software programs for generalized conditions. Because of our extensive experience in operating signal systems for a multitude of cities, our coordination timing plans are based on real world conditions often not addressed by others. ♦ AGA proposes to basically use our same staff members that we have utilized for many years to provide identical services for many similar projects to design and provide the installation/construction of the signal control1communication hardware/software and various other ITS components and to develop, implement, fine-tune and operate the new timing plans for this project. All of our project team members have extensive local Orange County experience in developing and implementing both local and coordination timing plans, specific to all of the controllers utilized on both project routes. ♦ AGA's overall approach to this project is that we can provide much more than simply conducting various tasks — we make systems work. Our goal is to utilize our expertise in helping the various participating agencies develop large scale muttijurisdictional signal coordination for the maximum overall public benefit at a reasonable cost. It should be noted that AGA is requesting no modifications to the City's standard Professional Services Agreement, and that we have no existing or potential conflict of interest which might impair or undermine our ability or credibility regarding the proposed services. AGA looks forward to working with the Cities of Costa Mesa and Santa Ana on this very important project. If you have any questions or require amplification on any aspect of this proposal, please call Mr. Sadam or me. This Technical Proposal and our accompanying Fee Proposal are valid for a period of 90 days from the date of submittal. Mr. Sadam and I are authorized to negotiate and contractually bind AGA, Respectfully submitted, ALBERT GROV R & ASSOCIATES L Albert L. Grover, P.E., T.E. 01 President/CEO P,oponldCosh PmposefiSmAmwCoordhalm LoWdou smillimer Avenue Con idor Prolect r TABU OF CONTENTS Section Page I Qualifications, Related Experience, and References 1-1 Qualifications 1-1 Related Experience 1-3 References 1-5 11 Proposed Staffing/Project Organization II-1 III Project Understanding, Approach and Schedule 111-1 List of Figures Figure Page 1 Organization Chart II-2 2 Turn -Key Project Schedule III-2 3 Project Corridor System Improvements III-7 Appendices Appendix A Resumes of Key Personnel B Additional Traffic Management Center Conceptual Renderings o CR Fle A tiunllouer avenue Corridor PrgFYZ - SECTION 1: QUALIFICATIONS, RELATED EXPERIENCE AND REFERENCES QUALIFICATIONS The City of Costa Mesa Transportation Services Division has requested proposals to provide professional Turn -Key services for the Sunflower Avenue Corridor Project, a coordination timing project funded in part by the Orange County Transportation Authority's (OCTA) Project P grant funds. Albert Grover & Associates (AGA), in conjunction with our data collection subcontractor National Data & Surveying (NDS), our equipment installation subcontractor Crosstown Electrical & Data, Inc. (Crosstown), our Audio/Video subcontractor CompView, Inc. (CVI), our construction subcontractor Sherwood Builders for Traffic Management Center (TMC) related remodeling, and vendor (Econolite) possess all of the necessary qualifications, experience and manpower to provide the requested services. These services include not only signal timing synchronization services, but also traffic signal/interconnect/ITS component design, equipment purchase and installation, system integration, TMC design and construction, and ongoing operational support services. AGA's services are not just routine, but rather the application of experience and knowledge to first properly identify a problem and then to provide the most appropriate and cost-effective solution. AGA is not a company that provides only labor service for client designated tasks; rather, AGA provides a high level of intellectual support to accomplish client objectives. AGA's unique blend of Civil Engineers, Traffic Engineers, and skilled technical traffic signal system maintenance/monitoring personnel provides a synergy that typically results in project success beyond expectations. AGA's wide range of services offered can be divided into six primary areas of expertise: traffic engineering, day-to-day traffic signal operations, transportation planning, civil engineering/ construction management, communication and operational control of traffic signal systems, and actual onsite City Traffic Engineer staffing. While we are well known and respected for our work in all six of these areas, we are perhaps best known for our extensive expertise and experience in the field of multijuristlictional traffic signal coordination. It should also be noted that AGA operates traffic signal systems for various governmental agencies and does so remotely from our Fullerton office, which includes a mini TMC. Our unique "hands-on" signal experience, combined with our senior staffs previous experience as City Traffic Engineers, allows AGA staff to possess a very realistic understanding of what it takes to adequately serve the public while maintaining political harmony. It is important to note that for both 2008 and 2010 AGA was recognized as one of the most successful architectural, engineering, planning, and environmental consulting firms in the country, = ]_ having been named as one of the Top 200 "Hot Firms" Congratulations to AGA nationwide, as recognized by ZweigWhite. Additionally, AGA ,X,,,,,,,,, dIr„ , , for winning the prestigious received the Local Street Project of the Year' award for 2011�� from the California Transportation Foundation for the San CTF Local Street Project ���-- the Year Award. Well Bernardino Valley Coordinated Traffic Signal System Project of deserved. The AGA team that we conducted for SANBAG, a project that included interconnect design and construction, and timing plan did outstanding work on development, implementation and monitoring/maintenance for this project." 650 signalized intersections throughout the San Bernardino Caltrans District 8 Valley, including signals at 48 Caltrans interchanges. There are many reasons why we feel that the AGA Project Team is most qualified to conduct and successfully complete this corridor project. While all of these reasons are more fully discussed in various sections of this Technical Proposal, key relevant factors include the following: ♦ We have a thorough knowledge of traffic conditions not only throughout the Sunflower Avenue corridor, but also along the various coordinated crossing arterials that must be considered when developing coordination plans for the corridors. Via our multijuristlictional and/or citywide projects, we have developed coordination timing plans for these crossing arterials. We fully understand the importance of evaluating the impacts to these crossing arterials of the coordination plans that we develop for this corridor. ;r anflower Ut"lleCc►,trr�=, ■ References ♦ We conducted the Euclid Street Traffic Signal Synchronization Demonstration Project (Euclid Street Project), the first multijurisdictional signal coordination project funded and overseen directly by OCTA. This project, developed during 2006- 2007, served as the "test" project for OCTA to assess the overall feasibility and effectiveness of similar future projects such as _ the project that is the subject of this RFP. The significant improvements in all Since incorporation in 1993, AGA has Measures of Effectiveness (MOEs) obtained by AGA, due in no small part to become a recognized leader in the our project management expertise and our ability to achieve consensus field of traffic signal interconnect and among multiple cities and Caltrans, became the standard that subsequent coordination timing. projects were measured against. I ♦ We were selected by OCTA to conduct both the Chapman Avenue TLSP and Orangethorpe Avenue TLSP Projects, both of which were similar to not only the Euclid Street Project, but also to the Sunflower Avenue corridor that is the subject of the current RFP. As with the Euclid Street Project, significant improvements in all MOEs were achieved on both the Chapman Avenue and Orangethorpe Avenue Projects, portions of which were conducted simultaneously. ♦ We have developed many Traffic Management Centers in Southern California, including those in use in Caltrans Districts 7, 11, and 12. Recent implementations include the TMCs in the Cities of Buena Park and Garden Grove. Shown below is the TMC designed and constructed by the Crosstown/CVI/AGA Team as part of the Buena Park Citywide ITS Project. This Buena Park project was honored as `Project of the Year" by the Orange County Traffic Engineers Council (OCTEC). While we are very well known and respected for our expertise in developing and implementing highly efficient coordinated timing plans, we have extensive expertise and experience in all phases of the proposed projects. Via our many previous multijurisdictional traffic signal interconnect and coordination timing projects, we have designed, constructed, implemented, fine-tuned, operated and maintained WWV/GPS time synchronized independent systems utilizing fiber optic, hardwire, wireless, celphone, and telephone interconnect methodologies. Recognizing that equipment design and installation are significant components of the Sunflower Avenue Corridor Project, it is important to note that our design/build experience helps to make us good construction, installation and operational managers as well as good designers. The fact that AGA staff actually go into the field to troubleshoot and solve operational problems tremendously enhances our design expertise. ♦ We are experienced in the design and operation of all types of signal control systems, including Econolite, Siemens, Multisonics, McCain, Naztec, Traconex and Model 170/2070 systems and have, for many years, operated and maintained both Type 90 (NEMA) and Model 170/2070 systems for governmental agencies from our offices in Fullerton. We presently operate/monitor over 300 traffic signals for eight different cities, including Seal Beach, La Habra, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Montclair, Highland, Rialto and Loma Linda, and recently designed a signal system Master Plan for the City of Highland. All of these systems include coordination with Caltrans signals. ♦ AGA previously prepared the City of Costa Mesa Traffic Signal System Master Plan which identified specific improvements on each corridor to upgrade the Citywide system, Detailed knowledge of K the Citywide Master Plan, recent work on the Baker Street/Placentia We continue to be extremely pleased with Avenue corridor project, the current ongoing Adams Avenue corridor the timing coordination plans developed, project, and the several timing development and implementation monitored and maintained by AGA projects in the City will allow AGA to approach the project more throughout the City." holistically and identify/implement cost effective solutions on the project City of Fountain Valley corridor. Referen(*% ♦ One of our key staff members who will be instrumental in conducting the Sunflower corridor project — Mr, Felipe Ortega — has been providing on -call signal system support services to Costa Mesa for the past five years, including troubleshooting the City's VMS system; replacing parts to get the system up and running; bringing additional signals online; and supporting City staff in operating the system on an ongoing basis. This includes assisting the City in converting the VMS system on Harbor Boulevard to the Econolite ASC/3 system. ♦ One additional key factor further amplifying AGA's unique qualifications to conduct the proposed Sunflower corridor project relates to the ongoing monitoring of signal coordination, The RFP notes that project requirements include two years of continuing signal timing support to monitor, observe, fine-tune and optimize the signal timing and phasing operations of all corridor intersections, including proactively surveying the corridor on a regular and frequent schedule, observing the traffic and fine-tuning the signal timing as required. These are the identical services that AGA has been providing to a wide range of Southern California cities for many years, including citywide monitoring for La Habra, Fountain Valley, Fullerton and Seal Beach in Orange County. ♦ Our unique combination of experienced Professional Engineers and highly trained Signal System Specialists enables us to provide this service in an efficient, cost-effective manner, with our own Traffic Operations Center (TOC) serving as the hub for this activity. ♦ Our key employees' previous experience as City Traffic Engineers, and our current service as Contract City Traffic Engineers, allows us the opportunity to view situations "from both sides of the fence." Combined with our many previous consensus - building projects, including the Euclid Street Project, the Bolsa Avenue/1st Street corridor and Tustin Avenue/Rose Drive Corridor Projects, the OCTA Traffic Forum, and the OCTA Orange County Traffic Signal Coordination Program, we are confident that these multijurisdictional projects can be completed to the satisfaction of all responsible agencies. ♦ Mr. Chalap Sadam, AGA's Vice President, has been designated as Project Manager for this very important project, and will devote as much of his time as necessary to ensure the timeliness, cost-effectiveness and overall success of the projects. Mr. Sadam's extensive experience with Orange County signal synchronization projects has resulted in the establishment of professional relationships with traffic engineering personnel at Caltrans, Orange County, and the majority of the 34 Orange County cities, wherein he is highly respected for his project management and consensus building skills. He will be available for "I wanted to personally t quickly lending us a hand construction coordination are operating wonderfully. the partnership and to demonstrates." REIATEII EXPERIENCE any agency meetings and presentations to explain and/or clarity any aspect of the project, whether or not such meetings and presentations have been specified in the Scope of Work. Mr. Sadam will be personally responsible for all project work efforts and deliverables, with overall project oversight provided by Mr. Al Grover, AGA's Principal in Charge for this project, and quality control provided by Mr. Mark Miller. In short, Mr. Sadam, Mr. Grover, and Mr, Miller will do whatever is necessary to ensure the success of this project. Staff of AGA in general, and Mr. Sadam in particular, have been providing professional consulting traffic engineering services for both municipalities and private developers for over twenty years, Overall, staff of AGA have provided consulting services to ten California counties and more than 100 California cities during this time. AGA is especially qualified and experienced in the field of multijurisdictional traffic signal interconnect and timing synchronization and other ITS elements. AGA has been conducting multijurisdictional Our staff has completed timing plans for more than 6,500 traffic signals in signal coordination projects since 1993, well California alone. We have designed, analyzed and evaluated various before other Traffic Engineering firms even hardware and software components for the majority of the different traffic considered such projects. signal control and synchronization systems. We have experience with Model 170/2070 systems (BI Tran QuicNet), 2070 systems (BI Train QuicNet and ACTRA/Tactics), Type 90 systems (Econolite, Siemens, Naztec, Multisonics and Traconex), Caltrans CTNET systems, and UTCS systems, We have designed and analyzed Time Base Coordination Systems and fiber optic, hardwire, microwave, spread spectrum, A - rrrrilower Avenue Could[ ir,, rp cellphone and telephone interconnect systems. We have coordinated City signals with Caltrans on -and off -ramp signals, and have for many years controlled a Type 90 (ACTRA) system for the City of La Habra, an ACTRA/Tactics system (previously a Multisonics VMS system like Costa Mesa's system) in Fullerton, and Model 170/2070 systems for the Cities of Montclair, Highland, Rialto, and Seal Beach, and Caltrans from our office in Fullerton. We previously completed a joint Santa Ana/Costa Mesa project that developed appropriate interties between the two cities' signal systems for various arterials. Additionally, as part of OCTA's TSS (previously designated as Bus Rapid Transit — BRT) Project, we were responsible for developing timing and converting from VMS Multisonics controllers to Econolite controllers, including utilization of fiberoptic communication and integration with the MIST central system for signals on Harbor Boulevard in Costa Mesa. Several of the most relevant similar turn -key projects conducted for OCTA by AGA are the previously noted Euclid Street Project, a project involving 62 intersections in six cities; the Chapman Avenue TLSP Project, which included 52 intersections for four agencies; and the Orangethorpe Avenue TLSP Project, which included 43 intersections for seven agencies and several additional corridor projects. All of these projects included coordination with Caltrans. These similar turn -key projects included hardware installation by the same AGA team members. Some of the turn -key components included controller upgrades, cabinet replacements, fiber switches, splice enclosures, pullboxes, CCTV, Control Center upgrades, conduit installation, signal hardware improvements, and the development of As -Built plans. AGA staff have also completed many other multijurisdictional signal timing projects for cities in Orange County, including the following: ♦ City of La Habra/City of Brea/Caltrans signal coordination timing project for 74 signalized intersections. ♦ City of Buena Park/Caltrans signal coordination timing project for 66 signalized intersections. ♦ City of Fountain Valley/Caltrans signal coordination timing project for 52 signalized intersections. ♦ City of Buena Park Citywide Intelligent Transportation System Project. ♦ City of Fullerton led Four Corridors Project including 75 signalized intersections. The most relevant recently completed projects were also OCTA sponsored projects. The Euclid Street Traffic Signal Synchronization Demonstration Project, OCTA's first multijurisdictional corridor interconnect and coordination project, basically set the stage for all of OCTA's subsequent Proposition 113 TLSP Projects, including the six corridor projects conducted by AGA. It should be noted that the Chapman Avenue TLSP Project and the Bastanchury Road RTSSP Project included the installation of the Centracs central signal control system at the City of Garden Grove and the City of Placentia respectively. As part of our current Antonio Parkway RTSSP Project we will also be installing Centracs for the County of Orange. All components of the proposed Sunflower corridor project were likewise included in those projects, including design, system integration/construction management, development/ implementation/fine-tuning of coordination timing plans, and providing ongoing system maintenance and operations. It should be noted that the same key AGA Project Team members identified in the following Section II of this proposal were instrumental in conducting all of the previously listed projects. Because our key senior staff have worked together for more than eighteen years, we bring a wealth of experience, expertise, familiarity and continuity to the project. We also have extensive experience working with various vendors and their products which will be utilized in this turn -key project, including Telvent (MIST central control system) and Econolite (ASC/3 controllers). Likewise, we have worked for many years with NDS, the traffic data collection firm; Crosstown, the equipment installation subcontractor; and CVI, the audio/video subcontractor. Our most recent projects wherein we teamed with NDS, Crosstown, and CVI were the multiple OCTA led corridor projects, and the Buena Park Citywide ITS Project where Sherwood Builders assisted in the TMC remodeling efforts. Relevant contact information is as follows: National Data & Surveying 8370 Wilshire Blvd, Ste 205 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Steve Souter (323) 782-0090 Crosstown Electrical & Data, Inc. 5463 Diaz St Irwindale, CA 91706 David Heermance (626) 813-6693 CompView 10650 Humbolt St Los Alamitos, CA 90720 Dan Winovitch (562) 430-9500 Sherwood Builders 1401 S. Beach Blvd, Ste B La Habra, CA 90631 Ralph Grant (562) 458-5386 sunllm4er Avenue Corridor Project REFERENCES . 17. Following is a listing of several of the most recent similar relevant projects completed by AGA. Included are the names of contact persons and current telephone numbers. It is important to note that the most important aspect of all of the multijurisdictional projects conducted by AGA is the establishing of a consensus among all participating agencies. More often than not, hardware and software incompatibilities between adjoining jurisdictions are simply engineering problems requiring engineering solutions. Of more importance is the resolution of conflicting political concerns between adjoining jurisdictions. Our key strength is our ability to work with divergent personalities in different agencies to resolve these concerns, This has been an important factor in our successful multijurisdictional projects involving coordination between different vendor type systems and involving Caltrans. We strongly urge the City of Costa Mesa to contact the listed references regarding their experience with AGA. AGA's approach to interconnect and synchronization projects is that we do more than simply prepare interconnect and timing plans — we actually make the system work Fullerton Citywide Timing Plan Development and Implementation Initial project was for development, implementation and fine-tuning of multijurisdictional coordination timing plans for 120 intersections, including Caltrans ramps, for four separate time periods. Also included was development of a Local Timing Guidelines Manual. The initial multijurisdictional project included signals in the Cities of Anaheim, Buena Park, Fullerton, Placentia, and Yorba Linda. Subsequent multijurisdictional corridor timing projects include Bastanchury, Yorba Linda, Malvern, Chapman, State College, Harbor, Rosecrans, Commonwealth, Magnolia, Brookhurst and Gilbert corridors, completed at various times for various costs. AGA currently provides ongoing monitoring for all Fullerton signals. La Habra/Brea/Caltrans Coordinated Signal System Project and Traffic Signal Synchronization Projects Development, implementation, fine-tuning and monitoring of 74 signalized intersections, including Caltrans signals on Imperial Highway (SR-90) and Beach Boulevard (SR-39) and at various freeway ramp intersections. Includes ongoing monitoring of coordination timing citywide. Completed in 2011 at a cost of $273,000. Lambert Road RTSSP Project was completed in 2013 at a cost of $344,000. La Habra Blvd/Central Ave/State College Blvd RTSSP Project is scheduled to be completed in 2015 at a cost of $315,000, OCTA TLSP and RTSSP Projects Design of signal interconnect/communication improvements; construction management of all improvements; system integration; development, implementation, and fine-tuning of coordination timing plans; monitoring and maintenance of coordination; preparation of final report identifying project objectives, scope, findings, improvements, and recommendations for continued operation. Chapman TLSP was completed in 2010 at a cost of $798,000, Orangethorpe TLSP in 2011 at $698,000, Tustin Ave/Rose Dr RTSSP in 2013 at $632,000, and Bolsa Ave/1st St RTSSP in 2014 at $1,124,000. City of Buena Park Citywide Intelligent Transportation System Project Development of City's Fiber Optic Master Plan and Citywide IP Scheme, design of Signal Interconnect/Communication Plans, Fiber Optic Installation Design Plans, CCTV System Installation Plans and new Traffic Management Center; construction management of all improvements. Completed in 2012 at a cost of $952,000. Mr. Don Hoppe City of Fullerton 303 W. Commonwealth Ave. Fullerton, CA 92832 (714) 738-6864 dhoppe@cityoffullerton,com Mr. Nelson Wong City of La Habra 201 East La Habra Boulevard La Habra, CA 90631 (562) 905-9620 nelson—wong@lahabracity.com Mr. Ron Keith Principal Traffic Engineer OCTA 550 S Main St Orange, CA 92863 (714)560-5990 rkeith@octa.net Mr. Dennis Barnes City of Buena Park 6650 Beach Boulevard Buena Park, CA 90622 (714) 562-3696 dbarnes@buenapark.com .- - Page 1-53 Staffing/Organlia lion sl= ym II: eROPOSED STAFFING/PROJECT ORGANIZATION AGA's extensive expertise and experience in designing and installing interconnect systems, in developing, implementing, fine-tuning and operating traffic signal timing and coordination plans, and most importantly in helping resolve both technical and policy traffic management issues, enables us to provide the required consultant services entirely in-house, with the exception of data collection tasks, which will be conducted by our subconsultant, National Data & Surveying Services (NDS), and construction related tasks, which will be conducted by our equipment installation subcontractor, Crosstown Electrical & Data, Inc. (Crosstown), our Traffic Management Center subcontractor CompView (CVI), and Sherwood Builders for TMC remodel inglconstruction aspects. All tasks defined in the RFP, and elaborated upon in Section III of this proposal, will be directly overseen and managed by Mr. Chalap Sadam, P.E., T.E., Vice President. All meetings will be chaired by Mr. Sadam, who will also, if required, personally make any required presentations to City staff, Commissions, or Councils. As shown on the Project Organization Chart (Figure 1), all AGA Task Managers will report directly to Mr. Sadam. Mr. Sadam is a registered Civil and Traffic Engineer with a Master of Science, Civil Engineering (Transportation) degree from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, and a Master of Business Administration degree from the University of Southern California. He was AGA's Project Manager for joint Costa Mesa/Huntington Beach and Costa Mesa/Santa Ana coordination timing projects; for citywide signal timing projects in the Cities of La Habra, Fullerton, Fountain Valley, and Santa Ana; for the San Bernardino Valley Coordinated Traffic Signal System Project; and for various projects conducted by AGA for OCTA, including the Euclid Street Traffic Signal Synchronization Demonstration Project, and the subsequent six corridor projects. Mr. Sadam also served as Assistant Project Manager for the Orange County Traffic Signal Coordination Program that AGA completed for OCTA. He was also responsible for developing multijurisdictional coordination signal timing plans for hundreds of signals for the various Orange County GMA-2 and GMA- 6 multijurisdictional coordination signal timing projects conducted by AGA. Because multi -level review of both 1 individual .components and final work products is the key to quality control, AGA utilizes the extensive expertise and experience of senior staff members to review all work products to ensure a that project goals are met and that agency review efforts can be minimized. Mr. Sadam joined Albert Grover & Associates in 1993 as a Transportation Engineer, and provides expertise in the preparation of traffic impact studies, development of transportation planning models to evaluate long range impacts, development of signal coordination master plans, preparation of traffic signal coordination timing plans, design and operation of traffic signal systems, design of intersection improvement plans, traffic signal interconnect plans and ITS plans, traffic accident analysis and recommendation of mitigation measures, and the preparation of freeway interchange feasibility studies and Major Investment Studies (MIS). Mr. Sadam has completed numerous traffic impact and transportation planning studies in Southern California. Mr. Sadam's additional experience includes the development of traffic circulation studies and corridor studies, signal synchronization feasibility studies, parking feasibility studies, street lighting master plans, speed studies, traffic engineering software development and project management. Computer skills include experience in the usage of transportation planning and traffic engineering software such as Synchro, Vissim, TruTraffic, HCS and WEBSTER and ArcView GIS systems. Mr. Sadam is also familiar with relational database management systems and has used Microsoft Access and Oracle databases along with programming languages such as Visual Basic and C/C++. Full resumes for Mr, Sadam and other key staff are contained in Appendix A. Serving as Principal in Charge will be Mr. Al Grover, President/CEO. Mr. Grover is a registered Civil and Traffic Engineer with a Master of Engineering (Civil/Transportation) degree from Cornell University. He was AGA's Project Manager for the development of the San Bernardino Valley Coordinated Traffic Signal System Plan, the Coachella Valley Project 2020 Signal Synchronization Feasibility Study, and OCTA Traffic Signal Forum Project and the Orange County Traffic Signal Coordination Program. Mr. Grover has managed and/or conducted scores of traffic signal interconnect and coordination timing projects throughout California, including FETSIM projects for 16 separate grants involving over 500 traffic signals; has been instrumental in proposed development studies, parking studies, bike trail projects, street alignments, traffic signal installations, etc.; set up AGA as a contract operator of local agency signal systems; and established the firm as a leader in Design/Manage (the forerunner of our Design/Build) operations. L Cco G � c U C7 'E C (D W cl) = c U 0 C13°� QU , o = N � Q H t Y W E cc CA EW o cv E cn a ca Q Q +, G1 (a)a] C EM = -IS U) Cm C C C ca C t 0 cu p .0. �}p o U C_ � g Zt cc E H 'C y � L U oy C G a u W a 3 O H-i W a ti a k 8nnllr►werAvenue G,60117fs - , r Prior to forming AGA in 1993, Mr. Grover was Executive Vice President of Mohle-Grover and Associates, where key AGA staff members were also employed, for 12 years. Additionally, Mr. Grover previously was the Director of Traffic and Parking for the City of Beverly Hills; Traffic Engineer for the City of Inglewood, where he implemented a computerized traffic control system operating 105 intersections from City Hall utilizing the UTCS software package; and Project Engineer for Caltrans' Los Angeles Area Freeway Surveillance and Control Project, a test program to evaluate innovative ITS traffic control techniques and devices. Mr. Grover also served as member of the Highway Capacity Manual Committee, which provides a link with national activities relative to signal operations and roadway capacity issues. Recently, Mr. Grover has been actively involved in California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) updates relative to bicycle detection, bicycle timing, and signalized intersections. Mr. Mark Miller, P.E., T.E., PTOE, Executive Vice President, will be directly responsible for all aspects of Quality Assurance/Quality Control on the proposed project. Mr. Miller has more than 38 years of experience, including more than 20 years serving as a City Traffic Engineer. Mr. Miller has managed many ITS, traffic signal interconnect/coordination and street light system projects. He has developed and implemented design standards, specifications and cost estimates for traffic signals, interconnect projects, CCTV projects, and street light projects. He also has extensive experience in preparing traffic signal coordination and timing plans. Project management is a critical component of the proposed Sunflower corridor - project. Unlike other projects where Task Managers can simply manage their AGA's depth and breadth of experienced respective tasks and report to the overall Project Manager, this project requires staff with local Orange County expertise extensive involvement of the Project Manager in all tasks and aspects of the allows us to conduct multiple coordination project identically to the manner in which AGA has successfully conducted timing projects simultaneously. previous OCTA corridor projects. The Project Manager will be directly responsible for conducting any meetings/workshops that will be required to build the consensus necessary to achieve success on these important projects. Mr. Grover, Mr. Sadam, and Mr. Miller are extremely well qualified to manage the proposed project. They have previously managed multijurisdictional traffic signal coordination timing projects, have extensive expertise in all phases of traffic and transportation engineering, and have well -deserved reputations for resolving conflicts and achieving consensus. Preparation of plans, specifications, cost estimates, bid and contract documents for all new/upgraded traffic signal control and communication hardware and software, and providing equipment installation and construction management services, will be the responsibility of Mr. Ignacio Sanchez, P.E., T.E., Senior Design Engineer, with the assistance of Mr. Ruben Perales, P.E., Design Engineer, Mr. Roland Hizon, and Mr. Chad Veinot, TSOS, Mr. Sanchez has a BS degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Guadalajara, Mexico, and is a licensed professional Civil Engineer and Traffic Engineer in California. His duties at AGA include traffic signal, signing, striping, and signal interconnect plan development; preparation of engineers cost estimates and specifications; CAD design; development of signal coordination timing plans; field topographic surveys; street lighting design; conceptual improvement plans; GPS unit installations; and development and installation of system graphics for various Traffic Control Systems. Mr. Sanchez has prepared plans for Caltrans and other government agencies such as the County of Riverside, County of Los Angeles, Cities of Riverside, Santa Clarita, Victorville, Fullerton, Brea and Huntington Beach, and for private developers such as Home Depot, Rite Aid and Sav-On. He recently worked with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) as Task Manager of the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project, Transit System Priority (TSP). Mr. Perales and Mr. Hizon have extensive experience working on various corridor projects from design aspects to utility coordination to overseeing construction activities as well as OCTA required project accounting. Additionally, both Mr. Perales and Mr, Hizon worked in the preparation of the City of Costa Mesa's Master Plan. Development, implementation and fine-tuning of coordination timing plans, including all required data collection and conducting "before and after" studies, will be the direct responsibility of Mr. Greg Wong, P.E. with assistance from Mr. David Chen, P.E., Ms. Natali Eid, Ms. Sally Nguyen, and Ms. Kawai Mang. Mr. Wong was instrumental in development of timing plans for the La Habra, Fountain Valley, Santa Ana, and Fullerton Citywide Timing Plans; for the OCTA Euclid Street Traffic Signal Synchronization Demonstration Project and multiple corridor projects; for the 650 intersections in the San Bernardino Valley Coordinated Traffic Signal System Project for SANBAG; and for the OCTA TSS Project which included Harbor Boulevard and Bristol Street in the Cities of Costa Mesa and Santa Ana, and the recent implementation on the Baker St/Placentia Ave corridor. Mr. Wong rejoined AGA in July 2001 as a Transportation Engineer. He had previously worked for AGA for several years prior to leaving to obtain experience working in the public sector. His duties at AGA include the preparation of traffic signal coordination timing plans, traffic impact studies/analyses, GIS analysis/design/implementation projects, parking circulation analyses, and traffic signal Staffing/Organization designs. Mr. Wong has extensive experience in using a variety of transportation planning and traffic engineering software, such as Synchro, Tru Traffic, HCS, and WEBSTER. Other software's include GIS (ArcView), AutoCAD, Microstation, and Microsoft applications. Mr. Wong was a key participant in numerous projects that involved the state, local cities and private agencies. These included County Traffic Signal Synchronization Program (TSSP) projects, street and highway improvement projects, local city projects and County signal upgrades. Providing system integration services during construction and implementation phases of the project, and providing monitoring and maintenance of both the hardware/software and actual signal coordination for the project corridor during the two year monitoring period after agency acceptance of all improvements, will be overseen by Mr. Felipe Ortega, Advanced System Integrator, with significant assistance provided by Mr. Leo Grimes on signal timing and system integration related services and Mr. Phillip Fuentes on construction oversight services. Mr. Ortega joined Albert Grover & Associates in 2008, after having spent years working with Intersection Development Corporation (IDC) as Vehicle Management System (VMS) Lead Support and also with Team Econolite as Lead Systems Support, Mr. Ortega routinely monitors signal operations and coordination along the streets of various cities that have contracted with AGA to provide such on -going signal monitoring services, looking for both hardware related and timing related problems. He also quickly responds to requests from various cities on an as -needed basis. His unique expertise in both signal timing software and signal hardware enables AGA to quickly identify the actual cause of the problem and take definitive action to provide the appropriate solution, thereby avoiding the frustrating "finger pointing" often experienced with troubleshooting of sophisticated signal systems. With 30% of our firm being Registered Mr. Ortega provides technical expertise in the design of new, and upgrading of Civil and • Traffic engineers, and .30� existing Traffic Management Centers. He is especially well versed in the being registered Traffic Engineers, AGA i utilization of various communication media such as fiber optic, wireless Ethernet is one of the largest Orange County radios, Ethernet over copper, etc., including previous generation equipment utilizing serial and Frequency Shift Key (FSK) communication. His experience based Traffic Engineering firms with includes assistance in designing CCTV systems for various cities, along with local staff experienced with local traffic. utilizing video detection cameras to provide live video feeds to city Traffic - -- Management Centers and AGA's own TMC. Mr. Ortega has also been involved in the development and design of Internet Protocol (IP) schemes for cities' traffic signal related equipment, including assisting in the configuration of Layer 2 and 3 Ethernet networking communication switches. Mr. Ortega, Mr. Grimes, and Mr. Fuentes have all been responsible for conducting field evaluation of hundreds of signalized intersections. They have implemented both local and coordination timing plans in hundreds of signal controllers, including nearly every brand of controller in use in Southern California. They have been responsible for fine-tuning of timing plans at hundreds of locations, and for daily monitoring of signal systems in Orange County and Inland Empire. They have also been responsible for purchasing, installing and integrating hardware and software in local agencies' Traffic Management Centers, including a wide range of central control systems; QuicNet, CTNET, ACTRA, Aries, Centracs, Tactics, among others. They have resolved signal system communication problems, addressing both internal communication issues and multijurisdictional issues. Mr. Ortega's, Mr. Grimes', and Mr. Fuentes' familiarity with, and respect of, signal maintenance contractor's procedures and personnel greatly assists AGA in the implementation, fine-tuning, operation, monitoring and troubleshooting of various signal systems. Collection of various traffic data, including intersection turning movement counts and 24-hour ADT counts will be conducted by National Data & Surveying Services (NDS). NDS' work will be overseen by Mr. Steve Souter, Chief Operating Officer. NDS was founded in 1997 to provide high quality, reasonably priced raw traffic data collection for government agencies, engineering firms, and private businesses in the Western United States who are engaged in transportation planning. AGA has utilized NDS for the collection of traffic volume data and other similar data collection efforts (such as pedestrian counts, delay studies, parking utilization studies, etc.) for 15 years. Mr. Souter has over 20 years of experience in the traffic data collection business, working for the past nine years at the company's Chief Operating Officer. Mr. Souter will be NDS' Project Manager for the Sunflower corridor project, and will be personally responsible for all data collection. We also plan to utilize Crosstown Electrical & Data, Inc. (Crosstown) for various equipment installation tasks that are required as part of the three corridor projects. We have worked with this firm for many years on a wide variety of signal interconnect communication projects, including various OCTA funded projects throughout Orange County. Mr. Dave Heermance, Crosstown's Project Manager, provided identical service to AGA as part of our team for the Chapman Avenue TLSP Project, Orangethorpe Avenue TLSP Project, and c -1 smillower 1venne Corridor Project 1 the City of Buena Park Citywide ITS Project. Additionally, AGA plans to use Econolite for signal controller cabinets and communication D panel installation services for related locations along the project corridors. The overall tasks of CompView, Inc. (CVQ will be managed by Mr. Dan Winovitch. Mr. Winovitch has 15 years of professional audio/video (AV) experience. His project management experience includes working with clients, contractors and architects on the design/build of traffic management centers, network operation centers, control rooms for power and water companies, city council chambers, boardrooms, conference rooms, lecture halls and training centers. He is skilled at communicating clearly with clients, colleagues, and contractors from other trades to complete projects on time and on budget. If the City decides to proceed with the construction of the Traffic Management Center, Mr. Jeffrey P. Kaylor will serve as Design Engineer for CVI's TMC AV components. Mr. Kaylor has been involved in the AV integration field for over 40 years. He has worked for international firms including: Walt Disney Imagineering, Pierce -Phelps, and AEI music. Jeff also owned and operated the award winning D&E firm, AN Design Co. His experience has been not only as a design engineer, but also in operations management. Recent projects he has been responsible for include: Caltrans Traffic Management Centers, San Diego and Los Angeles Counties, Network Operation Centers for companies including SCE, Vertex & SBC, Gene Autry Western Heritage Museum, Disney/MGM Park, and the City of Buena Park TMC and the City of Garden Grove TMC. CVI's System Integration efforts will be managed by Mr. Darren Smith. Mr. Smith has 26 years of experience in the design, integration, engineering and project management of AV, broadcast, theatrical and concert sound systems for corporate headquarters, theatres, conference facilities, hospitality, sports and entertainment venues and religious facilities, as well as numerous concert touring rigs. He is also a highly experienced house and monitor engineer, and production manager for concert, theatrical, corporate and industrial events. His previous ventures include co-owner/operator of systems integration firms. He also brings extensive experience as engineering and operations manager and contract engineer for international systems integration firms. His recent experience includes; Qualcomm San Diego Network Operations Center, CDOT Traffic Operations Center, Commerce City Justice Center, City of Windsor Council Chambers and City Court Systems, City of Pittsburgh Main Data Center, Maine DOT Operations Center, Lockheed AV Systems Relocation, Sahara Hotel and Casino Las Vegas, and NYNY Hotel and Casino Las Vegas. Remodeling and construction components of the TMC will be completed by Sherwood Builders and will be managed by Mr. Ralph Grant. Mr. Grant was instrumental in the completion of the City of Buena Park TMC where he managed the remodeling and reconstruction of the new TMC which included new carpeting, new walls, custom built furniture, electrical circuitry, lighting, etc. Assisting Mr. Ralph Grant will be Mr. Nohl Wormser. Mr. Wormser was in charge of coordinating with City staff relative to inspection items and completing the actual construction of the new TMC. Structural engineering support for TMC remodeling, including any additional walls and glass enclosures, will be provided by Mr. Narsing Dasari of DTA Consulting Engineers. Mr. Darsari provided structural engineering support for many residential and commercial properties including the City of Buena Park City Hall reconstruction. Slfmmry of Tait' Qualificaliotts Years of Yens w t Naeae RoOo alias/Ureeee Egeriews AGA Fderatiee ireinift Projed Awiijswertt Chalap Sadam P.E., Civil, T.E. 25 22 IMS-Civil,1990; MBA, 2002 Project Manager .Al Grover P.E., Civil,T.E. 49 41 19 22 BS-Civil, 1965; MS -Civil, 1966 Project Oversight/Principal in Charge Quality Control 'Signal Timing (Mark Miller P.E., Civil, T.E., P.T.O.E. - - 22 16 BS-Civil, 1974 BS-Civil, 1996 _ f Greg Wong P.E., Civil David Chen Sally Nguyen 1P.E., Civil 17 8 13 8 MS-Civil'1999 BS-Civil, 2008 BS-Civil,1986 Signal Timing/Data Collection 'Signal Timing `T Ignacio Sanchez 1P.E.,Civil, T.E. 26 11 Design Ruben Perales 1P.E.,Civil 12 10 BS-Civil, 2004 Design (Felipe Ortega 19 25 8 15 Signal Technician Level 2 Signal Technician Level 3 :System Integrator IField Review ILeo Grimes 1Phillip Fuentes iC10 - Electrical 26 9 Signal Technician Level 2 (Field Review Chad Veinot Roland Hizon T.S.O.S. EIT 14 26 11 11 Traffic Signal Operations Specialist IBS-Civil, 1982 ' _ IField Review (Project Administration (Pauline Bingham Natali Eid iKawai Mang EIT 11 21 1 11 IBA-History,1989 Project Administration 21 1 IBA -Business, 2001 Bs Civil, 2013 Project Administration [Engineering Assistant 11-has Garcia I Err 1 1 1 [Engineering Student Engineering Intern ■ a 01._ Understanding/Appa• a xa a; h/Schedule SECTION III: PROJECT UNDERSTANDING, APPROACH, AND SCHEDULE Via the Citywide Traffic Signal System Master Plan, the City of Costa Mesa has developed an overall plan for coordination of traffic signals on major corridors throughout the City. The proposed Sunflower Avenue Corridor Project is another step in improving Citywide traffic operations. In general, this project will provide for various signal system and communication upgrades, and the development and continued operation of coordinated signal timing plans. The Sunflower Avenue Corridor, between Main Street on the east and Hyland Avenue on the west, includes traffic signals controlled by the Cities of Costa Mesa and Santa Ana. The Sunflower Avenue roadway varies from a four -lane section with a two-way left turn lane from Hyland Avenue to Bear Street, to a six -lane section from Bear Street to Main Street with typical speed limits of 40 mph. Daily traffic volumes range up to 26,000 vehicles per day (vpd). The RFP for the proposed project has a defined Scope of Work which identifies specific tasks to be conducted by the consultant. These tasks include overall project management; assessment of traffic signals and arterial network conditions; design and preparation of plans with appropriate specifications for the construction/installation of new and/or upgraded traffic signal control and communication hardware and software; construction and construction management; system integration; development, implementation, and fine-tuning of coordination timing plans; providing ongoing monitoring and maintenance of timing and communication for two years; and preparation of a final report discussing all components of the project. It is important to note that, pursuant to requirements presented in the RFP, this project will be conducted as a "Turn -Key" project, i.e., AGA will be completely responsible for all components of the project as identified above. The AGA Project Team members have discussed this Turn -Key project extensively and have agreed on the following project approach, which is based in general on the RFP; the Orange County Traffic Signal Coordination Program that AGA prepared for OCTA; the Citywide Traffic Signal System Master Plan for Costa Mesa; discussions with traffic engineering personnel of City of Costa Mesa; and our previous experience in designing, installing, operating and maintaining many multi -jurisdictional interconnected traffic signal systems. Specifics of our approach are based on our recent project experience developing, implementing, fine tuning and monitoring multi -jurisdictional coordination traffic signal timing plans on Harbor Boulevard, Adams Avenue, Fairview Road and Bristol Street, including the recent Baker St/Placentia Ave Corridor Project, which we conducted for the City; and on our specific knowledge of the signal system hardware and software particulars for the cities participating in the various projects that we have acquired via our previous citywide and/or multijurisdictional coordination timing projects. It is important to recognize that effective traffic signal synchronization consists of appropriate traffic signal infrastructure, optimum intersection capacity, coordinated signal timing, and the maintenance, upkeep and monitoring of this integrated system to ensure that the capacity gained with the initial inter -jurisdictional coordinated system is continued on a long-term basis. AGA proposes to apply this effective approach to traffic signal synchronization while conducting the three corridor projects in order to ensure ongoing benefits for motorists in the Costa Mesa region. Key strategies available with AGA to create effective traffic signal synchronization include: ♦ The use of a common time source to throughout the project corridor for accurate time of day. ♦ The use of a common signal system background cycle length when developing optimized coordination traffic signal timings throughout the corridor. ♦ The development, implementation, and fine-tuning of optimized signal timing parameters based on prevailing traffic patterns. ♦ Recognizing the multi -agency common goal of increasing arterial thru-put capacity with reduced stops and delays. ♦ Achieving improvements in arterial traffic carrying capacities, such as those achieved via traffic signal modifications or minor roadway striping changes. ♦ Obtaining cooperation and support from City staff. ♦ The use of upgraded signal controllers/assemblies and software and integration with the respective agency central systems to improve efficiencies; ♦ Providing CCTV traffic surveillance cameras at selection locations. ♦ Upgrading traffic signal and signal communications (fiber optic, wireless etc.,) along the project route; ♦ Providing additional fine-tuning and monitoring of signal timings to ensure arterial capacity gains with traffic signal synchronization are sustained on a long-term basis. simlloHer Avenue Corridor Projecay Understanding/Approach/Schedule The provision of upgraded controllers and communication systems, and integration with the central systems, are very essential for implementation and achievement of A('=A's results -oriented leadership is optimized coordination signal timings on the corridor, as well as providing the key to our management approach and ability to monitor and fine tune timings on an on -going basis. A key component of our proven record of project success. AGA's services is to ensure that all of these components are implemented and - - - - - function as designed in order to maintain the resulting significant benefits. The project, in general, consists of providing communication and signal timing/coordination improvements along the Sunflower corridor. As noted, the project will be conducted as a "Turn -Key" project, i•e., all equipment design/purchase/ installation/construction/operation will be provided by the AGA Team, including coordination timing plan development, implementation, fine-tuning and assessment. All cost allocations will be the direct responsibility of the Turn -Key Manager (AGA). AGA staff experience in integrating the central system hardware (computer servers, workstations, Ethernet switches, modems, port servers, GPS servers) with field elements including interfacing with traffic signal system vendors, communication systems specialists and respective agency Information Technology staff will be key to project success. Additionally, due to our on -going signal system monitoring projects with various agencies, AGA is fully knowledgeable of each of the systems' complexities and key interrelationships of hardware, software, and people. The following is our detailed Scope of Work for this project. Project Management Mr. Chalap Sadam, P.E., T.E., will be AGA's Project Manager for this Project. He will be responsible for adherence to the project schedule and, along with Mr. Mark Miller, for maintaining quality control of all project work products, project budget control and invoicing, tracking of project schedule, regular project updates and progress reports, agency comment dispositions and document control and filing. It is anticipated that all components required to achieve an operating system, including City review times, can be completed within one year of receipt of notice to proceed, with the two year monitoring and maintenance period to follow. The Final Report will be prepared as required, Our preliminary project schedule is included as Figure 2• This schedule is based on an assumed Notice to Proceed date of April 7, 2015. Upon receipt of the actual Notice to Proceed, and prior to the project Kick -Off Meeting, AGA will prepare a more detailed project schedule that includes actual start dates, activity durations, product submittal dates, etc., including agency review times, Task Description 201ry 6/1 7/1 a/1 6/1 la/1 11/1 1R/I 1/1 7/1 3/f 2016 4/1 3/1 all 711 a/1 9/1 40/1 Legend Project Management Kck-Off Meeting Progress MeefingsoReports Task Data Cotecton i Summary Report l� _ Field Review Agency Review Plan Preparation Agency Review Plan Finalization Meetings Equiprnenl ConslructionAnstatal System Irdegralion . 'Before and After 514 Deliverable Signal Timing Development 11r4)iC1TVkla§oruFine-Tuning System Maintenance & Operation FlR1XpTasks Final Repa iuAs-Bulk . Figure 2: Costa Mesa Sunflower Avenue Corridor Turn -Key Project Schedule ■- Page 111.22 Y tiunllower Avenue Corridor Proj.eR _ Understanding/Approach/Schedule Agendas and minutes will be prepared before/after all meetings and provided to all meeting attendees. Mr. Sadam's extensive experience in conducting forums and in dealing with traffic engineering problems and political concerns, as viewed from both a consultant's and a city's perspective, will be invaluable in providing guidance for this project. Additionally, our involvement in signal coordination projects for La Habra, Fullerton, Buena Park, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, and most importantly, Costa Mesa provides us a good background for understanding agencies' concerns. AGA will conduct a project kick-off meeting with all participating agencies to discuss project objectives, scope of work, project schedule, required cooperative agreements, and various budget factors. As this meeting sets the stage for the entire project, our Project Manager (Chalap Sadam), Design/Construction Task Manager (Ignacio Sanchez), and Timing Plan Task Manager (Greg Wong) will all attend the meeting. In addition to the Kick -Off Meeting, regular bi-weekly meetings will be held with Costa Mesa staff during the design and construction phases of the project, and quarterly meetings held during the monitoring and maintenance phase of the project. Deliverables will include updated project schedule, presentations and meeting attendance, supporting meeting/presentation materials, agendas and minutes, and bi-weekly project reports. Project Approach In order to "hit the ground running" on this project, our Team has met with City staff, conducted a detailed field review of potential fiberoptic cable/conduit routing paths, and examined the existing TMC. Detailed below are our initial thoughts regarding two key components of the project: the potential fiberoptic routing path along Sunflower Avenue and possible alternate fiber routing to tie in to the fiber optic trunk line, and the design of the new TMC at City Hall. AGA has identified an alternate route for the fiber optic cable installation at the west end of the project to tie in to the existing fiber optic cable trunk line on Harbor Boulevard. Based on our preliminary field review and our previous project experience in the City of Costa Mesa, the existing fiber optic trunk line currently ends at the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and South Coast Drive. Utilizing the existing conduit on Susan Street between Sunflower Avenue and South Coast Drive and installing new conduit on South Coast Drive between Susan Street and Harbor Boulevard and leveraging available conduit on portions of this section would allow the City to tie in to the existing fiber optic trunk line and complete the northern ring as laid out on the City's Master Plan. It would also avoid delays due to the coordination required with the railroad company if the new conduit were to be installed on Sunflower Avenue between Susan Street and Harbor Boulevard where a railroad crossing exists. One additional item of importance relates to the relocation/construction of the new Traffic Management Center at City Hall, Our Team has developed several initial concepts for the layout of the new TMC at City Hall. A floor plan of the existing room where the TMC will be installed and the conceptual layouts of the TMC are shown below. Additional conceptual renderings can be found in Appendix B. I,1 RwJdY TMC II AM {IO'x22j ! •vc.�npH.gne � A.e eer vzz "I r I I _ail wo E6Mhg a., Traffic Management Center Option 1 A Rov-ER 1,i—ITn wer Avenue + of Understanding/Approach/Schedule Traffic Management Center Traffic Management Center Option 2 Option 3 TMC 1 Description: In the first layout there will be two 55" LED Flat Panels mounted on a new wall to be constructed along with a new 70"+ LED Flat Panel mounted on the existing north wall. The Operators Console, facing west towards the two 55" LED Flat Panels, will be for two people. Each Operator will have a PC with Dual DVI Graphics Outputs. We will place a DVI distribution amplifier on each output allowing for feeds to both the Operators local monitor and the 8X4 DVI matrix switch. If desired the City can provide a Cable box for television input to the AV switch. We will program a Crestron Controller to provide the Switching, Monitor On/Off and Cable TV transport controls. All control pages will be HTML based. The Operator will open an Internet Explorer window and click on the Crestron Control link in the favorites. This will serve up the control pages to the Operator's PC. The TMC will be enclosed via the installation of glass partitions/walls to allow for viewing of the TMC from the outside. TMC 2 Description: In the second layout there will be one 90" LED Flat Panel mounted on a new wall to be constructed along with two 70" LED Flat Panels mounted on the existing north wall. Similar to the first layout, the Operators Console, facing west towards the 90" LED Flat Panel, will be for two people and will include the equipment as detailed above. TMC 3 Description: In the third layout there will be two 70" LED Flat Panels mounted on the existing north wall to the left of the existing column. An additional 90" LED Flat Panel will be mounted on the north wall to the right of the existing column, The Operators Console, facing north towards the two 70" LED Flat Panels, will be for two people and will include the equipment as detailed above. Additional layouts, including the reuse of existing TMC with minor modifications will be prepared in consultation with the City. In recommending a particular TMC option, the AGA team will also consider the lighting levels, heat generation and dissipation, requirement and availability of HVAC and duct work, and server noise levels including potential relocation of server hardware to a separate location, Additionally, in lieu of TMC improvements, AGA will also present alternatives for potential upgrade of the central signal system to Econolite Centracs system. AGA previously assisted the City of Placentia and the County of Orange in upgrading to Centracs system by combining resources from various projects. Data Collection It is important to obtain all appropriate data elements that are required for the design of various signal system and interconnect communication improvements and the development of optimal coordinated signal timing. Such items include as -built roadway, signal, and communication plans; aerial photos; signal timings and agency preferences; data to better understand prevailing traffic conditions; traffic pattems and peaking characteristics; usage and magnitude of vehicular traffic as well as pedestrians and bicycles; school area traffic; high intensity retail traffic; and any unusual traffic patterns that may be governed by special uses such as with area churches or major parks on the weekends. The following data will be collected: ♦ Existing signal timing sheets and existing coordination timing plans for the project corridor as well as any crossing arterials; as -built roadway, communication and signal plans; aerial photos, maps and collision diagrams; speed data; and any available traffic counts. f 1LSER'3' Gl N-1��11VVE:5 tiuollower Avtonoe 1 E"i UnderaMnding/Approach/Schedule ♦ Agency preferences related to signal timing — lead/lag phasing, minimum left -turn splits, cycle lengths, use of preferred or conditional service, coordination time periods, full actuated vs. semi -actuated coordination, use of pedestrian override, weekend coordination, and local timing parameters (Walk, pedestrian clearance, yellow, all red, gap and extension timing). ♦ Average Daily Traffic 24-hour counts at various critical locations along the corridor, because traffic patterns will not be constant and may change at major cross streets. Additionally, graphs will be developed that show hourly traffic volume variations for weekday and weekends, and by location. A sample hourly traffic volume variation chart is shown on the following page. school closing times may not com 1200 ♦ Available daily traffic counts from the City for all major crossing arterials 1000 that have a bearing on corridor traffic flow patterns. ♦ Information on any construction activities on the corridor and other 800 K streets in the immediate vicinity. 0 E soo ♦ Two-hour peak period turning movement counts for the weekday (AM, >0400 midday and PM) and weekend (midday) at key project intersections. zoo Additional traffic counts will be collected at school areas where the 'th ' I I dd't' 'd k ° ici a wi typica peas. n a ion, �� , ,V ,bay (b ,\ $ Q. N ^ a 6 9�0� traffic counts will also be collected at major shopping areas particularly 4 Hour Beginning South Coast Plaza, and in the vicinity of other special traffic generators. - - Additionally, the number of pedestrian and bicycle users, as well as the number of pedestrian actuations occurring by crosswalk, will also be collected. AGA's experienced signal timing engineers will evaluate the above data elements and provide an assessment of prevailing traffic patterns and conditions on the project corridor. Deliverables will consist of a report summarizing all data collected, including turning movement counts, 24-hour traffic volumes, and drawings of intersection lane geometric features. Field Review In the development of signal system/ interconnect communication improvement plans and coordination signal timing plans, it is imperative to have appropriate intersection geometres, signal phasing, arterial link speeds, an understanding of existing traffic signal system and communication equipment and its capabilities, knowledge of closely spaced intersections and its impact, location of major traffic generators, an assessment of existing traffic conditions and any deficiencies at any of the project intersections and along the project corridor. For this project, the field data inventory will be directly overseen by AGA's Project Manager so that the prevailing conditions in the project area are better understood. The AGA Team will collect field data in sufficient quantity to identify existing deficiencies, existing system capabilities and operations, Using data collected as a starting point (including as -built plans and aerial photos), and with input from the cities and Caltrans, the AGA Team will conduct extensive field reviews throughout the project corridor to identify and assess all components that affect signal coordination, including; ♦ Intersection lane geometrics, including number, usage of each lane; length of left/right turning lanes; distance between signalized intersections; and corridor lane configurations and lane widths, as appropriate. ♦ Existing signal operation characteristics — signal phasing, cycle lengths, protected/permissive left -turn operation (including first car detection vs. queue detection), lead -lag phasing, right -turn overlap phasing and U-turn restrictions. ♦ Traffic signal controller and cabinet type, make, brand, software & version; interconnect equipment, telemetry, modems and switches; maintenance condition of traffic signal equipment including controllers; time referencing setup and daily time clock drift. ♦ Digital photos of equipment inside traffic signal cabinet and identification of any deficiencies. ♦ Special characteristics such as proximity to adjacent intersections and any senior centers; presence and location of bus stops (near -side vs. far -side); location of driveways; on -street parking, parking maneuvers, and parking restrictions; adequacy of left -turn and right -turn storage; intersections with high volumes of pedestrians and bicyclists; areas with high volumes of trucks and buses; high volume un-signalized intersections; and impact of freeway access points on the project corridor and in the immediate vicinity on cross streets. A 1011TROVER & - rid',. Unders ing/Approach/S4;liedule ♦ Over -saturated intersections and measures to improve operations; uneven lane distribution, including impact to saturation flow rate due to a lane drop within a few hundred feet of the intersection; unbalanced traffic distribution of a dual left -turn lane resulting in lower saturation flows; and observations for queuing and queue spillovers, including potential lane blockages. ♦ Traffic signal detection, both stop bar detectors and advance detectors, their timings and maintenance status; pedestrian push buttons and condition; sensitivity and settings of video detection, particularly for false calls or even dropped calls; and any unusual recall phases and reasons thereof. ♦ For intersections that may require minor intersection geometric changes or signal modifications, AGA will conduct a detailed Highway Capacity Manual based capacity, timing and queuing analysis to determine appropriate improvements. Improvement Plans Preparation Based on data collected and the Field Review conducted, AGA will develop plans, specifications, and cost allocations as required for our Turn -Key Team's installation of new and/or upgraded traffic signal control and communication equipment and various other ITS elements as specifically detailed in the RFP for this project. In addition to preparing the Design Report for the proposed system improvements for the Sunflower Avenue Corridor, we will also !ppdate the previous AGA developed "City of Costa Mesa Traffic Signal System Master Plan". The Master Plan update will allow the City for better planning and integration of various corridor project components at the TMC. Figure 3 graphically displays the project corridor and the locations of the City's fiberoptic core rings, key components of the overall traffic signal control and communication infrastructure. Plans for improvements will be prepared by AGA in accordance with City requirements. The development process for the Turn -Key plans, which in essence will resemble typical plans will include utility company reviews and be prepared on 24"06" mylar sheets, signed and sealed by Mr. Chalap Sadam, a California licensed Civil Engineer. Detail drawings will be at a V = 20' scale. All plans will be prepared and submitted in AutoCAD format. Because of the Turn -Key nature of major components of the project, formal cost estimations will not be provided but, rather, costing will be included in a spreadsheet format detailing the total project costs of all engineering, hardware, software and installation. Deliverables will include preliminary and final construction plans with appropriate specifications and cost allocations. For the 3" conduit installation component of the project, detailed plans and specifications along with bid documents will be prepared per City Requirements. Additionally, the AGA Team will answer any questions during the bidding process, assist the City in evaluating the bids received, and address any RFI's during construction. Equipment Construction/Installation/System Integration Based on the approved plans, the AGA Team will construct/install all new signal controllers, other signal improvements, communication equipment, CCTV cameras and all other ITS components along the corridor. While the City will provide actual inspection services for all work done, AGA will provide overall system integration and construction support services. Additionally, for the newly interconnected traffic signals, AGA will assist in Internet Protocol (I/P) communications scheme and addressing for Ethernet communication systems. Deliverables will include new equipment and system integration and construction support services. Additionally, as discussed under Project Approach, various conceptual plans and detailed plans will be developed for the Traffic Management Center. 11e+Dre aing After" Siaidy The AGA Team will conduct a "before and after" travel time and delay field study for the each corridor for each peak period for which coordinated timing plans are developed. Measures of Effectiveness (MOE) parameters, which will provide a quantitative basis for determining coordination benefits, will include stops, delays, travel times, reds versus greens, average speeds, fuel consumption, and emissions. MOE's will be compiled using Synchro and TruTraffic software and field measurements using the floating -car technique. According to the floating -car technique, the driver floats with the traffic by passing only as many vehicles as pass the test car. A minimum of three floating car runs will be conducted for each direction for each coordination time period. As shown on the Project Schedule (Figure 2), "before" studies are planned to be conducted prior to the completion of construction of various signal system and interconnect communication improvements, and "after" studies conducted after construction, system integration, and new timing plan implementation are completed. Deliverables will include a Memorandum with the results of the "before" and "after" studies. L 6 City of Costa Mesa Sunflower Avenue Corridor Traffic Signal Synchronization Project s 41 41`11RnIPe * BIIi1aDNgr iik i�* Sunflower �* ® Avenue 1 rr a c+e � &+nllowM A+ee T r0r Adams Avenue w. / veins a.irr yY -3�At H , Baker Slreet� COSTA MESA - Fry .an ��-- COSTA w�. MESA FAr or Victoria Street Ykrorh. St Legend - f S( Sunflower Avenue Corridor Costa Mesa Traffic Signal Santa Ana Traffic Signal r s ■ ■ Potential Fiber Routing � Legend —, Proposed Wireless Ethernet Radio co Proposed ASC/3 Controller Assembly p I Core Ring A (North) with Uninterrupted Power Supply L - Core Ring B (South) Proposed CCTV Camera t iGEWPl3R7 uu. Core Rl Existing H B (Alien ate Route) ® uh ® Proposed Pedestrian Signal Upgrades BfAGM �---� Proposed Fiber In New Conduit •!F Proposed ASCl3 Controller Unit Fiber Optic Core Ring qps L _ ,9IER,r CK= ,tea Figure 3 ' Id N C Un tanding/Approach/So liedule Signal Timing Development AGA's approach to several key components of the signal timing plan development process is detailed in the following sections. Arterial Link Speeds and Saturation Flow Rate Measurements: AGA proposes to field measure link speeds for signal coordination using the floating car technique. This field measurement is crucial for determining proper and effective coordination between signals. Additionally, AGA proposes to field measure saturation flow rates at several critical locations along the project arterial. These measured values are then used to determine accurate capacity values, which is key to developing efficient signal progression. Signal Timing Software: Various signal timing analysis and simulation software programs - Synchro, SimTraffic, Webster and TruTraffic programs will be used for this project. AGA proposes to utilize Synchro in addition to other signal timing optimization programs in an interactive manner. The TruTraffic program, a leading industry tool, will be used to prepare time -space diagrams. SimTraffic, a traffic simulation software, will be used at specific locations such as closely spaced intersections with blocking problems or lane change problems, or at congested intersections with large turning movement volumes. Micro simulation analysis programs allow for evaluation of capacity starvation or queue spill -over impacts, evaluation of unusually high turning movement volumes, use of lead -lag left turn phasing, etc. Cycle Length and Timing Analysis: Before developing any timing plans for project intersections, AGA will analyze the complete network to determine system cycle length requirements and subsystem requirements. Every attempt will be made to minimize the number of subsystems required throughout the project area to maximize the benefits of coordination (reduced delay, stops, fuel usage, mobile source emissions, etc.). AGA will also consider existing coordination on many of the crossing AGA's experience and expertise in arterials with the objective of improving overall arterial network operations. The system integrating synchronization of project cycle length determination is extremely critical, as the cycle length must be minimal to achieve maximum benefits. AGA will identify critical intersections area -wide, and routes with crossing arterials has r perform detailed capacity/delayanal ses usin sophisticated delay optimization routines proven critical to success on previous' p y g p y p to help establish system/subsystem cycle lengths. When system cycle lengths are corridor projects.f arbitrarily selected rather than minimized and optimized, complaints often arise from local side street traffic because of their increased waiting time. Various signal timing programs will be used to help calculate the signal timing information including cycle lengths, splits, phase sequences and offsets for signalized intersections along each corridor to maximize arterial progression and to reduce delay, The different traffic flow conditions will be analyzed and timing plans will be developed accordingly. The optimization will include the analysis of progression based on optimum phase sequences (leading lefts, lead/lag, etc.) to provide the best arterial progression. The results of the progression analysis will be shown on time -space diagrams. The timing analysis will evaluate queue lengths, stops and delays resulting from the impacts/benefits of coordination. The existing cycle length systems in the project area range from 110 seconds to 130 seconds. It is important to recognize that while many of the project intersections near the crossing arterials (Harbor Boulevard, Fairview Road, Bristol Street) are fairly large with multiple lanes, many of which are currently coordinated at higher cycle lengths, certain intersections on Sunflower Avenue could operate at lower cycles, particularly during the off-peak hours. For early morning or late evening time periods, it may be appropriate to coordinate traffic signals at a much shorter cycle or use full -actuated coordination, in order to minimize delays to side -streets. Recognizing the changing traffic patterns on Sunflower Avenue at its termination at Main Street including the use of split phase operation at this intersection, a moderate to heavy pedestrian usage on Sunflower Avenue at Stevens/Park Center intersection including direct access to large parking areas here and at Sunflower Avenue/Avenue of the Arts intersection will all be critical when developing appropriate signal coordination timing plans. Understanding the traffic patterns, the intersection capacities, natural barriers, and what is optimum given the characteristics of a certain time period, are all important when evaluating if local, arterial or system -wide optimization is desired. Serving the needs of pedestrians is a significant component of timing analysis. Knowing the number of pedestrians helps in defining if appropriate Walk time is being provided, such as in school and downtown areas; knowing how many pedestrian actuations are occurring in a time period will help define if the pedestrian override feature may be deployed to help maximize arterial progression. Proper allocation of left -turn splits is important to avoid excessive queues that may block thru traffic. The potential use of protected/permissive left turn (PPLT) phasing can also effectively improve traffic operations at selected project intersections. After careful review of traffic patterns, elimination of AoQR; TESL 0000 Understanding/Approach/Schedule minor deficiencies and assessment of available capacities, AGA will conduct an arterial bandwidth requirement analysis before time - space diagrams are generated so that the timing plans can accommodate the prevailing traffic volumes for each time period. Lead/Lag Phasing: Another factor that will influence the development of coordination timing plans for the project arterials involves lead/lag phasing at protected left turn locations. AGA will investigate the potential use of such phasing. Primarily, it provides for wider bands and allows for progression with both thru and left turn movements. Without lead/lag phasing, left turns are typically NOT coordinated and queues will be longer, so lead/lag phasing can help when pockets are short, The use of time -space diagrams help indicate when lead/lag phasing may be appropriate. AGA's experienced staff will carefully review the actual need for lead/lag phasing at minor intersections and will minimize its usage for better efficiency of actuated operation. We will also carefully analyze queuing, especially for left turn pockets to ensure that left turn demand does not overflow and block thru traffic, thereby disrupting traffic progression. Adequate time will be provided to the left -turns both to avoid queue spill -over and minimize resident complaints. Local Factors: Knowledge of key local factors, such as the location, operating hours and peak flow conditions related to periods of high commute traffic; South Coast Plaza, Segerstrom Center for the Arts, etc., are all very important in preparing timing plans. AGA's knowledge of such local factors, combined with input from the City, will greatly enhance our ability to develop the most appropriate timing plans. Additionally, attention must be given to any crossing that may be interconnected and coordinated when establishing logical break points, if such break points are required. Consideration will also be given to local streets when developing the cycle lengths, to avoid unnecessary delays to local residents and pedestrians. The side street delays will be kept to a minimum by the usage of double cycle or half cycle where feasible. AGA will also determine if minor modifications to existing signal operations and striping layouts would improve the level of service at project intersections. Such modifications could include converting split -phase operation to standard leading left turn operation, adding a right turn lane at selected intersections, etc. Timing Plan Deliverables: The RFP requires that coordinated timing plans be developed for the AM, midday and PM weekday traffic conditions, nighttime conditions, and typical weekend midday conditions. The weekend timing plans are especially important in shopping areas and near high -use recreational areas. An additional service being proposed by AGA is the development of holiday shopping plans for roadways in the vicinity of major shopping areas (South Coast Plaza, Metro Pointe, etc). These specialized plans will consider the impact of substantially increased traffic to/from these areas at selected times of the year. Historically, one timing plan was typically used for each time period, say one AM plan for 6:30am to 9:OOam on a weekday; however, traffic may not be constant throughout this period, but may peak for an hour. Arterial speeds also concurrently vary with the traffic volumes. Because coordination offset is a function of arterial travel speeds, one timing plan with a set speed will not be adequate. The changing speeds, within a time period, warrant different offsets so that a platoon of vehicles can progress without interruption. AGA recognizes this and will provide several additional timing plans over and above those required in the RFP so as to move the traffic as efficiently as possible along each corridor throughout the day, and not be constrained with a limited number of plans that are tailored only for certain traffic conditions. Time -of -day schedules (the appropriate start time for each plan) will be developed based on field observations, 24 hour traffic counts and input from City staff. After initial development of all signal timing plans, they will be submitted to the City for review. Plans will be revised as required, and any necessary new controller timing sheets will be developed. These revisions are typically minimized because AGA will already have reviewed and manually optimized all timing plans. Time -space diagrams will be prepared for all timing plans, to aid in the review process and to graphically document the finalized timing parameters. Iniplemeotation avid Fine Tuning of Thniing Plans One area where experience with various controllers and central system software is very important is during the implementation of coordination timings. Certain systems, such as the Type 90 (Multisonics VMS System, Econolite, etc.) require phase splits in percent of cycle or in seconds. Eagle SEPAC controllers require coordination timing splits in seconds, Model 170/2070 controllers with BiTrans McCain program require force -offs. The new Caltrans Traffic Signal Control Program (TSCP) for Model 2070 controllers allows the use of green factors or phase force -offs for implementing coordination timing. Similarly, the coordination offsets are referenced differently on various systems, such as at the beginning or end of coordination phase green, and refer to either ring 1 phases or ring 2 phases. ALBERT k-X MR4 �iuulluw�r ;avn�i� G►n�cr �� p Other system and/or controller intricacies, such as the mechanism to accomplish lead/lag phasing, proper phase permissive times, yield points, etc., are all important for successful signal coordination implementation. Based on our extensive experience with various systems, AGA will develop customized coordination timing sheets that are controller specific. These customized sheets will eliminate the implementation errors that are typical when software program output is implemented directly on different signal systems, Given the difference in hardware and software systems used by various agencies, development of controller specific timing AGA's hands-on experience with sheets is critical. AGA will implement timing plans at all controllers. Each timing plan will a wide variety of controller types identify cycle lengths, splits and offsets for all signals along each corridor, and will and central system software greatly identify start times and end times of each timing plan, facilitates our implementation of The new timing will be observed in the field, and will be tested for a minimum of two weeks. timing plans. Working in conjunction with City staff, adjustments to the timing will be made as necessary and revised timing plan data files will be prepared. After final timing plans are approved by the City, final Time -Space Diagrams will be prepared and provided for each time of day timing plan. All Synchro data files and other electronic files, including a memorandum documenting the signal timing optimization and implementation, will be provided. System fine tuning is generally defined as ensuring that the entire system is functioning as a whole, that is, as an inter -jurisdictional multi - agency coordinated system. Our proposed fine tuning of project signals includes the following components: (a) Review of system functions, (b) Driving of the system signals to visually review the coordination effectiveness, (c) Communicating with responsible maintenance technicians, and (d) Minor modifications of splits and offsets to respond to traffic fluctuations. Deliverables will include optimized and synchronized traffic signal timing plans and field implementation of optimized traffic signal plans including all required fine-tuning. System Maintenance and Operation System maintenance and operations is generally defined as ensuring that the entire system is functioning as a whole, that is, as an interjurisdictional multi -agency coordinated system, Communication between a central system and signals will be monitored along the corridor to ensure necessary conditions for signal synchronization. A variety of methods will be used to monitor, maintain, and repair both communications and detections along the project corridor. The upkeep of communication systems and detection systems will be completed working in conjunction with the respective agency signal maintenance staff. A number of techniques will be used including regular drives along the corridor, analysis of central system report output, and discussions with respective agency staff. AGA will support City staff in the operation of the system, and will provide continuous monitoring/optimizing of system timing of all project intersections for two years following implementation of signal timing plans to further fine tune the system and modify the plans as needed. This will consist of monitoring of the systems from our offices (via telephone modems or VPN) combined with extensive field reviews. This three year operational period will not officially start until coordination timing plans have been implemented. Deliverables will include revised signal timing plans and a memorandum documenting the changes. Project Report/As Built Plans AGA will prepare a Final Timings and Evaluation Technical Report with an executive summary. The final report will provide a complete documentation of the project, including project objectives, scope and location, findings and recommendations, implementation schedule, improvements accomplished, and procedures for continuing maintenance, surveillance, and evaluation of the coordinated signal system. In addition, the report will include a summary of work performed, data collected, "before" and "after" studies and project benefits achieved in terms of fuel savings, travel time reduction, emissions reduced including Green House Gas (GHG) and other measurable parameters. Project results will also be summarized in the OCTA required Corridor Synchronization Performance Index (CSPI), The report will also include for each project intersection the lane configurations, signal phasing, turning movement data, and cycle lengths for existing and proposed timing for all peak periods. In addition, in a separate binder, all the traffic signal phase sequences, signal timing plans, time -space diagrams, and pedestrian timings will be documented. As -Built plans for all constructed improvements will also be prepared and provided to the appropriate agency. Deliverables include a Traffic Signal Synchronization Final Report and as -built plans for all constructed improvements, EXHIBIT C FEE SCHEDULE ul� w ALBERT 1-! ROVER & %-A SOCIATES April 20, 2015 Mr. Pritam Deshmukh Associate Civil Engineer Transportation Services Division Fourth Floor City Hall 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, California 92628 RE: Sunflower Avenue Traffic Signal Coordination Project Fee Proposal Dear Mr. Deshmukh: Albert Grover & Associates (AGA) is pleased to respond to the City of Costa Mesa's Request for Proposal (RFP) dated January 5, 2015 to provide professional Turn -Key services for design, equipment purchase and installation, construction management, system integration, and ongoing monitoring/maintenance to improve coordination signal timing on approximately 3.3 miles of Sunflower Avenue encompassing 14 traffic signals controlled by the City of Costa Mesa. Enclosed please find our Fee Proposal to provide the required services. AGA's total fee for this project amounts to $629,849, which includes both hardware/software improvements and engineering efforts for the Sunflower Avenue Corridor. Our Fee Proposal consists of four primary components: • Table 1: The "General Fee Schedule", including lump sum cost for signal coordination, development and implementation of timing, before and after' studies, reports, etc.; lump sum for construction cost of system improvements; lump sum cost for record drawings, PS&E, and procurement; lump sum cost for PS&E for TMC improvements, an annual and two-year cost for maintenance; and a cumulative not -to -exceed fee. • Table 2A: A breakdown detailing hourly cost of personnel per task, along with a cumulative not -to - exceed amount for the project. • Table 2B: A breakdown detailing all personnel cost components including labor base rate, other direct costs, overhead and fees. • Table 2C: A detailed cost estimate for purchase/installation of communication, CCTV hardware improvements, controller units, cabinets, and various other equipment on an intersection -by - intersection basis. TRANSPORTATION CONSUMNG ENGINEERS 211 E. Imperial Hwy., Suite 208, Fullerton, CA 92835 (714) 992-2990 FAX (714) 992-2883 E-Mail. ap@alhertgrover.com Mr. Pritam Deshmukh April 20, 2015 Page 2 AGA looks forward to working with the City of Costa Mesa on this very important project. If you have any questions or require amplification on any aspect of this proposal, please contact Mr. Sadam or me. This Fee Proposal is valid for a period of 90 days from the date of submittal. Mr. Sadam and I are authorized to negotiate and contractually bind AGA. Respectfully submitted, ALBERT GROVER & ASSOCIATES (94�L- �61 Albert L. Grover, P.E., T.E. President(CEO PropoublCosW MesalSonAowalCost PropossASonl mw cost Lover do" (13 Table 1 GENERAL FEE SCHEDULE Albert Grover & Associates Sunflower Avenue Traffic Signal Coordination Project April 20, 2015 Part 1 — Signal Coordination, Develop and Implement Timing, Before and After Studies, Reports and Documents for OCTA Reporting Part 2 — System Improvements, Procure and Install Equipment Part 3 — Preparation of Record Drawings, Project Plans Specifications and Estimate, and Procurement Part 4 — Preparation of Plans, Specifications and Estimate for TMC Improvements Part 5 — 2 Years Follow -Up Maintenance Traffic Management Center Cost Additive Work Scope Cost Per Year $14,081 Traffic Counts at Intersections Weekday (6-hour) Per Intersection Fee Schedule Lump Sum $92,134 Lump Sum $364,454 Lump Sum $55,194 Lump Sum $39,905 Lump Sum $28,162 Lump Sum $50,000 CUMULATIVE NOT -TO -EXCEED FEE: $629,849 I person $260 2 person $412 Intersection Total $2,688 1 person $115 Traffic Counts at Intersections Weekend (2-hour) Per Intersection 2 person $175 Intersection Total $1,160 Install 3" Conduit Per Lineal Foot $35 A, rR_�FRT _i ___- W w tp N •f m N f0 W fo N W W (O M OD e{ aD O N O ao M ao ? d) N M W O L o O m O W O O O W It M [n O r N fo d) aD N act oc a W f0 N N O O N O M `' N N E N � � N � M M M N O N 1soo WWI N M M C4 H d, M M:9 d, B9 M d, M 69 d, e9 e9 c9 M �., H e, m HH to 64 fR M N oo DO N M N N N m M N (O N N M N W N M f0 a n N N W i- h 810H AJnOH J J 69 H 69 (9 (9 to H f9 f9 a9 69 69 H H f9 f9 V, 0 ro m O a cc co N O (O f0 cO O O O N V C. N O W N smnOH 1V101 M N Lo N M W r W ti O� r <O N W M v> 0 0 o 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,a 0 0 0 00 0 $ laluao wawa6euew awe, o 69 uone,ad N O O N 0 0 0 O O f0 N co ao o 0 o co m 9 aDummmew wals6 10 •d w a a sueld ASOU %Of N oo ao o as O O o M M O N N O O OD CoN N I sueld WwW N N N IL ialuao Im"euew alijei 69 H 0 0 0 o ao o'. o ao m o o ao ao oa Mamaa plat j u61saa t t co) Y ,n slln9•sV'I uopeiedaid N O' N O o W O M 00 a CD a o f0 ao 0 0 oD 0 co m a N H %Md Urowano N uope,6awl walsK a N 0 OD O N a M m O a N aD v O O o M N M 0 0 0 M 0 a m W W d• v A NopellelswWWWuo c- co N a wowdlnb v, a a N N O a 0 0 0 0 fD O O a0 co O a0 N uodaa POO KpnlS. )jVr,,In W 00 fD O O O 00 O N O O N ao N O Oo1 O sueld "UM1 Jo Butuni ao N N O O O o N O O f0 ao ao N N O O aw-4 pue uonuwmualdumM � N N N fO �' O co N O O O' N co M m t0 N O ". W a umdolanap rMRU!i wals6S ao o. v o v o 0 0 0 0 m o o'v n o o n mwam play 6uluM1 leu6l a 0 O v O a a 0 0 0 W 0 0 0 N ao a 0 s uopDalp� ele m m m f9 N v, w m d d w O C 41 O C N Q C C O 4) n W Ex c _ _ C W N o C O a W y U/ N O N le W N O �' U a y 4) U c O d C c E C N 4) V1 N 4. {{L�� C W Y N N W N fn yy 0 4/ 47 2 ~ a) U U W �, N C �. a N W W n W c c O 41 O C c O a> C E E w C Q Q O a N a) C C N f- C C = C ( w N w H o r oa N Q v, N m S T v o d a E d CL cL 31 O N W U ' N 2 N C C N N O C H v O L1 aa`>rncn al N al rnviQr-oioco 4) <Lu W � w y c o 'omm� r T N a) E a7 o U m U M E E O N N O U C C O N a N O C wr r C ca C N Of a1 L Ol ab ` �j & W p V) E O u 2 v_ O 6 C L J 05 nS •2 C= (� N. G ILT O z .10 0 C yiyOi -�X O n' t 4) o l0. N m la o 7 L M •0 T N" N M C u 4Y O = w c UQ (0 C7_mz C O UmaLLwYwa L CO v N 41 mUNM O N Table 2B City of Costa Mesa - Sunflower Avenue Traffic Signal Coordination Project Estimated Fee Schedule - Hourly Cost of Personnel Per Task Albert Grover & Associates April 20. 2015 1. DIRECT LABOR HOURS RATE COST Albert Grover 26 $79.36 $2,063 Chalap Sadam 136 $63.49 $8,635 Mark Miller 52 $63.49 $3,301 Greg Wong 120 $52.90 $6,348 Ignacio Sanchez 134 $47.61 $6,380 Roland Hizon 86 $45.50 $3,913 Natali Eid Es arza 16 $45.50 $728 Leo Grimes 156 $37.03 $5,777 N O N v O co CDv (o w N O N y 0 (o O N wv O W) co N O M (o v h (o Lo (O N O M (o I� ao N ro of v (o N N m oo Ih to m v m N_ (V of o(o 'oLo iG O M M M N N o) w N O N O M— b o) O M M M N N o) wN O N O m io 0 h W w" v u) N — Y) m — OD N m Y E w M W 6% 6% 69 H► fA b4 EA to . 4a . . . . N O O o O O v w O N O O O O O v w O O )O O v v O 0 0 v 0 W (o v O O O v O N o m o o fV V O (V T oD O N v 0 CV c7 O M M M N O M M M N O) v tu (» » » »' M u� » (n 0 » (n M, » (a » us ur rA u9 0 0 0 0 0 0 )n O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 )n o 0 0 V v W O Oo O 00 O 0 o 0 0 (o r a v m o w 0 W 0 O 0 O 0 (o Ln w I: w (O y N v P) v co v N v v M v co (O A di N! 6% fH H Ul 09 Ni H v% v% N Hi &% (9 H► VII (A N) O O O O N Oo v 1l 0 O wU� OM v O N r w. O O O O N mrl.: v 0 O w M to v 0 N 1l- OA v O o O O O W N o O Oo o) 1- .- (o M v toO 0 0 O W N O O OD O 1- fO W y Na) r a I� M a r 00 r r co a� OO r J bB H (A (H W) E9 fA 6% UN 61j. (a to 6. Ui tl► EA 69 69 Go v v uoi co co J W W W W W W W J W W W W W W W W W W � � Y N � O Q C i � > C N Q p Y 10 a s a v v ap e o E 4' iv m m o F E o m m w Y m Q CDd d Q LL m N a Q a '¢ C A O cc m > C 3 m � .� a c > ; m N .� -coo c > m Q Q > Q LL I L t .�. c y 7 m 2 Q Q (L L c y] m 2 m (Ya v, d m m d A ❑ 3� j o c U m m d A ❑ 3 U O m c a 7 c N; m C a o O O C w > Q m E o> Q E o> Q o o c W m c o m to LL o > Q o o a c m W m o m U a E o > > > LL x 0 ii F E c d 3 o > y d 3 o W d 3 o U o y o n cmi •- n m CO m c m -c y 3 o U r y o a ._ a m v m • m m% y o W C M 0 M 0 M E E j (2 t U N i M E E 7 to F C) N W LL S to O z O H 7 N O z O 1- 7 v) (n Q O U W W (o LL a LL U m IL m IL 0 H M fn Q o= U w W (o li li (D d m. LL U O H E6 2 z N a N In O W N N Q O O W M O W Q Q W I� b b Q Q b h O O O N N N O W N N O m f0 n b IQ f0 N O O ' O Q co N (V ('� f0 H r O Ol' !n Q ao N (V ('� f0 f� W m Q f10 OD N fV M f0 I� N w O M m M N N O W N O N O M W 0 O e- N W O b N CO M CO Cl! N O W N O N O M N O O M M m N N O f� N W N O N O Cl) V7 O W V M H V) N N N N' M N H M Q N W N N Y A E w ui fn va » � u► fA 69 � dr vi vt 69 w ua f» » 6'l f9 ut u> f9 » M F» f9 f9 vs f9 f9 �» » � f9 u> w N h O W O Q O Q O O O O Q O W Q O O 00 Q 0 O N u1 O CR O Q O Q O O O O Q O w Q O O N W O f0 O Q O O O It O O O Q O W Q O R O N N N W a0 O N V O N Q N Q N 6 x H N> V! f9 69 6% 69 m m to 64 f9 69 6% K! 64 69 f9 b m 69 69 69 m V> f9 iA W. 69 to f9 e9 0 oo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o U� u> 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o m N o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 LO 0 o 0 0 0 0 Q Q m O 0 W 0 W 0 O 0 O 0 f0 UN W b n Q In m 0 W 0 W 0 o O o O 0 W W � Q Q U) 0) O W O O O OD O o 0 O b b b N m ,C Q Q: m Q m Q Q: m Q m Q Q a W m Q M y Y N N N b N f9 69 f9 6% 69 69 69 69 H! f9 6% 69 m V> H w 69 69 to 64 69 w f9 69 69 69 to 69 b N t9 O O O O N ODI� Q O O OD Cl) W Q O N n O 0 N f- O O O O O O O N OR Q Il O O W M N Q O N 77 0, O O O O N W O O It f- O W m b Q 0 N I-- O Q O O 0 O O O N O O W O 1� ffl O Q N b O Q W O O O O O O O N O O W O 1-- 0 O Q O O O m O O W O Q M I- O L I� � CM Q r� W In r r ce) v I- co f- r CO M a I-- a0 h a A J f9 69 69 69 69 0% M. 69 69 w 69 69 69 69.. 69 69 frs f9 69 b 69 fA fA 6B (A 69 6- fA ER f9 69 vi W N W co N O m W m J W W �; W W W W W W J W W W W W 111 W W W J W. W W j W W W W W W W W N 7 to U C N N U a w E � r 'x 0 a� c_ r Y C CGo L 6D a a) (D co T a a) w N m m a n E o U m 'o w N E o U m U m L C y= rn rn R a Y y rn rn m L d 2 rn �' a `� -y N 2 m rn m fu U n Q a U a 7❑ n n 7❑ Cl m c A p Q a N a 7 a 7 Y N «� m Q a CO o_ ❑ a 7 m Y O7 y N "O c fp 'O C Vl W {{Npp N w •- N U c N W N C Q • N V C fU IL N L `U N !-' c a/ a al N O Z m= la a) O •x > ¢ W l0 a c a1 L w U N c n (0 a) O> ¢ y m N a L w t U C N c a 1p N O 7 > ¢ Y a c O y 7 R==¢ m L Y m O L Y a O N❑ m (� x m L Y U '3 O la U = m L fo ❑ 3 U 6, u o U w L d m L d m ❑ 3 U o o m L d 0 3 y U o m L fu N C C •- 7 C N; N c o' N N 3 d C -0 c 7 c rn 3 W C o U c '- m o m o > ¢ o a c m w m c o °' in � a o> c ¢ y m a a w o> c ¢ 0 0 c m w m I c o° U) a o> c ¢ o a`) a J U c m w c I u) a E o c `m o ii o E d y o Lw o •� o oo- .E d o ii ❑ o I m a i 3 U ar a a d m� .Y h ; c y 3 U d a a N m c •$ ; U w d n o_ w m 'c U y E E U F O N N °� G w N M E E j F 0 N N °� O M E E E y H `m p in in c U E L a LL -oo �i :° c v'D a r c U 0 E o 0) a a� LL � D ;? c U E v o a m LL in Q U w co LL ii ai a s o o w d a w a U o H o cn Q U W w W 'UU LL fn w a s Q C w w fwn ai a a U F [!�Nbf� N M O O O O O t0 N N V' O o 0 W O W FO A N O N M O O O O O t0 N N O O W M O fO f0 N O - O 0 C7 0 N N O W N N O O W M b W R N Iff tO OD N W t• O� O M w N C. N M O W O i'- 40 fD N W I. O. O M OD N N OV m O co O n cc r O O C2, O W M M W N N fV pi O O fA N N 1fl n C fA f0 O N 0 W N N M N fa W t0 O N W W N N CO N Y1 W Yf M N at W N N 't N F N M tO 1? N M ffi G M W Of y Y 7 tl' E w fA fA Q% fo 64 69 to - fA fR - G% 69 -1 Eo to 1 fo 69 Go 64 W, d! Eo W fia 69 fA fA to U! 69 fo N N M 0 W 0 0 V 0 O 0 O It O 0 O N M 0 f0 0 V 0 0 O O O V O O O N 10 O fD 0 0 0 O 0 O O 0 N N 61 m W O M N M N O W N N fA M W O M N M N O W N N W 0 co W O M N M R N O M O f0 V t0 a fd F 69 W, 10 to w. to E9 &% f!), fA fo "1 fA 6% to 69 fA fo EA 69 6% fo 69 69 to fo M. to fA 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 a 0 a o LO a 0 o O 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67 O 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o . L in . o o v O . w W . o W o W a O a O o 0 N v O 0 W 0 W 0 W 0 O 0 O 0 o W a a W W 0 W 0 W 0 O 0 O 0 w W M 7 M'T co CM M �r 0 r M M a"r 7 M M ,C O fn O b N co r A N N 69 64 N3 69 69 6A to w fA 6% 01, 01, fo fo 69 69 64 (A 69 69 fA to fA EA fA fo 64 O O O O O O O O N W V N:O O W M W V to O 0 O 0 O 0 N W V h O O W M N W h O O O O N W V' O O W M to a It 0 N f� O O O O fA N O O W Mto I- co N t• O O O O W N O 0 W W N W co O O O O O O W N O O W O I� r fA d f0 O M N co a� co t0 O CO I, M a 1-- ta V' N 1--` cof at N co pl� m J fA EA fo EA fA 69 fA to 69 fo fo 64 f9 69 N 69 N 69 H 69 W, to to fA 64 64 69 69 O O O � J w Q¢ Qa Qa QQ QQ QQ QQ QQ LL QQ QQ Qa QQ QQ QQ Qa QQ QQ W LL J QQ ¢¢ W QQ W QQ W aa W QQ W QQ W LL J QQ LLJ � W W' W LLi W W W W J W W W W W W W W LL1 U U N N O) N F F co O cm U = C C C 7 y X C 7 y X N N N N O .O E p�p U ` M Y U H M = O Q 7 M M r O O 7 3K X W �i m co ca o 3 �_ a j m 4l rn U O LL y M A a O LL N G Y « v N 7 OY = Z. a B L 3 7 al. c n a j3 W A p .0 a c 100 v n E o c> a V E o E n E o T N 2 7. ILL T ,N X O) 2' 3 3 y+ fp N= M r E o wad g� a E c �,) C " z wad o W v -- v u) d E a) N c 2 r' u > > Z a 'm N c u d > 7 LL Q N C l0 a L U W `y > Q ss 5 Q N C fp a L U C y j N N Q l0 LL x N w 7 M d L C W Q •' `° a o❑ 3 o U o U 3 a`� Y A a m❑ 3 o U o o U i o w Y A o fo Y m ❑ 3 o U o o U fu w o U c U .6 =• o o a 3 m O rn U c M o= u a 3 0 fn c M `D -O o c 5 3 > a O C .N a o c m W itl = O Y O > Q C .N a o y c l0 W i0 C 0 Y O > a L w N > > a O O a = f0 w i0 C 0 Y E o W �p U L lL x0 U E 6) n. 1p a LL E y A W R LL XO U W Y 7 V~ L n O) m 7 M d 3 U~ T C 7 �� S] .V a N m'. j 7 V) N .T, N C m ; O U .0 7 L a N m T o LL c— F 7 E m E h~ o � � p a c— F E E? to F o b p d p M E E 3 to F 0>>_ a N Eo a� LL `5 LL C ;? c a n '.4 E 0 CL m LL C.9 'C c o '° c U' E m a y LL F '° L w S2 .0 'C 0 7 >. W rn O L w � n g o 7 a 0 M O .L.. w a L) Q M F U S U W W LL LL (o 5 F M F U U W co LL LL In 5 1- fn to F Q U w W LL LL U) U F E � c I (0 N O m N N C. f0 V O O O • p O 0 O 0 O O o 4 O t0 N 7 h sf m 00 N N N N1 O 0 m m m M i0 Oi m 4 m m w P` Yl o O O O o N 06 a O tf ; (D m ���ffflll YI O p O N m ao N N m of m N m Yl QO CO m Vi F- a N' m a T n n O ao e2 a-- M yp a M N N N N A M E a w 4o u, u, v, 4& u, u, F» » to to V> u, 4& w 40 O O O O O R O N O O O f0 O O O O �7 f0 O co O o C m m ao O lM N m N O (O m O m m m m N O 0 N N Sa r'n 3 Y! � m v, v, u, » to V, v, v, v, f9 U- o U. :�, oo O m E > > G d E > W E O 0 O 0 O o O o 0 O 0 o O 0 Lo N o o O 0 O v o O ca O t0 O o u) C. N Lo acm E W v V m V' M W R V 07 b, N E y N N N �1 E = M E (a A J C1 d, u, d, v, v, W. v, u, v, v, 60 O co O p O N O OD �0 0 0 O 00 n O m a 0 O O O O O O N O CO n m O O m O m n m v n ro n n n r m 00 C d J C i+ C fA M U, V, 43, H, V, 6, tR EH V O m O O O O O Go V � Lll LLi W W W J W W W W W LL J J W N ip h 9 N co 9Cp U tl 2 N 07 r n O aJ 0 R o 3 m u).N- N N l0 � O �+ ° E EU a�a E o 0 f y a 8 o N C a 3 Q aO- > -D 4 N a m a> � Qd od 5 Nam' a `O coo m d m N= d 2 Q v¢ v M o c o a f C `p L 3 c o a 0 o z m a� w �° � c E 4)V o P N E a ai a° A 5 m cc ��y>¢3+ ❑ U�, � wOm Uy'o rL W O O `O y O Nwui OC Nm O O U 2w Ue x E o w d .LL m3 a a m m N h U vJ a i0 iq a U O N y E �a`) m U E Ro v m F U > o— m EO L a' a-2 d O fq O ��'{r e' o o o 22 0 N N U w uJ 'o li LL fn F- Q U S Q !- t�, � J- U H F .E U, �GGG�p77 {•• dZ T !• �A.. EXHIBIT D PROJECT SCHEDULE Is N Y c Y 3 rn CO co Ff6 � ai , > 1 ~ N J a a) `r71 o LL .t~+.. . 1 1 1 1 r,................................iN �..... 1 1 ..................................................... ..............��. =,l. o.................... ....1............. .. N. ....... ................................... .., .....,.......... �. p----- ................. .............. ................ ............... ..................... ................. N.. �............................................................... E c � o _ c a � O G� �' c c c� Vj o c aD 'c O c �+ c n rn 2 a) v a� y > c o c0 0 Ch c 00 cl. m O V " N m a.)N C C ca O cn a)N C N .� O F— N N O � U E � � v ii a E E Y CL 0 co 75 - CL Q Cl- U CL W S m 6) U I L 7 EXHIBIT E CERTIFICATES OF INSURANCE 101 ® DATE (MM/DDNYYY) CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE �. 4/20/2015 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(tes) must be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require, an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). CONTACT PRODUCER IOA Insurance Services NAME: Betty Tran 130 Vantis, Suite 250 PHONE No- Emil, 949-297-5962 FAX No: 949-297-5960 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 1 E-MAIL,__ www.ioausa.com CA License #OE67768 INSURED Albert Grover & Associates, Inc. 211 E. Imperial Hwy, Suite 208 Fullerton CA 92835 INSURER B : RSUI Inden INSURER c : Continental INSURER D : INSURER E : COVERAGE I NAIC # 13056 f'n%/C0At_•CC f`CDTICICATC IdI IIIARr-0- 9Aa4AG4A RPVI_SIAN NIIMRFP- THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. INSR LTRINSD TYPE OF INSURANCE ADDL UBR VD POLICY NUMBER MMILDICY EFF POLICY EXP MM/DD/YYYY LIMITS A COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY PSB0001618 7/1/2014 7/1/2015 EACH OCCURRENCE $ 1,000,000 CLAIMS -MADE OCCUR I �J Prima ry/Non-Contribu tga Scheduled Al Endt #PPB3130212 Professional Services performed by the Insured are Excluded PREW E a oc rrm $ 1,000,000 MED EXPAny one person $ 10,000 / Waiver of Subrogation PERSONAL a ADV INJURY $ 1,000,000 GEN°L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: GENERAL AGGREGATE $ 2,000,000 PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG $ 2,000,000 POLICY[jE � LOC $ OTHER: A AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY PSB0001618 7/1/2014 7/1/2015 'Do BIN95 IN: LE LIMIT $JFa 1,000,000 BODILY INJURY (Per person) $ ANY AUTO ALL OWNED SCHEDULED AUTOS AUTOS NON -OWNED r HIRED AUTOS AUTOS Included in General Liability BODILY INJURY (Per accident) $ PROPERTY DAMAGE r n $ $ B UMBRELLA LIAB V OCCUR NHA235823 7/1/2014 7/1/2015 EACH OCCURRENCE $ 2,000,000 EXCESS LIAR CLAIMS -MADE Excludes Professional Liability; Follow Form AGGREGATE $ 2,000,000 DIED RETENTION $ $ A WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY Y / N ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? (Mandatory in NH) N / A V/ PSW0001494 Waiver of Subrogation Endt #WC0403060484 7/1/2014 7/1/2015 ,/ PER ERH E.L. EACH ACCIDENT $ 1,000,000. E.L DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE $ 1,000,000 E. L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT $ 1,000,000 If yes, describe under DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below C Professional Liability MCH288354455 7/1/2014 7/1/2015 $2,000,000 Per Claim Claims -Made $4,000,000 Aggregate DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, may be attached if more space is required) Certificate Holder is an Additional Insured with respect to General Liabifq (GL) but only when required by written contract with the Insured prior to an occurrence as per Endorsement noted above. GL Includes Separation of Insureds and Contractual Liability per limitations in the BusinessOwners' Coverage form. A Workers' Compensation Waiver of Subrogation as noted above is included for the person or organization named in the Schedule that are parties to a contract requiring this Endorsement, provided that contract is executed before the loss. Coverage subject to all po)lcy terms conditions, limitations and exclusions. 30 Day Notice Cancellation/10 Days for Non -Payment in accordance with policy provisions. L;hK I IF -ILA I t MULULK s wlVl CLLH I IU14 Sunflower Avenue TSSP City of Costa Mesa, its elected and appointed boards, officers and employees 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa CA 92626 SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (AVC) Alicia K. Igram © 19BB-2014 AGURD GURPORATIUN. All rights reserved. ACORD 25 (2014101) The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD ,j CERT NO -: 24314514 Pauline Bingham 4/20/2015 3:15:03 PM (PDT) Page 1 of 3 V Policy Number: PSB0001618 RLI Insurance Company Named Insured: Albert Grover & Associates, Inc. THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. RLIPack® FOR PROFESSIONALS SCHEDULED ADDITIONAL INSURED ENDORSEMENT This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: BUSINESSOWNERS COVERAGE FORM — SECTION II — LIABILITY Schedule Name of Person(s) or Organization(s): City of Costa Mesa, its elected and appointed boards, officers and employees 1. SECTION II C. Who Is An Insured is amended to include as an additional insured the person or organization shown in the schedule above, but only with respect to liability for "bodily injury", "property damage" or "personal and advertising injury" caused in whole or in part by you or those acting on your behalf: a. In the performance of your ongoing operations; b. In connection with premises owned by or rented to you; or c. In connection with "your work" and included within the "product -completed operations hazard". 2. The insurance provided to the additional insured by this endorsement is limited as follows: a. This insurance does not apply to the rendering of or failure to render any "professional services". b. This endorsement does not increase any of the limits of insurance stated in D. Liability And Medical Expenses Limits of Insurance. The following is added to SECTION III H.2. Other Insurance — COMMON POLICY CONDITIONS (BUT APPLICABLE ONLY TO SECTION II — LIABILITY) However, if you specifically agree in a contract or agreement that the insurance provided to an additional insured under this policy must apply on a PPB 313 02 12 primary basis, or a primary and non-contributory basis, this insurance is primary to other insurance that is available to such additional insured which covers such additional insured as a named insured, and we will not share with that other insurance, provided that: a. The "bodily injury" or "property damage" for which coverage is sought occurs after you have entered into that contract or agreement; or b. The "personal and advertising injury" for which coverage is sought arises out of an offense committed after you have entered into that contract or agreement. 4. The following is added to SECTION III K.2 Transfer of Rights of Recovery Against Others to Us — COMMON POLICY CONDITIONS (BUT APPLICABLE TO SECTION I — PROPERTY AND SECTION II — LIABILITY) We waive any rights of recovery we may have against any person or organization because of payments we make for "bodily injury", "property damage" or "personal and advertising injury" arising out of "your work" performed by you, or on your behalf, under a contract or agreement with that person or organization. We waive these rights only where you have agreed to do so as part of a contract or agreement with such person or organization entered into by you before the "bodily injury" or "property damage" occurs, or the "personal and advertising injury" offense is committed. ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS POLICY REMAIN UNCHANGED. CERT NO.: 24314514 Pauline Bingham 4/20/2015 3:15:03 PM (PDT) Page 2 of 3 Page 1 o�� WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS LIABILITY INSURANCE POLICY WAIVER OF OUR RIGHT TO RECOVER FROM OTHERS ENDORSEMENT—CALIFORNIA WC 04 03 06 (Ed. 4-84) We have the right to recover our payments from anyone liable for an injury covered by this policy. We will not enforce our right against the person or organization named in the Schedule. (This agreement applies only to the extent that you perform work under a written contract that requires you to obtain this agreement from us.) You must maintain payroll records accurately segregating the remuneration of your employees while engaged in the work described in the Schedule. The additional premium for this endorsement shall be 2 % of the California workers' compensation premium otherwise due on such remuneration. Person or Organization City of Costa Mesa, its elected and appointed boards, officers and employees Schedule Job Description Jobs performed for any person or organization that you have agreed with in a written contract to provide this agreement. This endorsement changes the policy to which it is attached and is effective on the date issued unless otherwise stated. (The Information below Is required only when this endorsement Is Issued subsequent to preparation of the policy.) Endorsement Effective 7/1/2014 Insured Albert Grover & Associates, Inc. Policy No.PSW0001494 Insurance Company RLI Insurance Company Countersigned By Endorsement No. 01998 by the Workers' Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau of Callfomla. All rights reserved. CBRT NO.: 24314514 Pauline Bingham 4/20/2015 3:15:03 PM (PDT) Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT F CITY COUNCIL POLICY 100-5 m SUBJECT POLICY EFFECTIVE PAGE NUMBER DATE DRUG -FREE WORKPLACE 100-5 8-8-89 1 of 3 BACKGROUND Under the Federal Drug -Free Workplace Act of 1988, passed as part of omnibus drug legislation enacted November 18, 1988, contractors and grantees of Federal funds must certify that they will provide drug -free workplaces. At the present time, the City of Costa Mesa, as a sub -grantee of Federal funds under a variety of programs, is required to abide by this Act. The City Council has expressed its support of the national effort to eradicate drug abuse through the creation of a Substance Abuse Committee, institution of a City-wide D.A.R.E. program in all local schools and other activities in support of a drug -free community. This policy is intended to extend that effort to contractors and grantees of the City of Costa Mesa in the elimination of dangerous drugs in the workplace. PURPOSE It is the purpose of this Policy to: 1. Clearly state the City of Costa Mesa's commitment to a drug -free society. 2. Set forth guidelines to ensure that public, private, and nonprofit organizations receiving funds from the City of Costa Mesa share the commitment to a drug -free workplace. POLICY The City Manager, under direction by the City Council, shall take the necessary steps to see that the following provisions are included in all contracts and agreements entered into by the City of Costa Mesa involving the disbursement of funds. 1. Contractor or Sub -grantee hereby certifies that it will provide a drug -free workplace by: a. Publishing a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in Contractor's and/or sub -grantee's workplace, specifically the job site or location included in this contract, and specifying the actions that will be taken against the employees for violation of such prohibition; I7' SUBJECT POLICY EFFECTIVE PAGE NUMBER DATE DRUG -FREE WORKPLACE 100-5 8-8-89 2 of 3 b. Lstabiisning a Urug-Free Awareness Program to inform employees about: 1. The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace; 2. Contractor's and/or sub -grantee's policy of maintaining a drug -free workplace; 3. Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation and employee assistance programs; and 4. The penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations occurring in the workplace; c. Making it a requirement that each employee to be engaged in the performance of the contract be given a copy of the statement required by subparagraph A; d. Notifying the employee in the statement required by subparagraph 1 A that, as a condition of employment under the contract, the employee will: 1. Abide by the terms of the statement; and 2. Notify the employer of any criminal drug statute conviction for a violation occurring in the workplace no later than five (5) days after such conviction;, e. Notifying the City of Costa Mesa within ten (10) days after receiving notice under subparagraph 1 D 2 from an employee or otherwise receiving the actual notice of such conviction; f. Taking one of the following actions within thirty (30) days of receiving notice under subparagraph 1 D 2 with respect to an employee who is so convicted: 1. Taking appropriate personnel action against such an employee, up to and including termination; or 2. Requiring such employee to participate satisfactorily in a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation program approved for such purposes by a Federal, State, or local health agency, law enforcement, or other appropriate agency; SUBJECT POLICY EFFECTIVE PAGE NUMBER DATE DRUG -FREE WORKPLACE 100-5 8-8-89 3 of 3 g. Making a good faith effort to maintain a drug -free workplace through implementation of subparagraphs 1 A through 1 F, inclusive. 2. Contractor and/or sub -grantee shall be deemed to be in violation of this Policy if the City of Costa Mesa determines that: a. Contractor and/or sub -grantee has made a false certification under paragraph 1 above; b. Contractor and/or sub -grantee has violated the certification by failing to carry out the requirements of subparagraphs 1 A through 1 G above; c. Such number of employees of Contractor and/or sub -grantee have been convicted of violations of criminal drug statutes for violations occurring in the workplace as to indicate that the contractor and/or sub -grantee has failed to make a good faith effort to provide a drug -free workplace. 3. Should any contractor and/or sub -grantee be deemed to be in violation of this Policy pursuant to the provisions of 2 A, B, and C, a suspension, termination or debarment proceeding subject to applicable Federal, State, and local laws shall be conducted. Upon issuance of any final decision under this section requiring debarment of a contractor and/or sub -grantee, the contractor and/or sub -grantee shall be ineligible for award of any contract, agreement or grant from the City of Costa Mesa for a period specified in the decision, not to exceed five (5) years. Upon issuance of any final decision recommending against debarment of the contractor and/or sub -grantee, the contractor and/or sub -grantee shall be eligible for compensation as provided by law. ATTACHMENT 2 Cl T Y COUNCIL A GENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: May 5, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: CC-11 SUBJECT: RENEW PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT/HOME CONTRACT STAFF DATE: APRIL 22, 2015 FROM: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT/HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION PRESENTATION BY: WILLA BOUWENS-KILLEEN, PRINCIPAL PLANNER FOR FURTHER INFORMATION WILLA BOUWENS-KILLEEN, PRINCIPAL PLANNER CONTACT: 714. 754.5153 willa.bouwens-killeen(a)-costamesaca.gov RECOMMENDATION Approve Amendment One (Attachment One) to exercise the first extension of four renewal options of the existing Professional Services Agreement with Mike Linares, Inc., for one year in an amount not to exceed $85,000 for FY 2015-2016. BACKGROUND The initial Professional Services Agreement (PSA) was approved by Council on September 2, 2014 with the option to renew the Agreement for up to four, one year periods. The PSA will expire June 30, 2015. The City currently receives approximately $1.3 million from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to administer the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) Programs. All CDBG funds must be used to achieve one of three national objectives: elimination of slum and blight, benefit to low and moderate -income people and/or meet an urgent need. HOME Programs are designed to provide decent, safe, and sanitary housing for low-income persons. Past and present programs include special housing code enforcement; single-family rehabilitation loans and grants; and planning and engineering of capital improvement projects. Mr. Linares has over 20 years of experience in administration of federal programs and has been President of his own firm since 1995. He is bilingual and has an extensive background in CDBG and HOME Programs with an emphasis in citizen participation, community outreach, program management, and monitoring of sub recipients. He is currently the main HUD interface for their online financial management information system and serves as an adjunct grants accountant along with Finance Department Staff. ANALYSIS Mr. Linares occupies a key position in the Housing and Community Development (HCD) Division. Besides managing several projects of his own, he serves as the HUD on-line financial reporting system technical Manager and primary liaison with the Finance Department. Elimination of his position will severely impact the level of programming which this Division can offer. Additionally, Housing and Community Development staff is not trained to perform the technical functions required by HUD, which this consultant performs. Mr. Linares also provides institutional knowledge especially critical with the reduction in the division's staff. FISCAL IMPACT Funding for the PSA will be accommodated in the Housing and Community Development FY15-16 budget. LEGAL REVIEW The City Attorney's Office has prepared and approved documents as to form. CONCLUSION Staff recommends approval of Amendment One for the PSA between the City and Mike Linares, Inc. GARY ARMSTRONG Economic and Development Services Director WILLA BOUWENS-KILLEEN Principal Planner 4 STEVE DUNIVENT Interim Finance Director Attachment A: Amendment One Exhibit A: Scope of Work Attachment B: Purchase Requisition SILVIA KENNERSON Management Analyst ATTACHMENT A AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH MIKE LINARES This Amendment is made and entered into this 15t day of July 2015 ("Effective Date") by and between the City of Costa Mesa, a municipal corporation ("City") and MIKE LINARES, INC., a California Corporation ("Consultant"). WHEREAS, Consultant and City entered into an agreement on September 2nd, 2014, for Consultant to serve as an independent contractor to provide CDBG/HOME Coordinator services (the "Agreement') as more fully described in Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, the original Agreement contained a provision for an initial term of One (1) year with the option to extend the Agreement for up to four (4) one year periods; and WHEREAS, Consultant and City wish to amend the Agreement to exercise the first extension; and NOW, THEREFORE, for valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: 1. Section 4.1, Term, shall be changed to read, "This Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and continue until June 30, 2016, unless previously terminated as provided herein or as otherwise agreed to in writing by the parties. At the end of the term period, Consultant and City may mutually agree, in writing, to renew the contract for up to three (3) term periods of one (1) year each." 2. All terms not herein defined shall have the same meaning and use as set forth in the Agreement. 3. All other terms, conditions, and provisions of the Agreement not in conflict with this Amendment and previous Amendments, shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have set their hand by their duly authorized representatives as of the day and year first above written. CITY OF COSTA MESA, A municipal corporation Stephen M. Mensinger, Mayor Date: I Mike Linares Amend 1-2015 Gary Armstrong Development Services Director CONSULTANT Signature Name and Title APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney APPROVED AS TO INSURANCE: Risk Management APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Project Manager Date: Date: Date: Date: Date: 2 Mike Linares Amend 1-2015 ATTEST: City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk Of the City of Costa Mesa Mike Linares Amend 1-2015 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF WORK Mr. Linares' duties include the following: Public Service Grant Processing - Preparation/revision of application package - Review approximately twenty to forty applications each year to ensure CDBG eligibility - Assist with scheduling interviews with sub -grantees and Housing and Public Service Grant Committee as well as conducting meetings and preparing Committee evaluations - Preparation of City Council reports and related materials for Council approval - Ensure all City required documents are submitted prior to funding (i.e. executed contracts, purchase requisitions, City approved insurance, expenditure back-up documentation) - Review quarterly reports and process payments - Monitor sub -grantees 2. HOME/CDBG Administration a. Consolidated Plan - Consolidated Plan - One -Year Action Plan and Amendments - Consolidated Plan Performance Report - Grantee Performance Report HOME Program - Annual Performance Report - Assist in HOME unit monitoring c. Section 3 Plan - Preparation, Monitoring and Training d. Environmental Reviews of all CDBG/HOME Funded Activities e. Miscellaneous Annual and Semi -Annual Report - Minority/Women contracts - Labor Standards - Fair Housing Assessment Integrated Data and Information System (IDIS) Implementation - Housing rehabilitation project setup, revision, and completion - CDBG and HOME project setup - Gathering information regarding CDBG project progress from other departments - Ongoing reconciliation of City ledgers with IDIS on-line ledgers g. Bi-lingual community outreach (i.e., tenants and landlords, fair housing meetings, Consolidated Plan) h. Special Projects as they occur (i.e., monitoring capital project expenditures, citizen complaints, etc.) i. Review changes to federal program grants j. Represents City in regional efforts (i.e., Continuum of Care/Fair Housing/OCHA) k. Administer/monitor Capital Improvement Projects ATTACHMENT B rITV nF rn@TA RfiPQA rAl ICnDAIIA 13 "'^ UP Purchase Requisition (Leave Blank for Time Stamp) Purchase Order Number (Assigned by Purchasing) Business Unit: CITY Date Requisitioned: 4/22/15 Department: Development Svs Division: HCD Ship To Address: 77 Fair Drive, CM 92626 Contact Person: Silvia Kennerson Phone Number: x5023 Send Copy of P.O. to: E Contact Person and / or _ ® Request is for Budgeted item(s) ❑ Request is for UNBUDGETED item(s)-(Memo Attached) ❑ Item(s) Pending Budget Amendment Request # ❑ Requesting Sole Source (Justification Form Attached ❑ Fixed Asset Tag Request Item No. Qty Unit Items (Give Full Description: Size, Catalog No. Etc.) Unit Price Estimated Amount 1 1 Amendment One, First Renewal of Four, One Year Renewal Options $ 85,000.00 Commencing 07/01/15 and Ending 06/30/16 to Provide CDBG/HOME Professiona Services at $77.00/1-Iour, Not to Exceed $85,000.00/Year ff additional lines are needed, please attach a second sheet Const./Prof. Svs. Agmt. Completion Date: 06/30/16 Insurance Required: E Yes (Certificate attache ❑ No Sales Tax (8.00%): Include Shipping Fee: Estimated Total Cost: $ 85,000.00 Item # Account Fund Dept./Org. Program Project Amount 1 530201 207 11310 20427 $ 85,000.00 Comments: Total$ 85,000.00 Email Address: mike@mlinaresinc.com Suggested Vendor: Mike Linares, Inc. Address: PO Box 3913 City, State, Zip Code: San Clemente, CA 92672 Phone:714-608-7263 Fax: Vendor's Contact Person: Mike Linares Proper approvals are required before requisition can be processed. Ordered By: Depar} ant Dir for/Authorized Sj nature Approved By: Director of Finance/Purchasing Officer Approved By: rit, Mananar rwhon roamrenl PURCHASING DIVISION USE ONLY Vendor ID: Buyer: Insurance valid thru Ship To/Location: I Due Date: Standard Comments: ACC -ALL-ARR -BLA- CON— DCP- DIS- FCA-FCI- FIX - INS — IS - IST- ORG -OTR- REM -SUB -T&C FINANCE DEPARTMENT USE ONLY Available Appropriation: ❑ Yes ❑No As of: Confirmed By: 2385-20 MW REV W10 Rev FY 12M CC-11 #2 HAS BEEN ADDED AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH MIKE LINARES This Amendment is made and entered into this 1st day of July 2015 ("Effective Date") by and between the City of Costa Mesa, a municipal corporation ("City") and MIKE LINARES, INC., a California Corporation ("Consultant"). WHEREAS, Consultant and City entered into an agreement on September 2nd, 2014, for Consultant to serve as an independent contractor to provide CDBG/HOME Coordinator services (the "Agreement") as more fully described in Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, the original Agreement contained a provision for an initial term of One (1) year with the option to extend the Agreement for up to four (4) one year periods; and WHEREAS, Consultant and City wish to amend the Agreement to exercise the first extension; and NOW, THEREFORE, for valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: 1. Section 4. 1, Term, shall be changed to read, "This Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and continue until June 30, 2016, unless previously terminated as provided herein or as otherwise agreed to in writing by the parties. At the end of the term period, Consultant and City may mutually agree, in writing, to renew the contract for up to three (3) term periods of one (1) year each." 2. Paragraph 2.1 of the original Agreement shall be amended to read, "As compensation for the provision of services outlined in Exhibit "A" and in accordance with this agreement, Consultant shall be paid in accordance with the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit `B," attached hereto and incorporated by reference. Consultant's total compensation shall not exceed Eight Five Thousand Dollars ($85,000.00) during Fiscal Year 2015- 2016. 3. All terms not herein defined shall have the same meaning and use as set forth in the Agreement. 4. All other terms, conditions, and provisions of the Agreement not in conflict with this Amendment and previous Amendments, shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have set their hand by their duly authorized representatives as of the day and year first above written. 1 Mike Linares Amend 1-2015 CITY OF COSTA MESA, A municipal corporation Chief Executive Officer Department Director CONSULTANT Signature Name and Title APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney APPROVED AS TO INSURANCE: Risk Management APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Project Manager Date: Date: Date: Date: Date: Date: 2 Mike Linares Amend 1-2015 ATTEST: City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk Of the City of Costa Mesa Mike Linares Amend 1-2015 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: MAY 5, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: CC-12 SUBJECT: AWARD PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT TO FTOG, INC. FOR PURCHASING PERFORMANCE PLAN DATE: APRIL 21, 2015 FROM: FINANCE DEPARTMENTIPURCHASING DIVISION PRESENTATION BY: STEPHEN DUNIVENT, INTERIM FINANCE DIRECTOR. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: KATHLEEN OROZCO, PURCHASING SUPERVISOR ' 714-764-5062 RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Award Professional Services Agreement to FTOG, Inc. for procurement consulting services for a six (6) month period in the amount . not to exceed $50,600.00 commencing on the date of execution. 2. Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Professional Services Agreement. BACKGROUND: The City entered into a Professional Services Agreement with FTOG, Inc. on December 10, 2013 through June 2, 2014 with the option to extend the contract in two six-month periods to provide interim support to the Purchasing Division. In August 2014, the first amendment to extend this Agreement was approved by City Council, effective July 1, 2014 through January 2, 2015. On January 2, 2015, the second amendment to extend this Agreement was executed commencing on January 2, 2015 through April 3, 2015. FTOG, Inc. has provided professional procurement services to supplement the Purchasing Division due to limited staffing over the last several years. During this time, the vendor has become intricately involved in the processing of Purchase Requisitions to Purchase Orders (P.O.), obtaining bids, quotes and assisting with Request for Proposals (RFPs), budget validations and adherence to the City's Purchasing Policy and Municipal Code. ANALYSIS: The Purchasing Division has identified the following objectives to be implemented to streamline and simplify the procurement process: Implementation of an Electronic Requisition Process (ERP) to allow for electronic routing and approval of requisitions, improved tracking of project status, and creating a more `green' system eliminating the use of paper requisitions. Training to be coordinated and conducted once the ERP is implemented. Development and implementation a comprehensive Master Contract list that will allow for Purchasing Division Staff to identify contracts that will require a renewal or will be expiring. • Reorganization of the City's warehouse to serve the various departments within the City and include surplus procedures. FTOG's professional services are required to ensure implementation of these critical objectives, as this firm possesses significant institutional knowledge of the City's procurement policies and procedures. In addition, in order to meet the expedited target implementation date for these objectives (September 1, 2015), the Purchasing Division will require FTOG, Inc.'s services and support. ALTERNATIVES: City Council may choose not to approve award of the Agreement, however this would impact implementation of critical Procurement Division objectives that will significantly streamline the City's purchasing practices. FISCAL REVIEW: The FY 14-15 budget provides funding for this service. LEGAL REVIEW: The City Attorney has reviewed the documents and approved them as to form. CONCLUSION: Staff recommends approval of the Professional Services Agreement with FTOG, Inc. for procurement consulting services, for a six (6) month term in an amount not to exceed $50,600 and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Professional Services Agreement. STEP EN DUNIVENT Interim inpaQe Dir ctor TdM 60M E City Attorney THOMAS R. HATCH Chief Executive Officer Attachment 1: FTOG, Inc. Professional Services Agreement 0 Attachment t CITY OF COSTA MESA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH FTOG, INC. THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 5 day of May, 2015 ("Effective Date"), by and between the CITY OF COSTA MESA, a municipal corporation ("City"), and FTOG, Inc., a California corporation ("Consultant"). WITNESSETH: A. WHEREAS, City proposes to utilize the services of Consultant as an independent contractor to provide consulting services for purchasing performance, as more fully described herein; and B. WHEREAS, Consultant represents that it has that degree of specialized expertise contemplated within California Government Code Section 37103, and holds all necessary licenses to practice and perform the services herein contemplated; and C. WHEREAS, City and Consultant desire to contract for the specific services described in Exhibit "A" (the "Project") and desire to set forth their rights, duties and liabilities in connection with the services to be performed; and D. WHEREAS, no official or employee of City has a financial interest, within the provisions of Sections 1090-1092 of the California Government Code, in the subject matter of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions contained herein, the parties hereby agree as follows: 1.0. SERVICES PROVIDED BY CONSULTANT 1.1. Scope of Services. Consultant shall provide the professional services described in the Consultant's Proposal (the "Proposal") attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference. 1.2. Professional Practices. All professional services to be provided by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall be provided by personnel experienced in their respective fields and in a manner consistent with the standards of care, diligence and skill ordinarily exercised by professional consultants in similar fields and circumstances in accordance with sound professional practices. Consultant also warrants that it is familiar with all laws that may affect its performance of this Agreement and shall advise City of any changes in any laws that may affect Consultant's performance of this Agreement. 1.3. Performance to Satisfaction of City. Consultant agrees to perform all the work to the complete satisfaction of the City and within the hereinafter specified. Evaluations of the work will be done by the City's Chief Executive Officer ("City CEO") or his or her designee. If the quality of work is not satisfactory, City in its discretion has the right to: (a) Meet with Consultant to review the quality of the work and resolve the matters of concern; (b) Require Consultant to repeat the work at no additional fee until it is satisfactory; and/or (c) Terminate the Agreement as hereinafter set forth. 1.4. Warranty. Consultant warrants that it shall perform the services required by this Agreement in compliance with all applicable Federal and California employment laws, including, but not limited to, those laws related to minimum hours and wages; occupational health and safety; fair employment and employment practices; workers' compensation insurance and safety in employment; and all other Federal, State and local laws and ordinances applicable to the services required under this Agreement. Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless City from and against all claims, demands, payments, suits, actions, proceedings, and judgments of every nature and description including attorneys' fees and costs, presented, brought, or recovered against City for, or on account of any liability under any of the above -mentioned laws, which may be incurred by reason of Consultant's performance under this Agreement. 1.5. Non-discrimination. In performing this Agreement, Consultant shall not engage in, nor permit its agents to engage in, discrimination in employment of persons because of their race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, age, physical handicap, medical condition, marital status, sexual gender or sexual orientation, except as permitted pursuant to Section 12940 of the Government Code. 1.6. Non -Exclusive Agreement. Consultant acknowledges that City may enter into agreements with other consultants for services similar to the services that are subject to this Agreement or may have its own employees perform services similar to those services contemplated by this Agreement. 1.7. Delegation and Assignment. This is a personal service contract, and the duties set forth herein shall not be delegated or assigned to any person or entity without the prior written consent of City. Consultant may engage a subcontractor(s) as permitted by law and may employ other personnel to perform services contemplated by this Agreement at Consultant's sole cost and expense. 1.8. Confidentiality. Employees of Consultant in the course of their duties may have access to financial, accounting, statistical, and personnel data of private individuals and employees of City. Consultant covenants that all data, documents, discussion, or other information developed or received by Consultant or provided for performance of this Agreement are deemed confidential and shall not be disclosed by Consultant without written authorization by City. City shall grant such authorization if disclosure is required by law. All City data shall be returned to City upon the termination of this Agreement. Consultant's covenant under this Section shall survive the termination of this Agreement. 2.0. COMPENSATION AND BILLING 2.1. Compensation. Consultant shall be paid in accordance with the amount set forth in the Proposal. Consultant's total compensation shall not exceed Fifty Thousand, Six Hundred Dollars ($50,600.00). 2.2. Additional Services. Consultant shall not receive compensation for any services provided outside the scope of services specified in the Consultant's Proposal unless the City or the Project Manager for this Project, prior to Consultant performing the additional services, FTOG, Inc. approves such additional services in writing. It is specifically understood that oral requests and/or approvals of such additional services or additional compensation shall be barred and are unenforceable. 2.3. Method of Billing. Consultant may submit invoices to the City for approval on a progress basis, but no more often than two times a month. Said invoice shall be based on the total of all Consultant's services which have been completed to City's sole satisfaction. City shall pay Consultant's invoice within forty-five (45) days from the date City receives said invoice. Each invoice shall describe in detail, the services performed, the date of performance, and the associated time for completion. Any additional services approved and performed pursuant to this Agreement shall be designated as "Additional Services" and shall identify the number of the authorized change order, where applicable, on all invoices. 2.4. Records and Audits. Records of Consultant's services relating to this Agreement shall be maintained in accordance with generally recognized accounting principles and shall be made available to City or its Project Manager for inspection and/or audit at mutually convenient times for a period of three (3) years from the Effective Date. 3.0. TIME OF PERFORMANCE 3.1. Commencement and Completion of Work. The professional services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall commence within five (5) days from the Effective Date of this Agreement. Said services shall be performed in strict compliance with the timeframes set forth in the Proposal. The timeframes may be amended by mutual agreement of the parties. Failure to commence work in a timely manner and/or diligently pursue work to completion may be grounds for termination of this Agreement. 3.2. Excusable Delays. Neither party shall be responsible for delays or lack of performance resulting from acts beyond the reasonable control of the party or parties. Such acts shall include, but not be limited to, acts of God, fire, strikes, material shortages, compliance with laws or regulations, riots, acts of war, or any other conditions beyond the reasonable control of a party. 4.0. TERM AND TERMINATION 4.1. Term. This Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and continue for a period of six (6) months, ending on October 5, 2015, unless previously terminated as provided herein or as otherwise agreed to in writing by the parties. 4.2. Notice of Termination. The City reserves and has the right and privilege of canceling, suspending or abandoning the execution of all or any part of the work contemplated by this Agreement, with or without cause, at any time, by providing written notice to Consultant. The termination of this Agreement shall be deemed effective upon receipt of the notice of termination. In the event of such termination, Consultant shall immediately stop rendering services under this Agreement unless directed otherwise by the City. 4.3. Compensation. In the event of termination, City shall pay Consultant for reasonable costs incurred and professional services satisfactorily performed up to and including the date of City's written notice of termination. Compensation for work in progress shall be prorated based on the percentage of work completed as of the effective date of termination in accordance with the fees set forth herein. In ascertaining the professional services actually rendered hereunder up to the effective date of termination of this Agreement, consideration shall FTOG, Inc. be given to both completed work and work in progress, to complete and incomplete drawings, and to other documents pertaining to the services contemplated herein whether delivered to the City or in the possession of the Consultant. 4.4. Documents. In the event of termination of this Agreement, all documents prepared by Consultant in its performance of this Agreement including, but not limited to, finished or unfinished design, development and construction documents, data studies, drawings, maps and reports, shall be delivered to the City within ten (10) days of delivery of termination notice to Consultant, at no cost to City. Any use of uncompleted documents without specific written authorization from Consultant shall be at City's sole risk and without liability or legal expense to Consultant. AIMU&NU-3-PIy 5.1. Minimum Scope and Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall obtain, maintain, and keep in full force and effect during the life of this Agreement all of the following minimum scope of insurance coverages with an insurance company admitted to do business in California, rated "A," Class X, or better in the most recent Best's Key Insurance Rating Guide, and approved by City: (a) Commercial general liability, including premises -operations, products/completed operations, broad form property damage, blanket contractual liability, independent contractors, personal injury or bodily injury with a policy limit of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00), combined single limits, per occurrence. If such insurance contains a general aggregate limit, it shall apply separately to this Agreement or shall be twice the required occurrence limit. (b) Business automobile liability for owned vehicles, hired, and non -owned vehicles, with a policy limit of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00), combined single limits, per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage. (c) Workers' compensation insurance as required by the State of California. Consultant agrees to waive, and to obtain endorsements from its workers' compensation insurer waiving subrogation rights under its workers' compensation insurance policy against the City, its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers arising from work performed by Consultant for the City and to require each of its subcontractors, if any, to do likewise under their workers' compensation insurance policies. (d) Professional errors and omissions ("E&O") liability "insurance with policy limits of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00), combined single limits, per occurrence and aggregate. Architects' and engineers' coverage shall be endorsed to include contractual liability. If the policy is written as a "claims made" policy, the retro date shall be prior to the start of the contract work. Consultant shall obtain and maintain, said E&O liability insurance during the life of this Agreement and for three years after completion of the work hereunder. 5.2. Endorsements. The commercial general liability insurance policy and business automobile liability policy shall contain or be endorsed to contain the following provisions: (a) Additional insureds: "The City of Costa Mesa and its elected and appointed boards, officers, officials, agents, employees, and volunteers are additional insureds with respect to: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Consultant pursuant to its contract with the City; products and completed operations of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by the Consultant; automobiles owned, leased, hired, or borrowed by the Consultant." (b) Notice: "Said policy shall not terminate, be suspended, or voided, nor shall it be cancelled, nor the coverage or limits reduced, until thirty (30) days after written notice is given to City. (c) Other insurance: "The Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City of Costa Mesa, its officers, officials, agents, employees, and volunteers. Any other insurance maintained by the City of Costa Mesa shall be excess and not contributing with the insurance provided by this policy." (d) Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage provided to the City of Costa Mesa, its officers, officials, agents, employees, and volunteers. (e) The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. 5.3. Deductible or Self Insured Retention. If any of such policies provide for a deductible or self -insured retention to provide such coverage, the amount of such deductible or self -insured retention shall be approved in advance by City. No policy of insurance issued as to which the City is an additional insured shall contain a provision which requires that no insured except the named insured can satisfy any such deductible or self -insured retention. 5.4. Certificates of Insurance. Consultant shall provide to City certificates of insurance showing the insurance coverages and required endorsements described above, in a form and content approved by City, prior to performing any services under this Agreement. The certificates of insurance shall be attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by this reference. 5.5. Non -limiting. Nothing in this Section shall be construed as limiting in any way, the indemnification provision contained in this Agreement, or the extent to which Consultant may be held responsible for payments of damages to persons or property. 6.0. GENERAL PROVISIONS 6.1. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to any matter referenced herein and supersedes any and all other prior writings and oral negotiations. This Agreement may be modified only in writing, and signed by the parties in interest at the time of such modification. The terms of this Agreement shall prevail over any inconsistent provision in any other contract document appurtenant hereto, including exhibits to this Agreement. FTOG. Inc. 6.2. Representatives. The City CEO or his or her designee shall be the representative of City for purposes of this Agreement and may issue all consents, approvals, directives and agreements on behalf of the City, called for by this Agreement, except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement. Consultant shall designate a representative for purposes of this Agreement who shall be authorized to issue all consents, approvals, directives and agreements on behalf of Consultant called for by this Agreement, except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement. 6.3. Project Managers. City shall designate a Project Manager to work directly with Consultant in the performance of this Agreement. Consultant shall designate a Project Manager who shall represent it and be its agent in all consultations with City during the term of this Agreement. Consultant or its Project Manager shall attend and assist in all coordination meetings called by City. 6.4. Notices. Any notices, documents, correspondence or other communications concerning this Agreement or the work hereunder may be provided by personal delivery, facsimile or mail and shall be addressed as set forth below. Such communication shall be deemed served or delivered: a) at the time of delivery if such communication is sent by personal delivery; b) at the time of transmission if such communication is sent by facsimile; and c) 48 hours after deposit in the U.S. Mail as reflected by the official U.S. postmark if such communication is sent through regular United States mail. IF TO CONSULTANT: FTOG, Inc. 8941 Atlanta Ave, #218 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Tel: (714) 475-9503 Attn: Richard Amadril IF TO CITY: City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Tel: (714) 754-5062 Fax: (714) 754- 5040 Attn: Kathleen Orozco 6.5. Drug -free Workplace Policy. Consultant shall provide a drug -free workplace by complying with all provisions set forth in City's Council Policy 100-5, attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and incorporated herein by reference. Consultant's failure to conform to the requirements set forth in Council Policy 100-5 shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement and shall be cause for immediate termination of this Agreement by City. 6.6. Attorneys' Fees. In the event that litigation is brought by any party in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the opposing party all costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred by the prevailing party in the exercise of any of its rights or remedies hereunder or the enforcement of any of the terms, conditions, or provisions hereof. 6.7. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed under the laws of the State of California without giving effect to that body of laws pertaining to conflict of laws. In the event of any legal action to enforce or interpret this Agreement, the parties hereto agree that the sole and exclusive venue shall be a court of competent jurisdiction located in Orange County, California. 6 FTOG, Inc. 6.8. Assignment. Consultant shall not voluntarily or by operation of law assign, transfer, sublet or encumber all or any park of Consultant's interest in this Agreement without City's prior written consent. Any attempted assignment, transfer, subletting or encumbrance shall be void and shall constitute a breach of this Agreement and cause for termination of this Agreement. Regardless of City's consent, no subletting or assignment shall release Consultant of Consultant's obligation to perform all other obligations to be performed by Consultant hereunder for the term of this Agreement. 6.9. Indemnification and Hold Harmless. Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, hold free and harmless the City, its elected officials, officers, agents and employees, at Consultant's sole expense, from and against any and all claims, actions, suits or other legal proceedings brought against the City, its elected officials, officers, agents and employees arising out of the performance of the Consultant, its employees, and/or authorized subcontractors, of the work undertaken pursuant to this Agreement. The defense obligation provided for hereunder shall apply without any advance showing of negligence or wrongdoing by the Consultant, its employees, and/or authorized subcontractors, but shall be required whenever any claim, action, complaint, or suit asserts as its basis the negligence, errors, omissions or misconduct of the Consultant, its employees, and/or authorized subcontractors, and/or whenever any claim, action, complaint or suit asserts liability against the City, its elected officials, officers, agents and employees based upon the work performed by the Consultant, its employees, and/or authorized subcontractors under this Agreement, whether or not the Consultant, its employees, and/or authorized subcontractors are specifically named or otherwise asserted to be liable. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Consultant shall not be liable for the defense or indemnification of the City for claims, actions, complaints or suits arising out of the sole active negligence or willful misconduct of the City. This provision shall supersede and replace all other indemnity provisions contained either in the City's specifications or Consultant's Proposal, which shall be of no force and effect. 6.10. Independent Contractor. Consultant is and shall be acting at all times as an independent contractor and not as an employee of City. Consultant shall have no power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability on behalf of City or otherwise act on behalf of City as an agent. Neither City nor any of its agents shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant's employees, except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not, at any time, or in any manner, represent that it or any of its or employees are in any manner agents or employees of City. Consultant shall secure, at its sole expense, and be responsible for any and all payment of Income Tax, Social Security, State Disability Insurance Compensation, Unemployment Compensation, and other payroll deductions for Consultant and its officers, agents, and employees, and all business licenses, if any are required, in connection with the services to be performed hereunder. Consultant shall indemnify and hold City harmless from any and all taxes, assessments, penalties, and interest asserted against City by reason of the independent contractor relationship created by this Agreement. Consultant further agrees to indemnify and hold City harmless from any failure of Consultant to comply with the applicable worker's compensation laws. City shall have the right to offset against the amount of any fees due to Consultant under this Agreement any amount due to City from Consultant as a result of Consultant's failure to promptly pay to City any reimbursement or indemnification arising under this paragraph. 6.11. PERS Eligibility Indemnification. In the event that Consultant or any employee, agent, or subcontractor of Consultant providing services under this Agreement claims or is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction or the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) to be eligible for enrollment in PERS as an employee of the City, Consultant 7 FTOG, Inc. shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City for the payment of any employee and/or employer contributions for PERS benefits on behalf of Consultant or its employees, agents, or subcontractors, as well as for the payment of any penalties and interest on such contributions, which would otherwise be the responsibility of City. Notwithstanding any other agency, state or federal policy, rule, regulation, law or ordinance to the contrary, Consultant and any of its employees, agents, and subcontractors providing service under this Agreement shall not qualify for or become entitled to, and hereby agree to waive any claims to, any compensation, benefit, or any incident of employment by City, including but not limited to eligibility to enroll in PERS as an employee of City and entitlement to any contribution to be paid by City for employer contribution and/or employee contributions for PERS benefits. 6.12. Cooperation. In the event any claim or action is brought against City relating to Consultant's performance or services rendered under this Agreement, Consultant shall render any reasonable assistance and cooperation which City might require. 6.13. Ownership of Documents. All findings, reports, documents, information and data including, but not limited to, computer tapes or discs, files and tapes furnished or prepared by Consultant or any of its subcontractors in the course of performance of this Agreement, shall be and remain the sole property of City. Consultant agrees that any such documents or information shall not be made available to any individual or organization without the prior consent of City. Any use of such documents for other projects not contemplated by this Agreement, and any use of incomplete documents, shall be at the sole risk of City and without liability or legal exposure to Consultant. City shall indemnify and hold harmless Consultant from all claims, damages, losses, and expenses, including attorneys' fees, arising out of or resulting from City's use of such documents for other projects not contemplated by this Agreement or use of incomplete documents furnished by Consultant. Consultant shall deliver to City any findings, reports, documents, information, data, in any form, including but not limited to, computer tapes, discs, files audio tapes or any other Project related items as requested by City or its authorized representative, at no additional cost to the City. 6.14. Public Records Act Disclosure. Consultant has been advised and is aware that this Agreement and all reports, documents, information and data, including, but not limited to, computer tapes, discs or files furnished or prepared by Consultant, or any of its subcontractors, pursuant to this Agreement and provided to City may be subject to public disclosure as required by the California Public Records Act (California Government Code Section 6250 et seq.). Exceptions to public disclosure may be those documents or information that qualify as trade secrets, as that term is defined in the California Government Code Section 6254.7, and of which Consultant informs City of such trade secret. The City will endeavor to maintain as confidential all information obtained by it that is designated as a trade secret. The City shall not, in any way, be liable or responsible for the disclosure of any trade secret including, without limitation, those records so marked if disclosure is deemed to be required by law or by order of the Court. 6.15. Conflict of Interest. Consultant and its officers, employees, associates and subconsultants, if any, will comply with all conflict of interest statutes of the State of California applicable to Consultant's services under this agreement, including, but not limited to, the Political Reform Act (Government Code Sections 81000, et seq.) and Government Code Section 1090. During the term of this Agreement, Consultant and its officers, employees, associates and subconsultants shall not, without the prior written approval of the City Representative, perform work for another person or entity for whom Consultant is not currently performing work that would require Consultant or one of its officers, employees, associates or FTOG, Inc. subconsultants to abstain from a decision under this Agreement pursuant to a conflict of interest statute. 6.16. Responsibility for Errors. Consultant shall be responsible for its work and results under this Agreement. Consultant, when requested, shall furnish clarification and/or explanation as may be required by the City's representative, regarding any services rendered under this Agreement at no additional cost to City. In the event that an error or omission attributable to Consultant occurs, then Consultant shall, at no cost to City, provide all necessary design drawings, estimates and other Consultant professional services necessary to rectify and correct the matter to the sole satisfaction of City and to participate in any meeting required with regard to the correction. 6.17. Prohibited Employment. Consultant will not employ any regular employee of City while this Agreement is in effect. 6.18. Order of Precedence. In the event of an inconsistency in this Agreement and any of the attached Exhibits, the terms set forth in this Agreement shall prevail. If, and to the extent this Agreement incorporates by reference any provision of any document, such provision shall be deemed a part of this Agreement. Nevertheless, if there is any conflict among the terms and conditions of this Agreement and those of any such provision or provisions so incorporated by reference, this Agreement shall govern over the document referenced. 6.19. Costs. Each party shall bear its own costs and fees incurred in the preparation and negotiation of this Agreement and in the performance of its obligations hereunder except as expressly provided herein. 6.20. No Third Party Beneficiary Rights. This Agreement is entered into for the sole benefit of City and Consultant and no other parties are intended to be direct or incidental beneficiaries of this Agreement and no third party shall have any right in, under or to this Agreement. 6.21. Headings. Paragraphs and subparagraph headings contained in this Agreement are included solely for convenience and are not intended to modify, explain or to be a full or accurate description of the content thereof and shall not in any way affect the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement. 6.22. Construction. The parties have participated jointly in the negotiation and drafting of this Agreement. In the event an ambiguity or question of intent or interpretation arises with respect to this Agreement, this Agreement shall be construed as if drafted jointly by the parties and in accordance with its fair meaning. There shall be no presumption or burden of proof favoring or disfavoring any party by virtue of the authorship of any of the provisions of this Agreement. 6.23. Amendments. Only a writing executed by the parties hereto or their respective successors and assigns may amend this Agreement. 6.24. Waiver. The delay or failure of either party at any time to require performance or compliance by the other of any of its obligations or agreements shall in no way be deemed a waiver of those rights to require such performance or compliance. No waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be effective unless in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of the party against whom enforcement of a waiver is sought. The waiver of any right or remedy in respect to any occurrence or event shall not be deemed a waiver of any right FTOG, Inc. or remedy in respect to any other occurrence or event, nor shall any waiver constitute a continuing waiver. 6.25. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unenforceable in any circumstance, such determination shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining terms and provisions hereof or of the offending provision in any other circumstance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the value of this Agreement, based upon the substantial benefit of the bargain for any party, is materially impaired, which determination made by the presiding court or arbitrator of competent jurisdiction shall be binding, then both parties agree to substitute such provision(s) through good faith negotiations. 6.26. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original. All counterparts shall be construed together and shall constitute one agreement. 6.27. Corporate Authority. The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties hereto warrant that they are duly authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of said parties and that by doing so the parties hereto are formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by and through their respective authorized officers, as of the date first above written. CITY OF COSTA MESA, A municipal corporation Mayor CONSULTANT Signature Name and Title Social Security or Taxpayer ID Number ATTEST: City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa 10 Date: Date: FTOG, Inc. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Date: City Attorney APPROVED AS TO INSURANCE: Date: Risk Management APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Date: Kathleen Orozco, Project Manager DEPARTMENTAL APPROVAL Date: Stephen Dunivent, Interim Finance Director 11 FTOG, Inc, EXHIBIT A CONSULTANT'S PROPOSAL PURCHASING PERFORMANCE PLAN PROPOSAL For the City of Costa Mesa SUMMARY OF SERVICES The Purchasing function purchases approximately $85 million in goods and services, process over 800 requisitions, on behalf of more than 8 different departments (CEO, Police, Fire, Development Svcs., Finance, Information Technology (IT), Parks & Community Svcs. and Public Works) per year. Purchases range from basic office supplies and equipment to information technology services to construction and renovation projects. Purchasing also provides warehouse and surplus property management for all departments. FTOG, Inc. will perform array of activities to identify several strategies that Costa Mesa can employ to achieve better procurement results. FTOG, Inc. will agree to perform the following services; OBJECTIVE 1: Streamline and simplify the procurement process INITIATIVE 1.1: Develop and Implement ERP (Electronic Requisition Process). FTOG, Inc. will assist the City of Costa Mesa in development and implementation of an electronic requisition system. Goals: • Research capability to enhance PeopleSoft access by adding e-Requisition module, in cooperation with City IT staff. • If it is not possible to enhance PeopleSoft access to add an e-Requisition module or if expanding the module is not possible in the short-term, then coordinate with City IT staff to add an online requisition process via City Intranet (allow for internal routing — approval by designated dept. approver, Finance, etc. prior to be reed by Purchasing). • Work with stakeholder City departments to ensure that they have `buy in' on the ERP system. TARGET IMPLEMENTATION BY: AUGUST 1, 2015 INITIATIVE 1.2: Implement process improvements to the City's Warehouse and Surplus functions. FTOG, Inc. will market and reorganize a full -service warehouse accordingly to serving the various departments. a. Include any and all standard commodities that are being used by various business units and all JIT programs for the Warehouse. b. Improve the quality of supplier base through a supplier self-service on items that are stock within the Warehouse. u A G v` 1 T9, PA c. Introduce a material management with a revolving fund to support these services. d. Consolidate all warehousing needs and distribution networks. e. Establish the fuel ordering, inventory fuel management, fuel transportation as additional services performed by the Warehouse. TARGET IMPLEMENTATION BY: JUNE 1, 2015 OBJECTIVE 2: Support the purchasing customers/end users in a responsive and professional manner that is in full compliance with governing laws and policies. INITIATIVE 2.1: Develop and Implement a functional Master Contract List. FTOG, Inc. will assist the City of Costa Mesa in development and implementation of a functional Master Contract List. Goals: • Create list that shall allow for flagging and notification of expiring contracts. • Develop method to extract data from PeopleSoft to decrease the amount of manual input. • Allow for eventual link to executed standing contracts through this master list. • Produce master contract list that is available for public posting (as requested by City CEO). TARGET IMPLEMENTATION BY: JUNE 1, 2015 INITIATIVE 2.2: Procurement Training. FTOG, Inc. will assist Purchasing staff in coordinating and conducting training for customers/end users in various Purchasing areas, as directed by the Finance Director and Purchasing Supervisor. a. Once the ERP is implemented, coordinate and conduct training on the new requisition system. b. As other goals outlined above are accomplished, assist in coordinating and conducting trainings in various other Purchasing areas: RFP's, Solicitation & Selection, Contract Administration, sole sources, emergencies, etc. TARGET IMPLEMENTATION BY: SEPTEMBER 1, 2015 uFMCW x. �fful .TnSr Po+. n mnn/H IY++oI Gnren�roxaaV FTOG, Inc. will assist the City of Costa Mesa in the utilization a software system that will include requisitioning/approving, sourcing, vendor registration, ordering, catalogs, contract management, receipt/payment processing. In addition, a system with searchable repository, creating contracts, red flag notices for critical elements, reports and integration with PeopleSoft, Word and Excel. FTOG, Inc. will coordinate the implementation and training of the automated system. The City may wish to develop assessment tool that enables the tracking of quality services when contracts are completed. In no event shall FTOG, Inc. be responsible for the direction and control of Costa Mesa personnel performed within this proposal. FTOG, Inc. retains the sole and exclusive discretion as to the specific type, nature, timing and duration of the service performed within this proposal. We will require access to those City files three to four days a week for the next six months depending on the number of contracts the City wants FTOG, Inc. to review. We will use our own laptop, computer, phones, office space and office supplies for this work. In consideration for the services to be performed by FTOG, Inc., Costa Mesa agrees to pay by the day or half day depending on the workload presented. Our half day rate is $250 and full day rate is $550 and will not exceed $50,600.00 up to September 2015 without written authorization from Costa Mesa. Costa Mesa shall pay FTOG, Inc. on a semi weekly basis from invoices that show projects that were worked on by objective and initiative. City's responsibilities will include dates and facilities for required meetings, access to the City's D&B subscription, and access to a City's email account that will be accessible from a FTOG, Inc.'s laptop, computer and a remote location for accessing certain City hard drives and files. Costa Mesa Purchasing Supervisor and FTOG, Inc., President is responsible for cooperatively resolving any disputes over services provided and adjusting the service level of desired by the City. City shall reimburse FTOG, Inc., for any expenses that are directly attributable to work performed under this proposal with prior written approval. FTOG, Inc. will submit an itemized statement of expenses. Costa Mesa shall pay within 30 days from the date of each statement. Either party may terminate these services at any time by giving 30 days written notice of termination. FTOG, Inc. shall be entitled to full payment for services performed prior to the date of termination. Sincerely, Richard Amadril, President FTOG, Inc. The Power of Partnerships in Contract Management EXHIBIT B CERTIFICATES OF INSURANCE 0 HISCOX FA— Jill 11 illIillill III pill III The following is a guide to your Professional Liabllity policy. We have identified several key coverage Items along with the limits and deductibles you have selected, To make It easier, we have also added a brief explanation of those items. We want you to feel confident about your new policy. If any of the information below is incorrect or if you have any questions, please contact one of our advisors at 888-202-3007 (Mon -Fri, 8arn-10pm EST) or send us an e-mail at contact@hiscox,com. Nair* 131chard Amadrll 3uelrtass na4'ns )'TOG, Inc Adlrt�'o Cl�l'�:tte: CA Zip dolt 92646 0paulp ublini Business Consulting Te1el3Ficr4'�e r�itim�berc Small tddresO. PolFc� etfedtive ctetvs; T11IJ deOrri'i1nes the- time'period during which your ooVerage appiles Total :coat of policy, l�a�li �I;�Ittl11iri1t , , The total.dmourit we will pay for damage, elalm: expanses (e.g.. defense cceks), and supplemental payments for each claim' i4cf�reg�lt� li'rYalt: The total amount we will pay for-darriaages, claim expenses.(€ ,g. defense cats), and supplemental payments during the policy perlott. From: To; $ 400.00 December 09, 2014. December 09, 2015 $ 1,000,000 $1,on0,aa0 0 Hiscox Inc. 2010 page 1 Supptomerttal payments Maximum of $250.00 per day, Tha'total amount we will pay for expenses your business reasonably $5.000 In total for your policy Incurs as a result of attending an arbitration proceeding or trial In the defense of a Covered cialm, 17eduoElble $ 500 The amount your business must pay (per claim) before we Will make any payment under the policy. This does not apply to supplemental paymwits. ........ Retroactive hate February 01, 2012 { This establishes hove far pack we will cover sorvldes you have perrormsd 1(even if that date Is before you were Insured with Miscox) for any unknown I claims that may be made against you during the policy period. 14-Dfiy full refund be confident that you.have made the right dhoide, We give you 14 day's,16 review your polioy. If you are not satisfied and.hove hot had any cloirris or losses, you can.Cancei your policy back to its start daft and receive a full. refund. Notice of claim It you have a claim, please call us at 888�202-3007. You may also e-mail us at reportaolalm@a hlscox.com: What does my Professional Liability Policy cover? For a summary showing examples of what you are and are not covered for, please read the Coverage Summary document. This guide does not modify the terms and conditions of your policy, which are contained In your policy documents, nor does it imply any claim is covered or not covered. We recommend that you read your policy documents to learn the details of your coverage, 0 Hiscox Inc: 2010 Page 2 0111 HISC®X Reinventing Small Business Insurance" Professional Liability Insurance A Coverage Summary for Consulting Servij We want you to understand the Hiscox Professional Liability coverage. This summary explains the main areas of coverage and those for which your business Is and isn't covered. If you have any questions about your coverage, please contact one of our advisors at 888-202-3007 (Mon -Fri, 8am-10pm EST) or via email at contact@hiscox.com. Injury or property damage Yt ooVer damages or claims eXpeosea:if you injure someena or damage someone's property. Coverage for Moo of risks is included In our General Uabifity or Bustross Owners Policy Ettlploympnt Matters We Won't cover you for Claims alleging improper employment pra'ctices,,workers' Compensation claims; or employer's Jiabi ljty, Kndwn.olaimsand clrcumstahoes We won't.cover any known.olroumstanoe that could result In s claim or any actual claim that you knew aboUt prior to the start of your first Hlsoox polloy. { Poise advertising We Won't vpvar you for false advertising claims. a . _..... i Personally Identifiable Information We won't cover your fallurei to protect any personally Wentiflable Information that is in your care, Other servlcas Wo.won't oovewany medical, nursing, Insurance brokerlagent,.leodli actuarial, architectural; or 9nglneeddg services you perform, Mnanolal relgted.servroes, Including advice oil mergers a td aequi5l#Inns, and valuatfohs; are axclud9d, Nis also don't cover any Services you perform that are not specified in your pplioy, P raegulatory alaims We Woll't oover any claim that are brought by any governmental body or Ilcensing organiaaflon, unless it is one a: of your Clients and imakes a: claim against you in that oapacity, - _._W............ __--- _......_._..._r,w.. Your costs and Axcluded damages, _ We won't cover fines; penaltlss, and taxes that ore levied against you. HiscaX also won't cover the cost of complying wjth honmonetary relief, cost overruns, or reduction of your fees. , Intollootppl property i We:won't oover:infrigement of a copyright, trademark, patent, or theft of a trade secret. Coverage summaries, descriptions, and claims examples are provided for illustrative purposes only and are subject to the applicable policy limits, deductibles, exclusions, terms, and conditions. Not all insurance products and services are available in ail states. Hlscox recommends you read the policy documents to learn the full details of coverage. Underwritten by Hlscox Insurance Company Inc., 104 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 600, Chicago, II.60603, as administered by Hisoox Inc., a licensed Insurance provider In all states and DO, HISCX HISCOX INSURANCE COMPANY INC. (A Stock Company) 104 South WhlganAvenue, Suite 600 Chlcego Illinois 60603 Certificate of Professional Liability Insurance This certificate is issued for Informational purposes only. It certlfles that the policles listed in this document have been issued to the Named Insured. It does not grant any rights to any party nor can It be used, in any way, to modify coverage provided by such policies. Alteration of this certificate does not change the terms, exclusions or conditions of such policies. Coverage is subject to the provisions of the policies, including any exclusions or conditions, regardless of the provislons of any other contract, such as between the certificate holder and the Named Insured. The limlta shown below are the limits provided at the policy inception. Subsequent paid claims may reduce these. limits. Named Insured: Insurer Name: Policy Number: Policy Effective Dater Units of Insurance Each Claim: Aggregate for all Claims: Deductible: Retroactive Date: FTOG, Inc. Hiseox Insurance Company Inc. December 09, 2014 1 Polley Expiration Date: I December 09, 2015 The policy referred to in this -certificate was issued on a claims made and reported basis. Description of Elid arse mentslSpeclal Provisions feet applicable V kz - Authorized Represontative October 25, 2014 Date DPL C001 CW (01I10) includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc., with Page 1 Its permisslen. 0 ISO Properties, Inc., 2000 "m H I COX NISCOX INSURANCE COMPANY INC. (A Stock Company) 104 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Chicago Illinois mao3 Certificate of Professional Liability Insurance This certificate is issued for Informational purposes only. It certifies that the policies listed In this document have been Issued to the Named Insured. It does not grant any rights to any party nor can #t be used, In any way, to rnodify coverage provided by such policies. Alteration of this certificate does not change the terms, exclusions or conditions of such polloles. Coverage is subject to the provisions of the policies, Including any exclusions or conditions, regardless of the provisions of any other contract, such as between the certificate holder and the Named Insured. The limits shown below are the limits provided at the policy inception, Subsequent paid claims may reduce these limits, Named Insured; Insurer Name: Policy Number: Policy Effective Date; Limits of Insurance Each Claim: Aggregate for all Claims; Deductible: Retroactive Date: FTOG, Inc, Hiscox Insurance Company Inc. December 09, 2014 I Policy Expiration Date: I December 09, 201 5 1.$ 1,000,000 Each Claim $1,000,000 Aggregate for all Claims $ ti00 Each Claim February 01, 2012 The policy referred to In this certificate was Issued on a claims made and reported basis. Description of Endorsornont;W$pecial Provisions Not applicable DPL C001 OW (1311/10) Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc., with Page 2 its permission. 0 ISO Properties, Inc„ 2000 r 14 HISC®X HISCOX INSURANCE COMPANY INC. (A Stock Company) 104 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Chicago Illinois 60603 Additional Insured Status ® Certificate holder malmainsAdditional Insured Status if this boxed checked This certificate does not grant any coverage or rights to the certificate holder. It this certificate Indicates that the certificate holder Is an additional insured, the pollcy(les) must either be endorsed or contain spa-clfic language providing the certificate holder with additional Insured status. The certificate holder Is an additional Insured only to the extent indicated in such policy language or endorsement. Cancellation In the event of cancellation of any policy described above, the insurer will attempt to mall 10 days written notice to the certificate holder prior to the effective date of cancellation. However, failure to do so will not impose any duty or liability upon the Insurer, Its agents or representatives, nor will It delay cancellation. The City of Consta Mesa Certlflcate Holder "J- Authorized Reprosentative October 25, 2014 Date October 25, 2014 Date DPL C001 CW (01/10) Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc., with Page $ Its permission. © 180 Properties, Inc., 2000 VFlU WEST FINANCIAL INS 044669 27 352E HYLANO AVE, STE.110 COST MESA CA 92620 TELEPHONE:(71A) 436.4051 CTS PERFORMANCE.CPE NSUR IMPAN Tp ALL NOT LIWED 7'q, LtAl3IUTY MR) REDIMMU01 V4 pTD)tlhIER 1144NTf106R Coverage applies only It premium charge Is listed below. CoveragelLlmite are Subject to all policy terms COVERACig..S _ LIMIT8 pF WA8ILITY �_ PREMIUMS NOW FACTNTRY EGIGiP----- aODILYW-M. LIA91t ITY $100,000 FACrIp "ON $300000 MCH Ww"n f.AR1 � 118 �CMR 1 78 CAR , ITEMS INSURED AND AMOUNTS OF INSURANCE FOR EACH TERM ARE STATED pRCPERTV PAMApp LWpIUTY JOWLY ROUILY INJURY LIADILtiV INJURYLIAMUTY 15150=001)-_CA.NAC WgR ,. _ �2$,QOD 9ACHI A-W $G000Q ANCHACCMENT T^. _.•m rn• IMP 1S5 16 )Q8 Im..9 LL �u NFREIN. ITEMS INSURED ARC SUaJCCT TO TRfi DEDUCTIBLE. iq'c AGgLgqLLUY_�$ MAXIMUM CDLL912N pEDUCTmLE WAIVF.RI MCDICA4 EkPEN88 $.2 000 7 8 — _ �I I LCASRACANCAPCOYENADE CAN GAR CAR REPAIR CR REPLACEMENT CAR GAR Y CAR � � a4 COST CDVRRACE � COMPRkHENSIYE OWYC1YPte LAli1 CARP $250 CAR $ 20 3G CAiJF COLLI8IUN RDAU5(1a§"1tlTANQi N$250 pRiPJ4iIpLEtaRl y$QQ CAR2 $G00 CAR $ 10G Ogpt $7B CMi2 '�76 -- ppR 256 CA FRAUD FEa QFR,QCCINce �^T � RF.NTAI. CAR KNEW KIO PER DAY 30 DAYS � �1 1 S...i..........? 5 ENggREEMENT&ATTAGHEO TO THE pgL1GY U-10 04/2013 U-234 U-456 U>238 FECTIVE 03/18/2015 is amealded policy declarations page replaces all declarations with the came or prior feQt1've date- ason(s) Amended Q EN1)0R0MENT(S) there is a lapse, coverage wi7.lnot be provided during the lapse poriod, is chango has reoulted in no additional premium, Any outstanding amount is due as previously sled. If you have any questions, please Contact your; agent or broker at: the phone number provided ova. 'Thank you for placing your business with Meraury Insurance Company, Proce80 Gate: 03/24/2016 EXHIBIT C CITY COUNCIL POLICY 100-5 SUBJECT POLICY EFFECTIVE PAGE NUMBER DATE DRUG -FREE WORKPLACE 100-5 8-8-89 1 of 3 BACKGROUND Under the Federal Drug -Free Workplace Act of 1988, passed as part of omnibus drug legislation enacted November 18, 1988, contractors and grantees of Federal funds must certify that they will provide drug -free workplaces. At the present time, the City of Costa Mesa, as a sub -grantee of Federal funds under a variety of programs, is required to abide by this Act. The City Council has expressed its support of the national effort to eradicate drug abuse through the creation of a Substance Abuse Committee, institution of a City-wide D.A.R.E. program in all local schools and other activities in support of a drug -free community. This policy is intended to extend that effort to contractors and grantees of the City of Costa Mesa in the elimination of dangerous drugs in the workplace. PURPOSE It is the purpose of this Policy to: 1. Clearly state the City of Costa Mesa's commitment to a drug -free society. 2. Set forth guidelines to ensure that public, private, and nonprofit organizations receiving funds from the City of Costa Mesa share the commitment to a drug -free workplace. POLICY The City Manager, under direction by the City Council, shall take the necessary steps to see that the following provisions are included in all contracts and agreements entered into by the City of Costa Mesa involving the disbursement of funds. 1. Contractor or Sub -grantee hereby certifies that it will provide a drug -free workplace by: a. Publishing a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in Contractor's and/or sub -grantee's workplace, specifically the job site or location included in this contract, and specifying the actions that will be taken against the employees for violation of such prohibition; SUBJECT POLICY EFFECTIVE PAGE NUMBER DATE DRUG -FREE WORKPLACE 100-5 8-8-89 2 of 3 o. cstaousning a urug-rree Awareness rrogram to intorm employees about: 1. The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace; 2. Contractor's and/or sub -grantee's policy of maintaining a drug -free workplace; 3. Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation and employee assistance programs; and 4. The penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations occurring in the workplace; c. Making it a requirement that each employee to be engaged in the performance of the contract be given a copy of the statement required by subparagraph A; d. Notifying the employee in the statement required by subparagraph 1 A that, as a condition of employment under the contract, the employee will: 1. Abide by the terms of the statement; and 2. Notify the employer of any criminal drug statute conviction for a violation occurring in the workplace no later than five (5) days after such conviction; e. Notifying the City of Costa Mesa within ten (10) days after receiving notice under subparagraph 1 D 2 from an employee or otherwise receiving the actual notice of such conviction; f. Taking one of the following actions within thirty (30) days of receiving notice under subparagraph 1 D 2 with respect to an employee who is so convicted: 1. Taking appropriate personnel action against such an employee, up to and including termination; or 2. Requiring such employee to participate satisfactorily in a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation program approved for such purposes by a Federal, State, or local health agency, law enforcement, or other appropriate agency; SUBJECT POLICY EFFECTIVE PAGE NUMBER DATE DRUG -FREE WORKPLACE 100-5 8-8-89 3 of 3 g. Making a good faith effort to maintain a drug -free workplace through implementation of subparagraphs 1 A through 1 F, inclusive. 2. Contractor and/or sub -grantee shall be deemed to be in violation of this Policy if the City of Costa Mesa determines that: a. Contractor and/or sub -grantee has made a false certification under paragraph 1 above; b. Contractor and/or sub -grantee has violated the certification by failing to carry out the requirements of subparagraphs 1 A through 1 G above; c. Such number of employees of Contractor and/or sub -grantee have been convicted of violations of criminal drug statutes for violations occurring in the workplace as to indicate that the contractor and/or sub -grantee has failed to make a good faith effort to provide a drug -free workplace. 3. Should any contractor and/or sub -grantee be deemed to be in violation of this Policy pursuant to the provisions of 2 A, B, and C, a suspension, termination or debarment proceeding subject to applicable Federal, State, and local laws shall be conducted. Upon issuance of any final decision under this section requiring debarment of a contractor and/or sub -grantee, the contractor and/or sub -grantee shall be ineligible for award of any contract, agreement or grant from the City of Costa Mesa for a period specified in the decision, not to exceed five (5) years. Upon issuance of any final decision recommending against debarment of the contractor and/or sub -grantee, the contractor and/or sub -grantee shall be eligible for compensation as provided by law. Cl T Y COUNCIL A GENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: May 5, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: CC-1 3 SUBJECT: 2014 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE GRANT (EMPG) ALLOCATION DATE: April 23, 2015 FROM: POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PRESENTATION LIEUTENANT KEITH DAVIS, EMERGENCY SERVICES MANAGER BY: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LT. KEITH DAVIS, POLICE DEPT. EMERGENCY SERVICES MANAGER (714) 754-5660 RECOMMENDATION: 1. Authorize the Chief Executive Officer or his designee to execute the Agreement to Transfer Funds for the 2014 Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) Program. 2. Adopt Resolution that authorizes the Chief Executive Officer or his designee to accept the funds for the Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) Program, in an amount not to exceed $ 17,800.00 to purchase 14 replacement laptop computers and software dedicated to the Emergency Operations Center (EOC). The current laptops (purchased in 2004) have exceeded their ability to function due to extended battery life. The grant will cover the hardware and software needed to support new technology requirements and provide improvements to support emergency management. BACKGROUND: The City of Costa Mesa has been participating in the Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) Program since 2001. The purpose of this program is to encourage the development of comprehensive emergency management at the local levels and to encourage the improvement of mitigation, preparedness, and response and recovery capabilities for all hazards. The County of Orange is, and has been, the Grant Recipient of the EMPG Program, with local municipalities being sub -grantees of the EMPG Program. The program provides minimal fiscal support for the City's efforts in emergency management, disaster preparedness, training and plans development. Annually, the County of Orange, acting through the Sheriff -Coroner Department/Emergency Management Bureau, in its capacity as the lead agency for the Operational Area, applies for, receives and accepts the Emergency Management Performance Grant Program funds from the State of California, Governor's Office of Emergency Services. For the 2014 Emergency Management Performance Grant Program, the County of Orange is requiring an Agreement to Transfer Funds to be signed by the City of Costa Mesa in order for the City of Costa Mesa to receive the grant funds, in arrears, for reasonable and permissible expenditures for grant purposes. ANALYSIS: The City puts forth a considerable effort by all departments in training, exercising, and planning to insure a state of readiness for emergencies or disasters. The EMPG program focuses in the area of multi -agency coordination in preparedness and training for City employees and volunteers to support Emergency Operations Center activation during the time of major emergencies or disasters. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: The only alternative to consider would be not to participate in the EMPG Program. The City must participate in activities required by the Program to be prepared and assist the community in mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery efforts prior to and after any major disaster or emergency. FISCAL REVIEW: This funding will be added to the FY 15-16 preliminary budget amounts. LEGAL REVIEW: Legal has reviewed the documents. CONCLUSION: The adoption of this resolution and accept the Emergency Management Performance Grant Program (EMPG) funds is necessary to recover disaster related expenses for services rendered to mitigate, prepare for, respond to and recover from situations occurring within the City of Costa Mesa and receive assistance from the State of California. A copy of the resolution and copies of the Agreement to Transfer Funds will be forwarded to the County of Orange, Sheriff -Coroner Department/Emergency Management Bureau, as acting on behalf of the County of Orange in its capacity as the lead agency for the Operational Area. 2 KEITH DAVIS Emergency Services Manager STEPHEN DUNIVENT Interim Finance Director Thomas Duarte City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: 1 Resolution RONALD LOWENBERG Interim Chief of Police THOMAS R. HATCH Chief Executive Officer 2 Agreement to Transfer Funds for 2014 (Emergency Management Performance Grant Program) 3 Attachment 1 RESOLUTION NO. 15-XX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR AND ACCEPTANCE OF YEAR 2014 EMERGENCY MANAGMENT PERFORMANCE GRANT (EMPG) REIMBURSEMENT ALLOCATION THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, State of California, Governor's Office of Emergency Services (CAL OES) has made funds available through the Emergency Management Performance Grant Program for the support of comprehensive emergency management and the improvement of preparedness, mitigation, response and recovery capabilities for all hazards; and WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa wishes to participate in the Emergency Management Performance Grant for the year 2014; and WHEREAS, for the COUNTY OF ORANGE, a political subdivision of the State of California, herein referred to as "COUNTY" and CITY OF COSTA MESA, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "SUBGRANTEE", the COUNTY shall transfer to SUBGRANTEE grant funds, in arrears, as necessary to reimburse SUBGRANTEE for reasonable and permissible expenditures for the grant purposes; and WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa has been awarded an amount not to exceed $17,800.00 in Emergency Management Performance Grant Program funds for the year 2014; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this City Council hereby approves the application for and acceptance of funds under the Emergency Management 4 Performance Grant Program and the Chief Executive Officer or his designee is hereby authorized to implement this resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5t" day of May, 2015. Stephen M. Mensinger, Mayor ATTEST: Brenda Green, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) so CITY OF COSTA MESA ) APPROVED AS TO FORM: Thomas Duarte, City Attorney I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 15-XX and was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa at a regular meeting held on the 5t" day of May, 2015, by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 6t" day of May, 2015. Brenda Green, City Clerk 2 5 c 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Attachment B - Form of Transfer Agreement Page 1 of 4 AGREEMENT TO TRANSFER FUNDS FOR 2014 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE GRANT PROGRAM THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of 20 , which date is enumerated for purposes of reference only, by and between the COUNTY OF ORANGE, a political subdivision of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY," and a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "SUBRECIPIENT." WHEREAS, COUNTY, acting through its Sheriff -Coroner Department, hereinafter referred to as SHERIFF, in its capacity as the lead agency for the Operational Area, has applied for, received and accepted the Emergency Management Performance Grant (hereinafter referred to as "the grant") from the California Office of Emergency Services ("CalOES"). WHEREAS, the purpose of the grant is to support comprehensive emergency management at the state, tribal and local levels and to encourage the improvement of prevention, protection, mitigation, response and recovery capabilities for all hazards, as set forth in Attachment A hereto (FY2014i Emergency Management Performance Grants [EMPG] Program Funding Opportunity Announcement [FOA]), which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. COUNTY shall transfer to SUBRECIPIENT grant funds, in arrears, as necessary to reimburse SUBRECIPIENT for reasonable and permissible expenditures for the grant purposes. In order to obtain grant funds, SUBRECIPIENT shall comply with the instructions and submit to SHERIFF all required information and documentation, as set forth in Attachment B (EMPG City Financial Management Forms Workbook), which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 2. Throughout their useful life, grant property and equipment shall be used by SUBRECIPIENT only for grant purposes in accordance with Attachment A hereto. 3. SUBRECIPIENT shall exercise due care to preserve and safeguard grant property and equipment from damage or destruction and shall provide regular maintenance and such repairs for grant CFDA: 97.042 Emergency Management Performance Grant Department of Homeland Security Page I of 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Attachment B - Form of Transfer Agreement Page 2 of 4 property and equipment as are necessary, in order to keep said grant property and equipment continually in good working order. 4. If grant property or equipment becomes obsolete, SUBRECIPIENT shall dispose of it only in accordance with the instructions of COUNTY or the agency from which COUNTY received the grant funds. 5. SUBRECIPIENT shall submit to the COUNTY grant program reporting documents and information in accordance with requirements set out in the Attachment C (Emergency Management Performance Grant Program: California Supplement to the Federal Program Funding Opportunity Announcement; or, The State Guidance), which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 6. By executing this Agreement, SUBRECIPIENT agrees to comply with and be fully bound by this Agreement and all applicable provisions of Attachments A, B, C, and D (FY14' Emergency Management Performance Grant Agreement Articles, Assurances, Certifications, Terms, and Conditions) hereto. SUBRECIPIENT shall notify COUNTY immediately upon discovery that it has not abided or no, longer will abide by any applicable provision of this Agreement or Attachments A, B, I C, or D hereto. 7. SUBRECIPIENT agrees to indemnify, defend and save harmless COUNTY and the agency from which COUNTY received grant funds, and their elected and appointed officials, officers, agents and employees from any and all claims and losses accruing or resulting to any and all contractors, subcontractors, laborers, and any other person, firm or corporation furnishing or supplying work, services, materials or supplies in connection with SUBRECIPIENT's performance of this Agreement, including Attachments A, B, C, and D hereto, and from any and all claims and losses accruing or resulting to any person, firm, or corporation who may be injured or damaged by SUBRECIPIENT in the performance of this Agreement, including Attachments A, B, C, and D hereto. 8. No alteration or variation of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by duly authorized representatives of the parties hereto, and no oral understanding or agreement not incorporated herein shall be binding on any of the parties hereto. 9. SUBRECIPIENT may not assign this Agreement in whole or in part without the express written consent of COUNTY. CFDA: 97.042 Emergency Management Performance Grant Department of Homeland security Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Attachment B - Form of Transfer Agreement Page 3 of 4 10. SUBRECIPIENT shall provide to COUNTY all records and information requested by I I COUNTY for inclusion in quarterly reports and such other reports or records as COUNTY may be required to provide to the agency from which COUNTY received grant funds or other persons or 'I agencies. 11. For a period of three years after the final Federal Financial Report hereunder or until all claims related to this Agreement are finally settled, whichever is later, SUBRECIPIENT shall preserve and maintain all documents, papers and records relevant to the work performed or property or equipment acquired in accordance with this Agreement, including Attachments A, B, C, and D hereto. For the same time period, SUBRECIPIENT shall make said documents, papers and records available to COUNTY and the agency from which COUNTY received the grant funds or their duly authorized representative(s), for examination, copying, or mechanical reproduction on or off the premises of SUBRECIPIENT, upon request, during usual working hours. 12. SUBRECIPIENT and COUNTY shall be subject to examination and audit by the State Auditor General with respect to this Agreement for a period of three years after the fmal Federal Financial Report hereunder. 13. COUNTY may terminate this Agreement and be relieved of the payment of any consideration to SUBRECIPIENT if a) SUBRECIPIENT fails to perform any of the covenants contained in this Agreement, including the applicable terms of Attachments A, B, C, and D hereto, at the time and in the manner herein provided, or b) COUNTY loses funding under the grant. In the event of termination, COUNTY may proceed with the work in any manner deemed proper by COUNTY. 14. SUBRECIPIENT and its agents and employees shall act in an independent capacity in the performance of this Agreement, including Attachments A, B, C, and D hereto, and shall not be I considered officers, agents or employees of COUNTY or SHERIFF or of the agency from which 1 COUNTY received grant funds. 15. By signing this Agreement, SUBRECEIPIENT understands and agrees that: a. Failure to follow grant guidance, including those detailed below, will result in ineligibility for any reimbursement under the FYI EMPG: CFDA: 97.042 Emergency Management Performance Grant Department of Homeland Security Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Attachment B - Form of Transfer Agreement Page 4 of 4 b. A SUBRECIPIENT representative must attend half of the Orange County Emergency Managers Organization meetings held from July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015; c. SUBRECIPIENT must maintain National Incident Management System (NIMS) compliance; d. For any personnel whose salary is charged to the grant, that specific individual must meet the training and exercise requirements set forth in the grant guidance; and e. Only those expenditures specifically detailed in the Financial Management Forms Workbook are approved for funding; any changes must be pre -approved by the California Office of Emergency Services. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement in the County of Orange, State of California. DATED: 120 _ COUNTY OF ORANGE, a political subdivision of the State of California DATED: CFDA: 97.042 Emergency Management Performance Grant Department of Homeland Security Sheriff -Coroner "COUNTY" APPROVED AS TO FORM: COUNTY COUNSEL By Nicole A. Sims, Deputy DATED: Z 20� ,20— SUBRECIPIENT: ATTEST: Page 4 of City Clerk DATED: 20 FY14 Emergency Management Performance Grant Agreement Articles, Assurances, Certifications, Terms, and Conditions FEDERAL AGREEMENT ARTICLES Article I - Administrative Requirements The administrative requirements that apply to most DHS award recipients through a grant or cooperative agreement arise from two sources: 1) Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-102, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments (also known as the "A-102 Common Rule"), found under DHS regulations at Title 44, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 13, "Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments. 2) OMB Circular A-110, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non -Profit Organizations, relocated to 2 CFR Part 215. The requirements for allowable costs/cost principles are contained in the A-102 Common Rule, OMB Circular A- 110 (2 CFR § 215.27), DHS program legislation, Federal awarding agency regulations, and the terms and conditions of the award. The four costs principles that apply to DHS award recipients through a grant or cooperative agreement originate from the following sources: - OMB Circular A-21, Cost Principles for Educational Institutions, relocated to 2 CFR Part 220. - OMB Circular A-87, Cost Principles for State, Local, and Indian Tribal Governments, relocated to 2 CFR Part 225. - OMB Circular A-122, Cost Principles for Non -Profit Organizations, relocated to 2 CFR Part 230. - OMB Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments and Non -Profit Organizations; origination of audit requirements for State, Local and Tribal recipients of DHS awards. Article II - DHS Specific Acknowledtements and Assurances All recipients of financial assistance must acknowledge and agree -and require any subrecipients, contractors, successors, transferees, and assignees acknowledge and agree -to comply with applicable provisions governing DHS access to records, accounts, documents, information, facilities, and staff. 1. Recipients must cooperate with any compliance review or complaint investigation conducted by DHS. 2. Recipients must give DHS access to and the right to examine and copy records, accounts, and other documents and sources of information related to the grant and permit access to facilities, personnel, and other individuals and information as may be necessary, as required by DHS regulations and other applicable laws or program guidance. 3. Recipients must submit timely, complete, and accurate reports to the appropriate DHS officials and maintain appropriate backup documentation to support the reports. 4. Recipients must comply with all other special reporting, data collection, and evaluation requirements, as prescribed by law or detailed in program guidance. 5. If, during the past three years, the recipient has been accused of discrimination on the grounds of race, color, national origin (including limited English proficiency), sex, age, disability, religion, or familial status, the recipient must provide a list of all such proceedings, pending or completed, including outcome and copies of settlement agreements to the DHS awarding office and the DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. 6. In the event any court or administrative agency makes a fmding of discrimination on grounds of race, color, national origin (including limited English proficiency), sex, age, disability, religion, or familial status against the recipient, or the recipient settles a case or matter alleging such discrimination, recipients must forward a copy of the complaint and fmdings to the DHS Component and/or awarding office. The United States has the right to seek judicial enforcement of these obligations. Initials Article III - Lobbying Prohibitions None of the funds provided under an award may be expended by the recipient to pay any person to influence, or attempt to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with any Federal action concerning the award or renewal of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. These lobbying prohibitions can be found at 31 U.S.C. §1352. Article IV - Acknowledgement of Federal Funding from DHS All recipients of financial assistance must comply with requirements to acknowledge Federal funding when issuing statements, press releases, requests for proposals, bid invitations, and other documents describing projects or programs funded in whole or in part with Federal funds. Article V - Copyright All recipients of financial assistance will comply with requirements that publications or other exercise of copyright for any work first produced under Federal financial assistance awards hereto related unless the work includes any information that is otherwise controlled by the Government (e.g., classified information or other information subject to national security or export control laws or regulations). For any scientific, technical, or other copyright work based on or containing data first produced under this award, including those works published in academic, technical or professional journals, symposia proceedings, or similar works, the recipient grants the Government a royalty -free, nonexclusive and irrevocable license to reproduce, display, distribute copies, perform, disseminate, or prepare derivative works, and to authorize others to do so, for Government purposes in all such copyrighted works. The recipient must affix the applicable copyright notices of 17 U.S.C. § 401 or 402 and an acknowledgement of Government sponsorship (including award number) to any work first produced under an award. Article VI - Use of DHS Seal, Logo and Flags All recipients of financial assistance must obtain DHS's approval prior to using the DHS seal(s), logos, crests or reproductions of flags or likenesses of DHS agency officials, including use of the United States Coast Guard seal, logo, crests or reproductions of flags or likenesses of Coast Guard officials. Article VII - Activities Conducted Abroad All recipients of financial assistance will comply with the requirements, and must ensure, that project activities carried on outside the United States are coordinated as necessary with appropriate government authorities and that appropriate licenses, permits, or approvals are obtained. Article VIII - Fly America Act of 1974 All recipients of financial assistance must comply with the requirements of the Preference for U.S. Flag Air Carriers: Travel supported by U.S. Government funds requirement, which states preference for the use of U.S. flag air carriers (air carriers holding certificates under 49 U.S.C. § 41102) for international air transportation of people and property to the extent that such service is available, in accordance with the International Air Transportation Fair Competitive Practices Act of 1974 (49 U.S.C. § 40118) and the interpretative guidelines issued by the Comptroller General of the United States in the March 31, 1981, amendment to Comptroller General Decision B138942. Article IX - GPD - Drug -Free Workplace Regulations All recipients of financial assistance must comply with the requirements of the Drug -Free Workplace Act of 1988 (412 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.), which requires that all organizations receiving grants from any Federal agency agree to maintain a drug -free workplace. The recipient must notify the awarding office if an employee of the recipient is convicted of violating a criminal drug statute. Failure to comply with these requirements may be cause for debarment. These regulations are codified at 2 CFR 3001. Initials Article X - GPD - Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 All recipients of financial assistance must comply with the requirements of the government -wide award term which implements Section 106(g) of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) of 2000, as amended (22 U.S.C. § 7104), located at 2 CFR Part 175. This is implemented in accordance with OMB Interim Final Guidance, Federal Register, Volume 72, No. 218, November 13, 2007. In accordance with the statutory requirement, each agency award under which funding is provided to a private entity, Section 106(g) of the TVPA, as amended, requires the agency to include a condition that authorizes the agency to terminate the award, without penalty, if the recipient or a subrecipient - (a) Engages in severe forms of trafficking in persons during the period of time that the award is in effect; (b) Procures a commercial sex act during the period of time that the award is in effect; or (c) Uses forced labor in the performance of the award or sub -awards under the award. Full text of the award term is provided at 2 CFR § 175.15. Article XI — Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 All recipients of financial assistance must comply with the requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.), codified at 6 CFR Part 21 and 44 CFR Part 7, which provides that no person in the United States will, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. Article XII - Civil Right Act of 1968 All recipients of financial assistance must comply with Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, which prohibits recipients from discriminating in the sale, rental, financing, and advertising of dwellings, or in the provision of services in connection therewith, on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, disability, familial status, and sex (42 U.S.C. §3601 et seq.), as implemented by the Department of Housing and Urban Development at 24 CFR Part 100. The prohibition on disability discrimination includes the requirement that new multifamily housing with four or more dwelling units-i.e., the public and common use areas and individual apartment units (all units in buildings with elevators and ground -floor units in buildings without elevators) -be designed and constructed with certain accessible features (see 24 CFR §100.201). Article XIII - Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 All recipients of financial assistance must comply with the requirements of Titles I, 11, and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits recipients from discriminating on the basis of disability in the operation of public entities, public and private transportation systems, places of public accommodation, and certain testing entities (42 U.S.C. § § 12101-12213). Article XIV - Age Discrimination Act of 1975 All recipients of financial assistance must comply with the requirements of the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. §6101 et seq.), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of age in any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. Article XV - Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (EQ ual Opportunity in Education Act All recipients of financial assistance must comply with the requirements of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.), which provides that no person in the United States will, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. These regulations are codified at 6 CFR Part 17 and 44 CFR Part 19. Article XVI - Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Initials All recipients of financial assistance must comply with the requirements of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §794, as amended, which provides that no otherwise qualified handicapped individual in the United States will, solely by reason of the handicap, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. These requirements pertain to the provision of benefits or services as well as to employment. Article XV1I - Limited En dish Proficient Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title VI All recipients must comply with the Civil Right Act of 1964 (Title VI), prohibition against discrimination on the basis of national origin, which requires that recipients of Federal financial assistance must take reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to persons with limited English proficiency (LEP) to their programs and services. Providing meaningful access for persons with LEP may entail providing language assistance services, including oral interpretation and written translation. In order to facilitate compliance with Title VI, recipients are encouraged to consider the need for language services for LEP persons served or encountered both in developing budgets and in conducting programs and activities. Executive Order 13166, Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency (August 11, 2000), requires federal agencies to issue guidance to recipients, assisting such organizations and entities in understanding their language access obligations. DHS published the required recipient guidance in April 2011, DHS Guidance to Federal Financial Assistance Recipients Regarding Title VI Prohibition Against National Origin Discrimination Affecting Limited English Proficient Persons, 76 Fed. Reg. 21755-21768, (April 18, 2011). The Guidance provides helpful information such as how a recipient can determine the extent of its obligation to provide language services; selecting language services; and elements of an effective plan on language assistance for LEP persons. For additional assistance and information regarding language access obligations, please refer to the DHS Recipient Guidance https://www.dhs.gov/guidance-published-heln- depailment-supported-organizations-provide-mean.ingfful-access-people-tirnited and additional resources on http://www.ley.gov. Article XVIII - Animal Welfare Act of 1966 All recipients of financial assistance will comply with the requirements of the Animal Welfare Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. §2131 et seq.), which requires that minimum standards of care and treatment be provided for vertebrate animals bred for commercial sale, used in research, transported commercially, or exhibited to the public. Recipients must establish appropriate policies and procedures for the humane care and use of animals based on the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals and comply with the Public Health Service Policy and Government Principles Regarding the Care and Use of Animals. Article XIX - Clean Air Act of 1970 and Clean Water Act of 1977 All recipients of financial assistance will comply with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. §7401 et seq. and Executive Order 11738, which provides for the protection and enhancement of the quality of the nation's air resources to promote public health and welfare and for restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters. Article XX - Protection of Human Subiects All recipients of financial assistance will comply with the requirements of the Federal regulations at 45 CFR Part 46, which requires that recipients comply with applicable provisions/law for the protection of human subjects for purposes of research. Recipients must also comply with the requirements in DHS Management Directive 026-04, Protection of Human Subjects, prior to implementing any work with human subjects. For purposes of 45 CFR Part 46, research means a systematic investigation, including research, development, testing, and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to general knowledge. Activities that meet this definition constitute research for purposes of this policy, whether or not they are conducted or supported under a program that is considered research for other purposes. The regulations specify additional protections for research involving human fetuses, pregnant women, and neonates (Subpart B); prisoners (Subpart C); and children (Subpart D). The use of autopsy materials is governed by applicable State and local law and is not directly regulated by 45 CFR Part 46. Initials Article XXI - National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 All recipients of financial assistance will comply with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. §4331 et seq., which establishes national policy goals and procedures to protect and enhance the environment, including protection against natural disasters. To comply with NEPA for its grant - supported activities, DHS requires the environmental aspects of construction grants (and certain non -construction projects as specified by the component and awarding office) to be reviewed and evaluated before final action on the application. Article XXII - National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 All recipients of financial assistance will comply with the requirements of Section 1306(c) of the National Flood Insurance Act, as amended, which provides for benefit payments under the Standard Flood Insurance Policy for demolition or relocation of a structure insured under the Act that is located along the shore of a lake or other body of water and that is certified by an appropriate State or local land use authority to be subject to imminent collapse or subsidence as a result of erosion or undermining caused by waves or currents of water exceeding anticipated cyclical levels. These regulations are codified at 44 CFR Part 63. Article XXIII - Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 All recipients of financial assistance will comply with the requirements of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, as amended (42 U.S.C. § 4001 et seq.), which provides that no Federal financial assistance to acquire, modernize, or construct property may be provided in identified flood -prone communities in the United States, unless the community participates in the National Flood Insurance Program and flood insurance is purchased within one year of the identification. The flood insurance purchase requirement applies to both public and private applicants for DHS support. Lists of flood -prone areas that are eligible for flood insurance are published in the Federal Register by FEMA. Article XXIV - Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act of 1990 All recipients of financial assistance will comply with the requirements of Executive Order 11990, which provides that federally funded construction and improvements minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands. The Executive Order provides that, in furtherance of Section 101(b)(3) of NEPA (42 U.S.C. §43 3 1 (b)(3)), Federal agencies, to the extent permitted by law, must avoid undertaking or assisting with new construction located in wetlands unless the head of the agency finds that there is no practicable alternative to such construction, and that the proposed action includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands that may result from such use. In making this fording, the head of the agency may take into account economic, environmental, and other pertinent factors. The public disclosure requirement described above also pertains to early public review of any plans or proposals for new construction in wetlands. This is codified at 44 CFR Part 9. Article XXV - USA Patriot Act of 2001 All recipients of financial assistance must comply with the requirements of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (USA PATRIOT Act), which amends 18 U.S.C. §§175-175c. Among other things, it prescribes criminal penalties for possession of any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system of a type or in a quantity that is not reasonably justified by a prophylactic, protective, bona fide research, or other peaceful purpose. The act also establishes restrictions on access to specified materials. "Restricted persons," as defined by the act, may not possess, ship, transport, or receive any biological agent or toxin that is listed as a select agent. Article XXVI -- Best Practices for Collection and Use of Personally Identifiable Information II All recipients of financial assistance who collect PII are required to have a publically-available privacy policy that describes what PII they collect, how they use the PII, whether they share PII with third parties, and how individuals may have their PII corrected where appropriate. Useful resources are the DHS Privacy Impact Initials Assessments: http://www.dhs.gov/xlibraty/assets/privac�"/privac_y pia guidance 0uixe2010.pd and http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/privacy/privacy pia template.pdf. Article XXVII — Duplication of Benefits State, Local, and Tribal Recipients must comply with 2 CFR Part §225, Appendix A, paragraph (C)(3)(c), which provides that any cost allocable to a particular Federal award or cost objective under the principles provided for in this authority may not be charged to other Federal awards to overcome fund deficiencies. Article XXVIII — False Claims Act and Program Fraud Civil Remedies All recipients of financial assistance must comply with the requirements of 31 U.S.0 §3729 which set forth that no recipient of Federal payments shall submit a false claim for payment. See also 38 U.S.0 §3801-3812 which details the administrative remedies for false claims and statements made. Article XXIX — Federal Debt Status All recipients of financial assistance are required to be non -delinquent in their repayment of any Federal debt. Examples of relevant debt include delinquent payroll and other taxes, audit disallowance, and benefit overpayments. See OMB Circular A-129 and form SF-424B, item number 17 for additional information and guidance. Article XXX — Hotel and Motel Fire Safety Act of 1990 In accordance with Section 6 of the Hotel and Motel Fire Safety Act of 1990, 15 U.S.C. §2225(a), all recipients must ensure that all conference, meeting, convention, or training space funded in whole or in part with Federal funds complies with the fire prevention and control guidelines of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974,15 U.S.C. §2225. Article XXXI — Non -supplanting Requirement All recipients who receive awards made under programs that prohibit supplanting by law must ensure that Federal funds do not replace (supplant) funds that have been budgeted for the same purpose through non -Federal sources. Where Federal statues for a particular program prohibits supplanting, applicants or award recipients may be required to demonstrate and document that a reduction in non -Federal resources occurred for reasons other than the receipt of expected receipt of Federal funds. Article XXXII — Debarment and Suspension All recipients must comply with Executive Orders 12549 and 12689, which provide protection against waste, fraud and abuse by debarring or suspending those persons deemed irresponsible in their dealings with the Federal government. Article XXX111--_Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation (EHP) Compliance All recipients of financial assistance proposing projects that have the potential to impact the environment, including but not limited to construction of communication towers, modification or renovation of existing buildings, structures and facilities, or new construction including replacement of facilities must participate in the FEMA EHP review process. The EHP review process involves the submission of a detailed project description that explains the goals and objectives of the proposed project along with supporting documentation so that FEMA may determine whether the proposed project has the potential to impact environmental resources and/or historic properties. The EHP review process must be completed before funds are released to carry out the proposed project. EHP Policy Guidance can be found in FP 108-023-01, Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation Policy Guidance, at http://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/document/85376. Article XXXIV — SAFECOM Initials All recipients who receive awards made under programs that provide emergency communication equipment and its related activities must comply with the SAFECOM Guidance for Emergency Communication Grants, including provisions on technical standards that ensure and enhance interoperable communications. All recipients investing in broadband -related investments should review Information Bulletin (IB) 386: Clarification on Use of DHS/FEMA Public Safety Grant Funds for Broadband -Related Expenditures and Investments before developing applications. The SAFECOM Guidance on Emergency Communication Grants can be found at: FY 2014 SAFECOM Guidance on Emergency Communications Grants. ASSURANCES The applicant hereby assures and certifies compliance with all applicable Federal statutes, regulations, policies, guidelines, and requirements. See Article I above. The applicant also specifically assures and certifies that it: Has the legal authority to apply for Federal assistance, and the institutional, managerial, and financial capability (including funds sufficient to pay the non -Federal share of project costs) to ensure proper planning, management, and completion of the project described in this application. 2. Will give the awarding agency, the Comptroller General of the United States, and if appropriate, the State, through any authorized representative, access to and the right to examine all records, books, papers, or documents related to the assistance or award; and will establish a proper accounting system in accordance with generally accepted accounting standards or agency directives. See Article II above. 3. Will establish safeguards to prohibit employees from using their positions for a purpose that constitutes or presents the appearance of personal or organizational conflict of interest, or personal gain. 4. Will initiate and complete the work within the applicable time frame after receipt of approval of the awarding agency. Will comply with the Intergovernmental Personnel Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. §§4728-4763) relating to prescribed standards for merit systems for programs funded under one of the nineteen statutes or regulations specified in Appendix A of Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) Standards for a Merit System of Personnel Administration (5 C.F.R. 900, Subpart F). 6. Will comply with all Federal statutes relating to nondiscrimination. These include but are not limited to: (a) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-352) which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin: (b) Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended (20 U.S.C. §§ 1681- 1683, and 1685-1686), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex; (c) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. §794), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of handicaps; (d) the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended (42 U.S.C. §§6101-6107), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of age; (e) the Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-255), as amended, relating to nondiscrimination on the basis of drug abuse; (f) the Comprehensive Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Prevention, Treatment and Rehabilitation Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-616), as amended, relating to nondiscrimination on the basis of alcohol abuse or alcoholism;(g) §§523 and 527 of the Public Health Service Act of 1912 (42 U.S.C. §§290 dd-3 and 290 ee-3), as amended, relating to confidentiality of alcohol and drug abuse patient records; (h) Title VIII of the Civil Right Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. §§3601 et seq.), as amended, relating to nondiscrimination in the sale, rental, or financing of housing; (i) any other nondiscrimination provisions in the specific statute(s) under which application for Federal assistance is being made; and, 0) the Initials requirements of any other nondiscrimination statute(s) which may apply to the application. See Articles XI, XII, XIII, XIV, XV, XVI, and XVII. 7. Will comply, or has already complied, with the requirements of Titles II and III of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-646) which provide for fair and equitable treatment of persons displaced or whose property is acquired as a result of Federal and/or federally - assisted programs. These requirements apply to all interests in real property acquired for project purposes regardless of Federal participation in purchases. Will comply, as applicable, with the provisions of the Hatch Act (5 U.S.C. §§1501-1508 and 7324-7328) which limit the political activities of employees whose principal employment activities are funded in whole or in part with Federal funds. 9. Will comply, as applicable, with the provisions of the Davis -Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. §§ 276a to 276a-7), the Copeland Act (40 U.S.C. § 276c and 18 U.S.C. §874), and the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. §§327-333), regarding labor standards for federally -assisted construction subagreements. 10. Will comply, if applicable, with flood insurance purchase requirements of Section 102(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-234) which requires recipients in a special flood hazard area to participate in the program and to purchase flood insurance if the total cost of insurable construction and acquisition is $10,000 or more; and the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968. See Articles XXII and XXIII. 11. Will comply with environmental standards which may be prescribed pursuant to the following: (a) institution of environmental quality control measures under National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) of 1969 (P.L. 91-190) and Executive Order (EO) 11514; (b) notification of violating facilities pursuant to EO 11738; (c) protection of wetlands pursuant to EO 11990; (d) evaluation flood hazards in floodplains in accordance with EO 11988; (e) assurance of project consistency with the approved State management program developed under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. §§ 1451 et seq.); (f) conformity of Federal actions to State (Clean Air) Implementation Plans under Section 176(c) of the Clear Air Act of 1955, as amended (42 U.S.C. §§7401 et seq.); (g) protection of underground sources of drinking water under the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, as amended, (P.L. 93-523); and (h) protection of endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, (P.L. 93-205). See Articles XIX, XXI, and XXIV. 12. Will comply with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. §§ 1271 et seq.) related to protecting components or potential components of the national wild and scenic rivers system. 13. Will assist the awarding agency in assuring compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. §470), EO 11593 (identification and protection of historic properties), and the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. §§469a-1 et seq.). All proposed construction and renovation activities must undergo an Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation (EHP) review, including approval of the review from FEMA, prior to undertaking any action related to the project. Any applicant that is proposing a construction project should pay special attention to the EHP requirements. See Article XXXIII 14. Will comply with P.L. 93-348 regarding the protection of human subjects involved in research, development, and related activities supported by this award of assistance. See Article XX. Initials 15. Will comply with the Laboratory Animal welfare Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-544, as amended, 7 U.S.C. §§2131 et seq.) pertaining to the care, handling, and treatment of warm blooded animals held for research, teaching, or other activities supported by this award of assistance. See Article XVIII. 16. Will comply with the Lead -Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act (42 U.S.C. §§4801 et seq.) which prohibits the use of lead -based paint in construction or rehabilitation of residence structures. 17. Will cause to be performed the required financial and compliance audits in accordance with the Single Audit Act of 1996 or OMB Circular No. A-133, "Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non -Profit Organizations." 18. Will comply with all applicable requirements of all other Federal laws, executive orders, regulations and policies governing this program. This includes all requirements, restrictions and regulations identified in the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) Fiscal Year 2014 Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG) Program - California Supplement to the Federal Program Funding Opportunity Announcement; or, The State Guidance. 19. Will comply with the requirements of Section 106(g) of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) of 2000, as amended (22 U.S.C. 7104) which prohibits grant award recipients or a sub -recipient from (1) Engaging in severe forms of trafficking in persons during the period of time that the award is in effect (2) Procuring a commercial sex act during the period of time that the award is in effect or (3) Using forced labor in the performance of the award or subawards under the award. See Article X. 20. Will comply with Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD)-5, Management of Domestic Incidents. The adoption of the NIMS is a requirement to receive Federal preparedness assistance, through grants, contracts, and other activities. The NIMS provides a consistent nationwide template to enable all levels of government, tribal nations, nongovernmental organizations, and private sector partners to work together to prevent, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate the effects of incidents, regardless of cause, size, location, or complexity. 21. Will not dispose of, modify the use of, or change the terms of the real property title, or other interest in the site and facilities without permission and instructions from the awarding agency. Will record the Federal interest in the title of real property in accordance with awarding agency directives and will include a covenant in the title of real property acquired in whole or in part with Federal assistance funds to assure non- discrimination during the useful life of the project. 22. Will comply with the requirements of the assistance awarding agency with regard to the drafting, review and approval of construction plans and specifications. 23. Will provide and maintain competent and adequate engineering supervision at the construction site to ensure that the complete work conforms with the approved plans and specifications and will fiunish progress reports and such other information as may be required by the assistance awarding agency or State. 24. Will comply with Public Law (PL) 109-282 (Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006), as amended by Section 6202(a) of the Government Funding Transparency Act of 2008 (PL 110-252), which is outlined in FEMA GPD Information Bulletin NO. 350. If the subgrantee in the preceding year did not get 80% or more of its annual gross revenues from Federal Awards, and $25M or more in annual gross revenues from Federal Awards, and the public does have access to information about the compensation of the senior executives of the entity, then the subgrantee is not subject to the FFATA Financial Disclosure requirements. Initials 25. Will comply with the following: (a) All recipients of financial assistance must acknowledge and agree —and require any subrecipients, contractors, successors, transferees, and assignees acknowledge and agree —to comply with applicable provisions governing Cal OES access to records, accounts, documents, information, facilities, and staff, (b) Recipients must cooperate with any site visit, compliance/monitoring review or complaint investigation conducted by Cal OES; (c) Recipients must give Cal OES access to and the right to examine and copy records, accounts, and other documents and sources of information related to the grant and permit access to facilities, personnel, and other individuals and information as may be necessary, as required by Cal OES regulations and other applicable laws or program guidance; (d) Recipients must submit timely, complete, and accurate reports to the appropriate Cal OES officials and maintain appropriate backup documentation to support the reports; and (e) Recipients must comply with all other special reporting, data collection, and evaluation requirements, as prescribed by law or detailed in the program guidance. 26. Will comply with the EMPG-Funded Personnel Training and Exercise Requirement. All recipients of financial assistance must acknowledge and agree —and require any subrecipients, to acknowledge and agree —to comply with the EMPG-funded personnel training and exercise requirement, as detailed in both the Federal and State program guidance. Failure to comply with this requirement, by individuals whose salary is funded in part or whole with EMPG, may result in the incurred salary costs associated with the non- compliant EMPG-funded personnel from being eligible for reimbursement and/or result in the recipient's repayment of already disbursed grant funding associated with the non -compliant EMPG-funded personnel's salary -related costs. CERTIFICATIONS 1. CERTIFICATION FOR CONTRACTS GRANTS LOANS AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS: The undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that: (1) No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of an agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. See Article III. (2) If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure of Lobbying Activities," in accordance with its instructions. (3) The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly. This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352, title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. Statement for Loan Guarantees and Loan Insurance The undersigned states, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that: Initials If any funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this commitment providing for the United States to insure or guarantee a loan, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure of Lobbying Activities," in accordance with its instructions. Submission of this statement is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352, title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required statement shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. 2. DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION, AND OTHER RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS (DIRECT RECIPIENT: As required by Executive Orders 12549 and 12589, Debarment and Suspension, and implemented at 44 CFR, Part 17 (See Article XXXII): A. The applicant certifies that it and its principals: (1) Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, sentenced to a denial of Federal benefits by a State or Federal court, or voluntarily excluded from covered transactions by any Federal department or agency; (2) Have not within a three-year period preceding this application been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against them for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (Federal, State, or Local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; violation of Federal or State antitrust statutes or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, or receiving stolen property; (3) Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity (Federal, State, or Local) with commission of any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph (A)(2) of this certification; and (4) Have not within a three-year period preceding this application had one or more public transactions (Federal, State, or Local) terminated for cause or default; and B. Where the applicant is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification, he or she shall attach an explanation to this application. 3. CERTIFICATIONS REGARDING DRUG -FREE WORKPLACE REOUI EMENTS: This certification commits the applicant to compliance with the certification requirements under 44 CFR, Part 17 Government - wide Requirements for Drug -Free Workplace (Grants). See Article IX. A. The grantee certifies that it will or will continue to provide a drug -free workplace by: (a) Publishing a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in the grantee's workplace and specifying the actions that will be taken against employees for violation of such prohibition; (b) Establishing an ongoing drug -free awareness program to inform employees about— (1) The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace; (2) The grantee's policy of maintaining a drug -free workplace; Initials (3) Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation, and employee assistance programs; and (4) The penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations occurring in the workplace; (c) Making it a requirement that each employee to be engaged in the performance of the grant be given a copy of the statement required by paragraph (a); (d) Notifying the employee in the statement required by paragraph (a) that, as a condition of employment under the grant, the employee will (1) Abide by the terms of the statement; and (2) Notify the employer in writing of his or her conviction for a violation of a criminal drug statute occurring in the workplace no later than five calendar days after such conviction; (e) Notifying the agency in writing, within ten calendar days after receiving notice under subparagraph (d)(2) from an employee or otherwise receiving actual notice of such conviction. Employers of convicted employees must provide notice, including position title, to every grant officer or other designee on whose grant activity the convicted employee was working, unless the Federal agency has designated a central point for the receipt of such notices. Notice shall include the identification number(s) of each affected grant; (f) Taking one of the following actions, within 30 calendar days of receiving notice under subparagraph (d)(2), with respect to any employee who is so convicted— (1) Taking appropriate personnel action against such an employee, up to and including termination, consistent with the requirements of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; or (2) Requiring such employee to participate satisfactorily in a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation program approved for such purposes by a Federal, State, or local health, law enforcement, or other appropriate agency; (g) Making a good faith effort to continue to maintain a drug -free workplace through implementation of paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f). 4. SWEATFREE CODE OF CONDUCT: a. All applicants contracting for the procurement or laundering of apparel, garments or corresponding accessories, or the procurement of equipment, materials, or supplies, other than procurement related to a public works contract, declare under penalty of perjury that no apparel, garments or corresponding accessories, equipment, materials, or supplies furnished to the state pursuant to the subgrant have been laundered or produced in whole or in part by sweatshop labor, forced labor, convict labor, indentured labor under penal sanction, abusive forms of child labor or exploitation of children in sweatshop labor, or with the benefit of sweatshop labor, forced labor, convict labor, indentured labor under penal sanction, abusive forms of child labor or exploitation of children in sweatshop labor. The applicant further declares under penalty of perjury that they adhere to the Sweatfree Code of Conduct as set forth on the California Department of Industrial Relations website located at www.dir.ca.gov, and Public Contract Code Section 6108. b. The applicant agrees to cooperate fully in providing reasonable access to the applicant's records, documents, agents or employees, or premises if reasonably required by authorized officials of the contracting agency, the Department of Industrial Relations, or the Department of Justice to determine the contractor's compliance with the requirements under paragraph (a). Initials 5. DOMESTIC PARTNERS: For subgrants executed or amended after July 1, 2004, the applicant may elect to offer domestic partner benefits to the applicant's employees in accordance with Public Contract Code section 10295.3. However, the applicant cannot require an employee to cover the costs of providing any benefits which have otherwise been provided to all employees regardless of marital or domestic partner status. TERMS AND CONDITIONS The following laws apply to persons or entities doing business with the State of California. 1. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Applicant needs to be aware of the following provisions regarding current or former state employees. If subgrantee has any questions on the status of any person rendering services or involved with the Agreement, the awarding agency must be contacted immediately for clarification. Current State Employees (Public Contract Code §10410): 1) No officer or employee shall engage in any employment, activity or enterprise from which the officer or employee receives compensation or has a financial interest and which is sponsored or funded by any state agency, unless the employment, activity or enterprise is required as a condition of regular state employment. 2) No officer or employee shall contract on his or her own behalf as an independent contractor with any state agency to provide goods or services. Former State Employees (Public Contract Code §10411): 1) For the two-year period from the date he or she left state employment, no former state officer or employee may enter into a contract in which he or she engaged in any of the negotiations, transactions, planning, arrangements or any part of the decision -making process relevant to the contract while employed in any capacity by any state agency. 2) For the twelve-month period from the date he or she left state employment, no former state officer or employee may enter into a contract with any state agency if he or she was employed by that state agency in a policy -making position in the same general subject area as the proposed contract within the 12-month period prior to his or her leaving state service. If applicant violates any provisions of above paragraphs, such action by applicant shall render this Agreement void. (Pub. Contract Code § 10420) Members of boards and commissions are exempt from this section if they do not receive payment other than payment of each meeting of the board or commission, payment for preparatory time and payment for per diem. (Pub. Contract Code § 10430 (e)) 2. LABOR CODEIWORIKERS" COMPENSATION: Applicant needs to be aware of the provisions which require every employer to be insured against liability for Workers' Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions, and applicant affirms to comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this Agreement. (Labor Code Section 3700) 3. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT: Applicant assures the State that it complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability, as well as all applicable regulations and guidelines issued pursuant to the ADA. (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.) Initials 4. APPLICANT NAME CHANGE: An amendment is required to change the applicant's name as listed on this Agreement. Upon receipt of legal documentation of the name change the State will process the amendment. Payment of invoices presented with a new name cannot be paid prior to approval of said amendment. 5. RESOLUTION: A county, city, district, or other local public body must provide the State with a copy of a resolution, order, motion, or ordinance of the local governing body which by law has authority to enter into an agreement, authorizing execution of the agreement. 6. AIR OR WATER POLLUTION VIOLATION: Under the State laws, the applicant shall not be: (1) in violation of any order or resolution not subject to review promulgated by the State Air Resources Board or an air pollution control district; (2) subject to cease and desist order not subject to review issued pursuant to Section 13301 of the Water Code for violation of waste discharge requirements or discharge prohibitions; or (3) finally determined to be in violation of provisions of federal law relating to air or water pollution. 7. SYSTEM FOR AWARD MANAGEMENT (SAM) AND UNIVERSAL IDENTIFIER REQUIREMENTS: A. Requirement for System for Award Management (SAM) Unless you are exempted from this requirement under 2 CFR 25.110, you as the recipient must maintain the currency of your information in the SAM until you submit the final financial report required under this award or receive the final payment, whichever is later. This requires that applicants and recipients review and update the information at least annually after the initial registration, and more frequently if required by changes in your information or another award term. B. Requirement for Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) Numbers If recipients are authorized to make subawards under this award, they: 1. Must notify potential subrecipients that no entity (see definition in paragraph C of this award term) may receive a subaward from you unless the entity has provided its DUNS number to you. 2. May not make a subaward to an entity unless the entity has provided its DUNS number to you. C. Definitions For purposes of this award term: 1. System for Award Management (SAM) means the Federal repository into which an entity must provide information required for the conduct of business as a recipient. Additional information about registration procedures may be found at the SAM Internet site (currently at hLtp://www.sam.gov). 2. Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number means the nine digit number established and assigned by Dun and Bradstreet, Inc. (D&B) to uniquely identify business entities. A DUNS number may be obtained from D&B by telephone (currently 866-705-5711) or the Internet (currently at http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform). 3. Entity, as it is used in this award term, means all of the following, as defined at 2 CFR §25.320, subpart C: a. A Governmental organization, which is a State, Local government, or Indian Tribe; b. A foreign public entity; c. A domestic or foreign nonprofit organization; d. A domestic or foreign for -profit organization; and e. A Federal agency, but only as a subrecipient under an award or subaward to a non -Federal entity. 4. Subaward, as defined in 2 CFR § 170.325: a. This term means a legal instrument to provide support for the performance of any portion of the substantive project or program for which you received this award and that you as the recipient award to an eligible subrecipient. Initials b. The term does not include your procurement of property and services needed to carry out the project or program (for further explanation, see Sec. 210 of the attachment to OMB Circular A-133, " Audits of States, Local Government, and Non -Profit Organizations"). c. A subaward may be provided through any legal agreement, including an agreement that you consider a contract. 5. Subrecipient, as defined in 2 CFR §25.360, means an entity that: a. Receives a subaward from you under this award; and b. Is accountable to you for the use of the Federal funds provided by the subaward. 8. FINANCIAL GUIDELINES: The recipient and any subrecipient shall comply with the most recent version of the Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements. A non-exclusive list of regulations commonly applicable to FEMA grants are listed below: A. Administrative Requirements 1. 44 CFR 13, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments 2. 2 CFR Part 215, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non -Profit Organizations (OMB Circular A-110) 3. 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Considerations B. Cost Principles 1. 2 CFR Part 225, Cost Principles for State, Local, and Indian Tribal Governments (OMB Circular A- 87) 2. 2 CFR Part 220, Cost Principles for Educational Institutions (OMB Circular A-21) 3. 2 CFR Part 230, Cost Principles for Non -Profit Organizations (OMB Circular A-122) 4. 48 CFR 31.2, Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), Contracts with Commercial Organizations C. Audit Requirements 1. OMB Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non -Profit Organizations 9. PROHIBITION ON USING FEDERAL FUNDS: The recipient understands and agrees that it cannot use any Federal funds, either directly or indirectly, in support of the enactment; repeal, modification or adoption of any law, regulation or policy, at any level of government, without the express prior written approval of FEMA. 10. COMPLIANCE WITH PROGRAM GUIDANCE: The recipient agrees that all allocations and use of funds under this grant will be in accordance with the Program guidance and application kit. 11. CLASSIFIED SECURITY CONDITION: A. Classified national security information, as defined in Executive Order (EO) 12958, as amended, means information that has been determined pursuant to EO 12958 or any predecessor order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure and is marked to indicate its classified status when in documentary form. B. No funding under this award shall be used to support a contract, subaward, or other agreement for goods or services that will include access to classified national security information if the award recipient has not been approved for and has access to such information. C. Where an award recipient has been approved for and has access to classified national security information, no funding under this award shall be used to support a contract, subaward, or other agreement for goods or services that will include access to classified national security information by the contractor, subawardee, or other entity without prior written approval from the DHS Office of Security, Industrial Security Program Branch (ISPB), or an appropriate official within the Federal department or agency with whom the classified effort will be performed. D. Such contracts, subawards, or other agreements shall be processed and administered in accordance with the DHS "Standard Operating Procedures, Classified Contracting by States and Local Entities," dated July 7, Initials 2008; EOs 12829, 12958, 12968, as amended; the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM); and/or other applicable implementing directives or instructions. All security requirement documents are located at: http://www.dhs. og v/xopnbiz/ants/index.shtm E. Immediately upon determination by the award recipient that funding under this award will be used to support such a contract, subaward, or other agreement, and prior to execution of any actions to facilitate the acquisition of such a contract, subaward, or other agreement, the award recipient shall contact ISPB, or the applicable Federal department or agency, for approval and processing instructions. DHS Office of Security ISPB contact information: Telephone: 202-447-5346 Email: DD254AdministrativeSecurityAdhs.gov Mail: Department of Homeland Security Office of the Chief Security Officer ATTN: ASD/Industrial Security Program Branch Washington, D.C. 20528 12. REPORTING SUBAWARD AND EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION: A. Reporting of first -tier subawards. 1. Applicability. Unless you are exempt as provided in paragraph D. of this award term, you must report each action that obligates $25,000 or more in Federal funds that does not include Recovery funds (as defined in section 1512(a)(2) of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. L. 111-5) for a subaward to an entity (see definitions in paragraph E. of this award term). 2. Where and when to report. a. You must report each obligating action described in paragraph A. 1. of this award term to http://www.fsrs.go . b.For subaward information, report no later than the end of the month following the month in which the obligation was made. (For example, if the obligation was made on November 7, 2012, the obligation must be reported by no later than December 31, 2012.) 3. What to report. You must report the information about each obligating action that the submission instructions posted at http://www.fsrs.gov specify. B. Reporting Total Compensation of Recipient Executives. 1. Applicability and what to report. You must report total compensation for each of your five most highly compensated executives for the preceding completed fiscal year, if- a.The total Federal funding authorized to date under this award is $25,000 or more; b.in the preceding fiscal year, you received- i. 80 percent or more of your annual gross revenues from Federal procurement contracts (and subcontracts) and Federal financial assistance subject to the Transparency Act, as defined at 2 CFR 170.320 (and subawards); and ii. $25,000,000 or more in annual gross revenues from Federal procurement contracts (and subcontracts) and Federal financial assistance subject to the Transparency Act, as defined at 2 CFR 170.320 (and subawards); and c.The public does not have access to information about the compensation of the executives through periodic reports filed under section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a), 78o(d)) or section 6104 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. (To determine if the public has access to the compensation information, see the U.S. Security and Exchange Commission total compensation filings at http://www.sec.gov/answers/execo=.htm.) Initials 2. Where and when to report. You must report executive total compensation described in paragraph B.1. of this award term: a.As part of your registration profile at http://www.sam.gov, b.By the end of the month following the month in which this award is made, and annually thereafter. C. Reporting of Total Compensation of Subrecipient Executives. 1. Applicability and what to report. Unless you are exempt as provided in paragraph D. of this award term, for each first -tier subrecipient under this award, you shall report the names and total compensation of each of the subrecipient's five most highly compensated executives for the subrecipient's preceding completed fiscal year if - a. in the subrecipient's preceding fiscal year, the subrecipient received- i. 80 percent or more of its annual gross revenues from Federal procurement contracts (and subcontracts) and Federal financial assistance subject to the Transparency Act, as defined at 2 CFR 170.320 (and subawards); and ii. $25,000,000 or more in annual gross revenues from Federal procurement contracts (and subcontracts) and Federal financial assistance subject to the Transparency Act, as defined at 2 CFR 170.320 (and subawards); and b.The public does not have access to information about the compensation of the executives through periodic reports filed under section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a), 78o(d)) or section 6104 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. (To determine if the public has access to the compensation information, see the U.S. Security and Exchange Commission total compensation filings at http://www.sec.gov/answers/execomp.btm.) 2. Where and when to report. You must report subrecipient executive total compensation described in paragraph C.1. of the award term: a. To the recipient. b.By the end of the month following the month during which you make the subaward. For example, if a subaward is obligated on any date during the month of October of a given year (i.e., between October 1 and 31), you must report any required compensation information of the subrecipient by November 30 of that year. D. Exemptions. 1. If, in the previous tax year, you had gross income, from all sources, under $300,000, you are exempt from the requirements to report: a. Subaward, and b.The total compensation of the five most highly compensated executives of any subrecipient. E. Definitions. For purposes of the award terms: 1. Entity means all of the following, as defined in CFR §25.320: a.A Governmental organization, which is a State, Local government, or Indian Ttribe; b.A foreign public entity; c.A domestic or foreign nonprofit organization; d.A domestic or foreign for -profit organization; e.A Federal agency, but only as a subrecipient under an award or subaward to a non -Federal entity 2. Executive means officers, managing partners, or any other employees in management positions, as defined in2 CFR § 170.315. 3. Subaward, as defined in 2 CRF § 170.325: Initials a. This term means a legal instrument to provide support for the performance of any portion of the substantive project or program for which you received this award and that you as the recipient award to an eligible subrecipient. b.The term does not include your procurement of property and services needed to carry out the project or program (for further explanation, see Sec._ 210 of the attachment to OMB Circular A-133, "Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non -Profit Organizations"). c. A subaward may be provided through any legal agreement, including an agreement that you or a subrecipient considers a contract. 4. Subrecipient, as defined in 2 CFR §25.360 means an entity that: a. Receives a subaward from you (the recipient) under this award; b.Is accountable to you for the use of the Federal funds provided by the subaward. 5. Total compensation, as defined in 2 CFR § 170.330 means the cash and noncash dollar value earned by the executive during the recipient's or subrecipient's preceding fiscal year and includes the following (for more information see 17 CFR 229.402(c)(2)): a. Salary or bonus. b.Awards of stock, stock options, and stock appreciation rights. Use the dollar amount recognized for financial statement reporting purposes with respect to the fiscal year in accordance with the Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123 (Revised 2004) (FAS 123R), Shared Based Payments. c. Earnings for services under non -equity incentive plans. This does not include group life, health, hospitalization or medical reimbursement plans that do not discriminate in favor of executives, and are available generally to all salaried employees. d. Change in pension value. This is the change in present value of defined benefit and actuarial pension plans. e. Above -market earnings on deferred compensation which is not tax -qualified. f. Other compensation, if the aggregate value of all such other compensation (e.g. severance, termination payments, value of life insurance paid on behalf of the employee, perquisites or property) for the executive exceeds $10,000. Failure to comply with these requirements may result in suspension of payments under the Agreement or termination of the Agreement or both and applicant may be ineligible for award of any future State agreements if the department determines that any of the following has occurred: the applicant has made false certification, or violated the certification by failing to carry out the requirements as noted above. (Gov. Code §8350 et seq.) I, the official named below, CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY that I am duly authorized to legally bind the prospective jurisdiction to the assurances and certifications listed above. Jurisdiction (Printed) By (Authorized Signature) Printed Name and Title of Person Signing I Date Executed Initials ADDENDUM Cl T Y COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: May 5, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: CC-1 3 SUBJECT: 2014 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE GRANT (EMPG) ALLOCATION UPDATE DATE: May 1, 2015 FROM: POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PRESENTATION LIEUTENANT KEITH DAVIS, EMERGENCY SERVICES MANAGER BY: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LT. KEITH DAVIS, POLICE DEPT. EMERGENCY SERVICES MANAGER (714) 754-5660 UPDATE: FISCAL REVIEW This update reflects a change in the section relating to Fiscal Review. The grants funds ($17,800) must be expended in this Fiscal Year as the grant closes June 30, 2015. Reimbursement documentation will be presented to the County at close of grant period. Cl T Y COUNCIL A GENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: May 5, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: CC-14 SUBJECT: UPDATE OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES (CAL OES) DESIGNATION OF APPLICANT'S AGENT RESOLUTION DATE: APRIL 23, 2015 FROM: POLICE DEPARTMENT - OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PRESENTATION KEITH DAVIS, LIEUTENANT BY: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: KEITH DAVIS, LIEUTENANT (714) 754-5660 RECOMMENDATION: Update the State of California, California Emergency Management Agency (Cal OES) Designation of Applicant's Agent Resolution, under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988. BACKGROUND: The State of California, Cal OES Designation of Applicant's Agent Resolution authorizes a public entity to submit applications for the purpose of obtaining federal financial assistance, under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. ANALYSIS - The City puts forth a considerable effort towards emergency and/or disaster preparedness and response. An updated Designation of Applicant's Agent Resolution is required to meet Cal OES requirements for reimbursement purposes. A new Designation of Applicant's Agent Resolution for Non -State Agencies is required if the previously submitted document is older than three (3) years from the last date of approval. The City's previously submitted resolution (Resolution #12-36) was on April 17, 2012. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: The City Council may chose not to approve the resolution, which would exclude the City from being eligible for emergency and/or disaster recovery reimbursement from the State. FISCAL REVIEW: There are no fiscal impacts to consider. LEGAL REVIEW: The City Attorney's Office has approved the Resolution of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, California, authorizing certain officials of the City to file application with the California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) and Cal OES form 130 Designation of Applicant's Agent Resolution. CONCLUSION: Staff recommends the adoption of this resolution update of State of California, Cal OES Designation of Applicant's Agent Resolution. Copies of the updated Designation of Applicant's Agent Resolution will be forwarded to the County of Orange, Sheriff -Coroner Department/Emergency Management Bureau, which acts on behalf of the County of Orange in its capacity as the lead agency for the Operational Area. TOM HATCH Chief Executive Officer TOM DUARTE Chief Attorney KEITH DAVIS Lieutenant ATTACHMENTS: 1 2 RONALD LOWENBERG Interim Chief of Police STEPHEN DUNIVENT Interim Director of Finance Cal OES Designation of Applicant's Agent Resolution City of Costa Mesa Resolution Cal OES 130 Form 2 Attachment 1 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING CERTAIN OFFICIALS OF THE CITY TO FILE APPLICATION WITH THE CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES (Cal OES). THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, State Cal OES ensures that local jurisdictions meet federal and state eligibility requirements defined in the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act as amended, 44 CFR 302; and WEREAS, applications to be filed under the laws specified in this resolution are to be signed by one of the following City officials: Tom Hatch, Chief Executive Officer Stephen Dunivent, Interim Director of Finance Keith Davis, Emergency Services Manager NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this City Council hereby authorizes the following officials of the City of Costa Mesa to execute for and on behalf of the City of Costa Mesa, a public entity established under the laws of the State of California, to make application and to file it in the California Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA) for the purpose of obtaining certain federal assistance under P.L. 93-288, as amended by the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988; and/or state financial assistance under the Natural Disaster Assistance Act: Attachment 1 Tom Hatch, Chief Executive Officer Stephen Dunivent, Interim Director of Finance Keith Davis, Emergency Services Manager PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5t" day of May, 2015. ATTEST: Stephen Mensinger, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Brenda Green, City Clerk Tom Duarte, City Attorney Attachment 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss CITY OF COSTA MESA ) I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 15-xx and was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa at a regular meeting held on the 5t" day of May, 2015, by the following roll call vote, to wit: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 6' day of May, 2015. (SEAL) BRENDA GREEN, CITY CLERK 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES Cal OES ID No: Cal OES 130 DESIGNATION OF APPLICANT'S AGENT RESOLUTION FOR NON -STATE AGENCIES BE IT RESOLVED BY THE OF THE (Governing Body) (Name of Applicant) THAT OR (Title of Authorized Agent) ,OR (Title of Authorized Agent) (Title of Authorized Agent) is hereby authorized to execute for and on behalf of the , a public entity (Name of Applicant) established under the laws of the State of California, this application and to file it with the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services for the purpose of obtaining certain federal financial assistance under Public Law 93-288 as amended by the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988, and/or state financial assistance under the California Disaster Assistance Act. THAT the , a public entity established under the laws of the State of California, (Name of Applicant) hereby authorizes its agent(s) to provide to the Governor's Office of Emergency Services for all matters pertaining to such state disaster assistance the assurances and agreements required. Please check the appropriate box below: JE]This is a universal resolution and is effective for all open and future disasters up to three (3) years following the date of approval below. F]This is a disaster specific resolution and is effective for only disaster number(s) Passed and approved this I, (Name) (Name of Applicant) Resolution passed and approved by the of 20 (Name and Title of Governing Body Representative) (Name and Title of Governing Body Representative) (Name and Title of Governing Body Representative) CERTIFICATION duly appointed and (Title) do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of a (Governing Body) on the day of , 20_. (Signature) of the (Name of Applicant) (Title) Cal OES 130 (Rev.9/13) Page 1 Cl T Y COUNCIL A GENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: MAY 5, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: PH-1 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING FOR 2015-2019 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND FISCAL YEAR 2015-2016 FUNDING PRIORITIES FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) AND HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM (HOME) DATE: APRIL 23, 2015 FROM: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT/HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PRESENTATION BY: WILLA BOUWENS-KILLEEN, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER MIKE LINARES, CDBG/HOME COORDINATOR FOR FURTHER INFORMATION MIKE LINARES, CDBG/HOME COORDINATOR CONTACT: 714.754.5678 mike.linares@costamesaca.gov WILLA BOUWENS-KILLEEN, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER 714.754.5153 wiIla.bouwens-kiIleen@costamesaca.gov RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Hold Public Hearing regarding the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan. 2. Approve recommended allocation of $1,028,141 for the Fiscal Year 2015-2016 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Application. 3. Approve recommended allocation of $327,658 for the Fiscal Year 2015-2016 HOME Investment Partnership Grant. 4. Approve resolution (Exhibit A) to authorize the following: • City's Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to act as the official representative of the City in order to submit the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan and 2015-2016 Annual Action Plan (Exhibit B) and all certifications and assurances contained therein; • CEO to act in connection with the submission of the Annual Action Plan; • CEO to approve minor changes and provide additional information as may be required. BACKGROUND Costa Mesa is a recipient of certain Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds; the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships Grant (HOME). These two HUD programs annually provide approximately $1.3 million to the City and can be used for an array of services that assist low and moderate -income persons. The Housing and Community Development Division (HCD) of the Development Services Department is responsible for administration of the City's CDBG and HOME Grants. CDBG and HOME programs and projects must reflect the needs outlined in the City's Consolidated Plan. The Consolidated Plan is a five year planning document required by HUD for all communities receiving entitlement community development funds. The current Consolidated Plan was approved by the City Council in April of 2010, and covers Fiscal Year (FY) 2010-2011 through FY 2014-2015. Pursuant to CDBG and HOME program regulations, the City has prepared the draft 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan in order to comply with HUD's requirements and for the City to continue to receive these federal funds. The 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan covers the time period of FY 2015-2016 through FY 2019-2020. The Consolidated Plan is comprised of four primary sections: 1) Needs Assessment, 2) Market Analysis, 3) Strategic Plan, and 4) Annual Action Plan. In addition to these components, the draft contains an executive summary, a description of the process the City undertook to obtain public input, and an appendix with related tables, maps, ancillary plans, HUD forms and certificates. The Annual Action Plan is the one year expenditure plan for the use of HUD funds. For FY 2015-2016, the City will receive $1,028,141 in CDBG funds and $327,658 in HOME funds. These allocations represent a reduction of 0.35% for CDBG and 7.3% for HOME from current year funding levels. The priorities in the draft 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan were utilized to determine the proposed programs and projects presented for FY 2015- 2016 funding consideration. ANAI YSIS As a recipient of CDBG and HOME funds, the City of Costa Mesa is required to prepare a five-year strategic plan known as the Consolidated Plan. The Consolidated Plan must be prepared every three to five years. The current Consolidated Plan was approved by the City Council in 2010 and its five-year cycle will end on June 30, 2015. Unlike past Consolidated Plan cycles, HUD now requires that the City prepare and submit the Consolidated Plan via its online information and fund distribution system (IDIS). The template provided by HUD requires responses to very specific questions. HUD also requires that the City utilize the data it provides via the template. This data is based on the Five -Year American Community Survey (ACS) for 2007-2011. Additionally, HUD utilizes data from its own Comprehensive Housing Assistance Strategy (CHAS). This data is also derived from the 2007-2011 ACS. Some of the default data provided is not relevant to the City (e.g., Public Housing Authority statistics). Whenever possible, program staff utilized updated sources of information in order to make the Consolidated Plan more relevant. Needs Assessment 2 Based on the analysis of HUD's data, the following has been identified: • Regardless of tenure, 37.2% of lower income Small Related households (i.e., household of two to four related members) are paying more than 30% of their income for housing. • Regardless of tenure, approximately 35.8% of lower income Small Related households are paying more than 50% of their income for housing. • HUD data indicates that over 3,000 housing units are "crowded," that is, a housing unit with 1.01 to 1.5 persons per room excluding bathrooms, porches, foyers, halls, or half -rooms. • In general, no specific race or ethnic population in the City is disproportionately impacted by housing problems although Hispanic populations trend to be impacted by housing problems at a higher rate than other race/ethnic categories. • Based on point -in -time studies of the homeless, it is estimated there are approximately 210 homeless individuals in the City; an estimated 122 of these individuals are unsheltered. • While in general the City's public infrastructure and facilities are in good shape, there is a need to upgrade or replace aging public improvements. • There are City residents in need of services that can help improve their quality of life. In many cases, these services will allow lower income households to save financial resources on necessities such as food and clothing, which in turn can be used to preserve their current housing. Market Analysis The Market Analysis explores the resources Costa Mesa has available to address needs. The Market analysis explores components of the City's housing market such the number and types of housing units, tenure, condition, and cost. Key findings include the following: • As of January 1, 2014, the City had 42,160 housing units — over 48% of these units were constructed as multi -family housing. • According to HUD's data, approximately 58.4% of housing units are occupied by renter households. This finding is consistent with the City's Housing Element, which states that Costa Mesa has a higher proportion of renter housing units than most communities in Orange County. • Costa Mesa median home sales prices in March 2015 was $625,000 for zip code 92626 and $670,000 for zip code 92627. • Median rent for a two -bedroom unit in February 2015 was estimated to be $1,937. • HUD data indicates that only 14% of rental units in the City rent for under $1,000 per month — $1,000/month is approximately 30% of a household's income that earns $20/hour and works 40 hours per week. • Overall the City's housing stock is in good condition; however, approximately 80% of the City's owner housing stock was constructed prior to 1978. If a home is not properly maintained, after 40 years units may require rehabilitation. Approximately 77% of the City's rental housing stock is also of the same vintage. • There are an estimated 80 transitional housing shelter beds in the City; however, these resources are limited to families with children. The lack of short-term housing for single homeless adults in the City is reflective of a regional issue. The City has developed a plan to address these issues that includes HUD, City, private, and faith -based resources. 3 The City's Housing Element has identified several action steps the City can take to address the City's future housing needs, including identifying parcels that may be suitable for future housing development. The Consolidated Plan echoes several of the goals and programs outlined in the Housing Element including density bonus incentives to build affordable housing, homeowner housing rehabilitation, and the provision of services to address impediments to fair housing. Strategic Plan The Strategic Plan identifies priority housing and community needs, and lays out the City's five-year plan to address these needs. Priority needs are identified as either a high or low need. Activities that address a high priority need will be funded by the City during the five-year period provided adequate resources are available. Low priority needs will most likely not receive funding; however, if resources are available and the respective need increased in importance, funding could be allocated in future years. Table 1 provides a summary of housing and community needs identified in the Consolidated Plan: Table 1: Draft 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan Priority Goals & Outcomes Goal Category Priority Need(s) Goal Outcome Need Addressed Indicator Owner Occupied Affordable High Owner Occupied Rehabilitate 50 Housing Rehabilitation Housing Housing Housing Units Rental Housing Affordable Rental Housing Rehabilitate 1 Rehabilitation Housing Low Acquisition / Housing Unit Rehabilitation Rental Housing Affordable Rental Housing Acquire 1 Rental Acquisition Housing Low Acquisition / Housing Unit Rehabilitation Affordable Housing Code Enforce Codes of Code Enforcement Housing High Enforcement 1,250 Housing Units Emergency Shelter Homeless High Homeless Services 10 Persons & Housing Assisted Transitional Housing Homeless High Homeless Services 75 Persons & Housing Assisted Rapid Re -housing Homeless High Homeless Services 25 Households & Housing Assisted Homelessness Homeless High Homeless Services 10 Persons Prevention & Housing Assisted Tenant -Based Rental Homeless Low Homeless Services 1 Household Assistance & Housing Assisted Senior/Frail Elderly Special High Services for 2,500 Persons Services Needs Elderly/Frail Elderly Assisted Services for Disabled Special High Services for 150 Persons Needs Disabled Assisted M Goal Category Priority Need(s) Goal Outcome Need Addressed Indicator Non -Housing 2,500 Persons Youth Services Community High Youth Services Assisted Development Low and Moderate Non -Housing Services for Low & 750 Persons Income Persons Community High Moderate Income Assisted Development Persons Non -Housing Public Facility Public Facilities Community High Public Facilities Benefit: Development 2,500 Persons Non -Housing Public Public Infrastructure Community High Public Infrastructure Improvements Development Infrastructure Benefit: 7,500 Persons Program Administration High Program Other: Administration Administration 5 Years Annual Action Plan The Annual Action Plan outlines how the City will allocate both CDBG and HOME funds for eligible activities that address the priority needs identified in the Strategic Plan. Both CDBG and HOME have specific program requirements, for example, CDBG funds must be utilized to achieve one of three national objectives: Elimination of slums and blight, benefit to low and moderate -persons, or meet an urgent need. HOME funds must be used to preserve or increase housing opportunities for low-income residents living in Costa Mesa. Outlined below are the programmatic recommendations by staff to address the Consolidated Plan's priorities. Proposed budgets for FY 2015-2016 CDBG and HOME funds are also listed below: CDBG FUNDS HUD has notified the City it will receive $1,028,141 in CDBG funds for FY 2015-2016. An additional $187,000 in prior year CDBG funds are also available for programming in FY 2015-2016. Staff is recommending funding in four primary program areas; 1) Code enforcement, 2) Capital improvements, 3) Public services grants, and 4) Program administration. Code Enforcement CDBG funds may be used for code enforcement activities provided the program primarily benefits low and moderate -income persons, and that such code enforcement "together with public or private improvements, rehabilitation, or services to be provided," may be expected to arrest the decline of the area. The crux of this regulation is that any CDBG- funded code enforcement activity must have a direct nexus to the rehabilitation or improvement of housing in an eligible area. For FY 2015-2016, a total of $325,000 will be allocated to support the work efforts of two full-time code enforcement officers and one full-time clerical support staff. The enforcement activity of these two officers will be limited to Census Tract Block Groups identified by HUD (see Consolidated Plan Appendix Page 17 for map of eligible areas). 6i Capital Improvements CDBG funds may be used to improve public facilities and/or infrastructure provided the primary beneficiaries are low and moderate -income Costa Mesa residents. For FY 2015- 2016, staff is recommending over $530,000 in CDBG funds for three capital projects; 1) ADA improvements at TeWinkle Park, 2) Costa Mesa Senior Center improvements, and 3) residential street improvements. Seniors and disabled adults are presumed by HUD to be CDBG eligible. Street improvements will be limited to CDBG-eligible neighborhoods. Public Service Grants The City is allowed to allocate up to 15 percent of its annual CDBG allocation for public service grants. As authorized by the City Council, HCD staff solicited proposals from nonprofit agencies that serve Costa Mesa residents. Based on the City's FY 2015-2016 CDBG grant allocation, a maximum of $154,221 is available for public service grant funding. In March 2015, the City's Ad -Hoc Housing and Public Service Grants Committee (H&PSG Committee) interviewed grant applicants, rated and ranked applications, and developed public service grant funding recommendations. Exhibit C provides a summary of the H&PSG Committee's rating, ranking and grant recommendations for the City Council's consideration. Exhibit C also includes a summary of grant applications and a three-year funding history of CDBG public service grants. Complete public service grant applications can be found on the City's webpage (http://www.costamesaca.gov/index.aspx?page=1878). Grant recommendations are also listed in the proposed CDBG budget below. Administration HUD allows the City to allocate up to 20 percent of its annual grant for planning and program administration. Based on the FY 2015-2016 grant, a maximum of $205,628 is available for program administration. Eligible program administration expenditures include program staff salaries and benefits, contract services, legal services, and direct program operating costs. 5-1 Proposed FY 2015-2016 CDBG Budget AVAILABLE FUNDS 2015-2016 CDBG Allocation $1,028,141 Prior Year Funds $187,000 TOTAL: $1,215,141 PROPOSED PROGRAMS/PROJECTS Code Enforcement ■ Salary & Benefits - 2 FT Officers & 1 FT Clerical $289,395 ■ Allocated/Misc. $35,605 Subtotal: $325,000 Capital Improvement Projects ■ TeWinkle Park ADA Improvements $252,350 ■ Senior Center Bathroom ADA Design $25,000 ■ Senior Center Sunroom Construction $32,000 ■ Senior Center Skylight Replacement $45,000 ■ Residential Street Improvements $175,943 Subtotal: $530,293 Public Service Grants 15% Maximum ■ City of Costa Mesa Senior Counseling Program $10,000 ■ Colette's Children's Home $20,000 ■ Community SeniorSery — Congregate Meals $12,500 ■ Community SeniorSery — Home Delivered Meals $15,000 ■ Council on Aging — Orange County $10,000 ■ Elwyn California $5,720 ■ Fair Housing Foundation required $21,000 ■ Families Forward $10,000 ■ Mercy House Transitional Living Center $20,000 ■ Mika Community Development Corporation $10,000 ■ Working Wardrobes $10,000 ■ Youth Employment Services $10,000 Subtotal: $154,220 Administration 20% Maximum ■ CDBG Program Administration $205,628 Subtotal: $205,628 TOTAL: $1,215,141 Total Unappropriated Funds $0 B. HOME FUNDS The City of Costa Mesa has been notified by HUD that its FY 2015-2016 HOME Program Grant allocation is $327,658, a decrease of approximately 7.3 percent ($25,763) from the current year grant. Additional HOME funds being budgeted include $332,298 in prior year program funds for a total HOME budget of $659,956. From the FY 2015-2016 grant, a required 15 percent must be utilized for an eligible Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) project, and a maximum of 10 percent may be allocated for administration. Staff is proposing allocation FY 2015-2016 HOME funds for three core activities; 1) Single-family housing rehabilitation loans and grants, 2) CHDO reservation, and 3) Program administration. Housing Rehabilitation HOME funds may be used to improve and preserve the City's supply of owner -occupied housing for households with an income up to 80 percent of the County median. Staff is recommending continued funding of the City's Single Family Housing Rehabilitation Loan and Neighborhood Improvement Grant programs. A total of $542,699 is allocated for these programs. In addition to the allocation of HOME funds by HUD, the City also receives income when prior funded housing rehabilitation loans are repaid. Program income may be used for any HOME eligible activity. The City is required to utilize program income before it uses new grant funds; therefore, program income received during the fiscal year will be utilized for housing rehabilitation programs. The City is also allowed to keep up to 10% of program income funds for HOME administration expenditures. In recent years the City has received significant amount of program income. This income was expended as required; however, the HOME program does require that funds be committed within 24 for months of the grant award date. HUD will recapture funds that are not uncommitted within required timelines. The proposed FY 2015-2016 HOME budget is provided below. CHDO HOME program regulations required that a minimum of 15% of an annual grant allocation be utilized by a Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO). CHDO's are typically nonprofit organizations specializing in the development of low-income affordable housing. No qualified project is identified at this time. Based on the City's FY 2015-2016 HOME grant, $49,149 has been set -aside for a CHDO project. Administration HUD allows the City to allocate up to 10% of its annual grant for HOME program administration. Based on the FY 2015-2016 grant, a maximum of $32,765 is available for HOME program administration. The City also has $35,342 in prior year HOME Administration funds that will be available during the fiscal year. Eligible program administration expenditures include program staff salaries and benefits, contract services, legal services, and direct program operating costs. Proposed FY 2015-2016 HOME Budget AVAILABLE FUNDS 2015-2016 HOME Allocation $327,658 Prior Year Funds $332,298 TOTAL: $659,956 PROPOSED PROGRAMS/PROJECTS CHDO Reservation (15% Minimum) — Project to be determined $49,148 Subtotal: $49,149 Housing Rehabilitation ■ Housing Rehabilitation Loans & Grants (approx. 3 loans @ $50,000 and 15 rants) $497,036 ■ Program Staff Salary and Benefits $45,663 Subtotal: $542,699 Administration 10% Maximum ■ FY 15-16 HOME Program Administration $32,766 ■ Prior Year HOME Program Administration $35,342 Subtotal: $68,108 TOTAL: $659,956 Total Unappropriated Funds $0 The 2015-2015 Fiscal Year will be the first year of the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan cycle. The Action Plan is the link between the goals and objectives listed in the Consolidated Plan with actual projects and activities to be carried out during a 12-month period or fiscal year. The specific time frame covered by the 2015-2016 Action Plan begins July 1, 2015 and ends June 30, 2016. The Action Plan includes several HUD required components including: • A list of federal, non-federal, and private funds expected to be available to address priority needs and objectives. • A description of the activities the City will undertake in 2015-2016 to meet priority needs. • A description of the geographic distribution of federal assistance. • An outline of the activities that will be undertaken to address the needs of the City's households at -risk of homelessness, those currently homeless, and persons that are not homeless but have special needs • An evaluation of how the additional strategies outlined in the Consolidated Plan will be addressed during 2015-2016. • A discussion regarding certain program requirements for the CDBG and HOME programs. • A description of the standards and procedures used to monitor activities carried out in furtherance of the Consolidated Plan and the Action Plan. • Various forms and certifications related to the application and implementation of the Consolidated/Annual Action Plan, and the use of CDBG and HOME funds. The 2015-2016 Action Plan is included as part of the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan which is attached to this Agenda Report as Exhibit B. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS As required by HUD, a notice was published on April 4, 2015 inviting the public to review and comment on the draft document during a thirty -day (30) comment period. The comment period began April 6, 2015, and concludes May 5, 2015. FISCAL IMPACT No financial impacts are anticipated. HUD has notified the City it will receive $1,028,141 in CDBG funds for FY 2015-2016. An additional $187,000 in prior year funding is also available. HUD will reimburse the City up to these amounts for eligible CDBG program expenditures. HUD has notified the City it will receive $327,658 in HOME funds for FY 2015-2016. An additional $332,298 in prior year funding is also available. HUD will reimburse the City up to these amounts for eligible HOME program expenditures. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED City Council can choose not to fund the proposed programs and projects as recommended by staff and reallocate CDBG or HOME funds to other eligible activities. Council could also direct staff to not submit the Consolidated Plan/Action Plan; however, if the City does not submit the Plans by May 15, 2015, HOME funds will most likely be returned to the U.S. Treasury and the City's CDBG funds will be distributed proportionally among all other Orange County jurisdictions that receive CDBG funds. LEGAL IMPACT No adverse legal impact is anticipated. CONCLUSION The draft 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan has been prepared according to HUD regulations. The Consolidated Plan includes an evaluation of housing and community needs, assessed the City's current housing market and resources, and lists a number of priority needs and related objectives/goals aimed at addressing needs. The 2015-2016 Annual Action Plan was also prepared according to HUD regulations, and outlines how the City will utilize FY 2015-2016 CDBG and HOME funds to meet the objectives and goals of the Consolidated Plan. It is recommended that the City Council hold a public hearing to obtain additional public input regarding the draft 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan, and approve a resolution authorizing the Chief Executive Officer to submit the Consolidated Plan to HUD on behalf of the City of Costa Mesa. WE GARY ARMSTRONG Economic and Development Services Director MIKE LINARES CDBG/HOME Coordinator Attachments: Exhibit A — Resolution WILLA BOUWENS-KILLEEN Principal Planner Exhibit B — Draft 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan includina 2015-2016 Annual Action Plan Exhibit C — FY 2015-2016 CDBG Public Service Grant Recommendations 11 401WIMI-DWS RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF THE 2015-2019 CONSOLIDATED PLAN TO THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF THE 2015-2016 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT AND HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS ACT FUNDS APPLICATION TO THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa is a recipient of the federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and is also a participating jurisdiction in the federal Home Investment Partnerships Grant (HOME); and WHEREAS, in order to receive annual allocations of these federal programs the City is require to prepare a five-year strategic plan known as the Consolidated Plan; and WHEREAS, the federal regulations (Title 24 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91) delineate the required content of the Consolidated Plan; and WHEREAS, the City is required to submit the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) by May 15, 2015; and WHEREAS, the City is eligible to receive $1,028,141 in FY 2015-2016 Community Development Block Grant funds which can be used for housing, social service grants, public facilities, and administration, and is also eligible to receive $327,658 in FY 2015-2016 HOME Investment Partnerships funds which can be used for housing and administration as set forth in the attached 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan which includes the FY 2015-2016 Annual Action Plan; and WHEREAS, the City has published a notice of a public hearing requesting comments on the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan and the 2015-2016 Annual Action Plan; and WHEREAS, in the 2015 - 2019 Consolidated Plan and 2015-2016 Annual Action Plan, the City has considered all public comments or views which have been received either in writing or at the public hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE City Council of the City of Costa Mesa that the submission of the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan and the FY 2015-2016 Annual Action Plan is hereby authorized. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City's Chief Executive Officer, or his designee, is hereby identified as the official representative of the Grantee to submit the Consolidated Page 1 of 2 401WIMIZURS Plan, Annual Action Plan, all certifications and assurances contained therein, and to approve minor changes and provide additional information as may be required. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the City's Chief Executive Officer, or his designee, is hereby identified as the official representative of the Grantee to sign all appropriate sub- agent agreements for the use of funds approved in the FY 2015-2016 Annual Action Plan. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of May, 2015. Stephen M. Mensinger, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Brenda Green, City Clerk Thomas Duarte, City Attorney STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss CITY OF COSTA MESA I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 15- and was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa at a regular meeting held on the 5th day of May 2015, by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 6th day of May 2015. BRENDA GREEN, CITY CLERK Page 2of2 CITY OF COSTA MESA 2015-2019 CONSOLIDATED PLAN & 2015-2016 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN DRAFT APRs L 2015 TABLE OF CONTENT EXECUTIVESUMMARY........................................................................................................................... 1 THEPROCESS...................................................................................................................................... 6 NEEDSASSESSMENT........................................................................................................................... 19 HOUSING MARKET ANALYSIS................................................................................................................ 54 STRATEGICPLAN................................................................................................................................ 79 ANNUALACTION PLAN...................................................................................................................... 109 APPENDIX....................................................................................................................................... 137 Executive Summary ES-05 Executive Summary - 24 CFR 91.200(c), 91.220(b) Introduction The 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan for the City of Costa Mesa satisfies federal requirements that must be met in order for the City to receive Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Consolidated Plan is a planning document that identifies the City's housing and community needs and outlines a strategy to address these needs utilizing HUD funds. The Plan includes the following components: • An assessment of the jurisdiction's housing and community needs and market conditions • A strategy that establishes priorities for addressing identified needs • A one-year investment plan that outlines the intended use of HUD resources (the Action Plan) The City's Consolidated Plan has been devised in a way that supports HUD's community planning and development goals, which are to provide decent housing, provide a suitable living environment, and expand economic opportunities. HUD regulations require that the Consolidated Plan cover a three to five-year planning period. The City has prepared this Consolidated Plan to cover a five-year planning period that begins July 1, 2015, through June 30, 2020. Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 2. Summary of the objectives and outcomes identified in the Plan Needs Assessment Overview Based on an analysis of housing/community needs and a market analysis, the following five-year objectives/outcomes have been identified for implementation in the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan: Goal Name Category Priority Needs Addressed Potential Goal Outcome Need Funding Indicator Owner Affordable High Owner Occupied HOME: Homeowner Housing Occupied Housing Housing $1,000,000 Rehabilitated: Housing 50 Household Rehabilitation Housing Units Rental Affordable Low Rental Housing HOME: Rental units Housing Housing Acquisition / $100 rehabilitated: Rehabilitation Rehabilitation 1 Household Housing Unit Rental Affordable Low Rental Housing HOME: Rental units Housing Housing Acquisition / $100 acquired: Acquisition Rehabilitation 1 Household Housing Units Code Affordable High Housing Code CDBG: Housing Code Enforcement Housing Enforcement $1,250,000 Enforcement: 1,250 Housing Units Emergency Homeless High Homeless Services CDBG: Homeless Person Shelter and Housing $10,000 Overnight Shelter: 10 Persons Assisted Transitional Homeless High Homeless Services CDBG: Homeless Person Housing and Housing $75,000 Overnight Shelter: 75 Persons Assisted Rapid Re- Homeless High Homeless Services CDBG: Rapid Rehousing: housing and Housing $60,000 25 Households Assisted Homelessness Homeless High Homeless Services CDBG: Homelessness Prevention and Housing $15,000 Prevention: 10 Persons Assisted Tenant -Based Homeless Low Homeless Services HOME: Tenant -based rental Rental and Housing $100 assistance: Assistance 1 Household Assisted Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Goal Name Category Priority Needs Addressed Potential Goal Outcome Need Funding Indicator Senior/Frail Non- High Services for CDBG: Public service Elderly Homeless Elderly/Frail Elderly $150,000 activities other than Services Special Low/Moderate Needs Income Housing Benefit: 2,500 Persons Assisted Services for Non- High Services for CDBG: Public service Disabled Homeless Disabled $25,000 activities other than Special Low/Moderate Needs Income Housing Benefit: 150 Persons Assisted Youth Services Non- High Youth Services CDBG: Public service Housing $50,000 activities other than Community Low/Moderate Develop- Income Housing ment Benefit: 2,500 Persons Assisted Low and Non- High Services for Low & CDBG: Public service Moderate Housing Moderate Income $115,000 activities other than Income Community Persons Low/Moderate Persons Develop- Income Housing ment Benefit: 750 Persons Assisted Public Non- High Public Facilities CDBG: Public Facility Facilities Housing $250,000 Activities other than Community Low/Moderate Develop- Income Housing ment Benefit: 2,500 Persons Assisted Public Non- High Public CDBG: Public Infrastructure Infrastructure Housing Infrastructure $2,500,000 Activities other than Improvements Community Low/Moderate Develop- Income Housing ment Benefit: 7,500 Persons Assisted Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Goal Name Category Priority Needs Addressed Potential Goal Outcome Need Funding Indicator Program Admini- High Program CDBG: Other: Administra- stration Administration $1,000,000 5 Other tion 3. Evaluation of past performance At the time of the preparation of the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan, the City of Costa Mesa has partially completed the final year of the 2010-2014 Consolidated Plan cycle. Appendix Table A provides a summary of the City's 2010-2014 Consolidated Plan accomplishments. (Note that Fiscal Year (FY) 2014- 2015 accomplishments are not included in this table.) 4. Summary of citizen participation process and consultation process A key element of the Consolidated Plan preparation process is the input of residents, businesses and other community stakeholders. This input was facilitated by the implementation of the City's Citizen Participation Plan (see Appendix — page 23). Opportunities for public participation included the following: • "Housing & Community Needs Survey" — Survey was available online and by hard copy from January 15, 2015 through February 28, 2015. The survey was available in English and Spanish. A copy of the survey and a summary of results is provide in the Appendix (page 2). • Two community stakeholders' meetings were held on January 22, 2015 and February 12, 2015. Meetings were held at two different locations (City Hall and Costa Mesa Senior Center) during evening hours (see meeting flyers Appendix page 7). • Resident advisory committee public meeting to receive input regarding public service needs and to prioritize funding for FY 2015-16 public service grants (March 4, 2015). • City Council Public Hearing to receive additional public input and to approve the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan and the FY 2015-16 CDBG and HOME program funding plan (May 5, 2015) During the preparation of the Consolidated Plan, the City also consulted with other City departments, community -based social service providers, adjacent local governments, and various County/State agencies. 5. Summary of public comments [To be updated at the end of the public comment period] 6. Summary of comments or views not accepted and the reasons for not accepting them [To be updated at the end of the public comment period] Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 4 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 7. Summary The 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan has been prepared by the City of Costa Mesa in order to continue to receive CDBG and HOME funds over the next five-year time period. In order to determine how the City will allocate these funds, a public input process was utilized. This process included solicitation of information regarding priority housing and non -housing community needs from State and County agencies and local service providers. City residents were invited to participate in the process via a needs survey, and by attending various community workshops and meetings. Comments received at meetings were addressed; however, as required, all written comments and Staff responses are incorporated into this document. HUD has notified the City of Costa Mesa that it will receive $1,028,141 in CDBG and $327,658 in HOME funds for FY 2015-2016. The City has also identified prior year funds that will be available to undertake eligible activities in FY 2015-2016. The Annual Action Plan outlines the use of these funds which include housing rehabilitation for lower income homeowners, public facility and infrastructure improvements, the enforcement of housing and building codes, social services for lower income Costa Mesa residents, and program administration. Activities to be funded will address a priority need identified in the Consolidated Plan. Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 The Process PR-05 Lead & Responsible Agencies 24 CFR 91.200(b) 1. Describe agency/entity responsible for preparing the Consolidated Plan and those responsible for administration of each grant program and funding source The following are the agencies/entities responsible for preparing the Consolidated Plan and those responsible for administration of each grant program and funding source. Agency Role Name Department/Agency CDBG Administrator COSTA MESA Housing & Community Dev/Development Services HOME Administrator COSTA MESA Housing & Community Dev/Development Services Table 1— Responsible Agencies Narrative The City's Housing and Community Development (HCD) Division of the Development Services Department is primarily responsible for the preparation of the Consolidated Plan and for administration of CDBG and HOME funds. Consolidated Plan Public Contact Information Mike Linares, CDBG/HOME Coordinator, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92628, (714) 754-5678 — mike.linares@costamesaca.gov. Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 6 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 PR-10 Consultation - 91.100, 91.200(b), 91.215(I) Introduction The Consolidated Plan process requires jurisdictions to contact and consult with other public and private agencies when developing the Plan. The Consolidated Plan itself must include a summary of the consultation process, including identification of the agencies that participated in the process. Jurisdictions also are required to summarize their efforts to enhance coordination between public and private agencies. Provide a concise summary of the jurisdiction's activities to enhance coordination between public and assisted housing providers and private and governmental health, mental health and service agencies (91.215(1)). The City of Costa Mesa does not own or manage public housing. Similarly, the City does not administer the Housing Choice Voucher Program. The voucher program is administered in the City of Costa Mesa by the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA). The City is a member of the OCHA Cities Advisory Committee, which provides OCHA staff with input regarding program policies. In January 2011, the City Council created a Homeless Task Force to address challenges caused by the City's homeless population. The Task Force brought together diverse members of the community, including church leaders, business owners, social workers, mental health experts, police officers, and residents, in an effort to, "establish realistic strategies and make recommendations that address the needs of the Costa Mesa community, residents, businesses and the homeless." The Homeless Task Force served as the basis for the creation of additional homeless and neighborhood -issues based working groups that have been key to the coordination of private, faith -based, and government health, mental health and service agencies. One such working group was the Neighborhood Improvement Task Force. The Neighborhood Improvement Task Force, which was primarily a multi -departmental working group, was established to address issues such as homelessness, recovery homes, abandoned properties, motels, and neighborhood preservation. To complete these tasks, the assistance of other government and nonprofit service agencies were engaged. Examples include the Orange County Probation Department, Orange County Health Care Agency — Mental Health Division, Orange County Library System, and the Veterans Administration. Nonprofit and faith -based service providers that were engaged included Mercy House Transitional Living Center, Veterans First, Saddleback Church, The Crossing Church, and many others. Describe coordination with the Continuum of Care and efforts to address the needs of homeless persons (particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans, and unaccompanied youth) and persons at risk of homelessness. Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 In 2014, the Neighborhood Improvement Task Force gave way to the Network for Homeless Solutions (NHS), a working group of City staff, representatives of service providers and faith -based organizations. The NHS is focused on establishing direct links to services for the homeless - especially for those with strong ties to Costa Mesa - and facilitating access to these services. Another key element of this working group is the undertaking of a unique count of the City's homeless with the assistance of local volunteers, churches and Vanguard University (located in Costa Mesa). The group also serves as a liaison to the business community by assisting them in mitigating impacts of homeless persons on those businesses and engaging businesses in supporting efforts to reduce homelessness. Describe consultation with the Continuum(s) of Care that serves the jurisdiction's area in determining how to allocate ESG funds, develop performance standards and evaluate outcomes, and develop funding, policies and procedures for the administration of HMIS The City is not a recipient of Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) funds; therefore, it does not assist the Orange County — Continuum of Care (OC-CoC) with the determination of ESG allocations, nor evaluating outcome, or developing policies and procedures for the administration of HMIS. 2. Describe Agencies, groups, organizations and others who participated in the process and describe the jurisdiction's consultations with housing, social service agencies and other entities Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Table 2 — Agencies, groups, organizations who participated 1 Agency/Group/Organization 211 ORANGE COUNTY Agency/Group/Organization Type Services -homeless Regional organization Planning organization What section of the Plan was addressed Homelessness Strategy by Consultation? Homeless Needs - Chronically homeless Homeless Needs - Families with children Homelessness Needs - Veterans Homelessness Needs - Unaccompanied youth How was the Regional Continuum of Care coordinator and HMIS Agency/Group/Organization consulted administrator; provided significant information and what are the anticipated outcomes regarding regional and City homeless population of the consultation or areas for improved and shelter resources. coordination? 2 Agency/Group/Organization State of California Agency/Group/Organization Type Health Agency Other government - State What section of the Plan was addressed Lead -based Paint Strategy by Consultation? Economic Development Market Analysis Demographics How was the Various State departments and agencies were Agency/Group/Organization consulted consulted to obtain information regarding and what are the anticipated outcomes employment, demographics, and lead poisoning. of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? 3 Agency/Group/Organization City of Costa Mesa Agency/Group/Organization Type Housing Services -Elderly Persons Services -homeless Other government - Local Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 What section of the Plan was addressed Housing Need Assessment by Consultation? Lead -based Paint Strategy Homelessness Strategy Homeless Needs - Chronically homeless Homeless Needs - Families with children Homelessness Needs - Veterans Economic Development Market Analysis How was the Various City departments, commissions and City Agency/Group/Organization consulted Council provided a variety of data and information. and what are the anticipated outcomes Also played a key role in identifying priorities and of the consultation or areas for improved with the allocation of HUD funds. coordination? 4 Agency/Group/Organization Fair Housing Foundation Agency/Group/Organization Type Service -Fair Housing What section of the Plan was addressed Housing Need Assessment by Consultation? Market Analysis Impediments to fair housing How was the Agency helped identify the needs of lower income Agency/Group/Organization consulted families and individuals requiring fair housing and what are the anticipated outcomes services. Also provided consultation on the City's of the consultation or areas for improved strategy to address impediments to fair housing. coordination? 5 Agency/Group/Organization Orange County Housing Authority Agency/Group/Organization Type Housing Public Housing Authority (PHA) Other government - County What section of the Plan was addressed Housing Need Assessment by Consultation? Public Housing Needs Homeless Needs - Families with children Homelessness Needs - Veterans Homelessness Needs - Unaccompanied youth Non -Homeless Special Needs Market Analysis Anti -poverty Strategy Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 10 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 How was the OCHA provided significant information regarding Agency/Group/Organization consulted the number of Costa Mesa residents receiving and what are the anticipated outcomes rental assistance and also those who have applied of the consultation or areas for improved for rental assistance. Vouchers/Certificates coordination? provided by OCHA are a key component of the City's housing needs strategy for lower income renter households. 6 Agency/Group/Organization Mercy House Agency/Group/Organization Type Services -homeless What section of the Plan was addressed Housing Need Assessment by Consultation? Homelessness Strategy Homeless Needs - Chronically homeless Homeless Needs - Families with children Homelessness Needs - Veterans How was the Agency assisted with development of the City's Agency/Group/Organization consulted homeless strategy and implementation of and what are the anticipated outcomes service/housing programs to assist the of the consultation or areas for improved homelessness and those at risk of becoming coordination? homeless. 7 Agency/Group/Organization Families Forward Agency/Group/Organization Type Services -homeless What section of the Plan was addressed Housing Need Assessment by Consultation? Homeless Needs - Families with children How was the Agency helped identify needs and assisted with Agency/Group/Organization consulted implementation of the City's homeless and what are the anticipated outcomes service/housing strategy with a focus on homeless of the consultation or areas for improved families with children. coordination? 8 Agency/Group/Organization Colette's Children's Home Agency/Group/Organization Type Services -homeless What section of the Plan was addressed Housing Need Assessment by Consultation? Homeless Needs - Chronically homeless Homeless Needs - Families with children Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 11 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 How was the Agency helped identify needs and assisted with Agency/Group/Organization consulted implementation of the City's homeless and what are the anticipated outcomes service/housing strategy with a focus on homeless of the consultation or areas for improved women and women with children. coordination? 9 Agency/Group/Organization Elwyn California Agency/Group/Organization Type Services -Persons with Disabilities Services -Employment What section of the Plan was addressed Non -Homeless Special Needs by Consultation? Economic Development Anti -poverty Strategy How was the Agency provided input on City's special needs Agency/Group/Organization consulted populations, specifically economic opportunities for and what are the anticipated outcomes persons with developmental disabilities. of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? 10 Agency/Group/Organization Mika Community Development Corp Agency/Group/Organization Type Services -Children Services -Education What section of the Plan was addressed Public service needs by Consultation? How was the Agency helped identify needs and provided input Agency/Group/Organization consulted regarding the City's youth, specifically educational and what are the anticipated outcomes needs in lower income neighborhoods. of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? 11 Agency/Group/Organization Youth Employment Services Agency/Group/Organization Type Services -Children Services -Employment What section of the Plan was addressed Economic Development by Consultation? Anti -poverty Strategy Youth services How was the Agency helped identify needs and provided input Agency/Group/Organization consulted regarding the City's youth, specifically economic and what are the anticipated outcomes needs/opportunities for youth age 16 to 24. of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 12 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 12 Agency/Group/Organization Community Senior Serve Agency/Group/Organization Type Services -Elderly Persons What section of the Plan was addressed Non -Homeless Special Needs by Consultation? Market Analysis Anti -poverty Strategy How was the Agency helped identify needs and provided input Agency/Group/Organization consulted regarding the City's special needs populations, and what are the anticipated outcomes specifically seniors and frail elderly. of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? 13 Agency/Group/Organization Council on Aging Orange County Agency/Group/Organization Type Housing Services -Elderly Persons Services -Persons with Disabilities What section of the Plan was addressed Housing Need Assessment by Consultation? Non -Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency helped identify needs and provided input Agency/Group/Organization consulted regarding the City's special needs populations, and what are the anticipated outcomes specifically seniors, frail elderly/disabled adults. of the consultation or areas for improved Also provided data regarding special needs housing coordination? resources. Identify any Agency Types not consulted and provide rationale for not consulting The City made an effort to have as open a consultation process as possible. No one agency type was knowingly not consulted. Other local/regional/state/federal planning efforts considered when preparing the Plan Name of Plan Lead Organization How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? Continuum of Care 211-OC Helped the City establish needs and program goals to address homelessness in the City Ten -Year Plan to End County of Orange Helped establish priority homeless housing needs Homelessness and discharge planning Regional Analysis of OC HUD Grantee Identified regional fair housing impediments that Impediments to Fair Cities were applicable to the City and which were Housing Choice incorporated into Consolidated Plan goals Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 13 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Name of Plan Lead Organization How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? 5-Year & 1-Year Public Orange County OCHA provided information regarding the housing Housing Authority (PHA) Housing Authority needs of lower income renter households which Plan (OCHA) were incorporated into the Consolidated Plan City of Costa Mesa City of Costa Mesa Projects identified in the Capital Improvement Capital Improvement Plan that are within CDBG-eligible areas were Plan utilized to help establish Con Plan goals City of Costa Mesa City of Costa Mesa The City made an effort to ensure the Housing Housing Element Element and Consolidated Plan were consistent 2012 Costa Mesa Vanguard University Costa Mesa homeless census data was utilized to Homeless Census prioritize use of limited funding and to identify the most vulnerable among the City's homeless Table 3 — Other local / regional / federal planning efforts Describe cooperation and coordination with other public entities, including the State and any adjacent units of general local government, in the implementation of the Consolidated Plan (91.215(I)) The State Department of Health was consulted to obtain information regarding elevated lead blood levels in children as part of the City's assessment of lead -based paint hazards. State agencies were also consulted to obtain updated housing and population information. The County of Orange was contacted to obtain an array of data including information regarding the number of households receiving rental assistance, homeless count, and regional homeless plans. Local governments also assisted the City with preparation of the Consolidated Plan. As the current and past recipient of Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) funds, the cities of Anaheim and Santa Ana were helpful in providing information regarding the number of Costa Mesa residents living with HIV and AIDS. The City also participated in roundtable meetings with other Orange County HUD grantees to discuss the preparation of a regional analysis of impediments to fair housing, and the impact of pending fair housing regulations. Narrative (optional): Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 14 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 PR-15 Citizen Participation 1. Summary of citizen participation process/Efforts made to broaden citizen participation Summarize citizen participation process and how it impacted goal -setting Pursuant to HUD regulations, the City undertook several steps to obtain the input of community residents and stakeholders as it developed the Consolidated Plan. Consultation efforts included community workshops, a housing and community needs survey, and public meetings (resident advisory committee and City Council). The City also consulted with State and regional agencies, as well as special districts and neighboring cities. The City utilized press notices, public announcements (at City Council meetings), the City's internet webpage, and newspaper notices, to inform residents and stakeholders of the opportunity to provide input and to review/comment on the draft Consolidated Plan. All City Council meetings were notices in local newspapers of general circulation. Additionally, the draft Consolidated Plan was posted on the City's website for public review and comment, and hard copies were made available during the required 30-day public comment period which was held from April 6, 2015 to May 5, 2015 (see Appendix page 11). Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 15 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Citizen Participation Outreach Sort Order Mode of Outreach Target of Outreach Summary of response/attendance Summary of comments received Summary of comments not accepted and reasons URL (If applicable) 1 Public Meeting Non- Attendance: Where will survey NA NA (1/22/15) targeted/broad residents & social results be posted? community service provider (6) What is schedule for Con Plan? There is a need for more programs for youth —too many senior programs are being funded. How does the City verify the effectiveness of the program after it has beenfunded? Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 16 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Sort Order Mode of Outreach Target of Outreach Summary of Summary of Summary of comments URL (If response/attendance comments received not accepted applicable) and reasons 2 Public Meeting Non- Attendance: Is there a match NA NA (2/2/15) targeted/broad residents (15) requirement for community either grant? Can HOME funds be spent outside of the City of Costa Mesa? Where will survey results be posted? Why has there been a decrease in HUD funding? How does the Council decide to allocate funds? 4 Public Meeting Non- Citizen Advisory When will NA NA targeted/broad Committee — (8) plus Committee's community resident (1) recommendations be presented to the City Council? 