Costa Mesa City Council
November 19, 2024

C. With respect to the insurance afforded to these
additional insureds, the following is added to
Section Ill - Limits Of Insurance:

If coverage provided to the additional insured is
required by a contract or agreement, the most we
will pay on behalf of the additional insured is the
amount of insurance:

1. Required by the contract or agreement; or

2. Available under the applicable limits of
insurance;
whichever is less.

This endorsement shall not increase the applicable
limits of insurance.
683
POLICY NUMBER: 72 ECS S 8 9 3 01 COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CG 20 37 12 19

THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY.

ADDITIONAL INSURED - OWNERS, LESSEES OR

CONTRACTORS - COMPLETED OPERATIONS

This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following:

COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART

PRODUCTS/COMPLETED OPERATIONS LIABILITY COVERAGE PART

SCHEDULE

Name Of Additional Insured Person(s)
Or Organization(sJ

Location And Description Of Completed Operations

WHERE REQUIRED BY WRITTEN CONTRACT WHERE REQUIRED BY WRITTEN CONTRACT

Information required to complete this Schedule, if not shown above, will be shown in the Declarations.

A. Section II - Who Is An Insured is amended to
include as an additional insured the person(s) or
organization(s) shown in the Schedule, but only with
respect to liability for "bodily injury" or "property
damage" caused, in whole or in part, by "your work"
at the location designated and described in the
Schedule of this endorsement performed for that
additional insured and included in the "products-
completed operations hazard".

However:

1. The insurance afforded to such additional
insured only applies to the extent permitted by
law; and

2. If coverage provided to the additional insured is
required by a contract or agreement, the
insurance afforded to such additional insured will
not be broader than that which you are required
by the contract or agreement to provide for such
additional insured.

B. With respect to the insurance afforded to these
additional insureds, the following is added to
Section Ill - Limits Of Insurance:

If coverage provided to the additional insured is
required by a contract or agreement, the most we
will pay on behalf of the additional insured is the
amount of insurance:

1. Required by the contract or agreement; or

2. Available under the applicable limits of
insurance;
whichever is less.

This endorsement shall not increase the applicable
limits of insurance.

CG 20 37 12 19 © Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2018 Page 1 of 1 684
POLICY NUMBER:

ABCDEFG HIJ

THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY.

AMENDMENT OF OTHER INSURANCE CONDITION -

PRIMARY OR PRIMARY AND NON-CONTRIBUTORY WHEN

REQUIRED BY CONTRACT
This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following:

PRODUCTS/COMPLETED OPERATIONS LIABILITY COVERAGE PART (EXCESS) PRODUCTS/COMPLETED OPERATIONS LIABILITY COVERAGE PART (EXCESS – BROAD FORM)

With respect to other insurance available to any
person or organization who is an additional insured
under this Coverage Part, the following replaces
Paragraph 4., Other Insurance of Section IV –

PRODUCTS/COMPLETED OPERATIONS LIABILITY
CONDITIONS:

4. Other Insurance
If other valid and collectible insurance is available
to the insured for a loss we cover under
Coverages A or B of this Coverage Part, our
obligations are limited as follows:
a. Primary Insurance When Required By
Contract
If you have agreed in a written contract,
written agreement or permit that this
insurance be primary, then subject to the "self-
insured retention", this insurance is primary . If
other insurance is also primary, we will share
with all that other insurance by the method
described in Paragraph c. below.
b. Primary And Non-Contributory To Other
Insurance When Required By Contract
If you have agreed in a written contract,
written agreement, or permit that this
insurance is primary and non-contributory with
the additional insured's own insurance, then
subject to the "self-insured retention", this
insurance is primary, and we will not seek
contribution from that other insurance.

Paragraphs a. and b. do not apply to other
insurance to which the additional insured has been
added as an additional insured.
c. Method Of Sharing
If all of the other insurance permits
contribution by equal shares, we will follow this
method also. Under this approach each
insurer contributes equal amounts until it has
paid its applicable limit of insurance or none of
the loss remains, whichever comes first.

If any of the other insurance does not permit
contribution by equal shares, we will contribute
by limits. Under this method, each insurer’s
share is based on the ratio of its applicable
limit of insurance to the total applicable limits
of insurance of all insurers.

Form EH 24 08 03 14 Page 1 of 1
© 2014, The Hartford
(Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc., with its permission.) 685

EXHIBIT C

SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE

Consultant shall commence the services pursuant to this Agreement upon receipt of a written notice to proceed.

686

EXHIBIT D

CITY COUNCIL POLICY 100-5

687

BACKGROUND

Under the Federal Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988, passed as part of omnibus drug legislation enacted November 18, 1988, contractors and grantees of Federal funds must certify that they will provide drug-free workplaces. At the present time, the City of Costa Mesa, as a sub- grantee of Federal funds under a variety of programs, is required to abide by this Act. The City Council has expressed its support of the national effort to eradicate drug abuse through the creation of a Substance Abuse Committee, institution of a City-wide D.A.R.E. program in all local schools and other activities in support of a drug- free community. This policy is intended to extend that effort to contractors and grantees of the City of Costa Mesa in the elimination of dangerous drugs in the workplace.

PURPOSE

It is the purpose of this Policy to:

1. Clearly state the City of Costa Mesa’s commitment to a drug-free society.

2. Set forth guidelines to ensure that public, private, and nonprofit organizations receiving funds from the City of Costa Mesa share the commitment to a drug-free workplace.

POLICY

The City Manager, under direction by the City Council, shall take the necessary steps to see that the following provisions are included in all contracts and agreements entered into by the City of Costa Mesa involving the disbursement of funds.

1. Contractor or Sub-grantee hereby certifies that it will provide a drug-free workplace by:

a. Publishing a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in Contractor’s and/or sub -grantee’s workplace, specifically the job site or location included in this contract, and specifying the actions that will be taken against the employees for violation of such prohibition;

SUBJECT

DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE
POLICY
NUMBER
100-5

EFFECTIVE
DATE
8-8-89

PAGE

1 of 3
688

SUBJECT

DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE
POLICY
NUMBER
100-5

EFFECTIVE
DATE
8-8-89
PAGE

2 of 3

b. Establishing a Drug-Free Awareness Program to inform employees about:

1. The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace;

2. Contractor’s and/or sub-grantee’s policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace;

3. Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation and employee assistance programs; and

4. The penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations occurring in the workplace;

c. Making it a requirement that each employee to be engaged in the performance of the contract be given a copy of the statement required by subparagraph A;

d. Notifying the employee in the statement required by subparagraph 1 A that, as a condition of employment under the contract, the employee will:

1. Abide by the terms of the statement; and

2. Notify the employer of any criminal drug statute conviction for a violation occurring in the workplace no later than five (5) days after such conviction;

e. Notifying the City of Costa Mesa within ten (10) days after receiving notice under subparagraph 1 D 2 from an employee or otherwise receiving the actual notice of such conviction;

f. Taking one of the following actions within thirty (30) days of receiving notice under subparagraph 1 D 2 with respect to an employee who is so convicted:

1. Taking appropriate personnel action against such an employee, up to and including termination; or

2. Requiring such employee to participate satisfactorily in a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation program approved for such purposes by a Federal, State, or local health agency, law enforcement, or other appropriate agency;

689

SUBJECT

DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE
POLICY
NUMBER
100-5

EFFECTIVE
DATE
8-8-89
PAGE

3 of 3

g. Making a good faith effort to maintain a drug- free workplace through implementation of subparagraphs 1 A through 1 F, inclusive.

2. Contractor and/or sub-grantee shall be deemed to be in violation of this Policy if the City of Costa Mesa determines that:

a. Contractor and/or sub -grantee has made a false certification under paragraph 1 above;

b. Contractor and/or sub-grantee has violated the certification by failing to carry out the requirements of subparagraphs 1 A through 1 G above;

c. Such number of employees of Contractor and/or sub-grantee have been convicted of violations of criminal drug statutes for violations occurring in the workplace as to indicate that the contractor and/or sub- grantee has failed to make a good faith effort to provide a drug-free workplace.

3. Should any contractor and/or sub- grantee be deemed to be in violation of this Policy pursuant to the provisions of 2 A, B, and C, a suspension, termination or debarment proceeding subject to applicable Federal, State, and local laws shall be conducted. Upon issuance of any final decision under this section requiring debarment of a contractor and/or sub-grantee, the contractor and/or sub -grantee shall be ineligible for award of any contract, agreement or grant from the City of Costa Mesa for a period specified in the decision, not to exceed five (5) years. Upon issuance of any final decision recommending against debarment of the contractor and/or sub-grantee, the contractor and/or sub-grantee shall be eligible for compensation as provided by law.

690

CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 24-404 Meeting Date: 11/19/2024
TITLE:

AWARD OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH LYONS SECURITY TO PROVIDE

SECURITY GUARD SERVICES FOR THE LIONS PARK CAMPUS, THE COSTA MESA SENIOR

CENTER, AND OPEN NMUSD CAMPUSES
DEPARTMENT: PARKS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES
PRESENTED BY: BRIAN GRUNER, PARKS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES

DIRECTOR
CONTACT INFORMATION: BRIAN GRUNER, PARKS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR, (714) 754-5009
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Award a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) to Lyons Security Inc. for an annual amount of $490,000 towards unarmed security guard services for the Lions Park Campus, the Costa Mesa Senior Center, and three Newport Mesa Unified Campuses (Attachment 1).

2. Authorize the City Manager and City Clerk to execute the PSA.

3. Authorize the City Manager and City Clerk to execute future changes and amendments to the agreement and allow up to an additional 10% contingency in the amount of $49,000.

BACKGROUND:

In May 2014, the City of Costa Mesa acquired full responsibility of the operations of the Costa Mesa Senior Center. Upon transitioning from non-profit to City-operated, City staff proposed, and the City Council approved, an emergency, informal bidding process for the acquisition of security guard services, to monitor activity during operating hours in and around the Senior Center, and to provide adequate safeguards for senior participants.

In January 2019, the City Council approved additional, unarmed security guard services for the Lions Park Campus to monitor activity on the entire campus, including the new library and the one-acre event lawn/open space. This service began in mid-February 2019. The addition of this service also coincided with the opening of the adjacent temporary Bridge Shelter in early spring 2019.

With the re-activation of the Lions Park Campus, and with more than $36 million in upgrades and construction across all phases, there is a need to continue to monitor the Lions Park Campus area on a 24/7/365 basis, by an unarmed security guard, to continue deterring unsolicited and/or illegal

691
File #: 24-404 Meeting Date: 11/19/2024
a 24/7/365 basis, by an unarmed security guard, to continue deterring unsolicited and/or illegal activity, and to provide quality control.

In 2019, City Council approved a PSA with Lyons Security Service, Inc. for an initial term of two (2) years, with the option to extend the term for three (3) additional one-year periods for 24/7 security at the Lions Parks Campus and business hours at the Costa Mesa Senior Center In 2024, City Council approved allocating additional funds to assign security guards at three Newport Mesa Unified School District Schools, Rea, Whittier and Wilson Elementary, as a collaboration between the City and the District to increase public access to open space on the Westside.

ANALYSIS:

For the past five years, the City has continued to contract with Lyons Security Inc., for unarmed security guard services. At this time, all contract extensions with Lyons Security have been exercised and the current agreement expired on October 31, 2024. In preparation for the contract’sexpiration, the Parks and Community Services Department went through a competitive bid process as set forth in the City’s Purchasing Policy.

On May 3, 2024, the Finance Department, Purchasing Division, released Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 24-10 for Unarmed Security Guard Services (Attachment 2). The RFP was published in the Daily Pilot Newspaper and posted on the City’s website.

In response to the RFP, 21 proposals were received and evaluated based on the company’sability to respond and satisfactorily define their ability to meet the following criteria: method of approach, qualifications of experience, staffing, and cost proposal.

After a thorough review and analysis of each proposal, a panel comprised of City staff from both the Parks & Community Services Department and the Police Department interviewed the following top three (3) companies:

1. Lyons Security

2. Safe Rock Security

3. Secure Guard
Through the evaluation and interview process, Lyons Security was able to identify key components that staff deemed the company the best partner in providing adequate and safe services, as well as successfully define its ability to provide satisfactory services that include maintaining flexibility in an evolving environment through various projects and circumstances.

In addition, Lyons Security was identified as the company that would be able to provide experienced personnel, while providing service in a manner consistent with the standards of care, diligence, and skill ordinarily exercised by professional consultants. Lyons Security was able to discuss its ability to provide adequate staffing for the 24 hours per day, 365 days per year security, as well as at the Senior Center during regular operating hours and the three NMUSD schools mentioned.

Lyons Security outlined and demonstrated in its proposal that its extensive experience in administering security guard services met the requirements of the RFP. Lyons Security indicated that it has mechanisms in place to address an expeditious response in handling matters that may require

692
File #: 24-404 Meeting Date: 11/19/2024
immediate and/or necessary action.

Its ability to utilize technology to adequately track and monitor activity at various points within the designated boundaries meets the City standards. Additionally, the company’s 24-hour on-call supervisor and support service, and the system in place to ensure a live person is accessible and extensive knowledge of the needs of each location requested, separated Lyons Security from other proposers.

ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council may elect to reject the proposed PSA with Lyons Security Services Inc and choose not to provide security guard services at the proposed locations.

FISCAL REVIEW:

Funding for security guard services is available in the Parks and Community Services Department operating General Fund (Fund 101) for FY 2024-25.

LEGAL REVIEW:

The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the Use Agreement as to form.

CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:

This item supports the following City Council Goals:
· Improve the Quality of Life
· Achieve Long-Term Fiscal Sustainability
CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Award a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) to Lyons Security Inc. for an annual amount of $490,000 for unarmed security guard services for the Lions Park Campus, the Costa Mesa Senior Center, and three Newport Mesa Unified Campuses.

2. Authorize the Acting City Manager and City Clerk to execute the PSA.

3. Authorize the City Manager and City Clerk to execute future changes and amendments to the agreement and allow up to an additional 10% contingency in the amount of $49,000.

693
1 Lyons Security Service, Inc.

Rev. 2-2024

CITY OF COSTA MESA

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
WITH LYONS SECURITY SERVICE INC.

THIS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and entered into this 19th day of November, 2024 (“Effective Date”), by and between the CITY OF COSTA MESA, a municipal corporation (“City”), and Lyons Security Service, Inc., a California corporation (“Consultant”).

RECITALS
A. City proposes to utilize the services of Consultant as an independent contractor to perform security services on an as needed basis, as more fully described herein; and B. Consultant represents that it has that degree of specialized expertise contemplated within California Government Code section 37103, and holds all necessary licenses to practice and perform the services herein contemplated; and
C. City and Consultant desire to contract for the specific services described in Exhibit “A” and desire to set forth their rights, duties and liabilities in connection with the services to be performed; and
D. No official or employee of City has a financial interest, within the provisions of sections 1090-1092 of the California Government Code, in the subject matter of this Agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions contained herein, the parties hereby agree as follows:

1.0. SERVICES PROVIDED BY CONSULTANT

1.1. Scope of Services. Consultant shall provide the professional services described in City’s Request for Proposals, attached hereto as Exhibit “A,” and Consultant’s Proposal , attached hereto as Exhibit “B,” both incorporated herein.

1.2. Professional Practices. All professional services to be provided by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall be provided by personnel experienced in their respective fields and in a manner consistent with the standards of care, diligence and skill ordinarily exercised by professional consultants in similar fields and circumstances in accordance with sound professional practices. Consultant also warrants that it is familiar with all laws that may affect its performance of this Agreement and shall advise City of any changes in any laws that may affect Consultant’s performance of this Agreement.

1.3. Performance to Satisfaction of City . Consultant agrees to perform all the work to the complete satisfaction of the City. Evaluations of the work will be done by the City Manager or his or her designee. If the quality of work is not satisfactory, City in its discretion has the right to:
(a) Meet with Consultant to review the quality of the work and resolve the matters of concern;
Attachment 1
694
2 Lyons Security Service, Inc.

Rev. 2-2024
(b) Require Consultant to repeat the work at no additional fee until it is satisfactory; and/or
(c) Terminate the Agreement as hereinafter set forth.

1.4. Warranty. Consultant warrants that it shall perform the services required by this Agreement in compliance with all applicable Federal and California employment laws , including, but not limited to, those laws related to minimum hours and wages; occupational health and safety; fair employment and employment practices; workers’ compensation insurance and safety in employment; and all other Federal, State and local laws a nd ordinances applicable to the services required under this Agreement. Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless City from and against all claims, demands, payments, suits, actions, proceedings, and judgments of every nature and description including attorneys’ fees and costs, presented, brought, or recovered against City for, or on account of any liability under any of the above-mentioned laws, which may be incurred by reason of Consultant’s performance under this Agreement.

1.5. Non-Discrimination. In performing this Agreement, Consultant shall not engage in, nor permit its agents to engage in, discrimination in employment of persons because of their race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military or veteran status, except as permitted pursuant to s ection 12940 of the Government Code.

1.6. Non-Exclusive Agreement . Consultant acknowledges that City may enter into agreements with other consultants for services similar to the services that are subject to this Agreement or may have its own employees perform services similar to those services contemplated by this Agreement.

1.7. Delegation and Assignment . This is a personal service contract, and the duties set forth herein shall not be delegated or assigned to any person or entity without the prior written consent of City. Consultant may engage a subcontractor(s) as permitted by law and may employ other personnel to perform services contemplated by this Agreement at Consultant’s sole cost and expense.

1.8. Confidentiality. Employees of Consultant in the course of their duties may have access to financial, accounting, statistical, and personnel data of private individuals and employees of City. Consultant covenants that all data, documents, discussion, or other information developed or received by Consultant or provided for performance of this Agreement are deemed confidential and shall not be disclosed by Consultant without written authorization by City. City shall grant such authorization if disclosur e is required by law. All City data shall be returned to City upon the termination of this Agreement. Consultant’s covenant under this Section shall survive the termination of this Agreement.

2.0. COMPENSATION AND BILLING

2.1. Compensation. Consultant shall be paid in accordance with the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit “C,” attached hereto and made a part of this Agreement. Consultant’s total annual compensation shall not exceed Four Hundred Ninety Thousand Dollars ($490,000.00).

2.2. Additional Services. Consultant shall not receive compensation for any services 695
3 Lyons Security Service, Inc.

Rev. 2-2024
provided outside the scope of services specified in the Consultant’s Proposal unless the City Manager or designee , prior to Consultant performing the additional services, approves such additional services in writing. It is specifically understood that oral requests and/or approvals of such additional services or additional compensation shall be barred and are unenforceable.

2.3. Method of Billing . Consultant may su bmit invoices to the City for approval on a progress basis, but no more often than two times a month. Said invoice shall be based on the total of all Consultant’s services which have been completed to City’s sole satisfaction. City shall pay Consultant’s invoice within forty-five (45) days from the date City receives said invoice. Each invoice shall describe in detail, the services performed , the date of performance, and the associated time for completion. Any additional services approved and performed pursuant to this Agreement sh all be designated as “Additional Services” and shall identify the number of the authorized change order, where applicable, on all invoices.

2.4. Records and Audits. Records of Consultant’s services relating to this Agreement shall be maintained in accordance with generally recognized accounting principles and shall be made available to City or its Project Manager for inspection and/or audit at mutually convenient times from the Effective Date until three (3) years after termination of this Agreement.

3.0. TIME OF PERFORMANCE

3.1. Commencement and Completion of Work . Unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the parties, t he professional services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall commence within five (5) days from the Effective Date of this Agreement. Said services shall be performed in strict compliance with the Project Schedule approved by City as set forth in Appendix A of Exhibit “A,” attached hereto and incorporated herein. The Project Schedule may be amended by mutual agreement of the parties. Failure to commence work in a timely manner and/or diligently pursue work to completion may be grounds for termination of this Agreement.

3.2. Excusable Delays . Neither party shall be responsible for delays or lack of performance resulting from acts beyond the reasonable control of the party or parties. Such acts shall include, but not be limited to, acts of God, fire, strikes, pandemics (excluding COVID-19), material shortages, compliance with laws or regulations, riots, acts of war, or any other conditions beyond the reasonable control of a party (each, a “Force Majeure Event”). If a party experiences a Force Majeure Event, the party shall, within five (5) days of the occurrence of the Force Majeure Event, give written notice to the other party stating the nature of the Force Majeure Event, its anticipated duration and any action being taken to avoid or minimize its effect. Any suspension of performance shall be of no greater scope and of no longer duration than is reasonably required and the party experiencing the Force Majeure Event shall use best efforts without being obligated to incur any material expenditure to remedy its inability to perform; provided, ho wever, if the suspension of performance continues for sixty (60) days after the date of the occurrence and such failure to perform would constitute a material breach of this Agreement in the absence of such Force Majeure Event, the parties shall meet and discuss in good faith any amendments to this Agreement to permit the other party to exercise its rights under this Agreement. If the parties are not able to agree on such amendments within thirty (30) days and if suspension of performance continues, such ot her party may terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to the party experiencing the Force Majeure Event, in which case neither party shall have any liability to the other except for those rights and liabilities that accrued prior to the date of termination. 696
4 Lyons Security Service, Inc.

Rev. 2-2024

4.0. TERM AND TERMINATION

4.1. Term. This Agreement shall commence on the Effective Da te and continue for three (3) years, ending on November 18, 2027, unless previously terminated as provided herein or as otherwise agreed to in writing by the parties. This Agreement may be extended by two (2) additional one (1) year periods upon mutual written agreement of both parties.

4.2. Notice of Termination . The City reserves and has the right and privilege of canceling, suspending or abandoning the execution of all or any part of the work contemplated by this Agreement, with or without cause, at any time, by providing written notice to Consultant.

The termination of this Agreement shall be deemed effective upon receipt of the notice of termination. In the event of such termination, Consultant shall immediately stop rendering services under this Agreement unless directed otherwise by the City.

4.3. Compensation. In the event of termination, City shall pay Consultant for reasonable costs incurred and professional services satisfactorily performed up to and including the date of City’s written notice of termination. Compensation for work in progress shall be prorated based on the percentage of work completed as of the effective date of termination in accordance with the fees set forth herein. In ascertaining the professional services actually rendered hereunder up to the effective date of termination of this Agreement, consideration shall be given to both completed work and work in progress, to complete and incomplete drawings, and to other documents pertaining to the services contemplated herein whether delivered to the City or in the possession of the Consultant.

4.4. Documents. In the event of termination of this Agreement, all documents prepared by Consultant in its performance of this Agreement including, but not limited to, finished or unfinished design, development and construction documents, data studies, drawings, maps a nd reports, shall be delivered to the City within ten (10) days of delivery of termination notice to Consultant, at no cost to City. Any use of uncompleted documents without specific written authorization from Consultant shall be at City’s sole risk and without liability or legal expense to Consultant.

5.0. INSURANCE

5.1. Minimum Scope and Limits of Insurance . Consultant shall obtain , maintain, and keep in full force and effect during the life of this Agreement all of the following minimum scope of insurance coverages with an insurance company admitted to do business in California, rated “A,” Class X, or better in the most recent A.M. Best’s Rating Guide, and approved by City:
(a) Commercial general liability, including premises -operations, products/completed operations, broad form property damage, blanket contractual liability, independent contractors, personal injury or bodily injury with a policy limit of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence, Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00) general aggregate. (b) Business a utomobile liability for owned vehicles, hired, and non -owned vehicles, with a policy limit of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
697
5 Lyons Security Service, Inc.

Rev. 2-2024
(c) Workers’ compensation insurance as required by the State of California.

Consultant agrees to waive, and to obtain endorsements from its workers’ compensation insurer waiving subrogation rights under its workers’ compensation insurance policy against the City , its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers arising from work performed by Consultant for the City and to require each of its subcontractors, if any, to do likewise under their workers’ compensation insurance policies.
(d) Professional errors and omissions (“E&O”) liability insurance with policy limits of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00), combined single limits, per occurrence and aggregate. Architects’ and engineers’ coverage shall be endorsed to include contractual liability. If the policy is written as a “claims made” policy, the retro date shall be prior to the start of the contract work. Consultant shall obtain and maintain, said E&O liability insurance during the life of this Agreement and for three years after completion of the work hereunder.

5.2. Endorsements. The commercial general liability insurance policy and business automobile liability policy shall contain or be endorsed to contain the following provisions:
(a) Additional insureds: “The City of Costa Mesa and its elected and appointed boards, officers, officials, agents, employees, and volunteers are additional insureds with respect to: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Consultant pursuant to its contract with the City; products and completed operations of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by the Consultant; automobiles owned, leased, hired, or borrowed by the Consultant.”
(b) Notice: “Said policy shall not terminate, be suspended, or voided, nor shall it be cancelled, nor the coverage or limits reduced, until thirty (30) days after written notice is given to City.”
(c) Other insurance: “ The Consultant’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City of Costa Mesa, its officers, officials, agents, employees, and volunteers. Any other insurance maintained by the City of Costa Mesa shall be excess and not contributing with the ins urance provided by this policy.”
(d) Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage provided to the City of Costa Mesa, its officers, officials, agents, employees, and volunteers.
(e) The Consultant’s insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer’s liability.

5.3. Deductible or Self -Insured Retention . If any of such policies provide for a deductible or self-insured retention to provide such coverage, the amount of such deductible or self-insured retention shall be approved in advance by City. No policy of insurance issued as to 698
6 Lyons Security Service, Inc.

Rev. 2-2024
which the City is an additional insured shall contain a provision which requires that no insured except the named insured can satisfy any such deductible or self-insured retention.

5.4. Certificates of Insurance. Consultant shall provide to City certificates of insurance showing the insurance coverages and required endorsements described above, in a form and content approved by City, prior to performing any services under this Agreement.

5.5. Non-Limiting. Nothing in this Section shall be construed as limiting in any way, the indemnification provision contained in this Agreement, or the extent to which Consultant may be held responsible for payments of damages to persons or property.

6.0. GENERAL PROVISIONS

6.1. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to any matter referenced herein and supersedes any and all other prior writings and oral negotiations. This Agreement may be modified only in writing, and signed by the parties in interest at the time of such modification. The terms of this Agreement shall prevail over any inconsistent provision in any other contract document appurtenant hereto, including exhibits to this Agreement.

6.2. Representatives. The C ity Manager or his or her designee shall be the representative of City for purposes of this Agreement and may issue all consents, approvals, directives and agreements on behalf of the City, called for by this Agreement, except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement.

Consultant shall designate a representative for purposes of this Agreement who shall be authorized to issue all consents, approvals, directives and agreements on behalf of Consultant called for by this Agreement, except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement.

6.3. Project Managers. City shall designate a Project Manager to work directly with Consultant in the performance of this Agreement.

Consultant shall designate a Project Manager who shall represent it and be its agent in all consultations with City during the term of this Agreement. Consultant or its Project Manager shall attend and assist in all coordination meetings called by City.

6.4. Notices. Any notices, documents, correspondence or other communications concerning this Agreement or the work hereunder may be provided by personal delivery or mail and shall be addressed as set forth below. Such communication shall be deemed served or delivered: (a) at the time of delivery if such communicati on is sent by personal delivery, and (b) 48 hours after deposit in the U.S. Mail as reflected by the official U.S. postmark if such communication is sent through regular United States mail.

IF TO CONSULTANT: IF TO CITY:

Lyons Security Service, Inc.
505 S. Villa Real, Suite 203A
Anaheim, CA 92807
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
699
7 Lyons Security Service, Inc.

Rev. 2-2024
Tel: (714) 754-5679 Tel: (714) 754-5679
Attn: Nicholas Guidice Attn: Monique Villasenor
Courtesy copy to:

City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Attn: Finance Dept. | Purchasing

6.5. Drug-Free Workplace Policy . Consultant shall provide a drug -free workplace by complying with all provisions set forth in City’s Council Policy 100 -5, attached hereto as Exhibit “D” and incorporated herein. Consultant’s failure to conform to the requirements set forth in Council Policy 100-5 shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement and shall be cause for immediate termination of this Agreement by City.

6.6. Attorneys’ Fees . If litigation is brought by any party in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the opposing party all costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, incurred by the prevailing party in the exercise of any of its rights or remedies hereunder or the enforcement of any of the terms, conditions, or provisions hereof.

6.7. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed under the laws of the State of California without giving effect to that body of laws pertaining to conflict of laws. In the event of any legal action to enforce or interpret this Agreement, the parties he reto agree that the sole and exclusive venue shall be a court of competent jurisdiction located in Orange County, California.

6.8. Assignment. Consultant shall not voluntarily or by operation of law assign, transfer, sublet or encumber all or any part of Consultant ’s interest in this Agreement without City’s prior written consent. Any attempted assignment, transfer, subletting or encumbrance shall be void and shall constitute a breach of this Agreement and cause for termination of this Agreement. Regardless of City ’s consent, no subletting or assignment shall r elease Consultant of Consultant’ s obligation to perform all other obl igations to be performed by Consultant hereunder for the term of this Agreement.

