Costa Mesa City Council
May 7, 2024

From: Priscilla Rocco
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Illogical and Contradictory Actions
Date: Tuesday, May 7, 2024 12:02:00 PM
City Council,
I find it illogical that the city council will pay almost $95, 000 for a year of restoration and monitoring services for Fairview Park's precious vernal pools, while simultaneously allowing plane hobbyist - who are headquartered out of the city and who fly in numerous other venues - to destroy the watershed of the same vernal pools.

President Biden just added two more national monuments in California in an effort to restore 30% of water and land by 2030. Governor Newsome has also signed a 30x30 executive order. Both with special focus on restoring Native American lands. Our city council, however, continues to turn a blind eye to the destruction of habitat and Native American artifacts on the 208 acres of Fairview Nature Park caused by e-bikes, motorcycles, dirt bikes, radio controlled vehicles, vandals, and of course plane hobbyists.

The Fairview Park Master Plan (FPMP) is being updated. It includes aerial photographs from 1927 to the present, showing the damage done to the vernal pool watershed by airplane hobbyists. In the past you have ignored all the scientists and experts from the State and Federal government, scientists you've hired, the Fairview Park Steering Committee you appointed, your own park administrators, and the 800+ members and experts from Fairview Park Alliance for a small out of town group.

Now we have a new FPMP documenting all of the damage done, with a plan for restoration. This year fully support the plan for restoration. Abide by the executive orders of the President and Governor and fully fund and staff the Fairview Park Administrator so he can restore Costa Mesa's natural treasure.

Thank you,
Priscilla Rocco
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

From: Mike Hannegan
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: April 7th : Importance of Proper Signage for Cannabis Dispensaries Date: Tuesday, May 7, 2024 10:56:49 AM
Attachments: SG_MONUMENT_SIGN_V1.png
SG_MONUMENT_SIGN_V2.png
Hello Clerk,
Can you please add this to tonights agenda.

Thank you,
Mike Hannegan
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing to emphasize the significant benefits of implementing proper signage for cannabis dispensaries within our city. As our community navigates the evolving landscape of cannabis legalization, it is crucial to prioritize clear and identifiable signage for these establishments.

Proper signage serves multiple important purposes:

1. Public Safety: Clear signage helps residents and visitors easily identify licensed cannabis dispensaries, reducing confusion and potential risks associated with accessing unregulated or unauthorized sources.

2. Accessibility: Well-designed signage ensures that individuals seeking medicinal or recreational cannabis products can easily locate dispensaries, promoting accessibility to those who rely on these products for health reasons.

3. Regulatory Compliance: By establishing standards for signage, the city can ensure that dispensaries comply with regulations regarding size, placement, and content. This fosters a responsible and transparent cannabis industry that aligns with local laws and guidelines.

4. Community Integration: Thoughtfully designed signage contributes to the integration of cannabis dispensaries into the fabric of our community, dispelling stigma and promoting acceptance of legal cannabis businesses as legitimate contributors to our local economy.

5. Economic Growth: A welcoming and identifiable presence through proper signage can attract customers to dispensaries, thereby supporting the growth of the legal cannabis market within our city. This, in turn, can generate revenue, create jobs, and stimulate economic development
In conclusion, I urge the City Council to recognize the importance of establishing clear guidelines for signage at cannabis dispensaries. By doing so, we can enhance public safety, improve accessibility, ensure regulatory compliance, foster community integration, and promote economic growth. I have attached two renderings of what signage could look like at the Secret Garden retail location.

Thank you for considering this matter and for your continued dedication to the well-being of our community.

Sincerely,
Mike Hannegan
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

From: Keith J Scott
To: CITY CLERK
Cc: HALLIGAN, MICHELLE
Subject: Newport Wellness - 2490 Harbor Blvd - City Council Review Date: Monday, May 6, 2024 12:49:01 PM
Attachments: DON D. LETTER Residnet #2.pdf
Support Letters neighboorhood.pdf
Resident Letter #1.pdf
Hello City Council,

Enclosed, please find letters of support gathered from our neighborhood during our outreach efforts. These include two letters from residential tenants who are the most affected by the project, along with 25 signatures obtained through door-to-door collection from residents within 500 radius.

All the best
Keith Scott (owner/applicant)
Newport Wellness
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

Item: Retail Cannabis Store
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
My name is Don Domingue. I am in complete understanding of the likelihood of a retail cannabis store becoming the new tenants of the nearly vacant space at this corner.

I live at a residence located right next to and behind the businesses located at 2490 Newport Boulevard and Monte Vista Ave.

I have resided here for over 21 years now. I made the choice many years ago, knowing it was next to commercial property and have never had any issues. I have become accustomed to my business neighbors, their operations, traffic patterns and the workers. It has really become almost no different than having residential neighbors. We have spent many years, sharing not only the same driveway, but a communal way of everyone looking out for the property each day and even after hours.

Throughout the years, there have been incidents and police called for various reasons. Ranging from theft, abandoned vehicles, unstable individuals trespassing, illegal drug use and even a burglary during the daytime. I think having a secure, guarded business operating at this address will be a huge deterrent from many undesirable scenarios which are continuously troublesome along this stretch of Newport Boulevard. A nicer looking, well ran business with security cameras and properly lit parking can only make the surrounding area much safer. Although I am not a cannabis customer, aside from whatever can be sold inside, I don’t feel like this business model will become disruptive or attract anything much different than that of a regular retail store. I feel it is very different then the nearby smoke shops or liquor stores located in outdated strip centers.

I have seen the design proposals and I am happy to learn of the building and sidewalk improvements and upgrades which this new retail business would bring.

I do appreciate that the property owner and new cannabis store owners will allow me to continue to live here in a place that I have enjoyed residing in.

The store owners have a good plan and have assured myself and other neighbors of their strong intent to be good next-door neighbors to our community. They have held open house meetings at the location recently where they personally have answered mine and other residents of the neighborhoods concerns. With range from everything about security plans, odor control, lighting, loitering, trash and about anything else one can question.

I am not concerned about parking issues, as I feel these types of business do not bring large crowds at any one time and they are providing ample spaces for their customers and their customer base only. Street parking is seldom an issue on Monte Vista Ave. Yet, I do see Laurel Pointe townhome residents and their guests continue to park in posted ‘no parking’ spaces for the businesses outside the gates of their community. Why is there not enough open parking for them within their gates?
Please vote to allow this retail cannabis establishment. This location has been in disrepair and in much need of an updated operation with security detail for a very long time. I feel that with the adherence of our cities regulations and cooperation of the parties affected. This business will integrate itself into a part of the community.

Thank You,

Don Domingue

From: Melody Jen
To: CITY CLERK
Cc: MARR, ANDREA; HARPER, DON; REYNOLDS, ARLIS
Subject: City Council Meeting - May 7 - Opposition to PA-22-08 Date: Monday, May 6, 2024 12:23:19 PM
Attachments: image.png

Hi All,

I am emailing about the Planning Application 22-08 for the Cannabis store at 2490 Newport Boulevard. I am in opposition
of the storefront opening, and I hope the City Council Members will consider my concern as well as the other citizens’ concerns when you are making your decision.

My concerns are grounded in several areas:
· Proximity to residential homes and safety of families/children – the proposed cannabis storefront is directly across my Community and directly adjacent to residential homes. This proximity to resident homes exposes children and young kids to cannabis. Our City has a regulation of 600 feet from youth centers, but our neighborhood is roughly 100-200 feet away. Children and young kids can easily walk over and observe what goes on at this store. ·
Increased customers with limited street parking – the proposed cannabis storefront is at the corner of a busy street. There will be increased customers, and we already have limited parking. The cannabis storefront has plans for some parking on site, but how will the business control people who park on the street to go to the store? Also, our Community is in between motels and the cannabis storefront, how will the cannabis storefront control how customers use their product? The business has plans for security on site and denies customers from using their product on site, but what will happen if customers steps off site to use their product, will the business do anything then? (Reminder that our Community is directly across the street) There are many unknown variables that could have negative impacts on our Community.
· Increased lighting, smell, and noise pollution – the proposed cannabis storefront has increased lighting as a safety measure but could potentially have a negative impact on surrounding residential homes. It’s unclear what the business hours will be so neighbors could be disrupted from morning to night from increased customers causing noises and increased smell of cannabis products. · Decrease in property value – the proposed cannabis storefront, owing to its nature of business, is feared to potentially impact the property values in our neighborhood adversely. Homeowners are deeply concerned that being in close proximity to a cannabis business could deter potential buyers in the future, thus affecting the investment many of us have made in our homes. This concern is not unfounded as studies and precedents in various communities have shown that the presence of such businesses can have a stigmatizing effect on residential areas ·
Oversaturation of cannabis business in Costa Mesa – in the Planning Committee on March 25, the Cannabis consultant to the City of Costa Mesa stated the optimal ratio for the City to benefit from cannabis revenue is 10 storefronts for every 100K people. Costa Mesa's population is 110K people, and we are currently over 10 storefronts, meaning we are almost doubled the optimal ratio. This can be interpreted as an oversaturation and the cannabis business is not a unique business anymore. I’ve also included an image below of how close the cannabis storefront is to our Community, and all the other cannabis storefronts in Costa Mesa.

Map is of the Costa Mesa business/industrial sites and I layered in the Cannabis stores currently open+proposed business:

I acknowledge that cannabis businesses are legal and part of a broader economic ecosystem. However, considering the residential nature of our community and the concerns outlined above, I sincerely request that the City Council to deny this this cannabis business.

Thank you for your attention on this matter and for your ongoing commitment to the welfare of our City’s communities. I look forward to your understanding and support on this issue.

Sincerely,
Melody

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

From: Erick Ambat
To: CITY CLERK
Cc: Cyndie
Subject: Cannabis storefront 2490 Newport Boulevard.

Date: Tuesday, May 7, 2024 11:07:27 AM
Attachments: favicon1.png
Council members,
As a resident of Costa Mesa who lives in the community directly next to the proposed site, I am formally asking you to deny this permit. We have two teenage kids who frequently ride their bikes and walk in this area, as well as the numerous families and children in our neighborhood and the adjoining neighborhoods. We do not need another cannabis shop as there are numerous already within a short distance in the area. I believe allowing 35 permits is ridiculous and way too many. As a growing family community, Costa Mesa would be better served with more family oriented stores and businesses that would cater to the community that actually lives here, and not to the random strangers that are looking to buy cannabis. Please reconsider this permit as it is greatly unnecessary and potentially bad for not only our community near the site, but for Costa Mesa in general.

Thank you
Erick Ambat
Eastside Costa Mesa resident
Do marijuana dispensaries increase
neighborhood crime? - CU Denver News
news.ucdenver.edu
Cannabis and the Violent Crime Surge
nlm.nih.gov
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

From: LAURA REYNOLDS
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Application PA-22-08
Date: Saturday, May 4, 2024 12:23:09 PM
Sent from my iPad Hello.I am a long time Costa Mesa resident at the Laurel Point Townhomes.I am reaching out to ask you, my City Council ,to DENY the Conditional Use Permit regarding Planning Application 22-08. The proposed business at 2499 Newport Blvd is 35 steps from my home of 39 years. As a healthcare provider I have zero problems with good health and well being. And I have no objections to the use of cannabis. The site under review is NOT conducive to anymore traffic or congestion. I also feel that the parking is limited and unsafe. The speeding on the boulevard is at an all time high. I have witnessed many near misses of cars making fast and wide right turns into oncoming slowing traffic. I’ve lived here through the extension of the 55 freeway. Knowing that the construction would improve the Eastside neighborhoods property values and quality of life the construction was bearable. I do NOT see the proposed business improving value or quality of life. PLEASE reconsider another site not so very close to our community and the young new families and small children. Thank you for your time. Sincerely ,Laura Reynolds
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

From: CYNDIE KAM
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Opposition to proposed cannabis dispensary at 2490 Newport Blvd Date: Tuesday, May 7, 2024 11:42:24 AM
To whom it may concern,
I would like it to be noted that I continue to oppose the allowance of a cannabis dispensary at 2490 Newport Blvd in Costa Mesa.

We are parents and live in the gated townhome community on Monte Vista (Laurel Point Townhomes) right across the proposed location where this planned shop intends on opening up. There are many families living in here with children. Why would this shop be allowed to open up on the corner that opens into a residential neighborhood? Why not a business that would benefit the whole community instead (small restaurant/food store/ice cream shop).

These are the areas of concern for our family and many other families in the area: 1. Costa Mesa is already saturated with cannabis dispensaries. They are everywhere now. Why do we need yet another one? 2. The proximity of the proposed cannabis dispensary to our home and others, the neighborhood, parks, and schools (all found within our Eastside Costa Mesa neighborhood). Cannabis dispensaries have no place at the entrance to our neighborhood. It will literally be located right across from one of our exit gates (I've attached photos to show this). We don't want our kids exposed to this. 3. Safety. Let's be honest. Since there are only 3 cities in the county that allow for dispensaries, people are coming in from all areas where they are not permitted. I doubt that the majority of people who will shop here will be from Costa Mesa. We are already dealing with so much crime in this area (package theft, car break-ins, drug use, home break-ins, bike theft). I feel that this could potentially invite more. 4. Drug exposure.

Yes, cannabis is legal, but I fear people will make their purchases, then light up in our neighborhood. 5.

Traffic and safety. Increased traffic, particularly during school hours, combined with concern #4, with the potential of patrons driving while high. Also, he building there currently is very small, and has a very small parking lot. It's a highly specialized business, and doesn't get much traffic.

There is no need for yet another cannabis dispensary in Costa Mesa, and we certainly don't want one opening up right across from our home.

Thank you,
Cyndie Kam
16 year resident and concerned mother of 2 teens
105 Aspen Lane
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

From: Cynthia McDonald
To: REYNOLDS, ARLIS; CHAVEZ, MANUEL; Andrea Marr; STEPHENS, JOHN; HARPER, DON; HARLAN, JEFFREY; GAMEROS, LOREN Cc: CITY CLERK
Subject: Public Hearing Item 2, General Plan Amendment to Amend 2015-2035 General Plan Circulation Element (Draft Pedestrian Master Plan) Date: Tuesday, May 7, 2024 10:40:29 AM
Attachments: Work Plan 110718.pdf
SCAG O._20-030_Pedestrian Master Plan scope of work.pdf SCAG PMP RFP with SOW.pdf
Bullet Points re PMP.pdf
Dear City Councilmembers,
While the length of the draft Pedestrian Master Plan (PMP) may be impressive, the document is deficient in many ways. This is a particularly important document as it provides the nexus needed to acquire grant funding for the projects anticipated by the PMP. However, it is simply not ready to be called a “Master Plan. It only covers a fraction of the entire city and lacks many components, studies, and projects to make it the Master Plan, a task that was given to the ATC and included in the ATC workplan, which workplan was not followed by Staff.