5 Newspaper Ad Non- NA TBD TBD NA targeted/broad community Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 17 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Sort Order Mode of Outreach Target of Outreach Summary of Summary of Summary of comments URL (If response/attendance comments received not accepted applicable) and reasons 7 Public Hearing Non- TBD TBD TBD NA targeted/broad community Table 4 — Citizen Participation Outreach Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 18 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Needs Assessment NA-05 Overview Needs Assessment Overview HUD has provided the City with extensive data in order to assess the housing needs of Costa Mesa residents. This data is based on five-year American Community Survey (ACS) data (for 2007-2011) and HUD's special tabulation of housing data — the Comprehensive Housing Assessment Strategy or CHAS. Updated information is provided when available. The housing needs to be assessed in this section of the Consolidated Plan include the following: • Household demographics including population, number of households, and the number of households experiencing "housing problems," such as housing cost burden and overcrowding. • The extent to which housing problems are experienced disproportionally by one or more racial or ethnic groups. • Public housing needs — NOTE THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DOES NOT OWN OR MANAGE PUBLIC HOUSING. • An assessment of homeless needs, including an estimated number of sheltered and unsheltered individuals. This section will also assess the City's "Non -housing Community Development Needs," that is, public facility, infrastructure, and social service needs. Definitions Housing Problems: HUD's housing needs estimates are based on an assessment of Census data of households that are experiencing one or more "housing problems." Per HUD, a household is experiencing a housing problem if their residential unit is subject to one or more of the following: • Lack of a complete kitchen or plumbing facilities. • Cost Burden - More than 30% of a household's total gross income is spent on housing costs. For renters, housing costs include rent paid by the tenant plus utilities. For owners, housing costs include mortgage payment, taxes, insurance, and utilities. • Severe Cost Burden - More than 50% of a household's total gross income is spent on housing costs. For renters, housing costs include rent paid by the tenant plus utilities. For owners, housing costs include mortgage payment, taxes, insurance, and utilities. • Overcrowded - Defined as a housing unit with 1.01 to 1.5 persons per room excluding bathrooms, porches, foyers, halls, or half -rooms. Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 19 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 • Severely Overcrowded - Is defined as housing with more than 1.51 persons per room excluding bathrooms, porches, foyers, halls, or half -rooms. Household Types: HUD data also characterizes households by type — HUD's household definitions are as follows: • Small Related: Household with two to four related members • Large Related: Household with five or more related members • Elderly: Household whose head, spouse, or sole member is a person who is at least 62 years of age • Other: All other households Housing Income: HUD also categorizes households by income groups: • Extremely low-income — Household with an income equal to 0% to 30% of the Area Median Income (AMI) • Very low-income — Households with an income equal to 30% to 50% of the AMI • Low -Income — Household with an income equal to 50% to 80% of the AMI • Low and Moderate -income or Lower Income — a household with an income less than 80% of AMI • Moderate -income — a household with income equal to 80% to 100% of AMI Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 20 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 NA-10 Housing Needs Assessment - 24 CFR 91.205 (a,b,c) Summary of Housing Needs The data in this section analyzes households with housing problems, that is those experiencing 1) overcrowding; 2) substandard housing; 3) cost burden (paying more than 30% of household income for housing costs); and 4) severe cost burden (spending over 50% of household income for housing costs). Demographics Base Year: 2000 Most Recent Year: 2011 % Change Population 109,084 109,796 1 Households 39,371 40,720 3% Median Income $50,732.00 $65,471.00 29% Table 5 - Housing Needs Assessment Demographics Data Source: 2000 Census (Base Year), 2007-2011 ACS (Most Recent Year) UPDATED INFORMATION: A search of current data found that the California Department of Finance estimates Costa Mesa's 2014 population at 111,846. This same State agency also estimates there are 39,984 Costa Mesa households. The 2009-2013 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates approximates Costa Mesa's median income at $65,830 [2009-2013 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates - Table DP031. Number of Households Table 0-30% HAMFI >30-50% HAMFI >50-80% HAMFI >80-100% HAMFI >100% HAMFI Total Households * 5,740 5,690 7,385 4,985 16,920 Small Family Households * 1,600 2,190 2,940 1,720 8,135 Large Family Households * 770 925 750 450 1,025 Household contains at least one person 62-74 years of age 755 770 1,030 520 2,520 Household contains at least one person age 75 or older 880 705 700 330 750 Households with one or more children 6 years old or younger * 1,280 1,420 1,345 715 1,039 * the highest income category for these family types is >80% HAMFI Table 6 - Total Households Table Data 2007-2011 CHAS Source: Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 21 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Housing Needs Summary Tables 1. Housing Problems (Households with one of the listed needs) Renter Owner 0-30% >30- >50- >80- Total 0-30% >30- >50- >80- Total AMI 50% 80% 100% AMI 50% 80% 100% AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS Substandard Housing - Lacking complete plumbing or kitchen facilities 105 45 125 30 305 0 0 10 0 10 Severely Overcrowded - With >1.51 people per room (and complete kitchen and plumbing) 315 260 175 70 820 0 25 10 10 45 Overcrowded - With 1.01-1.5 people per room (and none of the above problems) 605 615 585 200 2,005 50 60 40 35 185 Housing cost burden greater than 50% of income (and none of the above problems) 2,330 1,840 410 50 4,630 965 760 705 400 2,830 Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 22 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Renter Owner 0-30% >30- >50- >80- Total 0-30% >30- >50- >80- Total AMI 50% 80% 100% AMI 50% 80% 100% AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI Housing cost burden greater than 30% of income (and none of the above problems) 155 990 2,355 1,170 4,670 105 295 490 450 1,340 Zero/negative Income (and none of the above problems) 240 0 0 0 240 130 0 0 0 130 Table 7 — Housing Problems Table Data 2007-2011 CHAS Source: 2. Housing Problems 2 (Households with one or more Severe Housing Problems: Lacks kitchen or complete plumbing, severe overcrowding, severe cost burden) Renter Owner 0-30% >30- >50- >80- Total 0-30% >30- >50- >80- Total AMI 50% 80% 100% AMI 50% 80% 100% AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS Having 1 or more of four housing problems 3,350 2,765 1,290 345 7,750 1,015 840 765 445 3,065 Having none of four housing problems 555 1,220 3,725 3,055 8,555 450 865 1,605 1,140 4,060 Household has negative income, but none of the other housing problems 240 0 0 0 240 130 0 0 0 130 Table 8 — Housing Problems 2 Data 2007-2011 CHAS Source: Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 23 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 3. Cost Burden > 30% Renter Owner 0-30% AMI >30-50% AMI >50-80% AMI Total 0-30% AMI >30-50% AMI >50-80% AMI Total NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS Small Related 1,180 1,655 1,045 3,880 210 360 595 11165 Large Related 605 585 315 1,505 80 150 125 355 Elderly 635 310 235 1,180 465 485 390 1,340 Other 1,045 1,090 1,480 3,615 320 100 85 505 Total need by income 3,465 3,640 3,075 10,180 1,075 1,095 1,195 3,365 Table 9 — Cost Burden > 30% Data 2007-2011 CHAS Source: 4. Cost Burden > 50% Renter Owner 0-30% AMI >30-50% AMI >50- 80% AMI Total 0-30% AMI >30- 50% AMI >50- 80% AMI Total NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS Small Related 1,075 820 105 2,000 195 295 425 915 Large Related 565 145 20 730 80 105 85 270 Elderly 560 270 65 895 395 285 165 845 Other 1,030 815 215 2,060 300 90 35 425 Total need by income 3,230 2,050 405 5,685 970 775 710 2,455 Table 10 — Cost Burden > 50% Data 2007-2011 CHAS Source: 5. Crowding (More than one person per room) Renter Owner 0- >30- >50- >80- Total 0- >30- >50- >80- Total 30% 50% 80% 100% 30% 50% 80% 100% AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS Single family households 755 625 525 210 2,115 50 60 35 15 160 Multiple, unrelated family households 135 270 195 55 655 0 25 10 30 65 Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 24 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Renter Owner 0- >30- >50- >80- Total 0- >30- >50- >80- Total 30% 50% 80% 100% 30% 50% 80% 100% AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI Other, non -family households 35 0 55 0 90 0 0 0 0 0 Total need by 925 895 775 265 2,860 50 85 45 45 225 income Table 11— Crowding Information —1/2 Data 2007-2011 CHAS Source: Renter Owner 0- >30- >50- Total 0- >30- >50- Total 30% 50% 80% 30% 50% 80% AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI Households with Children Present 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Table 12 — Crowding Information — 2/2 Data Source Comments: Describe the number and type of single person households in need of housing assistance. HUD's data does not provide a breakdown of single person households in need of housing assistance. It does provide information for "Other" households, which is defined by HUD as "an individual or household that is not a family, living alone or with non -relatives." The 2007-2011 American Community Survey does provide more data regarding one -person households. According to this source, the largest segment of the City's single -person households are age 15 to 54, followed by single person households age 65 and older (see Appendix Table B). Table B seems to indicate that the majority of Costa Mesa's single -person households are an age where they are reaching, or are in, their prime earning potential. The majority of this age group are renters which seems to further indicate a more mobile population group, i.e., they may move in or out of the city as employment opportunities and life situations change. Housing needs for this group of households may focus on location to work centers, amenities, and affordable housing. The next largest group of one -person households are homeowners age 65 and older (when combined with one -person households age 74 and over). These households are most likely empty nesters or mobile home owners. Housing needs for these households may focus on housing rehabilitation assistance in order to improve their homes without incurring additional debt. Estimate the number and type of families in need of housing assistance who are disabled or victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking. Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 25 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 OCHA reports that its 2012 housing assistance waitlist included 354 disabled Costa Mesa applicants — 54 of these applicants were households with minor children. The State of California, Department of Justice reports that in 2013, 9,960 domestic violence -related calls for assistance were reported to various Orange County law enforcement agencies. Orange County's 2014 Point -In -Time count of the region's homeless reported that 467 victims of domestic violence were sheltered on the night of the count. With 3.6% of the County's population, it is estimated that at any point in time, 17 Costa Mesa victims of domestic violence would be in need of housing assistance. What are the most common housing problems? Based on HUD's data (Table 7), an estimated 16,840 of the City's households, with incomes equal to the county median income or less, are experiencing one of four "housing problems." More specifically, based on this HUD data, approximately 80.0% of renter and owner households, regardless of income, have a housing cost burden. With respect to crowding, HUD's data indicates that approximately 16.0% of households are impacted by some form of crowding. Substandard housing is not a significant issue (1.9% of listed households). Are any populations/household types more affected than others by these problems? As outlined above, based on HUD data, the most prevalent problem among Costa Mesa households is cost burden. Crowding is problematic - housing lacking complete plumbing or kitchen facilities represents less than 2% of the City's housing problems. Housing Cost Burden (30% of income for housing) - The following findings are based on HUD data Table 9. Data is only for lower income households, i.e., households with an income equal to or less than 80% AMI: • Regardless of tenure, approximately 37.2% of Small Related, lower income Cost Mesa households are housing cost burdened. This is the largest segment of households impacted by housing cost burden. • Among lower income renter households, the largest segment of cost burden households are Small Related households (approximately 38.1%). • Among extremely low-income renter households, approximately 53.8% of Elderly households are cost burdened. • Among lower income homeowner, the largest segment of cost burdened households are Elderly households (approximately 39.8%). • Among extremely low-income homeowners, approximately 63.4% of "Other" households are cost burdened. Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 26 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Severe Cost Burden (50% of income for housing) - The following findings are based on HUD data Table 10. Data is only for lower income households, i.e., household with an income equal to or less than 80% AMI: • Regardless of tenure, approximately 35.8% of Small Related, lower income Cost Mesa households are severely housing cost burdened. This is the largest segment of households impacted by severe housing cost burden. • Among lower income renter households, the largest segment of severely cost burden households are "Other" households (approximately 36.2%). • Among extremely low-income renter households, approximately 77.4% of Large Related households are severely housing cost burdened. • Among lower income homeowner, the largest segment of severely cost burdened households are Small Related households (approximately 37.3%). • Among extremely low-income homeowners, approximately 70.6% of Elderly households are severely cost burdened. Crowding - The following findings are based on HUD data Table 11. Data is only for households with an income equal to or less than 100% AMI: • 3,085 Costa Mesa households have a crowding issue. Of these households: • Approximately 74% of single family renter households are living in crowded housing units. • Over 71% of single family owner households are living in crowded housing units. • Approximately 23.3% of renter and homeowner households that are occupied by "multiple, unrelated family households," are crowded. Describe the characteristics and needs of Low-income individuals and families with children (especially extremely low-income) who are currently housed but are at imminent risk of either residing in shelters or becoming unsheltered 91.205(c)/91.305(c)). Also discuss the needs of formerly homeless families and individuals who are receiving rapid re -housing assistance and are nearing the termination of that assistance The National Alliance to End Homelessness suggests that households at risk of homelessness are often on a fixed income or marginally employed. Due to limited income and high housing costs, at risk households are typically cost burdened, and in most cases, severely cost burdened (National Alliance to End Homelessness website, FAQ). Table 10 indicates that a significant number of Costa Mesa extremely low-income households are severely cost burdened. An estimated 3,230 extremely low-income renter households are paying more than 50% of income for housing —1,640 of these households are "related" families. Table 10 also shows that an estimated 970 owner households are severely housing cost burdened - it is important to note that the largest segment of at -risk homeowners are seniors (40.7%). Senior households are most often on fixed incomes and living with significant medical issues making their housing situation precarious. Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 27 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 The City of Costa Mesa does not receive Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) funds or other HUD funding that may be used for rapid re -housing, therefore, the City does not have any information regarding formerly homeless families and individuals receiving rapid re -housing assistance that may be nearing the termination of assistance. If a jurisdiction provides estimates of the at -risk population(s), it should also include a description of the operational definition of the at -risk group and the methodology used to generate the estimates: As indicated previously, extremely low-income households that are experiencing severe housing cost burden are most at risk of becoming homeless. The methodology for estimating the number of renter and owner households that may be at risk of homelessness is outlined above. Specify particular housing characteristics that have been linked with instability and an increased risk of homelessness The National Alliance to End Homelessness has indicated that households with extremely low-income and that are severely housing costs burdened are most at risk of becoming homeless. Discussion Based on HUD data, a significant percentage of low and moderate -income Costa Mesa households are experiencing a housing problem. The most prevalent housing issue is housing cost: • Among lower income households, Small Related households represent the largest segment of households that are housing cost burdened (37.2%). • Among lower income renter households, the largest segment of households impacted by housing cost burden are Small Related households (38.1%), and among homeowners, Elderly households represent the largest segment of households impacted by housing cost burden (39.8%). • Among lower income households, Small Related households represent the largest segment of households that are severely housing cost burdened (35.8%) • Among lower income renter households, the largest segment of households impacted by severe housing cost burden are "Other" households (36.2%), and among homeowners, Small Related households represent the largest segment of households impacted by severe housing cost burden (37.3%). HUD data indicates that substandard housing is not a significant issue in the City; however, crowded housing, among households with an income equal to or less than 100% of AMI, is problematic: • Less than 2% of the City's housing stock occupied by median income households lack complete plumbing or kitchen facilities. Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 28 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 • 73.7% of crowded housing units are occupied by single family households (with incomes equal to or less than 100% AMI) — 23.3% of crowded housing units are occupied by "multiple, unrelated family households." There is a significant number of households in the City that are potentially at risk of homelessness. These are households with extremely low income (0% to 30% AMI) that are paying more than 50% of their income for housing (severely housing cost burdened). According to HUD data, 4,200 households meet these characteristics (3,230 renter households and 970 owner households). Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 29 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 NA-15 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Problems — 91.205 (b)(2) Assess the need of any racial or ethnic group that has disproportionately greater need in comparison to the needs of that category of need as a whole. Introduction For this analysis, disproportionately greater need exists when the percentage of persons in a category of need who are members of a particular racial or ethnic group is at least 10% points higher than the percentage of persons in that category as a whole. For example, if 30% of the City's residents are Hispanic, and HUD data indicates that 40.1% of extremely low-income Hispanic households have a housing problem, then this group of Hispanics would be identified as having a disproportionally greater need. 0%-30% of Area Median Income Housing Problems Has one or more of four housing problems Has none of the four housing problems Household has no/negative income, but none of the other housing problems Jurisdiction as a whole 4,420 680 335 White 2,265 390 220 Black / African American 40 0 0 Asian 360 175 115 American Indian, Alaska Native 30 0 0 Pacific Islander 60 55 0 Hispanic 1,625 55 0 Table 13 - Disproportionally Greater Need 0 - 30% AMI Data 2007-2011 CHAS Source: *The four housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than one person per room, 4. Cost Burden greater than 30% 30%-50% of Area Median Income Housing Problems Has one or more Has none of the Household has of four housing four housing no/negative problems problems income, but none of the other housing problems Jurisdiction as a whole 4,380 795 0 White 2,195 560 0 Black / African American 0 35 0 Asian 335 45 0 Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 30 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Housing Problems Has one or more Has none of the Household has of four housing four housing no/negative problems problems income, but none of the other housing problems American Indian, Alaska Native 0 0 0 Pacific Islander 0 0 0 Hispanic 1,795 150 0 Table 14 - Disproportionally Greater Need 30 - 50% AMI Data 2007-2011 CHAS Source: *The four housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than one person per room, 4. Cost Burden greater than 30% 50%-80% of Area Median Income Housing Problems Has one or more of four housing problems Has none of the four housing problems Household has no/negative income, but none of the other housing problems Jurisdiction as a whole 5,280 3,000 0 White 2,820 1,770 0 Black / African American 45 95 0 Asian 390 310 0 American Indian, Alaska Native 69 60 0 Pacific Islander 0 0 0 Hispanic 1,870 735 0 Table 15 - Disproportionally Greater Need 50 - 80% AMI Data 2007-2011 CHAS Source: *The four housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than one person per room, 4. Cost Burden greater than 30% 80%-100% of Area Median Income Housing Problems Has one or more Has none of the Household has of four housing four housing no/negative problems problems income, but none of the other housing problems Jurisdiction as a whole 2,205 2,750 0 White 1,385 2,130 0 Black / African American 14 35 0 Asian 205 195 0 Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 31 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Housing Problems Has one or more Has none of the Household has of four housing four housing no/negative problems problems income, but none of the other housing problems American Indian, Alaska Native 0 0 0 Pacific Islander 25 0 0 Hispanic 525 370 0 Table 16 - Disproportionally Greater Need 80 -100% AMI Data 2007-2011 CHAS Source: *The four housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than one person per room, 4. Cost Burden greater than 30% UPDATED INFORMATION: The table below provides updated information regarding the racial and ethnic composition of Costa Mesa. Based on this Census data, Whites, Asians and Hispanics/Latinos are the largest racial/ethnic minority populations in the City. Race Estimate Percent White 74,377 67.1% Black or African American 1,468 1.3% American Native and Alaska Native 302 .03% Asian 10,094 9.1% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 729 0.7% Some other race 20,363 18.4% Two or more races 3,538 3.2% Ethnicity Estimate Percent Not Hispanic or Latino 71,853 64.8% Hispanic or Latino 39,018 35.2% Source: American Community Survey 2009-2013 DP05 * Sum may not total 100% due to estimate Margin of Error Table 17 - Racial/Ethnic Composition of Costa Mesa Discussion Based on HUD's data provided in Tables 13 through 16, regardless of income, White, Asians, and Hispanic households are experiencing one of the four HUD housing problems in roughly the same ratio as their respective proportion of the City's population, that is, no racial/ethnic population is experiencing a disproportionate housing problem. Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 32 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 NA-20 Disproportionately Greater Need: Severe Housing Problems — 91.205 (b)(2) Assess the need of any racial or ethnic group that has disproportionately greater need in comparison to the needs of that category of need as a whole. Introduction As outlined above, HUD defines the existence of a "disproportionately greater need," when the percentage of persons in a category of need who are members of a particular racial or ethnic group is at least 10% points higher than the percentage of persons in the category as a whole. The difference from the above assessment is the data below evaluates the disproportionately greater housing needs of households that have a "severe" housing problem, that is, they have more than 1.5 persons per room (versus 1.01 persons per room), and/or they pay more than 50% of household income for housing (versus 30% of household income for housing). 0%-30% of Area Median Income Severe Housing Problems* Has one or more of four housing problems Has none of the four housing problems Household has no/negative income, but none of the other housing problems Jurisdiction as a whole 4,035 1,055 335 White 2,045 615 220 Black / African American 40 0 0 Asian 310 225 115 American Indian, Alaska Native 0 30 0 Pacific Islander 60 55 0 Hispanic 1,550 130 0 Table 17 — Severe Housing Problems 0 - 30% AMI Data 2007-2011 CHAS Source: *The four severe housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than 1.5 persons per room, 4. Cost Burden over 50% 30%-50% of Area Median Income Severe Housing Problems* Has one or more Has none of the Household has of four housing four housing no/negative problems problems income, but none of the other housing problems Jurisdiction as a whole 3,050 2,125 0 White 1,515 1,240 0 Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 33 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Severe Housing Problems* Has one or more Has none of the Household has of four housing four housing no/negative problems problems income, but none of the other housing problems Black / African American 0 35 0 Asian 200 185 0 American Indian, Alaska Native 0 0 0 Pacific Islander 0 0 0 Hispanic 1,315 635 0 Table 18 — Severe Housing Problems 30 - 50% AMI Data 2007-2011 CHAS Source: *The four severe housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than 1.5 persons per room, 4. Cost Burden over 50% 50%-80% of Area Median Income Severe Housing Problems* Has one or more of four housing problems Has none of the four housing problems Household has no/negative income, but none of the other housing problems Jurisdiction as a whole 2,345 5,940 0 White 990 3,595 0 Black / African American 10 125 0 Asian 120 580 0 American Indian, Alaska Native 29 95 0 Pacific Islander 0 0 0 Hispanic 1,175 1,425 0 Table 19 — Severe Housing Problems 50 - 80% AMI Data 2007-2011 CHAS Source: *The four severe housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than 1.5 persons per room, 4. Cost Burden over 50% 80%-100% of Area Median Income Severe Housing Problems* Has one or more Has none of the Household has of four housing four housing no/negative problems problems income, but none of the other housing problems Jurisdiction as a whole 685 4,270 0 White 350 3,160 0 Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 34 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Severe Housing Problems* Has one or more Has none of the Household has of four housing four housing no/negative problems problems income, but none of the other housing problems Black / African American 10 40 0 Asian 35 360 0 American Indian, Alaska Native 0 0 0 Pacific Islander 25 0 0 Hispanic 265 625 0 Table 20 — Severe Housing Problems 80 - 100% AMI Data 2007-2011 CHAS Source: *The four severe housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than 1.5 persons per room, 4. Cost Burden over 50% Discussion As with the prior assessment of disproportionately greater housing need, based on HUD's data from Tables 18 through 21, regardless of income, White, Asian, and Hispanic households are experiencing one of the four HUD severe housing problems in proportion to their respective percentage of the City's whole population with one exception — Hispanics with incomes of 50% to 80% of AMI. According to HUD's data, 50.1% of this minority population group is disproportionately impacted by a housing problem. Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 35 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 NA-25 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Cost Burdens — 91.205 (b)(2) Assess the need of any racial or ethnic group that has disproportionately greater need in comparison to the needs of that category of need as a whole. Introduction: As indicated above, HUD defines the existence of a "disproportionately greater need," when the percentage of persons in a category of need who are members of a particular racial or ethnic group is at least 10% points higher than the percentage of persons in the category as a whole. Table 22 provides HUD data solely regarding the cost burden of housing. Housing Cost Burden Housing Cost Burden <=30% 30-50% >50% No / negative income (not computed) Jurisdiction as a whole 21,595 9,050 8,479 335 White 15,295 5,375 4,890 220 Black / African American 395 100 50 0 Asian 1,905 830 695 115 American Indian, Alaska Native 64 90 4 0 Pacific Islander 120 0 70 0 Hispanic 3,505 2,410 2,705 0 Table 21— Greater Need: Housing Cost Burdens AMI Data 2007-2011 CHAS Source: Discussion: As with the previous tables, the HUD data from Table 22 indicates that White, Asians, and Hispanic households are not experiencing a disproportionately greater housing need, in this case, housing cost burden. Overall, based on the HUD data, it appears that there is a small population of City residents that have a disproportionate greater need — Hispanics households with incomes between 50% and 80% of AMI; however, Table 21 indicates that this group of residents are is not housing cost burden, which seems to indicate that this population is severely housing cost burdened which is consistent with data from Table 20. Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 36 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 NA-30 Disproportionately Greater Need: Discussion — 91.205(b)(2) Are there any Income categories in which a racial or ethnic group has disproportionately greater need than the needs of that income category as a whole? As previously discussed, based on HUD data, it appears that in general White, Asians and Hispanic/Latino households are experiencing a housing problem in proportion to Costa Mesa's overall racial and ethnic composition with one exception — Hispanic households with incomes of 50% to 80% of AML With a "disproportionate greater need" threshold of 45.2%, HUD data indicates 50.1% of this group of Hispanics is experiencing one of four severe "housing problems." If they have needs not identified above, what are those needs? As indicated previously, HUD's data does not clearly identify which of the severe housing problems this group of Hispanic households are specifically experiencing; however, housing problems are most likely housing cost (i.e., using more than 50% of income for housing). Are any of those racial or ethnic groups located in specific areas or neighborhoods in your community? There are no Census Tracts with over 50% Asian households (see Appendix Map 1). Costa Mesa's Hispanic/Latino population can be found throughout the City; however, there are four Census Tracts where over 50% of the population are of Hispanic/Latino origin (see Appendix Map 2). • Census Tract 0638.08 — 75.45% • Census Tract 0627.01— 75.36% • Census Tract 0636.05 — 76.06% • Census Tract 0636.04 — 64.43% Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 37 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 NA-35 Public Housing — 91.205(b) Introduction The City of Costa Mesa does not operate a HUD -funded public housing authority. The City works in partnership with the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA). The information provided in the tables below is for all communities served by OCHA; however, "Updated Information" was provided by OCHA specifically for Costa Mesa. OCHA reports that as of June 30, 2014, 662 Costa Mesa households received a housing rental subsidy (640 vouchers and 22 certificates). Totals in Use Program Type Certificate Mod- Rehab Public Housing Vouchers Total Project - based Tenant- based Special Purpose Voucher Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Family Unification Program Disabled # of units vouchers in use 0 0 0 10,825 0 10,418 187 207 10 Table 22 - Public Housing by Program Type (Multiple OC Cities) *includes Non -Elderly Disabled, Mainstream One -Year, Mainstream Five-year, and Nursing Home Transition Data Source: PIC (PIH Information Center) Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 38 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Characteristics of Residents Program Type Certificate Mod- Rehab Public Housing Vouchers Total Project - based Tenant- based Special Purpose Voucher Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Family Unification Program Average Annual Income 0 0 0 16,476 0 16,470 17,239 15,594 Average length of stay 0 0 0 8 0 8 0 4 Average Household size 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 3 # Homeless at admission 0 0 0 87 0 5 72 10 # of Elderly Program Participants (>62) 0 0 0 4,926 0 4,884 38 3 # of Disabled Families 0 0 0 2,163 0 2,075 64 14 # of Families requesting accessibility features 0 0 0 10,825 0 10,418 187 207 # of HIV/AIDS program participants 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 # of DV victims 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Table 23 — Characteristics of Public Housing Residents by Program Type (Multiple CIC Cities) Data Source: PIC (PIH Information Center) UPDATED INFORMATION: Updated information regarding characteristics of Costa Mesa households receiving housing rental assistance includes the following: ASSISTED HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTIC NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS Disabled 277 Veteran 24 Homeless 37 Senior (62 yrs. and older) 370 Table 24 - Updated Information: Characteristics of Residents Race of Residents Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 39 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Race of Residents Program Type Race Certificate Mod- Rehab Public Housing Vouchers Total Project - based Tenant- based Special Purpose Voucher Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Family Unification Program Disabled White 0 0 0 5,857 0 5,528 139 182 6 Black/African American 0 0 0 745 0 693 39 10 2 Asian 0 0 0 4,128 0 4,107 4 15 2 American Indian/Alaska Native 0 0 0 64 0 60 4 0 0 Pacific Islander 0 0 0 31 0 30 1 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *includes Non -Elderly Disabled, Mainstream One -Year, Mainstream Five-year, and Nursing Home Transition (Multiple OC Cities) Table 25 — Race of Public Housing Residents by Program Type Data Source: PIC (PIH Information Center) UPDATED INFORMATION: Updated information regarding the race of Costa Mesa households receiving housing rental assistance includes the following: Race No. of Households White 527 Black/African American 17 Asian 105 American Indian/Alaska Native 5 Pacific Islander 6 Other Multi -Racial 2 Table 26 - Updated Information: Race of Residents Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 40 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Ethnicity of Residents Program Type Ethnicity Certificate Mod- Rehab Public Housing Vouchers Total Project - based Tenant- based Special Purpose Voucher Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Family Unification Program Disabled Hispanic 0 0 0 1,941 0 1,814 34 87 4 Not Hispanic 0 0 0 8,884 0 8,604 153 120 6 *includes Non -Elderly Disabled, Mainstream One -Year, Mainstream Five-year, and Nursing Home Transition (Multiple OC Cities) Table 27 — Ethnicity of Public Housing Residents by Program Type Data Source: PIC (PIH Information Center) Ethnicity of Residents Updated information regarding the ethnicity of Costa Mesa households receiving housing rental assistance includes the following: Ethnicity No. of Households Hispanic/Latino 121 Non-Hispanic/Latino 541 Table 28 - Updated Information: Ethnicity of Residents Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 41 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Section 504 Needs Assessment: Describe the needs of public housing tenants and applicants on the waiting list for accessible units: Not Applicable Most immediate needs of residents of Public Housing and Housing Choice voucher holders Not Applicable How do these needs compare to the housing needs of the population at large Not Applicable Discussion As previously indicated, the City of Costa Mesa does not own or manage public housing. City residents are served by OCHA. The City will continue to work in partnership with OCHA as necessary. These efforts include consultation as part of the preparation of the City's Consolidated Plan and annual Action Plans, and assisting OCHA with the preparation and certification of their Public Housing Authority (PHA) Plan. Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 42 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 NA-40 Homeless Needs Assessment — 91.205(c) Introduction: Homeless researchers typically use one of two methods to measure homelessness. One method attempts to count all the people who are literally homeless on a given day or week (point -in -time counts). The second method examines the number of people who are homeless over a given period, or period prevalence counts. Every two years, Orange County undertakes an effort to enumerate all of the sheltered and unsheltered homeless people within the County in a given twenty-four hour period. This homeless count is required by HUD regulations for recipients of certain homeless grant funds. The latest count was conducted in January 2015; however, data from this enumeration is not yet available. The last completed/reported homeless count was conducted in 2013. Based on information from the Orange County's Homeless Management Information System (HMIS), on January 25, 2013, 88 homeless individuals were residing in "Costa Mesa" emergency or transitional shelter. The unsheltered portion of the count is an estimate based on an one -morning count and survey that counts visibly homeless people in public places and then applies a statistical formula to account for the geography not visited on the morning of the count. The 2013 Point -In -Time estimated that 61% of the region's homeless were sheltered and 39% were unsheltered. Based on these percentages, it is estimated that there was 144 homeless individuals in Costa Mesa on the day the 2013 County Point -In -Time count was conducted (88 sheltered and 54 unsheltered). Since 2009, Vanguard University, in partnership with community service providers, faith -based organizations, and the City of Costa Mesa, has conducted a point -in -time census of Costa Mesa's homeless, and also conducted a visual assessment of locations where the homeless congregate. These efforts are independent of the Orange County CoC Point -In -Time homeless count. The 2009 and 2010 Vanguard's census attempted to enumerate both sheltered and unsheltered homeless; however, since the primary purpose of the effort was to identify the number of chronic homeless, since 2011, the enumeration has only focused on unsheltered homeless. Approximately three months prior to the County's January 2013 homeless count, Vanguard interviewed and collected data from homeless individuals at various locations throughout Costa Mesa. Vanguard staff analyzed the data collected by volunteers and determined there were 117 to 122 unsheltered homeless individuals in Costa Mesa. Even though these enumeration efforts were not conducted on the same night, the cumulative number— 205 to 210 Costa Mesa sheltered and unsheltered homeless — is relatively consistent with Vanguard's 2010 and 2011 homeless counts when they did evaluate both sheltered and unsheltered populations. (In 2009, Vanguard estimated a total of 237 Costa Mesa homeless and in 2010, 266 Costa Mesa homeless.) Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 43 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 For the purpose of the Consolidated Plan, the City will utilized the 210 homeless figure for additional homeless population statistics; however, it is important to stress this is an estimate. The table below is populated utilizing this combined homeless estimate. It is also important to note that the Vanguard's 2012 homeless census does provide homeless families information, but it does provide some individual homeless statistics. Similarly, the OC CoC data does not provide detailed information, such as homeless households with children, chronic homeless families, etc., by community. Homeless Needs Assessment Population Estimate the # of persons experiencing homelessness on a given night Estimate the # experiencing homelessness each year Estimate the # becoming homeless each year Estimate the # exiting homelessness each year Estimate the # of days persons experience homelessness Sheltered Unsheltered Persons in Households with Adult(s) and Child(ren) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Persons in Households with Only Children 0 0 0 0 0 0 Persons in Households with Only Adults 88 122 0 0 0 2,190 Chronically Homeless Individuals 6 34 0 0 0 2,190 Chronically Homeless Families 0 0 0 0 0 0 Veterans 11 16 0 0 0 2,190 Unaccompanied Child 0 0 0 0 0 0 Persons with HIV 3 1 0 0 0 0 Table 29 - Homeless Needs Assessment Data Source Comments: Orange County CoC HMIS, 1/25/13 and Vanguard University You Count 5/22/13 Indicate if the homeless population is rural: City has No Rural Homeless Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 44 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 If data is not available for the categories "number of persons becoming and exiting homelessness each year," and "number of days that persons experience homelessness," describe these categories for each homeless population type (including chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth): Chronic Homeless Individuals The 2013 Orange County Point -In -Time indicates that 19% of all homeless persons were chronically homeless individuals. This data source also indicates that 16% of this population was sheltered and 84% unsheltered. Based on this data, it is estimated there are 40 chronic homeless individuals in Costa Mesa — six sheltered and 34 unsheltered. Vanguard's 2012 homeless count collected a variety of demographic data regarding Costa Mesa's homeless population. This data included the following: • Of valid respondents, 50.3% were not "First Time Homeless." • The average "total time on streets/shelters" was 5.99 years. • 41.7% of respondents have a monthly income of $200 to $500. • 18.7% were classified as disabled. • 34.1% were receiving treatment for mental health issues. Chronically Homeless Families and Families with Children The Vanguard University homeless census did not include data regarding homeless families and families with children; however, according to the 2013 Orange County CoC Point -In -Time report, 17% of homeless households include children; however, the vast majority of homeless children were sheltered. Specifically, of the estimated 537 homeless households with children identified in the County's 2013 Point In Time, only two were unsheltered. The 2013 OC-CoC report also indicates there were only ten Chronically Homeless families at the time the Point -In -Time survey was taken - only one of these unsheltered. Based on these countywide figures, it appears that most homeless families and families with children are finding shelter. Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 45 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Veterans and their Families Vanguard University's 2012 census of Costa Mesa's homeless found that 19%, or 23, of homeless individuals surveyed were veterans. This is relatively consistent with the County's 2013 Point in Time count, which found that 13% of the surveyed homeless were veterans (40% were sheltered and 60% unsheltered). No information regarding Costa Mesa families of veterans is provided. Unaccompanied Youth Vanguard's homeless census did not collect specific age information, however it did estimate that 14% to 19% of Costa Mesa's homeless were "young" (roughly age 18 to 24). This translates to approximately 29 to 40 "young" homeless. No additional specific information is provided regarding "unaccompanied youth." The County Point -In -Time reports that at the time of the census only 14 unaccompanied youth were identified (0.3% of total homeless persons). Based on this data it is estimated there are no unaccompanied homeless youth in the City. HIV AIDS Vanguard's homeless count did not include any information regarding person with HIV/AIDS. The Orange County 2013 Point -In -Time estimated that 2% of the homeless population was living with HIV/AIDS (70% were sheltered and 30% unsheltered). Based on this data, it is estimated there are four homeless individuals with HIV/AIDS living in Costa Mesa. Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 46 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Nature and Extent of Homelessness: (Optional) Race: Sheltered: Unsheltered (optional) White 0 0 Black or African American 0 0 Asian 0 0 American Indian or Alaska Native 0 0 Pacific Islander 0 0 Ethnicity: Sheltered: Unsheltered (optional) Hispanic 0 0 Not Hispanic 0 0 Data Source Comments: Estimate the number and type of families in need of housing assistance for families with children and the families of veterans. The Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA) has provided the City with information regarding Costa Mesa households that submitted applications for housing vouchers in 2012. This was the last time OCHA opened its application process, and although some applicants may now be assisted or are no longer living in the area, this data does provide a reasonable snapshot of housing need in Costa Mesa. Based on this waitlist information, 1,071 Costa Mesa households applied for housing assistance in 2012 and were placed on OCHA's waitlist for housing assistance. Of this number, 352 were households with children, 239 were listed as senior households (age 62 and older), and 354 of applicants indicate they are disabled. With respect to veterans, 25 Costa Mesa veteran households were on the OCHA waitlist - six of these households had children. OCHA estimates it will take approximately five years to work through the entire current waitlist. Describe the Nature and Extent of Homelessness by Racial and Ethnic Group. As indicated above, Costa Mesa's homeless census did not collect data regarding race and ethnicity. Similarly, the County Point -In -Time count did not provide race/ethnicity information for sheltered homeless; however, it did report that the vast majority of the region's unsheltered homeless are White (66.4%), and 28.0% are reported as Hispanic/Latino. It is reasonable to assume Costa Mesa's homeless population is of similar ethnic/racial composition as the rest of the County. Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 47 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Describe the Nature and Extent of Unsheltered and Sheltered Homelessness. As outlined above, based on the Orange County CoC's HMIS data, on January 25, 2013, 88 Costa Mesa homeless were residing in emergency, transitional, or some other form of shelter. Approximately three months earlier, the Vanguard University Costa Mesa homeless census estimated there were 122 unsheltered homeless in the City. Even though these enumeration efforts were not conducted on the same night, the cumulative result — 210 Costa Mesa homeless — is consistent with prior Vanguard University homeless counts when they did evaluate sheltered and unsheltered populations. Discussion: To address challenges caused by the City's homeless population, in January 2011 the City Council formed a Homeless Task Force that brought together diverse members of the community. The goal of the Task Force was to develop strategies and make recommendations that addressed the needs of Costa Mesa residents, businesses and the homeless. The Task Force determined that best practices from other cities indicate that a carrot -and -stick approach worked well, providing services to help the homeless get off the street while enforcing ordinances when behavior impacts others. To this end the City has established a coordinated homeless outreach program in order to respond to community concerns and link homeless individuals with strong ties to the community with service and housing options. This course of action appears to be warranted based on a homeless needs assessment: sheltered homeless are primarily women and families with children; unsheltered homeless tend to be single males (72%) who on average have been homeless for approximately six years. A notable portion of these unsheltered homeless are veterans (19.2%) and 34.1% suffer from mental health issues. Approximately 50% of the homeless in Costa Mesa have an annual income less than $6,000. Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 48 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 NA-45 Non -Homeless Special Needs Assessment - 91.205 (b,d) Introduction: HUD requires that the Consolidated Plan to include a review of relevant data regarding the housing needs of persons that require special supportive housing, but who are not homeless. Special need populations include the following: • Elderly/Frail elderly • Persons with disabilities • Persons and families with HIV/AIDS • Public/Assisted housing residents • Large Families Describe the characteristics of special needs populations in your community: Elderly/Frail Elderly: The housing needs of the elderly (individuals 62 and older) are challenging since many elderly individuals are on fixed incomes. Adding to the challenge are the special housing needs of the elderly that allow for greater accessibility and mobility. In June 2012, OCHA reported it provided housing assistance to 370 senior households in Costa Mesa. OCHA also reported that 239 Costa Mesa senior households were on their 2012 housing assistance waitlist. With respect to senior homeowners, HUD data indicates that many senior homeowners are using significant portions of their income to remain in their home, which leaves little to cover the cost to maintenance and/or to repair their home. Persons with Disabilities: OCHA reports that in June 2012 it provided housing assistance to 277 disabled households in Costa Mesa. OCHA also reports that 354 Costa Mesa disabled households are were on their 2012 housing assistance waitlist. Disabled households have unique housing challenges as units need to allow for greater accessibility and mobility. Persons and families with HIV/AIDS: AIDS Services Foundation OC reports there are 2,998 persons in the County presently living with HIV (non -AIDS), and 3,878 living with AIDS. According to the Orange County Health Care Agency, in 2013, 14 new HIV diagnoses were reported in Costa Mesa. In 2014, the City of Anaheim was designated as the recipient of HUD's Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) funds. Prior to 2014, Santa Ana received these funds on behalf of the entire County. Based on information provided by Santa Ana, there is no housing solely dedicated to persons with HIV/AIDS in Costa Mesa. Public/Assisted housing residents: The City of Costa Mesa does not own or manage public housing units. As previously indicated, the City works in partnership with the Orange County Housing Authority. In June 2014, 662 Costa Mesa households were receiving a housing assistance voucher or certificate. An Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 49 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 additional 1,071 Costa Mesa households are on the Authority's 2012 waitlist for housing assistance. It is estimated that it will take at least five years for waitlist households to be assisted. Large Families: HUD defines a household of five or more persons as a large household. The Orange County Housing Authority reports that in June 2014, 15 "large" Costa Mesa households are receiving a housing assistance voucher or certificate. An additional 66 "large" Costa Mesa households were on the Authority's 2012 waitlist for housing assistance. What are the housing and supportive service needs of these populations and how are these needs determined? A variety of service providers working within the community help address the needs of special need populations. Often the services provided by these agencies allow households to save limited financial resources on items such as food, counseling and medical care, and use saved funds to help maintain or seek appropriate housing. With respect to housing, overcoming impediments to fair housing is critical for these populations (i.e. reasonable accommodations). For renter households with housing cost burdens, housing assistance vouchers and certificates may provide needed assistance. This assistance may also help ensure households are housed in units that are safe, decent and appropriate in size (to minimize crowding). With respect to homeowners, rehabilitation assistance may assist special need populations improve and maintain their primary residence without incurring added debt. Both service and housing needs of these special need populations have been determined by input from a variety of sources including community stakeholders, service providers, government agencies (State, County and neighboring municipalities), and respective City program staff. Discuss the size and characteristics of the population with HIV/AIDS and their families within the Eligible Metropolitan Statistical Area: Data provided by Aids Services Foundation Orange County indicates that in 2013, there were 2,998 persons living with HIV (non -AIDS) in Orange County. An additional 3,878 persons were living with AIDS. The majority of these individuals were racially White and ethnically Hispanics. This data also indicates the vast majority of individuals with HIV/AIDS are male between the ages of 30 and 39. HUD has provided housing grant funds for persons living with HIV/AIDS. As the most populous city in Orange County, Anaheim receives and administers the federal Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) grant for the entire county. As the recipient of HOPWA funds Anaheim is responsible for assessing regional housing and service needs for individuals and families living with HIV/AIDS. The County's Health Care Agency (OC-HCA) is also responsible for administering federal grants provided by the Department of Health and Human Services and for collecting data on HIV/AIDS patients. Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 50 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Discussion: HUD has provided significant amounts of housing needs data for the City to assess. The City has also evaluated other data sources in an effort to identify housing/service needs for special needs populations. As one of the most expensive housing markets in the nation, it is not unexpected that many special needs households are experiencing some form of housing issues. Based on HUD data, cost burden is the most prevalent housing problem among special need populations. Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 51 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 NA-50 Non -Housing Community Development Needs — 91.215 (f) Describe the jurisdiction's need for Public Facilities: Costa Mesa is one of Orange County's older communities; therefore, some of the City's facilities are older and may be in need of upgrading. The City has invested substantial resources into improving its public facilities and parks; however limited resources requires prioritization of future improvements. Like most communities, the City of Costa Mesa has developed a Capital Improvement Program aimed at upgrading public facilities throughout the City. The improvement plan calls for the expenditure of over $203.8 million for various capital projects for fiscal years 2014-2015 through 2020- 2021. Planned facility improvements (with all resources) include the following: Park Facility Improvements ■ Park improvements • Park expansion/development Public Facilities ■ Library improvements ■ Fire station improvements ■ Police Station improvements How were these needs determined? Public facility improvement needs were identified by the City's Public Services staff and presented to the City Council in a budget workshop. Budget workshops are public meetings, and residents and other community stakeholders are provided the opportunity to provide input. Community workshops and surveys provided residents direct input to prioritizing needs. Describe the jurisdiction's need for Public Improvements: As indicated above, Costa Mesa is one of Orange County's older communities; therefore, a sizable portion of the City's infrastructure is older and may be in need of upgrading. The City has invested substantial resources to improve its public infrastructure; however, limited resources require the prioritization of future improvements. The City has developed a Capital Improvement Program aimed at replacing and upgrading the public infrastructure and public facilities throughout the City. The improvement plan calls for the expenditure of over $203.8 million for various capital projects for fiscal years 2014-2015 through 2020-2021. Planned improvements (with all resources) include the following: Neighborhood Improvements ■ Curbs, gutters and sidewalk improvements ■ Parkway and median improvements ■ Alleyway improvements Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 52 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 ■ Street improvements Infrastructure Improvements ■ Water system improvements ■ Storm drain improvements Traffic Improvements • Traffic signal upgrades ■ Traffic management programs How were these needs determined? Similar to public facility needs, public improvement needs were identified by the City's Public Services staff and presented to the City Council in a budget workshop. Budget workshops are public meetings, and residents and other community stakeholders are provided the opportunity to provide input. Community workshops and surveys provided residents direct input to prioritizing needs. Describe the jurisdiction's need for Public Services: There are numerous public, social and faith -based agencies that serve Costa Mesa's residents. These organizations meet the numerous social, health, education and public safety needs of residents. With approximately 112,000 Costa Mesa residents, the demand for public and social services typically exceed available resources thus necessitating a coordinated service delivery system. How were these needs determined? Public workshops, a community needs survey, and resident advisory committees provided direct input to identify and prioritize public service needs. Ultimately the City Council authorizes the allocation of limited CDBG resources. Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 53 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Housing Market Analysis MA-05 Overview Housing Market Analysis Overview: The housing market analysis will evaluate a variety of Costa Mesa's housing stock characteristics including tenure, cost, affordability, age, condition, and vacancy rates. As required, this analysis will also analyze the City's public/assisted housing, housing resources for homeless (and those at risk of becoming homeless), and special needs populations (e.g., disable and persons with HIV/AIDS). This housing analysis will also examine barriers to affordable housing, including impediments to fair housing choice. Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 54 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 MA-10 Number of Housing Units — 91.210(a)&(b)(2) Introduction HUD has provided a variety of data regarding the City's housing stock based on the 2007-2011 American Community Survey. This data is provided by HUD in various tables below. All residential properties by number of units Property Type Number 1-unit detached structure 17,240 40% 1-unit, attached structure 4,044 9% 2-4 units 6,042 14% 5-19 units 6,531 15% 20 or more units 8,739 20% Mobile Home, boat, RV, van, etc 946 2% Total 43,542 1000/0 Table 30 — Residential Properties by Unit Number Data Source: 2007-2011 ACS UPDATED INFORMATION Data from the State of California indicates that as of January 1, 2014, there were 42,160 housing units in the City of Costa Mesa: Property Type Number 1-unit detached structure 16,638 39.5% 1-unit, attached structure 4,302 10.2% 2-4 units 5,714 13.5% Five plus units 14,576 34.6% Mobile Homes 930 2.2% Total 42,160 100 Source: CA Dept of Finance Table2:E-5 1/1/14 Table 31- 2014 Residential Properties by Number of Units Unit Size by Tenure Owners Renters Number % Number No bedroom 50 0% 1,151 5% 1 bedroom 428 3% 7,070 30% 2 bedrooms 2,696 16% 11,846 50% 3 or more bedrooms 13,768 81% 3,711 16% Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 55 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Owners I Renters Number % I Number Total 16,942 1 100% 1 23,778 101 % Table 32 — Unit Size by Tenure Data Source: 2007-2011 ACS Describe the number and targeting (income level/type of family served) of units assisted with federal, state, and local programs. Appendix Table C provides an inventory of "units assisted with federal, state and local programs." This table includes information regarding the number of units, and "targeting" of units. Provide an assessment of units expected to be lost from the affordable housing inventory for any reason, such as expiration of Section 8 contracts. The California Housing Partnership, a private nonprofit organization dedicated to helping government and nonprofit housing agencies preserve and expand the supply of affordable homes for lower -income households throughout California, reports that there is one housing project in Costa Mesa that is at a "high" risk level from being lost from the City's affordable housing inventory. Casa Bella is a 75 unit senior housing project. Section 8 assistance at this project is set to expire in September 2015. City staff has contacted HUD's Multi -Family unit to ascertain if preservation vouchers may be available for this project. A second senior project (Saint John Manor) has Section 8 rental assistance set to expire in December 2015; however, in 2007, the City provided HOME and redevelopment funds to assist with the rehabilitation of this project so even though Section 8 assistance is slated to expire, all units will still be available to low income seniors until 2062 (see Appendix Table Q. Does the availability of housing units meet the needs of the population? Based on HUD data from Tables 31 and 32, 49% of the City's housing units are 1-unit attached and detached single-family structures - 51% of housing units are multi -unit structures and mobile homes. This data is consistent with the City's Housing Element which indicates that Costa Mesa has a higher proportion of renter housing units than most communities in Orange County. The Housing Element indicates that 43.4% of households in the City are owners, and 56.5% are renters. More recent Census Bureau estimates indicate that 40.3% of Costa Mesa households are owners and 59.7% are renters (2009-2013 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimate, Table B25003). HUD data from Table 8 indicates that 45.4% of all Costa Mesa households, with an income of 0% to 100% of AMI, and regardless of tenure, are experiencing one or more of HUD's four housing problems. HUD data from Tables 9 and 10 provide additional detail regarding households experiencing housing cost burden and severe housing cost burden, respectively. These latter two tables provide data on households with incomes ranging from 0% to 80% of AMI. Both tables indicate that regardless of tenure, Small Related households are experiencing a housing cost burden problem at the highest rate (based on percentages), followed by "Other" households, Elderly households, then Large Related households. Finally, Table 11 indicates that there are "crowded" units in the City - 73.7% are single Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 56 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 family households and 23.3% are "multiple, unrelated family households." Together this data appears to indicate that there is a sufficient supply of housing in Costa Mesa; however, for a significant percentage of residents the cost of housing is problematic. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) undertakes a Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) to quantify the future need for housing within a five -county region. The current RHNA was adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) in 2012. The future need for new housing was primarily determined by the forecasted growth in households in a community. The RHNA quantified the anticipated need for housing for the 7%-year period from January 2014 to October 2021. After the total housing need was determined for the SCAG region, RHNA allocations to individual jurisdictions were developed by SCAG based on local input and the state - mandated methodology. The distribution of housing need by income category for each jurisdiction was adjusted to avoid an overconcentration of lower -income households in any community. SCAG data resulted in a housing need of just two units for Costa Mesa. Describe the need for specific types of housing: Housing data provided by HUD indicates that 41.6% of the City's housing units are occupied by owners — 58.4% are occupied by renters. HUD data in the Housing Needs Assessment also indicates that a significant number of Costa Mesa households are housing cost burdened, and that a substantial number of housing units are also crowded. In general, homeowners are just as impacted by housing cost burden as are renter households. Based on HUD's data, Small Related households, regardless of tenure, are the largest segment of lower income households that are experiencing a housing cost burden. HUD data also indicates that approximately 80% of Costa Mesa rental units are one or two -bedroom units compared to 19% of owner units. Conversely, 81% of the City's owner units are three -bedrooms while just 16% of rental units have three rooms. This data appears to indicates that there may be an imbalance in the City's current housing stock (in terms of tenure and size) when compared to the types of households currently occupying units. For the 2014-2021 time period, SCAG has determined that the City's regional housing needs assessment allocation is two units (one unit extremely low-income housing unit and one low-income unit). As stated previously, SCAG takes into account future growth and previous building activity when developing housing allocations. This low RHNA allocation is probably due to the fact that Costa Mesa is considered to be built out, and development activity has been tempered by the recession. The City's Housing Element has identified several underutilized parcels that have the potential to be developed into housing. It is possible that these future units may help to balance the City's housing stock and offer residents new housing options. Discussion Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 57 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 HUD's data indicates that there is a significant number of households that are paying over 30% of their income for housing. The fact that there are more rental units in the City than ownership units, and that most rental units are one and two -bedroom units (80% of rental units) while most ownership units are three -bedroom units creates a disparity. This imbalance in tenure and unit size can result in households paying too much for housing that is not adequate in size for their family. The City has identified some sites that may be suitable for future housing development, and which may ultimately be able to provide Costa Mesa residents with new housing options. Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 58 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 MA-15 Housing Market Analysis: Cost of Housing - 91.210(a) Introduction A May 2014 Forbes Magazine article identified Orange County the third least affordable housing market for the middle class among the top ten priced housing markets in the nation. Data Quick, estimates the median Costa Mesa home sales price in March 2015 was $625,000 for zip code 92626, and $670,000 for zip code 92627. The Orange County Register reported that in January 2015, the average Orange County rent was $1,781. One online service (myapartmentmap.com) lists the median rental rate for a two bedroom apartment in Costa Mesa at $1,937 (as of February 2015). Cost of Housing Base Year: 2000 Most Recent Year: 2011 % Change Median Home Value 263,700 617,000 134% Median Contract Rent 903 1,404 55% Table 33 — Cost of Housing Data Source: 2000 Census (Base Year), 2007-2011 ACS (Most Recent Year) Rent Paid Number Less than $500 1,117 4.7% $500-999 2,203 9.3% $1,000-1,499 11,021 46.4% $1,500-1,999 7,175 30.2 $2,000 or more 2,262 9.5% Total 23,778 100.0% Table 34 - Rent Paid Data Source: 2007-2011 ACS Housing Affordability Units affordable to Households earning Renter Owner 30% HAMFI 740 No Data 50% HAMFI 1,530 480 80% HAMFI 9,995 780 100% HAMFI No Data 1,095 Total 12,265 2,355 Table 35 — Housing Affordability Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS Monthly Rent Monthly Rent ($) Efficiency (no bedroom) 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom Fair Market Rent 1,126 1,294 1,621 2,268 2,525 Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 59 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Monthly Rent ($) Efficiency (no bedroom) 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom High HOME Rent 1,076 1,154 1,387 1,594 1,759 Low HOME Rent 843 903 1,083 1,252 1,397 Table 36 — Monthly Rent Data Source: HUD FMR and HOME Rents Is there sufficient housing for households at all income levels? Based on HUD data tables above, it appears there is a limited supply of housing units affordable to extremely low-income and very low-income renter household. Lower income homeowners would also find it difficult to secure housing that is priced at a level that would allow them to avoid a housing cost burden. How is affordability of housing likely to change considering changes to home values and/or rents? Orange County's housing market, as a whole, has recovered from the steep drops in values experienced in 2008 and 2009. Data Quick reports that Orange County median home purchase prices increased 9.35% from 2013 to 2014. For this same time period, Costa Mesa's median home price increased 8.7% for Zip Code 92626, and 18.6% for Zip Code 92627. As demand continues to increase housing costs will most likely continue to increase. A May, 2014 Forbes Magazine article identified Orange County as the third "Least Affordable Housing Markets for the Middle Class." This article estimated that in May 2014 only 24% of the middle class could afford a median size for -sale home in Orange County.[1] With respect to rents, in January 2015, the Orange County Register reported that average rent in the County was $1,781, up $81 from a year earlier. The article also reported that the Orange County average rent is the seventh highest among large U.S. metro areas such as New York and San Francisco.[2] As previously stated, an online service listed the February 2015 median rent for a two -bedroom unit in Costa Mesa at $1,937. [1] Top 10 Least And Most Expensive Housing Markets For Today's Middle Class, Forbes, online, May 14, 2014. [2] Orange County Register, January 23, 2015. RealFacts: Apartment rents up 5% in 2014). Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 60 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 How do HOME rents / Fair Market Rent compare to Area Median Rent? How might this impact your strategy to produce or preserve affordable housing? Based on the current median rent for a two -bedroom unit, both HOME rents and Fair Market Rent are significantly lower. As indicated above, median rent for a two -bedroom unit in Costa Mesa is estimated at $1,937; based on data from Table 37, the current FRM for a two -bedroom unit in the City is approximately $330 less. HOME rents range from approximately $550 to $850 less than the current median rent for a two -bedroom unit. Discussion Evaluation of the City's housing market seems to support the findings in the Housing Needs Assessment, that is, that many lower income households in Costa Mesa are cost burdened, especially extremely low- income and very low-income households. Limited housing options exist at rent or purchase prices points that are affordable to lower income households. Recent data indicates rents and home prices continue to rise as the economy improves. Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 61 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 MA-20 Housing Market Analysis: Condition of Housing — 91.210(a) Introduction The City of Costa Mesa's housing stock is generally well maintained. This analysis will evaluate the condition of the City's housing stock by mainly evaluating the age of the housing stock and if there is a prevalence of "housing problems." Definitions A property in "substandard condition" means any dwelling unit that contains a circumstance that endangers the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare of the public or the occupants. The conditions that make a property a "substandard dwelling" are defined in detail in the California Health and Safety Code. For purposes of the CDBG program, "substandard condition but suitable for rehabilitation" means that the cost of remedying all substandard conditions plus the current value of the property does not exceed the after -rehabilitation value of the property. The four housing conditions that HUD attributes as substandard or problematic are (1) lack of complete kitchen facilities, (2) lack of complete plumbing facilities, (3) more than one person per room, and 4) cost burden greater than 30%. Condition of Units Condition of Units Owner -Occupied Renter -Occupied Number % Number % With one selected Condition 6,966 41% 10,778 45% With two selected Conditions 91 1% 2,094 9% With three selected Conditions 0 0% 45 0% With four selected Conditions 0 0% 8 0% No selected Conditions 9,885 58% 10,853 46% Total 16,942 100% 23,778 100% Table 37 - Condition of Units Data Source: 2007-2011 ACS Year Unit Built Year Unit Built Owner -Occupied Renter -Occupied Number % Number % 2000 or later 701 4% 1,217 5% 1980-1999 2,735 16% 4,259 18% 1950-1979 12,640 75% 17,260 73% Before 1950 866 5% 1,042 4% Total 16,942 1000/0 23,778 100% Table 38 — Year Unit Built Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 62 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Risk of Lead -Based Paint Hazard Risk of Lead -Based Paint Hazard Owner -Occupied Renter -Occupied Number % Number Total Number of Units Built Before 1980 13,506 80% 18,302 77% Housing Units build before 1980 with children present 530 3% 550 2% Table 39 — Risk of Lead -Based Paint Data Source: 2007-2011 ACS (Total Units) 2007-2011 CHAS (Units with Children present) Vacant Units Suitable for Rehabilitation Not Suitable for Rehabilitation Total Vacant Units NA NA NA Abandoned Vacant Units NA NA NA REO Properties NA NA NA Abandoned REO Properties NA NA NA Table 40 - Vacant Units Data Source: 2005-2009 CHAS UPDATED INFORMATION: Few reliable data sources were found regarding vacant units and REO properties. Based on data from the State of California Department of Labor, there were 2,176 vacant units in the City on January 1, 2014 (approximately 5.2% of the City's housing stock). Based on information from Trulia.com, as of March 31, 2015, there were 119 bank -owned foreclosed properties for sale in Costa Mesa. Due to the strong demand for housing in Orange County, very few, if any, abandoned properties can be found. Need for Owner and Rental Rehabilitation Based on data from Table 39, approximately 80% of the City's owner housing stock was built prior to 1979. Generally, homes built within the last 30 years are in good shape with little repair required. Homes begin to show age after 30 years and can require significant maintenance and even extensive rehabilitation. Data from the Housing Needs Assessment indicate that many lower income homeowners are expending more than 30% of their income on housing. City -funded housing rehabilitation assistance can help these homeowners maintain and improve their homes without incurring additional housing costs. The City has assisted an average of 21 homeowners with rehabilitation loans and grants over the last four years. Resources for housing rehabilitation have been significantly reduced (loss of redevelopment in 2012 and a 60% reduction in HOME funds in 2012); however, it is anticipated that the City will be able to continue to assist approximately 10 households per year with rehabilitation assistance. Table 39 also indicates that approximately 77% of the City's rental housing stock was build prior to 1979; however, it is important to note that the approximately 35% of the City's rental housing stock is comprised of buildings or developments with five or more housing units. These larger complexes are Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 63 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 typically professionally managed and well maintained. In past years the City offered a rental rehabilitation program but few property owners took advantage of the program so funds were redirected to homeowner rehabilitation assistance. With severe reductions to HOME funds and the loss of redevelopment funding, it will be difficult to fund a new rental rehabilitation program. Furthermore, as "rental" units, property owners are provided tax incentives to maintain and improve their properties with private funds. Nevertheless, to ensure both rental and owner -occupied housing units are maintained at a safe and decent standard, the City will enforce housing and building codes and when applicable, will refer homeowners to the City's Housing Rehabilitation program. Estimated Number of Housing Units Occupied by Low or Moderate Income Families with LBP Hazards Lead based -paint was banned in the United States in 1978. Table 40 indicates there are an estimated 31,808 housing units in Costa Mesa that were constructed before 1979. Data obtained in consultation with the California Department of Public Health, Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Branch, indicates that between 2010 and 2014 (partial year), there were 177 Costa Mesa children under the age of six that were reported with high blood lead values (> 4.5 ug/dQ (see Appendix Table D). It is important to note that the data provided from the State does not identify the source of the high blood lead levels. Recent studies indicate that pottery, candy, and food wrappers from non-U.S. sources are more common sources of lead poisoning than paint. While data indicates lead based -paint hazards are not a significant issue in Costa Mesa, all City -funded housing rehabilitation projects are tested for lead if a unit was constructed before 1978. Discussion According to HUD data, the vast majority of housing units in the City were constructed more than 40 years ago. Unless properly maintained, homes begin to show age after 30 years and can require significant maintenance and even extensive rehabilitation. Additionally, residences constructed before 1978 may have lead based -paint hazards. The City has established a housing rehabilitation program to assist lower income homeowners improve and maintain their home, and when necessary, remove lead based -paint hazards. Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 64 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 MA-25 Public and Assisted Housing — 91.210(b) Introduction There is no public housing in the City of Costa Mesa - OCHA operates the rental assistance program within the City. Totals Number of Units Program Type Certificate Mod -Rehab Public Housing Vouchers Total Project -based I Tenant -based Special Purpose Voucher Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Family Unification Program Disabled # of units vouchers available 9,925 879 1,669 0 # of accessible units *includes Non -Elderly Disabled, Mainstream One -Year, Mainstream Five-year, and Nursing Home Transition (Multiple OC Cities) Table 41— Total Number of Units by Program Type Data Source: PIC (PIH Information Center) Describe the supply of public housing developments: Describe the number and physical condition of public housing units in the jurisdiction, including those that are participating in an approved Public Housing Agency Plan: Not applicable Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 65 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Public Housing Condition Public Housing Development I Average Inspection Score Table 42 - Public Housing Condition Describe the restoration and revitalization needs of public housing units in the jurisdiction: Not applicable Describe the public housing agency's strategy for improving the living environment of low - and moderate -income families residing in public housing: Not applicable Discussion: As indicated above, the City of Costa Mesa does not operate a public housing authority. Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 66 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 MA-30 Homeless Facilities and Services — 91.210(c) Introduction As previously discussed, the OC CoC conducts a biennial count of the homeless, and the City (in partnership with Vanguard University) conducts an annual census of the City's homeless. Based on data from the respective homeless counts, it is estimated that there are 210 Costa Mesa homeless at any point in time — approximately 88 are shelter and 122 are unsheltered. Facilities and Housing Targeted to Homeless Households Emergency Shelter Beds Transitional Housing Beds Permanent Supportive Housing Beds Year Round Beds (Current & New) Voucher / Seasonal / Overflow Beds Current & New Current & New Under Development Households with Adult(s) and Child(ren) 0 0 80 0 0 Households with Only Adults 0 0 0 0 0 Chronically Homeless Households 0 0 0 0 0 Veterans 0 0 0 0 0 Unaccompanied Youth 0 0 0 0 0 Table 43 - Facilities and Housing Targeted to Homeless Households Data Source Comments: Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 67 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Describe mainstream services, such as health, mental health, and employment services to the extent those services are use to complement services targeted to homeless persons Since 2012, the City of Costa Mesa has directly funded homeless outreach and engagement services, initially with CDBG funds and more recently with City General Funds. Program staff works closely with nonprofit, public and faith -based organizations to coordinate outreach and referral services for homeless individuals with strong ties to the community. Program staff works closely with clients to identify and qualify individuals/households for appropriate mainstream services and resources. Examples of mainstream services available include veterans housing vouchers, veteran medical services, MediCal/Medicare, SSI, and General Relief. List and describe services and facilities that meet the needs of homeless persons, particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth. If the services and facilities are listed on screen SP-40 Institutional Delivery Structure or screen MA-35 Special Needs Facilities and Services, describe how these facilities and services specifically address the needs of these populations. As indicated in Table 44, there are 80 transitional housing beds in the City of Costa Mesa. These units are targeted for victims of domestic violence (50 beds) and for families with children (30 beds). There also are several shelters in surrounding communities that also provide housing and services for City residents (see Appendix Table E). Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 68 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 MA-35 Special Needs Facilities and Services — 91.210(d) Introduction HUD requires that the City provide an overview of supportive housing currently available in the community for populations with special needs.lncluding the elderly, frail elderly, persons with disabilities (mental, physical, developmental), persons with alcohol or other drug addictions, persons with HIV/AIDS and their families, public housing residents and any other categories the jurisdiction may specify, and describe their supportive housing needs Senior and Frail Elderly: There are several skilled nursing and residential care facilities located in Costa Mesa. Based on consultation with the Council on Aging, it has been determined that there are 1,044 residential care beds in 44 facilities in Costa Mesa. The bulk of these facilities are six -bed facilities operating mainly in residential neighborhoods. There are nine facilities in the City with total beds ranging from 12 to 299. According to Appendix Table C, there are four publicly assisted senior housing projects in the City with a total of 471 "affordable" senior units. Group Homes/Quarters: The State reports that in January 2014, there were 2,711 Costa Mesa residents living in a group home. Examples of group home settings included home for the mentally challenged and physically disabled, and those recovering from substance addiction. As indicated above, there are over 1,000 beds in a group home setting for the disabled and elderly. Also, as previously reported, the California Department of Health Care Services reports there are 491 licensed sober living beds in the City — 26.7% of all sober living beds in the County. The County's Health Care Agency reports that between 2011 and 2013, it referred 442 Costa Mesa clients for alcohol and drug abuse residential treatment services. HIV/AIDS Housing: As stated previously, at the present time there are no shelters or permanent housing units specifically for persons with HIV/AIDS in Costa Mesa. Public Housing Residents: There is no public housing in Costa Mesa; however, OCHA reports that in June 2014, a total of 662 households in Costa Mesa are receiving a rental housing voucher or certificate. Describe programs for ensuring that persons returning from mental and physical health institutions receive appropriate supportive housing The OC CoC is responsible for developing the region's 10 Year Plan to end homelessness. This plan includes the region's discharge plan, which aims to ensure that individuals leaving institutional or medical facilities do not exit directly into homelessness. The City is supportive of the CoC's planning efforts. The plan outlines protocols for discharge from public facilities (such as jails) and public systems (such as the foster care system). The plan establishes protocols to identify and assess those at -risk of homelessness and link them to needed services. (Note: Portions of the plan remain to be developed and Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 69 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 supported.) Additionally, the City's Homeless Outreach Program works closely with the Costa Mesa Police Department and other service providers to identify "new" homeless in the community. City outreach staff will attempt to engage these individuals to ascertain if there is an opportunity to reconnect individuals with housing and a support services in their original hometown, or they will attempt to directly link individuals to appropriate supportive housing and services. Specify the activities that the jurisdiction plans to undertake during the next year to address the housing and supportive services needs identified in accordance with 91.215(e) with respect to persons who are not homeless but have other special needs. Link to one-year goals. 91.315(e) As resources permit, the City will support programs that will help link the homeless and special need populations to appropriate support services and housing. CDBG funding is typically allocated for a senior program that provide counseling, referrals and food. Such services aim to help seniors remain housed in place. Services for adults with developmental disabilities will also be addressed with CDBG funding. Employment opportunities will be developed for special needs residents, and while this program will not create new housing opportunities, the program will help participants earn additional income that can be used to obtain or retain appropriate housing. Also, CDBG funding will be allocated for transitional housing and rapid rehousing. Funds will focus on single adults and also families with children. City funding will be used by subrecipient agencies to provide housing subsidies and supportive services. For entitlement/consortia grantees: Specify the activities that the jurisdiction plans to undertake during the next year to address the housing and supportive services needs identified in accordance with 91.215(e) with respect to persons who are not homeless but have other special needs. Link to one-year goals. (91.220(2)) The City's HOME funding was reduced by over 50% in 2012. With limited HOME funds, the City has focused these limited resources for single-family housing rehabilitation loans and grants. The City's Neighborhood Improvement Grant program is particularly popular among senior households. The program is limited to households earning less than 50% of AMI; however, most program participants are extremely low-income. By providing housing rehabilitation grants, the City is able to help residents with housing cost burden to improve their homes without increasing their housing costs. HOME CHDO funds are also available; however, due to the limited amount of these funds, it has been difficult to attract CHDO interest to use this funding. Finally, while not presently slated for funding, there is the possibility that the City may choose to support a Tenant Based Rental Assistance program sometime during the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan cycle. This program would most likely focus on homeless individuals and homeless families. Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 70 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 MA-40 Barriers to Affordable Housing — 91.210(e) Negative Effects of Public Policies on Affordable Housing and Residential Investment According to the City's Housing Element, actions or policies of numerous governmental agencies can impact the ability of the private sector to provide adequate housing to meet consumer demands. Local governments exercise a number of regulatory and approval powers that directly impact residential development within their respective jurisdiction. These powers establish the location, intensity, and type of units that may or may not be developed. The City's General Plan, zoning regulations, project review and approval procedures, development and processing fees all play important roles in determining the cost and availability of housing opportunities in Costa Mesa. GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING The Costa Mesa General Plan and zoning establishes the location and amount of land that will be allocated to residential development, and the intensity of development (in terms of unit densities and total number of units) that will be permitted. Densities and other development standards can drive the cost of developing housing and thus the ultimate cost. LOCAL ENTITLEMENT PROCESSING AND FEES Two aspects of local government that have been criticized as placing undue burdens on the ability to build affordable housing are the fees or other exactions required of developers to obtain project approval, and the time delays caused by the review and approval process. Critics contend that lengthy review periods increase financial and carrying costs, and that fees and exactions increase expenses. These costs are in part passed onto the prospective homebuyer in the form of higher purchase prices or higher rents in the case of tenants. Processing Procedures: The time required to process a project varies tremendously from one project to another and is directly related to the size and complexity of the proposal and the number of actions or approvals needed to complete the process. Planning and Development Fees: Fees charged by the City are generally lower than surrounding cities. The developer is required to pay certain fees for only the net increase of residential units on site. Fees, land dedications, or improvements are also required in most instances to provide an adequate supply of public park land and to provide necessary public improvements (streets, sewers, and storm drains) to support the new development. Fees are based on the significance of the necessary public works improvements thus vary from project to project. While such costs are charged to the developer, most, if not all, additional costs are passed to the ultimate product consumer in the form of higher prices or rents. Various governmental agencies also charge fees depending on the service and the location of the project. Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 71 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 ON -/OFF -SITE IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS Costs associated with site improvements are an important component of new residential development costs. Site improvement costs are applied to provide sanitary sewer and water service to a project, to make necessary transportation improvements, and to provide other infrastructure to the project. The City may require the payment for various offsite improvements as part of project mitigation measures (e.g., payment towards an offsite traffic signal). The City's on- and off -site improvement requirements are typical for urban development in a highly developed community. While these improvements add to the cost of housing, they do not constrain housing development as these improvements are similarly required in all surrounding communities. Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 72 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 MA-45 Non -Housing Community Development Assets — 91.215 (f) Introduction Developing economic opportunities, especially for low and moderate -income persons is a HUD priority. The City does not fund economic development activities with CDBG funds, but it does use public service grant funds to support programs that help individuals improve their job skills. The City also invests General Fund resources toward economic development activities. Economic Development Market Analysis Business Activity Business by Sector Number of Workers Number of Jobs Share of Workers % Share of Jobs % Jobs less workers % Agriculture, Mining, Oil & Gas Extraction 398 25 1 0 -1 Arts, Entertainment, Accommodations 5,731 9,131 15 14 -1 Construction 1,945 2,927 5 4 -1 Education and Health Care Services 5,206 9,104 14 14 0 Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 3,736 5,294 10 8 -2 Information 1,221 1,348 3 2 -1 Manufacturing 3,925 5,112 11 8 -3 Other Services 1,863 2,283 5 3 -2 Professional, Scientific, Management Services 4,974 11,576 13 18 5 Public Administration 0 0 0 0 0 Retail Trade 4,926 12,611 13 19 6 Transportation and Warehousing 982 836 3 1 -2 Wholesale Trade 2,462 5,191 7 8 1 Total 37,369 65,438 -- -- -- Table 44 - Business Activity Data Source: 2007-2011 ACS (Workers), 2011 Longitudinal Employer -Household Dynamics (Jobs) Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 73 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Labor Force Total Population in the Civilian Labor Force 65,241 Civilian Employed Population 16 years and over 60,131 Unemployment Rate 7.83 Unemployment Rate for Ages 16-24 21.42 Unemployment Rate for Ages 25-65 5.73 Table 45 - Labor Force Data Source: 2007-2011 ACS Occupations by Sector Number of People Management, business and financial 17,259 Farming, fisheries and forestry occupations 2,442 Service 6,059 Sales and office 15,907 Construction, extraction, maintenance and repair 3,954 Production, transportation and material moving 2,807 Table 46 — Occupations by Sector Data Source: 2007-2011 ACS Travel Time Travel Time Number Percentage < 30 Minutes 40,836 74% 30-59 Minutes 10,998 20% 60 or More Minutes 3,375 6% Total 55,209 100% Table 47 - Travel Time Data Source: 2007-2011 ACS Education: Educational Attainment by Employment Status (Population 16 and Older) Educational Attainment In Labor Force Civilian Employed Unemployed Not in Labor Force Less than high school graduate 6,560 463 2,235 High school graduate (includes equivalency) 8,353 595 2,157 Some college or Associate's degree 16,787 1,515 3,192 Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 74 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Educational Attainment In Labor Force Civilian Employed Unemployed Not in Labor Force Bachelor's degree or higher 18,722 1,120 2,693 Table 48 - Educational Attainment by Employment Status Data Source: 2007-2011 ACS Educational Attainment by Age Age 18-24 yrs 25-34 yrs 35-44 yrs 45-65 yrs 65+ yrs Less than 9th grade 562 977 1,723 1,899 751 9th to 12th grade, no diploma 1,539 2,060 1,425 1,174 549 High school graduate, GED, or alternative 3,111 3,915 3,468 3,722 2,252 Some college, no degree 4,668 4,511 3,404 7,271 2,288 Associate's degree 941 1,816 1,403 3,160 938 Bachelor's degree 1,394 6,307 3,655 5,848 1,715 Graduate or professional degree 32 2,200 1,856 2,669 1,166 Table 49 - Educational Attainment by Age Data Source: 2007-2011 ACS Educational Attainment- Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months Educational Attainment Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months Less than high school graduate 18,802 High school graduate (includes equivalency) 31,375 Some college or Associate's degree 40,332 Bachelor's degree 54,563 Graduate or professional degree 66,913 Table 50 - Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months Data Source: 2007-2011 ACS Based on the Business Activity table above, what are the major employment sectors within your jurisdiction? • Arts, Entertainment, Accommodations - 14% • Education and Health Care Services - 13% • Retail Trade - 12% • Professional, Scientific, Management Services - 12% • Manufacturing - 10% Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 75 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Describe the workforce and infrastructure needs of the business community: Improvements to major transportation corridors in the City have been identified as some of the infrastructure improvements that are needed to support business and overall commerce. The City's Capital Improvement Plan identifies improvements on Bristol, 19th Street and Harbor Boulevard over the next seven years. These streets provide major north/south and east/west access into and through the City. Additional public infrastructure improvements identified that will assist local businesses include storm/flood water system improvements. CDBG funding will not be available to undertake the major transportation corridor improvements; however, depending on the location and primary beneficiaries of storm/flood water improvements, CDBG funding may be available. Describe any major changes that may have an economic impact, such as planned local or regional public or private sector investments or initiatives that have affected or may affect job and business growth opportunities during the planning period. Describe any needs for workforce development, business support or infrastructure these changes may create. The City is in the process of further refining its Economic Development Plan with a focus on attracting and retaining key businesses in Costa Mesa. The City will market itself on a regional and nationwide basis, and strive to improve the business climate within the City. The City has facilitated new companies getting started, and has assisted existing companies expand through responsive customer service. How do the skills and education of the current workforce correspond to employment opportunities in the jurisdiction? The Orange County Business Council and the Orange County Workforce Investment Board have recently published their 2014-2015 Orange County Workforce Indictors Report. The report provides information regarding closing the skills gap for businesses by developing a highly —trained workforce. The report identifies "newfound growth" industry sectors prevalent in Orange County — health care, advanced manufacturing and information technology. The report also explores employer concerns that they are unable to find workers that possess certain skills, especially in "high -STEM" (science, technology, engineering and math) areas. Describe any current workforce training initiatives, including those supported by Workforce Investment Boards, community colleges and other organizations. Describe how these efforts will support the jurisdiction's Consolidated Plan. The Business Council/Workforce Investment Board report referenced above, explores the skills mismatch between education institutions and employer needs. The report advocates that education systems adapt to current workforce needs in order to prepare workers for success in future years. The report concludes that Orange County's education and workforce training institutions must continue Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 76 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 building STEM capacity to keep paced with the accelerating demand for critical positions within STEM - related industries and occupations. With respect to Costa Mesa, the City will continue to forge its relationship with the Chamber of Commerce, utilizing this agency as an additional source of information and support for existing and new businesses. The City will also identify additional partners such as the local school district, community colleges and universities, to discuss topics such as workforce preparedness. Finally, the aforementioned report highlights that the lack of workforce housing throughout Orange County as an issue. Skilled young adults will permanently move out of the area if lower price housing is not available. The City's General Plan and Housing Element have identified plan areas where development incentives are available to developers willing to build workforce housing. Does your jurisdiction participate in a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS)? No If so, what economic development initiatives are you undertaking that may be coordinated with the Consolidated Plan? If not, describe other local/regional plans or initiatives that impact economic growth. As indicated above, the City is in the process of refining its Economic Development plan with a focus on attracting and retaining key businesses in Costa Mesa. Additionally, the City will look to develop partnerships with additional business groups and educational institutions to explore ways to prepare the City's workforce be better meet the demands of today's and the future's job -generating industries. The City has also implemented land use initiatives to incentivize the development of workforce housing. The lack of affordable housing has been identified as a potential weakness in the region's economic development. Discussion The City has initiated the preparation of an updated Economic Development Plan which will strive to attract and retain key businesses. The City will also take steps to strengthen existing relationships with business and educational institutions in order to identify skill gaps and devise a plan to close the gap. Other initiatives such as workforce housing are already in place. Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 77 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 MA-50 Needs and Market Analysis Discussion Are there areas where households with multiple housing problems are concentrated? (include a definition of "concentration") Housing problem concentration is defined as a Census Tract with at least 80% of households experiencing one of four severe housing problems. Based on maps generated by HUD's CPD Maps, there are several areas throughout the City where residents are experiencing at least one of the four severe housing problems to some degree. The maps supports the data from the Housing Needs Assessment, i.e., housing needs are spread throughout the City impacting both renters and owners, at various income levels (see Appendix Maps 3, 4 and 5). Are there any areas in the jurisdiction where racial or ethnic minorities or low-income families are concentrated? (include a definition of "concentration") Minority concentration is defined as a Census Tract where the percentage of racial or ethnic minority residents is at least 20 points higher than the minority's percentage of the City's whole population. Based on Census data, Asians and Hispanics are the two largest minority populations in Costa Mesa — 9.1% and 35.2% respectively. There are no Census Tracts where the Asian population exceeded 29.1% (the threshold for "concentration"); however, there are four Census Tracts that meets the definition of a concentrated minority neighborhood for Hispanics (see Appendix Maps 1 and 2). What are the characteristics of the market in these areas/neighborhoods? The Census Tracts with housing problem concentration include a mix of residential (both single and multi -family housing units), commercial and industrial areas. These Westside neighborhoods are typically more densely populated, and also have a higher concentration of low and moderate -income residents. The housing stock in this part of the City is generally older. Are there any community assets in these areas/neighborhoods? As indicated above, this area is a mix of land uses. There are several assets in this area including parks, community centers, and schools. Are there other strategic opportunities in any of these areas? This area is within the City's CDBG-eligible areas thus may benefit from planned infrastructure, facilities, and housing improvements planned for the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan cycle. Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 78 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Strategic Plan SP-05 Overview Strategic Plan Overview The Strategic Plan is the section of the Consolidated Plan that sets a course of actions that the City will implement during the next five years to utilize HUD funds to address priority needs. HUD requires that the Strategic Plan: • Describe the basis for assigning priority ranking for needs categories. • Identify accomplishments the City plans to achieve in quantitative and qualitative measures over a five-year period. Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 79 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 SP-10 Geographic Priorities — 91.215 (a)(1) Geographic Area Table 51- Geographic Prioritv Areas 1 Area Name: CDBG Eligible Areas Area Type: CDBG Eligible Areas Other Target Area Description: CDBG Eligible Areas 2 Area Name: Citywide Area Type: Citywide Other Target Area Description: Citywide General Allocation Priorities Describe the basis for allocating investments geographically within the jurisdiction (or within the EMSA for HOPWA) To determine which activities will receive CDBG funding during the Consolidated Plan cycle of 2015- 2019, the City utilized a simple priority ranking system to determine which activities will receive CDBG funding to address a priority need. The following priority ranking system has been used: • High Priority: Activities that address a high priority need will be funded by the City during the five-year period provided adequate resources are available. • Low Priority: The City may fund low, or not fund, a low priority need activities during the five- year period. The City does not have any special designated areas for investment of CDBG and HOME funds. HOME funds will be allocated on a Citywide basis to assist eligible households directly or as part of a HOME - qualified housing activity. CDBG funds will be allocated also be allocated on a Citywide basis for activities that are limited -clientele in nature. Other activities such as public facilities, infrastructure, and code enforcement, will be limited to eligible area (see Appendix Map 6). The City does not receive HOPWA funds. Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 80 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 SP-25 Priority Needs - 91.215(a)(2) Priority Needs Table 52 — Priority Needs Summary 1 Priority Need Owner Occupied Housing Name Priority Level High Population Extremely Low Income Low Income Moderate Income Large Families Families with Children Elderly Elderly Persons with Physical Disabilities Geographic Citywide Areas Affected Associated Owner Occupied Housing Rehabilitation Goals Description Housing rehabilitation loans (up to $50,000) and grants (up to $15,500 for single family residence & $10,000 for mobile home) to assist homeowners improve primary residence to correct code violations, address deferred maintenance and improve neighborhood aesthetics. Rehabilitate 75 units with HOME funds. Basis for Housing needs assessment and housing market analysis indicate a need for Relative housing rehabilitation assistance as a means to help lower income households Priority maintain/improve their home without or minimal additional cost burden. Housing and community needs survey. 2 Priority Need Housing Choice Vouchers/Certificates Name Priority Level High Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 81 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Population Extremely Low Income Low Income Large Families Families with Children Elderly Chronic Homelessness Families with Children veterans Elderly Persons with Physical Disabilities Geographic Citywide Areas Affected Associated Goals Description Continue to support the Orange County Housing Authority's efforts to provide Housing Choice Vouchers to lower income households and to obtain additional vouchers from HUD to expand housing opportunities. (Average of 600 assistance units per year.) Basis for Based on housing needs assessment and housing market analysis, data indicates Relative need to assist households that are experiencing a housing cost burden. Priority 3 Priority Need Rental Housing Acquisition/Rehabilitation Name Priority Level High Population Extremely Low Income Low Income Large Families Families with Children Elderly Elderly Persons with Physical Disabilities Geographic Citywide Areas Affected Associated Rental Housing Rehabilitation Goals Rental Housing Acquisition Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 82 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Description Based on the availability of funding, support the acquisition/rehabilitation or other form of housing activity to expand the number of rental housing units for lower income households. Basis for Based on housing needs assessment and housing market analysis, and housing Relative and community needs survey. Project feasibility will be dependent on available Priority public resources, including HOME CHDO funds. 4 Priority Need Housing Code Enforcement Name Priority Level High Population Extremely Low Income Low Income Moderate Income Large Families Families with Children Elderly Geographic CDBG Eligible Area Areas Affected Associated Code Enforcement Goals Description Inspection and enforcement of housing and building codes. This program will be limited to CDBG-eligible areas Basis for Based on housing needs assessment, this activity will help reduce the number of Relative housing units with incomplete kitchens and plumbing, and units that may be Priority crowded. 5 Priority Need Homeless Services and Housing Name Priority Level High Population Extremely Low Income Low Income Families with Children Chronic Homelessness Individuals Families with Children Mentally III Veterans Victims of Domestic Violence Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 83 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Geographic Citywide Areas Affected Associated Emergency Shelter Goals Transitional Housing/Rapid Rehousing Rapid Re -housing Homelessness Prevention Description Support services and housing assistance for homeless individuals and households. Services include outreach, case management, life skills, etc. Housing includes emergency shelter, transitional housing, rapid re -housing and tenant based rental assistance or TBRA (TBRA is a low priority). Basis for Needs Assessment and Housing and Community Needs survey. All services and Relative housing are high priority except for TBRA which is a low priority. Priority 6 Priority Need Services for Elderly/Frail Elderly Name Priority Level High Population Extremely Low Income Low Income Moderate Income Elderly Frail Elderly Geographic Citywide Areas Affected Associated Senior/Frail Elderly Services Goals Description Services will help seniors and the frail elderly maintain their independent living situation or ensure they are provided services that improve quality of life Basis for Needs assessment and housing and community needs survey. Relative Priority 7 Priority Need Services for Disabled Name Priority Level High Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 84 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Population Extremely Low Income Low Income Persons with Physical Disabilities Persons with Developmental Disabilities Geographic Citywide Areas Affected Associated Services for Disabled Goals Description Services that assist disabled and developmentally disabled adults clients maintain their independent living situation or ensure they are provided service that improves quality of life. Basis for Needs Assessment and Housing and Community Needs survey Relative Priority 8 Priority Need Youth Services Name Priority Level High Population Extremely Low Income Low Income Moderate Income Non -housing Community Development Geographic Citywide Areas Affected Associated Youth Services Goals Description Assist lower income families with children by providing access to youth programs and services at reduced or no cost. Basis for Needs Assessment and Housing and Community Needs survey Relative Priority 9 Priority Need Services for Low & Moderate Income Persons Name Priority Level High Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 85 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Population Extremely Low Income Low Income Moderate Income Large Families Families with Children Elderly Non -housing Community Development Geographic Citywide Areas Affected Associated Low and Moderate Income Persons Goals Description Services that assist lower income households and individuals with safety net services such as access to medical, food, case management, and employment services. Supported agencies should provide households with access to programs and services at reduced or no cost. Basis for Needs Assessment and Housing and Community Needs survey Relative Priority 10 priority Need Public Facilities Name Priority Level High Population Moderate Income Non -housing Community Development Geographic CDBG Eligible Areas Areas Affected Associated Public Facilities Goals Description Improvements to public facilities that address a community priority. Improvements may include but are not limited to repairs, replacement and/or upgrades (including ADA compliance) to neighborhood parks, centers and other facilities. Basis for City's CIP, Needs Assessment and Housing and Community Needs survey. Relative Priority Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 86 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 11 Priority Need Public Infrastructure Name Priority Level High Population Moderate Income Non -housing Community Development Geographic CDBG Eligible Areas Areas Affected Associated Public Infrastructure Improvements Goals Description Improvements to public infrastructure that address a community priority. Improvements may include but are not limited to repairs, replacement and/or upgrades (including ADA compliance) to streets, alleys, sidewalks, flood/storm water drains, and other improvements. Basis for City's CIP, Needs Assessment and Housing and Community Needs survey. Relative Priority 12 Priority Need Program Administration Name Priority Level High Population Moderate Income Other Geographic Citywide Areas Affected Associated Program Administration Goals Description Ensure efficient/effective use of CDBG and HOME funds to address Consolidated Plan priorities, provide oversight and coordination to make certain funds are spent properly and in a timely manner. Priority need also includes support for fair housing education, training/referral services, and enforcement of fair housing laws. Basis for HUD required. Relative Priority Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 87 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Narrative (Optional) Impediments to Fair Housing: HUD -funded grant recipients are required under various laws not to discriminate in housing or services directly or indirectly on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, familial status, or disability. Under the Consolidated Plan, HUD funded recipients are required to: (1) examine and attempt to alleviate housing discrimination within their jurisdiction; (2) promote fair housing choice for all persons; (3) provide opportunities for all persons to reside in any given housing development, regardless of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin; (4) promote housing that is accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities; (5) and comply with the non-discrimination requirements of the Fair Housing Act. HUD encourages jurisdictions to consult with one another and initiate metropolitan wide area fair housing planning. The Analysis of Impediments (AI) to Fair Housing Choice is the primary document utilized for this purpose. The current Al was prepared in conjunction with the 2010-2014 Consolidated Plan in partnership with three other Orange County jurisdictions. In July 2013, HUD published proposed rules that substantially revamped existing Al rules; however, as of this date, final implementing regulations have not been published. On the advice of the Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity staff at the Los Angeles HUD Office, the City is moving forward with an update to the Al utilizing existing HUD guidelines. The City is undertaking this process in partnership with 16 Orange County HUD grantees. It is anticipated that the updated Al will be completed in time for adoption of the 2016-2017 Annual Action Plan. A summary of the current Al is provided in the Appendix (see Appendix page 21). Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 88 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 SP-30 Influence of Market Conditions — 91.215 (b) Influence of Market Conditions Affordable Market Characteristics that will influence Housing Type the use of funds available for housing type Tenant Based Housing Needs Assessment indicates several Costa Mesa renter households are Rental Assistance cost burdened. HOME funds may be used for TBRA programs - the City may (TBRA) consider funding a program if resources are available and if OCHA resources are insufficient to meet local needs - Low Priority need. TBRA for Non- Housing Needs Assessment indicates several Costa Mesa homeless households Homeless Special may benefit from some form of housing assistance. HOME funds may be used Needs for TBRA programs - the City may consider funding a program if resources are available and if it is evident OCHA resources are insufficient to meet local need - Low Priority need. New Unit Housing Needs Assessment indicates additional housing resources are Production warranted; however CDBG may not be used for this type of activity. HOME funds may be used for new housing development; however, the City's grant was reduced over 50% in 2012 and may not be sufficient to subsidize new housing construction costs in Orange County. Rehabilitation Housing Market analysis data indicates many lower income homeowners are paying a significant amount of their income for housing (housing cost burden and severe housing cost burden). Housing rehabilitation assistance allows these homeowners to address deferred maintenance improvements on their primary residence without increasing the amount of income dedicated to housing. Acquisition, Housing Needs Assessment indicates additional housing resources are including warranted; however CDBG funds are utilized for other priority needs and may preservation not be available for this type of activity. HOME funds may be used for acquisition of housing; however, the City's grant has been reduced and may not be sufficient to subsidize costs of housing acquisition in Orange County. Table 53 — Influence of Market Conditions Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 89 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 SP-35 Anticipated Resources - 91.215(a)(4), 91.220(c)(1,2) Introduction Ongoing reductions and fluctuations in CDBG and HOME funding make it difficult to estimate the amount that will be available over the five-year time period of the Consolidated Plan. With the loss of redevelopment funding, the only anticipated funds that may be available to implement the Consolidated Plan are general fund for homeless services and housing voucher/certificate resources via OCHA. Anticipated Resources Program Source of Funds Uses of Funds Expected Amount Available Year 1 Expected Amount Narrative Description Annual Program Prior Year Total: Allocation: Income: Resources: $ Available $ $ $ Reminder of ConPlan CDBG public - Acquisition Annual CDBG allocation from HUD. federal Admin and Anticipate continued reductions in Planning funding over the 5-year Con Plan Economic cycle Development Housing Public Improvements Public Services 1,028,141 0 187,000 1,215,141 3,500,000 Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 90 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Program Source Uses of Funds Expected Amount Available Year 1 Expected Narrative Description Annual Program Prior Year Total: of Funds Amount Allocation: Income: Resources: $ Available $ $ $ Reminder of ConPlan HOME public - Acquisition Annual HOME allocation from HUD. federal Homebuyer Anticipate continued reductions in assistance funding over the 5-year Con Plan Homeowner rehab cycle Multifamily rental new construction Multifamily rental rehab New construction for ownership TBRA 327,658 0 0 327,658 1,000,000 General public - City General Fund resources to Fund local provide homeless outreach, Public Services engagement and case management Other 200,000 0 0 200,000 500,000 services. Other public - Rental Assistance The value of rental housing federal vouchers and vouchers and certificates assistance certificates is unknown. Program is administered by the Orange County Other 0 0 0 0 0 Housing Authority. Table 54 - Anticipated Resources Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 91 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Explain how federal funds will leverage those additional resources (private, state and local funds), including a description of how matching requirements will be satisfied In past years, the City was able to leverage federal funds with local redevelopment funds. In 2012 the State Legislature and the Governor passed legislation to dissolve all redevelopment agencies in the State. As a result, this funding source is no longer available. For the foreseeable future, it appears that the City will continue to allocate General Fund resources for homeless services. In recent years approximately $200,000 has been committed for these programs. The City has a HOME match surplus available to meet HOME match program requirements. If appropriate, describe publically owned land or property located within the jurisdiction that may be used to address the needs identified in the plan Costa Mesa is considered a built out community with little vacant land available for new development. The City has begun to recycle land to accommodate housing growth. The City owns only a few properties: 1) Two City -owned parking lots serve under -parked commercial areas; Senior Center with associated parking lot; and a vacant property at 111 Fair Drive that is set aside for an institutional use. The City is in the process of updating its Land Use Element, which will consider various options for the sites. Development potential is also available at the "Argotech" site. This 9.1-acre site is located within the Mesa West Bluffs Urban Plan area. This site can accommodate residential uses under the current overlay zoning, which allows residential development at 13 units per acre or 20 units per acre if live/work housing is proposed. This site contains multiple buildings (office and manufacturing) and has not been in full operation for many years. Prior to the economic downturn, the site was in the market for sale. Currently, there is new development interest for this site. Additional parcels are identified in the City's Housing Element are listed in Appendix Table F. Discussion Funding resources to implement the City's Consolidated Plan are limited. It is anticipated that CDBG and HOME funding will continue to be reduced. In recent years, HOME housing rehab loan repayments have provided the City with additional funding; however, this source of funds is susceptible to the fluctuations of the economy and thus unpredictable. HUD has begun to invest additional resources into housing assistance vouchers and certificates, and OCHA has aggressively pursued these new resources. The City will continue to support OCHA's efforts to secure new rental assistance resources. Some land is available to recycle that may be able to accommodate future housing development. For the foreseeable future, the City will continue to support homeless service programs serving individuals with strong ties to Costa Mesa; however, resources to support the development of new housing are limited. Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 92 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 SP-40 Institutional Delivery Structure — 91.215(k) Explain the institutional structure through which the jurisdiction will carry out its consolidated plan including private industry, non-profit organizations, and public institutions. Responsible Entity Responsible Entity Role Geographic Area Type Served Orange County Housing Public Housing Public Housing Region Authority Authority (PHA) 211 Orange County Continuum of care Homelessness Region Vanguard University Other Homelessness Jurisdiction Health Care Agency of Government Ownership Region the County of Orange Rental County public services State of California Government Economic State Development Ownership Planning Rental City of Costa Mesa Government Economic Jurisdiction Development Homelessness Non -homeless special needs Ownership Planning Rental neighborhood improvements public facilities public services Fair Housing Non-profit Planning Jurisdiction Foundation organizations Mercy House Non-profit Homelessness Jurisdiction Transitional Living organizations Planning Centers public services Colette's Children's Non-profit Homelessness Jurisdiction Home organizations Council on Aging — Non-profit public services Jurisdiction Orange County organizations Community SeniorSery Non-profit public services Jurisdiction organizations Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 93 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Responsible Entity Responsible Entity Role Geographic Area Type Served Youth Employment Non-profit public services Jurisdiction Services organizations Mika Community Non-profit public services Jurisdiction Development Corp organizations Elwyn California Non-profit public services Jurisdiction organizations Costa Mesa Chamber Private Industry Economic Jurisdiction of Commerce Development Table 55 - Institutional Delivery Structure Assess of Strengths and Gaps in the Institutional Delivery System Costa Mesa has a strong group of service providers that are capable of delivering a wide variety of services for City residents. This is perhaps most evident with the coordinated efforts of local nonprofits, local churches and faith -based groups to develop a coordinated effort to address the needs of Costa Mesa's homeless. This effort works directly to overcome institutional barriers faced by the homeless and other at risk populations. Additionally, the City's diverse economic base provides a wide range of employment opportunities from a variety of industries. The City has established strong working relationships with the local school districts and colleges/universities, and anticipates strengthening these relationships in order to create linkages between the needs of employers and the curricula of area schools. The City continues to work well with OCHA by supporting their efforts to assist the City's lower income renters with housing assistance vouchers and certificates. The City also has established strong working relationships with other Orange County grantees which has resulted in the coordination of regional efforts to address issues such as homelessness and fair housing. With respect to gaps in the institutional deliver system, there is a need to improve the sharing of information that is mutually beneficial to the City and regional players. For example, CoC information regarding regional and Costa Mesa homeless was available; however, detailed information was hard to obtain from the CoC. Persistent follow-up was needed to obtain data. Availability of services targeted to homeless persons and persons with HIV and mainstream services Homelessness Prevention Services Available in the Community Targeted to Homeless Targeted to People with HIV Homelessness Prevention Services Counseling/Advocacy X X Legal Assistance X X Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 94 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Homelessness Prevention Services Available in the Community Targeted to Homeless Targeted to People with HIV Homelessness Prevention Services Mortgage Assistance Rental Assistance X X Utilities Assistance X X Street Outreach Services Law Enforcement X X Mobile Clinics X Other Street Outreach Services X X Supportive Services Alcohol & Drug Abuse X Child Care Education Employment and Employment Training Healthcare X X HIV/AIDS Life Skills X X Mental Health Counseling X X Transportation X X Other Table 56 - Homeless Prevention Services Summary Describe how the service delivery system including, but not limited to, the services listed above meet the needs of homeless persons (particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth) Several homeless service providers, including the City, are available to assist the homeless and those that are at risk of becoming homeless. Since 2012, the City of Costa Mesa has directly funded homeless outreach and engagement services. Program staff works closely with nonprofit, public and faith -based organizations to coordinate outreach and referral services for chronic and non -chronic homeless individuals with strong ties to the community. Program staff works closely with individuals and families to identify and qualify individuals/households for appropriate mainstream services and resources. Examples of mainstream services available include veterans housing vouchers, veteran medical services, MediCal/Medicare, SSI, and general relief. These efforts are primarily coordinated by the City's Network for Homeless Solutions (NHS) Taskforce. HCD and NHS staff also work closely with CDBG sub -recipients to ensure individuals and households at risk of becoming homeless, or that are not chronic homeless are also assisted. Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 95 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Describe the strengths and gaps of the service delivery system for special needs population and persons experiencing homelessness, including, but not limited to, the services listed above The strength of the City's service delivery system is that it is well coordinated, especially for homeless services. The NHS Taskforce meets weekly to discuss the status of initiatives and to also address and resolve issues. It is important to highlight the fact that while the City is a partner in the NHS, many of the initiates are generated by its members (typically community volunteers and local church leaders). Initiatives include a smartphone app for volunteers to report services provided to a homeless individuals thus reducing duplication of services, and the "Sherpa" program, i.e., community volunteers trained to navigate the mainstream fund application process. Once trained, a Sherpa will assist a homeless individual apply for public benefits, Medicare/Medical, VA benefits, etc. Housing (emergency and permanent) remain the primary gap in the City's service delivery system. City staff works closely with service providers to access the limited permanent housing or rapid re -housing resources that are available. There is a lack of year-round emergency shelter beds for single adults for the entire County. Provide a summary of the strategy for overcoming gaps in the institutional structure and service delivery system for carrying out a strategy to address priority needs Ongoing coordination will help to overcome some of the gap in the current service delivery system. The City will also continue to seek new resources to sustain services and to access housing options. Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 96 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 SP-45 Goals Summary — 91.215(a)(4) Goals Summary Information Sort Goal Name Start End Category Geographic Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator Order Year Year Area 1 Owner Occupied 2015 2019 Affordable Citywide Owner Occupied Housing HOME: Homeowner Housing Housing Housing $1,000,000 Rehabilitated: Rehabilitation 50 Household Housing Units 2 Rental Housing 2015 2019 Affordable Citywide Rental Housing HOME: Rental units rehabilitated: Rehabilitation Housing Acquisition/Rehabilitation $100 1 Household Housing Unit 3 Rental Housing 2015 2019 Affordable Citywide Rental Housing HOME: Rental units rehabilitated: Acquisition Housing Acquisition/Rehabilitation $100 1 Household Housing Units 4 Code 2015 2019 Affordable CDBG Housing Code Enforcement CDBG: Housing Code Enforcement Housing Eligible $1,250,000 Enforcement/Foreclosed Areas Property Care: 1250 Household Housing Units 5 Emergency 2019 2019 Homeless Citywide Homeless Services and CDBG: Homeless Person Overnight Shelter Housing $10,000 Shelter: 10 Persons Assisted 6 Transitional 2015 2019 Homeless Citywide Homeless Services and CDBG: Homeless Person Overnight Housing Housing $75,000 Shelter: 75 Persons Assisted 7 Rapid Re- 2015 2019 Homeless Citywide Homeless Services and CDBG: Tenant -based rental housing Housing $60,000 assistance / Rapid Rehousing: 25 Households Assisted 8 Homelessness 2015 2019 Homeless Citywide Homeless Services and CDBG: Homelessness Prevention: Prevention Housing $15,000 10 Persons Assisted Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 97 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Sort Goal Name Start End Category Geographic Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator Order Year Year Area 9 Senior/Frail 2015 2019 Non -Homeless CDBG Services for Elderly/Frail CDBG: Public service activities other Elderly Services Special Needs Eligible Elderly $150,000 than Low/Moderate Income Areas Housing Benefit: 2500 Persons Assisted 10 Services for 2015 2019 Non -Homeless Citywide Services for Disabled CDBG: Public service activities other Disabled Special Needs $25,000 than Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit: 150 Persons Assisted 11 Youth Services 2015 2019 Non -Housing Citywide Youth Services CDBG: Public service activities other Community $50,000 than Low/Moderate Income Development Housing Benefit: 2500 Persons Assisted 12 Low and 2015 2019 Non -Housing Citywide Services for Low & CDBG: Public service activities other Moderate Community Moderate Income Persons $115,000 than Low/Moderate Income Income Persons Development Housing Benefit: 750 Persons Assisted 13 Public Facilities 2015 2019 Non -Housing CDBG Public Facilities CDBG: Public Facility Activities other Community Eligible $250,000 than Low/Moderate Income Development Areas Housing Benefit: 2500 Persons Assisted 14 Public 2015 2019 Non -Housing CDBG Public Infrastructure CDBG: Public Infrastructure Infrastructure Community Eligible $2,500,000 Activities other than Improvements Development Areas Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit: 7500 Persons Assisted 15 Program 2015 2019 Administration Program Administration CDBG: Other: Administration $1,000,000 5 Other Table 57 — Goals Summary Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 98 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Goal Descriptions 1 Goal Name Owner Occupied Housing Rehabilitation Goal Description Single family housing rehabilitation assistance in the form of a loan or grant. 2 Goal Name Rental Housing Rehabilitation Goal Description Funds to rehabilitate rental housing occupied by low and moderate income households 3 Goal Name Rental Housing Acquisition Goal Description Funds to assist with acquisition of affordable housing 4 Goal Name Code Enforcement Goal Description Enforcement of housing and building codes in CDBG-eligible areas. 5 Goal Name Emergency Shelter Goal Description Short-term housing and support services 6 Goal Name Transitional Housing/Rapid Rehousing Goal Description Temporary housing and support services for up to two years 7 Goal Name Rapid Re -housing Goal Description Financial assistance, case management and support services to stabilize homeless households and individuals 8 Goal Name Homelessness Prevention Goal Description Financial assistance to prevent homelessness. 9 Goal Name Senior/Frail Elderly Services Goal Descriptionj Services to assist seniors and frail elderly to age in place or to ensure safe and decent living situation. Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 99 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 10 Goal Name Services for Disabled Goal Description Services for disabled adults 11 Goal Name Youth Services Goal Description Services for lower income youth 12 Goal Name Low and Moderate Income Persons Goal Description Services for low and moderate -income households and individuals. May include fair housing services. 13 Goal Name Public Facilities Goal Description Public facility improvements in eligible areas. 14 Goal Name Public Infrastructure Improvements Goal Description Eligible improvements to city's infrastructure 15 Goal Name Program Administration Goal Description Program oversight and coordination. May include fair housing services. Estimate the number of extremely low-income, low-income, and moderate -income families to whom the jurisdiction will provide affordable housing as defined by HOME 91.315(b)(2) The City of Costa Mesa's five-year goal for HOME -funded homeowner rehabilitated by income: • 30 extremely low-income (0% to 30%) • 10 very low-income (30% to 50%) • 10 low-income (50% to 80%) While rental housing goals have been established in the Consolidated Plan, no projects have been identified at this time. HOME regulations require that HOME -assisted rental units be rented at very specific income levels. The City will comply with all HOME program regulations including 24 CFR 91.315 if such a project is undertaken during the Consolidated Plan cycle. Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 100 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 SP-50 Public Housing Accessibility and Involvement — 91.215(c) Need to Increase the Number of Accessible Units (if Required by a Section 504 Voluntary Compliance Agreement) Not applicable, the City of Costa Mesa does not operate a public housing authority. Activities to Increase Resident Involvements Not applicable Is the public housing agency designated as troubled under 24 CFR part 902? Not applicable Plan to remove the `troubled' designation Not applicable Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 101 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 SP-55 Barriers to affordable housing — 91.215(h) Barriers to Affordable Housing Strategy to Remove or Ameliorate the Barriers to Affordable Housing According to the City's Housing Element, the following actions will be implemented to remove or ameliorate barriers to affordable housing: • The City will encourage the joint processing of related applications for a single project. Such procedures save time, money and effort for both the public and private sector. • The City provides fee credits for existing development against new development. Fee credits are available for park fees, sanitation district fees, and traffic impact fees. Park fees and traffic impact fees can also be deferred until the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy. • The City will provide incentives (such as density bonus and deferred impact fees) to developers that agree to reserve a portion of project units for lower income households (including extremely low income), moderate income households (common interest developments only), or for seniors and the disabled. • The City will maintain an inventory of vacant and underutilized sites and provide this inventory to interested developers. • The City will continue to promote mixed -use development specific plan areas. The City will respond to market conditions and offer appropriate incentives through the Mixed Use Overlay zone. Incentives include reduced parking standards, reduced open space, increased densities, increased height limit, increased lot coverage, and reduced setbacks. Additionally, if available, the City will consider providing subsidies for affordable housing projects (i.e., HOME funds). Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 102 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 SP-60 Homelessness Strategy — 91.215(d) Reaching out to homeless persons (especially unsheltered persons) and assessing their individual needs As previously outlined, since 2012, the City has directly funded homeless outreach services — initially funded with CDBG but for the last two years with City General Funds. City staff, with the assistance of community volunteers (primarily from local faith -based groups, will continue efforts to engage the homeless. Once engaged, staff/volunteers will attempt to assess the needs of homeless individuals, and will make appropriate referrals for services and housing. On a regular basis, Outreach program staff meet with representatives of City departments (chief executive officer, police, fire, public works, housing and community development), County agencies (health care, social services), and community volunteers (homeless service providers, church and other faith -based), to discuss issues and solutions to specific and general homeless issues. These meetings are held weekly under the auspices of the Network for Homeless Solutions (NHS) Taskforce. Addressing the emergency and transitional housing needs of homeless persons As resources permit, and if qualified service providers submit funding requests, the City will continue to fund emergency and transitional housing programs with CDBG funds. In past years these programs have provided critical support for the City's homeless outreach efforts by providing housing options for homeless individuals with strong ties to the City. As outlined in the Housing Market Analysis there are no emergency shelter beds in the City, and there are few year-round emergency shelter beds throughout the County. The City will continue to work with regional homeless planners to explore year- round emergency shelter options. With respect to transitional housing, there appears to be sufficient transitional shelter beds to meet Costa Mesa's homeless needs. Helping homeless persons (especially chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth) make the transition to permanent housing and independent living, including shortening the period of time that individuals and families experience homelessness, facilitating access for homeless individuals and families to affordable housing units, and preventing individuals and families who were recently homeless from becoming homeless again. In 2012, the City was awarded Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Rehousing (HPRP) funds through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). During the three years that this funding source was available, 52 individuals were assisted via rapid rehousing utilizing approximately $135,000. Implementation of this Rapid Rehousing program demonstrated a need for this type of assistance in the community but also demonstrated that it is a costly undertaking. For the past two years the City has utilized a portion of its CDBG public service grant funding to fund Rapid Rehousing activity. Unfortunately, the amount that is available under the CDBG program only allows for assistance of a few individuals/households per year. The City recently agreed to support a local nonprofit's Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 103 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 application to the State of California for additional Rapid Rehousing funding. It is anticipated that these funds and additional CDBG funding will allow the City to provide some homeless households access to permanent housing and supportive services. Help low-income individuals and families avoid becoming homeless, especially extremely low-income individuals and families who are likely to become homeless after being discharged from a publicly funded institution or system of care, or who are receiving assistance from public and private agencies that address housing, health, social services, employment, education or youth needs The City's homeless strategy is based on the proposition that it is less expensive and disruptive for a household to remain housed in their existing home than to be rehoused. To this end, the City will focus its resources with agencies that provide a variety of safety net services aimed at preventing households from becoming homeless. These services include rent/utility assistance to prevent eviction or utility shut-off, and case management. Additionally, the City will support programs that provide for low cost meals, clothing, and employment/job skills development services for lower income households. Safety net services allow households to save a portion of income previously spent on food, cloths, etc., and preserve their housing. Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 104 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 SP-65 Lead based paint Hazards — 91.215(i) Actions to address LBP hazards and increase access to housing without LBP hazards The City's housing rehabilitation programs have been designed to test each participating unit built prior to 1978 (the year lead -based paint was banned) for lead -based paint. A grant is available for homeowners to test, and if necessary, address/remediate the lead hazards that may be found. All rental housing units that may be subject to public assistance will also be tested for lead -based paint hazards. How are the actions listed above related to the extent of lead poisoning and hazards? During consultation with the State Department of Public Health, State staff was clear that information provided regarding the number of children with high blood lead values was not solely attributed to lead based -paint. Without this specific information, the City can only address potential lead poisoning and hazards within the programs it funds. The City will mandate lead testing for all properties constructed prior to 1978 that are part of the City's housing rehabilitation programs. How are the actions listed above integrated into housing policies and procedures? Current Housing Rehabilitation Program policies and procedures require all properties constructed prior to 1978 to be tested for lead. If lead is found, it must be removed or encapsulated as part of the overall rehabilitation of the unit. Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 105 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 SP-70 Anti -Poverty Strategy — 91.215(j) Jurisdiction Goals, Programs and Policies for reducing the number of Poverty -Level Families According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 15.1% of the City's population is living at or below the poverty level. The Census Bureau also reports that 21.5% of Costa Mesa residents under the age of 18 are living in poverty, and that 8.2% of residents age 65 and older are living in poverty. [1] The City has identified several activities and services that can be implemented to combat poverty - this strategy includes support of programs that improve coordination and collaboration among City departments and nonprofit agencies that provide social services, employment counseling, and other support services for lower income persons. Specific examples include the following activities: • Implement housing programs (including housing rehabilitation assistance) for lower income, senior and disabled homeowners. • Support rental assistance programs provided by the Orange County Housing Authority for very low-income renters. • Support homeless services for individuals presently housed but at risk of losing their residence. Also, to assist those already homeless in need of emergency shelter, transitional housing, or rapid rehousing, continue to coordinate the delivery of services with nonprofit partners. • Support safety net public services programs to improve the quality of life seniors, youth, the disabled, and other populations that may be severely impacted by the cost of living in the region. [1] 2013 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table #S1701. How are the Jurisdiction poverty reducing goals, programs, and policies coordinated with this affordable housing plan The City's anti -poverty strategy calls for assisting lower income households (i.e., seniors and disabled homeowners) to improve their homes without incurring new housing cost. The support for OCHA's rental assistance programs for very low-income renters is also consistent with the City's affordable housing strategy. Additionally, safety net programs (e.g., food programs, clothing) assist high poverty households by helping them to free up income for housing. Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 106 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 SP-80 Monitoring — 91.230 Describe the standards and procedures that the jurisdiction will use to monitor activities carried out in furtherance of the plan and will use to ensure long-term compliance with requirements of the programs involved, including minority business outreach and the comprehensive planning requirements Costa Mesa has instituted a monitoring plan for subgrantees receiving CDBG public service grant funds. Monitoring is conducted by the City's Housing and Community Development staff. Monitoring involves an in-house review of progress reports and expenditures, and when needed, an on -site visit of subgrantees to ensure further compliance with federal regulations. The City's monitoring system encourages uniform reporting to achieve consistent information on beneficiaries. Technical assistance is provided as necessary. At a minimum, public service grant recipients receiving consecutive years of CDBG funding will undergo on -site monitoring every other year. If resources permit, they will be monitored annually. Any new grant recipient or a recipient that has displayed administrative/program issues will be monitored annually until adequate administrative/programmatic capacity can be ensured. A monitoring checklist has been developed by the City to assist with program evaluation and on -site monitoring. Rental housing units that are subject to long-term affordability are also monitored. The HOME program has established time intervals to conduct on -site property inspections. These intervals are based on the number of rental units in the HOME -assisted project. HOME -required inspections can vary from once per year to once every three years. Costa Mesa has established a master list of HOME assisted units listing inspection intervals and dates for the next on -site inspection. To ensure qualified low-income households occupy rental units, an annual recertification of tenant eligibility is required by the City. These monitoring efforts will be continued during the 2015-2016 Program Year. The City has actively sought to comply with the minority/women owned business outreach requirements of the HOME program. The City provides information regarding contracting opportunities to minority/women owned enterprises and minority/women business owner organizations. Additionally, the City requires CHDOs to undertake efforts to reach out to minority and women owned businesses with business opportunities. Elements of the City's Outreach Plan include the following: ■ The City will make an effort to place qualified small and minority businesses and women's business enterprises on solicitation lists. ■ The City will assure that small and minority businesses, and women's business enterprises are solicited whenever they are potential sources. ■ The City may divide total requirements, when economically feasible, into smaller tasks or quantities to permit maximum participation by small and minority business, and women's business enterprises. Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 107 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 ■ The City will endeavor to use the services of the Small Business Administration and the Minority Business Development Agency of the Department of Commerce, as well as local minority chambers of commerce. ■ If subcontracts are used, the prime contractor will be required to take the action steps listed above to comply with minority and women owned business outreach efforts. Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 108 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Annual Action Plan AMS Expected Resources — 91.220(c)(1,2) Introduction Ongoing reductions and fluctuations in CDBG and HOME funding make it difficult to estimate the amount that will be available over the five-year time period of the Consolidated Plan. With the loss of redevelopment funding, the only anticipated funds that may be available to implement the Consolidated Plan are general fund for homeless services and housing voucher/certificate resources via OCHA. For Fiscal Year 2015-2016, HUD has notified the City it will receive $1,028,141 in CDBG and $327,658 in HOME funds. The City has identified additional prior year grant funds that will be available during the fiscal year. The City's application for funds is in the form of the SF 424. Anticipated Resources Program Source of Funds Uses of Funds Expected Amount Available Year 1 Expected Amount Narrative Description Annual Program Prior Year Total: Allocation: Income: Resources: $ Available $ $ $ Remainder of ConPlan CDBG public - Acquisition Annual CDBG allocation from HUD. federal Admin and Anticipate continued reductions in Planning funding over the 5-year Con Plan Economic cycle Development Housing Public Improvements Public Services 1,028,141 0 187,000 1,215,141 3,500,000 Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 109 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Program Source Uses of Funds Expected Amount Available Year 1 Expected Narrative Description Annual Program Prior Year Total: of Funds Amount Allocation: Income: Resources: $ Available $ $ $ Remainder of ConPlan HOME public - Acquisition Annual HOME allocation from HUD. federal Homebuyer Anticipate continued reductions in assistance funding over the 5-year Con Plan Homeowner cycle rehab Multifamily rental new construction Multifamily rental rehab New construction for ownership TBRA 327,658 0 0 327,658 1,000,000 General public - Public Services City General Fund resources to Fund local Other provide homeless outreach, engagement and case management 200,000 0 0 200,000 500,000 services. Other public - Other The value of rental housing federal vouchers and certificates assistance is unknown. Program is administered by the Orange County 0 0 0 0 0 Housing Authority. Table 58 - Expected Resources — Priority Table Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 110 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Explain how federal funds will leverage those additional resources (private, state and local funds), including a description of how matching requirements will be satisfied In past years, the City was able to leverage federal funds with local redevelopment funds. In 2012 the State Legislature and the Governor passed legislation to dissolve all redevelopment agencies in the State. As a result, this funding source is no longer available. For the foreseeable future, it appears that the City will continue to allocate General Funds resources for homeless services. In recent years approximately $200,000 has been committed for these programs. Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 111 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 If appropriate, describe publically owned land or property located within the jurisdiction that may be used to address the needs identified in the plan Costa Mesa is considered a built out community with little vacant land available for new development. The City has begun to recycle land to accommodate housing growth. The City owns only a few properties. Two City -owned parking lots serve under -parked commercial areas: 1) Senior Center with associated parking lot; and 2) a vacant property at 111 Fair Drive that is set aside for an institutional use. The City is in the process of updating its Land Use Element, which will consider various options for these sites. Development potential is also available at the "Argotech" site. This 9.1-acre site located on West 17th Street, within the Mesa West Bluffs Urban Plan area. This site can accommodate residential uses under the current overlay zoning, which allows residential development at 13 units per acre or 20 units per acre if live/work housing is proposed. Additional potential housing sites are listed in Appendix Table F). Discussion Funding resources to implement the City's Consolidated Plan are limited. It is anticipated that CDBG and HOME funding will continue to be reduced. In recent years, HOME housing rehab loan repayments have provided the City with additional funding; however, this source of funds is susceptible to the fluctuations of the economy and thus unpredictable. HUD has begun to invest additional resources into housing assistance vouchers and certificates, and OCHA has aggressively pursued these new resources. The City will continue to support OCHA's efforts to secure new rental assistance resources. For the foreseeable future, the City will continue to support homeless service programs serving individuals with strong ties to Costa Mesa; however, resources to support the development of new housing are limited. Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 112 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Annual Goals and Objectives AP-20 Annual Goals and Objectives Goals Summary Information Sort Goal Name Start End Category Geographic Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator Order Year Year Area 1 Owner Occupied 2015 2019 Affordable Citywide Owner Occupied Housing HOME: Homeowner Housing Housing Housing $245,744 Rehabilitated:10 Rehabilitation Household Housing Unit 2 Rental Housing 2015 2019 Affordable Citywide Rental Housing HOME: Rental units Rehabilitation Housing Acquisition/Rehabilitation $49,149 rehabilitated:0 Household Housing Unit 3 Program 2015 2019 Administration Program Administration CDBG: Other: 5 Years Administration $205,628 HOME: $32,765 Table 59 — Goals Summary Goal Descriptions 1 Goal Name Owner Occupied Housing Goal Description Preserve and/or improve the City's supply of ownership housing 2 Goal Name Rental Housing Goal Description Acquisition and/or rehabilitation of rental housing Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 113 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 3 Goal Name Program Administration Goal Description Program oversight and coordination 4 Goal Name Homeless Services Goal Description Support and housing services for homeless and households at risk of homelessness 5 Goal Name Services for Seniors/Frail Elderly Goal Description Services for seniors and frail elderly that help maintain and improve quality of life 6 Goal Name Services for Youths Goal Description Services for children and youths that help improve quality of life 7 Goal Name Services for Disabled Goal Description Services for individuals with disabilities that help maintain and improve quality of life 8 Goal Name Services for Low and Moderate -Income Persons Goal Description Services for low and moderate -income persons that help improve quality of life 9 Goal Name Public Infrastructure Improvements Goal Description Provide and maintain first-rate infrastructure and community facilities 10 Goal Name Public Facility Improvements Goal Description Provide and maintain first-rate infrastructure and community facilities Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 114 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Projects AP-35 Projects — 91.220(d) Introduction The activities to be undertaken during Fiscal Year 2015-2016 are summarized below. All activities identified are expected to be completed by June 30, 2016. Projects # Project Name 1 Housing Rehabilitation 2 CHDO Funds 3 HOME Admin 4 CDBG Administration 5 Code Enforcement 6 Street Improvements 7 ADA Improvements - Tewinkle Park 8 Senior Center Improvements 9 Fair Housing Services 10 Mercy House 11 Colette's Children's Home 12 Families Forward 13 Youth Employment Services 14 Mika Community Development Corp 15 Council on Aging 16 Community SeniorSery - Congregate Meals 17 Community SeniorSery - Home Delivered Meals 18 City of Costa Mesa Senior Counseling Services 19 Elwyn 20 Working Wardrobes Table 60 — Project Information Describe the reasons for allocation priorities and any obstacles to addressing underserved needs Activities were selected for funding based on conclusions drawn from the housing and community needs assessments, public input, and the input of City administration and staff. Due to a lack of funding, some needs may not be addressed during Fiscal Year 2015-2016 (e.g., CHDO housing development, TBRA). In some cases an underserved need may not be addressed due to a lack of a funding request or a lack of sufficient funding to make a project/program feasible. Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 115 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 AP-38 Project Summary Project Summary Information Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 116 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 1 Project Name Single Family Housing Rehabilitation Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Owner Occupied Housing Needs Addressed Owner Occupied Housing Funding HOME: $245,744 Description HOME funds for owner occupied housing rehabilitation Target Date 6/30/2016 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 10 Location Description Citywide Planned Activities Housing rehabilitation loans and grants. 