6.9. Indemnification and Hold Harmless. Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, hold free and harmless the City, its elected officials, officers, agents and employees, at Consultant’s sole expense, from and against any and all claims, actions, suits or other legal proceedings brought against the City, its elected officials, officers, agents and employees arising out of the performance of the Consultant, its employees, and/or authorized subcontractors, of the work undertaken pursuant to this Agreement. The defense obligation provided for hereunder shall apply without any advance showing of negligence or wrongdoing by the Consultant, its employees, and/or authorized subcontractors, but shall be required whenever any claim, action, complaint, or suit asserts a s its basis the negligence, errors, omissions or misconduct of the Consultant, its employees, and/or authorized subcontractors, and/or whenever any claim, action, complaint or suit asserts liability against the City, its elected officials, officers, agents and employees based upon the work performed by the Consultant, its employees, and/or authorized subcontractors under this Agreement, whether or not the Consultant, its employees, and/or 700
8 Lyons Security Service, Inc.

Rev. 2-2024
authorized subcontractors are specifically named or otherwise asserted to be liable.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Consultant shall not be liable for the defense or indemnification of the City for claims, actions, complaints or suits arising out of the sole active negligence or willful misconduct of the City. This provision shall supersede and replace all other indemnity provisions contained either in the City’s specifications or Consultant’s Proposal, which shall be of no force and effect.

6.10. Independent Contractor . Consultant is and shall be acting at all times as an independent contractor and not as an employee of City. Consultant shall have no power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability on behalf of City or otherwise act on behalf of City as an agent.

Neither City nor any of its agents shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant’s employees, except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not, at any time, or in any manner, represent that it or any of its agents or employees are in any manner agents or employees of City. Consultant shall secure, at its sole expense, and be responsible for any and all payment of Income Tax, Social Security, State Disability Insurance Compensation, Unemployment Compensation, and other payroll deductions for Consultant and its officers, agents, and employees, and all business li censes, if any are required, in connection with the services to be performed hereunder. Consultant shall indemnify and hold City harmless from any and all taxes, assessments, penalti es, and interest asserted against City by reason of the independent contractor relationship created by this Agreement. Consultant further agrees to indemnify and hold City harmless from any failure of Consultant to comply with the applicable worker’s compensation laws. City shall have the right to offset against the amount of any fees due to Consultant under this Agreement any amount due to City from Consultant as a result of Consultant’s failure to promptly pay to City any reimbursement or indemnification arising under this paragraph.

6.11 Conflicts with Independent Contractor. Contractor/consultant’s duties and services under this Agreement shall not include preparing or assisting the public entity with any portion of the public entity’s preparation of a request for proposals, request for qualifications, or any other solicitation regarding a subsequent or additional contract with the public entity. The public entity entering into this Agreement shall at all times retain responsibility for public contracting, including with respect to any subsequent phase of this project. Contractor/consultant’s participation in the planning, discussions, or drawing of project plans or specifications shall be limited to conceptual, preliminary, or initial plans or specifications. Contractor/consultant shall cooperate with the public entity to ensure that all bidders for a subsequent contract on any subsequent phase of this project have access to the same information, including all conceptual, preliminary, or initial plans or specifications prepared by contractor pursuant to this Agreement.

6.12. PERS Eligibility Indemnification . In the event that Consultant or any employee, agent, or subcontractor of Consultant providing services under this Agreement claims or is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction or the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) to be eligible for enrollment in PERS as an employee of the City, Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City for the payment of any employee and/or employer contributions for PERS benefits on behalf of Consul tant or its employees, agents, or subcontractors, as well as for the payment of any penalties and interest on such contributions, which would otherwise be the responsibility of City.

Notwithstanding any other agency, state or federal policy, rule, regulation, law or ordinance to the contrary, Consultant and any of its employees, agents, and subcontractors providing service under this Agreement shall not qualify for or become entitled t o, and hereby 701
9 Lyons Security Service, Inc.

Rev. 2-2024
agree to waive any claims to, any compensation, benefit, or any incident of employment by City, including but not limited to eligibility to enroll in PERS as an employee of City and entitlement to any contribution to be paid by City for employer contributi on and/or employee contributions for PERS benefits.

6.13. Cooperation. In the event any claim or action is brought against City relating to Consultant’s performance or services rendered under this Agreement, Consultant shall render any reasonable assistance and cooperation which City might require.

6.14. Ownership of Documents. All findings, reports, documents, information and data including, but not limited to, computer tapes or discs, files and tapes furnished or prepared by Consultant or any of its subcontractors in the course of performance of this Agreement, shall be and remain the sole property of City. Consultant agrees that any such documents or information shall not be made available to any individual or organization without the prior consent of City. Any use of such documents for other proj ects not contemplated by this Agreement, and any use of incomplete documents, shall be at the sole risk of City and without liability or legal exposure to Consultant. City shall indemnify and hold harmless Consultant from all claims, damages, losses, and e xpenses, including attorneys’ fees, arising out of or resulting from City’s use of such documents for other projects not contemplated by this Agreement or use of incomplete documents furnished by Consultant. Consultant shall deliver to City any findings, r eports, documents, information, data, in any form, including but not limited to, computer tapes, discs, files audio tapes or any other Project related items as requested by City or its authorized representative, at no additional cost to the City.

6.15. Public Records Act Disclosure . Consultant has been advised and is aware that this Agreement and all reports, documents, information and data , including, but not limited to, computer tapes, discs or files furnished or prepared by Consultant, or any of its subcontractors, pursuant to this Agreement and provided to City may be subject to public disclosure as required by the California Public Records A ct (California Government Code s ection 7920.000 et seq.).

Exceptions to public disclosure may be those documents or information that qualify as trade secrets, as that term is defined in the California Government Code section 7924.510, and of which Consultant informs City of such trade secret. The City will endeavor to maintain as confidential all information obtained by it that is designated as a trade secret. The City shall not, in any way, be liable or responsible for the disclosure of any trade secret including, without limitation, those records so marked if disclosure is deemed to be required by law or by order of the Court.

6.16. Conflict of Interest . Consultant and its officers, employees, associates and subconsultants, if any, will comply with all conflict of interest statutes of the State of California applicable to Consultant's services under this agreement, including, but not limited to, the Political Reform Act (Government Code s ections 81000, et seq.) and Government Code s ection 1090.

During the term of this Agreement, Consultant and its officers, employees, associates and subconsultants shall not, without the prior written approval of the City Representative, perform work for another person or entity for whom Consultant is not currently performing work that would require Consultant or one of its officers, employees, associates or subconsultants to abstain from a decision under this Agreement pursuant to a conflict of interest statute.

6.17. Responsibility for Errors. Consultant shall be responsible for its work and results under this Agreement. Consultant, when requested, shall furnish clarification and/or explanation as may be required by the City’s representative, regarding any services rendered under this Agreement at no additional cost to City. In the event that an error or omission attributable to 702
10 Lyons Security Service, Inc.

Rev. 2-2024
Consultant occurs, then Consultant shall, at no cost to City, provide all necessary design drawings, estimates and other Consultant professional services necessary to rectify and correct the matter to the sole satisfaction of City and to participate in any meeting required with regard to the correction.

6.18. Prohibited Employment. Consultant will not employ any regular employee of City while this Agreement is in effect.

6.19. Order of Precedence. In the event of an inconsistency in this Agreement and any of the attached Exhibits, the terms set forth in this Agreement shall prevail . If, and to the extent this Agreement incorporates by reference any provision of any document, such provision shall be deemed a part of this Agreement. Nevertheless, if there is any conflict among the terms and conditions of this Agreement and those of any such provision or provisions so incorporated by reference, this Agreement shall govern over the document referenced.

6.20. Costs. Each party shall bear its own costs and fees incurred in the preparation and negotiation of this Agreement and in the performance of its obligations hereunder except as expressly provided herein.

6.21. Binding Effect. This Agreement binds and benefits the parties and their respective permitted successors and assigns.

6.22. No Third Party Beneficiary Rights . This Agreement is entered into for the sole benefit of City and Consultant and no other parties are intended to be direct or incidental beneficiaries of this Agreement and no third party shall have any right in, under or to this Agreement.

6.23. Headings. Paragraphs and subparagraph headings contained in this Agreement are included solely for convenience and are not intended to modify, explain or to be a full or accurate description of the content thereof and shall not in any way affect the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement.

6.24. Construction. The parties have participated jointly in the negotiation and drafting of this Agreement and have had an adequate opportunity to review each and every provision of the Agreement and submit the same to counsel or other consultants for review and comment . In the event an ambiguity or question of intent or interpretation arises with respect to this Agreement, this Agreement shall be construed as if drafted jointly by the parties and in accordance with its fair meaning. There shall be no presumption or burden of proof favoring or disfavoring any party by virtue of the authorship of any of the provisions of this Agreement.

6.25. Amendments. Only a writing executed by the parties hereto or their respective successors and assigns may amend this Agreement.

6.26. Waiver. The delay or failure of either party at any time to require performance or compliance by the other of any of its obligations or agreements shall in no way be deemed a waiver of those rights to require such performance or compliance. No waiver of any prov ision of this Agreement shall be effective unless in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of the party against whom enforcement of a waiver is sought. The waiver of any right or remedy in respect to any occurrence or event shall not be de emed a waiver of any right or remedy in respect to any other occurrence or event, nor shall any waiver constitute a continuing waiver. 703
11 Lyons Security Service, Inc.

Rev. 2-2024

6.27. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unenforceable in any circumstance, such determination shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining terms and provisions hereof or of the offending provision in any other circumstance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the value of this Agreement, based upon the substantial benefit of the bargain for any party , is materially impaired, which determination made by the presiding court or arbitrator of competent jurisdiction shall be binding, then both parties agree to substitute such provision(s) through good faith negotiations.

6.28. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original. All counterparts shall be construed together and shall constitute one agreement.

6.29. Corporate Authority . The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties hereto warrant that they are duly authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of said parties and that by doing so the parties hereto are formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement.

[Signatures appear on following page.]
704
12 Lyons Security Service, Inc.

Rev. 2-2024
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by and through their respective authorized officers, as of the date first above written.

CONSULTANT
__________________________________ Date: __________________________ Signature
__________________________________
[Name and Title]

CITY OF COSTA MESA
__________________________________ Date: __________________________ Lori Ann Farrell
City Manager
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Brenda Green
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________ Date: __________________________ Kimberly Hall Barlow
City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO INSURANCE:
__________________________________ Date: __________________________ Ruth Wang
Risk Management
705
13 Lyons Security Service, Inc.

Rev. 2-2024
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
__________________________________ Date: __________________________ Monique Villasenor
Project Manager
DEPARTMENTAL APPROVAL:
__________________________________ Date: __________________________ Brian Gruner
Parks and Community Services Director
APPROVED AS TO PURCHASING:
__________________________________ Date: __________________________ Carol Molina
Finance Director
706

EXHIBIT A

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
707
RFP No.24-10.C05416

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
FOR
Unarmed Security Guard Services
Parks and Community Services Department

CITY OF COSTA MESA
Released on May 3, 2024
708
RFP No.24-10.C05416

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
FOR
Unarmed Security Guard Services
The City of Costa Mesa (hereinafter referred to as the “City”) is requesting Proposals from qualified consultants for Unarmed Security Guard Services for the Parks and Community Services Department.

The awarded Contractor, (hereinafter referred to as “Contractor”) shall be in accordance with the Sample Professional Service Agreement, Appendix B terms, conditions, and scope of work. Prior to submitting a Proposal, Proposers are advised to carefully read the instructions below, including the Sample Professional Service Agreement and any solicitati on appendix/exhibits. The term is expected to be for 5 years. The City reserves the right to award one or more contracts for this service.

I. GENERAL INFORMATION
The City of Costa Mesa is a general law city, which operates under the council/manager form of government with an annual General Fund budget of over $180.3 million and a total budget of over $234 million for fiscal year 2023-2024.

The City of Costa Mesa, incorporated in 1953, has an estimated population of 115,000 and has a land area of 16.8 square miles. It is located in the northern coastal area of Orange County, California, and is bordered by the cities of Santa Ana, Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley and Irvine.

The City is a “full service city” providing a wide range of services. These services include: police and fire protection; animal control; emergency medical aid; building safety regulation and inspection; street lighting; land use planning and zoning; housing and communi ty development; maintenance and improvement of streets and related structures; traffic safety maintenance and improvement; and full range of recreational and cultural programs.

The City of Costa Mesa is home of the Segerstrom Center for the Arts, Orange County Fairgrounds, South Coast Repertory Theater and the South Coast Plaza Shopping Center, which is the single largest commercial activity center in the City. The volume of sale s generated by South Coast Plaza secures its place as the highest volume regional shopping center in the nation.

The successful Proposer, shall have experience in similar types of services. All Proposers responding to this Request for Proposal (RFP) will be evaluated on the basis of their expertise, prior experience on similar projects, demonstrated competence, abil ity to meet the requested services, adequate staffing, reference check, understanding of services, cost and responsiveness to the needs and concerns of the City of Costa Mesa.

1. Important Notice: The City has attempted to provide all information available. It is the responsibility of each Proposer to review, evaluate, and, where necessary, request any clarification prior to submission of a Proposal. Proposers are not to contact other City personnel with any questions or clarifications concerning this Request for Proposal (RFP). The City’s Purchasing Department contact set out in RFP, Section II, Subsection 2, Inquires, will provide all official communication concerning this RFP. Any City response relevant to this RFP other than through or approved by City’s Purchasing Department is unauthorized and will be considered invalid.
709
RFP No.24-10.C05416

If clarification or interpretation of this solicitation is considered necessary by City, a written addendum shall be issued and the information will be posted on PlanetBids. Any interpretation of, or correction to, this solicitation will be made only by addendum issued by the City’s Purchasing Department. It is the responsibility of each Proposer to periodically check PlanetBids website to ensure that it has received and reviewed any and all addenda to this solicitation. The City will not be responsible for any other explanations, corrections to, or interpretations of the documents, including any oral information.

2. Schedule of Events: This Request For Proposal shall be governed by the following schedule:

Release of RFP May 3, 2024
Deadline for Written Questions May 10, 2024 by 11:00am Responses to Questions Posted May 15, 2024
Proposals are Due May 21, 2024 by 2:00 p.m.

Interviews (if held) May 30-31
Approval of Contract June 18, 2024
**All dates are subject to change at the discretion of the City.

3. Proposer’s Minimum Requirements: Interested and qualified Proposers that can demonstrate their ability to successfully provide the required services outlined in Appendix A– Scope of Work, of this RFP are invited to submit a proposal, provided they me et the following requirements. All requirements must be met at the time of the proposal due date. If these requirements are not met, the proposal may not receive further consideration, as determined in the sole discretion of the City.
a) The Proposer must have 5 years’ experience, within the last 10 years, and demonstrate a comprehensive understanding and practice of the needs of the City, or provide evidence of services equivalent or similar to the services identified in Appendix A, Statement of Work, and indicate success rate of such services, with data that indicates the cost versus benefit of hiring this company. b) The Proposer must have a Project Manager/Designated Point of Contact assigned to the Contract, with prior experience working with a similar municipality. c) The Proposer must have an office located in a radius of 50 miles from the City, and the Project Manager/Designated Point of Contact must be available to meet on site, on City property, for all meeting requests.
d) The Proposer must have appropriate certificates/professional accreditations for the state of California to provide requested services, and provide a full spectrum of services offered by the proposer, as well as the organizational structure/chart, company history, company philosophy, overview of services, company strengths, major customers and services provided, in the services, as requested in Appendix A, Statement of Work.

II. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS AND PROVISIONS

1. Proposal Format Guidelines: Interested entities or contractors are to provide the City of Costa Mesa with a thorough Proposal using the following guidelines: Proposal should be typed and 710
RFP No.24-10.C05416

should contain no more than 20 typed pages using a 12 -point font size, including transmittal letter and resumes of key people, but excluding Index/Table of Contents, tables, charts, graphic exhibits and pricing forms. Each Proposal will adhere to the foll owing order and content of sections. Proposal should be straightforward, concise and provide “layman” explanations of technical terms that are used. Emphasis should be concentrated on conforming to the RFP instructions, responding to the RFP requirements , and on providing a complete and clear description of the offer. Proposals which appear unrealistic in terms of technical commitments, lack of technical competence or are indicative of failure to comprehend the complexity and risk of this contract may be rejected. The following Proposal sections are to be included in the Proposer’s response:
• Cover Letter: A cover letter, not to exceed three pages in length, should summarize key elements of the Proposal. An individual authorized to bind the Contractor must sign the letter. Indicate the address and telephone number of the contractor’s office located nearest to Costa Mesa, California, and the office from which the project will be managed. And include proposed working relationship among the offering agency and subcontractors, if applicable. • Background and Project Summary Section: The Background and Project Summary Section should describe your understanding of the City, the work to be done, and the objectives to be accomplished. Refer to Scope of Work, Appendix A of this RFP. • Method of Approach: Provide a detailed description of the approach and methodology that will be used to fulfill each requirement listed in the Scope of Work of this RFP. The section should include:

1. An implementation plan that describes in detail (i) the methods, including controls by which your firm manages projects of the type sought by this RFP; (ii) methodology for soliciting and documenting views of internal and external stakeholders; (iii) and any other project management or implementation strategies or techniques that the respondent intends to employ in carrying out the work.

2. Detailed description of efforts your firm will undertake to achieve client satisfaction and to satisfy the requirements of the "Scope of Work" section.

3. Detailed project schedule, identifying all tasks and deliverables to be performed, durations for each task, and overall time of completion.

4. Detailed description of specific tasks you will require from City staff. Explain what the respective roles of City staff and your staff would be to complete the tasks specified in the Scope of Work.

5. Proposers are encouraged to provide additional innovative and/or creative approaches for providing the service that will maximize efficient, safe, and cost - effective operations or increased performance capabilities.

6. Firms, individuals and entities wishing to be considered shall include in their submissions the steps they will, if selected, implement and adhere to for the recruitment, hiring and retention of former employees of the City who have been displaced due to layoff or outsourcing of functions and services formerly provided by the City.
711
RFP No.24-10.C05416

7. Fee schedule must include costs for each location and fee schedules for any hours outside of the proposed hours of operation at each location.

• Qualifications & Experience of the Firm: Describe the qualifications and experience of the organization or entity performing services/projects within the past eight years that are similar in size and scope to demonstrate competence to perform these services. Information shall include:

1. If the owner is a corporation please provide: Name of corporation, corporate office street address, city, state, and zip code, state where incorporated, date of incorporation, first and last name of officers, local office address, city, state & zip, and the date local office opened its doors for business.

2. If the owner is a partnership or joint venture, please provide: Name of partnership or joint venture, principal office street address, city, state, and zip code, state of organization, date of organization, first and last name of general partner(s), local office address, city, state, and zip code, and date local office opened its doors for.

3. List all businesses owned or controlled by yourself (applicant) or business manager doing similar business in California under another name. List business name and address and specify who owns or controls the business (e.g., self, business manager, etc.).

4. List all businesses for which you or your business manager is or was an officer, director, or partner doing similar business in California under another name. List business name and address, title, date(s) in position; specify who was in position (e.g., self, business manager, etc.).

5. How many years have you been in business under your present business name?

6. Provide a list of current and previous contracts similar to the requirements for Costa Mesa, including all public agencies served (if any). For each, provide a brief description of the scope of work performed, the length of time you have been providing services, and the name, title, a nd telephone number of the person who may be contacted regarding your organization’s service record. Provide a sample of each background investigation for each contract.

7. Submit a description of the organization’s qualifications, experience and abilities that make it uniquely capable to provide the services specified in the Scope of Work.

8. The City of Costa Mesa is interested in knowing how Proposers support the communities that they serve. Please provide information on your organization’s participation in local community, charitable and civic organizations and events, including membership i n the Costa Mesa Chamber of Commerce, charitable contributions made by your organization, etc.

Any public entity which submits a Proposal should describe in detail how it currently performs services like those identified in the Scope of Work within its or other jurisdictions, including photographs, written policies and/or video of services provided. If you have performed these 712
RFP No.24-10.C05416

services under contract for another public entity, please provide references for those entities as set forth above for private Proposers.
• Financial Capacity: The City is concerned about proposers’ financial capability to perform, and therefore, may request sufficient data to allow an evaluation of firm’s financial capabilities.

• Key Personnel: It is essential that the Proposer provide adequate experienced personnel, capable of and devoted to the successful accomplishment of work to be performed under this contract. The Proposer must agree to assign specific individuals to the key positions. o Identify the members of the staff who would be assigned to act for Proposer’s firm in key management and filed positions providing the services described in the Proposal, and the functions to be performed by each.

o Include resumes or curriculum vitae of each such staff member, including name, position, telephone number, email address, education, and years and type of experience. Describe for each such person, the relevant transactions on which they have worked.

• Cost Proposal: Provide a fee schedule/pricing information for the project as referenced in the attached in Appendix C. Proposals shall be valid for a minimum of 180 days following submission.

• Disclosure: Please disclose any and all past or current business and personal relationships with any current Costa Mesa elected official, appointed official, City employee, or family member of any current Costa Mesa elected official, appointed official, or City employee. Any past or current business relationship may not disqualify the firm from consideration.

• Sample Professional Service Agreement: The firm selected by the City will be required to execute a Professional Service Agreement with the City. A sample of the Agreement is enclosed as Appendix B, but may be modified to suit the specific services and needs of the City. If a Proposer has any exceptions or conditions to the Agreement, these must be submitted for consideration with the Proposal. Otherwise, the Proposer will be deemed to have accepted the form of Agreement. See No. 12 of this RFP below.

• Checklist of Forms to Accompany Proposal: As a convenience to Proposers, following is a list of the forms, Appendix C included in this RFP, which should be included with Proposals:

1. Vendor Application Form

2. Company Profile & References

3. Ex Parte Communications Certificate

4. Disclosure of Government Positions

5. Disqualifications Questionnaire

6. Bidder/Applicant/Contractor Campaign Contribution

7. Cost Proposal

713
RFP No.24-10.C05416

2. Process for Submitting Proposals:
• Content of Proposal: The Proposal must be submitted using the format as indicated in the Proposal format guidelines.

• Preparation of Proposal: Each Proposal shall be prepared simply and economically, avoiding the use of elaborate promotional material beyond those sufficient to provide a complete, accurate and reliable presentation.

• Cost for Preparing Proposal : The cost for developing the Proposal is the sole responsibility of the Proposer. All Proposals submitted become the property of the City. Fee proposal shall be submitted in a separate file containing the following: Fee schedule must include costs for each location, special event and fee schedules for any hours outside of the proposed hours of operation at each location.

• Forms to Accompany Proposal: Appendix C forms shall be attached at the end of the Proposal with the exception of the Cost Proposal which shall be submitted in a separate file.

• Number of Proposals: Submit one (1) PDF file format copy of your proposal in sufficient detail for thorough evaluation and comparative analysis.

• Submission of Proposals: Complete written Proposals must be submitted electronically in PDF file format via the planetbids.com website not later than 2:00 p.m. (P.S.T) on May 21, 202 4. Proposals will not be accepted after this deadline. Bids received after the scheduled closing time will not be accepted. It shall be the sole responsibility of the Bidder to see that the bid is received in proper time. Faxed or e -mailed Proposals will not be accepted. NO EXCEPTIONS.

• Inquiries: Questions about this RFP must be posted in the Q & A tab on Planetbids no later than May 10, 2024 by 11:00 A.M. The City reserves the right not to answer all questions.

The City reserves the right to amend or supplement this RFP prior to the Proposal due date.

All addendum(s), responses to questions received, and additional information will be posted to the Costa Mesa Procurement Registry, Costa Mesa-Official City Web Site, Business-Bids & RFP's. Proposers should check this web page daily for new information.

From the date that this RFP is issued until a firm or entity is selected and the selection is announced, firms or public entities are not allowed to communicate outside the process set forth in this RFP with any City employee other than the contracting off icer listed above regarding this RFP. The City reserves the right to reject any Proposal for violation of this provision. No questions other than posted on Planetbids will be accepted, and no response other than written will be binding upon the City.

• Conditions for Proposal Acceptance: This RFP does not commit the City to award a contract or to pay any costs incurred for any services. The City, at its sole discretion, reserves the right to accept or reject any or all Proposals received as a result of this RFP, to negotiate with any qualified source(s), or to cancel this RFP in part or in its entirety. The City may waive any irregularity in any Proposal. All Proposals will become the property of 714
RFP No.24-10.C05416

the City of Costa Mesa, USA. If any proprietary information is contained in the Proposal, it should be clearly identified.

• Insurance & W-9 Requirements: Upon recommendation of contract award, Contractor will be required to submit the following documents with ten (10) days of City notification, unless otherwise specified in the solicitation:

▪ Insurance - City requires that licensees, lessees, and vendors have an approved Certificate of Insurance (not a declaration or policy) or proof of legal self-insurance on file with the City for the issuance of a permit or contract. Within ten(10) consecutive calendar days of award of contract, successful Bidder must furnish the City with the Certificates of Insurance proving coverage as specified in the sample contract.

▪ W-9 – Current signed form W -9 (Taxpayer Identification Umber & Certification) which includes Contractor’s legal business name(s).

3. Evaluation Criteria: The City’s evaluation and selection process will be conducted in accordance with Chapter V, Article 2 of the City's Municipal Code (Code). In accordance with the Code, the responsive responsible proposer shall be determined based on evaluation of qualitative factors in addition to cost. At all times during the evaluation process, the following criteria will be used. Sub-criteria are not necessarily listed in order of importance. Additional sub- criteria that logically fit within a particular evaluation criteria may also be considered even if not specified below.

1. Method of Approach ------- 25%

2. Qualifications of Experience of Key Personnel ------- 30%

3. Staffing ----30%

4. References ----5%

5. Cost Proposal ---- 10%

4. Evaluation of Proposals and Selection Process: In accordance with its Municipal Code, the City will adhere to the following procedures in evaluating Proposals. An Evaluation Committee, which may include members of the City's staff and possibly one or more outside experts, will screen and review all Proposals according to the weighted criteria set forth above.

While price is one basic factor for award, it is not the sole consideration.

A. Responsiveness Screening : Proposals will first be screened to ensure responsiveness to the RFP. The City may reject as non-responsive any Proposal that does not include the documents required to be submitted by this RFP. At any time during the evaluation process, the City rese rves the right to request clarifications or additional information from any or all Proposers regarding their Proposals.

B. Initial Proposal Review: The Committee will initially review and score all responsive written Proposals based upon the Evaluation Criteria set forth above. The Committee 715
RFP No.24-10.C05416

may also contact Proposer's references. Proposals that receive the highest evaluation scores may be invited to the next stage of the evaluation process. The City may reject any Proposal in which a Proposer’s approach, qualifications, or price is not considered acceptable by the City. An unacceptable Proposal is one that would have to be substantially rewritten to make it acceptable. The City may conclude the evaluation process at this point and recommend award to the lowest responsible bidder. Alternativ ely, the City may elect to negotiate directly with one or more Proposers to obtain the best result for the City prior to making a recommendation or selection.

C. Interviews, Reference Checks, Revised Proposals, Discussions: Following the initial screening and review of Proposals, the Proposers included in this stage of the evaluation process may be invited to participate in an oral interview. Interviews, if held, are tentatively scheduled for the week of May 30-31, 2024 and will be conducted at City of Costa Mesa City Hall, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 9262 6 or via zoom.

This date is subject to change. The individual(s) from Proposer's organization that will be directly responsible for carrying out the contract, if awarded, should be present at the oral interview. The oral interview may, but is not required to, use a written question/answer format for the purpose of clarifying the intent o f any portions of the Proposal.

In addition to conducting an oral interview, the City may during this stage of the evaluation process also contact and evaluate the Proposer’s references, contact any Proposer to clarify any response or request revised or additional information, contact any current users of a Proposer’s services, solicit information from any available source concerning any aspect of a Proposal, and seek and review any other information deemed pertinent to the evaluation process.

Following conclusion of this stage of the evaluation process, the Committee will again rank all Proposers according to the evaluation criteria set forth above. The Committee may conclude the evaluation process at this point, and make a recommendation for award, or it may request Best and Final Offers from Proposers. The City may accept the Proposal or negotiate the terms and conditions of the agreement with the highest ranked organization. The City may recommend award without Best and Final Offers, so Proposers should include their best Proposal with their initial submission.

Recommendation for award is contingent upon the successful negotiation of final contract terms. Negotiations shall be confidential and not subject to disclosure to competing Proposers unless an agreement is reached. If contract negotiations cannot be concluded successfully within a time period determined by the City, the City may terminate negotiations and commence negotiations with the next highest scoring Proposer or withdraw the RFP.

6. Protests: Failure to comply with the rules set forth herein may result in rejection of the protest.

Any proposals awarded pursuant to the formal procurement procedure set forth in the Proposal procedure may be appealed in accordance with the following procedure:
• The Proposer shall file the written notice of appeal with the purchasing officer at least ten (10) working days prior to proposal award date specified in the notice of recommendation to award.
716
RFP No.24-10.C05416

• The written notice of appeal must include specifics as to the nature of the appeal. • The Proposer must provide any and all documentation to support the appeal. • The purchasing officer will respond in writing to the Proposer within five (5) working days.
• In the event the appeal is denied by the purchasing officer, the Proposer may appeal the purchasing officer’s ruling to the city council at the next available council meeting.

6. Accuracy of Proposals: Proposers shall take all responsibility for any errors or omissions in their Proposals. Any discrepancies in numbers or calculations shall be interpreted to reflect the cost to the City.