I have attached a bullet list of the issues I ask you to consider. The following are detailed explanations of some of those issues:

Work Plan Was Not Followed
. This project was an important task that was given to the then Bikeway and Walkability Committee (BWC) when it was formed in 2015. Katrina Foley specifically instructed that the committee focus on two things: the first was a plan for bikeways in Costa Mesa (this task evolved into the Active Transportation Plan (ATP)), and the second was the PMP, a document that was expected to be as comprehensive as the ATP. Once the ATP was completed and adopted by the City Council in 2018, the Work Plan for the BWC was revised to focus entirely on the PMP. The revised Work Plan is attached. The BWC continued to work on other projects while Staff attempted to find funding for the PMP.

It was the original intent of Ms. Foley and City to have the BWC do most of the work on the PMP with the help of City Staff and consultants. The Work Plan certainly reflects that fact. However, when grant money from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) became available, the City shifted the approach to one where a consultant would do the work, with a little assistance from the ATC, mostly in the form of walk audits. This meant the BWC, now the Active Transportation Committee (ATC), was not allowed to participate in much of the drafting of the PMP.

Scope of Work Changed
. The City Council approved the contract with SCAG and its consultant to partner in this project, including a scope of work (SOW) prepared by SCAG. Since SCAG controlled the majority of the funds (although the City contributed funding as well), the contract’s SOW was controlled by SCAG.

When the bids originating from the RFP did not match the amount of money SCAG was willing to pay, the SOW was reduced. The City Council never approved the revised SOW, and the ATC was not fully apprised of the changes until the first draft of the PMP was presented to it.

Even with a reduced SOW, the current work product does not follow the revised SOW. For instance, there is no specific plan or suggested projects to create regional connections. Despite some good programs in the PMP, there are no specific recommendations for speed reductions or road diets, which are simple solutions used by many cities to reduce deaths and injuries.

I have attached the original SOW that was used for the RFP (approved by the City Council) and the revised SOW.

Recommendations
. I am concerned about the use of “Recommendations” versus “Policies” because there is no assurance that the recommendations will be carried out or enforced. Policies provide a promise that these items will be acted upon when the opportunity arises. Also, knowing that grant applications often look for a nexus to the request, the term “Policies” is more acceptable. This is one of the reasons why the some of the Recommendations were changed to Policies upon the adoption of the General Plan Amendment that incorporated certain goals, policies, objectives, and recommendations of Active Transportation Plan (ATP) into the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Now we see Staff making more substitutions of the word “Recommendation” with “Policy.” That tells me that the use of the word “Recommendation” is not endorsed and the PMP should only contain Goals, Policies, and Objectives.

It is important to note that the only place that the term “Recommendation” occurs in the General Plan is only in the Circulation Element, and only then is it used in the context of active transportation. This was due to a prior City Council’s desire to limit the requirements imposed on developers of new projects but has created problems with accomplishing the goal of complete streets. In addition, I have never seen another city’s General Plan documents use the term “recommendation.” Only Covers a Fraction of the City. It was never the intent that a PMP cover every street in Costa Mesa. It was the intent, however, that the areas of attention be the corridors with the most pedestrian activity. Missing from the list of pedestrian opportunity zones that are the focus of the PMP is a list of important corridors and streets. The list includes Baker Street, Fairview Road, Adams Avenue, Wilson Street, Victoria Avenue, Harbor Boulevard North of the 405 Freeway, Placentia Avenue, Pomona Street, Newport Boulevard, Fair Drive, Del Mar Avenue, Santa Ana Avenue, 22nd Street and Irvine. The PMP indicates that these streets can be considered/addressed in the future as plans are developed, but this means that the PMP only covers a fraction of the city and is incomplete.

Study areas/pedestrian opportunity zones north of the 405 Freeway did not receive a walk audit review. They were left out of the PMP to focus on other areas that needed to be included, specifically Baker Street and Fairview Road north of Baker Street.

Since the passage of the federal Infrastructure and Jobs Act of 2021, funds are available that could be used to expand and improve the document, in particular the South Coast Metro area that is heavily used by pedestrians (and is next to Santa Ana’s Metro area with new projects focused on active transportation) and the Safe Routes to School (SRS).

Regional Connections. There is still no specific plan or suggested projects to create regional connections. Specifically, the project area for North Harbor Boulevard stops at the 405 Freeway, South of the City’s border with Santa Ana. While some mention is made of the intersection of Gisler and Harbor, the area at the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and the 405 Freeway, which has been problematic for pedestrians and needs safety enhancements, gets no recommendation. The PMP is deficient in that it does not address this problem, despite being a study area. The City needs to work with CalTrans/OCTA on resolving the issues under the freeway bridge and the surrounding intersections.

Speed Reductions
. Nowhere in the PMP is there a recommendation to reduce speed limits on streets where there are the most crashes. This is a simple solution that many cities are using to reduce deaths and injuries. The second highest number of citations given by the police to motorists were for unsafe speeds for prevailing conditions (highest was texting while driving). Also, road diets are in a group with the most requested items, but there is no specific recommendation for use of that tool in any of the Infrastructure Projects (I do note a general reference on page 81). While this may be due to the limited SOW, this is another deficiency in the plan.

Demographics and Equity. A prior draft of the PMP discussed demographics of the residents of Costa Mesa. The elimination of race demographics means that the document completely ignores one of the largest problems with pedestrian plans. According to Smart Growth America, walkers who are non-White, elderly, and traveling through low-income communities are disproportionately more likely to be killed by drivers. Again, the PMP is deficient in that it does not recognize this problem and does not consider it when recommending prioritization of the recommended projects. Further, this creates a deficiency in the document because it does not discuss or address issues of equity or adopt environmental justice policies as required by SB 1000. There is a mention in Section 7.2 of prioritization with need and equity being the criteria. If the areas where equity is an issue are not identified, then there can be no method of prioritizing the projects in those areas.

Safe Routes to School (SRS)
. The pedestrian activity count survey shows that the streets with the highest activity were at school sites occurring the start and end of the school day. This information shows the need to prioritize pedestrian improvements in the areas near schools. However, while attention was given to OCTA bus routes and stops, no consideration is given to NMUSD school bus routes and stops. Our SRS have not been updated in many years, perhaps since their adoption. The Safe Routes Subcommittee of the Active Transportation Committee made recommendations to Staff about improving the infrastructure of the existing routes, but the SRS should be expanded to include intermediate and high schools. In addition, the maps for the SRS should be included in the PMP, as other cities have done in their plans. Without inclusion of the SRS and any attention to school bus routes and stops, the document is deficient because it does not address a major pedestrian concern, vulnerable persons. Children, once they leave buses, become pedestrians and are the most vulnerable people. While I note that the current budget documents indicate funding for an update of the SRS, the PMP needs to be revised to include data, consideration of issues, and proposed solutions.

Missing Fact Sheets and Report Recommendations. There no Fact Sheets for Bristol Street (which needs a multitude of improvements, including sidewalks at South Coast Plaza, street furniture, pedestrian refuge islands, high visibility crosswalks, etc.), Fairview Road (needs refuge islands, removal of poles and utility boxes that block access to sidewalks, etc., and other improvements near Fairgrounds, High School and Athletic Fields), Adams Avenue (subject of proposed bicycle facilities, but needs pedestrian improvements such as trees and street furniture), Newport Boulevard, and 17th Street. The missing information is critical because the cost estimate for the projects is incorrect without those projects. This is a major deficiency, and the PMP needs to be revised to include them. In addition, if a project is not in the PMP, it is less likely to receive grant funding.

Some of the recommendations of the Berkeley SafeTREC Complete Streets Safety Report and the Local Road Safety Plan are in the PMP, but more need to be incorporated.

Vision. While there is a section for “Purpose” in the beginning of the PMP, it does not set forth what is to be accomplished by the plan. In Chapter 5, Section 5.4, General Traffic Behavior and Other Concerns, Other Concerns Heard From the Community Engagement Effort subsection, there is the statement in the second paragraph “It is generally more successful to increase the separation between pedestrians and motor vehicles, provide buffers to add to the separation, ensure that convenient crossing locations are available to meet walking needs, and improve overall conditions for walking.” [emphasis added] This is possibly the most important statement in the document, yet it is buried on page 82. There needs to be a Vision added to the PMP and this statement needs to be a part of it.

Passive Wording. Throughout the document there is the use of passive wording. For example, instead of “require,” the words “study” and “encourage” are used, which weakens the document and the nexus needed to quality for grants.

Public Outreach. Little public outreach has been done on this draft of the document as the meetings were virtual due to the pandemic. There were often fewer than ten members of the public participating in meetings and then many of those were members of the ATC. I suspect that the “551 unique community member comments” are mostly comprised of lengthy comment memos I wrote to Staff and the consultant.

When the ATP was going through the final approval process, meetings were held with the public by BWC to obtain the public’s comments prior to the vote of approval of the ATP by the BWC. One meeting for the ATP had so many participants it was moved to the Council Chambers. While it may not have been intentional to exclude the public from the process, the City needs to do better in terms of outreach and transparency on the PMP.

Vision Zero
. The PMP and the ATP are important documents that will lead to the buildout of safer infrastructure in Costa Mesa, but the most critical step is the City Council’s adoption of a Vision Zero policy. Without that policy, I am concerned that this plan will just gather dust on the shelf.

Costa Mesa needs and deserves a better PMP than this. When comparing this PMP with other cities' plans, such as Long Beach (see https://www.longbeach.gov/globalassets/lbcd/media-library/documents/orphans/cx3/chapter-1- introduction#:~:text=The%20CX3%20Pedestrian%20Master%20Plan%20is%20intended%20to%20guide%20the,practices%20and%20the%20community's%20voice. ) and Glendale (see https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/67588/637932141006000000 and https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/67590/637932141021770000 ), it is easy to see the extent that Costa Mesa's draft PMP is incomplete.

I ask that you take no action on the PMP as currently drafted and return it to the ATC and Staff for enhancement, including completing the work in the SOW. The PMP needs to include all of Costa Mesa, not just the few corridors that SCAG designated. Revision of the PMP should be fully funded to cover the entire city with a comprehensive survey and proposals. As it is, the document is deficient and is by no means ready to be incorporated into the General Plan, particularly if it is one of the four allowed amendments for this year.

Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Cynthia McDonald
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

Bikeway and Walkability Committee
The mission of this committee is to:
 Focus on the review and update of the City's Master Plan of Bikeways and improvements to be made to bikeways in the City; and
 Evaluate the bikeability and walkability of our City in order to make recommendations for improvement to the City Council.

Draft Work Plan, 11-7-18
Objective: Provide input to a new Pedestrian Master Plan. This will be incorporated in the City's General Plan.

Activity Schedule Description Responsible Parties Recommended Action Identify Pedestrian
Facilities Goals and
Objectives
November
2018 to
February
2019
Provide input to goals and
objectives for pedestrian
facilities.

City to provide
background information
from General Plan.

Committee members to
participate in discussion.

Review goals and objectives for
pedestrian facilities in General
Plan and update as needed.

Grant / Funding
Support
November
2018 to
October
2019
Identify grant opportunities
and other forms of funding the
development of a Pedestrian
Master Plan. Prepare grant
applications.

City staff and committee
members to identify
opportunities.

City staff to submit grant
applications. Committee
members to assist in
review and letters of
support.

Submit grant and funding
applications for development of
a pedestrian master plan.

Develop Pedestrian
Master Plan

FY 2020

Provide input to a new
pedestrian master plan for
inclusion in General Plan.

Staff and Committee
members to discuss.

Develop a plan for presentation
to City Council and inclusion in
General Plan.

Objective: Ongoing review of bicycle and pedestrian issues.

Activity Schedule Description Responsible Parties Recommended Action Review bicycle and
pedestrian issues
Ongoing Provide input to address
bicycle and pedestrian
issues.

Committee members to
participate in discussion.

Develop measures to address
ongoing issues with bicycle and
pedestrian facilities.

Bicycle and
Pedestrian Facilities
Grant Support
Ongoing Provide input and
support to grant
applications for
improving bicycle and
pedestrian facilities.

Staff to prepare
applications.

Committee members to
discuss and provide support.

Submit grant applications for
improvements to bicycle and
pedestrian facilities in accordance
with adopted General Plan.

Walk Audits Ongoing Identify locations for
walk audits and conduct
walk audits.

Committee members to
participate and conduct
walk audits.

City staff to summarize walk
audit information.

Develop walk audit information for
input into review of pedestrian
issues and into a pedestrian master
plan.

Awards /
Certification Levels
Ongoing Identify awards /
certification levels to
apply for as outlined in
the Active
Transportation Plan.

Identify any activities or
other measures needed.

Ped/Bike safety award?
Committee members and
staff to prepare award
applications.

Submit award / certification
applications.

Walk to School Annually in
October
Coordinate walk to
school events at
elementary schools
City staff to coordinate with
schools, NMUSD, and City
PD.

Committee members to
assist in outreach and walk
to school event.

Coordinate Walk to School event
with Costa Mesa elementary
schools.

Bike to School Annually in
May
Coordinate bike to
school events at
elementary schools
City staff to coordinate with
schools, NMUSD, and City
PD.

Committee members to
assist in outreach and walk
to school event.

Coordinate Bike to School event
with Costa Mesa elementary
schools.