2 Project Name CHDO Funds Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Rental Housing Needs Addressed Rental Housing Acquisition/Rehabilitation Funding HOME: $49,149 Description 15% of HOME funds for CHDO project not currently identified. Target Date 6/30/2016 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities To be determined Location Description To be determined Planned Activities To be determined 3 Project Name HOME Admin Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Program Administration Needs Addressed Program Administration Funding HOME: $32,765 Description HOME funds for program oversight and coordination. Target Date 6/30/2016 Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 117 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities Not applicable Location Description 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, CA - City Hall Planned Activities Oversight and coordination of HOME program 4 Project Name CDBG Administration Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Program Administration Needs Addressed Program Administration Funding CDBG: $205,268 Description CDBG program oversight and coordination Target Date 6/30/2016 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities Not applicable Location Description 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, CA - City Hall Planned Activities CDBG program oversight and coordination 5 Project Name Code Enforcement Target Area CDBG Eligible Areas Goals Supported Owner Occupied Housing Rental Housing Needs Addressed Housing Code Enforcement Funding CDBG: $325,000 Description Enforcement of housing and building codes Target Date 6/30/2016 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 250 housing units Location Description 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, CA - City Hall Planned Activities Inspection and enforcement of housing and building codes 6 Project Name Street Improvements Target Area CDBG Eligible Areas Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 118 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Goals Supported Public Infrastructure Improvements Needs Addressed Public Infrastructure Funding CDBG: $175,946 Description CDBG funds to support improvement of residential streets. Target Date 6/30/2016 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 810 individuals Location Description Bay Street from Newport to Harbor — CT: 0637.02 BG: 3 (72.2% Low/Mod) Planned Activities Roadway rehabilitation and parkway concrete improvements 7 Project Name ADA Improvements - TeWinkle Park Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Public Facility Improvements Needs Addressed Public Facilities Funding CDBG: $252,350 Description ADA improvements at TeWinkle Park Target Date 6/30/2016 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 14,638 persons age 21 and older (data provided by HUD Exchange Persons with Disabilities by Gender & Age) Location Description 970 Arlington Dr. Costa Mesa, CA Planned Activities ADA improvements in local community park 8 Project Name Senior Center Improvements Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Public Facility Improvements Needs Addressed Public Facilities Funding CDBG: $102,000 Description Various improvements at the Costa Mesa Senior Center. Improvements include construction of new exterior patio and reconstruction of bathrooms to meet ADA regulations. Target Date 6/30/2016 Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 119 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities Senior Center serves approximately 1,450 unduplicated seniors per year Location Description 695 W. 19th Street, Costa Mesa, CA Planned Activities Various improvements to senior center including construction of new patio and ensuring restrooms meet ADA regulations 9 Project Name Fair Housing Services Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Services for Low and Moderate -Income Persons Needs Addressed Services for Low & Moderate Income Persons Funding CDBG: $21,000 Description Fair housing outreach, education and enforcement Target Date 6/30/2016 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 373 households Location Description Activity will be available Citywide Planned Activities Fair Housing outreach, education and enforcement to address and eliminate impediments to fair housing. 10 project Name Mercy House Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Homeless Services Needs Addressed Homeless Services and Housing Funding CDBG: $20,000 Description CDBG funds to support homelessness prevention and rapid re- housing services Target Date 6/30/3016 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 20 homeless and at risk individuals Location Description Program is available citywide Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 120 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Planned Activities Rental assistance for households at risk of becoming homeless; rapid re -housing for those already homeless, and case management for all clients. 11 project Name Colette's Children's Home Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Homeless Services Needs Addressed Homeless Services and Housing Funding CDBG: $20,000 Description Transitional shelter for homeless women and women with children Target Date 6/30/2016 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 14 individuals Location Description Citywide Planned Activities Transitional housing, support services and case management for homeless women and women with children. 12 Project Name Families Forward Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Homeless Services Needs Addressed Homeless Services and Housing Funding CDBG: $10,000 Description Rapid re -housing assistance for homeless families Target Date 6/30/2016 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 14 individuals in families with children Location Description Citywide Planned Activities Rapid re -housing for homeless families with children and case management 13 project Name Youth Employment Services Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Services for Youths Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 121 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Needs Addressed Youth Services Funding CDBG: $10,000 Description Employment preparedness services for youth age 14 to 24. Target Date 6/30/2016 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 190 Location Description 114 E 19th Street Costa Mesa CA Planned Activities Job preparedness skills such as job search, preparing resume, mock interviews. 14 project Name Mika Community Development Corp Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Services for Youths Needs Addressed Youth Services Funding CDBG: $10,000 Description Youth services Target Date 6/30/2016 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 85 Location Description 1718 Monrovia, Costa Mesa, CA Planned Activities Youth services 15 project Name Council on Aging Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Services for Seniors/Frail Elderly Needs Addressed Services for Elderly/Frail Elderly Funding CDBG: $10,000 Description Long-term ombudsman services to ensure frail elderly and disabled adults living in managed care facilities are housed and treated in a safe, decent and dignified manner. Target Date 6/30/2016 Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 122 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 40 frail elderly and frail disabled persons Location Description Citywide Planned Activities Inspections and resolution of issues of care and treatment for frail elderly or disabled individuals living in managed care facilities 16 project Name Community SeniorSery - Congregate Meals Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Services for Seniors/Frail Elderly Needs Addressed Services for Elderly/Frail Elderly Funding CDBG: $12,500 Description Weekday meal services for seniors at Costa Mesa Senior Center Target Date 6/30/2016 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 200 seniors Location Description 695 W 19th Street, Costa Mesa CA - Costa Mesa Senior Center Planned Activities Weekday lunch-time meals for seniors 17 Project Name Community SeniorSery - Home Delivered Meals Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Services for Seniors/Frail Elderly Needs Addressed Services for Elderly/Frail Elderly Funding CDBG: $15,000 Description Meals on wheels program for homebound seniors. Target Date 6/30/2016 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 90 homebound seniors Location Description Citywide Planned Activities Delivery meals to homebound seniors 18 Project Name City of Costa Mesa Senior Counseling Services Target Area Citywide Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 123 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Goals Supported Services for Seniors/Frail Elderly Needs Addressed Services for Elderly/Frail Elderly Funding CDBG: $10,000 Description Counseling and referral services for seniors Target Date 6/30/2016 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 250 senior households Location Description 619 W 19th St, Costa Mesa CA - Costa Mesa Senior Center Planned Activities Counseling and referral services for seniors 19 Project Name Elwyn Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Services for Disabled Needs Addressed Services for Disabled Funding CDBG: $5,720 Description Employment services for adults with developmental disabilities Target Date 6/30/2016 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 42 adults with developmental disabilities Location Description 18325 Mt. Baldy, Fountain Valley CA Planned Activities Business outreach to find work to be undertaken by adults with developmental disabilities 20 Project Name Working Wardrobes Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Services for Low and Moderate -Income Persons Needs Addressed Services for Low & Moderate Income Persons Funding CDBG: $10,000 Description Clothing for lower income and homeless individuals Target Date 6/30/2016 Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 124 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Estimate the number and type 52 of families that will benefit from the proposed activities Location Description 3030 Pullman Costa Mesa, CA Planned Activities Provide professional clothing and personal grooming items to assist lower income persons reenter the workforce Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 125 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 AP-50 Geographic Distribution — 91.220(f) Description of the geographic areas of the entitlement (including areas of low-income and minority concentration) where assistance will be directed Activities slated for CDBG-funding during Fiscal Year 2015-2016 will mainly be available on a citywide basis to income eligible individuals (i.e., limited clientele). The map of the City's CDBG Eligible Areas provides a view of the areas where CDBG resources may be focused on an "area wide" basis (see Appendix Map 6). Geographic Distribution Target Area Percentage of Funds Citywide 85 CDBG Eligible Areas 15 Table 61- Geographic Distribution Rationale for the priorities for allocating investments geographically HUD funding will primarily be allocated on a citywide basis as the City's primary intent is to serve lower income households that are in need of housing and regardless of where they live in the City. As the City's CDBG-eligible areas tend to be older sections of the City, area wide activities will help to improve and sustain these neighborhoods and perhaps encourage homeowners to also invest in their homes. Discussion As indicated above, CDBG and HOME funds will focused on programs that serve lower income residents regardless of where they live. It is also expected that the City's investment in neighborhoods will create a synergy whereby residents will also invest in their home and community. Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 126 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Affordable Housing AP-55 Affordable Housing — 91.220(g) Introduction During Fiscal Year 2015-2016, proposed activities to be funded with CDBG and HOME funds will meet the housing needs of the following households. One Year Goals for the Number of Households to be Supported Homeless 48 Non -Homeless 0 Special -Needs 0 Total 48 Table 62 - One Year Goals for Affordable Housing by Support Requirement One Year Goals for the Number of Households Supported Through Rental Assistance 0 The Production of New Units 0 Rehab of Existing Units 10 Acquisition of Existing Units 0 Total 10 Table 63 - One Year Goals for Affordable Housing by Support Type Discussion Due to limited resources, the City will focus 2015-2016 HOME funds on the rehabilitation of existing owner -occupied housing units. While not the primary focus of the program, some special -needs households (senior and disabled) may be assisted during the year via the City's Owner -Occupied Housing Rehabilitation Program. Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 127 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 AP-60 Public Housing — 91.220(h) Introduction Costa Mesa does not own or manage public housing. Actions planned during the next year to address the needs to public housing Not applicable Actions to encourage public housing residents to become more involved in management and participate in homeownership Not applicable If the PHA is designated as troubled, describe the manner in which financial assistance will be provided or other assistance Not applicable Discussion Not applicable Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 128 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 AP-65 Homeless and Other Special Needs Activities — 91.220(i) Introduction As outlined in the Strategic Plan, the City's homeless strategy is to support programs that helps to prevent homelessness by supporting safety net services. These programs will help households, especially extremely low-income households, maximize the amount of income they have available for housing. Additionally, both HUD and City resources will be allocated to provide access to a continuum of services and housing to assist those already homeless and with strong ties to the community. Describe the jurisdictions one-year goals and actions for reducing and ending homelessness including Reaching out to homeless persons (especially unsheltered persons) and assessing their individual needs Approximately $200,000 in General Fund resources will be allocated to provide direct outreach services for chronic and situational homeless. Services include engagement, assessment and linkages to appropriate services and housing. Services will be provided by City -paid social workers and community volunteers. Coordination of services will also be provided by the City. Addressing the emergency shelter and transitional housing needs of homeless persons As previously reported, there is a shortage of year-round emergency shelter beds in the County. The County of Orange and the regional CoC continue to seek ways to create new year-round emergency shelter - the City is supportive of these efforts. In the interim, the City will refer homeless individuals to the Winter Shelter Program and homeless families to the Family Redirection Program. The City anticipates funding transitional housing for women and women with children. Helping homeless persons (especially chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth) make the transition to permanent housing and independent living, including shortening the period of time that individuals and families experience homelessness, facilitating access for homeless individuals and families to affordable housing units, and preventing individuals and families who were recently homeless from becoming homeless again As outlined in the City's Strategic Plan, HUD resources will be allocated for transitional housing and rapid rehousing. Transitional housing provides program participants with housing and support services in a structured environment for up to two years. This setting allows households to achieve educational or employment goals, address personal barriers (such as substance addition or domestic violence), and develop life skills, which ultimately lead to self-sufficiency. Funding will also be allocated for rapid rehousing programs, which take a homeless household and places them directly into an affordable Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 129 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 housing unit, and also provides appropriate supportive services. For Fiscal Year 2015-2016, funding will be allocated to assist single homeless persons and homeless families with children. Helping low-income individuals and families avoid becoming homeless, especially extremely low-income individuals and families and those who are: being discharged from publicly funded institutions and systems of care (such as health care facilities, mental health facilities, foster care and other youth facilities, and corrections programs and institutions); or, receiving assistance from public or private agencies that address housing, health, social services, employment, education, or youth needs As previously indicated, the City will continue to support the regional CoC's efforts to implement the regional Ten-year Plan to End Homelessness, which includes a discharge plan for the individuals leaving institutions such as hospitals and jails. The City's Homeless Outreach Program staff will also continue to work closely with individuals already homeless to assess their specific needs and then link them to appropriate support services, housing, and public assistance programs. Discussion The City of Costa Mesa has a well developed strategy to address homelessness in the Community. This strategy includes outreach and assessment services for homeless and chronic homeless individuals. Program staff will attempt to link individuals to appropriate housing, support services, and public -assistance programs (e.g., VA benefits, SSI). To undertake this effort, the City has partnered with local nonprofit service providers and community -based volunteers. Based on assessments, individuals or households will be referred to appropriate housing/service providers. City staff will coordinate the delivery of services and housing with providers in an effort to reduce the number of homeless individuals in the community. Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 130 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 AP-75 Barriers to affordable housing — 91.220(j) Introduction: Barriers to affordable housing and actions to overcome barriers have been previously discussed in the Consolidated Plan Market Analaysis and Strategic Plan. Actions it planned to remove or ameliorate the negative effects of public policies that serve as barriers to affordable housing such as land use controls, tax policies affecting land, zoning ordinances, building codes, fees and charges, growth limitations, and policies affecting the return on residential investment As outlined in the City's Housing Element, the following actions will be implemented to remove or ameliorate barriers to affordable housing: • The City will encourage the joint processing of related applications for a single project. Such procedures save time, money and effort for both the public and private sector. • The City provides fee credits for existing development against new development. Fee credits are available for park fees, sanitation district fees, and traffic impact fees. Park fees and traffic impact fees can also be deferred until the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy. • The City will provide incentives (such as density bonus and deferred impact fees) to developers that agree to reserve a portion of project units for lower income households (including extremely low income), moderate income households (common interest developments only), or for seniors and the disabled. • The City will maintain an inventory of vacant and underutilized sites and provide this inventory to interested developers. • The City will continue to promote mixed -use development specific plan areas. The City will respond to market conditions and offer appropriate incentives through the Mixed Use Overlay zone. Incentives include; reduced parking standards, reduced open space, increased densities, increased height limit, increased lot coverage; reduced setbacks. If available, subsidies may also be provided for qualified affordable housing projects (e.g., HOME funds). There is no local tax. Discussion: The Housing Element has outlined the City's plan to address barriers to affordable housing. The Consolidated Plan mirrors this plan, which is to provide incentives to developers willing to dedicate developed units for lower income households. Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 131 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 AP-85 Other Actions — 91.220(k) Introduction: Outlined below are the actions the City will implement to address the sub -strategies of the Consolidated Plan. Actions planned to address obstacles to meeting underserved needs The City will allocate a portion of its CDBG and HOME funds for activities that address the housing and service needs of the elderly and lower -income households. Additionally, the City will encourage and support OCHA's efforts to obtain additional rental assistance funding especially for senior and low- income households. The City's housing rehabilitation program will focus its efforts to assist elderly homeowners undertake improvement of respective residences to address specific household needs. Actions planned to foster and maintain affordable housing The City of Costa Mesa has identified the actions it will undertake during Fiscal Year 2015-2016 to foster and maintain affordable housing. The Consolidated Plan identified programs such as Owner -Occupied Housing Rehabilitation assistance as the means to maintain and improve housing currently available to by low and moderate -income residents. By providing deferred payment loans and grants, lower income households are able to rehabilitate their residence to meet basic housing quality standards and incur zero or minimal additional housing costs. An estimated 10 housing units will be assisted with HOME funds during Fiscal Year 2015-2016. Actions planned to reduce lead -based paint hazards Based on past housing rehabilitation program statistics, only a small percentage of housing units that were rehabilitated with City resources contain lead -paint hazards. To ensure compliance with program regulations, all housing units, that were constructed before 1978, that are rehabbed with HOME resources, will be tested for lead -paint hazards. If needed, additional grant funds can be allocated to a project to ensure all lead -based hazards are mitigated. Actions planned to reduce the number of poverty -level families The City will assist programs and services that combat poverty. During Fiscal Year 2015-2016 the City will fund the following activities to support implementation of this strategy: • Implement housing programs (including housing rehabilitation assistance) for lower income, senior and disabled homeowners. • Support rental assistance programs provided by the Orange County Housing Authority for very low-income renters. 0 Support services for individuals presently housed but at risk of losing their residence. Also, assist Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 132 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 those already homeless in need of emergency shelter, transitional housing, or rapid rehousing, and continue to coordinate the delivery of services with nonprofit partners. • Support safety net public services programs to improve the quality of life seniors, youth, the disabled, and other populations that may be severely impacted by the cost of living in the region. Actions planned to develop institutional structure The City has made an effort to develop an institutional structure that will help identify and access resources to improve the community and assist those most in need. The City will continue to work with nonprofit public entities to deliver public services. As a member of the Orange County Continuum of Care Community Forum, the City will provide critical information to the County of Orange for preparation of the County's Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance grant applications. Costa Mesa will continue to provide critical information regarding mainstream funds the City will make available to serve the homeless, and also assist in identifying and prioritizing gaps and needs in the regional system of care. The City will continue to provide input on the development of the County's ten-year plan to end homeless, and will also participate in the Orange County homeless services Coordinated Entry Process in an effort to remove barriers to housing at risk and chronically homeless individuals. Costa Mesa will continue to assist the Orange County Housing Authority implement its Five-year PHA Plan. Finally, the City will continue to meet with other Orange County HUD grantees to discuss common program issues and to coordinate regional efforts. Actions planned to enhance coordination between public and private housing and social service agencies The City of Costa Mesa does not operate public housing. The Orange County Housing Authority provides rental assistance in the community. Federal legislation requires that the Housing Authority prepare five- year and one-year plans that highlight its mission, goals and objectives as it relates to public and assisted housing programs. The City will review the Authority's plans and provide OCHA the opportunity to review and consult with the City regarding its Consolidated Plan. The goal of this cross -consultation is to provide consistent and coordinated housing services for City residents. Ongoing consultation with local nonprofits also assists the City to coordinate the efficient and effective use of limited resources federal resources. Discussion: A HUD -required strategy not discussed above is the City's action steps to affirmatively further fair housing via the Analysis of Impediments (AI) for Fair Housing Choice. As detailed in the Strategic Plan, the City's current Al is summarized in the Appendix. Action steps to be taken during Fiscal Year 2015- 2016 are also found in the Appendix (see Appendix page 21). Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 133 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Program Specific Requirements AP-90 Program Specific Requirements — 91.220(1)(1,2,4) Introduction: Each HUD program that is covered by the Consolidated Plan regulations must address certain program specific requirements. Below are the program requirements for the CDBG and HOME programs. Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) Reference 24 CFR 91.220(1)(1) Projects planned with all CDBG funds expected to be available during the year are identified in the Projects Table. The following identifies program income that is available for use that is included in projects to be carried out. 1. The total amount of program income that will have been received before the start of the next program year and that has not yet been reprogrammed 0 2. The amount of proceeds from section 108 loan guarantees that will be used during the year to address the priority needs and specific objectives identified in the grantee's strategic plan. 0 3. The amount of surplus funds from urban renewal settlements 0 4. The amount of any grant funds returned to the line of credit for which the planned use has not been included in a prior statement or plan 0 5. The amount of income from float -funded activities 0 Total Program Income: 0 Other CDBG Requirements 1. The amount of urgent need activities 0 2. The estimated percentage of CDBG funds that will be used for activities that benefit persons of low and moderate income. Overall Benefit - A consecutive period of one, two or three years may be used to determine that a minimum overall benefit of 70% of CDBG funds is used to benefit persons of low and moderate income. Specify the years covered that include this Annual Action Plan. 100.00% Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 134 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) Reference 24 CFR 91.220(I)(2) 1. A description of other forms of investment being used beyond those identified in Section 92.205 is as follows: The City is not proposing to utilize HOME funds in a form that is not delineated in Section 92.205. 2. A description of the guidelines that will be used for resale or recapture of HOME funds when used for homebuyer activities as required in 92.254, is as follows: The City has not, and does not plan to utilized HOME funds for homebuyer assistance; however, if funds were to be redirected to such a program, steps will be taken to ensure program guidelines comply with applicable resale and recapture regulations. 3. A description of the guidelines for resale or recapture that ensures the affordability of units acquired with HOME funds? See 24 CFR 92.254(a)(4) are as follows: As indicated above, the City has not, and does not plan to use HOME funds for homebuyer assistance; however, if funds were to be redirected to such a program, the applicable loan agreement would be prepared to comply with the resale/recapture requirements delineated in 24 CFR 92.254. 4. Plans for using HOME funds to refinance existing debt secured by multifamily housing that is rehabilitated with HOME funds along with a description of the refinancing guidelines required that will be used under 24 CFR 92.206(b), are as follows: The City has not proposed use of HOME funds to refinance existing debt secured by multifamily housing; however, if funds were to be redirected to such a program, program staff will ensure that all applicable program policies are followed including establish refinancing guidelines and amending the Consolidated Plan to include guidelines. Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 135 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Discussion: The City will meet the CDBG Program's overall 70% benefit for low and moderate -income requirement during the one-year 2015 Program Year. Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 136 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 Appendix - Alternate/Local Data Sources Consolidated Plan COSTA MESA 137 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) DRAFT 04/23/2015 TABLE A: PAST PERFORMANCE (7/1/2010 THROUGH 6/30/2014) 5-YEAR ACTUAL PERCENT CONSOLIDATED PLAN OBJECTIVE CONSOLIDATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS COMPLETED PLAN GOAL AFTER 4 YRS.) AFTER 4 YRS.) Emergency Shelter: Short-term shelter program (up to 3 mo.) for 25 0 households that are in immediate need of shelter & support services Persons Persons 0.0% Transitional Housing: Transitional housing program (3 mo. to 24 mo.) for homeless households that require housing, case management & 50 82 other life skills in order to become self-sufficient - includes Rapid Persons Persons 164.0% Rehousing activities Special Code Enforcement: Preserve the City's existing supply of 1,250 669 housing by inspecting & enforcing housing & building codes Housing Units Housing Units 53.5% Fair Housing: Actions to ameliorate impediments to fair housing including education, training services, enforcement of fair housing law 1,500 93.1% ss Households Households eh & prosecute fair housing law violators Home Ownership Assistance: Down payment and/or closing cost assistance to assist qualified households purchase a home 5 0 * PROGRAM WAS DISCONTINUED IN FY 11-12 DUE TO LOSS OF Housing Units Housing Units 0.0% REDEVELOPMENT FUNDS * Homelessness Prevention: Services that assist households at risk of homelessness - assistance includes short-term financial subsidy & 100 16 support services to prevent foreclosure, eviction, and/or utility Persons Persons 16.0/ termination Owner Occupied Housing Rehab: Rehabilitation loans & grants to assist homeowners improve primary residence to correct code 185 86 violations, address deferred maintenance & improve neighborhood Housing Units Housing Units 46.5% aesthetics Homeowner Neighbors For Neighbors: Preserve existing housing units with the assistance of volunteer labor & donated supplies. 50 30 60.0% * PROGRAM WAS NOT DISCONTINUED IN FY 13-14 * Housing Units Housing Units Rental Housing New Construction: Support development of rental 52 0 housing for seniors and/or developmentally disabled adults Housing Units Housing Units 0.0° Housing Choice Voucher Rental Assistance: Rent subsidies for lower income renter households (program administered by the Orange 123.3% Households Households County Housing Authority) Elderly/Frail Elderly Services: Services that help seniors & frail elderly 1,000 2,863 maintain independent living and improve quality of life Persons Persons 286 3% Disabled Services: Services for disabled & developmentally disabled adults that helps clients maintain independent living and improve 1 1 124.0% quality of life Persons so ns Persons Youth Services: Services that assist lower income families with 4,000 2,246 children Persons Persons 56.2% General Public Services: Services that assist lower income households 1,000 485 — includes homeless outreach services Persons Persons 48.5% Public Infrastructure: Financial resources for CDBG-eligible projects 10 8 that improve or upgrade the City's infrastructure Projects Projects 80.0% Public Facilities: Financial resources for CDBG-eligible projects that 5 4 improve or upgrade the City's public facilities Projects Projects 80.0% HUD Program Administration: Oversight & coordination of CDBG & 5 4 HOME funds Years Years 80.0% Source: City of Costa Mesa, Housing & Community Development Division City of Costa Mesa 1 Appendix 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan DRAFT 04/23/2015 CITY OF COSTA MESA HOUSING AND COMMUNITY NEEDS SURVEY [CITY OF COSTA MESA H04JSING & COMMUF-J,ITY NEEDS SURVEY The City of Costa Mesa is eligible to receive funds from tie U-S. Department of -iousing ,and Lrb,an Development ro help r devekp a vralhe .cornmunrty by pmvidinag decent houavi9, a avibbk- ffw'rag environment & expanding economic oppuiUnkoe . pdrrgpa#y for how- & nrnderate-in x'ne person.:. In order to receive these funds, the City is required to prepare a strategic plan that identifies priority housing and commun ity weeds for the CWs Low- & Wderate4ncome Residents. Your response to the following questions will assist the City prioritize needs hat may be eligible V CDBG funding. Instrgc6Dm: Please reTond to each need smtenwrst be;nrr by Wly 4%W ng the ^ir,'e that bes- npeseMs y mr ©pni©n. No Lmrc Il affn High No Lm I rn High NowNand Need N"d Need COFAMIINITYSERtrfGEB Need ti"d Neatl Need :5evixcenlers ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 5err®r5ervims ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Yauth :znlars ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ I ''J"!- 5e 1dnee ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Hea=re==tiRs ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ I -e. -'._-,ices ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ j3WK & F&7eafnnFaGWS ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ _-g3.5e ms ❑ ❑ ti ❑ INFRASTRUCTURE IV[, LDW W&M Hiagtr NEFGHBORHOODSERWGES Ho LJ)W ubdes Nees MM Need Need N+ '. Nand Heed !feed Drainage w pn --ft ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ GrWK RfflW%Wl ❑ ❑ ❑ 5tree[s'AW In-¢r =,-rnenLs ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Utce Enbrce-r-T. ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 54'irrarnpufflnergs ❑ � fi Trdsh a Debm ReTKA-1 ❑ ❑ .. ❑ 5heetLg*r= ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ P3krx Fa -Jibes ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ SppL#fs ❑ ❑ TneFbrwg ❑ ❑ Q ❑ SPECIAL NEEDS SERVICES Pfo Lratt Wilium High BLL51NEM & No Low Medium High Nwd_ Noc Need Need -01345 Need Need Neetl Nwd Crimbted5erwices ❑ _ ❑ ❑ ❑ Businesc.Wilding Ri:TaNi afion ❑ El IL ❑ ❑ Hwx4--s5eg'er- ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Bu_Jne_=.+7_3:_CfA;_,'6a ❑ ❑ ❑. ❑ AWedCXsWN5nmes ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Busims=_..RetentionAckbes ❑ ❑ ADD-iywe9ta"u ❑ ❑ ❑e ❑ }17. Inrt _fir J-r-,)'.y,o ❑ ❑ ❑. ❑ HrY. m Senaws ❑ ❑ Jots Tninir,, h3r -E:nr 'Ed ❑ care xVCWreser,ioes ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ FAUOV.Si' SSLna% ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ HOUSING NO L®ar Nbam High SpEC1A�L HEEl13 �' No Law Hlirdiure High Nerd rimed h1w NeBd NW NW Need Nisrr ReiraeAE&MMkrHarrrevW*M ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 5enicr casing � ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Ret,abksisbno'eiyRenle, ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ HareimppeaA: e_ei eHmwq ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ AHMMIE Rend H MEM Hs s 5helkm ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Aftnlab4ePwSate?'Ifi4g ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ CcvrescVc4,Ye5he"ei= ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Id Tim Hoarctxrrerl rQ ❑ HrwAD5Hxnirg ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Miteu Use Hmsng ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ HiBbikirrsReh3C.4�_ :---_e ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Whb-Fthe i}Ivkg Leg deKribe8 yW7 htr*spareWow, r51any addknal rxxsi'rg xa4r xf,'n'4.nF1 needs'731 hale nci In he SuryEy Irm yarn Feet are high prwnty needs in Caga Me53. RED ❑ Busaress Oww ❑ 5dim Sawicz Pro"N ❑ C�irr;Rxt>�y! ❑ PLEASE RETURN COMPLETED SURVEYS NO LATER THAN FEBRC1ARY 20,201 SENDTO: FAKE LIHARE3, i7 FAIR DRIVE GOSTA MESA GA 92628 You can also complete the survey online: rt=:.iiWw.,,�ulveylrraNey.cormsCastaMesaHousingCcmmunityM sSuNey City of Costa Mesa 2 Appendix 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan DRAFT 04/23/2015 ■ Hame of organization you represent: ■ Primary population served (e.g., seniors, disabled adults; ■ Services Provided: ■ Humber of persons served in 1 Yr iregararas® D1 cfij of mON oel: ■ Humber of Costa Mesa residents served in 1 Yr. ■ Humber of persons turn away from serrices primariily due to a lack of fu nd ing ;rrgamlom of oily of raeitlmml? ■ Humber of Costa Mesa residents you turn away from services primarily due to a lack of funding? ■ Identify current gaps in housing, service and public infrastructure you believe exist in the City of Costa Mesa and suggestions on how these needs might be addressed W.. ht rim w e. sF. prwkkA City of Costa Mesa 3 Appendix 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan DRAFT 04/23/2015 Ciudad de Costa Mesa Encuesta de Necesidades de la Comunidad La Ciudad de Costa Mesa recipe fondos federales y estatales que se prueden gastar en deternimados usos tales ooma iniraestruetura, servicias mmunitarios, viviendas, connercio y enlpleo. E,stos fondos no son. suficientes Para satisfacer today ' las necesidades de la com unidad- Salicitamas su colaboracifln y aytlda pars idenbficar cauaies necesid ides comuni alas son de may alta prioridad. Porfavor siga las siguierees ins ones Para cada una de las Categorias de Necesidad que se mencionan a ccndnuacion: Usando la escAa de4- 1 (4 una. necesidad Mayor hasta 1 para una necesidad Menor), rellene el raja que en su opinon mejorse aplique. Una respuesta por asurib. 1 irdica la necesidad menor, mientras que4 indica la necesidad mayor. Instalaclones Cumunitarias Menor-1 2 3 Mayor-. Servicios Comurirtarios Menor-1 2 3 Mayor-4 Seer oos de Ctuarderia ❑ ❑ ❑ Edad ades para Personas de — ❑ ❑ dad Cera res Para bs pvenes - _ ] ❑ A, Iividadea para J&derhes Cenbus de Guardena ❑ ❑ SerIryms de Guardena ❑ ❑ ❑ InstalaaonesdeAtencidnpara - - - - - la Salud - - ❑ ❑ Programas.a,n i-Cnmen - - - Paques a Instalaciones de Servioios de Sa1ud Rtama Recreation 7 l Il ❑ ❑1 ❑ ❑ InfrashucUma. Menor-'I 2 3 M2yor-4 Servicics de Vecindario Menor-1 2 3 Mayew-4, h erar !� i_y V� - Elin utacion de Grafts ❑ ❑ ❑ 0.4 uelorar as valles=Calle,anes = _ _ = Puasta en Prat ca del Codigo - _ - C hM1ejorar lay Aceras ❑ ❑ _ Rexion de Basura ❑ ❑ 11uminaoi6n de la calle - - - - Instalaciones de - - El 1:- - - - Estacionamiento - - Luces de AHn ❑ ❑ _ Plantado deArholoes ❑ LJ Servicios v Meoesidades Menor-1 2 3 Mayor-4 Comeroics v Empleo MenQr-1 2 3 May"-4 Cen4us & servicios para Inoapacitaclvs ❑ Prestarras de Rehabi7d d6n - - - para Propietanos ❑ ❑ Refugios & serV cbs para - - - - Estuerms para Atraer Nuemos ❑ ❑ Personas Sin Hogar - - - - Tipos de wegocios - - Centras S Servicos Para Ni5os Mal'- �❑ ❑ = Esfuerzos para Auaer Negaxaos J ❑ K',-jorarAccesibilidad para - - - : apacitaeion para ❑ ❑ Irr„-apacitadm ,Servataos & CemVos para _ — _ - Desempleados Gan3dtaci6n para Personas _ — _ — ,❑ VIFUSIdA ❑ i7 can Subermpleos - - 3erv6os de Violeneia Danes: ca y Abuso de _ = ❑ ❑ siustamias Vivienda Mener-1 2 3 Mayor-4 Vivienda Especial Menvr-1 2 3 Ill Prestamos de Rehablilad6n ❑ -. Vrviendas para personas de ❑ - Para C-mas. ii - Tercera Edad - Prestarros de Rehab t- Pala - 'a`iviendas Par Incapao tacos ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Apartamentos - Personas - - - Apaartams de bagn pagns i 1I Refugius para Personas Sin ❑ - "coar - J vendas=oan6micas para la - n Refu los ara'Actimas de - V'enta - ❑ ❑ Volerxia Domestica - LJ ❑... Prestanras para fie®nprarCass por Pnmera Vez ❑ Refug- Para Personas uxr ❑ ❑ VIFUSILA ❑Lr Vivienda de Usc Mwo te1.: - - - Prestamos de Rehab lit. para - - - - Ccmeroioen 1er.pisoj - - - - Ed'dicics.Histdracas - - - Por favordigarwos si usted es: Usted puede apuntar cualquier necesidad que no hernas incluido en esa ensues -a y que usted siensa es importame. R,esiderde ❑ Duero de 4egodo _ Servicxa Social ❑ 0--ro - Por correo - MIKE UNARES, T7 FAR BRI'VE COSTA MESA CA 92626 Se Puede completar online: Mtpslhtxw.�rveymoriceY; �lesal kw�inal armu9it�IJeedsS�ctvew Hasta febrem 20, 2015 City of Costa Mesa 4 Appendix 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan DRAFT 04/23/2015 SURVEY RESULTS COSTA MESA CON PLAN SURVEY March 10, 2015 Q1: Community Facilities Senior Centers Youth Centers Childcare Centers Healthcare Facilities Park and Rec Facilities Q2: Community Services Senior Services Youth Services Legal Services Anti -Crime Health Service Q3: Infrastructure Drainage Improvements Streets/Alley Improvements Sidewalk Improvements Street Lights Stop Lights Q4: Neighborhood Services Graffiti Removal Code Enforcement Trash and Debris Removal Parking Facilities Tree Planting Q5: Special Needs Services Disabled Services Homeless Services Abused Children Services ADAlmprovements HIV/AIDS Services Domestic Violence Services ENGLISH SPANISH Hi Med Low No ENGLISH Hi Med Low No SPANISH TOTALRESPONSES 4 3 2 1 Response Average Total 4 3 2 1 Response Average Total Response Total Average 53 68 37 10 168 2.77 465 66 67 27 8 168 2.99 502 48 67 39 14 168 2.67 448 43 59 48 18 168 2.48 417 83 49 28 8 168 3.08 517 58 69 35 4 166 2.89 480 69 72 19 6 166 3.13 519 27 56 64 19 166 2.17 361 104 47 13 2 166 3.46 574 51 61 40 14 166 2.67 443 47 65 46 7 165 2.65 438 61 69 31 4 165 2.96 488 65 60 36 4 165 2.92 482 40 67 46 12 165 2.55 421 26 49 65 25 165 2.08 343 57 73 35 0 165 2.93 484 60 67 32 6 165 2.92 481 48 67 46 4 165 2.70 445 49 58 47 11 165 2.61 430 46 64 47 8 165 2.62 433 45 78 35 7 165 2.78 458 106 37 11 11 165 3.39 559 54 68 35 8 165 2.82 465 30 68 56 11 165 2.38 393 11 58 73 23 165 1.92 316 51 71 33 10 165 2.80 462 2 2 6 1 11 2.09 23 9 0 1 1 11 3.64 40 7 3 0 1 11 3.64 40 8 1 0 2 11 3.55 39 6 4 1 0 11 3.55 39 2 5 3 1 11 2.64 29 10 1 0 0 11 4.09 45 8 1 0 2 11 3.55 39 7 2 0 2 11 3.45 38 8 3 0 0 11 3.91 43 4 4 1 2 11 3.00 33 10 1 0 0 11 4.09 45 2 5 2 2 11 2.64 29 5 3 1 2 11 3.09 34 5 3 1 2 11 3.09 34 0 6 3 2 11 2.27 25 2 5 2 2 11 2.64 29 6 1 2 2 11 3.00 33 5 4 0 2 11 3.27 36 6 3 1 1 11 3.36 37 1 7 0 3 11 2.73 30 8 2 0 1 11 3.73 41 4 5 1 1 11 3.18 35 3 4 2 2 11 2.73 30 2 4 3 2 11 2.45 27 6 4 0 1 11 3.55 39 179 179 179 179 179 177 177 177 177 177 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 488.00 2.73 542.00 3.03 488.00 2.73 456.00 2.55 556.00 3.11 509.00 2.88 564.00 3.19 400.00 2.26 612.00 3.46 486.00 2.75 471.00 2.68 533.00 3.03 511.00 2.90 455.00 2.59 377.00 2.14 509.00 2.89 510.00 2.90 478.00 2.72 466.00 2.65 470.00 2.67 488.00 2.77 600.00 3.41 500.00 2.84 423.00 2.40 343.00 1.95 501.00 2.85 Hi Med Low No ENGLISH Hi Med Low No SPANISH TOTALRESPONSES City of Costa Mesa 5 Appendix 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan DRAFT 04/23/2015 4 3 2 1 Response Average Total 4 3 2 1 Response Average Total Response Total Average Q6: Business & Jobs Business BuiIding RehabiIitation 28 64 60 12 164 2.30 378 2 4 1 4 11 2.45 27 175 405.00 2.31 Business Attraction Activities 45 66 41 12 164 2.64 433 4 5 1 1 11 3.18 35 175 468.00 2.67 Business Retention Activities 68 59 34 3 164 2.98 488 2 3 4 2 11 2.27 25 175 513.00 2.93 Job Training for Unemployed 70 57 25 12 164 2.99 490 9 0 0 2 11 3.64 40 175 530.00 3.03 Job Training for Under -Employed 63 56 30 15 164 2.85 467 9 1 0 1 11 3.82 42 175 509.00 2.91 Micro Business Loans 45 66 36 17 164 2.64 433 4 2 3 2 11 2.64 29 175 462.00 2.64 Q7: Housing Rehab Assistance for Homeowners 51 65 35 12 163 2.75 448 1 3 3 4 11 2.00 22 174 470.00 2.70 Rehab Assistance for Rental Housing Units 43 59 43 18 163 2.53 412 2 3 3 3 11 2.27 25 174 437.00 2.51 Affordable Rental Housing 88 30 26 19 163 3.00 489 10 0 0 1 11 3.91 43 174 532.00 3.06 Affordable for Sale Housing 70 41 29 23 163 2.80 457 11 0 0 0 11 4.18 46 174 503.00 2.89 1st Time Homebuyer Assistance 74 42 26 21 163 2.89 471 6 4 0 1 11 3.55 39 174 510.00 2.93 Mixed Use Housing 32 35 57 39 163 2.03 331 1 2 2 6 11 1.82 20 174 351.00 2.02 Q8: Special Needs Housing Senior Housing 48 74 32 8 162 2.81 456 7 0 3 1 11 3.09 34 173 490.00 2.83 Handicapped Accessible Housing 42 64 43 13 162 2.58 418 4 4 1 2 11 3.00 33 173 451.00 2.61 Homeless Shelters 84 32 22 24 162 2.96 480 3 6 0 2 11 3.09 34 173 514.00 2.97 Domestic Violence Shelters 57 55 34 16 162 2.75 445 8 2 0 1 11 3.73 41 173 486.00 2.81 HIV/AIDSHousing 14 51 63 34 162 1.90 308 3 3 3 2 11 2.55 28 173 336.00 1.94 Historic Buildings Rehab Assistance 39 57 51 15 162 2.44 395 4 2 1 4 11 2.64 29 173 424.00 2.45 Q9: Which of the following best describes you? Percent # Percent # Total Percent Total Resident 85.19% 138 54.55% 6 83.2% 144 BusinessOwner 4.32% 7 0.00% 0 4.0% 7 Social Service Provider 6.79% 11 0.00% 0 6.4% 11 Other (please specify) 3.70% 6 45.45% 5 6.4% 11 Total 162 11 100.0% 173 City of Costa Mesa 6 Appendix 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan DRAFT 04/23/2015 Consolidated Plan Community Workshop Tell Us What Your Community Needs • i s The City of Costa Mesa wants to hear about your community's greatest needs at a workshop on Thursday evening, January 22, 2015. With your help, the City will identify the needs and priorities, and help determine how Federal funds will be used to provide housing, community service (including services to address homelessness), public facilities/infrastructure and economic opportunities. Thursday, January 22, 2015 Fa' Dr air [i� of 6:30 PM to 8:00 PM z =e�i"Park `� 4p ti yea u,no—d Ga university o` City of Costa Mesa Emergency °° °CA Operations Center (EOC) _ 99 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, CA (Between City Hall and Police Dept.) For more information, please contact Mike Linares of the Development Services Department at (714) 754-5678 or Mike.Linares@costamesaca.gov If you need special assistance to participate in this workshop, you should contact the Development Services Department at (714) 754-5678. Notification prior to the workshop will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to this workshop. City of Costa Mesa 7 Appendix 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan DRAFT 04/23/2015 Taller Cornunitario del _ Plan +Consolidado s s o QsNecesito Su Comunidod La Ciudad de Costa Mesa quiere saber las necesidades mayores de su comunidad en el taller que tendra la noche del jueves, 22 de enero de 2015. Con su ayuda, la Ciudad va a identificar las necesidades y prioridades, y determinar como utiliaar fondos federales en la ciudad tocante a la provision de viviendas, servicios comunitarios (incluyendo servicios para los que les faltan viviendas), la infraestructura / instalaciones publicas, y el desarrollo economico. Jueves, 22 deenero de 2015 �a s 6:3O PM - 8:00 PM m fr Fair 6r �� c2 CmaK Park � a Ciudad de Costa Mesa 4lrireni yof sa,snv.cn Emergency Operations tenter .4 (EOC) < . 99 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, CA f I (Enure City Hall y Depto. de Policia) Para obtener mas informacion, pvngase en contacto con Mike Linares del Development Services Department (Departamento de Desarrollo) al telefono (714) 754-5678 o Mike.Linares@costamesaca.gov Si necesita asistencia especial Para participar en este taller, debe comunicarse con el Community Services Department (Departamento de servicios Comunitarios) al (714) 754-5678. !Notification antes del taller permite que la Ciudad Naga arreglos razonables Para asegurarla accesibilidad a este taller. City of Costa Mesa 8 Appendix 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan DRAFT 04/23/2015 Consolidated Plan Community Workshop No. 2 The City of Costa Mesa wants to hear about your community's greatest needs at a workshop on Thursday evening, February 12, 2015. With your help, the City will identify the needs and priorities, and help determine how Federal funds will be used to provide housing, community services, including services to address homelessness, public facilities/infrastructure and economic opportunities. Thursday, February 12, 2015 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM Costa Mesa Senior Center 695 W. 19th Street, Costa Mesa, CA 211d Floor Classrooms 1 & 2 S � v v a p seatl7 St = q p i p m S+ 19th St rt � W 79#h 5T v Plumer.St .Center St ° n _ m Ceater 5t —Weolo Dr- i I_ w'-rmk-n—I — W-r&W.St— s a � m Bernard St W R - _ W 5tth St v Cr c 4 Lions Park 55 W 181h St For more information, please contact Mike Linares of the Development Services Department at (714) 754-5678 or Mike.Linares@costamesaca.gov If you need special assistance to participate in this workshop, you should contact the Development Services Department at (714) 754-5678. Notification prior to the workshop will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to this workshop. City of Costa Mesa 9 Appendix 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan DRAFT 04/23/2015 Taller Comunitario No. 2 del Plan Consolidado La Ciudad de Costa Mesa quiere saber acerca de las mayores necesidades de su comunidad en el taller de la noche del jueves, 12 de febrero de 2015. Con su ayuda, la Ciudad va a identificar las necesidades y prioridades, y determinar c6mo los fondos federales se utilizaran en toda la ciudad en cuestiones tales como la provision de viviendas, servicios comunitarios incluyendo servicios tales como falta de viviendas, la infraestructura / instalaciones publicas y necesidades de la comunidad y el desarrollo econ6mico. Jueves, 12 de Febrero, 2015 m 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM Costa Mesa Senior Center -h 5 695 W. 191h Street, Costa Mesa, CA m = S�L53 o J 3 y:f cr p sewh St = q p i p m S+ t rt � w 19ch sT v Plumer.St Center St ° mCenter St a k m rs 0 Bernard St W R — w—TIR St 'I v Cr i Val Segundo Piso - Aulas 1 y 2 Rio,= 9 Park 55 w-rsnk-n— — W-T&W. St— _ W ISth St - Para obtener mas informaci6n, p6ngase en contacto con Mike Linares del Community Services Department (Departamento de Servicios Comunitarios) al telefono (714) 754-5678 o.Mike.Linares@costamesaca.gov Si necesita asistencio especial para participar en este taller, debe comunicarse con el Community Services Deportment (Departamento de Servicios Comunitoriosj al (714) 754-5678. Notificacidn antes del taller permitir6 a la Ciudad para hater los arreglos razonables Para asegurar fa accesibilidad a este taller. City of Costa Mesa 10 Appendix 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan DRAFT 04/23/2015 PUBLIC NOTICE CITY OF COSTA MESA PUBLIC HEARING AND COMMENCEMENT OF 30-DAY PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR SUBMISSION OF 2015-2019 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND 2015-2016 ACTION PLAN Notice is hereby given that the City of Costa Mesa City Council will hold a public hearing related to the 2015- 2019 Consolidated Plan and the One -Year Action Plan for fiscal year 2015-2016. The Consolidated Plan is a five-year strategic plan that identifies housing and community needs, strategies to address needs, and programs/resources to address these needs. The draft 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan and the draft 2015-2016 Action Plan delineate proposed activities to be funded under the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships Act (HOME) programs. For fiscal year 2015-2016, the City of Costa Mesa will receive $1,028,141 in CDBG funds and $327,658 in HOME funds from HUD. Program income generated from prior funded activities and unexpended prior year funds will also be utilized. As required by federal regulations, a 30-day public comment period will be initiated to receive written comments regarding the proposed use of these funds as outlined in the draft 2015-2016 Action Plan. Proposed uses of 2015-2016 CDBG and HOME funds include the following: ■ Special housing code enforcement to ensure the maintenance of decent, safe and sanitary $325,000 housing ■ Public services for lower income youths, seniors, homeless, and lower income persons $154,220 ■ Public facility improvements (various locations) $443,296 ■ Funds reserved for Community Housing Development Organizations $49,149 ■ Single-family housing rehabilitation loans/grants $245,744 ■ Program administration (CDBG and HOME programs) $238,390 Total: $1,455,799 30-Day Public Comment Period The 30-day public comment period for the draft 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan and the draft 2015-2016 Annual Action Plan will commence on April 6, 2015, and will end May 5, 2015. A draft is available for public review at the Office of the City Clerk located at 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, CA, and also on the City's website — www.costamesaca.gov. Written comments must be submitted to the City of Costa Mesa Housing and Community Development Division no later than 12:00 PM, May 5, 2015. Written comments should be addressed to Mike Linares, CDBG/HOME Coordinator at 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92628. Public Hearings A public hearing regarding this action will be held at 7:00 PM, or soon thereafter, May 5, 2015, in the City Council Chambers at Costa Mesa City Hall, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, CA. At this time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. For further information, or to ensure reasonable accommodations are made for persons with disabilities, please contact Mike Linares, CDBG/HOME Coordinator at (714) 754-5678. Publish: April 4, 2015 City of Costa Mesa 11 Appendix 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan DRAFT 04/23/2015 MAP 1— ASIAN CONCENTRATION April2, 2015 = <5.10% Race/Ethnic Concentration - Asian Persons 5.10-9.10% = >29.10% 9.10-19.10% ® 19.10-29.10% San 1:132,185 2 a mi t 0 1.75 9.5 7 km Sm"5 Esn, M€RF, Oelnnne, USGS, �ntermap. increment P 4Np, NRSAN, Esn japan, mPTi, Esn Cnina pibtvj KanW. Esn (inaNand� 70MT n. mapmyngia. CP op-SftMap mp bft*m. antl Cns o1S Were pmmun4y City of Costa Mesa 12 Appendix 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan DRAFT 04/23/2015 MAP 2 — HISPANIC CONCENTRATION 101 be RacelEthnic Concentration - Hispanic Persons 15.20-25.20% = a55.20% 25.20-36.20% <15.20% ® 35.20-5520% 1:131,015 2 am 0 1.75 3.5 7 km $M1M" 6S . HE dC '_'. oGG , Invnrnap..nC erd P Cwp, NRCM. ESn Japan, ME tl Esn China {Hong 3mnp), Esn (T"Ianu), TamT-. rdapmyaneAa,q Cp. ngtreW p c ntr o—. antl M. Cls Vwr C omm.um[y City of Costa Mesa 13 Appendix 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan DRAFT 04/23/2015 MAP 3 — SEVERE HOUSING PROBLEMS CONCENTRATION (0%-30% AM I) Households with Any of 4 Severe Housing Problems - 0% to 30% AM I 15-30°% = �.80% 30-50°% 50-80°% 1:132,185 a 1 2 4 (ni a 1.75 3.5 7 kin SnUM.P.q Evj, II1` 11 [," ,°m2, WGS, lme.ap, mcremem P Copp . NRCMW eV J 1...11I, e- Cnma Mob Kong), Lon (Thauams)• TWTde, reapmymma, 6 .spew ."ftp ems, W"fib GIS Ulu C—olly City of Costa Mesa 14 Appendix 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan DRAFT 04/23/2015 MAP 4 - SEVERE HOUSING PROBLEMS CONCENTRATION (30%-50% AMI) Households with Any of 4 Severe Housing Problems - 30% to 50%1a AMl 15-30% = '80% 30-50% s 15�d 50-Pied 1:13Z 185 1 2 4 mi ? 1.75 3.5 7 km SO=E9.- ES . HERE, DE t. LL363, IhT2rtM1 ap, Ih[rE.M PC". NRCPM, E3h japan, ME-n, EFh Cmnm iHong KWQ), ESh (Thad-ft T-Tom, M3pmylrVfld,O 017C�StrlCIM +comrW ors. 3MW*1$U6 rCQmmunv City of Costa Mesa 15 Appendix 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan DRAFT 04/23/2015 MAP 5 - SEVERE HOUSING PROBLEMS CONCENTRATION (50%-80% AMI) Households with Any Of 4 Severe Housing Problems - 50% to 80% AMI f �f r r anfp �r C� 15-30% = -80% 30-50% <1b% 50-80% 1:131,015 0 1 2 4 mi 0 1.75 3.5 7 km 8dit : Epn, HERE, OCLprmt, US68, lfi n ap. lna mcm G Cmp., URCM. ff X Jyppra, METI,. E9n CNf1A (H Npng), Ein (Thplenp), TNn Tpm, MJprVma.O GpMS"04ap Cpn< WOM, 3nG MO GIS V8@r CWnmUnRy City of Costa Mesa 16 Appendix 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan DRAFT 04/23/2015 MAP 6 - CDBG ELIGIBLE CENSUS TRACT BLOCK GROUPS City of Costa Mesa 17 Appendix 2015-2019 Consoldiated Plan DRAFT 04/23/2015 TABLE B -ONE PERSON HOUSEHOLDS 1-Person Households Owners Renters Total Householders Age 15 — 54 1,477 5,413 6,890 Householders Age 55 — 64 848 1,098 1,946 Householders Age 65 — 74 827 401 1,228 Householders Age 75 & over 1 1,062 603 1,665 Source: American Community Survey 2007-2011 (Table ID: B25116) TABLE C: INVENTORY OF ASSISTED HOUSING UNITS Name of Project Address Target Group Potential Funding Target Assisted Expiration Level Units Bethel Towers 666 W. 191h St. Senior 2067 LIHTC Low 270 Casa Bella 1840 Park Ave. Senior 9/11/2015 HUD Section 8 Low 75 HUD Section 8 St. John's Manor 2031 Orange Ave. Senior 12/2/2015 Very Low 36 HOME, CM 5/2062 Redevelopment, Federal Rental Rehab 2015 -2019 Pomona Costa Mesa Family Ave. General 12/2038 CM Very 72 Village 755-771 W. 20th St. Redevelopment Low/Low 1924-1932 Wallace Ground Lease Ave. Park Place Village 1662 Newport Blvd. General Perpetuity Land Use Very Low 60 (SRO) Restriction Costa Mesa Village OC Housing (SRO) 2450 Newport Blvd. General Perpetuity Authority, CM Very Low 96 Redevelopment Newport Senior 2080 Newport Blvd. Senior Perpetuity Land Use Very 91 Village (SRO) Restriction Low/Low HOME Rehabilitation 734-744 James Street General 4/2049 HOME Very Low/Low 11 Project #1 HOME Rehabilitation 745 W. 181h Street General 5/2056 HOME Very Low/Low 3 Project #3A HOME HOME, Federal Rehabilitation 717-721 James Street General 6/2058 Rental Rehab Very Low/Low 8 Project #6 HOME 707-7 18`h CM Rehabilitation reet e Sttrt General 5/2056 Redevelopment Very Low/Low 8 Project #3B Other Density Scattered General Various Land Use Very Low/Low/ 156 Bonus Units Restriction Moderate Developmentally Very Harbor Village 2501 Harbor Disabled and Perpetuity State -Owned Low/Low/ 550 General Moderate Sources: 1. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 2. California Housing Partnership Corporation 3. City of Costa Mesa 2013-2021 Housing Element City of Costa Mesa 18 Appendix 2015-2019 Consoldiated Plan DRAFT 04/23/2015 TABLE D: COSTA MESA CHILDREN UNDER AGE G WITH HIGH BLOOD LEAD VALUES (>4.Sgu/dL) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014* TOTAL 27 32 33 58 27 177 Source: California Department of Public Health, Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Branch TABLE E: HOMELESS FACILITIES SERVING COSTA MESA EMERGENCY SHELTER NAME NO. OF SERVICES % OF CHRONIC BEDS HOMELESS BEDS Emergency Shelter for victims of Human Options 36 0% domestic violence -women & children Salvation Army Hospitality Emergency shelter and services single 50 ° 75% House men and women Santa Ana Cold weather emergency shelter - only 250 ° 90% Armory 1 operates during winter (Dec -Mar) Cold weather emergency shelter for Mercy House 126 families with children - only operates 0% 1 (Family Redirection) during winter (Dec -Mar) Women's Transitional Living Emergency Shelter for victims of 20 ° 0% Center domestic violence -women & children TRANSITIONAL HOUSING SHELTER NO. OF % OF CHRONIC SERVICES NAME BEDS HOMELESS BEDS Transitional housing for victims of Human Options Second Step 50 0% domestic violence (women & children) Orange Coast Interfaith Transitional housing for families with 30 ° 0/ Shelter children Mercy House Transitional Transitional housing for families with 69 ° 10% Living Center children and for single adults Transitional housing for women and Colette's Children's Home 82 15% women with children Source: County of Orange Housing and Community Services Department 1. Beds only available during winter months City of Costa Mesa 19 Appendix 2015-2019 Consoldiated Plan DRAFT 04/23/2015 TABLE F: UNDERUTILIZED SITES SUITABLE FOR HOUSING 19 WEST URBAN PLAN AREA EXISTING EXISTING POTENTIAL UNITS SITE ADDRESS ACREAGE ZONING GENERAL PLAN EXISTING USES (avg. 24 du/ac) 1 745 W. 19th St 0.63 Restaurant and bar with 15 General C1 large service parking Commercial 719 W. 19th St 1.29 under common ownership 31 2 647 W. 19th St .60 General 14 Commercial Restaurant, small office 657 W. 19th St .36 C1 Office building, and printing 9 services 659 W. 19th St .27 General 6 Commercial Total Capacity: 75 MESA WEST BLUFFS URBAN PLAN AREA EXISTING EXISTING SITE ADDRESS ACREAGE EXISTING USES POTENTIAL UNITS ZONING GENERAL PLAN 13 1 671 W. 17th St 9.1 General Light Office and manufacturing 20 Industrial Industrial (if live/work housing) Source: City of Costa Mesa 2013-2021 Housing Element City of Costa Mesa 20 Appendix 2015-2019 Consoldiated Plan DRAFT 04/23/2015 ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE (INCLUDING 2015-2016 ACTION PLAN) As a recipient of federal grant funds, the City of Costa Mesa is required to prepare an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI). In addition to identifying impediments, a strategy to overcome impediments must be implemented. The current Al was prepared in conjunction with the 2010-2014 Consolidated Plan in partnership with three other Orange County jurisdictions. In July 2013, HUD published proposed rules that substantially revamped existing Al rules; however, as of this date, final implementing regulations have not been published. On the advice of the Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity staff at the Los Angeles HUD Office, the City is moving forward with an update to the Al utilizing existing HUD guidelines. The City is undertaking this process in partnership with 16 Orange County HUD grantees. It is anticipated that the updated Al will be completed in time for adoption of the 2016-2017 Annual Action Plan. The current Al reviewed an array of public and private policies, practices and procedures affecting housing choice within a four -city area (Costa Mesa, Mission Viejo, San Clemente and Tustin). The information listed below summarizes the impediments identified in the Al and outlines actions the City will implement during FY 2015-2016 in an effort to address impediments. It is important to note that not all impediments listed are present in Costa Mesa. IDENTIFIED IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING The 2010-2014 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice identified several factors that might affect a household's ability to access housing in a manner free from discrimination. Impediments identified in the Al are summarized below: ■ The lack of income presents a barrier to obtaining affordable housing. Most impacted by low income are elderly households and minority populations. ■ The City may be experiencing demographic changes that may strain race relations. ■ A majority of Asians and Pacific Islanders tend to be linguistically isolated. ■ The recent economic downturn and high unemployment had made homeownership more difficult; however, while minorities may be underrepresented in the ownership market this is not identified as an impediment to fair housing as all households, regardless of race/ethnicity, have been impacted by shifts in the housing market. ■ Overcrowding is significantly higher among Hispanic households. ■ A significant portion of large and elderly renter households are experiencing some type of housing problem. ■ Disability, race, and familial status constitute the majority of complaints received by the fair housing service provider for the City. A review of these complaints found a pattern of allegations of denial of reasonable accommodations and unequal terms. ■ Bias against race and/or ethnicity appears to be the biggest motivator of hate crimes. ■ Immigrant populations appear to need fair housing outreach and education services. ■ There appears to be a lack of lender advertising in particular neighborhoods. City of Costa Mesa 21 Appendix 2015-2019 Consoldiated Plan DRAFT 04/23/2015 ACTIONS TO ADDRESS IMPEDIMENTS (2015-2016) To address identified impediments, the following actions will be implemented during FY 2015-2016 by the City and its fair housing service provider (the Fair Housing Foundation - FHF): ■ Fair housing services will be provided at an effective and responsive level to ensure comprehensive fair housing outreach is carried out in the community and to affirmatively promote services in Low - and Moderate -income areas of concentration. ■ The City's website will be updated to provide information and links to fair housing providers. Links to information in languages other than English may be provided. ■ The City will collaborate with its fair housing service provider to provide fair housing training for tenants, property management companies, homeowner associations and other groups, to help ensure each is knowledgeable of fair housing laws and available services. ■ The City will affirmatively market its housing rehabilitation program in Low- and Moderate -income and racial/ethnic areas. ■ As allowed by resources, FHF reviewed advertising for Orange County rentals listed in media such as The Orange County Register, La Opinion, Los Angeles Times, local weekly newspapers, Craigslist, and The Penny Saver, for discriminatory content. Discriminatory advertisements may be referred for further investigation and possible enforcement action. ■ In response to foreclosures, FHF will provide appropriate referrals for qualified foreclosure prevention and affordable housing assistance. City of Costa Mesa 22 Appendix 2015-2019 Consoldiated Plan DRAFT 04/23/2015 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN DRAFT 04/23/2015 INTENTIONALLY BLANK CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN DRAFT 04/23/2015 CITY OF COSTA MESA CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN PURPOSE: The purpose of the Citizen Participation Plan is to provide the method and process by which the City of Costa Mesa's consolidated planning process will comply with the citizen participation requirements promulgated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) pursuant to section 104(a)(3) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, and as further augmented by program regulations under 24 CFR Part 91, Subpart B. Through implementation of this Citizen Participation Plan, residents will be afforded the maximum feasible opportunity to provide input on housing and community development needs, issues and problems affecting very -low and low-income persons; to learn about the Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) programs the City needs to apply for and the expected amount of assistance to be received from each; to develop local project proposals; to give input to project selections and funding distributions; and to participate in the implementation of funded activities. This Plan, once adopted, may be amended by the City Council and shall remain in effect until superseded by a new plan or until the City no longer participates in the Housing and Community Development Block Grant Program and HOME program, or other eligible programs that pertain to the Consolidated Planning process. GOALS — OBJECTIVES — ACTIONS Provide for and encourage citizen participation for all residents in the City in the development of the Consolidated Plan, any amendments to the Consolidated Plan, and in the Consolidated Plan performance report. In particular, the City will emphasize participation of 1) very -low and low-income residents; 2) minorities; 3) non -English-speaking persons; and 4) persons with mobility, visual, or hearing impairments, during all states of the process. Provide information regarding the amount of HOME, CDBG, and leverage funds that are to be available, the range of activities that can be undertaken and the procedures and contact points available for their involvement in the City's consolidated planning process. Encourage the involvement of residents of public and assisted housing developments in the process of developing and implementing the Consolidated Plan, along with other low-income residents of targeted revitalization areas. To meet these goals/objectives, the City will meet with groups or individuals as requested, to assist in identifying specific needs and to assist in preparing projected proposal applications. 3 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN DRAFT 04/23/2015 REASONABLE NOTICE The City will provide residents and stakeholders with reasonable notice of, and opportunity to comment on the consolidated planning process, proposed use of funds, and all proposed substantial changes necessitating an amendment to the Consolidated Plan. At minimum, the City will provide a publicly advertised 30-day comment period for the adoption of all plans and amendments thereto. ■ Publish in newspapers of general circulation, a notice to the general public that the City is initiating a consolidated planning process including the amounts and types of assistance expected, the range of activities that may be undertaken, and how citizens can become involved in the planning and the project development processes. At a minimum, the public notice will consist of advertisements published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City. ■ Send letters, emails, memos or other information forms of communication to known interest groups and service providers informing them of the consolidated planning process requirements and the process for submitting recommendations. ■ Post notices on the City web site and in public meeting areas, including the Neighborhood Community Center, the Downtown Community Center, libraries, City Hall bulletin board, and/or the Police Department bulletin board. ■ Upon notification that non-English speaking residents will be in attendance at City public hearings, the City will make an effort to assure that bilingual personnel are available to assist non-English speaking residents wishing to provide testimony at the public hearings on consolidated plan items. TIMELY ACCESS TO LOCAL MEETINGS, INFORMATION AND RECORD The City will make efforts to provide citizens with reasonable and timely access to local meetings, information and records relating to a) the identification of needs, b) the consolidated planning process and project proposal, and c) the city's proposed use of funds, as required by the regulations of the Secretary, and relating to the actual use of funds under the Act. ■ Provide information and records to the public about proposed projects and the actual use of funds under the HOME and CDBG programs. ■ Make copies of the Proposed and the Final Consolidated Plan, related needs information, and performance documentation available for review at the City Offices, the community center, and libraries. ■ Post copy of Plan or Summary on the City's web site. 4 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN DRAFT 04/23/2015 ■ Utilize the results from the public information meetings (Needs Identification Forums) held to obtain information from citizens about local housing, to formulate community and economic development needs for the next three to five years. (1) Provide copies of the findings from the public information meetings to members of the public and identified interest groups. (2) In each successive year, publish in newspapers of general circulation, a notice to the general public inviting citizens to participate in Needs Identification Forums to identify the community development and housing needs of very -low and low-income persons. (3) Publish notices announcing the availability of the Final Consolidated Plan, related needs information or performance documents. ■ Provide for timely consideration and response to comments, complaints and grievances regarding the Consolidated Plan, amendments of the plan or performance report. (1) City will prepare a summary of all comments and views expressed by citizens or interested parties at the public hearing on the final Consolidated Plan, amendment of the plan or performance report and will attach said summary to the final Consolidated Plan, amendment of the plan or performance report. ■ Consider any comments or views of citizens or units of local government received in writing, or orally during the public hearing on the proposed Consolidated Plan, amendment of the plan or performance report. (1) Answer, in writing, all written questions and answer verbally all verbal inquiries received from citizens or representative groups. ■ Receive and respond to written complaints and grievances within 15 working days, where practicable. (1) All written complaints and grievances regarding the City's consolidated Plan received by the City will be logged -in and responded to, in writing. Depending on the nature of the project, the time that it requires for resolution, and staff resources available to investigate and respond, the written response will be sent within 15 days or as soon as possible otherwise. ■ Provide technical assistance to interested community groups. ■ Provide for a wide distribution of the final Consolidated Plan, or summary thereof, to afford citizens throughout the County a reasonable opportunity to examine their contents. 5 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN DRAFT 04/23/2015 (1) Each year the City Council will conduct a publicly advertised hearing to consider the proposed Annual Plan, to review staff recommendations regarding which project proposals and corresponding funding levels will best meet identified needs and to receive citizen input, with such hearing at it conclusion, being continued for a period of two weeks to enable staff to make any recommended revisions to the plan prior to final consideration and approval by the City Council. (2) Reproduce and distribute copies of the Consolidated Plan to the public libraries, community centers, and any other public information site to be determined and request that the copies be displayed during a specified period of time which corresponds to the 30 day comment period advertised in the Notice. (3) The City will provide citizens, public agencies and other interested parties with reasonable and timely access to information and records relating to the Consolidated Plan and the City's use of applicable grant programs during the preceding year. ■ Provide for public hearings to obtain citizen views on housing and community development needs, proposed projects and activities, the consolidated plan and any amendments thereto and program performance. a. Conduct a public hearing before the City Council to receive citizen input on housing, community and development needs issues or problems, and the amended Citizen Participation Plan at a time and location convenient to the public and with accommodations for the handicapped. (1) A notice will be published on the City's web site and in newspapers of general circulation throughout the City concerning the public hearing, 15 days prior to such hearing. (2) City Public hearings will be conducted at the City of Costa Mesa City Council Chambers, 77 Fair Drive, Costa mesa during regularly scheduled hearing dates and times. This facility is centrally located and fully furnished and equipped to accommodate al citizens who wish to participate. The Chambers are fully handicapped accessible with provisions for persons in wheelchairs to address the Council. b. Conduct a public hearing before the City Council in January each year to review activities and accomplishments achieved during the previous Program Year. MODIFICATIONS: The City of Costa Mesa may make modifications to the activities listed in the CDBG portion of the Consolidated Plan, without public notice or an amendment to the Consolidated Plan, so long as the modifications do not result in a substantial change to the purpose, scope, location or beneficiaries of an activity. In this instance, substantial change is defined as follows: 1) a net increase greater than 25% of the respective HUD grant allocation listed in a published Consolidated Plan; or 2) a change in the type of activity; or 3) a change in the location of the activity; or 4) a change in the 6 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN DRAFT 04/23/2015 beneficiaries of the activity. The program administration activity and the unprogrammmed funds category are not subject to the allocation limitations defined under substantial change. ADDENDA: The results of public hearings, information forums, and written and verbal comments will be recorded and made a part of this document prior to the adoption of the Consolidated Plan. 7 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN DRAFT 04/23/2015 OMB Number: 4040-0004 Expiration Date: 8/31/2016 Application for Federal Assistance SF-424 * 1. Type of Submission: Preapplication ® Application Changed/Corrected Application " 2. Type of Application: * If Revision, select appropriate letter($): ® New ❑ continuation * Other (Specifyg Revision * 3. Date Received: 4. Applicant Identifier, 5-15-MC-060503 5a. Federal Entity Identifier: Sb. Federal Award Identifier: B-15-MC-060503 B-15-MC-060503 State Use Only: 6, Date Received by State: 7. Slate Application Identifier: S. APPLICANT INFORMATION: `a. Legal Name: CITY OF COSTA MESA Id. Employer/Taxpayer Identification Number (EIN/TIN): * c. Organizational DUNS: 0661980160000 95-6005030 d. Address: "Street1: 77 FAIR DRIVE Streel2: *City: COSTA MESA County/Parish: * State: CA: California Province: *Country: USA: UNITED STATES * Zip /Postal Code', 9262E-1200 e. Organizational Unit: Department Name: Division Name: HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES f. Name and contact Information of person to be contacted on matters involving this application: Prefix', IMR "First Name: MIKE Middle Name: "Last Name: LINARES Suffix: Title: CDBG/HOME COORDINATOR Organizational Affiliation: *Telephone Number 719-759-5678 Fax Number 714-754-4913 *Email'. mike. linares@costamesaca. gov Application for Federal Assistance SF-424 * 9. Type of Applicant 1: Select Applicant Type: C: City or Township Government Type of Applicant 2: Select Applicant Type: Type of Applicant 3: Select Applicant Type: * Other (specify): * 10. Name of Federal Agency: HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 11. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 4-218 CFDA Title: COMMUNITIY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT * 12. Funding Opportunity Number: NA * Tille: NA 13. Competition Identification Number: NA Title: NA 14. Areas Affected by Project (Cities, Counties, States, etc.): Add Attachment Delete -Attachment: View Attachment * 15. Descriptive Title of Applicant's Project: CDBG FUNDS WILL BE USED TO ADDRESS COMMUNITY NEEDS FOR LOWER INCOME COSTA MESA RESIDENTS. Attach supporting documents as specified in agency instructions. Add Attachments Delete Attachments View Attachments Application for Federal Assistance SF-424 16. Congressional Districts Of: * a. Applicant 96 * b. Program/Project 96 Attach an additional list of Program/Project Congressional Districts if needed, Add Attachment Delete Attachment View Attachment' 17. Proposed Project: *a. Start Date, 07 /Ol/2015 *b. End Date: 06/30/2016 18. Estimated Funding ($): *a. Federal 1, 028, 191.00 * b, Applicant * c State * d. Local *e. Other 187, 000. 00 * f, Program Income *g. TOTAL 1,215,191.00 * 19. Is Application Subject to Review By State Under Executive Order 12372 Process? ❑ a. This application was made available to the State under the Executive Order 12372 Process for review on �. ❑ b. Program is subject to E.O. 12372 but has not been selected by the State for review, ® c. Program is not covered by E.0, 12372, * 20. Is the Applicant Delinquent On Any Federal Debt? (If "Yes," provide explanation in attachment.) ❑ Yes ®No If "Yes", provide explanation and attach Add Attachment `: Delete Attachment View Attachment 21. *By signing this application, I certify (1) to the statements contained in the list of certifications** and (2) that the statements herein are true, complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge.I also provide the required assurances** and agree to comply with any resulting terms if I accept an award. I am aware that any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or claims may subject me to criminal, civil, or administrative penalties. (U.S. Code, Title 218, Section 1001) ® **IAGREE ** The list of certifications and assurances, or an internet site where you may obtain this list, Is contained in the announcement or agency specific instructions. Authorized Representative: Prefix: MR * First Name: THOMAS Middle Name: H *Last Name: HATCH Suffix; *Title: CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER * Telephone Number: 714-759-4956 Fax Number: 714-759-5330 *Email: thomas.hatch@costamesaca. gov * Signature of Authorized Representative: * Date Signed: I OMB Number: 4040-0004 Expiration Date: 8/31/2016 Application for Federal Assistance SF-424 * 1. Type of Submission: ❑ Preapplication ® Application ❑ Changed/Corrected Application * 2. Type of Application', * If Revision, select appropriate letter(s): ® New ❑ Continuation * Other (Specify): ❑ Revision * 3. Date Received: 4, Applicant Identifier: L M-15-MC-06-0507 5a. Federal Entity Identifier: 5b. Federal Award Identifier: M-15-MC-06-0507 M-15-MC-06-0507 State Use Only: 6. Date Received by State: 7, State Application Identifies S. APPLICANT INFORMATION: *a. Legal Name: CITY OF COSAT MESA * b. Employer/Taxpayer Identification Number (EIN/TIN): * c. Organizational DUNS: 0661480160000 —� 95-6005060 d. Address: * Streed: 77 FAIR DRIVE Slreel2: *City: COSTA MESA County/Parish: ORANGE *Stale: CA: California Province: "Country: USA: UNITED STATES * Zip /Postal Code', 92628-1200 e. Organizational Unit: Department Name: Division Name: HOUSING&COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES f. Name and contact information of person to be contacted on matters involving this application: Prefix: First Name: MIKE Middle Name: *Last Name: LINARES Suffix: II Title: CDBG/HOME COORDINATOR Organizational Affiliation: * Telephone Number: 714-754-5678 Fax Number: 714-754-4913 *Email: mike.linares@costamesaca.gov Application for Federal Assistance SF-424 * 9. Type of Applicant 1: Select Applicant Type: C City or Township Government Type of Applicant 2: Select Applicant Type: Type of Applicant 3: Select Applicant Type: * Other (specify): * 10. Name of Federal Agency: HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 11. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 4-239 CFDA Title: HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS * 12. Funding Opportunity Number: NA * Title. NA 13. Competition Identification Number: NA Title: NA 14. Areas Affected by Project (Cities, Counties, States, etc.): Add Attachment' Delete _Attachment View Attachment °; * 15. Descriptive Title of Applicant's Project: HOME FUNDS WILL BE USED TO PRESERVE, IMPROVE AND EXPAND THE CITY'S SUPPLY OF HOUSING FOR LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS. Attach supporting documents as specified in agency instructions, Add Attachments Delete Attachments View Attachments Application for Federal Assistance SF-424 16, Congressional Districts Of: * a. Applicant 46 * b. Program/Project g6 Attach an additional list of Program/Project Congressional Districts If needed. Adtl. Attachment Delete Attachment View Attacment 4 17. Proposed Project: * a. Start Date: 07 / 01 / 2 015 " b. End Date: 18. Estimated Funding ($): * a. Federal 327, 658.00 * b. Applicant * c. State * d. Local "e. Other 332,298.00 * f, Program Income *g. TOTAL 659,956.00 * 19, Is Application Subject to Review By State Under Executive Order 12372 Process? a. This application was made available to the State under the Executive Order 12372 Process for review on b. Program is subject to E.O. 12372 but has not been selected by the State for review. ® c. Program is not covered by E.O. 12372. * 20. Is the Applicant Delinquent On Any Federal Debt? (If "Yes," provide explanation In attachment.) Yes ® No If "Yes", provide explanation and attach Adtl Attachment '' Delete Atlachmerit Vigw Attaclment 21. *By signing this application, 1 certify (1) to the statements contained In the list of certifications*" and (2) that the statements herein are true, complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I also provide the required assurances** and agree to comply with any resulting terms if I accept an award. I am aware that any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or claims may subject me to criminal, civil, or administrative penalties. (U.S. Code, Title 218, Section 1001) ® **IAGREE ** The list of certifications and assurances, or an internet site where you may obtain this list, is contained In the announcement or agency specific Instructions. Authorized Representative; Prefix: Mr. "First Name: THOMAS Middle Name: R. *Last Name: HATCH Suffix: *Title: CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER * Telephone Number: 714-754-4956 Fax Number: 714-754-5330 *Email', thomas.hatch@costamesaca.gov * Signature of Authorized Representative: * Date Signed: I I CERTIFICATIONS In accordance with the applicable statutes and the regulations governing the consolidated plan regulations, the jurisdiction certifies that: Affirmatively Further Fair Housing -- The jurisdiction will affirmatively further fair housing, which means it will conduct an analysis of impediments to fair housing choice within the jurisdiction, take appropriate actions to overcome the effects of any impediments identified through that analysis, and maintain records reflecting that analysis and actions in this regard. Anti -displacement and Relocation Plan -- It will comply with the acquisition and relocation requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, and implementing regulations at 49 CFR 24; and it has in effect and is following a residential antidisplacement and relocation assistance plan required under section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, in connection with any activity assisted with funding under the CDBG or HOME programs. Anti -Lobbying -- To the best of the jurisdiction's knowledge and belief: No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of it, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement; 2. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, it will complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions; and It will require that the language of paragraph 1 and 2 of this anti -lobbying certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly. Authority of Jurisdiction -- The consolidated plan is authorized under State and local law (as applicable) and the jurisdiction possesses the legal authority to carry out the programs for which it is seeking funding, in accordance with applicable HUD regulations. Consistency with plan -- The housing activities to be undertaken with CDBG, HOME, ESG, and HOPWA funds are consistent with the strategic plan. Section 3 -- It will comply with section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, and implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 135. Signature/Authorized Official Date Specific CDBG Certifications The Entitlement Community certifies that: Citizen Participation -- It is in full compliance and following a detailed citizen participation plan that satisfies the requirements of 24 CFR 91.105. Community Development Plan -- Its consolidated housing and community development plan identifies community development and housing needs and specifies both short-term and long-term community development objectives that provide decent housing, expand economic opportunities primarily for persons of low and moderate income. (See CFR 24 570.2 and CFR 24 part 570) Following a Plan -- It is following a current consolidated plan (or Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy) that has been approved by HUD. Use of Funds -- It has complied with the following criteria: 1. Maximum Feasible Priority. With respect to activities expected to be assisted with CDBG funds, it certifies that it has developed its Action Plan so as to give maximum feasible priority to activities which benefit low and moderate income families or aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight. The Action Plan may also include activities which the grantee certifies are designed to meet other community development needs having a particular urgency because existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community, and other financial resources are not available); 2. Overall Benefit. The aggregate use of CDBG funds including section 108 guaranteed loans during program year(s) 2015 (a period specified by the grantee consisting of one, two, or three specific consecutive program years), shall principally benefit persons of low and moderate income in a manner that ensures that at least 70 percent of the amount is expended for activities that benefit such persons during the designated period; 3. Special Assessments. It will not attempt to recover any capital costs of public improvements assisted with CDBG funds including Section 108 loan guaranteed funds by assessing any amount against properties owned and occupied by persons of low and moderate income, including any fee charged or assessment made as a condition of obtaining access to such public improvements. However, if CDBG funds are used to pay the proportion of a fee or assessment that relates to the capital costs of public improvements (assisted in part with CDBG funds) financed from other revenue sources, an assessment or charge may be made against the property with respect to the public improvements financed by a source other than CDBG funds. The jurisdiction will not attempt to recover any capital costs of public improvements assisted with CDBG funds, including Section 108, unless CDBG funds are used to pay the proportion of fee or assessment attributable to the capital costs of public improvements financed from other revenue sources. In this case, an assessment or charge may be made against the property with respect to the public improvements financed by a source other than CDBG funds. Also, in the case of properties owned and occupied by moderate -income (not low-income) families, an assessment or charge may be made against the property for public improvements financed by a source other than CDBG funds if the jurisdiction certifies that it lacks CDBG funds to cover the assessment. Excessive Force -- It has adopted and is enforcing: A policy prohibiting the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencies within its jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in non-violent civil rights demonstrations; and 2. A policy of enforcing applicable State and local laws against physically barring entrance to or exit from a facility or location which is the subject of such non-violent civil rights demonstrations within its jurisdiction; Compliance With Anti -discrimination laws -- The grant will be conducted and administered in conformity with title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 USC 2000d), the Fair Housing Act (42 USC 3601-3619), and implementing regulations. Lead -Based Paint -- Its activities concerning lead -based paint will comply with the requirements of 24 CFR Part 35, subparts A, B, J, K and R; Compliance with Laws -- It will comply with applicable laws. Signature/Authorized Official Date Title Specific HOME Certifications The HOME participating jurisdiction certifies that: Tenant Based Rental Assistance -- If the participating jurisdiction intends to provide tenant -based rental assistance: The use of HOME funds for tenant -based rental assistance is an essential element of the participating jurisdiction's consolidated plan for expanding the supply, affordability, and availability of decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing. Eligible Activities and Costs -- it is using and will use HOME funds for eligible activities and costs, as described in 24 CFR § 92.205 through 92.209 and that it is not using and will not use HOME funds for prohibited activities, as described in § 92.214. Appropriate Financial Assistance -- before committing any funds to a project, it will evaluate the project in accordance with the guidelines that it adopts for this purpose and will not invest any more HOME funds in combination with other Federal assistance than is necessary to provide affordable housing; Signature/Authorized Official Date Title APPENDIX TO CERTIFICATIONS A. Lobbying Certification This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352, title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. CITY OF COSTA MESA HOUSING PUBLIC SERVICES AD HOC COMMITTEE 2015-2016 PUBLIC SERVICE GRANT RECOMMENDATIONS Amount Current Year Avg Committee Recommended Applicant Name Population To Serve Requested Grant Rating Grant Mika Community Development Corporation Youth $10,000 $0 84.3 $10,000 Families Forward Homeless $10,000 $0 81.4 $10,000 Council on Aging Seniors $15,000 $0 81.0 $10,000 Youth Employment Services Youth $15,000 $19,000 80.7 $10,000 Community SeniorServe - Home Delivered Meals Seniors $20,000 $20,000 79.0 $15,000 Community SeniorServe - Congregate Meals Seniors $20,000 $20,000 76.5 $12,500 Colette's Children's Home Homeless $45,000 $20,000 73.9 $20,000 Working Wardrobes Low/Mod $10,000 $0 73.6 $10,000 Mercy House - Prevention/Rapid Rehousing Homeless $40,000 $20,000 71.4 $20,000 City of Costa Mesa Senior Counseling Seniors $20,000 $17,764 69.9 $10,000 Elwyn California Disabled $30,000 $0 68.8 $5,720 Fair Housing Foundation (required) Low/Mod $21,000 $21,000 47.6 $21,000 TOTAL: TOTAL: $256,000 $154,220 2015-2016 PUBLIC SERVICE GRANT APPLICATION SUMMARIES HOMELESS SERVICES Colette's Children's Home —Transitional Housing Program Proposed Service: Program will provide transitional housing and supportive services for homeless women and children. Amount Requested: $45,000 for program staff and related program operating costs. CM Residents to be Assisted: 18 Committee Recommendation: $20,000 Families Forward — Housing P Proposed Service: Amount Requested: CM Residents to be Assisted: Committee Recommendation ram The program will provide shelter and support services for homeless Costa Mesa families. $10,000 for program staff. 14 $10,000 Mercv House — Homelessness Prevention Program & Ragid Re-housin Proposed Service: Program will provide rental assistance to qualified households to prevent the loss of housing, and will also help place those already homeless into permanent housing. Amount Requested: $40,000 for program staff salaries, related program/admin costs and direct financial assistance. CM Residents to be Assisted: 20 Committee Recommendation: $20,000 SENIOR SERVICES Communitv Senior Serve - Congregate Meals Proposed Service: The program provides seniors with hot lunch 5 days per week at the Costa Mesa Senior Center. Amount Requested: $20,000 for raw food cost. CM Residents to be Assisted: 200 Committee Recommendation: $12,500 Community Senior Serve - Home Meal Delivery Proposed Service: This meals on wheels program will provide food and quick assessment for homebound seniors to ensure health and safety. Amount Requested: $20,000 for raw food cost. CM Residents to be Assisted: 90 Committee Recommendation: $15,000 City of Costa Mesa - Senior Social Services Proposed Service: Counseling and referral services for seniors provided by social worker at the Costa Mesa Senior Center. Amount Requested: $20,000 for program staff salaries. CM Residents to be Assisted: 250 Committee Recommendation: $10,000 Council on Aeine — Ombudsman Services Proposed Service: Ombudsman will provide on -site inspection and issue -resolution services for seniors/disabled individuals living in managed care facilities. Amount Requested: $15,000 for program staff salaries. CM Residents to be Assisted: 40 Committee Recommendation: $10,000 YOUTH SERVICES Mika Communitv Development Coraoration — El Paseo Academic Program Proposed Program: After -school learning centers for pre -kindergartners and students grade K through 4. Amount Requested: $15,000 for program staff salaries and program operating costs. CM Residents to be Assisted: 85 Committee Recommendation: $10,000 Youth Employment Services (YES) — Comprehensive Youth Job Readiness Program Proposed Program: Program provides pre -employment, personal finance skills training, mock interview skills training, job counseling, and job referrals. Amount Requested: $15,000 for program staff salaries. CM Residents to be Assisted: 161 Committee Recommendation: $10,000 DISABLED SERVICES Elwvn California — Case Management/Emplovment Services Proposed Program: Employment services for adults with developmental disabilities including job placement assistance and job coaching services. Amount Requested: $30,000 for program staff salaries. CM Residents to be Assisted: 42 Committee Recommendation: $5,720 LOW/MODERATE-INCOME SERVICES Fair Housine Foundation — Fair Housine Program (REQUIRED Proposed Service: Program will provide fair housing education, counseling and enforcement services in compliance with federal program regulations. Amount Requested: $21,000 for program staff salaries and related program/admin costs. CM Residents to be Assisted: 673 (Households) Committee Recommendation: $21,000 Working Wardrobes — Career Success Institute Proposed Service: Program will provide career development services, linkages to supportive services, and job placement assistance for individuals faced with life challenged such as homelessness, incarceration, or domestic violence. Amount Requested: $10,000 for program staff salaries, related program costs. CM Residents to be Assisted: 52 Committee Recommendation: $10,000 CDBG PUBLIC SERVICE GRANTS THREE-YEAR FUNDING HISTORY (Including 6 Month of Current FY) ORGANIZATION NAME 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 - AFTER 6 MONTHS Senior Citizen Services Funded Amount Actual Spent * Planned To Serve Actual Served Funded Amount Actual Spent Planned To Serve Actual Served Funded Amount Actual Spent Planned To Serve Actual Served Funded Amount Actual Spent Planned To Serve Actual Served Alzheimer's Family Services Center $8,985 $8,985 23 24 $7,500 $3,750 16 14 $10,000 $10,000 22 18 NA NA NA NA Council on Aging $8,085 $8,085 30 36 $0 - - - $5,000 $5,000 34 35 NA NA NA NA Costa Mesa Senior Corp - Social Svcs $13,495 $13,495 264 237 $10,000 $10,000 230 252 $10,000 $10,000 230 256 $17,764 $0 210 121 Community SeniorServe - Congregate Meals $18,005 $18,005 350 308 $12,500 $12,500 300 268 $12,500 $12,500 200 290 $20,000 $10,000 200 241 Community SeniorServe - Home Meal Delivei $21,610 $21,610 138 103 $15,000 $15,000 100 109 $15,000 $15,000 100 83 $20,000 $10,000 90 83 Youth Services Community & School Collaborative # $5,000 $2,899 200 95 $5,000 $0 0 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Youth Employment Services $23,590 $23,590 600 403 $19,000 $19,000 485 373 $19,000 $19,000 425 284 $19,000 $9,500 350 150 Disabled Services California Elwyn $13,494 $13,494 26 26 $7,000 $7,000 37 33 $10,000 $10,000 39 40 NA NA NA NA Project Independence $13,494 $13,494 30 25 $7,500 $7,500 24 18 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Other Low -Income Services Women Helping Women $18,005 $18,005 120 132 $10,000 $10,000 50 121 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Fair Housing Foundation * $22,825 $22,825 125 128 $22,000 $22,000 420 321 $21,000 $21,000 400 357 $21,000 $10,545 400 153 Homeless Services City of Costa Mesa Homeless Outreach NA NA NA NA $35,000 $34,059 180 199 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Collette's Children's Home $13,495 $13,495 24 30 NA NA NA NA $20,000 $20,000 12 23 $20,000 $8,105 12 14 Mercy House (Transitional Housing) $8,985 $8,985 10 7 $19,002 $19,002 10 11 $15,000 $15,000 7 7 $20,000 $7,036 7 8 Serving People In Need $18,005 $18,005 8 8 $10,000 $10,000 6 10 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Women's Transitional Living Center (WTLC) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA $10,000 $5,602 40 13 NA- No application submitted # - Closed doors after grant was awarded * - Prior to FY 13/14 this program was funded under CDBG Administration k4 14 'CITY OF THE ARTS O � �•�ti'+ Iw_ 11 1 RATE City of Costa Mesa 2015-2019 CONSOLIDATED PLAN & 2015-2o16 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Consolidated Plan 5-Yr. planning document required by HUD for communities receiving certain community development funds City receives 2 HUD grants: Community Development Block Grant — CDBG Home Investment Partnerships Grant -HOME Draft 2015-2019Consolidated Plan Satisfies HUD regulations (24 CFR 91) Covers FY 2015-2016 through FY 2019-2020 Consolidated Plan The Consolidated Plan is comprised of 4 primary sections: Needs Assessment — housing, public improvements & public services Housing Market Analysis —tenure, condition & cost Strategic Plan — priority housing & community needs Annual Action Plan -1 year expenditure plan for HUD funds Executive Summary, Public Input Process & Appendix Public Input COMMUNITY WORKSHOPS & MEETINGS • Community Workshop #1 • Jan 22, 2015 • Community Workshop #2 Feb 12, Zg15 Housing & Public Services Ad - hoc Committee • Mar4, 2015 SURVEY, COMMENT PERIOD & PUBLIC HEARING • Housing & Community Need S u rvey Jan 15, 2015 — Feb 28, 2015 Not scientifically valid • 3o-day public comment period Apr 4, 2015 — May 5, 2015 Public Hearing May 5, 2015 Other Documents Other key documents utilized to prepare Consolidated Plan 2013-203.2 Housing Element Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Orange County 2013 Point -In -Time Homeless Survey Vanguard University 201.2 Costa Mesa Homeless Survey 5-Year Goals —Non-Housing n Based on analysis, public input &projected available resources: Goal Category Priority Need Need(s) Addressed Senior/Frail Elderly Services Special Needs High Services for Elderly/Frail Elderly Services for Disabled Special Needs High Services for Disabled Youth Services Non -Housing High Youth Services Comm. Dev. Low & Moderate Income Non -Housing High Services for Low & Persons Comm. Dev. Moderate Income Persons Public Facility Improvements Non -Housing High Public Facilities Comm. Dev. Public Infrastructure Non -Housing High Public Infrastructure Improvements Comm. Dev. Program Administration Administration High Program Administration Goal Outcome Indicator 2,500 Persons Assisted 150 Persons Assisted 2,500 Persons Assisted 750 Persons Assisted Public Facility Benefit: 2,500 Persons Public Infrastructure Benefit: 7,500 Persons 5Years 5-Year Goals — Housing Goal Owner Occupied Housing Rehabilitation Category Priority Need Need(s) Addressed Affordable Housing High Owner Occupied Housing Rental Housing Rehabilitation Affordable Housing Rental Housing Acquisition Affordable Housing Code Enforcement Emergency Shelter * Transitional Housing * Rapid Re -housing * Homelessness Prevention Tenant -Based Rental Assistance Affordable Housing Homeless Homeless Homeless Homeless Homeless Goal Outcome Indicator Rehabilitate 5o Housing Units Low Rental Housing Acquisition / Rehabilitate 1 Housing Unit Rehabilitation Low Rental Housing Acquisition / Acquire i Rental Housing Rehabilitation Unit High Housing Code Enforcement Enforce Codes of 1,250 Housing Units High Homeless Services & so Persons Assisted Housing High Homeless Services & 75 Persons Assisted Housing High Homeless Services & 25 Households Assisted Housing High Homeless Services & 3.o Persons Assisted Housing Low Homeless Services & 1 Household Assisted Housing 2015-2016 Annual Action Plan CDBG • $110281141 0.35% less than current FY $187,000 Prior year funds available • 15% max for public service 11 $154,221 20%max for admin $205,628 PROPOSED BUDGET Available Funds FY 15-16 CDBG $110281141 PriorYr. CDBG $187,000 Tota I : $11215,141 Expenditures Code Enforcement $325,000 Capital Projects $530,293 Public Service Grants $154,220 Admin $205,628 Total: $11215,141 CDBG Capital Projects Proposed Capital Projects for FY 15/16 TeWinkle ParkADA Improvements Senior Center Bathroom ADA Design Senior Center Sunroom Patio Construction Senior Center Skylight Replacement Residential Street Improvements Tot 1: $252,350 $ 25, 000 $32,000 $45,000 $175,943 $530, 293 CDBG Public Service Grants Proposed public service grants for FY 15-16 City of Costa Mesa Senior Counseling Program $3.0,000 Colette's Children's Home $20/000 Community SeniorSery —Congregate Meals $3.2,500 Community SeniorSery — Home Delivered Meals $15,000 Council on Aging — Orange County $10,000 Elwyn California $5,720 Fair Housing Foundation (required) $21/000 Families Forward $3.0,000 Mercy House Transitional Living Center $20/000 Mika Community Development Corporation $10,000 Working Wardrobes $1.01000 Youth Employment Services $101000 Tota 1: 154.220 2015-2016 Annual Action Plan HOME $327,568 7.3% less than current FY $332,298 Prior year funds available 15% minimum for CHDO 11 $461149 1o%max for admin $32,766 (plus prior year Admin $) PROPOSED BUDGET Available Funds FY 15-16 HOME $327, 658 PriorYr. Funds $332,298 Total: $656,956 Expenditures CHDO Reserve (15%) $49,149 Housing Rehabilitation $542,699 Admin (includes PriorYr. s) s68,1o8 Total: $6591,956 Consolidated Plan Public notice —Apr 4, 2015 3o-day comment period City Council Public Hearing Due to HUD May 15, 2015 Start of Fiscal Year July 1, 2015 Cl T Y COUNCIL A GENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: MAY 5, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: PH-2 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP-14-03, REZONE R-14-03, PLANNING APPLICATION PA-14-19, AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP VT-17779 FOR A 28-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 1239 VICTORIA STREET FROM: PLANNING DIVISION/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION BY: MEL LEE, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: APRIL 23, 2015 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MEL LEE, AICP (714) 754-5611 mel.lee@costamesaca.gov RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council take the following actions: 1. Approve Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and General Plan Amendment GP-14-03 by adoption of resolution: The IS/MND document analyzes the environmental impacts of the project and describes mitigation measures and conditions of approval to minimize impacts to below a level of significance. The General Plan amendment involves a change of Land Use Designation from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to High Density Residential (HDR). (Resolution attached). 2. Give first reading to the ordinance approving Rezone R-14-03: Rezone (or change) of the zoning classification of the site from Administrative and Professional (AP) District to Multiple -Family Residential District, High Density (R2-HD) District (up to 14.5 dwelling units per acre). (Ordinance attached). 3. Approve Planning Application PA-14-19 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map T- 17779 by adoption of resolution: A master plan for development of a 28-unit Residential Planned Development at the site of an existing commercial/light industrial use. The project consists of detached residences with a net density of 13.7 dwelling units per acre. The three -bedroom residences are three -stories in height with roof decks and have attached two -car garages. A total of 56 garage parking spaces, 42 driveway spaces, and 14 guest parking spaces are proposed (112 total spaces, four spaces per unit) and subdivision of a 2.04-acre property into fee simple lots for homeownership. The following variances are requested: • Deviations required: The following Variances from the R2-HD development standards are requested: ■ Open Space - a minimum of 40 percent required, 34.9 percent proposed. ■ Rear Setback (20 feet required for second story; 10 feet proposed for second and third stories). ■ Building Height (maximum 2 stories/27 feet required; 3 stories/roof deck/37 feet proposed). An Administrative Adjustment is required for the front building setback (20 feet required; 14 feet proposed). A Minor Modification is required to deviate from the distance from main buildings (10 feet required, 8 feet proposed). • Request to reduce a portion of park impact fees towards the cost of Vista Park fencing - The Planning Commission recommends a condition of approval for the construction of a 200- to 300-foot long wrought iron fence along Vista Park. The cost of the fencing is estimated at $32,000, and the applicant is requesting that the park impact fees be reduced in proportion to the construction cost. ($380,016.00 park fee required; $348,016.00 park fee proposed). This staff report provides a summary of the proposed project and entitlements, as well as the Planning Commission's action related to the project. Please refer to the Planning Commission staff report dated March 24, 2014 for detailed information and analysis related to the proposed project. APPLICANT The applicant is Trumark Homes, representing the property owner, Westar Holdings, Inc. PLANNING APPLICATION SUMMARY Location: 1239 Victoria Street Application: GP-14-03, R-14-03, PA-14-19, and VT-17779 Request: 28 Detached Residential Units (General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Master Plan w/Deviations, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map) SUBJECT PROPERTY: SURROUNDING PROPERTY: Zone: AP (Exist.); R2-HD (Prop.) North: Acr. Victoria Street, I&R, (Vista Park) General Plan: Neigh. Comm. (Exist.); High South: R1, Residences Density Residential (Prop.) Lot Dimensions: Irregular East: C1 (Retail Ctr.), R2-MD and R1 (Residences) Lot Area: 2.04 Acres (88,608 SF) West: R2-MD, Multi -Family Residences (Under Construction) Existing Development: Office Building (To Be Demolished) DEVELOPMENT STANDARD COMPARISON (R2-HD STANDARDS USED FOR COMPARISON PURPOSES) R2-HD Development Standard Required/Allowed Proposed/Provided Lot Size: Lot Width 100 FT 283 FT Lot Area 12,000 SF (.27 Acres) 2.04 Acres (88,608 SF) Density/Intensity: DU's/ Acre 1 du/3,000 SF (14.5 DU's/Acre — 29 Units Total) 1 du/3,174 SF (14 DU's/Acre — 28 Units Total) Building Coverage (Development Lot) Buildings NA 21,362 SF (24%) Paving NA 36,322 SF (41.1%) Open Space (Total) 35,443 SF (40 %) 30,924 SF (34.9%)(1) TOTAL 88,608 SF (100%) Common Open Space NA 1,861 SF No. of Stories/Building Height 2 Stories / 27 FT 3 Stories + Roof Deck / 37 FT(1) Setbacks (Buildings) Front 20 FT 14 FT(2) Side (Left/Right) 5 FT / 5 FT 6 FT / 7 FT Rear 10 FT (1 Story) 20 FT (2 Story) 10 FT (2-3 Story)(1) Rear Yard Lot Coverage 1,200 SF (25% Max.) 720 SF (15%) Distance Between Buildings 10 FT 8 FT(3) Parking Covered 56 56 Open 56 42 Guest NA 14 TOTAL 112 Spaces 112 Spaces Interior garage dimension 20 FT X 20 FT 20 FT X 20 FT NA = Not Applicable or No Requirement (1) Total of three Variances requested (see staff report discussion). (2) Administrative Adjustment requested (see staff report discussion). (3) Minor Modification requested (see staff report discussion). CEQA Status Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Final Action City Council BACKGROUND Project Site/Environs The project site consists of one parcel totaling 2.04 acres. The property currently contains an existing two-story office building. The existing structure was built in phases with the original northeast building constructed in 1960. An addition was added in 1966 with the final building addition completed in 1968. The building, owned by Westar Nutrition, who also used to be one of the tenants, is approximately 55,000-square feet and includes office space, research and development, production space, and warehouse areas that are mostly vacant. The site is currently zoned AP (Administrative and Professional District) and has a General Plan land use designation of Neighborhood Commercial (NC). Surrounding properties to the east, southwest and south are developed with multi -family residential and single-family residential homes. The property abutting the site to the east at the corner of Victoria Street and Valley Road contains a multiple tenant retail shopping center (Victoria Square). Vista Park is located to the north across Victoria Street from the subject site. The property to the west is currently being developed with a 17-unit, two- and three-story residential project (Westreef), which was approved by the Planning Commission on February 25, 2013 as Planning Application PA-12-24 and Tentative Tract TT-17508, which was upheld by the City Council on April 2, 2013. City Council General Plan Screening Request On February 4, 2014, City Council reviewed the applicant's screening request to submit the General Plan Amendment application. While Council approved the request on a 5-0 vote, they expressed concerns with density, parking, and traffic impacts which are included in the minutes provided to the Planning Commission (see Attachment 8, Planning Commission Supplemental Memorandum). Summary of Planning Commission Action On March 23, 2015, Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to receive public comment on the proposed 28-unit detached residential community. After receiving public testimony, the Commission continued the project to the April 13, 2015 meeting to allow time for the applicant to prepare responses. Revisions to the Proposed Project On March 23, 2015, Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to receive public comment on the proposed 28-unit detached residential community. Subsequent to the meeting, the applicant has revised the project; the table below briefly summarizes the key changes in the required discretionary approvals between the original project and revised project. At the April 13, 2015 meeting the Commission recommended approval of the project on a 4-1 vote (Commissioner Andranian voting no). Summary of Revisions to the Proposed Project A. Original Project Rezone to PDR-HD (Max. 20 dwelling units per acre) Revised Project Rezone to R2-HD (Max. 14.5 dwelling units per acre B. Variances from: Variances from: 1. Perimeter Open Space: (a minimum 1. Open Space - a minimum of 40 percent depth of 20 feet is required; a minimum required, 34.9 percent proposed. depth of 11 feet with an average depth of 20 feet is proposed); 2. Rear Setback (20 feet required for second story; 10 feet proposed for 2. Open Space: (a minimum of 42 percent second and third stories). of the total site area is required, 34.9 percent proposed); 3. Building Height (maximum 2 stories/27 feet required; 3 stories/roof deck/37 feet 3. Common Open Space: (50 percent of the proposed). open space required to be common open space; 10 percent common open space proposed). C. No Administrative Adjustment or Minor An Administrative Adjustment is required for the Modification requested. front building setback (20 feet required; 14 feet proposed). A Minor Modification is required to deviate from the distance from main buildings (10 feet required, 8 feet proposed). The following table provides a summary of the project issues raised at the March 23, 2015 hearing, and responses that were prepared for the April 13, 2015 hearing. Summary Of Issues Raised and Action Taken at the April 13, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting ISSUE RAISED ACTION TAKEN 1. The proposed PDR-HD zoning would allow Request revised to R2-HD zone for a maximum of for a maximum density of 20 units per acre 14.5 dwelling units per acre. to be built on the site (40 units) 2. Additional information needed related to A comparison table of density ranges in other the number of units allowed under the Cities was provided in the April 13, 2015 Planning City's High Density Residential designation Commission staff report. compared to surrounding cities. 3. Overall Trip Generation and Safety of The traffic study prepared for the project was vehicles entering and exiting the site need attached to the April 13, 2015 Planning to be examined. Commission report for reference and discussed in greater detail at the hearing. ISSUE RAISED • 4. The project includes several variance Variances are needed to deviate from open space, requests. building height, and rear setback requirements. 5. Consideration of additional on -site guest Commission added a condition of approval parking spaces above Code -required requiring the applicant to work with the owner of parking should be provided. Victoria Square retail center for off -site parking for guests visiting the project [to the extent feasible and practicable]. 6. Third level roof decks are a concern. Commission added a condition of approval requiring the roof decks be completely removed from 4 of the units abutting adjacent neighbors to address their concerns Lots 3, 4, 5, and 61. 7. Building height abutting residential Applicant proposes to reduce the grade level by 4 properties is a concern. to six feet; reducing the height of structures to about 28 to 32 feet as measured from adjacent grades. 8. Adjacent residential property owners Applicant submitted 3 letters of support for the should be on record with their support or project from immediately impacted neighbors on opposition to the project. Sea Bluff Drive and Gleneagles Terrace based on concurrence with certain terms/conditions. [See Exhibit D in attached draft City Council Resolution]. 9. Traffic accident data on Victoria Street Traffic accident data was provided in the April 13, adjacent to the project site requested. 2015 Planning Commission staff report. 1. Change in the Rezone Request to R2-HD A concern was raised during the March 23, 2015 meeting was the proposed zone change to PDR-HD, which allows a maximum density of 20 units per acre, or a total of 40 units for the 2.04 acre project site, if a development different from the proposed project were to be approved. As a result, the applicant revised the request for a zone change to R2- HD, which allows a maximum density of 14.5 units per acre, or a total of 29 units for the project site (28 units are currently proposed). Because there are some differences between the development standards of the R2-HD zone versus the PDR-HD zone, the application was re -noticed reflecting the difference in development standards as they pertain to building, height, setbacks, and open space, some of which still require the approval of deviations from the code via a variance, administrative adjustment and minor modification as noted in the Zoning Code Summary Table on Page 2 of this report. However, it should be noted that there are no major changes to the design of the project itself in terms of overall number of units, building height, on -site parking spaces, or building setbacks. 2. Comparison of high density classifications in surrounding Cities The following table compares the High Density Residential (HDR) designations with other cities: COMPARISONS OF HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MAXIMUMS Fountain Valley 20 units per acre Garden Grove 60 units per acre Huntington Beach 35 units per acre Irvine 40 units per acre Newport Beach 50 units per acre Santa Ana 35 units per acre Westminster 25 units per acre Costa Mesa 20 units per acre (unless site -specific densities have been previously approved — i.e. North Costa Mesa Specific Plan) 3. Overall Trip Generation and Traffic Safety and Circulation along Victoria Street The traffic study prepared for this project was included as Appendix F in the IS/MND prepared for the project. The traffic study was prepared by Linscott, Law, & Greenspan Engineers (LLG) and included the following: • Traffic generation forecast of the proposed project compared to the existing use on the property. • Evaluation of the project access and on -site circulation, including the safety aspect of the proposed driveways on Victoria Street. Trip Generation Table Land - Daily Proposed 28-Unit Residential 28 Units 21 28 268 Development Existing Use (Office/Warehouse) 55,000 SF (Non -Conforming Building) 61 54 406 Existing Zoning 55,000 SF (Non -Conforming Building) 132 197 1,987 (Administrative/Professional Offices) Existing Zoning 26,581 SF (Conforming Per 0.30 Max. 64 95 965 (Administrative/Professional Offices) FAR) The traffic study was reviewed and approved by the City's Transportation Services Division. Traffic Generation Forecast. When the proposed project is compared to the existing land use, the proposed project will result in 139 fewer daily trips, 40 fewer AM peak hour trips and 26 fewer PM peak hour trips, which is summarized in the tables below: Project Trip Generation Forecast (Proposed Project) Daily 2-Way AM Peak Enter Hour Exit Total PM Peak Enter Hour "ExitTotal Project Trip Generation Forecast (Proposed Project) Notes: TE/DU = Trip end per dwelling unit TE/TSF = TriD end Der 1.000 sauare feet The table below compares the trip generation of the proposed project to the existing use and the maximum building area allowed under the existing AP zoning: As shown above, the proposed project would have a lesser impact on the surrounding street system than the existing land use during the critical weekday AM hour and PM peak hour. Given the reduction in traffic generation resulting from the proposed project, no traffic impacts are forecast and no traffic mitigation is required. Traffic Safety. A substantially clear line of sight is required to be maintained between the driver of a vehicle waiting at a driveway and the driver of an approaching vehicle on Victoria Street. Adequate time must be provided for the waiting vehicle to either cross all lanes of through traffic, or turn right or left, without requiring the through traffic to radically reduce their speed. Due to the horizontal and vertical curvature of Victoria Street, LLG prepared a Sight Distance Evaluation for the two driveways as part of the traffic study for the project, which, as noted earlier, was included as Appendix F to the IS/MND and is attached separately to this report for reference. The study conducted by LLG concluded that adequate sight distance is provided for the two driveways serving the project. Further, the results of the Sight Distance Evaluation for the curvature of Victoria Street concluded that there are no obstructions to the line of sight at either driveway, and that curbside parking was not a factor due to the no parking restrictions on Victoria Street. 4. Variance Requests The purpose of the setback requirements is to provide a visual buffer between the public sidewalk and any perimeter walls or buildings. The proposed project is located on site that has several special circumstances due to lot shape and topography. Specifically, the northerly boundary of the site, along the Victoria Street frontage, has a 30% slope, preventing a typical orientation of a building at 90' angle to the street. Additionally, although the site does not provide the minimum required setback as measured from its narrowest point (at Lot 28) the proposed development provides the average required perimeter landscaping since several areas exceed 20 feet in depth (33 feet in depth in front of Lot 17, for example). With regard to overall open space and building height, the same conditions for unusual lot shape and topography as discussed above apply. Additionally, the project proposes roof top decks for each unit ranging in size from 418 square feet to 522 square feet in addition to the ground -level private yard area for each lot. Roof decks are not typically calculated as part of the required open space; however, if the variance were to be approved to allow the roof decks to count as open space, it would add over 10,000 square feet of open space to the project, thereby meeting the intent of the Zoning Code open space requirement. 5. Consideration of additional on -site guest parking spaces The applicant is working with the property owner of the Victoria Square retail center to seek a shared access, ingress/egress, and parking easement to allow overflow guest parking in the evening hours. The applicant will provide an update on any progress at the public hearing for this project. 6. and 7. Building Height What specific changes to the grade level of the property are being proposed? Applicant is proposing to: • Lower the existing grade by 4 to 5 feet, until such point that an existing sewer main along the rear portion of the property is not compromised. • Potentially lower site grades by up to 6 feet in some areas; however, this will need to be confirmed with a precise grading plan. • Build new retaining walls at varying heights of 10 to 12 feet. How is building height measured? Title 13 defines building height as "the distance from the grade to the highest point on the roof, including roof -top mechanical equipment and screening." In this case, six-foot high privacy walls are proposed on select roof decks along the rear and east side property line. The building height to the highest point of the privacy wall is 37 feet. Building height in the R2-HD zone is defined by a story limit and a height limit as measured in lineal feet. The proposed three-story structures with roof decks require a variance from the story limit (two stories allowed, three stories and roof deck proposed) and from the height limit (27 feet allowed, 37 feet proposed). What would be the height of proposed structures as measured from the existing grade of the neighboring properties? Section views showing the relationship of the proposed three-story structures (37-foot height) and adjacent single -story and two-story homes are attached. The following table provides a brief comparison which takes into account the proposed reduction in the site grade levels by 4 to 5 feet and the neighboring grade. (Approximate Only) Building Elevation Difference in the Site Grade As measured from Neighboring Grade compared to the Abutting Properties With Roof Deck Without Roof Deck � Two-story residence at 32 feet 27 to 28 feet If site is 5 feet lower in grade. 1444 Sea Bluff Drive Several neighbors supported the project subject to conditions. Planning Commission conditioned the project to remove roofdecks and therefore lower the building height along those abutting properties which were opposed to the building height. 8. Nature and progress of any community outreach to the impacted neighbors abutting the proposed project The applicant has been meeting with several of the directly impacted neighbors, specifically properties along Sea Bluff and Gleneagles Terrace. Following is a brief summary of some of the terms and conditions that has been negotiated with certain abutting neighbors who support the project: • No access (pedestrian, vehicular, etc.) from Sea Bluff Road. • Lower existing grade by 4 to 5 feet. • Modification to window locations for privacy purposes. • Construction of a 6-foot high privacy wall on the roof decks to shield views. • Construction of new retaining walls. • New Landscaping/Mature trees for landscape screening. • Relocation of exterior staircases. 9. Traffic Accident Data Traffic accident data compiled for the last 10 years by the Traffic Safety Division of the Costa Mesa Police Department is attached to this report. According to the summary, the total number of collisions near the intersection of Victoria Street and Valley Road (east of the project site) from January 1, 2005 to March 26, 2015 are as follows: • Total Collisions: 15 • Injury Collisions: 11 • Fatal Collisions: 0 According to the Transportation Services Division, the number of collisions is not considered high or at a level that would require any special attention. Proposed Development The proposed three-story, 28-unit development, is described below. Unit Type Summary Unit Size Not Including Garage) Plan 1 1,997 Sq. Ft. Plan 2 2,244 Sq. Ft. Total No. of Units 14 14 No. Bedrooms and Baths 3 Bed, 3 Bath 1 3 Bed, 3.5 Bath No. of Stories 3 + Roof Deck 3 + Roof Deck Roof Deck Sq. ft. 418 Sq. Ft. 522 s . ft. No. Of Garage Spaces 2 2 No. Of Open Spaces (In Driveway) 2 1 Total Resident Spaces 56 42 No. Of Open Spaces (Guest) 14 Total Parking 112 Spaces 1. An optional den and powder room can be substituted for the 3rd bedroom and bathroom on the second floor for Plan 1 On -Site Parking and Circulation The project provides a total of 56 garage parking spaces, 42 driveway spaces, and 14 guest spaces are proposed, for a total of 112 on -site parking spaces or four spaces per unit, which complies with Code. The 14 on -site guest spaces are proposed to be parallel to the 24-foot wide private street provided within the project. The vehicular circulation has been reviewed and approved by the Transportation Services Division, subject to a condition of approval that limits cars exiting the westerly driveway to right -turns only by the construction of a raised median on Victoria Street. Perimeter Walls/Fences The majority of the existing perimeter block walls abutting the project to the sides and rear meet or exceed the required 6-foot minimum height, appear to be in good condition, and are proposed to remain in place. However, staff notes that a portion of the block wall along the rear (abutting the R1 zoned properties) is less than 6 feet in height and appears to abut a rear yard wooden fence along several of the properties. Staff is recommending, as a condition of approval, that this wall be replaced with a decorative block wall a minimum of 7 feet in height and that the applicant work with the adjacent property owners to eliminate side -by -side walls with gaps in between them. Building Architecture The proposed architecture is a contemporary design of stucco with fiber cement siding and stone veneers. The proposed colors are light and charcoal grays, whites, and earthen tones. Projections are included to maximize floor space on upper floors and provide building articulation, texture and color variation throughout the project's design. Staff is recommending, as a condition of approval, the upper level windows be designed to minimize direct views into second -floor windows for residences on abutting properties. Open Space The project provides a total of 34.9 percent open space; as a result, approval of the reduced open space is subject to variance findings. Perimeter open space and common open space, which applied to the previously proposed PDR-HD zone, do not apply to the R2-HD zone (see table below). The variance findings are discussed later in this report. Open Space Code Comparison PROVIDED P.- Total Open Space 34.9% (1) 42% 40% Common Open Space 10% 50% of Total Open Space NA Perimeter Open Space 11 FT L20 FT NA NA=Not Applicable or No Requirement (1) Variance required Building Height, Setbacks, and Building Separation Requirements The PDR-HD zone does not specify development standards with regard to building height and setbacks. They do, however, apply to the R2-HD zone (see table below). The variance and administrative adjustment findings are discussed later in this report. Comparison between PDR-HD and R2-HD for Certain Dev. Stds. No. Of Stories/Bldg. Ht. PROVIDED-D- 3 Stories/37 FT (1) NA 2 Stories/ 27 Feet Front Setback 14 FT (2) NA 20 FT Side Setback (L/R) 6 FT17FT NA 5 FT/5 FT Rear Setback (2+Stories) 10 FT (1) NA 20 FT Building Separation 8 FT (3) NA 10 FT NA=Not Applicable or No Requirement (1) Variance required. (2) Administrative adjustment required. (3) Minor modification required. Vesting Tentative Tract Map The vesting tentative tract map proposed is for a common interest residential development subdivision with 28 numbered lots to accommodate the units and 4 lettered lots to accommodate the common areas and private streets. All common areas including the driveway and parking spaces will be commonly used and maintained by a homeowners association. ANALYSIS Justifications for Approval Pursuant to Title 13, Section 13-29(g), Findings, of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the project based on the evidence presented in the administrative record at the April 13, 2015 meeting substantially complying with the specified findings in the Zoning Code. General Plan Amendment Although Code Section 13-29(g) does not specify findings for General Plan Amendments, the project conforms to the specific goals and objectives of the General Plan Land Use Element as referenced in the draft City Council resolution. Rezone The proposed rezone is consistent with the Zoning Code and the General Plan. The proposed project meets or exceeds the intent of the City's Zoning Code with regard to the development standards for the R2-HD zone, including density and on - site parking. The General Plan land use designation for the project area is High Density Residential (14.5 dwelling units to the acre maximum), which is compatible with the proposed zone change to R2-HD. The applicant is not seeking the maximum build out potential of 29 dwelling units within the R2-HD zone (28 units proposed). The project provides a maximum density of 14 dwelling units to the acre (28 units total). The maximum density is based on the gross acreage of the site. The following table provides a comparison of the maximum densities allowed in multi- family residential zones in the surrounding area. AddressProposed/Existing �Density Allowed Density Proposed Project R2-HD 14.5 du's per acre 14 du's per acre WestReef R2-MD 12 du's per acre 12 du's per acre 1259 Victoria Stonybrook, PDR-MD 12 du's per acre 12 du's per acre Meadowview, Sea Cove Lane Desian Review The project exhibits excellence in design, site planning, integration of uses and structures, and protects the integrity of neighboring development. The project will provide an ownership in -fill residential development that will be complementary to an urban setting. The proposed architecture and site design will enhance the street view and will be compatible with existing development in the area. The overall architectural design promotes excellence and compatibility. The variety of building elevations, materials and staggered massing diminishes the boxy design appearance consistent with the City's Residential Design Guidelines. • The project will provide on -site parking spaces that meets current parkinq standards (112 spaces required; 112 spaces proposed). As noted earlier, the project provides a total of 56 garage parking spaces, 42 driveway spaces, and 14 guest spaces are proposed, for a total of 112 on -site parking spaces or four spaces per unit, which complies with Code. Additionally, the applicant is continuing to work with the owner of Victoria Square to secure off -site parking for future guests of the project. Variances and Administrative Adjustment For the variances from open space, building height, and rear yard setback, and administrative adjustment from front yard setback, staff believes that approval of the variances are justified based on the following: • Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, the strict application of development standards deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by others in the vicinity. The purpose of the setback requirements is to provide a visual buffer between the public sidewalk and any perimeter walls or buildings. The proposed project is located on site that has several special circumstances due to lot shape and topography. Specifically, the northerly boundary of the site, along the Victoria Street frontage, has a 30% slope, preventing a typical orientation of a building at 900 angle to the street. Additionally, although the site does not provide the minimum required setback as measured from its narrowest point (at Lot 28) the proposed development provides the average required perimeter landscaping since several areas exceed 20 feet in depth (33 feet in depth in front of Lot 17, for example). With regard to overall open space and building height, the same conditions for unusual lot shape and topography as discussed above apply. Additionally, the project proposes roof top decks for each unit ranging in size from 418 square feet to 522 square feet in addition to the ground -level private yard area for each lot. Roof decks are not typically calculated as part of the required open space; however, if the variance were to be approved to allow the roof decks to count as open space, it would add 13,524 square feet of open space to the project, thereby meeting the intent of the Zoning Code open space requirement. • The deviation authorized does not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated. Although the abutting Westreef project provided code -compliant open space (40% required; 45% provided) the approval also included a variance from the 20-foot front landscape requirement (20 feet required; 10 feet proposed) and rear yard setback requirement (20 feet required; 15 feet proposed). Therefore, the strict application of the setback requirements for this project deprives the subject property of privileges enjoyed by others in the vicinity. The existing residential properties along Gleneagles Terrace, Sea Bluff Drive, and Valley Road consist of one- and two-story structures. The proposed units will be 3- stories / 37 feet in height with a roof deck on the top story. For the building height variance is required, the following table provides context for multi -family residential developments in the area that have been approved with a three-story building height. 2209 — 2219 PA-87-172 Variance from building height for a 21- Pacific Avenue Approved 1011987 unit apartment project (two stories allowed; three stories approved). 1259 Victoria PA-12-24 Variance from building height for Street (Westreef) Approved 4/2013 Building Complex 1 and 3 (two stories/27 feet allowed; three stories/35-37 feet approved) While the subject property is not located along the bluff crest, other multi -family projects have been approved with encroachment into setback requirements. The table below provides some context of other projects with approved encroachments, in this case, into the bluff crest. .. I1 Variance to allow a 47-unit condo ORION ore : n a �e 2171 thru 2189 Pacife ZE-79.141 _ Approved by PC on 4113181(5.0)J Avenue ro°ect to en�oach into the bluff crest 2209 thru 2219 Pacific PA-87-172 Variance from number of building Approved by PC on 10112,+87 (4-1) Avenue stories for a 21- unit apartment project (two-storyallowed 3 stories ro sed 2231 Pacific Avenue ZE-79.21 Variance to allow a 14-unit condo Approved by PC on 811317E (4-0) ni ect to encroach into the bluff crest 2257 Pacific Avenue 2E-78-55 Varlance to allow a 13-unit condo project Approved by PC on fW12/78 (5-0) to encroach into the NO crest plus deviation from gara�i e requirements • The aroaosed aroiect is consistent with the General Plan/Zonina Code with reaard to use, density and intensity As noted earlier, the HDR (High Density Residential) General Plan Land Use designation allows residential development of up to 14.5 dwelling units/acre on this site; the proposed project is 14 dwelling units/acre and complies with all other applicable provisions of the Zoning Code for residential developments in the R2-HD zone. Therefore, the granting of the deviation will not allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation and any applicable specific plan for the property. Minor Modification • The minor modification is for a relativelv minor 2-foot reduction in the buildina seaaration for the units. The project would still be subject to Code requirements as they pertain to Building and Fire safety. In addition, the reduction will not be materially detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of persons residing or working within the immediate vicinity of the project or to property and improvements within the neighborhood. As noted earlier, the project consists of quality architecture and building materials and is compatible and enhances the architecture and design of the existing and anticipated development in the vicinity. Vestina Tentative Tract Ma • The creation of the subdivision and related improvements is consistent with the General Plan and the Zoning Code, is physically suitable to accommodate the subdivision in terms of type, design, and density of development, and is consistent with the State Subdivision Map Act. The overall design reflects a quality project that is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and General Plan. The creation of the subdivision is consistent with General Plan Land Use Element in that the project complies with Objectives 1 A.4, 2A.7, and 2A.8 by developing owner -occupied housing to improve the balance between rental and ownership housing opportunities. uest for Park Fee Waiver • At the April 13, 2015 meeting, Planning Commission added a condition of approval requiring the applicant to work with the Public Services Department to develop a plan to install an approximately 200- to 300-foot long wrought iron fence along the Victoria Street frontage of Vista Park. The purpose of the fencing is to deter residents from jaywalking across Victoria Street to the park. The applicant is requesting to have a portion of the required park fee for the project waived equal to the cost of the construction of this fence ($32,000.00). The applicant's request is attached to this report. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15073, the IS/MND was made available for a 30-day public review and comment period beginning on February 25, 2015, until March 27, 2015. A copy of the IS/MND is included with this report under separate cover. The consultant has prepared an addendum to the IS/MND reflecting the proposed changes to the project, and is preparing a Responses to Comments received during the March 23, 2015 Planning Commission hearing, which will be provided separately prior to the meeting. Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Under CEQA, a "significant impact" represents a substantial or potentially substantial adverse physical change to the environment. In evaluating specific effects of the project on the environment, the IS/MND identifies thresholds of significance for each effect, evaluates the potential environmental change associated with each effect, and then characterizes the effects as impacts. With the implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND for the proposed project, all potentially significant impacts have been reduced to less than significant levels, as summarized in the following table: Potentially Significant Level of Significance After Environmental Mitigation Measures Mitigation Effects Noise I N0I-1: Sound Attenuation Walls. I Less than significant Source: Trumark IS/MND LEGAL REVIEW The City Attorney has reviewed the draft ordinance and resolutions and they have been approved as to form by the City Attorney's Office. CONCLUSION Approval of the project will allow development of a 28-unit detached residential ownership development. The project satisfies the required findings for the proposed project and is deemed to be a high -quality development, therefore it is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and Zoning Code. Therefore, Planning Commission recommends approval of the project. ALTERNATIVES The City Council has the following alternatives: 1. Continue the item to allow additional time for further analysis or revisions to the project. 2. Deny the project. If the City Council denies the project, the applicant could not submit substantially the same type of application for six months. MEL LEE, AICP GARY ARMSTRONG, AICP Senior Planner Director of Economic & Development / Deputy CEO 1. Vicinity, Zoning, and General Plan Maps Attachments: 2. Project Plans/Elevations/Perspectives 3. Request for Park Fee Waiver From Applicant 4. Draft Resolution and Ordinance 5. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 6. April 13, 2015 Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments 7. Planning Commission Resolutions 8. IS/MND - Please visit - http://www.costamesaca.gov/index.aspx?page=151 (Trumark Homes Project at 1239 Victoria) 9. Correspondence from Public Chief Executive Officer Assistant Chief Executive Officer cc: Director of Economic & Development / Deputy CEO City Attorney Public Services Director Transportation Svs. Mgr. City Engineer City Clerk (9) Staff (7) File (2) Trumark Homes Attn: Eric Nelson 450 Newport Center Drive, #300 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Westar Holdings, Inc. 1239 Victoria Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 AECOM Attn: Thomas Holm, AICP 999 Town & Country Road Orange, CA 92868 ATTACHMENT 1 VICINITY MAPS _Iq.- m Q c6 U fn C cU J X U7 00 N N N CD N 00 N N (0 Q O N M a W O as A3l-Wn G2"+ 26 .� }+ 9 a� 33 _ �� C IL —20— Q O Z Z O N 0 z N — R W U N C m J X U( M U M d ti CV M N N (6 U Q a M � Q N a LO O N M IC Q W � Q O 0 U W LL 0 0 U L) Lrou C'' 10 CtQ i CL F CM A3 WA \N A i RYA .._— _ 171 i+ #A mW V 02 0a pia .2 2:3 V a e W kkk `k. 21 -- N N N a to w c v 0 c ai N 0 0 c7 N N N N O O M L) U U) 5i a_ N L2 O N 6l M N N U � Q aNi w O O U 0 0 U U G a co O ME CrS A3-IIVA i p A. - qt I�oq Ej, -P� mr y rW) c a W 1p rim U3 aA U 9 ` ❑ C O fE lL ci u z M a` O aC Y CM U 14 u ATTACHMENT 2 PROJECT PLANS _23 a F[l 111 111 IA-7 rAtft .. 0�0'- _ J'1 PLAN I - SCHEME A PLAN 2 - SCHEME B PEAN I - SCHEME C PLAN 2 - SCHEME A TRUMARK COSTA MESA 2 TRUMARK 450 Newport Center Drive, Suite 300 Newport Beach, CA 92660 949.999.9800 TYPICAL STREET SCENE - - COSTA MESA, CA KTGY Group, Inc. KTGY # 130841 7/29/2014 Architecture+Planning jurirdidm # 17922 Fitch Irvine, CA 92614 949.851.2133 ktgy.com VLdir xsn o Den 1 T'4r x 12x 12'-r 10' clg Optional Den 31' 4" 39' 31' C9 20'-10" 1 UmZ' — — --------------------- Garage 20'-2" x 23'-4" B dg. T-' I- IN 4' SECOND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR 0 2 4 8 i i ; ----I TRUMARK COSTA MESA 2 PLAN I FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR PLAN - 1997 SF Al-01 ---- -- --— - - -- TRUMARK -- COSTA MESA, CA KTGY Group, Inc. 450 Newport Center Drive, Suite 300 Newport Beach, CA 92660 HTGY # 130841 7/19/2014 jun,a;ceon # Arch itectu re+ P lanni ng 17922 Fitch I 949.999.9800 Irvine, CA 92614 949.851.2133 ktgy.com r..J 33' 6" 22'-4„ ------------- —------- ---------- -- — I N� Roof Deck 22'-0" x 19'-0" i� 6, 1 ------------------------- 1 — ROOF DECK TRUMARK COSTA MESA 2 --- - _ TRUMARK 450 Newport Center Drive, Suite 300 Newport Beach, CA 92660 949.999.9800 I III Stair hilagh gss r THIRD FLOOR 0 2 4 8 I I I I PLAN I THIRD FLOOR AND ROOF DECK PLAN Al-02 COSTA MESA, CA KTGY Group, Inc. rrcr # 130041 1n9n014 Arch itecture+Plann ing Junsdiroon # 17922 Fitch Irvine, CA 92614 949.851.2133 ktgy.com Ir.. Oil REAR ELEVATION t RIGHT ELEVATION MATERIAL LEGEND I. COMPOSITE SHINGLE ROOF 2. STUCCO, LIGHT SAND FINISH 3. FIBER CEMENT SIDING 4. STONE VENEER 5. WINDOW TRIM 6. BUILDING TRIM 1. NOT USED 8. VINYL GLAZING 9. METAL GUARDRAIL 10. WOOD SLAT GUARDRAIL 11. FIBERGLASS ENTRY DOOR 12. METAL SECTIONAL GARAGE DOOR 13. DECORATIVE EXTERIOR LIGHTING 14. ILLUMINATED ADDRESS SIGN LEFT ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION - SCHEME A FRONT ELEVATION - SCHEME C 0 2 4 8 TRUMARK COSTA MESA 2 PLAN I ELEVATIONS Al-10 � - - »tl'4'�.C�'L�•��" fi. �. .0 y -r-iSR L3 x v,. 'R4v - TRUMARK COSTA MESA, CA KTGY Group, Inc. 450 Newport Center Drive, Suite 300 41 1R9R014 Architecture+Planning Newport Beach, CA 92660 Juredi o n3# 17922 Fitch 949.999.9800 Irvine, CA 92614 949.851.2133 121 ktgy.com Optional Tech Space TRUMARK COSTA MESA 2 TRUMARK 450 Newport Center Drive, Suite 300 Newport Beach, CA 92660 949.999.9800 .-��. ,G � ��I *1 '��Li ��L=•� p_Z� 'III i` i 9 SECOND FLOOR 12 10 N 2q 39' 4" in i m ro N I 21' FIRST FLOOR 0 I 0 2 4 8 PLAN 2 FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR PLAN - 2244 SF A2.01 COSTA MESA, CA KTGY Group, Inc. N7GY # 130841 7129/2014 Architecture+Planning Junsdimen # 17922 Fitch Irvine, CA 92614 ,. 949.851.2133 ktgy.com N W 6" 33' 2U-8" 10. 4.0 Roof Deck 2T-4' x 18'-8" 1 '-6" N� duct r opt bar space L°J I tair Tower 8'0l -- I I dual spac+o � I I 1.7.5 sf " '---------------- - ------------------ 21, 1 n T N (Y) ROOF DECK ALT 2 ALT I THIRD FLOOR 788SF 0 2 4 8 TRUMARK COSTA MESA 2 PLAN 2 THIRD FLOOR AND ROOF DECK PLAN A2-02 TRUMARK COSTA MESA, CA KTGY Group, Inc. 450 Newport Center Drive, Suite 300 MY # 130841 1/29/2014 Arch itecture+Planning Newport Beach, CA 92660 Jurisdicuan # 17922 Fitch 949.999.9800 Irvine, CA 92614 949.851.2133 ktgy.com Ll 04s ai REAR ELEVATION L; RIGHT ELEVATION MATERIAL LEGEND I. COMPOSITE SHINGLE ROOF 2. STUCCO, LIGHT SAND FINISH 3. FIBER CEMENT SIDING 4. STONE VENEER S. WINDOW TRIM 6. BUILDING TRIM 7. NOT USED 8. VINYL GLAZING 9. METAL GUARDRAIL 10. WOOD SLAT GUARDRAIL 11. FIBERGLASS ENTRY DOOR 12, METAL SECTIONAL GARAGE DOOR 13. DECORATIVE EXTERIOR LIGHTING 14. ILLUMINATED ADDRESS SIGN I m m LEFT ELEVATION rl FRONT ELEVATION - SCHEME B FRONT ELEVATION - SCHEME A 0 2 4 TRUMARK COSTA MESA 2 PLAN 2 ELEVATIONS A?- I 0 TRUMARK COSTA MESA, CA KTGY Group, Inc. 450 Newport Center Drive, Suite 300 KTGY # 130841 7129/2014 Architecture+Planning Newport Beach, CA 92660 949.999.9800 jurisdicoon # 17922 Fitch Irvine, CA 92614 N 949.851.2133 ktgy.com - 1 5 1 - �_VyFzTwr. - WALL PER CIVIL \—EXISTING RESIDEN`1'tALL EXISTING 10' PVT SEWER EASEMENT EXISTING WALL SHALL REMAIN & BE PROTECTED VINYL FENCING SCREEN SHRUB PLANTING ALONG EXISTING WALL VINYL FENCING Preliminary Landscape Plan Trumark 28 Costa Mesa, CA RESIDENTIAL PLANTING AREA, TYPICAL STREET TREE, TYPICAL CONCRETE STEP PADS---, VINYL ACCESS GATE VINYL FENCING SIDE YARD REAR YARD LANDSCAPE PER HOMEOWNER NEW PROPERTY BLOCK WALL W/ PILASTERS INTERLOCKING PAVERS EXISTING WALL SHALL — REMAIN & BE PROTECTED 22� CONCRETE WALK .T L_-_._________=-i TYPICAL ENLARGEMENT SCALE: 1/8"=P-0" — WHITE WALPOLE TRELLIS —STONE PAVING —PUBLIC ART SCULPTURE — ADIRONDACK CHAIRS —3' WIDE CONCRETE WALK —WHITE WALPOLE JAMESTOWN RAILING W/ PILASTERS --NEW PROPERTY BLOCK WALL W/ PILASTERS PLANT LEGEND TREES Platanus acerifolia 'Bloodgood' London Plane Tree Geijera parviflora Australian Willow Pistacia chinensis Chinese Pistache Tristania conferta Brisbane Box Liquidambar styraciflua'Palo Alto' Palo Alto Sweetgum Cercis occidentalis'Std.' Western Redbud Lagerstroemia indica x Muskogree Crape fauriei 'Muskogee' Myrtle Magnolia grandiflora'Little Gem' Little Gem Magnolia SHRUBS Aloe arborescens Torch Aloe Carissa grandiflora Natal Plum Ceanothus griseus horizontalis Californian Lilac 'Yankee Point' Lantana montevidensis Purple Trailing Lavender Muhlenbergia lindheimeri Lindheimer's Muhly Muhlenbergia rigens 'Regal Mist' Regal Mist Deergrass Phormium tenax'Bronze Baby' New Zealand Flax Photinia fraseri Fraser's Photinia Rosa spp. Pink Iceberg Rose Pittosporum tobira'Variegata' Variegated Pittosporum Trachelospermum jasminoides Star Jasmine GROUND COVER Festuca glauca'Elijah Blue Elijah Blue Fescue Juniperus horizontalis 'Bar Harbour' Bar Harbor Creeping VINES Juniper Ficus pumila Creeping Fig Parthenocissus tricuspidata Boston Ivy �_®S ® LANDSCAPE ANCINEECTUIIE A N D PLANNIN G SCALE: 1/16"=1'-0" E%:711-751.77/X IX: 71/ 751.7111 CA 1226 NV 396 TRUMARK HOMES 98-18-2014 SHT 1 OF 1 VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17779 01 -\?. t � � rl --h-I, ',IF 41 F'i ET rp •m L i I IEEE F; r� r li�llll -- PE +_ ' Fk IER _I -FP `IIFE _1 SECTION A -A 11T`_ k, ,v LEGEND OFABBREWA TONS A SYMBOLS GENERAL NOTES � li• `, Ia. •M 1/1 joon ON F-- _ r1 _ 1.f �Y wr yf .MY _ 1'r 1lA'•A Y4'rl - tr rLfYJ��-t -F' -F.FEII I -LL FF ,IF _ T 1 r 1 ;J3 5riPCA (_ .r PA 41 ;TFEFT L;Ir; �L-R I F 14,'FI:IFI IT SECTION B-B "p F air_ . .... . 'FF r.� FF .,C ITIT LITE4�-+ - --11------ - -- -- - -7 :' .. 11 o __ ,• Y -d NrM - _ _ _ -_ _ _ _, OFF SUMMARY (PARKING LEGALOESCRIPDON UNIT MIX TABULATION ENGINEER'S STATEMEM LOT SUMMARY TABLE COMMON LOT ASSESORS PARCEL NUMBER'S SUMMARY TABLE L] BASISOFBEAR/NGS BENCHMARK ACREAGE SUMMARY TABLE EASEMENTNOTES: LAND USE TOTALLOTS ACREAGE _ rr!•z 4", „'14, W 1• a f„ �..a • il�r PROJECT - r, SITE .nt.-t• c.er ..,, VICINITY MAP FF r, *W I L FFFIIF EI yl Ul v I )IJ-r 1T; I �F.i a� F�Sc AL(r_h't F1jLF "IF E -�,'"VET nu�1 `!M d1K �C!!iCa �x y r, :,.ir♦ -! -E. g' {' A,. '46 ?s1Ciftlfr — --a rr i'7�r�k rld 'J) R$ 3 rG "r'r" EX. VICTORIA STREET SECTION D-D a_ r, fltr r' -n K16. =J• SECTION C-C- .. .„v J v AYA wr Pr f i _.; PREPARED FOR: DEVELOPER PREPARED BY: I _ H D TRUMARK HOMES ,LEFE iUFr 9U' DRIVEWAY DETAIL TYPICAL PARKING BAY DETAIL VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17779 DATE: 0713112014 SHEET 1 OF 1 1 TRACT No. 3410 (EX FiESDENT6AL LOTS) Ef 10' PVr ;:(iC; f7tl'A EX. LL fW-1 EN WALL AT AB1P1Rxrr 11rF � ' PROJECT {{fYA.1— EN. T iS FORCE i49R PA llrl W FL4fV- a• II - 2 EA PAINN O - PARKING llllt.$ EX.f �' r It TTM BOUNDARY * LOT "D'r - R:� \ + R• R ,, 4. 1 Ex. ssyYM �JUNCRON ZMUCNRE (PROTECT) [I lr�T EX. LL ;YP JD 10 6 11 6' PKG BAY PRIVATE STREET TR 3470 (WHERE OCCURS) EX RESIDEN77AL i2, — 12f 5. d LOT+; y _ — - POEM (PUE� YA 29 b r 2 29 MIN 29 MIN PR 6" CURB -PR- AC/AB PAVEMENT -PR 6" CURB & SECTION A -A GUTTER -{- bPreTMT 4t\1 CX V o 0— a 4$ P=J82 P=J99 P=JJ6 i P=J21 \4 I YYM No. 17503 f T O R - Aa 1s >n YA °_�' 7T17 BDUNnARr 1Ni 25y EK. l" 95 t41 Y FpCC•AYH i✓T'ETY LINE / (l0 eEAM1O6E41 PROTECT (f1Yy HUPoSED W'LY I . a. LOT.* tv _ 4 T4 t ri I LEGEND —CARE PAPERS —PON LOT NO 29 uNIT NO NO, UNIT NO LOT NO PAD EI ARDN PAO E(N4 RIN4 85J SPOT EL£ 0. OWY �ICx4 s/f°TMtiC PRNATE Tc FOP OF CURB STREET R/W "IMP&"I 29 WI Tow sr GR SlRalglT GRADE EJUSTPIG RICNT OF WAY . - 4-+-�_�••>� SIREA CENJERLINE EAEEPENT A[ytdV DIY. WBi 1rIpYC *•rl PARALL(L PARKING RAY FIRE NYORANT -.. 'CI STREET OCNT LBDI POLE - PR E GNE INpNOUAL SEIVER ff/Nr i/�,�. PUMP UNIT - - - PR _Cl.A SERER R mate tfFm 4" ir"Immill RtM-` PLAN 1 PLAN 2� LOTS / PRIVATE STREETS SUMMARY TABLE b •* .ms Rar 4M Cc R/W y EX TRACT \ OPEN SPACE SUMMARY TABLE 1• A BOUNDARY \ NOTE WIN USE OF DECONOVE MATE STREET MO ORh AYS - A 'I-Z TRACTY \ PAVING OPEN SPACE REOUIREM£NT NAv BE VnSnE0 AT 329 FOR TIM I7779 TOTAL USABLE AREA ( / A \ TTM IJ]19 TOTAL OSIBL£ AREA 76;786 SF 1 J r I +• ° . \ LEnEREO LOTS 'A'- D' S,4fiJ SF 1+ 1 I w A-ylJ ` LOT RO rr Fl B' CURB •. ��4 tiU1FEA �� SINGLE FAMILY LOTS PERSONAL OPEN SPACE 21 J62 SF 11 o t SIOEWA- \ I PERCENT AVAILABLE ITA117779 OPEN SPACE J49.S ` t [t 4Y t }tl0• 3¢ - - _ �' s2" V 60Ars+x y WATER \ yx' - �• ;lT„ \ t l Y71 ai \ Rlaaceo elr ancW,dT 64 It - car rl +It a MrrB 7 a I YI `5 tI \\ 19F AREA USE PT (SF)YARD PAV{MPNP• r r Lel , 1 o b M J fW - I 1 w I Pow, rA - jal op. 9A Lb O s W Im 1. P MONu f T lbP Id lrnnrl ! ql ',Y e 1 tar If iUWEI IT. 7B2 r IM D .7 a A__?v 225 ft 223 Nr rA . NM w ooll- 161 I 'HOOP - - +d LbOII EL' JJ4 9n w6 10T TJ 'MODEL TI T6y N9 .V 7Jf 14 1" 121 10�' "J PP, - r LOT 21 MODEL 16 u ! •.y T }} 7{ 91 In6 F V A Qr Y1 Di a M20f[_I_ 712 _ 763 I 49 M _ jOr ri LLAm .IA' III}%- LDT r se 9 P LOT 2d I ,,aujBF -l' Dr OPEN Y' OPEN ojR CLIP V' OPEN _ _ Rrr r1J _ lea em UL ELf-Tom1 •! r iA A cl, :TauPie _� nr OVERALL SUMMARY TABLE _ - NIP w PR. 6 i °!,,., a2y! +"y - ♦ l @f� i \ R 1 I$ LAND USE CK(SO FT.) 20' (SO FT. •f .Iq' . - \t �5�� \R (SEE BELOW NCT MA AREAS WIMIN) 'A .g PRIVATE STREETS & • SF 19,J9J SF -'a yw - - _ _ •>� • t y \ -Glf-FAMILY LOIS (28) 5F LETTERED LOIS (4) SF 51 922 SF 5,467 SF ' - \ 20' SETBACK 5.644 SF - { 4 tI ° N ',� 3 ( I t� - ♦\ %' t ♦ PR. rTM 11119 INTERIOR TOTAL USABLE ARFA OFF -WE ncrLJNW STREET R/W ESM'r 76.786 SF 11,822 SF IR irl02 ! I 7 - A' 1 ;' • 1 I \ ♦ M MAI LOCAL AM (79A OM 40 88,608 SF LOT'A Ex fi t$ r N96 t r •�� - - (FOBE4lWCI*M � tt !\♦ +20'SETBACKVICTORIA TTM BOUNDARY t + STREET AREA SUMMARY EX TRACT NO. 14368 y♦ (EX LOTS) ,♦l lY LAND USE SOFT. EX PM5 �`�j1L�-� EX. TRACT No. rm3 4 EX R/W " t PRIVATE STREETS -A" & -B' 1596 SF ` ♦\ (1, 16 11 & zRJ 181 51NGLE-FAMILY LOTS '9,A (EL RESIDENTIAL I-OTS) (ES SHOPPING CEMER) t 1 llllli sF \ LETTERED LOrs'!^. 'r � � 3,sfiJ SF TOTAL 20- SET -BACK ILA} 1,611 SF EX. LL # 4 S t \ 6 •. t \ SCALE: I' = 20' t \ OGRAPIiIC EX SCREEN {j PRIVATE STREET t� \\ SCALE 1 =20 WALL (PROTECT) 5 24' MIN 5' t \ :X 10'A�SD a E~_ 12 1' PEE 6 PKG. BAY 2 10' 10' 2 6' PKG, BAY SITE PLAN 51CR ESM 7 6' _ _ PRIVATE STREET WNEIRk_ OCCUR SJ—'t r 5TR1 ARK! G 28' 5. �,I RR 29 ^ 29 if A MA K£R F ��1 2% F f4YIlCRE OCCUR 2%^ FOR F'UE CURB' = "_PRR61' TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 17779 29 MIN 2% PR AC/AB (----___ -- PAVEMENT PR S.. PR. 6' -PR AC/AB CITY OF COSTA MESA CA . x_ PR 3' V-cur CURB & PR. AC/AB CURB & PAVEMENT 28 LOTS 2.04 ACRES GROSS PR 6" AT PKG BAY - GUTTER PAVEMENT GUTTER — _ PR 3' V-GUT CURB PF AC/AB PAVEMENT PR 6 *NOTE QUALITY PERMEABLE PAVERS WITH WATER Q AT PKG BAY PREPARED BY: CURB & BASE GALLERY RESERVOIR WHERE OCCURS PREPARED FOR: SECTION B-B GUTTER SECTION C-C TRUMARK HOMES HUNSA KER & ASSOCIATES - 07/31/2014 SHEET 1 OF 1 PLOTTED BY: Sean Swanson DATE: Aug 06, 2014 02:45:27 PM FILE: F:\0861-5.[ntyln Oennq\,, {1p pro VmC4LEAh_Dr_'neral\Site Plan dwg LEGEND MAJOR DRAINAGE BOUNDARY -------- MINOR DRAINAGE BOUNDARY o4a=e.ors PEAK FLOW RATE t=15.0 TIME OF CONCENTRATION A AREA DESIGNATION ( AREA ACREAGE (IN ACRES) '��• NODE NUMBER PRELIMINARY PROPOSED HYDROLOGY MAP FOR TEN TA TI VE TRACT NO. 17779 CITY OF COSTA MESA, CA � � i f�•`ti••rs �,� �y cl � f o � - rd cf s 3q LEGEND MAJOR DRAINAGE BOUNDARY __.—:_—_ MINOR DRAINAGE BOUNDARY Q,Qo=e-oc,s PEAK FLOW RATE '-150 — TIME OF CONCENTRATION A AREA DESIGNATION } AREA ACREAGE (IN ACRES) 100 NODE NUMBER EXISTING HYDROLOGY MAP FOR TEN TA TI VE TRACT NO. 17779 CITY OF COSTA MESA, CA 36 - ATTACHMENT 3 REQUEST FOR PARK FEE WAIVER ._ 3q - - i - Eric A. Nelson TRUM^/� RK "- — Vice President _ Land Development Office: (949) 999-9800 Cell: (949) 510-2070 enelson@Lrumarkco.com Via Email April 23, 2015 Mayor Mensinger City Council Members City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Dr. Costa Mesa, CA 92626 RE: GP-14-03,R-14-03,PA-14-19, VT-17779 Planning Commission Action — Pending Council Hearing Dear Mayor Mensinger & Members of the City Council, On April 13lh 2015, the Planning Commission recommended adoption of the Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration and recommended adoption of the General Plan Amendment and first reading to Rezone Ordinance, and approval of the planning application subject to the conditions of approval and mitigation measures by adoption of the Planning Commission Resolution PC-15-17. This letter is our formal request to modify Planning Commission condition #36 as follows; Credit a portion of parkland impact fees towards the cost of Vista Park fencing installation. The cost of the fencing is estimated at $32,000. We are requesting that the parkland impact fees be reduced (credit) in proportion to the construction cost. ($380,016.00 park fee required; $348,016,000 park fee proposed). As background, this condition was the result of public testimony over concerns for safety. During the hearing, discussions related to the distance from the Project Site to Vista Park via the signalized cross walk at Valley was likely to result in "j"-walking from the south side of Victoria thus creating the potential for pedestrian injury or death. In response, The Planning Commission included condition # 36. As a Homebuilder, safety of our residents and the adjacent neighborhood is a foremost concern. That said, there is no evidence in the record that suggests this is an issue either caused by this project or an issue that currently exists or will exist in the future. In other words, there is no nexus for this condition. Neither the Traffic Analysis nor the Mitigated Negative Declaration concluded this as a potential impact or public safety concern. Moreover, this improvement is conditioned on Public Park Property and directly related to Parkland Fees. 450 Newport Center Dr. # 300 1 Newport Beach, CA 92660 City of Costa Mesa April 23, 2015 Page 2 of 2 For these reasons, we would request the modification of the condition as noted above. If you have any questions or need more information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, TRUMARK HOMES, LLC spic, nlelsot'l Eric A. Nelson Vice President Land Development EAN/en Cc Mel Lee, Senior Planner Westar Associates File ATTACHMENT 4 DRAFT RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCE ---q2 RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING THE INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP-14-03 TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1239 VICTORIA STREET. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa adopted the 2000 General Plan on January 22, 2002; WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65358(a) authorizes the City Council to amend the General Plan if it deemed to be in the public interest; WHEREAS, the General Plan is a long-range, comprehensive document that serves as a guide for the orderly development of the City of Costa Mesa; WHEREAS, by its very nature, the General Plan is subject to update and revision to account for current and future community needs; WHEREAS, an application was filed by Trumark Homes, representing the property owner, Westar Holdings, Inc., requesting approval of the following land use entitlements for the property at 1239 Victoria Street; 1. General Plan Amendment GP-14-03: General Plan amendment to change of Land Use Designation from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to High Density Residential (HDR). 2. Rezone R-14-03: Rezone from Administrative and Professional (AP) District to R2-HD (Multiple -Family Residential District, High Density), up to 14.5 dwelling units per acre. 3. Planning Application PA-14-19: A Design Review for development of a 28-unit Residential Planned Development at the site of an existing commercial/light industrial use. The project consists of the development of 28 single-family, detached residences with a net density of 14 dwelling units per acre. The three bedroom residences are three -stories with roof decks and have attached two -car garages. A total of 56 garage parking spaces, 42 driveway spaces, and 14 guest parking spaces are proposed (112 total spaces, four spaces per unit). The following Variances are requested: a. Open Space - a minimum of 40 percent required, 34.9 percent proposed. b. Rear Setback (20 feet required for second story; 10 feet proposed for second and third stories). c. Building Height (maximum 2 stories/27 feet required; 3 stories/roof deck/37 feet proposed). The project also includes the following: a. Administrative Adjustment is required for the front building setback (20 feet required; 14 feet proposed) and a Minor Modification is required to deviate from the distance from main buildings (10 feet required, 8 feet proposed). b. Vesting Tentative Tract Map VT-17779: Subdivision of a 2.04-acre property for homeownership. c. Request to reduce a portion of park impact fees towards the cost of Vista Park fencing - The Planning Commission recommends a condition of approval for the construction of a 200- to 300-foot long wrought iron fence along Vista Park. The cost of the fencing is estimated at $32,000, and the applicant is requesting that the park impact fees be reduced in proportion to the construction cost. ($380,016.00 park fee required; $348,016.00 park fee proposed). WHEREAS, an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element is proposed to change the land use designation of the site from Neighborhood Commercial to High Density Residential; WHEREAS, an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element is required to allow for development of high density residential uses at the subject property; WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment involves an amendment to the Land Use Map of the City of Costa Mesa (Exhibit 1); WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment approval is pending the adoption of Ordinance No. 15- -for Rezone R-14-03; WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on March 23, 2015, and continued to April 13, 2015 with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal; WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on May 5, 2015, with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal; WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated through the State Clearinghouse, and the required 30-day public review period was specified from February 25, 2015, to March 27, 2015 for public review and comment; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council reviewed all environmental documents comprising the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative and has found that the IS/MND considers all environmental impacts of the proposed project, and the IS/MND is complete and adequate and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Costa Mesa Environmental Guidelines; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended that City Council approve the IS/MND and adopt the General Plan amendment by adopting Resolution No. PC-15- 17; WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Responses to Comments document, as well as public comments received to date, on or before the May 5, 2015 public hearing, prior to taking action on the proposed project; WHEREAS, the final adoption of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be considered by the City Council as the final approval authority, after evaluation of the environmental document and all comments on the IS/MND received during the public review period; L 'S WHEREAS, written comments received from the general public, government entities, and other interested parties were responded to, where appropriate, in the manner prescribed in California Code of Regulations Section 15073; WHEREAS, no significant new information has been added to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and no changes to the proposed project have occurred which would require recirculation of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration under CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5; WHEREAS, the City Council has found that the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project reflects the independent judgment of the City of Costa Mesa; BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record, the City Council does hereby ADOPT the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and APPROVE General Plan Amendment GP-14-03 which amends the Land Use Element of the 2000 General Plan as set forth in Exhibit A attached to this resolution; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council has also considered and finds that the benefits of the project outweigh the environmental impacts, especially considering that all significant environmental impacts are mitigated to below a level of significance. The City Council finds that the Mitigation Monitoring Program in the environmental document sufficiently addresses and reduces environmental impacts to below a level of significance; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon the activity as described in the staff report for General Plan Amendment GP-14-03, Rezone R-14-03, Planning Application PA-14-19, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map VT-17779 and upon the applicant's compliance with specified conditions of approval and mitigation measures and compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws. Any approval granted by this resolution shall be subject to review, modification or revocation if there is a material change that occurs in the operation, or if the applicant fails to comply with any of the conditions of approval and/or mitigation measures. - I (0— BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any section, division, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this resolution, or the documents in the record in support of this resolution, are for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5T" day of May, 2015. STEPHEN M. MENSINGER Mayor, City of Costa Mesa -All STATE OF CALIFORNIA) )ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above Council Ordinance Number — as considered at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of , 2015, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at the regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of , 2015, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City of Costa Mesa this day of .2015 EXHIBIT 1 — GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP-14-03 Amendment to the Land Use Map and Related Land Use Table Change the land use designation of the 2.04-acre development site at 1239 Victoria Street from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to High Density Residential (HDR) Note: Updated text changes to the Land Use Summary Table of the General Plan are also required, as applicable. COUNTY P, ao 4 00 0000 00 GLEREAGL€S TER L DID (C) 2002 5 w*w Goo Prme N L T oeo O v1 Ci t ti VALLEY CIR JTM RIOGECREST CIR SEA BLUFF DR D a E ORDINANCE NO. 15- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA APPROVING REZONE R-14-03 TO CHANGE THE ZONING DISTRICT FROM AP (ADMINISTRATIVE AND PROFESSIONAL DISTRICT) TO MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL -HIGH DENSITY (112- HD) FOR A 2.04-ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1239 VICTORIA STREET. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa adopted the 2000 General Plan on January 22, 2002; WHEREAS, City Council approved the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and adopted General Plan Amendment GP-14-03 by separate resolution to change the land use designation of the subject property from Neighborhood Commercial to High Density Residential; WHEREAS, an application was filed by Trumark Homes, representing the property owner, Westar Holdings, Inc., requesting approval of the following land use entitlements for the property at 1239 Victoria Street: 1. General Plan Amendment GP-14-03: General Plan amendment to change of Land Use Designation from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to High Density Residential (HDR). 2. Rezone R-14-03: Rezone from Administrative and Professional (AP) District to R2-HD (Multiple -Family Residential District, High Density), up to 14.5 dwelling units per acre. 3. Planning Application PA-14-19: A Design Review for development of a 28-unit Residential Planned Development at the site of an existing commercial/light industrial use. The project consists of the development of 28 single-family, detached residences with a net density of 14 dwelling units per acre. The three bedroom residences are three -stories with roof decks and have attached two -car garages. A total of 56 garage parking spaces, 42 driveway spaces, and 14 guest parking spaces are proposed (112 total spaces, four spaces per unit). The following Variances are requested: a. Open Space - a minimum of 40 percent required, 34.9 percent proposed. b. Rear Setback (20 feet required for second story; 10 feet proposed for second and third stories). c. Building Height (maximum 2 stories/27 feet required; 3 stories/roof deck/37 feet proposed). The project also includes the following: d. Administrative Adjustment is required for the front building setback (20 feet required; 14 feet proposed) and a Minor Modification is required to deviate from the distance from main buildings (10 feet required, 8 feet proposed). e. Vesting Tentative Tract Map VT-17779: Subdivision of a 2.04-acre property for homeownership. f. Request to reduce a portion of park impact fees towards the cost of Vista Park fencing - The Planning Commission recommends a condition of approval for the construction of a 200- to 300-foot long wrought iron fence along Vista Park. The cost of the fencing is estimated at $32,000, and the applicant is requesting that the park impact fees be reduced in proportion to the construction cost. ($380,016.00 park fee required; $348,016.00 park fee proposed). WHEREAS, Rezone R-14-03 involves a change in the zoning district of the subject property from Administrative and Professional (AP) District to R2-HD (Multiple -Family Residential District, High Density), up to 14.5 dwelling units per acre (Exhibit 1); WHEREAS, Rezone R-13-03 is consistent with the 2000 General Plan as amended by General Plan Amendment GP-13-03; WHEREAS, Rezone R-13-03 will allow residential development at a maximum density of 14.5 dwelling units per acre, as allowed by the High Density Residential General Plan land use designation; WHEREAS, the R2-HD zone is a consistent zone in the High Density Residential General Plan land use designation; SECTION 1: REZONE. The City of Costa Mesa Official Zoning Map is hereby amended as follows: a. There is hereby placed and included in the R2-HD (Multiple Family Residential - High Density) zoning district a 2.04 -acre parcel at 1259 Victoria Street, identified as County Assessor Parcel Number 422-322-18 and as shown in attached Exhibit 1, situated in the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, State of California. b. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 13-22 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, the Official Zoning Map of the City of Costa Mesa is hereby amended by the change of zone described in subsection #1 above and in the findings in respective Exhibit 1. A copy of the Official Zoning Map is on file in the office of the Planning Division. SECTION 2: INCONSISTENCIES. Any provision of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and or further, is hereby repealed or modified to the extent necessary to affect the provisions of this ordinance. SECTION 3: SEVERABILITY. If any provision or clause of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or clauses or applications of this ordinance which can be implemented without the invalid provision, clause or application; and to this end, the provisions of this ordinance are declared to be severable. SECTION 4: PUBLICATION. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force thirty (30) days from and after the passage thereof, and prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days from its passage shall be published once in the ORANGE COAST DAILY PILOT, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa or, in the alternative, the City Clerk may cause to be published a summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the text of this Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk five (5) days prior to the date of adoption of this Ordinance, and within fifteen (15) days after adoption, the City Clerk shall cause to be published the aforementioned summary and shall post in the office -52- of the City Clerk a certified copy of this Ordinance together with the names and member of the City Council voting for and against the same. STEPHEN M. MENSINGER Mayor, City of Costa Mesa '5�5-- STATE OF CALIFORNIA) )ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above Council Ordinance Number _ as considered at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of , 2015, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at the regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of , 2015, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City of Costa Mesa this day of , 2015 EXHIBIT 1 REZONE Change the zoning designation of the 2.04 -acre development site at 1239 Victoria Street from Administrative and Professional District (AP) to Multiple Family Residential- High Density (R2-HD) II COUNTY M C I MM- S www,GooPnm.N ET S(O Op 00 40 0 5R2-M al vo O V=c" u► PL RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION PA-14-19 AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP VT-17779 PROPERTY FOR A 28-UNIT UNIT, THREE-STORY, SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL COMMON INTEREST DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 1239 VICTORIA STREET IN THE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION AND R2-HD ZONE. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa adopted the 2000 General Plan on January 22, 2002; WHEREAS, an application was filed by Trumark Homes, representing the property owner, Westar Holdings, Inc., requesting approval of the following land use entitlements for the property at 1239 Victoria Street; General Plan Amendment GP-14-03: General Plan amendment to change of Land Use Designation from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to High Density Residential (HDR). 2. Rezone R-14-03: Rezone from Administrative and Professional (AP) District to R2-HD (Multiple -Family Residential District, High Density), up to 14.5 dwelling units per acre. 3. Planning Application PA-14-19: A Design Review for development of a 28-unit Residential Planned Development at the site of an existing commercial/light industrial use. The project consists of the development of 28 single-family, detached residences with a net density of 14 dwelling units per acre. The three bedroom residences are three -stories with roof decks and have attached two -car garages. A total of 56 garage parking spaces, 42 driveway spaces, and 14 guest parking spaces are proposed (112 total spaces, four spaces per unit). The following Variances are requested: a. Open Space - a minimum of 40 percent required, 34.9 percent proposed. b. Rear Setback (20 feet required for second story; 10 feet proposed for second and third stories). -59- c. Building Height (maximum 2 stories/27 feet required; 3 stories/roof deck/37 feet proposed). The project also includes the following: g. Administrative Adjustment is required for the front building setback (20 feet required; 14 feet proposed) and a Minor Modification is required to deviate from the distance from main buildings (10 feet required, 8 feet proposed). h. Vesting Tentative Tract Map VT-17779: Subdivision of a 2.04-acre property for homeownership. i. Request to reduce a portion of park impact fees towards the cost of Vista Park fencing - The Planning Commission recommends a condition of approval for the construction of a 200- to 300-foot long wrought iron fence along Vista Park. The cost of the fencing is estimated at $32,000, and the applicant is requesting that the park impact fees be reduced in proportion to the construction cost. ($380,016.00 park fee required; $348,016.00 park fee proposed). WHEREAS, City Council adopted a resolution to approve the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and General Plan Amendment GP-14-03 to change the land use designation of the site from Neighborhood Commercial to High Density Residential; WHEREAS, an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element is required to allow for development of high density residential uses at the subject property; WHEREAS, City Council approved Rezone Ordinance R-14-03 to change the zoning district from Administrative Professional to R2-HD for the subject property; WHEREAS, the approval of the Planning Application and Vesting Map is contingent upon General Plan Amendment GP-14-03 and Rezone Ordinance No. 15- being final and effective; WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on March 23, 2015, and continued to April 13, 2015 with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal; KIM WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on May 5, 2015, with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal; WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated through the State Clearinghouse, and the required 30-day public review period was specified from February 25, 2015, to March 27, 2015 for public review and comment; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council reviewed all environmental documents comprising the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative and has found that the IS/MND considers all environmental impacts of the proposed project, and the IS/MND is complete and adequate and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Costa Mesa Environmental Guidelines; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended that City Council approve the IS/MND and adopt the General Plan amendment by adopting Resolution No. PC-15- 17; WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Responses to Comments document, as well as public comments received to date, on or before the May 5, 2015 public hearing, prior to taking action on the proposed project; WHEREAS, the final adoption of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be considered by the City Council as the final approval authority, after evaluation of the environmental document and all comments on the IS/MND received during the public review period; WHEREAS, written comments received from the general public, government entities, and other interested parties were responded to, where appropriate, in the manner prescribed in California Code of Regulations Section 15073; WHEREAS, no significant new information has been added to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and no changes to the proposed project have -5- occurred which would require recirculation of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration under CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5; WHEREAS, the City Council has found that the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project reflects the independent judgment of the City of Costa Mesa; BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record, the City Council does hereby APPROVE Planning Application PA-14-19 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map VT- 17779 for a 28-unit, three-story, single-family detached, residential common -interest development; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council has also considered and finds that the benefits of the project outweigh the environmental impacts, especially considering that all significant environmental impacts are mitigated to below a level of significance. The City Council finds that the Mitigation Monitoring Program in the environmental document sufficiently addresses and reduces environmental impacts to below a level of significance; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon the activity as described in the staff report for General Plan Amendment GP-14-03, Rezone R-14-03, Planning Application PA-14-19, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map VT-17779, subject to the findings as defined in Exhibit A, and upon the applicant's compliance with specified conditions of approval (Exhibit B) and mitigation measures (Exhibit C) and compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws. Any approval granted by this resolution shall be subject to review, modification or revocation if there is a material change that occurs in the operation, or if the applicant fails to comply with any of the conditions of approval and/or mitigation measures. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any section, division, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this resolution, or the documents in the record in support of this resolution, are for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any •r court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5T" day of May, 2015. STEPHEN M. MENSINGER Mayor, City of Costa Mesa (01. STATE OF CALIFORNIA) )ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above Council Ordinance Number _ as considered at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of , 2015, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at the regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of , 2015, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City of Costa Mesa this day of .2015 EXHIBIT A FINDINGS (APPROVAL) A. Finding: The rezone is consistent with the Zoning Code and the General Plan. Facts In Support of Findings: The proposed project meets or exceeds the intent of the City's Zoning Code with regard to the development standards for the R2-HD zone, including density and on -site parking. The General Plan land use designation for the project area is High Density Residential (14.5 dwelling units to the acre maximum), which is compatible with the proposed zone change to R2-HD (Multiple Family Residential — High Density). The project provides a maximum density of 14 dwelling units to the acre. B. The proposed project complies with Title 13, Section 13-29(g)(14), Design Review, of the Municipal Code due to the following: Finding: The project complies with the City of Costa mesa Zoning Code and meets the purpose and intent of the Residential Design Guidelines, which are intended to promote excellence in new residential construction, with consideration being given to compatibility with the established residential community. This design review includes site planning, preservation of overall open space, landscaping, appearance, mass and scale of structures, location of windows, varied roof forms and roof plane breaks, and any other applicable design features. Facts in Support of Findings: The project is consistent with the following goals and objectives of the General Plan, Land Use Element. • Goal LU-1: It is the goal of the City of Costa Mesa to provide its citizens with a balanced community of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, and institutional uses to satisfy the needs of the social and economic segments of the population and to retain the residential character of the City; to meet the competing demands for alternative developments within each land use classification within reasonable land use intensity limits; and to ensure the long term viability and productivity of the community's natural and man-made environments. Consistency: The project will provide additional ownership housing opportunities because the project is for 28-home ownership units. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project did not identify any adverse impacts to the natural environment and will not increase the need for significant infrastructure improvements. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this General Plan goal. • Objective LU-1 A: Establish and maintain a balance of land uses throughout the community to preserve the residential character of the City at a level no greater than can be supported by the infrastructure. Consistency. The proposed project is an infill redevelopment project replacing an underutilized commercial building with residential uses. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project indicates that adequate infrastructure (i.e., roads, emergency, and utility services) is available to serve the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this General Plan objective. Objective LU-1 A.4: Strongly encourage the development of...residential uses and owner -occupied housing where feasible to improve the balance between rental and ownership housing opportunities. Consistency: The project is consistent with the proposed High Density Residential General Plan Designation of the property, which allows a maximum of 40 units for the site (28 units are proposed). The project has been specifically designed for owner -occupied housing units. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this General Plan objective. • Objective LU-1 F.5: Provide opportunities for the development of well planned and designed projects which, through vertical or horizontal integration, provide for the development of compatible residential uses within a single project or neighborhood. Consistency: The project has been designed with appropriate building articulation, setbacks and offsets to ensure that it is compatible with surrounding properties and uses. Therefore, the project is consistent with this General Plan objective. • Goal LU-2: It is the goal of the City of Costa Mesa to establish development policies that will create and maintain an aesthetically pleasing and functional environment and minimize impacts on existing physical and social resources. Consistency: The project would allow for the redevelopment of property containing an underused commercial building. The proposed project would enhance the visual appearance of the site through implementation of the proposed landscape plan. In addition, the project would provide a high - quality architectural design to the project area. As required by a standard condition of approval on the project, landscaping treatment along the street frontage will be reviewed to ensure that adequate landscaping is provided to soften the edges of the development and provide compatibility with the surrounding area. As a result, the proposed project is supportive of this General Plan goal. - (A Objective LU-2A: Encourage new development and redevelopment to improve and maintain the quality of the environment. Consistency: An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for this project per the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of the IS/MND is to identify any environmental impacts and, if an impact is determined, if it can be mitigated below a level of significance. Because the IS/MND determined that the project would not result in the loss of any habitat, or require extensive infrastructure improvements to provide service to the site, the proposed project is consistent with this objective. The proposed project meets or exceeds the intent of the City's Zoning Code with regard to the development standards for the R2-HD zone, including lot sizes, building setbacks, open space, and on -site parking; specifically, as noted below. • The proiect exhibits excellence in design, site ,planning. integration of uses and structures, and protect the integrity of neighboring development. The project will provide an ownership in -fill residential development that will be complementary to an urban setting. The proposed architecture and site design will enhance the street view and will be compatible with existing development in the area. The overall architectural design promotes excellence and compatibility. The variety of building elevations, materials and staggered massing diminishes the boxy design appearance consistent with the City's Residential Design Guidelines. • The project will provide on -site parking spaces that meets current perking standards (112 spaces required; 112 spaces proposed). As noted earlier, the project would The project provides a total of 56 garage parking spaces, 42 driveway spaces, and 14 guest spaces are proposed, for a total of 112 on -site parking spaces or four spaces per unit, which complies with Code. • The protect will not significantly impact key intersections which would continue to operate at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS). As part of the IS/MND a traffic study was prepared which concluded that, due to the commercial use this project is replacing, the proposed project will result in 139 fewer daily trips, 40 fewer AM peak hour trips, and 26 fewer PM peak hour trips. The proposed project would have a lesser impact on the surrounding street system than the existing land use during the critical weekday AM hour and PM peak hour. Given the reduction in traffic generation resulting from the proposed project, no traffic impacts are forecast and no traffic mitigation is required. C The proposed tentative tract map complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(13) because: Finding: The creation of the subdivision and related improvements is consistent with the General Plan and the Zoning Code. Facts in Support of Findings: The creation of the subdivision is consistent with General Plan Land Use Element in that the project complies with Objectives 1 A.4, 2A.7, and 2A.8 by developing owner - occupied housing to improve the balance between rental and ownership housing opportunities, the project provides sufficient easements as a common interest development, and encourages increased private market investment in declining or deteriorating neighborhoods. The subdivision complies with the State Subdivision Map Act. Finding: The proposed use of the subdivision is compatible with the General Plan. Facts in Support of Findings: The HDR (High Density Residential) General Plan Land Use designation allows residential development of up to 14.5 dwelling units/acre on this site; the proposed project is 14 dwelling units/acre and complies with all other applicable provisions of the Zoning Code for residential developments in the R2-HD zone. Finding: The subject property is physically suitable to accommodate the subdivision in terms of type, design, and density of development, and will not result in substantial environmental damage nor public health problems, based on compliance with the Zoning Code and General Plan, and consideration of appropriate environmental information. Facts in Support of Findings: The overall design reflects a quality project that is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and General Plan. The will not create an adverse impact on the environment. Finding: The design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities in the subdivision, as required by State Government Code Section 66473.1. Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed buildings include openings in an east -west direction to take advantage of passive solar heating as well as passive ventilation from ocean breezes. The inclusion of trees will also help provide shade to the residential units within the development. Finding: The subdivision and development of the property will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of the public entity and/or public utility rights -of -way and/or easements within the tract. Facts in Support of Findings: As conditioned, the proposed project does not interfere with the public right-of-way. The recommended improvements along the public streets abutting the project site will improve the public right-of-ways for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Finding: The discharge of sewage from this subdivision into the public sewer system will not violate the requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000 of the Water Code). Facts in Support of Findings: The applicant will be required to comply with all regulations set forth by the Costa Mesa Sanitation District as well as the Mesa Water District. D The requested variance and administrative adjustment substantially complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(1) in that: Findings: • Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, the strict application of development standards deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by others in the vicinity. • The deviation shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with other properties in the vicinity. • The granting of the deviation will not allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation for the property. Facts in Support of Findings: • Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, the strict a lication of development standards deprives the property of PrAnLeges enjoyed by others in the vicinity. The purpose of the 20-foot setback requirement is to provide a visual buffer between the public sidewalk and any perimeter walls or buildings. The proposed project is located on site that has several special circumstances due to lot shape and topography. Specifically, the northerly boundary of the site, along the Victoria Street frontage, has a 30% slope, preventing a typical orientation of a building at 900 angle to the street. Additionally, although the site does not provide the minimum required setback as measured from its narrowest point (at Lot 28) the proposed development provides the average required perimeter landscaping since several areas exceed 20 feet in depth (33 feet in depth in front of Lot 17, for example). With regard to overall open space and building height, the same conditions for unusual lot shape and topography as discussed above apply. Additionally, the project proposes roof top decks for each unit ranging in size from 418 square feet to 522 square feet in addition to the ground -level private yard area for each lot. Roof decks are not typically calculated as part of the required open space; however, if the variance were to be approved to allow the roof decks to count as open space, it would add 13,524 square feet of open space to the project, thereby meeting the intent of the Zoning Code open space requirement. The deviation authorized does not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated. Although the abutting Westreef project provided code -compliant open space (40% required; 45% provided) the approval also included a variance from the 20-foot front landscape requirement (20 feet required; 10 feet proposed). Therefore, the strict -G9- application of the 20-foot setback requirement for this project deprives the subject property of privileges enjoyed by others in the vicinity. The existing residential properties along Gleneagles Terrace, Sea Bluff Drive, and Valley Road consist of one- and two-story structures. The proposed units will be 3-stories / 37 feet in height with a roof deck on the top story. For the building height variance is required, the following table provides context for multi -family residential developments in the area that have been approved with a three-story building height. 2209 — 2219 PA-87-172 Variance from building height for Pacific Avenue Approved a 21-unit apartment project (two 10/1987 stories allowed; three stories approved). 1259 Victoria PA-12-24 Variance from building height for Street Approved Building Complex 1 and 3 (Westreef) 4/2013 (two stories/27 feet allowed; three stories/35-37 feet approved) j While the subject property is not located along the bluff crest, other multi- family projects have been approved with encroachment into setback requirements. The proposed protect is consistent with the General Plan/Zonina Code with regard to use, density and intensity. As noted earlier, the HDR (High Density Residential) General Plan Land Use designation allows residential development of up to 14.5 dwelling units/acre on this site; the proposed project is 14 dwelling units/acre and complies with all other applicable provisions of the Zoning Code for residential developments in the R2-HD zone. Therefore, the granting of the deviation will not allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation and any applicable specific plan for the property. E. Code Section 13-29(g)(6) requires any of the following findings for minor modifications: Findings: The improvement will not be materially detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of persons residing or working within the immediate vicinity of the project or to property and improvements within the neighborhood. The improvement is compatible and enhances the architecture and design of the existing and anticipated development in the vicinity. This includes the site planning, land coverage landscaping, appearance, scale of structures, open space, and any other applicable features relative to a compatible and attractive development. Facts in Support of Findings: 6s The minor modification is for a relatively minor 2-foot reduction in the building separation for the units. The project would still be subject to Code requirements as they pertain to Building and Fire safety. In addition, the reduction will not be materially detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of persons residing or working within the immediate vicinity of the project or to property and improvements within the neighborhood. As noted earlier, the project consists of quality architecture and building materials and is compatible and enhances the architecture and design of the existing and anticipated development in the vicinity. F. The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City's environmental procedures. An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Mitigation measures from the IS/MND have been included as Exhibit C. If any of these conditions are removed, the decision -making body must make a finding that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts, that the conditions are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency, or that specific economic, social or other considerations make the mitigation measures infeasible. G. The project is exempt from Chapter XII, Article 3, Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. H. The subject property is physically suitable to accommodate the proposed subdivision in terms of type, design, and density of development, and will not result in substantial environmental damage nor public health problems, based on compliance with the purpose and intent of the City's Zoning Code and General Plan, as amended. The design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities in the subdivision, as required by Government Code Section 66473.1. The subdivision will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of the public entity and/or public utility rights -of -way and/or easements within the subdivision. I_ The discharge of sewage from this subdivision into the public sewer system will not violate the requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000 of the Water Code). - / q- EXHIBIT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Ping. 1. Planning Application PA-14-19 and Vesting Tentative Tract VT-17779 shall comply with the conditions of approval, code requirements, special district requirements, and mitigation measures of the IS/MND for this project and as listed in the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program (Exhibit C). 2. Mitigation measures from the IS/MND for this project have been included as Exhibit C. If any of these conditions are removed, the Planning Commission must make a finding that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts, that the conditions are within the responsibility of another public agency, or that specific economic, social, or other considerations make the mitigation measures infeasible. 3. The conditions of approval including Mitigation Measures incorporated by reference in these Conditions of Approval as Exhibit C, code requirements, and special district requirements of PA-14-19 and VT-17779 shall be blueprinted on the face of the site plan as part of the plan check submittal package. 4, The expiration of Planning Application PA-14-19 shall coincide with the expiration of the approval of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map VT-17779 which is valid for two years. An extension request is needed to extend the expiration for each additional year after the initial two-year period. The Vesting Tentative Tract Map shall be processed as a common interest residential development map consistent with Section 13-41 of the Zoning Code. 5. Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant Shall implement the pre - negotiated modifications, including but not limited to, window locations, exterior staircases, roofdecks, landscape plans, and any other applicable deal points made with the specified adjacent neighbors at Sea Bluff Drive and Valley Road to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director. 6. A decorative 7-foot high perimeter block wall shall be constructed along the rear boundary of the site where the current 5-foot high block wall is located. Where walls or fences on adjacent properties already exist, the applicant shall work with the adjacent property owner(s) to prevent side -by -side walls with gaps in between them. The interior fences or walls between the units shall be a minimum of six feet in height, except as noted in the noise mitigation measures for this project. 7. The maximum height of the building, including any mechanical equipment and rooftop appurtenances in the top story roofdeck, shall be 37 feet. No outdoor amplified music or storage of materials visible from adjacent residential properties shall occur on the rooftop level. The railing of the roofdeck area shall be a minimum of 42" inches and shall be obscure. Other than the minimal lighting required for safety and security purposes, no additional outdoor or decorative lighting shall be installed within the roofdeck area. The roofdecks, and all associated structures (i.e. privacy wall, staircase, etc.) shall be removed from the proposed plans for Lots 3, 4, 5, and 6 to address privacy impacts and shall be no higher than prior to submission of construction I0 drawings for plan check, and the overall building height shall be no higher than 28 feet. 8. The open, unassigned parking spaces within the private street shall be clearly marked as guest parking spaces. Signage will be posted to indicate that these spaces are available to all visitors. The number of on -site parking spaces required for this project shall be shown on the final construction drawings. Open parking spaces be designated as unreserved, available, open guest parking for all visitors to the site. Signage will be posted to indicate that these spaces are available to all visitors. Vehicle parking on individual driveway less than 19-feet in length is expressly prohibited. 9. Prior to issuance of building permits, a final landscape plan indicating the landscape palette and the design/material of paved areas shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Division. The developer shall provide decorative hardscape and landscape treatments as shown on the conceptual plans to provide visual relief for the project from the street. Final materials shall be subject to approval by the Planning Division. 10. The landscape setback area along Victoria Street shall be landscaped with trees and vegetation. The landscape plan shall be approved prior to issuance of building permits and shall contain additional 24-inch box trees above the minimum Code requirements to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director. Compliance with this requirement may include upgrading smaller sized trees to 24-inch box trees or providing additional 24-inch box trees. Landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans prior to final inspection or occupancy clearance. 11. Prior to issuance of building permits, developer shall contact the U.S. Postal Service with regard to location and design of mail delivery facilities. Such facilities shall be shown on the site plan, landscape plan, and/or floor plan. 12. No modification(s) of the approved building elevations including, but not limited to, change of architectural type, changes that increase the building height, removal of building articulation, or a change of the finish material(s), shall be made during construction without prior Planning Division written approval. Failure to obtain prior Planning Division approval of the modification could result in the requirement of the applicant to (re)process the modification through a discretionary review process or a variance, or in the requirement to modify the construction to reflect the approved plans. 13. Prior to issuance of grading permits, developer shall identify to the Development Services Director a construction relations officer to act as a community liaison concerning on -site activity, including resolution of issues related to dust generation from grading/paving activities. The community liaison shall provide a 24-hour hotline to the surrounding residents within 500 feet of the subject property to report any concerns during the construction of the project. The concerns shall be addressed within a reasonable time period (generally 72 hours) to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director. The community liaison shall provide a weekly report indicating the complaints received and resolution implemented. �I- 14. The upper level windows shall be designed to minimize direct views into second - floor windows for residences on abutting properties. Windows on southern elevation (staircase) shall be 6 feet above finished floor for Lots 3, 4, 5, and 6. 15. Prior to the issuance of Building Permits, the Applicant shall submit a Lighting Plan and Photometric Study for the approval of the City's Development Services Department. The Lighting Plan shall demonstrate compliance with the following: a. The mounting height of lights on light standards shall not exceed 18 feet in any location on the Project site unless approved by the Development Services Director. There shall not be in permanent light standards (other than light bollards) installed in the roof deck area. b. The intensity and location of lights on buildings shall be subject to the Development Services Director's approval. c. All site lighting fixtures shall be provided with a flat glass lens. Photometric calculations shall indicate the effect of the flat glass lens fixture efficiency. d. Lighting design and layout shall limit spill light to no more than 0.5 foot candle at the property line of the surrounding neighbors, consistent with the level of lighting that is deemed necessary for safety and security purposes on site. e. Glare shields may be required for select light standards. f. If proposed, light standards on roof decks shall be located and oriented in such a way as to minimize light spillage onto surrounding properties. 16. Prior to issuance of grading permits, developer shall submit for review and approval a Construction Management Plan. This plan features methods to minimize disruption to the neighboring residential uses to the fullest extent that is reasonable and practicable. The plan shall include construction parking and vehicle access and specifying staging areas and delivery and hauling truck routes. The plan should mitigate disruption to residents during construction. The truck route plan shall preclude truck routes through residential areas and major truck traffic during peak hours. The total truck trips to the site shall not exceed 200 trucks per day (i.e., 100 truck trips to the site plus 100 truck trips from the site) unless approved by the Development Services Director or Transportation Services Manager. 17. The subject property's ultimate finished grade level may not be filled/raised in excess of 36 inches above the finished grade of any abutting property. If additional fill dirt is needed to provide acceptable on -site storm water flow to a public street, an alternative means of accommodating that drainage shall be approved by the City's Building Official prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Such alternatives may include subsurface tie-in to public storm water facilities, subsurface drainage collection systems and/or sumps with mechanical pump discharge in -lieu of gravity flow. If mechanical pump method is determined appropriate, said mechanical pump(s) shall continuously be maintained in working order. In any case, development of subject property shall preserve or improve the existing pattern of drainage on abutting properties. _12- 18. If the project is constructed in phases, the perimeter wall, landscaping along the street frontage and irrigation shall be installed prior to the release of utilities for the first phase. 19. The applicant shall contact the Planning Division to arrange a Planning inspection of the site prior to the release of occupancy/utilities. This inspection is to confirm that the conditions of approval and code requirements have been satisfied. 20. Trash facilities shall be screened from view, and designed and located appropriately to minimize potential noise and odor impacts to residential areas. 21. To avoid an alley -like appearance, the private street shall not be developed with a center concrete swale. The private street shall be complemented by stamped concrete or pervious pavers. 22. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) to the Development Services Director and City Attorney's office for review. The CC&Rs must be in a form and substance acceptable to, and shall be approved by the Development Services Director and City Attorney's office. a. The CC&Rs shall contain provisions requiring that the HOA homeowner's association (HOA) effectively manage parking and contract with a towing service to enforce the parking regulations. b. The CC&Rs shall also contain provisions related to night-time lighting and active use of the roof decks. These provisions shall prohibit amplified noise, loud parties/gatherings, night-time lighting after 9:00 PM other than for security purposes, or any other activities that may be disruptive to the quiet enjoyment of neighboring properties after 9:00 PM. c. The CC&Rs shall also contain provisions related to preservation and maintenance of the common lot and common open space areas in perpetuity by the homeowner's association. The CC&Rs shall also contain the buyer's notice as an exhibit. d. The CC&Rs shall contain a notice that all open parking spaces which are not located on an individual driveway shall be unassigned and available for visitors. e. The CC&R's shall contain restrictions requiring residents to park vehicles in garage spaces provided for each unit. Storage of other items may occur only to the extent that vehicles may still be parked within the required garage at the number for which the garage was originally designed and to allow for inspections by the association to verify compliance with this condition. f. The CC&Rs shall contain restrictions prohibiting parking in the 5-foot deep driveways in front of the garage doors for the Plan 2 Units. g. The CC&Rs shall contain provisions requiring that the Homeowner's Association submit a signed affidavit to the City of Costa Mesa on an annual basis to certify the following: o The two -car garages in the residential community are being used for vehicle parking by the resident(s). I3- o The vehicle parking areas within the garage are not obstructed by storage items, including but not limited to, toys, clothing, tools, boxes, equipment, etc. o The resident(s) have consented to voluntary inspections of the garage to verify the parking availability, as needed. o The form and content of the affidavit shall be provided by the City Attorney's office. Failure to file the annual affidavit is considered a violation of this condition. h. Any subsequent revisions to the CC&Rs related to these provisions must be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney's office and the Development Services Director before they become effective. 23. The CC&Rs shall be recorded prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy. Applicant shall provide proof of establishment of a homeowners association prior to release of any utilities prior to selling any of the units as condominiums. 24. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide proof of recordation of Vesting Tract Map 17779. 25. Transformers, backflow preventers, and any other approved above -ground utility improvement shall be located outside of the required street setback area and shall be screened from view, under direction of Planning staff. Any deviation from this requirement shall be subject to review and approval of the Development Services Director. 26. Applicant shall plant mature trees (24-inch box trees) with a minimum height of 15 feet in the rear yards of Lots 3 through 9 and Lot 23 to provide visual screening for privacy purposes. The CC&Rs shall reflect that these trees be maintained (or replaced if necessary) in the rear yard to provide a permanent landscape buffer between the properties at the homeowner's expense in the future. 27. In the event that archaeological resources are encountered during grading and construction, all construction activities shall be temporarily halted or redirected to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of archaeological materials as determined by the City, who shall establish, in cooperation with the project applicant and a certified archaeologist, the appropriate procedures for exploration and/or salvage of the artifacts. 28. In the event that paleontological resources are encountered during grading and construction operations, all construction activities shall be temporarily halted or redirected to permit a qualified paleontologist to assess the find for significance and, if necessary, develop a paleontological resources impact mitigation plan (PRIMP) for the review and approval by the City prior to resuming excavation activities. 29. If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner I-4- will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 24 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. 30. An opportunity shall be provided for a certified Native American Monitor (NAM) to be present during the first week of ground disturbance activities. In the event that additional cultural deposits are uncovered during ground disturbance operations, the NAM shall be empowered to halt or divert work in the vicinity of the find until the nature and the significance of the discovery is determined. 31. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officials, agents, officers and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding (collectively referred to as "proceeding") brought against the City, its elected and appointed officials, agents, officers or employees arising out of, or which are in any way related to, the applicant's project, or any approvals granted by City related to the applicant's project. The indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against the City, if any, and cost of suit, attorney's fees, and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred in connection with such proceeding whether incurred by the applicant, the City and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. This indemnity provision shall include the applicant's obligation to indemnify the City for all the City's costs, fees, and damages that the City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this section. City shall have the right to choose its own legal counsel to represent the City's interests, and applicant shall indemnify City for all such costs incurred by City. Eng. 32. Comply with the requirements contained in the letter prepared by the City Engineer (Exhibit 81). 33. Maintain the public right-of-way in a "wet -down" condition to prevent excessive dust and promptly remove any spillage from the public right-of-way by sweeping or sprinkling. Trans. 34. The westerly project driveway shall be restricted to right-in/right-out access while the easterly driveway remains a full access driveway. The right-in/right- out restriction at the westerly driveway shall be implemented by constructing a raised median on Victoria Street, subject to final review and approval by the Transportation Services Manager and the Development Services Director. Bldg. 35. The applicant shall submit a soils report for this project. Soils report recommendation shall be blueprinted on both the architectural and grading plans. Soils report shall contain recommendations on how to protect the subject and neighboring properties. Design, grading, and construction shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of the California Building Code applicable at the time of grading as well as the appropriate local grading regulations, and the recommendations of the project geotechnical consultant as summarized in a final written report, subject to review by the City of Costa Mesa Building official prior to issuance of grading permits. Ping. 36. To the extent feasible and practicable, the applicant shall work with the Public Comm. Services Department to develop a plan to install an approximately 200- to 300-foot long wrought iron fence along the Victoria Street frontage of Vista Park. The extent, design and construction of the wrought iron fencing shall be at the applicant's expense and shall be subject to final approval by the Public Services Director and the Development Services Director. The Development Services Director may waive or modify this requirement due to infeasibility of implementation for economic or logistical reasons. 37. To the extent feasible and practicable, the applicant shall work with the property owner of the Victoria Square retail center at Valley Road/Victoria Street to provide off -site guest parking in the evenings and weekends. The off -site parking agreement shall allow ingress, egress, and parking for guests/visitors of the proposed residential development. The Development Services Director may waive or modify this requirement due to infeasibility of implementation for economic or logistical reasons. 38. The applicant shall abide to the design stipulations, terms and conditions that have been pre -negotiated with immediately abutting neighbors on Gleneagles Terrance and Sea Bluff Road. The signed agreements with the affected neighbors are provided as Exhibit D. I(Y CODE REQUIREMENTS The following list of federal, state and local laws applicable to the project has been compiled by staff for the applicant's reference. Any reference to "City" pertains to the City of Costa Mesa. Ping. 1. All contractors and subcontractors must have valid business licenses to do business in the City of Costa Mesa. Final inspections, final occupancy and utility releases will not be granted until all such licenses have been obtained. 2. Address assignment shall be requested from the Planning Division prior to submittal of working drawings for plan check. The approved address of individual units, suites, buildings, etc., shall be blueprinted on the site plan and on all floor plans in the working drawings. 3. Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall contact the US Postal Service with regard to location and design of mail delivery facilities. Such facilities shall be shown on the site plan, landscape plan, and/or floor plan. 4. Pay Park fee prior to building permit issuance or certificate of occupancy. Applicable fee shall be that fee in effect at the time the subdivision application is filed with the City. 5. A minimum 20-foot by 20-foot clear interior dimension shall be provided for all garages. 6. Minimum garage door width shall be 16 feet. 7. All garages shall be provided with automatic garage door openers. 8. Hours of construction shall comply with Section 13-279, Title 13, of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. 9. Two (2) sets of detailed landscape and irrigation plans, which meet the requirements set forth in Costa Mesa Municipal Code Sections 13-101 through 13-108 and the City's Water Efficient Landscape Guidelines, shall be required as part of the project plan check review and approval process. Plans shall be forwarded to the Planning Division for final approval prior to issuance of building permits. 10. Two (2) sets of landscape and irrigation plans, approved by the Planning Division, shall be attached to two of the final building plan sets. 11. All on -site utility services shall be installed underground. 12. Installation of all utility meters shall be performed in a manner so as to obscure the installation from view from any place on or off the property. The installation shall be in a manner acceptable to the public utility and shall be in the form of a vault, wall cabinet, or wall box under the direction of the Planning Division. 13. Any mechanical equipment such as air-conditioning equipment and duct work shall be screened from view in a manner approved by the Planning Division. 14. All construction contractors shall comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regulations, including Rule 403, Fugitive Dust. All grading (regardless of acreage) shall apply best available control -99- measures for fugitive dust in accordance with Rule 403. To ensure that the project is in full compliance with applicable SCAQMD dust regulations and that there is no nuisance impact offsite, the contractor would implement each of the following: a. Moisten soil not more than 15 minutes prior to moving soil or conduct whatever watering is necessary to prevent visible dust emissions from exceeding 100 feet in any direction. b. Water excavated soil piles hourly or covered with temporary coverings. c. Water exposed surfaces at least twice a day under calm conditions. Water as often as needed on windy days when winds are less than 25 miles per hour or during very dry weather in order to maintain a surface crust and prevent the release of visible emissions from the construction site. d. Minimize dirt track -out from the project site by employing either vehicle wash stations, rumble plates or graveling as per specifications in Rule 403. e. Provide for street sweeping, as needed, on adjacent roadways to remove dirt dropped by construction vehicles or mud, which would otherwise be carried off by trucks departing project sites. f. Securely cover loads with a tight fitting tarp on any truck leaving the construction sites to dispose of debris. g. Cease grading during period when winds exceed 25 miles per hour. 15. SCAQMD Rule 445 prohibits permanently installed wood burning devices into any new development. A wood burning device means any fireplace, wood burning heater, or pellet -fueled wood heater, or any similarly enclosed, permanently installed, indoor or outdoor device burning any solid fuel for aesthetic or space -heating purposes, which has a heat input of less than one million British thermal units per hour. 16. The Project shall comply with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations established by the energy conservation standards. 17. Each of the conclusions and recommendations specified in the Geotechnical Evaluation for the Proposed Development at 1239 Victoria Street, City of Costa Mesa, California (LGC Geotechnical, Inc., April 28, 2014) shall be incorporated into the Project's design considerations, plans, and job specifications. 18. Prior to the issuance of Grading Permits, the Project Applicant shall provide the City of Costa Mesa Department of Building Safety with a geotechnical investigation of the project site detailing recommendations for remedial grading in order to reduce the potential of onsite soils to cause unstable conditions. Design, grading, and construction shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of the California Building Code applicable at the time of grading, appropriate local grading regulations, and the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant as summarized in a final written report, subject to review by the City of Costa Mesa Department of Building Safety. 19. The Project shall comply with the NPDES requirements, as follows: _9g_ a. Construction General Permit Notice of Intent (NOI) Design: Prior to the issuance of preliminary or precise grading permits, the project applicant shall provide the City Engineer with evidence that an NOI has been filed with the Storm Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Such evidence shall consist of a copy of the NOI stamped by the SWRCB or Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), or a letter from either agency stating that the NOI has been filed. b. Construction Phase Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP): Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare a SWPPP that complies with the Construction General Permit and will include at a minimum the following: • Discuss in detail the BMPs planned for the project related to control of sediment and erosion, non -sediment pollutants, and potential pollutants in non -storm water discharges; and • Describe post -construction BMPs for the Project. c. Explain the maintenance program for the Project's BMPs. d. List the parties responsible for the SWPPP implementation and the BMP maintenance during and after grading. The Project Applicant shall implement the SWPPP and modify the SWPPP as directed by the Construction General Permit. 20. During demolition, grading, and excavation, workers shall comply with the requirements of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 1529, which provides for exposure limits, exposure monitoring, respiratory protection, and good working practices by workers exposed to asbestos. Asbestos -contaminated debris and other wastes shall be managed and disposed of in accordance with the applicable provision of the California Health and Safety Code. 21. During demolition, grading, and excavation, workers shall comply with the requirements of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 1532.1, which provides for exposure limits, exposure monitoring, respiratory protection, and good working practice by workers exposed to lead. Lead - contaminated debris and other wastes shall be managed and disposed of in accordance with the applicable provision of the California Health and Safety Code. 22. In order to comply with the 2003 DAMP, the proposed Project shall prepare a Storm Drain Plan, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) conforming to the current National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer or Environmental Engineer, which shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. a. The SWPPP shall be prepared and updated as needed during the course of construction to satisfy the requirements of each phase of development. b. The plan shall incorporate all necessary Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other City requirements to eliminate polluted runoff until all _r)q— construction work for the project is completed. The SWPPP shall include treatment and disposal of all dewatering operation flows and for nuisance flows during construction. c. A WQMP shall be maintained and updated as needed to satisfy the requirements of the adopted NPDES program. The plan shall ensure that the existing water quality measures for all improved phases of the project are adhered to. d. Location of the BMPs shall not be within the public right-of-way. 23. Prior to approval of Plans, the Project shall fulfill the City of Costa Mesa Drainage Ordinance No. 06-19 requirements. 24. The final master plan for development of the Project site shall provide sufficient capacity for fire flows required by the City of Costa Mesa Fire Department. 25. Vehicular access shall be provided and maintained serviceable throughout construction to all required fire hydrants. 26. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the City of Costa Mesa Fire Department shall review and approve the developer's Project design features to assess compliance with the California Building Code and California Fire Code. 27. The Project shall provide fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A to be located within 75 feet of travel distance from all areas. Extinguishers may be of a type rated 2A, 10BC as these extinguishers are suitable for all types of fires and are less expensive. 28. The Project shall provide an automatic fire sprinkler system according to NFPA 13 R. 29. The Project shall provide a fire alarm system. 30. The Project shall provide individual numeric signage for proposed residences with minimum 6 inches height. 31. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Developer shall pay a school impact fee currently calculated at $1.84 per square foot for residential development and $0.30 per square foot for commercial development. 32. As final building plans are submitted to the City of Costa Mesa for review and approval, the Costa Mesa Police Department shall review all plans for the purpose of ensuring that design requirements are incorporated into the building design to increase safety and avoid unsafe conditions. These measures focus on security measures are recommended by the Police Department, including but not limited to, the following: a. Lighting shall be provided in open areas and parking lots. b. Required building address numbers shall be readily apparent from the street and rooftop building identification shall be readily apparent from police helicopters for emergency response agencies. c. Landscaping requirements. -o0- d. Emergency vehicle parking areas shall be designated within proximity to buildings. e. The applicant shall fund all costs associated with police and fire radio reception enhancement, including a Bi-Directional Amplifying 800 MHz antenna (BDA). f. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the City of Costa Mesa Police Department shall review and approve the developer's project design features to ensure adequate security measures are incorporated into the project design. 33. Prior to demolition activities, removal and/or abatement of asbestos containing building materials, lead based paints, and hazardous materials associated with the existing building materials shall be conducted by a qualified environmental professional in consultation with the Costa Mesa Fire Department. An asbestos and hazardous materials abatement specification shall be developed by the qualified environmental professional, in order to clearly define the scope and objective of the abatement activities. 34. Prior to investigations, demolition, or renovation, all activities shall be coordinated with Dig Alert (811). 35. Visual inspections for areas of impact to soil shall be conducted during site grading. If unknown or suspect materials are discovered during construction by the contractor that are believed to involve hazardous wastes or materials, the contractor shall: a. Immediately stop work in the vicinity of the suspected contaminant, removing workers and the public from the area; b. Notify the City Engineer and Costa Mesa Fire Department; c. Secure the area(s) in question; and d. Implement required corrective actions, including remediation if applicable. 36. Prior to the issuance of any Grading Permit, the Applicant shall: a. Prepared a detailed Hydrology Study, approved by the City Engineer. b. Design all storm drain facilities, approved by the City Engineer, for 25-year storm event protection. c. Design all storm drains in the public right-of-way to be a minimum of 24 inches by City of Costa Mesa requirements and in accordance with the Orange County Local Drainage Manual including a minimum spacing between manholes of 300 feet. Bldg. 37. Comply with the requirements of the 2013 California Building Code, 2013 California Residential Code, 2013 California Electrical Code, 2013 California Mechanical Code, 2013 California Plumbing Code, 2013 California Green Building Standards Code and 2013 California Energy Code (or the applicable adopted, California Building Code, California Residential Code, California Electrical Code, California Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code, California Green Building Standards, and California Energy Code at the time -ISI- of plan submittal or permit issuance) and California Code of Regulations also known as the California Building Standards Code, as amended by the City of Costa Mesa. Requirements for accessibility to sites, facilities, buildings, and elements by individuals with disability shall comply with Chapter 11 B of the 2013 California Building Code. 38. Submit a precise grading plan, an erosion control plan and a hydrology study. 39. Submit a soils report for this project. Soils report recommendations shall be blueprinted on both the architectural and grading plans. 40. On graded sites the top of exterior foundation shall extend above the elevation of the street gutter at point of discharge or the inlet of an approved discharge devise a minimum of 12 inches plus 2 percent. 2013 California Building Code CRC 403.1.7.3. 41. Lots shall be graded to drain surface water away from foundation walls. The grade shall fall a minimum of six inches within the first 10 feet. CRC R401.3. 42. Projections, including eaves, shall be one -hour fire resistive construction, heavy timber or of noncombustible material if they project into the 5-foot (setback area from the property line. They may project a maximum of 12 inches beyond the 3-foot setback. CRC Tables R302.1(1) and R302.1(2). Trans. 43. Construct all proposed driveway approaches to comply with city standards. 44. Close unused drive approaches, or portion of, with full height curb and gutter that comply with City Standards. 45. Prior to the start of construction, a Construction Access and Circulation Plan shall be prepared and approved by the City Traffic Engineer to ensure that construction traffic will not impact Victoria Street and other public roadways in the site vicinity. Fire 46. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the City of Costa Mesa Fire Department shall review and approve the project design features to assess compliance with the California Building Code and California Fire Code. 47. Provide Class A fire hydrants to be located as directed by the Fire Department. 48. Provide "blue dot" reflective markers for all on -site fire hydrants. 49. The project shall provide an automatic fire sprinkler system according to NFPA 13 R. Street 50. Plant three (3) 24" Box Pistacia chinensis. Tress to be incorporated into site Trees landscape plan. WQMP 51. In order to comply with the 2003 DAMP, the proposed project shall prepare a Storm Drain Plan, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) conforming to the current National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer or Environmental Engineer, which shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. 52. The SWPPP shall be prepared and updated as needed during the course of construction to satisfy the requirements of each phase of development. The plan _gz— shall incorporate all necessary Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other City requirements to eliminate polluted runoff until all construction work for the project is completed. The SWPPP shall include treatment and disposal of all dewatering operation flows and for nuisance flows during construction. 53. A WQMP shall be maintained and updated as needed to satisfy the requirements of the adopted NPDES program. The plan shall ensure that the existing water quality measures for all improved phases of the project are adhered to. 54. Location of the BMPs shall not be within the public right-of-way. SPECIAL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS The requirements of the following special districts are hereby forwarded to the applicant: Sani. 1. Applicant will be required to construct sewers to serve this project, at his own expense, meeting the approval of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. 2. County Sanitation District fees, fixture fees, inspection fees, and sewer permit are required prior to installation of sewer. 3. Applicant shall submit a plan showing sewer improvements that meets the District Engineer's approval to the Building Division as part of the plans submitted for plan check. 4. The applicant is required to contact the Costa Mesa Sanitary District at (714) 754-5307 to arrange final sign -off prior to certificate of occupancy being released. 5. Unless an off -site trash hauler is being used, applicant shall contact the Costa Mesa Sanitary District at (714) 754-5043 to pay trash collection program fees and arrange for service for all new residences. Residences using bin or dumpster services are exempt from this requirement. 6. Applicant shall contact Costa Mesa Sanitary District at (949) 654-8400 for any additional district requirements. AQMD 7. Applicant shall contact the Air Quality Management District (AQMD) at (800) 288-7664 for potential additional conditions of development or for additional permits required by AQMD. Water 8. Customer shall contact the Mesa Water District — Engineering Desk and submit an application and plans for project review. Customer must obtain a letter of approval and a letter of project completion from Mesa Water District. School 9. Pay applicable Newport Mesa Unified School District fees to the Building Division prior is issuance of building permits. State 10. Comply with the requirements of the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) to determine if red imported fire ants (RIFA) exist on the property prior to any soil movement or excavation. Call CDFA at (714) 708- 1910 for information. Iss- EXHIBIT B1 CITY OF COSTA MESA P 0 BOX 1200 77 FAIR DRIVE - CALIFORNIA 92828-1200 FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES/ENGINEERING DIVISION March 12, 2015 Costa Mesa Planning Commission City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 SUBJECT: Tract No. 17779 LOCATION. 1239 Victoria Street Dear Commissioners: Tentative Tract Map No, 17779 as furnished by the Planning Division for review by the Public Services Department consists of subdividing one lot into twenty-eight numbered lots and four lettered lots. Tentative Tract Map No. 17779 meets with the approval of the Public Services Department, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Tract shall be developed in full compliance with the State Map Act and the City of Costa Mesa Municipal Code (C.C.M.M.C.), except as authorized by the Costa Mesa City Council and/or Planning Commission. The attention of the Subdivider and his engineer is directed to Section 13-208 through 13-261 inclusive, of the Municipal Code. 2. The Subdivider shall conduct soil investigations and provide the results to the City of Costa Mesa Engineering and Building Divisions pursuant to Ordinance 97-11. 3. Two copies of the Final Tract Map shall be submitted to the Engineering Division for checking. Map check fee shall be paid per C.C.M.M.C. Section 13-231. 4. A current copy of the title search shall be submitted to the Engineering Division with the first submittal of the Final Tract Map. 5. Dedicate an ingress/egress easement to the City for emergency and public security vehicles purposes only. Maintenance of easement shall be the sole responsibility of a Homeowners Association formed to conform to Section 13-41 (a) of the C.C.M.M.C. 6. Vehicular and pedestrian access rights to Victoria Street shall be released and relinquished to the City of Costa Mesa except at approved access locations. 7. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then remove any existing driveways and/or curb depressions that will not be used and replace with full height curb and sidewalk. PHONE (714) 754-5335 FAX (714) 754-5028 TDD (714) 754-5244 www costamesaca gov Planning Commission 2015 8. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then construct P.C.C. driveway approaches per City of Costa Mesa Standards as shown on the Offsite Plan. Location and dimensions are subject to the approval of the Transportation Services Manager. 9. Relocate existing street light and radar speed feedback sign to accommodate the location of the new drive approaches. 10. Submit for approval to the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, Street Improvement Plans that show Sewer and Water Improvements, prepared by a Civil Engineer. Applicant is informed Victoria Street is under a "NO OPEN CUT" moratorium until March, 2020. Open cutting the street pavement during the moratorium period shall require special resurfacing requirements. 11. The Subdivider shall submit a cash deposit of $980 for street sweeping at time of issuance of a Construction Access permit. Full amount of deposit shall be maintained on a monthly basis prior to and during construction until completion of project. 12. Fulfill City of Costa Mesa Drainage Ordinance No. 06-19 requirements prior to approval of Final Tract Map 13. The Subdivider's engineers shall furnish the Engineering Division a storm runoff study showing existing and proposed facilities and the method of draining this area and tributary areas without exceeding the capacity of any street or drainage facility on -site or off -site. This study to be furnished with the first submittal of the Final Tract Map. Cross lot drainage shall not occur. 14. Ownership and maintenance of the private on -site drainage facilities and parkway culverts and other common areas shall be transferred by the owner to the Homeowners Association to be formed pursuant to C.C.M.M.C. Section 13-41 (e) and said association shall indemnify and hold harmless the City for any liability arising out of or in any way associated with the connection of the private drainage system with the City's drainage system and shall execute and deliver to the City the standard (indemnity) Hold Harmless Agreement required for such conditions prior to issuance of permits. 15. Sewer improvements shall meet the approval of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District; call (949) 631-1731 for information. 15. Water system improvements shall meet the approval of Mesa Consolidated Water District; call (949) 631-1200 for information. 17. Dedicate easements as needed for public utilities. 18. Prior to recordation of a Final Tract Map, the surveyor/engineer preparing the map shall tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor in a manner described in Subarticle 12, Section 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code. 19. Prior to recordation of a Final Tract Map, the surveyor/engineer preparing the map shall submit to the County Surveyor a digital -graphics file of said map in a manner described in Subarticle 12, Section 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code. _36- 2 Planning Commission 2015 20. Survey monuments shall be preserved and referenced before construction and replaced after construction, pursuant to Section 8771 of the Business and Profession Code. 21. The elevations shown on all plans shall be on Orange County benchmark datum. 22. Prior to recordation of a Final Tract Map, submit required cash deposit or surety bond to guarantee monumentation. Deposit amount to be determined by the City Engineer. 23. Prior to occupancy on the Tract, the surveyor/engineer shall submit to the City Engineer a Digital Graphic File, reproducible mylar of the recorded Tract Map, and approved off -site plan and nine copies of the recorded Tract Map. Sincerely, r l Fariba Fazeli, P. E. City Engineer (Engr 20151Planning Commission Tract 17779) -99- EXHIBIT C MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM TRUMARK PROJECT Mitigation Measure Responsible Implementation Agency _ The perimeter walls around Development Lots 1, 7, 13, and 20 shall Services/Building Safety be required to be 8 feet in Division height. Prior to issuance of building permits, a qualifies Acoustical Scientist shall be retained to prepare a final Acoustical Impact Report, utilizing precise grading plans, and detailed floor and elevation plans, for units with direct exposure to Victoria Street. Said report must be able to determine compliance or effective mitigation, such as noise control barriers, that will reduce noise impacts to within compliance of 45 dBA CNEL residential interior, and 65 dBA CNEL residential exterior. Monitoring Phase Plan Check/Construction Date of Compliance -8g, EXHIBIT D _sq- 1 — GCct (-! C r r I own the home located at -11L-'-F Qe-el (-5 TP,Y"r- and am imp diately adjacent to 1239 Victoria, the location of a propos6d 287 home project. Trumark homes agreed to make the following changes to the C-) project to reduce or eliminate the impacts of the prosed project on my property. In addition, Trumark has agreed to include these changes as shown on Exhibit A as Conditions of Approval to insure they are required by the city. Because of these changes, I am not opposing this project. I reserve the right to request further changes and to oppose this project if any of the following agreed changes are modified or if the project is modified. Proposed Changes; 1. Locate staircase as shown on Exhibit A site plan along southern boundary of lot 23, immed afe'y adjacent to the rear yard. 2. Windows on southern elevation (staircase) shall be 6' above finished floor. 3. A 6' ta;l wall shall be included on the southern portion of the roof deck to prevent viewing into rear yard or home 4. Removal of the existing wooden fence within the yard of the above - mentioned property and replacement with a new solid decorative block retaining wall, to allow for lowering the project site shall be at Trumarks cost. In addition Trumark will be provided access to my property to allow for this construction. Any damage wi l be Trumarks responsibility. 5. Trumark will provide planting along my property that includes bamboo or other acceptable screening at their cost to further screen the adjacent new homes, Eric A. Nelson Trumark Homes Homeowner 4/1F/2015 Dated 411314-S- Dated Received City of Costa Mesa Oerelo t Services Department APR 13 2015 _qo- Screen Wall 6' off Stairs to be oriented on south elevation 0 � to Windows 6' off 1164 GLENEAGLES FERRAGE J NEIGHBOR'S REAR YARD \ w i to - ruin c-n New Landscpae to be installed for additional screening Eric A. Nelson - Trumark Homes TRU MARK TRUMARK 450 Newport Center Drive, Suite 300 Newport Beach, CA 92660 949.999.9800 New Retaining Wall on Pl. �0�0' �yG S91. EXHIBIT A 1164 Gleneagles Terr Costa Mesa, CA k f A M S own the home located at '4 G- r'2,(Acwd am immediately adjacent to 1239 Victoria, the location of a proposed 28 home project. Trumark Homes has agreed to make the following changes to reduce or eliminate the impacts of the prosed project on my property. In addition, Trumark has agreed to include these changes as shown on Exhibit A as Conditions of Approval to insure they are required by the city as part of the development. Because of these changes, I am not opposing this project. I reserve the right to request further changes and oppose this project if any of the following agreed conditions change. Proposed Changes: 1. No access, pedestrian or vehicular access will be permitted from the project site to Seabluff. 2. Windows on southern elevation of Lot 9 shall be installed to prohibit/ obstruct views to pool area and direct views into yard. 3. A 6' tall wall shall be included on the southern portion of the roof decks to prevent viewing into yard and home. 4. Trumark will provide addition planting along my property of bamboo or other acceptable screening at Trumark's expense. 5. The project will include lowering the site 4'-5' from existing grades. This will include a new retaining wall, located 6' from existing rear wall. 6. During construction of the new retaining wall, Trumark will be permitted to drain my pool. Upon completion they will be responsible for the cost of refilling the pool (including penalties) and will acid wash it and pay for an initial startup and cleaning. In addition Trumark will provide an insurance policy for any defects caused by the retaining wall construction. 7. In the event the pool is not drained, Trumark homes will provide, at their expense, weekly pool cleaning to reduce impact of dust during grading. C N E CO 0 Q) > -00 U N Eric A. Nelson Dated �L) C) a Trumark Homes o c?-1 _' E U Q a 0 Homeowner Dated q2 - Screen Wall _UNE OF SIGNT 3I1� .T6 'r __LINE OF SIGHT of o i M. BEDROOM _ Existing Wall — - BED 3 o OPT DEN ) 4•-O' 1156 GLENEAGLES TERRACE 0 GARAGE POOL — 4 AREA Eric A. Nelson - Trumark Homes 111 ■ 1' D TRUMARK 450 Newport Center Drive, Suite 300 Newport Beach, CA 92660 949.999.9800 ROOF DECK 315 � ram M. SATs •_ G) FF UVING ROOM DECK v o i eT+ 32'-0" LOT 9 (PLAN/ MODEL NOT FINALIZED SET BACKS, DECK AND WINDOW RESTRICTIONS NOTED ON PAGE 1) (qs Windows along this I elevation shall be installed J to prevent viewing adjacent neighbors backyard No Access to Sea Bluff EXHIBIT A 1156 GLENEAGLES TERRACE COSTA MESA, CA 92627 own the home located at 115611 and am immediately adjacent to 1239 Victoria, the location of a proposed 28 home project. Trumark Homes has agreed to make the following changes to reduce or eliminate the impacts of the prosed project on my property. In addition, Trumark has agreed to include these changes as shown on Exhibit A as Conditions of Approval to insure they are required by the city as part of the development. Because of these changes, I am not opposing this project. I reserve the right to request further changes and oppose this project if any of the following agreed conditions change. Proposed Changes 1. No access, pedestrian or vehicular access will be permitted from the project site to Seabluff. 2. Windows on southern elevation of Lot 9 shall be installed to prohibit/ obstruct views to pool area and direct views into yard. 3. A 6' tall wall shall be included on the southern portion of the roof decks to prevent viewing into yard and home. 4. Trumark will provide addition planting along my property of bamboo or other acceptable screening at Trumark's expense. 5. The project will include lowering the site 4'-5' from existing grades. This will include a new retaining wall, located 6' from existing rear wall. 6. During construction of the new retaining wall, Trumark will be permitted to drain my pool. Upon completion they will be responsible for the cost of refilling the pool (including penalties) and will acid wash it and pay for an initial startup and cleaning. In addition Trumark will provide an insurance policy for any defects caused by the retaining wall construction. 7. In the event the pool is not drained, Trumark homes will provide, at their expense, weekly pool cleaning to reduce impact of dust during grading. Eric k Nelson Trumark Homes Homeowher Dated 1 / Lr/l�jJ Dated a� E c� � v � m0 Cn •v 0 0 Q� 0 M a� U E a 0 am a) 0 0 Ff—r 7 'i LINE OF SIGHT u Existing Wall BEO71 e OFT DEN 14'-0" 1156 GLENEAGLES TERRACE 0 A -10 P"v OOL _ _ —_�,.1 k AREAZZ Eric A. Nelson - Trumark Homes TRU MARK TRUMARK 450 Newport Center Drive, Suite 300 Newport Beach, CA 92660 949.999.9800 Screen Wall I � M BEDROOM bt aATK o ?❑Ar O> fir o LIVINC ROOM H OECK GARAGE _— ''I 32'-0" LOT 9 (PLAN/ MODEL NOT FINALIZED SET BACKS, DECK AND WINDOW RESTRICTIONS NOTED ON PAGE 1) D New Retaining 1 Windows along this J elevation shall be installed to prevent viewing adjacent neighbors backyard No Access to Sea Bluff EXHIBIT A 1156 GLENEAGLES TERRACE COSTA MESA, CA 92627 RESOLUTION NO. PC-15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DENYING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP-14-03 CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF A 2.04 ACRE SITE FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (NC) TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (HDR); REZONE R-14- 03 FOR A REZONE (OR CHANGE) OF THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE SAME DEVELOPMENT SITE FROM AP (ADMINISTRATIVE AND PROFESSIONAL DISTRICT) TO MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL -HIGH DENSITY (R2-HD), MASTER PLAN PA-14-19, AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT VT-17779, FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A 28-UNIT DETACHED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH DEVIATIONS FROM ZONING CODE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1239 VICTORIA STREET. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa adopted the 2000 General Plan on January 22, 2002; WHEREAS, an application was filed by Trumark Homes, representing the property owner, Westar Holdings, Inc., requesting approval of the following land use entitlements for the property at 1239 Victoria Street; General Plan Amendment GP-14-03: General Plan amendment to change of Land Use Designation from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to High Density Residential (HDR). 2. Rezone R-14-03: Rezone from Administrative and Professional (AP) District to R2-HD (Multiple -Family Residential District, High Density), up to 14.5 dwelling units per acre. 3. Planning Application PA-14-19: A Design Review for development of a 28-unit Residential Planned Development at the site of an existing commercial/light industrial use. The project consists of the development of 28 single-family, detached residences with a net density of 14 dwelling units per acre. The three bedroom residences are three -stories with roof decks and have attached two -car garages. A total of 56 garage parking spaces, 42 driveway spaces, and 14 guest parking spaces are proposed (112 total spaces, four spaces per unit). The following Variances are requested: d. Open Space - a minimum of 40 percent required, 34.9 percent proposed. e. Rear Setback (20 feet required for second story; 10 feet proposed for second and third stories). f. Building Height (maximum 2 stories/27 feet required; 3 stories/roof deck/37 feet proposed). The project also includes the following: j. Administrative Adjustment is required for the front building setback (20 feet required; 14 feet proposed) and a Minor Modification is required to deviate from the distance from main buildings (10 feet required, 8 feet proposed). k. Vesting Tentative Tract Map VT-17779: Subdivision of a 2.04-acre property for homeownership. I. Request to reduce a portion of park impact fees towards the cost of Vista Park fencing - The Planning Commission recommends a condition of approval for the construction of a 200- to 300-foot long wrought iron fence along Vista Park. The cost of the fencing is estimated at $32,000, and the applicant is requesting that the park impact fees be reduced in proportion to the construction cost. ($380,016.00 park fee required; $348,016.00 park fee proposed). WHEREAS, City Council adopted a resolution to approve the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and General Plan Amendment GP-14-03 to change the land use designation of the site from Neighborhood Commercial to High Density Residential; WHEREAS, an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element is required to allow for development of high density residential uses at the subject property; WHEREAS, City Council approved Rezone Ordinance R-14-03 to change the zoning district from Administrative Professional to R2-HD for the subject property; WHEREAS, the approval of the Planning Application and Vesting Map is contingent upon General Plan Amendment GP-14-03 and Rezone Ordinance No. 15- being final and effective; WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on March 23, 2015, and continued to April 13, 2015 with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal; —qq— WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on May 5, 2015, with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal; BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit A, the City Council hereby DENIES General Plan Amendment GP- 14-03, Rezone R-14-03, Planning Application PA-14-19 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map TT-17779. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5T" day of May, 2015. STEPHEN M. MENSINGER Mayor, City of Costa Mesa —qg— STATE OF CALIFORNIA) )ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above Council Ordinance Number _ as considered at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of , 2015, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at the regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of , 2015, by the following roil call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City of Costa Mesa this day of , 2015 _Qq- EXHIBIT A FINDINGS (DENIAL) A• The proposed rezone is not consistent with the Zoning Code and the General Plan. B. The proposed project does not comply with Title 13, Section 13-29(g)(14), Design Review, of the Municipal Code due to the following: The design review does not meet the broader goals of the General Plan and the Zoning Code by exhibiting excellence in design, site planning, integration of uses and structures and protection of the integrity of neighboring development. C. The proposed project does not comply with Code Section 13-29(g)(1) due to the following: 1. No special circumstances applicable to the property exist to allow the strict application of development standards that deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by others in the vicinity. 2. The deviation shall constitutes a grant of special privileges inconsistent with other properties in the vicinity. 3. The granting of the deviation will allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation for the property. D. The proposed project does not comply with Code Section 13-29(g)(6) due to the following: 1. The improvement will be materially detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of persons residing or working within the immediate vicinity of the project or to property and improvements within the neighborhood. 2. The improvement is not compatible and does not enhance the architecture and design of the existing and anticipated development in the vicinity. E. The subdivision of the property for a residential common interest development is not consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning Code. F. The Costa Mesa City Council has denied General Plan Amendment GP-14-03, Rezone R-14-03, Planning Application PA-14-19 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map TT-17779. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(b) (5) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15270(a) CEQA does not apply to this project because it has been rejected and will not be carried out. G. The project is exempt from Chapter IX, Article 11, Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. Vo! ATTACHMENT 5 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES EXCERPTS FROM THE APPROVED MINUTES OF THE MARCH 23, 2014 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING REGARDING TRUMARK HOMES (Public Hearing No. 2 — GP-14-03, R-14-03, PA-14-19, VT-17779) 2. Application No.: GP-14-03, R-14-03, PA-14-19, VT-17779: A MASTER PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A 28-UNIT RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AT 1239 VICTORIA STREET Applicant: Eric Nelson Site Address: 1239 Victoria Street Zone: AP (Existing); PDR-HD (Proposed) Project Planner: Mel Lee Environmental Determination: The City of Costa Mesa proposes to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration available for review and comment from February 25, 2015 to March 27, 2015. The Mitigated Negative Declaration is based on the finding that, through compliance with the Standard Conditions and Mitigation Measures, the Project's potential significant adverse impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. The reasons to support such a finding are documented by an Initial Study prepared by the City of Costa Mesa. Description: The proposed involves the following: 1) Adoption of an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND); 2) General Plan Amendment GP-14-03 — General Plan amendment to a change of Land Use Designation from Neighborhood Commercial to High Density Residential; 3) Rezone R-14-03 - A Rezone of the zoning classification of the site from Administrative and Professional District (AP) to Planned Development Residential — High Density District (PDR-HD), up to 20 dwelling units per acre; 4) Planning Application PA-14-19 —A Master Plan for development of a 28-unit Residential Planned Development at the site of an existing commercial/light industrial use. The project consists of the development of 28 single-family, detached residences with a net density of 14 dwelling units per acre. The three bedroom residences are three -stories with roof decks and have attached two - car garages. The following variances are requested: a) Perimeter Open Space (a minimum depth of 20 feet is required; a minimum depth of 11 feet with an average of 20 feet is proposed); b) Open Space - a minimum of 42 percent of the total site area is required, 34.9 percent proposed; and c) Common Open Space (50 percent of the open space required to be common open space; 10 percent common open space proposed); 5) Vesting Tentative Tract Map 17779 — Subdivision of a 2.04-acre property into fee simple lots for homeownership. Mel Lee, Senior Planner, presented a brief overview of the project and read a summary of public comments and responses. Mr. Lee noted that the applicant wanted to hear public comments and requested a continuance to the next meeting to address them. The Commission discussed at large the density of the project, open space, variances and transportation issues. PUBLIC COMMENTS Eric Nelson, Trumark Homes, asked to hear public comments. -102___ Mary Spadoni, Costa Mesa resident, addressed traffic issues and questioned the traffic engineer assigned to the project. Jay Humphrey, Costa Mesa resident, agreed with Ms. Spadoni's comments and addressed concerns over traffic control, open space, parking and building height. Steve Spriggs, Costa Mesa resident, spoke in opposition of the project and addressed traffic concerns. Ann Parker, Costa Mesa resident, echoed Mr. Sprigg's comments and added the project was not in the overlay district. Jim Kehrins, Costa Mesa resident, spoke on mitigation measures and concerns on parking capacity and lack of sidewalks. Mr. Kerrence stated the community should be high -end, not high density as the area is the gateway to Costa Mesa and asked the Commission to consider making the project medium density. Virginia Colwell, Costa Mesa resident, agreed with every public speaker and added due to current traffic conditions, she takes her business outside of Costa Mesa. Ms. Colwell expressed concern with density and height of the development and is against the project. Amber Webster, Costa Mesa resident, agreed with previous comments and questioned the accuracy of the traffic study. Ms. Webster brought up concerns on zoning, density and safety. Eric Nelson, Trumark Homes, thanked the public for all the comments and appreciated all the feedback. Mr. Nelson chose to refrain from comment until further research can be done based on the large amount of information provided at the hearing. Commissioner McCarthy asked for more information on density and would like to look at the reconfiguration to meet the open space and the density. Chair Dickson informed applicant that PDR-HD may not be appropriate. Commissioner McCarthy asked staff to compile further analysis on circulation and would like to see what surrounding cities term for similar density. Chair Dickson appreciated the comments regarding traffic but a more accurate depiction of traffic counts is needed before any determination can be made. James Dodelson, Costa Mesa resident, briefly addressed traffic issues but was more interested in Commissioner McCarthy's inquiry into high density (HD) and would like to learn more. Mr. Dodelson expressed concern over how the project would affect the appearance of the neighborhood and if the developer is willing to compromise. MOTION: Continue PH-2 GP-14-03, R-14-03, PA-14-19, VT-17779: A MASTER PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A 28-UNIT RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AT 1239 VICTORIA STREET to the Planning Commission meeting of April 13, 2015. Moved by Commissioner McCarthy, second by Vice Chair Mathews. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Dickson, Mathews, McCarthy, Sesler, Andranian Noes: None Absent: None Abstained: None l o3_ UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED MINUTE EXCERPTS FROM THE APRIL 13, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING REGARDING TRUMARK HOMES (Public Hearing No. 2 — GP-14-03, R-14-03, PA-14-19, VTT-17779) 2. Application No.: GP-14-03, R-14-03, PA-14-19, VT-17779: A MASTER PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A 28-UNIT RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AT 1239 VICTORIA STREET Applicant: Eric Nelson Site Address: 1239 Victoria Street Zone: AP (Existing); PDR-HD; R2-HD (Proposed) Project Planner: Mel Lee Environmental Determination: The City of Costa Mesa proposes to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration available for review and comment from February 25, 2015 to March 27, 2015. The Mitigated Negative Declaration is based on the finding that, through compliance with the Standard Conditions and Mitigation Measures, the Project's potential significant adverse impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. The reasons to support such a finding are documented by an Initial Study prepared by the City of Costa Mesa Description: The proposed project involves the following: 1) Adoption of an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND); 2) General Plan Amendment GP-14-03 — General Plan amendment to change of Land Use Designation from Neighborhood Commercial to High Density Residential; 3) Rezone R-14-03 - A Rezone (or change) of the zoning classification of the site from Administrative and Professional District (AP) to R2-HD (Multiple -Family Residential District, High Density), up to 14.5 dwelling units per acre; 4) Planning Application PA-14-19 — A Master Plan for development of a 28-unit Residential Planned Development at the site of an existing commercial/light industrial use. The project consists of the development of 28 single-family, detached residences with a net density of 14 dwelling units per acre. The three bedroom residences are three -stories with roof decks and have attached two -car garages. A total of 56 garage parking spaces, 42 driveway spaces, and 14 guest parking spaces are proposed (112 total spaces, or four spaces per unit). The following variances are requested: a) Open Space - A minimum of 40 percent required, 34.9 percent proposed; b) Rear Setback - (20 feet required for second story; 10 feet proposed for second and third stories); c) Building Height (max. 2 stories/27 feet required; 3 stories/roof deck/37 feet proposed). Administrative Adjustment is required for the Front Setback (20 feet required; 14 feet proposed); A Minor Modification required to deviate from the distance from main buildings requirement (10 feet required, 8 feet proposed). 5) Vesting Tentative Tract Map 17779 — Subdivision of a 2.04-acre property. Mel Lee, Senior Planner, gave an overview and summary of the project's developments since the last Planning Commission meeting. Raja Sethuraman, Transportation Services Manager, provided a summary of the traffic analysis. The Commission discussed several concerns - ingress/egress, open space deficiency, roof decks, traffic safety, provision prohibiting rental of rooms and fencing along Vista Park. Ms. Flynn advised the applicant would be responsible for the wrought -iron fence at Valley Rd. and Victoria and that he had not yet concurred. PUBLIC COMMENTS Eric Nelson, Trumark Homes applicant, gave a presentation that covered the history of the area, a new project and issues raised at the March 23, 2015 Planning Commission meeting. Ann Parker, Costa Mesa resident, asked questions regarding the traffic study and using the parking from the shopping center. Guitar Hoang, Costa Mesa resident, spoke about concerns with the project's proposed zoning and height and the impacts they would have on his home and community. Christine O'Connor, Costa Mesa resident, was happy that the ingress/egress on to Sea Bluff would not happen. Ms. O'Connor raised concerns with pedestrian access and traffic safety. Amber Webster, Costa Mesa resident, spoke in opposition of the project's proposed design. Jay Humphrey, Costa Mesa resident, addressed concerns with parking, the height of the project and the future development of the corner market. CJ Eckman, Costa Mesa resident, supported the project — it was low maintenance, close to parks and good for growing families. Reduced traffic would be a benefit. James Hsu, Costa Mesa resident, was concerned with the number of variances and spoke in opposition of the project. Chris Stewart, Costa Mesa resident, wanted to know the current number of employees at the Westar Plant and addressed traffic safety, access and privacy concerns. Scott Maples, Corona del Mar resident, liked the detached project because it was low maintenance. It reached out to a group in the City that currently did not have options. Mike Byer, Costa Mesa resident, felt the project was a good product that attracted younger residents to Costa Mesa. Mr. Byer supported the project. James Dodelson, Costa Mesa resident, stated a significant change to the character of the neighborhood was at stake due to the high -density. Mr. Dodelson was opposed to the roof decks and height of the project. Pete Brown, Costa Mesa resident, spoke about the parking issues the project would create and said the project was a recipe for disaster. Christina Ball, Costa Mesa resident, said the project provided opportunities for the next generation of Costa Mesa residents to start families. She was in support of the project. Randy Maples, Costa Mesa resident, supported the project because there was growing voice of young professionals that supported projects that offered them trendy amenities. Mr. Nelson addressed the concerns raised by the public speakers (abutting neighbors who supported and opposed the project, parking, traffic, HOA-maintained sewage plan, deviations, etc.). I ()'Ss Chair Dickson discussed the fence along Vista Park. Mr. Nelson said the City Council would have to decide if the applicant could use park fees to improve the park. Tom Holm, AECOM Environmental Consultant, reported on the results of the Shadow Study that the project architect submitted to their firm for review. Commissioner Andranian believed that people who purchase property should essentially get the benefit of the bargain; hence, he had concerns with the zone change. MOTION: Recommend by adoption of the Planning Commission Resolution that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment GP-14-03, Rezone R-14-03, Planning Application PA-14-19, Vesting Tentative Tract Map VT-17779, including the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, based on the evidence in the record, the Findings set forth in Exhibit A and subject to the Conditions of Approval set forth in Exhibit B, and additional conditions as follows: 1) Prior to consideration by City Council, the applicant work with staff to assess the feasibility (cost, location, etc.) of the installation of a wrought -iron fence at Victoria Park 2) Prior to the consideration by City Council, applicant to explore leasing the additional parking space at Victoria Square for afterhours parking 3) Inclusion of the specific conditions as set forth in the Supplemental Memo 4) Per Page 72 of the staff report and Page 14 on the Supplemental Memo, remove the roof decks for Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6 and amend Conditional of Approval No. 7 pertaining to lot configuration. 5) Installation of privacy windows above the site line per the satisfaction of the Development Services Director. 6) Inclusion of a provision by City Council prohibiting the rental of individual rooms to the extent that it is legal. Moved by Commissioner McCarthy, second by Chair Dickson. RESOLUTION 15-17 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA RECOMMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS: (1) ADOPT THE INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION; (2) ADOPT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP-14-03 CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF A 2.04 ACRE SITE FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (NC) TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (HDR) LOCATED AT 1239 VICTORIA STREET; (3) GIVE FIRST READING TO REZONE R-14-03 TO CHANGE THE ZONING DISTRICT FROM ADMINISTRATIVE PROFESSIONAL TO MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL — HIGH DENSITY; AND (4) APPROVE MASTER PLAN PA-14-19 AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP VT- 17779 The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Dickson, Mathews, McCarthy, Sesler Noes: Andranian Absent: None Abstained: None Ms. Flynn reported the item would go before the City Council on June 2, 2015. Chair Dickson called a 5-minute break. Mr. Nelson reported that due to timing issues with their purchase contract, Ms. Flynn was going look into changing the June 2, 2015 Council meeting date. �� ATTACHMENT 6 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORTS AND ATTACHMENTS jal - PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: APRIL 13, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: P-H-2— SUBJECT:. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP-14-03, REZONE R-14-03, PLANNING APPLICATION PA-14-19, AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP VT-17779 FOR A 28-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 1239 VICTORIA STREET DATE: APRIL 6, 2015 FROM: PLANNING DIVISION/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION BY: MEL LEE, SENIOR PLANNER FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MEL LEE, AICP (714) 754-5611 mel.lee@costamesaca.gov DESCRIPTION The proposed (revised) project description is as follows: Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND): This document analyzes the environmental impacts of the project and describes mitigation measures and conditions of approval to minimize impacts to below a level of significance. 2. General Plan Amendment GP-14-03: General Plan amendment to change of Land Use Designation from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to High Density Residential (HDR). 3. Rezone R-14-03: Rezone from Administrative and Professional (AP) District to R2-HD (Multiple -Family Residential District, High Density). The R2-HD zone allows a maximum density of 14.5 dwelling units per acre. 4. Planning Application PA-14-19: A Design Review for development of a 28-unit Residential Planned Development at the site of an existing commercial/light industrial use. The project consists of the development of 28 single-family, detached residences with a net density of 14 dwelling units per acre. The three bedroom residences are three -stories with roof decks and have attached two -car garages. A total of 56 garage parking spaces, 42 driveway spaces, and 14 guest parking spaces are proposed (112 total spaces, four spaces per unit). 16 �- The following Variances from the R2-HD development standards are requested: • Open Space - a minimum of 40 percent required, 34.9 percent proposed. it Rear Setback (20 feet required for second story; 10 feet proposed for second and third stories). ■ Building Height (maximum 2 stories/27 feet required; 3 stories/roof deck/37 feet proposed). An Administrative Adjustment is required for the front building setback (20 feet required; 14 feet proposed). A Minor Modification is required to deviate from the distance from main buildings (10 feet required, 8 feet proposed). 5. Vesting Tentative Tract Map VT-17779: Subdivision of a 2.04-acre property for homeownership. epai ireKIr The applicant is Trumark Homes, representing the property owner, Westar Holdings, Inc. RECOMMENDATION Adopt resolution recommending that the City Council: (1) Adopt the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. (2) Adopt General Plan Amendment GP-14-03. (3) Give first reading to Rezone Ordinance R-14-03. (4) Approve Planning Application PA-14-19 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map VT- 17779. WER PLANNING APPLICATION SUMMARY - REVISED PROJECT Location: 1239 Victoria Street Application: GP-14-03, R-14-03, PA-14-19, and VT-17779 Request: 28 Detached Residential Units (General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Master Plan w/Deviations, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map) SUBJECT PROPERTY: SURROUNDING PROPERTY: Zone: AP (Exist.); R2-HD (Prop.) North: Acr. Victoria Street, I&R, (Vista Park) General Plan: Neigh. Comm. (Exist.); High South: R1, Residences Density Residential (Prop.) Lot Dimensions: Irregular East: C1 (Retail Ctr.), R2-MD and R1 (Residences) Lot Area: 2.04 Acres (88,608 SF) West: R2-MD, Multi -Family Residences (Under Construction) Existing Development: Office Building (To Be Demolished) DEVELOPMENT STANDARD COMPARISON (R2-HD STANDARDS USED FOR COMPARISON PURPOSES) R2-HD Development Standard Required/Allowed Proposed/Provided Lot Size: Lot Width 100 FT 283 FT Lot Area 12,000 SF .27 Acres) 2.04 Acres 88.608 SF Density/Intensity: DU's/ Acre 1 du/3,000 SF (14.5 DU's/Acre — 1 du/3,174 SF (14 DU's/Acre — 29 Units Total) 28 Units Total Building Coverage Development Lot Buildings NA 21,362 SF (24%) Paving NA 36,322 SF (41.1% Open Space Total 35,443 SF (40 %) 30,924 SF (34.9%)(1 TOTAL 88,608 SF 100% Common Open Space NA 1.861 SF No. of Stories/Building Height 2 Stories 127 FT 3 Stories + Roof Deck / 37 FT(1) Setbacks (Buildings) Front 20 FT 14 FT(2) Side (Left/Right 5 FT / 5 FT 6 FT 17 FT Rear 10 FT (1 Story) 20 FT 2 Sto 10 FT (2-3 Story)(1) Rear Yard Lot Coverage 1,200 SF 25% Max. 720 SF (15%) Distance Between Buildings 10 FT_ 8 FT(3) Parkin Covered 56 56 Open 56 42 Guest NA 14 TOTAL 112 Spaces 112 Spaces Interior garage dimension 20 FT X 20 FT 20 FT X 20 FT NA = Not Applicable or No Requirement (1) Total of three Variances requested (see staff report discussion). (2) Administrative Adjustment requested (see staff report discussion). 3 Minor Modification requested see staff report discussion). CEQA Status Initial Stud /Miti ated Negative Declaration City Council Final Action -110- BACKGROUND Project Site/Environs The project site consists of one parcel totaling 2.04 acres. The property currently contains an existing two-story office building. The existing structure was built in phases with the original northeast building constructed in 1960. An addition was added in 1966 with the final building addition completed in 1968. The building, owned by Westar Nutrition, who also used to be one of the tenants, is approximately 55,000-square feet and includes office space, research and development, production space, and warehouse areas that are mostly vacant. The site is currently zoned AP (Administrative and Professional District) and has a General Plan land use designation of Neighborhood Commercial (NC). Surrounding properties to the east, southwest and south are developed with multi -family residential and single-family residential homes. The property abutting the site to the east at the corner of Victoria Street and Valley Road contains a multiple tenant retail shopping center (Victoria Square). Vista Park is located to the north across Victoria Street from the subject site. The property to the west is currently being developed with a 17-unit, two- and three-story residential project (Westreef), which was approved by the Planning Commission on February 25, 2013 as Planning Application PA-12-24 and Tentative Tract TT-17508, which was upheld by the City Council on April 2, 2013. Revisions to the Proposed Project On March 23, 2015, Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to receive public comment on the proposed 28-unit detached residential community. Subsequent to the meeting, the applicant has revised the project; the table below briefly summarizes the key changes in the required discretionary approvals between the original project and revised project. Summary of Revisions to the Proposed Project A. I Rezone to PDR-HD (Max. 20 dwelling units per I Rezone to R2-HD (Max. 14.5 dwelling units per acre) B. I Variances from: Perimeter Open Space: (a minimum depth of 20 feet is required; a minimum depth of 11 feet with an average depth of 20 feet is proposed); 2. Open Space: (a minimum of 42 acre) _ Variances from: 1. Open Space - a minimum of 40 percent required, 34.9 percent proposed. 2. Rear Setback (20 feet required for second story; 10 feet proposed for second and third stories). of the total site area is required, 34.9 i percent proposed); 3. Common Open Space: (50 percent of the open space required to be common open space; 10 percent common open space proposed). C. No Administrative Modification requested. Proposed Development 3. Building Height (maximum 2 stories/27 feet required; 3 stories/roof deck/37 feet proposed). Adjustment or Minor An Administrative Adjustment is required for the front building setback (20 feet required; 14 feet proposed). A Minor Modification is required to deviate from the distance from main buildings (10 feet required, 8 feet proposed). The proposed three-story, 28-unit development, which is mostly unchanged from what was presented to the Planning Commission on March 23, 2015, is described below. Unit Type Summary (No Changes for R2-HD) Unit Size 1,997 Sq. Ft. 2,244 Sq. Ft. Not Including Garage Total No. of Units 14 14 No. Bedrooms and Baths 3 Bed, 3 Bath (1) 3 Bed, 3.5 Bath 3 + Roof Deck No. of Stories 3 + Roof Deck Roof Deck Sq. ft. 418 S . Ft. 522 sq. ft. No. Of Garage Spaces 2 2 No. Of Open Spaces 2 1 (in Driveway) ^ Total Resident Spaces 56 42 No. Of Open Spaces 14 (Guest) Total Parkin 112 Spaces 1. An optional den and powder room can be substituted for the 3rd bedroom and bathroom on the second floor for Plan 1. On -Site Parking and Circulation The project provides a total of 56 garage parking spaces, 42 driveway spaces, and 14 guest spaces are proposed, for a total of 112 on -site parking spaces or four spaces per unit, which complies with Code. The 14 on -site guest spaces are proposed to be parallel -112-, to the 24-foot wide private street provided within the project. The vehicular circulation has been reviewed and approved by the Transportation Services Division, subject to a condition of approval that limits cars exiting the westerly driveway to right -turns only by the construction of a raised median on Victoria Street. Perimeter Walls/Fences The majority of the existing perimeter block walls abutting the project to the sides and rear meet or exceed the required 6-foot minimum height, appear to be in good condition, and are proposed to remain in place. However, staff notes that a portion of the block wall along the rear (abutting the R1 zoned properties) is less than 6 feet in height and appears to abut a rear yard wooden fence along several of the properties. Staff is recommending, as a condition of approval, that this wall be replaced with a decorative block wall a minimum of 7 feet in height and that the applicant work with the adjacent property owners to eliminate side -by -side walls with gaps in between them. Building Architecture The proposed architecture is a contemporary design of stucco with fiber cement siding and stone veneers. The proposed colors are light and charcoal grays, whites, and earthen tones. Projections are included to maximize floor space on upper floors and provide building articulation, texture and color variation throughout the project's design. Staff is recommending, as a condition of approval, the upper level windows be designed to minimize direct views into second -floor windows for residences on abutting properties. Open Space The project provides a total of 34.9 percent open space; as a result, approval of the reduced open space is subject to variance findings. Perimeter open space and common open space, which applied to the previously proposed PDR-HD zone, do not apply to the R2-HD zone (see table below). The variance findings are discussed later in this report. Open Space Code Comparison Total Open Space 34.9% 1 42% I 40% Common Open Space 10% 50% of Total Open Space NA _Perimeter Open Space 11 FT 20 FT NA NA=Not Applicable or No Requirement (1) Variance required Building Height, Setbacks, and Building Separation Requirements The PDR-HD zone does not specify development standards with regard to building height and setbacks. They do, however, apply to the R2-HD zone (see table below). The variance and administrative adjustment findings are discussed later in this report. Building Height, Setback, And Building Separation Code Comparison No. Of Stories/Bldg. Ht. PROVIDED-D- 3 Stories/37 FT 1 NA 2 Stories/ 27 Feet Front Setback 14 FT 2 NA 20 FT Side Setback L/R 6 FT/7FT NA 5 FT/5 FT Rear Setback 2+Stories 10 FT 1 NA 20 FT Building Separation 8 FT 3 NA 10 FT NA=Not Applicable or No Requirement (1) Variance required. (2) Administrative adjustment required. (3) Minor modification required. Vesting Tentative Tract Map (No Change for R2-HD) The vesting tentative tract map proposed is for a common interest residential development subdivision with 28 numbered lots to accommodate the units and 4 lettered lots to accommodate the common areas and private streets. All common areas including the driveway and parking spaces will be commonly used and maintained by a homeowners association. ANALYSIS Follow-up to the Planning Commission meeting of March 23, 2015 The following table provides a summary of the responses to the project issues raised at the hearing, which are discussed in detail later in this report: Summary Of Responses To Comments Received At Planning Commission Meeting 1. The proposed PDR-HD zoning would allow Request revised to R2-HD zone for a maximum of for a maximum density of 20 units per acre 14.5 dwelling units per acre (see staff report to be built on the site (40 units). discussion). 2 Overall Trip Generation and Safety of vehicles entering and exiting the site need to be examined. The traffic study prepared for the project is attached to report for reference and discussed in greater detail later in this report. 3. The project includes several variance See variance discussion later in this report. requests. 4. Consideration of additional on -site guest parking spaces above Code -required parking should be provided. Applicant is working with the owner of Victoria Square retail center for off -site parking for guests visiting the project. 5. Consideration of the height and massing of Applicant is working with adjacent neighbors to the project related to the existing residential address their concerns (see update letter from properties immediately abutting the project applicant attached to report). site. 6. Additional information needed related to A comparison table of density ranges in other Cities the number of units allowed under the is provided. City's High Density Residential designation compared to surrounding cities. 7. Traffic accident data on Victoria Street Traffic accident data is attached to report. adjacent to the protect site requested. 1. Change in the Rezone Request to R2-HD A concern was raised during the March 23, 2015 meeting was the proposed zone change to PDR-HD, which allows a maximum density of 20 units per acre, or a total of 40 units for the 2.04 acre project site, if a development different from the proposed project were to be approved. As a result, the applicant revised the request for a zone change to R2-HD, which allows a maximum density of 14.5 units per acre, or a total of 29 units for the project site (28 units are currently proposed). Because there are some differences between the development standards of the R2-HD zone versus the PDR-HD zone, the application was re -noticed reflecting the difference in development standards as they pertain to building, height, setbacks, and open space, some of which still require the approval of deviations from the code via a variance, administrative adjustment and minor modification as noted in the Zoning Code Summary Table on Page 2 of this report. However, it should be noted that there are no major changes to the design of the project itself in terms of overall number of units, building height, on -site parking spaces, or building setbacks. The following sections describes the various components of the development, with an indication if there was change in the development standards with respect to the newly proposed R2-HD zoning. 2. Overall Trip Generation and Traffic Safety and Circulation along Victoria Street. The traffic study prepared for this project was included as Appendix F in the IS/MND prepared for the project and has been attached to this report for reference. The traffic study was prepared by Linscott, Law, & Greenspan Engineers (LLG) and included the following: • Traffic generation forecast of the proposed project compared to the existing use on the property. • Evaluation of the project access and on -site circulation, including the safety aspect of the proposed driveways on Victoria Street. The traffic study was reviewed and approved by the City's Transportation Services Division. Traffic Generation Forecast. When the proposed project is compared to the existing land use, the proposed project will result in 139 fewer daily trips, 40 fewer AM peak hour trips and 26 fewer PM peak hour trips, which is summarized in the tables below: Project Trip Generation Forecast (Proposed Project) Daily 2-Way AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total 9.52 0.19 0.56 0.75 0.63 0.37 1.00 8.11 1.01 0.21 1.22 0.16 0.91 1.07 268 5 1 16 21 18 10 28 406 51 10 1 61 8 46 54 -139 -46 +6 -40 +10 -36 -26 Notes: TE/DU = Trip end per dwelling unit TE/TSF = Trip end per 1,000 square feet The table below compares the trip generation of the proposed project to the existing use and the maximum building area allowed under the existinq AP zoninq: Land Use Units AM PM Daily Proposed 28-unit Residential 28 units 21 28 268 Development Existing Use 55,000 sq.ft. 132 197 1,987 (Office/Warehouse) (nonconforming 55,000 sq.ft. Building size) 64 95 965 Existing Zoning 26,581 sq.ft. (Administrative/Professional 0.30 FAR offices) As shown above, the proposed project would have a lesser impact on the surrounding street system than the existing land use during the critical weekday AM hour and PM peak hour. Given the reduction in traffic generation resulting from the proposed project, no traffic impacts are forecast and no traffic mitigation is required. Traffic Safety. A substantially clear line of sight is required to be maintained between the driver of a vehicle waiting at a driveway and the driver of an approaching vehicle on Victoria Street. Adequate time must be provided for the waiting vehicle to either cross ,.-I I �P- all lanes of through traffic, or turn right or left, without requiring the through traffic to radically reduce their speed. Due to the horizontal and vertical curvature of Victoria Street, LLG prepared a Sight Distance Evaluation for the two driveways as part of the traffic study for the project, which, as noted earlier, was included as Appendix F to the IS/MND and is attached separately to this report for reference. The study conducted by LLG concluded that adequate sight distance is provided for the two driveways serving the project. Further, the results of the Sight Distance Evaluation for the curvature of Victoria Street concluded that there are no obstructions to the line of sight at either driveway, and that curbside parking was not a factor due to the no parking restrictions on Victoria Street. 3. Project includes several variance requests related to building height and setbacks compared to the surrounding residential uses. Variances and Administrative Adiustment For the variances from open space, building height, and rear yard setback, and administrative adjustment from front yard setback, staff believes that approval of the variances are justified based on the following: • Because of special circumstances gpplicabte to the property, the strict application of development standards deprives the pLggertZ of rivile es enjoyed by others in the vicinity. The purpose of the setback requirements is to provide a visual buffer between the public sidewalk and any perimeter walls or buildings. The proposed project is located on site that has several special circumstances due to lot shape and topography. Specifically, the northerly boundary of the site, along the Victoria Street frontage, has a 30% slope, preventing a typical orientation of a building at 900 angle to the street. Additionally, although the site does not provide the minimum required setback as measured from its narrowest point (at Lot 28) the proposed development provides the average required perimeter landscaping since several areas exceed 20 feet in depth (33 feet in depth in front of Lot 17, for example). With regard to overall open space and building height, the same conditions for unusual lot shape and topography as discussed above apply. Additionally, the project proposes roof top decks for each unit ranging in size from 418 square feet to 522 square feet in addition to the ground -level private yard area for each lot. Roof decks are not typically calculated as part of the required open space; however, if the variance were to be approved to allow the roof decks to count as open space, it would add 13,524 square feet of open space to the project, thereby meeting the intent of the Zoning Code open space requirement. • The deviation authorized does not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated. Although the abutting Westreef project provided code -compliant open space (40% required; 45% provided) the approval also included a variance from the 20-foot front landscape requirement (20 feet required; 10 feet proposed) and rear yard setback requirement (20 feet required; 15 feet proposed). Therefore, the strict application of the setback requirements for this project deprives the subject property of privileges enjoyed by others in the vicinity. The existing residential properties along Gleneagles Terrace, Sea Bluff Drive, and Valley Road consist of one- and two-story structures. The proposed units will be 3- stories / 37 feet in height with a roof deck on the top story. For the building height variance is required, the following table provides context for multi -family residential developments in the area that have been approved with a three-story building height. 2209 — 2219 PA-87-172 Variance from building height for a 21- Pacific Avenue Approved 10/1987 unit apartment project (two stories allowed; three stories approved). 1259 Victoria PA-12-24 Variance from building height for Street (Westreef) Approved 4/2013 Building Complex 1 and 3 (two stories/27 feet allowed; three stories/35-37 feet approved) While the subject property is not located along the bluff crest, other multi -family projects have been approved with encroachment into setback requirements. The table below provides some context of other projects with approved encroachments, in this case, into the bluff crest. F Z£-79.141 2171 thru 2189 Pacific Avenue 2209 Ihru 2219 Paclrrc Avenue Variance to allow a 47-unit condo Approved by 'C on 4/13/81(5-0) prolect to encroach into the bluff crest PA-87-172 Variance from number of building Approved by PC on 10112i87 (4-1) storos For a 21- unit apartment project I (two-story allowed: 3 stories proposed) 2231 Pacific Avenue ZE-79-21 Variance to allow a 14-unit condo Approved by PC on 8113179 (4-0) project to encroach into the bluff crest 2267 Pacille Avenue ZE-78-85 Variance to allow a 6-unit condo project Approved by PC on 6/12/78 (5(5-0) to encroach into the bluff crest plus deviation from era a requirements i ,_ e The or000sed aroiect is consistent with the General Plan/Zonina Code with regard to use, density and intensity. As noted earlier, the HDR (High Density Residential) General Plan Land Use designation allows residential development of up to 14.5 dwelling units/acre on this site; the proposed project is 14 dwelling units/acre and complies with all other applicable provisions of the Zoning Code for residential developments in the R2-HD zone. Therefore, the granting of the deviation will not allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation and any applicable specific plan for the property. Minor Modification • The minor modification is for a relatively minor 2-foot reduction in the building separation for the units. The project would still be subject to Code requirements as they pertain to Building and Fire safety. In addition, the reduction will not be materially detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of persons residing or working within the immediate vicinity of the project or to property and improvements within the neighborhood. As noted earlier, the project consists of quality architecture and building materials and is compatible and enhances the architecture and design of the existing and anticipated development in the vicinity. 4. Consideration of additional on -site guest parking spaces. The applicant is working with the property owner of the Victoria Square retail center to seek a shared access, ingress/egress, and parking easement to allow overflow guest parking in the evening hours. The applicant will provide an update on any progress at the public hearing for this project. 5. Comparison of residential density classifications in other Cities. The following table compares the High Density Residential (HDR) designations with other cities: COMPARISONS OF HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MAXIMUMS Fountain Valley 20 units per acre Garden Grove 60 units per acre Huntington Beach 35 units per acre Irvine 40 units per acre Newport Beach 50 units per acre Santa Ana 35 units per acre Westminster 25 units per acre Costa Mesa 20 units per acre (unless site -specific densities have been previously approved — i.e. North Costa Mesa Specific Plan) 6. Traffic Accident Data Traffic accident data compiled for the last 10 years by the Traffic Safety Division of the Costa Mesa Police Department is attached to this report. According to the summary, the total number of collisions near the intersection of Victoria Street and Valley Road (east of the project site) from January 1, 2005 to March 26, 2015 are as follows: • Total Collisions: 15 • Injury Collisions: 11 • Fatal Collisions: 0 According to the Transportation Services Division, the number of collisions is not considered high or at a level that would require any special attention. --I lq- PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CODE CONFORMANCE The proposed project would be in conformance with the following planning documents: • General Plan • Zoning Code Conformance with the City of Costa Mesa General Plan Future development of all land within the City of Costa Mesa is guided by the General Plan adopted in 2002. The Land Use Element of the General Plan directs long-range development in the City by indicating the location and extent of development to be allowed. The General Plan sets forth land use goals, policies, and objectives that guide new development. The proposed General Plan land use designation for the project area is High Density Residential (14.5 dwelling units to the acre maximum) which is compatible with the proposed zone change to R2-HD. The following analysis evaluates the proposed project's consistency with specific goals, and objectives of the General Plan, Land Use Element. • Goal LU-1: It is the goal of the City of Costa Mesa to provide its citizens with a balanced community of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, and institutional uses to satisfy the needs of the social and economic segments of the population and to retain the residential character of the City; to meet the competing demands for alternative developments within each land use classification within reasonable land use intensity limits; and to ensure the long term viability and productivity of the community's natural and man-made environments. Consistency: The project will provide additional ownership housing opportunities because the project is for 28-home ownership units. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project did not identify any adverse impacts to the natural environment and will not increase the need for significant infrastructure improvements. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this General Plan goal. • Objective LU-1A: Establish and maintain a balance of land uses throughout the community to preserve the residential character of the City at a level no greater than can be supported by the infrastructure. Consistency: The proposed project is an infill redevelopment project replacing an underutilized commercial building with residential uses. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project indicates that adequate infrastructure (i.e., roads, emergency, and utility services) is available to serve the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this General Plan objective. I-12D Objective LU-1A.4: Strongly encourage the development of...residential uses and owner -occupied housing where feasible to improve the balance between rental and ownership housing opportunities. Consistency: The project is consistent with the proposed High Density Residential General Plan Designation of the property. The project has been specifically designed for owner -occupied housing units. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this General Plan objective. Objective LU-1 F.5: Provide opportunities for the development of well planned and designed projects which, through vertical or horizontal integration, provide for the development of compatible residential uses within a single project or neighborhood. Consistency: The project has been designed with appropriate building articulation, setbacks and offsets to ensure that it is compatible with surrounding properties and uses. Therefore, the project is consistent with this General Plan objective. Goal LU-2: It is the goal of the City of Costa Mesa to establish development policies that will create and maintain an aesthetically pleasing and functional environment and minimize impacts on existing physical and social resources. Consistency: The project would allow for the redevelopment of property containing an underused commercial building. The proposed project would enhance the visual appearance of the site through implementation of the proposed landscape plan. In addition, the project would provide a high -quality architectural design to the project area. As required by a standard condition of approval on the project, landscaping treatment along the street frontage will be reviewed to ensure that adequate landscaping is provided to soften the edges of the development and provide compatibility with the surrounding area. As a result, the proposed project is supportive of this General Plan goal. • Objective LU-2A: Encourage new development and redevelopment to improve and maintain the quality of the environment. Consistency: As discussed later in this report, an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for this project per the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of the IS/MND is to identify any environmental impacts and, if an impact is determined, if it can be mitigated below a level of significance. Because the IS/MND determined that the project would not result in the loss of any habitat, or require extensive infrastructure improvements to provide service to the site, the proposed project is consistent with this objective. GZ1 - Conformance with the Zoning Code With the exception of the requested deviations, the proposed project meets or exceeds the intent of the City's Zoning Code with regard to the development standards for the R2- HD zone. Justifications for Approval Pursuant to Title 13, Section 13-29(g), Findings, of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, the Planning Commission shall find that the evidence presented in the administrative record substantially meets specified findings. Staff recommends approval of the proposed project, based on an assessment of facts and findings below which are also described in more detail in the draft approval resolution. General Plan Amendment Although Code Section 13-29(g) does not specify findings for General Plan Amendments, the project conforms to the specific goals and objectives of the General Plan Land Use Element as discussed in the previous section of this report. Rezone The proposed rezone is consistent with the Zoning Code and the Genera! Plan. The proposed project meets or exceeds the intent of the City's Zoning Code with regard to the development standards for the R2-HD zone, including density and on -site parking. The General Plan land use designation for the project area is High Density Residential (14.5 dwelling units to the acre maximum), which is compatible with the proposed zone change to R2-HD. The applicant is not seeking the maximum build out potential of 29 dwelling units within the R2-HD zone (28 units proposed). The project provides a maximum density of 14 dwelling units to the acre (28 units total). The maximum density is based on the gross acreage of the site. The following table provides a comparison of the maximum densities allowed in multi -family residential zones in the surrounding area. Proposed Project I R2-HD 1 14.5 du's per acre WestReef R2-MD 1 12 du's per acre 1259 Victoria Stonybrook, PDR-MD 12 du's per acre Meadowview, Sea Cove Lane 14 du's per acre 12 du's per acre 12 du's per acre -- ) 22 - Design Review • The project exhibits excellence in design, site planning, integration of uses and structures, and protects the integrity of neighboring development. The project will provide an ownership in -fill residential development that will be complementary to an urban setting. The proposed architecture and site design will enhance the street view and will be compatible with existing development in the area. The overall architectural design promotes excellence and compatibility. The variety of building elevations, materials and staggered massing diminishes the boxy design appearance consistent with the City's Residential Design Guidelines. • The project will provide on -site parking spaces that meets current parking standards (112 spaces required; 112 spaces proposed). As noted earlier, the project provides a total of 56 garage parking spaces, 42 driveway spaces, and 14 guest spaces are proposed, for a total of 112 on -site parking spaces or four spaces per unit, which complies with Code. Additionally, the applicant is continuing to work with the owner of Victoria Square to secure off -site parking for future guests of the project. Vesting Tentative Tract Map • The creation of the subdivision and related iM rovements is consistent with the General Plan and the Zonin Code is physicallV suitable to accommodate the subdivision in terms of e desi n and density of development, and is consistent with the State Subdivision Map Act. The overall design reflects a quality project that is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and General Plan. The creation of the subdivision is consistent with General Plan Land Use Element in that the project complies with Objectives 1A.4, 2A.7, and 2A.8 by developing owner - occupied housing to improve the balance between rental and ownership housing opportunities. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15073, the IS/MND was made available for a 30-day public review and comment period beginning on February 25, 2015, until March 27, 2015. A copy of the IS/MND is included with this report under separate cover. The consultant -has prepared an addendum to the IS/MND reflecting the proposed changes to the project, and is preparing a Responses to Comments received during the March 23, 2015 Planning Commission hearing, which will be provided separately prior to the meeting. - i Z3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Under CEQA, a "significant impact" represents a substantial or potentially substantial adverse physical change to the environment. In evaluating specific effects of the project on the environment, the IS/MND identifies thresholds of significance for each effect, evaluates the potential environmental change associated with each effect, and then characterizes the effects as impacts. With the implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND for the proposed project, all potentially significant impacts have been reduced to less than significant levels, as summarized in the following table: Potentially Significant Environmental Effects Noise Source Trumark IS/MND LEGAL REVIEW Level of Significance After Mitigation Measures Mitigation N0I-1: Sound Attenuation Walls. I Less than siqnificant The City Attorney has reviewed the draft ordinance and resolutions and they have been approved as to form by the City Attorney's Office. ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve the project with modifications. The Planning Commission may suggest specific changes that are necessary to alleviate concerns. If any of the additional requested changes are substantial, the item should be continued to a future meeting to allow a redesign or additional analysis. In the event of significant modifications to the proposal, should the Planning Commission choose to do so, staff will return with a revised resolution incorporating new findings and/or conditions. 2. Deny the project. If the Planning Commission believes that there are insufficient facts to support the findings for approval, Planning Commission must deny the application and provide facts in support of denial to be included in the attached draft resolution for denial. If the project were denied, the applicant could not submit substantially the same type of application for six months. The existing Neighborhood Commercial zoning would be in place. CONCLUSION Approval of the project will allow development of a 28-unit detached residential ownership development. The project satisfies the required findings for the proposed project and is 0� deemed to be a high -quality development, General Plan and Zoning Code. Therefore, MEL LEE, AICP Senior Planner therefore it is consistent with the intent of the staff recommendgs, approval of the project. CLAIRE FLYNN, AICP Asst. Development Services Director Attachments: 1. Draft General Plan Amendment Resolution, Rezone Ordinance, Project Resolutions, and Exhibits 2. Applicant's Project Description and Exhibits (Updated) 3. Vicinity, Zoning, and General Plan Maps 4. Existing Site Photos 5. Project Plans/Elevations/Perspectives 6. Traffic Study and Traffic Accident Data 7. Addendum to Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Original IS/MND Under Separate Cover) 8. Correspondence from Public Distribution: Director of Economic & Development Services/Deputy CEO Assistant Development Services Director Senior Deputy City Attorney Public Services Director City Engineer Transportation Services Manager Fire Protection Analyst Staff (6) File (2) Trumark Homes Attn: Eric Nelson 450 Newport Center Drive, #300 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Westar Holdings, Inc. 1239 Victoria Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 AECOM Attn: Thomas Holm, AICP 999 Town & Country Road Orange, CA 92868 ATTACHMENT 1 DRAFT RESOLUTIONS, ORDINANCE, AND EXHIBITS RESOLUTION NO. PC-15- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA RECOMMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS: (1) ADOPT THE INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION; (2) ADOPT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP-14-03 CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF A 2.04 ACRE SITE FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (NC) TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (HDR) LOCATED AT 1239 VICTORIA STREET; (3) GIVE FIRST READING TO REZONE R-14-03 TO CHANGE THE ZONING DISTRICT FROM ADMINISTRATIVE PROFESSIONAL TO MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL — HIGH DENSITY; AND (4) APPROVE MASTER PLAN PA-14-19 AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP VT-17779 THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa adopted the 2000 General Plan on January 22, 2002; WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65358(a) authorizes the City Council to amend the General Plan if it deemed to be in the public interest; WHEREAS, the General Plan is a long-range, comprehensive document that serves as a guide for the orderly development of the City of Costa Mesa; WHEREAS, by its very nature, the General Plan is subject to update and revision to account for current and future community needs; ­ 12.%- WHEREAS, an application was filed by Trumark Homes, representing the property owner, Westar Holdings, Inc., requesting approval of the following land use entitlements; 1. General Plan Amendment GP-14-03: General Plan amendment to change of Land Use Designation from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to High Density Residential (HDR). 2. Rezone R-14-03: Rezone from Administrative and Professional (AP) District to R2-HD (Multiple -Family Residential District, High Density), up to 14.5 dwelling units per acre. 3. Planning Application PA-14-19: A Design Review for development of a 28-unit Residential Planned Development at the site of an existing commercial/light industrial use. The project consists of the development of 28 single-family, detached residences with a net density of 14 dwelling units per acre. The three bedroom residences are three - stories with roof decks and have attached two -car garages. A total of 56 garage parking spaces, 42 driveway spaces, and 14 guest parking spaces are proposed (112 total spaces, four spaces per unit). The following Variances are requested: a) Open Space - a minimum of 40 percent required, 34.9 percent proposed. b) Rear Setback (20 feet required for second story; 10 feet proposed for second and third stories). c) Building Height (maximum 2 stories/27 feet required; 3 stories/roof deck/37 feet proposed). An Administrative Adjustment is required for the front building setback (20 feet required; 14 feet proposed). A Minor Modification is required to deviate from the distance from main buildings (10 feet required, 8 feet proposed). 4. Vesting Tentative Tract Map VT-17779: Subdivision of a 2.04-acre property for homeownership. WHEREAS, an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element is proposed to change the land use designation of the site for the development of the project as described above; WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment involves an amendment to the Land Use Map of the City of Costa Mesa (Exhibit 1); 1 :2-9 + WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment approval is pending the adoption of Ordinance No. 15- for Rezone R-14-03 (Exhibit 2); WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on March 23, 2015, and continued to April 13, 2015 with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council approval of the abovementioned land use entitlements; WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated through the State Clearinghouse, and the required 30-day public review period was specified from February 25, 2015, to March 27, 2015 for public review and comment; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Responses to Comments document, as well as public comments received to date, on or before the April 13, 2015 public hearing, prior to making a recommendation to approve the proposed project; WHEREAS, the final adoption of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be considered by the City Council as the final approval authority, after evaluation of the environmental document and all comments on the IS/MND received during the public review period; WHEREAS, written comments received from the general public, government entities, and other interested parties were responded to, where appropriate, in the manner prescribed in California Code of Regulations Section 15073; WHEREAS, no significant new information has been added to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and no changes to the proposed project have occurred which would 12cl require recirculation of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration under CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the environmental documentation comprising the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and has found that the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration considers all environmental impacts of the proposed project and a reasonable range of alternatives, and the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is complete, adequate, and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Costa Mesa Environmental Guidelines; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found that the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project reflects the independent judgment of the City of Costa Mesa; BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS THAT CITY COUNCIL take the following actions: (1) ADOPT the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration; (2) ADOPT General Plan Amendment GP-14-03, as shown in Exhibit 1; (3) GIVE FIRST READING TO REZONE R-14-03, as shown in Exhibit 2; (4) APPROVE Design Review PA-14-19 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map VT-17779 subject to findings contained in Exhibit A, conditions of approval in Exhibit B, and mitigation measures contained in Exhibit C; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon the activity as described in the staff report for General Plan Amendment GP-14-03, Rezone R-14-03, Planning Application PA-14-19, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map VT-17779 and upon the applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions in Exhibits B, and mitigation measures in Exhibit C, and compliance of all applicable federal, state, and local laws. Any approval granted by this resolution shall be subject to review, modification or revocation if there is a material change that occurs in the operation, or if the applicant fails to comply with any of the conditions of approval and/or mitigation measures. - 1 3© BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any section, division, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this resolution, or the documents in the record in support of this resolution, are for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 13T" day of April 2015. Robert L. Dickson, Jr. Chair, Costa Mesa Planning Commission STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, Claire Flynn, Secretary to the Planning Commission of the City of Costa Mesa, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the City of Costa Mesa Planning Commission held on April 13, 2015 by the following votes: AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS Claire L. Flynn, Secretary Costa Mesa Planning Commission 132- EXHIBIT 1 — GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP-14-03 Amendment to the Land Use Map and Related Land Use Table Change the land use designation of the 2.04-acre development site at 1239 Victoria Street from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to High Density Residential (HDR) Note: Updated text changes to the Land Use Summary Table of the General Plan are also required, as applicable. x COUNTY r' Cl2M 5«w*Goo PrwNLT J°o Y11 00 QOp t7 'od0 pb 00 oOdp 00 GLENEAGLE8 TER H DR 0 VICTORIA PL OG VALLEY CIR > . � J RIOGECR£3T AR r e SEA BLUFF DR LI EXHIBIT 2 — ORDINANCE NO. 15- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA APPROVING REZONE R-14-03 TO REZONE (OR CHANGE) A 2.04 ACRE SITE FROM AP (ADMINISTRATIVE AND PROFESSIONAL DISTRICT) TO MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL -HIGH DENSITY (PDR-HD) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1239 VICTORIA STREET. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed by Trumark Homes, representing the property owner, Westar Holdings, Inc., requesting approval of the following land use entitlements: Rezone R-14-03: Rezone (or change) of the zoning classification of the site from Administrative and Professional (AP) District to Multiple Family Residential — High Density (up to 14.5 dwelling units per acre) (R2-HD) District. This is being proposed in conjunction with the following land use entitlements: • General Plan Amendment GP-14-03: General Plan amendment to change of Land Use Designation from Neighborhood Commercial to High Density Residential. • Planning Application PA-14-19: A Design Review for development of a 28-unit Residential Planned Development at the site of an existing commercial/light industrial use. The project consists of the development of 28 single-family, detached residences with a net density of 14 dwelling units per acre. The three bedroom residences are three -stories with roof decks and have attached two -car garages. A total of 56 garage parking spaces, 42 driveway spaces, and 14 guest parking spaces are proposed (112 total spaces, four spaces per unit). • The following Variances are requested: o Open Space - a minimum of 40 percent required, 34.9 percent proposed. o Rear Setback (20 feet required for second story; 10 feet proposed for second and third stories). o Building Height (maximum 2 stories/27 feet required; 3 stories/roof deck/37 feet proposed). • An Administrative Adjustment is required for the front building setback (20 feet required; 14 feet proposed). 1 3's- • A Minor Modification is required to deviate from the distance from main buildings (10 feet required, 8 feet proposed). • Vesting Tentative Tract Map VT-17779: Subdivision of a 2.04-acre property for homeownership. WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on March 23, 2015, and continued to April 13, 2015 with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal; WHEREAS, at the April 13, 2015 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended that City Council take the following actions by separate Planning Commission resolution; (1) ADOPT the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration; (2) ADOPT General Plan Amendment GP-14-03, as shown in Exhibit 1; (3) GIVE FIRST READING TO REZONE R-14-03, as shown in Exhibit 2; (4) APPROVE Design Review PA-14-19 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map VT-17779 subject to findings contained in Exhibit A, conditions of approval in Exhibit B, and mitigation measures contained in Exhibit C; WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated from February 25, 2015, to March 27, 2015 for public review and comment; WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa received written comments from the general public, government entities, and other interested parties during the public review period; WHEREAS, written comments received from the general public, government entities, and other interested parties were responded to, where appropriate, in the manner prescribed in California Code of Regulations Section 15073; WHEREAS, no significant new information has been added to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and no changes to the proposed project have occurred which would —. 1 ,56-- require recirculation of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration under CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5; WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed all environmental documents comprising the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and has found that the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration considers all environmental impacts of the proposed project and a reasonable range of alternatives, and the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is complete, adequate, and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Costa Mesa Environmental Guidelines; WHEREAS, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project reflects the independent judgment of the City of Costa Mesa; BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record, the City Council hereby APPROVES as follows: SECTION 1: REZONE. The City of Costa Mesa Official Zoning Map is hereby amended as follows: 1. There is hereby placed and included in the R2-HD (Multiple Family Residential -High Density) zoning district a 2.04 -acre parcel, identified as County Assessor Parcel Number 422-322-18 and as shown in attached Exhibit B, situated in the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, State of California. 2. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 13-22 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, the Official Zoning Map of the City of Costa Mesa is hereby amended by the change of zone described in subsection #1 above and in the findings in respective Exhibit A. A copy of the Official Zoning Map is on file in the office of the Planning Division. SECTION 2: INCONSISTENCIES. Any provision of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and or further, is hereby repealed or modified to the extent necessary to affect the provisions of this ordinance. 139 SECTION 3: SEVERABILITY. If any provision or clause of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or clauses or applications of this ordinance which can be implemented without the invalid provision, clause or application; and to this end, the provisions of this ordinance are declared to be severable. SECTION 4: PUBLICATION. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force thirty (30) days from and after the passage thereof, and prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days from its passage shall be published once in the ORANGE COAST DAILY PILOT, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa or, in the alternative, the City Clerk may cause to be published a summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the text of this Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk five (5) days prior to the date of adoption of this Ordinance, and within fifteen (15) days after adoption, the City Clerk shall cause to be published the aforementioned summary and shall post in the office of the City Clerk a certified copy of this Ordinance together with the names and member of the City Council voting for and against the same. STEPHEN M. MENSINGER Mayor, City of Costa Mesa -rM STATE OF CALIFORNIA) )ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above Council Ordinance Number as considered at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of , 2015, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at the regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of , 2015, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City of Costa Mesa this day of , 2015 EXHIBIT 2A FINDINGS (APPROVAL) A. Required Finding: The proposed rezone is consistent with the Zoning Code and the General Plan. Facts In Support of Findings: The proposed project meets or exceeds the intent of the City's Zoning Code with regard to the development standards for the R2-HD zone, including density and on -site parking. The General Plan land use designation for the project area is High Density Residential (14.5 dwelling units to the acre maximum), which is compatible with the proposed zone change to R2-HD (Multiple Family Residential —High Density). The project provides a maximum density of 14 dwelling units to the acre. — 14 &� EXHIBIT 2B Amendment to the Zoning Map Change the zoning designation of the 2.04 -acre development site at 1239 Victoria Street from Administrative and Professional District (AP) to Multiple Family Residential- High Density (R2-HD) L COUNTY 6 1 1 C 1 2M S www GooPrm N CT Oq O QO IR2-W OLEIEAGLE s TM vd0 VICTORIA PL- -Ik2 FINDINGS (APPROVAL) I_1 consideration being given to compE community. This design review incluc open space, landscaping, appearance, windows, varied roof forms and roof design features. EXHIBIT A Finding: The proposed rezone is consistent with the Zoning Code and the General Plan. Facts In Support of Findings: The proposed project meets or exceeds the intent of the City's Zoning Code with regard to the development standards for the R2-HD zone, including density and on -site parking. The General Plan land use designation for the project area is High Density Residential (14.5 dwelling units to the acre maximum), which is compatible with the proposed zone change to R2-HD (Multiple Family Residential — High Density). The project provides a maximum density of 14 dwelling units to the acre. The proposed project complies with Title 13, Section 13-29(g)(14), Design Review, of the Municipal Code due to the following: Finding: The project complies with the City of Costa mesa Zoning Code and meets the purpose and intent of the Residential Design Guidelines, which are intended to promote excellence in new residential construction, with itibility with the established residential les site planning, preservation of overall mass and scale of structures, location of plane breaks, and any other applicable Facts in Support of Findings: The project is consistent with the following goals and objectives of the General Plan, Land Use Element. • Goal LU-1: It is the goal of the City of Costa Mesa to provide its citizens with a balanced community of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, and institutional uses to satisfy the needs of the social and economic segments of the population and to retain the residential character of the City; to meet the competing demands for alternative developments within each land use classification within reasonable land use intensity limits, and to ensure the long term viability and productivity of the community's natural and man-made environments. Consistency: The project will provide additional ownership housing opportunities because the project is for 28-home ownership units. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project did not identify any adverse impacts to the natural environment and will not increase the need for significant infrastructure improvements. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this General Plan goal. I113, • Objective LU-1 A: Establish and maintain a balance of land uses throughout the community to preserve the residential character of the City at a level no greater than can be supported by the infrastructure. Consistency: The proposed project is an infill redevelopment project replacing an underutilized commercial building with residential uses. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project indicates that adequate infrastructure (i.e., roads, emergency, and utility services) is available to serve the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this General Plan objective. • Objective LU-1 A.4: Strongly encourage the development of...residential uses and owner -occupied housing where feasible to improve the balance between rental and ownership housing opportunities. Consistency: The project is consistent with the proposed High Density Residential General Plan Designation of the property, which allows a maximum of 40 units for the site (28 units are proposed). The project has been specifically designed for owner -occupied housing units. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this General Plan objective. • Objective LU-1 F.5: Provide opportunities for the development of well planned and designed projects which, through vertical or horizontal integration, provide for the development of compatible residential uses within a single project or neighborhood. Consistency: The project has been designed with appropriate building articulation, setbacks and offsets to ensure that it is compatible with surrounding properties and uses. Therefore, the project is consistent with this General Plan objective. • Goal LU-2: It is the goal of the City of Costa Mesa to establish development policies that will create and maintain an aesthetically pleasing and functional environment and minimize impacts on existing physical and social resources. Consistency. The project would allow for the redevelopment of property containing an underused commercial building. The proposed project would enhance the visual appearance of the site through implementation of the proposed landscape plan. In addition, the project would provide a high - quality architectural design to the project area. As required by a standard condition of approval on the project, landscaping treatment along the street frontage will be reviewed to ensure that adequate landscaping is provided to soften the edges of the development and provide compatibility with the surrounding area. As a result, the proposed project is supportive of this General Plan goal. Objective LU-2A: Encourage new development and redevelopment to improve and maintain the quality of the environment. Consistency: An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for this project per the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of the IS/MND is to identify any environmental impacts and, if an impact is determined, if it can be mitigated below a level of significance. Because the IS/MND determined that the project would not result in the loss of any habitat, or require extensive infrastructure improvements to provide service to the site, the proposed project is consistent with this objective. The proposed project meets or exceeds the intent of the City's Zoning Code with regard to the development standards for the R2-HD zone, including lot sizes, building setbacks, open space, and on -site parking; specifically, as noted below. • The project exhibits excellence in design, site planning, integration of uses and structures, and .protect the integrity of neighboring development. The project will provide an ownership in -fill residential development that will be complementary to an urban setting. The proposed architecture and site design will enhance the street view and will be compatible with existing development in the area. The overall architectural design promotes excellence and compatibility. The variety of building elevations, materials and staggered massing diminishes the boxy design appearance consistent with the City's Residential Design Guidelines. The protect will provide on -site parking spaces that meets current parkinc standards (112 spaces required; 112 spaces proposed). As noted earlier, the project would The project provides a total of 56 garage parking spaces, 42 driveway spaces, and 14 guest spaces are proposed, for a total of 112 on -site parking spaces or four spaces per unit, which complies with Code. • The proiect will not significantly impact key intersections which would continue to operate at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS). As part of the IS/MND a traffic study was prepared which concluded that, due to the commercial use this project is replacing, the proposed project will result in 139 fewer daily trips, 40 fewer AM peak hour trips, and 26 fewer PM peak hour trips. The proposed project would have a lesser impact on the surrounding street system than the existing land use during the critical weekday AM hour and PM peak hour. Given the reduction in traffic generation resulting from the proposed project, no traffic impacts are forecast and no traffic mitigation is required. _--_ I-15 C. The proposed tentative tract map complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(13) because: Finding: The creation of the subdivision and related improvements is consistent with the General Plan and the Zoning Code. Facts in Support of Findings: The creation of the subdivision is consistent with General Plan Land Use Element in that the project complies with Objectives 1A.4, 2A.7, and 2A.8 by developing owner - occupied housing to improve the balance between rental and ownership housing opportunities, the project provides sufficient easements as a common interest development, and encourages increased private market investment in declining or deteriorating neighborhoods. The subdivision complies with the State Subdivision Map Act. Finding: The proposed use of the subdivision is compatible with the General Plan. Facts in Support of Findings: The HDR (High Density Residential) General Plan Land Use designation allows residential development of up to 14.5 dwelling units/acre on this site; the proposed project is 14 dwelling units/acre and complies with all other applicable provisions of the Zoning Code for residential developments in the R2-HD zone. Finding: The subject property is physically suitable to accommodate the subdivision in terms of type, design, and density of development, and will not result in substantial environmental damage nor public health problems, based on compliance with the Zoning Code and General Plan, and consideration of appropriate environmental information. Facts in Support of Findings: The overall design reflects a quality project that is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and General Plan. The will not create an adverse impact on the environment. Finding: The design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities in the subdivision, as required by State Government Code Section 66473.1. Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed buildings include openings in an east -west direction to take advantage of passive solar heating as well as passive ventilation from ocean breezes. The inclusion of trees will also help provide shade to the residential units within the development. Finding: The subdivision and development of the property will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of the public entity and/or public utility rights -of -way and/or easements within the tract. ','4 Facts in Support of Findings: As conditioned, the proposed project does not interfere with the public right-of-way. The recommended improvements along the public streets abutting the project site will improve the public right-of-ways for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Finding: The discharge of sewage from this subdivision into the public sewer system will not violate the requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000 of the Water Code). Facts in Support of Findings: The applicant will be required to comply with all regulations set forth by the Costa Mesa Sanitation District as well as the Mesa Water District. D. The requested variance and administrative adjustment substantially complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(1) in that: Findings: • Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, the strict application of development standards deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by others in the vicinity. • The deviation shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with other properties in the vicinity. • The granting of the deviation will not allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation for the property. Facts in Support of Findings: • Because of special circumstances applicable to the property. the strict application of development standards deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by others in the vicinity. The purpose of the 20-foot setback requirement is to provide a visual buffer between the public sidewalk and any perimeter walls or buildings. The proposed project is located on site that has several special circumstances due to lot shape and topography. Specifically, the northerly boundary of the site, along the Victoria Street frontage, has a 30% slope, preventing a typical orientation of a building at 900 angle to the street. Additionally, although the site does not provide the minimum required setback as measured from its narrowest point (at Lot 28) the proposed development provides the average required perimeter landscaping since several areas exceed 20 feet in depth (33 feet in depth in front of Lot 17, for example). With regard to overall open space and building height, the same conditions for unusual lot shape and topography as discussed above apply. Additionally, the project proposes roof top decks for each unit ranging in size from 418 square feet to 522 square feet in addition to the ground -level private yard area for each E lot. Roof decks are not typically calculated as part of the required open space; however, if the variance were to be approved to allow the roof decks to count as open space, it would add 13,524 square feet of open space to the project, thereby meeting the intent of the Zoning Code open space requirement. • The deviation authorized does not constitute a rant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated. Although the abutting Westreef project provided code -compliant open space (40% required; 45% provided) the approval also included a variance from the 20-foot front landscape requirement (20 feet required; 10 feet proposed). Therefore, the strict application of the 20-foot setback requirement for this project deprives the subject property of privileges enjoyed by others in the vicinity. The existing residential properties along Gleneagles Terrace, Sea Bluff Drive, and Valley Road consist of one- and two-story structures. The proposed units will be 3-stories / 37 feet in height with a roof deck on the top story. For the building height variance is required, the following table provides context for multi -family residential developments in the area that have been approved with a three-story building height. 2209 — 2219 PA-87-172 Variance from building height for Pacific Avenue Approved a 21-unit apartment project (two 10/1987 stories allowed; three stories approved).— 1259 Victoria PA-12-24 Variance from building height for Street Approved Building Complex 1 and 3 (Westreef) 4/2013 (two stories/27 feet allowed; three stories/35-37 feet approved) While the subject property is not located along the bluff crest, other multi- family projects have been approved with encroachment into setback requirements. The proposed protect is consistent with the General PlanfZonina Cade with regard to use, density and intensity. As noted earlier, the HDR (High Density Residential) General Plan Land Use designation allows residential development of up to 14.5 dwelling units/acre on this site; the proposed project is 14 dwelling units/acre and complies with all other applicable provisions of the Zoning Code for residential developments in the R2-HD zone. Therefore, the granting of the deviation will not allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation and any applicable specific plan for the property. Code Section 13-29(g)(6) requires any of the following findings for minor modifications: Findings: • The improvement will not be materially detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of persons residing or working within the immediate vicinity of the project or to property and improvements within the neighborhood. • The improvement is compatible and enhances the architecture and design of the existing and anticipated development in the vicinity. This includes the site planning, land coverage landscaping, appearance, scale of structures, open space, and any other applicable features relative to a compatible and attractive development. Facts in Support of Findings: The minor modification is for a relativel minor 2-foot reduction in the building separation for the units. The project would still be subject to Code requirements as they pertain to Building and Fire safety. In addition, the reduction will not be materially detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of persons residing or working within the immediate vicinity of the project or to property and improvements within the neighborhood. As noted earlier, the project consists of quality architecture and building materials and is compatible and enhances the architecture and design of the existing and anticipated development in the vicinity. F. The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City's environmental procedures. An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Mitigation measures from the IS/MND have been included as Exhibit C. If any of these conditions are removed, the decision -making body must make a finding that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts, that the conditions are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency, or that specific economic, social or other considerations make the mitigation measures infeasible. G. The project is exempt from Chapter XII, Article 3, Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. H. The subject property is physically suitable to accommodate the proposed subdivision in terms of type, design, and density of development, and will not result in substantial environmental damage nor public health problems, based on compliance with the purpose and intent of the City's Zoning Code and General Plan, as amended. The design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities in the subdivision, as required by Government Code Section 66473.1. ^i�q The subdivision will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of the public entity and/or public utility rights -of -way and/or easements within the subdivision. The discharge of sewage from this subdivision into the public sewer system will not violate the requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000 of the Water Code). EXHIBIT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Ping. 1. Planning Application PA-14-19 and Vesting Tentative Tract VT-17779 shall comply with the conditions of approval, code requirements, special district requirements, and mitigation measures of the IS/MND for this project and as listed in the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program (Exhibit C). 2. Mitigation measures from the IS/MND for this project have been included as Exhibit C. If any of these conditions are removed, the Planning Commission must make a finding that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts, that the conditions are within the responsibility of another public agency, or that specific economic, social, or other considerations make the mitigation measures infeasible. 3. The conditions of approval including Mitigation Measures incorporated by reference in these Conditions of Approval as Exhibit C, code requirements, and special district requirements of PA-14-19 and VT-17779 shall be blueprinted on the face of the site plan as part of the plan check submittal package. 4. The expiration of Planning Application PA-14-19 shall coincide with the expiration of the approval of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map VT-17779 which is valid for two years. An extension request is needed to extend the expiration for each additional year after the initial two-year period. The Vesting Tentative Tract Map shall be processed as a common interest residential development map consistent with Section 13-41 of the Zoning Code. 5. Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall implement the pre - negotiated modifications, including but not limited to, window locations, exterior staircases, roofdecks, landscape plans, and any other applicable deal points made with the specified adjacent neighbors at Sea Bluff Drive and Valley Road to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director. 6. A decorative 7-foot high perimeter block wall shall be constructed along the rear boundary of the site where the current 5-foot high block wall is located. Where walls or fences on adjacent properties already exist, the applicant shall work with the adjacent property owner(s) to prevent side -by -side walls with gaps in between them. The interior fences or walls between the units shall be a minimum of six feet in height, except as noted in the noise mitigation measures for this project. 7. The maximum height of the building, including any mechanical equipment and rooftop appurtenances in the top story roofdeck, shall be 37 feet. No outdoor amplified music or storage of materials visible from adjacent residential properties shall occur on the rooftop level. The railing of the roofdeck area shall be a minimum of 42" inches and shall be obscure. Other than the minimal lighting required for safety and security purposes, no additional outdoor or decorative lighting shall be installed within the roofdeck area. The boundaries or limits of the roofdeck area for Lots 4 through 9 shall be modified - IfTi- / reduced in sized to provide additional setback from the rear of the property to address privacy impacts to the extent feasible. 8. The open, unassigned parking spaces within the private street shall be clearly marked as guest parking spaces. Signage will be posted to indicate that these spaces are available to all visitors. The number of on -site parking spaces required for this project shall be shown on the final construction drawings. Open parking spaces be designated as unreserved, available, open guest parking for all visitors to the site. Signage will be posted to indicate that these spaces are available to all visitors. Vehicle parking on individual driveway less than 19-feet in length is expressly prohibited. 9. Prior to issuance of building permits, a final landscape plan indicating the landscape palette and the design/material of paved areas shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Division. The developer shall provide decorative hardscape and landscape treatments as shown on the conceptual plans to provide visual relief for the project from the street. Final materials shall be subject to approval by the Planning Division. 10. The landscape setback area along Victoria Street shall be landscaped with trees and vegetation. The landscape plan shall be approved prior to issuance of building permits and shall contain additional 24-inch box trees above the minimum Code requirements to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director. Compliance with this requirement may include upgrading smaller sized trees to 24-inch box trees or providing additional 24-inch box trees. Landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans prior to final inspection or occupancy clearance. 11. Prior to issuance of building permits, developer shall contact the U.S. Postal Service with regard to location and design of mail delivery facilities. Such facilities shall be shown on the site plan, landscape plan, and/or floor plan. 12. No modification(s) of the approved building elevations including, but not limited to, change of architectural type, changes that increase the building height, removal of building articulation, or a change of the finish material(s), shall be made during construction without prior Planning Division written approval. Failure to obtain prior Planning Division approval of the modification could result in the requirement of the applicant to (re)process the modification through a discretionary review process or a variance, or in the requirement to modify the construction to reflect the approved plans. 13. Prior to issuance of grading permits, developer shall identify to the Development Services Director a construction relations officer to act as a community liaison concerning on -site activity, including resolution of issues related to dust generation from grading/paving activities. The community liaison shall provide a 24-hour hotline to the surrounding residents within 500 feet of the subject property to report any concerns during the construction of the project. The concerns shall be addressed within a reasonable time period (generally 72 hours) to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director. The community liaison shall provide a weekly report indicating the complaints received and resolution implemented. 14. The upper level windows shall be designed to minimize direct views into second - floor windows for residences on abutting properties. 15. Prior to the issuance of Building Permits, the Applicant shall submit a Lighting Plan and Photometric Study for the approval of the City's Development Services Department. The Lighting Plan shall demonstrate compliance with the following: a. The mounting height of lights on light standards shall not exceed 18 feet in any location on the Project site unless approved by the Development Services Director. There shall not be in permanent light standards (other than light bollards) installed in the roof deck area. b. The intensity and location of lights on buildings shall be subject to the Development Services Director's approval. c. All site lighting fixtures shall be provided with a flat glass lens. Photometric calculations shall indicate the effect of the flat glass lens fixture efficiency. d. Lighting design and layout shall limit spill light to no more than 0.5 foot candle at the property line of the surrounding neighbors, consistent with the level of lighting that is deemed necessary for safety and security purposes on site. e. Glare shields may be required for select light standards. f. If proposed, light standards on roof decks shall be located and oriented in such a way as to minimize light spillage onto surrounding properties. 16. Prior to issuance of grading permits, developer shall submit for review and approval a Construction Management Plan. This plan features methods to minimize disruption to the neighboring residential uses to the fullest extent that is reasonable and practicable. The plan shall include construction parking and vehicle access and specifying staging areas and delivery and hauling truck routes. The plan should mitigate disruption to residents during construction. The truck route , plan shall preclude truck routes through residential areas and major truck traffic during peak hours. The total truck trips to the site shall not exceed 200 trucks per day (i.e., 100 truck trips to the site plus 100 truck trips from the site) unless approved by the Development Services Director or Transportation Services Manager. - 1 !!Y?a- 17. The subject property's ultimate finished grade level may not be filled/raised in excess of 36 inches above the finished grade of any abutting property. If additional fill dirt is needed to provide acceptable on -site storm water flow to a public street, an alternative means of accommodating that drainage shall be approved by the City's Building Official prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Such alternatives may include subsurface tie-in to public storm water facilities, subsurface drainage collection systems and/or sumps with mechanical pump discharge in -lieu of gravity flow. If mechanical pump method is determined appropriate, said mechanical pump(s) shall continuously be maintained in working order. In any case, development of subject property shall preserve or improve the existing pattern of drainage on abutting properties. 18. If the project is constructed in phases, the perimeter wall, landscaping along the street frontage and irrigation shall be installed prior to the release of utilities for the first phase. 19. The applicant shall contact the Planning Division to arrange a Planning inspection of the site prior to the release of occupancy/utilities. This inspection is to confirm that the conditions of approval and code requirements have been satisfied. 20. Trash facilities shall be screened from view, and designed and located appropriately to minimize potential noise and odor impacts to residential areas. 21. To avoid an alley -like appearance, the private street shall not be developed with a center concrete swale. The private street shall be complemented by stamped concrete or pervious pavers. 22. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) to the Development Services Director and City Attorney's office for review. The CC&Rs must be in a form and substance acceptable to, and shall be approved by the Development Services Director and City Attorney's office. a. The CC&Rs shall contain provisions requiring that the HOA homeowner's association (HOA) effectively manage parking and contract with a towing service to enforce the parking regulations. b. The CC&Rs shall also contain provisions related to night-time lighting and active use of the roof decks. These provisions shall prohibit amplified noise, loud parties/gatherings, night-time lighting after 9:00 PM other than for security purposes, or any other activities that may be disruptive to the quiet enjoyment of neighboring properties after 9:00 PM. c. The CC&Rs shall also contain provisions related to preservation and maintenance of the common lot and common open space areas in perpetuity by the homeowner's association. The CC&Rs shall also contain the buyer's notice as an exhibit. d. The CC&Rs shall contain a notice that all open parking spaces which are not located on an individual driveway shall be unassigned and available for visitors. e. The CC&R's shall contain restrictions requiring residents to park vehicles in garage spaces provided for each unit. Storage of other items may occur only to the extent that vehicles may still be parked within the required garage at the number for which the garage was originally designed and to allow for inspections by the association to verify compliance with this condition. f. The CC&Rs shall contain restrictions prohibiting parking in the 5-foot deep driveways in front of the garage doors for the Plan 2 Units. g. The CC&Rs shall contain provisions requiring that the Homeowner's Association submit a signed affidavit to the City of Costa Mesa on an annual basis to certify the following: o The two -car garages in the residential community are being used for vehicle parking by the resident(s). o The vehicle parking areas within the garage are not obstructed by storage items, including but not limited to, toys, clothing, tools, boxes, equipment, etc. o The resident(s) have consented to voluntary inspections of the garage to verify the parking availability, as needed. o The form and content of the affidavit shall be provided by the City Attorney's office. Failure to file the annual affidavit is considered a violation of this condition. h. Any subsequent revisions to the CC&Rs related to these provisions must be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney's office and the Development Services Director before they become effective. 23. The CC&Rs shall be recorded prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy. Applicant shall provide proof of establishment of a homeowners association prior to release of any utilities prior to selling any of the units as condominiums. 24. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide proof of recordation of Vesting Tract Map 17779. - 15 25. Transformers, backflow preventers, and any other approved above -ground utility improvement shall be located outside of the required street setback area and shall be screened from view, under direction of Planning staff. Any deviation from this requirement shall be subject to review and approval of the Development Services Director. 26. Applicant shall plant mature trees (24-inch box trees) with a minimum height of 15 feet in the rear yards of Lots 3 through 9 and Lot 23 to provide visual screening for privacy purposes. The CC&Rs shall reflect that these trees be maintained (or replaced if necessary) in the rear yard to provide a permanent landscape buffer between the properties at the homeowner's expense in the future. 27. In the event that archaeological resources are encountered during grading and construction, all construction activities shall be temporarily halted or redirected to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of archaeological materials as determined by the City, who shall establish, in cooperation with the project applicant and a certified archaeologist, the appropriate procedures for exploration and/or salvage of the artifacts. 28. In the event that paleontological resources are encountered during grading and construction operations, all construction activities shall be temporarily halted or redirected to permit a qualified paleontologist to assess the find for significance and, if necessary, develop a paleontological resources impact mitigation plan (PRIMP) for the review and approval by the City prior to resuming excavation activities. 29. If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 24 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. 30. An opportunity shall be provided for a certified Native American Monitor (NAM) to be present during the first week of ground disturbance activities. In the event that additional cultural deposits are uncovered during ground disturbance operations, the NAM shall be empowered to halt or divert work in the vicinity of the find until the nature and the significance of the discovery is determined. 31. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officials, agents, officers and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding (collectively referred to as "proceeding") brought against the City, its elected and appointed officials, agents, officers or employees arising out of, ," 15-60- or which are in any way related to, the applicant's project, or any approvals granted by City related to the applicant's project. The indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against the City, if any, and cost of suit, attorney's fees, and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred in connection with such proceeding whether incurred by the applicant, the City and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. This indemnity provision shall include the applicant's obligation to indemnify the City for all the City's costs, fees, and damages that the City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this section. City shall have the right to choose its own legal counsel to represent the City's interests, and applicant shall indemnify City for all such costs incurred by City. Eng. 32. Comply with the requirements contained in the letter prepared by the City Engineer (Exhibit B1). 33. Maintain the public right-of-way in a "wet -down" condition to prevent excessive dust and promptly remove any spillage from the public right-of-way by sweeping or sprinkling. Trans. 34. The westerly project driveway shall be restricted to right-in/right-out access while the easterly driveway remains a full access driveway. The right-in/right- out restriction at the westerly driveway shall be implemented by constructing a raised median on Victoria Street, subject to final review and approval by the Transportation Services Manager and the Development Services Director. Bldg. 35. The applicant shall submit a soils report for this project. Soils report recommendation shall be blueprinted on both the architectural and grading plans. Soils report shall contain recommendations on how to protect the subject and neighboring properties. Design, grading, and construction shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of the California Building Code applicable at the time of grading as well as the appropriate local grading regulations, and the recommendations of the project geotechnical consultant as summarized in a final written report, subject to review by the City of Costa Mesa Building official prior to issuance of grading permits. — Isq_ CODE REQUIREMENTS The following list of federal, state and local laws applicable to the project has been compiled by staff for the applicant's reference. Any reference to "City" pertains to the City of Costa Mesa. Ping. 1. All contractors and subcontractors must have valid business licenses to do business in the City of Costa Mesa. Final inspections, final occupancy and utility releases will not be granted until all such licenses have been obtained. 2. Address assignment shall be requested from the Planning Division prior to submittal of working drawings for plan check. The approved address of individual units, suites, buildings, etc., shall be blueprinted on the site plan and on all floor plans in the working drawings. 3. Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall contact the US Postal Service with regard to location and design of mail delivery facilities. Such facilities shall be shown on the site plan, landscape plan, and/or floor plan. 4. Pay Park fee prior to building permit issuance or certificate of occupancy. Applicable fee shall be that fee in effect at the time the subdivision application is filed with the City. 5. A minimum 20-foot by 20-foot clear interior dimension shall be provided for all garages. 6. Minimum garage door width shall be 16 feet. 7. All garages shall be provided with automatic garage door openers. 8. Hours of construction shall comply with Section 13-279, Title 13, of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. 9. Two (2) sets of detailed landscape and irrigation plans, which meet the requirements set forth in Costa Mesa Municipal Code Sections 13-101 through 13-108 and the City's Water Efficient Landscape Guidelines, shall be required as part of the project plan check review and approval process. Plans shall be forwarded to the Planning Division for final approval prior to issuance of building permits. 10. Two (2) sets of landscape and irrigation plans, approved by the Planning Division, shall be attached to two of the final building plan sets. 11. All on -site utility services shall be installed underground. 12. Installation of all utility meters shall be performed in a manner so as to obscure the installation from view from any place on or off the property. The installation shall be in a manner acceptable to the public utility and shall be in the form of a vault, wall cabinet, or wall box under the direction of the Planning Division. 13. Any mechanical equipment such as air-conditioning equipment and duct work shall be screened from view in a manner approved by the Planning Division. 14. All construction contractors shall comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regulations, including Rule 403, Fugitive I sz� Dust. All grading (regardless of acreage) shall apply best available control measures for fugitive dust in accordance with Rule 403. To ensure that the project is in full compliance with applicable SCAQMD dust regulations and that there is no nuisance impact offsite, the contractor would implement each of the following: a. Moisten soil not more than 15 minutes prior to moving soil or conduct whatever watering is necessary to prevent visible dust emissions from exceeding 100 feet in any direction. b. Water excavated soil piles hourly or covered with temporary coverings. c. Water exposed surfaces at least twice a day under calm conditions. Water as often as needed on windy days when winds are less than 25 miles per hour or during very dry weather in order to maintain a surface crust and prevent the release of visible emissions from the construction site. d. Minimize dirt track -out from the project site by employing either vehicle wash stations, rumble plates or graveling as per specifications in Rule 403. e. Provide for street sweeping, as needed, on adjacent roadways to remove dirt dropped by construction vehicles or mud, which would otherwise be carried off by trucks departing project sites. f. Securely cover loads with a tight fitting tarp on any truck leaving the construction sites to dispose of debris. g. Cease grading during period when winds exceed 25 miles per hour. 15. SCAQMD Rule 445 prohibits permanently installed wood burning devices into any new development. A wood burning device means any fireplace, wood burning heater, or pellet -fueled wood heater, or any similarly enclosed, permanently installed, indoor or outdoor device burning any solid fuel for aesthetic or space -heating purposes, which has a heat input of less than one million British thermal units per hour. 16. The Project shall comply with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations established by the energy conservation standards. 17. Each of the conclusions and recommendations specified in the Geotechnical Evaluation for the Proposed Development at 1239 Victoria Street, City of Costa Mesa, California (LGC Geotechnical, Inc., April 28, 2014) shall be incorporated into the Project's design considerations, plans, and job specifications. 18. Prior to the issuance of Grading Permits, the Project Applicant shall provide the City of Costa Mesa Department of Building Safety with a geotechnical investigation of the project site detailing recommendations for remedial grading in order to reduce the potential of onsite soils to cause unstable conditions. Design, grading, and construction shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of the California Building Code applicable at the time of grading, appropriate local grading regulations, and the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant as summarized in a final written report, subject to review by the City of Costa Mesa Department of Building Safety. 19. The Project shall comply with the NPDES requirements, as follows: a. Construction General Permit Notice of Intent (NOI) Design: Prior to the issuance of preliminary or precise grading permits, the project applicant shall provide the City Engineer with evidence that an NOI has been filed with the Storm Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Such evidence shall consist of a copy of the NOI stamped by the SWRCB or Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), or a letter from either agency stating that the NOI has been filed. b. Construction Phase Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP): Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare a SWPPP that complies with the Construction General Permit and will include at a minimum the following: • Discuss in detail the BMPs planned for the project related to control of sediment and erosion, non -sediment pollutants, and potential pollutants in non -storm water discharges; and • Describe post -construction BMPs for the Project. c. Explain the maintenance program for the Project's BMPs. d. List the parties responsible for the SWPPP implementation and the BMP maintenance during and after grading. The Project Applicant shall implement the SWPPP and modify the SWPPP as directed by the Construction General Permit. 20. During demolition, grading, and excavation, workers shall comply with the requirements of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 1529, which provides for exposure limits, exposure monitoring, respiratory protection, and good working practices by workers exposed to asbestos. Asbestos -contaminated debris and other wastes shall be managed and disposed of in accordance with the applicable provision of the California Health and Safety Code. 21. During demolition, grading, and excavation, workers shall comply with the requirements of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 1532.1, which provides for exposure limits, exposure monitoring, respiratory protection, and good working practice by workers exposed to lead. Lead - contaminated debris and other wastes shall be managed and disposed of in accordance with the applicable provision of the California Health and Safety Code. 22. In order to comply with the 2003 DAMP, the proposed Project shall prepare a Storm Drain Plan, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) conforming to the current National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, prepared by - i LD_ a Licensed Civil Engineer or Environmental Engineer, which shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. a. The SWPPP shall be prepared and updated as needed during the course of construction to satisfy the requirements of each phase of development. b. The plan shall incorporate all necessary Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other City requirements to eliminate polluted runoff until all construction work for the project is completed. The SWPPP shall include treatment and disposal of all dewatering operation flows and for nuisance flows during construction. c. A WQMP shall be maintained and updated as needed to satisfy the requirements of the adopted NPDES program. The plan shall ensure that the existing water quality measures for all improved phases of the project are adhered to. d. Location of the BMPs shall not be within the public right-of-way. 23. Prior to approval of Plans, the Project shall fulfill the City of Costa Mesa Drainage Ordinance No. 06-19 requirements. 24. The final master plan for development of the Project site shall provide sufficient capacity for fire flows required by the City of Costa Mesa Fire Department. 25. Vehicular access shall be provided and maintained serviceable throughout construction to all required fire hydrants. 26. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the City of Costa Mesa Fire Department shall review and approve the developer's Project design features to assess compliance with the California Building Code and California Fire Code. 27. The Project shall provide fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A to be located within 75 feet of travel distance from all areas. Extinguishers may be of a type rated 2A, 10BC as these extinguishers are suitable for all types of fires and are less expensive. 28. The Project shall provide an automatic fire sprinkler system according to NFPA 13 R. 29. The Project shall provide a fire alarm system. 30. The Project shall provide individual numeric signage for proposed residences with minimum 6 inches height. 31. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Developer shall pay a school impact fee currently calculated at $1.84 per square foot for residential development and $0.30 per square foot for commercial development. 32. As final building plans are submitted to the City of Costa Mesa for review and approval, the Costa Mesa Police Department shall review all plans for the purpose of ensuring that design requirements are incorporated into the building design to increase safety and avoid unsafe conditions. These measures focus 10I on security measures are recommended by the Police Department, including but not limited to, the following: a. Lighting shall be provided in open areas and parking lots. b. Required building address numbers shall be readily apparent from the street and rooftop building identification shall be readily apparent from police helicopters for emergency response agencies. c. Landscaping requirements. d. Emergency vehicle parking areas shall be designated within proximity to buildings. e. The applicant shall fund all costs associated with police and fire radio reception enhancement, including a Bi-Directional Amplifying 800 MHz antenna (BDA). f. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the City of Costa Mesa Police Department shall review and approve the developer's project design features to ensure adequate security measures are incorporated into the project design. 33. Prior to demolition activities, removal and/or abatement of asbestos containing building materials, lead based paints, and hazardous materials associated with the existing building materials shall be conducted by a qualified environmental professional in consultation with the Costa Mesa Fire Department. An asbestos and hazardous materials abatement specification shall be developed by the qualified environmental professional, in order to clearly define the scope and objective of the abatement activities. 34. Prior to investigations, demolition, or renovation, all activities shall be coordinated with Dig Alert (811). 35. Visual inspections for areas of impact to soil shall be conducted during site grading. If unknown or suspect materials are discovered during construction by the contractor that are believed to involve hazardous wastes or materials, the contractor shall: a. Immediately stop work in the vicinity of the suspected contaminant, removing workers and the public from the area; b. Notify the City Engineer and Costa Mesa Fire Department; c. Secure the area(s) in question; and d. Implement required corrective actions, including remediation if applicable. (02_ 36. Prior to the issuance of any Grading Permit, the Applicant shall: a. Prepared a detailed Hydrology Study, approved by the City Engineer. b. Design all storm drain facilities, approved by the City Engineer, for 25-year storm event protection. c. Design all storm drains in the public right-of-way to be a minimum of 24 inches by City of Costa Mesa requirements and in accordance with the Orange County Local Drainage Manual including a minimum spacing between manholes of 300 feet. Bldg. 37. Comply with the requirements of the 2013 California Building Code, 2013 California Residential Code, 2013 California Electrical Code, 2013 California Mechanical Code, 2013 California Plumbing Code, 2013 California Green Building Standards Code and 2013 California Energy Code (or the applicable adopted, California Building Code, California Residential Code, California Electrical Code, California Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code, California Green Building Standards, and California Energy Code at the time of plan submittal or permit issuance) and California Code of Regulations also known as the California Building Standards Code, as amended by the City of Costa Mesa. Requirements for accessibility to sites, facilities, buildings, and elements by individuals with disability shall comply with Chapter 11 B of the 2013 California Building Code. 38. Submit a precise grading plan, an erosion control plan and a hydrology study. 39. Submit a soils report for this project. Soils report recommendations shall be blueprinted on both the architectural and grading plans. 40. On graded sites the top of exterior foundation shall extend above the elevation of the street gutter at point of discharge or the inlet of an approved discharge devise a minimum of 12 inches plus 2 percent. 2013 California Building Code CRC 403.1.7.3. 41. Lots shall be graded to drain surface water away from foundation walls. The grade shall fall a minimum of six inches within the first 10 feet. CRC R401.3. 42. Projections, including eaves, shall be one -hour fire resistive construction, heavy timber or of noncombustible material if they project into the 5-foot (setback area from the property line. They may project a maximum of 12 inches beyond the 3-foot setback. CRC Tables R302.1(1) and R302.1(2). Trans. 43. Construct all proposed driveway approaches to comply with city standards. 44. Close unused drive approaches, or portion of, with full height curb and gutter that comply with City Standards. 45. Prior to the start of construction, a Construction Access and Circulation Plan shall be prepared and approved by the City Traffic Engineer to ensure that construction traffic will not impact Victoria Street and other public roadways in the site vicinity. Fire 46. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the City of Costa Mesa Fire Department shall review and approve the project design features to assess compliance with the California Building Code and California Fire Code. 47. Provide Class A fire hydrants to be located as directed by the Fire Department. 48. Provide "blue dot" reflective markers for all on -site fire hydrants. 49. The project shall provide an automatic fire sprinkler system according to NFPA 13 R. Street 50. Plant three (3) 24" Box Pistacia chinensis. Tress to be incorporated into site Trees landscape plan. WQMP 51. In order to comply with the 2003 DAMP, the proposed project shall prepare a Storm Drain Plan, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) conforming to the current National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer or Environmental Engineer, which shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. 52. The SWPPP shall be prepared and updated as needed during the course of construction to satisfy the requirements of each phase of development. The plan shall incorporate all necessary Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other City requirements to eliminate polluted runoff until all construction work for the project is completed. The SWPPP shall include treatment and disposal of all dewatering operation flows and for nuisance flows during construction. 53. A WQMP shall be maintained and updated as needed to satisfy the requirements of the adopted NPDES program. The plan shall ensure that the existing water quality measures for all improved phases of the project are adhered to. 54. Location of the BMPs shall not be within the public right-of-way. SPECIAL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS The requirements of the following special districts are hereby forwarded to the applicant: Sani. 1. Applicant will be required to construct sewers to serve this project, at his own expense, meeting the approval of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. 2. County Sanitation District fees, fixture fees, inspection fees, and sewer permit are required prior to installation of sewer. 3. Applicant shall submit a plan showing sewer improvements that meets the District Engineer's approval to the Building Division as part of the plans submitted for plan check. 4. The applicant is required to contact the Costa Mesa Sanitary District at (714) 754-5307 to arrange final sign -off prior to certificate of occupancy being released. _IcA 5. Unless an off -site trash hauler is being used, applicant shall contact the Costa Mesa Sanitary District at (714) 754-5043 to pay trash collection program fees and arrange for service for all new residences. Residences using bin or dumpster services are exempt from this requirement. 6. Applicant shall contact Costa Mesa Sanitary District at (949) 654-8400 for any additional district requirements. AQMD 7. Applicant shall contact the Air Quality Management District (AQMD) at (800) 288-7664 for potential additional conditions of development or for additional permits required by AQMD. Water 8. Customer shall contact the Mesa Water District — Engineering Desk and submit an application and plans for project review. Customer must obtain a letter of approval and a letter of project completion from Mesa Water District. School 9. Pay applicable Newport Mesa Unified School District fees to the Building Division prior is issuance of building permits. State 10. Comply with the requirements of the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) to determine if red imported fire ants (RIFA) exist on the property prior to any soil movement or excavation. Call CDFA at (714) 708- 1910 for information. l (5- Mitigation Measure The perimeter walls around Lots 1, 7, 13, and 20 shall be required to be 8 feet in height. Prior to issuance of building permits, a qualifies Acoustical Scientist shall be retained to prepare a final Acoustical Impact Report, utilizing precise grading plans, and detailed floor and elevation plans, for units with direct exposure to Victoria Street. Said report must be able to determine compliance or effective mitigation, such as noise control barriers, that will reduce noise impacts to within compliance of 45 dBA CNEL residential interior, and 65 dBA CNEL residential exterior. EXHIBIT C MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM TRUMARK PROJECT Responsible Monitoring Phase Date of Implementation Agency Compliance Development Plan Services/Building Safety Check/Construction Division RESOLUTION NO. PC-15- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DENYING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP-14-03 CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF A 2.04 ACRE SITE FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (NC) TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (HDR); REZONE R-14-03 FOR A REZONE (OR CHANGE) OF THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE SAME DEVELOPMENT SITE FROM AP (ADMINISTRATIVE AND PROFESSIONAL DISTRICT) TO MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL -HIGH DENSITY (112-1-11)), MASTER PLAN PA-14-19, AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT VT-17779, FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A 28-UNIT DETACHED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH DEVIATIONS FROM ZONING CODE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1239 VICTORIA STREET. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed by Trumark Homes, representing the property owner, Westar Holdings, Inc., requesting approval of the following: General Plan Amendment GP-14-03: General Plan amendment to change of Land Use Designation from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to High Density Residential (HDR). 2. Rezone R-14-03: Rezone from Administrative and Professional (AP) District to R2-HD (Multiple -Family Residential District, High Density), up to 14.5 dwelling units per acre. 3. Planning Application PA-14-19: A Design Review for development of a 28-unit Residential Planned Development at the site of an existing commercial/light industrial use. The project consists of the development of 28 single-family, detached residences with a net density of 14 dwelling units per acre. The three bedroom residences are three - stories with roof decks and have attached two -car garages. A total of 56 garage parking spaces, 42 driveway spaces, and 14 guest parking spaces are proposed (112 total spaces, four spaces per unit). The following Variances are requested: a. Open Space - a minimum of 40 percent required, 34.9 percent proposed. b. Rear Setback (20 feet required for second story; 10 feet proposed for second and third stories). c. Building Height (maximum 2 stories/27 feet required; 3 stories/roof deck/37 feet proposed). a. An Administrative Adjustment is required for the front building setback (20 feet required; 14 feet proposed). b. A Minor Modification is required to deviate from the distance from main buildings (10 feet required, 8 feet proposed). 4. Vesting Tentative Tract Map VT-17779: Subdivision of a 2.04-acre property for homeownership. WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on March 23, 2015, and continued to April 13, 2015 with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal. BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit A, the Planning Commission hereby DENIES General Plan Amendment GP-14-03, Rezone R-14-03, Planning Application PA-14-19 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map TT-17779. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of April, 2015. Robert L. Dickson, Jr. Chair Costa Mesa Planning Commission -166- STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, Claire Flynn, Secretary to the Planning Commission of the City of Costa Mesa, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the City of Costa Mesa Planning Commission held on April 13, 2015 by the following votes: AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS Claire L. Flynn, Secretary Costa Mesa Planning Commission -1 (4Dq EXHIBIT A FINDINGS (DENIAL) A. The proposed rezone is not consistent with the Zoning Code and the General Plan. B. The proposed project does not comply with Title 13, Section 13-29(g)(14), Design Review, of the Municipal Code due to the following: The design review does not meet the broader goals of the General Plan and the Zoning Code by exhibiting excellence in design, site planning, integration of uses and structures and protection of the integrity of neighboring development. C. The proposed project does not comply with Code Section 13-29(g)(1) due to the following: 1. No special circumstances applicable to the property exist to allow the strict application of development standards that deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by others in the vicinity. 2. The deviation shall constitutes a grant of special privileges inconsistent with other properties in the vicinity. 3. The granting of the deviation will allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation for the property. D. The proposed project does not comply with Code Section 13-29(g)(6) due to the following: 1. The improvement will be materially detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of persons residing or working within the immediate vicinity of the project or to property and improvements within the neighborhood. 2. The improvement is not compatible and does not enhance the architecture and design of the existing and anticipated development in the vicinity. E. The subdivision of the property for a residential common interest development is not consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning Code. F. The Costa Mesa Planning Commission has denied General Plan Amendment GP- 14-03, Rezone R-14-03, Planning Application PA-14-19 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map TT-17779. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(b) (5) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15270(a) CEQA does not apply to this project because it has been rejected and will not be carried out. G. The project is exempt from Chapter IX, Article 11, Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. - I -70 -- ATTACHMENT 2 APPLICANT'S PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND EXHIBITS (UPDATED) -i91- /� Eric A. Nelson T R U M A R K Vice President Land Development Office: (949) 999-9800 Cell: (949) 510-2070 enelson @tru markco.con; April 3, 2015 Chairman Dickson City of Costa Mesa Planning Commission 77 Fair Dr. Costa Mesa, CA 92626 RE: Application for General Plan Amendment I Zone Change I Tentative Tract Map Master Plan Dear Chairman & Members of the Planning Commission Following the planning commission meeting of Monday March 23rd, Trumark Homes continued to discuss the project with the immediately adjacent residences as well as the adjacent neighborhood to discuss the concerns raised at the Planning Commission Hearing. As of today, we are continuing the discussions to insure all of the issues are addressed if possible. I have attached a list of the comments and provided clarification and changes where possible as noted on Exhibit A. In addition, Trumark Homes has been finalizing agreements with the adjacent neighbors and expect to have letters that outline our changes that would address specific impacts and be included as conditions of approval. An example of this has been included as Exhibit B. These specific changes were also included in the supplemental memo dated March 20, 2015. On that note, Trumark homes has formally requested a change to the original zoning designation of PD- HD to R2-HD to address concerns related to the allowed density under PD-HD. This change reduces the allowed density from 20 dwelling units per acre to 14.5 dwelling units per acre. As a result, the variances requested with the original application will be modified to address the proposed zoning district. I have included a matrix showing the proposed changes as Exhibit C. In closing, our efforts have resulted in a number of positive changes to the proposed plan and I look forward to providing a detailed presentation regarding these changes on April 13'h, If you have any questions or need more detail, please do not hesitate to contact me at 949-510-2070. Sincerely, TRUMARK HOMES, LLC erlG iJe Ot�i Eric A. Nelson Vice President Land Development EAN/en 450 Newport Center Dr. # 300 1 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Page 1 of 12 , ..1' 7 2 City of Costa Mesa April 3, 2015 EXHIBIT A Page 2 of 12 _ )-73__ Planning Commission 3/23/15 A meeting of Costa Mesa Planning Commission was held at City Hall on 3/23/14. Agenda Item Ph-2 G1314-03, REZONE R-14-3, PA-14-19, VT-1779 Request - IS/MND, GPA, Rezone, Planning Application (Master Plan), 3 - Variances Public Comments Speaker # Comments Notes / Changes 1 Traffic impacts from project have not Traffic has been studied in detail and been properly studied. determined that there are no additional traffic impacts. However, a mitigation to install a median to restrict and control access has been agreed to by Trumark. Project is too tall at 4 stories As proposed, project is 3 stories w/ roof decks. In addition, the proposed changes include lowering the site along the rear by 5' additional feet. There is "hardly any parking" on the 94 Parking spaces on existing site. current site so the traffic study must be wrong. Architecture is horrible, ugly, don't fit character of the city. No disable access, baby boomers, children HB Moratorium reference Views will be obstructed from existing There are no views from adjacent homes. properties due to the existing office building. Proposed project will open views that currently don't exist. 2 Idea that these are family oriented, park Project is not geared towards any will be an issue because kids will run particular owner but is expected to across the street, have everything from young professionals to small, young families. Open Space Variance, should not be CEQfA review and staff report support Page 3 of 12 W 0 61 approved Parking is not adequate, will impact neighborhood. Parking not feasible design Height of building, called it a 45' building Steve Spriggs Nobody will buy these_ q Victoria is packed 7-8:30 Traffic and more trips, only 15 parking spaces on -site Car Accidents will happen with more cars and we need an ambulance service Disaster Area, not in overlay district ... faliney movie. 15 minutes to get in and out of the site and can't negotiate Victoria. Referenced 4 story project Hardly any parking spaces on site. Mitigation could be addressed Internal Parking and internal storage is a concern, no street parking, street trees, no sidewalks, no parks, overbuilt the variance request for perimeter open space. Based on proposed zone change, common open space variance is not required. In discussion with the commercial shopping center for additional parking. Current plan provides required parking per the Zoning Ordinance A full traffic and engineering review has been completed . Determined that parking as proposed is feasible, Building is proposed at 35, with site change, presents as 30' Traffic issues are existing and will continue to be a concern. This project, as proposed reduces the overall traffic impacts from existing use. Site provides 95 spaces. Project i Site pros 6 Doesn't shop in costa mesa because of traffic, to dense, to crazy. Density and Height with variances on As proposed, the project only Page 4 of 12 every single aspect. requesting .3 variances. Additional changes include change the zoning to limit density to 14.5 du per acre (14 du per acre proposed Accidents, traffic concerns and impacts by non -costa mesa residents. 7 Traffic report is misleading Traffic has been studied in detail and determined that there are no additional traffic impacts. However, a mitigation to install a median to restrict and control access has been agreed to by Trumark. Project does not think about kids As proposed, the project does think about kids and is designed with consideration to Victoria Density / Zoning to dense, why PDR vs R2- Proposed change includes changing HD zoning to R2-HD Safety, Traffic, Dangerous That won't have a chance to get out of the project. Takes Canyon vs Valley because of safety. Traffic Concerns Traffic has been studied in detail and determined that there are no additional traffic impacts. However, a mitigation to install a median to restrict and control access has been agreed to by Trumark. 7 Density / High Density Concerns and the Proposed change includes zoning future of the projects impacts on the revision to R2-HD neighborhood. Worried about what happens to the commercial center I i Page 5 of 12 1 I W City of Costa Mesa April 3, 2015 EXHIBIT B Page 6of 12 ' ��� I own the home located at and am immediately adjacent to 1239 Victoria, the locationg of a proposed 28 home project. Trumark homes has agreed to make the following changes to reduce or eliminate the impacts of the prosed project on my property. In addition, Trumark has agreed to include these changes as shown on Exhibit A and as Conditions of Approval to insure they are required by the city. Because of these changes, I am not opposing this project. I reserve the right to request further changes and oppose this project if any of the following agreed conditions change. Proposed Changes: 1. Locate staircase as shown on the attached plan. 2. Windows on southern elevation shall be 6' above finished floor 3. A 6' tall wall shall be included on the southern portion of the roof deck to prevent viewing into rear yard. 4. Removal of the existing fence within the yard of the above -mentioned property and replacement with a new retaining wall, too allow for lowering site shall be at Trumarks cost. I will provide access to my property to allow for this construction. 5. Trumark will provide planting along my property of bamboo or other acceptable screening at their cost. Eric A. Nelson Dated Trumark Homes Homeowner Dated Page 7 of 12 U) LLI 2! LLJ M Fo LU W, - ---------- 'T H V1 -4, 26 LOT lyc ly 9 J- t CHANGES TO F'Bff STREET LOT23 WINDOWa AS NOTED ON ATTACHED PLANS 60 TRASH CONTAINER DETAIL LEGEND CZ1 T- F(10- 2) LOT 3 IK F- -Ili - - - - - - - -!,R :_1 LOT 18 Li ELt 1 7 -24 Jr� o —S TREE T 9 ------------ 7r- I 7L -77 E7 T LOT A 4- - 8 r 177A i:i , ^d 4M,11191 TEN TA T/ VE TRA C T NO. 17779 CITY OF COSTA MESA, CA TRUMARK HOMES HUNIA1411, &'ASSOCIATFS 28 LOTS 2.04 ACRES GROSS 0713112014 Ill -1� -,I- PY - o,Ialr, _nq, FIRST FLOOR TRUMARK COSTA MESA 2 --- TRUMARK 450 Newport Center Drive, Suite 300 Newport Beach, CA 92660 949.999.9800 WINDOWS TO BE LOCATED ABOVE TYPICAL LINE OF SIGHT LOCATIONS AND HEIGHT (BOTTOM OF WINDOW TO BE AT 6' FROM FF) SHALL BE SET TO BLOCK DIRECTOR INDIRECT VIEWS INTO NEIGHBORS YARD OR NEIGHBORS HOME SECOND FLOOR PLAN 2 FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR PLAN - 2244 SF mm COSTA MESA, CA KTGY Group, Inc. KTGY # 130841 W911014 Architecture+Planning judsdidon # 17922 Fitch Irvine, CA 92614 949.851.2133 ktgy.com 0 2 4 8 A2-01 WINDOWS TO BE LOCATED ABOVE TYPICAL LINE OF SIGHT. LOCATIONS AND HEIGHT (BOTTOM OF WINDOW TO BE AT 6' ABOVE FF) SHALL BE SET TO BLOCK DIRECT OR INDIRECT VIEWS INTO NEIGHBORS YARD AND HOME. TRUMARK COSTA MESA 2 --- TRUMARK 450 Newport Center Drive, Suite 300 Newport Beach, CA 92660 949.999.9800 ROOF DECK WINDOWS TO BE LOCATED ABOVE TYPICAL LINE OF SIGHT. LOCATIONS AND HEIGHT (BOTTOM OF WINDOW TO BE AT 6' ABOVE FF) SHALL BE SET TO BLOCK DIRECT OR INDIRECT VIEWS INTO NEIGHBORS YARD AND HOME. ALT I THIRD FLOOR PLAN 2 THIRD FLOOR AND ROOF DECK PLAN - i COSTA MESA, (A KTGY Group, Inc. BYGY # 13QB41 7129/2014 Architecture+Planning Junidicuon # 17922 Fitch Irvine, CA 92614 949,851.2133 ktgy.com 0 2 4 e A2-02 City of Costa Mesa April 3, 2015 EXHIBIT C Page 11 of 12 —� ( 2- 1239 Victoria Zone Change Comparison PDR HD -Required Allowed Proposed/ Provided R2-HD Required / Allowed Pr000sed/ Provided Lot Size Lot Size Lot Width NA 283 Lot Width 100 283 Lot Area 1 Acre 2.04 Lot Area 12,000 2.04 Density/ Intensity Density/ Intensity 14 DU Per Acre DU/s Acre 20 DU Acre 14 DU Per Acre DU/s Acre 14.5 DU Per Acre 14 DU Per Acre Building Coverage Building Coverage Buildings NA 21362 Buildings NA 21362 Paving NA 36322 Paving NA 36322 Open Space 37,215 30924 2 Open Space 35443 30924 2 TOTAL 42.0017. 34.90% TOTAL 40.00% 34.907. 88608 88608 Common Open Space 18607 (507. of req OS 1861(10% of Req) 2 Common Open Space NA 1861 Building Height 4 Stories 3 + Roof Deck Building Height 2 Stories 3 + Roof Deck 2 Setbacks Setbacks Front NA 16 Front 20 16 3 Side NA 6' & 7' Side 5 6' & 7' 10' -1 st Story Rear NA 10' Rear 29 - 2nd Story 10' 2 Distance Between Bldg 8' 10' 8' 3 Perimeior Open Space 20' 111 2 Perimeter Open Space NA Parking Parking Covered 56 56 Covered 56 Open 56 42 Open 42 Guest NA 14 Guest 14 TOTAL 112 112 TOTAL 112 NA Not Applicable (1) Legal Non Conforming (2) Variance (3) Admin Adjustment (4) Residential Design Guidline (5) MCUP 61 Condition of Approval PDR HD - Requires 3 Variances - Open Space / Common Open Space / R2-HD Requires 3 Variances & 2 Adjustments - Open Space, Height Perimeter Landscape Variance. Rear Setback I Perimeter OS, Building Se eration 4/3/15 Page 12 of 12 ATTACHMENT 3 VICINITY, ZONING, AND GENERAL PLAN MAPS ATTACHMENT 4 EXISTING SITE PHOTOS LEGEND LV.- 74 -j'j v4 . , = DPW 'tl ilk AMR } -+••_+�y.�a'**+�.. .-• .ter-•sa •a � - - _ +�. - • M40 TRUMARKH MES 450 Newport Center Dr. Suite 300 Newport Beach, CA 92660 T 949-999-9820 C 949-510-2070 www•trumarkhomes.com enelson@trumarkco.com PAGE 1 OF 8 1 oil u. -- r 00 film 3 low � � _�t" o LEGEND xm r TRUMARKHC 450 Newport Center Dr. Suite 300 Newport Beach, CA 92660 T 949-999-9820 C 949-510-2070 www.trumarkhomes.com enelson@trumarkco.com PAGE 3OF8 - } ;7 r�ty�r r ► i LEGEND is Is ,l� Vim TRUMARKHOtv1ES 450 Newport Center Dr. Suite 300 Newport Beach, CA 92660 T 949-999-9820 C 949-510-2070 www.trumarkhomes.com enelson@trumarkco.com PAGE 4 OF 8 LEGEND r 1 _ rx�•,�1` �1 TRUMARK O E 450 Newport Center Dr. Suite 300 Newport Beach, CA 92660 T 949-999-9820 C 949-510-2070 www.trumarkhomes.com enelson@trumarkco.com PAGE 5 OF 8 ir LEGEND T �ti �,��• "ems'!' W lq T- 4 -:A' v TRUMARK!-�OMES 450 Newport Center Dr. Suite 300 Newport Beach, CA 92660 T 949-999-9820 C 949-510-2070 www.trumarkhomes.com enelson@trumarkco.com PAGE 6OF8 LEGEND c TRUMARKHOMES 450 Newport Center Dr. Suite 300 Newport Beach, CA 92660 T 949-999-9820 C 949-510-2070 www.trumarkhomes.com enelson@trumarkco.com PAGE 7 OF 8 _ 4.ra..s•�' _ At :. 4t_ ATTACHMENT 6 TRAFFIC STUDY AND ACCIDENT DATA City of costa Mesa Trumark Homes Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Appendix F Trip Generation Assessment and Site Access/Internal Circulation Evaluation F-1 City of Costa Mesa Trumark Homes Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration This Page Intentionally Left Blank i F-2 lQ July 21, 2014 Mr. Eric A. Nelson Trumark Homes 450 Newport Center Drive, Suite 300 Newport Beach, CA 92660 LLG Reference: 2.14.3500.1 Subject: Trip Generation Assessment and Site Access/Internal Circulation Evaluation for the Tentative Tract Map No.17779 at 1239 Victoria Street Costa Mesa, California Dear Mr. Nelson: As requested, Linscott, Law, & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) is pleased to submit this Trip Generation Assessment and Site Access/Internal Circulation Evaluation for Tentative Tract Map No. 17779, a proposed 28-unit single-family detached residential development in the City of Costa Mesa, California. The Project site is located along the south side of Victoria Street, west of Victoria PlaceNalieyRoad at 1239 Victoria Street. This letter summarizes the traffic generation forecast of the proposed Project and compares the project's tripmaking potential against the existing research and development office building use. Generation factors used in this analysis are based on information found in the 9'h Edition of Trip Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) [Washington, D.C., 2012]. Our evaluation of the Project's access and on -site circulation was performed using the Turning Vehicle Templates, developed by Jack E. Leisch & Associates, and AutoTURN for AutoCAD computer software that simulates turning maneuvers for various types of vehicles. Due to the existing horizontal and vertical curvature of Victoria Street along the Project frontage, the safety aspect of the Project's proposed driveways on Victoria Street is based on the intersection sight distance requirements per the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the State's Highway Design Manual (HD*. ENiases i Phsews Traffic TrarmpormSm Parbry 1LIsca1L LM& GreeflOPIAE 2 B atuda Grcla Suits 259 9412 5.i175 T 948MM73 P WAIWANnoneers cam Puedene Irvine San DhW Woadland Ns Phip M. Wood. PE Im'm Jockm areenapon.PElRKI W WmJL Lnr. PEiwu Paul W. Wdkinan. PE John P Knot% PE David S Sunder, PE John A.11o&mn. PE CW a MAGOJaeger: PE fGchard E Barletw. PE Keel D Ma wry, PE optarmco wr r-- , diiia Iq Q.- Mr. Eric A. Nelson July 21, 2014 Page 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Table 1, attached to this letter, presents a development summary of the Project program. The Project site is currently developed with a two-story commercial building with 50,000 square -feet (SF) of research and development (R&D) floor area and 94 parking spaces. Access to the subject property is now provided via two full access unsignalized driveways on Victoria Street; left -turn access is provided via a two-way left -turn lane on Victoria Street. The proposed Project includes the development of a 28-unit single-family residential community, with 14 units providing a two -car garage and two -car driveway apron and 14 units providing a two -car garage and one -car driveway apron; 14 open guest parking spaces are proposed. Exhibit A illustrates the proposed site plan for the Project. Access to the subject property is proposed via two (2) full access driveways on Victoria Street. Attachment 1, attached to this letter, presents the Tentative Tract Map for the Project as prepared by Hunsaker & Associates. This plan illustrates the overall access and internal circulation characteristics of the Project, inclusive of the cross -sections of the internal streets. A review of the Tentative Tract Map as illustrated in Exhibit A as well as Attachment 1 indicates that access and on -site circulation for the Project will be provided via two private streets located along Victoria Avenue (identified as "A Street" and "R" CtrPPt Tentative Mangy Both these cixecic have a pmposedT9ved «ridth of l&feet except for "U-Section". This section between "A" Street and "B" Street has a proposed paved width of 28-feet, which increases to 30-feet in the area of the two proposed parking spaces. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Project Traffic Generation Forecast Traffic generation is expressed in vehicle trip ends, defined as one-way vehicular movements, either entering or exiting the generating land use. Generation equations and/or rates used in the traffic forecasting procedure are found in the 9'h Edition of Trip Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (1TE) [Washington D.C., 2012]. Table 2 summarizes the trip generation rates used in forecasting the vehicular trips generated by the existing development and the proposed Project. As shown in the upper portion of Table 2, trips generated by the proposed Project were estimated using ITE lq,� - Mr. Eric A. Nelson July 21, 2014 Page 3 Land Use Code 210: Single -Family Detached Housing trip rates. For the existing land use,1TE Land Use Code 760: Research and Development Center trip rates were utilized. As shown in lower half of Table 2, the proposed Project is forecast to generate 267 daily trips on a typical weekday, of which 21 trips (5 inbound, 16 outbound) are expected to occur during the AM peak hour, and 28 trips (18 inbound, 10 outbound) could be generated during the PM peak hour. For the existing land use, a review of lower portion of Table 2 shows the existing trip generation potential of the 50,000 SF commercial building totals 406 daily trips, with 61 trips (51 inbound, 10 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 54 trips (8 inbound, 46 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour. When the proposed Project is compared to the existing land use, the Project is forecast to result in 139 fewer daily trips, 40 fewer AM peak hour trips and 26 fewer PM peak hour trips. From a "trip budgeting" point of view, the AM and PM peak hours typically govern as traffic studies focus the potential impact of a development project during the weekday AM peak hour and PM peak hour. While daily traffic is of interest, it is not the basis of peak hour service level calculations that are conducted during the preparation of traffic studies. Given the results of the trip generation forecast comparison, we conclude that the existing land use during the critical weekday AM peak hour and PM peak hour. Sight Distance Evaluation for Project Driveways At public driveways, a substantially clear line of sight should be maintained between the driver of a vehicle waiting at the driveway and the driver of an approaching vehicle. Adequate time must be provided for the waiting vehicle to either cross all lanes of through traffic, cross the near lanes and turn left, or turn right, without requiring through traffic to radically alter their speed. Due to both the horizontal and vertical curvature of Victoria Street bordering the Project site, a line of sight assessment has been prepared. The Sight Distance Evaluation prepared for Project Driveway No. 1 (identified as "B" Street in the Tentative Map) and Project Driveway No. 2 (identified as "A" Street in the Tentative Map) was based on the criteria and procedures set forth by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the State's Highway Design Manual (HD* for "Public Road Intersections". .-- I qq Mr. Eric A. Nelson July 21, 2014 Page 4 The Caltrans HDM, in Section 405.1(2)(b), page 400-22, indicates that for Public Road Intersections, "corner sight distance values given in Table 405.1 A should be provided". Where conditions may exist, the minimum comer sight distance shall be equal to the stopping sight distance as summarized in Table 201.1. It is noted that for private driveways, similar to the proposed Project, the Caltrans HDM, in Section 405.1(2xc), page 400-17, indicates that for Private Road Intersections, "The minimum corner sight distance shall be equal to the stopping sight distance as given in Table 201. The Caltrans HDM indicates that stopping sight distance is defined as the distance required by the driver of a vehicle, traveling at a given speed, to bring his vehicle to a stop after an object on the road becomes visible. Stopping sight distance is measured from the driver's eyes, which are assumed to be 3.5 feet above the pavement surface, to an object 0.5-foot high on the roadway. Comer sight distance is defined in the Caltrans HDM to be the distance required by the driver of a vehicle, traveling at a given speed, to maneuver their vehicle and avoid an object without radically altering their speed. Line of sight for corner sight distance is to be determined from a 3%s foot height at the location of the driver of a vehicle on a minor road to a 4'% foot object height in the center of the approaching lane of the major road. The speed used in determining stopping sight distance is defined as the "critical SpMd" ur 85111 pereendlic speed which IS the Speed at Which 0 Of ME vuhlracs arc traveling at or less. The critical speed is the single most important factor in determining stopping sight distance. Table 201.1 in the HDM is used in determining stopping sight distance based on the critical speed of vehicles on the affected roadway, whereas Table 405.1A - Comer Sight Distance (7%s Second Criteria) of the Caltrans HDM is used to determine comer sight distancerequirements. For this analysis, the posted speed limit of 40 miles per hour (mph) for Victoria Street was utilized. Using Table 201.1, titled Sight Distance Standards, in the Caltrans HDM for stopping, a minimum stopping sight distance of 300 feet would apply. Based on the criteria set forth in Table 405.1A - Comer Sight Distance (7'/2 Second Criteria) of the Caltrans HDM and a design speed of 40 mph, a comer sight distance of 440 feet is required (see Table 3, with reference to Table 20 1. 1 and 405.1 A of the Caltrans HDM.) Figures I and 2 present schematics of the sight distance evaluation performed at both Project Driveway No. 1 and No. 2 respectively based on application of the comer sight distance criteria. Figures 3 and 4 present the results of the sight distance evaluation for the study intersection based on the stopping sight distance criteria at Mr. Eric A. Nelson July 21, 2014 Page 5 Driveway No. 1 and No. 2 respectively. Please note that the vertical profile for Victoria Street, as presented in these figures, were developed based on the existing street improvement plans for Victoria Street, between Canyon Drive and the Santa Ana River (AHFP Project No. 870), dated June 1977. As shown on each figure, adequate sight distance is provided for a motorist at each driveway assuming obstructions (hardscape or landscaping) within the "limited use area" are eliminated (restricted). Further, the results of the sight distance assessment for the vertical curve on Victoria Street indicate that there are no obstructions to the line of sight at either driveway. Curbside parking is not a factor with the parking restrictions implemented along Victoria Street. In addition to the evaluations illustrated on Figures 1, 2. 3 and 4, a field investigation was completed to conduct a line of sight assessment in the approximate locations of the proposed Project driveways. The assessment involved positioning oneself at the approximate location of the proposed driveway and verifying the adequacy of sight lines at the minimum distances as outlined in the HDM. Photo images of each test are shown on Figures 1, 2, 3 and 4. Based on the field investigation, it was determined that there are no obstructions to the line of sight based on the comer and stopping sight distance requirements. Based on our review of the Tentative Map, as shown in Exhibit A and Attachment 1, we conclude that on -site circulation layout for the proposed Project is adequate to accommodate the access and turning requirements of service/delivery trucks, trash trucks and fire trucks. Our evaluation of the on -site circulation was performed using the Turning Vehicle Templates, developed by Jack E. Leisch & Associates and AutoTURN for AutoCAD computer software that simulates turning maneuvers for various types of vehicles. The turning templates were utilized to ensure that full-sized, large trucks as well as fire trucks could properly access and circulate through the internal roadway. A WB- 40 large truck and Fire Truck turning template was utilized in this evaluation. A review of Figure 5 and Figure 6 shows that site access to and from Victoria Street at each driveway for a WB-40 is adequate. Figure 7 and Figure 8 show that the site also accommodates ingress and egress movements of a Fire Truck. Both design vehicles can access the site from Victoria Street, circulate internally on "A" Street and "B" Street, and return to the Victoria Street to exit the site. As such, we conclude Mr. Eric A. Nelson July 21, 2014 Page 6 that the internal roadway layout is adequate for service/delivery trucks, trash trucks and fire/emergency access. We appreciate the opportunity to provide assessment for Trumark Homes and the City of Costa Mesa. Should you have any questions, please call me at 949.825.6175. Sincerely, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers Richard E. Barretto, P.E. Principal Attachment TABLE 1 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SUMMARYi TENTATIVE TRACT MAP No.17779 AT 1239 VICTORIA STREET, COSTA MESA Project Land Use / Project Description Development Totals Exittlnr Development o Research & Development Office Building 50,000 SF Tentative Trad Na 17717 Proied O Single Family Detached Homes 28 Units Parking Supply 17 I4 Units w/2-car Garage & 2 driveway spaces 56 spaces 13 14 Units w2-car Garage, 1 driveway space & 1 On -Street 56 Wces Total Parking Supply: 112 spaces I Source: Tnunark Homes/Mmsaker & Associmes. M:VjJ6L?€a:15-i239'4icaon:Slrexl,�'aueAkss,Rtyx+nal3tpiTD'w ITM TiWicAxwsmer l-21-2014doe TABLE 2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION FORECAST2 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.17779 AT 1239 VICTORIA STREET, COSTA MESA ITE Land Use Code / Daily A&I Peak Hour Phi Peak Hour Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Project Description 2-Way Generation Rates. ■ 210: Single -Family Detached Housing 9.52 0.19 0.56 0.75 0.63 0.37 1.00 (TAU) ■ 1TE 760: Research and Development (TFJI'SF) 9.11 1.0t 011 1.22 0.16 0.91 1.07 Generation Forecasts. Proposed Prolecl ■ Tentative Tract No. 17779 (28 DU) 267 5 16 21 18 10 28 F- rislinr Lam! Use ■ Research & Development Office (50,000 SF) 406 ' 51 10 61 8 46 54 Net Difference Trip Generation Forecast -139 -46 +6 -IO +10 -36 -26 Proposed Project vs. Existing Land Use TEVDU - Up end per dwillus unit TFJTSF - Trip end per I,OW square feet Sources Trip Genemlion, 91h Edirion, Ilwaulc of Tmnsportarion Engincers (M), Washington, D.C. (2012). !$13500a t4?340 • ! 2?9 vsvom strvd, Comte Olw.Repon/;1506 Tf No € 7779 Tra.9P�z Axcexsment ^.-1!•ir i4 doc TABLE 3 TABLE 201.1 SIGHT DISTANCE AND TABLE 4O5.1A CORNER SIGHT DISTANCE (7% SECOND CRMUM) STANDARDS Design Speed (mph) 25 30 35 4fj 45 SO 55 60 65 70 Stopping Sight Distance (feet) 150 200 250 ,300 360 430 Soo 580 660 750 N J5fVP,21 i351i1i. 1239 No, 1.?M TmkTw Auawept T-d1.29118 doc Corner Sight Distance (feet) 275 330 385 440 495 550 605 660 715 770 This Page Intentionally Left Blank -z-C6- wrIL `d 4 ' - 1l� • 1 .e11170- r .s la O 1 �C� S � f 1 � ` U ce J J L7 r$ pL CI. TYP/ B m fr.a u wrfuv w of C I', rmr sou . LOT 'E' 1j 1 TTM Na Two t vnw 1 rx r Nr O 1 w� L— _d rr arnapr a 1 .„--amp ntrutta nr txama } f. EX. RIV —vt Riw �. IRACI NWbIRY p. TRACT 6WlA'LMIfJ' r� L•. � Jtaa�.,r ► 1r tr 90 Eli ill L; .���� •6ii' ��r,��f ��:���i 7E:' ,'�t1s� C'ipp�i'�1►sk ����r������ �!.�� ,,,,�4���=a..1 1-1 [9' 4�` i ` i—�y, u`mut� "A•STREFf d3 '�'., ,,x"„i'r_',' i + � r:v.. r r a.tna ♦ �r a r u ARM Am rmw cf nft u "µ i �./fi� i►weaa>:'+! Ak'm"-- matcr rnwa— (EX FOCUMAL LOTS) 1 � �JP�lr' r3 �Jr_ WHERE OCCURS 6` PRIUATEI STREET PKG. BAY 5' 1 I2' 12' 5PUE F� 2% 2Y 1` 2: MIN. 27 �N. 2% PR. AC/AB PAVEMENT CURB" CURB & GUTTER SECTION A A Jx r $$ p J rra r[ IMMoI/r�J FX TriACr Nm It388 six LOT* dr. LL r EX. SCIEEN 1 WALL (PROTECT) I. I Q' CM50 PRIVATE STREET 28' 2% YIN. PR. 6" CURB PR AC/AB PAVEMENT SECTION B—B L L L $ L t L ` Lt t L ♦t 1t arce aawr �- 't t t 6 L E.X TRACT N0. t'113 Lt't; Lt t Dr. R/W r (EX S}IOPPTIG ffNTE'rV L t L L k L• •� t a t t t ' ` t t t PRIVATE STREET t 2p' 5' 12' - IZ' 5' UEw PUE PUE 7� 2 N. 2KZIN. l %- PR. 6" 6" CURB & CURB & CURB t-PR. AC/AB PAVEMENT C GUTTER GUTTER PR. 6" *PERMEABLE PAVERS WITH WATER QUALITY CURB & BASE GALLERY RESERVOIR WHERE OCCURS. GUTTER SECTION C-C R DilifO Oil'. li,:an Spann- UWE' Jun W. 2014 t0:'T wmuswttKx �') ' TRASN CONTAINER DETAIL farfDou A'SETBACKAREA S(4"RY ��ulff Im MR sofa' mm WNW w mfax J.r er car~ a>tanawKwn -wf r a 100s aWr A 1%ers wrxfr MYR IaGd � w :e i wren r.e2.s � xwd aw'ia"irr rrr arrd e� .,ar news �_ s,[wraaxauf x vwas yt, drw., a- —rrr 4— M.rae a w tmr axouf wfrn,r ».... ITM.i rw fM rmlP 1 Ar.aae A —Mr ywn or .a mf Y =— • Q M e0 ATTACHMENT i PROPOSED 20' SETBACK EXHIBIT TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 17779 CITY OF COSTA MESA, CA 28 LOTS 2.04 ACRES GROSS r4..aa ru r.vx ref. TRUMARK HOMES ® NlINSAClR i AlSOCIAi[f lots1 SWEET; OF T `\09Glt,inil neerinq'\QA_Pratcct\Fx1l,Cencmk\S,to Plan 21X mtt)uck.Uw 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 7 _ 1 la. REV51ONS �Pb TuTE STA 11*51-20. 21 +00 L[-tuu caruu &T . -- WCTORIA PLACE s it d 4 ►omtv040^K'o'"'*mw I CORNEKSIGHTUISIANLbtVALUAIIVIN LMMrr, LAW t cW47tia. EMOM lts DWY NO. I Doftw AT VICTORIA STREET Crr Y OF COSTA MESA of JH. D54M 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 STREET 21+00 370L 12.06 " 22+00 23+UU UCTORM PLAcc Z4+UU tr►S �r� r ��'►T � J y� � t _ W in MGM= .,. •s CORNER• VICTORIAAT CITY OF • ■r1Ri7� -46- 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 12+00 ,FILE ALE r-'W 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+UV L[7uv d-.,ww ��•-r i'7GTORIA PLACE STREETZino" VICTORIA ,T N�. REViS ONS VALLEY ROAD acmmmwP 4W. m spowsm or. STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE EVALUATION D P UW"11, uw t aaEt"All 810MM" DWY NO. 1 s.p Mllr ■.A M �N� - rY. AT VICTORIA STREET men CITY OF COSTA MESA aF IONio � MR7N it zr a�n - 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 -- 12+00 - -- STA 31�4&5I _ 5T� A 14+36 _G7 _ Y�Y! CAR IDCAT�ON $TA 1'!«jLq3 PA. 6AIMCWAT 2 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 wm. REVt5 ON5 19+00 20+00 21+00 LCtUU WTURM PLACE STREET - MALLS.- RW gR 1 c tl iag 2 a» S +I' E 1 �m�n - mcw am icr g — ►"STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE EVALUATION u�sw�t ur t o�sani, owl ors DWY N0.2 ,....�� ....�. ,,� � AT VICTORIA STREET IMMF ... nn CITY OF COSTA MESA aF 7 50 3300 3.0;1)o 2,5 300 12 -a W6-40 feet Tractor W'dth : ® 00 Lock to Lock T,me : 6 0 1ra'er Vdth :a 00 Steering Angle : 20.3 Tractor Track : 800 Tra .er Track : 6 00 Art cv aLng Ang e YiCTAR14 PLACE §1 11 Y �R SITE ACCESS EVALUATION omm {r — • LNSCOn, LAWt t�srN+, MOOM WB-40 TURNING MOVEMENT 1 n`� �y v DWY NO. I OHM r CITY OF COSTA MESA Cr G.^5lC.f1RiC APO DA*T YwCem rc err �.n — -�1,3 7 50 3300 3.00 2550 0 00 C7 sJ D C1 Q 300 1250 WB-40 Peet Tractor Width 800 Cock to Lock T me 60 Tra llgr W7AA R i)A Sfe.mr'aa dne'e 70.3 Tractor ' Trailer T `MErwEC uww THE Solmmsm OF i tl =Tt. taw a GIBM w. EHoMM po REV'SONS - op, 7AR asee w SITE ACCESS EVALUATION WB-40TURNING MOVEMENT DWY NO.2 CITY OF COSTA MESA -r m-, IIElf7a of I N VICTORIA STREET ' - VICTORIA . ....... .. O a w t� LO co N CM O �qCL 1.6 E U) c O V VLnT O iri C O C N N O — O O N �► CD E �' V LL H 7 LL o m dJ LL m + Y a # a 0 C O a) L O a0 mA J C fu W ❑ Ul T V) cu ` O. ❑ a 0 N z w ° ui 7 N C � O oz � u `= v = in v m N LL Ln .-1 m N v u o� w w J v L > C D W _tw LL O u ❑ O a Q � c a O G w O c u f0 O O N Vn) X W LL Y � v N p N O N V) Ln o v N � \ 3 LO N N � O (%) 0 0 m v m v LL = LL = + Y Y # a # a a 'c 'c # # 7 C •L a aJ O yr C I30 00 D_ T L ? E ❑ O ❑ u° v +a ro o +� o Z Z O m C n�i 0 oiJ 0 m O o7S 11) U a a V a a 2 a = v v aw E iN mmc ro O H O C < LL 0) 00 N N Ln N v a Ln N aJ W a 0 7 v m v LL � Y a C L 7 � C 41 v aJ � v V) > � L i L O v m V)° 0 Z m C � O co a tl0 u a v �o o CDv w LL Ln ct N N m aJ Q v E LL P 1 oa ce > O > * > �' > w '*' w ro w m w O O a O ° ° a > ° ° Q > O 0 < > L L. 0 w LL S LL w C: LL LL wcc LL LL w N LL LL LW U dd u w O u b0 u w O u CO V w v u 00 u Imo- v c 0 O 7 L. 0 O C �,_, O O "O 0 O N U7 VI V1 V1 N L Ln Ln a1 w L 0 < a F- a CQ ^ a a Ln 0 Q `n Q Q can Q < a a run Q vca v d4 v u on O U di U aJ u v > .o O > a m O > w m O > w O T O 0 fC0 � �i L L C ` L � ` L �•' � L L v v 7 7 CO Cu 7 �n �' a/ 7 � +' 61 7 7 V) V) L O V) W V) O V) W Ul ai V) y, VO) 0 C C L L O L L m C 0 r0 -0L .II ..7 L .fl r0 L I� 'i O O � O O m O O 00 '7. O O O V) V) rl V) V) N VI V) ri (A V) v v w L v a 0 v S v 0 a -o rq 0 0 O N a) W Q N N � L \ O \ O \ L O > m O m O m O > i cu > v . > 0) .` > .` .L .` ❑ O a) a ` ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 cn a m ? W N a r 1 a T Lc C) a ? a N T m a ) >• a�t N >- Q) m �. H e1' T. I-- T H a) y, F- T I-- 1n >- m t L o0 t t L t O d> O d> a> o d> a> o a-> a> o v v rl T N CL T T F- t L a aj > a > N .. O .. O •• O .. O .. O ri O 3 N fa v QJ LL y LL v u m LL U al R m `° `° � LL m m a � � # sa # # a a n_ o_ a. a O C O L C L 7 L 7 ra v n o — v v o +� v n ( v (Li 0)v Q c C n (U OO S CL 00 L a) Y al t]D L a ra ❑ O o m a o u m n O u m a o ❑ o n o a v v c v 0 z +° V) o z `n a z a) LL L o z +° V) o z v o Z � 0 Z � 0 Z o N N � o z c rr o a 00 m n�i ccac u�i cc m 0 o2j v O co v ai 0 CO ai ai o 06 ai ai p ai (U p ai w u 0D a u �- cD a 0D Q 0D a 0fl Q u eD Q o4 a as Q 0D a u 0D Q oD < v 2 v 2 as x v= v z v L L v v L Q v Q m v d v v v ra E vl v V) m E v ca y v I 6 1 E N m O m Gc i O O Z m O O Z w `•� `� p m O m i (\� o o O o % 00 00 d iD 00 N N N N N N N NN C v E v o a o o y n Ore c c 0 z c nD o 0 a o o_ y > *' r r '-'-' O ^ Q OC r '11 ~ m J L J � w• Q L Q > L Q L L Q L .. L .. L L Q .� > L L co aJ u p� ! U U ,� U V � m U U V > U u ob 7 U U O LL um. s ii LL r ri LL �i > � LL s LL LL LL w ,•�•,; L u w �y O u OD u w W 0 � u w u w W v c u OD u c O u OD u w W O C u U u a 0 w L 0 'm 0 W L 0 '0 m a L L 0 'm 0 c] L ao o o Li L O •m o r-a �Q o Q a VlQ a 0Q Vla L� �,¢ V sw w s v oD v w > — on O 00 a J O v J O v -� w bD O Or °' JOn 6 > -l[ m u O > v Y m u 0 > v > Y u O > m u O > N > Y m u O > L a- >' > L CL.• ^�mm N m T m a m cO ) C CCO > O > ro O C G v V 7 N al 01 N O UJ LJ N is u N 4- 7 a1 N ~ W o W z m W ~ O W I..L. .. T .. T >+ > T ? > > T > T 00 .0 �} .0 .0 N .v .0 r, .v ,u 00 al v .Q L ON O7 � N N 0 00 N W ul O Vl V V) �-i Vl -1 ul Vl Vl I� n 00 Ol 01 Ol o S o(U S v g n 0 O m 0 o O 0�0 n m m o m O M o m v ° N m m v 00 m v Y u i F- DO al al al v al w UJ u v CL al n v u > C] > L n >_ L a > L ❑ > L ❑ > L n > > V to > L n u 'a >_ vi L m ❑ a 00 ai ai ai rn ai a; a ai a; ai m ui w w O ry Q N Ol Q > a N > N T L2 > O_ N >T O (m Q, T O. ' `> > 01 r, Q > Q N >• W r- 0. T O. N > > > f O) y F- > N > > f L L L .0 t'' L L L t L L' L t t r L L L o a.> o CL> am.> o a> a> o a> a> o a> am> o a> a> M e-I O `� O `•i O � O W W w W �+ Y ++ ]C l l +• Y LL ]G .� � (L # m � 3'k a a CL. a CL a c d bn E C a C a m C 3 M p w v_ a' 0 0 m p {T' N > L c iC r c _ N w Q I Y L W dQ Q Q O p a p O p u p u (U aj Y z 0 z Y z z z Ln m W C m Z O ono z z m x c °c c Ln cC 0 06 aWa twa o 06 w O 06w m O 06to to v s a, s v s v s o W o o W o v m in W v W w O o ii N ro O li m O mro N N Ln ri Ln O 00 N N N W U W U O O:3 O 7 O c } w } W C } w C } w ++ rO > O O > L W c 0 J > L C D O J > Q > O O p� = u u 06 D u pa u u p�f 3 U u ~ O L LL L LL W tioC li W LL Il O' LL L ti W C Y OO U Q qn U O w > U O w ? C L U O Oa U O W D +� C U O bn u O p +L Vi �,Q +L+ Ul Va vi p 0 �a ~n p `., Q +` ^ �,a N Q n+ a n �,a ord0 bn aa—c o s ao bo w U a w -a W � w u W (U u on c W > L U U > > U c Y U _G > i C Y U � O Oru rO O > m O T L a. d cr L CL L C GL. N C oo T (U p r0 c0 g T c0 c L c v Lw 0 0 +� " m X V) 3 n v aj 4� a u`_ W +, m W (n W d O w W w m w W W w Ln -0 '� . 0 -0 In -0 Ln O O N 0 O O O 00 O O O rn N O rn ri in Ln r-i U) V1 m o m o o vQj r F W O a, nr.. O m m N u rb u N O +� Y u O N m o m u rLb u N ^ N o m u .aC u t [� > F o U] W O OLI L L O S O �--1 m L L O m L i w9 F- Own txa Own ~ N W W VI w N ? Vf W j i Y W i C W V) w w i 0 L VI w 7 w V1 W 7 � Y /y V N ri 4 O M V7 pa L pa L U Oa pa pa 1., pa U O F a; O ai a� o 5) rl v a '"'� v a N Ln Ln O v a ''.� o .-i m �--i a O ? a r N } N m <'.� a ? c a N T q b x v� ei T T f' T T I-- In ? �, H In >. 9 T H � �+ H ? I--' y� yAr = LJ t t t `V t L `� t r t L op t r t .L � y 67 'C 6� b 4 14 — 01 O rb W a> ra w rl> Gl o rO w a> 0 ri m a> W r0 W a> m 1 rO a> w ra W a> 6� cn ram+ v1Wv1U44 ATTACHMENT 7 ADDENDUM TO IS/MND (ORIGINAL DOCUMENT UNDER SEPARATE COVER) AECOM AECOM 714-567-2501 tel �� 999 Town and Country Road 714-567-2782 fax Orange, CA 92868 April 6, 2015 Mel Lee, AICP Senior Planner City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92628 Subject: Trumark Homes Project - Proposed Zoning Change to R2-HD Dear Mr. Lee, Per your request we have reviewed the applicant's proposed zoning change for the Trumark Homes Project at 1239 Victoria with respect to the findings of the Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (2/23/15). Whereas a PDR-HD Planned Development, High Density (up to 20 dwelling units per acre) was previously proposed, a rezone to R2-HD Multiple Family Residential District, High Density (up to 14.5 dwelling units per acre) is now proposed. (See revised IS/MND Table 6 that follows.) The primary section changes to the IS/MND that apply to the revised zoning include Section 2.3, Project Description -Zoning; and Section 4.10 Land Use and Planning, subparagraph 4.10.1(b), Zoning Consistency). Replacing references to PDR-HD zoning with R2-HD zoning in these sections does not raise any new substantive environmental issues or change any of the impact significance findings presented in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). Similarly, miscellaneous references to the PDR-HD zone found elsewhere in the IS/MND text can be changed to R2-HD without any change in the impact analysis or findings. As with the previously proposed PDR-HD zoning, several variances (Open Space, Building Height, Rear Setback) and adjustments (Perimeter Open Space and Building Separation) would still be required. However, no new significant environmental issues or substantial changes to the previous analysis of land use and planning consistency are raised by these changes. Please let me know if you have any questions concerning this review and findings. Sincerely, Thomas Holm, AICP Environmental Planning Manager AECOM (714) 689-7189 thomas. holmQaecom.corn 2-2-` AECOM Table 6: Development Standard Comparison (R2-14D Standards) Development Standard Required/Allowed (R2-HD) Proposed/Provided Lot Size Lot Width 100 ft. =1283 ft. Lot Area 12,00_0 sf (0.27 acre) 88.608 sf (2.04 acres) Densi /Intensity DU's/Acre I DU/3000 sf (14.5 DU's/Acre — 29 Units Total) 1 DU/3,174 sf (14 DU's/Acre — 28 Units Total) Building Coverage (Develo ment Lot) Buildings NA 21,362 sf (24%) Paving NA 36,322 sf 0 L I %) Open Space (Total) 35,443 sf(40%) 30,924 sf (34.9%) (1) TOTAL NA 88,608 sf (100%) Common Open Space NA 1,861 sf Private Open Space 10 ft. Min. Dim. 10 ft. Min. Dim. No. of Stories/Building Height 2 Stories/27 tf. 3 stories + Roof Deck/37 Ft (1) Setbacks (Buildings) Front 20 ft. 16 ft. (2) Side (LefllRi t) 5 ft. 6 ft./7 ft. Rear 10 ft_ (1 Story) 20 ft. (2 Story) 10 ft. (2 Story) (1) Rear Yard Lot Coverage 1,200 sf (25%) 720 sf (15%) Distance Between Buildings 10 ft. 8 ft. (2) Perimeter Open S ace NA I I ft. Min. Parkin Covered 56 56 Open 56 42 Guest NA 14 TOTAL 112 Spaces 112 Spaces Interior Garage Dimension 20 ft. X 20 fL 20 ft. X 20 ft. Notes: NA = Not Applicable or No Requirement (1) Variance required (2) Minor Modification required C:\Users\thomas_holmkOesktop\Trumark Homes Projer.l_Zoning Changes_15_0406.doex 2-2 2 ACOM AECOM 714-567-2501 tel 999 Town and Country Road 714-567-2782 fax Orange, CA 92868 March 18, 2015 Mel Lee, AICP Senior Planner City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92628 Subject: Trumark Homes Project — Shade/Shadow Impacts Dear Mr. Lee, This letter attaches a shade/shadow study for the Trumark Homes Project at 1239 Victoria, which was inadvertently omitted from the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). The attached Shadow Study, which is added as an Addendum to the IS/MND, demonstrates that no shade/shadow impacts related to the proposed Project would occur on surrounding properties. Yours sincerely, /-� At -VA-.;- -F. JIXA� Thomas Holm, AICP Environmental Planning Manager AECOM (714)689-7189 thomas.holm@aecom.com 3 r= >r t li 1 00 i 1 JUNE 21st AT 10:OOAM DEC 21st AT 10:OOAM TRUMARK COSTA MESA 2 TRUMARK 450 Newport Center Drive, Suite 300 Newport Beach, CA 92660 949.999.9800 _ I B _ i 4 JUNE 21st AT 12:OOPM C DEC 21st AT 12:OOPM SHADOW STUDY COSTA MESA, CA NTGY # 130841 0903 2014 ivaiaaid0n # I JUNE 21st AT 2:OOPM .t r DEC 21 st AT 2:OOPM 0 30 60 120 i SCALE: 1:60 AO- 10 KTGY Group, Inc. Architecture+ Plan n i ng 17922 Fitch Irvine, CA 92614 949.851.2133 ktgy.com ATTACHMENT 8 CORRESPONDENCE FROM PUBLIC '2-2 S - DEAR CITY HALL COUNCIL MEMBERS March 171h 2015 We speak for most of our fellow neighbors on the Bluffs. Firstly, some of us DID NOT get your public notice sent out from the city of Costa Mesa. SO we thought you might like to know this or perhaps you already did? In any case, we have been informed of the property at 1239 Victoria is in the works to be re- zoned a "HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONE'." We want you to know that many strongly feel certain city council members have no concern for our home values our quality of life or the fact that traffic Costa Mesa is already disgusting so we guess you want to make it a little worse, right?. We are disgusted that you sell out our neighborhood by allowing interlopers to encroach on our nice quite homes that we worked VERY hard for. Are you really going to allow Trumark Homes to build 28 three story "homes" with roof top patios.Lto be stuffed where the Viva building now stands! ?? For some of us, this will literally be in our back yards! Perhaps you don't care because you don't live or drive around here, BUT WE DO! Please don't forget, We have rights as home owners. Why can't you see, there is no advantage or useful purpose for allowing such a project! This does NOTHING to help our neighborhoods. Not to mention these boxy ugly structures do not fit in aesthetically. Especially at 3 Stories. Why so many and why so looming and intrusive? IF this is to be Re zoned, you need to compromise with your constituents and the builders, not JUST the builders!. Make it something that EVERONE can live with. That West Reef mess is bad enough but now you want to allow ANOTHER Condo project near us? Please do not humor us by calling these "HOMES" we are not stupid! Oh and roof top patios do not count as " OPEN SPACE" Nice loop hole but let's be real. We send a clear message to YOU, city council that we will NOT put up with anymore High Density housing in this already congested area. This is a perfect example of City planning at its WORST. Do something good for the city, like paint some lines on Victoria so people don't crash! It's been WEEKS since they're paved and no lines have been painted. We hope you all wake up and remember that you were voted in office to HELP make Costa Mesa a better city, NOT to make it look like downtown Los Angeles. Please do the right thin Thank you. Macie and Tim. ---r`_2.t7- REATEGUI, JENNIFER From: LEE, MEL Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 5:00 PM To: REATEGUI, JENNIFER; ROSALES, MARTHA Subject: FW: Response to Public Notice Re: 1239 Victoria Street From: James D [mailto:jimdod@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 4:59 PM To: LEE, MEL Subject: Response to Public Notice Re: 1239 Victoria Street Dear Mr. Lee, I am an owner and resident of 1128 Sea Bluff Drive, directly around the corner from the proposed development at 1239 Victoria Street in Costa Mesa. My family purchased our home in October of 2013, and later after settling in to our new neighborhood, were disappointed to see the high density dwellings now under construction west of 1239 Victoria St. The prospect of more high density construction around the corner is not welcome. We moved here to avoid the high -density of our previous home in Eastside Costa Mesa, but the rules are changing here. I will be present at the meeting tonight to gather more information. I also wish to hereby go on the record with you and preserve our rights to protest and take legal action if we deem it necessary to protect the existing rules we purchased our home under. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, James and Gudrun Dodelson Tel.: (949) 887-6995 W- Z COLGAN, JULIE From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Begin forwarded message: Dan Hakala <dan@keyboardstoday.com> Monday, March 23, 2015 1:52 PM PLANNING COMMISSION Judie Howell Planning decisions and voting for 1239 Victoria Project From: <MAILER-DAEMON(a-)_cybrhost.net> Date: March 23, 2015 1:44:30 PM PDT To: <dan .keyboardstoday.com> Subject: Undeliverable mail: Planning decisions and voting for 1239 Victoria Project Failed to deliver to'planningcommissiongcostamesa.gov' SMTP module(domain costamesa.gov) reports: host name is unknown Reporting-MTA: dns; cybrhost.net Original -Recipient: rfc822;<planningcommissionkcostamesa. ov> Final -Recipient: rfc822;<planningcommission@costamesa.gov> Action: failed Status: 5.0.0 Remote-MTA: dns; costamesa.gov Diagnostic -Code: smtp;host name is unknown From: Dan Hakala <dan _keyboardstoday.com> Date: March 23, 2015 1:44:28 PM PDT To: plan ningcommission(qcostamesa.gov Cc: phonechick(c_road runner. corn Subject: Planning decisions and voting for 1239 Victoria Project As a longtime nearby resident property owner to this project, I am opposed to granting any variances or easements related to the building of this project. The demolition of the existing commercial building will have a huge impact on this neighborhood with not only dust and dirt but potential shifting of the hillside stability. Furthermore, should you proceed to grant approvals for this project I sincerely hope the '2.q demolition permit fees if any, and the new construction dollars collected by the City of Costa Mesa will be very ample to pay for a median and new stoplight system to be installed in the middle of this hill above the bridge. A median would force drivers leaving this area to turn right and go up the hill and drivers would be unable to turn left going to Huntington Beach. This safety measure is very justified to prevent vehicle collisions on this hillside. Without the median and new stoplight system Victoria St. will be a ticking time bomb waiting for a disastrous accident to happen on this extremely busy road through our City. Dan Hakala 1159 Aviemore Terrace Costa Mesa. Ca. 92627 2-30'-- LEE, MEL From: Geri Cicero <geri.cicero@att.net> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 1:31 PM To: LEE, MEL; FOLEY, KATRINA; GENIS, SANDRA Subject: Public Hearing / 1239 Victoria Street PA14-19 Importance: High Dear City Overseers: I have a hard time understanding the continual massive building in our SFR neighborhoods. From my perspective this is not Highest and Best Use — it's Highest and Best PROFIT! What the Planning Department is continuing to offer our city is high density residential projects at the cost of single family residents who have paid taxes for years and been the backbone of our city. My fears of the project are as follows: • Traffic: is gravely impacted by this project and also the one westerly of the Viva plant. Since our City is a self - insured entity, I foresee accidents and problems at that Victoria site. One accident - a car spinning out of control, hitting a pedestrian or bicycler - and we have major liability that those of us who reside in the city will pay dearly for. It is imperative that we "wait and see" how things fare with the West Reef property (who also are Not selling well!) • Ingress / Egress: we know that a left turn from that Viva property is an accident waiting to happen. Again, we constituents as deep pockets are on the hook for any accident! I foresee that folks will turn right instead on Valley Road; make a quick U-turn and come up to the light, affecting the retail shopping center and young children who attend two venues in that center. • Water: my community service is water related with OCWD for 20 years. Where is the water coming from to take care of 84 more occupants on that Viva property?! As a mitigation, the builder Should be required to have some form of dual —or- cistern plumbing to lower water use in Each unit! Yes, more out-of-pocket; less profit!!! The mere grading of the property to retain runoff is not enough conservation in our dire drought predicament. • Parking: Guest parking of 14 for 28 units is not adequate! I foresee the retail property easterly of Viva getting hit with multiple owners using the retail space to park. The driveways at each of the 28 units are NOT to be considered guest parking. Please tread softly and with an eye to the future for our city when determining the affectation of this project on us city folks. Btw: One of our neighbors mentioned Speed Bumps on Victoria coming up the hill. Bravo! Splendid idea! Item #2 that should be paid for by the Builder (along with Item #1,the water mitigation mentioned above!) West Reef is a bad project and the effect to the owners on the even -numbered addresses on Gleneagles adjacent to it has been especially horrible. Please don't add to that existing problem with zoning changes at the Viva site. dAa emu fm a/#fALV lb I f a& swmat, tmtb of to own. lat Cgra"t;r-- $ILt $CtlfRj�� 1147 Aviemore Terrace, 92627 (Since 1977) PLANNFNG COMM/SS/ON SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM MEETING DATE: APRIL 13, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: -P# - Cz SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP-14-03, REZONE R-14-03, PLANNING APPLICATION PA-14-19, AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP VT-17779 FOR A 28-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 1239 VICTORIA STREET DATE: APRIL 10, 2015 FROM: PLANNING DIVISION/DEVELOPM T ES DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION BY: MEL LEE, SENIOR PLANNE :1 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MEL LEE, AICP (714) 754-5611 mel.lee@costamesaca.gov The purpose of this memo is to provide supplemental information on the proposed 28- unit development and respond to general questions that have been raised: 1. Please describe the nature and progress of any community outreach to the impacted neighbors abutting the proposed project. The applicant has been meeting with several of the directly impacted neighbors, specifically properties along Sea Bluff and Gleneagles Terrace. Following is a brief summary of some of the terms and conditions that has been the subject to pending negotiations with certain abutting neighbors. More detailed information as to the proposed changes based on these pending discussions is attached. • No access (pedestrian, vehicular, etc.) from Sea Bluff Road. • Lower existing grade by 4 to 5 feet. • Modification to window locations for privacy purposes. • Construction of a 6-foot high privacy wall on the roof decks to shield views. • Construction of new retaining walls. • New Landscaping/Mature trees for landscape screening. • Relocation of exterior staircases. 2. What specific changes to the grade level of the property are being proposed? Applicant is proposing to: • Lower the existing grade by 4 to 5 feet, until such point that an existing sewer main along the rear portion of the property is not compromised. • Potentially lower site grades by up to 6 feet in some areas; however, this will need to be confirmed with a precise grading plan. • Build new retaining walls at varying heights of 10 to 12 feet. -2--52- 3. How is building height measured? Title 13 defines building height as "the distance from the grade to the highest point on the roof, including roof -top mechanical equipment and screening." In this case, six-foot high privacy walls are proposed on select roof decks along the rear and east side property line. The building height to the highest point of the privacy wall is 37 feet. Building height in the R2-HD zone is defined by a story limit and a height limit as measured in lineal feet. The proposed three-story structures with roof decks require a variance from the story limit (two stories allowed, three stories and roof deck proposed) and from the height limit (27 feet allowed, 37 feet proposed). 4. What would be the height of proposed structures as measured from the existing grade of the neighboring properties? Section views showing the relationship of the proposed three-story structures (37-foot height) and adjacent single -story and two-story homes are attached. The following table provides a brief comparison which takes into account the proposed reduction in the site grade levels by 4 to 5 feet and the neighboring grade. With Roof Deck YVithout Roof Deck Two-story residence at 32 feet 27 to 28 feet If site is 5 feet lower in grade. 1444 Sea Bluff Drive One-story residence at 32 feet 27 to 28 feet If site is 5 feet lower in grade 1164 Gleneagles Terr 1156 Gleneagles Terr 32 to 33 feet 28 to 29 feet If site is 4 to 5 feet lower in Two-story structure at 32 feet 27 to 28 feet If site is 5 feet lower in grade. Valley Circle 5. Was the proposed development plan provided to the City Council for review and comment at their February 4, 2014 meeting for the General Plan? Yes. A conceptual site plan showing the building setbacks, Floor plans/elevations showing the roof decks, and a colored section elevation was provided in the staff report (attached). 6. What action was taken by the City Council on the General Plan screening request? While Council approved the General Plan screening request on a 5-0 vote, this action does not constitute a commitment to approve the project. Council did express various concerns as summarized by the minutes excerpt provided in the attachment. 7. Has the applicant made any progress with securing a shared parking agreement with the Victoria Square retail center to accommodate overflow parking in the evenings? At this time, the applicant is currently in discussion with the property owners of Victoria Square regarding a potential off -site parking agreement for overflow parking supply. 8. Are there additional responses to comments to the environmental document? The environmental consultant has provided written responses to comments received on the environmental document through the 30 day public review period. Updated responses are attached. 9. Please update the traffic analysis to include the existing use (office/warehouse). The existing nonconforming building is 55,000 square feet in size, and it includes both office and warehouse uses. An updated traffic table is attached to reflect 61 a.m. peak hour trips, 54 p.m. peak hour trips, and 406 average daily trips. 10. Have additional letters of opposition to the project been received to date and forwarded to the Planning Commission? By separate cover, all public correspondence, including letters of opposition and email communications, have been forwarded to the Planning Commission. A four -page letter petition (template letter) is attached to this memo for reference purposes. It should be noted that this letter was signed by a number of other residents in the area, and these signed letters are also being uploaded to the City's website. Attachments 1. Cross sections (with roof decks) and draft written agreements from abutting property owners (applicant is in the process of obtaining the signatures from the affected property owners); 2. Cross sections with no roof decks; 3. Updated street elevation; 4. Updated table comparing the vehicle trips for the proposed project versus the existing development on handwritten page 9 of the April 13, 2015 staff report; 5. General Plan Screening Report for GPS-13-04 presented at the February 4, 2014 City Council meeting; 6. Updated response to comments on the IS/MND for the project incorporating comments received at the March 23, 2015 Planning Commission meeting. 7. Letter of Opposition from "Neighbors of the Proposed Development" Distribution: Director of Economic & Development Services/Deputy CEO Assistant Development Services Director Senior Deputy City Attorney Public Services Director City Engineer Transportation Services Manager Fire Protection Analyst Staff (6) File (2) Trumark Homes Attn: Eric Nelson 450 Newport Center Drive, #300 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Westar Holdings, Inc. 1239 Victoria Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 AECOM Attn: Thomas Holm, AICP 999 Town & Country Road Orange, CA 92868 — 28!E�— Roof Deck Privacy Wall UN`P SCV(M New Retaining Wall 5GION B-B TRUMARK --- TRUMARK 450 Newport Center Drive: Suite 300 Newport Beach, CA 92660 949.999.9800 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION ONLY - SUBJECT TO CHANGE 2-:3 - _. Location of Stairs for Lots 6,7. Units to be reversed/ inverted Location of Stairs for Lots 8,9. Units to be- reversed/ t verted No ,/ 01�1 Ac,c ess 4` --- Q� EXHIBIT A 1144 Sea Bluff Costa Mesa, CA ATTACHMENT 1 Screen Wall 6' aff _ JW 0FS 1T New Landscpae to be installed for additional screening Eric A. Nelson • Trumark Homes TRUMARK TRUMARK 450 Newport Center Drive, Suite 300 Newport Beach, CA 92660 949.999.9800 Stairs to be oriented on south elevation ; L New Retaining Wall on PL / ��P DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION ONLY - SUBJECT TO CHANGE - 2- 7i - EXHIBIT A ER! 1164 Gleneagles Terr , Costa Mesa, CA LINE OF SIGH* Existing 1156 GLENEAGLES TERRA( Additional Planting witihin existing planters to be provided for screening. Eric A. Nelson - Trumark Homes Screen Wall r/ TRU=MARK TRUMARK 450 Newport Center Drive, Suite 300 Newport Beach, CA 92660 949.999.9800 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION ONLY ¢ SUBJECT TO CHANGE \51 Windows along this / elevation shall be installed to prevent viewing adjacent neighbors backyard No Access to Sea Bluff EXHIBIT A 1156 GLENEAGLES TERRACE COSTA MESA, CA 92627 W J\010\ Roof Deck Privacy Wall nuonovrtao SIDE YARD SEUM B-B TRUMARK --- TRUMARK 450 Newport Center Drive, Suite 300 Newport Beach, CA 92660 949.999.9800 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION ONLY - SUBJECT TO CHANGE 2 �1 EXHIBIT A Valley Circle Costa Mesa, CA I own the home located at 1444 Sea Bluff Drive and am immediately adjacent to 1239 Victoria, the location of a proposed 28 home project. Trumark Homes has agreed to make the following changes to reduce or eliminate the impacts of the prosed project on my property. In addition, Trumark has agreed to include these changes as shown on Exhibit A as Conditions of Approval to insure they are required by the city as part of the development. Because of these changes, I am not opposing this project. I reserve the right to request further changes and oppose this project if any of the following agreed conditions change. Proposed Changes: 1. No access, pedestrian or vehicular access will be permitted from the project site to Seabluff. 2. Lot 9 Stairs and Lot 8 Stairs shall be located as shown on the attached Exhibit 3. Lot 7 and Lot 6 stairs shall be located as shown on the attached Exhibit. 4. A 6' tall wall shall be included on the southern portion of the roof decks to prevent viewing into yard and home. 5. Trumark will provide addition planting along my property of bamboo or other acceptable screening at Trumark's expense. 6. The project will include lowering the site 4'-5' from existing grades. This will include a new retaining wall, located on the property line. 7. During construction of the new retaining wall, Trumark will be permitted to access my yard when necessary. 8. Trumark will make every attempt at preserving the existing trees adjacent to the existing wall. 9. Windows will be oriented to obstruct views and protect privacy. 10. The roof decks will be removed on the following Lot (s)_ Eric A. Nelson Trumark Homes Homeowner Dated Dated I own the home located at and am immediately adjacent to 1239 Victoria, the location of a proposed 28 home project. Trumark Homes has agreed to make the following changes to reduce or eliminate the impacts of the prosed project on my property. In addition, Trumark has agreed to include these changes as shown on Exhibit A as Conditions of Approval to insure they are required by the city as part of the development. Because of these changes, I am not opposing this project. I reserve the right to request further changes and oppose this project if any of the following agreed conditions change. Proposed Changes: 1. No access, pedestrian or vehicular access will be permitted from the project site to Seabluff. 2. Windows on southern elevation of Lot 9 shall be installed to prohibit/ obstruct views to pool area and direct views into yard. 3. A 6' tall wall shall be included on the southern portion of the roof decks to prevent viewing into yard and home. 4. Trumark will provide addition planting along my property of bamboo or other acceptable screening at Trumark's expense. 5. The project will include lowering the site 4'-5' from existing grades. This will include a new retaining wall, located 6' from existing rear wall. 6. During construction of the new retaining wall, Trumark will be permitted to drain my pool. Upon completion they will be responsible for the cost of refilling the pool (including penalties) and will acid wash it and pay for an initial startup and cleaning. In addition Trumark will provide an insurance policy for any defects caused by the retaining wall construction. 7. In the event the pool is not drained, Trumark homes will provide, at their expense, weekly pool cleaning to reduce impact of dust during grading. Eric A. Nelson Trumark Homes Dated Homeowner Dated DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION ONLY - SUBJECT TO CHANGE -2-1l - I own the home at Valley Road and am immediately adjacent to 1239 Victoria, the location of a proposed 28 home project. Trumark Homes has agreed to make the following changes to reduce or eliminate the impacts of the prosed project on my property. In addition, Trumark has agreed to include these changes as shown on Exhibit A as Conditions of Approval to insure they are required by the city as part of the development. Because of these changes, I am not opposing this project. I reserve the right to request further changes and oppose this project if any of the following agreed conditions change. Proposed Changes: 1. Lot 3 and Lot 4 stairs shall be located as shown on the attached Exhibit. 2. A 6' tall wall shall be included on the eastern portion of the roof decks to prevent viewing into yard and home. 3. Trumark will provide addition planting along my property of bamboo or other acceptable screening at Trumark's expense. 4. Windows will be oriented to obstruct views and protect privacy. Eric A. Nelson Trumark Homes Homeowner Dated Dated DRAFT FOR D11"CUISSION Otli! 'Y - S;U111 JECT TO "Hr;h`1iGE ATTACHMENT 2 CROSS SECTIONS WITHOUT ROOF DECKS -2-eq 37 Roof Deck Removed Includes lower site 4-5' 6 28 rvovno�nuo 51DE YARD SECTION B-B TRUMARK TRUMARK 450 Newport Center Drive, Suite 300 Newport Beach, CA 92660 949.999.9800 33' - i S151 — NO 0 Access 0� /f C Height Measurements @ Sea Bluff Property Line with site lowered 4.5 - 5' Costa Mesa, CA - �.44 Roof Deck Removed Adjacent Grade is approximatley 4.5-5' above Proposed project site. SIDE YARD TRUMARK --- TRUMARK 450 Newport Center Drive, Suite 300 Newport Beach, CA 92660 949.999.9800 SECTION B-B 33' \G"Uj . Height Measurements @ Valley Road Property Line Costa Mesa, CA ATTACHMENT 3 UPDATED STREET ELEVATION 24(0- Ki sr. TRUMARK COSTA MESA 2 TRUMARK 450 Newport Center Drive, Suite 300 Newport Beach, CA 92660 949.999.94" VICTORIA PERSPECTIVE AT PROJECT ENTRY - - USTA MESA, CA KTGY Group, Inc. o�m tai: Architecture+Planning nn IN14141 17922 Fitch �umdrtwn M Irvine, CA 92614 949.851.2133 ktgy.com - 249- ATTACHMENT 4 Updated Table Comparing Vehicle Trips For The Proposed Project Versus The Existing Development On Handwritten Page 9 Of The April 13, 2015 Staff Report Land Use Units/SF AM PM Daily 28 268 Proposed 28-Unit Residential 28 Units 21 Development Existing Use 55,000 SF (Non -Conforming 61 54 406 (Office/Warehouse) i Building) Existing Zoning 55,000 SF (Non -Conforming 132 197 1,987 (Administrative/Professional Building) Offices) Existing Zoning 26,581 SF (Conforming Per 0.30 64 95 965 (Administrative/Professional Max. FAR) Offices) ATTACHMENT 5 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 4, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN SCREENING GPS-13-04 - FOR PROPOSED 28-UNIT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT AT 1239 VICTORIA STREET DATE: JANUARY 27, 2014 FROM: PLANNING DIVISION/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION BY: ANTONIO GARDEA, SENIOR PLANNER FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: ANTONIO GARDEA (714) 754-5692 antonio.gardea@costamesaca.gov RECOMMENDATION Accept or deny General Plan amendment to change the land use designation from General Commercial to High Density Residential to facilitate development of a 28-unit single-family detached residential project. REQUEST The applicant is proposing a 28-unit residential development on the site of an existing 55,000 square foot office building. If the General Plan Screening is accepted for processing, the proposal would require approval of the following: • General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from General Commercial to High Density Residential; • Rezone to change the zoning from AP (Administrative and Professional) to PDR- HD (Planned Development Residential — High Density); • Design/site plan review; and, • Tentative Tract Map. BACKGROUND General Plan Amendment Screening Criteria City Council Policy 500-2 (Attachment 2) sets forth the criteria to evaluate General Plan amendment requests. Council takes action on whether or not a proposal should be accepted for processing by using the following criteria as guidance. A General Plan Amendment should be accepted if: 1) it is necessary to resolve an inconsistency between the General Plan designation and zoning; 2) it is necessary to provide a uniform land use designation on a single parcel or development site; or 3) it would result in decreased traffic impacts from the property. An amendment to the General Plan should not be considered if the request applies to a single small lot or a small area, especially if the change would make the property inconsistent with the surrounding properties. City Council Policy 500-2 also establishes a procedure for processing privately initiated General Plan amendments. The policy also acknowledges these criteria are only guidelines and City Council may accept an application which does not meet the criteria if it finds there are overriding reasons to do so. Acceptance of a proposal for screening is not a commitment to approve the General Plan amendment. This action represents that Council would like to consider the request for processing, and subsequently explore alternatives prior to making a final decision on amending the General Plan. ANALYSIS Project Setting The proposed project is located on the south side of Victoria Street, between the City's westerly boundary and Valley Road to the east (Attachment 3). The 1.4-acre property to the west is designated as medium density residential (R2-MD zone) and Planning Application PA-12-24 was approved for development of 17 units (12 dwelling units per acre) on the site (Attachment 9). The properties to the east are designated as neighborhood commercial, medium density residential and low density residential with corresponding zoning of C1 (Local Business), PDR-MD (Planned Development — Residential Medium Density), and R1 (Single Family Residential), respectively. The commercial property at the corner of Victoria Street and Valley Road is developed as a one-story, multiple -tenant shopping center. The residentially zoned properties east of the site are developed with two-story detached houses. The properties to the south are designated as low density residential (six dwelling units per acre) and zoned R1 (Single Family Residential). These properties are developed with one and two-story residences adjacent to the proposed project. Vista Park, which is designated as Public/Institutional and zoned as Institutional and Recreational, is located to the north of Victoria Street across from the project site. Proposed Project The proposed project submitted for screening to the City Council involves a General Plan amendment to change the designation to High Density Residential, which allows up to 20 dwelling units/acre. The site would be rezoned from AP (Administrative and Professional) to a corresponding zoning that would allow up to 20 dwelling units per acre. The 28-unit residential development on the 1.63 acre site results in a density of 17 dwelling units per acre. The proposed product type consists of three-story buildings with three bedroom, roof decks and attached two car garages. Because this site is along a major arterial street and potential traffic impacts may result, an initial study with a traffic analysis will be required for the project. A project Summary Sheet (Attachment 1) has been prepared describing the project site and provides further evaluation of the proposed project. CONCLUSION In addition to providing general feedback on the proposed project, City Council would need to take action on the General Plan amendment screening request. Accept for processing the General Plan Amendment request. This would allow the General Plan Amendment to High Density Residential to proceed through the development review process for consideration by the Planning Commission and possible action by City Council. 2. Reject for processing the General Plan Amendment request from further processing. Denial of this request would maintain the existing Administrative and Professional land use designation and prohibit the establishment of residential uses. ANTONIO GARDEA Senior Planner GARY PON14YRONG, XCP Econo is and Development Services Director Attachments: 1. Summary Sheet 2. Council Policy 500-2 3. Vicinity Map 4. Zoning Map 5. Site Photos 6. Proposed Site Plan, 7. Floor Plan 1 / Floor Plan 2 8. Applicant's Letter 9. 1259 Victoria Street Sections cc: Chief Executive Officer Assistant Chief Executive Officer Director of Economic & Development/Deputy CEO Public Services Director City Attorney Transportation Services Manager City Engineer City Clerk (9) Staff (7) File (2) Eric A. Nelson Trumark Homes 450 Newport Center Drive #300 Newport Beach, CA 92660 ATTACHMENT 1 GPS-13-04- 1239 Victoria Street The project site is a 1.63 acre parcel of land with a General Commercial land use designation developed with a 55,000 square foot commercial office building and a surface parking lot. The request is to amend the General Plan Designation from General Commercial to High Density Residential to allow development of the site with a 28-unit residential project. SITE SURROUNDINGS The site is bounded by a commercial shopping center which is zoned as C1 (Local Business) and residential properties which are zoned as PDR-MD (Planned Development Residential — Medium Density), and R1 (Single Family Residential) to the east. The properties to the west, which are currently being graded, are zoned R2-MD (Multiple Family Residential — Medium Density). The residential properties immediately to the south are zoned as R1 (Single Family Residential). Vista park (Institutional & Recreational zone) is across Victoria Street to the north. TRAFFIC EVALUATION The Transportation Division completed a preliminary trip generation analysis to compare the proposed 28 unit project to existing conditions and General Plan build out. The proposed General Plan Amendment will result in decreasing traffic impacts because the existing office building has a higher trip generation, the preliminary projections (268 daily trips) indicate a net decrease in vehicle trips (decreased trips range from 1,544 to 2,467 trips) from the site is anticipated with development as residential units. The average daily trips for the existing commercial office building is 3,735 trips (average daily rate for office uses is 14.72 trips). The overall average daily trips with the proposed project will decrease compared to the maximum allowable build out for a commercial building pursuant to the General Plan land use designation. The Transportation Division will require an analysis of both access points to determine if there may be any traffic impacts because of the driveway configuration. A traffic study is required to be submitted with the planning application. Preliminary Trip Generation Analysis Land use Units_ AM PM Daily Proposed Residential Units 28 :L 21 28 t 268 28 Single-Famil Detached Existing Uses (Commercial)l 55,000 SQ.FT. 1 83 1 344 1 3,735 i Existing Zoning (AP) 1 0.30 FAR 1 42 1 167 1 1,813 The proposed development complies with the minimum number of parking spaces required. The required parking for the proposed development as a detached residential unit with three bedrooms is a two -car garage and two open parking spaces. The plans indicate 112 parking spaces would be provided. Any comments received from the City Council and the community will need to be addressed if the application is submitted for processing. PROJECT COMPLIES WITH GOALS OF THE GENERAL PLAN Staff believes that the proposed project is in compliance with the following goals of the City's General Plan: General Plan Housing Objective HOU-3.1. Encourage the conversion of existing marginal land to residential where feasible and consistent with environmental conditions that are suitable for new residential development. The proposed ownership housing is consistent with the General Plan objective and will provide new residential units in a primarily residential area. 2. Projected increase in vehicle trips is lower than General Plan build out under the General Commercial designation. The General Plan land use designation for the project site is "General Commercial". The proposed project will not generate any additional traffic since existing office use has a higher trip generation than the proposed residential use. 3. The proposal_ is consistent_ with General Plan Land Use Objective LU-2A. The proposed project will encourage new development and improve the quality of environment. Residential development would be compatible with existing multiple -family homes to the east and the 17-unit project to the west. ISSUES TO BE HIGHLIGHTED Although a residential development may be desirable at this location, the proposed project raises the following concerns. The proposed development may impact surrounding properties. The proposed change to high density residential use would allow three story units. The proposed roof decks are considered an additional story above the third floor. The proposed buildings may have impacts to the residences along the east and south sides of the site. 2. The proposed site plan may have to be modified to provide an adequate street setback and separation from the single-family residential properties. The proposed site may have to be modified to provide adequate front, side and rear setbacks, as well as open space and perimeter landscaping. Similar buffering issues were addressed in the recently approved project to the west (Attachment 9) at 1253 Victoria Street. CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA COUNCIL POLIGY ATTACHMENT 2 POLICY EFFECTIVE SUBJECT NUMBER DATE PACE PROCESSING OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS 500-2 11/3/86 1-of 2 Rev. 8/1/94 Mm The General Plan constitutes the official policy of the City Council of the City of Costa. Mesa with regard to physical development of the City. The City Council may, at its option, amend the General Elan or any elexant thereof. On August 2, 1982, the City Council enacted Resolution 82-65 adopting "General Plan Administration and Implementation policies and Procedures". These procedures provided that regularly scheduled General Plan review hearings would be held at the first Planning Commission meeting in February, June, and October. Since that date, State Lary has been amended to allow elements of the General Plan to be amended four, rather than three, times during any calendar year. Due to the increased workload on Staff, Planning Commission and City council resulting from the review of General Plan Amendment applications, the City Council wishes to review the type and number of such applications prior to acceptance for processing. Purpose It is the purpose of this policy to: 1. Establish dates for the hearing of General Plan Amendments. 2. Establish guidelines to assist the City Council in providing direction to Staff with regard to processing privately initiated Genera. Plan Amendment applications. Policy Privately initiated General Plan Amendment applications shall be heard at the first Planning Commission meetings in February, June, and October. A fourth date for the hearing of General Plan Amendment applications maybe assigned by the City Council at its discretion for either privately initiated or City initiated General Man Amendments. The City Council shall review applications for amendments to the General Plan and shall direct Staff to either proceed with processing of the applications or to return all materials to the applicant and refund the application fee. A list of applications, including the name of applicant, location of CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA COUNCIL POLICY POLICY EFFECTIVE SUBJECT NUMBER [LATE PAGE PROCESSING OF GENERAL BEAN AMENDMENTS 500=2 11/3/86 Rev. 8/1/94 Z of 2 property, and request shall be submitted to the City Council by the Planning Staff in sufficient time to be heard by the City Council at the second Council meeting following the application deadline. The following criteria shall he used as guidelines for the City Council to determine which applications will be accepted for processing. An application shiou.ld be accepted if: • A General Plan Amendment is necessary to resolve inconsistency between General Plan designation and zoning. • A General Plan Amendment is necessary to provide a uniform land use designation on a single parcel or development site. • A General Plan Amendment would result in decreased traffic ixpacts from the property. An application for amendment to the General Plan should not be considered if: y + The request applies to a single small loot or a small area, especially if the change would make the property inconsistent with surrounding p7ropertise a The property is located in the Redevelopment Area (requires action by the Redevelopment Agency to amend the redevelopment plan). No General Plan Amendment shall be accepted whichh would increase the overall, City-wide development cap. However, General plan Amendments which would result in development exchanges or transfers, may be considered. As these are simply guidelines, the council may deviate from them if there are other important reasons for accepting or rejecting a particular application. City of Costa Mesa ATTACHMENT CITY OF COSTA MESA -[Created: 1/23/2014 1:16:06 PM] [Scale: 237.381 [Page: 8.5 x 11 / Portrait] IOverview Map I Map Display r� f COuNTY Legend Address Freeway W I'oaway 4V Primary Small Roads *4e MaPr 3L"tie7t/6�►faY Address culiost,or N40-Wpori FJLVD (rzOnt? Wydrolo�,r Points (oont� Channels 0 VALLEY CIR > Ur, M SEA BLUFF DRa. i^sl "rtiyC���'A'KNl a�aa Pr :c "CCI •r��;n,:..' pr.-, ,, (C) 2002-4 GeoPrise.net (GeoVec, Inc.) - (866)422-2505 ATTACHMENT 4 City of Costa Mesa CITY OF COSTA MESA - [Created: 1/23/2014 1:17:48 PM] [Scale: 237.38] [Page: 8.5 x 11 / Portrait] fOverview Map I Legend Add re s s Small Address Points Freeway Roads OW 'Galwof 0� r mawar NaAvaqj. rjLVu P11 mare. 1W (cent) Parcel Lines Hydrology 13 C'fy Channels �oundary street Names Water Ways Street Zoning Centerlin.e5 (tont? Map Display .4 Q 2174 2 157 1 n7 215 2 17 21M 0,21s", -21 1 i, 1� 1, IS7 151*1 215 N 7 COUNTY F 1c, K1 C, R 2151 VICTOFUA PiL e, . ]1170 VA119ya Li PI I&R qNP- rb tz 6 R 0 lk 01"L GLENEAGLES TER D R'l% I'll i . \— _­1 r L . kN ,C 12002 4,w"°A1*oPrjsu N L T. AP —11 Ir 211 2111 2115 �y PDRAI D , : r=, 1.17 21 Ij --- I S I 21061 TuA I I &. lrz� SEA BLU" DR IL ilf 0 F�e > XAF M2 ti c'& (C) 2002-4 GeoPrise.net (GeoVec, Inc.) - (866)422-2505 -29'7- A Aft of 3 ATTACHMENT flu E 00 f-4 EnWt;6,-tw.y VeMOe Access. "I Only (Gat4) a 6n A, H I I Hl►nll EN I r p �' P .-. I':'3p 41 i o) -d! EL 1>1 gal 0 ol -- 2U' ATTACHMENT 8 r i R, .l .' I i ��.. Frit R. iNctwv V icc President atnd { vvdoi•Altn1 C di. [t1i'.Y Sla 20%, �­1, , . .SENT VIA HAND DELIVERY December 5, 2013 Planning Division City of Costa Mesta 16600 Civic Center Drive Bellflower, CA 90706 RE: 1239 Victoria Street General Plan Screening Application To whom it may concern: On behalf of Trumark Homes, Ll C I am pleased to present the following request for a General Plan Screening Application. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject property is located on the south side of Victoria Street, west of Valley Rd and contains an existing two-story office building that would be demolished to accommodate the future, proposed development. Records show that the existing structure was built in phases with the original northeast building in 1960. An addition was added in 1966 with the final building addition in 1968. The building is approximately 54,000 square feet and includes office space, research and development, production space and warehouse areas that are mostly vacant. The property is a roughly shaped rectangle lot containing 1.75 acres and is zoned Administrative Professional (AP). The General Plan designation for the property is General Cornmercial (GC). The site topography varies approximately 10' +/- from the street to the rear of the property. If the request fcr a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change is approved, a single- family residential development will be contemplated. Concept plans have been prepared for discussion and are included as part of the application package. The proposed concept plan anticipates 28 singie-family residential uniis one lots that are approximately 40'x47'. The product type is currently being refined but would likely consist of two and three story plans with roof decks. The architecture has not been developed at this point and we will be finalizing exterior design ideas as part of our screening process and based on input received from city staff, council and neighborhood leaders. An image board with conceptual ideas has —2(e.�Z— Cily of Costa Mesa - Planning Division December S, 2013 Page 2of2 been included for talking points. The concept project includes garage parking for all units as well as driveway and guest spaces for a total of 4 spaces per dwelling unff, Located adjacent to the future Better Shelters project, Trumark is reviewing the approvals to better understand the community dynamics; opposition and support that occurred as part of their overall process. Our goal is to design a project that gains broad support, minimizes impacts and has city support. We look forward to working with city staff, community leaders and the City Council on this project. If you have any questions or need more information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Trumark Horses, LLC Eric A. Nelson Vice President Land Development EAN/en Cc Westar Nutrition Corp. Randy Maples File ATTACHMENT 9 In U w v> w I v5 Z O H U w W V) tee: cn 0 Z B/b U O w LU C/) o QLLJ 4 I.—O v) u O N ATTACHMENT 6 UPDATED RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR IS/MND --2&& S- A.TCOM AECOM 714-567-2501 tel 999 Town and Country Road 714-567-2782 fax Orange, CA 92868 April 08, 2015 Mel Lee, AICP Senior Planner City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92628 Subject: Response to Comments on the Initial Study and Proposed Negative Declaration for the Trumark Homes Project at 1239 Victoria The City of Costa Mesa circulated the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for public comment from February 25, 2015 through March 27, 2015. The list of comments received includes the following comments provided either in writing, or verbally at the March 23, 2015 Planning Commission meeting: • Letter from Department of Transportation, District 12 (February 27, 2015) • Letter from Macie and Tim (March 17, 2015) • Letter from Geri Cicero (March 23, 2015) • Letter from Dan Hakala (March 23, 2015) • Letter from James and Gudrun Dodelson (March 23, 2015) • City of Costa Mesa Planning Commission Meeting (March 23, 2015) • Letter from Airport Land Use Commission, Orange County (March 26, 2015) A record of these comments is on file with the City Planning Department. As preparer of the IS/MND under contract to the City, AECOM has reviewed the comments received. Public comments and concerns were focused largely on general traffic, traffic safety, zoning, and housing density concerns. In response to concerns related to zoning/housing density, the applicant has proposed a zoning change from the previously proposed PDR-HD (up to 20 dwelling units per acre) to R2-HD (up to 14.5 dwelling units per acre). Traffic generation and parking were studied in detail and it was determined that the proposed Project would result in a reduction in overall traffic impacts when compared to the current use and zoning classification at the Project site. In addition, a full traffic and engineering review was conducted for the project, which determined that parking as proposed meets City standards and the Project design complies with safety standards intended to assure safe ingress/egress from the Project site. None of the comments received addressed the specific content, adequacy or findings of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared for the Trumark Homes Project at 1239 Victoria. Yours sincerely, Thomas Holm, AICP Environmental Planning Manager AECOM (714)689-7189 thomas.holm@aecom.com ATTACHMENT 7 Date: April 9, 2015 From: Neighbors to Proposed Development To: Costa Mesa Planning Commission Subject. Concerns about Proposed Development Plan of 1239 Victoria St. (Application No.. GP-14-03, R-14-03i PA-14-19, VT-17779) Dear Commissioners, We, the undersigned, would like to take this opportunity to present to the commission our concerns and opposition to certain aspects of the proposed development plan. First we want to make sure that we express the fact that we do not oppose the development of the lot into residential units. It is in the city's master plan and an appropriate use of the land in our opinion. Our concerns are in the following areas: Privacy of the Neighbors The "Residential Development Standards" document from Costa Mesa city's website clearly states in section 4.4. that "Consideration shall be given to the effect of proposed development on the light, air, and privacy of adjacent properties". The proposed plan will create these tall, overwhelming buildings that overlook its neighbors. Many will have roof decks. Even without roof decks, the residents of these building will be looking down over their neighbors' properties from a vantage point that can cause privacy issues. We, as property owners around the proposed development, have certain rights and expectation to quite enjoyment of our properties. The imposing buildings with roof deck and third story windows overlooking our backyard from 2 stories above can definitely cause concern for our privacy, and can curtail our ability to enjoy outdoor activities. Impact to Neighborhood Parking With the proposed number of parking spaces, it will be a certainty that many vehicles belonging to the residents or visitors will have to be parked outside of the development. Since the strip mall is a private property, the most likely overflow for their parking issue will be Valley Road. If you visit Valley Road, you will find that parking there is already at a premium, and the additional cars will simply add to the congestion. Number of Deviations to Code Even if the city go ahead with High Density Residential zoning, the number of request for variation from code requirements is highly alarming. The builder is pushing to change the current development standard of R2-HD for its project so that: 1. The required rear setback of 20 ft to reduce to 10 ft 2. The maximum number of stories of 2 increased to 3 plus a roof deck 3. The required front setback of 20 ft reduced to 14 ft 4. The required open space rate of 40% reduced to 34.95% The requests are all attempts to squeeze more square footage into each unit, thus increasing the sale price at the expense of quality of life. Table 13-32 of the "Residential Development Standards" document from Costa Mesa city's website clearly states that according to Costa Mesa Municipal Code for R2-HD zone the following need to be followed: a) 2 Stories and Maximum of 27 ft b) 40% Minimum Open Space c) Front setback of 20 ft d) Rear setback of 20 ft for 2 Story Building The "Residential Design Guidelines" document also from Costa Mesa city's website clearly states that for R2-HD zone the following need to be followed: a) 2 Stories and Maximum of 27 ft for sloped roof design (section 7.3) b) 2 Stories and Maximum of 22 ft for flat roof design (which should cover the roof deck type design) and must be consistent with the bulk and scale of the structures in the surrounding neighborhood (section 7.3) Code requirements exist for a reason. We believe it is the responsibility of the Planning Commission to ensure that the proper requirements are met by the developer, and not become complicit in the builder's attempt to maximize profit. Fact to ProAqrty Value around the Development The new building being so tall will certainly block the view of some neighbors and reduce free movement of breeze. Combined with the issues of privacy and more congested street parking, may negatively impact property value. It will be a travesty to enrich the coffers of the developer at the same time sacrifice the value of home around the new development. The city should be protecting the interest of its residents and not simply kowtow to the wishes of the developer. 2(013 ol- Welfare of_the Residents who will be Living in the Development There have been several studies that link high density living to negative effects to people's health, happiness, and safety. Health 1. High density living is associated with higher risks of psychosis (70% higher) and depression (16% higher). 2. Higher level of stress caused by high density living can lead to twice as high incidence of schizophrenia. 3. Absence of green space causes adverse mental problems. The prevalence of depression and anxiety was significantly greater for those living in areas with only 10% green space in their surroundings compared to those with 90% green space. 4. Children living in high density areas suffer much higher rate of behavioral problems such as anti -social behaviors. 5. Restricted length of vision and exposure to noises cause children in high density homes to have short-sightedness and auditory discrimination. 6. Air pollution — higher density living increases the level of air pollution. Air pollution affects residents' respiratory system and results in lower birth weight. Source: http://www,newgeography.com/content/003945-health-happiness- and-density Happiness Studies show that the higher the density of living, the less happy the residents. Lack of privacy, imposed social interacts, noises, difficulty in parking... all contribute to a less satisfied population. Source: http://www.newgeography.com/content/003945-health-happiness- and -density Safety Even though the zoning and traffic analysis may specify that the number of car trips is acceptable, as people who live in and around the area, we witnessed many accidents around the area because of the hill and blind corners, and the fact that most drivers tend to accelerate when going downhill. In the latest available report of California Office of Traffic Safety, Costa Mesa was the fifth worst among all 56 cities at its size. It is hard to convince anyone that high density building will improve this ranking. Source: http://www.ots.ca.gov/Media_and_Research/Rankings/default.asp —Z(vQ— We are also concerned that items blown from the proposed roof -top decks proposed by the developer such as umbrella, lamp, or flower pots in high wind may cause serious injury and property damage to the residents and their neighbors. Our Recommendation 1) Rezone to Medium Density Residential with 12 units per acre m 2) If the city determines the High Density Residential is appropriate, then ensure all code requirement are met and not permit deviations: a. Allow maximum of 2 stories b. No roof decks c. Require compliance to code requirement for front and rear setbacks d. Require compliance to code requirement of open space To conclude, we trust that the Planning Commission will do the right thing and ensure the quality of life, and that current property owners' and residents' interests are protected by allowing only reasonable development that adhere to code to happen. Thank you. Name, Address and Signature of Supporters of this Letter - 2170 - MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COSTA MESA CITY SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY February 411, 2014 CALL TO ORDER The Mayor called the meeting to order at 4:45 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Costa Mesa City Hall, 77 Fair Dr., Costa Mesa, California. ROLL CALL Council Members Present: Mayor Righeimer, Mayor Pro Tem Mensinger, Council Member Leece, Council Member Genis (arrived at 5:05 p.m.), and Council Member Monahan (arrived at 4:48 p.m.) Council Members Absent: None Officials Present: City Chief Executive Officer Thomas R. Hatch, City Attorney Thomas Duarte, Assistant CEO Rick Francis, Assistant Chief Executive Officer/Administrative Services Director Tamara Letourneau, Economic and Development Services Director Gary Armstrong, Public Services Director Ernesto Munoz, and City Clerk Brenda Green. 3. GENERAL PLAN SCREENING GPS-13-04 FOR PROPOSED 28-UNIT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT AT 1239 VICTORIA STREET Staff report provided by Minoo Ashabi, Senior Planner. Councilmember Monahan — "Just a clarification, what you are looking for today, Minoo, is just whether we proceed with the General Plan Amendment or not?" Minoo Ashabi — "That is correct." Mayor Righeimer — "Minoo, can you help me with this thing - 3735 trips a day it has now doesn't make sense on paper. I mean is that, so this is going to drop, 90% drop in trips. Can we bank those trips for other new projects? Just joking okay. Actually the fact of the matter is we don't bank, when Carmax when to the Segerstrom site they had thousands and thousands of trips they didn't use and they just disappear. And those trips are figured into the model, because our model here, just so everyone understands our model and our city has every single lot in the city completely built out 100%. It has trips added to it even though it never happens and then when someone like Carmax comes in and cuts the metrix by maybe 5,000 extra trips they had left over, who doesn't use those trips, we don't put those back in the bank and change the model. We just say someday Carmax could get knocked down and rebuilt and used up again therefore we never use the trips." Councilmember Genis — "Mr. Mayor, actually as far as a traffic model, we always have a baseline which is based on how many cars are actually coming out of there." Mayor Righeimer — "No that is not how our model is in our city." Councilmember Genis — "Well no when we verify our model and stuff for existing conditions for environmental analysis we always have to cover our baseline." - Zl Mayor Righeimer — "Our model in our city, our model in our city says that every lot is built out for what, but that's the plan that people have to do then they do a study and the number comes in lower." Councilmember Genis— "Which actually kind of brings me to this issue. My first question is, it's unfortunate that this is coming along now. Is the project, the next one over to the west, is it too far along to be able to integrate these in terms of ingress/egress, those sorts of things? Is that too far along?" Minoo Ashabi — "I believe they obtained grading permits, yes." Councilmember Genis — "Okay, cause that would have been the optimal situation where we could've combined all this, where they could have coordinated even if they weren't the same owner. And then the other things is, you mentioned the model says what we go to build out, and that's part of the problem because I see an issue here let's say a general plan amendment gets approved and then it doesn't get built and then somebody comes back later and says well under the rules I could go to twenty units an acre and so we get a denser project, and it's not just the traffic it's because we have single family residence and then they'd be walled off and stuff so I am not inclined to go to the high density but I was wondering if there's a provision, of course that would probably be spot zoning if we just said say 15 units an acre or 17 units an acre or something like that. Have we done that anywhere? I'm trying to think that we have" Minoo Ashabi - "Yes we have. Not necessarily in the range between medium density and high density but there has been times where the general plan amendment specified specific density first." Eric Nelson, Applicant, spoke on the project. Councilmember Leece — "Yes Mr Mayor, one of the concerns we had with Mr. Zender's project, Mr. Nelson, was the issue of the ingress and the egress because of the traffic in the morning going down and then coming back. Have you worked with staff on what your resolution would be in other words because you'll have people competing with the people next door to get out there. I haven't, to be honest with you, I haven't looked to see the details but is there a separate lane or what resolution do you have to keep it safe?" Eric Nelson — "That's a great question and we don't have a resolution. We know traffic is a concern obviously as a resident who would purchase a house and they're going to look at that street and wonder is it safe so part of our process will be engaging traffic engineers to work directly with us and the city to make the access not only safe but compatible with that street. Councilmember Leece - Cause you had talked about maybe even working with them to make one Eric Nelson — "To try to connect yeah and we tried and unfortunately the majority of their homes about that side and they're not interested in postponing their project to wait for us basically." Councilmember Leece — "Another thing we talked about just the design compatibility of your project with that project. Are they compatible as far as?" Eric Nelson — "That's a process that we are currently working on to ensure that. One of the challenges between this project and that project is. If you look at it at both projects, that one lives a lot more dense because their homes, there's six inches of air space and - 2r72- what we're trying to do here is provide a little bit more of a single family home environment with yards and not the small lot, the air space condo basically. From an architecture perspective we'll look at their colors and ensure we're coordinating those so it doesn't go too far off." Councilmember Leece — "Yeah because that is an entry way to our city and an exit way too. What about the longtime residents, one is a little street that has the, are they, have you met with them to make sure everything goes forward. I know we had a big issue of you." Eric Nelson — "We haven't met with them but that would allow us to then go to the next step which is talk to all our adjacent homeowners and that entire really drive our design so we don't end up here hearing." s part of our process so this step engage the community, reach out, community, get some feedback to with what happened during their Councilmember Leece — "I hope you do that because that was very time consuming and it didn't have a happy ending as far as I was concerned. So those residents on that street, is it Aviemore or Gleneagles, Gleneagles, they've already kind of been through it. What about, do you plan to have an HOAT' Eric Nelson — "Absolutely" Councilmember Leece — "Alright that's all I have for right now" Mayor Pro Tern Mensinger — "Mr Mayor, I know this is just a screening so you are looking for some input, have you looked at accesses off of sea bluff, have you looked into possibly purchasing a parcel." Eric Nelson — "Oh you mean demolishing a house and adding a drive, connecting?" Mayor Pro Tern Mensinger — "or requiring an easement" Eric Nelson — "You know we've looked up at that corner there, and it may be wide enough the question is whether or not staff and council would support that connection and also what the neighborhood would say to that. I think there's some challenges there being that we could see being that driving a project back into a neighborhood that doesn't currently exist but we're open to it so we haven't shut the door to that possibility. That connection point there is not more than 24 feet so it's pretty narrow and it clips the driveway that would be to the east. That is definitely something we could study and get back to staff on." Mayor Pro Tern Mensinger — "I think as I look at it my only concern is on Victoria is, you've got an arterial that is fairly busy and you've got these driveways going in and out. That's a concern." Eric Nelson — "and on that is we proposed an EV access only for one side to try to limit the amount of driveway curb cuts people use every day. You can see up on the top there, that easterly driveway. And that may flip to the other side given the other project if in fact this is the final layout. Again we're still in that early stage here trying to design something that works." Mayor Pro Tern Mensinger — "And then the other concern I have is the density and the compatibility issues with the project next door. I appreciate the yards and everything else but I think the guy to the left of your project had 15 units to the acre or 16." -2173- Eric Nelson — "Yeah they're about 14ish if you take out all the bluff and the areas that are undevelopable its comparable density that lives a lot more dense." Mayor Pro Tern Mensinger — "So you're saying the bluff is what really gives it the lower density." Eric Nelson — "There's a portion of land there that you can't build on, it's bluff and then it goes down that hillside." Mayor Pro Tern Mensinger — "Yeah I just think you're going to have some traffic issues and some engineering issues to deal with." Eric Nelson — "Absolutely we've got topography here that we have to deal with, there's about a 13 foot grade change." Mayor Pro Tern Mensinger — "The only thing I will say is that the offices, you are going to reduce the traffic count, you are going to reduce traffic so we can neg that against some of the stuff we were talking about earlier and if councilman McGinnis can pull out our calculators and figure out how much traffic is going to go down for this project." Eric Nelson — "I think the number was like 700% reduction in daily trips, something like that." Mayor Pro Tern Mensinger — 700% 1 think we're going to end up on the positive side. And the other issues I'm interested in is seeing what the project looks like. Councilwoman Leece did mention earlier, it's a market window that is very important to us as you come into the city. That streetscape is critical as you are doing your planning so keep that in mind." Councilmember Leece — "Mr Mayor, what are you going to do to address visitor parking?" Eric Nelson — "We meet the, we have the 4 units per home as required under the code, so we the parking requirements, so each unit has either a driveway with 2 additional spaces, which is under the code, the guest parking, or in the cases where you have a 2 car garage and a 1 car driveway, there's a parallel parking space in front of that home." Councilmember Leece — "So there's no parking on the little street, it's not one side's red and the other side." Eric Nelson — "Well it's parallel, if you look on the plan, it's parallel to the unit." Councilmember Leece — "Oh I see, the cut-out there." Eric Nelson — "In theory it's on the street." Councilmember Leece — "So you're going to paint all the curbs red." Eric Nelson — "Where you can't park yes." Councilmember Leece — "Yeah where you can't park. So you're going to have to have kind of like a real strict HOA otherwise people are going to be parking in the shopping center around the corner cause I think that happened when that building was in full mode with vitamins or something. That's my concern is ingress and egress, that that be safe and that the parking really be onsite and not flow over to the shopping center. I don't know, that may happen." Chris McEvoy, resident, spoke in opposition to the project due to density; and is concerned with safety and lack of parking. Jay Humphrey, resident, expressed concerns with the lack of parking, guest parking and safety. Greg Thunnell, resident, concerned with traffic safety; and spoke on the sale of units. Robin Leffler, resident, spoke on General Plan Amendments; and asked not to consider General Plan Amendments until the process is complete. Tom Pollitt, resident, thanked the City Council for improving the City and for their efforts; spoke on low density projects; and water supply. Tamar Goldmann, resident, spoke on density and project compatibility with the neighborhood; parking; and jobs. Mayor Pro Tern Mensinger — "Mr. Mayor just a couple things, one of the speakers talked about it a couple times, think about the future but that speaker's left, we're going to be talking about the pension issue and that's really about the future. We have $230M of unfunded liability that we need to think about for our kids, that we're settling them with but that speaker's left already. Secondly, I keep hearing from the same people over and over and one of the people in general has been talking about it for 10 years, developers are bad but then they go home to their house that was built by a developer. They wouldn't be here without that developer building that house. Developers are builders, they're business owners, they're called property owners, there's something called property rights. Some people need to refresh on the role that developers and business owners play in this city, they own a piece of property that is their right. It really gets old after a while. You hear about developers being bad, we have one developer in town generates 1.713 in retail sales, $40M to our city. And I'm sure that person goes to South Coast Plaza on a frequent basis and shops there with no complaints. That same person was against Ikea, was against AAA, was against Metro Pointe. Everything is bad when you want to use it as a commentary. As for the comment on parking, okay, I have a 2 car garage, my son parks on one side, my wife parks on the other. I happen to be part of a 4 person family. You do have to park on the street sometimes. Or I could park in the driveway but our driveways, it was built by somebody without the depth that fit the car. As a result I'm on the street but I appreciate somebody taking notice of my house like that. It's a popular thing apparently, recently some people even put tracking devices on my car cause I'm so popular. I hope the speaker takes pictures cause it's kind of in vogue these days so I appreciate the comment. Thank you." MOTION: Accept the General Plan Amendment. Moved by Councilmember Monahan, seconded by Mayor Righeimer. Councilmember Leece — "I have a question for staff please. What is the zoning of Marina Highlands. The development that's there on Aviemore, Glen Eagles and Valley Circle because you are asking us....so it's R1." Minoo Ashabi — "This is the General Plan but it is kind of consistent with the zoning....R1. Councilmember Leece — "So what is the threshold again? In other words, to go to high it would have to be?" -,795 Minoo Ashabi — "The R2-MD, which is the medium density allows up to 12 dwellings per acre." Councilmember Leece - "12....and this is going to be 28 so that's why we're going to high density. Is Mr. Nelson still here? I lived on Valley Circle for 27 years .... Jay Ray built those homes. Great place to raise a family, it was adequate for us but you know, a lot of times people had to go park in the parking lot at the liquor store. We didn't say shopping center, we'd say "go park at the liquor store". So I think you're being unrealistic as far as the capacity that you're allowing for this number of homes. I would like to see what I have in California Sea Breeze where one side of the street is white and the other side is red — to open it up if you can fix it, to allow parking on one side of the street because you just count the places that you have .... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 1 mean, you are under parked for events because there is no overflow. Where do people go? The only place they can go is through the liquor store. So, I will support this on the condition that, that you look into that improvement and also the traffic, the seriousness of the traffic. Because you don't want to sell a product and then you know, have junior's birthday party and where to they go and then you're going to have a problem with the owner of the shopping center over there. And it is not that safe either because you've got people coming up the hill — oh, we've gotta something here at the liquor store — so you're gonna have people...you know, it's not a safe.....from where I lived on Valley Circle it was because we weren't coming with the traffic coming up the hill or going down. I think it's good if you can work with the neighbors that have been there for a long time. I think you said that what you are proposing is basically the same thing that's been there. In other words, they're not going to have anything ... as far as the number of stories, it's already a three-story so that they are used to that and there's probably less noise. I'm really concerned that you're not being realistic — if you have to take out a couple of houses or whatever to make it happen...to make that street ... I think it's going to be better for Costa Mesa." Councilmember Genis — "Mr. Mayor, I have a question for probably the City Attorney but maybe staff. If this were initiated as high -density residential and advertised as such for public hearings, and then in the hearing whatever body was present, wanted to go .... felt that medium -density residential was more appropriate. Would it have to be reinitiated? Is it you could get the same thing or less or would you have to start from scratch with the initiation and the noticing and so forth? Because for myself, I look at the medium on the one end and the medium on the other and maybe have a little flexibility on that... maybe but go to something a little higher than standard medium just so it was approximately reflective of what it was surrounded by but I hate to open the door to the 20 units an acre so can we get a redo on that?" Counsel Duarte — "In my opinion, you would probably need to re -notice that to make sure. It would be a cleaner way to do it." Mayor Righeimer — "But they're doing a General Plan that how many units to the acre are you looking at? Seventeen." Councilmember Genis — "But see the initiation... what, if we actually went to the HD (high density) we could be stuck with somebody then say he goes away whatever happens? He's hit by a truck, we don't want that to happen. Mayor Righeimer — "But he's bringing a General Plan at the same time." Councilmember Genis — "But whatever happens, you win the lottery and you move to wherever, that's a better scenario and then somebody else says, "well, hey, it's high density residential I can get 20 units" and that's my concern. I don't want it to go to 20 because I always felt this was a bizarre place. 6 d 2_% Mayor Righeimer — "But if they came in with a General Plan at the same time..." Councilmember Genis — "But that's what this is — it's a General Plan. You're talking about a tract map." Mayor Righeimer — "No, they're talking about a PDR — plan development." Councilmember Genis — "But even so, if he went away, you can come back with a PDR once the GPA was in place." Mayor Righeimer — "And you will remember this meeting and tell the people they gotta do the....." Councilmember Genis — "Yeah, but look at we just had ... the eyesore there on Hamilton and Harbor. I mean it is an eyesore right now, that's what I meant." Councilmember Leece — "Mr. Mayor, I just have a question as far as process. So with this request, what are the next steps? Is it going to go before the Planning Commission, just the request for the General Plan amendment?" Minoo Ashabi — "Typically, the General Plan amendment is accompanied by the Rezone and the Master Plan. The first step would be to go before the Planning Commission — they would recommend, they would make the recommendation to the City Council so it will be back to the City Council for another vote." Councilmember Leece — "So it will come back to us....okay, all right." Councilmember Monohan — "Mr. Mayor, can we call for the question, please." The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Mayor Righeimer, Mayor Pro Ten Mensinger, Council Member Genis, Council Member Leece, Council Member Monahan, Nays: None Absent: None Motion carried: 5-0 7 L. I 1 — ATTACHMENT 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTIONS -2-i8- RESOLUTION NO. PC-15-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA RECOMMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS: (1) ADOPT THE INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION; (2) ADOPT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP-14-03 CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF A 2.04 ACRE SITE FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (NC) TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (HDR) LOCATED AT 1239 VICTORIA STREET; (3) GIVE FIRST READING TO REZONE R-14-03 TO CHANGE THE ZONING DISTRICT FROM ADMINISTRATIVE PROFESSIONAL TO MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL — HIGH DENSITY; AND (4) APPROVE MASTER PLAN PA-14-19 AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP VT-17779 THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa adopted the 2000 General Plan on January 22, 2002; WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65358(a) authorizes the City Council to amend the General Plan if it deemed to be in the public interest; WHEREAS, the General Plan is a long-range, comprehensive document that serves as a guide for the orderly development of the City of Costa Mesa; WHEREAS, by its very nature, the General Plan is subject to update and revision to account for current and future community needs; 2-7q- WHEREAS, an application was filed by Trumark Homes, representing the property owner, Westar Holdings, Inc., requesting approval of the following land use entitlements; 1. General Plan Amendment GP-14-03: General Plan amendment to change of Land Use Designation from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to High Density Residential (HDR). 2. Rezone R-14-03: Rezone from Administrative and Professional (AP) District to R2-HD (Multiple -Family Residential District, High Density), up to 14.5 dwelling units per acre. 3. Planning Application PA-14-19: A Design Review for development of a 28-unit Residential Planned Development at the site of an existing commercial/light industrial use. The project consists of the development of 28 single-family, detached residences with a net density of 14 dwelling units per acre. The three bedroom residences are three - stories with roof decks and have attached two -car garages. A total of 56 garage parking spaces, 42 driveway spaces, and 14 guest parking spaces are proposed (112 total spaces, four spaces per unit). The following Variances are requested: a) Open Space - a minimum of 40 percent required, 34.9 percent proposed. b) Rear Setback (20 feet required for second story; 10 feet proposed for second and third stories). c) Building Height (maximum 2 stories/27 feet required; 3 stories/roof deck/37 feet proposed). An Administrative Adjustment is required for the front building setback (20 feet required; 14 feet proposed). A Minor Modification is required to deviate from the distance from main buildings (10 feet required, 8 feet proposed). 4. Vesting Tentative Tract Map VT-17779: Subdivision of a 2.04-acre property for homeownership. WHEREAS, an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element is proposed to change the land use designation of the site for the development of the project as described above; WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment involves an amendment to the Land Use Map of the City of Costa Mesa (Exhibit 1); WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment approval is pending the adoption of Ordinance No. 15- for Rezone R-14-03 (Exhibit 2); WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on March 23, 2015, and continued to April 13, 2015 with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council approval of the abovementioned land use entitlements; WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated through the State Clearinghouse, and the required 30-day public review period was specified from February 25, 2015, to March 27, 2015 for public review and comment; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Responses to Comments document, as well as public comments received to date, on or before the April 13, 2015 public hearing, prior to making a recommendation to approve the proposed project; WHEREAS, the final adoption of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be considered by the City Council as the final approval authority, after evaluation of the environmental document and all comments on the IS/MND received during the public review period; WHEREAS, written comments received from the general public, government entities, and other interested parties were responded to, where appropriate, in the manner prescribed in California Code of Regulations Section 15073; WHEREAS, no significant new information has been added to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and no changes to the proposed project have occurred which would require recirculation of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration under CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the environmental documentation comprising the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and has found that the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration considers all environmental impacts of the proposed project and a reasonable range of alternatives, and the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is complete, adequate, and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Costa Mesa Environmental Guidelines; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found that the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project reflects the independent judgment of the City of Costa Mesa; BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS THAT CITY COUNCIL take the following actions: (1) ADOPT the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration; (2) ADOPT General Plan Amendment GP-14-03, as shown in Exhibit 1; (3) GIVE FIRST READING TO REZONE R-14-03, as shown in Exhibit 2; (4) APPROVE Design Review PA-14-19 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map VT-17779 subject to findings contained in Exhibit A, conditions of approval in Exhibit B, and mitigation measures contained in Exhibit C; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon the activity as described in the staff report for General Plan Amendment GP-14-03, Rezone R-14-03, Planning Application PA-14-19, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map VT-17779 and upon the applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions in Exhibits B, and mitigation measures in Exhibit C, and compliance of all applicable federal, state, and local laws. Any approval granted by this resolution shall be subject to review, modification or revocation if there is a material change that occurs in the operation, or if the applicant fails to comply with any of the conditions of approval and/or mitigation measures. -2U-- BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any section, division, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this resolution, or the documents in the -record in support of this resolution, are for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 13T" day of April 2015. Robert L. Dickson, Jr. Chair, Costa Mesa Planning Commission - 2 $2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, Claire Flynn, Secretary to the Planning Commission of the City of Costa Mesa, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 15-17 was passed and adopted at a meeting of the City of Costa Mesa Planning Commission held on April 13, 2015 by the following votes: AYES: Commissioners Dickson, Mathews, McCarthy, Sesler NOES: Commissioner Andranian ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Clair lynn, Secretary Costa Mesa Planning Commission 0-1 EXHIBIT 1 — GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP-14-03 Amendment to the Land Use Map and Related Land Use Table Change the land use designation of the 2.04-acre development site at 1239 Victoria Street from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to High Density Residential (HDR) Note: Updated text changes to the Land Use Summary Table of the General Plan are also required, as applicable. / Z- f� COUNTY'' j c 1 2m S www Caoo4llnle N C r o rj -`--.00 C p 00b0 o vi RIDGECREST CIR SEA BLUFF DR - 2so -s EXHIBIT 2 — ORDINANCE NO. 15- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA APPROVING REZONE R-14-03 TO REZONE (OR CHANGE) A 2.04 ACRE SITE FROM AP (ADMINISTRATIVE AND PROFESSIONAL DISTRICT) TO MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL -HIGH DENSITY (R2-HD) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1239 VICTORIA STREET. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed by Trumark Homes, representing the property owner, Westar Holdings, Inc., requesting approval of the following land use entitlements: Rezone R-14-03: Rezone (or change) of the zoning classification of the site from Administrative and Professional (AP) District to Multiple Family Residential — High Density (up to 14.5 dwelling units per acre) (R2-HD) District. This is being proposed in conjunction with the following land use entitlements: • General Plan Amendment GP-14-03: General Plan amendment to change of Land Use Designation from, Neighborhood Commercial to High Density Residential. • Planning Application PA-14-19: A Design Review for development of a 28-unit Residential Planned Development at the site of an existing commercial/light industrial use. The project consists of the development of 28 single-family, detached residences with a net density of 14 dwelling units per acre. The three bedroom residences are three -stories with roof decks and have attached two -car garages. A total of 56 garage parking spaces, 42 driveway spaces, and 14 guest parking spaces are proposed (112 total spaces, four spaces per unit). • The following Variances are requested: o Open Space - a minimum of 40 percent required, 34.9 percent proposed. o Rear Setback (20 feet required for second story; 10 feet proposed for second and third stories). o Building Height (maximum 2 stories/27 feet required; 3 stories/roof deck/37 feet proposed). • An Administrative Adjustment is required for the front building setback (20 feet required; 14 feet proposed). 2 90--- • A Minor Modification is required to deviate from the distance from main buildings (10 feet required, 8 feet proposed). • Vesting Tentative Tract Map VT-17779: Subdivision of a 2.04-acre property for homeownership. WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on March 23, 2015, and continued to April 13, 2015 with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal; WHEREAS, at the April 13, 2015 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended that City Council take the following actions by separate Planning Commission resolution; (1) ADOPT the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration; (2) ADOPT General Plan Amendment GP-14-03, as shown in Exhibit 1; (3) GIVE FIRST READING TO REZONE R-14-03, as shown in Exhibit 2; (4) APPROVE Design Review PA-14-19 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map VT-17779 subject to findings contained in Exhibit A, conditions of approval in Exhibit B, and mitigation measures contained in Exhibit C; WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated from February 25, 2015, to March 27, 2015 for public review and comment; WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa received written comments from the general public, government entities, and other interested parties during the public review period; WHEREAS, written comments received from the general public, government entities, and other interested parties were responded to, where appropriate, in the manner prescribed in California Code of Regulations Section 15073; WHEREAS, no significant new information has been added to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and no changes to the proposed project have occurred which would T• 2 V 9 require recirculation of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration under CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5; WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed all environmental documents comprising the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and has found that the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration considers all environmental impacts of the proposed project and a reasonable range of alternatives, and the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is complete, adequate, and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Costa Mesa Environmental Guidelines; WHEREAS, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project reflects the independent judgment of the City of Costa Mesa; BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record, the City Council hereby APPROVES as follows: SECTION 1: REZONE. The City of Costa Mesa Official Zoning Map is hereby amended as follows: 1. There is hereby placed and included in the R2-HD (Multiple Family Residential -High Density) zoning district a 2.04 -acre parcel, identified as County Assessor Parcel Number 422-322-18 and as shown in attached Exhibit B, situated in the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, State of California. 2. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 13-22 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, the Official Zoning Map of the City of Costa Mesa is hereby amended by the change of zone described in subsection #1 above and in the findings in respective Exhibit A. A copy of the Official Zoning Map is on file in the office of the Planning Division. SECTION 2: INCONSISTENCIES. Any provision of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and or further, is hereby repealed or modified to the extent necessary to affect the provisions of this ordinance. SECTION 3: SEVERABILITY. If any provision or clause of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or clauses or applications of this ordinance which can be implemented without the invalid provision, clause or application; and to this end, the provisions of this ordinance are declared to be severable. SECTION 4: PUBLICATION. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force thirty (30) days from and after the passage thereof, and prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days from its passage shall be published once in the ORANGE COAST DAILY PILOT, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa or, in the alternative, the City Clerk may cause to be published a summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the text of this Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk five (5) days prior to the date of adoption of this Ordinance, and within fifteen (15) days after adoption, the City Clerk shall cause to be published the aforementioned summary and shall post in the office of the City Clerk a certified copy of this Ordinance together with the names and member of the City Council voting for and against the same. STEPHEN M. MENSINGER Mayor, City of Costa Mesa STATE OF CALIFORNIA) )ss COUNTY OF ORANGE I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above Council Ordinance Number as considered at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of , 2015, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at the regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of 2015, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Costa Mesa this day of have hereby set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City of , 2015 - qQ1- EXHIBIT 2A FINDINGS (APPROVAL) A. Required Finding: The proposed rezone is consistent with the Zoning Code and the General Plan. Facts In Support of Findings: The proposed project meets or exceeds the intent of the City's Zoning Code with regard to the development standards for the R2-HD zone, including density and on -site parking. The General Plan land use designation for the project area is High Density Residential (14.5 dwelling units to the acre maximum), which is compatible with the proposed zone change to R2-HD (Multiple Family Residential —High Density). The project provides a maximum density of 14 dwelling units to the acre. - 2q I EXHIBIT 2B Amendment to the Zoning Map Change the zoning designation of the 2.04 -acre development site at 1239 Victoria Street from Administrative and Professional District (AP) to Multiple Family Residential- High Density (R2-HD) -- 2q 3- L r 1 0 0 % 00 0000 COUNTY`�'{ VWTOMA PL 24-1- EXHIBIT A FINDINGS (APPROVAL) A. Finding: The proposed rezone is consistent with the Zoning Code and the General Plan. Facts In Support of Findings: The proposed project meets or exceeds the intent of the City's Zoning Code with regard to the development standards for the R2-HD zone, including density and on -site parking. The General Plan land use designation for the project area is High Density Residential (14.5 dwelling units to the acre maximum), which is compatible with the proposed zone change to R2-HD (Multiple Family Residential — High Density). The project provides a maximum density of 14 dwelling units to the acre. B. The proposed project complies with Title 13, Section 13-29(g)(14), Design Review, of the Municipal Code due to the following: Finding: The project complies with the City of Costa mesa Zoning Code and meets the purpose and intent of the Residential Design Guidelines, which are intended to promote excellence in new residential construction, with consideration being given to compatibility with the established residential community. This design review includes site planning, preservation of overall open space, landscaping, appearance, mass and scale of structures, location of windows, varied roof forms and roof plane breaks, and any other applicable design features. Facts in Support of Findings: The project is consistent with the following goals and objectives of the General Plan, Land Use Element. Goal LU-1: It is the goal of the City of Costa Mesa to provide its citizens with a balanced community of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, and institutional uses to satisfy the needs of the social and economic segments of the population and to retain the residential character of the City; to meet the competing demands for alternative developments within each land use classification within reasonable land use intensity limits; and to ensure the long term viability and productivity of the community's natural and man-made environments. Consistency: The project will provide additional ownership housing opportunities because the project is for 28-home ownership units. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project did not identify any adverse impacts to the natural environment and will not increase the need for significant infrastructure improvements. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this General Plan goal. — 2q�5_ • Objective LU-1A: Establish and maintain a balance of land uses throughout the community to preserve the residential character of the City at a level no greater than can be supported by the infrastructure. Consistency. The proposed project is an infill redevelopment project replacing an underutilized commercial building with residential uses. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project indicates that adequate infrastructure (i.e., roads, emergency, and utility services) is available to serve the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this General Plan objective. • Objective LU-1A.4: Strongly encourage the development of...residential uses and owner -occupied housing where feasible to improve the balance between rental and ownership housing opportunities. Consistency: The project is consistent with the proposed High Density Residential General Plan Designation of the property, which allows a maximum of 40 units for the site (28 units are proposed). The project has been specifically designed for owner -occupied housing units. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this General Plan objective. • Objective LU-1 F.S: Provide opportunities for the development of well planned and designed projects which, through vertical or horizontal integration, provide for the development of compatible residential uses within a single project or neighborhood. Consistency: The project has been designed with appropriate building articulation, setbacks and offsets to ensure that it is compatible with surrounding properties and uses. Therefore, the project is consistent with this General Plan objective. • Goal LU-2: It is the goal of the City of Costa Mesa to establish development policies that will create and maintain an aesthetically pleasing and functional environment and minimize impacts on existing physical and social resources. Consistency. The project would allow for the redevelopment of property containing an underused commercial building. The proposed project would enhance the visual appearance of the site through implementation of the proposed landscape plan. In addition, the project would provide a high - quality architectural design to the project area. As required by a standard condition of approval on the project, landscaping treatment along the street frontage will be reviewed to ensure that adequate landscaping is provided to soften the edges of the development and provide compatibility with the surrounding area. As a result, the proposed project is supportive of this General Plan goal. Objective LU-2A: Encourage new development and redevelopment to improve and maintain the quality of the environment. Consistency: An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for this project per the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of the IS/MND is to identify any environmental impacts and, if an impact is determined, if it can be mitigated below a level of significance. Because the IS/MND determined that the project would not result in the loss of any habitat, or require extensive infrastructure improvements to provide service to the site, the proposed project is consistent with this objective. The proposed project meets or exceeds the intent of the City's Zoning Code with regard to the development standards for the R2-HD zone, including lot sizes, building setbacks, open space, and on -site parking; specifically, as noted below. The prpLecl exhibits excellence in design, site planning, integration of uses and structures, and protect the integrity of neighboring development. The project will provide an ownership in -fill residential development that will be complementary to an urban setting. The proposed architecture and site design will enhance the street view and will be compatible with existing development in the area. The overall architectural design promotes excellence and compatibility. The variety of building elevations, materials and staggered massing diminishes the boxy design appearance consistent with the City's Residential Design Guidelines. The project will provide on -site parking spaces that meets current parkincl standards (112 spaces required; 112 spaces proposed). As noted earlier, the project would The project provides a total of 56 garage parking spaces, 42 driveway spaces, and 14 guest spaces are proposed, for a total of 112 on -site parking spaces or four spaces per unit, which complies with Code. The protect will not significantly impact key intersections which would continue to operate at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS). As part of the IS/MND a traffic study was prepared which concluded that, due to the commercial use this project is replacing, the proposed project will result in 139 fewer daily trips, 40 fewer AM peak hour trips, and 26 fewer PM peak hour trips. The proposed project would have a lesser impact on the surrounding street system than the existing land use during the critical weekday AM hour and PM peak hour. Given the reduction in traffic generation resulting from the proposed project, no traffic impacts are forecast and no traffic mitigation is required. --- 2qi)- C. The proposed tentative tract map complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(13) because: Finding: The creation of the subdivision and related improvements is consistent with the General Plan and the Zoning Code. Facts in Support of Findings: The creation of the subdivision is consistent with General Plan Land Use Element in that the project complies with Objectives 1A.4, 2A.7, and 2A.8 by developing owner - occupied housing to improve the balance between rental and ownership housing opportunities, the project provides sufficient easements as a common interest development, and encourages increased private market investment in declining or deteriorating neighborhoods. The subdivision complies with the State Subdivision Map Act. Finding: The proposed use of the subdivision is compatible with the General Plan. Facts in Support of Findings: The HDR (High Density Residential) General Plan Land Use designation allows residential development of up to 14.5 dwelling units/acre on this site; the proposed project is 14 dwelling units/acre and complies with all other applicable provisions of the Zoning Code for residential developments in the R2-HD zone. Finding: The subject property is physically suitable to accommodate the subdivision in terms of type, design, and density of development, and will not result in substantial environmental damage nor public health problems, based on compliance with the Zoning Code and General Plan, and consideration of appropriate environmental information. Facts in Support of Findings: The overall design reflects a quality project that is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and General Plan. The will not create an adverse impact on the environment. Finding: The design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities in the subdivision, as required by State Government Code Section 66473.1. Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed buildings include openings in an east -west direction to take advantage of passive solar heating as well as passive ventilation from ocean breezes. The inclusion of trees will also help provide shade to the residential units within the development. Finding: The subdivision and development of the property will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of the public entity and/or public utility rights -of -way and/or easements within the tract. IC Facts in Support of Findings: As conditioned, the proposed project does not interfere with the public right-of-way. The recommended improvements along the public streets abutting the project site will improve the public right-of-ways for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Finding: The discharge of sewage from this subdivision into the public sewer system will not violate the requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000 of the Water Code). Facts in Support of Findings: The applicant will be required to comply with all regulations set forth by the Costa Mesa Sanitation District as well as the Mesa Water District. The requested variance and administrative adjustment substantially complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(1) in that: Findings: • Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, the strict application of development standards deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by others in the vicinity. • The deviation shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with other properties in the vicinity. • The granting of the deviation will not allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation for the property. Facts in Support of Findings: • Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, the strict application of development standards deprives the properly of privile-les enjoyed by others in the vicinity. The purpose of the 20-foot setback requirement is to provide a visual buffer between the public sidewalk and any perimeter walls or buildings. The proposed project is located on site that has several special circumstances due to lot shape and topography. Specifically, the northerly boundary of the site, along the Victoria Street frontage, has a 30% slope, preventing a typical orientation of a building at 900 angle to the street. Additionally, although the site does not provide the minimum required setback as measured from its narrowest point (at Lot 28) the proposed development provides the average required perimeter landscaping since several areas exceed 20 feet in depth (33 feet in depth in front of Lot 17, for example). With regard to overall open space and building height, the same conditions for unusual lot shape and topography as discussed above apply. Additionally, the project proposes roof top decks for each unit ranging in size from 418 square feet to 522 square feet in addition to the ground -level private yard area for each qq lot. Roof decks are not typically calculated as part of the required open space; however, if the variance were to be approved to allow the roof decks to count as open space, it would add 13,524 square feet of open space to the project, thereby meeting the intent of the Zoning Code open space requirement. The deviation authorized does not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated. Although the abutting Westreef project provided code -compliant open space (40% required; 45% provided) the approval also included a variance from the 20-foot front landscape requirement (20 feet required; 10 feet proposed). Therefore, the strict application of the 20-foot setback requirement for this project deprives the subject property of privileges enjoyed by others in the vicinity. The existing residential properties along Gleneagles Terrace, Sea Bluff Drive, and Valley Road consist of one- and two-story structures. The proposed units will be 3-stories / 37 feet in height with a roof deck on the top story. For the building height variance is required, the following table provides context for multi -family residential developments in the area that have been approved with a three-story building height. 2209 — 2219 PA-87-172 Pacific Avenue Approved 10/1987 1259 Victoria PA-12-24 Street Approved (Westreef) 4/2013 Variance from building height for a 21-unit apartment project (two stories allowed; three stories approved). Variance from building height for Building Complex 1 and 3 (two stories/27 feet allowed; three stories/35-37 feet approved) While the subject property is not located along the bluff crest, other multi- family projects have been approved with encroachment into setback requirements. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan/Zoning Code with regard to use, density and intensity. As noted earlier, the HDR (High Density Residential) General Plan Land Use designation allows residential development of up to 14.5 dwelling units/acre on this site; the proposed project is 14 dwelling units/acre and complies with all other applicable provisions of the Zoning Code for residential developments in the R2-HD zone. Therefore, the granting of the deviation will not allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation and any applicable specific plan for the property. E. Code Section 13-29(g)(6) requires any of the following findings for minor modifications: Findings: • The improvement will not be materially detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of persons residing or working within the immediate vicinity of the project or to property and improvements within the neighborhood. • The improvement is compatible and enhances the architecture and design of the existing and anticipated development in the vicinity. This includes the site planning, land coverage landscaping, appearance, scale of structures, open space, and any other applicable features relative to a compatible and attractive development. Facts in Support of Findings: The minor modification is for a relatively minor 2-foot reduction in the building separation for the units. The project would still be subject to Code requirements as they pertain to Building and Fire safety. In addition, the reduction will not be materially detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of persons residing or working within the immediate vicinity of the project or to property and improvements within the neighborhood. As noted earlier, the project consists of quality architecture and building materials and is compatible and enhances the architecture and design of the existing and anticipated development in the vicinity. F. The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City's environmental procedures. An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Mitigation measures from the IS/MND have been included as Exhibit C. If any of these conditions are removed, the decision -making body must make a finding that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts, that the conditions are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency, or that specific economic, social or other considerations make the mitigation measures infeasible. G. The project is exempt from Chapter XII, Article 3, Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. H. The subject property is physically suitable to accommodate the proposed subdivision in terms of type, design, and density of development, and will not result in substantial environmental damage nor public health problems, based on compliance with the purpose and intent of the City's Zoning Code and General Plan, as amended. The design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities in the subdivision, as required by Government Code Section 66473.1. 30 I The subdivision will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of the public entity and/or public utility rights -of -way and/or easements within the subdivision. The discharge of sewage from this subdivision into the public sewer system will not violate the requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000 of the Water Code). - 3o2- — EXHIBIT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Ping. 1. Planning Application PA-14-19 and Vesting Tentative Tract VT-17779 shall comply with the conditions of approval, code requirements, special district requirements, and mitigation measures of the IS/MND for this project and as listed in the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program (Exhibit C). 2. Mitigation measures from the IS/MND for this project have been included as Exhibit C. If any of these conditions are removed, the Planning Commission must make a finding that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts, that the conditions are within the responsibility of another public agency, or that specific economic, social, or other considerations make the mitigation measures infeasible. 3. The conditions of approval including Mitigation Measures incorporated by reference in these Conditions of Approval as Exhibit C, code requirements, and special district requirements of PA-14-19 and VT-17779 shall be blueprinted on the face of the site plan as part of the plan check submittal package. 4. The expiration of Planning Application PA-14-19 shall coincide with the expiration of the approval of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map VT-17779 which is valid for two years. An extension request is needed to extend the expiration for each additional year after the initial two-year period. The Vesting Tentative Tract Map shall be processed as a common interest residential development map consistent with Section 13-41 of the Zoning Code. 5. Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall implement the pre - negotiated modifications, including but not limited to, window locations, exterior staircases, roofdecks, landscape plans, and any other applicable deal points made with the specified adjacent neighbors at Sea Bluff Drive and Valley Road to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director. 6. A decorative 7-foot high perimeter block wall shall be constructed along the rear boundary of the site where the current 5-foot high block wall is located. Where walls or fences on adjacent properties already exist, the applicant shall work with the adjacent property owner(s) to prevent side -by -side walls with gaps in between them. The interior fences or walls between the units shall be a minimum of six feet in height, except as noted in the noise mitigation measures for this project. 7. The maximum height of the building, including any mechanical equipment and rooftop appurtenances in the top story roofdeck, shall be 37 feet. No outdoor amplified music or storage of materials visible from adjacent residential properties shall occur on the rooftop level. The railing of the roofdeck area shall be a minimum of 42" inches and shall be obscure. Other than the minimal lighting required for safety and security purposes, no additional outdoor or decorative lighting shall be installed within the roofdeck area. The roofdecks, and all associated structures (i.e. privacy wall, staircase, etc.) shall - 303 be removed from the proposed plans for Lots 3, 4, 5, and 6 to address privacy impacts and shall be no higher than prior to submission of construction drawings for plan check, and the overall building height shall be no higher than 28 feet. 8. The open, unassigned parking spaces within the private street shall be clearly marked as guest parking spaces. Signage will be posted to indicate that these spaces are available to all visitors. The number of on -site parking spaces required for this project shall be shown on the final construction drawings. Open parking spaces be designated as unreserved, available, open guest parking for all visitors to the site. Signage will be posted to indicate that these spaces are available to all visitors. Vehicle parking on individual driveway less than 19-feet in length is expressly prohibited. 9. Prior to issuance of building permits, a final landscape plan indicating the landscape palette and the design/material of paved areas shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Division. The developer shall provide decorative hardscape and landscape treatments as shown on the conceptual plans to provide visual relief for the project from the street. Final materials shall be subject to approval by the Planning Division. 10. The landscape setback area along Victoria Street shall be landscaped with trees and vegetation. The landscape plan shall be approved prior to issuance of building permits and shall contain additional 24-inch box trees above the minimum Code requirements to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director. Compliance with this requirement may include upgrading smaller sized trees to 24-inch box trees or providing additional 24-inch box trees. Landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans prior to final inspection or occupancy clearance. 11. Prior to issuance of building permits, developer shall contact the U.S. Postal Service with regard to location and design of mail delivery facilities. Such facilities shall be shown on the site plan, landscape plan, and/or floor plan. 12. No modification(s) of the approved building elevations including, but not limited to, change of architectural type, changes that increase the building height, removal of building articulation, or a change of the finish material(s), shall be made during construction without prior Planning Division written approval. Failure to obtain prior Planning Division approval of the modification could result in the requirement of the applicant to (re)process the modification through a discretionary review process or a variance, or in the requirement to modify the construction to reflect the approved plans. 3(!:)41 be removed from the proposed plans for Lots 3, 4, 5, and 6 to address privacy impacts prior to submission of construction drawings for plan check. 8. The open, unassigned parking spaces within the private street shall be clearly marked as guest parking spaces. Signage will be posted to indicate that these spaces are available to all visitors. The number of on -site parking spaces required for this project shall be shown on the final construction drawings. Open parking spaces be designated as unreserved, available, open guest parking for all visitors to the site. Signage will be posted to indicate that these spaces are available to all visitors. Vehicle parking on individual driveway less than 19-feet in length is expressly prohibited. 9. Prior to issuance of building permits, a final landscape plan indicating the landscape palette and the design/material of paved areas shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Division. The developer shall provide decorative hardscape and landscape treatments as shown on the conceptual plans to provide visual relief for the project from the street. Final materials shall be subject to approval by the Planning Division. 10. The landscape setback area along Victoria Street shall be landscaped with trees and vegetation. The landscape plan shall be approved prior to issuance of building permits and shall contain additional 24-inch box trees above the minimum Code requirements to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director. Compliance with this requirement may include upgrading smaller sized trees to 24-inch box trees or providing additional 24-inch box trees. Landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans prior to final inspection or occupancy clearance. 11. Prior to issuance of building permits, developer shall contact the U.S. Postal Service with regard to location and design of mail delivery facilities. Such facilities shall be shown on the site plan, landscape plan, and/or floor plan. 12. No modification(s) of the approved building elevations including, but not limited to, change of architectural type, changes that increase the building height, removal of building articulation, or a change of the finish material(s), shall be made during construction without prior Planning Division written approval. Failure to obtain prior Planning Division approval of the modification could result in the requirement of the applicant to (re)process the modification through a discretionary review process or a variance, or in the requirement to modify the construction to reflect the approved plans. _�5— 13. Prior to issuance of grading permits, developer shall identify to the Development Services Director a construction relations officer to act as a community liaison concerning on -site activity, including resolution of issues related to dust generation from grading/paving activities. The community liaison shall provide a 24-hour hotline to the surrounding residents within 500 feet of the subject property to report any concerns during the construction of the project. The concerns shall be addressed within a reasonable time period (generally 72 hours) to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director. The community liaison shall provide a weekly report indicating the complaints received and resolution implemented. 14. The upper level windows shall be designed to minimize direct views into second - floor windows for residences on abutting properties. Windows on southern elevation (staircase) shall be 6 feet above finished floor for Lots 3, 4, 5, and 6. 15. Prior to the issuance of Building Permits, the Applicant shall submit a Lighting Plan and Photometric Study for the approval of the City's Development Services Department. The Lighting Plan shall demonstrate compliance with the following: a. The mounting height of lights on light standards shall not exceed 18 feet in any location on the Project site unless approved by the Development Services Director. There shall not be in permanent light standards (other than light bollards) installed in the roof deck area. b. The intensity and location of lights on buildings shall be subject to the Development Services Director's approval. c. All site lighting fixtures shall be provided with a flat glass lens. Photometric calculations shall indicate the effect of the flat glass lens fixture efficiency. d. Lighting design and layout shall limit spill light to no more than 0.5 foot candle at the property line of the surrounding neighbors, consistent with the level of lighting that is deemed necessary for safety and security purposes on site. e. Glare shields may be required for select light standards. f. If proposed, light standards on roof decks shall be located and oriented in such a way as to minimize light spillage onto surrounding properties. 16. Prior to issuance of grading permits, developer shall submit for review and approval a Construction Management Plan. This plan features methods to minimize disruption to the neighboring residential uses to the fullest extent that is reasonable and practicable. The plan shall include construction parking and vehicle access and specifying staging areas and delivery and hauling truck routes. The plan should mitigate disruption to residents during construction. The truck route plan shall preclude truck routes through residential areas and major truck traffic during peak hours. The total truck trips to the site shall not exceed 200 trucks per day (i.e., 100 truck trips to the site plus 100 truck trips from the site) unless approved by the Development Services Director or Transportation Services Manager. --- 3 NO 17. The subject property's ultimate finished grade level may not be filled/raised in excess of 36 inches above the finished grade of any abutting property. If additional fill dirt is needed to provide acceptable on -site storm water flow to a public street, an alternative means of accommodating that drainage shall be approved by the City's Building Official prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Such alternatives may include subsurface tie-in to public storm water facilities, subsurface drainage collection systems and/or sumps with mechanical pump discharge in -lieu of gravity flow. If mechanical pump method is determined appropriate, said mechanical pump(s) shall continuously be maintained in working order. In any case, development of subject property shall preserve or improve the existing pattern of drainage on abutting properties. 18. If the project is constructed in phases, the perimeter wall, landscaping along the street frontage and irrigation shall be installed prior to the release of utilities for the first phase. 19. The applicant shall contact the Planning Division to arrange a Planning inspection of the site prior to the release of occupancy/utilities. This inspection is to confirm that the conditions of approval and code requirements have been satisfied. 20. Trash facilities shall be screened from view, and designed and located appropriately to minimize potential noise and odor impacts to residential areas. 21. To avoid an alley -like appearance, the private street shall not be developed with a center concrete swale. The private street shall be complemented by stamped concrete or pervious pavers. 22. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) to the Development Services Director and City Attorney's office for review. The CC&Rs must be in a form and substance acceptable to, and shall be approved by the Development Services Director and City Attorney's office. - 30q' a. The CC&Rs shall contain provisions requiring that the HOA homeowner's association (HOA) effectively manage parking and contract with a towing service to enforce the parking regulations. b. The CC&Rs shall also contain provisions related to night-time lighting and active use of the roof decks. These provisions shall prohibit amplified noise, loud parties/gatherings, night-time lighting after 9:00 PM other than for security purposes, or any other activities that may be disruptive to the quiet enjoyment of neighboring properties after 9:00 PM. c. The CC&Rs shall also contain provisions related to preservation and maintenance of the common lot and common open space areas in perpetuity by the homeowner's association. The CC&Rs shall also contain the buyer's notice as an exhibit. d. The CC&Rs shall contain a notice that all open parking spaces which are not located on an individual driveway shall be unassigned and available for visitors. e. The CC&R's shall contain restrictions requiring residents to park vehicles in garage spaces provided for each unit. Storage of other items may occur only to the extent that vehicles may still be parked within the required garage at the number for which the garage was originally designed and to allow for inspections by the association to verify compliance with this condition. f. The CC&Rs shall contain restrictions prohibiting parking in the 5-foot deep driveways in front of the garage doors for the Plan 2 Units. g. The CC&Rs shall contain provisions requiring that the Homeowner's Association submit a signed affidavit to the City of Costa Mesa on an annual basis to certify the following: o The two -car garages in the residential community are being used for vehicle parking by the resident(s). o The vehicle parking areas within the garage are not obstructed by storage items, including but not limited to, toys, clothing, tools, boxes, equipment, etc. o The resident(s) have consented to voluntary inspections of the garage to verify the parking availability, as needed. o The form and content of the affidavit shall be provided by the City Attorney's office. Failure to file the annual affidavit is considered a violation of this condition. h. Any subsequent revisions to the CC&Rs related to these provisions must be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney's office and the Development Services Director before they become effective. 23. The CC&Rs shall be recorded prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy. Applicant shall provide proof of establishment of a homeowners association prior to release of any utilities prior to selling any of the units as condominiums. 24. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide proof of recordation of Vesting Tract Map 17779. W9'e 25. Transformers, backflow preventers, and any other approved above -ground utility improvement shall be located outside of the required street setback area and shall be screened from view, under direction of Planning staff. Any deviation from this requirement shall be subject to review and approval of the Development Services Director. 26. Applicant shall plant mature trees (24-inch box trees) with a minimum height of 15 feet in the rear yards of Lots 3 through 9 and Lot 23 to provide visual screening for privacy purposes. The CC&Rs shall reflect that these trees be maintained (or replaced if necessary) in the rear yard to provide a permanent landscape buffer between the properties at the homeowner's expense in the future. 27. In the event that archaeological resources are encountered during grading and construction, all construction activities shall be temporarily halted or redirected to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of archaeological materials as determined by the City, who shall establish, in cooperation with the project applicant and a certified archaeologist, the appropriate procedures for exploration and/or salvage of the artifacts. 28. In the event that paleontological resources are encountered during grading and construction operations, all construction activities shall be temporarily halted or redirected to permit a qualified paleontologist to assess the find for significance and, if necessary, develop a paleontological resources impact mitigation plan (PRIMP) for the review and approval by the City prior to resuming excavation activities. 29. If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 24 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. 30. An opportunity shall be provided for a certified Native American Monitor (NAM) to be present during the first week of ground disturbance activities. In the event that additional cultural deposits are uncovered during ground disturbance operations, the NAM shall be empowered to halt or divert work in the vicinity of the find until the nature and the significance of the discovery is determined. 31. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officials, agents, officers and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding (collectively referred to as "proceeding") brought against the City, its elected and appointed officials, agents, officers or employees arising out of, _30cf— or which are in any way related to, the applicant's project, or any approvals granted by City related to the applicant's project. The indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against the City, if any, and cost of suit, attorney's fees, and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred in connection with such proceeding whether incurred by the applicant, the City and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. This indemnity provision shall include the applicant's obligation to indemnify the City for all the City's costs, fees, and damages that the City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this section. City shall have the right to choose its own legal counsel to represent the City's interests, and applicant shall indemnify City for all such costs incurred by City. Eng. 32. Comply with the requirements contained in the letter prepared by the City Engineer (Exhibit B1). 33. Maintain the public right-of-way in a "wet -down" condition to prevent excessive dust and promptly remove any spillage from the public right-of-way by sweeping or sprinkling. Trans. 34. The westerly project driveway shall be restricted to right-in/right-out access while the easterly driveway remains a full access driveway. The right-in/right- out restriction at the westerly driveway shall be implemented by constructing a raised median on Victoria Street, subject to final review and approval by the Transportation Services Manager and the Development Services Director. Bldg. 35. The applicant shall submit a soils report for this project. Soils report recommendation shall be blueprinted on both the architectural and grading plans. Soils report shall contain recommendations on how to protect the subject and neighboring properties. Design, grading, and construction shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of the California Building Code applicable at the time of grading as well as the appropriate local grading regulations, and the recommendations of the project geotechnical consultant as summarized in a final written report, subject to review by the City of Costa Mesa Building official prior to issuance of grading permits. Ping. 36. To the extent feasible and practicable, the applicant shall work with the Public Comm. Services Department to develop a plan to install an approximately 200- to 300-foot long wrought iron fence along the Victoria Street frontage of Vista Park. The extent, design and construction of the wrought iron fencing shall be at the applicant's expense and shall be subject to final approval by the Public Services Director and the Development Services Director. The Development Services Director may waive or modify this requirement due to infeasibility of implementation for economic or logistical reasons. 37. To the extent feasible and practicable, the applicant shall work with the property owner of the Victoria Square retail center at Valley Road/Victoria Street to provide off -site guest parking in the evenings and weekends. The off -site parking agreement shall allow ingress, egress, and parking for guests/visitors of the proposed residential development. The Development —�3I®— Services Director may waive or modify this requirement due to infeasibility of implementation for economic or logistical reasons. 38. The applicant shall abide to the design stipulations, terms and conditions that have been pre -negotiated with immediately abutting neighbors on Gleneagles Terrance and Sea Bluff Road. The signed agreements with the affected neighbors are provided as Exhibit D. CODE REQUIREMENTS The following list of federal, state and local laws applicable to the project has been compiled by staff for the applicant's reference. Any reference to "City" pertains to the City of Costa Mesa. Ping, 1. All contractors and subcontractors must have valid business licenses to do business in the City of Costa Mesa. Final inspections, final occupancy and utility releases will not be granted until all such licenses have been obtained. 2. Address assignment shall be requested from the Planning Division prior to submittal of working drawings for plan check. The approved address of individual units, suites, buildings, etc., shall be blueprinted on the site plan and on all floor plans in the working drawings. 3. Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall contact the US Postal Service with regard to location and design of mail delivery facilities. Such facilities shall be shown on the site plan, landscape plan, and/or floor plan. 4. Pay Park fee prior to building permit issuance or certificate of occupancy. Applicable fee shall be that fee in effect at the time the subdivision application is filed with the City. 5. A minimum 20-foot by 20-foot clear interior dimension shall be provided for all garages. 6. Minimum garage door width shall be 16 feet. 7. All garages shall be provided with automatic garage door openers. 8. Hours of construction shall comply with Section 13-279, Title 13, of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. 9. Two (2) sets of detailed landscape and irrigation plans, which meet the requirements set forth in Costa Mesa Municipal Code Sections 13-101 through 13-108 and the City's Water Efficient Landscape Guidelines, shall be required as part of the project plan check review and approval process. Plans shall be forwarded to the Planning Division for final approval prior to issuance of building permits. 10. Two (2) sets of landscape and irrigation plans, approved by the Planning Division, shall be attached to two of the final building plan sets. 11. All on -site utility services shall be installed underground. 12. Installation of all utility meters shall be performed in a manner so as to obscure the installation from view from any place on or off the property. The installation shall be in a manner acceptable to the public utility and shall be in the form of a vault, wall cabinet, or wall box under the direction of the Planning Division. 13. Any mechanical equipment such as air-conditioning equipment and duct work shall be screened from view in a manner approved by the Planning Division. 14. All construction contractors shall comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regulations, including Rule 403, Fugitive Dust. All grading (regardless of acreage) shall apply best available control measures for fugitive dust in accordance with Rule 403. To ensure that the project is in full compliance with applicable SCAQMD dust regulations and that there is no nuisance impact offsite, the contractor would implement each of the following: a. Moisten soil not more than 15 minutes prior to moving soil or conduct whatever watering is necessary to prevent visible dust emissions from exceeding 100 feet in any direction. b. Water excavated soil piles hourly or covered with temporary coverings. c. Water exposed surfaces at least twice a day under calm conditions. Water as often as needed on windy days when winds are less than 25 miles per hour or during very dry weather in order to maintain a surface crust and prevent the release of visible emissions from the construction site. d. Minimize dirt track -out from the project site by employing either vehicle wash stations, rumble plates or graveling as per specifications in Rule 403. e. Provide for street sweeping, as needed, on adjacent roadways to remove dirt dropped by construction vehicles or mud, which would otherwise be carried off by trucks departing project sites. f. Securely cover loads with a tight fitting tarp on any truck leaving the construction sites to dispose of debris. g. Cease grading during period when winds exceed 25 miles per hour. 15. SCAQMD Rule 445 prohibits permanently installed wood burning devices into any new development. A wood burning device means any fireplace, wood burning heater, or pellet -fueled wood heater, or any similarly enclosed, permanently installed, indoor or outdoor device burning any solid fuel for aesthetic or space -heating purposes, which has a heat input of less than one million British thermal units per hour. 16. The Project shall comply with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations established by the energy conservation standards. 17. Each of the conclusions and recommendations specified in the Geotechnical Evaluation for the Proposed Development at 1239 Victoria Street, City of Costa Mesa, California (LGC Geotechnical, Inc., April 28, 2014) shall be incorporated into the Project's design considerations, plans, and job specifications. 18. Prior to the issuance of Grading Permits, the Project Applicant shall provide the City of Costa Mesa Department of Building Safety with a geotechnical investigation of the project site detailing recommendations for remedial grading in order to reduce the potential of onsite soils to cause unstable conditions. Design, grading, and construction shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of the California Building Code applicable at the time of grading, appropriate local grading regulations, and the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant as summarized in a final written report, subject to review by the City of Costa Mesa Department of Building Safety. 19. The Project shall comply with the NPDES requirements, as follows: a. Construction General Permit Notice of Intent (NOI) Design: Prior to the issuance of preliminary or precise grading permits, the project applicant shall provide the City Engineer with evidence that an NOI has been filed with the Storm Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Such evidence shall consist of a copy of the NOI stamped by the SWRCB or Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), or a letter from either agency stating that the NOI has been filed. b. Construction Phase Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP): Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare a SWPPP that complies with the Construction General Permit and will include at a minimum the following: • Discuss in detail the BMPs planned for the project related to control of sediment and erosion, non -sediment pollutants, and potential pollutants in non -storm water discharges; and • Describe post -construction BMPs for the Project. c. Explain the maintenance program for the Project's BMPs. d. List the parties responsible for the SWPPP implementation and the BMP maintenance during and after grading. The Project Applicant shall implement the SWPPP and modify the SWPPP as directed by the Construction General Permit. 20. During demolition, grading, and excavation, workers shall comply with the requirements of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 1529, which provides for exposure limits, exposure monitoring, respiratory protection, and good working practices by workers exposed to asbestos. Asbestos -contaminated debris and other wastes shall be managed and disposed of in accordance with the applicable provision of the California Health and Safety Code. 21. During demolition, grading, and excavation, workers shall comply with the requirements of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 1532.1, which provides for exposure limits, exposure monitoring, respiratory protection, and good working practice by workers exposed to lead. Lead - contaminated debris and other wastes shall be managed and disposed of in accordance with the applicable provision of the California Health and Safety Code. 22. In order to comply with the 2003 DAMP, the proposed Project shall prepare a Storm Drain Plan, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) conforming to the current National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, prepared by --- �3 I­1 — a Licensed Civil Engineer or Environmental Engineer, which shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. a. The SWPPP shall be prepared and updated as needed during the course of construction to satisfy the requirements of each phase of development. b. The plan shall incorporate all necessary Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other City requirements to eliminate polluted runoff until all construction work for the project is completed. The SWPPP shall include treatment and disposal of all dewatering operation flows and for nuisance flows during construction. c. A WQMP shall be maintained and updated as needed to satisfy the requirements of the adopted NPDES program. The plan shall ensure that the existing water quality measures for all improved phases of the project are adhered to. d. Location of the BMPs shall not be within the public right-of-way. 23. Prior to approval of Plans, the Project shall fulfill the City of Costa Mesa Drainage Ordinance No. 06-19 requirements. 24. The final master plan for development of the Project site shall provide sufficient capacity for fire flows required by the City of Costa Mesa Fire Department. 25. Vehicular access shall be provided and maintained serviceable throughout construction to all required fire hydrants. 26. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the City of Costa Mesa Fire Department shall review and approve the developer's Project design features to assess compliance with the California Building Code and California Fire Code. 27. The Project shall provide fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A to be located within 75 feet of travel distance from all areas. Extinguishers may be of a type rated 2A, 10BC as these extinguishers are suitable for all types of fires and are less expensive. 28. The Project shall provide an automatic fire sprinkler system according to NFPA 13 R. 29. The Project shall provide a fire alarm system. 30. The Project shall provide individual numeric signage for proposed residences with minimum 6 inches height. 31. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Developer shall pay a school impact fee currently calculated at $1.84 per square foot for residential development and $0.30 per square foot for commercial development. 32. As final building plans are submitted to the City of Costa Mesa for review and approval, the Costa Mesa Police Department shall review all plans for the purpose of ensuring that design requirements are incorporated into the building design to increase safety and avoid unsafe conditions. These measures focus r5- on security measures are recommended by the Police Department, including but not limited to, the following: a. Lighting shall be provided in open areas and parking lots. b. Required building address numbers shall be readily apparent from the street and rooftop building identification shall be readily apparent from police helicopters for emergency response agencies. c. Landscaping requirements. d. Emergency vehicle parking areas shall be designated within proximity to buildings. e. The applicant shall fund all costs associated with police and fire radio reception enhancement, including a Bi-Directional Amplifying 800 MHz antenna (BDA). f. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the City of Costa Mesa Police Department shall review and approve the developer's project design features to ensure adequate security measures are incorporated into the project design. 33. Prior to demolition activities, removal and/or abatement of asbestos containing building materials, lead based paints, and hazardous materials associated with the existing building materials shall be conducted by a qualified environmental professional in consultation with the Costa Mesa Fire Department. An asbestos and hazardous materials abatement specification shall be developed by the qualified environmental professional, in order to clearly define the scope and objective of the abatement activities. 34. Prior to investigations, demolition, or renovation, all activities shall be coordinated with Dig Alert (811). 35. Visual inspections for areas of impact to soil shall be conducted during site grading. If unknown or suspect materials are discovered during construction by the contractor that are believed to involve hazardous wastes or materials, the contractor shall: a. Immediately stop work in the vicinity of the suspected contaminant, removing workers and the public from the area; b. Notify the City Engineer and Costa Mesa Fire Department; c. Secure the area(s) in question; and d. Implement required corrective actions, including remediation if applicable. 36. Prior to the issuance of any Grading Permit, the Applicant shall: a. Prepared a detailed Hydrology Study, approved by the City Engineer- b. Design all storm drain facilities, approved by the City Engineer, for 25-year storm event protection. c. Design all storm drains in the public right-of-way to be a minimum of 24 inches by City of Costa Mesa requirements and in accordance with the Orange County Local Drainage Manual including a minimum spacing between manholes of 300 feet. Bldg. 37. Comply with the requirements of the 2013 California Building Code, 2013 California Residential Code, 2013 California Electrical Code, 2013 California Mechanical Code, 2013 California Plumbing Code, 2013 California Green Building Standards Code and 2013 California Energy Code (or the applicable adopted, California Building Code, California Residential Code, California Electrical Code, California Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code, California Green Building Standards, and California Energy Code at the time of plan submittal or permit issuance) and California Code of Regulations also known as the California Building Standards Code, as amended by the City of Costa Mesa. Requirements for accessibility to sites, facilities, buildings, and elements by individuals with disability shall comply with Chapter 11 B of the 2013 California Building Code. 38. Submit a precise grading plan, an erosion control plan and a hydrology study 39. Submit a soils report for this project. Soils report recommendations shall be blueprinted on both the architectural and grading plans. 40. On graded sites the top of exterior foundation shall extend above the elevation of the street gutter at point of discharge or the inlet of an approved discharge devise a minimum of 12 inches plus 2 percent. 2013 California Building Code CRC 403.1.7.3. 41. Lots shall be graded to drain surface water away from foundation walls. The grade shall fall a minimum of six inches within the first 10 feet. CRC R401.3. 42. Projections, including eaves, shall be one -hour fire resistive construction, heavy timber or of noncombustible material if they project into the 5-foot (setback area from the property line. They may project a maximum of 12 inches beyond the 3-foot setback. CRC Tables R302.1(1) and R302.1(2). Trans. 43. Construct all proposed driveway approaches to comply with city standards. 44. Close unused drive approaches, or portion of, with full height curb and gutter that comply with City Standards. 45. Prior to the start of construction, a Construction Access and Circulation Plan shall be prepared and approved by the City Traffic Engineer to ensure that construction traffic will not impact Victoria Street and other public roadways in the site vicinity. `3 19 _. Fire 46. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the City of Costa Mesa Fire Department shall review and approve the project design features to assess compliance with the California Building Code and California Fire Code. 47. Provide Class A fire hydrants to be located as directed by the Fire Department. 48. Provide "blue dot" reflective markers for all on -site fire hydrants. 49. The project shall provide an automatic fire sprinkler system according to NFPA 13 R. Street 50. Plant three (3) 24" Box Pistacia chinensis. Tress to be incorporated into site Trees landscape plan. WQMP 51. In order to comply with the 2003 DAMP, the proposed project shall prepare a Storm Drain Plan, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) conforming to the current National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer or Environmental Engineer, which shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. 52. The SWPPP shall be prepared and updated as needed during the course of construction to satisfy the requirements of each phase of development. The plan shall incorporate all necessary Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other City requirements to eliminate polluted runoff until all construction work for the project is completed. The SWPPP shall include treatment and disposal of all dewatering operation flows and for nuisance flows during construction. 53. A WQMP shall be maintained and updated as needed to satisfy the requirements of the adopted NPDES program. The plan shall ensure that the existing water quality measures for all improved phases of the project are adhered to. 54. Location of the BMPs shall not be within the public right-of-way. SPECIAL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS The requirements of the following special districts are hereby forwarded to the applicant: Sani. 1. Applicant will be required to construct sewers to serve this project, at his own expense, meeting the approval of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. 2. County Sanitation District fees, fixture fees, inspection fees, and sewer permit are required prior to installation of sewer. 3. Applicant shall submit a plan showing sewer improvements that meets the District Engineer's approval to the Building Division as part of the plans submitted for plan check. 4. The applicant is required to contact the Costa Mesa Sanitary District at (714) 754-5307 to arrange final sign -off prior to certificate of occupancy being released. 5. Unless an off -site trash hauler is being used, applicant shall contact the Costa Mesa Sanitary District at (714) 754-5043 to pay trash collection program fees and arrange for service for all new residences. Residences using bin or dumpster services are exempt from this requirement. 6. Applicant shall contact Costa Mesa Sanitary District at (949) 654-8400 for any additional district requirements. AQMD 7. Applicant shall contact the Air Quality Management District (AQMD) at (800) 288-7664 for potential additional conditions of development or for additional permits required by AQMD. Water 8. Customer shall contact the Mesa Water District — Engineering Desk and submit an application and plans for project review. Customer must obtain a letter of approval and a letter of project completion from Mesa Water District. School 9. Pay applicable Newport Mesa Unified School District fees to the Building Division prior is issuance of building permits. State 10. Comply with the requirements of the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) to determine if red imported fire ants (RIFA) exist on the property prior to any soil movement or excavation. Call CDFA at (714) 708- 1910 for information. 31q EXHIBIT B1 26-- CITY OF COSTA MESA P O BOX 1200 - 77 FAIR DRIVE - CALIFORNIA 92628-1200 FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES/ENGINEERING DIVISION March 12, 2015 Costa Mesa Planning Commission City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 SUBJECT: Tract No. 17779 LOCATION: 1239 Victoria Street Dear Commissioners: Tentative Tract Map No. 17779 as furnished by the Planning Division for review by the Public Services Department consists of subdividing one lot into twenty-eight numbered lots and four lettered tots. Tentative Tract Map No. 17779 meets with the approval of the Public Services Department, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Tract shall be developed in full compliance with the State Map Act and the City of Costa Mesa Municipal Code (C.C.M.M.C.), except as authorized by the Costa Mesa City Council and/or Planning Commission. The attention of the Subdivider and his engineer is directed to Section 13-208 through 13-261 inclusive, of the Municipal Code. 2. The Subdivider shall conduct soil investigations and provide the results to the City of Costa Mesa Engineering and Building Divisions pursuant to Ordinance 97-11. 3. Two copies of the Final Tract Map shall be submitted to the Engineering Division for checking, Map check fee shall be paid per C.C.M.M.C. Section 13-231. 4. A current copy of the title search shall be submitted to the Engineering Division with the first submittal of the Final Tract Map, 5. Dedicate an ingress/egress easement to the City for emergency and public security vehicles purposes only. Maintenance of easement shall be the sole responsibility of a Homeowners Association formed to conform to Section 13-41 (e) of the C.C.M.M.C. 6. Vehicular and pedestrian access rights to Victoria Street shall be released and relinquished to the City of Costa Mesa except at approved access locations. 7. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then remove any existing driveways and/or curb depressions that will not be used and replace with full height curb and sidewalk. PHONE (714) 754-5335 FAX (714) 754-5028 TDD: (714) 754-5244 www costamesaca gov Planning Commission 2015 8. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then construct P.C.C. driveway approaches per City of Costa Mesa Standards as shown on the Offsite Plan. Location and dimensions are subject to the approval of the Transportation Services Manager. 9. Relocate existing street light and radar speed feedback sign to accommodate the location of the new drive approaches. 10. Submit for approval to the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, Street Improvement Plans that show Sewer and Water Improvements, prepared by a Civil Engineer. Applicant is informed Victoria Street is under a "NO OPEN CUT" moratorium until March, 2020. Open cutting the street pavement during the moratorium period shall require special resurfacing requirements. 11. The Subdivider shall submit a cash deposit of $980 for street sweeping at time of issuance of a Construction Access permit. Full amount of deposit shall be maintained on a monthly basis prior to and during construction until completion of project. 12. Fulfill City of Costa Mesa Drainage Ordinance No. 06-19 requirements prior to approval of Final Tract Map 13, The Subdivider's engineers shall furnish the Engineering Division a storm runoff study showing existing and proposed facilities and the method of draining this area and tributary areas without exceeding the capacity of any street or drainage facility on -site or off -site. This study to be furnished with the first submittal of the Final Tract Map. Cross lot drainage shall not occur. 14. Ownership and maintenance of the private on -site drainage facilities and parkway culverts and other common areas shall be transferred by the owner to the Homeowners Association to be formed pursuant to C.C.M.M.C. Section 13-41 (e) and said association shall indemnify and hold harmless the City for any liability arising out of or in any way associated with the connection of the private drainage system with the City's drainage system and shall execute and deliver to the City the standard (indemnity) Hold Harmless Agreement required for such conditions prior to issuance of permits. 15. Sewer improvements shall meet the approval of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District; call (949) 631-1731 for information. 16. Water system improvements shall meet the approval of Mesa Consolidated Water District; call (949) 631-1200 for information. 17. Dedicate easements as needed for public utilities. 18. Prior to recordation of a Final Tract Map, the surveyor/engineer preparing the map shall tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor in a manner described in Subarticle 12, Section 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code. 19. Prior to recordation of a Final Tract Map, the surveyor/engineer preparing the map shall submit to the County Surveyor a digital -graphics file of said map in a manner described in Subarticle 12, Section 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code. - 3 -22-- 2 Planning Commission 2015 20. Survey monuments shall be preserved and referenced before construction and replaced after construction, pursuant to Section 8771 of the Business and Profession Code. 21. The elevations shown on all plans shall be on Orange County benchmark datum. 22. Prior to recordation of a Final Tract Map, submit required cash deposit or surety bond to guarantee monumentation. Deposit amount to be determined by the City Engineer. 23. Prior to occupancy on the Tract, the surveyor/engineer shall submit to the City Engineer a Digital Graphic File, reproducible mylar of the recorded Tract Map, and approved off -site plan and nine copies of the recorded Tract Map. Sincerely, &- �jl - Fariba Fazeli, P. E. City Engineer (Engr. 2015/Planning Commission Tract 17779) EXHIBIT C MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM TRUMARK PROJECT Mitigation Measure Responsible Monit< The perimeter walls around Lots 1, 7, 13, and 20 shall be required to be 8 feet in height. Prior to issuance of building permits, a qualifies Acoustical Scientist shall be retained to prepare a final Acoustical Impact Report, utilizing precise grading plans, and detailed floor and elevation plans, for units with direct exposure to Victoria Street. Said report must be able to determine compliance or effective mitigation, such as noise control barriers, that will reduce noise impacts to within compliance of 45 dBA CNEL residential interior, and 65 dBA CNEL residential exterior. Implementation Agency_ Development Services/Building Safety Check/ Division i EXHIBIT D ® 325, I --:k Ct C e-44 C i I I own the home located at -11�p S Te+"r- and am imp .diately adjacent to 1239 Victoria, the location of a propos6d 28 C,- rin home project. Trumark homes agreed to make the following changes to thea- project to reduce or eliminate the impacts of the prosed project on my property. In addition, Trumark has agreed to include these changes as shown on Exhibit A as Conditions of Approval to insure they are required by the city, Because of these changes, I am not opposing this project. I reserve the right to request further changes and to oppose this project if any of the following agreed changes are modified or if the project is modified. Proposed Changes; 1. Locate staircase as shown on Exhibit A site plan along southern boundary of lot 23, immediately adjacent to the rear yard. 2. Windows on southern elevation (staircase) shall be 6' above finished floor. 3. A 6' tall wall shall be included on the southern portion of the roof deck to prevent viewing into rear yard or home 4. Removal of the existing wooden fence within the yard of the above - mentioned property and replacement with a new solid decorative block retaining wall, to allow for lowering the project site shall be at Trumarks cost. In addition Trumark will be provided access to my property to allow for this construction. Any damage will be Trumarks responsibility. 5. Trumark will provide planting along my property that includes bamboo or other acceptable screening at their cost to further screen the adjacent new homes, Eric A. Nelson Trumark Homes Homeowner 4/S112015 Dated -/// / 3 4r Dated Received Cky of Costa Mesa Development Services Department APR 13 2015 _ -32(o---- Windows 6' off ±33-a• 1164 GLENEAGLES TERRACE Screen Wall 6' off Stairs to be oriented on south elevation LINEOF SIGHTZ y i= ROOF DECK 101 -0. --�' NEIGHBOR'S REAR YARD New Landscpae to be installed for additional screening Eric A. Nelson - Trumark Homes TRU MARK TRUMARK 450 Newport Center Drive, Suite 300 Newport Beach, CA 92660 949.999.9800 LOT 23 - PLAN 2-R New Retaining Wall on Pl. EXHIBIT A 1164 Gleneagles Terr Costa Mesa, CA -- 3 2-77— I L`� /q b A M -5 own the home located at I 1 -6- 6 G t�i✓ r r G ►, r_s' rgx ncwd am immediately adjacent to 1239 Victoria, the location of a proposed 28 home project. Trumark Homes has agreed to make the following changes to reduce or eliminate the impacts of the prosed project on my property. In addition, Trumark has agreed to include these changes as shown on Exhibit A as Conditions of Approval to insure they are required by the city as part of the development. Because of these changes, I am not opposing this project. I reserve the right to request further changes and oppose this project if any of the following agreed conditions change. Proposed Changes: 1. No access, pedestrian or vehicular access will be permitted from the project site to Seabluff. 2. Windows on southern elevation of Lot 9 shall be installed to prohibit/ obstruct views to pool area and direct views into yard. 3. A 6' tall wall shall be included on the southern portion of the roof decks to prevent viewing into yard and home. 4. Trumark will provide addition planting along my property of bamboo or other acceptable screening at Trumark's expense. 5. The project will include lowering the site 4'-5' from existing grades. This will include a new retaining wall, located 6' from existing rear wall. 6. During construction of the new retaining wall, Trumark will be permitted to drain my pool. Upon completion they will be responsible for the cost of refilling the pool (including penalties) and will acid wash it and pay for an initial startup and cleaning. In addition Trumark will provide an insurance policy for any defects caused by the retaining wall construction. 7. In the event the pool is not drained, Trumark homes will provide, at their expense, weekly pool cleaning to reduce impact of dust during grading. Eric A. Nelson Trumark Homes Homeowner a� E r- CO CaQ CD(D M �o ai CO(D +—tom-IS >� Dated �0 0 0) 4) oCD CC U a 0 m a� Dated 23 — Screen Wall LINE OF SIGHT i 1.T6. YRLL� - -� _ UI/E tlF SIG}IT J i 1 ROOF DECK I o M BELROOM Mi 9ATH I I Existing Wall 14'-0- 4 'v i 5FL Ll DEO 3li LIVING ROOM DECK '- OFT Hi DEN 1 v o7 1156 GLENEAGLES TERRACE g - — Li Pool AREA tli l I—u Yll{ l�. I Ir'Ih 10� 1 111- i� Eric A. Nelson - Trumark Homes TRU MARK TRUMARK 450 Newport Center Drive, Suite 300 Newport Beach, CA 92660 949.999.9800 GARAGE •-III -- I --I1 -.11 I1�1__7 L_{ 32'-0" LOT 9 (PLAN/ MODEL NOT FINALIZED SET BACKS, DECK AND WINDOW RESTRICTIONS NOTED ON PAGE 1) 32q— S51 - D 1 l/► °- New Retaining all ¢ ov, Windows along this elevation shall be installed to prevent viewing adjacent neighbors backyard No Access to Sea Bluff EXHIBIT A 1156 GLENEAGLES TERRACE COSTA MESA, CA 92627 ----------— i.�jZ , I ti��C1 ►'`~'�,� own the home located at e.- Ui 5 and am immediately adjacent to 1239 Victoria, the location of a proposed 28 home project. Trumark Homes has agreed to make the following changes to reduce or eliminate the impacts of the prosed project on my property. In addition, Trumark has agreed to include these changes as shown on Exhibit A as Conditions of Approval to insure they are required by the city as part of the development. Because of these changes, I am not opposing this project. I reserve the right to request further changes and oppose this project if any of the following agreed conditions change. Proposed Changes: 1. No access, pedestrian or vehicular access will be permitted from the project site to Seabluff. 2. Windows on southern elevation of Lot 9 shall be installed to prohibit/ obstruct views to pool area and direct views into yard. 3. A 6' tall wall shall be included on the southern portion of the roof decks to prevent viewing into yard and home. 4. Trumark will provide addition planting along my property of bamboo or other acceptable screening at Trumark's expense. 5. The project will include lowering the site 4'-5' from existing grades. This will include a new retaining wall, located 6' from existing rear wall. 6. During construction of the new retaining wall, Trumark will be permitted to drain my pool. Upon completion they will be responsible for the cost of refilling the pool (including penalties) and will acid wash it and pay for an initial startup and cleaning. In addition Trumark will provide an insurance policy for any defects caused by the retaining wall construction. 7. In the event the pool is not drained, Trumark homes will provide, at their expense, weekly pool cleaning to reduce impact of dust during grading. Eric 'A. Nelson Trumark Homes 41 Homeo er Dated Dated E COa Ca �g0 U 0CD .� o CD U Q 0 m aa) 0 0 r-1F_r Screen Wall LINE OF SIGHT wi ZT6-WG �I ROOF DECK aE I Tfl R� i M BEDROOM NL BATH 0 0 CD FT Existing Wall = I BED 31 LIVINC ROOM r[H�-n o OPT DEN W-0" � I � TO�y 1156 GLENEAGLES TERRACE 0 _ I coma POOL - AREA '_III r� r=1 I t II I L)I� { —w — — — I 111 I L di! —II lld I I .dl III— IJI�IL—dll— I 'ILI: J 32'-D" LOT 9 (PLAN/ MODEL NOT FINALIZED SET BACKS, DECK AND WINDOW RESTRICTIONS NOTED ON PAGE 1) Eric A. Nelson - Trumark Homes TRUMARK 450 Newport Center Drive, Suite 300 Newport Beach, CA 92660 949.999.9800 00r S151 - D �• r a`� i Windows along this elevation shall be installed to prevent viewing adjacent neighbors backyard No Access to Sea Bluff EXHIBIT A 1156 GLENEAGLES TERRACE COSTA MESA, CA 92627 v3 f PH-2 Attachment 8 (CD PROVIDED, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration documents provided online, see link below) http://www.costamesaca.gov/index.aspx?page=151 ATTACHMENT 9 CORRESPONDENCE FROM PUBLIC - �3 3B , P91;Xz Date: April 9, 2015 From: Neighbors to Proposed Development To: Costa Mesa Planning Commission Subject: Concerns _about Proposed Development Plan of 1239 Victoria St. LApplication No.: GP-14-03, R-14-03, F-A-14-19, VT-17779i Dear Commissioners, We, the undersigned, would like to take this opportunity to present to the commission our concerns and opposition to certain aspects of the proposed development plan. First we want to make sure that we express the fact that we do not oppose the development of the lot into residential units, It is in the city's master plan and an appropriate use of the land in our opinion. Our concerns are in the following areas: Pricy of_t Nejg hbors. The "Residential Development Standards" document from Costa Mesa city's website clearly states in section 4.4. that "Consideration shall be given to the effect of proposed development on the light, air, and privacy of adjacent properties". The proposed plan will create these tall, overwhelming buildings that overlook its neighbors. Many will have roof decks, Even without roof decks, the residents of these building will be looking down over their neighbors' properties from a vantage point that can cause privacy issues. We, as property owners around the proposed development, have certain rights and expectation to quite enjoyment of our properties. The imposing buildings with roof deck and third story windows overlooking our backyard from 2 stories above can definitely cause concern for our privacy, and can curtail our ability to enjoy outdoor activities. impact to Nletghborhood Parking With the proposed number of parking spaces, it will be a certainty that many vehicles belonging to the residents or visitors will have to be parked outside of the development. Since the strip mall is a private property, the most likely overflow for their parking issue will be Malley Road, If you visit Valley Road, you will find that parking there is already at a premium; and the additional cars will simply add to the congestion. - �3q- Number of Deviations to Code Even if the city go ahead with High Density Residential zoning, the number of request for variation from code requirements is highly alarming. The builder is pushing to change the current development standard of R2-HD for its project so that: 1. The required rear setback of 20 ft to reduce to 10 ft 2. The maximum number of stories of 2 increased to 3 plus a roof deck 3. The required front setback of 20 ft reduced to 14 ft 4. The required open space rate of 40% reduced to 34.95% The requests are all attempts to squeeze more square footage into each unit, thus increasing the sale price at the expense of quality of life. Table 13-32 of the "Residential Development Standards" document from Costa Mesa city's website clearly states that according to Costa Mesa Municipal Code for R2-HD zone the following need to be followed'. a) 2 Stories and Maximum of 27 ft b) 40% Minimum Open Space c) Front setback of 20 ft d) Rear setback of 20 ft for 2 Story Building The "Residential Design Guidelines" document also from Costa Mesa city's website clearly states that for R2-HD zone the following need to be followed: a) 2 Stories and Maximum of 27 ft for sloped roof design (section 73) b) 2 Stories and Maximum of 22 ft for flat roof design (which should cover the roof deck type design) and must be consistent with the bulk and scale of the structures in the surrounding, neighborhood (section 7.3) Code requirements exist for a reason. We believe it is the responsibility of the Planning Commission to ensure that the proper requirements are met by the developer, and not become complicit in the builder's attempt to maximize profit. Im ap of to Properly Value around the Development The new building being so tall will certainly block the view of some neighbors and reduce free movement of breeze. Combined with the issues of privacy and more congested street parking, may negatively impact property value. It will be a travesty to enrich the coffers of the developer at the same time sacrifice the value of home around the new development. The city should be protecting the interest of its residents and not simply kowtow to the wishes of the developer. - 3:E35-- Welfare of the Residents who will be Living in the Develoament There have been several studies that link high density living to negative effects to people's health, happiness, and safety. Health 1. High density living is associated with higher risks of psychosis (70% higher) and depression (16% higher). 2. Higher level of stress caused by high density living can lead to twice as high incidence of schizophrenia. 3. Absence of green space causes adverse mental problems. The prevalence of depression and anxiety was significantly greater for those living in areas with only 10% green space in their surroundings compared to those with 90% green space. 4. Children living in high density areas suffer much higher rate of behavioral problems such as anti -social behaviors. 5. Restricted length of vision and exposure to noises cause children in high density homes to have short-sightedness and auditory discrimination. 6. Air pollution — higher density living increases the level of air pollution. Air pollution affects residents` respiratory system and results in lower birth weight. Source: http:/!www.ne�,vgepgraph .comfcontent/O. 3945-he,alth-happirn_ess-- and-density Happiness Studies show that the higher the density of living, the less happy the residents, Lack of privacy, imposed social interacts, noises, difficulty in parking... all contribute to a less satisfied population. Source: httpJJ-'W+r w.newgeorgraphy com/content!003945-health-happiness- and-Onsity Safety Even though the zoning and traffic analysis may specify that the number of car trips is acceptable, as people who live in and around the area, we witnessed many accidents around the area because of the hill and blind corners, and the fact that most drivers tend to accelerate when going downhill. In the latest available report of California Office of Traffic Safety, Costa Mesa was the fifth worst among all 56 cities at its size. It is hard to convince anyone that high density building will improve this ranking. Source: http:I4,r`vvvv.ots.ca,gov,,Med€a_and Research/Rankingsldefault.asp We are also concerned that items blown from the proposed roof -top decks proposed by the developer such as umbrella, lamp, or flower pots in high wind may cause serious injury and property damage to the residents and their neighbors. Our Recommendation 1) Rezone to Medium Density Residential with 12 units per acre •E 2) If the city determines the High Density Residential is appropriate, then ensure all code requirement are met and not permit deviations: a. Allow maximum of 2 stories b. No roof decks c. Require compliance to code requirement for front and rear setbacks d. Require compliance to code requirement of open space To conclude, we trust that the Planning Commission will do the right thing and ensure the quality of life, and that current property owners' and residents' interests are protected by allowing only reasonable development that adhere to code to happen. Thank you. Name, Address and Signature of Supporters of this Letter 41#-oz Date: April 9, 2015 From: Neighbors to Proposed Development To: Costa Mesa Planning Commission Subject: Concerns about Proms ed Development Plan of 1239 Victoria St. (Application No.: GP-14d03, R-14-03, PA-14-19, VT-17779) Dear Commissioners, We, the undersigned, would like to take this opportunity to present to the commission our concerns and opposition to certain aspects of the proposed development plan. First we want to make sure that we express the fact that we do not oppose the development of the lot into residential units. It is in the city's master plan and an appropriate use of the land in our opinion. Our concerns are in the following areas: Privac_y_ofthe Neighbors The "Residential Development Standards" document from Costa Mesa city's website clearly states in section 4,4. that "Consideration shall be given to the effect of proposed development on the light, air, and privacy ofadiacent properties". The proposed plan will create these tali, overwhelming buildings that overlook its neighbors. Many will have roof decks. Even without roof decks, the residents of these building will be looking down over their neighbors' properties from a vantage point that can cause privacy issues, We, as property owners around the proposed development, have certain rights and expectation to quite enjoyment of our properties. The imposing buildings with roof deck and third story windows overlooking our backyard from 2 stories above can definitely cause concern for our privacy, and can curtail our ability to enjoy outdoor activities. im.pgct.tp_ Neighborhood Parking With the proposed number of parking spaces, it will be a certainty that many vehicles belonging to the residents or visitors will have to be parked outside of the development. Since the strip mall is a private property, the most likely overflow for their parking issue will be Malley Road. If you visit Malley Road, you will find that parking there is already at a premium, and the additional cars will simply add to the congestion, 33� Number of Deviations to Code Even if the city go ahead with High Density Residential zoning, the number of request for variation from code requirements is highly alarming, The builder is pushing to change the current development standard of R2-HD for its project so that: 1, The required rear setback of 20 fit to reduce to 10 ft 2. The maximum number of stories of 2 increased to 3 plus a roof deck 3. The required front setback of 20 ft reduced to 14 ft 4. The required open space rate of 40% reduced to 34.95% The requests are all attempts to squeeze more square footage into each unit, thus increasing the sale price at the expense of quality of life. Table 13-32 of the "Residential Development Standards" document from Costa Mesa city's website clearly states that according to Costa Mesa Municipal Code for R2-HD zone the following need to be followed: a) 2 Stories and Maximum of 27 ft b) 40% Minimum Open Space c) Front setback of 20 ft d) Rear setback of 20 ft for 2 Story Building The "Residential Design Guidelines" document also from Costa Mesa city's website clearly states that for R2-HD zone the following need to be followed: a) 2 Stories and Maximum of 27 ft for sloped roof design (section 7.3) b) 2 Stories and Maximum of 22 ft for flat roof design (which should cover the roof deck type design) and must be consistent with the bulk and scale of the structures in the surrounding neighborhood (section 7.3) Code requirements exist for a reason. We believe it is the responsibility of the Planning Commission to ensure that the proper requirements are met by the developer, and not become complicit in the builder's attempt to maximize profit. Impact to Property Value around the Development The new building being so tail will certainly block the view of some neighbors and reduce free movement of breeze, Combined with the issues of privacy and more congested street parking, may negatively impact property value. It will be a travesty to enrich the coffers of the developer at the same time sacrifice the value of home around the new development. The city should be protecting the interest of its residents and not simply kowtow to the wishes of the developer. - 33q, Welfare of the Residents who will be Living in the Development There have been several studies that link high density living to negative effects to people's health, happiness, and safety. Health 1. High density living is associated with higher risks of psychosis (70% higher) and depression (16% higher), 2. Higher level of stress caused by high density living can lead to twice as high incidence of schizophrenia. 3. Absence of green space causes adverse mental problems. The prevalence of depression and anxiety was significantly greater for those living in areas with only 10% green space in their surroundings compared to those with 90% green space. 4. Children living in high density areas suffer much higher rate of behavioral problems such as anti -social behaviors. 5. Restricted length of vision and exposure to noises cause children in high density homes to have short-sightedness and auditory discrimination. 6. Air pollution — higher density living increases the level of air pollution. Air pollution affects residents' respiratory system and results in lower birth weight. Source: http;//aAAvw.newgepgraphy._com/contenU003Q45-health-happiness" and -density Happiness Studies show that the higher the density of living, the less happy the residents. Lack of privacy, imposed social interacts, noises, difficulty in parking...all contribute to a less satisfied population. Source: http:/!wvw,N,newgeography nomlcontent1003945-health-happ.iness- and-den, iiy Safe Even though the zoning and traffic analysis may specify that the number of car trips is acceptable, as people who live in and around the area, we witnessed many accidents around the area because of the hill and blind corners, and the fact that most drivers tend to accelerate when going downhill. In the latest available report of California Office of Traffic Safety, Costa Mesa was the fifth worst among all 56 cities at its size, It is hard to convince anyone that high density building will improve this ranking. Source: http://wwvY,ots.ca,gov!Media and_Research/Rankings/defauit.a.sp -340- We are also concerned that items blown from the proposed roof -top decks proposed by the developer such as umbrella, lamp, or flower pots in high wind may cause serious injury and property damage to the residents and their neighbors. Our Recommendation 1) Rezone to Medium Density Residential with 12 units per acre 2) If the city determines the High Density Residential is appropriate, then ensure all code requirement are met and not permit deviations: a. Allow maximum of 2 stories b. No roof decks c. Require compliance to code requirement for front and rear setbacks d. Require compliance to code requirement of open space To conclude, we trust that the Planning Commission will do the right thing and ensure the quality of life, and that current property owners' and residents' interests are protected by allowing only reasonable development that adhere to code to happen. Thank you. `�, r Name, Address and Sigrralture o aupporters of this Letter 54 LEE, MEL From: James Hsu <jhsu@h2exec.com> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 8:55 AM To: LEE, MEL; FLYNN, CLAIRE; rdickson.cmpc@gmail.com Subject: Concerns about Development Plans of 1239 Victoria St Attachments: Concern about 1239 Victoria Development - Signed by HSU.PDF Dear Planning Commission Members, I am a resident of Westbluff and our community is adjacent to the proposed development on 1239 Victoria St. We are circulating a letter of concern about the proposed development plan for signature and they should be sent to you this morning by Chris Webster, one of our residents. I am sending you my signed copy just in case even though it may be duplicated. Please forgive me for being overly cautious. Thank you and we hope that our concerns will be addressed at the upcoming meeting on Monday. James Hsu - `,4 2 f Date: April 9, 2015 From: Neighbors to Proposed Development To: Costa Mesa Planning Commission Subject: Concerns about Proposed Development Plan of 1239 Victoria St. (Application No.: GP-14-03, R-1.4-03, PA-1.4-19, VT-17779) Dear Commissioners, We, the undersigned, would like to take this opportunity to present to the commission our concerns and opposition to certain aspects of the proposed development plan. First we want to make sure that we express the fact that we do not oppose the development of the lot into residential units. It is in the city's master plan and an appropriate use of the land in our opinion. Our concerns are in the following areas: Privacv of the Neiahbors The "Residential Development Standards" document from Costa Mesa city's website clearly states in section 4.4. that "Consideration shall be given to the effect of proposed development on the light, air, and privacy of adjacent properties". The proposed plan will create these tall, overwhelming buildings that overlook its neighbors. Many will have roof decks. Even without roof decks, the residents of these building will be looking down over their neighbors' properties from a vantage point that can cause privacy issues. We, as property owners around the proposed development, have certain rights and expectation to quite enjoyment of our properties. The imposing buildings with roof deck and third story windows overlooking our backyard from 2 stories above can definitely cause concern for our privacy, and can curtail our ability to enjoy outdoor activities. Impact to Neighborhood Parking With the proposed number of parking spaces, it will be a certainty that many vehicles belonging to the residents or visitors will have to be parked outside of the development. Since the strip mall is a private property, the most likely overflow for their parking issue will be Valley Road. If you visit Valley Road, you will find that parking there is already at a premium, and the additional cars will simply add to the congestion. Number of Deviations to Code Even if the city go ahead with High Density Residential zoning, the number of request for variation from code requirements is highly alarming. The builder is pushing to change the current development standard of R2-HD for its project so that: 1. The required rear setback of 20 ft to reduce to 10 ft 2. The maximum number of stories of 2 increased to 3 plus a roof deck 3. The required front setback of 20 ft reduced to 14 ft 4. The required open space rate of 40% reduced to 34.95% The requests are all attempts to squeeze more square footage into each unit, thus increasing the sale price at the expense of quality of life. Table 13-32 of the "Residential Development Standards" document from Costa Mesa city's website clearly states that according to Costa Mesa Municipal Code for R2-HD zone the following need to be followed: a) 2 Stories and Maximum of 27 ft b) 40% Minimum Open Space c) Front setback of 20 ft d) Rear setback of 20 ft for 2 Story Building The "Residential Design Guidelines" document also from Costa Mesa city's website clearly states that for R2-HD zone the following need to be followed: a) 2 Stories and Maximum of 27 ft for sloped roof design (section 7.3) b) 2 Stories and Maximum of 22 ft for flat roof design (which should cover the roof deck type design) and must be consistent with the bulk and scale of the structures in the surrounding neighborhood (section 7.3) Code requirements exist for a reason. We believe it is the responsibility of the Planning Commission to ensure that the proper requirements are met by the developer, and not become complicit in the builder's attempt to maximize profit. Impact to Propertv Value around the Development The new building being so tall will certainly block the view of some neighbors and reduce free movement of breeze. Combined with the issues of privacy and more congested street parking, may negatively impact property value. It will be a travesty to enrich the coffers of the developer at the same time sacrifice the value of home around the new development. The city should be protecting the interest of its residents and not simply kowtow to the wishes of the developer. ::?.AA __._ Welfare of the Residents who will be Living in the Development There have been several studies that link high density living to negative effects to people's health, happiness, and .safety. Health 1. High density living is associated with higher risks of psychosis (70% higher) and depression (16% higher). 2. Higher level of stress caused by high density living can lead to twice as high incidence of schizophrenia. 3. Absence of green space causes adverse mental problems. The prevalence of depression and anxiety was significantly greater for those living in areas with only 10% green space in their surroundings compared to those with 90% green space. 4. Children living in high density areas suffer much higher rate of behavioral problems such as anti -social behaviors. 5. Restricted length of vision and exposure to noises cause children in high density homes to have short-sightedness and auditory discrimination. 6. Air pollution — higher density living increases the level of air pollution. Air pollution affects residents' respiratory system and results in lower birth weight. Source: hftp://www.newgeography.com/content/003945-health-happiness- and-density Happiness Studies show that the higher the density of living, the less happy the residents. Lack of privacy, imposed social interacts, noises, difficulty in parking... all contribute to a less satisfied population. Source: http://www.newgeography.com/content/003945-health-happiness- and-density Safe Even though the zoning and traffic analysis may specify that the number of car trips is acceptable, as people who live in and around the area, we witnessed many accidents around the area because of the hill and blind corners, and the fact that most drivers tend to accelerate when going downhill. In the latest available report of California Office of Traffic Safety, Costa Mesa was the fifth worst among all 56 cities at its size. It is hard to convince anyone that high density building will improve this ranking. Source: http://www.ots.ca.gov/Media and Research/Rankings/default.asp We are also concerned that items blown from the proposed roof -top decks proposed by the developer such as umbrella, lamp, or flower pots in high wind may cause serious injury and property damage to the residents and their neighbors. Our Recommendation 1) Rezone to Medium Density Residential with 12 units per acre A:7 2) If the city determines the High Density Residential is appropriate, then ensure all code requirement are met and not permit deviations: a. Allow maximum of 2 stories b. No roof decks c. Require compliance to code requirement for front and rear setbacks d. Require compliance to code requirement of open space To conclude, we trust that the Planning Commission will do the right thing and ensure the quality of life, and that current property owners' and residents' interests are protected by allowing only reasonable development that adhere to code to happen. Thank you. JAMES HSU & SHEREE HSU Name, Address and Signature of Supporters of this Letter -3-4 �--, N,gZ Date: April 9, 2015 From: Neighbors to Proposed Development To: Costa Mesa Planning Commission Subject Concerns about Proposed Development Plan of 1239 Victoria St, (Application No.: GP-14-03, R-14-03, PA-14-19, VT-17779) Dear Commissioners, We, the undersigned, would like to take this opportunity to present to the commission our concerns and opposition to certain aspects of the proposed development plan. First we want to make sure that we express the fact that we do not oppose the development of the lot into residential units. It is in the city's master plan and an appropriate use of the land in our opinion. Our concerns are in the following areas; Privacv of the Neighbors The "Residential Development Standards" document from Costa Mesa city's website clearly states in section 4A. that "Consideration shall be given to the effect of proposed development on the light, air, and privacy of adjacent properties". The proposed plan will create these tall, overwhelming buildings that overlook its neighbors. Many will have roof decks. Even without roof decks, the residents of these building will be looking down over their neighbors' properties from a vantage point that can cause privacy issues. We, as property owners around the proposed development, have certain rights and expectation to quite enjoyment of our properties, The imposing buildings with roof deck and third story windows overlooking our backyard from 2 stories above can definitely cause concern for our privacy, and can curtail our ability to enjoy outdoor activities. Impact to Neighborhood Parking With the proposed number of parking spaces, it will be a certainty that many vehicles belonging to the residents or visitors will have to be parked outside of the development. Since the strip mall is a private property, the most likely overflow for their parking issue will be galley Road. If you visit Malley Road, you will find that parking there is already at a premium, and the additional cars will simply add to the congestion. 3el (I — Number of Deviations to Code Even if the city go ahead with High Density Residential zoning, the number of request for variation from code requirements is highly alarming, The builder is pushing to change the current development standard of R2-HD for its project so that: I The required rear setback of 20 ft to reduce to 10 ft 2 The maximum number of stories of 2 increased to 3 plus a roof deck 3 The required front setback of 20 ft reduced to 14 ft 4. The required open space rate of 40% reduced to 34-95% The requests are all attempts to squeeze more square footage into each unit, thus increasing the sale price at the expense of quality of life. Table 13-32 of the "Residential Development Standards" document from Costa Mesa city's website clearly states that according to Costa Mesa Municipal Code for R2-HD zone the following need to be followed. - a) 2 Stories and Maximum of 27 ft b) 40% Minimum Open Space C) Front setback of 20 ft d) Rear setback of 20 ft for 2 Story Building The "Residential Design Guidelines' document also from Costa Mesa city's website clearly states that for R2-HD zone the following need to be followed: a) 2 Stories and Maximum of 27 ft for sloped roof design (section 7.3) b) 2 Stories and Maximum of 22 ft for flat roof design (which should cover the roof deck type design) and must be consistent with the bulk and scale of the structures in the surrounding neighborhood (section 7.3) Code requirements exist for a reason, We believe it is the responsibility of the Planning Commission to ensure that the proper requirements are met by the developer. and not become complicit in the builder's attempt to maximize profit. Impact to Property Value around the Development The new building being so tall will certainly block the view of some neighbors and reduce free movement of breeze. Combined with the issues of privacy and more congested street parking, may negatively impact property value. It will be a travesty to enrich the coffers of the developer at the same time sacrifice the value of home around the new development. The city should be protecting the interest of its residents and not simply kowtow to the wishes of the developer. — 3-1�� .-- Welfare of the Residents who will be Living in the Development There have been several studies that link high density living to negative effects to people's health, happiness, and safety, Health 1, High density living is associated with higher risks of psychosis (70% higher) and depression (16% higher). 2. Higher level of stress caused by high density living can lead to twice as high incidence of schizophrenia. 3. Absence of green space causes adverse mental problems. The prevalence of depression and anxiety was significantly greater for those living in areas with only 10% green space in their surroundings compared to those with 90% green space. 4, Children living in high density areas suffer much higher rate of behavioral problems such as anti -social behaviors. 5. Restricted length of vision and exposure to noises cause children in high density homes to have short-sightedness and auditory discrimination. & Air pollution —higher density living increases the level of air pollution, Air pollution affects residents' respiratory system and results in lower birth weight. Happiness Studies show that the higher the density of living, the less happy the residents. Lack of privacy, imposed social interacts, noises, difficulty in parking.., all contribute to a less satisfied population. Safe Even though the zoning and traffic analysis may specify that the number of car trips is acceptable, as people who live in and around the area, we witnessed many accidents around the area because of the hill and blind corners, and the fact that most drivers tend to accelerate when going downhill. In the latest available report of California Office of Traffic Safety, Costa Mesa was the fifth worst among all 56 cities at its size, It is hard to convince anyone that high density building will improve this ranking, We are also concerned that items blown from the proposed roof -top decks proposed by the developer such as umbrella, lamp, or flower pots in high wind may cause serious injury and property damage to the residents and their neighbors, Our Recommendation 1) Rezone to Medium Density Residential with 12 units per acre E. 2) If the city determines the High Density Residential is appropriate, then ensure all code requirement are met and not permit deviations: a. Allow maximum of 2 stories b. No roof decks c. Require compliance to code requirement for front and rear setbacks d. Require compliance to code requirement of open space To conclude, we trust that the Planning Commission will do the right thing and ensure the quality of life, and that current property owners' and residents' interests are protected by allowing only reasonable development that adhere to code to happen. Thank you. Name, Address and Signature of Supporters of this Letter -- 350 - LEE, MEL From: Amber J. Webster <amberjia@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, April 09, 201S 9:22 PM To: rdickson.cmpc@gmail.com; LEE, MEL; FLYNN, CLAIRE Cc: Chris Webster; James Hsu; live4today; Emira Pajevic; Guitar Hoang; Jim Drennen; joewoldenberg@irvinecompany.com; Janice Spriggs Subject: Letter of Opposition Dear Sir or Madam: We are writing to oppose to the planned three-story residential buildings with rooftop decks at 1239 Victoria Street by Trumark Homes, the representative of the property owner Westar Holdings, Inc. This piece of property is currently zoned as Administrative and Professional (AP) District. Trumark Homes is asking to rezone this property to R2-HD (Multiple -Family Residential District, High Density). Worse yet, Trumark Homes is pushing to change the current development standard of R2-HD for its project so that: 1. The required rear setback of 20 feet can be 10 2. The maximum number of stories of 2 can be 3 plus a roof deck 3. The required front setback of 20 feet can be 14 feet 4. The required open space rate of 40% can be 34.95% First of all, even if this place is rezoned into R2-HD, the standard of R2-HD should not be changed. You approved the standard of R2-HD. You must have set the standard this way for a good reason. So please stick to it. Please do not allow cutting corners in any development! If you allow it, the only one who is going to benefit from it is the developer. Everyone else, existing residents of houses around this property, new residents of the new buildings, you, and the City of Costa Mesa, loses. Secondly, if you can, please rezone this piece of property into a low, or even medium, density residential area. This piece of property is at such a great location that our city does not have too many anymore. Please think about what you would like that place to look like three decades from now. What you allow to be built there now will be what it looks like three decades after. Research shows that high density living has significant negative impact on residents' health, happiness, and safety: 70% higher risk of psychosis, children's much higher rate of behavioral problems, lower birth weight, etc. - 35,0 A You were elected by people of Costa Mesa to protect and improve Costa Mesa. Please do not allow anybody to ruin this city and its people! We thank you for your service. We ask you to use your power to forbid the wrongs and advance the rights. Sincerely yours, Chris and Amber Webster -,3'5I- Date: April 9, 2015 From: Neighbors to Proposed Development To: Costa Mesa Planning Commission Subject: Concerns about Proposed Development Plan of 1239 Victoria St. (Application No.: GP-14-03, R-14-03, RA-14-19, VT-17779) Dear Commissioners, We, the undersigned, would like to take this opportunity to present to the commission our concerns and opposition to certain aspects of the proposed development plan. First we want to make sure that we express the fact that we do not oppose the development of the lot into residential units. It is in the city's master plan and an appropriate use of the land in our opinion. Our concerns are in the following areas: Priyacy_of _the Neighbors The "Residential Development Standards" document from Costa Mesa city's website clearly states in section 4.4, that "Consideration shall be given to the effect of proposed development on the light, air, and privacy of ad'acel nt properties", The proposed plan will create these tall, overwhelming buildings that overlook its neighbors. Many will have roof decks. Even without roof decks, the residents of these building will be looking down over their neighbors properties from a vantage point that can cause privacy issues. We, as property owners around the proposed development, have certain rights and expectation to quite enjoyment of our properties, The imposing buildings with roof deck and third story windows overlooking our backyard from 2 stories above can definitely cause concern for our privacy, and can curtail our ability to enjoy outdoor activities. Impact to Neighborhood. Parking With the proposed number of parking spaces, it will be a certainty that many vehicles belonging to the residents or visitors will have to be parked outside of the development. Since the strip mall is a private property, the most likely overflow for their parking issue will be Valley Road. If you visit Valley Road, you will find that parking there is already at a premium, and the additional cars will simply add to the congestion. 35 2— Number of Deviations to Code Even if the city go ahead with High Density Residential zoning, the number of request for variation from code requirements is highly alarming. The builder is pushing to change the current development standard of R2-HD for its project so that: 1. The required rear setback of 20 ft to reduce to 10 ft 2. The maximum number of stories of 2 increased to 3 plus a roof deck 3. The required front setback of 20 ft reduced to 14 ft 4. The required open space rate of 40% reduced to 34.95% The requests are all attempts to squeeze more square footage into each unit, thus increasing the sale price at the expense of quality of life. Table 13-32 of the "Residential Development Standards" document from Costa Mesa city's website clearly states that according to Costa Mesa Municipal Code for R2-HD zone the following need to be followed: a) 2 Stories and Maximum of 27 ft b) 40% Minimum ®pen Space c) Front setback of 20 ft d) Rear setback of 20 ft for 2 Story Building The "Residential Design Guidelines" document also from Costa Mesa city's website clearly states that for R2-1-11D zone the following need to be followed: a) 2 Stories and Maximum of 27 ft for sloped roof design (section 7.3) b) 2 Stories and Maximum of 22 ft for flat roof design (which should cover the roof deck type design) and must, be consistent with the bulk and scale of the structures in the surrounding nei ----- structures (section 7.3) Code requirements exist for a reason. We believe it is the responsibility of the Planning Commission to ensure that the proper requirements are met by the developer, and not become complicit in the builder's attempt to maximize profit. impact,io_Property..11a9ue around the Developmeni The new building being so tall will certainly block the view of some neighbors and reduce free movement of breeze. Combined with the issues of privacy and more congested street parking, may negatively impact property value. It will be a travesty to enrich the coffers of the developer at the same time sacrifice the value of home around the new development. The city should be protecting the interest of its residents and not simply kowtow to the wishes of the developer. -3s3- Welfare of the _Residents who will be Liming in the Development There have been several studies that link high density living to negative effects to people's health, happiness, and safety. Health 1. High density living is associated with higher risks of psychosis (70% higher) and depression (16% higher). 2. Higher level of stress caused by high density living can lead to twice as high incidence of schizophrenia. 3. Absence of green space causes adverse mental problems. The prevalence of depression and anxiety was significantly greater for those living in areas with only 10% green space in their surroundings compared to those with 90% green space. 4. Children living in high density areas suffer much higher rate of behavioral problems such as anti -social behaviors. 5. Restricted length of vision and exposure to noises cause children in high density homes to have short-sightedness and auditory discrimination. 6. Air pollution — higher density living increases the level of air pollution. Air pollution affects residents' respiratory system and results in lower birth weight. Source h tp:l/www.new,-,eca(aphy,coralccriteriUO03045--health-happiness- and.-denslt` Ha p ness Studies show that the higher the density of living, the less happy the residents. Lack of privacy, imposed social interacts, noises, difficulty in parking... all contribute to a less satisfied population. Source http://w\vw.newgeo raph`/.core/content/003945 health-happines_s- and-density Safety Even though the zoning and traffic analysis may specify that the number of car trips is acceptable, as people who live in and around the area, we witnessed many accidents around the area because of the hill and blind corners, and the fact that most drivers tend to accelerate when going downhill. In the latest available report of California Office of Traffic Safety, Costa Mesa was the fifth worst among all 56 cities at its size. It is hard to convince anyone that high density building will improve this ranking. Source: http://�,N-vAAv.ots, Ia.gov/Media and Research/rankings/default. _asp 3Z5:1- We are also concerned that items blown from the proposed roof -top decks proposed by the developer such as umbrella, lamp, or flower pots in high wind may cause serious injury and property damage to the residents and their neighbors, Our Recommendation 1) Rezone to Medium Density Residential with 12 units per acre No 2) If the city determines the High Density Residential is appropriate, then ensure all code requirement are met and not permit deviations: a. Allow maximum of 2 stories b. No roof decks c. Require compliance to code requirement for front and rear setbacks d. Require compliance to code requirement of open space To conclude, we trust that the Planning Commission will do the right thing and ensure the quality of life, and that current property owners' and residents' interests are protected by allowing only reasonable development that adhere to code to happen. Thank you. Name, Address and Signature of Supporters of this Letter - 3S5 MEDIA, JESSICA From: Scott Maples <scott.maples@icloud.com> Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 8:28 AM To: CITY CLERK Subject: Support of Planning Application PA-14-19 Attachments: Support Victoria.pdf To whom it may concern, Please find my attached letter in support of the residential project on Victoria Street (Planning Application PA- 14-19). Thank you, Scott Maples Via Email May 1, 2015 Mayor Mensinger City Council Members City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Dr. Costa Mesa, CA 92626 RE: Victoria Project Dear Mayor Mensinger & Members of the City Council, 1 am writing this letter to urge for your support of the project on Victoria. I am a current resident of Newport Beach and have been drawn to Costa Mesa with its recent growth and urban developments. I am currently shopping for a home in Costa Mesa and I believe this new development is good for so many reasons and we need new homes like these to keep Costa Mesa desirable. The city of Costa Mesa is a diverse, unique and desirable place to live. A project such as the one being proposed is sure to improve Costa Mesa and continue the ongoing redevelopment of old, underutilized and blighted buildings. It will also provide me the opportunity to buy a home in Costa Mesa. I am in full support of this project and thank you in advance for approving this project Thank you, Scott Maples PH-2 ADDITIONAL DOCS MEJIA, JESSICA From: LEE, MEL Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 11:21 AM To: GREEN, BRENDA; MEDIA, JESSICA Cc: Eric Nelson; Holm, Thomas; ARMSTRONG, GARY Subject: FW: NO MORE High Density. From: Marcie[mailto:phonechick@roadrunner.com] Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 11:19 AM To: LEE, MEL Subject: NO MORE High Density. Dear City council and those voted in to serve Costa Mesa. Our concern isn't just about the proposed project At 1239 Victoria BLVD but it concerns future residential projects allowed in Costa Mesa. Please JUST imagine YOURSELF living in homes that back up to this property with 3 story units and roof top decks looming over your back yard. Ask yourself is this is what residents in single family homes want to live next to. The answer is probably going to be NO. Unfortunately city council is not asking those whom this affects most and that is wrong! While we listened to the comments of people at the last City planning meeting. MOST said no to such projects. oh sure, a small handful of proponents were implying they can only afford these Condo like homes. (Some of them I'm sure work for trumark) Anyway, we find it ironic that these dwellings are NOT what one would call affordable homes. Unless you consider 700 K and up "Affordable" then that argument is a joke! About the over lay issue. It is manipulative to ask for a rezoning of that space and then ask for so many variances. Why would the city have zoning restrictions if they are so easily overturned? Traffic is already a big issue in many areas of Costa Mesa and yet you want to roll out the "Welcome mat" for even MORE residence by allowing all these high density dwellings. A VERY important comment we have to make is the POOR notice our city gives during the planning stages of these projects. WE are on Gleneagles, an area directly impacted by that abomination WEST Reef. YET, we were not notified by the city about it first- hand. We found out after the darn thing was approved. THAT is NOT right. Anyone living within at least 1 mile of that structure along Victoria had a right to know about it BEFORE it was approved! It disappointed us that some on the city planning committee were giving themselves a pat on the back about West Reef. Adding comments' about how it has "Increased property value" IT has NOT raised the property value of the homes it looms over! Thanks to city council approval, some of our fellow neighbors now have these ugly huge 3 story structures stacked up against their homes. Just go see for yourself. This is NOTHING to be proud of! Another point we would like to make is the Governor has mandated some very strict cut backs on water usage in our state. In LA County, my Aunt can only water her plants once per week and if she goes over a certain amount of water usage she gets a VERY steep fine! We are aware Costa Mesa has their own supply of water now, but with overpopulation this could be our reality. We are losing our space, our sky our privacy and the traffic is getting worse around here and yet you keep allowing these types of projects. We as home owners should have a say in what goes directly in OUR neighborhood. Thank you for your time and THINK about this. Sincerely Costa Mesa home owners Tim and Marcie PS. We are very upset that the City council meeting concerning 1239 Victoria has been moved from June 1't to May 5th. This must be very convenient for the developers. Judging by the actions of this council, it is theirwishes that seem to matter most. PH-2 ADDITIONAL DOCS MEDIA, JESSICA From: Libby Wickland Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 10:50 AM To: CITY CLERK Subject: Planning Application PA-14-19 - 1239 Victoria Project Dear Mayor Mensinger & Members of the City Council, As a longtime resident of Costa Mesa and homeowner at the neighboring Sea Bluffs community I was pleased to hear about the project on Victoria St. I am sending this letter to express my support for the project. This project as well as the Westreef project have been great for this area. The city of Costa Mesa is a diverse, unique and desirable place to live. A project such as the one being proposed is sure to continue to help improve westside Costa Mesa. Thank you in advance for approving this project. Thank you, LI BEY WICKLAND PROVINCE WEST PH-2 ADDITIONAL DOCS Via Email May 4, 2015 Mayor Mensinger City Council Members City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Dr. Costa Mesa, CA 92626 RE: Victoria Project Dear Mayor Mensinger & Members of the City Council, I am writing this letter to urge for your support of the project on Victoria. As a resident of Costa Mesa (My wife and I purchased our first home here last year) I fully support this project and hope more of these are built. New development is good for so many reasons and we need new homes Like these to keep Costa Mesa desirable. We currently live in a town home and love the low maintenance benefit of these types of projects. The city of Costa Mesa is a diverse, unique and desirable place to live. A project such as the one being proposed is sure to improve Costa Mesa and continue the ongoing redevelopment of old, underutilized and blighted buildings. It will also provide the same opportunity to buy a home in Costa Mesa that I had. I am in full support of this project and thank you in advance for approving this project. Thank you C.J. Eckman PH-2 ADDITIONAL DOCS Via Email May 1, 2015 Mayor Mensinger City Council Members City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Dr. Costa Mesa, CA 92626 RE: 1239 Victoria Project Dear Mayor Mensinger & Members of the City Council, I was pleased to hear that this City Council is potentially approving another residential project on Victoria at the next city council meeting. As a new homeowner in Costa Mesa I first want to thank the Mayor and Council as well as those who were responsible for approving the development that I live in. As the owner of a brand new home in Bungalow 7 I couldn't be more thrilled and would have likely purchased in another city if my home wasn't built. The city of Costa Mesa is a diverse, unique and desirable place to live. A project such as the one being proposed is sure to improve west side Costa Mesa and continue the ongoing redevelopment of old, underutilized and blighted buildings. It will also provide the same opportunity to buy a home in Costa Mesa. Thank you in advance for approving this project. Sincerely, PH-2 ADDITIONAL DOCS Via RmaU Clerk a �Ccstamesaca iffov April 30, 2015 Mayor Mensinger City Council Members City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Dr. Costa Mesa, CA 92626 RE: 1239 Victoria Project Dear Mayor Mensinger & Members of the City Council, I was pleased to hear that this City Council is potentially approving another residential project on Victoria at the next city council meeting. As a new homeowner in Costa. Mesa I first want to thank the Mayor and Council as well as those who were responsible for approving the development that I live in. As the owner of a brand new home in Bungalow 7 I couldn't be more thrilled and would have likely purchased in another city if my home was not approved. The city of Costa Mesa is a diverse, unique and desirable place to live. A project such as the one being proposed is sure to improve west side Costa Mesa and continue the ongoing redevelopment of old, underutilized and blighted buildings. It will also provide the same opportunity to buy a home in Costa Mesa. I am in full support of this project Thank you in advance for approving this project. Barbara Jolli.ff PH-2 ADDITIONAL DOCS AVENUE (L) CIF TH-E ARTS WY'NDH AM HOTEL May 5, 2015 To: Steven Mensinger, Jim Righeimer, Katrina Foley, Sandra Genis, and Gary Monahan From: Paul Sanford Re: Trumark Residential Development at 1239 Victoria Street council agenda (2) Dear City Council: I am unable to attend the council meeting tonight, until later in the evening. As such, I want to express my support of the west: side residential development notes as being represented in Hearing Item Number 2 tonight. I am a resident and business person living and working; in Costa Mesa. The residential development being built in Westside, Costa Mesa which is adding much needed vitality back in to many of the challenged, dilapidated„ run down, crime infested areas of the west Costa Mesa. As residents and business people, we cart see how the developments that have been built out have improved the neighborhood, added a. safe environment, and eliminated many dated and run down areas. I am in full support of the urban styles and architectural improvements this neighborhood has provided. I urge the city council and planning commission to approve this development and carefully consider other high quality residential developments on the Westside of Costa Mesa. The economic and environmental good is tremendous. ter questions, please reach out to me. AVENUE OF THE ARTS WYNDHAM HOTEL. 3350 AVENUE OF THE ARTS I COSTA MESA, CA 192626 714- 75I-5100 www.AVENUEOFTHEARTSHOTEL.com GP-14-039 R-14-03, PA-14-19, AND VT-17779 1239 VICTORIA STREET MAY 59 2015 CITY COUNCIL MEETING SITE PHOTO -n FRL2-1.`,C ��F Request revised to R2-HD zone for a maximum of 14.5 dwelling units per acre (29 units). A comparison table of density ranges in other Cities was provided in the April 13, 2015 Planning Commission staff report. The traffic study prepared for the project was attached to the April 13, 2015 Planning Commission report for reference and discussed in greater detail at the hearing. Variances are needed to deviate from open space, building height, and rear setback requirements. Commission added a condition of approval requiring the applicant to work with the owner of Victoria Square retail center for off -site parking for guests visiting the project [to the extent feasible and practicable]. Commission added a condition of approval requiring the roof decks be completely removed from 4 of the units abutting adjacent neighbors to address their concerns [Lots 3, 4, 5, and 6]. Applicant proposes to reduce the grade level by 4 to six feet; reducing the height of structures to about 28 to 32 feet as measured from adjacent grades. Applicant submitted 3 letters of support for the project from immediately impacted neighbors on Sea Bluff Drive and Gleneagles Terrace based on concurrence with certain terms/conditions. [See Exhibit D in attached draft City Council Resolution]. Traffic accident data was provided in the April 13, 2015 Planning Commission staff report. Rezone to PDR-HD (Max. 20 dwelling units per acre) Variances from: Rezone to R2-HD (Max. 14.5 dwelling units per acre) Variances from: • Perimeter Open Space: (a minimum depth of 20 • Open Space - a minimum of 40 percent required, feet is required; a minimum depth of 11 feet with 34.9 percent proposed. an average depth of 20 feet is proposed); • Rear Setback (20 feet required for second story; • Open Space: (a minimum of 42 percent of the 10 feet proposed for second and third stories). total site area is required, 34.9 percent proposed); • Common Open Space: (50 percent of the open space required to be common open space; 10 percent common open space proposed). No Administrative Adjustment or Minor Modification requested. • Building Height (maximum 2 stories/27 feet required; 3 stories/roof deck/37 feet proposed). An Administrative Adjustment is required for the front building setback (20 feet required; 14 feet proposed). A Minor Modification is required to deviate from the distance from main buildings (10 feet required, 8 feet proposed). INFORMATION PROVIDED IN SUPPLEMENTAL MEMO: • CROSS SECTIONS SHOWING BUILDING HEIGHTS WITH AND WITHOUT ROOF DECKS; • CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT FROM THE ORIGINAL FEBRUARY 4, 2014 SCREENING REQUEST; • ADDITIONAL RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FOR THE IS/MND; • UPDATED TRAFFIC ANALYSIS INCLUDING THE EXISTING WAREHOUSE/OFFICE USE; • LETTERS OF OPPOSITION (UNDER SEPARATE COVER - 8 TOTAL). BUILDING HEIGHT AT ADJACENT PROPERTY WITHOUT ROOF DECK - 28 FEET BUILDING HEIGHT AT ADJACENT PROPERTY VITIkl'MR 1:�9Z91911:14?14=pl9:1 :11 Roof Deck Removed Adjacent Grade is opproxtmotley 4,5.5' above Proposed project site. SJPE YHG iEQi(lii BS TRUMARK TRUMARk 450 Newport Center Driver, Suite 300 Ne Wpoet Beach, CA 92680 949.9E9.98Do 11 Height Measurements @ Valley Road Property Line Costa Mesa. CA Screen Wall "k IL --A Existing Wall 14r4! 1156 GLENEAGLES TERRACE POOL `Q AREA I �WF71 Addllionul PlonlIng LOT 9 (PUN/ AIMIL N FINALIZED 3 " MACK$, DECK AND WINDOW RESTRICTIONS wifihin ex sling planters NOIED ON PAGE 1) to be provided for screening - Eric A. Nelson - Trumark Homes TRUMARK J) to prevent viewing adjacent neighbors backyard No Access to Sea alufl TRUMARK 450 Newport Center Drive, Suite 300 Newport Beach, CA 92860 EXHIBIT A 949.999.9800 1166 GLENEAGLES TERRACE COSTA MESA, CA ?2427 Request for Park Fee Waiver At the April 13, 2015 meeting, Planning Commission added a condition of approval requiring the applicant to work with the Public Services Department to develop a plan to install an approximately 200- to 300-foot long wrought iron fence along the Victoria Street frontage of Vista Park. The purpose of the fencing is to deter residents from jaywalking across Victoria Street to the park. The applicant is requesting to have a portion of the required park fee for the project waived equal to the cost of the construction of this fence t ,r „go Y O �Y ZZ _. L239 Vi[7tlRTF � FENC.k :�i1J DY ©m Eb fmm"�-4 CZ4tl-ITY r,arSpos .i W 4 on a c:vu 1239 VICTORIA G PA I TTM I MP Project Overview — Historical Image Unitarian Church Original Building 1963 Industrial Land Uses on Victoria & Valley Road - View Looking East 1 A � 'M4 Historical Photos Power Plants Bridge @ Brookhurst & Hamilton Y a 1 r 1i 1 1 lop 19 1963 View Looking West From Project Site L I. elto U Project Discussion TRUMARK COSTA MESA 1 TRUMARK 450 Newport Center Drive, Suite 300 Newport Beach. CA 92660 949,999,9800 TYPICAL STREET SCENE -- COSTA MESA, CA ncr a i�asai rBmu AO- KTGY Group, Inc, Architecture+Planning 17922 ditch Irvine. CA 92614 JN 949.851.2133 J ktgy.corn U Project Variance Request Property -Site Constraints ♦Topography of Site ♦Location on Major Arterial Street ♦Adjacent Land Use ♦Historical Land Use ♦Shape of Site ♦Sewer Location .-1 Overlay W Variance Reque Property -Site Constraints ♦Topography of Site ♦Location on Major Arterial Street ♦Adjacent Land Use ♦Historical Land Use ♦Shape of Site ♦Sewer Location Site Topography-12'-18' Change in Grade Street Profile- 15' -20' Change in Grade IJro_lect Variance Henue .� or, lay �... .. . ... _ V Baker St , ,• t ' AUctIllS AVM me Arlinytor Lir .a F t -_ r107ac Wad. ' Indian• apol%s Ave # 'YtK 4 ' Fair Dr - P. Atlanta Ave �dfy VV'Wilson °. L r91 ' f -- 7' � s , fl _ Victoria `` Bann ing'Ave _ V" i9th St v — Open Space Variance OPEN SPACE VARIANCE Concerns related to allowing developments to reduce open space requirements. A number of changes have been studied Analysis r but they don't address the concerns of neighborhood. •J A number of issues related to the adjacent arterial street, site • orientation and topography result in conditions that are not conducive • to common outdoor space. As proposed, the project addressed the current conditions, adjacent land uses and impacts but doesn't meet • open space requirement. • There are a number of options that could eliminate the variance but • after reviewing these options, the current plan results in a project that • has less of a potential impact and addresses issues related to parking ; and circulation. • �r 20. . STREET - — - _ Remove Plan 2 - Remove Oversized Garage Space Remove Guest Parking Setback (Rear)- Variance 02 Building Setback Trumark has made several changes and lowered the site to address this specific neighbors concerns. Screen Wall 6' off Windows 6' off New Landscpae to be installed for additional screening Eric A. Nelson - Trumark Homes I11,111VW1:1R►1 TRUMARK 450 Newport Center [give, Suite 300 Newport Beach, CA 92660 949.999.9800 Stairs to be oriented on south elevation New Retaining Wall on PL JILPI EXHIBIT A 1164 Gleneagles Perr Costa Mesas, CA W Height- Variance 03 Building Height Variance The original project proposal included a 3-story building with a roof deck. In addition, the original proposal under the General Plan Screening was shown with the some three story design. As noted earlier, the Proposed Project Zone change from PD-HD to R2-HD created the need for the variance. In response to concerns, the site has been lowered along the residential interface and as proposed is approximately 4 feet above the height of existing height limits. In addition to lowering the site, we have worked closely with the adjacent neighbors and agreed to a number of changes in design to address privacy. I have included signed letters to staff with specific, lot specific changes. We would ask that your recommendation to the City Council include these as Conditions of Approval. 1156 GI.I Additional Planting / witihin existing planters r to be provided for screening. LOT 4 (PLANT MODEL NOT FINALIZE❑ SET BACKS, DECK AND WINDOW RESTRICTIONS NOTED ON PAGE 1) Building Height Variance Roof Decks 6 2 O VALLEY ROAD - PDRMD 21C.7 & 213�'JdiQy Rand 1 5m, LI-11LI-It At, -LL I: IS I AW-F 1C30F I K I Al A-FN H<,'.YF AUJr.0 rrfl KW.k SITE SECTIONS ORIGINAL PROPOSED ROOF DECK IPDATED LOCATION OF ROOF DECK AWED REAR OF DECK AWAY FROM ADJACENT HOME(S) — Project Overview Modify Remove the condition limiting roof decks Option Approve the request as proposed, remove Conditions as proposed by the Planning Commission the condition or deny the request Park Fee Allow for the reduction in Park Fees to pay Option Approve the request as proposed, remove for fence installation on Victoria t he condition or deny the request Open Space Could be Achieved if we Variance Open Space Variance - 34.9 % Provided, Option reduce oversized garage and move all 40% Required. guest parking to driveways. Original Request PDR - HD would permit Variance Height Variance (maximum 2 story/27 Option this. By lowering the site, the project feet) 3 stories/roof deck 37' Proposed engages the neighborhood like a 2 story home. Variance Rear Setback 20' for 2nd Story, 10' Option Project changes have been made to address the concerns of the adjacent Proposed. neighbors impacted by this request. A total of 37sf of bldg. encroaches into the Administrative Building Setback - 20' Required, 16' Option setback. We could change the layout of proposed the house but this change would not be Adjustment significant given the minor encroachment. Adjustments could be made to increase in some areas but would impact the setback Administrative Building Separation 8' Proposed, 10' Q tlOn p along Victoria. The other option would g p Adjustment Required. require building a townhouse project with no building seperation. (:]) THANK YOU ABOUT Design is a major priority for us. Good planning. Smart space. Room to breathe. Intelligent. Practical. Comfortable. And beautiful. Our architects are detail minded and innovative, because you don't buy a home for today alone. You choose a place to build your future. 0 7 AL r s yi- 1 � — a •'S� - 1 • I} ZAK • t _ . .. ..: �. � `•r'.�,- cry. .r-. � }�► i ' .. { .'} ..�� : �� , f 4 ,.: '�� n. .ram �.� , . _�� - '� �.� � � �� • ' °�', �- �. r .. .: I . yy t q p fL `N. 77 low it 500 it (AcxoSje earth Ik d Neighborhood Concerns - 3/23 Planning Commission goo ............. 02 PD-HD IS TOO DENSE @ 20 DU ACRE 10 2 J Several Concerns that this could be a "bait & switch" and future changes would increase the proposed project from 14 du per acre to 1 20 du per acre under the PD-HD Zoning. Analysis Change zoning from PD-HD to R2-HD, Fountain Valley reducing allowed DU per acre to 14.5 Newport Beach Santa Ana Based on the concerns raised during the hearing on 3123, the zoning designation has been changed to R2-HD to limit total density to 14.5 du per acre. This change would limit the development to a total of 30 Units Vs 48 Units under PDHD. The Proposed Project is for 28 Homes, 2 less than allowed per proposed zoning. A more detailed discussion will follow regarding density. Density Comparison Dwelling Unit Per Acre Huntington Beach Irvine Log. (Fountain Valley) Costa Mesa Density 100--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 it Dwelling Unit Per Acre R1 R2 Historical Image 1963 Industrial Land Uses on Victoria & Valley Road -- 'rrw�r►Je r Historical Aerial Photos F, 1972 Industrial Land Uses on Victoria & Valley Road, Increased Residential s,T 0 Site -Zoning History Building Construction of Roof Area and Interior Clean Room Building 2 Additional Structure Building 1 Original Construction Manufacturing Earliest Record Indicates Manufacturing Zoning Established on Subject Property City Initiated GPA I Zone Change GPA Screening Light Industrial to Admin Approved 5-0 Professional Al Odor Complaints City Determines Use is Allowed Neighbors Appeal ZA & PC Determination - Denied City Council Overturns ZA & PC Decision CUP Required - Approve Limited to 2 Years Reef Project Approved Residential Development Approval (West) Site -Zoning History '40W'01500� tiAtlat in1A. a. a.l � �, h � Mantwttora. ......- n :.� • iMrax yp, tt"+ttn o {nrr. J hu w><t• tex+�'� aN wSl 6t snrtX.' Fttttnr t�"j1ety V„vts �` �rrxvx"ra Ya tYttd anY' nwc'httM,•t ice¢. ,�+e�u�tus� �n�,. .voxm wns c^utrxtnN tt utt tf n T' Y1W ebw Y'�ua , t'nk� �.�'�� ,max MY� s t�l`w�.1wnNN fn ttts wtt�xt>��� a h� nMcaxw �tW�axgt n11 x4w tly � +. aPr ,',jp�w�utTy�owdap�lb��rw�rite y}�pW`�7 �G - � y yAyatryina or oYt settxl !x W n+ Worit,. M pun r 1i otet. 7-uui tab* mu of grant �nttn ,� or4�itn�1} stn. `1 iot4 �'ts awn n"Sw e�x S� �yE A"A �'� G � l/ 7' M� 8 �"n tSF>oY' !d �� v @ 't tx Y Nn" W&W �IlfY, YY'Sl ty ©�V ' . i-towrver. no IZ.—I: "I czre �! ' � r1i. y/1�,. It YE25FCiCIRt Artxt OWM . vv���� �� � �' � •� � V1 4NO e 1) 14' -CY vile Ci V�EcI °qe de toit 1 B,�ffa �4 gnat F,ac irikwe10 t992. Vljt i Ao Earlier city Play ce9 4enci sr� Yds ilel _ll pa�sa4e acvisttvbxt [e �o�y�issi4n ��' N nation bOW' d tons by �tt+q lace ester earlier NO reversed to get Pe 'it fnr signs. 'WEstm`r u Y lust Canes tj5ltlCyC4 � 7 ,rex.i"` Citll7n[j° is 01 p �e �i '0 � 75 cl leg er mat ufa tziuo ati 1'L39tl US � dOT1 thick" P? forth peatea try at 0 ptiot aria st. det�nd. � G er, Daily Vi a r�iLen cQI7 .� peem t ()NPR PN ,y r5usan \Nestar abu coinn'unY Y \� SA ist a nal 1aQrne ��✓, ��� on pnc , l 'havebeg- manis duarners saY Yta e tt '3e@ niutn , it cast sin diuons since ass 1ze9 de5t9s` �errCut befor#t gel Vita �n ," clean 'Worsen am S busirt Comas ?, f -�`'o r ctu g so gab 00 Members a cos¢12 rrortel. p4a�'q ` s builtUTLcil council more ten by e < ecam "" city l�nday"s ma � eP e NIa zsa Wider C 'Oia; � y, ��� c! vet' tided at uts abnut agetr is Pe � utact e 'er vsl �Y1 °" C 1, '�" 1G �CJ pmplaa caniPanl . to ' eats vtfi C C l nri n* eS.. ° ernes c elly ` tent to ouln9 itm e, 1 .ice '"p S`� �1 p $ i •fir c" °;. l� sand mre ad}ace City r ndncts as1°n ,r]u�sin9 d ° C? , �'� voCy'G ON1 b^� 7 =�gn ,t sg t tents un rarnPted and -�ahnfl desutaC' __, (e esid Cx site t vote 3- i de 't"n sa`t i3 �� `'� �P f,}� ,►tx`a ustri bets to an m'(� menz i old t� ,c\' s tv< 3 ;> ° ,a. mom her decisi on that , � �: ffe aen ©x �;tss yes ,n i� ear si l / i e S COO ve,, t isn, ,�gce t �$ To,. 'P_ 0 1] o Sthe b' -1. rr 7p 43f / �fr1i� 'rho �(�+ 1 U �"�S rt t y yes + , ° a eo't ,,, re cb pY . �j� ry fiA C C? ty �� �e� �© � ie' e I've `' .tn "' i s'�'' r.t�tc �� '� 3, ;axY �''4 � �` SAS fir# ,.1 + )090, tv` Qv\�'� n� c'z titst ,.�,an r P(ig+% fop t jr�`/��, �& Q� �P"�tf 'p►l�. �1a�cr r�f'1� �n�1/n��'Q�Qp Y e to ' . fie c � , T. ..�. t wm/rf�a �l f d F aid r// �tleer�/y� fit trig e� a„vve ,p rst to ?, 4e . t,a dA �+ilr � r� r 19re Sr$` Gl$/gin r � �r17 ° ,r/� i ,"r t�9 ti, ' 011 r� �'�`hvt A01Va �� �,. r a �� tr' �npns��/ t l Q alit " J(t� Qgfwr a� OjD /CV t;,vn ixz- y144V,,,,,,eet e; inn, ��' e ` ti► � If �r�, �,� �r�t%� irp i4ln y /'��StP f ��t/rq , O � X 7 �� � t '�` �' `�'� '` C� Si C 6.'e4 peter � fG'wr � S ryec'l !f7°ofs'T, . 0 yye ytS "`�al .i' eke e off'• `fit �d 410ir�irrnInIa %t}r: '�tty�ryi,y �tr �y�'�r31�ry�Re�, � �s�/�-_iRl � Lit � �3 gPb ty,t Y�� y�t� # V�� �� � ` Jam' 47r C+'Re s G/ �lr , I ' S'rta.. "o-tv ctt'�y >�v��'n � �e Cats, C/Affid. bids f7p. a Land Use Map Light Industrial R2-MD f 1997 Zoning Map Per Staff Report dated May 27, 1997, Appeal of ZA Decision Ampe er A�ls�w� "all"Armi 17MA&jjr" 5 Yrrordurr L i mw 4or 4w C1 Commercial � pb ice' 3 OV re wr 3 PDR-MD 14001110 CIO Ah - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ........... r. 2— 11nnnn 2-2 poll lion .qmm -110 MINIM • Project Design Land Use - Zoning Constraints ♦ Requires GPA ♦ Requires Zone Change + CEQA Review Property - Site Constraints ♦ Topography of Site ♦ Location on Major Arterial Street ♦ Adjacent Land Use + Historical Land Use + Shape of Site + Sewer Location IV-' -I -'-^-hood Concerns ♦ Density ♦ Traffic Impacts + Privacy + Noise Adjacent and Surrounding Market ♦ Range of Housing - Condos to SFR ♦ Rental Supply ♦ Impacts to other Housing based on Project Sales ♦ New Neighboring Developments (Reef) - E3 AM �r� � .' �r Ili �� � .� { ��II le� ��'�+h-•I% � . f A {.� .. , r .. , i•1 r ;r. SI syi i' Pa z � CO J-- in. Avg, Max. Ele'wa�tinn_ fib, 88, 93 ft ange Totals: Distance: 371 ft Elev Cain Loss- 25.0 ft, -0 ft Max Slope: - Avg Slope: -, - IF Project Design Sewer Location on Sea Bluff - Limiting Changes to Topography Due to Manhole Connection 0 Neighborhood Concerns - 3/23 Planning Commission 01 TRAFFIC IMPACTS & STUDY ARE NOT ACCURATE. Several Concerns were raised regarding the traffic study and overall traffic impacts. Analysis Traffic analysis was prepared by a Licensed Traffic Engineer, Reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer and Peer Reviewed as part of the CEQA process. All three engineers determined the reduction in trip generation was accurate. Trip Generation No Changes Have Been Proposed however the project, as proposed, will include additional improvements to restrict movement to right in, right out on west driveway. This will include center median to provide protected left turn into Reef project. Proposed Development Existing Office/Warehouse 28 Single Family Homes 1 Existing Zoning (AP) g Y (Legal Non -Conforming) � Neighborhood Concerns - 3/23 Planning Commission 02 PD-HD ZONING IS TOO DENSE @ 20 DU ACRE Several Concerns that this could be a "bait & switch" and future 100 changes would increase the proposed project from 14 du per acre to 20 du per acre under the PD-HD Zoning. Analysis Change zoning from PD-HD to R2-HD, reducing allowed DU per acre to 14.5 Based on the concerns raised during the hearing on 3123, the zoning designation has been changed to R2-HD to limit total density to 14.5 du per acre. This change would limit the development to a total of 30 Units Vs 48 Units under PDHD. The Proposed Project is for 28 Homes, 2 less than allowed per proposed zoning. A more detailed discussion will follow regarding density. W 1 Costa Mesa Density Dwelling Unit Per Acre =R1 SoProposed Project R2 R2-H D • A , _•. `� � 4y I yam' � ... � ,, .,.. �, •All - �, • a.� .�* - �^'� i'.,I [ A n fir ,. ,l°r • � �V '� Tom" _ �'°''_ _ �F� - ,�_ ... ��y.� _ { - m m s F >,< 9 " AL �►. .. :may �'-'�� 49 _ _ R k • � - �.. Al }. - SF l ,n text u ,CA 7 F-. .3 4_ 0 Neighborhood Concerns - 3/23 Planning Commission 01 TRAFFIC IMPACTS &STUDY ARE NOT ACCURATE. Several Concerns were raised regarding the traffic study and overall traffic impacts. 02 PDHD IS TOO DENSE @ 20 DU ACRE Several Concerns that this could be a "bait & switch" and future changes would increase the proposed project from 14 du per acre to 20 du per acre under the PD-HD Zoning. 03 OPEN SPACE VARIANCE Concerns related to allowing developments to reduce open space requirements. 04 3-STORY HEIGHT IS TOO TALL Concerned about the height of the overall development and impacts on the neighborhood including privacy. 05 SAFETY DUE TO VICTORIA TRAFFIC Several comments on the safety of the project driveways due to the traffic on Victoria. 06 PARKING NOT ADEQUATE On -site parking is not enough for the proposed development and will spill over onto Valley and adjacent neighborhood. � Neighborhood Concerns - 3/23 Planning Commission 05 SAFETY DUE TO VICTORIA TRAFFIC Several comments on the safety of the project driveways due to the traffic on Victoria. Discussion No Change to project design The staff report provides a detailed response to the concerns of safety on Victoria and while we are concerned, we have few options given the site location. That said, a number of alternative site designs were developed as shown. These proposed designs would require direct access to Sea Bluff and we believe this would not be acceptable to the neighbors or the neighborhood. In addition, the ROW necessary may require additional land area that is not available. Concept Layout - Low Density 10 - 16 DU Per Acre Concept Layout - Medium Density 10-16DUPer Acre � Neighborhood Petition pact to Property Values around Development Concerned about the height of the overall �.-• development and .