If prior to contract award, a Proposer discovers a mistake in their Proposal which renders the Proposal unwilling to perform under any resulting contract, the Proposer must immediately notify the facilitator and request to withdraw the Proposal. It shall be solely within the City's discretion as to whether withdrawal will be permitted. If the solicitation contemplated evaluation and award of "all or none" of the items, then any withdrawal must be for the entire Proposal. If the solicitation provided for eva luation and award on a line item or combination of items basis, the City may consider permitting withdrawal of specific line item(s) or combination of items.

7. Responsibility of Proposers: The City shall not be liable for any expenses incurred by potential Contractors in the preparation or submission of their Proposals. Pre -contractual expenses are not to be included in the Contractor’s Pricing Sheet. Pre -contractual expenses are defined as , including but not limited to, expenses incurred by Proposer in:

• Preparing Proposal in response to this RFP;
• Submitting that Proposal to the City;
• Negotiating with the City any matter related to the Proposal; and, • Any other expenses incurred by the Proposer prior to the date of the award and execution, if any, of the contract.

8. Confidentiality: The California Public Records Act (Cal. Govt. Code Sections 6250 et seq.) mandates public access to government records. Therefore, unless information is exempt from disclosure by law, the content of any request for explanation, exception, or substitution, response to this RFP, protest, or any other written communication between the City and Proposer, shall be available to the public. The City intends to release all public portions of the Proposals following the evaluation process at such time as a recommendation is made to the City Council.

If Proposer believes any communication contains trade secrets or other proprietary information that the Proposer believes would cause substantial injury to the Proposer’s competitive position if disclosed, the Proposer shall request that the City withhold from disclosure the proprietary information by marking each page containing such proprietary information as confidential.

Proposer may not designate its entire Proposal as confidential nor designate its Price Proposal as confidential.

Submission of a Proposal shall indicate that, if Proposer requests that the City withhold from disclosure information identified as confidential, and the City complies with the Proposer’s request, Proposer shall assume all responsibility for any challenges resulting from the non - disclosure, indemnify and hold harmless the City from and against all damages (including but 717
RFP No.24-10.C05416

not limited to attorney’s fees and costs that may be awarded to the party requesting the Proposer information), and pay any and all costs and expenses related to the withholding of Proposer information. Proposer shall not make a claim, sue, or maintain any legal action against the City or its directors, officers, employees, or agents concerning the disclosure, or withholding from disclosure, of any Proposer information. If Proposer does not request that the City withhold from disclosure information identified as confidential, the City shall have no obligation to withhold the information from disclosure and may release the information sought without any liability to the City.

9. Ex Parte Communications: Proposers and Proposers’ representatives should not communicate with the City Council members about this RFP. In addition, Proposers and Proposers’ representatives should not communicate outside the procedures set forth in this RFP with an officer, employee or agent of the City, including any member of the evaluation panel, with the exception of the RFP Facilitator, regarding this RFP until after Contract Award.

Proposers and their representatives are not prohibited, however, from making oral statements or presentations in public to one or more representatives of the City during a public meeting.

A "Proposer" or "Proposer's representative" includes all of the Proposer's employees, officers, directors, consultants and agents, any subcontractors or suppliers listed in the Proposer's Proposal, and any individual or entity who has been requested by the Proposer to contact the City on the Proposer's behalf. Proposers shall include the Ex Parte Communications Form, Appendix C with their Proposals certifying that they have not had or directed prohibited communications as described in this section.

10. Conflict of Interest: The Proposer warrants and represents th at it presently has no interest and agrees that it will not acquire any interest which would present a conflict of interest under California Government Code Sections 1090 et seq., or Sections 87100 et seq., during the performance of services under any Agreement awarded. The Proposer further covenants that it will not knowingly employ any person having such an interest in the performance of any Agreement awarded. Violation of this provision may result in any Agreement awarded being deemed void and unenforceable.

11. Disclosure of Governmental Position : In order to analyze possible conflicts that might prevent a Proposer from acting on behalf of the City, the City requires that all Proposers disclose in their Proposals any positions that they hold as directors, officers, or employees of any governmental entity. Additional disclosure may be required prior to contract award or during the term of the contract. Each Proposer shall disclose whether any owner or employee of the firm currently hold positions as elected or ap pointed officials, directors, officers, or employees of a governmental entity or held such positions in the past twelve months using the attached Disclosure of Government Positions Form, Appendix C.

12. Conditions to Agreement: The selected Proposer will execute a Professional Service Agreement for Services with the City describing the Scope of Services to be performed, the schedule for completion of the services, compensation, and other pertinent provisions. The contract shall follow the sample form of Agreement provided as Appendix B to this RFP, which may be modified by the City.
718
RFP No.24-10.C05416

All Proposers are directed to particularly review the indemnification and insurance requirements set forth in the sample A greement. The terms of the agreement, including insurance requirements have been mandated by the City and can be modified only if extraordinary circumstances exist.

Submittal of a Proposal shall be deemed acceptance of all the terms set fort h in this RFP and the sample agreement for services unless the Proposer includes with its Proposal, in writing, any conditions or exceptions requested by the Proposer to the proposed Agreement.

13. Disqualification Questionnaire: Proposers shall complete and submit, under penalty of perjury, a standard form of questionnaire inquiring whether a Proposer, any officer of a proposer, or any employee of a Proposer who has a proprietary interest in the Proposer, has ever been disqualified, removed, or otherwise prevented from proposing on, or completing a federal, state, or local government project because of a violation of law or safety regulation and if so, to explain the circumstances. A Proposal may be rejected on the basis of a Proposer, any officer or employee of such Proposer, having been disqualified, removed, or otherwise prevented from proposing on, or completing a federal, state, or local project because of a violation of law or a safety regulation, Appendix C.

14. Standard Terms and Conditions: The City reserves the right to amend or supplement this RFP prior to the Proposal due date. All addendum(s) and additional information will be posted via PlanetBids. Proposers should check this web page daily for new information. 719
RFP No.24-10.C05416

APPENDIX A

SCOPE OF WORK
FOR

UNARMED SECURITY GUARD SERVICES
This Request for Proposal (“RFP”) is intended to solicit information and proposals from qualified Security Guard Services suppliers capable of meeting the City of Costa Mesa’s needs for its various facilities outlined in this Scope of Work and map in Exhibit 1. The professional security guard service provider shall actively patrol various areas, on a schedule as outlined below subject to site circumstances.

All professional services are to be provided by personnel experienced in their respective fields and in a manner consistent with the standards of care, diligence and skill ordinarily exercised by professional consultants in similar fields and circumstances. The Security Officer shall be present at all times. Lunches and breaks will need to have the proper coverage. The patrolling of the area shall be supplemented with a Segway or other similar motorized vehicle, to actively deter illegal activity.

The maintenance, fuel and/or vehicle charging will be the responsibility of the vendor. The selected vendor shall provide daily reports to City staff describing their daily activity, observations and interactions with the public. The selected vendor will have significant expertise in the areas necessary to meet the needs and requirements set forth in this RFP. Critical criteria in City’s evaluation process will include the vendor’s ability to share data and jointly develop services that meet the City’s needs. Through this RFP process, the City of Costa Mesa desires to enhance service efficiency and minimize costs and risk, while at the same time providing the vendor with the incentive to successfully perform based upon pricing, the operational parameters, the negotiations between the parties and a formal written agreement documenting the parties’ relationship.

The scheduled of services required will consist of:
• One un-armed security officer for 24-hour security service, including holidays, and inclement weather, at the Lions Park Campus which includes the Downtown Recreation and Aquatic Center (1860 Anaheim Ave.), the Norma Hertzog Community Center, and Luke Davis Baseball Complex.
• One un-armed security officer at the Costa Mesa Senior Center, Monday through Friday, 7:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Schedule subject to change upon agreement of both the City and selected vendor)
• One un-armed security officer at each of the three Newport Mesa Unified School District Elementary schools which include Rea Elementary (661 Hamilton St.), Wilson Elementary (801 Wilson St.), and Whittier Elementary (1800 Whittier Ave.), on weekends from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and non-holiday school closures/breaks which can include weekdays in the Winter, Spring and Summer seasons. (Schedule subject to change based on school district calendar) • Various special event security services up to five events for 6-hour durations. (Time and days to be determined)

GENERAL SCOPE OF SERVICES
A. The vendor will need to ensure that they can provide the services through following mechanisms, including:
720
RFP No.24-10.C05416

• Daily reporting by each assigned personnel, at 1-2 hour intervals, with documentation and logging of any interaction with the public. For the 24/7 hour monitoring, the reporting forms will be available at the Lions Park Campus, at the Downtown Recreation Center (1860 Anaheim Ave.); for the Costa Mesa Senior Center (695 W. 19th Street), the reporting forms will be available on site.
• Security personnel are to monitor all areas, as outlined in the attached maps (Exhibit 1), on a continuous basis. At no point in time should the area be left without a security personnel, and all designated breaks, as required by law, need to be covered by appropriate security personnel.

• Security personnel shall continuously monitor the encompassing area, as well as perform walkthroughs through all City and School buildings, which will include common areas and throughways.

• Security personnel are to immediately report suspicious activity, and contact the appropriate emergency personnel in situations where safety is compromised or criminal activity is evident.

• Security personnel are to deter any type of illegal activity, and ensure that areas of travel are clear for accessibility.

• Security personnel are to ensure that use of any reservable and/or permitted space is used appropriately, and that any group that is utilizing the space has a reservation and/or permit.

• The expectation is that the Security Personnel will alleviate and deter activity that is not conducive to productive and appropriate use of the area.

• Security personnel are to provide/share appropriate available resources to the community, including making appropriate referrals to individuals who may have questions about the City and/or available resources in the community.

• For information not known to the security personnel, the expectation is that they will document questions from members of the staff and ensure that information is received by City staff for appropriate follow-up.

B. The assigned Security Officer is to be highly visible and identified as a professional security guard. They will be required to wear a professional uniform and badge. The guard shall be highly vigilant in actively patrolling while on duty. A stationary guard is not acceptable. The use of cell phone should only be for work related issues. The security services shall include the use of two- way radios and cell phones too quickly relay information to City staff and/or emergency personnel. • The Vendor shall work to promote mutual trust and cooperation with the public and visitors within the patrol area.
• The selected vendor will use the Downtown Recreation Center as their headquarters for checking in, checking out and file keeping.
• The selected vendor will provide a list of contacts throughout the City and to maintain contact with the appropriate personnel in regards to the information that is relayed. The list will include, but not be limited to the Parks and Community Services Staff, Community Outreach Groups, the Costa Mesa Police Department and the Costa Mesa Fire Department. There 721
RFP No.24-10.C05416

may be a need to communicate with more than one of the City’s contacts. • The selected vendor will provide a list of authorized field use and activity and shall verify/confirm that the users are authorized to use the fields. • The patrol area may be subject to change during any construction activity. • The selected vendor will have, at minimum, quarterly meetings with City staff to discuss and evaluate if the needs of the City are being met, what types of activity they are seeing, any trends that might be of concern and to do an overall evaluation of the security guard services and make any necessary adjustments to the services provided.

REPORTS
An hour-by-hour log shall be kept for all activities taking place during each shift.

The selected vendor shall complete and submit a Daily Report Form to the City Contract Coordinator upon completion of each daily shift. The daily report shall include listing all occurrences with significant data pertaining to all activities.

In the event of an unusual occurrence, the selected vendor shall submit an Incident Report to the City Contract Coordinator, along with the Daily Report Form within 24-hours of the occurrence to the City’s Contract Manager.

All required written records, including copies of police reports that may have been obtained shall be turned into the City contract manager.

PERSONNEL
Security officer assigned to perform work under this contract shall wear uniforms at all time. These uniforms must clearly identify the name of the security company and the name t of the individual security guard, in conformance with California State requirements. This identification may be accomplished through the use of shoulder patches, silk screening or stitched company emblems, insignias or logos.

All security personnel must maintain a courteous and respectful demeanor when dealing with all members of the public. Security personnel will not be authorized to physically apprehend, subdue, or restrain any member of the public for any reason.

Security officer employed by the vendor to perform work under this contract shall:
• Be able to communicate effectively in both written and oral English • Be physically and emotionally capable of performing the assigned tasks

EQUIPMENT
Vendor shall furnish all equipment necessary to perform the work as described herein. All equipment shall be kept in good repair and shall conform to all federal, state and local requirements.

Required equipment shall include but not be limited to:
• A vehicle to perform security inspections during shift, with visible company identification to allow for rapid transportation around and throughout the designated patrol area. • Security officer shall be equipped with portable communication devices permitting 24 -hour communication with company headquarters and/or with appropriate law enforcement agencies 722
RFP No.24-10.C05416

and other designated contacts.
• Flashlight

WORK SCHEDULE
A. Beginning of Shift: At the start of each work shift the vendor’s security officer shall document the time of arrival and discuss any significant security matters with the security officer from the previous shift.

B. End of Shift: At the end of each work shift the vendor’s security officer shall advise City staff of any incidents or events that occurred during the previous work shift, regardless of the severity of the incident. Any and all written reports prepared during the shift shall be submitted to the designated person and/or deposited in the designated mailbox at the end of the work shift.

C. Change of Shift: Vendor shall ensure that continuous coverage is maintained during shift changes.

Under no circumstances, will there be a total absence of active security service personnel during the hours covered by this contract.
➢ All work during hours listed shall be continuous. Breaks shall only be taken at designated times and areas and when adequate coverage is maintained. ➢ Documentation of shift changes occurring after operational shift hours must be provided to City staff upon request.
➢ Guard shift changes during operating hours of City Facilities are to occur at the designated check-in/check-out location within the designated community center. ➢ Security personnel shift changes after operation hours must be recorded and monitored by the vendor and must include proof that the check -in and check -out occurred at the predetermined scheduled times and that the check-in and check-out occurred within the confines of the designated patrol perimeter.
➢ During operational hours of City facilities, security personnel shift changes are to occur at the designated check-in/check-out location within the designated community center.

PERFORMANCE DUTIES: The security officer shall maintain a constant and visible presence around and throughout the perimeter of all sites. Work performed shall consist of providing a security officer to perform security services as described herein:

A. General
• Routinely patrol through the confines of sites, including areas between all buildings, structures, and gated field and park space.
• Supervise and control access to the City facilities and grounds within the patrol perimeter outlined in Attachment A
• Routinely check in with designated City staff and/or Library staff at the designated location(s) during operating hours of City facilities.
• Provide security inspections, scheduled rounds to tracking system location as designated, detection and investigation of buildings, ground and appurtenances of the sites. • Ensure City and School owned building exteriors, structures, and gates are locked 723
RFP No.24-10.C05416

during after-hours non-operation and closures.

• Perform inspection, detection and investigation of all security –related incidents, violations of regulations and matters of public safety and report same to appropriate authorities and to City Contract Coordinator
• Assisting City staff with ensuring the City’s municipal codes are not being violated • Informing the public of the City’s municipal codes applicable to City parks and facilities • Contact appropriate personnel and police in case of unauthorized door openings or closings within the sites.
• Screen visitors of facilities within the patrol perimeter. • Question and check ID of anyone who enters the premises during and after normal working hours and record said entry on daily report document (only City staff with proper identification will be allowed within City facilities after normal operating hours) • Be observant of behavior in common areas such as smoking and/or vaping in non -smoking areas and take appropriate action
• Security personal must investigate all credible reports of suspicious, illegal activity from members of the public within the confines of the designated patrol perimeter and report all evidence of vandalism

• Observe and report any suspicious, illicit, or illegal activity or evidence of vandalism to the Costa Mesa Police Department and to designated Parks and Community Services Department staff.
• Communication shall be established with local law enforcement agencies in order to provide information on criminal activity taking place on site. This communication shall include immediate communication required for emergency situations (i.e. gunfire, domestic violence, etc.) as well as communication required for subsequent investigations of criminal activity
• Report inoperative interior and exterior lighting
• Contact appropriate City representative, police and/or other emergency response personnel as required in the event of an emergency
• Notify the appropriate law enforcement agency immediately of any unlawful activity • Contact the police department in the event of observing or witnessing a potential problem • Report any action taken by the security guard regarding any ordinance and/or rule enforcement, or emergency, in writing to the designated City staff • Security officer shall remain within the patrol perimeter at all times throughout the duration of the shift.

• Document all reports of suspicious, illegal activity and/or vandalism. Include the nature, precise location, and outcome of all incidents in addition to any other pertinent details. 724
RFP No.24-10.C05416

The un-armed security guard duties may, at the discretion of City staff, also include, but not be limited to:

➢ Inspection of all floors of City facilities with the patrol perimeter. Preferably at unscheduled 1 ½ hour intervals.
➢ Periodic inspection of outside property which shall include all parking lots, office buildings, and ensure proper use of handicapped parking and fire zones ➢ Periodically inspect all exits, including fire stairwells and respond to alarms indicating unauthorized use
➢ After business hours, inspection of office and building door lock, verification that sensitive areas are secured
➢ Investigate fire, burglar and pull-cord alarms for entire patrol area

EMERGENCIES
Security officers shall respond promptly and appropriately to all security-related emergencies and requests for emergency assistance regardless of the nature of the emergency.

Upon determination of the nature of the emergency, the security officer shall immediately notify the appropriate law enforcement agency, fire department and/or medical aid provider as required.

Medical aid administered by the security officer shall be only to the extent that the officer is qualified to administer in accordance with the officer’s level of certification.

The security officer shall interface immediately with any law enforcement agency responding within the patrol perimeter outlined in attachment A
KEYS
Any keys issued to security personnel must be responsibly maintained and securely stored. Keys and combination lock codes are only to be exchanged between security personnel at designated shift rotations and to City staff upon request. Security personnel will not open any facility, structure, or gate for any member of the public without direction from City staff with the exception of emergencies.

Vendor will be responsible for expenses incurred from lost keys or from vandalism directly caused from inappropriate use of City issues keys or combination locks. 725
RFP No.24-10.C05416

EXHIBIT I

Lions Park Campus

726
RFP No.24-10.C05416

Costa Mesa Senior Center
727
RFP No.24-10.C05416

Rea Elementary School

728
RFP No.24-10.C05416

Wilson Elementary School
729
RFP No.24-10.C05416

Whittier Elementary School

APPENDIX B
SAMPLE

PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT
730

EXHIBIT B

CONSULTANT’S PROPOSAL

731
RFP No. 24-10.C05416
May 21, 2024
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Subject: RFP No. 24-10.C05416
Please accept our proposal for the above-referenced request for proposals. Lyons Security Service, Inc. is a privately held company in Costa Mesa with over thirty-five years of experience providing security services throughout the United States. We have reviewed the Scope of Work specifications and certify that Lyons Security Service, Inc. can comply with the RFP.

Our literature will prove that Lyons Security Service, Inc. can handle this contract. Should the City of Costa Mesa choose Lyons Security Service, Inc., they will receive a company that:
• Provides a blend of superior customer service with proven results. • Has an experienced and accessible security management team. • Works well with local governments, the public, businesses, and people experiencing homelessness.
• Has references that show our service is second to none. • Is not the cheapest, but the best!
Lyons Security Service, Inc. is not just interested in the RFP; we believe we are the best choice.

As the current security provider for the city of Costa Mesa as well as the provider for some of the largest cities in Orange County, including Aliso Viejo, Anaheim, Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, Orange, and Santa Ana, we bring a wealth of experience and a proven track record. We are the only provider with an in-house trainer who teaches a P.O.S.T. certified Homeless Liaison Officer course, a unique offering that sets us apart and adds significant value to our service. The City will find that Lyons Security offers an advanced training program to reduce liability and increase customer service, demonstrating our commitment to excellence.

The City of Costa Mesa is not obligated to pay any costs incurred by Lyons Security Service, Inc. in preparing and submitting our response to the RFP. Furthermore, this RFP response and all data, documents, and other products used throughout the project's life shall be incorporated as part of our proposal and become the property of the City of Costa Mesa. They will be retained or disposed of accordingly. Lyons Security Service, Inc. certifies it does not have any potential, actual, or apparent conflicts of interest that may exist between any current client and the City of Costa Mesa.
1 732
RFP No. 24-10.C05416
For any questions or comments about this response during the evaluation period, you may contact:

Nicholas Guidice, President
Lyons Security Service, Inc. PPO 12687
505 S. Villa Real Dr., Suite 203A, Costa Mesa, CA 92807 Telephone: (714) 504-8969 Email: [email protected] I, the undersigned, am the Corporate Officer responsible for preparing this proposal and have the authority to negotiate and bind on behalf of Lyons Security Service, Inc.

This proposal shall
remain valid one hundred twenty (120) days after submission.

Sincerely,
Nicholas Guidice
President
2 733
RFP No.24-10.C05416

VENDOR APPLICATION FORM
FOR
RFP No. 24-10 for Unarmed Security Services
TYPE OF APPLICANT:  NEW  CURRENT VENDOR
Legal Contractual Name of Corporation: ______________________________________ Contact Person for Agreement: _____________________________________________ Title: ______________________________ E-Mail Address: ______________________ Business Telephone: _________________________ Business Fax: ________________ Corporate Mailing Address: ________________________________________________ City, State and Zip Code: __________________________________________________ Contact Person for Proposals: ______________________________________________ Title: ______________________________ E-Mail Address: ______________________ Business Telephone: _________________________ Business Fax: ________________ Is your business: (check one)
 NON PROFIT CORPORATION  FOR PROFIT CORPORATION
Is your business: (check one)
 CORPORATION  LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP
 INDIVIDUAL  SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP
 PARTNERSHIP  UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION
Lyons Security Service, Inc.

Nicholas Guidice
President
[email protected]
(714) 504-8969
N/A
P.O. Box 18955
Anaheim CA 92817
Nicholas Guidice
President
[email protected]
(714) 504-8969
N/A
3 734
RFP No.24-10.C05416
Names & Titles of Corporate Board Members
(Also list Names & Titles of persons with written authorization/resolution to sign contracts) Names Title Phone
___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ Federal Tax Identification Number: __________________________________________ City of Costa Mesa Business License Number: ________________________________________ (If none, you must obtain a Costa Mesa Business License upon award of contract.) City of Costa Mesa Business License Expiration Date: ______________________ __________ Nicholas Guidice
President (714) 504-8969
Nicholas Guidice
Secretary (714) 504-8969
33-0726010
50902
11/30/2024
4 735

City of Costa Mesa
24-012-RFP Security Guard Services for Homeless Housing Background and Project Summary
In evaluating potential respondents, the City of Costa Mesa will recognize Lyons Security Service, Inc.'s extensive experience delivering citywide security services. The city will see examples of our Accountability Global Guard Tour Patrol System, which allows the City’s project manager to access data related to the account. We will utilize our Corporate Anaheim office for this project, with staff available 24/7.

Lyons Security has successfully provided services to several prominent California Governmental agencies, including but not limited to Anaheim (tenth largest city, with a population of over 350,000), Santa Ana (fourteenth largest city, with a population of over 330,000), Moreno Valley (twenty-first largest city, with a population of over 210,000), Huntington Beach (twenty-third largest city, with a population of over 200,000), and the County of Sacramento (with a population of over 1.5 million).

We are fully committed to meeting the Scope of Work outlined in Appendix A of the RFP. We pledge to adhere to general and specific guidelines for each City location assigned. Our distinguishing factor lies in our adaptability to the evolving needs of our clients, ensuring seamless service delivery without disruption. As security specialists, we are dedicated to tailoring our services to suit the unique requirements of each facility. This includes conducting complimentary security walk-throughs and investigations, implementing Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) reviews, providing employee training for our clients, and offering a range of additional services not typically found with other providers, such as Narcan Training, Homeless, and Mental Health De-escalation—all aimed at maximizing customer satisfaction.

We take pride in our established track record of assisting cities in addressing issues surrounding individuals experiencing homelessness, which we believe is our most vital asset. Lyons Security Service, Inc. is enthusiastic about the opportunity to collaborate with the City of Costa Mesa on this crucial project and eagerly looks forward to delivering exceptional service.

Why Choose Us
As the current vendor for the city of Costa Mesa, you know our track record matches the promises found within vendor responses: Responsive Leadership, documented report writing, and trained professionals.

Within our literature, you will also see Lyons is recognized as a field expert in addressing the needs of individuals experiencing homelessness. Lyons has been instrumental in addressing the homeless epidemic by offering comprehensive services to impacted cities, providing tailored training programs aligned with pertinent challenges, and actively contributing to viable solutions. As a crucial component of the Homeless Coordinated Entry System, Lyons has forged partnerships with numerous municipalities and organizations, collaborating to address the multifaceted issue of homelessness. Notably, Lyons stands out as the sole security company offering a comprehensive suite of services, encompassing unarmed and armed security provisions and specialized offerings for security services surrounding the homeless epidemic.

Company Information
At Lyons Security Service, we prioritize direct communication with our clients as we believe it is fundamental to success. Our onsite and managerial staff are dedicated to providing personalized attention to each customer. Our team is committed to promptly addressing and responding to client requests, 5 736

City of Costa Mesa
24-012-RFP Security Guard Services for Homeless Housing whether it's our guards, supervisors, project managers, or corporate office employees. In the event of a security issue, we act swiftly; if a client requires adjustments to the security plan, we accommodate them promptly; and if there are concerns about an officer's performance, our supervisors or management step in immediately. Our clients consistently commend our transparent communication and adaptable approach.

We recognize the importance of balancing delivering security services and offering top-notch customer care. As mentioned in our statement of understanding, our phone lines are open 24/7 and staffed by empowered decision-makers to ensure our clients receive assistance whenever they need it, day or night.

Lyons Security sustains its success by steadfastly upholding the fundamental values laid down in 1996:
providing top-notch service and outstanding client communication. Our firm sets itself apart through its commitment to five core principles:

1. Responsive Leadership: We engage with our internal team and clients to pursue mission-driven, innovative solutions.

2. Proven Capabilities: We recruit skilled and qualified personnel empowered to self-manage on-site while remaining accountable to our corporate standards.

3. Training: We ensure that our security personnel receive training in the latest industry standards and specific contract requirements.

4. Top-Down Integrity: We execute contract obligations faithfully and consistently, fostering a culture of continuous improvement.

5. Quality Performance: Our commitment to excellence drives us to exceed client expectations, prioritizing quality in every aspect of our service delivery.

6 737

City of Costa Mesa
24-012-RFP Security Guard Services for Homeless Housing Method of Approach
Since Lyons is the current contractor, our approach will be similar to what has occurred for the past 5 years of our contract. Lyons will continue to utilize company tactics that have seen this contract be successful. Furthermore, Lyons will always listen openly to any client critique or modifications that are necessary to provide continuity within the contract.

Security Officer Training
What distinguishes Lyons Security from our competitors is our strong emphasis on in-class training, which has been proven to substantially enhance retention of the material being taught. We prioritize equipping our staff with the knowledge and skills necessary to excel. As part of our comprehensive training program, our personnel are required to complete a range of courses, including a POST-level homeless liaison course, report writing, sexual harassment awareness, customer service excellence, active shooter response training, as well as CPR/AED/Narcan training. By investing in thorough and rigorous training initiatives, we ensure that our team is well-prepared to deliver top-tier security services while prioritizing the safety and well-being of our clients and the community.

Refresher Training
Since Lyons is the incumbent, Lyons will make sure we continue our training that has been outlined below:

Subject Lesson Plan Hours
Introduction The Lyons Way 2
Basic Preparedness Basic Duties of Private Security 2
Life Safety Fire Detection 4
Emergency Response
OSHA
Slip, Trip, & Fall Prevention
Accident Prevention & Investigation
Legalities Legal Authorities of the Security Officer 4
Powers to Arrest
Search & Seizure
Crime Scene Information
Professional Communications Report Writing 4
Customer Interaction
Telephone Etiquette
Physical Security Patrol Techniques 8
Access Control
7 738

City of Costa Mesa
24-012-RFP Security Guard Services for Homeless Housing Bomb Threats
Active Shooter
Controlled Substances
Traffic Control
Program Specific Homeless Liaison Officer Training 16
CPR/AED/Narcan Training
Total Training 40

Our staff has demonstrated their ability to retain the training we provide and deploy it in the field. Since January 2023, our staff has deployed Narcan to individuals displaying signs and symptoms of narcotic overdose on seven (9) occasions within Santa Ana Parks. All of the Narcan deployments have effectively saved the life of the involved individual.

Services Offered for this contract - Unarmed Security Personnel Lyons Security boasts a team of specialists catering to government entities, homeless management, and outreach, which is pivotal in ensuring safety, security, and support across these sectors. Our unarmed guards serve as a deterrent against potential threats and unauthorized access while fostering a welcoming atmosphere for employees and visitors alike. Their presence is instrumental in upholding security protocols, monitoring surveillance systems, and promptly addressing emergencies. Additionally, unarmed guards adeptly manage crowd control during public events or protests, facilitating peaceful demonstrations and safeguarding government property.

In homeless management and outreach, our unarmed security personnel assume a nuanced role centered on compassion, assistance, and community engagement. Collaborating closely with social workers, outreach teams (such as CityNet, BeWell, and Salvation Army), and local authorities, Lyons' unarmed guards address the intricate needs of individuals experiencing homelessness. They provide security and stability within shelters, resource centers, and similar facilities catering to the homeless community.