1 PMP Issues
• Did not follow Work Plan
o Committee was supposed to identify the goals and objectives (Consultant/City Staff did this)
o Scope of Work (SOW) used pedestrian priority areas from General Plan versus what Committee may have identified, given the chance
o Data gathered was not from a “broad section of Costa Mesa” (very little of Eastside and none of the South Coast Metro area was covered) • “Recommendations” instead of Policies and Objectives
o The Circulation Element of the General Plan is the only element that has recommendations
o Recommendations provide no assurance that a project will be done and do not help with grant applications
o The SOW requires at a minimum eight (8) chapters, one of which is “Goals, Objectives and Policies” (not “recommendations”)
• Need a vision statement for the PMP to cover issues and solutions not found in ATP • No recommendation for a road diet in any of the projects • No recommendation for pedestrian refuge islands in any of the projects • No recommendation for multiuse paths to correct the small bike lane and narrow sidewalk problem, i.e., Baker Street and Fairview Road
• No project creates a regional connection or better intercity connectivity • No project solves the problem of gaps in the existing network • No policy re equity
o Recommendations for project areas don’t recognize the problem o May be an issue with obtaining grants
• Safe Routes is not included
o Pedestrian activity is largest around schools
 Should have been the primary focus area of the PMP as indicated in the SOW
• Public outreach was nonexistent on the last draft of the PMP o Dates for comment submission were not publicized (and then changed for ATC members from the date announced in the April 27 meeting) o Where are comments from CMABS? School District? Were they requested? • Recommendations of other reports (Berkeley SafeTREC and the Local Road Safety Plan) need to be incorporated into the PMP
• Council needs to adopt a Vision Zero policy to accompany the PMP • No goal/policy/objective with respect to creating a healthy walking environment 2 • General Plan needs to be revised to include planning of projects in the city must be scaled for bicycling and walking
• All projects need to be reviewed for new crosswalks in areas where mid-block crossings are routinely seen, and especially those with long blocks, such as Baker between Fairview and College
• Some of the Pedestrian and Intersection movement counts were outside of the POZs and some of the POZs/study areas did not have any count, resulting in data for the projects that is inconsistent and underrepresents the existing conditions in the city • The draft PMP does not fulfill the obligations of the SOW:
o It is not the “detailed localized plan” that is required by paragraph 2 of “Background”
o Does not “provide a plan for open and easy access to walking for recreation, community and other daily needs” nor does it “propose improvements to infrastructure for pedestrians connecting communities, schools and parks,” as required by the SOW (see paragraph 2 of “Background”)
o Task 3.2 of the SOW (Survey of Existing Conditions, Improvements and Walk Audits) – Consultant did not identify “Gaps in the existing network” or “Pedestrian Suitability for travel”
o Task 4.1 of SOW (Develop Prioritization Methodology) – “In developing the prioritization methodology the Consultant shall consult with Bikeway and Walkability Committee and consider community need, regional, county and statewide policy and funding frameworks; and the timeframe for implementation.” BWC was not consulted.
o Task 4.2 of SOW (Identify Local and Regional Network Project List) – “The City, SCAG and the Bikeways and Walkability Committee will review and comment on the draft project descriptions for the fact sheets.” Was not done by the BWC o Task 4.3 of SOW (Develop Implementation Strategy) – “Consultant shall develop and implementation strategy to include planning-level cost estimates for identified priority projects and potential funding sources.” That was not done. “Consultant shall develop a walk audit tool to be used on this project and future projects.” The walk audit tool needs to be delivered to the City and the ATC for use in future walk audits
o Task 5.1 of SOW (Draft Plan) – Several items missing, notably “List of citywide [emphasis added] pedestrian projects including calling out community preferred facilities”, “Regional integration strategy with recommendations for interregional connections”, and “Recommendations to address citywide pedestrian connectivity to key destinations and other locations”
3 • Additional goals/policies and objectives and other items that are needed:
o Equity
o Health
o Correction of “goat paths” on private property as part of planning and code enforcement
o Motor vehicle speed reduction where possible
o Consideration for Level of Stress in new projects
o Adopt World Health Organization’s HEAT tool to estimate the value of reduced mortality that results from regular walking
o Adopt changes to the zoning code and General Plan that identify improvements to the active transportation environment
o Prioritize schools with the highest auto traffic volume during peak hours and insufficient parking for staff and parents. Plan and install pedestrian facilities adjacent to those schools. [This parallels language in the ATP] o Develop a policy controlling pedestrian sidewalk crossing. A hierarchy of pedestrian crosswalks is advisable to help indicate to drivers of motor vehicles that they are approaching areas of higher pedestrian activity or special conditions such as nearby schools
o Maps of (i) existing gaps and (ii) desired new paths
o Timeline of completion of projects and cost estimate for each project o Pedestrian Infrastructure Toolbox needs to include:
 Require the use of dedicated bike and pedestrian paths in new and remodeled developments to eliminate long blocks between cross-streets  Moving or undergrounding of utility poles and boxes will be considered so as to remove these obstructions from sidewalks
 Addition of street furniture, street art, appealing plaza areas and shelter from the elements of sun and rain to the toolbox. The arrangement of physical elements shall be managed in a way that promotes defensible space • Prioritization of projects should be done by City Staff in cooperation with ATC • Need five (5) year plan for implementation of highest priority projects and cost estimate • Require that any street improvement project greater than 1/8 mile include installation of elements of the ATP and PMP

I. SUMMARY
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is soliciting proposals in response to Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 20-030, Costa Mesa Pedestrian Master Plan.

The RFP is comprised of the following parts presented herein as Attachments:

Attachment 1 – Proposal Information, Organization, and Content Attachment 2 – Scope of Work
Attachment 3 & 4 – Proposal and Interview Evaluatio n Form Attachment 5 – Line Item Budget (Cost Proposal)
Attachment 6 – Debarment and Suspension Certificati on
Attachment 7 – Conflict of Interest Form
Attachments 8A & 8B – Disadvantaged Business Enterp rise (DBE) Note: Any proposal submitted without meeting the nineteen percent (19%) DBE goal or demonstrating good faith efforts to mee t the DBE goal will automatically be disqualified.

Attachment 9 – Vendor Information
Attachment 10 – Notice Regarding California Public Records Act

II. PROPOSAL TIME LINE
(Subject to Change)

DATE TIME
(Pacific Standard)
RFP Released October 15, 2019
Pre-Proposal Conference: N/A
Deadline to Upload Questions into
PlanetBids
October 25 , 2019 10:00 a.m.

Posting of Answers to Questions (if
any)
October 29, 2019 5:00 p.m.

Proposal Due Date November 12, 2019 10:00 a.m.

Evaluation of Proposals Week of November 18, 2019
Consultant Interviews (if necessary) Week of Novem ber 25, 2019 Final Selection December 2019
Contract Execution/NTP December 31, 2019

III. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION
Upload one (1) PDF copy of your Technical Proposal (file cannot exceed 10MB) into SCAG’s solicitation management system (PlanetBids) at http://www.planetbids.com/portal/portal.cfm?Company ID=14434#. Upload your Cost Proposal as a separate Excel file in Plan etBids (from the rest of your Technical Proposal) using the SCAG Line Item Budget template available at SCAG’s Website
http://scag.ca.gov/opportunities/Pages/BusinessWithSCAG.aspx.

You MUST upload your submittal via PlanetBids. No other means of submission shall be accepted by SCAG. If you need a ssistance, contact the SCAG staff identified in Section IV below before the Due Date/Time (allow sufficient time before the due Date/Time).

ATTACHMENT 1

rev 12/20/18

SCAG must receive proposals by the Proposal Due Date/Time (time to be determined by SCAG’s/PlanetBids time clock). Any proposal received after the Proposal Due Date/Time will be rejected.

All submissions are considered a matter of public record.

Note: “proposer,” “consultant,” and “firm” may be used interchangeably throughout this document.

IV. SCAG CONTACT
Lori J. Tapp, C.P.M., Contracts Administrator,
Southern California Association of Governments
900 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90017
(213) 236-1957
Email: [email protected]

The Contracts Administrator is the only person to contact during the selection process, and may be contacted at any time during the process.

V. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Questions must be submitted in writing via PlanetBids under this solicitation number. Answers to the questions will be posted on SCAG’s solicitation management system under the corresponding RFP typically no later than three (3) working days after the deadline to submit questions.

VI. PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE
Not Applicable

VII. CONTRACT TYPE
Contract Type: Firm Fixed Price. SCAG intends to pay upon task completion. However, firms may propose a payment schedule for SCAG’s consideration.

Consultants must propose in United States currency and shall be paid with the same.

Funding for this project is contingent upon availability of funds at the time of contract award.

As directed by the Regional Council, it is SCAG’s policy not to disclose a project’s budget.

VIII. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE
The estimated period of performance for this contract is 18 months.

IX. DBE PROGRAM
The requirements of 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 26, entitled Participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprise in Department of Transportation Financial Assistance Programs, applies to this RFP. See Attachment 8 for additional information.

X. SELECTION PROCESS

1. Proposals will be ranked in accordance with the criteria described in Attachment 3 and Attachment 4, if required.

2. Proposers may or may not be invited for an interview. 2 rev 12/20/18

3. SCAG does not reimburse proposers for any cost of proposal preparation (including but not limited to parking, printing, postage, travel, etc.), even in the event of RFP cancellation.

4. Communication between the proposer and any member of the Proposal Review Committee during the selection process is prohibited, except when and in the manner expressly authorized in this RFP. Violation of this restriction is grounds for disqualification.

5. SCAG shall award the contract for this RFP to the firm that it deems to have provided the best value to SCAG or the firm SCAG deems to be the best qualified for contract award (or both).

6. Every proposal submitted is considered a firm offer that must be valid for a minimum of ninety (90) calendar days.

7. All proposers should be aware of the Insurance Requirements for contract award. The Certificate of Insurance must be provided by the successful proposer prior to contract award. A contract may not be awarded if insurance requirements are not met. The insurance requirements may be viewed on SCAG’s website at: http://scag.ca.gov/business/ under Section 43 of SCAG’s Contract Template.

Endorsements for the following are necessary as a part of meeting the insurance requirements:

• Commercial General Liability
• Business Auto Liability
• Workers’ Compensation/Employer’s Liability

Endorsements shall include:

• Additional Insured
• Primary, Non-Contributory
• Waiver of Subrogation
• Notice of Cancellation

THE ENDORSEMENTS TO ALL OF THE POLICIES MUST BE ATTACHED TO THE CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE.

8. The successful proposer will be required to sign SCAG’s standard Contract Template (available at http://scag.ca.gov/business/) in order to receive the contract award. Proposer must identify in their proposal the specific requested modification(s), if any, to the terms and conditions in SCAG’s Contract Template . Any request to modify the terms and conditions must also include an explanation or reason for the proposed change. If the proposer does not include the specific requested modification(s) along with the explanation or reason for the proposed change at the time they submit their proposal, SCAG shall not consider, review, allow or accept any deviation from the terms and conditions of SCAG’s Contract Template. If SCAG is unable to negotiate final contract terms and conditions that are acceptable to SCAG, SCAG reserves the right to award the contract to another proposer.

3 rev 12/20/18
Please be advised that, SCAG may only consider minor modifications that clarify clauses in its existing contract template, and shall not entertain making major/substantive changes to or removing any clause, specifically:

10. Invoicing for Payment

11. Invoicing Format and Content

15. Penalty

18. Work Products and Related Work Materials

19. Ownership, Confidentiality, and Use of Work Products

27. Indemnity

43. Insurance

CONTRACT LANGUAGE IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE BY SCAG PRIOR TO CONTRACT EXECUTION.

9. SCAG shall only award a contract to a offeror who SCAG determines has an adequate financial management and accounting system as required by 48 CFR Part 16.301-3, 2 CFR Part 200, and 48 CFR Part 31 or successors there to.

XI. SCAG RIGHTS

1. SCAG reserves the right to:

A. Disqualify any and all proposals that are not submitted in accordance with the required format described in this RFP;
B. Disqualify any and all proposals that don’t comply with SCAG’s Conflict of Interest Policy; C. Reject any and all proposals submitted;
D. Waive what SCAG deems to be a minor irregularity in a firm’s submission; E. Request additional information;
F. Award all or part of the work contemplated in this RFP; G. Remedy errors in the RFP;
H. Cancel the entire RFP;
I. Issue subsequent RFP;
J. Approve or reject the use of a particular subconsultant/supplier; K. Negotiate with any, all or none of the proposers. If SCAG is unable to negotiate final contract terms and conditions that are acceptable to SCAG, SCAG reserves the right to award the contract to another proposer;
L. Award a contract to other than the lowest priced proposal; M. Award a contract without interviews, discussions or negotiations; N. Award a contract to one or more proposers;
O. Only award a contract or any portion thereof to a firm that possesses a valid business license. Firms must possess the license from any city or state by the RFP due date. SCAG must be provided with a copy of this license, if requested; and P. Only award a contract or any portion thereof to a firm that passes any references checks.

2. If applicable, SCAG reserves the right to have software developed under SCAG’s contract, not incorporate proprietary and/or third party software components. This does not preclude the development of deliverables which interface with commonly-available off-the-shelf software.

However, consultants must determine in advance whether SCAG already has, or is willing to procure, appropriate licenses for any proprietary and/or third party software that would be required. Consultants must also provide the impacts of any enhancements and upgrades. 4 rev 12/20/18
SCAG will require delivery of documentation and source code for all electronic intellectual property developed under a SCAG contract prior to releasing final payment to the consultant.

XII. NOTIFICATION OF RIGHT TO PROTEST CONTRACT AWARD
Proposers have the right to protest the contract award in compliance with SCAG’s Policy on Contract Award Protests, which can be viewed online at SCAG internet home page www.scag.ca.gov under “Doing Business with SCAG.” A written protes t must be filed with
SCAG’s Executive Director, or designee (Chief Operating Officer or Deputy Executive Director) within five (5) working days after posting of the Notice of Intent to Award. SCAG will not accept any verbal protests. The protest must be a detailed, written statement of the protest grounds and reference the RFP number and name of the designated Contracts Administrator.

The protest must be submitted to SCAG’s Executive Director or designee via certified mail using the following address:

Executive Director
Southern California Association of Governments
900 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90017-3435

The contract award is held up when SCAG’s Executive Director or designee receives the protest on time. The contract may not be awarded until the protest is either withdrawn or SCAG’s Executive Director or designee has rendered a decision.

5 Attachment 1
rev 12/20/18

PROPOSAL INFORMATION, ORGANIZATION, AND CONTENT

All proposals shall contain the following information, at a minimum:

1. TITLE PAGE
Provide the following on the Title Page:
• RFP Number
• Title of the Project
• Name and Address of Firm
• Phone Number of Firm - Do not include non-business (personal) phone numbers or address in as this information may become public under the California Public Records Act (see Attachment 10)
• Prime Contact Person
• Email Address of the Prime Contact Person
• Signature of the Individual Authorized/Obligated to Commit the Firm to this Project

Cover letter should be addressed to the attention of the Contract Administrator

2. TABLE OF CONTENTS
• A clear identification of the materials by section and page numbers.

3. TECHNICAL APPROACH
• A statement and discussion of the project objectives, concerns, and key issues. • The technical approach for performing the tasks must include a detailed Scope of Work along with the process for executing the requirements and objectives of the project. • A discussion of the difficulties expected or anticipated in performing the tasks, along with a discussion of how the consultant proposes to overcome or mitigate against those difficulties. • A detailed schedule for completion of the work, including performance and delivery schedules indicating phases or segments of the project, milestones, and significant events. • A statement of the extent to which the consultant’s proposed approach and Scope of Work will meet or exceed the stated objectives discussed in this RFP. Furthermore, a discussion of how the consultant would modify the project, and/or schedule to better meet these objectives.

4. LINE ITEM BUDGET (COST PROPOSAL)
• Proposals must include a Line Item Budget in the format and detail shown in Attachment 5 (in United States currency). The same detailed budget is required of each subconsultant.

Upload your Cost Proposal as a separate Excel file i n PlanetBids (from the rest of your proposal) using the SCAG Line Item Budget Templates available at SCAG’s Website http://scag.ca.gov/opportunities/Pages/BusinessWithSCAG.aspx.

5. PROFILE OF FIRM
• A statement indicating if the firm is local or national and a summary of representative experience relevant to the work described in the Scope of Work for this RFP. • The location and telephone number of the office from which the work is to be done. • Identification of the individuals who will perform the work, including officers, project manager and key staff. State the time commitment and include resumes for key individuals. Do not include social security numbers, non-business (personal) phone numbers or address in a resume as this information may become public under the California Public Records Act (see Attachment 10).
6 Attachment 1
rev 12/20/18

6. REFERENCES
• Provide a list of at least three references, including the names of contact persons within the firms.

References should not include any SCAG staff or SCAG Regional Council Members.

7. REQUIRED FORMS
• The Debarment and Suspension Certification (Attachment 6) must be fully completed by all parties to the proposal (prime and all subconsultants).

• The SCAG Conflict of Interest Form (Attachment 7) must be fully completed by all parties to the proposal (prime and all subconsultants).

• A ward of this RFP is conditional upon satisfying the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) requirements (Attachment 8A). Exhibit 10-O1 “Consultant Proposal DBE Commitment” must be completed and a copy of each DBE subconsultant’s certification must be included in the proposal.