� impacts on the neighborhood. Impacts include loss of views, loss of air flow and impacts from new homes. View From Victoria Street Looking South Existim View From Victoria Street Looking South From Retail Center 0 Neighborhood Petition 0 Impact to Property Values around Development C cerned about the height of the all development and impacts on the neighborhood. Impacts include loss of views, loss of air flow and impacts from new homes. n Overlay 0 Neighborhood Petition Impact to Property Values around Development C cerned about the height of the all development and impacts on the neighborhood. Impacts include loss of views, loss of air flow and impacts from new homes. elahborhood Pet-Ific A 0 Neighborhood Petition 05 Welfare of future residents A detailed description of the potential impacts include depression, physiological disorders, impacts to children and overall happiness. The location of the Proposed Project adjacent to Victoria Park, Canyon Park, Analysis Fairview Park and Talbert Reserve eliminate any of the risks noted in the study referenced in the petition. ■ This study uses large-scale representative medical record data to investigate whether the prevalence of a number of disease clusters is related to the amount of green space in people's living environment. ■ The annual prevalence rates for 15 of the 24 investigated disease clusters is louver in living environments with more green space in a 1 km radius around people's homes. P. The study stresses the importance of green space close to people's homes. ioThe relationship is particularly strong for children and lower socioeconomic groups. I VIONISIS m god Netitic A Mr. -till; 7' 41 "77- Project Options + Density + Traffic Impacts + Privacy + Noise FRI Lot Size Comparison /■,•,[I.l0 .�Y � � r ul r �_� _ . Ef All i CL SEA BLUFF sif sue, _' -- -• LATITUDE : 33.651118 LONGITUDE:-117.947628 WIND STUDY - PREVAILING WINDS (YEARLY) z v v n PH-2 ADDITIONAL DOCS From the desk of, JEFFREY J. LEMA Y 1829 Ocean Cf., Costa Mesa, CA 92627 May 5, 2015 Costa Mesa City Council Attn: Council Members 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, California 92626 Re: City of Costa Mesa Planning Hearing Trumark Costa Mesa Dear Council Members: 1 send this letter in support of the City of Costa Mesa's Redevelopment Plan for the Westside Costa Mesa District and specifically, the proposed Trumark Costa Mesa housing development. Unfortunately, the Westside of Costa Mesa in dire need of improvement. Many of the area businesses have enjoyed years of love tax basis without ever reinvesting into their properties. Consequently, this has contributed to conditions that invite crime, homelessness and brings the down the overall value of Costa Mesa as whole. Projects such as Trumark are what the City needs to reinvent itself and attract the new generation of homebuyers. Those that oppose developments such as Trumark raise traffic and safety as reasons for their opposition concerned that these types of developments are too dense and do not provide for enough open space. I respectfully disagree. People want to live in Costa Mesa and are hungry for environmentally friendly housing alternatives that offer urban environments that enjoy close proximity to shopping, dining, entertainment and recreation. Projects such as Trumark offer this. To this end, I recently purchased in Sea House, an upscale urban development similar to Trumark. The development has greatly enhanced the area with minimal impact, As a Costa Mesa resident, I see Trumark as a positive step to further the City's Westside Redevelopment efforts and am in support of the development. Very truly yours, Jeff. may CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: May 5, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: NB-1 SUBJECT: BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA (BIA) REAUTHORIZATION AND RESOLUTION OF INTENTION, AND REVIEW OF ANNUAL REPORT DATE: APRIL 21, 2015 FROM: CHIEF EXECUTIVE'S OFFICE PRESENTATION BY: DANIEL K. BAKER, PUBLIC AFFAIRS MANAGER PAULETTE LOMBARDI-FRIES, PRESIDENT, COSTA MESA CONFERENCE AND VISITOR BUREAU FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: DAN BAKER (714) 754-5156 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Receive and file the Business Improvement Area (BIA) annual report for Fiscal Year 2014-15(Attachment 1). 2. Receive and file audited financial report for Fiscal Year 2013-14 (Attachment 2). 3. Approve Resolution No. 15-xx: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO LEVY AN ANNUAL ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015-2016 FOR A BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA COVERING CERTAIN COSTA MESA HOTELS AND MOTELS AND SETTING THE TIME AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSAL. (Attachment 3) BACKGROUND: The California Legislature adopted the Parking in Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (Streets and Highways Code, §36500), which enables cities to impose an assessment fee on businesses within an area designated by the city. On July 5, 1995, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 95-9 to establish a Business Improvement Area (BIA) for the purpose of assisting the hotel and motel industry in its promotion of tourism within the city. The BIA imposed a one percent (1 %) assessment on the sale of hotel and motel overnight guest room stays. This money was to be used for the establishment and maintenance of a local tourism and promotion council. The Costa Mesa City Council authorized the city manager to enter into an agreement with the Costa Mesa Tourism and Promotion Council to develop and administer the BIA. In 2001, the Costa Mesa Conference & Visitor Bureau (CVB) became the administrator of the BIA. In accordance with the CVB's bylaws (Attachment 4), the CVB's Board of Directors is currently comprised of 11 general managers from the 11 participating hotels, one member of the City Council, and the City Chief Executive Officer's designee. In January 2000, the participating hotels requested an increase in the assessment from one percent (1 %) to two percent (2%), which was approved. In October 2010, the participating hotels requested an increase to the assessment from two percent (2%) to three percent (3%). The increase was approved by Council resolution and became effective on November 1, 2010. The BIA benefit zone encompasses all areas within the boundaries of Costa Mesa. ANALYSIS: Currently, the number of properties included in the BIA assessment levy is limited to the 11 hotels that have expressed an interest in participating in the program as detailed in the resolution of intention (Attachment 3), the BLVD Hotel was added in February 2015. Upon adoption of the resolution of intention, property owners of the participating hotels will be notified in writing within seven days of the assessment renewal, and the resolution will also be published in the Daily Pilot at least seven days prior to the public hearing scheduled for June 2, 2015 at 7 p.m. City staff will also notify all the hotels and motels in the city not currently included in the BIA to allow them the opportunity to be included in the BIA. Property owners will be provided an opportunity to protest the annual assessment or address any concerns regarding the BIA at the public hearing. The City Council will vote to adopt or deny the resolution levying an annual assessment for the upcoming fiscal year, and makes the ultimate decision as to the size of and the properties to be included in the BIA. Once the annual assessment is approved, the assessment is collected along with the city's Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT). The hotels and motels included in the BIA are required to itemize the BIA levy as a separate assessment. The CVB staff manages the day-to-day activities and provides all services to administer the BIA. Per the agreement between the City of Costa Mesa and the CVB and as required by Streets and Highways Code (§36533), the CVB is required to provide an annual review describing the programs and activities implemented during the previous fiscal year as well as the status of the programs and activities implemented during the current fiscal year (Attachment 1). The City Council may make recommendations and revisions to the annual report, which will ultimately be approved at the public hearing as part of the resolution to levy an annual assessment. Also in accordance with the agreement between the city and the CVB, the annual audit for the 2013-14 Fiscal Year has been completed by KMJ Corbin & Company, an independent auditor, and paid for by assessment funds. The audit is intended to ensure that the assessment revenue is expended for public purposes as specified within the resolution and that no expenditures are made in a manner contrary to the agreement. The Council is asked to receive and file the audit (Attachment 2). Highlights of the 2014-2015 Fiscal Year In 2014/2015, the Bureau worked with Myriad Marketing and developed a new brand for the City of the Arts. TM A refreshed concept was developed with the consistent brand message through The Art of Fashion, The Art of the Stage, and The Art of Dining. The new concept elevates Costa Mesa and communicates its brand essence through creative imagery that shows off Costa Mesa landmarks, its bright colors, elegance, beautiful weather and fashion - forward style. New taglines include "Where Your Style Reaches New Heights" and "Where Your Style Spreads Its Wings." New branding was incorporated throughout all advertising channels such as online, print, email marketing, social media and press releases. The CVB partnered with the city on local programs, and sponsored Costa Mesa Restaurant Week and the OC Marathon. Focused on need times, the CVB continued the "50 Reasons to Stay," a successful hotel package that ran during the summer and holiday timeframes. The hotels within the CVB continued to make enhancements to their properties. Product improvements include the Ayres Hotel & Suites' inspiring new lobby and business center. The Marriott guest will experience a refreshed, modern feel upon arrival in the lobby. The Westin South Coast Plaza is in the process of a guest room revitalization project due to be completed by May 2015. And lastly, the BLVD Hotel, the newest member of CVB, recently began a multi -stage room makeover program and will soon be remodeling its guest lobby. New restaurants found their homes in Costa Mesa, which included Pueblo, ST Patisserie and SusieCakes at The OC Mix. The famed Din Tai Fung at South Coast Plaza, Boathouse Collective, and classic Southern dishes at Social add to the superb dining diversity of our city. The travel industry continues to drive growth to the state economy. According to Smith Travel Research Inc., we live and work in a state where more than 200 million visitors traveled to in 2013. Over $109.6 billion was spent in travel -related consumer expenses. California had the largest market share of domestic travel among all 50 states with leisure travel outpacing business travel. Over 6.5 million international travelers visited California and spent $12.8 billion. International travel led to growth in passenger loads at California's airports. The lodging industry within the state of California is very strong. Statewide occupancy in 2014 reached 72.8%, +3.1 % and the average daily rate (ADR) was $140.16, +7.3% from last year. Orange County experienced an occupancy rate of 76.7% in 2014 and an ADR of $135.57, +6.5% from last year. Participating hotels within the Bureau saw an increase of 1.7% in occupancy and 6.6% in average daily rate in 2014. Beginning last fiscal year, in concert with the Orange County Visitors Association, the Bureau began marketing the City of the Arts TM to China, Canada and Mexico with the hope of welcoming these guests to our city. The Bureau continues to work closely with the Orange County Visitors Association. The CVB's alignment with OCVA has become very valuable. OCVA offers destination management organizations and related travel industries a strong voice in highlighting the county as a premier overnight destination both internationally and domestically. Over the past two years, the Bureau has worked closely with OCVA to develop a presence in international destinations such as China, Mexico and the Middle East. Lastly, The Bureau redesigned Travel Costa Mesa. com this fiscal year to provide a more modern look and feel to the site. The site has been updated with a wider visual layout design packed with larger imagery, new fonts, and brighter colors to grab and hold the visitor's attention. The content was reorganized and optimized for simpler navigation and faster loading time to enhance the user's browsing and reading experience. Both desktop and mobile sites now prominently feature the main categories of "STAY", "SHOP", "EAT", and "PLAY," resulting in more direct access to hotel content. The Travel Costa Mesa. com mobile site represents 47% of the total traffic, driving the need for a mobile -friendly redesign. The mobile version has been optimized for a better browsing experience on mobile devices, and for improved accessibility across multiple platforms. Mobile users may have different needs when accessing information on their mobile devices, and expect to get to the information more quickly and easily. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: The Council may vote to deny the resolution of intention, which will prevent a public hearing from taking place to consider the levying an annual assessment for the upcoming fiscal year. FISCAL REVIEW: The recently completed audit shows the CVB's cash equity as of June 30, 2014, to be $1,079,582. According to the 2014-2015 annual report, the CVB has a total of $1,651,070 in BIA actual revenues through February and is estimating to generate an additional $720,802 for the months of March, April, May and June for an estimated fiscal year total of $2.37 million. The city receives one percent (1 %) of the BIA revenue/assessment as partial reimbursement for its collection and administrative costs. The one percent (1 %) allocated to the city for reimbursement is estimated at $23,700 for the 2015-2016 Fiscal Year. This fee will sufficiently cover the costs incurred by the City of Costa Mesa in assisting the CVB. Examples of CVB expenditures include an advertising campaign, media relations, brochures/promotional items, video production, administration, special promotions, and hotel niche marketing. Lastly, the City utilizes CVB funding for community -wide marketing and support. The Fiscal Year 2015-2016 proposed budget totaling $164,000 is outlined in attachment 5. Beginning in FY 2014-2015, the City budgets and tracks revenues and expenditures of $164,000 within the City's financial system. This budget will be annually added as an addendum to the existing Professional Services Agreement between the City and the CVB. The proposed addendum will be presented for review and authorization by the City Council at the June 2, 2015, public hearing. All expenditures of these funds will be on a reimbursement basis and will adhere to the City of Costa Mesa purchasing policy guidelines. LEGAL REVIEW: Legal counsel has prepared the resolution of intention and reviewed the documents and approved as to form. CONCLUSION: Adoption of the resolution of intent is the initial step in the reauthorization of the BIA assessment. State law mandates the specific procedure to be followed in the establishment of such an area. Staff will make a presentation to the City Council on the implementation of the BIA assessment at the public hearing on June 2, 2015, but the City Council must approve the proposed resolution of intention before the hearing can be scheduled to consider the levying of an annual assessment. DANIEL K. BAKER Public Affairs Manager THOMAS R. HATCH City CEO THOMAS DUARTE City Attorney STEVE DUNIVENT Interim Finance Director DISTRIBUTION: Costa Mesa Conference & Visitor Bureau ATTACHMENTS: 1 Fiscal Year 2014-15 Annual Reaort for the BIA 2 Completed Audit of Fiscal Year 2013-14 3 Proposed Resolution of Intention 4 Bylaws of Costa Mesa Conference & Visitor Bureau 5 Annual Community -Wide marketing and support budget COSTA MESA -ITY OF THE ARTS"" 575 Anton Blvd., Suite 880 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 COSTA MESA ANNUAL REPORT FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 2015 THE C a l i f o r n i a Y -"gob,; s -milk. i _ r ` L- v I yilcs Annie, Aw a. ------------------- --. ---- — Now- MEOW r, rr stce^sataM enxcE11 nAlu Pill I OnI.— 1=014= TABLE OF CONTENTS President's Message from Costa Mesa Conference and Visitor Bureau 5 Fiscal Overview 9 BIA 10 The Impact of Tourism 14 Travel News Update/ U.S. Travel News 18 Trends in Travel 20 Domestic Travel 21 International Travel 23 Partnerships 31 Marketing Overview 35 Marketing Overview: Fiscal Year 2014/2015 36 New Branding 37 Travel Costa Mesa.com 39 Social Media 53 Travel Costa Mesa Blog 56 Costa Mesa Email Newsletter 57 Travel Costa Mesa Calendar 58 Paid Media 59 Print Campaign 59 Stay and Get $50 Campaign 60 Valentine's Day Weekend Getaway Campaign 61 Costa Mesa Restaurant Week 62 TripAdvisor Sponsorship Page & Banner Ads 63 Public Relations 64 International Efforts 65 COSTA MESA CVB ANNUAL REPORT 3 CITY OF THE ARTS'" Surrounded by a richness in culture, shopping and dining, proximity to the Pacific Ocean and near perfect year-round climate, the City of theArtsr°' is in an advantageous position to attract both domestic and international guests when traveling to Orange County. The Costa Mesa Conference and Visitor Bureau (Bureau) aggressively markets the city as a desirable, overnight leisure destination focusing on the experiences of shopping, the arts and dining. Our branding campaigns extend across the western United States, and to exciting new territories including Vancouver, China, Mexico and the Middle East. We live and work in a state where more than 200 million visitors traveled to in 2013. Over $109.6 billion was spent in travel -related consumer expenses. California had the largest market share of domestic travel among all 50 states with leisure travel outpacing business travel. Over 6.5 million international travelers visited California and spent $12.8 billion. International travel led to growth in passenger loads at California's airports. The lodging industry within the state of California is very strong. Statewide occupancy in 2014 reached 72.8%, +3.1% and the average daily rate (ADR) was $140.16, +73% from last year. Orange County experienced an occupancy rate of76.7% in 2014 and an ADR of $135.57, +6.5% from last year. Participating hotels within the Bureau saw an increase of 1.7% in occupancy and 6.6% in average daily rate in 2014. Everyone in the community benefits from tourism. It's extremely valuable in adding jobs and tax revenues for local services. All segments of this industry including accommodations, food and beverage, shopping, attractions and entertainment greatly benefit from visitor spending. Travel spending in 2013 generated $4.3 billion in state taxes and directly supported 965,800jobs. Hotel renovations and fantastic new dining options will continue to impress overnight guests visiting Costa Mesa. Product improvements include the Ayres Hotel & Suites' inspiring new lobby and business center. The Marriott guest will experience a refreshed, modern feel upon arrival in the lobby. The Westin South Coast Plaza is in the process of a guest room revitalization project due to be completed by May 2015. The Art of Dining is alive in Costa Mesa with exciting new restaurants to experience such as Pueblo, ST Patisserie and SusieCakes at The OC Mix. The famed Din Tai Fung at South Coast Plaza, Boathouse Collective, and classic Southern dishes at Social add to the superb dining diversity of our city. The Bureau is excited to represent another hotel partner, the BLVD Hotel. As the fiscal year comes to a close, we will also be tapping into a new partnership involving Anaheim Resort Transportation. This transportation service will allow guests to visit the Disneylando Resort while staying in Costa Mesa and enjoying shopping, dining and the arts. Tourism doesn't just happen. It is strategic and thoughtful. The results are felt throughout the city and impact every one of us. Travelers need to become engaged in our destination through strategic and tactical branding of the City of the Arts- As we realize our successes from this past fiscal year, the Bureau looks forward to building upon that momentum to attract more visitors both domestically and internationally. Paulette Lombardi -Fries President, Costa Mesa Conference and Visitor Bureau kqj COSTA MESA CVB ANNUAL REPORT 5 Nor COSTA MESA Conference and Visitor Bureau is a nonprofit corporation 1995 to market the city of Costa Mesa as a desirable �rnight leisure destination in Orange County. MISSION STATEMENT conference and Visitor Bureau enhances and promotes the ,(perience, further increasing visitor spending for industry and y economic viability, sustainability and quality of life. VISION STATEMENT Conference and Visitor Bureau is the engaged destination )porting and selling the city's distinct visitor brand experiences id advocating community tourism benefits. COSTA MESA CVB ANNUAL REPORT 7 .l_ _ _ .• Iv - .I , �.� .fi �zf�. 1 f, rz••^ ,� 4� `��" � � �� x .per j!„���'.. A Y � W � _ [ Y � f, { < �"'er ' � Y.•`�i'� .,r - rq` - _.. - y},-57,1j - �•.._ � .iC ' � _ y. � J -,�t`. Sri. t ' ,i .�t:-YRYTict y�. A 1 a ' �sy�..; �s �f•1� �y� �..nw. .. A t �• . - .- r'a ' p �A A i�'• � W�� j`'}: fie _ 1 T �• .,-•,y ri- '.' f , a'S}'+ �•` ,y y�irir 1,. � _ ..o- Y - l,"•ir R y _�+� + � . • � '77 4 r y"`?. ; ,.�,4 r,x ell 4. ' i,i• i t t� _.* : • Y,-` 41 R' �..� y .`Kti �'�,;. .I �.� i�.,..: .; P. i`• -.'." tL' �' �ri�.}yp �,� r. " tom,. S�.• S - - '.� ...3 ,�+. r� � 'ar -- � �.` t,*t �. ��,; tom`' i� '�°,•'. S - �I ` T` 1 -16 t�� ..,.� ,F • ,f�, ,�� � 1' - Sites_ �; - �' u' 'ai_,:'�` �� r _., > 4 , c• 't"n. v ��'�'' ' °" �, . � ' i _. _ • ` "ram' u ;; R _ ". ...A _ "�"�' ' 4 �%T„�4 'i" - i``r� a � -� . .;. • _ _- .*r�a _ Yc�t �Y _ ''�- � -'°si1;� .. - � ' £ t 1 M 's f•.f - .r! gy ��� r 1 c Pi _. .}'ty liF. - " C T _ BIA Method and Basis of Levy The proposed method and basis of levying the assessment against his or her business is set forth according to City of Costa Mesa Ordinance 95-9, and is as follows: The BIA assessment will be used to fund the Costa Mesa Conference and Visitor Bureau. The Bureau will Revenue A three percent (3%) levy will be assessed against each of the 11 hotels listed in the annual report, based on the net revenue from the sale of overnight room stays. Business owners shall pay the assessment to the Costa Mesa City Finance Department on a monthly basis. A penalty and interest shall be assessed on late payments. fund marketing efforts to promote tourism in Costa Mesa and will sponsor related tourist events that benefit the hotel and motel businesses within the City. The improvements and marketing to be funded by this assessment are outlined in the annual report. New hotel and motel businesses that are interested in participating in the BIA should contact the City and the Costa Mesa Conference and Visitor Bureau. Avenue of the Arts Wyndham Hotel Ayres Hotel & Suites Best Western Plus germ Crowne Plaza Holiday Inn Express & Suites Marriott Ramada Inn & Suites Residence Inn by Marriott The Westin South Coast Plaza BLVD Hotel (joined late Feb. 2015) BIA Participating Bureau Hotels 3350 Avenue of the Arts Costa Mesa, CA 92626 325 Bristol Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626 2642 Newport Blvd. Costa Mesa, CA 92627 3050 Bristol St. Costa Mesa, CA 92626 3131 Bristol St. Costa Mesa, CA 92626 2070 Newport Blvd. Costa Mesa. CA 92627 500 Anton Blvd. Costa Mesa, CA 92626 1680 Superior Ave. Costa Mesa. CA 92627 881 Baker St. Costa Mesa, CA 92626 686 Anton Blvd. Costa Mesa. CA 92626 2430 Newport Blvd. Costa Mesa, CA 92627 J Rosanna Inc. 3350 Avenue of the Arts Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Newport Country Inn & Suites, Inc. 355 Bristol St., Suite A Costa Mesa, CA 92626 James Hsuen & Shang-Pu Lee 2642 Newport Blvd. Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Ashford TRS CM LLC 14185 Dallas Parkway Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 75254 Brighton Management 1901 Main Street Suite 150 Irvine, CA 92614 Narendra B. Patel 2070 Newport Blvd. Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Marriott International 10400 Fernwood Rd. Bethesda, MD 20817 B.D. Inns Inc./Ramada Ltd. 1680 Superior Ave. Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Marriott International 10400 Fernwood Rd. Bethesda, MD 20817 Host Hotels & Resorts 6903 Rockledge Dr. Suite 1500 Bethesda. MD 20817 Hollywood Corner Inc. 2430 Newport Blvd. Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Rosanna Inc. 3350 Avenue of the Arts Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Newport Country Inn & Suites, Inc. 355 Bristol St., Suite A Costa Mesa, CA 92626 James Hsuen & Shang-Pu Lee 2642 Newport Blvd. Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Remington Lodging & Hospitality LP 14185 Dallas Parkway Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 75254 3131 Bristol Property UC, LLC 2711 Centerville Rd. Suite 400 Wilmington, DE 19808 Narendra B. Patel 2070 Newport Blvd. Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Host Hotels & Resorts 6903 Rockledge Dr. Suite 1500 Bethesda, MD 20817 B.D. Inns Inc./Ramada Ltd. 1680 Superior Ave. Costa Mesa, CA 92627 BRE Select Hotels Corp. Dallas, TX CJ Segerstrom & Sons c/o South Coast Plaza 686 Anton Blvd. Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Shyamal Patel 16609 Honeybee Dr. Tustin, CA 92782 10 FISCAL OVERVIEW COSTA MESA CVB ANNUAL REPORT 11 Financial Summary Fiscal Year 2014/2015 • July $208,81783 $212,994.19 August $226,997.73 $231,537.68 September $245,329.76 $250,236.36 October $236,973.30 $241,712.77 November $191,618.45 $195,450.82 December $196,799.84 $200,735.84 January $106,092.55 $108,214.40 February $238,441.33 $243,210.16 March* $177,174.87 $180,718.37 April* $170,319.60 $173,725.99 May* $209,313.88 $213,500.16 June* $163,994.58 $167,274.47 Total: $2,371,873.72 $2,419,311.21 *Projected numbers as BIA checks for these months have not been received. Primary Expense Projections Fiscal Year 2.015/2016 Total Marketing Expense $1,632,518.25 Online marketing/International marketing/Display ads/Email marketing Familiarization tours/Promotions/Print advertising/Sponsorships Video production/Tradeshows/ Brochures/ Hotel marketing fund Total Employee Expenses $431,928.23 Salaries/Payroll taxes/Workers' comp/Employee benefits Payroll services/Incentives Total Administrative Expenses $171,696.50 City collection/Accounting audit/Mileage/Bank charges Dues & subscriptions/Insurance/Office supplies/Rent/Parking/Postage Telephone/Travel/Meetings & conferences Total Legal Expenses Total Expenses $100,000.00 $2,336,142.98 12 FISCAL OVERVIEW COSTA MESA CVB ANNUAL REPORT 13 THE IMPACT OF TOURISM The tourism industry in California is having a record - breaking year and continues to be a strong economic driver for the state. Travel -related spending in 2013 reached a record high of $109.6 billion, vs. $106 billion in 2012. Local and state tax revenue equated to $7.1 billion. Tourism -related jobs in California grew to 965,800 vs. 917,000 in 2012. Orange County's numbers are equally impressive. Preliminary results for 2014 from the Anaheim, Orange County Visitor & Convention Bureau indicate visitors grew to 46.1 million, a 3.9% increase over 2013. Total visitor spending was $10.7 billion in 2014, a 11.2% increase year over year. In 2014, hotel occupancy rates in the state reached 72.8%, its highest point in over ten years. Average daily rate (ADR) was $140.16, a 7.3% improvement compared to last year. Bureau partner hotels achieved an overall occupancy in calendar year 2014 of 80.7%, up 1.7% from 2013. Average daily rate (ADR) was $130.77, a 6.6% increase compared to 2013. Weekend occupancy reached 82.3%, up 2.4% and weekday occupancy reached 80.1%, up 1.5%. ADR weekend growth grew 7.8% compared to weekday growth of 6.3%. Tourism benefits are felt right here in the city. The 11 partner hotels at the Bureau employ 1,020 people. Tax revenues directly related to tourism fund necessary local services and provide jobs. Transient occupancy tax (TOT) is the fourth -largest revenue generator for the City of Costa Mesa. According to the City's Adopted Operating and Capital Improvement Budget for Fiscal Year 2014-2015, $7.7 million in TOT is projected to be collected from the hotels for fiscal year 2013-2014 compared to the $7.3 million in fiscal year 2012-2013. The City is projecting a 5.0% increase in TOT revenue in 2014-2015. Although hotels are in the most advantageous position when tourism flourishes, other segments also reap the benefits. This includes food and beverage, in- state flights and rental cars, shopping, attractions and entertainment segments. California is the number one travel destination in the United States. The Golden State has an abundance of riches, which include the most five-star beaches in the country, more restaurants than any other state, four of the world's top 25 amusement parks, and more of the top cities for theater arts performances than any other state. Actual and Calendar Year -to -Date 2014 & 2015 2014 Actualls Occupancy Orange County 76.7% + 2.8% $135.57 + 6.5% *Costa Mesa 80.7% + 1.7% $130.77 + 6.6% California 72.8% + 3.1% $140.16 + 73% January 2015 • .. s' Costa Mesa 74.9% + 3% $126.54 + .1 % Costa Mesa and CA numbers provided by Smith Travel Research, Inc. (STR). *Costa Mesa numbers reflect nine hotels that provide results to STR. 14 FISCAL OVERVIEW I VISITOR SPENDING BY INDUSTRY SEGMENT (in billions) All segments of California's tourism industry benefit substantially from visitor spending in the state. Attractions & Entertainment $15.3 14% $16.2 17% Shopping In -State Travel* $21.4 20% Source: Visit California, fiscal year 2013/2014. `Includes in -state flights and rental cars. Food & Beverage $29.6 31% $19.3 18% Accommodations SPEND HISTORY ACTUAL AND CALENDAR YEAR-TO-DATE (in billions) Travel -related visitor spending in California reached a record $109.6 billion in 2013. This is the highest number in both real and inflation dollars since 1992, when data tracking began. $120 109.6 106.2 101.8 $100 92.4 95.8 98.2 95.1 89.2 M o $60 m $40 $20 $0 \0 � 00 O\ O '— fV N1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 FISCAL OVERVIEW COSTA MESA CVB ANNUAL REPORT 17 TRAVEL NEWS UPDATE U.S. Travel News The impact of the travel industry is remarkable, and many do not understand that it is a major economic driver that supports millions of jobs in this country. Travel is among the top 10 industries in the United States relating to employment according to the U.S. Travel Association. Almost 15 million jobs are supported by the travel industry in the U.S. Over $2 trillion in spending related to travel generated close to $134 billion in tax revenue for federal, state and local governments. Three out of four domestic trips taken in 2013 were for leisure purposes. Leisure travel by domestic and international travelers equated to over $621 billion in 2013. Visiting family and friends, shopping, dining and beaches were the top five leisure activities for domestic travel. The United States welcomed over 69 million international travelers to the U.S. in 2013, making it the number two most -visited to destination behind France, according to World Tourism Rankings. Thirty-two million were from overseas markets and 37.7 million were from Canada and Mexico. U.S. Travel reports overseas arrivals represent 46% of all international arrivals and yet contribute to 79% of total international travel receipts. Travel is the third -largest overall U.S. export and grew more than three times faster than other exports in 2013. The Los Angeles Times reported that $222 billion was spent in 2014. International guests spent $215 billion in 2013. International guests stay longer when visiting the U.S., with an average of 17 nights and $4,500 in spending. Shopping is ranked as their top leisure activity. Sightseeing, fine dining, visiting national parks, and museums and art galleries round out the top five preferred activities. The UN World Tourism Organization forecasts that 1.7 billion people will be traveling around the world by 2020. International travel grew 59% since 2000 as a result of demographic and economic trends. Ernst & Young estimates that the middle class will grow to 3 billion people within the next 15 years, resulting in spending of $56 trillion by 2030. In 2012, the federal government created the National Travel and Tourism Strategy, aimed at attracting 100 million international visitors to the U.S. by 2021. The U.S. will compete with countries such as Australia, Mexico and Canada, who spend over $100 million on travel promotion, as well as other parts of the world such as Europe and the Asia -Pacific region, who invest over $1 billion to attract visitors. Brand USA, which was created in 2010, is the first -ever destination management organization for the U.S. Their goal is to increase international visitation and grow global travel share to the U.S., creating American jobs. Funding is provided by foreign visitors and the travel industry without any federal taxpayer funds. Revenue is derived from the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA), an automated system used to determine the eligibility of visitors to travel to the U.S. under the Visa Waiver Program. Brand USAs budget was $125 million in 2014. The hotel industry, according to STIR, Inc. (Smith Travel Research, Inc.) stated that 2014 was a great year for hotels. Average daily rate and revenue per available room (revpar) were the highest ever recorded. Occupancy was 64.4 %, up 3.6% and average daily rate was $115.32, up 4.6%. Expectations for 2015 are even stronger, with predictions of occupancy growing more than 5% and revpar growing 6.4%. 1 New York 2 Florida 3 California 4 Hawaii 5 Nevada Overseas Visitors Jo Select U.S. States and Territories 2012 — 2013 31.3 9,315 22.1 6,577 20.2 6,012 30.6 9,804 22.5 7,209 20.2 6,472 9.5 2,827 9.9 9.3 2,768 9.1 (1) Excludes Canada and Mexico. Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, ITA, National Travel and Tourism Office. Release Date: June 2013. Top Five High -Growth Markets Through 2017 (forecasted) China 154.7% Saudi Arabia Brazil Argentina Taiwan Source: U.S. Travel Association 2014. 87.4 % 55.1 % 42.9 % 36.4% 3,172 M 18 FISCAL OVERVIEW COSTA MESA CVB ANNUAL REPORT 19 Trends in Trave MMGY Global tells us increased consumer confidence in personal finances led travelers to plan more vacations. A national survey revealed 609,6 of travelers plan on taking a leisure trip within the next six months vs. 569,6' in 2013. Millennial spending will increase 6%, families traveling with children 5%, and seniors will spend 335.1 more. More than 60% of leisure travelers said that budget was the most influential factor in determining a travel destination, but that they are willing to pay more for a unique travel experience. Food -inspired travel will grow 30% compared to 2014. A Choice Hotels International travel trend survey for 2015 indicated Americans plan to spend 8% more on leisure travel. According to Travel Facts and Statistics from the U.S. Travel Association, fewer adults are traveling with children. In 2012, 26% of domestic leisure travelers traveled with children under the age of 18 compared to 31% in 2008. However, when talking about multi - generational travel, the intent to travel with extended family is on the rise — 35% of grandparents are inclined to pay for these trips vs. 25% of parents. Among parents and grandparents traveling, 50% of these vacations are multigenerational. Children in this category influence the destination selection by over 60%. So who is traveling for pleasure? According to the U.S. Travel Association, the average leisure traveler is 475 years old. Mature travelers make up 36% of leisure travel volume, 18% are 65+ as is 55-64. Nearly two in ten are 45-55 year olds, 17% are 35-44, 20% are 25-34 and 8% are 18-24. In 2015, the Millennial generation will outnumber the baby boomers for the first time based on U.S. Census Bureau statistics. A Millennial is defined by Neil Howe and William Strauss, authors of the 1991 book Generations: The History o f America's Future 1584-2069, as individuals born between 1982-2004. Millennials will grow to 75.3 million compared to 74.9 million boomers. Generation X is projected to outnumber the boomers by 2028. Millennial spending is growing fast, up 20% in 2014, well above the average household income and they make up the largest segment of leisure travelers. It is estimated that each American driver stands to save $452 on gasoline in 2015, states Bankrate.com. But, that doesn't mean those traveling by air will see cost savings. Airlines will save billions this year and will likely pay down debt and reward stakeholders. Demand is strong for travel, and airplanes will become more crowded. As cited in U.S. Travel Outlook, international air traffic to and from the U.S. had 197.3 million passengers in 2014, an overall 7% increase from 2013, creating a new record. Domestic Trave The forecast for total and domestic leisure travel in 2015 is an increase of 2.3%, according to the 2015 Tourism Economic Outlook Report. Domestic leisure travel to California will outpace business travel. Six states account for nearly half of non-resident leisure visits and one-third of the non-resident spending: Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Colorado, Oregon and Washington. But, 78% of U.S. leisure visits to the state are from California residents, who account for 60% of spending. San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles, San Diego and Orange County make up two-thirds of travel revenue within the state. Visit California research indicates average length of stay visits and spend increase with distance traveled. For example, in -state visits average 2.3 nights, while primary Western states mentioned above spend 3.5 nights. Those within the state spend about $320, while those from the primary Western states spend $411. California still remains the number one travel destination in the U.S. The Bureau continues to market to overnight, leisure, transient business. Our feeder markets include Los Angeles, Phoenix, Las Vegas, San Francisco, Seattle, San Diego, Palm Springs and the Inland Empire. This past fiscal year we have added the markets of Denver, Portland and greater Chicago areas. Markets that directly fly into John Wayne Airport, Orange County and the drive market will continue to be a priority. Our market outreach will continue to include, but is not limited to, social media, email blasts, banner ads, elevator communication, newsletters, and print. Most Popular Places to Visit in the United States 1. California 2. Florida 3. Nevada 4. Texas 5. New York Source: Business Insider: A Detailed Look at How Americans Travel Within the U.S. 20 FISCAL OVERVIEW COSTA MESA CVB ANNUAL REPORT 21 Annual Domestic Leisure Trips to California (annual % change) TOTAL 6.8% 4.4% 2.3% 2.2% California 7.6% 4.4% 2.3% 2.2% Primary Markets 6.6% 3.1% 3.0% 2.8% Arizona 6.4% 3.5% 2.4% 2.6% Nevada 9.8% 4.7% 2.5% 2.9% Oregon 4.6% 3.7% 2.6% 3.49/6 Washington 4.7% 3.3% 2.9% 2.1% Utah 5.8% -0.9% 5.0% 2.9% Colorado 5.4% 0.9% 4.5% 2.8% Opportunity Markets 8.1% 4.0% 2.2% 1.4% Texas 9.6% 2.0% 4.0% 1.6% New York 7.3% 7.4% 0.4% 0.5% Illinois 6.7% 3.5% 1.6% 2.1 % Rest of U.S. -0.5% 6.6% 1.1% 1.4% 2.3% 2.2% 3.1% 2.9% 3.1% 3.7% 2.6% 3.2 % 3.5% 2.5 3.0% 1.8% 2.3% 1.5% Source: Tourism Economics. Historical sources: DKSA, TNS Global. Note on volatility of historical data and treatment in forecast: Due to smaller sample sizes and relatively smaller visitor volumes in absolute terms, the historical data of origin markets tend to be more volatile than total visitor volumes. International Travel The world's population now takes more than 1 billion China within the next two years of over 15%. Canada trips a year, thanks to a growing middle class. California is the second largest international market (traveling to welcomed over 15 million international travelers in 2013, California) followed by the United Kingdom. who spent $21.8 billion. The visitation forecast in 2014 is +3.9% and spending is expected to grow 8%, according Over the past fiscal year, the Bureau continued to to Visit California. International visitors are the state's partner with Visit California and Orange County most valuable tourists as they stay the longest and Visitors Association (OCVA) marketing the City of spend the most while visiting. the Arts- to China and Mexico. In October of 2014, we visited the Middle East for the first time with OCVA. International visitation (air travel only) shows California Our branding message under the OC and Visit as the number one destination for Chinese visitors, California umbrellas enables us to receive exposure spending more than any other visitor to the state. in markets we would not be able to reach on our own. California's market share from China, as reported by The Bureau also continues to market the City of the Visit California, is over 45%. As more direct flights Arts" to Canada, specifically Vancouver, as we focus become available and disposable income rises, the state our outreach to guests flying into John Wayne Airport, is expected to see the largest growth potential from Orange County. Annual International Leisure Trips to California (Annual % Change) TOTAL 9.1% 5.5% 4.5% 4.4% 4.3% 5.9% China 34.8% 36.8% 16.7% 18.6% 17.8% 16.0% Canada 6.4% 3.6% 4.0% 4.1% 4.3% 4.2% Mexico 8.5% 3.5% 4.1% 4.7% 5.3% 5.5% Australia -2.2% -0.8% 2.8% 3.9% 4.9% 5.5% United Kingdom -3.0% -1.9% 0.4% 1.7% 2.0% 2.6% ndia 8.7% 8.1% 8.7% 9.5% 10.0% 11.2% Japan 5.4% 7.0% 4.3% 5.1 % 5.8% 6.0% South Korea -0.5% 1.3% 3.8% 4.7% 6.1% 6.8% Germany 3.1% 1.8% 4.1% 4.3% 4.5% 4.3% France 17.0% -14.1% 0.3% 1.3% 2.0% 2.4% Scandinavia 4.5% 2.2% 0.9% 1.4% 1.8% 2.3% South America 19.9% 177% 8.1% 9.4% 11.1% 12.4% Rest of the World -4.9% 2.5% 4.3% 4.6% 5.6% 6.3% 22 FISCAL OVERVIEW COSTA MESA CVB ANNUAL REPORT 23 CALIFORNIA AIRPORT TRAFFIC FY 2013/2014 -2 0 2 4 6 Percentage Source: Visit California, fiscal year 2013/2014. 8 10 International Domestic jV► ► V V V1I I V... A ►nrv-Nn-r ORANGE COUNTY John Wayne Airport, Orange County Jan — Dec 2014 �. D. Total Passengers 9,386,033 1.7% Enplaned passengers 4,681,292 1.8% Deplaned passengers 4,704,741 1.6% Total Passengers 276,733 -26.7% Enplaned passengers 139,285 -26.7% Deplaned passengers 137,448 -26.8% Source: John Wayne Airport, Orange County. Interjet discontinued service in July 2014 from Mexico City and Guadalajara. Average Length of Stay (ALOS) and Spend Grow With Distance Traveled Destination.� Overseas 12.2 $1,940 Canada 9.9 $1,396 Mexico Overnight 7.4 $950 U.S. Long Haul 4.9 $860 Primary Western States 3.5 $411 In -State 2.3 $320 Source: U.S. Department of Commerce; Stats Canada; CIC Research, Inc.; TNS TravelsAmerica. 24 FISCAL OVERVIEW COSTA MESA CVB ANNUAL REPORT 25 China "More and more ordinary Chinese are putting tourism expenses on their list of priorities," states Ge Lei, a marketing manager in China CYTS Tours Holding Company. Skift reports that Chinese tourists spent nearly $165 billion overseas last year, a 28% increase over 2013. In 2014, President Obama announced Chinese citizens traveling to and from the U.S. on short-term business and tourist travel will have an option to obtain 10-year visas. With this new policy, it will make it easier for Visitors to California Visitor Spending Market Share Length of Stay (Nights) Visitation 2014 Forecast (% change vs. 2013) Visitation 2018 Forecast (% change vs. 2013) tourists in the fastest -growing outbound tourism market to visit the U.S. It is also expected to drive a number of repeat visitors to the U.S., increasing the Flexible Independent Travel (FIT) segment. California is the number one U.S. destination for the Chinese visitor. When they visit, they spend three times the amount of visitors from the United Kingdom and Japan, which are the number two and three overseas markets for California. Top spending categories include accommodations, entertainment, food and beverage and shopping, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce CIC Research, Inc. Hall & Partners reported in 2012 that the top California features are Disneylando Resort, Hollywood and Universal Studios. During the Visit California Outlook conference in February, it was stated that the Chinese are fond of the Golden State and like to associate themselves with California. An interesting example of this is that there are 270 registered company names in China with the word California, or California- related city names, in them. Source: Office of Travel and Tourism Industries, CIC Research, Tourism Economics. 819,000 22.0% $2 billion 174% 45.3% -0.4% 1,022,000 25.0% 1,820,000 122.0% Weekly, a total of 77 nonstop service flights came into California in 2014, which is a 6.9% increase from the prior year. United, Air China, Delta, Hainan, Capital, China Eastern and China Southern Airlines will increase or launch new nonstop service to California in 2015. Travelers 24 to 40 years of age are choosing long -haul destinations, and the booking window for travel is close to their departure date. Visit California shares that 28% are most likely to book their trip within two weeks, 25% will book three to four weeks before departure and 23% book one to two months out. The most sought-after activities for the Chinese visiting the U.S. are shopping (85%), sightseeing (78%),fine dining (48%), natural parks (37%) and amusement parks (34%). In May 2014, our city welcomed a group of Chinese tourists from the Perfect Group visiting the state. Select partner hotels of the Bureau produced 780 room nights from this group. The Bureau visited China for the second time in October with the Orange County Visitors Association. Over 100 sales calls were made with executives from travel service companies in Shanghai and Beijing. Continued education about Orange County as a Southern California "must -see" destination with an emphasis on Costa Mesa was and continues to be the goal. Familiarization (FAM) trips will also be a priority for the Bureau for the industry partners we met in China. However, since the demand in travel to California is substantially growing, airlines have fewer seats to offer for FAM trips. Last fiscal year, the Bureau translated 100 pages of content into Simplified Chinese. This fiscal year, the URL of traveIcosta mesa.cn was purchased in China and we created our first email newsletter dedicated to inspiring travelers to visit our city for the Chinese New Year. Our goal is to continue to educate this market about our destination, and work with online agents in China to book room nights for our partner hotels by promoting The Art of Fashion, the Stage and Dining. The Bureau with OCVA in China, October 2014. 26 FISCAL OVERVIEW COSTA MESA CVB ANNUAL REPORT 27 Canada Early statistics show that airport arrivals for 2014 to the Golden State from Canada are up 8.7% compared to 2013. Proximity and strong airlift specifically to John Wayne Airport, Orange County (SNA) will continue to be helpful in drawing Canadians to the City of the Arts'. According to Visit California, approximately 5 million Canadians cross the border on land and fly from a U.S. airport to their desired destination, as high taxes are driving airline fares up. Some predict airline carriers will need to decrease fares to capture fill capacities. Weekly, there are approximately 378 inbound flights to California, 180 of which fly to Los Angeles International Airport and 7 into John Wayne Airport, Orange County. Travel trends in Canada include a 9% increase in Millennial travel. There are approximately five million travelers that make up this segment now. Spanish is the most -spoken and fastest -growing foreign language. Visitors to California Visitor Spending Market Share Length of Stay (Nights) Visitation 2014 Forecast (% change vs. 2013) Visitation 2018 Forecast (% change vs. 2013) Personalization and more unique travel opportunities are sought after. The Art of Dining is of interest specifically as it relates to participating in cooking classes and celebrity chef tours. Value offerings are also highly sought after, as is an active lifestyle. According to Hall & Partners 2012 Report, places of interest include Los Angeles as their number one choice, with 50% of the polling stating they would like to learn more about Orange County. Communicating with our Canadian friends is easy, as no language barrier exists and social media outlets are similar to what we are accustomed to in the U.S. In February 2014, the Bureau launched our first sweepstakes targeted to Canadian residents in Vancouver. John Wayne Airport, Orange County and South Coast Plaza partnered with us to entice Canadians to visit Costa Mesa. The prize included hotel accommodations, two round-trip tickets to SNA, a shopping spree to South Coast Plaza, meals and a personal fashion stylist. The campaign was well received and generated over 2,300 entries with 1.2 million impressions. We are running a similar program this year and are including Calgary residents. We will continue our outreach with various online tactical offers, social media and display ad network marketing throughout the year to increase awareness, specifically to those interested in a Southern California experience. Source: Office of Travel and Tourism Industries, CIC Research, Tourism Economics. 1,567,000 1.6% $2.187 billion 3.0% 6.7 % -1.5 % 5 1,636,000 4.4% 1,987,000 270% Interest in traveling to California continues to grow for our bordering neighbors to the south. Mexico is a top five international market for California, and air travel continues to increase. Visitors arriving by air spent over 7 nights in California, and due to proximity, we have a distinct advantage in capturing more travelers. Top spending categories include accommodations, shopping and food and beverage. Hall & Partners reported in 2012 that top California attractions are Disneylando Resort and San Francisco (tied for number one), Hollywood and Los Angeles. Arrivals into SNA from Mexico City and Guadalajara give us the opportunity to work with this segment closer and get involved in FAM trips through Visit California and OCVA. Visit California shares that over 50% of those traveling by air book their reservations directly through the airlines, Visitors to California Visitor Spending Market Share Length of Stay (Nights) Visitation 2014 Forecast (% change vs. 2013) Visitation 2018 Forecast (% change vs. 2013) and over 43% book on their personal computer through an online travel agent. On average, there are 436 flights to California with the majority flying to Los Angeles International Airport. Air arrivals from Mexico into California grew almost 5% in 2014. Travel trends reveal more long -weekend travel as the middle class grows, as well as a growing luxury travel market as income for high -end travelers continues to grow. The number one category for e-commerce in Mexico is travel. As seen with growing trends in the U.S., more people are researching and purchasing on their mobile phones. Outdoor travel and adventure are also growing interests of this market. In November, we welcomed our first FAM trip with Julia Tours. This company offers upscale travel packages. The Bureau worked with Visit California and OCVA in representing our city as a premier Southern California destination. Tours of our hotels, Segerstrom Center for the Arts and South Coast Plaza were conducted during their visit. As a result, one of our hotel partners is now in their luxury hotel packages. The Bureau also participated in an OCVA media event in Mexico City last June with 40 attendees representing various media, tour and travel agents, and online bloggers. The Bureau's website has been translated into Spanish, and we are beginning to expand our reach on OCVAs website and social media outlets such as Facebook. 7,477,000 3.4% 515,000 (by air) 2.2% (by air) $2.966 billion 7.6% $512 million (by air) 3.0% (by air) 52.1 % 2.4% 7.4 7,577,000 1.3% 9,404,000 26.0% Source: Office of Travel and Tourism Industries, CIC Research, Tourism Economics. 28 FISCAL OVERVIEW COSTA MESA CVB ANNUAL REPORT 29 Middle East nc PARTNERSHIPS C a I i f o r n i a According to U.S. International Trade Administration in 2014, the U.S. welcomed 1.2 million guests from the Middle East (United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Cyprus, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Syria, Turkey and Yemen), up almost 16% compared to 2013. The majority of travelers book directly with airlines and online travel agents but many, 31%, use a travel agency office. Personal recommendations are also highly considered. Vacation and holidays rank as the main purpose of their trips and a close second is visiting friends and relatives. The number one activity they engage upon while visiting the U.S. is shopping. Sightseeing and fine dining experiences round out the top three activities. Their trip is planned about 35 days in advance and their average length of stay is over 24 days. Both females and males equally make up the visitor profile. Travel trends for the Middle East include customized travel and holiday packages. The U.S., Spain, Germany and Turkey were ranked as the hottest destinations Visitors to California Visitor Spending Market Share Length of Stay (Nights) for travel, as Destinia.com shared in a January 2015 online article. Kumud Sengupta, founder and director of Dubai -based Market Vision Research and Consulting, which specializes in the travel sector, states that by 2030 there will be 81 million outbound travelers — representing about double what it is today. She also acknowledges the spend of the Middle Eastern traveler is high, and they like to travel in large groups. YouTube is the most popular video platform in the Middle East and 52% of the United Arab Emirates population watches television on their smartphone. California welcomed approximately225,000 Middle Eastern visitors in 2013, and they spent $561 million collectively (business and leisure), as reported by Visit California. Their average length of stay was 18 nights. Per visitor they spend $2,491 compared to all overseas visitors spending just under $2,000. California's market share was 21.3% in 2013. Port -of -entry passenger arrivals were similar in 2012 and 2013. In 2013, however, ports -of -entry peaked in June and August. Similar to all Middle Eastern guests traveling to the U.S., the main purpose of their trip is to take a vacation/holiday and visit friends and family. Thirty-six percent book their trip 8 to 30 days prior and 25% book 31 to 60 days prior. Shopping is ranked number one for leisure travelers as their most desired activity at 95%, and sightseeing is ranked second at 81%. The leisure traveler visiting California spends $4,427 compared to $3,577 from all overseas visitors. Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Travel and Tourism Office. 225,000 13.5 $561 million 105.5% 21.3% -0.1 18.3 14.9 The Bureau continues to work closely with the Orange County Visitors Association. OCVA is a destination leadership organization that represents Orange County as one of the world's premier travel destinations by providing brand marketing, information dissemination, collective industry advocacy and educational opportunities. The OCVA, which was established over 20 years ago, is the voice of the visitor industry and is the only organization that promotes the entire county. The Bureau sits on the board of directors and continues to co-chair the marketing committee. Aligning our organization with OCVA has become very valuable. OCVA offers destination management organizations and related travel industries a strong voice in highlighting the county as a premier overnight destination both internationally and domestically Over the past two years, the Bureau has worked closely with OCVA to develop a presence in international destinations such as China, Mexico and the Middle East. In our second year of participation, the Bureau continues to work with the China Initiative program along with neighboring cities and organizations to attract and educate the Chinese about Orange County and the specific attributes of Costa Mesa. We continue to benefit from this program as awareness of our city grows. Within the last two years we have hosted six familiarization trips (FAM), included our partner hotels in hotel packages, and participated in four media conferences in Beijing and Shanghai. Our destination is highlighted in OC marketing materials and on the website OCVA created specifically for this market. Our last sales mission trip in October generated over 100 sales calls with top level executives from the travel industry. We continue to support two full-time sales managers stationed in Beijing and Shanghai, and look to possibly add more in the next year as participation of this initiative is growing substantially. Anaheim welcomed a tour group of 7,000 people in May 2014, the single largest group to visit the state. Our partner hotels generated 780 room nights from this visit. OCVA played an intricate part in securing this business, as Las Vegas was a top contender. Our branding message can often be found on WeChat, a mobile text and voice messaging communication service with 468 million active users, as well as the OCVA website in China. Last year, the Bureau also joined the Mexico and Middle East Initiatives. In both markets, we have sales managers dedicated to selling Orange County and specifically our destination. In both locations, our sales team is focused on training and educating the travel and tour companies, as well as creating a social media presence. The primary focus in Mexico are those who use air travel. In June, the Bureau participated in a media event in which 40 attendees learned about the various attributes our city has to offer. Following suit, we hosted a FAM trip with a luxury tour and travel group, Julia Tours, which allowed a new partnership of one of our hotels to be included in their packaged destinations. In addition to marketing collateral, we are also represented on Facebook where our sales team translates our messaging. OCVA is the first U.S. travel office to open in the Middle East. Visit California and Discover Los Angeles will be traveling to the Middle East to assess this market as a potential new source of visitors. In 2014, the Bureau became Middle East partners with OCVA, as we recognize our county to be a highly desired destination. The countries included in this initiative are United Arab Emirates, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman. Our first sales mission trip to Dubai was in October, where we met with the U.S. consul general, ambassador, and commercial attache and regional senior commercial officer for the Gulf to discuss our desire and ask for their support. Interviews with local press and sales calls with Etihad and Emirates and travel and tour groups were also conducted. Media kits were eagerly accepted, and our sales team in Dubai is also working on exposing our message on social media outlets like Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. An OC and ME Hotel Package promotion was launched in the first quarter of 2015, in which several of our partner hotels offered preferred rates. OCVA was also a sponsor of "The Voice" and received several 60-second promotional spots and online recognition promoting an Orange County vacation giveaway. 30 FISCAL OVERVIEW COSTA MESA CVB ANNUAL REPORT 31 2014 BY THE NUMBERS I PW 1,400 BUYERS The Bureau participated in IPW 2014, which was held in Chicago. The United MORE THAN 6,200 DELEGATES States Travel Association is the creator of the event, which is the travel industry's premier international marketplace and the largest generator of travel to the U.S. E 200+ Travel suppliers and buyers from over 70 countries attended. The Westin South Coast Plaza, Hilton and Avenue of the Arts Wyndham Hotel joined the Bureau FROM OVER in representing the City of the Arts-. A media table was shared with South Coast Plaza on the first day, in which 500 international and domestic media 70+ COUNTRIES representatives gathered. The Bureau welcomed appointment calls from visitors representing China, Mexico and Canada. As a result of this tradeshow, our hotels booked $146,490 in revenue. 54D+ MORE THAN 95,000 BUSINESS APPOINTMENTS �S a OC Marathon "` 4 0 W May 2014 was the OC Marathons loth anniversary. Over 22,000 runners 014 participated in the full, half and 5k races. Since 2010, the number of participants grew 60%. About 20% of participants are from outside the state representing a rath©n Texas, Arizona, Nevada, and New York. The Bureau has been a sponsor of the race for the past three years and offers shuttle service to and from the race for guests staying overnight in our partner hotels. In 2014, 624 trackable room nights were booked, which is a 13% increase compared to last year. 32 FISCAL OVERVIEW SA TACOASYLUM • _— J9 f fd} a WINE LAB'; OLD VINE CAFE +; ` VITALY I 5 ! A U1V 1� BURGERr Jil / _ .' ✓ /•_''�, T BC)FMG f ►-1 a Alf f y t r , NAT=V� F ODDS v 1 ? _ F �/, Mtt.• C• i it f .� i1#Y,�� X�'�'f j _ - �eNe��NIX �../dG •M^=ram �r I �1'�!. ii 7 Ecco (.+ h MARKETING OVERVIEW Fiscal Year 2014/2015 The Costa Mesa Conference and Visitor Bureau continues to implement a strategic marketing plan that focuses on branding and tactical elements with the ultimate goal of increasing overnight leisure travelers. The Bureau maintains consistent brand messaging using The Art of Fashion, The Art of the Stage, and The Art of Dining. A new, elevated branding campaign, redesigned website and optimized mobile plan have been created. The Bureau continues to focus its messaging around the segments of "STAY","SHOP", "EAT", and "PLAY" The Bureau continues to work with Myriad Marketing to utilize the paid, earned, search and owned (PESO) model of integrating initiatives in order to reach our target audience. This allows us to reach potential travelers through multiple channels and touch points with the same consistent messaging. The Art of The Art of The Art of Fashion The Stage Dining BRANDING vs. TACTICAL Tactical Print Media Online eBlasts/eNewsletters Radio Public Relations Social Media 60 Search Engine Marketing (SEM) Campaigns: - Stay & Get $5o Fall & Spring - Valentine's Day Weekend Getaway - Canada Sweepstakes Cooperative - Costa Mesa Restaurant Week I 40 Branding Online Print Public Relations Social Media Search Engine Optimization (SEO) NEW BRANDING In 2014/2015, the Bureau worked with Myriad Marketing and developed a new brand for the City of the Arts- A refreshed concept was developed with our consistent brand message through The Art of Fashion, The Art of the Stage, and The Art of Dining. The new concept elevates Costa Mesa and communicates its brand essence through creative imagery that IL Cad de i4e'..0 tl. '.p.. b rh. Ju.e. Sart.m Crl..b COSTA MES —TRAVELCOSTAMESA.COM w..�..,w,,..�. shows off Costa Mesa landmarks, its bright colors, elegance, beautiful weather and fashion -forward style. New taglines include "Where Your Style Reaches New Heights" and "Where Your Style Spreads Its Wings" New branding was incorporated throughout all advertising channels such as online, print, email marketing, social media and press releases. COSTA MESA ©U R. STYLE SRR:.:. .. COSTA MESA. W 36 MARKETING OVERVIEW COSTA MESA CVB ANNUAL REPORT 37 7` � I I T RAVE LCOSTAM ESA.CO M Website Refresh The Bureau redesigned Travel Costa Mesa.com this fiscal year to provide a more modern look and feel to the site. The site has been updated with a wider visual layout design packed with larger imagery, new fonts, and brighter colors to grab and hold the visitor's attention. The content was reorganized and optimized for simpler navigation and faster loading time to enhance the user's browsing and reading experience. Both desktop and mobile sites now prominently feature the main categories of "STAY", "SHOP", "EAT", and "PLAY," resulting in more direct access to hotel content. DESKTOP STAY SPOP EAT PLAY +� s Unique Southern California Getaway E,_%_ Mdi A.pF&9 STAY AND SAVE WELCOME TO COSTA. MESA �.x... e,,,: c.,. �aPo.•—....+..ysr Cnst«hSesa Tweers :...acavram- ®ilu�i NEWS AND UPDATES LOCALDEALS a, ww, ,. The TravelCostaMesa.com mobile site represents 47% of the total traffic, driving the need for a mobile -friendly redesign. The mobile version has been optimized for a better browsing experience on mobile devices, and for improved accessibility across multiple platforms. Mobile users may have different needs when accessing information on their mobile devices, and expect to get to the information more quickly and easily. MOBILE ®I COSTA MESA, 0:, An IrttenililNid Sh ping stir PLAY Y Events ) About Us ) News ) Calendar ) Gallery ) Deals Mon Ho 1112 56 0 F L52 Sign up for our Newsletter Submit COSTA MESA CVB ANNUAL REPORT 39 Website Refresh — Desktop Homepage The redesign of the Travel Costa Mesa.com website features a hotel deals banner ad front and center, above the fold, to highlight partner hotel offerings. The redesign has a clean layout without overloading the user with information, making it clear and easy for visitors to browse. The site was purposely designed to serve the content to visitors in a direct way, without overwhelming DESKTOP BEFORE COSTA r.ME SA, STAY S" EAT M.Y C.u57T OSTA MESA N.w rrd UpJm— NNbN1 A•.RCW 9e egersf� .r ear fw ae theme Arts them — and with the intent to raise interest in the city's many offerings to Increase overnight hotel bookings. With a refreshed and modern feel to the website, an increase in user interaction and site engagement was achieved. Users are staying longer on our site than the prior fiscal year and the bounce rate is decreasing. DESKTOP NOW Unique Southern California Getaway Eww.•.xed•x•ixraTq STAY AND SAVE kww+ WELCOME TO COSTA MESA e •�.'� .,n.,vw-rnwi.:s.s•+v r_—M—T,sa[s Eyq�[�.Hrr. wr��s NEWSAND UPDATES LOCAL DEALS r Website Refresh — Desktop STAY Page DESKTOP BEFORE COr�.:••.•rr1\ STAY SX9P EAT iW.v rm9 limi COSTA MESA HOTELS B.n Wer,.r. 4" Crn.n nwv Ce.,e Mere 0—" Ceu f ®v �v Aw.w d N.. An. Tw,el4exe iM The W...m s-.6 Cwd T,.e. w � 9 F'I ne11 1M ly Ayrrr !WI v.•f 5w.r hb•a M—n N w•yRCm a M.rm r.e■yp.� X•lelY SuiHgre.r A RAMADA Nomads Cei. Mere DESKTOP NOW STAY -HOP EAT FLAY - -, COSTA MESA HOTELS ,� w1.J..w ow�luG�pefewrnw:r•LwF �.[drra.+M• .M.kPhdgnTe�bi.a.err..�..� a,wbnniW Y" 3^M-SwMxr Gkrfd -�d/>FAFf - FwwAw 1T1r }[e.hArl� u _•r.. � v„ run rrr F.•= �..r _ wr. 40 MARKETING OVERVIEW COSTA MESA CVB ANNUAL REPORT 41 Website Refresh — Mobile Homepage The increased use of mobile and tablet devices have surpassed desktop use. With smartphones and tablet devices overtaking daily use, the trend is now shifting to the web being more mobile conscious. Great lengths are being taken to optimize images for faster load times, and text was modified to enhance further search engine visibility. A clean and user-friendly mobile site will help keep our audience engaged for longer periods of time, MOBILE BEFORE COSTA MESA CITY OF THE ARTS" FOLLOW US View Full Site. Copyright p 2012 Costa Mesa Conference and Visitor Bureau All Rights Reserved. reducing the bounce rate. Faster page speed and load times provide a positive user experience. The Bureau has proactively planned and executed the mobile site prior to predicted mobile growth to capture this trend. The Bureau will continue to focus on increasing the mobile site usability and user experience by keeping abreast of market trends, in an effort to be proactive with this dominant way of accessing online information. MOBILE NOW 1 12-11 . AY SHOP r Events ) About Us ) News ? Calendar Y Gallery > Deals Mon p H 68 1/12 „5 , F L 52 Sign up for our Newsletter Fr:ter yr�ur email Obis 1R.1411-"e Website Refresh — Mobile STAY Page MOBILE BEFORE COSTA MESA,, CITY of THE ARTS'" STAY SHOP EAT PLAY �lebv,. COSTA MESA HOTELS Best Western Plus Newport Mesa This hotel eaters to business travelers and is located just blocks from the Newport Beach and Irvine corporate communities. Each well- appointed room is ready to ensure a comfortable and memorable stay. Crowne Plaza Costa a�cnowrrPl. tixA Mesa Orange County This upscale boutique hotel embodies the style, personality and luxury of 1= Southern California with one- of-a-kird allure. Enjoy sophisticated ambiarce and thoughtful amenities for both business and pleasure. Avenue of the Arts 6) Wyndham Hotel Unparalleled comfort and a scenic lakeside setting are found in this newly rerovated hotel. Guests enjoy classic touches in the rooms and an award -winning menu at Silver Trumpet Restaurant. MOBILE NOW ® COSTA MLSA, OS Costa Mesa Hotels H--r &.,v rg+ f y" - Sign up for our Newsletter - L�77t8r yp¢!r €l7Taii aim V_ W.. 42 MARKETING OVERVIEW COSTA MESA CVB ANNUAL REPORT 43 Website Audience Overview Traffic on Travel Costa Mesa.com continues to grow as a result of strategic paid marketing, social media, search engine optimization (SEO), and public relations. The Bureau continues to focus on researching top keywords and applying them to well -written, interesting and relevant content, which contributed to an increase in organic (non-paid/natural) search traffic. In 2013/2014, the Bureau geotargeted the majority of its marketing towards California, Arizona, and select campaigns in Seattle, Portland, Nevada and Canada. In 2014/2015, the Bureau expanded its geographical targeting to reach the markets of Dallas, Chicago, Pageviews Pages Session Duration Bounce Rate* Houston, and Denver based on frequent travel to John Wayne Airport, Orange County. The marketing outreach showed positive results in website traffic. A 4% increase in pageviews from 577,668 to 599,879 was achieved even though the website was "under construction" for the redesign. Users are viewing an average of 3.35 pages per visit compared to 2.99 pages last fiscal year. The average time spent on the site has increased year -over -year as well, resulting in a 9% lift. A significant decrease in bounce rate* has occurred because of improved website content and simplified layout design. 577,668 599,579 3.79% 2.99 IR91 49.2% 3.35 32.34% 12.01 % E 01111c� -34.26% *Bounce Rate is the percentage of single -page sessions (i.e., sessions in which the person left your site from the entrance page without interacting with the page). WEBSITE AUDIENCE OVERVIEW Source: Google Analytics I Jul 2013 - Feb 2014 New Visitor Returning Visitor Jul 2014 - Feb 2015 New Visitor Returning Visitor 44 MARKETING OVERVIEW COSTA MESA CVB ANNUAL REPORT 45 Website Access by Device The mobile experience is increasingly important, and Travel CostaMesa.com is fully optimized for mobile use. The 2014/2015 plan integrated mobile marketing into campaigns throughout the year with display ad networks, online travel agencies and email marketing. Mobile devices represent 47% of all sessions on Travel CostaMesa.com, now outperforming desktop at 41 %. Tablet usage continues to grow as well, representing a 8% year -over -year increase — 11 % of the market share. The mobile landscape continues to rapidly evolve, with more generations of smart devices available and higher Desktop Mobile Tablet consumer demands to always be connected. Mobile continues to be a an increasingly important factor in how people interact online and how they are searching for content. Desktop remains important as people spend more time (01:54 average session duration) and view more pages per session (3.98) on this device versus mobile (00:47; 2.83) or tablet (01:26; 3.25). Overall, mobile traffic including tablets outperformed desktop traffic for the second consecutive year. We redesigned our mobile site to account for this constantly growing segment. 92,183 74,057-19.66% � 84,237 20,449 2.98 % 8.14% WEBSITE ACCESS BY DEVICE Source: Google Analytics Jul 2013 - Feb 2014 Mobile Tablet # Desktop Jul 2014 - Feb 2015 Mobile Tablet Desktop 46 MARKETING OVERVIEW COSTA MESA CVB ANNUAL REPORT 47 Web Traffic -Organic Organic search represents the largest amount of traffic to Travel Costa Mesa.com (42%), and continues to increase as the Bureau improves search engine optimization and branding strategies across offline channels such as print and radio. Google continues to be the dominant search engine for users, with 79% of the market share. However, traffic continues to improve from Yahoo (14%) and Bing (6%) searches year over year. As viewers are constantly connected via the Internet, the content provided on the site must provide an excellent user experience, with engaging content to encourage users to share their experience via social media and upload their comments and images to their Google Yahoo :. social media networks. The Bureau continues to focus on well -developed content to optimize keywords throughout the site not only to increase search rankings, but also to ignite more interest to the destination through its focused topics and marketing iniatitives for Travel CostaMesa.com. The Costa Mesa Conference and Visitor Bureau utilizes search engine marketing (SEM) across the Google, Bing and Yahoo ad network platforms. SEM is an important form of Internet marketing that promotes Travel Costa Mesa.com by increasing its visibility across Google, Bing and Yahoo search engines. Users tend to only pay attention to the first page of search engine results; therefore, Search Engine Optimization is a very powerful tool to attract targeted viewers. 57,993 58,313 .55% 7,589 4,037 4,730 38.46% 17.17% WEBSITE ACCESS BY DEVICE Source: Google Analytics Jul 2013 - Feb 2014 Google Yahoo Jul 2014 - Feb 2015 Google Yahoo 48 MARKETING OVERVIEW COSTA MESA CVB ANNUAL REPORT 49 Web Traffic - Audience Demographics Geographically, the majority of the traffic to Illinois, due to direct flights to John Wayne Airport, Travel Costa Mesa.com comes from the United States, Orange County of overall users. Also, as stated by a representing 92% of the total traffic. Within the United 2015 report from Tourism Economics, Texas and Illinois States, California represents 69% of the total market are potential opportunity markets for growth in leisure share, with the top city being Los Angeles. travel within California. Sessions in Texas expanded 94% and in Illinois 231%, showing great interest in Costa This year the Bureau expanded marketing Mesa from these new markets. geographically to reach Dallas, Texas, and Chicago, Texas Illinois 3,045 5,896 93.63% 1,488 4,931 231.38 Travel Costa Mesa's target audience by gender is almost an even split between females representing 53%, compared to males at 47%, with interests in the area of travel, shopping/fashion, dining/food and entertainment. The site's primary users are between the ages of 35-54 and represent 38%. Visitors 34 years of age and under represent 17% of overall users. The age group category of 35-44 represents over 21%, the highest segment of the demographic age group with disposable income and the time and means to travel. WEB TRAFFIC — AUDIENCE DEMOGRAPHICS Gender Age Group Source: Google Analytics 19 2r 2( a, 1 E rn ro C v V Ui 1C - - Male Female I -aA 18-24 26-34 34-44 45-54 55-64 65+ Age 50 MARKETING OVERVIEW COSTA MESA CVB ANNUAL REPORT 51 Website Traffic — Page Rankings Mobile homepage continues to show its prominence as the most viewed page. The top two pages viewed that had phenomenal growth were the hotel deals pages, with a 1,430% increase for hotel deals viewed on the TravelCostaMesa.com desktop site and a 2,045% increase on the mobile site year over year: The increase was due to featuring hotel deals more prominently on the redesigned website, with heavy focus on the hotel elements incorporated on all tactical campaigns throughout the year. Tactical campaigns Hotel Deals Mobile Hotel Deals Mobile Homepage Costa Mesa Restaurant Week Homepage Hotel Deals Mobile Hotel Deals EAT PLAY SHOP Mobile PLAY Desktop Calendar Source: Google Analytics such as the "Stay and Get $50" fall campaign and "Valentine's Day Weekend Getaway" promoted during the year contributed to the positive results shown below. While mobile traffic continues its growth, Costa Mesa Restaurant Week and the "Stay & Get $50" campaign have grown more each year from previous years due to visitor awareness. The history established on these pages continues to help identify Travel Costa Mesa as an authority site in Google's search and rankings. 29,250 1,429.81 % 19,845 2,045.41 % SOCIAL MEDIA Social media plays an increasing visible role in the digital marketing landscape and has increased in importance every year, starting with the rise of giant platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, and developing in recent years with more visual platforms such as Instagram. The trend of social media growth will continue as it becomes commonplace for users to become a fan of a brand or business directly through a website. Social media content, engagement and marketing builds likes and followers within online communities, drives traffic to Travel Costa Mesa.com and ultimately compels additional hotel bookings. As viewers are constantly connected via Internet, the content on our site must provide an excellent user experience that is fun and interesting, driving them to share our content within their social networks. The Bureau continues to create rich content and develop more social media posts in order to gain trust as a "go -to" source for information and opportunities. As a result, the number of followers and interactions (likes, comments and shares) continues to grow across each of Costa Mesa's social platforms. Our focus and concentration is on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. Social media drives brand awareness, tactical engagement with specials, events and activities. Social media also helps build a community of travelers, potential travelers and locals to share their Costa Mesa and Orange County experiences. Jul'14 — Feb'15 19 70,074 61,949 44,976 • 29,250 Facebook 3,063 4,029 31.54% 19,845 Twitter 8,564 10,400 21.44% 15,045 Instagram 613 870 41.92 % 10,541 9,505 9,097 8,276 52 MARKETING OVERVIEW COSTA MESA CVB ANNUAL REPORT 53 Facebook Travel Costa Mesa Air Like Page New Deals Have Just Been Revealed! SoCal's Best Hotels, Dining & Entertainment Await! VISIT COSTA MESA, CA Costa MM sets the stage for the ultimate Southern Camornla retreat. Award - winning entertainment. world -class fashion. exquisite dining and exceptional hotels await. Plan your trip today! WWW.TRAVELCOSTAMESA.COM Learn More Like • Comment • Share 6 64 Q 1 CP 2 Travel Costa Mesa —="i January 29 0 Are we ready for the 2015 OC 'Fair yet? Here's the way to get the party started. 2015 OC Fair Invites Fairgoers to Join Its "One Big Party" With a Discounted Season Pass COSTA MESA, CA.-(Marketwired - Jan 27, 2015) _. The OC Fair, themed "One Big Party" in 2015, is... rAARKETWIREl7.COr." 200 people reached Like Comment Share 6 7 �-,] 1 :J 1 Twitter =a : o:`.,a 7. d a xa.aK asar ao.aK xTi x Costa Mesa, CA T—M T—M a Ph ics & io— . 51 c uwo.a�.a cnc-aeex�mRc�e coca axna wou +�,ns�. �n"n.«.9.n«+ro,..•rnro @rM Vw for FBn t» Canny aovrer hn ewH. Cans:NPk .'�+AY TXE p1Aae�sa-v�rTa enrg8 me alai=fKResmurarM1xMkhlr A-7 �TreuelCoeeWAe¢a rimare +r$f4a J Ca4 Mm, (karie Coun!y. CA r:J IClI"fAp'r e'a0Y YJd VYaY.x uM ,decc v i'Mw 111xlpIpW WM%N.Y Instagram apaabw Como" .;,, w: SzhmdW •Ja *[— Thm Pe*; row¢ mg M. 5a9ntram N 9.e .A ran aae*s: a , Ma g. a bnlyh 54 MARKETING OVERVIEW COSTA MESA CVB ANNUAL REPORT 55 Travel Costa Mesa Blog The Travel Costa Mesa blog is updated with information on events, shopping, dining, and performing arts happening throughout Costa Mesa. The blog is a strong part of Costa Mesa's SEO strategy and a great way to add value to the restaurant and shopping community while providing invaluable content for readers. Focused keywords help strengthen Google SEO rankings for Travel CostaMesa.com. The blog provides a great avenue for people to find the site through organic search. From July 2014 — February 2015, the Blog received 26,609 pageviews. The most popular Blog posts include: "6 OC Restaurants to Eat at Before You Die Are in South Coast Plaza," "6 Great Happy Hours In Costa Mesa;' "Din Tai Fung Dumpling House Comes to Costa Mesa," "Top 10 Places for a Hot Beverage in Costa Mesa," An Interview with Niki Starr Weyler, Executive Chef of Mesa Lounge,' "Costa Mesa Culinary Destinations: the LAB Anti -Mall," "Costa Mesa Bike Routes" and "Five Must -Go Places for Lunch Deals in Costa Mesa:' COSTA Esc, STAY SHOP EAT PLAY S� CoraMe � tin Costa Mesa Conference and Visitor Bureau Blog Navigation 5 Things You Didn't Know About Henry Segerstrom Posted on February 27, 2015 i; 4:50Pm AN of us at Travel Costa Mesa are sad to say goodbye to Orange County icon, and one of the innovative builders of the city of Costa Mesa, Henry T. Segerstrom. r Henry leaves an incredible legacy of development and philanthropy to Costa Mesa and Orange County as a whole. We found a few interesting things that maybe you didn't know about this visionary Blog Home About The Blog Categories Events Food Hotels Locals Misc Music & Art News Play Shopping Recent Posts man. 5 Things You Didn't Know About Henry Seaerstrom Costa Mesa Email Newsletter The Bureau has gained an additional 3,261 subscribers this year from last year, with a total of 23,881 subscribers to date on the monthly email newsletter distribution list. The Bureau also created a quarterly email newsletter for the Chinese market early this year to continue to engage and educate our audience about Costa Mesa. The Travel Costa Mesa email newsletter creates a touch point for the Bureau to reach the existing database of COSTA !MESA WHERE YOUR STYLE SPREADS ITS WINGS AnQi ;\ cw Ycaes Eve Event prospective and current travelers that have expressed interest in Costa Mesa. Content includes hotel packages and deals, special events, the arts and dining. New subscribers are added on a regular basis through partnerships with Orange County Visitors Association, Visit California, marketing campaigns and sales mission trips. $50 Reasons to Stay in Costa Mesa Book a holiday stay at a participating hotel & receive a $50 AMEX gift card! Snoopy House Holiday Lights 56 MARKETING OVERVIEW COSTA MESA CVB ANNUAL REPORT 57 Travel Costa Mesa Calendar The Travel Costa Mesa.com calendar is updated on a continuous basis. In 2014-2015 (from July -February), the calendar page received a total of 8,276 pageviews. The Bureau searches for and gathers information on current and future activities and happenings in Costa Mesa. Calendar events include deals and special events from partner hotels, major events in the city, performances, UPCOMING FVEN-FS and new business and restaurant openings in the City of the Arts'" The number of pageviews increased by 40% year over year on the desktop site. As for the mobile site, the pageviews to the Travel Costa Mesa.com calendar increased 128% year over year. EAT PLAY Costa Mesa Events M., . wi5 State Symphony Orchestra of Mexico - Co+++cemaacr 7" Ao:h a^nnvwy or Ins rouA " tewr o4 the UriFb d AIrdF Sates, tKe Sate SyrrproO y OTdVsera of %%Mko pcd&M nro walks by vexinn comwwf .V n.e Marla %m+ INPizza Making Clan CALFNIDAR OF EVENTS p delwery, rrakc groan p;uas a: hCn+e Jan Surias' CtME 3nservotor as we MwAh_a learnpitza rnalmr9 ettihnpucs. March 2015 41M CM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 PAID MEDIA Print Campaign The Bureau continues to utilize print advertising to showcase Costa Mesa as a premier leisure destination. The Bureau has developed a plan to feature Travel Costa Mesa brand positioning via new creative branding imagery and native content — each demographically and geographically targeted to relevant audiences. Print remains important in branding Travel Costa Mesa to a target audience. For instance, 91% of all adults, 94% of adults under 35 and 96% of adults under 25 read print or digital magazines, according to the Association of GREAT SOUTHERN CAUFOWNIA GETAWAYS [4MMIs1b1�` r W ly COSTA MESA P9an „:end Esea a �!Z.�� r""'"'�"°'" P dQrgCa.rr.CJlv». �»M Wda.As�¢ NvIwn MCpu1G4N .wdrw*�k ...�.grv..l.dd�..e.,..a.•-.. berwlv�E�. /.gw�.aS�D»gMW. Ynr»x rro+�drFuhs wwi.w a�.w.e»,E.na,.. hxdMdrna.m qrt of f,.mya�1r�w.y�rr»�dyrn dAwu�i ie�an.t��»�d Wn r.l r. epdn .R. rha.�.wrc.��^^•Y av MYI-a.O{l�aiM rOWi F/19aDN M .,N�xhc,la ryM F...w....row...u.�uw+Fnww++^d 1Y4Y3 f%PWAE Iil�IB'l pkiFRWiFONS +w. wa..... Annw..irAyw+O'�^P a.. s..n e.®w... ann.tirs»A. m. wndGxv aa,:, ara�—w�u�r.r.r.b.de...� d wra�..EawgNw.ema...aYe,n. �,3_e+aoY r+tAxrs �••^*•• �ti+we..au.�.,. Yrydr,Md4ca�rn.+xrA.avl 5cew k��.xelaw�^I�iwed[au.EL.., � w n..«.w:o-•wa».r. l yF�,.,p,�,.F.E Fv a+�. [gydl rah.p..db�wd. a4 •.b+�a.FN M�vsalw4A&hr..n rerwi .ype�d riws.m....lm.midr �.y,Vbr'.L..xdde.wroMwwhr almw�anr�w.{4M.wxmrpeE. F.wraEi »rµ.EarN.aw«..anaw M.M YI. CkY�.tdi. w>.rura. W.•'. aay. »:Lu•-r �E+.r ��wvwo«».z»w.» 2�,L...e.v J. w..rA laeCMW.sMyn c�».,W.�c�.cix [nu. Nn..w.,w mia.r..e. •... LJf.Uuh6rb'a•tr anwrw..d 5,,... �Oard•_ne Cdrai.^waa§ bl.M eo-i.:waawJ»aMRweEa�w SF.EO recFv��+�.4. � wexxM �rKa: rha+xnrYdKtike4 —.� i AF.+LeJiwcMtlw.w R...N-4.u. D+N++� Juirkgewgta�+�rMR r SeeU Cal Nvw tl.4�gn�.twN.ni.a�p.q a.�,.m.,rsw,..Yxn,,.IIaw�Y..As +IweiaN1F45xMGoR Flr»dwGAm �''�'^P.4A6iS.MMaNrDwoeM �Jelr4C.b�Aed 4e.'VF�.a Tae 4MV<.,r+sfdexnnrWw.w«r�ww'w ��� -�--- rwrduWM,ba+tt.d..op�iMm. AdH.nSm+hCo.el4y�r.A�e�1+.w. m. M»+W.a.M COSTA MESA VISIT TRAVELCOSTAMESA.COM C1TV OF THE AFT; Magazine Media. People are also heavily influenced and inspired by magazine content. Print advertisements by the Bureau reached over 3 million impressions across California, Arizona, Seattle, Denver and Chicago. The Bureau has a three-touchpoint approach, where each advertising outlet's audience sees Travel Costa Mesa ads two to three times throughout the year during prime seasons in key issues for each target market — building a base for brand awareness and recognition. NTOANIXR0 QAM RLH s2m�iergx�ys `Ini®1 r��milyl issue 58 MARKETING OVERVIEW COSTA MESA CVB ANNUAL REPORT 59 Stay and Get $50 Campaign As a part of ongoing initiatives to drive hotel bookings, the Bureau continued its successful Stay and Get $50 tactical campaign in fall 2014. Print and online advertising and dedicated email distributions promoted the gift card offer, with a call to action driving visitors to the hotel partners' landing page on Travel Costa Mesa. com. A press release was also developed and distributed to relevant regional print and online media outlets. Advertising for the Stay & Get $50 campaign targeted leisure travelers across California, Arizona, Nevada, Washington and Oregon, as well as longer -haul markets, including Chicago, Dallas, Vancouver, British Columbia, and Calgary, Alberta. Compared to the 2013 campaign, which advertised across online, print, outdoor and radio, the 2014 campaign advertised solely across online and print platforms. As a result, there was an overall increase in total impressions received from 11 million in 2013 to 15 million in 2014. Email open rates increased from 11% in 2013 to 15% in 2014. Orbitz reported a 26% increase in hotel bookings compared to 2013. The Stay and Get $50 tactical campaign will continue in spring 2015. The Bureau continued to implement this successful tactical online campaign to drive overnight stays to Costa Mesa. Online banner advertisements and specialized email distributions featured this gift card offer, with a call to action to the hotel deals landing page on Travel Costa Mesa.com. r�STA MESA WHERE YOUR STYLE SPREADS iTS WINGS lift - THE ARTS TAKE FLIGHT IN COata hlaaa rA h nndd-daaa shopping at South Coast Plaza. a pantie of award inning peda nlaooas at seoelslrom Cellar for 1he An., e.gwA- u dilitp And endS"l relaxation %I a aceptonal hme}s. The Cuy of the Arts'w sets the stage for Ina uIr male soulhem Caafomia relreal — centrally localed just rmulei Tram beaches. Iho Oisney4in ins Raton• and Orange (:o u nly's Jahn Mayne Airport. !dope Inrough January 4, "15. boat, a slay at a pukvaing hotel and n rerr 1.- RECEIVE A S50 AMERICAN Ex PRE SS GIFT CARD 'poor a 4 JA++ua10 4,2015 SWV41 to avwapaty A," And miter-wo Apply, HOCK NOW COSTA MESA Valentine's Day Weekend Getaway Campaign During Valentine's Day weekend, the Bureau promoted partner hotel packages in an effort to increase occupancy over this three-day weekend. The Bureau utilized online banners, dedicated emails and social media ads to draw guests to the Cityof the Arts' A press release was also developed and distributed to relevant regional print and online media outlets. The campaign was heavily focused on the immediate drive markets of Los Angeles, San Diego, and Arizona. The Bureau distributed dedicated emails positioning Costa Mesa as a Valentine's Day weekend getaway P " I ESA suomsim penr- WHERE YOUR PROVE REACHES NEW HEIGHTS FOR SPECIALS Travel Costa Mesa cat` �,Ma destination through Modern Luxury Riviera San Diego, Los Angeles Magazine, and AZCentral.com (Arizona Republic). Digital banner ads were also placed on partnering websites. In addition, Facebook and Twitter ads also served to drive visitors to the hotel deals page on Travel Costa Mesa.com. In the Valentine's Day campaign timeframe, February 5-15, there were a total of 5,908 new users to the Costa Mesa website. Valentine's Day social media ads received more than 4,000 page interactions (likes, comments and shares). Let your lave take flight in Costa Mesa. Orange County. Hotel & Boning specials await! Valentine's E HOTEL SPEC f Travel Costa Mesa Public Places 3,933 people like this. 16 Like Page 60 MARKETING OVERVIEW COSTA MESA CVB ANNUAL REPORT 61 Costa Mesa Restaurant Week The City of the Arts- showcased The Art of Dining through Costa Mesa Restaurant Week (CMRW) 2014. Participation increased dramatically to 58 restaurants compared to 40 in the prior year. Partnering hotels were highlighted and guests were encouraged to spend the night in Costa Mesa while this once -a -year event was taking place. Advertisements for CMRW 2014 were served across a variety of platforms, including online, print, radio Pageviews Pages Session Duration C CALIFORNIA STYLE C 4AOAllnl C r A. rlanl C "-1 FROMOr1OM COSTA E nmx S ECAi OREAS orr CU UNARY CREATIO Am HOTEL ACCOMMODATIONS msera: CC+SU MESAS FTSTAUPAW W Eris and outdoor mediums, resulting in a total of 4 million impressions. A press release was also developed and distributed to regional print and online media outlets. During CMRW 2014, August 15-22, there was a total of 20,689 unique visitors to the CMRW website. Compared to data from CMRW 2013, there was an increase of 2,208 visitors to the site and a 12% decrease in bounce rate. In addition, we had 52,097 pageviews compared to prior year of 37,273, a 40% increase. 37,273 52,097 39.77% 1.47 1.8 22.15% 1:18 1:22 5.13% (PIS Summer Cash Is 6ackl -. y— — O M?�!W-hdRO9Ytta TripAdvisor Sponsorship Page & Banner Ads The Bureau continues to own and maintain a sponsorship page on the TripAdvisor U.S. site. TripAdvisor is the world's largest travel site and serves as a platform for travelers to gain insights on specific destinations, share advice and seamlessly book trips. TripAdvisor has the largest travel community in the world, reaching 315 million monthly unique visitors with more than 200 million reviews and opinions. It also covers more than 4.5 million accommodations, restaurants and attractions worldwide. The Costa Mesa sponsorship page includes information about Costa Mesa hotels and attractions, as well as photos and links driving visitors to TravelCosta Mesa. com. Geotargeted tactical and branding banners are updated across this page throughout the year. In 2014, there was an overall increase of 1,832 unique visitors to Costa Mesa's TripAdvisor U.S. sponsorship page, compared to 2013. In February 2014, the Bureau purchased an additional sponsorship page on TripAdvisor Canada. In 2015, a sponsorship page was purchased on TripAdvisor Mexico as the Bureau increases its international reach. *, )tripadvisor T. Mfa413 m., YIFriaC4 Mm. C*Wn UMRSE IhiCW SIES1OM ® USO 1-1 Q `* CC75TA WHERE YOUR MESA STYLEREACHES NEW HEIGHTS AlcOmianto (25) ® s casaa ds vacacle (31 D 10 Vuelas * '_'°'= Atraccica•a (32) • 404 40fnaMs California _ Restaursobn (+435) 'S,E191 Oprecnd Q Fora 1 GI+:dLLtKM1 03 Hatetes Berea de Costa Mesa '�/ a 01� 41L, o = ,fit Imo' Vlvta r eslm sma web Tn! ri4sl Swe• ..: i;; Pyyg Mira gtee dicers tus � Emla"S Un CWM Ou CUOOW - csy.,wa., Euaeaeu3.ow arnigwsabtvCosta +r Dworganuesrra9u+aokiai Q] Mesa Ayres H11e16 51, 11 Gosfa IWeea -Tde Wrt Belle @K-X9lpl Bee Ow+eon Casui W. E5lneoa U�Woa V1nr Rnrino Ine I�1vnYsu — FaceeoaN 62 MARKETING OVERVIEW COSTA MESA CVB ANNUAL REPORT 63 PUBLIC RELATIONS The Bureau continues to seek new public relations opportunities in an effort to build and share newsworthy content about the city of Costa Mesa. Press releases, pitches and media relationships have resulted in added exposure for Costa Mesa. This earned media builds upon the branding and social efforts to reach a target audience via various credible and authentic channels. COSTA MESA, Coat. klraa Rep—o lwiws EnV—k an Second In1.ma.la.W Visll Thla YW to Praagba CWa.saaa T-1 W tha SoCal p.alhvmticn CMA ME9A. CA-01—bar 3, xalq _ Toe Cows Mesa C—r— 8 Vailm Bwaau (CUM) dale Mh ths. Charpa Ca ky Vai[ma Aswoaaon (OCVA) a0sarka4 m IN* v OW int,"w lap 02014 Mia Wa ber Toe Idlissn rrpanlxalitte l-dw b OA and pre unirod&s1s Erobalea 0 saW s h iw1 Me repreaenl L—a..d pl Am orsnpe. CLy as wdld. Jess k 6st desWahon Ties yeses wexaas aasal:xaf. mark ant year vote a s 2013 ppa—p el QCVA Wafsm eRcea ar 9e�jinp aM $hYpAei. whcA serve h1 atlsayt visilnra brm ase ran . Mass saanp Cnmearma Wn In M,n yeerac C—Lkyd etfdrfa [apfamofa C 1a Mews. amustseadaaimoonyn.LOranpai'.— wlravlWra and Ma&om . 0 C Ta PrafNrnl_ P-M— i Lerehmdi.priea m,d Th* of MaA CV6" Ta hdtl Mbee M rft si in6ei1iy�. arM $.—g. Tha C:$4 blase n—me! ,n .CYT man S, representanes sass a range of 1palem oaNanere C- a llrq C— CT s Jua Yuan Imemahawr Trxree Caipeny. Cmp, Ebng. CITIC. Cralazy Tgyv_ Caa'msa. aed Tsniu A sample of press releases developed during the year include: Costa Mesa Hotel Deals During OC Fair Costa Mesa Selected to Host First Ever West Coast Indie Chefs Week Costa Mesa Representatives Embark on Second International Visit Stay in Costa Mesa and Get $50 BLVD Hotel Joins the Costa Mesa Conference and Visitor Bureau COST,-" I IF'SA The nw FF&W Mw iU orm mn coadrTe sad watw Meat ra5TA.—L lA • thb� lf, pub] -0..y.naoaa —I.— -A I.— am.ae ICMCYaI b raeeHm wwwv da.seaHMfiGsa m wa.<w d boed rmusrrx Th. &LIG aao.l will.Bw➢rbaw.kam.d bm1W bfCYl faamAqu>Ya as.beW rapnsnvd bF de rw.w 'iw..n...am de Ma B.ml roast. s .'W'r—iembr.d-- rnud.os.td.MS 76.p•el'"6.dma re.m.w' mdi.b.ads.rd 7v..acnumper..y bmmee. bmk a.ai.$r. rm.e.NA bePrl..a+. ma 4aN..+.` n..aLvpwe.l a r.aaad ba.4.s ler mesa boro ieamw.r..wepem. ca.aa. ueeu.ad aa.., ma..I.n e.aydl.a dai Ya.d wb.a ris�ma S.aJnv Cd�. W r IM saaa.r<i..vm W rznNe. roo�sgagkdva.ro.an eelBrtM fm bed8ave.s+.M Wuamna xad.e urnmp TW nw pmd b A. kaaerw eeaem fro+* W. N.4. stmd CP.i*�—T. . CMW -" .hgp.a�ad drpCraaA [.mcCmYr.0llo ra6lmn.br CamV .madsen I dm pmephepr rnmr..d aeo�e sanT Y+..F rp»1vY"•--s. naliaLLVli XaYaada NepYtlLaF.9fCWYlApa'aHssMmalL�L Wa.. HNt wrrw.Tnwlcawe#saeem aaw.e drzan+as.... weweexa ase sry.keraar..ve q m piney oae.� mdy.ary.ea m ama peprm.o8 aec..w. din en.ma. b.al.nd meal balwarx wabm da+:tr dca.0 N.r. r� ten.... w n...e m,b. Rae ea.r, Mn...an..+,..a,..rro,�...�Tb. rases, w'. ceahm.ea.ad+aaroe mesa. u. ra 1 W [U a.q..P. emmimr�.. ndur vco radta na+++d rlwaa.tfeeau ore, cwa..a:..ea hNm. ram.+.. pm]aa+nm NTERNATIONAL EFFORTS Internationally, the Bureau has expanded its marketing efforts into Canada, China, Mexico and the Middle East. The Bureau had 100 pages of key content on the website translated into Simplified Chinese and Spanish, with future plans to have site content translated into Arabic as well. COSTA MESAS I 64 MARKETING OVERVIEW COSTA MESA CVB ANNUAL REPORT 65 China The Travel Costa Mesa.cn domain was purchased this fiscal year to cater to the Chinese market. The China outbound market has continued to be the biggest market globally and is still the number one outbound tourism market. China is the world's fastest -growing major economy in the world, and California is still the most desired U.S. travel destination. The trend of Chinese traveling abroad is significant and ever-growing. Having an established web presence in China shows not only the Bureau's commitment to branding Costa Mesa in this rapidly growing market, but also for the Bureau to build a competitive advantage in mid �swr�taewse�yrtss slarreawsswrnunrzrti cle�ta #ms7tMe�Ra ■i68�MiNflaEa/MOHA—xnas`sst arlcgarss -#b6 COSTA ha�Sy the market. Content translated into Simplified Chinese makes information more accessible to Chinese travelers, which is vital as most Chinese are more comfortable reading in their native language. The Bureau also created a Chinese email newsletter earlier this fiscal year to further engage, educate and provide this audience with compelling and revelant content of what Costa Mesa has to offer. The content is carefully selected and must be useful and interesting to attract Chinese travelers. The goal is to engage this audience, increase awareness of the city as a must -see Southern California destination. *P�*rA M,mYmm 201 swam l3911F#aw&u 'E*qw JLV"r 2015 VtfF. 7 As�yaska#1 sss �u"NlIW�r4i• RaSi015W01•i�• i01�RR6�CAC` r� cwu wu� China Press & Exposures The Bureau attended its second sales mission trip to China with OCVA in October 2014. Our presence on this second sales mission generated press in some online and print publications from ChineseLuxury.com, Travel Weekly China, NEEU.com and Travel Daily Media. In addition, Costa Mesa's video is shown on Air China in-flight video from Beijing to California. The video ran from December 2014 to March 2015 at no cost to the Bureau. The total cost is valued at $15K and provides exposure to 34,800 total passengers during this time frame. Air China is China's exclusive national carrier and is the world's largest member of Star Alliance, a leading global airline network with the highest number of member airlines and daily flights.. TUVEREEBIY CHIHAI —120k.,*Q i a M ar N(OP k X14: f1RA" :4JWr J xIQWF4044I1 f-tgk2mq iF=0M 1I Y.I.iki9 RPM Sk�.1�1441d9F�1lpIJh�. H1-�4�CNefP��'�+IiIW,94ASiR. Itiw'i164i�liatSri,:rl1'Iktld�l:ftb?9 �.lq}�i{�plar>rs •q'ix1 ��tf4H�1 Ih�a6a>Cr#$Fka9t14f'dTe%S1a�S>:d�q�1sL• !ktlaTICRIil1lIARh�t#i7kd:81PR�lA4�rNd'RArLl�kt#�, Fie1. }titi]►S�if,"SleFSliEfi itiltl iliAidl(�!'CN[F�E+il. "1$.aa.41a`.N}9f:Hli iY�}rRJf�f@-f1=F%#°w 1g1946h�#�LgMtU6'llfAfrihllk dMikMd f41!NlaFS71CA'J i" ;k. "%f1@'.�Pc'PJEY1. "APlkAldYlYdriAfl'ffWR. IR$b1FriyL+39y4It+R, 1911l1lhlifiNibFrY }•wr+]faM�eakVAiEfNNitr�zNre'illi4. ^ f�'A iF'llYgi'CrN;1!! f iYifi4iYiW1 to f4akari#waa[.wn4eimlrhaatr Cnauty Yw{tnr& cnurenlum &urraul. 5'ESM:tiiA aY<j�pai(YWa Hunrirri4nn &a�N1. gIL+W;Maki'ra8 Ivlsa Nrhpnra Hrachl. i#YrgFNdt� iV4a-0aCuata?lran Cwr[rrcnrn& viekur aMtrruul, ITON 4.*,lfQAV:tllyaat R.•�,mry Hrwport Beachl. '�' tr:irq�i,ryilnfRli lk+Kr.'.1�a,[Hyari Re>;enn•Huntinylem 9rach itrauetSr Spn], rtll!IltaRfk{lCihr ltrsnrt et Pelican HY[II, tNrd!#11 irM 1p;k'k'!il'I L+i [tic+va�'r Bnch R9srriotr I{mcr & Saq#. 11I4i0.'4M t= rl'� �'S )A(Cbm. leeaMl i t[). "" eb7+lli4CA!iNifAuahcimh4mrioap, r6:X+iidd'a 40mim Mm"I0tl}. d61{F3a( ,14 M-4-yund). Hl1l iY M: Ut;;'IYd�a�lAlCl�fk693a L, ikhMEc I:..l4:1•�e" I: 66 MARKETING OVERVIEW COSTA MESA CVB ANNUAL REPORT 67 China-WeChat Costa Mesa is also represented in WeChat through OCVA in China. WeChat is a popular mobile social media platform used in China, as more people access the Internet in China via mobile than desktop. Having Costa Mesa content on WeChat offers a unique direct communication tool to the Chinese market, offering an enormous opportunity for the brand to remain top of mind. Costa Mesa Marriott 500 Anton Boulevard Phone:{714)357-1100 ORFRIM '��#�1g�d�1�rA�1�F.�iLtC�Si�le�Ts �iiil���i[�I,�l�3e9ersham z`af��t;^R� IL�"Ili��. #H �°1t;•fiRgz�i'P,�14�1'�49�$14. �ci�'��1����7+iKtx7�itt�'.i0i8��ffi��i1S� Ali, ���T�trdQ93204�iJ'saji.E7tJ�'�, >ad�49iAF3�+1'i�ra`,ti, �.`�jf32DDi2'�,+4.—�Fi�7�13i2�'. dlif iA1324�1>�1t�7+�q�G+,?�13�Y•�i�ktt4, ii►�"��lti�dil+lJf , i�6i��rr�#�—�. i�Fi�r�Al! ��yy��i��Q?l!A,,,,1.t+Y��iµiif�g�.f���#g�)R146�71yasHllk7�ta&94+{r. �'��3��.iyfk�8tc�irRarv@,iiglAeD��aa411��9HtfC� �r3R WAE�i,s,rAA q4rtJ�]RUCiTTNe�ei1�+'�R�1F—�'t�°r��6A®J'!vF• �}'�s[uJ�li OeAY.tr1'15155i�i730Y. E.l.nel.ta. X—ax. X—Y X+nstoa, G%.e1, l.ndr, r:•d+it+ lyT kt$1111fH3ilk8 A' ti . n!'9i l�tr�lilli�$:h4t¢'N>riib0 SV�l iO4tAC8�it¢liil WeChat Mexico For the Mexico segment, the Bureau updates OCVA on a regular basis on key events, promotions, news and updates from partner hotels, South Coast Plaza, Segerstrom Center for the Arts, and general interesting information about the city. Costa Mesa's content is posted on Facebook in Mexico through the Bureau 's partnership with OCVA. Orange County added 2 new photos. 84a Enero �# ZCena a1 airs Ora? Verlte al Silver Trumpet Restaurant & Bar on Travel Costa Mesa htlp:lR+it.lyll BFHBM4 PrBmoVer PIxCIEtatYarl Like Conlen[ar - Share 164 10 1 Inc Orange County &No sakes en donde Quedarte? Te dejamos una lisla de los mejores Wgaraa pare hospedarle en r7 ho0C COMO On el CoslaMosaManiot httpl/bil. [y/ l w7a7pY Hospedaje en Orange County V:So 1 AC FW4GEC0VN IY,MX 07 people rewhed like, Cmenlar- Share - 610 Orange County added 4 new photos. 4Busm algo cOntrio? Con una uhicaoidn a menus do 5 km dal aeropuerto John Wayne Airport, Orango County, Bost Western Plus Newport Mesa Inn as un do Ios mejares hoteles do #COstaMesa, siluado on un Lugar espeelhoo ow un entomo &nico y rsoomendaMe. hltpYt;t.lyll rBsc'CH 68 MARKETING OVERVIEW COSTA MESA CVB ANNUAL REPORT 69 Canada For the Canada market, the Bureau continued to partner with John Wayne Airport, Orange County and South Coast Plaza on its second year in a row to optimize the momentum of the first cooperative sweepstakes campaign of "Win a Shopping Spree in Costa Mesa." This year's sweepstakes runs from February 2015 to May 2015. The Bureau will expand the Canadian market to include Calgary, Alberta, in addition to Vancouver and the greater British Columbia area. Canada is ranked as the top country outside of the U.S. that brings the most visitors to the Travel Costa Mesa website. For the first campaign in 2014, the Bureau partnered with John Wayne Airport, Orange County and South Coast Plaza to launch an online campaign targeted to Vancouver and the greater British Columbia area. Online and print advertisements showcased a sweepstakes to win a trip to Costa Mesa. The package included a $5,000 shopping spree at South Coast Plaza, accommodations, dining and round-trip airfare to John Wayne Airport, Orange County. The 2014 sweepstakes received over 2,300 entries. Online advertisements generated 1,220,030 impressions with an overall average click -through rate of 0.34%, exceeding the industry average of 0.10%. The 2015 campaign will advertise solely across digital platforms. Selected advertising partners were based on market reach and audience demographics and include, but are not limited to The Vancouver Sun, The Province, Vancouver Magazine, Expedia.com and Steel Media ad network. The Bureau has also partnered with influential Vancouver- and Calgary -based travel and lifestyle bloggers to increase promotional efforts around the sweepstakes to relevant audiences, while receiving added value media coverage on the destination itself. Quality is ,V�JI N A _2500 vHOPPING SPREE AT SOUTH COAST PLAZA IN I ' COSTA MESA International Destination JOI'I�I NMYM AIRPORT PLUS ORANGE COUNTY FYOUR OWN PERSONAL STYLIST AT SOiJTH COAST PLAZA tt ROUNUTRIP AIR FROM VANCOUVER _ OR CALGARY TO ORANGE COUNTY 2 NIGHTS ACCOMMODATION IN COSTA'E5A. CALIFORNIA COSTA MESA, COSTA MESA CAUFORNIA ••II•.- ..,gal I,,,• ler+ V.,­ ..n+ber. � I .naid. w..«na a.,lairirarn.<e x 5ayoi+u m� Co I., d- hu. emir 6., .,d sJ., sae�stw «lre rvstaojf aw for ,�di.epumkti�mls•.6J-m_te-ma..kf iCnaaMl -c sTh1as4G''ryRn—rda,.s.Ar.a.�Atrr - Oi.atMi Caanry, Jrhu wayr. Alifaa. - Middle East The Bureau's partnership with OCVA has also helped broaden international marketing efforts by attending sales mission trips throughout the year. In October 2014, the Bureau staff attended the first sales mission trip to the Middle East. With OCVAs extensive connections overseas, it enables us to connect with tour operators and agencies, allowing the ability to share and highlight Costa Mesa — and to collectively tell a consistent story to paint a bigger picture of what Orange County and Southern California has to offer. As a result, Costa Mesa has received media attention from SmartArabs.com, MiddleEastEvents.com, Dubai City Guide, UAE Today, Middle East Travel & Tour Guide and SmartOman.com. Be safe, It YOU ARE HERE; PRCOJCtS & SERVICES • AIRONES & AVIATIDY • ORANGE W))NTY VISITORS A PROMOTE MIDDLE EASTERN TRAVEL TO SOLITHERN GHAFORNIA'STOP DESTINATION ORANGE COUNTY VISITORS ASSOCIATION VISIT THE UAE TO PROMOTE MIDDLE EASTERN TRAVEL TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA'S TOP DESTINATION MONDAY, 20 OCfUBER Z014 16'10L & 10 =� SlaleceLanpLlege ■ 'The OC & ME" campaign launched as the first travel package created by a United States tourism assoaabon to ewusively target Middle Eastern residents Middle Eastern-speofic online and souaY s •. I.. media Platforms AMD launched! ! l Q1-i8A1 (October 20, 20147-DAegates from the Orange County Visitors Association of Callforria are in Dubal through October 22 to meet personally with local press And Wasting and new tuScomerS. The delegation, led by Orange County Visitors AssociaOoo CEO Ed Fuller, alms to promote Orange County as the heart of Southern Cahfomla and an Ideal destination for Middle £astern travelers. -Ovr miSslon is to .reach out personally to potential Visitors and bead awarer+e55 or Orange County, Cahtomia as a premier travel destination," said Mr. Fuller. "With Emirates, Etahad Airways and Saudla Airlines currereiy wring our market, we behove Orange County Is the perfect locale for visitors to experience the beat of Southern California' Emirates and ESlhad Airways recently moved their flight trews from hotels in Los Angeles to the Hilton Anaheim and the Hilton Orange County/Costa Mesa hotels In Orange County, a move that marks Orange CourWs position as the center of Southern Callromia. IwRe1MMe1 SROPPR4G wra r..or«. .n.w.m suwrt F-1— W's ® [grange County Visitors Association Visit The UAE y To Promote Middle Eastern Travel To Southern California's Top Destination �atAra 2r 1, E'✓Paa Y9 FMIo N.aH ^la/Cr/Pk Aptl Pa'ariam rtalb n laa/aaew bty H.xr+.lnal+a are aw tr.aw OreNe cwavr.M-i W s. a.x..m�co;asr...,o..+W r.pm.v.wacr.carnma..a.R.,wraauwac.ga.. '�LMnb NirereYwYi we'WM rwYdMM rW cw YBWnrM1 4YMml'NICW FUIY. ewe.+..mwF+.&...rrtnlmyl.n.+l.11rrt.+.r•:..ur.++..rmauwr cam Rriro Ir1NCanear. MAa161eNmNbp. MIM.eN VYXreelerYre basin nlanlrMw�aCwsMv�flrtuFnerW en nuwlab en AIdM eul w pwrtxrw^a+ sn.a ibbie (fast bent, WESTIN newnnnt.Reew« Rilei ��y: R�sarf ai NarAna �! - ynlaae Oranpc County Vh tors Association visit The CAE To Pro®ele wUddle Emicro Travel To Southern Callferals's Tap Destination Dalryalrt front lite O—W County Vitilon ,Ar frtlao of CalRerala m in DYhal Ihrough October 221a wrrs exhil.L.9e -; W IePAtr4 AeAoday. Oa■Ler 20,2434 03©®0 T tl kpks b w tIw Usasre Cowl. Yaem A.xaiaim rrCribmia.e w DAw 11noghOmw R Pr ura FarPa�rrlm �Ipmd�m�rwswoae.bn 7�aF�aw.IdMtti aO�rYl�. AUYeY�OEO Fd Fva«,a®4r pl.aa. [breatkmq'wd. haeafSo�oOti(m®' sdaidW dtM.sao se wane 14ma andtlaa 9irwa..mwbIrri+m FearlFe�bp«mrYl ildrawdhM4-40ewaeC—ly lylif we pstrmsd d� moA"WdW.Fna..'wsm EssJagi Tielad Ai.Mad. rod Slwtlb Ailuu rvmary �'IR mraa�r.madesea®pecmrxxlera�wur Rr.emsbuP+moc o. nn erseu�re , gt®na- ib—wd'da.4AYwgFtoIliallil Asbd. and d.11iea u.o�Crmgt4YraMeslmrdl i. [hrp C.ary,s.mn d,«ordsv�c ys aurswu aocul. etswe.aawan.r ,,. �gy¢CaavAr wpee>dr.isl erntse•I�1. orahm tl.y duek arSo�.n.4d�®.'vl Mr. faan. _ d«wlrir Jds�laww Whri oercpemwwsa iwwthe.A^.. �.r..��tAwlly YttiGzr&PrweM1ov liamay �R.,�rnal.m,D,aFr.Er+,cnaerp=av��rna�mrRwNt«�FNaLrrnvwFaa.m ,;,, tdlAwa Hrxa BPvaw pmeymaa The MidneEm.e�Wvrc.wsemllrl �dll'�,C r4a. fana:laltwyr� SI»+•� tr• ai sap. nw.ra ea.a R�1; aed st®s� Ida pe,a. arpnws.e uraseCmq.Y,um A.oc�m Po.I�ge a. h1id11eP are dka.lae.rv.�hYss®. 70 MARKETING OVERVIEW COSTA MESA CVB ANNUAL REPORT 71 00 COSTA MESA CONFERENCE AND VISITOR BUREAU EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Susan O'Brien Moore Chairperson of the Board, General Manager, Ayres Hotel & Suites Mike Hall Vice President, General Manager, The Westin South Coast Plaza Sue Cooke Treasurer, General Manager, Residence Inn by Marriott Costa Mesa Charles Haber Secretary, General Manager, Crowne Plaza Costa Mesa Orange County DIRECTORS Stephen Mensinger Mayor, City of Costa Mesa Naj Ekhlas General Manager, Best Western Plus Newport Mesa Inn Melody Lanthorn-Gale General Manager, Costa Mesa Marriott Rob Gauthier General Manager, Hilton Orange County/Costa Mesa Ross Stibor General Manager, Ramada Inn and Suites Tom Hatch CEO, City of Costa Mesa Paul Sanford General Manager -Asset Manager, Avenue of the Arts Wyndham Hotel Eduardo De La Cruz General Manager, Holiday Inn Express ADVISORS Terry Dwyer President, Segerstrom Center for the Arts Werner Escher Executive Director of Domestic and International Markets, South Coast Plaza Peter Papagelis General Manager, Mastro's Steakhouse STAFF Paulette Lombardi -Fries President Linda Ta Director of Marketing Jessica Placentia Operations Manager Attachment 2 COSTA MESA CONFERENCE AND VISITOR BUREAU FINANCIAL STATEMENTS For the fiscal years ended June 30, 2013 and June 30, 2012 CONTENTS Page No, Independent Auditors' report Financial Statements Statements of assets, liabilities and net assets — cash basis Statements of support, revenues and expenses -- cash basis Notes to financial statements -- cash basis Geller Eperthener McConnell LLP ��n� Certified pllblic&wglants and Cor�siiitariis To the Board of Directors of Costa Mesa Conference and Visitor Bureau Independent Auditors' Re ort Mitchell R Geller, C.P.A. Steven. D. Eperthener, c,P.A William L, McConnell, cP.A We have audited the accompanying financial statements of Costa Mesa Conference and Visitor Bureau (a nonprofit organization), which comprise the statement of financial position as of June 30, 2013 and 2012, and assets, liabilities and net assets —cash basis, and the related statements of support, revenues, and expenses — cash basis for the years then ended. Management's Responsibility for the Financial Statements Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements in accordance with cash basis of accounting, which is a comprehensive basis of accounting other than generally accepted accounting principles; this includes the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error. Auditor's Responsibility Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits. We conducted our audits in accordance with the cash basis of accounting, which is a comprehensive basis of accounting other than generally accepted accounting principles. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free from material misstatement. An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditor's judgment, including the assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to the entity's preparation: and fair presentation of the financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity's internal control. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also included evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements. (562) 594-5966 • (977) 310-1040 0 fx: (562) 594-7944 •3626 Last Pacific Coast Highway a 2nd Floor • Long Beach, C!4dornia 908043 We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinion. Opinion In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Costa Mesa Conference and Visitor Bureau (a nonprofit organization), as of June 30, 2013 and 2012, and assets, liabilities and net assets -- cash basis, and the related statements of support, revenues, and expenses — cash basis for the year ended in accordance with the cash basis of accounting, which is a comprehensive basis of accounting other than generally accepted accounting principles. Certified Public Accountants Long Beach, CA November 30, 2013 COSTA MESA CONFERENCE AND VISITOR BUREAU STATEMENTS OF ASSETS, LIABILITIES AND NET ASSETS - CASH BASIS June 30, 2013 and June 30, 2012 ASSETS Cash Total assets LIABILITIES Current Liabilities Total Liabilities NET ASSETS Unrestricted Net Assets See accompanying notes to financial statements 2013 $1,317,294 $1,317,294 2012 $1,288,743 $1,288,743 $ 462 $ - 462 - $1,316,832 $1,288,743 $1,316,832 $1,288,743 -2- 69 COSTA MESA CONFERENCE AND VISITOR BUREAU STATEMENTS OF SUPPORT, REVENUES AND EXPENSES - CASH BASIS June 30, 2013 and 2012 2013 2012 UNRESTRICTED NET ASSETS Unrestricted revenues Business improvement area assessment $2,197,149 $1,939,658 Interest income 3,666 3,821 Other income - 113 Total unrestricted revenues Expenses Hotel and special promotions Marketing Salaries and benefits General and administrative Total expenses Increase in unrestricted net assets NET ASSETS AT BEGINNING OF THE YEAR NET ASSETS AT END OF YEAR See accompanying notes to financial statements 2,200,815 1,943,592 321,237 323,973 1,254,165 839,813 343,153 315,536 254,171 160,841 2,172,726 1,640,163 28,089 303,429 1,288,743 985,314 $1,316,832 $1,288,743 -3- s COSTA MESA CONFERENCE AND VISITOR BUREAU NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - CASH BASIS June 30, 2013 and June 30, 2012 1 . Nature of activities and Significant Accounting Policies Nature of activities The Costa Mesa Conference and Visitor Bureau (The Bureau) is a California non-profit corporation formed in 1995 to market the city of Costa Mesa as a leisure and group meeting travel destination. The vision of the Bureau is to be the engaged destination -marketing leader by supporting and selling the city of Costa Mesa's distinct visitor brand experiences and advocating community tourism benefits. The Bureau's mission is to enhance and promote the city of Costa Mesa's brand, experience, further increasing visitor spending for industry and community economic viability, sustainability and quality of life. The Bureau is comprised of the ten member hotels within the Business Improvement Area (BIA) of Costa Mesa. The member hotels are Costa Mesa Marriott, Hilton Costa Mesa, Holiday Inn Express Hotel & Suites, Residence Inn by Marriott, Avenue of the Arts Wyndham Hotel, Ayres Hotel & Suites, The Westin South Coast Plaza, Ramada Inn and Suites Costa Mesa, Best Western Plus Newport Mesa Inn, and Crowne Plaza. Basis of accountin The Bureau's policy is to prepare its financial statements on the basis of cash receipts and disbursements which is a comprehensive basis of accounting other than generally accepted accounting principles. Consequently, revenues are recognized when received rather than when earned, and expenses are recognized when disbursed rather than when the obligation is incurred. Tax status The Bureau is exempt from taxation under Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(6) on income related to its tax exempt purpose. The Bureau had no unrelated business income, as defined by the Internal Revenue Code, for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2013 and June 30, 2012. Accordingly, no tax provision has been provided for in the accompanying financial statements. Use of Estimates The preparation of financial statements in conformity with the cash basis of accounting requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect certain reported amounts and disclosures. Actual results could differ from those estimates. COSTA MESA CONFERENCE AND VISITOR BUREAU NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - CASH BASIS (continued) June 30, 2013 and June 30, 2012 1. Nature of activities and Significant Accounting Policies (continued) Financial Statement Presentation The Bureau reports information regarding its financial position and activities according to unrestricted net assets. Designation of Unrestricted Net Assets The Bureau designates the majority of its unrestricted net assets into the following major categories: Hotel and special promotions - (See Note 3) Marketing - (See Note 4) Salaries and benefits — Funds to compensate for the employees of the Bureau, expenses such as salary, and employee benefit plan (See Note 8). General and administrative - Funds to pay for expenses of operations of the Bureau. Revenue On behalf of the City of Costa Mesa the Bureau's ten member hotels collect a Business Improvement Area (BIA) levy on the sale of overnight guest room stays. For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2013 and June 30, 2012 the levy was three percent (3%) The levy is transmitted by the hotels to the City and is remitted to the Bureau, net of a one percent handling fee, pursuant to a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) entered into by and between the City and the Bureau. The above mentioned levy is 99.8% of the total revenue of the Bureau for fiscal years ended June 30, 2013 and June 30, 2012, respectively. The professional services agreement (PSA) with the City of Costa Mesa is renewed annually. The Bureau and the City of Costa Mesa have a good working relationship; consequently there is no concern that the PSA will not be renewed each year, indefinitely. Use of BIA Revenue California state law provides that BIA assessments are to be used for the purposes specified in the authorizing resolution that established the assessment. The City's resolution that established the assessment references the uses specified in the Bureau's annual report. -6- COSTA MESA CONFERENCE AND VISITOR BUREAU NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - CASH BASIS (continued) June 30, 2013 and June 30, 2012 2. Cash Cash consists of demand deposits as of June 30, 2013 and June 30, 2012 at the following institutions: American Securities Bank Pacific Premier Bank Beach Business Bank National Bank Total 6/30/13 $731,325 368,476 217,493 0 $1,317,294 6/30/12 $476,495 585,369 216,747 10,132 $1,288,743 The Bureau maintains its cash in bank deposit accounts, which at various times during the fiscal years ended June 30, 2013 and June 30, 2012 exceeded federally insured limits. 3. Hotel promotions expense During 2012-2013 fiscal years, the Bureau allocated $150 per room to each member hotel for hotel specific marketing purposes, The allocation subsidizes hotel specific advertising and marketing efforts that also include the Bureau logo. Vendor invoices are either paid by the hotel or paid directly by the Bureau. Samples of the advertising 1 marketing material must be submitted showing the Bureau logo for reimbursement. Hotel promotions expense amounted to $321,237 and $323,973 for fiscal years ended June 30, 2013 and June 30, 2012, respectively. If the hotels do not use all of their allocated funds the funds revert back to the Bureau. It is the opinion of the Bureau that reimbursing the hotels for advertising costs provides a public benefit to the City of Costa Mesa by promoting tourism, increasing retail sales, etc. 4. Marketing expenses The Bureau incurs marketing expenses related to its mission of promoting the City of Costa Mesa as a tourist destination. For the fiscal years ended June 30, 2013 and June 30, 2012, marketing expenses totaled $1,254,165 and $839,813, respectively. Marketing expenses include a new website for the Bureau which went live in January 2012, community sponsorships, brochures, print advertising and various promotions. All of these endeavors promote tourism in the City of Costa Mesa. "W COSTA MESA CONFERENCE AND VISITOR BUREAU NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - CASH BASIS (continued) June 30, 2013 and June 30, 2012 5. Commitments and Contingencies The Bureau entered into a lease for office space effective July 15, 2010. The lease is for five (5) years ending July 31, 2015. There is an option to renew the lease for an additional five (5) years at the end of the lease period. Total rent expense for fiscal years ending June 30, 2013 and June 30, 2012 amounted to $34,389 and $32,076, respectively. Future minimum lease obligations as of June 30, 2013 consist of the following: Fiscal year ended June 30, 2014 $34,047 June 30, 2015 $35,068 June 30, 2016 thereafter $2,969 The Bureau also entered into non -cancelable lease for a color copier on September 30, 2010. The lease is for five (5) years ending September 29, 2015. Monthly payment for the copier is $166.60 per month until the end of the lease. 6. Employee Benefit Plan The Bureau sponsors a defined contribution salary deferral plan (401(k) plan) covering all employees. Beginning in April 2012 the board of directors has agreed to match 401(k) contributions dollar for dollar up to 3% of the eligible employee's salary. During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2013 matching contributions amounted to $9,522, There were no matching contributions during fiscal year June 30, 2012. 7. Credit Risk The Bureau maintains cash deposits at institutions which are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) up to $250,000. At various times during 2013 and 2012, the Bureau maintained balances in excess of the federally insured limit. 8. Risk and Uncertainties Due to the nature of the Bureau's business, the Bureau's revenue is entirely dependent on the City of Costa Mesa, which collects the Business Improvement Area (BIA) levy from the ten hotels in Costa Mesa (see Revenue). A cancellation of the Professional Service Agreement (PSA) between the City of Costa Mesa and the Bureau will adversely and severely impact the Bureau's financial position. The possibility of the PSA agreement not being renewed annually is remote. 10 COSTA MESA CONFERENCE AND VISITOR BUREAU NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - CASH BASIS (continued) June 30, 2013 and .tune 30, 2012 9. Subsequent Events Management has evaluated subsequent events through November 30, 2013, the date that the financial statements were available to be issued. The following subsequent event has been identified for disclosure in these financial statements. The Bureau had initiated a lawsuit against a former vendor, during 2012, The Bureau believed the vendor had breached a contract with the Bureau by not performing services as requested. During 2013, the case resulted in The Bureau losing the lawsuit against the vendor. "i Attachment 3 RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO LEVY AN ANNUAL ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015-2016 FOR A BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA COVERING CERTAIN COSTA MESA HOTELS AND MOTELS AND SETTING THE TIME AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSAL. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, the California Legislature in adopting the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (Streets & Highways Code § 36500 et. seq.) authorized cities to levy assessments on businesses in order to promote economic revitalization and tourism, to create jobs, attract new businesses, and prevent erosion of business districts; and WHEREAS, on July 5, 1995, by Ordinance No. 95-9, the City Council adopted a business improvement area, commonly known as the Costa Mesa Tourism & Promotion Business Improvement Area (the "BIA"), the purpose of which is to promote tourism to the City and to fund programs and activities that benefit the hotel and motel businesses within the City of Costa Mesa; and WHEREAS, the owners of the BLVD Hotel requested a modification to the boundaries of the BIA so that it would include the BLVD Hotel and make the BLVD Hotel voluntarily subject to the BIA assessment; and WHEREAS, on January 20, 2015, by Ordinance No. 15-01, the City Council adopted an amendment to the BIA which expanded its boundaries making the BLVD Hotel subject to the BIA assessment; and WHEREAS, the City Council appointed the general managers of the now 11 hotels and motels subject to the assessment area, to serve as the advisory board as required by California Streets and Highways Code Section 36530; and WHEREAS, said advisory board is known as the Costa Mesa Conference and Visitor Bureau (the "CMCVB"); and WHEREAS, the City Council has voted to continue the special assessment for the BIA each year since its inception, and it has been levied upon the eleven hotel and motel businesses listed on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, in January 2000, the City Council approved an increase in the assessment, raising the assessment from one percent (1 %) to two percent (2%). The two percent (2%) assessment is based on the sale of overnight room stays; and WHEREAS, in November 2010, the City Council approved an increase in the assessment, raising the assessment from two percent (2%) to three percent (3%). The three percent (3%) assessment is based on the sale of overnight room stays; and WHEREAS, this Resolution of Intention will commence proceedings under the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (Streets & Highways Code § 36500 et seq.) to levy the annual assessment of the Costa Mesa Tourism & Promotion Council Business Improvement Area for the 2015-2016 fiscal year; and WHEREAS, the Agenda Report, and its attachments, for the May 5, 2014 City Council Meeting and filed with the City Clerk sets forth a detailed description of the activities to be provided in the 2015-2016 fiscal year, the boundaries of the Business Improvement Area, the benefit zone of the area, and the proposed assessments to be levied upon the businesses within the area for the coming fiscal year; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa as follows: Section 1. Assessment. An annual assessment for the Costa Mesa Tourism & Promotion Council Business Improvement Area is proposed to be levied pursuant to Streets & Highways Code § 36500 et seq. The proposed boundaries of the territory are the 11 motels and hotels listed in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. The proposed amount of the annual assessment is three percent (3%). The three percent (3%) assessment is based on the sale of overnight room stays. New hotel and motel businesses commenced after the effective date of the ordinance levying the assessment will be exempt from the levy of assessment, pursuant to Streets & Highways Code § 36531 and § 36535. 2 Section 2. Annual Report. An annual report on the Business Improvement Area has been prepared by the Costa Mesa Conference & Visitor Bureau, acting as the advisory board as required by Streets & Highways Code § 36533 and § 36534. Said report is on file in the City Clerk's Office. Section 3. Types of Activities To Be Funded. The proposed type or types of activities to be funded by and through the annual levy of assessments on businesses within the Costa Mesa Tourism & Promotion Council Business Improvement Area are specified in the referenced annual report and Exhibit B. Section 4. Method and Basis of Levy. The proposed method and basis of levying the assessment to allow each business owner to estimate the amount of the assessment to be levied against his or her business is set forth in the Costa Mesa Conference & Visitor Bureau's annual report relative to the Business Improvement Area. Section 5. Time and Place of Public Hearing. The time and place of the public hearing on the business improvement area and the annual levy of assessments shall be at 7 p.m., June 2, 2015, at the Costa Mesa City Hall, City Council Chambers, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, California. At the public hearing set forth above, the testimony of all interested persons for or against the annual levy of assessment for the business improvement area, the extent of the area, or the furnishing of specific types of improvements or activities will be heard by the City Council. Section 6. Protests. The following rules shall apply to all protests: (a) A protest may be made orally or in writing by any interested person. Any protest pertaining to the regularity or sufficiency of the proceedings shall be in writing and shall clearly set forth the irregularity or defect to which the objection is made. (b) Every written protest shall be filed with the City Clerk's Office, Costa Mesa City Hall, Room 101, 77 Fair Drive, Post Office Box 1200, Costa Mesa, California 92626-1200, at or before the time fixed for the public hearing as set forth above. (c) The City Council may waive any irregularity in the form or content of any written protest, and at the public hearing, may correct minor defects in the proceedings. 3 (d) If written protests are received from the owners of businesses in the proposed business improvement area which will pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the assessments to be levied and protests are not withdrawn so as to reduce the protests to less than the fifty percent (50%), no further proceedings on the proposal to continue the business improvement area assessment, as specified by this resolution of intention, shall be taken by the City Council for a period of one year from the date of the filing of a majority protest. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, California, does hereby adopt the annual report by the Costa Mesa Conference & Visitor Bureau acting as the advisory board on the business improvement area (referenced report on file in the City Clerk's Office), and this Resolution of Intention as set forth herein, and Exhibit "A" which is attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 511 day of May, 2015. ATTEST: Stephen M. Mensinger, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Brenda Green, City Clerk Thomas Duarte, City Attorney 4 FXHIRIT A The Business Improvement Area ("BIA") benefit zone encompasses the entire City of Costa Mesa boundaries. It is anticipated that the entire City, including businesses and residents, will benefit from increased revenues generated by the activities financed by the BIA assessment. The following businesses will be included in the BIA that is established pursuant to Streets & Highways Code § 36500 et seq., the businesses commonly known as: Ayres Country Inn & Suites Property Address: 325 and 345 Bristol Street, Costa Mesa Business Owner: Newport Country Inn & Suites, Inc. 355 Bristol Street, Suite A Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Property Owner: Newport Country Inn & Suites, Inc. 355 Bristol Street, Suite A Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Best Western Plus Newport Mesa Inn Property Address: 2642 Newport Boulevard, Costa Mesa Business Owner: James Hsuen Shang-Pu Lee 2642 Newport Boulevard, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Property Owner: James Hsuen Shang-Pu Lee 2642 Newport Boulevard, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Hilton Costa Mesa Property Address: 3050 Bristol Street, Costa Mesa Business Owner: Ashford Hospitality Trust 14185 Dallas Parkway, Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 75254 Property Owner: Remington Lodging & Hospitality LP 14185 Dallas Parkway, Suite 1100 Dallas, Texas 75254 Crowne Plaza Property Address: 3131 Bristol Street, Costa Mesa 5 Business Owner: Brighton Management 1901 Main Street, Suite 150 Irvine, CA 92614 Property Owner: 3131 Bristol Property UC, LLC 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400 Wilmington, DE 19808 Holiday Inn Express Hotel & Suites Property Address: 2070 Newport Blvd., Costa Mesa Business Owner: Narendra B. Patel 2070 Newport Blvd. Costa Mesa, CA 92667 Property Owner: Narendra B. Patel 2070 Newport Blvd. Costa Mesa, CA 92667 Costa Mesa Marriott Property Address: 500 Anton Boulevard, Costa Mesa Business Owner: Marriott International 10400 Fernwood Rd. Bethesda, MD 20817 Property Owner: Host Hotels & Resorts 6903 Rockledge Dr., Suite 1500 Bethesda, MD 20817 Ramada Inn & Suites Costa Mesa Property Address: 1680 Superior Ave., Costa Mesa Business Owner: B.D. Inns Inc./Ramada Ltd. 1680 Superior Ave. Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Property Owner: B.D. Inns Inc./Ramada Ltd. 1680 Superior Ave. Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Residence Inn by Marriott Property Address: 881 Baker Street, Costa Mesa Business Owner: Marriott International S 10400 Fernwood Rd. Bethesda, MD 20817 Property Owner: ING Clarion Partners 2650 Cedar Springs Road, Suite 850 Dallas, TX 75201-1491 The Westin South Coast Plaza Hotel Property Address: 686 Anton Boulevard, Costa Mesa Business Owner: Host Hotels & Resorts 6903 Rockledge Dr., Suite 1500 Bethesda, JD 20817 Property Owner: CJ Segerstrom & Sons c/o South Coast Plaza 686 Anton Boulevard Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Avenue of the Arts Wyndham Hotel Property Address: 3350 Avenue of the Arts, Costa Mesa Business Owner: Rosanna Inc. 3350 Avenue of the Arts Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Property Owner: Rosanna Inc. 3350 Avenue of the Arts Costa Mesa, CA 92627 BLVD Hotel Property Address: 2430 Newport Blvd, Costa Mesa Business Owner: Hollywood Corner Inc. 2430 Newport Blvd Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Property Owner: Shyamal Patel, CA 92782 16609 Honeybee Dr. Tustin, CA 92682 7 EXHIBIT B The BIA assessment will be used to fund the Costa Mesa Conference & Visitor Bureau (CVB). The CVB will fund activities to promote tourism in Costa Mesa and will sponsor related tourist events that benefit the hotel and motel businesses within the City. The specific improvements and activities to be funded by this assessment are outlined in the CMCVB's 2013-2014 Annual Report. Revenue A three percent (3%) levy will be assessed against each of the 11 hotels listed in Exhibit A, based on the net revenue from the sale of overnight room stays. Business owners shall pay the assessment to the Costa Mesa City Finance Department on a monthly basis. A penalty and interest shall be assessed on late payments. Note: New hotel and motel businesses commenced after the effective date of this resolution will be exempt from the levy of assessment. 8 Attachment 4 Bylaws of Costa Mesa Conference & Visitor Bureau A California Nonprofit Mutual Benefit Corporation ARTICLE I NAME AND PRINCIPAL OFFICE The name of the corporation is Costa Mesa Conference & Visitor Bureau ("CVB"). The principal office for the transaction of the affairs and activities of this corporation shall be located in the City of Costa Mesa. The Board of Directors may change the location of the principal office. ARTICLE II PURPOSE The purpose of this corporation shall be to promote tourism for the general benefit of businesses, hotels and motels in the City of Costa Mesa, California. ARTICLE III LIMITATIONS Section 1: Assets. This Corporation is not organized, nor shall it be operated, for pecuniary gain or profit, and it does not contemplate the distribution of gains, profits or dividends of its members and is organized solely for nonprofit purposes. No part of the profits or net income of this Corporation shall ever inure to the benefit of any Director, officer or member thereof, or to any individual. Upon the dissolution or winding up of the Corporation, after payment of, or provision for payment of, all debts and liabilities of this Corporation, the remaining assets shall be distributed to a nonprofit fund, foundation or corporation which has been formed to provide benefits or services for Costa Mesa tourism businesses and which has established its tax-exempt status under §501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code. If no such corporation as described above is in existence at the time of dissolution, then the remaining assets shall be distributed to a nonprofit fund, foundation or corporation, which has established its tax-exempt status under §501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code. Section 2: Construction. Unless the context requires otherwise, the general provisions, rules of construction, and definitions in the California Nonprofit Mutual Benefit Corporation Law shall govern the construction of these Bylaws. Without limiting the generality of the preceding sentence, the masculine gender includes feminine and neuter, the singular includes the plural, the plural includes the singular, and the term "person" includes both a legal entity and a natural person. Bylaws of Costa Mesa Conference & Visitor Bureau April 2012 ARTICLE IV MEMBERS Section 1: Definitions. This corporation shall have no members within the meaning of the California Nonprofit Corporation Law, pursuant to Corporation Code §7332(a) as may be amended or re -codified from time to time. As used herein, the term members shall refer to Directors. The Board may, in its discretion, admit individuals to one or more classes of nonvoting members; the class or classes shall have such rights and obligations as the board finds appropriate. ARTICLE V DIRECTORS Section 1: Number. The corporation shall have no less than nine (9) and no more than fifteen (15) Directors. The precise number of Directors for any given year shall be set by resolution of the board and equal to the number of businesses assessed in the Costa Mesa Tourism & Promotion Business Improvement Area (`BIA") plus two. Each Director shall have one vote. A reduction in the number of Directors shall not result in removal of any Director before his or her term of office expires. Section 2: Tenure. Each Director of the corporation shall serve for a term of five (5) years. Section 3: Criteria. The Board shall be composed as follows: A. Two Directors shall be representatives of the City of Costa Mesa: 1. One shall be a city employee designated by the city's chief executive officer; and 2. One shall be a city council member. If the council member declines the appointment, the representative shall instead be a city employee designated by the city's chief executive officer. B. The remaining directors shall be the general managers of each lodging business assessed by the BIA. C. Directors shall not be allowed to designate alternates. Section 4: Annual Election. Directors shall be elected by the Board. Election of Directors shall take place at the annual meeting of the corporation. Procedures for election of Directors shall be determined by the Board of Directors. Section 5: Powers. Subject to the provisions and limitations of the California Nonprofit Mutual Benefit Corporation law, the provisions of the BIA, and any other applicable laws, and subject to any limitations of the Articles of Incorporation and these Bylaws, the corporation's activities and affairs shall be managed, and all corporate powers shall be exercised by, or under the direction of, the Board. 2 Bylaws of Costa Mesa Conference & Visitor Bureau April 2012 Section 6: Specific Powers. Without prejudice to the general powers set forth in Article V, Section 6 of these Bylaws, but subject to the same limitations, the Board shall have the power to do the following: A. Appoint and remove, at the pleasure of the Board, all corporate officers, agents, and employees; prescribe powers and duties for them as are consistent with the law, the Articles of Incorporation, and these Bylaws; fix their compensation; and require from them security for faithful service. B. Change the principal office or the principal business office in the City of Costa Mesa from one location to another; cause the corporation to be qualified to conduct its activities in any other state, territory, dependency, or country; conduct its activities in or outside California; and designate a place in the City of Costa Mesa for holding any meeting of members. C. Borrow money and incur indebtedness on the corporation's behalf and cause to be executed and delivered for the corporation's purposes, in the corporate name, promissory notes, bonds, debentures, deeds of trust, mortgages, pledges, hypothecations, and other evidence of debt and securities. Section 7: Occurrence of Vacancies. A vacancy or vacancies on the Board shall occur in the event o£ A. The death, removal or resignation of any Director; or B. The declaration by resolution of the Board of a vacancy in the office of a Director who has been convicted of a felony, declared of unsound mind by a court order, or found by final order or judgment of any court to have breached a duty arising under Corporations Code §7238, the BIA, or other applicable laws; or C. An increase in the authorized number of Directors; or D. A Board member no longer being authorized to represent the business or City they were selected to represent; or E. The failure of an election to elect the number of Directors required to be elected in that election. Section 8: Filling Vacancies. Vacancies on the Board may be filled by approval of the Board, or if the number of Directors then in office is less than a quorum, by either: A. The unanimous written consent of the Directors then in office; or B. The affirmative vote of a majority of Directors then in office at a meeting held according to the notice provisions of these Bylaws and the Ralph M. Brown Act; or C. A sole remaining Director. Section 9: Resignation of Directors. Any Director may resign by giving written notice to the chair of the Board, if any, or to the president or the secretary of the Board. The resignation shall be effective when the notice is given unless it specifies a later time for the resignation to become effective. If a Directors' resignation is effective at a later time, the Board may elect a successor to take office as of the date when the resignation becomes effective. Section 10: Removal of Directors. Any Director may be removed, with cause, by the vote of the majority of the members of the entire Board of Directors at a special meeting called for that 3 Bylaws of Costa Mesa Conference & Visitor Bureau April 2012 purpose, or at a regular meeting, provided that notice of that meeting and of the removal question are given as provided in Article VI. Section 11: Compensation and Reimbursement. Directors shall serve as volunteers and shall not be compensated. Directors may be reimbursed for expenses, as the Board may establish by resolution to be just and reasonable to the corporation at the time that the resolution is adopted. Section 12: Advisors. The Board may, in its discretion, invite individuals to serve as Advisors to the Board. Advisors shall be invited to Board meetings in the same manner as are Directors, but shall not be Directors. ARTICLE VI MEETINGS Section 1: Annual Meeting. The annual meeting of the corporation shall be held once per year, at such time and on such date as the Board may fix from time to time. At the annual meeting, Directors shall be elected and other business may be transacted, subject to the provisions of these Bylaws. Notice of the annual meeting shall be posted at least seventy-two hours prior to the meeting in a publicly accessible location, in accordance with the requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act. Each notice shall state the general business to be transacted, and the day, time and place of the meeting. Section 2: Board of Directors Regular Meetings. The Board shall meet not less than every - other -month on dates agreed upon by the Board. Notice of regular meetings shall be posted at least seventy-two hours prior to the meeting in a publicly accessible location, in accordance with the requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act. Each such notice shall state the general business to be transacted, and the day, time and place of the meeting. Business may be transacted at any regular meeting of the Board in accordance with the requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act. Section 3: Board of Directors Special Meetings. Special meetings of the Board may be called by the Chairperson of the Board or any three Directors. Notice of special meetings shall be given to each Director stating the time, place, and business to be discussed at least twenty-four hours before the time of the meeting specified in the notice. Notice shall be delivered to the Board personally or by any other means pursuant to Government Code §54956. Notice shall also be posted at least twenty-four hours prior to the meeting in a publicly accessible location in accordance with the requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act. Section 4: Notice of Meetings. Notice of all meetings will be given in accordance with the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code §54950 et. seq. The noticing provisions in these Bylaws shall be subject to any amendments of the Ralph M. Brown Act. Section 5: Place of Meetings. All meetings of the corporation shall be held at such location in the City of Costa Mesa as may be determined by the Board. Section 6: Telephonic Appearance. Teleconferencing, as authorized by §54953 of the Ralph M. Brown Act may be used for all purposes in connection with meetings. All votes taken during a teleconferenced meeting shall be by roll call. If teleconferencing is used, the Board shall post 4 Bylaws of Costa Mesa Conference & Visitor Bureau April 2012 the agenda at all teleconference locations and conduct teleconference meetings in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties or the public appearing before the Board. Each teleconference location shall be identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting, and each teleconference location shall be accessible to the public. During the teleconference, at least a quorum of the members of the Board shall participate from locations with the boundaries of the City of Costa Mesa. The agenda shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the legislative body directly pursuant to §54954.3 at each teleconference location. Section 7: Quorum. At any meeting of the Board, a majority of the members of the Board shall constitute a quorum. If less than a quorum is present at a meeting, a majority of the Directors present may adjourn the meeting from time to time without further notice other than announcement at the meeting, until a quorum shall be present. There shall be no voting by proxies or voting by absentia. ARTICLE VII OFFICERS Section 1: Offices Held. The officers of the corporation shall be a Chairperson, a Vice President, a Secretary, a Treasurer, and such other officers as the Board may from time to time designate. All officers shall be members in good standing of the Board. Any number of offices may be held by the same person. The officers of the Corporation shall also serve on the executive committee of the corporation. Section 2: Election of Officers. The officers of this corporation shall be chosen every other year by the Board and shall serve at the pleasure of the Board, subject to the rights of any officer under any employment contract. Section 3: Term. All officers shall be elected for a term of two (2) years or until their successors are elected and qualified. Section 4: Removal of Officers. Without prejudice to the rights of any officer under an employment contract, the Board may remove any officer with or without cause. Section 5: Resignation of Officers. Any officer may resign at any time by giving written notice to the Board. The resignation shall take effect on the date the notice is received or at any later time specified in the notice. Unless otherwise specified in the notice, the resignation need not be accepted to be effective. Any resignation shall be without prejudice to any rights of the corporation under any contract to which the officer is a party. Section 6: Vacancies in Office. A vacancy in any office because of death, resignation, removal, disqualification, or any other cause shall be filled in the manner prescribed by these Bylaws for normal appointments to that office. However, vacancies need not be filled on an annual basis. Section 7: Responsibilities of Chairperson. The Chairperson shall preside at all meetings and have such other powers and duties as the Board or these Bylaws may require. 5 Bylaws of Costa Mesa Conference & Visitor Bureau April 2012 Section 8: Responsibilities of Vice President. The Vice President shall assume the duties of the Chairperson in his or her absence and shall have such other powers and duties as the Board or these Bylaws may require. Section 8: Responsibilities of Secretary. The Secretary of the corporation shall have the following responsibilities: A. The Secretary shall keep or cause to be kept, at the corporation's principal office or such other place as the Board may direct, a book of minutes of all meetings, proceedings, and actions of the Board, of committees of the Board, and of any members' meetings. The minutes of meetings shall include the time and place that the meeting was held; whether the meeting was annual, general, or special, and if special, how authorized; the notice given; and the names of persons present at Board and committee meetings. B. The Secretary shall keep or cause to be kept, at the corporation's principal office, a copy of the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws, as amended to date. C. The Secretary shall keep or cause to be kept, at the corporation's principal office or at a place determined by resolution of the Board, a record of the corporation's members, showing each member's name, address, business represented, and class of membership. D. The Secretary shall give, or cause to be given, notice of all meetings that these Bylaws require to be given. The Secretary shall keep the corporate seal, if any, in safe custody and shall have such other powers and perform such other duties as the Board or the Bylaws may require. E. The Secretary shall maintain, or cause to be maintained, the corporation's records in accordance with the requirements of the California Public Records Act, Government Code §6250 et seq. Section 9: Responsibilities of Treasurer. The Treasurer of the corporation shall have the following responsibilities: A. The Treasurer shall keep and maintain, or cause to be kept and maintained, adequate and correct books and accounts of the corporation's properties and transactions. The Treasurer shall send or cause to be given to the Directors such financial statements and reports as are required to be given by law, by these Bylaws, by the BIA, or by the Board. The books of account shall be open to inspection by any Director at all reasonable times. B. The Treasurer shall deposit, or cause to be deposited, all money and other valuables in the name and to the credit of the corporation with such depositories as the Board may designate; shall disburse the corporation's funds as the Board may order; shall render to the President and the Board, when requested, an account of all transactions as Treasurer and of the financial condition of the corporation; and have such other powers and perform such other duties as the Board or these Bylaws may require. C. The Treasurer shall review monthly financial reports prepared by CVB staff. Section 10: Contracts with Directors. No Director of this corporation nor any other corporation, firm, association, or other entity in which one or more of this corporation's 6 Bylaws of Costa Mesa Conference & Visitor Bureau April 2012 Directors are Directors or have a material financial interest, shall be interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract or other transaction with this corporation unless: A. The material facts as to the transaction and such Director's interest are fully disclosed or known to the members and such contract or transaction is approved by the members in good faith, with any membership owned by any interested Director not being entitled to vote thereon; or B. The material facts regarding such Director's financial interest in such contract or transaction or regarding such common Directorship, officership, or financial interest are fully disclosed in good faith and are noted in the minutes or are known to all Board members before consideration by the Board of such contract or transaction, and such contract of transaction is authorized in good faith by a majority of the Board by a vote sufficient for that purpose without counting the vote of the interested Director. Section 11: Loans. The corporation shall not loan any money or property to, or guarantee the obligation of, any Director or officer of the corporation. The corporation may advance money to a Director or officer for reasonable business expenses, provided that the Director or officer is entitled to reimbursement. ARTICLE VIII COMMITTEES Section 1: Establishment. The Board, by resolution adopted by a majority of the Directors then in office, may create one or more committees, each consisting of two or more Directors, to serve at the pleasure of the Board. Appointments to committees of the Board shall be by majority vote of the Directors then in office. The Board may appoint one or more Directors as alternate members of such committee, who may replace any absent member at any meeting. Any such committee shall have all the authority of the Board, to the extent provided in the Board resolution, except that no committee may do the following: A. Fill vacancies on the Board or any committee of the Board; B. Fix compensation of the Directors for serving on the Board or any committee; C. Amend or repeal Bylaws or adopt new Bylaws; D. Amend or repeal any resolution of the Board that by its express terms is not so amendable or repealable; E. Create any other committees of the Board or appoint the members of committees of the Board; or F. Expend corporate funds to support a nominee for Director if more people have been nominated for Director than can be elected; or G. With respect to any assets held in charitable trust, approve any contract or transaction between this corporation and one or more of its Directors or between this corporation and an entity in which one or more of its Directors have a material financial interest, subject to the approval provisions of Corporations Code §5233(d)(3). Section 2: Executive Committee. Pursuant to Article VII of these Bylaws, the Board shall appoint two or more Directors of the corporation, including the officers, to serve as the executive committee of the Board. The executive committee, unless limited by a resolution of the Board, 7 Bylaws of Costa Mesa Conference & Visitor Bureau April 2012 shall have and may exercise all the authority of the Board in the management of the business and affairs of the corporation between meetings of the Board; provided, however, that the executive committee shall not have the authority of the Board in reference to those matters enumerated in Article VII. All actions of the executive committee shall be reported to and ratified by the Board at the next duly scheduled Board meeting. The President may call special meetings of the Executive Committee. Section 3: Meetings and Actions of Committees. Meetings and actions of committees shall be governed by, held, and taken under the provisions of these Bylaws concerning meetings and other Board actions, except that the time for general meetings of committees and calling of special meetings of committees may be set either by Board resolution, or if none, by resolution of the committee. Notice of committee meetings will be given in accordance with the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act. Minutes of each meeting shall be kept and shall be filed with the corporate records, and in accordance with the provisions of the California Public Records Act. The Board may adopt rules for governance of any committee as long as the rules are consistent with these Bylaws. If the Board has not adopted rules, the committee may do so. ARTICLE IX INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE Section 1: Indemnification. A. To the fullest extent permitted by law, this corporation shall indemnify its Directors and officers, and may indemnify employees and other persons described in the Corporations Code, including persons formerly occupying such positions, against all expenses, judgments, fines, settlements and other amounts actually and reasonably incurred by them in connection with any "proceeding," as that term is used in the Corporations Code, and including an action by or in the right of the corporation, by reason of the fact that the person is or was a person described in the Corporations Code. "Expenses," as used in these Bylaws, shall have the same meaning as in the Corporations Code. B. On written request to the Board by any person seeking indemnification under the Corporations Code, the Board shall promptly decide under that code whether the applicable standard of conduct set forth has been met, and if so the Board shall authorize indemnification. C. To the fullest extent permitted by law and except as otherwise determined by the Board in a specific instance, expenses incurred by a person seeking indemnification under these Bylaws in defending any proceeding covered by these Bylaws shall be advanced by the corporation before final disposition of the proceeding, on receipt by the corporation of an undertaking by or on behalf of that person that the advance will be repaid unless it is ultimately found that the person is entitled to be indemnified by the corporation for those expenses. Section 2: Insurance. This corporation shall have the right, and shall use its best efforts, to purchase and maintain insurance to the full extent permitted by law on behalf of its officers, Directors, employees and other agents, to cover any liability asserted against or incurred by any 8 Bylaws of Costa Mesa Conference & Visitor Bureau April 2012 officer, Director, employee, or agent in such capacity or arising from the officer's, Director's, employee's, or agent's status as such. ARTICLE X RECORDS Section 1: Maintenance. This corporation shall keep all of the following records, either in written form or in any other form capable of being converted into clearly legible tangible form or in any combination of the two: A. Adequate and correct books and records of account; B. Minutes of the proceedings of its members, Board and committees; and C. A record of each member's name, address, and class of membership. Section 2: Inspection by Directors. Every Director shall have the absolute right, at any reasonable time, to inspect the corporation's books, records, and documents of every kind, and to inspect the physical properties of the corporation. The inspection may be made in person or by the Director's agent or attorney. The right of inspection includes the right to copy and make extracts of books, records, and documents of every kind. Section 3: Articles and Bylaws. This corporation shall keep, at its principal office, the original or a copy of the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws, as amended to the current date, that shall be open to inspection at all reasonable times during office hours. Section 4: Annual Reports. The Secretary of the corporation shall prepare and submit, or cause to be prepared and submitted, the following annual reports. The Secretary shall keep, or cause to be kept, copies of all annual reports with the corporation's records. The two annual reports may be combined into one all-inclusive document. A. BIA Annual Report. The BIA annual report will be prepared and submitted in accordance with the provisions of Streets and Highways Code §36533. B. CVB Annual Report. The CVB annual report shall be prepared within 120 days after the end of the corporation's fiscal year. This section shall not apply if the corporation receives less than $10,000 in gross revenues or receipts during the fiscal year. The report shall contain the following information in appropriate detail: 1. A balance sheet as of the end of the fiscal year, an income statement, and statement of cashflows for the fiscal year, accompanied by an independent accountant's report, or if none, by the certificate of an authorized officer of the corporation that they were prepared without audit from the corporation's books and records; 2. A statement of the place where the names and addresses of current members are located; and 3. Any other information required by these Bylaws or the Board. Section 5: Annual Statement. As part of the annual report to all members, or as a separate document if no annual report is issued, the corporation shall annually prepare and mail, deliver or send by electronic transmission to its Directors a statement of any transaction or 9 Bylaws of Costa Mesa Conference & Visitor Bureau April 2012 indemnification of the kinds in subparagraph B below within 120 days after the end of the corporation's fiscal year. A. The statement shall include: 1. A brief description of the transaction; 2. The names of interested persons involved and their relationship to the corporation; 3. The nature of interested persons in the transaction; 4. The amount of the interested persons' interest, except that in a partnership in which such person is a partner, only the partnership interest need be stated. B. Transactions included in the statement shall be those transactions: 1. To which the corporation or its subsidiary was a party; 2. Which involved more than $50,000 or was one of a number of such transactions with the same person involving, in the aggregate, more than $50,000; and 3. In which either of the following interested persons had a direct or indirect material financial interested (a mere common Directorship is not a material financial interest): a. Any Director or officer of the corporation; b. Any holder of more than 10 percent of the voting power of the corporation. ARTICLE XI OPERATIONS AND ADMINISTRATION Section 1: Fiscal Year. The fiscal year of the corporation shall begin on July 1 and end on June 30 of each year. Section 2: President. The Board shall employ a President of the corporation. The President shall: A. Serve as the executive officer of the corporation; B. Be charged with the general supervision and management of the corporation's affairs and staff; C. Advise the Board of Directors; D. Attend all meetings of the Board and executive committee; E. Serve as an ex-officio member of all committees; F. Have the authority to counter -sign checks; and G. Act as the corporation's agent for service of process. Section 3: Funds. All funds of the corporation shall be deposited in such banks, trust companies, or other reliable depositories as the Board from time to time may determine. All checks, drafts, endorsements, notes and evidence of indebtedness of the corporation shall be signed by such officers or agents of the corporation and in such manner as the Board may determine from time to time. Endorsements for deposits to the credit of the corporation shall be made in such manner as the Board may determine from time to time. 10 Bylaws of Costa Mesa Conference & Visitor Bureau April 2012 Section 4: Contracts. The Chairperson, President or any other officer or agent specifically authorized by the Board may, in the name of and on behalf of the corporation, enter into those contracts or execute and deliver those instruments that are specifically authorized by the Board. Without the express and specific authorization of the Board, no officer or agent may enter into any contract or execution or deliver any instrument in the name of or on behalf of the corporation. Section 5: Brown Act Compliance. To the extent that Government Code §54952(c) shall require the corporation to be subject to the open meeting requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act, then the Board will comply with the provisions of Government Code §54950 through and including §54961. To the extent that any provisions of these Bylaws are inconsistent with the Ralph M. Brown Act, the provisions of said Act shall prevail. In the event the corporation does not meet the requirements of Government Code §54952(c), then the Board will not endeavor to meet the requirements of the Brown Act. ARTICLE XII AMENDMENT Except as otherwise provided herein, and subject to the power of Directors to amend or repeal the Bylaws, these Bylaws may be altered, amended or repealed and new Bylaws may be adopted by an affirmative vote of a majority of the Directors present at any regular or special meeting, a quorum being assembled, provided that written notice of such meeting, setting forth in detail the proposed revision(s) and explanation(s) therefore, be given not less than 7 days prior to such meeting. CERTIFICATE OF SECRETARY I, Robert Spoto, certify as follows: 1. I am the duly elected and acting Secretary of Costa Mesa Conference & Visitor Bureau, a California Nonprofit Mutual Benefit Corporation; 2. That these Bylaws, consisting of I I pages, inclusive, are the Bylaws of the corporation as adopted by the Board of Directors on 2012; 3. That these Bylaws have not been amended or modified since that date. Robert Spoto, Secretary 11 Bylaws of Costa Mesa Conference & Visitor Bureau April 2012 Attachment 5 2015-16 Community -Wide Marketing and Support Budget The events and programs below support the goals of bringing tourism to the community and increasing room night stays at local hotels: Community Sponsored Sister -City Program $ 20,000 Summer Concerts in the Park Support $ 10,000 Costa Mesa Community Run Support $ 10,000 Community Support for Regional Holiday Event (Snoopy House) $ 25,000 Community Give -Away Memorabilia (bags, cups, etc) $ 25,000 Community Apparel (1953 Shirts, hats, etc) $ 30,000 Advertising for Regional Special Events $ 5,000 International Conference of Shopping Center Booth - Marketing and Branding to Potential New Businesses $ 10,000 Mayor's Celebration Sponsorship $ 10,000 Community Promotional Materials (postcards, maps, stickers, etc) $ 19,000 Total $ 164,000