Responsibilities encompass monitoring access points, enforcing facility regulations, defusing conflicts, and facilitating access to essential services such as food, shelter, and healthcare.

Moreover, Lyons' unarmed security guards engaged in the homeless system of care serve as conduits between the homeless populace and pertinent stakeholders, fostering trust and mutual understanding.

Actively participating in outreach initiatives, they connect individuals with housing assistance programs, vocational training opportunities, or mental health services. Through cultivating relationships grounded in empathy and dignity, unarmed guards contribute significantly to the holistic well-being and societal integration of those experiencing homelessness. Their role transcends conventional security functions, embodying advocacy, support, and empowerment within the community.

Technology & Equipment
Lyons utilizes a multifaceted approach to ensure quality control between technology and having group management oversee the contract. Our response indicates that the City of Costa Mesa will have multiple 8 739

City of Costa Mesa
24-012-RFP Security Guard Services for Homeless Housing managers and executive team members supporting the contract. To coincide with the individuals involved, we will also provide our staff with equipment to help create a more efficient environment.

Mobile Devices
The security guard personnel will be provided mobile devices for quick access to the corporate office and after-hour emergency staffing for client personnel. The device will be utilized and monitored for emergency and official security business. The mobile devices will have the Account Manager’s number on speed dial, local law enforcement, fire department, and any numbers requested by the client under contract agreements.

Patrol Unit
Staff will be given company-owned vehicles as deemed necessary. Lyons has thirty-one (31) cars in our fleet, ranging from trucks to sedans, all but one being GM vehicles manufactured in 2021 or later. All vehicles assigned will be marked on both sides of the car with our company name, logo, PPO license number, and the word “Security.” vehicles will have a PPO license written on the back of the vehicle as mandated by BSIS. Furthermore, the age of the cars will remain compliant throughout the contract.

Mobile Clocking in and out
Lyons utilizes an electronic check-in/check-out service for our officers through an application supported on all Android and Apple products. The application allows our officers to see their schedules, confirm their schedules, switch their schedules, see post orders for each site, and provide GPS capability, allowing all supervisors to see exactly where the officer is when they check in and out. Suppose an employee forgets to check in or out; our supervisors receive a notice within five minutes indicating an employee missed a check-in or out. This leads to our management following up to verify that guards are on post. 9 740
City of Costa Mesa
24-012-RFP Security Guard Services for Homeless Housing Gu
ard Tour Patrols
We utilize NFC Codes for our security officer routes as they cannot be manipulated like QR Codes. NFC tags are time-stamped and indicate where an officer is at an exact time. The codes are stickers that do not cause any damage once removed and can be easily replaced if taken off. Furthermore, the codes are used through a mobile device and are delivered at the end of each shift.

Sample:

Guard Management Systems
Reports are often overlooked, but they are critical in performing our services at Lyons Security Service as they depict each site's live issues. So frequently, clients get the “all clear” reports. We have a specific approach to report writing that differentiates us from our competitors and allows our staff to provide detailed information about our client sites. Reports may be sent automatically and daily at 5:00 AM or after each shift, whichever the City of Costa Mesa desires. 10 741

City of Costa Mesa
24-012-RFP Security Guard Services for Homeless Housing

11 742
City of Costa Mesa
24-012-RFP Security Guard Services for Homeless Housing Key Management
As keys are critical to infrastructure, the loss of keys could be detrimental and cause a huge security risk, which is why we utilize AirTags for all of our staff keys.

Uniforms
Typically, our uniforms are Carolina Blue, Class B; however, we can customize uniforms to meet our client's needs as long as they are not too similar to law enforcement.

Qualifications & Experience
City of Aliso Viejo: 6/1/2021 – Present; 0 – 48 hours per week Lyons provides the City of Aliso Viejo with event security services for 2 locations. Lyons Security team members oversee renters and verify they follow city procedures as required.

City of Anaheim, Parks Patrol: 1/1/2018 – Present; 112 hours per week Since January 2018, Lyons Security Service has provided the City of Anaheim with two designated patrol officers to patrol parks throughout the evening. As part of our responsibility, we act as a liaison to enforce rules set forth by the city, verifying the regulations are correctly followed by patrons visiting city facilities and removing individuals after park open hours. Furthermore, we provide additional services for the City Park Ranger program throughout the day to supplement city staff.

City of Anaheim, City Hall: 9/1/2022 – Present; 1,864 hours per week In September 2022, Lyons was contracted as the City Hall and Downtown District Security Provider, providing roughly 1,800 weekly hours between two sites, a dispatch, and supervision. Lyons delivers a high level of professional upscale security service, 24 hours a day/7, days a week/365 days a year, to the two City Hall buildings and four parking structures in the heart of Anaheim.

The City of Anaheim, Salvation Army Emergency Shelter: 2/1/2019 – Present; 896 hours per week Lyons Security Service, Inc. currently provides 896 hours of weekly service to the 324-bed Emergency Shelter and Center of Hope at 1455 Salvation Place in Anaheim, CA. Officers are responsible for 12 743
City of Costa Mesa
24-012-RFP Security Guard Services for Homeless Housing directing traffic, maintaining a visual presence throughout the facility, notifying staff of any delinquencies found on patrol, and leading the intake searches for all incoming and outgoing residents.

City of Anaheim, Abandoned Property: 4/4/2023-Present; 96 hours per week Lyons Security assists with tagging abandoned property in public areas throughout Anaheim. Lyons’ employees assist the Anaheim Police Department with the safekeeping and purging items for individuals taken into custody. Items are purged after ninety (90) days if the owner does not attempt to retrieve them.

City of Huntington Beach, Event Security: 10/1/2019 – Present, 220 hours per week Lyons was requested to take over a current events contract in October 2019 due to the non-performance of the previous provider. Since 2019, Lyons has provided event security services for five locations throughout Huntington Beach. Lyons Security team members oversee renters and verify that they follow city procedures as required.

City of Moreno Valley, City Hall: 7/1/14 – Present, 380 hours per week Lyons Security Service, Inc. provides both armed and unarmed guard services throughout the city of Moreno Valley. Job duties range from City Hall access control to security for events throughout the city.

Lyons also provides event security for the 4th of July event, with a crowd population of 10,000 to 20,000 people. Our officers are responsible for searching the individuals before entering the facility.

City of Newport Beach: 4/1/2017 – Present; 84 – 115 hours per week Lyons Security Service, Inc. currently provides event security services at multiple locations throughout Newport Beach, CA. Furthermore, we now work with the city on their “Clean Air Act” as Ambassadors to the city beach fire rings. As part of the Clean Air Act, Lyons was brought on to help citizens and visitors understand the significance of burning clean energy sources when utilizing fire rings throughout the city.

City of Newport Beach, City Hall: 1/1/2023 – 9/1/2023 (Pilot); 56 hours per week Lyons provides security 8 hours daily to the City Hall and Civic Center. Lyons staff provides personnel escorts to high-ranking officials and deters unwanted activity while providing customer service and assistance to the individuals who experience homelessness around the facility.

City of Orange: 7/1/2016 – Present; 140 hours per week
Lyons Security Service, Inc. provides vehicle and foot patrols for multiple parks (7 days a week) in Orange. Officers are responsible for delivering “eyes and ears” to the City of Orange during closed park hours, removing unauthorized personnel, reporting property damage, and providing a visible deterrent to unwanted activity. Lyons began this contract as a piloted program and helped create and implement the security procedures utilized throughout the city. We also provide unarmed security services six days a week for a homeless outreach project the city started in 2022.

City of Perris: 12/1/17 – Present, 310 Hours per week
Since December 2017, Lyons has provided a dedicated patrol and CCTV team to the city of Perris for the Parks and Recreation and various facilities throughout the city, such as City Hall, Animal Control Central, Public Works Division, and many similar buildings. We act as the city's eyes and ears as part of our responsibility. At the same time, buildings are closed to help deter unwanted activity at public 13 744

City of Costa Mesa
24-012-RFP Security Guard Services for Homeless Housing facilities during hours of operation. Furthermore, we discourage activity that may be unwanted at these facilities by providing mobile patrols throughout the city.

City of Santa Ana, Citywide Service: 11/1/2022 – Present; 2,100 hours per week Since November of 2022, Lyons has provided citywide security services for City facilities including, but not limited to, City Hall, Water Facilities, SA Regional Transit Center, two Libraries, a Corporate Yard, a Zoo, and forty-two Parks. Lyons provides 1,950 weekly hours of coverage between the properties and offers various security services, from mobile patrols and homeless outreach to professional services at City Hall.

Fiscal Viability
With an annual security sales revenue of approximately $19,500,000, Lyons Security Service, Inc. maintains a robust financial standing, free from any outstanding debts, bankruptcy or voluntary/involuntary insolvency proceedings, of the appointment of a receiver, trustee, or assignee for the benefit of creditors that could hinder our ability to fulfill our Scope of Services.

Personnel
Lyons Security Organizational Chart

At Lyons Security, we eschew the conventional business model of assigning one manager per client in favor of a collaborative approach. Each individual listed below will contribute to ensuring the contract's success.

Nicholas Guidice
President
Role in the contract: Nicholas will be the point of contact for all contract-related issues.

Nicholas will be critical in aiding the transition process, developing post orders, and managing staff scheduling. With over a decade of experience in security supervision and management, he brings a wealth of expertise to his role.

Previously, Nicholas oversaw the operational and training aspects of Lyons Security across Southern California. He laid the foundation for the Southern Nicholas Guidice, CPP
President
Lindsey Guidice,
CPA
Chief Financial
Officer
Christyna
McCullough,
Human Resource
Manager
Craig Friesen
Chief Operations
Officer
Southern
California
Operations
Frank Lopez
Operations
Manager
James Clinger
Operations
Manager
Stuart Navarro
Operations
Manager
Northern
California
Operations
Anton Burton
Sacramento
Operations
Manager
Mike Lozeau
Chief Training
Officer
Laura Serrano,
Human Resource
Manager
Teresa Reyes
Payroll Specialists
14 745
City of Costa Mesa
24-012-RFP Security Guard Services for Homeless Housing California office during his time with the company. He was responsible for building the entire clientele from scratch, starting from zero and moving to 8,000 hours a week. Nicholas focused on positioning the company within a specific niche of the security industry by assisting clients with the homelessness epidemic. In 2022, he assumed company ownership, further solidifying his commitment to delivering exceptional security services.

LinkedIn Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nicholas-guidice-cpp-03622129/ Cr
aig Friesen
Chief Operations Officer
Role in the contract: Point of contact for all operational-related issues, will assist with the transition plan, development of post orders, communication with client management, local first responders, and any additional stakeholders.

Craig retired as a Police Captain from the Anaheim Police Department (APD) in December 2022, culminating a distinguished 28-year career in law enforcement spanning both the Inglewood Police Department and APD. Joining Lyons Security as the Chief Operations Officer in January 2023, Craig brings a wealth of experience and expertise to the role. During his tenure at APD, Craig held various pivotal positions, including Support Services Division Commander, overseeing critical units such as the Communications Center, Detention Facility, Emergency Management Detail, Air Support Unit, Mounted Unit, Property and Records Details, and Training Detail. Additionally, he served as Administration Division Commander, responsible for managing the Professional Standards Bureau, encompassing Internal Affairs, the Major Incident Review Team, and the Police Review Board. Craig's extensive leadership roles include Patrol Watch Commander, West District Commander, Field Training Coordinator, Vice, Narcotics, Criminal Intelligence Commander, and Professional Standards Bureau Commander.

In 2017, Craig notably served as the Department’s Homeless Outreach Commander, collaborating with various local, state, federal, and non-profit organizations to address homelessness in Anaheim.

Leveraging his vast experience and extensive network within law enforcement agencies across California, Craig brings a comprehensive and nuanced approach to tackling homelessness-related issues. See the article for additional information: https://behindthebadge.com/outreach-shelter-beds-help-anaheim-police- help-homeless/
Cr
aig holds a Master’s Degree in Criminal Justice from California Coast University and a Bachelor's in Occupational Studies from California State University, Long Beach. He is a distinguished graduate of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) National Academy Class #276 and the Sherman Block Supervisory Leadership Institute, further enhancing his credentials as a seasoned law enforcement professional.

LinkedIn Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/craig-friesen-048868162/ 15 746
City of Costa Mesa
24-012-RFP Security Guard Services for Homeless Housing Mike Lozeau
Chief Training Officer
Role in the contract: Training officer for Lyons Security staff and liaison with first responders.

Mike is a seasoned expert in police response to homelessness. He boasts an impressive 32-year career with the Anaheim Police Department (APD), where he retired as a Sergeant. Mike is the Chief Training Officer for Lyons Security and has extensive knowledge and experience.

During his tenure at APD, Mike served as the Supervisor for both the Homeless Outreach Team and the Psychiatric Emergency Response Team, further solidifying his expertise in handling complex community matters. One of Mike's notable achievements is developing California's sole Police Officer Standards and Training (POST), a certified Homeless Liaison for Peace Officers training course. Mike’s training focuses on the nuances of the homeless continuum of care.

Since joining Lyons Security, Mike has diversified his training portfolio to encompass various subjects, including defensive driving, certified security firearms instruction, management of hostile individuals, tactical shooting, emergency services, first aid, Narcan administration, and CPR. As a National Rifle Association (NRA) and P.O.S.T. certified firearms instructor, Mike is pivotal in providing comprehensive armed and unarmed guard training courses for Lyons Security personnel, ensuring they can effectively handle diverse security challenges.

LinkedIn Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mike-lozeau-03b5b62b/ James Clinger
Orange County/Inland Empire, Operations Manager
Role in the Contract: Will be the Point-of-Contact for the city and will assist with the security staff's day-to-day operations. Will be responsible (along with Stuart and Frank) for scheduling staff and verifying procedures are met.

James went to California State University San Marcos and studied History.

James came to Lyons Security in 2018 after spending ten years in the fast- paced restaurant industry. He has significantly impacted the company’s ability to grow over the years due to his ability to adapt and respond to employee needs. James provides a pivotal footprint in ensuring our clients’ needs are continuously met by working one-on-one with employees behind the scenes. 16 747
City of Costa Mesa
24-012-RFP Security Guard Services for Homeless Housing Stuart Najarro
Orange County/Inland Empire, Operations Manager
Assists with the security staff's day-to-day operations. Will be responsible (along with Frank and James) for scheduling staff and verifying procedures are met. Stuart began his career in security after completing his armed service duty for the United States Marine Service in 2016. Stuart came to Lyons in 2023 after working as the Security Manager for Google. Stuart is currently enrolled at Pepperdine University for his MBA and is a married father of one.

Frank Lopez
Orange County/Inland Empire, Operations Manager
Frank is a dedicated professional with a proven track record of meeting company goals through consistent and organized practices. He is adaptable and adept at working under pressure. Since 2021, Frank has excelled as the Regional Manager at Lyons Security in Anaheim, CA. Frank has experience scheduling, training, and directing day, swing, and night shift operations. He has effectively resolved conflicts and promoted compliance with local laws and regulations. Before Lyons, Frank was an Assistant Account Manager for Allied Universal.
17 748
City of Costa Mesa
24-012-RFP Security Guard Services for Homeless Housing 18 749
City of Costa Mesa
24-012-RFP Security Guard Services for Homeless Housing 19 750
City of Costa Mesa
24-012-RFP Security Guard Services for Homeless Housing (
NAORENO VALLEYTEL:951.413.3109
WWWMOVAL.ORG WHERE DREAMS SOAR
14331 FREDERICK ST. SUITE 9
MORENO VALTEY CA 92553
September 21,2021
Subject: Reference for Lyon's Security Service, lnc
To Whom lt May Concern:

I am writing this letter to recommend the services of Lyon's Security Service, lnc. The City of Moreno Valley has partnered with Lyon's Security Service, lnc. since 2014 for all of our security guard needs. Lyon's has provided ongoing security guard services at multiple City facilities, as well as for special events and projects.

During their 7 years tenure, Lyon's has always provided the highest level of customer service and makes it clear that their customers are a high priority. Lyon's is extremely responsive to service request and are always punctual. They are always willing to provide additional services when needed and truly go above and beyond to provide top notch security for all of the City's needs.

I am happy to recommend the services of Lyon's Security Service, lnc. lf you have any questions please feel free to contact me at (951) 413-3190 Sincerely,
GU".U^lbu
Felicia London, MPA
Purchasing & Sustainability Division Manager
PURCHASING & SUSTAINABI LITY DIvISIoN
20 751
City of Costa Mesa
24-012-RFP Security Guard Services for Homeless Housing 21 752
RFP No.24-10.C05416

EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS CERTIFICATION
Please indicate by signing below one of the following two statements. Only sign one statement.

I certify that Proposer and Proposer’s representatives have not had any communication with a City Councilmember concerning informal RFP No. 24-10 for Unarmed Security Services at any time after May 3, 2024.
________________________________ Date: _______________________ Signature
________________________________
Print
OR
I certify that Proposer or Proposer’s representatives have communicated after May 3, 2024. with a City Councilmember concerning informal RFP No. 24-10 for Unarmed Security Services. A copy of all such communications is attached to this form for public distribution. ________________________________ Date: _______________________ Signature
________________________________
Print
May 21 2024
Nicholas Guidice
22 753
RFP No.24-10.C05416

DISQUALIFICATION QUESTIONNAIRE
The Contractor shall complete the following questionnaire:

Has the Contractor, any officer of the Contractor, or any employee of the Contractor who has proprietary interest in the Contractor, ever been disqualified, removed, or otherwise prevented from bidding on, or completing a federal, state, or local government project because of a violation of law or safety regulation?
Yes _____ No _____
If the answer is yes, explain the circumstances in the following space.

X
23 754
RFP No.24-10.C05416

DISCLOSURE OF GOVERNMENT POSITIONS
Each Proposer shall disclose below whether any owner or employee of Contractor currently hold positions as elected or appointed officials, directors, officers, or employees of a governmental entity or held such positions in the past twelve months. List below or state "None." None
24 755
RFP No.24-10.C05416

COMPANY PROFILE & REFERENCES
Company Legal Name:

Company Legal Status (corporation, partnership, sole proprietor etc.):

Active licenses issued by the California State Contractor’s License Board:

Business Address:

Website Address:

Telephone Number: Facsimile Number:

Email Address:

Length of time the firm has been in business:

Length of time at current location:

Is your firm a sole proprietorship doing business under a different name: ___Yes ___No If yes, please indicate sole proprietor’s name and the name you are doing business under:

Federal Taxpayer ID Number:

Regular Business Hours:

Regular holidays and hours when business is closed:

Contact person in reference to this solicitation:

Telephone Number: Facsimile Number:

Email Address:

Contact person for accounts payable:

Telephone Number: Facsimile Number:

Email Address:

Name of Project Manager:

Telephone Number: Facsimile Number:

Email Address:

S-Corporation
Lyons Security Service, Inc.

PPO 12687
505 S. Villa Real Dr., Suite 203, anaheim CA 92807
www.LyonsSecurityInc.com
(949) 298-6859
N/a
[email protected]
32 Years
6 Years
X
33-0726010
24/7/365
N/a
Nicholas Guidice
(714) 504-8969
N/A
[email protected]
Lindsey Guidice
(951) 836-1491
[email protected]
James Clinger
(714) 931-6622
[email protected]
N/A
N/A
25 756
RFP No.24-10.C05416
COMPANY PROFILE & REFERENCES (Continued)
Submit the company names, addresses, telephone numbers, email, contact names, and brief contract descriptions of at least three clients, preferably other municipalities for whom comparable projects have been completed or submit letters from your references which include the requested information.

Company Name:

Telephone Number:

Contact Name:

Contract Amount:

Email:

Address:

Brief Contract Description:

Company Name:

Telephone Number:

Contact Name:

Contract Amount:

Email:

Address:

Brief Contract Description:

Company Name:

Telephone Number:

Contact Name:

Contract Amount:

Email:

Address:

Brief Contract Description:

Company Name:

Telephone Number:

Contact Name:

Contract Amount:

Email:

Address:

Brief Contract Description:

Company Name:

Telephone Number:

Contact Name:

Contract Amount:

Email:

Address:

Brief Contract Description:
(714) 765-4300
Grace Stepter
2,300,000.00
[email protected]
200 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA
Shelter Security, Parks Security, Downtown and City Hall Security City of Huntington Beach
City of Anaheim
City of Newport Beach
City of Orange
714-292-5962
Chris Cole
[email protected]
N/A
Lt. Brad Miller
110,000.00
[email protected]
870 Santa Barbara Dr., Newport Beach CA 92660
2000 Main St., Huntington Beach, CA
Citywide Patrol Services, Park Ranger Services, Event Services Fire Rings & Events Security
150,000.00
714-744-7283
Robert Ambriz
300,000.00
[email protected]
230 E. Chapman Ave., Orange CA
Parks and Public works security
City of Santa Ana
714-615-0892
Mike Ortiz
3,100,000.00
[email protected]
20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana CA
City of Santa Ana, Citywide Security Services
26 757
RFP No.24-10.C05416

BIDDER/APPLICANT/CONTRACTOR CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION

DISCLOSURE FORM
Proposer/Consultant/Applicant is required to identify any campaign contribution or cumulative contributions greater than $249 to any city council member in the twelve months prior to submitting an application, proposal, statement of qualifications or bid requiring approval by the City Council.

Date Name of Donor
Company/Business
Affiliation
Name of
Recipient Amount

Except as described above, I/we have not made any campaign contribution in the amount of $250 or more to any Costa Mesa City Council Member in the twelve months preceding this Application/Proposal.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Bidder/Applicant/Proposer
Date
None
Lyons Security Service, Inc.

May 21 2024
27 758

EXHIBIT C

FEE SCHEDULE

759
City of Costa Mesa
24-012-RFP Security Guard Services for Homeless Housing Cost Proposal
7/
1/2024 – 6/30/2025
Location Hourly
Rate
City Observed
Holiday Coverage
Downtown Recreation Center $30.00 $45.00
Aquatic Center $30.00 $45.00
Norma Hertzog Community Center $30.00 $45.00
Luke Davis Baseball Complex $30.00 $45.00
Costa Mesa Senior Center $30.00 $45.00
Rea Elementary $30.00 $45.00
Wilson Elementary $30.00 $45.00
Whittier Elementary $30.00 $45.00
Special Events (TBD) $31.50 $47.25
7/
1/2025 – 6/30/2026
Location Hourly
Rate
City Observed
Holiday Coverage
Downtown Recreation Center $31.50 $47.25
Aquatic Center $31.50 $47.25
Norma Hertzog Community Center $31.50 $47.25
Luke Davis Baseball Complex $31.50 $47.25
Costa Mesa Senior Center $31.50 $47.25
Rea Elementary $31.50 $47.25
Wilson Elementary $31.50 $47.25
Whittier Elementary $31.50 $47.25
Special Events (TBD) $33.08 $47.25
7/
1/2026 – 6/30/2027
Location Hourly
Rate
City Observed
Holiday Coverage
Downtown Recreation Center $33.08 $47.25
Aquatic Center $33.08 $47.25
Norma Hertzog Community Center $33.08 $47.25
Luke Davis Baseball Complex $33.08 $47.25
Costa Mesa Senior Center $33.08 $47.25
Rea Elementary $33.08 $47.25
Wilson Elementary $33.08 $47.25
Whittier Elementary $33.08 $47.25
Special Events (TBD) $34.73 $52.09
760

CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 24-403 Meeting Date: 11/19/2024
TITLE:

PUBLIC HEARING ON ISSUANCE OF TAX-EXEMPT BONDS FOR MESA VISTA APARTMENTS

AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS
DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE
PRESENTED BY: NATE ROBBINS, NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT MANAGER CONTACT INFORMATION: NATE ROBBINS, NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT MANAGER; 714-754-5274
RECOMMENDATION:

1. Conduct a Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act Hearing, as required by Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to receive comments in consideration of the issuance of tax- exempt bond financing by the California Statewide Communities Development Authority for the benefit of Costa Mesa M6 LP, to provide financing for the acquisition, construction, improvement, and equipping of an 87-unit multifamily rental housing project generally known as Mesa Vista Apartments.

2. Adopt a resolution approving the issuance of Bonds by the California Statewide Communities Development Authority not to exceed $25,000,000 for the benefit of Costa Mesa M6 LP, to provide financing for the acquisition, construction, improvement, and equipping of an 87-unit multifamily rental housing project generally known as Mesa Vista Apartments.

BACKGROUND:

On December 6, 2022, the City of Costa Mesa (City) entered into an affordable housing agreement with CM Mercy House CHDO, LLC to help fund the acquisition and conversion of the Motel 6 at 2274 Newport Boulevard into permanent housing. The project was separated into two (2) phases. Phase 1 was completed in early 2023 and produced 40 units of Permanent Supportive Housing for individuals experiencing homelessness. The commencement of Phase 2 is contingent upon the receipt of tax- exempt multi-family housing revenue bonds and, upon completion, will produce 47 units (one is a manager’sunit) of general affordable housing for Costa Mesa senior citizens earning at or below 50% of the Area Median Income.

Costa Mesa M6 LP has requested that the California Statewide Communities Development Authority (“CSCDA”)act as the municipal issuer of tax-exempt multi-family housing revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount of up to $25,000,000. On August 6, 2024, the project received an award of private activity bond allocation from the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee (CDLAC) of $23,185,979. (CDLAC Resolution and California Tax Credit Allocation Committee Reservation Letter - Attachment 1 & 2) There is an approximately 9% supplemental request added to the bond allocation amount to account for any contingencies during construction. The tax-exempt bond proceeds will

761
File #: 24-403 Meeting Date: 11/19/2024
amount to account for any contingencies during construction. The tax-exempt bond proceeds will finance the acquisition, construction, and equipping of the 87-unit affordable multifamily rental project at 2274 Newport Boulevard, Costa Mesa, which will be owned and operated by Costa Mesa M6 LP.

CSCDA is a joint powers authority sponsored by the League of California Cities ("League") and the California State Association of Counties ("CSAC"). CSCDA was created by the League and CSAC in 1988 to enable local government and eligible private entities access to low-cost, tax-exempt financing for projects that provide a tangible public benefit, contribute to social and economic growth, and improve the quality of life in local communities throughout California. CSCDA is comprised of more than 530 members, including the City of Costa Mesa. CSCDA has issued more than $75 billion and over 1,800 financings since 1988 and consistently ranks in the top 10 of more than 3,000 nationwide public issuers of tax-exempt debt, as measured by annual issuance amount.

ANALYSIS:

In order for all or a portion of the Bonds to qualify as tax-exempt bonds, the City of Costa Mesa must conduct a public hearing (the “TEFRA Hearing”) providing the members of the community an opportunity to speak in favor of or against the use of tax-exempt bonds for the financing of the Project. Adoption of the resolution is solely for the purposes of satisfying the requirements of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA), the Internal Revenue Code and the California Government Code Section 6500 (and following). Prior to such TEFRA Hearing, reasonable notice must be provided to the members of the community. Following the close of the TEFRA Hearing, an “applicable elected representative” of the governmental unit hosting the Project must provide its approval of the issuance of the Bonds for the financing of the Project. A public notice was published on November 8, 2024.

ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council may choose not to approve the Resolution, in which case the Borrower would need to seek authorization from another applicable elected representative body, such as the County of Orange, or secure a different financing source for the project at 2274 Newport Boulevard, Costa Mesa.

FISCAL REVIEW:

There is no fiscal impact to the City. The Bonds will be issued as limited obligations of CSCDA, payable solely from revenues and receipts derived from a loan to be made by CSCDA to the Borrower with the Bond proceeds. The City bears no liability with respect to the issuance of the Bonds. Further, the City is not a party to any of the financing documents related to the Bond issuance and is not named in any of the disclosure documents describing the Bonds or the proposed financing.

LEGAL REVIEW:

The City Attorney approves this report and its attachments as to form.

CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:

This item supports the following City Council Goal:
· Diversify, Stabilize and Increase Housing to Reflect Community Needs.

762
File #: 24-403 Meeting Date: 11/19/2024
CONCLUSION:

Approval of this resolution allows for the issuance of tax-exempt bonds that will finance an affordable housing project, meeting the legal requirements and supporting the City's housing goals. Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Conduct a Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act Hearing, as required by Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to receive comments in consideration of the issuance of tax- exempt bond financing by the California Statewide Communities Development Authority for the benefit of Costa Mesa M6 LP, to provide financing for the acquisition, construction, improvement, and equipping of an 87-unit multifamily rental housing project generally known as Mesa Vista Apartments.

2. Adopt a resolution approving the issuance of Bonds by the California Statewide Communities Development Authority not to exceed $25,000,000 for the benefit of Costa Mesa M6 LP, to provide financing for the acquisition, construction, improvement, and equipping of an 87-unit multifamily rental housing project generally known as Mesa Vista Apartments.

763

CALIFORNIA DEBT LIMIT ALLOCATION COMMITTEE
901 P Street, Suite 213A
Sacramento, CA 95814
p (916) 653-3255
f (916) 653-6827
[email protected]
www.treasurer.ca.gov/cdlac
August 6, 2024
Catherine W. Bando
Executive Director
California Statewide Communities Development Authority
1700 North Broadway, Suite 405
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
RE: RESOLUTION ATTESTING TO THE TRANSFER OF

PRIVATE ACTIVITY BOND ALLOCATION
Dear Catherine W. Bando:

Enclosed is a copy of Resolution No. 24-171, adopted by the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee (the ''Committee'') on August 6, 2024, transferring $23,185,979.00 of the 2024 State Ceiling on Qualified Private Activity Bonds to the California Statewide Communities Development Authority (the ''Applicant'') for the Costa Mesa M6 (the ''Project''). The Resolution No. 24-171 establishes the terms and conditions under which the allocation has been granted. Please read it carefully and keep a copy in your permanent files.