DVBE, SBE, SDB, MBE, or WBE certifications do not apply and shall not be substituted for DBE requirements.

• If the DBE contract goal was not attained, or when partial goals have been attained, the bidder/offeror shall submit determination of good faith efforts (Attachment 8B) by completing “Bidder/Proposer Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Good Faith Efforts Documentation,” Form ADM-0312F (REV 03/2016). Any proposal submitted without meeting the DBE goal or demonstrating good faith efforts to meet the DBE goal will automatically be disqualified.

• All proposers must ensure that they have fully completed a Vendor Information Form (Attachment 9).

• All proposers must fully complete the Notice Regarding California Public Records Act (Attachment 10) – regardless of whether or not proposer is requesting to exempt proposal from disclosure under the California Public Records Act.

The selected consultant may be required to complete a Federal Form W-9 (for payment purposes) which may also be obtained on-line at www.scag.ca.gov under “Doing Business with SCAG.”

IMPORTANT NOTE:

The selected consultant (awardee) must be prepared to provide SCAG any of the following documents if requested:
• Time Sheet (that must account for the total activity for which each employee is compensated not just SCAG time)
• Payroll register
• Indirect cost audit
• U.S. federal tax return
7 Scope of Work Attachment 2

rev 12/20/18

Background :

The City of Costa Mesa (City) desires to establish a pedestrian-friendly environment throughout the City and connected with the region through the creation of a Pedestrian Master Plan (Plan). The Plan will support and inform the larger regional ActiveOC, Orange County’s Bike and Pedestrian Plan being developed by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and will serve as model for other cities in the region seeking to improve active transportation. It will address specific issues related to pedestrian elements and regional connections. Improving conditions for walking within the City and connecting to surrounding regions would provide residents and regional stakeholders with greater access to jobs, goods, and services without the use of an automobile. Increasing the percentage of trips made by walking will reduce overall local and regional VMT and GHG emissions.

The Plan would identify solutions to meet the needs of people walking in the city and connecting to the surrounding region. The Plan will supplement and enhance the larger regional ActiveOC by providing a detailed localized plan. It will specifically improve mobility for people walking by providing a comprehensive plan for pedestrian connectivity. It will provide a plan for open and easy access to walking for recreation, commuting, and other daily needs and will propose improvements to infrastructure for pedestrians connecting communities, schools and parks, making the City a destination with a sense of purpose for residents and regional stakeholders alike.

Task 1: Project Initiation and Management

1.1 Project Kick-off
meeting
Consultant shall schedule a kick off meeting with the
SCAG Project Manager (PM), City PM and other
relevant staff. At a minimum Consultant PM will
attend in person. The kick off meeting will be used to
discuss project timeline, internal meeting schedule,
and communication channels. Consultant shall provide
a detailed schedule indicating stages of work and time
frames.

Meeting
Agenda,
Meeting Notes

1.2 Technical
Assistance
Presentations
The Consultant shall present to the City's Bikeway and
Walkability Committee on the goals and objectives of
the project shortly after the kick off meeting to inform and gather input from committee members. The
Consultant shall also present the Draft and Final
versions of the Plan to the City’s Bikeway and
Walkability Committee. If they occur during the time
frame of the project, the Consultant shall draft staff
reports and prepare presentations for all meetings with the City Council in coordination with City staff.

Consultant is expected to be able to address technical
questions that may arise during, or in response to, the presentations.

Presentation
Materials,
Staff Reports,
Presentations
8 Scope of Work Attachment 2

rev 12/20/18

1.3 Regular Project
Management
Meetings
Consultant shall host bi-weekly project management
meetings with the SCAG PM, City PM, Consultant
PM, and other relevant staff. . The Consultant shall
schedule a minimum of three (3) meetings with
neighboring jurisdictions and regional agencies to
determine cross-jurisdictional coordination efforts.

Agendas,
Meetings
Notes

Task 2: Outreach Strategy and Stakeholder Engagement

2.1 Public Outreach
Strategy
Consultant shall draft a 2-3 page public outreach
strategy that will direct outreach efforts to engage the community in the Plan's development. The strategy
will include a draft outreach schedule and proposed
methods of engagement to drive attendance at the
workshops. It will also detail how the Consultant will
coordinate with the City to engage local media to
encourage community participation in the planning
process. Finally, the outreach strategy will outline
proposed agendas for each of the meetings and
activities for each of the workshops. In addition to the outreach strategy, the Consultant will develop
templates including, but not limited to, a survey tool, flyers, information sheets, presentations, etc. to
support outreach activities. The Consultant will
translate all materials into Spanish.

Outreach
Strategy,
Survey Tool,
Flyer,
Information
Sheet,
Presentation,
Templates,
Press
Releases,
Social Media
Posts

2.2 Project Webpage The Consultant will work with the City’s existing digital platforms to provide a resource that includes,
but is not limited to: project description; project
milestones, meeting and event calendar; surveys; and
space to provide information about the project and
gather community feedback. The Consultant will be
responsible for updating content on the online
platform as needed throughout the duration of the
project.

Project
Webpage,
Monthly
Updates to the
Webpage as
directed by
City and
SCAG PMs

2.3 Public Workshops
and Stakeholder
Engagement
Consultant shall work with the City to conduct a
minimum of three (3) public workshops and engage
with the public to collect feedback on the plan. Prior
to each workshop, the Consultant will conduct
outreach through social media, flyers within the
community, or other means, to drive attendance and
encourage engagement. The Consultant will present
the goals of the plan and gather feedback at meetings
with community leaders and residents, neighborhood
associations, and community groups. In addition to the
public workshops, the Consultant will present the
goals of the plan and gather feedback at minimum of
three (3) meetings with the City's Bikeway and
Walkability Committee. The Consultant will
Workshop
Notices, Sign
in Sheets,
Meeting
Notes, Data
Collected
9 Scope of Work Attachment 2

rev 12/20/18
document feedback received at each meeting to be
included in the final plan. Translation services may be required at these meetings.

Task 3: Existing Conditions and Needs Analysis

3.1 Policy and Planning
Context
Consultant will develop a Memorandum detailing the
Policy and Planning Context of the Plan to ensure
regional consistency and improve coordination with
adjacent jurisdictions. This memorandum shall include
a description of how the Plan has been coordinated
with neighboring jurisdictions, including school
districts within the plan area, and is consistent with
other local and regional transportation, air quality, or energy conservation plans, including, but not limited
to, general plans and Connect SoCal, SCAG's 2020
Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable
Community Strategy.

Memorandum
summarizing
regional
planning
context and
integration,
summary in
Final Report

3.2 Survey of Existing
Conditions,
Improvements and
Walk Audits
The Consultant will conduct a walk audits of the
existing conditions of the streets in the City's Master Plan and in the City's Pedestrian Opportunity Zones as
identified in Figure C-6 Pedestrian Opportunity Zones
in the Circulation Element. The survey of existing
conditions shall include existing pedestrian
infrastructure. Deficiencies in the existing pedestrian facility network will be identified. The Consultant
shall map existing pedestrian facilities. Consultant
will engage the Bikeway and Walkability Committee
members to assist with the walk audits.

Additionally, the Consultant shall collect the
following data, but not limited to:

1. Traffic volumes and roadway capacity

2. Environmental Justice Areas and Impacts

3. Mode Share

4. Description of Land Use/Destinations
o Must include, but not be limited to,
locations of residential neighborhoods,
schools, shopping centers, public
buildings, major employment centers,
and other destinations. In addition,
community destinations of high
importance that are identified through
outreach activities will be identified to
assist in the prioritization of projects.

5. Demographics of walking

6. Connectivity
Technical
memorandum
summarizing
existing
conditions
findings, GIS
layer and map
of existing
conditions and
pedestrian
facilities, with
FCDG-
compliant
metadata
10 Scope of Work Attachment 2

rev 12/20/18
o Both within the City and connectivity
to regional destinations and active
transportation networks

7. Walk to school rates

8. Regulations affecting active transportation
such as policies, plans, zoning ordinances,
and traffic codes
o Consultant shall coordinate with SCAG
and City PMs to determine which
regulations should be reviewed.

3.3 Pedestrian Collision
Analysis and Needs
Analysis
The Consultant shall conduct a collision data analysis
for pedestrians. Deficiencies in the existing pedestrian facility network will be identified including gaps.

The Consultant will perform an in depth analysis of
collision data using SWITRS (Internet Statewide
Integrated Traffic Records System) to identify
collision factors and appropriate countermeasures. The
Consultant will also work with SCAG to create a "hot
spot" analysis to identify locations with high rates of bicycle and pedestrian collisions.

The Consultant will call out specific collision data
near schools.

Summary to
be included in
Final Report
including table
of
deficiencies.

3.4 Pedestrian Counts The Consultant shall work with the City and the SCAG Project Manager to conduct a minimum of five
(5) pedestrian counts within the project/plan area. The Consultant shall identify at least ten (10) locations
within the community for pedestrian counts. The
Consultant will use SCAG's adopted methodologies
and tools to work with the Bikeway and Walkability
Committee, City staff and community volunteers to
conduct manual screen line counts during the AM and
PM peak as well as during the weekend for each
location. Data from the counts will standardized for
and uploaded into SCAG's Active Transportation
Database.

Data tables,
GIS Map of
Count
Locations with
FCDG-
compliant
metadata,
Count data
uploaded into
SCAG’s
Active
Transportation
Database

Task 4: Pedestrian Recommendations

4.1 Identify Local
Network Priorities
The Consultant shall assemble a list of projects needed in the City and develop a prioritization methodology.

In developing the prioritization methodology the
Consultant shall consult with the Bikeway and
Walkability Committee and consider community need;
regional, county, and statewide policy and funding
frameworks; and the timeframe for implementation.

Key factors for project identification and prioritization Prioritization
methodology,
Prioritized list
and table of
projects, GIS
map of
existing and
proposed
11 Scope of Work Attachment 2

rev 12/20/18
include, but are not limited to:
• Creation of a consistent and legible pedestrian
network
• Proximity to and potential for increased access
to schools and Bikeway and Walkability
Committee defined destinations
• First-last mile connection to transit stops
(especially High Quality Transit Areas defined
in SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS)
• Environmental Justice impacts
• High Injury Network identified segments
• Increased regional connectivity

pedestrian
facilities
including
needed ADA
improvements

4.2 Identify Regional
Network Priorities
Using the agreed upon methodology from Task 4.1,
the Consultant shall create a list of prioritized projects.

The list will include a table reflecting preferred
facilities by road classification, or other factors, for routes and to inform policy development.

Regional list
of prioritized
projects

4.3 Develop
Implementation
Strategy
Consultant will develop an implementation strategy
including proposed costs and identifying potential
funding sources. Consultant will develop a walk audit
tool to be used on this project and future projects.

Language and
tables to be
included in the
draft and final
plans.

Task 5: Final Plan Development

5.1 Draft Plan Consultant shall develop a draft plan in coordination with the City, SCAG and the Bikeway and
Walkability Committee. At a minimum but not limited
to, the draft plan will have the following chapters:
1) Acknowledgements
2) Introduction
3) Stakeholder Engagement
4) Goals, Objectives, and Policies
5) Existing Conditions
6) Recommendations
7) Implementation Strategy
Draft Plan

5.2 Final Plan As noted in earlier tasks, the Consultant will present the Draft Plan to the Bikeway and Walkability
Committee upon completion to receive additional
input prior to finalization. In addition, the Consultant will gather stakeholder feedback on the components of
the plan between submission of the draft and final plan through surveys, comment collection, as included in
the public outreach and stakeholder engagement in
Task 2. The Consultant will update the Draft Plan into the Final Plan including all recommended changes
Final Report,
GIS map with
all project
layers with
FCDG-
compliant
metadata
12 Scope of Work Attachment 2

rev 12/20/18
from outreach activities. The Consultant will complete
a Final Plan including all components of the plan and
present the Plan to the City's Bikeway and Walkability
Committee. Final electronic copies will be provided
to SCAG and the implementing agency in Word, PDF
and In Design versions. All GIS files will be provided
as well to support SCAG's regional data collection
efforts.

5.3 City Council
Adoption
If it occurs during the term of the project the
consultant will present the Final Report to the City
Council for adoption, otherwise the Consultant will
prepare a PowerPoint and display graphics for City
staff.

Graphics and
PowerPoint
presentation

13 C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C - 25

Figure C-6: Pedestrian Opportunity Zones
14 Attachment 3 & 4

rev 12/20/18

PROPOSAL/INTERVIEW EVALUATION FORM

RFP No. 20-030

Consultant Name: ________________________________________________________

Evaluation Criteria
Max.

Possible
Points
Points Earned
Comments Proposal Interview

SATISFIES REQUIREMENTS
• Tasks & approach clearly described
• Project intent has been met

20 Strength(s):

Weakness(es):

TECHNICAL INNOVATION
• Creative/innovative approach
• Understanding of strategic regional context

20 Strength(s):

Weakness(es):

CONSULTANT FIRMS:

Prime Consultant:
• Experience with projects of similar size and
scope
Sub-Consultants (if any):
• Each sub provides unique service(s) to the team
• Subs are fully capable of performing their tasks
20 Strength(s):

Weakness(es):

PROJECT MANAGEMENT
• Realistic schedule with available resources
• Good Prime/Sub integration
10 Strength(s):

Weakness(es):

PROJECT COST
• Realistic cost and value for services to be
performed (not necessarily lowest)
30 Strength(s):

Weakness(es):

TOTAL 100

Name of Evaluator (print): Agency:

Signature of Evaluator: Date:

15 Attachment 5
rev 12/20/18
LINE ITEM BUDGET (Cost Proposal) INSTRUCTIONS

1 . SCAG uses the Line Item Budget to assess the fairness and reasonableness of a proposer’s costs. Once SCAG awards a contract, the negotiated Line Item Budget serves as the basis for reimbursing the proposer (includes Cost Plus as well as Fixed Price contracts).

2. SCAG shall only award a contract to a offeror who SCAG determines has an adequate financial management and accounting system as required by 48 CFR Part 16.301-3, 49 CFR Part 18, and 48 CFR Part 31 200 or successors thereto.

3. All proposers must submit a Line Item Budget using the exact format shown on the following page, or may risk having their proposal disqualified. Further, a Line Item Budget must be submitted for each subconsultant regardless of dollar value of the subcontract.

Upload your Cost Proposal as a separate Excel file i n PlanetBids (from the rest of your proposal) using the SCAG Line Item Budget Templates available at SCAG’s Website http://scag.ca.gov/opportunities/Pages/BusinessWithSCAG.aspx. Complete and upload a separate Excel file for each sub.

Disclaimer – Each proposer is responsible for all mathematical ca lculations and information provided on the Line Item Budget template.

4. Many items that may be normal business costs and tax deductible may not be allowable under Federal and State contract rules (e.g., dues, advertising, contributions, bad debts, interest expense, meals, and entertainment). For a complete listing, see 48 CFR Part 31 and 2 CFR Part 200 or successors thereto.