The following is additional information pertaining to the use of the allocation for this Project:

1. Performance Deposit: Pursuant to Section 5050 of the Committee’s Regulations, a performance deposit to one-half of one percent (0.5%) of the Allocation requested, not to exceed $100,000, made payable to the Applicant, shall be evidenced within 20 calendar days following an award of an Allocation.

The performance deposit certified in support of this project ($100,000) is to remain on deposit until you receive authorization from the Committee that it may be released. This written release will be provided once the Committee receives: the “Report of Action Taken” template indicating that the allocation transferred was used for the Project's issuance of bonds, a copy of the conformed regulatory agreement, and the payment of the second installment of the CDLAC filing fee. A copy of the conformed regulatory agreement should be sent electronically to [email protected]. The full amount of the deposit will be released upon the Executive Director's approval if at least 80% of the allocation to this project is used for the issuance of bonds. If an amount less than 80% of the allocation is used to issue bonds, a proportionate amount of the deposit will be subject to forfeiture.

2. IRS
Certification: The IRS-required certification (Certificate pursuant to Section 149(e)(2)(F) Internal Revenue Code of 1986, As Amended) will be prepared by CDLAC staff and sent to the Applicant's bond counsel once the Committee receives the Report of Action Taken template from the Applicant.

MEMBERS

FIONA MA, CPA, CHAIR

STATE TREASURER

GAVIN NEWSOM

GOVERNOR
MALIA M. COHEN

STATE CONTROLLER

INTERIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

MARINA WIANT
Attachment 1
764
Ju
stin Cooper, Esq., Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
Angela Heyward, Costa Mesa M6 LP
Catherine W. Bando
August 6, 2024

3. Second Installment of Filing Fee: Enclosed is an invoice for this Project. The invoice attached herein should be considered final,
due and payable upon the issuance of bonds.

4. Compliance: The Certification of Compliance II or equivalent form is to be submitted by the Project Sponsor to the Applicant by the Applicant's specified deadline, but no later than March 1st annually until the project's Certificate of Completion has been submitted to the Applicant. Following the submission of the Certificate of Completion or equivalent form to the Applicant, the Certification of Compliance II is to be submitted March 1st every three (3) years thereafter. In addition, an Annual Applicant Public Benefits and On-going Compliance Self-Certification (Self Certification) form must be submitted by the Applicant online every year until the Certificate of Completion has been submitted to the Applicant. After the completion of the project has been reported, the Self Certification will be required to be submitted March 1st every three years thereafter pursuant to Section 5144 of the CDLAC Regulations. Verification to CDLAC of income and rental information is not required in advance of the submission of the Certificate of Completion. A copy of the Certification of Compliance II and the Certificate of Completion forms may be found at this website location: https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/cdlac/compliance.asp. Failure to submit Compliance may result in disqualification from future program participation.

Sincerely,
Marina Wiant
Interim Executive Director
Enclosures
cc: Jon Penkower, California Statewide Communities Development Authority 765

WHEREAS, C
osta Mesa M6 LP (''Project Sponsor'') has represented and the Applicant

THE CALIFORNIA DEBT LIMIT ALLOCATION COMMITTEE
RESOLUTION NO. 24-171
A RESOLUTION TRANSFERRING A PORTION OF THE 2024 STATE CEILING

ON QUALIFIED PRIVATE ACTIVITY BONDS FOR A

QUALIFIED RESIDENTIAL RENTAL PROJECT
WHEREAS, the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee (''CDLAC") is authorized to implement the volume limit for the state on private activity bonds established pursuant to federal law, annually determine a state ceiling on the aggregate amount of private activity bonds that may be issued, and allocate that aggregate amount among state and local agencies (Gov. Code, § 8869.81 et seq.); and
WHEREAS, CDLAC has received an application ("Application") from the California Statewide Communities Development Authority (''Applicant'') for the transfer to the Applicant of a portion of the 2024 state ceiling for use by the Applicant to issue bonds or other obligations (''Bonds'') for Costa Mesa M6 (''Project'') as described in Exhibit A; and
has confirmed in the Application certain facts and information concerning the Project; and WHEREAS, in evaluating the Project and allocating a portion of the state ceiling to the Applicant for the benefit of the Project, CDLAC staff has relied upon the written facts and information represented in the Application by the Project Sponsor and the Applicant; and
WHEREAS, it is consistent with CDLAC's statutes and regulations for CDLAC to transfer a portion of the 2024 state ceiling (''Allocation'') to benefit the Project; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee the following:

Section 1. An amount of the 2024 state ceiling on the aggregate amount of private activity bonds equal to $23,185,979.00 shall be transferred to the Applicant. This Allocation shall be used only by the Applicant and only for the issuance of the Bonds for the Project, as described in Exhibit A. The terms and conditions of Exhibit A are incorporated herein as though set forth in full (this resolution, tog ether with Exhibit A are hereafter referred to collectively as this ''Resolution'').

Section 2. The terms and conditions of this Resolution shall be incorporated in appropriate documents relating to the Bonds. The Project Sponsor and the Applicant, and all of their respective successors and assignees, shall be bound by those terms and conditions. The Applicant shall monitor the Project for compliance with the terms and conditions of this Resolution. The Project shall be subject to the monitoring provisions of California Code of Regulations, title 4, sections 10337(c) and 5220.

Section 3. A modification to the Project made prior to the issuance of the Bonds that impacts the Resolution shall be reported to the Executive Director and, if the Executive Director determines that modification to be material pursuant to CDLAC’s statutes and regulations, the material modification shall be brought back to CDLAC for consideration before the Allocation may be used for the Project. After the Bonds are issued, the terms and conditions set forth in this Resolution shall be enforceable by CDLAC through an action for specific performance or other available remedy.

In addition, after the Bonds are issued, a change to any of the Items of Exhibit A shall require CDLAC or Executive Director approval for the term of the commitment.

Section 4. A material change in the structure of the Bonds sale prior to the issuance of the Bonds and not previously approved by CDLAC shall require approval of the CDLAC Chair or the Executive Director. 766
RESOLUTION NO. 24-171

Section 5. The transfer of the proceeds from the sale of the Bonds to a project other than the Project may be allowed only with the prior approval of the Executive Director in consultation with the CDLAC Chair.

Section 6. The Applicant is authorized to use the Allocation to make a carryforward election with respect to the Project. The Applicant is not authorized to transfer the Allocation to any governmental unit in the State except to CDLAC.

Section 7. If the Applicant has not issued the Bonds pursuant to the Allocation by the close of business on March 17, 2025, the Applicant shall notify CDLAC and carry forward the Allocation to the next approved project to be awarded a bond allocation pursuant to California Code of Regulations, title 4, section 5133. The Executive Director may extend this date by up to ninety (90) days if the extension is needed due to circumstances outside the control of the owner.

Section 8. Within twenty-four (24) hours of using the Allocation to issue the Bonds, the Applicant shall notify CDLAC at [email protected] that the Allocation has been used. This notice shall identify the Applicant, the Project or qualified residential rental project, the date the Allocation was used, and the amount of the Allocation used.

Section 9. Within fifteen (15) calendar days of the Bonds closing, the Applicant or its counsel shall submit a completed “Report of Action Taken Regarding the Issuance of Private Activity Bonds”, as made available by CDLAC.

Section 10. Differences between the amount of the Bonds issued and the amount of the Allocation granted in Section 1 shall be retained by the Applicant as required by 26 U.S.C. §146(f)(3)(A) regarding carryforward elections.

The use of a Carryforward Allocation shall be consistent with California Code of Regulations, title 4, section 5133.

Section 11. CDLAC staff is directed to transmit a copy of this Resolution to the Applicant together with a request that the Applicant retain a copy in the Applicant’s official records for the term of the Bonds or the term of the income and rental restrictions, whichever is longer. CDLAC staff shall retain a copy of this Resolution in the files of CDLAC, or any successor agency, for the same term.

Section 12. In consideration of the Allocation, the Applicant and Project Sponsor shall comply with all the terms and conditions contained in this Resolution and ensure that these terms and conditions are included in the documents related to the Bonds. The Applicant and Project Sponsor shall expressly agree that the terms and conditions of this Resolution may be enforced by CDLAC through an action for specific performance or any other available remedy, provided CDLAC agrees not to take any action or enforce any remedy that would be materially adverse to the interests of Bondholders. The Applicant and Project Sponsor shall ensure the Bond documents, as appropriate, expressly state CDLAC is a third-party beneficiary of the terms and conditions set forth in this Resolution.

Section 13. Either the “Certification of Compliance II for Qualified Residential Rental Projects” or “Certification of Compliance II for Non-Qualified Residential Rental Projects” shall be submitted by the Project Sponsor to the Applicant no later than March 1st annually until the Project's applicable “Certificate of Completion” has been submitted by the Project Sponsor to the Applicant. An “Annual Applicant Public Benefits and Ongoing Compliance Self-Certification” shall be annually submitted online by the Applicant to CDLAC until the applicable “Certificate of Completion” has been submitted by the Project Sponsor to the Applicant. Following the submission of the applicable “Certificate of Completion” to the Applicant, the applicable “Certification of Compliance II” shall be submitted by the Project Sponsor to the Applicant no later than March 1st, and no later than March 1st every three years thereafter, pursuant to California Code of Regulations, title 4 section 5144. V erification to CDLAC of income and rental information shall not be required prior to the submission of the applicable “Certificate of Completion.” A copy of the applicable “Certification of Compliance II” may be found at: http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/cdlac/forms.asp. Failure to submit compliance documents may result in disqualification from future participation for qualified residential rental projects.
767
AYES: St
ate Treasurer Fiona Ma, CPA
Michele Perrault for Governor Gavin Newsom
Evan Johnson for State Controller Malia M. Cohen
NOES: None
ABSTENTIONS: None
ABSENCES: None
Marina Wiant, Interim Executive Director
Date: August 6, 2024
RESOLUTION NO. 24-171

Section 14. All relevant bond documents for the Bonds shall permit principal payments or prepayments on the underlying loan(s) as transferred proceeds in a bond preservation and recycling program as permitted by 26 U.S.C. 146(i)(6) and shall require no less than thirty (30) days’ notice to CDLAC and the Applicant prior to the redemption of the Bonds at conversion to permanent financing.

Section 15. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. * * *

CERTIFICATION
I, Marina Wiant, Interim Executive Director of the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee, hereby certify that the above is a full, true, and correct copy of the Resolution adopted at a meeting of the Committee held in the Paul Bonderson Building, 901 P Street, 1st Fl oor, Sacramento, California 95814, on Aug ust 6, 2024 with the following votes recorded:
768

1. Applican t: California Statewide Communities Development Authority

2. Application No.:

3. Project Sponsor :

4. Property Management Co.:

5. Project Name :

Costa Mesa M6

6. Loca tion:

Costa Mesa , CA

7. Private Placement Purchaser: Citibank, N.A.

Cash Flow Bond: Not Applicable

8. Public Sale:

Credit Enhancement Provider:

9. Total Number of Un its:
plus 1 unrestricted manager unit(s)

10. Total Number of Restricted Tenant Rental Un its:

11. 12.

13. The Project will utilize Gross Rents as defined in Section 5170 of the Committee’s Regulations.

14. Income and Rental Restrictions
a. Federally Bond-Restricted Set-aside:

At least 40% of the total units will be restricted at 60% of the Area Median Income. b. Other Restricted Units
For the entire term of the income and rental restrictions, the Project will have:
86 Qualified Residential units rented or held vacant for rental for persons or families whose income is at or below 50% of the Area Median Income.

RESOLUTION NO. 24-171

QUALIFIED RESIDENTIAL RENTAL PROJECT

EXHIBIT A
24-511
Costa Mesa M6 LP (CM Mercy House CHDO, LLC; CDP Costa
Mesa M6 LLC)
FPI Management
The term of the income and rental restrictions for the Project will be at least 55 years from the date 50% occupancy is achieved or when the project is otherwise placed in service.

The Regulatory Agreement shall not terminate prior to the end of the CDLAC Resolution affordability term in the event of foreclosure, exercise of power of sale, and/or transfer of title by deed in lieu of foreclosure in connection with a deed of trust directly or indirectly securing the repayment of Cash Flow Permanent Bonds.

All units identified in the CDLAC resolution, including both the Federally Bond-Restricted Units and the Other Restricted Units, will be incorporated into the Bond Regulatory Agreement. Assumptions to be included in the Bond Regulatory Agreement regarding the Other Restricted Units will include the AMI as outlined in the CDLAC resolution, a limitation that tenants pay no more than 30% of their income and 1.5 persons per bedroom occupancy standard to determine the applicable rent.

Applicable
Not Applicable
86 86
Not Applicable
769
RESOLUTION NO. 24-171
Exhibit A

15. Applicable:

16. New Construction Pool Set-aside Requirements.

Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable

17. Applicable

18. Not Applicable

19. Not Applicable

20. Not Applicable

21. Applicable
In accordance with Section 5191(a), a minimum of ten percent (10%) of the units must be restricted to households with incomes no greater than 50% of the Area Median Income and will be distributed as follows:

Studios: 9
Homeless Set-aside: at least 25% of the Tax Credit Units are designated for homeless households as defined by CTCAC Regulation Section 10315(b)(1) with affordable rents consistent with Section 10325(g)(3).

Homeless Set-aside Priority: 45% of the Tax Credit Units are designated for homeless households as defined by CTCAC Regulation Section 10315(b)(1) with affordable rents consistent with Section 10325(g)(3).

The Project will comply with the New Construction Density and Local Incentives of Section 5230(c). At a
mi
nimum, the Project must continue to meet the criteria sufficient to retain 10 points.

Extremely Low Income/Very Low Income (ELI/VLI) Set-aside. The rent and income targeting restrictions must h
ave an average of 50% area median income (AMI) or below.

Mixed Income Set-aside. A Mixed Income Project is a New Construction Qualified Residential Rental Project which either (1) is not utilizing the Average Income test of Internal Revenue Code Section 42 (g)(1)(C) and w
hich has 50% or fewer of its total units designated as Restricted Rental Units or; (2) is part of the California Housing Finance Agency Mixed-Income Program. In a Competitive Application Process, a Mixed Income Project may only apply for an allocation of tax-exempt bonds if the ratio of tax-exempt bonds, not including recy cled
bonds,
to aggregate depreciable basis plus land basis is less than or equal to the ratio of units that will be restricted pursuant to a CTCAC regulatory agreement.

Minimum construction standards pursuant to CDLAC Regulation Section 5205 and Sections 10325(f)(7)(A) thr
ough (J) of the CTCAC Regulations will be incorporated into the project design for all new construction and r
ehabilitation projects.

For all Acquisition & Rehabilitation projects, a minimum of $15,000 in hard construction costs will be expende d fo
r each unit.

Other Rehabilitation Pool Requirements. The Project will comply with the requirement to complete rehabilita tion w
ork at a minimum of $60,000 in hard construction cost per unit as defined in CTCAC Regulation Section 10302(u),
subject to the provisions of Internal Revenue Code Section 42(e)(3)(A)(ii)(I), expended only on immediate health and safety
improvements, seismic and accessibility improvements and/or the replacement of m
ajor systems with a remaining useful life of less than ten years pursuant to CDLAC Regulation Section 5170.

The Project will comply with the Preservation and Other Rehabilitation Project Priorities of Section 5230(b). At a minimum, the Project must continue to meet the criteria sufficient to retain 0 points. 770
RESOLUTION NO. 24-171
Exhibit A

22. Applicable

23. Applicable

24. Applicable

25. Applicable

26. Applicable

27. Applicable

28. Applicable

29. Not Applicable

30. Applicable

31. Not Applicable

32. Applicable
Hours per Year:

The Project will comply with the Exceeding Minimum Income Restrictions of Section 5230(d). At a minimum, the Project must continue to meet the criteria sufficient to retain 20 points.

The Project will comply with the New Construction Housing Type requirement of Section 5230(g). At a minimum, the Project must continue to meet the criteria sufficient to retain 10 points as a Non-Targeted housing type.

The Project will comply with the Leveraged Soft Resources requirements of Section 5230(h). At a minimum, the Project must continue to meet the criteria sufficient to retain 8 points.

The Project will comply with the Readiness to Proceed requirements of Sections 5152 and 5230(i). At a minimum, the Project must continue to meet the criteria sufficient to retain 10 points.

The Project will comply with the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing requirements of Section 5230(j)(1)(A).

At a minimum, the Project must continue to meet the criteria sufficient to retain 10 points.

The Project will comply with the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing requirements of Section 5230(j)(1)(B).

At a minimum, the Project must continue to meet the criteria sufficient to retain 9 points.

The Project will comply with the Exceeding Minimum Rent Restrictions of Section 5230(e). At a minimum, the Project must continue to meet the criteria sufficient to retain 10 points.

The Project will comply with the General Partner Experience requirements of Section 5230(f)(1). At a minimum, the Project must continue to meet the criteria sufficient to retain 7 points.

The Project will comply with the Management Company Experience requirements of Section 5230(f)(2). At a minimum, the Project must continue to meet the criteria sufficient to retain 3 points.

For a period of fifteen (15) years after the Project is placed in use, the Project will provide residents high speed internet service in each Project unit free of charge (minimum average download speed 25 megabits/second).

For a period of fifteen (15) years after the Project is placed in use, the Project will provide residents a Service Coordinator. Service Coordinator responsibilities must include, but are not limited to: (a) providing tenants with information about available services in the community, (b) assisting tenants to access services through referral and advocacy, and (c) organizing community-building and/or other enrichment activities for tenants (such as holiday events, tenant council, etc.).
160
771
RESOLUTION NO. 24-171
Exhibit A

33. Applicable
Hours per Year:

34. Applicable

35. Applicable

36. Applicable

37. The following entity will conduct the site and file inspections:

Not Applicable
For a period of fifteen (15) years after the Project is placed in use, the Project will provide residents instructor-led adult educational, health and wellness, or skill building classes. This includes, but is not limited to: Financial literacy, computer training, home-buyer education, GED classes, and resume building classes, ESL, nutrition class, exercise class, health information/awareness, art class, parenting class, on-site food cultivation and preparation classes, and smoking cessation classes. Drop-in computer labs, monitoring or technical assistance shall not qualify.
84 As specified in Section 5144(c) of the Committee’s Regulations, sponsors will be required to utilize CTCAC’s Compliance Manual specifically Section VI: Qualify Tenants for Low Income Housing Tax Credit Units, to verify tenant income in conjunction with initial occupancy. No less than every three (3) years after the project is completed, the Sponsor must collect and retain the following income and verification documentation related to all the Federally Bond-Restricted units identified in the Committee Resolution: CTCAC Tax Income Calculation (TIC) or equivalent documentation, all associated source income documentation, evidence of the verifying income computation and unit lease.

As specified in Section 5144(e) of the Committee’s Regulations, applicants are required to ensure an onsite inspection as well as an on-site review of the 20% Federally Bond-Restricted units is performed every 3 years after the Qualified Project Period has commenced.

The Project will comply with the Cost Containment requirements of Section 5230(l). At a minimum, the Project must continue to meet the criteria sufficient to retain 12 points.

As specified in Section 5144(d) of the Committee’s Regulations, compliance with the income and rental requirements of the Federally Bond-Restricted Units identified in the Committee Resolution and the Bond Regulatory Agreement must be demonstrated by the Applicants initial review of 20% of all management files associated with the Federally Bond-Restricted units and subsequent review every three years of 20% of all management files associated with the Federally Bond-Restricted units. 772
Date: August 6, 2024
24-511
ED
To: Jon Penkower
Managing Director
California Statewide Communities Development Authority
1700 North Broadway, Suite 405
Walnut Creel, CA 94596
2nd Installment of fee levied pursuant to Section 8869.90 of the California Government Code:

NAME OF ISSUER: California Statewide Communities Development Authority NAME OF PROJECT: Costa Mesa M6
ALLOCATION AWARD DATE: August 6, 2024
ALLOCATION AWARD AMOUNT:

AMOUNT DUE: Allocation award x .00035 = $
Less initial application fee = -$
Amount Due = $
REVISED AMOUNT DUE: Amount issued x .00035 = $
Less initial application fee = -$
Revised Amount Due =$

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PAYMENT IS DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF BOND CLOSING
Application No.:

Analyst Initials:

CALIFORNIA DEBT LIMIT ALLOCATION COMMITTEE

ACCOUNTING SERVICES
901 P Street, Suite 213A
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916)
653-
3255

FILING FEE INVOICE
1,200.00
How to Make a Payment
To determine the revised amount due, complete the following only if the amount of allocation used is less than the amount of allocation awarded, and remit the revised amount due. The application fee is based on the amount of allocation used to issue bonds.
$23,185,979
8,115.09
1,200.00
6,915.09
If the amount of allocation used is less than the amount of allocation awarded If paying by Check
Make sure the Check has:
 Project Name and Application Number
 CD
LAC as Payee
 Amount Due or Revised Amount Due (see above)
Send Check to Address listed above with this Invoice.

If paying Online
 Go to: https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/cdlac/payment.asp 773
Attachment 2
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
TRK#
SHIP DATE: 19AUG24
ACTWGT: 1.00 LB
REF: COSTA MESA M6 (CA-24-511)
INV:

PO: DEPT:
0201
ORIGIN ID:TWHA (949) 467-1344

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS

COMMUNTY DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS
3416 VIA OPORTO
SUITE 301
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663

UNITED STATES US
CAD: 103715921/INET4535

TO CTCAC
901 P STREET
SUITE 213A
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
(916) 654-6340

BILL SENDER
583J6/A12D/9AE3
7780 5715 6836
THU - 22 AUG 5:00P

EXPRESS SAVER
95814

CA-US SMFCB BLUA
J243024071301uv
782
R ESOLUTION NO. ____________
A

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA

MESA APPROVING THE ISSUANCE BY THE CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE

COMMUNITIES DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF EXEMPT FACILITY

BONDS FOR THE MESA VISTA APARTMENTS
W
HEREAS, the California Statewide Communities Development Authority (the “Authority”) is authorized pursuant to the provisions of California Government Code Section 6500 et seq. and the terms of an Amended and Restated Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement, dated as of June 1, 1988 (the “Agreement”), among certain local agencies throughout the Sta te of California, including the City of Costa Mesa (the “City”), to issue revenue bonds in accordance with Chapter 7 of Part 5 of Division 31 of the California Health and Safety Code for the purpose of financing multifamily rental housing projects; and
W
HEREAS, Costa Mesa M6 LP or a partnership of which Community Development Partners (the “Developer”) or a related person to the Developer is the general partner, has requested that the Authority adopt a plan of financing providing for the issuance of exempt facility bonds for a qualified residential rental project pursuant to Section 142(a)(7) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the “Code”) in one or more series issued from time to time, including bonds issued to refund such exempt facility bonds in one or more series from time to time, and at no time to exceed $25,000,000 in outstanding aggregate principal amount (the “Bonds”) , to financ e or refinance the acquisition, construction and development of a multifamily rental housing project located at 2274 Newport Boulevard, Costa Mesa, California (the “Project”); and
W
HEREAS, pursuant to Section 147(f) of the Code, prior to their issuance, the Bonds are required to be approved by the “applicable elected representative” of the governmental units on whose behalf such bonds are expected to be issued and by a governmental unit having jurisdiction over the entire area in which any facility financed by such bonds is to be located, after a public hearing held following reasonable public notice; and
W
HEREAS, the members of this City Council (this “City Council ”) are the applicable elected representatives of the City; and
WH
EREAS, there has been published, at least 7 days prior to the date hereof, in a newspaper of general circulation within the City, a notice that a public hearing regarding the Bonds would be held on a date specified in such notice; and
W
HEREAS, such public hearing was conducted on such date, at which time an opportunity was provided to interested parties to present arguments both for and against the issuance of the Bonds; and
W
HEREAS, the Authority is also requesting that the City Council approve the issuance of any refunding bonds hereafter issued by the Authority for the purpose of refinancing the Bonds which financed the Project (the “Refunding Bonds”), but only in such cases where federal tax laws would not require additional consideration or approval by the City Council; and Attachment 3
783

WHEREAS, it is intended that this resolution shall constitute the approval of the issuance of the Bonds required by Section 147(f) of the Code and Section 9 of the Agreement;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The above recitals are true and correct.

Section 2. The City Council hereby approves the issuance of the Bonds and the Refunding Bonds by the Authority. It is the purpose and intent of the City Council that this resolution constitute approval of the Bonds for the purposes of (a) Section 147(f) of the Code and (b) Section 9 of the Agreement.

Section 3. The officers of the City are hereby authorized and directed, jointly and severally, to do any and all things and to execute and deliver any and all documents that they deem necessary or advisable in order to carry out, give effect to and comply with the terms and intent of this resolution and the financing approved hereby.

Section 4. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage.

ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa at a regular meeting of said Council held on the __________, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Mayor

ATTEST:

City Clerk

784

CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 24-387 Meeting Date: 11/19/2024
TITLE:

PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES ANNUAL REPORT AND THE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2024 DEPARTMENT: FINANCE AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS
PRESENTED BY: CAROL MOLINA, FINANCE DIRECTOR / RAJA SETHURAMAN,

PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
CONTACT INFORMATION: CAROL MOLINA, FINANCE DIRECTOR, (714) 754-5243 / RAJA SETHURAMAN, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR, (714) 754-5343
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Receive and file the Development Impact Fees Annual Report (Attachment 1) for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2024.

2. Adopt resolution (Attachment 2) continuing the citywide traffic impact fee for new development that incorporates recommendations from the Traffic Impact Fee Ad Hoc Committee and staff, which include:
· Adopt a traffic impact fee of $228 per Average Daily Trip (ADT) based on the Capital Improvement Projects in Attachment 4 and Active Transportation projects in the adopted Active Transportation Plan (ATP).
· Approve allocation of up to ten percent (10%) of traffic impact fees towards traffic signal synchronization projects.
· Approve a five percent (5%) reduction in automobile trips as a result of ATP implementation and an additional five percent (5%) reduction in automobile trips for developments proposing to implement active transportation improvements beyond typical development requirements. · Approve the annual accounting of the Citywide Traffic Impact Fee Program (Attachment 6).

BACKGROUND:

Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code Sections 66001 through 66009), the City Council established certain Development Impact Fees (DIFs) that must be paid by developers of property to help offset some (or all) of the cost of public facilities related to the development project.

The DIFs are for Park Development Impact Fees, Drainage Impact Fees, Traffic Impact Fees, and Fire Systems Development Fees.

The Mitigation Fee Act requires that City Council approve an annual report that provides information

785
File #: 24-387 Meeting Date: 11/19/2024
The Mitigation Fee Act requires that City Council approve an annual report that provides information about the DIFs. These fees are required to be deposited into their own separate accounts or funds.

The law also requires that certain findings be made in association with accumulated DIFs after the deposit into their respective account or fund.

ANALYSIS:

Reporting requirements under California Government Code 66006 specify that the City must prepare annual reports of Development Impact Fees within 180 days of the close of the fiscal year.

The reports must describe the fee, the amount of the fees collected, interest earned, and identification of any expenditures from those funds. The code also specifies that reports must be reviewed by the City Council at a regularly scheduled meeting not less than 15 days following release to the public. The FY 2023-24 Development Impact Fee Annual Report was released for public review on November 4, 2024.

The FY 2023-24 Development Impact Fee Annual Report is attached for City Council's review and approval (Attachment 1). A summary of the fees collected, and expenditures incurred in FY 2023-24 are included in the Financial Summary Report section.

Staff recommends that the City Council receive and file this Annual Report. Staff also requests the adoption of the attached resolution (Attachment 2), continuing the citywide traffic impact fee for new development in the City. The resolution incorporates the recommendations from the Traffic Impact Fee Ad Hoc Committee and staff.

Traffic Impact Fee Ad Hoc Committee - Annual Review
The Traffic Impact Fee Ad Hoc Committee and staff met on October 29, 2024 to review the traffic impact fee program and calculation. Recently completed projects, consideration of active transportation projects, and the available traffic impact fee fund balance were accounted for in this review.

Attachment 4 provides the calculation of the traffic impact fee of $228 per Average Daily Trip (ADT) based on a revised list of capital improvement projects and the inclusion of Active Transportation projects. The Committee deliberated an option to continue the current traffic impact fee of $235 per ADT or to reduce the traffic impact fees to $228 per ADT. The discussion focused on the current balance of the traffic impact fee fund which is adequate to fund projects over the next two-to-three years and the upcoming study to review traffic impact fees taking into account future housing development as part of rezoning to meet state goals.

Following a review of the fee analysis and staff input, the Ad Hoc Committee recommended to adopt the calculated traffic impact fee of $228 per ADT with the inclusion of Active Transportation projects in the Traffic Impact Fee program.