All costs must be allowable and consistent with Federal cost principles under 2 CFR Part 200 or successors thereto. Please be aware that the cost-plus-a-percentage-of-cost bid/offer method, where the proposer’s profit is a percentage of the reimbursed costs on a project, is not allowed under Federal rules.

Also, contingency fees are not allowed.

5. Costs shall be structured as follows:

A. Direct Labor:
• Direct labor, overhead, and fringe benefits must be shown as separate dollar amounts (United States currency) in the Line Item Budget. Prior to contract award, proposer (awardee) must substantiate the rate (i.e., with payroll register or similar, or U.S. federal tax return…) if SCAG requests it. Only include employees (i.e., staff that you will issue a W-2 to). Do not include sub-consultants in your Direct Labor (or Overhead, Fee and Other Direct Costs). Include all cost for sub-consultants under the Sub-consultants category. • Identify Key Personnel by both name and title (e.g., Mary Smith, Sr. Planner). Place an asterisk (*) next to the name(s) of any Key Personnel. Other professional or support/administrative staff may be identified by title only. • The labor rate quoted for each position in the Line Item Budget must be the maximum rate that is expected to be paid during the term of the contract, inclusive of any rate increase (e.g. merit, cost-of-living, etc.). If SCAG awards a Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract, SCAG will only pay the selected consultant the actual rate paid to the person in a position, and all rates must be traceable to and supported by payroll records.
• Note: For Firm Fixed Priced (FFP) contracts, SCAG uses the labor and overhead rates quoted in the proposer’s Line Item Budget to evaluate the proposed price for each task and cumulatively. 16 Attachment 5
rev 12/20/18
Once SCAG has negotiated a final Line Item Budget, during the life of the contract, SCAG intends to pay the selected consultant upon completion of each task (unless otherwise agreed to), regardless of the actual cost to complete the task, provided the cost is allowable and allocable, and complies with federal rules and regulations.

B. Overhead:
• The overhead rate quoted must be the rate that is expected for each Fiscal Year during the life of the contract. Prior to contract award, proposer (awardee) must substantiate the rate (i.e., with an indirect cost audit or U.S. federal tax return…) if SCAG requests it.

C. Fixed Fee:
• Fee/Profit is calculated on Direct Labor, Overhead and Fringe Benefits only, not on Subconsultants or Other Direct Costs. Prior to contract award, proposer (awardee) must substantiate the fee if SCAG requests it.

D. Other Direct Costs (ODCs):
• ODCs must be fully substantiated prior to contract award. If the contract is subject to a pre- award audit (see bullet 6 below), SCAG will review support for ODCs similar to that done for Direct Labor, Overhead, and Fringe Benefits. If SCAG awards a Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract, during the life of the contract, SCAG will require back-up documentation with the monthly invoices to substantiate ODCs.

• All travel costs must be reasonable, and are limited to those rates stated under California’s State Department of Personnel Administration rules, (subject to change) posted at:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/asc/travel/ch12/1consultant
.htm, or successors thereto.

E. Subconsultants:
• Identify the Direct Labor, Overhead, Fixed Fee and ODCs in the same format as for the Prime.

6. SCAG’s Pre-award Audit Requirements are as follows:

Contracts less than $250,000 may require a pre-award audit; those at $250,000 or more will require a pre-award audit. SCAG’s pre-award audit requirements are available at http://www.scag.ca.gov/opportunities/Pages/BusinessW
ithSCAG.aspx. The selected consultant
(awardee) must be prepared to provide an indirect cost audit or U.S. federal tax return, if SCAG requests.

17 Attachment 5
rev 12/20/18

LINE ITEM BUDGET
18 Attachment 6
rev 12/20/18
TITLE 49, CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, PART 29

DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION CERTIFICATION

R
FP No. 20-030

1) All persons or firms, including subconsultants, must complete this certification and certify, under penalty of perjury, that, except as noted below, he/she or any person associated therewith in the capacity of owner, partner, director, officer, or manager:

a) Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from covered transactions by any federal department or agency;

b) Have not, within the three (3) year period preceding this certification, 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;

c) 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 listed in subparagraph (1)(b) of this certification; and

d) Have not, within the three (3) year period preceding this certification, had one or more public transactions (Federal, state, and local) terminated for cause or default.

2) If such persons or firms later become aware of any information contradicting the statements of paragraph (1), they will promptly provide that information to SCAG.

If there are any exceptions to this certification, insert the exceptions in the following space.

Exceptions will not necessarily result in denial of award, but will be considered in determining proposer/bidder responsibility. For any exception noted above, indicate below to whom it applies, initiating agency, and dates of actions.

_________________________________
Name of Firm

_________________________________
Signature (original signature required)

_________________________________
Date
19 Attachment 7
rev 12/20/18

SCAG CONFLICT OF INTEREST FORM

R
FP No. 20-030

SECTION I: INSTRUCTIONS

All persons or firms seeking contracts must complete and submit a SCAG Conflict of Interest Form along with the proposal. This requirement also applies to any proposed subconsultant(s). Failure to comply with this requirement may cause your proposal to be declared non-responsive.

In order to answer the questions contained in this form, please review SCAG’s Conflict of Interest Policy, the list of SCAG employees, and the list of SCAG’s Regional Council members. All three documents can be viewed online at www.scag.ca.gov. The SCAG Conflict of Interest Policy is located under “OPPORTUNITIES”, then “Doing Business with SCAG” and scroll down under the “CONTRACTS” tab; whereas the SCAG staff may be found under “ABOUT” then “Employee Directory”; and Regional Council members can be found under “ABOUT”, then scroll down to “ELECTED OFFICIALS” on the left side of the page and click on “See the list of SCAG representative and their Districts.”

Any questions regarding the information required to be disclosed in this form should be directed to SCAG’s Deputy Legal Counsel, especially if you answer “yes” to any question in this form, as doing so MAY also disqualify your firm from submitting an offer on this proposal

Name of Firm:

Name of Preparer:

Project Title:

RFP Number: Date Submitted:

SECTION II: QUESTIONS

1. During the last twelve (12) months, has your firm provided a source of income to employees of SCAG or members of the SCAG Regional Council, or have any employees or Regional Council members held any investment (including real property) in your firm?

YES NO

If “yes,” please list the names of those SCAG employees and/or SCAG Regional Council members and the nature of the financial interest:

Name Nature of Financial Interest

20 Attachment 7
rev 12/20/18

2. Have you or any members of your firm been an employee of SCAG or served as a member of the SCAG Regional Council within the last twelve (12) months?

YES NO

If “yes,” please list name, position, and dates of service:

Name Position Dates of Service

3. Are you or any managers, partners, or officers of your firm related by blood or marriage/domestic partnership to an employee of SCAG or member of the SCAG Regional Council that is considering your proposal?

YES NO

If “yes,” please list name and the nature of the relationship:

Name Relationship

4. Does an employee of SCAG or a member of the SCAG Regional Council hold a position at your firm as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee, or any position of management?

YES NO

If “yes,” please list name and the nature of the relationship:

Name Relationship

21 Attachment 7
rev 12/20/18

5. Have you or any managers, partners, or officers of your firm ever given (directly or indirectly), or offered to give on behalf of another or through another person, campaign contributions or gifts to any current employee of SCAG or member of the SCAG Regional Council (including contributions to a political committee created by or on behalf of a member/candidate)?

YES NO

If “yes,” please list name, date gift or contribution was given/offered, and dollar value:

Name Date Dollar Value

SECTION III: VALIDATION STATEMENT

This Validation Statement must be completed and signed by at least one General Partner, Owner, Principal, or Officer authorized to legally commit the proposer.

DECLARATION

I, (printed full name) _________________________________, hereby declare that I am the (position or title) ______________________________ of (firm name) ______________________________, and that I am duly authorized to execute this Validation Statement on behalf of this entity. I hereby state that this SCAG Conflict of Interest Form dated ___________________ is correct and current as submitted.

I acknowledge that any false, deceptive, or fraudulent statements on this Validation Statement will result in rejection of my contract proposal.

Signature of Person Certifying for Proposer
(original signature required)
Date

NOTICE
A material false statement, omission, or fraudulent inducement made in connection with this SCAG Conflict of Interest Form is sufficient cause for rejection of the contract proposal or revocation of a prior contract award.
22 Attachment 8A
rev 12/20/18

DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE) INFORMATION

RFP No. 20-030

OBJECTIVE/POLICY STATEMENT
SCAG intends to receive federal financial assistance from the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) through the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and as a condition of receiving this assistance, SCAG has signed the California Department of Transportation Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Agreement. SCAG agrees to implement the State of California, Department of Transportation Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program Plan (hereinafter referred to as the DBE Program Plan) as it pertains to local agencies. The DBE Program Plan is based on U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 49 CFR 26 requirements.

It is the policy of SCAG to ensure that DBEs, as defined in 49 CFR 26, have an equal opportunity to receive and participate in DOT-assisted contracts. It is also SCAG’s policy:
• To ensure nondiscrimination in the award and administration of DOT-assisted contracts. • To create a level playing field on which DBE’s can compete fairly for DOT-assisted contracts. • To ensure that the DBE participation percentage is narrowly tailored, in accordance with applicable law. • To ensure that only firms that fully meet 49 CFR 26 eligibility standards are permitted to participate as DBEs. • To help remove barriers to the participation of DBEs in Federal-aid contracts. • To assist the development of firms that can compete successfully in the market place outside the DBE Program.

SCAG will never exclude any person from participation in, deny any person the benefits of, or otherwise discriminate against anyone in connection with the award and performance of any contract covered by 49 CFR 26 on the basis of race, color, sex, or national origin. In administering the local agency components of the DBE Program Plan, SUB-RECIPIENT will not, directly, or through contractual or other arrangements, use criteria or methods of administration that have the effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the DBE Program Plan with respect to individuals of a particular race, color, sex, or national origin.

DBE CONTRACT GOAL
A DBE contract goal of nineteen (19%) has been established for this solicitation. The DBE firm must be certified in California.

A prime consultant who is a certified DBE can meet the contract goal by virtue of the work it performs on the contract with its own forces.

Any proposal submitted without meeting the DBE goal or demonstrating good faith efforts to meet the DBE goal with automatically be disqualified.

DBE COMMITMENT
The bidder/offeror shall submit a Exhibit 10-O1 “Consultant Proposal DBE Commitment” (Attachment 8A) with the proposal to obtain credit for DBE participation in the performance of this contract.

The consultant may not substitute, add, or terminate a subconsultant listed in the original proposal without prior written approval from the Chief Financial Officer of SCAG.

23 Attachment 8A
rev 12/20/18

GOOD FAITH EFFORTS
The bidder/offeror must make and document good faith efforts, as defined in Appendix A, 49 CFR Part 26 (Attachment 8B), and complete “Bidder/Proposer Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Good Faith Efforts Documentation,” Form ADM-0312F (REV 03/2016) if the DBE contract goal was not attained or partially attained.

DBE DEFINITION
A for-profit small business concern that is at least 51 percent owned and controlled by one or more socially and economically disadvantaged individuals. One or more such individuals must also control the management and daily business operations. These individuals must be citizens (or lawfully admitted permanent residents) of the United States and (1) any individual who a recipient finds to be a socially and economically disadvantaged individual on a case-by-case basis, or (2) who are either African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, Asian-Pacific Americans, Subcontinent Asian Americans, (persons whose origin are from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives Islands, Nepal or Sri Lanka), Women, or any other group found to be socially and economically disadvantaged by the Small Business Administration (See 49 CFR 26).

DBE PARTICIPATION AND GENERAL INFORMATION
It is the proposer’s responsibility to be fully informed regarding their requirements of 49 CFR, Part 26. Particular attention is directed to the following:

A. A DBE must be a small business firm defined pursuant to 13 CFR 121 and be certified through the California Unified Certification Program (CUCP)
B. A DBE must perform a commercially useful function pursuant to 49 CFR 26.55; that is, a DBE firm must be responsible for the execution of a distinct element of the work and must carry out its responsibility by actually performing, managing, and supervising the work.

C. If a DBE does not perform or exercise responsibility for at least 30% of the total cost of its contract with its own work force, or the DBE subcontracts a greater portion of the work of a contract than would be expected on the basis of normal industry practice for the type of work involved, one must presume that it is not performing a commercially useful function.

DBE DATABASE
Consultants interested in locating DBE subconsultants may refer to the following source:

Statewide DBE Database of the CUCP (California Unified Certification Program):
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/bep/find_certified.htm

DBE CERTIFICATION
The DBE firm must hold a current California Unified Certification Program (CUCP) DBE certification at the time of proposal submission. DBE certifications outside of California will not be accepted. Firms that are DBE certified outside of California may apply for a CUCP DBE certification by contacting one of the certifying agencies listed at:
http://californiaucp.org/

A potential DBE may request certification from Caltrans by requesting an application form at:

Department of Transportation
Office of Business and Economic Opportunity
Certification Unit
1823 14th Street, MS-79
Sacramento, CA 95811
[email protected]

The form may also be downloaded from the Internet at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/bep/business_forms.htm 24 Attachment 8A
rev 12/20/18

DBE ELIGIBILITY
The CUCP certifies and determines the eligibility of DBE consultant and contractor firms. The CUCP can also remove the eligibility of a firm and issue a written notice of ineligibility. A directory of certified DBE firms is available from the Caltrans Civil Rights, Certification Unit website at:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/bep/find_certified.htm

ADMINISTRATIVE RECONSIDERATION PROCESS

1. As a part of this reconsideration, the bidder/offeror will have the opportunity to provide written documentation or argument concerning this issue of whether it met the goal or made adequate good faith efforts to do so.

2. The reconsideration official will not have played any role in the original determination that the bidder/offeror did not document adequate good faith efforts to do so.

3. The bidder/offeror will have the opportunity to meet in person with SCAG’s reconsideration official to discuss the issue of whether it met the goal or made good faith efforts to do so.

4. A written decision on reconsideration will be sent to the bidder/offeror explaining the basis for the finding that the bidder did or did not meet the goal or make adequate good faith efforts to do so.

5. The result of the reconsideration process is not administratively appealable to SCAG’s Regional Council or the Department of Transportation.

25 Attachment 8A
rev 12/20/18
Exhibit 10-O1 Consultant Proposal DBE Commitment

1. Local Agency: 2. Contract DBE Goal:

3. Project Description:

4. Project Location:

5. Consultant's Name: 6. Prime Certified DBE: 

7. Description of Work, Service, or Materials
Supplied

8. DBE
Certification
Number

9. DBE Contact Information 10. DBE %

Local Agency to Complete this Section

11. TOTAL CLAIMED DBE PARTICIPATION %

17. Local Agency Contract Number:

18. Federal-Aid Project
Number:

19. Proposed Contract Execution
Date:

20. Consultant’s Ranking after
Evaluation: __________________________

Local Agency certifies that all DBE certifications are valid and information on this form is complete and accurate.

IMPORTANT: Identify all DBE firms being claimed for credit, regardless of tier. Written confirmation of each listed DBE is required.

21. Local Agency Representative's
Signature

22. Date

12. Preparer's Signature 13. Date

23. Local Agency Representative's
Name

24. Phone

14. Preparer's
Name

15. Phone

25. Local Agency Representative's Title 16. Preparer's Title

DISTRIBUTION: Original – Included with consultant’s proposal to local agency.