In addition, the Ad Hoc Committee recommended to continue the allocation of up to ten percent (10%) of traffic impact fees towards traffic signal synchronization projects. The Ad Hoc Committee also recommended to continue to provide a five percent (5%) reduction in automobile trips for development projects due to the implementation of the Active Transportation Plan (ATP) and an

786
File #: 24-387 Meeting Date: 11/19/2024
development projects due to the implementation of the Active Transportation Plan (ATP) and an additional five percent (5%) reduction in ADT if a development proposes to implement active transportation improvements beyond typical code requirements. The improvements must be substantial such as the addition of a multipurpose trail, conversion of lower-class active bicycle facility to a higher-class bicycle facility, or enhanced pedestrian improvements in the vicinity of the project.

The Fiscal Year 2023-24 Traffic Impact Report (Attachment 6) depicts the opening balance, the ending balance on June 30, 2024, interest earned, revenues, expenditures, and unexpended funds from the Citywide Traffic Impact Fee Account. This attachment also shows that there are no funds unexpended or uncommitted in the account five (5) or more years after deposit and that no administrative costs have been charged to the fee account. The accounting was presented to the Committee at their meeting on October 29, 2024, and was approved.

As required by the Government Code, the updated Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is contained in the Fiscal Year 2024-25 Adopted Budget and remains valid for the current traffic impact fee review.

The traffic impact fee account information, including the interest earned, shown in Attachment 6, is available for public review.

ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council may choose to reject all, or part of the Annual Report as presented. California Government Code Section 66006 requires that the report be reviewed at a public meeting. The City Council may choose to modify the Committee recommendation on traffic impact fees to continue the current $235 per ADT. If this alternative is selected, the resolution will be modified to reflect City Council action.

FISCAL REVIEW:

The change to the traffic impact fee from $235 to $228 represents a reduction of $7 per ADT or 3% decrease from the current fee. If approved, the fiscal impact from the reduced fee will be a decrease of an estimated $5,500 from the prior fiscal year revenue. This report is legally required annually for the development impact fee activity and traffic impact fee analysis for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2024.

LEGAL REVIEW:

The City Attorney’s Office has reviewed this report and approves as to form.

CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:

This item is administrative in nature.

CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Receive and file the Development Impact Fees Annual Report (Attachment 1) for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2024.

2. Adopt the attached resolution (Attachment 2) continuing the citywide traffic impact fee for new

787
File #: 24-387 Meeting Date: 11/19/2024

2. Adopt the attached resolution (Attachment 2) continuing the citywide traffic impact fee for new development that incorporates recommendations from the Traffic Impact Fee Ad Hoc Committee and staff, which include:
· Adopt a traffic impact fee of $228 per Average Daily Trip (ADT) based on the Capital Improvement Projects in Attachment 4 and Active Transportation projects in the adopted Active Transportation Plan (ATP).
· Approve allocation of up to ten percent (10%) of traffic impact fees towards traffic signal synchronization projects.
· Approve a five percent (5%) reduction in automobile trips as a result of ATP implementation and an additional five percent (5%) reduction in automobile trips for developments proposing to implement active transportation improvements beyond typical development requirements. · Approve the annual accounting of the Citywide Traffic Impact Fee Program (Attachment 6).

788

1 NOVE MBER 19, 202 4

CITY OF COSTA MESA
77 FAIR DRIVE
COSTA MESA, CA 92626

City of Costa
Mesa

FY2023-24
Development
Impact Fee
Report
ATTACHMENT 1
789

2 Table of Contents

City Council Directory ................................................................................................... 3

City Officials Directory .................................................................................................. 4

Introduction
Legal Requirements for Development Impact Fee Reporting ...................................... 5 Description of Development Impact Fees with corresponding Fee Schedules ............. 7

Development Impact Fee Report
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Summary ....... 9

Financial Summary Report and Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Park Development Fees ............................................................................................. 10 Drainage Fees ........................................................................................................... 12 Traffic Impact Fees .................................................................................................... 13 Fire System Development Fees ................................................................................. 15 Cannabis Traffic Impact Fees .................................................................................... 16

Development Impact Project Identification
Park Development Projects ........................................................................................ 17 Drainage Projects ...................................................................................................... 18 Traffic Impact Projects ............................................................................................... 18 Fire System Development Projects ............................................................................ 18 Cannabis Traffic Impact Projects ............................................................................... 18

City Council Action and Studies
Review of the Citywide Traffic Impact Fee Program .................................................. 19 Update to the Park Impact Fees ................................................................................ 35

790

3 City Leadership

JOHN STEPHENS
MAYOR

JEFFREY HARLAN DON HARPER LOREN GAMEROS

MAYOR PRO TEM COUNCIL MEMBER COUNCIL MEMBER DISTRICT 6 DISTRICT 1 DISTRICT 2

ANDREA MARR MANUEL CHAVEZ ARLIS REYNOLDS

COUNCIL MEMBER COUNCIL MEMBER COUNCIL MEMBER DISTRICT 3 DISTRICT 4 DISTRICT 5

791

4 City Official Directory

City Manager’s Office
City Manager .............................................................. Lori Ann Farrell Harrison

Department Directors
City Attorney’s Office ............................................................... Kimberly Barlow Community Development Services .................................................... Carrie Tai Finance .......................................................................................... Carol Molina Information Technology ...................................................................... Steve Ely Parks and Community Services .................................................. . Brian Gruner Public Services ...................................................................... Raja Sethuraman

Public Safety
Fire and Rescue ............................................................. Daniel Stefano Police .......................................................................... Ronald Lawrence

792

5 Legal Requirements for Development Impact Fee Reporting

Legal Requirements for Development Impact Fee Reporting

California Government Code Section 66006 (b)

California Government Code Section 66006 (b) defines the specific reporting requirements for local agencies that impose AB 1600 DIFs on new development. Annually, for each separate fund established for the collection and expenditure of DIFs, the local agency shall, within 180 days of the close of the fiscal year, make available to the public the information shown below for the most recent fiscal year.

a) A brief description of the type of fee in the account or fund. b) The amount of the fee.
c) The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund. d) The amount of the fees collected and interest earned. e) An identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the amount of the expenditures on each improvement, including the total percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with fees. f) An identification of an approximate date by which the construction of the public improvement will commence if the local agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing on an incomplete public improvement, as identified in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 66001, and the public improvement remains incomplete.
g) A description of each inter -fund transfer or loan made from the account or fund, including the public improvement on which the transferred or loaned fees will be expended, and, in the case of an inter-fund loan, the date on which the loan will be repaid, and the rate of interest that the account or fund will receive on the loan. h) The amount of refunds made pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 66001 and any allocations pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 66001.

California Government Code Section 66001

For all funds established for the collection and expenditure of DIFs, California Government Code Section 66001 (d) has additional requirements. For the fifth fiscal year following the first deposit into the fund and every five years thereafter, the local agency shall make all of the following findings with respect to that portion of the fund remaining unexpended, whether committed or uncommitted:

a) Identify the purpose to which the fee is to be put.
b) Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and purpose for which it is charged.
c) Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing in incomplete improvements identified in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a). d) Designate the approximate dates on which the funding referred to in subparagraph (c) is expected to be deposited into the appropriate account or fund.

793

6 California Government Code Section 66002

The State of California Government Code Section 66002 states that:

a) Any local agency, which levies a fee subject to Section 66001, may adopt a capital improvement plan, which shall indicate the approximate location, size, time of availability, and estimates of cost for all facilities or improvements to be financed with the fees.

b) The capital improvement plan shall be adopted by, and shall be annually updated by, a resolution of the governing body of the local agency adopted at a noticed public hearing.

Notice of the hearing shall be given pursuant to Section 65090. In addition, mailed notice shall be given to any city or county, which may be significantly affected by the capital improvement plan. This notice shall be given no later than the date the local agency notices the public hearing pursuant to Section 65090. The information in the notice shall be not less than the information contained in the notice of public hearing and shall be given by first-class mail or personal delivery.

c) "Facility" or "improvement," as used in this section, means any of the following:

1. Public buildings, including schools and related facilities; provided that school facilities shall not be included if Senate Bill 97 of the 1987- 88 Regular Session is enacted and becomes effective on or before January 1, 1988.

2. Facilities for the storage, treatment, and distribution of nonagricultural water.

3. Facilities for the collection, treatment, reclamation, and disposal of sewage.

4. Facilities for the collection and disposal of storm waters and for flood control purposes.

5. Facilities for the generation of electricity and the distribution of gas and electricity.

6. Transportation and transit facilities, including but not limited to streets and supporting improvements, roads, overpasses, bridges, harbors, ports, airports, and related facilities.

7. Parks and recreation facilities.

8. Any other capital project identified in the capital facilities plan adopted.

794

7 Description of Development Impact Fees with Corresponding Fee Schedule

Park Development Impact Fees (Quimby Act Fees)

Fee Description: This fee provides funding for additional or improved park and/or recreation facility improvements for which the need is generated by new development within the City.

Fee Schedule: The table below indicates the applicable park development fee per unit that will be applied to new residential projects based on the net increase in residential units.

Development Fee per Unit
Single-family Dwelling Unit $13,572.00
Multi-family Dwelling Unit $13,829.00
Apartment Dwelling Unit $5,000.00

Drainage Impact Fees

Fee Description: This fee provides funding for additional construction and maintenance of the City's drainage system for which the need is generated by new development or redevelopment within the City.

Fee Schedule: The table below indicates the applicable drainage impact fee per acre that will be applied to new or redeveloped projects.

Development Type Fee per Acre
Low Density Residential Use $6,283.00
Medium Density Residential Use $7,539.00
High Density Residential Use $10,052.00
Commercial / Industrial Density Residential Use $11,309.00

Traffic Impact Fees

Fee Description: This fee provides funding for additional or improved traffic signal, operation, and infrastructure improvements for which the need is generated by new or expanding development within the City.

Fee Schedule: The citywide Traffic Impact Fee is assessed on the increased number of average daily trips generated by the proposed project. The City Council adopted a fee of $235 per daily trip on November 13, 2018. On December 17, 2020, the City Council voted to continue the Traffic Impact fees at $235 per daily trip. Additionally, Council voted to continue with the Traffic Impact fees at $235 per daily in 2021 through 2023. 795

8 Fire System Development Fees

Fee Description: This fee provides funding for additional fire protection facilities, equipment, and paramedic support for which the need is generated by future development within the North Costa Mesa area. This fee is only levied against five identified developments: Home Ranch, South Coast Plaza Town Center, South Coast Metro Center, and Sakioka Farms' Lots 1 and 2.

Fee Schedule: The fee is $0.285 per square foot of new commercial, industrial or residential development.

Cannabis Traffic Impact Fees

Fee Description: This fee provides funding for additional or improved traffic signal, operation, and infrastructure improvements within the City for which the need is generated by the cannabis retail establishments.

Fee Schedule: The citywide Cannabis Traffic Impact Fee is assessed on the increased number of average daily trips generated by the proposed project. The City Council adopted a fee of $235 per daily trip on November 13, 2018. On December 17, 2020, the City Council voted to continue the Traffic Impact fees at $235 per daily trip which is the same for the Cannabis Traffic Impact Fee. Additionally, Council voted to continue with the Traffic Impact fees at $235 per daily in 2021 through 2023.

796

9 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance

A summary of activities in each type of development impact fee for fiscal year ended June 30, 2024 is shown below:

Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2024*
Development Impact Fees

Description
Park
Development
Fees
Drainage
Fees
Traffic Impact
Fees
Fire System
Development
Fees
Cannabis
Traffic Impact
Fees
Revenue
Fees 142,599 81,807 39,292 91,309
Investment Earnings 111,635 94,516 208,066 15,059 21,351 Other
Revenue Total 254,234 176,323 247,358 15,059 112,660
Expense
Expenditures 787,431 183,061 1,490,325 0 0
Other
Transfers Out
Expense Total 787,431 183,061 1,490,325 0 0

Rev Over(Under) Exp (533,197) (6,738) (1,242,967) 15,059 112,660 Begin Fund Balance 2,872,722 2,174,951 5,840,901 639,122 435,436 End Fund Balance 2,339,525 2,168,213 4,597,934 654,181 548,096 *Unaudited actuals

797

10 Financial Summary Reporting and CIP

State law requires an identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the amount of expenditures on each improvement, including the total percentage of the costs of the public improvement that was funded with fees. A summary of improvements for each Development Impact Fee is provided.

PARK DEVELOPMENT FEES (QUIMBY ACT FEES)

Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the Last Five Years:

For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30
Description 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024*
Revenue
Fees 2,299,373 1,049,018 766,372 1,278,941 158,327 142,599 Investment Earnings 254,347 223,901 8,022 (100,792) 33,194 111,635 Other 106,966
Revenue Total 2,553,720 1,272,919 881,359 1,178,149 191,520 254,234 Expense
Expenditures 1,899,528 1,589,954 1,753,155 2,214,169 934,235 787,431 Other 9,735
Transfers Out 3,842
Expense Total 1,913,105 1,589,954 1,753,155 2,214,169 934,235 787,431

Rev Over(Under) Exp 640,615 (317,035) (871,796) (1,036,020) (742,714) (533,197) Begin Fund Balance 5,199,672 5,840,286 5,523,251 4,651,456 3,615,436 2,872,722 End Fund Balance 5,840,286 5,523,251 4,651,456 3,615,436 2,872,722 2,339,525 *Unaudited actuals

798

11 Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) for the Last Five Years:

For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30
Capital Project 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024*
208 - Park Development Fees
Tanagr Pk Plygrd Equip Repl 96,786 47,220
Wilson TeWinkle Park Bridge 18,630 4,273 109,118
Fairview Park Improvements 198,810 344,382
Pk Security Lighting Repl 86,983 102,249 28,919
Jack Hammett Field Upgrade 63,634 3,300 8,796 1,532,681 204,580 106,056 Fairview Pk Master Plan 54,854 151,967
Fairview Park Bluffs 151,406
Fairview Pk Fence Sign Trail 5,136 762 110
Jordan Pk Playground Equip 96,384 77,371
TeWinkle Park Lakes Repairs 31,830 86,060 13,885
NCC - Library Development 1,430,824 1,282,483 1,427,452 225,904 Shalimar Park Improvements 6,940 14,942
Fairview Pk Mstr Plan Update 59,822
Ketchum-Libolt Park Exp 6,940 12,867
Education Hubs Fairview Pk 5,185
208 - Park Development Fees
Fund Total 1,899,528 1,285,783 1,523,232 2,007,351 596,218 787,431

Funds held past the fifth year and first deposit
Not applicable at this time. All funds were expended within the five-year timeframe to fund park improvements and/or recreation facility improvements.

Construction Commencement Date for Incomplete Improvements Not applicable at this time.

Inter-fund Transfers and Loans
No loans were disbursed during this period.

Amount of Refunds
No refunds of any of these funds were made or required in during this period.

799

12 DRAINAGE FEES

Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the Last Five Years:

For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30
Description 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024*
Revenue
Fees 268,800 898,498 433,328 348,736 76,516 81,807
Investment Earnings 57,202 78,484 2,100 (57,057) 22,712 94,516 Other 107,327
Revenue Total 326,002 976,982 435,428 291,679 206,555 176,323 Expense
Expenditures 56,980 194,127 593,405 145,850 273,825 183,061 Expense Total 56,980 194,127 593,405 145,850 273,825 183,061

Rev Over(Under) Exp 269,022 782,855 (157,977) 145,829 (67,270) (6,738) Begin Fund Balance 1,202,491 1,471,513 2,254,368 2,096,392 2,242,221 2,174,951 End Fund Balance 1,471,513 2,254,368 2,096,392 2,242,221 2,174,951 2,168,213 *Unaudited actuals

Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Expenditures for the Last Five Years:

For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30
Capital Project 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024*
209 - Drainage Fees Fund
Catch Basin Inserts-Various 9,966 169,750 26,727 29,199 Citywide Storm Drain Impr 56,980 184,161 332,976 108,752 206,984 59,000 Westside Storm Drain Impr 10,370 66,841 89,625
NCC - Library Development 90,679
209 - Drainage Fees Fund Total 56,980 194,127 593,405 145,850 273,825 177,824

Funds held past the fifth year and first deposit
Not applicable at this time. All funds were expended or committed within the five-year timeframe to fund storm drain improvements.

Construction Commencement Date for Incomplete Improvements Not applicable at this time.

Inter-fund Transfers and Loans
No loans were disbursed during this period.

Amount of Refunds
No refunds of any of these funds were made or required in during this period.

800

13 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES

Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the Last Five Years:

For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30
Description 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Revenue
Fees 182,166 259,298 1,212,500 437,943 601,330 39,292
Investment Earnings 177,173 174,806 (9,496) (143,170) 60,376 208,066 Other 1,855 7,167
Revenue Total 359,339 434,104 1,204,859 294,773 668,873 247,358 Expense
Expenditures 67,090 220,544 404,704 127,222 485,738 1,490,325 Other 75,000
Expense Total 67,090 295,544 404,704 127,222 485,738 1,490,325

Rev Over(Under) Exp 292,279 138,560 800,155 167,552 183,135 (1,242,967) Begin Fund Balance 4,259,250 4,551,499 4,690,059 5,490,214 5,657,766 5,840,901 End Fund Balance 4,551,499 4,690,059 5,490,214 5,657,766 5,840,901 4,597,934 *Unaudited actuals

Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Expenditures for the Last Five Years:

For the Fiscal Year Ended
Capital Projects 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024*
214 - Traffic Impact Fees Fund
W 19th St Wallace Av Traf Sig 181,158
Bicycle Racks Citywide 35,032 8,299 28,187
Hyland/MacArthur Intersct Impr 58,148 23,224
Adams at Pinecreek Imp 3,831 25,056
East 17th St. Landscape Enhanc (2,611)
Fairview Traffic Signal Sync 10,457 174,575
Baker/Placntia/19th/Victr TSSP 15,373 138,620 68,810 Sunflower Traff Signal Sync 93,407
W 17th Design Newport Westside 5,842 48,992
Newport Blvd Wide 19th to 17th 3,100 43,751 5,731 31,491 52,280 Class II and III Bicycle Project 712 1,805 12,052 82,152 861,298 Merrimac Way Bicycle Facility 181,847 16,837
Adams Av Bicycle Facility Project 5,715 6,832
Bicycle/Pedestrian Infra Lamp 1,976 2,459
Randolph Prkg & Pedestrin Impr 25,792 124,208
West 18th & Wilson Crosswalks 9,325 15,359 372,750 Fairview Road Improvement Proj 17,900 3,850
214 - Traffic Impact Fees Fund
Total 67,090 220,544 404,704 127,222 485,738 1,490,325

801

14 Funds held past the fifth year and first deposit
Traffic Impact Fee funds are being held passed the fifth year and first deposit. These funds are intended to fund additional or improved traffic signal, operation, and infrastructure improvements for which the need is generated by new or expanding development within the City.

Construction Commencement Date for Incomplete Improvements Not applicable at this time.

Inter-fund Transfers and Loans
No loans were disbursed during this period.

Amount of Refunds
No refunds of any of these funds were made or required in during this period.

802

15 FIRE SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT FEES

Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the Last Five Years:

For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30
Description 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Revenue
Fees 469,332
Investment Earnings 5,865 25,319 45 (15,857) 3,437 15,059 Other
Revenue Total 5,865 494,651 45 (15,857) 3,437 15,059
Expense
Expenditures
Transfers Out
Expense Total 0 0 0 0 0 0

Rev Over (Under) Exp 5,865 494,651 45 (15,857) 3,437 15,059 Begin Fund Balance 150,981 156,846 651,497 651,541 635,685 639,122 End Fund Balance 156,846 651,497 651,541 635,685 639,122 654,181 *Unaudited actuals

Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Expenditures for the Last Five Years:

For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30
Capital Projects 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
218 - Fire System Dev. Fees
Corp Yard Exhaust System
218 - Fire System Dev. Fees
Fund Total 0 0 0 0 0 0

Funds held past the fifth year and first deposit
Fire System Development Fee funds are being held past the fifth year and first deposit. These funds are intended to fund additional fire protection facilities, equipment, and paramedic support for which the need is generated by future development within Costa Mesa.

Construction Commencement Date for Incomplete Improvements Not applicable at this time.

Inter-fund Transfers and Loans
No loans were disbursed during this period.

Amount of Refunds
No refunds of any of these funds were made or required in during this period. 803

16 CANNABIS TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES

Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the Last Five Years:

For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30
Description 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024*
Revenue
Fees 432,659 91,309
Investment Earnings 2,778 21,351
Other
Revenue Total 0 0 0 0 435,436 112,660
Expense
Expenditures
Transfers Out
Expense Total 0 0 0 0 0 0

Rev Over(Under) Exp 435,436 112,660
Begin Fund Balance 0 435,436
End Fund Balance 0 0 0 0 435,436 548,096
*Unaudited actuals

Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Expenditures for the Last Five Years:

For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30
Capital Projects 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024*
None 0 0 0 0 0 0

Funds held past the fifth year and first deposit
These funds are intended to fund off -site transportation improvements City -wide. Financing is provided by fees charged to cannabis retail establishments.

Construction Commencement Date for Incomplete Improvements Not applicable at this time.

Inter-fund Transfers and Loans
No loans were disbursed during this period.

Amount of Refunds
No refunds of any of these funds were made or required in during this period.

804

17 Development Impact Fee Project Identification

The City's current, Adopted Budget 2024 /25, which includes the Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) 2024/25 — 2028/29 can be found on the City's website at:
https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/55579/638315291587670000

Funding of Infrastructure
The FY 2024/25 — FY 2028/29 CIP identifies all funding sources and amounts for individual projects through FY 2028 /29. The CIP is updated annually to reflect the current City's infrastructure needs. As a CIP is identified, the project is evaluated to determine the portion of the project that will service existing residents and businesses versus new development.

Once the determination of use is made, the percentage of use attributed to new development is then funded by the appropriate development fee based on the type of project. The percentage of use associated with existing residents or businesses are funded from other appropriate sources. Estimated construction start dates for projects are adjusted, as needed, to reflect the needs of the community.

ONGOING/NEW CAPTIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

Park Development Fees

Projects by Fund FY2024/25 - FY2028/29
208 - Park Development Fees Fund
700021 - Wilson TeWinkle Park Bridge Repairs 67,981
700027 - TeWinkle Skate Park Expansion 100,000
700054 - Westside Park Development 250,000
700080 - Park Security Lighting/Replacement 33,332
700115 - Jack Hammett Sports Complex ADA Improvements 203,207 700129 - Shalimar Park Improvements 228,118
700133 - Canyon Park Inventory Management Restoration 60,000 700134 - Fairview Park Fence Sign Trail 293,992
700135 - Fairview Park Master Plan Update 177,777
700137 - TeWinkle Park Lakes Repairs 700
700139 – Ketchum-Libolt Park Expansion 30,192
700142 – Brentwood Park Improvements 400,000
700149 – Fairview Park – Education Hubs and Signage 84,815 700150 – Fairview Pk – Mesa Restor & Cult Resource Preservation 1,949,053 208 - Park Development Fees Fund Total 3,879,167

805

18 Drainage Fees

Projects by Fund FY2024/25 - FY2028/29
209 - Drainage Fees Fund
550008 - Citywide Catch Basin Inserts and Water Quality Improvement 151,189 550011 - Citywide Storm Drain Improvements 495,454
550022 - Westside Storm Drain Improvements 1,433,165
550023 – Placentia Ave Stormwater 125,000
209 - Drainage Fees Fund Total 2,204,808

Traffic Impact Fees

Projects by Fund FY2024/25 - FY2028/29
214 - Traffic Impact Fees Fund
300148 - Citywide Bicycle Rack Improvements 178,482
300174 - Adams at Pinecreek Improvements 1,408,566
300181 - Fairview Road Improvement Project 1,503,250
370010 - Mesa del Mar Multi-Model Access 100,000
370039 - Baker/Placentia/19th/Victoria Traffic Signal Synchronization 30,315 450010 - Class II, III, and IV Bicycle Projects 241,983 450014 - Adams Avenue Bicycle Facility Project 740,000
450015 - Bicycle/Pedestrian Infrastructure Improvements 495,564 450016 - Mesa/Santa Ana Bicycle Facility Improvements 100,000 450017 - MV/Peterson Place Class II Bicycle 100,000
214 - Traffic Impact Fees Fund Total 4,898,160

Fire System Development Fees
No current projects to report.

Cannabis Traffic Impact Fees

Projects by Fund FY2024/25 - FY2028/29
240 – Cannabis Traffic Impact Fees Fund
450015 – Bicycle Pedestrian Infra Improvements 150,000
240 – Cannabis Traffic Impact Fees Fund Total 150,000

806

19 City Council Action and Studies

The following attachments are Development Impact Fees related recent and prior Council Reviews (Traffic Impact Fees and Park Development Fees). 807
ATTACHMENT 2
Resolution No. 2024-xx Page 1 of 7

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-xx

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA,

CALIFORNIA, CONTINUING THE CITYWIDE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE FOR NEW

DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF COSTA MESA AND CONDUCTING THE RELATED

ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE CITYWIDE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE PROGRAM AND

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS

WHEREAS, California Government Code section 66000 et seq. enables cities to charge fees for transportation facilities; and
WHEREAS, Section 13-274 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code authorizes the City Council to, by resolution, establish a development impact fee program based on the capital improvement program; and
WHEREAS, in 1993, by Resolution No. 93-43, the City Council established a traffic impact fee program and the rate of the traffic impact fee based upon a Traffic Impact Fee Study; and
WHEREAS, each year since 1993, the City has continued the traffic impact fee program; and
WHEREAS, on November 15, 2022, the City Council established a traffic impact fee of Two Hund red Thirty-Five Dollars ($235.00) per Average Daily Trip (ADT) based upon a Traffic Impact Fee Study completed in 2018; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code section 66001(d) requires the City to make specified findings every five years with respect to any portion of the traffic impact fees collected that remain unexpended in its account, including (1) identifying the purpose to which the fee is to be put; (2) demonstrating a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged; (3) identifying all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing of incomplete improvements; and (4) designating approximate dates on which the anticipated funding is expected to be deposited into the appropriate account; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code section 66002(b) further requires a separate annual review and update of the City’s capital improvement plan for improvements to be paid for by traffic impact fees; and 808

Resolution No. 2024-xx Page 2 of 7
WHEREAS, California Government Code section 66006(b) requ ires the City to make available to the public within 180 days of the last day of the fiscal year certain information, including but not limited to, a description of the type of fee, the amount of the fee, the amount of fees collected and the interest earne d thereon, identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the amount of the expenditures on each improvement, identification of an approximate date by which the construction of the public improvement will commence if the City det ermines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing of an incomplete public improvement, and the beginning and ending balance of the traffic impact fee account or fund for the previous fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, the 2016 General Plan re quires the City to maintain a traffic impact fee for improvements to the Master Plan of Streets and Highways and that the City review and update the fees on a regular basis; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the 2016 General Plan and the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, the City has elected to conduct the review of traffic impact fees required by California Government Code section 66001(d) on an annual basis in conjunction with its review of the capital improvement plan required by California Government Code section 66002(b) and the annual accounting required by California Government Code section 66006(b)(1); and
WHEREAS, the City reviewed and updated the capital improvement plan on June 4, 2024 in connection with its Measure M2 reporting; and WHEREAS, a primary purpose of this resolution is to continue the traffic impact fee based on the 2018 Traffic Impact Fee Study and to enable the City to continue the traffic impact fee; and
WHEREAS, the traffic impact fee is necessary because new development increases the need for transportation/circulation facilities in the City of Costa Mesa not only during peak periods, but throughout the day, and the City transportation/circulation system will be burdened by the demands of carrying vehicles of a larger number of persons and cargo due to new commercial, industrial, and residential uses; and WHEREAS, the 2015-2035 General Plan as well as Environmental Impact Report No. 1049 indicate that development of new commercial, industrial and residential uses is 809

Resolution No. 2024-xx Page 3 of 7
expected to exceed current commercial, industrial and residential uses and, accordingly, the City transportation/circulation systems will need to be increased in capacity to carry the increase in the number of vehicles due to new commercial, industrial and residential uses; and
WHEREAS, the Public Works Department has conducted an audit of the accounts for the traffic impact fee program for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2024, which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code section 66006, the audit was available for public inspection and review at least fifteen (15) days prior to the City Council review of the audit on November 19, 2024 and notice was mailed to all interested parties on record at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing held on November 19, 2024; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on November 19, 2024, received testimony and evidence from interested parties in the City of Costa Mesa, and has evaluated justification for renewal of the traffic impact fee given economic and social factors, as well as average fees charged by surrounding cities.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES, AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The City Council hereby finds that:
a. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.
b. The purpose of the traffic impact fee is to fund transportation/circulation improvements including active transportation improvements within the City of Costa Mesa which are directly related to the incremental traffic/vehicle burden imposed upon the City transportation/circulation system by the development of new commercial, industrial and residential uses. c. The fee will be used to fund transport ation and circulation improvements within the City of Costa Mesa.
d. There is a reasonable relationship between the traffic impact fee’s use and the development projects on which the fee is imposed because the transportation/circulation facilities funded by t he fee are needed to 810

Resolution No. 2024-xx Page 4 of 7
accommodate the incremental new traffic/vehicle burdens generated by the development of new commercial, industrial and residential uses upon which the fee is imposed.
e. There is a reasonable relationship between the need for the transportation/circulation facilities and the development of new commercial, industrial and residential projects upon which the fee is imposed because the new development projects paying the fee will receive a direct benefit from the transportation/circulation fac ilities funded by the fee; the transportation/circulation facilities funded by the fee will increase traffic/vehicle circulation capacity on streets and highways directly burdened by the increase in traffic/vehicles generated by new development projects upon which the fee is charged; the cost of transportation/circulation facilities attributed to existing deficiencies, existing land uses and population, excess and reserve capacity, and regional transportation needs have been excluded from the fee calculatio n, and such costs are not included in the fee to be paid by the development.
f. There is no portion of the fees deposited into the traffic impact fee fund that remains unexpended.
g. The capital improvement plan is adequate to provide the facilities for which the traffic impact fee is charged and does not need to be amended. h. The audit by the Public Works Department set forth in Exhibit “A” accurately reflects the balance of the traffic impact fee account on the fees collected, the interest thereon, and other inc ome and amount of expenditures and refunds of the traffic impact fee made by the City of Costa Mesa during the prior fiscal year.

Section 2. The City Council of the City of Costa Mesa hereby renews the traffic impact fee and establishes traffic impact fee regulations as follows:
a. The traffic impact fee shall be a fee of $228.00 per each new average daily vehicle trip end generated by all new commercial, industrial and residential developments, effective on January 1, 2025 . To encourage active transportation in Costa Mesa, staff shall provide a five percent (5%) 811

Resolution No. 2024-xx Page 5 of 7
reduction in ADT development trips for active transportation project benefits and may provide an additional five percent (5%) reduction in ADT development trips for a development project which prop oses to implement active transportation improvements beyond those which would ordinarily be required by the City as a condition of approval for such development project. b. The traffic impact fee established pursuant to this resolution shall be collected and administered in accordance with all requirements of California Government Code section 66000 et seq., the Costa Mesa Municipal Code and prior resolutions of the City Council.
c. There shall be no limitation on the amount of traffic impact fees which may be allocated toward active transportation projects.
d. Staff may allocate up to ten percent (10%) of traffic impact fees towards traffic signal synchronization projects.

Section 3 . The City Council of the City of Costa Mesa hereby approves the updated comprehen sive transportation/circulation system capital improvement plan as identified at the June 4, 2024 City Council meeting pursuant to Government Code section 66002.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of November, 2024.

____________________________
John Stephens, Mayor

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

____________________________ ____________________________ Brenda Green, City Clerk Kimberly Hall Barlow, City Attorney

812

Resolution No. 2024-xx Page 6 of 7
THIS PAGE IS RESERVED FOR CITY CLERK’S OFFICE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss

CITY OF COSTA MESA )

I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 2024-xx and was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa at a regular meeting held on the 19th day of November, 2024, by the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 19th day of November, 2024.

________________________
Brenda Green, City Clerk

813

Resolution No. 2024-xx Page 7 of 7

CITY OF COSTA MESA

CITYWIDE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE ACCOUNT

Fund Balance as of June 30, 2024

FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024
Amount of Traffic Impact Fee 235

Beginning Fund Balance July 1, 2023 5,840,901
Prior Year's Cannabis Traffic Impact Fees was included in the beginning fund balance (217,892) Adjusted Fund Balance July 1, 2023 5,623,009

1. Revenues

Fiscal Year 23-24 Traffic Impact Fees 39,292
Investment Earnings 138,455
GASB 31 Fair Market Value adjustment on Investment 69,611 Misc / Other Reimbursement -
Revenue Subtotal 247,358
Cannabis Traffic Impact Fees Revenue
Prior Year's Cannabis Traffic Impact Fees recorded in Fund 214 217,892 Prior Year's Cannabis Traffic Impact Fees recorded in Fund 240 432,659 FY23-24 Cannabis Traffic Impact Fees 91,309
Investment Earnings for Cannabis Traffic Impact Fees since 2022 18,817 GASB 31 Fair Market Value adjustment for Cannabis TIF Investment since 2022 5,312 Cannabis Traffic Impact Fees Revenue Subtotal 765,989

2. Expenditures 1,490,324
Class II and III Bicycle Projects 861,298
Bicycle/ Pedestrian Infrastructure Improvement 2,459
Fairview Road Improvement Project 3,850
Baker/ Placentia/ 19th/ Victoria TSSP 68,810
West 19th Wallace Ave Traffic Signal 181,157
West 18th & Wilson Crosswalks 372,750

3. Refunds -
Amount of funds expended or
uncommitted after 5 years

-

4. Administrative Costs -

5. Fund Balance, including Cannabis TIF fund, as of June 30, 2024 5,146,031

6. Projects Current and Future Appropriations 4,898,160 Bicycle Racks Citywide
Class II and III Bicycle Projects
Adams at Pinecreek Intersection Improvements
Mesa Del Mar Multimodal Access
Baker/ Placentia/ 19th/ Victoria TSSP
Bicycle/ Pedestrian Infrastructure Improvement
Mesa Drive / Santa Ana Ave Bicycle Facility Improvement Mesa Verde Drive East/ Peterson Place Class II Bicycle Facility Fairview Road Improvement Project
Adams Ave Bicycle Facility Project

Projects Current and Future Appropriations for Cannabis Traffic Impact Fees 150,000 Bicycle/ Pedestrian Infrastructure Improvement
814
ATTACHMENT 3

CITYWIDE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE ANNUAL REVIEW - REPORT
Recommendation:

Staff recommends the City Council adopt the proposed resolution, continuing the citywide traffic impact fee for new development in the City of Costa Mesa and conducting the related annual review of the citywide traffic impact fee program and capital improvement plan for transportation improvements. The resolution incorporates the recommendations from the Traffic Impact Fee Ad Hoc Committee and staff, which include:

1. Adopt a traffic impact fee of $228 per Average Daily Trip (ADT) based on the Capital Improvement Projects in Attachment 4 and Active Transportation projects in the adopted Active Transportation Plan (ATP).

2. Approve allocation of up to ten percent (10%) of traffic impact fees towards traffic signal synchronization projects.

3. Approve a five percent (5%) reduction in automobile trips as a result of ATP implementation and an additional five percent (5%) reduction in automobile trips for developments proposing to implement active t ransportation improvements beyond typical development requirements.

4. Approve the annual accounting of the Citywide Traffic Impact Fee Program.

Background
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66000, et seq. and the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, a traffic impact fee study is required by the City to establish a basis for the imposition of Citywide traffic impact fees on new and expanding developments within the City. The purpose of the fee is to fund the necessary transportation/circulation improvements, which are related directly to the incremental traffic impacts imposed on the City’s transportation system by the development of new and/or changing commercial, industrial, and residential uses as permitted by the General Plan. The fee also maintains compliance with the eligibility requirements of the Orange County Transportation Authority’s (OCTA) Renewed Measure “M2” Program (Measure “M2”).

The City Council has reviewed the Citywide Traffic Impact Fee Program each year since the fee program was first adopted in 1993. The City Council, in July 1993, also approved the formation of an Ad Hoc Committee consisting of representatives from various stakeholder groups to work with staff on all aspects related to the revision and updating of traffic impact fees.

The City Council subsequently appointed an Ad Hoc Committee consisting of members representing large and small developers, the Chamber of Commerce, cit izens-at-large, 815
ATTACHMENT 3
as well as members representing the City Council and the Planning Commission, to assist staff in the development and review of the traffic impact fee.

The current Ad Hoc Committee members and their representation are as follows:

Jason Kensey (Chair) At Large Representative
George Sakioka (Vice Chair) Major Developers’ Representative Steve Brahs Small Developers’ Representative
Matt Eimers At Large Representative
David Haithcock Chamber of Commerce

City Council Liaisons:

Council Member Don Harper
Council Member Arlis Reynolds

Planning Commission Liaison:

Commissioner Jonathan Zich

The City Council, in June 2012, authorized a comprehensive review of the City’s General Plan, including the Land Use and Circulation Elements. The General Plan was completed and finalized in 2016.

The last major update of the Traffic Impact Fee Study was completed in November 2018.

The update took into account the most recent land use and circulation information contained in the 2016 General Pla n update. The proposed General Plan circulation improvements identified in the new transportation model form the basis for the traffic impact fee update. A revised traffic impact fee calculation was conducted taking into account the 2016 General Plan and updated traffic analysis model. The estimated costs for various improvements were reviewed and updated using the most recent construction cost data. The Ad Hoc Committee, together with staff, reviewed all conditions and analyzed different trip fee scena rios. Several variations of improvement options were considered, and it was determined that trip fees in the range of $176 per ADT through $476 per ADT could be justified.

On November 15, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 22-65, approving a traffic impact fee of $235 per Average Daily Trip (ADT) to be continued with the inclusion of Active Transportation projects, selecting a fee from the calculated range of between $176 and $476 per ADT. The City Council also approved up to ten percent (10%) of traffic impact fees being allocated toward traffic signal synchronization projects. In addition, City Council approved a five percent (5%) reduction in automobile trips as a result of ATP implementation and an additional five percent (5%) reduction i n automobile trips for developments proposing to implement active transportation improvements beyond typical development requirements.

A chronology of actions taken by the City Council on the Citywide Traffic Impact Fee Program between the years of 1993 and 2023 is included in Attachment 5. 816
ATTACHMENT 3

Traffic Impact Fee Ad Hoc Committee – Annual Review
The Traffic Impact Fee Ad Hoc Committee and staff met on October 29, 2024 to review the traffic impact fee program and calculation. Recently completed projects, consideration of active transportation projects, and the available traffic impact fee fund balance were accounted for in this review.

Attachment 4 provides the calculation of the traffic impact fee of $228 per ADT based on a revised list of capital improvement projects and the inclusion of Active Transportation projects. The Committee deliberated option to continue the current traffic impact fee of $235 per ADT or to reduce the traffic impact fees to $228 per ADT. The discussion focused on the current balance of traffic impact fee fund which is adequate to fund projects over the next two to three years and the upcoming study to review traffic impact fees taking into ac count future housing development as part of rezoning to meet state goals.

Following a review of the fee analysis and staff input, the Ad Hoc Committee recommended to adopt the calculated traffic impact fee of $ 228 per Average Daily Trip (ADT) with the in clusion of Active Transportation projects in the Traffic Impact Fee program. In addition, the Ad Hoc Committee recommended to continue the allocation of up to ten percent (10%) of traffic impact fees towards traffic signal synchronization projects.

The Ad Hoc Committee also recommended to continue to provide a five percent (5%) reduction in automobile trips for development projects due to the implementation of the Active Transportation Plan (ATP) and an additional five percent (5%) reduction in ADT if a development proposes to implement active transportation improvements beyond typical code requirements. The improvements have to be substantial such as addition of a multipurpose trail, conversion of lower-class active bicycle facility to a higher-class bicycle facility, or enhanced pedestrian improvements in the vicinity of the project.

Annual Accounting of the Traffic Impact Fee:

California Government Code Section 66006(b) requires an annual review and accounting of the Citywide Traffic Impact Fee Program. Section 66001(d) requires that the City make specified findings every five years relating to any portion of the traffic impact fees collected that remain unexpended in its account. The City has elected to conduct the review of traffic impact fees required by California Government Code Section 66001(d) on an annual basis in conjunction with its review of the capital improvement p lan required by California Government Code Section 66002(b) and the annual accounting required by California Government Code Section 66006(b). Attachment 6 depicts the opening balance, the ending balance on June 30, 2024, interest earned, revenues, expenditures, and unexpended funds from the Citywide Traffic Impact Fee Account. This attachment also shows that there are no funds unexpended or uncommitted in the account five (5) or more years after deposit and that no administrative costs have been charged to the fee 817
ATTACHMENT 3
account. The accounting was presented to the Committee at their meeting on October 29, 2024, and was approved.

As required by the Government Code, the updated Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is contained in the Fiscal Year 2024-25 adopted budget and remains valid for the current traffic impact fee review. The traffic impact fee account information, including the interest earned, shown in Attachment 6, is available for public review. 818
CIP FY
Future
Future
Future
Future
Future
Fut�re
Future
Future
Future
Future
Future
Future
Future
Future
Future
Future
Future
Future
Future
Future
Future ·--------
Future
Future
Future
Future
Future
Future
Location

ROADWAYS
17th (Orange to Tustin)
17th (Pomona to Bluff)
Baker (Bear to Red Hill)
Bear (1-405 Overcrossini:i)
Del Mar/Universitv (Elden to Santa Ana)
Wilson (Fairview to College)
Wilson (Newport to Fairview)
Wilson (Harbor to Placentia)

INTERSECTIONS

2. Harbor & Sunflower

9. Bristol & Sunflower
____ ,, __
Costa Mesa Traffic Impact Fee Update
Roadway and Intersection Improvement Cost Allocation
Estimated New Dailv Trip Ends
Improvement Cost Local Regional Total Local
Widen from 4 lanes to 6 lanes
Widen from 2 lanes to 4 lanes
Widen from 4 lanes to 6 lanes $8,652,358 5,120 2,786 7,906 $5,603,348 Widen from 4 lanes to 6 lanes
Widen from 2 lanes to 4 lanes
Widen from 2 lanes to 4 lanes
Widen from 2 lanes to 4 lanes
Widen from 2 lanes to 4 lanes
Sub-Total $8,652,358 5,120 2,786 7,906 $5,603,348
.. . ,
Add WBR and EBR $1,097,280 4,982 2,859 7,841 $697,188
Add NBL $1,356,880 7,038 4,344 11,382 $839,019

17. Hyland & South Coast/I-405 NB On-Ramp AddWBT $1,035,928 1,901 604 2,505 $786,147

18. Harbor & South Coast

30. Hyland & MacArthur

42. Bristol & 1-405 NB Ramps

44. Harbor & Gisler

49. Bristol & Paularino

51. SR-55 SB Ramps & Paularino

52. SR-55 NB Ramps & Paularino

65. SR-55 SB Ramos & Baker

66. SR-55 NB Ramps & Baker

84. Harbor & Adams -
101. Newport NB & Del Mar
129. Newoort NB & 22nd
134. Placentia & 19th
151. Superior & 17th
152. Newport & 17th
156. Irvine & 17th
Add EBR
Add NBL and NBR
Add WBR
Add SBR and EBL
AddWBL
Add SBR
AddWBR
Add SBR
Add NBL and EBL
Add NBL and NBR
_..,
AddWBR
Add WBT and NBL
Add SBR
Add WBL and NBR
Add NBR
Addd SBR and EBR
Sub-Total
TOTAL
"" ' , _
$2,003,760
$314,326
$1,080,010
$5,874,084
$360,252
$496,476
$771,300
$750,420
$1,644,390
$7,244,820
$157,770
$18,000
$463,536
$795,438
$533,610
$952,614
$26,950,892
$35,603,250
7,830
2,003
13,117
9,893
6,710
1,845
1,649
3,477
2,728
10,600
2,934
3,332
6,409
7,133
10,202
3,760
107,543
112,663
3,157 10,987 $1,428,000
1,797 3,800 $165,683
5,615 18,732 $756,272
4,259 14,152 $4,106,297
1,690 8,400 $287,773
2,631 4,476 $204,647
2,504 4,153 $306,254
2,446 5,923 $440,522
2,001 4,729 $948,593
3,803 14,403 $5,331,882
2,406 5,340 $86,685
2,625 5,957 $10,068
1,423 7,832 $379,316
2,160 9,293 $610,552
5,079 15,281 $356,252
1,777 5,537 $646,890
53,180 160,723 $18,388,039
55,966 168,629 $23,991,387
Traffic Impact Fee Funds $247,871
Local Cost Allocation with above subtracted $23,743,516 Active Transportation Projects $23,089,536
Total Local Share Costs and Active Transportation Projects $46,833,052 New Costa Mesa Trips Generated at General Plan Buildout 227,767 Citywide Fee calculation including ATP projects and 10% reduction in ADT trips $228 Cost Allocation
Regional Total
$3,049,009 $8,652,358
$3,049,009 $8,652,358
$400,092 $1,097,280
$517,860 $1,356,880
$249,781 $1,035,928
$575,760 $2,003,760
$148,643 $314,326
$323,738 $1,080,010
$1,767,787 $5,874,084
$72,479 $360,252
$291,829 $496,476
$465,046 $771,300
$309,898 $750,420
$695,797 $1,644,390
$1,912,938 $7,244,820
$71,085 $157,770
$7,932 $18,000
$84,220 $463,536
$184,886 $795,438
$177,358 $533,610
$305,724 $952,614
$8,562,854 $26,950,892
$11,611,863 $35,603,250
ATTACHMENT 4
819
820

CITY OF COSTA MESA

CHRONOLOGY OF TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE ACTIONS

Date Adopted Resolution
Number
Area of
Benefit
Applicable Fees
7-June-1993 93-43 Citywide $228 per daily trip end based on the exclusion of all freeway improvements 20-June-1994 94-59 Citywide $228 per daily trip end based on the exclusion of all freeway improvements 1-May-1995 95-35 Citywide $200 per daily trip end based on the inclusion of freeway improvements 17-June-1996 96-57 Citywide $200 per daily trip end based on the inclusion of freeway improvements 20-January-1997 97-15 Newport
Bl. Spec.

Plan Area
Incentive program for developments in Newport Boulevard Specific Plan Area Trip fees range from $33 to $108 per ADT based on project-related conditions. 16-June-1997 97-51 Citywide $150 per daily trip end based on the inclusion of freeway improvements 15-June-1998 98-64 Citywide $150 per daily trip end based on the inclusion of freeway improvements 4-January-1999 99-2 Citywide Incentive program for first 100 trips 0-25 ADT - $0
25-50 ADT - $50
50-75 ADT - $75
75-100 ADT - $100
>100 ADT - $150
7-June-1999 99-35 Citywide $149 per daily trip end based on inclusion of freeway improvements 7-June-1999 99-36 Citywide Incentive program for the first 100 trips 19-June-2000 00-52 District 1

District 2
$195 per daily trip end (areas north of I-405 and SR-73 Freeways) and incentive program for the first 100 trips
$149 per daily trip end (areas south of I-405 and SR-73 Freeways) and incentive program for the first 100 trips
Fees based on inclusion of freeway improvements
4-June-2001 01-34 District 1

District 2
$195 per daily trip end (areas north of I-405 and SR-73 Freeways) and incentive program for the first 100 trips
$149 per daily trip end (areas south of I-405 and SR-73 Freeways) and incentive program for the first 100 trips
Fees based on inclusion of freeway improvements
15-April-2002 02-27 Citywide Traffic Impact Fee Study Update $177 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site 6-October-2003 03-62 Citywide $177 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site 4-October-2004 04-59 Citywide $177 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site Suspension of incentive program for Newport Boulevard Specific Plan Area

ATTACHMENT 5 821

CITY OF COSTA MESA

CHRONOLOGY OF TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE ACTIONS
Date Adopted Resolution
Number
Area of
Benefit
Applicable Fees
20-September-2005 05-70 Citywide $181 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site 17-October-2006 06-85 Citywide $181 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site 16-October-2007 07-77 Citywide $181 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site Exemption of preschool and daycare facilities from traffic impact fee program (consider as part of exempt school facilities)
21-October-2008 08-81 Citywide $181 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site 20-October-2009 09-67 Citywide $181 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site 19-October-2010 10-70 Citywide $181 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site 18-October-2011 11-42 Citywide $181 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site 20-November-2012 12-73 Citywide $181 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site 11-November-2013 13-54 Citywide $181 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site 18-November-2014 14-73 Citywide $181 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site 1-December-2015 15-66 Citywide $181 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site 3-January-2017 17-02 Citywide $181 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site 21-November-2017 17-76 Citywide $181 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site 14-November-2018 18-79 Citywide $235 per daily trip end, up to 10% for signal synchronization projects, and up to 5% for active transportation projects. Terminate incentive program for new developments on an incremental basis for the first 100 trips.
17-December-2019 19-83 Citywide $235 per daily trip end, inclusion of ATP projects, up to 10% for signal synchronization projects, and no limitation on the amount of traffic impact fees allocated toward active transportation projects. Provide 5% reduction in ADT development trips for active transportation project benefits and may provide an additional 5% reduction in ADT development trips for a development project that proposes to implement active transportation improvements beyond those which would ordinarily be required by the City as a condition of approval for such development project.
17-November-2020 20-60 Citywide $235 per daily trip end, inclusion of ATP projects, up to 10% for signal synchronization projects. Provide 5% reduction in ADT development trips for active transportation and may provide additional 5% reduction in ADT development trips for development implementing active transportation improvements beyond those required as condition of approval. 7-December-2021 21-48 Citywide $235 per daily trip end, inclusion of ATP projects, up to 10% for signal synchronization projects. Provide 5% reduction in ADT development trips with conditions as approved in 2020. 15-November-2022 22-65 Citywide $235 per daily trip end, inclusion of ATP projects, up to 10% for signal synchronization projects. Provide 5% reduction in ADT development trips with conditions as approved in 2021. 05-December-2023 23-56 Citywide $235 per daily trip end, inclusion of ATP projects, up to 10% for signal synchronization projects. Provide 5% reduction in ADT development trips with conditions as approved in 2021. 822
FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024
Amount of Traffic Impact Fee 235
Beginning Fund Balance July 1, 2023 5,840,901
Prior Year's Cannabis Traffic Impact Fees was included in the beginning fund balance (217,892) Adjusted Fund Balance July 1, 2023 5,623,009

1. Revenues
Fiscal Year 23-24 Traffic Impact Fees 39,292
Investment Earnings 138,455
69,611
Misc / Other Reimbursement -
Revenue Subtotal 247,358
Cannabis Traffic Impact Fees Revenue
Prior Year's Cannabis Traffic Impact Fees recorded in Fund 214 217,892 Prior Year's Cannabis Traffic Impact Fees recorded in Fund 240 432,659 FY23-24 Cannabis Traffic Impact Fees 91,309
Investment Earnings for Cannabis Traffic Impact Fees since 2022 18,817 GASB 31 Fair Market Value adjustment for Cannabis TIF Investment since 2022 5,312 Cannabis Traffic Impact Fees Revenue Subtotal 765,989

2. Expenditures 1,490,324
Class II and III Bicycle Projects 861,298
Bicycle/ Pedestrian Infrastructure Improvement 2,459
Fairview Road Improvement Project 3,850
Baker/ Placentia/ 19th/ Victoria TSSP 68,810
West 19th Wallace Ave Traffic Signal 181,157
West 18th & Wilson Crosswalks 372,750

3. Refunds -
Amount of funds expended or
uncommitted after 5 years -

4. Administrative Costs -

5. Fund Balance, including Cannabis TIF fund, as of June 30, 2024 5,146,031

6. Projects Current and Future Appropriations 4,898,160 Bicycle Racks Citywide
Class II and III Bicycle Projects
Adams at Pinecreek Intersection Improvements
Mesa Del Mar Multimodal Access
Baker/ Placentia/ 19th/ Victoria TSSP
Bicycle/ Pedestrian Infrastructure Improvement
Mesa Drive / Santa Ana Ave Bicycle Facility Improvement Mesa Verde Drive East/ Peterson Place Class II Bicycle Facility Fairview Road Improvement Project
Adams Ave Bicycle Facility Project
Projects Current and Future Appropriations for Cannabis Traffic Impact Fees 150,000 Bicycle/ Pedestrian Infrastructure Improvement

CITY OF COSTA MESA

CITYWIDE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE ACCOUNT
Fund Balance as of June 30, 2024
GASB 31 Fair Market Value adjustment on Investment
ATTACHMENT 6
823

CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 24-364 Meeting Date: 11/19/2024
TITLE:

INTRODUCTION AND FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 3 (ANIMAL

REGULATIONS) OF THE COSTA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING CHAPTER I (IN

GENERAL) AND CHAPTER VI (SPECIAL ANIMAL PERMIT) TO PROVIDE FOR BEEKEEPING

AND TO CLARIFY APPEAL PROCEDURES FOR SPECIAL ANIMAL PERMITS DEPARTMENT: POLICE DEPARTMENT
PRESENTED BY: STEPHANIE A. SELINSKE, LIEUTENANT
CONTACT INFORMATION: STEPHANIE A. SELINSKE, LIEUTENANT
714-754- 5293
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council introduce for first reading the attached Ordinance No. 2024-XX amending Title 3 (Animal Regulations) of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code by amending Chapter I (In General) and Chapter VI (Special Animal Permit) to allow for the lawful keeping of bees and/or hives within the City and to clarify appeal procedures for special animal permits.

BACKGROUND:

The City of Costa Mesa Municipal Code (CMMC) 3-18, currently states it is unlawful for any person to have, keep, or maintain any hive or swarm of bees within the City. On January 26, 2022, the Animal Services Committee voted to establish a Beekeeping Ad Hoc Committee to explore the feasibility of beekeeping within Costa Mesa and to recommend changes to CMMC 3-18 that would permit beekeeping in the City. On March 20, 2023, the Beekeeping Ad Hoc Committee submitted its findings and a draft ordinance to the Animal Services Committee and relevant City staff. Following the Ad Hoc Committee’srecommendation, the Animal Services Committee voted to forward these findings and the draft ordinance to the City Council, with the intent to revisit the issue if conflicts related to backyard beekeeping increased or if there was significant public support for beekeeping. In 2024, community members showed significant public interest and support for permitting beekeeping in the City of Costa Mesa. On October 1, 2024, a first reading of proposed amendments to CMMC 3-18 were presented to City Council. Council members provided feedback, raised questions, and discussed proposed amendments. Public comments were also considered, and City Council approved moving the ordinance forward by a vote of 7-0 with several amendments.

ANALYSIS:

At the October 1, 2024, City Council meeting the Costa Mesa Police Department introduced recommendations to establish a beekeeping ordinance. At the first reading, City Council provided amendments to the proposed ordinance and passed the first reading by a 7-0 vote. Based on City Council amendments, additional changes were deemed necessary based upon staff and community input. These additional substantial changes to the ordinance requires this ordinance be brought

824
File #: 24-364 Meeting Date: 11/19/2024
input. These additional substantial changes to the ordinance requires this ordinance be brought back to City Council for another first reading.

The proposed ordinance is modeled after the City of Fullerton. Fullerton’sordinance was viewed by the City of Costa Mesa Beekeeping Ad Hoc Committee in 2022 as the appropriate balance among ease of administration, flexibility for beekeepers and avenues for enforcement to address complaints from neighbors or property owners.

The ordinance allows for the keeping of domesticated bees with a permit issued through the Police Department’sAnimal Services Unit. Permits would only be issued for residential properties that allow for adequate spacing from neighboring residence so as not to interfere with the free use of neighboring properties. Distance limits have been established to define adequate spacing. Beehives must be secured from unauthorized access and not visible from the public right of way.

Applicants wishing to obtain a beekeeping permit would be required to complete an application form, which includes a property map indicating where the hive(s) would reside. Upon receipt of the application, staff would send written notices to abutting properties to allow those residents an opportunity to provide feedback (support or concerns) and to identify if any neighbors have a severe allergy to bees that could endanger their health and safety. Staff would review the application and any resident letters to determine if approval or denial was appropriate. A permit would be issued if it is determined the beehive(s) and bees would be kept and maintained without endangering the safety of any person or property.

Upon issuance of the permit, residents would be required to register their hives with the Agricultural Commissioner of Orange County as required by law and abide by the Costa Mesa Residential Beekeeping Best Practices Guide. Control measures have been established in the ordinance to allow for the revocation of a permit if the bees or hive(s) become a public nuisance. This would include a complaint from a person residing on a neighboring property with proof of a medically certified allergy to the sting of bees. Additionally, permits are only valid for two years, allowing for reoccurring review and inspections by staff. During the creation of this new ordinance, updates were recommended to the appeal procedures. To ensure that the beekeeping permit and special animal permit appeal procedures are in congruence, staff recommend that the special animal permit code be amended as well.

Prior to the October 1, 2024, City Council meeting, a third party analysis was conducted to establish an appropriate permit fee for beekeeping. This study recommended a fee of $150. This proposed fee aimed to partially recover the expense for staff time to evaluate applications and issue permits.

However, public feedback expressed concerns that fee might discourage future beekeepers from obtaining permits. In response to these concerns and based on input and City Council direction, there will not be a fee established at this time. Staff will evaluate the number of permits being processed and staff time required to process these permits and reserves the right to return to City Council at a future date to establish a fee if appropriate.

After the two-year permit term expires, applicants will only need to reapply for a new permit, with no fee for renewal. This renewal process will allow Animal Control Services to keep accurate and timely records on beehives in the community, confirm that residents comply with best practices, and update neighbors on beekeeping activities if new residents have moved nearby.

The following list highlights the changes made to this ordinance from the October 1, 2024, City

825
File #: 24-364 Meeting Date: 11/19/2024
The following list highlights the changes made to this ordinance from the October 1, 2024, City Council meeting:
· 3-18.1 Updated definitions based upon beekeeping community input. · 3-18.4 (b) (1) Called for an application fee in the amount set by the city council resolution.