ADA Notice: For individuals with sensory disabilities, this document is available in alternate formats. For information call (916) 654-6410 or TDD (916) 654-3880 or write Records and Forms Management, 1120 N Street, MS-89, Sacramento, CA 95814.

LPP 18-01 Page 1 of 2
January 2019

26 Attachment 8A
rev 12/20/18
INSTRUCTIONS – CONSULTANT PROPOSAL DBE COMMITMENT

CONSULTANT SECTION

1. Local Agency - Enter the name of the local or regional agency that is funding the contract.

2. Contract DBE Goal - Enter the contract DBE goal percentage as it appears on the project advertisement.

3. Project Location - Enter the project location as it appears on the project advertisement.

4. Project Description - Enter the project description as it appears on the project advertisement (Bridge Rehab, Seismic Rehab, Overlay, Widening, etc.).

5. Consultant’s Name - Enter the consultant’s firm name.

6. Prime Certified DBE - Check box if prime contractor is a certified DBE.

7. Description of Work, Services, or Materials Supplied - Enter description of work, services, or materials to be provided. Indicate all work to be performed by DBEs including work performed by the prime consultant’s own forces, if the prime is a DBE. If 100% of the item is not to be performed or furnished by the DBE, describe the exact portion to be performed or furnished by the DBE. See LAPM Chapter 9 to determine how to count the participation of DBE firms.

8. DBE Certification Number - Enter the DBE’s Certification Identification Number. All DBEs must be certified on the date bids are opened.

9. DBE Contact Information - Enter the name, address, and phone number of all DBE subcontracted consultants. Also, enter the prime consultant’s name and phone number, if the prime is a DBE.

10. DBE % - Percent participation of work to be performed or service provided by a DBE. Include the prime consultant if the prime is a DBE. See LAPM Chapter 9 for how to count full/partial participation.

11. Total Claimed DBE Participation % - Enter the total DBE participation claimed. If the total % claimed is less than item “Contract DBE Goal,” an adequately documented Good Faith Effort (GFE) is required (see Exhibit 15-H DBE Information - Good Faith Efforts of the LAPM).

12. Preparer’s Signature - The person completing the DBE commitment form on behalf of the consultant’s firm must sign their name.

13. Date - Enter the date the DBE commitment form is signed by the consultant’s preparer.

14. Preparer’s Name - Enter the name of the person preparing and signing the consultant’s DBE commitment form.

15. Phone - Enter the area code and phone number of the person signing the consultant’s DBE commitment form.

16. Preparer’s Title - Enter the position/title of the person signing the consultant’s DBE commitment form.

LOCAL AGENCY SECTION

17. Local Agency Contract Number - Enter the Local Agency contract number or identifier.

18. Federal-Aid Project Number - Enter the Federal-Aid Project Number.

19. Proposed Contract Execution Date - Enter the proposed contract execution date.

20. Consultant’s Ranking after Evaluation – Enter consultant’s ranking after all submittals/consultants are evaluated. Use this as a quick comparison for evaluating most qualified consultant.

21. Local Agency Representative’s Signature - The person completing this section of the form for the Local Agency must sign their name to certify that the information in this and the Consultant Section of this form is complete and accurate.

22. Date - Enter the date the DBE commitment form is signed by the Local Agency Representative.

23. Local Agency Representative’s Name - Enter the name of the Local Agency Representative certifying the consultant’s DBE commitment form.

24. Phone - Enter the area code and phone number of the person signing the consultant’s DBE commitment form.

25. Local Agency Representative Title - Enter the position/title of the Local Agency Representative certifying the consultant’s DBE commitment form.

LPP 18-01 Page 2 of 2
January 2019
27 Attachment 8B
rev 12/20/18

I. When, as a recipient, you establish a contract goal on a DOT-assisted contract for procuring construction, equipment, services, or any other purpose, a bidder must, in order to be responsible and/or responsive, make sufficient good faith efforts to meet the goal. The bidder can meet this requirement in either of two ways. First, the bidder can meet the goal, documenting commitments for participation by DBE firms sufficient for this purpose. Second, even if it doesn't meet the goal, the bidder can document adequate good faith efforts. This means that the bidder must show that it took all necessary and reasonable steps to achieve a DBE goal or other requirement of this part which, by their scope, intensity, and appropriateness to the objective, could reasonably be expected to obtain sufficient DBE participation, even if they were not fully successful.

II. In any situation in which you have established a contract goal, Part 26 requires you to use the good faith efforts mechanism of this part. As a recipient, you have the responsibility to make a fair and reasonable judgment whether a bidder that did not meet the goal made adequate good faith efforts. It is important for you to consider the quality, quantity, and intensity of the different kinds of efforts that the bidder has made, based on the regulations and the guidance in this Appendix.

The efforts employed by the bidder should be those that one could reasonably expect a bidder to take if the bidder were actively and aggressively trying to obtain DBE participation sufficient to meet the DBE contract goal. Mere pro forma efforts are not good faith efforts to meet the DBE contract requirements. We emphasize, however, that your determination concerning the sufficiency of the firm's good faith efforts is a judgment call. Determinations should not be made using quantitative formulas.

III. The Department also strongly cautions you against requiring that a bidder meet a contract goal (i.e., obtain a specified amount of DBE participation) in order to be awarded a contract, even though the bidder makes an adequate good faith efforts showing. This rule specifically prohibits you from ignoring bona fide good faith efforts.

IV. The following is a list of types of actions which you should consider as part of the bidder's good faith efforts to obtain DBE participation. It is not intended to be a mandatory checklist, nor is it intended to be exclusive or exhaustive. Other factors or types of efforts may be relevant in appropriate cases.

A. (1) Conducing market research to identify small business contractors and suppliers and soliciting through all reasonable and available means the interest of all certified DBEs that have the capability to perform the work of the contract. This may include attendance at pre-bid and business matchmaking meetings and events, advertising and/or written notices, posting of Notices of Sources Sought and/or Requests for Proposals, written notices or emails to all DBEs listed in the State's directory of transportation firms that specialize in the areas of work desired (as noted in the DBE directory) and which are located in the area or surrounding areas of the project.
(2) The bidder should solicit this interest as early in the acquisition process as practicable to allow the DBEs to respond to the solicitation and submit a timely offer for the subcontract. The bidder should determine with certainty if the DBEs are interested by taking appropriate steps to follow up initial solicitations.

B. Selecting portions of the work to be performed by DBEs in order to increase the likelihood that the DBE goals will be achieved. This includes, where appropriate, breaking out contract work items into economically feasible units (for example, smaller tasks or quantities) to facilitate DBE participation, even when the prime contractor might otherwise prefer to perform these work items with its own forces. This may include, where possible, establishing flexible timeframes for performance and delivery schedules in a manner that encourages and facilitates DBE participation.
28 Attachment 8B
rev 12/20/18
C. Providing interested DBEs with adequate information about the plans, specifications, and requirements of the contract in a timely manner to assist them in responding to a solicitation with their offer for the subcontract.

D. (1) Negotiating in good faith with interested DBEs. It is the bidder's responsibility to make a portion of the work available to DBE subcontractors and suppliers and to select those portions of the work or material needs consistent with the available DBE subcontractors and suppliers, so as to facilitate DBE participation.

Evidence of such negotiation includes the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of DBEs that were considered; a description of the information provided regarding the plans and specifications for the work selected for subcontracting; and evidence as to why additional Agreements could not be reached for DBEs to perform the work.
(2) A bidder using good business judgment would consider a number of factors in negotiating with subcontractors, including DBE subcontractors, and would take a firm's price and capabilities as well as contract goals into consideration. However, the fact that there may be some additional costs involved in finding and using DBEs is not in itself sufficient reason for a bidder's failure to meet the contract DBE goal, as long as such costs are reasonable. Also, the ability or desire of a prime contractor to perform the work of a contract with its own organization does not relieve the bidder of the responsibility to make good faith efforts. Prime contractors are not, however, required to accept higher quotes from DBEs if the price difference is excessive or unreasonable.

E. (1) Not rejecting DBEs as being unqualified without sound reasons based on a thorough investigation of their capabilities. The contractor's standing within its industry, membership in specific groups, organizations, or associations and political or social affiliations (for example union vs. non-union status) are not legitimate causes for the rejection or non-solicitation of bids in the contractor's efforts to meet the project goal. Another practice considered an insufficient good faith effort is the rejection of the DBE because its quotation for the work was not the lowest received. However, nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to require the bidder or prime contractor to accept unreasonable quotes in order to satisfy contract goals. (2) A prime contractor's inability to find a replacement DBE at the original price is not alone sufficient to support a finding that good faith efforts have been made to replace the original DBE. The fact that the contractor has the ability and/or desire to perform the contract work with its own forces does not relieve the contractor of the obligation to make good faith efforts to find a replacement DBE, and it is not a sound basis for rejecting a prospective replacement DBE's reasonable quote.

F. Making efforts to assist interested DBEs in obtaining bonding, lines of credit, or insurance as required by the recipient or contractor.

G. Making efforts to assist interested DBEs in obtaining necessary equipment, supplies, materials, or related assistance or services.

H. Effectively using the services of available minority/women community organizations; minority/women contractors' groups; local, State, and Federal minority/women business assistance offices; and other organizations as allowed on a case-by-case basis to provide assistance in the recruitment and placement of DBEs.

V. In determining whether a bidder has made good faith efforts, it is essential to scrutinize its documented efforts. At a minimum, you must review the performance of other bidders in meeting the contract goal. For example, when the apparent successful bidder fails to meet the contract goal, but others meet it, you may reasonably raise the question of whether, with additional efforts, the apparent successful bidder could have met the goal. If the apparent successful bidder fails to meet the goal, but meets or exceeds the average DBE participation obtained by other bidders, you may view this, in conjunction with other factors, as evidence of the apparent successful bidder having made good faith efforts. As provided in §26.53(b)(2)((vi), you must also require the contractor to submit copies of each DBE and non-DBE subcontractor quote submitted to the bidder when a non-DBE subcontractor was selected over a DBE for work on the contract to review whether DBE prices were substantially higher; and contact the DBEs listed on a contractor's solicitation to inquire as to whether they were contacted by the prime. Pro forma mailings to DBEs requesting bids are not alone sufficient to satisfy good faith efforts under the rule.

VI. A promise to use DBEs after contract award is not considered to be responsive to the contract solicitation or to constitute good faith efforts.
[79 FR 59600, Oct. 2, 2014]
29 30
31 32
33 Attachment 9

Vendor Information

rev 12/20/18
SECTION 1. GENERAL CONTACT INFORMATION

Primary Contact
Title
Telephone No. Fax No.

E-mail Address
Company Website Address

SECTION 2. REMITTANCE ADDRESS (IF DIFFERENT FROM FORM W-9)

Company Name
Address
City State Zip Code
Telephone No. Fax No.

SECTION 3 PROPOSER’S/BIDDER’S LIST INFORMATION (REQUIRED)

Is your firm a Disadvantaged
Business Enterprise (DBE)? Yes No

As defined in Title 49 Part 26.11 of the Code of Federal Regulations, complete the required information below regardless of whether your firm is a DBE or non-DBE:

Age of Firm:

Annual Gross Receipts (select one):

Less than $1 Million $5 Million – $10 Million $15 Million – $17.4 Million $1 Million – $ 5 Million $10 Million – $15 Million $17.4 Million +

A COPY OF THE FIRMS DBE CERTIFICATION MUST BE PROVIDED TO QUALIFY AS A DBE.

For vendors located within the Southern California region, certification must be from one of the agencies listed below.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS)
Civil Rights MS 79, 1823 14th Street ,Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 324-1700 or (866) 810-6346, Fax: (916) 324-1862, website: caltrans.ca.gov

CITY OF LOS ANGELES
Office of Contract Compliance, Centralized Certification 1149 S. Broadway Street, Suite 300, Los Angeles, CA 90015 Phone:(213) 847-6480, Fax: (213) 847-5566, website: bca.lacity.org

LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (METRO) Diversity and Economic Opportunity Department
One Gateway Plaza, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Phone: (213) 922-2600, Fax: (213) 922-7660, website: mta.net

If you believe you qualify as a DBE but are not certified, you may want to contact one of the certifying agencies listed at http://californiaucp.org/ to initiate the certification process.

34 Attachment 9
rev 12/20/18
SECTION 4. COMMODITY CODE

Check all boxes of the commodity codes that apply to your company’s particular areas of expertise.

General Goods & Services
  NIGP DESCRIPTION   NIGP DESCRIPTION   NIGP DESCRIPTION 60001 Painters 60204 Telecommunications 60720 Paper, Fine 60007 Electrical 60233 Appliances 60730 Trophies & Awards 60008 Plumbing 60400 Audio Visual Equipment 60863 Temporary Staffing 60009 Small General Contractors 60401 Audio Visual Supplies 60875 Registrations (Training/Seminars) 60016 Security Systems 60402 Video Equipment 61000 Office Supplies 60017 H V A C Contractors 60545 Moving & Storage 90640 Graphic Design Services 60030 Sound Systems & Electronics 60637 Lease – Equipment 90640.1 Image Setting 60102 Postage & Courier Services 60637.1 Lease – Building 90640.2 Premium/Promotional Items 60102.1 Postage Machines 60638 Maintenance Agreement 96600 Printing & Related Services 60104 Memberships(Professional) 60640 Copiers/Mimeo/Dupl. 96115 Catering & Concessions 60105 Subscriptions (Periodicals) 60670 Furniture – Office 96115.1 Coffee & Tea Services 60200 Computer Hardware 60700 Typewriters & Supplies 96115.2 Bottled Water 60201 Computer Software 60701 Office Machines 96618 Copying/Reproduction Services 60202 Computer Supplies 60702 Office Machine Supplies 91528 Mailing Services & Electronic Info. 60203 Computer Services 60710 Stationary Supplies
Other
Professional/Consulting Services
  NIGP DESCRIPTION   NIGP DESCRIPTION   NIGP DESCRIPTION 60012 Architects, Engineer 91840 Employee Benefits Consulting 91892.1 Growth Visioning Planning 90868 Project Management 91843 Environmental Consulting 91893 Security/Safety Consulting 91804 Accounting/Auditing/Budgeting 91846 Feasibility Studies 91894 Traffic Consulting 91804.1 Organizational, Financial, & Performance
Audits/Project Management Services
91849 Finance/Economic Consulting 91895 Telecommunications Consulting 91858 Government Consulting 91896 Transportation Planning Consulting 91806 Administrative Consulting 91858.1 Government Relations 91896.1 Highway Corridor Analysis 91806.1 Administrative Services 91858.2 Institutional Analysis 91896.2 Rail Planning & Analysis 91812 Modeling-Analytical Studies & Surveys 91863 Housing Consulting 91896.3 Transit & Non-motorized Planning & Analysis 91812.1 Survey and Data Collection 91865 Human Relations Consulting 91812.2 Travel Demand Model Improvement 91866 Human Resources Consulting 91896.4 Transportation Management & Coordination
91812.3 Geographic Information System 91866.1 Executive Search 91812.4 Software Support for Studies & Surveys 91866.2 Insurance Broker Services 91896.5 Truck Lane Analysis/GoodsMovement
91812.5 Regional Data Systems 91874 Legal Consulting 91896.6 Transportation Financing 91817 Aviation Consulting 91874.1 Legislative Services 91896.7 Transportation & Economic Development
91826 Communications: Public Relations
Consulting
91874.2 Alternative Dispute Resolution 91896.8 Transportation Investment Analysis 91828 Computer Hardware Consulting 91875 Management Consulting 91896.9 Transportation Modeling Support 91828.1 Computer Service Center 91875.1 Organization & Staff Development 91897 Gas, Water, Electric Consulting 91829 Computer Software Consulting 91876 Marketing Consulting 91897.1 Air Quality Planning & Modeling 91829.1 Information Systems 91876.1 Social Economic Impact Analysis 91897.2 Water Supply Analysis 91829.2 Unix Systems Support 91876.2 Social Justice/Equity Analysis 96175 Translation Services 91829.3 Macintosh Computer Technical Support 91879 Minority & Small Business Consulting 91892 Urban Planning Consulting 91837 Economy Analysis Consulting 91883 Organizational Development Consulting 91838 Education & Training Consulting 91885 Personnel/Employment Consulting Other