This has been amended and no fee will be required to obtain a permit. · 3-18-.4 (b) (2) Called for the applicant to provide proof of notification to neighbors. This language has been removed. The Animal Services Unit will now be responsible for mailing notification letters to abutting properties for any application for a beekeeping permit which is received. In that letter, it will ask for neighboring residents to provide feedback (support or concerns) and to identify if any neighbors have a severe allergy to bees that could endanger their health and safety. Neighboring residents would have 30-days to respond to letters. · 3-18.4 (b) (3) This section requested a fee for a beekeeping permit. As mentioned in 3-18.4 (b)(1) - no fee will be associated to the obtaining or renewal of a beekeeping permit. · 3-18.4 (b) (4) This establishes a grace period for any person currently keeping bees and beehive(s) to come into compliance with the proposed ordinance. · 3-18.4 (b) (5) The initial presentation of this ordinance required signage on any property keeping bees and beehive(s). This requirement has been removed. · 3-18.4 (c) (1) Initially proposed a requirement to have domesticated hives only permitted on properties designated within an R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District. The updated ordinance states beehives may only be placed on residential properties that allow for adequate spacing from a neighboring residence so as not to interfere with the free use of the neighboring property. Adequate spacing has been defined as 15 feet from a property line and 25 feet from a neighboring residential building. If applicants are unable to meet these distance requirements, a solid six (6) foot barrier would be required to direct bees upward and away from other neighboring properties.
· 3-18.4 (c) (2) This initially called for no domesticated hives to be maintained on a single-family residence of [three thousand (3,000)] square feet or less. This language has been removed.

This section now states that beehives must be placed in a secure location and not visible from the public right of way.
· 3-18-4 (c) (3) This initially called for no more than two (2) domesticated hives to be maintained on a single-family residential lot of less than [seven thousand (7,000)] square feet and greater than [three thousand (3,000)] square feet. This language has been removed. The ordinance still has maximum of two (2) beehives permitted on any residential property. · 3-18.4 (c) (4) This section was added requiring all bees be kept in hive boxes with removable frames for inspection and equipment shall be kept in sound and usable condition. · 3-18.4 (5) This section has been added to require a water source for bees. · 3-18.4 (d) (2) The initial ordinance required applicants to complete a beginning beekeeper

826
File #: 24-364 Meeting Date: 11/19/2024
course. This language has been removed.
· 3-18.4 (e) This section was amended based upon public and staff input to remove specific time requirements and other language.
· 3-18.5 (a) Edits were made to ensure congruence with other changes in the ordinance. · 3-18.5 (d) The initial ordinance required inspections by City staff. This section has been removed as site inspections will not be required for every application. · 3-18.6 Language was added requiring denied applicants be notified of the reason for denial.

Through the collaborative efforts of community members, the City Council, and the staff at the Costa Mesa Police Department and Animal Services Unit, revisions to Section 3-18 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code have been implemented to support sustainable and equitable beekeeping practices within the city.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS:

This ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, as it is exempt from CEQA because there is no possibility that the ordinance or its implementation would have a significant negative effect on the environment. (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15061(b)(3).) A Notice of Exemption should be filed as authorized by CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.

ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council could elect to not approve the beekeeping ordinance and the City would continue with not allowing beekeeping within city limits.

FISCAL REVIEW:

The resolution establishing the beekeeping permit will have no fiscal impact since there is no user fee associated with this Council action.

LEGAL REVIEW:

The City Attorney’sOffice has reviewed this report and the proposed Ordinance and approved them as to form.

CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:

This item supports the following City Council Goal:
· Strengthen public safety and improve the quality of life CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends the City Council introduce for first reading the attached Ordinance No. 2024-XX amending Title 3 (Animal Regulations) of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code by amending Chapter I (In General) and Chapter VI (Special Animal Permit) to allow for the lawful keeping of bees and/or hives within city and to clarify appeal procedures for special animal permits.

827
ORDINANCE NO. 24-XXXX

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA AMENDING TITLE 3 (ANIMAL REGULATIONS) OF THE COSTA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE BY

AMENDING CHAPTER I (IN GENERAL) AND CHAPTER VI (SPECIAL ANIMAL PERMIT) TO

PROVIDE FOR BEEKEEPING AND TO CLARIFY APPEAL PROCEDURES FOR SPECIAL

ANIMAL PERMITS

WHEREAS, the keeping of domesticated bees allows for preservation of domesticated bees which are essential to agriculture, preservation of habitat, cultivation of native plants and amelioration of climate change; and

WHEREAS, the City’s Animal Services Committee has carefully considered potential rules and regulations relating to beekeeping and permit requirements with the input of the Police Department and has recommended a draft ordinance to the City Council for adoption; and

WHEREAS, the appeal procedure for appeals relating to special animal permits was revised in 2023, but clarification of the notice and hearing requirements is needed.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1 . Chapter I (IN GENERAL) of Title 3 (ANIMAL REGULATIONS), SECTION 3-18 (BEEKEEPING) of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code is hereby amended by read as follows:

3-18 Residential Beekeeping

3-18.1 Definitions:

Bee: Any stage of the common domestic honey bee (apis mellifera species)

Beehive: Any structure housing a bee colony.

Frame: A hive component where bees build their honeycomb.

Hive box: An artificial/man-made structure to house honey bees. a) Langstroth hive – A type of hive which was designed to be expandable or contractible with frames that can be removed for inspection. b) Top bar hive – a trapezoidal box with slats of wood which the bees will make comb along. These slats can be pulled out with the comb for inspection.

Requeen: The act of replacing the queen bee in a hive with a younger queen, and mated queen, a common practice in beekeeping to prevent bee swarming , increase brood and honey production, resolve disease or pest issues, or reduce hive defensiveness.

ATTACHMENT 1
828
Swarm: A group of bees in a transitional state leaving their original hive, clustering and then leaving again to establish a new hive in a new cavity.

3-18.2 Intent
The intent and purpose of this section is to authorize residential beekeeping subject to certain requirements intended to avoid problems that may otherwise be associated with the keeping of bees in populated areas.

3-18.3 Regulation and Permitting of Beekeeping
(a) It is unlawful for any person to have, keep or maintain any hive or swarm of wasps, hornets, bees, or other swarming insects within the city.

(b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to:
(1) the keeping of flying insects within an educational institution for study or observation, or within a physician’s office or laboratory for medical resea rch, treatment, or other scientific purposes, provided they are not permitted to fly at large, or
(2) the keeping of domesticated bees after obtaining a permit from the Chief of Police or their designee as hereinafter provided.

3-18.4 Beekeeping Permit Requirements
(a) Permit Required.
(1) A Residential Beekeeping Permit is required for all domesticated hives. (2) A person intending to keep, maintain and have in their possession and under their control a residential beehive shall first apply for and obtain a Residential Beekeeping Permit with the Police Department’s Animal Services Unit.

(b) Application Requirements.
(1) An application for a permit required pursuant to this chapter shall be made in writing to the police chief upon a form furnished by the city. (2) Upon receipt of the initial application, City staff will mail notifications to property owners and residents whose property directly abut the applicant’s property. (a) Written notifications will provide residents, up to 30 days to respond for permit consideration purposes.
(b) Special consideration will be given to abutting residents whose health, safety and welfare would be endangered due to a medical condition and/or allergy to the sting of bees.
(3) Any existing beekeeper with hive(s) established before the adoption of this ordinance will have a period of 90 days from the effective date of the ordinance to obtain a permit and come in compliance with the requirements of this ordinance.

(c) Property and Hive Requirements.
(1) Beehives may only be placed on residential properties that allow for adequate spacing, as defined in subsection (a) & (b), from neighboring residences so as not to interfere with the free use of neighboring property. 829
a) Beehives should be located at least 15 feet from any property line and 25 feet from neighboring residential buildings unless measure d as described in subsection (b) below are met.
b) Beehives unable to meet the above distance requirements require a 6 -foot solid barrier (fence, wall, or dense vegetation) be installed to direct bee flight paths upwards and away from neighboring properties.
(2) Beehive locations shall be secured from unauthorized access and not visible from the public right of way.
(3) A maximum of two (2) beehives will be placed on a single residential property. (4) All bees shall be kept in hive boxes with frames that can be removed for inspection and equipment shall be kept in sound and usable condition. (5) A water source for bees shall be provide d at all times on the property where bees are kept to discourage bee visitation at swimming pools, hose bibs and other water sources on adjacent properties.

(d) Registration, Training and Guidelines.
(1) Beehives shall be validly registered with the Agricultural Commissioner of the County of Orange, in accordance with Section 20943 of the California Food and Agriculture Code.
(2) All domesticated hives must be maintained in conformity with the Costa Mesa Residential Beekeeping Best Management Best Practices.

(e) Public Nuisance.
(1) Bees or hives shall be considered a public nuisance subject to Title 20, Chapter 3 of this Code when any of the following occurs:
a) Hives are placed on property without first obtaining a Residential Beekeeping Permit.
b) Bees exhibit defensive behavior or interfere with the normal use of adjoining properties.
c) Bees or hives do not conform to the Costa Mesa Residential Beekeeping Management Best Practices or the requirements of this section. d) Hives are abandoned by the owner; or

3-18.5 Issuance of Beekeeping Permit, Renewal, and Revocation

(a) The Chief of Police or their designee may issue a permit for beekeeping if they determine such be ehive(s) and bees, may be kept or maintained without compromising the safety of any person or interfering with the free use of a neighboring property; additionally, the Chief of Police or their designee may impose such conditions in granting a permit as th ey may deem necessary to ensure public safety.
(b) No Residential Beekeeping Permit shall be issued when it has been determined that keeping of bees and beehives would endanger a person or person(s) on abutting property at the time of the submission of a completed Residential Beekeeping Permit application.
830
(c) A Residential Beekeeping Permit shall expire two (2) years from the date of issuance of the permit.
(d) The recipient of a Residential Beekeeping Permit shall submit a renewal application at least 60 days prior to the expiration of the prior year’s permit. (e) Expired permits may not be renewed and must submit for a new application in accordance with Section 3-18.4(b).
(f) The recipient of a Residential Beekeeping Permit shall submit a renewal application prior to the expiration of the previous year’s Permit. (g) A validly obtained Residential Beekeeping Permit may be revoked at any time when:
a. The permit holder is found to be in violation of this Chapter or the Costa Mesa Residential Beekeeping Best Management Practices.
b. It is determined that an abutting resident’s health, safety and welfare would be endangered due to a medical condition and/or allergy to the sting of bees.
c. Such revocation shall be in addition to any other remedy that may be pursued by the city pursuant to 3-18.4(e) below.

3.18.6 Notice of Action on Permits
The applicant shall be notified in writing of the action of the Chief of Police or their designee in either granting or denying the permit, and if the application has been denied, the notice shall advise the applicant of the reason for denial and their right to appeal as outlined in this ordinance. Service of the notice may be made by personal service or by registered mail. If service is made by mail, it shall be deemed complete upon deposit in the United States Mail directed to the applicant at their latest address shown on the application.

3.18.7 Revocation of Permit
The Chief of Police or their designee may for good cause, revoke any permit or modify any terms or provisions thereof, after an informal hearing, and may, in the event it is reasonably necessary to protect against an immediate threat to the public health or safety, suspend any permit or portion thereof without a hearing for a period not to exceed 30 days. The permittee shall be given at least three days' prior written notice of any such hearing.

3.18.8 Appeals From Action of Police Chief
(a) If any person is aggrieved by any action of the Chief of Police or their designee taken pursuant to this chapter, such person may appeal to the city manager by filing with the city clerk a statement addressed to the city manager setting forth the facts and circumstances regarding the action or failure to act on the part of the Chief of Police or their designee. The city clerk shall notify the applicant in writing by registered mail of the time and place set for hearing the appeal. The city manager or their designee shall hold a hearing and determine the merits of the appeal, and may sustain, overrule or modify the action of the Chief of Police or their designee . The decision of th e city manager or their designee shall be final.
831

(b) The right to appeal to the city manager from any action or decision of the Chief of Police under this chapter shall terminate upon the expiration of 15 days following the giving of notice to the applicant advising him of the action of the Chief of Police or their designee.

SECTION 2. Chapter VI (SPECIAL ANIMAL PERMIT) OF Title 3 (ANIMAL REGULATIONS), SECTION S 3-148, 3-149 and 3-151 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code are hereby amended to read as follows:

3-148. Notice of Action on Permit.

The applicant shall be notified in writing of the action of the Chief of Police or their designee in either granting or denying the permit, and if the application has been denied, the notice shall advise the applicant of their right to appeal to the city manager. Service of the notice may be made by personal service or by registered mail. If service is made by mail, it shall be deemed complete upon deposit in the United States Mail directed to the applicant at his latest address shown on the application.

3-149 Revocation, Suspension of Permit.

The Chief of Police or their designee may, for good cause, revoke any permit or modify any terms or provisions thereof, after informal hearing, and may, in the event it is reasonably necessary to protect against an immediate threat to the public health or safety, suspend any permit or portion thereof without hearing for a period not to exceed 30 days. T he permittee shall be given at least three days' prior written notice of any such hearing.

3-151 Appeals From Action of Police Chief
(a) If any person is aggrieved by any action of the Chief of P olice or their designee taken pursuant to this chapter, such person may appeal to the city manager by filing with the city clerk a statement addressed to the city manager setting forth the facts and circumstances regarding the action or failure to act on the part of the police chief. The city clerk shall notify the applicant in writing by registered mail of the time and place set for hearing the appeal. The city manager or their designee shall hold a hearing and determine the merits of the appeal, and may sustain, overrule or modify the action of the Chief of Police or their designee. The decision of the city manager or their designee shall be final.

(b) The right to appeal to the city manager from any action or decision of the Chief of Police under this chapter shall terminate upon the expiration of 15 days fol lowing the giving of notice to the applicant advising him of the action of the Chief of Police or their designee.

SECTION 3. CEQA. This ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, as it is exempt from CEQA because there is no possibility that the ordinance or its implementation would have a significant negative effect on the environment. (14 Cal. 832
Code Regs. § 15061(b)(3).) The City Clerk may cause a Notice of Exemption to be filed as authorized by CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.

SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY. The City Council declares that should any provision, section; paragraph, sentence or word of this ordinance be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences, and words of this ordinance shall remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 5. This ordinance shall take effect 30 days after its passage and adoption pursuant to California Government Code section 36937.

SECTION 6. The City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa shall certify the passage of the ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted in the manner required by law.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of November 2024, by the following called vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

Mayor

ATTEST:

City Clerk

I, ______________, City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was regularly introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the ____ day of ___, 2024, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the ____ day of ___, 2024, by the following vote of the City Council:

City Clerk

833
Residential B eekeeping Permit Application
August 26, 2024
Applicant and Ownership Information:

Applicant
First Name: Last Name:

Address where bees are kept:

Phone #: E-mail:

If the applicant is not the property owner, permission from the owner must be provided below:

Property Owner
First Name: Last Name:

Street Address:

City: State: ZIP:

Phone #: E-mail:

Signature Date:

Required Bee Hive Information a nd Acknowledgements:
☐ Site Plan. Please provide information showing proposed locations for hive(s). Sample site plan is provided. ☐ A
Residential Beekeeping Permit DOES NOT override private property restrictions in Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions
(CC&R) or Homeowner’s Association regulations.
☐ I
have read and understand the City of Costa Mesa Best Management Practices (BMPs) document. ☐ I
hereby certify that I will maintain bees in a manner that conforms to the City of Costa Mesa BMPs, Costa Mesa Municipal Code (CMMC) 3-18.1 - CMMC 3-18.7, and to any conditions of approval attached to the B
eekeeping permit.
☐ I understand that the ability to keep bees is subject to revocation if I allow violations to the permit to exist on my property.
☐ I understand that at any time, an adjoining property resident may submit proof of a medically- certified allergy
to the sting of bees, which would result in the revocation of the Residential Beekeeping permit.
☐ I understand beehives hives may only be placed on residential properties that allow for adequate spacing from neighboring residences so as not to interfere with the free use of neighboring property. Beehive locations shall be secured from unauthorized access and not visible from the public right of way. Beehives s
hould be located at least 15 feet from any property line and 25 feet from neighboring residential buildings unless measures as described in subsection (b) below are met. B eehives unable to meet the above distance requirements require a 6-foot solid barrier (fence, wall, or dense vegetation) be installed to direct bee flight paths upwards and away from neighboring properties.

Signature: _______________________________________ Date: _________________ Office Use Only:

Date Recvd: Permit #: Approved

Denied

Reviewing Planner Decision Date:

ATTACHMENT 2
834
Residential Beekeeping Permit
Application
Site Plan
August 26, 2024
Site Plan
Site Plan submitted must include: property address, location of hives, number of hives, and indicate all BMPs standards, i.e. water source, fly-over (vegetation or fence), etc.

Street
House
Front Yard
Address: __________________
Rear Yard
P/L
835
August 26, 2024
Best Management Practices
Residential Beekeeping
Good Neighbor Practices
You are planning to bring several thousand stinging insects into close proximity of your neighbors’ backyards. Being a good neighbor would include letting them know your intentions. It may take some explaining and educating, but once people understand more about honey bees, their minds can be changed. Conflicts with neighbors are not good for you or other beekeepers and could result in strict regulation or prohibition in more confined locations.

Education
Any resident considering taking up beekeeping should first educate themselves on basic principles and guidelines. A basic understanding of honey bee biology, foraging habits, and hive management is essential.
- Take a class.

Cal Poly Pomona – Extended University
Girl Next Door (girlnextdoorhoney.com)
Beekeeping organizations (all listed below offer courses) - Join a local beekeeping club or group.

Beekeepers Association of Southern CA (bascbees.org)
The Orange County Beekeepers Association (
ocbeekeepers.org)
Los Angeles County Beekeepers Association (losangelescountybeekeepers.co m)
OC Backyard Bees (backyardbees.net)
- Seek out additional
on-line knowledge.

Scientificbeekeeping.com
American Beekeeping Federation
(abfnet.org)
American Bee Journal (americanbeejournal.com)
- Read a book.

The Beekeeper’s Handbook by Alphonse Avitabile & Diana Sammataro (2006) First Lessons in
Beekeeping by Keith S. Delaplane (2007)
Natural Beekeeping: Organic Approaches to Modern Apiculture by Ross Conrad (2007) The Hive and the Honey Bee by L.L. Langstroth (1853)
The Backyard Beekeeper: An Absolute Beginner’s Guide by Kim Flottum (2010) The ABC &
XYZ of Bee Culture: An Encyclopedia Pertaining to the Scientific and Practical Culture of Honey Bees
Beekeeping: A Practical Guide by Richard E. Bonney (1993) Biology of the Honey Bee by Mark L. Winston (1991)
- Find a
n experienced beekeeping mentor.
- Follow City of Costa Mesa Best Management Practices for Residential Beekeeping.

ATTACHMENT 3
836
August 26, 2024
Considerate Hive Management
Beekeepers should take into account that weather conditions influence bee behavior and should work bees when conditions are favorable. Beekeepers should open their hives when their neighbors are not working or playing outdoors. Beekeepers should als o be mindful to perform hive manipulations as quickly as possible with minimum disturbance to the bees.

Extended hive manipulations, particularly when removing honey, should be carefully planned to accommodate neighbors’ activities. Smoke should be used when working bees. Hive entrances should be smoked before mowing or trimming in the hive area. Clippings and exhaust should be directed away from hive entrances.

Recommended Standards
a. Registration Encouraged. To protect your bees when Orange County Vector Control conducts pesticide spraying, the beekeeper should register with the County of Orange Department of Agriculture Commissioner within 30 days of establishing an apiary, and re- register January of every year thereafter while in possession of the apiary pursuant to California Food and Agricultural Code Sections 29040-29056. b. Permission of landowners. Any person wishing to place or keep an apiary, or cause or allow an apiary to remain on land not owned or possessed by such person should first obtain the permission to do so from the owner or person lawfully in possession of such land. c. Maximum (2) hives. The number of hives will limited to (2) hives on the property.

Beekeepers using proper management skills will split hives to prevent swarming and combine hives when they naturally shrink over the course of a year varying the number of hives they have in an apiary. Be a good neighbor and limit the number of hives to a reasonable and manageable amount.
d. Property and Hive Requirements.
(1) Beehives may only be placed on residential properties that allow for adequate spacing from neighboring residences so as not to interfere with the free use of neighboring property. (2) Beehive locations shall be secured from unauthorized access and not visible from the public right of way.
a) Beehives should be located at least 15 feet from any property line and 25 feet from neighboring residential buildings unless measures as described in subsection (b) below are met.
b
) Beehives unable to meet the above distance requirements require a 6- foot solid barrier (fence, wall, or dense vegetation) be installed to direct bee flight paths upwards and away from neighboring properties.
e. Hive type: All bee colonies should be kept in inspectable hives consisting of moveable frames. Removable frame hives allow inspection for size, brood, food, disease and queen.

Two common examples of removable frame hives are the Langstroth hive and a Top Bar hive. Hives should not be kept in trees, walls, attics or meter boxes where they cannot be managed. Hives in those places should be removed by the property owner or a bee removal company.
f. Hive color: Using a light color to paint the hive components will result in less heat being absorbed during the summer months. This will ensure bees are kept in a cooler environment and will reduce swarming tendencies.
837
August 26, 2024
c. Hives should be requeened at least once every two years to prevent swarming OR in any instance in which a colony exhibits unusually aggressive characteristics by stinging or attempting to sting without due provocation or exhibits an unusual disposition towards swarming, it should be the duty of the beekeeper to requeen the colony. Queens should be selected from stock bred for gentleness and non-swarming characteristics d. Water source: Bees use large amounts of water to hydrate and cool their hive. A fresh, shallow, and consistent water source for bees should be provided at all times on the property where the bees are kept to discourage bee visitation at swimming pools, fountains, hose bibs and other water sources on adjacent public or private property.

The water should be kept fresh
and clean so as not to become a breeding ground for mosquitoes. e. Hive maintenance materials or equi pment must be stored in a sealed container or placed within a building or other bee-proof enclosure.

Location Criteria
Hives should be placed in a quiet area and not directly against a neighboring property unless a solid fence or dense plant barrier of six feet or higher forms the property boundary. Hives should be kept as far away as possible from roads, sidewalks, and rights of way.

Flight paths into the hive (generally six-ten feet in front of the hive entrance) should remain within the owner’s lot, although barriers (e.g., fencing and tall shrubs) can sometimes be used to redirect the bees’ flight pattern. Care should be taken so this flight pattern does not cross sidewalks, driveways, playgrounds, or other public areas.
a. Hives should be located between the residence and the rear property line. b. Hives should not be visible from a public right-of-way. c. Hives should be in a dark location when the sun goes down as bees are attracted to light.

Avoid placing a hive where a light will attract the bees to create a nuisance. d. Hive location should be secured from unauthorized access. e. Hives must either be screened so that the bees must fly over a six-foot barrier, which may be vegetative, before leaving the property, or be placed at least eight feet above the adjacent ground level.

Swarm Prevention
Swarming is natural honeybee behavior, but it should be prevented or minimized. Two primary causes of swarming are overcrowding and/or overheating in the hive. To avoid these conditions, and reduce tendency to swarms, beekeepers should consider:
a. Replacement of old or failing queens
- As queen bees age, their queen pheromone fades triggering the hive to swarm b. Appropriately timed addition of supers for brood rearing and honey storage c. Colony division (splitting a hive)
d. Brood chamber manipulation
e. Use of screened bottom board
Operational Standards
a. Any production of honey, wax, or related product shall be subject to the Home Occupation requirements of Section 15.17.030M of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code and all applicable County of Orange Health Department Cottage Food or Certified Farmers Market permitting process and requirements.
b. Hives should be continually managed to provide adequate living space for their resident bees to prevent swarming.
838
Queens
Queens should only be obtained from reliable sources. Queen breeders are preferred to reduce the chances of introducing Africanized honeybees and to ensure the queen is well suited to the climate.

Beekeepers should ensure their queens are young (less than two years recommended) and vigorous layers. Each beekeeper must evaluate their queens on a regular basis for performance and hive gentleness. Desirable genetic characteristics for a queen include:
● Gentle Disposition
● Quick Colony Build Up
● Good Honey and Pollen Collectors
● Low Swarming Instinct
Any colony exhibiting unusually defensive behavior or an excessive swarming tendency should be re-queened as soon as possible.

Robbing Behavior
When nectar is scarce, honeybees may rob from other hives. When they do, they tend to appear more defensive. Under such conditions, beekeepers should work hives for only short periods of time and only if really necessary. Exposing honey can encourage robbing. Open hives can entice robbing thus stirring up the hive. Be a thoughtful conscientious neighbor. All honey and sugar water spills should be cleaned up immediately. Areas used for honey extraction should be bee-proofed to prevent robbing situations.

Disease Control
Any hive found to be diseased should be dealt with in the appropriate manner. There are a number of honeybee diseases and pests. It is critical that beekeepers be educated to recognize and respond to disease. A disease like American Foulbrood has spores which can remain viable for three or more decades and is extremely contagious. The only recourse with this disease is burning the equipment or placing it in a sealed bag to be taken to a landfill. When evidence of disease is found, the hive should be treated and or the equipment removed promptly to avoid spreading the disease to neighboring hives. For this reason, beekeepers should be extremely cautious about mixing hive equipment and purchasing used equipment. It is incumbent on beekeepers to manage all disease and pests, including parasitic mites, to ensure colony health and honey quality.

Recordkeeping and Time Management
The keeping of bees requires time to inspect and manage a hive properly, keep it healthy and keep it at an optimum size for honey production without swarming. Ideally, hives should generally be inspected once a week for food, queen behavior, disease and pests, and spacing.

Good recordkeeping should be a priority for all beekeepers. For those just starting to keep bees, keeping a written record of colony manipulation and observation for each hive would be helpful. As a bee hobbyist, your colony management log could include a catalog of the equipment used, a record of inspections and findings, and a history of actions (e.g., adding / removing honey supers), and any relevant observations regarding the hive.

When a swarm occurs, efforts should be made to collect the swarm or call a bee removal company to do the collection. Swarms captured from areas where the origin of the bees may be questionable should be monitored frequently for abnormal defensiveness.

August 26, 2024
839
August 26, 2024
Glossary
Residential Beekeeping Best Management Practices
Apiary: Single location where one or more beehives are kept.

Bee: Any stage of the common domestic honey bee (Apis Mellifera species).

Bee Box, Brood Box or Honey Supers: Boxes typically used in a Langstroth hive with removable frames that have no top or bottom which allow the beekeeper to expand or condense the hive depending on the strength of the hive.

Bee Hive: Structure for the housing of a bee colony.

Beekeeper: A person who keeps honey bees and manages bee hives Beekeeping (Residential): The keeping or maintenance of an apiary in a hive as an accessory use.

Brood: The eggs, larvae and pupa of the honey bee prior to emerging as an adult bee Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD): The phenomenon that occurs when the majority of worker bees in a colony disappear and leave behind a queen, plenty of food and a few nurse bees to care for the remaining immature bees and the queen.

Frame: A hive component where bees build their honeycomb Hive: A collection of bees with one queen. This can be from a few hundred bees to many thousand bees.

Honeycomb: Beeswax cells where honey pollen and brood are stored Langstroth Hive: A type of hive which was designed to be expandable or contractible with frames that can be removed for inspection
Pollination: The process of collecting pollen from one flower and depositing it on another flower.

Removable Frame: A frame designed to be removed from a hive for inspection purposes.

Requeen: To replace the queen bee in a colony with a new, younger queen, a common practice in beekeeping to prevent bee swarming, increase brood and honey production or reduce hive defensiveness.

Robbing: Bees trying to steal honey from a hive that is not their own.

Smoker: A tool used by a beekeeper to produce smoke to calm the bees Swarm: Group of bees in a transitional state leaving their original hive, clustering and then leaving again to establish a new hive in a new cavity.

Top Bar Hive: A trapezoidal box with slats of wood which the bees will make comb along. These slats can be pulled out with the comb for inspection.
840

CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 24-398 Meeting Date: 11/19/2024
TITLE:

AWARD OF THE 2024-2025 CITYWIDE PARKWAY MAINTENANCE, STREET REHABILITATION, AND SLURRY SEAL PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 24-03, AND FINDING OF CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION PRESENTED BY: RAJA SETHURAMAN, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
CONTACT INFORMATION: SEUNG YANG, P.E., CITY ENGINEER (714) 754-5335 RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Make a finding of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) categorical exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301.

2. Adopt plans, specifications, and working details for the 2024-2025 Citywide Parkway Maintenance, Street Rehabilitation, and Slurry Seal Project, City Project No. 24-03.

3. Award a Public Works Agreement (PWA) for construction to Onyx Paving Company, Inc., 2890 East La Cresta Avenue, Anaheim, California 92806 in the amount of $9,163,000 (Base Bid).

4. Authorize the City Manager and City Clerk to execute the PWA with Onyx Paving Company, Inc., and future amendments to the agreements within Council authorized limits.

5. Authorize an additional ten percent (10%) contingency, in the amount of $916,300 for construction, as needed for any unforeseen costs related to this project.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The proposed action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The action involves an organizational or administrative activity of government that will not result in the direct or indirect physical change in the environment. In addition, the proposed action is exempt under Section 15301 relating to the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, and/or minor alteration of existing public facilities.

BACKGROUND:

The annual Citywide Street Maintenance Project consists of three (3) distinct phases of construction:

Phase 1: Parkway Maintenance Phase - includes localized repair of damaged curb, gutter, sidewalk, cross-gutters, driveways, and curb ramps that conform to the current Americans with