SECTION 5. F O R M SUBMISSION

Include this form in your proposal
35 Attachment 10
rev 12/20/18
Notice Regarding California Public Records Act

Section ❶❶ ❶❶ - Summary

A proposal submitted in response to this RFP will be subject to public disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act, Cal. Gov. Code section 6250 et. seq., (the “Act”). The Act provides generally that all records relating to a public agency's business are open to public inspection and copying, unless specifically exempt from public disclosure under one of several exemptions set forth in the Act. If you believe that any portion of your proposal is exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act, you must: 1). Mark such portion “TRADE SECRET,” “CONFIDENTIAL,” or “PROPRIETARY,” within you proposal; 2). Complete Section ❷❷ ❷❷ below, and 3). Include this Attachment 10 in your submittal, or your proposal will be subject to public disclosure under the Act. Proposals marked “TRADE SECRET,” “CONFIDENTIAL,” OR “PROPRIETARY” in their entirety will not be honored, and SCAG will not deny public disclosure of proposals so marked. By submitting a proposal with specific material marked “TRADE SECRET,” “CONFIDENTIAL,” or “PROPRIETARY,” you represent you have a good faith belief that the material is exempt from disclosure under the Act; however, such designations will not necessarily be conclusive. You may be required to further justify in writing why such material should not, upon request, be disclosed by SCAG under the Act. Fee and pricing proposals are not considered “TRADE SECRETS”, “CONFIDENTIAL”, or “PROPRIETARY”.

If SCAG denies disclosure, then by submitting your proposal you agree to reimburse SCAG for, and to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless SCAG, its officers, fiduciaries, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, damages, losses, liabilities, suits, judgments, fines, penalties, costs, and expenses including, without limitation, attorneys' fees, expenses and court costs of any nature whatsoever (collectively, “Claims”) arising from, in connection with, or relating to SCAG’s non-disclosure. By submitting your proposal, you also agree to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless SCAG from and against any and all Claims arising from, in connection with, or relating to SCAG’s public disclosure of any such designated portions of your proposal if SCAG reasonably determines disclosure is deemed required by law, or if disclosure is ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction.

Section ❷❷ ❷❷ - Exemption Request

Page Number of
Proposal Brief Explanation for the Exemption Under the Act and any Other Comments

Attach additional pages as necessary

Check here if proposer claims no exemption

Signature: ______________________________________________ Date: ____________________ 36 Q & A for Project Costa Mesa Pedestrian Master Plan (20-030) Issued on 10/15/2019
Bid Due on November 12, 2019 10:00 AM (Pacific)
Exported on 10/25/2019
Question Answer
1 We understand Task 2.2, Project website to be for content- development only. The City's existing website and social media platforms will be used, including graphics and organization. Is this correct?
City website and social media platforms will be
used. Content created by consultant should
include both text and graphics, as appropriate.
2 Is the list of data in Task 3.2 (page 10 of RFP) existing data sets? Much of the data is publicly available, but the consultant shall be responsible for collecting.

City or SCAG may be able to provide some data.
3 For the Pedestrian Counts in Task 3.4 (page 11 of RFP)- Will the volunteers already be identified?
No, identificantion and coordination of
volunteers should be addressed by consultant in
the Public Outreach Strategy.
4 3. For the Line Item Budget, do we include specific staff names for key staff (Principal-in-Charge and Project Manager) along with their classification or just general classifications?
Specify names for key staff.
5 The RFP requires an inventory of existing conditions on 'street in the City's Master Plan and the City's Pedestrian Opportunity Zones as identified in Figure C-6 Pedestrian Opportunity Zones in the Circulation Element.' Can you provide more direction on which streets in the City's Master Plan are included? For example, are streets within the City limits shown on the Circulation Element's maps the ones to inventory (maps on pages C-12, Figure C-3, suggested route to school streets in Figure C-6 of the Pedestrian Opportunity Zones, and Figure C-8 - understanding the many of the streets are the same)?
Please use Figure C-6 Pedestrian Opportunity
Zones and include streets in the areas identified
as Priority Areas, and streets identified on figure
as suggested routes to school.
6 Regarding Task 3.4: -- Please clarify the number of pedestrian count locations and the number of counts to be completed. The RFP's scope is unclear in that it says we will conduct a minimum of five counts, but need to identify at least 10 count locations.

RFP should read 10 counts in 10 locations (one
per location)

EXHIBIT A
Scope of Work

22 DocuSign Envelope ID: 6BB80704-8B45-4908-84F8-111AD8265299

Exhibit A

SCOPE OF WORK

Costa Mesa Pedestrian Master Plan

Background

The City of Costa Mesa (City) desires to establish a pedestrian-friendly environment throughout the City and connected with the region through the creation of a Pedestrian Master Plan (Plan).

The Plan shall support and inform the larger regional ActiveOC, Orange County’s Bike and Pedestrian Plan being developed by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and shall serve as model for other cities in the region seeking to improve active transportation. It shall address specific issues related to pedestrian elements and regional connections. Improving conditions for walking within the City and connecting to surrounding regions would provide residents and regional stakeholders with greater access to jobs, goods, and services without the use of an automobile. Increasing the percentage of trips made by walking will reduce overall local and regional VMT and GHG emissions.

The Plan shall identify solutions to meet the needs of people walking in the City and connecting to the surrounding region. The Plan shall supplement and enhance the larger regional ActiveOC by providing a detailed localized plan. It shall specifically improve mobility for people walking by providing a comprehensive plan for pedestrian connectivity. It shall provide a plan for open and easy access to walking for recreation, commuting, and other daily needs and will propose improvements to infrastructure for pedestrians connecting communities, schools and parks, making the City a destination with a sense of purpose for residents and regional stakeholders alike.

The Consultant shall perform the following tasks:

Task 1 - Project Initiation and Management
Task 1.1 - Project Kick-Off Meeting
Consultant shall schedule one two-hour kick-off meeting with the SCAG Project Manager (PM), City PM and other relevant staff. At a minimum Consultant PM shall attend in person. The kick- off meeting shall be used to discuss project timeline, internal meeting schedule, communication channels, etc. Consultant shall provide a detailed schedule indicating stages of work and time frames.

As part of the kick-off meeting the Consultant shall also be facilitating a strategic stakeholder analysis discussion, clarifying outreach mission, identifying key stakeholders and the appropriate level of engagement, timing of activities ensuring congruency with technical milestones, and key messages to be resonated throughout the project.

23 DocuSign Envelope ID: 6BB80704-8B45-4908-84F8-111AD8265299

Deliverables:
• Kick-off meeting facilitation (1)
• Draft and final meeting agenda and materials (1)
• Meeting minutes and copy of materials (including attendance roster, final detailed schedule, document/data needs with responsible parties) (1)

Task 1.2 - Technical Assistance and Presentations
The Consultant shall manage and participate in at least three (3) meetings with the Costa Mesa Bikeway and Walkability Committee at three major project milestones throughout the project. The Consultant shall coordinate with the City PM to determine when each milestone will occur and the desired agenda for each meeting. Consultant shall provide the City and SCAG PMs with the proposed drafts of the key milestone deliverables for review two (2) weeks in advance of the meeting dates. Any revisions to materials based on City or SCAG input will be coordinated so that materials can be distributed to the committee one (1) week in advance of meetings.

Consultant shall prepare meeting materials such as maps, graphics, presentations and other relevant materials for at least two (2) City Council meetings and send at least two (2) staff to address any technical questions.

Deliverables:
• Draft and Final Agendas for three (3) meetings with the Bikeway and Walkability Committee
• Presentation Materials and Meeting Minutes for three (3) meetings with the Bikeway and Walkability Committee
• Draft and Final Presentation Materials for and Presentation at two (2) City Council Meetings

Task 1.3 - Regular Project Management Meetings
Consultant shall host monthly project management meetings with the SCAG Project Manager, Agency Project Manager and other relevant staff. With SCAG and Agency PM, the Consultant shall be represented by the Consultant project manager. The Consultant shall schedule a minimum of three (3) meetings with neighboring jurisdictions and regional agencies to determine cross- jurisdictional coordination efforts.

An agenda for each meeting shall be drafted by the Consultant PM and shall be communicated to the SCAG and City PMs two business days prior to the meetings. Within five (5) business days after each meeting, the Consultant shall share meeting minutes and a list of action items (and responsible parties) if any, with SCAG and City PMs.

Consultant shall prepare and maintain a project schedule throughout the life of the project.

Deliverables:
• Meeting Agendas (11)
• Meetings Minutes and Action Items (11)

24 DocuSign Envelope ID: 6BB80704-8B45-4908-84F8-111AD8265299

Task 2 – Outreach Strategy and Stakeholder Engagement
Task 2.1 – Public Outreach Strategy
Consultant shall develop a tailored outreach strategy that will be presented in a 3-page memo which will serve as a comprehensive guiding document for all project outreach efforts – both for interagency coordination and to solicit public input. The strategy shall include a draft outreach schedule and proposed methods of engagement, including use of Go Human materials, to drive attendance at the workshops. It shall also detail how the Consultant will coordinate with the Agency to engage local media to encourage community participation in the planning process.

Finally, the outreach strategy shall outline proposed agendas for each of the meetings and activities for each of the workshops. In addition to the outreach strategy, the Consultant shall develop project branding and templates including, but not limited to, a survey tool, flyers, information sheets, presentations, etc. to support outreach activities. The Consultant shall translate all materials into Spanish.

Deliverables:
• Draft and Final Outreach Strategy (1)
• Survey Tool, Flyers, Information Sheets (varies)
• Presentations and Templates (2)
• Press Releases (2)
• Social Media Post templates (2)

Task 2.2 – Online Platform
The Consultant shall work with the City’s Communications and Marketing Division to utilize an existing digital platform that the City is already using to serve as the central source of all project- related information. Online platform shall include, but not be limited to: project description; project milestones, meeting and event calendar; surveys; and space to provide information about the project and gather community feedback. The Consultant shall be responsible for updating content on the online platform monthly throughout the duration of the project.

Deliverables:
• Use of Existing Online Platform
• Monthly updates to the Online Platform as directed by the City and SCAG PMs

Task 2.3: Public Workshops and Stakeholder Engagement
Consultant shall work with the Agency to conduct a minimum of three (3) public workshops and engage with the public to collect feedback on the plan. Prior to each workshop, the Consultant shall conduct outreach through social media, flyers within the community, or other means, to drive attendance and encourage engagement. The Consultant shall present the goals of the plan and gather feedback at meetings with community leaders and residents, neighborhood associations, community groups, etc. In addition to the public workshops, the Consultant shall present the goals of the plan and gather feedback at a minimum of three (3) meetings with the City's Bikeway and Walkability Committee as described in Task 1.2. The Consultant shall document feedback received at each meeting to be included in the final plan. Spanish translation services should be provided at all public workshops.

25 DocuSign Envelope ID: 6BB80704-8B45-4908-84F8-111AD8265299

Deliverables:
• Workshop Notices (3)
• Agenda and Sign in Sheets (3)
• Meeting Minutes (3)
• Summary of Data Collected (community comments, etc.) (3) • Community Engagement Technical Memo (1)

Task 3: Existing Conditions and Needs Analysis
Task 3.1: Review of Existing Materials, Plans, Policies and Initiatives The Consultant shall review all relevant existing materials and planning documents including policies and initiatives of neighboring cities (including but not limited to Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Santa Ana, and unincorporated Orange County). The Consultant shall identify any necessary additional data, such as street or intersection traffic volume counts, as- built improvement plans, etc., that may be required to complete this Scope of Work. The Consultant shall also review the City’s design standards for pedestrian improvements.

Deliverables:
• Data needs assessment (1)
• Memo summarizing regional and local planning context and integration. Contents to be included in Final Plan (1)

Task 3.2: Survey of Existing Conditions, Improvements and Walk Audits The Consultant shall conduct a survey and/or walk audits of the existing conditions of the streets in the City's Master Plan and in the Pedestrian Opportunity Zones as identified in Figure C-6 Pedestrian Opportunity Zones in the Circulation Element.

The survey of existing conditions shall include, but not be limited to all data points necessary for application for Walk Friendly Community Certification and:
• Traffic volumes and roadway capacity
• Mode Share
• Description of Land Use/Destinations in the zones
• Pedestrian facilities
• Wayfinding
• Demographics of walking
• Pedestrian crash data
• Connectivity
• Gaps in the existing network
• Pedestrian Suitability for travel
• Posted and observed 85% speed limit (based on city speed surveys) • Transit boardings and alightings (to identify first/last mile opportunities) • Land use, population, employment data, and transit connections to identify areas with latent demand for pedestrian facilities.
• Traffic citations (police to provide)
26 DocuSign Envelope ID: 6BB80704-8B45-4908-84F8-111AD8265299

• Collision data for the past 5 years (SWITRS and Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS))

Consultant shall prepare an inventory of existing pedestrian facilities in the City. Consultant shall update City GIS data or obtain data from OCTA and generate new GIS maps and graphics documenting the data collected during execution of this task. Using this data and these GIS maps, Consultant shall evaluate the pedestrian network to identify existing locations of possible safety concern, inefficient conditions, and opportunities and constraints to improve facilities to promote pedestrian activity. The inventory shall include:
• Locations of existing pedestrian facilities
• Locations of existing pedestrian key activity centers (transit facilities, schools, parks, public buildings, and shopping centers)
• Sidewalk coverage along arterials, collectors, and in targeted areas with higher levels of pedestrian activity
• Pedestrian equipment at traffic signals (e.g., countdown timers and marked crosswalks) • Pedestrian facility maintenance records provided by the City • Pedestrian conflict zones
• Other data determined by local agencies or OCTA

Consultant
shall facilitate at least six (6) half-day walk audits within the Pedestrian Opportunity Zones (Figure D under Project Understanding). Consultant shall engage the Bikeway and Walkability Committee members to assist with the walk audits. Consultant shall provide all necessary materials, e.g., large printed maps, markers, pens, sign-in sheets, and comment forms for the audits. After the safety walk audit is complete, Consultant shall prepare an event summary detailing the safety information identified along the entire corridor and recommendations for immediate actions and those requiring further evaluation.

Recommendations shall be tied to crash data and observations from the safety walk audit. The event summary shall be circulated to the safety walk audit team for one round of input and comments.

Deliverables:
• Technical Memorandum summarizing existing inventory findings (1) • Comprehensive GIS data, tables and maps with FCDG-compliant metadata • Walk audit summary reports (6)

Task 3.3: Pedestrian Collision Analysis and Needs Analysis The Consultant shall conduct a collision data analysis for pedestrians. Deficiencies in the existing pedestrian facility network shall be identified including gaps.

The Consultant shall perform an in depth analysis of collision data using SWITRS (Internet Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System) to identify collision factors and appropriate countermeasures. The Consultant shall also work with SCAG to create a "hot spot" analysis to identify locations with high rates of bicycle and pedestrian collisions. The Consultant shall call out specific collision data near schools.

27 DocuSign Envelope ID: 6BB80704-8B45-4908-84F8-111AD8265299

Deliverables:
• Collision Report and tables (type, PCF, and hot spot roadways and intersections) • Police Citation Report and tables
• GIS layers (will be compiled and organized to meet FCDG metadata compliance)

Task 3.4: Pedestrian Counts
The Consultant shall work with the City and SCAG PMs to conduct a minimum of ten (10) pedestrian counts within the project/plan area. The Consultant shall identify at least ten (10) locations within the community for pedestrian counts. The Consultant shall use SCAG's adopted methodologies to conduct screen line counts during the AM and PM peak as well as during the weekend for each location, in accordance with the Caltrans ATP Interim Count Methodology Guidance. Data from the counts shall be standardized for and uploaded into SCAG's Active Transportation Database.

Deliverables:
• Data tables (10)
• GIS Map of Count Locations with FCDG compliant metadata (1) • Count data uploaded into SCAG’s Active Transportation Database (10)

Task 4: Pedestrian Recommendations
Task 4.1: Develop Prioritization Methodology
The Consultant shall develop a prioritization methodology, to be reviewed by SCAG and City PMs, that shall utilize metrics required in grant applications, in order to establish a framework for project prioritization. In developing the prioritization methodology the Consultant shall consult with the Bikeway and Walkability Committee and consider community need; regional, county, and statewide policy and funding frameworks; and the timeframe for implementation.

Key factors for project identification and prioritization include, but are not limited to:
• Creation of a consistent and legible pedestrian network • Proximity to and potential for increased access to schools and Bikeway and Walkability Committee defined destinations
• First-last mile connection to transit stops (especially High Quality Transit Corridors defined in Connect SoCal, SCAG’s 2020 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy)
• Environmental Justice impacts
• High Injury Network identified segments
• Increased regional connectivity
• Outcomes of public engagement and Bikeway and Walkability Committee input

Deliverables:
• Draft and Final Prioritization methodology (Locally and Regionally Sensitive) (1)

Task 4.2: Identify Local and Regional Network Project List Based on the approved methodology from Task 4.1, the Consultant shall develop a list of locally and regionally significant prioritized projects The list shall include a table reflecting preferred facilities by road classification, or other factors, for routes and to inform policy development. 28 DocuSign Envelope ID: 6BB80704-8B45-4908-84F8-111AD8265299

Additionally, Consultant shall compile identified projects in a GIS map to be provided to the City and SCAG along with FCDG-compliant metadata.

The City, SCAG and the Bikeways and Walkability Committee will review and comment on the draft project descriptions for the fact sheets. Consultant shall provide planning-level drawings and planning-level conceptual renderings of at least five (5) potential priority projects to depict applicable proposed pedestrian infrastructure, traffic calming, pedestrian features, complete street plans, and intersection alignments.

Deliverables:
• Prioritized list and table of projects (Local + Regional) (1) • Draft and Final Pedestrian Improvements (Local+ Regional) (1) • GIS map of existing and proposed pedestrian facilities including needed ADA improvements (with FCDG-compliant metadata)
• Project Fact Sheet of five (5) Priority Local and Regional Projects

Task 4.3: Develop Implementation Strategy
Consultant shall develop an implementation strategy to include planning-level cost estimates for identified priority projects and potential funding sources. Consultant shall develop a walk audit tool to be used on this project and future projects.

Deliverables:
• Project Cost Estimates (5)
• Funding Matrix (1)

Task 5: Final Plan Development

Task 5.1: Draft Plan
The Consultant shall develop a Costa Mesa Pedestrian Master Plan outline in coordination with the SCAG and City PMs as well as the Bikeway and Walkability Committee. The outline shall contain not just the chapter headings and sub-headings, but also a brief description of the content in each chapter. The outline shall contain at a minimum the following:

1. Acknowledgements

2. Executive Summary

3. Introduction

4. Stakeholder Engagement

5. Goals, Objectives, and Policies

6. Existing Conditions

7. Recommendations

8. Implementation Strategy

Based on the comments received on the draft outline, a final outline shall be developed and it shall be the backbone for the Draft Plan. Following the final outline, the Consultant shall prepare the draft Costa Mesa Pedestrian Master Plan from the assembled information and deliverables 29 DocuSign Envelope ID: 6BB80704-8B45-4908-84F8-111AD8265299

from Tasks 2 to 4, and comments received from the community engagement, the project team and the City and SCAG PMs. The content of the Plan shall be supported by graphics, photos, charts, tables and maps so it is reader-friendly and comprehensible.

At a minimum, the draft citywide Costa Mesa Pedestrian Master Plan shall contain the following:
• List of citywide pedestrian projects including calling out community preferred facilities • Regional integration strategy with recommendations for interregional connections • Recommendations for performance measures consistent with the City’s initiative • Recommendations to address citywide pedestrian connectivity to key destinations and other locations
• Documentation of potential project benefit in improving community health and quality of life
• Planning assumptions based on academic studies to justify project related benefits • ATP scoring criteria compliance table for prioritized projects • Table of funding sources and assumptions for local and regional projects • Summary of outreach, engagement, and comments received as part of the process

The draft Pedestrian Master Plan shall be distributed to all stakeholders that had participated in the planning process to solicit feedback from them. In addition, the draft Pedestrian Master Plan shall also be presented to the Bikeway and Walkability Committee and the City Council to obtain feedback and comments.

Deliverables:
• Draft and Final Plan Outline (1)
• Draft City of Costa Mesa Pedestrian Master Plan (1)
• List of comments received, response to comments document (1)

Task 5.2: Final Plan
The Consultant shall update the Draft Plan into the Final Plan including all recommended changes from outreach activities. The Consultant shall complete a Final Plan including all components of the plan and present the Plan to the Agency's Bikeway and Walkability Committee. Final electronic copies shall be provided to SCAG and the implementing agency in Word, PDF and In Design versions. All GIS files shall be provided as well to support SCAG's regional data collection efforts.

Deliverables:
• Final City of Costa Mesa Pedestrian Master Plan in Word, PDF and In Design • Project related GIS files (FCDG-Compliant)

30 DocuSign Envelope ID: 6BB80704-8B45-4908-84F8-111AD8265299

Task 5.3: City Council Adoption
The Consultant shall present the Final Plan to the City Council for adoption. The Consultant shall make one (1) final round of revisions based on a single set of non-conflicting comments following the presentation of the Plan to the City Council.

Deliverables:
• Graphics (as needed for presentation)
• PowerPoint Presentation (1)
• Updated Final Plan following Council Adoption (1)

Deliverables shall be provided in accordance with Exhibit B, Schedule. Copies of all required Deliverables for each Task as note above shall be provided to the SCAG’s Project Manager .
31 DocuSign Envelope ID: 6BB80704-8B45-4908-84F8-111AD8265299

Exhibit A

SCOPE OF WORK

CONTRACT DELIVERABLES SUMMARY

Task 1 Deliverables:
• Kick-off meeting facilitation (1)
• Draft and final meeting agenda and materials (1)
• Meeting minutes and copy of materials (including attendance roster, final detailed schedule, document/data needs with responsible parties) (1) • Draft and Final Agendas for three (3) meetings with the Bikeway and Walkability Committee
• Presentation Materials and Meeting Minutes for three (3) meetings with the Bikeway and Walkability Committee
• Draft and Final Presentation Materials for and Presentation at two (2) City Council Meetings
• Meeting Agendas (11)
• Meetings Minutes and Action Items (11)

Task 2 Deliverables:
• Draft and Final Outreach Strategy (1)
• Survey Tool, Flyers, Information Sheets (varies)
• Presentations and Templates (2)
• Press Releases (2)
• Social Media Post templates (2)
• Use of Existing Online Platform
• Monthly updates to the Online Platform as directed by the City and SCAG PMs • Workshop Notices (3)
• Agenda and Sign in Sheets (3)
• Meeting Minutes (3)
• Summary of Data Collected (community comments, etc.) (3) • Community Engagement Technical Memo (1)

Task 3 Deliverables:
• Data needs assessment (1)
• Memo summarizing regional and local planning context and integration. Contents to be included in Final Plan (1)
• Technical Memorandum summarizing existing inventory findings (1) • Comprehensive GIS data, tables and maps with FCDG-compliant metadata • Walk audit summary reports (6)
• Collision Report and tables (type, PCF, and hot spot roadways and intersections) • Police Citation Report and tables
• GIS layers (will be compiled and organized to meet FCDG metadata compliance) • Data tables (10)
• GIS Map of Count Locations with FCDG compliant metadata (1) • Count data uploaded into SCAG’s Active Transportation Database (10)

32 DocuSign Envelope ID: 6BB80704-8B45-4908-84F8-111AD8265299

Task 4 Deliverables:
• Draft and Final Prioritization methodology (Locally and Regionally Sensitive) (1) • Prioritized list and table of projects (Local + Regional) (1) • Draft and Final Pedestrian Improvements (Local+ Regional) (1) • GIS map of existing and proposed pedestrian facilities including needed ADA improvements (with FCDG-compliant metadata)
• Project Fact Sheet of five (5) Priority Local and Regional Projects • Project Cost Estimates (5)
• Funding Matrix (1)

Task 5 Deliverables:
• Draft and Final Plan Outline (1)
• Draft City of Costa Mesa Pedestrian Master Plan (1)
• List of comments received, response to comments document (1) • Final City of Costa Mesa Pedestrian Master Plan in Word, PDF and In Design • Project related GIS files (FCDG-Compliant)
• Graphics (as needed for presentation)
• PowerPoint Presentation (1)
• Updated Final Plan following Council Adoption (1)

33 DocuSign Envelope ID: 6BB80704-8B45-4908-84F8-111AD8265299 C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C - 25

Figure C-6: Pedestrian Opportunity Zones
34 DocuSign Envelope ID: 6BB80704-8B45-4908-84F8-111AD8265299

EXHIBIT B
Schedule

35 DocuSign Envelope ID: 6BB80704-8B45-4908-84F8-111AD8265299 Exhibit B – Schedule

20-030-C01 Rev 11/06/19

Title of RFP: Costa Mesa Pedestrian Master Plan
RFP Number: 20-030
P
roject Timeline
TASK 1: PROJECT INITIATION AND MANAGEMENT

1.1a: Project Kickoff Meeting n

1.2: Technical Assistance and Presentations n n n

1.3: Regular Project Management Meetings o o o o o o o o o o o TASK 2: OUTREACH STRATEGY AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

2.1: Public Outreach Strategy

2.2: Develop and Update Project Webpage

2.3: Public Workshops and Stakeholder Engagement n n n n n n TASK 3: EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NEEDS ANALYSIS

3.1: Policy and Planning Context

3.2: Survye of Existing Conditions, Improvements and Safety Walk Audits

3.3: Pedestrian Collision Analysis and Needs Analysis

3.4: Pedestrian Counts
TASK 4: IDENTIFY PROPOSED PEDESTRAIN AND SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL IMPROVEMENTS

4.1: Identify Local Network Priorities

4.2: Identify Regional Network Priorities

4.3: Develop Implementation Strategy
TASK 5: PREPARE PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN

5.1: Prepare Draft Pedestrian Master Plan

5.2: Prepare Final Pedestrian Master Plan n

5.3: City Council Adoption n
Total # of Meetings/Calls (to calculate Labor Hours and ODC) Kick-off Meeting 1 n
Monthly Meeting - in person 11 o
City Council Meetings 2 n
Bikeway and Walkability Committee Meetings 3 n
Safety Walk Audits (each represents 2 audits) 6 n
Public Workshops 3 n
Nov-20 Dec-20M ar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Jul-20Personnel Project Timeframe
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Aug-20 Sep-20 Oct-20 Jun-21
16 Project Closeout
Jan-21 Feb-21
12 Mar-21 Apr-21 May-21
13 14 15
36 DocuSign Envelope ID: 6BB80704-8B45-4908-84F8-111AD8265299 From: ESCOBAR, SERGIO
To: GREEN, BRENDA; TERAN, STACY
Cc: CONSTITUENT SERVICES
Subject: FW: Bringing the Las Vegas Raiders to Costa Mesa is a terrible idea Date: Tuesday, May 7, 2024 7:54:56 AM
Attachments: image001.wmz
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
image007.png
image010.png
image011.emz
image012.png
Good morning,

See public comment below.

Best regards,
Sergio Escobar
Management Analyst
City Manager’s Office
O: (714) 754-5156 | C: (714) 925-7457
77 Fair Drive | Costa Mesa | CA 92626

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 6, 2024 11:28 PM
To: STEPHENS, JOHN <[email protected]>; HARLAN, JEFFREY <[email protected]>; MARR, ANDREA <[email protected]>; CHAVEZ, MANUEL <[email protected]>; GAMEROS, LOREN <[email protected]>; HARPER, DON <[email protected]>; REYNOLDS, ARLIS <[email protected]>; CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>; CONSTITUENT SERVICES <[email protected]> Subject: Bringing the Las Vegas Raiders to Costa Mesa is a terrible idea

Dear Costa Mesa Public Officials:

I understand the city is considering bringing the Las Vegas Raiders for NFL training camp to Costa Mesa. That is a terrible idea. The last time the Raiders held camp in Oxnard there was a fan brawl: Fan involved in Cowboys-Raiders brawl at practice

Fan involved in Cowboys-Raiders brawl at practice
Watch: Raiders fan swings a helmet at a Cowboys player after teams' scuffle nearly spills over into the stands

Unfortunately, the Raiders franchise attracts “fans” that are only there to cause issues. A criminal element. Costa Mesa does need this type of headache. Google Raider fan fights in Oakland and Las Vegas. There have also been fights between Raiders fans themselves at SoFi Stadium in Inglewood when the team is playing the Chargers.

Howie Long once said he wouldn’t bring his family to a game when the Raiders played in Los Angeles at the Coliseum. There is a reason the NFL did not want them back in Southern California.

I understand that the Chargers leaving Costa Mesa is disappointing from a revenue standpoint, but bringing the Raiders to town will bring a whole set of issues. It’s not worth the risk. It only takes one incident for it to become a regrettable decision. You should tell Mark Davis, thanks, but no thanks.

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.